1st Amended Complaint Filed By Plaintiff
Alvarado, Edward
Boswell, Charlotte
Brown, Tanda
Duenas, Bertha
Evans, Pernell
Lewis, Janice
Munoz, Maria
Neely, Kevin
Theodore, Dyronn
Walker, Lasonia
As To Defendant
Davis, Michael
Parker, Kay Mckenzie
Alioto, Angela
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 AAO
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Oct-05-2007 4:20 pm
Case Number: CGC-07-465447
Filing Date: Oct-05-2007 4:08
Juke Box: 001 Image: 01904899
COMPLAINT
EDWARD ALVARADO et al VS. MICHAEL DAVIS et al
001001904899
Instructions:
a3e lace this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Page 2 0 oN DA wu FF YW NY
mb wp we NNRYN NNN SFE SF
mR PPRRNB SEWAGE BREA S
SPENCER SMITH, ESQ. (SBN: 236587)
LAW OFFICES OF SPENCER SMITH
The Central Tower F
703 Market St., Suite 1401
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone (415) 595-6950
Facsimile (415) 595-0104
Attorney for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
EDWARD ALVARADO, CHARLOTTE Case No.: CGC-07-465447
BOSWELL, TANDA BROWN, BERTHA
DUENAS, PERNELL EVANS, JANICE Fc A mende
LEWIS, MARIA MUNOZ, KEVIN COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
NEELY, DYRONN THEODORE, and AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
LASONIA WALKER, DAMAGES; VIOLATIONS OF
Plaintiff, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS CODE §§6147 ET SEQ.,
vs. AND UNFAIR, UNLAWFUL AND
DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES
ANGELA ALIOTO, et al.,
UUS ) bow
M ichae| ae Sa J ee
ill
ComplaintPage 3 > Oo eNO NW ek WY NY
mo owN NN NY NN DY YF FF FSF GF FF BHA S
PNR BFR ON FSCO wm N DY FY KY
~ —
Plaintiffs Edward Alvarado, Charlotte Boswell, Tanda Brown, Bertha Duenas, Pernell
Evans, Janice Lewis, Maria Munoz, Kevin Neely, Dyronn Theodore, and Lasonia Walker allege
as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This is an action in equity to extinguish the improper liens of attorneys Michael Davis
(“Davis”), Kay Parker (“Parker”), and Angela Alioto (“Alioto”).
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the causes of action asserted herein under California
Code of Civil Procedure §1060.
3. Venue is proper in this County as the acts upon which this action is based occurred in this
County.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Alvarado is a Mexican-American male formerly employed by FedEx as a Shuttle
Driver at the Sunnyvale Facility.
5. Plaintiff Evans is an African-American male formerly employed by FedEx as an RTD
Operations Manager at the San Leandro Facility.
6. Plaintiff Boswell is an African-American female formerly employed by FedEx as an
dispatcher at its Heavyweight Delivery facility in Oakland, CA.
7. Plaintiff Brown is an African-American female formerly employed by FedEx as Courier
Operations Manager at its hub facility in Oakland from June 1988 to July 2002.
8. Plaintiff Duenas is an Mexican-American female currently employed by FedEx as a part-
time Hub Control Agent at the Oakland Hub. She has been employed by FedEx since July 1997.
9, Plaintiff Lewis is an African-American female currently employed by FedEx as Ramp
Transport Driver at its San Leandro facility. She has been employed by FedEx since May, 1997.
ComplaintPage 4 Oo oN Dn un fF YW SN
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10. Plaintiff Neely is an African-American male currently employed by FedEx as an RTD
Operations Manager at the San Leandro facility. He has been employed by FedEx since
October, 1991.
11. Plaintiff Theodore is an African-American male formerly employed by FedEx as an
Handler at the Oakland Hub. He was employed by FedEx from November, 1999, to May, 2002,
when FedEx terminated him.
12. Plaintiff Walker is an African-American female currently employed by FedEx as an RTD
Operations Manager at the Oakland Hub. She has been employed by FedEx since 1993.
13. Defendant Michael Davis is a San Francisco attorney who is a member of class counsel
in a class action lawsuit entitled Satchell v. FedEx. Plaintiffs are former members of the class
but opted out of the class to pursue their individual claims in a case entitled Alvarado v. FedEx.
Prior to opting out of the class, the Plaintiffs terminated Davis for his unethical business
practices. Davis never worked on the Plaintiffs’ cases once they filed the Alvarado matter.
14. Defendant Kay Parker is a Fresno, CA attorney who provided minimal assistance to the
Law Offices of Waukeen McCoy in relation to Plaintiffs cases in the Alvarado matter. Well
before trial for plaintiffs Alvarado, Evans, and Boswell, the plaintiffs demanded that Parker be
precluded from working on their cases or the Alvarado matter generally due to her incompetence
as a litigator.
17. Plaintiffs were originally members of a class action lawsuit against FedEx entitled
Satchell v. FedEx. The Plaintiffs opted out of the class and decided to bring their individual
claims in Alvarado v. FedEx.
18. Prior to going to trial FedEx moved to sever the plaintiffs cases in the Alvarado matter.
The Court granted the motion and the Plaintiffs were required to have separate trials.
19. Three cases went to trial with judgments in favor of plaintiffs Alvarado, Evans and
Boswell. The other cases are settled.
20. FedEx refuses to pay any part of any judgment or settlement because Davis, Parker, and
Alioto have all filed liens in the Alvarado matter on all the cases.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Relief Because the Alleged Contingency Agreements Violate California
Professional Rule of Responsibility 2-200 Against All Defendants
21. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-20.
22. Defendants Davis, Parker, and Alioto have always maintained an independent office
separate and distinct from plaintiffs’ counsel Waukeen McCoy.
23. The plaintiffs never gave informed consent in writing to defendants Davis, Parker and
Alioto having any alleged contingency agreement.
24. Defendants Davis, Parker and Alioto never fully disclosed the terms in writing that a
division of fees will be made.
25. Defendants Davis, Parker, and Alioto never fully disclosed the terms of how the fees
would be divided amongst Davis, Parker, Alioto and McCoy.
26. Defendants Davis, Parker and Alioto’s alleged contingency fee agreements increased the
total fee charged by all lawyers.
27. Defendants Davis, Parker and Alioto’s contingency fee are unconscionable as that term is
defined in the Professional Rules of Responsibility, Rule 4-200.
4
ComplaintPage 6 0 oN Dn Wn & WY NY
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28. Based on the foregoing, Defendants Davis, Parker and Alioto alleged contingency fee
violates Rule 2-200 and their liens should be extinguished.
29. Alioto should never have had access to the electronic filing system in the Alvarado case
in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. However, she hacked the
system and electronically filed an attorney lien on a case in which she has never represented any
of the plaintiffs in any capacity whatsoever and has never even met.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Relief Under California Business and Professions Code §6147 Against All
Defendants
30. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference into this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1-29.
31. Defendants Davis, Parker, and Alioto did not provide any duplicate copy of their alleged
contingency contracts to the plaintiffs.
32. Defendants Davis, Parker and Alioto’s alleged contingency contracts are not signed by
the respective attorneys and the plaintiffs.
33. Defendants Davis, Parker and Alioto’s alleged contingency contracts do not contain a
statement of the contingency fee rate that the client and attorney have agreed upon.
34. Defendants Davis, Parker, and Alioto’s alleged contingency contracts do not contain a
statement as to how disbursements and costs incurred in connection with the prosecution or
settlement of the claim will affect the contingency fee and the client’s recovery.
35. Defendants Davis, Parker, and Alioto’s alleged contingency contracts do not contain a
statement as to what extent, if any, the client could be required to pay any compensation to the
attorney for related matters that arise out of their relationship not covered by their contingency
fee contract.
36. Defendants Davis, Parker and Alioto’s alleged contingency contracts do not contain a
statement that the fee is not set by law but is negotiable between attorney and client.
5
ComplaintPage 7 0 oN A uN F&F WY NY
mb oN NN NN NN DY FT TPF tse Fg apts
BPN RRB ON F SC DOD we ANDY FY KF F &
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Relief Under California Code of Civil Procedure §1060 Against All Defendants
37. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-36 of this Complaint.
38. Anactual and present controversy exists concerning the duties and breaches of duties of
defendants with respect to the plaintiffs herein.
39. Plaintiffs request a declaration that:
a. Davis’ alleged contract was for fees only in the Satchell class action case.
b. All of the defendants’ respective liens are improper and therefore should be
extinguished.
c. Defendants violated the Professional Rules of Responsibility, Rule 2-200.
d. Defendants violated Business and Professions Code §6147.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants as appropriate for the
particular causes of action:
A. For declaratory, equitable, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, according
to statute;
B. For damages according to proof, including interest;
C. For attorneys’ fees and all applicable statutes and for costs of suit;
D. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: October 5, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF SPENCER SMITH
A SS
By: > av
SPENCER sMITt——
~~ 4. TTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
PROOF OF SERVICE
I declare:
1am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California.
lam over the age of eighteen years, and am a party to the within action. My business address
is 703 Market Street, Suite 1407, San Francisco, CA 94111.
Lam familiar with the business practices at my place of business for collection and processing
of mail. Mail collected and processed is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service that same day in the
ordinary course of business.
On October 5, 2007, I caused to be served:
Civil case cover sheet
on the party(ies) listed below, addressed as follows:
Steve Robinson, Esq.
700 Montgomery Street, Suite 1407
San Francisco, CA 94111
Amitai Schwartz
2000 Powell St., Suite 1286
Emeryville, CA 94608
Kay McKenzie Parker
225 Bush Street, 16" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
By facsimile machine (FAX) by personally transmitting a true copy thereof via an
electronic facsimile machine between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
xX By first class mail by depositing a sealed envelope in the United States mail at San
Francisco, California, with postage fully prepaid.
By hand delivery
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Executed on October 5, 2007at San Francisco, California.
By: CAralg Murr —
Shirley Escobar
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
AAO
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Oct-05-2007 4:20 pm
Case Number: CGC-07-465447
Filing Date: Oct-05-2007 4:08
Juke Box: 001 Image: 01904899
COMPLAINT
EDWARD ALVARADO et al VS. MICHAEL DAVIS et al
001001904899
Instructions:
a3e lace this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
PDF Page 3
0 oN DA wu FF YW NY
mb wp we NNRYN NNN SFE SF
mR PPRRNB SEWAGE BREA S
SPENCER SMITH, ESQ. (SBN: 236587)
LAW OFFICES OF SPENCER SMITH
The Central Tower F
703 Market St., Suite 1401
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone (415) 595-6950
Facsimile (415) 595-0104
Attorney for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
EDWARD ALVARADO, CHARLOTTE Case No.: CGC-07-465447
BOSWELL, TANDA BROWN, BERTHA
DUENAS, PERNELL EVANS, JANICE Fc A mende
LEWIS, MARIA MUNOZ, KEVIN COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
NEELY, DYRONN THEODORE, and AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
LASONIA WALKER, DAMAGES; VIOLATIONS OF
Plaintiff, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS CODE §§6147 ET SEQ.,
vs. AND UNFAIR, UNLAWFUL AND
DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES
ANGELA ALIOTO, et al.,
UUS ) bow
M ichae| ae Sa J ee
ill
Complaint
PDF Page 4
> Oo eNO NW ek WY NY
mo owN NN NY NN DY YF FF FSF GF FF BHA S
PNR BFR ON FSCO wm N DY FY KY
~ —
Plaintiffs Edward Alvarado, Charlotte Boswell, Tanda Brown, Bertha Duenas, Pernell
Evans, Janice Lewis, Maria Munoz, Kevin Neely, Dyronn Theodore, and Lasonia Walker allege
as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This is an action in equity to extinguish the improper liens of attorneys Michael Davis
(“Davis”), Kay Parker (“Parker”), and Angela Alioto (“Alioto”).
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the causes of action asserted herein under California
Code of Civil Procedure §1060.
3. Venue is proper in this County as the acts upon which this action is based occurred in this
County.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Alvarado is a Mexican-American male formerly employed by FedEx as a Shuttle
Driver at the Sunnyvale Facility.
5. Plaintiff Evans is an African-American male formerly employed by FedEx as an RTD
Operations Manager at the San Leandro Facility.
6. Plaintiff Boswell is an African-American female formerly employed by FedEx as an
dispatcher at its Heavyweight Delivery facility in Oakland, CA.
7. Plaintiff Brown is an African-American female formerly employed by FedEx as Courier
Operations Manager at its hub facility in Oakland from June 1988 to July 2002.
8. Plaintiff Duenas is an Mexican-American female currently employed by FedEx as a part-
time Hub Control Agent at the Oakland Hub. She has been employed by FedEx since July 1997.
9, Plaintiff Lewis is an African-American female currently employed by FedEx as Ramp
Transport Driver at its San Leandro facility. She has been employed by FedEx since May, 1997.
Complaint
PDF Page 5
Oo oN Dn un fF YW SN
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10. Plaintiff Neely is an African-American male currently employed by FedEx as an RTD
Operations Manager at the San Leandro facility. He has been employed by FedEx since
October, 1991.
11. Plaintiff Theodore is an African-American male formerly employed by FedEx as an
Handler at the Oakland Hub. He was employed by FedEx from November, 1999, to May, 2002,
when FedEx terminated him.
12. Plaintiff Walker is an African-American female currently employed by FedEx as an RTD
Operations Manager at the Oakland Hub. She has been employed by FedEx since 1993.
13. Defendant Michael Davis is a San Francisco attorney who is a member of class counsel
in a class action lawsuit entitled Satchell v. FedEx. Plaintiffs are former members of the class
but opted out of the class to pursue their individual claims in a case entitled Alvarado v. FedEx.
Prior to opting out of the class, the Plaintiffs terminated Davis for his unethical business
practices. Davis never worked on the Plaintiffs’ cases once they filed the Alvarado matter.
14. Defendant Kay Parker is a Fresno, CA attorney who provided minimal assistance to the
Law Offices of Waukeen McCoy in relation to Plaintiffs cases in the Alvarado matter. Well
before trial for plaintiffs Alvarado, Evans, and Boswell, the plaintiffs demanded that Parker be
precluded from working on their cases or the Alvarado matter generally due to her incompetence
as a litigator.
15. Alioto is a San Francisco attorney who has never met plaintiffs nor worked on their cases.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
16. Plaintiffs are current and former FedEx employees who brought an employment
discrimination action based on race and/or national origin in the Northern District of California
entitled Alvarado v. FedEx. The plaintiffs cases have judgments or settlements.
Complaint
0 oN Dn Wn & WY NY
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28. Based on the foregoing, Defendants Davis, Parker and Alioto alleged contingency fee
violates Rule 2-200 and their liens should be extinguished.
29. Alioto should never have had access to the electronic filing system in the Alvarado case
in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. However, she hacked the
system and electronically filed an attorney lien on a case in which she has never represented any
of the plaintiffs in any capacity whatsoever and has never even met.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Relief Under California Business and Professions Code §6147 Against All
Defendants
30. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference into this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1-29.
31. Defendants Davis, Parker, and Alioto did not provide any duplicate copy of their alleged
contingency contracts to the plaintiffs.
32. Defendants Davis, Parker and Alioto’s alleged contingency contracts are not signed by
the respective attorneys and the plaintiffs.
33. Defendants Davis, Parker and Alioto’s alleged contingency contracts do not contain a
statement of the contingency fee rate that the client and attorney have agreed upon.
34. Defendants Davis, Parker, and Alioto’s alleged contingency contracts do not contain a
statement as to how disbursements and costs incurred in connection with the prosecution or
settlement of the claim will affect the contingency fee and the client’s recovery.
35. Defendants Davis, Parker, and Alioto’s alleged contingency contracts do not contain a
statement as to what extent, if any, the client could be required to pay any compensation to the
attorney for related matters that arise out of their relationship not covered by their contingency
fee contract.
36. Defendants Davis, Parker and Alioto’s alleged contingency contracts do not contain a
statement that the fee is not set by law but is negotiable between attorney and client.
5
Complaint
PDF Page 8
0 oN A uN F&F WY NY
mb oN NN NN NN DY FT TPF tse Fg apts
BPN RRB ON F SC DOD we ANDY FY KF F &
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Relief Under California Code of Civil Procedure §1060 Against All Defendants
37. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-36 of this Complaint.
38. Anactual and present controversy exists concerning the duties and breaches of duties of
defendants with respect to the plaintiffs herein.
39. Plaintiffs request a declaration that:
a. Davis’ alleged contract was for fees only in the Satchell class action case.
b. All of the defendants’ respective liens are improper and therefore should be
extinguished.
c. Defendants violated the Professional Rules of Responsibility, Rule 2-200.
d. Defendants violated Business and Professions Code §6147.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants as appropriate for the
particular causes of action:
A. For declaratory, equitable, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, according
to statute;
B. For damages according to proof, including interest;
C. For attorneys’ fees and all applicable statutes and for costs of suit;
D. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: October 5, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF SPENCER SMITH
A SS
By: > av
SPENCER sMITt——
~~ 4. TTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
Complaint
PDF Page 9
10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
I declare:
1am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California.
lam over the age of eighteen years, and am a party to the within action. My business address
is 703 Market Street, Suite 1407, San Francisco, CA 94111.
Lam familiar with the business practices at my place of business for collection and processing
of mail. Mail collected and processed is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service that same day in the
ordinary course of business.
On October 5, 2007, I caused to be served:
Civil case cover sheet
on the party(ies) listed below, addressed as follows:
Steve Robinson, Esq.
700 Montgomery Street, Suite 1407
San Francisco, CA 94111
Amitai Schwartz
2000 Powell St., Suite 1286
Emeryville, CA 94608
Kay McKenzie Parker
225 Bush Street, 16" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
By facsimile machine (FAX) by personally transmitting a true copy thereof via an
electronic facsimile machine between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
xX By first class mail by depositing a sealed envelope in the United States mail at San
Francisco, California, with postage fully prepaid.
By hand delivery
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Executed on October 5, 2007at San Francisco, California.
By: CAralg Murr —
Shirley Escobar
Back to 
