Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rafael Pineda v. Reno Real Estate Development
Rafael Pineda v. Reno Real Estate Development
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
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
3 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
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
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,
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
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
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,
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,
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,
4 58. Defendant was aware or should have been aware of the existence of these contracts
24 66. Mr. Pineda is of Latino descent and the Event (the Fuego Latin Cultural Festival)
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
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
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.
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
4 1. For compensatory damages, including all actual, consequential, and incidental financial
14
15 DATED this 28th day of August, 2023.
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