1

PLAINTIFF CAROL LOPEZ’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BARBARA E. FIGARI (SBN 251942)

Email: Barbara@figarilaw.com

THE FIGARI LAW FIRM

117 E Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600

Pasadena, CA 91105

Telephone: (626) 486-2620

Facsimile: (877) 459-3540

Attorneys for Plaintiff CAROL LOPEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CAROL LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLACK KNIGHT FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, INC., a Corporation, 

SERVICELINK NLS, LLC, a Limited 

Liability Corporation, and FIDELITY 

NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., a 

Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 

PLAINTIFF CAROL LOPEZ’S 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

(1) VIOLATION OF THE DODDFRANK ACT;

(2) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 

SECTION 1102.5; and

(3) VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND 

PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 

17200, et. seq.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 3:17-cv-00207 Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 1 of 10
2

PLAINTIFF CAROL LOPEZ’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff CAROL LOPEZ complains against BLACK KNIGHT FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, INC., a Corporation, SERVICELINK NLS, LLC, a Limited Liability

Corporation, FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., a Corporation, inclusive, and 

demands a trial by jury of all issues and causes of action alleged.

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. At all pertinent times mentioned in this Complaint, Plaintiff CAROL 

LOPEZ (“Plaintiff”) was a resident of the State of California, in the County of Riverside. 

Plaintiff worked for Defendants at their location in Orange County.

2. Defendant BLACK KNIGHT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC (“BLACK 

KNIGHT”) is a financial services company and the nation’s leading provider of 

integrated data, servicing and technology solutions to mortgage lenders. BLACK 

KNIGHT is a publicly traded company, which trades under the ticker symbol BKFS on 

the New York Stock Exchange. BLACK KNIGHT is incorporated under the laws of the 

State of Delaware, and is headquartered in the State of Florida. Thus, BLACK KNIGHT 

is a citizen of the States of Delaware and Florida. 

3. Defendant SERVICELINK NLS, LLC (“SERVICELINK”) is a subsidiary 

of BLACK KNIGHT. SERVICELINK performs property valuations and settlement 

services in all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia. SERVICELINK is incorporated 

under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is headquartered in the State of 

Pennsylvania. Thus, SERVICELINK is a citizen of the States of Delaware and 

Pennsylvania.

4. Defendant FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., (“Fidelity”) is the 

nation’s largest provider of title insurance and related financial services, and is the parent 

corporation of both BLACK KNIGHT and SERVICELINK. FIDELITY is a publicly 

traded company with the ticker symbol “FNFV” on the New York Stock Exchange. 

FIDELITY is incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, and is headquartered in 

the State of Florida. Thus, FIDELITY is a citizen of the States of Illinois and Florida.

Case 3:17-cv-00207 Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 2 of 10
3

PLAINTIFF CAROL LOPEZ’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. Defendants BLACK KNIGHT, SERVICELINK, and FIDELITY shall 

hereinafter collectively be referred to as “Defendants.”

6. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as 

Plaintiff is bringing this action pursuant to the Federal Dodd-Frank Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

78u-6(h)(1)(A).

7. Jurisdiction is further proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, in 

that Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California, and complete diversity exists among 

Plaintiff and the Defendants in this action.

8. At all times mentioned in the causes of action alleged in this Complaint, 

into which this paragraph is incorporated by reference, each and every defendant was the 

agent or employee of each and every other defendant. In engaging in the conduct alleged 

in the causes of action into which this paragraph is incorporated by reference, each and 

every defendant was acting within the course and scope of this agency or employment 

and was acting with the consent, permission, and authorization of each of the remaining 

defendants. All actions of each defendant alleged in the causes of action into which this 

paragraph is incorporated by reference were ratified and approved by the officers or 

managing agents of every other defendant. 

9. Venue is proper in the Northern District because BLACK KNIGHT, 

SERVICE LINK, and FIDELITY each maintain an office within this jurisdiction.

FACTS COMMON TO MORE THAN ONE CAUSE OF ACTION

10. Plaintiff Carol Lopez (“Plaintiff”) was hired by SERVICELINK NLS, LLC 

(formerly LPS Management, LLC) as a title coordinator and assistant to the top producer

at its office located in 5 Peters Canyon Road in Irvine, California, on August 26, 2010. In 

2012, she was hired into the Recording and Auditing Department to handle the recording 

of out-of-state documents.

11. Defendants instructed employees in the Record and Auditing Department to 

make corrections to notarized information although they were not notary. Plaintiff and 

Paula Brumfield approached their managers to ask them what the consequences were for

Case 3:17-cv-00207 Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 3 of 10
4

PLAINTIFF CAROL LOPEZ’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

committing fraud if the Department of Insurance discovered that the original closing 

documents were not actually recorded at the closing of escrow. Ms. Brumfield was told to 

“shut up” if she wanted to keep her job. Management told Plaintiff to not worry and “just 

do your job.” 

12. After their complaint, Supervisor Angel Deleon and Manager Jason Young 

began to treat Plaintiff differently from other employees. Plaintiff was being increasingly 

left out of procedures and changes. She was never included in meetings despite her many 

requests to be included. 

13. On September 18, 2013, Plaintiff called the ethics hotline number provided 

in her employee handbook to report harassment and the fact that she was being asked to 

take actions she felt were fraudulent.

14. Following Plaintiff’s report to the ethics hotline, Mr. Deleon and Mr. 

Young’s hostile attitude and treatment intensified. Their harassment caused Plaintiff to 

develop stress and anxiety. She was unable to sleep, eat, and function normally as a result 

of the stress. Her psychiatrist recommended that she take a leave of absence from work 

because of the stress she was enduring after reporting and refusing to engage in the 

fraudulent conduct.

15. On October 9, 2013, Plaintiff began her FMLA leave due to stress caused 

by retaliation towards her for reporting illegal, unethical, and fraudulent conduct by 

Defendants. However, due to the delay in paperwork filed by Human Resources, she was 

denied leave by FMLA in October 9, 2013 through October 17, 2013 and November 6, 

2013 and November 17, 2013. Therefore, her FMLA and CFRA leave did not begin until 

October 18, 2013 and would not become exhausted until January 15, 2014.

16. During her leave of absence, Defendants told Plaintiff that she would be 

terminated if she did not return to work by January 1, 2014. Plaintiff responded that her 

doctor has placed her on leave until February 23, 2014.

17. On January 15, 2014, Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment,

purportedly because she failed to return to work after her exhaustion of her FMLA 

Case 3:17-cv-00207 Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 4 of 10
5

PLAINTIFF CAROL LOPEZ’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

entitlement hours on January 9, 2014. Plaintiff believes Defendants’ stated reason for 

Plaintiff’s termination to be pretextual in nature, and a cover up for the real reason, which 

is retaliation for reporting illegal conduct. Moreover, according to a confirmation letter 

from FMLA, Plaintiff had until January 15, 2014, before her FMLA and CFRA was 

exhausted. In the “Notice to Employee of Change in Relationship” form, Defendants

incorrectly stated that Plaintiff voluntarily quit. 

18. Paula Brumfield, the other employee who, along with Plaintiff, made 

complaints of fraudulent activity and refused to engage in illegal conduct, was also 

terminated from Defendants’ employ.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF ANTI-RETALIATION WHISTLEBLOWER PROVISIONS OF 

THE DODD-FRANK ACT

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

19. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference, as though fully 

stated herein.

20. The Federal Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

(Dodd-Frank) directs that “no employer may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, 

harass, directly or indirectly, or in any other manner discriminate against, a whistleblower 

in the terms and conditions of employment because of” certain types of protected 

conduct. (15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)). 

21. An “employer” encompasses both entities, such as Defendants, and 

individuals, including Plaintiff’s supervisors. Individual liability exists for violations of 

the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provisions. (See, e.g., Wadler v. BioRad Laboratories, 

Inc. 15-CV-02356-JCS (Oct. 23, 2015)). Accordingly, to the extend any of the DOE 

Defendants named herein are individuals, they are also personally liable for actions taken 

which violated the Dodd-Frank Act.

22. The Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provisions apply to individuals such as 

Plaintiffs, who make internal company reports of conduct which violates SEC 

Case 3:17-cv-00207 Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 5 of 10
6

PLAINTIFF CAROL LOPEZ’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

regulations, but do not contact the SEC directly. (15 U.S.C. section 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii); 

17 C.F.R. section 240.21F-2(b)(1)). 

23. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by making reports of what he 

reasonably believed to be illegal and fraudulent conduct to KOHL’S, through its agents 

and employees, during his employment. 

24. Plaintiff further engaged in protected activity by making external reports of 

what he reasonably believed to be illegal and fraudulent conduct to multiple Federal 

agencies, as described above.

25. Defendants discharged Plaintiff’s employment and further discriminated 

and retaliated against Plaintiff after he s made oral and/or written complaints regarding 

what he reasonably believed to be illegal or unlawful conduct in violation of Federal 

statutes, rules and regulations. 

26. Plaintiffs is informed and believed, and thereon alleges that because of his 

making complaints regarding illegal conduct to Defendants, Plaintiff suffered adverse 

employment actions, including but not limited to discipline, and ultimately, wrongful 

discharge from his employment. 

27. Plaintiff further continues to suffer post-termination retaliation from 

Defendants, in the form of poor references and black-listing from the aerospace industry. 

28. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiff has 

suffered and will continue to suffer pain and mental anguish and emotional distress.

29. Plaintiff has further suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings 

and other employment benefits, whereby Plaintiff is entitled to general compensatory 

damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

30. Defendants’ actions constituted a willful violation of the above-mentioned 

federal laws and regulations. As a direct result, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 

suffer substantial losses related to the loss of wages and is entitled to recover costs and 

expenses and attorney’s fees in seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform its 

obligations under state and/or federal law, in amounts according to proof at time of trial.

Case 3:17-cv-00207 Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 6 of 10
7

PLAINTIFF CAROL LOPEZ’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31. The conduct of Defendants described herein above was outrageous and was 

executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s 

rights, and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff.

32. Defendants, through its officers, managing agents, employees and/or its 

supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein 

above. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an 

amount according to proof at the time of trial.

33. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein by acting knowingly and 

willfully, with the wrongful and illegal deliberate intention of injuring Plaintiff, from 

improper motives amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. 

Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover nominal, actual, compensatory, punitive, and 

exemplary damages in amounts according to proof at time of trial, in addition to any 

other remedies and damages allowable by law.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 1102.5

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

34. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference, as though fully 

stated herein.

35. Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibits employers from discharging, 

constructively discharging, retaliating or in any manner discriminating against any 

employee for making any oral or written complaint regarding what an employee 

reasonably believes to be unlawful or illegal conduct to a governmental agency or to their 

employer.

36. Defendants discharged Plaintiff’s employment and further discriminated 

and retaliated against Plaintiff after Plaintiff made oral and/or written complaints 

regarding what she reasonably believed to be illegal or unlawful conduct in violation of 

state and federal statutes, rules and regulations. Plaintiff made these complaints to her 

employer, by and through its agents and employees. 

Case 3:17-cv-00207 Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 7 of 10
8

PLAINTIFF CAROL LOPEZ’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

37. Plaintiff is informed and believed, and thereon alleges that because of her 

making complaints regarding illegal conduct to Defendants, her employers, and to a 

governmental agency, Plaintiff was discharged from her employment and/or otherwise 

discriminated or retaliated against by Defendants after she had made complaints about 

illegal conduct. 

38. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiff has 

suffered and will continue to suffer pain and mental anguish and emotional distress.

39. Plaintiff has further suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings 

and other employment benefits, whereby Plaintiff is entitled to general compensatory 

damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

40. Defendants’ actions constituted a willful violation of the above-mentioned 

federal laws and regulations. As a direct result, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 

suffer substantial losses related to the loss of wages and is entitled to recover costs and 

expenses and attorney’s fees in seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform its 

obligations under state and/or federal law, in amounts according to proof at time of trial.

41. The conduct of Defendants described herein above was outrageous and was 

executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s 

rights, and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff.

42. Defendants, through its officers, managing agents, employees and/or its 

supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein 

above. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an 

amount according to proof at the time of trial.

43. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein by acting knowingly and 

willfully, with the wrongful and illegal deliberate intention of injuring Plaintiff, from 

improper motives amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. 

Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover nominal, actual, compensatory, punitive, and 

exemplary damages in amounts according to proof at time of trial, in addition to any 

other remedies and damages allowable by law.

Case 3:17-cv-00207 Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 8 of 10
9

PLAINTIFF CAROL LOPEZ’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

44. As a proximate result of the actions and conduct described in the 

paragraphs above, which constitute violations of Labor Code section 1102.5, Plaintiff has 

been damaged in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.

45. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as stated in pertinent part 

hereinafter.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF 

CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein the 

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

47. The California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et 

seq. (“UCL”), defines unfair competition to include any “unlawful,” “unfair,” or 

“fraudulent” business act or practice. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

48. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above constitutes unlawful, unfair and/or 

fraudulent business practices for the reasons set forth below, without limitation, violation 

of the California Labor Code and violations of the California Government Code. 

49. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17203, Plaintiff 

seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendant’s unlawful, unfair and fraudulent 

conduct and to recover restitution.

50. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, Plaintiff is 

entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in bringing 

this action. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. Compensatory damages, including economic and non-economic damages 

included but not limited to emotional distress damages and lost wages and benefits, in a 

sum according to proof;

Case 3:17-cv-00207 Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 9 of 10
10

PLAINTIFF CAROL LOPEZ’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Punitive damages, in a sum according to proof;

3. Interest on judgment, including but not limited to prejudgment and postjudgment interest, at the legal rate, pursuant to the Civil Code;

4. Recovery of all reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, litigation 

expenses and costs incurred, pursuant to Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 

and Section 12965 of the Government Code.

5. An injunction: (1) ordering Defendants to cease and desist from engaging 

in fraudulent conduct, including but not limited to changing already notarized documents; 

(2) ordering Defendants to provide mandatory and meaningful training to employees 

regarding compliance with all securities regulations; and (3) ordering Defendants to 

reinstate Plaintiff with full compensation for the wages, benefits promotions she has lost.

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

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: January 14, 2017 THE FIGARI LAW FIRM

/s/ Barbara E. Figari

______________________________________

BARBARA E. FIGARI, ESQ.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Carol Lopez herewith demands a jury trial in this action.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: January 14, 2017 THE FIGARI LAW FIRM

/s/ Barbara E. Figari

______________________________________

BARBARA E. FIGARI, ESQ.

Case 3:17-cv-00207 Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 10 of 10