Android App Class Action by paidcontent

VIEWS: 5,429 PAGES: 22


               BERNS WEISS LLP
                                                                                MAR 1 4 2012
               Jeffrey K. Bems (SBN 131351)
               jbems@lawl11 .com                                                  , Executive Officer/Clerk
    ^          AlanJ. Cooper (SBN 272000)
                                                                      John A.

                                                                       BY                         _, Deputy
               acooper@lawl 11 .com
               20700VenturaBoulevard, Suite 140
               Woodland Hills, CA 91364
               Tel.: (818) 961-2000; Fax: (818) 936-0232
               — and —
    ^    7
    rS         Lee A. Weiss {pro hac vice application pending)
    ^    8
    Q    9
               626 RXR Plaza
               Uniondale, New York 11556
         10    Tel: (818) 961-2000; Fax: (818) 936-0232
         11    Attorneys for Plaintiffs and All
               Other Similarly Situated Individuals                                                               m    3> X- r\

                                 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNU                    _
                                                                                              o   o   o   Q
                                                                                                                  <= *
                                                                                                                        ^; _r
                                                                                                                     —i x» -

         13                                                                                                                W     * :
                                                 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
                                                                                              3 S =FJ2                 5                  o

                                                             CASE NO.
                                                                                  BC4 ffCWS^                           o S <fc ffi
                DODD J. HARRIS, STEPHEN                                                                                o   *
                                                                                                                                     j' "
                                                                                                                                     C-       J»
         15     SABATINO, individually, and on behalf of                                                  HJ                   to »> r~

                all others similarly situated,               CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOj                   =>

                                                                                                                               £5 -j w

         16                                                                                                   »                h1 $ m
                                                                 (1) Breach of the Implied Warranty

                                                                    Merchantability; and                               #TFAX
                                                                 (2) Violation ofBus. and Prof. Code §§
         19                                                         17200, etseq.,"Unfair" and
                GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
                                                                    "Fraudulent" Business Practices.
         20     and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
         21                     Defendants.                         JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

         22                                                                                                                ar -c          w        »

                                                                                                                           m   2K         m        m
         23                                                                                                                .-« rn
                                                                                                                           <:    as
                                                                                                                           m     -h
                                                                                                      n   o       o    Q r= "
                                                                                                      >   x       ^    ^
                                                                                                      W •£; •? §^                Ct
                                                                                                          ~                      J.1
          25                                                                                                                     o


                                                   CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT                                                                 3!

I           Plaintiffs Dodd J. Harris and Stephen Sabatino, individually, and on behalf ofall
2    others similarly situated, by and through their undersigned counsel, for their Complaint
3    against Defendants Google, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Google") and DOES 1-100, allege as
4    follows:

5                                                   I.

6                                         INTRODUCTION

7           1.       This isanaction for breach of the Implied Warranty ofMerchantability, Cal.
8    Com. Code §2314, and violations ofCalifornia's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &Prof.
9    Code §§ 17200, et seq., (the "UCL"), based on Defendant's unfair and fraudulent business
10   practices related to the sale ofapplications through Google's Play Store, formerly known as the
11   Google Android Market (the "Google Play Store")1, an online store where users can purchase,
12   among other things, various games, tools, and informative programs ("Applications") to
13   download to cellular telephones employing the Android operating system ("Android phones").
14              2.   Defendant engaged in deceptive and unfair practices by misleading purchasers of
15   the Applications into believing that all ofthe Applications available for purchase in the Google
16   Play Store controlled by Defendant were in working order, were compatible with all Android
17   phones, and functioned as represented.
18          3.       Defendant controls theGoogle Play Store, the software forwhich comes
19   preinstalled on Android phones, and retains asubstantial portion (30%) of the revenue from the
20   sale ofeach Application as atransaction fee. To the detriment ofApplication purchasers,
21   Defendant maintained no quality control, safety parameters or regulations concerning the sale of
22    Applications in theGoogle Play Store.
23          4.       Incontrast, Google's main competitor inthis area, Apple, Inc., will not allow an
24    Application to be sold inits iTunes App Store until ithas been tested and approved by Apple.
25    See

27    1The Google Android Market changed its name to the Google Play Store on March 6,2012. As
      used herein, the term "Google Play Store" refers to both the Google Play Store and the Google
      Android Market.

                                         CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
      1           5., Inc., athird party retailer which sells Applications for download to
      2 Android phones through its Amazon Appstore for Android, will not allow an Application to be
      3 sold in its Appstore until it has tested the Application for stability, functionality, content, and
      4 security. See
      5            6.       Based upon Google's control over the Google Play Store, and Google's
      6     reputation as aleader in the technology industry, purchasers of Applications believed they were
      7     downloading safe and secure software from Google that would function on their Android
      8     phones as represented. In fact, many Applications do not function at all or do not function as
      9     represented in the Google Play Store. Although Google is aware that it is selling many
      10 Applications which do not function as represented, once aconsumer purchases an Application
      11 from the Google Play Store, it is almost impossible to return the Application for arefund.
      13                                             THE PARTIES
      14        7. PlaintiffDodd J. Harris is, and at all times relevant to this complaint was, an
      15 individual residing in the county ofLos Angeles, California. Plaintiffpurchased aSamsung
      16 Fascinate Galaxy SPhone, which uses the Android Operating System and which came
      17 preloaded with the Google Play Store software, on August 12,2010. In December 2011,
      18 Plaintiffaccessed the Google Play Store and purchased an application entitled "Learn Chinese
      19 Mandarin Pro." After downloading and attempting to use the Application, Plaintiffdetermined
      20 that the Application was not functioning as represented, and thus, desired to return it. Plaintiff
      21 was unable to do so because Google only permits the return ofApplications within 15 minutes
       22    of purchase.
       23        g. PlaintiffStephen Sabatino is, and at all times relevant to this complaint was, an
       24 individual residing in the county ofLos Angeles, California. Plaintiff purchased aThunderbolt
       25 HTC, which uses the Android Operating System and which came preloaded with the Google
       26 Play Store software, on or about July 1,2011. In January 2012, Plaintiffaccessed the Google
       27 Play Store and purchased an application entitled "aBTC." After downloading and attempting to
       28 use the Application, Plaintiffdetermined that the Application was not functioning as

                                                  CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
         represented, and thus, desired to return it. Plaintiffwas unable to do so because Google only
         permits the return of Applications within 15 minutes ofpurchase.
                    9. Defendant Google is, and at all relevant times was, aforeign corporation licensed
             to do business in California with aprincipal place ofbusiness in Mountain View, California,
             and doing business in this county. At all relevant times hereto, Google provided services
             through the online Google Play Store throughout the United States, including in California and
7            in this county.

