COMMON ALLEGATIONS
24. Transparency in and accountability of Union finances is further
warranted because of a blatant refusal to disclose expenditures or receipts involving the ENTERTAINMENT STRATEGIES GROUP (ESG) where DAVID WHITE was employed after WHITE departed SAG as its General Counsel in 2005 and from which WHITE returned to SAG to become its Interim National Executive Director, following the arrest of attorney MARC DREIER who controlled ESG. The sentencing alone of DREIER, now serving twenty years in federal prison for a variety of offenses, including investment fraud affecting numerous Union Funds, and the arrest of DREIER for impersonating a representative of a Teacher's Pension Fund in Toronto, California, alone warrants full disclosure, with certain Plaintiffs having reason to believe that

WHITE did not divulge the full extent of ESG's investment schemes, let alone to what degree WHITE and other former SAG employees may have if not continued to commit Labor Union funds to said ventures. In these regards, Plaintiffs note that following his return to SAG, and now as the National Executive Director of SAG-AFTRA, WHITE has ensured the funneling of continued consulting opportunities to SALLIE WEAVER who worked with WHITE at ESG and for which accountability has been actively resisted by WHITE.
25. By affording access to accounting and bank records detailing expenditures and receipts, Plaintiffs will also be able to ascertain the degree to which, if any, fiduciary duties owing to the Union membership have been compromised because of the expenditure of Union funds on First Class travel, including to foreign countries, as well as lavish parties and political events. Similarly disclosure of expenditures involving Consultants who are required to but have failed or refused to file federal reporting forms will demonstrate the extent to which SAG-AFTRA's obligations to its membership, including to preserve and protect the Union's coffers, including from conflicts of interest, have been compromised and if so, by whom.
26. Plaintiffs have reason to believe that commencing in or about 2002, a scheme was concocted by various staff employed by SAG, including its

then Executive Director, ROBERT PISANO, as well as members of its legal staff, including WHITE and CRABTREE-IRELAND, as well as labor consultant ROBERT HADL, all of whom have been traditionally aligned with the interests of management, to confuse the elected leadership of SAG and the membership concerning the role and fiduciary responsibilities of SAG, as a labor organization, in collecting, distributing and accounting for monies owing to performers. Up until said time, SAG had been transparent in its financial matters, detailing receipts and disbursements, including relative to transactions involving monies entrusted to it to secure remuneration owing to its members and non-members on "covered" works with Signatory Producers. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in or about 2002, SAG's hired leadership started changing its financial practices, thereby causing SAG's Treasurer, Kent McCord, to express concern when signing the LM-2 Report for Fiscal Year 2002, in November 2002.
27. Not long thereafter, the United States Congress expressed its intentions to ensure transparency in union finances, with more detailed reporting requirements thereafter added to the Form LM-2 reports in October 2003, Labor Organization Annual Financial Reports, 68 FR 58374. Although these changes were designed to provide more information to a Union's members in the Union's annual financial reports, SAG, shortly following notice that lawsuits



27
28 were being threatened against the Directors Guild of America (DGA) and the Writers Guild of America (WGA) because of their failure to distribute Foreign Royalties to their members, stopped providing detailed information about its receipts and disbursements involving not only Foreign Royalties but Residuals as well, in filed LM-2s and 990s. The SAG leadership, including WHITE and CRABTREE-IRELAND, assured the elected leadership that SAG was fully complying with applicable laws in these regards and thus the SAG elected leadership had no reason to question WHITE and CRABTREE-IRELAND's representations in these regards.
28. Contemporaneously, SAG proclaimed it was successfully
operating a Residual Repayment Program and had been doing so for more than thirty years, with its retained legal counsel, including TAYLOR, ROTH, BUSH & GEFFNER and its successor firms, GEFFNER & BUSH and thereafter BUSH, GOTTLIEB, SINGER, LOPEZ, ADELSTEIN having directly negotiated with the Producers, including the ALLIANCE OF MOTION PICTURE AND TELEVISION PRODUCERS, collective bargaining agreements providing for the continuing payment to SAG members and non¬members of Residuals, if not commencement of the collection of Foreign Royalties as well. By the latter time, JAY ROTH was now firmly entrenched as the National Executive Director of the DGA, having departed TAYLOR,
  ASNER, et al. vs. SAG-AFTRA, et al. Case No. 13-CV
COMPLAINT 22
  


27
28  ROTH, and was actively making decisions about Foreign Royalties along with HADL that was impacting SAG, as well as the WGA to whom ROTH's firm also rendered legal advice.
29. Plaintiffs have reason to believe that not long after the DGA and
the WGA were threatened with suit because of their withholding of Foreign Royalties, SAG grossly diminished its payment of Residuals and Foreign Royalties, if not suspended payments completely to mask an alterior covert motive to stockpile as part of SAG's own assets undistributed Residuals and Foreign Royalties. Plaintiffs are informed and believe SAG has in turn converted Residuals and Foreign Royalties to its own use, either by diminishing the principal received or the interest earned thereon, to pay increasing salaries to its Executive Officers, to pay for 1st class travel, political events and lavish parties, as well as to provide substantial retainers to outside consultants, including HADL, legal counsel, accounting and Information Technology firms, and companies purportedly engaged in the distribution of Residuals and Royalties, all to the ongoing detriment of the membership. As evidence of same, Plaintiffs note that in 2002, SAG reported on its LM-2, that it was holding only $ 12,085,425, in trust for its members. As of 2011, SAG reported on its LM-2 that said monies had grown to in excess of $95,205,672, while SAG-AFTRA, after one month of operation, purported that the sum being held in these regards,
  ASNER, et al. vs. SAG-AFTRA, et al. Case No. 13-CV
COMPLAINT 23
  
  

presumably in different accounts, was now in excess of $110,000,000.
30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in light of public
statements by SAG as to the amount of monies collected for Foreign Levies between 2008 and present, the sum of which is disputed by Plaintiffs, and the purported disbursement of only $250,000 prior to 2008 and more than
$ 8,000,000 dollars from 2008 through 2010, with both sums disputed by Plaintiffs as well, then by process of deduction the lionshare of the monies SAG-AFTRA claims it is holding in trust are attributable to undistributed Residuals, which SAG-AFTRA and its predecessors claim come into the labor organization to the tune of $2,000,000 per day. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that SAG-AFTRA and its predecessors would never have obtained possession of Residuals to place in trust in the first place without wrongfully endorsing checks issued by signatory Producers directly to performers yet forwarded by the Producers, at the labor organization's insistence, to SAG and AFTRA, solely for tracking purposes so the labor organization could purportedly determine what dues should be charged to its members.
31. By so acting, Defendant SAG-AFTRA and its predecessors have precluded Plaintiffs and others from timely collecting earned Residuals to which they are entitled, even though Producers have issued W-2s to Plaintiffs and others as if the Residual checks were in fact received, when in
ASNER, et al. vs. SAG-AFTRA, et al. Case No. 13-CV
COMPLAINT 24

  


27
28  fact SAG-AFTRA and its predecessors have withheld same to the ongoing detriment of members and non-members alike. In these regards, SAG publicly acknowledged in the trades that "unclaimed residuals" had increased from 39,358 in 2004 to 66,848 by 2008 and to 69,184 by 2010. As of April 13, 2012, the unclaimed residuals list had increased to in excess of 75,000. Contemporaneously, SAG leadership, including CRABTREE¬IRELAND has sought to justify the burgeoning retention of Residuals on the premise that SAG cannot locate the heirs or estates of such well known entertainment and/or political icons as Frank Sinatra, John F. Kennedy, Larry Hagman or Sonny Bono, while lacking the ability to send checks owing to the parents of television personality Anderson Cooper, including his mother, Gloria Vanderbilt, or his now deceased father, Wyatt Cooper, let alone Ed Asner's son, Matthew Asner who is now the Southern California Executive Director of Autism Speaks.
32. Simultaneously and although WHITE has stated that state-of-the-art equipment nicknamed "Bullwinkle" and "Rocky", has been purchased at a substantial expense to the membership to expedite processing of Residuals, the delay in processing has increased three-fold, relative to checks actually sent to members, while SAG-AFTRA continues to refuse to account for Residuals which have been retained as "unclaimed".
  ASNER, et al. vs. SAG-AFTRA, et al. Case No. 13-CV
COMPLAINT 25
  
  

33. With respect to Foreign Royalties, at various times commencing in 2008 to present, CRABTREE-IRELAND has been quoted in entertainment magazines as well as the Huffington Post, as stating that the organization over which he now sits as General Counsel, has the authority to collect monies on behalf of its members, including from various collecting societies, but either is without authorization to distribute same to its members, holds superior ownership interests in said monies, or has been thwarted in its distribution efforts due to a purportedly antiquated computer system, even though SAG claimed to have expended several million dollars each year, commencing in 2004 to present, relative to computer hardware, software, and IT maintenance, including from staff and consultants alike, including Dina Kampmeyer, during the same periods of time that the system was purportedly broken. Ironically the purportedly antiquated computer system did not impede SAG's ability to continue to bill and collect dues and assessments from its members, but merely to reunite members with monies clearly due and owing to said performers.
34. The instant demand that SAG-AFTRA, touted as America's premier labor organization, become accountable is further mandated by the inconsistencies and contradictions also inherent in other financial forms which SAG-AFTRA and their predecessors have filed, particularly with respect to receipts, liabilities and disbursements involving Residuals and Foreign

  

28  Royalties. For instance, review of 990 Forms also filed for the same years as LM-2s show that SAG-AFTRA's predecessors, whose assets and liabilities have purportedly been merged into SAG-AFTRA, have increased their coffers by failing to distribute the monies received in these regards, while any distributions have been minimal if not de minimis when compared to the sizeable and ever increasing expenditures for Labor Consultants, attorneys and accounting firms who do not traditionally handle or represent labor organizations, with PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS charging AFTRA in excess of $700,000.00 two years in a row for "consulting" services. Despite same, noticeably absent from AFTRA's filings is any evidence of its actual distribution of Foreign Royalties, while certain Plaintiffs have heard that SAG has held onto monies attributable to works covered under AFTRA's Collective Bargaining Agree¬ments, thereby precluding AFTRA from reuniting its members with monies clearly due and owing to them, prior to merger.
35 Equally disconcerting is the lack of transparency relative to SAG
AFTRA's handling of the "Producer's Share" of Foreign Royalties, let alone the Administrative Fees it has surcharged against Foreign Royalties, if not Residuals, as well. By failing to account for receipts from foreign collecting societies, let alone for the Residual checks endorsed by SAG-AFTRA and its predecessors, and for all disbursements pertaining to both, SAG-AFTRA and its
  ASNER, et al. vs. SAG-AFTRA, et al. Case No. 13-CV
COMPLAINT 27
  
  

predecessors have precluded members from questioning whether funds have been wrongfully diverted to entities affiliated with or controlled by the Union's leadership, let alone the Producers or its Consultants.
36. Contradictions within the records which have been federally filed are even more glaring in light of a purported "Audit" of Foreign Royalties which PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS released on October 15, 2012, after the September 11, 2012 demand served by certain USAC Plaintiffs was acknowledged by SAG-AFTRA's legal counsel. It should be readily apparent that the recent "Audit" was designed to buttress the credibility of WRITE and CRABTREE-IRELAND and SAG relative to its generosity in allegedly surcharging only a 10% administrative fee against Foreign Royalties, at a time when the Producers had purportedly authorized SAG to take 15% of the "Performers share" for its own "institutional and social purposes". Although the Producers negotiated over this subject with SAG, Plaintiffs submit that said actions are in and of themselves inconsistent with the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 ("LMRA "), as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 141, et seq., which prevents an Employer from enmeshing itself in the internal affairs of a Union. Regardless, Plaintiffs note that the membership of SAG and AFTRA were never told about let alone given the opportunity to ratify the Foreign Levies Agreement nor did SAG's Constitution and By-Laws then authorize an

