age 2 of 32) ORIGINAL Alfred G. Rava, SBN 188318 Rava Law Firm 3667 Voltaire Street ‘San Diego, CA 92106 Phone: 619-238-1993 Fax: 619-374-7288 Email: alreva@cox.net Attorney for Plaintiff George St. George ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE ‘GEORGE ST, GEORGE, v ILIZA SHLESINGER; LARGO AT THE CORONET; THE CORONET THEATER; MARK BRIAN FLANAGAN; UNITED. TALENT AGENCY, LLC; and DOES 1 through BC6 87568 Case No. ‘COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR: Violation of Civil Code § 51.5; Violation of Business & Professions Code § 125.6;and 50, Inclusive, 4 Negligence Defendants. UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 18 All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. 19 ~ George Orwell, Animal Farm 20 Plaintiff George St. George alleges the following: 2 ‘NATURE AND BASIS OF CLAIMS 23 |] 1. Imagine the uproar, the protests, and the calls for a boycott by feminists and equal rights) 24 || advocates if a Los Angeles theater, open to the public, in the year 2017, in the progressive state of| 25 ||California, and comedian Andrew Dice Clay, the bane of feminists, together had the temerity to 26 |jorganize, host, employ, book, put on, perform in, or at least aid a comedy show that threatened to 27 || prohibit and did prohibit women from entering the theater and from attending the show, brazenly] 28 || advertising it as follows: 1 Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages ool 1 Paget 1 - Dos 39 = 1723060245 - Doo type = OnE,(rage 3 of 32) 1 BOYS NIGHT IN WITH ANDREW DICE CLAY NO GIRLS ALLOWED 2, Yet, as seen in the below excerpt from Exhibit 1 to this Complaint, an advertisement for Defendants’ “GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA —NO BOYS ALLOWED” comedy show, Defendants, had no problem — zero, zilch, nada — organizing, hosting, employing, booking, putting on, performing| in, or at least aiding a comedy show on November 13, 2017 at Los Angeles’ The Coronet Theater, | which is also known as Largo At The Coronet (collectively heretofore referred to as the “Theater”), both of or either of which is owned by Defendant Mark Brian Flanagan, and which boldly promised| and/or threatened that it would not allow male theatergoers into its GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA\ |-NO BOYS ALLOWED show as follows: ul 12 5 GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA . NO BOYS ALLOWED 15 |} 3. OnNovember 13, 2017, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff George St. George 16 || was and is a male, Before attempting to attend Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA - NO} 17 ||BOYS ALLOWED show, Mr. St. George obtained a $30 ticket for the show through the www.largo- 18 |} a.com website, 19 |] 4, Then, on November 13, 2017, well before the show was scheduled to start at 8:00 p.m., Mr. St 20 |} George, along with a male friend who also obtained a $25 ticket for Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN] 21 |] WITH ILIZA - NO BOYS ALLOWED show, appeared very early at the Theater's will-call window 22 ||to got their tickets by showing their proofs of purchase of their tickets through the above website to | 23 || female Theater employee. Upon showing the will-call window's female employee their proofs of| 24,]| purchase, this Theater employee paused for some time, and then told Mr. St. George and his male| | 25 | friend that the Theater would admit them to Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITHILIZA —NO BOYS 2 26 || ALLOWED show despite the fact that they were males, but that both of the men would have to sit in 2 27 || the back row of the Theater for the show because of their sex. so . 2 Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages oot £ Pagel 4 = Doo 2D = 1722060245 = Doo type = OMIER(@age 4 of 32) 5. The two men walked away with their tickets after this Theater employee told them they would| have to sit in the back of the Theater solely because of their sex. At this time, the Theater was not yet} allowing ctholders inside the Theater, for which the seating was first come first served, from the| front of the theatre to the back, so the two men went to a nearby restaurant to get a quick bite to eat. 1 2 3 4 5 ||Mr. St. George and his male friend soon returned to the Theater where they were two of the first 6 || would-be patrons in line to enter the Theater, which they were not allowed to do because of what 7 || happened next, which perhaps can best be described as being akin to the Montgomery City Lines bus| 8 || company in Montgomery, Alabama circa 1955 morphing into the Woolworth’s department store lunch) 9 ||counter in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960. 10 |] 6, As Mr. St. George and his male friend were in the beginning of the line with their tickets to 11 |{enter and sit in the back of the Theater as ordered, the same female theater employee who was working, 12 {at the will-call window earlier approached Mr. St. George and his male friend, This female employee 13 ||told Mr. St. George and his male friend that since she last spoke to them and told them that they would| 14 || have to sit in the back of the Theater, that “Iliza” and the Theater had decided to not allow Mr. St. 15 |] George and his male ftiend to even enter the Theater because only females were being allowed to be 16 || admitted to the show — just as promised and/or threatened. This same Theater employee told the two 17 || men thatthe Theater would refund them the money for their tickets. 18 || 7. What happened to Mr. St. George and his male friend is consistent with what happened to at 19 |} least one other male consumer who was a victim of Defendants’ War On Men by being denied entry] 20 ||to Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA - NO BOYS ALLOWED show because of his sex| 21 || This can be seen in Exhibit 2 to the Complaint, in a comment by a male vi to Defendant liza 22 || Shlesinger's Facebook page on which Ms. Shlesinger announced her GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA 23 ||-NO BOYS ALLOWED show. Page 2 of Ex it2 displays thet this comment was made at 7:52 p.m. 24 ||on the evening of the November 13, 2017, show by Morgan King, who wrote “Hey ILIZA! Can I just 25 || grab a pio with you? Huge fan but got turned away for being a dude! I get it! But was hoping to meet] 26 || you real quick and snap a pic as a constellation prize!” 27|} 8 Despite the many State of California anti-discrimination statutes, California Supreme Court| apo gurdi 28 |) opinions, California Attorney General and Department of Fair Employment and Housing actions, and| 3 Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages oot 1 Fagell 4 ~ Doe XD = 1723060245 - Dos ype = OTHERwage $ of 32) 1 || California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control regulations that prohibit California businesses from treating patrons unequally based on theit sex, and specifically condemn and forbid events or promotions that treat female and male patrons unequally, Defendants boldly organized, hosted, ‘employed, booked, put on, performed in or at least aided a sex-based comedy show that treated male| and female theatergoers unequally based solely on their sex. 9. Asa result of Defendants’ unequal treatment of patrons based solely on their sex, Defendants| denied consumers the equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services they are| Sights Act) and 51.5, as| well as under Business & Professions Code section 125.6. Defendants GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH] 10 ||ILIZA - NO BOYS ALLOWED show violated California’s strong public policy to eradicate sex 11 |} dserimination, reflected in the many California statutes that prohibit businesses from discriminating entitled to under Civil Code sections 51 (the codification of the Unruh Civil ee eee cee 12 |} against patrons based on their sex. Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA - NO BOYS| 13 |] ALLOWED show violated California Civil Code sections 51, 51.5, and 52, which prohibit Califori 14 || businesses and individuals from treating patrons unequally based on their sex, and also prohil | 15 || California businesses and individuals from aiding in the discrimination or unequal treatment of| 16 || consumers based on their sex. 17 |] 10. Forany business or any individual in the year 2017, in the progressive state of California, to 18 || provide or aid in providing accommodations, advantages, privileges, or services to only females as 19 || Defendants did here, is as repugnant and unlawful as a business or an individual being invotved in a 20 || “Caucasian Night” or a “Heterosexual Night” and providing admission, entertainment, and other 21 |Jaccommodations, advantages, privileges, or services to only whit or heterosexual. patrons, 22 ||respectively. Simply put, itis against many California laws for a business to di ate against 23 || patrons based on their sex or other personal characteristics, such as race or sexual orientation, which) 24 || should surprise no one. ~ 25 |] 11. The seminal California Supreme Court case on businesses that treat male and female 3 26 || consumers unequally based on their sex, Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, held that| 3 27 || Ladies’ Day and Ladies’ Night promotions that treated patrons unequally based on sex by charging| 28 || male patrons more than female patrons for the same thing—as little fifteen cents more—violated the| 4 Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages ‘boot 1 Page § - Doc zp = 1722060045 - Doo Type = OER(rage 6 of 32) Unruh Civil Rights Act. Koire found “Public policy in Califomia strongly supports eradication discrimination based on sex. The Unruh Act expressly prohibits sex di imination by business enterprises.” Id. at 37. 12. Defendants? GIRLS NIGHT. IN WITH ILIZA — NO BOYS ALLOWED show repudiated hundreds of years of women’s struggles to be viewed as being equal to men and is typical of old-| fashioned sexism that might also advise a young woman that her best chance for a happy life isto ace her home economics class and learn how to make a queso dip from Velveeta to catch a good man. Not} only has the California Supreme Court twice unanimously expressed its disapproval of how Ladies’ Day and Ladies’ Night promotions harm women, the United States Supreme Court has italy 10 |] weighed in as well about "romantic patemalism" directed at women. In Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 11 || U.S. 677, 684 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the military must provide its female members| 12 || with the same housing and medical benefits as it provides its male members. Justice William J. 13 |} Brennan Jr. wrote that the military’s unequal treatment of men and women is yet another example of| 14 |] one of those types of traditional sex discrimination that ostensibly appears to benefit women, but is| 15 |} “rationalized by an attitude of ‘romantic paternalism’ which, in practical effect, put women, not on a| 16 || pedestal, but in a cage.” 17 13. The Judicial Counsel of California's jury instructions for violations of Civil Code sections 51, 18 }Jand 51.5, ie, CACI 3060 ad 3061, respectively, reflect the Judi Counsel's recognition of the| 19 || California Supreme Court's ruling in Koire that sex-based promotions are “per se injurious.” The| 20 || Directions For Use for CACI 3060 and 3061, recognize that a plaintiff asking for only the statutory 21 |] damages provided by Civil Code section 52 for violations of section 51 or 51.5, respectively, such as| 22 |) Plaintiff in this Complaint, does not have to prove that he or she was harmed or that defendant's 23 |Jconduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm, because harm is presumed.| 24 || Nevertheless, Plaintiff was harmed by first being ordered to sit in the back of the Theater because of| 25 |]his sex, and then told he could not even enter the Theater and watch the show because of his sex. S26 || 14. Koire was upheld by the California Supreme Court in its most recent opinion on single sex 3 27 |Jevents, Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4* 160, wherein the Court unanimously ruled “| 28 ||that men who were charged more than women to enter a supper club on Ladies’ Night did not have to} 3 Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages Doct 1 Paged 6 ~ Doo 1D = 1723060245 - Doo Type = OnE(age 1 of 32) 1 |] first demand their right to equal treatment to the offending business and be refused in order to have! standing for a Civil Code section 51 or 51.5 claim. 15, Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA — NO BOYS ALLOWED show caused| discontent, animosity, harm, resentment, or envy among the sexes, constituted arbitrary, unreasonable, ‘and/or invidious discrimination, constituted a willful and malicious injury to Plaintiff, and contravened] California's historical effort to eradicate sex discri ion. Defendants willfully and maliciously| injured Plaintiff during their show by knowingly and intentionally denying Plaintiff admission and| other services based solely on Plaintiff's sex. 16. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH"), the State agency 10 || charged with preventing unlawful discrimination in places of public accommodation, has published 11 ||brochure specifically addressing the unlawfulness of sex-based or no-men-allowed events. This 12 ||DFEH brochure is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, and can also be found at 13 ||http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/DFEH/Publications/PublicationDocs/UnruhActBrochure.pdf. 14 || 17, The California Department of Justice and the California Bureau of Gambling Control! has| 15 ||similarly expressed its condemnation of sex-based events, specifically their disapproval of the| 16 |] proliferation of no-men-allowed poker tournaments hosted by California's licensed card rooms. ‘The 17 ||California Attorney General and the Bureau of Gambling Control issued a Gambling Establishment 18 || Advisory, attached hereto as Exhibit 4, warned card rooms that women-only poker tournaments 19 || violated the Unruh Act. The Attorney General wamed that it may be unlawful under the Unruh Act 20 ||to simply advertise tournaments as “ladies only” even if men were in fact admitted. This Advisory 21 [can also be found at http://ag.ca.gov/gambling/pdfs/NUMBLOT. pdf. 22 || 18. By this action, Plaintiff George St. George seeks redress for Defendants’ War On Men via thei 23 ||GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA - NO BOYS ALLOWED show, which prohibited Plaintiff and other 24 |] men from entering the Theater and taking in the show based solely on their sex. = 25 PARTIES 26 |] _ 19. Plaintite George St. George is a man, over the age of 21, and a California resident. 27 |] 20. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant lliza Shl ger is a business| i 28 ||acting or working as a self-employed, sole proprietorship comedian. Iliza Shlesinger has been| 6 Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages ‘oot 1 Paget 7 ~ Doo ED = 1723060245 - Doo Type = OMARage 8 of 32) 1 |}described or quoted in an Esquire article as “taking a stronger feminist stance (don't be scared, ‘gentlemen),” “I found myself coming up with a lot of the material about being on the side of women. I wanted to talk about feminism in the way that I like to talk about it, which is digestible. I's not excluding men.” While a Los Angeles Times article on Ms. Shlesinger reads, “She is a nuanced feminist and a comic with the instincts and sensibility to address women's rights while inviting men| |— who in her humor can be monosyllabic and imposing but are mostly well-meaning if misguided — inside the tent.” The same L.A. Times article quoted Ms. Shlesinger saying, “because women want to| be treated as equals, and we want feminism to be a thing, but i's really difficult when every woman ‘makes the same point about her vagina, over and over.” However, contrary to these articles, during 10 ||Ms. Shlesinger’s GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA - NO BOYS ALLOWED show she excluded men, 11 | she did not invite men into the tent, and she did not want women and men to be treated as equals. Ms. 12 |]Shlesinger discriminated against and treated Mr. St. George unequally based solely on Mr. St. 13 |] George's sex by prohibiting Mr. St. George from entering the Theater and from taking in the 14 |] entertainment and refreshments provided during Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA ~NO| 15 || BOYS ALLOWED show, and by organizing, hosting, employing, booking, putting on, performing in| 16 ||or at least aiding this no-men-allowed commercial event. 17 |] 21. On information and belief, a all times relevant hereto, Defendant Largo At The Coronet is a 18 || business of unknown form, not registered with the California Secretary of State, doing business as a 19 ||bar and theater at 366. La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90048, Largo At The Coronet 20 || discriminated against and treated Mr. St. George unequally based solely on Mr. St. George’s sex by 21 ||prohibiting Mr. St. George from entering the Theater and from taking in the entertainment and 22 || refreshments provided during Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA NO BOYS ALLOWED 23 ||show, and by orgar ing, hosting, employing, booking, putting on, or at least ai 1g this no-men- 24 || allowed commercial event. 25 |] 22. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant The Coronet Theater is a| 26 || business of unknown form, not registered with the California Secretary of State, doing business as a 27 || bar and theater at 366 N. La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90048, The Coronet Theater 28 || discriminated against and treated Mr. St. George unequally based solely on Mr. St. George's sex by| 7 Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages oot 1 Bagel 8 ~ Doo ID = 1723060245 ~ Doo type = omerage 3 of 32) 1 || prohibiting Mr. St. George from entering the Theater and from taking in the entertainment and 2 |} refreshments provided during Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA -NO BOYS ALLOWED] 3 ||show, and by organizing, hosting, employing, booking, putting on, or at least aiding this no-men- 4 | [allowed commercial event. 5 |} 23. On inform: 6 || business and the lessee of the Largo At The Coronet Theater, which is also known as and is registered 1 8 9 0 nn and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Mark Brian Flanagan is a| ]with the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) as “The Coronet] Theater.” Mark Brian Flanagan, doing business as The Coronet Theater, is the holder of ABC License| [Number 475296, which is a License Type 42 for on-sale beer and wine on public premises. Mr. Flanagan discriminated against and treated Mr. St. George unequally based solely on Mr. St. George's 11 || sex by prohibiting Mr. St. George from entering the Theater and from taking in the entertainment and| 12 |}the alcoholic and non-alcoholic refreshments provided during Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH| 13 |]IL1ZA ~NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and by organizing, hosting, employing, booking, putting on, 14 |]r at least aiding this no-men-allowed commercial event. 15 |] 24, On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant United Talent Agency, LLC| 16 ||is a Delaware limited liability company registered as a limited liability company with the California 17 || Secretary of State with the registration number 201421310352, and doing business as United Talent 18 || Agency at 9336 Civic Center Drive in Beverly Hills, California 90210. On information and beli 19 |] United Talent Agency, LLC is an agent for Defendant liza Shlesinger, responsible for booking or 20 |Jarranging for professional appearances by Ms. Shlesinger, and United Talent Agency discriminated] 21 |Jagainst and treated Mr. St. George unequally based solely on Mr. St. George's sex by booking or 22 || arranging Ms. Shlesinger's appearance at Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA - NO BOYS 23 || ALLOWED show, and at least aiding this no-men-allowed commercial event. 24 |) 25. The true names and capacities of Does 1 through $0 are unknown to Plaintiff. When their true] = 25 ||names and capacities are learned, Plaintiff will amend this complaint accordingly. Plaintiff is informed] 2 26 |[and believes, and on that basis alleges, each fictitiously named defendant is responsible in some way} 27 ||for the occurrences herein alleged, and those defendants proximately caused plaintiff and the other ciate 28 ||male consumers’ damages. Each reference in this complaint to “defendant,” “defendants,” or al ‘Complaint for injunctive Relief and Damages Doct 4 Paget 9 ~ Doo 3D = 1723060265 ~ Doo Type = oma(@age 10 of 32) 1 || specifically named defendant refers to all defendants sued under fictitious names. 26. Unless otherwise alleged, whenever reference is made in this complaint to any act of| “defendant,” “defendants,” or to a specifically named defendant, such allegation shall mean that each] defendant acted individually and jointly with the other defendant named in the complaint. 27. Unless otherwise alleged, whenever reference is made in this complaint to any act or omission of any corporate or business defendant, such allegation shall mean that such corporation or other business defendant committed or omitted to act as in this complaint through its officers, members, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, and/or representatives while they were acting within the wee aaneun actual or apparent scope of their authority. 10 |} 28. At all relevant times alleged herein, each defendant has been ‘each the agent, alter-ego, 11 |]representative, partner, joint venturer, employee, or assistant of the other defendants and has acted| 12 || within the course and scope of said agency, alter-ego, representation, partnership, or joint venture with 13 |] the knowledge, notification, authorization, and consent of each of the other defendants. 4 15 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16 29. This courthas subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Article VI, section 17 |} 10 of the California Constitution because this action js a cause not given by statute to other trial courts, 18 || and seeks, among other relief, a permanent injunt |. Subject matter jurisdiction is also premised on, 19 |) inter alia, California Civil Code sections 51 and 51.5, and Business & Professions Code section 125.,6. 20 30. This court has personal jurisdiction over defendants in this action because all 21 1 defendants do sufficient business in California and have sufficient minimum contacts in California to 2 | render the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them by California courts consistent with traditional 23 | notions of fair play and substantial justice. a 31. Venue is proper in this court because the sex discrimination and unequal treatment| a . alleged herein occurred in Los Angeles, California. 2 om “2g 9 Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages ‘Boo 2 Pagel 20 ~ Doo ID = 1728060245 ~ Doc Type = OTEER(@age 21 of 52) 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2) Against All Defendants Violation of The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section $1 2 Refusing to Allow Plaintiff Admission Defendants’ Girls Night In With Iliza - No Boys 4 Allowed Show $s 32. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every| 6 | preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if they were set out at length herein. iy 33. By denying Plaintiff admission into Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA -| 5 |INo BOYS ALLOWED show, and/or by organizing, hosting, employing, booking, putting on, 9 || performing in, or at least aiding the sex discrimination associated with the show that only female| 'Heonsumers were allowed to attend, Defendants intentionally denied equal accommodations, " T dvantages, facies, privileges, or services to Plaintiff based on his sex, which i prohibited bythe ; Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified as Civil Code section $1. “ 34. A substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct was the Plaintiff's sex. _ 35. Defendants’ conduct harmed Plaintiff, - 36. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. - 37. Defendants’ unequal treatment of customers subjects Defendants to injunctive relief. 18 19 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTI 20 t All Defendants Agai Violation of The Unrub Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51 21 || Denying Plaintiff Beverages Provided To Attendees To Defendants’ Girls Night In With Hliza —| e No Boys Allowed Show B 38. Plaintiffincorporates inthis cause of action the allegations contained in each and every 24 |) preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if they were set out at length herein. 3 25 39. By denying Plaintiff the beverages provided to attendees of Defendants’ GIRLS z 26 || NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA ~NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and/or by organizing, hosting, employing,| ® 27 ll booking, putting on, performing in, or atleast aiding the sex discrimination associated with the show eee oe that only female consumers were allowed to attend, Defendants intentionally denied equal| 10 ‘Complaint for injunctive Relief and Damages oct £ Pagel 31 - Roa 2D = 1722060245 - Doo type = OMIER(@age 12 of 32) 1 ]faccommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to Plaintiff based on his sex, which is 2 || prohibited by the Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified as Civil Code section 51. 3} | 40. A substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct was the Plaintiff's sex. 411 | 41. Defendants’ conduct harmed Plaintiff. Sl] 42, Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. 6 43, Defendants’ unequal treatment of customers subjects Defendants to injunctive relief. 1 5 ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 9 Against All Defendants 10 Violation of Civil Code Section 51.5 ul Violation of The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51 Refusing to Allow Plaintiff Admission Defendants’ Girls Night In With Iliza — No Boys eo Allowed Show. 13 7 44, Plaintiffincorporates in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every 15 |] Preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if they were set out at length herein 1G 45. By denying Plaintiff admission into Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA — 17 ||NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and/or by organizing, hosting, employing, booking, putting on, 18 || performing in, or at least aiding the sex discrimination associated with the show that only female| 19 || consumers were allowed to attend, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff based on his sex, which] 20 || is prohibited by Civil Code section 51.5. 20 46. A substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct was the Plaintiff's sex. 2 47. Defendants’ conduct harmed Plaintiff, 23 48. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. 24 49. Defendants’ unequal treatment of customers subjects Defendants to injunctive relief. = 3 2 6 z Soa 2 S28 i Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages Doct 2 Paged 32 - Doe XD = 1722060245 - Dos ype = ORERrage 13 of 32) 1 ‘FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Against All Defendants 3 Violation of Civil Code Section 51.5 Denying Plaintiff The Beverages Provided To Attendees To Defendants’ Girls Night In With 4 liza ~ No Boys Allowed Show 5 ; 50. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every] 7 ||Preceding paragraph ofthis Complaint as if they were set out at length herein . 51. By denying Plaintiff the food provided to attendees of Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN 9 || WITH ILIZA - NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and/or by organizing, hosting, employing, booking, 10 || Putting on, performing in, or at least aiding the sex discrimination associated with the show that only 11 || female consumers were allowed to attend, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff based on his sex, 12 || which is prohibited by Civil Code section 51.5, B 52. A substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct was the Plaintiff's sex. 4 53. Defendants’ conduct harmed Plaintiff. 1s 54, Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. 16 55. Defendants’ unequal treatment of customers subjects Defendants to injunctive relief. 7 8 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 19 || against Defendants Largo At The Coronet, The Coronet Theater, and Mark Brian Flanagan 20 Viotation of Business & Professions Code Section 125.6 a 56. Plaintiff incorporates inthis cause of action the allegations contained in each and every 22 || preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if they were set out at length herein. 23 57. Defendant Mark Brian Flanagan is the holder of California Department of Alcoholic| 24 Il Beverage Control License Number 475296, the business establishment doing business as The Coronet <3 5 |! Theater, which is also known as Largo At The Coronet 3 * 58 Upon information and belief, by denying Plaintiff admission to Defendants’ GIRLS 2 : NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA - NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and by denying Plaintiff alcoholic beverages during the show, Defendants Largo At The Coronet, The Coronet Theater, and Mark Brian 12 Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages ‘oot 2 Rageh 12 - Doo ZD = 1722060245 - Doo Type = OTHERage 14 of 32) Flanagan made a discrimination or restriction in the performance of its ABC-licensed activity of| providing alcoholic beverages to the public on the basis of the patrons’ sex, as prosoribed by California Business & Professions Code section 125.6. 59, Defendants Largo At The Coronet, The Coronet Theater, and Mark Brian Flanagan’s| conduct harmed Plaintiff. 60. Defendants Largo At The Coronet, The Coronet Theater, and Mark Brian Flanagan’s| }conduct subjects Defendants Largo At The Coronet, The Coronet Theater, and Mark Brian Flanagan to injunctive relief. . ow a anueen ‘SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Against All Defendants Negligence i 2 13 61 “4 15 16 7 18 19 Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every receding paragraph of this Complaint as if the same were set out at length herein, 62, Defendants had a duty of care to avoic ally, Defendants had} jury to Plaintiff. Speci a duty of care to avoid treating Plai ‘unequally based on his sex. 63. Defendants selected, hired, retained, and contracted with persons and/or entities that harmed Plaintiff, as described above, 64. Defendants had the authority and duty to supervise, prohibit, control, and/or regulate 21 |jthese persons and/or entities that harmed Plaintiff. 65. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that persons or entities would indeed harm Plaintiff, Pr 66. Defendants breached its duty of care by (1) denying Plaintiff his right to equal 25 ||treatment, and (2) failing to use reasonable care in selecting, hiring, supervising, retaining, or| 26 || contracting with persons or entities that harmed Plaintiff. goth 27 67. In the alternative, Defendants negligently conceived, organized, hosted, employed! & 28 || and/or aided Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA —NO BOYS ALLOWED show. B Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages oot 1 Pagel 14 ~ Doo XD = 1723060268 ~ Doo Type = OTHERrage 18 of 32) 68. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence and negligent hiring,| supervision, and retention, Plaintiff suffered damages in amounts to be proven at trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: 1. For an order providing equitable and injunctive relief permanently enjoining Defendants from engaging in unequal treatment of consumers based on the consumers’ sex in violation of Civil Code sections $1 and 51.5, and Business and Professions Code section 125.6. 2. Foran order providing equitable and injunctive relief ordering Defendants to undergo sensitivity training regarding sex discrimination. 3. For statutory damages pursuant to Civil Code section 52; 4. For costs incurred herein, including attorneys’ fees to the extent allowable by statute, including but not limited to Civil Code sections $2 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.53 and 5. Forsuch other and further legal and equitable relief as this court may deem proper. Dated: December 20, 2017 Respectfully submitted, B eo Alfred G. Rava Rava Law Firm 4 ‘Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages oot 1 Paget 25 - Doe ID = 1725060245 ~ Doc type = OER