PUEBLO COUNTY, DISTRICT COURT, STATE OF

COLORADO
320 W. 10th St., Pueblo CO 81003
719-583-7000
719-586-8830(fax)

LAWRENCE P. HERNANDEZ, Ph.D., an individual,

ANNETTE HERNANDEZ, an individual, and VELIA
RINCON, and individual
Plaintiffs,

vs.

CESAR CHAVEZ ACADEMY, INC., a Colorado

Nonprofit Corporation, CESAR CHAVEZ ACADEMY,
INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DOLORES HUERTA
PREPARATORY HIGH, INC., a Colorado Nonprofit
Corporation, DOLORES HUERTA PREPATORY
HIGH BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DENNIS L.
FEUERSTEIN, an individual, ALEX ARAGON, an
individual, DONIELLE GONZALES, an individual,
PABLO GONZALES, an individual, ALFREDO
VARGAS, an individual, MICHAEL ENGLE, an
individual, JEFF ROSS, an individual, RICHARD
MESTAS, an individual, GARCIA CALDERÓN RUÍZ,
LLP, a California Limited Liability Partnership,
DOLORES S. ATENCIO, Esq., an individual, and
LORETTA P. MARTINEZ, Esq., an individual,
Defendants. ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Bruce A. Montoya, Atty. Reg. # 14233 Case Number: pending
Matthew R. Groves, Atty. Reg. #27315
David W. Feeder II, Atty. Reg. # 31237 Div.: pending
MESSNER & REEVES, LLC
1430 Wynkoop Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 623-1800
Fax Number: (303) 623-0552
E-mail: mgroves@messner-reeves.com

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

{00435210 / 1} 1
 COMES NOW Lawrence P. Hernandez, Ph.D. (“Dr. Hernandez”), Annette
Hernandez (“Ms. Hernandez”), and Velia Rincon (“Ms. Rincon”) (collectively
“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, Messner & Reeves, LLC, and hereby submit
their Complaint and Jury Demand, and in support thereof state as follows:

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Lawrence P. Hernandez, Ph.D. is an individual who resides at

5606 Bellagio Way, Pueblo, Colorado 81005. Dr. Hernandez helped found, and most
recently served as CEO and Executive Director of Defendants Cesar Chavez Academy,
Inc. and Dolores Huerta Preparatory High, Inc.

2. Plaintiff Annette Hernandez is an individual who resides at 5606 Bellagio

Way, Pueblo, Colorado 81005. Ms. Hernandez helped found, and most recently served
as COO of Defendants Cesar Chavez Academy, Inc. and Dolores Huerta Preparatory
High, Inc.

3. Plaintiff Velia Rincon is an individual who resides at 616 Boyero Ave.,

Pueblo, Colorado 81007. Ms. Rincon most recently served as Assistant Executive
Directory of Defendant Cesar Chavez Academy, Inc.

4. Defendant Cesar Chavez Academy, Inc. (“CCA”) is a Colorado non-profit

corporation which has its corporate headquarters at 2099 W. Highway 50, Suite 160,
Pueblo, Colorado, 81008. CCA operates a charter school in Pueblo, Colorado.

5. Defendant Dolores Huerta Preparatory High, Inc. (“DHPH”) is a Colorado

non-profit corporation which has its corporate headquarters at 2099 W. Highway 50,
Suite 160, Pueblo, Colorado, 81008. DHPH operates a charter school in Pueblo,
Colorado.

6. Defendant Dennis Feuerstein (“Feuerstein”) is an individual who, upon

information and belief, resides at 1813 Pioneer Rd., Pueblo, Colorado 81008. Defendant
Feuerstein is a member and the President of the CCA and DHPH board of directors.

7. Defendants Alex Aragon, Donielle Gonzales, Pablo Gonzales, Alfredo

Vargas, Michael Engle, Jeff Ross, and Richard Mestas are all residents of Pueblo County,
Colorado. All are members of the CCA and DHPH Boards, and voted to terminate
Plaintiffs on October 2, 2009, with the exception of Mestas, who is Principal of DHPH.

8. Defendant Garcia Calderón Ruíz, LLP (“GCR”) is a California limited

liability partnership doing business in Colorado with its principle address at 633 17th
Street, Suite 1700, Denver, CO 80202.

{00435210 / 1} 2
 9. Defendant Dolores Atencio (“Atencio”) is an individual who, upon
information and belief, resides at 4535 W. Lakeridge Rd, Denver, Colorado 80219.
Defendant Atencio is an attorney who represents CCA and DHPH.

10. Defendant Loretta Martinez (“Martinez”) is an individual who, upon

information and belief, resides in Denver County, Colorado. Defendant Martinez is an
attorney who represents CCA and DHPH.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. Jurisdiction in this case is proper pursuant to at least C.R.S. § 13-6-104.

Personal jurisdiction over the defendants is proper, as all conduct business in the state of
Colorado, and upon information and belief do so in Pueblo County. The acts in question
also occurred in Pueblo County.

