Cheryl Merrill v. Angelique Breedlove et al Document 23: Complaint

Filed February 17, 2009

Back to Cheryl Merrill v. Angelique Breedlove et al, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Case No. CGC-08-481981

2nd Amended Complaint Per Order Filed By Plaintiff Merrill, Cheryl As To Defendant Breedlove, Angelique Outmesguine, Diana Elliott, Beth Baker & Mckenzie Llp

No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.

Next: Document 24

Source Document

Formatted Derived Text

Raw Derived Text

There was a problem locating the requested document.

Page 1 TARA
se.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Feb-17-2009 9:56 am

Case Number: CGC-08-481981
Filing Date: Feb-17-2009 9:54
Juke Box: 001 Image: 02403262
COMPLAINT

CHERYL MERRILL VS. ANGELIQUE BREEDLOVE et al
001002403262
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

Page 2 wo «eo nN A Ww F&F WY NY
ho wm N WN NN NN NS S| SF Se SUS SS OUCLCUsS
mH PR RE BS fF SF BO warn Dw FWY NHN —
¥ ¥ FR we
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
LIMITED JURISDICTION
CHERYL MERRILL, Case No.: CGC-08-481981
Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED
v. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF
ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESPONSE TO
ANGELIQUE BREEDLOVE, DIANA DEFENDANTS’ TENTATIVE SUSTAINED
OUTMESGUINE, BETH ELLIOTT AND DEMURRER
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
Defendants. Date: February 17, 2009
Time: 9:30 A.M.
Dept. 301, The Hon. Peter Busch
Complaint Filed November 18, 2008

. Rk by Dp
Cheryl Merill Superiar Court of Califor:
1245 California Street, #303 County Han ie
San Francisco, CA 94109 FEB 17 2009
Plaintiff in Pro Per GORDON PARK-LI, Cl
By: Condy’ Salat, Ea,
Deputy Clerk

mr =

PLTF’S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-48 1981

—— nen

Page 3 ow oe TD A AH F&F WY NH
wm N N NN =| = =F EF FO SO SO PSO Um

€ C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
L INTRODUCTION .....ccsssesscssssssssecsssenssssscesesesscnseesssusacacossensuenensosnsssnsnsnensssntessonneseneorssssssnananeaeves 2
II. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUD - ELEMENTS AND APPLICABLE FACTS ............- 3
1. First Element: Misrepresentation, Fraud, Concealment and Non-
DiSCIOSULE .....ssssscccserssserenssreneesrenes ssasvessaneeeees sesuenecennnsegeaeconssnseseeanenessarenes 3
2 Second Element: Knowledge of Falsity.........ssssssssssssneosssserersonseensssssssesenesseseeess 5
3. Third Element: Intent to Induce Reliance...........csssssssesssnsnenssreeeessnenenanarerseseneraes 5
4 Fourth Element: Justifiable Reliance.......sssessesseesenes 6
5. Fifth Element: Resulting Damages ........sssssssscssssssssesesencecsscsssaseusenenesanssaranseseaees 7
HI. =§ CONCLUSION... ecessssssssessstssccsessrsesseneencesnesananenes we ssnsesseansevenes 8
-i-
PLTF'S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-481981

Page 4 oOo 8 TD A WwW & YY KR =
NN NN NON UN UNCON SS eS BS SF SEO eS Ol Sl eS lhl SS
oy) TA UN bk YD HR = Oo DO eM ON ON lL Uh UNL UO
C C
I. INTRODUCTION
Piaintiff is hereby responding to the Court’s leave to amend its tentative ruling sustaining
Defendant’s Demurrer as to the First Cause of Action of Fraud of her First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff learned of such tentative ruling ona holiday, February 16th, 2009. Plaintiff was informed by
Defendants in the form of a Fed Ex letter accusing her of missing the February 13th deadline to
contest such tentative ruling. Plaintiff had been utilizing the Court’s on-line court filing docket list
under her case number, to denote action in her case and was unaware of any tentative ruling.
Furthermore, Plaintiff was never informed by the filing clerk or court system of any tentative ruling
system in place prior to the hearing date, Defendants assert Plaintiff's lack of contesting the tentative
ruling by such deadline of February 13th, automatically makes the Court’s order official in sustaining
the demurrer. Plaintiff wishes to contest this unscrupulous activity on behalf of Defendants to deny
her basic rights in this process as stated herein. Plaintiff should be allowed at least 10 days to amend
her complaint as stated by the Court. Defendants claim Plaintiff has already missed the deadline only
having 5 days to respond. (Exh. A).
There is no indication the Court has read any of the Plaintiff's amended complaint in its
inappropriately adopting as fact whatever statements are contained within Baker & McKenzie LLP’s
(“B&M”) response pleadings. Plaintiff has also observed the Court’s tentative statement sustaining
demurrer not bothering to read or acknowledge Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Opposition to Defendant’s Notice of Demurrer filed on February 2, 2009 (“Pitf's Memo of P & A’s in
Opp.”). Such aforementioned memorandum included each required elements for the first cause of
action of fraud as well as justifiable reliance and economic damages in referencing the first amended
complaint, coupled with the applicable facts and supporting relevant citations.
The Court appears to be ignoring all of Plaintiff's pleadings and amended complaint due to her
appearing in pro per against a major law firm. The Court system was not meant to be a secret lawyers’
club available only for greedy attorneys, among others, to be manipulated for profit it has sadly
become. As previously stated, Plaintiff is a recently Certified Paralegal in the State of California, as
well as a Notary Public (Amend Compl, Exh A). Plaintiff has studied law, done her legal research and
homework, paid the proper fees and followed the rules only for the Court to allow B&M to take over
-2-

PLTF*S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-481981

Page 5 Oo oo ~~] an wv > fo Mm —
N WN NY WN NH WH NH =| =| | FF FO SFO ESESellOlUlUTESESllllUlelU
BS RRR & Be SF S&B we AO AHR DTH =|
€ C
the role of the judicial system in interpreting and rewriting the complaint as fact in its pleadings.
Accordingiy, Piaintiff has not observed the Court in its tentative ruling bothering to read or
acknowledge any of her amended complaint or memorandum filed on February 2, 2009, in its
automatic adoption of B&M’s order statement.
In its tentative ruling, the Court’s failure to note any of Plaintiff's amended complaint, in its
sole reliance on BEM its overwriting such factual information, is a great disappointment to Plaintiff
who paid high court filing fees and followed the rules investing enormous amounts of time in
preparing and researching her case. The Court has requested Plaintiff present information she has
already presented, because it relied solely on B&M’s information as pleadings of fact as it should not
have done under Code of Civil Procedure § 452. In requesting Plaintiff to do so much work in
presenting her limited jurisdiction case beyond the initial phase, the Court is being deliberately
burdensome in an attempt to wear down Plaintiff due to her pro per status. Accordingly, Plaintiff
suspects the Court will once again ignore her pleading because Plaintiff is not an attorney.
Notwithstanding the previous amended complaint pleading and memorandum, Plaintiff will
once again, in good faith as she did prior, present elements of the case under the first cause of action of
fraud, along with facts and justifiable reliance in hopes a conscious human being is willing to do their
job and read and acknowledge her pleadings in the lower Court system.
Il. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUD —- ELEMENTS AND APPLICABLE FACTS
Plaintiff hereby references her Pltf’s Memo of P & A’s in Opp. filed February 2, 2009, (p. 3,
line 4-7) providing general elements and supporting citations of Plaintiff's first cause of action
(1) misrepresentation e.g., false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure; (2) knowledge of
falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage.
1. First Element: Misrepresentation, Fraud, Concealment and Non-Disclosure
In her first amended complaint, Plaintiff presented numerous occurrences of Angelique
Breedlove’s (“Defendant Breedlove”) misrepresentations satisfying the first element of cause of action
including Defendant Breedlove’s multiple concealment of facts and promise of future hire. Defendant
Breedlove had no real authority to make such a specific promise of future hire to Plaintiff on behalf of
B&M (Amend. Comp. FR-4a $4 1, 3-7, 11-12, 18-19, 23-26, 28, 30).
-3-

PLTF'S SECOND AMEND, COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-481931

Page 6 bho
ow fs SN DAD HO He WW
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Cc C
Defendant Breedlove’s initial misrepresentation took place during Plaintiff's interview in early
May, 2065 in her inientional non-disciosure conceaiment of facts a former temporary was suii being
considered for hire in Plaintiff's position. Defendant Breedlove continued in long pattern of deceit
and intentional misrepresentations thereafter deriving pleasure from humiliating, scorning and abusing
Plaintiff as described herein in her irrational, unwarranted preference for Defendant Diana
Outmesguine (“Defendant Outmesguine”) (Amend. Comp. FR-4a G4 3-4, 5).
Thereafter, Plaintiff successfully performed her temp-to-perm position as Defendant Breedlove
further misrepresented to Plaintiff an alleged former employee had contacted B&M wanting Plaintiffs
job (Amend. Comp. FR-4a { 8). On the contrary, Defendant Breedlove had been contacting a former
temporary, Defendant Outmesguine, weekly and of her own volition outside the jurisdiction of the
former employment agency. In fact, just two weeks prior to Plaintiff's interview, Defendant
Outmesguine had even snubbed B&M’s job offer having chosen Morrison & Foerster LLP’s (Amend.
Comp. FR-4a { 6). Defendant Outmesguine disclosed to Plaintiff claiming Breedlove’s weekly
passionate pleas influenced her return to the position which displaced Plaintiff from hire after six
weeks (Amend. Comp. FR-4a J 7).
Defendant Breedlove continued to damage Plaintiff's professional image and future
employment opportunities at B&M ina pattern of intentional deceit and misrepresentations after
promising Plaintiff would ultimately be hired at B&M (Amend. Comp. FR-4a &f 8, 12, 18-22).
Defendant Breedlove went so far as to claim in early August, 2008 she had secured a position for
Plaintiff's hire in September, 2008. (Amend. Comp. FR-4a $f 12, 18) In fact, no such position nor any
other positions presented to Plaintiff, ever truly existed as was later admitted by Defendant Breedlove
without apology (Amend. Comp. FR-4a 4 25).
After her disclosure in September, 2008 a position in its corporate division no longer existed
for Plaintiff to be hired into, Defendant Breedlove preceded to set-up a false interview for another non-
existent position (Amend. Comp. FR-4a § 19). Shortly prior, Defendant Breedlove had also
interviewed Plaintiff in September, 2008 for a three month temporary assignment only for Plaintiff to
overhear a conversation one week prior to the start date such position would be filled in-house
(Amend. Comp. FR-4a $§ 23-24).
4.
PLTF’S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-481981

