FILED 18 NOV 01 PM 4:14 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CLERK E-FILED CASE NUMBER: 18-2-27481-8 SEA 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING 6 7 8 Plaintiff, 9 vs. 10 11 12 13 14 ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., an Alaska corporation, MARCELLA FLEMING REED, an individual, MFR LAW GROUP, PLLC, a Washington professional limited liability company, and BETTY PINA, an individual, and JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-10, COMES NOW plaintiff, Paul Engelien, and for cause of action against defendants, states: BRIEF INTRODUCTION 17 18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants. 15 16 NO. 18-2-27481-8 SEA PAUL ENGELIEN, an individual, 1. This action involves the devastating economic, emotional, and reputation injuries 19 and damages that Paul Engelien—a 22-year veteran Alaska Airlines pilot—suffered as a direct 20 result of Alaska Airlines’ (Alaska), Alaska agents’, Marcella Reed’s, MFR Law Group’s (MFR), 21 and Betty Pina’s individual and collective unlawful and tortious acts as alleged below. 22 2. The claims alleged here all flow from an incident that occurred on June 5, 2017. 23 On that date, Engelien and his co-worker, Pina, also an Alaska pilot, became the subjects of a 24 routine, internal investigation into a possible alcohol-consumption violation. Alaska alleged that 25 Pina and Engelien, while on an overnight layover in Minneapolis, violated Alaska’s ten-hour 26 alcohol rule, which prohibits pilots from consuming alcohol within ten hours of duty. 27 First Amended Complaint - 1 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 3. To avoid any potential workplace discipline that may flow from Alaska’s alcohol 2 investigation, Pina ultimately falsely accused Engelien—both to Alaska and to the public via a 3 nationwide media #MeToo campaign—of drugging and sexually assaulting her during the June 4 5, 2017 layover. Pina’s false claims defamed Engelien, invaded his privacy, decimated his life 5 and career, and caused him severe distress. 6 4. In the face of Pina’s false #MeToo claims, Alaska (in part through the entities 7 retained to conduct its workplace investigation, MFR and Reed) conducted a negligent, flawed, 8 and pretextual investigation. MFR and Reed determined Engelien had violated the 10-hour rule 9 (but concluded Pina had not) based on the fact Engelien admitted he was an alcoholic and their 10 belief that he was lying about time indications on his phone—a claim unequivocally refuted by 11 experts Engelien hired and presented to Alaska. Based on MFR and Reed’s investigation, as 12 well as its own, Alaska ultimately unlawfully terminated Engelien’s employ without just cause. 13 Alaska, MFR, and Reed’s acts, as alleged below, have, like Pina’s, caused Engelien irreparable 14 and extensive injuries and damages. 15 PLAINTIFF 16 5. Paul Engelien. Engelien is an individual who lives in Clark County, Nevada. 17 6. Alaska employed Engelien as a pilot for 22 years. A valid, binding employment 18 19 20 agreement controlled the employment arrangement. 7. Engelien was an Air Line Pilots’ Association (ALPA) member and was afforded certain employment protections through that membership. 21 22 23 DEFENDANTS 8. Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Alaska). Alaska is an Alaska corporation that is licensed to do business in Washington. Its principal offices are in King County. 24 9. Betty Pina (Pina). Pina is an individual who lives in Cascade County, Montana. 25 10. Alaska hired Pina on November 2, 2016. She was a probationary pilot and was 26 not yet afforded the same employment security as non-probationary pilots. 27 First Amended Complaint - 2 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 11. Marcella Fleming Reed. Reed is an individual who lives in King County. 2 12. Reed is an attorney, a private investigator, and a member of the Association of 3 4 5 6 7 Workplace Investigators. 13. Reed holds herself out as a professional with expertise in conducting workplace investigations. 14. MFR Law Group, PLLC (MFR). MFR is a Washington professional limited- liability company with principal offices in Snohomish County, Washington. 8 15. Reed owns and operates MFR Law Group. 9 16. Reed and MFR (collectively MFR/Reed) were entities responsible for conducting 10 11 Alaska’s workplace investigation discussed herein. 17. John Does and Jane Does 1-10. John Does and Jane Does 1-10 are individual 12 Alaska managers/agents/employees. They are designated fictitiously herein in accordance with 13 CR 10(a)(2). Engelien reserves the right to amend this Complaint to designate the names of said 14 defendants and intends that the amendments relate back to the filing of this Complaint. 15 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16 18. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. 17 19. This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants. 18 20. King County is a proper venue. RCW 4.12.020. 19 20 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 21. June 5, 2017—Alaska schedules Engelien and Pina on a flight to Minneapolis. 21 Alaska assigned Engelien and Pina to fly together on June 5, 2017. They were scheduled to first 22 fly from Anchorage to Seattle. They would then continue from Seattle to Minneapolis. 23 22. The flight’s crewmembers checked in at about 04:15 Alaska Time (AKT) for the 24 Anchorage to Seattle flight. After they completed that leg, they departed Seattle for Minneapolis 25 and landed in Minneapolis at about 15:53 Central Time (CT). 26 27 First Amended Complaint - 3 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 23. Unbeknownst to Engelien, his cellphone, which automatically set itself to Pacific 2 Time (PT) in the days prior, did not automatically reset to CT when he arrived in Minneapolis 3 as it was supposed to have done. It remained set two hours behind the local Minneapolis time. 4 5 6 7 8 24. A van transported the Alaska crewmembers from the airport to the Radisson Blu where they were to stay the night prior to returning to Seattle the next morning—June 6, 2017. 25. The crewmembers arrived at the Radisson Blu at around 16:40 CT. Engelien and Pina were last to check-in and were assigned adjacent rooms. 26. June 5, 2017—The Radisson Blu Concierge Lounge (Lounge). The Radisson 9 Blu offers guests the option to buy $11.00 tickets to its lounge with unlimited food and drinks 10 between 17:00 and 19:00 CT. Engelien and Pina bought tickets and agreed to meet at 17:15 CT. 11 27. Pina was ultimately delayed in making her way to the lounge, so Engelien went 12 without her. He later texted Pina directions. A screenshot of Pina’s 17:30 CT text exchange with 13 Engelien shows Engelien’s cell phone displayed an incorrect time of 15:30. 14 28. Alaska policy prohibits its pilots from consuming any alcohol within ten hours of 15 reporting for duty. Engelien and Pina’s duty time the next morning, June 6, was to start at 06:23 16 CT. Thus, Engelien and Pina were required to stop drinking at 20:23 CT. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 29. Pina arrived at the lounge around 17:40 CT and joined Engelien. Engelien and Pina were later joined at a table by a United Airlines (United) crew. 30. Engelien and Pina continued socializing and drinking with the United crew until all left the lounge around 20:00 CT, about 23 minutes prior to the 10-hour cut-off time. 31. Engelien and Pina have limited memories of the next few hours. Engelien recalls wanting room service and leaving the lounge holding a glass of red and a glass of white wine. 32. Neither Pina nor Engelien recall drinking alcohol after they left the lounge. They both stated they did not intentionally consume alcohol in violation of the ten-hour rule. 33. Engelien did not recall anything out of the ordinary when he had Pina rode the elevator to their floor and walked back to their hotel rooms. 27 First Amended Complaint - 4 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 2 3 34. Engelien does not have a clear recollection of entering his room or anything else until he was awoken from a deep sleep by his cellphone ringing at 22:47 CT. 35. June 5, 2017—Engelien and Pina are removed from the June 6 flight. When 4 Engelien awoke, the television was on and both wine glasses appeared untouched. Pina was 5 asleep on the other bed with a room-service menu nearby. 6 36. Engelien had missed the cellphone call. Shortly thereafter, he answered a room 7 landline call from a Flight Operations Duty Officer, Rick Ackman—the same person, he found 8 out, who had made the missed 22:47 CT cellphone call. 9 37. A screenshot of Engelien’s cellphone shows Engelien’s cellphone recorded the 10 missed call at 20:47, two hours earlier than the actual local time Ackman called: 22:47 CT. This 11 is consistent with the evidence that shows Engelien’s cellphone had not updated time zones. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 38. When Engelien spoke with Ackman on the landline, he learned a flight attendant 25 reported seeing him holding alcohol in the hallway and was not comfortable flying with him. 26 Ackman told Engelien he sounded like he had been drinking. Engelien said he drank earlier. 27 First Amended Complaint - 5 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 39. When Ackman asked Engelien how long ago he had his last drink, Engelien— 2 who had just awoken—looked at his cellphone, saw it said approximately 21:00, and informed 3 Ackman it had been about an hour prior, which would have been 20:00, the approximate time 4 Engelien had in fact stopped drinking. Engelien did not know the cellphone time was incorrect 5 by two hours and that he had been asleep longer than he thought. 6 40. Ackman, unaware Engelien was relying on the wrong time, incorrectly believed 7 Engelien meant he had his last drink around 22:00 CT, an hour earlier than the actual local time, 8 23:00 CT, at which he and Engelien were talking on the landline. 9 41. Ackman removed Engelien from the flight and put him on sick leave. 10 42. Engelien then called ALPA Representative Mike (Sully) Sullivan to explain his 11 situation. While talking with Sully, Engelien noticed two untouched glasses of wine. Sully told 12 Engelien to pour them out. 13 14 15 16 17 43. Engelien and Pina then checked the flight scheduling line to see if Pina had been removed from the flight. They discovered she had not. 44. Pina told ALPA representative, Jon Lykken, that she was too emotional and tired to fly safely. Lykken called Alaska to have her removed her from the trip. 45. Pina—a probationary pilot—was concerned about an investigation for violating 18 Alaska policy. Per Alaska’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA), probationary pilots may be 19 terminated without the “just cause” required to terminate non-probationary pilots. 20 21 22 46. June 6, 2017—Deadhead flight to Seattle. Because Pina and Engelien would not be flying, Alaska scheduled Engelien and Pina to “deadhead” back to Seattle on Flight 39. 47. At about 11:20 CT, Engelien and Pina caught the hotel van to the airport to fly as 23 passengers to Seattle. An ALPA representative had told the two to attempt to reconstruct what 24 happened. Engelien and Pina sat together in the van and on the aircraft so they could reconstruct 25 events and discuss what might happen when they arrive in Seattle. 26 27 First Amended Complaint - 6 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 48. June 7, 2017—Engelien and Pina meet with ALPA. On June 7, 2017, Engelien 2 and Pina met with ALPA representatives to provide statements. Pina offered to pick Engelien up 3 from his hotel and drive him to ALPA headquarters where they were scheduled to meet. 4 5 6 7 8 9 49. June 30, 2017—Pina meets privately with Alaska Director Elizabeth Ryan. On June 30, 2017, Pina met privately with Alaska’s Director of Labor Relations, Elizabeth Ryan. 50. At this meeting—three weeks after being removed from duty—Pina first claimed she had “questions” about what had happened in Minneapolis. 51. Based on that meeting and Pina’s blackout and alleged “questions”, Alaska’s investigation shifted from both pilots’ alcohol use to solely a #MeToo investigation directed 10 against Engelien. 11 52. Pina was returned to flight duty; Engelien was not. 12 53. July 6, 2017—Alaska retains MFR/Reed to assist in a workplace investigation. 13 On July 6, 2017, Davis Wright Tremaine (DWT), in its capacity as Alaska’s outside counsel, 14 retained MFR/Reed to conduct Alaska’s workplace investigation. 15 54. September 13, 2017—Engelien enters the HIMS program. During Alaska’s 16 investigation, Alaska represented to Engelien that if he entered the HIMS program—an alcohol 17 treatment program for pilots—Alaska would issue a “second-chance letter” and Engelien would 18 not be terminated. 19 55. 20 On September 13, 2017, Engelien entered the HIMS program and completed the inpatient part on October 10, 2017. 21 56. Engelien ultimately complied with all requirements of the HIMS program. 22 57. February-March 2018—Pina serves Alaska with suit and launches a #MeToo 23 media campaign. Based on her vague recollections and MFR/Reed’s investigation summaries, 24 Pina started a #MeToo lawsuit alleging Alaska failed to protect her from Engelien. 25 26 58. On March 14, 2018, Pina and her attorney, Lincoln Beauregard, formally filed a lawsuit against Alaska and launched a #MeToo media campaign to garner public support. 27 First Amended Complaint - 7 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 59. That same day, March 14, 2018, The Seattle Times, in its story, Co-Pilot Sues 2 Alaska Airlines Over Alleged Drugging, Rape By Flight Captain During Layover, reported that 3 Reed told Pina as follows concerning Reed and MFR’s investigation: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Meantime, Reed took various statements and purportedly informed Pina in August that a review of the hotel’s security video showed Engelien tried to forcibly kiss Pina in an elevator. “She said I was incapacitated, that it took 18 to 20 minutes to get from the elevator to the room, and this whole time he’s trying to get me into the room, and I’m trying to put up whatever fight I can,” Pina said. There is no evidence to support Reed’s statement to Pina. 60. To try to mitigate the damage that followed Pina’s media campaign, Engelien took and passed a polygraph that was administered by a polygrapher who conducts sex offender polygraphs for the Washington State Department of Corrections. 61. Engelien’s counsel contacted the reporters who first covered Pina’s story and, in an attempt to mitigate the devastation caused by Pina’s false #MeToo claims, requested that the reporters include the fact that Engelien had passed a polygraph. The media was not interested in covering Engelien’s side of the story. 62. Pina’s defamation campaign devastated Engelien and caused significant trauma and damage to his family. Reporters seeking a #MeToo comment have even called Engelien’s 13-year old daughter’s cell phone to ask her if her father was a rapist. 63. Engelien has been denied employment because of the bad press coverage. The chief pilot of a major casino wanted to hire Engelien but told him the HR department will not touch him because of the #MeToo claims in the media. 64. March 25, 2018—MFR releases its investigation report. On March 25, just eleven days after Pina’s #MeToo press campaign, MFR issued a twenty-three-page pretextual investigation report. The report—unsupported by evidence—was designed to reach a desired result for Alaska, regardless of compelling evidence to the contrary. 65. The report concluded Engelien lied about drinking and had violated the 10-hour rule, but that Pina had not. 27 First Amended Complaint - 8 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 2 3 4 5 6 66. MFR supports its conclusion—that Engelien violated the 10-hour rule but Pina did not—with claims that, excepting Engelien’s HIMS participation, also apply to Pina. 67. Without investigating Engelien’s claims, MFR concluded that Engelien had lied 7 about the time on his phone (and, thus, his timing of events), had intentionally set the cellphone 8 to PT, and that he maintained this lie through multiple interviews with MFR and Alaska. 9 68. MFR concluded that, despite protestations to the contrary, Engelien knew how to 10 adjust the time settings on his phone and did so to explain the “admission” he made to Ackman 11 that his last drink was at 21:58 CT—8 hours and 35 minutes before duty start at 06:23 CT. 12 69. MFR never sought the services of a forensic analyst to download or examine the 13 data from Engelien’s phone to verify whether his phone’s time display was not updating as he 14 stated. Indeed, MFR did nothing to investigate the veracity of Engelien’s statements, even after 15 receiving independent expert reports verifying Engelien’s reported time display issues. 16 70. Ultimately, MFR decided Pina had not violated the 10-hour rule, and Engelien 17 had done so, because it determined Engelien lied. It based this conclusion on the fact Engelien 18 admitted to being an alcoholic and on its unsupported, uninvestigated, and disproven belief that 19 Engelien lied about the time display on his phone. 20 21 22 23 71. Two days after MFR completed the investigation report, Alaska issued its letter of intent to terminate Engelien’s employment. 72. Engelien requested an initial hearing under the CBA, a copy of the investigation report, and all the discipline and discharge related materials under CBA § 19(C)(2). 24 73. Engelien’s Initial Hearing was scheduled for May 7, 2018. 25 74. May 7, 2018—Engelien’s initial termination hearing. On May 7, 2017, Alaska 26 held Engelien’s initial hearing pursuant to CBA § 19C. 27 First Amended Complaint - 9 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 75. During his hearing, Engelien refuted Reed/MFR’s conclusions and pointed out 2 inconsistencies. He also provided Alaska a report prepared by IT expert Brandon Vaara. The 3 report explained technical reasons a Samsung phone may not display a proper time zone. 4 76. Alaska and MFR/Reed never followed-up with Vaara about his report. 5 77. May 11, 2018—Alaska issues final decision to terminate Engelien. Just days 6 after its initial termination hearing—with no further investigation—Alaska upheld its decision 7 to terminate Engelien based on MFR/Reed’s report. 8 9 10 78. Alaska stated in its letter of termination that Engelien did not provide any new information sufficient to change its termination decision. 79. May 11, 2018—Pina again engages in alcohol-related conduct. On May 11, 11 2018, the same day Alaska terminated Engelien, Pina engaged in an yet another incident on a 12 layover in Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii. 13 80. Pina was scheduled to fly Alaska Flight 886 from Lihue to Seattle. 14 81. After spending hours at Trees Lounge drinking, Pina, at about 00:26, returns to 15 16 17 18 19 20 the hotel, vomits, passes out, and has another blackout incident to explain. 82. After learning of the second blackout incident involving Pina, Alaska cancelled Flight 886 and deadheaded the crew back to Seattle. 83. Like the first incident, Pina’s recollections were unclear. Pina also again tried to deflect accountability by casting blame on others while waving the #MeToo banner. 84. July 27, 2018. On July 27, 2018, Engelien gave to Alaska forensic analyst Terry 21 Lahman’s report, which found that serious flaws in MFR/Reed’s investigation led to inaccurate 22 conclusions. 23 85. Lahman conducted a detailed forensic analysis of Engelien’s phone and verified 24 Engelien’s representations. Lahman identified the inaccuracies and provided forensic proof for 25 the accurate conclusions. 26 27 First Amended Complaint - 10 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 86. In light of this independent, scientific analysis, and Pina’s recent second incident, 2 Engelien requested that Alaska reopen its investigation. Alaska and its agents never responded. 3 CAUSES OF ACTION 4 First Cause of Action: Negligence Against MFR and Reed. Engelien realleges Paragraphs 1- 5 86 and states further as follows: 6 87. 7 Engelien and Pina. 8 88. Alaska retained MFR and Reed to conduct the workplace investigation involving CBA § 19 outlines the procedural due process rights to be afforded pilots before 9 employment discipline may follow. That procedure includes a fair and complete investigation 10 and an opportunity to be heard before a termination decision is made. MFR/Reed had a duty to 11 be truthful and engage in reasonable investigative methodologies when conducting investigation 12 from which critical decisions about employees will be made. They failed to exercise reasonable 13 care, thereby breaching that duty. 14 89. As a direct and proximate result of MFR/Reed’s negligent acts and/or omissions, 15 Engelien has sustained damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 16 Second Cause of Action: Tortious Interference Against MFR and Reed. Engelien realleges 17 Paragraphs 1-86 and states further as follows: 18 19 90. A valid, binding employment agreement exists between Alaska and Engelien in connection with Engelien’s status as an airline pilot employee of Alaska. 20 91. MFR and Reed knew of the Alaska-Engelien employment agreement. 21 92. MFR and Reed intentionally interfered in the employment agreement between 22 Alaska and Engelien and caused a breach and/or termination of the relationship. 23 93. MFR and Reed interfered for an improper purpose and used improper means. 24 94. MFR and Reed’s actions and statements were not privileged. 25 95. MFR’s and Reed’s actions and statements both directly and proximately caused 26 Engelien to sustain damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 27 First Amended Complaint - 11 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 Third Cause of Action: Civil Conspiracy Against John/Jane Doe, MFR, and Reed. Engelien 2 realleges Paragraphs 1-86 and states further as follows: 3 96. Doe—an Alaska manager, agent, and/or employee—agreed with MFR and Reed, 4 prior to MFR and Reed completing the investigation into the Engelien/Pina incident, that the 5 investigation should result in Engelien’s termination. 6 97. Via this agreement, Doe, MFR, and Reed combined to accomplish an unlawful 7 purpose. This included, but was not limited to, terminating Engelien without cause based on a 8 pretextual investigation designed to reach a desired result. 9 98. Via this agreement, Doe, MFR, and Reed combined to accomplish a purpose 10 through unlawful means. These included, but were not limited to, terminating Engelien without 11 conducting the fair, reasonable, full investigation to which he was legally entitled. 12 99. Doe, MFR, and Reed entered into an agreement to accomplish the conspiracy. 13 100. Doe, MFR, and Reed’s conspiracy directly and proximately caused Engelien to 14 sustain damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 15 Fourth Cause of Action: Defamation Against Alaska. Engelien realleges Paragraphs 1-86 and 16 states further as follows: 17 101. Does—Alaska managers, agents, and/or employees—communicated defamatory, 18 false statements of a factual character concerning Engelien. These include, but are not limited 19 to, statements asserting that Engelien drugged Pina and that Engelien sexually assaulted Pina. 20 21 22 23 24 25 102. Does communicated these defamatory, false statements of a factual character to third parties, including ALPA representatives/members and other pilots. 103. Does had no absolute or conditional privilege to communicate these defamatory, false statements of a factual character. 104. Does knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, that the statements she communicated were false. 26 27 First Amended Complaint - 12 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 2 3 105. Does’ communicating these defamatory, false statements of a factual character directly and proximately caused Engelien to sustain damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 106. Does’ defamatory publication exposed Engelien to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or 4 obloquy such as to deprive Engelien of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse; 5 injured Engelien in his business, trade, and profession; and falsely imputed to Engelien criminal 6 conduct involving moral turpitude. Thus, Does’ statements were defamatory per se and do not 7 require proof of special damages. 8 9 107. Does made their defamatory publications while in the course and scope of their employment with Alaska. Alaska is liable for Does’ acts and Engelien’s injuries and damages 10 under respondeat superior. 11 Fifth Cause of Action: Invasion of Privacy/False Light Against Pina. Engelien realleges 12 Paragraphs 1-86 and states further as follows: 13 108. Pina communicated numerous false statements of a factual character concerning 14 Engelien. These include, but are not limited to, statements asserting that Engelien drugged Pina 15 and that Engelien sexually assaulted Pina. 16 17 18 19 20 109. Pina knew of or recklessly disregarded the falsity of the statements and the false light in which she placed Engelien. 110. Pina communicated these false statements of a factual character to a substantial number of people, including through nationwide and worldwide media. 111. Pina’s false statements, including, but not limited to, statements asserting that 21 Engelien drugged Pina and that Engelien sexually assaulted Pina, placed Engelien in a false 22 light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 23 112. Pina’s communicating these false statements of a factual character directly and 24 proximately caused Engelien to sustain damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 25 Sixth Cause of Action: Defamation Against Pina. Engelien realleges Paragraphs 1-86 and 26 states further as follows: 27 First Amended Complaint - 13 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 113. Pina communicated numerous defamatory, false statements of a factual character 2 concerning Engelien. These include, but are not limited to, statements asserting that Engelien 3 drugged Pina and that Engelien sexually assaulted Pina. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 114. Pina communicated these defamatory, false statements of a factual character to numerous third parties, including through nationwide and worldwide media. 115. Pina had no absolute or conditional privilege to communicate these defamatory, false statements of a factual character. 116. Pina knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, that the statements she communicated were false. 117. Pina’s communicating these defamatory, false statements of a factual character directly and proximately caused Engelien to sustain damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 118. Pina’s defamatory publication exposed Engelien to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or 13 obloquy such as to deprive Engelien of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse; 14 injured Engelien in his business, trade, and profession; and falsely imputed to Engelien criminal 15 conduct involving moral turpitude. Thus, Pina’s statements were defamatory per se and do not 16 require proof of special damages. 17 Seventh Cause of Action: Tortious Interference Against Pina. Engelien realleges Paragraphs 18 1-86 and states further as follows: 19 20 119. A valid, binding employment agreement exists between Alaska and Engelien in connection with Engelien’s status as an airline pilot employee of Alaska. 21 120. Pina knew of the employment agreement between Alaska and Engelien. 22 121. Pina intentionally interfered in the employment agreement between Alaska and 23 Engelien and caused a breach and/or termination of the relationship. 24 122. Pina interfered for an improper purpose and used improper means. 25 123. Pina’s actions and statements were not privileged. 26 27 First Amended Complaint - 14 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 124. Pina’s actions and statements both directly and proximately caused Engelien to 2 sustain damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 3 Eighth Cause of Action: Infliction of Emotional Distress Against Pina. Engelien realleges 4 Paragraphs 1-86 and states further as follows: 5 125. Pina falsely alleged to Engelien’s employer and the public via nationwide media 6 that Engelien drugged and sexually assaulted her. These false, public, nationally disseminated 7 allegations constitute extreme, outrageous conduct so outrageous in character, and so extreme in 8 degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and are to be regarded as atrocious, and 9 utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 10 126. 11 distress on Engelien. 12 127. 13 Through her false allegations, Pina intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional As a direct and proximate result of Pina’s false allegations, Engelien suffered severe emotional distress and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 14 15 DAMAGES 128. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ wrongful actions and omissions, 16 Engelien suffered, continues to suffer, and will suffer into the future, emotional distress, loss of 17 enjoyment of life, humiliation, pain and suffering, indignity, embarrassment, fear, anxiety and 18 anguish, loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, and other general and 19 special damages, which will be proven at the time of trial. 20 REQUEST FOR RELIEF 21 WHEREFORE, Engelien requests that the Court enter judgment as follows: 22 a. Judgment against MFR and Reed for negligence; 23 b. Judgment against MFR and Reed for tortious interference; 24 c. Judgment against Doe, MFR, and Reed for civil conspiracy; 25 d. Judgment against Alaska for defamation; 26 e. Judgment against Pina for invasion of privacy; 27 First Amended Complaint - 15 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX 1 f. Judgment against Pina for defamation; 2 g. Judgment against Pina for tortious interference; 3 h. Judgment against Pina for infliction of emotional distress; 4 i. Judgment against Alaska, Doe, MFR, Reed, and Pina, individually, as well as 5 jointly and severally to the extent allowed by law, in an amount to fairly compensate Engelien 6 for his special and general damages; 7 j. For an award of pre-judgement and post-judgment interest; 8 k. For reasonable attorney fees and costs; and 9 l. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DATED this 1st day of November, 2018. PEWITT LAW GROUP, PLLC FURY DUARTE, PS /s/ Sheri Pewitt SHERI PEWITT, WSBA No. 41327 720 Third Avenue – Suite 2015 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.941.0009 206.467.3152 (fax) pewittlaw@gmail.com Attorney for Plaintiff /s/ Scott David Smith SCOTT DAVID SMITH, WSBA No. 48108 FRANCISCO A. DUARTE, WSBA No. 24056 1606 148th Avenue SE – Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.643.1606 425.643.2606 (fax) scott@furyduarte.com fad@furyduarte.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 First Amended Complaint - 16 of 16 (Cause No. 18-2-27481-8 SEA) 720 THIRD AVENUE #2015 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 941-0009 PHONE (206)467-3152FAX