$1425

1 ALANNA C. BONDY, ESQ.

2 Nevada Bar No. 14830
JAYME N. MARTINEZ, ESQ.
3 Nevada Bar No. 15802
SGRO & ROGER
4 300 South Wells Avenue, Suite 4
Reno, Nevada 89502
5
Telephone: (702) 384-9800
6 Facsimile: (702) 665-4120
abondy@sgroandroger.com
7 jmartinez@sgroandroger.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
9
WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA
10
RAFAEL PINEDA and PINEDA’S Case No.:
11 INVESTMENTS LLC, Dept. No.:
12 Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT
13
vs.
14
RENO REAL ESTATE
15 DEVELOPMENT, LLC, DOES 1-10,
individuals; and ROES 1-10, business entities,
16 forms unknown; inclusive,

17 Defendants.

18
Plaintiffs
RAFAEL
Defendant. PINEDA (hereinafter “Mr. Pineda”) and PINEDA’S
19
INVESTMENTS LLC, (collectively the “Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned counsel,
20
ALANNA C. BONDY, ESQ., and JAYME N. MARTINEZ, ESQ., of the law firm of SGRO &
21
ROGER hereby complain and allege against Defendant RENO REAL ESTATE
22
DEVELOPMENT, LLC (hereinafter “Defendant” or “RRED”) as follows:
23 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to NRS
25 4.370(1)(a), as the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000, exclusive of attorney’s fees, interest
26 and costs.
27
-1-
28
 1 2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant as the Defendant has

2 consented to the jurisdiction of this Court under the Event Facility Rental Agreement between the

3 parties which gives rise to this action. Further the Defendant has availed itself of opportunities to

4 conduct business in the State of Nevada, establishing minimum contacts with the forum, and

5 therefore it is subject to personal jurisdiction in Nevada on claims arising out of that contact. This
Court’s exercise of jurisdiction is not inconsistent with the Constitution of the State of Nevada or
6
the Constitution of the United States. NRS 14.065.
7
3. Venue is proper in Washoe County pursuant to the terms of the Event Facility
8
Rental Agreement under which this action arises.
9
PARTIES
10
4. At all times relevant to this action, Mr. Pineda is and was a resident of Washoe
11
County, State of Nevada.
12
5. At all times relevant to this action, Pineda’s Investments LLC is and was a Nevada
13
limited liability company. Mr. Pineda is the sole member of Pineda’s Investments LLC.
14 6. At all times relevant to this action RRED, is and was a Delaware limited liability
15 company that owns and operates the J Resort Glow Plaza Festival Grounds, located at 670 W.
16 4th Street Reno, Nevada (hereinafter the “Facility”).
17 7. Doe Defendants 1 through 10 are persons whose true names and identities and
18 capacities are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, and who acted on behalf of, or in concert with,
19 or at the direction of, any of the other Defendants or who are officers, directors, employees, or

20 agents of any of the named or Roe Defendants.

21 8. Roe Defendants 1 through 10 are business entities whose true names and identities

22 and capacities are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time and may be corporations, limited liability

23 companies, associations, partnerships, subsidiaries, holding companies, owners, predecessor or

successor entities, joint ventures, parent corporations, or related business entities of the other
24
Defendants who acted on behalf of, or in concert with, or at the direction of, any of the other
25
Defendants.
26
27
-2-
28
 1 9. Plaintiffs will seek leave of this Court to substitute the true names and capacities

2 for such Doe and Roe Defendants when discovered.

3 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

4 10. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.

5 11. Mr. Pineda and Defendant are parties to an Event Facility Rental Agreement
(hereinafter the “Agreement”).
6
12. Under the Agreement, Defendant agreed to rent out the Facility to Mr. Pineda for
7
the purpose of hosting the Fuego Latin Cultural Festival (hereinafter the “Event”). The Event was
8
set to occur on August 19, 2023.
9
13. The Agreement provided that each party was responsible for a number of
10
obligations leading up to the Event.
11
14. Mr. Pineda complied with and fulfilled all of his material obligations under the
12
Agreement and leading up to the Event.
13
15. On August 17, 2023, just two days before the Event was scheduled to take place,
14 Mr. Pineda received written notice from the Defendant unilaterally terminating the Agreement.
15 Mr. Pineda was initially advised via email that Defendant was “terminating the Agreement due to
16 serious public safety concerns . . . [based on Mr. Pineda’s] inability to provide [a] suitable security
17 plan acceptable to both the Reno Police Department and [Defendant] in violation of Section 5.4 of
18 the Agreement.”
19 16. Later on August 17, 2023, Defendant caused a letter to be sent to Mr. Pineda,

20 reiterating the fact that Defendant had decided to unilaterally terminate the Agreement due to

21 “serious public safety concerns” however in this correspondence, Defendant clarified that the

22 security concerns were based on a 2021 shooting that happened in the parking lot outside of a

23 lounge owned by Pineda’s Investments LLC (Oak Room Lounge). The Defendant also claimed in
its letter that in addition to Mr. Pineda’s alleged violation of Section 5.4 of the Agreement, Mr.
24
Pineda was also in violation of Sections 5.10, 5.11, and 5.12 of the Agreement.
25
17. Upon information and belief, Lisa Miolini, who is an employee of the Defendant,
26
and other employees and/or agents of the Defendant, communicated with third parties, including,
27
-3-
28
 1 but not necessarily limited to, members of the Reno Police Department, falsely asserting that Mr.

2 Pineda and/or Pineda’s Investments LLC have a history of permitting and hosting “gang-affiliated”

3 events.

4 18. Section 5.4 of the Agreement governs “Security” and states that “[Mr. Pineda] shall

5 provide all security personnel for the Facility in proportion to the number of ticket sales and
estimated size of the Event, such that there is an adequate number of security personnel for proper
6
supervision of the Event. [Mr. Pineda] shall ensure that the security personnel are a licensed and
7
bonded security company in the State of Nevada. [Defendant] reserves the right to meet with the
8
contracted security company prior to the Event to ensure the security company is suitable.
9
19. The Defendant’s concerns about security came as a complete surprise to Mr.
10
Pineda. In anticipation of the Event, Mr. Pineda worked with the Defendant to ensure adequate
11
security was hired. In fact, Mr. Pineda retained RJE Security Consultants, which is a licensed and
12
bonded security company, at the Defendant’s recommendation, to provide security for the Event.
13
Thirty-three (33) security personnel were contracted to work security at the Event under a contract
14 with RJE Security Consultants. The event was anticipated to host two thousand five hundred
15 (2,500) guests.
16 20. Moreover, on August 16, 2023, Mr. Pineda was forwarded a written communication
17 from a representative of the Defendant, Dominic Cooper-Byrd, seemingly approving the security
18 plan for the Event on behalf of the Defendant.
19 21. Defendant never met with RJE Security or Mr. Pineda to address its newfound

20 safety concerns prior to unilaterally terminating the Agreement.

21 22. Section 5.10 of the Agreement states that “The City of Reno requires a special event

22 permit for events on private property. [Mr. Pineda] shall, at [Mr. Pineda’s] sole cost and expense,

23 obtain any permits required by the City of Reno to host the Event at the Facility.”
23. Section 5.12 of the Agreement states that “[Mr. Pineda] shall obtain licenses and
24
Permits . . . necessary or required by the city, county, state or other applicable governmental
25
organization.”
26
27
-4-
28
 1 24. While the Agreement provides that Mr. Pineda is responsible for obtaining any

2 permits and licenses required to host the Event, throughout their professional relationship,

3 Defendant assisted Mr. Pineda in obtaining relevant permits.

4 25. Specifically, Lisa Miolini assisted Mr. Pineda in applying for the necessary special

5 event permit. In fact, on August 10, 2023, Mr. Pineda received a text communication from a City
of Reno employee confirming that Ms. Miolini had submitted the special event permit on behalf
6
of Mr. Pineda.
7
26. The August 17, 2023 correspondence terminating the Agreement was the first
8
instance in which Mr. Pineda was advised that there was any issue with the permits for the Event.
9
27. Finally, the Defendant contended in its August 17, 2023 correspondence that Mr.
10
Pineda was “required to provide [Defendant] with a list of vendors and proof of each vendors’ City
11
of Reno and Washoe County Business Licenses, as well as ensuring that each vendor has the
12
required health permits to operate at the event as required by the Washoe County Health District.
13
[Defendant] requested that you provide this information and the request was also ignored in
14 violation of Section 5.11 of the Agreement.”
15 28. Section 5.11 of the Agreement states that “The Washoe County Health District
16 (“WCHD”) requires and authorizes health permits for food establishment operators at special
17 events throughout Washoe County and regulates the safe operation of food establishments through
18 the inspection process. [Mr. Pineda] shall make certain that all vendors operating at the Event have
19 a valid health permit as required by the WCHD.”

20 29. Section 5.11 of the Agreement does not obligate Mr. Pineda to provide the

21 Defendant with a list of vendors. However, Mr. Pineda was willing and prepared to provide the

22 Defendant with any information it sought concerning the Event, including a list of vendors, at a

23 pre-arranged meeting that was scheduled to occur between the Parties on August 18, 2023.
However, that meeting never occurred, following the Defendant’s unliteral termination of the
24
Agreement on August 17, 2023.
25
30. As of August 17, 2023, Mr. Pineda had sold tickets for the Event, he had contracted
26
with numerous third parties including, but not limited to, vendors, security professionals,
27
-5-
28
 1 marketing professionals, and entertainers, and Mr. Pineda and Pineda’s Investments LLC had

2 invested significant financial resources in the Event.

3 31. On August 18, 2023, Mr. Pineda responded to the Defendant’s termination notice,

4 explaining that he was not in violation of the Agreement and demanding that the Defendant

5 perform under the Agreement by permitting the Event to move forward, as planned, on August 19,
2023.
6
32. Defendant refused to allow the Event to occur.
7
33. As a result of Defendant’s unilateral termination of the Agreement, Mr. Pineda and
8
Pineda Investment’s LLC. suffered substantial financial loss to, including but not limited to loss
9
of revenue through ticket sales and costs incurred and the termination of numerous third-party
10
contracts.
11 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Contract)
12
34. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
13
35. The Agreement constitutes a valid and existing agreement between Mr. Pineda and
14
the Defendant.
15
36. Mr. Pineda performed or was excused from performance under the Agreement. To
16
wit, Mr. Pineda obtained adequate security for the Event pursuant to the Agreement; he obtained
17
the necessary permits and licenses necessary to host the Event or was excused from so doing by
18 the Defendant when the Defendant applied for the necessary special event permit on Mr. Pineda’s
19 behalf; and he ensured that the vendors for his Event had valid health permits as contemplated by
20 the Agreement.
21 37. Defendant breached the Agreement by failing to perform its duties, obligations, and
22 responsibilities under the Agreement, including, without limitation, unilaterally terminating the
23 Agreement and preventing the Event from going forward.

24 38. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s breach, Mr. Pineda has

25 sustained damages in excess of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00).

26
27
-6-
28
 1 39. The Agreement provides that “[i]n the event suit is brought or an attorney is

2 retained by any party to this Agreement to enforce the terms of this Agreement or to collect any

3 money due hereunder or any money damages for breach hereof, the prevailing party shall be

4 entitled to recover, in addition to any other remedy, reimbursement for reasonable attorneys’ fees,

5 court costs, and other related expenses incurred in connection therewith.”

40. Accordingly, Mr. Pineda is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and
6
costs incurred in connection with this matter.
7
8 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
9
41. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
10
42. Every contract imposes upon the contracting parties a duty of good faith and fair
11 dealing, which provides that each party deal fairly with the other and that neither party do anything
12 that will deprive the other party of the benefits of their agreement. See NRS 104.1304.
13 43. The Agreement constitutes a valid and existing agreement between Mr. Pineda and
14 the Defendant.
15 44. Mr. Pineda performed or was excused from performance under the Agreement. To
16 wit, Mr. Pineda obtained adequate security for the Event pursuant to the Agreement; he obtained

17 the necessary permits and licenses necessary to host the Event or was excused from so doing by

18 the Defendant when the Defendant applied for the necessary special event permit on Mr. Pineda’s

19 behalf; and he ensured that the vendors for his Event had valid health permits as contemplated by

20 the Agreement.
45. Mr. Pineda was entitled to receive the benefit he bargained for under the
21
Agreement, which was the ability host the Event at the Facility.
22
46. The Defendant breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by unilaterally and
23
unfairly terminating the Agreement, without just cause, just two (2) days prior to when Event was
24
scheduled to occur.
25
47. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s breach, Mr. Pineda has
26
sustained damages in excess of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00).
27
-7-
28
 1 48. The Agreement provides that “[i]n the event suit is brought or an attorney is

2 retained by any party to this Agreement to enforce the terms of this Agreement or to collect any

3 money due hereunder or any money damages for breach hereof, the prevailing party shall be

4 entitled to recover, in addition to any other remedy, reimbursement for reasonable attorneys’ fees,

5 court costs, and other related expenses incurred in connection therewith.”

49. Accordingly, Mr. Pineda is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and
6
costs incurred in connection with this matter.
7
8 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligent Misrepresentation)
9
50. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
10
51. Defendant, through its employees and agents, to wit: Dominic Cooper-Byrd and
11 Lisa Miolini supplied false or misleading information to Mr. Pineda concerning the Defendant’s
12 approval of Mr. Pineda’s security plan for the Event and the status and receipt of certain necessary
13 permits, including a special event permit, from the City of Reno.
14 52. Mr. Pineda justifiably relied on the representations of Defendant’s employees and
15 agents in believing that all permits for the Event had been appropriately applied for and obtained,
16 and that the Defendant had approved of the security plan for the Event.

17 53. Defendant, through its employees and agents, failed to exercise reasonable

18 competence or care in communicating information to Mr. Pineda about the security plan and

19 permits.

20 54. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, Mr. Pineda sustained
damages in excess of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00).
21
55. It has been necessary for Mr. Pineda to retain the services of counsel to represent
22
him in this action and thus, he is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of
23
suit incurred herein.
24
25 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations)
26 56. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
27
-8-
28
 1 57. Mr. Pineda entered into a number of valid and existing contracts with third parties

2 in anticipation of the Event, including, but not limited to, vendors, security professionals,

3 marketing professionals, and entertainers.

4 58. Defendant was aware or should have been aware of the existence of these contracts

5 between Mr. Pineda and various third parties.

59. Defendant, by unilaterally terminating the Agreement and refusing to allow the
6
Event to go forward, committed intentional acts that were designed to disrupt the contracts between
7
Mr. Pineda and various third parties.
8
60. The contracts between Mr. Pineda and the third parties were, in fact, disrupted, as
9
the Defendant’s acts prevented Mr. Pineda and the third parties from performing under the
10
contracts.
11
61. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, Mr. Pineda has
12
sustained damages in excess of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00).
13
62. It has been necessary for Mr. Pineda to retain the services of counsel to represent
14 him in this action and thus, he is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of
15 suit incurred herein.
16 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of NRS 651.070)
17
63. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
18 64. NRS 651.070 provides that “[a]ll persons are entitled to the full and equal
19 enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of any
20 place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color,
21 religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, sex, or gender identity or expression.”
22 65. The J Resort Glow Plaza Festival Grounds is a place of public accommodation
23 pursuant to NRS 651.050.

24 66. Mr. Pineda is of Latino descent and the Event (the Fuego Latin Cultural Festival)

25 was an event designed to celebrate Latino culture.

26
27
-9-
28
 1 67. Upon information and belief, the Defendant cancelled the Event due to unfounded

2 concerns about the potential for criminal activity that appear to be at least somewhat rooted in

3 racial animus and bias towards people of Latino descent.

4 68. Mr. Pineda was deprived of his rights and privileges secured by NRS 651.070 when

5 the Defendant unilaterally, and without just cause, determined that his Event posed a threat to
public safety and cancelled the Event.
6
69. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, Mr. Pineda has
7
sustained damages in excess of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00).
8
70. It has been necessary for Mr. Pineda to retain the services of counsel to represent
9
him in this action and thus, he is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of
10
suit incurred herein.
11 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Business Disparagement)
12
71. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
13
72. Upon information and belief, Defendant, through its agents and employees, has
14
communicated with third parties, including but not necessarily limited to members of the Reno
15
Police Department, falsely asserting that Pineda’s Investments LLC has a history of permitting
16
and hosting “gang-affiliated” events.
17
73. These communications were not privileged.
18 74. Defendant knew that the statements were false or it acted with reckless disregard
19 for the truth
20 75. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, Pineda’s Investments
21 LLC has sustained damages in excess of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00).
22 76. It has been necessary for Pineda’s Investments LLC to retain the services of counsel
23 to represent it in this action and thus, it is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and

24 costs of suit incurred herein.

25 ///

26 ///

27
-10-
28
 1
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2 (Defamation)
3 77. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
4 78. Upon information and belief, Defendant, through its agents and employees, has
5 communicated with third parties, including but not necessarily limited to members of the Reno

6 Police Department, falsely asserting that Mr. Pineda has a history of permitting and hosting “gang-

7 affiliated” events.

8 79. These communications were not privileged.

9 80. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, Mr. Pineda has
sustained damages in excess of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00).
10
81. It has been necessary for Mr. Pineda to retain the services of counsel to represent
11
him in this action and thus, he is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of
12
suit incurred herein.
13
///
14
///
15
///
16
///
17
///
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27
-11-
28
 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, expressly reserving the right to amend this Complaint,

3 prays for judgment against the Defendant as follows:

4 1. For compensatory damages, including all actual, consequential, and incidental financial

5 losses suffered by Plaintiffs;

2. For reputational damages suffered by Plaintiffs;
6
3. For costs of suit and attorneys’ fees as authorized under the Agreement and pursuant
7
to Nevada law;
8
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
9
10 AFFIRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS 239B.030
11 The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document does not contain the
12 Social Security Number of any person. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the law of the

13 State of Nevada, that the foregoing statements is true and correct.

14
15 DATED this 28th day of August, 2023.

16 SGRO & ROGER

17
/s/ Jayme N. Martinez, Esq.
18 _____________________________
ALANNA C. BONDY, ESQ.
19 Nevada Bar No. 14830
20 JAYME N. MARTINEZ, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 15802
21 300 South Wells Avenue, Suite 4
Reno, Nevada 89502
22 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
23
24
25
26
27
-12-
28