Page 7 to
Oo oo sS DA Ww HS WY
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C C
2. Second Element: Knowledge of Falsity
On Gciuber 22, 2008, Piainiiff confronted Defendant Breediove over her iaiesi deceptive
misrepresentation. Defendant Breedlove acknowledged unapologetically her pattern of deceit and all
positions dangled like carrots to induce Plaintiff to remain a temporary for B&M had never actually
been approved for lack of head count. (Amend. Comp. FR-4a § 25). Defendant Breedlove had
breached her duty to ensure her representation of future job openings, as described to Plaintiff, were
accurate and that she made promises only within her authority on behalf of B&M as respondeat
superior. Defendant Breedlove failed to act responsibly and, in doing so, deliberately misrepresented
future job openings to Plaintiff.
3. Third Element: Intent to Induce Reliance
Defendant Breedlove told Plaintiff after persuading Defendant Outmesgine to return to
Plaintiff's position, “we don’t want to lose you” to induce Plaintiff to remain in a low paying
temporary capacity for B&M for several months. Additionally, Plaintiff was used in the capacity to
perform Defendant Outmesguine’s job when she was unable to perform it efficiently on two occasions
(Amend. Comp. FR-42 q 14).
Defendant Breedlove knowingly induced reliance of Plaintiff to remain a temporary with
continual misrepresentation of future job openings. In doing so, respondeat superior B&M benefited
from Plaintiff's top notch legal services at low rates without incurring expenses from paying her
benefits, paid time off, and other amenities B&M employees enjoy. For instance, after so inducing
Plaintiff to remain a temporary employee, B&M requested Plaintiff to work on site at a trial and
requested she live at a hotel for 13 days in which she was severely underpaid for her work and long
hours (Amend. Comp. FR-5).
Plaintiff hereby references Pltf's Memo of P & A’s in Opp., (p. 3, line 13-26) with its
supporting citations. Accordingly, Plaintiff has properly conveyed inference of Defendant
Breedlove’s state of mind throughout the amended complaint denoting her irrational preference for
Diana Outmesguine (“Defendant Outmesguine”) (Amend. Comp. FR-4a {f 6-7, 11, 13-15), expressed
marital incompatibilities and frustrations with her wife (Amend. Comp. FR-4a © 9-10), and her
-5-

PLTF’S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-18198

Page 8 Bh
wo & NSN A ww BS WY
10
Il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C C
resulting enjoyment from continually devastating Plaintiff (Amend. Comp. FR-4a §§ 8, 12, 18-19, 24-
26).
After her disclosure in September, 2008 no position existed for Plaintiff to be hired into,
Defendant Breedlove proceeded to set-up a false interview for another non-existent position (Amend,
Comp. FR-4a § 19). Shortly prior, Defendant Breedlove had also interviewed Plaintiff in September,
2008 for a three month temporary assignment only for Plaintiff to overhear a conversation one week
prior to the start date such position would be filled in-house (Amend. Comp. FR-4a {§ 23-24). On
October 22, 2008, when Plaintiff confronted Defendant Breedlove over her latest misrepresentation,
Defendant Breedlove acknowledged her pattern of deceit and all positions dangled like carrots to
Plaintiff had never been approved for lack of head count (Amend. Comp. FR-4a 25).
4. Fourth Element: Justifiable Reliance
Based on Defendant Breedlove’s misrepresentation as stated in the first amended complaint,
Plaintiff justifiably relied on statements such as “we don’t want to lose you” along with Defendant
Breedlove’s promise of future hire at B&M.
Plaintiff's experience and skills in the legal field preclude her working in the capacity ofa long
term temporary employee at such a low wage. The very fact Plaintiff worked five months as a
temporary in such capacity as described herein, for $26 an hour, is evidence in itself of justifiable
reliance. Plaintiff has evidence of her previous wages, and the fact she has not made below $30 per
hour in the past 8 years. Plaintiff has also not been a long term temporary the past decade, being a
highly skilled seasoned legal support professional.
The sole reason Plaintiff worked as a long term temporary for B&M was due to Defendant
Breedlove’s claims Plaintiff would definitely be hired as a permanent employee and a position would
open up within a reasonable time frame. It is reasonable for Plaintiff to have relied on Defendant’s
misrepresentations as she had no reason at the time to believe Defendants B&M and Breedlove were
deliberately placing her in roles to induce emotional suffering from her continual deliberate
devastation. Plaintiff trusted Defendant Breedlove, acting in good faith, in having no reason to doubt
Defendant’s claim she would be employed at B&M.
-6-

PLTF’S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM, CGC-08-481981

Page 9 no
Oo fo SNS A UH S WwW
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

€ C
Notwithstanding Plaintiffs good faith efforts and trust of Defendants, a final validation made
by Defendant Bicediuve un Ociuber 22, 2009 confirmed Piaintiff had deliberately been continually
lied to and set-up with false hopes of future employment misrepresented to her. (Amend. Comp. FR-4a
25)
5. Fifth Element: Resulting Damages
Finally, in the fifth aforementioned element to the first cause of action of requirement of
damages, such reasonable reliance on Defendant’s misrepresentations caused Plaintiff to incur
material damages of lost wages (Amend. Comp. FR-6). The Court claims in its tentative ruling the
Plaintiff has not stated any economical damages. Hence, the Court has chosen to completely ignore
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (FR-6), and all related materials in accepting all statements by
Defendants as fact. The Plaintiff clearly stated economic damages (Amend Comp. FR-6) but will once
again present facts to the Court.
Plaintiff worked approximately 713 hours for B&M at an hourly rate far below her usual
salaried wage which had previously been $38 per hour, Plaintiff was paid $26 per hour at $12 per
hour below her former hour salary, and $18 per hour below her overtime salary. (Amend Comp. FR-
6) Approximate total loss of wages due to Defendant Breedlove’s inducement for Plaintiff to remain a
temporary employee by promising her a job was approximately $8,568.
Plaintiff's can provide evidence her average salary from 2004-2008 was between $34-38 per
hour of regular time pay. At Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Plaintiff's yearly salary after two years was
$61,600. At Chapman and Cutler in 2007, Plaintiff's salary was $38 per hour, In fact, Plaintiff has
not made below $30 per hour for over 8 years. In addition, all former employers since 1998 provided
Plaintiff with significant benefits, holiday pay Plaintiff was not offered as a temporary employee.
Moreover, B&M was not suffering from the current economic situation during any of the acts
described herein, having no financial issues whatsoever to justify denying Plaintiff with an applicable
wage and ultimate position for her induced work performance.
Plaintiff was so under paid in her temporary position at B&M, the last time she worked for
such a wage of $26 was over a decade ago outside of the legal industry as a retail merchant clerk.
Plaintiff has not been a long-term temporary in over a decade being steadily employed at major law
-7-
PLTF*S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-481981

Page 10 bo
Oo SS NSN DBD UH Bh Ww
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c C
firms, including Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Pillsbury Winthrop working long hours being firmly
ww Ve ae dn
plane aoa
ith a recent education.
TOTEssional Wit
Plaintiff has paid legal filing fees and spent enormous time preparing and researching her case
as a certified paralegal. Such material damages incurred in having to pay such legal fees are
approximately $60 per hour for 60 hours of Plaintiff's time for a total of $3,950. Defendants’
unscrupulous manipulation of the court system as stated herein, and most recent stunt claiming
Plaintiff has lost her case with no means of recourse, is a continuation of a pattem against Plaintiff as
described herein. Total damages sought by Plaintiff are thereby approximately $12,518 as Plaintiff
forfeits all medical claims for her therapist's bills based on the sustained demurrer for other causes of
action.
Tr. CONCLUSION
Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 452 a court is required to construe the complaint
liberally with a view to substantial justice between the parties. A general demurrer will not be
sustained unless the complaint, liberally construed, fails to state a cause of action on any theory.
Clearly, Plaintiff has presented all elements in the first cause of action of fraud under a legal theory as
stated in the aforementioned second amended complaint submitted hereof.
Due to Plaintiff acting in the capacity of pro per, Defendant B&M clearly wishes to undermine
Plaintiff's case as moot and irrelevant in order to further bully to the very end of this process. In doing
so, B&M has acted in the capacity of a sadistic, lying, vicious law firm willing to commit perjury and
cover up for its employees’ wrong doing to do whatever it can to deny Plaintiff as a hard working
native Californian and American citizen fair and legal access to the courts as described herein. In
doing so, B&M as a global based international firm, seeks in this case to take over the lower court of
the U.S, judicial system by doing the court system’s work for it through such manipulation as stated
herein.
Plaintiff reasserts the Court has not bothered to read her amended complaint or other pleadings,
allowing B&M to do its work for it because it simply has no significant time or resources to function
properly. Plaintiff acknowledges the State of California is in a crisis, however prior to accepting
-8-

PLTF'S SECOND AMEND, COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-481981

Page 11 2
Oo 8 SN DH UN FH WwW
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Cc C
enormous filing fees, pro per Plaintiffs need to be forewarned their case will be ignored in a court of
law by virtue of the nature of having iv atiumey representation.
Accordingly, as stated herein, Plaintiff requests the Court overrule Defendants’ Breedlove and
respondeat superior B&M’s demurrer as the First Cause of Action of Fraud.
Signed,
C90 phate
Cheryl Merrill
Plaintiff in Pro Per
Date: February 17, 2009
-9.
PLTF*S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-481981

Page 12 Frhihit & f

Page 13 Asla
Pacific
Bangkok
Bening
Han
Ho Chi Afinh Cry
Hong Kong
Jakarta
Kuala Lumpur
Manila
Methouine
Shanpha
Singapore
Syaney
Ta'pet
Tokyo
Europe &
Midcte East
Almaty
Amsterdam
Antwerp
Baran
Baku
Barcelona
Berlin
Bologna
Brussels
Budapest
Cao
Dusseldorf
Frankfurt / Main
Geneva
Kyty
London
Madd
Milan
Moscow
Munith
Paris
Prague
Riyadh
Rome
St. Petersburg
Stockholm
Vienna
Warsaw
Zunch
North & South
America
Bogola
Brasiia
Buenos Ares
Calgary
Caracas
Cnicago
Oatlas
Guadaiaqara
Houston
Juarez
Mexico Cay
Miami
Monterrey
New York
Palo Ano
Porto Alegre
Pig de Janerro
San Dego
Sao Francesco
Santiago
Sao Paulo
Tyuana
Toronta
Valent
Washington, DC
j
- a € Baker & McKenzie LLP
7.426 =e 1G AED) 660 Hansen Way
Palo Alto, California 94304-1044, USA
Tel: +1 650 R56 2400
Fax: +1 650 856 9299
www. bakernet.com
February 13, 2009 Jenni L. Field
Tel: +1 650 856 5501
1 Fax: +1 6
Cheryl Merrill ax: +1 650 856 9299
jenni. field @ bakemet.com
1245 California Street, #303
San Francisco, CA 94109
RE: Merrill v. Breedlove, et al., Case No. CGC-08-481981
Our File No.: 68999999-600048
Dear Ms. Merrill:
As you did not notify me today by 4:00 p.m. that you are contesting the Court's tentative
ruling sustaining Defendants’ demurrer, the Court will adopt its tentative ruling as its Order
pursuant to CAL. R. CT. 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8.3(E).
Accordingly, and pursuant to CAL. R. CT. 3.1312(a), Lenclose a copy of the “[Proposed]
Order Sustaining Demurrer To Plaintiff's Amended Complaint And Dismissing Second And
Third Causes Of Action With Prejudice” for your approval as to form only (i.e., not that you
agree with the Court’s ruling, but only whether you agree that it accurately reflects what the
Court ordered). You have five days to notify me as to whether or not the proposed order is
so approved.
Regards,
7 L. Field
JLF/rmr
ce: Jerry Salcido
PALDMS/386332,2
Baker & McKenzie LLP is a member of Baker & McKenzie International, a Swiss Verein.

