Preview
no
Nn WN NY NHN NH YH ee a
®BRRAREBRESEeREDVABDEBEHE ES
om YW DH HW BF WwW DN
Nick Miletak — In Pro Se i LL E
14745 Conway Avenue ’
San Jose, California 95124 °
408-533-5689-mobile SEP 2 1 2022
nmiletak(@msn.com
D. ALFARO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
92¢6V408359 |
CASE NO.: “ a
NICK MILETAK, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff 1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF
, EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF
vs. PUBLIC POLICY — CALIFORNIA
LABOR CODE SEC. § 1102.5(B)
AMAZO 2. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
N.COM SERVICES, LLC., PUBLIC POLICY CALIFORNIA
AMAZON.COM, INC., AND DOES 1-100 CQDE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §
3. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
INCLUSIVE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE
Defendant, 4. NEGLIGENT INELICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
UNLIMITED
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Bro vy. Glaser (1994) 22 Cal. App.4th 1398, 1441.)....ccsssssesssssssssccsessssssseesssessssssssessersneeessnseeeanoee 15
Buckaloo v. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 827 [122 Cal.Rptr.745,537 P.2d 865)]....ccsssssseessoeee 12
Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072.) ........-sscscsesccesccsssececesssasenssenssossatennsenees 14
Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090-1091 .........ssssssssssssnsssssessecsssseessennenseane 10
Haney v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 623, 641 ...sccsscseccseeseerecee 10
Holmes v. General Dynamics Corp. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1426, fin. 8.......csccecssecsseeneess 10
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4 1153
Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 889-890 ........-.-ssccsscsescsessscseceseneeseeesnseasese 10
Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354, 1377 (2010) ......sessssesseccseeccecsessneesnessereere seetsnsecaeersneeneeare 14
Statutes
§ 1002.5. (a).
§ LLO2.5 (D) secsscscssssssessensssseseecsessssssesonsssssssseseecssssssssussesssssnsuassessssssunsacessgesesussesessennssnsetsssanecesesessenee 2
§ 1102.5(b)
California Civil Code §3294(a) & 3294(D)...esssssssssssesssessessssssscsereesecsessnsrsssssssssuenissssssssneneresensise 10
California Civil Code section § 1786.10 — § 1786.40......ssscsssssssssessssssessssneecsesaesessusesrteeesssseee 2
California Civil Code section § 1786.10 — § 1786.40... .scssssessssecsescssceecotssotsnnecnensvsssneaeensesensees 5
California Code of Civil Procedure section § 1002.5 ....essssscsssssscssscssesensessssecsssseestessuessnnesensesssnses 2
California Labor Code section § 1102.5(b)...... 2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
iPlaintiff, Nick Miletak submits this complaint for damages and respectfully alleges as
follows:
I NATURE OF ACTION
Ll. This is an individual consumer complaint against Amazon.com Services, LLC and
Amazon.com, Inc., (hereinafter “Defendants”) for wrongful termination of employment in
violation of public policy of California Labor Code section § 1102.5(b) and Califomia Code of
Civil Procedure section § 1002.5 in which the Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff, Nick
Miletak, for engaging in litigation against Rejoice Delivers, LLC, an Amazon Delivery Service
Partner (hereinafter “DSP”), for violations of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agency Act contained in California Civil Code section § 1786.10— § 1786.40 (hereinafter
“ICRAA”) by their investigative consumer reporting agency (hereinafter “ICRA”) which state:
§ 1102.5 (b) An employer, or any person acting on behalf
of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for
disclosing information, or because the employer believes
that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to
a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with
authority over the employee or another employee who has
the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation
or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or
testifying before, any public body conducting an
investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has
reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a
violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or
noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or
regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information
is part of the employee’s job duties.
And:
§ 1002,5. (a) An agreement to settle an employment dispute
shall not contain a provision prohibiting, preventing, or
otherwise restricting a settling party that is an aggrieved
person from obtaining future employment with the employer
against which the aggrieved person has filed a claim, or any
parent company, subsidiary, division, affiliate, or contractor
of the employer. A provision in an agreement entered into
on or after January 1, 2020, that violates this section is void
as a matter of law and against public policy.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2OD Oe YN DA HW PB Ww NY
yoN NNN BY Be eB eB eB Be eB Be se
BNURREBBRRBESECREDWABEBERE STS
2. Plaintiff, Nick Miletak, alleges that his employment as a driver with the
Defendants commenced around November of 2016 and continued until around February of 2021
through the Amazon Flex App and with the Plaintiff providing transportation services for goods
needing transport.
3. Since February of 2021 the Plaintiff has been unlawfully denied direct
employment with the Defendants and employment through the Defendants Amazon Flex app
and/or any of their DSPs throughout the United States.
Il. JURISDICTION
4, This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Constitution
Article VI, § 10, which grants the Superior Court “original jurisdiction in all causes except those
given by statute to other courts.” The statutes under which this action is brought do not specify
any other basis for jurisdiction.
5. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendant because, based on information and
belief, each party is either a citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in California,
or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the Califomia market so as to render the exercise of
jurisdiction over it by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.
Wt. VENUE
6. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, one or more
of the named Defendants reside, transact business, or have offices in this county and the acts and
omissions alleged herein took place in this county.
Iv. PARTIES
7. Plaintiff, Nick Miletak is an adult residing in San Jose, California County of Santa
Clara.
8. Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC, is a limited liability corporation
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
3yo Oem NY DH RF Ww NY
RB NM N NY NY N NR NN Be ee Be Be Be Be Re
eo QA Hw BY NH KF SBD we MN DH RW NY YK SG
dominating the logistics industry, with its principal place of business located at 410 Terry Avenue
North, Seattle, Washington, 98109 and is a Delaware Domestic Corporation filed under File:
3482342 and incorporated on January 18, 2022. Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC is
registered with the California Secretary of State under File: 202001010303 and registered on
January 10, 2020 and transacts business throughout the State of California, including the County
of Santa Clara.
9. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc., is a corporation dominating the logistics industry,
with its principal place of business similarly located at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle,
Washington, 98109 and is a Delaware Domestic Corporation filed under File: 2620453 and
incorporated on May 28, 1996. The Defendant does not appear to be registered with the California
Secretary but has confirmed that this Defendant similarly transacts business throughout the State
of California, including the County of Santa Clara.
10. At all relevant times herein, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and each of
them, were the agents, partners, joint venturers, representatives, servants, employees, successors-
in-interest, co-conspirators and assignees, of each other, and at all times relevant hereto were
acting within the course and scope of their authority as such agents, partners, joint venturers,
representatives, servants, employees, successors, co-conspirators and assignees, and that all acts
or omissions alleged were duly committed with the ratification, knowledge, permission,
encouragement, authorization and consent of each defendant designated.
11. The true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual or
otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who sues said
defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes
Vv. STATEMENT OF FACTS
12. Defendants operate the largest and most dominant logistics company in the world.
As part of the operations the Defendants created an on-demand delivery app called Amazon Flex
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
4CD Oe YN DH WH FF YW NY HY
RP NNN NR NY NY BY Be Fe Be Be se Se Be Be
SB @eRRE SRR BES eS AURKEE BSR AS
that lets people order and quickly receive purchased items. To do this, Defendants contracts with
drivers to deliver packages to people in their local area. Defendants also use Delivery Service
Partners (hereinafter “DSP”) to complete deliveries which also require utilization of the Amazon
Flex app.
13. To carry out its business activities and objectives, Defendants, market to
individuals, such as this Plaintiff, seeking flexible employment schedules to become drivers
utilizing the Amazon Flex app to transport purchased items utilizing their own private vehicle.
Defendants also assign a majority of the required deliveries to their DSP’s where employment
candidates, such as this Plaintiff, can work directly for the DSP but requires registration and use
of the Amazon Flex app.
14. To be eligible for employment with the Defendants or any of their DSP’s as a
delivery driver an employment candidate is required to register an Amazon Flex account. In
either employment with the Defendants directly as a delivery driver or at a DSP the employee is
required to use the Amazon Flex app to make deliveries.
The Facts Pertaining to Plaintiff Nick Miletak
15. Around November of 2016 the Plaintiff became employed with the Defendants as
an on-demand driver using the Amazon Flex app. The Plaintiff's employment in this capacity
continued until around February of 2021 on a part-time basis.
16. Around December 18, 2020 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time
delivery driver with Rejoice Delivers, a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered the position and
accepted.
17, Inearly January of 2021 and during the onboarding process with Rejoice Delivers
the Plaintiff discovered violations by the DSP of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agency Act contained in California Civil Code section § 1786.10 — § 1786.40 (hereinafter
“ICRAA”).
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
518. Because of the ICRAA violations the Plaintiff and Rejoice Delivers entered into a
settlement negotiation around January 8, 2021.
19. Around early February of 2021 and at the early stages of settlement negotiations
with Rejoice Delivers the Plaintiff discovered that his Amazon Flex account was deliberately
deactivated by the Defendants without any explanation.
20. A settlement agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and Rejoice Delivers
for the ICRAA violations alleged during onboarding. The executed settlement agreement
between the Plaintiff and Rejoice Delivers contained an unlawful waiver of rights in section 5.1
which was unnoticed by the Plaintiff at the time of execution of the settlement agreement. The
original settlement agreement is included with the Declaration of Plaintiff Nick Miletak attached
thereto as Exhibit “1”
21. Because of the initiation of lawfully protected settlement negotiations with their
DSP and the unlawful settlement agreement between Rejoice Delivers and the Plaintiff the
Defendants deliberately retaliated against the Plaintiff and have restricted him from using or
reactivating his Amazon Flex account, working for Amazon directly and working for any of the
thousands of DSPs throughout the United States.
22. Around June of 2021 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time delivery
driver with MetroStar Express, a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered employment and
accepted but was unable to complete the onboarding because of the restrictions placed by the
Defendants.
23. Around September of 2021 the Plaintiff discovered section 5.1 of his settlement
agreement with Rejoice Delivers containing the unlawful waiver of rights. Upon discovering the
unlawful provision negotiations with counsel of record for Rejoice Delivers, Defendants DSP,
commenced.
24. Around October 2021 a revised settlement agreement was agreed to which
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES.
6oO ee YN DH HW FF BW NHN =
a ae
Co PN DH HH F&F YW NH | CS
removed the unlawful waiver of rights pertaining to any work restrictions with the Defendants
and all other DSP’s contained in the previous unlawful no-rehire provision. The revised
settlement agreement is included with the Declaration of Plaintiff Nick Miletak attached thereto
as Exhibit “2”
25. Around November of 2021 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time
delivery driver with Delivery Works, a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered employment and
accepted but was unable to complete the onboarding because of the restrictions placed by the
Defendants.
26. On August 22, 2022 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time delivery
driver with OnPoint Logistics, Inc., a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered employment and
accepted but was unable to complete the onboarding because of the restriction placed by the
Defendants.
27. From February 6, 2021 through January 31, 2022 the Plaintiff has communicated
electronically with the Defendants a minimum of fifteen (15) times advising that the deactivation
of his Amazon Flex account and restriction on employment was likely retaliatory and unlawful
with the electronic communications listed in the table below:
DAEOREMAL | EMALGEIT FROM EMAL TO
" 6-Feb-21 nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com
nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com
nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com
nmiletak@msn.com david.a.zapolsky@amazon.com
david.zapolsky@amazon.com
david_zapolsky@amazon.com
david_a_zapolsky@amazon.com
dzapolsky@amazon.com
davidz@amazon.com
zapols@amazon.com
nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon,com
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
7Co Om YN DH HD FF YW N
Woe Be Re Be we ee eB Be
oS 0 em NAD HW PB YW NY KF
N
me
bo oN NY
BRxRRREBLB
| 9-Mar-21 nmiletak@msn.com amazon-csc@amazon.com
amazon-csc+ASSAI6RPZIEY6@amazon.com
3-Jun-21 nmiletak@msn.com ecr-replies@amazon.com
dave@amazon.com
helbing@amazon.com
amazonflex-support@amazon.com
7-Jun-21 nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com
ecr-replies@amazon.com
dave@amazon.com
jeff@amazon.com
8-Jul-21 nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com
ecr-replies@amazon.com
dave@amazon.com
jeff@amazon.com
amazonflex-support@amazon.com
ecr-replies@amazon.com
dave@amazon.com
jeff@amazon.com
amazonflex-support@amazon.com
gcr-replies@amazon.com
dave@amazon.com
jeff@amazon.com
support@amazon.com
amazonflex-support@amazon.com
+{_—___
17-Jul-21 nmiletak@msn.com
3-Aug-21 nmiletak@msn.com
hmiletak@msn.com
3-Nov-22 nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com
31-Jan-22 nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com
ecr-replies@amazon.com
dave@amazon.com
helbing@amazon.com
f tsisdYCT ecr-replies@amazon.com
dave@amazon.com
helbing@amazon.com
andy.jassy@amazon.com
andy _jassy@amazon.com
ajassy@amazon.com
andyj@amazon.com
andy@amazon.com
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
8we ew YN DH BB Ww NY =
nN NN NY BS Be se Se Be Se ew ee
BSeRRR BRE BEE RDA BEBHR AS
28. Each of the Plaintiff’s email requests to remove any restrictions as to the Plaintiff
have been ignored and the Defendants continue to unlawfully prevent the Plaintiff from
employment with the Defendants in any capacity or with any of their DSP’s.
29. One final attempt at communicating with the Defendants to resolve any restrictions
on the Plaintiff's Amazon Flex account usage or registration was made telephonically on
September 2, 2022. On September 2, 2022 the Plaintiff contacted Amazon Support at 888-282-
4481 and spoke with a representative by the name of Sean and advised that the deactivation of
his Amazon Flex account was likely retaliatory and unlawful.
The initial call was disconnected but Sean called the Plaintiff back from 877-869-5440
which was displayed on the Plaintiff’s caller ID.
Sean stated that he does not know why the Plaintiff's Amazon Flex account is restricted
and does not have the ability to remove the restriction. Sean was unwilling and unable to provide
a solution to the unlawful restriction and was unwilling to escalate to his management team so
the call ended without resolution.
30. Since February 2021 the Defendants have continued to retaliate against this
Plaintiff for having engaged in protected litigation against Rejoice Delivers, the Defendants DSP,
and his ability to reactivate his Amazon Flex account have been denied and his continued
applications for employment have similarly been denied because of his inability to use the
required Amazon Flex app while making deliveries working as a DSP delivery driver.
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
(CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTION § 1102.5(b))
31. Paragraphs 1-30 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
32. To prevail on a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, a
plaintiff must show that (1) an employer-employee relationship existed; (2) the plaintiffs
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
9employment was terminated; (3) the termination violated public policy; and (4) the termination
caused the plaintiff damages. (Haney v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th
623, 641; Holmes v. General Dynamics Corp. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1426, fn. 8.) In
addition, the public policy allegedly violated must be substantial and fundamental, articulated at
the time of termination, and embodied in either a constitutional or statutory provision. (Stevenson
y. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 889-890; Gantt vy. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th
1083, 1090-1091.
33. Plaintiffalleges that he was employed with the Defendants from 2016 to 2021 and
that it was unilaterally terminated by the Defendant in February of 2021.
34, Plaintiff alleges that his employment with the Defendants was terminated around
February of 2021 because he engaged in settlement negotiations with their DSP, Rejoice Delivers,
and because of an unlawful settlement agreement containing section 5.1 which has been
subsequently revised to remove the unlawful waiver of rights.
35. The Plaintiff has been injured as a result of the Defendants wrongful termination
of employment and cannot earn wages through the Defendants Amazon Flex app or from wages
earned as a delivery driver with any of their thousands of DSP throughout the United States. The
Plaintiff estimates that his lost wages resulting from Defendants retaliation since February 2021
continue to accrue at around $5500 monthly.
36. Defendant’s violations entitle Plaintiff to damages pursuant to California Civil
Code §3294(a) & 3294(b).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgement in Plaintiff's favor and damages against
Defendant, for the following requested relief:
A. Actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
B. Statutory damages;
C. Punitive & Exemplary damages that this court determines appropriate;
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
10oO NI DH WA FF BW NY
nN VN = a a ee
BRRRRRPBBE BESSA ARBDREBERAS
D. Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant; and
F. Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
(CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION § 1002.5
37. Paragraphs 1-30 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
38. The actions by all of the Defendants and its agents, managing agents and
employees described above were caused by and were in retaliation for the protected activity of
Plaintiff set forth above.
39. Despite the Plaintiffs fifteen (15) or more attempts to inform the Defendants of the
unlawful retaliation the Defendants continues to retaliate against the Plaintiff in direct violation
of public policy. Even with the knowledge of their retaliation against the Plaintiff the supervisors
and managing agents of the Defendants have failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective
action to stop the retaliation. Furthermore, before the retaliation occurred, Defendants failed to
take all reasonable steps to prevent such retaliation.
40. Defendants actions against Plaintiff, as alleged above, constitute unlawful
retaliation in employment on account of Plaintiff's engaging in settlement negotiations with
Defendants DSP, Rejoice Delivers, and as a result of an unlawful settlement agreement that was
voluntarily revised when the unlawful waiver of rights was noticed.
41. Asa proximate result of Defendants retaliatory actions against Plaintiff, as alleged
above, Plaintiff has been harmed in that Plaintiff has suffered the loss of wages, salary, benefits,
and additional amounts of money Plaintiff would have received if Plaintiff has not been retaliated
against. Asa result of such retaliation and consequent harm, Plaintiff estimates that his damages
continue to accrue at $5500 monthly since February of 2021 or in an amount according to proof]
at trial.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
iCo we YY DW FF YW N
RN N NY Ye Bee Se ee ee eH
BNR RE BBR RE Se WRF ARESERe S
42.
As a further proximate result of Defendants retaliatory actions against Plaintiff, as
alleged above, Plaintiff has been harmed in that Plaintiff has suffered the intangible loss of
employment-related opportunities as, for example, experience in the position sought by plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgement in Plaintiff's favor and damages against
efendants, for the following requested relief:
A.
po OP
43.
44.
Actual damages;
Statutory damages; and
Punitive damages; and
Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
CNTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE)
Paragraphs 1-30 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
The essential elements to pleading an action for intentional interference with
economic advantage as found in Buckaloo y. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 827 [122
Cal.Rptr.745,537 P.2d 865] are:
45.
1. An economic relationship between the Plaintiff and some third party, with the
probability of future economic benefit to the Plaintiff;
2. The Defendant’s knowledge of the relationship;
3. Intentional acts on the part of the Defendant designed to disrupt the
relationship;
4. Actual disruption of the relationship; and
5. Economic harm to the Plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the
Defendant.
Citing a California Supreme Court case Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
12oO Se YN KD HH FF BW HY
Re ee ee ei ee ei
S © eA ABR DH = SG
21
Corp., 29 Cal. 4" 1153 the Plaintiff need only show that the Defendant acted with the knowledge
that its wrongful acts were substantially certain to disrupt Plaintiffs business expectancy.
Furthermore, the court stated “the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic
advantage does not require a plaintiff to plead that the defendant acted with specific intent, or
purpose, of disrupting the plaintiff's prospective economic advantage. Instead, to satisfy the intent
requirement for this tort, it is sufficient to plead that the defendant knew that the interference was
certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of its action.”
46. From the start of the retaliation in February of 2021 the Plaintiff in this current
action had an economic relationship with three DSP’s including MetroStar Express, Delivery
Works and OnPoint Logistics. Each of the relationships was terminated because the Plaintiff has
been barred by the Defendants from reactivating the Amazon Flex app or from registering for a
new Amazon Flex account which is required by ALL delivery drivers working for any of the
thousands of DSP’s throughout the United States.
47. Defendants had clear knowledge of the economic relationship between the
Plaintiff and the DSP’s and became aware of the relationships through the fifteen (15) or more
communications initiated by the Plaintiff since retaliation by the Defendants commenced.
48, The conduct of the Defendants resulted in a disruption of the economic advantage
of the Plaintiff. Since February of 2021 the Plaintiff has been unable to earn wages that he has
been earning as a part-time delivery driver using the Defendants Amazon Flex app. Since
February of 2021 the Plaintiff has been unable secure employment as a full-time delivery driver
with any Amazon DSP because of the retaliation by the Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgement in Plaintiffs favor and damages against
Defendants, for the following requested relief:
A. Actual damages;
B. Statutory damages; and
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
13oem NY DH FF WY
Dw N RN NY |= ee Fe Be He Be Be es
BRR RRE BB EB GeB ARBRE BHRES
Cc. Punitive damages; and
Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
E. Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
49. Paragraphs 1-30 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
50. Aclaim of negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort but
the tort of negligence to which the traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and
damages apply. See Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354, 1377 (2010).
51. The essential elements to pleading an action for intentional infliction of emotional
distress under California law are:
a. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care; and
b. Defendant breached that duty; and
c. Plaintiff suffered damages as a proximate result of Defendant’s breach.
52. At all times pertinent hereto Defendants were the Plaintiff's employer from 2016
to February 2021.
53. The Defendants owed the Plaintiff a duty of care to which it ignored and breached
when they unilaterally decided to terminate Plaintiff's employment because of lawful settlement
negotiations initiated by the Plaintiff against a DSP for the Defendants.
54, The Plaintiff has been injured as a result of the Defendants breach of duty that
occurred with his termination of employment and subsequent retaliation. The Plaintiff estimates
that his lost wages from the Defendant since February of 2021 continue to accrue at around $5500
monthly.
55. Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072.) A cause of action for
negligent infliction of emotional distress lies only where plaintiff suffers serious emotional
distress “as a result of a breach of duty owed the plaintiff that is assumed by the defendant or
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
14Co oe NA HW FF WN
RN DB ND ee i ei
RBRRRRPBBRRBSESGeBS RTA AREER S
imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or that arises out of a relationship between the two.”
Id. at p. 1073.) That relationship must be a pre-existing, consensual relationship giving rise to a
legally protectable interest in being free from emotional distress caused by another's negligent
conduct. See Bro v. Glaser (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1398, 1441.)
56. In the instant matter the Plaintiff advised the Defendants on at least fifteen (15)
occasions of the unlawful termination of employment and retaliation occurring in February of
2021. The Defendants have ignored the Plaintiffs numerous notifications of their unlawful
behavior and continue to deny him the ability to eam wages.
57. After being advised by the Plaintiff that the adverse employment action was
unlawful the Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged above which is prohibited under public
policy of the State of California § 1102.5(b) of the California Labor Code.
58. The conduct by the Defendants actually and proximately caused Plaintiff severe
emotional distress. Defendants harmed Plaintiff because those actions caused him to suffer
humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, and emotional distress. The actions of Defendants
injured Plaintiff's mind and body. As a result of such unlawful conduct and consequent harm,
Plaintiff suffered damages that will be proven at trial.
59. The conduct of Defendants proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer, and to continue
to suffer, damages, including injuries to his person in an amount which will be proven at trial.
60. The malicious and/or oppressive conduct of Defendants was reckless disregard of
Plaintiff's rights and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages.
Date: September 21, 2022
Ro, MAK)
Nick Miletak — In Pro Se
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
15
Preview
no Nn WN NY NHN NH YH ee a ®BRRAREBRESEeREDVABDEBEHE ES om YW DH HW BF WwW DN Nick Miletak — In Pro Se i LL E 14745 Conway Avenue ’ San Jose, California 95124 ° 408-533-5689-mobile SEP 2 1 2022 nmiletak(@msn.com D. ALFARO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 92¢6V408359 | CASE NO.: “ a NICK MILETAK, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiff 1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF , EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF vs. PUBLIC POLICY — CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SEC. § 1102.5(B) AMAZO 2. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF N.COM SERVICES, LLC., PUBLIC POLICY CALIFORNIA AMAZON.COM, INC., AND DOES 1-100 CQDE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 3. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE INCLUSIVE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE Defendant, 4. NEGLIGENT INELICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS UNLIMITED DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Bro vy. Glaser (1994) 22 Cal. App.4th 1398, 1441.)....ccsssssesssssssssccsessssssseesssessssssssessersneeessnseeeanoee 15 Buckaloo v. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 827 [122 Cal.Rptr.745,537 P.2d 865)]....ccsssssseessoeee 12 Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072.) ........-sscscsesccesccsssececesssasenssenssossatennsenees 14 Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090-1091 .........ssssssssssssnsssssessecsssseessennenseane 10 Haney v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 623, 641 ...sccsscseccseeseerecee 10 Holmes v. General Dynamics Corp. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1426, fin. 8.......csccecssecsseeneess 10 Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4 1153 Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 889-890 ........-.-ssccsscsescsessscseceseneeseeesnseasese 10 Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354, 1377 (2010) ......sessssesseccseeccecsessneesnessereere seetsnsecaeersneeneeare 14 Statutes § 1002.5. (a). § LLO2.5 (D) secsscscssssssessensssseseecsessssssesonsssssssseseecssssssssussesssssnsuassessssssunsacessgesesussesessennssnsetsssanecesesessenee 2 § 1102.5(b) California Civil Code §3294(a) & 3294(D)...esssssssssssesssessessssssscsereesecsessnsrsssssssssuenissssssssneneresensise 10 California Civil Code section § 1786.10 — § 1786.40......ssscsssssssssessssssessssneecsesaesessusesrteeesssseee 2 California Civil Code section § 1786.10 — § 1786.40... .scssssessssecsescssceecotssotsnnecnensvsssneaeensesensees 5 California Code of Civil Procedure section § 1002.5 ....essssscsssssscssscssesensessssecsssseestessuessnnesensesssnses 2 California Labor Code section § 1102.5(b)...... 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iPlaintiff, Nick Miletak submits this complaint for damages and respectfully alleges as follows: I NATURE OF ACTION Ll. This is an individual consumer complaint against Amazon.com Services, LLC and Amazon.com, Inc., (hereinafter “Defendants”) for wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy of California Labor Code section § 1102.5(b) and Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section § 1002.5 in which the Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff, Nick Miletak, for engaging in litigation against Rejoice Delivers, LLC, an Amazon Delivery Service Partner (hereinafter “DSP”), for violations of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agency Act contained in California Civil Code section § 1786.10— § 1786.40 (hereinafter “ICRAA”) by their investigative consumer reporting agency (hereinafter “ICRA”) which state: § 1102.5 (b) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties. And: § 1002,5. (a) An agreement to settle an employment dispute shall not contain a provision prohibiting, preventing, or otherwise restricting a settling party that is an aggrieved person from obtaining future employment with the employer against which the aggrieved person has filed a claim, or any parent company, subsidiary, division, affiliate, or contractor of the employer. A provision in an agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2020, that violates this section is void as a matter of law and against public policy. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 2OD Oe YN DA HW PB Ww NY yoN NNN BY Be eB eB eB Be eB Be se BNURREBBRRBESECREDWABEBERE STS 2. Plaintiff, Nick Miletak, alleges that his employment as a driver with the Defendants commenced around November of 2016 and continued until around February of 2021 through the Amazon Flex App and with the Plaintiff providing transportation services for goods needing transport. 3. Since February of 2021 the Plaintiff has been unlawfully denied direct employment with the Defendants and employment through the Defendants Amazon Flex app and/or any of their DSPs throughout the United States. Il. JURISDICTION 4, This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Constitution Article VI, § 10, which grants the Superior Court “original jurisdiction in all causes except those given by statute to other courts.” The statutes under which this action is brought do not specify any other basis for jurisdiction. 5. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendant because, based on information and belief, each party is either a citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the Califomia market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Wt. VENUE 6. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, one or more of the named Defendants reside, transact business, or have offices in this county and the acts and omissions alleged herein took place in this county. Iv. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff, Nick Miletak is an adult residing in San Jose, California County of Santa Clara. 8. Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC, is a limited liability corporation COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 3yo Oem NY DH RF Ww NY RB NM N NY NY N NR NN Be ee Be Be Be Be Re eo QA Hw BY NH KF SBD we MN DH RW NY YK SG dominating the logistics industry, with its principal place of business located at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington, 98109 and is a Delaware Domestic Corporation filed under File: 3482342 and incorporated on January 18, 2022. Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC is registered with the California Secretary of State under File: 202001010303 and registered on January 10, 2020 and transacts business throughout the State of California, including the County of Santa Clara. 9. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc., is a corporation dominating the logistics industry, with its principal place of business similarly located at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington, 98109 and is a Delaware Domestic Corporation filed under File: 2620453 and incorporated on May 28, 1996. The Defendant does not appear to be registered with the California Secretary but has confirmed that this Defendant similarly transacts business throughout the State of California, including the County of Santa Clara. 10. At all relevant times herein, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, were the agents, partners, joint venturers, representatives, servants, employees, successors- in-interest, co-conspirators and assignees, of each other, and at all times relevant hereto were acting within the course and scope of their authority as such agents, partners, joint venturers, representatives, servants, employees, successors, co-conspirators and assignees, and that all acts or omissions alleged were duly committed with the ratification, knowledge, permission, encouragement, authorization and consent of each defendant designated. 11. The true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual or otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes Vv. STATEMENT OF FACTS 12. Defendants operate the largest and most dominant logistics company in the world. As part of the operations the Defendants created an on-demand delivery app called Amazon Flex COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 4CD Oe YN DH WH FF YW NY HY RP NNN NR NY NY BY Be Fe Be Be se Se Be Be SB @eRRE SRR BES eS AURKEE BSR AS that lets people order and quickly receive purchased items. To do this, Defendants contracts with drivers to deliver packages to people in their local area. Defendants also use Delivery Service Partners (hereinafter “DSP”) to complete deliveries which also require utilization of the Amazon Flex app. 13. To carry out its business activities and objectives, Defendants, market to individuals, such as this Plaintiff, seeking flexible employment schedules to become drivers utilizing the Amazon Flex app to transport purchased items utilizing their own private vehicle. Defendants also assign a majority of the required deliveries to their DSP’s where employment candidates, such as this Plaintiff, can work directly for the DSP but requires registration and use of the Amazon Flex app. 14. To be eligible for employment with the Defendants or any of their DSP’s as a delivery driver an employment candidate is required to register an Amazon Flex account. In either employment with the Defendants directly as a delivery driver or at a DSP the employee is required to use the Amazon Flex app to make deliveries. The Facts Pertaining to Plaintiff Nick Miletak 15. Around November of 2016 the Plaintiff became employed with the Defendants as an on-demand driver using the Amazon Flex app. The Plaintiff's employment in this capacity continued until around February of 2021 on a part-time basis. 16. Around December 18, 2020 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time delivery driver with Rejoice Delivers, a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered the position and accepted. 17, Inearly January of 2021 and during the onboarding process with Rejoice Delivers the Plaintiff discovered violations by the DSP of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agency Act contained in California Civil Code section § 1786.10 — § 1786.40 (hereinafter “ICRAA”). COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 518. Because of the ICRAA violations the Plaintiff and Rejoice Delivers entered into a settlement negotiation around January 8, 2021. 19. Around early February of 2021 and at the early stages of settlement negotiations with Rejoice Delivers the Plaintiff discovered that his Amazon Flex account was deliberately deactivated by the Defendants without any explanation. 20. A settlement agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and Rejoice Delivers for the ICRAA violations alleged during onboarding. The executed settlement agreement between the Plaintiff and Rejoice Delivers contained an unlawful waiver of rights in section 5.1 which was unnoticed by the Plaintiff at the time of execution of the settlement agreement. The original settlement agreement is included with the Declaration of Plaintiff Nick Miletak attached thereto as Exhibit “1” 21. Because of the initiation of lawfully protected settlement negotiations with their DSP and the unlawful settlement agreement between Rejoice Delivers and the Plaintiff the Defendants deliberately retaliated against the Plaintiff and have restricted him from using or reactivating his Amazon Flex account, working for Amazon directly and working for any of the thousands of DSPs throughout the United States. 22. Around June of 2021 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time delivery driver with MetroStar Express, a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered employment and accepted but was unable to complete the onboarding because of the restrictions placed by the Defendants. 23. Around September of 2021 the Plaintiff discovered section 5.1 of his settlement agreement with Rejoice Delivers containing the unlawful waiver of rights. Upon discovering the unlawful provision negotiations with counsel of record for Rejoice Delivers, Defendants DSP, commenced. 24. Around October 2021 a revised settlement agreement was agreed to which COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. 6oO ee YN DH HW FF BW NHN = a ae Co PN DH HH F&F YW NH | CS removed the unlawful waiver of rights pertaining to any work restrictions with the Defendants and all other DSP’s contained in the previous unlawful no-rehire provision. The revised settlement agreement is included with the Declaration of Plaintiff Nick Miletak attached thereto as Exhibit “2” 25. Around November of 2021 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time delivery driver with Delivery Works, a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered employment and accepted but was unable to complete the onboarding because of the restrictions placed by the Defendants. 26. On August 22, 2022 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time delivery driver with OnPoint Logistics, Inc., a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered employment and accepted but was unable to complete the onboarding because of the restriction placed by the Defendants. 27. From February 6, 2021 through January 31, 2022 the Plaintiff has communicated electronically with the Defendants a minimum of fifteen (15) times advising that the deactivation of his Amazon Flex account and restriction on employment was likely retaliatory and unlawful with the electronic communications listed in the table below: DAEOREMAL | EMALGEIT FROM EMAL TO " 6-Feb-21 nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com nmiletak@msn.com david.a.zapolsky@amazon.com david.zapolsky@amazon.com david_zapolsky@amazon.com david_a_zapolsky@amazon.com dzapolsky@amazon.com davidz@amazon.com zapols@amazon.com nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon,com COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 7Co Om YN DH HD FF YW N Woe Be Re Be we ee eB Be oS 0 em NAD HW PB YW NY KF N me bo oN NY BRxRRREBLB | 9-Mar-21 nmiletak@msn.com amazon-csc@amazon.com amazon-csc+ASSAI6RPZIEY6@amazon.com 3-Jun-21 nmiletak@msn.com ecr-replies@amazon.com dave@amazon.com helbing@amazon.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com 7-Jun-21 nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com ecr-replies@amazon.com dave@amazon.com jeff@amazon.com 8-Jul-21 nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com ecr-replies@amazon.com dave@amazon.com jeff@amazon.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com ecr-replies@amazon.com dave@amazon.com jeff@amazon.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com gcr-replies@amazon.com dave@amazon.com jeff@amazon.com support@amazon.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com +{_—___ 17-Jul-21 nmiletak@msn.com 3-Aug-21 nmiletak@msn.com hmiletak@msn.com 3-Nov-22 nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com 31-Jan-22 nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com ecr-replies@amazon.com dave@amazon.com helbing@amazon.com f tsisdYCT ecr-replies@amazon.com dave@amazon.com helbing@amazon.com andy.jassy@amazon.com andy _jassy@amazon.com ajassy@amazon.com andyj@amazon.com andy@amazon.com COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 8we ew YN DH BB Ww NY = nN NN NY BS Be se Se Be Se ew ee BSeRRR BRE BEE RDA BEBHR AS 28. Each of the Plaintiff’s email requests to remove any restrictions as to the Plaintiff have been ignored and the Defendants continue to unlawfully prevent the Plaintiff from employment with the Defendants in any capacity or with any of their DSP’s. 29. One final attempt at communicating with the Defendants to resolve any restrictions on the Plaintiff's Amazon Flex account usage or registration was made telephonically on September 2, 2022. On September 2, 2022 the Plaintiff contacted Amazon Support at 888-282- 4481 and spoke with a representative by the name of Sean and advised that the deactivation of his Amazon Flex account was likely retaliatory and unlawful. The initial call was disconnected but Sean called the Plaintiff back from 877-869-5440 which was displayed on the Plaintiff’s caller ID. Sean stated that he does not know why the Plaintiff's Amazon Flex account is restricted and does not have the ability to remove the restriction. Sean was unwilling and unable to provide a solution to the unlawful restriction and was unwilling to escalate to his management team so the call ended without resolution. 30. Since February 2021 the Defendants have continued to retaliate against this Plaintiff for having engaged in protected litigation against Rejoice Delivers, the Defendants DSP, and his ability to reactivate his Amazon Flex account have been denied and his continued applications for employment have similarly been denied because of his inability to use the required Amazon Flex app while making deliveries working as a DSP delivery driver. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT (CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTION § 1102.5(b)) 31. Paragraphs 1-30 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 32. To prevail on a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, a plaintiff must show that (1) an employer-employee relationship existed; (2) the plaintiffs COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 9employment was terminated; (3) the termination violated public policy; and (4) the termination caused the plaintiff damages. (Haney v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 623, 641; Holmes v. General Dynamics Corp. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1426, fn. 8.) In addition, the public policy allegedly violated must be substantial and fundamental, articulated at the time of termination, and embodied in either a constitutional or statutory provision. (Stevenson y. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 889-890; Gantt vy. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090-1091. 33. Plaintiffalleges that he was employed with the Defendants from 2016 to 2021 and that it was unilaterally terminated by the Defendant in February of 2021. 34, Plaintiff alleges that his employment with the Defendants was terminated around February of 2021 because he engaged in settlement negotiations with their DSP, Rejoice Delivers, and because of an unlawful settlement agreement containing section 5.1 which has been subsequently revised to remove the unlawful waiver of rights. 35. The Plaintiff has been injured as a result of the Defendants wrongful termination of employment and cannot earn wages through the Defendants Amazon Flex app or from wages earned as a delivery driver with any of their thousands of DSP throughout the United States. The Plaintiff estimates that his lost wages resulting from Defendants retaliation since February 2021 continue to accrue at around $5500 monthly. 36. Defendant’s violations entitle Plaintiff to damages pursuant to California Civil Code §3294(a) & 3294(b). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgement in Plaintiff's favor and damages against Defendant, for the following requested relief: A. Actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial; B. Statutory damages; C. Punitive & Exemplary damages that this court determines appropriate; COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10oO NI DH WA FF BW NY nN VN = a a ee BRRRRRPBBE BESSA ARBDREBERAS D. Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant; and F. Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION § 1002.5 37. Paragraphs 1-30 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 38. The actions by all of the Defendants and its agents, managing agents and employees described above were caused by and were in retaliation for the protected activity of Plaintiff set forth above. 39. Despite the Plaintiffs fifteen (15) or more attempts to inform the Defendants of the unlawful retaliation the Defendants continues to retaliate against the Plaintiff in direct violation of public policy. Even with the knowledge of their retaliation against the Plaintiff the supervisors and managing agents of the Defendants have failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to stop the retaliation. Furthermore, before the retaliation occurred, Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent such retaliation. 40. Defendants actions against Plaintiff, as alleged above, constitute unlawful retaliation in employment on account of Plaintiff's engaging in settlement negotiations with Defendants DSP, Rejoice Delivers, and as a result of an unlawful settlement agreement that was voluntarily revised when the unlawful waiver of rights was noticed. 41. Asa proximate result of Defendants retaliatory actions against Plaintiff, as alleged above, Plaintiff has been harmed in that Plaintiff has suffered the loss of wages, salary, benefits, and additional amounts of money Plaintiff would have received if Plaintiff has not been retaliated against. Asa result of such retaliation and consequent harm, Plaintiff estimates that his damages continue to accrue at $5500 monthly since February of 2021 or in an amount according to proof] at trial. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES iCo we YY DW FF YW N RN N NY Ye Bee Se ee ee eH BNR RE BBR RE Se WRF ARESERe S 42. As a further proximate result of Defendants retaliatory actions against Plaintiff, as alleged above, Plaintiff has been harmed in that Plaintiff has suffered the intangible loss of employment-related opportunities as, for example, experience in the position sought by plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgement in Plaintiff's favor and damages against efendants, for the following requested relief: A. po OP 43. 44. Actual damages; Statutory damages; and Punitive damages; and Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION CNTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE) Paragraphs 1-30 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. The essential elements to pleading an action for intentional interference with economic advantage as found in Buckaloo y. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 827 [122 Cal.Rptr.745,537 P.2d 865] are: 45. 1. An economic relationship between the Plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the Plaintiff; 2. The Defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; 3. Intentional acts on the part of the Defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; 4. Actual disruption of the relationship; and 5. Economic harm to the Plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the Defendant. Citing a California Supreme Court case Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 12oO Se YN KD HH FF BW HY Re ee ee ei ee ei S © eA ABR DH = SG 21 Corp., 29 Cal. 4" 1153 the Plaintiff need only show that the Defendant acted with the knowledge that its wrongful acts were substantially certain to disrupt Plaintiffs business expectancy. Furthermore, the court stated “the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage does not require a plaintiff to plead that the defendant acted with specific intent, or purpose, of disrupting the plaintiff's prospective economic advantage. Instead, to satisfy the intent requirement for this tort, it is sufficient to plead that the defendant knew that the interference was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of its action.” 46. From the start of the retaliation in February of 2021 the Plaintiff in this current action had an economic relationship with three DSP’s including MetroStar Express, Delivery Works and OnPoint Logistics. Each of the relationships was terminated because the Plaintiff has been barred by the Defendants from reactivating the Amazon Flex app or from registering for a new Amazon Flex account which is required by ALL delivery drivers working for any of the thousands of DSP’s throughout the United States. 47. Defendants had clear knowledge of the economic relationship between the Plaintiff and the DSP’s and became aware of the relationships through the fifteen (15) or more communications initiated by the Plaintiff since retaliation by the Defendants commenced. 48, The conduct of the Defendants resulted in a disruption of the economic advantage of the Plaintiff. Since February of 2021 the Plaintiff has been unable to earn wages that he has been earning as a part-time delivery driver using the Defendants Amazon Flex app. Since February of 2021 the Plaintiff has been unable secure employment as a full-time delivery driver with any Amazon DSP because of the retaliation by the Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgement in Plaintiffs favor and damages against Defendants, for the following requested relief: A. Actual damages; B. Statutory damages; and COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 13oem NY DH FF WY Dw N RN NY |= ee Fe Be He Be Be es BRR RRE BB EB GeB ARBRE BHRES Cc. Punitive damages; and Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and E. Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS) 49. Paragraphs 1-30 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 50. Aclaim of negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort but the tort of negligence to which the traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply. See Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354, 1377 (2010). 51. The essential elements to pleading an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress under California law are: a. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care; and b. Defendant breached that duty; and c. Plaintiff suffered damages as a proximate result of Defendant’s breach. 52. At all times pertinent hereto Defendants were the Plaintiff's employer from 2016 to February 2021. 53. The Defendants owed the Plaintiff a duty of care to which it ignored and breached when they unilaterally decided to terminate Plaintiff's employment because of lawful settlement negotiations initiated by the Plaintiff against a DSP for the Defendants. 54, The Plaintiff has been injured as a result of the Defendants breach of duty that occurred with his termination of employment and subsequent retaliation. The Plaintiff estimates that his lost wages from the Defendant since February of 2021 continue to accrue at around $5500 monthly. 55. Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072.) A cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress lies only where plaintiff suffers serious emotional distress “as a result of a breach of duty owed the plaintiff that is assumed by the defendant or COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 14Co oe NA HW FF WN RN DB ND ee i ei RBRRRRPBBRRBSESGeBS RTA AREER S imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or that arises out of a relationship between the two.” Id. at p. 1073.) That relationship must be a pre-existing, consensual relationship giving rise to a legally protectable interest in being free from emotional distress caused by another's negligent conduct. See Bro v. Glaser (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1398, 1441.) 56. In the instant matter the Plaintiff advised the Defendants on at least fifteen (15) occasions of the unlawful termination of employment and retaliation occurring in February of 2021. The Defendants have ignored the Plaintiffs numerous notifications of their unlawful behavior and continue to deny him the ability to eam wages. 57. After being advised by the Plaintiff that the adverse employment action was unlawful the Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged above which is prohibited under public policy of the State of California § 1102.5(b) of the California Labor Code. 58. The conduct by the Defendants actually and proximately caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress. Defendants harmed Plaintiff because those actions caused him to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, and emotional distress. The actions of Defendants injured Plaintiff's mind and body. As a result of such unlawful conduct and consequent harm, Plaintiff suffered damages that will be proven at trial. 59. The conduct of Defendants proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer, and to continue to suffer, damages, including injuries to his person in an amount which will be proven at trial. 60. The malicious and/or oppressive conduct of Defendants was reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages. Date: September 21, 2022 Ro, MAK) Nick Miletak — In Pro Se COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 15