Iris Alonzo Bc592105

  • View
    155

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Former Creative Director sues American Apparel for labor code violations that occur after Standard General's takeover of the company.

Text of Iris Alonzo Bc592105

  • 112

    Keith A. Fink, Bar No. 146841Sarah E. Hernandez, Bar No. 206305Jennifer H. Yeung, Bar No. 280819FINK & STEINBERGAttorneys at Law11500 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 316Los Angeles, California 90064Telephone: (310) 268-0780Facsimile: (310) 268-0790Attorneys for PlaintiffIRIS ALONZO

    OF ORIGINAL FILED)ns Ancelpc

    AUG 202015SherrJ H. Carter, Executive OtficerICerkBy: Moses Soto, Deputy

    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    - CENTRAL DISTRICT

    AMERICAN APPAREL, INC., a Delawarecorporation; AMERICAN APPARELRETAIL, INC., a California corporation;AMERICAN APPAREL (USA), LLC, aCalifornia limited liability company;AMERICAN APPARELMANUFACTURING, INC., a Californiacorporation; AMERICAN APPARELGROUP, a Delaware corporation;AMERICAN APPAREL CORPORATION,a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 100,inclusive,

    Defendants.

    CASE NO.

    COMPLAINT F(JAJGF)R:1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN

    VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;2. BREACH OF CONTRACT

    - ORAL;3. BREACH OF CONTRACT

    - WRITTEN;4. BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD

    FAITH AND FAIR DEALING;5. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 201 &

    203, ET SEQ.;6. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 2067. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 1102.58. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 1198.59. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND

    PROFESSIONS CODE 17200, ET SEQ.

    [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]

    24

    VENUE AND PARTIES1. Plaintiff IRIS ALONZO (ALONZO and/or PLAINTIFF) is, and at all times relevant

    hereto was, a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.2. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant AMERICAN

    1PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    IRIS ALONZO, an individual;

    Plaintiff,

    V.

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23 Plaintiff IRIS ALONZO hereby alleges as follows:

    25

    26

    27

    28

  • 1 APPAREL, INC. (AMERICAN APPAREL and/or DEFENDANTS) is, and at all times2 relevant hereto was, a Delaware corporation doing substantial business in the County of Los

    3 Angeles, State of California.

    4 3. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant AMERICAN

    5 APPAREL RETAIL, INC. (AMERICAN APPAREL and/or DEFENDANTS) is, and at6 all times relevant hereto was, a California corporation, doing substantial business in the County

    7 of Los Angeles, State of California.

    8 4. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant AMERICAN

    9 APPAREL (USA), LLC (AMERICAN APPAREL and/or DEFENDANTS) is, and at all10 times relevant hereto was, a California limited liability company, doing substantial business in

    ii the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

    12 5. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant AMERICAN

    13 APPAREL MANUFACTURING, INC. (AMERICAN APPAREL and/or14 DEFENDANTS) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a California corporation, doing15 substantial business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

    16 6. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant AMERICAN

    17 APPAREL GROUP (AMERICAN APPAREL and/or DEFENDANTS) is, and at all times18 relevant hereto was, a Delaware corporation, doing substantial business in the County of Los

    19 Angeles, State of California.

    20 7. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant AMERICAN APPAREL

    21 CORPORATION (AMERICAN APPAREL and/or DEFENDANTS) is, and at all times22 relevant hereto was, a Delaware corporation, doing substantial business in the County of Los

    23 Angeles, State of California.

    24 8. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that AMERICAN APPAREL, INC.,

    25 AMERICAN APPAREL RETAIL, INC., AMERICAN APPAREL (USA), LLC, AMERICAN

    26 APPAREL MANUFACTURING, INC., AMERICAN APPAREL GROUP, and AMERICAN

    27 APPAREL CORPORATION were joint employers of PLAINTIFF. AMERICAN APPAREL,28 INC., AMERICAN APPAREL RETAIL, INC., AMERICAN APPAREL (USA), LLC,

    2PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

  • 1 AMERICAN APPAREL MANUFACTURING, INC., AMERICAN APPAREL GROUP, and

    2 AMERICAN APPAREL CORPORATION hired employees jointly, including PLAINTIFF,3 controlled PLAINTIFFS and other employees work assignments, and paid PLAINTIFF S and

    4 other employees wages. Therefore, these entities were at all times joint employers of5 PLAINTIFF.

    6 9. PLAINTIFF is unaware of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,

    7 associated or otherwise, ofDefendants DOES 1 through 100 (DOES and/or DEFENDANT8 DOE) inclusive, and therefore sues said Does by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF will seek9 leave of Court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of such DOES

    io when the same has been ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon allegesii that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible to PLAINTIFF for the injuries12 suffered and alleged herein, or is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court as a necessary party for13 the relief herein requested.

    14 10. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that AMERICAN APPAREL, INC.,

    15 AMERICAN APPAREL RETAIL, INC., AMERICAN APPAREL (USA), LLC, AMERICAN16 APPAREL MANUFACTURING, INC., AMERICAN APPAREL GROUP, and AMERICAN

    17 APPAREL CORPORATION are alter-egos of one another because there is such a unity of

    18 interest and ownership that their separate corporate personalities are merged so that one

    19 corporation is a mere adjunct ofanother and the companies form a single enterprise. PLAINTIFF20 further alleges that AMERICAN APPAREL, INC., AMERICAN APPAREL RETAIL, INC.,

    21 AMERICAN APPAREL (USA), LLC, AMERICAN APPAREL MANUFACTURING, INC.,22 AMERICAN APPAREL GROUP, and AMERICAN APPAREL CORPORATION commingled

    23 their funds and other assets, failed to segregate the firnds of the separate entities, allowed the

    24 diversion of corporate funds or assets to non-corporate uses, failed to maintain corporate

    25 minutes, failed to maintain adequate corporate records, failed to adhere to corporate formalities,

    26 failed to conduct transactions by and between one another at arms length, used the same offices

    27 and/or business locations, employed the same or largely the same employees, and/or failed to

    28 adequately capitalize some or all of the corporations.

    3PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

  • 1 11. PLAINTIFF is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that each DEFENDANT and DOE is

    2 now, and was at all times mentioned herein, the agent, principal, partner, officer, joint venturer,3 employee or alter ego of the remaining DEFENDANTS and DOES, and that all of the acts and

    4 conduct alleged herein were performed within the course and scope and in the furtherance of

    5 such agency, partnership, joint venture, employment or alter ego relationship.6 12. Venue is properly laid in this Court in that the claims and injuries occurred in the County ofLos7 Angeles.

    8

    9 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

    10 13. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full, each and

    11 every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 12, inclusive.

    12 14. ALONZO was employed by AMERICAN APPAREL from February 16, 2004, through June 25,

    13 2014, and then again from October 20, 2014, through February 19, 2015.

    14 15. During her eleven-year tenure with DEFENDANTS, ALONZO made many meaningful and

    15 tangible contributions to AMERICAN APPAREL in the areas of product design, retail

    16 development, and brand growth that resulted in over one billion dollars in sales and global

    17 recognition for the apparel company.

    18 16. In the area of product development, ALONZO was instrumental in the development and

    19 execution of the companys Tn-Blend Jersey fabric, which alone was responsible for

    20 approximately twenty five million dollars of sales annually since 2005, the Cotton Spandex

    21 Legging, a top seller since its launch, the now classic 3 stripe Tube Socks (2006), the Disco

    22 Pant (2007), the Deep V Neck (2007), the launch of the companys first Denim line

    23 (2010), the top selling Fisherman Sweater (2012), and hundreds of other products.

    24 17. In 2008, after the passing of Proposition 8 in California, ALONZO and her team were

    25 responsible for conceiving the groundbreaking and globally recognized Legalize Gay

    26 campaign and was an early supporter of partnering with innovative gay culture publications and

    27 organizations.

    28 18. ALONZO also stewarded important collaborations and relationships between the American

    4PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

  • i Apparel brand and world-class art museums, international art groups, independent artists and

    2 art non-profits, solidifying the brands place in the contemporary art sector.

    3 19. ALONZOS commitment to AMERICAN APPAREL and its success was undying since the

    4 outset of her employment. Throughout her tenure with DEFENDANTS, ALONZOS job5 performance was stellar and DEFENDANTS continually acknowledged her work product and

    6 contributions to the company.

    7

    8 Exactly one weekfollowing the ousting ofFormer CEO Dov Charney,

    9 Alonzo was terminated without severance or cause.

    10 20. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that in or around 2013 and early to mid-2014,

    11 DEFENDANTS secretly looked for ways to fire CEO Dov Charney (Mr. Charney) and to12 compromise his control of stock in the company. On or about June 18, 2014, Mr. Charney was

    13 officially terminated as C