1553801447 TempsOnTime Complaint FINAL SIGNED 6.29.2012
1 2 3 4 5 6
JUSTIN H. SANDERS (SBN 211488) [email protected] REGINALD ROBERTS, JR. (SBN 216249) [email protected] SANDERS ROBERTS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213-943-1314 Facsimile: 213-234-4581 Attorneys for Temps On Time, Inc.
7 8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
TEMPS ON TIME,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ROSE & SHORE, INC., a California ) corporation, RITE-WAY MEAT PACKERS, ) INC., a California corporation, JUDITH ) ROBLEDO, an individual, CARMEN ) NIEBLA, an individual, PARTNERSHIP ) STAFFING, LLC, a California Limited ) Liability Company, and DOES 1 to 10, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) )
Case No. _________________ [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED] COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; 2. BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT; 3. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT; 4. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; 5. NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; and 6. CIVIL CONSPIRACY
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 1-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
1.
Plaintiff Temps On Time is and at all times relevant to this complaint was a
2
California corporation doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and this
3
judicial district.
4
2.
Defendant Rose & Shore, Inc. is and at all times relevant to this complaint was a
5
California corporation doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and this
6
judicial district.
7
3.
Defendant Rite-Way Meat Packers, Inc. is and at all times relevant to this
8
complaint was a California corporation doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of
9
California, and this judicial district.
10
4.
Defendant Partnership Staffing, LLC is and at all times relevant to this complaint
11
was a California corporation doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California,
12
and this judicial district.
13 14 15 16 17
5.
Defendant Judith Robledo is and at all times relevant to this complaint was an
individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 6.
Defendant Carmen Niebla is and at all times relevant to this complaint was an
individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 7.
Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities, whether individual,
18
corporate, associate, or otherwise of Defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues
19
these defendants by such fictitious names and will ask leave of court, if necessary, to amend this
20
complaint to show the true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained.
21
8.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that at all times mentioned
22
herein, Defendants, and each of them, were acting as the agents, servants, and employees of each
23
of the other defendants and were acting within the course and scope of their agency and
24
employment with the full knowledge and consent, either expressed or implied, of each of the
25
other defendants.
26
9.
Plaintiff is informed and thereon allege that Defendants, and each of them,
27
including those designated as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for
28
the occurrences and happenings herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’ damages as herein alleged, - 2-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
were and are the direct and proximate result of the actions of said defendants, and each of them.
2
Said defendants are sued as principals, agents, partners, servants, employees, and co-
3
conspirators, whose alleged actions were performed within the course and scope of their
4
authority and employment, and with the knowledge, consent, approval, and ratification of said
5
principals, and each of them.
6
10.
Whenever in this complaint reference is made to any act of defendant or
7
defendants, such allegation shall be deemed to mean the acts of the defendant or defendants
8
named in the particular cause of action and each of them, acting individually, jointly, and
9
severally. This action is not subject to Civil Code section 1812.10, or to Civil Code section
10
2984.4 and inconsistent allegations are pleaded throughout in the alternative.
11
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
12
11.
Plaintiff Temps On Time (“Temps On Time”) is a well-known provider of
13
temporary or temporary-to-permanent employees. In or about March 2011, Temps On Time
14
began providing temporary employees to defendants Rose & Shore, Inc. (“Rose & Shore”) and
15
Rite-Way Meat Packers, Inc. (“Rite-Way”). Temps On Time recruited, screened, selected and
16
tested each of the employees provided to Rose & Shore and Rite-Way. Temps On Time kept
17
track of the employees’ hours worked through an automated timekeeping system. Temps On
18
Time also paid workers compensation insurance and payroll taxes associated with each
19
employee.
20
12.
Plaintiff is informed and believes that Rose & Shore and Rite-Way are closely-
21
affiliated corporations owned and controlled in large part by Irwin Miller (“Miller”). Plaintiff is
22
informed and believes that Miller is the president of Rose & Shore and the chief executive
23
officer of Rite-Way. In or about March 2011, Plaintiff transmitted Plaintiff’s Standard Client
24
Agreement (the “Contract”) to Miller and John Perdue (“Perdue”), the chief operating officer of
25
Rite-Way. (A true and correct copy of an unsigned version of the Contract attached hereto as
26
Exhibit A.) Plaintiff is informed and believes that a representative of Rose & Shore or Rite-Way
27
signed the Contract and kept a fully-executed version and that Defendants Judith Robledo or
28
Carmen Niebla took the executed copy of the agreement from Temps On Time when they - 3-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
formed Defendant Partnership Staffing, LLC. The Contract contains express provisions that
2
forbid Temps On Time’s clients from secretly soliciting and hiring employees supplied to Rose
3
& Share and Rite-Way by Temps On Time. The Contract further provides for specific penalties
4
should a Temps On Time client breach the terms of the Contract.
5
The “Conversion Fee” agreement within the Contract states as follows: “If the client hires our temporary employee onto its payroll before the 580 hours, client will pay the difference between the hourly amount billed to the client and the hourly amount paid to the temporary employee for each remaining hour as its conversion fee.”
6 7 8 9
In addition, the Contract contains a “Direct Hire Policy” that provides the following: “If the client or any of its affiliates engages the services of our temporary (as a regular or temporary employee, consultant, independent contractor, or otherwise) within one year after the last day of any assignment through Temps On Time, within one 1 year of the last representation by Temps On Time to your company or its subsidiaries, or hires our temporary within the first two weeks of any assignment, Client will be charged our standard direct hire fee, calculated at 10% of the annual base salary compensation, unless otherwise agreed upon by Temps On Time.”
10 11 12 13 14 15
13.
From approximately November 2009 to 2012, Plaintiff employed defendant
16
Judith Robledo (“Robledo”) as a Sales and Recruiting associate. From November 2010 to 2012,
17
Plaintiff employed defendant Carmen Niebla (“Niebla”) as an Account Management and
18
Recruiting Associate.
19
competitive businesses or to solicit Temps On Time’s clientele. In or about the beginning of
20
2012, Robledo and Niebla secretly started a new company, defendant Partnership Staffing, LLC.
21
Like Temps On Time, Partnership Staffing, LLC provides temporary or temporary-to-permanent
22
employees.
23
nonetheless started a competitive enterprise.
24
14.
Temps On Time company policy forbade employees to operate
Thus, though Robledo and Niebla were employed by Temps On Time, they
In or about 2012, on information and belief, Robledo and Niebla contacted Rose
25
& Shore and Rite-Way and encouraged Rose & Shore and Rite-Way to breach the Contract with
26
Temps On Time. Further, Robledo and Niebla encouraged Rose & Shore and Rite-Way to hire
27
the very same workers provided to Rose & Shore and Rite-Way by Temps On Time, but to hire
28
those employees using the services of Partnership Staffing, LLC, rather than Temps On Time. - 4-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
15.
In or about May 2012, Rose & Shore and Rite-Way terminated the Contract. At
2
or about the same time, Rose & Shore and Rite-Way began employing the very same workers
3
provided by Temps On Time in violation of the terms of the Contract. Plaintiff is informed and
4
believes that Rose & Shore and Rite-Way are employing these employees using the services of
5
Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC
6
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
7
BREACH OF CONTRACT
8
(Against Rose & Shore and Rite-Way)
9
16.
10 11 12 13
Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the above allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
17.
In or about March 2011, Plaintiff and Rose & Shore and Rite-Way entered into
the Contract. 18.
In or about May 2012, Rose & Shore and Rite-Way breached the Contract. Rose
14
& Shore and Rite-Way hired or used for employment purposes contract and temp-to-hire
15
employees placed at the work site originally by Temps On Time and failed to pay the contracted
16
for Conversion Fees or Direct Hire Policy premiums.
17 18
19.
As a result of Rose & Shore’s and Rite-Way’s actions, Plaintiff was damaged by
Rose & Shore’s and Rite-Way’s in an amount to be proven at trial.
19
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
20
BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT
21
(Against Rose & Shore and Rite-Way)
22 23 24
20.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the
above allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 21.
In or about March 2011, Plaintiff and Rose & Shore and Rite-Way entered into an
25
oral contract whereby Temps On Time would provide temporary workers to Rose & Shore and
26
Rite-Way at a 25% mark-up. Temps On Time recruited, screened, selected and tested each of
27
the employees. Temps On Time kept track of the employees’ hours worked through an
28
automated timekeeping system. Temps On Time also paid workers compensation insurance and - 5-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
payroll taxes associated with each employee. 22.
In or about May 2012, Rose & Shore and Rite-Way breached the oral contract.
3
Rose & Shore and Rite-Way hired or used for employment purposes contract and temp-to-hire
4
employees placed at the work site originally by Temps On Time and failed to pay the contracted
5
for Conversion Fees or Direct Hire Policy premiums.
6 7
23.
As a result of Rose & Shore’s and Rite-Way’s actions, Plaintiff was damaged by
Rose & Shore’s and Rite-Way’s in an amount to be proven at trial.
8
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
9
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
10
(Against Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC)
11
24.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the above allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
25.
Plaintiff and defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way had a valid, existing
Contract. 26.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC had knowledge of the
Contract. 27.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC intended to and did
induce Rose & Shore and Rite-Way to breach the Contract with Temps On Time.
19
28.
Defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way breached the Contract.
20
29.
The actions of Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnerhship Staffing proximately
21
caused damage to Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial.
22
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
24
(Against Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC)
25
30.
26 27 28
Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the above allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
31.
Plaintiff and defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way way were in an economic
relationship that carried the possibility of future economic benefit to Plaintiff. - 6-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2 3
32.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC had knowledge of the
relationship between Plaintiff and Rose & Shore and Rite-Way. 33.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC committed
4
intentional, wrongful acts designed to disrupt the relationship between Plaintiff and defendants
5
Rose & Shore and Rite-Way, and the relatinoshp was actually disrupted. Defendant Robledo’s,
6
Niebla’s and Partnership Staffing, LLC’s acts were wrongful by some measure beyond the fact
7
of the interference itself, including, but not limited to, the fact that Robledo’s, Niebla’s and
8
Partnership Staffing, LLC’s acts violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.
9 10
34.
The actions of Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC proximately caused
damage to Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial.
11
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12
NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
13
(Against Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC)
14
35.
15
Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the above allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
16
36.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC owed Plaintiff a duty.
17
37.
Plaintiff and defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way way were in an economic
18 19 20 21
relationship that carried the possibility of future economic benefit to Plaintiff. 38.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC had knowledge of the
relationship between Plaintiff and Rose & Shore and Rite-Way. 39.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC committed
22
intentional, wrongful acts designed to disrupt the relationship, and the relationship was actually
23
disrupted. Robledo’s, Niebla’s and Partnership Staffing, LLC’s acts were wrongful by some
24
measure beyond the fact of the interference itself, including, but not limited to, the fact that
25
Robledo’s, Niebla’s and Partnership Staffing, LLC’s acts violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
26
Section 17200.
27 28
40.
The actions of defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnerhship Staffing proximately
caused damage to Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial. - 7-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
3
(Against all Defendants)
4 5
41.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the
above allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
6
42.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC owed Plaintiff a duty.
7
43.
Plaintiff and defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way way were in an economic
8
relationship that benefitted Plaintiff and carried the possibility of future economic benefit to
9
Plaintiff.
10 11
44.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC had knowledge of the
relationship between Plaintiff and Rose & Shore and Rite-Way.
12
45.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC, conspired with
13
defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way to commit intentional, wrongful acts designed to disrupt
14
the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way, and the
15
relationship was actually disrupted. Robledo’s, Niebla’s and Partnership Staffing, LLC knew
16
that defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way used employees staffed by Plaintiff. Defendants
17
Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC knew that the contract between Plaintiff and
18
defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way required payment of Conversion Fees or Direct Hire
19
fees if Rose & Shore and Rite-Way continued to use the employees provided to them by
20
Plaintiff. Defendas Rose & Shore and Rite-Way conspired with defendants Robledo, Niebla and
21
Partnership Staffing, LLC to interfere with Plaintiff’s business, to deprive Plaintiff fees
22
generated through Plaintiff’s relationship with Rose & Shore and Rite-Way and deprive Plaintiff
23
of Conversion Fees and Direct Hire charges and other economic benefits.
24
46.
Defendants and each of them engages in the wrongful actions that they consipred
25
to engage in and those acts were wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference
26
itself, including, but not limited to, the fact that Defendants’ acts violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
27
Section 17200.
28
/// - 8-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
JUSTIN H. SANDERS (SBN 211488) [email protected] REGINALD ROBERTS, JR. (SBN 216249) [email protected] SANDERS ROBERTS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213-943-1314 Facsimile: 213-234-4581 Attorneys for Temps On Time, Inc.
7 8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
TEMPS ON TIME,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ROSE & SHORE, INC., a California ) corporation, RITE-WAY MEAT PACKERS, ) INC., a California corporation, JUDITH ) ROBLEDO, an individual, CARMEN ) NIEBLA, an individual, PARTNERSHIP ) STAFFING, LLC, a California Limited ) Liability Company, and DOES 1 to 10, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) )
Case No. _________________ [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED] COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; 2. BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT; 3. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT; 4. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; 5. NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; and 6. CIVIL CONSPIRACY
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 1-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
1.
Plaintiff Temps On Time is and at all times relevant to this complaint was a
2
California corporation doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and this
3
judicial district.
4
2.
Defendant Rose & Shore, Inc. is and at all times relevant to this complaint was a
5
California corporation doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and this
6
judicial district.
7
3.
Defendant Rite-Way Meat Packers, Inc. is and at all times relevant to this
8
complaint was a California corporation doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of
9
California, and this judicial district.
10
4.
Defendant Partnership Staffing, LLC is and at all times relevant to this complaint
11
was a California corporation doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California,
12
and this judicial district.
13 14 15 16 17
5.
Defendant Judith Robledo is and at all times relevant to this complaint was an
individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 6.
Defendant Carmen Niebla is and at all times relevant to this complaint was an
individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 7.
Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities, whether individual,
18
corporate, associate, or otherwise of Defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues
19
these defendants by such fictitious names and will ask leave of court, if necessary, to amend this
20
complaint to show the true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained.
21
8.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that at all times mentioned
22
herein, Defendants, and each of them, were acting as the agents, servants, and employees of each
23
of the other defendants and were acting within the course and scope of their agency and
24
employment with the full knowledge and consent, either expressed or implied, of each of the
25
other defendants.
26
9.
Plaintiff is informed and thereon allege that Defendants, and each of them,
27
including those designated as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for
28
the occurrences and happenings herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’ damages as herein alleged, - 2-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
were and are the direct and proximate result of the actions of said defendants, and each of them.
2
Said defendants are sued as principals, agents, partners, servants, employees, and co-
3
conspirators, whose alleged actions were performed within the course and scope of their
4
authority and employment, and with the knowledge, consent, approval, and ratification of said
5
principals, and each of them.
6
10.
Whenever in this complaint reference is made to any act of defendant or
7
defendants, such allegation shall be deemed to mean the acts of the defendant or defendants
8
named in the particular cause of action and each of them, acting individually, jointly, and
9
severally. This action is not subject to Civil Code section 1812.10, or to Civil Code section
10
2984.4 and inconsistent allegations are pleaded throughout in the alternative.
11
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
12
11.
Plaintiff Temps On Time (“Temps On Time”) is a well-known provider of
13
temporary or temporary-to-permanent employees. In or about March 2011, Temps On Time
14
began providing temporary employees to defendants Rose & Shore, Inc. (“Rose & Shore”) and
15
Rite-Way Meat Packers, Inc. (“Rite-Way”). Temps On Time recruited, screened, selected and
16
tested each of the employees provided to Rose & Shore and Rite-Way. Temps On Time kept
17
track of the employees’ hours worked through an automated timekeeping system. Temps On
18
Time also paid workers compensation insurance and payroll taxes associated with each
19
employee.
20
12.
Plaintiff is informed and believes that Rose & Shore and Rite-Way are closely-
21
affiliated corporations owned and controlled in large part by Irwin Miller (“Miller”). Plaintiff is
22
informed and believes that Miller is the president of Rose & Shore and the chief executive
23
officer of Rite-Way. In or about March 2011, Plaintiff transmitted Plaintiff’s Standard Client
24
Agreement (the “Contract”) to Miller and John Perdue (“Perdue”), the chief operating officer of
25
Rite-Way. (A true and correct copy of an unsigned version of the Contract attached hereto as
26
Exhibit A.) Plaintiff is informed and believes that a representative of Rose & Shore or Rite-Way
27
signed the Contract and kept a fully-executed version and that Defendants Judith Robledo or
28
Carmen Niebla took the executed copy of the agreement from Temps On Time when they - 3-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
formed Defendant Partnership Staffing, LLC. The Contract contains express provisions that
2
forbid Temps On Time’s clients from secretly soliciting and hiring employees supplied to Rose
3
& Share and Rite-Way by Temps On Time. The Contract further provides for specific penalties
4
should a Temps On Time client breach the terms of the Contract.
5
The “Conversion Fee” agreement within the Contract states as follows: “If the client hires our temporary employee onto its payroll before the 580 hours, client will pay the difference between the hourly amount billed to the client and the hourly amount paid to the temporary employee for each remaining hour as its conversion fee.”
6 7 8 9
In addition, the Contract contains a “Direct Hire Policy” that provides the following: “If the client or any of its affiliates engages the services of our temporary (as a regular or temporary employee, consultant, independent contractor, or otherwise) within one year after the last day of any assignment through Temps On Time, within one 1 year of the last representation by Temps On Time to your company or its subsidiaries, or hires our temporary within the first two weeks of any assignment, Client will be charged our standard direct hire fee, calculated at 10% of the annual base salary compensation, unless otherwise agreed upon by Temps On Time.”
10 11 12 13 14 15
13.
From approximately November 2009 to 2012, Plaintiff employed defendant
16
Judith Robledo (“Robledo”) as a Sales and Recruiting associate. From November 2010 to 2012,
17
Plaintiff employed defendant Carmen Niebla (“Niebla”) as an Account Management and
18
Recruiting Associate.
19
competitive businesses or to solicit Temps On Time’s clientele. In or about the beginning of
20
2012, Robledo and Niebla secretly started a new company, defendant Partnership Staffing, LLC.
21
Like Temps On Time, Partnership Staffing, LLC provides temporary or temporary-to-permanent
22
employees.
23
nonetheless started a competitive enterprise.
24
14.
Temps On Time company policy forbade employees to operate
Thus, though Robledo and Niebla were employed by Temps On Time, they
In or about 2012, on information and belief, Robledo and Niebla contacted Rose
25
& Shore and Rite-Way and encouraged Rose & Shore and Rite-Way to breach the Contract with
26
Temps On Time. Further, Robledo and Niebla encouraged Rose & Shore and Rite-Way to hire
27
the very same workers provided to Rose & Shore and Rite-Way by Temps On Time, but to hire
28
those employees using the services of Partnership Staffing, LLC, rather than Temps On Time. - 4-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
15.
In or about May 2012, Rose & Shore and Rite-Way terminated the Contract. At
2
or about the same time, Rose & Shore and Rite-Way began employing the very same workers
3
provided by Temps On Time in violation of the terms of the Contract. Plaintiff is informed and
4
believes that Rose & Shore and Rite-Way are employing these employees using the services of
5
Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC
6
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
7
BREACH OF CONTRACT
8
(Against Rose & Shore and Rite-Way)
9
16.
10 11 12 13
Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the above allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
17.
In or about March 2011, Plaintiff and Rose & Shore and Rite-Way entered into
the Contract. 18.
In or about May 2012, Rose & Shore and Rite-Way breached the Contract. Rose
14
& Shore and Rite-Way hired or used for employment purposes contract and temp-to-hire
15
employees placed at the work site originally by Temps On Time and failed to pay the contracted
16
for Conversion Fees or Direct Hire Policy premiums.
17 18
19.
As a result of Rose & Shore’s and Rite-Way’s actions, Plaintiff was damaged by
Rose & Shore’s and Rite-Way’s in an amount to be proven at trial.
19
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
20
BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT
21
(Against Rose & Shore and Rite-Way)
22 23 24
20.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the
above allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 21.
In or about March 2011, Plaintiff and Rose & Shore and Rite-Way entered into an
25
oral contract whereby Temps On Time would provide temporary workers to Rose & Shore and
26
Rite-Way at a 25% mark-up. Temps On Time recruited, screened, selected and tested each of
27
the employees. Temps On Time kept track of the employees’ hours worked through an
28
automated timekeeping system. Temps On Time also paid workers compensation insurance and - 5-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
payroll taxes associated with each employee. 22.
In or about May 2012, Rose & Shore and Rite-Way breached the oral contract.
3
Rose & Shore and Rite-Way hired or used for employment purposes contract and temp-to-hire
4
employees placed at the work site originally by Temps On Time and failed to pay the contracted
5
for Conversion Fees or Direct Hire Policy premiums.
6 7
23.
As a result of Rose & Shore’s and Rite-Way’s actions, Plaintiff was damaged by
Rose & Shore’s and Rite-Way’s in an amount to be proven at trial.
8
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
9
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
10
(Against Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC)
11
24.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the above allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
25.
Plaintiff and defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way had a valid, existing
Contract. 26.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC had knowledge of the
Contract. 27.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC intended to and did
induce Rose & Shore and Rite-Way to breach the Contract with Temps On Time.
19
28.
Defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way breached the Contract.
20
29.
The actions of Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnerhship Staffing proximately
21
caused damage to Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial.
22
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
24
(Against Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC)
25
30.
26 27 28
Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the above allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
31.
Plaintiff and defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way way were in an economic
relationship that carried the possibility of future economic benefit to Plaintiff. - 6-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2 3
32.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC had knowledge of the
relationship between Plaintiff and Rose & Shore and Rite-Way. 33.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC committed
4
intentional, wrongful acts designed to disrupt the relationship between Plaintiff and defendants
5
Rose & Shore and Rite-Way, and the relatinoshp was actually disrupted. Defendant Robledo’s,
6
Niebla’s and Partnership Staffing, LLC’s acts were wrongful by some measure beyond the fact
7
of the interference itself, including, but not limited to, the fact that Robledo’s, Niebla’s and
8
Partnership Staffing, LLC’s acts violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.
9 10
34.
The actions of Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC proximately caused
damage to Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial.
11
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12
NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
13
(Against Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC)
14
35.
15
Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the above allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
16
36.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC owed Plaintiff a duty.
17
37.
Plaintiff and defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way way were in an economic
18 19 20 21
relationship that carried the possibility of future economic benefit to Plaintiff. 38.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC had knowledge of the
relationship between Plaintiff and Rose & Shore and Rite-Way. 39.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC committed
22
intentional, wrongful acts designed to disrupt the relationship, and the relationship was actually
23
disrupted. Robledo’s, Niebla’s and Partnership Staffing, LLC’s acts were wrongful by some
24
measure beyond the fact of the interference itself, including, but not limited to, the fact that
25
Robledo’s, Niebla’s and Partnership Staffing, LLC’s acts violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
26
Section 17200.
27 28
40.
The actions of defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnerhship Staffing proximately
caused damage to Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial. - 7-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
3
(Against all Defendants)
4 5
41.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the
above allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
6
42.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC owed Plaintiff a duty.
7
43.
Plaintiff and defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way way were in an economic
8
relationship that benefitted Plaintiff and carried the possibility of future economic benefit to
9
Plaintiff.
10 11
44.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC had knowledge of the
relationship between Plaintiff and Rose & Shore and Rite-Way.
12
45.
Defendants Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC, conspired with
13
defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way to commit intentional, wrongful acts designed to disrupt
14
the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way, and the
15
relationship was actually disrupted. Robledo’s, Niebla’s and Partnership Staffing, LLC knew
16
that defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way used employees staffed by Plaintiff. Defendants
17
Robledo, Niebla and Partnership Staffing, LLC knew that the contract between Plaintiff and
18
defendants Rose & Shore and Rite-Way required payment of Conversion Fees or Direct Hire
19
fees if Rose & Shore and Rite-Way continued to use the employees provided to them by
20
Plaintiff. Defendas Rose & Shore and Rite-Way conspired with defendants Robledo, Niebla and
21
Partnership Staffing, LLC to interfere with Plaintiff’s business, to deprive Plaintiff fees
22
generated through Plaintiff’s relationship with Rose & Shore and Rite-Way and deprive Plaintiff
23
of Conversion Fees and Direct Hire charges and other economic benefits.
24
46.
Defendants and each of them engages in the wrongful actions that they consipred
25
to engage in and those acts were wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference
26
itself, including, but not limited to, the fact that Defendants’ acts violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
27
Section 17200.
28
/// - 8-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
