David M. deRubertis, State Bar No. 208709 Maria L. Weitz, State Bar No.

268100 2 The deRubertis Law Firm, APC 4219 Coldwater Canyon Avenue 3 Studio City, California 91604 Telephone: (818) 761-2322 4 Facsimile: (818) 761-2323 e-mail: David@deRubertisLaw.com
1 5

Howard Rutten, State Bar No. 164820 6 The Rutten Law Firm, APC 4221 Coldwater Canyon Avenue 7 Studio City, California 91604 Telephone: (818) 308-6915 8 Facsimile: (818) 924-6400 e-mail: howard@ruttenlawfirm.com
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Attorneys for Plaintiff BARBARA CASEY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

BARBARA CASEY, an individual,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE AMERICAN HUMANE ) ASSOCIATION, a District of ) Columbia corporation; THE ) AMERICAN HUMANE ) ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, a ) California corporation; HOME BOX ) OFFICE, INC., a Delaware ) corporation; STEWART ) PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware ) limited liability company; and DOES ) 1-100, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) _______________________________ )

CASE NO. BC 497991 [Assigned for all purposes to Maureen Duffy-Lewis - Department 38] SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, PENALTIES AND OTHER RELIEF FOR: 1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE 1102.5; 2. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; 3. AIDING AND ABETTING WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY 4. AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE 1102.5 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ___________________________________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff BARBARA CASEY, an individual, hereby complains against THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION, a District of Columbia corporation; THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., a Delaware corporation; STEWART PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, and each of them, and alleges as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff BARBARA CASEY (Plaintiff) is an individual, over the age of

eighteen years old, residing in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. 2. Defendant THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION, a District of

Columbia corporation, purports to be a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the District of Columbia and doing business in Los Angeles, California. 3. Defendant THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION OF

CALIFORNIA, a California corporation, purports to be a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California and doing business in Los Angeles, California. 4. Defendant THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION, a District of

Columbia corporation, and defendant THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation, shall be collectively referred to as AHA. 5. Defendant HOME BOX OFFICE, INC. (HBO), a Delaware corporation,

purports to be a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware and doing business in Los Angeles, California. 6. Defendant STEWART PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability

company, purports to be a limited liability company organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware and doing business in Los Angeles, California.

2 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

7.

Defendant HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and

defendant STEWART PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, shall be collectively referred to as the Production Defendants. 8. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of those individual and

corporate defendants named herein as DOES 1-100, and therefore sues these defendants under fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of those defendants sued herein as DOES 1-100 are ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege said true names and capacities. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the above fictitiously named defendants negligently and/or intentionally engaged in wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged herein, or, alternatively, authorized or ratified such wrongdoing, and that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the damages suffered by Plaintiff. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 9. AHA is a non-profit corporate entity that purports to protect animals and

children from abuse and neglect. AHA operates its Film and Television Unit purportedly for the benefit of animals used in film and television productions. The hallmark of AHAs involvement with film and television productions is its trademarked end credit statement, No Animals Were Harmed. As detailed below, AHAs decision to provide a film or television production with the No Animals Were Harmed slogan is not an indication of whether or not animals were in fact injured or even killed during production. 10. For approximately thirteen years, Plaintiff was an employee of AHA. As of

2011, Plaintiff was working as the Director of Production in AHAs Film and Television Unit. Plaintiff supervised various humane officers and/or animal safety representatives working on film and television productions involving the use of animals. Humane officers in California have law enforcement powers and duties for issues pertaining to animals. They have the power and duty to enforce animal cruelty and other animal protection laws and to investigate situations of animal neglect or cruelty, including issuing
3 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

citations, collecting evidence, confiscating animals and property, making arrests and appearing in court. Plaintiff served as a liaison between the AHA and entertainment production companies in an effort to ensure the safe, ethical, humane and lawful treatment of animals. 11. AHAs Film and Television Unit is funded by the Industry Advancement

and Cooperative Fund (IACF). The IACF is funded as part of a producers obligation to the union for film actors the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) when working under the SAG/Producers contract. The IACF fund is administered by SAG and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. AHAs grant from the IACF is subject to renewal on a yearly basis. Without renewal of its grant each year, AHA cannot operate its Film and Television Unit. The financial ties between AHA and the film and television industry, including the Production Defendants, create a conflict of interest for AHA in its purported animal protection role in film and television productions. 12. AHA had and continues to have close relationships with film and television

producers, including HBO and the Production Defendants, not only because of the funding relationship it has with these entities, but also to satisfy AHAs desire for publicity and marketing opportunities which arise out of its work on film and television productions. AHA uses press releases, movie reviews and other public relations tools to enhance its own image while riding the coattails of Hollywood productions. AHA chief executive officer and president Robin Ganzert is often photographed at red carpet events with movie producers and other celebrities. 13. AHAs connections with film and television production companies,

including HBO and the Production Defendants, often allows production companies to dictate the method and manner by which AHA operates on set in order to allow the producer maximum flexibility, often times in complete disregard for the safe and humane treatment of animals. Producers often request that certain AHA representatives work on their sets, or that certain AHA representatives be removed from a set, to make production
4 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

run more smoothly and/or in an attempt to avoid close scrutiny of its treatment of animals. AHA kowtows to these Hollywood producers because it is less concerned with animal safety and more concerned with its own financial gain and/or that of its officers and directors, continued funding by the IACF and/or its own public relations campaigns. AHA reaped and continues to reap both profit and political gain by hitching its wagon to Hollywood film and television shows and the press generated by this industry. 14. Because of the conflict of interest AHA had and continues to have with the

film and television industry, AHA has engaged in a repeated pattern and practice of concealing animal deaths and injuries as a matter of course. Despite the trademarked end credit No Animals Were Harmed that AHA issues to film and television productions, animals are often harmed or killed during productions that are nonetheless granted the No Animals Were Harmed end credit. The following examples, not including the Luck production, are illustrative: ! AHAs animal safety representatives worked on the set of HBO production

Temple Grandin and observed a cow killed on set. Nonetheless, to appease HBO, and despite the cows death, AHA gave the production its No Animals Were Harmed end credit. Ironically, Temple Grandin was about the life of a well known pioneer in the ethical treatment of livestock. AHA sold $25,000 per plate dinners for a purported charity event honoring its own participation in the film. ! During the production of a Proctor & Gamble commercial, a bulldog belonging to

Studio Animal Services died after being left in a van on a hot day. Leaving an animal in an unattended vehicle is a crime pursuant to Penal Code 597.7. While AHA employs humane officers with the power to enforce animal cruelty laws, to investigate situations of animal neglect and cruelty, and to issue citations, AHA chose not to investigate or to issue any citations for this violation. AHA instead chose to give this production its No Animals Were Harmed end credit.

5 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

During the production of the Oscar Winning film Life of Pi, the celebrated tiger

appearing in the film and used as a highly successful marketing image was handled without proper care and almost drowned. The producer on Life of Pi, Gil Netter, had personally requested a particular AHA animal safety representative be on set for this production. AHA granted this request despite it causing additional expense and there being no legitimate business reason for the producer to hand pick his own AHA representative. Despite the near death of a tiger, AHA gave the No Animals Were Harmed end credit on this production. ! During production of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, twenty seven animals

were killed, including horses, goats and sheep. AHA gave an especially misleading endcredit for this film, which read as follows: "American Humane monitored all of the significant animal action. No animals were harmed during such action." Image 1 - Injured horse on The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

6 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Image 2 - Dead horse on The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Image 3 - Dead animal on The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

7 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A horse was killed during production of the film War Horse, directed and

produced by Steven Spielberg. In order to protect Steven Spielberg, one of the most notable and influential persons in the history of film, and because of the volume of press and other publicity this film garnered, AHA agreed to cover-up the death of this horse and to give the film its No Animals Were Harmed end credit. 15. From about January 2010 through March 2012, AHAs representatives

worked on the production of a television series called Luck. Luck was produced by the Production Defendants for broadcast on the premium subscription television channel HBO. Lucks storyline was about horse racing and starred a number of wellknown actors, including Dustin Hoffman and Nick Nolte. The Luck production required the use of many, many horses. AHA humane officers and/or animal safety representatives worked on the Luck production to monitor the safe, ethical, humane and lawful treatment of these horses. AHAs humane officers and/or animal safety representatives reported directly to Plaintiff. 16. AHA had a special and important relationship with HBO. When

scheduling or other logistical conflicts arose within AHA, AHA made it a priority to assign reps and/or other assets to HBO productions. AHA made particular efforts not to rock the boat on HBO productions, including Luck. Accordingly, when AHAs animal safety representatives and/or humane officers observed the Production Defendants engaging in ongoing, systematic and unlawful animal abuse and cruelty toward the horses on the set of Luck, this created political and public relations problems for AHA. 17. During the production of HBOs Luck, Plaintiff and AHAs humane

officers and/or animal safety representatives observed, documented and attempted to prevent animal abuse and cruelty to the horses on set, which was done, committed by and/or performed at the direction of and/or under the control and supervision of the Production Defendants. AHAs representatives, including Plaintiff, met with
8 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

considerable resistance and backlash from the Production Defendants when they insisted that the horses be protected and not abused. 18. In order to save time and money, however, and to minimize any

disruption to its production schedule, the Production Defendants, rather than fully cooperate with AHA, continued to engage in and/or direct criminal animal abuse and cruelty. The Production Defendants pressured AHA to allow them to violate AHAs animal safety standards, guidelines and/or recommendations. The Production Defendants pressured AHA to allow the use of unsuitable horses in an attempt to ensure that sufficient numbers of horses would be available to meet its production demands. The animal abuse and cruelty observed by AHA included, among other things, the following: ! horses were often drugged to perform as admitted by Matthew Chew, chief horse trainer for the Production Defendants ! underweight and sick horses unsuited for work were routinely used by the Production Defendants Image 4 - Underweight horse on Luck set

9 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

a horse named Outlaw Yodeler was killed during production on April 30, 2010 Image 5 - Outlaw Yodeler on Luck set

! the Production Defendants intentionally misidentified horses so that the humane officers and/or animal safety representative could not track their medical histories, experience and/or suitability for use ! a horse named Marcs Shadow was killed during the filming of a racing scene on March 29, 2011; his necropsy report revealed degenerative arthrosis and other pathologies in this retired racehorse that made him unsuited for use in filming racing scenes ///

20

///
21

///
22

///
23

///
24

///
25

///
26

///
27 28
10 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Image 6 - Marcs Shaddow

Image 7 - Marcs Shaddow

11 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4

! a horse named Home Trader was killed during the Summer of 2011; AHA told its representatives not to document this horses death because he was killed during a summer hiatus from filming and therefore did not count ! A fourth horse was killed in March, 2012, leading to cancellation of the Luck series 19. Plaintiff repeatedly complained to AHA and the Production Defendants

about horses being criminally abused, neglected and/or mistreated on set. She cited
6

AHA and/or the Production Defendants to violations of laws and criminal statutes
7

pertaining to the mistreatment and/or abuse of animals including, but not limited to,
8

California Penal Code 597 (Cruelty to Animals). Plaintiff urged AHA to get the
9

police, the district attorney and/or the city attorney involved.

10

20.
11 12

While Plaintiff urged AHA to report the Production Defendants

criminal animal abuse and animal cruelty to government and/or law enforcement, AHA bowed to political and financial pressure, however, and refused to report the
13

Production Defendants conduct to the authorities. AHA instructed Plaintiff not to

14

report such conduct. AHA engaged in efforts to conceal and cover-up the Production
15

Defendants criminal activities.

16

21.
17 18

As Plaintiff continued to pressure AHA and/or the Production

Defendants to treat the Luck horses safely, humanely and ethically, the Production Defendants resisted.
19

22.
20 21

On April 17, 2011, less than thirty days after horse Marcs Shadow was

killed during filming, Luck Co-Executive Producer Henry Bronchtein expressed concern to AHA and others that we have pushed these scenes as late in the schedule
22

as possible for the show at considerable expense. Delaying any further will cause the
23

company to shut down.

24

23.
25 26

On April 19, 2011, AHA advised the Production Defendants of its

preference that it do[es] not run horses until further notice and pending the necropsy and toxicology report for Marcs Shadow. On April 20, 2011, Co-Executive Producer
27 28
12 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Bronchtein requested that AHA lift its statement that horses could not be run. Bronchtein wrote: Unfortunately delaying the horses on track this week . . . at the behest of AHA starts to jam us up next week because we still have many scenes left with horse (sic) on the track. He later added: We absolutely need to find a way to augment the amount of horses we have to race and the pressure is mounting each day to get this done. 24. As pressure mounted on the Production Defendants to complete

production in a timely and cost-effective manner, which required augment[ing] the amount of horses we have to race, Plaintiffs spearheading of efforts to ensure the safety of these horses became a grave concern for the Production Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the Production Defendants pressured AHA to control Plaintiff so that its production would not be disrupted and the production would not be shut down. Accordingly, the Production Defendants exercised their political muscle and influence with AHA and encouraged it to remove Plaintiff from her position so that she would not interfere with their production. 25. On or about January 3, 2012, AHA terminated Plaintiffs employment in

order to prevent her from reporting the Production Defendants violation of animal abuse and cruelty laws and/or in retaliation for her efforts in reporting same and/or otherwise in violation of Labor Code 1102.5. 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Plaintiffs

termination was done with the substantial assistance and/or encouragement of the Production Defendants. The Production Defendants provided advice, encouragement and/or moral support to AHA to terminate Plaintiff. The Production Defendants aided and abetted in Plaintiffs termination so that the Luck production would not be made more costly, time consuming and/or otherwise disrupted, knowing at all times that AHAs termination of Plaintiff was in violation of Labor Code 1102.5 and/or otherwise in breach of duty.
13 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

27.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and others similarly

situated under the Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code 2698 et seq., to recover all penalties, attorneys fees, costs and other damages and/or relief available thereunder based on defendants violation of Labor Code 1102.5. On December 31, 2012, Plaintiff served on the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and defendants by certified mail, return receipt requested, the requisite notice required by Labor Code 2699.3. More than thirty-three days have expired since service of such notice and the LWDA has not notified Plaintiff that it will investigate her allegations, thereby entitling Plaintiff to pursue all available remedies under Labor Code 2698 et seq. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION [Termination, Retaliation and Other Conduct in Violation of California Labor Code 1102.5 against AHA Defendants] 28. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 27, as if set forth here in full. 29. In doing the things herein alleged, and as otherwise will be proven at

trial, the AHA Defendants, and each of them, violated Labor Code 1102.5, which provides, in part, that: (a) An employer may not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. (b) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. (c) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or
14 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4

federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. (d) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for having exercised his or her rights under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) in any former employment. 30. By terminating Plaintiff in retaliation for and/or to prevent her from

reporting the criminal conduct occurring in connection with the Luck production, and
6

as otherwise may be discovered, the AHA defendants, and each of them, violated
7

Labor Code 1102.5.

8

31.
9 10

As a direct and proximate result of defendants conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered damages, including, but not limited to, lost past and future wages and benefits and mental anguish and emotional suffering, all in an amount to be proven at trial and
11

in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.

12

32.
13 14

Pursuant to Labor Code 1102.5(f), in addition to other available

penalties, an employer that is a corporation is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation of Labor Code 1102.5. Plaintiff
15

brings this action to recover said penalties pursuant Labor Code 2698 et seq. and all
16

other all other penalties, attorneys fees, costs and other damages and/or relief
17

available thereunder.
18

33.
19 20

In doing the things herein alleged, defendants were guilty of oppression,

fraud and malice in that they, among other things, acted with a wilful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights, health and safety and, insofar as the things alleged were
21

attributable to employees of defendants, said employees were employed by defendants

22

with advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employees and/or they were employed
23

with a conscious disregard for the rights of others and/or defendants authorized or
24

ratified the wrongful conduct and/or there was advance knowledge, conscious
25

disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud or malice on the part of

26 27 28
15 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

an officer, director or managing agent of defendants all entitling Plaintiff to the recovery of exemplary and punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION [Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy against the AHA Defendants] 34. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 33, as if set forth here in full. A. 35. Public policy regarding suspected violations of law by employers The public policy of the State of California, as codified, expressed and

mandated in Labor Code 1102.5 and other applicable law is to prohibit employers from: (1) implementing policies preventing employees from disclosing reasonably based suspicions of violations of state or federal statutes; (2) retaliating against employees who have disclosed reasonably based suspicions of violations of state or federal statutes to government agencies; and (3) retaliating against employees who refuse to participate in activities that would result in violations of state or federal statutes. 36. This public policy of the State of California is designed to protect all

employees and to promote the welfare and well being of the community at large. B. 37. Public policy against abuse and cruelty to animals The public policy of the State of California prohibits the cruel and

inhumane treatment of animals. It has long been the public policy of this country to avoid unnecessary cruelty to animals. [T]here is a social norm that strongly proscribes the infliction of any unnecessary pain on animals, and imposes an obligation on all humans to treat non-humans humanely. Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Department of Food & Agriculture, (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 495, 504 (quoting Humane Soc. of Rochester & Monroe Cty. v. Lyng (W.D.N.Y. 1980) 633 F. Supp. 480, 486 and Gary Francione, Animals, Property and Legal Welfarism: Unnecessary Suffering and the Humane Treatment of Animals (1994) 46 Rutgers L. Rev. 721,
16 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

722). The foregoing public policy is expressed in the following statutes and/or administrative regulations authorized by statute: a. California Penal Code 597 (cruelty to animals), 597.9 (cruelty to

animals), 597a (cruelty to animals - transportation), 597f (failure to care for animals), 597g (poling or tripping a horse), 597o (humane transportation of equine to slaughter), 597s (abandonment of animals), 597t (confined animals), 597u (prohibited killing methods of animals, 597x (sale or transport of disabled equine), 597.1 (failure to care for animals; misdemeanor) and 599b (definitions, imputation of knowledge to corporations.) b. California Business & Professions Code 4830.7 (California law

imposes a mandatory duty on veterinarians to report animal abuse. Any licensed veterinarian who has reasonable cause to believe an animal under its care has been a victim of animal abuse or cruelty must promptly report that abuse to the appropriate law enforcement.) c. California Health & Safety Code 25988 and 25988.5 (inhumane

treatment of horses and other equine animals; citation, penalties and prosecution.) d. California Business & Professions Code 19400 et seq. (making certain

persons and facilities subject to the California Horse Racing Law and all rules, regulations and conditions prescribed by the California Horse Racing Board including but not limited to: (1) racing facilities (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 19660, 19480; (2) jockeys (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 19520); (3) trainers (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 19520; (4) veterinarians (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 19510); and (5) anyone who participates in, or has anything to do with, the racing of horses (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 19520)). 38. This public policy against the cruel and inhumane treatment of animals

inures to the benefit of the public and is designed to promote the welfare and well being of society at large.
17 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

39.

The AHA Defendants termination of Plaintiff was in violation of the

public policies alleged above and/or some or all of them. 40. As a direct and proximate result of defendants conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered damages, including, but not limited to, lost past and future wages and benefits and mental anguish and emotional suffering, all in an amount to be proven at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court. 41. In doing the things herein alleged, defendants were guilty of oppression,

fraud and malice in that they, among other things, acted with a wilful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights, health and safety and, insofar as the things alleged were attributable to employees of defendants, said employees were employed by defendants with advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employees and/or they were employed with a conscious disregard for the rights of others and/or defendants authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct and/or there was advance knowledge, conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud or malice on the part of an officer, director or managing agent of defendants all entitling Plaintiff to the recovery of exemplary and punitive damages. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION [Aiding and Abetting a Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Against the Production Defendants] 42. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 41, as if set forth here in full. 43. California law recognizes that one may aid and abet anothers

commission of an intentional tort. In fact, California has adopted the common law rule for subjecting a defendant to liability for aiding and abetting a tort. Casey v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144. Under this rule, [l]iability may ... be imposed on one who aids and abets the commission of an intentional tort if the person (a) knows the others conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other to so act; or (b) gives substantial
18 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and the persons own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the third person. Saunders v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 832, 846. Californias rule is consistent with Restatement Second of Torts, which recognizes a cause of action for aiding and abetting in a civil action under which one is subject to liability if he ... (b) knows that the others conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself... Schultz v. Neovi Data Corp. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 86, 93; see also Rest. (Second) of Torts (1979), 876. 44. Moreover, under California law, a third party may aid and abet an

employers wrongful termination or other discriminatory act against the employers employee even if the aider and abetter is not itself an employer of the employee. See e.g., Alch v. Superior Court (2nd Dist. 2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 339, 390 (talent agency could be liable for aiding and abetting age discrimination by different employer); Janken v. GH Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55, 77 (recognizing that third parties such as customers or suppliers can be liable for aiding and abetting an employers discriminatory conduct); cf. Casey v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1145 at fn 2 (one can be liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty even though aider and abettor owes no fiduciary duty). 45. The Production Defendants aided and abetted the acts of Defendants

AHA to retaliate against Plaintiff in violation of public policy. That is, as set forth hereinabove, the Production Defendants actively participated in, assisted in and gave substantial encouragement to the AHA Defendants to retaliate against Plaintiff by wrongfully terminating Plaintiffs employment in violation of public policy. Such termination gives rise to a common law tort action against the AHA Defendants for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 177 (California courts have not been alone in recognizing the propriety of a tort remedy when an employer's discharge of an employee contravenes
19 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the dictates of public policy.) The Production Defendants liability for aiding and abetting the AHA Defendants commission of the common law tort of wrongful termination in violation of public policy is consistent with the above authority subjecting a defendant to liability for aiding and abetting any intentional tort. Casey v. U.S. Bank National Assn., supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at 1144. 46. As a direct and foreseeable result of the aforesaid acts of the Production

Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, lost past and future wages and benefits and mental anguish and emotional suffering, all in an amount to be proven at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court. 47. In doing the things herein alleged, defendants were guilty of oppression,

fraud and malice in that they, among other things, acted with a wilful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights, health and safety and, insofar as the things alleged were attributable to employees of defendants, said employees were employed by defendants with advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employees and/or they were employed with a conscious disregard for the rights of others and/or defendants authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct and/or there was advance knowledge, conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud or malice on the part of an officer, director or managing agent of defendants all entitling Plaintiff to the recovery of exemplary and punitive damages. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION [Aiding and Abetting a Violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 Against the Production Defendants] 48. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 47, as if set forth here in full. 49. California law also recognizes that one may aid and abet anothers

commission of a statutory tort. Kimmel v. Goland (1990) 51 Cal.3d 202, 212-214 (violation of electronic privacy statutes); Bennett v. Letterly (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 901, 905-906 ([I]f defendant was guilty of any statutory violation on a theory of
20 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

conspiracy or aiding and abetting, it was section 25658(b) that was violated, not section 25685(a).); Schultz v. Neovi Data Corp. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 86 (violation of Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq.). Moreover, under California law, a third party may aid and abet an employers wrongful termination or other discriminatory act against the employers employee even if the aider and abetter is not itself an employer of the employee. See e.g., Alch v. Superior Court (2nd Dist. 2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 339, 390 (talent agency could be liable for aiding and abetting age discrimination by different employer); Janken v. GH Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55, 77 (recognizing that third parties such as customers or suppliers can be liable for aiding and abetting an employers discriminatory conduct); cf. Casey v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1145 at fn 2 (one can be liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty even though aider and abettor owes no fiduciary duty). 50. The Production Defendants aided and abetted the acts of Defendants

AHA to retaliate against Plaintiff in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5. That is, as set forth hereinabove, the Production Defendants actively participated in, assisted in and gave substantial encouragement to the AHA Defendants to retaliate against Plaintiff by wrongfully terminating Plaintiffs employment in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5. 51. As a direct and foreseeable result of the aforesaid acts of the Production

Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, lost past and future wages and benefits and mental anguish and emotional suffering, all in an amount to be proven at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court. 52. In doing the things herein alleged, defendants were guilty of oppression,

fraud and malice in that they, among other things, acted with a wilful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights, health and safety and, insofar as the things alleged were attributable to employees of defendants, said employees were employed by defendants
21 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES