Complaint,Petition: MERTENS vs BOERSMA

On February 15, 2020 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Jinnie Mertens, Ted Mertens, and David Boersma, Lending Tree, Llc, Robyn Boersma, for Unlimited Civil Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Tort in the District Court of Riverside County.

Preview
THIS COMPLAINT SHALL NOT BE MADE PUBLIC FOR
THIRTY (30) DAYS, PURSUANT TO C.C.P. Sec. 482.050(a)

1 Walter T. Clark, State Bar #53303
wclark@walterclark.com
2 Lawrence S. Pressley, State Bar #332607
lpressley@walterclark.com
3 WALTER CLARK LEGAL GROUP
A Professional Law Corporation
4 71-861 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
5 Phone: (760) 862-9254

6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JINNIE MERTENS AND TED MERTENS
7

8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
10

11 JINNIE MERTENS an individual; and TED CASE NO.:
MERTENS, an individual,
12 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiffs,
1. Infliction of Emotional Distress Against
13 v. Defendants Robyn and David Boersma
14 ROBYN BOERSMA, an individual; DAVID 2. Infliction of Emotional Distress Against
BOERSMA, an individual; LENDING TREE, Defendant Lending Tree
15 LLC, a North Carolina Corporation, and DOES 3. Invasion of Privacy – Public Disclosure of
1 through 100, inclusive, Private Fact Against Defendants Robyn and
16 David Boersma
Defendants. 4. Invasion of Privacy – Intrusion Upon
17 Seclusion Against Defendants Robyn and
David Boersma
18 5. Interference with the Exercise of Civil
Rights in Violation of the Bane Act
19 [California Civil Code § 52.1] Against
Defendants Robyn and David Boersma
20 6. Civil Conspiracy Against Defendants Robyn
and David Boersma
7. General Negligence Against Defendants
21 Robyn and David Boersma
8. General Negligence Against Defendants
22 Lending Tree
23

27
28
-1-

COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs JINNIE MERTENS and TED MERTENS (hereinafter collectively referred to
2 as, “Plaintiffs”) file this Complaint against Defendants ROBYN BOERSMA, DAVID
3 BOERSMA, LENDING TREE, LLC and DOES 1 – 100, inclusive (hereinafter collectively
4 referred to as, “Defendants”).
5 PARTIES
6 1. Plaintiff, JINNIE MERTENS (“J. MERTENS”), is an individual and is now, and
7 at all times mentioned herein, a resident of Riverside County, California.
8 2. Plaintiff, TED MERTENS (“T. MERTENS”), is an individual and is now, and at
9 all times mentioned herein, a resident of Riverside County, California.
10 3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, Defendant ROBYN
11 BOERSMA (“ROBYN”) is an individual and is now, and at all times mentioned herein, a resident
12 of Riverside County, California.
13 4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, Defendant DAVID
14 BOERSMA (“DAVID”) is an individual and is now, and at all times mentioned herein, a resident
15 of Riverside County, California.
16 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, Defendant LENDING
17 TREE, LLC (“LENDING”) at all times relevant was and is a corporation, doing business under
18 its own corporate name in the State of California, County of Riverside, with principal business
19 offices in North Carolina. Defendant LENDING is an employer within the meaning of applicable
20 law.
21 6. The true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual or
22 otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 – 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs who sue said
23 defendants by such fictitious names. Each of the defendants designated as a Doe is legally
24 responsible for the events and happenings referred to in this complaint, and unlawfully caused the
25 harm and damages to Plaintiffs as alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to
26 amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities when they have been ascertained.
27 7. At all times mentioned in this complaint, unless otherwise alleged, each of the
28 Defendants was the agent, either actual or ostensible, or coconspirator, or employee of each of
-2-

COMPLAINT
1 the remaining defendants, and in doing the acts hereinafter alleged in this complaint was acting
2 within the purpose, course, scope, and authority of such agency or employment and with advanced
3 knowledge, authorization, or ratification of each of the remaining defendants and at least one of
4 the officers, directors, or managing agents of each of the corporate defendants. In furtherance of
5 the conspiracy and with the knowledge and consent of each of the other defendants.
6 8. Plaintiffs do not know the true names of defendants DOE 1 – 100 inclusive, and
7 therefore sue them by these fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to include their
8 names and capacities once they are known.
9 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based on that information and belief
10 allege, that each of the defendants designated as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for
11 the occurrences alleged in this complaint, and unlawfully caused the injuries and damages to
12 Plaintiffs as alleged in this complaint.
13 10. Named Defendants and DOES 1 – 100 will hereinafter collectively be referred to
14 as “Defendants.”
15 JURISDICTION
16 11. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants, and venue is proper, because the
17 subject incident giving rise to this case occurred at Colony Cove (“Colony”), in the City of Indian
18 Wells, Riverside County, California.
19 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
20 Defendant ROBYN’s Criminal Conduct Against Plaintiffs
21 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief
22 allege, that on or about October 17, 2020, Defendants engaged in the unauthorized use of
23 Plaintiffs’ personally identifying information in an attempt to harass, coerce, interfere,
24 impersonate, and cause harm to Plaintiffs, when Defendants performed an unauthorized credit
25 inquiry for an impermissible purpose and thereafter, impersonated Plaintiffs by engaging in the
26 false and unauthorized disclosure of private information to Defendant LENDING. (Riverside
27 County Sheriff Department, Prepared: 02/24/2021; Supplemental Incident Report, File No.:
28 J203030003, Page 2, Line 40-paragraphs 37 – 40; Page 3, Line 1-44). The true and correct copies
-3-

COMPLAINT
1 of the Riverside County Incident Report are attached hereto and referred to as Exhibit A, Exhibit
2 B, and Exhibit C.
3 13. On or about July 20, 2021, Riverside County Sheriff Department suspected that
4 Defendant ROBYN committed the following criminal offenses against Plaintiffs: Identity Theft
5 (P.C. 530.5(a)); Impersonating Another Person (P.C. 528.5(a)); and Elder Abuse (P.C. 368.5(d)).
6 (Riverside County Sheriff Dept., Incident Report J203030003).
7 14. On or about August 18, 2021, Defendant ROBYN was charged with
8 Impersonating Another Person (P.C. 528.5(a)) in Riverside Superior Court, Case No.
9 INM2104013. Defendant ROBYN - consented to a diversion of criminal proceedings to comply
10 with the terms, conditions, and programs ordered by the Superior Court of Riverside County.
11 15. On or about December 9, 2021, as a result of Defendant ROBYN’s criminal
12 conduct against Plaintiffs, Riverside County Superior Court ordered Defendant ROBYN to
13 submit to a probationary period of six (6) months.
14 16. On or about December 9, 2021, as a result of Defendant ROBYN’s criminal
15 conduct against Plaintiffs, Riverside County Superior Court ordered Defendant ROBYN to
16 complete one-hundred (100) hours of community service.
17 17. On or about December 9, 2021, as a result of Defendant ROBYN’s criminal
18 conduct against Plaintiffs, Riverside County Superior Court ordered Defendant ROBYN to pay
19 restitution fees, obey all laws, ordinances, and court orders.
20 18. On or about December 9, 2021, as a result of Defendant ROBYN’s criminal
21 conduct against Plaintiffs, Riverside County Superior Court ordered Defendant ROBYN to refrain
22 from social media disclosures regarding Plaintiffs or the criminal case (Riverside County Superior
23 Court, Case No. INM2104013).
24 19. Defendant ROBYN’s criminal charge of Impersonating Another Person (P.C.
25 528.5(a) was based on the wrongdoings of Defendants between the dates of May 17, 2020 through
26 December 9, 2021, in which defendants knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, and negligently
27 interfered, or attempted to interfere, with the exercise and enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ rights by the
28 use of threats, violence, intimidation, coercion, and other harmful acts as described herein.
-4-

COMPLAINT
1 Background Information
2 20. On or about May 1, 2020, Defendants and Plaintiffs were residents of Colony Cove
3 (“Colony”), a residential community in Indian Wells, California.
4 21. On or about May 17, 2020, Defendant DAVID was the President of Colony Cove’s
5 Homeowner’s Association (“Colony HOA”).
6 22. On or about May 2020, Colony HOA publicly noticed a board meeting on May
7 18, 2020. The HOA board meeting agenda included a discussion regarding a “Review proposal
8 for striping and reflector.”
9 23. On or about May 16, 2020, Plaintiff J. MERTENS sent an e-mail to members of
10 Colony HOA and engaged in a discussion related to safety reflectors on Colony roadways and the
11 installation of yellow stripes on Colony Cove streets.
12 24. As a result of the Plaintiffs’ admirable reputation in the Colony community,
13 combined with the fear of what influence Plaintiffs may have on Defendant DAVID’s agenda as
14 President of Colony Cove HOA, Defendants began directing harmful acts toward Plaintiffs by the
15 use of threats, violence, intimidation, coercion, and other wrongdoings beginning on or about
16 May 17, 2020.
17 25. Defendants’ aforementioned use of threats, violence, intimidation, coercion, and
18 other harmful acts against Plaintiffs began on or about May 17, 2020 and continue to present date.
19 Defendants’ Acts of Coercion, Harassment, Threats, and Intimidation Against Plaintiffs
20 26. On or about May 17, 2020, Defendant ROBYN sent an e-mail to Plaintiff J.
21 MERTENS, stating, in part: " ...IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE THAT YOU ARE NOT TRYING
22 TO UNDERMINE MY HUSBAND ON PURPOSE ... these kind of emails really upset me." In
23 the e-mail, Defendant ROBYN referred to an e-mail sent by Plaintiff J. MERTENS to Colony
24 Cove Homeowners concerning the HOA agenda item: “Review proposal for striping and
25 reflector.”
26 27. On or about May 23, 2020, Defendant ROBYN drove a golf cart onto Plaintiffs’
27 driveway. Plaintiff J. MERTENS observed Defendant ROBYN sitting in a golf cart and upon
28 being noticed by Plaintiffs, Defendant ROBYN drove away. Shortly thereafter, Defendant
-5-

COMPLAINT
1 ROBYN e-mailed Plaintiffs and stated, in part: "Please don't feel it necessary to smile and wave
2 at me like you are a friend when I happen to be in front of your house . . . JL, you are a liar and
3 you create hate and discontent.”
4 28. Between the dates of May 23, 2020 and November 2021, Defendants expressed
5 harassing, threatening, oppressive, coercive, and violent statements toward Plaintiffs both in
6 person and on electronic media platforms, including Facebook and NextDoor. In the following
7 statements, Defendants charged Plaintiffs with criminal conduct, charged Plaintiffs with
8 mistreatment of others, and expressed the following statements with a purpose to cause harm:
9 a. On or about June 2020, Defendant ROBYN published a statement on Facebook
10 that falsely charged Plaintiffs with the involvement in, and commission of,
11 extortion and fraud: “…where [Plaintiff J. MERTENS] lied, bullied, extorted
12 and went to people’s homes 4 or 5 times to get signatures…will stop at nothing
13 to create hate and discontent.” [Emphasis added]
14 b. On or about June 2020, Defendant ROBYN published the following statement
15 on Facebook regarding a real estate advertisement for a home located adjacent
16 to Plaintiffs’ home: “JL and Ted Mertens are horrible people…imagine the
17 poor fool that buys that one!...The neighbors I mentioned are horrible people
18 He’s on city council and his wife is a bit of a shit disturber…they’re both
19 batshit crazy…just lost her shit and decided to have a petition signed.”
20 c. On or about July 1, 2020, Defendant ROBYN published a video on Facebook
21 of Plaintiff J. MERTENS consoling a neighbor in the neighbor’s driveway,
22 stating, in part: "Updated the post for all of you to enjoy." Defendant ROBYN
23 published the video and statement to cause humiliation, fear, anxiety,
24 depression, mental anguish, and emotional distress to Plaintiff J. MERTENS.
25 d. On or about July 2020 Defendant ROBYN published a statement on Facebook
26 that falsely charged Plaintiffs with the involvement in, and commission of,
27 extortion and fraud: “A couple who lives here has spent the better part of the
28 last two months creating a huge divide based on this situation creating petitions,
-6-

COMPLAINT
1 extorting people for signatures, threatening people etc. Today while the project
2 was actually getting done, the wife was trying to bully the guys installing the
3 lane delineators and the sweet lady from the management company. These
4 people have no boundaries and will stop at nothing to create hate and
5 discontent….”
6 e. On or about July 2020, Defendant ROBYN referred to Plaintiffs as "demons"
7 and “monsters” by publishing the following statements on public forums and
8 media platforms, such as Facebook and NextDoor:
9 • On or about July 2020, “...Two monsters created a subdivision in the last
10 two months, it is truly unreal.”
11 • On or about July 2020, on NextDoor: “...in our small community in
12 Colony Cove. Lord please remove the destructive heart of the few….”
13 • On or about July 2020, “…Let’s come together and pray the demons
14 away…”
15 • On or about July 2020, “[…] first we pray the demons to stop preying on
16 our friends and us!”
17 f. On or about July 2020, after Plaintiff J. MERTENS announced a run for Indian
18 Wells City Council, Defendants posted the following statements on Facebook:
19 “#anyonebutJL: #tedmertensyousuck; #tedmertensandmeanpeoplesuck.”
20 g. On or about August 2, 2020, Defendant ROBYN published the following
21 statement on Facebook: ” And I block garbage on NextDoor because they lie
22 and get people all riled up? Kinda like this lovely email? And when Ted said
23 hello to me on his morning walk, the day after creating the petition to recall my
24 husband, he was definitely not met with a return “good morning!” Plaintiffs
25 are informed, believe, and thereon allege that the statement, in part, referred to
26 an incident that occurred on or about July 8, 2020, when Defendant ROBYN
27 disabled Plaintiff J. MERTENS’s NextDoor account to prevent, oppress, and
28
-7-

COMPLAINT
1 suppress Plaintiff J. MERTEN’s speech without a legal basis and contrary to
2 policy and guidelines of Nextdoor.
3 h. On or about August 2, 2020, Defendant ROBYN published a link to a
4 GOFUND ME solicitation entitled, “ANYONE BUT JL.”
5 i. On or about August 2, 2020, Defendant ROBYN published a statement on
6 Facebook that falsely charged Plaintiffs with the involvement in, and
7 commission of, extortion, bribery, and fraud: “This is the petition that JL
8 Mertens hounded and lied to people to get them to sign. She even went as far
9 as to promise one person. who is a musician that if he would sign the petition.
10 he could play his instrument at her We Beat The Board Party, for payment!
11 Every time they say how many signed the numbers go up! And they forget to
12 recount all the folks that removed their signatures after learning the truth!”
13 j. On or about August 2, 2020, Defendant ROBYN published the following false
14 statement on Facebook: “This is the kind of bullshit we are dealing with in our
15 Indian Wells community…And it all started with JL Mertens (AKA Pinocchio)
16 and Ted Mertens (AKA Geppetto).”
17 k. On or about August 3, 2020, Defendant ROBYN published the following false
18 statement on Facebook: “I wonder who Ted Mertens and JL Mertens will harass
19 and bully next!?!? […] after spending the last two plus months plotting and
20 planning the destruction of our community; spending our community funds on
21 bullshit falsehoods and legal fees. They make me sick!” #anyonebutJL
22 #tedmertensyousuck
23 l. On or about August 6, 2020, Defendant ROBYN published the following
24 statement on Facebook: "Hard to pray for people like JL and Ted Mertens ..."
25 m. On or about August 13, 2020, Defendant ROBYN published the following
26 statement on Facebook: "Great news this morning! JL Mertens did not submit
27 her paperwork for City Council in Indian Wells. That means that for at least the
28 next year, the reign of terror of the Mertens is over for our city.” #anyonebutJL
-8-

COMPLAINT
1 29. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief
2 allege, that on or about July 21, 2020, while Plaintiff T. MERTENS went on a walk in Colony
3 Cove, Defendant ROBYN and Defendant DAVID confronted Plaintiff in-person and stated:
4 "How do you even fucking do that? How do you even fucking sleep at night? Fuck you, Ted, and
5 your bitch wife."
6 Colony Cove Petition; Persistent Harm; Defendant LENDING’s Involvement
7 30. After the bott dots were installed on July 1, 2020, neighbors asked Plaintiff T.
8 MERTENS to submit a petition (“Petition”) to recall two (2) HOA board members because
9 Colony HOA approved the installation against the requests of a majority of Colony Cove
10 homeowners. The Petition recalled the President and the Secretary of Colony Cove HOA.
11 31. On or about August 3, 2020, Defendant DAVID resigned from Presidency at
12 Colony HOA.
13 32. On or about July 2020, neighbors warned Plaintiffs that Defendants possessed
14 firearms and expressed an anger and vengeance toward Plaintiffs due to Plaintiffs’ involvement
15 in the recall of Defendant DAVID.
16 33. Between the dates of May 23, 2020 and April 2021, Defendants’ conduct became
17 increasingly severe in nature and extent, and caused Plaintiffs to experience increased anxiety,
18 depression, hopelessness, humiliation, and fear for Plaintiffs’ livelihood.
19 34. On or about October 17, 2020, Plaintiffs began receiving telephone calls regarding
20 a submission of a refinance loan for Plaintiffs’ home. The loan agents possessed Plaintiffs’
21 personally identifiable information, including Plaintiff J. MERTENS’s residential address, date
22 of birth, email address, phone number, and social security number. The loan agents claimed the
23 private information was provided by Defendant LENDING.
24 35. On or about October 17, 2020, Plaintiffs experienced fear, anxiety, depression,
25 resulting from what was believed to be an act of identity theft committed against Plaintiff J.
26 MERTENS.
27 Criminal Prosecution of Defendant ROBYN
28 36. On or about October 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an incident report with the Riverside
-9-

COMPLAINT
1 Sheriff’s Department regarding the prohibited use of personally identifiable information to
2 commit fraud, impersonation, and harm toward another.
3 37. On or about February 2, 2021, the Riverside Sheriff’s Department completed an
4 investigation and determined that Defendant DAVID’s IP address was used to submit Plaintiffs’
5 personally identifiable information to Defendant LENDING.
6 38. On or about July 20, 2021, the Riverside Sheriff’s Department determined that
7 based on a search warrant, Defendant statements, the IP address location, Defendants’ admission
8 of using Plaintiffs’ private information, and Defendants’ admission of conducting a credit inquiry,
9 Defendant ROBYN was believed to be in violation of P.C. 530.5 (a) [Identity Theft]. (See
10 Exhibits A-C attached herein).
11 39. On or about July 20, 2021, the Riverside Sheriff’s Department determined that
12 based Defendants’ use of Plaintiffs’ information on a web-based loan website, Defendant
13 ROBYN wrongfully impersonated Plaintiff J. MERTENS, in violation of P.C. 528.5(a) [False
14 Impersonation]. (See Exhibits A-C attached herein).
15 40. On or about July 20, 2021, the Riverside Sheriff’s Department determined that
16 based on the wrongful acts against Plaintiff J. MERTENS at the time of the incident, Defendant
17 ROBYN violated P.C. 368(d) [Elder Abuse]. (See Exhibits A-C attached herein).
18 41. On or about September 2021, Defendant ROBYN and DAVID moved out of
19 Colony Cove. However, Defendants continue to enter the premises of Colony Cove to visit and
20 because Defendant DAVID is a licensed real estate agent with listings in Colony Cove.
21 42. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the wrongful conduct
22 of Defendants violated statutory law and California law, including the California Business &
23 Professional Code, in the intentional, willful, malicious, reckless, and negligent performance of
24 services and ethical duties of a licensed real estate broker and agent, in that Defendants accessed
25 Plaintiffs’ credit information for an impermissible purpose, and thereafter misused Plaintiffs’
26 credit information.
27 43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief
28 allege, that Defendant ROBYN and Defendant DAVID knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, or
-10-

COMPLAINT
1 negligently interfered, or attempted to interfere, with the exercise and enjoyment of Plaintiff's
2 civil rights as guaranteed by the California Constitution, Article 1, section 1 and U.S. Const.
3 amend. I. Specifically, Defendants, and each of them, interfered, or attempted to interfere, with
4 Plaintiffs’ rights to privacy and freedom of expression by the use of threats, intimidation, and
5 coercion, in that: 1) Defendants personally harassed Plaintiffs and prevented, oppressed Plaintiffs’
6 speech or expressions related to Colony HOA; 2) Defendants publicly humiliated, coerced,
7 intimidated, and harassed Defendants both in person and by use of electronic platforms as
8 described in paragraphs 26 – 29, paragraphs 37 – 40, and Exhibits A-C; 3) Defendants engaged
9 in the unauthorized use of private information to harm and intimidate Plaintiffs, and 4) Defendants
10 conspired to harm, intimidate, coerce, threaten, harass, and humiliate Plaintiffs by publishing false
11 and derogatory statements as described in paragraphs 26 – 29, paragraphs 37 – 40, and Exhibits
12 A-C.
13 44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based on that information and belief
14 allege, that Defendant LENDING negligently or recklessly interfered with the exercise and
15 enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed by Financial Code sections 4050 – 4060; and
16 California Civil Code section 1798.80-1798.81.5, 1798.84, 1798.85, 1798.86, 1785.11.1, and
17 1785.11.6. Specifically, Defendants, and each of them, interfered with Plaintiffs’ rights, in that:
18 1) Defendant LENDING engaged in the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiffs’ private information
19 to persons, entities, and agents for commercial use; 2) Defendant LENDING failed to notice
20 persons, entities, and agents to dispose of customer records when such records were received
21 through unauthorized means; and 3) Defendants shared or sold personally identifiable nonpublic
22 information without Plaintiffs’ consent.
23 45. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them,
24 Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer physical injury, financial injury, humiliation,
25 mental anguish, and other damages resulting from Defendants’ wrongful acts.
26 46. In doing the acts alleged in this complaint, Defendants knew or should have known
27 that their actions were likely to injure Plaintiffs.
28 47. Defendants' violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as guaranteed by Civ. Code § 52.1
-11-

COMPLAINT
1 entitles Plaintiffs to compensatory and punitive damages, a $25,000 civil penalty, attorney's fees,
2 and injunctive relief, all of which are provided for in Civ. Code §§ 52.1, subd. (b) and 52, and are
3 requested below.
4 48. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege, that Defendants intended
5 to cause injury to Plaintiffs and acted with a willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights
6 as secured by Civ. Code § 52.1, thus entitling Plaintiffs to recover punitive damages pursuant to
7 Civ. Code § 52, subd. (b)(1).
8 ///
9 ///
10 ///
11 ///
12 ///
13 ///
14 ///
15 ///
16 ///
17 ///
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
-12-

COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action:
2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
3 [Infliction of Emotional Distress Against Defendants ROBYN, DAVID, and DOES 1 – 100]
4 49. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the information contained in all preceding
5 paragraphs, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though set out at
6 length herein.
7 50. The wrongful conduct of Defendants ROBYN, DAVID, and DOES 1 – 100 was
8 directed toward Plaintiffs to inflict emotional distress with the intentional, malicious, or wanton
9 and reckless disregard of consequence.
10 51. From May 17, 2020 to present, Defendants committed wrongful acts motivated by
11 Defendant’s distaste and hatred of Plaintiffs and such acts were motivated by a spiteful, envious,
12 and oppressive purpose to harm Plaintiffs. The wrongful acts committed by Defendants include,
13 and are not limited to: a) public humiliation, coercion, intimidation, threats, and harassment of
14 Plaintiffs both in person and by use of electronic platforms; b) impersonation of Plaintiffs by an
15 unauthorized use of private information; c) falsely charging Plaintiffs with criminal violations;
16 and d) denying Plaintiffs’ right to express opinion on an electronic platform. The aforementioned
17 conduct served Defendant’s objectives to harm Plaintiffs’ credibility, isolate Plaintiffs from
18 society, reduce Plaintiffs’ professional stature, and cause distress to Plaintiffs.
19 52. From May 17, 2020 to present, Defendants, ROBYN and DAVID, conspired to
20 commit certain wrongful acts motivated by Defendants’ distaste and hatred of Plaintiffs and
21 arising from the spiteful, envious, and oppressive purpose of Defendants. The wrongful acts
22 committed by Defendants include, and are not limited to: a) public humiliation, coercion,
23 intimidation, threats, and harassment of Plaintiffs both in person and by use of electronic
24 platforms; b) impersonation of Plaintiffs by an unauthorized use of private information; c) falsely
25 charging Plaintiffs with criminal violations; and d) denying Plaintiffs’ right to express opinion on
26 an electronic platform. The aforementioned conduct served Defendant’s objectives to harm
27 Plaintiffs’ credibility, isolate Plaintiffs from society, reduce Plaintiffs’ professional stature, and
28 cause distress to Plaintiffs.
-13-

COMPLAINT
1 53. Defendants ROBYN, DAVID, and DOES 1 – 100 acted with the intent, malice, or
2 wanton and reckless disregard of harm to damage Plaintiffs and to cause Plaintiffs severe
3 emotional and physical distress.
4 54. Defendants had a duty to Plaintiffs to exercise due care with respect to the bounds
5 of decency, courtesy, and treatment of another’s privacy, person, and enjoyment of life.
6 55. Defendants, by virtue of their conduct alleged in this complaint, have intentionally,
7 maliciously, recklessly, or negligently breached their duty to Plaintiffs.
8 56. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct would cause Plaintiff
9 severe emotional distress and mental suffering.
10 57. Defendants knew, or should have known, that Plaintiffs were particularly
11 vulnerable to emotional distress; and Defendants knew that Defendants’ conduct would likely
12 result in harm due to mental distress.
13 58. Defendants intended to cause Plaintiffs emotional distress, and Defendants acted
14 with reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiffs would suffer emotional distress, knowing
15 that Plaintiffs were present or would perceive the wrongful acts committed by Defendants, and
16 each of them.
17 59. As a result of Defendants’ conduct described herein, Plaintiffs suffered severe
18 emotional and physical distress.
19 60. The conduct of Defendants ROBYN, DAVID, and DOES 1 – 100 was a substantial
20 factor in causing Plaintiffs’ severe emotional and physical distress.
21 61. As a result of Defendants’ conduct described herein, Plaintiffs experienced harm,
22 suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and
23 shame.
24 62. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts alleged in this complaint,
25 Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer severe emotional distress and mental suffering to
26 Plaintiffs’ damage in an amount to be proven at trial.
27 63. As a proximate result of the intentional, reckless, or negligent conduct of
28 Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs were injured in health, strength and activity, sustained
-14-

COMPLAINT
1 injury to the body, and shock and injury to the nervous system and person, all to which said
2 injuries have caused, and continue to cause Plaintiffs great mental and physical pain and suffering.
3 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that said injuries will result in some
4 permanent disabilities.
5 64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered general
6 damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial.
7 65. Defendants’ conduct was done knowingly, willfully and with malicious intent, and
8 Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial.
9 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
10 [Infliction of Emotional Distress Against Defendant LENDING and DOES 1 – 100]
11 66. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the information contained in all preceding
12 paragraphs, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though set out at
13 length herein.
14 67. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based on that information and belief
15 allege, that on or about October 17, 2020, Defendant LENDING negligently or recklessly
16 interfered with the exercise and enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ rights as guaranteed by Financial Code
17 sections 4050 – 4060; and California Civil Code sections 1798.80-1798.81.5, 1798.84, 1798.85,
18 1798.86, 1785.11.1, and 1785.11.6. Specifically, Defendants, and each of them, interfered with
19 Plaintiffs’ rights, in that: 1) Defendant LENDING engaged in the unauthorized disclosure of
20 Plaintiffs’ private information to persons, entities, and agents for commercial use; 2) Defendant
21 LENDING failed to notice persons, entities, and agents to dispose of customer records when such
22 records were received through unauthorized means; and 3) Defendants shared or sold personally
23 identifiable nonpublic information without Plaintiffs’ consent.
24 68. Defendants ROBYN, DAVID, and DOES 1 – 100 acted intentionally, maliciously,
25 recklessly, and negligently in detriment to Plaintiffs, and caused Plaintiffs severe emotional and
26 physical distress.
27 69. Defendants had a duty to Plaintiffs to exercise due care with respect to the use,
28 disclosure, safekeeping, notice, sale, and sharing of private information for commercial use.
-15-

COMPLAINT
1 70. Defendants, by virtue of their conduct alleged in this complaint, have intentionally,
2 maliciously, recklessly, and negligently breached their duty to Plaintiffs.
3 71. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct would cause Plaintiffs
4 severe emotional distress and mental suffering.
5 72. Defendants knew, or should have known, that Plaintiffs were particularly
6 vulnerable to emotional distress; and Defendants knew that Defendants’ conduct would likely
7 result in harm due to mental distress.
8 73. Defendants intended to cause Plaintiffs emotional distress, or Defendants acted
9 with reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiffs would suffer emotional distress, knowing
10 that Plaintiffs were present or would perceive the wrongful acts committed by Defendants, and
11 each of them.
12 74. As a result of Defendants’ conduct described herein, Plaintiffs suffered severe
13 emotional and physical distress.
14 75. The conduct of Defendants LENDING and DOES 1 – 100 was a substantial factor
15 in causing Plaintiffs’ severe emotional and physical distress.
16 76. As a result of Defendants’ conduct described herein, Plaintiffs experienced harm,
17 suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and
18 shame.
19 77. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts alleged in this complaint,
20 Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer severe emotional distress and mental suffering to
21 Plaintiffs' damage in an amount to be proven at trial.
22 78. As a proximate result of the intentional, reckless, or negligent conduct of
23 Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs were injured in health, strength and activity, sustained
24 injury to the body, and shock and injury to the nervous system and person, all to which said
25 injuries have caused, and continue to cause Plaintiffs great mental and physical pain and suffering.
26 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that said injuries will result in some
27 permanent disabilities.
28 79. As a direct and proximate result of defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs suffered
-16-

COMPLAINT
1 damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial.
2 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
3 [Invasion of Privacy – Public Disclosure of Private Fact Against Defendants ROBYN,
4 DAVID, and DOES 1 – 100]
5 80. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the i

Case Info

Judge

Daniel A. Ottolia Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 12, 2022

Case Filing Date

February 15, 2020

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: MERTENS vs BOERSMA

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties