FILED 18 AUG -3 PH 2:55 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HAYLEY CLERICI, Plaintiff v. HOLDINGS ACQUISITION CO., L.P. d/b/a/ RIVERS CASINO; JOHN DOE No. 1; JOHN DOE No. 2; JOHN DOE No. 3; DENNIS W. MeCURDY; and SCOTT E. SCHERER, Defendants. TO: PLANTIFFS You are hereby notified to file a written response to the within Complaint in Civil Action within Twenty (20) days of service hereof or judgment may be entered against you. McKENI OCIATES, P.C. BY. Mark F. McKenna, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff CIVIL DIVISION we. OD -{ F-RATGE COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Code: 011 Filed on behalf of Hayley Clerici, Plaintiff Counsel of Record For this Party: Mark F. MeKenna, Esquire PA ID # 30297 ‘Theresa B. O’Brien, Esquire PA ID# 77665 McKENNA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 436 Boulevard of the Allies Suite 500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 412-471-6226 (ph« 412-471 -6658;(tacgifniléIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HAYLEY CLERICI, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff v. HOLDINGS ACQUISITION CO., L.P. d/b/a’ RIVERS CASINO; JOHN DOE No. 1; JOHN DOE No. 2; JOHN DOE No. 3; DENNIS W. McCURDY; and SCOTT E. SCHERER, Defendants. 1 NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a {judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff(s). You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE._IF YOU _DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE. GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP: Lawyer Referral Service Allegheny County Bar Association 400 Koppers Building, 436 Seventh Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 261-5555IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HAYLEY CLERICI, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOLDINGS ACQUISITION CO., L.P. W/b/a/ RIVERS CASINO; JOHN DOE No. 1; JOHN DOE No. 2; JOHN DOE No. 3; DENNIS W. McCURDY; and SCOTT E. SCHERER, Defendants. COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION AND NOW COMES Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, by and through her attorneys, McKENNA & ASSOCIATES, P.C., and files the following Complaint in Civil Action, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Introduction 1, Plaintiff instituted this lawsuit to recover damages and other monetary losses she incurred, and/or will incur, as a result of all Defendants’ civil violations of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (“the Wiretap Act”, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5701-5782), all Defendants’ tortious invasion of Plaintiff's privacy, several Defendants’ civil conspiracy to violate the Wiretap Act and/or to invade Plaintiff's privacy; and one Defendant’s intentional infliction of emotional distress.2. The violations of the Wiretap Act, the invasions of privacy, the conspiracy to commit those violations/invasions, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress were committed primarily when Defendants, acting at times independently and/or in concert, unlawfully viewed Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and personal financial information by using video surveillance equipment, unlawfully recorded those private text messages, email communications and personal financial information by using video surveillance equipment, unlawfully disclosed the recordings or copies of the private text messages, email communications and personal financial information, and/or otherwise made unlawful use of the recordings or copies of the private text messages, email communications and personal financial information.' See, 2g, 18 PaCS.A. § 5703(1)-() (prohibiting interception, isclosure, and use of electronic communications); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5725(a) (creating private civil cause of action for Wiretap Violations), 58 PaCode § 465a.9(a) (mandating that casino surveillance comply with the Wiretap Act), 3. The ini unlawful viewing and video recording of Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and personal financial information occurred on multiple occasions including on October 28, 2017 when she was a patron of, and was physically + Throughout this Complaint, references to Plaintiffs text messages are meant to include all text messages sent or received by Plaintiff, references to emails are meant to include all electronic mail messages sent or received by Plaintiff and Plaintiff's personal financial information is meant to include Plaintif’s bank account information, account balances and activity. Furthermore, throughout this Complaint, references to any recordings of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and personal financial information or to any copies of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and personal financial information are meant to include the original video recordings, all copies or reproductions of those video recordings, and all photographic or paper printouts showing the contents of the text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information.present inside, the casino owned and operated by Defendant Holdings Acquisition Co., LP. d/b/a Rivers Casino. 4. The unlawful disclosure and/or unlawful use of the private text messages, email communications and personal financial information occurred in the weeks and/or months after October 28, 2017. 5. As will be discussed more fully infra, all Defendants’ respective wrongdoings caused Plaintiff to suffer the following harms: the unlawful viewing, recordation, disclosure, and use of her private text messages, email communications and personal financial information; the invasion and loss of her privacy; severe emotional distress; anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, worry; and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit in order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rightful damage award. 6. The money damages and other monetary amounts that Plaintiff is entitled to recover because of Defendants’ wrongdoings include actual, liquidated, and punitive damages; attorney's fees; litigation costs; pre-judgment interest; and post-judgment interest. 7. The recovery of all the foregoing damages and other amounts authorized by the Wiretap Act, other Pennsylvania statutes, Pennsylvania common law, and/or the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, See, e.g., 18 Pa.C.8.A. § 5725(a)(1}- (3) (Setting forth money damages in private civil suits under the Wiretap Act).8. The counts in this Complaint are organized as follows: tap Violations Count 1 against Holdings Acquisition Co., L.P. d/b/a Rivers Casino for unlawfully intercepting (viewing and recording) Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and personal financial information in violation of the Wiretap Act at 18 PaC.S.A. § 5703(1)s Count 2 against Holdings Acquisition Co., L.P. d/b/a Rivers Casino for unlawfully disclosing Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and personal financial information in violation of the Wiretap Act at 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703(2); Count 3 against John Doe #1 for unlawfully intercepting (viewing and recording) Plaintiff's private text_messages, email communications and personal financial information in violation of the Wiretap Act at 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703(1); Count 4 against John Doe #1 for unlawfully disclosing Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and personal financial information in violation of the Wiretap Act at 18 PaCS.A. § 57032); Count 5 against John Doe #2 for unlawfully intercepting (viewing and recording) Plaintiffs private text messages, email communications and personal financial information in violation of the Wiretap Act at 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703(1); Count 6 against John Doe #3 for unlawfully disclosing Plaintiff's private text messages, ‘email communications and personal financial information in violation of the Wiretap Act at 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703(2); Count 7 against Dennis W. McCurdy for unlawfully disclosing Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and personal financial information in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703(2); Count 8 against Scott E. Scherer for unlawfully disclosing Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and personal financial information in violation of 18 PaCS.A. § 5703(2); Count 9 against Scott E, Scherer for unlawfully using private text messages, email communications and personal financial information in violation of 18 PaC.S.A. § 570303) sion of Pri Count 10 against Holdings Acquisition Co., L.P. d/b/a Rivers Casino for invasion of privacy;Count 11 against John Doe #1 for invasion of privacy; Count 12 against John Doe #2 for invasion of privacy; Count 13 against John Doe #3 for invasion of privacy; Count 14 against Dennis W. McCurdy for invasion of privacy; Count 15 against Scott E. Scherer for invasion of privacy. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Count 16 against Scott E. Scherer for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Civil Conspiracy Count 17 against Holdings Acquisition Co., L.P. d/b/a Rivers Casino and John Does conspiracy to violate the Wiretap Act and/or to invade PlaintifP' pri Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue 9. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 10. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in Butler County, Pennsylvania. 11. Defendant Holdings Acquisition Co., L.P. d/b/a Rivers Casino (“Rivers Casino”) is a limited partnership formed, organized, and doing business under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 12, Rivers Casino is licensed by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board to operate slot-machine gaming in Allegheny County in a manner consistent with the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development Act at 4 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1101-1904 13. Because Rivers Casino is licensed to operate slot-machine gaming as described in the foregoing paragraph, Rivers Casino is a “licensed entity”, a “licensed gaming entity”, and a “slot machine licensee” as those terms are defined in thePennsylvania Race Horse Development Act at 4 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103. See also 58 Pa.Code § 401a.3 (definitions). 