10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
'is 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Jesse  Ortiz  (CA  Bar  Assn.  No.  176450)  ,.... \ 
jesse@jesseortizlaw.com 
Ben  Williams  (CA  Bar  Assn.  No.  284884) 
ben@jesseortizlaw.com 
Jesse  Ortiz  Law 
917  7th  Street 
Sacramento,  CA  95814 
Telephone:  (916)  443-9500 
Facsimile:  (916)  443-9501 
Attorneys  for  Plaintiff  . 
RHONDASMIRA  and  ORLEANS  CONSLUTING  GROUP,  LLC 
SUPERIOR  COURT  OF  THE  STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA 
OF  SACRAMENTO 
)  Case  No. 


COMPLAINT  FOR  DAMAGES:
RHONDA    an  indi viduc:.J.; 
)
ORI.:ENJS  CONSLULTING  GRO'JPI LLC I

1. Violation  of  Business  &
a  California  Limited  Liabilit'i'  } 
Professions  Code  17200;
Company, 

)  2.  Declaratory  Relief; 
3.  Violation  of  the  Political
Plaintiff, 
Reform  Act; 
vs, 
4.  Wrongful  Termination  in 
Violation  of  Public  " 
KEVIN  SLOAT,  an  individuQl; 
Policy;  and
SLOAT  HIGGENS  JENSEN  & 
S.  Defamation
ASSOCIATES,  LLC 

A  ifornia 
Limited  Liability  Company,  and 
DOES  1  through  50,  inclusive, 
Defendan:.s. 



Plaintiffs,  RHONDA  SMIRA  and  ORLEANS  CONSULTING  GROUP,  LLC 

hereby  complain  and  allege  as  follows: 
PARTIES 
1.  Plaintiff,  RHONDA  SMIRA  (hereinafter  "Plaintiff" 
and/or  "SMIRA")  is,  and  at  all  times  herein  mentioned  was,  an 
individual  residing  in  Sacramento  County,  California. 
2.  Plaintiff,  ORLEANS  CONSULTING  GROUP,  LLC  (hereinafter 
"ORLEANS"  and/or  collectively  referred  to  as  "Plaintiffs")  is, 
Complaint  for  Damages-1 







B

10 
11 .'
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
16 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
and  at  all  herein  mentioned  was,  a  California  Limited  Liability 
Company. 
3.  Defendant,  KEVIN  SLOAT  (hereinafter  "Defendant"  and/or 
"SLOAT")  is,  and  at  all  times  herein  mentioned  was,  an 
individual  residing  in  Sacramento  County,  California.  SLOAT  is  a 
registered  lobbyist  and  is  bound  by  the  laws  and  regulations  of 
the  California  Political  Reform  Act  of  1974  ("PRA").  SLOAT  is 
the  principal  and  founder  of  SLOAT  HIGGINS  JENSEN  & ASSOCIATES, 
LLC. 
4.  As  a  registered'lobbyist  and  the 'owner  of  a  registered 
lobbying  firm,  SLOAT  attended  regular  Ethics  Training  courses  on 
the  laws  and  regulations. of  the  PEA.  The  Ethics  Training  courses 
cover  the  laws  and  regul.ations· of  lobbyists  making  and  arranging 
gifts  and  the  illegality  of  lobbyists  and  lobbying  firms  making 
campaign  contributions. 
5.  SLOAT  is  one  of  the  most  connected  and  powerful 
political  figures  in  California  and  has  been  ranked  as  one  of 
the  100  most  powerful  people  in  California  politics. 
6.  Defendant,  SI,OAT  HIGGINS  JENSEN'  & ASSOCIATES,  LLC, 
(hereinafter  "SHJ"  and/or  collectively  referred  to  as 
"Defendants")  is,  and  at  all  times  herein  mentioned  was,  a 
California  Limited  Liability  Company. 
7.  SHJ  is  a  registered  lobbying  firm  headquartered  in 
Sacramento,  California  and  is  bound  by  the  laws  and  regulations 
of  the  PRA.  Plaintiff  is  informed  and  believes  and  thereon 
alleges  that  all  directors,  officers  and  shareholders  of  SHJ 
reside  in  Sacramento  County,  California  and  that  all  of  its 
substantive  operational  decisions  are  made  in  Sacramento  County. 
8.  SHJ  is  one  of  the  largest  lobbying  firms  in 
California.  SHJ  is  consistently  one  of  the  top  five  lobbying 
firms  in  California  as  measured  by  annual  billings.  The  firm  is 
Complaint  for  Damages-2 

2
3

5
6
7
8
9
10
11 
. 12
13
14 
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
paid millions of dollars by Fortune 500, energy/utility, and
insurance companies. SHJ clients have contributed millions of
dollars of campaign contributions to candidates and elected
officials.
9. There exists, and at all times herein mentioned there
existed, a unity of interest and ownership between defendants
SHJ and SLOAT, such that any individuality and separateness
between them have ceased, and defendants SHJ is the alter ego of
defendant SLOAT in that Plaintiff is informed and believes and
thereon alleges SLOAT: (a) commingles and uses assets and funds
of SHJ for his personal use. without adequate consideration
and/or recordkeeping; (b)  uses.·SHJ.·as a mere shell,
instrumentality and conduit to carryon his personal business
and exercises complete control .and.dominance over SHJ to such·an
extent that any individuality and separateness between SHJ and
SLOAT does not, and. at all·relevant times herein mentioned did
not, exist; and (c) fails to adhere to and disregards corporate
governance, recordkeeping and .formalities obligations.
10. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and
capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES 1-50,
inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such
fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend the complaint to allege
their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are
informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the
fictitious named defendants are responsible in some manner for
the occurrences herein alleged and that Plaintiffs' losses are
herein alleged were proximately caused by such negligent and/or
wrongful conduct.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11. On or about January 1, 2000, SMlRA became an employee
of SHJ. As an employee, Plaintiff's responsibilities included
Complaint for Damages-3
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
.11
12
13
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
registering SHJ as a lobbying firm, compiling and submitting the
registration for SHJ lobbyists, coordinating the   of
SHJ clients as lobbyist employers, compiling and filing
quarterly lobbying activities and payment disclosure reports,
and coordinating and filing out the quarterly lobbying employer
reports. Further, Plaintiff was responsible for assuring that
SHJ was in compliance with the PRA.
12. Defendants regularly hosted elaborate fundraisers at
SLOAT's mansion on the exclusive Crocker Road in Sacramento,
California, in the SHJ offices, and at a local wine bar where
Defendants have a wine locker stocked with thousands of dollars
of rare wines. The elaborate events were almost exclusively
limited to Defendants' clients and contributions were made to
the candidates by both the Defendants' clients and Defendants.
13. SLOAT, acting as the owner ofSHJ, and at his sole
discretion chose which candidates and-elected officials
Defendants would host fundraisers for. Defendant would consider
several factors when identifying which candidates and elected
officials he would host events and make contributions to. If an
elected official was a member of a committee that would hear
bills sponsored by, supported by, or opposed by Defendants'
clients would make contributions to the elected officials. If an
elected official were in a special position of power such as
Senate and Assembly leadership pos.ts or if an elected official
was just considered a "friend" of the firm, SLOAT would host a
fundraiser where Defendants as well as Defendants' clients would
make a contribution to the elected official. Occasionally,
elected officials would even ask SLOAT to host events and would
solicit contributions from Defendants and Defendants' clients.
14. The fundraisers were always attended by SHJ's clients
and the candidates received campaign contributions in exchange 
complaint for Damages-4 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
for attending the fundraisers. In many cases, SLOAT was meeting
the candidates for the very first time at the hosted fundraiser.
15. Once SLOAT decided to host a fundraiser, SMIRA was
directed to reach out to the elected official or candidate to
coordinate schedules, arrange logistics, and establish an
understanding as to how much money the .candidate or elected
official could expect to receive by attending the fundraiser. A
typical evening at Defendant's mansion would result in between
$10,000 and $50,000 for an elected official.
16. Defendants would pay SMIRA to reach out to
Defendant's clients to notify the clients of the event and tell
the client how much the client is expected to contribute to the
elected official. Defendants had a static list of approximately
30 clients that Plaintiff was 'directed to inviteto·every.
fundraiser hosted by Defendants. This list was a partial list of
SJH clients who were told on multiple occasions by Defendants
that Defendants would host private fundraisers for candidates
and the clients were expected to contribute and attend each
event. In exchange, SJH clients were promised exclusive access
to the Governor, legislators or candidates.
17. Defendants were very clear with SMlRA that she was
only to invite clients on the list because SLOAT said they were
his "go to" clients ad· their campaign contribution budgets were
actually "his" to distribute at "his" discretion. Plaintiff is
informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the clients on
the list were the clients SLOAT Saw as unsophisticated and
clients who did not ask why they were making contributions to
the candidates. The more sophisticated clients who required
background or some rationale as to why Defendant was asking them
to contribute were only rarely invited.
complaint for Damages-S
III









10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
18.  Once  the  attending  clients  were  determined,  SMlRA 
would  then  reach  out  to  the  elected  official's  representative  to 
provide  a  list  of  all  clients  who  would  be  attending  the  event 
as  well  as  how  much  each  client  would  be  contributing.  Plaintiff 
would  then  send  invitations  to  the  fundraiser  to  the  designated 
list  of  clients.  Of  the  hundreds  of  invitations  sent  to 
candidates  since  early  2000,  none  met  the  current  disclosure  and 
notification  laws  set  forth  by  the  Fair  Political  Practices 
Commission  ("FPPC") regulations. 
19.  At  these  fundraisers,  SMlRA  would  hire  a  caterer, 
develop  a  menu,  sample  the  caterer's  cooking,  purchase  cases  of 
expensive  wine  and  alcohol,  purchase  decorations,  and  spend 
hours  at  the  mansion  prior  to  the  event  making  sure  the  details 
of  the  event  were  all  in  order.  Plaintiff  would  then  attend  the 
fundraiser  as  an  employee  to  help  manage  the  caterers,  act  as  a 
hostess  to  the  clients  and  the  candidates. 
20.  After  the  event,· S M I R   ~ would  coordinate  the  clean-up· 
of  the  event,  make  sure  staff  was  paid  or  invoices  were 
submitted,  would  follow  up  with  Defendants'  clients  to  make  sure 
campaign  contribution  checks  were  delivered  to  the  elected 
official's  representative.  Plaintiff  would  spend  between  10-15 
hours  at  each  fundraising  event  at  a  cost  to  Defendants  of 
approximately  $1,000. 
21.  At  each  fundraiser,  Defendants  would  spend  between 
$1,000  and  $2,000  on  expensive  bottles  of  wine  for  the  events. 
In  addition,  Defendants  would  expense  decorations,  flowers, 
imported  cigars  and  high-end  cognac,  scotched  and  whiskeys. 
These  expenses  were  all  paid  for  with  SHJ  funds. 
22.  Defendants  would  never  charge  a  rental  fee  to  the 
elected  official's  campaign  for  the  cost  of  hosting  the  event  at 
SLOAT's  mansion. 
Complaint  for  Damages-6 









10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
23.  The  expenses  associated  with  hosting  the  fundraiser 
are  considered  non-monetary  campaign  contributions.  Neither 
Defendants,  nor  the  elected  officials,  would  declare  the  non-
monetary  contributions  to  the  FPPC  and/or  the  Secretary  of 
State. 
24.  On  numerous  occasions,  SMlRA  notified  Defendants  of 
her  understanding  that  providing  thousands  of  dollars  in  wine 
and  alcohol,  expensive  cigars,  paying  for  catering  and  rentals, 
utilizing  her  time  as  a  SHJ  employee,  as  well  as  providing, 
SLOAT's  personal  residence  without  charging  a'rental  fee,  were 
all  illegal,  non-monetary  campaign  contributions. 
25.  Due  to  her  growipg  concerns  regarding  the  likely 
impropriety  being  committed  by  Defendants,  Plaintiff  solicited 
and  received  several  legal  opinions  from  Legal  Counsel  for 
Defendants  regarding  the  illegality  of  the  non-monetary  campaign 
contributions  Defendants  were  making. 
26:  Legal  Counsel  confirmed  the  impropriety  of  the  non-
monetary  campaign  contributions. 
27.  SMlRA,  in  light  of  her  investigation  and  research, 
opined  that  under  the  PRA,  SLOAT  and  SHJ  could  not  make  any 
campaign  contributions,  either  monetary  or  non-monetary. 
Further,  SMlRA  contended  that  DefendaI'l:ts  must  charge  a  "rental" 
fee  to  the  client  for  some  portion  of  the  mortgage  on  his 
mansion  because  as  the  sole  owner  of  a  lobbying  firm,  he  could 
not  provide  a  free  venue  for  a  fundraiser.  By  not  charging  a 
rental  fee,  defendants  were  making  a  non-monetary  contribution 
to  an  elected  official. 
28.  Plaintiff  also  communicated  on  several  occasions 
directly  to  Defehdant  that  Defendants  could  not  use  SHJ  paid 
employees  to  arrange,  staff,  and  support  the  fundraising 
activities.  Defendants'  paid  employee's  time  results  in  a  non-
Complaint  for  Damages-7 

2
3

5
6
7
8
9
10
11 
12
.  13 
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
monetary contribution to the elected official. SMIRA further
warned that the wine, alcohol, catering, cigars or any other
expense associated with the private fundraisers would constitute
a violation of the PRA.
29. Any expenses associated with the fundraising events
were paid for either with the SHJ's credit card or with SLOAT's
credit card. SLOAT's personal credit card was and is completely
paid for directly from SHJ's accounts.
30. After being fully briefed by SMIRA on multiple
occasions, Defendants continued to host·fundraisers·and give
,illegal, in-kind contributions. Plaintiff repeatedly
commun'icated how un.eomfortable she.was in participating in the
illegal campaign contributions. In response, Defendant bluntly
stated that it was part of her.job and that if' she could not
perfor)11 her job the he would find someone else who could.
31. Over the course of several years, SMIRA repeatedly
voiced her concerns. about the illegal contributions prior to
each fundraising event at SLOAT's private residence. On every
occasion, she was reprimanded by Defendant and was finally
directed by Defendant to "never talk to him again" about her
concerns. On one occasion,Defendant was so upset that he did
not talk to Plaintiff for over .a week.
32. In or about.2010, SMIRA notified Defendants that she·
was very concerned about utilizing SHJ corporate credit cards to
make all the purchases that amounted to illegal campaign
contributions. Rather than heed her warning, SLOAT.told
Plaintiff that she would no longer use the company credit card
for the purchases but that she would now use her own credit card
for the expenses and then she would be reimbursed by SHJ.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that
this was Defendants' attempt to hide expenses from any future
Complaint for Damages-8
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
audits as well as punishment for her repeated warnings. In so
doing, Defendants were making it more difficult for Plaintiff to
do her job.
33. subsequently, SMIRA conducted more inquiries and
investigation regarding Defendants' illegal contributions. After
Plaintiff notified Defendant of what she found, SLOAT would not
speak to SMIRA for several days and would occasionally ask other
lobbyists in the office if they.needed to hire another "support"
person.
34. In or about· 2010, . after'receiving continued
complaints from SMIRA, SLOAT directed SMIRA to start asking
.candidates to pay for· catering and use the candidate's.campaign
account to make deposits for catering; However, Defendants··
continued to use Plaintiff's time as'an employee·of SHJ, provide
thousands of dollars of wine, cigars, scotch
r
and other
alcoholic   as·well as utilize SLOAT's personal
residence to host the fundraiser.s without charging.a rental fee.
While Defendants changed some of their activities, they
continued to illegally make in-kind c6ntributions.
35. Since 2000 to the present, de·fendants have hosted
hundreds of fundraising.eventsin .which Defendants·illegally.
contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to dozens of
elected officials, including but not limited to, 11 Senators, 26
Assembly men/women, and various other high ranking public
officials and representatives.
36. In addition .to being forced to participate in the
delivery of illegal campaign contributions, Plaintiff was
constantly expected to arrange illegal gifts as an agent of
Defendants.
37. Defendants have season tickets to the Sacramento
Kings professional basketball team. These tickets currently
Complaint for Damages-9
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
include two floor seats and in years past, as many as six lower
level or floor seat season tickets. In addition, Defendants have
a VIP parking pass for each home game. Defendants pay for the
season tickets with SHJ funds. Each individual floor seat ticket
has or had a face value of well over $300.
38. From 2000 to the present, Defendants often gave the
floor seat tickets to Senators, Assembly Members, legislative
staff or administrative staff as gifts. SLOAT would personally
offer Senators, Assembly Members, legislative staff or
administrative staff the tickets. Defendants gave away illegal
tickets on such a regular basis.that some  
Legislative staff, and Administrative staff eventually contacted
SMIRA and Defendants to request Kings' tickets.
39. For every Kings game that a Senator, Assembly Member,
legislative staffer, or member of the Governor's staff attended,
SMIRA was expected to perform all or some of the following
actions: contact the recipient of the Kings tickets to confirm
their attendance at the game, make arrangements to deliver the
tickets if the recipient was not driving to the game with
defendant, and schedule attendance at future games with the
recipients.
40. SMIRA wa.s . specifically directed by defendants to
never notify the recipients of tickets that attendance would
constitute a "gift" nor put it on his calendar for a written
record. Plaintiff was very uncomfortable with participating in
this process. If she voiced her concerns, she was "frozen out"
by SLOAT and left to feel as though her job was in jeopardy.
Eventually, Defendant asked other staff of SHJ to deliver the
tickets to the Legislators and staff.
41. SMIRA advised Defendants that providing the tickets
to Senators, Assembly members, legislative staff or staff to the
Complaint for Damages-10
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
Governor was a violation of the laws limiting gifts between a
lobbyist or lobbying firm and a Legislator.
42. Defendants have represented an Indian Tribe which
owns a casino as well as one of the top ranked golf courses in
Northern California.
43. From 2008 to present, Defendants hosted countless
legislators, legislative staff and administrative staff on
expensive golf outings on the Tribe's golf course.
44. On most occasions, SLOAT or another high level SHJ
employee ("Employee"), would offer to take the legislator,
legislative staff or administrative staff golfing at the award
winning golf course. If accepted, Defendant or Employee would
then have SMIRA make the necessary arrangements. Plaintiff was
expected to do some or all of the following: Contact the golf
course and speak directly to the head golf professional to
notify them that a dignitary was coming out, schedule the tee
time (schedule the delivery of the gift), confirm the date/time
of the tee time with the recipient of the gift, make any special
arrangements with the tribe as directed by Defendant of Employee
'(some legislators wanted discounted rooms at the hotel/casino).
Employee or Defendant would then pay-for the entire foursome's
round on Defendants' credit cards so there was no expense paid
by the gift recipient.
45. Defendants and Employee provided so many free rounds
of golf, that eventually, gift recipients began contacting
Defendants' offices directly and requesting tee times. Each
round of golf is valued at well over the $10 gift allowed by the
PRA. Many Legislators or candidates received golf as a gift on
multiple occasions.
46. SMlRA was expected to process the payments and record
them in SHJ's QuickBooks ledger as a ftbusiness expense" for tax 
.Complaint for Damages-ll 









