Motion for Judicial Notice in GARY JOHNSON ET AL VS. GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL| Trellis.Law

On February 26, 2020 a Request,Application was filed involving a dispute between Adjusters International Pacific Northwest, Inc.,, Johnson, Gary, and Adjusters International Pacific Northwest, Inc., Does 1 Through 20, Inclusive, Gibson, Clay, Greenspan Adjusters International, Inc., Lucurell, Chris, Lucurell, Drew, Migdal, Paul, Scott Iii, Gordon, Severaid, Steve, Warren, James, for OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
Yosef Peretz (SBN 209288)
1 yperetz@peretzlaw.com
David Garibaldi (SBN 313641)
2 ELECTRONICALLY
dgaribaldi@peretzlaw.com
PERETZ & ASSOCIATES F I L E D
3 22 Battery Street, Suite 200 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 94111
4 Tel: 415.732.3777 06/30/2020
Clerk of the Court
5 Fax: 415.732.3791 BY: RONNIE OTERO
Deputy Clerk

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff GARY JOHNSON
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9
GARY JOHNSON, individually and Case No. CGC-20-20583239
10 derivatively on behalf of GREENSPAN
11 ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
corporation, and ADJUSTERS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
12 INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
NORTHWEST, INC., a corporation, MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PERETZ &
13 ASSOCIATES AS COUNSEL FOR
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF GARY JOHNSON
14
15 v.
Date: July 14, 2020
16 GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS Time: 9:30 a.m.
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ADJUSTERS Dept.: 302
17
INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
18 NORTHWEST, INC.; GORDON SCOTT, III;
STEVE SEVERAID; PAUL MIGDAL;
19 JAMES WARREN; CLAY GIBSON; DREW
LUCURELL; CHRIS LUCURELL; and
20
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
21
Defendants.
22
Plaintiff GARY JOHNSON respectfully requests that this Court take judicial notice of
23
the following exhibits pursuant to California Evidence Code sections §§452 and 453.
24
EXHIBIT “A”: First Amended Complaint, filed June 29, 2020 in
25 Johnson, et al. v. Greenspan Adjusters,
26 International, Inc., et al., San Francisco Superior
Court Case No. CGC-20-20583239;
27
//
28

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
1
1 EXHIBIT “B”: First Amended Complaint, filed March 3, 2020
2 in Khan v. Greenspan Adjusters, International,
Inc., et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. 4:20-CV-01121;
3
EXHIBIT “C”: Motion to Remand, filed March 3, 2020 in Khan
4 v. Greenspan Adjusters, International, Inc., et
5 al., N.D. Cal. Case No. 4:20-CV-01121;

6 EXHIBIT “D”: Motion to Seal/Strike Complaint, filed March 19,
2020 in Khan v. Greenspan Adjusters,
7 International, Inc., et al., N.D. Cal. Case No.
8 4:20-CV-01121;

9 EXHIBIT “E”: Order Granting Motion to Remand and Denying
Motion to Seal/Strike Complaint, dated June 29,
10 2020 in Khan v. Greenspan Adjusters,
11 International, Inc., et al., N.D. Cal. Case No.
4:20-CV-01121;
12
13
14
15 Dated: June 30, 2020 PERETZ & ASSOCIATES

16
By: __________________
17
Yosef Peretz
18 David Garibaldi
Attorneys for Plaintiff
19 GARY JOHNSON
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
-2-
EXHIBIT 1
1 Daniel J. Cravens (SBN 207859)
Email: dcravens@cravensassociates.com
2 CRAVENS & ASSOCIATES
516 W. Shaw Avenue, Suite 200
3 Fresno, CA 93704
Telephone: 559.421.9380
4 Facsimile: 855.273.3797
5 Yosef Peretz (SBN 209288)
David Garibaldi (SBN 313641)
6 Kelsi Lerner (SBN 328344)
PERETZ & ASSOCIATES
7 22 Battery Street, Suite 202
San Francisco, CA 94111
8 Telephone: 415.732.3777
Facsimile: 415.732.3791
9
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff GARY JOHNSON

11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12
13 GARY JOHNSON, individual and Case No. CGC-20-583239
derivatively on behalf of GREENSPAN
14 ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
corporation, and ADJUSTERS DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
15 INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC
NORTHWEST, INC., a corporation, 1. Age Discrimination in Violation of the
16
FEHA;
17 2. Disability Discrimination in Violation of
Plaintiff, the FEHA;
18 3. Failure to Accommodate a Disability in
v. Violation of the FEHA;
19
4. Failure to Engage in a Good Faith
20 GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS Interactive Process of Disability
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ADJUSTERS Accommodation in Violation of the FEHA;
21 INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC 5. Failure to Prevent Discriminatory and
NORTHWEST, INC.; GORDON SCOTT, Retaliatory Practices in Violation of FEHA;
22
III; STEVE SEVERAID; PAUL MIGDAL; 6. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA;
23 JAMES WARREN; CLAY GIBSON; 7. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §
DREW LUCURELL; CHRIS LUCURELL; 98.6;
24 and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 8. Wrongful Termination in Violation of
Public Policy;
25
Defendants. 9. Breach of Contract;
26 10. Failure to Pay Wages in Violation of the
Labor Code;
27 11. Failure to Pay All Necessary Expenditures
in Violation of Labor Code § 2802
28

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
-1-
1 12. Failure to Pay Earned Wages Upon
Discharge in Violation of Labor Code §
2 203;
13. Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate
3
Wage Statements in Violation of Labor
4 Code § 226;
14. Abuse of Control;
5 15. Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
16. Breach of Duty of Care;
6
17. Breach of Duty of Loyalty;
7 18. Involuntary Dissolution of a California
Corporation;
8 19. Unjust Enrichment;
20. Accounting of Corporation; and
9
21. Unfair, Unlawful, and/or Fraudulent
10 Business Practices in Violation of Business
and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
11
Plaintiff GARY JOHNSON (“Johnson”), individually and derivatively on behalf of
12
GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“Greenspan”) and ADJUSTERS
13
INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC NORTHWEST, INC. (“AIPNW”), allege as follows:
14 I. INTRODUCTION
15 1. This is an action brought by Johnson, individually and derivatively on behalf of
16 Greenspan and AIPNW, against Greenspan and AIPNW (collectively, “Corporate Defendants”),
17 Johnson’s former employers, and against his former business partners working with him for

18 Corporate Defendants, Defendants GORDON SCOTT, III (“Gordon”), STEVE SEVERAID
(“Severaid”), PAUL MIGDAL (“Migdal”), JAMES WARREN (“Warren”), CLAY GIBSON
19
(“Gibson”), DREW LUCURELL (“D. Lucurell”), and CHRIS LUCURELL (“C. Lucurell”)
20
(collectively, “Individual Defendants”), and Defendants DOES 1-20 (collectively, “Defendants”).
21
2. Corporate Defendants are independent public insurance adjusting firms.
22
Greenspan was founded in 1946, is based in San Francisco, California, and is one of the largest
23 independent public insurance adjusting firm in the United States. AIPNW is based in Seattle,
24 Washington, and is affiliated with Greenspan.
25 3. Johnson worked for Greenspan for over 36 years, from 1982 until his wrongful
26 termination in 2018. He rose up through the ranks to become a partner and shareholder of both

27 Corporate Defendants, and at some point, he served as Greenspan’s CEO and President.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
-2-
1 4. Individual Defendants, who together control a majority of Corporate Defendants,

2 acted in concert by means of a series of bad faith and wrongful actions to accomplish the joint
purpose of discriminating against and retaliating against Johnson with the ultimate goal of
3
cheating him out of compensation he is entitled to, removing him as an active partner with
4
Corporate Defendants, and ultimately wrongfully terminating him. Johnson, therefore, alleges
5
various business, corporate, wage and hour, and employment torts against Defendants relating to
6
his employment with Defendants.
7 5. Johnson also brings a shareholder derivative action on behalf of Corporate
8 Defendants against their officers and directors seeking to remedy for Individual Defendants’
9 abuse of control of the companies, including breaches of their fiduciary duties, that have caused
10 substantial losses to Corporate Defendants. Johnson, therefore, also seeks damages, corporate

11 governance reforms, and accounting, to remedy for Individual Defendants’ abusive and wrongful
conduct.
12
6. As such, Johnson seeks compensatory damages and/or restitution, general, civil
13
and punitive damages, and the cost of suit, including attorneys’ fees, for the harm caused to him
14
by this wrongful conduct of Defendants.
15
II. PARTIES
16 7. Johnson is 64 years old, and worked as a Public Adjuster for Greenspan for over
17 36 years.
18 8. Greenspan is a California Corporation, located 400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite

19 519, San Francisco, California 94080. Greenspan is an independent public insurance adjusting
firm with its headquartered located in San Francisco, California. Greenspan was and still is an
20
employer in California within the meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
21
(“FEHA”), California Government Code (“Gov’t Code”) § 12926, et seq., particularly Gov’t
22
Code § 12926(d). At all times relevant to this action, Greenspan was and is controlled by
23
Individual Defendants who collectively exercise majority control over the corporation, its
24 management committees, and its Board of Directors
25 9. AIPNW is a Washington Profit Corporation, located 4300 36th Avenue West,
26 Seattle, Washington 98199-1675. AIPNW is an independent public insurance adjusting firm with
27 its office located in Seattle, Washington. Johnson is informed and believes that AIPNW was and

28 still is an employer in California within the meaning of the FEHA, and particularly Gov’t Code

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
-3-
1 § 12926(d). At all times relevant to this action, AIPNW was and is controlled by Individual

2 Defendants who collectively exercise majority control over the corporation, its management
committees, and its Board of Directors.
3
10. Johnson is informed and believes that both Greenspan and AIPNW were and still
4
are alter egos and were his joint employers within the meaning of the FEHA, the California Labor
5
Code, and California labor and employment laws.
6
11. Scott is a resident of San Francisco, California. Scott is a Shareholder, Director,
7 President, and CEO of Greenspan. Scott is a Shareholder and Director of AIPNW. At all times
8 relevant hereto Scott was also the alter ego of Greenspan and AIPNW, and a unity of interest
9 exists between Scott and each of Corporate Defendants.
10 12. Gibson is a resident of Novato, California. Gibson is a Shareholder, Director, and

11 COO of Greenspan. At all times relevant hereto Gibson was also the alter ego of Greenspan, and
a unity of interest exists between Gibson and Greenspan.
12
13. Severaid is a resident of San Francisco, California. Severaid is a Director, and
13
Shareholder of Greenspan. At all times relevant hereto Severaid was also the alter ego of
14
Greenspan, and a unity of interest exists between Severaid and Greenspan.
15
14. Migdal is a resident of San Francisco, California. Migdal is a Director,
16 Shareholder, and General Counsel of Greenspan. At all times relevant hereto Scott was also the
17 alter ego of Greenspan, and a unity of interest exists between Scott and Greenspan.
18 15. Warren is a resident of Alameda, California. Warren is a Principal, and

19 Shareholder of Greenspan. At all times relevant hereto Warren was also the alter ego of
Greenspan, and a unity of interest exists between Warren and Greenspan.
20
16. C. Lucurell is a resident of Seattle, Washington. C. Lucurell is a Principal,
21
Secretary, Treasurer, and Shareholder of AIPNW. At all times relevant hereto C. Lucurell was
22
also the alter ego of AIPNW, and a unity of interest exists between C. Lucurell and AIPNW.
23
17. D. Lucurell is a resident of Seattle, Washington. D. Lucurell is a Principal,
24 Shareholder, and President of AIPNW. At all times relevant hereto D. Lucurell was also the alter
25 ego of AIPNW, and a unity of interest exists between D. Lucurell and AIPNW.
26 18. Johnson is informed and believes that Individual Defendants were and stillare
27 alter egos of each of Corporate Defendants within the meaning of the California Labor Code, and

28 California labor and employment laws.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
-4-
1 19. Defendants Does 1 through 20 are sued herein under fictitious names pursuant to

2 California Code of Civil Procedure § 474. These Defendants are in some way liable for the
damages sustained by Johnson. Upon information and belief, Does 1 through 20 acted with and
3
on behalf of named Defendants in the alleged violations. Johnson does not, at this time, know
4
the true names or capacities of said unnamed Defendants, but prays that the same may be inserted
5
herein when ascertained.
6
20. Johnson is informed, believes and thereon alleges that each of Defendants
7 designated as a Doe is responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein, and that
8 Johnson’s injuries and damages as hereinafter set forth were proximately caused by said
9 Defendants. Johnson is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein
10 mentioned, each of Defendants sued herein was the agent and/or employee of each of the

11 remaining Defendants, and each of them, was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of
such agency and employment.
12
21. Johnson is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Individual Defendants
13
collectively own a substantial majority of shares and equity of Greenspan and AIPNW and
14
together form a block of controlling shareholders and exercise majority control over these
15
corporations, their management committees, and their Boards of Directors.
16 22. Individual Defendants along with Defendants Does 1 through 20 all acted in
17 concert and while assuming the duties of controlling shareholders of Greenspan and AIPNW with
18 respect to all acts by Individual Defendants alleged herein.