28

assessment or surcharge against Residuals or Foreign Royalties.
37. Although the intent of the recently released "Audit" is obvious, it actually reinforces Plaintiffs demand for full accountability and restoration of transparency in Union finances since although it purports to substantiate WHITE and CRABTREE-IRELAND's public announcement that SAG has also generously distributed approximately $8 million in Foreign Royalties since 2008, as well as CRABTREE-IRELAND's earlier statements that only approximately $250,000.00 had been distributed prior thereto, the Union's accountants failed to track prior LM-2s filed in these regards by SAG when SAG was offering greater transparency than WHITE and CRABTREE¬IRELAND have permitted ever since. For instance, while seeking to reaffirm CRABTREE-IRELAND's statements, PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS overlooked prior LM-2s which had shown that between 2003 and 2004, SAG claimed to have distributed in excess of $1.2 million in Foreign Royalties. The sudden disappearance of said entry in the recently released "Audit" coupled with SAG-AFTRA's continuing refusal to detail expenses and receipts, including of the total sum of monies received by SAG from Foreign Collecting Societies, before the 50% of the "Performers Share" was subtracted for transmittal to the Producers, and to refuse to detail the distribution of monies to Producers, demonstrates that the "Audit" claim that only approximately 10% was charged

as an Administrative Fee is also unworthy of credence, particularly in light of documented expenditures of in excess of $20 million on computer consultants, hardware, software and IT maintenance, as well as on staff, Labor Consultants and Attorneys purportedly involved directly with Foreign Royalties during the period of time at issue.
38. Contemporaneously, Plaintiffs have reason to believe that SAG collected Foreign Royalties, including on behalf of AFTRA, if not other crafts in the entertainment industry, yet failed and refused to perform its fiduciary duties in ensuring the proper distribution of these monies to AFTRA and possibly other crafts for timely distribution of same directly to its rightful owners or to such other entities designated to ensure that a benefit would inure to the members of the applicable labor organizations. Because of their actions and the deliberate withholding of said monies, while refusing to account for all receipts and disbursements involving Foreign Royalties, Plaintiffs have reason to believe that SAG-AFTRA has now amassed a substantial slushfund that does not belong to the labor organization but instead belongs to members and non-members, and/or their estates, on covered and uncovered works. By withholding said monies and refusing to account for same, SAG-AFTRA has ignored its fiduciary obligations and has effectively loaned money belonging to its members to itself, including principal and interest, and has unlawfully stolen monies belonging to non

members and possibly other crafts in the entertainment industry, despite ample caselaw and criminal statutes condemning such practices. As the United States Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed observed in Knox vs. SEIU, 567 U. S. , in yet another agency shop context, a labor union cannot extract a loan from unwilling nonmembers even if the money is later repaid.
39. In light hereof, Plaintiffs have reason to believe SAG and AFTRA's agents, employees and representatives, including its attorneys and accountants, deliberately engaged in forum shopping for the purpose of incorporating its newly merged organization in Delaware where escheating is only permitted for residents of Delaware. In these regards, it is affirmatively alleged that WHITE, CRABTREE-IRELAND and others knew that practically the entire membership of the new union, SAG-AFTRA, and its predecessor unions, SAG and AFTRA, reside currently and historically in California. Plaintiffs have reason to believe these actions were taken to collect, retain, and withhold member and non-member property by avoiding California escheat laws which have historically obliged SAG to make every effort to unite members (and non-members) with their property or surrender that property to the State of California.
40. Simultaneously, Plaintiffs allege that merger proponents, particularly WHITE and CRABTREE-IRELAND deliberately buried in Merger Documents a change in the Constitution and By-Law which would permit the
ASNER, et al. vs. SAG-AFTRA, et al. Case No. 13-CV
COMPLAINT 31

labor organization to charge and withhold administrative fees from all Residuals and Foreign Royalties collected. Plaintiffs have reason to believe that this change in the Constitution and By-Laws, as embodied in Article IV, Section B and Article XI, Section F, was designed to exculpate the leadership of SAG and AFTRA who have over the course of the past decade unlawfully transferred to the Union's own Treasury, most of the interest collected on Residuals and Foreign Royalties, if not the principal as well. However, such exculpatory language, including in the Constitution and By-Laws of a labor organization let alone a general exculpatory resolution of a governing body purporting to relieve any person of liability for breach of the duties set forth in the LMRDA, 29 USC § 501(a), is void and against public policy.
41. Certain Plaintiffs further believe that receipt of a satisfactory
accounting, and the disgorging of profits by SAG-AFTRA is also warranted in light of efforts by Federal Insurance in the litigation initiated by SAG against Federal insurance to also expose this wrongdoing, including through discovery and depositions taken of the firmly entrenched hired leadership and staff of SAG-AFTRA. SAG vs. Federal Insurance Company, Case 2: 11-cv-07123-DMG —VBK. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that said discovery stands in stark contrast with the minimal, if any, discovery engaged in, prefatory to resolution of the class action filed by Ken Osmond against SAG relative to Foreign Levies,

where SAG's fiduciary duties as a labor organization under the LMRDA were never at issue. Osmond, etc., vs. SAG, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 377780.
42. Given the improprieties apparent herein and in light of the recent
action of the United States in signing the Beijing Treaty in June 2012, thereby expanding upon the rights of U.S. performers to "national treatment" in an even greater number of signatory countries than previously recognized, an alternative to collection and distribution of the "Performers Rights Remuneration" by other than SAG-AFTRA is warranted.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
DEMAND FOR EXAMINATION OF BOOKS,  RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS, DAMAGES  AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, 29 USC § 431  (AGAINST SAG-AFTRA AND GIPR)
43. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 42, above.
44. In light hereof, Plaintiffs do hereby allege that Defendant SAG-AFTRA has failed to comply with its obligations under the LMRDA, including 29 USC §431, including to file financial reports disclosing annually all "(1) assets and liabilities at the beginning and end of the fiscal year; (2) receipts of

any kind and the sources thereof; (3) salary, allowances and other direct or indirect disbursements (including reimbursed expenses) to each officer also to each employee who, during such fiscal year, received more than $10,000 in the aggregate from such labor organization and any other labor organization affiliated with it or with which it is affiliated, ...; (4) direct and indirect loans made to any officer, employee, or member, which aggregated more than $250 during the fiscal year, together with a statement of the purpose, security, if any, and arrangements for repayment; (5) direct and indirect loans to any business enterprise, together with a statement of the purpose, security, if any, and arrangements for repayment; and (6) other disbursements made by it including the purposes thereof." 29 US.C. § 431(b).
45. Because of adamant refusal of SAG-AFTRA to permit Plaintiffs to examine SAG-AFTRA's books, let alone to account for receipts and disbursements, including involving GIPR, Plaintiffs do hereby give notice that they are renewing their demand, as encompassed in the USAC Letter of September 11, 2012, and undersigned counsel's further letter dated December 17, 2012 to BOB BUSH of Jay Roth's former firm, still acting as SAG-AFTRA counsel, seeking access to all Collective Bargaining Agreements, Contracts, Agreements, Memorandums of Understanding and Sideletters (collectively "Agreements") which pertain to the collection and distribution of Residuals and

Foreign Royalties, including from Foreign Collecting Societies, since said Agreements define what monies were to be given to SAG-AFTRA as a fiduciary. Plaintiffs submit that a full accounting will not be realized absent access to the very documents specifying the formula upon which "Foreign Royalties" are calculated, including what if any has been earmarked as the "Producer's Share" and the "Performer's Share". Since the 10-Year 2001 Foreign Levies Agreement was executed by signatory Producers and SAG, and following its recent renewal, disclosure of the true amount of the "Performer's Share" received by SAG, including as early as 1997 to present, is warranted, given the glaring discrepancies between federal mandated documents and statements made by CRABTREE-IRELAND to trade newspapers, which collectively restrict the "Performers Share" to less than fifteen million, at a time when the DGA and the WGA have publicly acknowledged that the amount of Royalties received by their labor organizations alone well exceeds $100,000,000.
46. In these regards, Plaintiffs maintain that Plaintiffs will be unable
to fulfill their rights under the LMRDA, including 29 USC §414, including to ensure that the financial records provided by Defendants hereinafter are complete, accurate and capable of ensuring transparency in Union finances, absent unfettered access to the following:

A) All Agreements between SAG, AFTRA and now SAG-AFTRA and :
1) IFTA Collections (formerly AFMA Collections);
2) Fintage House;
3) Compact Media Group (formerly Compact Collections).
4) Film Payment Services;
5) Media Services;
6) Robert Hadl;
7) Sallie Weaver;
8) Entertainment Strategies Group (ESG); and
9) Pricewaterhouse Coopers.
B) All agreements into which the Labor Organization and its predecessors have entered under Paragraph 5 of the Foreign Video Levy agreement, with the following collecting societies:
1) ADAMI Societe Civile pour L'Administration des Droits des
Artistes et Musiciens Interpretes (France);
2) AISGE Artistas Interpretes, Sociedad de Gestion (Spain);
3) CPRA c It ATAWFNIOWt > — (Japan);
4) FILMKOPI (Denmark);
5) FINTAGE (Netherlands);
6) FRF-VIDEO Filmproducenternas Rattighetsforening (Sweden);
ASNER, et al. vs. SAG-AFTRA, et al. Case No. 13-CV
COMPLAINT 36

7) GDA Gestao dos Direitos dos Artistas, Interpretes ou Executantes (Portugal);
8) GEDIPE Associacao Para a Gestao de Direitos de Autor, Produtores e Editore (Portugal);
9) GWFF Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Film- and Fernsehrechten m1111 (Germany);
10) SGAE Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (Spain);
11) SWISSPERFORM Gesellschaft fur Leistungsschutzrechte (Switzerland);
12) THUISKOPIE Stichting de Thuiskopie (Netherlands); and
13) VEVAM Verening ter Exploitatie van Vertoningsrechten op. Audiovisueel Materiaal (Netherlands).
47. Plaintiffs further seek to recover damages on behalf of members and non-members alike, as well as orders ensuring the immediate distribution to their rightful owners of all Residuals and Foreign Royalties not yet paid, together with a proportionate share of interest earned on the principal of all such monies received by SAG-AFTRA and its predecessors, because of the wrongful retention of said monies to begin with, while further enjoining SAG-AFTRA from negotiating any further Residual Checks which have been or will be issued by Producers to performers.

48. Plaintiffs further seeks allocation of a reasonable part of the
recovery to pay the fees of counsel and to compensate Plaintiffs for any expenses necessarily paid or incurred in connection with this litigation. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
CONVERSION
(AGAINST SAG-AFTRA AND GIPR)
49. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 42, above.
50. As more fully alleged above, Plaintiffs maintain that SAG¬AFTRA and its predecessors did not and does not have a right to negotiate and endorse Residual checks issued by Producers, let alone to withhold Residuals and Foreign Royalties collected by SAG-AFTRA and its predecessors from their rightful owners, namely performers on "covered" and "uncovered" works. Likewise, Plaintiffs affirmatively allege that neither SAG nor AFTRA had ever been given authority by the membership to collect the "Performers Share" from Foreign Collecting Societies, arising out of the extension of National Treatment rights to US performers, on "covered works", while neither labor organization, nor SAG-AFTRA, let alone GIPR, has standing to collect said share on "works" produced without the labor organization entering into a binding
ASNER, et al. vs. SAG-AFTRA, et al. Case No. 13-CV
COMPLAINT 38

Collective Bargaining Agreement covering said works, with Plaintiffs affirmatively alleging that most pornographic productions, now largely distributed on videocassettes abroad, are filmed as "nonunion" ventures.
51. In the same vein, due to problems between SAG and particular producers involving specific productions on which Plaintiffs DENNIS HAYDEN, LOI_JIS REEKO MESEROLE, WILLIAM RICHERT and STEPHEN WASTELL performed, SAG interfered with the ability of these Plaintiffs to receive Residuals or continuing Residuals, while all Foreign Royalties presumably have been and still are being collected by the Labor Union but withheld from these Plaintiffs. To the extent SAG-AFTRA claims superior ownership rights over "The Man in the Iron Mask", "The Ghosts of Edendale, and "The Game", then affected Plaintiffs allege that SAG-AFTRA would still be obligated to pay Residuals to said Plaintiffs if the purpose of their actions was, as SAG-AFTRA publicly touts, to protect the performers and guarantee their receipt of all monies, including but not limited to Foreign Royalties and Residuals.
52. By their actions, Defendant SAG-AFTRA and its predecessors have by and through WHITE, CRABTREE-IRELAND and others, intentionally collected and taken possession of specifically

identifiable amounts of monies belonging to the Plaintiffs and others, including on "covered" and "uncovered" works. Further, Defendants have held these monies in their sole possession for an unreasonably long period of time, if not converted same to their own use, to the ongoing detriment of Plaintiffs and all other members of SAG-AFTRA, and non-members as well.
53. Until Exculpatory provisions were added to the SAG-AFTRA Constitution and By-Laws, at time of merger, there was never any written consent or permission given to Defendants' to collect Foreign Royalties, let alone endorse and retain Residuals. Defendant SAG-AFTRA and its predecessors have exercised dominion over a specific sum of money that is capable of identification, via a proper accounting, with said monies, including all interest collected thereon, rightfully belonging to the membership of SAG-AFTRA, as well as individuals whose monies have been wrongfully collected

21

on "non-covered" works. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants have collected monies on behalf of SAG-AFTRA members and others and asserted to third-party payors that Defendant and its predecessors had or have the right to collect such monies, when they do not.

54. Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm suffered by Plaintiffs and the membership of SAG-AFTRA and others. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court.
55. In addition, Defendants' conduct as described herein was done with a conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and other SAG¬AFTRA members, if not other performers who have never been affiliated with said labor organizations or worked on "signatory" projects. Plaintiffs are informed and believe Defendant SAG¬AFTRA and its predecessors, by and through WHITE, CRABTREE-IRELAND and HADL have engaged in these actions with the intent to oppress Plaintiffs and others, while intentionally concealing information as to the existence and availability of Residuals and Foreign Royalties, and have furthermore understaffed as well as placed individuals with questionable credentials in charge of ensuring timely distribution of Residuals and Foreign Royalties, if not deliberately precluded the Distribution Department from distributing said monies so that Defendants could keep the Residuals and Foreign Royalty monies and interest for their own pecuniary or personal interests. By so acting,

Defendants actions have precluded Plaintiffs and others from collecting earned Residuals and Foreign Royalties to which they are entitled, even though Producers have issued W-2s to Plaintiffs and others as if Residual checks were in fact received.
56. Defendants' acts in these and other regards constitute oppression, fraud, and/or malice under California Civil Code § 3294, with all such acts carried out by the managing agents of SAG-AFTRA and GIPR, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of the Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial.
57. In addition to the foregoing damages, Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of the foregoing actions, and, therefore, Plaintiffs seek imposition of a constructive trust on all monies wrongfully obtained by Defendant SAG-AFTRA and its predecessors, as well as GIPR, including as otherwise provided pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 2223¬2224.
58. Further, Defendants' wrongful conduct is continuing and ongoing. Plaintiffs and the entire membership of SAG-AFTRA have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless Defendant SAG-AFTRA and GIPR is

enjoined by the Court from continuing to collect such monies without paying them out. Alternatively, injunctive relief is sought for an order that an independent body be authorized to collect and pay such monies subject to Court supervision, as SAG-AFTRA and GIPR is clearly incapable of acting as a fiduciary, let alone as a collecting society.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION  UNJUST ENRICHMENT (AGAINST SAG-AFTRA AND GIPR)
59. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 42, above.
60. As a result of Defendants' acts, as set forth in this Complaint, that have and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of Residuals and Foreign Royalties, Defendants have received, and continue to receive, a substantial financial benefit. Under the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, it would be unjust to permit Defendants to retain this benefit.
61. As a result, Plaintiffs request restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained by SAG-AFTRA and their predecessors, as well as GIPR, including all interest earned thereon.
62. Further, Defendants' infringing conduct is continuing and ongoing. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable

injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless Defendants are enjoined by the Court from negotiating Residuals checks made payable to performers and from continuing to track Residual checks absent an order specifying the time frame the original check must be forwarded to the performer at his or her last known address used for dues billings.
63. With respect to Foreign Royalties, injunctive relief is sought
for issuance of an order authorizing an independent body to collect and pay all monies received from Foreign Collecting Societies, subject to Court supervision, as SAG-AFTRA is clearly incapable of acting as a collecting society, not only on behalf of its own members, but non-members as well.
64. Plaintiffs further seek imposition of a constructive trust on all monies wrongfully obtained by Defendants, in accordance with the common law and California Civil Code §§ 2223-24, for the benefit of Plaintiffs and SAG-AFTRA members and non-members alike.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA'S BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200 ET SEQ.
(AGAINST SAG-AFTRA AND GIPR)
65. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference

the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 42, above.
66. After being accused of devising a scheme to avoid escheating allegedly "unclaimed" Foreign Royalties monies to the State of California in the Class Action initiated by Ken Osmond of "Leave It To Beaver" fame against SAG, SAG and AFTRA thereafter merged into SAG-AFTRA and thereafter insisted on becoming incorporated in the State of Delaware where escheat laws permit SAG-AFTRA to retain in its coffers all unclaimed monies belonging to out-of-state residents. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the lionshare of said residents eligible to receive Residuals and Foreign Royalties are from California, thereby demonstrating that SAG-AFTRA was engaging in forum shopping to ensure its maximum retention of Residuals and Foreign Royalties, without ever having to be accountable for the distribution thereof.
67. Defendants have continued to collect monies on behalf of Plaintiffs and others and have asserted to third-party payors that Defendants have the right to collect such monies. Although exculpatory language in the recently adopted SAG-AFTRA Constitution and By-Laws would seek to insulate Defendant SAG-AFTRA from liability, said language is void against public policy and furthermore does not apply to non-members, let alone performers on works not produced under the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement.

68. Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs and others the monies it has collected in a time frame acceptable under any reasonable business practice.
69. Defendants have likewise taken an unauthorized commission or fee for the collection and distribution of these monies.
70. Defendants' conduct as described herein is illegal, unfair, and
fraudulent pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. Defendants have devised a scheme to deceive not only Plaintiffs as well as members and non-members alike, but also the third-party payors so that Defendants could keep Residuals and Foreign Royalties, plus interest, for themselves.
71. Defendants' actions are unfair and fraudulent in that they have intentionally concealed information from Plaintiffs and others, and have made misrepresentations to third-party payors, on a continual basis, in conformity with their scheme, thereby precluding Plaintiffs and others from collecting Residuals and Foreign Royalties to which they are entitled, in a reasonable time frame.
72. Further, Defendants have devised a scheme to deceive not only Plaintiffs and its members and non-members alike, but also the State of California and its citizens so that Defendants could keep the Residuals
ASNER, et al. vs. SAG-AFTRA, et al. Case No. 13-CV
COMPLAINT 46

and Foreign Royalties for themselves.
73. On information and belief, Defendants' actions are illegal in that they have intentionally moved all Residuals and Foreign Royalty monies out of escrow and into a general fund and/or trust account to avoid any monies escheating to the State of California, thereby precluding the State of California and its citizens from collecting the benefit of these Residuals and Foreign Royalty monies to which they are entitled pursuant to the Unclaimed Property Law, California Civil Procedure Code §§ 1500-1582.
74. These illegal, unfair, and fraudulent business practices present a continuing threat to members of the public. Plaintiffs and other members of the public have no other adequate remedy of law in that the amount of damage incurred by each member of the public is small in comparison to the cost of litigation of this matter. As such, Plaintiffs, including on behalf of the public, are requesting that Defendants be permanently enjoined from escaping the escheat laws of the State of California, relative to California residents, and from engaging any further in its preexisting business practice of negotiating Residual Checks which have been issued to members and non-members alike by Producers and Payroll Companies, absent written authorization

from the performer to do so, in the same way Employers in
California cannot deduct monies from employee paychecks absent specific authorization. California Labor Code Sections 221 and 224. With respect to Foreign Royalties, injunctive relief is sought for issuance of an order authorizing an independent body to collect and pay all monies received from Foreign Collecting Societies, subject to Court supervision, as SAG-AFTRA is clearly incapable of acting as .a collecting society, not only on behalf of its own members, but non-members as well.
75. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Defendants received and continue to receive an unknown amount of money from the collection, and nonpayment, of Residuals and Foreign Royalties that may otherwise be owed to the State of California.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the membership of SAG-AFTRA respectfully requests of the Court the following relief:
1. An accounting from its officers, employees, agents and
representatives of, and to account for, all Residuals and Foreign Royalties received by said labor organization and its predecessor labor organizations, SAG

and AFTRA, from Producers and Foreign Collecting Societies or other entities, from 1997 to present, including all monies which have been distributed to or withheld from performers, including the Producer's share of the "performers share", if any, on "covered" and "noncovered" works as well as all administrative fees deducted as well as all interest earned on Residuals and Foreign Royalties deposited into SAG-AFTRA or their predecessors accounts;
2. Access to all Collective Bargaining Agreements, Contracts, Agreements, Memorandums of Understanding and Sideletters as more fully set forth in Paragraph 46, above;
3. An accounting for the millions of dollars of expenditures purportedly made by SAG for computer equipment, software, and IT staffing, consulting and maintenance, commencing in Fiscal Year 2004 to present, in light of SAG-AFTRA's General Counsel and Deputy National Executive Director Duncan Crabtree-Ireland's public proclamation seeking to justify SAG's failure to disburse monies for close to a decade on the guise that SAG had an antiquated computer system;
4. An accounting of and reimbursement of all monies paid to Labor Consultants, Legal Counsel and various entities purportedly used by the labor organization to solidify and whitewash the collection, disbursement and retention of Foreign Royalties and Residuals by SAG-AFTRA and its

predecessors;
5. To account for all monies expended by officers, employees and representatives of SAG-AFTRA and its predecessors, including Labor Consultants and Legal Counsel, for First Class Travel, including to foreign countries, political events, lavish parties from 2008 to present, and for any direct and indirect loans;
6. That each Defendant, their respective agents, servants, employees, officers, attorneys, successors, and assigns, and all of these persons actively in concert or participation with each or any of them, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly infringing upon the rights of Plaintiffs and others in any manner, and further requiring the paying out of monies collected from Residuals and Foreign Royalties to Plaintiffs and their rightful owners, and further preventing SAG-AFTRA from ever again negotiating Residual checks issued by Producers to performers;
7. For establishment of an independent body to collect and pay all Foreign Royalties subject to Court supervision, as SAG-AFTRA is clearly incapable of acting as a collecting society;
8. That responsible parties be required to pay such damages to Plaintiffs and to restore all monies wrongfully taken from SAG
ASNER, et al. vs. SAG-AFTRA, et al. Case No. 13-CV

AFTRA to the Union's coffers, in an amount to be determined at trial, but that are in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court;
9. That each Defendant be required to account for all gains, interest, and advantages derived by each Defendant from the wrongful acts alleged herein;
10. That the Court impose a constructive trust;
11. For Punitive Damages on the Second Cause of Action;
12. That Plaintiffs recover their costs in prosecuting this action, including without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to statutes, including 29 U.S.C. § 431, as well as California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5;
13. That each Defendant pay to Plaintiffs an award of prejudgment interest according to proof;
14. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17203, and pursuant to the equitable powers of this Court, Plaintiffs pray that the Defendants be permanently enjoined from the unlawful business practices described herein;
15. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17203 and pursuant to the equitable powers of this Court, Plaintiffs pray that the Defendants also be ordered, pursuant to said request for

injunctive relief and otherwise, to restore to Plaintiffs and the members and non-members of SAG-AFTRA all monies collected and/or retained by means of any act or practice declared by this Court to be unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.; and,
16. That Plaintiffs be given leave to add a cause of action on Ex Parte Application for Breach of Fiduciary Duties under 29 U.S.C. Section 501 against the appropriate offending officers, employees, agents, Consultants, and representatives of SAG-AFTRA, according to proof; and,
17. That Plaintiffs be given such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY
This case has been assigned to District Judge Manuel Real and the assigned discovery Magistrate Judge is Frederick F. Mumm.
The case number on all documents filed with the Court should read as follows:
CV13- 3741 R (FFMx)
Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery related motions.
Unless otherwise ordered, the United States District Judge assigned to this case will hear and determine all discovery related motions.
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on all defendants (if a removal action is filed, a copy of this notice must be served on all plaintiffs).
Subsequent documents must be filed at the following location:
..17-
Western Division
312 N. Spring St., Rm. G-8 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Li Southern Division
411 West Fourth St., Rm. 1-053 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 Li Eastern Division
3470 Twelfth St., Rm. 134 Riverside, CA 92501

Failure to file at the proper location will result in your documents being returned to you.
CV-18 (03/06) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY

AO 440 (Rey 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
L NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
CENTRAL DISTRICT
Ed Asner,4t-al.,
SEE ATTACHED )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. CV13— 3741 12( et.'mx)
Plaintiffs)
v.
Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, a labor organization commonly known as SAG-AFTRA and its GUILD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REALIZATION, LLC  
Defendant(s)  

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant 's name and address)

against you.

ithin 21 days a r service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the nited State a United States agency. or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a) e — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are:
HELENA S. WISE, Bar No. 91163
LAW OFFICES OF HELENA S. WISE
1907 W. Burbank, Suite A
Burbank, CA 91506
(818) 843-8086
If you fail to respond. judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Signature Deputy- Cierk
1149

ATTACHMENT TO SUMMONS
ASNER, ETEXt. VS. SAG-AFTRA,
ED ASNER, CLANCY BROWN. GEORGE COE. TOM BOWER, DENNIS HAYDEN, WILLIAM RICHERT, LOUIS REEKO MESEROLE, TERRENCE BEASOR, ALEX MCARTHUR, ED O'ROSS, ROGER CALLARD, STEVEN
BARR, RUSSELL GANNON, STEPHEN WAS FELL, JAMES A. OSBURN, and
ERIC HUGHES aka JON WHITELEY, collectively known as the United Screen Actors Committee (USAC),
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SCREEN ACTORS GUILD — AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ARTISTS, a labor organization commonly known as SAG-AFTRA and its GUILD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REALIZATION, LLC,
Defendants.

JS 44 (Rev. 12/12)
CIVIL CO \TER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS SEE ATTACHED
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Los Angeles
(EXCEPT IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
HELENA S. WISE, Bat No. 91163 LAW OFFICES OF HELENA S. WISE
1907 W. Burbank, Suite A, Burbank, CA 91506 (818) 843-8086

DEFENDANTS SEE ATTACHED
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Los Angeles
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)
BOB BUSH, Bar No. 65357
BUSH, GOTTLIEB, SINGER, LOPEZ, KOHANSKI, ADELSTEIN 500 N. Central, Suite 800, Glendale, CA 91203 (818) 973-3200

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Box fin. Plainti,
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box* Defendant)
q 1 U.S. Government N 3 Federal Question PTF DEF  PTF  DEF
Plaintiff  (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 0 1 q 1 Incorporated or Principal Place of Business In This State 0 4  4
q 2 U.S Government Defendant q 4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) Citizen of Another State 0 2 q 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State  5 0 5
    Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 q 3 Foreign Nation  6  6
    Foreign Country       
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Only,
I CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY  OTHER STATUTES
 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY q 625 Drug Related Seizure q 422 Appeal 28 USC 158  375 False Claims Act
 120 Marine q 310 Airplane q 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 q 423 Withdrawal 0 400 State Reapportionment
0 130 Miller Act q 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 0 690 Other 28 USC 157  410 Antitrust
 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability q 367 Health Care/    430 Banks and Banking
 150 Recovery of Overpayment q 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical  PROPERTY RIGHTS  450 Commerce
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury  q 820 Copyrights  460 Deportation
 151 Medicare Act q 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability  q 830 Patent  470 Racketeer Influenced and
 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability q 368 Asbestos Personal  q 840 Trademark  Corrupt Organizations
Student Loans q 340 Marine Injury Product    480 Consumer Credit
(Excludes Veterans) q 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY  490 Cable/Sat TV
 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY q 710 Fair Labor Standards q 861 WA (1395ff)  850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veteran's Benefits q 350 Motor Vehicle q 370 Other Fraud Act q 862 Black Lung (923)  Exchange
 160 Stockholders' Suits q 355 Motor Vehicle q 371 Truth in Lending $1 720 Labor/Management q 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))  890 Other Statutory Actions
 190 Other Contract Product Liability 0 380 Other Personal Relations q 864 SSID Title XVI 0 891 Agricultural Acts
 195 Contract Product Liability q 360 Other Personal Property Damage q 740 Railway Labor Act q 865 RSI (405(g))  893 Environmental Matters
 196 Franchise Injury q 385 Property Damage q 751 Family and Medical   895 Freedom of Information
  q 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act   Act
  Medical Malpractice  q 790 Other Labor Litigation   896 Arbitration
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS q 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS  899 Administrative Procedure
0 210 Land Condemnation q 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act q 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff  Act/Review or Appeal of
 220 Foreclosure q 441 Voting q 463 Alien Detainee  or Defendant)  Agency Decision
 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment q 442 Employment q 510 Motions to Vacate  0 871 IRS—Third Party  950 Constitutionality of
 240 Torts to Land q 443 Housing/ Sentence  26 USC 7609  State Statutes
 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations q 530 General   
 290 All Other Real Property q 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION  
  Employment Other: q 462 Naturalization Application  
  q 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - q 540 Mandamus & Other q 465 Other Inmsigration  
  Other q 550 Civil Rights Actions  
  q 448 Education q 555 Prison Condition   
   q 560 Civil Detainee     
   Conditions of   
   Confinement   

V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" it One Box On11)
)8( 1 Original 0 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court  0 4 Reinstated or  5 Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict
Reopened Another District Litigation
(spec:115)

ATTACHMENT TO CIVIL COVER SHEET ASNER, ET AL. VS. SAG-AFTRA, ET AL.
1(A) PLAINTIFFS:
ED ASNER, CLANCY BROWN, GEORGE COE, TOM BOWER, DENNIS HAYDEN, WILLIAM RICHERT, LOUIS REEKO
MESEROLE, TERRENCE BEASOR, ALEX MCARTHUR, ED
O'ROSS, ROGER CALLARD, STEVEN BARR, RUSSELL GANNON, STEPHEN WASTELL, JAMES A. OSBURN, and ERIC HUGHES aka JON WHITELEY, collectively known as the United Screen Actors Committee (USAC)
DEFENDANTS:
SCREEN ACTORS GUILD — AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ARTISTS, a labor organization commonly known as SAG-AFTRA and its GUILD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REALIZATION, LLC
VIII: RELATED CASES IF ANY:
A) SCREEN ACTORS GUILD VS. FEDERAL INSURANCE, CV 11-7123-DLG (VBKx)
This case is still pending and discusses many of the financial transgressions referenced in the instant lawsuit.
B) MARTIN SHEEN, ET AL., VS. SCREEN ACTORS GUILD, ET AL., CV 12-1468 SJO (AJW)
This case has been dismissed by Stipulation and pertained to the Merger of SAG and AFTRA. Various Exculpatory Clauses were written into SAG-AFTRA's Constitution and By-Laws which are at issue herein, while SAG-AFTRA incorporated in the State of Delaware, with SAG ceasing to be a California Corporation.
C) KEN OSMOND, ET AL., VS. SCREEN ACTORS GUILD, ET AL., CV 07-07095 MMM (PJWx)
This State Court Class Action case was removed and remanded to the Superior Court of Los Angeles to procure payment of "Foreign Royalties" and did not encompass an LMRDA claim.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET
VIII(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? (NO YES
If yes, list case number(s):
VIII(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case? El NO YES
If yes, list case number(s):  V I ) j)11.; ( V ILL LROS':. Sit) cv 07- 0-7095 tim144
Civil cases are deemed related if a previously filed case and the present case:
(Check all boxes that apply) g.A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or tyL,C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; or
El D. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright, and one of the factors identified above in a, b or c also is present.
IX. VENUE: (When completing the following information, use an additional sheet if necessary.)
(a) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named plaintiff resides.
L Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named plaintiff. If this box is checked, go to item (b).
County in this District:* California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country
4)5 'ell t)5
(b) List the County in thisDistrict; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides.
D Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named defendant. If this box is checked, go to item (c).
County in this District:* California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign
- ..- &Of 511E - 4-r: TA ae
- t ,
)\ fl (De A-11-tA e 7untry
(c) List the Co ty in this District; Califo ia County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose. NOTE: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract of land involved.
County in this District:*
California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country
*Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Bar• : ra, • lifir is O• ii7;iountiirAMMEM111 „..... Note: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract of land in olve. I
X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT): 11/1411/ffiriffiiir DATE: IMAM
Notice to Counsel/Parties: The CV-71 (JS-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the infirif 'C iriitir en n Vher replace nor supplement the f ing and service eadings or
other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judicial Confer:.!- f the nit-' . .tates in September 1974, is required purs nt to Local Rule 3-1 is not filed but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and ini i ing t. e civil i ocket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet).

Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:
Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation Substantive Stat ent of Cause of Action
All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also,
861 HIA include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the program.
(42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b))
862 BL All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (30 U.S.C.
923)
All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))
863 DIWW
864 SSID
865 RSI All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))
All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security Act, as amended.
All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended.
(42 U.S.C. 405 (g))