1 BOYS NIGHT IN WITH ANDREW DICE CLAY

2 NO GIRLS ALLOWED
3
2. Yet, as seen in the below excerpt from Exhibit 1 to this First Amended Complaint, an
4
advertisement for Defendants’ “GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED” comedy
5
show, Defendants, had no problem – zero, zilch, nada – organizing, hosting, employing, booking,
6
putting on, performing in, or at least aiding a comedy show on November 13, 2017 at Los Angeles’
7
The Coronet Theater, which is also known as Largo At The Coronet (collectively heretofore referred
8
to as the “Theater”), both of or either of which is owned by Defendant Mark Brian Flanagan, and
9
which boldly promised and/or threatened that it would not allow male theatergoers into its GIRLS
10
NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show as follows:
11
GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA
12
NO BOYS ALLOWED
13
14 3. On November 13, 2017, and at all times relevant to this First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
15 George St. George was and is a male. Before attempting to attend Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN
16 WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, Mr. St. George obtained a $30 ticket for the show
17 through the www.largo-la.com website.
18 4. Then, on November 13, 2017, well before the show was scheduled to start at 8:00 p.m., Mr. St.
19 George, along with a male friend who also obtained a $30 ticket for Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN
20 WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, appeared very early at the Theater’s will-call window
21 to get their tickets by showing their proofs of purchase of their tickets through the above website to a
22 female Theater employee. Upon showing the will-call window’s female employee their proofs of
23 purchase, this Theater employee paused for some time, and then told Mr. St. George and his male
24 friend that the Theater would admit them to the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS
25 ALLOWED show despite the fact that they were males, but that both of the men would have to sit in
26 the back row of the Theater for the show because of their sex.
27 5. The two men walked away with their tickets after this Theater employee told them they would
28 have to sit in the back of the Theater solely because of their sex. At this time, the Theater was not yet

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 allowing ticketholders inside the Theater, for which the seating was first come first served, from the
2 front of the theatre to the back, so the two men went to a nearby restaurant to get a quick bite to eat.
3 Mr. St. George and his male friend soon returned to the Theater where they were two of the first
4 would-be patrons in line to enter the Theater, which they were not allowed to do because of what
5 happened next, which perhaps can best be described as being akin to the Montgomery City Lines bus
6 company in Montgomery, Alabama circa 1955 morphing into the Woolworth’s department store lunch
7 counter in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960.
8 6. As Mr. St. George and his male friend were in the beginning of the line with their tickets to
9 enter and sit in the back of the Theater as ordered, the same female theater employee who was working
10 at the will-call window earlier now approached Mr. St. George and his male friend. This female
11 employee told Mr. St. George and his male friend that since she last spoke to them and told them that
12 they would have to sit in the back of the Theater, that “Iliza” and the Theater had decided to not allow
13 Mr. St. George and his male friend to even enter the Theater because only females were being allowed
14 to be admitted to the show – just as promised and/or threatened. This same Theater employee told the
15 two men that the Theater would refund them the money for their tickets.
16 7. Plaintiff Lawrence Pollister, a gay man, feminist, and a big fan and follower of Iliza Shlesinger,
17 was very excited about going to the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show
18 on November 13, 2017. So, Mr. Pollister purchased two tickets online for him and a girlfriend to see
19 this show. Unfortunately, when Mr. Pollister and his girlfriend walked up to the Theater’s will-call
20 window, a Theater employee told them that while his girlfriend was allowed to attend the show, Mr.
21 Pollister was not because of his sex. Mr. Pollister was absolutely crushed.
22 8. With so many stories in the news recently about the sexual harassment and discrimination in
23 Hollywood, Mr. Pollister thought it was disgraceful that a female comedian who touts her feminist
24 credentials would reinforce the entertainment industry’s sickening sexual behavior by discriminating
25 against men, especially a gay man such as Mr. Pollister. Mr. Pollister thought a comedy performance
26 by a female comedian whom he greatly admired, in a Los Angeles theater, was one place where he
27 could escape the sexual discrimination that the LGBTQ community often experiences. Mr. Pollister is
28 a feminist who supports women in every way imaginable. But Mr. Pollister was discriminated against

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 that night for no other reason than being a man, by a comedian whom he thought was an ally.
2 9. Mr. Pollister was so upset about what happened to him that evening he had trouble falling
3 asleep, so several hours later, at 12:36 a.m. on November 14th, he drafted a long email and sent it to
4 the Theater, at largonews@gmail.com, voicing his displeasure and disgust with how he was
5 discriminated against when he was refused entry into the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO
6 BOYS ALLOWED show because of his sex. Later that afternoon, the Theater sent Mr. Pollister the
7 following curt reply, labeling what happened to Mr. Pollister as mere “confusion”:
8
9 Hey,

10 Your tickets are being refunded thru ticketfly. Sorry for the confusion.

11 - Largo

12 The email exchange between Mr. Pollister and the Theater is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
13 10. What happened to Mr. St. George, his male friend, and to Mr. Pollister is consistent with
14 what happened to at least one other man who was a victim of Defendants’ War on Men by being
15 denied entry to the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show because of his
16 sex This can be seen in Exhibit 2 to the First Amended Complaint, in a comment by a male visitor to
17 Defendant Iliza Shlesinger’s Facebook page on which Ms. Shlesinger announced her GIRLS NIGHT
18 IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show. Page 2 of Exhibit 3 shows this comment was made
19 at 7:52 p.m. on the evening of the November 13, 2017, show by a Mr. Morgan King, who wrote “Hey
20 ILIZA! Can I just grab a pic with you? Huge fan but got turned away for being a dude! I get it! But
21 was hoping to meet you real quick and snap a pic as a constellation prize!”
22 11. Despite the many State of California anti-discrimination statutes, California Supreme Court
23 opinions, California Attorney General and Department of Fair Employment and Housing actions, and
24 California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control regulations that prohibit California businesses
25 from treating patrons unequally based on their sex, and specifically condemn and forbid events or
26 promotions that treat female and male patrons unequally, Defendants boldly organized, hosted,
27 employed, booked, put on, performed in or at least aided a sex-based comedy show that treated male
28 and female theatergoers unequally based solely on their sex.

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 12. As a result of Defendants’ unequal treatment of patrons based solely on their sex, Defendants
2 denied consumers the equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services they are
3 entitled to under Civil Code sections 51 (the codification of the Unruh Civil Rights Act) and 51.5, as
4 well as under Business & Professions Code section 125.6. Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH
5 ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show violated California’s strong public policy to eradicate sex
6 discrimination that is reflected in the many California statutes that prohibit businesses from
7 discriminating against patrons based on their sex. The GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS
8 ALLOWED show violated California Civil Code sections 51, 51.5, and 52, which prohibit California
9 businesses and individuals from treating patrons unequally based on their sex, and also prohibit
10 California businesses and individuals from aiding in the discrimination or unequal treatment of
11 consumers based on their sex.
12 13. For any business or any individual in the year 2017, in the progressive state of California, to
13 provide or aid in providing accommodations, advantages, privileges, or services to only females as
14 Defendants did here, is as repugnant and unlawful as a business or an individual being involved in a
15 “Caucasian Night” or a “Heterosexual Night” and providing admission, entertainment, and other
16 accommodations, advantages, privileges, or services to only white or heterosexual patrons,
17 respectively. Simply put, it is against many California laws for a business to discriminate against
18 patrons based on their sex or other personal characteristics, such as race or sexual orientation, which
19 should surprise no one.
20 14. The seminal California Supreme Court case on businesses that treat male and female
21 consumers unequally based on their sex, Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, held that
22 Ladies’ Day and Ladies’ Night promotions that treated patrons unequally based on sex by charging
23 male patrons more than female patrons for the same thing—as little fifteen cents more—violated the
24 Unruh Civil Rights Act. Koire found “Public policy in California strongly supports eradication of
25 discrimination based on sex. The Unruh Act expressly prohibits sex discrimination by business
26 enterprises.” Id. at 37.
27 15. Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show repudiated
28 hundreds of years of women’s struggles to be viewed as being equal to men and is typical of old-

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 fashioned sexism that might also advise a young woman that her best chance for a happy life is to ace
2 her home economics class and learn how to make a queso dip from Velveeta to catch a good man. Not
3 only has the California Supreme Court twice unanimously expressed its disapproval of how Ladies’
4 Day and Ladies’ Night promotions harm women, the United States Supreme Court has similarly
5 weighed in as well about "romantic paternalism" directed at women. In Frontiero v. Richardson, 411
6 U.S. 677, 684 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the military must provide its female members
7 with the same housing and medical benefits as it provides its male members. Justice William J.
8 Brennan Jr. wrote that the military’s unequal treatment of men and women is yet another example of
9 one of those types of traditional sex discrimination that ostensibly appears to benefit women, but is
10 “rationalized by an attitude of ‘romantic paternalism’ which, in practical effect, put women, not on a
11 pedestal, but in a cage.”
12 16. The Judicial Counsel of California's jury instructions for violations of Civil Code sections 51,
13 and 51.5, i.e., CACI 3060 and 3061, respectively, reflect the Judicial Counsel's recognition of the
14 California Supreme Court’s ruling in Koire that sex-based promotions are “per se injurious.” The
15 Directions For Use for CACI 3060 and 3061, recognize that a plaintiff asking for only the statutory
16 damages provided by Civil Code section 52 for violations of section 51 or 51.5, respectively, such as
17 Plaintiffs have prayed for in this First Amended Complaint, do not have to prove they were harmed or
18 that defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm, because harm is presumed.
19 Nevertheless, Mr. St. George was harmed by first being ordered to sit in the back of the Theater
20 because of his sex, and then told he could not even enter the Theater and watch the show because of
21 his sex. While Mr. Pollister was harmed when he was prohibited from entering the Theater because of
22 his sex.
23 17. Koire was upheld by the California Supreme Court in its most recent opinion on single sex
24 events, Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, wherein the Court unanimously ruled
25 that men who were charged more than women to enter a supper club on Ladies’ Night did not have to

26 first demand their right to equal treatment to the offending business and be refused in order to have

27 standing for a Civil Code section 51 or 51.5 claim.

28

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 18. Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show caused
2 discontent, animosity, harm, resentment, or envy among the sexes, constituted arbitrary, unreasonable,
3 and/or invidious discrimination, constituted a willful and malicious injury to Plaintiffs, and
4 contravened California’s historical effort to eradicate sex discrimination. Defendants willfully and
5 maliciously injured Plaintiffs during their show by knowingly and intentionally denying Plaintiffs
6 admission and other services based solely on Plaintiff’ sex.
7 19. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), the State agency
8 charged with preventing unlawful discrimination in places of public accommodation, has published a
9 brochure specifically addressing the unlawfulness of sex-based or no-men-allowed events. This
10 DFEH brochure is attached hereto as Exhibit 4, and can also be found at
11 http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/DFEH/Publications/PublicationDocs/UnruhActBrochure.pdf.
12 20. The California Department of Justice and the California Bureau of Gambling Control has
13 similarly expressed its condemnation of sex-based events, specifically their disapproval of the
14 proliferation of no-men-allowed poker tournaments hosted by California’s licensed card rooms. The
15 California Attorney General and the Bureau of Gambling Control issued a Gambling Establishment
16 Advisory, attached hereto as Exhibit 5, warned card rooms that women-only poker tournaments
17 violated the Unruh Act. The Attorney General warned that it may be unlawful under the Unruh Act
18 to simply advertise tournaments as “ladies only” even if men were in fact admitted. This Advisory
19 can also be found at http://ag.ca.gov/gambling/pdfs/NUM8LOT.pdf.
20 21. By this action, Plaintiffs George St. George and Lawrence Pollister seek redress for Defendants’

21 War on Men via their GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, which prohibited

22 Plaintiffs and other men from entering the Theater and taking in the show based solely on their sex.

23 PARTIES
24 22. Plaintiff George St. George is a man, over the age of 21, and a California resident.
25 23. Plaintiff Lawrence Pollister is a man, over the age of 21, and a California resident.

26 24. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Iliza Shlesinger is a business

27 acting or working as a self-employed, sole proprietorship comedian. Iliza Shlesinger has been

28 described or quoted in an Esquire article as “taking a stronger feminist stance (don't be scared,

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 gentlemen),” “I found myself coming up with a lot of the material about being on the side of women.
2 I wanted to talk about feminism in the way that I like to talk about it, which is digestible. It's not
3 excluding men.” A Los Angeles Times article on Ms. Shlesinger reads, “She is a nuanced feminist
4 and a comic with the instincts and sensibility to address women's rights while inviting men — who in
5 her humor can be monosyllabic and imposing but are mostly well-meaning if misguided — inside the
6 tent.” The same L.A. Times article quoted Ms. Shlesinger saying, “because women want to be treated
7 as equals, and we want feminism to be a thing, but it's really difficult when every woman makes the
8 same point about her vagina, over and over.” However, contrary to these articles, during Ms.
9 Shlesinger’s GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, she excluded men, she
10 did not invite men into the tent, and she did not want women and men to be treated as equals. Ms.
11 Shlesinger discriminated against and treated Plaintiffs unequally based solely on Plaintiffs’ sex by
12 prohibiting Plaintiffs from entering the Theater and from taking in the entertainment and refreshments
13 provided during the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and by
14 organizing, hosting, employing, booking, putting on, performing in or at least aiding this no-men-
15 allowed commercial event.
16 25. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Largo At The Coronet is a
17 business of unknown form, not registered with the California Secretary of State, doing business as a
18 bar and theater at 366 N. La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90048. Largo At The Coronet
19 discriminated against and treated Plaintiffs unequally based solely on their sex by prohibiting Plaintiffs
20 from entering the Theater and from taking in the entertainment and refreshments provided during the
21 GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and by organizing, hosting,
22 employing, booking, putting on, or at least aiding this no-men-allowed commercial event.
23 26. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant The Coronet Theater is a
24 business of unknown form, not registered with the California Secretary of State, doing business as a
25 bar and theater at 366 N. La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90048. The Coronet Theater

26 discriminated against and treated Plaintiffs unequally based solely on their sex by prohibiting Plaintiffs

27 from entering the Theater and from taking in the entertainment and refreshments provided during the