12. Venue is proper in this Court under C.R.C.P. 98(c).

III. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Dr. and Ms. Hernandez founded CCA in or around September 2000. Dr.
and Ms. Hernandez founded DHPH in or around September 2003. In connection with the
founding of the schools, Dr. and Ms. Hernandez liquidated their savings and retirement
accounts, and lent both institutions over $80,000 as start-up money, sums which have
never been repaid.

14. Plaintiffs have served as executives of CCA and DHPH, based on written
employment contracts that have been renewed annually, including the current period.

15. On or around April 30, 2009, Dr. Hernandez accepted CCA’s and DHPH’s
offer of employment to serve as their CEO from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. Dr.
Hernandez’s employment contract is a valid, binding and enforceable contract supported
by adequate consideration. This contract includes the following enforceable provisions:

a. Dr. Hernandez “will be dismissed based on the procedures outlined in the

bylaws of the Board of Directors.”

b. “In the event that [Dr. Hernandez’s] employment is terminated or

employment contract is not renewed, by the Board of Directors at anytime,
with or without cause, [Dr. Hernandez] shall receive payment of the
balance of this contract.”

c. “Should [Dr. Hernandez’s] contract be terminated or employment contract

is not renewed, with or without cause, [Dr. Hernandez] will receive six (6)
months severance pay on the normal pay schedule.”

{00435210 / 1} 3
 d. “In the event of employment separation, unused sick leave will be paid to
[Dr. Hernandez] in full, based on the amount accumulated since the
beginning of employment, at the time of separation.”

e. “In the event of employment separation, personal leave will be paid to [Dr.
Hernandez] in full, based on the amount accumulated since the beginning
of employment, at the time of separation.”

16. On or around April 30, 2009, Ms. Hernandez accepted CCA’s and
DHPH’s offer of employment to serve as their COO from July 1, 2010 through June 30,
2010. Ms. Hernandez’s employment contract is a valid, binding and enforceable contract
supported by adequate consideration. This contract includes the following provisions:

a. Ms. Hernandez “will be dismissed based on the procedures outlined in the

bylaws of the Board of Directors.”

b. “In the event that [Ms. Hernandez’s] employment is terminated or

employment contract is not renewed, by the Board of Directors at anytime,
with or without cause, [Ms. Hernandez] shall receive payment of the
balance of this contract.”

c. “Should [Ms. Hernandez’s] contract be terminated or employment

contract is not renewed, with or without cause, [Ms. Hernandez] will
receive six (6) months severance pay on the normal pay schedule.”

d. “In the event of employment separation, unused sick leave will be paid to
[Ms. Hernandez] in full, based on the amount accumulated since the
beginning of employment, at the time of separation.”

e. “In the event of employment separation, personal leave will be paid to

[Ms. Hernandez] in full, based on the amount accumulated since the
beginning of employment, at the time of separation.”

17. On or around July 27, 2009, Ms. Rincon accepted CCA’s and DHPH’s
offer of employment to serve as its Assistant Executive Director, pursuant to a written
employment agreement. The agreement provided that any modification of her “at-will”
employment status must be “in writing and specifically approved by the Chief Executive
Officer.”

18. On or around September 28, 2009, Ms. Rincon accepted CCA’s and
DHPH’s written offer of an employment contract, to serve as CCA’s and DHPH’s
Assistant Executive Director from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. Ms. Rincon’s
employment contract is a valid, binding and enforceable contract supported by adequate
consideration. This contract includes the following enforceable provisions:

{00435210 / 1} 4
 a. “Should [Ms. Rincon’s] employment be terminated or employment
contract is not renewed, by the Executive Director at anytime, with or
without cause, [Ms. Rincon] shall receive payment of the balance of this
contract.”

b. “Should [Ms. Rincon’s] contract be terminated or employment contract is

not renewed, with or without cause, [Ms. Rincon] will receive six (6)
months severance pay on the normal pay schedule.”

c. “In the event of employment separation, unused sick leave will be paid to
[Ms. Rincon] in full, based on the amount accumulated since the
beginning of employment, at the time of separation.”

d. “In the event of employment separation, personal leave will be paid to

[Ms. Rincon] in full, based on the amount accumulated since the
beginning of employment, at the time of separation.”

19. On September 24, 2009, Defendant Feuerstein notified Dr. Hernandez,

Ms. Hernandez, and Ms. Rincon that they had been placed on paid administrative leave
pursuant to his directive. Upon information and belief, Defendant Feuerstein imposed
these leaves unilaterally and without consultation with or approval of either the CCA or
DHPH Boards. The reasons stated by Defendant Feuerstein did not justify the
unilaterally imposed leaves, and were pretextual. In addition, during this time Plaintiffs’
phone service was cancelled, Plaintiffs’ email accounts were disabled, and Dr.
Hernandez’s email was accessed without his knowledge or approval and emails were
deleted (including emails to Dr. Hernandez from Defendant Atencio).