14, Rivers Casino holds a certificate granted by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board authorizing Rivers Casino to operate table games in Allegheny County in a manner consistent with the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development Act at 4 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1101-1904. 15. Because Rivers Casino is authorized to conduct table games as described vers Casino is a “certificate holder” as that term is defined in the foregoing paragraph, Ri in the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development Act at 4 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103. See also 58 PaCode § 401a.3 (definitions). 16, Rivers Casino has its principal place of business at 777 Casino Drive, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 15212 (“777 Casino Drive”) 17. At 777 Casino Drive, Rivers Casino owns ind/or occupies one or more parcels of realty and one or more buildings erected thereon. 18. 777 Casino Drive and its building(s) comprise the physical location where Rivers Casino is authorized by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board to operate slot- machine gaming and to conduct table games. 19, Because 777 Casino Drive is the location where Rivers Casino is authorized to operate its slot-machine gaming and to conduct its table games, that location is a “licensed facility” as that term is defined in the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development Act at 4 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103. See also 58 Pa.Code § 401a.3 (definitions). 20. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Rivers Casino has, in fact, operated its slot machines and table games at its aforesaid licensed facility21. The number of slot machines operated by Rivers Casino at its licensed facility is over 2,900. 22. The number of table games operated by Rivers Casino at its licensed facility is more than 100. 23. At its licensed facility, Rivers Casino also operates several bars, restaurants, and other amenities for the use and enjoyment of the Casino's patrons. 24. — Rivers Casino makes some or all of its aforesaid slot machines, table games, bars, restaurants, and other amenities available to its patrons twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, throughout the calendar year. 25. Rivers Casino makes some or all of its aforesaid slot machines, table games, bars, restaurants, and other amenities available to its patrons for the pecuniary gain of Rivers Casino. 26. Through means such as print media, public signage, radio, television, and the Internet, Rivers Casino advertises its slot machines, table games, bars, restaurants, and other amenities to members of the general public, including residents of Butler County. 27. Through means such as print media, public signage, radio, television, and the Internet, Rivers Casino invites members of the general public, including residents of Butler County, to participate in the Casino’s slot machines, table games, bars, restaurants, and other amenities. 28, Rivers Casino otherwise makes its slot machines, table games, bars, restaurants, and other amenities available to paying members of the general public who have not been excluded or ejected from licensed gaming facilities by virtue of any statuteor other legal authority. See 4 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1514-16 (exclusion and ejection of cheats, repeat criminal offenders, disruptive persons, problem gamblers, and self-excluded persons). 29. All the foregoing activities of Rivers Casino—e.¢., the possession of a slot machine license; the possession of a table game certificate; the ownership/possession of a licensed facility at 777; the operation of slot machines and table games at the licensed facility; the maintenance of bars, restaurants and other amenities at the licensed facility; the advertising of gaming and other amenities; the making of those games and other amenities available to the paying public; and the overall, continuous, regular, systematic, general conduct of the Casino’s business for pecuniary gain—are activities in which Rivers Casino engaged at all times relevant to this Complaint, including on or about October 28, 2017. 30. Atal times relevant to this Complaint, Rivers Casino, as a licensed entity, a licensed gaming entity, and a slot machine licensee, was required by applicable laws and regulations to have a surveillance department and a surveillance system as part of the Casino's internal controls, See 58 Pa.Code §§ 465a.9, 465a.11(b)(1). 31. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that, during 2017, including but not limited to on or about October 28, 2017 and at all other times relevant to this Complaint, Rivers Casino did, in fact, have a surveillance department and a surveillance system as part of the Casino’s internal controls. 32. During 2017, including but not limited to on or about October 28, 2017 and at all other times relevant to this Complaint, Rivers Casino was charged by applicable laws and regulations with the duty to use its surveillance department andsurveillance system to conduct Jawfiul surveillance of Rivers Casino patrons. See 4 PaCS.A. § 13A2I(b); 58 Pa.Code §§ 465a.2(d)(5), 4652.9, 465a.11(b). 33. During 2017, including but not limited to on or about October 28, 2017 and at all other times relevant to this Complaint, Rivers Casino was required by applicable laws and regulations to ensure that the Casino’s surveillance of River Casino's patrons did not violate the Wiretap Act. See 58 Pa.Code § 4652.9(a); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5703, 5725. 34. More particularly, during 2017, including but not limited to on or about October 28, 2017 and at all other times relevant to this Complaint, Rivers Casino was required by applicable laws and regulations to ensure that the Casino’s surveillance of its patrons did not intercept, disclose, or use any electronic communications of its patrons. See 58 Pa.Code § 465a,9(a); 18 Pa.C.$.A. §§ 5703(1)-(3), $725(a). 35. Any such interception, disclosure, and/or use of an electronic communication would constitute a violation of the Wiretap Act under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703(1)-(3) (prohibiting interception, disclosure, and use of electronic communications.) 36. Any person whose electronic communications have been intercepted, disclosed, and/or used in violation of the Wiretap Act has a private civil cause of action against the person who intercepts, discloses, and/or uses the communication, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5725(a). 37. For purposes of a civil cause of action under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5725(a), the term “person”—ie., a person who intercepts, discloses, and/or uses any communication—includes an individual, a business partnership, and/or a corporation. 18 Pa,C.S.A. § 5702 (definitions).38. During 2017, including but not limited to on or about October 28, 2017 and at other times relevant to this Complaint, Rivers Casino did, in fact, conduct electronic surveillance on its patrons, including Plaintiff, but, as pled more fully within this Complaint, the Casino’s surveillance was unlawful in that the Casino intercepted and later disclosed Plaintiff's electronic communications—specifically, her private text messages, email communications and personal financial information. 39. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Rivers Casino was required to employ an individual as a supervisor of the Casino’s surveillance department. See 58 Pa.Code § 465a.11(6)(1). 40. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that, during 2017, including but not limited to on October 28, 2017 and at other times relevant to this Complaint, Rivers Casino did, in fact, employ an individual as a supervisor of the surveillance department 41. Defendant John Doe #1 is an adult individual who was employed by Rivers Casino as a supervisor of the surveillance department during 2017, including but not limited to on October 28, 2017 and at other times relevant to this Complaint. 42. During 2017, including but not limited to on October 28, 2017 and at other times relevant to this Complaint, John Doe #1 did, in fact, direct and supervise River Cal 10’s surveillance of Rivers Casino’s patrons, including Plaintiff and her private text ‘messages, email communications and personal financial information. 43, Defendant John Doe #1°s name is currently unknown to Plaintiff, 44, Plaintiff will add John Doe #1’s name to this Complaint after his/her name is determined during the discovery process.45. John Doe #1 regularly conducts business activities in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 46. John Doe #2 is an adult individual who was employed by Rivers Casino to operate surveillance equipment during 2017, including but not limited to on October 28, 2017 and at other times relevant to this Complaint. 47. During 2017, including but not limited to on October 28, 2017 and at other times relevant to this Complaint, John Doe #2 did, in fact, operate River Casino’s equipment to conduct surveillance of Rivers Casino patrons, including Plaintiff and her private text messages, email communications and personal financial information, 48. Defendant John Doe #2’s name is currently unknown to Plaintiff. 49. Plaintiff will add John Doe #2°s name to this Complaint after his/her name is determined during the discovery process. 