Simon Bujun Bae.
3010 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 305-7100
Plaintiff in pro per
SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES
|
Plaintiff, vs. Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; and DOES 1 to 20,
inclusive,
Defendants |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
COMPLAINT FOR:
1.
NEGLIGENCE 2.
HARASSMENT 3.
DISCRIMINATION
Plaintiff alleges: 1. Plaintiff
Simon Bujun Bae (“Bae”) is and was
at all times, resident of Los Angeles, State
of California. 2. Defendant,
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (“Metro” or “Metro Authority”), is and at all times herein
mentioned was, a governmental agency with
its principal place of business in Los Angeles. 3. Plaintiff
is unaware of the true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate,
associate or otherwise, of defendants Does 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants, and each of them,
by fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek
leave of Court to amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities
of the defendants named herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, when those
names and capacities have been ascertained.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each
of the fictitiously named defendants is liable and responsible in some manner
for the claims, demands, losses, acts and damages alleged herein. 4. Plaintiff
is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in doing the acts
alleged herein, each of the defendants was acting for himself, herself or
itself and was acting as the agent, employee, and/or representative of each of
the other defendants within the course and scope of such agency, employment
and/or representation. Plaintiff is
further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the acts and
conduct of each of the defendants as alleged herein were known to, authorized
and ratified by each of the other defendants. 5. On 12/22/2013, Plaintiff rode in a Metro bus
belong to Defendant Metro Authority while using the Metro card on the tap
machine. Then, the driver demanded Plaintiff
to pay the fee or get out of the bus. Plaintiff
told the card has enough amount and the tap machine did not work properly. But the driver did not listen to Plaintiff
and rudely insisted on several times while demanding Plaintiff to get out of
the bus. 6. The driver’s acts against Plaintiff while being
observed by many passengers was very insulting and humiliating. And sometimes, the driver stopped the bus and
demanded Plaintiff to get out of the bus.
7. But later, it was proven that Plaintiff’s card
has sufficient money and the tap machine did not work properly. In implies the bus driver erroneously and
negligently harassed Plaintiff to make him get out of the bus. 8. After this incident, Plaintiff suffered these
kinds of incidents for more than 3 times. 9. Plaintiff has used the Metro buses many times
since 1982. According to Plaintiff’s
observations, this kind of erroneous and rude acts of drivers did not happen
against any white or black people whose native language is English. According to Plaintiff’s information and
belief, this kind of rude and harassing acts toward Asians who are weak in
English is a racial discrimination against Asian people. 10.
On
3/14/2014, Plaintiff filed an administrative remedy grievance with EEO as Case No: 39. - 2014 - 70823 – VI. 11.
Plaintiff
heard the administrative case was finished about after 4 months; but without
reasonable causes, Metro Authority delayed its final decision from April until
October of 2014. Plaintiff received the
final notice from Metro Authority about on 10/28/2014, but the sending date is
9/5/2014. In addition, Metro Authority
wrote wrong zip code as 92010 in Plaintiff’s address while the right one is
90010 so that it caused the mailing to be delayed. And Metro Authority employee misrepresented
that Plaintiff signed a certified mail though he did not get it. 12.
In addition, although Barbara Thompson in EEO
noted the case was finished, Metro Authority sent a letter to Plaintiff while
informing Plaintiff to contact Linda Hoos if Plaintiff has any questions or
problems. 13.
In any of the responses of notices from Metro
Authority, no mention about monetary compensation of damages for Plaintiff has
been shown, though Plaintiff expected it.
This is one of the reasons why Plaintiff is preparing this judicial
lawsuit. 14.
According to Plaintiff’s information and belief,
the above acts of Metro Authority intended for the statute of limitation for
judicial complaint to be elapsed.
(For Negligence against All Defendants) 15.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by
reference each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 14,
inclusive. 16.
The bus
driver of Defendant Metro Authority harassed Plaintiff to pay or get out the
bus though Plaintiff alleged the card has sufficient money and the tap machine
is out of order. But later, it was
proven that the acts of the driver made negligent mistake. Also, the disordered tap machine is a
negligence of Metro Authority, which caused damages to Plaintiff indirectly through
the driver. 17.
As a
proximate result of this cause of action, Plaintiff suffered in an amount to be
proven at trial. (For Harassment against All Defendants) 18. Plaintiff
realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation set
forth in Paragraphs 1 through 17, inclusive. 19.
The bus
driver of Defendant Metro Authority harassed Plaintiff to pay or get out the
bus though Plaintiff alleged the card has sufficient money. And the driver did it a few times in an
insulting and humiliating manner while many passengers observed. 20.
As a
proximate result of this cause of action, Plaintiff suffered in an amount to be
proven at trial. (For Racial Discrimination against All Defendants) 21.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by
reference each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 20,
inclusive. 22.
The rude
and harassing acts of the driver are a racial discrimination and a nationality discrimination,
because this kind of incident did not and would not happened to white or black people
according to Plaintiff’s observation since 1982 and information and belief. 23.
As a
proximate result of this cause of action, Plaintiff suffered in an amount to be
proven at trial.
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
Dated:
December 18, 2014 Respectively
submitted, ________________________ Simon
Bujun Bae Plaintiff
in pro per |
