Complaint Preston v Oakland

7/23/2019 Complaint Preston v Oakland

1/22

1

____________________________________________________________________________________DEFENDANT DEANNA SANTANAS NOTICE OF REMOVAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Celia M. Ruiz (SBN 87671)

Janice L. Sperow (SBN 129617)

Forrest F. Fang (SBN 122805)

RUIZ & SPEROW, LLP2200 Powell Street, Suite 350

Emeryville, CA 94608

Telephone: 510 594-7980Fax: 510 594-7988

Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND andDEANNA SANTANA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARYELLE LAWANNA PRESTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND; DEANNA SANTANA,

in her individual capacity; and DOES 1 through

10, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

))

)

)

))

)

))

)

Case No.: 3:14-cv-2022

(Superior Court No. RG14 717585)

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a)

(Federal Question)

TO: CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT

TO: PLAINTIFF DARYELLE LAWANNA PRESTON AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENthat Deanna Santana, named as a Defendant in the above-

captioned action, Case No. RG14-717585 in the files and records of the Superior Court of California,

County of Alameda, hereby files in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California a Notice of Removal of said of action to the said United States District Court, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1441 and 1446, and is filing in said Superior Court a Notice of Removal.

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2 Filed05/02/14 Page1 of 2


2/22

2

____________________________________________________________________________________DEFENDANT DEANNA SANTANAS NOTICE OF REMOVAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant Santana, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441 and 1446, presents the following facts to the

Judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California:

1. A civil action bearing the above caption was commenced in the Superior Court of

California, County of Alameda, on March 17, 2014, and is pending therein.

2. Defendant Santana first received copies of Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and

Summons in this action on April 2, 2014. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(a), copies of the original

Complaint, the Summons and the Civil Cover Sheet are attached hereto as Exhibit A, B & C,

respectively.

3.

In the Second Cause of Action of the original Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a

violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, which presents a federal question.

4. The action is a civil action of which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. 1331, and is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendant pursuant to the provisions

of 28 U.S.C. 1441(a), in that is arises under a federal statute.

5. The other defendant, the City of Oakland which has been served with the original

Summons and Complaint, has joined in this Notice of Removal, as evidenced by the Joinder of

defendant City of Oakland filed concurrently herewith.

Dated: May 2, 2014

RUIZ & SPEROW, LLP

By: __/s/Forrest E. Fang_____________________

Celia M Ruiz

Forrest F. Fang,

Attorneys for DefendantDeanna Santana

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2 Filed05/02/14 Page2 of 2


3/22

Exhibit A

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page1 of 16


4/22


5/22

l

..,

1 violations of state and local law to

her

supervisors and declined to follow orders that

2 would have violated the law.

3

2.

First, plaintiff Preston refused to follow orders from

her

superior, defendant City

4 Administrator Deanna Santana ( Santana ) to falsify official oral and written reports

5 about Oakland's Rainbow Teen Center ( RTC ) that would wrongly state

that

Oakland

6 City Council member Desley Brooks ( Brooks ) had intentionally approved illegal hiring

7 practices at

RTC

and signed off improperly on equipment receipts.

If

rue, these

8 accusations would have violated Oakland City Charter 2J.8 which could result in

9 Brooks' removal from the Council.

1 3. Second, plaintiff Preston reasonably believed that Fire Chief Teresa Deloach Reed

( Reed ) engaged in a violation of Oakland City Ordinance 12903,

1.10

when she

12 repeatedly directly negotiated and signed tentative agreements ( TAs ) with Firefighters

13 Local

55

( Local 55 ) without Ms. Preston present as Employee Relations Director or

14 City Council authorization. By law, Ms. Preston must have obtained approval from the

15 City Council for Reed to sign the contract.

16

4.

Santana assisted Reed in attempting to conceal Reed's unlawful negotiation and

17

signature ofTAs, and Santana retaliated against

Ms.

Preston when she reported Reed's

18

acts to Santana and

the

City Attorney of Oakland.

19 5

Third, plaintiff Preston reasonably believed her superior, defendant Santana, and

20 Katano Kasaine ( Kasaine ), Treasury Manager and Personnel Director of the City of

21

Oakland, were engaged in violations of state law, includIng Cal. Gov't Code

3508.5,

22 when they failed to collect union dues from temporary part time employees represented

23 by the Service Employees International Union ( SEIU ).

24 6. Ms. Preston reasonably believed that Kasaine interfered with the investigation of

25

the

failure to collect union dues by contacting the President

of

the SEIU chapter and

26 promising to pay SEIU all dues owed in exchange for dropping the grievance, thereby

27 violating

Cal.

Gov't Code

3506.

28

Preston v. City o Oakland et al. No.

Verified

Complaint 2

l

..,

1 violations of state and local law to

her

supervisors and declined to follow orders that

2 would have violated the law.

3

2.

First, plaintiff Preston refused to follow orders from

her

superior, defendant City

4 Administrator Deanna Santana ( Santana ) to falsify official oral and written reports

5 about Oakland's Rainbow Teen Center ( RTC ) that would wrongly state

that

Oakland

6 City Council member Desley Brooks ( Brooks ) had intentionally approved illegal hiring

7 practices at

RTC

and signed off improperly on equipment receipts.

If

rue, these

8 accusations would have violated Oakland City Charter 2J.8 which could result in

9 Brooks' removal from the Council.

1 3. Second, plaintiff Preston reasonably believed that Fire Chief Teresa Deloach Reed

( Reed ) engaged in a violation of Oakland City Ordinance 12903,

1.10

when she

12 repeatedly directly negotiated and signed tentative agreements ( TAs ) with Firefighters

13 Local

55

( Local 55 ) without Ms. Preston present as Employee Relations Director or

14 City Council authorization. By law, Ms. Preston must have obtained approval from the

15 City Council for Reed to sign the contract.

16

4.

Santana assisted Reed in attempting to conceal Reed's unlawful negotiation and

17

signature ofTAs, and Santana retaliated against

Ms.

Preston when she reported Reed's

18

acts to Santana and

the

City Attorney of Oakland.

19 5

Third, plaintiff Preston reasonably believed her superior, defendant Santana, and

20 Katano Kasaine ( Kasaine ), Treasury Manager and Personnel Director of the City of

21

Oakland, were engaged in violations of state law, includIng Cal. Gov't Code

3508.5,

22 when they failed to collect union dues from temporary part time employees represented

23 by the Service Employees International Union ( SEIU ).

24 6. Ms. Preston reasonably believed that Kasaine interfered with the investigation of

25

the

failure to collect union dues by contacting the President

of

the SEIU chapter and

26 promising to pay SEIU all dues owed in exchange for dropping the grievance, thereby

27 violating

Cal.

Gov't Code

3506.

28

Preston v. City o Oakland et al. No.

Verified

Complaint 2



6/22


7/22


8/22

. )

1 the City Manager had the authority to represent the City in employer-employee

2 relations.

3 22. On or around July of 2013, Ms. Preston learned that Fire Chief Reed had, for the

4 second time,. signed a tentative agreement

( TA )

with Local 55, without Council

5 approval or City Manager representation, in violation of City Ordinance 12903 and

6 Oakland City Resolution 55881. These

TAs

granted additional economic benefits to

7 Local 55 Ms. Preston reported these acts to defendant Santana.

8 23. On July 3, 2013, Ms. Preston sent a memo informing the City Attorney that Reed

9

had

signed the TA.

1

24. Reed then convinced Ms. Preston s newest staff person, Winnie Anderson, to sign

off on

the

TA,

which Anderson did, and also informed Ms. Preston

that

she had done so.

12

Ms. Preston told Anderson that Anderson did not have the authority to sign the

TA.

13 Anderson then reported this back to Reed.

14

25. Upon information and belief, Reed informed Santana of Ms. Preston s attempt to

15 stop the violation of City policy. Santana then called Ms. Preston and in an angry tone

16

told

her that

getting City approval was a waste of time. Ms. Preston responded that she

17 would not intentionally violate City policy. After this, Reed repeatedly came to Ms.

18

Preston asking

her

to sign off

on

the

TA,

but

Ms. Preston refused because of the failure

19 to get City Council approva1.

20 26. On

or

around August 6, 2013, Katano Kasaine, City Treasury Manager and now

21

Personnel Director, attended a SEIU part time employees negotiating meeting and

22 stated that, for several years, she

had

not been deducting dues from part time

23 employees salaries because they complained to her about paying dues. Kasaine s action

24 was in violation

of

the City s contract with SEIU and

Ca1.

Gov t Code 3508.5.

25 27. On September

5,

2013, Ms. Preston informed Kasaine in an email

that

Kasaine

26 was subject to an investigation because a grievance had been filed in regards to her

27

statement to SEIU that s,he had stopped collecting dues from part time employees.

28 Kasaine responded orally that she did not state that in the meeting. However, Employee

Preston v City o Oakland et al. N9.

Verified

Complaint 5

I

. )

1 the City Manager had the authority to represent the City in employer-employee

2 relations.

3 22. On or around July of 2013, Ms. Preston learned that Fire Chief Reed had, for the

4 second time,. signed a tentative agreement

( TA )

with Local 55, without Council

5 approval or City Manager representation, in violation of City Ordinance 12903 and

6 Oakland City Resolution 55881. These

TAs

granted additional economic benefits to

7 Local 55 Ms. Preston reported these acts to defendant Santana.

8 23. On July 3, 2013, Ms. Preston sent a memo informing the City Attorney that Reed

9

had

signed the TA.

1

24. Reed then convinced Ms. Preston s newest staff person, Winnie Anderson, to sign

off on

the

TA,

which Anderson did, and also informed Ms. Preston

that

she had done so.

12

Ms. Preston told Anderson that Anderson did not have the authority to sign the

TA.

13 Anderson then reported this back to Reed.

14

25. Upon information and belief, Reed informed Santana of Ms. Preston s attempt to

15 stop the violation of City policy. Santana then called Ms. Preston and in an angry tone

16

told

her that

getting City approval was a waste of time. Ms. Preston responded that she

17 would not intentionally violate City policy. After this, Reed repeatedly came to Ms.

18

Preston asking

her

to sign off

on

the

TA,

but

Ms. Preston refused because of the failure

19 to get City Council approva1.

20 26. On

or

around August 6, 2013, Katano Kasaine, City Treasury Manager and now

21

Personnel Director, attended a SEIU part time employees negotiating meeting and

22 stated that, for several years, she

had

not been deducting dues from part time

23 employees salaries because they complained to her about paying dues. Kasaine s action

24 was in violation

of

the City s contract with SEIU and

Ca1.

Gov t Code 3508.5.

25 27. On September

5,

2013, Ms. Preston informed Kasaine in an email

that

Kasaine

26 was subject to an investigation because a grievance had been filed in regards to her

27

statement to SEIU that s,he had stopped collecting dues from part time employees.

28 Kasaine responded orally that she did not state that in the meeting. However, Employee

Preston v City o Oakland et al. N9.

Verified

Complaint 5

I



9/22

1 Relations staff members Sonia Laura and Winnie Anderson were wi tnesses to Kasaine

2 saying

that

she was

not

collecting dues

and

took notes to thi s effect.

3 28. On September 8, 2013, Ms. Preston informed Kasaine for a second time that she

4 was subject to

the

grievance investigation because of

her statement that

she was

not

5 collecting dues. Kasaine then complained to Santana about Ms. Preston s concerns.

6 29. On September 12, 2013, Ms. Pres ton emailed City Attorney Barbara Parker ( City

7 Attorney ) and Santana to

inform them

of the grievance filed against Kasaine and the

8 City of

Oakland for failing

to

collect dues.

9

30.S

antana responded over email that the City Attorney's office would now do the

10 investigation and in fact must do

the

investigation because Ms.

Preston s

office was

11

biased, even

though it

was Ms. Preston's

job

duty

to

conduct

such

investigations

under

12 Administrative

Instruction

523

and

long $tanding City practice.

13 31. Ms. Preston then called City Attorney Parker who said

her

office would not

14 conduct such investigations, which Ms. Preston

then

repOlted

to Santana.

Ms. Preston

15

requested over email

that

Santana employ an outside

auditor

to

determine

exactly what

16

the City owed to the union. Ms. Preston asked for this outside audit because otherwise

17 Kasaine would be the investigator of her own grievance.

18 32.

Santana responded

furiously in a

phone

call, stating We are

not

doing this,

19

meaning the outside audit.

20 33. On September 12, 2013, Santana sent an email to Ms. Preston stating that the

21 City Administ rator' s office would not conduct

an

investigation

at

all, effectively ignoring

22 and refusing

to

deal with the

problem.

23 34. On September

17

2013,

at

an open City Council meeting, Kasaine

had

on the

24

agenda a

report

to implement a recently negotiated two

percent

wage increase for all

25 miscellaneous City employees.

The

newly created Employee Relations classification,

of

26 which Ms. Preston was the Director, was 'not included in the ordinance and therefore

27

would

not

receive the raise. Ms. Pres ton immediately complained about this to Santana.

28 Santana

then

instructed Kasaine to postpone the item until it was corrected. Upon

Preston v City

o

Oakland et al.

No.

Verified

Complaint-6

1 Relations staff members Sonia Laura and Winnie Anderson were wi tnesses to Kasaine

2 saying

that

she was

not

collecting dues

and

took notes to thi s effect.

3 28. On September 8, 2013, Ms. Preston informed Kasaine for a second time that she

4 was subject to

the

grievance investigation because of

her statement that

she was

not

5 collecting dues. Kasaine then complained to Santana about Ms. Preston s concerns.

6 29. On September 12, 2013, Ms. Pres ton emailed City Attorney Barbara Parker ( City

7 Attorney ) and Santana to

inform them

of the grievance filed against Kasaine and the

8 City of

Oakland for failing

to

collect dues.

9

30.S

antana responded over email that the City Attorney's office would now do the

10 investigation and in fact must do

the

investigation because Ms.

Preston s

office was

11

biased, even

though it

was Ms. Preston's

job

duty

to

conduct

such

investigations

under

12 Administrative

Instruction

523

and

long $tanding City practice.

13 31. Ms. Preston then called City Attorney Parker who said

her

office would not

14 conduct such investigations, which Ms. Preston

then

repOlted

to Santana.

Ms. Preston

15

requested over email

that

Santana employ an outside

auditor

to

determine

exactly what

16

the City owed to the union. Ms. Preston asked for this outside audit because otherwise

17 Kasaine would be the investigator of her own grievance.

18 32.

Santana responded

furiously in a

phone

call, stating We are

not

doing this,

19

meaning the outside audit.

20 33. On September 12, 2013, Santana sent an email to Ms. Preston stating that the

21 City Administ rator' s office would not conduct

an

investigation

at

all, effectively ignoring

22 and refusing

to

deal with the

problem.

23 34. On September

17

2013,

at

an open City Council meeting, Kasaine

had

on the

24

agenda a

report

to implement a recently negotiated two

percent

wage increase for all

25 miscellaneous City employees.

The

newly created Employee Relations classification,

of

26 which Ms. Preston was the Director, was 'not included in the ordinance and therefore

27

would

not

receive the raise. Ms. Pres ton immediately complained about this to Santana.

28 Santana

then

instructed Kasaine to postpone the item until it was corrected. Upon

Preston v City

o

Oakland et al.

No.

Verified

Complaint-6



10/22

1 information and belief, Kasaine s action was motivated by

her

intent to retaliate against

2 Ms. Preston.

3 35 On September

19, 2013, Kasaine further informed the SEIU that the City was

4 failing to collect dues from hundreds of part time employees and failed to remedy

or

5 disclose

this

fact. Kasaine also revealed

that

the City failed

to

conduct new member

6 orientations, notify

part

time employees of obligations to paydues, and issue reports, all

7 required by

the

contract between the City and the SEIU:

8 36. Ms. Preston

then

formally notified Kasaine of the grievance against her by the

9 SEIU and notified her that she should not communicate with the union.

10

37.

On September 29, 2013, Ms. Preston wrote an email to Santana informing her

that

Kasaine was violating

the

grievance investigation agains t

her

by contacting

union

12 represen tative Dwight McElroy, President of the City of Oakland Chapter of SEIU Local

13

1021,

and promising him that

the

union

would get

the

money owed to it by the City if

the

14 union dropped the grievance and stopped talking to Ms. Pres ton, thereby interfering

15

with

an

investigation,

which

is unlawful

under

Cal. Gov t Code

3506.

16

38.In

addition, Ms. Preston informed Santana that it was a violation of City

17

Administrative Instructions 521

and

523 for Kasaine

to participate

in

the

investigatory

18

process

of the

grievance regarding

her

actions. .

19

39.

In

response,

Santana

called Ms. Preston and

told her that

she must

not

tell

the

20 City Council about SEIU s grievance against Kasaine for stopping the collection of dues.

21 40.0n October

1,

2C 13, at a closed City Council meeting, Ms. Preston responded to

22 questions from the Council about the SEIU grievance for dues deductions. She told the

23 Council that SEIU had filed a grievance against Kasaine on

this

issue, in contravention

24 of Santana s order the night before.

25 41. On

October

3, 2013,

defendant Santana informed

Ms. Preston

that

she was

26 terminated

from

City employment. Santana provided

no reason

for

the

action.

27

28

Preston v City o Oakland et al. No.

Verified

Complaint-7

1 information and belief, Kasaine s action was motivated by

her

intent to retaliate against

2 Ms. Preston.

3 35 On September

19, 2013, Kasaine further informed the SEIU that the City was

4 failing to collect dues from hundreds of part time employees and failed to remedy

or

5 disclose

this

fact. Kasaine also revealed

that

the City failed

to

conduct new member

6 orientations, notify

part

time employees of obligations to paydues, and issue reports, all

7 required by

the

contract between the City and the SEIU:

8 36. Ms. Preston

then

formally notified Kasaine of the grievance against her by the

9 SEIU and notified her that she should not communicate with the union.

10

37.

On September 29, 2013, Ms. Preston wrote an email to Santana informing her

that

Kasaine was violating

the

grievance investigation agains t

her

by contacting

union

12 represen tative Dwight McElroy, President of the City of Oakland Chapter of SEIU Local

13

1021,

and promising him that

the

union

would get

the

money owed to it by the City if

the

14 union dropped the grievance and stopped talking to Ms. Pres ton, thereby interfering

15

with

an

investigation,

which

is unlawful

under

Cal. Gov t Code

3506.

16

38.In

addition, Ms. Preston informed Santana that it was a violation of City

17

Administrative Instructions 521

and

523 for Kasaine

to participate

in

the

investigatory

18

process

of the

grievance regarding

her

actions. .

19

39.

In

response,

Santana

called Ms. Preston and

told her that

she must

not

tell

the

20 City Council about SEIU s grievance against Kasaine for stopping the collection of dues.

21 40.0n October

1,

2C 13, at a closed City Council meeting, Ms. Preston responded to

22 questions from the Council about the SEIU grievance for dues deductions. She told the

23 Council that SEIU had filed a grievance against Kasaine on

this

issue, in contravention

24 of Santana s order the night before.

25 41. On

October

3, 2013,

defendant Santana informed

Ms. Preston

that

she was

26 terminated

from

City employment. Santana provided

no reason

for

the

action.

27

28

Preston v City o Oakland et al. No.

Verified

Complaint-7



11/22

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHAUSTION

OF ADMINISTRATIVE

REMEDIES

42. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies by filing a claim with the City

of Oakland on January 3,2014. The City denied that claim on January 8,2014.

FIRST CLAIM

FOR

RELIEF FOR VIOLATION

OF

LABOR CODE

SECTION

1102 .5

against defendant

City

of

Oakland)

Cal. Lab. Code 1102.5)

43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs through 42 above as though fully

set forth herein.

44. By

virtue of the foregoing, defendant City of Oakland retaliated against plaintiff

for disclosing what she reasonably believed were violations of municipal and state laws

to

her

supervisors and for refusing to take part in unlawful activities in violation of

Labor Code section 1102.5.

SECOND CIAIM

FOR

VIOIATION

OF

FREE SPEECH RIGHTS

against

defendants Deanna

Santana, and Does

1-10

42

U S C

1983)

45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 44 above as though fully

set forth herein.

46.Byvirtue of the foregoing, defendants Deanna Santana

and

Does

1-10,

acting

under color of state law, wrongfully deprived plaintiff of her free speech rights

guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States by participating in adverse

employment actions against plaintiff in retaliation for her speech addressing issues of

public concern and refusing to participate in unethical ancl unlawful conduct by

defendants.

DAMAGES

TAs

a result of the actions of defendants, plaintiff has been injured and has

suffered damages as follows:

a

She has lost compensation and other employment-related benefits to which

she has been entitled and will lose such compensation and benefits in the future;

Preston v City ofOakland et al. No.

Verified Complaint-8

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHAUSTION

OF ADMINISTRATIVE

REMEDIES

42. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies by filing a claim with the City

of Oakland on January 3,2014. The City denied that claim on January 8,2014.

FIRST CLAIM

FOR

RELIEF FOR VIOLATION

OF

LABOR CODE

SECTION

1102 .5

against defendant

City

of

Oakland)

Cal. Lab. Code 1102.5)

43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs through 42 above as though fully

set forth herein.

44. By

virtue of the foregoing, defendant City of Oakland retaliated against plaintiff

for disclosing what she reasonably believed were violations of municipal and state laws

to

her

supervisors and for refusing to take part in unlawful activities in violation of

Labor Code section 1102.5.

SECOND CIAIM

FOR

VIOIATION

OF

FREE SPEECH RIGHTS

against

defendants Deanna

Santana, and Does

1-10

42

U S C

1983)

45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 44 above as though fully

set forth herein.

46.Byvirtue of the foregoing, defendants Deanna Santana

and

Does

1-10,

acting

under color of state law, wrongfully deprived plaintiff of her free speech rights

guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States by participating in adverse

employment actions against plaintiff in retaliation for her speech addressing issues of

public concern and refusing to participate in unethical ancl unlawful conduct by

defendants.

DAMAGES

TAs

a result of the actions of defendants, plaintiff has been injured and has

suffered damages as follows:

a

She has lost compensation and other employment-related benefits to which

she has been entitled and will lose such compensation and benefits in the future;

Preston v City ofOakland et al. No.

Verified Complaint-8



12/22


13/22

1

2 Dated: March

12

2014

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

3

14

5

16

17

8

9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Preston

v

City afOakland

fit

al.

No

Verified

Complaint-1O

By: I

Dan Siegel

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Daryelle LaWanna Preston

1

2 Dated: March

12

2014

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

3

14

5

16

17

8

9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Preston

v

City afOakland

fit

al.

No

Verified

Complaint-1O

By: I

Dan Siegel

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Daryelle LaWanna Preston



14/22

;

,

l.

VERIFIC TION

2 I Daryelle LaWanna Preston declare as follows:

3 I

am

the

plaintiff to this action.

I

have read

the

foregoing Verified Complaint and

4

know its contents. The

matters

stated

n

the Verified Complaint are true based on my

5

own knowledge except where stated on

j n f o r m t i ~ m and

belief and as to such matters

I

6 believe

t

to be true.

7 I

declare

under

penalty

of

perjury

under

the laws

of the

State of California

that

8 the foregoing is true

and

correct and

that

this declaration was executed on March 12,

9 2014,

at Oakland California.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Preston v. City o Oakland, et ai.,

No.

Verified

Complaint-11

;

,

l.

VERIFIC TION

2 I Daryelle LaWanna Preston declare as follows:

3 I

am

the

plaintiff to this action.

I

have read

the

foregoing Verified Complaint and

4

know its contents. The

matters

stated

n

the Verified Complaint are true based on my

5

own knowledge except where stated on

j n f o r m t i ~ m and

belief and as to such matters

I

6 believe

t

to be true.

7 I

declare

under

penalty

of

perjury

under

the laws

of the

State of California

that

8 the foregoing is true

and

correct and

that

this declaration was executed on March 12,

9 2014,

at Oakland California.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Preston v. City o Oakland, et ai.,

No.

Verified

Complaint-11



15/22


16/22



17/22

Exhibit C



18/22

-

e M 0

1

-

-

-

nORN

( Y OR PARTY WI

THOUT

AI

TORNEV Name

SwreBa l

numbel

. i > O O , ~

..)

FOR CDUR f

USE

O N/. Y

_

:Sonya

Z _

Meht d 294Hl

S lcge l

&

Yee

99

14th S t , Su

i t e

300

Oakland C/\ 94612

EN,fORSC:O

f l(PIIO N( ND

(

SIO)

839

-

1200

rM O

(SIO) 444-6698

All OR N EY

FOR ( N ~ m e J P l a i n t itf

. I U D

SUPERIOR COURT OF

CA UF

OR NIA, COUN

TY

OF

Alameda Cou n t y

L

...

[ '

\ AI 1

uA C O : 1 ~ , r T v

ST

IlEETAOORESS

1225

Fa l lon

St

11A i

MAI L

IN

G ADO

llE SS

1

CIl Y

I\NDIIT'COOE Oa

k l

and

I

CA

94612

CLERK

OF

UR A

NCH

NAME

Rene C . Davi dson

Cour thouse

IH

.... UP-

By

a

'"

::.Rlon

'':

.

: ' '

Jr

CASE NAME :

Pres t o n v . Ci ty

o f

Oakla

nd , Santana

ne 1e

B -

_

",,,'

" t:ffln. O ~ l t f

C

IVIL

C

ASE

COVER SHEET

Com plex Case Designation

IX}

Un l imited

o Limited

o Co

un ter

o J oinder

~ ~ ~

l t

l l ~

(Amount (Amount

demanded

demanded is

Filed wi

th

firs appearance by defendant

JUDGE

ex

ceeds $25

,000) $25,000

or

less (Cal. Rules of Co urt , rule 3.402) DEPT

/Jems 1-6 below fIl l

lSI

be completed (see ins/ructions on page 2),

1.

Check one box below for the

case

type Ihal b

es

t d

esc

ribes Ihis

case

:

Auto Tort Contract

Provis iona lly Co

mpl

ex

Civil Li tiga

ti

on

B

AuIO(22)

B, ,oh

01

oo ,,,,Uw,,,, ,y

(06)

Lf?

1.

Rules o f

Cour t

, rules 3,400-3.403)

Uninsured motOrist (45)

Rule 3.740

colleCllO

ns (09) Antilrus\fTrade regulation (03)

Other PllPDfWO (Personallnjury lProperty

Other co ll

eC\lo

ns (09)

-

Construction defecl (10)

OamagclWrong 'u l Death) Tort

Insurance coverage (18) Mass tort (40)

~ M o , ''')

Olher contract (37)

Securities

hhg3t1On

(2S)

Product abil 'ty (24) Real Property

EnlllfonmentaVToxtc tort (30)

MedK:al malpractice (45)

o

Eminent domalJl/lnverse

Insurance coverage claims arising from the

Other PIIPDIWO (23) condemnallon (14)

above listed provis,onally complex case

B

Wrongful eviction (33)

types (4t )

Non-PIIPONVD (Other) Tort

Other rea l property (26)

Enfor

cement

of Judgme

nt

~

BuslJless tortJunfaif business practice (07)

o Enforcement of Judgment (20)

CIVIl rrghts

(OS)

Unlawful

Deta

in

er

Def;)malion (13)

Commercial (3 1)

Misce llaneous Civi l

Comp

laint

~

Fraud (16) Residenti;)1 (32)

B

RICO (27)

Inlellectual propc' ly (19)

Drugs (38) Other compl;)lnt (nol specified

above}

(42)

t

PrOfeSSiona l neglrgence (25)

Judicia l Review Misce llaneous Civi l Pe

titi

on

Other non-PI/PDIWD

1011

(35)

A",

II

"I,,,,,"

(05)

B

Par tne,

sh

,p and

cOrPOrale

governance

(21)

Employmen

t

Petit ion re : a,bilralion award ( 11 )

Dlher pelltlon(nol

speCIfied

above) (43)

Er:I

Wrongfulterm,nalion (36)

Wm of mandate

(O2)

Other employment (15)

Other judie ;)1 review (39)

2 .

This case

0

is

IX) is not

co

mplex und er rul e 3AOO

of

the Californi a Ru l

es

of Co

urt

.

If

the

case

is

co mp l

ex, ma rk the

3

4

5

6 .

facto rs requiring

exce

pti

ona

l j udicial

management:

, B

arge

numb

er

of

separately represented part ies d.

B

arge number of w itnesses

b. Exte nsive motion practice raising difficult or nove l e. Coo rdinati on with related

ac

tions pending in

one

or more

co

u

issu

es

that will be lime-consuming 10 reso lve in other counties, sta tes, or

cou

ntries, or

in

a federa t co urt

c.

0

Sub s tantial amount 01 documentary evidence I.

0

Substantial po st udgment judic ial supervision

Remedies so

ught e/leck al/

1/181

apply)

:

a . Xl monet

ary

b. Xl nonmone lary: declaratory

or injun

clive rel ief c . Xl pu n i tive

Number

o f

causes ofactio

nl.eecify): ( I ) Cal. Labor

Code

I I 0 2 . ~ , dnd (21

42

U . S . C .

1983 , Fust Amendment

This

case

0 is W

is not a class action sui

t.

II

there

are any known rela ted cases, fil e and serve a noti

ce

0

,

elat

ed case

. (You ay use

,

rm

c

M

-O

l 5)

.

Date. 03/14/14

Sonya Z

Mebt' a

~

(TYPE OR PR INI NAMEi I .- NA-rlJREO PARrY OR nORNEY FOR PARTY)

NOTICE

Pl

ain

tiff m ust fi le this

co

ver sheet

with

the fi rst p

aper

filed in the aelion or

proceeding

(except sma ll claim s cases o r cases

fi led

un der Ihe Pr

obate

Co

de

, Family

Code,

or Welfare

an

d Insl i

tu l ions

Code) . (Ca l. Ru les of Co urt ,

rul

e 3 .220 .) Fai l

ure

to

file

may

resu

in

sanc

tions .

F

il

e this

cove

r sheet in addition 10 any cover sheet required

by

loca l court rule.

If th is case is co mplex undel rule 3.400 et

seq

. of the Cal

il

orn

ia Rules

of Court , you m us t

se

rve a

co

py of thi s cove r sh

ee

t on

, II

other parties to lh e ac tion or proceeding.

Un

less Ih

is is a

co

llec tions

case und

er rule 3.740 or a

comp

l

ex

case, this

co

ver s

heet

will be used for stat is

ti

ca l

purposes

only .

P ~ I . l o

C IVIL CAS E

COVER

SHEET Cal R 'e> of

c ' ~ 'ules

2

30

3 no 3 ,,0Q-3

4ga

C;ol Stand' ,' Judooal

~ h ~ ~ ~ c

Darye l l e Lal1anna Pz:-eston



19/22

S 44 (Rev. 12/12) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except

rovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for theurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OFTHE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

I. BASIS OF JURISDICTION(Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an X in One Box for(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF D

Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated orPrincipal Place 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated andPrincipal Place 5

Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6

Foreign Country

V. NATURE OF SUIT(Place an X in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act

120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 400 State Reapportionm

130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 410 Antitrust

140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 430 Banks and Banking

150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 450 Commerce& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 460 Deportation

151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liabi lity 830 Patent 470 Racketeer Influence

152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizatio

Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 480 Consumer Credit

(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 490 Cable/Sat TV 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 850 Securities/Commod

of Veterans Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange

160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Acti

190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 891 Agricultural Acts

195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 893 Environmental Matt

196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 895 Freedom of Informa

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act ActMedical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 896 Arbitration

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS 899 Administrative Proc

210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appe

220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision

230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRSThird Party 950 Constitutionality of

240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes

245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General

290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION

Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration

Other 550 Civil Rights Actions

448 Education 555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee -

Conditions of

Confinement

V. ORIGIN(Place an X in One Box Only)

1 OriginalProceeding

2 Removed fromState Court

3 Remanded fromAppellate Court

4 Reinstated orReopened

5 Transferred fromAnother District(specify)

6 MultidistrictLitigation

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint

JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)IF ANY

(See instructions):JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE


Daryelle Lawanna Preston

Sonya Z. Mehta, Siegel & Yee499 14th St., Suite 300Oakland, CA 94612, (510) 839-1200

City of OaklandDeanna Santana

Alameda

Celia M. Ruiz, Janice L. Sperow & Forrest E. FangRuiz & Sperow, LLP2200 Powell Street, Ste. 350, Emeryville, CA 94608

42 U.S.C. 1983

Retaliation (First Amendment)

3:14-cv-2022

05/02/2014 /s/Forrest E. Fang, Attorney

Print Save As... Reset


20/22

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as

required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is

required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk o

Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, us

only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency andthen the official, giving both name and title.

(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides attime of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In lan

condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noin this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.

Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendm

to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code tak

precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.

Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the

citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversitycases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Marksection for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI belowsufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more th

one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.

Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.

When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the fili

date.

Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.

Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers o

multidistrict litigation transfers.

Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 140

When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictionstatutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docketnumbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.



21/22

1____________________________________________________________________________________

PROOF OF SERVICE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Celia M. Ruiz (SBN 87671)

Janice L. Sperow (SBN 129617)Forrest F. Fang (SBN 122805)

RUIZ & SPEROW, LLP

2200 Powell Street, Suite 350Emeryville, CA 94608

Telephone: 510 594-7980

Fax: 510 594-7988Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND andDEANNA SANTANA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARYELLE LAWANNA PRESTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND; DEANNA SANTANA,in her individual capacity; and DOES 1 through10, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

))

)

)))

))

Case No.: 3:14-cv-2022

(Superior Court No. RG14 717585)

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the

within action. My business address is 2200 Powell Street, Suite 350, Emeryville, California 94608. On

May 2, 2014, I caused the following document(s) in Alameda County Superior Court Case No.RG08376987, referred to as Preston vs. City of Oakland, et al., to be served by the method indicated

below:

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

CIVIL COVER SHEET

by transmitting via facsimile on this date from fax number 510-594-7988 the document(s) listed

above to the fax number(s) set forth below. The transmission was completed before 5:00 p.m. and was

reported complete and without error. The transmitting fax machine complies with Cal.R.Ct 2003(3).



22/22

2____________________________________________________________________________________

PROOF OF SERVICE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

xx by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid,

in the United States mail at Emeryville, California addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar

with the firms practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice,it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid

in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed

invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of depositfor mailing in this Declaration.

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope(s) and by causing personal delivery

of the envelope(s) to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.

by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth

below.

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope(s) and consigning it to an expressmail service for guaranteed delivery on the next business day following the date of consignment to theaddress(es) set forth below.

by transmitting via email to the person(s) at the email address(es) listed below.

Sonya Z. MehtaSiegel & Yee

499 14th

St., Suite 300

Oakland, CA 94612

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is trueand correct. Executed on May 2, 2014, at Emeryville, California.

___/s/ A. Fabian Silveyra____________________

A. Fabian Silveyra, File Clerk


Date post:	14-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	darwinbondgraham
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Complaint Preston v Oakland

Documents