Cosentino Complaint vs Pechanga Gaming Commission

ANDREW W. TWIETMEYER State Bar No. 254436 LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW W. TWIETMEYER 10780 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 401

2 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310)909-7138

3 Fax: (310)446-2140

SU~t~~~~lffhRiPHJ MAR 25 2013 C. Mundo

email: [email protected] 4

5 Attorney for Plaintiff, BENEDICT COSENTINO

6

7

8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

9 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

10

11 BENEDICT COSENTINO,

12 Plaintiff,

13 VS.

14 STELLA FULLER (an individual); JOHN R. MAGEE (an individual); JASON P.

15 MALDONADO; (an individual); \.VILLIAM R. RAMOS (an individual); ROBERT B. VARGA

16 (an individual); and DOES 1 to 50 inclusive, I 7 Defendants.

19

20

21

22

CaseNo.:MCC \?JDrJJ/1lf COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:

1) Intentional Interfere nee with Prospective Economic Advantage

2) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

3) Intentional Interference with Right to Pursue Lawful Occupation

4) Violation of Cal. Civil Code 52.1 5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional

Distress 6) Negligent Infliction of Emotional

Distress 7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional

Distress

Demand for Jury Trial

23 Plaintiff Benedict Cosentino ("Mr. Cosentino"), hereby submits his Complaint in this 24 action:

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3 1.

SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

PARTIES

Plaintiff Benedict Cosentino is an individual who resides in the City of Temecula in

4 the County of Riverside California. Mr. Cosentino is a former employee of the Pechanga Resort

5 and Casino where he worked as a table games dealer until the spring of 2011.

6 2. The Pechanga Gaming Commission (the "Commission") is a five-member elected 7 body that was formed pursuant to Section 4 of the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance of 1992.

8 3. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant

9 Stella Fuller ("Fuller") is an individual who resides in the City of Temecula in the County of 10 Riverside California. Fuller is herein named in her individual capacity.

11 4. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant 12 Robert B. Vargas ("Vargas") is an individual who resides in the City of Temecula in the County 13 of Riverside California. Vargas is herein named in his individual capacity.


15 Jason P. Maldonado ("Maldonado") is an individual who resides in the City of Temecula in the 16 County of Riverside California. Maldonado is herein named in his individual capacity.


18 William R. Ramos ("Ramos") is an individual who resides in the City of Hemet in the County of 19 Riverside California. Ramos is herein named in his individual capacity.


21 John R. Magee ("Magee") is an individual who resides in the City of Temecula in the County or 22 Riverside California. Magee is herein named in his individual capacity.

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 8. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise 2 of Defendants named DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Mr. Cosentino, who

3 therefore sues such Defendants by such fictitious names. Mr. Cosentino is informed and

4 believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, are in some

5 manner responsible and/or liable for the damages and/or action alleged herein. Mr. Cosentino

6 will seek leave of this Court to amend his Complaint to show their true names and capacities

7 once they are discovered.

8 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9 9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these proceedings pursuant to the 1 O general jurisdiction granted by the California Constitution. 11 10. This Court possesses personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are found 12 and are doing business in the State of California and/or have sufficient minimum contacts with

13 California so as to render the exercise of general or specific jurisdiction by the California courts 14 permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 15 11. Venue is proper in Riverside County as against Defendants pursuant to Sections 394

16

17

18

and 395 of the California Code of Civil Procedure bf cause one or more of the Defendants reside

in this County.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

19 A. The Pechan1:a Casino

20 12. The Pechanga Resort and Casino (the "Pechanga Casino") is a Native American tribal 21 gaming Casino owned and managed by the Pechanga Band ofLuisefio Mission Indians (the 22 "Pechanga Band"), a federally recognized Indian Tribe. 23 13. The Pechanga Casino conducts "class III gaming" as that term is defined at section

24 2703(8) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act which is found at Title 25 sections 2701 et. seq. of 25 the United States Code (the "IGRA"). The IGRA's implementing regulations are found at Title 26 25, Chapter III of the Code of Federal Regulations.

27

28


1 14. IGRA section 2710(d)(2)(A) requires that "If any Indian tribe proposes to engage in, 2 or to authorize any person or entity to engage in, a class III gaming activity on Indian lands of

3 the Indian tribe, the governing body of the Indian tribe shall adopt and submit to the Chairman

4 [of the National Indian Gaming Commission (the "NIGC")] an ordinance or resolution that 5 meets the requirements of subsection (b) of this section." 6 15. IGRA section 2710(d)(l)(C) provides that "Class III gaming activities shall be lawful 7 on Indian lands only if such activities are ... conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State

8 compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the State under paragraph (3) that is in effect." 9 16. Pursuant to IGRA section 2710(d)(2)(A), on February 13, 1994 the Pechanga Band

10 adopted Ordinance number 92.01 amending the Pechanga Gaming Act of 1992 (the "Pechanga 11 Gaming Ordinance"). 12 17. On or about April 12, 1994, the Chairman of the NIGC approved the Pechanga

13 Gaming Ordinance pursuant to IGRA section 2710(d)(l)(iii). 14 18. On or about September 10, 1999, pursuant to IGRAsection 2710(d)(l)(C) and 15 section 12 of the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Pechanga Band entered the Tribal-State

16 Gaming Compact with the state of California. The Pechanga Band and the State later amended

17 the aforementioned Tribal-State Gaming Compact in August 2006. The Tribal-State Gaming

18 Compact, as amended, is herein referred to as the "Tribal-State Compact."

19 19. Pursuant to IGRA section 2710(d)(2)(C), the Pechanga Casino's gaming activities are 20 governed by and fully subject to the Tribal-State Compact. 21 20. The Tribal-State Compact states at section l.O(c) that it is designed and intended to, 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

among other things, promote ethical gaming practices,

through the licensing and control of persons and entities employed in, or providing goods and services to, the Tribe's Gaming Operation and protecting against the presence or participation of persons whose criminal backgrounds, reputations, character, or associations make them unsuitable for participation in gaming, thereby maintaining a high level of integrity in tribal government gaming.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21. To that end, the Tribal-State Compact requires at section 6.4.1 that all persons in any

way connected with the Pechanga Casino including all gaming employees must be licensed by a

Tribal Gaming Agency.

B. The Pechanga Gaming Commission

22. The Pechanga Gaming Commission (the "Commission") is the Tribal Agency referred to at section 6.4.1 of the Tribal-State Compact. Section 4 of the Pechanga Gaming

Ordinance, established the Commission. The Commission is a five-member elected body

charged with monitoring gaming activities, investigating wrongdoing, conducting background

investigations, and issuing gaming licenses.

23. The Commission is a governmental subdivision of the Pechanga Band. 24. As required by section 6.4.l of the Tribal-State Compact and IGRAsection 2710(b)

(2)(F)(ii)(I), the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, at section 10 sets forth the Commission's licensing authority and requires that all Key Employees of the Pechanga Casino must have a

class A gaming license issued by the Commission.

25. Under the Tribal-State Compact, the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance and the IGRA, the

Commission does not have discretionary authority to issue, and deny class A gaming licenses as

to whomever the Commission pleases.

26. On the contrary, the Commission's authority to issue and deny class A gaming

licenses is limited to specific circumstances and is subject to reporting and review requirements. 27. For example, section 6.4.3 of the Tribal-State Compact provides that, in addition to

all of the requirements set forth in the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance and the IGRA, the

Commission must be satisfied that an applicant for a license is:

(a) A person of good character, honesty and integrity.


AndyTwietmeyerSticky Note See also 2710(d)(1)(A)(ii) providing that Class III gaming is lawful only if authorized by an ordinance that meets the requirements of 2710(b).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(b) A person whose prior activities, criminal record (if any), reputation, habits, and associations do not pose a threat to the public interest or to the effective regulation and control of gambling, or create or enhance the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal practices, methods, or activities in the conduct of gambling, or in the carrying on of the business and financial arrangements incidental thereto. ( c) A person who is in all other respects qualified to be licensed as provided in this Gaming Compact, IGRA, the Tribal Gaming Ordinance, and any other criteria adopted by the Tribal Gaming Agency or the Tribe. An applicant shall not be found to be unsuitable solely on the ground that the applicant was an employee of a tribal gaming operation in California that was conducted prior to the effective date of this Compact.

28. Additionally, section 6.4.8 of the Tribal-State Compact provides that the Commission shall conduct or cause to be conducted all necessary background investigations reasonably

required to determine that an applicant is qualified for a gaming license under the standards set

forth in Section 6.4.3 of the Tribal-State Compact, and to fulfill the requirements for licensing

under the Tribal-State Compact, the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, and the IGRA.

29. Additionally, IGRA section 2710(b)(2)(F)(ii)(llI) requires the Commission to notify the NIGC of the results of its background investigation of any applicant before the Commission

issues a class A gaming license to that applicant.

30. Additionally, under Section 6.5.6 of the Tribal-State Compact, the Commission may

not license any applicant for a class A gaming license without first notifying the State of its

intent to license and without first requiring the applicant to apply to the State Gaming Agency

for a determination of suitability. Under section 6.4.4(b), subject to limited exceptions, the Pechanga Band may not employ any person for whom the State has not issued a determination

of suitability.

31. Additionally, the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance Section 10( e )( 1) provides that prior to issuing a class A gaming license:

The Gaming Commission shall conduct or cause to be conducted a background investigation to determine if such person has:


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(a) Any criminal record or any reputation, prior activities, habits or associations which might pose a threat to the public interest or to the effective regulation of gaming.

(b) Anything else in their background which might create or enhance the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal practices and methods and activities in the conduct of gaming.

Persons who do not meet the above qualifications shall be denied a Class A license.

(Italics added) 32. Additionally, under Title 25 section 556.5(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, if

the Commission refuses to license an applicant for a Gaming License, the Commission is

required to notify the National Indian Gaming Commission of its decision. See also Pechanga Gaming Ordinance 10(n)(4); 10(p)(3).

33. Just as there are limits on the Commission's authority to issue and deny gaming

licenses, under the Tribal-State Compact, the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, and the IGRA, the

Commission does not have discretionary authority to suspend, and revoke gaming licenses as to

any license holder it pleases.

34. On the contrary, Under section 6.5.5 of the Tribal-State Compact and section lOU); lO(m); and lO(p)(l) ofthe Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Commission's authority to suspend and revoke class A gaming licenses is confined to specific circwnstances where the license

holder is 1) found to be a threat to the, public interest, public health or safety or to the effective regulation of gaming, or creates or enhances the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal

practices, methods and activities in the conduct of gaming; 2) has failed to conduct himself with honesty, integrity, and with such decorum and manners as may be necessary to reflect positively

on the Pechanga Band, its members and the casino's gaming activities; or 3) has violated any rule, ordinance, custom or tradition of the Pechanga Band, the reservation or the gaming

activities or terms and conditions of the license.


1 35. Additionally, under section 10(p)(2) of the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, a license 2 holder is entitled to written notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Commission may

3 revoke a license.

4 36. Under 25 CFR section 558.5(d), after it conducts a revocation hearing, the 5 Commission is required notify the National Indian Gaming Commission of its decision to revoke

6 a gaming license.

7 3 7. At all times relevant herein the Gaming Commission had regulations in place

8 dictating the scope and procedure for licensing hearings. However those regulations did not

9 provide for an open adversarial proceeding and did not provide for any meaningful procedural

1 O safeguards.

11 38. The regulations provided that the Commission was the sole and final authority on all

12 licensing decisions and that if a licensee wished to review a Commission's revocation of his or

13 her license, the licensee could file a petition with the Commission setting forth the basis for a

14 request for reconsideration of the Commission's decision and a hearing.

15 39. The regulations further provided that, if granted, such a hearing would be closed to

16 the public unless opened to the public by a majority vote of the Commission. 17 40. The hearing regulations did not provide that any decision of the Commission is

18 precedential, nor did they require the Commission to publish or otherwise notify anyone,

19 including the licensee, of the reasons for the Commission's decision.

20 41. The regulations did not provide that a licensee may be represented by counsel at any

21 hearing. They did not provide that a licensee have the opportunity to present evidence at a

22 hearing. Nor did the hearing regulations even provide that a licensee will receive written notice

23 of the reasons for his or her revocation prior to a hearing on reconsideration of that revocation.

24 42. Furthermore, the hearing regulations did not provide a licensee who is not a member

25 of the Pechanga Band with any meaningful opportunity to challenge a decision of the

26 Commission through appeal.

27

28


1 B. Mr. Cosentino Goes to Work for the Pechanga Casino and Witnesses Rampant

2 Criminal Activity

3 43. In or about April, 2007, Mr. Cosentino commenced employment as a table games

4 dealer at the Pechanga Casino.

5 44. When he commenced that employment, Mr. Cosentino already had 9 years of

6 experience working as a table games dealer in other Casinos in Nevada and California.

7 45. A table games dealer is a "key employee" as that term is defined both in Section 2(h) 8 of the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, and at 25 C.F.R. 502.14. Therefore, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 9 2710(2)(F)(ii), Section 6.4.1 of the Tribal-State Compact, and Section lO(e)(l) of the Pechanga

1 O Gaming Ordinance, prior to being hired, Mr. Cosentino was required to obtain, and did obtain, a

11 class A gaming license from the Commission.

12 46. During his first day on the job, Mr. Cosentino attended an orientation session. In that 13 session, a representative of the Pechanga Casino's human resources department told all present

14 that they should come forward if any of them saw anything improper happening at the Pechanga

15 Casino. He told the employees, "we don't retaliate."

16 47. In his first few months of employment at the Pechanga Casino, Mr. Cosentino

1 7 witnessed numerous instances of criminal misconduct including the operation of an illegal

18 online casino being operated from the floor of the Pechanga Casino; arrangement of illegal

19 marriages; loan sharking; buying and selling jobs at the Pechanga Casino; extortion and bribery; 20 comp fraud; rampant employee theft; collusion between corrupt dealers, supervisors & players.

21 48. Mr. Cosentino was very troubled by what he saw, and, in or about June 2007, he

22 confided in his licensing agent at the Pechanga Casino, Ms. Hiroko Arnold about all of the

23 criminal activity that he was witnessing. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Cosentino received a call from

24 Pechanga Casino compliance officer, Tim Hawk. Mr. Hawk told Mr. Cosentino that he gave Mr.

25 Cosentino's contact information to Walter McKinney and Martin Hughes of McKinney

26 Investigations, LLC.

27

28

9 COMPLAJNT FOR DAMAGES

49. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that in or about

2 May 2007, the Pechanga Development Corporation hired McKinney Investigations to conduct

3 an internal investigation into criminal corruption involving high-level employees of the

4 Pechanga Casino.

5 50. In or about July 2007, Mr. Cosentino met with Mr. McKinney and Mr. Hughes and

6 told them what he had witnessed happening at the Pechanga Casino. Mr. Hughes asked Mr.

