I

2

3

4

5

6

7

E

9

t0

ll12

lll4

l5

I6

t7

Itl

t9

20

2t

22

23

24

?<

26

27

28

GregoryJ. Goodrvin. SBN 111557ARATA, SWINGI"R, VAN EGMOND & GOODTVNA Professional Ltw CoroorationI20? I StreetPost Offrce Box 3287Modesto, California, 95354Telephone: (209)522-22ttFacsimile: (209)522-2980

Allorneys f'rrr PlaintiffSTEVEN MILNER

STEVEN MILNDR,

Plainlil fl

FUI, I ON TRUCKTNC COMPANY. NC.;STEVD FULTON and DOES 1-l(X), inclusive,

FILEDAUG I 0 2018

Superir:r Court of CatifrrmiaCouuty ofTuolumoc

_

w "!) tfio 0 il,t

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF TUOI,IJNINE

Detbndanls

Plaintifl, S1'tVEN MILNFIR (hereinafler rcferred to as "Plairlifl"), hercby tiles rhis Complainr

agsins! FUl,'loN TRUCKINC COMPANY, INC., STEVE FULTON. and DOF.S I to 100 (hereinafter

cvllectirell' relbrtod to as "Defeadanls"). Plaintiff is inlbrmed ar:d beljeves, and on the hasjs ofthat

inibrmation ind bclief. alleges as fotlorvs:

JIJRTSDICTION A,fiD VENUE

l. 'l'hc Tuolumne County Superior Court has jurisdiction in this matlcr due to allcged

violation.' of rhc Calilbmia Labor Code and Hcalth and Saferv Code.

-t.L.Otnpritnt

CarieNo: (vqt-ft4COMPLAINT FOR:

l Relalittion in Yiolution of CalifornieLaborCodeg I102.5;

2. Retrlialion in Violution of CalifornieLubor Code g 9E.6;

3. Wrongful Termioltion in Yiolation ofPublic Polic-v;

{. Unfeir Businoss Practices Business andProfession* Code $ I 7200 et seq.

5. Intentional Infliction of EmolionelIlharess.

6, Assault7. Bataer-v

-

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Il0

llt2

l3

I4

l5

l6

t'1

18

19

20

2l

22

21

24

2.5

26

2't

10

2. Vcnue is proper pursuarr! to Civil Procedure Code Seclions 395(a) and 395.5, in thal thc

r+ronglirl acls and violations of lar+. asserted herein occuncd within 'l uolumne County. Del'endants are

also doing business in Tuolumne County.

PARTIES

3, Plaintiff is an individual over the age of eightccn (18) und is now rnd,ror at all times

ntentioned 1n this Complaiu! was a rcsident in of Sonora. in the State of Califonria.

4. Plaintiff is inflormcd and believes and tbereon allege that Defcndant, Fr:lton Trucking

Company, lnc., are now andlor at all timcs menlioned in this Complainl e corporation, orgariiz.ed and

existing under, the larvs of the Statc of Cfllifbmia and operaror of an industry. business andi or facility

Iicensed to do business and actuallv doing business in the cir1, ol tiroveland, Cor-rnty ofTuolumnc, State

of Calilbmia.

5. Ptaintiff is inlbrmed and believes and thercon allegcs that defendant Sreve Fulton is and/or

at all time$ menlioned in this complaint was a rcsident of thc State oj'(lalifornia.

6, Defendant DOES I throrrgh 100 are pvsons or entities whose true namcs and idenlitics arE

presently unknown to Plaintiff. and lrho lhercfore are sued by such lictitious names. Plaintiffis inlbrmcd

and belicves end or that basis allegcs lhat each of the lictitiously nnmcd {}cfcndarits are rcspcnsihle in

some manncr lbr the matters alleged hcrein. and are jointly and severally liable to Plaintill. Plaintifl will

seek lcave of court to amend lhis complaint to state thc !ruc namEs and capacities ul such fictitiously

oarrrcd Deferdana,s lvhen ascrrtdi ned.

7. At all timcs rnentioned hcrein. each Dcfendant was the agent or cmployee ofcach oflhe

olher DeEndants irnd rvas actinB within the coursc and scope of such agency or empJoymcnl. The

Del'endarts are jointl.v ard severall,y liable to Plaintiff.

8. Defcndants, and cach of them. are now and or at all timcs mentioned in this Complaint

were mcmbers of and/or engaged in a joint venture, partnership and common enterpris,e, and rvetc acting

*'ithin the course antl scopc of, and in pursuance of. saidjoinr vcnture, partncrship or common tsnteryJrisc.

9. t)cfcndanls proximately caused Plaintiffto be subjccted to lhe ur awlul practices- u,rungs.

complaintli, injurlcs and/or damages allegcd iu this cornplaint.

-2.CompEim

I

)

j

4

5

6

7

I9

10

tl

t2

l3

t4

l5

l6

l7

18

t9

z0

2l

22

21

24

?i

26

77

28

.GENEEALJLLEGATIONE

I 0. Plaintiil'he-uan working for defendarfi Fulton Trucking Inr:.. as a *'ater truck driver Dn or

aboul June 7,2017.

I I . Shortl-v after beginning his employment with det'cndant Fulton 'l'rucking Company, tnc.,

plaimilf began nolicing unsafc and hazardous conditions exisdng in the trucks that he \r.as assignerl to

drive, fhesc hazardous and unsafe conditions inclu<Jed. but r+erc nor lihitcd lo:

r 'l'he trucks \.r,ere not properly maintuincdl

r Mirrors u,ete btokcn and/or ctherwise insufficient theretbr restricting plaintifi-s lision

whcn operaling lhc lrucks;

r l'he clulch/clutch mechauism opcrated inrpmperly;

o The hrakcs did not operare pmpetly/operated unsatisfactorily:

. TIre ttuck rires were bnld and/or crackedi cracking;

r The trucks gears/gearing did not operate properly;

12, Plainriffcomplained to dcfendant Fulton 'frucking Comlmrv. Inc., trucking reprcsentatir,cs

Donald Fuhon and $teven I ulton oo numerous occrrsions. both orally anrl in writing rcgarding the unsalb

ard liazardous conditions. Forexamplc,onJune28,20t7,July6.20l7,Jutyl1.20l?,Julylg,2017,and

Juiy 26,2017, plaintiffexccuted UNSAF'E coNTlTIoN oR HAZARD RtipoRTs, ptovide<l by

dcfendant I'ulton Trucking Company,Inc., ln uddition plainti{f complained to Cal OSHA and thc Starc o[

Calilornia. Department of industrial relations. Defendant Fulton Trucking Company. Inc.. had an

opportunity 10 inve$tigalE and take corrective acli(rn to remedy the unsafc and hazardous conditions bul

failed and refuscd to do so.

11. Instead ol corecting the rrnsafc tnd hamrdous conditions, defendant Fulton lrucking

Company., Inc.. retaliated against plainlifl Specifically. on Augu$t 10.2017. plainrifl. oncc again-

brought the unsafe und hazardorrs conditions to the a$enlion ofdetindarlt Fullon lrucking's agenl Stere

Fulton. Mr. Fulton became enragcd and told nlaintiff"Fuck you. you strrpid son ol'a bitch, you're 6rcd,"

and, get lhc fuck out of herc stupid.'' Mr. I:ulton then assaulted and battercd plaiutiffby firsr striking him

I

2

3

4

5

5

?

I9

10

llt2

t3

t4

l5

t6

17

l8

r9

20

2l

22

2j

24

25

26

27

28

in the qhesl uith a finger on his leff hand and then striking/slabbing plainrif! in thc chcst, with a

screwddver,

VIoLA'ftW(h)&(c) l r,!\ \,, * \w,I(Against Dcfcndanl F ulton 'liLrcking Company, Inc.))

