AlmeidaFiled Complaint PDF

1 SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Lindsey Wagner (CBN 309808)

2 3900 W. Alameda Ave., Suite 1200
Burbank, CA 91505
3 Telephone: (213) 377-5200
Facsimile: (561) 653-0020
4 LWagner@scottwagnerlaw.com
5 HADSELL STORMER RENICK LLP
Barbara E. Hadsell (CBN 86021)
6 Dan Stormer (CBN 01967)
128 N. Fair Oaks Ave, Suiter 204
7 Pasadena, CA 91103
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
DINA ALMEIDA
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
11
DINA ALMEIDA an individual, and Case No.
12 TRISTAN LEO STAR FILMS, INC., a
Florida Profit Corporation COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
13
Plaintiff, 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
14 FEHA – GOVT. CODE § 12940 ET SEQ.;
vs.
15 2. HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE
OLYMPUSAT, INC., a Florida corporation; FEHA – GOVT. CODE § 12940 ET SEQ.;
16 TOM MOHLER , an individual, and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, 3. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
DEFENDANTs.
18 4. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION
AND HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE
20 5. SEX-BASED DISCRIMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS
21 ACT (CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §51)
22 6. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN
VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL
23 RIGHTS ACT (CALIFORNIA CIVIL
CODE §51.9)
24
7. VIOLATION OF THE RALPH ACT
25 (CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 51.7)
26 8. INTERFERENCE WITH THE
EXERCISE OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN
27 VIOLATION OF THE BANE ACT
(CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §52.1)
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 9. GENDER VIOLENCE IN VIOLATION
OF CAL CC §52.4
2
10. UNFAIR COMPETITION
3 (CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS CODE §17200, ET.
4 SEQ.)
5 11. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
BUSINESS RELATIONS
6
12. CIVIL CONSPIRACY
7
13. DEFAMATION (CALIFORNIA CIVIL
8 CODE §44)
9 14. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
10
15. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
11 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
12 16. NEGLIGENCE
13 17. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND

HIRING
14
18. UNLAWFUL NON-COMPETE
15 AGREEMENT (BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS CODE 16600 ET. SEQ.)
16
19. CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY AND
17 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
18 20. BATTERY
19 21. INTEREFERENCE WITH

PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
20 RELATIONS
21 [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 PLAINTIFF DINA ALMEIDA and PLAINTIFF TRISTAN LEO STAR FILMS, INC.
2 (“PLAINTIFFS”) allege as follows on knowledge as to themselves and their respective known acts, and
3 on information and belief as to all other matters:
4 I.
5 NATURE OF THE ACTION
6 1. This is a sexual harassment, sex-based discrimination and retaliation case where Plaintiff,
7 DINA ALMEIDA , has and is being discriminated against as a woman because she has and did not submit
8 to DENDANTTOM MOHLER’s repeated demands for sex and rejected and complained of his sexually
9 provocative, harassing and offensive conduct toward herself and other women. As a result, MOHLER ,
10 as an individual, and by and through his company, OLYMPUSAT, INC. for which he serves in the
11 position of CEO, has taken punishing, threatening, and economically damaging action against
12 ALMEIDA and her company, TRISTAN LEOSTAR, INC., including threats and actions of economic
13 reprisals against ALMEIDA and her company as she sought to move forward with her claims, refused
14 an employment relationship as demanded by MOHLER, and otherwise severed professional ties with
15 MOHLER and OLYMPUSAT, INC.
16 2. At the present, MOHLER , as an individual and as and by way of being a Managing Agent
17 of OLYMPUSAT, INC., continues in a campaign of tortious interference, defamation, civil conspiracy,
18 and unfair competition against ALMEIDA and TRISTAN LEO STAR FILMS, INC., simply because
19 ALMEIDA refused and objected to his sexual advances and demands for her to become an employee.
20 3. As a direct consequence of the unlawful acts, PLAINTIFFS have suffered economic,
21 consequential and other damages to her detriment. As a result of DEFENDANTs’ actions, PLAINTIFFS
22 have been forced to retain counsel and bring this litigation, incurring substantial attorneys’ fees and costs.
23 II.
24 PARTIES
25 4. Plaintiff DINA ALMEIDA (hereinafter “ALMEIDA ” or “PLAINTIFF”) is a female
26 resident of Los Angeles, California in the County of Los Angeles, California at all times material to this
27 Complaint.
28
-1-
1 5. PLAINTIFF is President and Owner of TRISTAN LEO STAR FILMS, INC. (also known
2 as TRISTAN LEOSTAR FILMS, INC. and hereinafter “TRISTAN LEOSTAR”), a Florida Profit
3 Corporation, doing business across the United States and internationally, including in the State of
4 California. At all times material herein, ALMEIDA primarily conducts and has conducted her
5 management of TRISTAN LEOSTAR out of her home in Los Angeles, California, traveling as needed
6 to other locations to conduct business.
7 6. DEFENDANT OLYMPUSAT, INC. is a Florida corporation with a principal place of
8 business at 477 South Rosemary Avenue, Suite 306, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 with locations
9 operating in the City and County of Los Angeles in the State of California at all times material to this
10 Complaint.
11 7. DEFENDANT MOHLER is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, and owns,
12 operates and controls OLYMPUSAT, INC. as Chief Executive Officer (CEO). OLYMPUSAT did and
13 does business in California at all times material to this Complaint. DEFENDANT also owns and operates
14 other business entities currently unknown to Plaintiff and sued herein as Does 1-25.
15 8. Though OLYMPUSAT is incorporated in Florida, it does business, including sponsoring
16
and holding many events and work-related functions, in California. Additionally, one or more of the
17
OLYMPUSAT employees who directed and supervised PLAINTIFF’s services as well as others who
18
worked with PLAINTIFF in connection with or on behalf of OLYMPUSAT reside and primarily work
19
20 from and live in California.
21 9. For example, the Senior Vice-President of OLYMPUSAT for Hispanic Networks, the
22 Vice-President of Programming for Parables TV (on information and belief, a network owned and/or
23
controlled by OLYMPUSAT), and the Vice- President of Network Relations are each to PLAINTIFF’s
24
understanding employees of OLYMPUSAT who reside and work out of California. OLYMPUSAT’s
25
founder and Chief Executive Officer is and during all relevant time periods has been DEFENDANT
26
MOHLER .
27
28
-2-
1 10. PLAINTIFFS ALMEIDA AND TRISTAN LEOSTAR are informed and believe and
2 thereon allege that at all times material to this Complaint, DEFENDANT MOHLER AND
3 OLYMPUSAT and each of the DEFENDANTS fictitiously named in this Complaint, in addition to
4 acting for himself, herself, itself or themselves, and on his, her, its or their own behalf, individually, is,
5 was and were acting as the agent(s), servant(s), employee(s) and representative(s) of, and with the
6 knowledge, consent and permission of, and in conspiracy with each and all of the DEFENDANTS and
7 within the course, scope and authority of that agency, service, employment, representation and
8 conspiracy. PLAINTIFFS further allege on information and belief that the acts of each of the
9 DEFENDANTS were fully ratified by each and all of the DEFENDANTS. Specifically, and without
10 limitation, PLAINTIFFS allege on information and belief that the actions, failures to act, breaches,
11 conspiracy and misrepresentations alleged herein and attributed to one or more of the specific
12 DEFENDANTS were approved, ratified and done with the cooperation and knowledge of each and all
13 of the DEFENDANTS.
14 11. At the relevant times mentioned herein, DEFENDANTS MOHLER AND/OR
15 OLYMPUSAT was/were the prospective “employer(s)” of PLAINTIFF ALMEIDA, as such term is
16 defined under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the “FEHA”).
17 12. PLAINTIFFS are ignorant of the true names and capacities of DEFENDANTS sued
18 herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sue these DEFENDANTS by such fictitious
19 names. PLAINTIFFS will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of said
20 DEFENDANTS when the same has been ascertained. Each of the fictitiously named DEFENDANTS
21 is responsible in some manner for the acts complained of herein. Unless otherwise stated, all references
22 to named DEFENDANTS shall include DOE DEFENDANTS as well.
23 III.
24 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25 13. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court because the claims alleged herein arose
26 in Los Angeles County and at all times material herein, all of the DEFENDANTS are doing or did
27
28
-3-
1 business in Los Angeles County, and because PLAINTIFF ALMEIDA resides in Los Angeles County
2 and conducts primary aspects of her management of TRISTAN LEOSTAR HERE.
3 14. At the relevant times mentioned herein, PLAINTIFFS performed work for or on behalf
4 of DEFENDANTS within Los Angeles County, California where much of the unlawful conduct alleged
5 herein occurred.
6 15. The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $25,000.00, exclusive of
7 interest and costs.
8 IV.
9 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10
16. DEFENDANT OLYMPUSAT markets itself as “one of the largest independent media
11
12 companies,” operating in the television and media space, providing services internationally and with
13 programming contracts and inventory totaling more than 60 million homes to date. DEFENDANT
14 OLYMPUSAT is managed primarily by the CEO, DEFENDANT MOHLER , who founded the company
15
in 1999. MOHLER owns and operates OLYMPUSAT.
16
17. MOHLER, by and through his position of CEO with OLYMPUSAT, has a reputation
17
amongst employees and contractors working for and with OLYMPUSAT for using his power to
18
manipulate women, including women he solicits for professional and employment relations. MOHLER
19
20 utilizes threats concerning employment or business contract relationships in order to “control” or
21 otherwise manipulate those same women. Examples include hosting parties in Colorado, which
22 MOHLER refers to as “company retreats” where he brags that employees and invitees “swing” with the
23
younger female staff as well as with other females invited to the parties. MOHLER often attempted to
24
coerce ALMEIDA into going on these trips and insisted that she fly with him to such locations.
25
ALMEIDA declined. More recently, and in 2018, following another company trip to Russia, MOHLER
26
27
28
-4-
openly bragged to ALMEIDA and other female employees in her presence that top male executives from
1
2 the company had hired prostitutes while in Russia.
3 18. By way of another example, and upon information and belief, MOHLER has a history
4 of soliciting females (primarily non-United States citizens) to enter into employment with
5
OLYMPUSAT, only to then to coerce them into sexual relationships. MOHLER then promoted to
6
Executive level promotions within OLYMPUSAT women who acquiesced to his sexual demands. When
7
females attempted to end the relationship with MOHLER or otherwise objected to his sexual advances
8
MOHLER used his power and position as CEO to cow them into submission. MOHLER preyed upon
9
10 female staff’s vulnerability by threaten their employment and/or contract status and by taking or
11 threatening to take legal action. MOHLER’S actions created hostile and intimidating environment of
12 fear and financial instability.
13
19. PLAINTIFFS DINA LEE ALMEIDA and TRISTAN LEOSTAR provide film
14
production, licensing, and also distribution services of various film content from domestic and
15
international distributers with a major expertise in Asia.
16
17 20. TRISTAN LEOSTAR’s company “value” is its privileged relationships with its group
18 of distributers, entertainment executives, and studios in the Entertainment & Film Industry worldwide.
19 21. In 2014, MOHLER approached TRISTAN LEOSTAR through ALMEIDA to enter into
20 a Non Exclusive Consulting Services Agreement to provide expertise in licensing and distribution to
21
OLYMPUSAT. TRISTAN LEOSTAR agreed to work in the capacity as a Non-Exclusive Consultant
22
only and ALMEDIA executed a contract on behalf of TRISTAN LEOSTAR accordingly. MOHLER
23
executed the contract on behalf of OLYMPUSAT.
24
25 22. In 2016, MOHLER , on behalf of OLYMPUSAT, executed a second consulting services
26 agreement with TRISTAN LEOSTAR.
27
28
-5-
23. Prior to execution of the 2016 contract, PLAINTIFFS and OLYMPUSAT renegotiated
1
2 the contract pursuant to which, PLAINTIFFS continued to perform the above-identified services.
3 However, MOHLER now demanded that OLYMPUSAT sign “licensing deals directly” with TRISTAN
4 LEOSTAR’s suppliers and clients. MOHLER insisted that OLYMPUSAT would no longer would sign
5
deals directly with TRISTAN LEOSTAR, despite the terms of the prior Agreement. MOHLER also
6
demanded restrictive covenants be placed in the contract, despite ALMEIDA being a California resident,
7
in an attempt to prohibit her from taking any clients connected to the services of the Agreement. Because
8
of the restrictions, PLAINTIFFS were put at a financial disadvantage, as ALMEIDA was forced to rely
9
10 primarily on her monthly retainer payments from OLYMPUSAT for her income.
11 24. On August 16, 2018, the Consulting Services contract was amended in to provide an
12 extension of PLAINTIFFS’ services for two additional years. The 2018 contract was executed by
13
MOHLER on behalf of OLYMPUSAT..
14
25. At all times material to this Complaint, and during the majority of the professional
15
relationship between ALMEIDA , TRISTAN LEOSTAR, MOHLER, and OLYMPUSAT, ALMEIDA
16
17 ’s work was always completed timely and she and TRISTAN LEOSTAR were repeatedly praised,
18 including by top executives at OLYMPUSAT.
19 26. During PLAINTIFFs’ professional relationship with MOHLER and OLYMPUSAT, and
20 during all times material to this Complaint, MOHLER , as a Managing Agent of OLYMPUSAT,
21
attempted to dominate ALMEIDA’s full time work schedule. Besides attended a multitude of
22
OLYMPUSAT meetings held in various locations in California, MOHLER He required her to attend
23
Managers’ Meetings in and conferences in Florida, as well as overseas meetings in China and Japan.
24
25 MOHLER also required PLAINTIFFS to upload TRISTAN LEOSTAR’s suppliers ‘information into
26 OLYMPUSAT’s administrative and sales tracking program “SALESFORCE”. TRISTAN LEOSTAR’S
27
28
-6-
work progress was tracked on Excel reports by OLYMPUSAT Sales and Management departments just
1
2 as was done along with OLYMPUSAT Employees.
3 27. At the same time and continuing to the present, MOHLER engaged in sexually charged,
4 offensive, harassing, intimidating, and assaultive physical and verbal conduct toward
5
PLAINTIFFALMEIDA and toward other women who work for him in her presence, thereby creating a
6
hostile work environment based on gender.
7
28. MOHLER’s conduct has continued unabated, despite repeatedly being told by
8
PLAINTIFF and others in her presence to stop. If anything, MOHLER’s sexually harassing and
9
10 intimidating conduct toward PLAINTIFF and other female in her presence has accelerated, both in
11 frequency and intensity across time.

12 29. MOHLER’s conduct includes but is not limited to the following:
13
a. Incident Example #1: Ritz Carlton Hotel Marina Del Rey Sexual Harassment: On or
14
about 2015 or 2016 at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Marina Del Rey, California MOHLER
15
insisted ALMEIDA come to the hotel where he was staying for alleged “business
16
17 reasons”. Following the late luncheon/early dinner attended by ALMEIDA, MOHLER
18 and various OLYMPUSAT employees and contractors, MOHLER tried to coerce
19 PLAINTIFF ALMEIDA into spending the night with him at the hotel. He also stated he
20 would pay her $2500 a month to let him impregnate her so that she could “have his baby.”
21
On this same occasion, MOHLER threatened ALMEIDA that she better “include anal
22
sex” in his proposed sexual encounters with her. MOHLER said this in front of an
23
OLYMPUSAT senior executive male colleague. ALMEIDA asked the colleague to not
24
25 leave her alone in MOHLER ’s presence; he complied and walked her to the valet to get
26 her car so that she could leave.
27
28
-7-
b. Incident Example #2: Holiday Party Battery: At an incident occurring at an
1
2 OLYMPUSAT-sponsored holiday party held in Florida in December 2016, MOHLER
3 snuck up close behind ALMEIDA while she was engaged in talking to OLYMPUSAT
4 employees, initially placed his hand on her back and then slid his hand down her back to
5
her buttocks, which he grabbed in front of witnesses. MOHLER asked ALMEIDA to “do
6
a threesome” with his girlfriend, an OLYMPUSAT Employee. ALMEIDA immediately
7
told MOHLER “NO, I would never do that, ever.” Two OLYMPUSAT employees
8
observed MOHLER grope ALMEIDA. They pulled ALMEIDA away from MOHLER
9
10 and stayed near her throughout the night to prevent MOHLER from coming back to
11 harass and grope her. The day after this incident, ALMEIDA and employees were so
12 disturbed that she and a female OLYMPUSAT employee reported the incident to
13
OLYMPUSAT’s legal counsel, Jessenia Canot.
14
c. Incident Example #3: Battery and Sexual Harassment at Maestros Beverly Hills,
15
California Dinner: MOHLER made clear he wanted ALMEIDA to attend a dinner hosted
16
17 by MOHLER at Maestros restaurant in Beverly Hills, California on May 22, 2018.
18 ALMEIDA Attended such events either because they were mandated by MOHLER or
19 so as to maintain good relations with OLYMPUSAT personnel who were going to attend
20 and with whom she interacted on an ongoing basis. During the Maestro dinner, MOHLER
21
subjected ALMEIDA to sexual innuendos concerning his sexual prowess; boasted how
22
he would dress in leather to turn women on; made incessant lewd remarks concerning
23
PLAINTIFF and other women in her presence, including insinuating that he was the
24
25 father of a child of a married female employee. Toward the end of the evening, when
26 ALMEIDA got up from the table to leave the restaurant, MOHLER followed and stood
27 extremely close to her in a sexually provocative manner. He grabbed and/or slapped

28
-8-
ALMEIDA’s buttocks as she was departing. Throughout the course of the evening,
1
2 ALMEIDA made clear by facial and body gestures that she found MOHLER ’s verbal
3 and physical conduct extremely offensive and unwelcome, whether directed at her or at
4 other women in her presence.

5
d. Incident Example #4: Sexual Harassment in Malibu, California: In or about summer of
6
2018, MOHLER held a business meeting at a house in Malibu, California that he had
7
rented. MOHLER directed ALMEIDA and OLYMPUSAT employees to come to the
8
home for the ostensible purpose of discussing a new commissions formula for his
9
10 acquisitions team. Following the meeting, as ALMEIDA was getting ready to leave the
11 home, MOHLER asked her to spend the night with him. MOHLER made this proposition
12 in the presence of a male colleague. MOHLER informed ALMEIDA that his then
13
“girlfriend,” an OLYMPUSAT Executive employee, would not be arriving in the Los
14
Angeles area until the following day and “would not know”. ALMEIDA responded to
15
this offensive overture by stating “absolutely not,” whereupon she left the residence.
16
17 e. Incident Example #5: Earlier on that same occasion in Malibu, California, when
18 MOHLER and ALMEIDA were alone in the room where the meeting was being
19 conducted, MOHLER pestered her as to why she would not date him and had repeatedly
20 rebuffed his advances toward her. In response, ALMEIDA stated calmly that MOHLER
21
was “not a traditional man”, that she was dating someone else and was only interested in
22
a stable relationship which would lead to marriage. She concluded that clearly,
23
MOHLER was not someone with whom such a relationship was possible. MOHLER
24
25 retorted, “but I can give you a baby.”
26 f. On numerous occasions MOHLER continued to pursue ALMEIDA, insisting that she
27 become “his employee” to which she repeatedly responded “No, I am not able to as I have
28
-9-
obligations to my company. I not going to give up my company to become an employee.
1
2 Never.” MOHLER proposed buying TRISTAN LEOSTAR to force ALMEIDA to work
3 for him, stating that he would have to “rent another house in Malibu” for ALMEIDA and
4 him to discuss matters in private. Such overtures and proposals made ALMEIDA even
5
more uncomfortable, as it was clear that MOHLER was leveraging her professional
6
advancement with private meetings where he could continue his predatory scheme with
7
ALMEIDA out of public eye.
8
g. When ALMEDIA rejected MOHLER’s sexually predatory behavior and schemes to get
9
10 her under his control, MOHLER began harassing ALMEIDA by falsely alleging he was
11 “getting deals” as much as four times lower than the deals she was obtaining through
12 TRISTAN LEOSTAR. In further retaliation, MOHLER reduced TRISTAN
13
LEOSTAR/ALMEIDA ’s license fee budget from $2,000.00 per hour to $500.00 per
14
hour. When ALMEIDA challenged the veracity of MOHLER ’s representation about the
15
“cost” of the deals, in August 2018, MOHLER responded, “I guess I won’t need you.”
16
17 30. On nearly every occasion ALMEIDA and MOHLER were in the same location,
18 through their five (5) year professional relationship, MOHLER approached ALMEDIA physically in
19 an invasive manner, asked harassing questions or made sexually explicit and offensive comments,
20
including but not limited to stating he wanted to impregnate her so that she could “have his baby” and
21
asking ALMEIDA to have a “threesome” with his girlfriend on more than one occasion.
22
31. On numerous occasions, MOHLER made these statements in front of others,
23
24 suggesting that he and ALMEIDA were romantically involved or that she was interested in his sexual
25 prowess and advances.
26 32. To ALMEIDA’s understanding and knowledge, many of these incidents and other lewd,
27 salacious and harassing conduct by MOHLER were witnessed by or reported to OLYMPUSAT’s in-
28
- 10 -
house counsel, and other highly placed OLYMPUSAT employees. Rather than acting to protect female
1
2 employees and contractors, such as the PLAINTIFF, OLYMPUSAT human resources personnel, in-
3 house counsel and highly placed managers failed and refused to take any corrective action.
4 33. Unchecked, MOHLER has continued to advance to top levels of management within
5
OLYMPUSAT and/or, on information and belief, affiliated companies controlled by MOHLER,
6
females with whom he has a sexual relation . In exchange for sexual favors, he has given females
7
robust increases in salary, despite minimal experience in the TV business. When questioned about
8
such promotions by other top level management, MOHLER brags that he “trained her myself.”
9
10 34. Nothing or nothing effective has been done by OLYMPUSAT to curb MOHLER ’s
11 unlawful conduct. As a result, if anything, his taunts and offensive conduct have become more direct,
12 harassing, hostile, menacing, intimidating, threatening and sanctioned as time has gone on.
13
35. More recently, in 2019, and while continuing to engage in this harassing behavior,
14
MOHLER stepped up attempts to coerce ALMEIDA into agreeing to become an employee so as to
15
more effectively control her. In January 2018, while ALMEIDA was attending a work trip out of state,
16
17 MOHLER told her “you need to become an employee.” When ALMEIDA explained that TRISTAN
18 LEOSTAR had obligations to other clients and that becoming an employee for a mid-level salary
19 would not make financial sense, MOHLER responded she would “not have a choice” and that “I will
20 bankrupt you if you resist.”
21
36. MOHLER continued in his quest with a threatening email on February 1, 2019, at
22
3:18:34 AM PST (see Exhibit A) accusing ALMEIDA of “conflicts of interests working under
23
Plaintiff’s company”. MOHLER threatened ALMEIDA that he would “fold” her company stating, in
24
25 part, that unless ALMEIDA delivered a letter to her contacts telling them that she was folding her
26 other company and working for OLYMPUSAT, then her services with OLYMPUSAT would be
27 suspended that day. Later that day, ALMEIDA received a phone call from OLYMPUSAT’s in house
28
- 11 -
counsel,. During the call, ALMEIDA complained that MOHLER’s actions were a clear threat and
1
2 that she knew this “isn’t the first time MOHLER has accused and threatened women.” Ignoring
3 ALMEIDAs’ complaints, OLYMPUSAT’S counsel told ALMEIDA to upload her suppliers and
4 contacts information to OLYMPUSAT’s Salesforce Program. ALMEIDA explained she did not feel
5
comfortable doing that and declined.
6
37. Subsequently, on February 1, 2019, at 10:17:54 AM PST, OLYMPUSAT’s counsel
7
emailed ALMEIDA and “suspended” without cause or warning, the Consulting Services Agreement
8
between OLYMPUSAT and TRISTAN LEOSTAR and declared OLYMPUSAT’s intention to not
9
10 honor the payment obligations required by the Agreement (an outstanding amount for February of
11 approximately $10,000 including additional monthly retainers for the remaining term of the extended
12 two year contract).
13
38. Following the February 1, 2019, MOHLER emailed ALMEIDA directly at 3:51:41
14
PM PST, stating, in part, “I want to give you some advice on how this can go down. money drafting
15
lawyer letters and making threats Or you can become an employee. The fact that you're resisting
16
17 become an employee will speak volumes to the court about your possible activities that go outside the
18 scope of our contract. So you can make all the idle threats you want it's not gonna change the
19 situation. Anyway do whatever you want of course but we're not gonna be impressed with lawyer
20 letters or feel threatened in any way. I personally believe that you've been going outside the scope of
21
the contract I have a multitude of reasons at this point to believe that and your refusal to become
22
employee pretty much solidifies that belief. Your choice. Make the right one.”(See true and correct
23
copy of February 1, 2019, email, attached as Exhibit B).
24
25 39. Thus, at the same time MOHLER was accusing ALMEIDA of kickbacks and “getting
26 bad deals,” he was also threatening her with legal action to become an employee.
27
28
- 12 -
40. On February 4, 2019, OLYMPUSAT stopped paying TRISTAN LEOSTAR or
1
2 ALMEIDA any further compensation (thus causing ALMEIDA financial strain)OLYMPUSAT’s
3 counsel again contacted ALMEIDA in an attempt to coerce her employment with OLYMPUSAT.
4 41. On February 15, 2019, OLYMPUSAT announced it would only pay TRISTAN
5
LEOSTAR $5,000, an alleged prorated amount from the outstanding $10,000, owed under the terms of
6
the Agreement.
7
42. As a direct result of ALMEIDA’s resisting and protesting MOHLER ’s insistent sexual
8
demands, unwanted physical assaults, and offensive verbal sexual comments and insinuations, both
9
10 toward herself and toward other women in her presence, and in retaliation for ALMEIDA resisting
11 demands to become an OLYMPUSAT employee following MOHLER 's behavior, MOHLER has
12 retaliated against PLAINTIFFS ALMEDIA and TRISTAN LEOSTAR injuring their business interests.
13
43. Subsequently, on or about June 17, 2019, and by way of OLYMPUSAT’S Vice
14
President of Human Resources, MOHLER disseminated a memorandum to OLYMPUSAT employees
15
and third parties, including those no longer affiliated with OLYMPUSAT, making defamatory
16
17 statements about ALMEIDA .
18 44. Specifically, MOHLER’s memorandum stated, in part, “OLYMPUSAT previously
19 worked with a contractor, Dina ALMEIDA of TRISTAN LEOSTAR, to assist in our content
20 acquisition efforts. At the end of February, TRISTAN LEOSTAR’s contract was terminated based on
21
suspicions that Ms. ALMEIDA was accepting kickbacks from suppliers of content she brought to
22
OLYMPUSAT to license. The Company is vigorously pursuing its legal rights in the matter. We are
23
providing this information to our employees so they know they should cease form any contact with
24
25 Ms. ALMEIDA related to business effecting or concerning OLYMPUSAT. Any such contact could
26 lead to further damages to OLYMPUSAT and anyone found in communication with her will be
27
28
- 13 -
terminated effective immediately.” (See true and correct copy of June 17, 2019, Notice, attached hereto
1
2 as Exhibit C).
3 45. Upon information and belief, MOHLER has a history of accusing women, including
4 OLYMPUSAT employees, of illegal actions such as accepting kickbacks or bribes. MOHLER had
5
made such allegations against women who have resisted his sexual advances and/or who have asserted
6
claims of sexual harassment against him, as a way of threatening them and ruining their reputation–
7
causing them to live in fear and otherwise silence their complaints.
8
46. Since terminating PLAINTIFFS’ Agreement, MOHLER has stated intentions to
9
10 “bankrupt” ALMEIDA . PLAINTIFFS have suffered and continue to suffer severe economic loss and
11 financial hardship. PLAINTIFF ALMEIDA has suffered and continues to suffer emotional and
12 physical distress as a result of MOHLER and OLYMPUSAT’s conduct described herein. MOHLER
13
and OLYPUSAT have continued to circumvent PLAINTIFFS and attempted to interact and contract
14
directly with PLAINTIFFS’ clients and suppliers, torturously interfering in THEIR business. Such
15
conduct commenced several months before OLYMPUSAT terminated its agreement with TRISTAN
16
17 LEOSTAR without cause or warning.
18
Managing Agents
19
47. DEFENDANTS’ conduct, as described in paragraphs above, was performed or ratified
20
by managing agents of OLYMPUSAT including, but not limited to, MOHLER, OLYMPUSAT’S in-
21
house counsel, Colleen Glynn, and Valerie Ford Vice President of Human Resources (the “Managing
22
Agents”). The Managing Agents were each responsible for overseeing a substantial portion of
23
OLYMPUSAT’s business operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital
24
aspects of such operations including making significant decisions that affect OLYMPUSAT’S internal
25
policies. The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justifies
26
an award of punitive damages.
27
28
- 14 -
1 48. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above in paragraphs above, the Managing
2 Agents willfully disregarded Plaintiff’s right to be free from unlawful discrimination, harassment and
3 wrongful termination at the workplace.
4 49. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs above, the Managing Agents
5 acted despicably and subjected PLAINTIFF ALMEIDA to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious
6 disregard for her rights under California law. The Managing Agents’ conduct demonstrates a callous
7 indifference for the law and for each of the PLAINTIFF’s rights and business interests.
9 intended to cause emotional and financial injury to PLAINTIFFS Specifically, the Managing Agents
10 harassed ALMEIDA, denied PLAINTIFFS equal terms, conditions, and/or privileges of employment,
11 and tortuously interfered with their business interests with the intent to cause ALMEIDA severe
12 emotional distress or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiffs’ business interests and on
13 ALMEIDA’s career, livelihood, and emotional wellbeing.
14 IV.
15 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
16 51. Prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, ALMEIDA filed a complaint against OLYMPUSAT
17 and MOHLER with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) pursuant
18 to section 12900 et seq. of the California Government Code, alleging the claims described in this
19 Complaint. On May 20, 2019, the DFEH issued a “right to sue” letter. ALMEIDA filed a second Charge
20 and received a second Right to Sue on June 26, 2019. True and correct copies of the administrative
21 complaints and the “right to sue” letters are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit D. All conditions
22 precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. This action is filed within one year of the
23 date that the DFEH issued its right to sue letters.
24 CONTINUING VIOLATIONS
25 52. The wrongful acts and omissions giving rise to the DEFENDANTS’ liability in this action
26 commenced on or about 2015 and have been and are “continuing” in nature as of the date of the filing
27
28
- 15 -
1 of this Complaint. PLAINTIFFS reserve the right to amend this Complaint as new and additional facts
2 and claims arise or become known to PLAINTIFFS.
3
4 V.
5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
6 (Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA)
7 (On Behalf of Plaintiff ALMEIDA Against DEFENDANT)
8 53. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-52, inclusive, of this
9 Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
10 54. As explained in paragraphs 1-__ above, the Company’s supervisory and management
11 employees discriminated and harassed Plaintiff based in whole or part based on her sex, in violation of
12 the FEHA through numerous illegal acts including, without limitation, subjecting Plaintiff quid pro quo
13 discrimination, denying Plaintiff equal terms, conditions, and/or privileges of employment and loss of
14 business opportunities, including employment.
15 55. As a proximate result of the Company’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer
16 damages in terms of lost wages, lost earnings and profits lost bonuses, lost benefits, and other pecuniary
17 loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer physical and emotional
18 injuries, including nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain,
19 discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. The amount of Plaintiff’s damages will be ascertained at trial.
20 56. The Company’s conduct, as described in paragraphs above, was performed or ratified by
21 managing agents of the Company including, but not limited to, Tom MOHLER , Colleen Glynn and
22 Valerie Ford. The Managing Agents were each responsible for overseeing a substantial portion of the
23 Company’s business operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital aspects
24 of such operations including making significant decisions that affect the Company’s internal policies as
25 well as denying Plaintiff employment free from unlawful harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
26 The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justifies an award
27 of punitive damages.
28
- 16 -
3 retaliation as a prospective employee at the workplace.
5 acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for her rights
6 under California law. The Managing Agents’ conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law
7 and Plaintiff’s rights.
9 intended to cause emotional and financial injury to Plaintiff. Specifically, the Managing Agents harassed
10 Plaintiff, denied Plaintiff equal terms, conditions, and/or privileges of employment, and denied Plaintiff
11 business opportunities without regard for the consequences on Plaintiff’s career, livelihood, and
12 emotional wellbeing.
13 60. The FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by a
14 prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provisions. Plaintiff has employed and will continue
15 to employ attorneys for the initiation and prosecution of this action. Plaintiff has incurred and will
16 continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs herein. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and
17 costs.
18 61. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this
19 Court.
20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
21 (Harassment in Violation of the FEHA)
25 63. California Government Code section 12940(j)(1) makes it illegal for an employer or any
26 person to harass an employee because of their sex.
27
28
- 17 -
1 64. During the course of time DEFENDANT solicited Plaintiff for employment and while
2 Plaintiff was a candidate for employment, DEFENDANT engaged in a pattern of continuous and
3 pervasive harassment of Plaintiff based in whole or in part on her sex, which acts included, but were not
4 limited to, those alleged in paragraphs above.
5 65. As a proximate result of DEFENDANT’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to
6 suffer damages in terms of lost wages, lost earnings and profits, lost bonuses, lost benefits, and other
7 pecuniary loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer physical and
8 emotional injuries, including nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright,
9 shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. The amount of Plaintiff’s damages will be ascertained at
10 trial.
11 66. At all times relevant to this Complaint, MOHLER was a “supervisor” within the meaning
12
of California Government Code section 12926(r) because he had the authority, in the interest of the
13
Company, “to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline
14
other employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or to effectively
15
16 recommend that action,” and in connection with the foregoing were required to use independent
17 judgment. Because MOHLER was a supervisor as defined by the FEHA, DEFENDANT’s is strictly
18 liable for their acts of harassment.

19
67. The Company’s conduct, as described in paragraphs 1-52 above, was performed or
20
ratified by managing agents of the Company including, but not limited to, Tom MOHLER , Colleen
21
Glynn, and Valerie Ford. The Managing Agents were each responsible for overseeing a substantial
22
portion of the Company’s business operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority
23
24 over vital aspects of such operations including making significant decisions that affect the Company’s
25 internal policies. The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that
26 justifies an award of punitive damages.
27
28
- 18 -
68. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above in paragraphs above, the Managing
1
3 wrongful termination as a candidate for employment.
5
acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for her rights
6
under California law. The Managing Agents’ conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law
7
and Plaintiff’s rights.
8
70. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs above, the Managing Agents
9
11 Plaintiff, denied Plaintiff equal terms, conditions, and/or privileges of employment, and terminated
12 Plaintiff’s business opportunities with the intent to cause her severe emotional distress or at least without
13
regard for the consequences on Plaintiff’s career, livelihood, and his emotional wellbeing.
14
71. The FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by a
15
prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provisions. Plaintiff has employed and will continue
16
19 costs.
21
Court.
22
23 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA)
28
- 19 -
1 74. As explained in paragraphs 1-52 above, the Company’s supervisory and management
2 employees retaliated against Plaintiff based in whole or part based on her protected activities, including
3 her objection to sex harassment and discrimination, in violation of the FEHA through numerous illegal
4 acts by denying her employment opportunities and benefits and engaging in defamation in an attempt to
5 cause harm to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s business. Plaintiff’s protected activity was the substantial
6 motivating reason for Defendant’s actions.
7 75. As a proximate result of the Company’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer
8 damages in terms of lost wages, lost earnings and profits lost bonuses, lost benefits, and other pecuniary
9 loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer physical and emotional
10 injuries, including nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain,
11 discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. The amount of Plaintiff’s damages will be ascertained at trial.
13 managing agents of the Company including, but not limited to, Tom MOHLER , Colleen Glynn and
15 Company’s business operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital aspects
16 of such operations including making significant decisions that affect the Company’s internal policies as
17 well as denying Plaintiff employment free from unlawful harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
18 The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justifies an award
22 retaliation as a prospective employee at the workplace.
24 acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for her rights
25 under California law. The Managing Agents’ conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law
27
28
- 20 -
3 Plaintiff, denied Plaintiff equal terms, conditions, and/or privileges of employment, and denied Plaintiff
4 business opportunities without regard for the consequences on Plaintiff’s career, livelihood, and
5 emotional wellbeing.
7 prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provisions. Plaintiff has employed and will continue
10 costs.
12 Court.
13 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14
(Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of the FEHA)
15
(On Behalf of Plaintiff ALMEIDA Against DEFENDANT OLYMPUSAT)
16
82. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-52, inclusive, of this
17
19 83. California Government Code section 12940(k) makes it an unlawful employment practice
20 for an employer to “fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment from
21
occurring.” This provision also makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to prevent retaliation. See,
22
e.g., Ortiz v. Georgia Pacific, 973 F. Supp. 2d 1162, 1184 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (citing Taylor v. City of Los
23
Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power, 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1240 (2006)). The Company violated this
24
provision by failing to prevent discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff, including those acts
25
26 described above. Specifically, the Company knew or should have known of the discrimination and
27
28
- 21 -
harassment against Plaintiff yet failed to take prevent such conduct or take any prompt or adequate
1
2 remedial action.
3 84. As a proximate result of DEFENDANT’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to
4 suffer damages in terms of lost wages, lost earnings and profits, lost bonuses, lost benefits, and other
5
pecuniary loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer physical and
6
emotional injuries, including nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright,
7
shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. The amount of Plaintiff’s damages will be ascertained at
8
trial.
9
11 managing agents of the Company including, but not limited to, Tom MOHLER , Colleen Glynn, and
13
Company’s business operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital aspects
14
of such operations including making significant decisions that affect the Company’s internal policies.
15
The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justifies an award
16
19 Agents willfully disregarded Plaintiff’s right to be free from unlawful discrimination, harassment as an
20 employment candidate.
21
87. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs above, the Managing Agents
22
acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for her rights
23
under California law. The Managing Agents’ conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law
24
28
- 22 -
Plaintiff, denied Plaintiff equal terms, conditions, and/or privileges of employment, and denied Plaintiff
1
2 business opportunities with the intent to cause him severe emotional distress or at least without regard
3 for the consequences on Plaintiff’s career, livelihood, and his emotional wellbeing.
5
prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provisions. Plaintiff has employed and will continue
6
to employ attorneys for the initiation and prosecution of this action. Plaintiff has incurred and will
7
continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs herein. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and
8
costs.
9
11 Court.
12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13
SEX-BASED DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
14
[CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 51]
15
(Plaintiff ALMEIDA Against Defendants)
16
17 91. Plaintiff, individually, incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each
18 and every allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a first, separate and distinct cause of action,
19 Plaintiff complains against DEFENDANT as follows:

20 92. DEFENDANT TOM MOHLER is being sued in his capacity as a business owner/CEO
21
of OLYMPUSAT.
22
93. Civil Code section 51, et seq., also known as the Unruh Act, provides that all persons in
23
the state are entitled to the “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or
24
25 services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever,” regardless of sex.
26 94. Plaintiff is informed and believed and thereon alleges that the aforementioned conduct
27 of DEFENDANT denied, aided, or incited in a denial of, discriminated or made a distinction that
28
- 23 -
denied plaintiff full and equal advantages, privileges, and services to Plaintiff, based solely upon
1
2 plaintiff’s sex and complaints about DEFENDANT MOHLER sexual abuse, and therefore constituted
3 a violation of the Unruh Act.
4 95. As a proximate result of the wrongful actions of DEFENDANT, Plaintiff has suffered
5
harm, including but not limited to, lost earnings and other employment benefits, loss of future
6
employment benefits, including insurance and pension, mental anguish and emotional distress, bills for
7
medical and psychological treatment, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, and physical harm,
8
all in an amount to be proven at trial but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.
9
10 96. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
11 DEFENDANT, acted and continue to act, with full knowledge of the consequences and damage being
12 caused to Plaintiff, by DEFENDANT’s actions, and DEFENDANT’s actions were, and are, willful,
13
oppressive, and malicious. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against DEFENDANT
14
in a sum according to proof at trial.
15
97. Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees in the prosecution of
16
17 this action and therefore demand such reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as set by the court.
18 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth herein.
19 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20 SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
21
[CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 51.9]
22
(PLAINTIFF ALMEIDA against DEFENDANTS)
23
98. Plaintiff, individually, incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each
24
25 and every allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a separate and distinct cause of action,
26 Plaintiff complains against DEFENDANT follows:
27
28
- 24 -
99. Civil Code section 51.9, also part of the Unruh Act, provides that a DEFENDANT is
1
2 liable for sexual harassment where there is a professional relationship between the plaintiff and
3 DEFENDANT, and “The DEFENDANT has made sexual advances, solicitations, sexual requests,
4 demands for sexual compliance by the plaintiff, or engaged in other verbal, visual, or physical conduct
5
of a sexual nature or of a hostile nature based on gender, that were unwelcome and pervasive or
6
severe.”
7
100. At all times herein mentioned, there was a professional relationship between plaintiff
8
and the DEFENDANTs, namely, ALMEIDA was part of a contractual service Agreement between
9
10 Defendant and Plaintiff, whereby the Agreement had certain provisions limiting Plaintiffs’ services to
11 just OLYMPUSAT, thus, she could not easily terminate the Agreement without severe financial
12 repercussions.
13
101. In or about 2014 and continuing through 2019, DEFENDANT MOHLER began making
14
sexual advances on Plaintiff. He eventually demanded sexual compliance, and when it was denied to
15
him, stripped Plaintiff of her business opportunities, sexually assaulted her, and continued to retaliate
16
17 against her for refusing his sexual advances.
18 102. Plaintiff could not easily terminate her relationship with DEFENDANT without
19 tangible hardship because of the strict contractual terms demanded by DEFENDANT MOHLER.
20 Terminating the relationship would cause her great financial hardship.
21
103. Plaintiff is informed and believed and thereon alleges that the aforementioned conduct
22
of DEFENDANTs, and each of them, denied, aided, or incited in a denial of, discriminated or made a
23
distinction that denied plaintiff full and equal advantages, privileges, and services to Plaintiff, based
24
25 solely upon plaintiff’s refusal to submit to sexual advances, and therefore constituted a violation of the
26 Unruh Act.
27
28
- 25 -
104. As a proximate result of the wrongful actions of DEFENDANTs, and each of them,
1
2 Plaintiff has suffered harm, including but not limited to, lost earnings and other employment benefits,
3 loss of future employment benefits, including insurance and pension, humiliation, embarrassment,
4 mental anguish and emotional distress, bills for medical and psychological treatment, emotional upset
5
manifesting in physical distress harm, all in an amount to be proven at trial but exceeding the minimum
6
jurisdictional limits of this court.
7
105. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
8
DEFENDANTs, and each of them, acted and continue to act, with full knowledge of the consequences
9
10 and damage being caused to plaintiff, by DEFENDANTs’ actions, and DEFENDANTs’ actions were,
11 and are, willful, oppressive, and malicious. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages
12 against DEFENDANTs, and each of them, in a sum according to proof at trial.
13
106. Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees in the prosecution of
14
this action and therefore demand such reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as set by the court.
15
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth herein.
16
17 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 VIOLATION OF THE RALPH ACT [CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 51.7]
19 (PLAINTIFF ALMEIDA Against All DEFENDANTs)

21
and every allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a separate and distinct cause of action,
22
Plaintiff complains against DEFENDANTs as follows:
23
108. Civil Code section 51.5, the Ralph Act, provides that persons have the right to be free
24
25 from violence or threat of violence, committed against their persons or property due to, among other
26 things, their gender.
27
28
- 26 -
109. On or about 2014, and continuing through 2019, DEFENDANT MOHLER began
1
2 making sexual advances on Plaintiff. These advances were physical and violent in nature, at times
3 involving touching the person of plaintiff, groping her while making sexual comments, and including
4 sexual assault, without Plaintiff’s consent.

5
110. Plaintiff’s sex was the reason for DEFENDANT’s unwanted physical contact and
6
sexual battery.
7
8
of DEFENDANTs, and each of them, denied, aided, or incited in a denial of, discriminated or made a
9
10 distinction that denied plaintiff full and equal advantages, privileges, and services to Plaintiff, based
11 solely upon plaintiff’s refusal to submit to sexual advances and her objections to the physical assault
12 that was inflicted upon her, and therefore constituted a violation of the Ralph Act.
13
14
Plaintiff has suffered harm, including but not limited to, lost earnings and other employment benefits,
15
loss of future employment benefits, including insurance and pension, humiliation, embarrassment,
16
17 mental anguish, and physical harm, all in an amount to be proven at trial but exceeding the minimum
18 jurisdictional limits of this court.
20 DEFENDANTs, and each of them, acted and continue to act, with full knowledge of the consequences
21
and damage being caused to plaintiff, by DEFENDANTs’ actions, and DEFENDANTs’ actions were,
22
and are, willful, oppressive, and malicious. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages
23
against DEFENDANTs, and each of them, in a sum according to proof at trial.
24
25 114. Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees in the prosecution of

28
- 27 -
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1
2 INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
3 IN VIOLATION OF THE BANE ACT [CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1]

5
6
7
8
116. Civil Code section 52.1, the Bane Act, provides that it is unlawful to interfere with the
9
10 exercise or enjoyment of any rights under the Constitution and laws of this state and the United States
11 by use or attempted use of threats, intimidation or coercion.

12 117. At all times herein mentioned, there was a professional relationship between plaintiff
13
and the DEFENDANTs, namely, ALMEIDA was part of a contractual service Agreement between
14
Defendant and Plaintiff, whereby the Agreement had certain provisions limiting Plaintiffs’ services to
15
just OLYMPUSAT..
16
17 118. On or about 2015 and continuing through 2019, DEFENDANT MOHLER began
18 making sexual advances on Plaintiff. These advances were at time physical and violent in nature, at
19 times involving touching the person of plaintiff while making sexual comments and eventually
20 culminating in a violent sexual assault without Plaintiff’s consent.
21
119. Under Civil Code section 51, plaintiff has the right to full and equal accommodation
22
and service in all business establishments within the state, and may not be refused entry or service
23
because of her gender.
24
25 120. Plaintiff’s sex was the reason for DEFENDANT’s unwanted physical contact and
26 ultimate sexual assault.
27
28
- 28 -
1
2 of DEFENDANTs, and each of them, denied, aided, or incited in a denial of, discriminated or made a
3 distinction that denied plaintiff full and equal advantages, privileges, and services to Plaintiff, based
4 solely upon plaintiff’s refusal to submit to sexual advances and her objections to the physical assault
5
that was inflicted upon her, and therefore constituted a violation of the Bane Act.
6
7
Plaintiff has suffered harm, including but not limited to, lost earnings and other employment benefits,
8
lost profits and earnings, loss of future employment benefits, including insurance and pension,
9
10 humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, and physical harm, all in an amount to be proven at trial
11 but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.

13
DEFENDANTs, and each of them, acted and continue to act, with full knowledge of the consequences
14
and damage being caused to plaintiff, by DEFENDANTs’ actions, and DEFENDANTs’ actions were,
15
and are, willful, oppressive, and malicious. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages
16
17 against DEFENDANTs, and each of them, in a sum according to proof at trial.
21
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22
GENDER VIOLENCE IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §52.4
23
PLAINTIFF ALMEIDA Against all DEFENDANTs
24
25 125. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and every
26 allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a separate and distinct claim for relief, Plaintiff Dina
27 ALMEIDA complains against all DEFENDANTs as follows:

28
- 29 -
126. Plaintiff ALMEIDA is informed and believe and otherwise alleges that DEFENDANT
1
2 OLYMPUSAT is strictly liable for DEFENDANTs’ actions under the principles of respondeat
3 superior, as alleged herein and otherwise had advance knowledge that DEFENDANT MOHLER
4 would engage in this despicable conduct and by their actions and inactions ratified, authorized and
5
condoned this unlawful behavior.
6
127. California Civil Code Section 52.4 provides:
7
(a) Any person who has been subjected to gender violence may bring a civil action for damages
8
against any responsible party. The plaintiff may seek actual damages, compensatory damages,
9
10 punitive damages, injunctive relief, any combination of those, or any other appropriate relief. A
11 prevailing plaintiff may also be awarded attorney's fees and costs.

12 (b) An action brought pursuant to this section shall be commenced within three years of the act,
13
or if the victim was a minor when the act occurred, within eight years after the date the plaintiff
14
attains the age of majority or within three years after the date the plaintiff discovers or
15
reasonably should have discovered the psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of
16
17 majority that was caused by the act, whichever date occurs later.
18 (c) For purposes of this section, "gender violence," is a form of sex discrimination and means
19 any of the following:

20 (1) One or more acts that would constitute a criminal offense under state law that has as
21
an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person
22
or property of another, committed at least in part based on the gender of the victim,
23
whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or
24
25 conviction.
26
27
28
- 30 -
(2) A physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive
1
2 conditions, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges,
3 prosecution, or conviction.
4 (d) Notwithstanding any other laws that may establish the liability of an employer for the acts
5
of an employee, this section does not establish any civil liability of a person because of her or
6
her status as an employer, unless the employer personally committed an act of gender violence.
7
128. Plaintiff ALMEIDA alleges that between 2015 and 2019, DEFENDANT TOM
8
MOHLER violated California Civil Code Section 52.4 in that one or more acts inflicted on Plaintiff
9
10 constitutes a criminal offense under state law that has as an element of use, attempted use, or
11 threatened use of physical force against her person, committed at least in part based on the gender of
12 Plaintiff, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or
13
conviction.
14
129. As direct and proximate result of DEFENDANT MOHLER ’s violated California Civil
15
Code Section 52.4, Plaintiff ALMEIDA suffered severe emotional distress, post-traumatic stress
16
17 disorder, humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress and anxiety, all in an amount
18 according to proof at trial.
19 130. As direct and proximate result of DEFENDANT MOHLER ’s violation of California

20 Civil Code Section 52.4, Plaintiff Dina ALMEIDA suffered economic harm and other consequential
21
damages all in an amount according to proof at trial.
22
131. The acts of DEFENDANT MOHLER , as alleged herein were willful, wanton, and
23
malicious and were intended to oppress and cause injury to Plaintiff Dina Almeida. In light of the
24
25 willful, wanton, malicious and intentional conduct engaged in by DEFENDANT MOHLER , Plaintiff
26 Dina ALMEIDA is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
27
28
- 31 -
132. Plaintiff Dina ALMEIDA also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as set forth
1
2 below.
5
7 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

8 UNFAIR COMPETITION
9
[CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.]
10
(PLAINTIFFS Against All DEFENDANTs)
11
12
14 Plaintiff complains against DEFENDANTs as follows:
15 135. The court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Business and Professions Code
16 section 17200 et seq., specifically Business and Professions Code section 17203, which provides that
17
any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in
18
any court of competent jurisdiction; and the court may make such orders or judgments, including the
19
appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any
20
21 practice which constitutes unfair competition, or as may be necessary to restore to any person in
22 interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such
23 unfair competition; and Business and Professions Code Section 17204, which provides for actions for
24
any relief pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law to be prosecuted exclusively in a court of competent
25
jurisdiction by any board, officer, person, corporation or association or by any person acting for the
26
interests of itself, or its members and that has suffered an injury in fact and lost money or property as a
27
result of DEFENDANTs’ conduct.
28
- 32 -
136. DEFENDANTs have engaged in, and continue to engage in the following unlawful,
1
2 unfair and/or fraudulent business practices in violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and
3 Professions Code: sex based discrimination in violation of Civil Code section 51, et. Seq.; sexual
4 harassment in violation of Civil Code section 51.9; violation of the Ralph Act; violation of the Bane
5
Act; defamation; civil conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff her civil rights based on sex; intentional infliction
6
of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; negligence; and negligent supervision
7
and hiring.
8
137. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of DEFENDANTs’ wrongful conduct as
9
10 alleged above, DEFENDANTs’ business acts or practices have caused injury to the Plaintiff and the
11 public. Plaintiff is entitled to relief, including full restitution and/or disgorgement of all revenues,
12 earnings, profits, compensation and benefits that may have been obtained by DEFENDANTs as a
13
result of such business acts or practices.
14
138. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that DEFENDANTs’ illegal
15
acts as described above are a serious and continuing threat to Plaintiff and the public. If
16
17 DEFENDANTs are allowed to continue their unfair and unlawful acts, Plaintiff and the public will
18 suffer further immediate and irreparable injury, loss and damage. Plaintiff is further informed and
19 believes, and based thereon alleges, that, in the absence of a temporary restraining order and
20 preliminary and permanent injunctions as prayed for below, DEFENDANTs will continue to unfairly
21
and unlawfully compete.
22
23
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24
25 TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS
26 (PLAINTIFFS Against All DEFENDANTs)
27
28
- 33 -
1
4 140. Between 2014 and the present, Plaintiff ALMEIDA was owner and operator of
5
TRISTAN LEOSTAR, an international, multi-platform media company engaged in all aspects of
6
entertainment, specializing in production, acquisition, and distribution of motion pictures and other
7
entertainment and with clients and contacts throughout the world for services.
8
141. DEFENDANTs knew of the above-described contracts and financial relationships
9
10 existing between Plaintiffs and the individuals because PLAINTIFFs provided their supplier/client list
11 to Defendant during their professional relationship.

12 142. Between 2015 and the present, DEFENDANTs engaged in a number of acts designed to
13
intentionally disrupt the economic relationship between Plaintiffs and customers.
14
143. In particular, DEFENDANTs defamed Plaintiffs by disseminated a false memorandum
15
in 2019 accusing PLAINTIFFS of criminal acts and published to third parties outside Defendant
16
17 OLYMPUSAT, including, upon information and belief, PLAINTIFFS clients/customers/suppliers..
18 144. This conduct was wrongful for reasons other than that it constituted interference with a
19 prospective economic advantage. The conduct also violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code
20 section 51 et seq. and particularly section 51.9;the Ralph Act; the Bane Act; Business and Professions
21
Code section 17200 (Unfair/Unlawful Competition); constituted an unlawful civil conspiracy; was
22
defamatory; constituted intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress; and was negligent.
23
145. These disruptions to Plaintiff’s teaching career prevented her from continuing those
24
25 professional relationships and otherwise earning money that she otherwise would have earned.
26
27
28
- 34 -
146. As a result of DEFENDANTs’ conduct and the prevention and/or disruption of contract
1
2 negotiations between Plaintiffs and potential customers, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount
3 to be proved at trial.
4 147. The aforementioned acts of DEFENDANTs were willful and oppressive or fraudulent
5
or malicious. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive damages.
6
148. DEFENDANTs threaten to, and unless restrained, will continue to disrupt other
7
business relationships between Plaintiffs and potential customers, to Plaintiffs’ great irreparable injury,
8
for which damages would not afford adequate relief, in that they would not completely compensate for
9
10 the injury to Plaintiffs’ business reputation and goodwill.

12 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
14
15
149. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and every
16
17 allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff
18 complains against DEFENDANTs as follows:
19 150. On or about 2019, DEFENDANTs and other nonparties and each of them knowingly
20 and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to discriminate against PLAINTIFFS based on
21
ALMEIDA’S sex and based on her refusal to submit to DEFENDANT Mohler’s sexual advances.
22
151. DEFENDANTs and nonparties engaged in a campaign of harassment and threats
23
against plaintiff for speaking out about DEFENDANT Mohler’s actions, for warning other females of
24
25 the danger MOHLER posed, for objecting to solicitations for employment based on concerns of
26 continued harassment, and by terminating TRISTAN LEOSTAR’s relationship with OLYMPUSAT
27 after her objections.

28
- 35 -
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for relief as set forth herein.
1
2 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3 DEFAMATION

5
152. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and every
6
allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiffs
7
complains against DEFENDANTs as follows:
8
153. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that DEFENDANTs,
9
10 recklessly and intentionally caused excessive and unsolicited internal and external publications of
11 defamation, of and concerning Plaintiffs, to third persons. These false and defamatory statements
12 included express and implied accusations that Plaintiffs were incompetent in work, profession or trade
13
and/or engaged in criminal activity.
14
154. The statements made by DEFENDANTs and their agents infer or express state that
15
Plaintiffs are liars, especially about the allegations set forth in the complaint.
16
17 155. These statements were defamatory per se insofar as they related to Plaintiffs’
18 qualifications in her professions and trades.
19 156. While the precise date of all these publications are not known to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs are
20 informed and believe that these various publications started in or about 2019 and continued to the
21
present, and that it was foreseeable that they would be re-published by the DEFENDANTs and the
22
non-privileged third parties to whom DEFENDANTs spread the defamatory statements.
23
157. During the above-described time frame, DEFENDANTs did negligently, recklessly and
24
25 intentionally cause excessive and unsolicited publication of defamation, of and concerning Plaintiffs,
26 to third persons who had no need or desire to know. Those third persons to whom DEFENDANTs
27
28
- 36 -
published this defamation are believed to include, but are not limited to the other DEFENDANTs
1
2 named in this Action, and each of them, as well as the Doe DEFENDANTs.
3 158. The defamatory publications consisted or oral, knowingly false and unprivileged
4 communications, tending directly to injure Plaintiff and her personal, business and professional
5
reputation.
6
159. Plaintiffs are informed and believes that the negligent, reckless, and intentional
7
publications made by DEFENDANTs, and each of them, that it was foreseeable that these statements
8
would be published and re-published.
9
10 160. Plaintiffs are informed, believes and fears that these unprivileged defamatory statements
11 will continue to be published by DEFENDANTs and will be re-published by their recipients, all to the
12 ongoing harm and injury to Plaintiff’s business, professional and personal reputation.
13
161. The defamatory meaning of all the above-described, false and defamatory statements
14
and their reference to Plaintiff was understood by DEFENDANTs. These statements were false and
15
were understood as assertions of fact, and not as opinion.
16
17 162. Each of these false defamatory per se publications (as set forth above) were negligently,
18 recklessly, and intentionally published in a manner equaling malice and abuse of any alleged
19 conditional privilege. These publications, and each of them, were made with hatred, ill will, and an
20 intent to vex, harass, annoy, and injure Plaintiffs in order to justify the illegal and cruel actions of
21
DEFENDANTs and to cause further damage to Plaintiffs’ professional and personal reputation, for the
22
purpose of causing Plaintiffs to be denied employment and business opportunities and in retaliation for
23
her reporting and opposing discrimination and harassment.
24
25 163. Each of these publications by DEFENDANTs was made with the knowledge that no
26 investigation supported the unsubstantiated and obviously false statements. DEFENDANTs published
27
28
- 37 -
these statements knowing them to be false and unsubstantiated by any reasonable investigation and the
1
2 product of hostile witnesses.
3 164. Not only did DEFENDANTs have no reasonable basis to believe these statements, she
4 also had no belief in the truth of these statements and, in fact, knew the statements to be false.
5
165. DEFENDANTs committed the despicable acts as herein alleged maliciously,
6
fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intent of injuring Plaintiffs, and have acted with an
7
improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and fraud and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’
8
rights. Because the despicable acts taken toward Plaintiffs were carried out in a deliberate, cold,
9
10 callous and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiffs, they are entitled to recover
11 punitive damages from DEFENDANTs in an amount according to proof.

12 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth herein.
13
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
15
(PLAINTIFF ALMEIDA Against All DEFENDANTs)
16
17 166. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and every
18 allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a separate and distinct claim for relief, Plaintiff
19 complains against DEFENDANTs:

20 167. This is an action for damages pursuant to the common law of the State of California as
21
mandated by the California Supreme Court in the decision of Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 65.
22
168. DEFENDANTs engaged in the extreme and outrageous conduct herein above alleged
23
with wanton and reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional
24
25 distress.
26 169. This touching was unwanted and was done without Plaintiff’s consent.
27
28
- 38 -
170. As a proximate result of the extreme and outrageous conduct engaged in by
1
2 DEFENDANTs, Plaintiff suffered humiliation, mental anguish and extreme emotional and physical
3 distress all to her general damage in an amount according to proof at trial.
4 171. DEFENDANTs’ conduct as herein alleged was malicious and oppressive in that it was
5
conduct carried on by DEFENDANTs in a willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and
6
subjected her to cruel and unjust hardship. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive
7
damages against DEFENDANTs.
8
172. As a direct, foreseeable and legal result of DEFENDANTs’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff has
9
10 suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, bonuses and other employment benefits,
11 in addition to expenses incurred in obtaining alternative employment, and has suffered and continue to
12 suffer humiliation, embarrassment, severe mental and emotional distress, and discomfort, all to
13
Plaintiff Almeida’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial.
14
15
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16
17 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
21
22
174. DEFENDANTs owed Plaintiff a duty of care not to cause her emotional distress.
23
175. DEFENDANTs breached this duty of care by way of their own conduct as alleged
24
25 herein.
26 176. For example, DEFENDANT TOM MOHLER physically touched Plaintiff, groped, and
27 kissed her. The touchings were unwanted and was done without Plaintiff consent.
28
- 39 -
177. DEFENDANTs’ conduct form 2015 and continuing in the present has caused Plaintiff
1
2 emotional distress.
3 178. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTs’ extreme and outrageous acts, Plaintiff has
4 suffered emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment.

5
179. DEFENDANTs’ conduct has caused and continues to cause Plaintiff substantial losses
6
in earnings, significant reputation and professional injury, medical expenses, future earnings and
7
benefits, costs of suit, embarrassment and anguish, all to her damage in an amount according to proof.
8
9
10 SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 NEGLIGENCE
13
14
15
16
17 181. DEFENDANTs and Does 1-25 inclusive, in their individual capacities and official
18 capacities, committed the negligent actions and/or negligent failures to act, as set forth herein above
19 and those acts proximately cause the emotional, physical and financial injuries visited upon plaintiff.
20 182. DEFENDANTs owed Plaintiff a duty of care not to cause her emotional distress.
21
183. DEFENDANTs breached this duty of care by way of their own conduct as alleged
22
herein.
23
184. For example, DEFENDANT TOM MOHLER physically touched Plaintiff, groped, and
24
25 kissed her. The touchings were unwanted and was done without Plaintiff consent.
26 185. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTs’ extreme and outrageous acts, Plaintiff has
27 suffered emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment.

28
- 40 -
186. DEFENDANTs’ conduct has caused and continues to cause Plaintiff substantial losses
1
2 in earnings, significant reputation and professional injury, medical expenses, future earnings and
3 benefits, costs of suit, embarrassment and anguish, all to her damage in an amount according to proof.

5
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6
NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION, AND DISCIPLINE
7
(PLAINTIFF ALMEIDA Against Olympusat)
8
9

12 188. DEFENDANT OLYMPUSAT had a mandatory duty of care to properly hire, train,
13
retain, supervise and discipline its employees so as to avoid unreasonable harm to citizens.
14
189. With deliberate indifference OLYMPUSAT failed to take necessary, proper, or
15
adequate measures in order to prevent the violation of Plaintiff’s rights and injury to Plaintiff.
16
17 190. Among other acts and/or failures to act, OLYMPUSAT retained DEFENDANT
18 MOHLER despite his long and well-known history of abusing and sexually harassing females
19 contractors and employees based on sex.

20 191. DEFENDANT OLYMPUSAT breached a duty of care to law-abiding citizens and
21
failed to adequately train employees to treat citizens in a manner that is not sexually discriminatory
22
and/or harassing and/or violent. This lack of adequate supervisory training, and/or policies and
23
procedures demonstrates a failure to make reasonable attempts and to prevent sexually discriminatory
24
25 behavior toward consumers. In addition, the retention of DEFENDANT MOHLER despite his well-
26 known pattern of abuse and harassment was negligent.
27
28
- 41 -
192. DEFENDANT OLYMPUSAT committed the negligent actions and/or negligent
1
2 failures to act, as set forth herein above and those acts proximately cause the emotional, physical and
3 financial injuries visited upon plaintiff.

5
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6
UNLAWFUL NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT [BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §
7
16600 ET SEQ.]
8
9
10 193. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and every
11 allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiffs
12 complain against DEFENDANTs as follows:
13
194. As a condition of performing services with Defendant OLYMPUSAT, PLAINTIFFS
14
were required to sign contracts purporting to limit abilities to compete against DEFENDANTs in the
15
future.
16
17 195. These contracts, by their terms, violation California Business and Professions Code
18 section 16600, which bars non-compete agreements of this type, and are therefore void.
19 196. Plaintiffs brings this cause of action for declaratory relief and seeks a declaration that
20 the contracts are void.
21
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for relief as set forth herein.
22
NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23
CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
24
26
27
28
- 42 -
1
3 complains against DEFENDANTs and each of them, as follows:
4 198. For all the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs seeks a declaration from the Court that the
5
contracts they signed with DEFENDANTs are void.
6
199. Further, Plaintiffs seeks a Court Order enjoining DEFENDANTs from preventing
7
Plaintiffs from engaging in activity prohibited under California law, including California Business &
8
Professions Code section 16600.
9
11 TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION

12 BATTERY
13
(PLAINTIFF ALMEIDA Against All DEFENDANTs MOHLER)
14
15
allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a separate and distinct claim for relief, Plaintiff
16
17 complains against DEFENDANTs and each of them, as follows:
18 201. As alleged hereinabove, Defendant battered Plaintiff. In performing the acts described
19 herein, Defendant acted with intent to make a harmful and offensive contact with Plaintiff’s person.
20 202. Defendant did bring himself into offensive and unwelcomed contact with Plaintiff as
21
described herein.
22
203. At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF found the contact by Defendant MOHLER to be
23
offensive to her person and dignity. At no time did Plaintiff consent to any of these acts by
24
25 DEFENDANT MOHLER.
26 204. As a result of Defendant MOHLER’s acts described herein, Plaintiff was physically
27 harmed and/or experienced offensive contact with her person in California.

28
- 43 -
205. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant MOHLER’s unlawful conduct as alleged
1
2 hereinabove, PLAINTIFF has suffered physical injury, severe emotional distress, humiliation,
3 embarrassment, mental and emotional distress and anxiety, economic harm and other consequential
4 damages, all in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional minimum of the Superior Court according to
5
proof at trial.
6
206. The aforementioned conduct by Defendant was willful, wanton, and malicious. At all
7
relevant times, Defendant acted with conscious disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights and feelings.
8
Defendant acted with knowledge or with reckless disregard for the fact that their conduct was certain
9
10 to cause injury and/or humiliation to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that Defendant
11 intended to cause fear, physical injury and/or pain and suffering to the Plaintiff. By virtue of the
12 foregoing, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive and exemplary damages from Defendant
13
according to proof at trial.
14
15
TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
16
17 INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS
19 207. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and every
21
complains against DEFENDANTs and each of them, as follows:
22
208. PLAINTIFFS claim that DEFENDANTS intentionally interfered with an economic
23
relationship between them and third parties which probably would have resulted in an economic
24
25 benefit to PLAINTIFFS.
26 209. DEFENDANTS knew of PLAINTIFFS’ relationship;
27 210. DEFENDANTs engaged in conduct including defamation per se of PLAINTIFFs,

28
- 44 -
211. By engaging in this conduct, DEFENDANTS intended to disrupt PLAINTIFFS
1
2 relationships and/or knew that the disruption of the relationship was certain or substantially certain to
3 occur.
4 212. The relationship was disrupted

5
213. PLAINTIFFS were harmed, and
6
214. DEFENDANTS conduct was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFFS’ harm.
7
215. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth herein.
8
10
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
11
Wherefore Plaintiffs pray for judgment against DEFENDANTs, and each of them, as follows:
12
13 1. For a money judgment representing compensatory damages including lost wages, earnings,
14 and all other sums of money, together with interest on these amounts, according to proof;
15 2. For an award of money judgment for mental pain and anguish and severe emotional distress,
16 including medical special damages, according to proof;
17
3. For an award of money judgment for defamation per se;
18
4. Punitive damages, according to proof,
19
5. For attorney’s fees and costs;
20
21 6. For a statutory civil penalty in the sum of $25,000 pursuant to Civ. Code section 52(b);
22 7. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
23 8. For declarative and injunctive relief; and

24
9. For such other and further relief and the Court deems proper and just.
25
26
27
28
- 45 -
From: Tom Mohler <tom@olympusat.com>
Date: February 1, 2019 at 3:18:34 AM PST
To: Dina Lee <dina@tristanleostar.com>
Cc: Colleen Glynn <colleen@olympusat.com>, Aurora Bacquerie <aurora@olympusat.com>,
Valerie Ford <valerie@olympusat.com>, Jacqueline Norgren <jackie@olympusat.com>,
Chris Williams <chris@olympusat.com>
Subject: Employment
We are going to work on your employment agreement today. We will sign that with you
next week. I have strong suspicion that with your other company’s financial situation that
you have a significant potential conflict of interest working under that company.
I feel that conflict could cause you to communicate to people that your company should get
paid commissions on the side.
The fact that we have a Hong Kong consultant coming in with deals that are $900 per hour
for all of Latin America and the US for five years all networks and VOD compared to your
historic deals of $2000.00 per hour for US only, Toku only, confirms that you are not
getting the optimum deals. In fact, his deals are about 4x better than yours.
Therefor you are prohibited from doing any deals without Aurora or Maria being on those
calls for time being to prevent any potential problems alluded above.
I said that I would try to help you with your other problems, but you have not followed up
with me. I am still open to that.
I need to see a letter today to all your contact telling them that you are folding your other
company and working for Olympusat. If there is no letter today your services will be
suspended today.
Aurora will craft that letter this morning.
Tom Mohler
CEO, Olympusat Holdings
477 S Rosemary Ave, Suite 306 West Palm Beach, FL 33401
0. 561.472.2871
A. 561.249.5222 Tom@Olympusat.com www.Olympusat.com
EXHIBIT A
From: Tom Mohler <tom@olympusat.com> Date: February 1, 2019 at 3:51:41 PM PST To:
Dina Lee <dina@tristanleostar.com> Subject: Employment
I want to give you some advice on how this can go down.

money drafting lawyer letters and making threats Or you can become an employee.
The fact that you're resisting become an employee will speak volumes to the court
about your possible activities that go outside the scope of our contract.
So you can make all the idle threats you want it's not gonna change the situation.
Anyway do whatever you want of course but we're not gonna be impressed with lawyer
letters or feel threatened in any way.
I personally believe that you've been going outside the scope of the contract I have a
multitude of reasons at this point to believe that and your refusal to become employee
pretty much solidifies that belief.
Your choice. Make the right one.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S9+, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
EXHIBIT B
From: Valerie Ford
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 1:10 PM
Subject: Important Company Notice
All,
Olympusat previously worked with a contractor, Dina Almeida of Tristan Leostar, to assist in
our content acquisitions efforts. At the end of February, Tristan Leostar’s contract was
terminated based on suspicions that Ms. Almeida was accepting kickbacks from suppliers of
content she brought to Olympusat to license. The Company is vigorously pursuing its legal
rights in the matter.
We are providing this information to our employees so they know they should cease from any
contact with Ms. Almeida related to business effecting or concerning Olympusat. Any such
contact could lead to further damages to Olympusat and anyone found in communication with
her will be terminated effective immediately.
Tom Mohler
Valerie Ford
Vice President of Human Resources
477 S. Rosemary Avenue Suite 306
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Office: (561) 249-5150
E-Fax: (561) 899-4069
Skype: Valerie.olympusat
valerie@olympusat.com
www.olympusat.com
Confidentiality Statement: This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the individual or entity to which it
is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential information that is exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you
are not the intended recipient, please note that you are strictly prohibited from disseminating or distributing this information
(other than to the intended recipient) or copying this information. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by e-mail or by telephone at (561) 249-5150.
1
EXHIBIT C
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

(800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
May 20, 2019
Lindsey Wagner
3900 W. Alameda Avenue, Suite 1200
Burbank, CA 90515
RE: Notice to Complainant’s Attorney

DFEH Matter Number: 201905-06204420
Right to Sue: Almeida / Olympusat, Inc. et al.
Dear Lindsey Wagner:
Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue.
Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these
documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named
respondents. Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for
information regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice
of Filing of Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience.
Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it
meets procedural or statutory requirements.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
EXHIBIT D

May 20, 2019
RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint

To All Respondent(s):
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government
Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government
Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit.
This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of
the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records.
Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact
information.
No response to DFEH is requested or required.
Sincerely,
EXHIBIT D

May 20, 2019
Dina Almeida
1925 Century Park East
los angeles, California 90067
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

Dear Dina Almeida,
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective May
20, 2019 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no
further action on the complaint.
This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section
12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or
employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be
filed within one year from the date of this letter.
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this
DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act,
whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,
EXHIBIT D
1 COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
3
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)
4
In the Matter of the Complaint of
5 Dina Almeida DFEH No. 201905-06204420
6 Complainant,
7 vs.
8 Olympusat, Inc.
477 S Rosemary Ave Suite 306
9 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
10 Tom Mohler
11 477 S Rosemary Ave Suite 306
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
12
Respondents
13
14
1. Respondent Olympusat, Inc. is an employer subject to suit under the California
15 Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.).
16 2. Complainant Dina Almeida, resides in the City of los angeles State of
California.
17
18 3. Complainant alleges that on or about April 12, 2019, respondent took the
following adverse actions:
19
Complainant was harassed because of complainant's sex/gender, sexual
20 harassment- hostile environment, sexual harassment- quid pro quo.
21
Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's sex/gender,
22 sexual harassment- hostile environment, sexual harassment- quid pro quo and as a
result of the discrimination was terminated, forced to quit, denied hire or promotion,
23 asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied a work environment free of
discrimination and/or retaliation, other, denied work opportunities or assignments.
24
Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted
25
any form of discrimination or harassment, participated as a witness in a
26
27 -1-
Complaint – DFEH No. 201905-06204420
28 Date Filed: May 20, 2019
EXHIBIT D
1 discrimination or harassment complaint and as a result was terminated, forced to
quit, denied hire or promotion, asked impermissible non-job-related questions,
2 denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, denied any
employment benefit or privilege, other.
3
4
Additional Complaint Details: Claimant Dina Lee Maria Almeida produces,
5 licenses, promotes and distributes various forms of entertainment and business
platforms and at times has provided product placement and integration for film,
6 television and in other venues. (“Integration” is the placement of or specific
7 reference to certain products within a frame of film). Commencing in or around 2014
Claimant, through a company she owns and manages, Tristan Leostar Films,
8 contracted with Olympusat, Inc. to provide services as a consultant/independently
contracted. In this capacity, Claimant through Tristan Leostar negotiated and
9 acquired film content from its suppliers and distributors of live action films, TV series,
and Children’s Animation located in various parts of the world, including Europe,
10 Asia, and North America, etc. During this time, Tristan Leostar licensed its own
11 company’s licensed content directly to Olympusat and/or presented licensing deals
for Olympusat to sign directly with its group of suppliers.
12 In 2016, a second consulting services agreement with Tristan Leostar was executed
on behalf of Olympusat by Tom Mohler, founder, owner and CEO of Olympusat.
13 Claimant and Olympusat renegotiated the contract pursuant to which, Claimant and
Tristan Leostar continued to perform the above-identified services. Olympusat paid
14
Tristan Leostar a monthly retainer of approximately $10,000 in exchange for these
15 services.
As an example of Tristan Leostar’s consulting services provided to Olympusat,
16 Tristan Leostar, negotiated a licensing deal for one of the world’s highest grossing
media franchises TV and film series titled “ULTRAMAN” originally produced in Asia ,
17 ( The “Superman series of Asia”). This licensing deal presented by Tristan Leostar to
18 Olympusat, allowed Olympusat to air the content on a network owned and/or
operated by Olympusat. Claimant had a pre-existing relationship with the supplier
19 and producers of the series “Ultraman” which allowed her and Tristan Leostar to
negotiate and procure the licensing rights for Olympusat to sign a licensing deal
20 directly with the supplier of the content.
On August 16, 2018, the contract was amended in to provide an extension of
21 Claimant’s services for two years and was executed by Mohler on behalf of
22 Olympusat and characterized Tristan Leostar as a California corporation.Though
Olympusat is incorporated in Florida, it does business, including sponsoring and
23 holding many events and work-related functions, in California where Claimant lives
and which serves as Claimant’s principal place of business. Additionally, one or
24 more of the Olympusat employees who directed and supervised Claimant’s services
as well as others who worked with Claimant in connection with or on behalf of
25
Olympusat reside and primarily work out of California. For example, the Senior
26
27 -2-
EXHIBIT D
1 Vice-President of Olympusat for Hispanic Networks, the Vice-President of
Programming for Parables TV (a network owned by Olympusat), and the Vice-
2 President of Network Relations are each to Claimant’s understanding employees of
Olympusat who reside and work out of California. Olympusat’s founder and Chief
3
Executive Officer is and during all relevant time periods has been Thomas Mohler.
4 On a continuing basis, commencing in or around the execution of the 2014 contract
and proceeding into the present, Mohler has engaged in sexually charged,
5 harassing, intimidating and assaultive physical and verbal conduct toward Claimant
and toward other women who work for him in her presence, thereby creating a
6 hostile work environment based on gender. Mohler’s conduct has continued
7 unabated, despite repeatedly being told by Claimant and others in her presence to
stop. If anything, Mohler’s sexually harassing and intimidating conduct toward
8 Claimant and others in her presence has accelerated, both in frequency and
intensity across time. Mohler’s conduct includes but is not limited to the following:
9 Mohler invited Claimant and Olympusat employees to attend a dinner hosted by
Mohler at Maestros restaurant in Beverly Hills, California on May 22, 2018. Claimant
10 attended such events either because they were mandated by Mohler or so as to
11 maintain good relations with Olympusat personnel with whom she interacted on an
ongoing basis. During the Maestro dinner, Mohler subjected Claimant to sexual
12 innuendos concerning his sexual prowess; boasted how he would dress in leather to
turn women on; made incessant lewd remarks concerning Claimant and other
13 women in her presence, including insinuating that he was the father of a child of a
married female employee. Toward the end of the evening, when Claimant got up
14
from the table to leave the restaurant, Mohler stood extremely close to Claimant in a
15 sexually provocative manner and grabbed and/or slapped Claimant’s buttocks as
she was departing. Claimant made clear by facial and body gestures that she found
16 Mohler’s verbal and physical conduct offensive and unwelcome, whether directed at
her or at other women in her presence.
17 In or about summer of 2018, Mohler held a business meeting at a house in Malibu,
18 California that he rented for a vacation. Mohler directed Claimant and other
employees to come to the home for the ostensible purpose of discussing a new
19 commissions formula for his acquisitions team. At this meeting, he asked Clamant to
spend the night with him. Mohler made this proposition in the presence of a male
20 colleague. Mohler informed Claimant that his then “girlfriend”, an Olympusat
Executive employee, would not be arriving in the Los Angeles area until the following
21 day and “would not know”. Claimant responded to this offensive overture by stating
22 “Absolutely not.”, whereupon she left the residence.
Earlier on that same occasion, when an employee was in the kitchen and Mohler
23 and Claimant were alone in the room where the meeting was being conducted,
Mohler pestered Claimant as to why she would not date him and had repeatedly
24 rebuffed his advances toward her. In response, Claimant stated calmly that Mohler
was “not a traditional man” and that she was dating someone else and was only
25
interested in a stable relationship which would lead to marriage and that clearly,
26
27 -3-
EXHIBIT D
1 Mohler was not someone with whom such a relationship was possible. Mohler then
joked, “But I can give you a baby”. At that point, an employee attending the meeting
2 re-entered the room and Mohler ceased harassing Claimant.
In August 2018 Mohler insisted Claimant fly to Florida to attend an Olympusat
3
business meeting held at a restaurant in West Palm Beach, Florida. After the
4 meeting dinner at Restoration Hardware restaurant, Claimant went back to the
nearby hotel where she was booked at, along with various other colleagues. About
5 30 minutes later, Mohler followed Claimant to the hotel and while Claimant was in
the hotel’s bar area, Mohler unexpectedly joined the group Claimant was with,
6 positioned himself behind and very close to Claimant’s back, put his arm around her
7 and then kissed her neck. Claimant threw the hand and arm off her. When she
turned around, she realized it was Mohler and stated in no uncertain terms that
8 Mohler should not do that. Despite this, Mohler continued to pursue her, asking her
more than once “When are you going to become my employee?” to which Claimant
9 responded “No, I am not able to as I have obligations to my company deals. I not
going to give up my company to become an employee. Never.” Claimant was fearful
10 of Mohler's harassing behavior and she discussed her concerns with Ray Allieri that
11 evening.
At an incident occurring at an Olympusat-sponsored holiday party held in West Palm
12 Beach, Florida in December 2016, Mohler snuck up close behind Claimant while she
was engaged in talking to Olympusat employees, initially placed his hand on her
13 back and then slid his hand down her back to her buttocks, which he grabbed in
front of witnesses. Several Olympusat employees observed Mohler do this and
14
pulled Claimant away from Mohler.
15 Another incident took place on or about 2015 or 2016 at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in
Marina Del Rey, California to which Mohler insisted Claimant come for business
16 reasons. Following the business late luncheon/early dinner, Mohler tried to coerce
Claimant into spending the night with him at the hotel. He also stated he would pay
17 her $2500 a month to let him impregnate her so that she could “have his baby”. He
18 threatened that she better “include anal sex” in his proposed sexual encounters with
her. Mohler said this in front of a colleague. Claimant asked the colleague to not
19 leave her alone in Mohler’s presence; he complied and walked her to the valet to get
her car so that she could leave.
20 On nearly every occasion Claimant and Mohler were in the same location, Mohler
approached Claimant and asked harassing questions or made sexually offensive
21 comments, including but not limited to stating he wanted to impregnate her so that
22 she could “have his baby”. On numerous occasions, Mohler made these statements
in front of others, suggesting that he and Claimant were romantically involved or that
23 Claimant was interested in his sexual prowess and advances.
To Claimant’s understanding and knowledge, many of these incidents and other
24 lewd, salacious and harassing conduct by Mohler were witnessed by or reported to
Olympusat’s in-house counsel, and other highly placed Olympusat employees.
25
26
27 -4-
EXHIBIT D
1 Rather than acting to protect female employees and contractors, such as Claimant,
Olympusat human resources personnel, in-house counsel and highly placed
2 managers tolerated Mohler’s outrageous conduct. Olympusat and Mohler
intimidated or bought off witnesses; women who were victimized by Mohler were let
3
go or promoted to positions within Olympusat upon promise that they “keep quiet”.
4 As nothing or nothing effective has been done by Olympusat to curb Mohler’s
unlawful conduct, if anything, his taunts and offensive conduct have become more
5 direct, harassing, hostile, menacing, intimidating, threatening and sanctioned as time
has gone on. Around 2/1/19, and while continuing to engage in this behavior,
6 Mohler stepped up attempts to solicit employment of Claimant, telling Claimant that if
7 she did not "fold" her "other company" and work for Olympusat, her services would
be suspended and later stating "I want to give you some advice on how this can go
8 down. Money drafting lawyer letters and making threats or you can become an
employee."
9 As a direct result of Claimant’s resisting and protesting Mohler’s insistent demands
to “get her into bed”, unwanted physical assaults, and offensive verbal sexual
10 insinuations, both toward herself and toward other women in her presence, and
11 otherwise resisting demands to become an employee following Mohler's behavior,
Mohler has retaliated against Claimant injuring her business interests and otherwise
12 filing a malicious lawsuit against her on in April 2019.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 -5-
EXHIBIT D
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, Lindsey Wagner, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the
foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based
3
on information and belief, which I believe to be true.
4
On May 20, 2019, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
5 California that the foregoing is true and correct.
6 Los Angeles, CA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 -6-
EXHIBIT D

AlmeidaFiled Complaint PDF

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

AlmeidaFiled Complaint PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1 SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

Lindsey Wagner (CBN 309808)

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

13 17. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND

19 21. INTEREFERENCE WITH

21 [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

2 the company had hired prostitutes while in Russia.

25 22. In 2016, MOHLER , on behalf of OLYMPUSAT, executed a second consulting services

26 agreement with TRISTAN LEOSTAR.

18 including by top executives at OLYMPUSAT.

26 OLYMPUSAT’s administrative and sales tracking program “SALESFORCE”. TRISTAN LEOSTAR’S

2 as was done along with OLYMPUSAT Employees.

11 frequency and intensity across time.

17 reasons”. Following the late luncheon/early dinner attended by ALMEIDA, MOHLER

18 and various OLYMPUSAT employees and contractors, MOHLER tried to coerce

26 her car so that she could leave.

2 OLYMPUSAT-sponsored holiday party held in Florida in December 2016, MOHLER

17 by MOHLER at Maestros restaurant in Beverly Hills, California on May 22, 2018.

27 extremely close to her in a sexually provocative manner. He grabbed and/or slapped

4 other women in her presence.

25 retorted, “but I can give you a baby.”

26 f. On numerous occasions MOHLER continued to pursue ALMEIDA, insisting that she

2 Never.” MOHLER proposed buying TRISTAN LEOSTAR to force ALMEIDA to work

25 prowess and advances.

2 ALMEIDA any further compensation (thus causing ALMEIDA financial strain)OLYMPUSAT’s

17 statements about ALMEIDA .

18 44. Specifically, MOHLER’s memorandum stated, in part, “OLYMPUSAT previously

17 LEOSTAR without cause or warning.

18 liable for their acts of harassment.

3 wrongful termination as a candidate for employment.

23 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

24 (Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA)

25 (On Behalf of Plaintiff ALMEIDA Against DEFENDANT)

27 Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

18 Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

3 84. As a proximate result of DEFENDANT’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to

25 and Plaintiff’s rights.

19 Plaintiff complains against DEFENDANT as follows:

25 services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever,” regardless of sex.

3 a violation of the Unruh Act.

18 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth herein.

19 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26 Plaintiff complains against DEFENDANT follows:

17 against her for refusing his sexual advances.

17 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18 VIOLATION OF THE RALPH ACT [CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 51.7]

19 (PLAINTIFF ALMEIDA Against All DEFENDANTs)

26 things, their gender.

4 sexual assault, without Plaintiff’s consent.

18 jurisdictional limits of this court.

27 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth herein.

2 INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

3 IN VIOLATION OF THE BANE ACT [CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1]

4 (PLAINTIFF ALMEIDA Against All DEFENDANTs)

11 by use or attempted use of threats, intimidation or coercion.

26 ultimate sexual assault.

11 but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.

17 against DEFENDANTs, and each of them, in a sum according to proof at trial.

27 ALMEIDA complains against all DEFENDANTs as follows:

11 prevailing plaintiff may also be awarded attorney's fees and costs.

19 any of the following:

18 according to proof at trial.