PDF Page 1	PlainSite Cover Page

PDF Page 2	TARA se. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Feb-17-2009 9:56 am Case Number: CGC-08-481981 Filing Date: Feb-17-2009 9:54 Juke Box: 001 Image: 02403262 COMPLAINT CHERYL MERRILL VS. ANGELIQUE BREEDLOVE et al 001002403262 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

PDF Page 3	wo «eo nN A Ww F&F WY NY ho wm N WN NN NN NS S\| SF Se SUS SS OUCLCUsS mH PR RE BS fF SF BO warn Dw FWY NHN — ¥ ¥ FR we SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO LIMITED JURISDICTION CHERYL MERRILL, Case No.: CGC-08-481981 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED v. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESPONSE TO ANGELIQUE BREEDLOVE, DIANA DEFENDANTS’ TENTATIVE SUSTAINED OUTMESGUINE, BETH ELLIOTT AND DEMURRER BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP Defendants. Date: February 17, 2009 Time: 9:30 A.M. Dept. 301, The Hon. Peter Busch Complaint Filed November 18, 2008 . Rk by Dp Cheryl Merill Superiar Court of Califor: 1245 California Street, #303 County Han ie San Francisco, CA 94109 FEB 17 2009 Plaintiff in Pro Per GORDON PARK-LI, Cl By: Condy’ Salat, Ea, Deputy Clerk mr = PLTF’S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-48 1981 —— nen

PDF Page 4	ow oe TD A AH F&F WY NH wm N N NN =\| = =F EF FO SO SO PSO Um € C TABLE OF CONTENTS Page L INTRODUCTION .....ccsssesscssssssssecsssenssssscesesesscnseesssusacacossensuenensosnsssnsnsnensssntessonneseneorssssssnananeaeves 2 II. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUD - ELEMENTS AND APPLICABLE FACTS ............- 3 1. First Element: Misrepresentation, Fraud, Concealment and Non- DiSCIOSULE .....ssssscccserssserenssreneesrenes ssasvessaneeeees sesuenecennnsegeaeconssnseseeanenessarenes 3 2 Second Element: Knowledge of Falsity.........ssssssssssssneosssserersonseensssssssesenesseseeess 5 3. Third Element: Intent to Induce Reliance...........csssssssesssnsnenssreeeessnenenanarerseseneraes 5 4 Fourth Element: Justifiable Reliance.......sssessesseesenes 6 5. Fifth Element: Resulting Damages ........sssssssscssssssssesesencecsscsssaseusenenesanssaranseseaees 7 HI. =§ CONCLUSION... ecessssssssessstssccsessrsesseneencesnesananenes we ssnsesseansevenes 8 -i- PLTF'S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-481981

PDF Page 5	oOo 8 TD A WwW & YY KR = NN NN NON UN UNCON SS eS BS SF SEO eS Ol Sl eS lhl SS oy) TA UN bk YD HR = Oo DO eM ON ON lL Uh UNL UO C C I. INTRODUCTION Piaintiff is hereby responding to the Court’s leave to amend its tentative ruling sustaining Defendant’s Demurrer as to the First Cause of Action of Fraud of her First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff learned of such tentative ruling ona holiday, February 16th, 2009. Plaintiff was informed by Defendants in the form of a Fed Ex letter accusing her of missing the February 13th deadline to contest such tentative ruling. Plaintiff had been utilizing the Court’s on-line court filing docket list under her case number, to denote action in her case and was unaware of any tentative ruling. Furthermore, Plaintiff was never informed by the filing clerk or court system of any tentative ruling system in place prior to the hearing date, Defendants assert Plaintiff's lack of contesting the tentative ruling by such deadline of February 13th, automatically makes the Court’s order official in sustaining the demurrer. Plaintiff wishes to contest this unscrupulous activity on behalf of Defendants to deny her basic rights in this process as stated herein. Plaintiff should be allowed at least 10 days to amend her complaint as stated by the Court. Defendants claim Plaintiff has already missed the deadline only having 5 days to respond. (Exh. A). There is no indication the Court has read any of the Plaintiff's amended complaint in its inappropriately adopting as fact whatever statements are contained within Baker & McKenzie LLP’s (“B&M”) response pleadings. Plaintiff has also observed the Court’s tentative statement sustaining demurrer not bothering to read or acknowledge Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s Notice of Demurrer filed on February 2, 2009 (“Pitf's Memo of P & A’s in Opp.”). Such aforementioned memorandum included each required elements for the first cause of action of fraud as well as justifiable reliance and economic damages in referencing the first amended complaint, coupled with the applicable facts and supporting relevant citations. The Court appears to be ignoring all of Plaintiff's pleadings and amended complaint due to her appearing in pro per against a major law firm. The Court system was not meant to be a secret lawyers’ club available only for greedy attorneys, among others, to be manipulated for profit it has sadly become. As previously stated, Plaintiff is a recently Certified Paralegal in the State of California, as well as a Notary Public (Amend Compl, Exh A). Plaintiff has studied law, done her legal research and homework, paid the proper fees and followed the rules only for the Court to allow B&M to take over -2- PLTF*S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-481981

PDF Page 6	Oo oo ~~] an wv > fo Mm — N WN NY WN NH WH NH =\| =\| \| FF FO SFO ESESellOlUlUTESESllllUlelU BS RRR & Be SF S&B we AO AHR DTH =\| € C the role of the judicial system in interpreting and rewriting the complaint as fact in its pleadings. Accordingiy, Piaintiff has not observed the Court in its tentative ruling bothering to read or acknowledge any of her amended complaint or memorandum filed on February 2, 2009, in its automatic adoption of B&M’s order statement. In its tentative ruling, the Court’s failure to note any of Plaintiff's amended complaint, in its sole reliance on BEM its overwriting such factual information, is a great disappointment to Plaintiff who paid high court filing fees and followed the rules investing enormous amounts of time in preparing and researching her case. The Court has requested Plaintiff present information she has already presented, because it relied solely on B&M’s information as pleadings of fact as it should not have done under Code of Civil Procedure § 452. In requesting Plaintiff to do so much work in presenting her limited jurisdiction case beyond the initial phase, the Court is being deliberately burdensome in an attempt to wear down Plaintiff due to her pro per status. Accordingly, Plaintiff suspects the Court will once again ignore her pleading because Plaintiff is not an attorney. Notwithstanding the previous amended complaint pleading and memorandum, Plaintiff will once again, in good faith as she did prior, present elements of the case under the first cause of action of fraud, along with facts and justifiable reliance in hopes a conscious human being is willing to do their job and read and acknowledge her pleadings in the lower Court system. Il. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUD —- ELEMENTS AND APPLICABLE FACTS Plaintiff hereby references her Pltf’s Memo of P & A’s in Opp. filed February 2, 2009, (p. 3, line 4-7) providing general elements and supporting citations of Plaintiff's first cause of action (1) misrepresentation e.g., false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. 1. First Element: Misrepresentation, Fraud, Concealment and Non-Disclosure In her first amended complaint, Plaintiff presented numerous occurrences of Angelique Breedlove’s (“Defendant Breedlove”) misrepresentations satisfying the first element of cause of action including Defendant Breedlove’s multiple concealment of facts and promise of future hire. Defendant Breedlove had no real authority to make such a specific promise of future hire to Plaintiff on behalf of B&M (Amend. Comp. FR-4a $4 1, 3-7, 11-12, 18-19, 23-26, 28, 30). -3- PLTF'S SECOND AMEND, COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-481931

PDF Page 7	bho ow fs SN DAD HO He WW 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cc C Defendant Breedlove’s initial misrepresentation took place during Plaintiff's interview in early May, 2065 in her inientional non-disciosure conceaiment of facts a former temporary was suii being considered for hire in Plaintiff's position. Defendant Breedlove continued in long pattern of deceit and intentional misrepresentations thereafter deriving pleasure from humiliating, scorning and abusing Plaintiff as described herein in her irrational, unwarranted preference for Defendant Diana Outmesguine (“Defendant Outmesguine”) (Amend. Comp. FR-4a G4 3-4, 5). Thereafter, Plaintiff successfully performed her temp-to-perm position as Defendant Breedlove further misrepresented to Plaintiff an alleged former employee had contacted B&M wanting Plaintiffs job (Amend. Comp. FR-4a { 8). On the contrary, Defendant Breedlove had been contacting a former temporary, Defendant Outmesguine, weekly and of her own volition outside the jurisdiction of the former employment agency. In fact, just two weeks prior to Plaintiff's interview, Defendant Outmesguine had even snubbed B&M’s job offer having chosen Morrison & Foerster LLP’s (Amend. Comp. FR-4a { 6). Defendant Outmesguine disclosed to Plaintiff claiming Breedlove’s weekly passionate pleas influenced her return to the position which displaced Plaintiff from hire after six weeks (Amend. Comp. FR-4a J 7). Defendant Breedlove continued to damage Plaintiff's professional image and future employment opportunities at B&M ina pattern of intentional deceit and misrepresentations after promising Plaintiff would ultimately be hired at B&M (Amend. Comp. FR-4a &f 8, 12, 18-22). Defendant Breedlove went so far as to claim in early August, 2008 she had secured a position for Plaintiff's hire in September, 2008. (Amend. Comp. FR-4a $f 12, 18) In fact, no such position nor any other positions presented to Plaintiff, ever truly existed as was later admitted by Defendant Breedlove without apology (Amend. Comp. FR-4a 4 25). After her disclosure in September, 2008 a position in its corporate division no longer existed for Plaintiff to be hired into, Defendant Breedlove preceded to set-up a false interview for another non- existent position (Amend. Comp. FR-4a § 19). Shortly prior, Defendant Breedlove had also interviewed Plaintiff in September, 2008 for a three month temporary assignment only for Plaintiff to overhear a conversation one week prior to the start date such position would be filled in-house (Amend. Comp. FR-4a $§ 23-24). 4. PLTF’S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-481981

PDF Page 8	to Oo oo sS DA Ww HS WY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C C 2. Second Element: Knowledge of Falsity On Gciuber 22, 2008, Piainiiff confronted Defendant Breediove over her iaiesi deceptive misrepresentation. Defendant Breedlove acknowledged unapologetically her pattern of deceit and all positions dangled like carrots to induce Plaintiff to remain a temporary for B&M had never actually been approved for lack of head count. (Amend. Comp. FR-4a § 25). Defendant Breedlove had breached her duty to ensure her representation of future job openings, as described to Plaintiff, were accurate and that she made promises only within her authority on behalf of B&M as respondeat superior. Defendant Breedlove failed to act responsibly and, in doing so, deliberately misrepresented future job openings to Plaintiff. 3. Third Element: Intent to Induce Reliance Defendant Breedlove told Plaintiff after persuading Defendant Outmesgine to return to Plaintiff's position, “we don’t want to lose you” to induce Plaintiff to remain in a low paying temporary capacity for B&M for several months. Additionally, Plaintiff was used in the capacity to perform Defendant Outmesguine’s job when she was unable to perform it efficiently on two occasions (Amend. Comp. FR-42 q 14). Defendant Breedlove knowingly induced reliance of Plaintiff to remain a temporary with continual misrepresentation of future job openings. In doing so, respondeat superior B&M benefited from Plaintiff's top notch legal services at low rates without incurring expenses from paying her benefits, paid time off, and other amenities B&M employees enjoy. For instance, after so inducing Plaintiff to remain a temporary employee, B&M requested Plaintiff to work on site at a trial and requested she live at a hotel for 13 days in which she was severely underpaid for her work and long hours (Amend. Comp. FR-5). Plaintiff hereby references Pltf's Memo of P & A’s in Opp., (p. 3, line 13-26) with its supporting citations. Accordingly, Plaintiff has properly conveyed inference of Defendant Breedlove’s state of mind throughout the amended complaint denoting her irrational preference for Diana Outmesguine (“Defendant Outmesguine”) (Amend. Comp. FR-4a {f 6-7, 11, 13-15), expressed marital incompatibilities and frustrations with her wife (Amend. Comp. FR-4a © 9-10), and her -5- PLTF’S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-18198

PDF Page 9	Bh wo & NSN A ww BS WY 10 Il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C C resulting enjoyment from continually devastating Plaintiff (Amend. Comp. FR-4a §§ 8, 12, 18-19, 24- 26). After her disclosure in September, 2008 no position existed for Plaintiff to be hired into, Defendant Breedlove proceeded to set-up a false interview for another non-existent position (Amend, Comp. FR-4a § 19). Shortly prior, Defendant Breedlove had also interviewed Plaintiff in September, 2008 for a three month temporary assignment only for Plaintiff to overhear a conversation one week prior to the start date such position would be filled in-house (Amend. Comp. FR-4a {§ 23-24). On October 22, 2008, when Plaintiff confronted Defendant Breedlove over her latest misrepresentation, Defendant Breedlove acknowledged her pattern of deceit and all positions dangled like carrots to Plaintiff had never been approved for lack of head count (Amend. Comp. FR-4a 25). 4. Fourth Element: Justifiable Reliance Based on Defendant Breedlove’s misrepresentation as stated in the first amended complaint, Plaintiff justifiably relied on statements such as “we don’t want to lose you” along with Defendant Breedlove’s promise of future hire at B&M. Plaintiff's experience and skills in the legal field preclude her working in the capacity ofa long term temporary employee at such a low wage. The very fact Plaintiff worked five months as a temporary in such capacity as described herein, for $26 an hour, is evidence in itself of justifiable reliance. Plaintiff has evidence of her previous wages, and the fact she has not made below $30 per hour in the past 8 years. Plaintiff has also not been a long term temporary the past decade, being a highly skilled seasoned legal support professional. The sole reason Plaintiff worked as a long term temporary for B&M was due to Defendant Breedlove’s claims Plaintiff would definitely be hired as a permanent employee and a position would open up within a reasonable time frame. It is reasonable for Plaintiff to have relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations as she had no reason at the time to believe Defendants B&M and Breedlove were deliberately placing her in roles to induce emotional suffering from her continual deliberate devastation. Plaintiff trusted Defendant Breedlove, acting in good faith, in having no reason to doubt Defendant’s claim she would be employed at B&M. -6- PLTF’S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM, CGC-08-481981

PDF Page 10	no Oo fo SNS A UH S WwW 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 € C Notwithstanding Plaintiffs good faith efforts and trust of Defendants, a final validation made by Defendant Bicediuve un Ociuber 22, 2009 confirmed Piaintiff had deliberately been continually lied to and set-up with false hopes of future employment misrepresented to her. (Amend. Comp. FR-4a 25) 5. Fifth Element: Resulting Damages Finally, in the fifth aforementioned element to the first cause of action of requirement of damages, such reasonable reliance on Defendant’s misrepresentations caused Plaintiff to incur material damages of lost wages (Amend. Comp. FR-6). The Court claims in its tentative ruling the Plaintiff has not stated any economical damages. Hence, the Court has chosen to completely ignore Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (FR-6), and all related materials in accepting all statements by Defendants as fact. The Plaintiff clearly stated economic damages (Amend Comp. FR-6) but will once again present facts to the Court. Plaintiff worked approximately 713 hours for B&M at an hourly rate far below her usual salaried wage which had previously been $38 per hour, Plaintiff was paid $26 per hour at $12 per hour below her former hour salary, and $18 per hour below her overtime salary. (Amend Comp. FR- 6) Approximate total loss of wages due to Defendant Breedlove’s inducement for Plaintiff to remain a temporary employee by promising her a job was approximately $8,568. Plaintiff's can provide evidence her average salary from 2004-2008 was between $34-38 per hour of regular time pay. At Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Plaintiff's yearly salary after two years was $61,600. At Chapman and Cutler in 2007, Plaintiff's salary was $38 per hour, In fact, Plaintiff has not made below $30 per hour for over 8 years. In addition, all former employers since 1998 provided Plaintiff with significant benefits, holiday pay Plaintiff was not offered as a temporary employee. Moreover, B&M was not suffering from the current economic situation during any of the acts described herein, having no financial issues whatsoever to justify denying Plaintiff with an applicable wage and ultimate position for her induced work performance. Plaintiff was so under paid in her temporary position at B&M, the last time she worked for such a wage of $26 was over a decade ago outside of the legal industry as a retail merchant clerk. Plaintiff has not been a long-term temporary in over a decade being steadily employed at major law -7- PLTF*S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-481981

PDF Page 11	bo Oo SS NSN DBD UH Bh Ww 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c C firms, including Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Pillsbury Winthrop working long hours being firmly ww Ve ae dn plane aoa ith a recent education. TOTEssional Wit Plaintiff has paid legal filing fees and spent enormous time preparing and researching her case as a certified paralegal. Such material damages incurred in having to pay such legal fees are approximately $60 per hour for 60 hours of Plaintiff's time for a total of $3,950. Defendants’ unscrupulous manipulation of the court system as stated herein, and most recent stunt claiming Plaintiff has lost her case with no means of recourse, is a continuation of a pattem against Plaintiff as described herein. Total damages sought by Plaintiff are thereby approximately $12,518 as Plaintiff forfeits all medical claims for her therapist's bills based on the sustained demurrer for other causes of action. Tr. CONCLUSION Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 452 a court is required to construe the complaint liberally with a view to substantial justice between the parties. A general demurrer will not be sustained unless the complaint, liberally construed, fails to state a cause of action on any theory. Clearly, Plaintiff has presented all elements in the first cause of action of fraud under a legal theory as stated in the aforementioned second amended complaint submitted hereof. Due to Plaintiff acting in the capacity of pro per, Defendant B&M clearly wishes to undermine Plaintiff's case as moot and irrelevant in order to further bully to the very end of this process. In doing so, B&M has acted in the capacity of a sadistic, lying, vicious law firm willing to commit perjury and cover up for its employees’ wrong doing to do whatever it can to deny Plaintiff as a hard working native Californian and American citizen fair and legal access to the courts as described herein. In doing so, B&M as a global based international firm, seeks in this case to take over the lower court of the U.S, judicial system by doing the court system’s work for it through such manipulation as stated herein. Plaintiff reasserts the Court has not bothered to read her amended complaint or other pleadings, allowing B&M to do its work for it because it simply has no significant time or resources to function properly. Plaintiff acknowledges the State of California is in a crisis, however prior to accepting -8- PLTF'S SECOND AMEND, COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-481981

PDF Page 12	2 Oo 8 SN DH UN FH WwW 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cc C enormous filing fees, pro per Plaintiffs need to be forewarned their case will be ignored in a court of law by virtue of the nature of having iv atiumey representation. Accordingly, as stated herein, Plaintiff requests the Court overrule Defendants’ Breedlove and respondeat superior B&M’s demurrer as the First Cause of Action of Fraud. Signed, C90 phate Cheryl Merrill Plaintiff in Pro Per Date: February 17, 2009 -9. PLTF*S SECOND AMEND. COMPLAINT FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF FRAUD IN RESP. TO DEFS DEM. CGC-08-481981

PDF Page 13	Frhihit & f

PDF Page 14	Asla Pacific Bangkok Bening Han Ho Chi Afinh Cry Hong Kong Jakarta Kuala Lumpur Manila Methouine Shanpha Singapore Syaney Ta'pet Tokyo Europe & Midcte East Almaty Amsterdam Antwerp Baran Baku Barcelona Berlin Bologna Brussels Budapest Cao Dusseldorf Frankfurt / Main Geneva Kyty London Madd Milan Moscow Munith Paris Prague Riyadh Rome St. Petersburg Stockholm Vienna Warsaw Zunch North & South America Bogola Brasiia Buenos Ares Calgary Caracas Cnicago Oatlas Guadaiaqara Houston Juarez Mexico Cay Miami Monterrey New York Palo Ano Porto Alegre Pig de Janerro San Dego Sao Francesco Santiago Sao Paulo Tyuana Toronta Valent Washington, DC j - a € Baker & McKenzie LLP 7.426 =e 1G AED) 660 Hansen Way Palo Alto, California 94304-1044, USA Tel: +1 650 R56 2400 Fax: +1 650 856 9299 www. bakernet.com February 13, 2009 Jenni L. Field Tel: +1 650 856 5501 1 Fax: +1 6 Cheryl Merrill ax: +1 650 856 9299 jenni. field @ bakemet.com 1245 California Street, #303 San Francisco, CA 94109 RE: Merrill v. Breedlove, et al., Case No. CGC-08-481981 Our File No.: 68999999-600048 Dear Ms. Merrill: As you did not notify me today by 4:00 p.m. that you are contesting the Court's tentative ruling sustaining Defendants’ demurrer, the Court will adopt its tentative ruling as its Order pursuant to CAL. R. CT. 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8.3(E). Accordingly, and pursuant to CAL. R. CT. 3.1312(a), Lenclose a copy of the “[Proposed] Order Sustaining Demurrer To Plaintiff's Amended Complaint And Dismissing Second And Third Causes Of Action With Prejudice” for your approval as to form only (i.e., not that you agree with the Court’s ruling, but only whether you agree that it accurately reflects what the Court ordered). You have five days to notify me as to whether or not the proposed order is so approved. Regards, 7 L. Field JLF/rmr ce: Jerry Salcido PALDMS/386332,2 Baker & McKenzie LLP is a member of Baker & McKenzie International, a Swiss Verein.


Issues	Laws	Cases	Pro	News	Firms	Entities