ROBERT H TOURTELOT (State Bar No. 36207) LAURIE J. BUTLER (State Bar No. 82165)

Attorneys For Plaintiffs Fredric Goldman and Kimberly Erin Goldman

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FREDRIC GOLDMAN, an individual, and KIMBERLY ERIN GOLDMAN, an individual Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, an individual, and DOES 1 through 5, Inclusive, Defendants,

CASE NO. SC036340

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DEATH

(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

Plaintiffs, FREDRIC GOLDMAN and KIMBERLY ERIN GOLDMAN, allege:

1. Plaintiffs, together with Sharon Rufo and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are the sole surviving heirs at law of Ronald Goldman, deceased (hereinafter referred to as "decedent"). There relationship to decedent are:

NAME      RELATIONSHIP TO DECEDENT

Fredric Goldman      Father

Kimberly Erin Goldman     Sister

2. Plaintiff Fredric Goldman, as the surviving natural father of decedent, would be entitled to succeed to the property of decedent under the laws of intestate succession pursuant to the provisions of California Probate Code: Sections 6400, et seq.

3. Plaintiff Kimberly Erin Goldman, as the sole surviving sister of decedent , is entitled to bring this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 377.60.

4. Decedent has no surviving spouse, children, or issue of deceased children.

5. Sharon Rufo (herein "Rufo") is the surviving natural mother of decedent and a person entitled to bring an action to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.60. However, Rufo filed a separate action in this Court on July 20, 1994, said action being Case No. SC031947. For the reasons hereinafter alleged, plaintiffs believe any damages awarded as a result of the wrongful death of decedent should be apportioned by the Court with the entirety thereof, or a substantial portion thereof, being awarded to plaintiffs and , at best, a nominal amount to Rufo. Plaintiffs will at the appropriate time move the Court to consolidate the action heretofore filed by Rufo with the instant action.

6. Defendants, Roes 1 though 50, are persons who may be entitled to bring this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.60 and said fictitious parties are named herein pursuant to and as required by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 and plaintiffs will seek leave of the Court and amend this complaint to show the true names and relationships of said individuals to the decedent once the SUM has been ascertained.

7. Plaintiffs are residents of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that defendant Orenthal James Simpson (hereinafter referred to as "defendant Simpson") brutally murdered the decedent on June 12, 1994 at a location known as 875 South Bundy Drive, in an area of the City of Los Angeles known as "Brentwood", which area is located in the West District of this Court and, in doing so, was guilty of a felony as defined in California Penal Code Section 187. At all times herein mentioned, defendant Simpson was a resident of the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California, residing at 375 North Rockingham Avenue, which address is also located in the area of the City of Los Angeles known as "Brentwood" and located within the West District of this Court.

9. The true names, identities and capacities for the individuals associates, corporate, co-conspirators or otherwise of defendant DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are presently unknown to plaintiffs herein who therefore, sue said defendants by such fictitious names Plaintiffs will seek leave of the Court to amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of said defendants when the same has been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that each of said fictitiously named defendants is a person, firm or corporation in some way legally responsible for the wrongful death of decedent as well as the damages alleged herein.

10. At all times herein mentioned, defendant Simpson and DOES 1 through 10, were the agents, servants, employees, representatives, and/or co-conspirators of one another and, at all times pertinent hereto, were acting within the course and scope of their respective services, employment, agency, conspiracy, and/or representation.

11. Plaintiff Fredric Goldman and Rufo were married in Chicago, Illinois on or about January 8, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the "marriage"). The marriage was dissolved in or about 1974. Decedent was born on July 2, 1968. Plaintiff Fredric Goldman was awarded custody of decedent and plaintiff Kimberly Erin Goldman in or about 1976. Rufo remarried and moved from Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri and ceased having any contact or relationship whatsoever with decedent. In fact, Rufo had neither seen decedent for approximately 14 years prior to decedent's death nor had she attempted to contact him during said period of time. As a result, Rufo has not enjoyed and/or relied upon the company, presence, companionship, society, comfort, education, services, guidance and/or support of decedent for more than the past __ years.

12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that on June 12, 1994, defendant Simpson and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, negligently, carelessly unlawfully, willfully, wantonly and maliciously threatened to kill decedent. Immediately thereafter on the same date defendant Simpson and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, negligently, unlawfully, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously killed decedent.

13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that by reason of the conduct of defendant Simpson and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, as hereinabove alleged, and the acts and commission of acts of omission of these defendants, as alleged aforesaid, and as a direct and legal result thereof, decedent died on or about June 12, 1994.

14. By reason of the death of decedent, which plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege was legally and proximately caused by the conduct of defendant Simpson and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, as herein alleged, plaintiff Fredric Goldman has sustained pecuniary loss resulting from the losses of the company, presence, companionship, society, comfort, attention, services, guidance and support of decedent.

15. By reason of the death of decedent, which plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege was legally and proximately caused by the conduct of the defendant Simpson and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, as herein alleged, plaintiff Kimberly Erin Goldman has sustained pecuniary loss resulting from the loss of the company, presence, companionship, society, comfort, attention, services, guidance and support of decedent.

16. By reason of the death of decedent, which plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege was legally and proximately caused by the conduct of defendant Simpson and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, as herein alleged, plaintiff Fredric Goldman has suffered economic compensatory damages in the amount to be proven at trial.

17. By reason of the death of decedent, which plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege was legally and proximately caused by the conduct of defendant Simpson and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, as herein alleged, plaintiff Kimberly Erin Goldman has suffered economic and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

18. By reason of the allegations contained in this complaint, including the allegations as to which plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that the death of decedent was legally and proximately caused by defendant Simpson and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, plaintiffs, and each of them, have been damaged in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount required by this Court. Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint at the time of trial to insert the exact amount of such losses, according to proof at the time of trial.

19. The conduct of defendant Simpson Does 1 through 10, inclusive, as hereinabove alleged was willful, wanton and outrageous beyond the ability of ordinary human beings to comprehend and such conduct was intended by said defendants to and did actually cause the death of decedent such that the conduct of defendant Simpson and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, was oppressive and malicious as those terms are defined in California Civil Code Section 3294(d). The imposition of substantial punitive and exemplary damages will in this case be both justified and necessary in order to send out a message from this Court to all persons in the United States and throughout the world that such vicious and outrageous savagery inflicted by one human being upon another shall be met with the severest of civil penalties.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:

1. For general damages according to proof;
2. For special damages, according to proof;
3. For reimbursement of funeral expenses and costs of burial;
4. For interest on all sums awarded, according to proof;
5. For punitive and exemplary damages, according to proof;
6. For costs of suit incurred herein;
7. For such other and further relief as to the Court may be just and proper.