new ltw - courthouse news service · 2018. 9. 14. · a professional ltw corooration i20? i street...
TRANSCRIPT
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
9
t0
ll12
lll4
l5
I6
t7
Itl
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
?<
26
27
28
GregoryJ. Goodrvin. SBN 111557ARATA, SWINGI"R, VAN EGMOND & GOODTVNA Professional Ltw CoroorationI20? I StreetPost Offrce Box 3287Modesto, California, 95354Telephone: (209)522-22ttFacsimile: (209)522-2980
Allorneys f'rrr PlaintiffSTEVEN MILNER
STEVEN MILNDR,
Plainlil fl
FUI, I ON TRUCKTNC COMPANY. NC.;STEVD FULTON and DOES 1-l(X), inclusive,
FILEDAUG I 0 2018
Superir:r Court of CatifrrmiaCouuty ofTuolumoc
_
w "!) tfio 0 il,t
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF TUOI,IJNINE
Detbndanls
Plaintifl, S1'tVEN MILNFIR (hereinafler rcferred to as "Plairlifl"), hercby tiles rhis Complainr
agsins! FUl,'loN TRUCKINC COMPANY, INC., STEVE FULTON. and DOF.S I to 100 (hereinafter
cvllectirell' relbrtod to as "Defeadanls"). Plaintiff is inlbrmed ar:d beljeves, and on the hasjs ofthat
inibrmation ind bclief. alleges as fotlorvs:
JIJRTSDICTION A,fiD VENUE
l. 'l'hc Tuolumne County Superior Court has jurisdiction in this matlcr due to allcged
violation.' of rhc Calilbmia Labor Code and Hcalth and Saferv Code.
-t.L.Otnpritnt
CarieNo: (vqt-ft4COMPLAINT FOR:
l Relalittion in Yiolution of CalifornieLaborCodeg I102.5;
2. Retrlialion in Violution of CalifornieLubor Code g 9E.6;
3. Wrongful Termioltion in Yiolation ofPublic Polic-v;
{. Unfeir Businoss Practices Business andProfession* Code $ I 7200 et seq.
5. Intentional Infliction of EmolionelIlharess.
6, Assault7. Bataer-v
-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Il0
llt2
l3
I4
l5
l6
t'1
18
19
20
2l
22
21
24
2.5
26
2't
10
2. Vcnue is proper pursuarr! to Civil Procedure Code Seclions 395(a) and 395.5, in thal thc
r+ronglirl acls and violations of lar+. asserted herein occuncd within 'l uolumne County. Del'endants are
also doing business in Tuolumne County.
PARTIES
3, Plaintiff is an individual over the age of eightccn (18) und is now rnd,ror at all times
ntentioned 1n this Complaiu! was a rcsident in of Sonora. in the State of Califonria.
4. Plaintiff is inflormcd and believes and tbereon allege that Defcndant, Fr:lton Trucking
Company, lnc., are now andlor at all timcs menlioned in this Complainl e corporation, orgariiz.ed and
existing under, the larvs of the Statc of Cfllifbmia and operaror of an industry. business andi or facility
Iicensed to do business and actuallv doing business in the cir1, ol tiroveland, Cor-rnty ofTuolumnc, State
of Calilbmia.
5. Ptaintiff is inlbrmed and believes and thercon allegcs that defendant Sreve Fulton is and/or
at all time$ menlioned in this complaint was a rcsident of thc State oj'(lalifornia.
6, Defendant DOES I throrrgh 100 are pvsons or entities whose true namcs and idenlitics arE
presently unknown to Plaintiff. and lrho lhercfore are sued by such lictitious names. Plaintiffis inlbrmcd
and belicves end or that basis allegcs lhat each of the lictitiously nnmcd {}cfcndarits are rcspcnsihle in
some manncr lbr the matters alleged hcrein. and are jointly and severally liable to Plaintill. Plaintifl will
seek lcave of court to amend lhis complaint to state thc !ruc namEs and capacities ul such fictitiously
oarrrcd Deferdana,s lvhen ascrrtdi ned.
7. At all timcs rnentioned hcrein. each Dcfendant was the agent or cmployee ofcach oflhe
olher DeEndants irnd rvas actinB within the coursc and scope of such agency or empJoymcnl. The
Del'endarts are jointl.v ard severall,y liable to Plaintiff.
8. Defcndants, and cach of them. are now and or at all timcs mentioned in this Complaint
were mcmbers of and/or engaged in a joint venture, partnership and common enterpris,e, and rvetc acting
*'ithin the course antl scopc of, and in pursuance of. saidjoinr vcnture, partncrship or common tsnteryJrisc.
9. t)cfcndanls proximately caused Plaintiffto be subjccted to lhe ur awlul practices- u,rungs.
complaintli, injurlcs and/or damages allegcd iu this cornplaint.
-2.CompEim
I
)
j
4
5
6
7
I9
10
tl
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
l7
18
t9
z0
2l
22
21
24
?i
26
77
28
.GENEEALJLLEGATIONE
I 0. Plaintiil'he-uan working for defendarfi Fulton Trucking Inr:.. as a *'ater truck driver Dn or
aboul June 7,2017.
I I . Shortl-v after beginning his employment with det'cndant Fulton 'l'rucking Company, tnc.,
plaimilf began nolicing unsafc and hazardous conditions exisdng in the trucks that he \r.as assignerl to
drive, fhesc hazardous and unsafe conditions inclu<Jed. but r+erc nor lihitcd lo:
r 'l'he trucks \.r,ere not properly maintuincdl
r Mirrors u,ete btokcn and/or ctherwise insufficient theretbr restricting plaintifi-s lision
whcn operaling lhc lrucks;
r l'he clulch/clutch mechauism opcrated inrpmperly;
o The hrakcs did not operare pmpetly/operated unsatisfactorily:
. TIre ttuck rires were bnld and/or crackedi cracking;
r The trucks gears/gearing did not operate properly;
12, Plainriffcomplained to dcfendant Fulton 'frucking Comlmrv. Inc., trucking reprcsentatir,cs
Donald Fuhon and $teven I ulton oo numerous occrrsions. both orally anrl in writing rcgarding the unsalb
ard liazardous conditions. Forexamplc,onJune28,20t7,July6.20l7,Jutyl1.20l?,Julylg,2017,and
Juiy 26,2017, plaintiffexccuted UNSAF'E coNTlTIoN oR HAZARD RtipoRTs, ptovide<l by
dcfendant I'ulton Trucking Company,Inc., ln uddition plainti{f complained to Cal OSHA and thc Starc o[
Calilornia. Department of industrial relations. Defendant Fulton Trucking Company. Inc.. had an
opportunity 10 inve$tigalE and take corrective acli(rn to remedy the unsafc and hazardous conditions bul
failed and refuscd to do so.
11. Instead ol corecting the rrnsafc tnd hamrdous conditions, defendant Fulton lrucking
Company., Inc.. retaliated against plainlifl Specifically. on Augu$t 10.2017. plainrifl. oncc again-
brought the unsafe und hazardorrs conditions to the a$enlion ofdetindarlt Fullon lrucking's agenl Stere
Fulton. Mr. Fulton became enragcd and told nlaintiff"Fuck you. you strrpid son ol'a bitch, you're 6rcd,"
and, get lhc fuck out of herc stupid.'' Mr. I:ulton then assaulted and battercd plaiutiffby firsr striking him
I
2
3
4
5
5
?
I9
10
llt2
t3
t4
l5
t6
17
l8
r9
20
2l
22
2j
24
25
26
27
28
in the qhesl uith a finger on his leff hand and then striking/slabbing plainrif! in thc chcst, with a
screwddver,
VIoLA'ftW(h)&(c) l r,!\ \,, * \w,I(Against Dcfcndanl F ulton 'liLrcking Company, Inc.))
14. Plaintifl incorporatcs by reference and re-allege paragraphs I through 13 as though t'ully
set forlh hcrcin.
I 5. At all times relevart to this Complaint. Calitbmia Labor Code $ I t02.5 was in effect and
applied to Dcfcndants. Califomia l,abor (lode g I 102.5(b) provides that "an employer may nor retaliate
against aoy emplol'ce lbr disclosing infonnalion to a govcrnmcnl or lar+. cnforccmcnt agency, where the
employee has rcason to belicve that the ini'ormation riiscloses a violation of state or fbtJcral statute- or a
violation or noncompliarrce rvilh a state or fbderal rule or regulation."
16. Plaintiffengaged in legally protect activity covercd by California tabor Codc $ I 102.5(b)
by reporting intemirlly grietunces and complaitrls of suctr a naure lhat Defendants rterc lcgally ohligatc{
to report rhe issues to an outside govemmen! agenc,v.
17. Plaintiff reported intemally his opposition an objection to the unsafc and hazardous
conditious rcferenccd hercin. Plaindffis informcd an bclicvcs and thcrcupon allcgc.s that detbndant Fulton
Trucking Company, Inc., feared and anticipatcd that plaintiff*ould rcpon thosc illcgal practiccs to the
Govenrment as lttll. Plaintiffhad already escalated his conccrns to dcfcndant Fulton Trucking company's
agenls and, the next logical step, and the ooly remaining altemative, was [o report these unsal!.
hazanlous, and illegal conditions to an or[side golernmental agcncy. Dcfcndant I.'uhon liucking
Company, Inc.. retaliated against plaintiff by terminating him in an attempr to prevent the plaitrtifffrotn
rcporting tbc unsafc and hazardous condilions.
18. At all timcs rclcvanl lo this Complaint, California Labor Codc $ I105 rvas in cffcct and
applicd to Delbndant. Fulton Trucking Company, Inc,. and this section perrnils Plaintilfs who suffer a
violation of Labor Code $ I 102.5 to file an action for darnages.
19. Plaintiftis intbrmed and trelie,*es and thereon alleges thal plaintiff s continued qscalalion
of his grievamcs, and dcfcndant Fulton Trucking cornpanies anticipation lhal he would reporl to the
gosemmcnt thc unsafc and hazardous conditions, noted hcrcin. nrotiyaled delbndanl Fulton Trucking-4-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
t1
I2
l-,
l4
l5
t6
t7
!8
t9
20
2t
22
l7
24
)s
26
2l
28
(:ompany, [nc., lo relaliate against plainliff by assaultirg and hatleriog him. and tenninatiog his
cmployrent.
20. As a direqt aud forcsccable result ofthe aforcsaid acts ol'said Defcndanls, plaintill'has lost
and will continue to lose income and bcnefits in an anrount to bc proren al the titne oftrial. plaintiff
claims such atnounl as damages togelhcr wilh pre-j udgment intercst pursuant to C)alifornia Civil Co<le $
3287 and.'or any other prnvision of la*, providlng for pre-j udgment interest.
?1. As a result of ttrc sforesaid acts of Defendans. Plaintiltclaims gencral danragrs li:,r menral
and emolionul distrcss and agg6rvation in an amount to be proven at ihc time ol'trial.
22. 'fhe abovc describod acls by Del'endant, by and through rhcir managing agerus. oflicers or
direclor,s' were enguged in *'ith a deliberate, cold. callous, fraudulent and intcntional manner in ordcr to
iojure artd damage Plainfifl'and/or with a conscious disregard of Plaintil'fand her rights. Such acts lver€
despicable, and conslitute malice, fraud and/or oppression nithin thc meaning ofCalifornia Civil Co4e g
3294. Plaintiff requests an asscssmrnt ol'puiitive damages against Defendants, in an amount to bc
provcfl al tinre oftrial.
21. As a proximate result of rhe foregoing conduct. which violated provisions of Califomia
Labor Code $$ 1 102.5(b) and (c). Plainf lf has been forcrd to and will itrcur atomey's lbes and costs in
the proscculion of this clairn. in in amounl to be proved at trial.
24 Plaintiflincorporates by rcference and rc-allege paragraphs I through 23 as though fully
s€( fonh herein.
25. At all limes rclcvant to this Complaint, Califomia I.abor Coe $ 98.5 *as in efl'ect and
applied to Defendants. Califomia Labor Code 0 98.6 provides that "A pcrson shall not discharge an
employee or in any manner discriminatc. rctaliale, or take auy adversc action against any employec...
because the employee filed a bona fide complaint or ctaint or iustituted or causcd to be instituted any
proceeding under or relaling to his orher rights... because ol the excrcise b,"- the employee on behalfof
himsclf, hetsel( or others ofaay rights alforded him or her."
(Agsinst Del'endant Fulton Trucking Company. lnc.)
I
)
3
4
5
6
7
I9
t0
ltt2
t3
l4
t5
l6
t7
IE
l9
20
2l
22
21
24
25
26
27
28
26.
in thc truck
71
As noled hercin. p)aintillcomplained to defcndants about unsafe and huzardous conditions
thal he ruas assigurcd to drivc.
Delendant assaulted, baltered. and terminaed plaintilf in retaliarion for the.se objections
and complainrs.
28. As a resuh of his termination. Plaintiff has suffcrcd damages, includin{ but not limitcdto,
reimbursement fbr all lost wagas and work benetits occasioncd by DefendanB rctaliaiory terminalion, in a
sum to be detemtined at trial.
29. The nforemcntioned acts ol Delbndants are willful, uanlon, malicious. intentional,
oppressivc. and despicable. and rvere donc in willful and s6n5ci(rus disregard ofthc righrs ofPlaintills and
were donc by managerial ggenls and cmployees ol Del'enrJimts, or *'ith thc cxprcss knowledge, consenl,
and ratificadon ofmanagerial employees of Dcfendanls, and lhereby.iustifr' thc ararding otpunitiveand
exemplary damagcs in an amount to bc derermincd ar the lime of rrial.
CONSTRLTCIIVIi WR TION OF PUBLIC POLICY(Against Delbndsnt Fulton Trucking Company, tnc.)
3A. Plaintitl incorporates by referencc and rc-allege par.rgraphs I tluough 29 as though lirlly
set forth herein.
3 I - Plaintiff s emplol'mcnt was terminaled in vi<rlation of fundamcntal public policies of the
Etate of Californiq includ'lng. r,ithout lim'ttation. encouraging workers ro report uusafe and hazardous
conditions without fear of rctaliation. 'fhese l'undsrnental public policics cnsure to th€ benelit ofthe
public and nol.jr.rsr thc private interes$ of employer and employcc.
72. As set fbrth tbovc, sct actions by defeudants werc r+rongful and in violation ol lhe
fundamcntal principles of rhe public policy of the Statc of California as reflectetl iu its lau's, ob.lectivcs
and policies. Said laws. which establish thcsc fundamental public policies include. witbout limitadon.
California labor code secrions I 102.5 and 98.6.
3l . As a direct and foresecahtc result of the atbesatd acts of said Dcibnd$(. Ptaintiffhas losr
and uill conlinuc to losc income and henelits io an amount lo be proven at thc timc of trial. Plaintifl
claims such as amount as damages logelher wilh pre-judgment interest pursuant to Califonria Civil Code
$ 3287 andior imy other provision of 1a*' providing for prc-judgment intere$1,
-6-
I
2
l4
5
6
I9
IO
II
t2
1_3
l4
t5
t6
l7
I8
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
26
)'l
28
34. As a rcsult of lhe aloresaid acts of Defendants. Plaintilfclaims general damagcs lbrmental
and emotional distress and aggr,lvation in an amount to be proven al the time of trial.
35. The abovc described acts ofDeGndants, by and tfuough their managing agenls, ollicers or
directors, *ere engaged in with a delibcrate. cold, callous, tiaudulent arrd intentional manner in order lo
injure and damage Plaintiffandior with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffand her rights. Such acls werc
dcspicable. and conslilulc malicc, fraud and/or oppre$Jion within lhe meaning of Califomia Civil Code $
:294. Plaintiff requesls an assessmenl of punitive rlarnages against Defendafits. in an amount [o be
provcn al time of trial.
I,]NFAIR BTJSINESS Code g 17200 et seq.(Against Dcfendant Fulton'l'rucking Cornpany, lnc.)
36. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and rc-allege p:uagraphs I rhrough 35 as ttrough l'ull.v-
set fonh hereiu.
31. Defendants' conducl, as alleged above, violates multiplc stale autl l'edcral la*s and
consdtutcs unlawl-ul business practices tithin the meaning ofCalilomia Busincss & Profbssions Code S
77200 er seq.
38. Plaintiff is informed and belirves and tllcrEon allegcs,that Drl'eotlant contilrucs ro engage
irr some or all of the atbrernentioned unfair and unlawlul business practices.
39. Plainlifl seeks an ir{unction prohibiting l)efendonts frrrm engaging in rhc unfair and
unlawful conduct described hcrein-
INTENTIONAI, . DISTRESS
40. Plaindlls incorporate by rel'erencc and re-allege paragraphs I through 39 *r though fully
se! tbrth hercin.
41 . Defcndant engaged in cxtreme and outra8eous conduct by intentionally an#or recklessly
thiling to corcct the unsal'e and hazardous conditions reported to them by plaintiffand-
thrrcalier tuminming him.
-?-Conrplairtt
(Atl Dci'cndants)
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
E
9
t0
II
t2
t3
t4
t5
I6
t7
t8
l9
21\
2r
22
23
24
,(
76
27
2$
42. By lhe aloresaid act$ ofDcfbndanls, Plainlilfhas becn directty antl legally caused to suffer
darnages as alleged herein.
43. The uforemcntioned .lcts of Dcfrndaots, $,er6 willful, malicious. intcnrional. opprcssive
and despicable and uere done in willt'ul and conscious disregarl of the rights. w.eltirre and safet-v of the
Plaintiff, 0rereby justifing an a*arding olpunitivc arrd cxemplary darnagcs, againsr Delbndants, in an
irmounl lo be delermi[ed at rrial.
(Aguir:st All t)efendanrs)
44. Plaintiff incorporates by rcfcrence and re-allcgc paragraphs I through 43 as though fully
sel lorth hercin.
45. The actions ofdelendants dcscrihed herciu vucre inlended toanddid indeed cause hannful
and oltbnsive contact rvith the plaintiff.
46. AI lhe time of said harmlbl and offcnsive conud delbndant Steve Fulron was wilhin the
course and scopc of his emplo3rmenl *,ith delendaut Fulton'l'rucking Company, Inc.
47. Plaintiffdid nol consent to the hamrful and offcnsive contacr noted hmein.
48. As a direcl, forcsccable- and pmximatc result ol'detbndants' unlau.fulactiols. plaintiffhas
suffered cmotional di$ress. humilistiou, shamc, and enlbanassrnenr, all the plainriffs damage in an
finount fo bc proven d the timc of trial.
49. Thc atbrementioned acts of defemlants wcrc rvillful. ranton. malicious, inleotional.
opprcssive, and clespicablc, and were done in willful afid corsciou.c disregard of the rights of plainif].
Plaiotiffis rhus cntitled to recovcr punitive damages from dcfcndants in an amount according lo prcoff,l
lrial.
CA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I9
t0
t1
l2
t3
t4
I5
t6
l7
l8
i9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Against All Defendunts.)
50. Plaintifls incorporale b1'refbrencc and re-allege paragraphs I througfr 49 as rhough fully
set lbrth herein.
5 L The actions ol dcfendant Stevc Fulton constituttd henrnful and oil'ense of contac:t uith tlrc
plaintiff,
52. At the time of said harmluland offensive contact dcfentlant Steve Fulton rvas fmploycd by
defendant Fulton Trucking company', Inc., and was in the course an<i scope of his employment w,ith said
dcfcndant.
53. Plaintiffdid not consent to lhe harmfi:l and ofl'ensive conlact nole<l herein.
54. As a direct, forcsccable, and proximate result of defendants' unlawlirl actions, plaiotilf
suffcred emotioDal distress, humiliation, shame, and embanassment. all ro the plaintifl's damage in an
amount Io be proven at thc time of trial,
55. The aforcmentioned acts of delendants' were willful. rvaDtorr, malicious. inteutional,
oppressive. and dcspicablc. and werc done in willful consqious disrcgard olthe rights ofplaintifll Plaintiff
is thus eulltkd to rccover punitive damagcs from defendants in Bn amou$t accorrling to proof at trial.
PR.IYERTOR RELIEF
Wheiefore, Plaintiff prays foriudgment against DcfcndanB as follo*s:
l. l'or compensator-v damages, includilg lo-st rvages, ruedical berrefits aud othcr crnf,loynr€nt
benefits, acCording to proof;
2. For gcneral, menlal and emotional disfEss damagcs accortling to proof:
3. l'or punitire damagcs on each sause of aclion for r,r'hich they are au'ardable;
4. For an arvard of interest. iucluding prejudgment interest, ar the legal rate;
5. For an injunctioo ordering FTJLTON TRUCKINGCOMPANY, INC., r<r ccase and desisl irs
unlavi.lul practiccs;
6. Fbr costs ofsuit incurred;
I
2
3
4
J
6
lI
9
t0
tll2
13
r4
l5
I6
tll8
l9
20
2t
22
11
24
25
1,'.
27
28
7. Fcr anomc)s' f'ees and costs;
E. For such other and further relirfas tbe coun dcems jusl and proper-
DATED: August 10,2018 ARATA,SWINGLE, VAN IGIIIOND & (;oODWINA Prul'essional Law Corporation
B_r: ,/ ),/Cregof T..Coodu,inAllornbys lbr PlainliffSTEVF]! MILNER
I
)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
l1
t2
l3
t4
15
l6
t7
18
t9
20
21
'))
23
24
25
26
27
28
FILEDAU6 I { 20t8
Case No.: CV61788
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESIMedical Malpracticel
Defendants.
Plaintiff LLOYD BERG ("Plaintiff') alleges as follows:
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
t.The events hereinafter described occurred in the county of ruorumne, state of
Califomia, within the jurisdiction of the above-entitled Court.
2.
Defendant SAFEWAY, INC., dba SAFEWAY PHARMACy is, and at all times herein
mentioned was, a California corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State
of califomia with its principal place of business in sonora, califomia in Tuolumne county.
3.
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants, whether individual,
corporate, or otherwise, sued herein as DoEs I through 50, inclusive, and, therefore, sue these
{944rfer J. lnthert (SBN 225776)YOI.JNG WARD & LOTHERT
'
A Professional Law Comoratiun995 Morning Star Drive, Suite CSonora, CA 95370Telephone: (209)536-2750Fax: (209) 536-2752
Attorney for Plaintiff Lloyd Berg
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COI-INTY OF TUOLUMNE
z=H;E8HH3alatrDlmhoo{,oPhroIO(-m
HlsalFXlaol(DBtrFl.
LLOYD BERG,
plaintiff,
vs.
SAFEWAY, INC., dba SAFEWAYPHARMACY, and DOES I through 25,lnclusive,
Complaint for DamagesPage I of4
'l