James Fleming, who is being sued by his former employer, the Community Health Alliance fired back at the health nonprofit in court filings last week. He denies wrongdoing and accuses CHA of interfering with the federal investigation into Fleming’s allegations that CHA committed fraud. Fleming filed a response to CHA's complaint Feb. 4 after CHA applied for a temporary protective order seeking to prevent Fleming from talking about CHA negatively. CHA also filed an amended complaint that removed most mentions of Reno city council member, also CHA’s CEO, Oscar Delago.

1. 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CODE: 1090
Jason D. Guinasso, Esq. SBN# 8478
Alex R. Velto, Esq., SBN# 14961
Astrid A. Perez, Esq., SBN #15977
HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC
5371 Kietzke Lane
Reno, Nevada 89511
Telephone: (775) 853-8746
Facsimile: (775) 201-9611
Attorneys for Plaintiff Community Health Alliance
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
COMMUNITY HEALTH ALLIANCE, a
Domestic nonprofit corporation.
Plaintiff,
vs.
JAMES FLEMING, an individual; DOES 1-
10 inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS 1-
10, inclusive.
Defendants.
Case No.: CV22-00066
Dept No.: 3
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Arbitration Exempt
[Declaratory Relief Sought]
Plaintiff Community Health Alliance (“Plaintiff” or “CHA”), by and through its counsel
of record, Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC, hereby asserts the following claims against defendant
James Fleming (“Defendant” or “Jim” or “Fleming”), and represents the following to this
Honorable Court:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1. At all relevant times here, Community Health Alliance has been a nonprofit
corporation formed under the laws of the State of Nevada, with a license to do business in
Nevada, and with a principal place of business in Washoe County, Nevada at 680 S. Rock
Blvd, Reno, NV, 89502.
F I L E D
Electronically
CV22-00066
2022-02-01 04:34:36 PM
Alicia L. Lerud
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 8875186 : yviloria

2. 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. At all relevant times here, and upon information and belief, James Fleming
(“Fleming”) has been a resident of Washoe County, Nevada.
3. The true names and capacities of DOES I through X, inclusive, whether
individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said
defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges
that each of the defendants designated as DOES 1 through 10 is responsible in some manner for
the events and happenings referred to in this action and proximately cased damages to the
Plaintiff as herein alleged. The legal responsibility of said defendant DOES 1 through 10 arises
out of, but is not limited to, their status as owners, officers, directors, advisors, employees,
agents, contractors, masters/servants, or joint venturers with Community Health Alliance.
Plaintiff will ask leave of this Honorable Court to amend this Complaint to insert the true
names and capacities of DOES 1 through 10, and when the same have been ascertained, to join
such defendants to this action together with the proper charging allegations.
4. The true names and capacities of ROE CORPORATIONS I through X,
inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise are unknown to Plaintiff who
therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
therefore alleges that each of the defendants designated as ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through
10 is responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to in this action and
proximately caused damages to the Plaintiff as herein alleged. Plaintiff will ask leave of this
Honorable Court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and capacities of ROE
CORPORATIONS 1 through 10, and when the same have been ascertained, to join such
defendants to this action together with the proper charging allegations. These ROE
CORPORATIONS include presently unknown entities publishing and/or sharing defamatory
statements in concert with people bound by confidentiality agreements with Plaintiff.
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 4.370(1) because the
matter in controversy exceeds $15,000.00, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs.
6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties, and each of them, because
the incidents alleged occurred in Washoe County, Nevada, and/or because each of the parties

3. 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
availed themselves of opportunities to conduct business in the State of Nevada, establishing
minimum contacts with the forum, and are therefore subject to personal jurisdiction in Nevada
on claims arising out of that contact.
7. Venue is proper in this District Court because James Fleming and DOES 1-10
are a resident of Washoe County Nevada, and/or ROE CORPORATIONS is a company formed
under the laws of the State of Nevada and does business within Washoe County, Nevada, and
the incidents alleged occurred in Washoe County, Nevada.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8. Community Health Alliance (“CHA”) is a Health Center Program grantee under
42 U.S.C. 254b.
9. CHA provides an extensive range of healthcare services, including medical,
dental, and behavioral health services, to approximately 22,000 patients throughout Washoe
County.
10. CHA provides services regardless of a patient’s insurance status or ability to
pay.
11. CHA manages a Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program.
12. CHA provides community education on health issues and outreach to
underserved populations.
13. CHA has six (6) healthcare centers in Washoe County.
14. CHA receives funding from federal grants and private donations and also bills
third-party payors for services rendered. Patients without insurance or Medicaid are billed
pursuant to a sliding fee discount based on their reported income.
15. Each year, CHA is required to report on its performance to the Health Services
Resources Administration (“HRSA”), using measures defined in the Uniform Data System
(“UDS”).
16. The UDS is due to HRSA by February 15th
of each calendar year.
17. Defendant James Fleming is a former CHA employee.

