Casey v. AHA and HBO Second Amended Complaint

8/22/2019 Casey v. AHA and HBO Second Amended Complaint

1/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

David M. deRubertis, State Bar No. 208709Maria L. Weitz, State Bar No. 268100

The deRubertis Law Firm, APC4219 Coldwater Canyon AvenueStudio City, California 91604Telephone: (818) 761-2322Facsimile: (818) 761-2323e-mail: [email protected]

Howard Rutten, State Bar No. 164820The Rutten Law Firm, APC

4221 Coldwater Canyon AvenueStudio City, California 91604Telephone: (818) 308-6915Facsimile: (818) 924-6400e-mail: [email protected]

Attorneys for PlaintiffBARBARA CASEY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFOR

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

BARBARA CASEY, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE AMERICAN HUMANEASSOCIATION, a District ofColumbia corporation; THEAMERICAN HUMANEASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, a

California corporation; HOME BOXOFFICE, INC., a Delawarecorporation; STEWARTPRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delawarelimited liability company; and DOES1-100, inclusive,

)))))))))))

)))))))

CASE NO. BC 497991

[Assigned for all purposeDuffy-Lewis - Departmen

SECOND AMENDED CFOR DAMAGES, PENAOTHER RELIEF FOR:

1. VIOLATION OF CALABOR CODE 1102.5

2. WRONGFUL TERMVIOLATION OF PUBL

3. AIDING AND ABETWRONGFUL TERMINVIOLATION OF PUBL


2/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Plaintiff BARBARA CASEY, an individual, hereby compl

AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION, a District of Columbia AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, a Cali

HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., a Delaware corporation; STEWART

LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclu

them, and alleges as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff BARBARA CASEY (Plaintiff) is an individ

eighteen years old, residing in the State of California, County of Los

2. Defendant THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIAT

Columbia corporation, purports to be a corporation organized and exist

laws of the District of Columbia and doing business in Los Angeles,

3. Defendant THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASS

CALIFORNIA, a California corporation, purports to be a corporati

existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California and doing busine

California.

4. Defendant THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIAT

Columbia corporation, and defendant THE AMERICAN HUMANE A

CALIFORNIA, a California corporation, shall be collectively referre

5. Defendant HOME BOX OFFICE, INC. (HBO), a Dela

purports to be a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the la

Delaware and doing business in Los Angeles, California.


3/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

7. Defendant HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., a Delaware

defendant STEWART PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited shall be collectively referred to as the Production Defendants.

8. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of th

corporate defendants named herein as DOES 1-100, and therefore sue

under fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of thos

herein as DOES 1-100 are ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this comp

true names and capacities. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereo

of the above fictitiously named defendants negligently and/or intenti

wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged herein, or, alternativ

ratified such wrongdoing, and that each of the fictitiously named defend

in some manner for the damages suffered by Plaintiff.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

9. AHA is a non-profit corporate entity that purports to p

children from abuse and neglect. AHA operates its Film and Televisio

for the benefit of animals used in film and television productions.

AHAs involvement with film and television productions is its trade

statement, No Animals Were Harmed. As detailed below, AHAs d

a film or television production with the No Animals Were Harmed

indication of whether or not animals were in fact injured or even killed

10. For approximately thirteen years, Plaintiff was an emplo

2011, Plaintiff was working as the Director of Production in AHAs F


4/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

citations, collecting evidence, confiscating animals and property, m

appearing in court. Plaintiff served as a liaison between the AHA production companies in an effort to ensure the safe, ethical, humane an

of animals.

11. AHAs Film and Television Unit is funded by the Indu

and Cooperative Fund (IACF). The IACF is funded as part of a produ

the union for film actors the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) when w

SAG/Producers contract. The IACF fund is administered by SAG a

Motion Picture and Television Producers. AHAs grant from the I

renewal on a yearly basis. Without renewal of its grant each year, AH

its Film and Television Unit. The financial ties between AHA and the

industry, including the Production Defendants, create a conflict of inte

purported animal protection role in film and television productions.

12. AHA had and continues to have close relationships with

producers, including HBO and the Production Defendants, not on

funding relationship it has with these entities, but also to satisfy

publicity and marketing opportunities which arise out of its work on f

productions. AHA uses press releases, movie reviews and other publi

enhance its own image while riding the coattails of Hollywood produc

executive officer and president Robin Ganzert is often photographed a

with movie producers and other celebrities.

13. AHAs connections with film and television produ


5/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

run more smoothly and/or in an attempt to avoid close scrutiny of its tre

AHA kowtows to these Hollywood producers because it is less concsafety and more concerned with its own financial gain and/or that

directors, continued funding by the IACF and/or its own public rel

AHA reaped and continues to reap both profit and political gain by hit

Hollywood film and television shows and the press generated by this

14. Because of the conflict of interest AHA had and continu

film and television industry, AHA has engaged in a repeated patte

concealing animal deaths and injuries as a matter of course. Despite th

credit No Animals Were Harmed that AHA issues to film and telev

animals are often harmed or killed during productions that are nonet

No Animals Were Harmed end credit. The following examples, not

production, are illustrative:

! AHAs animal safety representatives worked on the set of

Temple Grandin and observed a cow killed on set. Nonetheless, to

despite the cows death, AHA gave the production its No Animals W

credit. Ironically, Temple Grandin was about the life of a well kno

ethical treatment of livestock. AHA sold $25,000 per plate dinners for

event honoring its own participation in the film.

! During the production of a Proctor & Gamble commercial, a bu

Studio Animal Services died after being left in a van on a hot day. Le

an unattended vehicle is a crime pursuant to Penal Code 597.7. Wh


6/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

! During the production of the Oscar Winning film Life of Pi, t

appearing in the film and used as a highly successful marketing im

without proper care and almost drowned. The producer on Life of P

personally requested a particular AHA animal safety representative

production. AHA granted this request despite it causing additional

being no legitimate business reason for the producer to hand pi

representative. Despite the near death of a tiger, AHA gave the N

Harmed end credit on this production.

! During production of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, twe

were killed, including horses, goats and sheep. AHA gave an especial

credit for this film, which read as follows: "American Humane m

significant animal action. No animals were harmed during such actio

Image 1 - Injured horse on The Hobbit: An Unexpected J


7/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Image 2 - Dead horse on The Hobbit: An Unexpected Jo

Image 3 - Dead animal on The Hobbit: An Unexpected Jo


8/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

! A horse was killed during production of the film War Horse, d

produced by Steven Spielberg. In order to protect Steven Spielberg,

notable and influential persons in the history of film, and because of

press and other publicity this film garnered, AHA agreed to cover-up

horse and to give the film its No Animals Were Harmed end credit

15. From about January 2010 through March 2012, AHAs

worked on the production of a television series called Luck. Luck

the Production Defendants for broadcast on the premium subscription

channel HBO. Lucks storyline was about horse racing and starred

known actors, including Dustin Hoffman and Nick Nolte. The Luck

required the use of many, many horses. AHA humane officers and/o

representatives worked on the Luck production to monitor the safe, e

and lawful treatment of these horses. AHAs humane officers and/or

representatives reported directly to Plaintiff.

16. AHA had a special and important relationship with HB

scheduling or other logistical conflicts arose within AHA, AHA mad

assign reps and/or other assets to HBO productions. AHA made par

to rock the boat on HBO productions, including Luck. Accordingl

animal safety representatives and/or humane officers observed the Pr

Defendants engaging in ongoing, systematic and unlawful animal abu

toward the horses on the set of Luck, this created political and public

problems for AHA.


9/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

considerable resistance and backlash from the Production Defendant

insisted that the horses be protected and not abused.

18. In order to save time and money, however, and to mini

disruption to its production schedule, the Production Defendants, rath

cooperate with AHA, continued to engage in and/or direct criminal a

cruelty. The Production Defendants pressured AHA to allow them to

animal safety standards, guidelines and/or recommendations. The Pr

Defendants pressured AHA to allow the use of unsuitable horses in a

ensure that sufficient numbers of horses would be available to meet i

demands. The animal abuse and cruelty observed by AHA included,

things, the following:

! horses were often drugged to perform as admitted by Matthewhorse trainer for the Production Defendants

! underweight and sick horses unsuited for work were routinelyProduction Defendants

Image 4 - Underweight horse on Luck set


10/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

! a horse named Outlaw Yodeler was killed during production o

Image 5 - Outlaw Yodeler on Luck set

! the Production Defendants intentionally misidentified horses s

officers and/or animal safety representative could not track their medexperience and/or suitability for use

! a horse named Marcs Shadow was killed during the filming oon March 29, 2011; his necropsy report revealed degenerative arthropathologies in this retired racehorse that made him unsuited for use iscenes

///

///

///

///


11/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Image 6 - Marcs Shaddow

Image 7 - Marcs Shaddow


12/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

! a horse named Home Trader was killed during the Summer ofits representatives not to document this horses death because he wassummer hiatus from filming and therefore did not count

! A fourth horse was killed in March, 2012, leading to cancellatseries

19. Plaintiff repeatedly complained to AHA and the Produ

about horses being criminally abused, neglected and/or mistreated on

AHA and/or the Production Defendants to violations of laws and crimpertaining to the mistreatment and/or abuse of animals including, but

CaliforniaPenal Code 597 (Cruelty to Animals). Plaintiff urged A

police, the district attorney and/or the city attorney involved.

20. While Plaintiff urged AHA to report the Production De

criminal animal abuse and animal cruelty to government and/or law e

AHA bowed to political and financial pressure, however, and refused

Production Defendants conduct to the authorities. AHA instructed P

report such conduct. AHA engaged in efforts to conceal and cover-u

Defendants criminal activities.

21. As Plaintiff continued to pressure AHA and/or the Prod

Defendants to treat the Luck horses safely, humanely and ethically, th

Defendants resisted.

22. On April 17, 2011, less than thirty days after horse Mar

killed during filming, Luck Co-Executive Producer Henry Bronchtei

concern to AHA and others that we have pushed these scenes as late

as possible for the show at considerable expense. Delaying any furth


13/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Bronchtein requested that AHA lift its statement that horses could no

Bronchtein wrote: Unfortunately delaying the horses on track this w

behest of AHA starts to jam us up next week because we still have m

with horse (sic) on the track. He later added: We absolutely need t

augment the amount of horses we have to race and the pressure is mo

to get this done.

24. As pressure mounted on the Production Defendants to

production in a timely and cost-effective manner, which required au

amount of horses we have to race, Plaintiffs spearheading of effort

safety of these horses became a grave concern for the Production De

is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the Production D

pressured AHA to control Plaintiff so that its production would not b

the production would not be shut down. Accordingly, the Producti

exercised their political muscle and influence with AHA and encoura

Plaintiff from her position so that she would not interfere with their p

25. On or about January 3, 2012, AHA terminated Plaintiff

order to prevent her from reporting the Production Defendants viola

abuse and cruelty laws and/or in retaliation for her efforts in reportin

otherwise in violation ofLabor Code 1102.5.

26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon allege

termination was done with the substantial assistance and/or encourag

Production Defendants. The Production Defendants provided advice


14/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

27. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and othe

situated under the Private Attorneys General Act,Labor Code 2698

recover all penalties, attorneys fees, costs and other damages and/or

thereunder based on defendants violation ofLabor Code 1102.5. O

2012, Plaintiff served on the Labor and Workforce Development Ag

defendants by certified mail, return receipt requested, the requisite no

Labor Code 2699.3. More than thirty-three days have expired sinc

notice and the LWDA has not notified Plaintiff that it will investigate

thereby entitling Plaintiff to pursue all available remedies underLabo

seq.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION[Termination, Retaliation and Other Conduct inViolation of CaliforniaLabor Code 1102.5 against AHA D

28. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and

contained in paragraphs 1 through 27, as if set forth here in full.

29. In doing the things herein alleged, and as otherwise wi

trial, the AHA Defendants, and each of them, violatedLabor Code

provides, in part, that:

(a) An employer may not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, reor policy preventing an employee from disclosing informationgovernment or law enforcement agency, where the employee hreasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a vistate or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with afederal rule or regulation.

(b) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for dis


15/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state orrule or regulation.

(d) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for havor her rights under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) in any former em

30. By terminating Plaintiff in retaliation for and/or to prev

reporting the criminal conduct occurring in connection with the Luck

as otherwise may be discovered, the AHA defendants, and each of thLabor Code 1102.5.

31. As a direct and proximate result of defendants conduc

suffered damages, including, but not limited to, lost past and future w

and mental anguish and emotional suffering, all in an amount to be p

in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.

32. Pursuant toLabor Code 1102.5(f), in addition to othe

penalties, an employer that is a corporation is liable for a civil penalt

ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation ofLabor Code 11

brings this action to recover said penalties pursuantLabor Code 26

other all other penalties, attorneys fees, costs and other damages and

available thereunder.

33. In doing the things herein alleged, defendants were gui

fraud and malice in that they, among other things, acted with a wilful

disregard for Plaintiffs rights, health and safety and, insofar as the th

attributable to employees of defendants, said employees were employ

with advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employees and/or the


16/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

an officer, director or managing agent of defendants all entitling Plai

recovery of exemplary and punitive damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION[Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Poli

against the AHA Defendants]



A. Public policy regarding suspected violations of law b

35. The public policy of the State of California, as codified

mandated inLabor Code 1102.5 and other applicable law is to proh

from: (1) implementing policies preventing employees from disclosin

based suspicions of violations of state or federal statutes; (2) retaliati

employees who have disclosed reasonably based suspicions of violat

federal statutes to government agencies; and (3) retaliating against em

refuse to participate in activities that would result in violations of sta

statutes.

36. This public policy of the State of California is designed

employees and to promote the welfare and well being of the commun

B. Public policy against abuse and cruelty to animals

37. The public policy of the State of California prohibits th

inhumane treatment of animals. It has long been the public policy

avoid unnecessary cruelty to animals. [T]here is a social norm that

proscribes the infliction of any unnecessary pain on animals, and im


17/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

722). The foregoing public policy is expressed in the following statu

administrative regulations authorized by statute:

a. California Penal Code 597 (cruelty to animals), 59

animals), 597a (cruelty to animals - transportation), 597f (failure

animals), 597g (poling or tripping a horse), 597o (humane transp

to slaughter), 597s (abandonment of animals), 597t (confined ani

(prohibited killing methods of animals, 597x (sale or transport of d

597.1 (failure to care for animals; misdemeanor) and 599b (definiti

of knowledge to corporations.)

b. California Business & Professions Code 4830.7 (Cal

imposes a mandatory duty on veterinarians to report animal abuse. A

veterinarian who has reasonable cause to believe an animal under it

victim of animal abuse or cruelty must promptly report that abuse to

law enforcement.)

c. California Health & Safety Code 25988 and 25988.5

treatment of horses and other equine animals; citation, penalties and

d. California Business & Professions Code 19400 et seq

persons and facilities subject to the California Horse Racing Law and

regulations and conditions prescribed by the California Horse Racing

but not limited to: (1) racing facilities (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 19

jockeys (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 19520); (3) trainers (Cal. Bus. & P

19520; (4) veterinarians (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 19510); and (5) a


18/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

39. The AHA Defendants termination of Plaintiff was in v

public policies alleged above and/or some or all of them.

40. As a direct and proximate result of defendants conduc

suffered damages, including, but not limited to, lost past and future w

and mental anguish and emotional suffering, all in an amount to be p

in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.


fraud and malice in that they, among other things, acted with a wilful

disregard for Plaintiffs rights, health and safety and, insofar as the th



with a conscious disregard for the rights of others and/or defendants

ratified the wrongful conduct and/or there was advance knowledge, c

disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud or ma



THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION[Aiding and Abetting a Wrongful Termination in Violation of

Against the Production Defendants]



43. California law recognizes that one may aid and abet an

commission of an intentional tort. In fact, California has adopted th


19/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and the pers

separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the third person

Superior Court(1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 832, 846. Californias rule i

Restatement Second of Torts, which recognizes a cause of action for

abetting in a civil action under which one is subject to liability if h

that the others conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substa

encouragement to the other so to conduct himself... Schultz v. Neov

(2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 86, 93;see also Rest. (Second) of Torts (197

44. Moreover, under California law, a third party may aid a

employers wrongful termination or other discriminatory act against t

employee even if the aider and abetter is not itself an employer of thee.g.,Alch v. Superior Court(2 Dist. 2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 339, 39nd

could be liable for aiding and abetting age discrimination by differen

Janken v. GH Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55, 77 (rec

parties such as customers or suppliers can be liable for aiding and ab

employers discriminatory conduct); cf. Casey v. U.S. Bank National

Cal.App.4th 1138, 1145 at fn 2 (one can be liable for aiding and abet

fiduciary duty even though aider and abettor owes no fiduciary duty)

45. The Production Defendants aided and abetted the acts o

AHA to retaliate against Plaintiff in violation of public policy. That

hereinabove, the Production Defendants actively participated in, assi

substantial encouragement to the AHA Defendants to retaliate agains


20/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

the dictates of public policy.) The Production Defendants liability

abetting the AHA Defendants commission of the common law tort o

termination in violation of public policy is consistent with the above

subjecting a defendant to liability for aiding and abetting any intentio

U.S. Bank National Assn., supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at 1144.

46. As a direct and foreseeable result of the aforesaid acts

Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limite

future wages and benefits and mental anguish and emotional sufferin

amount to be proven at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional minim


fraud and malice in that they, among other things, acted with a wilfuldisregard for Plaintiffs rights, health and safety and, insofar as the th



with a conscious disregard for the rights of others and/or defendants

ratified the wrongful conduct and/or there was advance knowledge, c

disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud or ma



FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION[Aiding and Abetting a Violation of Labor Code section

Against the Production Defendants]



21/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

conspiracy or aiding and abetting, it was section 25658(b) that was v

section 25685(a).); Schultz v. Neovi Data Corp. (2007) 152 Cal.App

of Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq.). Moreover, under

third party may aid and abet an employers wrongful termination or o

discriminatory act against the employers employee even if the aider

itself an employer of the employee. See e.g.,Alch v. Superior Court

122 Cal.App.4th 339, 390 (talent agency could be liable for aiding an

discrimination by different employer);Janken v. GH Hughes Electro

Cal.App.4th 55, 77 (recognizing that third parties such as customers

be liable for aiding and abetting an employers discriminatory condu

U.S. Bank National Assn. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1145 at fn 2liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty even though

owes no fiduciary duty).

50. The Production Defendants aided and abetted the acts o

AHA to retaliate against Plaintiff in violation of Labor Code section

as set forth hereinabove, the Production Defendants actively particip

and gave substantial encouragement to the AHA Defendants to retali

Plaintiff by wrongfully terminating Plaintiffs employment in violatio

section 1102.5.

51. As a direct and foreseeable result of the aforesaid acts

Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limite

future wages and benefits and mental anguish and emotional sufferin


22/25


23/25


24/25


25/25

Casey v. AHA and HBO Second Amended Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Casey v. AHA and HBO Second Amended Complaint