Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Elyza P. Heraldez, Esq. (State Bar No. 293395) SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
HERALDEZ LAW PC I
11/9/2023 4-51 PM
7349 Millikan Avenue, Ste. 1404
RaDChO Cucamonga, CA 91730 By: Abrianna Rodriguez, DEPUTY
Office: (909) 942-9992
Email: Elyza.Heraldez@Heraldezlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
YESENIA ROBLES
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11 YESENIA ROBLES, CASE NO.: CIVSB2314929
12 Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
13 vs. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
(1) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
14 HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED, a California LABOR CODE § 1102.5;
Corporation, HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED (2) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
15 DBA ST. MARY’S MONTESSORI SCHOOL, a THE FEHA;
California Corporation, and DOES 1-20, (3) FAILURE TO PREVENT
16 Inclusive, RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
THE FEHA;
17 Defendants. (4) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
VIOLATION 0F PUBLIC POLICY;
18 (5) VIOLATION 0F THE BANE ACT;
(6) VIOLATION 0F LABOR CODE § 233;
19 (7) DEFAMATION
20
21
22 Plaintiff YESENIA ROBLES (“Plaintiff”), an individual, hereby files this Complaint against
23 Defendants HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED, a California Corporation, HIMNEL USA
24 INCORPORATED dba ST. MARY’S MONTESSORI SCHOOL, a California Corporation, and DOES 1
25 TO 20, inclusive, (collectively referred to herein as “DEFENDANTS”). PLAINTIFF is informed and
26 believes, and 0n the basis 0f that information and belief, alleges as follows:
27 ///
28 ///
1
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
THE PARTIES
1. Defendant Himnel USA Incorporated, is a California corporation that, at all relevant times,
was authorized t0 do business Within the State 0f California and is doing business in the State of California.
2. Defendant Himnel USA Incorporated dba St. Mary’s Montessori School, is a California
corporation that, at all relevant times, was authorized to d0 business within the State 0f California and is
doing business in the State 0f California.
3. Defendants and their managing agents, own, operate, or otherwise manage daycare
facilities in locations throughout Southern California and in other countries.
4. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times was, an individual domiciled in the State 0f California
10 and a citizen of the State of California who worked as a full-time non-exempt employee for defendants in
11 the State 0f California.
12 5 . Plaintiffworked for Defendants from in or about August 2021 through in 0r about February
13 2023. Plaintiff worked as an assistant teacher at Defendants' location in Rancho Cucamonga, California.
14 6. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 20,
15 inclusive, are currently unknown t0 Plaintiff, Who therefore sues each such Defendants by said fictitious
16 names. Each of the Defendants designated herein as a Doe is legally responsible for the unlawful acts
17 alleged herein. Plaintiff Will seek leave of Court t0 amend this Complaint t0 reflect the true names and
18 capacities 0f the Doe Defendants When such identities become known.
19 7. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that, at all relevant times, each Defendant was the
20 principal, agent, partner, joint venturer, joint employer, officer, director, controlling shareholder,
21 subsidiary, affiliate, parent corporation, successor in interest and/or predecessor in interest of some 0r all
22 0f the other Defendants, and was engaged with some or all of the other Defendants in a joint enterprise
23 for profit, and bore such other relationships t0 some or all of the other Defendants so as t0 be liable for
24 their conduct With respect to the matters alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiff is further informed and
25 believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant acted pursuant to and within the scope ofthe relationships
26 alleged above, and that at all relevant times, each Defendant knew 0r should have known about,
27 authorized, ratified, adopted, approved, controlled, aided and abetted the conduct 0f all other Defendants.
28 ///
2
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Elyza P. Heraldez, Esq. (State Bar No. 293395) SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT HERALDEZ LAW PC I 11/9/2023 4-51 PM 7349 Millikan Avenue, Ste. 1404 RaDChO Cucamonga, CA 91730 By: Abrianna Rodriguez, DEPUTY Office: (909) 942-9992 Email: Elyza.Heraldez@Heraldezlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, YESENIA ROBLES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 YESENIA ROBLES, CASE NO.: CIVSB2314929 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 13 vs. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF 14 HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED, a California LABOR CODE § 1102.5; Corporation, HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED (2) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF 15 DBA ST. MARY’S MONTESSORI SCHOOL, a THE FEHA; California Corporation, and DOES 1-20, (3) FAILURE TO PREVENT 16 Inclusive, RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA; 17 Defendants. (4) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION 0F PUBLIC POLICY; 18 (5) VIOLATION 0F THE BANE ACT; (6) VIOLATION 0F LABOR CODE § 233; 19 (7) DEFAMATION 20 21 22 Plaintiff YESENIA ROBLES (“Plaintiff”), an individual, hereby files this Complaint against 23 Defendants HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED, a California Corporation, HIMNEL USA 24 INCORPORATED dba ST. MARY’S MONTESSORI SCHOOL, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 25 TO 20, inclusive, (collectively referred to herein as “DEFENDANTS”). PLAINTIFF is informed and 26 believes, and 0n the basis 0f that information and belief, alleges as follows: 27 /// 28 /// 1 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES THE PARTIES 1. Defendant Himnel USA Incorporated, is a California corporation that, at all relevant times, was authorized t0 do business Within the State 0f California and is doing business in the State of California. 2. Defendant Himnel USA Incorporated dba St. Mary’s Montessori School, is a California corporation that, at all relevant times, was authorized to d0 business within the State 0f California and is doing business in the State 0f California. 3. Defendants and their managing agents, own, operate, or otherwise manage daycare facilities in locations throughout Southern California and in other countries. 4. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times was, an individual domiciled in the State 0f California 10 and a citizen of the State of California who worked as a full-time non-exempt employee for defendants in 11 the State 0f California. 12 5 . Plaintiffworked for Defendants from in or about August 2021 through in 0r about February 13 2023. Plaintiff worked as an assistant teacher at Defendants' location in Rancho Cucamonga, California. 14 6. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, 15 inclusive, are currently unknown t0 Plaintiff, Who therefore sues each such Defendants by said fictitious 16 names. Each of the Defendants designated herein as a Doe is legally responsible for the unlawful acts 17 alleged herein. Plaintiff Will seek leave of Court t0 amend this Complaint t0 reflect the true names and 18 capacities 0f the Doe Defendants When such identities become known. 19 7. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that, at all relevant times, each Defendant was the 20 principal, agent, partner, joint venturer, joint employer, officer, director, controlling shareholder, 21 subsidiary, affiliate, parent corporation, successor in interest and/or predecessor in interest of some 0r all 22 0f the other Defendants, and was engaged with some or all of the other Defendants in a joint enterprise 23 for profit, and bore such other relationships t0 some or all of the other Defendants so as t0 be liable for 24 their conduct With respect to the matters alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiff is further informed and 25 believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant acted pursuant to and within the scope ofthe relationships 26 alleged above, and that at all relevant times, each Defendant knew 0r should have known about, 27 authorized, ratified, adopted, approved, controlled, aided and abetted the conduct 0f all other Defendants. 28 /// 2 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES