Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Rothenberg Ventures Lawsuit

    Uploaded by

    Matthew Panzarino
    31K views14 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    31K views14 pages

    Rothenberg Ventures Lawsuit

    Uploaded by

    Matthew Panzarino

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 14
    WOM SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Aug-30-2016 4:09 pm Case Number: CGC-16-553970 Filing Date: Aug-30-2016 4:05 Filed by: BOWMAN LIU Image: 05534755 COMPLAINT DAVID HASSE VS. ROTHENBERG VENTURES MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC ETAL 001005534755 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. SUM-100 SUMMONS ed (CITACION JUDICIAL) on 7 NOTICE TO DEFENDAN; (AVISO AL DEMANDADO) Rothenberg Ventures Management Company LLC, Rothenberg Ventures| LLC, River Studios LLC, and Michael Rothenberg, and DOES 1-50, YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: Inclusive, (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): David Hasse CONOR! You ave Deon sued. The cout may decide egsinal you wiliol your boing heard unless you Teapand winn day, Read he WTSvGn below ry hate 20 CALENDAR DAYS artis summons and logl papers are served on youto flea writen response his cout and have a copy you. Your writen response must be proper legal frm I yau want fe cout fo hear your Yur county law Berar. or he courthouse nearest you, W you care pay the ng fe, sak UF Tesponse On me, YoU may lose the cae by defaut, and your wages, honey. a propery "he nome and ares oft aut cia arseince Bevo es: San Francisco County Supeor Cour RFE 16 55397 400 Meals Stee pe eee EEOLSIS SLD San Francisco, CA 94102 ia ie ne atone rents lit trey o pat wet an toy. Gnomere, la creccién y el nimero de teéfone del abogado del demendante, 0 del demandarile que no lene abogado, es) Patrick Terry, Counsel Force P.C., 456 Montgomery St. #1400, San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 365.0543 care. AUG Des orre, AUG 3 02016 OEPUTY Gir ‘Pema (ro Tsai Tsai 8 PTT Sas Bae (Pars pba doen cool ston us al roa Potala NOTIGE Tome Penson seRve )) mmons, (POS-010)). ceenet BOWMAN, FAX 1. [_) as an individual defendant. 2, [7] asthe person sued under the fttious name of (speciys: 3, [1 onbehait of specif) under: CI. CoP 416.10 (corporation) (5) cor 41660 (minor J CoP 416.20 (defunct corporation) C=} CCP 416.70 (conservatee) 5) CCP 416.40 (association or parinership) [=] CCP 416.80 (authorized person) 7 other (specify): 4. 1 by personal delivery on (eta: a Tica Camco” ‘SUMMONS. Cota Pere 2 Say py 130, fees crosses hen Sewrur.d] nu " 1B 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 ai 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 oO 3° F Jed ED Patrick M. Terry (SBN 184055) Bunty Sf Sen brancisce COUNSEL FORCE P.C. |456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 AUG 3.02016 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 365-0543 CLE! F THE COURT Facsimile: (415) 344-0075 BY, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DAVID HASSE, CaseNo: CEC-16.553970 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT a (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT " @) CONVERSION ROTHENBERG VENTURES 3) QUANTUM MERUIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, on ROTHENBERG VENTURES LLC, RIVER (@ VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA STUDIOS LLC, and MICHAEL LABOR CODE §2802 ROTHENBERG; and DOES | through 50, (5) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES Inclusive, (Violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq.) (6) FRAUD BY FAX Plaintiff David Hasse (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff"), hereby submits thi Defendants. Complaint against Defendants Rothenberg Ventures Management Company LLC, Rothenberg, Ventures LLC, River Studios LLC, ichael Rothenberg, and Does 1-50 (hereinafter collectivel referred to as “Defendants”), as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff brings this action seeking to recover monies owed to Plaintiff by Defendant stemming from the wrongful breach of the Defendants’ obligation to pay business expensed ‘COMPLAINT Se oe ee ey 10 12 B 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 7 28 ©o ° incurred by Plaintiff on Defendants’ behalf. Defendants’ actions are a deliberate violation of California Labor Code §2802 and an intentional breach of contract. Plaintiff has incurred ‘significant damages by Defendants’ intentional, fraudulent, unfair and deceitful actions as further set forth herein, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the violations of California Labor Code §§2802, California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., (Unfair Practices Act) and the othed causes of action stated herein. 3. Venue is proper because the alleged wrongs occurred in San Francisco County. Defendants are located within California and San Francisco County. Plaintiff worked for Defendants in San Francisco County. ‘The events that are the subject ofthis action took place i San Francisco County. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Rothenberg Ventures Management Compan LLC (hereinafter referred to as “RVM”) ‘beginning in April, 2016. 5. Plaintiff's duties as an employee of RVM included Providing various services of 3 Chief Financial Officer for RVM, while also doing work for the benefit of RVM affiliates, including Rothenberg Ventures LLC, and River Studios LLC. Plaintiff was never formall appointed an officer of any of the corporate entity defendants including his immediate employe RVM. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon. alleges that Defendant RVM is 4 ‘Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in the State of California with its principal place of business in San Francisco County, California, and is wholly owned and controlled by Defendant Michael Rothenberg. 7. Plaintiffs informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant River Studios LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in the State of California 2 COMPLAINT, Ce aauae 10 uw 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 e) 8 ‘with ts principal place of business in San Francisco County and is wholly owned and controlled by Defendant Michael Rothenberg. 4 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges Defendant Rothenberg Ventures LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in the State of Californid ‘with its principal place of business in San Francisco County and is wholly owned and controlled by Defendant Michael Rothenberg. 9. Plaintiffs informed and believes and based thereon alleges Defendant Michael Rothenberg an individual, is the sole owner and controls the other Defendants, and is a domiciled ‘in San Francisco County. 10. Plaintiff worked in San Francisco County and was employed by Defendant RVM a all times relevant to this complaint. 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times herein] mentioned Defendants and DOES 1 through 50, are and were corporations, limited liability Companies, investment funds, business entities, individuals, and partnerships, licensed to business and actually doing business in the State of California, 12. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner ot corporate, of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and for that reason) said Defendants are sued under such fictitious names, and Plaintiffs Pray leave to amend thi ‘complaint when the true names and capacities are known. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that each of said fictitious Defendants were responsible in some way for the matters alleged herein and proximately caused Plaintiffs to be subject to the illegal employment practices, wrongs and injuries complained of herein, 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times herenf ‘mentioned, each of said Defendants participated in the acts hereinafter alleged to have been dond by the named Defendants; and furthermore, the Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, Servants and employees of each of the other Defendants as well as the agents of all Defendants ‘and at all times herein mentioned, were acting within the course and scope of said agency and ‘employment. 3 COMPLAINT, Seeiuinneun uw 2 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 © 3 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times material hereto, each of the Defendants named herein was the agent, employee, alter ego and/or join verurer of, or working in concert with each ofthe other Defendants and was ating within thq ‘course and scope of such agency, employment, joint venture, or concerted activity. To the extent said acts, conduct, and omissions were perpetrated by certain Defendants, each of the remaining Defendants confirmed and ratified said acts, conduct, and o1 ions of the acting Defendant. 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that a all times material hereto, Defendants, and each of them, were members of, and engaged in, a joint venture, arership and common enterprise, and acting within the course and scope of, and in pursuaned of, said joint venture, partnership and common enterprise. 16. At all times herein ‘Mentioned, the acts and omissions of various Defendants, and ‘each of them, concurred and contributed to the various acts and omissions of each and all of th other Defendants in proximately causing the injuries and damages as herein alleged. 17. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, ratified each “4 every act or omission complained of herein. At all times herein mentioned, the Defendants, anc ‘each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions of each and all of the other Defendants int proximately causing the damages as herein alleged. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELEVANT TO CAUSES OF ACTION 18. In May of 2016, Plaintiff, acting within the scope of his duties for RVM, opened ‘account with American Express for the benefit of RVM and its affiliates. ‘The opening of th account was approved by Defendant Michael Rothenberg for the purpose of acting as a credi line for the day to day business expenses incurred by RVM, including business expenses charge by Defendant Michael Rothenberg’s numerous administrative assistants at his direct request ‘The expenditures made with the credit account benefited all Defendants in the course of operating their various businesses. 19. Plaintiff administered the American Express account on behalf of RVM and thd 4 ‘COMPLAINT, ee 10 u 12 1B 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 © ° Defendants. 20. Defendant Michael! Rothenberg authorized the payments of business expenses sing the American Express account for RVM and the other Defendants. 21. The account is currently overdue in the amount of $109,352.20 (One Hundred and ‘Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty-Two Dollars and Twenty Cents), 22. On or about August 24, Defendant Michael Rothenberg on behalf of himself the other Defendants wrongfully and capriciously refused to pay the business expense debt ow. to American Express on Plaintiff's account, leaving Plaintiff with the debt of $109,352.20, whic 's subject to the accumulation of interest and which has caused and will continue to case damag: to Plaintiff's reputation and credit worthiness. 23. For his part, Defendant Michael Rothenberg has disavowed any responsibility on] the part of RVM or any of the Defendants to pay the outstanding amount and to bring th account current, despite having previously paid approximately $140,000 toward expenditures ‘made on the account. 24, Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times material hereto, Defendants RVM, Rothenberg Ventures LLC and River Studios LLC were controlled by Defendant Michael Rothenberg, that Michael Rothenberg commingled the accounts of s id Defendants, and with those of other Doe Defendants, and treated such accounts as personal Accounts, o such an extent that such business entities were in fact his alter ego. 25. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all timed ‘material hereto, Michael Rothenberg, by commingling the accounts of the Defendants mismanaged the funds of RVM and the Defendants, using RVM funds that should have been| paid to Plaintiff to pay the American Express account for other purposes unrelated to RVM, t. the detriment of the Plaintiff. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF CONTRACT) 26. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 25 as thought s COMPLAINT, Searannaeun i 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 21 28 | fully set for herein, ° 9 21. Defendants, by their conduct of requesting and authorizing Plaintiff in his role as an| employee of RVM to open and use the American Express account for the joint benefit convenience and business purposes of the Defendants, entered into an implied contract with Plaintiff that such expenses incurred on the account would be paid by RVM or other Defendants as applicable. 28. Plaintiff, having opened the American Express account in his name for the joint benefit, convenience and business purposes of the Defendants, performed under the implied contract. 29, Defendants, including Defendant Michael Rothenberg, and each of them, by theit further conduct and actions of charging and paying for business expenses incurred on th American Express account opened by Plaintiff for Defendants, ratified the implied contract with Plaintiff. 30, Defendants, and each of them, have breached the contract by failing to pay Plaintiff the amount of $109,352.20 plus interest owed on the American Express account. 31. Asa result of Defendants’ breach of the contract, Plaintiff has been damaged and continues to be damaged in the amount of $109,352.20 and additional amounts to be proven af trial. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (FOR CONVERSION) 32, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 33. By requiring Plaintiff without his consent to use his own funds to pay for the expenditures of the Defendants, and forcing Plaintiff to retire the debt rightfully owed bs Defendants without reimbursement, Defendants are exercising control over and wrongfilly using Plaintiff's funds for their own purposes. 34. Defendants have refused to return or reimburse Plaintiff's funds causing Plainti 6 ‘COMPLAINT ° o serious and substantial financial harm, THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (QUANTUM MERUIT) —, every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs, 36. Defendants Tequested and authorized Plaintiff to open the American Expres ‘ccount and to use the account to find business expenses, 37. Plaintiff opened the American Express account and Paid for business expenses Using the account as requested. 38. The reasonable value of the funds incurred by the Plaintiff is $109,352.20, as ig established by the account. 39. Defendants owe the Plaintiff $109,352.20, which in equity and good conscious should be returned to the Plaintiff FOURTH CAUSE OF ACT 40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set ‘41. Defendants, and each of them, have failed to indemnify Plaintiff for $109,352. ‘2. Defendants” failure to indemnify the Plaintiff is in violation of California Labor (FOR VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.) SESINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 43. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference ach and every allegation sed forth in the preceding paragraphs, 7 COMPLAINT 49. Plaintifts the unfair practices complained of herein, 47. Plaintiff seeks an injunction to prohibit Defendants from Continuing to engage inf 48. The restitution sought hereunder includes the equivalent of all business expensed SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION SEATH CAUSE OF ACTION (For FRAUD) ‘allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set fort in the preceding paragraphs, 50. Plaintiff is i 51. Defendant Michael Rothenberg represented to Plaintiff that Defendant RVM woul COMPLAINT. Violative of the mandate establishe 17200 et seq.; Upon the Fourth and Fifth Cause of Action, fom engaging in the unfair business Practices COMPLAINT COOP O56 6 «. MW 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a 28 Labor Code §§2802(c) and 218.5; 8. For costs of suit; and Dated: August 30, 2016 9. For such other and further relief the court ‘may deem just and proper. COUNSEL FORCE P.c, “Patrick M. Terry ? Attorneys for Plaintiff By 10 COMPLAINT. ° 8 RSPR Savor a Tenn aoa ae Olen FI Sen Prete Se Pe Swperior cy cco, peter Court of Calfomia’ reamreneo: 413-365-0543 roavo: 415-344-0075 Cotnty San Faso arromer ron nom: Plaintite, David Hasse ae UPEROR COURT OF EaLrORNIA COUNTY OF San Francisco AUG 3.0 2016 seer ones ane ooress: 400 McAllister Street ‘arravoze cooe: San Francisco, CA 94102 eae a David Hasse vs. Rothenberg Ventures Management Company, et al, ‘VIL CASE COVER SHEE Conple ane Beige Goon CT tinted Cl counter T=) sJomaer | ae ae sweets) SES03r ay] "Hath! sepeaney cto | AE ‘ems 1-6 below musi be completed (see instructions on pags 2) [i- Check one box below forthe case (ype that best describes this case ‘Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Cvs Litigation ‘Ao 2) (1 reach ot conacsaranty (06) (al Rulon of Co raloe 3 4003.40) nisi moti (46) TE} ate 3740 cotectone 0a) [=] Antvstteae etaon (0) Ctr PUPOIWD (ersonal nurPropary ter catecton 0) Constvetn detec (0) Damagemirongat Dest) Tor inure coverage (18) as tt 40) Premera Ober contact 7) {F secsites mgaton 25) Prod aby (24) Reat Property (5 exwroomena te rt (30 TJ edie matpracio 45 Eminent domsiniovere Insurance coverage claims arin tom the ther PuPOAND (2) fondemnaion (0) Siow ed nycompl eae Non-PUPDAWD (Other) Tort 1 wrengtt eviction (38) types (41) [a suniness tara nsnss praca ory Ober ra propery 20 xforcement of Sudgment cargo) ala Detainee TH ences figment 0) [ owtanaton 13) EP commercial) Miscetanoous Givi Complaint fraud ie) TF) reetertat 2 RICO @) Intellectual property (10) CO onugs 8 ‘thar complaint ot specited above) (42) T Protexsional nagigence 26) eapernee Pee reanlem he | ee en PuPDIWD ot (9) Fy Meter 5 vara 11) = Pattern and corpora governance (21) wong tenaton (26) weeotrmanaate 2) [oer seon tpt to ther employment (18) CA) other ciciatraview (39) Fo ee Ts ane ienet,, complex under rule 3.400 ofthe Calfomia Rules of Coun Wihe casa & Gomplan nak be {actors requ exceptional judicial management 2. [7] Large numberof separately represented partes, ] Large number ‘of witnesses: ».L_] Extensive motion practice raising effet or novel ¢. (—] Coordination with related actions Pending in one or more courts 'ssues that wil be time-consuming o resolve In other counties, states, or counties, orn a federal court & (2) Substantial amount of documentary evidence +.) Substantial postudgment judicial supervision Remedies sought (check ail that app: [7] monetary b.[—] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief 6 punitive. Number of causes of ection (specify): 5 Triscase LJis CZ Jisnot acdass action suit {tsteavimmniticon endow rnamdnaetcen tmyeaemcuos) BY FAX Date: August 30, 2016 Patrick Terry » -. Z, =e zs ORT TRE, m7 r NOTICE * Flint mst fle this cover shest with the est paper fled in the action or proceeding (except smal claims cases or cases flea imsanctone, Pt? Co0®. Famiy Code, or Weltre and insttuions Code). (Ca. Rules of Coun, rule 3.220 Fete to he mer eau in sanctions {File this cover sheet in adition to any cover sheet required by local court rl. * ire Cate is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the Califomia Rules of Cour, you must serve @ copy ofthis cover sheet on all ‘other partis to the action or pr ee ‘CIVIL GASE COVER SHEET ee oO ° moto INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET mor To Plants and Others Filing First Papers. Ifyou are fg a frst paper (for example, @ complaint in a cv case, you must complete end fle, alongwith you frst paper, the Civ Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1, Ths formate wil be used compe statics about the types and numbers of cases fled. You must compete tems 1 trough 6 onthe shee, In Hem 1, you must creck {one box forthe case type that beat describes the case the case fs both a general and amore specie type of case ted item check the more specie one. Ifthe case has muliple causes of selon, check the box that best ndates the primary eavee of acon To assist you in competing the sheet, examples of ho cases thal belong under each case type it tom | are proved below, A caver ‘sheet mus be fled ony win your inital paper. Faure to lea cover sneet wit the st paper fied ina vl ease may bloc par, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rule 230 and 3.220 ofthe Calflora Rules of Cour To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A “coletons case” under rule 3.740 ie defined aa an action for recovery of money ‘owed in @ eum stated io be certain that is nat more than $28,000, exchusive of intrest and atiomeys fees, aking Fone vonsacton which property, serces, or money was acquired on cred. A eolecione case dows not ne an scion seating te elon (To tor damages, (2) puive damages, (3) recovery of rel property, (4) recovery of personal property. or (8) @ prejudgment wit ot attachment. ‘The identification of a caso ao a rule 3740 cohectons case on is form moans hat fil bs exempt ne te gored time-or-eervice requirements and case management res, unless a defendant fles a fesponahve placing, ‘A tlw 2120 colectore cane wil be subject tothe requirements for service and oblinng a judgment in re 3.740. ‘To Parties in Complex Cases.. In complex cases only, partes must also use the Civ Case Cover Sheot to designate whether tne case is complex. plant belioes the case is complex under rule 2.400 ofthe Calfola Rules of Cour, tis mint be nleaad by

    You might also like