28 GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and by organizing, hosting,

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 employing, booking, putting on, or at least aiding this no-men-allowed commercial event.
2 27. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Mark Brian Flanagan is a
3 business and the lessee of the Largo At The Coronet Theater, which is also known as and is registered
4 with the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) as “The Coronet
5 Theater.” Mark Brian Flanagan, doing business as The Coronet Theater, is the holder of ABC License
6 Number 475296, which is a License Type 42 for on-sale beer and wine on public premises. Mr.
7 Flanagan discriminated against and treated Plaintiffs unequally based solely on their sex by prohibiting
8 Plaintiffs from entering the Theater and from taking in the entertainment and the alcoholic and non-
9 alcoholic refreshments provided during the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED
10 show, and by organizing, hosting, employing, booking, putting on, or at least aiding this no-men-
11 allowed commercial event.
12 28. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant United Talent Agency, LLC
13 is a Delaware limited liability company registered as a limited liability company with the California
14 Secretary of State with the registration number 201421310352, and doing business as United Talent
15 Agency at 9336 Civic Center Drive in Beverly Hills, California 90210. On information and belief,
16 United Talent Agency, LLC is an agent for Defendant Iliza Shlesinger, responsible for booking or
17 arranging for professional appearances by Ms. Shlesinger, and United Talent Agency discriminated
18 against and treated Plaintiffs unequally based solely on their sex by booking or arranging Ms.
19 Shlesinger’s appearance at the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and
20 at least aiding this no-men-allowed commercial event.
21 29. The true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50 are unknown to Plaintiffs. When their
22 true names and capacities are learned, Plaintiffs will amend this complaint accordingly. Plaintiffs are
23 informed and believe, and on that basis allege, each fictitiously named defendant is responsible in
24 some way for the occurrences herein alleged, and those defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs and
25 the other male consumers’ damages. Each reference in this complaint to “defendant,” “defendants,”

26 or a specifically named defendant refers to all defendants sued under fictitious names.

27 30. Unless otherwise alleged, whenever reference is made in this complaint to any act of

28 “defendant,” “defendants,” or to a specifically named defendant, such allegation shall mean that each

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 defendant acted individually and jointly with the other defendant named in the complaint.
2 31. Unless otherwise alleged, whenever reference is made in this complaint to any act or omission
3 of any corporate or business defendant, such allegation shall mean that such corporation or other
4 business defendant committed or omitted to act as in this complaint through its officers, members,
5 directors, stockholders, employees, agents, and/or representatives while they were acting within the
6 actual or apparent scope of their authority.
7 32. At all relevant times alleged herein, each defendant has been each the agent, alter-ego,
8 representative, partner, joint venturer, employee, or assistant of the other defendants and has acted
9 within the course and scope of said agency, alter-ego, representation, partnership, or joint venture with
10 the knowledge, notification, authorization, and consent of each of the other defendants.
11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12 33. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Article VI, section
13 10 of the California Constitution because this action is a cause not given by statute to other trial courts,
14 and seeks, among other relief, a permanent injunction. Subject matter jurisdiction is also premised on,
15 inter alia, California Civil Code sections 51 and 51.5, and Business & Professions Code section 125.,6.
16 34. This court has personal jurisdiction over defendants in this action because all
17 defendants do sufficient business in California and have sufficient minimum contacts in California to
18
render the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them by California courts consistent with traditional
19
notions of fair play and substantial justice.
20
35. Venue is proper in this court because the sex discrimination and unequal treatment
21
alleged herein occurred in Los Angeles, California.
22
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
23
Against All Defendants
24 Violation of The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51
Refusing to Allow Plaintiff Admission Defendants’ Girls Night In With Iliza – No Boys
25
Allowed Show
26
36. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every
27
preceding paragraph of this First Amended Complaint as if they were set out at length herein.
28

10

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 37. By denying Plaintiffs admission into Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA –
2 NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and/or by organizing, hosting, employing, booking, putting on,
3 performing in, or at least aiding the sex discrimination associated with the show that only female
4 consumers were allowed to attend, Defendants intentionally denied equal accommodations,
5 advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to Plaintiffs based on their sex, which is prohibited by the
6
Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified as Civil Code section 51.
7
38. A substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct was the Plaintiffs’ sex.
8
39. Defendants’ conduct harmed Plaintiffs.
9
40. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs.
10
41. Defendants’ unequal treatment of customers subjects Defendants to injunctive relief.
11
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
12
Against All Defendants
13 Violation of The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51
14 Denying Plaintiff Beverages Provided To Attendees To Defendants’ Girls Night In With Iliza –
No Boys Allowed Show
15
42. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every
16
17 preceding paragraph of this First Amended Complaint as if they were set out at length herein.

18 43. By denying Plaintiffs the beverages provided to attendees of Defendants’ GIRLS

19 NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and/or by organizing, hosting, employing,

20 booking, putting on, performing in, or at least aiding the sex discrimination associated with the show

21 that only female consumers were allowed to attend, Defendants intentionally denied equal
22 accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to Plaintiffs based on their sex, which
23 is prohibited by the Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified as Civil Code section 51.
24 44. A substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct was the Plaintiffs’ sex.
25 45. Defendants’ conduct harmed Plaintiffs.
26
46. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs.
27
47. Defendants’ unequal treatment of customers subjects Defendants to injunctive relief.
28

11

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Against All Defendants
3 Violation of Civil Code Section 51.5
Violation of The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51
4 Refusing to Allow Plaintiff Admission Defendants’ Girls Night In With Iliza – No Boys
5 Allowed Show

6 48. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every
7
preceding paragraph of this First Amended Complaint as if they were set out at length herein.
8
49. By denying Plaintiffs admission into Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA –
9
NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and/or by organizing, hosting, employing, booking, putting on,
10
performing in, or at least aiding the sex discrimination associated with the show that only female
11
consumers were allowed to attend, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their, sex
12
which is prohibited by Civil Code section 51.5.
13
50. A substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct was the Plaintiffs’ sex.
14
51. Defendants’ conduct harmed Plaintiffs.
15
52. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs.
16
17 53. Defendants’ unequal treatment of customers subjects Defendants to injunctive relief.