                        10.    Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that DOES 1-100, inclusive,
             are entities, including affiliates ofGoogle, who obtain revenue from the Google Play Store from
             the sale ofApplications which do not function as represented. Plaintiffs will seek leave of
             Court to amend this Complaint when the names ofsaid DOE defendants have been ascertained.
                      11. The true names and capacities, whether individuals, corporations, associations,
              or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1-100, inclusive, and each ofthem, are unknown to
              Plaintiffs at this time, and Plaintiffs therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names.
              Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that each DOE Defendant is responsible for the
              actions herein alleged. Plaintiffs will seek leave ofCourt to amend this Complaint when the
              names ofsaid DOE Defendants have been ascertained.
                         12. At all times relevant hereto, Google and DOES 1-100, acting in concert, created,
               approved, controlled and/or obtained revenue from the sale ofApplications on the Google Play
    20         Store.
                                                 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

                      13. The Court hasjurisdiction pursuant to the California Constitution, Article VI.
               section 10, Code ofCivil Procedure section 410.10, Business and Professions Code section
               17203, and Civil Code section 1781, because Defendant has its principal place ofbusiness in
               California, transacted business in California, and committed the acts complained ofherein in
               California. On behalfofhimselfand all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs seek damages in
        28      excess ofthe jurisdictional minimum ofthis Court.

                                                     CLASS ACTIONCOMPLAINT
1           14.      Venue is proper in this county pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure section
2    395(b) because this is an action arising from an offer or provision ofgoods and services, and
3    Plaintiffs resided inthis county atthe time they purchased the subject Applications and atthe
4    time of the commencement of this action.

5                                                   IV.

6                         FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

7           15.      Plaintiffs and class members areconsumers who own Android phones, with
8    access to the Google Play Store, which is controlled and maintained by Google. The software
9    that allows Android users toaccess the Google Play Store comes pre-installed on Android
10   phones.
11           16.     The Google Play Store's Terms ofService state that the Google Play Store is
12   owned and operated by Google. The Google Play Store website located at
13 allows users to view the Applications, books, movies, and music that
14   are available for download to their Android phones. The website prominently features a Google
15   copyright at the bottom ofeach web page.
16             17.   The Google Play Store has expanded rapidly since its inception on October 22,
17   2008. On December 6,2011, Google announced on its Android Developer Blogspot web page
18    that the Google Android Market had surpassed ten billion Application downloads. Google has
19    earned over $100 million in revenue from the Google PlayStore.

20             18.    Google exerts control over the Google Play Store by setting uniform standards
21    such as the return time for purchased Applications once they have been downloaded, content
22    filters to determine age appropriate ratings, the size ofthe graphic presented by developers, and
23    the maximum size of Applications for sale.
24             19.    Google controls the Google Play Store by restricting entrance to only those
25    developers who comply with Google's terms and sign the "Android Market Developer
26    Distribution Agreement." This agreement states, in pertinent part, "Market: The marketplace
27    that Google has created and operates which allows registered developers in certain countries to
28    distribute Products directly to users ofDevices." Google retains thirty percent ofthe price of

                                         CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1    any Application sold on the Google Play Store as a'transaction fee." Users pay the entire
2    purchase price for Applications to Google, which then remits seventy percent of the price to the
3    developer.

4           20.     Google further exhibits control over the Google Play Store by informing users
5    that itmakes available various purchasing processes to facilitate transactions to the Google Play
6    Store by allowing Google to charge acredit or debit card registered to users' accounts, or
7    alternatively to their wireless carrier, and that Google may remotely remove purchased
8    applications from users' phones at its discretion. Reasons for removal, as stated in the
9    Developer Distribution Agreement, include circumstances where the Application violates
10   intellectual property rights; violates any applicable law or is subject to an injunction, is
11   pornographic, obscene or otherwise violates Google's hosting policies or other terms ofservice,
12   is being distributed improperly, creates liability for Google or Authorized Carriers, is deemed
13   by Google to have avirus or is deemed to be malware, spyware or have an adverse impact on
14   Google's or an Authorized Carrier's network, violates the developer agreement, or the display
15    ofthe Application impacts the integrity ofGoogle servers.
16           21.     On orabout December 11,2010, Google announced updates tothe Google
17    Android Market including asubstantial reduction in the ability ofpurchasers to return
18    Applications. While users previously had 48 hours after downloading to return an Application
19    for a full refund, these updates reduced that time to only 15 minutes.
20           22.     Despite its control over the Google Play Store, its onerous refund policy, and the
21    substantial revenue itreceived from Application purchases, Google took no steps whatsoever to
22    implement any procedures to ensure that Applications performed as they were represented on
23    the Google Play Store. Instead, Google permits any developer to offer any Application for sale
24    on the Google Play Store, at aprice determined by the developer, as long as the developer is
25    willing to sign the Developer Distribution Agreement. The Developer Distribution Agreement
26    informs developers that",. .Google does not undertake an obligation to monitor the Products or
27    their Contents..."


                                         CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
I           23.    Google's complete failure to monitor the Google Play Store isevidenced by its
2    inability toprevent Developers from offering products for sale that contain malicious spyware.
3    For example, in June 2010, SMobile Systems, an Applications developer, estimated that up to
4    20% ofthe Applications available for download on the Google Android Market may be used for
5    malicious purposes. Further, Juniper Global Threat Center, the security subsidiary ofJuniper
6    Network, a technology firm, estimates that the number ofmalicious applications available for
7    sale on the Google Android Market rose 472% from July of2011 to November 15, 2011, citing
 8   the ease in which anybody with $25 and a developer account can create anApplication. Juniper
 9   Global Threat Center identified Google's lack of vetting ofApplications to be the main cause in
10   the rise of malicious software being offered for sale on the Google Android Market. The report
11   can be found at
12          24.     In a July 5,2011 article, available at
13, a
14   developer stated that Google's approach means that "Android users are many a time, greeted by
15   low-quality, halfprepared or simply non-functioning applications ..."
16                           Plaintiffs' Purchases ofDefective Applications

17          Dodd J. Harris

18           25.    In December 2011, Plaintiff Harris purchased an Application entitled "Learn
19   ChineseMandarinPro" for $4.83 and installedit onto his Android Phone. The descriptionof

20   the Application on the Google Play Store stated, "Learn Chinese is an easy to use mobile
21   Chinese phrasebook that gives visitors to Chinese-speaking countries and those who are
22   interested in learning Mandarin a goodstartin the language ..."
23           26.    After installing the Application, Plaintiff Harris entered an English phrase into
24   the Application. In response, he received a list ofpotential matches, inEnglish, which he could
25   click to see and hear a Mandarin translation, but none of which matched, or were even close to,

26   thephrase he had entered. Plaintiff Harris made multiple attempts with different, common
27   English phrases butthe outcome remained the same. Thus, the Application is worthless.

                                        CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
      1           27.    Because Learn Chinese Mandarin Pro did not perform as represented, less than
      2    20 minutes after he purchased the Application, PlaintiffHarris accessed his Google Play Store
      3    account toobtain a refund. However, there was no option for Plaintiff Harris to request a
      4    refund for the Application. PlaintiffHarris later learned that Google automatically removes the
      5    refund option for an Application in auser's Google Play Store account 15 minutes after it is
      6    purchased.
      7           Stephen Sabatino

      8           28.     On January 11,2012, PlaintiffSabatino purchased an Application from the
      9    Google Play Store entitled "aBTC" for $4.99 and installed it onto his Android Phone. The
      10   description ofthe Application on the Google Play Store stated "aBTC is aBitTorrent client for
      11   Android! Download straight to your phone! Make the most ofyour unlimited data plan! aBTC
      12   isa full-featured BitTorrent client for Android. Open a bit torrent file todownload TV and
      13   music mp3 albums straight to your phone! Features DHT and downloading while sleeping. Now
      14   with in-app search."2
      15           29.    After installing the Application, Plaintiff Sabatino made several attempts to
      16   download a torrent, but he was unable to do so.

      17           30.    Because aBTC did not perform as represented, approximately 60 minutes after
      18    he purchased the Application, PlaintiffSabatino accessed his account on the Google Play Store
      19    to obtain a refund. However, there was no option for Plaintiff Sabatino to request a refund for
      20    the Application. PlaintiffSabatino later learned that Google automatically removes the refund
      21    option for an Application in auser's Google Play Store account 15 minutes after it is purchased.
      22    //

      23    //

      24    //

      25    //


      27    2A "torrent" allows a userto download a file directly from another userinstead of through a
            central server. DHT isa data storage method that prevents download failures and data loss.
.i.   28

                                               CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

2                                    CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

3           31.     Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf ofthemselves, on behalf ofall others
4    similarly situated, and on behalfofthe General Public pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure
5    section 382. The ClassthatPlaintiffs seekto represent is defined as follows:

6                      All California residents who purchased an Application from the
7                      Google Play Store that did not perform asrepresented in the
8                      Google Play Store, and were damaged thereby. Excluded from
9                      the Class are Defendant's employees, officers, directors, agents,

10                     representatives, and their family members, as well as tiie Court
11                     and its officers, employees, and relatives.

12   Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or otherwise alter the Class definition presented to the
13   Court at the appropriate time, or to propose or eliminate sub-classes in response to facts learned
14   through discovery or legal arguments advanced by Defendant or otherwise.
15           32.       Numerositv: The Class isso numerous that the individual joinder ofail members
16   thereof is impracticable under the circumstances ofthis case. While the exact number ofclass
17   members isunknown at this time, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the proposed Class
18   consists ofat least hundreds ofthousands ofmembers, based on the fact that Android phone
19   users have spent over $341 million to purchase Applications on the Google Play Store.
20           33•       Commonality: Common questions oflaw or fact are shared by Class members.
21   This action is suitable for class treatment, because these common questions of fact and law
22   predominate over any individual issues. Such common questions include, but are not limited to,
23    the following:

24                     (a) Whether Defendant breached the implied warranty of
25                         merchantability;

26                      (b) Whether Defendant's attempt to disclaim the implied warranty
27                         of merchantability complied withapplicable law;


                                            CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
     1                   (c) Whether Defendant engaged in an unfair or fraudulent
     2                       business practice by failing to implement any measures to

     3                       ensure theefficacy of theApplications for sale in the Google
     4                       Play Store;

     5                   (d) Whether Defendant's 15-minute refund policy for
     6                       Applications isan unfair business practice;
     7                   (e) Whether Class members are entitled to injunctive relief.
     8            34.    Typicality: Plaintiffs' claims are typical ofthe claims ofabsent Class members.
     9     Plaintiffs and the other Class members were subjected to the same type ofunfair and fraudulent
     10    conduct, and the claims ofPlaintiffs and the other Class members are based on the same legal
     11    theories.

     12            35.    Adequacy: Plaintiffs are adequate representatives ofthe Class they seek to
     13    represent because their interests do not conflict with the interests of the other members ofthe
     14    Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action
     15    litigation, and Plaintiffs and their counsel will prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of
     16    Class members will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel.
                   36.    Ascertainable Class: The proposed Class is ascertainable in that the members
     18    can be identified and located using information contained in Defendant's records.
                   37 Superiority and Substantial Benefit: Aclass action is superior to other available
     20    means for the fair and efficient adjudication ofthe claims ofPlaintiffs and Class members. The
     21    damages suffered by each individual Class member may be limited and small compared to the
     22    burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and extensive litigation
     23    necessitated by Defendant's conduct. Further, it would be virtually impossible for Class
     24    members to redress the wrongs done to them by Defendant on an individual basis. Even if
     25    members ofthe Class themselves could afford such individual litigation, the court system could
     26    not. Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system
     27    due to the complex legal and factual issues ofthe case. By contrast, the class action device

                                               CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
    1    presents far fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefits of single adjudication,
    2    economy ofscale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
    3           38.     In the alternative, the Class should be certifiedbecause:

    4                   a.      The prosecution ofseparate actions by individual members ofthe Class
    5           would create a risk ofinconsistent orvarying adjudications with respect to individual
    6           Class members which would establish incompatible standards ofconduct for Defendant;
    7                   b.      The prosecution ofseparate actions by individual members of the Class
    8           would create arisk ofadjudications with respect to them, which would, as apractical
    9            matter, be dispositive ofthe interests of the other Class members not parties to the
    10           adjudications, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;
    11           and

    12                   c.      Defendant has acted orrefused to act ongrounds generally applicable to
    13           the Class, and/or the General Public, thereby making final injunctive relief or
    14           declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole appropriate.
    15                                                    VI.

    16                                      FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

    17                           Breach ofImplied Warranty of Merchantability,
    18                                  California Commercial Code § 2314

    19           39.     Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
    20           40.     Plaintiffs bring this cause ofaction against Defendant on behalfofthemselves
    21    individually and on behalf oftheClass members.
    22           41.     Defendant atall relevant times controlled and obtained substantial revenue from
    23    the Google Play Store.

    24            42.    Defendant knew or had reason to know of the ordinary uses for which
    25    Applications were purchased, and it impliedly warranted that these Applications were of
    26    merchantable quality. However, the Applications are not ofmerchantable quality, because the
    27    Applications are defective as they do not work asrepresented.


                                              CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
                         43.       Plaintiffs and Class Members never contemplated that the Applications
              purchased from Defendant's Play Store would not function as represented.
                         44.       Defendant's actions, as complained ofherein, breached its implied warranty that
                  its Applications were ofmerchantable quality and fit for their ordinary purpose in violation of
     5            Cal. Com. Code §2314.

                         45.       Plaintiffs and Class Members have incurred damages as described herein as a
                  direct and proximate result ofthe breach and failure ofDefendant to honor its implied warranty
                  in that Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have purchased their Applications had they
                  known the truth about the lack of merchantability ofthe Applications.
                                                   SECOND CI ATM FOR RELIEF

                                          Violation ofCalifornia's Unfair Competition Law,

                   Bus. &Prof. Code §§ 17200, etseq., "Unfair" and "Fraudulent" Business Acts or Practices
                         46. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as iffully set forth
     15            herein.

                             47.    This claim is brought by Plaintiffs, individually, as representatives
                   on behalfofthe Class members, and in their capacity as private attorneys general, against
                   Defendant for its unfair and fraudulent business acts and/or practices pursuant to California
                   Business &Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), which prohibits all unfair and
         20         fraudulent business acts and/or practices.
                             48.     Plaintiffs assert this claim as arepresentative ofan aggrieved group and as
                    private attorneys general on behalfofthe general public and other persons who have been faced
                    with the unfair circumstance in which Defendant controlled, and derived substantial revenue
                    from, the sale ofApplications on the Google Play Store, but willfully made no effort to
                    determine ifany ofthe Applications actually worked as represented on the Google Play Store.
                    Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief to prevent Defendant from continuing to offer
                     Applications to the public without first taking cursory steps to inspect those goods. Plaintiffs
J-           28

                                                          CLASS ACTION COMPLATNT
      1    are also seeking restitution ofall sums paid by Class members to Google for Applications that
      2    did notperform as represented on the Google Play Store.
      3           49.    Plaintiffs further assert thisclaim as a representative of an aggrieved group and
      4    as private attorneys general on behalfofthe general public and other persons who were likely to
      5    be deceived by Defendant's conduct. Defendant created the Google Play Store, which
      6    prominently featured Google branding, and Google collected all ofthe payments for the Google
      7    Play Store. Thus, Google created the impression that the Applications for sale in the Google
      8    Play Store had been vetted by Google, and would perform as represented. In fact, Google took
      9    no steps to test any ofthe Applications it offered for sale in the Google Play Store. As aresult,
      10   many ofthe Applications do not work on users' Android phones as represented in the Google
      11   Play Store, and Google's highly restrictive refund policy prevents users from obtaining refunds
      12   for these defective Applications.

      13           50.    The instant claim ispredicated on the generally applicable duty ofany
      14   contracting party to refrain from unfair and fraudulent business practices. The instant claim is
      15   predicated on duties that govern anyone engaged in any business and anyone contracting with
      16   anyoneelse.
      17           51.    Plaintiffs and Class members are consumers who purchased Applications from
      18    the Google Play Store. Plaintiffs and Class members were deceived into believing that
      19    Defendant, which controls, and derives substantial revenue from, the Google Play Store, was
      20    implementing measures to ensure that each Application sold on the Google Play Store would
      21    work as represented.

      22           52.     By engaging in the above-described acts and practices, Defendant committed one
      23    or more acts ofunfair and fraudulent competition within the meaning ofthe UCL.
      24          53.      Defendant's misconduct as alleged above and herein was unfair and fraudulent
      25    because (i) it caused Plaintiffs and Class Members to suffer substantial injury, as they paid
      26    money to Google for Applications that do not function on their Android phones as represented,
      27    when they believed that Defendant had implemented measures to ensure that the Applications
1*.   28    worked as represented, (ii) there were absolutely no countervailing benefits to consumers or to


                                               CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1        competition that could possibly outweigh this substantial injury, and (iii) this injury could not
         have been avoided by the consumers because they could not know which Applications for sale
         in the Google Play Store would not work on their Android phones prior to purchasing them.
                 54.     The harm to Plaintiffs, members ofthe general public, and Class members
5        substantially outweighs the utility ofDefendant's policies, acts and/or practices, and
         consequently Defendant's conduct herein constitutes an unfair and fraudulent business act or
         practice within the meaning ofthe UCL. Defendant's misconduct as alleged herein also gave
         Defendant an unfair competitive advantage over Defendant's competitors that did not engage in
9        similar conduct.

