Correspondence - Non Agenda — Santa Ana City Council, October 7, 2025 (part 4 of 4)

Becerra, Alexis
From: Jackie Angel Investor <
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 12: 35 PM
To: eComment; publiccomment@anaheim. net
Cc: Vazquez, Benjamin; Ryberg, Erinn; nrubalcava@anaheim. net Subject: Audit re: Santa Ana Police Officers Association Political Action Committee Attachments: 1000007974. png
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Remember this Erinn Ryberg?? We Never Forget.

Your silence will never be forgotten.

We greatly abhor our dollars going to sexual predators, corrupt politicians and pedophiles.

Chief of Staff- Assemblymember Avelino Valencia • California State Assembly erinn. ryberg@asm. ca. gov
Capitol Office Phone: ( 916) 319- 2068
David Pena loza for Assembly 2026
Committee for Candidate David Penaloza
11, 800. 00 Avelino Valencia
5, 900. 00 Americas Physician Groups CA
5, 900. 00 Anaheim Police Association
5, 900. 00 James Ramos INDIVIDUAL
5, 900. 00 Santa Ana Police Officers Association
https:// www. tra nspa rencyusa. org/ ca/ committee/ david- pena loza- for-assembly- 2026- 1477969- ctl/ contributors
Avelino Valencia for Senate 2026
Committee for Candidate Avelino Valencia
443, 189
Cash on Hand
509, 166
Total Contributions
122, 244
https:// www.transparencvusa. org/ ca/ committee/ avelino- valencia- for-senate- 2026- 1477383- ctl/ contributors Request 25- 2399 ( 64 files can be found here)
Please provide Form 460 for the Santa Ana Police Officers Association Political Action Committee and Independent Expenditure Committee from 2013 to their most recent 460 filing. Please send me the original files, thank you.

City of Santa Ana website and financial reports is horrible by the way) Matthew Cunningham dba " Orange County Independent, OC Independent, Anaheim Observer" Art Pedroza dba " New Santa Ana"
Patricia Wenskunas dba " Crime Survivors Inc., Crime Survivors Action PAC" https:// citVofsantaanaca. nextrequest. com/ requests/ 25- 2399 1 Furthermore, while all of this was occurring, the Santa Ana Police Officers Association Independent Expenditure Committee funneled $ 15, 900 into the state treasurer' s bid to get re- elected, making them one of her biggest campaign contributors.
https:// anaheim investigator. com/ 2022/ 02/ 03/ ca lifornia- state-treasurer- backed- two-new- laws-to- help- santaana- police- union- president- increase- his- pension/ In a highly unusual move, the Santa Ana Police Officers Association, under the leadership of Gerry Serrano, their president, spent approximately$ 2, 500 in a failed effort to help then-future Councilman Avelino Valencia III get re- elected to his seat on the Central Committee of the Orange County Democratic Party in March 2020, according to campaign finance reports filed with the City of Santa Ana on July 31st of that year. https:// anaheim investigator. com/ 2021/ 12/ 21/ sa nta- ana- police- union- spent- 2500-to- help- re- elect-futurecouncilman- to-democratic- party-centra I- committee/ Two letters The Anaheim Investigator obtained from the California Public Employees Retirement System CaIPERS) through the public records act show that six members of the state legislature not only quietly lent their names in support of a bid by Gerry Serrano, president of the Santa Ana Police Officers Association, to increase his future pension earnings, but circumstantial evidence suggests at least five of them received hefty campaign contributions in return for their efforts.
https:// anaheim investigator. com/ 2022/ 06/ 13/ six- state- legislators- signed- letters- backing- santa- ana- policeunion- presidents- bid-to-increase- pension/ The state of California has agreed to pay a former employee $350,000 to settle her claims that Democratic state Treasurer Fiona Ma sexually harassed her.
https:// www. cbsnews. com/ sacramento/ news/ caIifornia- settles- sexual- harassment- claims- against- statetreasurer- fiona- ma/ Councilman Avelino Valencia III quietly employed Tina Arias Miller, the girlfriend of a top associate to Gerry Serrano, president of the Santa Ana Police Officers Association, as a " Senior Policy Aide" https:// anaheiminvestigator. com/ 2022/ 11/ 03/ anaheim- city- councilman- quietly- employed- girlfriend- of-topserrano- associate- as- senior- policy- aide/ Anaheim City Council Natalie Rubalcava is quietly no longer working for California Assemblyman Avelino Valencia as his district director.
https:// voiceofoc. org/ 2023/ 12/ anaheim- city- councilwoman- natalie- rubalcava- quietly- out- as- stateassemblymans- district- director/ AnaheimAudit
2023- 133 City of Anaheim
It Has Not Properly Managed Tourism- Related Contracts and Millions of Dollars in Related Funds The city entered into contracts with and disbursed more than $ 100 million to Visit Anaheim, and the Chamber received from both the city and Visit Anaheim more than $ 6 million in public funds from fiscal years 2012- 13 through 2021- 22. In general, we determined that the city lacked a meaningful contract monitoring process and did not properly manage the contracts it entered into with these entities, resulting in unallowable spending and unmet deliverables.
https:// www. auditor. ca. gov/ reports/ 2023- 133/
The felony charge alleged Todd Ament defrauded a cannabis company by pocketing a portion of$ 225, 000 intended to lobby Anaheim to legalize
2 https:// www. latimes. com/ socaI/ daily- pilot/ entertainment/ story/ 2025- 09- 27/ anaheim- todd- ament- cannabis Former Anaheim Chamber CEO Todd Ament getting new plea deal that might reduce charges https:// www. ocregister. com/ 2025/ 08/ 08/ former- anaheim- chamber- ceo-todd- ament- getting- new- plea- dealthat- might- reduce- charges/ 3 12: 18 25%
Q erinn ryberg
Erinn Ryberg - Legislative and Regulatory
Advocate for Health Policy at Associatio...

Sacramento, California, United States - Chief of Staff - Assemblymember Avelino Valencia - California State
Assembly
Legislative and Regulatory Advocate for Health Policy at Association of California Life and Health Insurance
Companies Experience: California State ...

Images
1 o
1r
T,
Meet Erinn Ryberg, JD ' 13 Erinn Ryberg - Legislative and ...

Q YouTube Linkedln
Ali
Home Search Notifications Activity
Becerra, Alexis
From: Jackie Angel Investor <
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 12: 53 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Vazquez, Benjamin; Ryberg, Erinn
Subject: Re: Santa Ana Police Officers Association Political Action Committee Audit Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Public Records Request Request 25- 2351
1 request all call records between ICE agents and SAPID the night of 9/ 18/ 25 outside 34 CIVIC CENTER 1 request all written records and bodycam footage, helicopter/ drone footage of the tactical alert response the night of 9/ 18/ 25 outside Fed Headquarters 34 CIVIC CENTER where SAPID brutally arrested 2 more of our Women for protesting the kidnapping of OUR FATHER by armed terrorists. 1 request all correspondence between ICE agency and SAPID in regards to continual contracted attacks/ kidnappings at Bristol Car Wash
2402 S Bristol St, Santa Ana, CA 92704
Where SAPID is paid a bounty to stand down like cowards and let armed ICE thugs repeatedly sneak into our city and terrorize us and kidnap us and break our families apart for some double overtime.

I request all information available on these 3 instances be given swiftly, without any redactions.

SANTA ANA PD FIRED HERE # QProofs
Notice Served 9/ 19/ 25 6 pm
Bristol Street, Santa Ana California
@CityofSantaAna
Daniel Durham: I demand an immediate internal investigation into the arrests of 2 more of our Women by thug SAPID members the night of 9/ 18/ 25 outside 34 CIVIC CENTER Request closed
Items 1 and 2 of your request are denied. The records you requested are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Cal Gov Code § 7923. 6005( a) and 7923. 600( a) as they are related to an active investigation and disclosure would interfere with successful completion of the investigation and adjudication of the case.

October 1, 2025, 5: 09pm by Jessica Antes, Records Manager( Staff) https:// citVofsantaanaca. nextrequest. com/ requests/ 25- 2351 Public Records Request 25- 2418
Dear City Clerk, Santa Ana residents want to know this Public Records Request System.

Why many public records are missing within the portal. Plus, why the general public cannot access the files and information once the request has been fulfilled. I was told I have to submit another public request to access information someone else already requested. That is absolutely ridiculous. I have had to call several times and sometimes the city clerk office " manually" makes the information available and it is viewable after that, but only after I call the gatekeeper to the magic public information.

Councilmember Lopez specifically asked for PRA 25- 1969, which I do not see listed, along with many other chronological records. Thank You
Request closed
i
Your request does not fall within the scope of the Public Records Act and will be closed without further response.

October 1, 2025, 5: 01pm by Norma Orozco, Sr. Deputy City Clerk (Staff) https:// cityofsantaanaca. nextreguest. com/ requests/ 25- 2418 Public Records Request 25- 2397
Which account does the ongoing parking structure deficit get charged to? Also, please provide detailed Expenditures Report for Structures AND Meters City of Santa Ana Fiscal Year
7/ 2024- 6/ 2025
Parking Structures Revenue $ 1, 350, 914. 61
Parking Structures Expenditures $ 1, 879, 202. 48
528, 287. 87
Request closed
Attached are the unaudited revenue and expenditure detailed reports for fiscal year 2024- 2025 for the Parking Enterprise Fund. The Parking Enterprise consists of Parking Meters, Parking Structures and Downtown Enhancements. Any deficit balances will reduce the cash balance of the Parking Enterprise Fund.

All responsive records have been released, and your request has been fulfilled.

October 2, 2025, 2: 35pm by Bianca Zurita, Executive Secretary ( Staff) https:// cityofsantaanaca. nextreguest. com/ requests/ 25- 2397 z
Becerra, Alexis
From: Jackie Angel Investor <
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 7: 25 PM
To: eComment; Durham, Daniel
Cc: Vazquez, Benjamin
Subject: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES v City of Santa Ana, Officer Cristal Gutierrez, et al., Attachments: Jodi Thorn v. City of Santa Ana pgs 1- 11. pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. lawsuit attached
CITY OF SANTA ANA; CRISTAL GUTIERREZ; and

2. Defendant. CRISTAL GUTIERREZ is an individual residing in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California and, at all times herein, was a police officer employed by Defendant, CITY OF SANTA ANA, the times, places, : and in the : manner as aforesaid, CRISTAL GUTIERREZ negligently and carelessly drove the motor vehicle entrusted to her by the CITY OF SANTA ANA, while CRISTAL GUTIERREZ was acting within the course and scope of her employment with the CITY OF SANTA ANA; and CRISTAL GUITERREZ thereby negligently and carelessly caused Plaintiff to suffer personal injuries and related damages.

AGAINST OTHER ACTORS ONLY Negligence)
37, As a. direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendants, and each of then', Plaintiff JODI THORN was hurt and injured in her health, strength, and activity; sustaining injury to her nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering, its a result of such injuries, Plaintiff has suffered general damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court,

7. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.
i
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 02/ 16/ 2024 03: 35:42 PM. 30- 2024- 01380358- CU- PA- CJC - ROA# t 4 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By A. Gill, Deputy Clerk.

SUM- 100

SUMMONS FOR COURT USE ONLY
CiTA crony JUDICIAL)
SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTf J
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:

A,VIS0 AL DEMANDADO): J Y CLERK;
City of Santa Ana; Cristal Gutierrez; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:

LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):

Jodi Thorn,
NOTICE[ You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the Califamia Courts Online Self- Help Center( www. courtinfo. ca. gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site( www.lawhefpcalifornia. org), the Califomia Courts Online Self- Help Center www. courtinfo. ca. govfselfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory Gen for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of$ 10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. iAV!SO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la torte puede decidir an su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informaci6n a continuation.

Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despues de qua le entreguen esta citaci6n y papeles legales pare presenter Una respuesta par escrito on esta Corte y hater qua se entregue Una copia at demandante_ Una carte o Una llamada telefonica no to protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene qua estar an formato legal correcto si desea qua procesen su caso an fa carte. 1= s posible qua hays un formulario que listed pueda user pars su respuesta.

Puede encontrar estos formularios de la Corte y mas information an at Centro de Ayuda de las Cones de California( www. sucorte. ca. gov), an la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o an la Corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pager la cuota de prosentacion, Aida al secretario de to Corte que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a fiempo, puede perder at caso por incumplimiento y la core le pods quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.

Nay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que flame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no Conoco a un abogado, puede Ilamar a lin servicio de remision a abogados. Si no puede pager a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos gropps sin fines de lucro an el sitio web de California Legal Services, www.lawhelpcalifornia. org), an el Centro de Ayuda de las Courts de California, ( www. sucorte. ca.gov) o poniendose an contacto con la Corte o at colegio de abogados locales. A ViSO: Par ley, la torte tiene derecho a reclemar las cuotas y los coslos exentos por imponer un gravamen sabre cualquier recuperation de$ 10, 000 a mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo a una concesidn de arbitraje an Un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la torte antes de que la code pueda desechar el caso.

The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMHFR:

Fi nombre direction de la torte es):
judge Shawn Nelson dei caso):
1730-2024- 01380358- CU- PA- CJC
ro

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:

El nombre la direction y el numbro de telefano del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no hene abo ado e$ arren M. Pirozzt Bar# 156890) Fax No.: 14 5$ 7- 1245
Rizio Lipinsky Law Firm PC Phone No.: 714 505- 2468
2677 North Main Street' Suite 225' Santa Ana' CA 92705
DATE: A. CaiII Clerk, by Deputy
Fecha) 02I16J2024
o„.,„ . s,, or„.„ R ( Secretario)
t
Adjunto)
For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons( form POS- 010).) Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, ( POS- 010)).

NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
SEALI 1. Q as an individual defendant.
gT r: r- 2. 0as the person sued under the fictitious name of( specify):

3. Cl on behalf of( specify): City of Santa Ana
under: Q CCP 416. 10( corporation) Q CCP 416. 60( minor) Q CCP 416. 20( defunct corporation) Q CCP 416.70( conservatee) Q CCP 416.40( association or partnership) Q CCP 416.90( authorized person) other( specify): Public Entity

4. Q by personal delivery on ( date):

Palle 11 Of I
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure§§ 41220. 465 Judicial Council of California
www. courtinfo ca_gov
SUM- fda [ Rev. July 1, 20091 LexisNexisOD Auromared California Judicial Council Forms Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 02/ 16/ 2024 03:35:42 PM. 30- 24- 01380358- CU- PA- CJC- ROA# 2- DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By A. Gill, Deputy Clerk.

I
RIZIO LIPI(NSKY LA"'47V FIRM PC
Darren M. Pirozzi, BarNo. 156890
dpitozai a@riziolawfi:rzn. coi2677 North Main Street., Suite 225 Santa Ana, CA 92705
714) 505- 2468 - Telephone
4 ( 714) 547- 12.45 Facsimile
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff JODI THORN
6 7

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
9 10 JODI THORN, CASE NO.

1. 1
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
12 1, Negligenoe( Government Code 815. 2)
13 2. Ooverment Code § 820 ( a)
14 CITE' OF SANTA ANA; CRISTAL 3. Vela. C. § 17001)
GUTIERREZ; and) DOES 1 through 100, 4. Negligence
15 inclusive,
16 z7
Defendants.
18 1s
20 21
22 23
Plaintiff, JODI THORN, complains as to defendants, and each of them, as follows:
24 OENERAL_ALLEGATIONS
25 1. Plaintiff, JODI. THORN was, and at all times herein, is a resident ofthe.City 26 ofHuntington Beach, County of Orange, State of Calffornia. 27 1-
28 Complaint for Damages
1 2. Defendant.CRISTAL GUTIE REZ is an individual residing in the City of Santa Alta, 2 County of Orange, State of California and, at all times herein, was a police officer employed by 3 Defendant, CITY OF SANT'A ANA,
4 3. That Plaintiff is inforined and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all relevant tunes herein 5 mentioned, Defendants CITY OF SANTA AN.A is a public entity. Plaintiff timely submitted. 6 government claims against said public entities, and each of said claims were denied; either directly or 7 8
by operation of law. Correct copies of the claims are attached as Exhibit L 9 4. Plaintiff is ignorant ofthe true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as 10 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amead this Complaint to allege them`.true names and capacities when the same are ascertained. 12 Plaintiff is iufbiniecl and believes, and thereon alleges, that the fictitiously named d6e.ndants are 13 legally responsible in sonic manner for the,oecu rences, injuries, and damages hereinafter alleged, 14 S. That Plaintiff,is informed. and believes and thereon alleges that, at all tines herein 15 16
mentioned in this Complaint, defendants were the agents and. employees oftheir co- defendants, and in 17 doing the things alleged in ibis Complaint were acting within the course and scope of that agency mid 18 employment. In the alternative, each defendant authorized, consented to and/ or ratified the conduct of 19 the remaining defendants, and each of there.
20 6. Defendant, CRI.STAL GUTERREZ and Does 1-- 50, at all times mentioned was and is a 21 City of Santa Ana Police officer. Defendant, CRISTAL Cif.TtERREZ, was on duty, in the course and 22 scope of her employment, as a Santa Ana Police officer, Defendant CRISTAL GUTIERREL was 23 24 traveling northbound can Bristol Street in Orange County California, in her marked black acid white 25 patrol car license plate 1607869.
26 7, Defendants, CITY OF SANTA ANA, and Does 1- 100 are the owners ofthe marked black 27 2-
28 Complaint for Damages
i
i
I
and white Ford Explorer patrol car license Mate number 1607869, 2 8. That on Februaiy 25, 2023, at approximately 3. 49 pm, Plaintiff JODI THORN ORN 3 was traveling northbound on Bristol Street when she observed that the car in front of her was stopped. 4 Plaintiffslowed her vehicle when, Defdndants, and each ofthem, crashed the marked patrol oar into S
Plaintiff' s vehicle. That at said time and place, Defendant CRISTAL GUTIERREZ and. Does 1- 100 6 negligently drove her vehicle, owned by Defendant CITY OF SANTA ANA so as to cause it to collide 7 8
with the vehicle being driven by Plaintiff JODI THORN, and to proximately cause the injuries and 9 damages described below.
10 PLAINTIFF JODI T14ORN' s FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO DEFENDANTS CRISTAL l 1 GUITER.R.EZ, CITY OF SANTA ANA( Governwent. Code§ 815. 2) AND DOES 1- 50 12 Negligence)
13 9. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference all allegations in Paragraphs l through 8 ofthis 14 complaint, as. though fully set forth herein,
15 10. At said tinne and place, defendants, and each of them, negligently owned, maintained, 16 controlled, managed, operated, entrusted, and drove their vehicle, so as to cause it to collide with 7 Plaintiff JODI`f TORN and her vehicle, and to proximately cause the injuries and damages to Plaintiff, l8
as described below.
19 20 11. As.a: direct and proxitnate result of the negligence of defendants, and each ofthem, 21 Plaintiff JODI THORN was hurt and injured in her health,. strength, and activity, sustaining injury to 22 her nervous system and person; all of which injuries have Caused, and continue to cause; .Plaintiff great 23 mental, physical, and. nervous pain and suffering. As a result ofsuch injuaries, Plaintiff has suffered 24 general damages: in' an. amount in excess ofthe jurisdictional minimum ofthis Court, 25 12. As a legal result of defendants' tort ous misconduct, as aforesaid, Plaintiff JODI THORN 26 27
29 Complaint for Damages
I
has had to employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other professional 2 services; and said Plaintiff was compelled to_incur expenses for ambulance, medicines, x-rays and 3 other medical supplies and services, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that further 4 services of that nature will be required by plaintiff for an unpredictable period in the future, all to S
Plaintiff' s damage, in a sum according to proof at the time of trial. 6 13. As a further result of the tortious misconduct of defendants, Plaintiff JODI THORN' S 7 8
property was damaged and destroyed, and said Plaintiff last the use of same, all,to Plaintiff' s damage, 9 in a sum according; to proof at the time. of trial.
10 1. 4. .A.s a further legal result ofthe lortious inisconduct of defendants, and each of them, 11 Plaintiff suffered loss of earnings and. earning capacity, in the past, present and future, in an amount 12 that will be demonstrated at trial according to proof, 13 15, Upon compliance with Cade of Civil Procedure section 998, Plaintiff will. seek an award 14 ofprejudgment interest and casts. as to any non-governmental entities, pursuant to California Civil 15 16
Code § 3291, in a sum according to proof.
17 16..As a further legal result of the foregoing, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer 18 pain, anxiety; emotionaI distress, and rather general damages, in a sum within the jurisd efion of this 19 court and according to proof at the time oftrial.
20 PLAINTIFF JODI THORN' s SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO DEFENDANTS 21 CRIS`I`A,L GUITERREZ, CITY OF ANA [Government Cade § 8 O ( a)]. AND DOE'S 1- 22 50
23 M Plaintiff incorporates by this reference. all allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 16 of'this 24 25 complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
26 18.. At the times, places,: and in the: manner as aforesaid, C12.ISTAL GUTIERRF7 27 4-
28 Complaint for Damages
l
negligently and carelessly drove the motor vehicle entrusted to her by the CITY"OF SANTA ANA, 2 while CRISTAL GUI'l`ERRET was acting within the course and scope of her employment with the 3 CITY OF SANTA ANA; and CRISTAL ILL GUITERRE% thereby negligently and. 4 5 carelessly caused Plaintiff to suffer personal injuries and related damages.

19. At the times, places in the manner as aforesaid, CRISTAL GUITERREZ, was a 7 8 public employee and, is subject to liability to plaintiff herein to the same.extent as a private person.,per 9 Gov' t. C.§ 820 ( a).
to
11 20, As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendants; and each ofthem,. 12 Plaintiff JODI THORN was hurt and injured in her health, strength; and activity, sustaining injury to 13 his nervous system and persons all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff groat 14 mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering;. As a result of such injuries, Plaintiff has suffered. 15 16 general damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional Minimum ofthis Court. 17 21 t As a legal result of defendants' tortious misconduct, as aforesaid; Plaintiff JODI Tl;IORN IS has had to employ the services of Hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other professional. 19 services; and said Plaintiff was compelled to incur expenses for ambulance, medicines, x-rays and 20 other medical supplies and services. Plaintiff is ixaformed and believes and thereon alleges that further

21. services ofthat nature will be required by Plaintiff for an unpredictable period in the future, all to. 22 23
PWritiff s damage, in a sung according to proof at the time of trial. 24 22, Asa fimtlier result of the tortious misconduct of defendants, Plaintiff.0DI THORN' S 25 property was damaged. and destroyed, and said Plaintiff lost the use of same, all to Plaintiffs damage, 26 in a suns. according to proof at the time of trial,
2'
5"
28 Complaint far Damages

23. As a further legal result of the tortuous misconduct of defendants, and each ofthem, 2 Plaintiff suffered loss of earnings and earning capacity, in the past, present and future, in an amount 3 that.wil l be demonstrated.at trial according to proof. 4 24. Upon compliance with Code ofCivil Procedure section 998, Plaintiff will seek art award S
of prejudgmeiat interest and costs as to any non-governmental entities, pursuant to California Civil 6 Code§ 3291, in a sum according; to. proof,
7 25. As a further legal result of theforegoirtg,, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer pain, anxiety, emotional distress, and other general damages, in a sum within the jurisdiction: of this 10 court and according to proof at time. of trial..
11 PLMNTIFF S THIRD CAusrs, OF ACTION AGAINST THE MY OF SANTA ANA 12 ONLY { Veh, C. § 17001.)
13 26. Plaintiff incorporates by this reforence all allegations. in Paragraphs I through 25 of this 14 complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
1 16 27. At the tines, places and iz the.manner as aforesaid, CR;ISTAL GUTIERREZ 17 operated the motor vehicle entrusted to her 6y the CITY OF SANTA AMA in a manner that 18 was negligent or wrongful iurd while DRIVER was aching within the course and. scope ofher 1)
20 employment with a public entity. Asa result of CRI.STAL GUTII RRF7' s negligent or wrongful acts, 21 as aforesaid, Plaintiff was caused to suffer severe and serious personal injuries and related damages, as

22. 23
aforesaid.
24 28. As a direct and proximate result ofthe negligence of defendants, and each of them, 25 26
27 6
28 C.omplaint for Damages
I
Plaintiff JODI T14ORN was hurt and injured in her health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to 2 her nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff`great 3 naerrtl; physical, and nervous pain and suffering. As a result of such injuries} Plaintiff has suffered 4 general damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional miniaiuna of this Court.

29. As a legal result of defendants' tortious misconduct, as aforesaid, Plaintiff JODI THORN 6 has had to employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons,. nurses, and other professional 7 services, and.said.Plaintiff was compelled to incur expenses for ambulance, medicines, x-rays and 9 other medical supplies and. services. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that further 10 services ofthat nature will be required by Plaintiff for an unpredictable period in the future, all to l 1 Plaintiffs damage, in a sutra. according; to proof at the time of trial, 12 30. As a further result ofthe tortious misconduct of defendants, Plaintiff JODI THORN' S 13 property was damaged and destroyed, and said Plaintiff lost the use of same, all to Plaintiff' s damage, 14 in a sum. according to proof at the time of trial.
15 l 6
31, As a further legal result of the tortious misconduct of defendants; and each of them, 17 Plaintiff suffered loss of earnings and earning capacity, in the past, present and future, in an amount 18 that will be demonstrated at trial according to proof. 19 32, Upon compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section. 998, Plaintiff will :seek. an award 20 ofprejudgment interest and costs as to any non-governmental entities, pursuant to California.Civil

21. Code§ 3291, in a sum according. to proof.
22 33. As a further legal result of the ' oiegoing,. Plaintiff suffered. and will continue to suffer 23 24 pain, anxiety, emotional distress; and other general damages, in a sum within the jurisdiction of this 25 court and according to proofat the time oftrial.
26 PLAINTIFF' S FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
27 7-
28 Complaint for Darna.ges

AGAINST OTHER ACTORS ONLY
2 Negliigence)
3 4

34. Plaintiff incorporates by this deference all allegations in Paragraphs l through 3 of this 5 Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
6 35.. At the times and places as aforesaid, Dues 75- 100 were persons and entities who are Dot 7 governmental entities and/ or employees of governmental entities.. g
9 36, Said. defendants negligently and carelessly engaged in activities; owned and controlled 10 instrumentalities; and, otherwise caused or contributed to the collision, and thereby caused plaintiff to 11 suffer personal injuries. and related damages.
12 37, As a. direct and pr4imate, result ofthe negligence of defendants, and each of then`, 13 Plaintiff JODI THORN was hurt and injured in her health, strcagth, and activity; sustaining injury to 14 her nervous system and person, all ofwhich injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great 15 mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering, its a result of such injuries, Plaintiff has suffered 16 17 general damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, IS 3& As a legal, result of defczxdants' tortious misconduct, as aforesaid, Plaintiff JODI THORN 19 has had to employ the services ofhospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other professional 20 services; and said Plaintiff was compelled to incur expenses for ambulance, medicines, x-rays and. 21 other medical supplies and services. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that further 22 services ofthat nature will be required by Plaintiff for an unpredictable period in the future, all to 23 Plaintiff s damage; in a sum according to proof at the time of trial. 24 25 39. As a.funhor'result.ofthe tortiotis misconduct ofdefendants, PlaintiffJODI.TffORNIS 26'
2'7°
2$ Complaint for Damages
1 property was damaged and destroyed, and said Plaintiff last flit; use of same, all to Plaintiff' s damage, 2 in a sum According to proof at the time of trial,
3 40. As. a further legal result ofthe tortious misconduct of defendants, and each of them, 4 Plaintiff suffered loss of earnings and earning capacity, in the past, present and future, in are. amount S
that will be demonstrated at trial according to proof,
6 41. Upon compliance with Cole ofCivil ProceAre section 998, Plaintiffwill seek an award 7 of prejudgment interest and costs as to any non-governmental. entities, pursuant to California Civil 9 Code § 329t, in a sum according to proof.
10 42. As a further legal result ofthe foregoing, l' laintiff' sttff&ed and will continue to suffer 11 pain, anxiety, emotional distress, and other general damages, in a sum.within the jurisdiction ofthis 12 court and according to proof at the time of trial.
13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff gays for recovery of damages from: Defendants, and each of them, as 14 follows;
is
16 L. For general, non- economic damages in an amount in within the jurisdiction of this court; 17 and to be proven at trial,
18 2. For medical and related expenses, according to proof in an amount to be shown at the time 19 of trial,
20 3. For property damages and losses, and.last use of same; 1 4. For lost wages and diminished, earning capacity,
22 5: Costs of suit, which costs shall include recovery of expert winless fees ( from all 23 24 . defendants) and. prejudgment interest( from all defendants but the public entities) 25 6. . ny other and further relief that the Court considers proper,: and, 26 7. Plaintiff hereby demands ajury trial.
27 28 Complaint for Damages

1. 2
DATED, Februajy 16, 2024 RIZIO LIPINSK Y LAW FIRM PC
3 By.
4 RREN .( ZLl.

Plaintiff
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 Complaint for Damages
Becerra, Alexis
From: Jackie Angel Investor <
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 7: 38 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Vazquez, Benjamin
Subject: Information for the following EXISTING LITIGATION Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
Personnel Board Regular Meeting
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Regular Meeting of the Personnel Board for September 25, 2025, is canceled.

In June 2025, a $ 7. 4 billion settlement was approved by 50 states and other territories. for the following EXISTING LITIGATION, City of Santa Ana involvement - FYI.

D. In re: Purdue Pharma L. P. et al., United States Bankruptcy Court ( S. D. NY) Case No. 19- 23649 ( SHL) E. In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, United States District Court Case No. 1: 17- and- 2804 ( MDL No. 2804)
Purdue Pharma L. P. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts was a landmark case where the state of Massachusetts sued Purdue Pharma for allegedly deceiving the public about the risks of its opioid OxyContin, leading to illness and death within the state. The lawsuit was part of a larger national effort to hold Purdue and the Sackler family accountable for their role in the opioid epidemic, but it became entangled in the complex legal and financial battles surrounding Purdue' s bankruptcy proceedings and the Sacklers' efforts to seek protection from further lawsuits.

Key Aspects of the Case:

Allegations: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts alleged that Purdue Pharma executives engaged in deceptive marketing practices by making false representations about OxyContin' s addictive properties, leading to increased opioid use, overdose, and death in Massachusetts.

Settlements: The case was part of a broader push for a large settlement with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family to fund opioid treatment and prevention programs across the country. In June 2025, a $ 7. 4 billion settlement was approved by 50 states and other territories. https:// santa- ana. primegov. com/ Portal/ Meeting? meetingTemplateId= 23973 1 Becerra, Alexis
From: Jackie Angel Investor <
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 8: 04 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Vazquez, Benjamin
Subject: Sums carried forward Grand Total $ 398, 593, 527 !!! Attachments: Sums carried forward. PNG
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Did you see the astronomical amounts left in the
List of Requests to Carryover Unspent Appropriations by Fund FY24- 25 Balances to FY25- 26
As of July 31, 2025?? Insane.

List of Requests to Carryover Unspent
Appropriations by Fund
FY24- 25 Balances to FY25- 26
As of July 31, 2025
Department Sum of Carry Forward
City Attorney 485, 000
City Manager 2, 153, 550
Community Development 34, 040, 386
Finance 470, 172
Fire & Emergency Medical Services 4, 547, 022
Human Resources 390, 260
Information Technology 3, 587, 817
Library 32, 396, 417
Non- Departmental 14, 165, 980
Parks & Recreation 40, 436, 740
Planning & Building 2, 126, 323
Police 10, 376, 255
Public Works 253, 417, 604
Grand Total 398, 593, 526
i
m@pQ@
2GmgRk R
r
Ag §
2 )
Kk \ § §
q2 $
2 ® ¢
TP
rn
e14
mm
6m
k
E !
IC {
r
k
2 «
3 7 —
c \
Eit
2 ME !
2 /
9 '
E
ffk2 `
g #
uuuTLE2 _ ' £
E
cLQJ
Becerra, Alexis
From: Jackie Angel Investor <
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 10: 01 AM
To: eComment
Cc: Vazquez, Benjamin
Subject: SAPOA AUP Final 7. 30. 25 Santa Ana Police Officers' Association Trust Fund January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023
Attachments: SAPOA AUP Final 7. 30. 25- cl- cl. pdf; Summons and Complaint ( SAPOA v City 30- 2021- 01230134). pdf; Summons and Complaint ( SAPOA- Serrano v City 30- 2021- 01230129). pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Santa Ana Police Department fired here and served with a restraining order. JC Independent Accountants' Report on Agreed Upon Procedures for the Santa Ana Police Officers' Association Trust Fund January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023 ( attached) Summons and Complaint ( SAPOA v City 30- 2021- 01230134). pdf SANTA ANA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION and DOE OFFICERS VS. CITY OF SANTA ANA ( attached)
SANTA ANA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION; GERRY SERRANO VS. CITY OF SANTA ANA ( attached) The City makes monthly Trust contributions. We obtained from the City a Trust payment detail, which listed all payments made to the Trust for the period under review and compared 100% of the payments made by the City to the documentation on file with the Association. Next, we traced the transfers and their amounts to deposits listed on the bank statements and general ledger.

Investment Balances and Transactions 9. Per the general ledger, we identified the checking account amounts that were paid to Charles Schwab. We compared those amounts to payments made per the checking account bank statements. We also compared those amounts to the deposits recorded in the Trust' s Charles Schwab brokerage accounts. Results: We noted no payments were made to Charles Schwab during the year.

A summary of the investments held is as follows:

Charles Schwab
Cash 45, 511
Fixed Income 2, 304, 062
Alternative/ Sector Investments 743, 658
Equities 3, 203, 272
Total $ 6, 296, 503
Results: For the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2023, and ending December 31, 2023, there is excess fund balance in the amount of$ 3, 426, 054 ( see Attachment 1B).

Excess Fund Balance 12. Per Section 5 of the Agreement, the Association must return to the City any excess fund balance being held in the trust as of December 31. Excess fund balance is defined as any amount that exceeds four-times the total insurance premiums minus the employees' share of the premium contribution paid for the month of December for the year just ended. Once the excess fund balance is determined for the 1 prior calendar year, the City shall reduce its monthly contribution for the next six months by one- sixth of the excess fund balance. The application of these reductions for excess fund balance will begin to occur 30 days after completion of the final audit report.

Other Matters As an additional matter, we noted that the Trust Fund operated at a deficit for the year ended December 31, 2023, having disbursed $ 608, 894 in excess of the total receipts received for the period. For a health benefits trust fund, sound financial management is essential to ensure long-term sustainability, compliance, and the ability to meet obligations to beneficiaries. The following metrics were considered against industry best practices: 1. Reserve Levels: the generally recommended range of reserve levels is three to six months of average monthly disbursements maintained in reserve. Average monthly disbursements for the Trust are $ 940, 348; based on this calculation, the amount held in reserve by the Trust should range between 2, 821, 044 and $ 5, 642, 088 depending on a number of factors.

Santa Ana Police Association' s Trust Fund Operated In Deficit Despite City Overpaying By Millions, Association Invested Taxpayer Dollars In Brokerage Account
In 2023, the police association' s medical insurance trust fund operated in a deficit despite the city of Santa Ana overpaying by $ 3. 4 million. The association invested taxpayer dollars in securities.

Update 101612025: A revised audit was issued today and the brokerage account has disappeared from the report. Without the brokerage account, the audit now states that there was no overpayment. https.Ilinadvertent.substack.com/ p/ Santa- ana-police-associations-trust z
LS Uo

SANTAANA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON AGREED
JANUARY 1, 2023 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2023

UPON PROCEDURES FOR THE SANTA ANA POLICE

OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION TRUST FUND
Focused
on YOU

SANTA ANA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Independent Accountants' Report
on Agreed Upon Procedures for the
Santa Ana Police Officers'
Association Trust Fund
January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023
LS • •

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

ON APPLYING AGREED- UPON PROCEDURES
To Mr. John Kachirsiky, President
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Santa Ana, California
To the Management of the City of Santa Ana
Santa Ana, California
We have performed the procedures enumerated below on the Santa Ana Police Officers Association hereafter, the Association)' s medical insurance trust fund' s excess fund balance calculation for the year ended December 31, 2023. The Association is responsible for the medical insurance trust fund' s excess fund balance calculation.

The Association has agreed to and acknowledged that the procedures performed are appropriate to meet the intended purpose of calculating and verifying the excess fund balance of the medical insurance trust fund pursuant to the Association' s agreement with the City of Santa Ana ( hereafter, the City) for the year ended December 31, 2023. This report may not be suitable for any other purpose. The procedures performed may not address all the items of interest to a user of this report and may not meet the needs of all users of this report and, as such, users are responsible for determining whether the procedures performed are appropriate for their purposes.

The procedures performed and the associated findings are as follows:

Health Plan Agreement

1. We obtained a copy of the Agreement between the City and the Association, which establishes a medical insurance trust fund ( hereafter, the Trust) for employees of the bargaining unit. We summarized the significant terms of the Agreement. We also obtained an understanding of the role of a third party to administer the Trust on behalf of the Association.

Results: Under the terms of the Agreement, the Association must maintain a Trust for the sole purpose of providing and administering health, dental, and long- term disability plans, which may include medical prescriptions, vision care, and/ or long- term disability insurance for employees in the bargaining unit.

Employees contribute toward the cost of health plan premiums at amounts determined by the Association. In addition, the City makes monthly contributions to the Trust based on the number of actively employed enrollee members in the bargaining unit. All costs of providing and administering the Trust' s health benefit plans are the sole responsibility of the Association. The City' s contributions may be used to cover administrative costs of the program up to the maximum amount stipulated in the Agreement. The Association has designated Union First Solutions as the third- party administrator of the Trust.

Internal Controls

2. We inquired with medical insurance trustee personnel and obtained an understanding of the accounting procedures used by the trustee to administer the Trust. We reviewed these procedures, which included bank reconciliations, cash receipts and cash disbursements transactions for health care benefits, for any significant internal control weaknesses.

Results: No exceptions were identified as a result of applying this procedure.

PrimeGlobal nn""
A` °°°"°' ° ry
d& cmnrigg Pima
LSL:*: ::

To the Board of Directors
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Santa Ana, California
Summary of Trust Receipts and Disbursements

3. We obtained the Trust' s checking and investment account statements prepared by the trustee for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. We reviewed the source documents for each receipt and disbursement on the worksheets. Based on our review of the monthly worksheets and source documents, we prepared an annual summary of the Trust' s receipts and disbursements, including a reconciliation to the Trust' s checking and investment account balances.

We obtained copies of all checks deposited to the Trust. Per review of the checks deposited to the Trust, we categorized each cash receipt into one of the following categories:

Medical and dental
Retiree health
Long-term disability
Interbank transfers
Interest income
Per review of the monthly bank statements and review of the cancelled checks, we categorized each cash disbursement into one of the following categories:

Health Related:
o
Insurance Premiums ( medical, dental, vision, long- term disability, and life) o Health and wellness screening
o Exercise equipment and other
Non- Health Related:
o Administrative fees
o Bank service fees
o Audit, legal, and other charges
For each month, we determined the Trust' s total ending balance by obtaining the monthly investment account statements for the Trust's Charles Schwab brokerage account. We added those balances to the ending balance of the checking account to arrive at the total balance of the Trust.

Results: The Summary of Receipts and Disbursements is included as Attachment 1A on page 7.

General Ledger, Receipts and Disbursements

4. The City makes monthly Trust contributions. We obtained from the City a Trust payment detail, which listed all payments made to the Trust for the period under review and compared 100% of the payments made by the City to the documentation on file with the Association. Next, we traced the transfers and their amounts to deposits listed on the bank statements and general ledger.

Results: The attached Summary of Receipts and Disbursements, which is based on the bank statements and general ledger, reflects twelve months of 2023 receipts. As part of the test work on the Summary of Receipts and Disbursements, we reviewed the supporting documentation for each cash receipt to determine which receipt type to classify it in. During our review, we noted that all receipts and disbursements were supported by appropriate documentation.
2 LSL:*: ::

To the Board of Directors
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Santa Ana, California

6. As part of our process to prepare the Summary of Receipts and Disbursements, we examined all disbursements made from the Trust' s checking accounts to determine that disbursements were for the sole purpose of providing and administering health, dental, and long- term disability plans, which may include medical prescriptions, vision care, and/ or long- term disability insurance for employees in the bargaining unit.

Per Section 9 of the Agreement, the " use of City contributions to cover administrative costs of the program shall not exceed $ 50, 000 during calendar year 2023. Each calendar year thereafter, the maximum amount of administrative costs funded using City contributions will be adjusted by an annual percentage in the Medical Care Services CPI..." We compared total administrative costs per our Summary of Receipts and Disbursements to the allowable limit per the Agreement.

Results: We reviewed the applicable Consumer Price Index ( CPI) table from the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The total allowable administrative costs for 2023 was $ 50, 000, and actual administrative costs totaled $ 28, 775. No exceptions were identified as a result of applying this procedure.

7. We obtained the Trust' s monthly checking account bank statements and their corresponding monthly bank reconciliations for the Trust' s checking account with Pacific Premier Bank for the period January 2023 through December 2023 and performed the following procedures:

Compared the ending bank reconciliation balance to the Trust' s general ledger.

Compared the cash balance to the bank statement.

Determined that bank reconciliations were prepared in a timely manner and reviewed appropriately.

Compared outstanding checks to the subsequent month' s bank statement.

Verified that monthly interest earned per the bank statements was recorded to the corresponding month' s general ledger.

Results: We noted that all bank statements were reconciled timely, were properly reviewed and approved, and were reconciled properly.

Eligibility for Benefits

8. We obtained from the City the December 2023 list of current employees of the bargaining unit. We judgmentally selected 30 individuals from the various invoices submitted by the insurance providers and compared the names of the selected individuals to the City' s December 2023 list to verify that the individuals selected were eligible to receive benefits from the trust.

Results: We noted all individuals tested were eligible to receive benefits from the trust.

Investment Balances and Transactions

9. Per the general ledger, we identified the checking account amounts that were paid to Charles Schwab. We compared those amounts to payments made per the checking account bank statements. We also compared those amounts to the deposits recorded in the Trust' s Charles Schwab brokerage accounts.

Results: We noted no payments were made to Charles Schwab during the year. 3 LSL:*: ::

To the Board of Directors
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Santa Ana, California

10. We obtained the monthly Charles Schwab account statements for the period under review. We reviewed the statements and prepared a schedule summarizing the debits ( reductions) and credits ( additions) that exceeded $ 5, 000 in the Charles Schwab account. For each debit and credit that exceeded $ 5, 000, we ascertained if the debit and credit appeared reasonable by reviewing the statements and investigating unusual items.

Results: We noted a number of debits and credits exceeding $ 5, 000 during the year. These were for reasonable investment transactions relating to purchases of various securities. No unusual transactions were noted for the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.

11. Section 5 of the Agreement states that the Association will be responsible for ensuring that best investment practices are used in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations when investing the Trust' s funds.

We requested and obtained a copy of the most recent version of the Association' s investment policy. We also obtained the December 2023 Charles Schwab account statement and identified the types of investments held per its " Investment Detail."
Results: As of December 31, 2023, the Association held investments with Charles Schwab in a brokerage account. We inspected a copy of the investment policy statement of the Association' s Trust adopted on June 13, 2024, identifying the following allowable allocations targets:

Equity portfolio: 46%
o U. S. Equities— Large Cap: 7% - 13%
o U. S. Equities— Mid Cap: 7% - 13%
o U. S. Equities— Small Cap: 7% - 13%
o Non- U. S. Large Stocks— Developed Countries: 3% - 7% o Non- U. S. Small Stocks— Developed Countries: 3% - 7% o Non- U. S. Stocks— Emerging Markets: 2% - 6%
Fixed income portfolio: 36%
o U. S. Intermediate Term Taxable Bonds: 0% - 29%
o U. S. Short Term Taxable Bonds: 0% - 29%
Alternative/ sector investments portfolio: 17. 5%
o U. S. Real Estate Securities/ REITS: 7% - 13%
o Commodities: 5% - 11%
o Absolute Return: 5% - 9%
Cash: 0. 5%
o Money Market Funds: 0% - 5%
A summary of the investments held is as follows:

Charles Total of
Schwab Investments
Cash 45, 511 0. 7%
Fixed Income 2, 304, 062 36. 6%
Alternative/ Sector Investments 743, 658 11. 8%
Equities 3, 203, 272 50. 9%
6, 296, 503 100. 0%
4 LSL:*: ::

To the Board of Directors
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Santa Ana, California
Excess Fund Balance

12. Per Section 5 of the Agreement, the Association must return to the City any excess fund balance being held in the trust as of December 31. Excess fund balance is defined as any amount that exceeds four-times the total insurance premiums minus the employees' share of the premium contribution paid for the month of December for the year just ended. Once the excess fund balance is determined for the prior calendar year, the City shall reduce its monthly contribution for the next six months by one- sixth of the excess fund balance.

The application of these reductions for excess fund balance will begin to occur 30 days after completion of the final audit report.

The final Association Trust Fund Calculation of Excess Fund Balance is documented in Attachment 1 B.

We tested the calculation for mathematical accuracy. We compared the trust balance to the Summary of Receipts and Disbursements ( Attachment 1A).

We compared the total insurance premiums to copies of insurance invoices and verified that they pertained to insurance coverage for the month of December 2023.

We compared the payroll deductions to documentation provided by the City and verified that amounts pertained to December 2023 insurance coverage ( amounts withheld in November 2023, pay periods 22 and 23).

We reconciled the supporting documents used in the calculation to the general ledger, and to the Summary of Receipts and Disbursements.

Results: For the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2023, and ending December 31, 2023, there is excess fund balance in the amount of$ 3, 426, 054 ( see Attachment 1 B).

We were engaged by the Association to perform this agreed- upon procedures engagement and conducted our engagement in accordance with attestation standards established by the AICPA. We were not engaged to and did not conduct an examination or review engagement, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion or conclusion, respectively, on the medical insurance trust fund' s excess fund balance calculation for the year ended December 31, 2023. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion or conclusion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.

We are required to be independent of the Association and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements related to our agreed- upon procedures engagement.

1. Reserve Levels: the generally recommended range of reserve levels is three to six months of average monthly disbursements maintained in reserve. Average monthly disbursements for the Trust are $ 940, 348; based on this calculation, the amount held in reserve by the Trust should range between $ 2, 821, 044 and 5, 642, 088 depending on a number of factors.

Plan size and volatility: larger, more stable plans may need less reserves; Self- insured vs. fully insured: self- insured plans require higher reserves due to claims volatility; Industry variability: plans covering industries with fluctuating employment may need higher reserves; and Collective bargaining timelines: longer contract periods may justify higher reserves early on. 5 LSL:*: ::

To the Board of Directors
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Santa Ana, California

2. Operating Margins: This is a key indicator of financial health. The healthy range of operating margins for trustbased health plans is generally considered to be 1% to 5%. Margins below 1% indicate financial stress, while margins above 5% suggest underutilization of funds or overcharging. The Trust' s operating margin is - 11%, as calculated as the difference between Contributions from the City of Santa Ana ($ 10, 145, 241) less Health Related Expenses ($ 11, 223, 059) divided by Contributions. These negative margins have required the Trust to maintain significant reserves and investments in order to fund benefits for participants.

This information is presented to provide further context regarding the financial activity of the Trust Fund and was not a subject of the agreed- upon procedures described above. Our procedures were not designed to address the causes or future implications of this deficit, and accordingly, we do not provide any opinion or conclusion thereon.

LS L_ J L_ L_ P
Irvine, California
July 29, 2025
6 MEDICAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND
Summary of Receipts and Disbursements
January 1, 2023 Through December 31, 2023
January February March April May June
A. Opening Balance- Checking Account 850, 909 $ 915, 455 $ 893, 426 $ 386, 140 $ 372, 436 $ 335, 076

RECEIPTS
City of Santa Ana
Medical and dental 750, 728 713, 191 675,655 710, 325 713, 149 711, 801 Retiree health 95, 856 100, 026 103, 111 102, 031 102, 072 102, 604 Long- term disability 32, 868 32, 808 32, 901 32, 736 32, 835 32, 703 Other
Interbank transfers 30, 000 500, 000
Interest Income 2 1 5 4 5 5
B. Total Receipts 909, 454 846, 026 1, 311, 672 845, 096 848, 061 847, 113

DISBURSEMENTS
Health related
Insurance Premiums:

Medical, dental, and vision 813, 254 843, 479 1, 687, 579 834, 078 846, 546 843, 889 LTD insurance 20,583 20, 706 20,583 20, 501 20,542 20, 542 Life insurance 2, 399 2, 394 2, 413 2, 409 2, 394 2, 394 Health and wellness screening 106,250
Exercise equipment and other
Total health related 836, 236 866, 579 1, 816, 825 856, 988 869, 482 866, 825 Non- health related
Administrative fee 1, 170 1, 474 1, 691 1, 810 9, 810 1, 810 Bank service fees 2 2 2 2 2 2
Audit, legal, and other charges 7, 500 440 6, 127
Total non- health related 8, 672 1, 476 2, 133 1, 812 15, 939 1, 812 C. Total Disbursements 844,908 868,055 1, 818, 958 858,800 885,421 868,637 D. Monthly Total/ Net Monthly Activity=( B)-( C) 64,546 22, 029) 507,286) 13, 704) 37, 360) 21, 524) E. Ending Balance- Checking Account=( A)+( D) $ 915,455 $ 893,426 $ 386, 140 $ 372, 436 $ 335,076 $ 313, 552

TOTAL CASH& INVESTMENTS
F. Checking account:

Pacific Premier Bank 915, 455 $ 893, 426 $ 386, 140 $ 372, 436 $ 335, 076 $ 313, 552 G. Charles Schwab Brokerage Account 5, 952, 993 5, 788, 975 5, 852, 468 5, 867, 484 5, 769, 918 5, 959, 032 Trust Total Balance=( F)+( G) 6, 868, 448 $ 6, 682, 401 $ 6, 238, 608 $ 6, 239, 920 $ 6, 104, 994 $ 6, 272, 584 7 ATTACHMENT 1A
July August September October November December Totals
313, 552 $ 1, 175, 338 $ 280, 911 $ 278, 511 $ 252, 702 $ 241, 837 $ 850, 909 749,218 706,476 740,919 745,446 744,692 739,410 8, 701, 010 104, 585 68, 136 67, 883 68, 428 68, 826 68, 330 1, 051, 888 32, 769 32, 703 32, 439 32, 439 32, 637 32, 505 392, 343 530, 000
3 3 3 3 4 3 41
886, 575 807, 318 841, 244 846, 316 846, 159 840, 248 10, 675, 282 1, 663, 511 819, 101 833, 929 827, 887 814, 677 10, 827, 930 20,583 20,419 20,501 20,624 20,255 20,296 246, 135
2, 394 2, 403 2, 380 2, 380 2, 399 2, 385 28, 744
106,250
14, 000 14, 000
22, 977 1, 686, 333 841, 982 870, 933 850, 541 837, 358 11, 223, 059 1, 410 1, 410 1, 660 3, 820 2, 710 28,775
2 2 2 2 2 2 24
400 14, 000 1, 190 2, 661 32, 318
1, 812 15, 412 1, 662 1, 192 6, 483 2, 712 61, 117
24,789 1, 701, 745 843,644 872, 125 857,024 840,070 11, 284, 176 861, 786 894, 427) 2, 400) 25, 809) 10, 865) 178 608,894) 1, 175,338 $ 280,911 $ 278,511 $ 252, 702 $ 241, 837 $ 242,015 $ 242, 015 1, 175, 338 $ 280, 911 $ 278, 511 $ 252, 702 $ 241, 837 $ 242, 015 $ 242, 015 6, 102, 437 5, 992, 099 5, 775, 911 5, 666, 906 6, 015, 215 6, 296, 503 6, 296, 503 7, 277, 775 $ 6, 273, 010 $ 6, 054, 422 $ 5, 919, 608 $ 6, 257, 052 $ 6, 538, 518 $ 6, 538, 518 MEDICAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND ATTACHMENT 1B
Calculation of Excess Fund Balance
As of December 31, 2023
Trust balance:

Checking account- Pacific Premier Bank 242, 015
Brokerage Account- Charles Schwab 6, 296, 503
Trust balance as of December 31, cash basis 6, 538, 518 Total insurance premiums ( December coverage):

Medical, dental, and vision 814, 677
Long- term disability 20, 296
Life insurance 2, 385
Total insurance premiums ( December coverage) 837, 358
Employees' share of premiums contribution ( December coverage):

Payroll deductions- medical 44, 402)
Payroll deductions- dental 10, 996)
Payroll deductions- vision 3, 844)
Total employees' share of premiums contribution ( December coverage) 59, 242) Total insurance premiums, net 778, 116
Times 4 4
4 x total insurance premiums, net 3, 112, 464
Excess trust fund balance 3, 426, 054
9 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 11/ 08/ 2021 08: 00: 00 AM. 30- 2U21- 01 230 1 34- CU- WT- CJC- RDA# J4- DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Jessica Duarte, Deputy 100 lJ 1Yl1Yi V N s

FOR COURT USE ONLY

SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)

CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:

AVlSO AL DEMANDADO):

DAVID VALENTIN, Chief of Police for City of Santa Ana,- See Additional Party Attachment COUNCIL C
DES jai'- 1 Am9-.594
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:

LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):

Santa Ana Police Officers Association and Does Officers NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center( www.courtinfo.ca.gov/seifhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible far free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site( wwwJawheipcalifornia. org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center www.courtinfa. ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien fur waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of$ 10, 000 or more in a civil case. The court" s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.

IAVISO! La han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la torte puede decidir an su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacidn a continuation.

Tiene 30 DlAS DE CALENDARIO despues de qua le entreguen esta citation y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta par escrito an esta carte y hater qua se entregue una copia al demandante. Una Carta a una flamada felefanica no to protegen. Su respuesta par escrito tiene que estar an formato legal con-ecto si desea que procesen su caso an la torte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar pare su respuesta.

Puede encontrar estos fornmiarias de la torte y mas information en el Centro de Ayuda de las Callas de California( www.sucorte. ca. gov), en la biblioteca de! eyes de su condado a en la carte que le quede mas Carta. Si no puede pagar la copra de presentation, pida a/ secretario de le torte que le de un formulado de exencion de pago de cuofas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso par incumplimlento y la carte le pods quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.

Nay otros requisifos legales. Es recomendable que! lame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos pars obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupps sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, www. lawhelpcalifornia. org), an el Centro de Ayuda de las Cores de Califomia, ( www. sucorte. ca. gov) a ponfendose an contacto con la Cate o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Parley, la carte time derecha a reclamar las cuotas y las costos exentos per imponer un gravamen sabre cualquier recuperation de$ 10, 000 6 mas de valor recibide mediante un acuerdo o una conceslon de arbitraje an un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la carte antes de que la code pueda desechar el caso.

The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMBER:

El nombre y
direction de la Corte es):

Numero der caso):

Orange County Superior Court
3p- 2021- 0123013A- CU- WT- CJC
700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Judge Glenn Salter The name, address, and telephone number Of plaintiffs attomey, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:

El nombre, la direction y el ntimero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tene abogado, es):

Corey W. Glave Attorney at Law 632 S. Gertruda Ave, Redondo Beach CA 90277 ( 323) 547- 0472 Jessica Duarte
DATE: 11108. l2021 LIAVIO H. YAMASAKI. Glerkofthe Court Clerk, by Deputy Fecha) Secretario) Adjunto)
For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons ( form POS- 010).) Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, ( POS-010)).

JS Ai I NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served

1. as an individual defendant.

2. as the person sued under the fictitious name of( specify):

3. [ M on behalf of( specify): C- r O-Q- AV4
under. CCP 416. 10( corporation) CCP 416, 60 ( minor)
CCP 416. 20( defunct corporation) CCP 416. 70( conservatee) CCP 416. 40( association or partnership) CCP 416. 90 ( authorized person) 91 other( specify): J- t&t 5"D GG IP

4. by personal delivery on ( date): j-Z z-Y2C`/ y
Pa e i of 1
Fonn Adopted for Mandatory Use SUMMONS American Le alNet Inc. Code of OnA Procedure§§ 412. 20, 465 Judicial [
ReV- July i, 2009]
of
SUM- 400( Rev. Celifom9 www.Forms Work l,ow.com
www. covrtr'nro. ca.gov
SUM- 200 A
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:

Santa Ana POAIDoe Officers v. City of Santa Ana, et al
30- 2021. 01230134- CU- WT• CJC

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE
1 This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons. i If this attachment is used, insert the following statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: " Additional Parties Attachment form is attached."
List additional parties ( Check only one box. Use a separate page for each type of party.}:

Plaintiff ® Defendant Cross- Complainant Cross- Defendant SONIA CARVALHO, City Attorney for City of Santa Ana; KRISTINE RIDGE, City Manager for City of Santa Ana; CITY OF SANTA ANA, a Municipal Corporation; SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT, a public safety department; SANTA ANA CITY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE; DOES I- X, inclusive
Page of

Page 1 ends

F rm Adopted
Judicial C uunc uncH Mandatory oFCaliforniaUseADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT SUM- 200(A)( Rev. January 1, 20071 Attachment to Summons American LegaiNet, Inc,
www. FormsWDrffflow.com
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 11108/ 2021 08: 00: 00 AM. 30- 202 - 01230134- CU- WT- CJC - ROA# 2- DAVID H: YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Jessica Duarte, Deputy Cl rk. 1 COREY W. GLAVE ( State Bar No. 164746)
Attorney at Law
2 632 S. Gertruda Ave
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
3 Phone: ( 323) 547- 0472
POAattorney@aol. com
4 5 ' Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Santa Ana Police Officers Assoc.
6 and Doe Officers
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE- CENTRAL
9 10 AsOgmedroll Puwpoms Judge Glenn Salter
SANTA ANA POLICE OFFICERS Case 30- 2021- 0 123si34- CU- WT- cJc 11 ASSOCIATION and DOE OFFICERS }

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
12 Plaintiffs, RELIEF
13 vs. 1. VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE
832, ET SEQ. ( Release of
14 DAVID VALENTIN, Chief of Police for Confidential Information); City of Santa Ana; SONIA CARVALHO, 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE; 15 City Attorney for City of Santa Ana; 3. VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE KRISTINE RIDGE, City Manager for 3 832. 5- 832. 7 ( Failure to 16 City of Santa Ana; CITY OF SANTA } Investigate)
ANA, a Municipal Corporation; SANTA } 4. VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT 17 ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT, a public ) CODE § 3500, ET SEQ. safety department; SANTA ANA CITY )
18 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; DOES I- X,
inclusive
1 Defendants.
20 21
22 COMES NOW, PLAINTIFFS SANTA ANA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 23 AND DOE OFFICERS, and allege as follows:
24 25 VENUE AND JURISDICTION
26 1. Venue is proper in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the 27 County of Orange in that the underlying acts, omissions, injuries and related facts and 28 circumstances giving rise to the present action occurred in the City of Santa Ana, , 1 COMPLAINT
r
I County of Orange, California. This Court has jurisdiction over the present matter 2 because, as delineated within this complaint, the nature of the claims and amount in 3 controversy meet the requirements of jurisdiction in the Superior Court. This Court is 4 empowered with initial jurisdiction to entertain suits brought pursuant to traditional 5 mandamus action.
6 2. Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all non- mandamus relief. 7 3. Plaintiffs have exhausted all his/ her// its administrative remedies, and/ or 8 exhaustion would be futile under Briley v. City of West Convina ( 2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 9 119, as there is no ability to challenge the actions of Defendants in this case; therefore 10 Plaintiffs assert that he/she/they have exhausted all administrative remedies required of 11 him/ them.
12 4. Plaintiff timely and properly filed a Notice of Government Tort Claims with 13 the City of Santa Ana for the action described herein, and said claim was rejected on or 14 about June 15, 2021, without objections or claims of insufficiency. 15 PARTIES
16 5. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff SANTA ANA POLICE OFFICERS 17 ASSOCIATION ( hereinafter " POA, " Association," or collectively, with Doe Officers, 18 referred to as " Plaintiffs") was and is the recognized employee organization consisting 19 of all non- management Santa Ana Police Department employees. Its primary purpose 20 is the representation of its members, including Doe Officers in their employment 21 relations with the Santa Ana Police Department and the City of Santa Ana, The POA 22 brings this action on behalf of itself and Doe Officers and all similarly situated 23 employees of the Santa Ana Police Department.
24 6. Plaintiff Doe Officers are employed by the Santa Ana Police Department 25 as a sworn, full time police officer for the City of Santa Ana, Santa Ana Police 26 Department and as such were and are to be afforded all of the rights under Penal Code 27 §§ 832. 5- 832. 8 and/ or Evidence Code §§ 1043- 1046, state law, City and/ or Police 28 Department resolution, policy and past practice. The true identity of the does officers is 2 COMPLAINT
1 known by Defendants, but is being withheld pursuant to Penal Code §§ 832. 5- 832. 8, 2 Evidence Code §§ 1043- 1046.
3 7, Defendant David Valentin is the current Chief of Police for the City of 4 Santa Ana and is charged with the supervision, management of confidential peace 5 officer files and management of personnel, including personnel investigations and 6 discipline of employees of the Santa Ana Police Department. Plaintiffs have 7 information and belief that Valentin participated, supervised and/or was actively 8 involved in the incident giving rise to this Complaint. 9 8. Sonia Carvalho is a per se employee of the City of Santa Ana and acts as 10 the City Attorney for the City of Santa Ana. Plaintiffs have information and belief that 11 Carvalho directly participated, supervised and/ or was actively involved in the incident 12 giving rise to this Complaint, and took actions, versus provided legal advice, that cause 13 the confidential records to be disclosed.
14 9. Defendant Kristin Ridge is the current City Manager for the City of Santa 15 Ana and is charged with the supervision and management of department heads, 16 including Defendant Valentin. Plaintiffs have information and belief that Defendant 17 Ridge participated, supervised and/ or was actively involved in the incident giving rise to 18 this Complaint including the failure to investigate allegations of misconduct against 19 Defendant Valentin.
20 10. Defendant, City of Santa Ana, is a Municipal Corporation existing under 21 the Constitution and the laws of the State of California. The City of Santa Ana, via state 22 law, resolution, policy and past practice, has afforded sworn members of the Santa Ana 23 Police Department with the same rights as afforded to sworn peace officers under 24 Government Code § 3300, et seq., and Penal Code §§ 832. 5- 832. 8. 25 11. Defendant, Santa Ana Police Department, is a public safety department of 26 the City of Santa Ana and maintains confidential peace officer personnel 27 information/ materials.
28 12. Defendant City of Santa Ana City Attorney' s office is a department of the 3 COMPLAINT
1 City of Santa Ana and employees attorneys as employees of the City. Plaintiffs have 2 information and belief that the City Attorney's office participated, supervised and/or was 3 actively involved in the incident giving rise to this Complaint and took actions, versus 4 provided legal advice, that cause confidential records to be disclosed. 5 13. At all times herein mentioned, DOES I- X, inclusive, were the agents, 6 servants and employees of Defendant, City of Santa Ana and/ or Santa Ana Police 7 Department, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the scope of 8 their authority as such agents, servants and employees with the permission and 9 consent of Defendants. Plaintiffs will amend the Complaint to allege true names and 10 capacities of DOES I- X, inclusive when ascertained. 11 FACTS GIVING RISE TO ACTION
12 14. On or about February 25, 2021, a purported reporter with the Voice of OC 13 ( an online nonprofit media source) sent to the City Attorney for the City of Santa Ana 14 and Santa Ana Police Department, Sonia Carvalho, directly, a request for public 15 records seeking, among other things a spreadsheet or breakdown of how many 16 employees at the Santa Ana Police Department have been put on paid administrative 17 leave between 01/ 01/ 2016 and 2125/ 2021. The PRA request included a request for Ms. 18 Carvalho to provide the reasons for the employees being put on paid administrative 19 leave and a breakdown of total costs to the City of Santa Ana incurred by paid 20 administrative leave for Santa Ana Police Department employees between 01/ 01/ 2016 21 and 2/ 25/ 2021.
22 15. On or about March 26, 2021, without prior notice to the involved 23 employees and/ or without complying with Penal Code §§ 832. 5- 832. 8 and/ or Evidence 24 Code § 1043- 1046, the City Attorney's office, the City of Santa Ana, under the 25 supervision of Defendant Ridge and/ or the Santa Ana Police Department, under the 26 supervision of Defendant Valentin, intentionally and purposely produced confidential 27 records from the involved officers' personnel files. It is believed that this disclosure 28 included, but was not limited to the disclosure of data that identified the individual 4 COMPLAINT
1 officers involved; a clear violation of Penal Code § 832. 7( d). 2 16. Defendants Carvalho, Valentin, Ridge, City of Santa Ana and/ or the Santa 3 Ana Police Department are aware that peace officer personnel records are confidential 4 and exempt from disclosure.
5 17. On or about April 21, 2021, Deputy Chief of Police Eric Paulson, on behalf 6 of Defendant Valentin, conceded in a letter to the Voice of OC that confidential peace 7 officer personnel had been produced to the Voice of OC, including, but not limited to 8 the names of the officers in connection with administrative investigations. Deputy Chief 9 Paulson requested that the confidential records be returned. 10 18. Plaintiff are informed and believe, and thereupon allege that after the 11 Voice of OC, on or about April 22, 2021, refused to return the confidential records, 12 Defendants failed to take any action to force the Voice of OC to return the documents. 13 19. On or about April 27, 2021, Defendants started notifying certain of the 14 impacted officers of the unlawful actions by Defendants. The Notification did not advise 15 the impacted employees of what specific information had been released nor provided 16 notification of any rights they may have. The notices also did not indicate if the 17 Defendants would be taking further action to enforce the employees' rights. 18 20. Also on or about April 27, 2021, Deputy Chief Paulson informed the Santa 19 Ana Police Officers Association of the Defendants' unlawful disclosure of confidential 20 peace officer information of members of the Santa Ana Police Officers Association. 21 The notification of Defendants' unlawful action did not identify the POA of the names of 22 the impacted members/officers, but simply stated that the effected employees had been 23 notified.
24 21. As it turned out, when Deputy Chief Paulson claimed, on behalf and 25 presumably at the directions of Defendants, that all effected employees had been 26 notified, the statement was not true and appears to have been an intentional 27 misrepresentation by Defendants to conceal the fact that the notifications to the 28 effected employees had just begun.
5 COMPLAINT
1 22, The Santa Ana Police Officers Association filed a written complaint with 2 the Defendant City Manager Kristine Ridge, and Human Resource Director Jason 3 Motsick requesting that the matter be immediately investigated. Plaintiffs are informed 4 and believe, and thereupon allege that even though the Defendants were required to 5 investigate this matter, as a " citizen complaint" pursuant to Penal Code §§ 832. 5- 832. 7 6 i was filed, Defendants did not investigate nor discipline those city employees 7 responsible for the violations of law.
8 23. Plaintiff has information and belief, and thereupon allege, that Defendants 9 have a policy and/ or practice of not investigating allegations of misconduct against 10 members of police management when the complaints are generated from the POA, its 11 members and/ or legal counsel. Said actions would violate the provisions of Penal Code 12 §§ 832. 5- 832. 8
13 24. To the extent and investigation was conducted, Defendants failed to 14 comply with Penal Code § 832. 7(f)( 1) which requires the department or agency shall 15 provide written notification to the complaining party of the disposition of the complaint 16 within 30 days of the disposition.
17 25. Plaintiff has information and belief, and thereupon allege, that Defendants 18 have a policy and/ or practice of not informing the complaining party of the disposition of 19 complaint investigations with 30 days of said disposition when the complaints are 20 generated from the POA, its members and/ or legal counsel. Said actions would violate 21 the provisions of Penal Code §§ 832. 5- 832. 8
22 26. On or about April 28, 2021, a number of the effected officers and the 23 Santa Ana Police Officers Association, which has a legal right to represent its members 24 in any and all matters related to their employment with the Santa Ana Police 25 Department, requested copies of any and all communications regarding PRA# 21- 289, 26 including all a- mails between representatives of the City, Police Department and/ or 27 Voice of OC and also requested copies of all records that were produced to the Voice 28 of OC and a list of the impacted officers. Defendants, as part of an ongoing plan and 6 COMPLAINT
1 scheme to undermine and interfere with the POA' s ability to represent its members, 2 denied the POA's request for copies of the produced records and list of names of 3 impacted employees. Defendants refused to provide copies of the unlawfully released 4 information and/ or the list of names of the impacted employees. 5 6 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
7 Against All Defendants
8 Violation of Penal Code 832 et seg.
9 27. Plaintiffs, Santa Ana Police Officers Association and Doe Officers, for a 10 First Cause of Action against Defendants Valentin, Carvalho, City of Santa Ana, Santa 11 Ana Police Department, the City Attorney' s office for the City of Santa Ana; and DOES 12 I- X, inclusive, for a Preliminary Injunction, Permanent Injunction, Mandamus Relief 13 and/ or other Extraordinary Relief for violation of Penal Code § 832 et seq., reallege 14 paragraphs 1- 26 above, and further allege:
15 28. Penal Code § 832. 7( a) provides " Except as provided in subdivision ( b), the 16 personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by 17 any state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these 18 1 records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding 19 except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. Said 20 records are also exempt from disclosure as public records under Government Code 21 § 6250, et seq.
22 29. Penal Code § 832. 7( d) provides " Notwithstanding subdivisions ( a) and ( b), 23 a department or agency that employs peace or custodial officers may disseminate data 24 regarding the number, type, or disposition of complaints ( sustained, not sustained, 25 exonerated, or unfounded) made against its officers if that information is in a form 26 which does not identify the individuals involved."
27 30, Penal Code § 832. 8 provides "As used in Section 832.7, the following 28 words or phrases have the following meanings:
7 COMPLAINT
1 a) " Personnel records" means any file maintained under that individual' s 2 name by his or her employing agency and containing records relating to 3 any of the following:
4 1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational 5 and employment history, home addresses, or similar information. 6 2) Medical history.
7 3) Election of employee benefits.
8 4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline.
9 5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or 10 transaction in which he or she participated, or which he or she perceived, 11 and pertaining to the manner in which he or she performed his or her 12 duties.
13 6) Any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an 14 unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
15 31. The Attorney General concluded "[ t] he disclosure of peace officer 16 personnel records in violation of ... section 832. 7 may constitute a crime under the 17 terms of Government Code section 1222 if the conditions of the latter statute are met." 18 ( 82 Ops. Cal.Atty. Gen. 246 ( 1999).)
19 32. Government Code section 1222, makes a public officer' s " willful omission 20 to perform any duty enjoined by law" a misdemeanor. Defendants' failure ( omission) to 21 treat the impacted officers' personnel documents as confidential was willful, in that the 22 defendants acted on purpose with the intent the records be released publicly. 23 Defendants' actions, as described above constituted a willful omission to perform a 24 public duty enjoined by law.
25 33. Defendants knowingly and intentionally produced records in response to a 26 public records request that Defendants knew or should have know were protected from 27 release due to the records constituting and/ or containing confidential peace officer 28 personnel file information. Said disclosure was done in violations of Penal Code 8 COMPLAINT
ti
1 §§ 832. 5- 832. 8 and/ or Evidence Code § 1043- 1046. 2 34. Plaintiffs, and each of them, bring this action on behalf of themselves and 3 all similarly situated officers, seeking injunctive/ mandamus relief against Defendants, 4 and each of them, who have violated these sections, to remedy the violation and to 5 prevent future violations of a like or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the 6 granting of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction 7 prohibiting the Defendants from releasing any confidential peace officer information 8 without full compliance with the law and without providing prior notice to the impacted 9 officers and/ or Santa Ana Police Officers Association. 10 35. Plaintiffs Santa Ana Police Officers Association and Doe Officers have 11 sustained ancillary damages by Defendants' action. These damages include, but are 12 not limited to, attorney fees, costs and general emotional distress. 13 36. The duty to obey the law in maintaining confidential peace officer 14 personnel information is a ministerial duty and is not discretionary. By acting, and 15 failing to act, as set forth above, defendants have violated a ministerial duty. The court 16 can issue an order directing the employer to act.
17 37. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy under the law. 18 Plaintiffs have attempted to exhaust all administrative remedies to redress the violation 19 of their rights and have made repeated objections and/or complaints regarding the 20 same to no avail.
21 38. Plaintiff requests this court to award ancillary damages pursuant to C. C. P. 22 § 1090 and 1095.
23 39. The actions of defendants, and each of them, were arbitrary and 24 capricious and, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys' fees pursuant to 25 Government Code § 800.
26 40. The success of Plaintiffs in this action will result in the enforcement of an 27 important right affecting the public interest in that a significant benefit will be conferred 28 on a large class of persons, that is, public employees, and the necessity and financial 9 COMPLAIN"
i e
I burden of private enforcement of said benefit are such as to make appropriate the 2 award of attorney fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021. 5. 3 4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
5 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
6 Negligence Per Se
7 41. Plaintiffs, Santa Ana Police Officers Association and Doe Officers for a 8 Second Cause of Action against all Defendants for damages for Negligence Per Se re9 allege paragraphs 1 through 40, as though set forth fully, and further allege as follows:
10 42. As alleged above, the defendants, and each of them, violated a statute 11 enacted for the purposes of providing safety to sworn peace officers through the 12 maintenance of certain records as confidential.
13 43, Defendants' violations of law caused the plaintiffs injury alleged herein. 14 44. Defendants' actions in violating the laws cited herein caused the kind of 15 harm the statute was designed to prevent, and the plaintiffs were and are member of 16 the statute's protected class.
17 45. Based on violation of Penal Code §832. 5-§ 832. 8, Plaintiff bring a 18 negligence per se claim as Defendants, and each of them, violated section 832. 7 by 19 publicly disclosing Doe Officers confidential personnel records without appropriate 20 procedures and/ or judicial review, and in failing to abide by the statute, defendants and 21 each of them are presumed negligent.
22 46. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants undertook the above actions in order to 23 promote its/their/his wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person, or an intent to do a 24 wrongful act. Defendants knew or should have known that by taking the above actions, 25 the Plaintiffs and/ or his/ her career in law enforcement would be harmed. Defendants 26 are believed to have a history and pattern of violating officers rights under Penal Code 27 §§ 832. 5- 832. 8 and/ or Evidence Code §§ 1043- 1046. 28 47. As a direct result of Defendants' behavior, Plaintiffs have and will continue 10 COMPLAINT
1 to incurred harm, damages and attorney' s fees in an effort to redress the damages 2 which he/ she/ it has sustained as a result of said Defendants' outrageous behavior. 3 48. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy under the law. 4 Plaintiffs have attempted to exhaust all administrative remedies to redress the violation 5 of their rights. Furthermore, if there were any administrative remedies, the Defendants 6 listed herein would be making the decisions; thus, exhaustion would have been futile. 7 49. Plaintiffs request this court to award ancillary damages pursuant to C. C. P. 8 § 1090 and 1095.
9 50. The actions of defendants, and each of them, were arbitrary and 10 capricious and, therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys' fees pursuant to 11 Government Code § 800.
12 51. The success of Plaintiffs in this action will result in the enforcement of an 13 important right affecting the public interest in that a significant benefit will be conferred 14 on a large class of persons, that is, public employees, and the necessity and financial 15 burden of private enforcement of said benefit are such as to make appropriate the 16 award of attorney fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021. 5. 17 18 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
19 AGAINST ALL MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS
20 Violation of Penal Code § 832-Failure to Investigate Complaint(s) 21 52. Plaintiffs, Santa Ana Police Officers Association and Doe Officers for a 22 Third Cause of Action against Defendants Valentin, Ridge, City of Santa Ana, and 23 Santa Ana Police Department re- allege paragraphs 1 through 51, as though set forth 24 fully, and further allege as follows:
25 53. Penal Code 832. 5( a) ( 1) provides " Each department or agency in this 26 state that employs peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints 27 by members of the public against the personnel of these departments or agencies, and 28 shall make a written description of the procedure available to the public." 11 COMPLAINT
1 54. Penal Code § 832. 7( f) ( 1) mandates that" The department or agency shall 2 provide written notification to the complaining party of the disposition of the complaint 3 within 30 days of the disposition."
4 55. The City of Santa Ana and Santa Ana Police Department have 5 established and published procedures for receiving and investigating complaints. The 6 established procedures indicate that complaints will investigated and the party 7 submitting the complaint will be notified of the results by mail. 8 56. The procedure for addressing citizen complaints the department 9 established and published obligated the department to conduct an investigation into the 10 allegations of the complaint that was sufficient to allow a decision- maker make four 11 possible findings, and the procedure obligated the Chief of Police to make one of those 12 findings with respect to each allegations of misconduct. Defendants did not comply 13 with these obligations, and Plaintiffs are entitled to a writ of mandate compelling 14 defendants to perform their ministerial duty to satisfy the obligations imposed by the 15 department' s published procedure. ( See Galzinski v. Somers, ( 2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 16 1164).
17 57. Plaintiff filed a complaint and request for investigation and Defendants 18 failed to either investigate the allegations of misconduct ( which were also violations of 19 state law and possible misdemeanor offenses) and/ or refused to notify Plaintiff POA of 20 the outcome of the investigation.
21 58. Defendants had a ministerial duty to investigate the POA' s citizen' s 22 complaint and to render a finding on that complaint in compliance with the complaint 23 procedure the department established and made public pursuant to subdivision ( a)( 1) of 24 Penal Code section 832. 5. ( See Gregory v. State Bd. of Control ( 1999) 73 Cal. App. 4th 25 584 (`[a] public entity has a ministerial duty to comply with its own rules and regulations 26 where they are valid and unambiguous); Pozar v. Department of Transportation ( 1983) 27 145 Cal. App. 3d 269 ( a writ of mandate may be issued to compel a public agency to 28 follow its own internal procedures.).
12 COMPLAINT
1 59. A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, 2 corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law 3 specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station...." ( Code Civ. Proc., 4 § 1085, subd. ( a).) Indeed, "[ t] he writ must be issued in all cases where there is not a 5 plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law ... upon the verified 6 petition of the party beneficially interested." ( Id. , § 1086.) In essence, "[ m] andamus lies 7 to compel the performance of a clear, present, and ministerial duty where the petitioner 8 has a beneficial right to performance of that duty." ( Carrancho v. California Air 9 Resources Board (2003) 111 Cal. AppAth 1255 1265) " A duty is ministerial when it is 10 the doing of a thing unqualifiedly required." ( Redwood Coast Watersheds Alliance V. 11 State Bd. of Forestry& Fire Protection ( 1999) 70 Cal. AppAth 962, 970). 12 60. Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandate commanding Defendants to investigate 13 Plaintiff' s complaint regarding the release of the confidential information and to inform 14 Plaintiff of the outcome of that investigation. Plaintiff further seeks an order of the court 15 mandating that Defendants, and each of them, fully investigate any and all complaints 16 made to the City of Santa Ana/ Santa Ana Police Department regarding the misconduct 17 of police department employeeslofficials.
18 61. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy under the law. 19 Plaintiffs have attempted to exhaust all administrative remedies to redress the violation 20 of their rights.
21 62. Plaintiffs request this court to award ancillary damages pursuant to C. C. P. 22 § 1090 and 1095.
23 63. The actions of defendants, and each of them, were arbitrary and 24 capricious and, therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys' fees pursuant to 25 Government Code § 800.
26 64. The success of Plaintiffs in this action will result in the enforcement of an 27 important right affecting the public interest in that a significant benefit will be conferred 28 on a large class of persons, that is, public employees, and the necessity and financial 13 COMPLAINT
I burden of private enforcement of said benefit are such as to make appropriate the 2 award of attorney fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021. 5. 3 4 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 AGAINST ALL MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS
6 Violation of Government Code § 3500, et seg.
7 65. Plaintiffs, Santa Ana Police Officers Association and Doe Officers for a 8 Third Cause of Action against Defendants Valentin, City of Santa Ana, and Santa Ana 9 Police Department re- allege paragraphs 1 through 558, as though set forth fully, and 10 further allege as follows:
11 66. Government Code § 3500( a) provides " It is the purpose of this chapter to 12 promote full communication between public employers and their employees by 13 providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours, and other 14 terms and conditions of employment between public employers and public employee 15 organizations. It is also the purpose of this chapter to promote the improvement of 16 personnel management and employer- employee relations within the various public 17 agencies in the State of California by providing a uniform basis for recognizing the right 18 of public employees to join organizations of their own choice and be represented by 19 those organizations in their employment relationships with public agencies." 20 67. Government Code § 3502 provides, in part, " Except as otherwise provided 21 by the Legislature, public employees shall have the right to form, join, and participate in 22 the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of 23 representation on all matters of employer- employee relations." 24 68, Government Code § 3503 provides, in part, " Recognized employee 25 organizations shall have the right to represent their members in their employment 26 relations with public agencies."
27 69. Government Code § 3506 provides " Public agencies and employee 28 organizations shall not interfere with, intimidate, restrain, coerce or discriminate against 14 COMPLAINT
I public employees because of their exercise of their rights under Section 3502." 2 70. Government Code § 3506. 5 provides, in part, "A public agency shall not do 3 any of the following: ( b) Deny to employee organizations the rights guaranteed to them 4 by this chapter."
5 71. An exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is " necessary 6 and relevant" to the discharge of its duty to represent bargaining unit employees. 7 ( Stockton Unified School District ( 1980) PERB Decision No. 143, p. 13.), An 8 employer's failure or refusal to provide such information violates the duty to bargain in 9 good faith unless the employer proves the information is " plainly irrelevant" or raises a 10 valid defense to production of the information. ( ibid.; State of California ( Departments of 11 Personnel Administration and Transportation) ( 1997) PERB Decision No. 1227- S, p. 12 28.) But when the requested information does exist in some form, the fact that the 13 employer may have to compile it from various sources does not excuse the employer 14 from producing it unless the employer can prove doing so would be unduly 15 burdensome. ( Regents of the University of California ( Davis) ( 2010) PERB Decision No. 16 2101- H, pp. 33- 34; Chula Vista City School District ( 1990) PERB Decision No. 834, p. 17 56.) .
18 72. The Santa Ana Police Officers Association made a request for information 19 related to Defendants unlawful disclosure of information about the Association' s 20 members. Defendants denied the request for information; thereby interfering with 21 and/ or restraining the Association' s ability to represent its members and the members 22 ability to be represented by its employee organization. 23 73. Government Code section 1222, makes a public officer' s " willful omission 24 to perform any duty enjoined by law" a misdemeanor. Defendants' failure ( omission) to 25 treat the impacted officers' personnel documents as confidential was willful, in that the 26 defendants acted on purpose with the intent to inhibit and restrain the Association' s 27 representation of its members and the members ability to be represented by the 28 Association. Defendants' actions, as described above constituted a willful omission to 15 COMPLAINT
1 perform a public duty enjoined by law.
2 74. Defendants knowingly and intentionally interfered with and/ or restrained 3 Plaintiffs in response to a public records request that Defendants knew or should have 4 know were protected from release due to the records constituting and/or containing 5 confidential peace officer personnel file information, 6 75, Plaintiffs, and each of them, bring this action on behalf of themselves and 7 all similarly situated officers, seeking injunctive/ mandamus relief against Defendants, 8 and each of them, who have violated these sections, to remedy the violation and to 9 prevent future violations of a like or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the 10 granting of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction 11 prohibiting the Defendants from concealing information requested by the Association. 12 76. Plaintiffs Santa Ana Police Officers Association and Doe Officers have 13 sustained ancillary damages by Defendants' action. These damages include, but are 14 not limited to, attorney fees, costs.
15 77. The duty to obey the laws set forth in Government Code § 3500, et seq., is 16 a ministerial duty and is not discretionary. By acting, and- failing to act, as set forth 17 above, defendants have violated a ministerial duty. The court can issue an order 18 directing the employer to act.
19 78. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy under the law. 20 Plaintiffs have attempted to exhaust all administrative remedies to redress the violation 21 of their rights and have made repeated objections and/ or complaints regarding the 22 same to no avail.
23 79. Plaintiff requests this court to award ancillary damages pursuant to C. C. P. 24 § 1090 and 1095.
25 80. The actions of defendants, and each of them, were arbitrary and 26 capricious and, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys' fees pursuant to 27 Government Code § 800.
28 81. The success of Plaintiffs in this action will result in the enforcement of an 16 COMPLAINT
1 important right affecting the public interest in that a significant benefit will be conferred 2 on a large class of persons, that is, public employees, and the necessity and financial 3 burden of private enforcement of said benefit are such as to make appropriate the 4 award of attorney fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021. 5. 5 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants and each of them 7 as follows:
8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
9 1. A declaration of the Court that the Defendants violated Penal Code 10 § 832. 5- 832. 7 and/ or Evidence Code §§ 1043- 1046 and that Plaintiffs are entitled to the 11 full relief afforded under Penal Code § 832. 5- 832. 7 and/ or Evidence Code §§ 1043- 12 1046;
13 2. The granting of appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief to 14 remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like or similar nature, including, 15 but not limited to, the granting of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or 16 permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, and each of them, and their agents, 17 representatives, employees, servants and/ or investigators from releasing any 18 confidential information of peace officers, and/ or requiring that prior to any disclosure 19 that the impacted officer( s) be notified; thus, being given the right to invoke their rights; 20 3. That this court issues a temporary restraining order, preliminary and/or 21 permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants, and each of them, and their 22 agents, representatives, employees, servants and/or investigators from releasing any 23 confidential peace officer personnel information without full compliance with the 24 pertinent laws;
25 4. Awarding of all ancillary relief, including statutory penalties, damages and 26 attorney fees;
27 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
28 5. A declaration of the Court that the Defendants violated Penal Code 17 COMPLAINT
1 § 832. 5- 832. 7 and/ or Evidence Code §§ 1043- 1046 and that Defendants are negligent 2 per se;
3 6. The granting of appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief to 4 remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like or similar nature, including, 5 but not limited to, the granting of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or 6 permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, and each of them, and their agents, 7 representatives, employees, servants and/ or investigators from releasing any 8 confidential information of peace officers, and/ or requiring that prior to any disclosure 9 that the impacted officer(s) be notified; thus, being given the right to invoke their rights; 10 7. That this court issues a temporary restraining order, preliminary and/ or 11 permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants, and each of them, and their 12 agents, representatives, employees, servants and/or investigators from releasing any 13 confidential peace officer personnel information without full compliance with the 14 pertinent laws;
15 8. Awarding of all ancillary relief, including statutory penalties, damages and 16 attorney fees;
17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
18 9. A declaration of the Court that the Defendants violated Penal Code 19 § 832.5- 832.7 by failing to investigation allegations of misconduct against sworn peace 20 officers and/ or notifying the complainant of the outcome of said investigation; 21 10. The granting of appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief to 22 remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like or similar nature, including, 23 but not limited to, the granting of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or 24 permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, and each of them, and their agents, 25 representatives, employees, servants and/or investigators from failing to investigate 26 allegations of misconduct against police management and/or failing to notify the 27 complainant of the outcome of the investigations.
28 11. Awarding of all ancillary relief, including statutory penalties, damages and 18 COMPLAINT
1 attorney fees;
2 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3 12. A declaration of the Court that the Defendants violated Government Code 4 § 3500, et seq., and that Plaintiffs are entitled to the full relief afforded under 5 Government Code § 3500, et seq., including a make whole remedy; 6 13. The granting of appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief to 7 remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like or similar nature, including, 8 but not limited to, the granting of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or 9 permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, and each of them, and their agents, 10 representatives, employees, servants and/ or investigators from refusing reasonable 11 requests for information necessary for the POA to represent it members and/ or 12 necessary for the members to be represented by the POA. 13 14. That this court issues a temporary restraining order, preliminary and/ or 14 permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants, and each of them, and their 15 agents, representatives, employees, servants and/ or investigators from interfering 16 and/ or restraining the Plaintiffs' right to be represented and/ or provide representation. ; 17 15. Awarding of all ancillary relief, including statutory penalties, damages and 18 attorney fees;
19 ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
20 16. That, to the extent declaratory relief is granted in this case, the Court find 21 that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights as afforded under Penal Code 22 832, et seq.;
23 17. For all relief afforded under Government Code § 3500, et seq., including, 24 but not limited to that requested herein;
25 18. That Defendants takes nothing by virtue of this action; 26 19. Statutory attorney fees as permitted by law;
27 20. For cost of suit and attorneys fees incurred herein; and 28 21. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper 19 COMPLAINT
1 Dated: November 7, 2021 COREY W. GLAVE, ATTORNEY AT LAW 2 sl Corey Glave
3 Corey W. Glave,
Attorney for Plaintiffs
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 20

COMPLAINT
1 VERIFICATION
2 The undersigned declares as follows:
3 4 l am the attorney of record for all plaintiffs in this action, I am verifying this 5 Complaint on the basis that all named plaintiffs are absent from the county where 1 6 have my office. I have read the foregoing COMPLAINT, and know the contents thereof. 7 The contents are true, except as to the matters which are therein stated on information 8 or belief, and as to those matters 1 believe them to be true and Plaintiffs are acting in 9 good faith in bringing forward such allegations.
10 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 11 the foregoing is true and correct.
12 SI Corey Glave
13 14 COREY GLAVE
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
21 COMPLAINT
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 11/ 08/ 2021 08: 00: 00 AM, 010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTGRNEY( Name, Stale gar number, and adUress): FOR COURT USE O LY Corey W. Glave ( SBN164746)
Attorney at Law
632 S. Gertruda Ave.

Redondo Beach, CA 90277
TELEPHONE No.: 323- 547- 0472 FAX NO.: n/ a
ATTORNEY FOR( Name): Plaintiffs SAPOA/ Doe Officers
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Orange
STREETAODREss: 700 Civic Center Plaza
MAILING ADDRESS:

CITY AND ZIP CODE: Santa Ana, CA 92701
BRANCHNAME: Central Justice
CASE NAMS: SAPOA/ Doe Officers v. City of Santa Ana, et al CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Desigril. n
CASE NUMBER:

Unlimited Limited 30. 202 1- 0 1230 13 4- CU- WT- CJC
Amount Amount
El Counter El . binder
JUDGE:
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant Midge Glenn Salter exceeds$ 25, 000) $ 25, OOC or less) Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:

Items 1- 6 below must be completed see instructions on page 2).

1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:

Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto( 22) Breach of contract/ warranty( 06) ( Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3. 400-- 3. 403) Uninsured motorist( 46) Rule 3. 740 collections( 09) Antitrust/ Trade regulation( 03) Other PIIPDIWD( Personal Injury/ Property Other collections( 09) Construction defect( 10) DamagelWrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage( 18) Mass tort( 40) Asbestos( 04) Other contract( 37) Securities litigation( 28) Product€ lab€Illy( 24) Real property Environmental/ Toxic tort( 30) Medical malpractice( 45) Eminent dornalnlinverse insurance coverage claims arising from the Other PIIPDIWD( 23) condemnation( 14) above listed provisionally complex case Non- PIIPDNVD( Other) Tort Wrongful eviction( 33) types( 41) Bustness tortlunfair business practice( 07) Other real property( 26) Enforcement of Judgment
Civil rights( 08) Unlawful Dotainer Enforcement of judgment( 20) Defamation( 13) Commercial( 31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud( 16) Residential( 32)
RICO( 27)
Intellectual property( 19) Drugs( 38)
Other complaint( not specified above)( 42)
Professional negligence( 25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other non-PIIPDNVD tort( 35) Asset forfeiture( 05) Partnership and corporate governance( 21) Employment
Petition re: arbitration award( 11) Other petition( not specified above) ( 43) Wrongful termination( 36) Writ of mandate( 02)
Other employment( 16) Other judicial review( 39)

2. This case is ® is not complex under rule 3, 400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a. Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues thatwil€ be time- consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

3. Remedies sought( check all that apply): a.® monetary b. ® nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. ® punitive

4. Number of causes of action ( specify): 3: Penal Code 832. 5- 832. 8; Negligence Per Se; Penal Code 832. 5- 832. 8; MMBA

5. This case is ® is not a class action suit.

6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. ( You may use form CM- 015.) Date: November7, 2021
Corey W. Glave 1s/ Corey W. Glave
TYPE OR PRINT NAME SIGNATURff OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY NOTICE
Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding ( except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Cade, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions.

File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. e If this case is complex under rule 3. 400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the actlon or proceeding.

Unless this is a collections ease under rule 3. 740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.

Pa e1 of2
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2. 30, 3.220, 3. A00--3.403, 3, 740 Judldal Council of Galifornla Cal. Standards of Judicial Administraton, std, 3, 10 CM- 010[ Rev. July 1. 2007] WWW. CoUrtinro. ca. gov
CM- 010

INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET
To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper ( for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action.

To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2. 30 and 3, 220 of the California Rules of Court.

To Parties in Rule 3. 740 Collections Cases. A " collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $ 25, 000, exclusive of interest and attorneys fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: ( 1) tort damages, ( 2) punitive damages, ( 3) recovery of real property, ( 4) recovery of personal property, or ( 5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3, 740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time- for- service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3. 740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3. 740.

To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3,400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter- designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex.

CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation( Cal.

Auto( 22)—Personal Injury/Property Breach of Contract/ Warranty( 06) Rules of Court Rules 3. 400- 3. 403) Damage/ Wrongful Death Breach of RentallLease Antitrust/Trade Regulation( 03) Uninsured Motorist( 46)( if the Contract( not unlawful detainer Construction Defect( 10) case involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction) Claims Involving Mass Tort( 40) motorist claim subject to ContracVWarranty Breach—Seller Securities Litigation( 28) arbitration, check this item Plaintiff( not fraud or negligence) EnvironmentallToxle Tor[( 30) instead ofAuto) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Insurance Coverage Claims Other PIIPD1WD( Personal Injury/ Warranty arising from provisionally complex Property Damage/ Wrongful Death) Other Breach of Contract/ Warranty case type listed above)( 41) Tort Collections( e. g., money owed, open Enforcement of Judgment Asbestos( 04) book accounts)( 09) Enforcement of Judgment( 20) Asbestos Property Damage Collection Case—Seller Plaintiff Abstract of Judgment( Out of Asbestos Personal Injury/ Other Promissory Note/ Collection County) Wrongful Death Case Confession of Judgment( nonProduct Liability( not asbestos or Insurance Coverage( not provisionally domestic relations) toxiclenvironmental)( 24) complex)( 18) Sister State Judgment Medical Malpractice( 46) Auto Subrogation Administrative Agency Award Medical Malpractice— Cther Coverage not unpaid taxes)
Physicians& Surgeons Other Contract( 37) PetitionlCer[ lfication of Entry of Other Professional Health Care Contractual Fraud Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Malpractice Other Contract Dispute Other Enforcement of Judgment Other PIIPDNVD( 23) Real Property Case
Premises Liability( e. g., slip Eminent Domainllnverse Miscellaneous Civil Complaint and fall) Condemnation( 14) RICO( 27)
intentional Bodily Injury/ PDAND Wrongful Eviction( 33) Other Complaint( not specified e. g., assault, vandalism) Other Real Property( e, g., quiet title)( 26) above)( 42) Intentional Infliction of Writ of Possession of Real Property Declaratory Relief Only Emotional Distress Mortgage Foreclosure Injunctive Relief Only( nonNegligent Infliction of Quiet Title harassment) Emotional Distress Other Real Property( not eminent Mechanics Lien Other PI/ PDNVD domain, landlord4enant, or Other Commercial Complaint Non- PIIPDIWD( Other) Tort foreclosure} Case( non- tortlnon- complex) Business Tort/ Unfair Business Unlawful Detainor Other Civil Complaint Practice( 07) Commercial( 31) non- toWnon-complex)
Civil Rights( e. g,, discrimination, Residential( 32) Miscellaneous Civil Petition false arrest)( not civil Drugs ( 38)( if the case involves illegal Partnership and Corporate harassment)( 08) drugs, check this item; otherwise, Governance( 21) Defamation( e.g., slander, libel) report as Commercial or Residential) Other Petition( not specified 13) Judicial Review above)( 43)
Fraud( 16) Asset Forfeiture( 05) Civil Harassment
lntell— fua] Property( 10) Petition Re: Arbitration Award 01) Workplace Violence Professional Negligence( 25) Writ of Mandate( 02) Elder/ Dependent Adult Legal Malpractice Writ—Administrative Mandamus Abuse
Other Professional Malpractice Writ—Mandamus on limited Court Election Contest not medical or legal) Case Matter Petition for Name Change Other Non- PUPDIIND Tort( 36) Writ-- Other Limited Court Case Petition for Relief From Late Employment Review Claim
Wrongful Termination( 36) Other Other Ju die! al Review( 39) Other Civil Petition Employment( 15) Review of Health Officer Order
Notice of Appeal— Labor
Commissioner Appeals
CM- 010[ Rev. July 1, 2007] CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Page 2 of 2 American LegalNet, Inc.
www. Fo rm s wo rklfo w. com

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR COURT USE ONLY STREET MAI LI NG ADDRESS: AD DR ESS: 1275 1275 N,
N. Berkeley
Berkeley
AveFILED Ave
SUPERfOR C0UR T OF CAL rFCRNlA
CITY AND Z€P CODE: Fullerton 92838 COUNTY OF ORANGE
BRANCH NAME: North Justice Center
PLAINTIFF: Santa Aria Police Officers Associaton et, al.

DEFENDANT: David' Valenlin et. aI.

Nov 8, 2021
Gler, of the Court
Short Title: SANTA ANA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATON VS. VALENTIN By: Jessica Duarb, Depot¢ CASE NUMBER:

NOTICE OF HEARING 30- 2021- 01230134- Cll- WT- NJC

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Please take notice that a( n), Case Management Conference has been scheduled for hearing on 05/ 12/ 2022 at 08: 30: 00 AM in Department N06 of this court, located at North Justice Center.

Plaintiff( s)IPetitioner( s) to provide notice to all defendant( s)/ respondent( s). Parties who file pleadings that add new parties to the proceeding must provide notice of the Case Management Conference to the newly added parties.

LWORTANT: Prior to your hearing date, please check the Court' s website for the most current instructions regarding how to appear for your hearing and access services that are available to answer your questions, Civil Matters - Imps:;/- vvww. oc:cout-L;. or_lmedia-> latiol s; c ivil,l>tzrzl Probate/ Mental Health- httPs:,f; ivww- opcotwts. or& rncdies- re:l,,ttion;;it)robatc;- nic; nt,,il-health. httxll IMP€7RTANTE: Antes de la feclm de su audiencia, visite el silio web de la Corte para saber cuales son las instrucciones xnas aetuales para participar on la audiencia y tener aceeso a los servicios disponibles para responder a sus pregturttas.

Casos Civiles lttfrs i{Gv v u,oc cctllrts. orb`nxeclits ltioticivil, latrt l Casos de Probate y Salud Mental- htt su tutx vv. c c ccttrts. ox trtedia rel: tiottst . ohate- mental- hc t1th_l ttnl QUAN TRONG: Trtroc ngay plum toa efta quy i, viii lottg kie^m tra trang tnang c-da toa an de biet nhfmg hubng din tx 6l nhat ve cdch ra Mu phi6n tba efLa cluy vi va tiep can nhung dick vu hien co d8 gial dap nhirng thL ma-C c-6a quy vi.

Vats De Dan 5u- htt s.',' wi v.c eortrts. ot fta ediawtclG tions civii...htrrtl MA Tits Di Chiic/ Sft KhBe Ti3th Than- lattt: i%v , t cet urts. cr irlaedia, te4at€ons/ t rnbate-: iezttal- i ealtl>.htrnl Clerk of the Court, By:
1 " Deputy
NOTICE OF HEARING Page: 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFORANGE
North Justice Center
1275 N. Berkeley Ave
Fullerton 92838
SHORT TITLE: SANTA ANA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATON VS. VALENTIN CASE NUMBER:

CLERK' S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
30- 2021- 01230134- CU- WT- NJC
I certify that I am not a party to this cause. I certify that a true copy of the above Notice of Hearing has been placed for collection and mailing so as to cause it to be mailed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid pursuant to standard court practices and addressed as indicated below. The certification occurred at Fullerton , California, on 11/ 0812021. Following standard court practice the mailing will occur at Sacramento, California on 11/ 09/ 2021.

Clerk of the Court, by:
t
Deputy

COREY W GLAVE
632 S. GERTRUDA
REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277
CLERK' S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL Page: 2
V3 1013a( June 2004) Code or GMI Proce6ure, g ccPiol3( a) Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 11/ 08/ 2021 08: 00: 00 AM. 30- 2021- 01230129- CU- OE- CJC - ROA# 4- DAViD H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Jessica Duarte, Deputy Sc.100

SUMMONS FOR COURT USE ONLY

CITACION JUDICIAL)
SOLO PRRA. USO DE LA CORTE)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:

A VISO AL DEMANDADO):

CITY OF SANTA ANA, a Municipal Corporation;
see additional parties attachment
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: 6
i:7 K °_ T_ E C-01J OCJI_.

LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): Cj 1` - imil' _43
Santa Ana Police Officers Association and Gerry Serrano NOTICEI You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the Califomia Courts Online Self- Help Center( www. courtinfo. ca. gov/ selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the fling fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site( www. lawhelpcalifornia. org), the California Courts Online Self- Help Center www. courtinfo. ca. govtselfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of$ 10, 000 or more in a civil case.. The courts lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.

IAVISOI Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dfas, la Corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versi6n. Lea la informacOn a continuaci6n.

Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALE' NDARIO despuds de que le entreguen esta citaci6n y papeles legales para presenter Una respuesta par escrito en esta carte y hater que se entregue Una copia al demandante. Una Carta o Una Ramada telef6nice no to protegen. Su respuesta par escrito tene que ester en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su case en la torte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar pars su respuesta.

Puede encontrar estos formulailos de la torte y mIs infonnaci6n an al Centro de Ayuda de las Cores de Califomia( www.suco rte. ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado D en la carte que le quede mis cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentaci6n, plea al secretario de la carte que le d6 un formulario de exencidn de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la carte le podr6 quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mcls advertencia.

Hay otros requisites legales. Es recomendable que tlame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remisi6n a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar astos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de Califomia Legal Services, fwww. lawhelpcalifornia. org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Coues de Califomia, ( www. su carte. ca. gov) a poni6ndose en contacto con la Corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Parley, la torte tene derecho a mclamar las cuotas ylos costos exentos porimponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recupewaci6n de$ 10, 000 6 m6s de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o Una concesi6n de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la carte antes de que la carte pueda desechar el caso.

The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMBER:

El nombre ydirecci6n de la torte es): Wmero del Caso).

Orange County Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:

El nombre, la direction y el n6mero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tene abogado, es):

Corey W. Glave Attorney at Law 632 S. Gertruda Ave, Redondo Beach CA 90277 ( 323) 547- 0472 DATE: Clerk, by Deputy
Fecha) Secretario) Adjunto)
For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons ( form POS-010).) Para prueba de entrega de esta citati6n use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, ( POS-010)).

ISEaf] NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served

1. as an individual defendant.

2. as the person sued under the fictitious name of( specify):

3. on behalf of( specify):
under: CCP 416. 10( corporation) CCP 416. 60( minor)
CCP 416. 20( defunct corporation) CCP 416. 70( conservatee) CCP 416. 40( association or partnership) CCP 416. 90( authorized person) other( specify):

4. by personal delivery on ( date):

Page 1 ends

Form Adopted for Mandatory U a
SUMMONS American
Code of Civil Procedure§§ 412. 20, 465
Judicial Ccuncil of Califomia sWoriet, Inc.
www. courtinfb. ca. gov
sum- ion[ Rev, July 1, 20091
wvuw. Farms Warkfiaw. com
SUM- 200 A
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:

Santa Ana POA/Serrano v. City of Santa Ana, et al

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE
4 This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons.

If this attachment is used, insert the following statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons:" Additional Parties Attachment form is attached."
List additional parties ( Check only one box. Use a separate page for each type of party.):

Plaintiff ® Defendant Cross- Complainant Cross- Defendant SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT, a public safety department; DAVID VALENTIN, Chief of Police; KRISTIN RIDGE, City Manager; SONIA CARVALHO, City Attorney; JASON MOTSICK, Director of Human Resources; DOES I- X, inclusive
Page of

Page 7 of 1 ends

Forin Adopted far Mandatory ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT Judicial Councicurcil of California
SUM. M(A)[ Rev. January 1, 2007] Attachment to Summons American LegalNet, in www. Forms Workdow. com

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE FORCOURTUSEONLY STREET ADDRESS: 700 W. Civic Center DRIVE
MAILING ADDRESS: 700 W. Civic Center Drive

F I LED

SUPERJOR COURT OF CA JFORNIA
CITY AN D ZIP CODE' Santa Ana 92701 COUNTY of ORANGE
BRANCH NAME: Central Justice Center
PLANTIFF: Santa Ana Police Officers Association et.al.

Nov 8, 2021
DEFENDANT: City of Santa Ana et.al.

Clerk of the Court
Short Title: SANTAANA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. CITY OF SANTAANA By. Jessica Duarte. Deputy CASE NUMBER:

NOTICE OF HEARING 30- 2021- 01230129- CU- OE- CJC

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Please take notice that a( n), Case Management Conference has been scheduled for hearing on 05/ 09/ 2022 at 09: 00: 00 AM in Department C20 of this court, located at Central Justice Center.

Plaintiff( s)IPetitioner( s) to provide notice to all defendant( s)lrespondent( s). Parties who file pleadings that add new parties to the proceeding must provide notice of the Case Management Conference to the newly added parties.

IMPORTANT: Prior to your hearing date, please check the Court' s website for the most current instructions regarding how to appear for your hearing and access services that are available to answer your questions.

Civil Matters - https. 1/ www. occoLirts. org/me(lia- relations/ civfl.himl Probate/ Mental Health- htt s:// www. occaurt.s. org/ nicdia- relat.ions/ probate- mental- health.htntl IMPORTANTE: Antes de la fecba de sit audiencia, visite el sitio web de la Corte para saber cuales Solt las instrucciones mas actuales para participar ett] a audiencia y tener acceso a los servicios disponibles para responder a sus preguntas.

Casos Ci`•iles - ht(ps:// ww-,,Nr. occotil- ts. org/ inedia- relations/ eivil- litnil Casos de Probate y Salud Mental- https "/www. occotlrts. org,media- relations/ probate- mental-l-iealth.litn-il QUAN TROtNG: Tiu& ngay plOn toa cua quy vi, vui long kiem tra trang mang cua toa an de biet nhfmg hudttg clan m&1 nhat ve oath ra hau phi n toa cfia quy vi va tie-p can nitfirng dick vu hizn ca de gial dap nhfmg that mac cua quy vi.

Van De" Dan Su- httpsY/ www. occoinis. orp/ mcclia- relations/' Civil_litinl Tlrii Tuc Di Cltitc;'Sfrc Kltoe Toth Than- httpsJfurww. occotu-ts. orp-tnedia- relations/ probate- mental- health.lttml Clerk of the Court, By:

C I Deputy
NOTICE OF HEARING Page. 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFORANGE
Central Justice Center
700 W. Civic Center DRIVE
Santa Ana 92701
SNORT TITLE: SANTA ANA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASE NUMBER:

CLERK' S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
30-2021- 01230129- CU- OE- CJC
I certify that I am not a party to this cause. I certify that a true copy of the above Notice of Hearing has been placed for collection and mailing so as to cause it to be mailed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid pursuant to standard court practices and addressed as indicated below. The certification occurred at Santa Ana, California, on 11/ 08/ 2021. Following standard court practice the mailing will occur at Sacramento, California on 11/ 09/ 2021.

Clerk of the Court, by'. Deputy

COREY W GLAVE
632 S. GERTRUDA
REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277
CLERK' S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL Page: 2
V3 1013a( Jute 2004) Code of Civil Procedure § CCP1013( a) Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 11/ 08/ 2021 08: 00: 00 AM. 010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY( Name, Slate Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE O (. Y Corey W. Glave ( SBN164746)
Attorney at Law
632 S. Gertruda Ave.

Redondo Beach, CA 90277
TELEPHONE No, 323- 547- 0472 FAX NO., nla
ATTORNEY FOR( Name): Plaintiffs SAPOA/ Serrano
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Orange
STREET ADDRESS: 700 CMG Center Plaza
MAILING ADDRESS:

CITY AND 7IPCODE: Santa Ana, CA 92701
BRANCH NAME, Central Justice
CASE NAME: SAPOAISerrano v. City of Santa Ana, et al
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER:

Unlimited Limited
Counter Joinder
Amount Amount
JUDGE:
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant exceeds$ 25, 000) $ 25, 000 or less) Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402 DEPT Items 1- 6 below must be completed see instructions on page 2).

1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:

Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto( 22) Breach of contract/ warranty( 06) ( Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3. 400- 3. 403) Uninsured motorist( 46) Rule 3. 740 collections( 09) AntitrustlTrade regulation( 03) Other PIIPDtVMD( Personal Injury/ Property Other collections( 09) Construction defect( 1 o) DamageMrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage( 18) Mass tort( 40) Asbestos( 04) Other contract( 37) Securities litigation( 28) Product liability( 24) Real Property Environmental/ Toxic tort( 30) Medical malpractice( 45) Eminent domain/ inverse Insurance coverage claims arising from the Other PIIPDIWD( 23) condemnation( 14) above listed provisionally complex case Non- PI1PDIMMD( Other) Tort Wrongful eviction( 33) types( 41) Business toruunfair business practice( 07) Other real property( 26) Enforcement of Judgment Civil rights( 08) Unlawful Detainer Enforcement ofjudgment( 20) Defamation( 13) Commercial( 31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud( 16) Residential( 32) RICO( 27)
Intellectual property( 19) Drugs( 38) Other complaint( not specified above)( 42) Professional negligence( 25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other non- PIIPDNIlD tort( 35) Asset forfeiture( 05) Partnership and corporate governance( 21) Employment Petition re: arbitration award( 11) Other petition( not specified above)( 43) El wrongful termination( 36) Writ of mandate( 02)
Other employment( 15) Other judicial review( 39)

2. This case is E is not complex under rule 3. 400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a. Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time- consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

3. Remedies sought( check all that apply): a.® monetary b. ® nonmonetary, declaratory or injunctive relief c. ® punitive

4. Number of causes of action ( specify): 6: MMBA; POBRA, Speech; Labor Cade; Penal Code 832. 5- 832. 8; Retaliation

5. This case is Z is not a class action suit.

6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. ( You may use form CM-015.) Date: November7, 2021
Corey W. Glave Isl Corey W. Glave

TYPE OR PRINT NAME SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY NOTICE
Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the First paper filed in the action or proceeding ( except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3, 220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions.

File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.

If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding.

Unless this is a collections case under rule 3. 740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.

Pa e1af2
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET cal. Rules of Court, rufes2, 30, 3. 220, 3. 4ob-- 3. 403, 3. 74c; Judicial Council of California Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3. 10 CM- 0101Rev, July 1, 20071 www. courtinfb. ca. gov
CM- 010

To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover street with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2. 30 and 3. 220 of the California Rules of Court.

To Parties in Rule 3. 740 Collections Cases. A " collections case" under rule 3. 740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than$ 25, 000, exclusive of interest and attorney' s fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: ( 1) tort damages, ( 2) punitive damages, ( 3) recovery of real property, ( 4) recovery of personal property, or ( 5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3. 740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time- far- service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3. 740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3. 740.

To Parties In Complex Cases, In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3, 400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiff' s designation, a counter- designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex.

CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation( Cal.

Auto( 22)-- Personal InjurylProperty Breach of Contract/Warranty( 00) Rules of Court Rules 3. 400- 3. 403) Damage/ Wrongful Death Breach of Rental/ Lease Antitrust/Trade Regulation( 03) Uninsured Motorist( 46)( if the Contract( not unlawful detainer Construction Defect( 10) case involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction) Claims Involving Mass Tort( 40) motorist claim subject to ContractlWarranty Breach— Seller Securities Litigation( 28) arbitration, check this item Plaintiff( not fraud or negligence) EnvironmentaVToxic Tort( 30) instead of Auto) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Insurance Coverage Claims Other PIIPDIWD( Personal Injuryl Warranty arising from provisionally complex Property DamagetWrongful Death) Other Breach of Contract/Warranty case type listed above)( 41) Tort Collections( e. g., money owed, open Enforcement of Judgment Asbestos( 04) book accounts)( 09) Enforcement of Judgment( 20) Asbestos Property Damage Collection Case—Seller Plaintiff Abstract of Judgment( Out of Asbestos Personal Injuryl Other Promissory Note/ Collections County) Wrongful Death Case Confession of Judgment( nonProduct Liability( not asbestos or Insurance Coverage( not provisionally domestic relations) toxiclenvironmental)( 24) complex) 0 B) Sister State Judgment Medical Malpractice( 45) Auto Subrogation Administrative Agency Award Medical Malpractice— Other Coverage not unpaid taxes)
Physicians& Surgeons Other Contract( 37) Petillon/ Certification of Entry of Other Professional Health Care Contractual Fraud Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Malpractice Other Contract Dispute Other Enforcement of Judgment Other PI/ PDIWD( 23) Real Property Case
Premises Liability( e.g., slip Eminent Domain/ Inverse Miscellaneous Civil Complaint and fall) Condemnation( 14) RICO( 27)
Intentional Bodily Injury/ PDIWD Wrongful Eviction( 33) Other Complaint( not specified e.g., assault, vandalism) Other Real Property( e.g,, quiet title)( 26) above)( 42) Intentional Infliction of Writ of Possession of Real Property Declaratory Relief Only Emotional Distress Mortgage Foreclosure Injunctive Relief Only( nonNegligent Infliction of Quiet Title harassment) Emotional Distress Other Real Property( not eminent Mechanics Lien Other PIIPDIWD domain, landlord4enant or Other Commercial Complaint Non- PIIPDIWD( Other) Tort foreclosure) Case( non- tort/ non- complex) Business Tort/ Unfair Business Unlawful Detalner Other Civil Complaint Practice( 07) Commercial( 31) non- tort/ non- complex)
Civil Rights( e. g., discrimination, Residential( 32) Miscellaneous Civil Petition false arrest)( not civil Drugs( 38)( if the case involves Illegal Partnership and Corporate harassment)( 08) drugs, check this item; otherwise, Governance( 21) Defamation( e.g,, slander, libel) report as Commercial or Residential) Other Petition( not specified 13) Judicial Review above)( 43)
Fraud( 16) Asset Forfeiture( 05) Civil Harassment
Intellectual Property( 19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award( 11) Workplace Violence Professional Negligence( 25) Writ of Mandate(( 12) Elder/ Dependent Adult Legal Malpractice Writ—Administrative Mandamus Abuse
Other Professional Malpractice Writ—Mandamus on Limited Court Election Contest not medical or legal) Case Matter Petition for Name Change Other Non- PIIPDIWD Tort( 35) Writ—Other Limited Court Case Petition for Relief From Late Employment Review Claim
Wrongful Termination( 36) Other Other Judicial Review( 39) Other Civil Petition Employment( 15) Review of Health Officer Order
Notice of Appeal—Labor
Commissioner Appeals
CU- 010[ Rev. July 1, 2007] CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Page 2 of American LegalNet, Inc.
mow. PormsWorkdomoorr
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 11/ 08/ 2021 08: 00: 00 AM. 30- 202 - 01230129- CU- OE- CJC- ROA# 2- DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Jessica Duarte, Deputy Ch rk. 1 COREY W. GLAVE ( State Bar No. 164746)
Attorney at Law
2 632 S. Gertruda Ave
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
3 Phone: ( 323) 547- 0472
POAattorney@aoi. com
4 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Santa Ana Police Officers Assn
6 and Gerry Serrano
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE- CENTRAL
9 10
SANTA ANA POLICE OFFICERS Case
11 ASSOCIATION; GERRY SERRANO )

CIVIL COMPLAINT
12 Plaintiffs,
vs. 1. VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT
13 CODE § 3500, ET SEQ.

CITY OF SANTA ANA, a Municipal 2. VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC 14 Corporation; SANTA ANA POLICE SAFETY OFFICERS
DEPARTMENT, a public safety PROCEDURAL BILL OF
15 department; DAVID VALENTIN, Chief } RIGHTS ACT, GOVERNMENT of Police; KRISTIN RIDGE, City CODE SECTION 3300 ET. SEQ. 16 Manager; SONIA CARVALHO, City 3. VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF Attorney; JASON MOTSICK, Director of SPEECH
17 Human Resources; DOES I- X, inclusive } 4. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 1102, 1102, 1102. 5
18 Defendants. 5. VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE
832. 5- 832. 8, EVIDENCE
19 CODE §§ 1043- 1046

6. RETALIATION UNDER
20 GOVERNMENT CODE § 12900,
ET SEQ.
21 22 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
23 24 COMES NOW PLAINTIFFS SANTA ANA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 25 and GERRY SERRANO and allege as follows:
26 1. Plaintiff Santa Ana Police Officers Association ( SAPOA) is the recognized 27 employee organization as defined under Government Code § 3500, et seq., and/ or 28 Government Code § 3501( a). The SAPOA has as one of its primary purposes the 1 COMPLAINT
1 representation of sworn and non- sworn employees of the Santa Ana Police Department 2 in their employment relations with the City of Santa Ana and/ or Santa Ana Police 3 Department. In the sworn ranks the SAPOA represents all sworn officers holding the 4 ranks of Police Sergeant and below, as well as Correctional Supervisor and below. 5 2. Plaintiff Gerry Serrano has been since 2016, and now is, the President of 6 the Santa Ana Police Officers Association and the recognized representative of the 7 Santa Ana Police Officers Association as that term is used in Government Code 8 § 3502. 1. He is also a sworn police officer, holding the rank of Police Sergeant with the 9 Santa Ana Police Department.
10 3. Defendant City of Santa Ana is a Municipal Corporation existing under the 11 Constitution and the laws of the State of California. The City of Santa Ana is a public 12 agency as that term is defined in Government Code § 3501( c). It is a municipal entity 13 employing public employees and thus, has a mandatory duty to comply with the 14 provisions of Government Code § 3300, et seq., and Government Code § 3500, et seq. 15 4. Defendant Santa Ana Police Department is a department of the City of 16 Santa Ana and a public safety department, as that terms is used in Government Code 17 § 3309. 5. Defendant Santa Ana Police Department is also a public agency, as that term 18 is used in Government Code § 3500, et seq.
19 5. Defendant Kristine Ridge was and is the City Manager for the City of 20 Santa Ana, and the direct supervisor/ appointing authority of the Chief of Police and 21 Human Resource Director. Ridge is the person responsible for the operations of the 22 city, including the overall management of the City. Plaintiffs have information and belief 23 that Ridge participated in, supervised and/or was actively involved in the incidents 24 giving rise to this action in both her individual and official capacities. 25 6. Defendant David Valentin was and is the appointed Chief of Police for the 26 City of Santa Ana, Santa Ana Police Department. As such he is charged with the 27 supervision and management of personnel, including personnel investigations and 28 discipline of employees of the Santa Ana Police Department. Plaintiffs have information 2 COMPLAINT
1 and belief that Valentin participated in, supervised and/or was actively involved in the 2 incidents giving rise to this action in both his individual and official capacities. 3 7. Sonia Carvalho was and is a private attorney employed by the law firm of 4 Best Best and Krieger LLP, and is the appointed and/ or contracted City Attorney for the 5 City of Santa Ana. Plaintiffs have information and belief that Carvalho participated in, 6 supervised and/ or was actively involved in the incidents giving rise to this action in both 7 her individual and official capacities, and that she acted outside the scope of her duties 8 as an attorney when engaging in acts described below. 9 8. Defendant Jason Motsick was and is the appointed Human Resource 10 Director for the City of Santa Ana and is charged with the supervision and management 11 of personnel, including personnel investigations and discipline of employees of the 12 Santa Ana Police Department. Plaintiffs have information and belief that Motsick 13 participated in, supervised and/ or was actively involved in the incidents giving rise to 14 this action in both his individual and official capacities. 15 9. At all times herein mentioned, DOES I- X, inclusive, were the agents, servants 16 and employees of Respondent, City of Santa Ana and/ or Santa Ana Police Department, 17 and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the scope of their 18 authority as such agents, servants and employees with the permission and consent of 19 Respondents. Claimant will amend the Complaint to allege true names and capacities 20 of DOES I- X, inclusive when ascertained.
21 GENERAL FACTS
22 10. Serrano became President of the SAPOA in 2016 and has served 23 continuously in the position.
24 11. When seeking appointment as Chief of Police, Defendant Valentin sought 25 out and received the support of Serrano and the SAPOA. Later, when the SAPOA and 26 Serrano sought wages and benefits for the SAPOA membership and/ or opposed 27 Valentin on matters of concerns to the Plaintiffs, Valentin' s demeanor and working 28 relationship with Plaintiffs became adversarial.
3 COMPLAINT
1 12. In or about February 2019, the City Council for the City of Santa Ana 2 passed a resolution adopting a Memorandum of Understanding that provided 3 significant, and needed salary increases for members of the SAPOA. Two City 4 Councilpersons and Defendant Valentin opposed the raises. Thereafter, the SAPOA 5 led a successful recall effort to remove the City Councilperson, causing Valentin to 6 become concerned with the SAPOA' s and Serrano' s political influence. 7 13. Later, when Valentin attempted to obtain approval from the City Council to 8 create an additional captain position so he could promote one of his allies, 9 SAPOA/ Serrano opposed the creation of the position. The City Council sided with the 10 SAPOA/ Serrano and did not create an additional captain position. Valentin becam e 11 emotionally upset and barked at Serrano that he needed to " STAND DOWN." It was 12 clear Valentin' s concern about the SAPOA having more influence with the City Council 13 than he did was growing.
14 14. Similarly, Defendant Carvalho began expressing to others that she did not 15 like Serrano. Thereafter, she would purposely interfere and obstruct items pertaining to 16 the SAPOA or Serrano.
17 15. It is believed that Defendants Valentin and Carvalho formed a conspiracy 18 to attack Serrano and the SAPOA. Defendant Valentin and members of his police 19 management team have admitted animosity against Serrano as the President of the 20 Santa Ana Police Officers Association. This animosity has caused Defendant Valentin 21 and the management team under his guidance to treat members of the SAPOA 22 adversely if the employee is believed to be associated with or sought the aid of SAPOA 23 and/ or SAPOA President Serrano. Due to this relationship, Defendant Valentin 24 purposely and intentionally interferes with the SAPOA' s ability to represent its 25 membership and acts contrary to state law. Conversely, Valentin gives special 26 treatment and turns a blind eye to allegations of misconduct by those he believes will 27 either give their loyalty to him and/ or oppose the SAPOA/ Serrano. 28 4

COMPLAINT
1 SPYING
2 16. In January, 2020, Defendant Valentin began spying on Plaintiff Serrano 3 and members of the Santa Ana City Council by redirecting copies of all e- mail 4 communications sent by Serrano to City Councilmember Solorio, from June 2017 5 forward, to his office. Defendant Valentin then had the City' s IT department put a tracer 6 on all of Serrano' s emails so that they would automatically be copied to Defendant 7 Valentin.
8 OTHERINTERFERENCE
9 17. During the last year and continuing to the present, Defendants have 10 censored membership communications and/ or denied the SAPOA the ability to send 11 membership communications via the City' s e- mail system. 12 18. Defendant Valentin has engaged in action to advocate for a change of 13 leadership in the SAPOA and has attempted to interfere with SAPOA elections. Said 14 action includes, but is not limited to, encouraging candidates to run against Serrano for 15 the position of Association President, and questioning members' support for Serrano 16 when they are seeking special assignments and promotions. 17 COMPLAINTS AGAINST LIEUTENANTS
18 19. In or about January, 2020, the SAPOA and Serrano were informed of 19 allegations of misconduct by SAPD Lieutenants/ Commanders Jose Gonzalez and 20 Robert Rodriguez. It was alleged that the two were maliciously spreading rumors 21 regarding activities of Serrano and the SAPOA. Plaintiffs have information and belief, 22 and thereon allege, that said actions constitute violations of department policy and 23 negatively impact the morale of the police department as well as cause division in the 24 SAPOA. The Plaintiffs met with Defendant Valentin and informed him of the allegations 25 of misconduct. Valentin appeared dismissive. Since Valentin failed to initiate an 26 investigation as required by Penal Code §§ 832. 5- 832. 7, the SAPOA/ Serrano reported 27 the information to Defendant Ridge. Again, no investigation was initiated of the police 28 commanders nor of Defendant Valentin.
5 COMPLAINT
1 20. On or about June 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an official complaint regarding 2 the commanders' actions and the failure to investigate the allegations with Defendant 3 Motsick. Motsick also refused to initiate an investigation of the commanders and 4 Defendant Valentin.
5 PERB COMPLAINT
6 21. In or about February, 2020, the SAPOA filed an Unfair Practice Charge 7 with the Public Employment Relations Board ( PERB) alleging that the City of Santa Ana 8 had interfered with, intimidated, attempted to restrain and coerce members of the 9 Association and Gerry Serrano. The City informally resolved the matters, so the SAPOA 10 withdrew the charge.
11 CAMPAIGN SIGNS
12 22. In April, 2020, Plaintiffs reported the theft of campaign signs related to a 13 recall of Santa Ana City Councilmember Iglesias. One of the identified suspects was 14 the City Council person herself. The SAPOA learned that a Police Commander directed 15 the investigating officer to alter his report so that the City Council person would not be 16 listed as the suspect. The Plaintiffs reported the Police Commander' s actions to 17 Defendant Valentin.
18 23. Instead of investigating the unlawful actions of the Police Commander, 19 Valentin ordered his Internal Affairs commander and investigators to conduct an 20 investigation of Serrano.
21 24. When the Plaintiffs obtained a video recording showing the former City 22 Council person stealing the campaign signs, Defendant Valentin, Defendant Carvalho 23 and other private attorneys employed by her firm, directly and through Valentin' s 24 supporters pressured the Orange County District Attorney' s office to open a criminal 25 case against Serrano. When the District Attorney' s office rejected Valentin' s pressures 26 Valentin became upset. With the help of Defendant Carvalho and her private law firm, 27 he began a lengthy letter and meeting campaign in which he chastised the District 28 Attorney' s decision and knowingly included false information in the communications 6 COMPLAINT
I with the District Attorney' s office.
2 25. As part of the April, 2020, efforts to wrongfully bring a criminal case 3 against Serrano, Defendants used department resources, including the Internal Affairs 4 unit, to draft memoranda with adverse comments about Serrano. Serrano was never 5 informed by Defendants of the internal investigation or memoranda, and Defendants 6 failed to allow Serrano to review the adverse comments. It is further believed, to the 7 extent that Defendants have initiated an Internal Affairs investigation, the investigation 8 was not completed within one year of notice of the allegations of misconduct nor has 9 Plaintiff Serrano been notified of any proposed discipline or outcome of the 10 investigation during that one year period. Defendants intentionally concealed the 11 information regarding this investigation and the related memoranda from Plaintiffs. 12 CULICHI TOWN COVER- UP
13 26. On August, 2020, on- duty SAPD officers responded to a call for service at 14 the Culichi Town Restaurant. The call involved allegations that off-duty SAPD officers 15 had sexually battered two underage girls that were at the restaurant. The officers 16 response was caught on body worn cameras and the victim' s family produced a video 17 of the incident that showed off-duty police sergeant Oscar Lizardi as being present and 18 possibly involved in the incident. A Police Commander reported the incident to then IA 19 Commander, and now Deputy Chief, Robert Rodriguez. Rodriguez is believed to be a 20 close friend of Lizard. He denied the Commander' s request for the incident to be 21 investigated.
22 27. On or about September 2, 2020, a request for public records was made 23 for information related to the call including the Incident Detail Report, copy of the 911 24 emergency calls and/ or non- emergency line calls, and police dispatch radio traffic audio 25 files related to the incident ( Incident No. 200805316). Defendant Valentin, on 26 September 24, 2020, denied, in total, the PRA request in order to cover up the 27 misconduct of his IA Commander and one of his closest allies (Lizardi) asserting that 28 the records could not be released because they involved juveniles. This demonstrated 7 COMPLAINT
I that Valentin was aware of the incident and that it involved allegations of criminal 2 conduct towards juveniles by off- duty SAPID officers. 3 28. SAPOA/ Serrano complained to Defendants about Valentin' s and 4 Rodriguez' s attempts to cover up alleged criminal conduct by officers who supported 5 Defendant Valentin pointing out that this conduct amounted to conspiring to commit a 6 criminal act. It is believed that it wasn' t until June, 2021, after multiple complaints and 7 requests for investigations by the SAPOA, that Defendants initiated an investigation of 8 two of the three responding officers. The third responding officer was given a special 9 assignment on Lizardi' s specialized team. In July, 2021, the Department initiated an 10 Internal Affairs investigation of one of the off-duty officers, but not Lizardi, who was the 11 ranking officer amongst the off duty personnel involved in the incident. 12 29. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have refused 13 to initiate an investigation of Deputy Chief Rodriguez and/ or Defendant Valentin. 14 PENSION ISSUE
15 30. In October, 2020, the Defendants inquired of CalPERS as to the propriety 16 of including a premium pay, called " Confidential" received by Serrano while on paid 17 release time to serve as the SAPOA President in the calculation of his pension. It is 18 believed that the City had never inquired about this issue with any prior SAPOA 19 President. When it appeared that there might be a question regarding the inclusion of 20 the premium in the calculation of Serrano' s pension, the City and SAPOA reached an 21 agreement acceptable to Ca1PERS. However, because Serrano continued to carry out 22 his duty to represent the Association and its members, activity that is clearly protected 23 under the law, Defendants failed and refused to take the necessary steps to resolve the 24 issue.
25 F'PPC COMPLAINT
26 31. In November, 2020, Sonia Carvalho, believed to be acting on her own 27 personal vendetta and without City Council approvalsent a request to the California Fair 28 Political Practices Commission seeking a finding that Serrano, as the SAPOA 8 COMPLAINT
1 President, engaged in a conflict of interest by negotiating a side letter agreement 2 related to the pension issue. As the City Council was scheduled to approve the 3 resolution of the pension issue, Carvalho made multiple inquiries to the FPPC for an 4 opinion letter finding Serrano was engaging in an unethical conflict of interest. 5 Ultimately, the FPPC found that Serrano did not engage in any conflict of interest nor 6 did his actions give rise to an unethical conflict of interest. It is believed that Carvalho 7 was acting on her own and with the sole purpose of personally interfering with the 8 SAPOA/ Serrano and/ or with intent to harm Serrano.
9 FEMALE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS
10 32. In or about November, 2020, SAPOA/Serrano informed Defendant Ridge 11 that there was ongoing discrimination against female employees in the Department. 12 Plaintiffs described an incident involving female officers' attendance at a conference 13 regarding leadership issues for women in law enforcement and the Chief's behavior 14 towards those female employees. Defendant Ridge did not open an investigation into 15 the matter until months later when it was statutorily too late to take disciplinary action 16 against Defendant Valentin or his subordinates.
17 33. After Plaintiffs informed Defendant Ridge of the discrimination and 18 harassment of the female officers, Defendant Valentin ordered a " preliminary 19 assessment" in order to cover up his and his staff' s misconduct. The Human Resource 20 representative that appeared with him when he confronted the female officers 21 conducted the investigation. The female officers were ordered to appear for 22 interrogations. They were not provided any information as to the nature of the 23 investigation. When they appeared for interrogation, the HR Representative read from a 24 transcript, indicated that she was going to prepare a report that only went to Valentin, 25 and then questioned the females about the female' s actions and did not have any 26 preset questions about Chief Valentin' s, DC Esparza' s or other police commander's 27 actions.
28 34. On information and belief, it is alleged the Valentin lied to Defendant 9 COMPLAINT
I Ridge and Defendant Motsick claiming that he had initiated an investigation of the 2 discrimination when, in fact, he initiated an investigation of the female officers in order 3 to silence them.
4 35. The Defendants did not hire an investigator to look into these issues of 5 harassment and discrimination until April, 2021.
6 36. On or about May 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Claim against the City 7 of Santa Ana, Santa Ana Police Department, Defendant Valentin, and Deputy Chief 8 Enriquez Esparaza related to the unlawful discrimination, harassment and investigation 9 of the female officers.
10 37. Defendant has summarily dismissed the complaints from the 11 SAPOA/Serrano regarding the discrimination against female officers as just part of 12 Serrano's desire to fix his pension issue.
13 JAIL MANAGEMENT COMPLAINT
14 38, On December 2, 2020, the SAPOA/ Serrano sent an email to Defendant 15 Ridge and Defendant Valentin requesting an investigation of misconduct by jail 16 management/supervision wherein it was alleged that serious misconduct was being 17 covered up and/or not addressed, and that supervisors were being directed to falsify 18 reports and/ or official documents.
19 DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS
20 39. On or about February 25, 2021, a purported reporter with the Voice of OC 21 ( an online nonprofit media source) sent to Sonia Carvalho, the City Attorney for the City 22 of Santa Ana and Santa Ana Police Department, a Public Records Act (PRA) request 23 seeking, a spreadsheet or breakdown of how many employees at the Santa Ana Police 24 Department have been put on paid administrative leave between 01/ 01/ 2016 and 25 2125/ 2021. The PRA request included a request for Ms. Carvalho to provide the 26 reasons for the employees being put on paid administrative leave and a breakdown of 27 total costs to the City of Santa Ana incurred by paid administrative leave for Santa Ana 28 Police Department employees between 01101/ 2016 and / 25/ 2021. 10 COMPLAINT
1 40. On or about March 26, 2021, without prior notice to the involved 2 employees or the SAPOA and/ or without complying with Penal Code §§ 832. 5- 832. 8 3 and/ or Evidence Code § 1043- 1046, the City Attorney' s office, the City of Santa Ana, 4 under the supervision of Defendant Ridge and/ or the Santa Ana Police Department, 5 under the supervision of Defendant Valentin, intentionally and purposely produced 6 confidential records from the involved officers' personnel files. It is believed that this 7 disclosure included data that identified the individual officers involved which is a clear 8 violation of Penal Code § 832. 7( d).
9 41. Defendants Carvalho, Valentin, Ridge, City of Santa Ana and/ or the Santa 10 Ana Police Department are aware that peace officer personnel records are confidential 11 and exempt from disclosure.
12 42. On or about April 21, 2021, Deputy Chief of Police Eric Paulson, on behalf 13 of Defendant Valentin, conceded in a letter to the Voice of OC that confidential peace 14 officer personnel had been produced to the Voice of OC, including, but not limited to 15 the names of the officers in connection with administrative investigations. Deputy Chief 16 Paulson requested that the confidential records be returned. Plaintiffs are informed and 17 believe, and thereupon allege that after the Voice of OC refused to return the 18 confidential records, Defendants failed to take any action to force the Voice of OC to 19 return the documents.
20 43. On or about April 27, 2021, Defendants started notifying certain of the 21 impacted officers of the unlawful actions by Defendants. The Notification did not advise 22 the impacted employees of what specific information had been released and did not 23 notify them of any rights they may have. The notices also did not indicate if the 24 Defendants would be taking further action to enforce the employees' rights. 25 44. Also on or about April 27, 2021, Deputy Chief Paulson informed the Santa 26 Ana Police Officers Association of the Defendants' unlawful disclosure of the 27 confidential peace officer information of members of the Santa Ana Police Officers 28 Association. The notification of Defendants' unlawful action did not identify to the POA I

