Filed 5/6/20 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE JOHN GALEOTTI, Plaintiff and Appellant, A157785 v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF (Alameda County OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL Super. Ct. No. HG18914573) NO. 3 et al., Defendants and Respondents. John Galeotti appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the court sustained respondents’ demurrer to his second amended complaint without leave to amend. He contends his second amended complaint stated causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO; 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.). He further contends his first amended complaint stated a cause of action for interference with prospective economic advantage against the individual respondents. We agree that his second amended complaint states causes of action and reverse the judgment. *Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part II sections B and C. 1 In the published portion of our opinion, we conclude that a threat to terminate employment can provide a basis for an extortion claim, and, for this and other reasons, the allegations of the second amended complaint stated a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. In the unpublished portion of our opinion, we conclude the second amended complaint stated RICO claims but the first amended complaint did not state a cause of action for interference with prospective economic advantage. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In July 2018, Galeotti filed a complaint against respondent International Union of Operating Engineers Union Local # 3 (Local 3) and three of its union leaders, respondents Russell Burns, Dan Reding, and Dave Harrison (individual respondents). In essence, Galeotti alleged that the individual respondents required union employees to pay them money to keep their jobs, lied about the reason for collecting the money, and caused Local 3 to terminate Galeotti’s employment when he failed to pay the full amount demanded. Galeotti purported to allege causes of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and interference with prospective economic advantage. After respondents filed a demurrer to the complaint, Galeotti filed a first amended complaint. Galeotti’s first amended complaint sought damages again for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and interference with prospective economic advantage, and added claims for a RICO violation and conspiracy to violate RICO. Respondents filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint, contending that all the claims were preempted by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C. § 401), the claim against individual respondents for interference with prospective economic advantage 2 was meritless also because the individual respondents were privileged to cause the discharge, and the RICO and conspiracy claims were not supported by the allegations of the pleading. The court overruled the demurrer as to the claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, sustained it without leave to amend as to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals