Cosentino Complaint Vs Pechanga Gaming Commission

2
ANDREW W. TWIETMEYER State Bar No. 254436

LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW W. TWIETMEYER
10780 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 401
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Tel:
3
4
5
SU~t~~~~lffhRiPHJ
MAR 25 2013
C. Mundo
(310)909-7138
Fax: (310)446-2140
email: awt@twietmeyerlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff, BENEDICT COSENTINO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
11
BENEDICT COSENTINO,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
CaseNo.:MCC
VS.
STELLA FULLER (an individual); JOHN R.

MAGEE (an individual); JASON P.
MALDONADO; (an individual); \.VILLIAM R.
RAMOS (an individual); ROBERT B. VARGA
(an individual); and DOES 1 to 50 inclusive,
Defendants.
I7
\?JDrJJ/1lf
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:

1) Intentional Interferenee with
Prospective Economic Advantage
2) Negligent Interference with
Prospective Economic Advantage
3) Intentional Interference with Right to
Pursue Lawful Occupation
4) Violation of Cal. Civil Code 52.1
5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress
6) Negligent Infliction of Emotional
Distress
7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional
Distress
19
Demand for Jury Trial

20
21
22
Plaintiff Benedict Cosentino ("Mr. Cosentino"), hereby submits his Complaint in this
23
24
action:
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
SUMMARY OF THE ACTION
PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff Benedict Cosentino is an individual who resides in the City of Temecula in
the County of Riverside California. Mr. Cosentino is a former employee of the Pechanga Resort
and Casino where he worked as a table games dealer until the spring of 2011.
6
7
8
9
10
11
2.
The Pechanga Gaming Commission (the "Commission") is a five-member elected
body that was formed pursuant to Section 4 of the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance of 1992.
3.
Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant
Stella Fuller ("Fuller") is an individual who resides in the City of Temecula in the County of
Riverside California. Fuller is herein named in her individual capacity.
4.
12
Robert B. Vargas ("Vargas") is an individual who resides in the City of Temecula in the County
13
of Riverside California. Vargas is herein named in his individual capacity.
14
5.
15
Jason P. Maldonado ("Maldonado") is an individual who resides in the City of Temecula in the
16
County of Riverside California. Maldonado is herein named in his individual capacity.
17
6.
18
William R. Ramos ("Ramos") is an individual who resides in the City of Hemet in the County of
19
Riverside California. Ramos is herein named in his individual capacity.
20
7.
21
John R. Magee ("Magee") is an individual who resides in the City of Temecula in the County or
22
Riverside California. Magee is herein named in his individual capacity.
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
8.
The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise
of Defendants named DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Mr. Cosentino, who
therefore sues such Defendants by such fictitious names. Mr. Cosentino is informed and
believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, are in some
manner responsible and/or liable for the damages and/or action alleged herein. Mr. Cosentino
will seek leave of this Court to amend his Complaint to show their true names and capacities
once they are discovered.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these proceedings pursuant to the
1O general jurisdiction granted by the California Constitution.

11
10.
This Court possesses personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are found
12
and are doing business in the State of California and/or have sufficient minimum contacts with
13
California so as to render the exercise of general or specific jurisdiction by the California courts
14
permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
11.
15
Venue is proper in Riverside County as against Defendants pursuant to Sections 394
16
and 395 of the California Code of Civil Procedure bfcause one or more of the Defendants reside
17
in this County.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
18
19
20
A.
The Pechan1:a Casino

12.
The Pechanga Resort and Casino (the "Pechanga Casino") is a Native American tribal
21
gaming Casino owned and managed by the Pechanga Band ofLuisefio Mission Indians (the
22
"Pechanga Band"), a federally recognized Indian Tribe.
23
13.
The Pechanga Casino conducts "class III gaming" as that term is defined at section
24
2703(8) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act which is found at Title 25 sections 2701 et. seq. of
25
the United States Code (the "IGRA"). The IGRA's implementing regulations are found at Title
26
25, Chapter III of the Code of Federal Regulations.
27
28
3
14.
IGRA section 2710(d)(2)(A) requires that "If any Indian tribe proposes to engage in,
or to authorize any person or entity to engage in, a class III gaming activity on Indian lands of
the Indian tribe, the governing body of the Indian tribe shall adopt and submit to the Chairman
[of the National Indian Gaming Commission (the "NIGC")] an ordinance or resolution that
meets the requirements of subsection (b) of this section."
15.
IGRA section 2710(d)(l)(C) provides that "Class III gaming activities shall be lawful
on Indian lands only if such activities are ... conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State
compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the State under paragraph (3) that is in effect."
16.
Pursuant to IGRA section 2710(d)(2)(A), on February 13, 1994 the Pechanga Band
10
adopted Ordinance number 92.01 amending the Pechanga Gaming Act of 1992 (the "Pechanga
11
Gaming Ordinance").
12
13
14
17.
On or about April 12, 1994, the Chairman of the NIGC approved the Pechanga
Gaming Ordinance pursuant to IGRA section 2710(d)(l)(iii).

18.
On or about September 10, 1999, pursuant to IGRAsection 2710(d)(l)(C) and
15
section 12 of the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Pechanga Band entered the Tribal-State
16
Gaming Compact with the state of California. The Pechanga Band and the State later amended
17
the aforementioned Tribal-State Gaming Compact in August 2006. The Tribal-State Gaming
18
Compact, as amended, is herein referred to as the "Tribal-State Compact."
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
19.
Pursuant to IGRA section 2710(d)(2)(C), the Pechanga Casino's gaming activities are
governed by and fully subject to the Tribal-State Compact.

20.
The Tribal-State Compact states at section l.O(c) that it is designed and intended to,
among other things, promote ethical gaming practices,

through the licensing and control of persons and entities employed in,
or providing goods and services to, the Tribe's Gaming Operation and
protecting against the presence or participation of persons whose
criminal backgrounds, reputations, character, or associations make them
unsuitable for participation in gaming, thereby maintaining a high level
of integrity in tribal government gaming.
27
28
4
21.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
To that end, the Tribal-State Compact requires at section 6.4.1 that all persons in any
way connected with the Pechanga Casino including all gaming employees must be licensed by a
Tribal Gaming Agency.
B.
The Pechanga Gaming Commission

22.
The Pechanga Gaming Commission (the "Commission") is the Tribal Agency
referred to at section 6.4.1 of the Tribal-State Compact. Section 4 of the Pechanga Gaming
Ordinance, established the Commission. The Commission is a five-member elected body
charged with monitoring gaming activities, investigating wrongdoing, conducting background
investigations, and issuing gaming licenses.
23.
The Commission is a governmental subdivision of the Pechanga Band.
24.
As required by section 6.4.l of the Tribal-State Compact and IGRAsection 2710(b)
(2)(F)(ii)(I), the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, at section 10 sets forth the Commission's
licensing authority and requires that all Key Employees of the Pechanga Casino must have a
class A gaming license issued by the Commission.
25.
Under the Tribal-State Compact, the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance and the IGRA, the
Commission does not have discretionary authority to issue, and deny class A gaming licenses as
to whomever the Commission pleases.
26.
On the contrary, the Commission's authority to issue and deny class A gaming
licenses is limited to specific circumstances and is subject to reporting and review requirements.
27.
For example, section 6.4.3 of the Tribal-State Compact provides that, in addition to
all of the requirements set forth in the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance and the IGRA, the
Commission must be satisfied that an applicant for a license is:
(a) A person of good character, honesty and integrity.
25
26
27
28
5
(b) A person whose prior activities, criminal record (if any), reputation,
habits, and associations do not pose a threat to the public interest or to
the effective regulation and control of gambling, or create or enhance
the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal practices, methods, or
activities in the conduct of gambling, or in the carrying on of the
business and financial arrangements incidental thereto.
(c) A person who is in all other respects qualified to be licensed as
provided in this Gaming Compact, IGRA, the Tribal Gaming
Ordinance, and any other criteria adopted by the Tribal Gaming Agency
or the Tribe. An applicant shall not be found to be unsuitable solely on
the ground that the applicant was an employee of a tribal gaming
operation in California that was conducted prior to the effective date of
this Compact.
1
2
5
6
7
8
28.
Additionally, section 6.4.8 of the Tribal-State Compact provides that the Commission
10
shall conduct or cause to be conducted all necessary background investigations reasonably

11
required to determine that an applicant is qualified for a gaming license under the standards set
12
forth in Section 6.4.3 of the Tribal-State Compact, and to fulfill the requirements for licensing
13
under the Tribal-State Compact, the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, and the IGRA.
14
29.
Additionally, IGRA section 2710(b)(2)(F)(ii)(llI) requires the Commission to notify
15
the NIGC of the results of its background investigation of any applicant before the Commission
16
issues a class A gaming license to that applicant.

17
30.
Additionally, under Section 6.5.6 of the Tribal-State Compact, the Commission may
18
not license any applicant for a class A gaming license without first notifying the State of its
19
intent to license and without first requiring the applicant to apply to the State Gaming Agency
20
for a determination of suitability. Under section 6.4.4(b), subject to limited exceptions, the
21
Pechanga Band may not employ any person for whom the State has not issued a determination
22
of suitability.
23
31.
Additionally, the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance Section 10(e)( 1) provides that prior to
24
issuing a class A gaming license:

25
26
27
The Gaming Commission shall conduct or cause to be conducted a

background investigation to determine if such person has:
28
6
(a) Any criminal record or any reputation, prior activities, habits or

associations which might pose a threat to the public interest or to the
effective regulation of gaming.
(b) Anything else in their background which might create or enhance

the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal practices and methods and
activities in the conduct of gaming.
Persons who do not meet the above qualifications shall be denied a

Class A license.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(Italics added)
32.
Additionally, under Title 25 section 556.5(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, if
the Commission refuses to license an applicant for a Gaming License, the Commission is
required to notify the National Indian Gaming Commission of its decision. See also Pechanga
Gaming Ordinance 10(n)(4); 10(p)(3).
33.
Just as there are limits on the Commission's authority to issue and deny gaming
licenses, under the Tribal-State Compact, the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, and the IGRA, the
Commission does not have discretionary authority to suspend, and revoke gaming licenses as to
any license holder it pleases.
34.
On the contrary, Under section 6.5.5 of the Tribal-State Compact and section lOU);
lO(m); and lO(p)(l) ofthe Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Commission's authority to suspend
and revoke class A gaming licenses is confined to specific circwnstances where the license
holder is 1) found to be a threat to the, public interest, public health or safety or to the effective
regulation of gaming, or creates or enhances the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal
practices, methods and activities in the conduct of gaming; 2) has failed to conduct himself with
honesty, integrity, and with such decorum and manners as may be necessary to reflect positively
on the Pechanga Band, its members and the casino's gaming activities; or 3) has violated any
rule, ordinance, custom or tradition of the Pechanga Band, the reservation or the gaming
activities or terms and conditions of the license.
27
28
7
35.
Additionally, under section 10(p)(2) of the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, a license
holder is entitled to written notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Commission may
revoke a license.
36.
Under 25 CFR section 558.5(d), after it conducts a revocation hearing, the
Commission is required notify the National Indian Gaming Commission of its decision to revoke
a gaming license.
37.
At all times relevant herein the Gaming Commission had regulations in place
dictating the scope and procedure for licensing hearings. However those regulations did not
provide for an open adversarial proceeding and did not provide for any meaningful procedural
1O safeguards.
11
38.
The regulations provided that the Commission was the sole and final authority on all
12
licensing decisions and that if a licensee wished to review a Commission's revocation of his or
13
her license, the licensee could file a petition with the Commission setting forth the basis for a
14
request for reconsideration of the Commission's decision and a hearing.
15
16
17
39.
The regulations further provided that, if granted, such a hearing would be closed to
the public unless opened to the public by a majority vote of the Commission.
40.
The hearing regulations did not provide that any decision of the Commission is
18
precedential, nor did they require the Commission to publish or otherwise notify anyone,
19
including the licensee, of the reasons for the Commission's decision.
20
41.
The regulations did not provide that a licensee may be represented by counsel at any
21
hearing. They did not provide that a licensee have the opportunity to present evidence at a
22
hearing. Nor did the hearing regulations even provide that a licensee will receive written notice
23
of the reasons for his or her revocation prior to a hearing on reconsideration of that revocation.
24
42.
Furthermore, the hearing regulations did not provide a licensee who is not a member
25
of the Pechanga Band with any meaningful opportunity to challenge a decision of the
26
Commission through appeal.
27
28
8
Mr. Cosentino Goes to Work for the Pechanga Casino and Witnesses Rampant
B.
Criminal Activity
2
3
4
5
6
7
43.
In or about April, 2007, Mr. Cosentino commenced employment as a table games
dealer at the Pechanga Casino.

44.
When he commenced that employment, Mr. Cosentino already had 9 years of
experience working as a table games dealer in other Casinos in Nevada and California.
45.
A table games dealer is a "key employee" as that term is defined both in Section 2(h)
of the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, and at 25 C.F.R. 502.14. Therefore, pursuant to 25 U.S.C.
2710(2)(F)(ii), Section 6.4.1 of the Tribal-State Compact, and Section lO(e)(l) of the Pechanga
1O
Gaming Ordinance, prior to being hired, Mr. Cosentino was required to obtain, and did obtain, a
11
class A gaming license from the Commission.
12
46.
During his first day on the job, Mr. Cosentino attended an orientation session. In that
13
session, a representative of the Pechanga Casino's human resources department told all present
14
that they should come forward if any of them saw anything improper happening at the Pechanga
15
Casino. He told the employees, "we don't retaliate."
16
47.
In his first few months of employment at the Pechanga Casino, Mr. Cosentino
17
witnessed numerous instances of criminal misconduct including the operation of an illegal
18
online casino being operated from the floor of the Pechanga Casino; arrangement of illegal
19
marriages; loan sharking; buying and selling jobs at the Pechanga Casino; extortion and bribery;
20
comp fraud; rampant employee theft; collusion between corrupt dealers, supervisors & players.
21
48.
Mr. Cosentino was very troubled by what he saw, and, in or about June 2007, he
22
confided in his licensing agent at the Pechanga Casino, Ms. Hiroko Arnold about all of the
23
criminal activity that he was witnessing. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Cosentino received a call from
24
Pechanga Casino compliance officer, Tim Hawk. Mr. Hawk told Mr. Cosentino that he gave Mr.
25
Cosentino's contact information to Walter McKinney and Martin Hughes of McKinney
26
Investigations, LLC.
27
28
9
COMPLAJNT FOR DAMAGES
49.
Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that in or about
May 2007, the Pechanga Development Corporation hired McKinney Investigations to conduct
an internal investigation into criminal corruption involving high-level employees of the
Pechanga Casino.
50.
In or about July 2007, Mr. Cosentino met with Mr. McKinney and Mr. Hughes and
told them what he had witnessed happening at the Pechanga Casino. Mr. Hughes asked Mr.
Cosentino if Mr. Cosentino would assist the California Department of Justice as a confidential
informant. Mr. Cosentino agreed to do so.
10
11
12
13
51.
Thereafter, Mr. Cosentino assisted the Department of Justice as an informant on
numerous criminal investigations.

52.
Mr. Cosentino agreed to assist law enforcement because he could not bear to stand
idle while the Pechanga Band was robbed by their patrons and their own employees.
53.
Through his assistance as a confidential informant, Mr. Cosentino risked his personal
14
safety to help prevent theft from the Pechanga Band and to protect the integrity of the Pechanga
15
Casino's gaming activities.
16
17
18
54.
With Mr. Cosentino's assistance, law enforcement identified corrupt Pechanga Casino
employees and patrons, and developed evidence which lead to several convictions.
55.
In May 2009, Mr. Cosentino accompanied Mr. McKinney and Mr. Hughes to a
19
meeting with the Pechanga Gaming Commission. The Commission was then lead by Chairman,
20
Norman Pico. Mr. Pico passed away in 2010. Defendants Maldonado, and Ramos also sat on
21
the Commission at that time.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
56.
In that May 2009 meeting, Mr. Cosentino told the Commission about his assistance to
McKinney Investigations and the Department of Justice as a confidential informant. Mr.
Cosentino told the Commission about the ongoing criminal activities happening at the Pechanga
Casino. Chairman Pico thanked Mr. Cosentino repeatedly and asked him why he had gotten
involved. Mr. Cosentino replied that to see what he saw and do nothing would have been too
hard to live with.
57.
Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that after the May
2009 meeting, the Commission sought the assistance of the United States Department of Justice,
the California Department of Justice and the Riverside County District Attorney's Office in
10
investigating criminal corruption at the Pechanga Casino involving vendors, employees, and
11
elected officials of the Pechanga Band.
12
58.
From then on, Chairman Pico frequently sought Mr. Cosentino out to speak with him
13
about what was happening on the Pechanga Casino floor. Chairman Pico repeatedly thanked Mr.
14
Cosentino for his help.
15
16
17
59.
Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that in or about
December 2009, Defendant Fuller was elected to the Commission.

60.
In October 2010, Chairman Pico passed away leaving a vacant seat on the
18
commission which then consisted of Defendants Fuller (who became Chairwoman), Vargas,
19
Ramos, and Maldonado.
20
61.
On March 6, 2011 the Band held an election to fill the empty seat on the Commission
21
left when Chairman Pico passed away. Defendant Magee was elected to fill that seat on the
22
Commission.
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
c.
Defendants Wrongfully Revoke Mr. Cosentino's Gaming License in Retaliation

for Mr. Cosentino's Assistance to Law Enforcement As a Confidential Informant.
62.
Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that on March 29,
2011, the Commission notified the Pechanga Casino's director of table games, Thomas Butler, by
email, that the Commission wanted to meet privately with Mr. Cosentino at 11 :00 a.m. on Friday
April 1, 2011. The Commission did not send that email to Mr. Cosentino or otherwise notify Mr.
Cosentino of its desire to meet with Mr. Cosentino.

63.
Instead, Mr. Cosentino learned about the March 29, 2011 meeting the following day
from his licensing consultant, Valentina Hildebrand. Ms. Hildebrand surreptitiously informed
1O Mr. Cosentino about the meeting and asked Mr. Cosentino not to tell anyone that she had told
11
12
him.
64.
Mr. Cosentino's regular Friday shift began at 12:00 p.m. However, on Thursday,
13
March 31, 2011, Mr. Cosentino's floor supervisor informed Mr. Cosentino that he was to report
14
to work and start his shift that Friday at 10:00 a.m.
15
65.
Mr. Cosentino was dismayed to learn that the Table Games Department had
16
rescheduled his shift to conflict with his 11 :00 a.m. meeting with the Commission. However, to
17
protect Ms. Hildebrand's confidence, he did not protest the scheduling change. He hoped that
18
the scheduling change was an unfortunate coincidence and that, when summoned by the
19
Commission, his supervisor would simply relieve him from his shift.
20
66.
On Friday April 1, 2011, Mr. Cosentino commenced his shift at 10:00 a.m. as
21
scheduled. At 11 :00 a.m. Mr. Cosentino was still at his assigned table with chips in play. The
22
rules of the Pechanga Casino strictly forbade Mr. Cosentino from leaving his table until relieved
23
by another dealer.
24
67.
At approximately 11 :25 a.m., another dealer finally appeared at Mr. Cosentino's table
25
and relieved him. Mr. Cosentino's floor supervisor then told Mr. Cosentino to go to the
26
Pechanga Casino's table games office.
27
28
12
68.
Mr. Cosentino did as he was told. When he arrived at the table games office he was
left standing there for approximately twenty minutes. Mr. Butler's secretary, Marcia Yount, then
told Mr. Cosentino that Mr. Cosentino was supposed to have met with the Commission at 11 :00
a.m. Mr. Cosentino explained that he was at his table with chips in play working his assigned
shift and that he was not relieved until 11 :25.
69.
Mr. Cosentino was then informed that he was suspended pending an investigation,
and Mr. Cosentino was immediately escorted from the Pechanga Casino and told that he was
barred from the premises until further notice.
70.
In the following days, Mr. Cosentino called the Pechanga Casino every few days to
10
inquire about his status and when he could return to work. No one returned Mr. Cosentino's
11
calls.
12
71.
Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that on April 19,
13
2011, defendant Ramos, caused a letter (the "April 19 Letter") to be sent to Mr. Cosentino's
14
former address--though Mr. Cosentino had provided the Pechanga Casino with a current P.O.
15
Box where he was receiving mail--and where he had received prior correspondence from the
16
Pechanga Casino.
17
72.
The April 19 Letter states:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The Pechanga Gaming Commission has reviewed your application for a

Class A Gaming License in connection with your employment, and has
determined that you are not suitable for a gaming license.
We have notified the Pechanga Resort & Casino and the Security
Department of the Pechanga Resort & Casino that your Class A License
has been suspended with the intent to revoke. As a result, you are not
eligible to work at the Pechanga Resort & Casino.
You have (15) days from the date of this letter to contact the Gaming
commission and request a hearing for reconsideration of the above
decision. The appeal procedures are set forth on the attached sheet.
Should you choose not to request reconsideration of the above decision,
your license ineligibility will stand.
28
13
73.
Because defendant Ramos sent the April 19 Letter to Mr. Cosentino's former address,
Mr. Cosentino did not receive the letter. Consequently, Mr. Cosentino did not know that he
could petition the Commission to request a hearing, and, therefore Mr. Cosentino did not
petition the Commission to request a hearing.
74.
On or about May 4, 2011, Mr. Cosentino called Defendant Ramos. Mr. Cosentino
asked Defendant Ramos whether Mr. Cosentino was fired. Defendant Ramos told Mr. Cosentino
repeatedly that Mr. Cosentino was not fired and that the Commission just wanted to talk with
Mr. Cosentino. Defendant Ramos requested that Mr. Cosentino meet with the Commission.
10
75.
Defendant Ramos did not tell Mr. Cosentino that the Commission had suspended Mr.
11
Cosentino's license with intent to revoke or that Mr. Cosentino could petition the Commission to
12
request a hearing on the suspension and revocation of Mr. Cosentino's license.
13
76.
At Defendant Ramos's request, Mr. Cosentino agreed to meet with the Commission,
14
and Defendant Ramos referred Mr. Cosentino to the Commission's secretary Sally Bora, who set
15
an appointment for Mr. Cosentino to meet with the Commission on May 11th at 11:30 a.m.
16
77.
Ms. Bora told Mr. Cosentino that she would mail Mr. Cosentino a letter confirming
17
the appointment and she requested Mr. Cosentino's mailing address. Mr. Cosentino stated that
18
he would come to retrieve the letter from Ms. Bora.
19
20
78.
On May 5, 2011, Mr. Cosentino went to retrieve the letter (the "May 4 Letter") from
Ms. Bora. That letter states:
21
22
23
24
The Pechanga Gaming Commission is in receipt of your request for a

hearing regarding your Gaming License status.
Your hearing date is
scheduled for Wednesday, May 11th at 11:30 am. The hearing will take
place in the Pechanga Gaming Commission offices. Please call 951693-1821, ext. 2794 to confirm the date and time of your hearing.
25
26
27
28
14
The May 4, 2011 Letter falsely states that Mr. Cosentino requested a hearing on his
79.
suspension. As stated in paragraph 71 above, because the Commission mailed the April 19
Letter to Mr. Cosentino's former address, Mr. Cosentino had never been informed that the
Commission intended to revoke his gaming license or that he could petition for a hearing. On
the contrary, Mr. Cosentino had agreed to meet with the Commission pursuant to Defendant
Ramos's request during their telephone conversation of May 4, 2011. Mr. Cosentino told Ms.
Bora that he never requested a hearing, but that he was meeting with the Commission at the
Commission's request.
80.
On May 11, 2011, Mr. Cosentino returned to the offices of the Commission for the
10
meeting as scheduled. Prior to entering the meeting, Ms. Bora gave Mr. Cosentino the April 19,
11
2011 letter informing Mr. Cosentino, for the first time, that the Commission intended to revoke
12
Mr. Cosentino's license.
13
81.
Neither the April 19, 2011 letter nor any communication from the Commission to Mr.
14
Cosentino prior to the May 11, 2011 meeting identified the reasons for the Commission's intent
15
to revoke Mr. Cosentino's license.
16
82.
Mr. Cosentino then met alone with the five members of the Commission (Defendants
17
Fuller, Vargas, Ramos, Maldonado, and Magee). No one other than Mr. Cosentino and those
18
five Defendants was present for the duration of the meeting.
19
83.
Each of the five Commissioners shook Mr. Cosentino's hand and thanked him for
20
meeting with them. Defendant Ramos asked Mr. Cosentino if they could record the meeting,
21
and Defendant Fuller told Mr. Cosentino that the meeting was between he and the five
22
Commissioners only and that "nothing said will leave this room." Mr. Cosentino agreed to allow
23
the Commission to record the meeting.
24
25
84.
The meeting then commenced. Mr. Cosentino asked the Commissioners ifhe was
fired. Defendants responded that Mr. Cosentino was not fired.
26
27
28
15
1
2
85.
The Commission then proceeded to ask Mr. Cosentino questions about his assistance
to McKinney Investigations and the Department of Justice as a confidential informant.

86.
The meeting was not a hearing on Mr. Cosentino's fitness to retain his Pechanga
Gaming License. Instead, the meeting was an intense interrogation session during which
Defendants pressured Mr. Cosentino to disclose what information Mr. Cosentino knew and what
he had shared with McKinney Investigations and law enforcement.
7
8
9
87.
During the course of the interrogation, Defendant Fuller repeatedly interrupted Mr.
Cosentino, scowled at him and at one point, even shouted at him.

88.
The interrogation went on for over an hour. At the end of the interrogation,
10
Defendant Fuller stated to Mr. Cosentino, before she left the room, that the Commission would
11
notify Mr. Cosentino of its decision. Mr. Cosentino asked, "what decision?" Ms. Fuller
12
responded that she was referring to the Commission's decision about revoking Mr. Cosentino's
13
gaming license.
14
15
16
89.
On May 13, 2011, Defendant Ramos telephoned Mr. Cosentino and left a voicemail.
Mr. Cosentino returned Defendant Ramos's call and the two spoke.
90.
During the course of that call, Defendant Ramos repeatedly pressured Mr. Cosentino
17
to resign from employment at the Pechanga Casino. Defendant Ramos told Mr. Cosentino that,
18
if Mr. Cosentino would not resign, the Commission would revoke Mr. Cosentino's gaming
19
license--effectively preventing Mr. Cosentino from ever getting another job in any tribal casino.
20
91.
Mr. Cosentino was confused by Defendant Ramos's insistence that he resign and
21
shocked to learn that the Commission was intent upon revoking his gaming license should he
22
refuse to resign.
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
92.
Mr. Cosentino asked Defendant Ramos if the Commission intended to revoke his
gaming license because he missed the April 1, 2011 meeting. Defendant Ramos told Mr.
Cosentino that missing the April 1 meeting was one reason, however, Defendant Ramos also
admitted that the Commission received a letter from Mr. Cosentino's supervisor stating that he
had kept Mr. Cosentino at his table and thereby prevented Mr. Cosentino from attending the
April 1 meeting.
7
8
9
93.
Defendant Ramos said that the other reasons for revoking Benny's gaming license
were personal and that Defendant Ramos could not share them with Mr. Cosentino.
94.
Mr. Cosentino asked Defendant Ramos if the Commission had voted unanimously to
10
revoke his Gaming License. Defendant Ramos refused to tell Mr. Cosentino whether or not the
11
vote was unanimous.
12
95.
Mr. Cosentino refused to resign stating that he had done nothing wrong and that ifthe
13
Pechanga Casino was going to fire him he needed to apply for unemployment insurance benefits
14
while he sought another job. Defendant Ramos stated that the Commission would send Mr.
15
Cosentino a letter revoking Mr. Cosentino's gaming license.
16
96.
On or about May 18, 2011, Mr. Cosentino received a Team Member Separation Form
17
from the Pechanga Casino. The form was mailed to his P.O. Box. The form indicates that Mr.
18
Cosentino' s employment with the Pechanga Casino was involuntarily terminated as of May 17,
19
2011 for Mr. Cosentino's failure to maintain his gaming license.
20
97.
On or about May 25, the Commission's secretary, Sally Bora, telephoned Mr.
21
Cosentino to inform him that she had a letter for him to pick up. The letter was addressed to Mr.
22
Cosentino at his former address and signed by Defendant Fuller, it read:
23
Your licensing application has again been reviewed by the Pechanga
24
Gaming Commission in a hearing held on May 11, 2011 and it has been
determined that you are not suitable for a Class A Gaming License
therefore your license is hereby revoked.
25
26
27
28
17
In accordance with the Gaming Ordinance of the Temecula Band of

Luiseno Mission Indians a license may be revoked upon a finding by
the Commission of a violation of the Gaming Ordinance or regulations.
A person holding a Gaming License shall be notified in writing that
his/her license has been revoked.
2
3
Notice of restrictions are as follows: you are hereby restricted from the
Pechanga Resort & Pechanga Casino Property for a period of twelve
(12) months.
6
7
9
10
(underlining in original)
98.
Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that because the
Commission had no legitimate reason for revoking Mr. Cosentino's gaming license, neither the
Commission nor any Defendant reported the revocation of Mr. Cosentino's class A gaming
license to the NIGC.
11
99.
Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that despite
12
Defendants' promise that his May 11, 2011 meeting with the Commission would remain strictly
13
between he and the five Commissioners, Defendants have shared the transcript or recording of
14
that meeting with third persons.

15
100. Since his termination, Mr. Cosentino has applied for work as a table games dealer at
16
numerous tribal casinos hoping against hope that he can secure a job in his chosen occupation.
17
18
101. Each and every suchjob application has required Mr. Cosentino to state his reasons
for leaving his prior position. Mr. Cosentino has truthfully answered these inquiries by stating
19
that the Commission suspended and revoked his class A gaming license in May 2011 . Mr.
20
21
22
Cosentino has been denied employment at every Casino where he has applied.
102. A representative of one such Casino told Mr. Cosentino that, because Mr. Cosentino
had had a gaming license revoked, they would not hire him for any position whatsoever.
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
2
3
D.
In a Tribal Forum with over 300 Attendees, Defendant Fuller Exposes Mr.
Cosentino as a Department of Justice Confidential Informant.
103. In or about December 2011, Pechanga Development Corporation board member, Ken
Perez, contacted Mr. Cosentino. He asked Mr. Cosentino to meet with the Pechanga Tribal
Council and tell them about Mr. Cosentino's experience at the Pechanga Casino.
104. On December 13, 2011, Mr. Cosentino met privately with the Pechanga Tribal
Council. Mr. Cosentino told them about his experience including 1) how he witnessed criminal
activity at the Pechanga Casino; 2) how he came forward to report that criminal activity; 3) how
he assisted law enforcement in rooting out corruption and convicting Pechanga Casino
10
employees and patrons who had robbed money from the Pechanga Band; 4) how he was
11
summoned to a meeting with the Commission that his supervisors prevented him from attending;
12
5) how he was suspended from work at the Pechanga Casino on April 1, 2011; 6) how on May
13
11, 2011, the Commission summoned him to its offices to interrogate him about his assistance to
14
law enforcement; and 7) how, after interrogating Mr. Cosentino, the Commission demanded that
15
Mr. Cosentino resign and revoked his gaming license when he refused to do so.
16
105. The Members of the Pechanga Tribal Council in attendance at the December 13, 2011
17
meeting all thanked Mr. Cosentino and apologized to Mr. Cosentino for what he had been
18
through.
19
106.
Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that after meeting
20
with Mr. Cosentino, the Pechanga Tribal Council decided to have McKinney investigations
21
present the results of its internal investigation to the Pechanga Band.
22
107. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that on or about
23
March 11, 2012, McKinney Investigations gave a presentation to the Pechanga Band which was
24
attended by over 300 people (the "March 2012 Presentation").
25
26
108. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that individuals
with ties to organized crime were in the audience at the March 2012 Presentation.
27
28
19
109. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that during the
March 2012 Presentation, McKinney investigations presented the audience with the results of its
investigation into official corruption at the Pechanga Casino.
110. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that during that
presentation McKinney investigations (without disclosing Mr. Cosentino's identity) presented
Mr. Cosentino's story to the Pechanga Band.
7
8
111.
Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that after
McKinney Investigations concluded its presentation, Defendant Fuller spoke to the audience.
112. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant
1O
Fuller identified Mr. Cosentino repeatedly by name before the entire audience in attendance, and
11
even referred to portions of the transcript of Mr. Cosentino's May 11, 2011 meeting with the
12
Commission-which meeting Defendant Fuller herself had assured Mr. Cosentino would be kept
13
secret. Defendant Fuller thus exposed Mr. Cosentino's identity as a confidential informant.
14
113.
Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that on March 12,
15
2012, Defendant Fuller resigned her seat on the Commission under pressure from the Pechanga
16
Tribal Council.
17
18
114.
On March 16, 2012, Defendant Vargas mailed a letter to Mr. Cosentino's Post Office
box. The letter states:
19
20
21
The Pechanga Gaming Commission wishes to inform you that we have

reconsidered the revocation of your Gaming License. After further
review, your Gaming License status with the Pechanga Gaming
Commission is no longer considered to be revoked.
22
23
24
25
The Pechanga Gaming Commission determines suitability based upon
standards set forth by the Tribe and the National Indian Gaming
Commission. Ultimately, it is our goal to serve the best interests of all
involved, including the licensee. It is our belief that this action best
serves those interests.
26
27
28
20
The Pechanga Gaming Commission shall maintain a copy of this letter

as part of your licensing file.
2
3
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
(against all Defendants)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
115. Mr. Cosentino incorporates paragraphs 1 through 114 above in their entirety as
though fully set forth herein.
116. Through his employment with the Pechanga Casino as a table games dealer, Mr.
Cosentino had an existing and prospective economic relationship with the Pechanga Casino.
117. Mr. Cosentino's economic relationship with the Pechanga Casino was economically
advantageous to Mr. Cosentino.
118. Mr. Cosentino's economic relationship with the Pechanga Casino was likely to
continue and to benefit Mr. Cosentino economically for the remainder of his working years.
119.
Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that on or about
15
March 29, 2011, Defendants Fuller, Vargas, Ramos, Magee, Maldonado and DOES 1through50
16
and each of them, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to interfere
17
with Mr. Cosentino's advantageous economic relationship with the Pechanga Casino.
18
120. Pursuant to and in furtherance of that conspiracy, Defendants, and each of them
19
agreed to suspend and later revoke Mr. Cosentino's class A gaming license in retaliation for Mr.
20
Cosentino's assistance to McKinney Investigations and law enforcement, and despite the fact
21
that there was no legal or factual basis for such a revocation.
22
121 . In suspending and revoking Mr. Cosentino's gaming license without cause,
23
Defendants acted in excess of the authority granted to Defendants under the Pechanga Gaming
24
Ordinance, the Tribal-State Compact, and the IGRA and in violation of the rules, regulations and
25
statutes governing the Commission.
26
27
28
21
122. Pursuant to and in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy to interfere with Mr.
Cosentino's prospective economic relations with the Pechanga Band, on March 11, 2012,
Defendant Fuller exposed Mr. Cosentino's identity as a confidential informant in a forum with
over 300 Pechanga Band members in attendance, thereby ensuring that Mr. Cosentino, with his
cover now exposed, could never again safely work at the Pechanga Casino.
123. Defendants, engaged in the above-alleged conduct with the intent to disrupt the
economic relationship between Mr. Cosentino and the Pechanga Casino knowing that, without a
class A gaming license, Mr. Cosentino could not continue his employment with the Pechanga
Casino and that Mr. Cosentino would be permanently removed from the Pechanga Casino, thus,
1O
ensuring that Mr. Cosentino would no longer be in a position to assist with any investigation of
11
criminal activity at the Pechanga Casino, and further knowing that even if his license were re-
12
instated, with his cover blown, Mr. Cosentino could never safely return to work at the Pechanga
13
Casino.
14
15
124. As a direct result of Defendants' wrongful acts alleged above, the Pechanga Casino
was required to, and did, terminate Mr. Cosentino's employment.
16
125. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful acts alleged above, Mr.
17
Cosentino has been stymied in his search for new employment in his chosen occupation because
18
each Casino to which he applies asks him to report what his most recent position was and why
19
he left, and refuses to hire him when he answers that he worked at the Pechanga Casino and left
20
because his license was revoked.
21
126. Defendants' conduct was independently wrongful.
22
127. Defendants and each Defendant did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant to,
23
and in furtherance of the conspiracy and their above-alleged agreement.
24
25
26
27
28
22
128. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the last overt
act in pursuance of the above-alleged conspiracy occurred on or about March 11, 2012 when
Defendant Fuller disclosed Mr. Cosentino's identify as a confidential Department of Justice
informant before an audience of 300 people.
129. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Mr. Cosentino has suffered
injuries and damages including, but not limited to, past and future lost earnings and earning
capacity and severe emotional distress in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceed the
minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.
130. Defendants' conduct described above was willful, malicious, and oppressive and was
10
undertaken with the intent to inflict injury on Mr. Cosentino and with conscious disregard of Mr.
11
Cosentino's rights, thereby warranting an assessment of punitive damages in an amount
12
appropriate to punish each Defendant and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct.
13
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH
14
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
132. Mr. Cosentino had an existing and prospective business relationship with the
Pechanga Casino working as a Table Games dealer.
133. Because of their licensing authority as members of the Commission, Defendants
21
Fuller, Vargas, Magee, Ramos, and Maldonado had a special relationship with Mr. Cosentino
22
and, therefore, owed Mr. Cosentino a duty of due care to assess his suitability for a class A
23
gaming license according to the standards set forth in the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the
24
Tribal-State Compact, and the IGRA.
25
26
27
28
23
134. Furthermore, by virtue of their authority as members of the Commission, Defendants
owed Mr. Cosentino a duty of due care to maintain Mr. Cosentino's identity as a confidential
informant in the strictest confidence.
135. At the time Defendants revoked Mr. Cosentino's gaming license, Defendants knew or
should have known that, without a class A gaming license, Mr. Cosentino could not continue his
employment with the Pechanga Casino and that Mr. Cosentino would be permanently removed
from the Pechanga Casino.
136. At the time Defendants revoked Mr. Cosentino's gaming license, Defendants knew or
should have known that, when Mr. Cosentino applied for future employment in his chosen
1O
occupation prospective employers would require him to explain why he left the Pechanga Casino
11
and that no Casino would hire Mr. Cosentino when he truthfully explained that his Pechanga
12
Gaming license was revoked.
13
137. At the time Defendants wrongfully disclosed Mr. Cosentino's identity as a
14
confidential informant by sharing the May 11, 2011 transcript with third persons, Defendants
15
knew or should have known that with his cover blown, Mr. Cosentino could never safely return
16
to employment at the Pechanga Casino.
17
138. Defendants negligently breached their duty to Mr. Cosentino and interfered with Mr.
18
Cosentino's economic relationship with the Pechanga Casino by suspending and revoking Mr.
19
Cosentino's class A gaming license without cause and in excess of the authority granted to
20
Defendants under the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Tribal-State Compact, and the IGRA.
21
139. Defendants negligently breached their duty to Mr. Cosentino and interfered with Mr.
22
Cosentino's economic relationship with the Pechanga Casino by disclosing Mr. Cosentino's
23
identity as a confidential informant.
24
140. Defendants' conduct was independently wrongful.
25
26
27
28
24
2
capacity in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits o
this court.
TIDRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO PURSUE A LAWFUL OCCUPATION
8
9
1O
142. Mr. Cosentino incorporates paragraphs 1through141 above in their entirety as

143. At all times alleged herein, Mr. Cosentino had a right to pursue any lawful calling,
11
business, or profession of his choice as stated in Willis v. Santa Ana Comm. Hosp. Ass'n, 58 Cal.
12
2d 806; 26 Cal. Rptr. 640 (1962).
13
144. At the time Defendants revoked Mr. Cosentino's gaming license, Mr. Cosentino had
14
already devoted 13 years to learning the trade of table games dealing. Mr. Cosentino intended to
15
continue working at Pechanga, or in other tribal casinos for the remainder of his career.
16
145. At all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants knew that, pursuant to section
17
27 lO(b)(2)(F) of the IGRA all tribal gaming agencies conduct background investigations into
18
applicants for employment prior to issuing a gaming license for a table games dealer or other
19
key employee.
20
146. At all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants knew that to comply with section
21
271 O(b)(2)(F), tribal casino's and tribal gaming agencies require applicant's for employment and
22
licensing to disclose any past revocations of a gaming license.
23
24
25
26
27
28
25
14 7. At all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants knew that among tribal gaming
2
agencies and tribal casinos, revocation of a gaming license is generally understood to mean that
the revoked licensee has engaged in activities that pose a threat to the public interest or to the
effective regulation of gaming, or create or enhance the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal
practices and methods and activities in the conduct of gaming.
148. At all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants knew that as a result of the
requirements of section 2710(b)(2)(F), Mr. Cosentino will be required to disclose the revocation
of his license to any tribal casino at which he seeks employment.
149. Accordingly, Defendants knew that by revoking Mr. Cosentino's gaming license,
1O
Defendants would effectively prevent Mr. Cosentino from ever securing employment in his
11
chosen occupation at any tribal casino.
12
13
March 29, 2011, Defendants Fuller, Vargas, Ramos, Magee, Maldonado and DOES 1through50
14
and each of them, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to interfere
15
with Mr. Cosentino's right to pursue a lawful occupation as a table games dealer.
16
17
agreed to suspend and later revoke Mr. Cosentino's class A gaming license in retaliation for Mr.
18
Cosentino's assistance to McKinney Investigations and law enforcement, and despite the fact
19
that there was no legal or factual basis for such a revocation.
20
21
agreed to disclose Mr. Cosentino's identity as a confidential informant by sharing the transcript
22
of the May 11, 2011 meeting with third persons-despite their explicit promise to Mr. Cosentino
23
that everything said in that meeting would not leave the room.
24
15 3. Pursuant to and in furtherance of that conspiracy, Defendant Fuller, on March 11,
25
2012 disclosed Mr. Cosentino's identity as a confidential informant in a tribal forum with over
26
300 people present.
27
28
26
154. Defendants, engaged in the above-alleged conduct with the intent to interfere with
2
Mr. Cosentino's pursuit of a lawful calling as a table games dealer knowing that, having had his
license revoked, Mr. Cosentino would not thereafter be able to secure employment at any tribal
Casino and further knowing that even if his Pechanga Gaming License were re-instated, with his
cover blown, Mr. Cosentino could never safely return to work at the Pechanga Casino.
155. Defendants revoked Mr. Cosentino's license without justification and acted in excess
of the authority granted to Defendants under the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Tribal-State
Compact, and the IGRA and in violation of the rules, regulations and statutes governing the
Commission.
10
156. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions alleged above, Mr. Cosentino
11
has been stymied in his search for new employment in his chosen occupation because Mr.
12
Cosentino can not safely return to employment at the Pechanga Casino and each other Casino to
13
which he applies asks him to report his employment history and why he left his most recent
14
position and then refuses to hire him when he answers that he left the Pechanga Casino because
15
his license was revoked.
16
17
18
157. Defendants and each Defendant did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant to,
and in furtherance of the conspiracy and their above-alleged agreement.
19
20
Defendant Fuller disclosed Mr. Cosentino's identity as a confidential informant in a tribal forum
21
with over 300 people present.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27
Cosentino's rights, thereby warranting an assessment of punitive damages in an amount
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
SECTION 52.1
8
9
10
11
12
though fully set forth herein
162. At all times alleged herein Mr. Cosentino had the right under Article I, section 2 of
the California Constitution to speak freely.
163. By virtue of the rights granted in Article I section 2 of the California Constitution,
13
Mr. Cosentino had the right to speak freely about any criminal activities that Mr. Cosentino
14
witnessed at the Pechanga Casino.
15
164. By virtue of the rights granted in Article I section 2 of the California Constitution,
16
Mr. Cosentino had the right to refrain from speaking about his assistance to McKinney
17
Investigations and law enforcement.
18
165. At all times alleged herein, Mr. Cosentino had a fundamental right under Article I,
19
sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution; the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
20
Constitution and California common law as stated in Reid v. Mass Co .. 155 Cal.App. 2D 293,
21
301 (1957); to pursue any lawful calling, business, or profession.
22
166. By virtue of the rights granted to Mr. Cosentino in Article I, sections 1 and 7 of the
23
California Constitution; the Common law of California; the Fourteenth Amendment to the
24
United States Constitution; and the Federal Common law, Mr. Cosentino had the right to pursue
25
his continued employment as a table games dealer with the Pechanga Casino until he wished to
26
resign or until the Pechanga Casino terminated his employment.
27
28
28
167. By virtue of25 U.S.C. 1302(8), Mr. Cosentino had the right to equal protection of
the Pechanga Band's laws and the right not to be deprived of his property without due process of
law.
168. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that beginning on
or about March 29, 2011 Defendants Fuller, Vargas, Ramos, Magee, Maldonado and DOES 1
through 50 and each of them, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves
to suspend Mr. Cosentino's gaming license without cause and thereafter threaten to revoke Mr.
Cosentino's gaming license in an effort to intimidate and retaliate against Mr. Cosentino for his
speech to McKinney Investigations and law enforcement; to coerce Mr. Cosentino to stop
1O
speaking to McKinney Investigations and law enforcement; to coerce Mr. Cosentino to submit
11
his resignation to the Pechanga Casino.
12
169. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the above-
13
identified Defendants also knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves that
14
if Mr. Cosentino refused (despite their intimidation and coercion) to resign from the Pechanga
15
Casino, that Defendants would revoke his gaming license in retaliation for his speech with
16
McKinney Investigations and law enforcement and his refusal to resign.
17
170. Pursuant to, and in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy, on April 1, 2011,
18
Defendants suspended Mr. Cosentino's gaming license without justification and in excess of the
19
Commission's authority under the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Tribal State Compact, and
20
the IGRA.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
171. Pursuant to and in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy, on May 11, 2011,
Defendants subjected Mr. Cosentino to an interrogation (which they falsely represented to Mr.
Cosentino, only minutes prior to the commencement of the interrogation, as a purported hearing
on the proposed revocation of Mr. Cosentino's gaming license) and wherein Defendants
attempted to intimidate Mr. Cosentino and to coerce Mr. Cosentino to disclose to Defendants in a
recorded session, everything that Mr. Cosentino had told McKinney Investigations and law
enforcement as a confidential informant.
172. On May 13, 2011, pursuant to and in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy,
Defendants (through Defendant Ramos) attempted to coerce Mr. Cosentino to tell the Pechanga
10
Casino that he was resigning from his employment with the Pechanga Casino by threatening to
11
revoke Mr. Cosentino's gaming license if he did not report to the Pechanga Casino that he was
12
res1gmng.
13
173. At the time Defendants threatened to revoke Mr. Cosentino's gaming license if he did
14
not resign, Mr. Cosentino reasonably believed that Defendants were threatening his ability to
15
pursue his chosen occupation and that Defendants had the ability to carry out their threat.
16
174. When Mr. Cosentino refused to resign, pursuant to and in furtherance of Defendants'
17
conspiracy, Defendants revoked Mr. Cosentino's Gaming License without justification as set
18
forth above--effectively rendering Mr. Cosentino unemployable in his chosen occupation.
19
175. At all times alleged herein Mr. Cosentino's fundamental right to pursue any calling,
20
business, or profession of his choice was a form of property as stated in Reid v. Mass. Co., 155
21
Cal.App.2d 293, 301 (1957); accord Chzysler Cor:p. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd., 89 Cal.App.3d
22
1034, 139 (1979). Accordingly, Defendants' threat to revoke Mr. Cosentino's gaming license
23
(thereby effectively rendering him unemployable in his chosen occupation) was an explicit threat
24
of violence against Mr. Cosentino's property and Defendants' subsequent wrongful revocation of
25
Mr. Cosentino's gaming license was an act of violence against Mr. Cosentino's property.
26
27
28
30
176. Finally, on March 11, 2012, pursuant to and in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy,
2
Defendants (through Defendant Fuller) retaliated against Mr. Cosentino for exercising his right
to free speech and his right to pursue the occupation of his choice by exposing Mr. Cosentino's
identity as a confidential informant in a forum with over 300 people in attendance. As a result,
Mr. Cosentino is now a marked man and, even in the unlikely event that he is able to again
secure employment in his chosen occupation, he would then spend every remaining day of his
career looking over his shoulder in fear for his safety.
9
1O
11
177. By the acts alleged above, Defendants attempted to, and did, interfere with Mr.
Cosentino's enjoyment of his right to free speech and his enjoyment of his right to pursue his
chosen occupation.
178. By threatening to revoke, and then revoking Mr. Cosentino's gaming license without
12
cause and without a hearing, Defendants interfered with Mr. Cosentino's rights to equal
13
protection and due process under Title 25 section 1302(8) of the United States Code.
14
179. Defendants' actions as described above were all undertaken to silence Mr. Cosentino
15
through intimidation, to coerce Mr. Cosentino's resignation from the Pechanga Casino through
16
threat and intimidation, and to retaliate against Mr. Cosentino for Mr. Cosentino's exercise of his
17
right to free speech and his right to pursue a calling as a table games dealer.
18
180. Defendants' actions as described above were in excess of the authority granted to the
19
Commission and each Defendant under the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Tribal-State
20
Compact, and the IGRA.
21
22
injuries and damages including, but not limited to. past and future lost earnings and earning
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
182. Defendants' actions warrant the imposition of exemplary damages pursuant to Civil
Code sections 52. l (b) and 52(b) in an amount appropriate to punish each Defendant and to deter
others from engaging in similar conduct.
183. Pursuant to Civil Code sections 52.l(b) and 52(a), Mr. Cosentino is entitled to three
times the amount of actual damage for each of Defendants' violations of Mr. Cosentino's civil
rights.
184. Mr. Cosentino is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Civil Code sections
52.l(h) and 52.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
10
DISTRESS
11
12
13
14

15
May 4, 2011, Defendants willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to pressure Mr.
16
Cosentino to resign from his employment at the Pechanga Casino by threatening to revoke Mr.
17
Cosentino's class A gaming license.
18
19
May 13, 2011, Defendants knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to
20
revoke Mr. Cosentino's class A gaming license to prevent Mr. Cosentino's continued employment
21
at the Pechanga Casino, to remove Mr. Cosentino from the Pechanga Casino, to thereby
22
eliminate the possibility of Mr. Cosentino continuing to inform law enforcement of criminal
23
activity at the Pechanga Casino, and to retaliate against Mr. Cosentino for his past reporting.
24
25
26
27
28
32
188. Defendants intended to, and did, use Mr. Cosentino's May 11, 2011 meeting with the
Commission as an opportunity to gather highly confidential information from Mr. Cosentino
with which they could punish and intimidate Mr. Cosentino for his assistance to law
enforcement, coerce Mr. Cosentino to discontinue such assistance, and discourage other
Pechanga Casino employees from cooperating with law enforcement.
189. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that pursuant to,
and in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy to inflict injury on Mr. Cosentino, Defendants
shared the confidential transcript of Mr. Cosentino's May 11, 2011 meeting with third parties.
190. Pursuant to, and in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy to inflict injury on Mr.
1O
Cosentino in retaliation for his assistance to law enforcement, Defendant Fuller, on or about
11
March 11, 2012, exposed Mr. Cosentino's identity as a Department of Justice confidential
12
informant before a crowd of more than 300 people.
13
191. Defendants' actions described above were extreme and outrageous, exceeded the
14
authority granted to Defendants under the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Tribal-State
15
Compact, and the IGRA, and were a gross abuse of Defendants' power over Mr. Cosentino.
16
17
18
19
20
192. By undertaking the acts alleged above, Defendants intended to inflict injury upon Mr.
Cosentino or Defendants were substantially certain that injury was likely to result.
193. Defendants, and each Defendant, undertook the wrongful acts alleged herein pursuant
to and in furtherance of their above-alleged agreement.
21
22
Defendant Fuller disclosed Mr. Cosentino's identify as a confidential Department of Justice
23
informant.
24
25
26
27
28
33
195. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' outrageous conduct alleged above,
2
Mr. Cosentino has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress in that he has had
his livelihood taken from him, has lost the value of his 13 year's of experience in his chosen
occupation, and has suffered extreme anxiety, worry, about his personal safety. Mr. Cosentino's
peace of mind has been permanently shattered by the knowledge that Defendants have blown his
cover and that organized criminal actors may seek retribution against Mr. Cosentino for his
assistance to law enforcement. The extent of Mr. Cosentino's damages are not yet ascertained,
but, in any case exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.
10
11
Cosentino's rights thereby warranting an assessment of punitive damages in an amount
12
13
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
14
DISTRESS
15
16
17
18
198. Defendants Fuller, Vargas, Magee, Ramos, and Maldonado had a special relationship
19
with Mr. Cosentino and, therefore, owed Mr. Cosentino a duty of due care to assess his
20
suitability for a class A gaming license according to the standards set forth in the Pechanga
21
Gaming Ordinance, the Tribal-State Compact, and the IGRA.
22
23
24
25
199. Defendants Fuller, Vargas, Magee, Ramos, and Maldonado had a duty to maintain the
fact of Mr. Cosentino's identity as a confidential informant in the strictest confidence.
200. Defendants knew or should have known that revocation of Mr. Cosentino's gaming
license without justification would cause Mr. Cosentino to suffer severe emotional distress.
26
27
28
34
201. Defendants knew or should have known that exposing Mr. Cosentino's identity as a
2
confidential informant by sharing the transcript of Mr. Cosentino's confidential May 11, 2011
meeting with the Commission would cause Mr. Cosentino to suffer severe emotional distress.
202. Defendants negligently breached their duty to Mr. Cosentino by revoking Mr.
Cosentino's class A gaming license without justification and in excess of the authority granted to
Defendants under the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Tribal-State Compact, and the IGRA.
203. Defendants negligently breached their duty to Mr. Cosentino by permitting third
parties to read the transcript of Mr. Cosentino's May 11, 2011 meeting with the Commission in
which he shared details about his confidential informing activities.
10
204. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' outrageous conduct alleged above,
11
Mr. Cosentino has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress in that he has had
12
his livelihood taken from him, has lost the value of his 13 year's of experience in his chosen
13
occupation, and has suffered extreme anxiety, worry, about his personal safety. Mr. Cosentino's
14
peace of mind has been permanently shattered by the knowledge that Defendants have blown his
15
cover and that organized criminal actors may seek retribution against Mr. Cosentino for his
16
assistance to law enforcement. The extent of Mr. Cosentino's damages are not yet ascertained,
17
but, in any case exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.
18
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
19
DISTRESS
20
(against Defendant Fuller)
21
22
23
24
25
26

206. Defendants Fuller had a duty to maintain the fact of Mr. Cosentino's identity as a
confidential informant in the strictest confidence.
207. Defendant Fuller knew or should have known that exposing Mr. Cosentino's identity
as a confidential informant would cause Mr. Cosentino to suffer severe emotional distress.
27
28
35
1
2
3
208. Defendant Fuller negligently breached here duty to Mr. Cosentino by publicly
identifying Mr. Cosentino as a confidential informant at the March 2012 Presentation.
209. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Fuller's outrageous conduct alleged
above, Mr. Cosentino has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress in that his
peace of mind has been permanently shattered by the knowledge that Defendant Fuller has
blown his cover and that organized criminal actors may seek retribution against Mr. Cosentino
for his assistance to law enforcement. The extent of Mr. Cosentino's damages are not yet
ascertained, but, in any case exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
10
WHEREFORE, Mr. Cosentino prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
11
1.
for general, compensatory, special, and consequential damages according to proof;
12
2.
for treble damages pursuant to Civil Code sections 52.1 (b) and 52(a);
13
3.
for attorney's fees pursuant to Civil Code section 52.l(h);
14
4.
for exemplary damages pursuant to Civil Code sections 52.l(b) and 52(b)(l);
15
5.
for costs of suit incurred herein;
16
6.
for punitive and exemplary damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294;
17
7.
for pre-judgement and post-judgement interest according to proof; and
18
8.
for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just.
19
20
Dated: March
J..b ,2013
ANDREW W. TWIETMEYER
21
22
23
24
Attorney r Plaintiff
BENEDICT COSENTINO
25
26
27
28
36
Demand for Jury Trial
2
3
Plaintiff BENEDICT COSENTINO hereby demands that this action be determined by

trial by jury.
Dated: March
2S', 2013
ANDREW W. TWIETMEYER
7
8
Attorney r Plaintiff
BENEDICT COSENTINO
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37

Cosentino Complaint Vs Pechanga Gaming Commission

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Cosentino Complaint Vs Pechanga Gaming Commission

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2

ANDREW W. TWIETMEYER State Bar No. 254436

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STELLA FULLER (an individual); JOHN R.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:

Demand for Jury Trial

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

Plaintiff Benedict Cosentino is an individual who resides in the City of Temecula in

The Pechanga Gaming Commission (the "Commission") is a five-member elected

of Riverside California. Vargas is herein named in his individual capacity.

County of Riverside California. Maldonado is herein named in his individual capacity.

Riverside California. Ramos is herein named in his individual capacity.

Riverside California. Magee is herein named in his individual capacity.

once they are discovered.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1O general jurisdiction granted by the California Constitution.

permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Venue is proper in Riverside County as against Defendants pursuant to Sections 394

The Pechan1:a Casino

"Pechanga Band"), a federally recognized Indian Tribe.

25, Chapter III of the Code of Federal Regulations.

meets the requirements of subsection (b) of this section."

Gaming Ordinance pursuant to IGRA section 2710(d)(l)(iii).

On or about September 10, 1999, pursuant to IGRAsection 2710(d)(l)(C) and

Compact, as amended, is herein referred to as the "Tribal-State Compact."

governed by and fully subject to the Tribal-State Compact.

among other things, promote ethical gaming practices,

The Pechanga Gaming Commission

The Pechanga Gaming Commission (the "Commission") is the Tribal Agency

The Commission is a governmental subdivision of the Pechanga Band.

As required by section 6.4.l of the Tribal-State Compact and IGRAsection 2710(b)

(a) A person of good character, honesty and integrity.

shall conduct or cause to be conducted all necessary background investigations reasonably

Additionally, IGRA section 2710(b)(2)(F)(ii)(llI) requires the Commission to notify

issues a class A gaming license to that applicant.

issuing a class A gaming license:

The Gaming Commission shall conduct or cause to be conducted a

(a) Any criminal record or any reputation, prior activities, habits or

(b) Anything else in their background which might create or enhance

Persons who do not meet the above qualifications shall be denied a

Additionally, under Title 25 section 556.5(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, if

Additionally, under section 10(p)(2) of the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, a license

Under 25 CFR section 558.5(d), after it conducts a revocation hearing, the

request for reconsideration of the Commission's decision and a hearing.

including the licensee, of the reasons for the Commission's decision.

Commission through appeal.

In or about April, 2007, Mr. Cosentino commenced employment as a table games

dealer at the Pechanga Casino.

When he commenced that employment, Mr. Cosentino already had 9 years of

class A gaming license from the Commission.

Casino. He told the employees, "we don't retaliate."

witnessed numerous instances of criminal misconduct including the operation of an illegal

Cosentino's contact information to Walter McKinney and Martin Hughes of McKinney

an internal investigation into criminal corruption involving high-level employees of the

informant. Mr. Cosentino agreed to do so.

Thereafter, Mr. Cosentino assisted the Department of Justice as an informant on

numerous criminal investigations.

Casino's gaming activities.

the Commission at that time.

McKinney Investigations and the Department of Justice as a confidential informant. Mr.

hard to live with.

elected officials of the Pechanga Band.