Preview
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 Maya Castro
777 Silver Spur Rd., Suite 235
2 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
Email: mayas.castro@yahoo.com
3
Phone: (424) 392-0002
4 Plaintiff in Pro Per
5 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
6
7 ) Case No. SCV-269513
)
8 ) VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED
MAYA CASTRO, an individual, )
COMPLAINT FOR:
9 )
Plaintiff, ) 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
10 ) 2. BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH
vs. ) AND FAIR DEALING;
11 ) 3. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., a California
12 Corporation; LIBERTY MUTUAL ) 4. DISCRIMINATION ON THE
) BASIS OF RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN AND/OR
13 INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts ) ETHNICITY IN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR
Corporation; THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM ) EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT;
14 III, an individual; TIJA BUCKALEW, an )
5. MEDICAL CONDITION OR DISABILITY
DISCRIMINATION, FAILURE TO PREVENT
individual and DOES 2-50, )
MEDICAL CONDITION OR DISABILITY
15 )
DISCRIMINATION AND WRONGFUL
)
Defendants. TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
16 )
GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 12990 ET SEQ., 12926,
) 12940, & 12945, AND THE PUBLIC POLICY OF
17 ) CALIFORNIA AS EXPRESSED IN
) GOVERNMENT CODE § 12920.;
18 ) 6. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE A
) MEDICAL CONDITION OR DISABILITY LEAVE
19 ) AND FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN AN
) INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF
20 ) GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 12990 ET SEQ., 12926,
) 12940, & 12945, AND THE PUBLIC POLICY OF
21 ) CALIFORNIA AS EXPRESSED IN
) GOVERNMENT CODE § 12920;
22 ) 7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
) VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
23 )
8. UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES IN
)
VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS
CODE § 17200, ET SEQ. and
24 )
9. ABUSE OF PROCESS.
)
25 )
)
(UNLIMITED LAWSUIT)
26 )
)
27 )
)
28 1
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1
2 Leave of court having been granted, Plaintiff files this Second amended complaint and
3 alleges:
4 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
5 Plaintiff Maya Castro, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), hereby complains of Defendants, and
6 each of them, and for causes of action alleges:
7 PARTIES
8 1. Maya Castro (hereafter, “Plaintiff”) is an individual who at all times herein
9 mentioned was living in Sonoma County.
10 2. Spurgeon Painting, Inc. (hereafter, “Spurgeon”) is a corporation organized and
11 existing under the laws of the State of California, and having its principal place of business in the
12 City of Petaluma, County of Sonoma, State of California.
13 3. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is a corporation organized and existing under
14 the law of the State of Massachusetts with its principal place of business in Boston and is
15 authorized to and does business in California as an insurer. Upon information and belief and on
16 that basis alleges that Defendant Spurgeon Painting, Inc. at all times herein mentioned was
17 insured by Liberty Mutual, commercial package (General Liability) policy # BKO60056464.
18 4. Thomas Boyd Meacham III (hereafter, “Meacham”) is and at all times herein
19 mentioned was, the owner/operator of Spurgeon Painting, Inc. and an individual doing business
20 in the County of Sonoma, State of California.
21 5. Tija Buckalew (hereafter, “Buckalew”) is and at all times herein mentioned was,
22 the company secretary, and office manager/human resource manager for Spurgeon Painting, Inc.
23 and an individual doing business in the County of Sonoma, State of California.
24 6. The true names of Defendants Does 2-50 are unknown to plaintiff, and Plaintiff
25 therefore sues them by these fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to include their
26 names and capacities once they become known.
27
28 2
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the defendants
2 designated as a Doe is legally responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in this
3 complaint, and unlawfully caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff as alleged in this
4 Complaint.
5 8. At all times mentioned in this complaint, unless otherwise alleged, each
6 Defendant was the agent or employee of every other Defendant, and in doing the acts alleged in
7 this Complaint, was acting within the course, scope, and authority of that agency or employment
8 with the knowledge and consent of each of the other Defendants.
9 PROCEDURAL ALLEGATIONS
10 9. This Court has jurisdiction over the entire action by virtue of the fact that this is a
11 civil action wherein the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds
12 jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Also, the acts and omissions complained of in this action
13 took place in the County of Sonoma, in the State of California.
14 10. Venue is proper because the acts and/or omissions complained of in this action
15 took place, in whole or in part, within the venue of this Court, and/or because at least one of the
16 defendants resides within the venue of this court.
17 11. Plaintiff properly and timely complied with the requirements of the Fair
18 Employment and Housing Act [F.E.H.A.] and exhausted her administrative remedies against the
19 named Defendants prior to the filing of this civil action on or about June 2, 2021. Plaintiff
20 received her "Right-to-Sue" letter on or about June 2, 2021. Plaintiff has therefore exhausted all
21 of her administrative remedies necessary before filing a lawsuit. Plaintiff has therefore properly
22 and timely filed this civil action (A copy of the Right-to-Sue letter produced as Bates No.
23 P000001-11 and is incorporated by reference).
24 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
25 12. On or about April 19, 2018 through August 2018, Plaintiff entered into an
26 employment contract with Spurgeon, for employment services to be rendered as a painter.
27
28 3
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 13. On or about January 18, 2021, Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with
2 Spurgeon, for employment services to be rendered as an Operations Manager (A copy of the
3 Congratulations letter, from the Defendants, welcoming her aboard produced as Bates No.
4 P000012 and is incorporated by reference).
5 14. To that extent, from on or about January 18, 2021 to in or around April 9, 2021,
6 Plaintiff was employed with Spurgeon.
7 15. Throughout her time with Spurgeon, Plaintiff received nothing but compliments
8 from Meacham up until April 9, 2021.
9 16. On or about March 1, 2021, Buckalew noticed a mass forming on Plaintiff's neck
10 and told Plaintiff she should get it checked.
11 17. On or about March 6, 2021, Plaintiff went to the emergency room (ER) to have
12 her neck examined and was told they found two masses on her thyroid, one of which looked
13 “concerning.” The emergency room referred her a specialist to have both masses tested for
14 thyroid cancer.
15 18. On or about March 8, 2021, Plaintiff informed both Meacham and Buckalew that
16 Plaintiff had been to the ER that weekend to have her neck examined and was told they found
17 two masses on her thyroid, one of which looked “concerning.” The emergency room referred her
18 to a specialist to have both masses tested for thyroid cancer.
19 19. On or about March 17, 2021, Plaintiff attended an appointment with a thyroid
20 specialist where they took samples to test one of the masses and she was informed that she may
21 have to have surgery to remove part or all of her thyroid. She subsequently informed Meacham
22 and Buckalew of the information received from the thyroid specialist.
23 20. On or about March 31, 2021, Plaintiff attended her second appointment with the
24 thyroid specialist where she is told that results for the first mass showed it was benign. They took
25 samples to test the second mass. She subsequently informed Meacham and Buckalew of the
26 information received from the thyroid specialist.
27
28 4
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 21. On or about April 1, 2021, Plaintiff received a brochure about the Consolidated
2 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) benefits. She had no idea why she
3 received such literature by mail and thought it must have been sent to her in error so she ignored
4 it.
5 22. On or about April 8, 2021, Plaintiff attended her third appointment with the
6 thyroid specialist where she is told that the results for the second mass were inconclusive and
7 that she suggests removing the thyroid completely because there is a possibility that it may be
8 cancerous. Plaintiff agreed to go ahead with the surgical procedure (A copy of Plaintiff's Medical
9 Summary produced as Bates No. P000017-19 and is incorporated by reference).
10 23. On or about April 9, 2021, Plaintiff provided Meacham with the paperwork which
11 described her procedure and informed him that it would require her to miss a few days of work to
12 recover. Meacham stared at the document and stated "I can’t justify the cost" and immediately
13 informed Plaintiff she was fired.
14 24. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Meacham did not make
15 any business decisions without first consulting Buckalew.
16 25. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Buckalew was not
17 happy with Plaintiff being hired or her title and therefore conspired to remove what she believed
18 to be a direct rival to her influence/power over Meacham and the company as a whole.
19 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Buckalew provided the
20 Employment Development Department (EDD) with false information regarding the basis for
21 Plaintiff's termination from defendant Spurgeon. Resulting in over a five-month delay in Plaintiff
22 receiving unemployment benefits. Causing her extreme financial hardship and stress.
23 27. On or about August 22, 2021, Plaintiff requested and received her complete
24 personnel and payroll files (A copy of the requested complete personnel and payroll files
25 received from the Defendants produced as Bates No. P000026-94 and is incorporated by
26 reference).
27
28 5
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 28. Spurgeon is an employer subject to suit under FEHA in that Spurgeon is a
2 business which employs more than five (5) employees in the State of California. Spurgeon is
3 subject to suit under the Family Medical Leave Act (hereinafter “FMLA”) and the California
4 Family Rights Act (hereinafter “CFRA”) because Spurgeon employs, and at all times herein
5 mention employed, more employees than the threshold number of employees required to trigger
6 the application of these statutes. At all times herein mentioned, Spurgeon employed more than
7 twenty (20) employees in twenty (20) or more work weeks.
8 29. In order to refrain from paying any business costs or compensation associated
9 with Plaintiff's medical condition, and due to Plaintiff's race, national origin and/or ethnicity,
10 Defendants proceeded with wrongfully terminating Plaintiff's employment. As such, based on
11 Defendants' conduct and wrongful termination of Plaintiff's employment, Defendants materially
12 breached the contract between themselves and Plaintiff.
13 30. As a result of Defendants' inappropriate behavior, actions and wrongful
14 termination of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was unable to receive the aforementioned unpaid compensation
15 as it related to Plaintiff's employment and per Plaintiff's contractual agreement with Defendant.
16 31. Plaintiff contends that Defendants' aforementioned wrongful acts and conduct
17 were a pretext for discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination on the basis of her
18 medical condition(s), physical disabilities, national origin and/or ancestry.
19 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants' decision to
20 terminate her employment was discriminatory, retaliatory and predicated solely based on her
21 medical condition(s), physical disability, and national origin and/or ancestry.
22 33. Defendants' intentional unlawful actions, discrimination, and wrongful
23 termination of Plaintiffs employment have caused her to suffer severe emotional distress,
24 anxiety, fear, stress, trepidation, and apprehension. Plaintiff further contends that Defendants'
25 wrongfully and unlawfully discriminated against her, retaliated against her and ultimately,
26 wrongfully terminated her employment.
27
28 6
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 34. Plaintiff originally filed this instant action against all defendants on October 15,
2 2021.
3 35. On or about December 21, 2021, in response to Form and Special Interrogatories
4 (FROGS and SROGS) propounded upon Spurgeon and Defendant Meacham individually,
5 Defendant Meacham falsely stated that Spurgeon had no insurance coverage. By way of
6 example, Defendant Meacham stated:
7 “FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1:
8 At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which
9 you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability
10 coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out
11 of the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state:
12 (a) the kind of coverage;
13 (b) name and ADDRESS of the insurance company;
14 (c)the name and ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured;
15 (d) the policy number;
16 (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy;
17 (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists
18 between you and the insurance company; and
19 (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy.
20 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1:
21 No.
22 And By way of example, Defendant Spurgeon stated:
23 INTERROGATORY 214.1:
24 At the time of the ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION, was there in effect any policy of
25 insurance through which you were or might be insured in any manner for the damages, claims,
26 or actions that have arisen out of the ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION? If so for each policy
27 state:
28 7
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 (a) the kind of coverage;
2 (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company;
3 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured;
4 (d) the policy number;
5 (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy;
6 (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between
7 you and the insurance company; and
8 (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy.
9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 214.1:
10 No.”
11 36. This misleading information was provided with full knowledge of its inaccuracy,
12 constituting a misuse of the discovery process and a breach of the duty of good faith.
13 37. During a July 11, 2023 deposition, Defendant Meacham admitted that at all times
14 herein mentioned he regularly text Spurgeon employees and that he texted Maya throughout her
15 employment. By way of example, Defendant Meacham stated:
16 Q: Did you text her at all while she worked with you?
17 A: Yes.
18 Q: Okay. So you use text sometimes?
19 A: Yes.
20 Q: Okay. And then did you text with Maya while she was employed?
21 A: Yes.
22 Q: Okay. Do you text with your other employees, as you indicated?
23 A: Absolutely.
24 (Depo Tran. Pg. 16, ln. 21-25 and Pg. 17, ln. 1-7.)
25 38. On or about July 11, 2023, Defendant Meacham admitted during his deposition
26 that he deliberately destroyed text message communications on his cell phone after receiving
27 Plaintiff’s preservation of evidence letter dated April 11, 2021, two days after wrongfully
28 8
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 terminating the plaintiff on April 9, 2021, and prior to the initiation of this instant lawsuit. By
2 way of example, Defendant Meacham stated:
3 Q: I'm -- you tell me. Written, verbal, company culture, I'm asking you. What's going
4 on? Why were the text messages deleted?
5 A: Well, as far as, um, Maya and I texting after she left the company, um, at some
6 point as I was clearing stuff off of my phone because there's so much information on my
7 phone, I go through and delete irrelevant things; and let's -- let's say it maybe was four
8 months later that I deleted her whatever text thread I had with her along with probably 25 to
9 30 other text threads I had going that were old.
10 Q: I see. And when did you receive the preservation of the evidence request from, um,
11 from Maya?
