SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP

1
Babak Semnar, Esq. (SBN 224890)
2 Jared M. Hartman, Esq. (SBN 254860)
41707 Winchester Rd. Suite 201
3 Temecula, California 92590
4 Tel: (951) 293-4187
Fax: (888) 819-8230
5
KING & SIEGEL LLP
6
Julian Burns King (Bar No. 298617)
7 julian@[Link]
Robert J. King (Bar No. 302545)
8 robert@[Link]
9 724 S. Spring Street, Ste. 201
Los Angeles, CA 90014
10 Tel: (213) 465-4802
Fax: (213) 465-4803
11
12 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe
13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
14
15 Jane Doe, an individual, CASE NO.

16 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

17 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
vs
18 1. Sexual Harassment in Violation of
BeGood Temecula Restaurant & FEHA;
19
Experience, a business entity, form unknown; 2. Gender Discrimination in Violation
20 Abraham Torres Casillas, an individual; of FEHA;
Koman Construction, LLC, an Alaska 3. Failure to Prevent Harassment and
21 corporation; and Does 1-25, Discrimination in Violation of
22 FEHA;
Defendant. 4. Assault and Battery
23 5. Sexual Assault and Battery
6. Bane Act Violations
24 7. Ralph Civil Rights Act Violations
25 8. Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress
26 9. Negligent Infliction of Emotional
27 Distress

28
Complaint
 10. Negligent Hiring, Training,
1
Supervision, and Retention
2 11. Wrongful Discharge in Violation of
Public Policy
3 12. Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due
4 13. Failure to Provide Accurate Wage
Statements
5 14. Failure to Reimburse Business
Expenses
6
15. Unfair Business Practices
7
Jury Trial Requested
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Complaint
 1 Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through her attorneys, alleges as follows:
2 INTRODUCTION
3 1. This is a case about a Temecula-based restaurant called the BeGood Temecula
4 Restaurant & Experience (hereinafter “BeGood”) that markets itself as a “family” restaurant
5 yet intentionally creates a dangerous, sexualized, and hostile work environment for its under-
6 aged hostesses.
7 2. BeGood hires friendly, attractive underaged girls, including Plaintiff Jane Doe,
8 as hostesses and requires them to wear tight clothes and serve alcohol to often-drunk and
9 disorderly patrons. These patrons regularly harass and proposition hostesses and create a hos-
10 tile work environment. Several patrons, including Defendant Abraham Casillas, have even
11 sexually assaulted BeGood’s young female employees, including but not limited to Plaintiff
12 Jane Doe (when she was merely 17 years of age). Other patrons have stalked hostesses at
13 work and after their shifts, following them to their cars and causing BeGood’s employees to
14 fear for their safety.
15 3. BeGood’s management knows its patrons routinely harass its hostesses. Man-
16 agement knows of multiple instances of sexual assault on hostesses by restaurant patrons.
17 Management also knows that patrons have stalked hostesses in the restaurant and after their
18 shifts. Hostesses complained about patrons’ misconduct on a nearly-weekly basis in formal
19 meetings with management.
20 4. But BeGood has failed to stop this illegal conduct. In general, it refuses to re-
21 quire harassers and assailants to leave the premises, instead reassigning the victim to menial
22 labor in the back of the restaurant, because a firm and adequate response would be “bad for
23 business.” It also refused to allow hostesses to park closer to the restaurant or to provide a
24 bouncer or escort to their cars following their shifts. Indeed, BeGood placed responsibility to
25 stop assault on the hostesses themselves, telling them to carry pepper spray or tasers if they
26 feared for their physical safety.
27
28
-1-
Complaint
 1 5. BeGood’s indifference was an invitation to misconduct. Defendant Abraham
2 Casillas, on a business trip while working for Defendant Koman Construction, LLC, harassed
3 and sexually assaulted Plaintiff Jane Doe, then 17-years-old, during her shift at BeGood.
4 6. Even after Plaintiff was assaulted, BeGood continued to prioritize its business
5 over the safety and well-being of its staff, refusing to call the police regarding the incident.
6 PARTIES
7 7. Plaintiff Jane Doe (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is an individual who resided in Riv-
8 erside County at all times relevant to this complaint. She was 17 years old and a rising high
9 school senior when she was hired by BeGood as a hostess in July 2020. She was a minor at
10 the time of the incidents described in the complaint.
11 8. Defendant BeGood is a business entity, form unknown, with its principal place
12 of business located at 28636 Old Town Front St #109, Temecula, CA 92590 in the County of
13 Riverside.
14 9. Defendant Abraham Torres Casillas is an individual who, upon information
15 and belief, resides within the City of Chandler in the State of Arizona. Defendant Casillas
16 was at all times relevant to this complaint an employee and managing agent of Defendant
17 Koman Construction, LLC. On information and belief, Koman had prior knowledge of De-
18 fendant Casillas’ tendency to engage in inappropriate sexual comments and sexual harass-
19 ment.
20 10. Defendant Koman Construction, LLC (hereinafter, “Koman”) is an Alaskan
21 Corporation that regularly does business within the State of California, registered under En-
22 tity Number 201830440461 with the California Secretary of State, and maintains an agent
23 registered for service of process at 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N, Sacramento, CA.
24 11. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or oth-
25 erwise of the Defendants named herein as Does 1 through 25, are unknown to Plaintiff at this
26 time. Plaintiff therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to § 474 of
27 the California Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to
28
-2-
Complaint
 1 allege the true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 25 when their names are ascertained.
2 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the Doe Defendants
3 is in some manner liable to Plaintiff for the events and actions alleged herein.
4 12. At all times alleged herein, each Defendant was an agent, servant, joint em-
5 ployer, employee, partner, and/or joint venture of every other Defendant and was acting
6 within the scope of the Defendants’ relationship. Moreover, the conduct of every Defendant
7 was ratified by each other Defendant.
8 13. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges, that Casillas was act-
9 ing within the scope and course of employment with Koman, and was acting with the
10 knowledge, permission, consent, and ratification of Koman.
11 14. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all relevant
12 times, each of BeGood and Does 1-25 were each acting as an agent, joint venturer, and/or
13 alter ego for each other, and each were co-conspirators with respect to the acts and the wrong-
14 ful conduct alleged herein so that each is responsible for the acts of the other in connection
15 with the conspiracy in such wrongful acts with the other Defendants.
16 VENUE AND JURISDICTION
17 15. The court has jurisdiction over all causes of action in this complaint pursuant
18 to Article VI, § 10 of the California Constitution. No federal question is at issue; Plaintiff
19 relies solely on California statutes and law, including the Government Code and the Business
20 & Professions Code. Because Defendants conduct substantial business in Riverside County,
21 Defendants are within the jurisdiction of the court for service of process. Defendant Casillas
22 traveled to California on behalf of Defendant Koman and assaulted Plaintiff at BeGood’s
23 restaurant in Riverside County. Moreover, Business & Professions Code § 17204 provides
24 that any person acting on their own behalf may bring an action in any court of competent
25 jurisdiction.
26 16. Venue as to Defendant is proper in this Superior Court pursuant to California
27 Code of Civil Procedure § 395. The unlawful acts alleged have directly affected Plaintiff in
28
-3-
Complaint
 1 Orange County, where he lives, worked for Defendant, and earned the wages at issue in this
2 action. Accordingly, this Court maintains appropriate jurisdiction over this dispute.
3 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
4 BeGood Creates an Atmosphere Where Its Underaged Employees
5 Are Routinely Harassed and Assaulted By Restaurant Patrons
6 17. BeGood operates a restaurant and bar in Temecula California called the “Be-
7 Good Restaurant & Experience.” Although originally launched as a “family” restaurant, Be-
8 Good’s owners soon realized that creating a nightclub experience, replete with heavy drink-
9 ing, provocatively dressed hostesses, and little supervision was more profitable. The “expe-
10 rience” quickly became an opportunity for patrons to sexually harass and assault the underage
11 girls working at BeGood.
12 18. To create the “experience,” BeGood hired young women, many of them still in
13 high school and under the age of 18, to serve as hostesses and required them to dress provoc-
14 atively in tight fitting black pants and tight shirts. This dress code was strictly enforced by
15 BeGood and employees were frequently criticized at team meetings for not wearing suffi-
16 ciently tight-fitting clothes. BeGood also required its underage hostesses to serve alcohol to
17 patrons, forcing them into close proximity with drunk and disorderly patrons.
18 19. The underage hostesses were subjected to continuous sexual harassment by Be-
19 Good’s drunken patrons, including lewd comments and physical touching. On an almost-
20 daily basis, hostesses were physically touched and groped by patrons, including sexualized
21 touching of their lower backs and grabbing of their buttocks. These problems were so com-
22 mon that employees and management colloquially referred to this harassment as customers
23 “getting handsy,” which was portrayed to be just part of the job.
24 20. BeGood’s management knew of the problem but did not adequately protect
25 their underaged employees. Even worse, BeGood’s management discouraged employees
26 from confronting customers or contacting law enforcement because, as a newer business,
27 they did not want to have a negative reputation and they did not want to drive away any
28
-4-
Complaint
 1 customers. Instead, BeGood’s management told employees to avoid the harassing customer,
2 sometimes sending complaining employees to the back of house to “roll silverware” or en-
3 gage in other menial tasks until the harasser left the premises. The harassers themselves gen-
4 erally were allowed to stay at the restaurant.
5 21. BeGood enforced these norms at weekly staff meetings. Jane Doe and the other
6 hostesses complained about their safety and customer harassment at virtually every one of
7 these meetings, including highlighting acts of harassment that they had experienced and iden-
8 tifying regular customers who consistently harassed BeGood’s employees. BeGood did noth-
9 ing in response to these complaints, even telling Jane Doe and others that they would not ban
10 the harassing regular patrons because the business was “all about customer service” and that
11 the hostesses should “keep [their] distance but keep working.”
12 22. The “experience” at BeGood was so toxic and concerning to BeGood’s host-
13 esses that, in or around August of 2020, Jane Doe and others asked BeGood to hire a security
14 guard to protect them during their shifts. BeGood hired the friend of one of the owners as a
15 “bouncer.” BeGood’s nominal “bouncer” had no training and did nothing to protect Jane Doe
16 or the other employees. Instead, he spent his time socializing with customers and BeGood
17 Management. Jane Doe did not witness the “bouncer” intervene in a single instance of har-
18 assment, even after employees requested his assistance.
19 23. BeGood also exposed its staff to dangerous conditions outside the restaurant.
20 Customers would routinely hang around outside of the restaurant at closing and harass or
21 stalk hostesses when they left. To protect themselves, the hostesses asked to be allowed to
22 park in the restaurant parking lot, rather than the lot where they were directed to park, which
23 was some distance from the restaurant.
24 24. Management refused to let the hostesses park in the restaurant lot and Be-
25 Good’s “bouncer” similarly refused to walk the young girls to their cars or provide any other
26 protection. In response to this dangerous situation, several hostesses started to carry weapons
27 for self-defense, and in fact, when hostesses complained about the lack of safety protocols,
28
-5-
Complaint
 1 BeGood suggested that they start carrying their own weapons for their own personal protec-
2 tion while walking to and from their vehicles.
3 25. On information and belief, BeGood did not provide training to its managers or
4 employees about how to deal with harassment by patrons.
5 26. In failing to take prompt corrective actions despite multiple complaints, Be-
6 Good effectively ratified the culture of sexually harassing conduct and sexual assaults by
7 customers upon young female employees, and thereby allowed the effects of sexually harass-
8 ing conduct and sexual assault to permeate Plaintiff’s work environment.
9 27. BeGood also failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual assault/har-
10 assment by failing to have or implement a policy that requires preservation of video record-
11 ings that record such actions, failing to have or implement sexual harassment policies and
12 procedures, failing to adequately investigate complaints of sexual assault/harassment, failing
13 to contact the police of known criminal activity against its employees, failing to take correc-
14 tive action to prevent ongoing or future sexual assault/harassment, and/or failing to reasona-
15 bly supervise or train its managers, supervisors, directors, employees, agents, or contractors
16 about taking all reasonable steps to prevent sexual assault/harassment or about how to address
17 complaints of sexual assault/harassment.
18 28. Through these acts and omissions, BeGood intentionally created conditions
19 where patrons of its restaurant were empowered to sexually harass and assault its employees
20 without fear of reprisal.
21 Plaintiff Is Sexually Harassed and Sexually Assaulted at BeGood’s Restaurant
22 29. Throughout her employment at BeGood Restaurant, Plaintiff was repeatedly
23 sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by patrons. Nearly every shift, Plaintiff was either
24 verbally harassed or subjected to unwanted physical contact by patrons, including unwanted
25 and unnecessary contact with her hands, unwanted “caressing” of her lower back, and un-
26 wanted touching of her butt, among others. When Plaintiff reported these incidents to
27
28
-6-
Complaint
 1 management she was told to stay away from the offending customers and/or sent to the back
2 of the restaurant to roll silverware.
3 30. In or around August of 2020, a customer stalked Plaintiff in the restaurant. Af-
4 ter sitting uncomfortably close to her station and repeatedly calling her “babe” while attempt-
5 ing to initiate conversation with her, the customer told Plaintiff that he “really enjoyed being
6 around her” as he left the restaurant. He returned within 30 minutes and asked to be seated
7 next to her, again saying that he just “wanted to be around” Plaintiff again. When she told
8 management that she was uncomfortable with his persistent attention, she was assigned to
9 roll silverware for over an hour in the backroom, while her harasser ate and drank in the
10 restaurant at his leisure. Management failed and refused to eject him or confront him in any
11 way.
12 31. Recognizing the potential danger to the hostesses, management told the host-
13 esses that they could carry weapons such tasers or pepper spray to protect themselves. (Plain-
14 tiff purchased both a taser and pepper spray on Amazon.) On information and belief, man-
15 agement did not instruct the “bouncer” to carry a taser or pepper spray for the hostesses’
16 protection, nor did management change any other restaurant policies.
17 32. In early September 2020, the situation escalated, and Plaintiff was physically
18 assaulted during her shifts on two consecutive days, including by Defendant Casillas. This
19 was the foreseeable outcome of BeGood’s general approach to harassment and assault by
20 restaurant patrons (namely, to ignore it and move the hostess victimized by such conduct to
21 a task out of sight of customers).
22 33. On September 4, 2020, a male patron grabbed Plaintiff’s buttocks with such
23 force that she had to physically pull herself away from him to force him to release his grip.
24 Plaintiff told him, “excuse me sir,” to which he responded, “You are a good hostess.”
25 34. Plaintiff promptly told her manager about the forceful grabbing. The patron
26 was allowed to stay at the restaurant, without being ejected or confronted by management in
27 any way, and Plaintiff was instructed by management to go to the back of the restaurant to
28
-7-
Complaint
 1 roll silverware for an hour and a half while the patron was permitted to stay and continue
2 about his business at his leisure.
3 35. The very next day, September 5, 2020, Plaintiff was working at BeGood when
4 Casillas and co-workers arrived at the restaurant for a work-related dinner. While working at
5 the hostess station, Casillas made lewd sexual comments to Plaintiff, including telling her
6 that she was pretty and he repeatedly tried to grab her hands. He escalated this harassment,
7 and he grabbed Plaintiff and pulled her towards him to give her a hug without notice or per-
8 mission.
9 36. Plaintiff had never met Casillas before this incident, and she was caught com-
10 pletely off guard by his conduct. This touching by Casillas was unconsented to and unwanted
11 by Plaintiff. In response, she pushed him away and walked away from him.
12 37. Although Plaintiff made clear that touching and sexualized comments from
13 Casillas were unwelcome, he did not care. Casillas also made sexual comments and engaged
14 in unwanted physical touching of multiple other young female employees, including trying
15 to solicit another female employee into a threesome with Casillas and his wife. Casillas at
16 times grabbed the waist and hips of another female employee. During his time at BeGood,
17 he inappropriately touched three different female employees other than Plaintiff.
18 38. Emboldened by BeGood’s failure to respond to his behavior and increasingly
19 inebriated as the evening progressed, Defendant Casillas at one point called out, “hey chica,”
20 to get Plaintiff to turn around. When she did turn around to see who was talking to her, Casil-
21 las grabbed her vagina and rubbed her vagina over her pants and pressed his fingers into her
22 vagina through her pants. This touching by Casillas was also unconsented to and unwanted
23 by Plaintiff.
24 39. The shock and horror that Plaintiff immediately experienced as a direct result
25 of Casillas’ conduct in grabbing, rubbing, and forcing his fingers into Plaintiff’s vagina
26 through her pants caused Plaintiff to be frozen in place.
27
28
-8-
Complaint
 1 40. Plaintiff immediately reported the sexual assault to her manager, who was
2 working on a laptop in the back room and not supervising the restaurant. The manager—
3 Jesse—told Plaintiff to stay in the library and that he would go talk to Casillas. Jesse finished
4 typing on the laptop for several minutes and then spoke with Casillas. Following the conver-
5 sation, Casillas left the restaurant.
6 41. Plaintiff was visibly upset by the incident and was crying uncontrollably. In
7 response, BeGood’s manager told her that Casillas had left and told Plaintiff that she was
8 “good to go” to resume work. Plaintiff hid in the employee bathroom for the remainder of
9 her shift and several other employees came to check-up on her. No one from BeGood’s man-
10 agement checked on Plaintiff.
11 42. BeGood understood that the conduct reported by Plaintiff constituted a crime,
12 yet it refused to contact the police or to take any other affirmative steps to hold its customers
13 responsible. BeGood yet again ratified the sexual harassment and assault of its young female
14 employees.
15 43. Additionally, Defendant BeGood’s negligence in hiring, training, supervising
16 and retaining its personnel, supervisors, and managers contributed to Defendant BeGood’s
17 failure to take prompt corrective action to prevent, and ultimately the ratification of, sexual
18 assault by customers upon young female employees.
19 BeGood’s Other Illegal Conduct
20 44. In addition to the fact that BeGood failed to implement reasonable safety pre-
21 cautions to protect Plaintiff, BeGood’s disregard for the rights of its minor employees is il-
22 lustrated by other illegal conduct, including:
23 a. BeGood requires its hostesses, including Plaintiff, who are all under the
24 age of 18, to deliver alcohol to customers in violation of Business & Professions Code
25 § 25663;
26 b. BeGood has never provided Plaintiff or any of its other employees with
27 any wage statements in connection with any of her wages earned or paid, which has left
28
-9-
Complaint
 1 Plaintiff completely ignorant as to whether she actually received all wages for all hours
2 worked;
3 c. BeGood on a regular basis fails to pay its employees in a timely manner
4 in violation of Labor Code § 204;
5 d. BeGood forced Plaintiff and other young employees still in high school
6 to work longer than 4 hours on schooldays on multiple occasions, in violation of Labor Code
7 1391(a)(4);
8 e. BeGood forced Plaintiff and other young employees still in high school
9 to work later than 10:00 p.m. on nights preceding a school day on multiple occasions, in
10 violation of Labor Code 1391(a)(3);
11 f. BeGood forced Plaintiff and other employees to utilize their personal
12 cellular telephones in the discharge of their duties, including engaging in communications
13 with management/supervisors on a regular basis as to work duties and scheduling, but without
14 any form of stipend or reimbursement for such personal expenses;
15 g. BeGood forced Plaintiff and all other employees to work in an environ-
16 ment where COVID-19 safety precautions were not enforced, including allowing customers
17 and employees to gather less than 6 feet apart without wearing masks.
18 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
19 45. Plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies by filing a complaint and ob-
20 taining a Right to Sue letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing on June
21 18, 2021.
22 LEGAL CLAIMS
23
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
24 Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA
California Government Code § 12940(j)
25 (Against Defendant BeGood)
26 46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference every allegation in this complaint as if fully
27 set forth herein.
28
- 10 -
Complaint
 1 47. BeGood subjected Plaintiff to harassment based on her sex and/or gender, and
2 causing a hostile work environment, because: (a) Plaintiff was an employee of BeGood; (b)
3 Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because she is a woman; (c) the har-
4 assing conduct was severe or pervasive; (d) a reasonable woman in Plaintiff’s circumstances
5 would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive; (e) Plaintiff consid-
6 ered the work environment to be hostile or abusive; (f) Plaintiff’s supervisors and/or Be-
7 Good’s agents knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate or
8 appropriate corrective action; (g) Plaintiff was harmed; and (h) the conduct was a substantial
9 factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
10 48. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff
11 has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress and other pecuniary loss that she, all
12 to her damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this Court, to be ascertained according to
13 proof.
14 49. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney fees against Defendant, as
15 allowed by any and all applicable statutes.
16 50. Defendant’s actions were willful, malicious, oppressive, and were committed
17 with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights,
18 which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
19 trial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
20
Discrimination in Violation of FEHA
21 California Government Code § 12940(a)
(Against Defendant BeGood)
22
23 51. Plaintiff incorporates by reference every allegation in this complaint as if fully
24 set forth herein.
25 52. BeGood discriminated against Plaintiff because: (a) BeGood was an employer;
26 (b) Plaintiff was an employee of BeGood; (c) Plaintiff is a woman; (d) BeGood subjected
27
28
- 11 -
Complaint
 1 Plaintiff to an adverse employment action because she is a woman; (e) Plaintiff was harmed;
2 and (f) BeGood’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
3 53. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of BeGood’s conduct, Plaintiff
4 has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress and other pecuniary loss that she, all
5 to her damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this Court, to be ascertained according to
6 proof.
7 54. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney fees against BeGood, as
8 allowed by any and all applicable statutes.
9 55. BeGood’s actions were willful, malicious, oppressive, and were committed
10 with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights,
11 which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
12 trial.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
13
Failure to Prevent Discrimination & Harassment in Violation of FEHA
14 California Government Code § 12940(k)
(Against Defendant BeGood)
15
16 56. Plaintiff incorporates by reference every allegation in this complaint as if fully
17 set forth herein.
18 57. BeGood failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment and discrimi-
19 nation based on sex because: (a) Plaintiff was an employee of BeGood; (b) Plaintiff was
20 subjected to harassment and discrimination in the course of her employment; (c) BeGood
21 failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment and/or discrimination; (d) Plain-
22 tiff was harmed; and (e) BeGood’s failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment
23 or discrimination was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
24 58. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of BeGood’s conduct, Plaintiff
25 has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress and other pecuniary loss that she, all
26 to her damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this Court, to be ascertained according to
27 proof.
28
- 12 -
Complaint
 1 59. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney fees against BeGood, as
2 allowed by any and all applicable statutes.
3 60. BeGood’s actions were willful, malicious, oppressive, and were committed
4 with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights,
5 which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
6 trial.
7 61. To the extent that any violations of the above cause of action is based upon the
8 conduct of executives, managers, and supervisors, BeGood knew about such conduct and
9 ratified such conduct and did so with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious
10 disregard of Plaintiff's rights.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11
Assault and Battery
12 (Against Defendants Koman and Casillas)
13 62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference every allegation in this complaint as if fully

14 set forth herein.

15 63. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every paragraph as if fully set forth

16 herein.
17 64. Casillas, and vicariously via respondeat superior, Koman, are liable for assault

18 and battery committed against Plaintiff on September 5, 2020.

19 65. Casillas touched Plaintiff in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and/or in-

20 tended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff, and an offensive contact with
21 Plaintiff resulted. Plaintiff did not consent to the touching, which would have harmed or of-
22 fended a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s situation and Plaintiff was harmed or offended by
23 Casillas’ conduct.
24 66. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of these Defendants’ conduct,

25 Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress and other pecuniary loss
26 that she, all to her damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this Court, to be ascertained
27 according to proof.
28
- 13 -
Complaint
 1 67. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney fees against Defendants
2 Casillas and Koman as allowed by any and all applicable statutes.
3 68. Defendants’ actions were willful, malicious, oppressive, and were committed
4 with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights,
5 which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
6 trial.
7 69. This cause of action is based upon the conduct of executives, managers, and
8 supervisors and Koman knew about such conduct and ratified such conduct and did so with
9 the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10
Sexual Assault and Battery
11 Civil Code §§ 43 and 1708.5
(Against Defendants Koman and Casillas)
12
13 70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference every allegation in this complaint as if fully
14 set forth herein.
15 71. Casillas, and vicariously via respondeat superior, Koman, are liable for assault
16 and battery committed against Plaintiff on September 5, 2020.
17 72. Casillas touched Plaintiff in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and/or in-
18 tended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff, and an offensive contact with
19 Plaintiff resulted. Plaintiff did not consent to the touching, which would have harmed or of-
20 fended a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s situation and Plaintiff was harmed or offended by
21 Casillas’ conduct.
22 73. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of these Defendants’ conduct,
23 Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress and other pecuniary loss
24 that she, all to her damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this Court, to be ascertained
25 according to proof.
26 74. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney fees against Defendants
27 Casillas and Koman as allowed by any and all applicable statutes.
28
- 14 -
Complaint
 1 75. Defendants’ actions were willful, malicious, oppressive, and were committed
2 with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights,
3 which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
4 trial.
5 76. This cause of action is based upon the conduct of executives, managers, and
6 supervisors and Koman knew about such conduct and ratified such conduct and did so with
7 the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8
Bane Act Violations
9 Civil Code § 52.1
(Against Defendants Koman and Casillas)
10
11 77. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the
12 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
13 78. Plaintiff claims that Casillas, and vicariously via respondeat superior, Koman,
14 are liable to her for violation of the Bane Act because Casillas: (a) by threat, intimidation or
15 coercion; (b) interfered or attempted to interfere; (c) with the exercise or enjoyment of Plain-
16 tiff’s rights (e.g., Civil Code § 43; Cal. Const., Art. 1, Secs. 1 and 13); and (d) Casillas’
17 conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm.
18 79. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of these Defendants’ conduct,
19 Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress and other pecuniary loss
20 that she, all to her damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this Court, to be ascertained
21 according to proof.
22 80. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney fees against Defendants
23 Casillas and Koman, as allowed by any and all applicable statutes.
24 81. Defendants’ actions were willful, malicious, oppressive, and were committed
25 with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights,
26 which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
27 trial.
28
- 15 -
Complaint
 1 82. To the extent that any violations of the above cause of action is based upon the
2 conduct of executives, managers, and supervisors, Koman knew about such conduct and rat-
3 ified such conduct and did so with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious
4 disregard of Plaintiff's rights.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5
Ralph Civil Rights Act Violations
6 Civil Code § 51.7
(Against Defendants Koman and Casillas)
7
8 83. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the preceding
9 paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
10 84. Plaintiff claims that Casillas, and vicariously via respondeat superior, Koman,
11 are liable to her for violation of the Ralph Act because Casillas: (a) by violence and intimi-
12 dation by the threat of violence; (b) seized Plaintiff without any lawful basis, committed a
13 battery against Plaintiff, and/or committed a sexual assault and battery against Plaintiff; (c)
14 because of her sex; and (d) Casillas’ conduct was a substantial factor in the harm she suffered.
15 85. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of these defendants ‘conduct,
16 Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress and other pecuniary loss
17 that she, all to her damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this Court, to be ascertained
18 according to proof.
19 86. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney fees against Defendants
20 Casillas and Koman, as allowed by any and all applicable statutes.
21 87. Defendants ’actions were willful, malicious, oppressive, and were committed
22 with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights,
23 which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
24 trial.
25 88. To the extent that any violations of the above cause of action is based upon the
26 conduct of executives, managers, and supervisors, Koman knew about such conduct and
27
28
- 16 -
Complaint
 1 ratified such conduct and did so with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious
2 disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
4 (Against all Defendants)
5 89. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations of this complaint as

6 though fully set forth herein.

7 90. Plaintiff claims that Casillas, and vicariously via respondeat superior, Koman,

8 are liable to her for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress because: (a) Casillas’
9 conduct was outrageous; (b) Casillas intended to cause Plaintiff emotional distress or acted
10 with reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress; (c)
11 Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress; and (d) Casillas’ conduct was a substantial factor
12 in causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress.
13 91. Plaintiff claims that BeGood is liable to her for the tort of intentional infliction

14 of emotional distress because: (a) BeGood’s conduct was outrageous; (b) BeGood intended
15 to cause Plaintiff emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard of the probability that
16 Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress; (c) Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress; and
17 (d) BeGood’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress.
18 92. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff

19 has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress and other pecuniary loss that she, all
20 to her damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this Court, to be ascertained according to
21 proof.
22 93. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney fees against Defendants,

23 as allowed by any and all applicable statutes.

24 94. Defendants’ actions were willful, malicious, oppressive, and were committed

25 with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights,
26 which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
27 trial.
28
- 17 -
Complaint
 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
2 (Against all Defendants)
3 95. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations of this complaint as

4 though fully set forth herein.

5 96. Plaintiff claims that Casillas, and vicariously via respondeat superior, Koman,

6 are liable to her for the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress because: (a) Casillas’
7 conduct was negligent; (b) Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress; and (c) Casillas’ con-
8 duct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress.
9 97. Plaintiff claims that BeGood is liable to her for the tort of negligent infliction

10 of emotional distress because: (a) BeGood’s conduct was negligent; (b) Plaintiff suffered
11 severe emotional distress; and (c) BeGood’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plain-
12 tiff severe emotional distress.
13 98. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff

14 has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress and other pecuniary loss that she, all
15 to her damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this Court, to be ascertained according to
16 proof.
17 99. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney fees against Defendants,

18 as allowed by any and all applicable statutes.

19 100. Defendants’ actions were willful, malicious, oppressive, and were committed

20 with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights,
21 which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
22 trial.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention
24 (Against Defendant BeGood)

25 101. Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference every allegation in this complaint

26 as if fully set forth herein.

27 102. BeGood is liable for Plaintiff’s harm because it negligently hired, trained, su-

28 pervised, and/or retained its employees, representatives, agents or contractors when: (a)
- 18 -
Complaint
 1 BeGood failed to train its supervisors, managers, and agents to report discrimination includ-
2 ing sexual harassment and/or to take prompt corrective action to prevent or stop such dis-
3 crimination; (b) BeGood’s supervisors, managers, and agents were unfit to perform the duties
4 for which they were hired and created a particular risk to Plaintiff and others; (c) BeGood
5 knew or should have known that its supervisors, managers, and agents posed a particular risk
6 to Plaintiff and others; (d) BeGood’s supervisors, managers, and agents’ unfitness harmed
7 Plaintiff; and (e) BeGood’s negligence in hiring, training, supervision, and retention of its
8 supervisors, managers, and agents was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
9 103. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff
10 has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress and other pecuniary loss that she, all
11 to her damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this Court, to be ascertained according to
12 proof.
13 104. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney fees against Defendants,
14 as allowed by any and all applicable statutes.
15 105. Defendants’ actions were willful, malicious, oppressive, and were committed
16 with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights,
17 which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
18 trial.
19 106. To the extent that any violations of the above cause of action is based upon the
20 conduct of executives, managers, and supervisors, BeGood knew about such conduct and
21 ratified such conduct and did so with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious
22 disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23
Wrongful Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy
24 (Against Defendant BeGood)
25 107. Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference every allegation in this complaint

26 as if fully set forth herein.

27 108. “[W]hen an employer’s discharge of an employee violates fundamental princi-

28 ples of public policy, the discharged employee may maintain a tort action and recover
- 19 -
Complaint
 1 damages traditionally available in such actions.” Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27
2 Cal.3d 167, 170.
3 109. “Constructive discharge occurs when the employer’s conduct effectively forces
4 an employee to resign. Although the employee may say, ‘I quit,’ the employment relationship
5 is actually severed involuntarily by the employer’s acts, against the employee’s will. As a
6 result, a constructive discharge is legally regarded as a firing rather than a resignation.”
7 Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1251.
8 110. California laws recognize a fundamental public policy interest in all employees
9 being free from discrimination, harassment, and assault based on immutable characteristics,
10 including gender/sex.
11 111. Based on the misconduct alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she
12 had no reasonable option other than to resign from her employment with BeGood.
13 112. Plaintiff further alleges that no reasonable person would consider continued
14 employment with BeGood to be a viable option after experiencing the discrimination, har-
15 assment, and assault based on her gender/sex that is alleged herein.
16 113. Plaintiff further alleges that the constructive discharge of her employment was
17 wrongful because it was in violation of the public policy of the State of California that all
18 employees are to be free from discrimination, harassment, and assault based on immutable
19 characteristics, including gender/sex.
20 114. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff
21 has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress and other pecuniary loss that she, all
22 to her damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this Court, to be ascertained according to
23 proof.
24 115. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney fees against Defendants,
25 as allowed by any and all applicable statutes.
26 116. Defendants’ actions were willful, malicious, oppressive, and were committed
27 with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights,
28
- 20 -
Complaint
 1 which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
2 trial.
3 117. To the extent that any violations of the above cause of action is based upon the
4 conduct of executives, managers, and supervisors, BeGood knew about such conduct and
5 ratified such conduct and did so with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and in conscious
6 disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7
Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due
8 (Against Defendant BeGood)
9 118. Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference every allegation in this complaint

10 as if fully set forth herein.

11 119. Lab. Code § 204 provides that employees must be paid regularly on at least a

12 bi-monthly basis for all wages earned during the prior pay-period.
13 120. Labor Code § 210 provides that employees may sue employers directly for stat-

14 utory penalties under Section 210 for violations of Section 204 and awards $100 for each
15 initial violation and $200 for each subsequent violation plus 25 percent of the amount unlaw-
16 fully withheld.
17 121. Defendant frequently failed to pay Plaintiff for all wages owed in each pay

18 period.
19 122. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties under this section.

20 123. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney fees against Defendants,

21 as allowed by any and all applicable statutes.

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements
23 (Against Defendant BeGood)

24 124. Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference every allegation in this complaint

25 as if fully set forth herein.

26 125. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference all allegations in this complaint

27 as though fully set forth herein.

28
- 21 -
Complaint
 1 126. Labor Code section 226(a) provides that every employer shall furnish each of
2 his or her employees an accurate and complete itemized wage statement in writing, including,
3 but not limited to, the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, the inclusive
4 dates of the pay period, total hours worked, and all applicable rates of pay.
5 127. Defendant completely failed to issue compliant wage statements to Plaintiff.
6 128. Defendants’ failure to comply with section 226(a) of the Labor Code was
7 knowing and intentional, particularly following the issuance of McKenzie v. Federal Express,
8 and/or the passage of Section 226.2.
9 129. As a result of Defendants’ failure to issue complaint itemized wage statements
10 to Plaintiff, she entitled to recover an initial penalty of $50, and subsequent penalties of $100,
11 up to an amount not exceeding an aggregate penalty of $4,000, plus costs and reasonable
12 attorneys’ fees.
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13
Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses
14 (Against Defendant BeGood)
15 130. Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference every allegation in this complaint

16 as if fully set forth herein.

17 131. Labor Code § 2802 provides that “[a]n employer shall indemnify his or his em-

18 ployee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct conse-
19 quence of the discharge of his or his duties, or of his or his obedience to the directions of the
20 employer.” Lab. Code § 2802.
21 132. Defendants unlawfully failed to reimburse Plaintiff for all business-related ex-

22 penses necessary to perform her job. Plaintiff was required to use her personal cell phone for
23 Defendants’ business without reimbursement. See Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Services, Inc.,
24 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137 (2014).
25 133. By unlawfully failing to pay Plaintiff, Defendants are liable the costs incurred

26 plus attorneys’ fees and costs. Lab. Code § 2802.

27
28
- 22 -
Complaint
 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1
Unfair Business Practices
2 (Against Defendant BeGood)
3 134. Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference every allegation in this complaint

4 as if fully set forth herein.

5 135. Defendant BeGood is a “person” as defined by California Business & Profes-

6 sions Code sections 17201.

7 136. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, has been, and continues to be, unfair,

8 unlawful and harmful to Plaintiff and to the general public. Plaintiff has suffered injury in
9 fact and has lost money as a result of Defendants’ unlawful business practices. Plaintiff seeks
10 to enforce important rights affecting the public interest within the meaning of Code of Civil
11 Procedure § 1021.5.
12 137. Defendants’ activities, as alleged herein, are violations of California law, and

13 constitute unlawful business acts and practices in violation of California Business & Profes-
14 sions Code sections 17200, et seq. A violation of California Business & Professions Code
15 sections 17200, et seq. may be predicated on the violation of any state or federal law. In the
16 instant case, Defendants’ policies and practices have violated state law as described above.
17 138. As a result of the violations of California law herein described, Defendants un-

18 lawfully gained an unfair advantage over other businesses. Plaintiff has suffered pecuniary
19 loss by Defendants’ unlawful business acts and practices alleged herein.
20 139. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.,

21 Plaintiff is entitled to restitution of the wages withheld and retained by Defendant during a
22 period that commences four years prior to the filing of this complaint; a permanent injunction
23 requiring Defendant to cease discriminating against female and/or older employees; and an
24 award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5
25 and other applicable laws.
26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

27 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 631, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury

28 on all issues so triable.

- 23 -
Complaint
 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays judgment as follows:
3 1. For declaratory relief declaring that BeGood subjected Plaintiff to discrimina-
4 tion, a hostile work environment, and failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent or stop
5 discrimination;
6 2. For declaratory relief declaring that BeGood was negligent in its hiring, train-
7 ing, supervision and retention of its human resources, supervisory and managerial personnel;
8 3. For declaratory relief declaring that Casillas committed a battery and sexual
9 assault/battery against Plaintiff;
10 4. For injunctive relief ordering BeGood to take all reasonable steps to prevent
11 discrimination and enjoining it from failing to take prompt corrective action when it becomes
12 aware of discrimination, including sexual harassment, as described herein;
13 5. For injunctive relief ordering BeGood to conduct effective anti-sexual harass-
14 ment training and to implement effective training and supervision policies and procedures
15 concerning sexual harassment and complaints of sexual harassment;
16 6. For injunctive relief ordering Koman to conduct effective anti-sexual harass-
17 ment training and to implement effective training and supervision policies and procedures
18 concerning sexual harassment and complaints of sexual harassment;
19 7. That Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against Defendants,
20 and each of them, for their acts as described in this cause of action in a sum to be determined
21 at the time of trial;
22 8. For penalties, special damages, and general damages in an amount to be proven
23 at trial;
24 9. For emotional distress damages;
25 10. Loss of income incurred and to be incurred, including any and all damages
26 flowing therefrom, according to proof;
27 11. For statutory damages where applicable by statute;
28
- 24 -
Complaint
 1 12. For prejudgment interest at the legal rate;
2 13. That Plaintiff be awarded costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
3 14. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just.
4
5 Dated: June 18, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
6 SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP
7
By:
8
Jared M. Hartman
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 25 -
Complaint