                 55.     Defendant's unfair and fraudulent practices, as fully described herein, present a
11       continuing threat to members ofthe public, as the Google Play Store continues to sell
12        Applications that do not function on Android phones as represented. Plaintiffs and other
          members ofthe general public have no other remedy at law that will prevent Defendant's
14        misconduct as alleged herein from occurring and/or reoccurring in the future.
                  56. By virtue ofDefendant's unfair and fraudulent acts and practices, Plaintiffs and
          Class Members continue to be subjected to Applications for sale in the Google Play Store that
          do not function as represented. Thus, Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to declaratory
          and injunctive reliefpreventing Google from continuing to offer such Applications for sale on
          the Google Play Store, and restitution, as they have been injured financially by purchasing
20        Applications which do not work as represented.
                  57.       As adirect and proximate result of Defendant's unfair and fraudulent conduct
22         alleged herein, Plaintiffs and Class members paid for Applications from the Google Play Store
            which did not function on their Android phones as represented. Plaintiffs and Class members
24          are direct victims of Defendant's unfair and fraudulent conduct, and each has suffered injury in
            fact, and lost money or property as aresult of Defendant's unfair and fraudulent competition.
                   58.      WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to equitable relief,
    27      including declaratory relief, apermanent injunction enjoining Defendant from its unfair
    28      activity, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs.

                                                CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1                                                  VIII.

2                                      PRAYER FOR RELIEF

3            WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and all Class members pray for judgment against Defendant,
4     as follows:

5            A.     An order certifying this case as aclass action and appointing Plaintiffs and their
6                   counsel to represent the Class;

7            B.     For damages due to Defendant's breach ofthe implied warranty of
8                   merchantability;

9             C.    For equitable relief, including restitution;
10            D.    For declaratory relief;

11            E.    For injunctive relief;

12            F.    Forreasonable attorneys' fees andcosts; and

13            G.    For such other relief as is just and proper.

      Dated: March 14,2012                                      BERNS WEISS LLP


                                                                Jefi%ey K/Bems (SBN 131351) y
18                                                              jberns@lawl11 .com
                                                                Alan J. Cooper (SBN 272000)
19                                                              acooper@lawl 11 .com
                                                                20700 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 140
                                                                Woodland Hills, CA 91364
21                                                              Tel.: (818) 961-2000; Fax: (818) 936-0232
22                                                                              - and -

                                                                Lee A. Weiss (pro hac vice application
24                                                              pending)
25                                                              626 RXR Plaza
                                                                Uniondale, New York 11556
                                                                Tel.: (818) 961-2000; Fax: (818) 936-0232
                                                                Attorneys for Plaintiffs and All Other
 28                                                             Similarly Situated individuals

                                             CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
                                                                                                                                FOR COURT USE ONLY
-Jeffrey K. Berns(SBN 131351)
  20700 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 140                                                                                             FILED
  Woodland Hills. CA 91364                                                 ox
           mmoMNtx: (818)961-2000                     ^        Wno; (818)936-0232
 attorney numm* See Attachment A for additional attorney and client info.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF LOS Angeles                                                                           MAR 14 2012
       street address: 1U N. Hill Street
                                                                                                                •John A.
      HA'UNG ADDRESS;                                                                                                              ExecutitreOfficer/ctefc
      city ANoapooDE: Los Angeles, 90012                                                                        BY
          Ihranchmame: Central District - Stanley Mosk Courthouse                                                                ny*                Deputy
  Harris, et al. v. Google, Inc.                                                                                 CASE NUMBER
      CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET                                      Complex Case Designation
[71 Unlimited                 •       Limited                  I I Counter         •       Joinder                               CQ4 80854
           (Amount                    (Amount                                                                    JUDGE:
           demanded                   demanded is             Filed withfirst appearance by defendant
           exceeds $25.000)           $25,000 or less)           (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)
                                           Items IS below must becompleted (sea instructions onpage 2).
   Check one boxbelow for the casetypethat bestdescribes this case:
                                                                                                          Provisionally Complex CMl Litigation
      Auto Tort
                                                                  Breach of contract/warranty(08)
                                                                                                          (Cat. Rules ofCourt, rules 3.400-3.403)
      HAuto (22)
                                                                  Rule 3.740 collections (09)                  I Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)
        Uninsured motorist (46)
                                                          __J Other collections (09)                       ~H Construction defect (10)
      Other PUPDAWO (Poraonal Injury/Property
      Oam'aflaArVrongful Death) Tort                              Insurance coverage (18)                      I Mass tort (40)
      I 1 Asbestos (04)                                                                                        I Securities litigation (28)
                                                          •     Other contract (37)
                                                                                                               I Environmental/Toxic tort (30)
      | 1 Product liability (24)                          Real Property
      I I Medical malpractice (45)                        I     | Eminent domainAnverse                        I insurance coverage claims arising from the
                                                              condemnation (14)                                  above listed provisionally complexcase
      I I Other PI/PCWWD (23)                                                                                    types (41)
                                                        I I wrongful eviction (33)
      Non-PI/PDfWO (Other)Tort                                                                             Enforcement of Judgment
      L"7_3 Business tort/unfair business practice (07) I I Other real property (28)                       •     Enforcement ofjudgment (20)
      •     Civil rights (08)                           Unlawful Detainer

      I I Defamation (13)                               I I Commercial (31)                                Miscellaneous Ctvtl Complaint

      I I Fraud (16)                                    I I Residential (32)                               •   RICO (27)
                                                        •     0rugs(38)                                    I 1 cmtera)rr^laW(nc<Jpec*!ec/aioveJ(42)
      CD Intellectual property (18)
      | I professional negligence (25)                  Judicial Review                                    Miscellaneous CMl Petition
       I I Other non-Pi/PD/WD tort (35)                 r~1 Asset forfeiture (05)                          f I Partnership and corporate governance (21)
                                                           I     I Petition re: arbitration award (11)     | J Other petition (nor jjpearJerf above) (43)
       I    | wrongful termination (36)                    |     I Writ ofmandate (02)
                                                           | I Other |udlcial review (39)
       Sc^'S^ U isnot oomm^^WdtoCiaanto RulesofCourt. Ifthecaseis complex, mark the
        factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
        a. O Large number ofseparately represented parties                      d. 1/1 Large number of witnesses
        b. El Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel              e. •     Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
                   issues thatwill be time-consuming to resolve
                                                                                      in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
        c. LTD Substantial amount ofdocumentary evidence                        f. CD Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
  3. RemediessoughtfcflecK^rnarappiy;.,.^—., b.[7J nonmonetary'• «*^/<«i™*"^ iSTsw
  3. Remedies sought (cnec* all that apply): a.[Z3 monetary
  4. Number of causes of acton (specify): (1) Breach of Imp. Warr. ofMerch; <2)Bi« &ProfCode sec. 17200, et seq
  5. This case L7J is • is not aclass action suit.
  6. If triers are any known related cases, file and serve anotice ofrelated case                                    form CM-015.
                                                                                                                                                             BY FAX
  Date: ' 3/>H/0-
  Jeffrey K. Berns                                                                                       ' (SIGNATURE OF PARfV ORATTORNEY FOH PARTY)
             i                     (TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

                                                                                                                          C* RU« orCourt, run Z», 3.Z20. 3.4KW.W, 3.740;
   Form AdoptedlorttandttoryU»»                                CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET                                          C* SUnS«d]0(JuaUdAdmlfll>lnuon.itd,3.t0
       JudWtl Count* ft Calfemit                                                                                                                       www.oowwiw.ei.8ov
       CW-010 [R«v. July1,3007]
                                        ATTACHMENT A
                                    Harris, etal v. Google, Inc.
                        Superior Court ofCalifornia, County ofLos Angeles
Additional Attorney Information:

AlanJ. Cooper (SBN 272000)
20700 Ventura Blvd., Suite 140
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Tel:(818) 961-2000

i        — and -

Lee A. Weiss (pro hac vice application pending)
626 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, New York 11556
Tel.: (818) 961-2000

    attorneys for Plaintiffs Dodd J. Harris and Stephen Sabatino, and All Other Similarly Situated
             1                                                                                                                                  CM-010
                                              INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET
To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must
complete and file, along with your first paper, the CM Case Cover Sheef contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile
statistics about the types and numbers ofcases filed. You must complete items 1through 6 on the sheet In item 1, you must check
one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type ofcase listed in item 1,
check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes ofaction, check the box that best indicates the primary cause ofaction.
To assist you in completing the sheet, examples ofthe cases that belong under each case type in item 1are provided below. Acover
sheet must be filed only with your Initial paper. Failure tofile a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party,
its counsel, orboth to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 oftheCalifornia Rules ofCourt
To Parties In Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A"collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money
owed in|a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from atransaction in
which property services, or money was acquired on credit Acollections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort
damages. (2) punitive damages. (3) recovery of real property. (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment wnt of
 attachment The identification ofa case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general
 time-for-service requirements and case management rules, untess adefendant files a responsive pleading. Arule 3.740 conections
 case will besubject to the requirements for service and obtaining ajudgment in rule 3.740.
 To Parties In Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the CMl Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the
 case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be located by
 completing the appropriate boxes in items 1and 2. If aplaintiff designates acase as complex, the cover sheet must be served with ma
 complaint on all parties to the action. Adefendant may file and serve no later than the time of Its first appearance ajoinder in the
 plaintiffs designation, acounter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, adesignanon that
  the case is complex.                                            CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
                                                                                                          Provisionally ComplexCivil Litigation (Cal.
  Auto Tort
                                                           Breach of Contract/Warranty (06)               Rules of Court Rules 3/400-3.403)
          Auto (22)-Personal Injury/Property                                                                   Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03)
                                                               Breach of Rental/Lease
              Damage/Wrongful Death                                                                            Construction Oefect (10)
                                                                     Contract (not unlawful detainer
          Uninsured Motorist (46) (Ifthe                                 or wrongful eviction)                 Claims Involving Mass Tort (40)
               case Involves an uninsured                                                                      Securities Litigation(28)
                 motorist claim subject to                                                                     Environmental/Toxic Tort (30)
                 arbitration, check VilaItem
                                                                  Plaintiff (not fraud ornegligence)
                                                               Negligent Breachof Contract/                    insurance Coverage Claims
                 insteadof Auto)                                                                                   (arising from provisbnaBy complex
  Other PI/PDWD (Personal Injury/                              Other Breach of Contract/Warranty                   case type listedabove)(41)
      Property,OamageArVrongful Death)                     Colectians (e.g.. money owed, open               Enforcement of Judgment
  Tort           I                                             book accounts) (09)                              Enforcement of Judgment (20)
      •   Asbestos (04)                                        Collection Case-Seder Plaintiff                     Abstract of Judgment (Out of
                 J^sbestos Property Damage                     Other Promissory Note/Collections                       County)
                 Asbestos Personal Injury/                                                                          Confession of Judgment (non-
                 !      Wrongful Death                     Insurance Coverage(notprovisionally                          domestic relations)
          Product Liability (not asbestos or                  complex) (IB)                                         Sister State Judgment
              toxic/environments!) (24)                       Auto Subrogation                                      Administrative Agency Award
           Medical Malpractice (45)                           Other Coverage                                           (not unpaid taxes)
              Medical Malpractice-                                                                                  Petition/Certification of Entry of
                        Physicians&Surgeons                Other Contract (37)                                         Judgmenton Unpaid Taxes
                 Other Professional Health Care                Contractual Fraud                                    Other Enforcement of Judgment
                  !     Malpractice                            Other Contract Dispute                                   Case
           Other PUPD/WD (23)                           Real Property                                       Miscellaneous CMl Complaint
                                                           Eminent Domain/Inverse
                 Premises liability (e.g.. slip                                                                RICO (27)
                                                                  Condemnation (14)
                  , and fall)                                                                                   OtherComplaint (not specified
                 intentional Bodily Injury/PD/WO           Wrongful Eviction (33)                                   above) (42)
                         (e.g., assault vandalism)         Other Real Property (e.g.. quiet tllle) (26)             Declaratory Relief Only
                 Intentional Infliction of                        Writ of Possession of Real Property               Injunctive ReliefOnly(non-
                  1 Emotional Distress                            Mortgage Foreclosure                                   harassment)
                 Negligent Infliction of                          Quiet Title                                       Mechanics Uen
                     Emotional Distress                           Other Real Property(noreminent                    Other Commercial Complaint
                 Other PI/PD/WD                                   domain, landlord/tenant or                            Case (non-tort/han-complex)
      Non-Pl/PDArVD (Other) Tort                                  fomdosum)                                         Other CMl Complaint
           Business Tort/Unfair Business                Unlawful Detainer                                               (non-tortmon-comptex)
               Practice (07)                                Commercial (31)                                 Miscellaneous Civil Petition
           Civil Rights(e.g., discrimination,               Residential (32)                                    Partnership and Corporate
                 false arrest) (not civH                    Drugs (36) (if thecase Involves Wegal                   Governance (21)
                  harassment) (08)                                drugs, check this Hem: otherwise,             Other Petition (not specified
           Defamation (e.g., slander, libel)                      report as Commercial or Residential)              above) (43)
               (13)                                     Judicial Review                                             CMl Harassment
           Fraud (16)                                       Asset Forfeiture (05)                                   Workplace violence
            Intellectual Property (19)                      Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11)                     Elder/Dependent Adult
           Professional Negligence (25)                     Writ of Mandate (02)                                         Abuse
              Legal Malpractice                                   Writ-Administrative Mandamus                       Election Contest
              Other Professional Malpractice                      Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court                     Petition for Name Change
 s                    < (notmedicalorlegal)                           Case Matter                                    Petition for Relief From Late
I;:         Cffl»rNon^l/PD/WOTort(35)                             Writ-Other Limited Court Case                          Claim
*• Employment                                                         Rcvifiw                                        Other CMl Petition
"f          Wrongful Termination (36)                       Other Judicial Review (39)
|;!         Other, Employment (16)                              Review of Health Officer Order
                                                                Notice of Appeal-Labor
                                                                      Commissioner Appeals
       C«*tflO|R«v.'Juty 1,2007)                            CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
                                                                                                    CASE NUMBER
                   Harris, et al. v. Google, Inc.
                                               CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND
                                                           STATEMENT OF LOCATION
             This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.0 In all new civil case filings In the Los Angeles Superior Court,
      Item I. Check the types of hearing and fill in the estimated length of hearing expected for this case:
      Item II. indicate the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps - If you checked 'Limited Case', skip to item in. Pg. 4):
        Step 1: After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheetform, find the main Civil Case Cover Sheet heading for your
        case in the toft margin below, and, to the right in Column A. the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected.
        Step 2: Check one Superior Court type ofaction in Column Bbelow which best describes the nature ofthis case.
        Step 3: in Column C, cirde the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type of action you have
        checked. For any exception to the court location, see Local Rule 2.0.
                                Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column Cbelow) |
          1 Class actiorisrrnist befled In theStarfleyMosk                                     6 Location of property or permanently garaged vehlde.
          2 May be fledI in central (other county, or no bodily Injury/property damage).
          3' Location where cause of action arose.          „„„^j
                                                                                               9 Location where oneormore ofthe parties resioe.
          4 Location where bodily Injury, death or damage ocaared.                             10. Location of LaborCommissioner <
          6. Location where performance required or defendant resides.

         Step 4: Fill in the information requested on page 4in Item III; complete Item IV. Sign the declaration. W                                     FAX
                                                                                        Type of Action                                   Applicable Reasons -
                          CMl Case Cover Sheet                                         (Check onlyone)                                    See Step 3 Above
                              Category No.
                                 Auto (22)
                                                      D A7100 Motor Vehlde -Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death
         3                Uninsured Motorist (46)
                                                      O A7110 Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death - Uninsured Motorist        1..2..4.

                                                      a    A6070 Asbestos Property Damage
                               Asbestos (04)          D A7221 Asbestos - Personal Injury/Wrongful Death
              .0                                                                                                                         1..2..3..4..8.
                            Product Liability(24)     D A726Q Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental)

                                                      Q A7210 Medical Malpractice - Physicians &Surgeons
         ?s               Medical Malpractice (45)    • A7240 Other Professional Health Care Malpractice                                  1..4.

                                                       D A7250 Premises Liability (e.g..slipand fall)                                     1..4.
         r£    en                   Other              • A7230 intentional Bodily Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (e.g.,            1..4.
                               Personal Injury                     assault, vandalism, etc.)
         £                    Property Damage                                                                                             1..3.
         o                     Wrongful Death          •   A7270 Intentional Infliction ofEmotional Distress
                                                       D A7220 Other Personal InJiiry/PraoertyDamageiWrongful Death
                                                                                                                                       Local Rule 2.0
         LACIV109 (Rev. 03/11)
                                                     CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM
                                                        AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION                                                         Pagel of 4
         LASC Approved 0344
short not-                                                                                         CASE NUMBER
              ' Harris, et al. v. Google, Inc.

                              A                                                            B                                                    c
                    CMl Case Cover Sheet                                             Type of Action                                Applicable Reasons -
                         Category No.                                               (Check only one)                                See Step 3 Above

                      Business Tort (07)         ta A602S Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraud/breach of contract)           Qs.
   fl                  CMl Rights (08)           D A6005 CivD RighrVDlscrfmlnation                                                 1..2..3.

                       Defamation (13)           G A6010 Defamation (slander/libel)                                                1..2..3.
                          Fraud (16)             •    A6013 Fraud (no contract)                                                    1..2..3.
   si                                            D A6017 Legal Malpractice                                                         1..2..3.
                 Professional Negligence (25)
                                                 Q A60SO Other Professional Malpractice(not medical or legal)                      1„ 2„ 3.
  z       a

                          Other (35)             •    A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort                         2..3.

      E            Wrongful Termination (36)     O    A6037 Wrongful Termination                                                   1„ 2., 3.

                                                  Q A6024 Other Employment Complaint Case                                          1.. 2., 3.
                    Other Employment (15)
                                                 O    A6109 labor Commissioner Appeals                                             10.

                                                 •    A6004 Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful
                                                                                                                                   2., 5.
                 Breach of Contract/ Warranty                                                                                      2.. 5.
                             (06)                 D A6006 Contract/Warranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence)
                       (not Insurance)                                                                                             1..2..5.
                                                 •    A601S Negligent Breach of Contract/Warranty (no fraud)
                                                 •    A6026 Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence)

                                                  O   A6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff                                      2., 5.. 6.
                        Collections (09)
                                                  O A6012 Other Promissory Note/Collections Case                                   2.. 5.

                    InsuranceCoverage (18)        Q A601S Insurance Coverage (not complex)                                         1.,? 5,6.

                                                  0   A6009 Contractual Fraud                                                      1..2..3., 5.

                      Other Contract (37)         O   A6031 Tortious Interference                                                   1.2,3., 5.

                                                  n   A6027 Other Contract Dtspute(not breacMnsurance/fraud/negBgence)             1..2..3..8.

                    Eminent Domain/Inverse
                                                 •    A730Q Eminent Domain/Condemnation                Number of parcels           2.
                      Condemnation (14)

                    Wrongful Eviction (33)        D A6023 Wrongful EvictionCase                                                     2., 6.

                                                  D   A6016 Mortgage Foreclosure                                                    2.. 6.

                    Other Real Property (26)      O   A6032 Quiet Title                                                             2.. 6.

                                                  D A6OS0 Other Real Property(not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure)     2.. 8.

                 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial
                                                  D A6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (not drugs or wrongfuleviction)              2., 6.

      2          Unlawful Detainer-Residential
                                                  Q A6020 Unlawful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction}            2.. 6.
      £                       (32)

                      Unlawful Detainer-
                                                  O   A6020F Unlawful Detainer-Post-Foreetasure                                     2., 6.
                     Post-Foreclosure (34)

                  UnlawfulDetainer-Drugs (36)     a   A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs                                                2., 6.

 LACIV109 (Rev. 03/11)                           CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM                                                 Local Rule 2.0
 LASC Approved 03-04                                AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION                                                      Page 2 of 4
SHORT TITLE                                                                                                 CASE NUMBER
                  Harris, et ai. v. Google, Inc.

                      Civil Case Cover Sheet                                              Type of Action                      Applicable Reasons •
                            Category No.                                                 (Check only one)                      See Step 3 Above

                        Asset Forfeiture (OS)           D    A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case                                      2., 6.

                     Petitionre Arbitration (11)        D A6115 Petition to Compel/ConfimvVacata Arbitration                  2., 5.

                                                        a    A6151 Writ-Administrative Mandamus                               2., 8.
                        Writ of Mandate (02)            O A6152 Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter                    2.

                                                        •    A6153 Writ-Other Umlted Court Case Review                        2.

                     OtherJudicial Review (39)          •    A6150 Other Writ/Judicial Review                                 2., 6.

          c        Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) C A6003 Antitrust/Trade Regulation                                         1..2..8.

                     Construction Defect (10)           D   A6007 Construction defect                                         1..2..3.

                    Claims Involving Mass Tort
                                (40)                    O A60O6 Claims Involving MassTart                                     1.,2.,8.

                      Securities Litigation (26)        a   A6035 SecuritiesLitigation Case                                   1..2..8.
         g                   Toxic Tort
                        Environmental(30)               D   A6036 Toxic Tort/Environmental                                    1,2.. 3.. 8.

                    Insurance Coverage Claims
                      from Complex Case (41)        O A6014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only)                1..2..5..6.

                                                    Q A6141 Sister State Judgment                                            2.. 9,
     c       c                                      Q A6160 Abstractof Judgment                                              2.. 6,
     I §
     H en                  Enforcement              Q A61Q7 Confession ofJudgment (non-domestic relations)                   2.. 9.
                         of Judgment (20)
                                                    O A6140 Administrative AgencyAward (notunpaid taxes)                     2.. 8.
                                                    D A6114 PetiUon/Certiflcate for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax          2.. 8.
                                                    Q A6112 Other Enforcementof Judgment Case                                2.. 8., 9.

                            RICO (27)               O A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case                                         1., 2.. 6.

                                                    O A6030 Declaratory ReliefOnly                                           1..2..8.
                        Other Complaints            O A604Q Injunctive ReiefOnly (rnrt domestic/harassment)                  2.. 6.
                    (Not Specified Above) (42)
 2 vl                                               O A6011 Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex)           1..2..8.
                                                    D A6000 Other CMl Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) '                     1..2..6.

                     Partnership Corporation
                        Governance (21)             O A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case                        2., 6.

                                                    O       A6121 Civil Harassment                                           2,3. 9.
 2           in
 § i                                                Q A6123 Workplace Harassment                                             2.. 3. 9.

 5 ,£                    Other Petitions
                                                    Q A6124 Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Case                                 2., 3. e.
 .2 >                 (Not Specified Above)         a       A6190 Election Contest                                           2.
 S       U                     (43)
                                                    a       A6110 Petition forChange of Name                                 2.. 7,
                                                    •       A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law
                                                    O       A6100 Other Civil Petition                                       2., 9.

LACIV109(Rev. 03/11)                               CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM                                        Local Rule 2.0
LASC Approved 03-04                                         AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION                                       Page 3 of 4
SHORT TrriE:                                                                                CASE NUMBER
               Harris, et at. v. Google, Inc.

 itemIII. Statement ofLocation: Entertheaddressoftheaccident, party's residence orplace ofbusiness, performance, orother
 circumstance indicated inItem II., Step 3 on Page 1, as the proper reasonforfiling in the court location you selected.


  REASON: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown          This is a class action complaint.
  under Column C for the type of action that you have selected for
  this case.                                                         5062 Lenkershlm Blvd., #3036

          01. D2. D3. D4. D5. D6. D7. D8. D9. D10.

  CITY;                                     STATE:     2PC00E:

  North Hollywood                           CA        91601

 Item IV. Dedaration ofAssignment. Ideclare under penalty of perjuryunder the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
 and correct and that the above-entjfled matter is properly filed for assignment to the Stanley Mosk                courthouse in the
 Central                 District of the Superior Court of California. County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc., § 392 etseq., and Local
 Rule 2.0. subds. (b). (c) and (d)].

 Dated:           VVi'*-
                                                                                                   ; OF ATTORNSY/FIURO PARTY)


      1. Original Complaint or Petition.
      2. Iffiling a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk.
      3.    Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010.

      4. Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Locationform, LACIV 109, LASCApproved 03-04 (Rev.
      5. Payment in full of the filing fee, unless fees have been waived.
      6. A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem,Judicial Council form CIV-010,ifthe plaintiff or petitioner is a
         minorunder 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons.
      7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum
            must be served along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case.

 LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11)                   CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM                                                  Local Rule 2.0
 LASC Approved 03-04                             AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION                                                      Pago 4 of 4

To top