12 A: Um, I don't know the -- the date. Whatever the document says, that's when it was
13 received.
14 (Depo Tran. Pg. 19 ln. 17-24 and Pg. 20, ln. 1-10.)
15 39. Not only did he admit to deleting Plaintiff’s texts, he admitted to deleting “25 to
16 30 other text threads I had going that were old.” In other words, he admitted to deleting,
17 potentially, hundreds of relevant text messages, despite claiming that said text messages “has
18 never existed” within his Verified Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two
19 (RFP). By way of example, Defendant Meacham stated:
20 “REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
21 ALL COMMUNICATIONS IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No.
22 93.
23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
24 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding party has no documents
25 responsive to this discovery request in his care, custody or control. Responding party does not
26 believe this category of documents has ever existed.
27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
28 9
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 ALL TEXT MESSAGES between YOU and Defendant Tija Buckalew RELATING TO
2 PLAINTIFF between December 15, 2020 and December 31, 2020.
3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
4 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding party has no documents
5 responsive to this discovery request in his care, custody or control. Responding party does not
6 believe this category of documents has ever existed.
7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
8 ALL TEXT MESSAGES between YOU and Defendant Tija Buckalew RELATING TO
9 PLAINTIFF between January 1, 2021 and January 31, 2021.
10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
11 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding party has no documents
12 responsive to this discovery request in his care, custody or control. Responding party does not
13 believe this category of documents has ever existed.
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
15 ALL TEXT MESSAGES between YOU and Defendant Tija Buckalew RELATING TO
16 PLAINTIFF between February 1, 2021 and February 28, 2021.
17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
18 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding party has no documents
19 responsive to this discovery request in his care, custody or control. Responding party does not
20 believe this category of documents has ever existed.
21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
22 ALL TEXT MESSAGES between YOU and Defendant Tija Buckalew RELATING TO
23 PLAINTIFF between March 1, 2021 and March 31, 2021.
24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
25 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding party has no documents
26 responsive to this discovery request in his care, custody or control. Responding party does not
27 believe this category of documents has ever existed.
28 10
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
2 ALL TEXT MESSAGES between YOU and Defendant Tija Buckalew RELATING TO
3 PLAINTIFF between April 1, 2021 and April 30, 2021.
4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
5 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding party has no documents
6 responsive to this discovery request in his care, custody or control. Responding party does not
7 believe this category of documents has ever existed.
8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
9 ALL TEXT MESSAGES between YOU and Defendant Tija Buckalew RELATING TO
10 PLAINTIFF between May 1, 2021 and May 31, 2021.
11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
12 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding party has no documents
13 responsive to this discovery request in his care, custody or control. Responding party does not
14 believe this category of documents has ever existed.”
15 (Meacham Resp. RFP, Set Two No. 6-12).
16 40. This deliberate act of spoliation occurred despite the unequivocal duty to preserve
17 potentially relevant evidence from the moment litigation was reasonably anticipated and
18 litigation was reasonably anticipated when he wrongfully terminated the plaintiff and when he
19 received the preservation of evidence letter.
20 41. On or about July 11, 2023, Defendant Meacham perjured himself on matters he
21 had previously admitted to in requests for admissions addressed to Spurgeon and himself
22 individually. Specifically, during his deposition he denied knowing that the plaintiff had any
23 medical issues or that she needed surgery throughout her employment. In addition, he denied that
24 on April 9, 2021, the day that he wrongfully terminated the Plaintiff, she informed him that she
25 needed accommodation to have surgery and to recover from the surgery. (Depo. Tran. Pg. 30, ln
26 16 through Pg. 49, ln. 25).
27
28 11
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 42. However, on October 4, 2022, he, as an individual, and as the person most
2 knowledgeable at Spurgeon, had already admitted that he knew about her medical issues and her
3 need for surgery within request for admissions (RFA) and SROGS. (Meacham Resp. RFA, Set
4 One, No.’s 7, 9, 10, and 13; Spurgeon Resp. SROGS, Set Two, No.’s 20, 32, 36, and 40.), This
5 perjury undermines the truth-seeking purpose of discovery and demonstrates a blatant disregard
6 for the obligations of a party to provide honest and accurate testimony.
7 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
8 BREACH OF CONTRACT
9 (Against Spurgeon, Meacham, and Liberty Mutual)
10 43. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding
11 paragraph in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point.
12 44. “To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove (1)
13 the contract, (2) the plaintiff's performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the
14 Defendants' breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff.” Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224
15 Cal. App. 4th 1182, 1186.
16 45. Indeed, Plaintiff had a contract with Defendant for employment services to be
17 rendered. Plaintiff confirmed and signed this agreement on or about January 18, 2021.
18 46. Defendant breached said contract by wrongfully terminating Plaintiff's
19 employment.
20 47. Defendant also breached said contract by accepting Plaintiff's employment
21 services and subsequently failing to perform its respective duties pursuant to the contract.
22 48. At all relevant times, Plaintiff fully complied with the contract between the parties
23 and performed all its required obligations under the contract.
24 49. As a result of Defendants' breach of contract, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an
25 amount to be determined at trial.
26 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
27 BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING.
28 12
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 (Against Spurgeon, Meacham, and Liberty Mutual)
2 50. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding
3 paragraph in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point.
4 51. “There is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract that
5 neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of
6 the agreement.” Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (1958) 50 Cal. 2d 654, 658.
7 52. The contract, agreement and past practices between Defendants and Plaintiff
8 created a duty of good faith and fair dealing on the part of Defendants.
9 53. Defendants breached their respective duties by failing to behave in an appropriate
10 manner, in terminating Plaintiff in order to refrain from paying any business costs or
11 compensation associated with Plaintiff's medical condition, and due to Plaintiff's race, national
12 origin and/or ethnicity, Defendants proceeded with wrongfully terminating Plaintiff's
13 employment, and breaching their obligations.
14 54. Defendants breached their respective duties by accepting employment services
15 from Plaintiff and failing to perform their respective duties pursuant to the contract, wrongfully
16 terminating Plaintiff's employment.
17 55. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for Plaintiff's damages and losses resulting from
18 Defendants' breach of their duty of good faith and fair dealing toward Plaintiff.
19 56. As a result of the breach, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be
20 determined at trial.
21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
22 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
23 (Against All Defendants)
24 57. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding
25 paragraph in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point.
26 58. According to Government Code § 1291(a), freedom from discrimination in the
27 workplace is a civil right, thus entitling Plaintiff to a greater degree of protection than if he were
28 13
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 a stranger to Defendants. In this matter, Defendants violated Government Code § 12940 et seq.,
2 by terminating Plaintiff in order to refrain from paying any business costs or compensation
3 associated with Plaintiff's medical condition, and due to Plaintiff's race, national origin and/or
4 ethnicity, Defendants proceeded with wrongfully terminating Plaintiff's employment in violation
5 of California law.
6 59. Defendants committed the aforementioned extreme and outrageous conduct with
7 the intent to emotionally harm Plaintiff. More so, Plaintiff did not consent, nor behave in conduct
8 that warranted Defendants' behavior.
9 60. The aforesaid conduct was carried out by Defendants, by and through the acts
10 and/or omissions of its managing agents and employees, with Defendants' express and/or implied
11 consent, approval, authority and/or ratification. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
12 alleges that Defendants knew, must have known, should have known, or had reason to know that
13 their conduct and/or actions, as herein set forth, were substantially certain to inflict emotional
14 distress upon Plaintiff. Defendants therefore wrongfully, willfully, and/or intentionally sought to
15 inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiff through the discriminatory, harassing and retaliatory
16 conduct herein described.
17 61. As such, Defendants' conduct, as herein alleged, was intentional, malicious and
18 carried out with deliberate, conscious and/or reckless disregard of the high degree of probability
19 that such conduct would inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiff.
20 62. The wrongful, unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory practices and other
21 misconduct set forth herein, committed by Defendants, by and through its managing agents and
22 employees, with Defendants' prior consent, authority and/or ratification, as herein alleged, was
23 so extreme and outrageous that it exceeded the boundaries of a decent society and lies outside the
24 compensation bargain. (See Phillips v. Gemini Moving Specialists (1988) 63 Cal. App. 4th 563,
25 577; Livitsanos v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 744, 754). As such, Plaintiff's claims herein are not
26 subject to the workers' compensation exclusivity rule.
27
28 14
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 63. As a direct, foreseeable, legal and proximate result of Defendants' intentional,
2 willful, deliberate conduct, as herein alleged, Plaintiff has suffered and continued to suffer,
3 emotional distress, mental anguish and discomfort, and severe anxiety, trepidation, apprehension,
4 panic and worry, all to her damage, in an amount which will be proven at trial.
5 64. Defendants' actions were oppressive, deliberate, intentional, reprehensible and
6 malicious and were carried out in conscious disregard of their probable outcome. Defendants
7 acted in a willful, deliberate and intentional manner and their conduct was and continues to be
8 despicable, malicious and outrageous in that it caused and continues to cause Plaintiff to
9 needlessly suffer cruel and unjust hardship. Thus, Defendants' conduct and/or actions, justify an
10 award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter them from ever engaging in such
11 conduct again in the future.
12 65. Further, and pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b), Plaintiff is entitled to and
13 requests reasonable attorney's fees, and all recoverable costs according to law.
14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN AND/OR
ETHNICITY IN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT.
16 (Against All Defendants)
17 66. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding
18 paragraph in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point.
19 67. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) prohibits an
20 employer from taking adverse employment actions against a protected individual based on her
21 race, national origin and/or ancestry. Adverse employment actions include, without limitation,
22 discharging from employment, refusing to transfer/promote, refusing to hire, and discriminating
23 in compensation, terms and conditions or privileges of employment.
24 68. Defendants' aforementioned conduct, as alleged, violated FEHA, Government
25 Code section 12900, et seq., when Defendants proceeded to wrongfully terminate Plaintiff's
26 employment in or around April 9, 2021.
27
28 15
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 69. As a proximate result of Defendants' willful, knowing and intentional
2 discrimination against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses
3 of earnings and other employment benefits.
4 70. As a proximate result of Defendants' willful, knowing and intentional
5 discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
6 humiliation, emotional distress and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to her damage in a
7 sum according to proof.
8 71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff was forced to
9 incur substantial costs and attorneys' fees. Under Gov. Code § 12965(b), Plaintiff is entitled to
10 recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs (including potential expert costs) in an amount
11 according to proof at the time of trial.
12 72. Defendants' aforementioned misconduct was committed intentionally and was
13 carried out by managing agents, in a malicious, willful, despicable, oppressive, fraudulent
14 manner, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against Defendants. As such, Plaintiff requests
15 that exemplary and punitive damages be assessed against Defendants, in an amount sufficient to
16 punish Defendants and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.
17 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 FOR MEDICAL CONDITION OR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, FAILURE TO
PREVENT MEDICAL CONDITION OR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION AND
19 WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 12990
ET SEQ., 12926, 12940, & 12945, AND THE PUBLIC POLICY OF CALIFORNIA AS
20 EXPRESSED IN GOVERNMENT CODE § 12920.
(Against Spurgeon, Meacham, and Liberty Mutual)
21
73. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding
22
paragraph in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point.
23
74. At all times relevant hereto, California Government Code §§ 12990 et seq.,
24
12926, 12940, & 12945, (FEHA) were in full force and effect and were binding upon
25
Defendants'. It is the public policy of the State of California as expressed in the FEHA that
26
individuals shall not be terminated from their employment due to a medical condition or
27
disability or the need for legally required leave.
28 16
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 75. These statutes require Defendants to refrain from, among other things:
2 a. Discriminating against any employee because of his medical
3 condition or disability;
4 b. Failing to engage in an interactive process to determine an
5 appropriate accommodation for an employee's medical condition
6 or disability;
7 c. Failing to accommodate an employee's medical condition or
8 disability;
9 d. Retaliating against an employee for protected conduct, including
10 hospital visits;
11 e. Failing to take all reasonable and necessary steps to eliminate
12 discrimination from the workplace and to prevent it from occurring
13 in the future; and/or
14 f. Wrongfully terminating any employee based upon that employee's
15 medical condition or disability.
16 76. Defendants' violated the FEHA and California public policy expressed in the
17 FEHA by discriminating against Plaintiff because of her medical condition or disability, by
18 failing to engage in an interactive process to accommodate Plaintiff's medical condition or
19 disability, by retaliating against Plaintiff for requesting and taking medical condition or disability
20 leave, by wrongfully terminating Plaintiff from her employment with Defendants' on or about
21 April 9, 2021, and by failing to take all reasonable and necessary steps to eliminate
22 discrimination from the workplace and to prevent it from occurring in the future.
23 77. Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of the conduct described in
24 this complaint.
25 78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has
26 suffered, and continues to suffer, economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which
27 include but are not limited to back pay and front pay.
28 17
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E
1 79. As a further direct and proximate cause of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff
2 has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,
3 mental anguish and other non-pecuniary losses.
4 80. Defendants' actions, listed above, were done with malice, fraud and/or oppression,
5 and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights with the intent, design, and purpose of injuring
6 Plaintiff. Defendants, through its officers, managing agents, and/or supervisors, authorized,
7 condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to
8 recover punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an
9 example of Defendants to the community.
10 81. As a result of the discriminatory conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff is entitled to
11 costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Government Code Section
12 12965(b).