18
19 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20 Against All Defendants

Violation of Civil Code Section 51.5
21
Denying Plaintiff The Beverages Provided To Attendees To Defendants’ Girls Night In With
22 Iliza – No Boys Allowed Show
23
54. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every
24
preceding paragraph of this First Amended Complaint as if they were set out at length herein.
25
55. By denying Plaintiffs the food provided to attendees of Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN
26
WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and/or by organizing, hosting, employing, booking,
27
putting on, performing in, or at least aiding the sex discrimination associated with the show that only
28

12

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 female consumers were allowed to attend, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their
2 sex, which is prohibited by Civil Code section 51.5.
3 56. A substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct was the Plaintiffs’ sex.
4 57. Defendants’ conduct harmed Plaintiffs.
5 58. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs.
6
59. Defendants’ unequal treatment of customers subjects Defendants to injunctive relief.
7
8
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9
Against Defendants Largo At The Coronet, The Coronet Theater, and Mark Brian Flanagan
10 Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 125.6
11 60. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every
12
preceding paragraph of this First Amended Complaint as if they were set out at length herein.
13
61. Defendant Mark Brian Flanagan is the holder of California Department of Alcoholic
14
Beverage Control License Number 475296, the business establishment doing business as The Coronet
15
Theater, which is also known as Largo At The Coronet.
16
62. Upon information and belief, by denying Plaintiffs admission to Defendants’ GIRLS
17
NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and by denying Plaintiffs alcoholic
18
beverages during the show, Defendants Largo At The Coronet, The Coronet Theater, and Mark Brian
19
Flanagan made a discrimination or restriction in the performance of its ABC-licensed activity of
20
21 providing alcoholic beverages to the public on the basis of the patrons’ sex, as proscribed by California

22 Business & Professions Code section 125.6.

23 63. Defendants Largo At The Coronet, The Coronet Theater, and Mark Brian Flanagan’s

24 conduct harmed Plaintiffs.

25 64. Defendants Largo At The Coronet, The Coronet Theater, and Mark Brian Flanagan’s
26 conduct subjects Defendants Largo At The Coronet, The Coronet Theater, and Mark Brian Flanagan
27 to injunctive relief.
28

13

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Against All Defendants
Negligence
3
65. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every
4
5 preceding paragraph of this First Amended Complaint as if they were set out at length herein.

6 66. Defendants had a duty of care to avoid injury to Plaintiffs. Specifically, Defendants

7 had a duty of care to avoid treating Plaintiffs unequally based on their sex.

8 67. Defendants selected, hired, retained, and contracted with persons and/or entities that

9 harmed Plaintiffs, as described above.

10 68. Defendants had the authority and duty to supervise, prohibit, control, and/or regulate
11 these persons and/or entities that harmed Plaintiffs.
12 69. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that persons or entities would
13 indeed harm Plaintiffs.
14 70. Defendants breached its duty of care by (1) denying Plaintiffs their right to equal
15
treatment, and (2) failing to use reasonable care in selecting, hiring, supervising, retaining, or
16
contracting with persons or entities that harmed Plaintiffs.
17
71. In the alternative, Defendants negligently conceived, organized, hosted, employed
18
and/or aided Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show.
19
72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence and negligent hiring,
20
supervision, and retention, Plaintiffs suffered damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
21
22
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
23
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
24
1. For an order providing equitable and injunctive relief permanently enjoining
25
Defendants from engaging in unequal treatment of consumers based on the consumers’ sex in violation
26
of Civil Code sections 51 and 51.5, and Business and Professions Code section 125.6.
27
28

14

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

Largo at the Coronet » GIRLS’ NIGHT IN with ILIZA and special guests – Tickets – Largo at the Coronet – Los Angeles, CA – November 13th, 2017

366 N La Cienega Blvd, Los Angeles, CA

(310) 855- 0350
Enter an Artist or Event Search

CALENDAR TICKET INFO LOCATION/CONTACT

VIDEOS PHOTOS PRESS MAILING LIST

GIRLS' NIGHT
IN with ILIZA Sign Up For Our Email List Submit

and special
guests RSVP

Mon, November 13, 2017

Doors: 7:00 pm / Show: 8:00 pm
$30.00 MORE UPCOMING
Tickets SHOWS
Seat assignments begin at 6:00PM, Doors Fri 12/15 - Middleditch and Schwartz
open for drinks at 7:00PM, Showtime at (Thomas Middleditch and Ben
8:00PM | When you arrive at Will Call on Schwartz)
the night of the show, seats will be
assigned first come first served, from the Sat 12/16 - Harry Shearer and Judith
front of the theatre to the back. If you want Owen's Christmas Without Tears
to sit closer, be sure to come earlier. | NO (Does This Tree Make Me Look Fat?)
LATE ENTRY * NO REFUNDS * NO
Sun 12/17 - The BGS Christmas
EXCHANGES * SPECIAL GUESTS ARE
Situation with Ed Helms, The
SUBJECT TO CANCEL WITHOUT
Dustbowl Revival & Friends
NOTICE
Tue 12/19 - Rob Bell Christmas
Show with special guests the band
Share This Event Joseph
Wed 12/20 - Jane Lynch's A Swingin' 
Little Christmas!
Thu 12/21 - The Watkins Family Hour
Like You and 8 others like this.8 people like this. Be the first of your friends.
Holiday Show
Fri 12/22 - Jon Brion
1 Comment Sort by Oldest
Thu 12/28 - Jeff Tweedy
Fri 12/29 - Jeff Tweedy

Add a comment... Fri 1/05 - Tig Has Friends

Sat 1/06 - The Black Version with
special guest Wayne Brady!
Rachel Powell

https://www.largo-la.com/event/1579879-girls-night-in-iliza-special-los-angeles/[12/15/2017 11:56:11 AM]

Largo at the Coronet » GIRLS’ NIGHT IN with ILIZA and special guests – Tickets – Largo at the Coronet – Los Angeles, CA – November 13th, 2017

yes. and thank you. Mon 1/08 - Wild Horses with special
guest Matthew Gray Gubler
Like · Reply · 6w
Tue 1/09 - WOMP It Up! Live with
Facebook Comments Plugin Jessica St. Clair and Lennon Parham
GIRLS' NIGHT IN with ILIZA and special guests with special guests Jason
Iliza is bringing her girls invited only show back to Los Mantzoukas, Brian Huskey and many
Angeles. Girls' Night In is a hybrid stand up show and more from the Wompler Universe!
interactive discussion between Iliza and the women in the
Wed 1/10 - Trae Crowder & Friends
audience aimed at giving women a place to vent in a
supportive, fun and inclusive environment. She invites women Thu 1/11 - Peter Rowan & Ramblin'
of all walks of life to come, laugh with her and at her and be Jack Elliott
ready to share and feel safe for an awesome night of comedy
and love.

A portion of ticket proceeds will be donated to Planned Parenthood.

INSTAGRAM
Iliza will also be meeting fans after the show and signing copies of her new
book, Girl Logic, which hits shelves November 7th. Books will be available for PHOTOS
purchase on site.

Venue Information:
Largo at the Coronet
366 N La Cienega Blvd
Los Angeles, CA, 90048
http://www.largo- la.com

View More →

TWITTER FEED
RT @laurenlapkus: GUYYYS! Our
guest for our next @WildHorsesShow
at @LargoLosAngeles is
@GUBLERNATION!!! January 8 at
8:30! We will have an… about 17
hours ago

RT @BenBlacker: @TheExorcistFOX
@jerslater @Seanecrouch
@bendanielsss @JohnTheCho
@FOXTV @Brianne_Howey
@hkasulka @lijunli @briannahilde
PL… 11:12:22 AM December 14, 2017

RT @deadpilotspod: It's here! The new

episode of @deadpilotspod!
#Jetpackula written by @RobSchrab
starring @pattonoswalt
@ConstanceWu and… 11:11:35 AM
December 14, 2017

RT @WildHorsesShow: If you missed

the live Wild Horses show with
@nickkroll (or just want to relive the
magic), you can hear it now for fre…
11:11:27 AM December 14, 2017

https://www.largo-la.com/event/1579879-girls-night-in-iliza-special-los-angeles/[12/15/2017 11:56:11 AM]

EXHIBIT 2
From: Largo at the Coronet <largonews@gmail.com>
Date: November 14, 2017 at 2:43:33 PM AST
To: Lawrence Pollister <abe.pollister@icloud.com>
Subject: Re: Iliza Slessinger's Sexist & Misandrous Actions

Hey,

Your tickets are being refunded thru ticketfly. Sorry for the confusion.

- Largo

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Lawrence Pollister <abe.pollister@icloud.com> wrote:

My name is Abe I would like to bring attention to an illicit act of discrimination which I experienced this
evening while attempting to attend one of Iliza Snetsinger’s shows in Los Angeles.

As the hosting venue of Iliza’s show, I think you should be aware that by hosting a girls only show in Los
Angeles that she is harboring misandry, sexism, and inequality. Additionally, this illicit act is actionable under
law as evidenced by the Unruh Civil Rights Act of California.

I fell in love with Iliza’s stand up a few weeks ago when I saw her perform at The Comedy Store. I identified
with her comedy about finding a mate in more ways than you can imagine. Her jokes were hilarious and she
literally made me laugh until I cried. I immediately went home and watched all of her Netflix specials. I told
many of my girlfriends that they have to hear this comedian and about how amazing she is.

I started to follow her on social media. She announced new tour dates in Amsterdam and Europe. I went online
to investigate dates as I was very excited to see when I could see her next. I was pleasantly surprised when I
saw she was going to be doing another performance here in Los Angeles. I immediately purchased tickets and
told my girlfriend that we were attending the “Girls Night Out” show for Iliza. I was so excited.

We got to the theater and I was flatly denied entry for no reason other than being a man. This is such a blatant
act of discrimination and is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. As a gay man, I have
always found women to be a safe place from the homophobia that I have experienced my entire life. To
experience discrimination like this was absolutely disheartening and downright disgraceful.

Upon further research, I discovered that this act was not only unconscionable, but clearly illegal. This behavior
is not acceptable. With all of the sexual harassment and discrimination in Hollywood it is disgraceful to think
that a female comedian would reinforce this behavior by discriminating against men.

I am a feminist. I support women in every possible way imaginable. But I was discriminated against tonight for
no reason other than being a man, by a comedian that I thought I could consider an ally.

If women want to be considered equal to men, we should aim to be equal but not separate.

I would appreciate an apology but am more concerned that these types of shows that focus on exclusion will
continue. If Iliza continues to host illegal, discriminatory comedy shows I will do everything in my power to
ensure that the world is aware of her discriminatory behavior.
EXHIBIT 3
(7) Iliza Shlesinger - Home

15K Views

 
Like Show more reactions
  Comment   Share

420 Top Comments

26 Shares
Comments

Write a comment...

Brandon Hill You say limited opportunities but the company I work for just
promoted a woman to president and it’s a male dominated industry and
company. The only thing that limits anyone is their self.
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 10 · November 13 at 3:09pm · Edited

5 Replies

Mike Winklepleck Limited opportunities? This is the problem, telling

girls/woman that they have no chance from the get go. Those who work hard
find opportunities. Or am I allowed to say anything because I'm a guy?
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 8 · November 13 at 3:32pm

View 23 more comments

Iliza Shlesinger
November 12 at 6:10pm ·

Tomorrow is my ONLY GIRLS ALLOWED show #GirlsNightIn - we are

gonna have @jesswellington2 and @jessdweck share some awesome
stories and then we are gonna have a fun talk about our world, girls.
Very special. Tickets at ILIZA.COM and the show is at 8 at Largo! Don't
delay. Come with an open mind, and open heart and wear something fun!

https://www.facebook.com/IlizaShlesinger/[11/16/2017 8:27:28 AM]

(7) Iliza Shlesinger - Home

 
Like Show more reactions
  Comment   Share

64 Top Comments

Comments

Write a comment...

Morgan King Hey ILIZA! Can I just grab a pic with you? Huge fan but got
turned away for being a dude! I get it! But was hoping to meet you real quick
and snap a pic as a constellation prize!
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · November 13 at 7:52pm · Edited

Bea Cohen I’m so bummed I wasn’t able to get tickets!

LikeShow more reactions · Reply · November 13 at 1:53pm

View 5 more comments

Iliza Shlesinger
November 11 at 12:30pm ·

TONIGHT I AM PLAYING NEW YORK! Iliza.com/tour for

#Repost @comedy_nyc (@get_repost)
・・・
What's good funny followers in NYC!? It's Saturday which is a great night to
go see comedy especially since it's #newyorkcomedyfestival ! DAY 5
features include:...
See More

https://www.facebook.com/IlizaShlesinger/[11/16/2017 8:27:28 AM]

EXHIBIT 4
Protections Under the Law Against Sex
Discrimination
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51),
originally enacted in 1959, was designed to protect
the rights of Californians from arbitrary
discrimination and to guarantee their rights to full
and equal access to all public accommodations
regardless of sex.
Businesses that are Governed by the Filing a Complaint
Unruh Civil Rights Act
The Department of Fair Employment and
Housing ( DFEH or Department) is charged with
The list below includes examples of businesses that
the task of upholding the Unruh Act, and
are covered by the Unruh Act. This list is
ensuring that its laws and principles are not
non-exhaustive, and may include any place of public
violated. If you believe you are a victim of
accommodation regardless of whether the entity is a
unlawful discrimination, do not hesitate to call
traditional business or non-profit entity.
the DFEH and file a complaint following these
steps:

Discrimination by business establishments on the
basis of sex is against the law. It is unlawful for any Bars and Nightclubs.
business that is open to the general public to Restaurants.
discriminate against a patron based on any of the Hotels and Motels.
following classifications: sex, race, color, religion, Retail Shops.
ancestry, national origin, disability, medical Golf Courses.
condition, marital status, or sexual orientation. The Fitness Clubs or Gyms.
Unruh Act protection is not limited to these Theaters.
classifications. It is an Unruh Act violation for a Hospitals.
business to offer special treatment, whether Barber Shops and Beauty Salons.
preferential or detrimental, to one class of patrons Non-Profit Organizations (open to
regardless of the business' motives for doing so. the public).
Public Agencies.
Housing Accommodations.
Contact the DFEH by calling the toll
free number at (800) 884-1684 to
schedule an appointment.
"Be prepared to present specific
facts about the alleged harassment
of discrimination.
"Provide any copies you may have
of documents that support the
charges in the complaint.
Keep records and documents about
the complaint, such as receipts,
stubs, bills, applications, flyers,
witness contact information, and
other materials.

Examples of Sex-Based Discrimination establishment while providing admittance to

Under the Unruh Violations
The following are examples of potential violations of
the Unruh Act. The list is not meant to be
exhaustive, and there is other conduct that may
violate the Act.
Providing free admission, discounts, or
promotional gifts to only one sex.
Charging men and women different prices for
comparable services, such as clothing
alterations, haircuts, dry cleaning, or drinks at a
restaurant or bar.
Maintaining "women only" or "men only" exercise members of the other sex without the same
areas of a fitness club or gym and excluding or level or degree of search.
deterring the opposite sex from those areas.
Promoting a business with "ladies night"
Establishing a "women only" or "men only" business
discounts on admission and services.
establishment which would otherwise be completely
Denying access to a business, such as a
open to the public.
nightclub to a particular sex, or giving
Excluding one sex from a business premises during
preference to one sex over the other.
certain times.
Posting signs or adopting policies for "women
recommended" or "men preferred."
Requiring members of one sex to submit to searches
to gain admittance to a business.
 Complaints must be filed within one year
from the last act of discrimination. The DFEH
will conduct an impartial investigation.
The Department is not an advocate for either
the person complaining or the person
complained against. The Department
represents the state. The DFEH will, if
possible, try to assist both parties to resolve
the complaint. If a voluntary settlement
cannot be reached, and there is sufficient
evidence to establish a violation of the law,
the Department may issue an accusation
and litigate the case before the Fair
Employment and Housing Commission or in
civil court. This law provides for a variety of
remedies that may include the following:
Out-of-pocket expenses.
Cease and desist orders.
Damages for emotional distress.
Statutory damages of three times the
amount of actual damages, or a minimum
of $4,000 for each offense.
For more information, contact the DFEH
Toll Free (800) 884-1684
Sacramento area and out-of-state (916) 227-0551
Videophone for the Deaf (916) 226-5285
E-mail contact.center @dfeh.ca.gov
Web site www.dfeh.ca.gov
Facebook State of California
http://www.facebook.com /#!/pages/Department-of-F DEPARTMENT OF
air-Employment-and-Housing/183801915445
FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
YouTube http://www.youtube.com /califdfeh
Twitter http://twitter.com /DFEH
In accordance with the California Government Code and
Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, this publication
can be made available in Braille, large print, computer disk, or
tape cassette as a disability-related reasonable
accommodation for an individual with a disability. To discuss
how to receive a copy of this publication in an alternative
format, please contact the DFEH at the telephone numbers
and links above.

References 4. Ibister v. Boys' Club of Santa Cruz (1985) 40 Cal.3d

1. California Civil Code section 51.

2. Rotary Club of Duarte v. Board of Directors (1987)
178 Cal.App.3d 1035. A non-profit club was a
business establishment under the Unruh Act because
it offered its members substantial "commercial
advantages and business benefits." Membership in
these kinds of organizations is a privilege or
advantage under the Unruh Act. Thus, termination of
membership based on sex is prohibited.
3. Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club (1995)
10 Cal.4th 594. By offering the public access to its
facilities, the County Club became a business
establishment under the Unruh Act and could not
exclude women.
72. A non-profit activities center for boys was a place of
public accommodation, and excluding an entire class of
patrons, such as women, was illegal.
5. Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th
160. It was a violation of the Unruh Act for a night club to
charge its male patrons a higher price for admission.
The patrons need not affirmatively request
nondiscriminatory treatment, but rather, are entitled to it.
The Unruh Act imposes a compulsory duty upon
business establishments to serve all persons without
arbitrary discrimination.
6. Koire v. Metro Car Wash ( 1985) 40 Cal.3d 24. The
Unruh Act broadly condemns any business
establishment's policy of gender-based price discounts.
Unruh Civil Rights Act
All persons within the jurisdiction of this
state are free and equal, and no matter
what their sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability,
medical condition, marital status, or
sexual orientation are entitled to the full
and equal accommodations, advantages,
facilities, privileges, or services in all
business establishments of every kind
whatsoever.
EXHIBIT 5
 BUREAU OF EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General
GAMBLING Mathew J. Campoy

CONTROL Acting Bureau Chief

NUMBER 8 GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENT ADVISORY January 18, 2008

“LADIES ONLY TOURNAMENTS”

It has come to the attention of the Bureau of Gambling Control that some gambling establishments
conduct “ladies only” poker tournaments that exclude men from participating, or admit them on
different terms from those accorded to women. It is the Bureau’s view that such tournaments may
violate California’s anti-discrimination laws.

Under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code sections 51 and 51.5), businesses may not
discriminate in admittance, prices, or services offered to customers based on the customers’ sex,
race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual
orientation. “Ladies only” tournaments or any other promotional events that fail to admit men and
women to advertised activities on an equal basis regardless of sex are unlawful. It may also be
unlawful under the Unruh Act to advertise tournaments as “ladies only” even if men are in fact
admitted.

The Bureau will approve only those events that include the following features: the event will be
open to all customers, the promotional gifts will be given equally to all event participants, the fees
and prices will be the same for all event participants, any discounts will not be based on gender or
another personal characteristic protected by the Unruh Act, and the event’s promotional materials do
not advertise gender-based discounts or imply a gender-based entrance policy or any other unlawful
discriminatory practice.

Gambling establishments should take notice that pursuant to Business and Professions Code
section 125.6, violations of the Unruh Act are cause for discipline under the Gambling
Control Act.

For more information regarding this advisory, contact the California Department of Justice, Bureau of
Gambling Control at (916) 263-3408.