OU A SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Juk27-2016 12:03 pm Case Number: CGC-16-553270 Filing Date: Jul-27-2016 11:59 Filed by: MADONNA CARANTO Image: 05489872 COMPLAINT ISABELLE FAITHHAUER VS. SCULLY HELMETS, INC. ET AL 001005489872 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.© cw-019 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY fame, Sis anor, nd a FOR COUR OSE UY ;Danie] Feder, SBN 130867 “The Law Office of Daniel Feder F 332 Pine Street, Suite 700 I ‘Supetior Coun of Calon San Francisco, CA 94104 Sunty OF San Francsco raspwoveno: 415-391-3476 raxnos 415-391-9432 iS UL 2 7 2016 ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORWA,cOUNTY OF San FEARCISCO smeeravoress: 400 McAllister Street CLERK OF THE COURT cryaozpcooe San Francisco, CA 94104 BRANCH NAME: Deputy Cierk CASENAME: Faithauer v. Skully, et al CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation aimee CT untimited ~~“ Itimited J Counter C} Joinder 16-553270 Gmeunt', (Amount || Fiedwith ret appearance by defendant | ance ‘exceeds $25,000) _§25,000 or less)| (Cal. Rules of Cour, rule 3.402) err, ems 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2) Fi Check one box below for the Case type thal best describes this case: nate coe eee —} Auto (22) (1) Breach of contractiwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) | Uninsured motorist (46) (=) Rule 3.740 collections (09) 8 Antitrust Trade regulation (03) canna pei cane rancor ee ION era Lefora tween (asbestos (04) ‘Other contract (37) 2 Securities itigation (28) (1 Product tiatitty (24) Real Property 2 Environmental Toxic tort (20) (_) medical maipractice (45) {J Eminent domaivinverse (J Insurance coverage claims arising from the (J other Pupp (23) condemnation (14) ‘above listed provisionally complex case ‘Non-PUPDAND (Other) Tort [J wrongtut eviction (33) types (41) J ousiness torvuntar business practice (97) [—] Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment. (CJ eiva rights (08) ‘Uniawtul Detainer EO Enforcement of judgment (20) (J) petamation (13) CC Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Co) Fraud (16) (Residential (32) Clacoen {5 intetiectual property (19) 5 brags (38), J otter complaint (not specified above) (42) J Protessionat negligence (25) Judicial Review ‘Miscellaneous Civil Petition. (other non-PuPDWD tort (35) (Asset forfeiture (05) Pannership and corporate governance (21) Employment 1] Petition re: arbitration award (11) [_] Other petition (not specified above) (43) Cx] Wrongtul termination (36) () wrt of mandate (02) Totter employment (18) other judicial eeviow (39) 2 Thiscase [Tis [a] isnot complex under rule 3.400 ofthe California Rules of Cour. ithe case is complex, mark tre factors requiring exceptional judicial management a ‘Large number of separately represented parties d. [_] Large number of witnesses ». [] Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel ¢. [__] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that willbe time-consuming to resolve ‘nother counties, states, or counties, or in a federal court ‘c. [Substantial amount of documentary evidence —_f, [—] Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision Remedies sought (check ail that apply): a. [x_] monetary b. [J nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive reliet c. (_] punitive 3, 4, Number of causes of action (gpeciy): 12 5 6 iscase [—]is [x] isnot aclass ui i sted oes dea an rermpusemevays BY FAX — —_ NOTICE ‘+ Plaintiff must le this cover sheet withthe first paper fled inthe action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Weltare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Cour, rule 3.220) Failure to fle may resut in sanctions. ‘= File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. « Ifthis case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq, of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy ofthis cover sheet on all ‘other patios to the action or proceeding + Unless this isa collections case under rule 3.740 or complex case this cover sheet wil be used fo statistical purposes ony. Fingapeit emer cVviL CASE COVER SHEET, Jo ink aie poses 3 ‘toteee ytmnsraf@ons on tow ro couniere ric couMonser cnoro To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are fing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must corfiplete ani ile, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information wil be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases fled. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In tem 1, you must check ‘one box forthe case type that best describes the case. If the case fts both a general and a more specific ype of case sted in tem 1, heck the more specific one. Ifthe case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action, To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your intial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet withthe fist paper fed ina civil case may subject a party its ‘counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court ‘To Parties in Rute 3.740 Collections Cases. A “collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed ina sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) puntve damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject {0 the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740, To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the ‘case Is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the Califomia Rules of Court, this must be indicated by ‘Completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. Ifa plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the ‘complaint on all parties to the action, A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the Plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, ifthe plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto Tot Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Ca ‘Auto (22}—Persona nuryProperty Rules of Court Rules 3.400-2.403) Damage/Wrengfut Death “Anitrus/Trade Regulton (03) ‘Uninsured Motorist (46) (the Construction Defect (10) a moves nme ‘Sta voting Mans Ton 40) ort cin set Seuues tiga (2) arbitration, check this itern Flint (not aomeeeee Environmentai/Toxic Tort (30) insted ef ho) Negigert seach of Coetac! Insurance Coverage lane ter PHebIwD(Pereonal uy cme reat of Convacwaranty ‘aisng tom pasa poe Damage/Wrongful Death) Collections (¢.9., money owed, open case type listed above) (41) ook ssn) 0) Enforcement of udgment Tabet (0) Cciecton Cate er comentot Judament abate Pepa Damage Sin: Hisey Nelo - Aten Pond i as Acapacol egret Out ot ‘Wrongful Death: Insurance Coverage (not provisionally Product Liabilly (not asbestos or complex) (18) Confession of Judgment (non ‘ulster te) Rese sion oes ltor) Coens Sher Govetaoe Sitr Sate Segment ‘ode! arose oer Sones a) ‘amnisrtie geny Aid a Maa ne Sontaceal Es (ro unl tre) Paras See ante San velit ofa nce 11 Prope gent on Upa Tees mee aT, a one Siocon Sasmn tremies ay (3 Conseaton (9) Cese remiss Labi 9, stp Heron aac) Meestanets Ct Canslan x sy nyo Sars ery aa i602 wot wtryro rida eetal coo ne eas Inestonenfcion ef Monaape Ferecosure above) 42) Emotional Distress or a Declaratory Relief Only ‘Negligent Infiction of Crear arcane Soe ernaet Injunetive Reef Ony non- ‘Emotional Distress foreclosure) harassment) Other PUPDIWD Unlawtul Detalner Mecha i Non PUPDIND (ne Tort Conmercl Sao BisinaseTontntar Sunes Resident 02) onnees Pondoen conten Precis (7) Dae (8) he case mes Hoga come ont einen us, wc hs fo tart, scenanes mri false aes ‘epor as Commercial or Resende) carraseaeteanl i ae oe on, Sender, Rel Sint Feel (05) on Peston fe: Aiton wre) Ontoon) ca ee rat) ite Mancate (02) soe) Ite rope 1) i aber Profeasona Nesierce 25) WicMntoms on tied Gout ev Legs! Mabpraccn Case Water eee Other Professional Malpractice ‘Writ-Other Limited Court Case Election Conte: oneen mesa wot eee Pelion for Name Change Employment Revi of Heat Ofer Order Paton for Rete ter Wrongful Termination (36) Notice of Appest-Labor Other Civil Petition Other Emptor 3) Commesener Appeals Bevo ays a CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Poort© 9 SUMMONS SuM-100 (CITACION JUDICIAL) eo SEE Oey NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: SKULLY HELMETS, INC.; SKULLY, (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): INC.; MARCUS WELLER; MITCHELL WELLER; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: ISABELLE FAITHHAUER, an (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): individual NOTICE! You have ben sod: The cou may dede sail you wiout you boing hear ness you spond win 30 days Red ie Wfoaton Mow You have 30 CALENOAR DAYS after this summons and legal apes ae served on yout a wen response a this cout an hve copy seve one plier or prone cal vot pete you, Yau aren rapanse tbe popes on fy wart ecto has pour gece. There maybe acute tal you an une your eoponae. You can fr hee cut fre an re ferata ath Cafeme Goat Shine Stet Center (wr cour ca gowsethob). your count iw tra. othe couause terest you you cart pay he Sng a, sk {ecer cleo ee wawe frm. you dont your capone on ime, youmay ose We case by sts an your wages ney a pier maybe token neu tute wang om the Cot ‘here ae oa egal regimen. You may wart call anatomy rh aay 1 you dono kraw an atom, you may wart alan atorey teal sarace ys eat atid an storey You may be cage fe aga senos toma repro legal sess gra You caniecue ifese non gape al he Cetfarna Lega Soacen Web se wun owreeattora abe Calera Couns Onin Sep Carer (tor corto. go/sethe) 0" by orang youre cout or cont bar sssocar, NOTE: The Cou has 9 slaty a wove feos and Scat nay setiemert er attain award a $10.00 or more «cu cso. The courts lon mt be pad before the cost wi Garhse te ease {AWSO Lohan domandado Sire responce cert de 0 ces a coe puede econ scons sn escuchar sors Leaf ermac@ Semineacn “Tere 30 IAS DE CALENDARIO despus de que le enroquen ot tact y papel gees pare presenter una respuesta por escrto en este corey hacer qu so enteque ia copia a domsndarte’ Une care ona famace fetes no loprtowen, Su reopcota or tooo lone ge ear tr emato eel corel o desea gus procesen sy caso orb cor. Es pocble qv haya in omslaro que usted pusca eps rapuesta onde ancora ces frmotanoa ef corey mas fora el Cot de Nie Ses Cres de Cla fe uci a 0) ono brates de leyes de su cnaedoo en carte gue unde max cores io puede pagar uc de preseniaabh faa coereine vo cre avo un omar de exenin de ogo Se cts Sno presets respesi ape Pad parte coso Por Reunpbmerto ya coe le Fie tr a Sak, bves Sns arenes ay dros equates egles Ey ecomencodie etme sn sbogd hmedataete. Sino conoce aun abogado, puede lamar un src de ren sgn. Ye pode pagar a un sigue gnc ono eqs prs otrer sfc kone gat Seon frowrama Encarta olte utes sn nes de ro anes wos de Cafotna Lol Serrces feiranbebeaona eg, el Centro de Ayu Ge as Corts de Calta fu sicoe ca Gov oponencsse en crtaco cn sco ool Segoe abogdas beaes AVISO. Parley crt bene derechos ct ascites bs coos axons per frporr uh rover oie caller ecoperacion $10,000 8 mas So vat recta means acuedoo ua concesn de able oh un caso ce sebche ool Tee Que apa ron GenCore ates ca gue aco pura deseeere case. name and adares o hs cout : (Einomorey drecotn de a cote 8) md 6 E5327 San Francisco County Superior Court 3 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94104 ‘The name, address, and telephone numberof plaints attorney, or plaintif without an attorney, is (El nombre, fa dreccién y 6! nimero de teléfono del abogado de! demandante, 0 del demandante que no lene abogado, es) Daniel Feder, SBN 130867 415-391-9476 415-391-9432 The Law Office of Daniel Feder 332 Bine Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 DATE CHBROF TNE COURT: bY Liteon Deputy (Fecha) QUL 27 2016 (Secretaria) (Adjunto) (For prool of service ofthis surmmons, use Proot of Series of Simons (form POS-OTO}] (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formula Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010). MADONNA CARANTO NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1OET oneal deer AX 2) Se epoman snd ude he ein name (ec BY F. 3. ‘on behalf of (specify): ender —~ Ce 46-10 (cpraten £# 416 60(ninoy oP 41820 ern ceraton CoP 4467 (cneorte CoP 16.40 artocston patti) SOP #1890 oun rsx other (specify): 4 by panna Slay re thon uy TRAE Ie ‘SUMMONS os Card Gahan as10 aL 12 13 4 15 16 v0 18 19 20 au 23 24 25 : © ° Daniel Feder (SBN 130867) LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL FEDER supa Cutt Calon 332 Pine Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 JUL 27 2016 Telephone: (415) 391-9476 Facsimile: (415) 391-9432 CLERK OF THE, ge a Deputy Clerk Attomeys for Plaintiff, Isabelle Faithauer SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. [UNLIMITED JURISDICTION] BY FAX PAY ISABELLE FAITHHAUER, an individual, | Case No.0 66> 16-553270 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES v 1. Violation of CFRA SKULLY HELMETS, INC; SKULLY, | 2: Wrongful Termi INC.; MARCUS WELLER; MITCHELL | Publie Policy WELLER; and DOES | through 50, 3. Wrongful Termination in Violation of lusive, Public Policy 4. Defamation Defendants. 5. Defamation per se 6. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations 7, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 8. Injunetive Relief 9. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages 10. Failure to Pay All wages upon Separation LL. Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Period and wages 12. Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements ion in Violation of DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. Plaintiff Isabelle Faithauer (hereafter "Plaintiff" or "Faithauer") complains as follows: 1, Plaintiff is an individual over the age of 18 ani a resident of the State of California, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 110 u 12 13 14 15. 16 uv 18 20 a 22 23 24 25 2. Plaintiffiis informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant SKULLY HELMETS, IN is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California.. 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant SKULLY. INC. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. 4, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant SCULLY INC. uses the dba SKULLY HELMETS, INC. and SKULLY HELMETS, INC. uses the dba SKULLY INC. Defendants SKULLY HELMETS, INC. and SKULLY HELMETS, INC. are hereafter collectively referred to as "SKULLY." 5. Marcus Weller is an individual who resides in San Francisco, California, and is one of the founders of SKULLY. Atall times relating to Plaintiff's employment, Marcus ‘Weller was an officer and director of SKULLY. 6. Mitchell Weller is an individual who resides in San Francisco, Cal mia, and is one of the founders of SKULLY. During Plaintiff's employment, Mitchell Weller was an office and/or director of SCULLY. Marcus Weller and Mitchell Weller are collectively referred to herein as “The Wellers.” 7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of DOES | through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore sues such defendants by such fictitious names and will amend this complaint to insert their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each such fictitiously named defendant is in some manner, means or degree, connected with the matters alleged and is liable to Plaintiff thereon. 8. Plaintiffs informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein ‘mentioned each of the defendants was the agent and/or employee of each of the remaining ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. 210 a 12 13 4 15 16 vv 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ° ° defendants and, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was a scope of such agency and/or employment, 9. The Wellers used the corporate ent manner as to render the corporate entity a sham. The various “corporations” have common management and pay practices, share labor and materials including a distribution and billing system, and operate a common marketing system. As to the various corporations and non- corporations, there exists a unity of interests and ownership that the separate personalities of the individual Defendants and the Corporate Defendants no longer exist. The Wellers intermingled personal funds with corporate funds and used the corporation as a tool to pay their personal expenses. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that the various corporations were never fully organized or perfected, and they are undercapitalized and/or a mere “shell.” Plaintiff is further informed and believes that the Defendants failed to observe corporate formalities including maintaining minutes and failure to contribute sufficient capital and Defendants and individual Defendants share common funds. Based on this, an inequity would result if the corporations were not viewed as alter egos of each other and the individual Defendants, including the inability on the part of the corporate entities to satisfy a potential judgment in this case which seeks wages and derivative penalties. Further, the individual Defendants are liable as they engaged in tortuous acts outside of the agency relationship they had with the various corporations under which authority they were acting. 10. In or about May, 2014, Plaintiff began working for Defendants as an assistant responsible for working with Marcus Weller and Mitchell Weller to perform tasks essential the management of SKULLY. Among other responsibilities, Plaintiff was assigned responsibility for managing the books of SKULLY, at the direction and under the supervision of the Wellers. These bookkeeping responsibilities included entering records of income and expenses into the accounts payable and accounts receivable ledges of SKULLY. It also COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 310 a 12 B 14 16 7] 18 19 20 an 22 23 24 25 ° e included managing payroll, writing checks on the company’s operating account, and using the ‘company’s credit cards for various business purposes related to the operation of SKULLY. of the Wellers, who wears multiple hats for defendants. Plaintiff was hired by Marcus Weller and Mitchell Weller. 11. Plaintiff consistently worked more than 50 hours each week. However, she was not paid overtime, On several occasions, Plaintiff complained to the Wellers that she was not being properly compensated for working overtime hours and, further, that she was not, permitted to take her meal and rest breaks in accordance with California law. The Wellers ignored her complaints. 12. During her employment, the Weller’s routinely demanded that Plaintiff engage in fraudulent bookkeeping practices designed to defraud investors in SKULLY into believing that SKULLY funds were being used for business purposes, when in fact, the funds were used to pay the personal living expenses of the Wellers. The Wellers used SKULLY corporate accounts as their personal “piggy banks,” and demanded that Plaintiff conceal the true nature of the expenses by entering them in SKULLY’S books to make it appear that the expenses ‘were incurred for legitimate business expenses, which in fact they were clearly not. The following are examples of just some of the fraudulent bookkeeping entries that Plaintiff was required to generate, over her strong objections, in order to keep her job: For example: a. Rent for personal apartment of Marcus Weller and Mitchell Weller in San Francisco Marina district was written off to the accountants as corporate housing. b. Security deposits for apartment in Dogpatch used by the Wellers was paid by SKULLY. ‘c. Moving expenses and painting expenses for the Weller’s move from the Marina to Dogpatch were paid by SCULLY. d. Weekly apartment cleaning for Marcus Weller and Mitchell Weller. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. 4a0 a 12 13 u4 15 16 u 18 19 20 aL 22 23 24 25. © ° ¢. Personal grocery bills of Marcus Weller and Mitchell Weller expensed to SKULLY through SKULLY's AMEX card. f, All restaurant meals of Marcus Weller and Mitchell Weller expensed to SKULLY through SKULLY's AMEX card. g. Personal technologies, such as Apple Iphone, iPad, mini-iPad, TV, watch |GoPro were all ordered by Marcus Weller via SKULLY’s AMEX card. h. A payout of $80,000 to a former co-founder of SKULLY was made and not properly recorded on the company books. Mitchell Weller asked Plaintiff to cover up this, transaction, and to conceal it from the accountants of SKULLY, by recording the expense as a reimbursement for expenses during a trip to China. i. SKULLY would often grant gifts valuing in excess of $500 without declaring them to reporter Kym McNicholas for features of SKULLY in her social media, and Collette Davis for being in the SKULLY hero video. k, In January, 2015, Marcus Weller attended a Mai Tai and Extreme tech Challenge at a cost of approximately $13,000 in Las Vegas for three days. |. During January, 2015, Marcus Weller took a non-business related trip to ‘Southern California, where he rented a Lamborghini for the week-end, and expensed SKULLY. m. In March, 2015, Marcus Weller received a traffic violation driving his Audi R8, also purchased by SKULLY. Marcus Weller required Plaintiff to take driving school on his behalf. A cost of $450 to an attorney was expensed to SKULLY because driving school was not through an approved vendor. 1. Four motorcycles were purchased by SKULLY, two of which were for the Wellers' personal use. Insurance for the motoreycles were also charged to SKULLY. ©. Mitchell Weller’s original Dodge Viper was purchased by SKULLY and ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 510 u 12 4 15. Ww 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 claimed for insurance following an accident. It was later replaced with a new Viper, also purchased by SKULLY. p. A three bedroom apartment on Indiana Street in San Francisco was rented by SKULLY for corporate housing. Wellers' brother, Mike Weller, used the three bedroom apartment for himself for three months at $6,200 per month were paid for by SKULLY. SKULLY paid over $15,000 for Mike Weller to move to California with his family, whereas it offered other employees only $2500. q. Affer Mike Weller moved out of the three bedroom corporate housing apartment, Marcus Weller and Mitchell Weller moved into that apartment, with new furniture TVs, etc. brought in at SKULLY's cost. r. In May, 2015, Marcus Weller began a World Tour whereby some of the charges were brought to Plaintiff's attention by accountants of SKULLY: approx. $2000 for limos in Fl approx. $2000 for strip club De Ja Vu; Marcus Weller stayed in Hawaii in June, 2015, for an extra week after the World Tour, at SKULLY's expense; in Hawaii, Marcus ‘Weller expensed $2,345 worth of paintings to SKULLY. 8. In October, 2015, Marcus Weller took a day at Laguna Seca to race with other CEOs in Silicon Valley. Extensive amounts were spent on various items. t. In fall, 2015, Marcus Weller and Mitchell Weller booked non-refundable trip to Bermuda. Marcus Weller was not pleased with Bermuda, so he booked on 24 hours notice a flight to Hawaii, first class, at SKULLY's expense. 13. In or about July of 2015, Plaintiff notified SKULLY’S accountants and the newly hired fully time bookkeeper of the fraudulent bookkeeping entries made by the Wellers. In response, the Wellers retaliated against Plaintiff by demoting her from the position of a personal assistant for Marcus Weller and Mitchell Weller to office manager. ‘The purported reason for the demotion was the claim that Plaintiff revealed salary information COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 610 u 12 13 4 1s 16 7 18 19 20 2a 22 23 24 25 to persons not entitled to receive that information. This claim was false. In fact, the Wellers demoted Plaintiff in part because she refused to participate in the Weller’s campaign of entering false and misleading statements in the company’s books with respect to the nature of the expenses being incurred by the Wellers. Plaintiff repeatedly told the Wellers that the bookkeeping entries were fraudulent, and that investors were entitled to receive truthful information about the purposes for which the expenses were being incurred. 14, In September 2015, SKULLY’s accountants and bookkeeper continued their vestigation to determine the true nature of the expenses incurred by the Wellers. They questioned Plaintiff more aggressively about personal expenses of Marcus Weller and Mitchell Weller. Plaintiff answered the questions verbally, face to face and provided true and correct information about the actual purposes for the fraudulently recorded expenses incurred by the Wellers. 15. In October/November, 2015, SKULLY hired a Vice President of Finance. Plaintiff was being asked more questions about personal expenses of Marcus Weller and Mitchell Weller, paid for by SKULLY. The Wellers were notified of the answers that Plai ff provided to the Vice President, and others, in response to their skeptical inquiries into the bookkeeping entries made by the Wellers. 16. In November of 2015, plaintiff's son was diagnosed with Autism. Plaintiff began bringing her son to work on Fridays, with approval of Mitchell Weller and Marcus Weller. When Marcus Weller brought his puppy to work one Friday, he told plaintiff to put her "dog on a leash so [he] can let his kid run around." Marcus Weller made other comments about Plaintiff's son being "sick." Marcus Weller was unhappy about Plaintiff taking time off to go to doctor appointment for her autistic son. 17. Plaintiff took a one week vacation, pre-approved by SKULLY, to Disneyland in December, 2015. Upon her return she was terminated by SKULLY. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 710 a 12 13 a4 as 16 v7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 © 9 18. After her termination, SKULLY offered Plaintiff severance package, which Plaintiff declined. One of the terms of this severance package was a requirement that Plaintiff not disclose any information pertaining to the Wellers fraudulent use of company funds to any person outside of SKULLY. Plaintiff refused to accept this “hush money.” Pk hell fF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Marcus Weller and/or Weller were angry because Plaintiff did not accept SKULLY's severance package. 19, A few weeks after being terminated by SKULLY, Plaintiff found a new job. While working at her new job, the Wellers called Plaintiffs new employer and told the new employer that Plaintiff was untrustworthy and dishonest. They told the new employer that Pk ff had been terminated for disclosing confidential financial information. could not handle confidential information. As a result of the Weller’s defamatory comments, Plaintiff was fired from her new job. 20. Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount according to proof, including but not limited to lost wages, 2,500 shares in SKULLY, which were voided by SKULLY, severe ‘emotional distress. 21. The conduct of SKULLY constitutes malice, oppression or fraud, and justifies ‘an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof, 22, Venue is proper in this Court because the acts and events set forth in this ‘Complaint occurred in whole or in part in the county of San Francisco, California. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 23. In June, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and received an immediate right-to-sue letter. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOATION OF CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS At FRA) (Government Code § 12945.2) AGAINST SKULLY [COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 810 Fey 12 13 aa 15 16 v7 19 20 zu 22 23 24 ° 3 24, Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs | through 22 as though fully set forth herein. 25. Defendants are an employer which regularly employs more than 50 employees within the United States or its territories. 26. tall times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was eligible for benefits under the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"). 27. Defendants approved Plaintiff going to doctor appointments for her son, who has autism, 28. Notwithstanding, Defendants terminated Plaintiff’ position with SCULLY because she brought her son to doctor appointments, in violation of CFRA. 29. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial monetary losses incurred; and has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 30. Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein m: jously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. The acts complained of were known to, authorized and ratified by Defendants. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth herein. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST SKULLY. ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5 AGAINST SKULLY 31. Plainti incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 as though fully set forth herein, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 910 a 12 13 u 15 16 uw ae 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 Q 3 32. Defendants ret (ed against Plaintiff for her opposition to Defendants fraudulent accounting practices, which constituted mail and wire fraud, tax evasion, and violation of applicable securities laws, and of Delaware security law provisions prohibiting to fraudulent activities. Defendants terminated Plaintiff’ s employment because pli iff answered questions about Marcus Weller and Mitch Weller’s personal expenses wrongfully being paid by SKULLY. Defendants’ stated reason for the termination, performance, was a pretext for the discriminatory reasons for her termination, which were the actual reasons she was fired. 33. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial monetary losses incurred; and has suffered and continues to suffer extreme emotional distress in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 34, Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. The acts complained of were known to, authorized and ratified by Defendants. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Pk ff prays for judgment as more fully set forth herein. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION DEFAMATION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, 35. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 as though fully set forth herein. 36. Defendants contacted Plaintiff's new employer and advised that Plaintiff could not handle confidential information, 37. Defendants knew or understood that this claim was false and defamatory, and COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1010 u 12 13 ct 1s 16 v 1e 20 a 22 23 24 25 ‘would harm Plaintiff in het occupation. 38. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial monetary losses incurred; and has suffered and continues to suffer extreme emotional distress in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 39. Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. The acts complained of were known to, authorized and ratified by Defendants. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintit [prays for judgment as more fully set forth herein. FIETH CAUSE OM DEFAMATION PER SE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 40. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs | through 22 as though fully set forth herein. 41. Defendants contacted Plaintiff's new employer and advised that Plaintiff could not handle confidential information. 42, Defendants knew or understood that this claim was false and defamatory, and would harm Plaintiff in her occupation. 43. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintifffhas suffered and continues to suffer substantial monetary losses incurred; and has suffered and continues to suffer extreme emotional distress in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 44. Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. The COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES un10 a 12 13 rT 15 16 ” 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 ° acts complained of were known to, authorized and ratified by Defendants. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth herein. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION TONAL I WI AL RELATIC AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs | through 22 as though fully set forth herein, 45, Plaintiff had a contractual relationship with her new employer, which Defendants knew about. 46. Defendants interfered with that contractual relationship by contacting Plaintiff's new employer and advising that that Plaintiff could not handle confidential information. 47. Defendants intended to disrupt the contract Plaintiff had with her new ‘employer, and knew that the contract would be disrupted or substantially certain the contract would be disrupted as a result of their conduct. 48, Plaintiff was terminated from her new job as a result of Defendants’ actions. 49, Asa proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial monetary losses incurred; and has suffered and continues to suffer extreme emotional distress in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 50, Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. The is acts complained of were known to, authorized and ratified by Defendants. P' therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plainti prays for judgment as more fully set forth herei COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1210 a 12 13 a4 as 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 ° o SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE] AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS SI. 56. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 as though fully set forth herein. 52. 57. Plaintiff had an economic relationship with her new employer, which would have resulted in future economic benefits to Plaintiff, which Defendants knew about 53. 58, Defendants interfered with Plaintiff's economic relationship with her new employer by contacting Plaintiff's new employer and advising that that Plaintiff could not handle confidential information. 54. 59. Defendants intended to disrupt the economic relationship Plaintiff had with her new employer, and knew that the economic relationship would be disrupted or substantially certain the contract would be disrupted as a result of their conduct. 55. 60. Plaintiff was terminated from her new job as a result of Defendants’ actions. 56. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial monetary losses incurred; and has suffered and continues to suffer extreme emotional distress in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 57. Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. The acts complained of were known to, authorized and ratified by Defendants. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an ig to proof at the time of tral. 58. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth herein. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 59. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs | through 22 as though fully set forth herein. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1310 a 2 13 4 15 16 ay 19 20 21 22. 23 24 25 ° i] 60. Plaintiff has no adequate relief in law for the damage to her reputation in her ‘occupation is continuing at this time, and Plaintiff has no other way of controlling Defendants’ conduct to prevent them from contacting her employers in the future and providing false information. 61. The court should issue temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction precluding Defendants from contacting Plaintiff's future employers to discuss Plaintiff. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION ‘Wages and Overtime AGAINST SKULLY Wi Failure to Par bor Code §§ 204, 510) 62. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs | through 22 as though fully set forth herein. 63. During the course of Plaintiff's employment with defendants, Plaintiff worked on average in excess of 50 hours per week. 64. Under California law, Defendants are required to pay wages for each hour worked, and overtime wages when non-exempt employees work over eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a week by calculating the hourly rate and then computing the overtime premium amount owed. Plaintiff has worked for Defendants without being paid for all hours worked, regular and overtime. As alleged above, Plaintiff was owed wages for the hours he worked in excess of 8 hours per day, and for overtime premium compensation for those hours, which he was not paid at separation. Further, Plaintiff was owed at least one to two hours per each day of his employment based on Defendants’ failure to provide his with meal periods or rest breaks, Defendants did not pay him these wages at termination. 65. As arresult of Defendants’ violation of statutory mandates to pay employees for statutory wage requirements, as more fully set forth above, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but which exceed the mi imum jurisdictional thresholds of this Court 66. Plaintiff seeks as damages all wages owed by Defendants. Plaintiff seeks an award of pre-judgment interest on the unpaid wages set forth herein. 67. Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees and costs in ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1412 13 u 4s 16 7 18 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25. ° o the prosecution of this action. Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees under all applicable provisions of law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below. ‘TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Willful Failure to Pay All Wages Upon Sepai « bor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 68. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 69. California Labor Code sections 201 and 202 require that employers pay all employees all wages immediately upon employer termination or within 72 hours after employee resignation. California Labor Code § 203 provides that in instances that an ‘employer willfully fails to pay all wages owing within the proscribed time limits, the employer must continue to pay the subject employee wages until it wages are paid in full. A worker need not prove malice or intentional conduct in establishing their claim for waiting time penalties, but rather must merely establish that the employer did not do something it was obligated to do. 70. Plaintiff was adversely affected by Defendants’ policy and practice of failing to pay all wages owed, and whose employment with Defendants has subsequently ended, ‘were not paid all wages owing and as a consequence, are entitled to penalty wages, together with interest thereon, and attorneys’ fees and costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods and/or Wages in lieu of (Cal. Labor Code § 226.7) 71. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 72. As detailed more fully above, Defendants were required to provide Plaintiff with meal and rest periods in accordance with Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 and applicable wages ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 4s10 n 12 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 orders. 73. Defendants failed to do so, and as a consequence, Plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than one additional hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal and/or rest period was not provided, as articulated in Cal. Labor Code § 226.7(b). 74, Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff with cither meal and rest periods or wages in lieu thereof, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, , but which exceed the minimum jurisdictional thresholds of this Court. As these wages were owing in regular pay periods and were not forthcoming, Pla fT is entitled to and seek an award of prejudgment interest. 75. Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees and costs in the prosecution of this action. Plaintiff seeks attorneys” fees and costs under all applicable provisions of law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below. ‘TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION illful Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements and Maintain Accurate Pay Records (Cal. Labor Code § 226(a), (e) & (2) 76. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 77. California Labor Code section 226(a) sets forth numerous “accurate” items which must accompany furnish to employees with their paychecks (“paystubs”) and which it ‘must maintain for a period of not less than three years. Included in those items, are ‘humerous items that Defendant did not accurately provide and retain, These items include, but are not limited to: (1) a statement of accurate gross wages earned by Plaintiff; (2) a statement of total hours worked by Plaintiff; (3) a statement of net wages earned; (4) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer; (5) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. Plaintiff has been damaged by defendants’ conduct because ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 16to a 13 a4 15 uv 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ° o Defendants’ have deprived Plaintiff of having accurate records by the minute of the exact, number of hours she worked for Defendants, thereby making it impossible for her to calculate the exact amount of wages owed to her for the time she spent working for Defendants. 78. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants’ failure to provide accurate information in both paystubs and in its records was a result of Defendants ‘own knowing and intentional conduct. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants” failure to provide accurate information to Plaintiff about working hours and wages owing, Plaintiff was injured in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $50 for the ini ay period in which these violations occurred and an additional $100 per pay period thereafter. (See Labor Code § 226(e).) 79. Plaintiff is also seeking an injunction against Defendants, pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 226(g), to prevent them from continuing to violate Section 226(a). 80. Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs in the prosecution of this action. Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees under all applicable provisions of law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ‘Violations of Labor Code Section 98.6 80. Plai incorporates paragraphs | through 22 as though fully set forth herein. 81. Plaintiff's wrongful termination from her employment with Defendants was based upon Defendants’ violation of the Public Policy of the State of California as set forth in Labor Code Section 98.6 in that Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment because of her complaints about Defendants’ failure to pay her overtime hours. Defendants’ stated reason for the termination, performance, was a pretext for the discriminatory reasons for her termination, which were the actual reasons she was fired. 82. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered and ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES vv10 a 2 13. 14 4s 16 uv 1e 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 © ° continues to suffer substantial monetary losses incurred; and has suffered and continues to suffer extreme emotional distress in an amount according to proof at the time of trial 83. Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff, from an it and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plait acts complained of were known to, authorized and ratified by Defendants. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth herein. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff makes the following demand: () That process be issued and served as provided by law, requiring Defendants, and each of them, to appear and answer or face judgment; () For general, special, actual, compensatory and/or nominal damages, as against Defendants, and each of them, in an amount to be determined at trial; (©) For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial sufficient to punish, penalize and/or deter Defendants, and each of them, from further engaging in the conduct described herein; (For back pay and other benefits Plaintiff would have been afforded but-for Defendants’, and each of their, unlawful conduct; (©) For injunctive relief as described herein; (8 For statutory penalties as allowed by law; (e) For costs and expenses of this litigation; (h) For reasonable attorneys’ fees where appropriat () For pre and post-judgment interest on all damages and other relief awarded herein from all entities against whom such relief may be properly awarded; and, @ __ Forall such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1810 nu 2 13 as 15 16 rt 18 as 20 2 22 23 2a 25 Dated: July Lore Law Offices of Daniel Feder Le FEDER t Attorneys for Plaintiff Isabelle Faithhauer PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. Dated: JulyUZ, 2016 Law Offices of Daniel Feder JANIEL FEDER Attorneys for Plaintiff Isabelle Faithauer COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 19