7 Cosentino if Mr. Cosentino would assist the California Department of Justice as a confidential

8 informant. Mr. Cosentino agreed to do so.

9 51. Thereafter, Mr. Cosentino assisted the Department of Justice as an informant on

10 numerous criminal investigations.

11 52. Mr. Cosentino agreed to assist law enforcement because he could not bear to stand

12 idle while the Pechanga Band was robbed by their patrons and their own employees.

13 53. Through his assistance as a confidential informant, Mr. Cosentino risked his personal

14 safety to help prevent theft from the Pechanga Band and to protect the integrity of the Pechanga

15 Casino's gaming activities.

16 54. With Mr. Cosentino's assistance, law enforcement identified corrupt Pechanga Casino

17 employees and patrons, and developed evidence which lead to several convictions.

18 55. In May 2009, Mr. Cosentino accompanied Mr. McKinney and Mr. Hughes to a

19 meeting with the Pechanga Gaming Commission. The Commission was then lead by Chairman,

20 Norman Pico. Mr. Pico passed away in 2010. Defendants Maldonado, and Ramos also sat on

21 the Commission at that time.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


56. In that May 2009 meeting, Mr. Cosentino told the Commission about his assistance to

2 McKinney Investigations and the Department of Justice as a confidential informant. Mr.

3 Cosentino told the Commission about the ongoing criminal activities happening at the Pechanga

4 Casino. Chairman Pico thanked Mr. Cosentino repeatedly and asked him why he had gotten

5 involved. Mr. Cosentino replied that to see what he saw and do nothing would have been too

6 hard to live with.

7 57. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that after the May

8 2009 meeting, the Commission sought the assistance of the United States Department of Justice,

9 the California Department of Justice and the Riverside County District Attorney's Office in

10 investigating criminal corruption at the Pechanga Casino involving vendors, employees, and

11 elected officials of the Pechanga Band.

12 58. From then on, Chairman Pico frequently sought Mr. Cosentino out to speak with him

13 about what was happening on the Pechanga Casino floor. Chairman Pico repeatedly thanked Mr.

14 Cosentino for his help.

15 59. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that in or about

16 December 2009, Defendant Fuller was elected to the Commission.

17 60. In October 2010, Chairman Pico passed away leaving a vacant seat on the

18 commission which then consisted of Defendants Fuller (who became Chairwoman), Vargas, 19 Ramos, and Maldonado.

20 61. On March 6, 2011 the Band held an election to fill the empty seat on the Commission

21 left when Chairman Pico passed away. Defendant Magee was elected to fill that seat on the

22 Commission.

23

24

25

26

27

28


c.

2

Defendants Wrongfully Revoke Mr. Cosentino's Gaming License in Retaliation

for Mr. Cosentino's Assistance to Law Enforcement As a Confidential Informant.

3 62. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that on March 29,

4 2011, the Commission notified the Pechanga Casino's director of table games, Thomas Butler, by

5 email, that the Commission wanted to meet privately with Mr. Cosentino at 11 :00 a.m. on Friday

6 April 1, 2011. The Commission did not send that email to Mr. Cosentino or otherwise notify Mr.

7 Cosentino of its desire to meet with Mr. Cosentino.

8 63. Instead, Mr. Cosentino learned about the March 29, 2011 meeting the following day

9 from his licensing consultant, Valentina Hildebrand. Ms. Hildebrand surreptitiously informed

1 O Mr. Cosentino about the meeting and asked Mr. Cosentino not to tell anyone that she had told 11 him.

12 64. Mr. Cosentino's regular Friday shift began at 12:00 p.m. However, on Thursday,

13 March 31, 2011, Mr. Cosentino's floor supervisor informed Mr. Cosentino that he was to report

14 to work and start his shift that Friday at 10:00 a.m.

15 65. Mr. Cosentino was dismayed to learn that the Table Games Department had

16 rescheduled his shift to conflict with his 11 :00 a.m. meeting with the Commission. However, to

17 protect Ms. Hildebrand's confidence, he did not protest the scheduling change. He hoped that

18 the scheduling change was an unfortunate coincidence and that, when summoned by the

19 Commission, his supervisor would simply relieve him from his shift.

20 66. On Friday April 1, 2011, Mr. Cosentino commenced his shift at 10:00 a.m. as

21 scheduled. At 11 :00 a.m. Mr. Cosentino was still at his assigned table with chips in play. The

22 rules of the Pechanga Casino strictly forbade Mr. Cosentino from leaving his table until relieved

23 by another dealer.

24 67. At approximately 11 :25 a.m., another dealer finally appeared at Mr. Cosentino's table

25 and relieved him. Mr. Cosentino's floor supervisor then told Mr. Cosentino to go to the

26 Pechanga Casino's table games office.

27

28


1 68. Mr. Cosentino did as he was told. When he arrived at the table games office he was

2 left standing there for approximately twenty minutes. Mr. Butler's secretary, Marcia Yount, then

3 told Mr. Cosentino that Mr. Cosentino was supposed to have met with the Commission at 11 :00

4 a.m. Mr. Cosentino explained that he was at his table with chips in play working his assigned

5 shift and that he was not relieved until 11 :25.

6 69. Mr. Cosentino was then informed that he was suspended pending an investigation,

7 and Mr. Cosentino was immediately escorted from the Pechanga Casino and told that he was

8 barred from the premises until further notice.

9 70. In the following days, Mr. Cosentino called the Pechanga Casino every few days to

10 inquire about his status and when he could return to work. No one returned Mr. Cosentino's

11 calls.

12 71. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that on April 19,

13 2011, defendant Ramos, caused a letter (the "April 19 Letter") to be sent to Mr. Cosentino's 14 former address--though Mr. Cosentino had provided the Pechanga Casino with a current P.O.

15 Box where he was receiving mail--and where he had received prior correspondence from the

16 Pechanga Casino.

17 72. The April 19 Letter states:

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Pechanga Gaming Commission has reviewed your application for a Class A Gaming License in connection with your employment, and has determined that you are not suitable for a gaming license.

We have notified the Pechanga Resort & Casino and the Security Department of the Pechanga Resort & Casino that your Class A License has been suspended with the intent to revoke. As a result, you are not eligible to work at the Pechanga Resort & Casino.

You have (15) days from the date of this letter to contact the Gaming commission and request a hearing for reconsideration of the above decision. The appeal procedures are set forth on the attached sheet. Should you choose not to request reconsideration of the above decision, your license ineligibility will stand.


1

2 73. Because defendant Ramos sent the April 19 Letter to Mr. Cosentino's former address,

3 Mr. Cosentino did not receive the letter. Consequently, Mr. Cosentino did not know that he

4 could petition the Commission to request a hearing, and, therefore Mr. Cosentino did not

5 petition the Commission to request a hearing.

6 74. On or about May 4, 2011, Mr. Cosentino called Defendant Ramos. Mr. Cosentino

7 asked Defendant Ramos whether Mr. Cosentino was fired. Defendant Ramos told Mr. Cosentino

8 repeatedly that Mr. Cosentino was not fired and that the Commission just wanted to talk with 9 Mr. Cosentino. Defendant Ramos requested that Mr. Cosentino meet with the Commission.

10 7 5. Defendant Ramos did not tell Mr. Cosentino that the Commission had suspended Mr.

