TICKETMASTER LLC v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY et al Complaint

8/8/2019 TICKETMASTER LLC v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY et al Complaint

1/19

Case 2:10-cv-10004-PA -JCG Document 1 Filed 12/29/10 Page 5 of 82 Page ID

t,

"h

23456789)0I I

---< 121314IS1617181920

22232425262728

DICKSn:INS U A ~ I R O LLP

Kirk A. Pasich (SBN 94242)Sandra Smith Thayer (SBN 20(294)Michael S. Gehrt (SBN 246450)DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP2049 Century Park East, Suite 700Los Angeles, CA 90067-3109Telephone: (310) 772-8300Facsimile: (310) 772-830 IAttorneys for Plaintiff

J)2t) "lv'0t\e ~ \ q ~ ~ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CAlLIFORNIAFORTHE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

TICKETMASTER L.L.c., a Virginia Company,Plaintiff,

Case No.(Case assigned to)

vs.ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, anIllinois Company, and DOES I through 10,

COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OFCONTRACT, TORTIOUS BREACHOF THE COVENANT OF GOODFAITH AND FAIR DEALING, ANDDECLARATORY RELIEFDefendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PlaintiffTicketmaster L.L.C .. complains of defendant Blinois Union Insurance Company a.ndalleges as fbl1ows:

1..NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action by Ticketmaster L.L.c. ("Ticket master") to enforce ifill; JigJs#1rmcrr l:J::J;>::':'. "",." - ~ : I > ( , f l I T l Company ("Illinois Union") .. Ticketmaster seeks coverage under its p o l i c y ~ : ~ v i l h ; f e ~ e c t Z t o clairffi;m :!P "'0.... . . . ..Dr. (.11 N n t..'1 '- n 0asserted against it in an ongoi.ng lawsuit ent itled Schlesinger v. Ticketmaster, Case No. f ; J ~ ~ ~ i 5 (Los Angeles Superior Court) (the "'Schlesinger lawsuit") ..

c......t c...t'0 0: C r( ..'1 (..'1 (Tl ,- 3 :t>-0-,r,.l t:1 (...iJ m

Ticketmaster seeks a declaration that Iliinois Union owes Ticketma'>ter a dilly tJ?(. ...2. o -lwdefend in connection with the Schlesinger lawsuit, and a further declaration that lllinois::uRion has

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5EXH ADOCSLA ..64142,,4


2/19


,__ ; L ..

23456789

1011

12131415161718192021222324

'" 25r.;,- 26\:ri 27

28I>ICKSTEINSHAPIROLLP

breached such duty. Ticketmaster also seeks compensatory and punitive damages against IllinoisUnion for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing because itunreasonably breached its duty to defend Ticketmaster.

THE lP ARTIES3. PlaintiffTicketmaster is a Virginia company, with its principal place of business in

West Hollywood, California.4. Defendant Illinois Union is an Illinois company, with its principal place of business in

Chicago, lIlinois. It is licensed to transact business, and is transacting business, in the State ofCalifornia


3/19

Case 2:10-cv-10004-PA -JCG Document 1 Filed 12/29/10 Page 7 of 82 Page ID #

2],456789

101 I12

.1 31415

16171819202122232425

..."'\ 26

...... 27

28I)lCKSTEINSIIAPIROLLP

Expenses because of a Claim first made against the Insured during the PolicyPeriod by reason of a Wrongful Act in the performance of or failure toperform Professional Services by the Insured . . . .

Policy, at LA.8. The Policy further provides that Illinois Union "shall have the right and duty to

defend the ifnsured in the defense of any covered Claim brought against the Insured even if the Claimis groundless, false or fraudulent." Id.. at I.B.

9. The Policy defines the term "Insured" to include InterActive Corp. and itssubsidiaries. ld., at II. At all relevant times herein, Ticketmaster was a subsidiary ofInterActiveCorp.

10. The Policy defines "Claim" to mean, among other things, "a civil proceeding againstany Insured seeking monetary damages or non-monetary or injunctive relief, commenced by theservice of a complaint or similar proceeding . . . ." ld.

