Exhibit I 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 27
NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

SCOTT R. COMMERSON (State Bar No. 227460)

scottcommerson@dwt.com

BRENDAN N. CHARNEY (State Bar

 No. 293378) brendancharney@dwt.com 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566

Telephone: (213) 633-6800

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

JAMES GRANT (pro hac vice pending) jamesgrant@dwt.com 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200

Seattle, Washington 98101-3045

Telephone: (206)622-3150

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

ROBERT CORN-REVERE (pro hac vice pending) robertcornrevere@dwt.com

RONALD LONDON (pro hac vice pending) ronaldlondon@dwt.com

1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 

800

Washington, D.C. 20006-3401

Telephone: (202) 973-4200

Attorneys for Defendants 

MEDALIST HOLDINGS, INC.; LEEWARD HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; CAMARILLO 

HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; DARTMOOR HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; IC HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; 

BACKPAGE.COM, L.L.C; UGC TECH GROUP C.V.; CARL FERRER; JAMES 

LARKIN; MICHAEL LACEY; and ATLANTISCHE BEDRIJVEN C.V. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE DOE, individually, by and through

her Guardian Ad Litem, S.B., 

Plaintiff,

vs.

MEDALIST HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; 

LEEWARD HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; 

CAMARILLO HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; 

DARTMOOR HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; IC 

HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; BACKPAGE.COM, 

L.L.C, NEW TIMES MEDIA, L.L.C., 

UGC TECH GROUP C.V.; CARL 

FERRER; JAMES LARKIN; MICHAEL 

LACEY; and, JOHN DOE 1-5,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:17-CV-1264

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

(Removed from Riverside County 

Superior Court Case No. MCC1700068)

[Appendix with Exhibits A-NN; 

Declaration of Scott Commerson with 

Exhibits OO-TT; and Declaration of 

Ambika Doran with Exhibits UU-VV

filed concurrently]

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:1 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 2 of 27
2

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA:

Defendant Atlantische Bedrijven C.V., joined by Medalist Holdings, Inc., 

Leeward Holdings, L.L.C.; Camarillo Holdings, L.L.C.; Dartmoor Holdings, L.L.C.; 

IC Holdings, L.L.C.; Backpage.com, L.L.C.; UGC Tech Group C.V.; Carl Ferrer;

James Larkin; and Michael Lacey (the “Backpage.com Defendants”); hereby give 

notice of removal of the above-captioned civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 

1441, and 1446, from the Superior Court of the State of California for Riverside 

County to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), the Backpage.com Defendants attach a true and 

correct “copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon [the Backpage.com 

Defendants]” in the state court action. In support of this Notice of Removal, the 

Backpage.com Defendants state as follows:

1. Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) filed a California state court action on 

January 25, 2017, alleging California state-law claims against the Backpage.com 

Defendants, as well as New Times Media, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability 

company. Exhibit A. 

2. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on February 10, 2017, which, 

among other things, purported to add as a defendant Atlantische Bedrijven C.V., a 

Dutch limited partnership, and Reson Tredon Richard (“Richard”), a resident of 

California currently incarcerated at the Chuckawalla Valley State Prison in Blythe, 

California. Exhibit F; Commerson Decl. ¶ 10, Exhibit RR.

3. On April 3, 2017, Plaintiff requested dismissal of New Times Media, 

LLC without prejudice. Exhibit I.

4. On April 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a filed an Amendment to the First 

Amended Complaint naming Medalist Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, as a 

defendant instead of the defendant Medalist Holdings, LLC., a Delaware limited 

liability company, which apparently was named in error. 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:2 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 3 of 27
3

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

5. Medalist Holdings, Inc. accepted service through counsel on April 25, 

2017. Commerson Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exhibit OO.

6. Atlantische Bedrijven C.V. accepted service through counsel on May 

24, 2017. Commerson Decl. ¶¶ 7-8, Exhibit PP.

7. This Notice of Removal is timely because Atlantische Bedrijven C.V., 

joined by the other Backpage.com Defendants, is filing it within 30 days after the 

Complaint was served on it. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)(1), (2). 

8. Removal is proper based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332, and the doctrine of procedural misjoinder.

9. Plaintiff is a citizen of California. The Backpage.com Defendants are 

citizens of Delaware, Arizona, and Texas. Accordingly, there is complete diversity 

between Plaintiff and the Backpage.com Defendants. Defendant Reson Tredon 

Richard appears to be a citizen of California, where he is currently incarcerated. 

However, the citizenship of Richard should be disregarded and he need not join in 

seeking removal of this action because Plaintiff has procedurally misjoined the 

claims against him with the claims against the Backpage.com Defendants in violation 

of Rules 20 and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s claims against 

Richard for his trafficking, exploitation, and abuse of her have no connection to her 

claims against the Backpage.com Defendants for, in essence, providing a forum for 

third-party Internet advertising – which claims are absolutely barred in any event 

under the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”). 

10. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not pray for a specific amount of damages. 

However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and 1446(c)(2)(A), it is clear from the 

nature of Plaintiff’s claims and alleged harm, as well as evidence proffered by the 

plaintiffs in a nearly identical lawsuit, that the amount in controversy in this action 

substantially exceeds the requisite minimum of $75,000. 

11. Accordingly, this Court has diversity jurisdiction over all claims 

between Plaintiff and the Backpage.com Defendants, and should sever and remand

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:3 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 4 of 27
4

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

the claims against Richard to the Superior Court of Riverside County.

A. This Notice Is Timely.

12. On January 25, 2017, an individual alleged to have been a minor at the 

time of the events at issue, and identified pseudonymously as Jane Doe, filed a 

complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of 

Riverside, Case No. MCC1700068 against the Backpage.com Defendants and 

Richard (“the Complaint”). The Complaint is captioned JANE DOE, individually, by 

and through her Guardian Ad Litem, S.B., Plaintiff, v. MEDALIST HOLDINGS, 

L.L.C.; LEEWARD HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; CAMARILLO HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; 

DARTMOOR HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; IC HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; BACKPAGE.COM, 

L.L.C.[;] NEW TIMES MEDIA, L.L.C.[;] UGC TECH GROUP C.V.; CARL 

FERRER; JAMES LARKIN; MICHAEL LACEY; and, JOHN DOE 1-5, Defendants. 

Exhibits A, F. 

13. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on February 10, 

2017. Exhibit F. In addition to adding certain substantive allegations, the FAC

added Richard and Atlantische Bedrijven C.V. as defendants.1

 Id. 

14. Plaintiff’s FAC alleges six causes of action: Negligence (First Cause of 

Action); Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress (Second Cause of Action); 

Assault And Battery (Third Cause of Action); Unjust Enrichment (Fourth Cause of 

Action); Invasion Of Privacy (Fifth Cause of Action); and Civil Conspiracy (Sixth 

Cause of Action). Exhibit F at ¶¶ 5.1 - 5.32. Causes of Action Two through Four 

and Six are alleged against all defendants; the First Cause of Action for Negligence 

and the Fifth Cause of Action for Invasion of Privacy are alleged against only the 

Backpage.com Defendants. Id.

15. On April 21, 2017 Plaintiff filed an Amendment to the First Amended 

 1 Missing from the caption, Atlantische Bedrijven C.V. and Richard are described as defendants in the Complaint’s body. See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 2.13, 2.21. 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:4 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 5 of 27
5

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

Complaint naming Medalist Holdings, Inc. as a defendant. Exhibit JJ; Commerson 

Decl. at ¶¶ 2-4. The First Amended Complaint, as amended, is the operative 

complaint in this action.

16. On April 25, 2017, counsel for the Backpage.com Defendants accepted 

service (by e-mail) of the FAC, as amended, on behalf of Medalist Holdings, Inc. 

See Commerson Decl. at ¶¶ 5-6, Exhibit OO.

17. On May 24, 2017, counsel for the Backpage.com Defendants and 

counsel for Plaintiff agreed that counsel for the Backpage.com Defendants would 

accept service on behalf of then-unserved defendant Atlantische Bedrijven C.V. and 

that the deadline for all of the Backpage.com Defendants to respond to the FAC 

would be 30 days from the date Atlantische Bedrijven C.V. was served, i.e. June 23, 

2017. See Commerson Decl. at ¶¶ 7-8, Exhibit PP.

18. On May 24, 2017, counsel for the Backpage.com Defendants accepted 

service (by e-mail) of the FAC, as amended, on behalf of Atlantische Bedrijven C.V. 

See id.

19. The Notice of Removal is timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), 

because the Backpage.com Defendants have filed it within 30 days after Atlantische 

Bedrijven C.V. accepted service.

B. Complete Diversity Exists Between Plaintiff and the Backpage.Com Defendants.

20. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), defendants may remove any civil 

action brought in a state court over which the district courts of the United States have 

original jurisdiction.

21. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions 

between citizens of different states, and between a citizen of a state and a citizen or 

subject of a foreign state, where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value 

of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), (2). 

22. A natural person is a citizen of the state where the person is domiciled, 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:5 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 6 of 27
6

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

i.e., where the person resides with the intention to remain or return for more than a 

temporary period. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 

2001).

23. LLCs are treated like limited partnerships for purposes of determining 

diversity jurisdiction, and are deemed to be citizens of every state of which a member 

is a citizen. Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th 

Cir. 2006).

24. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is deemed to be a 

citizen of both the state in which it is incorporated and the state where it has its 

principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A corporation’s principal place 

of business is determined by the “nerve center” test, i.e., “the place where a 

corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporations’ activities,” 

which ordinarily is the “place where the corporation maintains its headquarters.” 

Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010). 

C. Plaintiff Is A California Citizen.

25. Although the FAC does not plead Plaintiff’s citizenship, her counsel has 

disclosed facts showing that she is a citizen of California. Specifically, Plaintiff’s 

counsel stated in an April 19, 2017 e-mail to counsel for the Backpage.com 

Defendants that:

“Plaintiff’s family temporarily left California for Oklahoma for safety 

reasons pending the criminal prosecution of the pimp. The pimp has 

now been prosecuted and sentenced, and the family is in the process of 

moving back to California in a few weeks. Given the temporary nature 

of the move, the Plaintiff’s parents maintained their CA driver’s licenses 

and license plates. When the family moves back to California, the 

victim’s mother will be resuming her employment as a CPS social 

worker for the State of California. The family is moving back to 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 6 of 26 Page ID #:6 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 7 of 27
7

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

Riverside County where Plaintiff will be completing her final year of 

high school.” 

Commerson Decl., ¶ 9, Exhibit QQ (emphasis added).

D. None Of The Backpage.com Defendants Are California Citizens.

26. The FAC, as amended, correctly alleges that Leeward Holdings, LLC; 

Camarillo Holdings, LLC; Dartmoor Holdings, LLC; IC Holdings, LLC; and 

Backpage.com, LLC all are Delaware Limited Liability Companies (“LLCs”). FAC 

at ¶¶ 2.6 - 2.11.

27. At the time the Complaint was filed, and as of the date of the filing of 

this Notice, Medalist Holdings, Inc. was and is a Delaware corporation, with its 

principal place of business in Arizona. It has always been privately held, and no 

publicly held corporation has ever owned an interest in it. 

28. At the time the Complaint was filed, and as of the date of the filing of 

this Notice, Leeward Holdings, LLC was and is a Delaware limited liability 

company, wholly owned by Medalist Holdings, Inc. Leeward Holdings, LLC has 

always been privately held, and no publicly held corporation has ever owned an 

interest in it. 

29. At the time the Complaint was filed, and as of the date of the filing of 

this Notice, Camarillo Holdings, LLC was and is a Delaware limited liability 

company, wholly owned by Leeward Holdings LLC. Camarillo Holdings, LLC has 

always been privately held, and no publicly held corporation has ever owned an 

interest in it. 

30. Therefore, at the time the Complaint was filed, and as of the date of the 

filing of this Notice, Medalist Holdings Inc., Leeward Holdings, LLC, and Camarillo 

Holdings, LLC were and are all citizens of Delaware and Arizona. 

31. At the time the Complaint was filed, and as of the date of the filing of 

this Notice, James Larkin was and is a resident and citizen of Arizona. 

32. James Larkin owns a residence near Phoenix in the State of Arizona and 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 7 of 26 Page ID #:7 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 8 of 27
8

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

has owned a residence in or near Phoenix since 1982. He has lived near Phoenix 

since 1952. His current residence near Phoenix is his primary residence and has been 

so since 2007. 

33. James Larkin considers his residence in Arizona to be his permanent 

home and, when he departs the State of Arizona, he does so with the intent to return 

to his residence in Arizona. 

34. James Larkin has been employed in or near Phoenix, Arizona since 

1970. 

35. James Larkin files his state income taxes in Arizona as a resident of 

Arizona and has done so since 1968. He also pays and has always paid real and 

personal property taxes in Arizona. 

36. James Larkin is registered to vote in the State of Arizona and has been 

registered to vote in Arizona since about 2000.

37. James Larkin has an Arizona driver’s license and has had an Arizona 

driver’s license since 1966.

38. James Larkin has automobiles in Arizona, which are registered in 

Arizona. He has owned or leased automobiles that have been registered in Arizona 

since 1968. 

39. At the time the Complaint was filed, and as of the date of the filing of 

this Notice, Michael Lacey was and is a resident and citizen of Arizona. 

40. Michael Lacey owns a residence near Phoenix in the State of Arizona 

and has owned a residence in or near Phoenix since the mid-1990s. He has lived in 

Phoenix since 1966. His current residence near Phoenix is his primary residence and 

has been so since the late 1990’s. 

41. Michael Lacey considers his residence in Arizona to be his permanent 

home and, when he departs the State of Arizona, he does so with the intent to return 

to his residence in Arizona. 

42. Michael Lacey has been employed in or near Phoenix, Arizona since 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 8 of 26 Page ID #:8 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 9 of 27
9

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

1970. 

43. Michael Lacey files his state income taxes in Arizona as a resident of 

Arizona and has done so since 1970. He also pays, and for many years has paid, real 

and personal property taxes in Arizona. 

44. Michael Lacey is registered to vote in the State of Arizona and has been 

registered to vote in Arizona since the mid-1990s.

45. Michael Lacey has an Arizona driver’s license and has had an Arizona 

driver’s license since the 1990s.

46. Michael Lacey has automobiles in Arizona, which are registered in 

Arizona. He has owned or leased automobiles that have been registered in Arizona 

since 1990. 

47. At the time the Complaint was filed, and as of the date of the filing of 

this Notice, the ownership structure of the remaining Backpage.com Defendants was 

and is as follows: 

a. Backpage.com, LLC was and is a Delaware limited liability 

company, wholly owned by IC Holdings, LLC. 

b. IC Holdings, LLC was and is a Delaware limited liability company, 

wholly owned by Dartmoor Holdings, LLC. 

c. Dartmoor Holdings, LLC was and is a Delaware limited liability 

company, wholly owned by Atlantische Bedrijven C.V. 

d. Atlantische Bedrijven C.V. was and is a Dutch limited partnership, 

wholly owned by Kickapoo River Investments, LLC and Lupine 

Investments LLC. 

e. Kickapoo River Investments, LLC and Lupine Investments LLC are 

each Delaware limited liability companies, each wholly owned by 

Amstel River Holdings, LLC. 

f. Amstel River Holdings, LLC is a Delaware limited liability 

company, wholly owned by the Vicky Ferrer Family Trust. 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 9 of 26 Page ID #:9 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 10 of 27
10

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

g. Backpage.com, LLC, IC Holdings, LLC, Dartmoor Holdings, LLC, 

Atlantische Bedrijven C.V., Kickapoo River Investments, LLC, 

Lupine Investments LLC, and Amstel River Holdings, LLC have 

always been privately held, and no publicly held corporation has ever 

owned an interest in any of them.

48. Thus, tracing up the ownership chain, at all relevant times, the 

citizenship of Backpage.com, LLC, IC Holdings, LLC, Dartmoor Holdings, LLC, 

Atlantische Bedrijven C.V., Kickapoo River Investments, LLC, Lupine Investments 

LLC, and Amstel River Holdings, LLC, for diversity purposes, are based on the 

citizenship of their ultimate owner, the Vicky Ferrer Family Trust.

49. The Trustee of the Vicky Ferrer Family Trust is Carl Ferrer. The current 

beneficiaries of the Trust are Carl Ferrer and his wife, April E. Ferrer. 

50. Any potential future beneficiaries of the trust who currently are 

identifiable are citizens of either Texas or Oklahoma. No current beneficiary of the 

trust, or potential future beneficiary of the trust who is currently identifiable, is or has 

been a citizen of California.

51. At the time the Complaint was filed, and as of the date of the filing of 

this Notice, Carl Ferrer and April Ferrer were and are residents and citizens of Texas. 

52. Carl and April Ferrer have owned a residence near Dallas in the State of 

Texas since August 2005. The residence is their primary residence and has been so 

since August, 2005. 

53. Carl and April Ferrer consider their residence in Texas to be their 

permanent home and, when they depart the State of Texas, they do so with the intent 

to return to their residence in Texas. 

54. Carl Ferrer has been employed in or near Dallas since August 2005. 

55. Carl and April Ferrer file their income taxes in Texas as residents of 

Texas and have done so since 2005. They also pay real and personal property taxes 

in Texas. 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 10 of 26 Page ID #:10 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 11 of 27
11

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

56. Carl Ferrer is registered to vote in the State of Texas and has been 

registered to vote in Texas since 2008. April Ferrer is registered to vote in the State 

of Texas and has been registered to vote in Texas since approximately 2005.

57. Carl and April Ferrer have Texas driver’s licenses and have had Texas 

driver’s licenses since 2006.

58. Carl and April Ferrer have automobile in Texas, which are registered in 

Texas. They have owned automobiles that have been registered in Texas since 2006. 

59. Carl Ferrer has had the same physician for over 16 years; the physician’s 

office is in Dallas, Texas.

60. Therefore, at the time the Complaint was filed, and as of the date of the 

filing of this Notice, the Vicky Ferrer Family Trust was and is a citizen of Texas, 

given that its trustee and all its current beneficiaries are citizens of Texas. 

Accordingly, the LLCs and limited partnership owned, directly and indirectly, by the 

Trust were and are all citizens of Texas for purposes of removal, including 

Backpage.com, LLC; IC Holdings, LLC; Dartmoor Holdings, LLC; Atlantische 

Bedrijven C.V.; Kickapoo River Investments, LLC; Lupine Investments LLC; and 

Amstel River Holdings, LLC.

61. None of the Backpage.com Defendants, either individually or through 

corporate ownership or membership, are or ever have been citizens of the State of 

California. 

62. Accordingly, at the time the Complaint was filed, and as of the date of 

the filing of this Notice, complete diversity of citizenship existed and exists between 

Plaintiff (who is a citizen of California) and all of the Backpage.com Defendants 

(which are citizens of Delaware, Arizona, and Texas).

E. Claims Are Procedurally Misjoined When There Is No Real Connection Between Them.

63. When a plaintiff improperly joins claims in a state court action, a federal 

district court to which the case is removed should disregard the citizenship of nonCase 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 11 of 26 Page ID #:11 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 12 of 27
12

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

diverse parties that are not properly joined under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, sever and 

remand claims involving such non-diverse parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, and 

recognize federal diversity jurisdiction for the remaining claims. Tapscott v. MS 

Dealer Serv. Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 1996), abrogated on other 

grounds, Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069, 1072-73 (11th Cir. 2000). This 

doctrine is variously referred to as “procedural” or “fraudulent” 2 misjoinder; courts 

find procedural misjoinder when a diverse defendant is joined with a non-diverse 

defendant as to whom there is no joint, several, or alternative liability, and the claims 

against the two defendants have no real connection. Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, 

Inc., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 1998). 

64. Several courts within the Ninth Circuit have upheld removal based on 

the procedural misjoinder rule, reasoning, among other bases, that the “rule is a 

logical extension of the established precedent [recognized in the Ninth Circuit] that a 

plaintiff may not fraudulently join a defendant in order to defeat diversity jurisdiction 

in federal court.” Greene v. Wyeth, 344 F. Supp. 2d 674, 684–85 (D. Nev. 2004);

Anglada v. Bank of America Corp., 2011 WL 5196710, *4-5 (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2011)

(citing Wyeth); Sutton v. Davol, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 500, 503 (E.D. Cal. 2008) 

(“Misjoinder may be just as fraudulent as the joinder of a resident defendant against 

whom a plaintiff has no possibility of a cause of action” (quoting Tapscott, 77 F.3d at 

1360)); see also Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313, 1319 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(upholding removal premised on disregarding fraudulently joined defendants).

 2 Notwithstanding some courts’ use of the word “fraudulent” to describe the 

doctrine, its application does not depend on a showing actual fraud, culpable mental state, or bad faith on the part of Plaintiff or counsel. See Mercado v. Allstate Ins. 

Co., 340 F.3d 824, 826, (9th Cir.2003) (noting that “fraudulent joinder” is a term of art); AIDS Counseling & Testing Centers v. Grp. W Television, Inc., 903 F.2d 1000, 

1003 (4th Cir. 1990); Triggs, 154 F.3d at 1291. Accordingly, for clarity, this Notice will refer to the doctrine as “procedural misjoinder.” See Caouette v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2012 WL 3283858, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012).

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 12 of 26 Page ID #:12 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 13 of 27
13

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

F. Non-Diverse Defendant Richard Is Procedurally Misjoined.

65. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, joinder of defendants in a single action 

requires a claim for relief against all defendants “jointly, severally, or in the 

alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series 

of transactions or occurrences” and a common question of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 20(a)(2).3

 At any time, and by motion or on its own, a federal court may add or 

drop any party that has been improperly or procedurally misjoined. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

21; Wyeth, 344 F. Supp. 2d at 685 (noting that court, “mindful of its authority under 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 21, to add or drop parties to a suit ‘at any 

stage of the action and on such terms as are just.’... is inclined to sever claims where 

the joinder is procedurally inappropriate and clearly accomplishes no other objective 

than the manipulation of the forum”).

66. A defendant’s right of removal cannot be defeated by a procedural

misjoinder of claims or parties that have no real connection with one another. 

Tapscott, 77 F.3d at 1360; Sutton, 251 F.R.D. at 503; see also Hughes v. Sears, 

Roebuck & Co., 2009 WL 2877424, at *5 (N.D. W.Va. Sept. 3, 2009) (“Where a 

non-diverse party cannot be properly joined under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the defendant’s right of removal should prevail over that of permitting a 

plaintiff’s choice of forum.”); Atkins v. Smalbach, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 31185, at *8 

(M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2015) (“Fraudulently joining Mick to the claims against Smalbach 

would unfairly deprive Mick of its constitutionally and statutorily protected right to 

adjudicate the claims against it in a federal forum”); Wyeth, 344 F. Supp. 2d at 685 

(“[T]he Court is inclined to sever claims where the joinder is procedurally 

inappropriate and clearly accomplishes no other objective than the manipulation of 

the forum, and where the rights of the parties and interest of justice is best served by 

 3 California’s permissive joinder rule is substantially identical to Rule 20. See

Cal. Code Civ. Pro § 379(a); Sutton, 251 F.R.D. at 504.

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 13 of 26 Page ID #:13 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 14 of 27
14

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

severance.”).

67. Plaintiff has procedurally misjoined Richard in this action under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 20 and 21 and applicable case law.

68. Courts find defendants are procedurally misjoined when the claims 

against them are “factually distinct” and there is “no real connection between 

the[m.]” Baums v. General Insurance Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77820, at *7 (M.D. 

Ala. Oct. 23, 2006). Procedural misjoinder is found when, among other things, the 

claims against one defendant involve markedly different facts and evidence from the 

claims against another defendant — such as where the claims involve different 

circumstances, actions, or omissions; or different legal theories. See, e.g., Wyeth, 

344 F. Supp. 2d at 684-85 (claims against pharmaceutical manufacturer procedurally 

misjoined with claims against physicians and sales representatives, because

“[i]ndividual circumstances, actions, and omissions were involved in each Plaintiff's 

choice to ingest the medication, as well as each Defendant's role in, and 

responsibility for, that decision”); Sutton, 251 F.R.D. at 504 (“claims based on strict 

products liability against the removing Defendants are separate from Plaintiffs' 

claims of medical malpractice against the California Defendants”); M.W. v. Ford 

Motor Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 36895, at *11-21 (M.D. Fla. March 24, 2015) 

(finding procedural misjoinder where facts needed to support medical malpractice 

claim concerning treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries were wholly distinct from facts that 

would support product liability and negligence claims about vehicle in which injuries 

occurred); Atkins, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 31185, at *15-16 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2015) 

(finding procedural misjoinder where claim seeking approval of arbitration award 

against non-diverse defendant over fraudulent sales of securities shared no common 

questions of law or fact with claim alleging diverse defendant was an agent that 

participated in sale); Lopez v. Sturdivant, 2010 WL 3121750, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 

6, 2010) (finding procedural misjoinder of plaintiffs’ claims against contractor for 

defective construction of a house with claims against insurer for improper denial of 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 14 of 26 Page ID #:14 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 15 of 27
15

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

coverage); Willingham v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2767679 at *3-4 (N.D. Miss. 

Aug. 27, 2009) (finding procedural misjoinder of claims against insurance company 

arising from house fire, with claims against non-diverse construction company for 

defective work in rebuilding the house after the fire); Frankland v. State Farm Fire 

& Cas. Co, 2008 WL 4072819, at *5 (W.D. La. July 2, 2008) (finding fraudulent 

misjoinder of claims against non-diverse private insurance adjuster and diverse 

insurer for damages to property from hurricane because there was no community of 

interest, plaintiff’s claims arose from different contracts and evidence would be 

different); Nsight Technologies, LLC v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1106868, at *4 (S.D. 

Miss. Apr. 23, 2009) (claims against employee for conversion and against insurer 

concerning coverage for alleged conversion were procedurally misjoined because 

“[w]hile the claims against [both defendants] arise out of the alleged embezzlement, 

the claims ‘involve different factual issues and different legal issues.’”).

G. The Claims Against Richard And The Backpage.Com Defendants Arise Out Of Different Occurrences, Do Not Involve Shared Liability, And 

Concern Different Questions Of Fact And Law.

69. The Complaint alleges that Richard took illicit photographs of Plaintiff, 

sexually abused her, induced her to engage in commercial sex acts, and unjustly 

enriched himself by taking money from adults who paid to have sex with Plaintiff. 

FAC at ¶¶ 2.21, 5.18.

70. On November 30, 2016, Richard pleaded guilty to inducing or 

persuading a minor to engage in a commercial sex act (Cal. Pen. C. § 236.1(C)(1)). 

Commerson Decl. ¶¶ 11-12, Exhibits SS, TT.

71. Plaintiff’s claims against Richard are based on his trafficking, 

exploitation, and abuse of her.

72. Plaintiff’s claims against the Backpage.com Defendants, on the other 

hand, are based on the allegations that the Backpage.com website was at least one 

Internet site where Richard posted advertisements about her, Backpage.com did not 

“take any steps to prevent [Plaintiff] from being advertised for sex on 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 15 of 26 Page ID #:15 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 16 of 27
16

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

www.backpage.com,” and Plaintiff did not consent to having her photograph appear 

on Backpage.com. See, e.g., FAC at ¶¶ 4.2,4.6, 4.7 - 4.8, 4.10. 

73. Plaintiff’s claims against Richard, on the one hand, and Plaintiffs’ 

claims against the Backpage.com Defendants, on the other hand, involve different 

alleged injuries to Plaintiff. The essence of Plaintiff’s claim against Richard is that 

he harmed her by trafficking, exploiting, and abusing her in physical space; the 

essence of Plaintiff’s claim against the Backpage.com Defendants is that they 

allegedly harmed her by permitting her private photograph to appear on a website 

without her consent, and they did not take steps to remove her information from the 

website. See, e.g., FAC at ¶¶ 4.2,4.6, 4.7 - 4.8, 4.10. Indeed, Plaintiff’s core claims 

against the Backpage.com Defendants sound in negligence and invasion of privacy in 

operating a website — claims that are not alleged against Richard. See FAC at ¶¶ 5.1 

- 5.5, 5.26 - 5.29. On the other hand, the claims against Richard – including assault 

and battery – sound in his physical exploitation and abuse of her. See FAC at ¶¶ 

5.10, 5.15.

74. For similar reasons, markedly different evidence and questions of law 

are involved in Plaintiff’s claims against Richard in contrast with Plaintiffs’ claims 

against the Backpage.com Defendants. See, e.g., Hughes, 2009 WL 2877424, at *6 

(finding fraudulent misjoinder of claims against manufacturer and retailer of 

treadmill with claims against doctor for misdiagnosis after plaintiff suffered injuries 

using the treadmill, noting “the evidence supporting these claims will be markedly 

different”)

75. Specifically, the evidence concerning Plaintiff’s claims against Richard 

would concern his trafficking, exploitation, and abuse of her. The evidence to 

establish Richard’s illegal conduct is wholly unrelated to the operation of the 

Backpage.com website or the circumstances of the ads about the Plaintiff posted on 

the website. 

76. Moreover, a central issue with respect to the Backpage.com Defendants 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 16 of 26 Page ID #:16 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 17 of 27
17

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

is whether they are immune from suit pursuant to the Communications Decency Act 

(“CDA”). Section 230 of the CDA states that “[n]o provider ... of an interactive 

computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information 

provided by another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). It 

expressly preempts state laws: “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability

may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” 

Id. § 230(e)(3). Because the Backpage.com Defendants are being sued based entirely 

on third-party speech posted online, the claims against them raise issues of law 

entirely distinct from the claims concerning Richard’s physically exploitative and 

abusive conduct.

77. In short, the Backpage.com Defendants’ operation of a website in which 

third parties allegedly posted online advertisements is markedly different from the 

commission of physical and sexual abuse by misjoined defendant Richard. Indeed, 

the Complaint alleges, at most, independent successive torts, rather than conduct by 

tortfeasors acting jointly.4

 See Stone v. Zimmer, Inc., 2009 WL 1809990, at *4 (S.D. 

 4 Plaintiff’s defective Civil Conspiracy claim cannot convert the successive, independent actions of the Backpage.com defendants, on the one hand, and Richard, 

on the other, into joint conduct. Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim is premised on her conclusory allegation that “defendants engaged in a plan or conspiracy to use 

www.backpage.com to advertise coerced adults and children for sex, including 

Plaintiff,” FAC ¶ 5.30, but Plaintiff alleges no facts to support this conclusory conspiracy claim. To state a claim for conspiracy, Plaintiff “must allege the 

formation and operation of the conspiracy, the wrongful act or acts done pursuant to 

it, and the damage resulting from such acts. In making such allegations bare legal conclusions, inferences, generalities, presumptions, and conclusions are 

insufficient.” State of Cal.ex rel. Metz v. CCC Info. Servs., Inc., 149 Cal. App. 4th 402, 419 (2007) (internal citations omitted) (sustaining demurrer because allegations that defendants and unnamed parties “conspired to conceal their improper 

loss valuations” amounted to “bare legal conclusions”); accord Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007) (“a conclusory allegation of agreement at some 

unidentified point” does not establish conspiracy); Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992) (complaint must “allege specific facts to support 

the existence of a conspiracy among the defendants”); Woodrum v. Woodward Cty., Okl., 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989) (“allegations of conspiracy must be supported by material facts, not merely conclusory statements” (quoting Lockary v. Kayfetz, 587 F.Supp. 631, 639 (N.D.Cal.1984)); Jaspar v. Khoury, 2009 WL 213106, 

at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2009) (same). Further, “actual knowledge of the planned tort, without more, is insufficient ... Knowledge of the planned tort must be 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 17 of 26 Page ID #:17 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 18 of 27
18

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

Fla. June 25, 2009) (claims against manufacturer of hip implant fraudulently 

misjoined with malpractice claims against doctor for failing to diagnose that implant 

had fractured); see also, e.g., Ash v. Mortensen, 24 Cal. 2d 654, 657 (1944) (holding 

that a negligent motorist, on the one hand, and doctors who maltreated plaintiff’s 

injuries, on the other, were “independent successive tort feasors” because “[t]he 

independent and successive acts of [the motorist] and defendant doctors, differing in 

time and place of commission as well as in nature, produced two separate injuries 

and gave rise to two distinct causes of action”). 

H. Richard Is a “Sham” Defendant Against Whom Plaintiff Evidently Does Not Seek A Judgment.

78. That Richard is fraudulently misjoined in this action is further 

demonstrated because Plaintiff has shown no real intention of seeking a judgment 

against him. See Diaz v. Kaplan Univ., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1394, 1403 (S.D. Fla. 2008) 

(“Where ‘common sense’ leads the court to ‘strongly doubt’ that plaintiff has a real 

intention in good faith to seek a judgment against the non-consenting defendants, 

joinder of those non-consenting defendants is fraudulent.” (citation omitted)); Hunt 

Skansie Land, LLC v. City of Gig Harbor, 2010 WL 2650502, at *4 (W.D. Wash. 

July 1, 2010) (denying motion to remand partly because “Plaintiffs appear to be 

 combined with intent to aid in its commission.” Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp., 40 Cal. App. 4th 1571, 1582 (1995). 

Plaintiff’s complaint not only fails to state a claim for conspiracy, but her conclusory allegations of conspiracy cannot defeat the Backpage.com Defendants’ 

charge of procedural misjoinder. Badon v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 224 F.3d 382, 392-93 

(5th Cir. 2000) (finding misjoinder where complaint alleging conspiracy failed to 

detail “any particular or specific activity, agreement, or state of mind” on the part of 

misjoined defendants); Ashworth v. Albers Med., Inc., 395 F. Supp. 2d 395, 408 (S.D. W.Va. 2005) (finding misjoinder and rejecting conspiracy claim as having no factual 

basis); Lyons v. Am. Tobacco Co., 1997 WL 809677, at *4 (S.D. Ala. Sep. 30, 1997) (finding claims against in-state distributors were fraudulently joined with claims 

against diverse tobacco companies, where plaintiffs “essentially contend that their 

alleged conspiracy claim constitutes a catch-all mechanism by which to boot-strap claims against tobacco distributors ... to the alleged misconduct of tobacco 

manufacturers. It is indeed a novel, albeit ludicrous, proposition.”); Addison v. 

Allstate Ins. Co., 58 F. Supp. 2d 729, 734 (S.D. Miss. 1999) (plaintiff “must plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations” to defeat charge of fraudulent 

joinder).

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 18 of 26 Page ID #:18 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 19 of 27
19

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

attempting to manipulate the forum”). 

79. Plaintiff served Richard with the amended summons and FAC on

February 14, 2017 at the Wasco State Prison-Reception Center, where Richard was 

then incarcerated. Exh. II; see also Exh. KK at ¶ 4 (“On February 14, 2017, 

Defendant Richard was personally served”). 

80. Richard has not answered or otherwise responded to the FAC and is 

therefore in default. See Cal. R. Ct. 3.110(g) (requiring plaintiff to request entry of 

default within 10 days after expiration of defendant’s time to respond to complaint). 

Indeed, Plaintiff’s counsel expressly represented to the Court that Plaintiff does not 

expect Richard to respond to the FAC. Exh. KK at ¶ 14 (“[I]t is my understanding 

that all Defendants have been served in this action, and that all Defendants, except 

Defendant Richard, will be responding to the complaint” (emphasis added)).

81. Despite anticipating that Richard will not respond to the FAC, Plaintiff 

has not sought entry of default or a default judgment against Richard. See Cal. R. Ct. 

3.110(g)-(h). Plaintiff apparently has no real intention of seeking relief from 

Richard, but joined him as a defendant in this action in an attempt to defeat diversity 

jurisdiction. See Rodriguez v. Casa Chapa S.A., 394 F. Supp. 2d 901, 908 (W.D. 

Tex. 2005) (finding fraudulent joinder of decedent driver’s estate as a defendant in 

action arising out of auto accident in part because the estate failed to answer the 

complaint and plaintiffs did not seek default judgment). 

I. A Misjoined Defendant Need Not Consent To Removal.

82. Although ordinarily all defendants in a state court action must join in the 

petition for removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A) , “this general rule applies ... only to 

defendants properly joined and served in the action.” Salveson v. W. States Bankcard 

Ass’n, 731 F.2d 1423, 1429 (9th Cir. 1984). In particular, the rule of unanimity does 

not apply to procedurally joined parties, who need not consent to removal. See

Sutton, 251 F.R.D. at 506 (citing United Computer Sys., Inc. v. AT&T corp., 298 F.3d 

756, 762 (9th Cir 2002); see Triggs, 154 F.3d at 1287.

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 19 of 26 Page ID #:19 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 20 of 27
20

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

83. Because Richard is procedurally misjoined as a defendant in Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, this action may be removed without his consent.

84. All other defendants join in this Notice of Removal. 

J. Fictitious Defendants Shall Be Disregarded.

85. Plaintiff has named John Does 1 through 5 as other defendants in this 

action. Because those defendants are fictitious, however, and because they have not 

yet been served, their consent to joinder in removal is not necessary. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(a) (“For purposes of removal . . . the citizenship of defendants sued under 

fictitious names shall be disregarded.”). Thus, the fictitious “John Does 1 to 5” in 

this action should be disregarded for determining diversity jurisdiction, and there is 

complete diversity between the parties for purposes of removal.

K. The Amount-In-Controversy Requirement Is Satisfied.

86. In the Ninth Circuit, when a complaint does not specify a dollar amount 

for damages, the court may determine the amount in controversy is satisfied based on 

a removing defendant’s showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 

amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount if the plaintiff’s allegations 

are taken as true. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

2007); Cain v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 890 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (C.D. Cal. 

2012); see also Amado v. US Bancorp, 2015 WL 5618877, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 

2015) (amount in controversy held met based on likelihood that emotional distress 

damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, when coupled with compensatory 

damages, would exceed $75,000); Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 

1035 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (holding jurisdictional minimum “clearly satisfied” when 

viewed in combination with possible attorneys’ fees and alleged compensatory, 

punitive, and emotional distress damages); Sawyer v. Retail Data, LLC, 2015 WL 

3929695, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2015) (same).

87. To establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the 

evidence, defendants may introduce evidence of jury verdicts in other cases. In 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 20 of 26 Page ID #:20 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 21 of 27
21

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

particular, where a plaintiff seeks damages for emotional distress, a defendant may 

introduce evidence of jury verdicts on emotional-distress claims in other analogous 

cases. Cain, 890 F. Supp. 2d at 1250. Likewise, where a plaintiff seeks punitive 

damages, “a party asserting federal diversity jurisdiction may introduce evidence of 

jury verdicts in cases involving analogous facts.” Sawyer v. Retail Data, LLC, 2015 

WL 3929695, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2015) (unpublished) (quoting Surber v. 

Reliance Nat. Indem. Co., 110 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1232 (N.D.Cal.2000)).

88. Moreover, “where an underlying statute authorizes an award of 

attorney's fees, either with mandatory or discretionary language, such fees may be 

included in the amount in controversy,” irrespective of whether the plaintiff will in 

fact recover them. Sasso v. Noble Utah Long Beach, LLC, 2015 WL 898468, at *5 

(C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2015).

89. Here, the Complaint seeks compensatory damages, costs, interest, civil 

penalties, punitive damage, and attorneys’ fees against the Backpage.com 

Defendants. FAC at ¶ 7.1. The Complaint also seeks damages for alleged 

intentional infliction of emotional distress. FAC at ¶¶ 5.6 - 5.11. Plaintiff alleges 

that she “has suffered, and continues to suffer, general and specific damages” that 

“include, but are not limited to, severe emotional distress, humiliation, mental 

anguish, physical and mental pain and suffering, a decrease in her ability to enjoy 

llife, [and] past and future medical expenses,” among other things. FAC at ¶¶ 5.5, 

5.9, 5.11, 5.21, 5.25, 5.29, 5.32.

90. Although the Complaint does not pray for a specific amount of damages, 

the amount in controversy here is demonstrated by a nearly identical action filed July 

30, 2012, in the Western District of Washington alleging sex trafficking of a minor 

against Backpage.com, LLC and others. See Second Amended Complaint at ¶ 1.1 -

1.2, 4.1 - 6.7, J.S. v. Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Backpage.com, Case 

No. 12-2-11362-4 (“Washington Action.”), attached as Exhibit UU to the Declaration 

of Ambika Kumar Doran (“Doran Decl.”). The complaint in the Washington Action 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 21 of 26 Page ID #:21 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 22 of 27
22

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

mirrored many of the claims asserted here, including negligence, unjust enrichment, 

invasion of privacy, assault and battery, and civil conspiracy. Doran Decl. at ¶ 2, 

Exhibit UU at ¶ 7.1 - 7.4, 7.16 - 7.21, 7.22 - 26. As Plaintiff alleges here, the 

Washington Action alleged that each plaintiff had suffered “severe emotional 

distress, humiliation, mental anguish, physical and mental pain and suffering, a 

decrease in her ability to enjoy life, past and future medical expenses” and was owed 

“general and special damages[.]” See Doran Decl., Exhibit UU at ¶¶ 4.4, 5.5, 6.7. 

In the Washington Action, Backpage.com requested a statement of damages, as 

permitted by Washington law, and the plaintiffs responded that they each sought 

damages of at least $250,000, and ranging up to $1,500,000. Doran Decl. at ¶ 3, 

Exhibit VV. 

91. The amount in controversy here easily exceeds the requisite minimum of 

$75,000. Plaintiff asserts nearly identical claims against the Backpage.com 

Defendants, and seeks similar relief. See FAC at ¶¶ 5.5, 5.9, 5.11, 5.21, 5.25, 5.29, 

5.32, 7.1 (alleging Plaintiff has suffered “severe emotional distress, humiliation, 

mental anguish, physical and mental pain and suffering, a decrease in her ability to 

enjoy life, past and future medical expenses,” and seeking punitive damages, and 

attorneys’ fees ). The Court can reasonably infer that the same or a substantially 

similar level of damages are at issue here as in the Washington Action. 

92. Moreover, the requisite amount in controversy is further demonstrated 

by numerous jury verdicts, bench verdicts, settlements, and arbitration judgments in 

California cases involving claims analogous to those here. See, e.g., Couche v. 

Coons, No. 101CV799596, 2003 WL 26080732 (Santa Clara Super. Ct., Jan. 3, 

2003) ($200,000 awarded to plaintiff in damages for invasion of privacy, intentional 

infliction of emotional distress, fraud, assault and battery, plus $15,000.00 in punitive 

damages for, among other things, defendant’s publication of sexually explicit videos 

of plaintiff on website without her consent); Hernandez v. Univision Radio, No. 

437656, 2005 WL 4131000 (San Francisco Super. Ct. Aug. 15, 2005) (bench verdict 

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 22 of 26 Page ID #:22 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 23 of 27
23

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

for $250,000 in emotional-distress damages arising from radio station’s publication 

of private facts concerning plaintiff’s sexuality); O’Hara v. KCST, No. 72775, 1991 

WL 444858 (San Diego Super. Ct., Jan. 27, 1991) ($300,000 in damages awarded to 

plaintiff falsely identified as a prostitute in a news report, where plaintiff claimed 

emotional distress as her primary injury); [Confidential] vs. Los Angeles Unified 

School District, 42 Trials Digest 12th 14, 2009 WL 3250201 (Los Angeles Super. 

Ct., Aug. 31, 2009) (school district paid settlement of $175,000 to plaintiff student 

for negligently failing to prevent plaintiff’s rape while on school district’s premises).

L. Miscellaneous

93. Because the State Action is pending in the Riverside County Superior 

Court, removal of the State Action to this District Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1441(a), 1446(a).

94. The following constitutes all of the process, pleadings, or orders 

received or served by Plaintiff or otherwise found in the State Action court file, and 

available to Defendants at the time of the filing of this removal. True and correct 

copies are attached:

Ex. A. Complaint, filed by Plaintiff;

Ex. B. Certificate of Counsel

Ex. C. Order Allowing Plaintiff Jane Doe and Her Guardian Ad 

Litem to Proceed Under Fictitious Name

Ex. D. Order Granting Plaintiff & Her Guardian Ad Litem’s 

Motion to Proceed Under Fictitious Name

Ex. E. Summons Issued on Plaintiff’s Complaint 

Ex. F. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

Ex. G. Summons Issued on First Amended Complaint.

Ex. H. Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be 

Imposed To Jane Doe/Zalkin Law Firm, PC.

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 23 of 26 Page ID #:23 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 24 of 27
24

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

Ex. I. Request for Dismissal Without Prejudice as to New Times 

Media LLC.

Ex. J. Proof of Service of FAC on Medalist Holdings, LLC 

Ex. K. Proof of Service of FAC on Medalist Holdings, LLC

Ex. L. Proof of Service of FAC on Leeward Holdings, LLC 

Ex. M. Proof of Service of FAC on Leeward Holdings LLC 

Ex. N. Proof of Service of FAC on Camarillo Holdings, LLC 

Ex. O. Proof of Service of FAC on Camarillo Holdings, LLC 

Ex. P. Affidavit of Service on Leeward Holdings, LLC by Jane 

Doe

Ex. Q. Proof of Service of FAC on Dartmoor Holdings, LLC

Ex. R. Proof of Service of FAC on Dartmoor Holdings, LLC 

Ex. S. Affidavit of Service on Camarillo Holdings, LLC

Ex. T. Proof of Service of FAC on IC Holdings LLC 

Ex. U. Affidavit of Service on Dartmoor Holdings LLC

Ex. V. Affidavit of Service on IC Holdings, LLC

Ex. W. Proof of Service of FAC on IC Holdings LLC 

Ex. X. Affidavit of Service on New Times Media, LLC

Ex. Y. Proof of Service of FAC on New Times Media, LLC 

Ex. Z. Proof of Service of FAC on New Times Media LLC 

Ex. AA. Affidavit of Service on Backpage.com, LLC 

Ex. BB. Proof of Service of FAC on Backpage.com LLC 

Ex. CC. Proof of Service of FAC on Backpage.com LLC 

Ex. DD. Proof of Service of FAC on Carl Ferrer 

Ex. EE. Proof of Service of FAC on UGC Tech Group CV 

Ex. FF. Proof of Service of FAC on UGC Tech Group CV 

Ex. GG. Proof of Service of FAC on James Larkin 

Ex. HH. Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposit of Advanced Jury Fees

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 24 of 26 Page ID #:24 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 25 of 27
25

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

Ex. II. Proof of Service of FAC on Reson Tredon Richard 

Ex. JJ. Amendment to First Amended Complaint

Ex. KK. Declaration of Devin M Storey Re Service of Summons on 

Defendants

Ex. LL. Order to Show Cause

Ex. MM. Notice of Ruling Regarding Order to Show Cause

Ex. NN Summons Issued on May 19, 2017

95. The Backpage.com Defendants have good and sufficient defenses to this 

action and do not waive any defenses, jurisdictional or otherwise, by the filing of this 

Notice.

96. Based on the foregoing, the Backpage.com Defendants hereby remove 

this action from the Riverside County Superior Court to this Court, and requests that 

further proceedings be conducted in this Court as provided by law.

DATED: June 23, 2017 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

SCOTT COMMERSON

BRENDAN N. CHARNEY

JAMES GRANT

ROBERT CORN-REVERE

RONALD LONDON

By:/s/ Scott R. Commerson

Scott R. Commerson

Attorneys for Defendants

MEDALIST HOLDINGS, INC.; 

LEEWARD HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; 

CAMARILLO HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; 

DARTMOOR HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; IC 

HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; BACKPAGE.COM, 

L.L.C; UGC TECH GROUP C.V.; CARL 

FERRER; JAMES LARKIN; MICHAEL 

LACEY; and ATLANTISCHE 

BEDRIJVEN C.V.

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 25 of 26 Page ID #:25 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 26 of 27
26

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

4815-2965-5112v.30 3710078-000083

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

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566

(213) 633-6800

Fax: (213) 633-6899

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to FRCP 5, I certify that I am an employee of the law firm of DAVIS 

WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, and that on the date shown below, I caused service of a 

true and correct copy of the attached:

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

to be completed by:

_____ personally delivering

_____ delivery via Nationwide Legal Services

_____ sending via Federal Express or other overnight delivery service

 X depositing for mailing in the U.S. mail with sufficient postage affixed 

thereto

 delivery via email

 electronic filing, and thereby delivery via e-mail to:

IRWIN M. ZALKIN, ESQ. (#89957)

DEVIN M. STOREY, ESQ. (#234271)

ALEXANDERS. ZALKIN, ESQ. 

(#280813)

The Zalkin Law Firm, P.C.

12555 High Bluff Drive, Suite 301

San Diego, CA 92130

Tel: 858-259-3011

Fax: 858-259-3015

Email: Irwin@zalkin.com

dms@zalkin.com

alex@zalkin.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe

Reson Tredon Richard

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 2349

Blythe, CA 92226

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: June 23, 2017 /s/ Lina Pearmain

Lina Pearmain

Case 5:17-cv-01264-MWF-FFM Document 1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 26 of 26 Page ID #:26 Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-7 Filed 04/25/18 Page 27 of 27