Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 35 Page ID #:84

Te
e

Th

Bill Zuhdi, OBA #10013
TX Bar #22293340 (Texas)
The Zuhdi Law Firm
P.O. Box 1077
Oklahoma City, OK 73101
Telephone: (405)232-1400
Facsimile (405)755-9686
Email: bill@billzuhdi.com
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Plaintiff Ellen Catherine Rozario

a

Jay W. MacIntosh, Esq., #209912
Law Offices of Jay W. MacIntosh
16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
Encino, California 91436
Telephone (310) 288-4330
Facsimile (310) 479-4629
Email:jay@jaywmacintoshlaw.com

ut

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Al

lA

bo

ELLEN CATHERINE ROZARIO, an ) Case No.: 2:14-cv-09540 AB (APRx)
Individual,
)
) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
) FOR DAMAGES FOR:
) 1. Negligence
v.
) 2. Strict Liability
) 3. Negligence Per Se
KIM RICHARDS,
) 4. Intentional Misrepresentation
EVOLUTION FILM & TAPE, INC., a ) 5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional
California Corporation, and DOES
) Distress
1 through 5, inclusive,
) 6. Negligent Infliction of Emotional
) Distress
) 7. Fraudulent Concealment
) 8. Intentional Misrepresentation and
Conspiracy to Intentionally
Misrepresent
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
First Amended Complaint

1

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 35 Page ID #:85

I. PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff Ellen Catherine Rozario (“Plaintiff”) is an individual with primary and
permanent residence at 5682 Exotic Rosette Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada
89139.

2.

Defendant Kim Richards (“Defendant Richards”) is an individual and resident

Te

a

of the State of California, with her principal place of residence at 3701
Loadstone Drive, Los Angeles, California 91403.

Defendant Evolution Film & Tape, Inc. (“Defendant Evolution”) is a California

e

3.

Th

Corporation, with its principal place of business at 3310 W. Vanowen Street

ut

in Burbank, CA 91505. Its California entity number is C1401613. Defendant
Evolution can be served with process by and through its registered agent Stacy

At all relevant times, Defendant Richards, a star of the Real Housewives of

lA

4.

bo

Kreisberg, 10350 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 350, Los Angeles, CA 90025.

Al

Beverly Hills reality television show produced by Defendant Evolution, was
an agent of Defendant Evolution.
5.

At all relevant times, all of the wrongful acts of Defendant Richards were
committed while acting as an agent for Defendant Evolution.

6.

Defendant Evolution exercised control over Defendant Richards at all times
relevant to this action.

First Amended Complaint

2

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 35 Page ID #:86

7.

At all times herein material and whenever and wherever reference is made to
Defendant Richards and the wrongful acts, Defendant Richards was acting as
the agent of Defendant Evolution and was acting within the course and scope
of such agency and while furthering the business interests of Defendant
Evolution. The wrongful conduct alleged herein was perpetrated by Defendant

Te

8.

a

Evolution.

Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any conduct

e

committed by Defendant Richards, such allegations and references shall also

Th

be deemed to mean the conduct of Defendant Evolution, acting individually,

9.

ut

jointly and severally, for the benefit of Defendant Evolution.
As the principal for Defendant Richards, Defendant Evolution is responsible

bo

for all of the acts committed by Defendant Richards while in the scope of her

Al

injuries.

lA

agency, including the dog bite incident in this case that caused Plaintiff’s

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), 28 U.S.C.
§1332(a)(1), and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) because Plaintiff is a citizen of the State
of Nevada and Defendant Richards is a citizen of the State of California and
Defendant Evolution is a California Corporation having its principal place of
business in the State of California and the matter in controversy exceeds the

First Amended Complaint

3

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 4 of 35 Page ID #:87

sum value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens
of different states.
11.

Venue is found under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 since the events or omissions giving
rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in this district.
III. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff, her daughter Lianne Harris (“Harris”), and

e

12.

Te

a

Plaintiff was attacked and bitten by a vicious dog
owned by Defendant Richards while Plaintiff was an
overnight guest at Defendant Richards’ residence

Th

Plaintiff’s granddaughter visited Defendant Richards’ residence as overnight

ut

guests. Plaintiff had known Defendant Richards since Defendant Richards was
a young girl. Defendant Richards is a star on a reality television show

At all times relevant herein, Defendant Richards was employed by and/or was

lA

13.

bo

produced by Defendant Evolution entitled Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.

14.

Al

an agent of Defendant Evolution.
Defendant Richards owned on March 19, 2014, and at times relevant to this
Complaint, a pit bull named Kingsley (hereinafter “dog”).
15.

Upon arriving and going into Defendant Richards’ house, Plaintiff discovered
that Defendant Richards had a large dog living with her. Defendant Richards
proceeded to make statements and representations to Plaintiff that the dog was
a “sweet, cuddly dog” and told Plaintiff she should scratch it behind its ears

First Amended Complaint

4

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 5 of 35 Page ID #:88

because the dog liked that. Plaintiff was unaware and did not know the dog
was actually a pit bull and was vicious.
16.

The next morning Plaintiff was talking to Defendant Richards, who was lying
on the bed next to the dog, in Defendant Richards’ bedroom. All of a sudden
and without provocation, the dog jumped up from the bed, moved across it and

Te

a

attacked and bit Plaintiff. This caused severe injuries to Plaintiff’s left hand,
arm and back. As the dog was attacking and biting Plaintiff, she fell

e

backwards onto the floor. Bleeding profusely from her wounds, as she was

Th

being attacked and bitten, Plaintiff screamed. Hearing the screams, Plaintiff’s

ut

daughter rushed into the room. Defendant Richards said not to call 911.
However, emergency personnel were called. Defendant Richards begged

bo

Plaintiff, “not to tell anybody” and “promise me you won’t say anything, I’ll

lA

lose my job.” Plaintiff was treated in the emergency room for the injuries she

Al

sustained and suffers pain, disfigurement, emotional pain and suffering,
anxiety and other damages to this day.
17.

Defendant Richards, along with the dog, had appeared in and were part of a
continuing story line in episodes of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.
These segments and episodes with the dog and Defendant Richards, at least in
part, were filmed by Defendant Evolution at Defendant Richards’ residence.

First Amended Complaint

5

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 6 of 35 Page ID #:89

18.

Prior to the attack on Plaintiff on March 20, 2014, Defendant Evolution hired
a dog trainer to correct the dog’s aggression and appear on the Real
Housewives of Beverly Hills. What was presented by Defendant Evolution and
Defendant Richards to the viewing audience as to why a dog trainer was hired
during the television show broadcast on November 11, 2013, was that the dog

Te

a

had “eaten thousands of dollars of shoes, sunglasses and personal items, and
I just think he needs a trainer.”

In actuality, Defendants together misrepresented to the public the

e

19.

Th

dangerousness and viciousness of the dog and falsely misled the public as to

ut

the reason why a trainer was hired for the dog. Defendants misrepresented to
the public and thereby Plaintiff that the dog was dangerous and vicious.

bo

Defendants knew that the dog had previously bitten and attacked a person or

The misrepresentations by Defendants in the broadcasts of the Real

Al

20.

lA

persons.

Housewives of Beverly Hills television shows premiering on November 11,
2013, and on March 17, 2014, and other relevant episodes, caused Plaintiff,
through her daughter, to not be concerned at all about the dog and to agree to
spend the night at Defendant Richards’ residence.

Additionally, upon

Plaintiff’s arrival with her daughter and granddaughter at Defendant Richard’s
house on March 19, 2014, Defendant Richards intentionally misrepresented

First Amended Complaint

6

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 7 of 35 Page ID #:90

and concealed the dog was dangerous and vicious to Plaintiff. Defendant
Richards misled Plaintiff to believe the dog was “sweet and cuddly”. Not
aware the threat of the dangerous and vicious dog existed, Plaintiff, her
daughter and granddaughter all spent the night in Defendant Richards’
residence.

a

Plaintiff believed Defendant Richards’ representations that the dog was a

Te

21.

“sweet, cuddly dog.” Defendants’ concealment and false statements caused

At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Richards was acting in concert and

Th

22.

e

significant injury to Plaintiff.

ut

conspiracy with, at the request of and/or for the benefit of, Defendant
Evolution and was acting as Defendant Evolution’s agent.

Paragraphs 5 through 22 are incorporated herein as if same were set forth fully

Al

23.

lA

bo

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
By Kay Rozario against Kim Richards

at length.
24.

Defendant Richards is an individual who on March 20, 2014, was an owner
and keeper of a dog.

First Amended Complaint

7

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 8 of 35 Page ID #:91

25.

On March 20, 2014, the dog bit and attacked Plaintiff. The attack inflicted
bodily injuries on Plaintiff and the attack occurred without warning or
provocation.

26.

On March 20, 2014, Defendant Richards could reasonably have anticipated
that the dog would cause injury to Plaintiff by attacking and biting her.

a

On March 20, 2014, Defendant Richards had sufficient opportunity to prevent

Te

27.

the dog from attacking and biting Plaintiff but failed to exercise reasonable

Defendant Richards had a duty to prevent the dog from inflicting bodily

Th

28.

e

care to control and contain the dog and prevent the attacking and biting.

29.

ut

injuries upon Plaintiff.

Defendant Richards’ failure to control and contain the dog was unreasonable,

bo

a negligent breach of duty and a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and

At all times herein material, Defendant Richards was acting as the agent of

Al

30.

lA

damages alleged herein.

Defendant Evolution and was acting within the course and scope of such
agency. By misrepresenting to Plaintiff that the dog was cuddly and sweet
rather than the dog’s true nature which was dangerous, Defendant Richards
carried out Defendant Evolution’s scheme to misrepresent to the public, the
“class” as set forth in the Eighth Cause of Action and incorporated herein, and
those who would be around the dog its true vicious nature.

First Amended Complaint

8

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 9 of 35 Page ID #:92

31.

As a proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendant Richards as
alleged herein, Plaintiff was injured and sustained severe bodily injuries, all of
which have caused and continue to cause her great physical and mental pain
and suffering. As a result of these injuries, the severe lacerations to Plaintiff’s
forearm, arm and hand, permanent scarring and disfigurement, injury to her

Te

a

back, pain and suffering, emotional distress, fear and anxiety, Plaintiff has
suffered general damages. Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement for medical

e

treatment costs she has incurred as well as other compensation the court deems

Th

just and proper.

32.

ut

EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Defendant Richards knew her dog was vicious and dangerous and had

bo

previously attacked a person or persons. Without regard for Plaintiff’s safety,

lA

Defendant Richards voluntarily chose to deceive and misrepresent to Plaintiff

Al

that the dog was sweet and cuddly rather than telling her the truth, that the dog
was in fact dangerous and had previously attacked person or persons.
33.

Defendant Richards knew there was a high likelihood the dog would attack and
seriously injure Plaintiff yet Defendant Richards voluntarily deceived and
intentionally misled Plaintiff as to the true nature of the dog and its
dangerousness, as set forth herein. Defendant Richards’ actions were
contemptible, miserable, wretched and loathsome and would be looked down

First Amended Complaint

9

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 10 of 35 Page ID #:93

upon as despised by ordinary, decent people and can reasonably be inferred to
have been done with malice, oppression, or fraud, thereby warranting an
assessment of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

Paragraphs 6 through 33 are incorporated herein as if same were set forth fully

Te

34.

a

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
STATUTORY STRICT LIABILITY
BASED ON CALIFORNIA’S DOG BITE STATUTE
By Kay Rozario against Kim Richards

at length.

On March 20, 2014, Defendant Richards was the owner of the dog.

36.

On March 20, 2014, the dog inflicted bodily injuries upon Plaintiff by biting

Th

e

35.

When bitten by the dog on March 20, 2014, Plaintiff was lawfully present on

bo

37.

ut

Plaintiff.

private property, to-wit, 3701 Loadstone Drive, Los Angeles, California 91403.
Defendant Richards is strictly liable for the injuries and damages to Plaintiff

lA

38.

Al

pursuant California Civil Code §3342, provided in pertinent part as follows:
California Civil Code §3342:
(a)

The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any
person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully
in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog,
regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s
knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the
private property of such owner within the meaning of this section
when he is on such property in the performance of any duty
imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or

First Amended Complaint

10

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 11 of 35 Page ID #:94

postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such
property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.
39.

Plaintiff requests compensation for the physical and emotional pain and
suffering she has endured and continues to undergo.

She also seeks

reimbursement for the medical bills she has incurred, as well as all other

a

compensation the court deems just and proper.

40.

Te

EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Defendant Richards knew her dog was vicious and dangerous and had

Th

e

previously attacked a person or persons. Without conscious regard for
Plaintiff’s safety, Defendant Richards voluntarily chose to deceive and

ut

misrepresent to Plaintiff that the dog was sweet and cuddly rather than telling

41.

lA

person or persons.

bo

her the truth, that the dog was in fact dangerous and had previously attacked

Defendant Richards knew there was a high likelihood the dog would attack and

Al

seriously injure Plaintiff yet Defendant Richards voluntarily deceived and
intentionally misled Plaintiff as to the true nature of the dog and its
dangerousness, as set forth herein.

Defendant Richards’ actions were

contemptible, miserable, wretched and loathsome and would be looked down
upon as despised by ordinary, decent people and can reasonably be inferred to

First Amended Complaint

11

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 12 of 35 Page ID #:95

have been done with malice, oppression, or fraud, thereby warranting an
assessment of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE PER SE
By Kay Rozario against Kim Richards
42.

Paragraphs 6 through 41 are incorporated herein as if same were set forth fully

Te

43.

a

at length.

On March 20, 2014, there existed in the City of Los Angeles, State of

e

California, a law which required that dogs known to be vicious or dangerous

Th

shall not be permitted to be loose within the premises of a person so as to

ut

endanger the life or limb of any person lawfully entering that premises.
Specifically, Los Angeles Municipal Code §53.33 states:

44.

Al

lA

bo

1(a) No person, owning or having custody or control of any dog, other
than a sentry dog, or any other animal known by such person to
be vicious or dangerous, shall permit it to run at large, or permit
it to run loose on or within the premises of such person in such a
manner as to endanger the life or limb of any person lawfully
entering such premises.
On March 20, 2014, Defendant Richards, being a person who owned and had
custody of a vicious or dangerous dog, with knowledge of the dog being
vicious and dangerous, and with knowledge that it would be kept,
uncontrolled, on her premises, and permitted to run loose within the premises,

First Amended Complaint

12

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 13 of 35 Page ID #:96

located at 3701 Loadstone Drive, Los Angeles, California, violated the above
quoted Los Angeles Municipal Code.
45.

Defendant Richards violation of the above cited Los Angeles Municipal Code
proximately caused injury to Plaintiff on March 20, 2014.

46.

The injury to Plaintiff resulted from an occurrence of the nature which the

Te

47.

a

Code was designed to prevent.

Plaintiff was one of the class of persons for whose protection the Code was

Plaintiff requests compensation for the physical and emotional pain and

Th

48.

e

adopted.

She also seeks

ut

suffering she has endured and continues to undergo.

reimbursement for the medical bills she has incurred, as well as all other

bo

compensation the court deems just and proper.

Defendant Richards knew her dog was vicious and dangerous and had

Al

49.

lA

EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

previously attacked a person or persons. Without conscious regard for
Plaintiff’s safety, Defendant Richards voluntarily chose to deceive and
misrepresent to Plaintiff that the dog was sweet and cuddly rather than telling
her the truth, that the dog was in fact dangerous and had previously attacked
person or persons.

First Amended Complaint

13

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 14 of 35 Page ID #:97

50.

Defendant Richards knew there was a high likelihood the dog would attack and
seriously injure Plaintiff yet Defendant Richards voluntarily deceived and
intentionally misled Plaintiff as to the true nature of the dog and its
dangerousness, as set forth herein.

Defendant Richards’ actions were

contemptible, miserable, wretched and loathsome and would be looked down

Te

a

upon as despised by ordinary, decent people and can reasonably be inferred to
have been done with malice, oppression, or fraud, thereby warranting an

e

assessment of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

51.

ut

Th

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
By Kay Rozario against Kim Richards
Paragraphs 6 through 50 are incorporated herein as if same were set forth fully

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s daughter and granddaughter went to

lA

52.

bo

at length.

Defendant Richards’ house to be overnight guests. Upon Plaintiff’s arrival,

Al

Defendant Richards represented to Plaintiff that the dog living in her house
was sweet, cuddly, and loveable.
53.

Defendant Richards’ representations set forth above in ¶ 52 were false.

54.

Defendant Richards knew that the representations she made to Plaintiff that the
dog was sweet, cuddly and loveable were false when she made the
representations. Defendant Richards knew the dog was vicious and dangerous

First Amended Complaint

14

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 15 of 35 Page ID #:98

and had previously attacked and bitten a person or persons and did not inform
Plaintiff that the dog was dangerous and vicious.
55.

Defendant Richards made a significant effort to present to and make Plaintiff
believe the dog was a fun, peaceful, happy dog. Defendant Richards rolled
around on the floor, while hugging the dog, and telling Plaintiff she should

Te

56.

a

scratch it behind its ears because it liked it.

Defendant Richards intended that Plaintiff rely on representations set forth

e

herein and agree to be around the dog and stay the night in her home.

Th

Additionally, by misrepresenting to Plaintiff that the dog was cuddly and sweet

ut

rather than the dog’s true nature, which was that it was dangerous, Defendant
Richards carried out Defendant Evolution’s scheme to misrepresent to the

bo

public, the “class” as set forth in the Eighth Cause of Action and incorporated

lA

herein, and those who would be around the dog its true vicious nature. At all

Al

times herein material, Defendant Richards was acting as the agent of Defendant
Evolution and was acting within the course and scope of such agency.
57.

Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant Richard’s misrepresentations and
spent time around the dog in Defendant Richards’ house.

58.

On March 20, 2014, Plaintiff was attacked and bit by the dog and severely
harmed as a result of Defendant Richards’ misrepresentations herein.

First Amended Complaint

15

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 16 of 35 Page ID #:99

59.

Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendant Richards’ misrepresentations was a
substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries.

60.

Plaintiff requests compensation for the physical and emotional pain and
suffering she has endured and continues to undergo.

She also seeks

Te

compensation the court deems just and proper.

a

reimbursement for the medical bills she has incurred, as well as all other

EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Defendant Richards knew her dog was vicious and dangerous and had

e

61.

Th

previously attacked a person or persons. Without conscious regard for

ut

Plaintiff’s safety, Defendant Richards voluntarily chose to deceive and
misrepresent to Plaintiff that the dog was sweet and cuddly rather than telling

Defendant Richards knew there was a high likelihood the dog would attack and

Al

62.

lA

person or persons.

bo

her the truth, that the dog was in fact dangerous and had previously attacked

seriously injure Plaintiff yet Defendant Richards voluntarily deceived and
intentionally misled Plaintiff as to the true nature of the dog and its
dangerousness, as set forth herein.

Defendant Richards’ actions were

contemptible, miserable, wretched and loathsome and would be looked down
upon as despised by ordinary, decent people and can reasonably be inferred to

First Amended Complaint

16

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 17 of 35 Page ID #:100

have been done with malice, oppression, or fraud, thereby warranting an
assessment of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
By Kay Rozario against Kim Richards
63.

Paragraphs 6 through 62 are incorporated herein as if same were set forth fully

Te

64.

a

at length.

Defendant Richards engaged in outrageous conduct. Defendant Richards made

e

false representations to Plaintiff that the dog was not dangerous, she begged

Th

Plaintiff and her daughter not to call 911 and she begged Plaintiff not to tell

ut

anyone, as fully set forth in ¶¶15, 16 herein. These acts were committed with
the intention to cause Plaintiff severe emotional distress.
At all times herein material, Defendant Richards was acting as the agent of

bo

65.

lA

Defendant Evolution and was acting within the course and scope of such

Al

agency. By misrepresenting to Plaintiff that the dog was cuddly and sweet
rather than inform Plaintiff of the dog’s true nature, which was that it was
dangerous, Defendant Richards carried out Defendant Evolution’s scheme to
misrepresent to the public, the “class” as set forth in the Eighth Cause of
Action and incorporated herein, and those who would be around the dog its
true vicious nature.
66.

Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.

First Amended Complaint

17

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 18 of 35 Page ID #:101

67.

Defendant Richards’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
severe emotional distress.

68.

Plaintiff requests compensation for the emotional pain and suffering she has
endured and continues to endure, as well as all other compensation the court
deems just and proper.

69.

Te

a

EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Defendant Richards knew her dog was vicious and dangerous and had

e

previously attacked a person or persons. Without conscious regard for

Th

Plaintiff’s safety, Defendant Richards voluntarily chose to deceive and

ut

misrepresent to Plaintiff that the dog was sweet and cuddly rather than telling

person or persons.

Defendant Richards knew there was a high likelihood the dog would attack and

lA

70.

bo

her the truth, that the dog was in fact dangerous and had previously attacked

Al

seriously injure Plaintiff yet Defendant Richards voluntarily deceived and
intentionally misled Plaintiff as to the true nature of the dog and its
dangerousness, as set forth herein.

Defendant Richards’ actions were

contemptible, miserable, wretched and loathsome and would be looked down
upon as despised by ordinary, decent people and can reasonably be inferred to
have been done with malice, oppression, or fraud, thereby warranting an
assessment of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

First Amended Complaint

18

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 19 of 35 Page ID #:102

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
By Kay Rozario against Kim Richards
71.

Paragraphs 6 through 70 are incorporated herein as if same were set forth fully
at length.

72.

Defendant Richards was negligent when she made false representations to

Te

a

Plaintiff that the dog was not dangerous, when she begged persons not to call
911 after Plaintiff was attacked and bitten and when she begged Plaintiff not

At all times herein material, Defendant Richards was acting as the agent of

Th

73.

e

to tell anyone about the attack, as fully set forth in ¶¶15, 16 herein.

ut

Defendant Evolution and was acting within the course and scope of such
agency. By misrepresenting to Plaintiff that the dog was cuddly and sweet

bo

rather than tell Plaintiff the dog’s true nature, which was that it was dangerous,

lA

Defendant Richards carried out Defendant Evolution’s scheme to misrepresent
to the public, the “class” as set forth in the Eighth Cause of Action and

nature.

Al

incorporated herein, and those who would be around the dog its true vicious

74.

Plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress.

75.

Defendant Richards’ negligence described above in ¶73 was a substantial
factor in causing Plaintiff’s serious emotional distress.

First Amended Complaint

19

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 20 of 35 Page ID #:103

76.

Plaintiff requests compensation for the emotional pain and suffering she has
endured and continues to endure, as well as all other compensation the court
deems just and proper.
EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

77.

Defendant Richards knew her dog was vicious and dangerous and had

Te

a

previously attacked a person or persons. Without conscious regard for
Plaintiff’s safety, Defendant Richards voluntarily chose to deceive and

e

misrepresent to Plaintiff that the dog was sweet and cuddly rather than telling

Th

her the truth, that the dog was in fact dangerous and had previously attacked

78.

ut

person or persons.

Defendant Richards knew there was a high likelihood the dog would attack and

bo

seriously injure Plaintiff yet Defendant Richards voluntarily deceived and

lA

intentionally misled Plaintiff as to the true nature of the dog and its
Defendant Richards’ actions were

Al

dangerousness, as set forth herein.

contemptible, miserable, wretched and loathsome and would be looked down
upon as despised by ordinary, decent people and can reasonably be inferred to
have been done with malice, oppression, or fraud, thereby warranting an
assessment of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

First Amended Complaint

20

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 21 of 35 Page ID #:104

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
By Kay Rozario against Kim Richards
79.

Paragraphs 6 through 78 are incorporated herein as if same were set forth fully
at length.

80.

Defendant Richards fraudulently concealed and suppressed from Plaintiff that

Te

a

the dog owned by Defendant Richards and featured in the Real Housewives of
Beverly Hills television show was vicious and dangerous and had previously

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff, her daughter and granddaughter visited

Th

81.

e

attacked and bitten a person or persons.

ut

Defendant Richards’ residence as overnight guests. As invitor, Defendant
Richards was under a duty to disclose to Plaintiff, the invitee, that the dog was
This fact was known only by Defendants and

bo

vicious and dangerous.

lA

Defendant Richards knew Plaintiff was unaware of this fact and that it was not

82.

Al

reasonably discoverable by the Plaintiff.
Defendant Richards intentionally concealed her prior knowledge of the fact
that the dog was vicious and dangerous and intended to deceive Plaintiff. This
is evidenced by the statements made by Defendant Richards to Plaintiff that the
dog was a “sweet, cuddly dog.” Additionally, Defendant Richards’ playful
attitude around the dog was intended to deceive Plaintiff into believing the dog
was not vicious and dangerous.

First Amended Complaint

21

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 22 of 35 Page ID #:105

83.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff was unaware that the dog was vicious and
dangerous. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants Richards’ deception and
fraudulent concealment. If Plaintiff had been aware that Defendant Richards
had concealed and suppressed the fact that the dog was vicious and dangerous,
she would not have been a guest or an overnight guest at Defendant Richards’

84.

Te

a

residence with the dog present and loose in the house.

As a result of Defendant Richards’ concealment and suppression of the facts,

Defendants Richards’ concealment herein was a substantial factor in causing

Th

85.

e

Plaintiff sustained damages.

86.

ut

Plaintiff severe injuries.

At all times herein material. Defendant Richards was acting as the agent of

bo

Defendant Evolution and was acting within the course and scope of such

lA

agency. By misrepresenting to Plaintiff that the dog was cuddly and sweet and

Al

concealing from Plaintiff the dog’s true nature which was that it was
dangerous, Defendant Richards carried out Defendant Evolution’s scheme to
misrepresent to the public, the “class” as set forth in the Eighth Cause of
Action and incorporated herein, and those who would be around the dog its
true vicious nature.
87.

Plaintiff requests compensation for the physical and emotional pain and
suffering she has endured and continues to undergo.

First Amended Complaint

She also seeks

22

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 23 of 35 Page ID #:106

reimbursement for the medical bills she has incurred, as well as all other
compensation the court deems just and proper.
EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
88.

Defendant Richards knew her dog was vicious and dangerous and had
previously attacked a person or persons. Without conscious regard for

Te

a

Plaintiff’s safety, Defendant Richards voluntarily chose to deceive and
misrepresent to Plaintiff that the dog was sweet and cuddly rather than telling

e

her the truth, that the dog was in fact dangerous and had previously attacked

Defendant Richards knew there was a high likelihood the dog would attack and

ut

89.

Th

person or persons.

seriously injure Plaintiff yet Defendant Richards voluntarily deceived and

bo

intentionally misled Plaintiff as to the true nature of the dog and its

lA

dangerousness, as set forth herein. Defendant Richards’ actions were

Al

contemptible, miserable, wretched and loathsome and would be looked down
upon as despised by ordinary, decent people and can reasonably be inferred to
have been done with malice, oppression, or fraud, thereby warranting an
assessment of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

First Amended Complaint

23

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 24 of 35 Page ID #:107

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
By Kay Rozario against Evolution
90.

Paragraphs 6 through 89 are incorporated herein as if same were set forth fully
at length.
Defendant Evolution made false representations that harmed Plaintiff.

92.

Defendant Evolution represented the past and existing material fact that
Defendant Richards’ dog is not dangerous.

On November 11, 2013, Episode 2 of Season 4 of Real Housewives of Beverly

e

93.

Te

a

91.

Th

Hills premiered and broadcast. In furtherance of Defendant Richards’ and

ut

Defendant Evolution’s desire to induce those who watched the show into
believing that Defendant Richards’ dog was not dangerous, Defendant

bo

Evolution voluntarily made the decision to present for broadcast and/or

lA

broadcast a false claim. Defendant Richards stated in that episode that a dog

Al

trainer had been hired for Defendant Richards’ dog because it had “eaten
thousands of dollars of shoes, sunglasses and personal items.”
94.

Defendant Evolution portrayed the dog as playful and loving but shy and
scared around strangers. The episode further depicted that the dog, after
having been around a stranger for a short period of time, did not view the
stranger as a threat.

First Amended Complaint

24

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 25 of 35 Page ID #:108

95.

The episode did not reveal, nor could it reasonably be assumed by the viewing
audience, that the dog was dangerous. In fact, Defendant Richards stated in the
episode “I don’t want to be that person who has a dog that bites and hurts
somebody. I want to give pit bulls a good name.” The only way to interpret
this statement, selected and edited to be broadcast by Defendant Evolution, is

Te

a

that the dog had not caused injury to a person or persons in the past and that
the dog was not dangerous.

Defendant Evolution’s representations that Defendant Richards’ dog was not

e

96.

Defendant Evolution knew that the representations it made about Defendant

ut

97.

Th

dangerous were false.

Richards’ dog were false. Defendant Evolution had prior knowledge the dog

bo

was dangerous and that the dog had previously bitten and attacked a person or

lA

persons. On information and belief, the dog had attacked a person or persons

Al

on the set of Real Housewives of Beverly Hills prior to the broadcast of
Episode 2 of Season 4.
98.

In the alternative and at a minimum, Defendant Evolution made the
representations recklessly and without regard for its truth to induce those who
watch the show into believing the dog was not dangerous.

99.

It was reasonably foreseeable that Harris, as a long-time acquaintance of
Defendant Richards, would watch the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills show.

First Amended Complaint

25

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 26 of 35 Page ID #:109

It is reasonably foreseeable that Harris and Plaintiff would be visitors at
Defendant Richards’ house. For the reasons set forth within Plaintiff’s Eighth
Cause of Action as well as in the Statement of Facts herein, Harris is a member
of a class of people Defendant Evolution intended to rely on the false
representations. Further, Defendant Evolution intended or had reason to

Te

a

expect that the substance of the representations made directly to Harris in the
Real Housewives of Beverly Hills episodes would be communicated to

e

Plaintiff.

Th

100. Defendant Evolution had a duty to the class, and thereby to Plaintiff, to not

ut

make the false representations as alleged herein that the dog was not
dangerous.

bo

101. Plaintiff is Harris’s mother and is also a long-time acquaintance of Defendant

lA

Richards. It was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Evolution that Plaintiff

Al

would rely on the representations it made to Harris in the broadcasts that the
dog was not dangerous and that Plaintiff would act upon the representations.
102. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant Evolution’s representations that
Defendant Richards’ dog was not dangerous.
103. Prior to March 19, 2014, Harris had watched Episode 2 of Season 4 that
represented Defendant Richards’ dog as not dangerous. Defendant Evolution’s
representations of Defendant Richards’ dog induced Harris into a false sense

First Amended Complaint

26

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 27 of 35 Page ID #:110

of security that the dog was not dangerous. Relying on the representation,
Harris had no reason to believe that being around the dog would put herself,
her daughter, or Plaintiff in danger of being attacked. If Harris had known the
dog was dangerous, she and her daughter would not have visited Defendant
Richards’ house. Further, if Harris had known the dog was dangerous, she

Te

a

would have notified Plaintiff of the danger and risk of attack by the dog.
104. Plaintiff relied on Defendant Evolution’s representations communicated by

e

Evolution through Harris. The fact that Harris was comfortable being around

Th

the dog, that she allowed her daughter and mother to be around the dog, and

ut

that Harris did not display any concern about the dog being violent or
dangerous, led Plaintiff to believe that the dog was not dangerous. If Plaintiff

lA

Richards’ house.

bo

had known that the dog was dangerous, she would not have visited Defendant

Al

105. Based on Defendant Evolution’s on screen representations of Defendant
Richards’ dog, Harris justifiably believed the dog was not dangerous. But this
was not the case. The next morning, after spending time around the dog,
Plaintiff was attacked and bit by the dog without provocation.
106. As a proximate cause of Defendant Evolution’s misrepresentations, Plaintiff
was injured and sustained severe bodily injuries, emotional distress, fear and
anxiety, and other general damages.

First Amended Complaint

27

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 28 of 35 Page ID #:111

107. Plaintiff requests compensation for the physical and emotional pain and
suffering she has endured and continues to undergo.

She also seeks

reimbursement for the medical bills she has incurred, as well as all other
compensation the court deems just and proper.

a

DEFENDANTS’ CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION

Te

108. Beginning on or about a date unknown to Plaintiff, and continuing until some
time on or after March 20, 2014, Defendants Richards and Evolution

Th

e

(“coconspirators”) knowingly and intentionally combined, conspired,
confederated and agreed with each other and others unknown to Plaintiff, to

ut

intentionally misrepresent to Harris, a member of the class as alleged herein,

bo

and thereby to Plaintiff, that the dog was not vicious and dangerous.

lA

109. Prior to the dog attacking Plaintiff on March 20, 2014, the Defendants had
represented to Harris, a member of the class as alleged herein, and thereby to

Al

Plaintiff, that the dog was not vicious and dangerous. Both Defendants knew
this representation was false.
110. Defendants agreed with each other and intended that the dog’s dangerous and
vicious nature be misrepresented to Harris, a member of the class as alleged
herein, and as a result, misrepresented to Plaintiff.

First Amended Complaint

28

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 29 of 35 Page ID #:112

111. At present, the specific wrongful acts of the Defendants known to Plaintiff to
conspire to intentionally misrepresent to Harris, a member of the class as
alleged herein and thereby to Plaintiff, are as follows:
a.

On November 11, 2013, Episode 2 of Season 4 of the Real Housewives
of Beverly Hills premiered, which was filmed on location at Defendant

Te

a

Richards’ residence. A segment of said episode involved a dog trainer
who was allegedly hired by Defendants Richards because the dog had

Defendant Evolution was aware that coconspirator Richards’ statements

Th

b.

e

“eaten thousands of dollars of shoes, sunglasses and personal items.”

ut

in the November 11, 2013, episode were false and were a
misrepresentation to cover the fact that the trainer was hired by

In addition to intentionally misrepresenting the fact that the dog was

lA

c.

bo

Defendant Evolution to correct the dog’s aggression.

Al

dangerous and vicious, Defendants misrepresented to Harris, a member
of the class as set forth herein, and thereby to Plaintiff, the reason the
dog trainer was hired. In the November 11, 2013, Episode 2 of Season
4 broadcast, Defendants concealed the fact that the dog trainer had been
hired to correct the dog’s aggression.

First Amended Complaint

29

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 30 of 35 Page ID #:113

112. By intentionally misrepresenting to Harris, a member of the class as alleged
herein, and thereby to Plaintiff, the facts set forth above, these wrongful acts
by Defendants show:
a.

Defendants Richards and Evolution formed a conspiracy to commit
intentional misrepresentation; and

a

Defendants Richards and Evolution operated and participated in a

Te

b.

conspiracy to commit intentional misrepresentation.

e

113. If Plaintiff would have been aware Defendant Richards and Defendant

Th

Evolution had intentionally misrepresented the fact that the dog was vicious

ut

and dangerous, Plaintiff, her daughter and granddaughter would not have been
guests or overnight guests at Defendant Richards’ residence with the dog

bo

present and loose in the house.

lA

114. The above misrepresentations by the Defendants harmed Plaintiff.

Al

115. Defendants’ misrepresentation herein was a substantial factor in causing
Plaintiff’s severe injuries.
116. Plaintiff requests compensation for the physical and emotional pain and
suffering she has endured and continues to undergo.

She also seeks

reimbursement for the medical bills she has incurred, as well as all other
compensation the court deems just and proper.

First Amended Complaint

30

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 31 of 35 Page ID #:114

EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
117. Defendant Evolution knew that Defendant Richards’ dog was vicious and
dangerous. As set forth herein, Defendant Evolution knew that Defendant
Richards’ dog had previously attacked a person or persons. Without conscious
regard for Harris’s safety and thereby Plaintiff’s safety, Defendant Evolution

Te

a

voluntarily chose to deceive the class of persons in which Harris belonged and
thereby Plaintiff, by presenting for broadcast false claims and false

e

representations.

Th

118. Defendant Evolution knew there was a high likelihood that the dog would

ut

attack and seriously injure those who relied on the false representations made
by Defendant Evolution in the broadcasts. Yet Defendant Evolution voluntarily

bo

deceived and intentionally misled Harris and thereby Plaintiff as to the true

lA

nature of the dog and its dangerousness, as set forth herein, in order to advance

Al

their pecuniary interest of portraying Defendant Richards and the dog in a
certain positive light.
119. Defendant Evolutions’s actions were contemptible, miserable, wretched and
loathsome and would be looked down upon as despised by ordinary, decent
people and can reasonably be inferred to have been done with malice,
oppression, or fraud, thereby warranting an assessment of punitive damages in
an amount to be determined at trial.

First Amended Complaint

31

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 32 of 35 Page ID #:115

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants, and each of
them as follows:
1.

Medical treatment costs, and other treatment costs previously incurred by
Plaintiff;

a

General damages for pain, suffering, physical disfigurement and other

Te

2.

intangible losses sustained by Plaintiff;

Medical treatment costs, and other treatment costs incurred in the future by

e

3.

Th

Plaintiff;

For exemplary and punitive damages according to proof;

5.

For costs of suit herein.

6.

Prejudgment and post judgment interest allowed by law.

7.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

lA

bo

ut

4.

Al

Respectfully submitted this 9th day of February, 2015.

First Amended Complaint

By:

______________________________
Bill Zuhdi, OBA #10013
TX Bar #22293340
The Zuhdi Law Firm
P.O. Box 1077
Oklahoma City, OK 73101
Telephone: (405)232-1400
Facsimile (405)755-9686
Email: bill@billzuhdi.com

32

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 33 of 35 Page ID #:116

Jay W. MacIntosh, Esq., #209912
Law Offices of Jay W. MacIntosh
16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
Encino, California 91436
Telephone (310) 288-4330
Facsimile (310) 479-4629
Email:jay@jaywmacintoshlaw.com

Te

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

a

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
ELLEN KAY ROZARIO

Al

lA

bo

ut

Th

e

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

First Amended Complaint

33

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 34 of 35 Page ID #:117

PROOF OF SERVICE
USDC Central District of California, 2:14-cv-09540 AB (APRx)
I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and am
not a party to the within cause. My business address is PO Box 1077, Oklahoma
City, OK 73101. On this date I served the following document:
First Amended Complaint

Te

a

on the parties identified below, through their attorney of record, by placing true
copies thereof in sealed envelopes addressed as shown below by the following means
of service:

Will Parsons
SHACKELFORD, BOWEN,
ZUMWALT & HAYES, LLP 47
Music Square East
Nashville, TN 37203

Al

lA

bo

ut

Michael R. White,
WHITE & REED LLP
5757 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045

Th

e

By First Class Mail: I caused each such envelope, with first class postage thereon
fully prepaid, to be deposited in a recognized place of deposit of the U.S. Mail in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for collection to the office of the addressee following
ordinary business practices:

First Amended Complaint

The Zuhdi Law Firm

s/Bill Zuhdi
Bill Zuhdi, OBA #10013
TX Bar #22293340
The Zuhdi Law Firm
P.O. Box 1077
Oklahoma City, OK 73101
Telephone: (405)232-1400
Facsimile (405)755-9686
Email: bill@billzuhdi.com

34

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 35 of 35 Page ID #:118

Al

lA

bo

ut

Th

e

Te

a

Jay W. MacIntosh, Esq., #209912
Law Offices of Jay W. MacIntosh
16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
Encino, California 91436
Telephone (310) 288-4330
Facsimile (310) 479-4629
Email:jay@jaywmacintoshlaw.com

First Amended Complaint

35

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful