Contract/warranty, Complaint Filed By Plaintiff
Mccoy, Waukeen Q Dba Law Offices Of Waukeen Mccoy
As To Defendant
Davis, Michael Cael Dba Law Offices Of Michael Davis
Does 1-50
Summons Issued, Judicial Council Civil Case Cover Sheet Filed
Case Management Conference Scheduled For Jan-25-2008
Proof Of Service Due On Oct-23-2007
Case Management Statement Due On Jan-10-2008
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
WAUKEEN Q MCCOY VS. MICHAEL CAEL DAVIS et al
001001866617
instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Page 2 ~
c €
SUM-100
SUMMONS (sot COURT USE ONLY
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
MICHAEL CAEL DAVIS, d/b/a LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL
DAVIS, and DOES 1-50
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(Lo ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
WAUKEEN Q. McCOY, d/b/a LAW OFFICES OF WAUKEEN
McCOY
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file 4 written response at this court and have a
copy served on the plaintiff. A tetter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the
court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more
Information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law tibrary, or the courthouse
nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. ff you do not fite your response on time, you may
lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legat requirements, You may want to call an attorney right away. if you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an
attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit tegal services
program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www. lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California
Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association.
Tiena 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que fe entreguen esta citacién y papeles legates para presentar una respuesta por escrito
en ests corte y hacer que se entregue una copia af demsndante. Una carta o una tiamads telefénica no fo protegen. Su respuesta por
escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en [a corte. Es posibie que haya un formularfo que usted
pueda usar para su respuesta, Puede encontrar estos formularios de fa corte y mas informacion en ef Centro de Ayuda de jas Cortes de
Callfornia (aww.courtinfo.ca.gov/setthelp/espancl}, en fa biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en fa corte que fe quede més cerca. Sino
puede pagar fa cuota de presentacién, pide al secretario de Ia corte que ie dé un formulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta
$u respuesta a tempo, puede perder ef caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podré quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin més advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos fegales. Es recomendable que flame a un abogado inmediatamente, Sino conoce a un abogado, puede flamar a un
servicio de remisién a abogados. SI no puede pagar a un abogsdo, es posible que cumpla con los requisites para obtener servicios
legates gratuitos da un programa de servicios legaies sin fines de lucro, Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitlo wed de
California Leaal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org}. en ef Centro de Ayuda de iss Cortes de California,
{www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/espanol} o poniéndose en contacto con fa corte o ef colegio de abogados iocales.
ewe we
@ name and address of the court is: tet } = ‘
{El nombre y direccién de Ia corte es): CASE NUN ¢ 6 6 5 70 ,
400 McAllister
San Francisco, CA 94102
{El nombre, !a direccién y el namero de teléfone del abogado del demandante ' # demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
Waukeen McCoy oY PA
sagye |
CA %
DATE: - Clerk, by , Deputy
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
rh
“Pay. ¥ j as an individual defendant.
Sin > so ths porcen sutd under the Rotitious nama of fenanihids
eC" -
4, LJ on behailt ot (specify):
under: _] CCP 416.10 (corporation) [7] CCP 416.60 (minor)
LL] CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) [__] CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
(_] other (specify):
. . {Namen del Caso}:
San Francisco Superior Court
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attomey, is:
703 Market taSyit day? San Francisco,
MG a Sn
(Fecha) (Secretario) ¥ CRISTINAG Es" (Aajunto)
OTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
{ L_j see peeen Cees
(__] CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) [__] CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
4. ([_] by personal delivery on (date):
Page 1 of 1
Judeaal Council Cooe of Crd Procedure §§ 412.20, 465
SUM-100 [Rav. January 1, 2004] SUMMONSPage 3 c c
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
— Waukeen Q. McCoy (168228)
703 MARKET ST. SUITE 1407
San Francisco, CA 94103
CM-010
recepuone no: 415 675 7705 raxno: 415 675 2530
ATTORNEY FOR vara: Waukeen Q. McCoy (168228)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
street aooress: San Francisco Superior Court
maine anoress: 400 McAllister St.
crryanozecooe: San Francisco, 94102
prancixane. 9an Francisco Superior Court
CASE NAME:
McCoy v. Davis ;
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Comptex Case Designation CASE Nig =”
Untimited [_] Uimited Oo co Hor 466570
(Amount (Amount Counter Joinder
demanded demanded is Fited with first appearance by defendant OSE:
exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal, Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:
ems 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
| Auto (22) [_] Breach of contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rutes 3.400-3.403)
Uninsured motorist (46) Cc Rule 3.740 collections (09) C] AntitrustTrade regulation (03)
Other PUPD/AWD (Personal Injury/Property CL) Other coffections (09) {_] Construction defect (10)
Damage/Wrongful Death) Fort insurance coverage (18) C Mass tort (40)
Asbestos (04) Other contract (37) [J] Securities fitigation (28)
Product liability (24) Real Property [_] EnvironmentatToxic tort (30)
Medical matpractica (45) ([_] Eminent domain‘inverse Insurance coverage claims arising from the
(J other PuPDWD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case
Non-PUPDWD (Other) Tort [_] wrongful eviction (33) types (41)
Business tort/unfair business practice (07) [__] Other reat property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
[__] civil rights (08) Untawtul Detainer [J Enforcement of judgment (20)
(__] Detamation (13) C1) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
[_] Frane (18) (_] Residential (32) [] rico (27)
[_] intelectual property (19) LJ prugs (38) {__] other complaint (not specified above) (42)
[__] Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Other non-PUPDWD tort (35} L_] Asset forteiture (05) Partnership end corporate govemance (21)
Employment () Petition re: arbivation award (11) [—] other petition (not specified above) (43)
Wrongful termination (36) [__] wet of mandate (02)
CL] Other employment (15) {} Other judicial review (39)
Foe Cee A Naratony Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal, utes of Cour raion 2.90, 2.270, ernon #340
CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007)
www. courtsio.ca go
Amencan LegalNet, inc,
ween Forms Workflow. comPage 4 oOo S&S SN tA me Ow NR ee
Dome ee
22
23
24
Ac
=~
26
27
28
c c
WAUKEEN Q. McCOY, ESQ. (SBN: 168228) ss f sy
LAW OFFICES OF WAUKEENQ.McCOY Aug 2 4 2099/7Mime Why se
703 Market Street, Suite 1407 ! dl Mt superior Court
Dae
7 Tle
SET
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAN 9 5 2003 - QAM
COUNTY OF ALAMEDAgyprssens3 ISSUED
. ARTMENT 212
WAUKEEN Q. McCOY, d/b/a LAW ; Case No. . weeuses
OFFICES OF WAUKEEN McCOY, ) COMPLAINT wmor7- 864570
was )
Plaintiff, ) UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
v. )
; 1, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
) WITH CONTRACT
MICHAEL CAEL DAVIS, d/b/a LAW )
OFFICES OF MICHEAL DAVIS, and DOES ) 2, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
1-50, } WITH PROSPECTIVE
) ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
Defendant. }
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
I, This is an action for damages for Intentional Interference With Contract, and
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage against Michael “Cael” Davis
and Does 1-50. This action arises out of events involving Plaintiff Waukeen McCoy hereafter
“Plaintiff’ or “McCoy”) and Defendant Michael “Cael” Davis. d/b/a LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL CAEL DAVIS (hereafter “defendant” or “Davis”) and DOES 1-50.
COMPLAINTPage 5 Oo wo SH KH OH F&F YW NY
N wt vem met
c €
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action as both Plaintiff and Defendant are
residence of California.
3. Venue is proper in this jurisdiction because, inter alia, because the interference
with contractual relationship occurred in Alameda County, California.
PARTIES
4, Plaintiff McCoy is a California attorney with his principal place of business in
San Francisco, CA,
1. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant Davis is a
California attorney with his principal place of business in San Francisco, CA.
2. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as
DOES 1-50, inclusive, and Plaintiff therefore sues such defendants by such fictitious names.
Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereoa alleges that each of these fictitiously named
defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences, acts and omissions alleged herein
and that Plaintiff's injuries as alleged herein were proximately caused by such aforementioned
defendants.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
4, in 2002, NicCoy sought out an attomey to represent his interests in McCoy v.
Alioto a case filed in San Francisco Superior Court. Davis was recommended to McCoy by a
c C
things, Devon Butler an employce of FedEx from Santa Clara sought McCoy out to represent his
interests and the interests of other FedEx employees as they believed that they had been racially
discriminated against and retaliated against, Before the McCoy v. Alioto case ended in 2002,
McCoy graciously brought in and hired Davis as co-counsel to assist with Butler and other
FedEx employees who were located in Alameda County in a case later to be entitled Satchell v.
FedEx.
5. While working as McCoy’s attorney in the Alioto matter and co-counsel on the
Satchell matter Davis began efforts to steal McCoy’s FedEx clients from him. Davis made
disparaging comments about McCoy’s business to give McCoy's clients incentive to terminate
their relationship with McCoy. McCoy was unaware of any of Davis’ unethical business
practices.
6. Also in 2002, Davis, as McCoy’s attomey, advised McCoy to terminate an
independent contractor that was doing clerical work at McCoy’s office. Unbeknownst to
McCoy, Davis also met with the independent contractor and secretly advised the independent
contractor to sue McCoy for sexual harassment. Davis’ intent was to besmirch the character of
McCoy in the public by having him involved in a lawsuit of this matter. Davis also thought that
having McCoy embroiled in a lawsuit that went public would allow him chance to steal McCoy’s
FedEx clients. The independent contractor’s lawsuit was eventually tried by a jury and the
contracior lost his suit against McCoy.
7. During the independent contractor’s lawsuit, McCoy uncovered that Davis
had hired and had sexual relations with a nial pivstiiute in August ul 2003 whiie his German
hoyfriend was on vacation in Germany, This information was disclosed to Mr, Davis’ boyfriend
during the course of litigation, while Davis was present. McCoy also uncovered that Davis
COMPLAINTPage 7 Peewee eee
Oo Oo WN A A hk hw Ne
c €
wrote 2 declaration adverse to McCoy’s interests in support of the independent contractor's case
against McCoy. McCoy had to obtain a Court Order from San Francisco Superior Court
precluding Davis from falsely testifying in the independent contractor’s case as it was found by
the Court that Davis’ attempt to testify would be unethical.
9. In June of 2003, Davis called and had a meeting with McCoy’s FedEx clients at
Trader Vics in Alameda County and brought McCoy's former client Theodis Carroll and a
former acquaintance Rachel Leviege Smith into the meeting to besmirch Mr. McCoy's character,
This again was another attempt by Davis to steal the FedEx clients from McCoy. Davis held
another secret meeting, in around the same time frame without McCoy's knowledge and consent.
Davis was assisted by Todd Schnieder and Guy Wallace. Surprising to Davis and Schnieder and
Wallace, Davis and Schnieder and Waltace were discharged by the FedEx clients during this
secret meeting as they found, amongst other things, that Davis was intentionally interfering with
McCoy’s contract with them and they found his actions disturbing.
10. Around the same time, Davis cultivated and misted another FedEx employee
whom McCoy represented, Jerome Rodgers. McCoy had represented Rodgers for some time and
had no problems with his representation of Rodgers. Davis, interfered with the contract McCoy
had with Rodgers by contacting Rodgers on practically a daily basis to tum Rodgers against
McCoy citing he could not work with McCoy, that McCoy was not doing any work on his case,
and that Davis was doing all of the work, Based on Davis’ misrepresentations, and Rodgers
being confused, Rodgers terminated McCoy. Soon thereafter Rodger’s case was settled. Davis
scucily Wied to lake tie total amount of the allomeys fees in that case, however, because Davis
trad su office, no fax machine, and had been using McCoy’s office address and fax number for
his business, the confirmation for Rodger’s settlement came though McCoy’s office and placed
COMPLAINTPage 8 oO oe HN DH AH bh WwW Ne
No = =| SFOS eS eS eS
oo tm HY DH A fF WwW NY —& S&S
Nm NHN
wo Boe
tht
f
c €
McCoy on notice of the actions of Davis. McCoy promptly filed a lawsuit against Davis at that
time for intentional interference of contract, and Davis settled by paying McCoy.
11. Davis also interfered with McCoy’s ability to contract with individual potential
plaintiffs who contacted McCoy’s office after December 2002 press conference with regard to
FedEx, some later known as the Caldwell Plaintiffs. McCoy is informed and believe that Davis
received fees in each of the Caldwell Plaintiffs’ cases and that he failed to turn over any of the
fees to McCoy’s firm,
12, In the summer of 2003, after the FedEx client’s terminated Davis, McCoy sought
out other counsel to assist McCoy in prosecuting the class action lawsuit against FedEx. Davis
found out about the co-counsel that McCoy had approached, called them up and demanded that
the firm work with him and his clients, which he stole from McCoy.
13. Considering what would be in the best interests of the class members and
employees of FedEx, McCoy hired Lief Cabraser and other firms to prosecute the class action
lawsuit. Davis tried to convince class-counsel not to use any of McCoy's clients to be class reps
even though their experiences covered the spectrum needed to form the class. Despite Davis’
clandestine efforts McCoy eventually had clients under contract who became class
representatives. In 2003, an amended complaint was filed in Satchell narrowing the number of
¢ C
14.- Throughout the litigation in the Satchell matter, Davis was instrumental in having
projects held from McCoy’s office and he participated in secret meetings with the Class Reps
and other co-counsel to intentionally interfere with McCoy’s contract with his clients.
15. Asaresult of the verdicts McCoy obtained for the Alvarado Plaintiffs related to
their individual disparate treatment cases, FedEx decided to settle the class’ disparate impact
claims.
16. During the settlement process Davis met secretly with class representatives,
specifically in January of 2007, misleading them about the status of their cases and the prospects
of settlement. Davis told them that their cases lacked the value of cases already tried before
juries by McCoy and that McCoy's clients in Alvarado would not see the money that the juries
had awarded to them.
17. Davis took in excess of $2,300,000.00 from the Satchell class representatives on
their class claims. Davis did not want to proceed in trying the clients’ cases any further so he
attempted to talk them into settling their cases for far less than their cases were valued at. Davis
secretly negotiated with FedEx, without the Plaintiffs in Satchell_ present and without the
knowledge and consent of McCoy, Plaintiffs’ attorney in Satchell. The fees for the class
settlement that Davis received was doubled that of McCoy this was because McCoy had every
intention to try the Plaintiffs’ individual claims and obtain fees from the resolution of those
claims. Davis has prevented McCoy from obtaining fair compensation by tortiously interfering
with his agreement with his clients by telling class members that they do not have to pay attomeyj
fees for their individuai disparate treatment ciaims.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Intentional Interference with Contract
18. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference each of the Paragraphs alleged herein.
COMPLAINTPage 10 Co wowy A vA fF WY HY =
wh emma eee m t
S PBB RSGCxeA A BWR DH =R S
27
28
Cc c
19. At all relevant times after May of 2002, a written contract existed between
Plaintiff and Derrick Satchell, Valerie Brown, Kelvin Smith, Kaylini Boykin, Ken Stevenson and
others.
20. = At-all relevant times, Michael Davis knew of the contracts between McCoy and
Derick Satchell, Valeria Brown, Kelvin Smith, and Kaylini Boykin, Ken Stevenson, and other
FedEx class members.
21. Defendants Davis had knowledge of the contingency fee provision(s) in the
retainer agreement between McCoy and Derrick Satchell, Valerie Brown, Kelvin Smith, and
Kaylini Boykin, Ken Stevenson, and class members.
22. Defendant Michael Davis interfered with Plaintiffs contract with Derrick
Satchell, Valerie Brown, Kelvin Smith and Kaylini Boykin, Ken Stevenson, by secretly
negotiating with FedEx, without the Plaintiffs in Satchell present and without the knowledge and
consent of McCoy.
23. Defendants has by his acts wrongfully and/or maliciously interfered with
Plaintiff's contract with Derrick Satchell, Valerie Brown, Kelvin Smith, Kaylini Boykin, Ken
Stevenson, and other FedEx class members. The interference by the Defendants is an
independent wrongful and/or unlawful act or deed quite apart from its effect on the Plaintiffs
business relationships. Defendants’ act, deed and/or failure to act include defamation, fraud and
other bad faith conduct towards Waukeen McCoy as alleged herein.
24. As aresult of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be
estabiished at tnai. ihe acts aiieged in this Compiaint of Defendant were willful, wanton,
malicious, oppressive and done in conscious disregard of the right of Piaintiff and justify an
award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COMPLAINTPage 11 Dw wo KN HD tA & W NH =
Po meme mmm et
ow wm YT KN A fk BW NY SE SG
Nw oN OW
wa No
N
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
25. — Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference each of the Paragraphs alleged herein.
26. Atall relevant times after May 2002, McCoy maintained a proprietary client
log for prospective FedEx class members.
27. Atall relevant times, Michael Cael Davis knew that McCoy maintained a
proprietary client log for prospective FedEx class members.
28. Defendant Michael Cael Davis, with the support of Does 1-50 and wrongfully and
intentionally misled Plaintiff's potential FedEx clients about Plaintiffs business.
29. Defendants Davis and Does 1-50 had knowledge of the payment provision(s) in
the True Agreement between the parties and had knowledge that class members would be
contacting the Law Offices of Waukeen McCoy in an effort to procure representation.
30. Defendants Davis and Does 1-50 stole McCoy’s proprietary client log and
interfered with Plaintiffs’ class representation thus, depriving Plaintiff of future fees owed. By
fabricating the Fraudulent Caldwell class, the Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs’ rights to
solely represent the Satchell class. Upon information and belief, Davis and Does 1-50 intended ta
deny Plaintiff his right to exclusive class representation by fabricating the Fraudulent Caldwell
Class.
31. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff's prospective economic benefit by
disparaging Plaintiff's business to potential class members and by recruiting class members who
contacted Plaintiff's office thus diminishing Plaintiff good will and reputation, Davis’ and Does
1-50 actions were wrongful.
32. Defendants have by their act, deed and failure to act wrongfully and/or
COMPLAINTPage 12 Oo 7 HN DH trl fk WY Ne
he — — — — — — — — — toms
o 6 we SN DH A & WY NH =| OS
I2ooUdNS yo OU UN Ob
A > Ww we —
yb bh
ao ~l
€ €
maliciously interfered with Plaintiff's economic relations. The interference by the Defendants is
an independent wrongful and/or unlawful act or deed quite apart from its effect on the Plaintiff's
business relationships. Defendants’ act, deed and/or failure to act include defamation, fraud and
other bad faith conduct towards Plaintiff as alleged herein.
33.
As aresult of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be
established at trial. The acts alleged in this Complaint of Defendants were willful, wanton,
malicious, oppressive and done in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and justify an
award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
1. For declaratory, equitable, preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief,
according to statute;
2. For damages according to proof;
3. For punitive damages;
4. For attorney’s fees and for costs of suite;
5. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: August 14, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF WAUKEEN Q, McCOY
By aM
WAUKEEN Q. McCOY
Auomey for Piainuift
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
AAAI
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Aug-24-2007 2:01 pm
Case Number: CGC-07-466570
Filing Date: Aug-24-2007 1:57
Juke Box: 001 Image: 01866617
COMPLAINT
WAUKEEN Q MCCOY VS. MICHAEL CAEL DAVIS et al
001001866617
instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
PDF Page 3
~
c €
SUM-100
SUMMONS (sot COURT USE ONLY
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
MICHAEL CAEL DAVIS, d/b/a LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL
DAVIS, and DOES 1-50
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(Lo ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
WAUKEEN Q. McCOY, d/b/a LAW OFFICES OF WAUKEEN
McCOY
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file 4 written response at this court and have a
copy served on the plaintiff. A tetter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the
court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more
Information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law tibrary, or the courthouse
nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. ff you do not fite your response on time, you may
lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legat requirements, You may want to call an attorney right away. if you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an
attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit tegal services
program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www. lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California
Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association.
Tiena 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que fe entreguen esta citacién y papeles legates para presentar una respuesta por escrito
en ests corte y hacer que se entregue una copia af demsndante. Una carta o una tiamads telefénica no fo protegen. Su respuesta por
escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en [a corte. Es posibie que haya un formularfo que usted
pueda usar para su respuesta, Puede encontrar estos formularios de fa corte y mas informacion en ef Centro de Ayuda de jas Cortes de
Callfornia (aww.courtinfo.ca.gov/setthelp/espancl}, en fa biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en fa corte que fe quede més cerca. Sino
puede pagar fa cuota de presentacién, pide al secretario de Ia corte que ie dé un formulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta
$u respuesta a tempo, puede perder ef caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podré quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin més advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos fegales. Es recomendable que flame a un abogado inmediatamente, Sino conoce a un abogado, puede flamar a un
servicio de remisién a abogados. SI no puede pagar a un abogsdo, es posible que cumpla con los requisites para obtener servicios
legates gratuitos da un programa de servicios legaies sin fines de lucro, Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitlo wed de
California Leaal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org}. en ef Centro de Ayuda de iss Cortes de California,
{www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/espanol} o poniéndose en contacto con fa corte o ef colegio de abogados iocales.
ewe we
@ name and address of the court is: tet } = ‘
{El nombre y direccién de Ia corte es): CASE NUN ¢ 6 6 5 70 ,
400 McAllister
San Francisco, CA 94102
{El nombre, !a direccién y el namero de teléfone del abogado del demandante ' # demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
Waukeen McCoy oY PA
sagye |
CA %
DATE: - Clerk, by , Deputy
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
rh
“Pay. ¥ j as an individual defendant.
Sin > so ths porcen sutd under the Rotitious nama of fenanihids
eC" -
4, LJ on behailt ot (specify):
under: _] CCP 416.10 (corporation) [7] CCP 416.60 (minor)
LL] CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) [__] CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
(_] other (specify):
. . {Namen del Caso}:
San Francisco Superior Court
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attomey, is:
703 Market taSyit day? San Francisco,
MG a Sn
(Fecha) (Secretario) ¥ CRISTINAG Es" (Aajunto)
OTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
{ L_j see peeen Cees
(__] CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) [__] CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
4. ([_] by personal delivery on (date):
Page 1 of 1
Judeaal Council Cooe of Crd Procedure §§ 412.20, 465
SUM-100 [Rav. January 1, 2004] SUMMONS
Oo wo SH KH OH F&F YW NY
N wt vem met
c €
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action as both Plaintiff and Defendant are
residence of California.
3. Venue is proper in this jurisdiction because, inter alia, because the interference
with contractual relationship occurred in Alameda County, California.
PARTIES
4, Plaintiff McCoy is a California attorney with his principal place of business in
San Francisco, CA,
1. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant Davis is a
California attorney with his principal place of business in San Francisco, CA.
2. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as
DOES 1-50, inclusive, and Plaintiff therefore sues such defendants by such fictitious names.
Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereoa alleges that each of these fictitiously named
defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences, acts and omissions alleged herein
and that Plaintiff's injuries as alleged herein were proximately caused by such aforementioned
defendants.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
4, in 2002, NicCoy sought out an attomey to represent his interests in McCoy v.
Alioto a case filed in San Francisco Superior Court. Davis was recommended to McCoy by a
mutual friend of both Davis and McCoy. At the time Davis was warkino out af hic hame and
had one or two clients. if anv.
5. Due to MeCoy’s successful civil rights practice, and having one of the largest jury)
verdicts in U.S. History for race discrimination in the workplace (Carroll v. IBC ), amongst other
COMPLAINT
Peewee eee
Oo Oo WN A A hk hw Ne
c €
wrote 2 declaration adverse to McCoy’s interests in support of the independent contractor's case
against McCoy. McCoy had to obtain a Court Order from San Francisco Superior Court
precluding Davis from falsely testifying in the independent contractor’s case as it was found by
the Court that Davis’ attempt to testify would be unethical.
9. In June of 2003, Davis called and had a meeting with McCoy’s FedEx clients at
Trader Vics in Alameda County and brought McCoy's former client Theodis Carroll and a
former acquaintance Rachel Leviege Smith into the meeting to besmirch Mr. McCoy's character,
This again was another attempt by Davis to steal the FedEx clients from McCoy. Davis held
another secret meeting, in around the same time frame without McCoy's knowledge and consent.
Davis was assisted by Todd Schnieder and Guy Wallace. Surprising to Davis and Schnieder and
Wallace, Davis and Schnieder and Waltace were discharged by the FedEx clients during this
secret meeting as they found, amongst other things, that Davis was intentionally interfering with
McCoy’s contract with them and they found his actions disturbing.
10. Around the same time, Davis cultivated and misted another FedEx employee
whom McCoy represented, Jerome Rodgers. McCoy had represented Rodgers for some time and
had no problems with his representation of Rodgers. Davis, interfered with the contract McCoy
had with Rodgers by contacting Rodgers on practically a daily basis to tum Rodgers against
McCoy citing he could not work with McCoy, that McCoy was not doing any work on his case,
and that Davis was doing all of the work, Based on Davis’ misrepresentations, and Rodgers
being confused, Rodgers terminated McCoy. Soon thereafter Rodger’s case was settled. Davis
scucily Wied to lake tie total amount of the allomeys fees in that case, however, because Davis
trad su office, no fax machine, and had been using McCoy’s office address and fax number for
his business, the confirmation for Rodger’s settlement came though McCoy’s office and placed
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 9
oO oe HN DH AH bh WwW Ne
No = =| SFOS eS eS eS
oo tm HY DH A fF WwW NY —& S&S
Nm NHN
wo Boe
tht
f
c €
McCoy on notice of the actions of Davis. McCoy promptly filed a lawsuit against Davis at that
time for intentional interference of contract, and Davis settled by paying McCoy.
11. Davis also interfered with McCoy’s ability to contract with individual potential
plaintiffs who contacted McCoy’s office after December 2002 press conference with regard to
FedEx, some later known as the Caldwell Plaintiffs. McCoy is informed and believe that Davis
received fees in each of the Caldwell Plaintiffs’ cases and that he failed to turn over any of the
fees to McCoy’s firm,
12, In the summer of 2003, after the FedEx client’s terminated Davis, McCoy sought
out other counsel to assist McCoy in prosecuting the class action lawsuit against FedEx. Davis
found out about the co-counsel that McCoy had approached, called them up and demanded that
the firm work with him and his clients, which he stole from McCoy.
13. Considering what would be in the best interests of the class members and
employees of FedEx, McCoy hired Lief Cabraser and other firms to prosecute the class action
lawsuit. Davis tried to convince class-counsel not to use any of McCoy's clients to be class reps
even though their experiences covered the spectrum needed to form the class. Despite Davis’
clandestine efforts McCoy eventually had clients under contract who became class
representatives. In 2003, an amended complaint was filed in Satchell narrowing the number of
Plaintiff, Class Representatives. At least 10 or more of the employees not presented as Class
Representatives opted out of the class, had their cases dismissed and refiled in January of 2004
as the Alvarado Cases. McCoy refiled the Alvarado Plaintiffs cases and did not work with
Davis. Davis did nut work one day on the Aivarado cases, nowever, ne fied a lien on each of
ine Piaintiffs causes for one half of ine aitorneys fees in each case.
COMPLAINT
Co wowy A vA fF WY HY =
wh emma eee m t
S PBB RSGCxeA A BWR DH =R S
27
28
Cc c
19. At all relevant times after May of 2002, a written contract existed between
Plaintiff and Derrick Satchell, Valerie Brown, Kelvin Smith, Kaylini Boykin, Ken Stevenson and
others.
20. = At-all relevant times, Michael Davis knew of the contracts between McCoy and
Derick Satchell, Valeria Brown, Kelvin Smith, and Kaylini Boykin, Ken Stevenson, and other
FedEx class members.
21. Defendants Davis had knowledge of the contingency fee provision(s) in the
retainer agreement between McCoy and Derrick Satchell, Valerie Brown, Kelvin Smith, and
Kaylini Boykin, Ken Stevenson, and class members.
22. Defendant Michael Davis interfered with Plaintiffs contract with Derrick
Satchell, Valerie Brown, Kelvin Smith and Kaylini Boykin, Ken Stevenson, by secretly
negotiating with FedEx, without the Plaintiffs in Satchell present and without the knowledge and
consent of McCoy.
23. Defendants has by his acts wrongfully and/or maliciously interfered with
Plaintiff's contract with Derrick Satchell, Valerie Brown, Kelvin Smith, Kaylini Boykin, Ken
Stevenson, and other FedEx class members. The interference by the Defendants is an
independent wrongful and/or unlawful act or deed quite apart from its effect on the Plaintiffs
business relationships. Defendants’ act, deed and/or failure to act include defamation, fraud and
other bad faith conduct towards Waukeen McCoy as alleged herein.
24. As aresult of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be
estabiished at tnai. ihe acts aiieged in this Compiaint of Defendant were willful, wanton,
malicious, oppressive and done in conscious disregard of the right of Piaintiff and justify an
award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 12
Dw wo KN HD tA & W NH =
Po meme mmm et
ow wm YT KN A fk BW NY SE SG
Nw oN OW
wa No
N
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
25. — Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference each of the Paragraphs alleged herein.
26. Atall relevant times after May 2002, McCoy maintained a proprietary client
log for prospective FedEx class members.
27. Atall relevant times, Michael Cael Davis knew that McCoy maintained a
proprietary client log for prospective FedEx class members.
28. Defendant Michael Cael Davis, with the support of Does 1-50 and wrongfully and
intentionally misled Plaintiff's potential FedEx clients about Plaintiffs business.
29. Defendants Davis and Does 1-50 had knowledge of the payment provision(s) in
the True Agreement between the parties and had knowledge that class members would be
contacting the Law Offices of Waukeen McCoy in an effort to procure representation.
30. Defendants Davis and Does 1-50 stole McCoy’s proprietary client log and
interfered with Plaintiffs’ class representation thus, depriving Plaintiff of future fees owed. By
fabricating the Fraudulent Caldwell class, the Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs’ rights to
solely represent the Satchell class. Upon information and belief, Davis and Does 1-50 intended ta
deny Plaintiff his right to exclusive class representation by fabricating the Fraudulent Caldwell
Class.
31. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff's prospective economic benefit by
disparaging Plaintiff's business to potential class members and by recruiting class members who
contacted Plaintiff's office thus diminishing Plaintiff good will and reputation, Davis’ and Does
1-50 actions were wrongful.
32. Defendants have by their act, deed and failure to act wrongfully and/or
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 13
Oo 7 HN DH trl fk WY Ne
he — — — — — — — — — toms
o 6 we SN DH A & WY NH =| OS
I2ooUdNS yo OU UN Ob
A > Ww we —
yb bh
ao ~l
€ €
maliciously interfered with Plaintiff's economic relations. The interference by the Defendants is
an independent wrongful and/or unlawful act or deed quite apart from its effect on the Plaintiff's
business relationships. Defendants’ act, deed and/or failure to act include defamation, fraud and
other bad faith conduct towards Plaintiff as alleged herein.
33.
As aresult of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be
established at trial. The acts alleged in this Complaint of Defendants were willful, wanton,
malicious, oppressive and done in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and justify an
award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
1. For declaratory, equitable, preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief,
according to statute;
2. For damages according to proof;
3. For punitive damages;
4. For attorney’s fees and for costs of suite;
5. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: August 14, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF WAUKEEN Q, McCOY
By aM
WAUKEEN Q. McCOY
Auomey for Piainuift
COMPLAINT
Back to 
