1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Ronald R. Shea, Esq. (State Bar No. 201540) P.O. Box 5584 Sherman Oaks, CA 91413 rshea@rshealaw.com (818) 217-5245 (818) 390-8082 Attorney for Helen Hatat

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTHWEST DISTRICT
C.A.R.E. et al. Plaintiff, vs. HELEN HATAT, an individual, Defendants CASE N0: LC089974 Judge: The Hon. Michael Harwin Dept. NW-M

_________________________________ CROSS COMPLAINT

HELEN HATAT Cross-Complainant, vs. C.A.R.E. (a California Non-Profit Corporation), MARY ZUPAN, MARIA PORTER AND JOANNA PATRICE, an individual, Cross-Defendants

Action Filed: Trial Date:

June 1, 2010 Not Set

[PROPOSED] CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: (1) CONVERSION OF PROPERTY (2) NEGLIGENCE (3) NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (4) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Cross-Complainant, HELEN HATAT, cross-complains against .C.A.R.E., MARY ZUPAN, MARIA PORTER, AND JOANNA PATRICE, as follows:. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

25 26 27 28

1.

Defendant Helen Hatat (hereinafter HATAT) is a current resident of Los Angeles

County, State of California. Attached herewith as Exhibit A are documents demonstrating that Helen

-1CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053

1 2 3 4

Hatat was the actual owner of the cats in question, having paid, out of her own pocket, for electronic RF (radio frequency) tags embedded in her cats for identification, and other adoption papers and documents consistent with ownership of such pets. Her ownership is incontestable. The cats are variously named Sage, Samantha, Daisy, Sweety, DeeDee, Sweet Pea, and

5 6 7 8 9

Princess.
2. 3. HATAT has been homeless since approximately October 2009. From approximately 1998-2002, HATAT worked with C.A.R.E in a volunteer

capacity. HATAT is the Defendant in an action by Plaintiffs C.A.R.E., Maria Porter, (hereinafter,
10 11 12 13 14 15

PORTER) Mary Zupan, (hereinafter, ZUPAN) and Joanna Patrice, (hereinafter, PATRICE). HATAT alleges on information and belief that C.A.R.E. is a non-profit corporation in the State of California. PORTER, ZUPAN and PATRICE are real persons. HATAT alleges, on information and belief that PORTER, ZUPAN and PATRICE are directors, officers, and employees of C.A.R.E. 4. In or about February 2009, HATAT lost her job. Upon realizing that she would soon

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

be homeless, and concerned that she would be unable to adequately care for her pets, HATAT contacted ZUPAN, and asked for help finding a temporary foster-home for her cats. HATAT specifically did not contact C.A.R.E. as she did not want her cats in the care, custody or possession of C.A.R.E. due to HATATs concerns over C.A.R.E.s ethics in caring for cats. ZUPAN arranged a meeting between HATAT and a woman named Jean. On or about October 19, 2009, Jean met HATAT at HATATs apartment, agreed to provide temporary respite for HATATS cats, and took

23 24 25 26 27 28

custody and possession of the cats at that time, thereby forming a lawful trust under the laws of California. 5. HATAT subsequently learned that Jean had delivered the seven cats to C.A.R.E.,

and/or one or more of the C.A.R.E. associates. In inquiring about the condition of her cats, HATAT

-2CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053

1 2 3 4

was advised that her cat, Sweety, had to have its teeth removed. Because Sweety did not have any teeth when initially delivered to Jean, HATAT reasonably became concerned about the integrity of the reports she was receiving from C.A.R.E. HATAT was also advised that her cats were fine, only to be advised shortly thereafter that one of her cats, Dee Dee had died. PORTER advised

5 6 7 8 9 10

HATAT that the ashes of Dee Dee would be mailed to her. HATAT never received the ashes or any death certificate or certificate of cremation, and received conflicting reports about the death of Dee Dee. 6. HATAT contacted C.A.R.E. to get her cats back. HATAT was told the cats had been

taken to C.A.R.E.s Antelope Valley facility. HATAT was told that C.A.R.E. would give the cats
11 12 13 14 15 16

back, and then at some point, C.A.R.E. refused to return the cats. 7. HATAT was even refused the collars, leashes and carrier for the cats. HATAT had

lost her companion cats to C.A.R.E and was refused anything that belonged to them as a memory of them. 8. In view of the inaccurate and conflicting reports she was receiving, and the death of

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

one of her cats, C.A.R.E.s refusal to return the cats or even leashes and collars to HATAT, HATAT reasonably became distressed about the welfare of her cats. This distress was exacerbated by the loneliness she now experienced as a homeless woman, having lost everyone and everything she ever loved. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion Of Property, Against All Cross-Defendants)

24 25 26 27 28

9.

HATAT repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 8 with the same force and effect

as though set out here at length.

-3CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053

1 2 3 4

10.

HATAT never consented to or gave custody, possession or control over her cats to the

defendants, or any of therm. HATAT merely contacted ZUPAN who put her in contact with a person named Jean whom HATAT thought would temporarily foster her cats. 11. C.A.R.E. wrongfully and without legal right or authorization from the owner of the

5 6 7 8 9 10

cats, HATAT, took possession, custody and control of the cats and treated them as though it owned them. 12. HATAT demanded the return of her property, the cats, and C.A.R.E. refused to do so,

and still continues to fail and refuse to return the cats, or any of them, or any of their leashes or collars.

11 12 13 14 15 16

13.

As a proximate result of the actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them,

HATAT has sustained damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial. 14. The actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them, were volitional, with a wonton

and reckless disregard for the rights of HATAT and was done with malice aforethought to cause injury to HATAT and therefore HATAT is entitled to exemplary and punitive damages in an amount

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to be determined. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence Against All Cross-Defendants) 15. HATAT repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 13 with the same force and effect

as though set out here at length.

16.

The Cross-Defendants, and each of them, since they had HATATs companion

cats in their custody, possession and control to temporarily foster them, had a duty to HATAT to care for the health, safety and welfare of the cats and to return them to HATAT upon her request.

-4CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053

1 2 3

17.

The Cross-Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty to care for the

health, safety and welfare of HATATs companion cats in that one cat, Sweety, was reported to have had their teeth pulled when in fact those cats did not have any teeth when HATAT

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

temporarily fostered them with Jean. Moreover, the Cross-Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty of care to return the cats to HATAT upon demand by repeatedly refusing to do so. 18. But for the actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them, plaintiff has

sustained damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial. 19. The actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them, in refusing to properly

care for the health, safety and welfare of her companion cats, and further in refusing to return them after repeated demands, and further in refusing to return the leashes and collars to HATAT caused HATAT to suffer severe emotional distress and mental suffering, as the companion cats are her only living family embodying all of her loved ones. This behavior is

17 18 19 20 21

outrageous and is shocking to the consciousness of civilized society, and HATAT is entitled to damages subject to proof at the time of trial. 20. Helen Hatats father died in 1979 and her mother died in 1994. Her husband and

only daughter died in a car accident in 1986.

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (For Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Against all Cross-Defendants) 21. HATAT repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 13 and 16 through 20 with the

same force and effect as though set out here at length.

-5CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053

1 2 3 4

22.

The Cross-Defendants, and each of them, exchanged communications with HATAT

from the time that C.A.R.E. was known by HATAT to have the cats in its care, custody, control and possession. The communications were largely by email, and include statements that HATAT wants her cats back no matter what; instructions to HATAT that she could have her cats back, and then

5 6 7 8 9 10

advising her that she could not get the cats back; instructions by C.A.R.E. attorney Robert Gentino to not give the cats back to HATAT; she was even instructed to go to Gentinos office to pick up the collars and leashes, but she was afraid to, because Gentino had published his intent to have HATAT arrested on false report to the police if she entered his building. 23. The cross-defendants knew, or should have known, that the deprivation of her

11 12 13 14 15 16

companion cats was causing HATAT emotional distress and mental suffering, as they were repeatedly told and so advised, and Gentino even exchanged emails with a mental health care provider from whom HATAT had sought help wherein HATATs distress was expressed to him and C.A.R.E. and his replies demonstrating his disdain for HATAT and opinion that she is crazy. 24. But for the actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them, HATAT would have

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

possession, custody and control of her companion cats, and would not have suffered any damages. 25. As a proximate result of the actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them,

HATAT has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial. 26. As a further proximate result of the actions of the cross-defendants, HATAT suffered

emotional distress and mental suffering to her detriment for which she is entitled to damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial.

24 25 26 27 28

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against All Cross-Defendants)

-6CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053

1 2 3 4

26.

HATAT repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 25 with the same force and effect

as though set out here at length. 27. The actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them, in doing the foregoing acts, did

so knowing that HATAT was distressed and suffering emotionally from the loss of her cats due to her
5 6 7 8 9 10

repeated demands for their return and from the communications to C.A.R.E.s attorney regarding HATATs suffering. After knowing the effect on HATAT from being deprived of her cats, the crossdefendants, and each of them, advised HATAT that the cats would not be returned to her, and not even their collars, leashes or carrier, which HATAT had requested so that she could have something tangible by which to remember them.

11 12 13 14 15 16

28.

As a proximate result of the actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them,

HATAT has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial. 29. The actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them, were done volitionally and with

the purpose to inflict mental suffering and emotional distress onto HATAT, from which she is greatly suffering. These actions were malicious and in complete disregard of HATATs rights and for the

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

purpose of causing her to suffer emotionally and mentally. As such HATAT is entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages. WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainant, Helen Hatat, prays for Judgment against the Cross-Defendants C.A.R.E., Zupan, Porter, and Patrice jointly and severally, as follows: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (For Conversion)

24 25 26 27 28

1. Damages in an amount subject to proof, but believed to be in the sum of at least $30,000 per cat; 2. Punitive and exemplary damages to be determined by a jury;

-7CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053

1 2 3 4

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (For Negligence) 3. Damages in an amount subject to proof, but believed to be in the sum of at least

$30,000 per cat;

5 6 7 8 9 10

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (For Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) 4. Damages in an amount subject to proof, but believed to be in excess of $30,000 per cat; FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

11 12 13 14 15 16

(For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 5. Damages in an amount subject to proof, but believed to be in excess of $30,000 per cat; 6. Punitive damages to be determined by a jury, but believed to be in excess of $500,000 for the cross-defendants to be deterred from doing these type of actions in the future;

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION. 7. For interest as provided by law, but to include the legal rate of Ten Percent per year. 8. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

DATE: January 26, 2012

By:______________________________ RONALD R. SHEA, ESQ, (SBN 201540) Attorney for Cross-Complainant HELEN HATAT

-8CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053

1 2 3 4 5

VERIFICATION
Pursuant to Cal. Code. of Civ. Procedures 446, I, HELEN HATAT, declare the following: 1. 2. I am a plaintiff in this action. I have read the foregoing Complaint for Conversion and Intentional Infliction of

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Emotional Distress, and know the contents of this complaint. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the contents of the Complaint are true to the best of my person knowledge, other than matters stated on the basis of information and belief, and as to these matters, I am informed and believe them to be true.

Executed this 2nd Day of February, 2011 at Los Angeles County, California.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_________________________________________ Helen Hatat

-9CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053