50. John Doe #2 regularly conducts business activities in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 51. John Doe #3 is an adult individual who was employed by Rivers Casino and who disclosed the recordings of Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and personal financial information to Defendant Dennis McCurdy (“McCurdy”), Defendant Scott E. Scherer (“Scherer”), and/or their representative(s)—the disclosure of those recordings being detailed more fully later in this Complaint. 52. Defendant John Doe #3’s name is currently unknown to Plaintiff. 53. Plaintiff will add John Doe #3°s name to this Complaint afier his/her name is determined during the discovery process.54, John Doe #3 regularly conducts business activities in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 55. MeCurdy is an adult individual having a principal place of business at 539 Main Street, Harmony, Butler County, Pennsylvania 16037, 36. MeCurdy is a Pennsylvania attorney. 57. MeCurdy does or did represent Scherer in a child custody case or other family court matter in Butler County, Pennsylvania at FC No. 15-90350-2015. 58. Scherer is an adult individual domiciled in Pennsylvania, permanently residing at 242 Elbe Drive, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 15209. 59. tall times relevant hereto, Scherer was employed in Allegheny County as a police officer with the Allegheny County Police Department. 60. Asan Allegheny County Police Officer, Scherer has his place of business at 875 Greentree Road, Suite 1, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 15220. 61. On or about October 12, 2017, as part of McCurdy’s aforesaid representation of Scherer, and acting on behalf of Scherer, McCurdy caused to be issued subpoena requesting copies of Rivers Casino’s video surveillance recordings of Plaintiff, who is Scherer’s former wife. 62. The subpoena used by McCurdy and/or Scherer asked for recordings of Plaintiff while she was present in Rivers Casino on or about September 21 and 22, 2017, including twenty-four hour periods before and after those dates 63. Plaintiff received and sent private text messages with her private cell phone while inside Rivers Casino during 2017, including but not limited to on October 28, 2017. 1464, Plaintiff accessed email communications with her private cell phone while inside Rivers Casino during 2017, including but not ted to on October 28, 2017, 65. Plaintiff accessed her personal financial information utilizing an app on her smartphone and utilizing an ATM machine located on the premises of the Rivers Casino during 2017, including but not limited to on October 28, 2017. 66. Issuance of a subpoena upon a nonparty in a civil action, including a domestic matter, is governed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 4009.21 through 4009.27, inclusive 67. Defendant McCurdy failed to provide Plaintiff with advanced notice of the intent to serve a subpoena as required under Rule 4009.21 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to file a certificate prerequisite as required under Rule 4009.22(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 68. Rivers Casino was or should have been aware that the subpoena was issued in violation of the afore-identified Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 69. In response to the subpoena requesting video surveillance recordings made on or about September 21 and 22, 2017, Rivers Casino, John Doe #1, John Doe #3, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino provided MeCurdy, Scherer, and/or their representatives with video recordings of Plaintiff and her private text messages, email communications and personal financial information, those recordings having been made during 2017, including but not limited to on or about October 28, 2017.70. Rivers Casino, John Doe #1, John Doe #3, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino provided the aforesaid video recordings to McCurdy, Scherer, and/or their representatives at some point in late 2017. 71. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that the recor s were likely disclosed on a device commonly known as a thumb-drive, although the disclosure may have been made by other means. 72. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that, upon McCurdy’s receipt of the aforesaid recordings, McCurdy disclosed them by mailing them, emailing them, or otherwise providing them to Scherer in Allegheny County. 73. McCurdy engaged in the aforesaid disclosure at some point in late 2017. 74, After receiving the video recordings of Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and personal financial information, Scherer, while in Allegheny County, disclosed some or all of Plaintiff's protected information to persons in Allegheny County and/or elsewhere in order to ridicule and/or to embarrass Plaintiff light of the sensitive and private nature of her messages, emails and/or financial information. 75. Scherer engaged in the aforesaid disclosures in late 2017. 76. Based on all the foregoing paragraphs, as well as the paragraphs subsequent hereto, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all counts of this Complaint for all or some of the following reasons: a. Common Pleas Courts have subject matter jurisdiction over private civil suits under 18 PaC.S.A. § 5725 of the Wiretap Act. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 931(a); see also Birdseye v. Driscoll, 534 A.2d 548, 550 n.2 (Pa.Cmwlth 1987)b. All other claims herein (‘e., invasion of privacy, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress) are brought under the laws of this Commonwealth and, as such, Common Pleas Courts have jurisdiction over those claims. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 931(a). 77. Based on all the foregoing paragraphs, as well as the paragraphs subsequent hereto, this Court has personal ju of the following reasons: a. Rivers Casino is a limited partnership or other business entity formed and organized under the laws of this Commonwealth, b. Rivers Casino does carry on, and at all times relevant to this Complaint did carry on, continuous, regular, and systematic business in this Commonwealth c. John Does ##1, 2, and 3 are adult individuals present in and engaged in regular and continuous business activities in this Commonwealth. 4. McCurdy is an adult individual present in and engaged in regular and continuous business activities in this Commonwealth. e. Scherer is an adult individual present in and domiciled in this Commonwealth. f£ All Defendants’ contacts with this Commonwealth are otherwise sufficient such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over these Defendants comports with traditional notions of substantial justice and fair play. 78. Based on all the foregoing paragraphs, as well as the paragraphs subsequent hereto, venue lies in Allegheny County for some or all of the following reasons; a, Rivers Casino is a limited partnership or other business entity that regularly conducts business in Allegheny County and that regularly did so at all times relevant to this Complaint.b. John Does ##1-3 are adult individuals who have been or will be personally served with this Complaint in Allegheny County. c. MeCurdy’s action of disclosing Plaintif’s private text messages, email communications and personal financial information to Scherer took place in Allegheny County. d. Scherer is an adult individual who has been or will be personally served with this Complaint in Allegheny County. €. All causes of action asserted by Plaintiff in this Complaint arose in Allegheny County. f _Allsurveillance, viewing, recording, disclosure, and use of Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and personal financial information and all other transactions, occurrences, facts, and circumstances giving rise to the causes of action asserted herein took place in Allegheny County. U1. Facts 79. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 80. Plaintiff was lawfully present inside Rivers Casino as a patron on multiple dates during 2017, including but not limited to on October 28, 2017. 81. Neither during the aforesaid time period nor at any other time was Plaintiff a person to be excluded or ejected from Rivers Casino on the basis of any Pennsylvania statute, Pennsylvania regulation, Rivers Casino procedure, or any other reason. 82. During the aforesaid time period and at all other times Plaintiff was a patron inside the Rivers Casino, she participated in lawful gaming activities of the Casino, including slot-machine gaming,83. While Plaintiff was a patron inside Rivers Casino at during the aforesaid time period, she used her personal cell telephone to engage in texting—ie. sending and receiving communications commonly known as text messages—in_ em: ng sending and receiving communications commonly known as electronic mail messages and in accessing her personal financial information by means of both an app on her personal smartphone and through an ATM located within the Rivers Casino. 84. Plaintiff sent and received the aforesaid text messages and/or email communications to and from one or more of her personal friends and/or family members. 85. Plaintiff intended the aforesaid text messages and/or email communications to be received by, read by, and known to, only herself and the other party(ies) to the texting/emailing 86. Plaintiff's aforesaid text messages and/or email communications contained private information, some or all of which involved sensitive, emotional, and potentially embarrassing matters 87. Some or all of the aforesaid text messages and/or email communications contained information regarding Plaintif?’s personal relationships. 88. At no time did Plaintiff read aloud, display, or disclose the aforesaid text messages and/or email communications to anyone in Rivers Casino, or to any other person anywhere except to the extent that she sent the messages to the intended recipient(s)—ie., the party(ies) to the private texting and/or emailing, 89. Plaintiff imtended the aforesaid text messages and/or email communications to remain private and unobserved by anyone other than herself and the other party(ies) to the texting and/or emailing.90. Similarly, Plaintiff intended her personal financial information to be known only to herself. 