J
j. 8
o
vl e, L) eT r r i t q,,. l 0' L c c T Ue r dc}o2ly
1 aAC/ L b ci U 1 G CAoe e
t' J G1l
s c ems , 1
Gn
I
cL-
C1 n. S G'' e' C" f/ 1 o( y= o '- rU C 1a 1 5. 1 1 S 110.1-
1 I G2-:` 1. tom' 1 Kl tl ey e 1, 1j _ 5 `? i
n3 e W -- ry\ PcLs5czri
le sw S C Pe-
i
I
i
i
eve) aet SANTA ANA CA 926
21 MAR 2022' 6 PM 3 L
USA
6 SAC, Na
oaEVEa
o
N
gX70
aas i 1;Nil Cac i ' H
MAR 24' 2
Becerra, Alexis
From: Yenny Bernal < upliftingsoulart@gmail. com>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 1:13 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Public Art & Preservation Policy Public Comments section City Council Meeting 3/ 19/ 2026
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Dear Mayor, City Councilwoman & Councilmen,
My name is Yenny Bernal, and I am the owner of Uplifting Soul Art Events, we are a small arts and culture events crew, as well as a makerspace and local gallery studio at MainPlace Mall in Santa Ana as Galeria of Imagination. I was DTSA's Art Walk Coordinator from 2015 to 2021, and have deep love and connection to the history that involves our local visual talent' s work on street walls and plazas all over our beloved town.
It was with great joy that I read through the drafted document that seeks the protections for Public Art in Public Spaces and the creators rights in the City of the Arts in Orange County.
So, today I ask for your unanimous support as our elected leaders and heroes and sheros of our time to approve and move forward with implementations.
Thank you for your time, looking forwards to Yes's from all members as this is a great initiative. The time for Art' s Champions is NOW!
Have a good evening.
Best Wishes, s
Yenny Wilson- Bernal
Uplifting Soul Art Events
657/ 549- 1122
Create the highest, grandest vision possible for your life, because you become what you believe." Oprah Winfrey 1 Becerra, Alexis
From: Elyan Husari <
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 3:23 PM
To: eComment
Subject: VERY URGENT REGARDING TRULY FRESH J.
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.
Dear City of Santa Ana Officials,
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express a critical concern regarding my business, Truly Fresh J, located in Santa Ana, California. My business is part of a small corporation we launched in December 2025. Since then, we have averaged $ 6, 000 to 7, 000 in monthly sales. However, to meet all of our expenses— rent, utilities, and other business costs— we must average at least $ 14, 000 per month. Thus, we face a $ 7, 000 monthly shortfall.
I have heard from not only my employees but also from customers at the MainPlace Mall that the presence of ICE ( U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has instilled fear, causing people to stay home instead of visiting the mall. This fear has severely reduced foot traffic. In fact, people are so afraid that they won' t even leave their homes. Without business vitality in Santa Ana, the city will also lose the ability to collect crucial revenues— business licenses, certificates of occupancy, and other fees— which are vital to City Hall' s operations.
Today, March 23, 2026, I spoke with a city clerk at City Hall about starting a petition for action. She will get back to me, and I am also forwarding this letter to S.Mills at santa- anaior.. Please do not hesitate to contact me at by phone at
Sincerely,
Elyan Husari
Becerra, Alexis
From: Yang Gu <
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 3:43 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Santa Ana needs to prepare for riots
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.
My name is Yang Gu, and I am a recently moved resident of Orange County.
You no doubt remember the events of last summer in Santa Ana regarding ICE arrests, riots, and the federalization of the California National Guard. I believe this will happen again this summer, and not only that, the magnitude will be worse. There were " only" 50- some school walkouts last year according to DefendingEd ( Link in the footer), and Q1 of this year( still not over) has had over 380. There was a literal dumpster fire lit at the LA federal building in January, outside of hot- weather seasonality. And President Trump has signalled the deportation actions will escalate.
President Trump assumed direct control of the Cailfornia National Guard in 2025 and directed them to facilitate the deportation effort instead of protecting the public. He will surely do so again if riots are bad enough.
My questions:
How much has Santa Ana prepared for this eventuality? What plans are there to anticipate, defuse, or contain rioting? What about a possible spike in petty crime, like what happened during and after the George Floyd riots? What lines of communication and protocols of cooperation exist with the Governor' s Office, California High Patrol, and the OC government and Sheriff?
Los Angeles was# 1 in riots last year, and Santa Ana was an uncomfortably close# 2. The Federal Buildings will be likely ground zeroes.
Santa Ana in summer of 2026 may require decisive leadership. 1 From: Jackie Angel Investor
To: eComment
Subject: Santa Ana Sellouts David Penaloza for Assembly 2026 Committee for Candidate David Penaloza FYI Date: Monday, March 30, 2026 8: 44: 54 AM
Attachments: 1000016675. Dng
1000016692. mD4
1000016684. mD4
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Santa Ana city hall shut down here RIP3/ 31/ 26
Erg 1
rJ- bL
AJ.
F^ y;
AIPAC Tracker
TrackAIPAC
TRACK
AIPAC
U. S. REPRESENTATIVE ' REPRESENTATIVE
CtOrRACMPAC @TRNKWAC
dlf
Ryan Grim 0 Cibryangrim
i
18h
Democrats postponing a War Powers vote whHe
Trump plans aground invasion
RepGreor [ Vleeks
Re Jeffries @reploucorrea
3: 58 PM - 25
NO DEAL
PEDOFILES BURN
IN HELL
Most relevant r
Santa Ana @SantaAnaResists • Ils
w Replying to CTraekAlPA
N DEALONP'EDOFILEBBURNIN HELL
Santa Ana Councilman Publicly Calls Out Dark Money Campaign, Welcomes FBI Interview Dec 9, 2019 # governmentshutdown # anaheimaudit
https:// voiceofoc. org/ 2019/ 12/ santa- ana-councilman- publicly- calls-out- dark- money campaign- welcomes- fbi- interview/
Wow, what does Perla Mexican Cuisine get for their " donation"? LOL Santa Ana Sellouts David Penaloza for Assembly 2026
Committee for Candidate David Penaloza
247, 383 Cash on Hand
287, 791 Total Contributions
11, 800. 00 Assoc of CA School Adminstrators ENTITY
11,800. 00 Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs PAC ENTITY 11, 800. 00 Avelino Valencia ENTITY
11, 800. 00 John Ferrone INDIVIDUAL
11, 800. 00 Santa Ana Police Officers Association PAC ENTITY 10, 800. 00 California Real Estate PAC ( Crepac) - California Association of Realtors ENTITY 5, 900. 00 Americas Physician Groups CA PAC ENTITY
5, 900. 00 Anaheim Police Association ENTITY
5, 900. 00 Anheuser- Busch Companies ENTITY
5, 900. 00 California Credit Union League PAC ENTITY
5, 900. 00 California New Car Dealers Association PAC ENTITY 5, 900. 00 Edison International & Affiliated Entities ENTITY 5, 900. 00 James Ramos INDIVIDUAL
5, 900. 00 Morongo Band of Mission Indians Native American Rights Fund ENTITY 5, 900. 00 Southern California Pipe Trades District Council No 16 PAC ENTITY 5, 900. 00 Tom Daly ENTITY
5, 900. 00 Ua Journeymen & Apprentices Local 250 PAC ENTITY 5, 900. 00 Ua Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union 582 ENTITY 5, 900. 00 Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association PAC (Wma PAC) ENTITY 5, 900. 00 Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation ENTITY
5, 500. 00 Perla Mexican Cuisine
5,000. 00 Apartment Association of Orange County PAC ENTITY 5, 000. 00 Bruce Hamlin INDIVIDUAL
5, 000. 00 Cottie Petrie- Norris ENTITY
4,900. 00 Californians for Job and a Strong Economy ENTITY 4, 000. 00 United Nurses Associations of California / Union of Health Care Professionals PAC Unac PAC) ENTITY
3, 000. 00 Angelenos for Safe Transportation ENTITY
3,000. 00 International Union of Operating Engineers ( luoe) ENTITY 3, 000. 00 Jose Solache INDIVIDUAL
3, 000. 00 Patrick Ahrens INDIVIDUAL
3, 000. 00 Wescom Credit Union State PAC ENTITY
2, 500. 00 Amalgamated Transit Union 1277 PAC ENTITY
2, 500. 00 American Pistachio Growers California PAC ENTITY 2, 500. 00 Bail Hotline Bail Bonds ENTITY
2, 500. 00 Blanca Pacheco ENTITY
2, 500. 00 East West Bank ENTITY
2, 500. 00 Edwin Laird INDIVIDUAL
2, 500. 00 Efrain Davalos INDIVIDUAL
2, 500. 00 International Brotherhood Electrical Workers Educational Fund ( IBEW) ENTITY 2, 500. 00JohnneyZhang INDIVIDUAL
2, 500. 00 Los Angeles Police Protective League PAC ENTITY 2, 500. 00 Sprinkler Fitters Local 709 ENTITY
2, 500. 00 Steven Murow INDIVIDUAL
2, 000. 00 Avila Farias ENTITY
2, 000. 00 Garden Grove Police Assoc ENTITY
2, 000. 00 Richard Contreras INDIVIDUAL
1, 750. 00 Catie Chase INDIVIDUAL
1,750. 00 Irving Chase INDIVIDUAL
1, 750. 00 Ryan Chase INDIVIDUAL
1,500.00 Anesthesia Service Medical Group ENTITY
1, 500. 00 Personal Insurance Federation of CA Agents & Employees PAC ENTITY 1,500.00 Troy Eubank INDIVIDUAL
1,250. 00 Sara Fainbarg ENTITY
1,000. 00 Araceli Padilla Insurance Agency ENTITY
1, 000. 00 Boma Oc PAC - Building Owners & Managers Association of Orange County PAC ENTITY
1, 000. 00 California Association of Pest Control Advisors ENTITY 1, 000. 00 California Citrus Mutual PAC ENTITY
1, 000. 00 California Dairies PAC Federal ENTITY
1, 000. 00 Cesar Mcguire INDIVIDUAL
1, 000. 00 Csi Color Science Inc ENTITY
1, 000. 00 Dana Strader INDIVIDUAL
1,000. 00 Faculty Association of California Community Colleges- PAC ENTITY 1, 000. 00 Fred Flores INDIVIDUAL
1,000. 00 Jason Carig INDIVIDUAL
1,000. 00 Jason Young INDIVIDUAL
1, 000. 00 Jocelyn Eubank INDIVIDUAL
1, 000. 00 John Harabedian INDIVIDUAL
1, 000. 00 Josh Lowenthal ENTITY
1, 000. 00 Jr Ltd LP ENTITY
1,000. 00 Mike Fong ENTITY
1, 000. 00 Mpi Modified Plastics Inc ENTITY
1, 000. 00 Peter Mitchell INDIVIDUAL
1,000. 00 Plastics Analytical Laboratory ENTITY
1, 000. 00 Rick Chavez Zbur ENTITY
1, 000. 00 Sharon MacDonald INDIVIDUAL
1,000. 00 Taxpayers for Sustainable Economy ENTITY
1, 000. 00 Virginia Mangione INDIVIDUAL
1,000. 00 William K Wong INDIVIDUAL
966. 00 Aggregated Unitemized Contributions INDIVIDUAL
750. 00 Bill Taormina INDIVIDUAL
750. 00 John Ford INDIVIDUAL
750. 00 M H ET PAC ENTITY
750. 00 William Taormina INDIVIDUAL
500. 00 Bill Witte INDIVIDUAL
500. 00 Bristol Car Wash Inc ENTITY
500. 00 Caylin Vidaurri INDIVIDUAL
500. 00 Howard Welknsky INDIVIDUAL
500. 00 James Rogers INDIVIDUAL
500. 00 Jody Campbell INDIVIDUAL
500. 00 Nick Taormina INDIVIDUAL
500. 00 Nick Taormina INDIVIDUAL
500. 00 Oscar Reyes INDIVIDUAL
500. 00 Outfront Media ENTITY
500. 00 Rouzbeh Vandatpour INDIVIDUAL
500. 00 Sara Fainbarg INDIVIDUAL
500. 00 Sprinkler Fitters United Association PAC ENTITY 300. 00 Josefina Avarca INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 American Promotional Events ENTITY
250. 00 Barry Cottle INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Creative Outdoors Advertising Bulletin Displays LLC(mark Kudler) ENTITY 250. 00 Daniel Kalmick INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Eddie Quillares Jr INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Faubel Public Affairs ENTITY
250. 00 Ira Handelman INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 John Stephens INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Jorge Reyes INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Juan Garcia INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Kacey Taormina INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 LuisAndres Peez INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Natalie Taormina INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Overland Strategies LLC(derek Humphrey) ENTITY
250. 00 Patrick Strader INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Peter Whittingham INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union 403 ENTITY
250. 00 Robert Lapsley INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Steve Gallegos INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Steven Mendoza INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Timothy OBrien INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Timothy Psomas INDIVIDUAL
250. 00 Todd Cottle INDIVIDUAL
200. 00 Tuan Nguyen INDIVIDUAL
200. 00 Valerie Amezcua INDIVIDUAL
200. 00 Wendy Bacerra INDIVIDUAL
150. 00 Claudio Gallegos INDIVIDUAL
150. 00 Yolanda Muniz INDIVIDUAL
125. 00 Alex Burrola INDIVIDUAL
125. 00 Collin Felch ENTITY
125. 00 Custom Auto Service ENTITY
125. 00 Dale Helvig INDIVIDUAL
125. 00 Ilana Meirovitch INDIVIDUAL
125. 00 Robert Escalante INDIVIDUAL
125. 00 Teresa Saldivar INDIVIDUAL
100. 00 Ana Padilla INDIVIDUAL
100. 00 Andrew Linares INDIVIDUAL
100. 00 Connor Traut INDIVIDUAL
100. 00 Michelle Murphy INDIVIDUAL
100. 00 Ron Demeter INDIVIDUAL
100. 00 Samuel Johnson INDIVIDUAL
100. 00 Stephanie Oddo INDIVIDUAL
0. 00 Robert Rivas ENTITY
Becerra, Alexis
From: JackieAngel Investor <
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 1:35 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Durham, Daniel
Subject: Re: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTINGLITIGATIONSAPIDis the liability Attachments: Kachirisky_-_ Complaint[)]. pdf
Attention: This emailoriginatedfrom outsideof City of SantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsor links.
John Kachirisky vs. City of Santa Ana
police officer retaliation employment claim
On May 4 2023, Kachirisky exhausted his administrative remedies by causing City to be served with a government claim. On May 9 2022, although Ciity, via its third party administrator, acknowledged receipt of the claim and stated that " an investigation will be conducted, and upon conclusion, there will be further communication with your office", neither Kachirisky nor his counsel was ever contacted and the claim was denied by operation of law.
Regarding gang camps within ranks and the Culichi Town incident and it' s coverup resulting in the emboldening of the Valentin camp and the City' s major enforcement team ( met). met is a swat like team created in January 2020 by Chief Valentin. Persons associated with met are considered to be part of" Valentin camp" and receive extreme and obvious favoritism from Chief Valentin, both regarding promotions and lack of discipline.
The Promotional Process and Chief Valentin
The process had become unfair, biased, discriminatory and contrary to law." Wherefore, Kachirisky prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:
1. For compensatory damages, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation, bonuses, vacation and other employment perquisites and other special and general damages according to proof;
2. Damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress;
3. Interest, including prejudgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate;
4. Attorneys fees and costs incurred herein; and
5. Cost of suit; and
6. Such further and other relief as the court deems just and proper.
REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Kachirisky hereby demands a trial by jury.
Dated September 5, 2023
https:// citVofsantaanaca. nextrequest. com/ requests/ 26- 719 From: Jackie Angel Investor< jcordova4@msn. com>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:21 PM
To: eComment< ecomment@santa- ana. org>
Subject: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION 1 Hello, we would like details on these closed session cases and why so many Santa Ana police officers are suing us.
https:// citVofsantaanaca. nextrequest. com/ requests/ 26- 719 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION
Frank Rocha v. City of Santa Ana, WCAB Case No.: ADJ15955468; ADJ18623576; ADJ17697034 B.
Stephen Hahm v. City of Santa Ana, WCAB Case No.: ADJ19377542; ADJ19377509; ADJ19885630 A. Anthony Cardenal v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022- 01293127 B. John Kachirisky v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30- 2023- 01348299 C. Nelson Menendez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2023- 01339537 D. Manuel Moreno v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024- 01372127 E. Rita Ramirez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022- 01287702 F. Judith Valdez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30- 2023- 01359457 From: JackieAngel Investor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 11:30:39 AM
To: scarvalho@santa- ana. org < scarvalho@santa- ana. org>; anunez@santa- ana. org < anunez@santa- ana. org> Cc: Ryberg, Erinn < Erinn. Ryberg@asm. ca. gov>; eComment < eComment@santa- ana. org> Subject: City of Santa Ana, Formal Complaint Filed - City Attorney Notice Sonia R. Carvalho, FIRED
As general counsel to the City
Today I was assured you would never be of service to me. After all these years, you offer me nothing, not even a return phone call. As our City Attorney, you can' t be bothered.
You are hereby put on notice. You are no longer my city attorney.
Never did you represent me. { We The People}
Never did you provide services for me<.
Never did you counsel me or guide me in matters regarding the City of Santa Ana.
This is the acknowledgement.
Santa Ana California
Frank E. Rocha, a Police Services Dispatcher for the City of Santa Ana in 2024, had a total salary of 9,344. 00, with regular pay of$ 8,639.09
Total compensation including benefits and pension debt was $ 16, 454. 45.
Stephen C. Hahm is a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, California, with a reported total pay of 337, 526. 05 in 2024, according to data from Transparent California. His compensation included a high regular salary along with additional pay and benefits typical of law enforcement officers. 2024 Salary: $ 337, 526. 05
2021 Salary: $ 110, 839. 50
Anthony Cardenal earned $ 207, 331 in 2017, according to public payroll data from Santa Ana. His job title was listed as a Police Officer.
John Kachirisky, a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, had a total pay and benefits package of 347, 114. 56 in 2022
2 2022 ( Pension Debt): $ 92, 990. 41
Nelson A. Menendez worked as a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, earning a total pay of 196, 996. 30
which included a regular salary of$ 112, 104.00. His total compensation, including benefits and pension debt coverage, was $ 361, 812. 66.
Salary Breakdown ( 2022):
Total Pay: $ 196, 996. 30
Regular Pay: $ 112, 104. 00
Benefits: $ 69, 745. 32
Pension Debt: $ 95, 071. 04
Manuel Moreno J. earned $ 432, 264 in 2024, according to public payroll data from Santa Ana. His job title was listed as a Police Lieutenant ( Rm).
According to public records, Manuel Moreno J.' s salary increased by 38% ($ 118, 565) from 2023 to 2024.
Manuel Moreno J.' s salary was 190% higher than the average and 220% higher than the median salary at Santa Ana in 2024.
His salary was 164% higher than the average Police Lieutenant salary in 2024.
Judith A. Valdez
Police Officer ( 2020)
Regular pay: 107, 820. 00
Overtime pay: 13, 919. 75
Other pay: $ 42, 079. 52
Total pay: $ 163, 819. 27
Benefits: $ 65, 508. 11
Pension debt: 68, 406. 54
Total pay & benefits: $ 297, 733. 92
3 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 09/06/ 2023 02: 06:22 PM. 30- 23- 01348299- CU- OE- CJC - ROA# 2 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By A. Burton, Deputy Clerk. 1 JOHN A. GIRARDI, State Bar No. 54917
JOHN A. GIRARDI, APC
2 29900 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
3 ( 310) 265- 5787 Telephone
j ohn(a,johngirardilaw. com
4 LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN, State Bar No. 134108
5 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN, APC iar ed cor All PWrrao, 29900 Hawthorne Boulevard judge Michael Stri c kroth
6 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
310) 265- 5788 Telephone
7 lennemannle( a-),gmail. com
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOHN KACHIRISKY
9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF ORANGE
12 JOHN KACHIRISKY, an Individual CASE NO.: 30- 2023- 01348299- CU- OE- CJC 13 PLAINTIFF JOHN KACHIRISKY' S
14 COMPLAINT FOR RETALIATION INPlaintiff,
15 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102. 5
16 vs. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
17 18
CITY OF SANTA ANA, an entity of unknown )
19 origin; and DOES 1 - 50, Inclusive,
20 21
22 Defendants.
23 24
25 Plaintiff John Kachirisky(" KACHIRISKY" or" Plaintiff'), with knowledge as to his own acts and 26 basedupon information andbelief with regard to all other matters,by and through his attorneysof record, 27 28
alleges:
KACHnusKY v. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENo.
COWLAI NT
1 1. KACHIRISKY is an individual who, at all times relevant herein, is and was employed as a 2 police officer by Defendant City of Santa Ana(" CITY" or" Defendant") at CITY' s business office located 3 4 in the County of Orange, Stateof California.
5 2. KACHIRISKY allegesthat CITY is amunicipality doing businessin the County of Orange, 6 State of California. The SantaAna City Council, as the governing body of the City of SantaAna, acts, 7 represents, and implements policy on the behalf of CITY. 8 9
3. DefendantsCITY andDOE Defendants 1through 50 arehereinafter sometimescollectively 10 referred to as " DEFENDANTS".
11 4. On May 4, 2023,KACHIRISKY exhaustedhis administrative remediesby causingCITY to 12 be servedwith a Government Claim. On May 9, 2022, although CITY, via its Third Party Administrator, 13 14
acknowledged receipt of the claim and stated that "( a) n investigation will be conducted, and upon 15 conclusion, there will be further communication with your office", neither KACHIRISKY nor his counsel 16 was ever contactedand the claim was denied by operation of law. 17 5. KACHHUSKY is presently not aware of the true names and/ or capacities of Defendants 18 19 DOES 1through 50, inclusive, andtherefore suessaidDefendantsby suchfictitious names.KACHIRISKY 20 is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that said fictitiously named 21 Defendants are directly and proximately responsible for the injuries and damages alleged herein. 22 KACHIRISKY will amendthis Complaint to allegethetrue namesandcapacitiesof saidfictitiously named 23 24 Defendants when, and if, ascertained.
25 26
27 28
z
KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 6. KACHHUSKY is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that, 2 at all relevant times, each and every Defendant was a principle, agent, employer, employee, manager, 3 4 supervisor, officer, shareholderand/or owner of eachand every other Defendant, and eachand every act 5 and/or omission of each and every Defendant occurred by and through the governing body and/or 6 managementof the Defendant andwithin the courseand scopeof such agencyand/or employment and/or 7 was approved and/or ratified by the acts and/or omissions of each and every other Defendant. 8 9
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10 A. Plaintiff KACHIRISKY.
11 7. By way of brief background,after servinghonorably for four yearsin theUnited StatesNavy, 12 in Januaryof 2005,KACHHUSKY was hired by the California Highway Patrol whereheworked asaPatrol 13 14 Officer for over three years.
15 8. In February of 2008, KACHIRISKY was hired by CITY as a Police Officer. In November 16 2017,afterservingin various capacities,KACHIRISKY waspromoted to Corporal. SinceFebruaryof 2019, 17 KACHHUSKY has served as a Lead Corporal, during which time he received consistently Outstanding 18 19 Performance Evaluations and various recognitions/ awards. 20 9. Since 2020, KACHIRISKY has been an Executive Board member of the Police Officers 21 Association (" POA"), serving as the elected POA Vice President until his July/ August 2023 elevation to 22 POA President. Additionally, as discussed in more detail below, KACHIRISKY was instrumental in 23 24 coordinating the successfulSeptember1,2021Vote ofNo ConfidenceagainstPolice Chief David Valentin. 25 B. CITY' s Police Chief David Valentin and the " Gangs/ Camps" he Fosters. 26 10. Since 2017, David Valentin has been CITY' s Police Chief. 27 28
3 KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 11. During this time, myriad claims have been made against CITY as a result of Chief Valentin' s 2 and those acting on his behalf) unlawful acts of, inter alia, harassment (including claims of sexual 3 4
harassment), discrimination and retaliation.
5 12. As CITY is well aware from numerous complaints and from other publicly- filed lawsuits, 6 although aneffective police departmentfunctions asawhole, it hasbeena commonrecentpractice( andthe 7 subject of much ongoing discussion and concern between CITY' s police department personnel) for Chief 8 9 Valentin( andothersathis behest)to attemptto forcepersonnelto choosebetweentwo" gangs" or" camps"- 10 what is referred to as " the Valentin camp" or what Chief Valentin perceives to be the other" gang"/" camp" I 1
allegedly led by then-POA PresidentGerry Serrano.It becameavery hostile and dysfunctional atmosphere 12 as "the Valentin camp" attemptedto pigeonhole/ostracizeemployeesasbelonging to one camp or another. 13 14 Many employees became extremely fearful that, if they were labeled as belonging to the" camp" associated 15 with the POA/ Serrano,they would beretaliated against,deniedpromotional opportunities or possibly even 16 disciplined, demoted and/ or terminated for minor infractions. 17 13. KACHHUSKY, asanactivePOA Boardmemberwho hadbeenpromoted to Executive Board 18 19 Secretaryin 2020,was quickly characterizedby Chief Valentin( andthoseacting onhis behalf) asbeing part 20 of" the POA camp" and not part of" the Valentin camp". 21 14. Chief Valentin has been repeatedly accusedof not simply allowing but fostering these 22 camps"within thePolice Department.Additionally, Chief Valentin hasbeenrepeatedlyaccusedof actively 23 24 retaliating/ discriminating against or harassing those who did not choose to be in his " camp" and of 25 retaliating/discriminating againstor harassingthosewho choseto evenassociatewith thoseperceivedto be 26 in the other" camp". It is also common knowledge that those perceived to be in the" Valentin camp"- even 27 those who repeatedly and significantly violate laws, statutes, regulations and policies - are not 28 charged/investigated/disciplined for such conduct while those not perceived to be in the "Valentin camp" 4 KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
I ( especially those who stand up against the " Valentin camp"' s wrongful acts) are routinely 2 charged/ investigated/ disciplined for far less egregious purported " misconduct." Despite the numerous 3 4 complaints of this unlawful conduct over the years, CITY hasallowed this conduct to continue. 5 C. The Culichi Town Incident- and its Cover- Up - Resulted in the Emboldening 6 of the Valentin Camp and the CITY' s Major Enforcement Team(" MET"). 7 15. MET is a SWAT- like team " created" in January of 2020 by Chief Valentin. Persons 8 9 associatedwith MET are consideredto be part of" the Valentin camp" and receive extreme and obvious 10 favoritism from Chief Valentin, both regarding promotions and lack of discipline. 11 16. For sakeof example, a very public and disturbing incident involving the allegedAugust 9, 12 2020 sexual assault by an off- duty CITY police officer at the Culichi town restaurant - and the resulting 13 14
cover- up by Chief Valentin and those acting at his direction - was recently addressed in a May 24, 2023 15 complaint madeby CommanderManny Moreno, anunredactedcopy of which wasreleasedvia investigative 16 journalist Ben Camacho'sJune21,2023article entitled" SantaAna Police DepartmentDelays Investigation 17 of a Child Sexual Assault by an Off-Duty Officer by More than Half a Year, Commander Alleges." 18 19 KACHHUSKY is informed and believes that not only were the officers involved in the Culichi Town 20 Incident not disciplined but they have received multiple promotions 21 17. Specifically, on August 9, 2020, five other CITY MET police officers ( Dorin Buchanan, 22 Mark Campi, then- Sergeant Oscar Lizardi, Jonathan McKee, Jonathon Perez) - who were hand-picked for 23 24
this assignment with Chief Valentin' s blessing - were accusedof verbally harassingtwo teenagegirls and 25 of sexually- assaulting one at the Culichi Town restaurant in Santa Ana(" the Culichi Town Incident"). 26 18. The girls' family ( who had been told by the officers that they were CITY police officers) 27 and/or others repeatedly called 911 to report the Culichi Town Incident. The MET members reportedly fled 28 prior to patrol officers arriving. The MET membersalso reportedly coordinatedwith officer Andres Gil to s
KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
I tell officers at the scene that they should not take the mandated police report. ( Officer Gil was eventually 2 rewarded with a transfer to MET.)
3 4
19. Thus, in violation of federal law, state law and CITY policy, no police report was taken. 5 However, as several 911 calls had been made, an incident number ( 200805316) - and a related Incident 6 Detail Report - had been generated. A review of the Incident Detail Report evidences some obvious 7 irregularities:
8 9
Although Culichi Town is in the" Southcoast areas", Watch 3(graveyard)officers responded from three different areas( Southcoast, Westend and Southeast) evidencing that this was a 10 significant incident, requiring multiple units to respond; and 11 Despite this( and despite the fact that then- probationary Sergeant Rich Riberio who, contrary 12 to typical CITY practice,wasthereafterpromoted shortly afterpassingprobation,was shown as" available" and shouldhavebeenat the call), not a singlepatrol supervisorwas on scene. 13 14
20. Many atCITY areinformed andbelievethat theonly reasonableconclusion to bedrawn from 15 the above is that one or more of the involved MET officers contacted the supervisor/ s and told them not to 16 respond.
17 D. Let' s Skip Ahead and Look at Commander Moreno' s Recent Complaint. 18 19
21. Almost immediately, numerous officers reported the Culichi Town Incident to CITY. As 20 such, the Culichi Town Incident has been an " open secret" at CITY since August of 2020. 21 22. Despite this, on May 9, 2022, Chief Valentin released a video in which he described how" a 22 blog" [ written by the above-referencedinvestigative journalist Camacho] that had been" sharedon social 23 24 media" contained " serious misinformation" and " baseless attacks on the integrity of some of the most 25 dedicated members of our police department."
26 23. In the video, Chief Valentin also stated that he wished to " assure the community my 27 command staff and I hold our officers to the highest standards" and that" we investigate any allegations of 28 wrongdoing andhold officers accountableto our departmentpolicies and the law." 6 KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 24. Chief Valentin then described how an" anonymous complaint" was received" seven months" 2 after the Culichi Town Incident and then stated:
3 4 Upon receiving the initial complaint, an internal affairs investigation was opened." 5 25. However, as: ( 1) the " initial complaint[ s]" were made in August of 2020; and ( 2) no 6 investigation was admittedly opened until ( at the earliest) seven months later, this statement was false. 7 26. Despite this, Chief Valentin retained purported " independent" " investigators" ( the OIR 8 9 Group) who conductedan almost-year-long assessmentbased,not only on the false lack-of-prompt-notice 10 premise, but, pursuant thereto - admittedly- interviewed only MET personnel. 11 27. Thus, not surprisingly, the OIR Report which - despite the fact that Chief Valentin and 12 AssistantChief Rodriguez,various membersof thecommandstaff andnumerousofficers were indisputably 13 14
aware of the incident in August of 2020 - essentially opined "gee, it would be nice if your officers had 15 promptly reported bad stuff up the chain."
16 28. On April 5, 2023, in another released video, Chief Valentin then weaponized the 17 assessment" to falsely imply the absence of any wrongdoing 18 19 29. Many atCITY' spolice department- who wereinformed andbelievedthat someindependent 20 entity must havebeen( during the past years) investigating CITY' s cover-up of allegations againstits own 21 officer of a sexual assault against a minor of which numerous supervisors were indisputably aware- were 22 23
shocked by the conclusions of the OIR Report.
24 30. On May 24, 2023, Commander Moreno ( one of those shocked by the report) made his 25 complaint of " misconduct of aseriousnature" which detailedreportsto him andhis reporting to othersand 26 which states, in part:
27 Up until the Office of Independent Review published the Assessment, I believed that SAPD' s 28 Internal Affairs Investigation would accountandaccuratelyexplain theseven-month gapfrom when misconduct was reported( August 2020) to DC Rodriguez to when SAPD received the anonymous complaint (— March 2021).
7 KACHIRISKY V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENo.
COWLAINT
I It is my belief that if the Office of Independent Review, was made aware that Commander Alvarez 2 and I had indeed followed SAPD policy/ procedure, with regards to the reporting of officer misconduct, they would not have made some of the assertions and recommendations they did. 3 Additionally, had an Internal Affairs Investigation been initiated in August of 2020 instead of 7 4 months later, our Internal Affairs Unit would have had the ability to conduct a more thorough and accurate investigation. This 7-month delay impeded and interfered with the alleged sexual assault 5 and Internal Affairs investigation."
6 31. With regardto post-OI Reportcommunications,CommanderMoreno' scomplaint alsostated:
7 On 4/ 11/ 23, I met with DC Rodriguez and we discussed the OIR' s Assessment report. DC 8 Rodriguez did not denythat I hadreportedmisconduct to him shortly aftertheCulichi Town incident 9 I asked DC Rodriguez if he had told Chief Valentin about the misconduct I had reported. DC Rodriguez indicated that he indeed did notify Chief Valentin at the time I reported it to him"; and 10 On April 6, 2023 I spoke to Sergeant Barragan; we discussed the Assessment by the OIR and his 11 initial reporting of the alleged misconduct.
12 I spoke to Commander Alvarez on April 7, 2023 and I advised him that I was going to make an 13 allegation of misconduct against DC Rodriguez about this incident. Commander Alvarez stated he 14 Would be available to be interviewed and discuss his interaction with DC Rodriguez regarding the alleged misconduct of our officers at the Culichi Town restaurant." 15 16
32. Commander Moreno' s complaint also detailed someof the reports to him and by him:
17 Approximately a week after the incident, I was approached by Sergeant Luis Barragan, who at the time was assigned as the Watch 2 sergeant of the Southcoast District( 280). I subsequently learned 18 from SergeantBarragan, that he was not working on the night of the incident, however when he 19 returned to work, he learned about the incident which had occurred at the Culichi Town restaurant.
Officer' s that responded to the call were concerned how the alleged sexual assault by one of 20 members of the MET team was investigated. Sergeant Barragan stated that his officers told him that some members from the SAPD' s Major Enforcement Team ( MET) were off- duty and were 21 patronizing the Culichi Town Restaurant. Sergeant Barragan indicated that his officers told him that 22 Officer Andres Gil also respondedand proceeded to interfere and impede in the manner in which the investigation was conducted. SergeantBarraganalso learnedthat oneof therespondingofficers 23 viewed a cell phone video that had been taken by an unknown patron. According to this officer, he 24 told SergeantBarragan that the video had captured SergeantLizardi ( off- duty) at the incident.
Sergeant Barragan' s officers were concerned because it involved members of the MET team and 25 becausethere was outside interference by on and off- duty officers at the scene. They felt that the sexual assaultinvestigation had not beenhandled properly becausemembersof the MET teamhad 26 been involved and other officers ( on- duty and off- duty officers) ensured that the proper 27 documentation and notifications were not conducted. They also expressed concern of retaliation from membersof other SAPD personnel if they reported this allegedmisconduct in a formal manner. 28 After SergeantBarragan's reporting of the alleged misconduct, I met with my direct supervisor, Deputy Chief Eric Paulson. I advised Deputy Chief Paulson of what had been reported by Sergeant s
KACHnusKYv. CITYOFSANTAANA CASENo.
COWLAINF
I Barragan. Deputy Chief Paulson was immediately concerned about the allegations and we agreed 2 that I would formally adviseDeputy Chief Rodriguez, who at the time of this incident still held the rank of Commanderandwasthe Commanderof theInternal Affairs Unit. As I preparedto meetwith 3 Deputy Chief Rodriguez, he stoppedby the Watch CommandersOffice. I told DC Rodriguez that 4 I had something important to discusswith him. He satdown andI reported the allegedmisconduct that Sergeant Barragan had reported to me.
5 I specifically told DC Rodriguez that SergeantLizardi was allegedly presentwhen membersof our 6 MET team were involved in an alleged sexual assault incident at the Culichi Town Restaurant. I 7 printed a copy of the incident from the INFORM RMS systemandI handedhim the copy of the call for his review. We ended our conversation and he exited the Watch Commander' s Office. 8 9 I immediately reported this interaction, in person, to DC Paulson. This interaction was done in person and I also believe we may have/or not have exchanged emails, about our conversations 10 referencing this matter.
11 I also shared my interactions, with DC Rodriguez, with my peer Commander Chuck Elms. 12 Specifically, we discussedthat it appearedthat DC Rodriguez had not taken my complaint of misconduct seriously andwas not going to immediately initiate an Internal Affair' s investigation 13 14
In addition, another SAPD field supervisor expressed to me similar misconduct allegations that SergeantBarraganhadmade. This supervisor is fearful of retaliation by SAPD personnelsohe/she 15 is not comfortable, at this time, to be identified.
16 A few weeksaftermy interaction with DC Rodriguez,I wastalking to CommanderAndrew Alvarez. 17 We began discussing the incident at Culichi Town, I told him about my interaction with DC Rodriguez and Commander Alvarez told me that he too had received complaints from some of his 18 officers about the alleged sexual assault at Culichi Town. Commander Alvarez also told me that he 19 had alsoreported the alleged misconduct by our officers to DC Rodriguez." 20 33. Per CITY' sPolice Department Policy 1010.8, both Chief David Valentin and Assistant Chief 21 Robert Rodriguez should have immediately beenplaced on administrative leave.However, asof the filing 22 of this Complaint, both Chief David Valentin and Assistant Chief Robert Rodriguez remain at CITY, 23 24 directly supervising Commander Moreno.
25 E. CITY' s Sergeant Position and Sergeant Promotional. 26 34. The position of Police Sergeant is a civil service protected supervisory position and 27 candidates are selected from the ranks of current police officers. CITY employs a selection process for the 28 position of Police Sergeantconsistingof severalcomponentsthat aretouted asbeing fair andunbiased.After 9 KACHimwy v. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENo.
COWLAINT
I meeting minimum qualifications of years of service, candidates complete a written test and series of three 2 interviews. Based on combined scoresfrom the test and interviews, the candidatesare then placed on a 3 4
ranked eligibility list - valid for two years. As Police Sergeantvacancies occur (through promotion or 5 retirements), candidates from the eligibility list are used to fill the open positions. 6 35. In theory, the testing process is designed to select/rank the most suitable and qualified 7 candidates through a completely fair and impartial process. However, in practice, this is far from the case. 8 9
F. CITY' s 2015- 2016 Modifications to the Sergeant Promotional. 10 36. Pre 2015-2016, per the norm in nearly all municipal police departmentsacrossthe nation, 11 officers and detectives who were not Corporals were eligible to test for Sergeant. However, in or about 2015- 12 2016, CITY modified the Sergeantselection process from the format of previous years by instituting a 13 14 requirement that candidates testing for the position of Sergeant must first be Corporals. 15 37. The position of Corporal is anon-civil serviceclassification consisting of ahybrid between 16 line level and supervisory duties. A Corporal therefore performs the normal duties of a police officer but is 17 alsopermitted alimited amountof supervisory duties. In reality, CITY Corporalsareusually taskedby their 18 19 Sergeantswith completing administrative paperwork andresponsibilities that a Sergeantwould( andoften 20 should) normally perform. This frees up Sergeants from having to do undesirable tasks and is justified as 21 a meansof" developing" Corporals.
22 38. In addition to requiring that Sergeantcandidatesbe Corporals, CITY shortenedthe selection 23 24 process. The new processconsistedof awritten test, followed shortly thereafterby two internal interviews 25 hostedon the samedayfor eachcandidateandconcluding with an external interview conductedby ranking 26 members from outside agencies. The two internal interviews held the heaviest weight in terms of scoring 27 by accounting for 50% of the overall score.
28 io
KACAIItISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 39. The stated purpose of these changes was to make the selection process shorter( now a period 2 of weeksasopposedto months) andto provide greaterflexibility for command staff to selectthe candidates 3 4 they deemedappropriate. However, it becamecommon knowledge throughout CITY that this processwas 5 designed to allow for greater internal control over who would be selected and to negate the possibility for 6 the promotion of" unpopular/undesirable" candidates.
7 40. Essentially, CITY wanted to be able to essentially make it easier to pick the " preferred" 8 9 candidates.Needlessto say,this contradictsthe fundamentalprinciples of theselectionprocessthatthebest, 10 most qualified candidatesbe selectedin a fair, equal, and impartial manner. 11 G. The Promotional Process and Chief Valentin. 12 41. Following David Valentin' s February 2018 permanent appointment to Police Chief, CITY 13 14 maintained the above- described testing process so as to allow the selection of candidates Valentin and his 15 immediate circle of supporters deemed " acceptable". Nonetheless, occasionally a candidatedeemed "not 16 acceptable" made it through the selection process. This was attributed to those particular candidates' ability 17 to perform exceptionally well on the written and outside interview tests. Therefore, it soon became common 18 19 that candidateswho were not part of" the Valentin camp" were encouragedto perform exceptionally well 20 in order to simply pass the selection process and avoid being eliminated. 21 42. Meanwhile, those candidates deemed members of" the Valentin camp" merely had to perform 22 at minimal standards and could be assured of being selected. A double standard therefore became 23 24 institutionalized in the selectionprocess. Those candidateswho were" approvedof by Chief Valentin and 25 his " camp" only had to show up with minimal preparation and could be assuredthey would be selected. 26 Meanwhile, candidates disliked by " the Valentin camp" had to perform at the highest levels possible 27 typically through very extensivepreparation) and,eventhen, their successin passingcould not beassured. 28 In sum, the processhad becomeunfair, biased, discriminatory and contrary to law.
KAcHmisKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE NO.
COMPLAINT
I H. In 2017, prior to the Culichi Town Incident, KACHIRISKY was Promoted to 2 Corporal.
3 4
43. In July of 2017,KACHIRISKY becametheTraffic Representativeon theBoard of Directors 5 for the Police Officers Association(" POA") Board. At the time, SergeantGerry Serranowas thePresident 6 of the POA Board.
7 44. In September- October 2017, KACHIRISKY tested for the position of Corporal. 8 9
45. The testing processfor Corporal was essentiallyanabridgedversion of the Sergeanttesting 10 processasit consistedof a multiple- choice written test and aninternal resume-basedinterview in front of 11 a 3-member panel of ranking departmentmembers. Interestingly, at that time the written test for Corporal 12 was much more difficult than the written test for Sergeant. The internal resume- based interview was 13 14
identical to that of Sergeant. It required the candidate to submit an " enhanced" resume covering four 15 dimensions of supervision and leadership and then undergo an interview consisting of four questions 16 covering each dimension. Typically, the questioners simply asked the candidate to give an example of how 17 they demonstratedthat particular dimension as applicable to the position. 18 19
46. KACHIRISKY performedvery well onthe Corporaltestandwasrankedin theNo. 2position 20 on the eligibility list.
21 47. In or aboutNovember of 2017, KACHIRISKY was promoted to the position of Corporal. 22 I. In the Fall of 2020, KACHIRISKY applied for a Promotion to Sergeant. 23 24 48. In September of 2020, after serving nearly three successful years in various Corporal 25 assignments, KACHIRISKY - who met the qualifications for promotion - applied for the position of 26 Sergeant.
27 49. KACHIRISKY took the written multiple choice examination and passed, performing very 28 well and scoring in the mid-90 percentile.
12 KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 50. At this time, the written multiple- choice examination was ahybrid test of questions obtained 2 from an outside vendor( Donnoe & Associates) and questionswritten by ranking internal membersof the 3 4 departmentfrom theHumanResourcesDivision. OutsidevendorDonnoe' squestionstypically coveredlegal 5 concepts(" Legal Sourcebook"caselaw andsearchandseizuretenets)andtheinternally generatedquestions 6 generally covered City policy andprocedure material.
7 51. After the conclusion of the written test, a 5- day" grievance period" was allowed for all test- 8 9
takers.
10 52. KACHfRlSKY progressedto the internal interviews two weeks after the written test. This 11 consisted of two interviews held back-to-back on the sameday for each candidate. Each interview was 12 conducted in front of a different panel of three ranking members of the department, consisting of two 13 14
Lieutenants and one Sergeant.
15 53. Oneinterview wasatimed" PracticalExercise"in which the candidatewaspromptedthrough 16 a tactical scenarioby the interviewers and gradedon their responsein appropriately handling the scenario 17 as a field Sergeant.
18 19
54. The second interview was an " Enhanced Resume Assessment" interview identical to the 20 Corporal interview in which the candidate answered four questions related to each of four dimensions on 21 the enhanced resume previously submitted in the initial application. The four questions were similar in that 22 they simply asked the candidate to provide " one example" from the particular dimension and how that 23 24 exampledemonstratedtheywerepreparedto bea Sergeant. The" EnhancedResumeAssessment"interview 25 utilized by CITY is an odd meansof assessingqualifications that hasmorphed into a ridiculous absurdity 26 and charade. The interview is structured with the panel members instructing the candidates at the outset that 27 therewill be no opening statementallowed by the candidate. Additionally, the panel membersinstruct the 28 candidatesto provide only" one" example from the candidatesexperienceto illustrate eachdimension. 13 KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 55. Nonetheless, it has become common knowledge and practice that in order to actually pass 2 the interview the candidatemust in fact provide an opening statementin their responseto question of the 3 4 first dimension. Additionally, the candidatemust try to touch on or allude to multiple examplesfrom their 5 personalexperiencein eachresponsebefore narrowing down to oneprimary example. As panel members 6 have remarked abouttheir experience in doing theseinterviews, there is an unwritten " formula" that has 7 become the norm in these interviews that candidates must follow in order to pass. Simply answering the 8 9 questionsas askedis not sufficient.
10 56. To make mattersworse,the biased scoring on thesepanels (both thePractical Exercise and 11 Enhanced Resume) became common knowledge to department members and the scoring became averitable 12 gameto assurethe successof the popular candidates. Thoseranking memberswho servedon thesepanels 13 14 readily admitted that favorable candidates ( i. e., " the Valentin camp") were scored highly regardless of 15 performance. Likewise, unfavorable candidates ( i. e., " the POA camp") were scoredpoorly or failed even 16 when performing well. Moreover, favorable candidateswereprovided with outlandishly high scoreson the 17 internal interviews to ensurethat no matter how poorly they performed or had performed on thewritten test 18 19 andexternal interview, they would still rank highly on the eligibility list dueto theheavy overall weight of 20 the internal interviews. Panel members even remarked about having provided their preferred candidates with 21 scores of 100% across the board in all dimensions just to ensurethat they would do well in the final 22 rankings, regardlessof their actual performance in the interviews. As thesescoreswere arbitrary basedon 23 24 thepanelists' own opinions, they could not( atthe time) bequestionedor held to anytype of accountability. 25 The complete lack of integrity and moral bankruptcy of this process was apparent, but nonetheless 26 acquiesced to by department members because there was no alternative means of achieving promotion or 27 advancement without submitting to this process.
28 14
KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 57. In anticipation ofthese interviews, KACHIRISKY engaged in customarily proper preparation 2 for theseinterviews( i.e.,hereceived interview coachingduring his daysoff from ajob interview specialist; 3 4 conducted" mock" interviews with CITY supervisorswho provided him with constructive criticism, etc.). 5 58. KACHIRISKY completed the Practical Exercise panel interview. KACHIRISKY then 6 completed the Enhanced Resume Assessment Interview with Lieutenants Sergio Enriquez and Sandra Gatt 7 and Sergeant Sergio Gutierrez. As Valentin decided who sat on these interview panels, the panels consisted 8 9 entirely of those from " the Valentin camp" ( i. e., Enriquez was consideredhighly incompetent by many 10 departmentmembersbut hadrisen in rank solely dueto his complete loyalty andsubservienceto Valentin). 11 59. KACHIRISKY completed the interviews and answered according to the unwritten" formula" 12 required to pass. A 5-day grievanceperiod was provided for both interviews. KACHIRISKY was notified 13 14 a week later that he failed the Enhanced Resume Assessment by purportedly failing three of the four 15 dimensions and that he was eliminated from the testing process. The testing process continued for other 16 candidateswho successfullymade the eligibility list andwere later promoted to Sergeant. KACHIRISKY 17 had outranked several of these candidates in the Corporal testing process or had considerably more 18 19 experienceasa police officer and Corporal.
20 60. It became common discussion throughout the police department: ( 1) that Enriquez was the 21 primary determinantof who passedand failed on the EnhancedResumeAssessmentinterview; and(2) that 22 Enriquez deliberately failed KACHIRISKY in direct support of Valentin' sdesiresdueto KACHIRISKY' s 23 24 association with the POA/ Serrano and the POA' s/Serrano' s ongoing attempts to hold Valentin and his 25 supporters accountable for their acts.
26 61. KACHIRISKY and other candidates who had been failed by Enriquez in this part of the 27 testing processspokedirectly with Enriquez in the aftermath of the testing process. 28 15
KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 62. In these discussions, while it is remarkable that Enriquez( now a Police Captain) would admit 2 to departmental personnel the existence of blatant prejudice and bias in the selection process, Enriquez 3 4 readily admitted that panelists often do not evenreadthe EnhancedResumessubmitted by the candidates. 5 Moreover, Enriquez openly admitted the panelists utilize their own subjective judgment in assessinga 6 candidate'ssuitability, regardlessofthe candidate'squalifications. Enriquez explainedthat,becauseheonly 7 served as a supervisor in a patrol capacity and had no additional experience, he was favorable to candidates 8 9 with only patrol experienceandbiasedtoward candidateswith additional experience. 10 63. KACHIRISKY- fearful of additional retaliation from Valentin and" theValentin' scamp"- 11 did not contestor file agrievanceafter this testing processin 2020.Additionally, KACHIRISKY is the sole 12 wage earner for a large family and could not afford suffering what Valentin had done to others who 13 14 questioned him or voiced an unpopular opinion ( i. e., possible demotion or termination). Moreover, 15 KACHIRISKY was told repeatedlyby other departmentmembersandsupervisorsnot to complain andjust 16 accepthis fate ashaving been failed by Enriquez. KACHIRISKY was told to not " boo hoo" and simply 17 move on or perform better next time. Despite the fact that KACHIRISKY " failed" only because he was 18 19
associated with the wrong " camp" ( and despite Enriquez' s own statements that he would have failed 20 KACHIRISKY no matter how well he performed), KACHIRISKY was criticized by department members 21 for having" failed" the interview.
22 J. The 2020- 2022 Time Period.
23 24 64. Between 2020 and 2022, KACHIRISKY concentrated on progressing in his career 25 developmentandonpreparing for the Sergeantposition by assumingvarious Lead Corporal' roles in various 26 capacities, performing all the work of a Sergeant while reporting directly to a Lieutenant. 27 28
A Lead Corporal is a position akin to Sergeant in that it is a Corporal acting in the capacity of a Sergeantwhen there is no Sergeantpresentin the chain of command. 16 KAcunu KYv. CITY OFSANTAANA CASENO.
COMPLAINT
1 65. KACHIRISKY also continued to serve as a ranking Board Member of the POA and in 2022 2 was elected Vice President.
3 4
66. In March of 2022, KACHIRISKY received a threatening letter via the United StatesPostal 5 Service at his home from" the silent majority"( i. e., members of" the Valentin camp") urging KACHIRISKY 6 to " take a stand against Gerry Serrano" and falsely accusing KACHIRISKY of various activities. 7 KACHIRISKY reported this letter to both CITY and to the Glendora postal service. While CITY was 8 9 requiredto investigatethis issuewithin oneyear,to date,KACHIRISKY hasreceivedno further information 10 from CITY.
11 67. On August 26, 2022, Corporal Paul McClaskey located a " flyer" posted in the police 12 department' s third floor west mens' bathroom entitled" Santa Ana Police Officers Association Widows& 13 14
Orphans Fund 2022 Casino Fundraiser" which stated:
15 Proceeds will help recover funds [ KACHIRISKY] borrowed from the Widows & Orphans Fund.
Funds will also go to: Gerry[ Serrano' s] personal legal fees[;] Gerry' s bar tab[; and] the soon to be 16 bankrupt legal defense fund."
17 68. Again, KACHIRISKY immediately reported this activity to his direct supervisor [ Gil 18 19 Hernandez] at CITY andCorporal McClaskey provided the flyer to the on-duty Watch Commander.Again, 20 CITY failed to comply with its mandated investigation duties. 21 69. On September 1, 2021, the POA membership completed a" Vote of No Confidence" against 22 Chief Valentin with the majority voting that they hadno confidence that he was capableof being the Chief 23 24 of Police. Despite this, CITY responded - a mere 87 minutes afterwards - by posting a Memo on social 25 media with statementsfrom Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and City Manager Kristine Ridge voicing their 26 support for Chief Valentin. Commander Enriquez then forwarded the Memo to all Department employees. 27 70. The Sergeanteligibility list from the 2020 testing processremained valid from November 28 2020 through November 2022.
17 KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 71. As the list neared expiration, only one candidate ( Daniel Padron) remained on the list and 2 various irregularities beganto arise.Although Chief Valentin hadassuredOfficer Padronthat every attempt 3 4 would be made to promote him from the list, shortly before the list expired, SergeantAlex Lopez (the 5 Adjutant to Chief Valentin) informed Officer Padronthat thelist expired andthat hewould not bepromoted 6 due to a lack of any Sergeant vacancies. Officer Padron- then disfavored by" the Valentin camp"- had been 7 allowed to" die on the list."
8 9
72. Then, approximately two weeks after expiration of the 2020 Sergeantlist, Chief Valentin 10 announcedthat SergeantRosa Ponce De Leon would be promoted to the position of Lieutenant. This 11 promotion - clearly expected by Chief Valentin - created a Sergeant vacancy. It became well known 12 throughout thedepartmentthat Chief Valentin did this deliberatelybecausehehad anotherspecific candidate 13 14 in mind for the position of Sergeant: Johanna Lizardi, wife of Valentin' s main confidant and MET member 15 then-Lieutenant Oscar Lizardi. However, in order to promote JohannaLizardi, a new Sergeanttesting 16 process would have to be conducted.
17 K. The December 2022 Sergeant Promotional:
18 19
73. In mid- December 2022, Human Resources Captain Enrique Esparza emailed an 20 announcement that the Sergeant' sTesting Process was to begin soon. This caused tremendous stress among 21 potential testing candidates,including KACHIRISKY, asthe departmentwasbeginning thetesting process 22 during theholidays for only onepotential vacancythat was alreadyunofficially slatedfor JohannaLizardi. 23 24 ( It was also unusual for the department to suddenly embark on an extensive and costly selection process for 25 one vacancy when it typically would wait for additional openings before commencing such an ordeal.) 26 Moreover, this placed undue added stress on those candidates deemed opposed to" the Valentin camp" such 27 as KACHIRISKY.
28 18
KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 74. KACHIRISKY would have to study and prepare much more thoroughly than candidates in 2 the Valentin camp" ( i. e., