WILDING et al v. DNC SERVICES CORPORATION et al
Filing
70
NOTICE by KIMBERLY ALBERTS, CONNIE ANDERSON, KAYITE ASHCRAFT, LESTER JOHN BATES, III, MARK BEDARD, NANCY BERNERS-LEE, JEN BETTERLEY, HARRIS BIERHOFF, TIMOTHY BINGEN, STEFANIE BIRDSONG, MARIANNE BLAIR, RICHARD BOOKER, BARBARA BOWEN, RICHARD BOYLAN, MATTHEW JOSEPH BRADY, KYLE G BRAUND, CHRIS BUBB, TRISTAN BURGENER, D.J. BUSCHINI, BRUCE BUSTO, JOSEPH CALLAN, PATRICIA D CASSIDY, SUSAN CATTERALL, VINCENT J CAUCHI, CYNTHIA T CHAN, TORSHA CHILDS, KARLIE COLE, AIMEE R COLEMAN, ROSALIE CONSIGLIO, DANIEL S COOPER, YALONDA DYE COOPER, SUZANNE M CORK, RHIANNON CRANDALL, WILLIAM CRANDALL, SHARON CRAWFORD, PHYLLIS CRIDDLE, JOHN CROWE, CRAIG RICHARD CURRIER, CATHERINE G CYKO, HEATHER DADE, ALECIA R DAVIS, SHERRY DAVIS, TAMMY DEITCH-COULTER, KATHLEEN L DODGE, DIANE EMILY DREYFUS, DAN ELLIS DUDLEY, AMALIE DUVALL, ELIZA FEERO, ERIK MICHAEL FERRAGUT, ELIZABETH FIGUEROA, DIANA FLORES, WILLIAM SCOTT FRANZ, SUSAN FRISBIE, ERIK FURREBOE, LISA GALE, LAURA GENNA, RYAN GHAN, JOSEPH GLEASON, JEFFREY GOLDBERG, ESTRELLA GONZALEZ, JOSE ALBERTO GONZALEZ, PRABU GOPALAKRISHNAN, LUKE GRIM, LUCILLE GROOMS, ANTHONY GRUDIN, LAUREN HALE, JULIE HAMPTON, ZACHARY JAMES HANEY, GAYLE ANN HARROD, JARATH HEMPHILL, KIRSTEN HOFFMAN, REBECCA HOHM, KIM MARIE HOULE, STEPHEN HOUSEKNECHT, LEWIS L HUMISTON, IV, KIRSTEN HURST, BENJAMIN ILARRAZA, BAKH INAMOV, DANIELLE INGRASSIA, CAROLYN JACOBSON, TUKOI JARRETT, TIMO A JOHANN, TAMARA L JOHNSTON, HEATHER JORDAN, RANA KANGAS-KENT, BRANDY KINCAID, AMBER RAE KNOWLTON, THEDA LARSON-WRIGHT, PEGGY LEW, MELISSA LIANG, SARAH LOPEZ, EDWIN LUGO, JOHN LYNCH, SEAN LYNCH, CHRISTINE MAIURANO, MELISSA MARCOTTE, RAYMOND D MAXWELL, LISA ANNE MENEELY, DAVID L MEULI, GRETA MICKEY, CARL MILLER, TERI MONACO, ANGELA MONSON, BRITTANY R MUSICK, DANIEL O'MEARA, ANDREW ORRINO, STEVE PHILIPP, SUSAN PHILLIPS, JANE ELLEN PLATTNER, ALETTE PRICHETT, MARLOWE ST. CLOUD PRIMACK, KENNETH E PUCKETT, DAVID PULASKI, DAVID N PYLES, MICHAEL S REED, SUSAN REED, VALERIE ELYSE RESCH, DANIEL J REYNOLDS, STANLEY RIFKEN, DIANE ROBINSON, RACHEL RODERICK, JEFF ROGERS, DOMINIC RONZANI, SUSAN ROPPEL, ANDREW ROUSSEAU, LISA SETTLE, JULIANNA SEYMOUR, MATTHEW SHAW, ZEKE SHAW, JAMES SIMON, SUSAN L SINGER, ERIKA SITZER, BRENDA LEE SMITH, ELESHA SNYDER, ERICH SPARKS, ALAINA TALBOY, FELICIA MICHELLE TAYLOR, BRETT TEEGARDIN, GEORGE THOMAS, LAURA MICHELLE VAUGHN, CARLOS VILLAMAR, RICK WASHIK, DUFFY ROBERT WEISS, MARY JASMINE WELCH, REBECCA WHITE-HAYES, CAROL WILDING, CATHERINE WILLOTT, ANNMARIE WILSON, GREGORY WITKOWSKI, EMMA L YOUNG NOTICE OF FILING OF JANUARY 10, 2018 ORDER FROM THE U.S. 11TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND OF PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - January 10, 2018 Order from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, # 2 Exhibit B - Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint) (O'Brien, Cullin)
<![CDATA[
Exhibit B
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 2 of 43
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
CASE NO. 16-cv-61511-WJZ
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT –
CAROL WILDING; STANLEY RIFKEN;
SHARON CRAWFORD; WILLIAM SCOTT
FRANZ; DAVID PULASKI; MARY
JASMINE WELCH; JOSE ALBERTO
GONZALEZ; JANE ELLEN PLATTNER;
KIM MARIE HOULE; TIMOTHY BINGEN;
SUSAN REED; ANGELA MONSON;
AIMEE R. COLEMAN; ELESHA SNYDER;
MATTHEW SHAW; ZACHARY JAMES
HANEY; ESTRELLA GONZALEZ;
CATHERINE G. CYKO; LAURA GENNA;
MARIANNE BLAIR; TAMARA L.
JOHNSTON; VALERIE ELYSE RASCH;
BRETT TEEGARDIN; DANIEL O’MEARA;
PEGGY LEW; DANIEL J. REYNOLDS;
BRENDA LEE SMITH; MARLOWE ST.
CLOUD PRIMACK; PATRICIA D.
CASSIDY; BRITTANY R. MUSICK;
HARRIS BIERHOFF; FELICIA MICHELLE
TAYLOR; SUSAN L. SINGER; KYLE G.
BRAUND; LAUREN HALE; WILLIAM
CRANDALL; KIRSTEN HURST; DUFFY
ROBERT WEISS; CONNIE ANDERSON;
GREGORY WITKOWSKI; ELIZABETH
FIGUEROA; BRANDY KINCAID;
KIMBERLY ALBERTS; RACHEL
RODERICK; LAURA MICHELLE
VAUGHN; LISA GALE; TAMMY DEITCHCOULTER; KAYITE ASHCRAFT; ALECIA
R. DAVIS; DOMINIC RONZANI; LUKE
GRIM; ROSALIE CONSIGLIO; EDWIN
LUGO; HEATHER DADE; MICHAEL S.
REED; RHIANNON CRANDALL; RYAN
GHAN; LISA SETTLE; YALONDA DYE
COOPER; DANIEL S. COOPER;
MATTHEW JOSEPH BRADY; ANDREW
ROUSSEAU; SUSAN CATTERALL; JULIE
CLASS ACTION
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
HAMPTON; CHRIS BUBB; ERIK
FURREBOE; ZEKE SHAW; BENJAMIN
ILARRAZA; LUCILLE GROOMS;
CHRISTINE MAIURANO; LEWIS L.
HUMISTON, IV; JOHN LYNCH; JAMES
SIMON; LESTER JOHN BATES, III;
JEFFREY GOLDBERG; RICK WASHIK;
RICHARD BOOKER; KARLIE COLE;
ERICH SPARKS; PRABU
GOPALAKRISHNAN; CARLOS
VILLAMAR; CAROLYN JACOBSON;
DAN ELLIS DUDLEY; LISA ANNE
MENEELY; D.J. BUSCHINI; RAYMOND
D. MAXWELL; DAVID L. MEULI;
KENNETH E. PUCKETT; DAVID N.
PYLES; CYNTHIA T. CHAN; STEFANIE
BIRDSONG; AMBER RAE KNOWLTON;
TIMO A. JOHANN; JEFF ROGERS;
HEATHER JORDAN; RANA KANGASKENT; SUSAN FRISBIE; BAKH INAMOV;
THEDA LARSON-WRIGHT; KIRSTEN
HOFFMAN; ANTHONY GRUDIN; BRUCE
BUSTO; SUZANNE M. CORK; EMMA L.
YOUNG; SEAN LYNCH; SHERRY DAVIS;
NANCY BERNERS-LEE; PHYLLIS
CRIDDLE; MELISSA LIANG; JOSEPH
GLEASON; GRETA MICKEY; DIANE
EMILY DREYFUS; KATHLEEN L.
DODGE; CATHERINE WILLOTT;
TRISTAN BURGENER; ERIK MICHAEL
FERRAGUT; VINCENT CAUCHI; JOSEPH
CALLAN; MARK BEDARD; BARBARA
BOWEN; STEVE PHILIPP; SUSAN
PHILLIPS; RICHARD J. BOYLAN; TERI
MONACO; TUKOI JARRETT; ANNMARIE
WILSON; ANDREW ORRINO; CRAIG
CURRIER; JARATH HEMPHILL; GEORGE
THOMAS; REBECCA WHITE-HAYES;
ALAINA TALBOY; SARAH LOPEZ;
ELIZA FEERO; REBECCA HOHM; GAYLE
A. HARROD; ERIKA SITZER; STEPHEN
HOUSEKNECHT; DIANE ROBINSON; JEN
BETTERLEY; AMALIE DUVALL; JOHN
CROWE; CARL MILLER; SUSAN
ROPPEL; DIANA FLORES; JULIANNA
SEYMOUR; MELISSA MARCOTTE;
2
Page: 3 of 43
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 4 of 43
DANIELLE INGRASSIA; ALETTE
PRICHETT; and TORSHA CHILDS,
individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DNC SERVICES CORPORATION, d/b/a
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE;
and DEBORAH “DEBBIE” WASSERMAN
SCHULTZ,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS CAROL WILDING; STANLEY RIFKEN; SHARON CRAWFORD;
WILLIAM SCOTT FRANZ; DAVID PULASKI; MARY JASMINE WELCH; JOSE
ALBERTO GONZALEZ; JANE ELLEN PLATTNER; KIM MARIE HOULE; TIMOTHY
BINGEN; SUSAN REED; ANGELA MONSON; AIMEE R. COLEMAN; ELESHA SNYDER;
MATTHEW SHAW; ZACHARY JAMES HANEY; ESTRELLA GONZALEZ; CATHERINE
G. CYKO; LAURA GENNA; MARIANNE BLAIR; TAMARA L. JOHNSTON; VALERIE
ELYSE RASCH; BRETT TEEGARDIN; DANIEL O’MEARA; PEGGY LEW; DANIEL J.
REYNOLDS; BRENDA LEE SMITH; MARLOWE ST. CLOUD PRIMACK; PATRICIA D.
CASSIDY; BRITTANY R. MUSICK; HARRIS BIERHOFF; FELICIA MICHELLE TAYLOR;
SUSAN L. SINGER; KYLE G. BRAUND; LAUREN HALE; WILLIAM CRANDALL;
KIRSTEN HURST; DUFFY ROBERT WEISS; CONNIE ANDERSON; GREGORY
WITKOWSKI; ELIZABETH FIGUEROA; BRANDY KINCAID; KIMBERLY ALBERTS;
RACHEL RODERICK; LAURA MICHELLE VAUGHN; LISA GALE; TAMMY DEITCHCOULTER; KAYITE ASHCRAFT; ALECIA R. DAVIS; DOMINIC RONZANI; LUKE GRIM;
ROSALIE CONSIGLIO; EDWIN LUGO; HEATHER DADE; MICHAEL S. REED;
3
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 5 of 43
RHIANNON CRANDALL; RYAN GHAN; LISA SETTLE; YALONDA DYE COOPER;
DANIEL S. COOPER; MATTHEW JOSEPH BRADY; ANDREW ROUSSEAU; SUSAN
CATTERALL; JULIE HAMPTON; CHRIS BUBB; ERIK FURREBOE; ZEKE SHAW;
BENJAMIN ILARRAZA; LUCILLE GROOMS; CHRISTINE MAIURANO; LEWIS L.
HUMISTON, IV; JOHN LYNCH; JAMES SIMON; LESTER JOHN BATES, III; JEFFREY
GOLDBERG; RICK WASHIK; RICHARD BOOKER; KARLIE COLE; ERICH SPARKS;
PRABU GOPALAKRISHNAN; CARLOS VILLAMAR; CAROLYN JACOBSON; DAN
ELLIS DUDLEY; LISA ANNE MENEELY; D.J. BUSCHINI; RAYMOND D. MAXWELL;
DAVID L. MEULI; KENNETH E. PUCKETT; DAVID N. PYLES; CYNTHIA T. CHAN;
STEFANIE BIRDSONG; AMBER RAE KNOWLTON; TIMO A. JOHANN; JEFF ROGERS;
HEATHER JORDAN; RANA KANGAS-KENT; SUSAN FRISBIE; BAKH INAMOV;
THEDA LARSON-WRIGHT; KIRSTEN HOFFMAN; ANTHONY GRUDIN; BRUCE BUSTO;
SUZANNE M. CORK; EMMA L. YOUNG; SEAN LYNCH; SHERRY DAVIS; NANCY
BERNERS-LEE; PHYLLIS CRIDDLE; MELISSA LIANG; JOSEPH GLEASON; GRETA
MICKEY; DIANE EMILY DREYFUS; KATHLEEN L. DODGE; CATHERINE WILLOTT;
TRISTAN BURGENER; ERIK MICHAEL FERRAGUT; VINCENT CAUCHI; JOSEPH
CALLAN; MARK BEDARD; BARBARA BOWEN; STEVE PHILIPP; SUSAN PHILLIPS;
RICHARD J. BOYLAN; TERI MONACO; TUKOI JARRETT; ANNMARIE WILSON;
ANDREW ORRINO; CRAIG CURRIER; JARATH HEMPHILL; GEORGE THOMAS;
REBECCA WHITE-HAYES; ALAINA TALBOY; SARAH LOPEZ; ELIZA FEERO;
REBECCA HOHM; GAYLE A. HARROD; ERIKA SITZER; STEPHEN HOUSEKNECHT;
DIANE ROBINSON; JEN BETTERLEY; AMALIE DUVALL; JOHN CROWE; CARL
MILLER; SUSAN ROPPEL; DIANA FLORES; JULIANNA SEYMOUR; MELISSA
4
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 6 of 43
MARCOTTE; DANIELLE INGRASSIA; ALETTE PRICHETT; and TORSHA CHILDS
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, by and
through undersigned counsel, hereby sue Defendants, DNC SERVICES CORPORATION d/b/a
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE and DEBORAH “DEBBIE” WASSERMAN
SCHULTZ (collectively, “Defendants”), and allege the following:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
This Court has original jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein individually
and on behalf of the class pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(d), as amended in February 2005 by the
Class Action Fairness Act. Alternatively, this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§1332(a). Subject matter jurisdiction is proper because: (1) the amount in controversy in this
class action exceeds five million dollars, exclusive of interest and costs; and (2) a substantial
number of the members of the proposed classes are citizens of a state different from that of
Defendants. Personal jurisdiction is proper as both Defendants have purposefully availed
themselves of the privilege of conducting business activities within this District, and Defendant,
Deborah “Debbie” Wasserman Schultz resides in and is a Congresswoman representing portions
of this District. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) because
both Defendants are deemed to reside in this District and under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) because
both Defendants conduct business in this District and a substantial part of the acts or omissions
giving rise to the claims set forth herein occurred in this District.
THE PARTIES AND CERTAIN RELEVANT NON-PARTIES
Plaintiffs
2.
Plaintiff Carol Wilding (“Wilding”) is a citizen of Florida. She contributed a total
of $445.50 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
5
Case: 17-14194
3.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 7 of 43
Plaintiff Stanley Rifken (“Rifken”) is a citizen of New York. He contributed a
total of $552.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
4.
Plaintiff Sharon Crawford (“Crawford”) is a citizen of North Carolina. She
contributed a total of $600.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
5.
Plaintiff William Scott Franz (“Franz”) is a citizen of California. He contributed
a total of $2,447.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
6.
Plaintiff David Pulaski (“Pulaski”) is a citizen of Texas. He contributed a total of
$254.10 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
7.
Plaintiff Mary Jasmine Welch (“Welch”) is a citizen of Oregon. She contributed
a total of $2,447.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
8.
Plaintiff Jose Alberto Gonzalez (“J. Gonzalez”) is a citizen of Texas. He
contributed a total of $25.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
9.
Plaintiff Jane Ellen Plattner (“Plattner”) is a citizen of Colorado. She contributed
a total of $1,700.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
10.
Plaintiff Kim Marie Houle (“Houle”) is a citizen of Connecticut. She contributed
a total of $445.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
11.
Plaintiff Timothy Bingen (“Bingen”) is a citizen of North Dakota. He contributed
a total of $379.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
12.
Plaintiff Susan Reed (“S. Reed”) is a citizen of Maryland. She contributed a total
of $1,289.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
13.
Plaintiff Angela Monson (“Monson”) is a citizen of Minnesota. She contributed a
total of $350.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
6
Case: 17-14194
14.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 8 of 43
Plaintiff Aimee R. Coleman (“Coleman”) is a citizen of Tennessee. She
contributed a total of $2,544.13 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
15.
Plaintiff Elesha Snyder (“Snyder”) is a citizen of Ohio. She contributed a total of
$365.50 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
16.
Plaintiff Matthew Shaw (“M. Shaw”) is a citizen of Kansas. He contributed a
total of $222.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
17.
Plaintiff Zachary James Haney (“Haney”) is a citizen of Massachusetts. He
contributed a total of $91.50 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
18.
Plaintiff Estrella Gonzalez (“E. Gonzalez”) is a citizen of Ohio. She contributed a
total of $5.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
19.
Plaintiff Catherine G. Cyko (“Cyko”) is a citizen of Illinois. She contributed a
total of $1,156.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
20.
Plaintiff Laura Genna (“Genna”) is a citizen of New Jersey. She contributed a
total of $87.80 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
21.
Plaintiff Marianne Blair (“Blair”) is a citizen of Illinois. She contributed a total of
$2,669.50 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
22.
Plaintiff Tamara L. Johnston (“Johnston”) is a citizen of Missouri. She
contributed a total of $87.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
23.
Plaintiff Valerie Elyse Rasch (“Rasch”) is a citizen of Wisconsin. She
contributed a total of $47.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
24.
Plaintiff Brett Teegardin (“Teegardin”) is a citizen of Washington. He
contributed a total of $192.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
7
Case: 17-14194
25.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 9 of 43
Plaintiff Daniel O’Meara (“O’Meara”) is a citizen of New Hampshire. He
contributed a total of $153.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
26.
Plaintiff Peggy Lew (“Lew”) is a citizen of Washington. She contributed a total
of $480.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
27.
Plaintiff Daniel J. Reynolds (“Reynolds”) is a citizen of Arkansas. He contributed
a total of $182.81 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
28.
Plaintiff Brenda Lee Smith (“Smith”) is a citizen of Florida. She contributed a
total of $4.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
29.
Plaintiff Marlowe St. Cloud Primack (“Primack”) is a citizen of California. She
contributed a total of $1,082.58 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
30.
Plaintiff Patricia D. Cassidy (“Cassidy”) is a citizen of Pennsylvania. She
contributed a total of $1,036.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
31.
Plaintiff Brittany R. Musick (“Musick”) is a citizen of Georgia. She contributed a
total of $19.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
32.
Plaintiff Harris Bierhoff (“Bierhoff’) is a citizen of California. He contributed a
total of $215.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
33.
Plaintiff Felicia Michelle Taylor (“Taylor”) is a citizen of Utah. She contributed a
total of $82.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
34.
Plaintiff Susan L. Singer (“Singer”) is a citizen of Illinois. She contributed a total
of $223.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
35.
Plaintiff Kyle G. Braund (“Braund”) is a citizen of Alabama. He contributed a
total of $54.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
8
Case: 17-14194
36.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 10 of 43
Plaintiff Lauren Hale (“Hale”) is a citizen of Maine. She contributed a total of
$35.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
37.
Plaintiff William Crandall (“W. Crandall”) is a citizen of California. He
contributed a total of $1,705.34 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
38.
Plaintiff Kirsten Hurst (“Hurst”) is a citizen of Idaho. She contributed a total of
$2,447.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
39.
Plaintiff Duffy Robert Weiss (“Weiss”) is a citizen of North Dakota. He
contributed a total of $121.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
40.
Plaintiff Connie Anderson (“Anderson”) is a citizen of Texas. She contributed a
total of approximately $900.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
41.
Plaintiff Gregory Witkowski (“Witkowski”) is a citizen of New York. He
contributed a total of $445.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
42.
Plaintiff Elizabeth Figueroa (“Figueroa”) is a citizen of California. She
contributed a total of $246.50 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
43.
Plaintiff Brandy Kincaid (“Kincaid”) is a citizen of Tennessee. She contributed a
total of $314.24 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
44.
Plaintiff Kimberly Alberts (“Alberts”) is a citizen of Pennsylvania. She
contributed a total of $24.48 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
45.
Plaintiff Rachel Roderick (“Roderick”) is a citizen of Rhode Island. She
contributed a total of $599.15 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
46.
Plaintiff Laura Michelle Vaughn (“Vaughn”) is a citizen of Alaska. She
contributed a total of $238.80 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
9
Case: 17-14194
47.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 11 of 43
Plaintiff Lisa Gale (“Gale”) is a citizen of North Carolina. She contributed a total
of $730.37 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
48.
Plaintiff Tammy Deitch-Coulter (“Deitch-Coulter”) is a citizen of Michigan. She
contributed a total of $228.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
49.
Plaintiff Kayite Ashcraft (“Ashcraft”) is a citizen of Virginia. He contributed a
total of $2,447.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
50.
Plaintiff Alecia R. Davis (“A. Davis”) is a citizen of Montana. She contributed a
total of $531.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
51.
Plaintiff Dominic Ronzani (“Ronzani”) is a citizen of Florida. He contributed a
total of $38.54 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
52.
Plaintiff Luke Grim (“Grim”) is a citizen of Pennsylvania. He contributed a total
of $30.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
53.
Plaintiff Rosalie Consiglio (“Consiglio”) is a citizen of Maryland. She
contributed a total of $260.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
54.
Plaintiff Edwin Lugo (“Lugo”) is a citizen of New York. He contributed a total of
$53.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
55.
Plaintiff Heather Dade (“Dade”) is a citizen of Washington, DC. She contributed
a total of $110.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
56.
Plaintiff Michael S. Reed (“M. Reed”) is a citizen of Wyoming. He contributed a
total of $75.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
57.
Plaintiff Rhiannon Crandall (“R. Crandall”) is a citizen of Texas. She contributed
a total of approximately $1.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
10
Case: 17-14194
58.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 12 of 43
Plaintiff Ryan Ghan (“Ghan”) is a citizen of Nevada. He contributed a total of
$431.25 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
59.
Plaintiff Lisa Settle (“Settle”) is a citizen of California. She contributed a total of
$1,255.40 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
60.
Plaintiff Yalonda Dye Cooper (“Y. Cooper”) is a citizen of Michigan. She
contributed a total of 139.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
61.
Plaintiff Daniel S. Cooper (“D. Cooper”) is a citizen of Michigan. He contributed
a total of $110.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
62.
Plaintiff Matthew Joseph Brady (“Brady”) is a citizen of Delaware. He
contributed a total of $1,220.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
63.
Plaintiff Andrew Rousseau (“Rousseau”) is a citizen of Vermont. He contributed
a total of $290.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
64.
Plaintiff Susan Catterall (“Catterall”) is a citizen of Indiana. She contributed a
total of $127.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
65.
Plaintiff Julie Hampton (“Hampton”) is a citizen of Iowa. She contributed a total
of $277.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
66.
Plaintiff Chris Bubb (“Bubb”) is a citizen of North Carolina. He contributed a
total of $92.39 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
67.
Plaintiff Erik Furreboe (“Furreboe”) is a citizen of Arizona. He contributed a
total of $13.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
68.
Plaintiff Zeke Shaw (“Z. Shaw”) is a citizen of Georgia. He contributed a total of
$3.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
11
Case: 17-14194
69.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 13 of 43
Plaintiff Benjamin Ilarraza (“Ilarraza”) is a citizen of Texas. He contributed a
total of $225.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
70.
Plaintiff Lucille Grooms (“Grooms”) is a citizen of Idaho. She contributed a total
of $284.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
71.
Plaintiff Christine Maiurano (“Maiurano”) is a citizen of New York. She
contributed a total of $530.50 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
72.
Plaintiff Lewis L. Humiston, IV (“Humiston”) is a citizen of Washington. He
contributed a total of $108.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
73.
Plaintiff John Lynch (“J. Lynch”) is a citizen of Florida. He contributed a total of
$1,349.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
74.
Plaintiff James Simon (“Simon”) is a citizen of New York. He contributed a total
of $2,700.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
75.
Plaintiff Lester John Bates, III (“Bates”) is a citizen of Hawaii. He contributed a
total of approximately $390.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
76.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Goldberg (“Goldberg”) is a citizen of Colorado. He contributed a
total of $82.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
77.
Plaintiff Rick Washik (“Washik”) is a citizen of New York. He contributed a
total of $304.20 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
78.
Plaintiff Richard Booker (“Booker”) is a citizen of Virginia. He contributed a
total of $228.37 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
79.
Plaintiff Karlie Cole (“Cole”) is a citizen of Minnesota. She contributed a total of
$226.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
12
Case: 17-14194
80.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 14 of 43
Plaintiff Erich Sparks (“Sparks”) is a citizen of New York. He contributed a total
of $382.80 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
81.
Plaintiff Prabu Gopalakrishnan (“Gopalakrishnan”) is a citizen of Illinois. He
contributed a total of $191.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
82.
Plaintiff Carlos Villamar (“Villamar”) is a citizen of Virginia. He contributed a
total of $195.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
83.
Plaintiff Carolyn Jacobson (“Jacobson”) is a citizen of California. She
contributed a total of $300.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
84.
Plaintiff Dan Ellis Dudley (“Dudley”) is a citizen of Massachusetts. He
contributed a total of $773.50 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
85.
Plaintiff Lisa Anne Meneely (“Meneely”) is a citizen of California. She
contributed a total of $105.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
86.
Plaintiff D.J. Buschini (“Buschini”) is a citizen of Massachusetts. He contributed
a total of $13.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
87.
Plaintiff Raymond D. Maxwell (“Maxwell”) is a citizen of Washington, District
of Columbia. He contributed a total of $114.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via
ActBlue.
88.
Plaintiff David L. Meuli (“Meuli”) is a citizen of Alaska. He contributed a total
of $423.50 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
89.
Plaintiff Kenneth E. Puckett (“Puckett”) is a citizen of Oregon. He contributed a
total of $1,972.26 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
90.
Plaintiff David N. Pyles (“Pyles”) is a citizen of New Hampshire. He contributed
a total of $1,005.50 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
13
Case: 17-14194
91.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 15 of 43
Plaintiff Cynthia T. Chan (“Chan”) is a citizen of Georgia. She contributed a total
of $111.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
92.
Plaintiff Stefanie Birdsong (“Birdsong”) is a citizen of Colorado. She contributed
a total of $159.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
93.
Plaintiff Amber Rae Knowlton (“Knowlton”) is a citizen of Massachusetts. She
contributed a total of $277.50 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
94.
Plaintiff Timo A. Johann (“Johann”) is a citizen of North Carolina. He
contributed a total of $35.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
95.
Plaintiff Jeff Rogers (“Rogers”) is a citizen of Washington. He contributed a total
of $160.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
96.
Plaintiff Heather Jordan (“Jordan”) is a citizen of Arkansas. She contributed a
total of $26.50 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
97.
Plaintiff Rana Kangas-Kent (“Kangas-Kent”) is a citizen of California. She
contributed a total of $156.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
98.
Plaintiff Susan Frisbie (“Frisbie”) is a citizen of California. She contributed a
total of $1,456.80 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
99.
Plaintiff Bakh Inamov (“Inamov”) is a citizen of California. He contributed a
total of $187.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
100.
Plaintiff Theda Larson-Wright (“Larson-Wright”) is a citizen of New Mexico.
She contributed a total of $1,012.65 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
101.
Plaintiff Kirsten Hoffman (“Hoffman”) is a citizen of Massachusetts. She
contributed a total of $2,700.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
14
Case: 17-14194
102.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 16 of 43
Plaintiff Anthony Grudin (“Grudin”) is a citizen of Vermont. He contributed a
total of $64.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
103.
Plaintiff Bruce Busto (“Busto”) is a citizen of Florida. He contributed a total of
$375.00 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign via ActBlue.
104.
Plaintiff Suzanne M. Cork (“Cork”) is a citizen of Nevada. She contributed a
total of $10 to the Defendant, DNC Services Corporation D/B/A Democratic National
Committee (the “DNC”) in 2016.
105.
Plaintiff Emma L. Young (“Young”) is a citizen of Illinois. She contributed a
total of $15 to the DNC between December 2015 and January 2016. She contributed online.
106.
Plaintiff Sean Lynch (“S. Lynch”) is a citizen of Virginia. He contributed a total
of $3 to the DNC in 2016. He contributed online.
107.
Plaintiff Sherry Davis (“S. Davis”) is a citizen of Washington. She contributed a
total of $173 to the DNC in 2015-2016. She contributed in various ways, including online at
www.democrats.org.
108.
Plaintiff Nancy Berners-Lee (“Berners-Lee”) is a citizen of Massachusetts. She
contributed a total of $100 to the DNC on or about July 20, 2015. She contributed by check.
109.
Plaintiff Phyllis Criddle (“Criddle”) is a citizen of Massachusetts. She
contributed a total of $18 to the DNC on or about May 16, 2016. She contributed by check.
110.
Plaintiff Melissa Liang (“Liang”) is a citizen of Michigan. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for the past 16 years.
111.
Plaintiff Joseph Gleason (“Gleason”) is a citizen of Washington. He is a
registered Democrat, and has been for the past eight years.
15
Case: 17-14194
112.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 17 of 43
Plaintiff Greta Mickey (“Mickey”) is a citizen of New York. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for over 10 years.
113.
Plaintiff Diane Emily Dreyfus (“Dreyfus”) is a citizen of Maryland. She is a
registered Democrat, and has been for over 40 years.
114.
Plaintiff Kathleen L. Dodge (“Dodge”) is a citizen of Massachusetts. She is a
registered Democrat, and has been for 46 years.
115.
Plaintiff Catherine Willott (“Willott”) is a citizen of California. She is a
registered Democrat, and has been for 32 years.
116.
Plaintiff Tristan Burgener (“Burgener”) is a citizen of Arizona. He is a registered
Democrat, and has been for three years.
117.
Plaintiff Erik Michael Ferragut (“Ferragut”) is a citizen of Tennessee. He is a
registered Democrat, and has been for 20 years.
118.
Plaintiff Vincent J. Cauchi, Jr. (“Cauchi”) is a citizen of California. He is a
registered Democrat, and has been for 40 years.
119.
Plaintiff Joseph Callan (“Callan”) is a citizen of California. He is a registered
Democrat, and has been for over five years.
120.
Plaintiff Mark Bedard (“Bedard”) is a citizen of New York. He is a registered
Democrat, and has been for eight years.
121.
Plaintiff Barbara Bowen (“Bowen”) is a citizen of Louisiana. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for the past 15 years.
122.
Plaintiff Steve Philipp (“Philipp”) is a citizen of New York. He is a registered
Democrat, and has been for the past 16 years.
16
Case: 17-14194
123.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 18 of 43
Plaintiff Susan Phillips (“Phillips”) is a citizen of Wisconsin. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for over 40 years.
124.
Plaintiff Richard Boylan (“Boylan”) is a citizen of California. He is a registered
Democrat, and has been for over 35 years.
125.
Plaintiff Teri Monaco (“Monaco”) is a citizen of Florida. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for over 10 years.
126.
Plaintiff Tukoi Jarrett (“Jarrett”) is a citizen of Illinois. He is a registered
Democrat, and has been for 22 years.
127.
Plaintiff AnnMarie Wilson (“Wilson”) is a citizen of Texas. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for 41 years.
128.
Plaintiff Andrew Orrino (“Orrino”) is a citizen of Connecticut. He is a registered
Democrat, and has been for nine years.
129.
Plaintiff Craig Richard Currier (“Currier”) is a citizen of Oregon. He is a
registered Democrat, and has been for approximately 12 years.
130.
Plaintiff Jarath Hemphill (“Hemphill”) is a citizen of New York. He is a
registered Democrat, and has been for the past 34 years.
131.
Plaintiff George Thomas (“Thomas”) is a citizen of Washington. He is a
registered Democrat, and has been for the past 35 years.
132.
Plaintiff Rebecca White-Hayes (“White-Hayes”) is a citizen of Illinois. She is a
registered Democrat, and has been for the past 22 years.
133.
Plaintiff Alaina Talboy (“Talboy”) is a citizen of Florida. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for over 10 years.
17
Case: 17-14194
134.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 19 of 43
Plaintiff Sarah López (“López”) is a citizen of Oregon. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for the past 16 years.
135.
Plaintiff Eliza Feero (“Feero”) is a citizen of New York. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for the past 13 years.
136.
Plaintiff Rebecca Hohm (“Hohm”) is a citizen of Missouri. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for the past 30 years.
137.
Plaintiff Gayle Ann Harrod (“Harrod”) is a citizen of Maryland. She is a
registered Democrat, and has been for approximately 30 years.
138.
Plaintiff Erika Sitzer (“Sitzer”) is a citizen of North Carolina. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for approximately eight years.
139.
Plaintiff Stephen Houseknecht (“Houseknecht”) is a citizen of New York. He is a
registered Democrat, and has been for the past 44 years.
140.
Plaintiff Diane Robinson (“Robinson”) is a citizen of California. She is a
registered Democrat, and has been for approximately 28 years.
141.
Plaintiff Jen Betterley (“Betterley”) is a citizen of Washington. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for at least 10 years.
142.
Plaintiff Amalie Duvall (“Duvall”) is a citizen of Missouri. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for approximately 23 years.
143.
Plaintiff John Crowe (“Crowe”) is a citizen of Nebraska. He is a registered
Democrat, and has been for approximately five years.
144.
Plaintiff Carl Miller (“Miller”) is a citizen of North Carolina. He is a registered
Democrat, and has been for the past 24 years.
18
Case: 17-14194
145.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 20 of 43
Plaintiff Susan Roppel (“Roppel”) is a citizen of Michigan. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for approximately 32 years.
146.
Plaintiff Diana Flores (“Flores”) is a citizen of Tennessee. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for the past eight years.
147.
Plaintiff Julianna Seymour (“Seymour”) is a citizen of New York. She is a
registered Democrat, and has been for the last 13 years.
148.
Plaintiff Melissa Marcotte (“Marcotte”) is a citizen of Rhode Island. She is a
registered Democrat, and has been for approximately 13 years.
149.
Plaintiff Danielle Ingrassia (“Ingrassia”) is a citizen of California. She is a
registered Democrat, and has been for over eight years.
150.
Plaintiff Alette Prichett (“Prichett”) is a citizen of California. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for over 15 years.
151.
Plaintiff Torsha Childs (“Childs”) is a citizen of New York. She is a registered
Democrat, and has been for over 25 years.
152.
Plaintiffs represent only a fraction of the individuals who are willing and able to
serve as class representatives in this action. In the past several weeks, over 1,000 additional
members of the proposed classes have volunteered to be class representatives, and have retained
undersigned counsel in order to do so. Within the same timeframe, undersigned counsel have
received over 13,000 inquiries from potential class members seeking information about the suit,
and inquiries continue to come in.
Defendants
153.
Defendant, DNC Services Corporation, d/b/a Democratic National Committee
(the “DNC”), at all times relevant hereto, was and is a not-for-profit corporation organized under
19
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 21 of 43
the laws of the District of Columbia and is the operating body of the United States Democratic
Party. The DNC maintains its principal place of business at 430 South Capitol Street Southeast
in Washington, District of Columbia.
154.
Defendant, Deborah “Debbie” Wasserman Schultz (“Wasserman Schultz”) has
been the Chairperson of the DNC since 2011. Wasserman Schultz is a citizen of Florida with
offices in Pembroke Pines, Florida, and Aventura, Florida, in addition to offices in Washington,
D.C.
Non-Party
155.
Non-party ActBlue is a United States political action committee established in
June 2004 that enables online fundraising for Democratic Party campaigns. ActBlue charges a
3.95% “processing” fee for each contribution. Some Plaintiffs utilized ActBlue’s online services
to make the contributions referred to herein.
GENERAL FACTS
156.
The DNC is the formal governing body for the United States Democratic Party.
The DNC is responsible for coordinating strategy in support of Democratic Party candidates for
local, state, and national office.
157.
As part of its duties, the DNC organizes the Democratic National Convention
every four years to nominate and confirm a candidate for President, and establishes rules for the
state caucuses and primaries that choose delegates to the convention.
158.
Since 2011, Wasserman Schultz has been Chairperson of the DNC. Wasserman
Schultz has also served as the U.S. Representative for Florida’s 23rd congressional district since
2013; before then, she represented Florida’s 20th district in the U.S. House of Representatives
starting in 2005.
20
Case: 17-14194
159.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 22 of 43
The DNC is governed by the Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic Party. These
governing documents expressly obligate the DNC to maintain a neutral posture with respect to
candidates seeking the party’s nomination for President during the nominating process. Article 5,
Section 4 of the Charter states:
The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive
such compensation as may be determined by agreement between the
Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and
management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National
Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of
the Presidential nominating process, the Chairperson shall exercise
impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates
and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the
national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee
maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process.
(emphasis added).
160.
Consistent with what the Charter requires, the DNC, through Wasserman Schultz
and other employees, and from the very beginning of the presidential race, has consistently and
publicly affirmed its impartiality and evenhandedness with respect to the nominating process for
the Democratic nominee for President in 2016. For example:
a)
A September 3, 2015 article in Politico reporting on Wasserman Schultz’s
relationships with Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden quoted Wasserman Schultz as
saying, “I count both Secretary Clinton and Vice President Biden as dear friends,
21
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 23 of 43
but no matter who comprises our field of candidates it’s my job to run a neutral
primary process and that’s what I am committed to doing[.]”1
b)
A September 16, 2015 article in The Daily Beast on the Democratic
candidate debate schedule quoted DNC spokesperson Holly Shulman (“Shuman”)
as stating, “[t]he DNC runs an impartial primary process.”2
c)
Shulman was also quoted in an article appearing in the Daily Mail Online
(UK) on October 16, 2015, as stating, “[t]he DNC runs an impartial primary
process, period.”3
d)
In a CNN appearance on May 17, 2016, where she discussed alleged
“violence” by supporters of Bernie Sanders at the Nevada State Democratic
1
See Edward-Isaac Dovere & Marc Caputo, “Wasserman Schultz’s divided loyalties,” Politico,
available at http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/debbie-wasserman-schultz-joe-biden-hillary-clinton2016-loyalty-213294 (last visited June 20, 2016).
2
See Olivia Nuzzi, “Is the Democratic National Committee in the Tank for Hillary?,” The Daily
Beast, available at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/16/is-the-democratic-nationalcommittee-in-the-tank-for-hillary.html (last visited June 20, 2016).
3
See David Martosko, “Democratic National Committeewoman says her party is ‘clearing a path’
for Hillary because ‘the women in charge’ want it that way,” available at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3273404/Democratic-National-Committeewoman-says-partyclearing-path-Hillary-women-charge-want-way.html (last visited June 20, 2016).
22
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 24 of 43
Convention, Wasserman Schultz stated that, “[t]he Democratic National
Committee remains neutral in this primary, based on our rules.”4
e)
In a statement quoted by the Associated Press on May 21, 2016, while
discussing Sanders’ endorsement of her primary opponent for Congress,
Wasserman Schultz stated, “[e]ven though Senator Sanders has endorsed my
opponent, I remain, as I have been from the beginning, neutral in the presidential
Democratic primary.”5
161.
Despite the requirements in the Charter, and in spite of the multiple public
declarations of neutrality and impartiality with respect to the Democratic primary process, the
DNC was not neutral. To the contrary, the DNC was biased in favor of one candidate – Hillary
Clinton (“Clinton”) – from the beginning and throughout the process. The DNC devoted its
considerable resources to supporting Clinton above any of the other Democratic candidates.
Through its public claims to being neutral and impartial, the DNC actively concealed its bias
from its own donors as well as donors to the campaigns of Clinton’s rivals, including Bernie
Sanders (“Sanders”).
4
The video may be viewed on the internet at
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/17/debbie_wasserman_schultz_what_happened_at_neva
da_convention_was_unacceptable_sanders_added_fuel_to_the_fire.html (last visited June 20, 2016).
5
See Tribune news services, “Sanders says he is backing opponent of DNC chair Wasserman
Schultz,” Chicago Tribune (May 21, 2016), available at
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-sanders-dnc-chair-20160521-story.html
(last visited June 20, 2016).
23
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 25 of 43
162.
The truth of the DNC’s deception started to come to public light in June 2016.
163.
On June 14, 2016, officials of the DNC announced that Russian government
hackers had penetrated its computer network. The hackers had access to the network for
approximately one year. According to the Washington Post, “[t]he intruders so thoroughly
compromised the DNC’s system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic” – but
in the same article, “[t]he DNC said that no financial, donor or personal information appears to
have been accessed or taken[.]” 6
164.
The same day, CrowdStrike – a network security consulting firm retained by the
DNC to investigate and respond to the breach – publicly released more details. According to
CrowdStrike, two separate hacker groups affiliated with the Russian government, codenamed
“Cozy Bear” and “Fancy Bear,” were detected as having infiltrated the DNC network. Both
groups have a long history of successfully targeting sensitive government and industry computer
networks in both the United States and other countries, often using “sophisticated phishing
attacks.” CrowdStrike concluded that Cozy Bear’s intrusion of the DNC network began in
summer of 2015, while Fancy Bear separately breached it in April 2016.7
6
See Ellen Nakashima, “Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research
on Trump,” The Washington Post (June 14, 2016), available at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dncstole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html (last
visited June 23, 2016).
7
See Dmitri Alperovitch, “Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee,”
CrowdStrike Blog (June 14, 2016, updated June 15, 2016), available at
https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ (last visited
June 23, 2016); Michael Kan, “Russian hackers breach DNC computers, steal data on Donald Trump,”
PCWorld (June 14, 2016), available at http://www.pcworld.com/article/3083440/security/russianhackers-breach-dnc-computers-steal-data-on-trump.html (last visited June 23, 2016).
24
Case: 17-14194
165.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 26 of 43
On June 15, 2016, an individual using the name “Guccifer 2.0” established a
publicly accessible website (https://guccifer2.wordpress.com) and posted a statement taking
credit for the DNC server hack.8 Below the statement, Guccifer 2.0 posted a series of documents
purportedly taken from the DNC’s servers including: (a) a 281-page confidential “Donald Trump
Report” purportedly submitted to the DNC on 12/19/15 and containing extensive research on the
presumptive Republican presidential nominee; (b) Excel spreadsheets containing the names and
personal information of donors to the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign; and (c)
a 59-page memorandum marked “Secret” setting forth national security and foreign policy
“promises and proposals” and purportedly obtained from Clinton’s personal computer.9
166.
Among the documents released by Guccifer 2.0 on June 15th is a two-page
Microsoft Word file with a “Confidential” watermark that appears to be a memorandum written
to the Democratic National Committee regarding “2016 GOP presidential candidates” and dated
May 26, 2015. A true and correct copy of this document (hereinafter, “DNC Memo”) is attached
as Exhibit 1.10
8
See Ellen Nakashima, “‘Guccifer 2.0’ claims credit for DNC hack,” The Washington Post (June
15, 2016), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/guccifer-20-claimscredit-for-dnc-hack/2016/06/15/abdcdf48-3366-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html (last visited June 23,
2016).
9
Guccifer 2.0, “DNC’s Servers Hacked By A Lone Hacker,” available at
https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/ (last visited June 23, 2016).
10
Despite being asked the question repeatedly, the DNC has never confirmed or denied the
authenticity of any of the documents released by Guccifer 2.0. See Reno Berkeley, “DNC Tight-Lipped
About Authenticity Of Documents From Guccifer 2.0 Hack,” Inquisitr (June 17, 2016), available at
http://www.inquisitr.com/3212344/dnc-tight-lipped-about-authenticity-of-documents-from-guccifer-2-0hack/ (last visited June 24, 2016).
25
Case: 17-14194
167.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 27 of 43
The DNC Memo presents, “a suggested strategy for positioning and public
messaging around the 2016 Republican presidential field.” It states that, “Our goals in the
coming months will be to frame the Republican field and the eventual nominee early and to
provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.11” (emphasis added). The DNC Memo
also advises that the DNC, “[u]se specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency
and campaign finance attacks on HRC.” In order to “muddy the waters” around Clinton’s
perceived vulnerabilities, the DNC Memo suggests “several different methods” of attack
including: (a) “[w]orking through the DNC” to “utilize reporters” and create stories in the media
“with no fingerprints”; (b) “prep[ping]” reporters for interviews with GOP candidates and having
off-the-record conversations with them; (c) making use of social media attacks; and (d) using the
DNC to “insert our messaging” into Republican-favorable press.
168.
By the date of the DNC Memo, the Democratic presidential nomination field
already included, in addition to Clinton, Bernie Sanders, who announced his candidacy on April
30, 2015.12 And at the time, there was also widespread speculation that others would soon enter
the primary race including Joe Biden, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O’Malley, Elizabeth Warren, and
Jim Webb.13
11
“HRC” is short for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
12
See Dan Merica, “Bernie Sanders is running for president,” CNN Politics (Apr. 30, 2015),
available at http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/politics/bernie-sanders-announces-presidential-run/ (last
visited June 23, 2016).
13
See Newsday.com with the Associated Press, “2016 presidential race: Possible Democratic
candidates,” Newsday (Apr. 29, 2015), available at http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/democratswho-may-run-for-president-in-2016-from-clinton-to-biden-1.9988978 (last visited June 23, 2016). Of
these, only Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren ultimately decided not to run.
26
Case: 17-14194
169.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 28 of 43
Despite there being every indication that the 2016 Democratic primary would be
contested by multiple candidates, including Sanders, the DNC Memo makes no mention of any
Democratic candidate except Clinton, and builds the DNC’s election strategy on the assumption
that Clinton will be the nominee, with no doubts attached. Rather than reflecting an “impartial”
or “evenhanded” approach to the nominating process, as required by the Charter, the DNC
Memo strongly indicates that the DNC’s entire approach to the process was guided by the
singular goal of elevating Clinton to the general election contest.
170.
On June 18 and 21, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 released additional files purportedly taken
from the DNC’s servers. Among these documents are even more items that appear to be of a
highly sensitive nature including: (a) multiple spreadsheets of donors to the DNC and other
organizations, including the Clinton Foundation, containing personal information such as names,
email addresses, and phone numbers; (b) a “private and confidential” memorandum to Secretary
of Defense Ashton Carter from a senior advisor regarding appointments to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff; (c) fee, travel, and lodging requirements for Clinton’s paid speeches; (d) Clinton’s tax
returns; and (e) thousands of pages of research, apparently prepared by DNC staff as well as
Clinton’s campaign staff, relating to Clinton’s candidacy including her “vulnerabilities,”
potential attacks, rebuttals, policy positions, and opposition research on the other Democratic
candidates.14
14
See “DNC Researched Clinton Speeches, Travel Records,” The Smoking Gun (June 21, 2016),
available at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/dnc-researched-clinton-speeches-travelrecords-621985 (last visited June 24, 2016); Salam Marcos, “Guccifer 2.0: ‘Neutral’ DNC Staff
Conducted Research for Clinton,” Progressive Army, (June 21, 2016) available at
http://progressivearmy.com/2016/06/21/guccifer-2-0-dnc-conducted-research-clinton/ (last visited June
24, 2016); Stephen K. Bannon & Alexander Marlow, “Secret Memo: 42-Page Leaked DNC Document
Reveals Clinton Foundation Scandal ‘Vulnerabilities’ For Hillary Clinton,” Breitbart (June 21, 2016),
27
Case: 17-14194
171.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 29 of 43
These additional files entail further, substantial evidence that the DNC was
anything but “impartial,” “evenhanded,” or “neutral” with respect to the Democratic nominating
process. To the contrary, and in spite of the governing Charter and its multiple public statements,
the DNC devoted its resources to propelling Clinton’s candidacy ahead of all of her rivals, even
if this meant working directly against the interests of Democratic Party members, including
Bernie Sanders’ supporters.
172.
All conditions precedent to the commencement and prosecution to final judgment
of this civil action have taken place, have been performed, or have been waived or excused by
Defendants.
173.
Plaintiffs have been compelled to engage the services of the undersigned
attorneys and to pay them a reasonable fee.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION
174.
Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and the proposed class
members under Rules 23(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as
noted below.
175.
There are three proposed classes (hereinafter collectively referred to as the
“Classes”):
a)
All people or entities who have contributed to the DNC from January 1,
2015 through the date of this action (“DNC Donor Class”);
available at http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/21/secret-memo-42-page-leakeddnc-document-reveals-clinton-foundation-scandal-vulnerabilities-hillary-clinton/ (June 24, 2016).
28
Case: 17-14194
b)
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 30 of 43
All people or entities who have contributed to the Bernie Sanders
campaign from January 1, 2015 through the date of this action (“Sanders
Donor Class”); and
c)
All registered members of the Democratic Party (“Democratic Party
Class”).15
176.
Plaintiffs, Cork, Young, S. Lynch, S. Davis, Berners-Lee, and Criddle bring this
action on behalf of themselves and the DNC Donor Class. Hereinafter, they will be referred to
collectively as the “DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs.”
177.
Plaintiffs, Wilding, Rifken, Crawford, Franz, Pulaski, Welch, J. Gonzalez,
Plattner, Houle, Bingen, S. Reed, Monson, Coleman, Snyder, M. Shaw, Haney, E. Gonzalez,
Cyko, Genna, Blair, Johnston, Rasch, Teegardin, O’Meara, Lew, Reynolds, Smith, Primack,
Cassidy, Musick, Bierhoff, Taylor, Singer, Braund, Hale, W. Crandall, Hurst, Weiss, Anderson,
Witkowski, Figueroa, Kincaid, Alberts, Roderick, Vaughn, Gale, Deitch-Coulter, Ashcraft, A.
Davis, Ronzani, Grim, Consiglio, Lugo, Dade, M. Reed, R. Crandall, Ghan, Settle, Y. Cooper, D.
Cooper, Brady, Rousseau, Catterall, Hampton, Bubb, Furreboe, Z. Shaw, Ilarraza, Grooms,
Maiurano, Humiston, J. Lynch, Simon, Bates, Goldberg, Washik, Booker, Cole, Sparks,
Gopalakrishnan, Villamar, Jacobson, Dudley, Meneely, Buschini, Maxwell, Meuli, Puckett,
Pyles, Chan, Birdsong, Knowlton, Johann, Rogers, Jordan, Kangas-Kent, Frisbie, Inamov,
Larson-Wright, Hoffman, Grudin, and Busto bring this action on behalf of themselves and the
15
Specifically excluded from the class definitions are Defendants; the officers, directors, or
employees of Defendants; any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest; and any
affiliate, legal representative, heir, or assign of Defendants. Also excluded are any federal, state,
or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of
his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action.
29
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 31 of 43
Sanders Donor Class. Hereinafter, they will be referred to collectively as the “Sanders Donor
Class Plaintiffs.”
178.
Plaintiffs, Liang, Gleason, Mickey, Dreyfus, Dodge, Willott, Burgener, Ferragut,
Cauchi, Callan, Bedard, Bowen, Philipp, Phillips, Boylan, Monaco, Jarrett, Wilson, Orrino,
Currier, Hemphill, Thomas, White-Hayes, Talboy, Lopez, Feero, Hohm, Harrod, Sitzer,
Houseknecht, Robinson, Betterley, Duvall, Crowe, Miller, Roppel, Flores, Seymour, Marcotte,
Ingrassia, Prichett, and Childs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the Democratic Party
Class. Hereinafter, they will be referred to collectively as the “Democratic Party Class Plaintiffs.”
179.
Numerosity. The members of each of the Classes are so numerous that their
individual joinder is impracticable.
180.
Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact.
Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Classes and predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members of the Classes.
181.
Typicality. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the
Classes they seek to represent, and Plaintiffs have the same claims as those of the other class
members they seek to represent.
182.
Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the members of their respective Classes. Plaintiffs have retained counsel highly
experienced in class action litigation, and Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action vigorously.
Plaintiffs have no adverse or antagonistic interests to those of the Classes.
183.
The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Classes would
create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the
30
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 32 of 43
Classes which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the
Classes.
184.
Defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to the Classes with respect to
the matters complained of herein, thereby making appropriate the relief sought herein with
respect to each of the Classes as a whole.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
(Fraud)
(DNC Donor Class & Sanders Donor Class)
185.
The DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and the Sanders Donor Class Plaintiffs re-allege
paragraphs 1 through 184 above as if fully set forth herein.
186.
Defendants knowingly made false statements and omissions concerning material
187.
Defendants intended that the false statements and omissions would induce the
facts.
DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs, the Sanders Donor Class Plaintiffs, and members of the DNC
Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class, to rely on them.
188.
The DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs, the Sanders Donor Class Plaintiffs, and
members of the DNC Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class, relied on Defendants’ false
statements and omissions to their injury.
189.
Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful, wanton, and malicious. Defendants
had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury to
the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs, the Sanders Donor Class Plaintiffs, and members of the DNC
Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally
pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury.
31
Case: 17-14194
190.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 33 of 43
Defendants’ conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a
conscious disregard or indifference to the rights of the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs, the Sanders
Donor Class Plaintiffs, and members of the DNC Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class.
COUNT II
(Negligent Misrepresentation)
(DNC Donor Class & Sanders Donor Class)
191.
The DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and the Sanders Donor Class Plaintiffs re-allege
paragraphs 1 through 184 above as if fully set forth herein.
192.
Defendants made misrepresentations and omissions concerning material facts.
193.
At the time of the misrepresentations and omissions, Defendants either knew them
to be false, made them without knowledge of the truth or falsity, or should have known them to
be false.
194.
Defendants intended that the misrepresentations and omissions would induce the
DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs, the Sanders Donor Class Plaintiffs, and members of the DNC
Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class, to rely on them.
195.
The DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs, the Sanders Donor Class Plaintiffs, and
members of the DNC Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class, justifiably relied on Defendants’
misrepresentations and omissions to their injury.
196.
Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful, wanton, and malicious. Defendants
had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury to
the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs, the Sanders Donor Class Plaintiffs, and members of the DNC
Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally
pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury.
32
Case: 17-14194
197.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 34 of 43
Defendants’ conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a
conscious disregard or indifference to the rights of The DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs, the Sanders
Donor Class Plaintiffs, and members of the DNC Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class and
members of the DNC Donor Class and Sanders Donor Class.
COUNT III
(Violation of § 28-3904 of the D.C. Code)
(DNC Donor Class & Sanders Donor Class)
198.
The DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs, the Sanders Donor Class Plaintiffs, and
members of the DNC Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class re-allege paragraphs 1 through
184 above as if fully set forth herein.
199.
For purposes of the allegations in this complaint, the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs,
the Sanders Donor Class Plaintiffs, and members of the DNC Donor Class and the Sanders
Donor Class, are “consumers” pursuant to subsection 28-3901(a)(2) of the District of Columbia
Code.
200.
For purposes of the allegations in this complaint, Defendants are “persons”
pursuant to subsection 28-3901(a)(1) of the District of Columbia Code.
201.
Defendants misrepresented as to material facts that had a tendency to mislead the
DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs, the Sanders Donor Class Plaintiffs, and members of the DNC
Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class.
202.
Defendants failed to state material facts, and such failure tended to mislead the
DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs, the Sanders Donor Class Plaintiffs, and members of the DNC
Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class.
203.
As such, Defendants violated subsections 28-3904(e) and 28-3904(f) of the
District of Columbia Code.
33
Case: 17-14194
204.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 35 of 43
Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful, wanton, and malicious. Defendants
had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury to
the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs, the Sanders Donor Class Plaintiffs, and members of the DNC
Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally
pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury.
205.
Defendants’ conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a
conscious disregard or indifference to the rights of The DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs, the Sanders
Donor Class Plaintiffs, and members of the DNC Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class.
COUNT IV
(Unjust Enrichment)
(DNC Donor Class)
206.
The DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 184 above as if
fully set forth herein.
207.
The DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and members of the DNC Donor Class conferred
benefits on the Defendants, who had knowledge thereof.
208.
Defendants voluntarily accepted and retained the benefits conferred.
209.
The circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for the Defendants to
retain the benefits without paying the value thereof to the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and
members of the DNC Donor Class.
210.
Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful, wanton, and malicious. Defendants
had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury to
the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and members of the DNC Donor Class would result and, despite
that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury.
34
Case: 17-14194
211.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 36 of 43
Defendants’ conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a
conscious disregard or indifference to the rights of the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and members
of the DNC Donor Class.
COUNT V
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
(Democratic Party Class)
212.
The Democratic Party Class Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 184 above
as if fully set forth herein.
213.
Defendants had a fiduciary duty to the Democratic Party Class Plaintiffs and
members of the Democratic Party Class.
214.
Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the Democratic Party Class Plaintiffs
and members of the Democratic Party Class.
215.
The Democratic Party Class Plaintiffs and members of the Democratic Party
Class have been proximately damaged by Defendants’ breach.
216.
Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful, wanton, and malicious. Defendants
had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury to
the Democratic Party Class Plaintiffs and members of the Democratic Party Class would result
and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury.
217.
Defendants’ conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a
conscious disregard or indifference to the rights of the Democratic Party Class Plaintiffs and
members of the Democratic Party Class.
35
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 37 of 43
COUNT VI
(Negligence)
(DNC Donor Class)
218.
The DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs as re-allege paragraphs 1 through 184 above as if
fully set forth herein.
219.
Defendants owed a duty to the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and members of the
DNC Donor Class to use and exercise reasonable and due care in obtaining, retaining, and
securing the personal and financial information provided to them in connection with their
contributions to the DNC.
220.
Defendants owed a duty to the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and members of the
DNC Donor Class to provide security, consistent with industry standards and requirements, to
ensure that the DNC’s computer systems and networks, and the personnel responsible for them,
adequately protected the personal and financial information of the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs
and members of the DNC Donor Class.
221.
Defendants owed a duty of care to the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and members
of the DNC Donor Class because they were a foreseeable and probable victim of any inadequate
data security practices. Defendants solicited, gathered, and stored the sensitive financial and
personal data provided by the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and members of the DNC Donor
Class to facilitate their contributions. Defendants knew they inadequately safeguarded this
information on the DNC computer systems and that sophisticated hackers routinely attempted to
access this valuable data without authorization. Defendants knew that a breach of the system
would inflict considerable damages upon the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and members of the
DNC Donor Class, and Defendants were therefore charged with a duty to adequately protect this
critically sensitive information.
36
Case: 17-14194
222.
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 38 of 43
Defendants maintained a special relationship with the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs
and members of the DNC Donor Class. The DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and members of the
DNC Donor Class entrusted Defendants with their personal and financial information on the
assumption that Defendants would safeguard this information, and Defendants were in a position
to protect against the harm suffered by the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and members of the DNC
Donor Class as a result of the network breaches.
223.
In light of their special relationship with the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and
members of the DNC Donor Class, Defendants knew, or should have known, of the risks
inherent in collecting and storing the personal and financial information of the DNC Donor Class
Plaintiffs and members of the DNC Donor Class, and the importance of providing adequate
security of that information.
224.
Defendants breached the duties they owed to the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and
members of the DNC Donor Class by failing to exercise reasonable care and implement adequate
security protocols – including protocols consistent with industry standards – sufficient to protect
the personal and financial information of the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and members of the
DNC Donor Class.
225.
Defendants breached the duties they owed to the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and
members of the DNC Donor Class by failing to properly implement technical systems or security
practices that could have prevented the theft of the information at issue.
226.
Defendants breached the duties they owed to the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and
members of the DNC Donor Class by failing to properly maintain the sensitive personal and
financial information of the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs and members of the DNC Donor Class.
37
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 39 of 43
Given the risk involved and the amount of data at issue, Defendants breach of their duties was
entirely unreasonable.
227.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent conduct, the DNC
Donor Class Plaintiffs and members of the DNC Donor Class have suffered injury and are
entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
228.
Defendants’ conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a
conscious disregard or indifference to the safety and rights of the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs
and members of the DNC Donor Class.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for a judgment:
229.
For declaratory and injunctive relief declaring illegal and enjoining, preliminarily
and permanently, Defendants’ violation of and failure to follow the Charter and Bylaws of the
Democratic Party;
230.
Certification of this action as a class action, designation of Plaintiffs as class
representatives and undersigned counsel as class counsel;
231.
For compensatory, general, restitutionary, restorative, statutory, treble, and special
damages for Plaintiffs against Defendants;
232.
Exemplary/punitive damages as against Defendants in an amount sufficient to
deter and to make an example of Defendants;
233.
Attorneys’ fees and costs;
234.
Prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
235.
The cost of this suit and such other relief as the court finds just and proper.
38
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 40 of 43
JURY DEMAND
236.
Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.
DATED: November 24, 2017
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
/s/ Jared H. Beck
By: Jared H. Beck
BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS
JARED H. BECK
ELIZABETH LEE BECK
BEVERLY VIRUES
Corporate Park at Kendall
12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205
Miami, Florida 33186
Telephone:
(305) 234-2060
Facsimile:
(786) 664-3334
jared@beckandlee.com
elizabeth@beckandlee.com
beverly@beckandlee.com
CULLIN O’BRIEN LAW, P.A.
CULLIN O’BRIEN
6541 NE 21st Way
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
Telephone: (561) 676-6370
Facsimile:
(561) 320-0285
cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com
ANTONINO G. HERNANDEZ P.A.
ANTONINO G. HERNANDEZ
4 SE 1st Street, 2nd Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 282 3698
Facsimile:
(786) 513 7748
Hern8491@bellsouth.net
Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes
39
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 41 of 43
Exhibit 1
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 42 of 43
To:
The Democratic National Committee
Re:
2016 GOP presidential candidates
Date: May 26, 2015
Below, please find a suggested strategy for positioning and public messaging around the 2016
Republican presidential field. Ultimately, we need to
Our Goals& Strategy
Our goals in the coming months will be to frame the Republican field and the eventual nominee
early and to provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC. Over the long-term, these
efforts will be aimed at getting us the best match-up in the general election, and weakening the
eventual nominee through the course of the primary. We have outlined three strategies to obtain
our goal:
1) Highlight when GOP candidates are outside of the mainstream on key issues, ideally driving the rest of the field to
follow with positions that will hurt them in a general election;
2) Damage Republican presidential candidates’ credibility with voters by looking for targeted opportunities to
undermine their specific messaging;
3) Use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC
Operationalizing the Strategy
Highlighting Extreme or Unpopular Positions
There are two ways to approach the strategies mentioned above. The first is to use the field as a
whole to inflict damage on itself similar to what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012. The variety
and volume of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel
to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to
marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more “Pied Piper” candidates who
actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. In these issues, we would elevate
statements and policies from any candidate—including second and third-tier candidates—on
issues that will make them seem too far to the right on social issues and too far from the
priorities of everyday Americans on economic issues.
Undermining Their Message& Credibility, Based on our General Election Priorities
In addition to pinning down the field on key issues, we will work to undermine the Republican
candidate’s specific messaging, while keeping in mind which candidates and which messages we
believe are most powerful. These messages and the responses to them will change given new
campaign positioning and new learnings from polling and research, but on these issues, we will
keep the focus on the most likely candidates to allow some possibility for growth with the weaker
candidates.
Jeb Bush
o What to undermine: the notion he is a “moderate” or concerned about regular Americans; perceived
inroads with the Latino population.
Marco Rubio
Confidential
Page 1
Case: 17-14194
Date Filed: 11/24/2017
Page: 43 of 43
o What to undermine: the idea he has “fresh” ideas; his perceived appeal to Latinos and younger voters
Scott Walker
o What to undermine: his Wisconsin record, particularly on jobs; the idea he can rally working- and middle
class Americans.
Rand Paul
o What to undermine: the idea he is a “different” kind of Republican; his stance on the military and his
appeal to millennials and communities of color.
Chris Christie
o What to undermine: his success as governor, his hypocrisy in telling it like it is vs. his ethical issues and
acts of a typical politician.
Muddying the Waters
As we all know, the right wing attack machine has been building its opposition research on
Hillary Clinton for decades. HRC’s critics have been telegraphing they are ready to attack and do
so with reckless abandon. While reporters have much less of an appetite for ethics stories about
GOP candidates, we will utilize the research to place highly targeted hits—for example, GOP
candidates taking positions supported by their major super PAC donors.
Tactics
Working with the DNC and allied groups, we will use several different methods to land these
attacks, including:
Reporter Outreach: Working through the DNC and others, we should use background briefings, prep with
reporters for interviews with GOP candidates, off-the-record conversations and oppo pitches to help pitch stories
with no fingerprints and utilize reporters to drive a message.
Releases and Social Media: Where appropriate these attacks can be leveraged for more public release,
particularly the attacks around specific issues where a public release can point out that Republicans are outside
of the mainstream.
Bracketing Events: Both the DNC and outside groups are looking to do events and press surrounding
Republican events to insert our messaging into their press and to force them to answer questions around key
issues.
We look forward to discussing this strategy further. Our goal is to use this conversation to
answer the questions who do we want to run against and how best to leverage other candidates
to maneuver them into the right place.
Confidential
Page 2
]]>
