Preview
(209) 473-8787
Facsimile: (209) 473-8794
Stockton, CA 95219
3247 W. March Lane, Suite 120
Tetepl
Oo Pe NY DH NH FW YN
bw NY NY NY YP NY NB NY Ye Fe Re Be Re RE Re Re
ond A A RF BH FHF SO OHM DAH BR WH KH OD
tad eC y
John L. Cammack S.B. #59202 PILED
Susiejane Eastwood S.B. #190966 PRIL AAO 06 A”
MICHAEL & CAMMACK any A na
Attorneys at Law esa JY ens k
3247 West March Lane, Suite 120
Stockton, CA 95219-2334 wn
Telephone: (209) 473-8787 :
Facsimile: (209) 473-8794
Attormey for Plaintiff
Ronald Verlin
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN .
Ron Verlin, NO. STK-CV-UD-2017-2079
Plaintiff,
vs. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE
University of the Pacific, Edward “Ted’Leland, | IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
Pamela Eibeck, Does 1-100 inclusive. BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD
FAITH AND FAIR DEALING;
Defendants. DEFAMATION; INTERFERENCE WITH
CONTRACT AND PROSPECTIVE ~
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE :
[Amount demanded exceeds Limited Case,
Unlimited Civil Case]
THIS PLEADING AMENDS THE PLEADING FIRST FILED ON MARCH 2, 2017.
Plaintiff complains and for causes of action alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff, RON VERLIN, is an individual and is now and at all times mentioned herein is and
was, a resident of San Joaquin County, California, and the head coach of the UOP Basketball
team, under a five year written contact, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit 1. Plaintiff had a successful coaching career since 1986, and specifically
with UOP as an Assistant Coach since 1994 through 2013 and a Head Coach of the UOP
Men’s Basketball Team since 2013. During his tenure as head coach, his players had a 100%
graduation rate, and the team remained competitive in its WCC division, and UOP
acknowledged this in letters of acclamation written to him.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
1Co ON DA HW FF BW HH
ee
w N= Oo
Se eo
aA wu s
(209) 473-8787
a
Stockton, CA 95219
Telepho:
oo
3247 W. March Lane, Suite 120
Facsimile: (209) 473-8794
. Defendant, UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC. Does 1 and 2 inclusive (“UOP”) is, and at all
times mentioned here in was, a corporation organized existing under the laws of the State of
California with its principal place of business in San Joaquin County, California, a member
of the National Collegiate Athletic Association “NCAA,” and the entity who maintained a
NCAA sanctioned basketball team, and the employer of Plaintiff.
. Defendant Pamela Eibeck, Does 3 and 4 inclusive (“Eibeck”) is and at all times was the
President of UOP and a resident of San Joaquin County.
. Defendant, EDWARD “TED” LELAND, Does 5 and 6 inclusive (“LELAND”) is an
individual residing in San Joaquin County at all times mentioned herein and was employed
and worked as the Vice President and Athletic Director of UOP and was the direct supervisor
and boss of Plaintiff.
. DOES 1 through 100 were at all times relevant herein employees and agents of Defendants
and UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities
of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues these
Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will pray leave of this court to amend this
complaint to allege the true names and capacities when ascertained.
. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants herein
was, at all times relevant to this action, the agent, employee, representing partner, or joint
venture, or acting on behalf of UOP at the request of the remaining Defendants and was
acting within the course and scope of that relationship. Plaintiff is further informed and
believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants herein gave consent to, ratified, and
authorized the acts alleged here in to each of the remaining Defendants.
COMMON ALLEGATIONS TO ALL ACTIONS
. Venue is proper in San Joaquin County as all parties are residents of, and/or are Defendants
employed by UOP to work in San Joaquin County.
. Plaintiff, as head coach under a written contract (Exhibit 1) was the head basketball coach,
hired and employed by UOP commencing in 2013. Exhibit 1 will be supplied to-the Court as
a sealed document due to the confidentiality clause therein. Plaintiff was involuntarily
terminated “effective March 3, 2016” by letter, when he had two years left on his contract.
The termination was alleged to be for cause, yet no cause was ever determined, and however
that was a ruse and a scheme devised by Leland to allow UOP to hire another coach for their
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
23247 W. March Lane, Suite 120
Stockton, CA 95219
(209) 473-8787
Telepho:
Facsimile: (209) 473-8794
Oo Oo ND HW PB WN =
NY NR N YN NNN = Be Be Be Se Be Be Be Be
od AU BY SF SF © Oo I AH RF WN SK OO
10.
11.
12.
13.
14,
15.
program and an attempt to get out of the contractual obligations for payment for the years 4
and 5 to Plaintiff. Immediately after the effective date of the termination, UOP hired Damon
Stoudamire as the new head coach.
Plaintiff was subjected to many false claims and allegations of misdeeds, which are all still
subject to further NCAA hearings and review and specifically are required to be kept
confidential and not exposed to the public, as they are only “allegations.” And not yet proven.
to be true.
Plaintiff is informed and believes all of the allegations and the underlying anonymous letters
and emails or emails from fictitious persons were all part of the scheme to build a case
against Plaintiff to serve as the basis to fire Plaintiff for cause and be allowed to hire
Stoudamire and not pay Plaintiff for his last two years as required by Exhibit 1.
Furthermore, in their attempt to build this scheme, Defendants and each of them as well as
persons outside of UOP, but supporters of the Basketball program worked to substantiate and
carry out this scheme including but not limited to decimating the basketball program by
getting rid of the coaches, suspending three top players (and reporting to Plaintiff that they
will be immediately re-instated which was not true), and ultimately, suspending Plaintiff.
a. THE JOE FORD AFFAIR WITH LELAND’S DAUGHTER
Joe Ford was the Assistant basketball coach, and an integral part of the program. He was a
mentor to the black players he coached and they respected. With his participation in the
program, the program was a successful program.
For approximately two (2) years prior to May, 2015, Joe Ford had a sexual affair with
Amanda Leland, Defendant Leland’s daughter. Amanda Leland was an employee of the
Athletic Department of UOP and approximately 34 years of age at the time of the affair.
This affair continued up until the time Joe Ford was terminated from UOP. Joe Ford was
black and Amanda Leland was white.
In May of 2014 Plaintiff told Leland his assistant coach, Joe Ford, had sexual relations with a
graduating student. Leland stated, “he is also dating my daughter.”
After the affair was brought to the attention of Leland, Leland called in Plaintiff and
demanded that Plaintiff force Ford to resign or fire him.” Defendant Leland made it clear he
did not want his daughter to be with Ford and that he was “afraid she was in love with him.”
Leland suggested it would be best to get Ford to resign “so it would stay out of the
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
3Co om I A HW RB WN
wee a ee
ony Aw FB wBwN |
3247 W. March Lane, Suite 120
Facsimile: (209) 473-8794
Nn NY NR NR NR YY YS
wut BH |= FS
newspapers” and that Plaintiff would have to do that because “he (Leland) was too close to
it.” Defendant also suggested what the story would be that” Ford resigned to take care of his
parents.” The net result was that Plaintiff's coaching staff would be decimated and that
would fall on Plaintiff's shoulders because an able coach who all the players identified with,
who was a black man, was terminated because he was sleeping with Leland’s daughter, he
was black and she was white, and that would not be tolerated by Leland, especially in view
of the second affair.
. Effective May 19, 2015 Joe Ford resigned with the express statement he was doing so to take
care of his parents.
. Approximately, 2 months after his resignation, Plaintiff assisted Joe Ford to get another
collegiate coaching job at University of Idaho working for Plaintiff’s twin brother who was
the head basketball coach there.
b. THE AMANDA LELAND ACTIONS
. Amanda Leland learned of the ruse to get Joe Ford to resign and the reason given was false
and when she was made aware that Joe Ford was working again in Idaho with Plaintiff's
assistance, she mistakenly believed this falsehood was orchestrated by Plaintiff and not her
father and told others “she was going to get him (Plaintiff).”
. Immediately thereafter anonymous letters came to UOP alleging false allegations about
Plaintiff. The first on September 10, 2015 was addressed to Eibeck and alleged the coaching
staff of the basketball team was involved in illegal sexual relations and it was being covered
up by Plaintiff. ‘ :
. Instead of questioning the source of the letter and asking Plaintiff about these matters,
Defendants and each of them, including Leland immediately filed a complaint to the NCAA
to investigate. Plaintiff is aware that Leland had many contacts at NCAA as he was for years
on the NCAA Infractions Committee. Plaintiff is informed and believes, Defendants decided
that Leland’s contacts could get an NCAA investigation on Plaintiff, which would allow
UOP a basis to fire Plaintiff and hire Stoudamire.
21. A second anonymous letter was received by Dean Carlson at UOP alleging the same conduct.
to
an
22. After a thorough review and interviews with all of the ladies involved, it was determined
N
RS
these allegations were against Joe Ford and all of the investigation showed there was no
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
43247 W. March Lane, Suite 120
oO ON DA BR WN
NM N NN N NY NN DN Ne ee ee Be Re ee
CIDA BR WN FF SO me IN DA RF WY EF DS
23.
24.
25,
26.
27.
28.
29.
merit in the anonymous letters and allegations. This ruse was however continued by
Defendants in a second anonymous letter.
Next came a series of emails directed to Defendants sent by persons unknown who made
allegations of Plaintiff taking tests for the student athletes in his program. These allegations
were examined once again by NCAA and found to be false. However, during the
examination, NCAA did find some irregularities that they investigated further. That
investigation is still pending today and no final determination has been made as of the date of
filing.
Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the anonymous letters and the emails were
done by Amanda Leland and/or others at the Athletic Department of UOP at Leland’s
insistence and other Defendants unknown today who pushed these falsehoods to allow
Defendants to build a case to fire him.
ce. THE SUSPENSION OF THE THREE TOP BASKETBALL PLAYERS BY UOP
Alec Kobre was a basketball player who had achieved many accolades as a star for UOP. He
was the starting guard, had an extraordinary high point average and he was an excellent
student.
Eric Thompson was an excellent team player, a high scorer and a good student.
Sami Eleraky was the center on the team and a good defensive player and a good student.
All three players were suspended by Leland, stating the suspensions would be lifted before
the first game of the season. The suspensions were not founded on any basis other than the
allegations raised in the anonymous letters and from the emails received by Defendants from
fictitious persons. The players were not re-instated and the team was destroyed by the loss of
the three starters. All of this was an attempt to discredit Plaintiff, who continued to work
with the team as best he could given the devastation wrought on by Defendants.
Insidiously, Defendants then engaged on a program to badger and try to persuade these three
players to tum on the coach and conform the story the Defendants wanted to use to fire
Plaintiff. The Students, who all badly wanted to play, much to their credit, refused to falsify
facts as the Defendants suggested, during which time Defendants were “leaking” to the press
“LA]cademic integrity is a fundamental value at Pacific, and we are committed to doing
whatever is needed to ensure that our student-athletes receive an excellent education.”
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
5(209) 473-8787
Facsimile: (209) 473-8794
Stockton, CA 95219
3247 W, March Lane, Suite 120
oO YN A WA RF WY
BPN NY NN NNN YN BF Be Be Fe Be Be Be eB Be
eo IAA A FYB YN SF SH OKI A A BF wD NHN SF GS
30.
31.
32.
33.
34,
35.
d. THE SELF REPORTING RULE OF NCAA.
Under the NCAA a member college is allowed to report what they have in good faith
uncovered as violations of the policies. This is allowed to go easier on the colleges that self
regulate and keep their programs in compliance. Defendants and each of them mis-used this
procedure to try to get Plaintiff in trouble and then be able to fire him and get out of the
contract (exhibit 1).
By using this procedure, Defendants notified NCAA which as is normal, would cause NCAA
to investigate and proceed to determine the truth or falsity of the allegations. Plaintiff is
informed and believes this was a Leland scheme to use his former associates at the NCAA as
the tool to uncover something that would allow Defendants to fire Plaintiff.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-31 and incorporates them herein.
From April 1, 2013 to March 3. 2016, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Head Men’s
Basketball Coach.
On or about May 1, 2015, Defendant’s agent/ employee, Ted Leland (“Ted”) asked Plaintiff,
Ronald Verlin, to fire assistant coach, Joe Ford (“Joe”), due to a Ted’s daughter, Amanda
Leland (“Amanda”), having an affair with this man, and more specifically Ted wanted Joe
gone because Ted did not want his daughter having an affair with a black man. Ron told Joe
about what Ted asked him to do and Joe decided to resign. Ron decided to help Joe and got
him a job with Ron’s brother at a different school, away from California, nevertheless
investigation into Joe’s conduct were still underway by the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (“NCAA”) and Joe decided to resign from all positions. Soon thereafter, Ted’s
daughter, Amanda, became upset that Joe was made to leave and she blamed Ron Verlin, and
that is when the anonymous emails about misconduct on the men’s basketball team began to
surface.
The actions Defendant’s agent asked Plaintiff to do was against the anti-discrimination
policy. Ted Leland did not want his daughter having an affair with a African-American man
and wanted him out of the picture, which is why Ted Leland asked Ron Verlin to fire him.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
’ BREACH OF CONTRCT, BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
63247 W. March Lane, Suite 120
Stockton, CA 95219
‘Telephone: (209) 473-8787
Facsimite: (209) 473-8794
CoO IY HHA BRB WN |
RP YP YN NWN DY es
RBSSRRPEBBRBREBGESEAARAEBERAS
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
The actions were directed by Leland and given to Plaintiff was an order to get him “to resign
or fire him.” Plaintiff was relegated to losing his best assistant coach and warned this would
hurt the team.
The termination was in violation of the non-discrimination policies of the State of California
and UOP procedures. The Plaintiff was the scape goat and a destruction of his player morale
was part of the Leland scheme to force the team to become worse to justify the firing of
Plaintiff.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 37.
The employment agreement referred to above contained an implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, which obligated Defendants to perform the terms and conditions of the
agreement fairly and in good faith and to refrain from doing any act that would prevent or
impede Plaintiff from performing any or all of the conditions of the contract that he agreed to
perform, or any act that would deprive Plaintiff of the benefits of the contract.
Before the termination of the Plaintiff's contract, Defendant’s agent/ employee, Ted Leland
was looking for a new Head Coach for the men’s basketball team. In fact, Defendants wanted
Damon Stoudamire, instead of Plaintiff, and Leland’s actions have evidenced Defendants’
attempts to have Plaintiff terminated in order to bring in Stoudamire as head coach.
Plaintiff performed all the duties and conditions of the employment agreement and had an
outstanding record of player graduation and wins for the team, in addition to being the
substantial factor in bringing substantial donations to the program. This was acknowledged in
the reviews Plaintiff received from Defendants before the scheme to fire him arose and was
implemented.
Defendant knew that Plaintiff had fulfilled all his duties and conditions under the contract.
Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the
employment agreement by maintaining a soliciting-natured contact with Stoudamire in order
to bring him in as head coach when Verlin had two years left on his contract. Defendants
ultimately used the NCAA investigation of the men’s basketball department as a pretext to
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
7Oo OD YH HM FF WwW HH
Se oe eB ew Se Se
A up unde oo
Eg
Z
(209) 473-8794
e
x
&
3
a
6
g
2
3
2
a
—
oo
&
a
3
g
3
3
z
z
5
3
mb NR NY NY NY NY NY NY LY
oa A A KR YW HY KF S
45.
46.
47.
48.
discharge Plaintiff intentionally, maliciously, and in bad faith and for reasons extraneous to
the contract. In fact, Defendant discharged Plaintiff, not because of alleged poor
performance, or violations of NCAA rules, but because Plaintiff was not Defendant’s choice
as head coach any longer.
. Defendant further breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by depriving
Plaintiff the opportunity to coach for the entire contract term because Defendants did not
want to pay Plaintiff the eight hundred fifty thousand dollars ($850,000) salary that was due
him under his contract. Defendants preferred to spend that money on Stoudamire as head
coach and was in negotiations with Stoudamire even during Plaintiff's employment as head
coach and while the contract was still in effect.
As a proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, losses in earning and other employment
benefits to his damage in the sum of an amount to be established at trial. As a further
proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, Plaintiff has incurred reasonable attorney’s fees in attempting to secure the benefits
owed him under the employment contract, all of which is in excess of the minimum
jurisdictional limits of this court.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 45.
Plaintiff was employed as Head Coach by Defendants for three years and was paid a certain
salary that was supposed to increase soon thereafter, and Plaintiff was under the impression
that when he was hired as a Head Coach that his job would not be jeopardized by Defendants
and Defendant’s agent, Ted Leland’s efforts to recruit another head coach while Plaintiff
served his term under the contract and the contract was in full force and effect.
Plaintiff at all times fulfilled his duties and conditions under the contract and has been ready,
willing, and able to continue performing them ina competent and satisfactory manner.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
83247 W. March Lane, Suite 120
Stockton, CA 95219
Telephone: (209) 473-8787
Facsimile: (209) 473-8794
Co ON DH RP WN
nN bY YW YP NY YN ee
BRURERRBBHBRSSRDARABERESHETS
49.
50.
UW ow
NF
53.
Notwithstanding the implied promise not to recruit, solicit, or negotiate with any other person
for Plaintiff's position, once hired on as the head coach, Defendants’ and their agents,
including Defendant Leland continued communications with Stoudamire in order to secure
him as a head coach for the men’s basketball team, during the contractual obligations to
Plaintiff and the self-reported issues based on anonymous letters and fictitious emails.
As a proximate result of Defendant’s breach of their duties to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered
and continues to suffer losses in earnings and other employment benefits, to his damage in
the sum of an amount to be established at trial.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
DEFAMATION
. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges Paragraphs 1-50.
. On or about February 27, 2017, Defendant Eibeck was in attendance of a UOP event to honor
the basketball players. Plaintiff was sitting in the stands far away from Eibeck. Eibeck got
out of her seat on the floor of the arena, and walked up the stands to address the Plaintiff,
who was with family and friends at the event. Eibeck spoke the following words of and
concerning the Plaintiff:
a She said that “she could not believe that you (Plaintiff) would show my face in this
arena.” ,
b. “,.-it took great nerve for you (Plaintiff) to be here.”
c That “you (Plaintiff) were a total disgrace to the University and the Stockton
community.”
d. That “you (Plaintiff) brought harm and embarrassment to the basketball program and
the University.”
e. and that “you (Plaintiff) have cost the university, millions of dollars, and tarnished its
reputation.”
The words were heard by Dave Fisher, Dan Fisher, Kevin Thompson, Gina Thompson, the
Plaintiff's son and several other persons whose names are not known 'to Plaintiff.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
BREACH OF CONTRCT, BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
93247 W. March Lane, Suite 120
Stockton, CA 95219
(209) 473-8787
Facsimile: (209) 473-8794
Tetepho
co ONY DH BF WN HY
NN N NN N NN NR eR Re Re Re Re
ec YN AA BR YW NH F&F So we ADH PB BH SE SS
54. These words were slanderous per se because they tend to injure Plaintiff in his office as a
Head Coach which is his profession, by imputing to him a general disqualification in those
respects that any Head Coach has to maintain to work his profession.
55. The words uttered were a false statement, because although there was an investigation by the
NCAA, all of those records are to remain confidential, a fact that was known to Defendants.
There was no investigation or right to be heard given to the Plaintiff, by anything UOP did,
which was contrary to their own policies and procedures.
56. The words carried a defamatory meaning because they directly impugned the integrity of
Plaintiff, held him up to ridicule and asserted he was unfit for his duties in his profession
37. The words were understood by those who saw and heard them in a way that defamed
Plaintiff because it directly impugned the integrity of Plaintiff, held him up to ridicule and
asserted he was unfit for his duties in his profession
58. As a result of the above-described words, Plaintiff has suffered general damages to his/her
reputation.
59. As a further proximate result of the above-described words, Plaintiff has suffered the special
damages to be shown at trial and/or according to proof.
60. The above-described words were spoken by the Defendant with malice and/or oppression
and/or fraud in that the seats were crowded and filled with many fans who know Plaintiff was
the former coach, and thus an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INVASION OF PRIVACY
61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 60.
62. On or about December 22, 2016, Defendant, without Plaintiff's consent, invaded Plaintiff's
ight to privacy by publishing an article entitled in which Plaintiff was identified by name
as a person who had certain allegations brought against him. Under the specific rules of the
NCAA, the allegations ate to remain confidential and only known to the parties involved.
UOP is bound by the NCAA rules, but took the confidential allegations of violations to the
Stockton Record and published an article in which Eibeck was directly quoted.
BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
103247 W. March Lane, Suite 120
Stockton, CA 95219
(209) 473-8787
Telephor
Facsimile: (209) 473-8794
Co OD DA AH FF WwW NY
10
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
The statement that is the basis of the invasion of privacy is the Notice of Violations, which
are allegations only, subject to proof at a hearing and which will be made available at trial.
In addition, Defendants published the Notice of Allegations on the UOP website, available
to the world to see.
The disclosure by Defendants’ was a public disclosure to a large number of people in that it
resulted in being published in the Stockton Record newspaper, which claims a circulation
of approximately 60,000.
The facts disclosed about Plaintiff were private facts that Plaintiff desired to keep private.
Plaintiff is pursuing a request for a hearing and a determination the facts were false as set
forth in the allegations.
Jn addition to the above, Defendants and each of them created a letter on UOP letterhead
from the desk of Eibeck and sent it out to all students, informing them of the allegations
concerning the confidential allegations.
The disclosure by Defendants of the above facts was offensive and objectionable to Plaintiff
and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities in that the allegations are unproven,
revealing extremely private details about Plaintiff's private dispute with all Defendants, that
Plaintiff had attempted to keep private.
The private facts disclosed by Defendants were not of legitimate public concern, nor
newsworthy as they were allegations only. The disclosed facts did not bear a logical
relationship to the newsworthy subject of the broadcast and were intrusive in great
disproportion to their relevance, in that all Defendants know that the investigation is on-
going and un-resolved.
As a proximate result of the above disclosure, was scorned and abandoned by his friends
and family, exposed to contempt and ridicule, and suffered loss of reputation and standing in
the community, all of which caused him humiliation, embarrassment, hurt feelings, mental
anguish, and suffering, all to his general damage in an amount according to proof.
As a further proximate result of the above-mentioned disclosure, Plaintiff has suffered
injury to his business, in that he has lost any opportunity to get employment as a Coach all
to his special damage in an amount according to proof.
In making the disclosure described above, Defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud, or
malice, in’ that Defendant made the disclosure with the intent to vex, injure, or annoy”
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
lle e
1 Plaintiff and a willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights in keeping these matters
2 private. Plaintiff therefore seeks an award of punitive damages.
3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendant[s] as follows:
4 1. For damages for wrongful termination according to proof including lost earnings and other
5 employee benefits, past and future.
6 2. For damages for the breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing according to proof
7 including lost earnings and other employee benefits, past and future.
8 3. For damages for the slander of Plaintiff according to proof including lost earnings and other
° employee benefits, past and future.
10 4. For damages for the invasion of Plaintiff's privacy according to proof including lost earnings
i and other employee benefits, past and future.
QR 5. For punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant and deter others from
13 engaging in similar misconduct.
a ee 4 6. For reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff in obtaining the benefits due him if
a2 3 15 appropriate under the employment contract
: a8 : 7. For costs of suit incurred by Plaintiff; and
: 3 i 3 8. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.
5 ge 18
19 Dated: April 10, 2017 Michael & Cammack
20
21
22 L. Cammack, Attorney for Ronald Verlin
' 23
24 |
25
26
: 27
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGIS FOR TORTIOUS DISCIIARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIGPOLION
BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
12
Preview
(209) 473-8787 Facsimile: (209) 473-8794 Stockton, CA 95219 3247 W. March Lane, Suite 120 Tetepl Oo Pe NY DH NH FW YN bw NY NY NY YP NY NB NY Ye Fe Re Be Re RE Re Re ond A A RF BH FHF SO OHM DAH BR WH KH OD tad eC y John L. Cammack S.B. #59202 PILED Susiejane Eastwood S.B. #190966 PRIL AAO 06 A” MICHAEL & CAMMACK any A na Attorneys at Law esa JY ens k 3247 West March Lane, Suite 120 Stockton, CA 95219-2334 wn Telephone: (209) 473-8787 : Facsimile: (209) 473-8794 Attormey for Plaintiff Ronald Verlin SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN . Ron Verlin, NO. STK-CV-UD-2017-2079 Plaintiff, vs. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE University of the Pacific, Edward “Ted’Leland, | IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; Pamela Eibeck, Does 1-100 inclusive. BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; Defendants. DEFAMATION; INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AND PROSPECTIVE ~ ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE : [Amount demanded exceeds Limited Case, Unlimited Civil Case] THIS PLEADING AMENDS THE PLEADING FIRST FILED ON MARCH 2, 2017. Plaintiff complains and for causes of action alleges as follows: 1. Plaintiff, RON VERLIN, is an individual and is now and at all times mentioned herein is and was, a resident of San Joaquin County, California, and the head coach of the UOP Basketball team, under a five year written contact, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1. Plaintiff had a successful coaching career since 1986, and specifically with UOP as an Assistant Coach since 1994 through 2013 and a Head Coach of the UOP Men’s Basketball Team since 2013. During his tenure as head coach, his players had a 100% graduation rate, and the team remained competitive in its WCC division, and UOP acknowledged this in letters of acclamation written to him. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 1Co ON DA HW FF BW HH ee w N= Oo Se eo aA wu s (209) 473-8787 a Stockton, CA 95219 Telepho: oo 3247 W. March Lane, Suite 120 Facsimile: (209) 473-8794 . Defendant, UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC. Does 1 and 2 inclusive (“UOP”) is, and at all times mentioned here in was, a corporation organized existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in San Joaquin County, California, a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association “NCAA,” and the entity who maintained a NCAA sanctioned basketball team, and the employer of Plaintiff. . Defendant Pamela Eibeck, Does 3 and 4 inclusive (“Eibeck”) is and at all times was the President of UOP and a resident of San Joaquin County. . Defendant, EDWARD “TED” LELAND, Does 5 and 6 inclusive (“LELAND”) is an individual residing in San Joaquin County at all times mentioned herein and was employed and worked as the Vice President and Athletic Director of UOP and was the direct supervisor and boss of Plaintiff. . DOES 1 through 100 were at all times relevant herein employees and agents of Defendants and UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will pray leave of this court to amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities when ascertained. . Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants herein was, at all times relevant to this action, the agent, employee, representing partner, or joint venture, or acting on behalf of UOP at the request of the remaining Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of that relationship. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants herein gave consent to, ratified, and authorized the acts alleged here in to each of the remaining Defendants. COMMON ALLEGATIONS TO ALL ACTIONS . Venue is proper in San Joaquin County as all parties are residents of, and/or are Defendants employed by UOP to work in San Joaquin County. . Plaintiff, as head coach under a written contract (Exhibit 1) was the head basketball coach, hired and employed by UOP commencing in 2013. Exhibit 1 will be supplied to-the Court as a sealed document due to the confidentiality clause therein. Plaintiff was involuntarily terminated “effective March 3, 2016” by letter, when he had two years left on his contract. The termination was alleged to be for cause, yet no cause was ever determined, and however that was a ruse and a scheme devised by Leland to allow UOP to hire another coach for their FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 23247 W. March Lane, Suite 120 Stockton, CA 95219 (209) 473-8787 Telepho: Facsimile: (209) 473-8794 Oo Oo ND HW PB WN = NY NR N YN NNN = Be Be Be Se Be Be Be Be od AU BY SF SF © Oo I AH RF WN SK OO 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. program and an attempt to get out of the contractual obligations for payment for the years 4 and 5 to Plaintiff. Immediately after the effective date of the termination, UOP hired Damon Stoudamire as the new head coach. Plaintiff was subjected to many false claims and allegations of misdeeds, which are all still subject to further NCAA hearings and review and specifically are required to be kept confidential and not exposed to the public, as they are only “allegations.” And not yet proven. to be true. Plaintiff is informed and believes all of the allegations and the underlying anonymous letters and emails or emails from fictitious persons were all part of the scheme to build a case against Plaintiff to serve as the basis to fire Plaintiff for cause and be allowed to hire Stoudamire and not pay Plaintiff for his last two years as required by Exhibit 1. Furthermore, in their attempt to build this scheme, Defendants and each of them as well as persons outside of UOP, but supporters of the Basketball program worked to substantiate and carry out this scheme including but not limited to decimating the basketball program by getting rid of the coaches, suspending three top players (and reporting to Plaintiff that they will be immediately re-instated which was not true), and ultimately, suspending Plaintiff. a. THE JOE FORD AFFAIR WITH LELAND’S DAUGHTER Joe Ford was the Assistant basketball coach, and an integral part of the program. He was a mentor to the black players he coached and they respected. With his participation in the program, the program was a successful program. For approximately two (2) years prior to May, 2015, Joe Ford had a sexual affair with Amanda Leland, Defendant Leland’s daughter. Amanda Leland was an employee of the Athletic Department of UOP and approximately 