I I . The Policy defines the phrase "Wrongful Act" as "any actual or alleged act, error,omission, misstatement, misleading statement, misinterpretation, Personal Injury, neglect or breachof duty by the Insured in the: performance of professional senlices . . . ." ld. "Professional Services"includes, among other things, "event ticketing services, including ticket sales . . . . "" Jd.

12. "Damages" are defined as "any compensatory amount w ~ i c h the Insured becomeslegally obligated to pay on account of a covered Claim, including judgments. awards and settlementsand punitive and exemplary damages and the mUltiple portion of multiplied damages ." /d.

13. The Policy defines "Claims Expenses" to include "attorney's fees, .expert witness feesand other reasonable fees and costs incurred . . . by the Insurt:d" and "prejudgment and postjudgment ilnterest awarded in any Claim." ld.

14. To the extent not waived or otherwise excused, Ticketmaster complied with all termsand conditions precedent contained in the Policy. Therefore, Ticketmaster is entitled to all benefitsof insurance provided by the Policy.

3COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7EXH A

DOCSLA-64142\'4


4/19


23456789

10I I12131415161718192021222324

,., 25iii\ 26\h 27!'!

28OICKSrEINSllAl'lROLLP

THE UNDERLYING LAWSUITS15. On October 21, 2003, Curt Schlesinger, Peter Lore, and Scott Silver filed the

Schlesinger lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court. On June 9,2009, the Schlesinger plaintiffs filedthe operative Third Amended Complaint in the Schlesinger lawsuit A true and coneel copy of theThird Amended Class Action and Representative Action Complaint ("TAC") , without exhibits, inthe Schlesinger lawsuit is attached hi;:reto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by reference.

16. The Schlesinger plaintiffs sought, among other forms of relief against Ticketmaster,damages, pre and post judgment interest, and attorneys fees for covered (or, a.t the very least,potentially (;overed).conduct ("Wrongful Acts") alJegedly engaged in by Ticketmaster in connectionwith its alleged misrepresentations about its United Parcel Service delivery fees and OrderProcessing Charges for customers who purchased tickets from Ticketmaster over tbe internet. Forexample, the Schlesinger plaintiffs alleged in their complaint:

"Ticketmaster falsely represented that the fee was a mere pass-through charge imposedby and collected for UPS,and that such charge represented the actual UPS shippingcost." TAC, 26.

"Schlesinger was actually injured as a result ofTicketmaster's misrepresentations and.omissions relating to the UPS Delivery charges in the amount of the UPS delivery.charge . . . ." TAC, ~ ' 1 1 2 8 & 40.

"'Lo re was actually injured as a result of Ticketmaster's misrepresentations andomissions relating to the UPS Deliv


5/19


23456789101112131415161718192021222324

h 25t>;>-S 26'\M 27!1l,.

28OICKSTEINSHAPIRO

LLP

I

17. The "Wrongful Acts" alleged in the Schlesinger lawsuit were made in theperformance of "Professional Services," as that term is defined in.the Policy, because they concemevent ticketing and sales.

18. At the time of the filing of this complaint, Ticketmaster has incurred in excess of$4,000,000 in defense expenses in connection with the Schlesinger lawsuit. Ticketmaster continuesto incur defense expenses in connection with the Schlesinger lawsuit.

ILLINOIS UNION'S BREACHES O l ~ ITS D U T ( E ~ 19. Ticketmaster, :through its broker, notified Illinois Union of the Schlesinger lawsuit on

November 3,2003.20. In response to the notice, Illinois Union engaged in a series of wrongful acts aimed: at

depriving Ticketmaster of the benefits and financial protect ions afforded by the Policy. Instead ofhonoring its duties to its insured, Illinois Union breached its duties to Ticketmaster, forcingTicketmaster to pay for its own defense in the SchleSinger lawsuit. In particular, on December 3,2003, ACE USA, acting on behalf of Illinois Union, sent a letter to Ticketmaster denying coveragefor the Schlesinger lawsuit Oili the grounds that (1) Exclusion E precludes coverage because theSchlesinger lawsuit is a dispute regarding fees charged by Ticketmaster; (2) the Schlesingerplaintiffs seek disgorgement which is excluded from the Policy'S definition of Damag(:s; and (3)Exclusion K precludes coverage because the Schlesinger lawsuit is based on or arising out of thegaining in fact of profit to which Ticketmaster is not legally entitled.

21. On February 2" 2010, Ticketmaster's insurance broker forwarded a copy of theSchlesinger TAC to ACE.

22. On March 12, 2010, Ticketmaster's coverage counsel forwarded a r J o t h ( ~ r copy of theSchlesinger TAC to H1inois Union. Ticketmaster's counsel also explained why Illinois Union'scoverage d ( ~ n i a l was not supported by the law, the Policy, or the facts. Specifically, the letter!informed Illinois Union of its broad duty to defend under the Policy and explained that theaUegations in the SchleSinger lawsuit clearly fall within the Policy's scope of coverage.

5COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURV TRIAL

9EXH A

OOCSLA-6'1142v4


6/19


2345678910} 1121314151617'18192021

222324

'" 251 26'\I:" 27

28DICKSTEINSlIAl'lRO

LLP

Ticketmaster's counsel also explained that the Schlesinger plaintiffs' claims are not limited to meredisgorgemenl of profits and that, in fact, they are seeking monetary rel ief and other forms of covereddamages. Ticketmaster also explained that Illinois Union's reliance on Exclusion K was misplacedbecause then: had yet to be a determination that Ticketmaster in fact gained any profit or advantag(!.Ticketmaster requested that [llinois Union "begill1 defending Ticketmaster in the Schlesinger lawsuitimmediately."

23. On March 26, 2010, ACE USA responded to Ticketmaster's February 2, 2010, e-mailforwarding the TAC. ACE USA's email stated that "our review of the third amended complaintindicates that this matter is still, clearly, a dispute over fees charged by the insured." The e-mailattached a cnpy ofACE USA's December 3, 2003, denial letter and indicated that ACE USA would"take no further action with regards to this matter."

24. On March 30, 20 10, Ticketmaster 's coverage counsel responded to ACE USA'sMaTch 26, 20 I 0, e-mail, stating that "ACE's denial of coverage and its refusal to d(:fendTicketmaster in the Schlesinger lawsuit are erroneous and constitute a breach ofACE's obligationsunder the Policy ." Ticketmaster once again requested that IIlinois Union "acknowledge its coverageobligations under the Policy and accept Ticketmaster's defense."

25. On March 31,20 I 0, ACE USA sent a letter to Ticketmaster's coverage counselstating that the Schlesinger lawsuit "is, quite simply, a 'dispute involving fees, expenses or costspaid to or charged by the insured.'" Based on this erroneous conclusion, ACE USA asserted thatTicketmaster's "cla im is not covered because of the application of exclusion E."

26. On July 29, 2010, Ticketmaster's coverage counsel sent a letter to ACE USAstressing that the allegations: in the Schlesinger lawsuit "clearly fall within the scope of the coverageclause" in the Pol icy and further explained that "Exclusion E does not eliminate aU possibility forcoverage." Accordingly, Tkketmaster once again requested that Illinois Union defend T i c k e t m a s t < ~ r in connection with the Schlesinger lawsuit.

27. On September 13,20 I0, Illinois Union' s coverage counsel sent a letter toTicketmaster simply restated Illinois Union's reliance on Exclusion E and reserving all other rights

COMPLAINT AND

10EXH A

6 FOR JURV TRIAL DOCSLA-64 I42v4


7/19

Case 2:10-cv-10004-PA -JCG Document 1 Filed 12/29/10 Page 11 of 82 Page ID - . - . - - - - . - - r - - - - . - ~ - ! - - .. - - - . - ~ ~ .. - - - - ~ - - ~ - - . --------_ .._ .-

23456789

101112131415161718192021222324

h 2526

"h 2728

DICKSTEINSHAPIROLUi'

and defenses under the Policy.28. On December 3,2010, Ticketmaster's coverage counsel sent another tetter.to Illinois

Union explaining why its c o v ~ : r a g e position was legally and factually improper. In particular,Ticketmaster pointed out that Exclusion E is not applicable because the Schlesinger lawsuit is notmerely a dispute regarding fees. The actions complained of in the Schlesinger lawsuit are allegedmisrepresentations in connection with the internet sale of tickets. While the UPS delivery fees andOrder Processing Charges form part of the plaintiffs' claim, the alleged misrepresentations arecrucial. Ticketmaster explained that, because Exclusion E does not conclusively eliminate thepotential for coverage, it was improper for Illinois Union to rely on it in order to avoid the duty todefend imposed by the Policy .. Ticke:tmaster again asked Illinois Union to begin defending il in lh.;:Schlesinger lawsuit immediately.

29. Even though the Schlesinger lawsuit includes numerous allega-tions that are coveredor potentially covered by the Policy, Illinois Union improperly has failed and refused \.0 defendTicketmast


8/19


23456789

101112131415

1617181920121222324

ro 25t


9/19


'"\lil!


10/19


234567891011

12131415

161718192021

. 22232425/-.t>;\ 26

\ 2728

fHCKSTt:UNSIIAPIRO

LLP

misrepresent material facts.43. In light of information, facts, and relevant law to the contrary, Illinois Union, by

acting as alleged above, consciously disregarded Ticketmaster 's rights and forced it 10 incursubstantial financial loss, without any assistance from it, thereby inflicting substantial financialdamage on Ticketmaster. Illinois Union ignored Ticketmaster's interests and concems, with therequisite intent to injure within the meaning ofCalifornia Civil Code section 3294. Therefore,Ticketmaster is entitled to recover punitive damages from Illinois Union in an amount sufficient topunish and make an example of it and in order to deter similar conduct in the future.

TllHRD CAUSE OF ACTION(Declaratory Relief Against Illinois Union)

44. Ticketmaster realleges and incorporates by reference herein each allegation containedin paragraphs 1 through 29, 31 through 33 above.

45. An actual contmversy exists between Ticketmaster and lIIinoi!) Union. Ticketmastercontends that Illinois Union has a duty to defend Ticketmaster in connection with the Schlesingerlawsuit. Illinois Union has not defended or paid for any portion ofTkketmaster's defense and hascontended that it is not obligated to do so.

46. Therefore, declaratory relief is necessary to determine T i c k e t m ~ t e r ' s rights under thePolicy and that Illinois Union is obligated to defend Ticketma'>ter in connection with the Schlesingerlawsuit. A declaration is necessary at this time in order that the parties' dispute may be resolved andthat the parties be aware of their respective rights and duties.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION( D , ~ d a r a t o r y Relief Against Does 1 through 10)

47. Ticketmaster realleges and incorporates by reference herein each allegation containedin paragraphs 1 through 29 above.

48. Ticketmaster is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges thal, Does t through10 dispute that Ticketmaster is entitled to receive coverage under the policies for any defense and/orindemnification in connection with the Schlesinger Iawsuit. Therefore, an actual and justiciable

10COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR .JURY TRIAL

14EXH A

DOCSLA-64142v4


11/19


23456789

10I I12131415

161718192021222324.25

Mr.," 26h 27

28DICKSTEINSJlAI'IItOLLP

controversy exists between Ticketmaster, on the one hand, and Does 1 through 10, on the other hand,concerning the matters alleged herein.

49. Ticketmaster therefore seeks a judicial declaration as to its rights against Does 1through 10 in connection with the claim under Ticketmaster's insurance policies for defense andindemnification of the Schlesinger lawsuit, confirming that Ticketmaster's contentions, as statedabove, are correct. A declaration is necessary at this time in order that the paJ1ies' dispute may beresolved and that the parties be aware of their respective rights and duties.

PRAYER FOR RELlEJ:WHEREFORE, Ticketmastell prays for relief as follows:

ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION1. For damages according to proof at the time oftrial, plus interest;

ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION2. For damages according to proof at the time of trial, plus interest;3. For reasonable a t t o f f i j ~ y s ' fees incurred in obtaining the benefits due under the Policy,

according to proof at the time of trial, plus interest; and4. For punitive damages in an amount to be detemtined at the time of trial;

pN TH E THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION5. For a declaration in accord with Ticketmaster's content ions stated above;

!)N THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION6. For a declaration in accord with Ticketmaster's contentions stated above;

ON ALL CAll.SES OF ACTION:7 . For costs of suit incurTed herein; and8. .For such other, further, and/or different rel ief as may be deemed just and proper.

DATED: December l , 2010 DICKSTEiN SHAPIRO LLPBy: Kirk A. PasichAttorneys for Plaintiff

11COMPLAINT AND DEMAND F O ~ JURY TRIAL

15EXH ADOCSLA64142v4


12/19


23456789101112131415

16171819202122232425",r,'\ 26

"'" 2728

OICKsn:1NStlAI'IROLLP

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALT i c k t ~ t m a s t e r hereby demands a trial by jury in this action.

DATED: December.i, 2010 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP

By: Kirk A. PasichAttorneys for Plaintiff

12COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

16EXH A

DOCSLA-64142v4


13/19

Case 2:10-cv-10004-PA -JCG Document 1 Filed 12/29/10 Page 17 of 82 Page ID "- - ' ~ - ' - - - - - ~ ~ - - - ' - 1 - - -

. ~ ' '\"""

17EXH A


14/19

Case 2:10-cv-10004-PA -JCG Document 1 Filed 12/29/10 Page 63 of 82 Page ID CM-010ATIORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATIOHNEY ( N a m e . ~ a r ""mb; and addmss):Kirk A. Pasich SBN 94242 .,.

Dicksteiin Shapiro l lP2049 Century Park East, Suite 700

DEC 03 ZOWlo s Angeles, California 90067 .TElEPHONE NO.: 310-772-8300 FAX NO,: 310-772-8301J o ~ A . OfflcerlClen


15/19


SIiORTTITlE: Ticketmast!r L.L.C. v. Ill inois Union Insurance Company CASE NUMBER "

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION__ (CERTIFICATE OF G R O I ~ I N D S FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION) _I This f o r m ~ is required pursuant to LASC Loc:iJl Rule 2.0 in al l n ~ w civil case' filings in the Los Angeles Superior c ( ) u r ~ J Item I. Check the types of h ~ r i n g an d fill in the Hstimated length of hearing expected fo r this case: .JURY TRIAL? [2J YES CLASS ACTION? YES LIMITED CASE? 0 YES TIME ESTIMATED FOR TRIAL 1Q 0 HOURS! [2J DAYS.Item II. Sell.'Ct the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps - If yo u checked "Umited Case", skip to Item III, Pg. 4):Step ,1: After first completing th e Civil Case Cover ShE:et Form, find the main civil case cover sheet heading fo r your case inthe left margin below. and, to the right in Column A. the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type yo u selected.Step 2:: Check.2!!! Superior Court type of action in Column B below which besi describes the nature of this case.Step 3: In Column C, circle: the reason fo r the court location choice that applies1to the type of action yo u have checked.For any exception to the court location, se e Lo s Angeles Superior Court Local 2.0.

AIl:plicalbile Reasons fo r Choosing Courthouse Location (s:ee Column C1. Class Actions must be f i l l ~ d in the County Courthouse, Central District. 6. Location of property or pennanentlj' garaged vehicle.(1 ) May be filed in Central (Other county, or no Bodily Injury/Property Damage}. 7. location where petitioner resides."":f. location where cause of action arose. 8. location wherein defendanVrespondent functions wholly.4. Location where bodily injury, death or damage occ.urred. 9. location where one or more of the !parties reside.S. Location where performance required or defendant resides. 10. location of Labor C o m m i s ~ ~ i o n e l r Office.Step 4 Fit th . f r t d 4 ' It III I t It IV S th d I.. I' m e In orma Ion reques e on p a g ~ ! l em ; comee e em I ~ ~ ecaratlon... .,- - -

t :ot-o-::l


16/19


..s::CI)E0..ELU

....of!...s::oo

[''''''''OR''nckelmaster L LC, v, lIinoi.Union Ins._u_ra_nc_e_c_o_m_pa_.n_y__..l.I_C_AS_E_N_U_M_B_ER___ _A

Civil Case CoverSheet Category No,f----

ProfessionalNegligence(25)

f----Other ( 3 ~ . )

V V ' U I I Y I " " ( ~ ~ i " ' " .,,"v..".4 " . ~ .vy .. .a " ,

, - - - 'Breach of ConiractfWarranty(06)(not insurance)

Collections(09)Insurance COllerage(18)

Other Contrad(37)

I EminentDomain/InverseCondemnation (14)---Wrongful Eviction(33)--OthElr Real Property(26)

Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (31)Unlawful Detainer-Residential (32)Unlawful Detainer-

Onugs (38)Asset i=nnpit""t> (05)lPetition (11)

CIV 1 0 ~ 1 (Rev. 01/(7)LASC Approved 03-04

..B CType of Action Applicable Reasons

(Check only one) -See Step 3 Abovo

o M017 legal Malpractice 1.. 2.. 3.DA6050 Other Prote!>sional Malpradice (not medical or legal) 1.,2.. 3.-o A6025 O t h ~ r Non-Persl)nallnjuryfProperty Damage tort 2.,3.OA6037 W r o n ~ l f u J Termination 1.,2.,3.

OA6024 Other Employment Complaint Case 1 .. t!., 3.o A6109 labor Commissioner Appeals 10.o AS004 Breach of RenlallLease Contrad (not Unlawful Detainer or wrongful 2.,5.A6008 ContractJWarranty Breach -Seller Plaint iff (no fraud/negligence) 2., S.OA6019 Negligent Breach of ContractMllIHllOty (no fraud) 1.,2.. 5.OA6028 Other Breach of ContractfWarranty (not fraud or n e ~ l l i g e n c e ) 1:,2.,5.o A6002 Collections C a s ~ l - S e l f e r Plaintiff 2 .. t . , 6OA6012 Other Promissory Note/CoNections Case 2.,5.[:8J A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex) 1.,@, 5. 8.OAGOO9 Contrzldual Fraud 1.,2.,3.,5.o AG031 Tortious Interference 1., : ; ~ . , 3., 5.o A6027 Other Contrad Dispute(not breachlinsurancelfraud/negligence) 1.,2.,3.,8.DA7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation Number of parcels

A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case ,6 .

o A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure 6.o A6032 Quiet Title ,S.o A60S0 Other Real Property{not eminent domain, landlord/tenant. foreclosure) 2 .. 6__o A6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction) 6.OA6020 Unlawful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction) 6;.

DA6022 Unlawful Detainer-Onugs ,6;.

OA6108 Asset Forfeiture Case 2.,6.o A6115 Petition to .... . ~ . ,v",-"", ". .., .", 2.,5.CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM __ ~ S C . ru1El2.0AND ST.ATEMENT OF LOCATION I = ~ : : . . : . , : : : ~ Page 2 of'4

65EXH A


17/19


)(Q)0-Eo c:00>. . . . .: : ; :m I O lc:;0'-.__I'I/)">en.

.... -c: c:II I Q)E E1l IC)0 " ' 0... :::I,2...,c: '"",W O

.;;:(3I/)!!:::1 c:0-CI).!!c:o..!!E-0CI)

i F ' I r ; " , t " , , , , , , , . t . ~ r LLC. v. lIIinois Uniofll

ACover Sheet'# . . . .' l Iv J No.

Mandate(02)

Review(39)

, ~ " " .. ua . J I !'aoe_a (03),... Defect (10)~ V ' 'Uv ' "

Mass (40)Si;;w"""" litigation (28)

Toxic TortE;, "'V, "''' ' ' ' '0' (30)

I ..." . ""n l" l> Coveragefrom ComplexCase (4'1), - - - -

Enforcementof Judgment

(20)

r - - - -r - - - RICO (2'7)

Other Complaints(Not Specified Above)(42)

r - - - -Partnership CorporationGovernance(21 )- - -

Olher Petitions(Not Specified Above)(43)

'----

CIV 109 (Rev. 01/07)LASC Approved 03-04

o A6151o A6152DA6153

A6150

o ASOO3DA6oo7DA6006

DA6035

DA6036

A6014

DAG141DA6160DA6107o A6140o A6114o A6112DA6033

A6030oA6040oAS011DAGOOODAS113

o A6121DA6123o AS124o AS190OAS110o A6170DA6100

B CType of Action A Reasons(Check only one) Step 3 AboveWrit - Administrative MandamusWrit - Mandamus on Limited Court Case MatterWrit .. Other limited Court Case Review 2.Other Writ /Judicial Review

AntilrusllTrade Regulation Il.

Construction defect 1., 2. :1.Claims Inv()/vlng Mass Tort 1.,2., n.Securities L i t i g ; ~ t i o n Case 1.. 2 .. n.Toxic; TortJEnvironmental 1.. 2. . B.

Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only) 1.. 2. !;., B.

Sis ler State Juelgment 2., !l.Abstract of Judgment 2.,6.Conhlssion of Judgment (non-domestic relations) 2.,9.Administrative Agency Award (nol unpaid taxes) 2.,8_Petition/Certificate for Enlry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax 2.. 8.Olher Enforcement of Judgment Case 2 .8 . .9.

-.Racketeering (HICO) Case 1.,2.,8.D e c f ~ l r a l o r y Helief Only 1.,2., S;. IInjunctive Helie f Only (not domesliclharassment) 2., B.Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tortlnon-complex) 1. ;;!., 8 .Other Civil Complaint (non-tortillon-comptex) 1.,2.. 8.Partn'ership and Corporate Governance Case 2.. 8.

--Civil Harassment 2. 3. ,!;I.Worl


18/19


tKoRITlTle: Ticketmastl3r LLC. v. Illinois I : ~ : o n Insurance Company ICASE. NUMBER -]Item Ill. Statement of Location: Enter the address of the accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, orother circumstance indk:ated in Item II., Step 3 on Page 1, as the proper reason for filing in the court location you selected.

REASON: CHECK THE NUMBER UNDEH COLUMN CWHICH APPLIES IN THIS CASE

ADDRESS'8800 West Sunset Boulevard

01, [?g2, 0 3. 04.05,06.07. [J 8. 0 ~ 9 . - = 0 = , - - , 1 0 , - . t-..- ~ - - - - - - - - - - . - - . - ~ - - - - 1 CITY: ISCTAATE: rZIP cooe--West Hollywood i 90069 ______L-______________________________._________J

Item IV. Declaration ofAssignment: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 01 the State of California that the foregoing istrue and correct and that the above-entitled matter is properly filed for assignment to the Los Angeles courthouse in theCentral . ~ O i s t r i c t of the Los Angeles Superior Court (Code Clv. Proc., 392 et seq., and LASC Local Rule 2.0,subds. (b), (c) and (d.

Dated: December 3, 2010 --t L . ~ _ \ ~ I C J ~ ~ ~ (SIGNATURE OF ATIORNEYlFILING PARTY)Kirk A Pasich,- PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TOI PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE:L-_____________________________

1. Original Compl!aint or Petition.2. If tilinfl a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk.3. Civil Case Cover Sheet form CM-010.4. Comple te AddEmdum to Civil Case Cover Sheet form LACIV 109 (Rev. 01f07),LASC Approved 03-04.5. Payment in full of the filing fee, unless fees have been waived.6. Signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, JC form FL-935, if the plaintiff or petitioner is a minor

under 18 years of age, or if required by Court.7. Additional COpil3S of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum

must be serveci along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case.

CIV 109 (Rev. 01107)LASC Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM lASC, rule 2.0AND STATEMENT OF lOCATION /Imerlc.n l l l f l ' ' ' N e ~ Inc. Page 4 of 4

67EXH A

..Y W W . f O f m S W ( ) ~ . c o m


19/19


NOTICE SENT TO:, Kirk A" Esq.Shapiro LLPCentury Park Eas t , Sui te 700os Angeles, CA 90067-3109 JOHN A. C l A R K ~ #

DEC 0 8 2 C 1 1 0 ~ B Y _ _ --- EPU

SUPERIOR: COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF L ~ ~ f f i I ~ ~ ; Plaintiff(s),

VS.UNION INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendam(s).

CASE NUMBERBC4:50579

NOTICE OF CASEMANAGEMENT CONFERENCE I.___. .J..... . . ._. ___________________

THE PLAINTIFF(S)/ATTORNEY(S) FOR PLAINTIFF(S) OF RECORD:ordered to serve this notice of hearing on all parties/attorneys of record forthwith, and meat and confer with all parties!

of record about the mattors to be discussed no latar than 30 days before the Case Management Conference.Management Conferenc;e has been schedulE!d fo r April 22, 2011. at 8:45 am in Dept. 21!,

111 North Hill Street, Los Angelos, California 90012,DEFENDANT: THE SETTING OF THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DOES NOT E)(EMPT THE

DI:FENDANT FROM FILING A RESPONSIVE PLEADING AS REQUIRED BY LAW.California Rules of COllrt. rules 3.7203.730,. a completed Case Management Statement (Judicial Council form #

be filed at least 15 c:alendar days prior to the Case Managem.mt Conference. The Case Management Statementy be filed jointly by all parties/attorneys of record or iindividually by each party/attorney of record. You must be farnilii3r with the

be fully prepared to participate effectively in the Case Management Conference.the Case Management Conference. the Court ma y make pretrial orders including the following, but no t limited to, an order

discovery schedule:. an order referring the case to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); an order reclassifying thean order SEltting subsequent conference and the trial date; or other orders to achieve the goals of the Trial Court Delay

Ac t (Gov. Code, section 68600 et seq.)is hereby given that if you dCI not file the Case Management Statement or appear and effectively partiCipate at the Case

Conference. the Court may impose sanctio>ns pursuan t to LASG Local Rule 7.13, Code of Civil Proced.mre sectionsand 583,410. Gov.",m"nlCod. Section 68608 (b), and C a ~ .. of Court 2.2 . ~ .

201.2,. ~ u ~ : p 4 r + /)/,aJ..4,lIiCERtTIFIC;(\TE 0f ~ ~ r c ~ . / \ ~ U d i Q i a t ~ O f f i t e L ! "

{. ' " the below namod Executive OfflC(lr/Clerk of the above-entitled court, d reby c e r t t t X J l ! i . \ l + i ~ T H l o ~ ~ J t l l q J 1 t l ! d ! , s e herein,d that on this date I served the Notice of Case ManagElment C o n f e r e ~ c e u ~ ~ e a c h ' P ' f I f t . / d t e d r r r ' l e r n a m e a a b O v e : .

bY depositing in the United S t a t f ~ S mail at the courthouse in Los Angeles. California. one copy of the original filed herein in aseparate sealed envelope to each address as show11 above with postage thereon fully prepaId .,"'"I by personally giving the party notice upon filing the complaint /7 'rs

December H, 2010 John A. Clarke, E x e & f 1 J " N f f i c e r / ~ ~ l e r k - - by. Deputy Clerk132 (Rev. 09107)Approved 10-03

68EXH A

,,,

Cal. Rules of Court. rule 3.:720-3.730lASe l.oeal Rules. Chapter Seven

Documents

TICKETMASTER LLC v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY et al Complaint