11111111 II 111111111111111 II I II

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet

Feb-22-2011 9:56 am

Case Number: CGC-11-508420

Filing Date: Feb-22-2011 9:47

Juke Box: 001 Image: 03130098

COMPLAINT

SAL ROSSELLI et al VS. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION et al

001 C03130098

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
 SUM-100
SUMMONS FOR COURT USE ONLY
(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(A VISO AL DEMANDADO):
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, ANDY STERN,
ANNA BURGER, MARY KAY HENRY, DAVID REGAN, ELISEO
MEDINA, Does I through 100
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
SAL ROSELLI, JOHN BORSOS, RALPH CORNEJO, BEYERLY
GRIFFITH, JAN HARRIS & IRMA DUFELMEIER

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a
copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the
court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more
information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse
nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may
lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an
attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services
program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California
Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association.

Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDAR/O despues de que le entreguen esta citaci6n y papetes legates para presentar una respuesta por escrito
en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una Hamada telef6nica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por
escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted
pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informaci6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de
California (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelplespanoll), en la biblioteca de /eyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no
puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario de la carte que le de un formulario de exenci6n de pago de cuotas. Si no presents
su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la carte le podra quitar su sue/do, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legates. Es recomendable que /lame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llama, a un
servicio de remisi6n a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios
legates gratuitos de un programs de servicios legates sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de
California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California,
(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/se/fhelplespanoll) o poniendose en contacto con la carte o el colegio de abogados locales.

1ne name and address ot the court is:

(El nombre y direcci6n de la carte es):
San Francisco County Superior Court
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(El nombre, la direcci6n y el numero de telefono def abogado def demandante, o def demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
Angela Alioto, Esq.: 700 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: 415-434-8700
DATEfEB 2 2 2011 CLERK OF THE C:OUFf Clerk, by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , D puty
(Fecha) (Secretario) (. ifunto)

.;:.-,
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
(Para prue~ , . rega de esta citati6n use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
/~ \.IR f n ': NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
[SEA ...<::::r..:--;:.~~:: ,<7<,...-'., 1. D
as an individual defendant.
ff(: . . _/5_ ,_!f\~~~
:.:,~~::.-~~~~~
1
Ir ...~~~- ,<:.:': :~ 1J :i:,,
:::-,~,,..,_~~::_~'.\.\:r~}t\::;,
~~

c::::l-~<~,#.j~,:,,.-,;;J.,l:_)
0.
.._,, :.
'"'Jf
j\/.~.)
...J.JJ-i..,,,-._~.,i
2.

3.
D
D
as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):

on behalf of (specify):
under. D
D
CCP 416.10 (corporation) D CCP 416.60 (minor)
CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) D CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
01: .s ,' N't~:~~,, D CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) D CCP 416.90 (authorized person)

D other (specify):
4. D by personal delivery on (date):
Page 1 of 1

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code of Civil Procedure 412.20, 465
Judicial Council of California
SUM-100 [Rev. January 1, 2004) SUMMONS I American LegalNet, Inc. 11 www.USCourtForms.com]
 CM-010
AHORN;. ; OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT .USEONl:.Jf-'
- Angela _Alioto, Esq, (SBN 130328)
700 ~;1tgomery Street .)i, _: , .- '-uRT
San Francisco, CA 94111 COLiNT/ c~ -~.L\~.: ~;/. (.JC:sco
415-434-8700
TELEPHONE NO .. FAXNO. 415-438-4638
Roselli, Borsos, Cornejo, Griffith, Harris and Dufelmeier
ATTORNEY FOR /NameJ 2011 FEB 22 AH 9: 54
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco
STREET ADDREss 400 Mcallister Street .\~JRT J:
MAILING ADDRESS:
c1TY AND z1P coDE San Francisco 94102 sv: ____D_E_~-~-,-.Y-f-.-~-R-t--,-~;
BRANCH NAME Superior Court of Califormia County of San Francisco
CASE NAME:
Roselli v. Service Em lo ees International Union
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET CASE NUMBER:
Complex Case Designation
0 Unlimited
(Amount
Limited
(Amount
D Counter D Joinder D 1---C_G_C_...l,;,..._i_._'!!? ~'--=.I ZO
JUDGE:
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant
exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT
Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2),
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
D Auto (22) D Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
D Uninsured motorist (46) D Rule 3.740 collections (09) D Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)
Other PI/PDIWD (Personal Injury/Property D Other collections (09) D Construction defect (10)
Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort D Insurance coverage (18) D Mass tort (40)
D Asbestos (04) D Other contract (37) D Securities litigation (28)
D Product liability (24) Real Property D Environmental/Toxic tort (30)
D Medical malpractice (45) D Eminent domain/Inverse D Insurance coverage claims arising from the
D Other Pl/PD/WO (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case
Non-PI/PDIWD (Other) Tort D Wrongful eviction (33)
types (41)

D Business tort/unfair business practice (07) D Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
[l] Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer D Enforcement of judgment (20)
D Defamation (13) D Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
D Fraud (16) D Residential (32) D RIC0(27)
D Intellectual property (19) D Drugs (38) D Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
D Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition
D Other non-Pl/PD/WO tort (35) D Asset forfeiture (05) D Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Employment D Petition re: arbitration award (11) D Other petition (not specified above) (43)
D Wrongful termination (36) D Writ of mandate (02)
D Other employment (15) D Other judicial review (39)
2. This case LJ is LlJ is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a, D Large number of separately represented parties d, D
Large number of witnesses
b, D Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. D
Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
c. D Substantial amount of documentary evidence f D
Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. [ZJ monetary b. D nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. [Z] punitive
4. Number of causes of action (specify): Three (3)
5. This case D
is [Z] is not a class action suit
6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related c a
(Yous e ~ , -015,)
Date: 2/22/1 l __ _
Steven L. Robinson .,/ ~
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) ARTY)
l'l OH@l'lNe
NOTICE
Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code), (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
in sanctions.
File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.
Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlv. fSage 1 of 2
Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3400-3.403, 3.740,
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
Judicial Council of California
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
CM-01 0 [Rev. July 1, 2007]
American LegalNet, Inc.
www.FormsWorkflow.com
 CM-010
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET
To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must
complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile
statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check
one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1,
check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action.
To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover
sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party,
its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court.
To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money
owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in
which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort
damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of
attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general
time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections
case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740.
To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the
case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by
completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the
complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the
plaintiff's designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that
the case is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal.
Auto (22)-Personal Injury/Property Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403)
Damage/Wrongful Death Breach of Rental/Lease Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03)
Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the Contract (not unlawful detainer Construction Defect (10)
case involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40)
motorist claim subject to Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller Securities Litigation (28)
arbitration, check this item Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30)
instead of Auto) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Insurance Coverage Claims
Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/ Warranty (arising from provisionally complex
Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Other Breach of Contract/Warranty case type listed above) (41)
Tort Collections (e.g., money owed, open Enforcement of Judgment
Asbestos (04) book accounts) (09) Enforcement of Judgment (20)
Asbestos Property Damage Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Abstract of Judgment (Out of
Other Promissory Note/Collections County)
Asbestos Personal Injury/
Case Confession of Judgment (non-
Wrongful Death
Insurance Coverage (not provisionally domestic relations)
Product Liability (not asbestos or
toxic/environmental) (24) complex) (18) Sister State Judgment
Medical Malpractice (45) Auto Subrogation Administrative Agency Award
Medical Malpractice- Other Coverage (not unpaid taxes)
Physicians & Surgeons Other Contract (37) Petition/Certification of Entry of
Contractual Fraud Judgment on Unpaid Taxes
Other Professional Health Care
Malpractice Other Contract Dispute Other Enforcement of Judgment
Real Property Case
Other PI/PD/WD (23)
Eminent Domain/Inverse Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
Premises Liability (e.g., slip
Condemnation (14) RICO (27)
and fall)
Intentional Bodily Injury/PD/WO Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Complaint (not specified
above) (42)
(e.g., assault, vandalism) Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26)
Declaratory Relief Only
Intentional Infliction of Writ of Possession of Real Property Injunctive Relief Only (non-
Emotional Distress Mortgage Foreclosure harassment)
Negligent Infliction of Quiet Title Mechanics Lien
Emotional Distress Other Real Property (not eminent Other Commercial Complaint
Other PI/PD/WD domain, landlord/tenant, or
Case (non-tort/non-complex)
Non-Pl/PD/WO (Other) Tort foreclosure)
Other Civil Complaint
Business Tort/Unfair Business Unlawful Detainer (non-tort/non-complex)
Practice (07) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, Residential (32) Partnership and Corporate
false arrest) (not civil Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal Governance (21)
harassment) (08) drugs, check this item; otherwise, Other Petition (not specified
Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) report as Commercial or Residential) above) (43)
(13) Judicial Review Civil Harassment
Fraud (16) Asset Forfeiture (05) Workplace Violence
Intellectual Property (19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Elder/Dependent Adult
Professional Negligence (25) Writ of Mandate (02) Abuse
Legal Malpractice Writ-Administrative Mandamus Election Contest
Other Professional Malpractice Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Petition for Name Change
(not medical or legal) Case Matter Petition for Relief From Late
Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort (35) Writ-Other Limited Court Case Claim
Employment Review Other Civil Petition
Wrongful Termination (36) Other Judicial Review (39)
Other Employment (15) Review of Health Officer Order
Notice of Appeal-Labor
Commissioner Appeals
Page 2of 2
CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007]
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
.'

1 ANGELA ALIOTO, (SBN 130328) Jrj 'I [ pr-')

,., ,.. \ ?? ,,,
STEVEN L. ROBINSON, (SBN 116146) '-~c..._ Mi/ 9:54
2 LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L. ALIOTO , '
"L
AND ANGELA ALIOTO By ' .. ---J'T
3 700 Montgomery Street -------;-:-:-----
LJ~~u~ C ~~,
San Francisco, CA 94111 ' r LERK.
4 Telephone: (415) 434-8700 (;
Facsimile: (415) 438-4638
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

8 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9
SAL ROSSELLI, JOHN BORSOS, CASE NO. CGC.., 1 1 50 8 4 2 Q
9

10 RALPH CORNEJO, BEYERLY

GRIFFITH, JAN HARRIS & IRMA
11 DUFELMEIER, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:

12 Plaintiff, 1. Violation of Ralph Act

13 2. Violation of Bane Act;

14 3. Assault
15 vs.
16
17 SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, ANDY
18 STERN, ANNA BURGER, MARY KAY
HENRY, DAVID REGAN, ELISEO
19 MEDINA, Does 1 through 100,

20 Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

21
22
INTRODUCTION
23
1. Plaintiffs Sal Rosselli, John Borsos, Ralph Cornejo, Irma Dufelmeier, Beverly
24
Griffith, and Jan Harris are and, at all times mentioned herein, were residents of
25
the State of California.
26
2. Defendant SEIU is a labor union doing business in the State of California.
27
3. Except for Defendants Stern and Burger, the individuals sued herein are or,
28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al
 1 during the past year, were resident in the State of California.
2 4. Defendants Stern and Burger have each committed wrongful acts within the
3 State of California.
4 5. Defendants, each of them, have engaged in wrongful actions as herein alleged
5 within the County of San Francisco.
6 6. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of the individual
7 defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sue
8 these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to
9 show the true names and capacities of these defendants when the same have
10 been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that
11 each of these fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manner for
12 the occurrences herein alleged, and that the Plaintiffs 1 damages as herein alleged
13 were proximately caused by the acts of the aforementioned defendants.
14 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times herein
15 mentioned, each co-defendant, whether individual or corporate, or otherwise,
16 was the agent of the other defendants in doing the things hereinafter alleged,
17 was acting within the course and scope of such agency or employment and with
18 the permission, ratification and consent of his/her co-defendant.
19 PARTIES

20 8. Plaintiff Rosselli was the President of SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West

21 (UHW-W), a local affiliate union of Defendant SEIU. In 2005 he was elected

22 President of the SEIU California State Council. He also served as a Vice President
23 of the Defendant SEIU and sat on the Executive Committee of the SEIU. This

24 Plaintiff is also Vice President of the California Labor Federation of the AFL-CIO.

25 and a director of the Rainbow Coalition/Push Foundation. This Plaintiff was a

26 certified nursing assistant (CNA) and a homecare worker.

27 9. Plaintiff John Borsos was the Administrative Vice-President and Director of the

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -2-
 1 Hospital Division of SEID United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW-W) a local
2 affiliate union of Defendant SEID. Borsos also served as President of the
3 Sacramento Central Labor Council and as Secretary Treasurer of the Local 1199
4 Strike Fund. Borsos has a Ph.D. in labor history.
5 10. Plaintiff Ralph Cornejo was an Administrative Vice President and Director of the
6 Kaiser Division for UHW-W.
7 11. Plaintiff Beverly Griffith was a Rank and File Vice-President of UHW-W
8 pursuant to an election in January 2009.
9 12. Plaintiffs Jan Harris and Irma Dufelmeier were members in good standing of
10 UHW-W effective January 2009.
11 13. Defendant Andy Stern was President of Defendant SEID up until and including
12 his resignation, which was announced on April 12, 2010. Stern remains affiliated
13 with SEID as "President Emeritus."
14 14. Defendant Mary Kay Henry succeeded Stern as President of Defendant SEID, a
15 position she holds today. At all times herein relevant prior to the retirement of
16 Defendant Stern, Henry was International Executive Vice President of Defendant
17 SEID.
18 15. Defendant Anna Burger was Secretary Treasurer of Defendant SEID up to and
19 including the date of her retirement, which was announced on August 12, 2010.
20 16. Defendant David Regan is the Executive Vice President of Defendant SEID.
21 17. Defendant Eliseo Medina is domiciled in the State of California. He is the
22 successor to Defendant Burger as Secretary Treasurer of SEID.
23 18. Defendants Medina and Regan are currently trustees of UHW-W.
24 STATEMENT OF FACTS

25 19. 77 years ago, in 1934, a group of porters at San Francisco General Hospital were
26 inspired to form a union. They became the first health care union in the United

27 States. That Northern California union would eventually become Local 250. Ten

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -3-
1 years later, in 1944, Local 399 was formed in Southern California.
2 20. In 2005, Locals 250 and 399 (i.e., North and South) merged to form SEIU
3 UHW-W.
4 21. Twenty-three (23) years ago, in 1988, Plaintiff Sal Rosselli was elected president
5 of Local 250 and then in 2005 he was elected president of the merged UHW-W.
6 Rosselli was re-elected to the position six times, most recently in January 2009,
7 shortly before he was removed at the direction of Defendants.
8 22. Plaintiff John Borsos joined SEIU in 1993 and then Local 250 in 1996. In 1998
9 Plaintiff Borsos was elected Vice-President of Local 250. Plaintiff Borsos was
10 then elected Vice President of UHW-W when the merger occurred in 2005. He
11 was re-elected to that position three times, most recently in January 2009 shortly
12 before he was removed at the direction of the Defendants.
13 23. Plaintiff Ralph Cornejo joined SEIU Local 250 in 1973. Plaintiff Cornejo was
14 elected Administrative Vice President of Local 250. Plaintiff was elected Vice
15 President of UHW-West when the merger occurred in 2005 and was re- elected in
16 early January 2009 until he was removed shortly thereafter, also in January 2009
17 at the direction of the Defendants.
18 24. Plaintiff Beverly Griffith worked for approximately 33 years at Summit Medical
19 Center. Prior to late January 2009, Griffith was a steward for UHW-W at Summit
20 Medical Center. Griffith is currently an employee of NUHW.
21 25. Plaintiff Jan Harris is a pediatric social worker and a long time employee of
22 Kaiser Permanete. Prior to January 2009, Harris was a steward for UHW-W at
23 Kaiser Permanente in Baldwin Park, California. Since that time, she has been a

24 supporter of NUHW.

25 26. Plaintiff Irma Dufelmeier is a registered nurse. She has been employed by Kaiser

26 Permanente since 1987. She is currently a NUHW steward.

27 27. The reputations of Plaintiffs were stellar throughout their careers with the SEIU

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -4-
 1 and the local unions with whom they were associated. The success of those local
2 unions under their leadership is indisputable. Under the leadership of Plaintiffs,
3 UHW-W was one of the fastest growing unions in the United States. It fought for
4 and obtained the best contracts for health care workers in the West, if not the
5 entire country. It was one of the most accomplished politically active unions due
6 to its members involvement.
7 28. Under the leadership of Plaintiffs Rosselli, Borsos, Cornejo and Griffith, the
8 membership of UHW-W amounted to more than 150,000 members,
9 approximately 20% of SEIU's California membership.
10 29. Defendants herein have a policy and practice of utilizing physical intimidation
11 against those in the labor movement who they consider to be "enemies," such as
12 Plaintiffs herein.
13 30. Starting in 2006, differences of opinion arose between the leaders of UHW-W,
14 including Plaintiffs Rosselli, Borsos, Cornejo and Griffith, and the Defendants
15 herein. As a result, from 2006, until January 27, 2009, there there was mounting
16 tension between the UHW-W leadership, including Plaintiffs, and all
17 Defendants. Starting in 2006, Defendant Stern and his fellow Defendants
18 considered Plaintiff Rosselli, Borsos and Cornejo to be "enemies."
19 31. At the same time as Defendants started viewing Plaintiffs as their "enemies,"
20 they also came to view other individuals, organizations and other unions with
21 whom they had differences of opinion as" enemies."
22 32. Pursuant to their policy and practice of utilizing physical intimidation against
23 their "enemies" in the labor movement, on April 12, 2008, Defendant Regan, at
24 the direction of the other Defendants, sent seven busloads of SEID members,
25 including SEID agents to a conference of labor activists being held in Dearborn,
26 Michigan. At about 7:20 pm that night, during the speech of a leader of a
27 competing labor union, whom Defendants had long characterized as an"enerny,"
28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al - 5-
 1 between 150 and 200 SEIU agents, many of them with bandanas covering their
2 faces or :~ing masks to conceal their identities, attempted to break into the
3 conferen2~ith the intent of physically intimidating the participants of the
4 conference. The conference organizers prevented most of the masked SEIU
5 agents from breaking into the conference. However one conference participant
6 was bloodied by masked SEIU agents and was required to seek medical
7 attention. Another individual, an SEIU member who had accompanied the
8 masked agents, suffered a heart attack and died.
9 33. The behavior of the masked SEIU agents in attempting to break up the labor
10 activists conference was roundly condemned by leaders of the U.S. Labor
11 movement, among whom was John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, and
12 former President of Defendant SEIU. In response to Sweeney's condemnation,
13 Defendant Mary Kay Hemy defended the behavior of the masked SEIU agents as
14 legitimate "open debate."
15 34. On April 29th, 2008, Defendant SEIU, through Defendants Stern and Burger,
16 ordered tens of thousands of recorded and live telephone calls placed to

17 UHW-W members, including many in San Francisco, falsely claiming that

18 Plaintiffs Rosselli, Borsos and Cornejo had engaged in unethical conduct.

19 35. At the June 2008 SEIU international convention in Puerto Rico, Plaintiffs were
20 placed under constant surveillance at the direction of Defendants. At the
21 direction of Defendants, members of other local unions refused to talk with the
22 Plaintiffs. Defendants refused to allow the vehicles the Plaintiffs were driving to
23 enter the convention center parking lot. The Plaintiffs were required to get out

24 and physically walk a long distance into the convention.

25 36. At the SEIU national convention, in June 2008, speakers from the podium

26 denounced the leadership of UHW-W, including Plaintiffs Rosselli, Borsos,

27 Cornejo and Griffith, as untrustworthy. This was done at the direction of

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -6-
 1 Defendants Stern and Burger.
2 37. In December 2008 and January 2009, the Defendants hired security guards to
3 surveil the Plaintiffs. The security guards carried guns , they videotaped the
4 Plaintiffs and they intimidated the Plaintiffs on a regular basis.
5 38. In January 2009, Defendants assembled a national meeting of SEID agents in Las
6 Vegas, Nevada. The purpose of the meeting was to prepare for the takeover of
7 UHW-W by Defendant SEID. At that meeting, SEIU agents were instructed in
8 tactics of intimidation to be utilized against Plaintiffs and their supporters.
9 Defendant Henry told the assembled agents: "You are SEID' s warriors!"
10 39. On January 27, 2009, Defendants Stern and SEID summarily terminated the
11 employment of Plaintiffs Rosselli, Borsos and Cornejo.
12 40. Following their termination from employment, Plaintiffs with 80 other elected
13 leaders of UHW-W participated in the creation of a new union, the National
14 Union of Health Care Workers ("NUHW").
15 41. In February 2009, five SEID agents approached Plaintiff Beverly Griffith while
16 she was working at her job of 33 years at Summit Medical Center in Oakland.
17 Those five agents followed Griffith everywhere she went in the worksite, yelling
18 at her and preventing her from doing her work. One of the SEID agents got in
19 Griffith's face.
20 42. In April 2009, while Plaintiff John Borsos was in a represented workplace, an
21 SEID staffer pointed to Borsos and said to several UHW-W members: "There
22 goes the guy who stole three million of your dollars." This incident was repeated
23 at least ten times in other represented workplaces, by the same or different SEID
24 staffers, and was directed not only at Borsos but also toward Plaintiffs Rosselli,

25 Cornejo, and Dufelmeier. The latest occurrence was in January 2011.

26 43. In June 2009, home care workers in Fresno, California were scheduled to have an

27 election in which they would choose whether to be represented by NUHW or

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -7-
 1 SEIU.
2 44. In the campaign leading up to the Fresno home care election, Defendant David
3 Regan instructed a gathering of approximately one thousand SEIU agents to
4 intimidate supporters of NUHW, so as to dissuade them from campaigning and
5 voting for NUHW. In a rally of SEIU agents and supporters, Regan roared that,
6 "We gotta give them an ass-whipping they will never forget." Regan also
7 threatened to "drive a stake through the hearts" of NUHW supportors and to
8 "bury them [supporters of the NUHW] in the ground."
9 45. Defendant Regan instructed SEIU agents to tell Hispanic home care workers that
10 if they did not vote for SEIU, ICE would be called and the workers would be
11 deported. SEIU agents were also instructed to go into the homes of Hispanic
12 home care workers in order to intimidate them from voting for the NUHW in the
13 Fresno representation election.
14 46. As a result of the intimidation and threats by agents of Defendant SEIU, along
15 with other related misconduct, Defendant SEIU narrowly prevailed in the Fresno
16 Home care election.
17 47. In November 2009, NUHW organized an event in San Francisco for the purposes
18 of fundraising. SEIU agents confronted NUHW supporters as they entered or
19 exited the building, with the intent of so frightening and intimidating them that
20 they would not continue to support NUHW.
21 48. In November 2009, at an event organized by NUHW In Los Angeles, SEIU
22 agents threw eggs and water bottles at Plaintiffs and other supporters of NUHW,
23 hitting several of them.
24 49. In 2009, Plaintiff Rosselli was presiding over a meeting of NUHW supporters in a

25 public park in Anaheim, California. SEIU agents barged into the meeting and
26 assaulted Rosselli, interrupting the business being conducted and intimidating

27 Rosselli and the NUHW supporters, who also happened to be SEIU members ..

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -8-
 1 50. In August or September 2009, Plaintiff Cornejo was lawfully on the premises of a
2 Kaiser facility in San Rafael to meet with employees. While in the cafeteria and
3 seated with a couple of Kaiser employees, ten (10) SEIU agents surrounded the
4 table at which Cornejo was seated. The SEIU agents got into "the face" of
5 Cornejo. They screamed obscenities and repeatedly said to Cornejo "You stole
6 our money!" The purpose and effect of such action was to intimidate Plaintiff
7 Cornejo and the Kaiser employees he was seated with. Plaintiffs encountered the
8 identical behavior from SEIU agents on at least twenty occasions throughout the
9 State of California, including San Francisco. One recent such incident occurred on
10 January 7, 2011.
11 51. In June 2010, famous labor activist Dolores Huerta accompanied Plaintiff Cornejo
12 on a visit to a Kaiser facility in Woodland Hills, for the lawful purpose of talking
13 to employees. At the direction and instigation of SEIU agents, over 100
14 supporters of SEIU screamed at and pushed Huerta and Plaintiff Cornejo so as to
15 prevent them from talking to Kaiser employees. At the direction of SEIU agents,
16 Cornejo was assaulted multiple times and was pushed at least twice. Huerta
17 experienced identical behavior on five other visits to Kaiser facilities on behalf of
18 NUHW in 2010, in the presence of Plaintiff Borsos, Rosselli or Cornejo.
19 52. On or about May 7, 2010, pursuant to Defendant SEIUs policy and practice of
20 utilizing physical intimidation against its "enemies" in the labor movement, SEIU
21 agent Darren "Tree'' Wallace, confronted Plaintiff Irma Dufelmeier, a Kaiser RN
22 who supports NUHW, in her workplace at the Los Angeles Medical of Kaiser
23 Permanente. Dufelmeir was standing in the emergency room hallway on the
24 way out of the hospital when Wallace barged in and started yelling at

25 Dufelmeier. Wallace took out his cellphone and tried to take her picture.
26 Dufelmeier objected to this and put her arms over her face. Wallace then grabbed

27 Dufelmeier's arm and yanked it down forcibly. When Wallace continued to yell
28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -9-
 1 at Dufelmeier, she was afraid Wallace would hit or touch her again. Dufelmeier
2 left to file a report with Kaiser security, Wallace followed her, all the while
3 continuing to yell. When Dufelmeier was in the offices of Kaiser's Security
4 Department, Wallace stood outside and looked inside at Dufelmeier, making
5 facial gestures. When Dufelmeier finished making her report, she left the
6 Security Department. As she left, Wallace confronted her, standing
7 approximately two inches from her face and yelling at her. When Dufelmeier
8 left, Wallace continued to follow her, making facial and hand gestures. Wallace
9 is approximately six feet, six inches in height. Dufelmeier is five foot, four inches
10 tall. When Kaiser Security Guards were unable to calm Wallace's behavior,
11 Dufelmeier was so intimidated that the police were summoned.
12 53. Upon information and belief, Tree Wallace confronted other NUHW supporters
13 in the same fashion on five or six additional occasions both at the Kaiser
14 Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center and elsewhere.
15 54. On May 19, 2010, Plaintiff Rosselli was meeting with NUHW members at a
16 public park in Fresno, California. At the direction of Defendant Regan, SEIU
17 contract specialist Lori Kocis and other staffers barged into the meeting, came up
18 to Plaintiff Rosselli and intimidated him. The purpose and effect of such action
19 was to disrupt a lawful, public meeting of NUHW members and also to
20 intimidate the participants in the meeting.
21 55. On June 28, 2010. at the Kaiser facility in Baldwin Park, SEIU agents, including
22 Tiffany Ford, approached a group of Kaiser employees known by them to be
23 NUHW supporters while they were seated eating lunch. The SEIU agents

24 surrounded the table of the Kaiser employees. One of the employees, Jan Harris,

25 stood up to face the agents. When she sat down, she grazed Tiffany Ford's arm.

26 In response, Ford said "Please don't touch me, I will put you six feet under." The

27 agents started chanting "SEIU! SEIU!"

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -10 -
 1 56. On June 29, 2010, Dolores Huerta visited the Baldwin Park Kaiser facility. When
2 she walked into the cafeteria, the NUHW supporters and other employees
3 gathered around her. SEIU entered the crowd of people. The SEIU agents made
4 a number of comments, like "If you side with her [Huerta], you will end up
5 working in the fields." An SEIU agent named Tiffany Ford yelled at an NUHW
6 supporter "I want to see you six feet under."
7 57. On July 21, 2010, Kaiser employee Virginia Dahl had the cloth top of her
8 convertible car slashed with a knife. Dahl had witnessed the death threat made
9 against Plaintiff Harris.
10 58. In the summer of 2010, Plaintiff Rosselli accompanied Huerta during a visit to a
11 Kaiser facility in Modesto. Huerta and Rosselli were physically pushed out of
12 the facility by SEIU agents, several of whom yelled the following at Huerta; "Go
13 back to the fields where you belong!"

14 59. In late Summer 2010, Plaintiff Cornejo was at the Kaiser San Jose Medical Center.
15 While Plaintiff Cornejo was lawfully meeting with employees in the cafeteria.
16 SEIU agents surrounded the table and shouted "What did you do with the
17 money?" This has been repeated numerous times in numerous locations in the
18 presence of either Plaintiffs Rosselli, Borsos or Cornejo. A recent incident was
19 January 7, 2011. The purpose of such actions was to intimidate the Plaintiffs and
20 their supporters as well as to disrupt lawful meetings being conducted by
21 Plaintiffs.
22 60. In the Summer of 2010, SEIU agent Sophia Sims confronted Plaintiffs Rosselli and
23 Borsos while they were in a lawful meeting on the premises of a Kaiser facility in
24 Panorama City and the Sunset facility in Los Angeles. Sims "got in the face" of

25 Rosselli and Borsos and disrupted the meeting. Sims followed Rosselli and

26 Borsos throughout the facility, videotaping them as they left.

27 61. On August 23, 2010, Plaintiff Rosselli went to a Kaiser facility in San Francisco for

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -11-
 1 the purpose of obtaining treatment and not in his professional capacity as a labor
2 organizer. Nonetheless, SEIU agents harassed Rosselli as he entered the facility
3 and when he left the SEIU agents yelled "You stole our money" and "Get the f....
4 out of here." This was done with the intent of intimidating Rosselli,
5 notwithstanding the fact that he was at the facility in his capacity as a patient.
6 62. On August 27, 2010, Plaintiff Beverly Griffith was lawfully at the site of Kaiser
7 Permanente in Oakland. Griffith was staffing a NUHW literature table. Griffith
8 and a female Kaiser employee got up from the table and proceeded to walk
9 through the Kaiser facility. During their walk, they were closely followed by
10 SEIU agent Caleb Jennings, who was immediately behind them. When Griffith
11 and the Kaiser employee went into the ladies restroom, Jennings lurked
12 immediately outside the door and when Griffith and the Kaiser employee left the
13 ladies room, Jennings was there and immediately thereafter resumed his "close
14 pursuit" of Griffith and the Kaiser employee.
15 63. In September 2010, workers from Kaiser Permanente were voting on whether
16 they would be represented by SEIU or NUHW. During the weeks before the
17 voting, SEIU agents threatened Hispanic employees of Kaiser, who were either
18 neutral or perceived as supporters of NUHW, with negative consequences in the
19 event that SEIU lost the election.
20 64. Two times in 2010, when Plaintiff Rosselli was lawfully on the premises of
21 Sacramento Medical Center and Fair Oaks Clinic, he was confronted by SEIU
22 Staff Director Dave Mott who yelled defamatory statements (i.e., of Plaintiffs
23 "stealing" members' mon got 11 in the face" of Plaintiff Rosselli, threatened

24 violence and twice put his hands on Rosselli in an offensive manner. This was

25 done by Mott at the direction of Defendant Regan. SEIU staffers Tammy Walker

26 and Greg Maron engaged in similar behavior in Anaheim and San Jose

27 respectively.
28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -12 -
 1 65. In January 2011, SEIU agents Darita Garrey and her husband, both of whom
2 were on SEIU payroll, brought six big young men into the cafeteria at Summit
3 Medical Center in Oakland, These were large well muscled men, each of whom
4 wore SEIU T-Shirts. None of the six young men worked at Summit Medical
5 Center. Word quickly spread in the Summit Medical Center worksite that SEIU
6 had brought in "six thugs" to intimidate NUHW supporters. The six young men
7 remained in the cafeteria for hours, intimidating Summit Medical Center
8 employees who supported NUHW and those employees who supported neither
9 SEIU or NUHW (i.e., who were neutral).
10 66. The next day, SEIU agent Damita Garrey and her husband confronted Plaintiffs
11 Beverly Griffith. Sal Rosselli and John Borsos at the Summit Medical Center
12 workplace in Oakland. Garrey said "I want to know why you called my son a
13 "thug" ... you f.... g bitch.. I will kick your f... .ing ass." This was said in front of
14 numerous Summit medical center employees. Griffith, Rosselli and Borsos were
15 intimidated.
16 67. Repeatedly, from 2009 through the present, SEIU agents physically confronted
17 and threatened Plaintiffs Rosselli, Borsos and Cornejo whenever they lawfully
18 went onto the premises of hospitals or facilities where either UHW-W or NUHW
19 had contracts or members. These confrontations and threats were done at the
20 direction of Defendant Regan.
21 68. In 2010, Defendant SEIU created a web site showing pictures of Plaintiffs
22 Rosselli, Borsos and Cornejo with hangman's nooses around their necks.

23 69. On January 21, 2011, at 10:30 pm and 11:50 pm, an SEIU agent telephoned Daniel
24 Ray, a supporter of NUHW. In the first phone call, the caller said "You and Sal

25 Rosselli are going to be f.... d up on Monday." In the second call, the caller said

26 "Hey Daniel, it's Jonathan from SEIU. I did it again you piece of s .... I'm gonna

27 f.... you up. Any place, any time, anywhere. The next time I see you, I am going

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -13 -
 1 to f.... you up." Upon information and belief, the caller was Jonathan Bernhardt
2 an SEIU agent.
3 70. Defendant David Regan repeatedly stated that it was his intent to drive the
4 Plaintiffs from the labor movement. 11 Sal [or John or Ralph] will never work in
5 the labor movement again."
6 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Ralph Act, Cal Civ Code 51.7)
7 By all Plaintiffs as to all Defendants
8 71. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 though 70 with the same force and effect as if
9 fully pleaded at length herein.
10 72. The individual Defendants herein were responsible for the policy of Defendant
11 SEIU utilizing physical intimidation against those in the labor movement who
II
12 they consider to be enemies," and putting the policy into practice. In addition,

13 said individual Defendants aided and abetted each other individual Defendant in
14 the acts of intimidation set forth above.
15 73. At the direction and upon the orders of Defendant Regan, in his official capacity

16 as Executive Vice President of Defendant SEIU and, upon information and belief,

17 Defendants Stern and Henry in their official capacities, employees of Defendant

18 SEID were directed to physically intimidate Plaintiffs by getting ''in their faces"

19 [i.e., get physically close while uttering threats of harm]. Such "threats of harm"
20 were often accompanied by offensive physical touching. On numerous occasions
21 Plaintiffs were in fear of imminent physical harm as a result of such threats.

22 Plaintiffs Rosselli, Cornejo and Dufelmeier were physically battered by SEID

23 agents.
24 74. To implement the above described policy and practice of utilizing physical

25 intimidation against those in the labor movement who they consider to be

26 11
enemies," Defendants have repeatedly utilized discriminatory slurs and

27 epithets based upon race, national origin and ancestry.

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -14 -
 1 75. The acts of assault and battery alleged hereinabove were pursuant to the policy
2 and practice described above and on account of political affiliation and their
3 position in a labor dispute.
4 76. To implement the above described policy and practice of utilizing physical
5 intimidation against those in the labor movement who they consider to be
6 "enemies," Defendants have repeatedly utilized discriminatory slurs and
7 epithets based upon race, national origin and ancestry.
8 77. The acts of disruption of meetings in public places were pursuant to the policy
9 and practice described above and on account of political affiliation and their
10 position in a labor dispute.
11 78. None of the acts alleged herein occurred during acts of lawful labor picketing.
12 79. Plaintiffs have suffered and will suffer damages as a result of the wrongful acts
13 described hereinabove. Pursuant to Civil Code 52, the Plaintiffs are entitled to
14 recover from the Defendants three times their actual damages.
15 80. Plaintiffs, each of them, are entitled to recover$ 25,000 as a civil penalty pursuant
16 to Civil Code 52 (b)(2), for each violation of their rights described herein.

17 81. As a result of the aforesaid acts and omissions to act, the Plaintiffs have been
18 held up to great derision and embarrassment with current and former members
19 of UHW-W, of NUHW, members of labor unions generally and the public. The
20 Plaintiffs have suffered and are suffering emotional distress due to the
21 embarrassment, shame and mortification of the intimidation and threats of
22 intimidation described hereinabove.
23 82. Defendant SEIU, by and through its officials and managers, and the other

24 Defendants named herein acted intentionally and unreasonably because they

25 knew and/ or should have known that their conduct was likely to result in severe

26 mental distress. Plaintiffs therefore seek damages for such emotional distress in

27 an amount to be proven at time of trial.

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -15 -
 1 83. Because of the wrongful acts of Defendants as herein above alleged, Plaintiffs
2 have been and/ or will in the future be required to employ physicians and
3 surgeons to examine, treat and care for them and will incur additional medical
4 expenses in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
5 84. In taking the actions described above, Defendants acted as herein alleged with an
6 intent to harm Plaintiffs and/ or a conscious disregard of their rights. The
7 managing agents of Defendant SEID and the individual Defendants herein made
8 conscious decisions to engage in intimidation of Plaintiffs herein as part of a
9 labor dispute and/ or because of political affiliation. Furthermore, Defendant
10 SEIU has retained in its service vicious employees who it knew utilized and
11 engaged in such practices of physical intimidation. Such conduct by each of the
12 Defendants herein was, and is, despicable, cruel and oppressive. The Plaintiffs
13 are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be
14 proven at trial.
15 85. The Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and expert witness
16 fees pursuant to Civil Code 52 and Government Code 12965(b).

17 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Bane Act, Civil Code Section 52.1)
18 By all Plaintiffs as to all Defendants

19 86. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 though 70 with the same force and effect as if
20 fully pleaded at length herein.
21 87. Defendant SEID had and has a policy and practice of interfering through threats,

22 intimidation or coercion with the exercise and/ or enjoyment of rights accorded

23 under the United States and California Constitutions by Plaintiffs and other

24 individuals perceived by them as opponents of said defendant. Such rights

25 include, but are not limited to: The right of peaceable assembly and freedom of

26 speech.
27 88. The policies and practices described above were formulated by the individual

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -16-
 1 Defendants herein, each of whom aided and abetted with the other individual
2 co-Defendants in implementing said policies and practices.
3 89. The policies and practices described above consisted of, among other things,
4 forcible disruption of lawful meetings, on both public and private property;
5 physical intimidation; and disruption of' lawful work as labor union organizers.
6 90. Plaintiffs have suffered and will suffer damages as a result of the wrongful acts
7 described hereinabove. Pursuant to Civil Code 52, the Plaintiffs are entitled to
8 recover from the Defendants two times their actual damages.
9 91. Plaintiffs, each of them, are entitled to recover$ 25,000 as a civil penalty for each
10 violation of their rights described herein.
11 92. As a result of the aforesaid acts and omissions to act, the Plaintiffs have been
12 held up to great derision and embarrassment with current and former members
13 of UHW-W, members of labor unions and members of the general public.
14 Plaintiffs have suffered emotional distress due to the embarrassment, shame and
15 mortification of the intimidation and threats of intimidation described
16 hereinabove.
17 93. Defendant SEIU, by and through its officials and managers, and the other
18 Defendants named herein acted intentionally and unreasonably because they
19 knew and/ or should have known that their conduct was likely to result in severe
20 mental distress. Plaintiffs therefore seek damages for such emotional distress in
21 an amount to be proven at time of trial.
22 94. Because of the wrongful acts of Defendants as herein above alleged, Plaintiffs

23 have been and/ or will in the future be required to employ physicians and
24 surgeons to examine, treat and care for them and will incur additional medical

25 expenses in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.

26 95. In taking the actions described above, Defendants acted as herein alleged with an

27 intent to harm Plaintiffs and/ or a conscious disregard of their rights. The

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -17 -
 1 managing agents of Defendant SEIU and the individual Defendants herein made
2 conscious decisions to engage in the practice of interfering through threats,
3 intimidation or coercion with the exercise and/ or enjoyment of rights accorded
4 by the United States and California Constitutions those considered to be
5 opponents of Defendant SEIU. Furthermore, Defendant SEIU has retained in its
6 service vicious employees who it knew had and have a history of intimidating
7 and ordering the intimidation of the perceived "enemies" of Defendant SEIU,
8 specifically the Plaintiffs herein. Such conduct by each of the Defendants herein
9 was, and is, despicable, cruel and oppressive. The Plaintiffs are therefore entitled
10 to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
11 96. The Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and expert witness
12 fees pursuant to Civil Code 52a.
13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Assault)
14 All Plaintiffs as to All Defendants
15 97. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 though 70 with the same force and effect as if
16 fully pleaded at length herein.

17 98. At the direction and upon the orders of Defendant Regan, in his official capacity

18 as Executive Vice President of Defendant SEIU and trustee of UHW-W, and,

19 upon information and belief, Defendants Stern and Henry in their official
20 capacities, employees of Defendant SEID were and are directed to physically

21 intimidate Plaintiffs and their supporters by getting 11 in their faces 11 [i.e., get

22 physically close while uttering threats of harm]. Such 11 threats of harm 11 were and

23 are often accompanied by offensive physical touching. On numerous occasions

24 Plaintiffs were in fear of imminent physical harm as a result of such threats. On

25 multiple occasions, Plaintiffs Rosselli, Cornejo and Dufelmeier were physically

26 touched (battered) by SEIU employees.

27 99. As a proximate result of the acts of assault and battery described above, Plaintiffs

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -18 -
 1 have suffered economic damages in an amount currently unascertained.
2 Plaintiffs will therefore request leave of the court to amend this Complaint to
3 state the amount of all such damages when they have been ascertained, or upon
4 proof at the time of trial.
5 100. As a result of the acts of assault described above, the Plaintiffs have been held up
6 to great derision and embarrassment with the members of the UHW-W and of
7 NUHW, other members of the labor movement, and the public. They have
8 suffered emotional distress as a result. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that
9 the Defendants acted deliberately for the purposes of injuring and humiliating
10 Plaintiffs as alleged above. Defendants further acted intentionally and
11 unreasonably because they knew and/ or should have known that their conduct
12 was likely to result in severe mental distress. Plaintiffs therefore seek damages
13 for such emotional distress in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
14 101. Because of the wrongful acts of Defendants as herein above alleged, Plaintiffs
15 have been and/ or will in the future be required to employ physicians and
16 surgeons to examine, treat and care for them and will incur additional medical
17 expenses in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
18 102. The Defendants intended to intimidate Plaintiffs herein through intimidation,
19 which include threats of physical harm. Said intentions were and are the policy
20 and practice of the Defendants herein. In addition, the Defendants and the
21 managing agents of Defendant SEID have knowingly retained and protected
22 vicious officials and employees who are known to be vicious and to be violent.
23 This conduct by Defendants was, and is, despicable, cruel and oppressive. The
24 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to

25 be proven at trial.
26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

27 Plaintiff hereby requests a trial of this matter by jury on all counts.

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al -19 -
 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

3 1. For a money judgment representing general and compensatory damages
4 according to proof;
5 2, For a money judgment of general and compensatory damages;
6 3. For a money judgment for mental pain and anguish and emotional
7 distress, according to proof;
8 4. For statutory damages of$ 25,000 for each act found to violate Civil Code
9 51.7 and/ or Civil 52.1;

10 5. For punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish defendants for

11 their wrongful and malicious conduct and to set an example for others;
12 6. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest on the sum of damages
13 awarded;
14 7. Reasonable attorney fees;
15 8. For costs of suit herein incurred;
16 9. Injunctive Relief; and
17 10. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
18
19 Dated: February 22, 2011
20
21
22 ALIOTO
orneys for Plaintiffs
23
24

25
26
27

28
Complaint
Rosselli et al v. Service Employees International Union et al - 20 -