11 Cosentino's license with intent to revoke or that Mr. Cosentino could petition the Commission to

12 request a hearing on the suspension and revocation of Mr. Cosentino's license.

13 76. At Defendant Ramos's request, Mr. Cosentino agreed to meet with the Commission,

14 and Defendant Ramos referred Mr. Cosentino to the Commission's secretary Sally Bora, who set

15 an appointment for Mr. Cosentino to meet with the Commission on May 11th at 11:30 a.m.

16 77. Ms. Bora told Mr. Cosentino that she would mail Mr. Cosentino a letter confirming

17 the appointment and she requested Mr. Cosentino's mailing address. Mr. Cosentino stated that

18 he would come to retrieve the letter from Ms. Bora.

19 78. On May 5, 2011, Mr. Cosentino went to retrieve the letter (the "May 4 Letter") from 20 Ms. Bora. That letter states:

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Pechanga Gaming Commission is in receipt of your request for a hearing regarding your Gaming License status. Your hearing date is scheduled for Wednesday, May 11th at 11:30 am. The hearing will take place in the Pechanga Gaming Commission offices. Please call 951-693-1821, ext. 2794 to confirm the date and time of your hearing.


1 79. The May 4, 2011 Letter falsely states that Mr. Cosentino requested a hearing on his

2 suspension. As stated in paragraph 71 above, because the Commission mailed the April 19

3 Letter to Mr. Cosentino's former address, Mr. Cosentino had never been informed that the

4 Commission intended to revoke his gaming license or that he could petition for a hearing. On

5 the contrary, Mr. Cosentino had agreed to meet with the Commission pursuant to Defendant

6 Ramos's request during their telephone conversation of May 4, 2011. Mr. Cosentino told Ms.

7 Bora that he never requested a hearing, but that he was meeting with the Commission at the

8 Commission's request.

9 80. On May 11, 2011, Mr. Cosentino returned to the offices of the Commission for the

10 meeting as scheduled. Prior to entering the meeting, Ms. Bora gave Mr. Cosentino the April 19,

11 2011 letter informing Mr. Cosentino, for the first time, that the Commission intended to revoke

12 Mr. Cosentino's license.

13 81. Neither the April 19, 2011 letter nor any communication from the Commission to Mr.

14 Cosentino prior to the May 11, 2011 meeting identified the reasons for the Commission's intent

15 to revoke Mr. Cosentino's license.

16 82. Mr. Cosentino then met alone with the five members of the Commission (Defendants 17 Fuller, Vargas, Ramos, Maldonado, and Magee). No one other than Mr. Cosentino and those 18 five Defendants was present for the duration of the meeting.

19 83. Each of the five Commissioners shook Mr. Cosentino's hand and thanked him for

20 meeting with them. Defendant Ramos asked Mr. Cosentino if they could record the meeting,

21 and Defendant Fuller told Mr. Cosentino that the meeting was between he and the five

22 Commissioners only and that "nothing said will leave this room." Mr. Cosentino agreed to allow

23 the Commission to record the meeting.

24 84. The meeting then commenced. Mr. Cosentino asked the Commissioners ifhe was

25 fired. Defendants responded that Mr. Cosentino was not fired.

26

27

28


1 85. The Commission then proceeded to ask Mr. Cosentino questions about his assistance

2 to McKinney Investigations and the Department of Justice as a confidential informant.

3 86. The meeting was not a hearing on Mr. Cosentino's fitness to retain his Pechanga

4 Gaming License. Instead, the meeting was an intense interrogation session during which

5 Defendants pressured Mr. Cosentino to disclose what information Mr. Cosentino knew and what

6 he had shared with McKinney Investigations and law enforcement.

7 87. During the course of the interrogation, Defendant Fuller repeatedly interrupted Mr.

8 Cosentino, scowled at him and at one point, even shouted at him.

9 88. The interrogation went on for over an hour. At the end of the interrogation,

10 Defendant Fuller stated to Mr. Cosentino, before she left the room, that the Commission would

11 notify Mr. Cosentino of its decision. Mr. Cosentino asked, "what decision?" Ms. Fuller

12 responded that she was referring to the Commission's decision about revoking Mr. Cosentino's

13 gaming license.

14 89. On May 13, 2011, Defendant Ramos telephoned Mr. Cosentino and left a voicemail.

15 Mr. Cosentino returned Defendant Ramos's call and the two spoke.

16 90. During the course of that call, Defendant Ramos repeatedly pressured Mr. Cosentino

17 to resign from employment at the Pechanga Casino. Defendant Ramos told Mr. Cosentino that,

18 if Mr. Cosentino would not resign, the Commission would revoke Mr. Cosentino's gaming

19 license--effectively preventing Mr. Cosentino from ever getting another job in any tribal casino. 20 91. Mr. Cosentino was confused by Defendant Ramos's insistence that he resign and

21 shocked to learn that the Commission was intent upon revoking his gaming license should he

22 refuse to resign.

23

24

25

26

27

28


1 92. Mr. Cosentino asked Defendant Ramos if the Commission intended to revoke his

2 gaming license because he missed the April 1, 2011 meeting. Defendant Ramos told Mr.

3 Cosentino that missing the April 1 meeting was one reason, however, Defendant Ramos also

4 admitted that the Commission received a letter from Mr. Cosentino's supervisor stating that he

5 had kept Mr. Cosentino at his table and thereby prevented Mr. Cosentino from attending the

6 April 1 meeting.

7 93. Defendant Ramos said that the other reasons for revoking Benny's gaming license

8 were personal and that Defendant Ramos could not share them with Mr. Cosentino.

9 94. Mr. Cosentino asked Defendant Ramos if the Commission had voted unanimously to

10 revoke his Gaming License. Defendant Ramos refused to tell Mr. Cosentino whether or not the

11 vote was unanimous.

12 95. Mr. Cosentino refused to resign stating that he had done nothing wrong and that ifthe

13 Pechanga Casino was going to fire him he needed to apply for unemployment insurance benefits

14 while he sought another job. Defendant Ramos stated that the Commission would send Mr. 15 Cosentino a letter revoking Mr. Cosentino's gaming license.

16 96. On or about May 18, 2011, Mr. Cosentino received a Team Member Separation Form

17 from the Pechanga Casino. The form was mailed to his P.O. Box. The form indicates that Mr.

18 Cosentino' s employment with the Pechanga Casino was involuntarily terminated as of May 17,

19 2011 for Mr. Cosentino's failure to maintain his gaming license.

20 97. On or about May 25, the Commission's secretary, Sally Bora, telephoned Mr.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cosentino to inform him that she had a letter for him to pick up. The letter was addressed to Mr.

Cosentino at his former address and signed by Defendant Fuller, it read:

Your licensing application has again been reviewed by the Pechanga Gaming Commission in a hearing held on May 11, 2011 and it has been determined that you are not suitable for a Class A Gaming License therefore your license is hereby revoked.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In accordance with the Gaming Ordinance of the Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians a license may be revoked upon a finding by the Commission of a violation of the Gaming Ordinance or regulations. A person holding a Gaming License shall be notified in writing that his/her license has been revoked.

Notice of restrictions are as follows: you are hereby restricted from the Pechanga Resort & Pechanga Casino Property for a period of twelve (12) months.

(underlining in original) 98. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that because the

Commission had no legitimate reason for revoking Mr. Cosentino's gaming license, neither the

Commission nor any Defendant reported the revocation of Mr. Cosentino's class A gaming

license to the NIGC.

99. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that despite

Defendants' promise that his May 11, 2011 meeting with the Commission would remain strictly

between he and the five Commissioners, Defendants have shared the transcript or recording of

that meeting with third persons.

100. Since his termination, Mr. Cosentino has applied for work as a table games dealer at

numerous tribal casinos hoping against hope that he can secure a job in his chosen occupation. 101. Each and every suchjob application has required Mr. Cosentino to state his reasons

for leaving his prior position. Mr. Cosentino has truthfully answered these inquiries by stating

that the Commission suspended and revoked his class A gaming license in May 2011 . Mr.

Cosentino has been denied employment at every Casino where he has applied.

102. A representative of one such Casino told Mr. Cosentino that, because Mr. Cosentino

had had a gaming license revoked, they would not hire him for any position whatsoever.


1 D. In a Tribal Forum with over 300 Attendees, Defendant Fuller Exposes Mr.

2 Cosentino as a Department of Justice Confidential Informant.

3 103. In or about December 2011, Pechanga Development Corporation board member, Ken

4 Perez, contacted Mr. Cosentino. He asked Mr. Cosentino to meet with the Pechanga Tribal

5 Council and tell them about Mr. Cosentino's experience at the Pechanga Casino.

6 104. On December 13, 2011, Mr. Cosentino met privately with the Pechanga Tribal

7 Council. Mr. Cosentino told them about his experience including 1) how he witnessed criminal 8 activity at the Pechanga Casino; 2) how he came forward to report that criminal activity; 3) how 9 he assisted law enforcement in rooting out corruption and convicting Pechanga Casino

10 employees and patrons who had robbed money from the Pechanga Band; 4) how he was 11 summoned to a meeting with the Commission that his supervisors prevented him from attending;

12 5) how he was suspended from work at the Pechanga Casino on April 1, 2011; 6) how on May 13 11, 2011, the Commission summoned him to its offices to interrogate him about his assistance to

14 law enforcement; and 7) how, after interrogating Mr. Cosentino, the Commission demanded that 15 Mr. Cosentino resign and revoked his gaming license when he refused to do so.

16 105. The Members of the Pechanga Tribal Council in attendance at the December 13, 2011

17 meeting all thanked Mr. Cosentino and apologized to Mr. Cosentino for what he had been

18 through.

19 106. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that after meeting

20 with Mr. Cosentino, the Pechanga Tribal Council decided to have McKinney investigations

21 present the results of its internal investigation to the Pechanga Band.

22 107. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that on or about

23 March 11, 2012, McKinney Investigations gave a presentation to the Pechanga Band which was

24 attended by over 300 people (the "March 2012 Presentation"). 25 108. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that individuals

26 with ties to organized crime were in the audience at the March 2012 Presentation.

27

28


1 109. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that during the

2 March 2012 Presentation, McKinney investigations presented the audience with the results of its

3 investigation into official corruption at the Pechanga Casino.

4 110. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that during that

5 presentation McKinney investigations (without disclosing Mr. Cosentino's identity) presented 6 Mr. Cosentino's story to the Pechanga Band.

7 111. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that after

8 McKinney Investigations concluded its presentation, Defendant Fuller spoke to the audience.


1 O Fuller identified Mr. Cosentino repeatedly by name before the entire audience in attendance, and

11 even referred to portions of the transcript of Mr. Cosentino's May 11, 2011 meeting with the

12 Commission-which meeting Defendant Fuller herself had assured Mr. Cosentino would be kept

13 secret. Defendant Fuller thus exposed Mr. Cosentino's identity as a confidential informant.

14 113. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that on March 12,

15 2012, Defendant Fuller resigned her seat on the Commission under pressure from the Pechanga

16 Tribal Council.

17 114. On March 16, 2012, Defendant Vargas mailed a letter to Mr. Cosentino's Post Office

18 box. The letter states:

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Pechanga Gaming Commission wishes to inform you that we have reconsidered the revocation of your Gaming License. After further review, your Gaming License status with the Pechanga Gaming Commission is no longer considered to be revoked.

The Pechanga Gaming Commission determines suitability based upon standards set forth by the Tribe and the National Indian Gaming Commission. Ultimately, it is our goal to serve the best interests of all involved, including the licensee. It is our belief that this action best serves those interests.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Pechanga Gaming Commission shall maintain a copy of this letter as part of your licensing file.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH

PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

(against all Defendants) 115. Mr. Cosentino incorporates paragraphs 1 through 114 above in their entirety as

though fully set forth herein.

116. Through his employment with the Pechanga Casino as a table games dealer, Mr.

Cosentino had an existing and prospective economic relationship with the Pechanga Casino.

117. Mr. Cosentino's economic relationship with the Pechanga Casino was economically advantageous to Mr. Cosentino.

118. Mr. Cosentino's economic relationship with the Pechanga Casino was likely to

continue and to benefit Mr. Cosentino economically for the remainder of his working years.

119. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that on or about

March 29, 2011, Defendants Fuller, Vargas, Ramos, Magee, Maldonado and DOES 1through50

and each of them, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to interfere

with Mr. Cosentino's advantageous economic relationship with the Pechanga Casino.

120. Pursuant to and in furtherance of that conspiracy, Defendants, and each of them

agreed to suspend and later revoke Mr. Cosentino's class A gaming license in retaliation for Mr.

Cosentino's assistance to McKinney Investigations and law enforcement, and despite the fact

that there was no legal or factual basis for such a revocation.

121 . In suspending and revoking Mr. Cosentino's gaming license without cause,

Defendants acted in excess of the authority granted to Defendants under the Pechanga Gaming

Ordinance, the Tribal-State Compact, and the IGRA and in violation of the rules, regulations and

statutes governing the Commission.


1 122. Pursuant to and in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy to interfere with Mr.

2 Cosentino's prospective economic relations with the Pechanga Band, on March 11, 2012,

3 Defendant Fuller exposed Mr. Cosentino's identity as a confidential informant in a forum with

4 over 300 Pechanga Band members in attendance, thereby ensuring that Mr. Cosentino, with his

5 cover now exposed, could never again safely work at the Pechanga Casino.

6 123. Defendants, engaged in the above-alleged conduct with the intent to disrupt the

7 economic relationship between Mr. Cosentino and the Pechanga Casino knowing that, without a

8 class A gaming license, Mr. Cosentino could not continue his employment with the Pechanga

9 Casino and that Mr. Cosentino would be permanently removed from the Pechanga Casino, thus,

1 O ensuring that Mr. Cosentino would no longer be in a position to assist with any investigation of

11 criminal activity at the Pechanga Casino, and further knowing that even if his license were re-

12 instated, with his cover blown, Mr. Cosentino could never safely return to work at the Pechanga

13 Casino.

14 124. As a direct result of Defendants' wrongful acts alleged above, the Pechanga Casino

15 was required to, and did, terminate Mr. Cosentino's employment.

16 125. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful acts alleged above, Mr.

1 7 Cosentino has been stymied in his search for new employment in his chosen occupation because

18 each Casino to which he applies asks him to report what his most recent position was and why

19 he left, and refuses to hire him when he answers that he worked at the Pechanga Casino and left

20 because his license was revoked.

21 126. Defendants' conduct was independently wrongful.

22 127. Defendants and each Defendant did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant to,

23 and in furtherance of the conspiracy and their above-alleged agreement.

24

25

26

27

28


1 128. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the last overt

2 act in pursuance of the above-alleged conspiracy occurred on or about March 11, 2012 when

3 Defendant Fuller disclosed Mr. Cosentino's identify as a confidential Department of Justice

4 informant before an audience of 300 people.

5 129. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Mr. Cosentino has suffered

6 injuries and damages including, but not limited to, past and future lost earnings and earning 7 capacity and severe emotional distress in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceed the

8 minimum jurisdictional limits of this court. 9 130. Defendants' conduct described above was willful, malicious, and oppressive and was

10 undertaken with the intent to inflict injury on Mr. Cosentino and with conscious disregard of Mr. 11 Cosentino's rights, thereby warranting an assessment of punitive damages in an amount

12 appropriate to punish each Defendant and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct.

13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH

14 PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

15 (against all Defendants) 16 131. Mr. Cosentino incorporates paragraphs 1 through 130 above in their entirety as

1 7 though fully set forth herein.

18 132. Mr. Cosentino had an existing and prospective business relationship with the

19 Pechanga Casino working as a Table Games dealer.

20 133. Because of their licensing authority as members of the Commission, Defendants

21 Fuller, Vargas, Magee, Ramos, and Maldonado had a special relationship with Mr. Cosentino

22 and, therefore, owed Mr. Cosentino a duty of due care to assess his suitability for a class A

23 gaming license according to the standards set forth in the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the

24 Tribal-State Compact, and the IGRA.

25

26

27

28


1 134. Furthermore, by virtue of their authority as members of the Commission, Defendants

2 owed Mr. Cosentino a duty of due care to maintain Mr. Cosentino's identity as a confidential

3 informant in the strictest confidence.

4 135. At the time Defendants revoked Mr. Cosentino's gaming license, Defendants knew or

5 should have known that, without a class A gaming license, Mr. Cosentino could not continue his

6 employment with the Pechanga Casino and that Mr. Cosentino would be permanently removed

7 from the Pechanga Casino.

8 136. At the time Defendants revoked Mr. Cosentino's gaming license, Defendants knew or

9 should have known that, when Mr. Cosentino applied for future employment in his chosen

1 O occupation prospective employers would require him to explain why he left the Pechanga Casino

11 and that no Casino would hire Mr. Cosentino when he truthfully explained that his Pechanga

12 Gaming license was revoked.

13 137. At the time Defendants wrongfully disclosed Mr. Cosentino's identity as a

14 confidential informant by sharing the May 11, 2011 transcript with third persons, Defendants

15 knew or should have known that with his cover blown, Mr. Cosentino could never safely return

16 to employment at the Pechanga Casino.

17 138. Defendants negligently breached their duty to Mr. Cosentino and interfered with Mr.

18 Cosentino's economic relationship with the Pechanga Casino by suspending and revoking Mr.

19 Cosentino's class A gaming license without cause and in excess of the authority granted to

20 Defendants under the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Tribal-State Compact, and the IGRA.

21 139. Defendants negligently breached their duty to Mr. Cosentino and interfered with Mr.

22 Cosentino's economic relationship with the Pechanga Casino by disclosing Mr. Cosentino's

23 identity as a confidential informant.

24 140. Defendants' conduct was independently wrongful.

25

26

27

28


141. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Mr. Cosentino has suffered

2 injuries and damages including, but not limited to, past and future lost earnings and earning 3 capacity in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits o 4 this court.

5 TIDRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH

6 PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO PURSUE A LAWFUL OCCUPATION

7 (against all Defendants) 8 142. Mr. Cosentino incorporates paragraphs 1through141 above in their entirety as

9 though fully set forth herein.

1 O 14 3. At all times alleged herein, Mr. Cosentino had a right to pursue any lawful calling,

11 business, or profession of his choice as stated in Willis v. Santa Ana Comm. Hosp. Ass'n, 58 Cal.

12 2d 806; 26 Cal. Rptr. 640 (1962). 13 144. At the time Defendants revoked Mr. Cosentino's gaming license, Mr. Cosentino had

14 already devoted 13 years to learning the trade of table games dealing. Mr. Cosentino intended to

15 continue working at Pechanga, or in other tribal casinos for the remainder of his career.

16 145. At all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants knew that, pursuant to section

17 27 lO(b )(2)(F) of the IGRA all tribal gaming agencies conduct background investigations into 18 applicants for employment prior to issuing a gaming license for a table games dealer or other

19 key employee.

20 146. At all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants knew that to comply with section

21 271 O(b )(2)(F), tribal casino's and tribal gaming agencies require applicant's for employment and 22 licensing to disclose any past revocations of a gaming license.

23

24

25

26

27

28


14 7. At all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants knew that among tribal gaming

2 agencies and tribal casinos, revocation of a gaming license is generally understood to mean that

3 the revoked licensee has engaged in activities that pose a threat to the public interest or to the

4 effective regulation of gaming, or create or enhance the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal

5 practices and methods and activities in the conduct of gaming.

6 148. At all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants knew that as a result of the

7 requirements of section 2710(b)(2)(F), Mr. Cosentino will be required to disclose the revocation 8 of his license to any tribal casino at which he seeks employment.

9 149. Accordingly, Defendants knew that by revoking Mr. Cosentino's gaming license, 1 O Defendants would effectively prevent Mr. Cosentino from ever securing employment in his

11 chosen occupation at any tribal casino.


13 March 29, 2011, Defendants Fuller, Vargas, Ramos, Magee, Maldonado and DOES 1through50

14 and each of them, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to interfere

15 with Mr. Cosentino's right to pursue a lawful occupation as a table games dealer.

16 151. Pursuant to and in furtherance of that conspiracy, Defendants, and each of them

17 agreed to suspend and later revoke Mr. Cosentino's class A gaming license in retaliation for Mr.

18 Cosentino's assistance to McKinney Investigations and law enforcement, and despite the fact

19 that there was no legal or factual basis for such a revocation.

20 152. Pursuant to and in furtherance of that conspiracy, Defendants, and each of them

21 agreed to disclose Mr. Cosentino's identity as a confidential informant by sharing the transcript

22 of the May 11, 2011 meeting with third persons-despite their explicit promise to Mr. Cosentino

23 that everything said in that meeting would not leave the room.

24 15 3. Pursuant to and in furtherance of that conspiracy, Defendant Fuller, on March 11,

25 2012 disclosed Mr. Cosentino's identity as a confidential informant in a tribal forum with over

26 300 people present.

27

28


154. Defendants, engaged in the above-alleged conduct with the intent to interfere with

2 Mr. Cosentino's pursuit of a lawful calling as a table games dealer knowing that, having had his

3 license revoked, Mr. Cosentino would not thereafter be able to secure employment at any tribal

4 Casino and further knowing that even if his Pechanga Gaming License were re-instated, with his

5 cover blown, Mr. Cosentino could never safely return to work at the Pechanga Casino.

6 155. Defendants revoked Mr. Cosentino's license without justification and acted in excess 7 of the authority granted to Defendants under the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Tribal-State

8 Compact, and the IGRA and in violation of the rules, regulations and statutes governing the

9 Commission.

10 156. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions alleged above, Mr. Cosentino

11 has been stymied in his search for new employment in his chosen occupation because Mr.

12 Cosentino can not safely return to employment at the Pechanga Casino and each other Casino to

13 which he applies asks him to report his employment history and why he left his most recent

14 position and then refuses to hire him when he answers that he left the Pechanga Casino because

15 his license was revoked.

16 157. Defendants and each Defendant did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant to,

17 and in furtherance of the conspiracy and their above-alleged agreement.