10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
29 
purposes.  plaintiff  was  specifically  directed  by  SLOAT  to  never 
record  who  was  in  attendance. 
47.  In  addition  to  golf,  the  Casino  offers  regular  music 
concerts  as  part  of  their  entertainment  offerings  at  the  hotel 
and  casino.  Defendant  provided  concert  tickets,  free  of  charge, 
to  numerous  legislators,  legislative  staff,  and  administrative 
staff. 
48.  SLOAT  would  regularly  check  the  Casino  Resort's 
website  for  a  listing  of  upcoming  events.  If  Defendant  saw 
events  he  thought  a  legislator,  legislative  staff  member,  or 
administrative  staff  member  would  be  interested  in,  he  would 
either  contact  them  directly  or  direct  an  employee  to  contact 
them  directly  and  offer  free  tickets. 
49.  Once  contacted  by  SLOAT,  SMIRA  was  expected  to  make 
all  arrangements,  including,  confirming  attendance  with  the 
recipient,  providing  directions  to  the  venue,  purchasing  the 
concert  tickets  on  the  Defendants'  credit  card,  providing 
confirmation  to  the  recipient  that  the  tickets  would  be  held  at 
will-call  for  them. 
50.  SMlRA  was  expected  to  process  the  payments  and  record 
them  in  SHJ's  QuickBooks  ledgers  as  a  "business  expense"  for  tax 
purposes.  Defendant  specifically  directed  SMlRA  to  never  record 
who  was  in  attendance. 
51.  On  or  about  October  7,  2010  to  October  28,  2010, 
Defendants  were  provided  free  tickets  to  all  of  t   ~ San 
Francisco  Giants'  home  playoff  games  by  one  of  Defendants' 
clients.  Defendants  then  provided  every  ticket  to  Senators, 
Assembly  members,  and  legislative  staff. 
52.  SMlRA  was  directed  by  SLOAT  to  confirm  directly  with 
the  legislator,  or  legislative  staff  of  their  intention  to 
attend,  coordinate  the  delivery  of  the  tickets  to  the  gift 
Complaint  for  Damages-12 









10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
29 
recipient,  and  report  to    the  recipient  of  the  gifts. 
Plaintiff  was  so  uncomfortable  with  this  illegal  activity  that 
she  approached  the  SHJ  employee  ("SHJ  Employee")  responsible  for 
the  client  account,  to  state  her  concerns.  SHJ  Employee  agreed 
with  SMIRA  and  asked  that  Plaintiff  not  have  the  client  send  any 
tickets  to  the  SHJ  offices  but  rather  mail  or  overnight  the 
tickets  directly  to  the  recipient  of  the  gift. 
53.  SMIRA  repeatedly  objected  to  the  arranging, 
coordination  and  delivery  of  the  gift  as  illegal.  Defendant 
reprimanded  Plaintiff  and  stated  that  client  could  give  a  gift 
to  a  reportable  individual.  Plaiptiff  stated  that  it  was  the  act 
of  SHJ  and  a  Lobbyist  arranging,  confirming  attendance,  and 
facilitating  the  delivery  of  the  gift  that  was  illegal 
case.  Defendant  told  Plaintiff  it·  was  none  of  her  business  and 
,that  she  better  do  as  she  was  told. 
54.  Defendants  have  represented  the  San  Francisco  4gers 
(4gers).  The  4gers  retained  Defendants  to  assist  with  issues 
regarding  the  development  of  a  new  stadium.  Defendants  suggested 
to  the  4gers  that  hosting  legislators,  legislative  staff  and 
administrative  staff  at  games  was  a  great  way  to  build  a 
relationship  with  influential  political  figures.  The  4gers 
agreed  to  provide  tickets  to  SHJ  for  SLOAT  to  dispense  as  he  saw 
fit.  The  4gers  refused  to  provide  the  tickets  complimentary,  so 
Defendant  told  the  4gers  that  Defendants  would  take  any  elected 
official's  credit  card  information  and  then  pass  it  on  to  the 
4gers  front  office  personnel. 
55.  Defendants  would  personally  invite  legislators, 
legislative  staff,  and  administrative  staff  to  4gers  home  games 
and  home  playoff  games.  Once  Defendants  extended  the  invitation, 
SMIRA  was  expected  to  make  all  arrangements,  including, 
confirming  attendance  with  the  recipient,  providing  directions 
Complaint  for  Damages-13 
I  '1"1  r 









10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
lS 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
2S 
26 
27 
28 
to  the  venue,  providing  confirmation  to  the  recipient  that  the 
tickets  would- be  held  at  will-call  for  them,  or  even  make 
arrangements  for  the  delivery  of  the  tickets. 
56.  SMIRA  was  to  obtain  credit  card  information  from  the 
recipient  of  the  gift  then  pass  the  credit  card  information  on 
to  the  4gers  to  complete  the  purchase  of  the  tickets.  Defendant 
stated  to  Plaintiff  that  she  must  feel  happy  that  SHJ  wasn't 
actually  paying  for  the  tickets.  Plaintiff  took  this  as  a  direct 
jab  at  her  constant  complaints  about  defendant's  illegal  actions 
pertaining  to  gifts.  Defendant  even  mentioned  to  Plaintiff  that 
.while  he  was  uncomfortable  charging  legislators  for  tickets,  he 
did  like·that  fact  that  if  anyone  ever  asked,  he  could  deny  that 
he  had  anything  to  do  with  the  tickets. 
57.  SMIRA·was·even  directed  by  SLOAT  to  attend  one  home 
playoff  game  on  or  around  January  22,  2012,  between  the  4gers 
and  the  New  York  Giants.  Defendant  wanted  Plaintiff  to  attend 
because  he  wanted  to  make  su=e  one  of  the  attendees,  Senator  "A" 
",as "completely  taken  care  of.'  SLOAT  directed  SMlRA-to  make 
sure  Senator  "A"  had,  "anything  he  needed."  The  Defendant  even 
had  Plaintiff  make  arrangements  with  the  4gers  to  get  Senator 
"AU  onto  the  field  and  into  the  owner's  suite. 
58.  Additionally,·  SLOAT  made  several  political  junkets  to 
Cuba.  In  order  to  have  the  trips  approved  by  the  U.S. 
government,  Defendants  described  the  trips  as  charitable 
mis.sions  and  artistic  research  trips.  SLOAT  purchased  thousands 
of  dollars  of  art  while  on  his  trips  and  he  eventually 
befriended  several  local  Cuban  artists.  In  several  occasions  in 
2010  and  2011,  SLOAT  invited  and  paid  for  the  artists  to  travel 
to  his  personal  residence  in  the  United  States.  SLOAT  used  SHJ's 
money  to  pay  for  the  travel.  The  artists  brought  art  to  show  and 
possibly  sell.  Defendant  made  arrangements  for  Assembly  member 
Complaint  for  Damages-14 
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11 .
12
13 .
14
16
17
. 18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
"A" to at tend this private event in which no member of the '
general public was allowed to attend.
59. SLOAT, acting as an agent of SHJ, made arrangements
with the artist to sell Assembly member "A" a particular piece
of art at a deep discount from the asking price. Asa favor to
Defendants, an agreement was made to sell Assembly member "A"
the art at nearly 50% below the asking price. The price was not
available to any member of the general public.
60. The art was delivered to the SHJ's offices and
Defendant directed SMlRAto contact Assembly member "A" to.let
him know his art was at the office and he could come .pick·· it up.
SMlRA objected and stated that she believed the deep discount,
as well as the arrangement and   e l i v e ~ y of the art would
constitute a violation of the PRA.She suggested that Defendant
contact Legal Counsel to get his opinion of the legality of the
situation. ·Defendant became very angry and told Plaintiff to,
"just do your job!"
61. Further, Defehdants .regularly hosted expensive
dinners at local restaurants that reportable individuals such as
legislators, legislative staff and administrative staff would
attend. SLOAT, acting as an agent of SHJ, would formally and
informally invite these individuals for private dinners attended'
by the lobbyists employed.by.SHJ. Defendants would almost always
pay with SHJ's credit card and never requested reimbursement for
a "gift" by the legislator. The dinners were always above the
$10 gift limit for a lobbyist.
62. While these dinners were regularly occurring events,
they were not often planned out well in advance. Many times the·
dinner occurred the same day the invitation was extended. Once
SLOAT invited a legislator, legislative staffer, or
administrative staffer to dinner, he would call/text SMlRA and
Complaint for Damages-1S

10 
15 
20 
25 





7


11 
12 
13 
14 
16 
17 
18 
19 
21 
22 
23 
24 
26 
27 
28 
direct  her  to  make  reservations.· Plaintiff  was  then  directed  to 
confirm  with  Defendant,  the  other  lobbyists  qnd  the  legislator, 
legislative  staffer  or  administrative  staffer. 
63.  SLOAT  directed  SMlRA  to  enter  the  charges  for  the 
- dinner  into  SHJ"s  QuickBooks  as  regular  business  expenses  for 
tax  purposes  and  Plaintiff  was  directed  to  never  request 
reimbursement  from  the  attendees. 
64.  Plaintiff  notified  Defendant  on  many  occasions  that 
this  was  an  illegal  action  and  a-violation  of  PRA.  At  first 
Defendant  told  her,  ~ i   I  don't  report  and  there  is  no  written 
record  and  they  don't-report  it,-then  it  didn't  happen."  As 
Plaintiff  conti?ued  to  complain,  defendant  eventually  told  her 
he  had  enough  of  her  complaints  and  he  directed  her  ,to  hire  a 
low-level  personal  assistant  to  handle  the  scheduling  of  these 
dinners  so  he  never  had  to  hear  Plaintiff  complain  about  it 
again. 
65.  Plaintiff  took  this  as  SLOAT's  escalation  of  his 
threats  toward  her  employment  in  retaliation  for  her  complaints. 
66.  SMlRA  notified  Defendant  of  her  concerns  about  the 
illegality  of  making,-arranging  and  not  reporting  all  of  the 
above  mentioned  gifts.  Each  time,  Defendant  expressed  great 
displeasure  at  Plaintiff  for  even  suggesting  he  was  acting 
illegally. 
67.  plaintiff  is  informed  and  believes,  and  hereby 
alleges  that  Defendant  understood_the  illegality  of  his  action 
because  he  attended  regular  Ethics  Training  courses  where  the 
laws  regarding  gifts  from  lobbyists  or  lobbying  firms  were 
thoroughly  explained. 
68.  In  addition  to  the  illegal  campaign  contributions  and 
unlawful  gifts,  Plaintiff  was  thrust  into  further  illegal 
activity  by  Defendant  and  Employee. 
Complaint  for  Damages-16 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
69. In or around 2010, an Employee of Defendant began
divorce proceedings with his then wife (UEmployee's Wife").
Defendant agreed to help the Employee hide .income from
Employee's wife, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") and the
FPPC. They devised a plan to defer all of Employee's bont.,lses
until after the divorce was final. Defendant agreed to hold over
$400,000 in bonus payments until after the divorce was final.
Defendant agreed to then release the hidden bonuses and pay
Employee in two lump sum payments. Defendant also agreed to
allow Employee to utilize the company credit card to. make
personal purchases and not report them on Employee1s W2 as
compensation.
70. Around this time, Plaintiff advised defendant that
Employee's reimbursement check for Employee's leased Audi A7
should be reported on Employee's W2 forms as taxable income.
Defendant directed Plaintiff not to report the reimbursement as
part of Employee's compensation. Employee utilized the compariy
credit card for extensive personal charges including clothing, .
home goods, food, wine, entertainment, etc. all of which are
supposed to be reported to the IRS as income on Employee's W2.
Plaintiff briefed Defendant that these credit card charges
should be reported as income to Employee. Defendant directed
Plaintiff to enter them into the SHJ books as.general business
expenses for SHJ and not as income to the Employee. Fearing for
her job, Plaintiff complied.
71. Defendants concealment of Employee's income from the
IRS, was in addition to the already ongoing concealment of
illegal gifts not reportable as business expenses, from the IRS
and FPPC. These were intentional acts and Plaintiff was given
specific directives by Defendant to enter charges into the SHJ
books in such a way as to deceive the IRS and the FPPC. SMlRA
complaint for Damages-17
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
and SLOAT would annually go over the books prior to SMIRA
submitting them to the SHJ accountants.
72. From early 2000 to August 21, 2012, Plaintiff was
directed by Defendant to make illegal or purposefully neglectful
entries into the SHJ books on hundreds of occasions. Each
illegal gift and all illegal campaign contributions were
reported to the IRS as business expenses.
73. The conduct of Defendant caused Plaintiff to lose
sleep, have severe stomach cramps, lose weight, suffer extreme
headaches and even lose patches 'of hair.
74. In 2012, and a result of the extraordinary anxiety
that SMIRP_ was experiencing, Plaintiff refused to continue to
participate in the above mentioned activities. Consequently, on
or about August 21, 2012, Plaintiff received a letter from
Defendants, notifying her of her immediate termination for
undisclosed reasons.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
75. This Court has jurisdiction over this entire action
because this is a civil action wherein the matter in controversy
exceeds $25,000.00. Venue is proper in Sacramento County
Superior Court since the principal place of business of Both
ORLEANS and SHJ is located in Sacramento County, and both SMIRA
and SLOAD reside in Sacramento County.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Business and Professions Code section
17200, et seq.)
76. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate hereby by
reference paragraphs 1 through 75, inclusive, as though fully
set forth herein.
77. From 2000 to the present, Defendant regularly hosted
elaborate fundraisers for various elected officials at his
Complaint for Damages-18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
mansion. At these fundraisers, Defendants made contributions to
elected officials by providing catering, expensive wine,
decorations, flowers, imported cigars and high-end cognac,
scotches and whiskeys. Further Defendants did not charge a
rental fee to the elected official's campaign for the cost of
hosting the event at SLOAT's mansion nor did Defendants charge
for the costs of labor to set-up, host, and clean-up
fundraisers. The costs of the fundraisers were all in excess of
$500.00.
78. By making these contributions, Defendants made non-
monetary campaign contributions in violation of Government Code
Sections 85702 and 91005.
79. From 2000 to the present, Defendants provided
Sacramento Kings' tickets, San Francisco Giants tickets, San
Francisco 4gers tickets, rounds of golf, and concert tickets,
valued in excess of $10.00, to the Governor's staff, Senators,
Assembly members, and/or legislative staff. Defendants further
arranged for the delivery of the tickets, delivered the tickets,
made scheduling arrangements and confirmed attendance, all acts
performed were in violation of Government Code section 86203.
80. In 2011, Defendants arranged for a 50% discount for
the price paid for a piece of art bought by a legislator, a
discount not available to the general public. Such act being in
violation of Government Code section 86203.
81. From 2000 to the present, Defendants have regularly
invited, arranged, scheduled, and paid for meals in excess of
$10.00, -all acts done were in violation of Government Code
section 86203.
82. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
allege that Defendants performed the above-mentioned acts for
the purpose of injuring Plaintiffs and other competitors.
Complaint for Damages-19



4





10 
11
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
83.  Defendants  continue  to  perform  the  above-mentioned 
acts  in  violation  of  California  Government  Code  sections  86203, 
85702,  and  91005.  By  performing  said  actions,  Defendants  are 
engaging  in  an  unlawful  business  practice  and  are  therefore  in 
violation  of  sections  17200,  et  seq.  of  the  California  Business 
and  Professions  Code. 
84.  As  a  proximate  result  of  the  above-mentioned  acts  of 
Defendants,  ORLEANS  has  been  deprived  of  the  patronage  of  a 
large  number  of  its  actual  and  potential  customers,  at  to  its 
damage  in  an  amount  in  excess  of  the  jurisdictional  minimum  of 
the  Court  according  to  proof. 
WHEREFORE,  Plaintiffs  pray  for  judgment  against 
Defendants  as  follow: 
1.  For  an  order  requiring  Defendants,  and  each  of  them, 
to  show  cause,  if  any  they  have,  why  they  should  not 
be  enjoined  as  set  forth  below,  during  the  pendency 
of  this  action; 
2.  For  a  temporary  restraining  order,  a  preliminary 
injunction,  and  a  permanent  injunction,  all 
enjoining  Defendants  from  making  campaign 
contributions,  hosting  fundraisers  at  Defendant's 
mansion,  residence,  or  office,  making  or  arranging 
gifts  including  meals,  tickets  to  events,  or  any 
other  legally  defined  gift; 
3.  For  disgorgement  of  Defendants'  profits  for  the 
period  of  liability; 
4.  For  civil  penalties  pursuant  Business  and 
Professions  Code  section  17206; 
5.  For  treble  damages; 
6.  For  costs  of  suit,  including  reasonable  attorney's 
fees; 
Complaint  for  Damages--20 
1
2
3

5
6
7
8
9
10
11 
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. For any other and further relief as the Court deems
appropriate.
SECOND  CAUSE  OF ACTION
(Declaratory  Relief) 
85. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate hereby by
reference paragraphs 1 through 84, inclusive, as though fully
set forth herein.
86. By making campaign contributioristo elected
officials, Defendants were in violation of Government Code
sections 85702 and 91005.
87. By making, arranging, and delivering gifts Defendants
were in violation of Government Code section 86203.
88. By arranging for a discount on a rare piece of art
not available to the general public the Defendant was in
violation of Government Code section 86203.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment as follows:
1. For a declaration that Defendant's actions are in
violation of state law;
2. For such other and further relief as the Court deems
appropriate.
.THIRD CAUSE  OF  ACTION 
(Violation  of  Political  Reform  Act  of  1974) 
89. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate hereby by
reference paragraphs 1 through 88, inclusive, as though fully
set forth herein.
90. From 2000 to the present, Defendants intentionally or
negligently violated reporting requirements of the Political
Reform Act of 1974 by failing to keep detailed accounts,
records, bills and receipts, of payments made and expenses
incurred in connection with activities which are reportable,
including but not limited to following payments and expenses:
Complaint for Damages-21
1







10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
cash  contributions;  rental  fees  to  host  fundraisers;  employee's 
labor  costs  to  set  up,  host,  and  clean-up  fundraisersi  the  cost 
of  catering,  decorations,  flowers,  expensive  wine,  alcohol,  and' 
cigars  at  fundraisersi  cost  of  Sacramento  Kings'  floor  tickets; 
costs  of  rounds  of  golf;  costs  of  San  Francisco  Giant's  ~ n   San 
Francisco  4gers'  playoff  tickets;  cost  of  arranging  sale  of  fine 
art  at  a  substantial  discount;  and  the  costs  of  expensive 
dinners. 
Defendants'  failure  to  keep  detailed  accounts, 
records,  bills,  and  receipts  was  in  violation  of  Government  Code· 
section  86110. 
91.  From  2000  to  the  present,  Defendants  intentionally  or 
negligently  violated  reporting  requirements  of  thePRAby 
failing  to  provide  all  of  the  information  required  as  to 
activity  expenses,  including  without  limitation,  rental  fees  to 
host  fundraisersi  employee's·labor  costs  to  set  up,  host,  and 
clean-up  fundraisers;  the  cost  of  catering,  decorations, 
flowers,  expensive  wine,  alcohol,  and  cigars  at  fundraisers;. 
cost  of  Sacramento  Kings'  floor  tickets;  costs  of  rounds  of 
golf;  costs  of  San  Francisco  Giant's  and  San  Francisco  4gers' 
playoff  tickets;  cost  of  arranging  sale  of  fine  art  at  a 
substantial  discount;  aIld  the  costs  of  expensive  dinners. 
Defendants'  failure  to  provide  all  of  the  information  required 
as  to  activity  expenses  was  in  violation  of  Government  Code 
section  86110. 
92.  From  2000  to  the  present,  Defendants  intentionally  or 
negligently  violation  the  reporting  requirement  of  the  PRA  by 
failing  to  include  on  invitations  to  candidates  fundraisers,or 
letters  attached  to  the  invitations,  the  statement·"attendance 
at  his  event  by  a  public  official  will  constitute  acceptance  of 
a  reportable  gift."  Defendant's  failure  to  include  this 
Complaint  for  Oamages-22 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 "
13
J.4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
statement on invitations was in violation of section 86112.3 of
the Government Code.
93. From 2000 to the present, Defendant's intentionally
or negligently violating the reporting requirements of the PRA
by failing to provide the required information as to each
beneficlary of a reportable gift, including without limitation,
the following reportable gifts: rental fees to host fundraisers;
employee's labor costs to set up, host, and clean-up
fundraisers; the cost of catering, decorations, flowers,
expensive wine, alcohol, and cigars at fundraisers; cost of
Sacramento Kings' floor tickets; costs of rounds of golf; costs
of San Francisco Giant's and San Francisco 4gers' playoff
tickets; cost of arranging sale of fine art at a substantial
discount; and the costs of expensive dinners. Defendants'
failure to provide the required information to each beneficiary
was in violation of Government Code section 86112.5.
94. From 2 000 to the present, SLOAT intention"ally or
negligently violated reporting requirements of the PRA by
failing to complete and verify a periodic report which contains
a report of all activity expenses and contributions during the
reporting period, including without limitation: rental fees to
host fundraisers; employee's labor costs to set up, host, and
clean-up fundraisers; the cost of catering, decorations,
flowers, expensive wine, alcohol, and cigars at fundraisers;
cost of Sacramento Kings' floor tickets; costs of rounds of
golf; costs of San Francisco Giant's and San Francisco 4gers'
playoff tickets; cost of arranging sale of fine art at a
substantial discount; and the costs of expensive dinners.
Defendants' failure to complete and verify a periodic report
was in violation of Government Code section 86113.
Complaint for Damages-23
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
95. From 2000 to the p r   s   n t ~ SHJ intentionally or
negligently violated reporting requirements of the PRA by
failing to complete and verify a periodic report which contains
a report of all activity expenses and contributions during the
reporting period, including but not limited to: cash
contributions, rental fees to host fundraisers; employee's labor
costs to set up, host, and clean-up fundraisers; the cost·of
catering, decorations, flowers, expensive wine, alcohol, and
cigars at fundraisers; cost of Sacramento Kings' floor tickets;
costs of rounds of golf; costs of San Francisco Giant's and San
Francisco 4gers' playoff tickets; cost of arranging sale of fine
art at a substantial discount; and the costs of expensive
dinners. SHJ's failure to complete and verify a periodic report
was in violation of Government Code section 86114.
96. From 2000 to the present, SLOAT intentionally or
negligently violated reporting requirements of the PRA by
failing to file a periodic report which contains a report of all
activity expenses and contributions during the reporting period,
including but not limited to: cash contributions; rental fees to
host fundraisers; employee's labor costs to set. up, host, and
clean-up fundraisers; the cost of catering, decorations,
flowers, expensive wine, alcohol, and cigars at fundraisers;
cost of Sacramento Kings' floor tickets; costs of rounds of
golfi costs of San Francisco Giant's and San Francisco 4gers'
i
playoff tickets; cost of arranging sale of fine art at a
substantial discount; and the costs of expensive dinners.
Defendants' failure to file a periodic report was in viOlrtion
of Government Code section 86116.
I
97. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
allege that Defendants, in violation of Government Code section
84300, made cash contributions in amounts of one hundred dollars
Complaint for Damages-24
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
($100.00) or more. The exact amount and dates of these
contributions are not presently known, but Plaintiff will seek
leave of court to amend this complaint when the exact
information is ascertained.
98. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
allege that Defendants, in violation of section 84304 of the
Government Code, made anonymous contributions to a candidate,
committee or any other person totaling one hundred dollars
($100.00) or more in a calendar year. The exact amount and
dates of these contributions are not presently known, but
Plaintiff will ask leave of court to amend this complaint when
the exact information is ascertained.
99. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
allege that Defendant, in violation of Government Code section
86203, made gifts to persons aggregating more than ten dollars
($10.00)in a calendar month, including but not limited to:
rental fees to host fundraisersi employee's labor costs to set
up, host, and clean-up furrdraisers; the cost of catering,
decorations, flowers, expensive wine, alcohol, and cigars at
fundraisers; cost of Sacramento Kings' floor tickets; costs of
rounds of golf; costs of .San Francisco Giant's and San Francisco
4gers' playoff tickets; cost of arranging sale of fine art at a
substantial discount; and the costs of expensive dinners. The
exact amount and dates are not presently known, but Plaintiffs
will seek leave of court to amend this complaint when the exact
information is ascertained.
100. Plaintiffs are informed and believe-and thereon
allege that Defendants, in violation of Government Code section
86203, acted as an agent or intermediary in the making of gives
to persons aggregating more than ten dollars ($10.00) in a
calendar month, including but not l i ~ i t e   to: rental fees to
Complaint for Damages-25

: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
host fundraisersi employee's labor costs to set up, host, and
clean-up fundraisersi the cost of catering, decorations,
flowers, expensive wine, alcohol, and cigars at fundraisersj
cost of Sacramento Kings' floor tickets; costs of rounds of
golf; costs of San Francisco Giant's and San Francisco 4gers'
playoff tickets; cost of arranging sale of fine art at a
substantial discount; and the costs of expensive dinners.
101. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
allege that Defendants, in violation of Government Code section
86203, arranged for the making of gifts by any other person
aggregating more than ten dollars ($10.00) in a calendar month,
including but not limited to: rental fees to host fundraisersi
employee's labor costs to set up, host, and clean-up
fundraisersi the cost of catering, decorations, flowers,
expensive wine, alcohol, and cigars at fundraisers; cost of
Sacramento Kings' floor tickets; costs of rounds of golf; costs
of San Francisco Giant's and San Francisco 4gers' playoff
tickets; cost of arranging sale of fine art at a sUbstantial
discount; and the costs of expensive dinners.
102. Plaintiffs shall make a written request to the City
Attorney of the City of Sacramento, California, that .he file a
civil action for damages based on the violations alleged herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:
1. For damages in an amount to be determined at trial,
representing the value of gifts, contributions, and
expenditures not properly reported under the
Government Codej
2. For damages in an amount to be determined at trial,
which is three times the amount of each gift,
contribution, and expenditure made in violation of
the Government Code;
Complaint for  

2
3

5
6
7
8
9
10
11 
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. For payment of 50 percent of the damages recovered
to Plaintiff and payment of the remaining 50 percent
to the General Fund of the State of California,
pursuant to section 91009 of the Government Code;
4. For costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's
fees;
5. For such other and further relief as the Court made
deem appropriate.
FOORTH CAOSE OF ACTION
(Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy)
103. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate hereby by
reference paragraphs 1 through 102, inclusive, as though fully
set forth herein.
104. From January 1, 2000 to August 21, 2012, SMIRA was
employed by SHJ as a Managing Assistant. SMIRA's
responsibilities included registering SHJ as a lobbying firm,
compiling and submitting the registration for SHJ lobbyists,
coordinating the registration of SHJ clients as lobbyist
employers, compiling and ~   i l i n g quarterly lobbying activities
and payment disclosure reports, and coordinating and filing out
the quarterly lobbying employer reports. Further, SMIRA was
responsible for assuring that SHJ was in compliance with the
California Political Reform Act of 1974.
105. From early 2000 to August 21, 2012, Defendants
continually proposed and insisted that Plaintiff violate the
reporting requirements of the PRA by not keeping detailed
accounts, records, bills and receipts of reportable gifts,~
contributions, and expenses by failing to complete, verify, and
file these reports.
106. From early 2000 to August 21, 2012, Defendants
continually proposed and insisted that Plaintiff violate the
• Complaint for Oamages-27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
:I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 '.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
contribution, gift, and expenditure limitations of the PRA by
acting as an agent or intermediary in the making of any gift of
more than ten dollars ($10.00) in a calendar month and by
arranging for the making of any such gift. The gifts that
Defendants insisted Plaintiff act.as agent in the making of or
arranging for the making of include: cash contributions; rental
fees to host fundraisers; employee's labor costs to set up,
host, and clean-up fundraisersi the cost of catering,
decorations,       alcohol, and cigars at
fundraisers; cost of Sacramento Kings' floor tickets; costs
rounds of golf; costs of ,San Francisco Giant's and San Francisco
4gers' playoff tickets; cost of arranging sale of fine art at a
substantial discounti and the costs of expensive dinners.
107. Further, beginning in or around 2010, Defendants
continually proposed and insisted that Plaintiff hide and
Employee's income and Defendants' illegal gifts from the IRS and
the FPPC.
108. In or around August 2012, Plaintiff refused to
participate in any manner in the violations of the PRA, as
alleged herein, and refused to participate in the illegal
concealing of income and gifts from the IRS-and the FPPC,as
also alleged herein.'
109. The actions Defendants ordered Plaintiff to engage
in would be in violation of Government Code sections, 86110,
86112, 86112.3, 86112.5, 86114, 86116,- 84300, 84304, and 86203,
the United States Internal Revenue Code, and Government Code
section 83100, et seq.
110. As a proximate result of Plaintiff's refusals and
conduct as set forth above in paragraph lOB, Defendants
terminated Plaintiff's employment on August 21, 2012.
. Complaint for Oamages-28

10 
15 
20 
25 
1

3, 


7


11 
12 
13 
14 
16 
17 
18 
19 
21 
22 
23 
24 
26 
27 
28 
111.  As  a  proximate  result  of  Defendant's  conduct, 
Plaintiff  has  suffered  harm,  including  lost  earnings  and  other 
employment  benefits,  humiliation,  embarrassment,  and  mental 
anguish,  all  to  her  damage  in  an  amount  to  be  established  at 
trial. 
112.  In  doing  the  acts  set  f.orth  above,  Defendants  knew 
that  the  conduct  that  they  would  have  required  of  Plaintiff  was  -
unlawful,  and  required  Plaintiff  to  choose  between  violating  the 
law  and  losing  her  job.  Notwithstanding  this  knowledge" 
Defendants  subj ect-ed  Plainti.ff  to  cruel  and  unjust  hardship  in 
conscious  disregard  of  Plaintiff's  rights  by  insisting  Plaintiff· 
violate  the  law,  a!1d  terminating  Plaintiff's  employment  when-
Plaintiff  refused  to  do  ~ o   and  castigating  Plaintiff  in  front 
of  her  colleagues  and  co-workers.  This  malicious  and  oppressive 
conduct  justifies  and  award  of  punitive  damages  in  an  amount 
sufficient  to  punish  Defendants  and  deter  others  from  engaging 
in  similar  conduct. 
WHEREFORE,  Plaintiff  prays  for  judgment  against 
Defendants  as  follows: 
1.  For  damages  for  bi,each  of  contract  according' to . 
proof; 
2.  For  compensatory  damages  for  lost  wages,  benefits, 
and  emotional  distress  according  to  proof; 
3.  For  interest  on  lost  earnings  and  benefits  at  the 
legal  rate; 
4.  For  punitive  damages  in  an  amount  appropriate  to 
punish  Defendants  and  deter  others  from  engaging  in 
similar  conduct 
S.  For  costs  of  suit  incurred;  and 
6.  For  such  other  and  further  relief  as  the  Court  deems 
appropriate. 
Complaint  for Damages-29 
1
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
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Defamation)
113. Plaintiffs r ~   a l l e g e and incorporate hereby by
reference paragraphs 1 through 112, inclusive, as though fully
set forth herein.
114. In or around November 2012, SLOAT spoke the
following words of and concerning SMIRA: that SMIRA had
committed improprieties against Defendants, including felony
theft.
115. The words were heard by prospective employers and
members of the community.
116. These words were slanderous per se as they accuse
Plaintiff of committing the crime of theft.
117. The words uttered were a false statement because
Plaintiff has not at any point committed the crime of theft
against Defendants.
118. As a result of the above-described words, Plaintiff
has suffered general damages to her reputation.
119. As a further proximate result of the slanderous and
untrue statements of SLOAT, Plaintiff has suffered injury to her
business, trade, profession, and occupation according to proof.
120. AS a further proximate case of the slanderous
statements of SLOAT, Plaintiff has suffered extreme emotional
and physical distress according to proof at trial.
121. The above-described words were spoken by SLOAT with
malice, oppression, and fraud in that SLOAT knew that SMIRA haa
not committed theft yet he made the defamatory statements in his
effort to punish Plaintiff and to silence her from revealing the
violations of the PRA as alleged herein. An award of exemplary
and punitive damages is appropriate.
complaint for Damages-30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against
Defendants as follows:
1. For general damages according to proof;
2 . For special damages according to proofi 
3 • For punitive damages;
4. For costs of suit incurred herein;
5 .  For such other and further relief that the Court
deems appropriate.
DATED: December 24, 2013
Je s ~ r Ortiz
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Rhonda Smira and Orleans
Consulting Group, LLC
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby demand and request a trial by jury in
this matter.
Dated: December 24, 2013
J     ~ e a ~ Law
Jeortiz
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Rhonda Smira and Orleans
Consulting Group, LLC
Complaint for Damages-31
., 'f"