21STCV11095

Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Mel Red Recana

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 03/23/2021 10:38 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Barel,Deputy Clerk

1 TERA D. LEE, Esq. (SBN 282881)

TERA D. LEE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
2 9431 Haven Avenue, Suite 100, PMB #133
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
3 Telephone: (909) 913-0065
Facsimile: (909) 801-2647
4 Email: [email protected]
5
Attorney for Plaintiff,
6 LOUISE BRISTOW
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11 LOUISE BRISTOW, ) Case No.:
)
12 Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR:
)
13 ) 1. FRAUD;
vs. ) 2. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;
14 ) 3. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
FISKER, INC.; GEETA GUPTA ; HENRIK ) 4. BREACH OF IMPLIED CONVENANT
15 FISKER; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, )
) OF GOOD-FAITH AND FAIR
16 ) DEALING
Defendants. )
17 )
)
18 )
)
19 )
)
20 )
)
21 )
)
22 )
)
23 )
24
25 Plaintiff Louise Bristow (“Plaintiff”), complains and alleges the following against

26 Defendant Fisker, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“FISKER”), Defendant Geeta Gupta, Chief

27 Financial Officer of FISKER (“GG”), Defendant Henrik Fisker, Chief Executive Officer of

28 FISKER (“HF”), and Defendant(s) DOES 1-50, inclusive (collectively referred to herein as
“Defendants”):

COMPLAINT
1
 1 PARTIES
2 1. Plaintiff Louise Bristow (“Plaintiff”) is and was at all relevant times to this
3 complaint an individual and formerly employed by Defendants in the State of California, County
4 of Los Angeles.
5 2. Defendant Fisker, Inc. (“FISKER”) is and was at all relevant times to this
6 complaint a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of California, including Los
7 Angeles County, with its entity address located at 1888 Rosecrans Avenue, Manhattan Beach, Ca
8 90266.
9 3. Defendant Greeta Gupta (“GG”) is and was at all relevant times to this complaint
10 an individual employed as the Chief Financial Officer of FISKER.
11 4. Defendant Henrik Fisker (“HF”) is and was at all relevant times to this complaint
12 an individual employed as the Chief Executive Officer of FISKER.
13 5. Defendant(s) DOES 1 – 50, inclusive are and were at all times relevant to this
14 complaint potential yet to be discovered defendants. The true names and capacities of the
15 defendants, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise,
16 are unknown to Plaintiff at the time of filing this complaint and Plaintiff, therefore, sues DOES 1
17 – 50, inclusive by such fictitious names and will ask leave of court to amend this complaint to
18 show their true names or capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed
19 and believes, and therefore alleges, that each of the DOES 1 – 50, inclusive, in some manner, are
20 responsible for the events and happenings herein set forth and proximately caused injury and
21 damages to the Plaintiff as herein alleged.
22 6. The Defendants are sued as principals or agents, servants and employees of said
23 principals and/or agents of each other and all of the acts performed as agents and employees
24 were performed within the course and scope of their authority and employment and/or agency
25 and with the consent of each of the defendants.
26 7. The Defendants are also sued as individual persons personally liable for all of the
27 acts performed outside the course and scope of their authority and employment and/or agency
28 and/or without the consent of their principals and for all acts performed as an entities’ “alter-

COMPLAINT
2
 1 ego,” including but not limited to using company assets for personal use and/or commingling
2 company funds with personal funds.
3 STATEMENT OF VENUE
4 8. Venue is proper because all of the acts alleged occurred within the jurisdictional
5 limits of the above-named court, and Defendants reside and/or are located within the
6 jurisdictional limits of the above-named court.
7 STATEMENT OF FACTS
8 9. In October of 2019, Plaintiff earned approximately $205,000 annually working
9 for Karma Automotive. At the time, Plaintiff held a director-level position, managed a team of
10 eight (8) other people, and enjoyed employment with Karma Automotive for the past four (4)
11 years.
12 10. Commencing in October of 2019, GG began to recruit Plaintiff for a Marketing
13 and Public Relations role at FISKER.
14 11. On or about December 2, 2019, with GG and HF present for an in-person
15 meeting, GG and HF made the following affirmative representation to Plaintiff: FISKER
16 employed around 50 people.
17 12. On or about December 2, 2019, with GG and HF present for an in-person
18 meeting, GG and HF made the following affirmative representation to Plaintiff: FISKER was
19 confident in closing their funding in March of 2020 or before.
20 13. On or about December 2, 2019, with GG and HF present for an in-person
21 meeting, GG and HF made the following affirmative representation to Plaintiff: FISKER was
22 already contracted with Cox Automotive for the services and refurbishment of all FISKER
23 vehicles.
24 14. On or about December 2, 2019, with GG and HF present for an in-person
25 meeting, GG and HF made the following affirmative representation to Plaintiff: Plaintiff would
26 be given authority to lead the marketing and public relations budget from the ground up.
27
28

COMPLAINT
3
 1 15. On or about December 2, 2019, with GG and HF present for an in-person
2 meeting, GG and HF made the following affirmative representations: Hiring Plaintiff as a senior
3 female would boost their perception of diversity and thus appeal to potential investors.
4 16. On or about December 2, 2019, with GG and HF present for an in-person
5 meeting, GG and HF made the following affirmative representation to Plaintiff: Plaintiff would
6 be given hiring autonomy over a team that would be built quickly once Plaintiff agreed to be
7 hired.
8 17. Prior to December 8, 2019, Plaintiff enjoyed her employment with Karma
9 Automotive including but not limited to: earning approximately $205,000.00 annually, holding a
10 director-level position, managing a team of eight (8) people under her direct supervision and
11 receiving employment benefits such as health insurance through Karma Automotive.
12 18. Prior to December 8, 2019, Plaintiff was in the late stages of interviewing with
13 Canoo, formerly Evelozcity (an electric vehicle start-up company), which offered a competitive
14 salary and stock options.
15 19. Prior to December 8, 2019, Plaintiff obtained another job offer from the Apex
16 Agency, a marketing firm, which offered a senior level marketing role with a competitive salary.
17 20. On or about December 8, 2019, FISKER by and through GG and HF acting in
18 their capacities as CFO and CEO of FISKER respectively made the following offer for
19 employment to Plaintiff:
20 Title: VP, Marketing and Public Relations
21 Salary: $180/k base
22 $250/k in March of 2020
23 (After the Geneva Auto Show/ Series C Funding closed)
24 Benefits: Health Insurance
25 Stock: 30,000 Stock Options
26 Stock to be valued at $4/share with a vesting period of 5 years
27 based on a 2019 company valuation of $300,000,000.00 and an
28 expected growth of 500-1000x upon an initial public offering.

COMPLAINT
4
 1 21. A couple days later, based on the in-person representations from GG and HF as
2 stated above, as well as the job offer terms of FISKER, Plaintiff accepted FISKER’s offer for
3 employment.
4 22. As a result, shortly after accepting FISKER’s offer for employment, Plaintiff put
5 in her two-week notice terminating her employment with Karma Automotive.
6 23. As a result of accepting FISKER’s employment offer, Plaintiff did not pursue the
7 job with Canoo.
8 24. As a result of accepting FISKER’s employment offer, Plaintiff did not pursue the
9 job offer from the Apex Agency.
10 25. Plaintiff’s official start date was January 2, 2020; however, Plaintiff worked,
11 without pay commencing in December of 2019, including but not limited to producing an entire
12 event for FISKER that was delivered on January 4, 2020.
13 26. While employed at FISKER, Plaintiff counted 16 people working for FISKER
14 regularly.
15 27. While employed at FISKER, Plaintiff personally witnessed the hiring new
16 employees cease coupled with GG and HF requesting Plaintiff find unpaid interns to, “fill up the
17 office and make the company look better to potential investors.”
18 28. While employed at FISKER, Plaintiff personally witnessed several engineers
19 terminated for FISKER’s inability to meet payroll.
20 29. While employed at FISKER, Plaintiff personally witnessed vendor line items
21 scrutinized, vendor payments delayed, and vendor payments not paid at all by GG in her capacity
22 as CFO of FISKER.
23 30. While employed at FISKER, Plaintiff personally witnessed and was a part of the
24 kickoff meeting with Cox Automotive to determine the terms of a potential partnership—
25 FISKER and Cox Automotive shared a Memorandum of Understanding but no formal contract
26 or agreement at any time relevant to this complaint.
27 31. While employed at FISKER, GG and HF asked Plaintiff and other employees to
28 use personal travel miles to pay for company travel.

COMPLAINT
5
 1 32. While employed at FISKER, GG booked Plaintiff a flight from Orange County to
2 Pittsburg with a layover in New York and instructed Plaintiff to remain in New York because
3 this was cheaper than a direct flight from Orange County to New York by approximately
4 $100.00.
5 33. While employed at FISKER, Plaintiff obtained personal knowledge that hotels for
6 a planned trip to the Geneva Auto Show were paid for using AMEX points.
7 34. While employed at FISKER, Plaintiff was not allowed to expense Wi-Fi for
8 business travel or showering facilities for overnight work.
9 35. While employed at FISKER, Plaintiff organized a photoshoot in Europe, obtained
10 HF’s approval for the project, and after formal quotations were prepared, HF rescinded his
11 approval for lack of funds.
12 36. On March 4, 2020, HF terminated Plaintiff, in-person, for FISKER’s lack of funds
13 to pay salaries.
14 37. On March 4, 2020, HF stated to Plaintiff, in-person, FISKER would rehire
15 Plaintiff when funding became available again. Funding became available in July of 2020 for
16 FISKER. FISKER did not rehire Plaintiff.
17 38. On March 4, 2020, HF stated to Plaintiff, in-person, FISKER would continue to
18 pay Plaintiff’s health insurance until either Plaintiff was rehired of Plaintiff found new
19 employment. FISKER terminated Plaintiff’s health insurance in April of 2020.
20 39. On March 4, 2020 HF stated to Plaintiff, in-person, Plaintiff’s stock options
21 would continue to vest indefinitely. Plaintiff is unaware of the current status of the 30,000 shares
22 in FISKER at $4/share that were part of her employment offer from FISKER.
23 40. On March 24, 2020, GG informed Plaintiff that health insurance benefits would
24 terminate in April of 2020.
25 41. Based on Plaintiff’s personal experiences while working at FISKER, FISKER did
26 not employ, “around 50 people.”
27 42. Based on Plaintiff’s personal experiences while working at FISKER, FISKER had
28 no reasonable basis to believe funding would close on or before March of 2020.

COMPLAINT
6
 1 43. Based on Plaintiff’s personal experiences while working at FISKER, FISKER did
2 not have a contract with Cox Automotive.
3 44. Based on Plaintiff’s personal experiences while working at FISKER, FISKER
4 lacked the funds for a marketing and public relations budget to be run by Plaintiff.
5 45. Based on Plaintiff’s personal experiences while working at FISKER, Plaintiff was
6 not given hiring autonomy and a team of Plaintiff’s choosing was not built.
7 46. Based on Plaintiff’s personal experiences while working at FISKER, FISKER did
8 not possess sufficient capital to pay Plaintiff either the promised base salary or the anticipated
9 increased salary at the time FISKER offered Plaintiff employment.
10 47. Based on Plaintiff’s personal experiences while working at FISKER, FISKER has
11 yet to provide documentation of Plaintiff’s 30,000 shares in stock options.
12 48. Plaintiff continues to be unemployed since March 4, 2020 and based upon the
13 allegations above, suffered damages from loss of employment with Karma Automotive, loss of
14 economic opportunity from accepting FISKER’s employment offer instead of either Canoo or
15 the Apex Agency, and loss of income from FISKER resulting from FISKER lacking the financial
16 resources to hire Plaintiff while GG and HF intentionally misrepresented the financial stability
17 and ability of FISKER, at all times relevant to this complaint, to induce Plaintiff to work for
18 FISKER.
19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD
20 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
21 49. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
22 contained in paragraphs 1 to 47 as though fully set forth herein.
23 50. Defendants made affirmative representations as previously alleged in ¶¶11-19 of
24 this complaint.
25 51. Plaintiff alleges that each affirmative representation was false as explained in
26 ¶¶25-35; 40-46 of this complaint.
27
28

COMPLAINT
7
 1 52. Based on Defendants’ above-stated affirmative representations, Plaintiff quit
2 Karma Automotive; did not pursue a job opportunity with Canoo; and did not pursue a job
3 opportunity with the Apex Agency as stated in ¶¶20-23 of this complaint.
4 53. As previously alleged in ¶¶25-35; 40-46, Defendants knew or should have known
5 each affirmative representation complained of herein was in fact false.
6 54. Upon information and belief, the previously alleged false affirmative
7 representations of Defendants to Plaintiff were made to cause Plaintiff to contribute Plaintiff’s
8 time, energy, skill, contacts and industry experience of over twenty (20) years towards FISKER,
9 which Plaintiff did in fact do, without any intention to pay market value for Plaintiff’s skills.
10 55. Plaintiff suffered actual damages in lost wages of not less than $170,833.00 since
11 March of 2020, and $120,000 or 30,000 shares of FISKER stock at $4/share, for an amount of
12 actual damages not less than $290,833.00.
13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENATION
14 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
15 56. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
16 contained in paragraphs 1 to 54 as though fully set forth herein.
17 57. Defendants made affirmative representations as previously alleged, including but
18 not limited to, ¶¶ 11-19 of this complaint.
19 58. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known each
20 affirmative representation complained of herein was in fact false based on the allegations
21 contained in ¶¶25-35; 40-46 of this complaint.
22 59. Defendants knew or should have known that the untrue statements would cause
23 Plaintiff to eventually accept the employment terms Defendants offered, and Plaintiff did
24 ultimately accept employment with FISKER.
25 60. As a direct and natural result, Plaintiff left her prior employment and forwent two
26 other job opportunities as alleged in ¶¶20-23 of this complaint.
27 61. On March 4, 2020, HF terminated Plaintiff for lack of funds to pay salary,
28 approximately three (3) months after Defendants offered Plaintiff the position.

COMPLAINT
8
 1 62. Plaintiff suffered actual damages in lost wages of not less than $170,833.00 since
2 March of 2020, and $120,000 or 30,000 shares of FISKER stock at $4/share, for an amount of
3 actual damages not less than $290,833.00.
4 /////
5 /////
6 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
7 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
8 63. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
9 contained in paragraphs 1 to 61 as though fully set forth herein.
10 64. On or about December 10, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendants reached an oral
11 agreement the terms of which were previously alleged in ¶19.
12 65. Plaintiff fulfilled her obligations under the contract, except those obligations
13 which were excused by Defendants’ non-performance.
14 66. Defendant breached the contract, including but not limited to, failing to be able to
15 pay Plaintiff’s salary and failing to provide 30,000 shares in stock options.
16 67. Plaintiff did not become aware of the breach until on or about March 4, 2020.
17 68. Plaintiff suffered actual damages in lost wages of not less than $170,833.00 since
18 March of 2020, and $120,000 or 30,000 shares of FISKER stock at $4/share, for an amount of
19 actual damages not less than $290,833.00.
20 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF
21 GOOD-FAITH AND FAIR DEALING AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
22 69. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
23 contained in paragraphs 1 to 67 as though fully set forth herein.
24 70. On or about December 10, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into an oral
25 contract the terms of which are alleged in ¶19.
26 71. The contract presupposed Plaintiff would use her expertise in marketing and
27 public relations and Defendants would pay Plaintiff not less that $180,000 initially plus 30,000
28 shares at $4/share worth of stock options.

COMPLAINT
9
 1 72. Defendants breached the implied covenant of good-faith and fair dealing by
2 committing the acts alleged in ¶¶25-35; 40-46 of this complaint .
3 73. As a direct and natural result, Plaintiff left her prior employment and forwent two
4 other job opportunities as alleged in ¶¶20-23 of this complaint.
5 74. Plaintiff suffered actual damages in lost wages of not less than $170,833.00 since
6 March of 2020, and $120,000 or 30,000 shares of FISKER stock at $4/share, for an amount of
7 actual damages not less than $290,833.00.
8
9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants, and each of them
10 as follows:
11
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
12
A. Compensatory damages not less than $290,833.00;
13
B. Consequential damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
14
C. Rescission of the contract between Plaintiff and Defendants;
15
D. Restitution in an amount to be proven at trial;
16
E. Prejudgment interest on damages as provided by California Civil Code
17
§3288; and
18
F. Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
19
G. Attorney’s fees as allowed by law;
20
H. Costs of suit and for such other and further relief as the court deems
21
proper, including but not limited to, restoration, temporary injunction, and
22
preliminary injunction.
23
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
24
A. Compensatory damages not less than $290,833.00;
25
B. Attorney’s fees as allowed by law;
26
C. Costs of suit and for such other and further relief as the court deems
27
proper, including but not limited to, restoration, temporary injunction, and
28
preliminary injunction.

COMPLAINT
10
 1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 A. Compensatory damages not less than $290,833.00;
3 B. Rescission of the contract between Plaintiff and Defendants;
4 C. Restitution in an amount to be determined at trial for Defendants’ unjust
5 enrichment and ill-gotten gains from Plaintiff’s work;
6 D. Costs of suit and for such other and further relief as the court deems
7 proper, including but not limited to, restoration, temporary injunction, and
8 preliminary injunction.
9 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10 A. Compensatory damages not less than $290,833.00;
11 B. Costs of suit and for such other and further relief as the court deems
12 proper, including but not limited to, restoration, temporary injunction, and
13 preliminary injunction.
14
15 [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]
16
17
Respectfully submitted,
18
DATED: TERA D. LEE ATTORNEY AT LAW
19
20
By: ______________________________
21 Tera D. Lee, Esq,
22 Attorney for Plaintiff,
LOUISE BRISTOW
23
24
25
26
27
28

COMPLAINT
11