14. Plaintifl incorporatcs by reference and re-allege paragraphs I through 13 as though t'ully

set forlh hcrcin.

I 5. At all times relevart to this Complaint. Calitbmia Labor Code $ I t02.5 was in effect and

applied to Dcfcndants. Califomia l,abor (lode g I 102.5(b) provides that "an employer may nor retaliate

against aoy emplol'ce lbr disclosing infonnalion to a govcrnmcnl or lar+. cnforccmcnt agency, where the

employee has rcason to belicve that the ini'ormation riiscloses a violation of state or fbtJcral statute- or a

violation or noncompliarrce rvilh a state or fbderal rule or regulation."

16. Plaintiffengaged in legally protect activity covercd by California tabor Codc $ I 102.5(b)

by reporting intemirlly grietunces and complaitrls of suctr a naure lhat Defendants rterc lcgally ohligatc{

to report rhe issues to an outside govemmen! agenc,v.

17. Plaintiff reported intemally his opposition an objection to the unsafc and hazardous

conditious rcferenccd hercin. Plaindffis informcd an bclicvcs and thcrcupon allcgc.s that detbndant Fulton

Trucking Company, Inc., feared and anticipatcd that plaintiff*ould rcpon thosc illcgal practiccs to the

Govenrment as lttll. Plaintiffhad already escalated his conccrns to dcfcndant Fulton Trucking company's

agenls and, the next logical step, and the ooly remaining altemative, was [o report these unsal!.

hazanlous, and illegal conditions to an or[side golernmental agcncy. Dcfcndant I.'uhon liucking

Company, Inc.. retaliated against plaintiff by terminating him in an attempr to prevent the plaitrtifffrotn

rcporting tbc unsafc and hazardous condilions.

18. At all timcs rclcvanl lo this Complaint, California Labor Codc $ I105 rvas in cffcct and

applicd to Delbndant. Fulton Trucking Company, Inc,. and this section perrnils Plaintilfs who suffer a

violation of Labor Code $ I 102.5 to file an action for darnages.

19. Plaintiftis intbrmed and trelie,*es and thereon alleges thal plaintiff s continued qscalalion

of his grievamcs, and dcfcndant Fulton Trucking cornpanies anticipation lhal he would reporl to the

gosemmcnt thc unsafc and hazardous conditions, noted hcrcin. nrotiyaled delbndanl Fulton Trucking-4-

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

IO

t1

I2

l-,

l4

l5

t6

t7

!8

t9

20

2t

22

l7

24

)s

26

2l

28

(:ompany, [nc., lo relaliate against plainliff by assaultirg and hatleriog him. and tenninatiog his

cmployrent.

20. As a direqt aud forcsccable result ofthe aforcsaid acts ol'said Defcndanls, plaintill'has lost

and will continue to lose income and bcnefits in an anrount to bc proren al the titne oftrial. plaintiff

claims such atnounl as damages togelhcr wilh pre-j udgment intercst pursuant to C)alifornia Civil Co<le $

3287 and.'or any other prnvision of la*, providlng for pre-j udgment interest.

?1. As a result of ttrc sforesaid acts of Defendans. Plaintiltclaims gencral danragrs li:,r menral

and emolionul distrcss and agg6rvation in an amount to be proven at ihc time ol'trial.

22. 'fhe abovc describod acls by Del'endant, by and through rhcir managing agerus. oflicers or

direclor,s' were enguged in *'ith a deliberate, cold. callous, fraudulent and intcntional manner in ordcr to

iojure artd damage Plainfifl'and/or with a conscious disregard of Plaintil'fand her rights. Such acts lver€

despicable, and conslitute malice, fraud and/or oppression nithin thc meaning ofCalifornia Civil Co4e g

3294. Plaintiff requests an asscssmrnt ol'puiitive damages against Defendants, in an amount to bc

provcfl al tinre oftrial.

21. As a proximate result of rhe foregoing conduct. which violated provisions of Califomia

Labor Code $$ 1 102.5(b) and (c). Plainf lf has been forcrd to and will itrcur atomey's lbes and costs in

the proscculion of this clairn. in in amounl to be proved at trial.

24 Plaintiflincorporates by rcference and rc-allege paragraphs I through 23 as though fully

s€( fonh herein.

25. At all limes rclcvant to this Complaint, Califomia I.abor Coe $ 98.5 *as in efl'ect and

applied to Defendants. Califomia Labor Code 0 98.6 provides that "A pcrson shall not discharge an

employee or in any manner discriminatc. rctaliale, or take auy adversc action against any employec...

because the employee filed a bona fide complaint or ctaint or iustituted or causcd to be instituted any

proceeding under or relaling to his orher rights... because ol the excrcise b,"- the employee on behalfof

himsclf, hetsel( or others ofaay rights alforded him or her."

(Agsinst Del'endant Fulton Trucking Company. lnc.)

I

)

3

4

5

6

7

I9

t0

ltt2

t3

l4

t5

l6

t7

IE

l9

20

2l

22

21

24

25

26

27

28

26.

in thc truck

71

As noled hercin. p)aintillcomplained to defcndants about unsafe and huzardous conditions

thal he ruas assigurcd to drivc.

Delendant assaulted, baltered. and terminaed plaintilf in retaliarion for the.se objections

and complainrs.

28. As a resuh of his termination. Plaintiff has suffcrcd damages, includin{ but not limitcdto,

reimbursement fbr all lost wagas and work benetits occasioncd by DefendanB rctaliaiory terminalion, in a

sum to be detemtined at trial.

29. The nforemcntioned acts ol Delbndants are willful, uanlon, malicious. intentional,

oppressivc. and despicable. and rvere donc in willful and s6n5ci(rus disregard ofthc righrs ofPlaintills and

were donc by managerial ggenls and cmployees ol Del'enrJimts, or *'ith thc cxprcss knowledge, consenl,

and ratificadon ofmanagerial employees of Dcfendanls, and lhereby.iustifr' thc ararding otpunitiveand

exemplary damagcs in an amount to bc derermincd ar the lime of rrial.

CONSTRLTCIIVIi WR TION OF PUBLIC POLICY(Against Delbndsnt Fulton Trucking Company, tnc.)

3A. Plaintitl incorporates by referencc and rc-allege par.rgraphs I tluough 29 as though lirlly

set forth herein.

3 I - Plaintiff s emplol'mcnt was terminaled in vi<rlation of fundamcntal public policies of the

Etate of Californiq includ'lng. r,ithout lim'ttation. encouraging workers ro report uusafe and hazardous

conditions without fear of rctaliation. 'fhese l'undsrnental public policics cnsure to th€ benelit ofthe

public and nol.jr.rsr thc private interes$ of employer and employcc.

72. As set fbrth tbovc, sct actions by defeudants werc r+rongful and in violation ol lhe

fundamcntal principles of rhe public policy of the Statc of California as reflectetl iu its lau's, ob.lectivcs

and policies. Said laws. which establish thcsc fundamental public policies include. witbout limitadon.

California labor code secrions I 102.5 and 98.6.

3l . As a direct and foresecahtc result of the atbesatd acts of said Dcibnd$(. Ptaintiffhas losr

and uill conlinuc to losc income and henelits io an amount lo be proven at thc timc of trial. Plaintifl

claims such as amount as damages logelher wilh pre-judgment interest pursuant to Califonria Civil Code

$ 3287 andior imy other provision of 1a*' providing for prc-judgment intere$1,

-6-

I

2

l4

5

6

I9

IO

II

t2

1_3

l4

t5

t6

l7

I8

t9

20

2L

22

23

24

25

26

)'l

28

34. As a rcsult of lhe aloresaid acts of Defendants. Plaintilfclaims general damagcs lbrmental

and emotional distress and aggr,lvation in an amount to be proven al the time of trial.

35. The abovc described acts ofDeGndants, by and tfuough their managing agenls, ollicers or

directors, *ere engaged in with a delibcrate. cold, callous, tiaudulent arrd intentional manner in order lo

injure and damage Plaintiffandior with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffand her rights. Such acls werc

dcspicable. and conslilulc malicc, fraud and/or oppre$Jion within lhe meaning of Califomia Civil Code $

:294. Plaintiff requesls an assessmenl of punitive rlarnages against Defendafits. in an amount [o be

provcn al time of trial.

I,]NFAIR BTJSINESS Code g 17200 et seq.(Against Dcfendant Fulton'l'rucking Cornpany, lnc.)

36. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and rc-allege p:uagraphs I rhrough 35 as ttrough l'ull.v-

set fonh hereiu.

31. Defendants' conducl, as alleged above, violates multiplc stale autl l'edcral la*s and

consdtutcs unlawl-ul business practices tithin the meaning ofCalilomia Busincss & Profbssions Code S

77200 er seq.

38. Plaintiff is informed and belirves and tllcrEon allegcs,that Drl'eotlant contilrucs ro engage

irr some or all of the atbrernentioned unfair and unlawlul business practices.

39. Plainlifl seeks an ir{unction prohibiting l)efendonts frrrm engaging in rhc unfair and

unlawful conduct described hcrein-

INTENTIONAI, . DISTRESS

40. Plaindlls incorporate by rel'erencc and re-allege paragraphs I through 39 *r though fully

se! tbrth hercin.

41 . Defcndant engaged in cxtreme and outra8eous conduct by intentionally an#or recklessly

thiling to corcct the unsal'e and hazardous conditions reported to them by plaintiffand-

thrrcalier tuminming him.

-?-Conrplairtt

(Atl Dci'cndants)

I

2

J

4

5

6

7

E

9

t0

II

t2

t3

t4

t5

I6

t7

t8

l9

21\

2r

22

23

24

,(

76

27

2$

42. By lhe aloresaid act$ ofDcfbndanls, Plainlilfhas becn directty antl legally caused to suffer

darnages as alleged herein.

43. The uforemcntioned .lcts of Dcfrndaots, $,er6 willful, malicious. intcnrional. opprcssive

and despicable and uere done in willt'ul and conscious disregarl of the rights. w.eltirre and safet-v of the

Plaintiff, 0rereby justifing an a*arding olpunitivc arrd cxemplary darnagcs, againsr Delbndants, in an

irmounl lo be delermi[ed at rrial.

(Aguir:st All t)efendanrs)

44. Plaintiff incorporates by rcfcrence and re-allcgc paragraphs I through 43 as though fully

sel lorth hercin.

45. The actions ofdelendants dcscrihed herciu vucre inlended toanddid indeed cause hannful

and oltbnsive contact rvith the plaintiff.

46. AI lhe time of said harmlbl and offcnsive conud delbndant Steve Fulron was wilhin the

course and scopc of his emplo3rmenl *,ith delendaut Fulton'l'rucking Company, Inc.

47. Plaintiffdid nol consent to the hamrful and offcnsive contacr noted hmein.

48. As a direcl, forcsccable- and pmximatc result ol'detbndants' unlau.fulactiols. plaintiffhas

suffered cmotional di$ress. humilistiou, shamc, and enlbanassrnenr, all the plainriffs damage in an

finount fo bc proven d the timc of trial.

49. Thc atbrementioned acts of defemlants wcrc rvillful. ranton. malicious, inleotional.

opprcssive, and clespicablc, and were done in willful afid corsciou.c disregard of the rights of plainif].

Plaiotiffis rhus cntitled to recovcr punitive damages from dcfcndants in an amount according lo prcoff,l

lrial.

CA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I9

t0

t1

l2

t3

t4

I5

t6

l7

l8

i9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(Against All Defendunts.)

50. Plaintifls incorporale b1'refbrencc and re-allege paragraphs I througfr 49 as rhough fully

set lbrth herein.

5 L The actions ol dcfendant Stevc Fulton constituttd henrnful and oil'ense of contac:t uith tlrc

plaintiff,

52. At the time of said harmluland offensive contact dcfentlant Steve Fulton rvas fmploycd by

defendant Fulton Trucking company', Inc., and was in the course an<i scope of his employment w,ith said

dcfcndant.

53. Plaintiffdid not consent to lhe harmfi:l and ofl'ensive conlact nole<l herein.

54. As a direct, forcsccable, and proximate result of defendants' unlawlirl actions, plaiotilf

suffcred emotioDal distress, humiliation, shame, and embanassment. all ro the plaintifl's damage in an

amount Io be proven at thc time of trial,

55. The aforcmentioned acts of delendants' were willful. rvaDtorr, malicious. inteutional,

oppressive. and dcspicablc. and werc done in willful consqious disrcgard olthe rights ofplaintifll Plaintiff

is thus eulltkd to rccover punitive damagcs from defendants in Bn amou$t accorrling to proof at trial.

PR.IYERTOR RELIEF

Wheiefore, Plaintiff prays foriudgment against DcfcndanB as follo*s:

l. l'or compensator-v damages, includilg lo-st rvages, ruedical berrefits aud othcr crnf,loynr€nt

benefits, acCording to proof;

2. For gcneral, menlal and emotional disfEss damagcs accortling to proof:

3. l'or punitire damagcs on each sause of aclion for r,r'hich they are au'ardable;

4. For an arvard of interest. iucluding prejudgment interest, ar the legal rate;

5. For an injunctioo ordering FTJLTON TRUCKINGCOMPANY, INC., r<r ccase and desisl irs

unlavi.lul practiccs;

6. Fbr costs ofsuit incurred;

I

2

3

4

J

6

lI

9

t0

tll2

13

r4

l5

I6

tll8

l9

20

2t

22

11

24

25

1,'.

27

28

7. Fcr anomc)s' f'ees and costs;

E. For such other and further relirfas tbe coun dcems jusl and proper-

DATED: August 10,2018 ARATA,SWINGLE, VAN IGIIIOND & (;oODWINA Prul'essional Law Corporation

B_r: ,/ ),/Cregof T..Coodu,inAllornbys lbr PlainliffSTEVF]! MILNER

I

)

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

l1

t2

l3

t4

15

l6

t7

18

t9

20

21

'))

23

24

25

26

27

28

FILEDAU6 I { 20t8

Case No.: CV61788

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESIMedical Malpracticel

Defendants.

Plaintiff LLOYD BERG ("Plaintiff') alleges as follows:

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

t.The events hereinafter described occurred in the county of ruorumne, state of

Califomia, within the jurisdiction of the above-entitled Court.

2.

Defendant SAFEWAY, INC., dba SAFEWAY PHARMACy is, and at all times herein

mentioned was, a California corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State

of califomia with its principal place of business in sonora, califomia in Tuolumne county.

3.

Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants, whether individual,

corporate, or otherwise, sued herein as DoEs I through 50, inclusive, and, therefore, sue these

{944rfer J. lnthert (SBN 225776)YOI.JNG WARD & LOTHERT

'

A Professional Law Comoratiun995 Morning Star Drive, Suite CSonora, CA 95370Telephone: (209)536-2750Fax: (209) 536-2752

Attorney for Plaintiff Lloyd Berg

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COI-INTY OF TUOLUMNE

z=H;E8HH3alatrDlmhoo{,oPhroIO(-m

HlsalFXlaol(DBtrFl.

LLOYD BERG,

plaintiff,

vs.

SAFEWAY, INC., dba SAFEWAYPHARMACY, and DOES I through 25,lnclusive,

Complaint for DamagesPage I of4

'l