Exhibit 99.1

[Additional counsel listed on signature page.]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Plaintiff Deborah Cox (“Plaintiff”), by her attorneys, alleges the following on information and belief; except as to the allegations specifically pertaining to Plaintiff, which are based on personal knowledge.

NATURE AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

1.             This is a class action brought on behalf of the public stockholders of PLX Technology, Inc. (“PLX” or the “Company”) against members of PLX’s board of directors (the “Board” or the “Director Defendants”), alleging breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition (the “Acquisition”), announced on June 23, 2014, of PLX by Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc. (together, with Defendant Avago Technologies Limited, “Avago” or “Parent”).

2.             PLX designs, develops, manufactures, and sells integrated circuits worldwide. The Company’s products are focused on Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) Express and Ethernet technologies.

3.             In April 2012, following pressure from Balch Hill Capital, LLC (“Balch Hill”), who at the time owned approximately 9.7% of the outstanding shares of PLX, the then-board of directors of PLX agreed to be acquired by Integrated Device Technology, Inc. (“IDT”) for approximately $7.00 per share in a cash and stock transaction which valued PLX at $330 million (the “IDT Transaction”).

4.             The IDT Transaction failed to close, however, after IDT withdrew its offer to purchase the remaining shares of PLX it did not own after U.S. antitrust regulators challenged the proposed $330 million deal.

5.             Balch Hill sold its shares following the announcement of the IDT Transaction.

6.             Then, in January 2013, shortly after the IDT Transaction fell through, Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P.(1) announced that it, along with its affiliates, had purchased a 5.1% stake in PLX.

(1)                   Hereinafter, “Potomac” refers to, collectively, Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. and its affiliates. Potomac is currently the largest stockholder of PLX.

1

7.             Potomac immediately picked up where Balch Hill(2) left off, publicly criticizing the  PLX Board and calling for the then-board to review all strategic alternatives, stating that PLX should not remain an independent public company and that it was an “attractive acquisition target for potential buyers.”

8.             Indeed, shortly after announcing its newly acquired stake in January 2013, Potomac stated that PLX’s operations and outlook were far stronger than they were in April 2012 (at the time of the $7.00 per share failed IDT Transaction) and that a deal involving PLX should fetch an even higher price.

9.             Following months of wrangling, in December 2013, Potomac waged a successful proxy contest, the result of which landed three Potomac nominees on the PLX Board.

10.          Then, just six months after three Potomac-backed nominees were elected to the PLX Board, on June 23, 2014, PLX, Avago, and an affiliated entity announced that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”), pursuant to which Avago will commence a tender offer for all outstanding shares of PLX for $6.50 per share in cash.

11.          Provided at least a majority of shares of the Company’s outstanding stock have been validly tendered before the expiration of Avago’s tender offer, PLX will be merged with and into Pluto Merger Sub, Inc. (“Merger Sub”), Merger Sub will cease to exist, and the Company will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Avago. The Acquisition values PLX at approximately $309 million, or $293 million net of cash and debt acquired.

12.          Of course, Potomac - along with certain of the other Defendants - have entered into Tender and Support Agreements to tender their stock — more than 14%, collectively, in connection with the Acquisition. This, despite the fact that Potomac had previously touted the strength of PLX and called for a price in excess of the $7.00 per share PLX stockholders were slated to receive in connection with the ill-fated IDT Transaction.

(2)                   In early 2013, Balch Hill and Potomac teamed up in successfully pressuring the Board of Directors of sTec, Inc. (“sTec”) to consider strategic alternatives which eventually led to sTec being sold to Western Digital Corp.

2

13.          As is detailed herein, the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to PLX stockholders by agreeing to the Acquisition for inadequate consideration following a flawed process littered with conflict. In particular, within the past year, PLX stock has traded at prices exceeding $6.50 per share, and industry analysts have established price targets that exceed the price the Board accepted.

14.          The Director Defendants further breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to overly restrictive deal protection measures. In particular, the Merger Agreement includes a “no solicitation” provision, a provision giving Avago the right to review any superior proposals and adjust its offer accordingly to make the superior proposal cease to be considered a superior proposal, and a termination fee of $10.85 million that PLX will have to pay Avago to enter into a competing transaction agreement.

15.          The Director Defendants owe fiduciary duties to the public stockholders of the Company but have breached these duties in connection with the proposed Acquisition. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the proposed Acquisition or, alternatively, to rescind the proposed Acquisition, in the event that it is consummated, and recover damages.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16.          This Court has jurisdiction over each Defendant because Defendants conduct business in California, including, but not limited to, the conduct here at issue, the unfair proposed Acquisition, and because they have sufficient minimum contacts with California to render the exercise of jurisdiction by California courts permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. This action is not removable.

17.          Venue is proper in this Court because the conduct at issue took place and has effect in this County. The Company’s headquarters and principal place of business is located at 870 West Maude Avenue, Sunnyvale, California 94085.

THE PARTIES

18.          Plaintiff is, and has been at all relevant times, the owner of shares of PLX common stock.

3

19.          Defendant PLX (NASDAQ: PLXT) is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. According to PLX, it is “the industry-leading global provider of semiconductor-based PCI Express connectivity solutions primarily targeting enterprise data center markets” and it “develops innovative software-enriched silicon that enables product differentiation, reliable interoperability and superior performance.”

20.          Defendant David Raun (“Raun”) has been President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of PLX since December 2012 and has served on the Board since that time.

21.          Defendant Michael J. Salameh (“Salameh”) co-founded PLX in May 1986 and served as the Company’s CEO and as a Board member from that time until his retirement as CEO in November 2008, although he continues to serve on the Board.  Since January 2014, Salameh has served as Chairman of the Board. Salameh is a member of the Company’s Audit and Nominating Committees.

22.          Defendant Martin Colombatto (“Colombatto”) has been a member of the Board since December 2013, when he was voted in as a director in a contested election after being nominated by Potomac, who along with its affiliates is the largest stockholder of PLX. Colombatto is a member of the Company’s Compensation Committee.

23.          Defendant Stephen Domenik (“Domenik”) has been a member of the Board since December 2013, when he was voted in as a director in a contested election after being nominated by Potomac, who along with its affiliates is the largest stockholder of PLX.  Domenik is a member of the Audit Committee.

24.          Defendant John H. Hart (“Hart”) has been a member of the Board since April 1999. Hart is the Chairperson of the Company’s Compensation Committee and a member of the Nominating Committee.

25.          Defendant Ralph Schmitt (“Schmitt”) served as the Company’s President and CEO from November 2008 until his resignation in October 2012. He has served as a director since November 2008.

4

26.          Defendant Eric Singer (“Singer”) has been a member of the Board since December 2013, when he was voted in as a director in a contested election after being nominated by Potomac, who along with its affiliates is the largest stockholder of PLX. Singer is the co-managing member of both Potomac Management II and Potomac Management III which, in connection with the Acquisition, entered into a Tender and Support Agreement along with certain members of PLX senior management and the other Director Defendants agreeing to, among other things, tender all of their shares in connection with the planned tender offer. Singer is the direct beneficial owner of 181,234 PLX shares and may be deemed to beneficially own more than 3.5 million PLX shares owned by Potomac. Singer is the Chairman of the Nominating Committee and a member of the Compensation Committee.

27.          Defendant Patrick Verderico (“Verderico”) has been a member of the Board since November 2004. Verderico is the Chairman of the Company’s Audit Committee and is a member of the Compensation Committee.

28.          Defendant Avago Technologies Limited describes itself as “a leading designer, developer and global supplier of a broad range of analog semiconductor devices with a focus on III-V based products and complex digital and mixed signal CMOS based devices.” According to Avago, its product portfolio is “extensive and includes thousands of products in four primary target markets: enterprise storage, wired infrastructure, wireless communications and industrial & other.” Avago is based in Singapore.

29.          Defendant Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Avago Technologies Limited and is a Delaware corporation based in San Jose, California.

30.          Defendant Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avago that was formed for the sole purpose of effectuating the Acquisition.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

31.          Plaintiff brings this action as a class action under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 on behalf of all public stockholders of the Company, excluding Defendants

5

and their affiliates (the “Class”).  This action is properly maintainable as a class action for the following reasons.

32.          The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. As set forth in the Merger Agreement, as of June 20, 2014, there were approximately 45.9 million shares of the Company’s common stock issued and outstanding, owned by hundreds, if not thousands, of persons.

33.          There are questions of law and fact which are common to the Class including, inter alia:

a.                                      Whether the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Class in connection with the proposed Acquisition;

b.                                      Whether other Defendants have aided and abetted the Board’s breaches; and

c.                                       Whether as a result of the Director Defendants’ breaches, the Class will suffer irreparable harm.

34.          Plaintiffs claims are typical of those of the rest of the Class, and Plaintiff is not subject to any atypical defenses.

35.          Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because she is not subject to any conflicts of interest, is committed to prosecuting this action, and has retained competent counsel experienced in litigation of this nature.

36.          A class action is superior because the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a risk of (a) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual Class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the Class or (b) adjudications with respect to individual Class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.

37.          Moreover, Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Class as a whole, and are thereby causing injury to the entire Class. Therefore, final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief on behalf of the Class is appropriate.

6

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

Overview of PLX and Its Positioning for Future Growth

38.          PLX was founded in May 1986 by, among others, Defendant Salameh. PLX has been developing 1/O(3) interconnect silicon and complimentary software since 1994. The Company went public on April 6, 1999 and currently trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “PLXT.”

39.          According to the Company, it is the “technology and market share leader in PCI Express switches, and bridges, with additional leadership USB controllers, legacy PCI bridges, and consumer storage controllers. These serial technologies have become mainstream, and PLX has been able to offer innovative differentiated products based on these interconnect standards while providing scalability and performance at a lower cost.”

40.          The Company maintains corporate offices in Sunnyvale, California with additional technical offices located throughout North America and around the world including in China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and Europe.

41.          The Company has been experiencing substantial growth recently and with that growth, its stock price has skyrocketed. Indeed, PLX stock has risen from $3.81 per share on January 2, 2013 to $6.37 per share as recently as June 10, 2014, hitting a 52 week high of $6.91 per share on January 17, 2014.

42.          PLX’s most recent earnings release dated April 21, 2014, released after market close, (discussing the Company’s Q1 2014 financial results) confirms the Company’s upward trajectory touting its “fifth straight profitable quarter.”

43.          In discussing the Company’s positioning for growth in the April 21, 2014 earnings release, Defendant Raun noted, in pertinent part, that:

“[D]emand for our products remains solid. Based on current backlog, forecasts from customers, and resolution of the assembly issues, we expect all of our market segments to be up in O2, driven primarily by Gen2 and Gen3 shipments. We are beginning to see an increasing number of Gen3 design wins go into volume

(3)                   “I/O”  means input and/or output.

7

production and we believe that this ramp will fuel our growth this year and in years to come[.]” (Emphasis added.)

44.          For Q1 2014, the Company reported $0.07 earnings per share, easily beating analysts’ consensus estimate of $0.02 per share by $0.05 per share.

45.          Following the Company’s Q1 2014 earnings release, analysts at TheStreet and Zacks upgraded PLX from “hold” to “buy” ratings on April 23, 2014 and April 29, 2014, respectively.

46.          Following the April 21, 2014 earnings release, the price of PLX stock climbed $0.49 per share from its opening price of $5.78 per share on April 21, 2014 to close at $6.27 per share, an increase of approximately 8%, on April 22, 2014 — hitting a high on April 22, 2014 of $6.35 during intra-day trading.

47.          In short, PLX positioned itself for long-term and sustained growth. Nonetheless, as discussed below, the Director Defendants - ceding to pressure from its largest shareholder - elected to approve the Acquisition to sell PLX at an inadequate price and through a flawed process.

The PLX Board Faces Pressure To Sell the Company

48.          PLX is no stranger to receiving pressure from (and acquiescing to) the whims of activist shareholders.

49.          In April 2012, following pressure from Balch Hill, who at the time owned approximately 9.7% of the outstanding shares of PLX, the then-board of PLX caved and agreed to be acquired by IDT for approximately $7.00 per share in a cash and stock transaction which valued PLX at $330 million. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (“Deutsche Bank”) was the financial advisor for PLX for the IDT Transaction.

50.          In late December 2012, however, after U.S. antitrust regulators moved to challenge the proposed $330 million deal over the combined companies’ share of the market for integrated computer circuit switch technology, the IDT Transaction fell through.

8

51.          Shortly after IDT and PLX announced that they would not proceed with the IDT Transaction, in January 2013, Potomac announced that it had purchased a 5.1% stake in PLX.

52.          Almost immediately, Potomac began criticizing the PLX Board questioning, among other things, the Board’s “objectivity to fully explore opportunities to unlock value.”

53.          Potomac called for the then-PLX board to conduct a fair and thorough review of all strategic alternatives stating that PLX should not remain an independent public company and that it was an “attractive acquisition target for potential buyers.”

54.          Indeed, shortly after announcing its newly acquired stake in PLX in January 2013, Potomac stated that PLX’s operations and outlook were far stronger than they were in April 2012 (at the time the $7.00 per share failed IDT Transaction was announced) and that a deal involving PLX should fetch an even higher price.

55.          Following months of wrangling, in December 2013, Potomac waged a successful proxy contest the result of which landed three Potomac nominees — Defendants Singer, Colombatto, and Domenik (collectively, the “Potomac Directors”) - on the PLX Board.

The Proposed Acquisition of PLX by Avago

56.          Following months of pressure from Potomac, and with the Potomac Directors now on the PLX Board, on June 23, 2014, the PLX Board again ceded to the pressure of an activist shareholder and caused PLX to enter into the Merger Agreement with Avago and Merger Sub pursuant to which - provided a majority of Company shares are validly tendered — PLX stockholders will receive $6.50 per share in cash for each share held.

57.          The Merger Agreement was unanimously approved by the Board, which caused PLX to enter into the Merger Agreement.

58.          In connection with the Acquisition, Potomac and, among others, certain Director Defendants and members of PLX senior management, have entered into Tender and Support Agreements to tender their stock — more than 14%, collectively — in connection with the Acquisition.

9

59.          The Acquisition, which is expected to close during Q4 of Avago’s fiscal year ending November 3, 2014 (subject to a majority of outstanding shares being validly tendered), values PLX at approximately $309 million, or $293 million net of cash and debt acquired.

60.          Deutsche Bank — the very bank that served as PLX’s financial advisor for the failed IDT Transaction - served as the financial advisor to PLX in connection with the Acquisition.

The Process Leadinz Up to the Acquisition Was Pla.ued by Conflicts of Interest

61.          The Board’s decision to enter into the Merger Agreement was the product of a flawed process that was plagued by various conflicts of interest.

62.          Indeed, as noted above, the Acquisition represents an eighteen-month long battle waged by Potomac to see to it that PLX was sold.

63.          In the process, Potomac led a successful proxy contest which landed the Potomac Directors on the Board. A mere six months later, the Acquisition was announced.

64.          In connection with the Acquisition, certain senior members of the PLX management team and certain of the Director Defendants entered into Tender and Support Agreements with Avago pursuant to which they agreed to, among other things, tender all of their shares in the planned tender offer. This group, in the aggregate, represents 14.7% of the outstanding shares of PLX.

65.          Included in this group is Defendant Singer who is the co-managing member of Potomac, PLX’s largest stockholder. Singer is the direct beneficial owner of 181,234 PLX shares and may be deemed to beneficially own more than 3.5 million PLX shares owned by Potomac.

66.          Even though PLX stock traded as high as $6.91 per share as recently as January 17, 2014, and despite that fact that Potomac once touted the strength of PLX and called for a price in excess of the $7.00 per share PLX stockholders were slated to receive in connection with the ill-fated IDT Transaction - the Board accepted the inadequate price of $6.50 per share.

67.          Aside from Potomac, others stand to gain as well. Indeed, senior management and the Board are in a position to reap financial benefits through a sale of the Company.

10

68.          Specifically, certain of PLX’s senior management, including Defendant Raun, are protected financially by the PLX Severance Plan for Executive Management (“Severance Plan”) and the Executive Officer Retention Agreements (“Retention Agreements”) they entered into with the Company.

69.          Under the terms of the Severance Plan, certain benefits will be payable to certain executive officers — including Defendant Raun — if there is a change in control of PLX (which the Acquisition will be considered if completed) and if within one year after the change in control (plus any applicable cure period), the participant’s employment is terminated (a) by the participant’s employer other than for cause, or (b) by the participant for good reason, as defined by the Severance Plan.

70.          The Retention Agreements — of which Defendant Raun is also a beneficiary — call for each person subject to the Retention Agreements to be paid for each unvested option held by them as of immediately prior to the effective time of the Acquisition on the earliest to occur of (a) January 2, 2015 (or the first anniversary of the Closing (as defined in the Merger Agreement) for Defendant Raun) (in each case, subject to continued employment) or (b) the date such individual’s employment is terminated without Cause (as defined in the Severance Plan), for Good Reason (as defined in the Severance Plan) or by reason of death or permanent disability.

71.          Additionally, under the Retention Agreements, Defendant Raun will also receive a retention bonus (as long as he remains employed as of the first anniversary of the Closing) equal to (a) the sum of (i) 150% of his base salary plus (ii) his target bonus under the variable compensation plan then in effect. The payment of the retention bonus will also be triggered if Defendant Raun is terminated by the Company other than for Cause, by such individual for Good Reason or by reason of death or permanent disability, prior to the applicable payment date.

72.          Aside from Defendant Raun, certain of the other Director Defendants have a substantial financial interest in the Acquisition since the change-of-control will trigger the vesting of stock owned by the Director Defendants payable immediately upon the consummation of the Acquisition.

11

The Proposed Acquisition Represents Inadequate Consideration to PLX Stockholders

73.          The Acquisition undervalues PLX to the detriment of Plaintiff and the Class.

74.          The $6.50 price to be paid to PLX stockholders is woefully inadequate given the Company’s positioning for growth and recent stock price which exceeded the deal price.

75.          Indeed, as recently as January 17, 2014, PLX stock traded at $6.91 per share.

76.          Further, analyst price targets substantially exceed the $6.50 per share consideration offered through the Acquisition. Specifically, the mean target for PLX is $8.00 per share - $1.50 per share or more than is being offered to stockholders through the Acquisition.

77.          Potomac — which has three representatives on the PLX Board — noted in its run up to the successful proxy battle it waged that PLX’s operations and outlook were far stronger than they were in April 2012 (at the time of the failed $7.00 per share IDT Transaction) and that a deal involving PLX should fetch an even higher price since it was an “attractive acquisition target for potential buyers.”

78.          Further, at least two analysts have maintained a “buy” rating on PLX for at least the last three months.

79.          Another analyst noted that from Avago’s perspective, the Acquisition appears to be favorable since it will strengthen Avago’s data center and storage offerings and predicted that the Acquisition should raise Avago’s earnings per share and gross margins.

The Board Agreed to Various Unreasonably Preclusive Deal Protection Devices

80.          As part of the Merger Agreement, the Director Defendants agreed to certain onerous and unreasonable “deal protection” devices that operate conjunctively to make the Acquisition a fait accompli and preclude competing offers from emerging for the Company.

81.          Further, should an unsolicited bidder submit a competing proposal, the Company must notify Avago of the bidder’s identity and the terms of the bidder’s offer. Thereafter, should the Board determine to enter into a superior competing proposal, the Merger Agreement requires the Board to let Avago make a counter-offer so that the competing offer no longer constitutes a superior proposal.

12

82.          Section 7.2 of the Merger Agreement also provides that PLX must pay Avago a $10.85 million termination fee if the Company decides to pursue the competing offer, thereby essentially requiring that the competing bidder agree to pay a naked premium for the right to provide the stockholders with a superior offer.

83.          These deal protection provisions unreasonably restrain the Board’s ability to maximize stockholder value by restricting the Board from soliciting better deals or engaging in communications with potentially interested parties. Indeed, under the circumstances surrounding the Acquisition, the limited instances in which the Board can respond to an entreaty are too narrowly circumscribed to provide an effective “fiduciary out” for the Director Defendants.

84.          In pursuing an unlawful plan to sell the Company for less than fair value, Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith, and fair dealing, and/or have aided and abetted such breaches.

85.          Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief to prevent the irreparable injury that Company stockholders will continue to suffer absent judicial intervention.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(Against the Director Defendants)

86.          Plaintiff repeats all previous allegations as if set forth in full herein.

87.          As members of the Company’s Board, the Director Defendants have fiduciary obligations to:

a.                                      undertake an appropriate evaluation of PLX’s net worth as a merger/acquisition candidate;

b.                                      take all appropriate steps to enhance PLX’s value and attractiveness as a merger/acquisition candidate;

c.                                       act independently to protect the interests of the Company’s public stockholders;

13

d.                                      adequately ensure that no conflicts of interest exist between the Director Defendants’ own interests and their fiduciary obligations, and, if such conflicts exist, to ensure that all conflicts are resolved in the best interests of PLX’s public stockholders;

e.                                       evaluate the Acquisition and engage in a meaningful auction with third parties in an attempt to obtain the best value on any sale of PLX; and

f.                                        disclose all material information to the Company’s stockholders.

88.          The Director Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and the Class.

89.          As alleged herein, the Director Defendants have initiated a process to sell PLX that undervalues the Company.  In addition, by agreeing to the Acquisition, the Director Defendants have capped the price of PLX at a price that does not adequately reflect the Company’s true value. The Director Defendants also failed to sufficiently inform themselves of PLX’s value, or disregarded the true value of the Company. Furthermore, any alternate acquirer will be faced with engaging in discussions with a management team and Board that are committed to the Acquisition.

90.          As such, unless the Director Defendants’ conduct is enjoined by the Court, they will continue to breach their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, and will further a process that inhibits the maximization of stockholder value.

91.          Plaintiff and the members of the Class have no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT II

Aiding and Abetting
(Against All Defendants)

92.          Plaintiff repeats all previous allegations as if set forth in full herein.

93.          As alleged in more detail above, Defendants have aided and abetted the Director Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties.

94.          As a result, Plaintiff and the Class are being harmed irreparably.

14

95.          Plaintiff and the Class have no adequate remedy at law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, prays for the following judgment and relief:

A.            Certifying this action as a class action and certifying Plaintiff as the Class representative and her counsel as Class counsel;

B.            Enjoining, preliminarily and permanently, the proposed Acquisition;

C.            To the extent, if any, that the proposed Acquisition is consummated prior to the entry of this Court’s final judgment, rescinding it, or granting the Class damages;

D.            Directing that Defendants account to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class for all damages caused to them and account for all profits and any special benefits obtained as a result of their unlawful conduct;

E.            Awarding punitive or exemplary damages in an amount according to proof;

F.             Awarding Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and expenses of her attorneys and experts; and

G.            Granting Plaintiff and the other members of the Class such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.

15

16