91. Plaintiff justifiably and reasonably expected that the aforesaid private text messages, email communications and personal financial information would remain private and unobserved by anyone other than herself and, in the case of the texts and emails, the other party(i s) to the texting and/or emailing. 92. Plaintiff did reasonably expect that there would be lawful surveillance of persons present in Rivers Casino, but Plaintiff had no basis to expect that surveillance would extend to the close-up viewing and recording of her cell phone including her private text messages, email communications and personal financial information, 93. Indeed, Plaintiff had a reasonable, affirmative expectation that Rivers Casino, John Does ## 1-3, and all other officers, employees, and agents of Rivers Casino would not view and would not record her private text messages, email communications and personal financial information, 94, Similarly, because Plaintiff had a reasonable basis to believe the aforesaid private text messages, email communications and personal financial information would remain private and would not be viewed or recorded, Plaintiff necessarily had no reasonable basis to expect that Rivers Casino, John Does ## 1-3, and/or any other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino would ever be in a position to disclose, or would ever disclose, to any other person any video recording of Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and personal financial information. 95. While Plaintiff engaged in private texting, in private emailing and in accessing her private financial information in the Rivers Casino during 2017, including 20but not limited to on October 28, 2017, Rivers Casino, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino intentionally used electronic surveillance equipment to view the text messages and emails sent and received by Plaintiff and to view her personal financial information. 96. More particularly, Rivers Casino’s electronic surveillance equipment had zoom and/or other close-up viewing capacity such that Rivers Casino, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino were able to view, and did in fact view, the text messages and emails sent and received by Plaintiff and the financial accounts accessed by Plaintiff during 2017, including but not limited to on October 28, 2017. 97. Additionally, Rivers Casino, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino intentionally used electronic video surveillance equipment not only to view but also to record the images of the subject text messages and/or email communications sent and received by Plaintiff and the financial accounts accessed by Plaintiff during 2017, including but not limited to on October 28, 2017. 98. Rivers Casino, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino intentionally viewed and intentionally recorded Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information without Plaintiff's knowledge and without her consent. 99. On or about October 12, 2017, McCurdy had caused to be issued a subpoena directing Rivers Casino to provide McCurdy with copies of the Casino’s close- 21up video surveillance footage of Plaintiff and her associates on September 21 and 22, 2017. 100. It is believed that Rivers Casino was served with the aforesaid subpoena by an agent of McCurdy and/or Scherer on a date in late 2017, the specific date being unknown to Plaintiff. 101 In late 2017, after receiving the aforesaid subpoena, Rivers Casino, John Doe #1, John Doe #3, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino then intentionally disclosed to McCurdy, Scherer, and/or their representatives, the Casino’s video recordi as of the text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information sent/teceived/accessed by Plaintiff on or about October 28, 2017, a date outside the time period prescribed by the subpoena. 102. ‘The disclosure of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information by Rivers Casino, John Doe #1, John Doe #3, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino was done without Plaintiff's knowledge and without her consent. 103. When viewing, recording, and/or disclosing the subject text messages, email communic: ns and/or personal financial information, and at all other times relevant to this Complaint, Rivers Casino, John Does ##1-3, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino acted pursuant to the policies, procedures, protocols, customs, directives, habits, and/or instructions of Rivers Casino. 104. When viewing, recording, and/or disclosing the subject text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information, and at all other timesrelevant to this Complaint, John Does ##1-3, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino acted in the course of their employment with Rivers Casino. 105. When viewing, recording, and disclosing the subject text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information, and at all other times relevant to this Complaint, John Doe ##1-3, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino were under the control of, aeting at the directions of, and acting in furtherance of the interests, activities, affairs, and business of, Rivers Casino. 106. When viewing, recording, and disclosing the subject text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information, and at all other times relevant to this Complaint, Rivers Casino, John Does ##1-3, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino acted intentionally 107. Upon McCurdy’s receipt of the video recordings of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information, MeCurdy then intentionally disclosed them to Scherer in late 2017. 108, In late 2017, Scherer ultimately received the recordings of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information and, while in Allegheny County, thereafter intentionally disclosed some or all of those messages/emails/personal financial information. 109. The disclosures of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information by McCurdy and Scherer were done without Plaintiff's knowledge and without her consent, 110. Plaintiff sets forth the following causes of action against Defendants, 2BIV. Causes of Action Count J ~ Plaintiff v. Hi d/b/a/ Rivers Casino Wiretap Act Interception of Plaintiff's Text Messages, Email Communications and Personal Financial Information 18 Pa.C.S.A, §§ 5703(1), 5725(a) LIL. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 112, Plaintiff's text messages and email communications were words, letters, signs, signals, writing, images, and/or data transmitted by use of Plaintiff's cell phone, See 18 PaCS.A. § 5702 (definitions) 113, As such, Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and personal financial information were electronic communications within the meaning of the Wiretap Act. See 18 Pa.CS.A. § 5702 (definitions), Commonwealth v. Cruttenden, 976 A.2d 1176, 1180 n.5, 1181 (Pa. Super. 2009), rev'd. on other grounds, 58 A.3d 95, 129-33 (Pa. 2012); Klump v. Nazareth Area School District, 425 F Supp.2d 622, 633-35 (E.D.Pa. 2006). 114, The surveillance equipment used by Rivers Casino to view and/or record Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information consisted of one or more electronic devices within the meaning of the Wiretap Act. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5702 (definitions). 115. The intentional actions by Rivers Casino in using the Casino's surveillance equipmentelectronic device(s) to view and/or record the subject text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information constituted the 24interception of electronic communications within the meaning of the Wiretap Act. See 18 Pa.CS.A. § 5702 (definitions) 116. The intentional interception of Plaintiff's electronic communications by Rivers Casino violated the Wiretap Act, including 18 Pa.C.S.A. § $703(1) (prohibiting interception of electronic communications). 117. Moreover, Rivers Casino's unlawful, zoom surveillance and zoom recording of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information were not only intentional but were also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard of Plaintiff's rights and privacy, 118. Rivers Casino is itself directly liable to Plaintiff for the unlawful interception of Plaintiff's electronic communications because the interception arose from the actions, policies, procedures, protocols, customs, directives, habits, and/or instructions of Rivers Casino. 119. _ Rivers Casino is vicariously liable to Plaintiff for the unlawful interception of Plaintiff's electronic communications because the interception was carried out by John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and/or other o ers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino while they were acting within the scope of their employment with Rivers Casino. 120. Rivers Casino is vicariously liable to Plaintiff for the unlawful interception of Plaintiff's electronic communications because the interception was carried out by John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino while they were under the control of, acting at the direction of, and acting in furtherance of the interests, activities, affairs, and business of, Rivers Casino.121. _ Rivers Casino’s aforesaid violation of the Wiretap Act caused Plaintiff to suffer the unlawful viewing and recordation of her private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information; the invasion and loss of her privacy; severe emotional distress; anxiety; embarrassment; humiliation; loss of enjoyment of life; worry; and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit in order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rightful damage award. 122. As a result of Rivers Casino’s aforesaid violation of the Wiretap Act, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including the following: actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100.00 per day or $1,000.00, whichever is higher; punitive damages; reasonable attorney's fees; litigation costs reasonably incurred by Plaintiff in this suit; and all other relief allowed by law. See, eg., 18 Pa.C.S.A. § $725(a)(1)-(3) (setting forth money damages in private civil suits under the Wiretap Act), WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, Holdings Acquisition Co., L.P. d/b/a Rivers Casino, in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. 26Count 2 — Plaintiff v. Holdings Acquisition Co., L.P. d/b/a Rivers Casino Wiretap Act Disclosure of Plaintiff's Text Messages, Email Communications and Personal Financial Information 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5703(2), 5725(a) 123. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 124, Because the video recording of Plaintiff"s electronic communications was unlawful, any disclosure of the recordings by Rivers Casino was necessarily unlawful under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703(2) (prohibiting disclosure of intercepted communications) 125. Thus, the disclosure of the recorded communications, even if disclosed ‘ostensibly in response to the subpoena from Attorney McCurdy and/or Scherer, could not have been a disclosure made lawfully or in good faith, precisely because the recordings were unlawful from the outset. 126. Moreover, the disclosure of the recorded communications in response to the subpoena was not even in compliance with that subpoena given that the subpoena requested video surveillance recordings from September 21 and 22, 2017, while the recordings disclosed by Rivers Casino were made on or about October 28, 2017. 127. In short, the intentional disclosure of Plaintiff's aforesaid electronic communications by Rivers Casino to McCurdy, Scherer and/or their representatives violated the Wiretap Act, including 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703(2). 128. Moreover, Rivers Casino’s unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information was not only a1intentional but was also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard of Plaintiff's rights and privacy. 129. Rivers Casino is itself directly liable to Plaintiff for the unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's electronic communications because the disclosure arose from the actions, policies, procedures, protocols, customs, directives, habits, and/or instructions of Rivers Casino, 130. Rivers Casino is vicariously liable to Plaintiff for the unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's electronic communications because the disclosure was done by John Doe #1, John Doe #3, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino while they were acting within the scope of their employment with Rivers Casino. 131. Rivers Casino is vicariously liable to Plaintiff for the unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's electronic communications because the disclosure was done by John Doe #1, John Doe #3, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino while they were under the control of, acting at the direction of, and acting in furtherance of the interests, activities, affairs, and business of, Rivers Casino, 132. As a result of Rivers Casino’s unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information, McCurdy, Scherer, and/or others were able—albeit unlawfully—to read and publish Plaintiff's private communications and review Plaintiff's private financial information 133. Rivers Casino’s aforesaid violation of the Wiretap Act by disclosing Plaintif?’s text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information caused Pla ‘ntiff to suffer the unlawful disclosure of her private text messages, email | information; the invasion and loss of her communications and/or personal financi 28privacy; severe emotional distress; anxiety; embarrassment; humiliation; loss of enjoyment of life; worry; and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit in order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rightful damage award. 134, As a result of Rivers Casino’s aforesaid violation of the Wiretap Act, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including the following: actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100.00 per day or $1,000.00, whichever is higher; punitive damages; reasonable attomey’s fees; litigation costs reasonably incurred by Plaintiff in this suit; and all other relief allowed by law. See, e.g., 18 PaCS.A. § 5725(a)(1)-(3) (setting forth damages in private civil suits under the Wiretap Act). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, Holdings Acquisition Co., L.P. d/b/a Rivers Casino in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. Count 3 - Plaintiff v. John Doe #1 Wiretap Act Interception of Plaintiff's Text Messages, Email Communications and Personal inancial Information 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5703(1), 5725(a) 135. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 136. When John Doe #1 used, directed the use of, and/or supervised the use of, Rivers Casino’s surveillance equipment/electronic device(s) in order to view and/or record Plaintiff's subject text messages, email communications and/or personal financial 29information, s/he thereby intercepted Plaintiffs electronic communications and consequently violated the Wiretap Act, including 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5703(1) thereof. 137. John Doe #1°s aforesaid violation of the Wiretap Act by intercepting Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information caused Plaintiff to suffer the unlawful viewing and recordation of her private text messages, email communications and personal financial information; the invasion and loss of her privacy; severe emotional distress; anxiety; embarrassment; humiliation; loss of enjoyment of life; worry; and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit in order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rightful damage award. 138. John Doe #1’ interception of Plaintiff's private communications was not only intentional but was also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard for Plaintiff's rights and privacy. 139. As a result of John Doe #I’s violation of the Wiretap Act, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including the following: actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100.00 per day or $1,000.00, whichever is higher; punitive damages; reasonable attomey’s fees; litigation costs reasonably incurred by Plaintiff in this suit; and all other relief allowed by law. See, eg. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5725(a)(1)-(3) (setting forth money damages in private civil suits under the Wiretap Act), WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, John Doe #1, in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County.Count 4 — Plaintiff v. John Doe #1 Wiretap Act Disclosure of Plaintiff's Text Messages, Email Communications and Personal inancial Information 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5703(2), 5725(a) 140. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 141. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that John Doe #1 authorized, directed, and/or otherwise intentionally took part in, the disclosure of the recordings of PlaintifPs private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information —the disclosure having been made to Attorney McCurdy, Scherer, and/or their representatives 142. John Doe #1°s intentional disclosure of Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information, even if done ostensibly in response to the subpoena from Attomey McCurdy and/or Scherer, could not have been a lawful or good-faith disclosure, precisely because the recordings were unlawful from the outset and/or because the recordings of Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and personal financial information were outside the dates requested by the subpoena, 143, In short, John Doe #1’s intentional disclosure of Plaintiff's aforesaid electronic communications violated the Wiretap Act, including 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703(2) thereof,144, As a result of John Doe #1’s unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information, McCurdy, Scherer, and/or others were able—albeit unlawfully—to read and publish Plaintif?’s private communications. 145, John Doe #1’s aforesaid violation of the Wiretap Act by disclosing Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information caused Plaintiff to suffer the unlawful disclosure of her private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information; the invasion and loss of her privacy; severe emotional distress; anxiety; embarrassment; humiliation; loss of enjoyment of life; worry; and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit in order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rightful damage award. 146. John Doe #1’s unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's private communications ‘was not only intentional but was also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard for Plainti P's rights and privacy. 147, As a result of John Doe #1°s violation of the Wiretap Act, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including the following: actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100.00 per day or $1,000.00, whichever is higher; punitive damages; reasonable attorney's fees; igation costs reasonably incurred by Plaintiff in this suit; and all other relief allowed by law. See, eg., 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5725(a)(1)-(3) (setting forth money damages in private civil suit under the Wiretap Act).WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, John Doe #1, in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. Count 5 - PI ff v. John Doe #2 Wiretap Act Interception of Plaintiff's Text Messages, Email Communications and Personal nancial Information 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5703(1), 5725(a) 148. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 149. Defendant John Doe #2 is and/or was an individual who operated Rivers Casino surveillance equipment and thereby conducted video surveillance and/or video recordation of Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information on or about October 28, 2017. 150, For all the reasons already detailed in all the foregoing paragraphs, the intentional actions by John Doe #2 in viewing and/or recording Plaintiff's subject text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information constituted the interception of electronic communications and violated the Wiretap Act, including 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5703(1) thereof. 151. John Doe #2’s aforesaid violation of the Wiretap Act by intercepting Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information caused Plaintiff to suffer the unlawful viewing and recordation of her private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information; the invasion 3and loss of her privacy; severe emotional distress; anxiety; embarrassment; humiliation; loss of enjoyment of life; worry; and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit in order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rightful damage award. 152. John Doe #2's unlawful interception of Plaintiff's private communications was not only intentional but was also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard for Plaintiff's rights and privacy 153. As a result of John Doe #2’s violation of the Wiretap Act, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including the following: actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100.00 per day or $1,000.00, whichever is higher; punitive damages; reasonable attorney's fees; litigation costs reasonably incurred by Plaintiff in this suit; and all other relief allowed by law. See, e.g., 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5725(a)(1)-(3) (setting forth money damages in private civil suits under the Wiretap Act) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, John Doe #2, in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. Count 6 ~ Plaintiff v. John Doe #3 Wiretap Act tions and Personal $703(2),5725(a 154, Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs.155. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that John Doe #3 disclosed the video recordings of Plaintif’s private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information to Attorney McCurdy, Scherer, and/or their representatives. 156. For all the reasons discussed in all the foregoing paragraphs, John Doe #3’s intentional disclosure of Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information, even if done ostensibly in response to the subpoena from Attomey McCurdy and/or Scherer, could not have been a lawful or good-faith disclosure, precisely because the recordings were unlawful from the outset and/or because the recordings of Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information were outside the dates requested by the subpoena. 157. In short, John Doe #3’s intentional disclosure of Plaintifi’s aforesaid electronic communications violated the Wiretap Act, including 18 Pa.C.$.A. §§ 5703(2) thereof. 158. As a result of John Doe #3°s unlawful disclosure of Plai Ss text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information, McCurdy, Scherer, and/or others were able—albeit unlawfully—to read and publish Plaintiff's private communications, 159. John Doe #3’s aforesaid violation of the Wiretap Act by disclosing Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information caused Plaintiff to suffer the unlawful disclosure of her private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information; the invasion and loss of her privacy; severe emotional distress; anxiety; embarrassment; humiliation; loss ofenjoyment of life; worry; and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this, suit in order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rightful damage award. 160. John Doe #3’s unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's private communications ‘was not only intentional but was also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard of Plaintiff's rights and privacy. 161. As a result of John Doe #3°s violation of the Wiretap Act, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including the following: actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100.00 per day or $1,000.00, whichever is higher; pun je damages; reasonable attomey's fees; litigation costs reasonably incurred by Plaintiff in this suit; and all other relief allowed by law. See, eg., 18 Pa.CS.A. § 5725(a)(1)-(3) (setting forth money damages in private civil suits under the Wiretap Act). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, John Doe #3, in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. Count 7 ~ Plainti v. Dennis W. McCurdy Wiretap Act Disclosure of Plaintiff's Text Messages, Email Communications and Personal Financial Informat 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5703(2), 5725(a) 162. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 36163. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that McCurdy, at some point in 2017, received recordings of the text messages, email communications and personal financial information that Plaintiff sent and/or received on or about October 28, 2017. 164, Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that, when McCurdy received the recordings, he viewed them. 165. McCurdy knew or had reason to know that the subject electronic communications had been electronically intercepted by Rivers Casino, 166. Moreover, McCurdy knew that the subpoena he used had requested video recordings for dates other than the recordings he had received from the Casino. 167. Additionally, McCurdy knew that he had secured and used the aforesaid subpoena in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure—specifically, by having it served on Rivers Casino without having given notice to Plaintiff, the opposing party in the Butler County Family Court li 168. McCurdy thereafter intentionally disclosed Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information to Scherer. 169. More particularly, despite having used a subpoena in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, despite having received copies of video recordings from dates other than the dates he requested in the subpoena, and despite knowing or having reason to know that the video recordings of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information consisted of electronic intercepts of electronic communications, Attorney McCurdy nevertheless intentionally disclosed Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information communications to Scherer. 37170. MeCurdy’s intentional disclosure of the electronic communications violated the Wiretap Act, including 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703(2) thereof, 171. Asa result of McCurdy’s unlawful disclosure of the subject text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information, Scherer and/or others were able—aibeit unlawfully—to read and disclose Plaintiff's private communications. 172, MeCurdy’s aforesaid violation of the Wiretap Act by disclosing Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information caused Plaintiff to suffer the unlawful disclosure of her private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information; the invasion and loss of her privacy; severe emotional distress; anxiety; embarrassment; humiliation; loss of enjoyment of life; worry; and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit in order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rightful damage award. 173. McCurdy’s unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information was not only intentional but was also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard for Plaintiff's rights and privacy. 174, Asa result of McCurdy’s violation of the Wiretap Act, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including the following: actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100.00 per day or $1,000.00, whichever is higher; punitive damages; reasonable attorney's fees; litigation costs reasonably incurred by Plaintiff in this suit; and all other relief allowed by law. See, eg 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5725(a)(1)-(3) (setting forth money damages in private civil suits under the Wiretap Act), 38WHEREFOR! E, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, Dennis W. MoCurdy, i an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. Count 8 Disclosure of Plaintiff's Text Messages, Email Communications and Personal inancial Information 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5703(2), 5725(a) 175. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 176. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that, when Scherer received the recordings or reproductions of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information from on or about October 28, 2017, Scherer viewed them, 177, Scherer disclosed Plaintiff's aforesaid text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information by sharing them and/or their contents with multiple persons in Allegheny County, Butler County and/or elsewhere. 178. Scherer’s intentional disclosure of Plaintiff's electronic communications violated the provisions of the Wiretap Act, including 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703(2) thereof. 179. Scherer’s violation of the Wiretap Act by disclosing PlaintifPs text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information caused Plaintiff to suffer the unlawful disclosure of her private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information; the invasion and loss of her privacy; severe 39emotional distress; anxiety; embarrassment; humiliation; loss of enjoyment of life; worry; and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit in order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rightful damage award. 180, Scherer’s unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information was not only intentional but was also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, and complete disregard of Plaintiff's rights and privacy. 181. Asa result of Scherer’s violation of the Wiretap Act, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including the following: actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100.00 per day or $1,000.00, whichever is higher; punitive damages; reasonable attorney's fees; litigation costs reasonably incurred by Plaintiff in this suit; and all other relief allowed by law. See, eg., 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5725(a)(1)-(3) (setting forth money damages in private civil suits under the Wiretap Act), WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, Scott E, Scherer, in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the ju ictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. 40Wiretap Act Use of Plaintiff's Text Messages, Email Communications and Personal Financial Information 18 P: 5703(3), 5725(a} 182. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 183, Scherer’s aforesaid disclosure of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information was done for the purpose of causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and worry. 184. Scherer thus made intentional, malicious, unlawful use of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information 185, Scherer’s intentional, malicious, unlawful use of Plaintiff's electronic communications which Scherer knew or had reason to know had been intercepted by surveillance equipment violated the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703(3) (prohibiting use of unlawfully intercepted communications). 186. Scherer’s violation of the Wiretap Act by using Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information caused Plaintiff to suffer the unlawful disclosure of her private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information; the invasion and loss of her privacy; severe emotional distress; anxiety; embarrassment; humilia ion; loss of enjoyment of life; worry; and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit, 4187, Scherer’s unlawful use of Plaintiff's private communications was not only intentional but was also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard for Plaintiff's rights and privacy. 188. Asa result of Scherer’s violation of the Wiretap Act, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including the following: actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100.00 per day or $1,000.00, whichever is higher; punitive damages; reasonable attomey’s fees; litigation costs reasonably incurred by Plaintiff in this suit; and all other relief allowed by law. See, eg., 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5725(a)(1)-3) (setting forth money damages in private civil suits under the Wiretap Act) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, Scott E. Scherer, in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. Count 10 - Plaintiff v. Holdings Acquisition Co., L.P. d/b/a Rivers Casino Invasion of Privacy 189. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and 1 rates each of the foregoing paragraphs, 190. As detailed in the earlier paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information involved her private affairs and concems, some or all of which touched upon sensitive, emotional, and potentially embarrassing matters, including but not limited to her personal relationships and her personal spending habits. 42191. As detailed in the earlier paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff at all times kept her text messages, her email communications, her personal financial affairs, and her concerns private and secluded, not sharing them except with the other party(ies) to the text communications and email communications. 192. Plaintiff justifiably and reasonably expected that her text messages, her email communications, her personal financial affairs, and her concerns would not be seen, recorded, or disclosed by Rivers Casino or by anyone else except to the extent that the messages would be seen by the other party(ies) to Plaintiff's texting and emailing. 193. _ Rivers Casino’s actions of viewing, recording, and/or disclosing Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information constituted an intrusion upon Plaintiff's private affairs and concerns. 194, Rivers Casino’s intrusion upon Plaintiffs private affairs and concerns was highly offensive to Plaintiff as a reasonable person. 195. Inthe foregoing ways, Rivers Casino invaded Plaintiff’ privacy, 196. Rivers Casino is itself directly liable to Plaintiff for the invasion of Plaintiff's privacy because the invasion resulted from the actions, policies, procedures, protocols, customs, directives, habits, and/or instructions of Rivers Casino 197. Rivers Casino is vicariously liable to Plaintiff for the invasion of Plaintif?’s privacy because the invasion was carried out by John Does ##1-3 and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino while they were acting within the scope of their employment with Rivers Casino. 198. Rivers Casino is vicariously liable to Plaintiff for the invasion of Plaintif?’s privacy because the invasion arose from the actions of John Does ##1-3 and/or 43other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino while they were under the control of, acting at the direction of, and acting in furtherance of the interests, activities, affairs, and business of, Rivers Casino. 199. Rivers Casino’s aforesaid invasion of privacy caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, worry, and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rightful damage award. 200. Rivers Casino’s invasion of Plaintiff's privacy was not only intentional but ‘was also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard for Plaintiffs rights and privacy. 201. As a result of Rivers Casino’s invasion of Plaintiff's privacy, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, litigation costs, interest, and all other relief allowed by law. WHEREFORE, Piaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, Holdings Acquisition Co., L.P. d/b/a Rivers Casino, in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. Count 11 ~ Plainti v. John Doe #1 Invasion of Privacy 202. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 203. For all the reasons already detailed in all the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, John Doe #1’s actions of viewing, recording, and/or disclosing Plaintif?’s text 44ited an messages, email communications and/or personal financial information constit intrusion upon Plaintiff's private affairs and concerns. 204. John Doe #1’s intrusion upon Plaintiff's highly offensive to Plaintiff as a reasonable person, 205. Inthe foregoing ways, John Doe #1 invaded Plaintiff's privacy 206. John Doe #1’s aforesaid invasion of privacy caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, worry, and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit in order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rightful damage award. 207. John Doe #1’s invasion of PlaintifP’s privacy was not only intentional but was also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard for Plaintiff's rights and privacy. 208. Asa result of John Doe #1’s invasion of Plaintiff's privacy, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, litigation costs, interest, and all other relief allowed by law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, John Doe #1, in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. Count 12 - Plaintiff v. John Doe #2 Invasion of Privacy 209. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 45210. For all the reasons already detailed in all the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, John Doe #2’s actions of viewing and/or recording Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information constituted an intrusion upon Plaintiff's private affairs and concerns. 211. John Doe #2’s intrusion upon Plaintiff's private affairs and concerns was highly offensive to Plaintiff as a reasonable person. 212. Inthe foregoing ways, John Doe #2 invaded Plaintiff's privacy. 213. John Doe #2°s aforesaid invasion of privacy caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distréss, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, worry, and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit in order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rightful damage award 214, John Doe #2°s invasion of Plaintifi’s privacy was not only intentional but was also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard for Plaintiff's rights and privacy. 215. As a result of John Doe #2°s invasion of Plaintiff's privacy, Pl iff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, litigation costs, interest, and all other relief allowed by law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, John Doe #2, in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. 46Count 13 laintiff v. John Doe #3 Invasion of Privacy 216. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs, 217. For all the reasons already detailed in all the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, John Doe #3°s disclosure of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information constituted an intrusion upon Plaintiff's private affairs and concerns. 218. John Doe #3’s intrusion upon Plaintiff's private affairs and concerns was highly offensive to Plaintiff as a reasonable person, 219. Inthe foregoing ways, John Doe #3 invaded Plaintiff's privacy. 220. John Doe #3’s aforesaid invasion of privacy caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, worry, and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit in order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rightful damage award. 221. John Doe #3’s invasion of Plaintiff's privacy was not only intentional but was also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard for Plaintiff's rights and privacy. 222. Asa result of John Doe #3’s invasion of Plaintiff's privacy, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, litigation costs, interest, and all other relief allowed by law. 47WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, John Doe #3, in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. ‘ount 14 ~ Plaintiff v. Dennis W. McCurdy Invasion of Privacy 223. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 224. For all the reasons already detailed in all the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, McCurdy’s disclosure of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information constituted an intrusion upon Plaintiff's private affairs and concerns. 225. McCurdy’s intrusion upon Plaintiff's private affairs and concerns was highly offensive to Plaintiff as a reasonable person. 226. Inthe foregoing ways, McCurdy invaded Plai EP's privacy. 227. MeCurdy’s aforesaic wasion of privacy caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, worry, in order to vindicate and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this si her rights and obtain her rightful damage award, 228. MeCurdy’s invasion of Plaintiff's privacy was not only intentional but was also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard for Plaintiff's rights and privacy. 48229. As a result of McCurdy's invasion of Plaintif’s privacy, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, litigation costs, interest, and all other relief allowed by law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, Dennis W. McCurdy, in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum. limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. Count 15 ~ Plait cott E. Scherer Invasion of Privacy 230. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 231. For all the reasons already detailed in all the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, Scherer’s disclosure and use of Plaintiff's text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information constituted intrusions upon Plaintiff's private affairs and concerns. 232. Scherer’s intrusion upon Plaintiff's private affairs and concerns was ighly offensive to Plaintiff as a reasonable person. 233. In the foregoing ways, Scherer invaded Plaintiff's privacy. 234. Scherer’s aforesaid invasion of privacy caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, worry, and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit in order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rights. 49235. Scherer’s invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy was not only intentional but was also so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard for Plaintiff's rights and privacy. 236. As a result of Scherer’ invasion of Plaintiff's privacy, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, litigation costs, interest, and all other relief allowed by law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, Scott E. Scherer, in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. Count 16 intiff Scott E. Scherer Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 237. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 238. As discussed earlier in this Complaint, the subject text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information involved private, sensitive matters, including Plaintiff's personal relationships and her personal spending habits. 239. Scherer’s conduct described earlier in this Complaint—ie., disclosing Plaintif?’s private text messages, email communications, personal financial information and/or information related thereto, and/or otherwise using the messages, emails, financial information and/or related information to harass, belittle, and/or ridicule Plaintiff—was extreme and outrageous 240. Scherer’s extreme and outrageous conduct was intentional 50241. Scherer’s extreme, outrageous, and intentional conduct caused Plaintiff emotional distress. 242. Plaintiff's emotional distress was and is severe, particularly in light of the private nature of her text messages, email communications and financial information. 243. Based on the foregoing paragraphs, Scherer intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress on Plaintiff. 244. As a result of Scherer’s intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands damages, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, litigation costs, interest, and all other relief allowed by law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendant, Scott E. Scherer, in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County, Civil Conspiracy 245. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reiterates each of the foregoing paragraphs. 246. As detailed in all the foregoing paragraphs, Rivers Casino, John Does ##!1- 3, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino acted in combination with one another while having the common unlawful purpose of viewing, recording, and/or disclosing Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information in violation of the Wiretap Act and in ways constituting multiple invasions of Plaintiff's privacy.247. Rivers Casino, John Does ##1-3, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino did, in fact, engage in the overt acts of viewing, recording, and/or disclosing video recordings of Plaintiff's private text messages, email communications and/or personal financial information 248. Rivers Casino, John Does ##1-3, and/or other officers, employees, ot agents of Rivers Casino did all of the foregoing acts intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and recklessly and, in so doing, engaged in outrageous conduct in complete disregard of Plaintiff's rights and privacy. 249. Asa result of the unlawful concerted actions of Rivers Casino, John Does ##1-3, and/or other officers, employees, or agents of Rivers Casino, Plaintiff suffered the invasion and loss of her privacy; severe emotional distress; anxiety; embarrassment; humiliation; loss of enjoyment of life; worry; and the need to incur legal fees and costs associated with this suit in order to vindicate her rights and obtain her rightful damage award, 230. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and hereby demands all compensatory damages, punitive damages, litigation costs, interest, and other relief allowed by law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hayley Clerici, demands judgment against Defendants, Holdings Acquisition Co., L.P. d/b/a Rivers Casino and John Does ##1-3, each judgment being in an amount exceeding $35,000.00, the jurisdictional maximum limit for referral to arbitration in Allegheny County. 52Respectfully submitted, McKENNA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Mark F. McKenna Counsel for Plaintiff 3CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. Submitted by\ Mark, F. McKenna Sout é Name:_Mark F. Mckenna Attorney No. (ifapplicable): 30297 Rey. 09/2017IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HAYLEY CLERICI, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff v. HOLDINGS ACQUISITION CO,, LP. dibfa/ RIVERS CASINO; JOHN DOE No. 1; JOHN DOE No. 2; JOHN DOE No. 3; DENNIS W. McCURDY; and SCOTT E. SCHERER, Defendants VERIFICATION I verify that the averments of fact in the foregoing Complaint in Civil Action are tue and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. PLO 20/9 ’ Siar Date Hayley Gierici, aintit? 54For Prothonotary Use Only: Docket No: The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. This form does not supplement or replace the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law or rules of court ‘Commencement of Action Bd Complaint 1 Writ of summons oO LT Transfer from Another Jurisdiction o Petition Declaration of Taking, Lead Plaintiff's Name: Lead Defendant's Name: Hayley Clerc HOLDINGS ACQUISITION CO.. LP. Dollar Amount Requested: E]wahin arbivation limits Are money damages requested? ElYes C].No | DulguneaniReaened: Elvis atiraion ts Is this a Class Action Suit? Dyes Bl No Is this an MDJ Appeal? Dyes BI No > ZOm4amD Zorsamn we ‘Name of Plaintift/Appellant’s Attomey: Mark F. McKenna ©) Check here if you have no attorney (are a Self-Represented [Pro Se] Litigant) Nature of the Case: Place an “X” to the left of the ONE case category that most accurately describes your PRIMARY CASE. If you are making more than one type of claim, check the one that ‘you consider most important. TORT (do no include Mass Tor) DD intentional LD Maticious Prosecution ) Motor Vehicie Ey Nuisance Ey Premises Liability EF Product Liability (does not include mass tori) 11 Slander/Libe Defamation B other: Violation ofthe Wiretap Act. TePACSAS 5782 MASS TORT DD Asbestos DD Tobsceo Toxic Tort - DES D Toxic Tort - implant BF Toxic Waste Bi otter: 1 Dental i Legat BD Medicat 15 Other Professional: PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY CONTRACT (donot incu udgmens) Buyer Pint 1 Debs Collection: Credit Card bets Cotiection: Other | Employment Dispute: Diserimination Employment Dispute: Other D Otter: CIVIL APPEALS Administrative Agencies 1 Board of Assessment 1 Board of Elections Dept. of Transportation Statutory Appeal: Other 1 Zoning Board O otter: REAL PROPERTY Ejectment Eminent Domain/Condemnation EB Ground Rent E Landlord/Tenant Dispate Ly Mortgage Foreclosure: Residential 1] Mongage Foreclosure: Commercial Ey Partition Bi oui Tite 1 Otter: MISCELLANEOUS 1 Common Law/Statutory Arbitration i Declaratory Judgment Mandamus Non-Domestic Relations Restraining Order Quo Warranto Replevin D other: Updated 1/1/2011