IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

DONG HYOK YOO, MOCHINUT RVA

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

VS.

SIERRA HAGA
Defendant COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION

Defendant. AND LIBEL PER SE

(JURY DEMAND)

COMPLAINT

PARTIES

1) COMES NOW Plaintiff, DONG HYOK YOO, a proprietor of a restaurant, hereinafter

referred to as Plaintiff is and at all material times mentioned herein was, an individual, over
the age of majority, residing in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia has always enjoyed
a very good reputation in both his personal and professional life, and is well respected in
both the local business community and the local community.

MOCHINUT RVA is a company organized and existing under the laws of the state of
2)

Virginia, at 900 W. Franklin St, Richmond, Virginia 23220, and

has always enjoyed very
good reputation in both by its loyal customers and by the professional restaurant community
his personal and professional life, and is well respected in both the local business as a fair
 and equal opportunity employer.

3) T h e De fe nd a nt, SIE R R A HAGA, h e re i na f te r re fe r re d to a s the De fe nda n t,

wa s a n i ndiv id ual , o ve r t he age of ma jo ri ty , re sid ing in th e c ity o f
R ic hmo nd , Vir g in ia .

J URISDI CTIO N

4) This Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and venue is
proper in this Court because this lawsuit involves d e lib e ra te acts and omissions
constituting causes of action arising and occurring in Richmond Division, V i r g i n i a .
Plaintiff and Defendant are located in Richmond, Virginia.

HIST ORY O F P L AINT IF F S AND DE F E NDANT RE L TIO NSH IP

5) T h e De f e n d a nt sta r te d wo r ki ng a t the Pla i ntif f’ s ea te r y o n or

a b o ut …… …… … …… . Whe r e sh e a hs b ee n wo rk in g un d e r th e
c a pa c ity of … … …… … …… … …… …t oge t he r with othe r 20 – 25
e m plo y ee s.

6) Du rin g the pe r io d o f th e De f e n d a nt ’s e mpl oy me n t, t he y ha ve h a d

a c o rd ia l wo rk in g re la tio nsh ip with th e Pla i nt iff s. On or a bo u t 5 t h
Ma r c h 2 02 2 , th e De fe nda nt a ske d t he Plai nt if fs f o r a p ro motio n to
ta ke u p t he su pe rviso r po sitio n, whic h wa s n ot app r ov e d a f te r
c a re f u l c on side r a tio n sinc e fo u r othe r e mpl oye e s ha d ap plie d to
th e sa me p ositio n. E ve nt ua lly a n Asia n b y t he na me NI COL E
e me rg e d mo re q ua lif ie d tha n o th e r inte r e ste d emp lo ye e s.

7) Sin c e 16 t h De c e mb e r 2 02 1, the Pla i nti ff s h a v e ha d t o la y o ff so me

e m plo y ee s d ue to a sl ow-d own in bu sine ss. I t is n ote wor th y tha t
 th e b usi ne ss i s l oc a te d in the Un ive rsi ty Ca m pu s whe re b u sine ss
c a n g r in d t o a ha lt d u ri ng b re a k s. I t is d u ri ng th is time th e
Pla int if fs l aid of f e mp loye e s of al l ra ce wi th ou t fa v or in g a ny
p a r tic ula r ra c e . A m onth la te r , Ap ri l 5 t h 2 02 2, th e De fe nd a nt
su bmi tte d a r e si gn ati on le tte r c itin g fa lse h o od s a nd u n pr ove n
tr u ths a s g ro un d s fo r he r re si gna t io n.

8) I t is a lso imp o rta nt to n ote th a t the f oll owi ng :

a) Pl a inti ff s ha v e b e e n o wn in g a f re e z e r te mp a n d u se m ost o f i t
i n o n e o r two da ys.
b) Mo st i te m s alre a dy h a ve e x pira tio n da te o n th e m.
c) T he Pla in tif f s ha v e ne ve r co me a c r oss suc h th in g a s “k n if e
t ra in in g” .
d) T he fi rst a id k it i s e a si ly re ac h a b le an d i s fu ll y st oc ke d .
e) T he Pla in tif f has n e ve r intimi da te d or b u llie d se le ct iv e
e mplo yee s, p ri va te ly o r pu blicl y.
f) T he plai nt if fs ha ve n e ve r und e r pa id o r c u t emplo ye e s’ sa la rie s
d e sp ite th e sl owin g d own in b usi ne ss.
g) T he Pl ain tif f s pa y the ir e mp lo yee s t he sta tu to ry a pp r ove d
m inimu m wa ge of $ 12 p e r hou r.
h) T he se f ac t s ca n b e a tte ste d by o th e r e mp lo ye e s.

9) B y this Complaint seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for
defamation including libel and intentional inflection of emotional distress by
Defendant SIERRA HAGA and alleges as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
10) The Defendant willingly and voluntarily served the Plaintiffs with her notice of
resignation on or about April 5th, 2022. The aforesaid notice gave the Plaintiffs Two (2)
weeks to terminate her employment.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Libel - Civil Code § 18.2-417)

11) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through to 10 above, as

though fully set forth herein.

12) Since the Defendant submitted her resignation on April 5th, 2022, P l a i n t i f f h a s
b e e n f a c i n g a withering stream of hurtful and damaging accusations which are
false.

13) Recently, a number of p o s t s h a v e b e e n p o p p i n g u p a n d d o i n g r o u n d s o n

I n s t a g r a m attacking the Plaintiffs’ reputation and levelling several false accusations
including violating the law, among other things.

14) Plaintiff is informed and believes that on or about

……………………………………………………… Defendant made the following
defamatory statements about, of, and concerning the Plaintiffs:

“Hey guys a friend of my friend, who worked at Mochinut and just quitted, so
now we can spill the tea. DO NOT BUY FROM MOCHINUT. Do it at your
own risk:

Fired all of the black employees but one, and said “I’m not racist, I kept
Margret”

Touches food with his hands in the kitchen before serves

No fridge or freezer temps ALSO no food dating so unless it looks bad, it’s
probably getting used and sold
 Doesn’t have knife training so an employee has had their finger cut off and
glued back on before at Patient first (congrats though they just got a first aid
kit) (the fire extinguisher is lost though RIP)

Publicly and privately intimidates and bullies selective employees

Cut pay to below minimum wage but “makes up for it with tips’ even though
they never know the full amount of collected tips being shared -etc-“

15) The aforesaid defamatory statements made allegedly by the Defendant was and is false and
was not privileged. Defendant made said statements knowing the falsity thereof or without
using reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity thereof.

16) Defendant made the aforesaid statements with malice and with the intent to injure Plaintiffs’
good name and reputation and to interfere with their business, in that Defendant harbored
ill-will toward the Plaintiffs.

17) The aforesaid defamatory statement has harmed Plaintiffs’ reputation since such a
statement has a tendency to injure and has injured Plaintiffs in their business, their
future business and adversely affected their ability to attract competent personnel.
Plaintiff shall incur substantial expense in order to redress the severe harm they have
suffered, all to Plaintiffs’ general and actual damages, including exemplary and
punitive damages, in an amount which far exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this
court, and which will be proven at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Defamation Per Se)

18) Plaintiffs repeats and re-alleges his factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 17
as if fully set forth herein.

19) Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, on that basis, alleges that Defendant published
her allegations without regard for their truth or accuracy.

20) Defendant(s) have no privilege, either absolute or qualified, for their false allegations.

21) The statement by the Defendant as it appears on Instagram telling countless viewers
that they should not consume Plaintiffs’ menu was false when made and the Defendant
knew that such statement was false when she made it.

22) Alternatively, when the defendant made the above statement, she acted recklessly in
failing to ascertain its truth.

23) The statement made by the defendant was defamatory per se as it:

a) Imputed to the Plaintiffs an inability to serve customers with hygienic meals.

b) Concluded that the Plaintiffs are racist

c) Prejudiced the Plaintiffs as employers in that they cannot treat employees equally
and fairly.

d) Prejudiced the Plaintiffs as business owners that fail to owe a duty of care to their
customers.

24) Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that a reasonable person,
upon reading the false allegations as written by the Defendant will believe and rely
upon Defendants’ untrue statements.

25) As a result of the defamatory statements by the Defendant, Plaintiffs have suffered
injury and harm to both their good personal reputation and their good business
reputation, as well as great humiliation, shame, vilification, exposure to public infamy,
scandal, and disgrace.
 26) Plaintiffs demands a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs moves this Honorable Court for judgment against the
Defendant personally as follows:

1. Declaration Defendant’s statements to be defamatory and false;

2. Defendant to publicly retract her statements and apologize to Plaintiffs for her
publication

3. For economic damages $50,000.00;

4. For general and compensatory damages, $30,000.00

5. For exemplary and punitive damages, $10,000.00

6. For costs of suit herein incurred;

7. For interest on all sums awarded;

8. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

DONG HYOK YOO

900 W. Franklin St, Richmond, Virginia 23220

Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this 25th day of March, 2022, a copy of the foregoing Defendant ‘s Motion to
Enforce Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of points and Authorities was mailed to the
Plaintiff.

Pro Se

DONG HYOK YOO

Proprietor of Mochinut RVA