nT 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ferrari, SBN 165338 a ay FILED, Charles Ferrari, SBN 165: zZ : Law Offices of Chares Fenari 7 sort Or 33 Brookline, Suite200 DesPT a 292014 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 MAY 2 Tel.: (949) 540-0127 SOUSSFy & xecuuve One Cletk Fax: (949) 540-0128 BLIGREAS ae Attomeys for Plaintiff, MARK MCPHAIL. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT CASE NO. BC547068 MARK MCPHAIL, an individual; ) ) Plaintiff, ; COMPLAINT FOR: vs ) 1, BREACH OF EXPRESS ) _ EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT; GLOBAL RALLYCROSS ) 2. BREACH OF IMPLIED CHAMPIONSHIP, a business entity of ) | EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT; unknown form; CHIP PANKOW, an ) 3. BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT individual; JOEY MANCARI, an individual; ). OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, ) DEALING; ) 4, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT TO Defendants. ) CONTRACT; ) 5. QUANTUM MERUIT; and ; 6. ALTER EGO. ) ) 2 ) R ) 3 J : of Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL alleges: a -l- 2 930/037 FaSHO/LID 308 290204 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,Sew rx auewn ul 12 13 14 1S 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 2B 4 25 26 ru 28 PARTIES 1, Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL js informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant GLOBAL RALLYCROSS CHAMPIONSHIP (“GRC”) is a business entity of unknown form, qualified to do business in California, and with its home office in Los Angeles County, California. 2. Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CHIP PANKOW (“PANKOW”) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and the Founder, Chief Executive Officer and/or Chief Operating Officer, and a shareholder, of GRC. 3. Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant JOEY MANCARI (“MANCARI”) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and the Director of Competition, and a shareholder, for/of GRC. 4. MARK MCPHAIL is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of the State of California, County of Orange, and was employed by GRC. 5. Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL is informed, believes and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants and DOES 1 through 50 (“DOES”) were acting as the agent, aider, abettor, employee, servant, consultant, partner or principal of the remaining Defendants and DOES, and that at all times herein mentioned, each Defendant and DOES ratified, aided or abetted, adopted and approved the acts or omissions of each of the remaining codefendants and DOES, and that at all times herein mentioned, each Defendant and DOE were acting within the course and scope of this agency and/or employment. Further, each Defendant and DOE failed to fully investigate and failed to take immediate corrective action against the remaining Defendants and DOES by redressing the harm done and punishing or discharging the responsible Defendants and DOES. 6. Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious names, since their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL. When EDS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESsu BE Pie s u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 eri 23 24 25 26 27 28 their true names and capacities have been ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to state the same. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants is liable to Plaintiff for the claims alleged herein. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 7. Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL is a Mechanical and Automotive Engineer with extensive experience in engine computer software and management, sanctioned automotive racing, and race team management. Plaintiff's employment background includes 20 years working for General Motors in various capacities, including as a race manager for GM Racing. 8. In or about February 2013, Defendants PANKOW and MANCARI contacted Plaintiff to inquire about employing him to manage technical inspections and other aspects of GRC’s 2013 racing season, which ran from April through October of that year. (Defendant GRC operates an auto racing series that conducts motor races in several worldwide locations throughout the year). After some discussion, PANKOW, MANCARI and Plaintiff verbally agreed that Plaintiff would accept the job and provide the foregoing services to GRC for $60,000. 9. Thereafter, PANKOW, MANCARI and Plaintiff agreed that the terms of Plaintiff's employment would be memorialized in a written agreement. On or about March 15, 2013 PANKOW emailed Plaintiff a copy of the written agreement (the Contract”), which had been prepared by or at the direction of PANKOW and/or GRC. PANKOW’S email requested that Plaintiff sign the Contract and return it for PANKOW’S and/or GRC’S signature. 10. On or about March 15, 2013 Plaintiff signed and returned the Contract to PANKOW. The Contract provides that Plaintiff would be paid $6,000 per month for a nine- month period, beginning on March 15, 2013 and ending on December 15, 2013, for a total salary of $54,000. The Contract also provides that GRC would cover all travel expenses incurred by Plaintiff during the course of his employment. A copy of the Contract with the accompanying email is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, 11, On or about March 15, 2013, Plaintiff began working for GRC as set forth in the Contract. Thereafter, Plaintiff began receiving his monthly salary from GRC at the contract rate 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESsu of $6,000 per month, Plaintiff also received reimbursement for necessary travel expenses, as specified in the Contract, 12, Thereafter, in or about late June or early July, Plaintiff's employment was terminated, and not for cause. To date Plaintiff has received only $18,000 from GRC for the work he performed under the Contract. Additionally, Plaintiff incurred some travel expenses that also remain unpaid. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Express Employment Contract) Against Defendant GRC and Does 1-50, Inclusive 13. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 12, above, as though set forth in full. 14, On or about March 15, 2013 Defendant GRC agreed to hire Plaintiff to provide certain technical services for GRC’s 2013 racing season. Plaintiff and GRC entered into a written agreement that specified Plaintiff's monthly salary would be $6,000 per month, for a nine-month period, begi ing on March 15, 2013 and ending on December 15, 2013, for a total salary of $54,000. The Contract also provided that GRC would cover all travel expenses incurred by Plaintiff during his employment. 15. Beginning on o about March 15, 2013 Plaintiff performed his job under the terms of the Contract. GRC also performed under the Contract by paying Plaintiff his agreed-upon ‘monthly salary of $6,000. 16. In or about late June or early July, 2013 Defendant GRC breached the Contract by terminating Plaintiff's employment. At the time, GRC had only paid Plaintiff the sum of $18,000, and had not fully reimbursed him for travel expenses. 17. Asa direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant GRC’S breach of the Contract, Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL suffered monetary damages for lost wages and unpaid travel expenses. MW Bae COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESsu ao Secwrx9 u 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Implied Employment Contract) Against Defendant GRC and Does 1-50, Inclusive 18. Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 17, above, as though set forth in full. 19. In or about February 2013 Plaintiff and Defendant GRC, through its owner and president Defendant PANKOW, verbally agreed that Plaintiff would provide certain technical services to GRC. Such services were to be performed for nine months, from March to December 2013, for the sum of $60,000, Defendant GRC also agreed to pay for any travel expenses incurred by Plaintiff during the course of his employment. 20. Beginning on or about March 15, 2013, Plaintiff performed his job under the terms of the Contract. GRC also performed under the Contract by paying Plaintiff for the work performed, 21. In or about late June or early July, 2013 Defendant GRC breached the Contract by terminating Plaintiff's employment. At the time, GRC had only paid Plaintiff $18,000, There remained unpaid the sum of $42,000 on the oral agreement. 22. Asa direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant GRC’S breach of the Contract, Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL suffered monetary damages for lost wages and unpaid travel expenses. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) Against Defendant GRC and Does 1-50, Inclusive 23. Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 22, above, as though set forth in full. 24. A covenant of good faith and fair dealing inheres in every contract in the State of California. The aforementioned Employment Contract and/or Implied Employment Contract contained an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by which Defendant GRC promised “3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESSecwmrxaanneon i 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 B 4 25 26 27 28 to give full cooperation to Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL in his performance under the Employment Contract and/or the Implied Employment Contract, to refrain from doing any act which would prevent or impede Plaintiff from performing all of the conditions of the Employment Contract and/or Implied Employment Contract to be performed by him and to refrain from any act that would prevent or impede Plaintiff's enjoyment of the benefits of the Employment Contract and/or Implied Employment Contract. Said covenant of good faith and fair dealing required that Defendant GRC fairly, honestly, and reasonably perform the terms and conditions of the Employment Contract and/or the Implied Employment Contract. 25. Defendant GRC terminated Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL’S employment with no good cause, which was a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 26. Asa direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL’S termination, he suffered monetary damages for, among other things, lost wages, pension, medical benefits, and lost opportunity FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Inducement to Contract (False Promise)) Against All Defendants and Does 1-50 27. Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 26, above, as though set forth in full. 28. From about 1985 to 2004 Plaintiff worked for General Motors in the GM Racing group, working with automotive racing sanctioning bodies and race teams, during which he obtained extensive experience in high performance engine development and engine management. Plaintiff is particularly experienced in computer engine performance software and management systems, 29. For these reasons, in or about February 2013 Defendants PANKOW and MANCART recruited Plaintiff to provide certain technical services for Defendant GRC’S 2013 racing season. Plaintiff's duties included, but were not limited to, installing and monitoring es COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESuw 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 engine management software to participant cars to ensure that all cars and race teams were in compliance with GRC’S rules and procedures 30. Subsequently, Defendant PANKOW presented Plaintiff with a written employment agreement setting forth the terms, which included a monthly salary of $6,000 and a stated period of nine months. Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL reasonably relied on Defendants PANKOW’S and MANCARU’S promises and, based on that reasonable reliance, Plaintiff agreed to enter into the Contract and thereafter to provide the services identified above. Thereafter, Plaintiff did in fact provide the services set forth in the Contract. 31. Inor about late June or early July, 2013, Defendant MANCARI abruptly informed Plaintiff that his services were no longer needed. MANCARI explained that GRC had to make significant “cutbacks” and that “several” employees were likewise terminated. Plaintiff later discovered that, in fact, no other employees were terminated. 32, In making the promises set forth in paragraphs 29 and 30, above, Defendants PANKOW and MANCARI intended to use Plaintiffs’ superior skills and experience, particularly Plaintiff's 20 years of experience with General Motors, to provide technical services and technical credibility to GRC’S racing effort. However, on information and belief Plaintiff alleges that these defendants did not intend to honor the terms of the Contract at the time the promises ‘were made. In fact, as soon as Plaintiff's systems were in place, GRC abruptly terminated him. 33. Based on Defendant GRC’S failure to honor the Contract, Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL has suffered harm including, but not limited to, lost wages, lost travel benefits, lost opportunity and lost reputation in the industry. Defendant GRC, however, continued to receive the benefits of Plaintiff's efforts after he was terminated, 34, Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL’S reasonable reliance on Defendants’ promises was the sole factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. 35. As a result of Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL’S reliance on Defendants’ false promises, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendants for lost wages, lost travel benefits, lost opportunity, loss of standing and reputation in the industry, and expenses incurred Te COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESosu Tee - Sore raaueen ul 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 - 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 in this action, including but not limited to attorney’s fees and litigation costs, and interest on the foregoing, all in an amount to be proved at trial 36. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, and Plaintiff, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages. FIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Quantum Men Against Defendant GRC and Does 1-50, Inclusive 37. Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 36, above, as though set forth in full. 38. Beginning on or about March 15, 2013, Plaintiff rendered work, labor, and services to Defendant GRC at the special request of that Defendant, for which GRC promised to pay Plaintiff for the reasonable value of such services. 39. Atall times herein mentioned, the above services were and are of the reasonable value of $6,000/month, for a period of nine months. 40. No part of the above sum has been paid, except the sum of $18,000, notwithstanding that Plaintiff has demanded payment therefor, and there is now due, owing, and unpaid from Defendant GRC to Plaintiff the sum of $36,000, or a sum according to proof at trial SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTI (Alter Ego) Against Defendant GRC and Does 1-50, Inclusive 41. Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 40, above, as though set forth in full. 42. Defendants PANKOW and/or MANCARI are, on information and belief, owners. and shareholders of Defendant GRC, at all times herein mentioned. 8. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES43. There exists, and at all times herein mentioned there existed, a unity of interest and ownership between Defendants PANKOW and/or MANCARI, and Defendant GRC, such that any individuality and separateness between Defendants PANKOW and/or MANCARI, and Defendant GRC, have ceased, and Defendant GRC is the alter ego of Defendants PANKOW and/or MANCARI, in that these Defendants exercise complete dominance and control over every aspect of the operations of Defendant GRC. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MARK MCPHAIL requests relief as follows: ON THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION 1. For compensatory damages in a sum according to proof at the time of trial. ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 1. For compensatory damages in a sum according to proof at the time of trial; and 2. For punitive damages according to proof at the time of trial. ON THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 1. For compensatory damages in the sum of $36,000, or in a sum according to proof, at the time of trial ON THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 1. For compensatory damages in a sum according to proof at the time of trial ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 1. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all sums owed to Plaintiff MARK. MCPHAIL to the date of judgment and thereafter at the legal rate; 2. For costs of suit herein; and 3. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. DATED: May 27,2013 LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES FERRARI By ~t iy: Attorneys for Plaintiff, MARK MCPHAIL 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESe e DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action. DATED: May 272013 LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES FERRARI of CHARLES FERRARI Attomeys for Plaintiff, MARK MCPHAIL Ren Sec wr.)| uM 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 > 2 2B 24 25 26 27) 28 -10- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES.1/01/2002 80:08 — aaneaeaagea PAGE 01 Workspace Webmail : Print pie secre eon )_prnt_multiphp?uidArray=21 Print | Close Window ‘Subject: Re: FINAL Agreement, — From: Chip Pankow ate: Fe, Mar 15, 2013 10:54 am To: “mark mephailg@mephallpertormanca.com” marimephail@nephalipetonmance.com> Ce: Jooy Manca simancan@glostealyeres com> Wl dol ets tak ea next week Are youn ouch wt ny tame travel and visa? ‘A mobile. i (On Mar 15,2013, at 10:40 AM, “mark mephellearcphaliperormance.com” | wrote: i + | Guys, 1 | Looks good. 1 will sign and mail to you. Please return a signed copy to me for my records. Thanks, | Mark mephi || McPhail Performance i | | 2701 Harbor Blvd. 2-206 | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ; 714-852-3655 Original Message Subject: FINAL Agreement. From: Chip Pankow Date: Fri, March 15, 2013 10:07 am To: "mark mcphall@mcphailperformance.com" i ilg@mcphallperforman > ce Joey Mancari Please review, If good-— please sign and return and we'll do the same, Copyright © 2003-2013, Al rights reserved. tof 7/9/2013 9:43 PM01/01/2002 wo: 48 voossoeenee PAGE wz GRC foe Fives Suurowsie Consulting Agreement rate) ree initial: ‘This Consulting Agreement (the “Agreement") is entered into this 15" day of March, 2013 by and between Mark McPhail, (“Consultant”) and Global Rallycross ‘Championship, (the "Company"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Company is in need of assistance in the; Technical Inspection Services area and WHEREAS, Consultant has agreed to perform consulting work for the Company in providing Technical Inspection Services and other related activities as directed by the Company; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows: 4, Consultant's Services. Consultant shall be available and shall provide to the Company professional consulting services on event. Additional services, advice and preparation/debrief work is part ofthe services under the terms, ‘The services are described as the following Phase 1 of the engine computer inspection program is to upload GRC participant's race car calibration and software for review. The data wall be collected at the beginning and end of each race event. The computer files will be compared, inspected and examined to determine if traction control software is being used. GRC will be notified if traction control software is detected. To execute Phase 1 of the computer inspection program the following tasks are required: + Develop list of engine computers used by GRC race teams + Procure engine computer software and cables used by various teams + Determine and procure trackside support laptop computer + Install and evaluate software on trackside laptop + Determine wiring and connector interface required to connect laptop to race car wiring harness + Work with GRC to revise rulebook to specify witing and connector interface revisions (if required) to connect to race car wiring harness * Work with GRC to communicate to race teams wiring revisions (If required) el 1wi/o1/zeue 0:08 — vsoovv00 rece us + Evaluate wiring and inspection laptop on local race teams’ equipment prior to first race + Rollout calibration inspection program at first race + Report and review potential traction control violation(s) to GRC + Fost mortem review of first race inspection program with GRC to develop improvements in inspection program and/or procedures + Continue software inspection process through remainder of 2019 race season + Update software as required to accommodate new team engine computer models/brands 2. Consideration. ‘A. RATE, In consideration for the Consulting Services to be performed by ‘Consultant under this Agreement, the Company will pay Consultant per the following schedule: + Fee: ‘$6,000 prepaid per month B. PAYMENT SCHEDULE ‘The company will pay the consultant per the following terms: i, Fee: Payment in full NET.15 from the date of invoice. Payments will be made ‘ona monthly basis, with the first month's fee of $6000 to be paid to ‘commence work. C. EXPENSES. Additionally, the Company will pay Consultant for any pre approved expenses incurred while the Agreement between Consultant and the Company exists, Consultant shall submit written documentation and receipts, itemizing the dates ‘on which expenses were incurred. The Company shall pay Consultant the amounts due pursuant to submitted reports within 30 days after the report is, received by the Company. D. TRAVEL: Company will pay for ot provide all necessary travel and lodging per the 2013 GRC Company Travel Policy. 3: Independent Contractor. Nothing herein shall be construed to create an employer-employee relationship between the Company and Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the Company ot any ofits subsidiaries or affiliates. The consideration set forth in Section 2 shall be the sole consideration due Consultant for the services rendered hereunder. It . ig understood that the Company will not withhold any amounts for payment of N taxes from the compensation of Consultant hereunder. & 4. Term. This Agreement shall commence on 1g March 2013 and shall terminate = on 15 December 2013. 5- Notice. Any notice or communication permitted or required by this bag » Initial: __ iff : 201/01/2002 90:28 so ee Tae $ wesvuvsueve — ae Agreement shall be deemed effective when electronically addressed to the appropriate party at the address set forth below: 1, Notices to Consultant: mark.mephail@mephailperformance.com 2. Notices to the Company: cpankow@global-rallycross.com imancari@global-rallycross.com 6. Miscellaneous. 6.1 Entire Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with regard to the subject matter hereof, and replaces, and supersedes all other agreements or understandings, whether written or oral. ‘No amendment or extension of the Agreement shall be binding untess in writing and signed by both parties. 6.2 Binding Effect, Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall re to the benefit of Consultant and the Company and to the Company's successors and assigns. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to permit the assignment by Consultant of any of its rights or obligations hereunder, and such assignment is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of the Company. 6.3 Governing Law, Severability. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of the Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision. 6.4 Arbitration. Any controversy, claim or dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be settled solely and exclusively by binding arbitration in California. WHEREFORE, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above [COMPANY:] By: Ms/.e1/e1/2002 98:12 [Date] Sista, _ eeeneneuuusCM-01 SRN aN ea Oo ‘and ods) e "FOR COURT USE ONLY Law Offices of Charles Ferrari 33 Brookline, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Teasmoveno. 949.540.0127 rane: 949.540.0128 seta arromevon nom Plaintiff, Mark McPhail cla tating [burenion coun oF cauronwa,counrr oF Los Angeles sreetoooss 111 N, Hill Street, may 29 2014 ‘waiunc aooress: Same cnvmozrease Los Angeles, CA 90012 enn pony se Oe nese Centraly Stanley Mosk Courthouse ees CASE NAME McPhail v. Global Rallycross Championship, et al. CIVIL CASE Cove ‘SHEET ‘Complex Case Designation axmmeQC 547063 Unlimited Limited ‘aaa cael counter inte | demanded demandedis | Filed with ret appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 orless)| (Cal. Rules of Court rule 2402) | ocr THems 1~6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2) [i- Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civ Litigation ‘Auto (22) [J Breach of contracvwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) Uninsured motorist (48) [1 Rie 3.740 cottections (09) (1 anttrust trade regulation (03) (ther PUPDIWD (Personal InjuryProperty [_] other collections (08) (5) Construction defect (10) DamageMWrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) 2 Mass tort 40) ‘Asbestos (04) Other contact (37) {securities tigeton 28) Product abit (24) Real Property {J EnvironmentavToxic tor (30) T_] Medical malpractice (6) [1 Eminent domainvinverse Insurance coverage clas arising trom the Tl otter puPoo cs) condennaton i) sparen coverage gs arg for Non-PUPDAWD (Other) Tort [1 wrongful eviction (33) types (41) Business tonunia business proce (07) [—] thereat property (2) Enforcement of Judgmant TE) caurights (08) Unlawful Detainer {5D enforcement of judgment (20) [1 betamation (13) LJ commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint So Froua 16) TE Resident (2) CJ acon [ intetectual propery (19) TZ vgs 0) ‘ter complaint (ot spect above) (42) [E Professional nestgence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition A other non-PUPDWD tort (38) LD Asset forfeiture (05) (J Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment T} rations atitaton wars) =} Crerroucontns pechegooea es ‘Wrongful termination (36) wot of mandate (02) [Z) omer empioyment (15) (1) other juciciat review (39) 2. This case [Tis LyTisnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. 2) Large number of separately represented parties d. [_] Large number of witnesses, .(] Extensive motion practice raising dificult or novel e. [_] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts ‘issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or ina federal court (Substantial amount of documentary evidence —_—_f. [_] Substantial postiudgment judicial supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.[7] monetary b.[__] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief. 4, Number of causes of action (speciy): 6: Breach of Contract; Fraudulent Inducement; Alter Ego; Quant Meruit B.ithiscase [is not aclass acon sui 6.” Ifthere are any known related cases, fle and serve a notice of related case. (You may yse form CM-015) Date: May 217, 2014 Chevies Pear » Cae TOTTI SS aR RT OR ATORTET PORTIA NOTICE Plaintiff mus fle this cover sheet with the fist paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases fled under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and insttuions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, ule 3220,) Falure to fle may result in sanctions +P File this cover sheet in adi to any cover sheet required by local court rule * If his case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other paris tothe action or proceeding + Uniess iiss a collections case under rule 3740 or a complex case, his cover sheet willbe used for statistical purposes onl a7 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Oe ROE Stet Sotat hanna td 00 Shion yon wacoead © was McPhail v. Global Rallycross Championship, etal BC547063 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND: STATEMENT OF LOCATION (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION) This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.0 in all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Item I. Check the types of hearing and fil n the estimated length of hearing expected for this case: wunv ai? WZ yes cuassaction? L) yes ummeocaser Clves tive esTmaTeD FOR TRIAL 23_C) wouns/@) pavs Item IL. Indicate the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps - If you checked “Limited Case", skip to iter Ill Pg. 4): ‘Step 1: After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet form, find the main Civil Case Cover Sheet heading for your case in the left margin below, and, to the right in Column A, the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected, Step ‘heck one Superior Court type of action in Column B below which best describes the nature of this case. ‘Step 3: In Column C, circle the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type of action you have checked. For any exception to the court location, see Local Rule 2.0. Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column C below) 1. Glass actions must be fied in the Stoley Mosk Courthouse, central cect. 8. Location of propery or permanently garaged vehicle 2 Maybe eg in central (other county. of ro body mjuryiproperty damage). 4, Location where pettioner resizes.” 5 (den where cause st acbon sake & {Beaton were detendanttespondent uncons whoy. 4 Lesaton where body inary death of éamage occured. 4: Location wnere one or mare of he pares rae 5: aon wnerepertrmanes equred OG 10, Cecaton of Labor Gonmesoner Ofce ‘Step 4: Fill in the information requested on page 4 in Item il; complete Item IV. Sign the declaration. A B c Civ Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Anplcable Reasons Category No (Check only one) Bee Stop 3 Above ee Auto 22) 1 A7100 Motor Vehicle - Personal nuryPropery DamageMirongtulDeath | 1.2.4 =o Uninsured Motorist (46) O_A7110 Personal injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death - Uninsured Motorist | 1., 2., 4. ——— - 1D AGOTO Asbestos Property Damage 2 =D Asbestos (04) ad 3 A725 Asbestos - Personal jryMrongful Death 2 fs BE | Prosuttiaity(24) | 2 7260 Product Liabty (ot asbestos or toritenvronrenta) 12,8448 es 1 A7210 Medica Malpractice - Physicians & Sugeons 14 BS | wedcalmapractee 8) 2 1 A7240 Other Profesional Heath Care Malpractice 14 es Be 1 A7250 Premises Unity (69, pan 1a 3 other ; SF | nenktuy | 47290 interior! Boa nuryepery Camogetens Daewies, |e gs Property Damage assault, vandalism, etc.) ; S2 | Weemiste | zr vienna cetera a © _A7220 Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death oe (aew 109 Rev. oat) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 20 ASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 1 of 4SORT TLE i osm McPhail v, Global Rallycross Championship, et al. A B c Civ Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Applicable Reasons - Category No. (Check ony one) See Step 3 Above Business Tort (07) | 46029 Other CommeriavBusiness Tor (ot rave/breach of contract) 1.3 Es Be Civil Rights (08) (D_A6005 Civil Rights/Discrimination 1,,2.,3. sé Detamaton 13) | ABO10 Detamaton andere) 1.2.8 PS SF Fraud (16) ABOS3 Fraud (no conve) 1.2.3 gs EB 1 A8017 Legal Mapractce 1.2.3 S| rotesiona Negigence (25) Ze A650 Other Professional Mapractoe (not medial olga) 1.2.3 2a other 38) A625 ther NonPersonlruryPropery Damage tort 2.3. i ‘Wrongful Termination (36) |] C1 A6037 Wrongful Termination 1.,2,3. 2 © _A6024 Other Employment Complaint Case 1.2.3. 2 ‘tner Employment (15) E 1D A6109 Labor Commissioner Appeals 10 {_AG004 Breath of RetaLease Contac (not ulawtl detainer or wronged | > 5 eviebon) of Contracy Waren en D A6008 ContractWarranty Breach -Seller Plaintif (no fraud/negligence) ae hl 1,2, {ot insurance) 1D. A6019. Negligent Breach of ContraciWarranty (no fraud) sane D A6028 Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) 44245, g A600? Colectons Case-SeterPantit 2.5.6 g Cottons (09) 3 © A6012 Other Promissory NoteCollectons Case 2.8. Insurance Coverage (18) | C1 ABDI Insurance Coverage (nt complex) 142.58 | A800 Contractual Fraud Oss OtnerContract(s7) | A031 Torus neference 1.2.3.5 8 A6027 Other Consaet Dspute(ntbreachinsuranceraustnepigence) 1.2.3.8 Eminent Domanvene Ceramencay® [© A7300 Eminent DemainCondemnaton Number of parcels, 2 E [wren even 0s) [ net29 wont Eveon case 2.6 = (3 © AGO18 Mortgage Foreclosure © | oneneatraneny a) | ate aver Tite x 13 A6060 Other Real Property (ot eminent domain, tndordtenant, foreclosure) a | unDotarar Commercial Tr ago2t_UntewtlDelanr-Commercal (ot drugs or wrongful eviction 2.6 Sg | Uren oeeeresicenit | ago29 unavl Dear Resident (ot geo wong even) ae 3 3 plat Deane, ngozoFUnavl etna Postroreceaue 2.6 5 Uniawi Detainr-Drgs (38) | A6022 Unlawtl Detaner Drugs 2,6 AGW 109 Rev. 0571) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 20 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 2 of 4© ae eo. SORE - McPhail v. Global Rallycross Championship, et al. A B c Civil Case Cover Sheet . Type of Action | Applicable Reasons - Category Na, (Checkonyare) See Step Above asst Foeture(05) | A108 Asset Foreture Case 2.8 3 | Pein reacivation (1) | AB115 Pein to ConpelContmvecate Aiton 2.8 é © st Wi. Asia nda 2a B | waotmandie 2) | ast wet-tandores nuded out ate Mater 2 3 (A153 Whit - Other Limited Court Case Review 2 ‘ter Jil Review 5) | AS1S0 ier Wit ud Review 2.8 antuerade Regulation ©) | © ABOOS ArituUTiade Regulation 1.2.8 5 | & | consiucionoetec (10) | As007 Consrcion Oeect 1.2.8 [caine Ter Lasoo curs eng ss Ton uaa e S| secuntesungston ae) | A6095 Secuties Ligation Case 1.2.8 & em | 8008 Tove Tenor 1.2.3.8 3 | Igwance Coverage Csirs | 96014 Insurance CoveragerSubegson complex case ony) 1.2.5.8 1 ABI4t Str Sate Judgment 2,8 EE © AS160 Abstract of Jdgment 2.8 7 Enforcement _| ASIST Confessn of udgient no-domes relstons 2,9 §3 of Judgment (20) 2. AS140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) 2,8 53 © ASI%4 Paton for Ey of udgment on Unpaid Tax 2.8 1 ASt42 Ole Enfrcement of Judgment Case 2.8.8 ——— ° RICO an 1 A6039.Racteterng RICO) Case 128 32 ga 1D AS030 Declaratory Reef Only 442.8. BS | cwerconpene [0 ASHO nce Reston rt donetcnassnan) ze BE | etSpectesAoov) 42) | asoit oter commercial Complaint Case (ontortnon comes) tae. S (D_A6000 Other Civil Compiaint (non-tortinon-complex) 14.2.8, A Parmar Comeraton Tr) astt3 Partership and Corporate Governance Case 2.8 = © A6T21 Chl aassment 2.3.8 28 18128. Workplace Harassment 2.3.9. 53 ——— 1D. A8124 EldevDependent Adult Abuse Case 2.3.9. os (Not Specified Above) 0 A190 Election Contest 2 «) ._A6110 Petition for Change of Name 2,7. = 1. A6170_Petton or Reet fom ate Clam aw 2.3.4.8 L 8100 ote Ci Petion 28 LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 3 of 4‘SHORT TM - ® ows 9. | McPhail v. Global Rallycross Championship, et al tem Il. Statement of Location: Enter the address of the accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, or other circumstance indicated in Item I. Step 3 on Page 1, as the proper reason for filing in the court location you selected. ‘00RESS for the numbers shown | 17363 Sunset Bv<., Suite A210 ‘under Column C forthe type of action that you have selected for this case, | REASON: Check the appropriate box« O1. @2. 03. 04, Os, 06. 07. 8. O9, O10. or stare | 2 COE: Pacific Palisades ca 90272 tem IV. Declaration of Assignment: | declare under penalty of perry under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that the above-entitled matter is propely fed for assignment to the Stanley Mosk courthouse in the Central District ofthe Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc.,§ 392 et seq, and Local Rule 2.0, subds. (b), (c) and (¢)) Dated: May 27, 2014 (SGRATURE OF ATTORNEVIFIING PARTY) PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE: 1. Original Complaint or Petition | 2. If fling a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk. 3. Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010, 4 Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. 03/11) Payment in full of the fling fee, unless fees have been waived. oe A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form CV-010, ifthe plaintiff or petitioner is a ‘minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum ‘must be served along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case. LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 4 of 4