19 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23. Jurisdiction and venue are proper because Johnson’s claims and causes of actions
20
arose in this county and because Defendants do business and/or reside in this county.
21
24. In response to Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Johnson filed a Charge of
22
Discrimination and Retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
23
against Greenspan on October 11, 2018 (EEOC Charge No.: 550-2018-01843). On December 6,
24 2019, the EEOC issued a Right-To-Sue Notice permitting Johnson to file a civil action under both
25 federal and state laws, including the FEHA. A copy of said Charge of Discrimination and Right-
26 To-Sue Notice are attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
27 25. In response to Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Johnson filed a subsequent Charge

28 of Discrimination and Retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
-5-
1 (“EEOC”) against AIPNW on June 14, 2019 (EEOC Charge No.: 551-2019-02285). On

2 December 9, 2019, the EEOC issued a Right-To-Sue Notice permitting Johnson to file a civil
action under both federal and state laws, including the FEHA. A copy of said Charge of
3
Discrimination and Right-To-Sue Notice are attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
4
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5
A. Johnson Started as a Junior Employee of Greenspan and Became a Major
6 Partner and Owner of the Form
7 26. Greenspan is an independent public adjusting firm that was originally founded in

8 1946 as the Sidney Greenspan Company. Through mergers and acquisitions, Greenspan is now
affiliated with 6 independent public adjusting firms in Adjusters International, which is the largest
9
nationwide coalition of public adjusters in the United States. Upon information and belief, at the
10
time of Johnson’s wrongful termination, Greenspan was also the largest independent public
11
insurance business in the United States.
12 27. Johnson was hired by Greenspan’s founder in 1982 as an Executive General
13 Adjuster and later because a Public Adjuster. Through his exceptional success at his job, his skill
14 set, and his years of dedication to Greenspan, Johnson became a minority partner/shareholder in
15 the firm in 1985, and subsequently a full partner in 1990.

16 28. Johnson duties as a Public Adjuster included representing private clients in
negotiations with insurance companies, estimating insurance losses, management of inventory,
17
accounting, and management of Corporate Defendants’ production activities. At times, Johnson
18
was the largest producer of revenue for Greenspan in both referrals and adjusting claims.
19
29. In 2003, Johnson and Scott fully acquired Greenspan. Johnson was then elected
20
President and CEO, in which position he served until 2005 when Greenspan acquired and merged
21 with AIPNW. Johnson then continued to serve as a co-chairman of the firm.
22 30. Following the merger and acquisition of AIPNW in 2005, Scott became the
23 President and CEO of Greenspan.
24 31. Johnson was employed by Greenspan as a Public Adjuster until his wrongful

25 termination on August 15, 2018.
32. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this litigation, Johnson owned
26
approximately 12.3% of Greenspan, including approximately 17,885 shares and warrants.
27
Exclusive of all shares or equity in Greenspan owned by Individual Defendants, upon information
28
and belief, at all times relevant to this litigation, Johnson owned over a third (33 and 1/3rd percent)

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
-6-
1 of the total equity in Greenspan.

2 33. Upon information and belief, exclusive of all shares or equity in Greenspan owned
by Individual Defendants, Johnson also owns over a third (33 and 1/3rd percent) of the total equity
3
in AIPNW by virtue of the fact that Greenspan and AIPNW are the alter ego of one another, and
4
that Greenspan is the sole owner of all shares in AIPNW.
5
B. Johnson’s Affiliation with AIPNW as an Employee and Owner
6
34. AIPNW is an independent public adjusting firm located in Seattle, Washington,
7 which performs substantially the same business primarily in the pacific northwest (but also in
8 California) as performed by Greenspan in California.
9 35. Greenspan acquired and merged with the operations of AIPNW in or around April

10 2005. Since the acquisition and merger, Greenspan is and was at all relevant times the alter ego

11 of AIPNW and of each of Individual Defendants, and it maintained a unity of interest between
itself and AIPNW and each of Individual Defendants. Since its acquisition by and merger with
12
Greenspan, AIPNW is and was at all relevant times the alter ego of Greenspan and of each of
13
Individual Defendants, and it maintained a unity of interest between itself and Greenspan and
14
each of Individual Defendants.
15 36. Johnson was employed by AIPNW in California as a Public Adjuster from April
16 19, 2005.
17 37. AIPNW has never provided any notice to Johnson that it terminated him.
18 However, AIPNW has nevertheless wrongfully withheld his monthly salary since August 15,

19 2018, at the same time he was wrongfully terminated by Greenspan.
C. As He Became Older and Disabled, Johnson Was Increasingly Subjected to
20
Discriminatory and Retaliatory Actions by Defendants
21 38. As he became the President and CEO of Greenspan in 2005, Scott begun with a
22 pattern and practice of preferring younger employees for management positions as he felt that
23 younger, healthier managers would ensure the ongoing profitability of Corporate Defendants.

24 Scott also regarded younger employees as being more energetic, and less prone to injury.
39. As one of the founders of Corporate Defendants, Johnson was initially somewhat
25
protected from Scott’s age bias. However, as he aged and became disabled, he was subjected to
26
an increased level of bias and harassing conduct by Individual Defendants, and primarily by Scott.
27
40. Scott’s age- and disability- bias toward Johnson became more apparent over time
28
because Scott felt that younger managers would be more profitable for the firm.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
-7-
1 41. Scott and the other Individual Defendants then began a pattern and practice of and

2 exploited their majority control over Corporate Defendants to harass, discriminate and retaliate
against Johnson, and particularly sidelining Johnson from his management role in the firm. For
3
example, Scott sent an email to Johnson, seemingly out of the blue, which read, “I have been
4
concerned for a while we do not share the same visions and goals.” Almost immediately
5
thereafter, Johnson was removed from the Management Committee of Greenspan. Scott and
6
Migdal then added Severaid, Gibson, and Fratkin to the Management Committee, and by
7 exploiting their majority control over Corporate Defendants they instructed Gibson to withhold
8 meeting notes for a while until Johnson complained. After Johnson complained, Gibson exploited
9 the majority control over Corporate Defendants and began sending “redacted” meeting notes to
10 Johnson. Johnson was never made aware of the dates of said meetings because Scott and Migdal

11 wanted to be absolutely certain Johnson never attended a Management Meeting after being
removed from the Management Committee of the firm.
12
42. On about December 11, 2012, Johnson was injured in an auto accident that
13
occurred within the scope of his employment. Since it was a major accident, his injuries included
14
injuries to his neck, spine, and right knee. Johnson was transported by ambulance to a local
15
hospital where he subsequently incurred a pulmonary embolism secondary to a hospital-acquired
16 MRSA infection.
17 43. As a result of these series of serious injuries, Johnson was hospitalized for
18 approximately three months during which he underwent no less than nine surgeries. Thereafter,

19 he required approximately three months of intermittent medical leave.
44. During his medical leave of absence, Corporate Defendants assigned Johnson’s
20
duties to Jessica Bivens, a much younger employee.
21
45. Following the accident, Johnson asked the office manager to submit a workers’
22
compensation claim on his behalf. Instead, however, Corporate Defendants’ general counsel, Ivo
23
Labar, instructed Johnson to pursue a personal injury action rather than file a workers’
24 compensation claim. Johnson acquiesced at that time because he did not want to risk retaliation
25 from Corporate Defendants.
26 46. Johnson returned to duty on approximately July 2013, but he required ongoing
27 accommodations due to his residual physical limitations.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
-8-
1 47. The disparate treatment of Johnson intensified following his injury 2013 as Scott

2 and the other Individual Defendants then began to view Johnson as too old and physically infirm
to continue working for the firm altogether and exploited their majority control over Corporate
3
Defendants to harass, discriminate and retaliate against Johnson.
4
48. On February 2014, Greenspan promoted Fratkin and Severaid, both of whom are
5
substantially younger than Johnson, to assume operational control over the firm without
6
performing an outside search for a COO and without performing due diligence to determine
7 Fratkin’s and Severaid’s qualifications.
8 49. Johnson opposed these actions by Greenspan because neither Severaid nor Fratkin
9 were qualified to assume control over Greenspan as Severaid had no formal education or
10 experience managing a firm, and Fratkin was also a convicted felon that could not legally perform

11 licensed work for Corporate Defendants.
50. Fratkin was previously convicted of one or more felonies in connection with
12
embezzlement or other felonies involving dishonesty or a breach of trust. The convictions related
13
to the following criminal prosecutions: The People of the State of California v. Mark Bruce
14
Fratkin, Case No. SC027551A, 1991, Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo; and
15
The People of the State of California v. Mark Bruce Fratkin, Case No. NF215912A, 1991,
16 Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.
17 51. As a result of his criminal convictions, Fratkin was banned from engaging in the
18 business of insurance pursuant to, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. 1033, which prohibits anyone who has

19 been convicted of a felony involving dishonesty or a breach of trust from engaging in the business
of insurance unless they have obtained the written consent of the States of California’s and
20
Washington’s respective Insurance Commissioner.
21
52. Further, it was a criminal offense for Corporate Defendants to willfully employ
22
Fratkin in a position in which he would engage in the business of insurance. Nevertheless,
23
Corporate Defendants did exactly that. On information and belief, Corporate Defendants also
24 knowingly made and submitted fraudulent statements to various governmental agencies,
25 including on forms for Business Entity Application Public Adjuster Licenses of the State of
26 California (Form CDI 181) omitting and/or falsely describing the involvement of Fratkin and
27 failing to identify him as a “Prohibited Person”.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
-9-
1 53. After Johnson protested of these practices, in mid-2014, Defendants removed

2 operational control from Fratkin and Severaid. However, Individual Defendants held a grudge
against Johnson because of his opposition to the appointment of Fratkin and Severaid, and
3
exploited their majority control over Corporate Defendants to harass, discriminate and retaliate
4
against Johnson.
5
54. On about November 6, 2015, Individual Defendants exploited their majority
6
control to harass, discriminate and retaliate against Johnson by attempting to demote him by
7 stripping him of his position as an officer of Greenspan and reducing his status to that of an
8 adjuster.
9 55. Moreover, after appearing to take action against Fratkin and Severaid, Individual
10 Defendants then exploited their majority control over Corporate Defendants to illegally re-engage

11 Fratkin to perform acts on behalf of Corporate Defendants, including by permitting and/or
requiring that Fratkin perform acts that he was legally precluded from performing as a result of
12
his felon status.
13
56. On November 11, 2015, Larry Pratt, who then served as the COO of Greenspan,
14
sent an email to all employees of the firm without the knowledge and consent of Johnson falsely
15
indicating that Johnson was retiring. Johnson believes that this email was sent to as part of the
16 Individual Defendant’s harassing, discriminatory and retaliatory scheme to force Johnson to quit.
17 As a result, Johnson received numerous calls inquiring about his upcoming retirement. Individual
18 Defendants exploited their majority control over Greenspan to further harass, discriminate and

19 retaliate against Johnson further by refusing to allow Johnson to clarify that he was not retiring
from the firm.
20
57. Johnson complained to Individual Defendants about the reduction in his role in
21
Greenspan and requested reinstatement as an officer during a January 21, 2016 Board of Directors
22
meeting. Individual Defendants initially refused to reinstate Johnson. However, on December
23
15, 2015, Johnson was reinstated to his position as Co-Chairman of Greenspan, yet again giving
24 another reason to Individual Defendants to harass, discriminate and retaliate against by getting
25 rid of him.
26 58. Despite reinstating Johnson as an officer, Individual Defendants exploited their
27 majority control of Corporate Defendants to harass, discriminate and retaliate against him by

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

Case Info

Judge

ETHAN P. SCHULMAN Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

June 30, 2020

Case Filing Date

February 26, 2020

County

Parties

ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC NORTHWEST, INC. Defendant
ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC NORTHWEST, INC., Plaintiff
ASKANAS, MARK SLATER Attorney for the Defendant
CIALONE, FRANK F Attorney for the Defendant
CRAVENS, DANIEL J. Attorney for the Plaintiff
DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE Defendant
GIBSON, CLAY Defendant
GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. Defendant
JOHNSON, GARY Plaintiff
LUCURELL, CHRIS Defendant
LUCURELL, DREW Defendant
MIGDAL, PAUL Defendant
PERETZ, YOSEF Attorney for the Plaintiff
SCOTT III, GORDON Defendant
SEVERAID, STEVE Defendant
WARREN, JAMES Defendant
David Garibaldi Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Felicia Draper Attorneys for Defendants
Kelsi Lerner Attorney
Riley Moyer Attorneys for Defendants
Joy Ehlers Attorneys for Defendants
Masood-Ur Khan Attorney
Philip Smith Attorney
Spencer Davidson Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Request,Application: GARY JOHNSON ET AL VS. GREENSPAN ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties