SF CivilvWalsh
Plaintiff Stephen Russell (“Russell” or “Plaintiff”) complains and alleges against
Defendant Tara Walsh (“Walsh” or “Defendant”) and Does 1-20 as follows:
VENUE
1. Venue in the Superior Court in and for the County of San Francisco is proper pursuant to section 395(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within the City and County of San Francisco. Further, Plaintiff resides within the City and County of San Francisco.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Stephen Russell is an individual who resides in San Francisco County, State of California.
3. Defendant Tara Walsh is an individual who resides in Kings County, State of New York.
4. Does 1-20 are individuals whose names Russell does not now know, but who, on information and belief committed or facilitated the acts or omissions alleged below, and reside outside of the State of California. Russell will add the names of these individuals when they are discovered.
5. On information and belief, each defendant conspired with, aided and abetted, acted in concert with, and/or acted as the agent of the other defendants.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
6. Russell met Walsh while visiting New York in or around 2015.
7. Thereafter, Russell and Walsh had an “on again off again” relationship, and Walsh and Russell lived together in San Francisco in or around late 2016 through mid-2017.
8. During this time, Russell began to suffer from unexplainable and irregular occurrences of feeling as though he was hallucinating or suffering from a floating sensation in his body.
9. In March 2017, hoping to resolve these recurrent odd feelings, Russell requested that his doctor conduct a full toxicology exam on him. The test results showed high levels of
lithium in his body consistent with an individual who had consumed inorganic lithium. On information and belief, Walsh is associated with persons who have been prescribed lithium.
10. In January 2018. Russell and Walsh had a child. In or around March 2018, Walsh moved with their child to San Francisco to be with Russell so that Russell and Walsh could raise their baby together.
11. On information and belief, while Walsh was living with Russell in San Francisco, she repeatedly and surreptitiously drugged him using prescription medications. Walsh put prescription medications in Russell’s beverages without his knowledge that caused Russell to feel odd, paranoid, suffer from hallucinations or floating feelings, and sometimes lose consciousness.
12. Russell and Walsh’s nanny, Abrehet Tedla, submitted a sworn declaration dated July 6, 2018, in an action in the San Francisco County Superior Court, Russell v. Walsh, Case. No. FTP-18-377425 (“Family Court Action”), in which she testified that she witnessed Walsh putting drugs in Russell’s drinks and that Walsh told her that she “did it all the time.” Walsh later asked Ms. Tedla to lie about this.
13. Walsh herself admitted, under oath, to drugging Russell on two occasions in her July 10, 2018 Declaration submitted in the Family Court Action. Specifically, at page 6, paragraph 22, Walsh testifies under penalty of perjury that “[o]n two occasions” she “put Seroquel... in [Russell’s] wine.” Walsh attaches text messages she had sent to the couple’s therapist confirming the drugging as Exhibits to her Declaration.
14. According to the FDA’s Medication Guide for SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) accessed online on September 14, 2018:
SEROQUEL is a prescription medicine used to treat: • schizophrenia in people 13 years of age or older • bipolar disorder in adults, including: ° depressive episodes associated with bipolar disorder o manic episodes associated with bipolar I disorder alone or with lithium or divalproex ° long-term treatment of bipolar I disorder with lithium or divalproex • manic episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in children ages 10 to 17 years old[.]
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm089126.pdf
15. According to the website Drugs.com accessed on September 14, 2018,[1] common side effects of SEROQUEL include “trouble with movement, dizziness, [and] weakness.”
[1] https://www.rxlist.com/seroquel-side-effects-drug-center.htm
16. According to the website eHealthMe.com accessed on September 14, 2018, the FDA has reported that use of SEROQUEL is associated with paranoia.
17. Russell was unsure and confused as to his physical symptoms during the times he was living with Walsh and became concerned and distressed for his health and safety. Thus, in addition to the negative physical side effects of being secretly drugged by unknown medications, Russell reasonably suffered from anxiety, paranoia, and distress as a result Walsh’s outrageous actions.
[1] https://www.ehealthme.com/ds/seroquel/paranoia/
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Battery
(Against All Defendants)
18. Russell repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-17.
19. On information and belief, Walsh has repeatedly and surreptitiously drugged Russell since 2017 and most recently in 2018.
20. On information and belief, Walsh acted with an intent to harm or offend Russell, and/or was performing unlawful acts when she drugged him.
21. Russell did not consent to being drugged.
22. As a result of Walsh drugging Russell, Russell suffered physically and mentally due to the side effects of the medications Walsh put in his drinks.
23. Russell also suffered from anxiety, paranoia, and distress since he was unsure and confiised as to why he was not feeling well and losing consciousness.
24. A reasonable person who was being drugged against their will and without their knowledge would have been offended and harmed by these actions.
25. As a direct and proximate result of Walsh’s conduct, Russell has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial. These damages include but are not limited to his physical suffering and emotional distress. In addition, Walsh’s misconduct has interfered with Russell’s business pursuits, causing additional damage.
26. Walsh acted with oppression, malice, and/or fraud, warranting an award of punitive damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Infliction of emotional Distress
(Against All Defendants)
27. Russell repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-26.
28. Walsh’s wrongfill actions as alleged herein constituted extreme and outrageous conduct.
29. On information and belief, Walsh intended to cause Russell emotional distress and/or acted with reckless disregard of the probability that Russell would suffer emotional distress as a result of the conduct alleged herein.
30. As a direct and proximate result of Walsh’s conduct, Russell has suffered severe emotional distress including suffering, anguish, nervousness, worry, and shock. In addition, Walsh’s misconduct has interfered with Russell’s business pursuits, causing additional damage.
31. Walsh acted with oppression, malice, and/or fraud, warranting an award of punitive damages.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Domestic Violence under California Civil Code Section 1708.6
(Against All Defendants)
32. Russell repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-31.
33. At the times when Walsh drugged Russell, she was Russell’s cohabitant, former cohabitant, a person with whom he had had a child or was having a child, and/or with whom he had a dating relationship.
34. On information and belief, Walsh intentionally and/or recklessly caused and/or attempted to cause bodily injury to Russell, and/or placed him in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury.
35. As a direct and proximate result of this conduct, Russell suffered injuries and damages to be proven at trial. These damages include but are not limited to his physical suffering and emotional distress. In addition, Walsh’s misconduct has interfered with Russell’s business pursuits, causing additional damage.
36. Walsh acted with oppression, malice, and fraud, warranting an award of punitive damages.
37. Russell should be awarded punitive damages and attorney’s fees under California Civil Code Section 1708.6.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
California Drug Dealer Liability Act under Health and Safety Code Section 11700 etseq.
(Against All Defendants)
38. Russell repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-37.
39. By the conduct alleged above, Walsh administered and gave away illegal controlled substances, constituting marketing under California Health & Safety Code Section 11703(g).
40. As a direct and proximate result of this conduct, Russell was damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. These damages include but are not limited to his physical suffering and emotional distress. In addition, Walsh’s misconduct has interfered with Russell’s business pursuits, causing additional damage.
41. Walsh acted with oppression, malice, and fraud, warranting an award of punitive damages.
42. Russell should be awarded punitive damages and attorney’s fees under California Health & Safety Code Section 11705(d).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Russell prays for judgment as follows:
1. ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY:
a. Compensatory damages according to proof in an amount to be determined at trial;
b. Punitive damages;
c. Costs; and
d. Such other relief as the Court deems just.
2. ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS:
a. Compensatory damages according to proof in an amount to be determined at trial;
b. Punitive damages;
c. Costs; and
d. Such other relief as the Court deems just.
3. ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1708.6:
a. Compensatory damages according to proof in an amount to be determined at trial;
b. Punitive damages;
c. Punitive damages and an award of attorney’s fees under California Civil Code Section 1708.6;
d. Costs; and
e. Such other relief as the Court deems just.
ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CALIFORNIA DRUG DEALER LIABILITY ACT UNDER HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 11700 et seq.
a. Compensatory damages according to proof in an amount to be determined at trial;
b. Punitive damages;
c. Punitive damages and attorney’s fees under California Health & Safety Code Section 11705(d);
a. Costs; and
b. Such other relief as the Court deems just.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL OF ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE