Fraud, Complaint Filed By Plaintiff
Merrill, Cheryl
As To Defendant
Breedlove, Angelique
Outmesguine, Diana
Elliott, Beth
Baker & Mckenzie Llp
Does 1 To 5
No Summons Issued, Judicial Council Civil Case Cover Sheet Filed
Case Management Conference Scheduled For Mar-20-2009
Proof Of Service Due On Jan-20-2009
Case Management Statement Due On Mar-05-2009
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
CHERYL MERRILL VS. ANGELIQUE BREEDLOVE et al
001002319344
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Page 2 ¢ - ,
CM-010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address}: FOR C &
Cheryl Merrill Er i E Pp
sen i Ae, Court
1245 California Street, #303
San Francisco, CA 94109
qecepnone wo: 415-409-2069 FAXNO,:
aTrorNey FoR (ere) Pro Per NOV 1.8 2008
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, couNTY CF San Francisco
sreeeT anoress: 40) McAllister Street GOR ON PARICL!, Clerk
MAILING ADORESS: . | ON’
erry anoze cove: San Francisco 94102 BY: Clerk
BRANCH NAME:
CASE NAME:
Cheryl Merrill v. Angelique Breedtove, ct al.
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER’ -
CJ aroun (mount [-] counter [_] Joinder ¢ G — 0 8 4 8 i ? 8 1
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant JUOGE:
exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:
items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
1. Chack one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionatty Complex Civil Litigation
Auto (22) [__] Breach of contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
Uninsured motorist (46) [_] Rule 3.740 collections (09) [J anttrust/Trade regulation (03}
Other PUPDIWD (Personal InjuryiProperty L_]_ Other collections (09) (__] construction defect (10)
Damage/Wrongfut Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) Cj Mass tort (40)
[] Asbestos (04) [J other contract (37) [_] securities litigation (28)
[_] Product tiabitity (24) Real Property LJ Environmentat/Toxic tort (30)
[__] Medical matpractice (45) [J Eminent domain/inverse (__] insurance coverage claims arising from the
[_] other PuPOAWD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case
Non-PUPOMWD (Other) Tort LE] wrongful eviction (33) types (41)
Business tortfunfair business practice (07) [1] Otver reat property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
Civil rights (08} Unlawful Detainer [__] Enforcement of Judgment (20)
[__]} Defamation (13) [_} Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
Fraud (16) {__] Residential (32) (—} rico 7)
[1 intelectual property (19) [J pugs (38) Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
L_] Professional negtigence (25) Judiclal Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Other non-PUPDIWD tort (35) . Asset forfetture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Fo wrong ; Petition re: arbitration award (11) CJ Other petition (not specified above) (43)
Wrongful termination (36) [__] wat of mandate (02)
[__]_ Other employment (15) [_] other pudicial review (39)
oah we
| Thiscase L_Jis isnot complex under rule 3.400 of the Califomia Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management.
a. Cj Large number of separately represented parties d. CI Large number of witnesses
b. L_] Extensive motion practice raising difficult ornovel @. [__] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
c. | Substantial amount of documentary evidence t. _] Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
_ Remedies sought (check all that apply): a] monetary b.[_] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief. (__] punitive
Number of causes of action (specify): Fraud, Assault, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
. This case CI is isnot actass action suit.
. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.)
Date: V4 {13/08
Cheryl Merrill > ( Q e Nn paw KA
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY)
NOTICE
e Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code), (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
in sanctions.
® File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rute,
« If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the Catifornia Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding,
® Untess this Is a collections case under rufa 3.740 of a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. sora
age
Form Adopted for Mendmory Use : CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Ca. Rass ot Cot at dak 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740,
Judioad Admineirebon, aid. 3.10
wrew courhinte.ca go
Amancan LegalNet, let,
wrens. Forma Work#low.com
CM.010 [Rav. Juty 1, 2007]Page 3 PLD-PI-O01
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Ber number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
— Cheryl Merrill
1245 California Street, #303
San Francisco, CA 94109
TeLepHone No: 415-409-2069 FAX NO. (Oppons: F i sD.
EMA ADORESS (Opoonal} San Francisco Coury Su
ATTORNEY FOR (Name? Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco NOV 1 8 2008
strcetaporess: 400 McAllister Street
MAKING ADDRESS: x terk
cm n0 26 Oem: San Francisco 94102 ein i iP _
PLAINTIFF: Cheryl Mermill
DEFENDANT: Angelique Breedlove, Diana Outmesguine, Beth EtRgn IMAGEN) CONFERENCESET
and Baker & McKenzie LLP
ors 170 5 MAR 20 2009 -184AM
COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death —
(_] AMENDED (Number): 5
Type (check all that apply): DEPARTMENT 12
([_] MOTOR VEHICLE OTHER (specify): Fraud, Assault, Inflict. Emo.
(] Property Damage [_] Wrongful Death
{__] Personal Injury [__] Other Damages (specify):
Jurisdiction (check alf that apply): CASE NUMBER:
ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE
Amount demanded [(_] does not exceed $10,000
exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $25,000
[__] ACTION TS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000)
[_] ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint ¢ Gic- 0 8 - 4 81 9 8 1
C_] from limited to unlimited
[__] from unlimited to limited
4. Plaintiff (name or names): Chery! Merrill
alleges causes of action against defendant (nama or names):
Angelique Breedlove, Diana Outmesguine, Beth Eltiott, Baker & McKenzie LLP and Does 1-5
2. This pleading, including atlachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: 8
3. Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult
a. [] except plaintiff (name):
(1) (_] a corporation qualified to do business in California
(2) [_] an unincorporated entity (describe):
(3) [_] a public entity (describe):
(4) [] aminor [J an adutt
(a) [__] for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
(>) (_] other (specify):
(5) [_] other (specify):
b. [_] except plaintiff (name):
(1) [2] a corporation qualified to do business in California
(2} {__] an unincorporated entity (describe):
(3) [__] a public entity (describe):
(4) L__] aminor ((_] anadultt
(a) ((_] for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
(b) [_] other (specify):
(5) (_] other (specify):
(J information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3. Page tof
rina saneewetaerhediad COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Coss of Crud Procecurs. § oom
PLO-PLO01 (Rav. January 4, 2007] Damage, Wrongful Death
Amencan LegalNet, bnc.
swears: F orn Work figur Com!Page 4 PLD-P1-001
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
Merrill v. Breedlove, ct al.
10. The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to gach (each complaint must have one or more
causes of action attached):
. [C) Motor Vehicle
. £0) General Negligence
. Intentional Tort
. (] Products Liability
Premises Liability
Other (specify):
Fraud, Assault, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
ago.
=o a
41, Plaintiff has suffered
. wage loss
. _[—) loss of use of property
. hospital and medical expenses
. [_] general damage
. [J property damage
loss of eaming capacity
. other damage (specify):
Court filing fees and legal papers preparation.
eanogra
‘io ™
12, [_] The damages claimed for wrongful death and the relationships of plaintiff to the deceased are
a. [__] listed in Attachment 12.
b. [__] as follows:
13. The relief sought in this compiaint is within the jurisdiction of this court.
14, Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for
a, (1) compensatory damages
(2) [__] punitive damages
The amount of damages Is (in cases for personal injury or wrongful death, you must check (1):
(1) according to proof
(2) [__] in the amount of: $
45. [_] The paragraphs of this complaint alleged on information and belief are as foliows (specify paragraph numbers):
Date: 1 | IN , 2008
Cheryl Merrill » ex ¢ M seal.
{TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY}
PLD-PI-O01 {Rev, January 1, 2007) COMPLAINT—Personal injury, Property Page cots
Damage, Wrongful DeathPage 5 PLD-C-001(3)
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
Merrill v. Breedlove, et al.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—Fraud
(number)
FR-4, Promise Without Intent to Perform
a. Defendant made a promise about a material matter without any intention of performing it as stated
in Attachment FR-4.a [[_) as follows:
b. Defendant's promise without any intention of performance was made with the intent to defraud and induce
plaintiff fo rety upon it and to act as described in item FR-5. At the time plaintiff acted, plaintiff was unaware of
defendant's intention nol to perform the promise. Plaintiff acted in justifiable reliance upon the promise.
FR-5. In justifiable reliance upon defendant's conduct, plaintiff was Induced to act (__] as stated In Atachment FR-5
[J as follows:
Plaintiff was induced to act in the capacity as a temporary employee and to remain available for
future permanent positions at Baker & Mckenzie LLP. Plaintiff worked at a multimillion dollar trial
against the IRS located at a hotel in which she was asked to stay 10 days away from home,
participated in special projects, worked on the night shift, weekend shift, as well as filling in for
vacations and leave of absences. Plaintiff invested 714 regular hours and 33 overtime hours to
obtain a permanent position.
FR-6. Because of plaintiff's reliance upon defendant's conduct, plaintiff has been damaged [1] as stated in
Attachment FR- 6 as follows:
Plaintiff incurred material damages after working for $26 per hour at $12 per hour below her last
permanent salaried wage of $38 per hour regular time and for the associated unpaid overtime wages
of $18 per hour. Plaintiff also suffered loss of medical benefits and 401k tax relief deductions,
Plaintiff's professional image was damaged from prolonged work as a temporary employee, as was
her resume adversely affected for future job considerations.
FIR-7. Other.
Page 4
PLO-C-001(3) (Rev. January 1. 2007 CAUSE OF ACTION—Fraud Page 2 of 2Page 6 ATTACHMENT FR-4.a. Page 5
In May, 2008, Defendant Angelique Breedlove (“Breedlove”), acting in the capacity of
secretarial coordinator for Defendant Baker & McKenzie LLP (“B&M”), interviewed Plaintiff
for a permanent legal secretary position stating she would obtain a job after a four week
evaluation period as the common method B&M used for hiring support staff. Plaintiff agreed to
the initial offer and was provided on May 12, 2008 with an all day new employee orientation.
Plaintiff successfully performed her new job four weeks.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Breedlove had been courting Defendant Diana Outmesguine
(“Outmesguine”), prior to and during Plaintiff's occupying the position. Outmesguine was a
former temporary of five weeks previous who had rejected B&M’s job offer in favor of Morrison
& Foerster LLP’s. Due to Breedlove’s weekly persistence and passionate claims that her
attorneys “missed her,” Ms. Outmesguine returned after six weeks to reclaim Plaintiff's position
thereby displacing her from hire.
On June 12, 2008, Breedlove fraudulently informed Plaintiff'a former employee had
contacted B&M wanting her job and, though it was a tough decision, they decided to hire
Outmesguine. Breedlove, fully aware of the devastation she had caused to Plaintiff with her
deception and misrepresentation, told Plaintiff “we don’t want to lose you” while stating there
would be future job openings she would be at the top of her list considered for. Breedlove
promised Plaintiff would definitely be hired at the firm and offered to keep her working steadily
in a temporary capacity to induce Plaintiff to remain available to B&M.
Breedlove continued to devastate Plaintiff from June 16, 2008 thru October 22, 2008 ina
pattern of misrepresentations under the same nature of previous deception in a vicious display of
burning Plaintiff. Breedlove would typically get Plaintiff excited over a job opening even going
so far as saying a September 2008 position was reserved for her having been approved of by a
superior. After waiting two months, though Plaintiff had repeatedly confirmed the position was
hers, Breedlove casually pulled the rug one day claiming the position would be used to filla
secretarial demotion. Unsympathetic for the devastation her misrepresentation caused Plaintiff,Page 7 Page 6
Breedlove provided the excuse of such changes being the “Baker way.” In fact, no such
demotion had ever materialized.
Breedlove’s cruel deceptive tactics began to show a significant desperation in her wanting
to climax devastating Plaintiff. After a series of her misrepresentations, including a false
interview arrangement for a non-existent position, Breedlove began to setup Plaintiff with
misrepresentations of future long-term temporary assignments. On October 16, 2008, Breedlove
reconfirmed a three month matemity leave position from November to February 2009 Plaintiff
had interviewed for in September was still hers. On October 22, 2008, Plaintiff overheard a part-
time employee’s conversation she was going to be working in the Plaintiff's temporary
assignment.
On October 22, 2008, Breedlove confirmed Plaintiff would not be provided the long-term
temporary maternity leave position and none would be offered but for one week in late
December 2008. Breedlove stated no openings were slated the rest of year. Breedlove also
confirmed all of the positions dangled like carrots to Plaintiff had never existed as B&M’s main
hiring authority never approved them. Breedlove said she was recently asked by B&M’s main
office “what are you doing?” in that no necessary head count existed in the corporate division to
hire a new legal secretary. Plaintiff had been working temporary assignments at B&M and
remaining available based on Breedlove’s illusory offers of permanent openings she had been
assured of obtaining.
In the October 22, 2008 meeting, Breedlove’s demeanor was cold, aloof and
unsympathetic towards Plaintiff’s extreme efforts to obtain a permanent position after having
relied upon misrepresentations. Breedlove affirmed with her continual actions and
communications she had never intended on hiring Plaintiff. While having induced Plaintiff to
remain available to B&M, Breedlove had enjoyed continually devastating and burning Plaintiff
in her lesbian conquest power game. Under the ordinary rules of Respondeat Superior,
Baker & McKenzie LLP is responsible for an extreme lack of supervision of its newly promoted
human resource management employee Breedlove.Page 8 c ; |
PLD-P1-001(3)
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER
Merrill v. Breedlove, et al.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—Intentional Tort Page 7
(number)
ATTACHMENT TO Complaint [_] Cross - Complaint
(Use 6 separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)
T-1. Plaintiff (rame): Cheryl Merrill
alteges that defendant (name): Beth Elliott and Baker & McKenzie LLP
Does | to 2
was the tegat (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. By the following acts or omissions to act, defendant intentionally
caused the damage to plaintiff
on (dateyAugust, 2008
at (place):Baker & McKenzie LLP (San Francisco Office)
(description of reasons for fability):
1. During Plaintiff's professional communications with legal secretary Sharon Royce ("Royce"),
Defendant Beth Elliott ("Elliott") approached Plaintiff from behind placing her two fingers directly
behind Plaintiff's head in a childish prank of miming devil's horns. Plaintiff remained unaware of
Eltiott's presence until Royce had a shocked look on her face while motioning to Plaintiff of
something happening behind her. Plaintiff was momentarily frightened for her safety in finding
Elliott, whom she had since discontinued personally based communications, invading her personal
space with a humiliating aggressive act. Plaintiff did not find Elliott's assault amusing, asking her
what she was doing. After Elliott left, Plaintiff was upset and told Royce she wanted to report
Elliott's childish conduct to management. Royce discouraged Plaintiff from reporting the assault to
management suggesting other employees would attend to the matter. Plaintiff disclosed to Royce the
unbalanced nature of Elliott's former conversations in disclosing her personal lesbian relationship
problems. Plaintiff had found such disclosure by Elliott disturbing and unprofessional.
2. The following day after Elliott's assault, Plaintiff was once again having a professional
conversation with Ms. Royce, Elliott mimed being hung with a rope and noose around her neck as
she walked behind Plaintiff. Ms. Royce, visibly shocked by what she witnessed, demonstrated for
Plaintiff the hand motions of Elliott pulling up on a rope from her neck. Due to Elliott's previous
aggressive assault, Plaintiff once again feared for safety taking it as a threat towards herself. Plaintiff
found Ms. Elliott's behavior disturbing and one that required the support of a mental health
professional. Ms. Royce discouraged Plaintiff from reporting Elliott's unprofessional childish
conduct to management.
Under the ordinary rules of Respondeat Superior, Baker & McKenzie LLP is responsible for the
extreme lack of supervision of its unprofessional defendant Elliott employee's assault, disturbing
conduct and behavior.
Page 1 of 1
Fo Approved for Opbanal Use CAUSE OF ACTION-Intentional Tort Costa of Cnt Procedure, § 425.12
PLD-P1-001(3) (Rev. January 1, 2007]
American LegaiNet, Inc,
were. Forms Workfcw.cOomPage 9 c — g
PLD-P1-004(3)
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER
Merrill v. Breedlove, ct al.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION—intentional Tort Page 8
(number)
ATTACHMENT TO Complaint [_] cross - Complaint
(Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)
1T-1. Plaintiff (name): Chery] Merrill
alleges that defendant (name): Angelique Breedlove, Diana Outmesguine, Beth Elliott, Baker & McKenzie
[+] Does 1 to 3
was the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. By the following acts or omissions to act, defendant intentionally
caused the damage to plaintiff
on (date): 5/12/08-10/22/08
at (place): Baker & Mckenzie LLP (San Francisco Office)
(description of reasons for liability):
1, Defendant Angetique Breedlove ("Breedlove") deliberately sought to devastate and traumatize
Plaintiff using deception, misrepresentations, false promises and red herring tactics in simulating role
playing of her lesbian pursuits and conquests during Plaintiff's efforts to obtain a position,
Breedlove's deceptive activities in contacting Defendant Diana Outmesguine ("Outmesguine")
weekly after she had turned down a job offer in preference for Morrison & Foerster LLP, caused her
to return to Plaintiff's position to displace her from being hired. Breedlove continued a pattern of
misrepresentations and promises cloaked in the appearance of good intentions in her claim of not
wanting to lose Plaintiff, when in reality there was no real intent to hire her. Breedlove enjoyed
continually devastating Plaintiff in her fantastical rote playing games simulating Plaintiff as her
scorned lesbian lover in her preference for Outmesguine. Breedlove cruelly misrepresented
positions for Plaintiff in illusory musical chair games, one having been absolutely promised as
secured and reserved for Plaintiff in early September, 2008. Defendant excused Plaintiffs continual
devastation in denying her ultimate job opportunities as being "the Baker Way.” 2. In August, 2008
Outmesguine, under skilled in legal word processing, relied on Plaintiff's skills to complete an urgent
attomey request. Outmesguine pressured Plaintiff into performing non-reciprocal favors including
a) getting her lunch so she could enjoy a massage from her chiropractor, and b) on August 22, 2008
performing her job tasks so she could attend a firm party. Outmesguine bragged to Plaintiff about all
the great support she received after displacing her from hire, bragged about having received a $100
cash donation from Sharon Royce and a $350 loan from another employee. Outmesguine continually
wore her special treatment on her sleeve to Plaintiff's great distress, including the firm's tolerance for
her week Jong absences, pattern of lateness and Breedlove's disclosure of how greatly loved and
missed Outmesguine was by her attorneys. Defendant Baker & McKenzie is responsible under
ordinary rules of Respondeat Superior for its defendant employees’ outrageous and extreme conduct.
As a direct result of defendants' extreme and outragcous acts, including assault by defendant Elliott in
the Second Cause of Action restated herein, Plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress.
Page tof?
Form Approved or Optional Joa CAUSE OF ACTION-Intentiona! Tort Code of Cr Proce. aor
PLO-F1-001(3) [Rev, January 1, 2007]
American LegalNet, lac.
werw. Fores Workfiow. com |
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
EMAL
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Nov-18-2008 11:05 am
Case Number: CGC-08-481981
Filing Date: Nov-18-2008 10:57
Juke Box: 001 Image: 02319344
COMPLAINT
CHERYL MERRILL VS. ANGELIQUE BREEDLOVE et al
001002319344
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
PDF Page 3
¢ - ,
CM-010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address}: FOR C &
Cheryl Merrill Er i E Pp
sen i Ae, Court
1245 California Street, #303
San Francisco, CA 94109
qecepnone wo: 415-409-2069 FAXNO,:
aTrorNey FoR (ere) Pro Per NOV 1.8 2008
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, couNTY CF San Francisco
sreeeT anoress: 40) McAllister Street GOR ON PARICL!, Clerk
MAILING ADORESS: . | ON’
erry anoze cove: San Francisco 94102 BY: Clerk
BRANCH NAME:
CASE NAME:
Cheryl Merrill v. Angelique Breedtove, ct al.
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER’ -
CJ aroun (mount [-] counter [_] Joinder ¢ G — 0 8 4 8 i ? 8 1
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant JUOGE:
exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:
items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
1. Chack one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionatty Complex Civil Litigation
Auto (22) [__] Breach of contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
Uninsured motorist (46) [_] Rule 3.740 collections (09) [J anttrust/Trade regulation (03}
Other PUPDIWD (Personal InjuryiProperty L_]_ Other collections (09) (__] construction defect (10)
Damage/Wrongfut Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) Cj Mass tort (40)
[] Asbestos (04) [J other contract (37) [_] securities litigation (28)
[_] Product tiabitity (24) Real Property LJ Environmentat/Toxic tort (30)
[__] Medical matpractice (45) [J Eminent domain/inverse (__] insurance coverage claims arising from the
[_] other PuPOAWD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case
Non-PUPOMWD (Other) Tort LE] wrongful eviction (33) types (41)
Business tortfunfair business practice (07) [1] Otver reat property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
Civil rights (08} Unlawful Detainer [__] Enforcement of Judgment (20)
[__]} Defamation (13) [_} Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
Fraud (16) {__] Residential (32) (—} rico 7)
[1 intelectual property (19) [J pugs (38) Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
L_] Professional negtigence (25) Judiclal Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Other non-PUPDIWD tort (35) . Asset forfetture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Fo wrong ; Petition re: arbitration award (11) CJ Other petition (not specified above) (43)
Wrongful termination (36) [__] wat of mandate (02)
[__]_ Other employment (15) [_] other pudicial review (39)
oah we
| Thiscase L_Jis isnot complex under rule 3.400 of the Califomia Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management.
a. Cj Large number of separately represented parties d. CI Large number of witnesses
b. L_] Extensive motion practice raising difficult ornovel @. [__] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
c. | Substantial amount of documentary evidence t. _] Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
_ Remedies sought (check all that apply): a] monetary b.[_] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief. (__] punitive
Number of causes of action (specify): Fraud, Assault, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
. This case CI is isnot actass action suit.
. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.)
Date: V4 {13/08
Cheryl Merrill > ( Q e Nn paw KA
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY)
NOTICE
e Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code), (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
in sanctions.
® File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rute,
« If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the Catifornia Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding,
® Untess this Is a collections case under rufa 3.740 of a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. sora
age
Form Adopted for Mendmory Use : CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Ca. Rass ot Cot at dak 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740,
Judioad Admineirebon, aid. 3.10
wrew courhinte.ca go
Amancan LegalNet, let,
wrens. Forma Work#low.com
CM.010 [Rav. Juty 1, 2007]
PDF Page 4
PLD-PI-O01
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Ber number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
— Cheryl Merrill
1245 California Street, #303
San Francisco, CA 94109
TeLepHone No: 415-409-2069 FAX NO. (Oppons: F i sD.
EMA ADORESS (Opoonal} San Francisco Coury Su
ATTORNEY FOR (Name? Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco NOV 1 8 2008
strcetaporess: 400 McAllister Street
MAKING ADDRESS: x terk
cm n0 26 Oem: San Francisco 94102 ein i iP _
PLAINTIFF: Cheryl Mermill
DEFENDANT: Angelique Breedlove, Diana Outmesguine, Beth EtRgn IMAGEN) CONFERENCESET
and Baker & McKenzie LLP
ors 170 5 MAR 20 2009 -184AM
COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death —
(_] AMENDED (Number): 5
Type (check all that apply): DEPARTMENT 12
([_] MOTOR VEHICLE OTHER (specify): Fraud, Assault, Inflict. Emo.
(] Property Damage [_] Wrongful Death
{__] Personal Injury [__] Other Damages (specify):
Jurisdiction (check alf that apply): CASE NUMBER:
ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE
Amount demanded [(_] does not exceed $10,000
exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $25,000
[__] ACTION TS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000)
[_] ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint ¢ Gic- 0 8 - 4 81 9 8 1
C_] from limited to unlimited
[__] from unlimited to limited
4. Plaintiff (name or names): Chery! Merrill
alleges causes of action against defendant (nama or names):
Angelique Breedlove, Diana Outmesguine, Beth Eltiott, Baker & McKenzie LLP and Does 1-5
2. This pleading, including atlachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: 8
3. Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult
a. [] except plaintiff (name):
(1) (_] a corporation qualified to do business in California
(2) [_] an unincorporated entity (describe):
(3) [_] a public entity (describe):
(4) [] aminor [J an adutt
(a) [__] for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
(>) (_] other (specify):
(5) [_] other (specify):
b. [_] except plaintiff (name):
(1) [2] a corporation qualified to do business in California
(2} {__] an unincorporated entity (describe):
(3) [__] a public entity (describe):
(4) L__] aminor ((_] anadultt
(a) ((_] for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
(b) [_] other (specify):
(5) (_] other (specify):
(J information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3. Page tof
rina saneewetaerhediad COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Coss of Crud Procecurs. § oom
PLO-PLO01 (Rav. January 4, 2007] Damage, Wrongful Death
Amencan LegalNet, bnc.
swears: F orn Work figur Com!
PDF Page 5
PLD-P1-001
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
Merrill v. Breedlove, ct al.
10. The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to gach (each complaint must have one or more
causes of action attached):
. [C) Motor Vehicle
. £0) General Negligence
. Intentional Tort
. (] Products Liability
Premises Liability
Other (specify):
Fraud, Assault, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
ago.
=o a
41, Plaintiff has suffered
. wage loss
. _[—) loss of use of property
. hospital and medical expenses
. [_] general damage
. [J property damage
loss of eaming capacity
. other damage (specify):
Court filing fees and legal papers preparation.
eanogra
‘io ™
12, [_] The damages claimed for wrongful death and the relationships of plaintiff to the deceased are
a. [__] listed in Attachment 12.
b. [__] as follows:
13. The relief sought in this compiaint is within the jurisdiction of this court.
14, Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for
a, (1) compensatory damages
(2) [__] punitive damages
The amount of damages Is (in cases for personal injury or wrongful death, you must check (1):
(1) according to proof
(2) [__] in the amount of: $
45. [_] The paragraphs of this complaint alleged on information and belief are as foliows (specify paragraph numbers):
Date: 1 | IN , 2008
Cheryl Merrill » ex ¢ M seal.
{TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY}
PLD-PI-O01 {Rev, January 1, 2007) COMPLAINT—Personal injury, Property Page cots
Damage, Wrongful Death
PDF Page 6
PLD-C-001(3)
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
Merrill v. Breedlove, et al.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—Fraud
(number)
FR-4, Promise Without Intent to Perform
a. Defendant made a promise about a material matter without any intention of performing it as stated
in Attachment FR-4.a [[_) as follows:
b. Defendant's promise without any intention of performance was made with the intent to defraud and induce
plaintiff fo rety upon it and to act as described in item FR-5. At the time plaintiff acted, plaintiff was unaware of
defendant's intention nol to perform the promise. Plaintiff acted in justifiable reliance upon the promise.
FR-5. In justifiable reliance upon defendant's conduct, plaintiff was Induced to act (__] as stated In Atachment FR-5
[J as follows:
Plaintiff was induced to act in the capacity as a temporary employee and to remain available for
future permanent positions at Baker & Mckenzie LLP. Plaintiff worked at a multimillion dollar trial
against the IRS located at a hotel in which she was asked to stay 10 days away from home,
participated in special projects, worked on the night shift, weekend shift, as well as filling in for
vacations and leave of absences. Plaintiff invested 714 regular hours and 33 overtime hours to
obtain a permanent position.
FR-6. Because of plaintiff's reliance upon defendant's conduct, plaintiff has been damaged [1] as stated in
Attachment FR- 6 as follows:
Plaintiff incurred material damages after working for $26 per hour at $12 per hour below her last
permanent salaried wage of $38 per hour regular time and for the associated unpaid overtime wages
of $18 per hour. Plaintiff also suffered loss of medical benefits and 401k tax relief deductions,
Plaintiff's professional image was damaged from prolonged work as a temporary employee, as was
her resume adversely affected for future job considerations.
FIR-7. Other.
Page 4
PLO-C-001(3) (Rev. January 1. 2007 CAUSE OF ACTION—Fraud Page 2 of 2
PDF Page 7
ATTACHMENT FR-4.a. Page 5
In May, 2008, Defendant Angelique Breedlove (“Breedlove”), acting in the capacity of
secretarial coordinator for Defendant Baker & McKenzie LLP (“B&M”), interviewed Plaintiff
for a permanent legal secretary position stating she would obtain a job after a four week
evaluation period as the common method B&M used for hiring support staff. Plaintiff agreed to
the initial offer and was provided on May 12, 2008 with an all day new employee orientation.
Plaintiff successfully performed her new job four weeks.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Breedlove had been courting Defendant Diana Outmesguine
(“Outmesguine”), prior to and during Plaintiff's occupying the position. Outmesguine was a
former temporary of five weeks previous who had rejected B&M’s job offer in favor of Morrison
& Foerster LLP’s. Due to Breedlove’s weekly persistence and passionate claims that her
attorneys “missed her,” Ms. Outmesguine returned after six weeks to reclaim Plaintiff's position
thereby displacing her from hire.
On June 12, 2008, Breedlove fraudulently informed Plaintiff'a former employee had
contacted B&M wanting her job and, though it was a tough decision, they decided to hire
Outmesguine. Breedlove, fully aware of the devastation she had caused to Plaintiff with her
deception and misrepresentation, told Plaintiff “we don’t want to lose you” while stating there
would be future job openings she would be at the top of her list considered for. Breedlove
promised Plaintiff would definitely be hired at the firm and offered to keep her working steadily
in a temporary capacity to induce Plaintiff to remain available to B&M.
Breedlove continued to devastate Plaintiff from June 16, 2008 thru October 22, 2008 ina
pattern of misrepresentations under the same nature of previous deception in a vicious display of
burning Plaintiff. Breedlove would typically get Plaintiff excited over a job opening even going
so far as saying a September 2008 position was reserved for her having been approved of by a
superior. After waiting two months, though Plaintiff had repeatedly confirmed the position was
hers, Breedlove casually pulled the rug one day claiming the position would be used to filla
secretarial demotion. Unsympathetic for the devastation her misrepresentation caused Plaintiff,
PDF Page 8
Page 6
Breedlove provided the excuse of such changes being the “Baker way.” In fact, no such
demotion had ever materialized.
Breedlove’s cruel deceptive tactics began to show a significant desperation in her wanting
to climax devastating Plaintiff. After a series of her misrepresentations, including a false
interview arrangement for a non-existent position, Breedlove began to setup Plaintiff with
misrepresentations of future long-term temporary assignments. On October 16, 2008, Breedlove
reconfirmed a three month matemity leave position from November to February 2009 Plaintiff
had interviewed for in September was still hers. On October 22, 2008, Plaintiff overheard a part-
time employee’s conversation she was going to be working in the Plaintiff's temporary
assignment.
On October 22, 2008, Breedlove confirmed Plaintiff would not be provided the long-term
temporary maternity leave position and none would be offered but for one week in late
December 2008. Breedlove stated no openings were slated the rest of year. Breedlove also
confirmed all of the positions dangled like carrots to Plaintiff had never existed as B&M’s main
hiring authority never approved them. Breedlove said she was recently asked by B&M’s main
office “what are you doing?” in that no necessary head count existed in the corporate division to
hire a new legal secretary. Plaintiff had been working temporary assignments at B&M and
remaining available based on Breedlove’s illusory offers of permanent openings she had been
assured of obtaining.
In the October 22, 2008 meeting, Breedlove’s demeanor was cold, aloof and
unsympathetic towards Plaintiff’s extreme efforts to obtain a permanent position after having
relied upon misrepresentations. Breedlove affirmed with her continual actions and
communications she had never intended on hiring Plaintiff. While having induced Plaintiff to
remain available to B&M, Breedlove had enjoyed continually devastating and burning Plaintiff
in her lesbian conquest power game. Under the ordinary rules of Respondeat Superior,
Baker & McKenzie LLP is responsible for an extreme lack of supervision of its newly promoted
human resource management employee Breedlove.
PDF Page 9
c ; |
PLD-P1-001(3)
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER
Merrill v. Breedlove, et al.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—Intentional Tort Page 7
(number)
ATTACHMENT TO Complaint [_] Cross - Complaint
(Use 6 separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)
T-1. Plaintiff (rame): Cheryl Merrill
alteges that defendant (name): Beth Elliott and Baker & McKenzie LLP
Does | to 2
was the tegat (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. By the following acts or omissions to act, defendant intentionally
caused the damage to plaintiff
on (dateyAugust, 2008
at (place):Baker & McKenzie LLP (San Francisco Office)
(description of reasons for fability):
1. During Plaintiff's professional communications with legal secretary Sharon Royce ("Royce"),
Defendant Beth Elliott ("Elliott") approached Plaintiff from behind placing her two fingers directly
behind Plaintiff's head in a childish prank of miming devil's horns. Plaintiff remained unaware of
Eltiott's presence until Royce had a shocked look on her face while motioning to Plaintiff of
something happening behind her. Plaintiff was momentarily frightened for her safety in finding
Elliott, whom she had since discontinued personally based communications, invading her personal
space with a humiliating aggressive act. Plaintiff did not find Elliott's assault amusing, asking her
what she was doing. After Elliott left, Plaintiff was upset and told Royce she wanted to report
Elliott's childish conduct to management. Royce discouraged Plaintiff from reporting the assault to
management suggesting other employees would attend to the matter. Plaintiff disclosed to Royce the
unbalanced nature of Elliott's former conversations in disclosing her personal lesbian relationship
problems. Plaintiff had found such disclosure by Elliott disturbing and unprofessional.
2. The following day after Elliott's assault, Plaintiff was once again having a professional
conversation with Ms. Royce, Elliott mimed being hung with a rope and noose around her neck as
she walked behind Plaintiff. Ms. Royce, visibly shocked by what she witnessed, demonstrated for
Plaintiff the hand motions of Elliott pulling up on a rope from her neck. Due to Elliott's previous
aggressive assault, Plaintiff once again feared for safety taking it as a threat towards herself. Plaintiff
found Ms. Elliott's behavior disturbing and one that required the support of a mental health
professional. Ms. Royce discouraged Plaintiff from reporting Elliott's unprofessional childish
conduct to management.
Under the ordinary rules of Respondeat Superior, Baker & McKenzie LLP is responsible for the
extreme lack of supervision of its unprofessional defendant Elliott employee's assault, disturbing
conduct and behavior.
Page 1 of 1
Fo Approved for Opbanal Use CAUSE OF ACTION-Intentional Tort Costa of Cnt Procedure, § 425.12
PLD-P1-001(3) (Rev. January 1, 2007]
American LegaiNet, Inc,
were. Forms Workfcw.cOom
PDF Page 10
c — g
PLD-P1-004(3)
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER
Merrill v. Breedlove, ct al.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION—intentional Tort Page 8
(number)
ATTACHMENT TO Complaint [_] cross - Complaint
(Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)
1T-1. Plaintiff (name): Chery] Merrill
alleges that defendant (name): Angelique Breedlove, Diana Outmesguine, Beth Elliott, Baker & McKenzie
[+] Does 1 to 3
was the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. By the following acts or omissions to act, defendant intentionally
caused the damage to plaintiff
on (date): 5/12/08-10/22/08
at (place): Baker & Mckenzie LLP (San Francisco Office)
(description of reasons for liability):
1, Defendant Angetique Breedlove ("Breedlove") deliberately sought to devastate and traumatize
Plaintiff using deception, misrepresentations, false promises and red herring tactics in simulating role
playing of her lesbian pursuits and conquests during Plaintiff's efforts to obtain a position,
Breedlove's deceptive activities in contacting Defendant Diana Outmesguine ("Outmesguine")
weekly after she had turned down a job offer in preference for Morrison & Foerster LLP, caused her
to return to Plaintiff's position to displace her from being hired. Breedlove continued a pattern of
misrepresentations and promises cloaked in the appearance of good intentions in her claim of not
wanting to lose Plaintiff, when in reality there was no real intent to hire her. Breedlove enjoyed
continually devastating Plaintiff in her fantastical rote playing games simulating Plaintiff as her
scorned lesbian lover in her preference for Outmesguine. Breedlove cruelly misrepresented
positions for Plaintiff in illusory musical chair games, one having been absolutely promised as
secured and reserved for Plaintiff in early September, 2008. Defendant excused Plaintiffs continual
devastation in denying her ultimate job opportunities as being "the Baker Way.” 2. In August, 2008
Outmesguine, under skilled in legal word processing, relied on Plaintiff's skills to complete an urgent
attomey request. Outmesguine pressured Plaintiff into performing non-reciprocal favors including
a) getting her lunch so she could enjoy a massage from her chiropractor, and b) on August 22, 2008
performing her job tasks so she could attend a firm party. Outmesguine bragged to Plaintiff about all
the great support she received after displacing her from hire, bragged about having received a $100
cash donation from Sharon Royce and a $350 loan from another employee. Outmesguine continually
wore her special treatment on her sleeve to Plaintiff's great distress, including the firm's tolerance for
her week Jong absences, pattern of lateness and Breedlove's disclosure of how greatly loved and
missed Outmesguine was by her attorneys. Defendant Baker & McKenzie is responsible under
ordinary rules of Respondeat Superior for its defendant employees’ outrageous and extreme conduct.
As a direct result of defendants' extreme and outragcous acts, including assault by defendant Elliott in
the Second Cause of Action restated herein, Plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress.
Page tof?
Form Approved or Optional Joa CAUSE OF ACTION-Intentiona! Tort Code of Cr Proce. aor
PLO-F1-001(3) [Rev, January 1, 2007]
American LegalNet, lac.
werw. Fores Workfiow. com |
Back to 
