Los Angeles, CA 90066

1. This first amended complaint was brought about because of events subsequent to the original complaint. The original complaint dealt primarily with a claim of wages that were paid in violation of the minimum wage and overtime laws. A separate claim had been filed with the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement against Plaintiff�s then employer Defendant SKYCAR. After they contacted Defendant Laura Nelson who manages SKYCAR, Plaintiff was asked to confirm that he had filed the claim. When he did, he was terminated. This complaint amends the original complaint with causes of action relating to Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, Retaliation, Unfair Business Practices, and Declaratory Relief to strip Defendant Skycar, Inc. of its limited liability status as a corporation.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Gary Robinson is the sole Plaintiff and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
3. Defendant Skycar (SKYCAR), is a business organization form unknown.
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant Skycar, Inc. is a corporation; that defendant SKYCAR is a partnership; that Defendant Ruth Kardashian is a partner of SKYCAR; that Defendant Ruth Kardashian is a sole proprietor doing business as SKYCAR; that Defendant Laura L. Nelson is a partner of SKYCAR; that Defendant Laura L. Nelson is a sole proprietor doing business as SKYCAR, ; that Defendant Laura L. Nelson is a sole proprietor doing business as Metropolitan Express (METRO).
5. Defendant SKYCAR is headquarted at 7135 W. Manchester Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045.
6. Defendant METRO is headquarted at 7135 W. Manchester Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045.
7. Defendant Laura L. Nelson dba: Metro. Express resides at 8523 Flight Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90045.
8. Plaintiff Robinson worked for Skycar since February of 2001 until August 2, 2004.
9. Defendant Skycar is an airport limousine service (TCP 7934).
10. Defendant Metro (TCP 4928) is also an airport transportation company that shuttles passengers to and from LAX in vans.

EMPLOYER - EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

11. Defendant Skycar registered to work at LAX. None of it�s cars has a meter and the drivers are not allowed to pickup customers who have not been dispatched to them. Ninety-eight percent more or less of the fares are to or from LAX. All customers are charged a flat fee..
12. The only qualification for employment was a valid driver�s license and a clean DMV printout..
13. Employee training consisted of riding along with another driver for one day
14. Drivers worked either of two shifts: Morning shift ( 4:30 AM to 12:30 PM): Evening shift (12:30 PM to 12:30 AM): (note: the shift times vary bases on business for the day with overtime being common.)
15. The Plaintiff and all of the drivers for both Defendant Skycar and Defendant Metro are treated as independent contractors.
16. Said drivers have receive neither W-2�s or 1099�s.
17. Skycar drivers receive 45% of the fares less a $5 administrative fee and less cost of gasoline.
18. On most days Plaintiff received less than the California minimum wage excluding tips.
19. Plaintiff�s average hourly compensation excluding gratuities was about $5 per hour the precise amount to be determined at trial.
20. Plaintiff frequently worked more than eight hours in a day.
21. Drivers are charged for damages to cars up to $500 per incident and may be terminated anyway.
22. Drivers must deposit $500 to cover the cost of these damages. The deposit is collect at $5 per day until $500 is collected.
23. Plaintiff broke a taillight and was charged $450.
24. Said breakage was neither intentional or involved gross negligence.
25. Management has told the drivers that they are independent contractors and are not eligible for unemployment or workers compensation benefits.
26. Management did not withhold for social security or SSI.
27. Two former drivers were in disabling accidents while on the job, but did not receive workers compensation.
28. Defendant Skycar, in the spring of 20003, attempted to change it�s employment relationship with Plaintiff�s by offering to sell Plaintiff�s the cars used by Skycar. Some, but not all of Skycar�s employee�s agreed to purchase the car�s. Skycar revoked the offer and decided to continue the operation with Skycar owning all of the cars.
29. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive and will amend their Complaint toward the same as soon as ascertained
30. Plaintiff are informed and believe and, on that basis allege, that each of the fictitiously named Defendants were in some manner legally responsible for the unlawful actions, unlawful policies, and unlawful practices, including the refusal to pay minimum wage and overtime as required by California law.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, Labor Code ��1094, 510, & 1197)

31. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through xx are incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
32. All work done by Plaintiff for SkyCar was as an employee of Defendant Skycar.
33. The laws of the State of California require an employer, such as Defendant, to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation to all non-exempt employees. Plaintiff was an employee and not exempt from overtime pay requirements under California law.
34. Plaintiff was not exempt from the right to receive overtime pay under California law and was not exempt from the requirement that his employer pay him overtime compensation under California law. Plaintiff was always and employee and did not have at any time under any exemption from the requirement that their employer pay overtime compensation under California law. Plaintiff is entitled to be paid minimum wage and overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.
35. Defendants have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff the minimum wage and overtime compensation owed to the Plaintiff for hours worked as required by California wage and hour laws.
36. As a result of the actions of Defendants in failing and refusing to pay overtime compensation, the Plaintiff was damaged by not receiving overtime compensation which he should have received, but did not receive. Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for unpaid overtime, together with pre-judgment interest.
37. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff is entitled to receive an award of reasonable attorneys� fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code '1194.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Misappropriation of Gratuities, Labor Code �351)

38. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through xx are incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
39. California Labor Code �351 states that "Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left for. An employer that permits patrons to pay gratuities by credit card shall pay the employees the full amount of the gratuity that the patron indicated on the credit card slip, without any deductions for any credit card payment processing fees or costs that may be charged to the employer by the credit card company. Payment of gratuities made by patrons using credit cards shall be made to the employees not later than the next regular payday following the date the patron authorized the credit card payment."
40. All of Defendant Skycar�s customers are charged a flat fee..
41. Customers of Defendant Skycar are charged 20% additional if they use a credit card.
42. Defendant Skycar tells customers that said 20% charge is a gratuity that goes to the driver.
43. All or part of said gratuity does not go to the driver.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, Labor Code ��98.6, 232, & 232.5)

44. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through xx are incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
45. Plaintiff's termination was in retaliation for his making a minimum wage of overtime claim against Defendant SKYCAR with the Department of Labor Standard Enforcement.
46. California Labor Code �98.6(a) prohibits the discharge of any employee who " has filed a bona fide complaint or claim or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or relating to his or her rights, which are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner."
47. California Labor Code �98.6(b) states that any employee who was discharge under the above said conditions is "entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by such acts of the employer. Any employer who willfully refuses to hire, promote, or otherwise restore an employee or former employee who has been determined to be eligible for such rehiring or promotion by a grievance procedure, arbitration or hearing authorized by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
48. California Labor Code �232 states that "No employer may . . . (c) Discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise discriminate against an employee who discloses the amount of his or her wages."
49. California Labor Code �232.5 states that "No employer may . . . (c) Discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise discriminate against an employee who discloses information about the employer's working conditions"
50. By violating the Labor Code ��232, 232.5 & 98.6(b) Defendant SKYCAR and Defendant Laura Nelson have unlawfully and wrongfully terminated Plaintiff in violation of public law and is liable for punitive damages.
51. As a result of defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, bonuses, and other employment benefits, and has incurred legal costs, all to his damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court, the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code Section 3287 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest.
52. As a further result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of defendants, Plaintiff suffered anxiety, humiliation, mental anguish, embarrassment, worry, sleeplessness, mental and emotional distress, loss of reputation, and other incidental damages and out-of-pocket expenses, all to Plaintiff's general damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court, with the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure To Pay Compensation At The Time Of Termination, Labor Code ��201, 202, & 203)

53. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through xx are incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
54. California Labor Code �201 requires an employer who discharges an employee to pay compensation due and owing to said employee immediately upon discharge.. California Labor Code �201 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay compensation promptly upon discharge or resignation in a prompt and timely manner as required pursuant to California Labor Code '201, said employer is liable to said employee for waiting time penalties as described herein.
55. Defendants have willfully failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to pay compensation and wages, including unpaid overtime pay, a wrongfully withheld bond and amounts wrongfully applies to damaged cars, to Plaintiff whose employment terminated in a timely manner as required by Labor Code ''201-202.
56. Defendants� failure to timely pay overtime compensation and wages to Plaintiff at the time of termination of employment as alleged is willful. Defendants have willfully failed and refused and continue to willfully fail to pay compensation owed (including unpaid overtime) in a prompt manner as is required under California Labor Code ''201-203. As a result, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for waiting time penalties under California Labor Code 201 in an amount to be ascertained at trial, together with prejudgment interest.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Record Keeping Violation, Labor Code ��226, & 226.7)

57. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through xx are incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
58. California Labor Code �226(b) requires an employer to keep and permit for inspection a writing showing "(1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee. . . . (f) A failure by an employer to permit a current or former employee to inspect or copy records within the time set forth in subdivision (c) entitles the current or former employee or the Labor Commissioner to recover a seven hundred fifty dollar ($750) penalty from the employer. (g) An employee may also bring an action for injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees."
59. Plaintiff had made such a request, by way of discovery in the original complaint to this first amended complaint. Such request has been ignored. Defendant Skycar is thus liable to Plaintiff for damages and statutory penalties relating to said ignored request.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure to Return Bond, Labor Code ��403 & 404(b))

61. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through xx are incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
62. California Labor Code �403 requires of an employer that "If cash is received as a bond . . . (it) be deposited in a savings account in a bank authorized to do business in this State, and may be withdrawn only upon the joint signatures of the employer and the employee or applicant." And California Labor Code �404(b) requires of said deposit that it "Shall be returned to the employee or applicant together with accrued interest thereon, immediately upon the return of the money or property entrusted to the employee or applicant and upon the fulfillment of the agreement, subject only to the deduction necessary to balance accounts between the employer and employee or applicant."
63. Defendant SKYCAR has willfully refused upon demand made in person and in certified mail to return the afore stated $500 deposit taken from Plaintiffs wages wrongfully.

An additional amount of $450 was unlawfully taken from Plaintiffs wages by defendant SKYCAR as a deposit which was applied to alleged damage a SKYCAR vehicle.

64. Plaintiff claims such unreturned deposits of $950 be restored to Plaintiff together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code Section 3287 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation, Labor Code �98.6)

65. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through xx are incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
66. This cause of action arises under California Labor Code section 98.6 which prohibits employers from retaliating 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 a statute or a regulation.
67. In terminating Plaintiff and in other respects presently unknown to Plaintiff, defendants willfully, knowingly and intentionally retaliated against Plaintiff for disclosing such information to a government.
68. As a result of defendants' retaliation against Plaintiff because of his disclosing of information where he had reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state law in violation of the California Labor Code �98.6 there is due and owing to Plaintiff damages under the terms of that act.
69. As a result of defendants' retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, bonuses, and other employment benefits, and has incurred attorneys fees, all to his damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court, the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code Section 3287 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest.
70. As a further result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of defendants, Plaintiff suffered anxiety, humiliation, mental anguish, embarrassment, worry, sleeplessness, mental and emotional distress, loss of reputation, and other incidental damages and out-of-pocket expenses, all to Plaintiff's general damage in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court, with the precise amount to be proved at the time of trial.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business and Professions Code��17200 et. Seq.)

71. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through xx are incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
72. Plaintiff brings this cause of action in a representative capacity on behalf of the general public and the persons affected by the unlawful and unfair conduct described hereafter.
73. The actions by Defendants, including, but not limited to, the failure to pay overtime compensation and to pay all monies due at the time of the termination of employment, constitute unlawful conduct and violations of law as alleged herein. Such actions are also unfair business practices. As such, said conduct amounts to unfair business practices in violation of Business & Professions Code ��17200, et. seq.
74. Plaintiff is informed and believes that The Defendants continue their unlawful and unfair conduct as described herein. As a result of said conduct, The Defendants have unlawfully and unfairly obtained monies due to the plaintiff.
75. The Plaintiff is entitled to restitution of monies due the Plaintiff, as well as disgorgement of the ill gotten gains obtained by the Defendants as a result of said defendants� unlawful and unfair conduct.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Relief to Hold Defendant�s Laura Nelson and Ruth Kardashian liable for the legal obligation of SkyCar, Inc.)

76. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through xx are incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
77. California law holds that "where the recognition of the fiction of separate corporate existence would foster an injustice or further a fraud the courts will refuse to recognize it"
78. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Many of the assets of Defendant Skycar and Defendant Metro are commingled. These include vehicles, TCP licenses, office space, insurance, and employees.
79. SKYCAR and METRO both operate out of the same room at 7135 W. Manchester Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045.
80. Defendant Skycar in 2004 started using Defendant Metro�s TCP license.
81. Both Defendant Skycar and Defendant Metro are family owned and operated with Defendant Laura L. Nelson, and Defendant Ruth Kardashian, associated with the ownership of assets and operations of the business
82. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant Skycar, has failed to meet the formal requirements of the California Corporate law to maintain its status as a separate legal entity, its limited liability status and other separate entity privileges.
83. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant SkyCar Inc. is no longer a separate legal entity, and that there is no legal separation between Defendant SkyCar Inc. and Defendant Laura Nelson and/or Defendant Ruth Kardashian.
84. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant Laura Nelson is using Defendant SkyCar Inc�s. assets while using its limited liability status as a shield for the purpose of evading creditors and other legal obligation.