COMPLAINT
I
the names of the impacted members/ officers, but simply stated that the effected 2 employees had been notified. As it turned out, when Deputy Chief Paulson claimed, on 3 behalf and presumably at the directions of Defendants, that all affected employees had 4 been notified, the statement was not true and appears to have been an intentional 5 misrepresentation by Defendants to conceal the fact that the notifications to the 6 effected employees had just begun.
7 45. The Santa Ana Police Officers Association filed a written complaint with 8 the Defendant City Manager Kristine Ridge, and Human Resource Director Jason 9 Motsick requesting that the matter be immediately investigated. Plaintiffs are informed 10 and believe, and thereupon allege that even though the Defendants were required to 11 investigate this matter, as a " citizen complaint" pursuant to Penal Code §§ 832. 5- 832. 7, 12 Defendants did not investigate nor discipline those city employees responsible for the 13 violations of law.
14 46. On or about April 28, 2021, a number of affected officers and the Santa 15 Ana Police Officers Association, which has a legal right to represent its members in any 16 and all matters related to their employment with the Santa Ana Police Department, 17 requested copies of any and all communications regarding PRA# 21- 289, including all 18 a- mails between representatives of the City, Police Department and/ or Voice of OC and 19 also requested copies of all records that were produced to the Voice of OC and a list of 20 the impacted officers. Defendants, as part of an ongoing plan and scheme to 21 undermine and interfere with the POA' s ability to represent its members, denied the 22 POA' s request for copies of the produced records and list of names of impacted 23 employees. Defendants refused to provide copies of the unlawfully released information 24 and/ or the list of names of the impacted employees. 25 47. Also on April 28, 2021, Defendants Motsick, Valentin, Ridge and Carvalho 26 issued a letter wherein they indicated that City was terminating the SAPOA's long 27 standing ability to send emails to communications to all SAPOA members through the 28 City' s email system.
12 COMPLAINT
1 48. On or about May 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Claim against 2 Defendants City of Santa Ana, Santa Ana Police Department and Defendant Valentin 3 regarding their unlawful disclosure of confidential peace officer records. 4 49. Defendant Ridge and Carvalho have summarily dismissed the complaints 5 from the SAPOA/Serrano regarding the unlawful disclosure of records as just part of 6 Serrano' s desire to fix his pension issue.
7 FALSE INFORMATION TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
8 50. On or about May 12, 2021, the SAPOA/ Serrano learned that Santa Ana 9 City Councilmember Penaloza had complained to Defendant Valentin that officers from 10 Valentin' s special unit ( MET), which is supervised by Sgt. Lizardi, had shined the patrol 11 vehicle' s ally lights at him while he was driving on multiple occasions. It was further 12 learned that Defendant Valentin tried to falsely blame the SAPOA and Serrano for the 13 officers' alleged actions.
14 COMPLAINT AGAINST VALENTIN
15 51. On or about May 13, 2021, the SAPOA/ Serrano filed a complaint on 16 behalf of the members of the SAPOA against Defendant Valentin and his police 17 management similar to that made in November, 2020. SAPOA raised issues regarding 18 unaddressed gender discrimination; unaddressed cover- up of the Culichi Town incident; 19 allegations that Valentin committed perjury in at least one deposition; the inclusion of 20 false information in official personnel records; Jail Managers covering up alleged 21 misconduct by employees and/ or falsifying records/reports related to the misconduct; 22 interference in a criminal investigation where a former City Council person was initially 23 listed as the suspect until the officer was directed to change his report; and interference 24 with Association activities and/ or representation of members. 25 52. In response to the May 13, 2021, complaint, Defendants either failed to 26 initiate an investigation, as required by Penal Code §§ 832. 5- 832. 7 and/ or failed to 27 report to the complainant the outcome of the investigation( s). 28 53. Defendant Ridge and Carvalho have summarily dismissed the complaints from 13 COMPLAINT
1 the SAPOA/Serrano as just part of Serrano's desire to fix his pension issue. 2 CITY MANAGER DISCIPLINARY ACTION
3 54. In order to try to silence the SAPOA/ Serrano, on or about May 18, 2021, 4 Defendant Ridge issued a disciplinary document entitled " Employee Conduct Warning 5 Letter" to Serrano for acts he undertook as the "advocate and leader of the SAPDX 6 which Defendant Ridge argued violated the City Charter and police department policies. 7 Under the provisions of Government Code § 3300, et seq., this document constituted a 8 written reprimand and punitive actions as that term is used under Government Code 9 §§ 3303 and 3304.
10 55. Under the City Charter Defendant Ridge does not have the ability to 11 discipline a police sergeant as she is not the appointing authority for the police 12 department. Therefore, Ridge's actions were outside her official capacity and 13 demonstrated that she was acting in excess of her authority in order to discriminate, 14 harass and retaliate against Serrano and the SAPOA.
15 56. The May 18, 2021, Employee Conduct Warning Letter specifically initiated 16 punitive action against Serrano, as the President of the SAPOA, for communicating ( via 17 text and e- mail) to elected officials raising issues with the management of the Police 18 Department. The Warning Letter also directed Serrano, as the President of the SAPOA 19 not to communicate regarding police management issues with the Santa Ana City 20 Council.
21 57. Serrano, on May 20, 2021, invoked his rights under POBRA and 22 requested all documentation supporting Defendant Ridge' s allegations of misconduct, 23 and all complaints giving rise to the punitive action. Serrano also invoked his right to an 24 administrative appeal under Government Code § 3304. Defendants have failed and 25 refused to provide Serrano any documents supporting the allegations contained in 26 Ridge' s letter and have refused to afford him any administrative appeal of the punitive 27 action imposed against him.
28 INVESTIGATION OF SERRANO
14 COMPLAINT
1 58. On or about May 27, 2021, Defendant Valentin ordered an investigation of 2 Serrano based on alleged comments Serrano made in his capacity as the current 3 President of the SAPOA about a former SAPOA President in October, 2020. The 4 investigation was opened even though legal counsel for the City of Santa Ana indicated, 5 in writing that to the extent Serrano' s statements were made as a POA President, Mr. 6 Serrano was not speaking as a police sergeant of the City or the Santa Ana Police 7 Department, and acknowledged that the City was not able to restrict the conduct of the 8 POA and/ or its President which relate to the administration of the POA as such action 9 would be a violation of the Meyers- Milias Brown Act. ( See Government Code section 10 3506. 5( d).). Counsel for the City acknowledged, therefore, the City was not able to 11 direct Mr. Serrano to engage or not engage in conduct that is done in his capacity as 12 President of the POA in relation to the administration of the POA. 13 59. Evidently, the City of Santa Ana had to pay the former POA President and 14 his wife approximately $ 350, 000.00, as Defendants had allegedly retaliated against the 15 former POA President and Defendant Valentin sexually harassed the former POA 16 President' s wife. Thereafter, the former POA President, in an effort to obtain more 17 money from the City, alleged that Serrano violated the settlement agreement even 18 though Serrano was not a party to the action or the agreement. On or about October 19 26, 2020 when the City would not pay any additional money, the former POA President 20 filed a written complaint against Serrano.
21 60. It appeared that the City was not going to take action on the frivolous 22 complaint, but Defendant Valentin and possibly others, in order to further retaliate 23 against Serrano and the SAPOA, initiated the investigation nine months later. To this 24 date, Defendants have not notified Serrano of the outcome of the investigation and the 25 one year statute of limitations has expired.
26 SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS
27 61. On June 16, 2021, Defendants Motsick and Carvalho scheduled a 28 meeting with Serrano without informing him of the nature of the meeting. Serrano 15 COMPLAINT
1 appeared with legal counsel. After arriving Serrano was informed that Defendants 2 Motsick and Carvalho were conducting " fact-finding" regarding allegations they had 3 been made aware of by a third party. The allegation was that Defendant Ridge had 4 sexually harassed Serrano. Being caught off guard, Serrano, on advice of counsel, did 5 not make any statement. It was clear at that point that the City was not protecting 6 Serrano from retaliation by the other Defendants.
7 62. Even though Serrano had not filed a complaint against Defendant Ridge, 8 Defendants feared that Serrano had disclosed or might disclose information of unlawful 9 activities by Defendant Ridge.
10 63. As discussed below, it was later learned that approximately a month 11 earlier Ridge "self-reported" the harassment allegations to Defendant Carvalho and her 12 subordinate Defendant Motsick. In a letter to the City Council Ridge was careful in her 13 assertion, making allegations that Serrano had been untruthful and interfered in 14 investigations, but not specifically denying allegations that she sexual harassed 15 Serrano. In that same letter to the City Council Ridge violated state law by disclosing 16 closed session communications with the Council as well as disclosing confidential 17 personnel information about a peace officer to wit, Serrano. 18 64. Ridge' s disclosures to the City Council reveal that Carvahlo and Motsick 19 were not simply conducting a fact finding investigation, but were investigating Ridge' s 20 allegations against Serrano who should have been afforded his rights under the Peace 21 Officers Procedural Bill of Rights.
22 65. On July 7, 2021, Defendant Ridge, fearing the Serrano would report her 23 unlawful activities, directed Serrano to refrain from sending any e- mail communications 24 to her. In essence, Defendant Ridge gave direct orders to the President of the SAPOA 25 not to contact elected officials or herself with any issues or complaint. 26 66. On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Claim ( Gov' t Code § 910, 910. 4) 27 with Defendants.
28 67. On or about July 16, 2021, the City of Santa Ana hired the law firm of 16 COMPLAINT
I Barboza & Associates to assist Motsick in conducting a personnel investigation into 2 Serrano' s possible allegations of harassment even though Serrano had not made any 3 such allegations. However, when Plaintiffs tried to determine who retained Barboza, 4 and whether she was working independently or as an agent/ attorney for the City, she 5 refused to answer. Plaintiffs made the same inquiry of Defendant Motsick on July 21st, 6 but never received a response.
7 68. It was later confirmed that Barboza and Associates was hired to provide 8 legal advice to the City regarding the investigations thus creating an attorney-client 9 relationship and a duty of Barboza and Associates to find in a manner to protect their 10 clients. The City specifically prohibited the firm to render any determination about 11 unlawful discrimination, harassment, violation of public policy or any other violations of 12 law or statute. Therefore, there was no reason for Serrano to participate in 13 investigations that could not result in a legal determination. 14 69. On or about July 19, 2021, Defendant Ridge, trying to minimize her 15 misconduct and redirect attention from the allegations of misconduct against her, sent a 16 letter to the Mayor and City Council falsely claiming that all complaints and tort claims 17 coming from the SAPOA and its members were singularly focused on Serrano' s 18 pension issues. In the letter to the Mayor and City Council Ridge revealed confidential 19 personnel file information of Serrano in violation of state law. Ridge also tried to defame 20 Serrano in order to diminish his credibility if he was to come forward with allegations of 21 sexual harassment.
22 70. It became clear that Ridge' s letter dated July 19, 2021, was meant to 23 tarnish Serrano and the SAPOA and to be produced to mass audiences. In fact, on 24 August 3, 2021, the Voice of OC contacted Serrano and advised him that it had been 25 given copies of the letter and the disciplinary letter which outline allegations against him 26 by the City Manager and City Attorney. According to the records they were provided the 27 Voice of OC indicated that both Kristine Ridge and Sonia Carvalho claimed Serrano 28 had caused harm to the city through his pursuit of higher compensation including filing 17 COMPLAINT
1 unsubstantiated legal claims, threats to ` burn the place down' and ' make disclosures 2 that will hurt people" and asking elected officials to put pressure on the city manager. 3 Ridge and Carvahlo conspired to release confidential communications to the media in 4 violation of Penal Code §§ 832. 5- 832. 8 and/ or Evidence Code §§ 1043- 1046 and/ or the 5 Brown Act.
6 71. Two days later, even though Ridge had ordered Serrano not to have 7 contact with her, she attempted to contact Serrano on his personal phone. Serrano 8 knew better and did not take the call.
9 72, On July 29, 2021, the City rejected the Government Tort Claim filed 10 related to the above issues. The City chose not to try to resolve the matter or conduct 11 investigations prior to issuing the rejection. It appears that the Defendants are intent on 12 forcing the parties to litigate the City' s liability. The use of Ms. Barboza' s services is just 13 to obtain statements in an effort to defend the anticipated lawsuit. 14 73. The City is believed to have closed its " sexual harassment investigation" 15 of Defendant Ridge without conducting a single interview and without questioning 16 Defendant Ridge regarding her alleged illegal and/ or harassing conduct. 17 SAPOA ASSISTS MEMBERS IN FILING COMPLAINTS
18 74. On July 20, 2021, the SAPOA supported the filing of a citizen complaint 19 by one of the Association' s members against Defendant Valentin alleging retaliation 20 and creating a hostile working environment for the member that was known to support 21 the SAPOA/ Serrano. The Defendants assigned the investigation to an outside 22 investigator, but failed to notify the complainant of the outcome of the investigation. 23 75. On or about August 19, 2021, the SAPOA supported the filing of a citizen 24 complaint by one of the Association' s members against Sgt. Oscar Lizardi for 25 allegations of engaging in intimidation and threats against a member who Lizardi 26 believed supported the SAPOA' s vote of no confidence against Defendant Valentin. 27 The Defendants assigned the investigation to an outside investigator, but failed to notify 28 the complainant of the outcome of the investigation. 18 COMPLAINT
1 76. On or about August 19, 2021, the SAPOA supported the f iling of a citizen 2 complaint by one of the Association members against Sgt. Oscar Lizardi for allegation 3 of witness intimidation related to an internal affairs investigation that Defendant Valentin 4 ordered against a supporter of the SAPOA/Serrano. The Defendants assigned the 5 investigation to an outside investigator, but failed to notify the complainant of the 6 outcome of the investigation.
7 VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE
8 77. On July 8, 2021, Plaintiffs notified Defendant Ridge and Motsick that the 9 Board of Directors had unanimously voted to send out a Vote of No Confidence ballot 10 regarding Defendant Valentin.
11 78. In August, 2021, the SAPOA Board of Directors issued a Memorandum 12 regarding the Vote and raised a number of issues for the membership to consider. 13 79. On or about August 25, 2021, Charles Goldwasser, who serves as 14 General Counsel to the Santa Ana Police Officers Association, wrote Defendant 15 Valentin and Defendant Ridge regarding on- duty harassment and verbal pressure 16 against SAPOA members by Sergeant Lizardi. The conduct interfered with these 17 officers' ability to perform their duties. The Santa Ana Police Officers' Association 18 requested that the City of Santa Ana issue a reminder about this type of on- duty 19 conduct taking place at the Police Department. Plaintiff Serrano, as the President of the 20 SAPOA, followed- up Mr. Goldwasser' s communication with an email to Defendant 21 Motsick acknowledging that his members were reporting their working conditions were 22 becoming unbearable and reminding the City that an unchecked hostile work 23 environment, especially where the employees are armed, could result in a bad 24 situations occurring.
25 80. On August 26, 2021, during a time the SAPOA was considering a " Vote of 26 No Confidence" in Defendant Valentin, Valentin in coordination with Defendants 27 Carvalho, Ridge and Motsick, tried to silence SAPOA President Gerry Serrano by 28 placing him on administrative leave and restricting his access to, and use of, the 19 COMPLAINT
I City/Police Department e-mail system. In order to place Serrano on administrative 2 leave, Defendant Valentin, or his underlings, specifically ordered Commander Sorenson 3 to leave the Notice of Administrative Leave/Fitness for Duty Exam at Serrano' s 4 residence where it was found by his son.
5 81. The order to undergo the Fitness for Duty Exam specifically references 6 Mr. Serrano' s August 26, 2021, 5: 05 a. m., email to Defendant Motsick as the sole basis 7 for the exam. Therefore, because Mr. Serrano decided that it was necessary, as the 8 SAPOA President, to reaffirm the seriousness of the issues, Defendants ordered 9 Serrano to undergo a Fitness for Duty Examination.
10 82. Serrano, via counsel, objected to the Fitness for Duty Examination as 11 being unlawful. He invoked his rights under Government Code § 3300, et seq., including 12 Government Code § 3305 and/ or Government Code § 3306. 5 ( requesting copies of 13 and/or access to any and all documents being used or have been used to determine 14 that officer' s qualifications for employment, promotion, additional compensation, or 15 termination or other disciplinary action).
16 83. In response to Plaintiff' s assertion of rights and request for materials 17 Defendants intentionally falsified a letter to Serrano' s attorney by including claims that 18 Serrano had not been ordered to sign any releases. Defendants denied the request for 19 materials.
20 84. It was subsequently discovered that Defendants did not comply with their 21 own policy regarding Fitness for Duty and/ or Fitness for Duty Examinations. 22 85. Police Commander Sorrenson was ordered not to retrieve department 23 issued equipment from Mr. Serrano at the SAPOA officce, but instead to order him to 24 report to the police station. The applicable Memorandum of Understanding specifically 25 states: "The Association and the City of Santa Ana agree that the Association' s 26 representative will not be required to carry out any peace officer's duties during such 27 time that the Association' s representative is on such full-time release from duty. The 28 Association' s representative will be required to comply with the Rules and Regulations 20 COMPLAINT
I of the Santa Ana Police Department as they apply to off-duty employees, except such 2 representative ill not be required to report for duty for any purpose. Defendants 3 breached of the MOU by ordering Mr. Serrano to appear for a FFDE and to report to the 4 police station.
5 86. Moreover, the Police Department Fitness for Duty policy indicates that its 6 purpose and scope is directly related to the exercise of peace officers powers, but the 7 MOU releases Mr. Serrano from any such exercise. Furthermore, the Fitness for Duty 8 policy governs on- duty conduct, not off-duty.
9 87. Plaintiff initiated a grievance, but that matter was futile as it was to be 10 heard by the City Manager that had ordered Serrano not to have contact with her. 11 Defendants then had Defendant Motsick conduct the grievance hearing even though he 12 was the one that initiated the FFDE by claiming Serrano' s e- mail was threatening. 13 88. On September 1, 2021, the SAPOA disclosed the results of the Vote of 14 No Confidence. More than a majority of the members that voted indicated that they had 15 no confidence in the Chief of Police. That same day Defendant Valentin responded to 16 the membership vote by targeting Serrano. Defendant Valentin falsely attributed the 17 SAPOA' s actions as Serrano' s personal pension dispute and not about the facts giving 18 rise to the Vote. Defendant Valentin accused Serrano of making false and frivolous 19 claims, and engaging in crimes and corruption when Defendant Valentin knew these 20 allegations against Serrano were false.
21 89. With the grievance over the FFDE pending and unresolved, Defendants 22 ordered Serrano to appear for the exam and undergo hours of questioning by the 23 contract doctor. The Defendants did not pay Serrano for his time at the FFDE 24 examination.
25 90. On September 14, 2021, Serrano was found to be fit for duty and 26 removed from administrative leave. After Serrano was found to be fit for duty Defendant 27 Motsick finally held a grievance meeting and later summarily rejected the grievance. 28 Finally, even though Plaintiffs raised issues of retaliation and hostile environment 21 COMPLAINT
1 Defendants have not even attempted to investigate these claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs 2 have exhausted all administrative remedies related to the FFDE. 3 91. Additionally, even though Serrano had been removed from Administrative 4 Leave, the locker assigned to him by the Police Department was secured so Serrano 5 could not access it. It was visible to any person that walked into the locker room that the 6 locker was still being secured by the Department.
7 92. Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all non- mandamus relief. 8 93. Plaintiff has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy under the law. 9 Pursuant to Government Code Section 3309. 5, Plaintiff need not pursue any 10 administrative remedy in order to address this problem; thus, Plaintiff is excused from 11 or has exhausted his administrative remedies. This court is given initial jurisdiction over 12 this matter pursuant to Government Code § 3309. 5.
13 94. To the extent facts, incidents and/ or issues described above were learned 14 and/ or occurred after Plaintiffs' filed their Government Tort Claim, Plaintiffs only seek 15 mandamus and/ or injunctive relief to cure the violations and prevent future violations of 16 a similar nature. Once Plaintiffs has processed and/ or the Defendants rejected any 17 such supplemental claim, Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint accordingly. 18 VENUE AND JURISDICTION
19 95. Venue is proper in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of 20 Orange in that the underlying acts, omissions, injuries and related facts and 21 circumstances giving rise to the present action occurred in the City of Santa Ana, 22 County of Orange, California. This Court has jurisdiction over the present matter 23 because, as delineated within this complaint, the nature of the claims and amount in 24 controversy meet the requirements of jurisdiction in the Superior Court. This Court is 25 empowered with initial jurisdiction to entertain suits brought pursuant to California 26 Government Code § 3300, et seq., and for traditional mandamus action. 27 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
28 Against All Defendants
22 COMPLAINT
I Violation of Government Code 43500, et seq.
2 96. Plaintiffs Santa Ana Police Officers Association and Gerry Serrano for a 3 First Cause of Action against all Defendants for violations of Government Code § 3500, 4 et seq., re- allege paragraphs 1- 95, above, and further allege as follows:
5 97. Government Code § 3502 provides, in pertinent part, public employees shall 6 have the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of 7 their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer8 employee relations. 9 98. Government Code § 3502. 1 provides that " No public employee shall be 10 subject to punitive action or denied promotion, or threatened with any such treatment, 11 for the exercise of lawful action as an elected, appointed, or recognized representative 12 of any employee bargaining unit."
13 99. Government Code § 3503 provides, in pertinent part, that "Recognized 14 employee organizations shall have the right to represent their members in their 15 employment relations with public agencies."
16 100. Government Code § 3504 provides, in pertinent part, that the scope of 17 representation shall include all matters relating to employment conditions and 18 employer-employee relations, including, but not limited to, wages, hours, and other 19 terms and conditions of employment.
20 101. Government Code § 3506 provides that " Public agencies and employee 21 organizations shall not interfere with, intimidate, restrain, coerce or discriminate against 22 public employees because of their exercise of their rights under Section 3502." 23 102. Government Code § 3506. 5 provides, in pertinent part, that a public agency 24 shall not do any of the following: ( a) Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on 25 employees, to discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or otherwise 26 to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because of their exercise of rights 27 guaranteed by this chapter; ( b) deny to employee organizations the rights guaranteed to 28 them by this chapter; ( d) dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of 23 COMPLAINT
I any employee organization, contribute financial or other support to any employee 2 organization, or in any way encourage employees to join any organization in preference 3 to another.
4 103. Defendants, and each of them, in undertaking the acts and/or omissions 5 listed above, violated the above provisions of the Meyers- Milias- Brown Act ( MMBA), 6 including, but not limited to interfering with, intimidating, restraining, coercing and/ or 7 discriminating against the SAPOA, Gerry Serrano and/ or other public employees who 8 are members of the SAPOA because of their exercise of their rights under this Act. 9 104. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in acts and/ or omissions, as 10 alleged above, wherein they have 1) subjected Serrano to punitive actions and/or 11 threatened him with said actions; 2) imposed or threatened to impose reprisals on 12 Serrano, 3) discriminated or threatened to discriminated against him; 3) otherwise 13 interfered with, restrained, or coerced Serrano because of his exercise of rights 14 guaranteed by the MMBA, and/ or for the exercise of lawful action as an elected, 15 appointed, or recognized representative of any employee bargaining unit.. 16 105. The duty to obey the laws set forth in Government Code § 3500, et seq., is 17 a ministerial duty and is not discretionary. By acting, and failing to act, as set forth 18 above, defendants have violated a ministerial duty. Moreover, the acts and/ or omissions 19 of defendants, set forth above, demonstrate that defendants' failure to comply with 20 Government Code § 3500, et seq., was illegal as a matter of law under Government 21 Code section 1222, which makes a public officer' s " willful omission to perform any duty 22 enjoined by law" a misdemeanor.
23 106. Each and every act listed above, individually or jointly, constitutes a 24 violation of Government Code § 3500, et seq., and therefore this court should render 25 appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief to remedy the violation and to prevent 26 future violations of a like or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a 27 temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction, or, in 28 the alternative, a Writ of Mandate prohibiting the Santa Ana Police Department from 24 COMPLAINT
1 taking any punitive action against any public safety officer member of the SAPOA. 2 Plaintiffs specifically seek a " make whole" remedy.
3 107. The above articulated violations were proximately caused by City's 4 deliberate indifference to its employee' s violations of the Meyer- Milias Brown Act, and 5 the failure to train and control its officers and representatives on the provisions of these 6 Acts. The violations set forth above were proximity caused by the customs, practices, 7 policies and decisions of the defendants.
8 108. Unless this court issues a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining 9 and restraining defendants, and each of them, and their agents, employees and 10 servants, from ordering, requiring, commanding, or taking any other action that will 11 result in violations of Plaintiffs' rights, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in that its/ his 12 rights, as afforded by Government Code § 3500, et seq., will be violated without any 13 remedy being afforded.
14 109. Plaintiffs have attempted, without success, to exhaust any and all 15 administrative remedies afforded to them to deal with these issues, but such efforts are 16 futile as the named defendants are the ones that make the final decisions via any 17 complaints, grievances or other administrative actions. 18 110. Plaintiff requests this court to award damages and attorney fees pursuant 19 C. C. P. § 1090 and 1095.
20 111. In bringing this action, Petitioners have sought enforcement of an important 21 right affecting the public interest which will result in the conferring of a significant benefit 22 upon a large class of persons, to wit, public employees, thereby entitling Petitioners to 23 an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021. 5. 24 112. The actions of defendants, and each of them, were arbitrary and capricious 25 and, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys' fees pursuant to Government 26 Code § 800.
27 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
28 Against All Defendants
25 COMPLAINT
1 Violation of Government Code § 3300, et seq.
2 113. Plaintiffs Santa Ana Police Officers Association and Gerry Serrano for a 3 Second Cause of Action against all Defendants for violations of Government Code 4 § 3300, et seq., relief re- alleges paragraphs 1- 112, above, and further allege as follows:
5 114. Government Code § 3301 provides, in pertinent part, that "The Legislature 6 hereby finds and declares that the rights and protections provided to peace officers 7 under this chapter constitute a matter of statewide concern. The Legislature further 8 finds and declares that effective law enforcement depends upon the maintenance of 9 stable employer-employee relations, between public safety employees and their 10 employers. In order to assure that stable relations are continued throughout the state 11 and to further assure that effective services are provided to all people of the state, it is 12 necessary that this chapter be applicable to all public safety officers, as defined in this 13 section, wherever situated within the State of California." 14 115. Government Code § 3302 provides, in pertinent part, that except as 15 otherwise provided by law, or whenever on duty or in uniform, no public safety officer 16 shall be prohibited from engaging, or be coerced or required to engage, in political 17 activity.
18 116. Government Code § 3303 provides, in pertinent part, that when any public 19 safety officer is under investigation and subjected to interrogation by his or her 20 commanding officer, or any other member of the employing public safety department, 21 that could lead to punitive action, the interrogation shall be conducted under the 22 following conditions. For the purpose of this chapter, punitive action means any action 23 that may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension, reduction in salary, written 24 reprimand, or transfer for purposes of punishment.
25 a) The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably 26 at a time when the public safety officer is on duty, or during the normal 27 working hours for the public safety officer, unless the seriousness of the 28 investigation requires otherwise. If the interrogation does occur during off 26 COMPLAINT
1 duty time of the public safety officer being interrogated, the public safety 2 officer shall be compensated for any off-duty time in accordance with 3 regular department procedures, and the public safety officer shall not be 4 released from employment for any work missed.
5 b) The public safety officer under investigation shall be informed prior to 6 the interrogation of the rank, name, and command of the officer in charge 7 of the interrogation, the interrogating officers, and all other persons to be 8 present during the interrogation. All questions directed to the public safety 9 officer under interrogation shall be asked by and through no more than 10 two interrogators at one time.
11 c) The public safety officer under investigation shall be informed of the 12 nature of the investigation prior to any interrogation. 13 e) The employer shall not cause the public safety officer under 14 interrogation to be subjected to visits by the press or news media without 15 his or her express consent nor shall his or her home address or 16 photograph be given to the press or news media without his or her 17 express consent.
18 g) The complete interrogation of a public safety officer may be recorded. 19 If a tape recording is made of the interrogation, the public safety officer 20 shall have access to the tape if any further proceedings are contemplated 21 or prior to any further interrogation at a subsequent time, The public safety 22 officer shall be entitled to a transcribed copy of any notes made by a 23 stenographer or to any reports or complaints made by investigators or 24 other persons, except those which are deemed by the investigating 25 agency to be confidential. No notes or reports that are deemed to be 26 confidential may be entered in the officer' s personnel file. The public 27 safety officer being interrogated shall have the right to bring his or her own 28 recording device and record any and all aspects of the interrogation. 27 COMPLAINT
1 117. Government Code § 3304( a) provides that" No public safety officer shall be 2 subjected to punitive action, or denied promotion, or be threatened with any such 3 treatment, because of the lawful exercise of the rights granted under this chapter, or the 4 exercise of any rights under any existing administrative grievance procedure. 5 118. Government Code § 3304( b) provides, in pertinent part, " No punitive action, 6 nor denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, shall be undertaken by any public 7 agency against any public safety officer who has successfully completed the 8 probationary period that may be required by his or her employing agency without 9 providing the public safety officer with an opportunity for administrative appeal." 10 119. Government Code § 3304( d) ( 1) reads " Except as provided in this 11 subdivision and subdivision ( g), no punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds 12 other than merit, shall be undertaken for any act, omission, or other allegation of 13 misconduct if the investigation of the allegation is not completed within one year of the 14 public agency' s discovery by a person authorized to initiate an investigation of the 15 allegation of an act, omission, or other misconduct. This one- year limitation period shall 16 apply only if the act, omission, or other misconduct occurred on or after January 1, 17 1998. In the event that the public agency determines that discipline may be taken, it 18 shall complete its investigation and notify the public safety officer of its proposed 19 discipline by a Letter of Intent or Notice of Adverse Action articulating the discipline that 20 year, except as provided in paragraph ( 2). The public agency shall not be required to 21 impose the discipline within that one- year period." 22 120. Government Code § 3305 provides that no public safety officer shall have 23 any comment adverse to his interest entered in his personnel file, or any other file used 24 for any personnel purposes by his employer, without the public safety officer having first 25 read and signed the instrument containing the adverse comment indicating he is aware 26 of such comment, except that such entry may be made if after reading such instrument 27 the public safety officer refuses to sign it. Should a public safety officer refuse to sign, 28 that fact shall be noted on that document, and signed or initialed by such officer. 28 COMPLAINT
1 121. Government Code § 3306 reads "A public safety officer shall have 30 days 2 within which to file a written response to any adverse comment entered in his personnel 3 file. Such written response shall be attached to, and shall accompany, the adverse 4 comment."
5 122. Government Code § 3306. 5. provides, in pertinent part, that ( a) Every 6 employer shall, at reasonable times and at reasonable intervals, upon the request of a 7 public safety officer, during usual business hours, with no loss of compensation to the 8 officer, permit that officer to inspect personnel files that are used or have been used to 9 determine that officer's qualifications for employment, promotion, additional 10 compensation, or termination or other disciplinary action; ( b) Each employer shall keep 11 each public safety officer's personnel file or a true and correct copy thereof , and shall 12 make the file or copy thereof available within a reasonable period of time after a request 13 therefor by the officer."
14 123. Government Code § 3309 provides that " No public safety officer shall have 15 his locker, or other space for storage that may be assigned to him searched except in 16 his presence, or with his consent, or unless a valid search warrant has been obtained or 17 where he has been notified that a search will be conducted. This section shall apply 18 only to lockers or other space for storage that are owned or leased by the employing 19 agency.
20 124. Government Code § 3309. 5( a) provides " it shall be unlawful for any public 21 safety department to deny or refuse to any public safety officer the rights and 22 protections guaranteed to him or her by this chapter." 23 125. Government Code § 3309. 5 further provides, in pertinent part, "( d) ( 1) In 24 any case where the superior court finds that a public safety department has violated 25 any of the provisions of this chapter, the court shall render appropriate injunctive or 26 other extraordinary relief to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like 27 r similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a temporary restraining 28 order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction prohibiting the public safety 29 COMPLAINT
1 department from taking any punitive action against the public safety officer" and °( e) In 2 addition to the extraordinary relief afforded by this chapter, upon a finding by a superior 3 court that a public safety department, its employees, agents, or assigns, with respect to 4 acts taken within the scope of employment, maliciously violated any provision of this 5 chapter with the intent to injure the public safety officer, the public safety department 6 shall, for each and every violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty- five 7 thousand dollars ($ 25, 000) to be awarded to the public safety officer whose right or 8 protection was denied and for reasonable attorney's fees as may be determined by the 9 court. If the court so finds, and there is sufficient evidence to establish actual damages 10 suffered by the officer whose right or protection was denied, the public safety 11 department shall also be liable for the amount of the actual damages." 12 126. As described above, Plaintiff Gerry Serrano was the subject of numerous 13 investigations that could result in punitive action. One investigation was conducted by 14 Defendants Carvalho and Motsick after Defendant Ridge complained that Serrano was 15 making false statements about her. Serrano was not told, prior to his interview, that 16 Carvalho would be present, was not informed of the nature of the investigation prior to 17 arriving, was not told, nor afforded the opportunity to record the interview. 18 127. In other administrative investigations conducted under the orders of 19 Defendant Valentin, Serrano was not compensated for his time in the interrogations. 20 128. Defendant Ridge issued punitive action against Serrano and when he 21 sought an administrative appeal and the documents purportedly supporting the punitive 22 action, both requests were denied.
23 129, Defendant Valentin has placed or caused to be placed in Serrano's 24 personnel file and/ or files used for personnel purposes adverse comments without 25 affording Serrano the ability to review the documents containing the adverse comments. 26 130. Defendant Valentin has ordered administrative investigations to be 27 conducted well in excess of the one year statute of limitations, and has not provided 28 notice of the investigations or the outcome of the investigations to Serrano. 30 COMPLAINT
1 131. Serrano has requested to review documents used for personnel purposes 2 but has been denied the opportunity to do so.
3 132. Serrano has information and believe that his department issued locker 4 and/ or other space for storage ( including his department issued email storage system) 5 has been searched outside of his presence and/ or without his knowledge/ consent or 6 valid search warrant.
7 133. Serrano, while acting as the President of the SAPOA, and while off-duty 8 and out of uniform has been prohibited from engaging in political activity. 9 134. Serrano has been threatened with punitive action because of the lawful 10 exercise of the rights granted by Government Code § 3300, et seq., and/or exercising 11 rights under existing administrative grievance procedures. 12 135. The duty to obey the laws set forth in Government Code § 3300, et seq., is 13 a ministerial duty and is not discretionary. By acting, and failing to act, as set forth 14 above, defendants have violated a ministerial duty. Moreover, the acts and/ or omissions 15 of defendants, set forth above, demonstrate that defendants' failure to comply with 16 Government Code § 3300, et seq., was illegal as a matter of law under Government 17 Code section 1222, which makes a public officer' s " willful omission to perform any duty 18 enjoined by law" a misdemeanor.
19 136. Each and every act listed above, individually or jointly, constitutes a 20 violation of Government Code § 3300, et seq., and therefore this court should render all 21 available and proper relief under Government Code § 3309. 5 to remedy the violations 22 and to prevent future violations of a like or similar nature. Plaintiffs specifically seek a 23 " make whole" remedy.
24 137. For those acts identified in the already filed Government Tort Claim, 25 Plaintiffs further seek all relief afforded under Government Code § 3309. 5( e). 26 138. The above articulated violations were proximately caused by City's 27 indifference to its employee' s violations of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of 28 Rights Act, and the failure to train and control its officers and representatives on the 31 COMPLAINT
I
provisions of this Act. The violations set forth above were proximity caused by the 2 customs, practices, policies and decisions of the defendants. 3 139. Unless this court issues a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining 4 and restraining defendants, and each of them, and their agents, employees and 5 servants, from ordering, requiring, commanding, or taking any other action that will 6 result in violations of Plaintiffs' rights, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in that its/ his 7 rights, as afforded by Government Code § 3300, et seq., will be violated without any 8 remedy being afforded.
9 140. Plaintiffs have attempted, without success, to exhaust any and all 10 administrative remedies afforded to them to deal with these issues, but such efforts are 11 futile as the named defendants are the ones that make the final decisions via any 12 complaints, grievances or other administrative actions. Moreover, pursuant to 13 Government Code § 3309. 5, Plaintiffs are not required to exhaust administrative 14 remedies.
15 141. Plaintiff requests this court to award damages and attorney fees pursuant 16 to C. C. P. § 1090 and 1095.
17 142. In bringing this action, Petitioners have sought enforcement of an important 18 right affecting the public interest which will result in the conferring of a significant benefit 19 upon a large class of persons, to wit, public employees, thereby entitling Petitioners to 20 an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021. 5. 21 143. The actions of defendants, and each of them, were arbitrary and capricious 22 and, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys' fees pursuant to Government 23 Code § 800.
24 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
25 Against All Defendants
26 Violation of Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech 27 144. Plaintiffs Santa Ana Police Officers Association and Gerry Serrano for a 28 Third Cause of Action against all Defendants for violations of Plaintiffs' right to freedom i
32 COMPLAINT
I of speech and writing, freedom to instruct their representative, freedom to petition 2 government for redress of grievances, and to consult for the common good, re- allege 3 paragraphs 1- 143, above, and further allege as follows:
4 145. While the U. S. Constitution grants citizens protections for free speech 5 under the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, which are enforced via 42 USC 6 § 1983, the California Constitution also protects this right. Article I, Section 2 of the 7 California Constitution states that "[ e] very person may freely speak, write and publish 8 his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. . . ." 9 Article I, Section 3 of the California Constitution states "[ T] he people have the right to 10 instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and 11 assemble freely to consult for the common good.
12 146. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in acts and/ or omissions to 13 violate Plaintiffs right to freedom to speak, write and publish their sentiments, and/ or 14 their ability to petition government for redress of grievances, assemble and to consult 15 for the common good.
16 147. The duty to obey the laws set forth in state and federal laws is a ministerial 17 duty and is not discretionary. By acting, and failing to act, as set forth above, 18 defendants have violated a ministerial duty. Moreover, the acts and/ or omissions of 19 defendants, set forth above, demonstrate that defendants' failure to comply with the 20 California Constitution wherein it enjoins certain acts; therefore, defendants actions 21 were illegal as a matter of law under Government Code section 1222, which makes a 22 public officer' s " willful omission to perform any duty enjoined by law" a misdemeanor. 23 148. Each and every act listed above, individually or jointly, constitutes a 24 violation of Plaintiffs' speech rights and/ or the California Constitution and therefore this 25 court should render all available and proper relief to remedy the violations and to 26 prevent future violations of a like or similar nature. Plaintiffs specifically seek a " make 27 whole" remedy.
28 149. For those acts identified in the already filed Government Tort Claim, 33 COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs further seek all available monetary damages and statutory penalties. For those 2 acts not yet included in a filed and/ or acted upon Government Tort Claim, Plaintiffs 3 seek injunctive and/ or mandamus remedies.
4 150. The above articulated violations were proximately caused by City' s 5 deliberate indifference to its employees' violations law, and the failure to train and 6 control its officers and representatives on the provisions of law referenced above. The 7 violations set forth above were proximity caused by the customs, practices, policies and 8 decisions of the defendants.
9 151. Unless this court issues a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining 10 and restraining defendants, and each of them, and their agents, employees and 11 servants, from ordering, requiring, commanding, or taking any other action that will 12 result in violations of Plaintiffs' rights, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in that its/ his 13 rights will be violated without any remedy being afforded. 14 152. Plaintiffs have attempted, without success, to exhaust any and all 15 administrative remedies afforded to them to deal with these issues, but such efforts are 16 futile as the named defendants are the ones that make the final decisions via any 17 complaints, grievances or other administrative actions. 18 153. Plaintiffs request this court to award damages and attorney fees as 19 provided by law, including pursuant to C. C. P. § 1090 and 1095. 20 154. In bringing this action, Petitioners have sought enforcement of an important 21 right affecting the public interest which will result in the conferring of a significant benefit 22 upon a large class of persons, to wit, public employees, thereby entitling Petitioners to 23 an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021. 5. 24 155. The actions of defendants, and each of them, were arbitrary and capricious 25 and, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys' fees pursuant to Government 26 Code § 800.
27 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
28 Against All Defendants
34 COMPLAINT
1 Violation of Labor Code § 1101- 1102. 5
2 156. Plaintiffs Santa Ana Police Officers Association and Gerry Serrano for a 3 Fourth Cause of Action against all Defendants for violation of provisions of the Labor 4 Code re- alleges paragraphs 1- 95, above, and further allege as follows:
5 157, Labor Code section 1101 provides, in pertinent part, that no employer shall 6 make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: ( a) Forbidding or preventing 7 employees from engaging or participating in politics...( b) Controlling or directing, or 8 tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. 9 158. Labor Code § 1102 provides " No employer shall coerce or influence or 10 attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of 11 discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following 12 any particular course or line of political action or political activity. 13 159. Labor Code § 1102. 5 provides that (a) An employer, or any person acting 14 on behalf of the employer, shall not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or 15 policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law 16 enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee, or to another 17 employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or 18 noncompliance, or from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body 19 conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause 20 to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a 21 violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless 22 of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee' s job duties. ( b) An
23 employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an 24 employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the 25 employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement 26 agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the 27 authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for 28 providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an 35 COMPLAINT
1 investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that 2 the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or 3 noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether 4 disclosing the information is part of the employee' s job duties. 5 160. Sections 1101 and 1102 protect " the fundamental right of employees in 6 general to engage in political activity without interference by employers." ( Gay Law 7 Students Assn., 24 Cal.3d at 487 (quoting Fort v. Civil Service Commission ( 1964) 61 8 Cal. 2d 331, 335).)
9 161. As shown by the facts pled above, Defendants, and each of them, have 10 engaged in acts and/ or omissions that violated Labor Code §§ 1101 and/or 1102 to the 11 detriment of Plaintiff Serrano, Plaintiff SAPOA, and those members of the SAPOA that 12 support the SAPOA's actions.
13 162. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in retaliation against both 14 Plaintiffs for disclosing information, or because the employer believed that the 15 employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement 16 agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the 17 authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for 18 providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an 19 investigation, hearing, or inquiry, wherein the employee had reasonable cause to 20 believe that the information disclosed a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation 21 of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. 22 163. As a proximate result of Defendants willful, knowing and intentional 23 violations of the Labor Code sections referenced above, Plaintiff Serrano has suffered 24 and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and/ or other employment 25 benefits. As a legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has 26 suffered and will continue to suffer distress, suffering, anguish, fright, nervousness, 27 grief, anxiety, worry, shame, mortification, injured feelings, shock, humiliation and 28 indignity, as well as other unpleasant reactions, damages to reputation, and other non36

COMPLAINT
1 economic damages, in a sum to be ascertained according to proof. Said damages are 2 of the type that any person would suffer as result of the illegal and wrongful conduct of 3 Defendants; Plaintiff does not claim that he has suffered any psychiatric illness as a 4 result of the conduct of Defendants. Plaintiff Serrano further seeks to recover all wages 5 and benefits that Plaintiff would have earned if not discriminated against, retaliated 6 against, or unlawfully harmed in amount to be proven at trial. 7 164. Plaintiff SAPOA has incurred damages in the form of attorney fees, costs 8 and nominal damages because of Defendants' violations of the Labor Code section 9 cited above.
10 165. The duty to obey the Labor Code sections set forth above is a ministerial 11 duty and is not discretionary. By acting, and failing to act, as set forth above, 12 defendants have violated a ministerial duty. Moreover, the acts and/ or omissions of 13 defendants, set forth above, demonstrate that defendants' failure to comply with the 14 California Constitution wherein it enjoins certain acts; therefore, defendants actions 15 were illegal as a matter of law under Government Code section 1222, which makes a 16 public officer's " willful omission to perform any duty enjoined by law" a misdemeanor. 17 166. The acts listed above, individually or jointly, constitute a violation of 18 Plaintiffs' rights under the Labor Code and therefore this court should render all 19 available and proper relief to remedy the violations and to prevent future violations of a 20 like or similar nature. Plaintiffs specifically seek a " make whole" remedy. 21 167. For those acts identified in the already filed Government Tort Claim, 22 Plaintiffs seek all available monetary damages and statutory penalties. For those acts 23 not yet included in a filed and/ or acted upon Government Tort Claim, Plaintiffs seek 24 injunctive and/ or mandamus remedies. Plaintiffs are in the process of satisfying the 25 Government Tort Claim requirement for those acts or omissions that were learned of 26 and/ or took place after the initial Tort Claim was filed and rejected; upon completion of 27 that process, Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the complaint to seek damages and/ or 28 civil penalties for the additional acts that recently occurred or were learned of. 37 COMPLAINT
1 168. The above articulated violations were proximately caused by City's 2 deliberate indifference to its employees' violations law, and the failure to train and 3 control its officers and representatives on the provisions of law referenced above. The 4 violations set forth above were proximity caused by the customs, practices, policies and 5 decisions of the defendants.
6 169. Unless this court issues a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining 7 and restraining defendants, and each of them, and their agents, employees and 8 servants, from ordering, requiring, commanding, or taking any other action that will 9 result in violations of Plaintiffs' rights, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in that its/ his 10 rights will be violated without any remedy being afforded. 11 170. Plaintiffs have attempted, without success, to exhaust any and all 12 administrative remedies afforded to them to deal with these issues, but such efforts are 13 futile as the named defendants are the ones that make the final decisions via any 14 complaints, grievances or other administrative actions. 15 171. Plaintiff requests this court to award damages and attorney fees as 16 provided by law, including pursuant to C. C. P. § 1090 and 1095. 17 172. In bringing this action, Plaintiffs have sought enforcement of an important 18 right affecting the public interest which will result in the conferring of a significant benefit 19 upon a large class of persons, to wit, public employees, thereby entitling Petitioners to 20 an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021 . 5. 21 173. The actions of defendants, and each of them, were arbitrary and capricious 22 and, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys' fees pursuant to Government 23 Code § 800.
24 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 Against City, Police Department, Valentin, Ridge and Carvalho 26 Violation of Penal Code 832. 5- 832. 81Evidence Code § 1043- 1046 27 174. Plaintiffs Santa Ana Police Officers Association and Gerry Serrano for a 28 Fifth Cause of Action against all Defendants for violations of Penal Code §§ 832. 5- 832. 8 38 COMPLAINT
1 and/ or Evidence Code §§ 1043- 1046 re- alleges paragraphs 1- 95, above, and further 2 allege as follows:
3 175. Penal Code 832. 5( a) ( 1) provides " Each department or agency in this state 4 that employs peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by 5 members of the public against the personnel of these departments or agencies, and 6 shall make a written description of the procedure available to the public." 7 176. Penal Code § 832. 7( f) ( 1) mandates that "The department or agency shall provide 8 written notification to the complaining party of the disposition of the complaint within 30 9 days of the disposition."
10 177. The City of Santa Ana and Santa Ana Police Department have established 11 and published procedures for receiving and investigating complaints. The established 12 procedures state that complaints will investigated and the party submitting the 13 complaint will be notified of the results by mail.
14 178. The procedure for addressing citizen complaints that the department has 15 established and published obligated the department to conduct an investigation into the 16 allegations of the complaint that was sufficient to allow a decision- maker make one of 17 four possible findings, and the procedure obligated the Chief of Police to make one of 18 those findings with respect to each allegation of misconduct. Defendants did not comply 19 with these obligations and Plaintiffs are entitled to a writ of mandate compelling 20 defendants to perform their ministerial duty to satisfy the obligations imposed by the 21 department' s published procedure. ( See Galzinski v. Somers, ( 2016) 2 Cal.App. 5tn 22 1164).
23 179. Plaintiffs filed complaints and requests for investigations and Defendants 24 failed to either investigate the allegations of misconduct ( which were also violations of 25 state law and possible misdemeanor offenses) and/or refused to notify Plaintiff SAPOA 26 of the outcome of the investigation.
27 180. Defendants had a ministerial duty to investigate the SAPOA' s and/ or 28 Serrano' s citizen' s complaint and to render a finding on that complaint in compliance 39 COMPLAINT
I with the complaint procedure the department established and made public pursuant to 2 subdivision ( a)( 1) of Penal Code section 832. 5. ( See Gregory v. State Bd. of Control 3 ( 1999) 73 Cal. AppAth 584 ('[ a] public entity has a ministerial duty to comply with its 4 own rules and regulations where they are valid and Unambiguous); Pozar v. Department 5 of Transportation ( 1983) 145 Cal.App. 3d 269 ( a writ of mandate may be issued to 6 compel a public agency to follow its own internal procedures.). 7 181. A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, 8 corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law 9 specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station." ( Code Civ. Proc., § 10 1085, subd. ( a).) Indeed, "[ t]he writ must be issued in all cases where there is not a 11 plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of lawupon the verified 12 petition of the party beneficially interested." ( Id. , § 1086.) In essence, "[ m] andamus lies 13 to compel the performance of a clear, present, and ministerial duty where the petitioner 14 has a beneficial right to performance of that duty." (Carrancho v. California Air 15 Resources Board ( 2003) 111 Cal. AppAth 1255 1265) " A duty is ministerial when it is 16 the doing of a thing unqualifiedly required." ( Redwood Coast Watersheds Alliance V. 17 State Bd. of Forestry & Fire Protection ( 1999) 70 Cal. AppAth 962, 970). 18 182. Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandate commanding Defendants to investigate 19 Plaintiff' s complaint regarding the release of the confidential information and to inform 20 Plaintiff of the outcome of that investigation. Plaintiff further seeks an order of the court 21 mandating that Defendants, and each of them, fully investigate any and all complaints 22 made to the City of Santa Ana/Santa Ana Police Department regarding the misconduct 23 of police department employees/ officials.
24 183. Furthermore, Penal Code § 832. 5- 832. 8 requires Defendants to maintain as 25 confidential peace officer personnel files/information. The only manner in which the 26 information can be released to third parties is through compliance with Evidence Code 27 §§ 1043- 1046.
28 184. Plaintiff Serrano was issued punitive action by Defendant Ridge, and then 40 COMPLAINT
1 Defendant Ridge and/ or Carvalho released copies of the punitive action to elected 2 Council members and media sources without complying with the legal requirements set 3 forth above.
4 185. The duty to obey the laws set forth in Penal Code § § 832. 5- 832. 8 and/ or 5 Evidence Code §§ 1043- 1046, is a ministerial duty and is not discretionary. By acting, 6 and failing to act, as set forth above, defendants have violated a ministerial duty. 7 Moreover, the acts and/ or omissions of defendants, set forth above, demonstrate that 8 defendants' failure to comply with Penal Code §§ 832. 5- 832. 8 and/ or Evidence Code 9 § 1043- 1046 was illegal as a matter of law under Government Code section 1222, which 10 makes a public officer' s " willful omission to perform any duty enjoined by law" a 11 misdemeanor.
12 186. As a result of Defendants' unlawful action, Plaintiff Serrano has suffered 13 and will continue to suffer distress, suffering, anguish, fright, nervousness, grief, 14 anxiety, worry, shame, mortification, injured feelings, shock, humiliation and indignity, 15 damages to reputation, and other non- economic damages, in a sum to be ascertained 16 according to proof. Said damages are of the type that any person would suffer as result 17 of the illegal and wrongful conduct of Defendants; Plaintiff does not claim that he has 18 suffered any psychiatric illness as a result of the conduct of Defendants. 19 187. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy under the law. 20 Plaintiffs have attempted to exhaust all administrative remedies to redress the violation 21 of their rights.
22 188. Plaintiffs request this court to award ancillary damages pursuant to C. C. P. 23 § 1090 and 1095.
24 189. The actions of defendants, and each of them, were arbitrary and capricious 25 and, therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys' fees pursuant to Government 26 Code § 800.
27 190. The success of Plaintiffs in this action will result in the enforcement of an 28 important right affecting the public interest in that a significant benefit will be conferred 41 COMPLAINT
1 on a large class of persons, that is, public employees, and the necessity and financial 2 burden of private enforcement of said benefit are such as to make appropriate the 3 award of attorney fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021. 5. 4 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 Violation of FEHA ( Government Code $ 12900, et seq.) 6 Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity
7 Against City of Santa Ana/Santa Ana Police Department) 8 191. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 190 are re-alleged and 9 incorporated herein by reference.
10 192. Plaintiffs filed complaints with the City of Santa Ana, via Defendant Ridge 11 and/ or Motsick regarding allegations of gender discrimination and/ or harassment. 12 Furthermore, Defendants Ridge, Motsick and Carvalho believed that Plaintiffs had or 13 would file complaints against Ridge for allegations of sexual harassment. In retaliations 14 for Plaintiffs filing complaints, and/ or the fear that additional complaints would be made, 15 defendants engaged in actions such as issuing punitive action, causing Plaintiff Serrano 16 to be subject to improper Investigations, placed on administrative leave, and/ or to 17 implement other adverse employment action against Plaintiff Serrano. 18 193. Plaintiffs complained to Defendants about the inappropriate actions 19 ( discrimination, harassment and/ or retaliation), but nothing was done and the retaliation 20 continued unabated. On the basis of the above, Plaintiffs believe and allege that 21 Defendants retaliated against them for their complaints of gender discrimination, sexual 22 harassment, and/ or retaliation.
23 194. Plaintiffs reporting of unlawful actions were motivating factors in 24 Defendants' decision not to implement adverse employment actions against Plaintiff 25 Serrano.
26 195. Defendants' conduct, as alleged, violated the Fair Employment and 27 Housing Act, Government Code section 12900, et seq., and Defendants committed 28 unlawful employment practices.
42 COMPLAINT
1 196. As a proximate result of Defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional 2 discrimination/ harassment/ retaliation against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained and 3 continues to sustain damages, humiliation, distress, pain and anguish, all to his 4 damage in a sum according to proof.
5 197. Plaintiffs have incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and 6 attorneys' fees. Pursuant to Government Code section 12965( b), plaintiffs are entitled 7 to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs (including expert costs) in an amount 8 according to proof.
9 198. Plaintiffs further request that the Court render appropriate injunctive or 10 other extraordinary relief to remedy these violations and to prevent future violations of a 11 like or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a permanent injunction 12 requiring the Defendants, upon receiving notification of conduct which may violate the 13 California Department of Fair Employment and Housing regulations or California 14 whistleblower statutes, to promptly conduct a fair and thorough investigation into the 15 allegations and not allow retaliatory actions to be taken against the employees. 16 199. Plaintiff requests this court to award ancillary damages pursuant to C. C.P. 17 § 1090 and 1095.
18 200. The actions of defendants, and each of them, were arbitrary and capricious 19 and, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys' fees pursuant to Government 20 Code § 800.
21 201. The success of Plaintiff in this action will result in the enforcement of an 22 important right affecting the public interest in that a significant benefit will be conferred 23 on a large class of persons, that is, public employees, and the necessity and financial 24 burden of private enforcement of said benefit are such as to make appropriate the 25 award of attorney fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021. 5 26 202. Plaintiff obtained a Right to Sue letter from the DFEH, and served the 27 same on defendants via the City Clerk's office.
28 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants and each of them 43 COMPLAINT
I as follows:
2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
3 1. Any and all appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief afforded under 4 Government Code § 3500, et seq., to remedy the violation and to prevent future 5 violations of alike or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a 6 temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction prohibiting 7 Defendants, and each of them, and their agents, representatives, employees, servants 8 and/ or investigators from violating Government Code § 3500, et seq. 9 2. For those matters already identified in Plaintiffs' Government Tort Claims, 10 any and all damages and/ or civil penalties afforded under the law. 11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
12 3. Any and all appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief afforded under 13 Government Code § 3309.5(d) to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of 14 a like or similar nature.
15 4. For those matters already identified in Plaintiffs' Government Tort Claims, any 16 and all damages and/ or civil penalties afforded under the law. 17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
18 5. Any and all appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief afforded under 19 the law to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like or similar 20 nature.
21 6. For those matters already identified in Plaintiffs' Government Tort Claims, any 22 and all damages and/ or civil penalties afforded under the law. 23 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 7. Any and all appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief afforded under 25 the law to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like or similar 26 nature.
27 8. For those matters already identified in Plaintiffs' Government Tort Claims, any 28 and all damages and/ or civil penalties afforded under the law. 44 COMPLAINT

I FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 9. A declaration of the Court that the Defendants violated Penal Code § 832, 5- 3 832. 7 and/ or Evidence Code §§ 1043- 1046 and that Plaintiffs are entitled to the full 4 relief afforded under Penal Code § 832. 5- 832. 7 and/ or Evidence Code §§ 1043- 1046. 5 10. Any and all appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief afforded under 6 the law to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like or similar 7 nature.
8 11. For those matters already identified in Plaintiffs' Government Tort Claims, 9 any and all damages and/or civil penalties afforded under the law. 10 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 12. Any and all appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief afforded under 12 the law to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like or similar 13 nature.
14 13. For those matters already identified in Plaintiffs' Government Tort Claims, 15 any and all damages and/ or civil penalties afforded under the law. 16 ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
17 14. An award ancillary damages pursuant to C. C. P. § 1090 and 1095. 18 15. For all matters covered by Plaintiffs' Government Tort Claim( s), all damages 19 which the Plaintiffs have sustained as a result of Defendants' conduct, including general 20 damages for pain, suffering, distress, and special damages for lost compensation, 21 including back, front pay, job benefits that he would have received but for the 22 discriminatory practices of Defendants, damages for anguish, fright, nervousness, grief, 23 anxiety, worry, shame, mortification, injured feelings, shock, humiliation and indignity, 24 as well as other unpleasant physical, mental, and emotional reactions ordinarily to be 25 expected, damages to reputation, and other non- economic damages, to the extent 26 permitted by law and in a sum to be ascertained according to proof; 27 16. For all matters covered by Plaintiffs' Government Tort Claim( s), other actual, 28 consequential, and/ or incidental damages, and/ or statutory penalties in a sum to be 45 COMPLAINT
1 ascertained according to proof;
2 17. Attorneys' fees pursuant to Government Code § 800. 3 18. Attorney fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021. 5 4 19. Attorney fees as provided by any other law and/ or statutes 5 20. That Defendants takes nothing by virtue of this action; 6 21. For cost of suit and attorney' s fees incurred herein; and 7 22. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper/ 8 9 DATED: November , 2021 COREY W. GLAVE, ATTORNEY AT LAW 10 By:

Corey W. Glave
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 46

COMPLAINT
1 VERIFICATION
2 The undersigned declares as follows:
3 4 1 am the attorney of record for all plaintiffs in this action. I am verifying this 5 Complaint on the basis that all named plaintiffs are absent from the county where 1 6 have my office. I have read the foregoing COMPLAINT, and know the contents thereof. 7 The contents are true, except as to the matters which are therein stated on information 8 or belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true and Plaintiffs are acting in 9 good faith in bringing forward such allegations.
10 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 11 the foregoing is true and correct.
12 S/ Corey Glave
13 14 COREY GLAVE
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
47 COMPLAINT
Becerra, Alexis
From: Jackie Angel Investor <
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 10: 14 AM
To: eComment
Cc: Vazquez, Benjamin
Subject: Plaza of the Flags Homicide Report FYI
Attachments: Plaza of the Flags Homicide Report.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

On Monday, August 1, 2016, at 0920 hours, Santa Ana Police Officers, MATTHEW CHITJIAN and DAVID ENRIQUEZ were working a two man unit assigned to patrol the homeless encampments located at the Civic Center Plaza. The Officers were driving a marked black and white patrol unit and were dressed in department approved black polo shirts and jeans. CHITJIAN and ENRIQUEZ were driving their vehicle west bound, just south of the court house when they observed a male subject, later identified as RICHARD GENE SWIHART riding a bicycle toward them. CHITJIAN and ENRIQUEZ exited their vehicle to speak with SWIHART. During the encounter, SWIHART became uncooperative and CHITJIAN and ENRIQUEZ went to place handcuffs on him. A struggle occurred and the officers and SWIHART went to the ground. While they were trying to place SWIHART' s hands behind his back, ENRIQUEZ yelled to CHITJIAN that SWIHART was grabbing his gun, or smoothing similar to that, and CHITJIAN fired his weapon twice, striking SWIHART both times in his right side.

Richard Gene Swihart, 32, died as a result of his injuries.

On the morning of Aug. 1, two Santa Ana police officers stopped a homeless man named Richard Gene Swihart for riding his bicycle in the Civic Center plaza.

A few minutes later, Richard was rushed to a hospital — the officers had shot him multiple times. On Aug. 14, Richard died of his wounds.
https:// www. aclusoca1. org/ en/ news/ biking- while- homeless 1 ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY' S OFFICE S. A. 16- 027

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

PREFACE
CASE NAME: SWIHART, RICHARD GENE
CLASSIFICATION: OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING / FATAL
AGENCY: SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT
DATE AND TIME: AUGUST 1, 2016 0924 HOURS
LOCATION: 30 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
AGENCY CASE NUMBERS: SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT: 16- 20142 ORANGE COUNTY CRIME LAB: 16- 52644
On Monday, August 1, 2016, at approximately 0945 hours, Santa Ana Police Department Homicide Sergeant JULIAN RODRIGUEZ contacted me regarding a Santa Ana Police Department SAPD) officer involved shooting incident that occurred near the Plaza of the Flags, 30 Civic Center Drive West, in the city of Santa Ana. RODRIGUEZ requested the Orange County District Attorney' s Officer Involved Incident Investigation Team, respond to the location and conduct an investigation into the incident.

Orange County District Attorney Investigators DANNY BECCERA, COLLIN MILLIGAN, MIKE KENDRICK, PETE MONTEZ, DON HOLFORD, ROSS PETERSON, DAVE MELNYK, ROB LONG and TOM BEES were contacted and requested that they respond to assist in the investigation.

At approximately 1132 hours, SAPID Sergeant DOMINICK PADILLA conducted a briefing of the known circumstances surrounding the incident for personnel involved in the investigation. The following was learned from the briefing and preliminary investigation:

Supervising Investigator: STAN BERRY Date of Report: 10/ 14/ 2016

Page 1 of 3 ends

S. A. 16- 027
On Monday, August 1, 2016, at 0920 hours, Santa Ana Police Officers, MATTHEW CHITJIAN and DAVID ENRIQUEZ were working a two man unit assigned to patrol the homeless encampments located at the Civic Center Plaza. The Officers were driving a marked black and white patrol unit and were dressed in department approved black polo shirts and jeans.

CHITJIAN and ENRIQUEZ were driving their vehicle west bound, just south of the court house when they observed a male subject, later identified as SWIHART riding a bicycle toward them. CHITJIAN and ENRIQUEZ exited their vehicle to speak with SWIHART. During the encounter, SWIHART became uncooperative and CHITJIAN and ENRIQUEZ went to place handcuffs on him. A struggle occurred and the officers and SWIHART went to the ground. While they were trying to place SWIHART' s hands behind his back, SWIHART grabbed ENRQUEZ' s holstered firearm. ENRIQUEZ yelled to CHITJIAN that SWIHART was grabbing his gun, or smoothing similar to that, and CHITJIAN fired his weapon twice, striking SWIHART both times in his right side.

At 0924 hours, a call for assistance was put out on the radio, reporting that there had been an Officer Involved Shooting.

At 0925 hours, Orange County Fire Authority ( OCFA) paramedics were requested on the radio. OCSD Special Services Officers and SAPD Officers responded to assist with crowd control.

OCFA personnel arrived on scene and treated SWIHART for two gunshot wounds.

SWIHART was transported to Orange County Global Medical Center, located at 1001 N. Tustin Avenue, in the city of Santa Ana. SWIHART underwent surgery, and was and decided not to
remove the remaining bullet located within SWIHART at this time. SWIHART was in critical condition but expected to survive his injuries.

Supervising Investigator: STAN BERRY Date of Report: 10/ 14/ 2016

Page 2 of 3 ends

S. A. 16- 027
The following assignments were made:

DAVE MELNYK/ PEDRO DURAN ( SAPD) - Case Investigator
MIKE KENDRICK/ JUSTO CAPACETE ( SAPD) - Scene
COLLIN MILLIGAN / MATTHEW McLEOD ( SAPD) - Interviews
PETE MONTEZ/ PAUL McCLASKEY ( SAPD) - Interviews
DON HOLFORD / EDDIE NUNEZ ( SAPD) - Hospital
ROB LONG / DANIAL AGUILAR ( SAPD) - Canvass Interviews
DANNY BECERRA/ RICH RIBIERO ( SAPD) - Canvass Interviews ROSS PETERSON / ADRIAN SILVA ( SAPD) - Canvass Interviews TOM BEES— Command Vehicle
Refer to the packaged reports, documents and photographs for details of this investigation.

Supervising Investigator: STAN BERRY Date of Report: 10/ 14/ 2016

Page 3 of 3 ends

Santa Ana City CouncilOctober 7, 2025

Santa Ana City Council
October 7, 2025