Source: http://www.sadeghi.com/dr-iman-sadeghi-v-pinscreen-inc-et-al/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:57:22+00:00

Document:
Lawsuit: Dr. Iman Sadeghi v. Pinscreen Inc., et al.
Dr. Iman Sadeghi v. Pinscreen Inc., et al.
Pinscreen Inc. ("Pinscreen"), Dr. Hao Li ("Li"), Yen-Chun Chen, Liwen Hu ("Hu"), Han-Wei Kung ("Kung"), and Does 1-100 (collectively "defendants").
June 11, 2018 Verified Complaint: Dr. Iman Sadeghi v. Pinscreen Inc., et al.
I, Dr. Iman Sadeghi, filed a verified complaint in the Superior Court of California against Pinscreen Inc., et al.
I allege that Pinscreen and its CEO, Dr. Hao Li, perpetrated Fraud and Deceit, Data Fabrication, and Academic Misconduct supported by conclusive evidence.
Li responded in the Los Angeles Times and alleged that "all the allegations are 100% false."
I challenge Li on Facebook , Twitter , LinkedIn , Google+ , and Instagram to confirm his position on a small subset of community relevant allegations, under penalty of perjury, by signing the challenge form and sharing it publicly on his social media.
July 18, 2018 "I dare Dr. Hao Li to accept my Truth Challenge," Sadeghi told The Register.
October 5, 2018 Verified First Amended Complaint: Dr. Iman Sadeghi v. Pinscreen Inc., et al.
Sadeghi filed the verified amended complaint with additional conclusive evidence for Pinscreen's and Li's data fabrication, acaemic misconduct, and other unlawful practices.
October 30, 2018 Li responded through USC Annenberg Media that he doesn't refute the existence of the screenshotted messages, but said in a recent email to Annenberg Media that they are easy to misinterpret.
November 26, 2018 Li and Pinscreen filed a Demurrer and a Motion to Strike.
December 12, 2018 Sadeghi filed a Motion to Compel Li to Respond to Discovery and for Sanctions against Li and his attorney Benjamin Davidson.
The security camera footage of the physical altercation incident was obtained through a subpoena of the building security.
The footage confirms Sadeghi’s Allegations and exposes Li’s Lies.
March 22, 2019 Li's first round of admissions under penalty of perjury where Li authenticates the footage of the Battery.
The first court hearing for the lawsuit was held today in downtown Los Angeles at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in which the Judge, Honorable Lia Martin, ruled in Sadeghi's favor and awarded monetary sanctions against Li and his attorney Benjamin Davidson for obstructing discovery.
Davidson's last request to the Court was that only Li would be sanctioned and not himself. The Judge declined the defense attorney's plea and sanctioned both.
See the Court's Tentative Ruling and Minute Order.
Li and Pinscreen filed demurrers to the FAC alleging that it "fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action." Parties submitted a total of around 138 pages in opposition (~61 pages) and in support (~77 pages) of the demurrers and motions to strike against the FAC. The Court did not address defendants' demurrers nor their motions to strike and instead ordered Sadeghi to remove all the evidence, shorten the pleading, make it more concise, and file the Second Amendment Complaint (SAC) by May 1, 2019.
Li and Pinscreen repeatedly injected contrary facts not on the face of the FAC—in violation of the standard of review—decreasing the efficiency of the judicial process. See Sadeghi's SurReply for a list of 21 sets of provably false statements alleged by Benjamin Davidson on behalf of Li and Pinscreen in their reply briefs.
See the Court's Tentative Ruling.
See Li's premature celebration alleging Pinscreen's victory. Not so fast!
To be filed by May 1, 2019.
TBA Jury Trial in the Superior Court of California.
This is an action for employment fraud and numerous consequent illegal acts. Plaintiff Iman Sadeghi, who holds a doctorate in Computer Science/Computer Graphics, developed and patented a novel hair-appearance technology used at Walt Disney Animation Studios. After having worked at Google as a software engineer for more than five years, Sadeghi was solicited by defendant Hao Li to join the leadership of a software start-up, Pinscreen Inc., which Li cofounded. Pinscreen specializes in automatically generating animated 3D face models, called avatars, from only a photograph of a person. Hao Li, Pinscreen’s CEO, is an assistant professor at the University of Southern California. Dr. Sadeghi alleges—supporting these allegations with documentary proof in a verified complaint—that Dr. Li lied to and defrauded him when Li obtained Sadeghi's employment as Pinscreen’s Vice President of Engineering. Li fraudulently induced Sadeghi to resign from Google and join Pinscreen by intentionally misrepresenting Pinscreen’s technology as Li deceived the public, the scientific community, and its investors.
After being deceived into joining Pinscreen, Sadeghi gradually discovered Li’s grotesque academic and professional misconduct. Among his various transgressions, Li perpetrated a scientific hoax by proclaiming Pinscreen’s avatars as automatically generated using “cutting-edge” deep neural networks and artificial intelligence. In reality, the avatars were being manually prepared and tweaked by Pinscreen employees and freelance artists.
In retaliation for Sadeghi’s whistleblowing and objections to Li’s data fabrication, academic misconduct, fraud on investors, labor law violations, and immigration law violations, Pinscreen illegally terminated Sadeghi within his first working hour after Pinscreen deceived an audience of thousands.
The consequent torts committed by Li include a brutal battery of Sadeghi, where Li and a group of employees, under Li’s commands, physically attacked Sadeghi and invaded his belongings. Even though the security cameras captured the brutal attack, Li denied the allegations in the press stating “all the allegations are 100% false,” “no one assaulted [Sadeghi],” and went so far as to allege that “the exact opposite happened.” The now public security camera footage of the security camera footage of the battery confirms Sadeghi’s allegations and exposes Li’s lies.
The ruthless character required to perpetrate a fraud on the core values of one’s profession combined with the stakes for Li may help the Court understand Li’s approach to this litigation: deny everything, concede nothing. Whereas this case directly concerns Li’s fraud on Sadeghi, it is most germane that Li’s fraud on Sadeghi was in furtherance of the fraudulent product offered by Li’s company. To fully understand Li’s motives, the Court will need to consider the significance of the broader fraud as it bears on Li, a rising assistant professor. When levelled against an academician and scientist, the allegations against Li are grave. The strongest community strictures prohibit scientists from submitting fabricated data; in so doing—violating core ethical commitments of his profession—Li incurred the most serious professional risks.
Violation of Cal. Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
1. Sadeghi holds a doctorate in Computer Science/Computer Graphics from the University of California, San Diego (“UCSD”). He developed, published, and patented a novel digital hair appearance framework for Walt Disney Animation Studios’ movie Tangled and has presented his work in prestigious scientific forums. After having worked at Google as a Software Engineer for more than five years, Sadeghi was solicited by Pinscreen to join the company’s leadership.
2. Pinscreen is a software start-up specializing in automatically generating animated 3D face models, called avatars, using only a photograph of a person. Li, an assistant professor at University of Southern California (“USC”), is one of the co-founders and the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Pinscreen.
3. Defrauding Sadeghi, Pinscreen, through Li, knowingly misrepresented Pinscreen’s avatar generation capabilities to Sadeghi and concealed its various illegal practices from him. Pinscreen’s and Li’s unlawful conduct involved a variety of fraudulent activities including misrepresenting manually prepared avatars as automatic, which is at the heart of Pinscreen’s technical claims.
4. In reliance on Li’s fraudulent misrepresentations to him, Sadeghi resigned from Google and joined Pinscreen as its VP of Engineering. While working to improve the quality of Pinscreen’s infrastructure and avatars, Sadeghi gradually discovered Li’s and Pinscreen’s various illegal practices, including deliberately misreporting purportedly scientific experiments or their results (data fabrication), academic misconduct, fraud on investors, labor law violations, and immigration law violations.
5.	When confronted by Sadeghi regarding the data fabrication and academic misconduct, Li asserted that Pinscreen would achieve its inflated claims in time for subsequent publications, which Li considered to be crucial for Pinscreen’s industry exposure and success. Li promised Sadeghi that Pinscreen would never fabricate its results in public representations.
6. Li broke this promise on August 1, 2017, when Pinscreen and Li publicly mispresented fabricated avatars on the stage of ACM’s SIGGRAPH 2017 Real-Time Live (“RTL”) to an audience of thousands.
7. In retaliation for Sadeghi’s objections and whistleblowing regarding Li’s data fabrication, academic misconduct, fraud on investors, labor law violations, immigration law violations, and other unlawful practices, Pinscreen illegally terminated Sadeghi, on August 7, 2017, within Sadeghi’s first working hour after Pinscreen’s fabricated demo at RTL.
8.	On the day of the wrongful termination, various defendants committed multiple other torts against Sadeghi, including assault and battery and invasion of privacy. As a result of the battery, Sadeghi has suffered severe physical, mental, and emotional distress as well as physical injuries requiring medical attention, physical therapy, and psychotherapy.
9.	Following the wrongful termination, Pinscreen committed additional breaches of contract and engaged in other unlawful conduct, such as withholding business expense reimbursements, withholding the check for penalties for late wage payments, and damaging Sadeghi’s personal property.
10. Sadeghi brings this action to vindicate his legal rights, and more importantly, to benefit the public; to preserve the integrity of scientific research; to safeguard Computer Science, Computer Graphics, ACM and SIGGRAPH communities; and to protect Pinscreen’s employees and investors, while preventing Li, Pinscreen, and other defendants from engaging in further unlawful practices.
23. Sadeghi earned his B.Sc. degree in Computer Engineering in 2006 and graduated first in class from Sharif University of Technology. Shortly after, Sadeghi started graduate school at the University of California, San Diego (“UCSD”) in the field of Computer Science.
31. Sadeghi joined Google as a Software Engineer on August 15, 2011 and gained experience with Robust Software System Architectures, Reliable Scalable Distributed Systems, and Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. Among other achievements, Sadeghi is also a co-inventor of five patents filed by Google.
32. On information and belief, Li received his M.Sc. from Universität Karlsruhe in 2006, received his Ph.D. from Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (“ETH Zurich”) in 2010, became an assistant professor at University of Southern California (“USC”) in 2013, co-founded Pinscreen in 2015, and solicited Sadeghi to join Pinscreen’s leadership in 2016.
55. Pinscreen is a software start-up specializing in automatically generated animated 3D face models, called avatars, using only an input image. Competitor companies include Loom.ai, ObEN, and FaceUnity.
58. Input Image: Digital photograph of a person used to generate the output avatar.
59. Hair Shape* or Hair Reconstruction*, Hair Fitting*: The process of automatically estimating the shape of the hair (turquoise area) from the input image. This process has been fabricated by Pinscreen multiple times.
60. Face Shape or Face Reconstruction, Face Fitting: The process of automatically estimating the shape of the face (coral area) from the input image.
61. Hair Color*: The process of automatically estimating the hair color from the input image. This process has been fabricated by Pinscreen.
62. Eye Color*: The process of automatically estimating the eye color from the input image. This process has been fabricated by Pinscreen.
63. Hair Appearance† or Hair Rendering†, Hair Shading†: The process of automatically generating the hair appearance from the estimated hair shape (turquoise area) and hair color. As an expert in hair rendering, Sadeghi significantly improved the quality of Pinscreen’s digital hair appearance.
64. Face Appearance: The process of automatically generating the appearance of the face from the estimated face shape (coral area) and eye color.
66. Speed of Avatar Generation: The time it takes to generate an avatar in real-time.
67. Pre-Cached or Pre-Built Avatar: Avatar that has been previously generated.
68. Brand-New Avatar: Avatar generated from a brand-new input image, e.g. an image from the webcam, which cannot be pre-cached and has to be generated in real-time.
•	A manually prepared avatar misrepresented as automatic.
•	A pre-cached avatar misrepresented as brand-new and/or in real-time.
70. Li deceived Sadeghi by intentionally misrepresenting Pinscreen’s technical capabilities to Sadeghi and intentionally concealing its numerous illegal practices from him.
71. On information and belief, Li persuaded Sadeghi to join Pinscreen in order to gain access to Sadeghi’s expertise and experience in digital hair appearance and software engineering.
75. Li’s claim that the presented avatars and their hair were automatically generated was a brazen lie. Even up to six months after Li’s initial presentations to Sadeghi, Li and Pinscreen repeatedly fabricated avatars in various representations, including by misrepresenting manually prepared hair shapes as automatically generated.
76. For instance, Pinscreen misrepresented manually prepared hair shapes as automatically generated in its SIGGRAPH RTL submission on April 4, 2017; SIGGRAPH Asia Technical Papers submission on May 23, 2017; SIGGRAPH RTL public demo on August 1, 2017; as well as business representations to investors including, on information and belief, Softbank.
79. Li also deceived Sadeghi by intentionally concealing that Li and Pinscreen were involved in data fabrication, academic misconduct, labor law violations, immigration law violations, and unlawful practices that Sadeghi learned about only after resigning from Google and joining Pinscreen.
81. Sadeghi would not have resigned from Google to join Pinscreen if Li had not misrepresented and concealed Pinscreen’s data fabrication and academic misconduct from Sadeghi.
82. Sadeghi would not have resigned from Google to join Pinscreen if Li had not concealed Pinscreen’s labor law violations and immigration law violations from Sadeghi.
83. Sadeghi was damaged by being fraudulently induced to give up his employment at Google which income and benefits were unsubstituted once Sadeghi was retaliated against and wrongfully terminated from Pinscreen.
84. Sadeghi’s reliance on Li’s representation was a substantial factor in causing him damage.
85. A strong justification for Sadeghi’s reasonable reliance on Li’s misrepresentations was that Li, on information and belief, was and is an assistant professor at USC. Li’s claims to have automated that which he had merely fabricated means that Li has committed academic misconduct which, if discovered, could be subject to draconian punishment.
86. During his employment at Pinscreen, Sadeghi significantly improved the quality of Pinscreen’s avatars and digital hair appearance (i.e. hair rendering, or hair shading) from “below the SIGGRAPH standard” to well above.
95. During Sadeghi’s meeting with Li, on March 9, 2017, Li stated that Sadeghi was “one of the most important hires for Pinscreen,” that Sadeghi “brought structure and energy to the team” and that Li “couldn’t be happier” with Sadeghi’s employment.
99. Li would embellish Pinscreen’s technical capabilities in scientific research submissions and then use deadline pressure to overwork the employees to achieve his inflated claims, and if the employees eventually failed, he would order them to fake the deliverables.
104. On information and belief, Pinscreen employees considered Li a role model when it came to conducting scientific research, including the ethics of it. These employees knew about and aided and abetted Li in misrepresenting Pinscreen’s avatar generation results.
106. Pinscreen misrepresented manually prepared data as automatically generated in its SIGGRAPH Real-Time Live ("RTL”) submission on April 4, 2017.
107. Pinscreen misrepresented manually prepared data as automatically generated in its SIGGRAPH Asia Technical Papers submission on May 23, 2017.
108. Pinscreen misrepresented manually prepared data as automatically generated in its SIGGRAPH RTL public demo on August 1, 2017.
109. Pinscreen misrepresented pre-cached avatars as real-time and brand-new from the webcam in its SIGGRAPH RTL public demo on August 1, 2017.
110. Pinscreen misrepresented the speed of its avatar generation of around a minute and half as around 5 seconds in its SIGGRAPH RTL public demo on August 1, 2017.
111. Pinscreen misrepresented manually prepared data as automatically generated in its representations to the investment firm Softbank.
112. Shortly after joining Pinscreen, Sadeghi realized that under Li’s leadership, Pinscreen included fabricated and falsified results in their SIGGRAPH Technical Papers submission, submitted on January 16, 2017, prior to Sadeghi’s employment. In that scientific research submission, among other misrepresentations, Pinscreen had misrepresented manually prepared hair shapes as automatically generated. This submission was eventually rejected and later re-submitted to SIGGRAPH Asia 2017 Technical Papers.
123. On April 4, 2017, Pinscreen, under Li’s leadership, submitted fabricated avatars with manually prepared hair shapes created by Leszek to SIGGRAPH RTL.
126. Pinscreen revised its previously rejected submission to SIGGRAPH 2017 Technical Papers and resubmitted it to SIGGRAPH Asia Technical Papers, on May 23, 2017.
128. Li commissioned artists to manually prepare hair shapes for the requested avatars and misrepresented them in the submission as automatically generated.
170. On May 23, 2017, Pinscreen, under Li’s leadership, submitted fabricated avatars with manually prepared eye colors, hair colors, and hair shapes to SIGGRAPH Asia.
177. Additionally, the accuracy of Pinscreen’s hair shape estimation was far from Li’s inflated claims in Pinscreen’s RTL submission, since each purportedly automatic hair shape had been manually prepared by the freelance artist Leszek.
189. Later that evening, on July 22, 2017, Sadeghi met with Li who disclosed his plan to fabricate the webcam avatar generation and its speed by misrepresenting pre-cached manually prepared avatars as brand-new, automatic, and real-time. Sadeghi confronted Li and stated that Pinscreen should be truthful to the public and scientific community, that Li’s data fabrication could be considered “investment fraud,” and that everyone’s “academic reputation” at Pinscreen was at stake.
191. Li claimed that Pinscreen “didn’t have any other choice at that point,” that the decision was made last week, that it was “final,” and that Sadeghi must follow the plan and focus on finalizing the RTL demo.
194. Sadeghi reluctantly accepted Li’s proposal and focused on finalizing Pinscreen’s RTL demo.
215. On August 1, 2017, Pinscreen, under Li’s leadership, during its SIGGRAPH RTL public demo in front of thousands of attendees and online viewers, misrepresented manually prepared hair shapes as automatic, pre-cached avatars as brand-new and in real-time, and the speed of its avatar generation of around a minute and half as around 5 seconds.
220. Further evidence confirming Pinscreen’s data fabrication at RTL includes Li’s own testimony. On November 29, 2017, during Pinscreen’s SIGGRAPH Asia 2017 Technical Papers presentation in Thailand, Pinscreen stated that the hair shape estimation subprocess alone required “less than 10 seconds.” After the presentation and during the Q&A session, Li was challenged about Pinscreen’s demonstrated speed of avatar generation at RTL of around 5 seconds. Li was questioned as to how the whole avatar generation process took around 5 seconds at RTL while one of the subprocesses required around 10 seconds by itself. In response, Li blurted out that for RTL “we definitely cached it.” When Li was subsequently questioned “the webcam was cached too?” Li refused to answer the question, headed out of the Q&A session, and proceeded to leave the conference premises, on information and belief, to avoid answering the question.
229. When Sadeghi questioned why there was a work-related event on Sunday, April 16, 2017, Li responded on a team thread that we work every day.
239. Pinscreen committed further labor law violations after wrongfully terminating Sadeghi by withholding his business expense reimbursements in violations of California Labor Code § 2802. Pinscreen also phrased the purpose of a check mailed to Sadeghi for late wage payment penalties as a settlement offer “to resolve any wage issues,” in violation of California Labor Code § 203.
240. On information and belief, Li was ineligible to work at Pinscreen as its CEO and has performed work for the company illegally because Li did not have a work visa for Pinscreen. On information and belief, Li is not a US Citizen, his permanent residency (i.e. green card) application has been rejected, and he lacks a proper visa to perform any role at Pinscreen. On information and belief, Li has an H-1B visa sponsored by USC, which only allows him to work at the university and not at Pinscreen. In response to Sadeghi’s inquiry about Li’s work authorization and eligibility, Li claimed that he does not need a visa to work for Pinscreen because he is not receiving any salary from the company. Li’s working at Pinscreen without a proper visa would violate the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
241. On information and belief, Li pressured other Pinscreen employees to perform work for Pinscreen illegally including without a work visa, before their work visa’s start date or while employed at other companies as summer interns. On information and belief, at least one of Pinscreen’s employees illegally performed work for the company without a proper work visa. On information and belief, at least one of Pinscreen’s employees illegally performed work for the company before their work visa’s start date. On information and belief, at least one of Pinscreen’s employees illegally performed work for Pinscreen while hired as a summer intern at another company.
255. Sadeghi’s meeting notes also contain a subsection regarding “overtime pay” with examples of Pinscreen employees who, on information and belief, had worked around 110 hours per week for three consecutive months, and did not receive overtime compensation from the company, in violation of California labor laws.
259. Sadeghi received the termination letter within his first working hour after Pinscreen’s fabricated RTL demo, which was during the meeting that Sadeghi had previously requested to discuss “multiple important topics” regarding Li’s and Pinscreen’s unlawful activities.
270. There is no mention of any reason for Sadeghi’s termination in his employment personnel file, in his termination letter, or in his severance offer. There is no mention of any concern with Sadeghi’s performance or any other issue bearing on his qualities as an employee. Sadeghi received the termination letter “unexpectedly” as confirmed by Sadeghi’s statement in his Unemployment Insurance Claim application, filed on August 13, 2017. Employment Development Department (“EDD”) consequently approved Sadeghi’s application, on information and belief, after verifying the information provided by Sadeghi with Pinscreen.
272. Sadeghi’s termination was in retaliation for his objections to Li regarding Li’s and Pinscreen’s illegal practices and in violation of California’s whistleblowing protection laws provided in California Labor Code § 1102.5.
273. Before Sadeghi had a chance to read the termination letter, Li suddenly lost his temper, slammed the conference room door open, and yelled at Sadeghi to leave the room, in front of Sadeghi’s coworkers and in a humiliating and embarrassing manner. Li then attempted to physically push Sadeghi out of the conference room in front of other Pinscreen employees.
275. Concerned by Li’s aggressive behavior, Sadeghi decided to leave Pinscreen’s office; however, Li physically blocked the door of the office and forcefully confined Sadeghi against his will. Li demanded Sadeghi’s work laptop which was inside Sadeghi’s backpack that Sadeghi was wearing. Li then attempted to take the laptop by force.
278. Sadeghi intended to return the laptop before the end of business day, on August 7, 2017, and told Li that he would return it after he preserved his personal data. The storage of personal data complied with any applicable Pinscreen’s policies. In fact, Pinscreen had no policy regarding storing personal data on one’s computer, and no such policy was ever communicated to Sadeghi.
279. Subsequently, Sadeghi left Pinscreen’s office and headed towards the elevators. Li ordered some of Pinscreen’s employees to follow Sadeghi.
280. After Sadeghi, Li, and other employees left the elevator, Sadeghi attempted to leave the building through the lobby. However, Li and three other Pinscreen employees, Yen-Chun Chen, Hu, and Kung, under Li’s commands, surrounded Sadeghi and physically attacked him. They grabbed Sadeghi and his backpack, which he was wearing, forcefully restrained him, opened his backpack, and took possession of Sadeghi’s work laptop.
282. The battery, on information and belief, has been captured on the security cameras of the building and the recordings have been preserved by the building security team. The security officers on duty described the battery as Sadeghi being “grabbed,” “brought to the ground,” and “taken to the ground” by Pinscreen employees.
283. During the battery, Sadeghi suffered injuries to his eye and his previously dislocated shoulder, requiring medical attention and multiple physical therapy sessions.
284. Sadeghi has suffered severe mental and emotional distress as a result of the forced confinement, invasion of his privacy, battery and the consequent physical injuries; he required multiple psychotherapy sessions.
292. Due to Li’s and Pinscreen’s violation of scientific research ethics and academic code of conduct, Sadeghi requested ACM and SIGGRAPH organizations to retract his name from Pinscreen’s fabricated publications. Li’s and Pinscreen’s fraud against the scientific community and academic misconduct were the proximate cause of Sadeghi having to sacrifice the scientific credit for his own significant contribution to these publications.
293. Sadeghi required multiple psychotherapy sessions as a result of the severe mental and emotional distress as a result of conversion of his personal data and infringement of his intellectual property rights.
294. Li was and is unfit and incompetent to perform the duties required for the CEO role at Pinscreen due to numerous instances of fraud, data fabrication, academic misconduct, disregard for California labor laws, disregard for federal immigration laws, and other illegal practices.
295. On information and belief, Li was and is ineligible to perform any role at Pinscreen due to his lack of proper work visa.
296. Li’s actions have been reckless, vicious, and have caused harm to Sadeghi, other Pinscreen employees, and Pinscreen’s investors and stakeholders.
297. Sadeghi was harmed and Pinscreen is liable because Pinscreen negligently hired and retained an unfit, incompetent, and ineligible CEO, did not properly train him, did not properly supervise him, and did not properly verify his eligibility.
I, Dr. Iman Sadeghi, filed a verified complaint on June 11, 2018, and the verified amended complaint on October 5, 2018, in the Superior Court of California against Pinscreen Inc. and its CEO Dr. Hao Li who is an assistant professor at University of Southern California (USC).
I allege and support by conclusive evidence that Li perpetrated Fraud and Deceit, Data Fabrication, and Academic Misconduct.
Li responded on his social media on July 19, 2018 and alleged that I fabricated communications and evidence for the lawsuit.
I, Dr. Iman Sadeghi, filed a verified complaint on June 11, 2018, and the verified amended complaint on October 5, 2018, in the Superior Court of California against Pinscreen Inc. et al.
I, Dr. Iman Sadeghi, filed a verified complaint on June 11, 2018 in the Superior Court of California against Pinscreen Inc. and its Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Hao Li, who is an assistant professor at University of Southern California.
Li responded in the LA Times on June 20, 2018 that "All the allegations are 100% False."
I challenge Li to confirm his position on a small subset of community relevant allegations, under penalty of perjury, by signing the attached form and sharing it publicly on his social media.
I, Dr. Iman Sadeghi, filed a verified complaint on June 11, 2018, and the verified amended complaint on October 5, 2018, in the Superior Court of California against Dr. Hao Li, who is the CEO of Pinscreen Inc. and an assistant professor at University of Southern California (USC).
In addition to alleging that Li perpetrated Fraud and Deceit, Data Fabrication, and Academic Misconduct, I allege that Li and three other Pinscreen employees committed Assault and Battery on me on August 7, 2017.
Li denied the allegations of Assault and Battery and made false statements in various venues including the LA Times, The Register and USC Annenberg Media.
The security camera footage confirms Sadeghi’s Allegations and exposes Li’s Lies.
On information and belief, Li alleged that Sadeghi was the one who was violent and assaulted a Pinscreen employee. [FALSE] The Register retracted Li’s allegation from the article post publication.
Li alleged in his statement that Sadeghi “assaulted a Pinscreen employee.” [FALSE] USC Annenberg Media refrained from publishing Li’s allegation.
Dr. Iman Sadeghi v. Pinscreen Inc., et al., Verified ComplaintSuperior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District., June 11, 2018.
Dr. Iman Sadeghi v. Pinscreen Inc., et al., Verified Amended ComplaintSuperior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District., October 5, 2018.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 17200
 § 2802
 § 203
 § 1102
 v. 
 v.