13
Preview
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 Maya Castro 777 Silver Spur Rd., Suite 235 2 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Email: mayas.castro@yahoo.com 3 Phone: (424) 392-0002 4 Plaintiff in Pro Per 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 6 7 ) Case No. SCV-269513 ) 8 ) VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED MAYA CASTRO, an individual, ) COMPLAINT FOR: 9 ) Plaintiff, ) 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; 10 ) 2. BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH vs. ) AND FAIR DEALING; 11 ) 3. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., a California 12 Corporation; LIBERTY MUTUAL ) 4. DISCRIMINATION ON THE ) BASIS OF RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN AND/OR 13 INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts ) ETHNICITY IN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR Corporation; THOMAS BOYD MEACHAM ) EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT; 14 III, an individual; TIJA BUCKALEW, an ) 5. MEDICAL CONDITION OR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, FAILURE TO PREVENT individual and DOES 2-50, ) MEDICAL CONDITION OR DISABILITY 15 ) DISCRIMINATION AND WRONGFUL ) Defendants. TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 16 ) GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 12990 ET SEQ., 12926, ) 12940, & 12945, AND THE PUBLIC POLICY OF 17 ) CALIFORNIA AS EXPRESSED IN ) GOVERNMENT CODE § 12920.; 18 ) 6. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE A ) MEDICAL CONDITION OR DISABILITY LEAVE 19 ) AND FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN AN ) INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF 20 ) GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 12990 ET SEQ., 12926, ) 12940, & 12945, AND THE PUBLIC POLICY OF 21 ) CALIFORNIA AS EXPRESSED IN ) GOVERNMENT CODE § 12920; 22 ) 7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN ) VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; 23 ) 8. UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES IN ) VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200, ET SEQ. and 24 ) 9. ABUSE OF PROCESS. ) 25 ) ) (UNLIMITED LAWSUIT) 26 ) ) 27 ) ) 28 1 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 2 Leave of court having been granted, Plaintiff files this Second amended complaint and 3 alleges: 4 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 5 Plaintiff Maya Castro, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), hereby complains of Defendants, and 6 each of them, and for causes of action alleges: 7 PARTIES 8 1. Maya Castro (hereafter, “Plaintiff”) is an individual who at all times herein 9 mentioned was living in Sonoma County. 10 2. Spurgeon Painting, Inc. (hereafter, “Spurgeon”) is a corporation organized and 11 existing under the laws of the State of California, and having its principal place of business in the 12 City of Petaluma, County of Sonoma, State of California. 13 3. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is a corporation organized and existing under 14 the law of the State of Massachusetts with its principal place of business in Boston and is 15 authorized to and does business in California as an insurer. Upon information and belief and on 16 that basis alleges that Defendant Spurgeon Painting, Inc. at all times herein mentioned was 17 insured by Liberty Mutual, commercial package (General Liability) policy # BKO60056464. 18 4. Thomas Boyd Meacham III (hereafter, “Meacham”) is and at all times herein 19 mentioned was, the owner/operator of Spurgeon Painting, Inc. and an individual doing business 20 in the County of Sonoma, State of California. 21 5. Tija Buckalew (hereafter, “Buckalew”) is and at all times herein mentioned was, 22 the company secretary, and office manager/human resource manager for Spurgeon Painting, Inc. 23 and an individual doing business in the County of Sonoma, State of California. 24 6. The true names of Defendants Does 2-50 are unknown to plaintiff, and Plaintiff 25 therefore sues them by these fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to include their 26 names and capacities once they become known. 27 28 2 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the defendants 2 designated as a Doe is legally responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in this 3 complaint, and unlawfully caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff as alleged in this 4 Complaint. 5 8. At all times mentioned in this complaint, unless otherwise alleged, each 6 Defendant was the agent or employee of every other Defendant, and in doing the acts alleged in 7 this Complaint, was acting within the course, scope, and authority of that agency or employment 8 with the knowledge and consent of each of the other Defendants. 9 PROCEDURAL ALLEGATIONS 10 9. This Court has jurisdiction over the entire action by virtue of the fact that this is a 11 civil action wherein the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds 12 jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Also, the acts and omissions complained of in this action 13 took place in the County of Sonoma, in the State of California. 14 10. Venue is proper because the acts and/or omissions complained of in this action 15 took place, in whole or in part, within the venue of this Court, and/or because at least one of the 16 defendants resides within the venue of this court. 17 11. Plaintiff properly and timely complied with the requirements of the Fair 18 Employment and Housing Act [F.E.H.A.] and exhausted her administrative remedies against the 19 named Defendants prior to the filing of this civil action on or about June 2, 2021. Plaintiff 20 received her "Right-to-Sue" letter on or about June 2, 2021. Plaintiff has therefore exhausted all 21 of her administrative remedies necessary before filing a lawsuit. Plaintiff has therefore properly 22 and timely filed this civil action (A copy of the Right-to-Sue letter produced as Bates No. 23 P000001-11 and is incorporated by reference). 24 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 25 12. On or about April 19, 2018 through August 2018, Plaintiff entered into an 26 employment contract with Spurgeon, for employment services to be rendered as a painter. 27 28 3 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 13. On or about January 18, 2021, Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with 2 Spurgeon, for employment services to be rendered as an Operations Manager (A copy of the 3 Congratulations letter, from the Defendants, welcoming her aboard produced as Bates No. 4 P000012 and is incorporated by reference). 5 14. To that extent, from on or about January 18, 2021 to in or around April 9, 2021, 6 Plaintiff was employed with Spurgeon. 7 15. Throughout her time with Spurgeon, Plaintiff received nothing but compliments 8 from Meacham up until April 9, 2021. 9 16. On or about March 1, 2021, Buckalew noticed a mass forming on Plaintiff's neck 10 and told Plaintiff she should get it checked. 11 17. On or about March 6, 2021, Plaintiff went to the emergency room (ER) to have 12 her neck examined and was told they found two masses on her thyroid, one of which looked 13 “concerning.” The emergency room referred her a specialist to have both masses tested for 14 thyroid cancer. 15 18. On or about March 8, 2021, Plaintiff informed both Meacham and Buckalew that 16 Plaintiff had been to the ER that weekend to have her neck examined and was told they found 17 two masses on her thyroid, one of which looked “concerning.” The emergency room referred her 18 to a specialist to have both masses tested for thyroid cancer. 19 19. On or about March 17, 2021, Plaintiff attended an appointment with a thyroid 20 specialist where they took samples to test one of the masses and she was informed that she may 21 have to have surgery to remove part or all of her thyroid. She subsequently informed Meacham 22 and Buckalew of the information received from the thyroid specialist. 23 20. On or about March 31, 2021, Plaintiff attended her second appointment with the 24 thyroid specialist where she is told that results for the first mass showed it was benign. They took 25 samples to test the second mass. She subsequently informed Meacham and Buckalew of the 26 information received from the thyroid specialist. 27 28 4 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 21. On or about April 1, 2021, Plaintiff received a brochure about the Consolidated 2 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) benefits. She had no idea why she 3 received such literature by mail and thought it must have been sent to her in error so she ignored 4 it. 5 22. On or about April 8, 2021, Plaintiff attended her third appointment with the 6 thyroid specialist where she is told that the results for the second mass were inconclusive and 7 that she suggests removing the thyroid completely because there is a possibility that it may be 8 cancerous. Plaintiff agreed to go ahead with the surgical procedure (A copy of Plaintiff's Medical 9 Summary produced as Bates No. P000017-19 and is incorporated by reference). 10 23. On or about April 9, 2021, Plaintiff provided Meacham with the paperwork which 11 described her procedure and informed him that it would require her to miss a few days of work to 12 recover. Meacham stared at the document and stated "I can’t justify the cost" and immediately 13 informed Plaintiff she was fired. 14 24. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Meacham did not make 15 any business decisions without first consulting Buckalew. 16 25. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Buckalew was not 17 happy with Plaintiff being hired or her title and therefore conspired to remove what she believed 18 to be a direct rival to her influence/power over Meacham and the company as a whole. 19 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Buckalew provided the 20 Employment Development Department (EDD) with false information regarding the basis for 21 Plaintiff's termination from defendant Spurgeon. Resulting in over a five-month delay in Plaintiff 22 receiving unemployment benefits. Causing her extreme financial hardship and stress. 23 27. On or about August 22, 2021, Plaintiff requested and received her complete 24 personnel and payroll files (A copy of the requested complete personnel and payroll files 25 received from the Defendants produced as Bates No. P000026-94 and is incorporated by 26 reference). 27 28 5 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 28. Spurgeon is an employer subject to suit under FEHA in that Spurgeon is a 2 business which employs more than five (5) employees in the State of California. Spurgeon is 3 subject to suit under the Family Medical Leave Act (hereinafter “FMLA”) and the California 4 Family Rights Act (hereinafter “CFRA”) because Spurgeon employs, and at all times herein 5 mention employed, more employees than the threshold number of employees required to trigger 6 the application of these statutes. At all times herein mentioned, Spurgeon employed more than 7 twenty (20) employees in twenty (20) or more work weeks. 8 29. In order to refrain from paying any business costs or compensation associated 9 with Plaintiff's medical condition, and due to Plaintiff's race, national origin and/or ethnicity, 10 Defendants proceeded with wrongfully terminating Plaintiff's employment. As such, based on 11 Defendants' conduct and wrongful termination of Plaintiff's employment, Defendants materially 12 breached the contract between themselves and Plaintiff. 13 30. As a result of Defendants' inappropriate behavior, actions and wrongful 14 termination of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was unable to receive the aforementioned unpaid compensation 15 as it related to Plaintiff's employment and per Plaintiff's contractual agreement with Defendant. 16 31. Plaintiff contends that Defendants' aforementioned wrongful acts and conduct 17 were a pretext for discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination on the basis of her 18 medical condition(s), physical disabilities, national origin and/or ancestry. 19 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants' decision to 20 terminate her employment was discriminatory, retaliatory and predicated solely based on her 21 medical condition(s), physical disability, and national origin and/or ancestry. 22 33. Defendants' intentional unlawful actions, discrimination, and wrongful 23 termination of Plaintiffs employment have caused her to suffer severe emotional distress, 24 anxiety, fear, stress, trepidation, and apprehension. Plaintiff further contends that Defendants' 25 wrongfully and unlawfully discriminated against her, retaliated against her and ultimately, 26 wrongfully terminated her employment. 27 28 6 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 34. Plaintiff originally filed this instant action against all defendants on October 15, 2 2021. 3 35. On or about December 21, 2021, in response to Form and Special Interrogatories 4 (FROGS and SROGS) propounded upon Spurgeon and Defendant Meacham individually, 5 Defendant Meacham falsely stated that Spurgeon had no insurance coverage. By way of 6 example, Defendant Meacham stated: 7 “FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1: 8 At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which 9 you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability 10 coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out 11 of the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state: 12 (a) the kind of coverage; 13 (b) name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; 14 (c)the name and ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured; 15 (d) the policy number; 16 (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy; 17 (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists 18 between you and the insurance company; and 19 (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy. 20 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1: 21 No. 22 And By way of example, Defendant Spurgeon stated: 23 INTERROGATORY 214.1: 24 At the time of the ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION, was there in effect any policy of 25 insurance through which you were or might be insured in any manner for the damages, claims, 26 or actions that have arisen out of the ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION? If so for each policy 27 state: 28 7 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 (a) the kind of coverage; 2 (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; 3 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured; 4 (d) the policy number; 5 (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy; 6 (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between 7 you and the insurance company; and 8 (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy. 9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 214.1: 10 No.” 11 36. This misleading information was provided with full knowledge of its inaccuracy, 12 constituting a misuse of the discovery process and a breach of the duty of good faith. 13 37. During a July 11, 2023 deposition, Defendant Meacham admitted that at all times 14 herein mentioned he regularly text Spurgeon employees and that he texted Maya throughout her 15 employment. By way of example, Defendant Meacham stated: 16 Q: Did you text her at all while she worked with you? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Okay. So you use text sometimes? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Okay. And then did you text with Maya while she was employed? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Okay. Do you text with your other employees, as you indicated? 23 A: Absolutely. 24 (Depo Tran. Pg. 16, ln. 21-25 and Pg. 17, ln. 1-7.) 25 38. On or about July 11, 2023, Defendant Meacham admitted during his deposition 26 that he deliberately destroyed text message communications on his cell phone after receiving 27 Plaintiff’s preservation of evidence letter dated April 11, 2021, two days after wrongfully 28 8 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 terminating the plaintiff on April 9, 2021, and prior to the initiation of this instant lawsuit. By 2 way of example, Defendant Meacham stated: 3 Q: I'm -- you tell me. Written, verbal, company culture, I'm asking you. What's going 4 on? Why were the text messages deleted? 5 A: Well, as far as, um, Maya and I texting after she left the company, um, at some 6 point as I was clearing stuff off of my phone because there's so much information on my 7 phone, I go through and delete irrelevant things; and let's -- let's say it maybe was four 8 months later that I deleted her whatever text thread I had with her along with probably 25 to 9 30 other text threads I had going that were old. 10 Q: I see. And when did you receive the preservation of the evidence request from, um, 11 from Maya? 12 A: Um, I don't know the -- the date. Whatever the document says, that's when it was 13 received. 14 (Depo Tran. Pg. 19 ln. 17-24 and Pg. 20, ln. 1-10.) 15 39. Not only did he admit to deleting Plaintiff’s texts, he admitted to deleting “25 to 16 30 other text threads I had going that were old.” In other words, he admitted to deleting, 17 potentially, hundreds of relevant text messages, despite claiming that said text messages “has 18 never existed” within his Verified Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two 19 (RFP). By way of example, Defendant Meacham stated: 20 “REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 21 ALL COMMUNICATIONS IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 22 93. 23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 24 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding party has no documents 25 responsive to this discovery request in his care, custody or control. Responding party does not 26 believe this category of documents has ever existed. 27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: 28 9 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 ALL TEXT MESSAGES between YOU and Defendant Tija Buckalew RELATING TO 2 PLAINTIFF between December 15, 2020 and December 31, 2020. 3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: 4 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding party has no documents 5 responsive to this discovery request in his care, custody or control. Responding party does not 6 believe this category of documents has ever existed. 7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 8 ALL TEXT MESSAGES between YOU and Defendant Tija Buckalew RELATING TO 9 PLAINTIFF between January 1, 2021 and January 31, 2021. 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 11 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding party has no documents 12 responsive to this discovery request in his care, custody or control. Responding party does not 13 believe this category of documents has ever existed. 14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 15 ALL TEXT MESSAGES between YOU and Defendant Tija Buckalew RELATING TO 16 PLAINTIFF between February 1, 2021 and February 28, 2021. 17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 18 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding party has no documents 19 responsive to this discovery request in his care, custody or control. Responding party does not 20 believe this category of documents has ever existed. 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 22 ALL TEXT MESSAGES between YOU and Defendant Tija Buckalew RELATING TO 23 PLAINTIFF between March 1, 2021 and March 31, 2021. 24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 25 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding party has no documents 26 responsive to this discovery request in his care, custody or control. Responding party does not 27 believe this category of documents has ever existed. 28 10 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 2 ALL TEXT MESSAGES between YOU and Defendant Tija Buckalew RELATING TO 3 PLAINTIFF between April 1, 2021 and April 30, 2021. 4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 5 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding party has no documents 6 responsive to this discovery request in his care, custody or control. Responding party does not 7 believe this category of documents has ever existed. 8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 9 ALL TEXT MESSAGES between YOU and Defendant Tija Buckalew RELATING TO 10 PLAINTIFF between May 1, 2021 and May 31, 2021. 11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 12 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding party has no documents 13 responsive to this discovery request in his care, custody or control. Responding party does not 14 believe this category of documents has ever existed.” 15 (Meacham Resp. RFP, Set Two No. 6-12). 16 40. This deliberate act of spoliation occurred despite the unequivocal duty to preserve 17 potentially relevant evidence from the moment litigation was reasonably anticipated and 18 litigation was reasonably anticipated when he wrongfully terminated the plaintiff and when he 19 received the preservation of evidence letter. 20 41. On or about July 11, 2023, Defendant Meacham perjured himself on matters he 21 had previously admitted to in requests for admissions addressed to Spurgeon and himself 22 individually. Specifically, during his deposition he denied knowing that the plaintiff had any 23 medical issues or that she needed surgery throughout her employment. In addition, he denied that 24 on April 9, 2021, the day that he wrongfully terminated the Plaintiff, she informed him that she 25 needed accommodation to have surgery and to recover from the surgery. (Depo. Tran. Pg. 30, ln 26 16 through Pg. 49, ln. 25). 27 28 11 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 42. However, on October 4, 2022, he, as an individual, and as the person most 2 knowledgeable at Spurgeon, had already admitted that he knew about her medical issues and her 3 need for surgery within request for admissions (RFA) and SROGS. (Meacham Resp. RFA, Set 4 One, No.’s 7, 9, 10, and 13; Spurgeon Resp. SROGS, Set Two, No.’s 20, 32, 36, and 40.), This 5 perjury undermines the truth-seeking purpose of discovery and demonstrates a blatant disregard 6 for the obligations of a party to provide honest and accurate testimony. 7 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 8 BREACH OF CONTRACT 9 (Against Spurgeon, Meacham, and Liberty Mutual) 10 43. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding 11 paragraph in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point. 12 44. “To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove (1) 13 the contract, (2) the plaintiff's performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the 14 Defendants' breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff.” Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 15 Cal. App. 4th 1182, 1186. 16 45. Indeed, Plaintiff had a contract with Defendant for employment services to be 17 rendered. Plaintiff confirmed and signed this agreement on or about January 18, 2021. 18 46. Defendant breached said contract by wrongfully terminating Plaintiff's 19 employment. 20 47. Defendant also breached said contract by accepting Plaintiff's employment 21 services and subsequently failing to perform its respective duties pursuant to the contract. 22 48. At all relevant times, Plaintiff fully complied with the contract between the parties 23 and performed all its required obligations under the contract. 24 49. As a result of Defendants' breach of contract, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an 25 amount to be determined at trial. 26 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 27 BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING. 28 12 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 (Against Spurgeon, Meacham, and Liberty Mutual) 2 50. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding 3 paragraph in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point. 4 51. “There is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract that 5 neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of 6 the agreement.” Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (1958) 50 Cal. 2d 654, 658. 7 52. The contract, agreement and past practices between Defendants and Plaintiff 8 created a duty of good faith and fair dealing on the part of Defendants. 9 53. Defendants breached their respective duties by failing to behave in an appropriate 10 manner, in terminating Plaintiff in order to refrain from paying any business costs or 11 compensation associated with Plaintiff's medical condition, and due to Plaintiff's race, national 12 origin and/or ethnicity, Defendants proceeded with wrongfully terminating Plaintiff's 13 employment, and breaching their obligations. 14 54. Defendants breached their respective duties by accepting employment services 15 from Plaintiff and failing to perform their respective duties pursuant to the contract, wrongfully 16 terminating Plaintiff's employment. 17 55. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for Plaintiff's damages and losses resulting from 18 Defendants' breach of their duty of good faith and fair dealing toward Plaintiff. 19 56. As a result of the breach, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be 20 determined at trial. 21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 22 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. 23 (Against All Defendants) 24 57. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding 25 paragraph in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point. 26 58. According to Government Code § 1291(a), freedom from discrimination in the 27 workplace is a civil right, thus entitling Plaintiff to a greater degree of protection than if he were 28 13 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 a stranger to Defendants. In this matter, Defendants violated Government Code § 12940 et seq., 2 by terminating Plaintiff in order to refrain from paying any business costs or compensation 3 associated with Plaintiff's medical condition, and due to Plaintiff's race, national origin and/or 4 ethnicity, Defendants proceeded with wrongfully terminating Plaintiff's employment in violation 5 of California law. 6 59. Defendants committed the aforementioned extreme and outrageous conduct with 7 the intent to emotionally harm Plaintiff. More so, Plaintiff did not consent, nor behave in conduct 8 that warranted Defendants' behavior. 9 60. The aforesaid conduct was carried out by Defendants, by and through the acts 10 and/or omissions of its managing agents and employees, with Defendants' express and/or implied 11 consent, approval, authority and/or ratification. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 12 alleges that Defendants knew, must have known, should have known, or had reason to know that 13 their conduct and/or actions, as herein set forth, were substantially certain to inflict emotional 14 distress upon Plaintiff. Defendants therefore wrongfully, willfully, and/or intentionally sought to 15 inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiff through the discriminatory, harassing and retaliatory 16 conduct herein described. 17 61. As such, Defendants' conduct, as herein alleged, was intentional, malicious and 18 carried out with deliberate, conscious and/or reckless disregard of the high degree of probability 19 that such conduct would inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiff. 20 62. The wrongful, unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory practices and other 21 misconduct set forth herein, committed by Defendants, by and through its managing agents and 22 employees, with Defendants' prior consent, authority and/or ratification, as herein alleged, was 23 so extreme and outrageous that it exceeded the boundaries of a decent society and lies outside the 24 compensation bargain. (See Phillips v. Gemini Moving Specialists (1988) 63 Cal. App. 4th 563, 25 577; Livitsanos v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 744, 754). As such, Plaintiff's claims herein are not 26 subject to the workers' compensation exclusivity rule. 27 28 14 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 63. As a direct, foreseeable, legal and proximate result of Defendants' intentional, 2 willful, deliberate conduct, as herein alleged, Plaintiff has suffered and continued to suffer, 3 emotional distress, mental anguish and discomfort, and severe anxiety, trepidation, apprehension, 4 panic and worry, all to her damage, in an amount which will be proven at trial. 5 64. Defendants' actions were oppressive, deliberate, intentional, reprehensible and 6 malicious and were carried out in conscious disregard of their probable outcome. Defendants 7 acted in a willful, deliberate and intentional manner and their conduct was and continues to be 8 despicable, malicious and outrageous in that it caused and continues to cause Plaintiff to 9 needlessly suffer cruel and unjust hardship. Thus, Defendants' conduct and/or actions, justify an 10 award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter them from ever engaging in such 11 conduct again in the future. 12 65. Further, and pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b), Plaintiff is entitled to and 13 requests reasonable attorney's fees, and all recoverable costs according to law. 14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN AND/OR ETHNICITY IN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT. 16 (Against All Defendants) 17 66. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding 18 paragraph in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point. 19 67. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) prohibits an 20 employer from taking adverse employment actions against a protected individual based on her 21 race, national origin and/or ancestry. Adverse employment actions include, without limitation, 22 discharging from employment, refusing to transfer/promote, refusing to hire, and discriminating 23 in compensation, terms and conditions or privileges of employment. 24 68. Defendants' aforementioned conduct, as alleged, violated FEHA, Government 25 Code section 12900, et seq., when Defendants proceeded to wrongfully terminate Plaintiff's 26 employment in or around April 9, 2021. 27 28 15 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 69. As a proximate result of Defendants' willful, knowing and intentional 2 discrimination against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses 3 of earnings and other employment benefits. 4 70. As a proximate result of Defendants' willful, knowing and intentional 5 discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer 6 humiliation, emotional distress and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to her damage in a 7 sum according to proof. 8 71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff was forced to 9 incur substantial costs and attorneys' fees. Under Gov. Code § 12965(b), Plaintiff is entitled to 10 recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs (including potential expert costs) in an amount 11 according to proof at the time of trial. 12 72. Defendants' aforementioned misconduct was committed intentionally and was 13 carried out by managing agents, in a malicious, willful, despicable, oppressive, fraudulent 14 manner, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against Defendants. As such, Plaintiff requests 15 that exemplary and punitive damages be assessed against Defendants, in an amount sufficient to 16 punish Defendants and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. 17 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 FOR MEDICAL CONDITION OR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, FAILURE TO PREVENT MEDICAL CONDITION OR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION AND 19 WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 12990 ET SEQ., 12926, 12940, & 12945, AND THE PUBLIC POLICY OF CALIFORNIA AS 20 EXPRESSED IN GOVERNMENT CODE § 12920. (Against Spurgeon, Meacham, and Liberty Mutual) 21 73. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference each and every preceding 22 paragraph in this complaint as though fully set forth at this point. 23 74. At all times relevant hereto, California Government Code §§ 12990 et seq., 24 12926, 12940, & 12945, (FEHA) were in full force and effect and were binding upon 25 Defendants'. It is the public policy of the State of California as expressed in the FEHA that 26 individuals shall not be terminated from their employment due to a medical condition or 27 disability or the need for legally required leave. 28 16 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 75. These statutes require Defendants to refrain from, among other things: 2 a. Discriminating against any employee because of his medical 3 condition or disability; 4 b. Failing to engage in an interactive process to determine an 5 appropriate accommodation for an employee's medical condition 6 or disability; 7 c. Failing to accommodate an employee's medical condition or 8 disability; 9 d. Retaliating against an employee for protected conduct, including 10 hospital visits; 11 e. Failing to take all reasonable and necessary steps to eliminate 12 discrimination from the workplace and to prevent it from occurring 13 in the future; and/or 14 f. Wrongfully terminating any employee based upon that employee's 15 medical condition or disability. 16 76. Defendants' violated the FEHA and California public policy expressed in the 17 FEHA by discriminating against Plaintiff because of her medical condition or disability, by 18 failing to engage in an interactive process to accommodate Plaintiff's medical condition or 19 disability, by retaliating against Plaintiff for requesting and taking medical condition or disability 20 leave, by wrongfully terminating Plaintiff from her employment with Defendants' on or about 21 April 9, 2021, and by failing to take all reasonable and necessary steps to eliminate 22 discrimination from the workplace and to prevent it from occurring in the future. 23 77. Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of the conduct described in 24 this complaint. 25 78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has 26 suffered, and continues to suffer, economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which 27 include but are not limited to back pay and front pay. 28 17 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DocuSign Envelope ID: 4410E459-9A6E-44F5-8922-FDF8CA97099E 1 79. As a further direct and proximate cause of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff 2 has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, 3 mental anguish and other non-pecuniary losses. 4 80. Defendants' actions, listed above, were done with malice, fraud and/or oppression, 5 and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights with the intent, design, and purpose of injuring 6 Plaintiff. Defendants, through its officers, managing agents, and/or supervisors, authorized, 7 condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct listed above. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to 8 recover punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an 9 example of Defendants to the community. 10 81. As a result of the discriminatory conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff is entitled to 11 costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Government Code Section 12 12965(b). 13