4. 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18. Fleming began his employment with CHA on October 17, 2017, as an Electronic
Dental Record Specialist/Statistician.
19. Fleming’s role largely consisted of extracting and reporting data related to the
services CHA provides and the patients CHA serves.
20. Beginning in 2019, one of Fleming’s duties included providing CHA’s Finance
Department with data related to CHA’s UDS reporting.
21. Fleming’s employment with CHA was terminated on February 22, 2021, due to
attendance issues, missed deadlines, and mishandling of CHA’s confidential information.
Specifically, Fleming: (1) repeatedly failed to be at work at the time and location directed by
his supervisor; (2) repeatedly failed to follow CHA’s procedures for calling in; (3) repeatedly
failed to meet deadlines with regard to UDS reporting; and (4) emailed confidential CHA data
to his personal email account.
22. Oscar Delgado (“Mr. Delgado”) has held the position of Chief Executive Officer
(“CEO”) at CHA since October 2019.
23. On or about June 22, 2020, Casey Gillham (“Mr. Gillham”) was hired to be the
Chief Legal Officer at CHA.
24. Mr. Gillham received his Juris Doctor from the University of Oregon and has
been in good standing and an active member of the Nevada State Bar since 2010.
25. In or about August 2021, Mr. Gillham’s title and responsibilities changed, and
he became CHA’s Chief Administrative Officer.
26. Phil Nowak (“Mr. Nowak”) is the Chief Financial Officer at CHA and has held
that position since joining CHA on or about November 13, 2018.
27. Laura Evasovic (“Ms. Evasovic”) has been the Director of Finance at CHA
since on or about June 12, 2018.
28. Michele Davenport (“Ms. Davenport”) is the Human Resources Director at
CHA and she has held that position since on or about January 25, 2021. Prior to being
promoted to Human Resources Director, Ms. Davenport served as CHA’s Human Resources
Coordinator from on or about September 6, 2017 to January 24, 2021.

5. 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29. Because CHA is a healthcare provider, it is committed to safeguarding and
maintaining the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its patient, employees, and
proprietary information that relates to patient treatment, payment, or the health care operations
of CHA.
30. As an employer in the medical field, CHA’s employment records also include
information about employee salaries, benefits, performance reviews, medical information, and
other sensitive human resources’ matters.
31. As an emerging leader in Nevada’s competitive healthcare field, CHA also
maintains proprietary information about its operations, associates, plans, developments,
financial information, strategies, purchasing, and marketing.
32. Because of all the numerous types of confidential and sensitive information
CHA possesses, it requires employees to agree to a Confidentiality and Information Access
Agreement (“Confidentiality Agreement”) as a condition of employment. Exhibit 1.
33. The Confidentiality Agreement prevents the disclosure of confidential
information, which includes the following—whether the information is written, electronic or
verbal:
Patient information or protected health information (“PHI”), is
any personal, or medical information that relates to a patient’s
treatment, payment, or the health care operations of,
Organization[ ]
Employee records include information about employees’ salaries,
benefits, performance reviews, medical information and other
human resources’ matters.
Proprietary information is private (not publicly available)
information about CHA’s operations, associates, plans,
development, financial information, strategies, purchasing,
marketing, etc.
Exhibit 1.
34. On October 17, 2017, James Fleming signed the Confidentiality Agreement.
Exhibit 1.
35. The Confidentiality Agreement states, in relevant part: “I understand and agree
that I must safeguard and maintain the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all

6. 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Confidential information I use, disclose, and/or access at all times, whether or not I am at work
and regardless of how it was accessed.” Exhibit 1 (emphasis added).
36. Fleming also agreed that he “understand[s] that access to all CHA’s Information
Systems including Email and Internet are intended for business usage” and that he will “only
access or use the systems or devices that [he is] authorized to access and agree[s] not to
demonstrate the operation or function of any of [CHA’s] information systems or devices to
unauthorized individuals,” nor would he “use tools or techniques to break/exploit security
measures.” Exhibit 1.
37. Most importantly, Fleming committed to “not in any way divulge, copy, release,
sell, loan, alter, or destroy any Confidential Information except as properly authorized” and he
would “immediately report to CHA . . . any activity that violates this agreement.” Exhibit 1.
38. Fleming agreed that his obligations under the Confidentiality Agreement
continue even “after the individual is no longer employed by CHA” during which time he
would “continue to maintain the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all Confidential
Information even after termination, completion, cancellation, expiration or cessation of access
to CHA’s Information systems.” Exhibit 1 (emphasis added).
39. As a condition of employment, the Confidentiality Agreement was supported by
consideration.
40. Even absent consideration, the Agreement is enforceable because there is a
compelling public interest to protect confidential health information.
41. On December 13, 2021, nearly ten months after his employment with CHA was
terminated, Fleming posted to LinkedIn that he had gained “limitless access to CHA’s offsite
servers,” and reported on Mr. Gillham’s salary information and CHA’s unduplicated patient
count. Exhibit 2.
42. However, since that post—and after CHA filed its initial complaint in this
matter—Fleming posted on social media that he was “trolling” CHA about his claim that he
had gained “limitless access” to CHA’s offsite servers. Exhibit 3.

7. 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
43. CHA understands Fleming’s “trolling” as malicious and intending to injure
CHA’s reputation.1
Exhibit 3.
44. Fleming’s admission to lying also makes it impossible to assess whether he has
been honest or dishonest about any of the other claims he has made.
45. Since his termination, Fleming has engaged in a campaign of disparagement
against CHA. For example, Fleming claimed that CHA has engaged in “massive fraud” for the
years 2018-2020 related to its WIC program and that CHA has used WIC program funding as a
“slush fund.” CHA vehemently denies Fleming’s claims related to its WIC program. In 2020,
Nevada’s Department of Health and Human Services conducted a financial review of CHA’s
WIC Program to “ensure that expenses charged to the WIC program during FY 2018 and 2019
were in accordance with established cost principles pursuant to 7 CFR 246 and 7 CFR 3016 and
the provisions contained in the Notice of Sub-grant award in effect for the stated periods.” On
August 25, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services issued its Financial Review
Notification, which determined that “[n]o findings were noted” related to CHA’s WIC
program. Exhibit 4.
46. Fleming claimed that members of CHA’s management and executive teams are
“sloppy thieves” and that they have knowingly submitted falsified data to HRSA. CHA
vehemently denies these claims.
47. In addition to those claims, since Fleming’s termination, he has also maliciously
made false and disparaging statements against CHA, and CHA’s management that qualify as
business disparagement, slander, slander per se, and have damaged CHA’s reputation, specific
to the following:
48. On December 4, 2021, Fleming posted on Facebook, stating that CHA does not
do HIV screening. Fleming specifically stated, “[n]ever ever ever [sic] claim to do HIV
screening when your own reporting to HRSA shows that you do not” and claimed CHA has
lied about doing any HIV screening. Exhibit 2.
1
Fleming has since deleted the social media post wherein he admits to “trolling” CHA.

8. 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a. Fleming knew that his claim was false because, as part of his duties with
CHA, he collected information and reported on CHA’s HIV screening
efforts. On February 15, 2021, Fleming sent Ms. Evasovic an email in
which he reported on the number of HIV screenings CHA had conducted in
2020.
49. On December 13, 2021, Fleming posted to Linked that Mr. Gillham fabricated
patient and public health statistics for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 “in
return for millions of dollars of funding.” Exhibit 2.
a. Fleming knew these claims to be false because Mr. Gillham did not
begin his employment with CHA until June 22, 2020, approximately four
months after the UDS data for calendar year 2019 had been submitted to
HRSA. And even after Mr. Gillham began his employment with CHA, Mr.
Fleming was aware that Mr. Gillham was not responsible or involved in any
way in collecting or reporting statistical information to HRSA.
50. On December 13, 2021, Fleming posted on Facebook that Mr. Gillham forged
his law school transcript.
a. Fleming knew these claims to be false because on at least two occasions,
while still employed with CHA, Mr. Fleming met with Mr. Gillham in his office,
where Fleming could see Mr. Gillham’s law school diploma and law license
hanging above his desk.
51. On December 13, 2021, Fleming posted to LinkedIn that Mr. Nowak
“deliberately goos[ed] federal-health-grant-sensitive stats [sic]” to induce “seven figure
HOMELESS POPULATION MEDICAL AND SUBSTANCE TREATMENT 330(h) grant
fund amounts.” Exhibit 2.
a. Fleming knew these claims to be false because: (1) Fleming was
responsible for extracting collected data for UDS submissions for calendar years
2019 and 2020; (2) on February 10, 2020, Fleming sent an email to Ms. Evasovic
and Mr. Nowak, stating that CHA had served 2003 patients experiencing

9. 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
homelessness for calendar year 2019; (3) CHA reported to HRSA that it served
2003 homeless patients in 2019, as reported by Fleming; however, HRSA
subsequently requested that CHA provide an explanation or amendment to the
number of homeless patients served in 2019 because the number reported was
less than what CHA reported serving in 2018; (4) after additional review and
analysis of the number of patient visits and the location of those visits, CHA
reported that it served 2,257 homeless patients in 2020, which Mr. Nowak then
submitted to HRSA.
b. Fleming had other reasons to know these claims were false because on
February 15, 2021, approximately a year after CHA submitted its UDS data for
calendar year 2019, Fleming sent an email to Mr. Nowak and Ms. Evasovic,
stating that for calendar year 2020, CHA served 881 patients experiencing
homelessness. CHA reported to HRSA serving 881 patients experiencing
homelessness, as reported by Fleming without question, even though that number
represented a decrease of 1,376 homeless patients.
c. Fleming knew these claims to be false because Fleming has stated
publicly that in his opinion CHA’s reporting of homeless patients prior to 2020
was inaccurate because “people were confused and accidentally self-reported
inaccurately,” not that CHA acted fraudulently. Fleming also admitted that CHA
accepted his recommendation to change its intake form to more accurately
capture the number of homeless patients served2
. Exhibit 5.
52. On December 14, 2021, Fleming posted to LinkedIn that Mr. Gillham and Ms.
Davenport “fabricated or lied about knowingly” the number of at-risk children and individuals
experiencing homelessness that CHA served in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020.
Exhibit 2.
a. Fleming knew these claims to be false because Mr. Gillham did not
begin his employment with CHA until June 22, 2020, approximately four
2
Fleming made these statements to This is Reno. See the article attached as Exhibit 5.
https://thisisreno.com/2021/11/county-reports-875-increase-in-homelessness-since-2017/

10. 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
months after the UDS data for calendar year 2019 had been submitted to
HRSA. And even after Mr. Gillham began his employment with CHA, Mr.
Gillham was not responsible or involved in any way in collecting or
reporting statistical information to HRSA. Similarly, Ms. Davenport, as
CHA’s Human Resources Coordinator and then its Human Resources
Director, was not responsible or involved in any way in collecting or
reporting statistical information related to at-risk children or homeless
patients to HRSA. Fleming knew that neither Mr. Gilham nor Ms.
Davenport were involved in the collection or submission of UDS data
related to at-risk children or individuals experiencing homelessness because
Fleming compiled data for CHA and worked closely with the team that
submitted UDS data to HRSA.
53. Fleming’s statements this Complaint identifies as disparaging statements that
qualify as business disparagement, slander, slander per se have exposed CHA, its employees,
and officers, to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy, while reflecting poorly on CHA and its
Board.
54. Fleming’s statements this Complaint identifies as disparaging statements that
qualify as business disparagement, slander, slander per se this were false and fueled by
Fleming’s vindictiveness.
55. Fleming admitted as much in an interview with Our Town Reno, wherein he
admitted that his current pursuit to defame CHA is based on “vindictiveness.” Exhibit 6.
56. Fleming’s statements this Complaint identifies as disparaging statements that
qualify as business disparagement, slander, slander per se concern the performance of the
officers in their official capacity in a manner that has had a deleterious effect on CHA’s ability
function effectively.
57. Aside from those effects of Fleming’s statements, the language written about
CHA, its officers, and its employees this Complaint identifies as disparaging statements that
qualify as business disparagement, slander, slander per se negatively implicates the way those

11. 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
officers and/or employees perform their duties and responsibilities as officers or agents of
CHA, so as to have a natural tendency to affect the corporation disadvantageously in its
business, service of the public, and access to resources necessary for the fulfillment of its
public service goals.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract)
(Against James Fleming)
58. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
57. As fully set forth herein.
59. Fleming entered into an agreement with CHA to which he is under the duty to
maintain the confidentiality and integrity of CHA’s confidential and/or proprietary information.
60. Fleming has released confidential and/or proprietary information about CHA.
61. Fleming has committed publicly to releasing further confidential information.
62. Fleming has stated publicly that he has gained access to systems or devices he is
not authorized to have access to that contain confidential health and/or employee and/or
proprietary information.
63. Fleming has violated and is currently violating his agreement with CHA as
detailed above, constituting, inter alia, breaches of contract.
64. The confidentiality agreement was supported by consideration.
65. There is no privilege or justification warranting Fleming’s illicit conduct.
66. Fleming’s breach and potential breach creates irreparable harm that would
damage CHA’s reputation and potentially release confidential information of its patients, whom
are overwhelmingly a sensitive population.
67. Plaintiff has been damaged by Fleming’s actions in an amount exceeding
$15,000.
68. Plaintiff has been forced to retain an attorney to litigate this dispute and should
receive their attorney fees and costs.

12. 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith Dealing)
(Against James Fleming)
69. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
68 as fully set forth herein.
70. In every contract under Nevada law, including the one between CHA and
Fleming, there is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
71. Fleming entered into a valid agreement with CHA, to which Fleming agreed not
to release confidential information.
72. Fleming breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
willfully engaging in activities in violation of the agreement in order to cause direct harm to
CHA.
73. Plaintiff has been damaged by Fleming’s actions in an amount exceeding
$15,000.
74. Plaintiff has been forced to retain an attorney to litigate this dispute and should
receive attorney fees and costs.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Business Disparagement)
(Against James Fleming)
75. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
44 and 47 through 69 as fully set forth herein.
76. Upon information and belief, Defendant has made false statements to the public
via LinkedIn posts, Facebook posts, publication of articles, and sharing of information
asserting that: CHA does not provide HIV screening; Mr. Gillham fabricated patient and public
health statistics for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019; Mr. Gillham forged his
law school transcript; Mr. Gillham and Ms. Davenport “fabricated or lied about knowingly” the
number of at-risk children and individuals experiencing homelessness that CHA served in
2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020; that Mr. Nowak “deliberately goos[ed]”
statistics in order to induce grant funding.

13. 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
77. Defendant made these statements knowing they were false, or with a reckless
disregard for whether they were false.
78. Defendant made these statements with malice.
79. Given the egregious nature of Fleming’s statements, damages are presumed per
se.
80. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s actions in an amount exceeding
$15,000.
81. Plaintiff has retained an attorney to litigate this dispute and should receive an
award of attorney fees and costs.
82. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages arising out of the willful, intentional,
and/or reckless conduct of Defendant.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Slander Per Se)
(Against James Fleming)
83. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
44 and 47 through 81 as fully set forth herein.
84. Upon information and belief, Defendant made false statements to the public via
LinkedIn posts, Facebook posts, publication of articles, and sharing of information, asserting
that: CHA has lied about providing HIV screening; Mr. Gillham fabricated patient and public
health statistics for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019; Mr. Gillham forged his
law school transcript; Mr. Gillham and Ms. Davenport “fabricated or lied about knowingly” the
number of at-risk children and individuals experiencing homelessness that CHA served in
2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020; that Mr. Nowak “deliberately goos[ed]”
statistics in order to induce grant funding.
85. Defendant made these false statements that would tend to injure Plaintiff’s trade,
business, profession or office.
86. Defendant intentionally made these statements knowing they were false, or with
a reckless disregard for whether they were false.
87. Defendant made these statements with malice.

14. 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
88. Given the egregious nature of Fleming’s statements, damages are presumed per
se.
89. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s actions in an amount exceeding
$15,000.
90. Plaintiff has retained an attorney to litigate this dispute and should receive an
award of attorney fees and costs.
91. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages arising out of the willful, intentional,
and/or reckless conduct of Defendant.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Injunctive Relief)
(Against James Fleming)
92. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
44 and 47 through 89 as fully set forth herein.
93. Fleming’s violation of the Confidentiality and Information Access Agreement
will cause CHA irreparable harm.
94. Fleming has violated and is violating the agreement by failing to safeguard and
maintain the confidentiality and integrity of CHA’s information by disparaging CHA and
sharing information confidential information with the public, for which injunctive relief is
necessary.
95. Plaintiff has been and continues to be, irreparably harmed by this Defendant’s
actions.
96. Plaintiff has a likelihood of success on its claims.
97. Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction enjoining Defendant from disparaging CHA
and sharing CHA’s confidential information.
98. Plaintiff has retained an attorney to litigate this dispute and is entitled to an
award of attorney fees and costs.
99. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages arising out of the negligent, willful,
intentional, and/or reckless conduct of Defendant.

15. 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Confidence)
100. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the above paragraphs
as though fully stet forth herein.
101. Fleming entered into an agreement with CHA to which he is under the duty to
maintain the confidentiality and integrity of CHA’s confidential and/or proprietary information.
102. Fleming has released confidential and/or proprietary information about CHA.
103. Fleming has committed publicly to releasing further confidential information.
104. Fleming has stated publicly that he has gained access to systems or devices he is
not authorized to have access to that contain confidential health and/or employee and/or
proprietary information.
105. The information Fleming is releasing and has threatened to release was intended
to be kept secret.
106. Fleming uses or disclosed confidential information into the public domain.
107. There is no privilege or justification warranting Fleming’s illicit conduct.
108. Fleming’s breach and potential breach of confidentiality creates irreparable
harm that would damage CHA’s reputation and potentially release confidential information of
its patients, whom are overwhelmingly a sensitive population.
109. Plaintiff has been damaged by Fleming’s actions in an amount exceeding
$15,000.
110. Plaintiff has been forced to retain an attorney to litigate this dispute and should
receive their attorney fees and costs.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief)
111. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
44 and 47 through 108 as fully set forth herein.
112. The Confidentiality and Information Access Agreement between CHA and
Fleming expressly provides that Fleming is not released from liability even though he is no
longer employed with CHA.

16. 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
113. Each of Fleming’s wrongful acts alleged in this Complaint constituted willful
misconduct.
114. Therefore, CHA requests declaratory relief in the form of an order from the
Court that Fleming is not released from his wrongful acts.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray:
1. For judgment against defendant for special, general and compensatory damages
in excess of $15,000;
2. For an injunction preventing Defendant from violating his agreements with
CHA;
3. For declaratory relief;
4. For punitive damages;
5. For any other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Affirmation Pursuant to NRS 239B.030. The undersigned affirms that the preceding
document does not contain the social security number of any person.
DATED this 1st
day of February, 2022.
HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC
By:
Jason D. Guinasso, Esq.,8478
Alex R. Velto, Esq., 14961
Astrid A. Perez, Esq., 15977
5371 Kietzke Lane
Reno, NV 89511
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18. 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of the law firm of
HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, LLC and that on the 1st
day of February, 2022, I caused service of
a true and correct copy of the AMENDED COMPLAINT by the following means:
Via eflex to:
JOHN L. MARSHALL, ESQ. (SBN 6733)
570 Marsh Avenue
Reno, Nevada 89509
(775) 303-4882
johnladuemarshall@gmail.com
LUKE A. BUSBY, ESQ. (SBN 10319)
316 California Ave.
Reno, Nevada 89509
(775) 453-0112
luke@lukeandrewbusbyltd.com
/s/ Kelli Radnothy______________
An employee of Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC

19. 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit No. Document Title # of Pages*
Exhibit 1 Confidentiality and Information Access Agreement,
dated October 17, 2017
3
Exhibit 2 James Fleming social media posts 13
Exhibit 3 James Fleming “trolling” Facebook post 2
Exhibit 4 WIC Audit Letter 2
Exhibit 5 This is Reno Article 12
Exhibit 6 Our Town Reno Article 8
* Includes exhibit cover page