HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-1779SCREEN ACTORS GUILD, 1NC.,
Petitioner
LANCE S IMMENS,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
(Case No. BC 296659 in the
Superior Court of the State of Califomia,
Central Distric0
PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUBPOENA TO GIVE TESTIMONY AT A
DEPOSITION FOR USE IN A MATTER PENDING IN A TRIBUNAL
OUTSIDE OF THIS COMMONWEALTH
PURSUANT TO 42 PA. C.S. ~ 5326
Petitioner Screen Actors Guild, Inc. ("Guild"), by and through its undersigned counsel,
hereby applies to this Court pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 5326 and Pa. R.C.P. 4007.1(0 for an order
directing the Prothonotary to issue a subpoena to compel Maia Anderson, a resident of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, to give testimony by deposition and, in support thereof,
states the following:
1. The Guild is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 5757
Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90036.
2. Respondent Lance Simmens ("Simmens") resides in Pennsylvania at 5211
Meadowbrook Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050.
3. On May 30, 2003, Simmens filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District (Case No. BC 296649), against the Guild,
alleging numerous claims arising out o£his prior employment with the Guild. A true and correct
copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
4. Among his numerous claims against the Guild is a claim that the Guild caused
him "extreme emotional distress."
5. Simmens has identified Maia Anderson ("Anderson"), his estranged spouse, as a
witness to his claim of "extreme emotional distress."
6. Having been identified as a witness by Simmens, Anderson may possess material
information relevant to Simmens' claims against the Guild.
7. Despite having identified Anderson as one of his witnesses, Simmens has refused
to accept service of a deposition subpoena for Anderson and has refused to produce Anderson
voluntarily for oral examination.
6. With the lack of cooperation from Simmens, the Guild applies to this Court for
the issuance of a subpoena to compel the oral examination of Anderson by deposition wholly
pursuant to Section 2025 of the California Code of Civil Procedure in accordance with 42 Pa.
C.S. § 5326 and Pa. R.C.P. 4007.1(1).
2
WHEREFORE, Petitioner Screen Actors Guild, Inc. prays that this Honorable Court
issue an Order directing the Prothonotary to issue a subpoena to compel Maia Anderson to give
testimony by deposition for use in the matter pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, Central District (Case No. BC 296649).
Date: April 22, 2004
Respectfully submitted,
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL PC
Thomas G. Collins
Pa. Attorney I.D. #75896
Nicole L. Borda
Pa. Attorney I.D. #89214
One South Market Square
213 Market Street - 3rd Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 237-4800 (ph)
(717) 233-0852 (fax)
Of Counsel:
Catherine B. Hagen, Esquire
Eric J. Amdursky, Esquire
Ryan W. Rutledge, Esquire
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 760-9600 (ph)
(949) 823-6994 (fax)
Attorneys for Petitioner Screen Actors Guild, Inc.
3
APR-22-2004 12:0J O'MELUENY&MYERS LLP NB2 949 82J 6994 P.03
1 Law Offices of Amy Fisch Solomon
155 W, Hospitality Lane, Ste. 260
2 San Bemardino, California 92048
3 (909) 381-1551
4 Attorney For: Plaintiff
5
6
CONFORMED COPY
OF ORIGINAL FtLF..D
LOs g.lI¢le~ St~l'~erJ0r Court
John A. Clarke, ~ec~ive ~er/Clerk
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
15
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
LANCE SIMMENS,
.... Plaintiff(s),
)
)
SCREEN ACTORS GUILD, and DOES )
1 through 50, inclusive, )
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.
BC296649
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1) Wrongful Termination in Violation of
Public Policy
2) Wrongful Discharge Under Contract
wifl~ No Specified Term
3) Breach of Oral Contract
4) Promissory Estoppel
5) Employer's Breach of Implied
Covgnant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing
6) Misrepresentation Under Labor Code
§970
7) Fraud and Intentional Deceit
8) Negligent Misrepresentation
9) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress
10) Negligent Infliction of Emotional
Distress
Comes now plaintiff, LANCE SIMMENS, and alleges as follows:
APR-~2-~004 1~:03 O'MELUENY&MYERS LLP NB2 9~9 82~ ~994 P.04
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
l. Plaintiff, LANCE SIMMENS, an individual, is currently a resident ofthe city of Sa~
Monica, in the county of Los Angeles, in the state of California.
2. Defendant, SCREEN ACTORS GUILD (hereafter "SAG"), is a corporation,
incorporated under the laws of the state of California, and doing business in the city of Los Angele
3. Plainfiffis ignorant of the true names and capacities of defandants sued herein as D(
1 through 50, inclusive. Therefore, he sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff,
amend this complaint as to their true names and capacities when he ascertains them. Plainfiffis
informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these fictitiously named defendants are
responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiff's injuries herei
alleged were proximately caused by the aforementioned defendants.
4. Plaintiffis informed, believes and therefore alleges that Defendants and each oftk
were and are the agents and employees of each and every other Defendant and acting as alleged
and were acting within the course and scope of such agency and employment.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5. During the summer of 2000, agents for, and on behalf defendant SAG, contacted
plaintiff, LANCE SIMMENS (hereafter "Mr. Simrnens"), for the specific purpose of soliciting Mr
Simmens' employment for the permanent position of National Direcior for Government Relations
SAG. At that time, Mr. Simmens owned a home in and was a resident of the District of Columbia,
where he lived with his wife and two children. Mr. Simmers and his family had been permanent
residents of Virginia for 22 years. Due to his e~;iployment at the time, Mr. Simmens informed SA(
that he would not consider the position until after the 2000 Presidential election.
6. In September 2000, SAG agents and representatives contacted Mr. Simmens again fi
the specific purpose of further soliciting his long-term employment. During this subsequent
solicitation, SAG asked Mr. Sim. mens to submit his resume and a list of references, which he did.
7. In December 2000, SAG contacted Mr. Simmens for a third time and invited him to
out to Los Angeles to meet in person regarding the potential employment position. Mr. Simmens
2
I accepted SAG's invitation and traveled to Los Angeles on or about December 5, 2000. This mee'
2 lasted approximately two and one-half hours. Individuals present at this meeting included Wiilia~
3 Daniels, the President of SAG, Ninon Aprea, the Chairperson of the Legislative Committee, Lind
4 Shenk, the Head of Human Resources, Chuck Sloan, an adviser to the president, and John McGui
5 the acting National Executive Director, all of whom participated in the meeting and interview of~
6 Simmens. At all times herein, SAG ratified, consented to and approved of the representations, ae~
7 and conduct of each SAG employee, officer or agent surronnding the solicitation of Mr. Simmens
8 his potential employment with SAG
9 8. During the meeting and interview Mr. Simmens specifically informed the SAG
10 representatives that if he accepted the position, it would necessitate making profound life changes
11 including uprooting his wife and children and moving them to an unfamiliar area. He further
12 explained to them that he would need to sell his house and assume other financial burdens related
13 transplanting his family to the West Coast, At the same meeting, all of the SAG representatives
14 thereafter assured Mr. Simmens that they were fully aware of the financial burdens and costs
15 associated with his family's potential move across the country. During the same meeting, the
16 representatives, including but not limited to Linda Shenk and John McGuire, promised Mr. Simm~
17 that if he took the SAG position, "SAG would agree to pay" for the relocation expenses for his far
18 9. Mr, Simmens had very strong concerns with obtaining verbal assurances from SAG
19 during this meeting and interview that the employment opportunity was a long-term, permanent
20 position. Consequently, Mr. Simmens inquired on more than one occasion regarding confirmatio~
21 that the position was intended as a long-term commitment from both himself and SAG. During th
22 course of the meeting and interview, the SAG representatives, including but not limited to John
23 McGuire and William Daniels assured Mr. Simmens on numerous occasions the position was
24 "intended for the long term", and that he would definitely remain employed in the position for the
25 long-term, and "for the foreseeable future" if he were to t~ke the position. Mr. Simmens relied on
26 such assurances, as he was only willing to make the move if he knew he would have a long-term p
27 at this position with SAG..
28
3
APR-~2-2004 12:04 O'MELUENY&MYERS LLP NB2 949 825 6994 P.06
I 10. In focusing during the meeting on some of the specific duties and issues that Mr.
2 Simmens would immediately encounter upon accepting the position, the SAG representatives
3 identified two problems that they expected the new National Director for Governmental Relation,,
4 address. One of these problems dealt with the loss of thousands of SAG jobs stemming from leg~
5 questionable tax subsidies offered by the Canadian government to attract film production to rival
6 location Canada.
7 11. Approximately two weeks after the interview meeting, and roughly one week befor
8 Christmas, SAG notified Mr. Simmens that they had selected him to fill the position. At this time
9 salary details were finalized, and SAG reaffirmed that they would pay for the cost of relocation as
10 earlier promised SAG, and relied upon by Simmens. SAG requested that Mr. Simmens move to
! 1 California imm.ediately, so that he could tend to his duties as soon as possible, specifically ineludi~
12 addressing the Canadian tax subsidy issue. As further incentive for Mr. Simmens to halt everythit
13 and move to California for the alleged long-term position, SAG representatives agreed to pay fort
14 majority of Simmens' initial living expenses prior to his family moving out to be with him.
15 12. In or around January 2001, Mr. Simmens, in reliance on all of the inducements,
16 assurances and promises made by SAG to him, placed his home on the market for sale, and mover
17 California to begin his long-term post as the National Director for Governmental Relations, Mr.
18 Simmens was forced to move out alone and initially leave his family back in D.C., given SAG's
19 expressed need to have him start his new position as soon as possible, He began work on or about
20 January 8, 2001. Mr. Simmens was additionally forced to make ooncessions with the sale of his
21 home, given the time constraints surrounding the move and new position in California. Mr. Simm,
22 home sold in approximately March, 2001. His family moved out to California shortly thereafter o7
23 about March 23, 2001.
24 13. SAG paid the costs of Mr. Simmens' relocation as well as the costs of his family's
25 relocation three months later, as they had promised to do ifhe'agreed to take the SAG position.
26 Additionally, SAG did pay for a majority of Mr. Simmens' initial living expenses between the tim~
27 his move and his family's arrival.
28
APR-22-2004 12:05 O'MELUENY&MYERS LLP NB2 949 82J 6994 P,O?
I 14. Upon commencement of his employment, Mr. Simmens began plotting out a legisl~
2 strategy on behall'ofSAG regarding the specific issues raised during his meeting interview with tl
3 SAG repre, sent,qtives. One strategy was to endorse a petition in support cfa federal investigation i
4 the legality of the tax subsidies offered by the Canadian government to attract film production in
5 Canada (hereafter"the petition"). The Board of Directors of SAG specifically approved SAG's
6 endorsement of the petition.
7 15. In or about September 2001, SAG hired Robert Pisano (hereafter "Pisano") to serve
8 Chief Executive Officer and National Executive Director. During the course of their first meeting
9 Pisano told Mr. Simmens that he did not support the endorsement of the tax-subsidy petition, desp
10 the fact that il was in accordance with the adopted policies of the Board of Directors. Pisano
11 specifically instructed Mr. Simmens to defy the directives of the Board of Directors and withdraw
12 support for the petition, even though SAG's Constitution and by-laws mandate that the President.
13 CEO and National Executive Director must execute the will of the Board of Directors.
14 16. In or about October 200t, Melissa Gilbert (hereafter "Gilbert") took over as Preside:
15 of SA(3. Gilbert publicly denounced Mr. Simmens' strategy related to the petition; again despite tJ
16 fact that it was in absolute accordance with the adopted policies of the Board of Directors.
17 17. On several occasions at SAG meetings between approximately October 2001 and
18 February 2002, Mr. Simmens observed and heard Gilbert and Pisano making disparaging public
19 remarks about the Treasurer and Secretary of SAG. In December 2001 Mr. Simmens spoke to Pis~
20 about the inappropriate remarks he had made, given that both members were elected officials of Si
21 Pisano expressed dismay with Mr. Simmens for raising this issue with him.
22 . 18. Shortly thereafter in January 2002, Pisano informed Mr. Simmens that he would not
23 allowed to attend a meeting at which various other industry unions and guild representatives would
24 present to discuss the Canadian tax ineentives issue. This is a meeting that Simmens would normal
25 attend and participate directly in, as part of his normal duties and specific obligations with SAG.
26 Pisano inaccurately claimed he did not want Simmens present beeause Mr. Simmens allegedly mat
27 questionable comments regarding IATSE, the union at whose headquarters the meeting was to take
28 place. Mr. Simmens never made the alleged remarks. Pisano additionally refused to meet with Mr
5
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
1 Simmens to discuss the alleged remarks either at that time, or any point thereafter, despite Mr.
2 Simmens' repeated requests to do so.
3 19. On or about February 3, 2002, Pisano informed Mr. Simmens that he had been
4 "reorganized" away from many of his present duties with SAG, and specifically was "no longer
5 involved" in the Canadian tax subsidies issue. In the weeks following Pisano's ~'re~'ganized duti~
6 announcement, Mr. Simmens repeatedly inquired of Pisano as to whether he was going to be
7 terminated. Pisano repeatedly failed to provide Mr. Simmens with any firm response. During thi:
8 same time period, Mr. Simmens continued to be employed with SAG, and perform his other job
9 duties as set forth at the beginning of his employment with them.
10 20. SAG continued to pay and employ Mr. Simmens through May, 2002, and will cont~
to Pay his medical benefits through June of 2003. Mr. Simmens' termination of employment fi'on
SAG occurred in June, 2002 following SAG's cease of compensation payments to him. As of Jut
2002, Mr. Simmens no longer conducted any employment-related duties on behalf of SAG. By
purposely choosing to terminate his employment prior to June 30, 2002, SAG deliberately avoide~
obligation to pay Mr. Simmens' health benefits through 2004.
21. As a proximate result of the intentional, deliberate, wrongful, mali?ious, and willful
conduct of defendant SAG, Mr. Simme,~s has been.injured in amounts.to be proven at trial.
FIRST CAUSE QF ACTION
(For ~WronRful Termination in Violation of Public Policy)
22. Plaintiffrepeats and by this reference incorporates herein paragraphs I through 21 a
though set forth in full.
23. From January 2001 to June 2002 Mr. Simmens was employed by SAG as National
Director for Government Relations of SAG, with the responsibility of implementing the Board's
policy decisions regarding various political issues that faced SAG.
24. In his capacity as National Director for Government Relations of SAG, Mr. Simra
27 had a duty act in accordance with the by-laws and mandates of the SAG Board of Directors.
28 Simmens additionally had a duty to act in good faith for the interests of SAG, and its members,
6
APR-2~-~004 1~:0~ O~MELUENY&MYERS LLP NB~ 9~9 82J 699~ P.09
1 well as a duty of loyalty. Simmens additionally held a fiduciary duty in his duties and obligati¢
2 to the members of SAG and the Board. SAG's members express their collective will through ti
3 actions and policies adopted by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors specifically
4 adopted a policy that endorsed the Petition.
5 25. Mr. Simmens acted pursuant to, and in accordance w~th his aforementioned dutie~
6 and articulated position tasks by trying to implement the Board's po]icy regarding the Petition.
7 However, defendant SAG, through its agent Pisano, acted against public policy by purposely
8 frustrating, preventing and precluding Mr. Simmens from conducting and fulfilling his duties b
9 first Oxreatening him to breach his duties, and eventually terminating his employment.
10 26. During the course of their first meeting, Pisano told Mr. Simmens that he did not
11 ~upport the endorsement of the Petition despite the fact that it was in accordance with the adopted
12 polioie~ of the Board of Directors. Pisano specifically in. stmcted Mr. Simmens to defy the direeti~
13 oft. he Board of Directors, even though SAG's Constitution and by-laws mandate that the Presiden
14 CEO and National Executive Director must execute the will of the Board of Directors.
15 27. Pisano's action was in direct violation of SAG's constitution. Pisano pressured M
16 Simmens to breach his duties to the SAG Board, and when he would not, Pisano "reorganized"
17 into other duties, and eventually discharged him.
18 28. As a proximate result of Mr. Simmens' refusal to breach his fiduciary, loyalty, go
19 faith, and other a~iculated duties to SAG and the Board, and in violation of public policy SAG
20 terminated Mr. Simmens' employment in June 2002.
21 29. As a proximate result of SAG's conduct, Mr. Simmens has suffered harm includi~
22 lost earnings, other employment benefits, humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish, all ti
23 his damage in an amount to be proven at trial,
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Wrongful Discharge Under a Contract with No Specified Term)
30. Plainriffrepe~ts and by this reference incorporates herein paragraphs' ! through 29 a:
though set forth in full.
7
1 31. SAG made an offer for employment to Mr, Simmens in December 2000 when its
2 representatives called him to tell him that SAG had selected him for the position of National
3 Director for Government Affairs. Mr. Simmens accepted the offer over the phone thus creating
4 oral contract for employment.
5 32. Thc oral contract had no specified tcnn, beyond that it would be "long-term" as
6 articulated by SAG and its representatives.
7 33, Most employment contracts that do not specify a term may be terminated at the
8 of either thc employer or thc employee. However, in this case, SAG was subject to an obligatk
9 not to discharge Mr. Simmens except for good cause, pursuant to its representations made by S.
10 representatives. During negotiations at the December meeting and intervic_.~w~ Mr. Simmens ma
11 it abundantly clear that he was not willing to relocate his family for a job that was terminable at
12 will. In an attempt to assuage Mr. Simmens' concerns, SAG representatives, including but not
13 limited to John McGuire and William Daniels promised Mr. Simmons that the position v~as-~'inten
14 for thc long term." They also promised Mr. Simmens that if he were to take the position, he woul
15 remain employed in the position for "as long as they eould foresee," and "for thc foreseeable futur
16 Mr. Simmens relied on .guch assurances, as he was only willing to make thc move if he knew he
17 would have a long-term post at this position with SAG.
18 34. Based on thc oral agreement, Mr. Simmcns had an employment contract with SAG
19 such that he would be employed by SAG so long as his performance was satisfactory, and that SA
20 would not discharge him without good and just cause.
21 35. At all times, Mr. Simmons has fully performed all conditions, covenants and
22 promises required on his part to bc performed in accordance with.the terms and conditions of th
23 contract.
24 36. Not withstanding thc implied promise not to terminate the employment contract o:
25 for good and just cause, in or about June 2002, SAG, acting through Pisano discharged Mr.
26 Simmons without specifying any cause for thc termination or on the alleged ground of poor
27 performance. Mr. Simmons was fired solely for following thc directives of the Board. The by-
28 laws of SAG specifically state that thc President, CEO and National Executive Director must
APR-22-2004 12:07 O'MELUENY~MYERS LLP NB2 949 823 6994 P.11
1 execute the policy of the Board. In this case, the Board supported the petition and Mr. Simme~
2 was simply implementing Board policy. Pisano had no good cause to fire Mr. Simmens simpl)
3 because he carried out a Board policy with which Pisano personally disagreed.
4 37. As a proximate result of SAG's breach of contract, Mr. Simmens has suffered los
5 of earnings, and other employment benefits to his damage in an amount to be established at tria
6
7 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
8 (For Breach of Oral Contract)
9 38. Plaintiffrepeats and by this reference incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 37
10 though set forth in full.
11 39. In December of 2001, Mr. Simmens and SAG entered into an oral agreement for
12 employment whereby Mr. Simmens agreed to accept a long-term post as National Dir.ector for
13 Government Relations of SAG, and defendant SAG agreed to employ Mr. Simmens in that pos~
t4 the foreseeable future, and notto discharge Mr. Simmens without good cause.
15 40. These terms were included in the agreement because during negotiations Mr.
16 Simmens expressed to SAG repeatedly that he was not willing to relocate his family for a job
17 was terminable at will. Both parties were aware of this, and both parties acquiesced that the int.
18 of the contract and employment relationship was to be long-term, as long as one could foresee i
19 the future.
20 41. During the interview meeting, SAG manifested assent to this term by assuring Mr
21 Simmens on numerous occasions that the position was "intended for the long term," and that he
22 would definitely remain employed in the position for "as long as they could foresee," and "for the
23 foreseeable future." SAG representatives also told Mr. Simmens that they were aware of the
24 tremendous financial and personal strains that moving his family across the country would plac~
25 him. These are all indications that the contract was not terminable at will, and if SAG wanted t~
26 discharge him, it would have to do so with good cause.
27 42. Mr. Simmens bas performed all conditions, covenants and promises required on h
28 part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.
9
APR-~-~004 ~:07 O'MELUENY~MYERS LLP NB~ ~4~ 8~ 69~4
1 43. In or about June 2002 SAG breached the oral agreement when Pisano fired Mr.
2 Simmens without good cause.
3 44. As a result of SAG's breach of contract, Mr, Simmens has suffered damages in al
4 amount to be proven at trial.
5
6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7 (For Promissory EstOl~l~el)
8 45. Plaintiff repeats and by this reference incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 43 ~
9 though set forth in full.
10 46. At the interView meeting, and as alleged in paragraphs 29-42 herein, SAG
11 representatives clearly and unambiguously promised Mr. Simmens that his employment with SA(
12 would be long term, and that SAG would not fire him without cause,
13 47. In doing so, SAG knew or should have known that Mr. Sirarnens would b~ reasonal
14 induc~ to rely on SAG's promise by quitting his job, selling his house and moving his family to
15 California.
16 48. Mr. Simmens reasonably relied on SAG's promises and was induced to quit his job,
17 his house and move across the country to California. In the interview meeting, Mr. Simmens clear
18 expressed his concerns about leaving the Washington, D.C. area, and transplanting his wife and
19 children to an unfamiliar new city; but t'or SAG's promise of steady, long-term employment, he
20 would not have picked up and moved across the country. SAG has not performed any part of it's
21 promise to keep Mr. Simmens employed in the post long-term, nor has it performed on its promis~
22 to discharge Mr. Simmens without good cause.
23 49. As a result of SAG's failure to perform according to the promise that it made, Mr.
24 Simmens has suffered reiianee damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
25
26
27
28
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Breach oflmolied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
50. Plaintiffrepeats and by this reference incoxporates herein paragraphs I through 49
though set forth in full.
51. Every employment contract contains may it be written or oral contains an implied
covenant of good faith and fair d~ling.
52. By firing Mr. Simmens without cause and solely because he sought to implement a
Board approved policy, and because he refused to breach his duties to SAG and its Board, SAG
breached this covenant. SAG acted Jn bad faith with the intent to fl-ustrate Mr. Simmens' enjoym,
of his contract fights. Mr. Simmens had a right to continue his employment unless SAG showed
cause to discharge him. SAG deafly had the intent to fn~strate this right, as evidenced, among off
by the deliberate actions and willful conduct of Pisano on behalf of SAG.
53. SAG's dischsrge of Mr. Simmens caused him injuries in the amount to be proven
trial.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
~For Misreoresentation Under Labor Code ~970)
54, Plaintiff repeats and by this reference incorporates herein paragraphs I through 53 e
though set forth in full.
55. At the December 5, 2000 interview, and as a means of inducing the potential
employment of Simmens, SAG representatives knowingly made false promises about the emplo3n
arrangement, including the length oftlme'that Mr. Simmens would remain employed conducting l
duties that SAG articulated during the meeting interview. SAG intended for simmens to rely upo'
their promises and representations, and had no intention of ever performing on its promise to keep
Simmens employed in a long-term position. This was clearly evidenced by Pisano's wrongful
discharge of Mr. Simmens for refusing to "play ball" and work against the recommendations and
mandates of the Board and SAG, after only a little more than a year of work.
11
APR-~2-2004 1~:0B O'MELUENY~MYERS LLP NB~ 9~9 8~3 699~ P.14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
56. Specifically, during the course of the meeting and interview, the SAG representative
including but not limited to John MeGuire and William Daniels assured Mr. Simmens on numero~
occasions the position was "intended for the long term", and that he would definitely remain
employed in the position for the long4erm, and "for the foreseeable future" if he were to take the
position. Mr. Simmens justifiably and reasonably relied on such assurances in deciding to accept'
position with SAG. Knowledgeable'that Mr. Simmens would rely on their promises, SAG
nonetheless never intended to honor its promises and assurances it made to Simmens.
57. SAG representatives directly persuaded Mr. Simmens to move from Washington, D
to California with his family by offering to pay for his relocation costs, and assuring him that he
would be employed for the foreseeable future. In the context of the interview, which included
discussions about Mr. SJmmens' anxieties regarding resettling his family in a new state, SAG's
promise to keep him employed for the foreseeable future, and its promise that Simmens' duties
specifically included dealing with and resolving the Petition issues must b~ interpreted as a promis
that he would not be discharged atwJll, nor discharged after a short period of time without good et
58. As a proximate and direct cause of SAG's fraudulent inducement and representatior
upon which Simmens relied, Simmens has suffered damage injury and loss in an amount to be
determined at trial.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Fraud and Intentional Deceit)
59. Plainfiffrepeats and by this reference incorporates herein paragxaphs I through 58 ~
though set forth in full.
60. On or about December 5, 2000 defendant SAG and its representatives, including bu~
limited to John McGuire and Williams Daniels, made the following representations: (1) that Mr.
Simmens' occupancy of the position of Nafionai Director for Government Relations was "intende~
for the long term;" (2) that Mr. Simmens would remain employed in the position "for the foreseeal
future;" and (3) that Mr. Simmens would be working to address the problem of the loss ofthousan,
12
~PR-22-2004 12:09 O'MELUENY&MYERS LLP NB2 949 B2~ 6994 P.15
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
g
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lg
19
20
2]
22
23
24
25
27
28
of SAG jobs stemming from legally questionable tax subsidies offered by the Canadian g0vemme
attract film produc6on to rival.
61. The representations made by defendant SAG were in fact false. The true facts wt
that SAG had no intention of keeping Mr. Simmens employed in the long term, or for the
foreseeable future. Further, after Mr. Simmens disagreed with Pisano regarding the petition.
Pisano did not allow Mr. Simmens to work on the aforementioned problem with job loss.
62. When SAG's representatives make these representations, they knew tern to be fal
and made these representations with the intention to deceive Mr. Simmens, and to induce him t,
act in reliance on these representations in the manner hereafter alleged.
63. At the time that SAG representatives made these representations, and at the time !
Mr. Siramens took the actions herein alleged, he believed them to be true. In reliance on these
representations Mr. Simmens was induced to and did quit his job, sell his house, and uproot his
family from Virginia and transplant it to California. Had Mr. Simmens known the actual facts,
would not have taken such action.
64. As a proximate result of th~ fraudulent conduct of the defendant, Mr. Simmens
suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
65. The aforementioned conduct of SAG was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit.
and concealment of material fact known to SAG with the intention on the part &SAG thereby
causing Mr. Simmens injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected Mr. Simmens to cruel ~
unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Mr. Simmens' rights so as to justify an award of
punitives.
66.
though set forth in full,
~EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Nee!ieent Misreoresentatlon)
Plainfiffrepeats and by this reference incorporates herein paragraphs I through 65
APR-~-~004 12:09 O'MELUENY&MYERS LLP NB~ 949 8~3 6994 P.16
67. Regardless of the SAG representatives' purported or actual belief) they had no
reasonable ground for believing that they would employ Mr. Simmens long-term, and for att
extended period to deal specifically with the Petitio.n issue. The SAG representatives made fab
promises to him for thc single purpose ofinducing him to act in reliance on them so that he wo
take the job.
6
7 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 (For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
9 68. Plainfiffrepeats and by this reference incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 67
10 though ~et forth in full.
11 69. Soon after Pisano took over as National Executive Director and CEO of SAG, he
12 started pressuring Mr. Simmens into proceeding in a manner inconsistent with adopted Board
13 policies. After Mr. Simmens repeatedly, refused to acquiesce tO Pisano's demap, ds andactagail
14 the wishes of the Board, Pisano, as a consequence, ultimately fired him. Pisano's-and SAG's
15 conduct and actions in firing Mr. Simmens were outrageous. Pisano abused and utilized his
16 posit/on and power as CEO and National Executive Director to try and coerce Mr. Simmens' in
17 abandoning his duties to/he Board and SAG. Following his termination, severe emotional dist~
18 struck Mr. Simmens in June, 2002 relating to the wrongful and outrageous acts and conduct of
19 Pisano and SAG. Pisano's outrageous series of acts, culminating with his direct role in the
20 termination of Mr. Simmens, caused Mr. Simmens to suffer severe emotional distress.
21 70. Following his termination fi'om SAG at the end of May, 2002, Mr. Simmens bega
22 suffer from the anxiety of not knowing if he might ever find employment again in his field, Mr.
23 Simmens additionally began to severely suffer emotionally from minors surrounding his allege{
24 "firing" by Pisano. During this same time period, Mr. Simmens additionally began to suffer
25 extreme emotional distress stemming from having to cope with the unfair reality that he had bec
26 intentionally and wrongfully terminated for following the adopted policies of the SAG Board ot
27 Directors, and for not ;'playing bali". In June of 2002 after Mr. Simmens had'ceased receiving
28 paychecks and was indeed terminated, he suffered from extreme emotional distress stemming fr
14
APR-22-2004 12:09 O'MELUENY&MYERS LLP NB2 949 823 6994 P.17
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 thc fact that he was in a new city with no job, few prospects, and had a family that depended or
2 him.
3 71. Mr. Pisano intended to inflict this severe emotional distress on Mr. Simmens in o
4 to punish him for not changing his position with regard to thc Canadian tax subsidy petition iss'
5 If Pisano did not act intentionally, he at least acted recklessly, Pisano was aware that emotiona
6 injury was substantially certain to occur when he eventually did fire Mr. Simmens without
and as payback for his refusal to br~ach his fiduciary duties, and official obligations to the Boa~
and SAG.
72. Pisano's and SAG's actions were dispicable, willful, and deliberate, and proximal
caused severe emotional damage to Mr. Simmens in an amount to be proven at trial.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
.(For Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
73. Plaintiff repeats and by this reference incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 72 a
though set forth in full.
74. SAG, i~s agents and representatives owed Mr. Simmons a duty to take care. SAG
breached that duty when Pisano and SAG fired him without cause, after initially informing him
that hc had bcen "reorganized" out of certain duties with his job.
75. As a direct result of SAG's breach, Mr. Simmens suffered serious and severe
emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffprays for judgment against defendant SAG as follows:
1. For general monetary damages, according to proof;
2. For actual loss of earnings and caming capacity, according to proof;
3. For compensatory and special damages incurred and to be incurred, according to proot~
4. For punitive damages;
5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
15
APR-~2-200~ 1~:10 O~MELVENY&MYERS LLP NB2 g~9 823 6994 P.18
1
2
6
7
10
12
14
15
16
17
15
19
2O
21
22
2~
2~
27
28
6. For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
DATED: May 30, 2003
GIRARDI I KEESE
16
COM P! .AII, JT FOR DA MAGE.~
APR-22-2004 12:0J O'MELUENY~MYERS LLP NB2 949 82J 6994 P.02
VERIHCATION
I, Ryan W. Rutl~dge, have read the foregoing document and v0rify that the facts set forth
ar~ true and correct to tho best of my knowlcclge, information, and belief. To the extent that the
foregoing document and/or its language is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making
this Verification.
I understand that any false statements made hcrcin arc subject to thc penalties of 18 Pa.
C.S, § 4904, relating to umwom falsification to authorities. -
APR 2 2 2004
SCREEN ACTORS GUILD, INC.,
Petitioner
LANCE SIMMENS,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
No: Oq- ci ;(
(Case No. BC 296659 in the
Superior Court of the State of California,
Central District)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 22 ~day of April, 2004, upon consideration of the Petition for Issuance
of a Subpoena to Give Testimony at a Deposition for Use in a Matter Pending in a Tribunal
Outside of this Commonwealth Pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 5326, it is hereby ORDERED that the
Petition is GRANTED.
The Prothonotary shall issue a subpoena pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 234.2, directing Maia
Anderson to appear and give testimony in a deposition as requested by Petitioner Screen Actors
Guild, Inc. Examination pursuant to the subpoena shall be conducted wholly according to
Section 2025 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
BY THE COURT,