20 Defendant Fuller disclosed Mr. Cosentino's identity as a confidential informant in a tribal forum

21 with over 300 people present.


23 injuries and damages including, but not limited to, past and future lost earnings and earning 24 capacity and severe emotional distress in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceed the

25 minimum jurisdictional limits of this court. 26

27

28


1 160. Defendants' conduct described above was willful, malicious, and oppressive and was

2 undertaken with the intent to inflict injury on Mr. Cosentino and with conscious disregard of Mr. 3 Cosentino's rights, thereby warranting an assessment of punitive damages in an amount


5 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE

6 SECTION 52.1


9 though fully set forth herein

10 162. At all times alleged herein Mr. Cosentino had the right under Article I, section 2 of

11 the California Constitution to speak freely.

12 163. By virtue of the rights granted in Article I section 2 of the California Constitution,

13 Mr. Cosentino had the right to speak freely about any criminal activities that Mr. Cosentino

14 witnessed at the Pechanga Casino.

15 164. By virtue of the rights granted in Article I section 2 of the California Constitution,

16 Mr. Cosentino had the right to refrain from speaking about his assistance to McKinney

17 Investigations and law enforcement.

18 165. At all times alleged herein, Mr. Cosentino had a fundamental right under Article I,

19 sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution; the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

20 Constitution and California common law as stated in Reid v. Mass Co .. 155 Cal.App. 2D 293,

21 301 (1957); to pursue any lawful calling, business, or profession. 22 166. By virtue of the rights granted to Mr. Cosentino in Article I, sections 1 and 7 of the

23 California Constitution; the Common law of California; the Fourteenth Amendment to the

24 United States Constitution; and the Federal Common law, Mr. Cosentino had the right to pursue

25 his continued employment as a table games dealer with the Pechanga Casino until he wished to

26 resign or until the Pechanga Casino terminated his employment.

27

28


1 167. By virtue of25 U.S.C. 1302(8), Mr. Cosentino had the right to equal protection of 2 the Pechanga Band's laws and the right not to be deprived of his property without due process of

3 law.

4 168. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that beginning on

5 or about March 29, 2011 Defendants Fuller, Vargas, Ramos, Magee, Maldonado and DOES 1

6 through 50 and each of them, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves

7 to suspend Mr. Cosentino's gaming license without cause and thereafter threaten to revoke Mr.

8 Cosentino's gaming license in an effort to intimidate and retaliate against Mr. Cosentino for his

9 speech to McKinney Investigations and law enforcement; to coerce Mr. Cosentino to stop

1 O speaking to McKinney Investigations and law enforcement; to coerce Mr. Cosentino to submit

11 his resignation to the Pechanga Casino.

12 169. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the above-

13 identified Defendants also knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves that

14 if Mr. Cosentino refused (despite their intimidation and coercion) to resign from the Pechanga 15 Casino, that Defendants would revoke his gaming license in retaliation for his speech with

16 McKinney Investigations and law enforcement and his refusal to resign.

17 170. Pursuant to, and in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy, on April 1, 2011,

18 Defendants suspended Mr. Cosentino's gaming license without justification and in excess of the 19 Commission's authority under the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Tribal State Compact, and

20 the IGRA.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


1 171. Pursuant to and in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy, on May 11, 2011,

2 Defendants subjected Mr. Cosentino to an interrogation (which they falsely represented to Mr. 3 Cosentino, only minutes prior to the commencement of the interrogation, as a purported hearing

4 on the proposed revocation of Mr. Cosentino's gaming license) and wherein Defendants 5 attempted to intimidate Mr. Cosentino and to coerce Mr. Cosentino to disclose to Defendants in a

6 recorded session, everything that Mr. Cosentino had told McKinney Investigations and law

7 enforcement as a confidential informant.

8 172. On May 13, 2011, pursuant to and in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy,

9 Defendants (through Defendant Ramos) attempted to coerce Mr. Cosentino to tell the Pechanga 10 Casino that he was resigning from his employment with the Pechanga Casino by threatening to

11 revoke Mr. Cosentino's gaming license if he did not report to the Pechanga Casino that he was

12 res1gmng.

13 1 73. At the time Defendants threatened to revoke Mr. Cosentino's gaming license if he did

14 not resign, Mr. Cosentino reasonably believed that Defendants were threatening his ability to

15 pursue his chosen occupation and that Defendants had the ability to carry out their threat.

16 174. When Mr. Cosentino refused to resign, pursuant to and in furtherance of Defendants'

17 conspiracy, Defendants revoked Mr. Cosentino's Gaming License without justification as set 18 forth above--effectively rendering Mr. Cosentino unemployable in his chosen occupation.

19 175. At all times alleged herein Mr. Cosentino's fundamental right to pursue any calling,

20 business, or profession of his choice was a form of property as stated in Reid v. Mass. Co., 155

21 Cal.App.2d 293, 301 (1957); accord Chzysler Cor:p. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd., 89 Cal.App.3d 22 1034, 139 (1979). Accordingly, Defendants' threat to revoke Mr. Cosentino's gaming license 23 (thereby effectively rendering him unemployable in his chosen occupation) was an explicit threat 24 of violence against Mr. Cosentino's property and Defendants' subsequent wrongful revocation of

25 Mr. Cosentino's gaming license was an act of violence against Mr. Cosentino's property.

26

27

28


176. Finally, on March 11, 2012, pursuant to and in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy,

2 Defendants (through Defendant Fuller) retaliated against Mr. Cosentino for exercising his right 3 to free speech and his right to pursue the occupation of his choice by exposing Mr. Cosentino's

4 identity as a confidential informant in a forum with over 300 people in attendance. As a result,

5 Mr. Cosentino is now a marked man and, even in the unlikely event that he is able to again

6 secure employment in his chosen occupation, he would then spend every remaining day of his

7 career looking over his shoulder in fear for his safety. 8 177. By the acts alleged above, Defendants attempted to, and did, interfere with Mr.

9 Cosentino's enjoyment of his right to free speech and his enjoyment of his right to pursue his 1 O chosen occupation.

11 178. By threatening to revoke, and then revoking Mr. Cosentino's gaming license without

12 cause and without a hearing, Defendants interfered with Mr. Cosentino's rights to equal

13 protection and due process under Title 25 section 1302(8) of the United States Code. 14 179. Defendants' actions as described above were all undertaken to silence Mr. Cosentino

15 through intimidation, to coerce Mr. Cosentino's resignation from the Pechanga Casino through

16 threat and intimidation, and to retaliate against Mr. Cosentino for Mr. Cosentino's exercise of his

17 right to free speech and his right to pursue a calling as a table games dealer.

18 180. Defendants' actions as described above were in excess of the authority granted to the

19 Commission and each Defendant under the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Tribal-State

20 Compact, and the IGRA.


22 injuries and damages including, but not limited to. past and future lost earnings and earning 23 capacity and severe emotional distress in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceed the

24 minimum jurisdictional limits of this court. 25

26

27

28


AndyTwietmeyerHighlight

AndyTwietmeyerHighlight

1 182. Defendants' actions warrant the imposition of exemplary damages pursuant to Civil

2 Code sections 52. l (b) and 52(b) in an amount appropriate to punish each Defendant and to deter 3 others from engaging in similar conduct.

4 183. Pursuant to Civil Code sections 52.l(b) and 52(a), Mr. Cosentino is entitled to three 5 times the amount of actual damage for each of Defendants' violations of Mr. Cosentino's civil

6 rights.

7 184. Mr. Cosentino is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Civil Code sections

8 52.l(h) and 52. 9 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

10 DISTRESS

11 (against all Defendants) 12 185. Mr. Cosentino incorporates paragraphs 1through184 above in their entirety as



15 May 4, 2011, Defendants willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to pressure Mr.

16 Cosentino to resign from his employment at the Pechanga Casino by threatening to revoke Mr.

1 7 Cosentino's class A gaming license.


19 May 13, 2011, Defendants knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to

20 revoke Mr. Cosentino's class A gaming license to prevent Mr. Cosentino's continued employment

21 at the Pechanga Casino, to remove Mr. Cosentino from the Pechanga Casino, to thereby

22 eliminate the possibility of Mr. Cosentino continuing to inform law enforcement of criminal

23 activity at the Pechanga Casino, and to retaliate against Mr. Cosentino for his past reporting.

24

25

26

27

28


1 188. Defendants intended to, and did, use Mr. Cosentino's May 11, 2011 meeting with the

2 Commission as an opportunity to gather highly confidential information from Mr. Cosentino

3 with which they could punish and intimidate Mr. Cosentino for his assistance to law

4 enforcement, coerce Mr. Cosentino to discontinue such assistance, and discourage other

5 Pechanga Casino employees from cooperating with law enforcement.

6 189. Mr. Cosentino is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that pursuant to,

7 and in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy to inflict injury on Mr. Cosentino, Defendants 8 shared the confidential transcript of Mr. Cosentino's May 11, 2011 meeting with third parties.

9 190. Pursuant to, and in furtherance of Defendants' conspiracy to inflict injury on Mr. 1 O Cosentino in retaliation for his assistance to law enforcement, Defendant Fuller, on or about

11 March 11, 2012, exposed Mr. Cosentino's identity as a Department of Justice confidential

12 informant before a crowd of more than 300 people.

13 191. Defendants' actions described above were extreme and outrageous, exceeded the

14 authority granted to Defendants under the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Tribal-State

15 Compact, and the IGRA, and were a gross abuse of Defendants' power over Mr. Cosentino.

16 192. By undertaking the acts alleged above, Defendants intended to inflict injury upon Mr. 17 Cosentino or Defendants were substantially certain that injury was likely to result. 18 193. Defendants, and each Defendant, undertook the wrongful acts alleged herein pursuant

19 to and in furtherance of their above-alleged agreement.



22 Defendant Fuller disclosed Mr. Cosentino's identify as a confidential Department of Justice

23 informant.

24

25

26

27

28


195. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' outrageous conduct alleged above,

2 Mr. Cosentino has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress in that he has had

3 his livelihood taken from him, has lost the value of his 13 year's of experience in his chosen

4 occupation, and has suffered extreme anxiety, worry, about his personal safety. Mr. Cosentino's

5 peace of mind has been permanently shattered by the knowledge that Defendants have blown his

6 cover and that organized criminal actors may seek retribution against Mr. Cosentino for his

7 assistance to law enforcement. The extent of Mr. Cosentino's damages are not yet ascertained,

8 but, in any case exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court. 9 196. Defendants' conduct described above was willful, malicious, and oppressive and was

10 undertaken with the intent to inflict injury on Mr. Cosentino and with conscious disregard of Mr. 11 Cosentino's rights thereby warranting an assessment of punitive damages in an amount


13 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

14 DISTRESS


1 7 though fully set forth herein.

18 198. Defendants Fuller, Vargas, Magee, Ramos, and Maldonado had a special relationship

19 with Mr. Cosentino and, therefore, owed Mr. Cosentino a duty of due care to assess his

20 suitability for a class A gaming license according to the standards set forth in the Pechanga

21 Gaming Ordinance, the Tribal-State Compact, and the IGRA.

22 199. Defendants Fuller, Vargas, Magee, Ramos, and Maldonado had a duty to maintain the

23 fact of Mr. Cosentino's identity as a confidential informant in the strictest confidence.

24 200. Defendants knew or should have known that revocation of Mr. Cosentino's gaming

25 license without justification would cause Mr. Cosentino to suffer severe emotional distress. 26

27

28


201. Defendants knew or should have known that exposing Mr. Cosentino's identity as a

2 confidential informant by sharing the transcript of Mr. Cosentino's confidential May 11, 2011

3 meeting with the Commission would cause Mr. Cosentino to suffer severe emotional distress.

4 202. Defendants negligently breached their duty to Mr. Cosentino by revoking Mr.

5 Cosentino's class A gaming license without justification and in excess of the authority granted to 6 Defendants under the Pechanga Gaming Ordinance, the Tribal-State Compact, and the IGRA.

7 203. Defendants negligently breached their duty to Mr. Cosentino by permitting third

8 parties to read the transcript of Mr. Cosentino's May 11, 2011 meeting with the Commission in

9 which he shared details about his confidential informing activities.

10 204. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' outrageous conduct alleged above,

11 Mr. Cosentino has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress in that he has had

12 his livelihood taken from him, has lost the value of his 13 year's of experience in his chosen

13 occupation, and has suffered extreme anxiety, worry, about his personal safety. Mr. Cosentino's

14 peace of mind has been permanently shattered by the knowledge that Defendants have blown his

15 cover and that organized criminal actors may seek retribution against Mr. Cosentino for his

16 assistance to law enforcement. The extent of Mr. Cosentino's damages are not yet ascertained,

17 but, in any case exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court. 18 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

19 DISTRESS

20 (against Defendant Fuller) 21 205. Mr. Cosentino incorporates paragraphs 1through204 above in their entirety as


23 206. Defendants Fuller had a duty to maintain the fact of Mr. Cosentino's identity as a

24 confidential informant in the strictest confidence.

25 207. Defendant Fuller knew or should have known that exposing Mr. Cosentino's identity

26 as a confidential informant would cause Mr. Cosentino to suffer severe emotional distress.

27

28


1 208. Defendant Fuller negligently breached here duty to Mr. Cosentino by publicly

2 identifying Mr. Cosentino as a confidential informant at the March 2012 Presentation.

3 209. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Fuller's outrageous conduct alleged

4 above, Mr. Cosentino has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress in that his

5 peace of mind has been permanently shattered by the knowledge that Defendant Fuller has

6 blown his cover and that organized criminal actors may seek retribution against Mr. Cosentino

7 for his assistance to law enforcement. The extent of Mr. Cosentino's damages are not yet

8 ascertained, but, in any case exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court. 9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

10 WHEREFORE, Mr. Cosentino prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

for general, compensatory, special, and consequential damages according to proof;

for treble damages pursuant to Civil Code sections 52.1 (b) and 52( a); for attorney's fees pursuant to Civil Code section 52.l(h); for exemplary damages pursuant to Civil Code sections 52.l(b) and 52(b)(l); for costs of suit incurred herein;

for punitive and exemplary damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294;

for pre-judgement and post-judgement interest according to proof; and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just.

20 Dated: March J..b , 2013 21

ANDREW W. TWIETMEYER

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Attorney r Plaintiff BENEDICT COSENTINO


1 Demand for Jury Trial

2 Plaintiff BENEDICT COSENTINO hereby demands that this action be determined by

3 trial by jury. 4

5 Dated: March 2S', 2013 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ANDREW W. TWIETMEYER

Attorney r Plaintiff BENEDICT COSENTINO


Cosentino Complaint vs Pechanga Gaming Commission

Documents

Transcript of Cosentino Complaint vs Pechanga Gaming Commission