GARY ROBINSON
0000 Lindblade Dr. #10a
Los Angeles, CA 90066
310-398-0000

Plaintiff in Pro Per

MUNICIPAL COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

West Los Angeles

1633 Purdue Avenue,

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Plaintiff, Gary Robinson, alleges:

1. Plaintiff is and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
2. Defendant, Alex Gorby is, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
3. Defendant, Maxser & Co. LTD is a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Its principal places of business are located at 2904 Washington Blvd., Marina del Rey, CA 90291 and 710 Wilshire Blvd. #409 Santa Monica, CA 90401.
4. Defendant, Alex Gorby is a partner in Maxser & Co. LTD.
5. Defendant, Maxser & Co. LTD owns the Jolly Roger Hotel located at 2904 Washington Blvd., Marina del Rey, CA 90291
6. Defendant, David Davin is, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
7. Defendant, David Davin during periods of Plaintiff's employment the manager of the Jolly Roger Hotel in Marina del Rey.
8. Defendant, David Davin was as agent of Maxser & Co. LTD. During the periods of Plaintiff's employment.
9. Unless otherwise alleged in this complaint, plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of that information and belief alleges, that at all times mentioned in this complaint, defendants were the agents and employees of their codefendants, and in doing the things alleged in this complaint, were acting within the course and scope of that agency and employment.
10. Plaintiff does not know the true names of defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues them by those fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes that DOE defendants are California residents.
11. In September of 1999, plaintiff first became employed by defendant employer at the Jolly Roger Hotel at 2904 Washington Blvd. Marina del Rey, CA 90291.
12. In September of 1999, Defendant David Davin orally promised Plaintiff that after completing a three month probationary period, that plaintiff would receive health benefits.
13. In December of 1999, plaintiff received a year end bonus for high quality work done in the prior months.
14. In December of 1999, not all employees of defendant received a year end bonus for work done in the prior months.
15. In January of 2000, Defendant Alex Gorby orally promised Plaintiff that he would be qualified for health benefits after completing three months of employment.
16. In February of 2000, Defendant David Davin denied that he made a promise of health benefits to Plaintiff after working three months of employment.
17. In February of 2000, Defendant Alex Gorby stated that he had been mistaken about the policy regarding health care benefits
18. In March of 2000, Defendant David Davin gave Plaintiff an newly drafted employee manual.
19. In March of 2000, Defendant David Davin left a message on Plaintiff's answering machine stating that Plaintiff had been terminated. No reason for the termination was stated.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract - Health Insurance)

20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-19 inclusive of this complaint as if fully set forth.
21. During the first week of employment, Defendant David Davin stated to Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would be qualified for the companies health insurance after the probationary period was over. Defendant David Davin stated that the probationary period was three months.
22. At no time did any of the Defendants prior to February of 2000 condition qualification for health insurance on number of hours worked per week.
23. Plaintiff considered health insurance to be a major incentive for continuing employment.
24. Defendant Alex Gorby is Defendant David Davin employer.
25. Defendant Alex Gorby was aware of the number of hours that Plaintiff was working per week.
26. In January of 2000, Defendant Alex Gorby assured Plaintiff that Plaintiff would qualify for company paid heath insurance.
27. In February of 2000, Defendant David Davin informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff would not qualify for health insurance because Plaintiff was not working enough hours and that he would not be assigned more hours.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract - Employment)

28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-27 inclusive of this complaint as if fully set forth.
29. Plaintiff was employed with Defendants under a contract that was partly oral and partly implied. The terms of the contract relied on by the Plaintiff included but were not limited to:

1. Employees would be treated fairly and in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
2. After the completion of a three month introductory or probationary period, employees would only be terminated for cause.

1. Defendant employers breached their contract with Plaintiff by:

1. Failing to treat Plaintiff in accordance with Defendants' stated policies;
2. Terminating Plaintiff in breach of the promises made to him;
3. Terminating Plaintiff without following Defendant employer's policies and practices; and
4. Terminating Plaintiff without cause.

1. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of defendant employer's wrongful termination of Plaintiff has lost and will continue to lose income and benefits in an amount in excess of $ 25,000.00, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)

2. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-31 inclusive of this complaint as if fully set forth.
3. As a result of the employment relationship which existed between plaintiff and defendant employer, the expressed and implied promises made in connection with that relationship, and the acts, conduct, and communications resulting in these implied promises, defendant employer promised to act in good faith toward and deal fairly with plaintiff which requires, among other things, that:

1. Each party in the relationship must act with good faith toward the other concerning all matters related to the employment;
2. Each party in the relationship must act with fairness toward the other concerning all matters related to the employment;
3. Neither party would take any action to unfairly prevent the other from obtaining the benefits of the employment relationship;
4. Defendant employer would similarly treat employees who are similarly situated;
5. Defendant employer would comply with its own representations, rules policies, and procedures in dealing with plaintiff;
6. Defendant employer would not terminate plaintiff without a fair and honest cause, regulated by good faith on Defendant employer's part;
7. Defendant employer would not terminate plaintiff in an unfair manner; and
8. Defendant employer would give Plaintiff's interest as much consideration as it gave its own interests.

1. Defendant employer's termination of Plaintiff was wrongful, in bad faith, and unfair, and therefore a violation of Defendant employer's legal duties. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant employer breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it:

1. Repeatedly refused to abide by its own policies when dealing with Plaintiff;
2. Repeatedly denied the existence of the contract and the agreements made with plaintiff;
3. Unfairly prevented Plaintiff from obtaining the benefits of his employment relationship;
4. Treated similarly situated employees differently by imposing different responsibilities on similarly situated employees, and by tolerating poor performance by other similarly situated employees;
5. Terminated Plaintiff's employment for expressing legitimate concerns about Defendant's promised health insurance benefits;
6. Terminated Plaintiff's employment for no or false reasons and in a manner that was inconsistent with defendant employer's stated policies and practices.

1. Defendant's breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing was a substantial factor in causing damage and injury to Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result Defendant's unlawful conduct alleged in this complaint, Plaintiff has lost substantial employment benefits with Defendant employer, including lost wages, and other employee fringe benefits in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as set forth in this complaint.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Public Policy)

2. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-35 inclusive of this complaint as if fully set forth.
3. Plaintiff alleges that his termination was wrongful because it was in violation of the public policy of the State of California in that the Plaintiff's termination was in retaliation for demands that Defendant honor Defendant's promise to pay health insurance benefits to Plaintiff after three months of employment.
4. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of defendant employer's wrongful termination of Plaintiff has lost and will continue to lose income and benefits in an amount in excess of $ 25,000.00, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.
5. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial employees acting in a deliberate, cold, callous, malicious, oppressive, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff requests the assessment of punitive damages against defendant employer in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of defendant employer.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. For compensatory damages, including lost wages and benefits, and emotional distress damages, in excess of $ 25,000.00 and according to proof;
2. For punitive damages according to proof;
3. For prejudgment interest on all amounts claimed; and
4. For any other and further relief that the court considers proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands trial of this matter by jury.

Dated _______________

_________________________________

Gary Robinson