ࡱ> #` bjbj >>T ZZZ8[[\(e,\\`\v\v\v\]B]^$h ^]]^^ v\v\4aaa^v\v\Ja^aaqDtv\P\ y#Z_&t46d50eZtH``Dttrua^^^ a^^^e^^^^(((DD(((Dr& Paul J. Fishman Harvey Weissbard Daniel Mee FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN LLP One Gateway Center, 25th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5311 (973) 877-6400 Attorneys for Plaintiff Carla Katz UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------x CARLA KATZ, : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: v. : : Hon. _____________ COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL/CIO, : CLC; CHRISTOPHER SHELTON; ROBERT MASTER; : LARRY COHEN; BARBARA EASTERLING; : JEFFREY RECHENBACH; HETTY ROSENSTEIN; : CAROLYN WADE; JOHN ROSE; JAMES MARKETTI; : COMPLAINT AND THOMAS PALERMO; DAVID A. PALMER; : DEMAND FOR PETER G. CATUCCI; NOAH SAVANT; SETH ROSEN; : TRIAL BY JURY ANDY MILLBURN; ANNIE HILL; : ANTHONY BIXLER; JIM SHORT; PATRICIA FRIEND; : RALPH MALY; JIM CLARK; WILLIAM J. BOARMAN; : BROOKS W. SUNKETT; JOHN S. CLARK; : LINDA FOLEY; JIMMY GURGANUS; NESTOR SOTO; : CLAUDE CUMMINGS; and MADELYN ELDER, : : Defendants. : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Plaintiff Carla Katz, residing at 12 Maple Springs Road, Pittstown, New Jersey, states: INTRODUCTION This is an action for injunctive relief and damages based upon the concerted and conspiratorial actions of the individually named defendants to retaliate against plaintiff, the President of a local Union of the Communication Workers of America (CWA), for opposing the 2007 ratification of a contract between the State of New Jersey and members of the Union, because she deemed the agreement not to be in the best interests of members of the Union. The defendants are all officials at various levels of the CWA, including the President, Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer of the Union, members of the Executive Board, and Presidents of other New Jersey Locals. They have effectuated the retaliation against plaintiff by, among other means, pursuing baseless charges against her, appointing an official who is tainted by an egregious conflict of interest to investigate and prosecute those charges, and by intentionally smearing her name in public. The defendants retaliation against plaintiff intensified after she announced her candidacy for District 1 Vice-President in the CWA opposing the individual who is the key figure in the Unions retaliatory efforts. The defendants have not only attempted to stifle plaintiffs expressions of opinions protected by federal labor law, but also to undermine and destroy the efficacy of her candidacy and her current position, all in violation of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 401, et seq., as amended. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The jurisdiction of this Court is founded upon 29 U.S.C. 412 and 28 U.S.C. 1331. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 412 and 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). PARTIES Defendant Communication Workers of America, AFL/CIO, CLC (CWA, the National Union, or the Union) is an international labor organization within the meaning of the LMRDA. 29 U.S.C. 402(i). The CWA, which has its offices at 501 Third Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001-2797, acts through its Executive Board which is granted broad authority by the CWAs constitution and by-laws to regulate the affairs of the Union. The Executive Committee of the CWA consists of the President, Executive Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer who, in turn, have been granted broad authority by the Executive Board, pursuant to the CWAs constitution, to regulate the day-to-day affairs of the National Union. The National Union is divided into eight (8) separate geographic districts, each of which covers several states. These districts are administrative units of the CWA. New Jersey is part of CWA District 1, which is headquartered in New York, New York. The CWA is the exclusive majority representative of approximately 40,000 employees of the State of New Jersey (the State) in the Executive Branch of State government. These employees are divided among four separate bargaining units: the Administrative and Clerical Unit, the Professional Unit, the Primary Level Supervisors Unit, and the Higher Level Supervisors Unit (collectively referred to as the state bargaining units). The members of the CWA in the state bargaining units belong to seven (7) separate CWA Locals, Locals 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1037, 1039 and 1040, all of which are part of CWA District 1. CWA Local 1034 (hereinafter Local 1034) is a local unit of the CWA chartered by the CWA Executive Board. Local 1034 is within the jurisdiction of CWA District 1, and has its primary office at 1 Lower Ferry Road, West Trenton, New Jersey 08628. CWA Local 1034 represents approximately 16,000 employees in the State of New Jersey, approximately 10,000 of whom are employees of the State of New Jersey within the four state bargaining units. Plaintiff Carla Katz is a member in good standing of the CWA. In 1996, Katz was duly elected to a three-year term as Executive Vice President of Local 1034. In 1999, Katz was duly elected to a three-year term as President of Local 1034, and has held that position continuously since, having been duly re-elected in 2002 and 2005. Defendant Christopher Shelton is a Vice President of CWA who is the elected Vice President for CWA District 1. Shelton is sued in both his individual and official capacities. Sheltons office is at 80 Pine Street, 37th Floor, New York, New York 10005. Defendant Robert Master is the Legislative and Political Director for CWA District 1. Master is sued in both his individual and official capacities. Masters office is at 80 Pine Street, 37th Floor, New York, New York 10005. Defendant Larry Cohen is the President of CWA and a member of its Executive Board and Executive Committee. Cohen is sued in both his individual and official capacities. Cohens office is at 501 3rd Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001-2797. Defendant Barbara Easterling is the Secretary-Treasurer of CWA and a member of its Executive Board and Executive Committee. Easterling is sued in both her individual and official capacities. Easterlings office is at 501 3rd Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001-2797. Defendant Jeffrey Rechenbach is Executive Vice-President of CWA and a member of its Executive Board and Executive Committee. Rechenbach is sued in both his individual and official capacities. Rechenbachs office is at 501 3rd Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001-2797. Defendant John Rose is the President of CWA Local 1031. Rose is sued in both his individual and official capacities. Roses office is at 84 Culver Road, Monmouth Junction, New Jersey 08852. Defendant James Marketti is the President of CWA Local 1032. Marketti is sued in both his individual and official capacities. Markettis office is at 67 Scotch Road, Ewing, New Jersey 08628. Defendant Hetty Rosenstein is the President of CWA Local 1037. Rosenstein is sued in both her individual and official capacities. Rosensteins office is at 30 Clinton Street, 3rd Floor, Newark, New Jersey 07102. Defendant Thomas Palermo is the President of CWA Local 1039. Palermo is sued in both his individual and official capacities. Palermos office is at 13 West Front Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608. Defendant Carolyn Wade is the President of CWA Local 1040 and a member of the CWA Executive Board of the National. Wade is sued in both her individual and official capacities. Wades office is at 230 Parkway Avenue, Trenton, New Jersey 08618. Defendant David A. Palmer is a member of the staff of District 1 working under the direction and at the pleasure of Shelton. Palmer is sued in both his individual and official capacities. Palmers office is at 821 Elk Street, Suite B, Buffalo, New York 14210. The following individuals, all whom are members of the CWA Executive Board, are named as nominal defendants in order to secure injunctive relief: Defendant Peter G. Catucci is Vice-President for CWA District 2. Catuccis office is at 17000 Science Drive, Suite 210, Bowie, Maryland 20715. Defendant Noah Savant is Vice-President for CWA District 3. Savants office is at 3516 Covington Highway, Decatur, Georgia 30032. Defendant Seth Rosen is Vice-President for CWA District 4. Rosens office is at 20525 Center Ridge Road, Room 700, Cleveland, Ohio 44116. Defendant Andy Millburn is Vice-President for CWA District 6. Millburns office is at The Terrace, Building One, 2600 Via Fortuna, Suite 260, Austin, Texas 78746. Defendant Annie Hill is Vice-President for CWA District 7. Hills office is at 8085 East Prentice Avenue, Englewood, Colorado 80111. Defendant Anthony Bixler is Vice-President for CWA District 9. Bixlers office is at 2870 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95833 Defendant Jim Short is Vice-President for CWA District 13. Shorts office is at 230 South Broad Street, 19th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102. Defendant Patricia Friend is Vice President for AFA-CWA. Friends office is at 1275 K Street, N.W., 5th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. Defendant Ralph Maly is Vice President for Communications & Technologies (AT&T and Lucent). Malys office is at 501 3rd Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001-2797. Defendant Jim Clark is Vice President for IUE-CWA. Clarks office is at 1275 K Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20005. Defendant William J. Boarman is Vice President for Printing, Publishing & Media Workers - CWA. Boarmans office is at 501 3rd Street, N.W., 9th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001-2797. Defendant Brooks W. Sunkett is Vice President for Public and Health Care Workers - CWA. Sunketts office is at 501 3rd Street, N.W., 9th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001-2797. Defendant John S. Clark is Vice President for NABET-CWA. Clarks office is at 501 3rd Street, N.W., 9th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001-2797. Defendant Linda Foley is Vice President for The Newspaper Guild - CWA. Foleys office is at 501 3rd Street, N.W., 2nd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001-2797. Defendant Jimmy Gurganus is Vice President for Telecommunications (Independent Telephone Companies) - CWA. Gurganus office is at 501 3rd Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001-2797. Defendant Nestor Soto is President of Puerto Rico Newspaper Guild (UPAGRA Local 33225) - CWA. Sotos office is at P.O. Box 364302, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-4302. Defendant Claude Cummings is President of CWA Local 6222. Cummings office is at 1730 Jefferson Street, Houston, Texas 77003-5028. Defendant Madelyn Elder is President of CWA Local 7901. Elders office is at 2950 S.E. Stark Street, Portland, Oregon 97214. HISTORY OF THE 2007 NEGOTIATIONS CWA and the State of New Jersey are parties to four (4) separate collective bargaining agreements, one for each of the state bargaining units. Contracts between the State of New Jersey and the state bargaining units were in effect from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2007, when they were due to expire. In the fall of 2006, CWA and the State of New Jersey agreed that they would begin negotiations earlier than usual over the upcoming renewal of the collective bargaining agreement. Although the Presidents of each of the seven Locals with members in the state bargaining units were included on the negotiations team, pursuant to the CWA Constitution and the policies and directives of the National Union, the collective bargaining for the Union was led by CWA officials from District 1. In particular, the team was headed by defendant Shelton, who was assisted by defendant Master. One of the most significant issues for negotiation was whether State employees or retirees would be required to contribute any portion of their salaries or their pensions toward their health insurance. Another was whether the State would be permitted to eliminate certain higher cost health plans that had been options for a number of years. In addition, there were other issues on the table, such as the States proposed elimination of the Commerce Commission, which employed approximately 85 state workers; work and family leave programs; and the mileage reimbursement rate for workers use of privately owned vehicles on government business. On February 15, 2007, while negotiations were ongoing, Shelton and Master reported to the CWA negotiating team that the State had reached an agreement with the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA), a statewide labor organization representing teachers and other educational employees employed in school districts throughout the State, regarding certain health benefit and pension issues that would affect school employees both while employed and in retirement. In particular, the NJEA agreement contemplated that teachers would continue to receive health insurance in retirement without any obligation to contribute money from their pensions. Because the same issues were the subject of negotiations between CWA and the State, the CWA negotiating team members all appeared to have strong views about the NJEA agreement. Those negotiating team members concluded at their meeting on February 15 that their Union should not entertain any proposal that would be less advantageous to its membership than the deal made by the NJEA. Notwithstanding this apparent consensus, on February 19, Shelton and Master re-convened the CWA negotiating team to discuss a proposal that was very different and less favorable to the CWA membership. First, the Shelton/Master proposal contained significant concessions to the State on the contributions to be made by employees and retirees who were purchasing health insurance. For the first time, state workers would be required to contribute toward the cost of their health care coverage under the States point of service plan (NJPlus), the plan to which the largest number of state employees belonged. Second, the proposal permitted the State to jettison certain health care plans that previously had been made available to State workers. Third, the proposal increased the retirement age for new employees and increased pension contributions for all employees. Additionally, the Shelton/Master proposal effectively withdrew all other CWA proposals from the negotiations, conceding that these remaining issues would not be included in the new contract. Although this proposal apparently had already been agreed upon by other members of the negotiating team over the preceding weekend, Katz and Rae Roeder, the President of CWA Local 1033, had been excluded from those discussions. When informed of the proposal, however, Katz, in her capacity as President of Local 1034, and Roeder, as the President of Local 1033, objected on numerous grounds. In particular, Katz and Roeder pointed out that the health benefits portion of the proposal was less generous than the health benefits agreement that had been just announced between the State and the NJEA, particularly with respect to health care for retirees. In addition, they opposed the Shelton/Master proposal to eliminate two of the most attractive health care plan options for state workers. Katz and Roeder had other significant objections. Because any agreement between the CWA and the State would ultimately be implemented by the Legislature, the agreements terms would be imposed on local government employees and all State employees, even those who were not part of the four executive branch bargaining units participating in the negotiations. This issue was of particular concern to Katz, because Local 1034 represents approximately 1500 judicial branch employees and more than 100 bargaining units of local government employees in New Jersey. Katz and Roeder also reminded the rest of the negotiation team that the CWA had made proposals during the negotiations regarding a variety of other significant issues that were unrelated to the health and pension benefits issues. But the Shelton/Master proposed offer to the State, which placed a premium on a speedy conclusion to the negotiations, ignored those other issues, thereby abandoning them. Because there were more than four months remaining before the contracts were to expire, Katz and Roeder argued that there was no need to rush to a conclusion and thereby discard the remaining unresolved issues; rather, Katz and Roeder stated that those issues should be negotiated as part of the new contract. At the meeting of the CWA negotiating team, Katz and Roeder made several formal motions to have these issues addressed, but Shelton ruled all of their motions out of order. Five of the Local Presidents those representing Locals 1031, 1032, 1037, 1039 and 1040 then voted to submit the Shelton/Master proposal to the State. Katz and Roeder voted not to do so. Over the objections of Katz and Roeder, the proposal was submitted to the States negotiators, who accepted it. On February 21, 2007, the State of New Jersey and CWA reached a tentative agreement on the terms and conditions of employment to be included in the four contracts covering the state bargaining units. That agreement incorporated the Shelton/Master proposal made on February 19, which included a wage increase over four years; first time cost-sharing on the only remaining free healthcare option for employees and retirees of 1.5% of salary for active employees and 1.5% of pension for retirees (which had previously been provided by the employer at no cost to the employee after twenty-five (25) years of service); elimination of the NJPlus plan in exchange for an as yet undefined PPO plan; and an increased employee contribution to the pension (PERS) by .5%. None of the CWA proposals over which Roeder and Katz wanted to continue negotiations were included, and all unresolved issues were withdrawn. The tentative agreement was then presented to the seven Local Presidents on the CWA negotiating team. Again, Katz and Roeder were the only two who voted to reject the tentative agreement; the five others voted to approve the tentative agreement and submit it to the CWA membership for ratification. Following the vote by the negotiating team, Katz exercised her rights under the LMRDA to oppose the contracts ratification and to do so publicly. In fact, Katz was quoted in the media that the contract approved by the negotiating committee was the most anti-state worker contract proposal ever, and that the contract is being settled on the backs of both current and future workers because it attacks both pension and health care in an unprecedented way. Shelton apparently misapprehended Katzs criticisms as a personal attack upon his leadership capacity and the adequacy of his negotiating skills, rather than perceiving them for what they truly were legitimate comments by one elected labor leader concerning what she deemed best for the members of her Local. Instead of debating the issues on their merits, Shelton responded with an inappropriate personal attack on Katz, charging (as reported in the Star-Ledger of February 22, 2007) that she was living in a fantasy world of irresponsible leadership. Master also attacked Katz in the press and referred to her as a dissident. By letter of February 22, 2007, Katz complained to Shelton about his public attacks on her leadership, calling his remarks shameful. She pointed out that mere disagreement did not make one irresponsible or a dissident and she called on Shelton for a constructive dialogue. She sent a copy of her letter to CWA President Cohen. Sheltons personal attack on Katz was quoted again in a press release posted on the CWA New Jersey website on February 23, 2007. On that same date, Katz filed an appeal with Cohen and sought a stay of the ratification vote on the proposed contract so that local government and judicial members of the Union who would be directly affected by the terms of the contract could participate. Katz was assured by Shelton that she would be kept aware of all aspects of the ratification process. Mary OMelveny, General Counsel to the National Union, further assured Katz that she would be notified of the date when ratification ballots would be mailed to the membership and the procedure by which ratification votes would be conducted. Despite these assurances, Katz was not so informed and learned only through her members that postcards already had been sent to all members of the Local informing them that ratification ballots would be mailed the following week. Katz brought these matters to Sheltons attention in a letter of March 1, 2007 and, on that same date, in separate letters to Easterling, Rechenbach and Cohen. At or about the same time, the National Union removed links on its website to the websites of Local 1033, and 1034, the Locals headed by Roeder and Katz, the two Presidents opposing the contract. The links to the other five Locals, headed by Presidents who were supporting ratification, remained intact. When Katz brought this harassment to the attention of General Counsel OMelveny, OMelveny responded that the links would be restored as of March 21. On March 3, 2007, Cohen denied Katzs appeal seeking a stay of the ratification vote. The CWA Executive Board endorsed that decision on March 9, 2007. In a mailing of March 15-16, 2007, Rose, Marketti, Rosentein, Palermo and Wade wrote to the members of the Locals affected by the proposed contract, urged approval, and impugned the motives of Katz and Roeder in opposing the contract. The letter suggested that Katz and Roeder were in opposition merely for show and were guided by personal factors unrelated to the contract itself, rather than the good of their members. The letter further accused Katz and Roeder of providing distorted information to the members of their Locals. In a subsequent mailing, the same Local Presidents demeaned Katzs and Roeders opposition to the contract settlement as irresponsible and dangerous, echoing the personal language previously used by Shelton. Further, that same mailing launched a vicious attack on Katz arising out of her past personal relationship with Governor Jon Corzine before he became Governor. This attack was the subject of newspaper articles on March 19, 2007. Ratification ballots were mailed out on March 14 with an original return date of March 29. On March 22, Shelton sent out a modified ballot with an extended return date of April 11, 2007. The ballot included clearly misleading language: the ballot implied that a no vote was also a vote to authorize a strike, when the law is clear that public employees in New Jersey are not legally permitted to strike. On March 22, 2007, Locals 1033 and 1034, as well as Katz, Roeder and other members of their Locals, filed suit in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the National Union, Shelton, Master, and others, seeking to stop the ratification vote and have it restarted with appropriate ballot language. Notwithstanding that the suit was the only way to correct the ballot language before the ratification vote, Cohen and OMelveny threatened to revoke Local 1034s charter if plaintiffs did not immediately withdraw the suit. Faced with this extreme threat, the plaintiffs had no option but to protect their members by withdrawing the suit, which was done on April 4, 2007. On April 12, the majority of the state employees voting approved the contract proposal. However, the members of Locals 1033 and 1034, whose Presidents opposed the contract, voted overwhelmingly against ratification. The new contracts cover the period July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2011 (the State contracts). THE RETALIATION Immediately following the contract approval, defendants, acting individually and in concert, commenced a pattern of retaliation against Katz because of her vocal and public opposition to the State contracts. In June 2007, Katz learned that members of the contract negotiating committee had been negotiating with State representatives regarding certain of the contracts terms which had been left undefined; Katz and Roeder were improperly excluded from these meetings. When Katz brought this improper exclusion to Cohens attention and asked that he intervene to ensure that the District act in a democratic fashion, Cohen chose not to respond. On May 31, 2007, the New Jersey Republican State Committee, through its Chairman Thomas Wilson, filed a lawsuit in the New Jersey Superior Court entitled Wilson v. Corzine (later amended to Wilson v. Brown) (Docket No. MER-L-1297-07), seeking copies of communications between Katz and Governor Corzine concerning official State business in 2006 and 2007. The State opposed the suit. Katz and Local 1034 sought and were granted the right to intervene in that suit by order of July 26, 2007. Despite assurances that it would not do so without prior notice to Katz, the National Union moved to file an amicus brief in the Wilson suit, and announced it in a press release which attacked Katz personally. The September 18, 2007 Star-Ledger quoted Shelton as stating in that press release that Katzs position in the Wilson suit constituted a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent the contract negotiating committee by engaging in secret, sidebar contacts with Corzine. The press release was an entirely unnecessary accompaniment to the legal filing and was intended to embarrass Katz in the eyes of her membership as well as to undermine her legal position in the lawsuit. By order of August 21, 2007, the Wilson court entered an order that, in part, required the State to supply certain emails or other written communications between Katz and Corzine under seal for the courts in camera review (the Sealing Order). On October 16, 2007 the Local 1034 Executive Board voted to suspend Jonathan Berg, one the Boards members, from attendance at Executive Board meetings. No publicity attended this action. The basis for Bergs suspension was elaborated upon on October 19, 2007, when nine members of the Executive Board (not including Katz) filed charges seeking Bergs expulsion from the Union based on asserted violations of the CWA Constitution and the by-laws and rules of Local 1034. In particular, the Locals Executive Board accused Berg of undermining the Local by releasing the deliberations of the Executive Board to the press, and acting in other ways to violate his oath of office. Again, Local 1034 sought no publicity for this action. In apparent response, Berg, along with Linda Kukor, another member of the Local 1034 Executive Board, wrote to Cohen on October 19, 2007, asking for the appointment of a temporary administrator to oversee Local 1034 and take control of its affairs. Such action would effectively remove Katz from her elected responsibilities. The Berg/Kukor charges were quickly leaked to the media resulting in, among others, an article in the October 22 Star-Ledger captioned, Union Execs Charge Misconduct and Urge CWA to Oust Katz. On October 22, the Local 1034 Executive Board wrote to Cohen, Rechenbach and Easterling in response to the Berg/Kukor letter of October 19. After replying in detail to the Berg/Kukor allegations, the Board wrote that Local 1034 was financially healthy, politically strong and proud that [it] represent[s][its] members aggressively and with integrity. The letter requested a meeting with the CWA Executive Committee to discuss the continuing efforts, by some National Leaders and staff in District One to politically punish Local 1034 leadership for [their] outspoken opposition to the ratification of the state worker collective bargaining agreement this past Spring by meddling in the internal affairs of Local 1034. In response to the request, Cohen, Easterling, Rechenbach, Shelton and Katz met in Washington on October 29, 2007. At the meeting, Katz reiterated all of the complaints she had previously made to Cohen about the improper conduct of Shelton and others. She advised the participants of her belief that Shelton was colluding with Berg and Kukor regarding their charges. Participants at the meeting agreed that a fact-finder from outside the Union would be appointed to examine the Berg/Kukor charges. They also agreed that the discussions at the meeting including the appointment of that fact-finder would be kept confidential. Although Shelton appeared somewhat conciliatory during the meeting, after Katz left the meeting at Cohens request, Shelton asserted that he wanted her gone that is, out of the Union. Notwithstanding the agreement of the participants in the October 29 meeting that the discussions remain confidential, the contents of the meeting, including the appointment of the fact-finder, were widely reported in the media on November 2. Katz brought this blatant violation of the confidentiality agreement to the attention of Cohen and OMelveny, and asked that action. On October 30, 2007, the day after the meeting in Washington, Berg, Kukor, and Dan Antonellis (another Local 1034 member) charged Katz and other officers of the Local with a multitude of alleged offenses under the CWA Constitution and by-laws, including the misappropriation of money. The writers asked for an immediate prosecution of the charges, expulsion of Katz, and, again, appointment of a temporary administrator. Neither Katz nor the other officers received a copy of the new charges from the National Union or from Berg, Kukor, or Antonellis. Instead, they first learned of them when a reporter from the Star-Ledger, who did have a copy of the charges, contacted Katz seeking her comment. Although Katz immediately complained to Cohen about the failure to follow the established procedure of providing charges to the persons accused, Cohen apparently ignored that complaint. The Star-Ledger reported the matter in an article on October 31, 2007. On October 30, 2007, John M. Walsh, Jr., an account administrator with the National Union, forwarded to Easterling a letter concerning his examination of audited financial reports for Local 1034 covering fiscal years 2004-2006. Walsh had conducted his review at Easterlings request. Walsh indicated in his letter that he had spoken with Katz concerning his review and that she was very open and straight forward in answering all [his] questions and receptive to any advice [he] thought was necessary to give to the local. He concluded by stating that he had the utmost confidence in the financial health of CWA Local 1034. There is no reason to think that this Local has any financial problems to uncover. Easterling forwarded Walshs report to Shelton on November 1, 2007. Instead of lauding Local 1034 and Katz for the positive report, Shelton immediately took public steps to minimize its significance. In fact, Shelton issued a press release on November 2 stating that Walshs favorable report, which had been reported in the media, in no way represents the result of an investigation into [the Berg/Kukor] charges. Rather, Shelton stated that an independent attorney had been appointed to conduct a thorough investigation into the charges. As a result of Sheltons uncalled for press release on November 2, 2007, Katz complained to the National that Shelton and the District 1 leadership were actively meddling in the internal affairs of this Local to undermine our ability to effectively represent our members both now and in the future. She asked that the District 1 leadership be admonished, but to no avail. The coordinated attacks on Katz continued unabated. On November 7, defendants Rose, Marketti, Rosenstein, Palermo and Wade complained to OMelveny that the National Union was not aggressively pursuing the charges against Katz, and demanded that the National gain access to the Katz/Corzine emails that were the subject of the pending Republican Party lawsuit, and the courts Sealing Order. On November 15, Daniel Clifton, the attorney appointed as the fact-finder by the National Union, requested a meeting with Katz. He also asked, prior to the meeting, for the production of many documents including, most significantly, all emails between Katz and Corzine during a particular period. Katz did meet with Clifton more than once for lengthy interviews. She also provided numerous requested documents, although she believed that the production of the requested emails was prohibited by the Sealing Order in the Wilson suit. On November 21, OMelveny responded to the Berg/Kukor/Antonellis letter of October 30. She advised that the Presidents office had determined to defer appointment of a prosecutor with respect to their charges against Katz until completion of the confidential, neutral fact-finding process which was already well under way. On January 11, 2008, the Local 1034 Executive Board rescinded Bergs suspension from attending its meetings. Nevertheless, OMelveny wrote to Katz on January 30, 2008, enclosing a decision by the CWA Executive Board that the October charges against Berg and his suspension from Executive Board meetings warranted appointment of a special prosecutor. Turning a blind eye to the blatant conflict of interest, the CWA Executive Board appointed Elisa Riordan as the prosecutor. Riordan was, and is, a paid staff member of District 1, working under the direction and serving at the pleasure of Shelton, who was and remains Katzs primary and most vocal antagonist. Additionally, Riordan is married to a name partner in a law firm that represents District 1. While OMelvenys letter to Katz stated that Cliftons fact-finding is continuing, the Executive Board resolution provided that Riordans inquiry was to be guided by the interim findings and recommendations of Clifton. Katz, however, had not been presented with any interim findings and recommendations by Clifton. On January 31, Local 1034s attorney wrote to OMelveny raising numerous objections to the Riordan appointment, including the obvious concern that Riordans ties to Shelton presented a clear and compelling conflict of interest preventing her from impartially investigating and prosecuting any charges having to do with Katz and Local 1034. On February 4, 2008, OMelveny responded. In that letter OMelveny, for the first time, revealed some of Cliftons interim findings concerning Bergs suspension. She also denied counsels accusation of retaliatory conduct on the part of certain members of the CWA Executive Board and OMelveny herself arising from Katzs opposition to the State contract. OMelveny also defended the appointment of Riordan, without mention of Sheltons well-known antagonism toward Katz and his relationship with Riordan, a member of his staff. On February 5, Katz informed Easterling, Cohen, Rechenbach and Shelton, of her intention to run for District 1 Vice President, and sought advice from Easterling about the procedures for notifying all Local officers in District 1 of her candidacy. Katzs candidacy was reported in the press on February 20. On February 6, Katz sought reconsideration from the National CWA Executive Board of the decision to appoint Riordan to investigate the Berg charges, but that request was denied on February 8. Also, on February 8, 2008, OMelveny conveyed to Katz a motion adopted by the CWA Executive Board directing Katz to provide Clifton with emails between her and Governor Corzine. OMelveny rejected Katzs previous stated assertions that the Sealing Order applied to Local 1034 and Katz. The annual conference of all locals in District 1 took place in Atlantic City on March 4-6, 2008. At that conference, Rosenstein, Wade, Rose, Marketti and Palermo personally distributed or caused to be distributed, under their names, a piece of literature supporting Sheltons candidacy and virulently attacking Katz. That letter was also posted on the website Local 1034 Members First! established by Berg and Antonellis. On March 13, 2008, Riordan filed her report, concluding that Berg had not violated the CWA Constitution as charged by the Local 1034 Executive Board on October 19, 2007. Riordans report was transmitted to Katz and the other Local 1034 Executive Board members on March 20, 2008. On March 14, the National Executive Board appointed Palmer to investigate the October 30, 2007 charges filed against Katz by Berg, Kukor and Antonellis. There were several aspects of Palmers appointment that demonstrated the defendants retaliatory animus against Katz. First, Palmer is a full-time paid staff member of District 1 who (like Riordan) was appointed by and serves at Sheltons pleasure. Under the circumstances, no reasonable and responsible CWA officer could have viewed Palmer as a neutral investigator. Nor could the Executive Board have been insensitive to this issue, since it arose only a few weeks after Katz had objected to Riordans appointment on the same basis. Second, Palmers appointment came after Katz had announced her candidacy to oppose Shelton. Palmer is not merely a staff member of District 1 his public support of Sheltons candidacy against Katz is confirmed by Sheltons own campaign literature. Third, the Executive Board opted not to tell Katz about Palmers appointment. Instead, she learned of it only on April 3, 2008, when Palmer wrote to her and requested documents for his investigation. In that letter, Palmer made a broad and intrusive request for documents, again seeking, among other things, the Corzine/Katz emails. On April 6-9, 2008, the CWA held its annual Legislative Political Conference in Washington D.C. Rose, Marketti, Rosenstein, Palermo and Wade continued to distribute literature paid for by the Re-Elect Shelton Campaign Committee, attacking Katz, particularly with respect to her past relationship with Governor Corzine. Other Shelton re-election literature also distributed at the District 1 Conference and the CWA Legislative-Political Conference highlights Cohen, Rechenbach, Easterling, Riordan and Palmer as supporters, and lists them on the official campaign letterhead. On April 8, 2008, Berg, Kukor and Antonellis filed new charges against Katz and many of the other officers and Executive Board members of Local 1034. Ironically, those charges largely alleged that Katz had improperly permitted Local 1034 members to campaign for her at meetings where attendance was sponsored by the Local. Pursuant to the CWA Constitution, those new charges should have been referred in the first instance to Local 1034 for its handling. Instead, ignoring its own protocol, the National Executive Board expanded Palmers appointment on April 10 to include the new charges. On April 18, 2008, Palmer served a greatly expanded and even more burdensome document request on Katz. In his transmittal letter, he demanded that she comply with his initial April 3 document request by April 23, and his supplemental request by April 28. On April 22, through counsel, Katz conveyed to OMelveny and Palmer that the investigation process was fatally tainted by Palmers involvement, and that much of his document demand was inappropriate and designed merely to harass and embarrass Katz, and interfere with her leadership of Local 1034 and her candidacy against Shelton. The most recent evidence of defendants animus toward Katz occurred on April 30, 2008, when the CWA Executive Board passed a motion directing Local 1034 and its officers to produce an extensive list of records, all of which had been earlier demanded by Palmer. The patent bad faith demonstrated by this demand is exemplified in at least two respects. First, the request seems to relate to the Berg/Kukor/Antonellis allegations that Local 1034 members were campaigning for Katz at the 2008 District 1 conference and the 2008 Legislative-Political Conference. As the defendants well know, incidental campaigning at CWA conferences and conventions has been a common and authorized practice for years, and has been engaged in by members of the Executive Board themselves, as well as by other CWA members on their behalf. In that context, the Executive Boards document demand is retaliatory, since the defendants are purporting to direct an investigation into conduct in which they themselves engage on a frequent and routine basis. Second, the April 30, 2008, Executive Board resolution directing Katz to produce documents was requested by Cohen for reasons expressed in a memo he wrote to the Board on that date. In that memo, Cohen purported to summarize facts concerning the charges under investigation and for which the demanded documents were purportedly required. However, while some of the details in the Cohen memo were contained in the charges, certain aspects of Cohens summary appear nowhere in the charges and are highly inflammatory. Specifically, Cohen stated that the accusations by Berg, Kukor, and Antonellis included a charge that Katz had made hundreds of thousands of dollars of political donations, including a contribution of $20,800 to Cory Booker, a candidate for Mayor of Newark, with whom [Katz] acknowledges having had a close personal relationship, without appropriate review or oversight by the Locals Legislative and Political Action Committee. Cohens decision to include this salacious description is telling. Not only was the specific allegation not included in the Berg/Kukor/Antonellis charges, but the donation itself was a matter of public record. Made in 2006, the donation by Local 1034 to Bookers campaign was publicly recorded in the on-line reports of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, (NJ ELEC). Cohens characterization of Katzs and Bookers relationship was gratuitous and despicable, and was clearly calculated to embarrass Katz and attract press attention. Not content to leave the press to its own devices, defendants compounded the offense, and flaunted their retaliatory animus, by leaking the April 30 Cohen memo to the media. That leak had its desired result: prominent coverage in the Star-Ledger, wide distribution by the Associated Press wire service, and coverage on statewide blogs on May 8 and 9. The history of retaliatory action outlined in this complaint, including the investigation and prosecution of the charges against Katz and other officers of Local 1034 and the ongoing demands for documents, have caused Katz, the officers, and members of Local 1034 substantial harm. If not enjoined by this Court these types of actions will cause Katz, the officers, and the members of Local 1034 irreparable harm. In addition to compromising her candidacy for District 1 Vice President, the actions of the defendants are intended to diminish Katzs effectiveness as a leader of Local 1034 and undermine her re-election its President. Indeed, the charges pending against Katz and the other officers of Local 1034 seek to suspend and expel them from membership in the CWA, and to place the Local in trusteeship. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Based on the allegations set forth above, each of which is incorporated by reference, the defendants, individually and in concert, have acted to punish and retaliate against Katz for her expression of views, arguments and opinions concerning ratification of the collective negotiation agreements with the State of New Jersey and other matters. These actions by defendants have been and continue to be part of an ongoing campaign to destroy Katzs ability to exercise her free speech rights as a member of CWA and the duly elected President of Local 1034, to oppose actions of the defendants which she does not believe are in the best interests of the members of Local 1034, and to undermine Katzs ability to express her views, arguments and opinions upon candidates for elected CWA offices, including but not limited to, District 1 Vice President and Local 1034 President, and to undermine her ability to effectively campaign for those offices. These actions by defendants, individually and in concert, have been taken intentionally, maliciously, recklessly and with wanton disregard for Katzs rights, those of the members of Local 1034 who elected her, and other members of CWA who might wish to express their views, arguments and opinions in support of Katz and the positions she has espoused. These actions by defendants have violated and will continue to violate the LMRDA 101(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(2), and give rise to a cause of action within the meaning of LMRDA 102, 29 U.S.C. 412. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Based upon the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 95, each of which is incorporated by reference, the defendants, individually and in concert, have acted to deny Katz the equal rights and privileges to which she is entitled as a member of CWA, including the right to participate in elections and referenda of the CWA. These actions by the defendants, individually and in concert, have denied the members of Local 1034, who have repeatedly elected Katz as their President, the equal rights and privileges of members of CWA to have their elected president participate effectively in elections and referenda of CWA and to participate on their behalf in the deliberations and voting upon the business of CWA. These actions by defendants, individually and in concert, have been taken intentionally, maliciously, recklessly and with wanton disregard for Katzs rights and those of the members of Local 1034 who elected her, to exercise the equal rights and privileges to which she and they are entitled as members of the CWA. These actions by defendants violated and will continue to violate the LMRDA 101(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(1), and give rise to a cause of action within the meaning of LMRDA 102, 29 U.S.C. 412. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Based upon the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 95, each of which is incorporated by reference, the defendants individually and in concert, have acted to discipline Katz for exercising her free speech rights and demanding her equal rights to participate in the elections, referenda and the business of CWA, and to exercise her other rights and privileges as a member and elected president of a CWA local. These actions by defendants, individually and in concert, to discipline Katz have been taken intentionally, maliciously, recklessly and with wanton disregard for Katzs rights and those of the members of Local 1034 who elected her. These actions by defendants violated and will continue to violate the LMRDA 609, 29 U.S.C. 529, and give rise to a cause of action within the meaning of LMRDA section 102, 29 U.S.C. 412. RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following: A. Injunctive Relief: (1) barring prosecution of any pending charges against Katz and Local 1034 and its officers, including but not limited to the charges brought by Berg/Kukor/Antonellis; (2) barring the investigation and prosecution by defendant Palmer; (3) barring the CWA, acting through or by its Executive Board, or any of the named defendants from taking any action, directly or indirectly, against Katz and the officers of Local 1034 based upon non-compliance with any existing documents requests, and (4) barring defendants from interfering, directly or indirectly, with Katzs rights to free speech and to the equal rights and privileges of a CWA member, including her right to run for union office; and (5) barring defendants from otherwise acting, directly or indirectly, in a retaliatory manner against Katz as prohibited by the LMRDA; B. Compensatory damages against defendants Shelton, Master, Rosenstein, Wade, Palermo, Marketti, Cohen, Rechenbach, Easterling and Rose in an amount to be determined at trial; C. Punitive damages against defendants Shelton, Master, Rosenstein, Wade, Palermo, Marketti, Cohen, Rechenbach, Easterling, and Rose in an amount to be determined at trial; D. Costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneys fees; and E. Such other and further relief as may be just and appropriate. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable. FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN, LLP Dated: May 14, 2008 By:_______________________________ Paul J. Fishman CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the matter is not the subject of any other court, arbitration or administrative proceeding. There is pending a suit involving a related matter entitled Berg v. Katz, et al., Docket No. 07-5567 (PBS). FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN, LLP Dated: May 14, 2008 By:_______________________________ Paul J. Fishman      PAGE 29 603239.8 603239.8  !+,A B d e w Z [ \ p  ' ( "'|ÿԚԖԖh@vh/[^h h:h:h:5>* h:5>*h^hQEhohnhLh_hh5 h5h4 hh hphh hW]h,hsh, hW]h8!,QpB S z " K p*$gd H*$gd Hgd $ Ha$gd < !gdsgd 0^`0gdPK  B p  Z [ \ |`gdI/.gd2$a$gdLgd:gd/[^ $da$gd: d`gdvgd p*$gd /0]tHz{| 6;qz!Krsxyྲྀ hj0hDhD h 5>* hL5>* h#0>* h@vh#0h#0hHqhQEh%h/(h/[^hHh@vhm8[h4h:hlC:@NT`ghiq !+4; b!&'(5:yӰϰ۬ϬϠˠˠhQEhhch&hj0hhYqvh! hm8[h2hI/.h"W]hlh4hm8[h3h T h2h2 h25>* hj0h2hHqhDh2=`h($K}q !Q"##$%&B''W(() gdYlgdYlgd1gdgd3gdcgdgd/[^ $ & Fa$gd2$(7;qrFhku$3gl349:KHsu-WY|}ĬĬhnhnH*h*KhI/.h5-&h(hnhPh7tzh 6h!h '"h3h^odh@vhm8[hYqvhchQEhlhD}&BDp 0 Q S  @!a!c!!!!"P"""#######&$g$$$%&*'/'B''''(U(V(W(`(((((԰ԩh2'h [h.Z hYlhYlhohjBh@thO"hYlhQEhnh1H*h1hA h@hhhhnhnH*hnh*KhNh3>( ))))) **L***++;+<+t++++++ ,,,5,:,<,g,,,A-G-H-f-h-x-z-------..&.(.L.M.W........./ѽɵѱѽѱѥѽѡѥѱѥh}h8tH*h8thh}h}H*h}heheH*he }hlohloH*hehlohQ>huHhuHH*huHhiah?[h:'hYl hYlhYlh2'h [:)**<++h,,-M..u/+00U11133c57r:;@1CbEgd gd2gd<5kgdw{;gdPq $ & Fa$gdCgdO"// //N/P/t/u//////*0+00000000 1T1}11111111@2k2{22222223333333Z4444444444444ÿh,hF>h4hChx-ih\hw{;hh,h hy hC5>* h 5>*hW;D hW;DhW;Dhcyhwh5QhQ>h,h,H*h,hhYI=45555*5+5;5D5Q5R5b5c5666666B7R777778!8(8)8,8-838P8S8=9F9p9q9v999999: ::$:2:>:\:p:q:{:::::M;m;x;};;;;;;<<켸ذh3=hv&h" h%h<hjhh9h?hh:h<h<5kh4hxhGh`%h,hsEhx-ihw{;hCD<<+<7<=<><A<c<m<o<y<===Q>>W?Z?f??????@@ @"@:@F@o@z@@@@@@@@@@@@%A)A+A;AWAcAAAAAAAAAABBBB(BBB฼h `h v2ht]h68h=uhQEh 6h["hhB{Qh}5hr.h4hyhjh>ZhGh,h:h<hwhv&@BBBBBBBBBCCC/C0C1CECJC`CaCdCCCCCD5D>DtDDDCE`EaEbEwEEEE{FFFFFGGFGNG^GcGdGGGGGGH!H,HXHuH|HHHHHȼȸȸȴȼȬhH/h5h qhh|hnXhZ_h?"hh(Th,hB;hAhhGh*h h `h=uh68ht]hNSBbE,HH JMNPSOTTUXxZ[)]^{`a4chdxdJeghklgd $ & Fa$gd{<gd{<gdw]gd$gd2HHHH1I4I9I:IMITIUIVI[IIIIIIIIIIJJJJJJJJJJJKMKNKOKnK|KKKKKKKELmLnLoLLLLLLLLLLLMMM!MFMlMMMMNļظļȼļļİȰh;AhJh&h hhhh5hQEh2|hNhRh1Ah qhiEhrhQxhNShZ_hhH/DNN^NNNNOO OOO8OOOROXOYOZOjOwOPPPPPQ8Q^QfQnQvQQQQQQQQQQRhk,hhp"h khQEhNSh9hIh,wh8&hYhIhrhiFhH/h;Ah5hGEOTTU UUUU|UUUUUUUUV4V7VhrhNSh:hMzhi=hRy.hI$h2|hfOG``` a)a>aCaNaTaUaZa`aaaiaabbbbbcccc3cDcTcZckcycccccccccc d%dNdcdddfdgdhdwdxdddd𠜘 hbE:5>* hQE5>*h{<hyuh|hwJhQEhPvhGVh!hawHhB`h#ghbE:hB`B*phhHqB*phhQEB*phhzB*phhw]huh4hu +h>hzh+3dddd6e*h! h5O>*h5O hd;hd;hlshB`hQE hd;>*hd;hhyhbh hs[bh{hhVhPvhwJhawHhbE:hR>ejpjtj|jkkkkkkkl llUlflhlilolvllllll&m(m)m5m=mJmKmmmmmmmmmmmnn,n0n1ngnznnnnnoo2o3okoloCpcpdppιҹҵαέ㩥ҽҡhXRh?Lhgbh -h(dh:h4h,hd)h6 hd)5hWhhmU hx>*hQEhxhR hFj>*h5Oh?whB`h!hFj>lKmlowqMtuvwxz|&ˆM˒vgd]gdHigdH`gdOgdgd"+gd2pp%q0q=qBqtquqvqwqLtMtttuuu3u6uOuVuuuuuuuuu vDvHvvvvvvvv ww'wCw\w`wdwewwwwwCxDxuxx*y9y:y>y@yEyGyKyYyuyyhU@h9(h!hhhMhNhI7hB`h hlsh hRhWh?Lh"+hmUhh4hQEhd)h"Ayyyyyyyylzmzzzzzz{{{{e{p{q{r{v{~{{{{{{-|L|z||||6>[',12ƾhHhR hlshThlshTB*phh|B*phhlshlsB*phhRB*phhTB*ph hTh hhZhQEB*phhlsB*phhB*phh]hU@hh9(h:4 5FP_htׂ؂ق&'*6{̃у҃BCpń̈́2VW_iمڅ(/0Xny|ļĸļļh7h =hhH`hz^hQEhOhe h|hbh4hBphI$hWh0h[h ~hqhfhNh{~C†džȆʆˆنچЇч'V_$BsΉ҉cjnot Ƌ܋LMZ[/ζ²ƞhDh9Shphxhhwhvqh =hSkh]kh_hhQEh|h!hUh~>h?yhH`hOhW hz^h7 h7>*>ɍʍ&'DPӎ!|ďŏޏ6AHX^:;|DTyɒ쬨hcqh_hVfFh]h0h hHihHihRR]hHq hHqhRR] hHqh?y hHqhHihh]UhUh?yhhph) hvqhHi@ɒ˒+AVWo 5OPRuvx͔Дߖ}$<E%&̛ΛԛNϜܼظشܰܰܬ hcqhcq hcqhlhcqhlhQh{3h[hZhhXh_h4||hh=ohHqhdThh["hPhhhhVfF;Ҝ""n΢v|+SS/߯N յ6$ & F^a$gd3fgdt $ & Fa$gdCTdgd52gdK7gdNgdCTdgd]ϜќҜ"iv>B"35dnƟџڟ!"-?_eϠlmnrΡ#AStuyzâĢ͢΢ƣ.nh)}h'jh~th9hzOhejh;phW#FhU=hEWth[h}hHqhODhl *hHqhlJnɤҤۤuvz|()*+ʪQRS+J̭ͭέЭQS .߯KYZ[vwxðΰ۰Ĺıĩhm?hx7hyphCTdhW#F hCTd5>*h|h52h=2hrhcqh(>*hrhEh\h(hK7hcqh)}hjhlhNA۰ܰ9KMN h}78<=^_D &+2P[\qsεеԵյ+gh),4ŷƷηϷSU7Zùܹо̶̶̶̺̲h$h!hdh3fh5>*h3fhhnh |hqhQ9hthhCTdh52h|hFj4hx7h/C(FѺu]%RVB7b  & Fdgd $ & Fa$gd & Fgd+  & F`gd $ & Fa$gd$ & F^a$gd3fgdt5@BWYѺx˻̻rtu($<@QRUþu$-5UYZ~ABGÿ׷ӷûӷӳhhukhyphh.Zhh~h"bhCTdh+h h5>*h!h3fhd5>*hh3fh$hdE bcdopNO| ߾߾߾ߴߚߚߚߚߖhLhGh!CJh'0J\mHnHu h!0J\jh!0J\Ujh!U hxshxshhh5>*hh!hxshukhhhuk5>* h5>*,bcdpP{|;<  & Fdgdxs & Fgdxs $ & Fa$gd & Fgd igece<;ukd$$IfTlF$    4 lapyt2T ;$$Ifa$gd2 ;$$Ifa$gd2 ;$Ifgd2 {  & Fdgdxs;ukd$$IfTlF$    4 lapyt2T< 00&PP:p/ =!"#$% $$If!vh55{5#v#v{#v:V l5554pyt2T$$If!vh55{5#v#v{#v:V l5554pyt2T]@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH J@J . Heading 1 & F d@& KH \aJ H@"H . Heading 2 & F d@& \]aJH@H . Heading 3 & F @& \^JaJD@D . Heading 4 & F @&\aJF@F . Heading 5 & F @& \]aJD@D . Heading 6 & F @&\aJ<@< . Heading 7 & F @&@@@ . Heading 8 & F @&]D @D . Heading 9 & F @&^JaJDA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k@(No ListH@H . Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ8"@8 .Caption5CJ\aJB'@B .Comment ReferenceCJaJ<@"< . Comment TextCJaJ@j@!"@ .Comment Subject5\ZY@BZ . Document Map-D M CJOJQJ^JaJ>*@Q> .Endnote ReferenceH*H+@bH . Endnote Textx`CJaJ@&@q@ .Footnote ReferenceH*J@J . Footnote Textx`CJaJ: @: .Index 1^`: @: .Index 2^`: @: .Index 3^`: @: .Index 4^`:@: .Index 5^`:@: .Index 6^`:@: .Index 7^`:@: .Index 8 ^`:@: .Index 9!p^p`D!@D Zc Index Heading" 5\^Jl-@2l . Macro Text"#  ` @ OJQJ^J_HmH sH tH `,@` Table of Authorities$ $ 0^`0<#@< .Table of Figures%D.@D @ C TOA Heading& 5;\^J*@* VVTOC 1'2@2 VVTOC 2(^2@2 VVTOC 3)^2@2 VVTOC 4*^2@2 VVTOC 5+^2@2 VVTOC 6,^2@2 VVTOC 7-^2@2 VVTOC 8.^2@2 VVTOC 9/{^{DT@D . Block Text0]^2B@2 . Body Text18P@"8 . Body Text 22d<Q@2< . Body Text 33daJPM@BP .Body Text First Indent 4`HC@RH .Body Text Indent5^fN@Qbf .Body Text First Indent 26d^`NR@rN .Body Text Indent 27d^XS@X .Body Text Indent 38^`aJ6?@6 .Closing9^0L@0 .Date:^4 @4 .Footer ; !8@8 .Header< !8/@8 .List=0^`0<2@< .List 2>0^`0<3@< .List 3?p0^p`0<4@< .List 4@@ 0^@ `0<5@< .List 5A0^`04K@4 VV SalutationB:@@2: VV SignatureC^<J@B< ZcSubtitle D@&>*^JB>@RB NWTitleE$@&a$>*KH\^J`$@b` GEnvelope Address!F@ &+D/^@ ^J<[@r< GE-mail SignatureGNg@N DHTML TypewriterCJOJPJQJ^JaJ>0@> n List Bullet I & FB6@B n List Bullet 2 J & FB7@B n List Bullet 3 K & FB8@B n List Bullet 4 L & FB9@B n List Bullet 5 M & F>1@> n List Number N & FB:@B n List Number 2 O & FB;@B n List Number 3 P & FB<@B &Lz List Number 4 Q & F :=@": &Lz List Number 5R>O2> Zc SubtitleBCS 5;>*<OB< Zc SubtitleIT 56>*6OR6 '6TitleB U$a$58Ob8 '6TITLEC V$a$5;<Or< '6TitleU W$a$ 5;>*<O< Zc Flush Right X$a$j@j p Table Grid7:VY0Y:)@: gb Page Number CJOJQJ !z!z z!z!z!z!z!z! z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z!zg QW %*19@%HOVJ]dkrz%Ð"|S {# 0 e   i(!L!,QpBSz"KBpZ[\|  ` h ($K}qQBW !""<##h$$%M&&u'+((U)))++c-/r2381;b=,@@ BEFHKOLLMPxRS)UV{XY4[h\x\J]_`cdKelgwiMlmnoprtwy&{|~MˊvҔ""nΚv|+SS/ߧN խ6Ѳu]%RVBһ7bcdpP{| $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4 $Y$!:$o%$$$4 $Y$Y$*$O $$O $$id$O $O $O $O $id$O $O $O $O $O $O $4 $O $4 $4 $O $4 $O $O $4 $O $4 $O $O $4 $O $O $O $O $4 $Y$id$O $$*$*$$;-@$!0$o%$*$4 $id${5$id$ $o%$id$4 $O $*$ $4 $ $$$id$$id$Y$O $$ $*$O $O $o%$ $*$$O $O $$$ $*$ $$$ $id$;-@$id$ $id$O $id$$id$id$!:$o%$id$id$O $id$id$*$ $$o%$id$$O $O $Y$id$o%$id$O $Y$id$$id$O $Y$$O $O $Y$Y${5$O $O $Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$$$Y$Y$Y$O $Y$Y$$$$^^$!,QpBSz"KBpZ[\|  ` h ($K}qQBW !""<##h$$%M&&u'+((U)))++c-/r2381;b=,@@ BEFHKOLLMPxRS)UV{XY4[h\x\J]_`cdKelgwiMlmnoprtwy&{|~MˊvҔ""nΚv|+SS/ߧN խ6Ѳu]%RVBһ7bcdpP{|  000<0000000000000000000000000000000000 0 00|0| 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0  0  0  0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0  0  0  0  0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0! 0" 0# 0$ 0% 0& 0' 0( 0) 0* 0+ 0, 0- 0. 0/ 00 010 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0: 0; 0< 0= 0> 0? 0@ 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F 0G 0H 0I 0J 0K 0L 0M 0N 0O 0P 0Q 0R 0S 0T 0U 0V 0W 0X 0Y 0Z 0[ 0\ 0] 0^0 0_ 0` 0a 0b0 0c 0d 0e 0f0 0g 0h 0i000000000000000000000000000000<00<00;00;0;0 ;0 ;0 0 ;00<00;0 ;0 ;0 0 ;000!,QpBSz"KBpZ[\|  ` h ($K}qQBW !""<##h$$%M&&u'+((U)))++c-/r2381;b=,@@ BEFHKOLLMPxRS)UV{XY4[h\x\J]_`cdKelgwiMlmnoprtwy&{|~MˊvҔ""nΚv|+SS/ߧN խ6Ѳu]%RVb 000<0000000000000000000000000000000000 0 00|0| 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0  0  0  0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0  0  0  0  0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0! 0" 0# 0$ 0% 0& 0' 0( 0) 0* 0+ 0, 0- 0. 0/ 00 010 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0: 0; 0< 0= 0> 0? 0@ 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F 0G 0H 0I 0J 0K 0L 0M 0N 0O 0P 0Q 0R 0S 0T 0U 0V 0W 0X 0Y 0Z 0[ 0\ 0] 0^0 0_ 0` 0a 0b0 0c 0d 0e 0f 0 0g 0o 0q000000000000<00 -/=@}(/4<BHNOTZ`dejpyɒϜn۰dhiklmopqrtuvwxyz|}~K `)bElbegjns{f@!@  @H 0(  0(  B S  ? OLE_LINK1 OLE_LINK2 OLE_LINK3`% % 66CdJdssuuyyMWē˓`jlv ʟUZjoǭ̭:?PU ϯϯöx ߽ ϯϯöx ߽  ϯϯöx ߽ }|(Q~PEOIM.Lt$K: Jvݘ{NIئ3KD Bt f! & .Lx eB 0^`0o(hH() 0^`0o(hH() 0^`0o(hH()0^`0OJQJo(hH0^`0OJQJo(hH@ 0@ ^@ `0OJQJo(hHp0p^p`0OJQJo(hH 0^`0o(hH.0^`0OJQJo(hH2^`56:;>*B*CJOJQJ^JphhH.^`56:;B*phhH88^8`56:;B*phhH^`56:;B*phhH^`56:;B*phhHpp^p`56:;B*phhH  ^ `56:;B*phhH@ @ ^@ `56:;B*phhH  ^ `56:;B*phhH2^`56:;>*B*CJOJQJ^JphhH."p0^p`056:;>*B*phhH.88^8`56:;B*phhH^`56:;B*phhH^`56:;B*phhHpp^p`56:;B*phhH  ^ `56:;B*phhH@ @ ^@ `56:;B*phhH  ^ `56:;B*phhH hh^h`OJQJo(h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.5^`56:;>*B*CJOJQJ^Jo(phhH.^`56:;B*phhH88^8`56:;B*phhH^`56:;B*phhH^`56:;B*phhHpp^p`56:;B*phhH  ^ `56:;B*phhH@ @ ^@ `56:;B*phhH  ^ `56:;B*phhH~}x e&KD KD  KD = KD KD `= f!F.ReSn^JF.ReSn^JF.ReSn^J ParaNum A          Om$ TGA+Xm$Ecw{FA9GAGAD[k----)LGnD[k+XnEcw{ Tkj4;Ab/`v(F8t @I^x_by )")-EgIZ [E~!*0<K~'N] oypz " " *  6 X Y bh  vM e  a J q  \ 6f &GeHi. H 6!>HwJw~A $&@Dbt189(b2CBGW  }1AIWi9dfOz&[7af|DHHXwY[cq 0'1LVapht@zukxkFR_ao%A /(Zlsv#U3(TVY:]  %%8&FW~vMp ; !)m![" '"E4"["hp"#(#<#<#P#Q#0_#w$=%x&m&5-&xF&P&h&t&( 'I'd'/C(E(a*h*+u +"+E0+H+Fa+,,A,W,h,*{,6-;-$W-Y-Y-..-.I/.Q.Ry.@/3K/r/Hs/060#0j)0^00j01n$1031661!x1;22@2oM2rR2W2l2 v23I3v3{3484dL4Aj4Fj4-575W5Ea5}5;6L6(y6+C7K7g7\h7w78T8a8p89Q9ff99|9J::9:bE:T:O_: ;;;B;R;d;w{;< <A<K<#O<'T<t<{< ==f=81=3=I=GS=U=*V=i= > >$>3&>)><>?/?H?j?m?= @@@K@z@@AA-A-UA\AiAymAsAB+B+:BCBjB@ CC&C+,C5C4JCSC^tC6vC D|5DW;DV@DOD E E%]E^EFW#F cFVfFiFGAGLGHFHjH3pHawHYIW[I!J3vJRxJKJK5!K7lKLLL;+MjNvN|N5O?=O [OfOAsOzO)P[4PDPa^PnP0tPwP{PPPQ& QF,Q5QHQgQB{Q, R3R:JRXR^RogRnRqsR,S9S}:SNSs6TDTdTBoThUUUh]UljU,lUmUVV^$V9V?KVkPVQVVVWWNW=W"VW'dWZXHZYZ 8[m8[?[H[e[h[m[Wx[]!]RR]]V]"W]\r]w]1^|^^A^_J^W^/[^b^}___)_J_Z_a_g_r{_8`H`.U`^`+ amaaaa /aBAaHabbgbXbs[bgb}bc cc,c2cMcFdCTdld^od!egf`mf'yfgF!g5g@gSgSmgwg h?hJhUhYh@ahTghiiNiaix-ic8i6XiXiY\i2gipij*j'jFjXjAmj<5k>kJk SkSk]k`k`kSqkl-lP5l}7lGlPlYlflW mmYmcmn8nQn_n2pnqntnn oo:$oPMoso p p &pg8p;pBpBp9OpPpb^papqqAqHqPqCbqiqqqvqvqrr>Lr)[rvrx|rS:sW]sDgsxs~s&tgNtEWtjt_ntuuuG'utSuSuauouyu2v4vO;vYqvw?w)w,wP@wnwwSx,x>xtQxQxxy?yPycyy- zz{zzz;z&LzMz7tz2|`|{|4||e }%})}*},}0}~~fY~x]~^6QW~fxf "U$&* 6p<DHV"+=HW kn<? m9iM]ejs5u{ZW+]t~|b2\nlo\q|D%)H '21CABIJzj[3f%0Fo|K q{F>iE \l{EL N\sx7wELZ_ s::};! @C\nl}#X}YY^5 0=h%*1Q>Z:r.WLagyi~tv&X3;BZUv$5zD4*6}Q| h:'AZFU ky$)C,^muSGQ_wc3ONc@pZI Kg{|u p]b| ~~):FG?LZL>_%1'6b| 3x`0 #T(GLQyNG*Kll "GYu3{W d)99v?XEvjNy/*1I7p&W/PW"\B`q!J\dyk}O"d(/6{5LN `y:P 1sE2>JfT^k +G,UVp1$"bbd;Kgk5]_q(3)2-5(^ 8uHKpkn+ra%+4@cGgWafoq, S&pxQEAhsmR!T:=HNX$TT,WiaI$3;BvJKY[t]}c sPv!0]plq{~,+#jDaGOfg(*,CM8 =FHTor@v$cL}2h<G7l$o+/3i?3Mw(H/nMN~18HJiTr7|466[Lc{ :VBwx_a)u_w^%=22n. G h} Q^(ds0$%EG9QF) !ak,qUicikjm;HTo WJWnt$n'#g  ezNumLTsL LastListTemplateL AA@ Q @UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New"phpfpfLpf//!4d  3Q HPL2Plaintiff Carla Katz states: Barry Two pilotuser2D         Oh+'0 (4 T ` l x Plaintiff Carla Katz states: Barry Two Normal.dot pilotuser22Microsoft Office Word@G@ @&I@&I/՜.+,0 hp  FKSA Plaintiff Carla Katz states: Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Fv{#Data 1TableŐWordDocument>SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qRoot Entry F^Data 1TableŐWordDocument>SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q՜.+,D՜.+,L hp  FKSA Plaintiff Carla Katz states: Title4 $,