Anip Patel v. Mirchi, Inc., et al. Document 1: Complaint

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Case No. 21STCV39518
Filed October 26, 2021

BackBack to Anip Patel v. Mirchi, Inc., et al.

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.

  Formatted Text Tab Overlap Raw Text Right End
Page 1 Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/26/2021 10:23 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by N. Alvarez,Deputy Clerk
21STCV
Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: David Sotelo
1 Christopher G. Hook (State Bar No. 255080)
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
2 1801 Century Park East, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3 Phone: (310) 272-E-mail: chris@cghlaw.com
5 Attorney for Plaintiff ANIP PATEL
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
11 ANIP PATEL
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK

Plaintiff,

vs.
CASE NO.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
14 MIRCHI, INC.,
ALI TEHRANIAN,
15 MIRO MARKARAVANES, and
DOES 1-10 inclusive,
Defendants.
COMES NOW PLAINTIFF ANIP PATEL, averring this complaint for damages as
19 set forth herein.
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff ANIP PATEL (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “PATEL”) is an individual
22 adult and resident of the County of Cook, State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this
23 complaint, Plaintiff was physically present to work for Defendant MIRCHI, INC.
24 (“MIRCHI”) in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and/or remotely from the
25 County of Cook, State of Illinois.
2. Between approximately April 2020, and December 31, 2020, Defendant MIRCHI
27 was not a registered business entity in any jurisdiction. Beginning on or about January 1,
28 2021, MIRCHI incorporated as a Delaware corporation, file number 4363342. MIRCHI’s
-1COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 2 1 registered agent information for acceptance of service of process is HARVARD
2 BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., 16192 COASTAL HWY, LEWES, DE, 19958.
3. At all times relevant to this complaint, MIRCHI has engaged in business in the
4 State of California, and County of Los Angeles. Their business includes operating a
5 cellular phone application (“app”) used by consumers to meet new people, including for
6 dating purposes. MIRCHI is headquartered in County of Los Angeles, State of California.
7 Despite transacting business in the State of California, on information and belief,
8 MIRCHI has not registered or qualified with the California Secretary of State, in violation
9 of Corporations Code section 2105.
4. Defendant ALI TEHRANIAN (“TEHRANIAN”) is an individual adult resident
11 of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. On information and belief,
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK

12 TEHRANIAN is a co-founder, co-owner and “Member of the Board,” of MIRCHI.
5. Defendant MIRO MARKARAVANES (“MARKARAVANES”) is an individual
14 adult resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. On information and
15 belief, MARKARAVANES is a co-founder, co-owner and “Member of the Board,” of
16 MIRCHI.
6. Plaintiff does not presently know the true names and capacities of the
18 defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. Plaintiff is informed and
19 believes and thereon alleges that each of the defendants designated as a DOE is in some
20 manner responsible for the damages and injuries alleged in this complaint. Plaintiff will
21 seek leave of court to amend this complaint to allege said defendants’ true names and
22 capacities as soon as plaintiff ascertains their true identities.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all material times
24 herein the defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, and employees of the
25 other defendants, and each of them.
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times
27 MIRCHI was the “alter ego” of TEHRANIAN, and there exists, and at all times herein
28 mentioned has existed, a unity of interest and ownership between TEHRANIAN and
-2COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 3 1 MIRCHI such that any separateness between them has ceased to exist in that TEHRANIAN
2 completely controlled, dominated, managed and operated MIRCHI to suit his
3 convenience. At all relevant times, TEHRANIAN controlled the business and affairs of
4 MIRCHI. Between approximately April 2020 and December 31, 2020, TEHRANIAN used
5 the same office or business location and website/app as MIRCHI to conduct business, in
6 the County of Los Angeles, State of California. After MIRCHI’s incorporation in Delaware
7 on January 1, 2021, and at all relevant times, MIRCHI disregarded corporate formalities
8 and failed to maintain an arm’s length relationship with TEHRANIAN. At all relevant
9 times, MIRCHI was used by TEHRANIAN as a mere shell or instrumentality and did not
11 and depleted the financial accounts and resources of MIRCHI for his own personal use and
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
10 possess independence from TEHRANIAN. At all relevant times, TEHRANIAN accessed
12 not that of the company.
9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times
14 MIRCHI was the “alter ego” of MARKARAVANES and there exists, and at all times herein
15 mentioned has existed, a unity of interest and ownership between MARKARAVANES and
16 MIRCHI such that any separateness between them has ceased to exist in that
17 MARKARAVANES completely controlled, dominated, managed and operated MIRCHI to
18 suit his convenience. At all relevant times, MARKARAVANES controlled the business and
19 affairs of MIRCHI. Between approximately April 2020 and December 31, 2020,
20 MARKARAVANES used the same office or business location and website/app as MIRCHI
21 to conduct business, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. After MIRCHI’s
22 incorporation in Delaware on January 1, 2021, and at all relevant times, MIRCHI
23 disregarded corporate formalities and failed to maintain an arm’s length relationship with
24 MARKARAVANES. At all relevant times, MIRCHI was used by MARKARAVANES as a
25 mere shell or instrumentality and did not possess independence from MARKARAVANES.
26 At all relevant times, MARKARAVANES accessed and depleted the financial accounts and
27 resources of MIRCHI for his own personal use and not that of the company.
28 / / /
-3COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 4
II. COMMON FACTS
10. Plaintiff PATEL is an IT professional and social media influencer with
3 substantial networking ties to the South Asian community. Plaintiff’s primary profession
4 for the last ten years has been IT management consulting, wherein he has served as a
5 liaison between the IT and business sides of large companies.
11. On or about April 2020, Defendants contacted Plaintiff on social media to
7 express their interest in hiring Plaintiff to assist them in the development of MIRCHI.
8 MIRCHI hired Plaintiff to expand MIRCHI’s market—to use his name, reputation, and
9 connections on social media to expand the consumer base of MIRCHI. Plaintiff was
11 pages about the app for the purpose of attracting more paying customers. Plaintiff made
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
10 initially paid five hundred dollars ($500.00) to post four promotions to his social media
12 the agreed promotions of MIRCHI, leading to the growth of customers for the company.
12. On or around June 2020, Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendants
14 to formally work for MIRCHI for twenty (20) hours per week, for a period of twelve (12)
15 weeks, at a rate of forty dollars ($40.00) per hour, as MIRCHI’S “Director of Marketing.”
13. Defendants paid Plaintiff exactly Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00) per week for
17 a period of Twelve (12) weeks, even though Plaintiff worked well in excess of twenty (20)
18 hours per week.
14. At the end of the twelve-week period, on or around September to October
20 2020, Plaintiff and defendants entered into a new agreement regarding the terms of
21 Plaintiff’s employment at MIRCHI, at which time it was agreed that Plaintiff was to be
22 considered a Co-Founder of MIRCHI, and that Plaintiff was to receive a twenty percent
23 (20%) stake in MIRCHI. After entering into this agreement, Defendants reduced
24 Plaintiff’s pay to a flat rate of six hundred dollars ($600.00) per week, which continued
25 through approximately March of 2021.
15. Between approximately September 2020 and December 2020, Plaintiff was
27 required by Defendants to travel from County of Cook, State of Illinois, to 1150 S. Olive
28 St., County of Los Angeles, State of California, to work with Defendants at MIRCHI
-4COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 5 1 headquarters. Plaintiff was not reimbursed for his business expenses associated with this
2 travel.
16. On or around January 2021, Defendants again sought to modify the terms of
4 Plaintiff’s employment at MIRCHI.
17. On or around February 11-18, 2021, the website Issuu published a Hi India
6 article titled “Chicago Entrepreneur Anip Patel’s South Asian Dating App ‘Mirchi’ Is
7 Getting Hot,” with the subtitle “Co-founded by three ambitious youngsters it is
8 attracting covetous multi-million-dollar acquisition offers.”
18. On or around March 2021, Defendants again sought to modify the terms of
11 Defendants, and Plaintiff’s employment at MIRCHI came to an end.
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
10 Plaintiff’s employment at MIRCHI. Plaintiff refused to accept the terms proposed by

19. In a letter from Defendants to Plaintiff dated May 4, 2021, RE: Notice to
13 Immediately Cease and Desist, defendants stated that “[defendants] have determined that
14 [Plaintiff] [has] falsely represented [himself] as a ‘Chief Executive Ofiicer/Co-Founder’ of
15 [MIRCHI].”
III. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – BREACH OF CONTRACT

CALIFORNIA UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE § 2201 et seq.

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

20. A contractual relationship existed between Plaintiff and each Defendant,
20 whereby Plaintiff performed work for Defendants for which Plaintiff was to receive
21 consideration in various forms. The terms were partially written and partially oral and
22 were conveyed to Plaintiff by Defendant MIRCHI’S Members of the Board, including
23 Defendants TEHRANIAN and MARKARAVANES. Plaintiff performed all material
24 conditions, covenants, and promises required on his part to be performed in accordance
25 with the contractual terms.
21. On or about September 2020, a contract was formed between Plaintiff and
27 Defendants wherein Defendants and Plaintiff were to be considered Co-Founders of
28 MIRCHI, and Plaintiff was to receive a Twenty Percent (20%) stake in MIRCHI.
-5COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 6
22. On or about September 2020, Defendants began to pay Plaintiff six hundred
2 dollars ($600.00) per week for his work as Marketing Director and co-founder of
3 MIRCHI. Plaintiff putatively accepted payment of wages at this rate due to reliance upon
4 the agreement that Plaintiff would receive a Twenty Percent (20%) stake in MIRCHI.
23. Plaintiff worked on developing MIRCHI approximately Fifty (50) to Eighty
6 (80) hours per week between September 2020 to March 2021 to fulfill his duties as a
7 Marketing Director and co-founder of MIRCHI.
24. MIRCH has failed to perform its end of the bargain, by ordering Plaintiff to
9 cease and desist from identifying himself as an executive officer and co-founder of
11 Defendants had promised to PATEL.
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
10 MIRCHI, and by denying Plaintiff the Twenty Percent (20%) stake in MIRCHI that

25. As a result of the breach of contract by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff
13 has been damaged in an amount equivalent to Twenty Percent (20%) of the value of
14 MIRCHI, lost income, plus additional amounts for the consequential damages he has
15 suffered due to the discrepancy in his employment history pertaining to his status as an
16 executive officer and co-founder of MIRCHI, in an amount to be proven at trial.
IV. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

26. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
20 paragraphs 1 through 25 stated above as though fully set forth herein.
27. Defendants have benefited from Plaintiff’s labor, including his social media
22 promotions, networking connections and job performance abilities that are unique to
23 Plaintiff as an individual.
28. Equity and good conscience demand that Defendants distribute to Plaintiff the
25 funds that they have improperly retained, including Twenty Percent (20%) of the value of
26 MIRCHI, which Defendants promised to Plaintiff to induce him to perform labor on their
27 behalf.
28 / / /
-6COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 7
V. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

29. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
4 paragraphs 1 through 28 stated above as though fully set forth herein.
30. Defendants made a clear and unambiguous promise to Plaintiff to compensate
6 him with a twenty percent (20%) ownership interest in MIRCHI.
31. In reliance on this promise, Plaintiff engaged in labor on behalf of Defendants,
8 and lost opportunities to perform labor on behalf of others.
32. Defendants instructed Plaintiff to hold himself out, on his social media
11 Plaintiff believed that Defendants genuinely considered Plaintiff to be a co-founder of
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
10 platforms and in news articles, to be an executive officer and co-founder of MIRCHI.
12 MIRCHI and that Defendants had allocated to Plaintiff a twenty percent (20%) stake in
13 MIRCHI, and Plaintiff believed that Defendants would perform their obligations under
14 the Co-Founder agreement.
33. Plaintiff has suffered injury due to his reliance on the Defendants’ promises.
16 This injury includes lost income, lost business profits, and lost good will from marketing
17 connections and business associates who acted on behalf of Plaintiff and MIRCHI
18 resultant from their belief that Plaintiff was a founder of MIRCHI.
VI. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

34. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
22 paragraphs 1 through 33 stated above as though fully set forth herein.
35. Defendants made false representations of material fact to Plaintiff, including
24 the representation that they would and did allocate to Plaintiff a twenty percent (20%)
25 stake in MIRCHI in exchange for Plaintiff’s labor.
36. Between September 2020 and March 2021, Plaintiff performed labor for
27 Defendants due to Defendants having represented to Plaintiff that he was considered a
28 co-founder of MIRCHI and was to receive a twenty percent (20%) stake in MIRCHI.
-7COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 8
37. Defendants knew that the representations regarding Plaintiff’s Co-Founder
2 status and ownership interest in MIRCHI were false when they were making them, as
3 evidenced by their refusal to perform their obligations, and their May 2021 issuance of a
4 cease and desist letter in which Defendants TEHRANIAN and MARKARAVANES
5 explicitly instructed Plaintiff to no longer hold himself out as a co-founder of MIRCHI.
38. Defendants intended for Plaintiff to rely on the false statements in order to
7 induce Plaintiff to engage in labor, and hold himself out to the public, as a co-founder of
8 MIRCHI, and for an improper pecuniary gain at Plaintiff’s expense.
39. Plaintiff did justifiably rely on the false statements of Defendants, and
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
10 contracted with third parties based on Plaintiff’s reliance on such statements.
40. Plaintiff has suffered damages due to his reliance upon Defendants’ false
12 statements, including A) lost income and business profits, and B) the loss of business
13 goodwill and profits from third-party contracts Plaintiff executed, or missed the
14 opportunity to execute, pursuant to the terms of his co-founder status at MIRCHI.
VII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - WRONGFUL CONSTRUCTIVE

TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF IMPLIED CONTRACT

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
19 paragraphs 1 through 40 stated above as though fully set forth herein.
42. Plaintiff and Defendants began working together to develop MIRCHI in the
21 early stages of Defendants TEHRANIAN and MARKARAVANES development of the
22 MIRCHI app. Defendants had supplied the technological infrastructure, and Plaintiff
23 ultimately supplied a majority of the customer base. In approximately September 2020,
24 Defendants and Plaintiff agreed that Plaintiff would be considered a co-founder of
25 MIRCHI. Defendants’ conduct created an implied employment contract where Plaintiff
26 would not be terminated without good cause.
43. In or around March of 2021, Defendants attempted to force Plaintiff to sign a
28 written contract in which he essentially gave up his right to a twenty percent (20%) stake
-8COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 9 1 in MIRCHI. The March 2021 contract proposed by MIRCHI provided that Defendant
2 TEHRANIAN would have unilateral authority to designate a salary, in any amount at
3 any time, to himself and other employees of MIRCHI, which would come off the top of
4 MIRCHI’s profits prior to division amongst MIRCHI’s founders, including Plaintiff—
5 effectively rendering Plaintiff’s “twenty percent stake” meaningless. Defendants refused
6 to continue employing Plaintiff unless he signed the March 2021 contract, Plaintiff
7 refused to sign it, and Plaintiff was constructively terminated without good cause.
44. As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, and each of them,
9 Plaintiff has suffered actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, including
11 related opportunities in his field and damage to his professional reputation, all in an
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
10 without limitation, loss of salary and profits, and the intangible loss of employment
12 amount subject to proof at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages
13 pursuant to California Civil Code section 3287 and/or any other provision of law
14 providing for prejudgment interest.
45. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them,
16 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, mental
17 anguish and embarrassment, as well as the manifestation of physical symptoms. Plaintiff
18 is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that he will continue to experience said
19 physical and emotional suffering for a period in the future not presently ascertainable, all
20 in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial.
46. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them,
22 Plaintiff has been forced to hire attorneys to prosecute his claims herein and has incurred
23 and is expected to continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs in connection therewith.
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
-9COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 10
VIII. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION - CIVIL CONSPIRACY TO ENGAGE IN

WRONGFUL CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF IMPLIED

CONTRACT

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

47. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
6 paragraphs 1 through 46 stated above as though fully set forth herein.
48. Each Defendant aided, abetted, participated in, authorized, ratified, and/or
8 conspired to engage in the wrongful conduct alleged regarding wrongful constructive
9 termination in violation of implied contract. Plaintiff should, therefore, be awarded
11 that is appropriate to punish each Defendant and deter others from engaging in such
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
10 exemplary and punitive damages against each Defendant in an amount to be established
12 conduct in the future.
IX. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION –

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

49. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
17 paragraphs 1 through 49 stated above as though fully set forth herein.
50. On information and belief, Defendants deliberately and wrongfully abused
19 Plaintiff by their treatment of him at least in sufficient legal disregard of the probability
20 that it would result in Plaintiff’s significant emotional injury.
51. The Defendants' actions, and actions by each of them, were outrageous and
22 beyond the bounds of decency that a reasonable person(s) should be expected to endure
23 in the course of their employment.
52. As a direct and proximate result of the sufficiently legally negligent, harmful,
25 unlawful and/ or offensive acts of the applicable Defendants, Plaintiff sustained material
26 injury including, but not limited to, emotional distress, all to Plaintiff’s damages in a sum
27 according to proof.
28 / / /
-10COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 11
53. As evidenced by, among other things, the events, actions and inactions
2 described herein, the Defendants, and each of them, engaged in acts from which they, on
3 information and belief, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known,
4 would likely result in harm to Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants have acted with sufficient
5 malice, fraud and oppression, to justify an appropriate award of punitive damages.
X. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION - APPROPRIATION OF NAME

AND LIKENESS UNDER CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
10 paragraphs 1 through 53 stated above as though fully set forth herein.
55. Defendants have and are using Plaintiff’s name, identity, likeness, and
12 personal information for commercial advantage without Plaintiff’s consent.
56. Plaintiff consented to Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s name, identity, likeness,
14 and personal information, contingent upon Defendant’s designation of Plaintiff as a co15 founder of MIRCHI. Defendants instructed Plaintiff to hold himself out as an executive
16 officer and co-founder of MIRCHI for their use and benefit, but have not conferred upon
17 Plaintiff any agreed to benefits of his being a co-founder of MIRCHI. Subsequent to
18 instructing Plaintiff to advertise himself as a co-founder of MIRCHI, and subsequent to
19 Plaintiff having advertised himself as a co-founder of MIRCHI in news interviews and on
20 social media platforms, Defendants instructed Plaintiff to cease and desist from
21 identifying himself as a founder of MIRCHI. Plaintiff consented to holding himself out as
22 a co-founder of MIRCHI if and only if Defendants actually considered Plaintiff to be a co23 founder of MIRCHI. Defendants gained a commercial benefit by instructing Plaintiff to
24 identify himself as a founder of MIRCHI, and Defendants therefore have used Plaintiff’s
25 name, identity, likeness, and personal information for purposes to which he did not
26 consent.
27 / / /
28 / / /
-11COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 12
57. Defendants’ misappropriation of Plaintiff’s name, identity, photographs,
2 likenesses, and personal information has resulted in injury to Plaintiff.
58. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for the misappropriation of his
4 name and likeness by Defendants, in an amount according to proof at trial.
XI. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION - UNLAWFUL FAILURE

TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES

(Violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197; Wage Order No. 4-2001, §4)

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

59. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
10 paragraphs 1 through 58 stated above as though fully set forth herein.
60. California Labor Code section 510 provides in relevant part: “[e]ight hours of
12 labor constitutes a day’s work. Any work in excess of eight hours in one work day and
13 any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on
14 the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less
15 than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess
16 of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular
17 rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any
18 seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the
19 regular rate of pay of an employee.”
61. California Labor Code section 1197 provides: “The minimum wage for
21 employees fixed by the commission is the minimum wage to be paid to employees, and
22 the payment of a less wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful.”
62. California Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a) provides:
24 “Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, an employee receiving less
25 than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the
26 employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of
27 this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable
28 attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.”
-12COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 13
63. California Labor Code section 1194.2 provides in relevant part: “In any action
2 under Section 1193.6 or Section 1194 to recover wages because of the payment of a wage
3 less than the minimum wage fixed by an order of the commission, an employee shall be
4 entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully
5 unpaid and interest thereon.”
64. Pursuant to IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, at all times material hereto, “hours
7 worked” includes “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an
8 employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work,
9 whether or not required to do so.”
65. Pursuant to Section 4 of IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, and the minimum wage
11 established by the County of Los Angeles, State of California, Plaintiff was entitled to
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK

12 receive not less than $14.25 per hour for all hours worked in the year 2020, and $15.00 per
13 hour for all hours worked in the year 2021.
66. At all times relevant during the liability period, under the provisions of Wage
15 Order No. 4-2001, Plaintiff should have received not less than the minimum wage in a
16 sum according to proof for the time worked, but not compensated.
67. For all hours that Plaintiff worked, he is entitled to not less than the County of
18 Los Angeles, State of California minimum wage and, pursuant to Labor Code section
19 1194.2(a) liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid minimum wages and
20 interest thereon. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, Plaintiff is also entitled to
21 attorneys’ fees, costs and interest according to proof.
68. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants willfully failed and refused, and
23 continue to willfully fail and refuse, to pay Plaintiff the amounts owed. Defendants’
24 unlawful conduct alleged herein occurred in the course of employment of Plaintiff.
69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of Labor Code
26 sections 510 and 1197, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm and money damages
27 entitling him to damages, injunctive relief or restitution. Plaintiff seeks damages and all
28 other relief allowable including all wages due while working for Defendants, attorneys’
-13COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 14 1 fees, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and waiting time penalties pursuant to
2 Labor Code § 200 et seq.
70. Plaintiff is entitled to back pay, pre-judgment interest, liquidated damages,
4 statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs, and waiting time penalties pursuant to
5 Labor Code § 1194.
XII. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - FAILURE TO PAY ALL

WAGES DUE AT SEPARATION

(Violation of Labor Code § 203)

(By Plaintiff against All Defendants)
71. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
11 paragraphs 1 through 70 stated above as though fully set forth herein.
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK

72. California Labor Code sections 201 and 202 requires Defendants to pay all
13 compensation due and owing to former employees at or around the time employment is
14 terminated. Section 203 of the California Labor Code provides that if an employer
15 willfully fails to pay compensation promptly upon discharge or resignation, as required
16 by sections 201 and 202, then the employer is liable for penalties in the form of continued
17 compensation up to thirty (30) work days.
73. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants
19 covered by Labor Code § 203.
74. Plaintiff was not paid for work performed in excess of eight (8) hours per day,
21 nor was he paid for his work time.
75. Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff for his uncompensated hours,
23 uncompensated overtime, and missed, untimely or on-duty meal and rest periods upon
24 his termination or separation from employment with Defendants as required by
25 California Labor Code sections 201 and 202. As a result, Defendants is liable to Plaintiff
26 for waiting time penalties amounting to thirty days wages for Plaintiff pursuant to
27 California Labor Code sections 203.
28 / / /
-14COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 15
XIII. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - FAILURE TO FURNISH

TIMELY AND ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS

(Violation of Labor Code §§ 226 and 226.3)

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

76. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
6 paragraphs 1 through 75 stated above as though fully set forth herein.
77. California Labor Code section 226(a) provides: “Every employer shall,
8 semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, furnish each of his or her
9 employees, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the
11 accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
10 employee's wages, or separately when wages are paid by personal check or cash, an
12 worked by the employee…, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable
13 piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that
14 all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as
15 one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the
16 employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and his or her social security number,
17 except that by January 1, 2008, only the last four digits of his or her social security
18 number or an employee identification number other than a social security number may
19 be shown on the itemized statement, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is
20 the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
21 corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.”
78. Labor Code section 226(e) provides that an employee is entitled to recover $
23 for the initial pay period in which a violation of Section 226 occurs and $100 for each
24 subsequent pay period, as well as an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, for all
25 pay periods in which the employer knowingly and intentionally failed to provide
26 accurate itemized statements to the employee causing the employee to suffer injury.
27 / / /
28 / / /
-15COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 16
79. Plaintiff is informed, believe and thereon alleges that at all times relevant,
2 Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to furnish and continue to knowingly and
3 intentionally fail to furnish Plaintiff timely and accurate itemized statements showing his
4 gross wages earned, as required by Labor Code section 226(a), in that the payments owed
5 to Plaintiff for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, and missed meal and rest
6 periods, were not included in gross wages earned by Plaintiff.
80. Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff with accurate itemized wage
8 statements has caused Plaintiff to incur economic damages in that he was not aware that
9 he was owed and not paid compensation for missed rest periods and on-duty meal
11 Defendants provided Plaintiff with no information regarding hours worked, which
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
10 periods, for hours worked without pay, and for overtime worked without pay.
12 masked their underpayment of wages to Plaintiff.
81. As a result of Defendants’ issuance of inaccurate itemized wage statements to
14 Plaintiff in violation of Labor Code section 226(a), Plaintiff is entitled to recover penalties
15 pursuant to section 226(e) of the Labor Code.
XIV. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - FAILURE TO REIMBURSE

BUSINESS EXPENSES

(Violation of Labor Code § 2802)

(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

82. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
21 paragraphs 1 through 81 stated above as though fully set forth herein.
83. California Labor Code section 2802 provides “An employer shall indemnify his
23 or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in
24 direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the
25 directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of
26 obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful.”
84. During the applicable statutory period, Plaintiff incurred necessary
28 expenditures and losses in direct consequence of the discharge of his employment
-16COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 17 1 duties and his obedience to the directions of Defendants. Defendants did not reimburse
2 for these expenditures or losses to Plaintiff.
85. Defendants have failed to fully reimburse Plaintiff for necessary business-
4 related expenses and losses, including, but not limited to, travel between County of
5 Cook, State of Illinois, and County of Los Angeles, State of California.
86. Plaintiff is entitled to recover their unreimbursed expenditures and losses
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
7 pursuant to Labor Code section 2802.
XV. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF

CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION ACT

(Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.)

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

87. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
13 paragraphs 1 through 86 stated above as though fully set forth herein.
88. Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code (the “UCL”)
15 prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices.
89. Through its action alleged herein, Defendants have engaged in unfair
17 competition within the meaning of the UCL. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein,
18 constitutes unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices under the UCL.
90. Defendants’ unlawful conduct under the UCL includes, but is not limited to,
20 violating the statutes alleged herein. Defendants’ unfair conduct under the UCL includes,
21 but is not limited to, failure to pay Plaintiff wages and compensation he earned through
22 labor provided, and failing to otherwise compensate Plaintiff, as alleged herein.
23 Defendants’ fraudulent conduct includes, but is not limited to, issuing wage statements
24 containing false and/or misleading information about the time the Plaintiff worked, or
25 failing to issue wage statements whatsoever, to identify the amount of wages or
26 compensation due.
27 / / /
28 / / /
-17COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 18
91. Plaintiff has standing to assert this claim because he has suffered injury in fact
2 and has lost money as a result of Defendants’ conduct.
92. Plaintiff seeks restitutionary disgorgement from Defendants, and an injunction
4 prohibiting them from engaging in the unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent conduct
5 alleged herein.
XVI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
93. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
8 A. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at trial, in an amount
9 equal to a twenty percent equity stake in MIRCHI;
11 C. For continuation wages under Labor Code § 203;
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
10 B. For special and general damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
12 D. For statutory penalties under Labor Code § 226(e);
13 E. An order requiring Defendants to comply with Labor Code § 226(a) with respect
14 to all current MIRCHI employees;
15 F. For reimbursement of business expenses under Labor Code § 2802;
16 G. For restitutionary disgorgement pursuant to the UCL;
17 H. An order enjoining Defendants from further unfair and unlawful business
18 practices in violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.;
19 I. Prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate;
20 J. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs incurred by Plaintiff in bringing this
21 action;
22 K. Actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble damages, and such other relief
23 as provided by the statutes cited herein;
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
-18COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 19 1 L. Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
4 DATED: October 26,
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK

By:
CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
Attorney for Plaintiff ANIP PATEL

Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK

-19COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 20 1 Christopher G. Hook (State Bar No. 255080)
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK
2 1801 Century Park East, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3 Phone: (310) 272-E-mail: chris@cghlaw.com
5 Attorney for Plaintiff ANIP PATEL
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
11 ANIP PATEL
Attorney at Law
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 25th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-TELEPHONE (310) 272-8566 CHRIS@CGHLAW.COM
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK

Plaintiff,

vs.
CASE NO.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
14 MIRCHI, INC.,
ALI TEHRANIAN,
15 MIRO MARKARAVANES, and
DOES 1-10 inclusive,
Defendants.
Plaintiff hereby requests a jury trial on any and all claims so triable.
DATED: October 26,
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK

By:
CHRISTOPHER G. HOOK

Attorney for Plaintiff ANIP PATEL
-1DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?