34 years of age at the time of the affair. This affair continued up until the time Joe Ford was terminated from UOP. Joe Ford was black and Amanda Leland was white. In May of 2014 Plaintiff told Leland his assistant coach, Joe Ford, had sexual relations with a graduating student. Leland stated, “he is also dating my daughter.” After the affair was brought to the attention of Leland, Leland called in Plaintiff and demanded that Plaintiff force Ford to resign or fire him.” Defendant Leland made it clear he did not want his daughter to be with Ford and that he was “afraid she was in love with him.” Leland suggested it would be best to get Ford to resign “so it would stay out of the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 3Co om I A HW RB WN wee a ee ony Aw FB wBwN | 3247 W. March Lane, Suite 120 Facsimile: (209) 473-8794 Nn NY NR NR NR YY YS wut BH |= FS newspapers” and that Plaintiff would have to do that because “he (Leland) was too close to it.” Defendant also suggested what the story would be that” Ford resigned to take care of his parents.” The net result was that Plaintiff's coaching staff would be decimated and that would fall on Plaintiff's shoulders because an able coach who all the players identified with, who was a black man, was terminated because he was sleeping with Leland’s daughter, he was black and she was white, and that would not be tolerated by Leland, especially in view of the second affair. . Effective May 19, 2015 Joe Ford resigned with the express statement he was doing so to take care of his parents. . Approximately, 2 months after his resignation, Plaintiff assisted Joe Ford to get another collegiate coaching job at University of Idaho working for Plaintiff’s twin brother who was the head basketball coach there. b. THE AMANDA LELAND ACTIONS . Amanda Leland learned of the ruse to get Joe Ford to resign and the reason given was false and when she was made aware that Joe Ford was working again in Idaho with Plaintiff's assistance, she mistakenly believed this falsehood was orchestrated by Plaintiff and not her father and told others “she was going to get him (Plaintiff).” . Immediately thereafter anonymous letters came to UOP alleging false allegations about Plaintiff. The first on September 10, 2015 was addressed to Eibeck and alleged the coaching staff of the basketball team was involved in illegal sexual relations and it was being covered up by Plaintiff. ‘ : . Instead of questioning the source of the letter and asking Plaintiff about these matters, Defendants and each of them, including Leland immediately filed a complaint to the NCAA to investigate. Plaintiff is aware that Leland had many contacts at NCAA as he was for years on the NCAA Infractions Committee. Plaintiff is informed and believes, Defendants decided that Leland’s contacts could get an NCAA investigation on Plaintiff, which would allow UOP a basis to fire Plaintiff and hire Stoudamire. 21. A second anonymous letter was received by Dean Carlson at UOP alleging the same conduct. to an 22. After a thorough review and interviews with all of the ladies involved, it was determined N RS these allegations were against Joe Ford and all of the investigation showed there was no FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 43247 W. March Lane, Suite 120 oO ON DA BR WN NM N NN N NY NN DN Ne ee ee Be Re ee CIDA BR WN FF SO me IN DA RF WY EF DS 23. 24. 25, 26. 27. 28. 29. merit in the anonymous letters and allegations. This ruse was however continued by Defendants in a second anonymous letter. Next came a series of emails directed to Defendants sent by persons unknown who made allegations of Plaintiff taking tests for the student athletes in his program. These allegations were examined once again by NCAA and found to be false. However, during the examination, NCAA did find some irregularities that they investigated further. That investigation is still pending today and no final determination has been made as of the date of filing. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the anonymous letters and the emails were done by Amanda Leland and/or others at the Athletic Department of UOP at Leland’s insistence and other Defendants unknown today who pushed these falsehoods to allow Defendants to build a case to fire him. ce. THE SUSPENSION OF THE THREE TOP BASKETBALL PLAYERS BY UOP Alec Kobre was a basketball player who had achieved many accolades as a star for UOP. He was the starting guard, had an extraordinary high point average and he was an excellent student. Eric Thompson was an excellent team player, a high scorer and a good student. Sami Eleraky was the center on the team and a good defensive player and a good student. All three players were suspended by Leland, stating the suspensions would be lifted before the first game of the season. The suspensions were not founded on any basis other than the allegations raised in the anonymous letters and from the emails received by Defendants from fictitious persons. The players were not re-instated and the team was destroyed by the loss of the three starters. All of this was an attempt to discredit Plaintiff, who continued to work with the team as best he could given the devastation wrought on by Defendants. Insidiously, Defendants then engaged on a program to badger and try to persuade these three players to tum on the coach and conform the story the Defendants wanted to use to fire Plaintiff. The Students, who all badly wanted to play, much to their credit, refused to falsify facts as the Defendants suggested, during which time Defendants were “leaking” to the press “LA]cademic integrity is a fundamental value at Pacific, and we are committed to doing whatever is needed to ensure that our student-athletes receive an excellent education.” FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 5(209) 473-8787 Facsimile: (209) 473-8794 Stockton, CA 95219 3247 W, March Lane, Suite 120 oO YN A WA RF WY BPN NY NN NNN YN BF Be Be Fe Be Be Be eB Be eo IAA A FYB YN SF SH OKI A A BF wD NHN SF GS 30. 31. 32. 33. 34, 35. d. THE SELF REPORTING RULE OF NCAA. Under the NCAA a member college is allowed to report what they have in good faith uncovered as violations of the policies. This is allowed to go easier on the colleges that self regulate and keep their programs in compliance. Defendants and each of them mis-used this procedure to try to get Plaintiff in trouble and then be able to fire him and get out of the contract (exhibit 1). By using this procedure, Defendants notified NCAA which as is normal, would cause NCAA to investigate and proceed to determine the truth or falsity of the allegations. Plaintiff is informed and believes this was a Leland scheme to use his former associates at the NCAA as the tool to uncover something that would allow Defendants to fire Plaintiff. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-31 and incorporates them herein. From April 1, 2013 to March 3. 2016, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Head Men’s Basketball Coach. On or about May 1, 2015, Defendant’s agent/ employee, Ted Leland (“Ted”) asked Plaintiff, Ronald Verlin, to fire assistant coach, Joe Ford (“Joe”), due to a Ted’s daughter, Amanda Leland (“Amanda”), having an affair with this man, and more specifically Ted wanted Joe gone because Ted did not want his daughter having an affair with a black man. Ron told Joe about what Ted asked him to do and Joe decided to resign. Ron decided to help Joe and got him a job with Ron’s brother at a different school, away from California, nevertheless investigation into Joe’s conduct were still underway by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) and Joe decided to resign from all positions. Soon thereafter, Ted’s daughter, Amanda, became upset that Joe was made to leave and she blamed Ron Verlin, and that is when the anonymous emails about misconduct on the men’s basketball team began to surface. The actions Defendant’s agent asked Plaintiff to do was against the anti-discrimination policy. Ted Leland did not want his daughter having an affair with a African-American man and wanted him out of the picture, which is why Ted Leland asked Ron Verlin to fire him. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; ’ BREACH OF CONTRCT, BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 63247 W. March Lane, Suite 120 Stockton, CA 95219 ‘Telephone: (209) 473-8787 Facsimite: (209) 473-8794 CoO IY HHA BRB WN | RP YP YN NWN DY es RBSSRRPEBBRBREBGESEAARAEBERAS 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. The actions were directed by Leland and given to Plaintiff was an order to get him “to resign or fire him.” Plaintiff was relegated to losing his best assistant coach and warned this would hurt the team. The termination was in violation of the non-discrimination policies of the State of California and UOP procedures. The Plaintiff was the scape goat and a destruction of his player morale was part of the Leland scheme to force the team to become worse to justify the firing of Plaintiff. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 37. The employment agreement referred to above contained an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which obligated Defendants to perform the terms and conditions of the agreement fairly and in good faith and to refrain from doing any act that would prevent or impede Plaintiff from performing any or all of the conditions of the contract that he agreed to perform, or any act that would deprive Plaintiff of the benefits of the contract. Before the termination of the Plaintiff's contract, Defendant’s agent/ employee, Ted Leland was looking for a new Head Coach for the men’s basketball team. In fact, Defendants wanted Damon Stoudamire, instead of Plaintiff, and Leland’s actions have evidenced Defendants’ attempts to have Plaintiff terminated in order to bring in Stoudamire as head coach. Plaintiff performed all the duties and conditions of the employment agreement and had an outstanding record of player graduation and wins for the team, in addition to being the substantial factor in bringing substantial donations to the program. This was acknowledged in the reviews Plaintiff received from Defendants before the scheme to fire him arose and was implemented. Defendant knew that Plaintiff had fulfilled all his duties and conditions under the contract. Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the employment agreement by maintaining a soliciting-natured contact with Stoudamire in order to bring him in as head coach when Verlin had two years left on his contract. Defendants ultimately used the NCAA investigation of the men’s basketball department as a pretext to FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 7Oo OD YH HM FF WwW HH Se oe eB ew Se Se A up unde oo Eg Z (209) 473-8794 e x & 3 a 6 g 2 3 2 a — oo & a 3 g 3 3 z z 5 3 mb NR NY NY NY NY NY NY LY oa A A KR YW HY KF S 45. 46. 47. 48. discharge Plaintiff intentionally, maliciously, and in bad faith and for reasons extraneous to the contract. In fact, Defendant discharged Plaintiff, not because of alleged poor performance, or violations of NCAA rules, but because Plaintiff was not Defendant’s choice as head coach any longer. . Defendant further breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by depriving Plaintiff the opportunity to coach for the entire contract term because Defendants did not want to pay Plaintiff the eight hundred fifty thousand dollars ($850,000) salary that was due him under his contract. Defendants preferred to spend that money on Stoudamire as head coach and was in negotiations with Stoudamire even during Plaintiff's employment as head coach and while the contract was still in effect. As a proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, losses in earning and other employment benefits to his damage in the sum of an amount to be established at trial. As a further proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff has incurred reasonable attorney’s fees in attempting to secure the benefits owed him under the employment contract, all of which is in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 45. Plaintiff was employed as Head Coach by Defendants for three years and was paid a certain salary that was supposed to increase soon thereafter, and Plaintiff was under the impression that when he was hired as a Head Coach that his job would not be jeopardized by Defendants and Defendant’s agent, Ted Leland’s efforts to recruit another head coach while Plaintiff served his term under the contract and the contract was in full force and effect. Plaintiff at all times fulfilled his duties and conditions under the contract and has been ready, willing, and able to continue performing them ina competent and satisfactory manner. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 83247 W. March Lane, Suite 120 Stockton, CA 95219 Telephone: (209) 473-8787 Facsimile: (209) 473-8794 Co ON DH RP WN nN bY YW YP NY YN ee BRURERRBBHBRSSRDARABERESHETS 49. 50. UW ow NF 53. Notwithstanding the implied promise not to recruit, solicit, or negotiate with any other person for Plaintiff's position, once hired on as the head coach, Defendants’ and their agents, including Defendant Leland continued communications with Stoudamire in order to secure him as a head coach for the men’s basketball team, during the contractual obligations to Plaintiff and the self-reported issues based on anonymous letters and fictitious emails. As a proximate result of Defendant’s breach of their duties to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer losses in earnings and other employment benefits, to his damage in the sum of an amount to be established at trial. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION DEFAMATION . Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges Paragraphs 1-50. . On or about February 27, 2017, Defendant Eibeck was in attendance of a UOP event to honor the basketball players. Plaintiff was sitting in the stands far away from Eibeck. Eibeck got out of her seat on the floor of the arena, and walked up the stands to address the Plaintiff, who was with family and friends at the event. Eibeck spoke the following words of and concerning the Plaintiff: a She said that “she could not believe that you (Plaintiff) would show my face in this arena.” , b. “,.-it took great nerve for you (Plaintiff) to be here.” c That “you (Plaintiff) were a total disgrace to the University and the Stockton community.” d. That “you (Plaintiff) brought harm and embarrassment to the basketball program and the University.” e. and that “you (Plaintiff) have cost the university, millions of dollars, and tarnished its reputation.” The words were heard by Dave Fisher, Dan Fisher, Kevin Thompson, Gina Thompson, the Plaintiff's son and several other persons whose names are not known 'to Plaintiff. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; BREACH OF CONTRCT, BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 93247 W. March Lane, Suite 120 Stockton, CA 95219 (209) 473-8787 Facsimile: (209) 473-8794 Tetepho co ONY DH BF WN HY NN N NN N NN NR eR Re Re Re Re ec YN AA BR YW NH F&F So we ADH PB BH SE SS 54. These words were slanderous per se because they tend to injure Plaintiff in his office as a Head Coach which is his profession, by imputing to him a general disqualification in those respects that any Head Coach has to maintain to work his profession. 55. The words uttered were a false statement, because although there was an investigation by the NCAA, all of those records are to remain confidential, a fact that was known to Defendants. There was no investigation or right to be heard given to the Plaintiff, by anything UOP did, which was contrary to their own policies and procedures. 56. The words carried a defamatory meaning because they directly impugned the integrity of Plaintiff, held him up to ridicule and asserted he was unfit for his duties in his profession 37. The words were understood by those who saw and heard them in a way that defamed Plaintiff because it directly impugned the integrity of Plaintiff, held him up to ridicule and asserted he was unfit for his duties in his profession 58. As a result of the above-described words, Plaintiff has suffered general damages to his/her reputation. 59. As a further proximate result of the above-described words, Plaintiff has suffered the special damages to be shown at trial and/or according to proof. 60. The above-described words were spoken by the Defendant with malice and/or oppression and/or fraud in that the seats were crowded and filled with many fans who know Plaintiff was the former coach, and thus an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION INVASION OF PRIVACY 61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 60. 62. On or about December 22, 2016, Defendant, without Plaintiff's consent, invaded Plaintiff's ight to privacy by publishing an article entitled in which Plaintiff was identified by name as a person who had certain allegations brought against him. Under the specific rules of the NCAA, the allegations ate to remain confidential and only known to the parties involved. UOP is bound by the NCAA rules, but took the confidential allegations of violations to the Stockton Record and published an article in which Eibeck was directly quoted. BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 103247 W. March Lane, Suite 120 Stockton, CA 95219 (209) 473-8787 Telephor Facsimile: (209) 473-8794 Co OD DA AH FF WwW NY 10 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. The statement that is the basis of the invasion of privacy is the Notice of Violations, which are allegations only, subject to proof at a hearing and which will be made available at trial. In addition, Defendants published the Notice of Allegations on the UOP website, available to the world to see. The disclosure by Defendants’ was a public disclosure to a large number of people in that it resulted in being published in the Stockton Record newspaper, which claims a circulation of approximately 60,000. The facts disclosed about Plaintiff were private facts that Plaintiff desired to keep private. Plaintiff is pursuing a request for a hearing and a determination the facts were false as set forth in the allegations. Jn addition to the above, Defendants and each of them created a letter on UOP letterhead from the desk of Eibeck and sent it out to all students, informing them of the allegations concerning the confidential allegations. The disclosure by Defendants of the above facts was offensive and objectionable to Plaintiff and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities in that the allegations are unproven, revealing extremely private details about Plaintiff's private dispute with all Defendants, that Plaintiff had attempted to keep private. The private facts disclosed by Defendants were not of legitimate public concern, nor newsworthy as they were allegations only. The disclosed facts did not bear a logical relationship to the newsworthy subject of the broadcast and were intrusive in great disproportion to their relevance, in that all Defendants know that the investigation is on- going and un-resolved. As a proximate result of the above disclosure, was scorned and abandoned by his friends and family, exposed to contempt and ridicule, and suffered loss of reputation and standing in the community, all of which caused him humiliation, embarrassment, hurt feelings, mental anguish, and suffering, all to his general damage in an amount according to proof. As a further proximate result of the above-mentioned disclosure, Plaintiff has suffered injury to his business, in that he has lost any opportunity to get employment as a Coach all to his special damage in an amount according to proof. In making the disclosure described above, Defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, in’ that Defendant made the disclosure with the intent to vex, injure, or annoy” FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING lle e 1 Plaintiff and a willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights in keeping these matters 2 private. Plaintiff therefore seeks an award of punitive damages. 3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendant[s] as follows: 4 1. For damages for wrongful termination according to proof including lost earnings and other 5 employee benefits, past and future. 6 2. For damages for the breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing according to proof 7 including lost earnings and other employee benefits, past and future. 8 3. For damages for the slander of Plaintiff according to proof including lost earnings and other ° employee benefits, past and future. 10 4. For damages for the invasion of Plaintiff's privacy according to proof including lost earnings i and other employee benefits, past and future. QR 5. For punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant and deter others from 13 engaging in similar misconduct. a ee 4 6. For reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff in obtaining the benefits due him if a2 3 15 appropriate under the employment contract : a8 : 7. For costs of suit incurred by Plaintiff; and : 3 i 3 8. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper. 5 ge 18 19 Dated: April 10, 2017 Michael & Cammack 20 21 22 L. Cammack, Attorney for Ronald Verlin ' 23 24 | 25 26 : 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGIS FOR TORTIOUS DISCIIARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIGPOLION BREACH OF CONTRCT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 12