20. On September 24, 2009, Defendants Feuerstein and Mestas, upon

information and belief with the assistance of Defendants Atencio and/or Martinez, also
petitioned the Pueblo County District Court and received numerous temporary civil
protection orders against Dr. and Ms. Hernandez and numerous members of their
families, based on false factual allegations, and did so solely for the improper purpose of
generating negative publicity against the Plaintiffs, and to create a pretext for the future
termination of the Plaintiffs. These orders were never served on Plaintiffs, and were
allowed to expire. Defendant Atencio confirmed to the Court on October 5, 2009 that the
orders were not being pursued by Defendants Feuerstein and Mestas.

21. On September 25, 2009, the CCA and DHPH Boards removed both Dr.
and Ms. Hernandez from their executive positions with the Cesar Chavez School
Network, but allowed them to retain their positions at CCA and DHPH.

22. On or around September 26, 2009, Defendant Feuerstein publicly stated

that Dr. and Ms. Hernandez and Ms. Rincon were removed from paid administrative
leave, and would return to work on September 28, 2009. Despite Defendant Feuerstein’s
assurances, Ms. Hernandez and Ms. Rincon were not able to effectively return to work

{00435210 / 1} 5
the week of September 28, 2009, and on September 29, 2009 Defendant Atencio
requested that they both refrain from working and remain on paid administrative leave.
Ms. Hernandez and Ms. Rincon acquiesced to this request and refrained from working.

23. Throughout this timeframe Plaintiffs sought to work with Defendants to

reach a resolution of all concerns, and to put in place a plan going forward that would
benefit all concerned, especially the students and staff of CCA and DHPH. Plaintiffs put
forward a variety of plans in this regard, including significant concessions regarding each
and every concern at issue.

24. Prior to September 2009, Defendant Atencio and her firm had personally
represented all three Plaintiffs personally on various matters, including matters with
regard to which Defendant Atencio and her firm received confidential information
regarding all three Plaintiffs. This confidential information included the information
touching on the exact issues forming the basis of the disputes and actions that form the
basis of this Complaint.

25. On September 30, 2009, Plaintiffs informed Defendant Atencio that they
felt she had a conflict of interest in terms of representing the Plaintiffs in connection with
the employment disputes involving the Plaintiffs, and in terms of advising the Board to
act against the interests of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs requested Defendant Atencio
cease their representation against the Plaintiffs.

26. On October 1, 2009, Defendant Atencio confirmed that, based on the

request and conflict asserted by Plaintiffs, she would not be involved in further
representation against the Plaintiffs on behalf of the CCA and DHPH Boards, and that
she would inform the Boards of the asserted conflict.

27. On October 2, 2009, the CCA and DHPH Boards held a special meeting.
The noticed agenda for the special meeting included the following items: “10.
Employment Status of Annette Hernandez/New Position; Proposal by Annette
Hernandez”; and “11. Salary Reduction of CCA-DHPH Chief Executive Officer”.
During the meeting, the CCA and DHPH boards were represented and advised by
Defendant Martinez, who is a member of Defendant Atencio’s firm, GCR. Prior to this
meeting, Plaintiffs worked at length to present viable solutions that would benefit all
parties, especially the staff and students, and were at all times willing to discuss
significant concessions in order to achieve a workable solution to the issues at hand.

28. During the October 2, 2009 meeting, upon information and belief, despite
knowing of her conflict of interest, and despite her stated acknowledgement of the
conflict and commitment to cease representation of the CCA and DHPH Boards with
regard to the Plaintiffs, Defendant Atencio advised the various Defendants, via Defendant
Martinez, regarding advice to the Boards on these issues.

{00435210 / 1} 6
 29. In connection with this representation, Defendants GCR, Atencio, and
Martinez used confidential information acquired during their representation of Plaintiffs,
and also acted directly against the interests of Plaintiffs. This effort was spearheaded by
Defendant Atencio in an attempt to deflect attention away from prior Motions directed at
her continued retention as counsel for the schools. By way of background, Defendant
Atencio and her firm received an annual retainer of $250,000, and the amount of this
retainer and her continued representation had been called into question by various parties
as a result of her poor performance. Further, Defendant Atencio had approached Dr.
Hernandez with a demand that she and her staff be made permanent employees of the
Defendant schools, at an annual costs of well over $300,000 per year, which demand Dr.
Hernandez rejected. As a result, Defendant Atencio then turned on her former clients and
spearheaded the effort to terminate their employment. In this regard, Defendant Atencio
urged Ms. Hernandez to resign in order to “make the Boards’ PR issues go away,” and
advised the Boards consistently in this regard.

30. At the end of the October 2, 2009 meeting the CCA and DHPH Boards
voted to terminate the employment of Dr. Hernandez, Ms. Hernandez and Ms. Rincon.
The terminations were wrongful, without cause or justification, and in violation of the
terms of their employment contracts and the Boards’ bylaws.

31. Throughout this timeframe, various Defendants caused untrue and

slanderous statements to be published about the Plaintiffs, detailed below.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DR. LAWRENCE HERNANDEZ

32. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 31 of

this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

33. On or around April 30, 2009, Dr. Hernandez entered into an employment
contract with CCA and DHPH for the period of July 1, 2009 thru June 30, 2010. This
employment contract is a valid, binding and enforceable contract supported by adequate
consideration

34. As Director and Chief Executive Officer Dr. Hernandez agreed to provide
CCA and DHPH services including but not limited to: school operation oversight, school
board and school district superintendent relations, local, state, and federal compliance;
teacher, staff, and student recruitment; school management; staff development and
training; hiring and firing of staff; staff evaluation, educational program oversight, and
marketing assistance; budget development in conjunction with the Chief Financial
Officer.

35. In compensation for Dr. Hernandez’s services, the CCA and DHPH Board
of Directors agreed to compensate him.

{00435210 / 1} 7
 36. Dr. Hernandez was to receive other benefits in accordance with his
contract, including the following: health, dental, vision, life, and short-term disability
insurance; employer contributions to his Colorado PERA and PERA 401(k) supplemental
plans; sick leave; personal leave; severance pay upon termination or non-renewal of
employment; merit and cost of living raises; annual bonus; and a auto allowance.

37. Up until the point he was terminated, Dr. Hernandez continued to perform
all of his obligations under the agreement with CCA and DHPH.

38. Dr. Hernandez’s employment agreement states that he will be dismissed

based on the procedures outlined in the bylaws of the Board of Directors.

39. Section 5.8.2 of the bylaws of both CCA and DHPH provides that an
Officer may removed for cause and by two-thirds of the Board of Directors if an Officer:
is absent from more than two (2) consecutive regular Board meetings without a valid
excuse; misses six (6) consecutive meetings then removal may be automatic; is unable or
refuses to perform any of the Board’s duties and obligations; commits unethical or illegal
conduct.

40. The Boards’ bylaws provide that if an Officer is asked to resign and
declines to do so, the matter can be placed for hearing on the agenda of any regular or
special meeting of the Board of Directors upon the consent of any five (5) regular board
Members. The Officer being asked to resign must be notified in writing by certified mail
of the action thirty (30) days prior to the date of the Board meeting. This notice must
include the date, time, and place of the Board meeting and the reason the resignation is
being sought. A two-thirds (2/3) vote of the entire Board of Directors is required to
remove an Officer.

41. Under Dr. Hernandez’s employment contract, in the event of the

termination or non-renewal of his employment, with or without cause, he is entitled to
receive payment of the balance of the contract, and six (6) months severance pay “on the
normal pay scale.”

42. On October 2, 2009, the CCA and DHPH Boards terminated Dr.
Hernandez. The CCA and DHPH Boards did not provide Dr. Hernandez with the process
required for his removal by his contract, and thereby violated his employment contract
and their own bylaws. The termination was wrongful and without cause or justification.
In addition, CCA and DHPH have breached Dr. Hernandez’s contract by failing to
compensate him as required upon his termination.

43. As a result of CCA’s and DHPH’s breaches of contract, Dr. Hernandez

has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

{00435210 / 1} 8
 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
BREACH OF CONTRACT – ANNETTE HERNANDEZ

44. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 43 of

this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

45. On or around April 30, 2009, Annette Hernandez entered into an

employment contract with CCA and DHPH for the period of July 1, 2009 thru June 30,
2010. This employment contract is a valid, binding and enforceable contract supported
by adequate consideration.

46. As Chief Operations Officer, Ms. Hernandez agreed to provide CCA and
DHPH services including but not limited to: providing building related and direct support
to staff at all levels; supporting school board and school district/superintendent relations;
assisting with local, state, and federal compliance; assisting with teacher, staff, and
student recruitment, school and employee management, staff development, training, and
evaluation; providing educational program oversight and marketing; and finally operating
the school’s offices and facilities to provide support for the implementation of the schools
programs, development, and implementation of its mission.

47. These duties required Ms. Hernandez to act as the Director in the absence
of the CEO/Executive Director, to operate and manage all school operations as directed
by the CEO/Executive Director; to directly supervise office, custodial, and facilities staff;
to assist discipline teams; to conduct general oversight of purchases, care, and delivery of
school supplies and equipment, and other various duties.

48. In compensation for Ms. Hernandez services the CCA and DHPH Board
of Directors agreed to compensate Ms. Hernandez.

49. Ms. Hernandez was to receive other benefits in accordance with her
contract, including the following: health, dental, vision, life, and short-term disability
insurance; employer contributions to his Colorado PERA and PERA 401(k) supplemental
plans; sick leave; personal leave; severance pay upon termination or non-renewal of
employment; merit and cost of living raises; annual bonus; and a monthly auto allowance.

50. Up until the point she was terminated, Ms. Hernandez continued to
perform all of her obligations under the agreement with CCA and DHPH.

51. Ms. Hernandez’s employment agreement states that she will be dismissed
based on the procedures outlined in the bylaws of the Board of Directors.

52. Section 5.8.2 of the bylaws of both CCA and DHPH provides that an
Officer may removed for cause and by two-thirds of the Board of Directors if an Officer:
is absent from more than two (2) consecutive regular Board meetings without a valid

{00435210 / 1} 9
excuse; misses six (6) consecutive meetings then removal may be automatic; is unable or
refuses to perform any of the Board’s duties and obligations; commits unethical or illegal
conduct.

53. The Boards’ bylaws provide that if an Officer is asked to resign and
declines to do so, the matter can be placed for hearing on the agenda of any regular or
special meeting of the Board of Directors upon the consent of any five (5) regular board
Members. The Officer being asked to resign must be notified in writing by certified mail
of the action thirty (30) days prior to the date of the Board meeting. This notice must
include the date, time, and place of the Board meeting and the reason the resignation is
being sought. A two-thirds (2/3) vote of the entire Board of Directors is required to
remove an Officer.

54. Under Ms. Hernandez’s employment contract, in the event of the

termination or non-renewal of her employment, with or without cause, she is entitled to
receive payment of the balance of the contract, and six (6) months severance pay “on the
normal pay scale.”

55. On October 2, 2009, the CCA and DHPH Boards terminated Ms.
Hernandez. The CCA and DHPH Boards did not provide Ms. Hernandez with the
process required for her removal by her contract, and thereby violated her employment
contract and their own bylaws. The termination was wrongful and without cause or
justification. In addition, CCA and DHPH have breached Ms. Hernandez’s contract by
failing to compensate her as required upon her termination.

56. As a result of CCA’s and DHPH’s breaches of contract, Ms. Hernandez

has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

BREACH OF CONTRACT – VELIA RINCON

57. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 56 of

this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

58. On or around July 27, 2009, Ms. Rincon accepted CCA’s offer of
employment to serve as its Assistant Executive Director. On or around September 28,
2009, Ms. Rincon accepted CCA’s written offer of employment, from Dr. Hernandez
acting in his capacity as CCA’s Chief Executive Officer, to serve as CCA’s Assistant
Executive Director from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. Ms. Rincon’s employment
contract is a valid, binding and enforceable contract supported by adequate consideration.

59. As Assistant Executive Director, Ms. Rincon agreed to provide services

including but not limited to: providing direct support to staff at all levels; assisting with
local, state, and federal compliance; assisting with teacher, staff, and student recruitment;
assisting with school and employee management; directing staff development and

{00435210 / 1} 10
training as well as staff evaluation, educational program oversight and marketing;
operating the school’s offices and facilities to provide support for the implementation of
the schools programs, development, and implementation of its mission.

60. These duties required Ms. Rincon to operate and manage all school
operations as directed by the CEO/Executive Director; to directly supervise office,
custodial, and facilities staff; to provide oversight of substitute teachers including record
keeping; to coordinate and work with parents and community members in establishing a
network of volunteers to assist students and staff members of the Academy; to conduct
general oversight of purchases, care, and delivery of school supplies and equipment; and
other various duties.

61. In compensation for Ms. Rincon’s services, CCA agreed to compensate

her.

62. Ms. Rincon was to receive other benefits in accordance with her contract,
including the following: health, dental, vision, life, and short-term disability insurance;
employer contributions to her Colorado PERA and PERA 401(k) supplemental plans;
sick leave; personal leave; severance pay in the event of termination or non-renewal of
employment; merit and cost of living raises; annual bonus; and a monthly auto allowance.

63. Up until the point she was terminated, Ms. Rincon continued to perform
all of her obligations under the agreement with CCA.

64. Under Ms. Rincon’s employment contract, in the event of the termination
or non-renewal of her employment, with or without cause, she is entitled to receive
payment of the balance of the contract, and six (6) months severance pay “on the normal
pay scale.”

65. On October 2, 2009, the CCA Board terminated Ms. Rincon. Ms.
Rincon’s termination was wrongful and without cause or justification. In addition, CCA
has breached Ms. Rincon’s contract by failing to compensate her as required upon her
termination.

66. As a result of these breaches by CCA, Ms. Rincon has been damaged in an
amount to be proven at trial.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATION OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

67. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 66 of

this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

68. Plaintiffs had valid employment contracts with CCA and DHPH for the
period of July 1, 2009 thru June 30, 2010.

{00435210 / 1} 11
 69. Under Colorado law, all contracts include an implied duty of good faith
and fair dealing to the parties. These duties apply to both the administration and
execution of contracts.

70. CCA and DHPH, and their Boards, violated their duties of good faith and
fair dealing in numerous respects, including the following:

a. Placing Plaintiffs on paid administrative leave without proper cause or

approval of the Boards.

b. Failing to support and acknowledge their role in Dr. Hernandez’s action to

terminate employment of certain GOAL Academy employees.

c. Changing Plaintiffs’ responsibilities without proper cause, justification or

process.

d. Attempting to change Plaintiffs’ compensation without proper cause,

justification or process.

e. Terminating Plaintiffs without proper cause, justification or process.

71. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs fully performed their obligations under
their employment contracts.

72. Plaintiffs have been damaged by CCA’s and DHPH’s breaches of their
duties of good faith and fair dealing in an amount to be proven at trial.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DR. HERNANDEZ (RIVERA LITIGATION)

73. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 72 of

this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

74. Defendants CCA, DHPH, and their Board of Directors agreed to fund and
defend Dr. Lawrence Hernandez in a civil suit brought by Alvin Rivera against Dr.
Hernandez for acts taken in his official capacity.

75. On March 11, 2008 the Board of Directors unanimously voted to continue
its support of the lawsuit and approved a “Consent to Representation” and other
obligations “including all fees associated with [the] lawsuit.”

76. Dr. Hernandez, acting on behalf and with the approval of the Board of
Directors, agreed with CCA, DHPH, and its Board of Directors to defend the suit as long
as the Board of Directors indemnified Dr. Hernandez of any liability.

{00435210 / 1} 12
 77. Upon information and belief, CCA, DHPH, and its Board of Directors
now refuses to maintain its support of the suit in violation of its agreement with Dr.
Hernandez. As a result, Dr. Hernandez is subject to potential personal liability and will
incur significant attorneys’ fees defending against this action.

78. As a result of CCA’s and DHPH’s breach of contract, Dr. Hernandez has
been damaged by Defendants’ conduct in an amount to be proven at trial.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

79. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 78 of

this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

80. In connection with the initial operations of the school, Plaintiffs Dr. and
Ms. Hernandez cashed out their retirements and loaned Defendants CCA and DHPH
money in the amount of approximately $80,000 with the reasonable expectation that
Defendants would repay his money.

81. Defendants have accepted and retained the money without repaying
Plaintiffs’ loan, under such circumstances that allowing them to retain such money would
be an injustice.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

82. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 81 of

this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

83. Colorado public policy protects the right of individuals to consult with or
obtain legal counsel.

84. On October 4, 2009, in discussing the reasons for the Plaintiffs’

terminations, Defendant Feuerstein publicly stated that the “Hernandez’s decision last
week to seek legal counsel put us [the Board of Directors of CCA and DHPH] in another
predicament.”

85. CCA’s and DHPH’s decision to terminate Plaintiffs in whole or in part

because they obtained legal counsel violates public policy.

86. Even after obtaining legal counsel, and up and until the time Plaintiff’s
were terminated, Plaintiff’s fully performed their obligations under their employee
agreements.

{00435210 / 1} 13
 87. Plaintiffs have been damaged by CCA’s and DHPH’s wrongful actions in
violation of Colorado public policy, in an amount to be proven at trial.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

SLANDER PER SE (FEUERSTEIN STATEMENTS)

88. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 87 of

this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

89. Defendant Feuerstein published in public statements and at Board

meetings salacious statements that reflect negatively against Plaintiffs Dr. and Annette
Hernandez.

90. Specifically, Defendant Feuerstein stated that Dr. Hernandez accosted him
with verbal cursing, threats, and shouting. Feuerstein also stated that Dr. Hernandez was
a “traitor,” that Dr. Hernandez “would get me” and other similar statements.

91. Defendant Feuerstein also made statements that Plaintiffs had failed to
perform conditions imposed by the Board upon their being placed on administrative
leave. These statements are false in that no such conditions existed. Instead, Plaintiffs at
all times performed according to their employment contracts.

92. At the time Defendant Feuerstein made these statements, Defendant

Feuerstein knew them to be false and harmful to Dr. and Annette Hernandez’s reputation
by lowering them in the estimation of at least a substantial and respectable minority of
the community, mainly the staff and students at CCA, DHPH, and the Cesar Chavez
School Network, and the Colorado and national education communities.

93. These statements concerned matters incompatible with the Plaintiffs’

successful business, trade, and profession.

94. Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendant Feuerstein’s slander in an

amount to be proven at trial.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

SLANDER PER SE (MESTAS STATEMENTS)

95. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 94 of

this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

96. Defendant Mestas published in public statements and salacious statements

that reflect negatively against Plaintiffs Dr. and Annette Hernandez.

97. Specifically, Defendant Mestas stated that Dr. Hernandez created a

threatening, intimidating scene which took place at DHPH on September 24, 2009.

{00435210 / 1} 14
 98. Further, Defendant Mestas stated that Dr. Hernandez brought family
members to DHPH. According to statements published by Defendant Mestas these
family members in response to Defendant Mestas’ assertion that the faculty meeting was
over told Mestas to “get the f*** out of here” and that Defendant Mestas was a traitor.

99. Defendant Mestas further stated that Dr. and Annette Hernandez were
making the faculty “fearful, afraid,” and that Dr. Hernandez “takes the damn credit and
he takes the money.”

100. At the time Defendant Mestas made these statements, Defendant Mestas
knew them to be false and harmful to Dr. and Annette Hernandez’s reputation by
lowering them in the estimation of at least a substantial and respectable minority of the
community, mainly the staff and students at CCA, DHPH, and the Cesar Chavez School
Network, and the Colorado and national education communities.

101. These statements concerned matters incompatible with the Plaintiffs’

successful business, trade, and profession.

102. Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendant Mestas’ slander in an amount

to be proven at trial.

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

ABUSE OF PROCESS

103. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 102

of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

104. Upon information and belief Defendants Feuerstein, Mestas, Atencio,

Martinez and/or GCR caused temporary civil protection orders to be issued against Dr.
and Ms. Hernandez, and members of their families.

105. Defendants never served these orders on Dr. and Ms. Hernandez, and
allowed them to expire without action.

106. The principal reason for Defendants’ action was other than the stated
reason of restraining Dr. and Ms. Hernandez from coming within one hundred yards of
Defendants Feuerstein and Mestas. Instead, their intent was for the improper purposes of
harassing Plaintiffs and their families, preventing Plaintiffs from speaking with staff and
parents, and prejudicing Plaintiffs in the public and community, which was successful
due to the extensive media coverage these orders received.

107. Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendants’ abuse of process in an

amount to be proven at trial.

{00435210 / 1} 15
 ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
ASSAULT AND BATTERY (MESTAS)

108. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 107

of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

109. On or around September 24, 2009, Defendant Mestas placed Plaintiff Dr.
Lawrence Hernandez in apprehension of immediate, offensive, and harmful physical
contact by threatening to strike Dr. Hernandez and putting his hands on Dr. Hernandez in
an unwanted and offensive way.

110. Defendant Mestas intended to cause in Dr. Hernandez an apprehension of

immediate, offensive, and harmful physical contact.

111. Defendant Mestas did commit a battery by putting his hands on Dr.
Hernandez in an unwanted and offensive way.

112. Defendant Mestas’s unwanted and offensive conduct harmed Dr.

Hernandez in an amount to be proven at trial.

TWELVTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

ASSAULT & BATTERY (FEUERSTEIN)

113. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 112

of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

114. On or around September 24, 2009, Defendant Feuerstein placed Plaintiff

Dr. Lawrence Hernandez in apprehension of immediate, offensive, and harmful physical
contact by threatening to strike Dr. Hernandez and putting his hands on Dr. Hernandez in
an unwanted and offensive way.

115. Defendant Feuerstein intended to cause in Dr. Hernandez an apprehension

of immediate, offensive, and harmful physical contact.

116. Defendant Feuerstein did commit a battery by putting his hands on Dr.
Hernandez in an unwanted and offensive way.

117. Defendant Feuerstein’s unwanted and offensive conduct harmed Dr.

Hernandez in an amount to be proven at trial.

THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

118. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 117

of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

{00435210 / 1} 16
 119. Plaintiffs had existing, valid and enforceable employment contracts with
both CCA and DHPH for the dates of July 1, 2009 thru June 30, 2010.

120. Defendants GCR, Atencio and Martinez had knowledge of Plaintiffs’

existing employment agreements and with this knowledge, upon information and belief,
interfered with Plaintiffs’ employment by counseling Defendants CCA, DHPH, and their
Boards to terminate Plaintiffs’ employment. Defendants gave such advice despite
conflicts of interest, and despite the fact that the Boards had not satisfied the
requirements for terminations provided in the contracts of Dr. and Ms. Hernandez.
Further, Defendants engineered the dismissal of Plaintiffs in order to act in their own self
interest, namely to deflect attention away from the pending effort to remove GCR and
Atencio as counsel to the schools.

121. The Plaintiffs, have been and will be further damaged as a result of the
Defendants’ interference with Plaintiffs’ employment agreements with CCA and DHPH.

122. As a result of Defendants’ interference, Plaintiffs have been damaged by

an amount to be proven at trial.

FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

NEGLIGENCE

123. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 122

of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

124. Defendants, GCR, Dolores S. Atencio, Esq., and Loretta P. Martinez, Esq.,
had previously represented the interest of Dr. Lawrence Hernandez both personally or as
Director and Chief Executive Officer.

125. Prior to events that gave rise to this cause of action Defendants GCR,
Dolores S. Atencio, Esq., and Loretta P. Martinez, Esq., represented the interests of
Annette Hernandez either personally or as Chief Operations Officer of CCA and DHPH.

126. Prior to events that gave rise to this cause of action Defendants, GCR,
Dolores S. Atencio, Esq., and Loretta P. Martinez, Esq., had represented the interests of
Ms. Rincon personally.

127. As a result of the representation by GCR, Dolores S. Atencio, Esq., and

Loretta P. Martinez, Esq., of Dr. and Ms. Hernandez as well as Ms. Rincon, GCR,
Dolores S. Atencio, Esq., and Loretta P. Martinez, Esq., owed Dr. and Ms. Hernandez
and Ms. Rincon a duty of care, codified in statutory and common law, as well as
established in Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9 & 1.10.

{00435210 / 1} 17
 128. Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9 & 1.10 was in effect during the events that
underlie the cause of this action, and provides an illustration, if not a basis for relief, of
the unethical actions of Martinez, Atencio and their firm.

129. Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9 provides:

(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not
thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related
matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the
interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed
consent, confirmed in writing.

(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a

substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer
formerly was associated had previously represented a client

(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and

(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules
1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter; unless the former client gives
informed consent, confirmed in writing.

(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose

present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall
not thereafter:

(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the

former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to
a client, or when the information has become generally known; or

(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules

would permit or require with respect to a client.

130. Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.10 provides in pertinent part that

(a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly
represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be
prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7 or 1.9, unless the prohibition is
based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer and does not present
a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by
the remaining lawyers in the firm.

131. During, the events that gave rise to this action, Defendants GCR, Atencio,
and Martinez, represented CCA, DHPH, and it’s Board of Directors in their actions
against Dr. Lawrence Hernandez, Annette Hernandez, and Ms. Rincon. In connection

{00435210 / 1} 18
with this representation, Defendants GCR, Atencio, and Martinez used confidential
information acquired during their representation of Plaintiffs, and also acted directly
against the interests of Plaintiffs.

132. On October 1, 2009, Defendant Atencio confirmed that, based on the

request and conflict asserted by Plaintiffs, she would not be involved in further
settlement-related discussions with regard to them and the CCA and DHPH Boards, and
that she would inform the Boards of the asserted conflict.

133. On October 2, 2009, the CCA and DHPH Boards held a special meeting.
The noticed agenda for the special meeting included the following items: “10.
Employment Status of Annette Hernandez/New Position; Proposal by Annette
Hernandez”; and “11. Salary Reduction of CCA-DHPH Chief Executive Officer”.
During the meeting, the CCA and DHPH boards were represented and advised by
Defendant Martinez, who is a member of Defendant Atencio’s firm, GCR.

134. During the October 2, 2009 meeting, upon information and belief, despite
her commitment to cease representation of the CCA and DHPH Boards with regard to the
Plaintiffs, Defendants GCR, Atencio, and Martinez advised Defendants on these issues
and provided information to defendant Martinez and the CCA and DHPH boards that was
materially adverse to her former clients, Dr. and Mrs. Hernandez and Ms. Rincon.

135. By continuing to represent CCA, DHPH, and its Board of Directors,

Defendants GCR, Dolores S. Atencio, Esq., and Loretta P. Martinez, Esq., violated the
duty of care owed to Dr. Lawrence Hernandez, Annette Hernandez, and Ms. Rincon as
former clients, which duty is established by Colorado statutory and common law.

136. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs have been damaged by an

amount to be proven at trial.

FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

CIVIL CONSPIRACY

137. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 136

of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

138. Upon information and belief, Defendants CCA, DHPH, and their Boards
of Directors among themselves and with Defendants GCR, Dolores S. Atencio, Esq., and
Loretta P. Martinez, Esq., agreed to cause Defendants GCR, Dolores S. Atencio, Esq.,
and Loretta P. Martinez, Esq., to violate the statutory and common laws governing an
attorney’s duty to a former client, including the Rules of Professional Conduct, and to
terminate Plaintiffs employment wrongfully, without cause or justification.

139. In furtherance of these goals, Defendants caused Defendants GCR,

Dolores S. Atencio, Esq., and Loretta P. Martinez, Esq., to violate the Colorado Rules of

{00435210 / 1} 19
Professional Conduct and other applicable laws governing duties to former clients, and
wrongfully terminated Plaintiffs’ employment without cause or justification.

140. As a result of Defendants’ civil conspiracy, Plaintiffs have been harmed in

an amount to be proven at trial.

SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT

141. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 through 140,

as though fully set forth herein.

142. The Defendants have engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct directed
at Plaintiffs, including the following:

a. Placing Plaintiffs on leave from their employment without justification,

cause, or approval from the applicable Boards.

b. Obtaining temporary civil protection orders against Plaintiffs and their

families under false pretenses.

c. Violating attorneys’ duties to former clients.

d. Engaging in slanderous conduct.

e. Acting against Plaintiffs to further their own personal, employment and/or

financial interests.

f. Wrongfully terminating Plaintiffs without proper cause, justification, or

process, and in disregard of their contractual rights.

143. Defendants engaged in this conduct recklessly or with the intent of

causing Plaintiffs severe emotional distress and other harm.

144. As a result of Defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct, Plaintiffs

have suffered and will continue to suffer severe emotional distress and other damages as
set forth herein.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

{00435210 / 1} 20
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this court enter judgment in Plaintiffs’

favor and against Defendants, and award to Plaintiffs all available and appropriate
damages, including but not limited to the following:

1. Economic loss (including lost future wages and earning potential);

2. Contract damages;

3. Attorney fees;

4. Court costs and witness fees;

5. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

6. Emotional distress;

7. Such other and further relief as this court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted this 8th day of October, 2009

MESSNER & REEVES, LLC

/s/ Matt Groves

Bruce A. Montoya, Esq. # 14233
Matt Groves, Esq. #27315
David W. Feeder II, Esq. # 31237
Counsel for Plaintiffs
This document was filed electronically pursuant to
C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-26. Duly signed original on file at
the offices of Messner & Reeves, LLC

Plaintiffs’ Addresses:
1. Dr. Lawrence Hernandez
5606 Bellagio Way
Pueblo, CO 81005

2. Annette Hernandez
5606 Bellagio Way
Pueblo, CO 81005

3. Velia Rincon
616 Boyero Ave.
Pueblo, CO 81007

{00435210 / 1} 21