Dec
26
?O O ' 7 I : 3 0 p l l
p.l
o
LAV'OFFICES OF LISAL. MATS
AtfORNEYS AT L EV
FITED Nn '"f:;*:T3,1;*$;" ,,d$e T^E?fi1'yd',ii';'.iXif qqSgryd-dLosANGELEssuPERIoRcouRr
4l
I
I I
5l
t ?# L"n i6'.fHl,li$t;'i::il"W#1 -v,wtgrct pssT
AttomeyforPlaintiffs
6l ADRIANA & ANDREWSILVETRA I 7l
8l
I
I I
roHwcffi,oLEFK
(enge,DEpuw BrMARiy
COURTOF THE STATEOI'CALIFORNTA SUPERIOR FOR THE COUNTYOF'LOSANGELES- CENTRAL CASENO.:
10 ADRIANASILVBIRA,an individual; rl
72 13 l4
JON PETERS,an indjvidual;PETERSI990 15 TRUST, a business entity wiknown: PETERS EI-ITERTAINMENT, NC., a corporation; l 6 J,P.ORGAI{IZATiON a business enrity unknown;RONALD GRIGG, an individual; ) \ 17 andDOES l-10O, inelusive, \
el I
8c582861
ANDREWSILVEIRA,anindividual,
Plainliffs,
COMPLAINTF\OR DAMAGES 1. SEXDISERIMINATION.VIOLATION ETgEg. oF GOV'T CODE$$12940 2. DISABILITY DISCRIMTNATION. VIOLATION OF GOV'T CODE ETSEQ. $$12940 FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE DISABILITYIPERCEIVED DISABILITY & ENCAGEiT.I NT'{ INTERACTIVEPROCESS. VIOLATION OF'GOV'T CODE ETSEQ, $$12940 DISCRTMINATION VIOLATION OF GOV'T CODE $Stzedo ETSBQ, RETALIATION . VIOLATION OF .., GOV'T CODE5$12940 ETf,E.Q.".
;r: ::,: i:;
l'-l r'il; ':
)r.
) ) ) )
l8
Defendants.
l9 20 2l 22 lJ
'.;i ti,
) + . A,SSOCIATIONAL
lc. )
) ) \
DISCRIMINA
e Eb
,6 T
ji
lq
GOV'TCODE Sl
HARASSMENT- VIOLATION.OE :i: GOv'T CODE$129c0(k); !!ND ,: ii VIOLATION OF PUBLIC
jt,
27
28
ls, WRONGFULTERMINATION I\i i;i ) POLIC.Y
t
JURY TRIAJ, DEI\{AI{DEDi ::;
Lql,. tr{s CAeCrErc! M\tdAYLN rtd t*qrilbor nal b-U.erc ld DQrlDn
COMPLNNTFORDAMAGES PLAINTIFFS'
D ec
26
2007
I:3 0 p tl
p. 2
o
I 2 3
4
COMESNOW PLAINTIFF'S,ADRIANAAND A}'IDREW SILVEIRA" andfor causes arrdeaehof thern,allegesas followsl of actionagainstthe Defendants GENERAL ALLAGATION$ l. female. ., Plaintiffs are informedandbelieveandthereonallegethat the unlawful actionsset ADRIANA SILVDIRA, A PIaintiffANDREW SITVEIRA is ma:riedto PTAiNtiff
5 6 7 I
County,Califomia. forth hcreinbclowoccurredin Los Aageles 3. At all times materialto this complaint,Plaintiffs are informed andbelieve,and
JON PETERSis a residentof tbe Couniy of l-os 9 thereonallegethal the individual Defendant
t0 ll t2 l3 l4
Angeles, Stateof Califomia, 4. Plaintiffs arefurtherinformedandbelieveand thereonaDege Defendant that
PETERS 1990TRUST, is a busiaess entity unknown,issuedPlaintiffs' paychecks, is doing and business the County of Los Angoles,Stateof California, in
5.
and aro informed believe thereon that Plaintiffs further allege Defendant and
15 PETERS ENTBRTAINMENT,INC., a California is authorized do anddoing Corporation, to l6 t7 business theCounty LosAngeles, of California. in of State 6. Plaintiffs furlhcrinformed believe thereon arc and J.P, and allege Defendant that
is 18 ORGAMZATION a business business theCounty Los entityunknown, is doing and of in 19 Angeles, State Califomia. of 20 2l
t1
*i *6
7.
DefcndantS PETERS, JON PETERS PETERS T99O ENTERTAINMENT, TRUST,
lNC.,andJ.P. ORGANIZATION, hereinafter are to oollectivelyrcfenedas'?ETERS".
8, At ali timesmaterialto this cornplaint, Plaintiff is informed andbeiieves, and
thereonallegesthat the individual Defendant RONALD GRIGG (hereinafter refenedto as *GRICG') was employedby DeFendant JON PETERSasthe hesidenl of PETERS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. in the Countyof Los Angcles,Stateof California, GRIGG supervised Pleintiffs and other of PETERS' employees, PETERSvmploled GRIGCS with a mnscious
U
!- g
ry
28
L^r(}l'ElJ(>L$AL.lrlap Aflo&rBItLAv S rra t@ lr$o$! !.s l'{-E& CALtl rrl 0q ltloafl tDt)ll),'eH
:5
of 27 disregard thc rights of othei:s authorized ratified his conductallegedherein. and and 9. of Plaintiffs ale uDaware the truenamosor capacitiesof the Defendants suedhsrein
Dec
26
?O O ? l : 3 0 p l t
p.3
a
I 2 3
Plaintifls will by asDOES l-100, inclusive,and thereforesuessaid.Defsndants fictitious Durmes. seekleaveto amendthis Complaintwh€ntheir true identitiesare discovered,At all times agents, eachnarned and were themanaging mentioned, Defendant DOES l-100, inclusivo,
4 employees,agentsor re?rssentativerof eachother Defendanlsand were acting with the 5 6 1 8
9 knowledgeand consontof eachotherDefendants within thepurposeand scopeof such and employment, agencyor representation doingor failing to do the actsallegedin this Complaint, in 10. Plaintiff is informed and believesand thereon allegesthat at all times relevant
herc[o,eachof the individuals namedhereinwasfunctioningas the agent,sewaff, partner, employee,
joint venturer or working concert of;, in witb his,heror its co-Defendants and
joint t0 wasactinglwithin course scope suchagency, and parunership, the of and/or employmerrt
1 1 yenlureor
t2
certoin
activity, To the extedtthat saidconduotand omissionswereperpebated by and thcir agcnts,the rernainingDefendantscondoncd, auttrorized,confirmod
13 andntifie{ saidacts, and conduct ornissions theco-Defendants, in doingtheaotions of and ,.i. t4 mentionedlbelow acting was withinthecowseandscope his,heror its authority such of as agcnt,
ls
t7
joint venturer servant, paitner, and/or employee theperrnission, wjth consent ratification and of
I
t 6 theco-Defindanrs.
11.!
I
Plaintiffis informed beiieves thereon and and alleges that,0t all timcsmalerial
eacp t 8 herein, Defendmlwascompletely dominated controlled and byhis, heror its co-Defendant
l 9 an0orco.pefendants, each thealteregoof theother,excluding and was Defendant GRICG. z0 zl
12,l
I
I
I
Wheneverand whereverrefercnce madcin this Complaint to any act by a is
DefendanrprDefendants, suchallegations reference and shall also be deemedto moanthe actsand
I I
22 failures fct of cachDefendant jointly, andseverally, to acting individually, and Whenever
at
!b \r.l
a
wherevq rpferenceis madeto individualswho arenoLnamedas Plaintiff or DEfe,:rdants this in Complaintlbutwho wcrc omployees/agents PETERS,suchindividuals at all relcvanttimes of I actedon u{narorrlrERs within thecourse scope their employment. and of tr.l Plaintiff is infionnedandbelieves and thereonallegesthat, at all timesmatqrial
n
1l
ry 'T f 26 ej
f,f
tl
L|{hrcrOu$Ll.trl fttsrEIU! gilol1dSrd,ldlE It6 f.'lFis, C f|tl t ! OS)tlY0O lar (tD ta-q€
heroin,Defenilants,and/ortheir agents/employees knew or reasonably shouldhave known that
28 unless intervencd prctect the{ to Plaintiffs, lo adequately and prohibit,confrol, supervise, rcgulatc,
D ec
eG ?O O 7 t:3 Op t' i
p. 4
o
I ,
1
t_ of agenB employees, mernbers, penaliz€ conduct partters, of the discipline,land/or othe:wise partners, members, Defendants employ€es, and the PETERS, forth hereinabovs, rernaining $et
and/or
asbeing ratifiedandcondoned, perceived conduct ornissions and of PETERS the
4 { 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiffs were employcdby PETERSto help maintainthe horneandofficesof
rented to two up called MalibuColony.PETERS the PFIERSi[ anarea Los Angeles of County wherePETERS business hou{es conducted operations. beach
I !
tt.l l6.l
I
PlaintiffAdriana PETERS Decernber 2005. 11, SilveirabeganworkFor to on PlaintiffAndrew to on began rvorkfor PETERS Match8, 2006. Silveira In or about 9, June 2006, PlaintiffAdriana wentto thedoctor found and Silveira
l?.1
I
.l
n
l2
outshewappregnant. arrd husband She her informed PETERS GRIGG. and Defendant
l8.i Shortlythereafter, PlaintiffAdriana by Silveirawasdiagnosed her doctotashaving
13 a cornealf,regnanoy large cyst. This diagnosis and caused doctor to find her temporarily her t4
totally dis{bled and PlaintifPs doctorordered not to work (bedrest) for the periodof oneweek her
I
15 pending fufthertests;Plaintiffs PETERS GRIGGS hermedical and status advised and of l6 l7
requested Plaintiff Adriana Silvcirahavetime off to recuperate.Instoad,PlaintiffAdriana STat I Silveira reteived her final paycheckfrom PETERSon June 15,2006 and it was only for two days
.^l
18 worm oI v!/iOr.l(.
I
t9
tn.l
t'
Onor about lune22,2006, PETERS Plaintiffs movE beach into told to house #67
z0 zl
in theMdlbu Colonywhich did. they 20j
I l
On or about June 2006, 28, house told #67 PETERS Plaintiffs moveoutof beach to
22 because "i{wasnota hotel,"
s
ta,
^ .i 21.1
i
On or about July5, 2006, PETERS PlaintiffAldrew Silveira thebest that told
z4
e iF
t
thing for hb and his family was for Plaintiff AdrianaSilveim to hayean abortion,andthat it would I not be "wi$e'' to follow throughwith the pregnancy Plaintiff AndrEw Silveira wantd to kcep his if I job. Andrew Silveiraprotested andPlaintiff Adriana Silveira refusedto havean this two weekslater,Plaintiff Andrew Silvsira was notificd ofhis
?3 .?
28
|{vGErq l$^ l-M^F L^t Ailu.$At lt40 tnd!*.1?t.ar* 3E ta.d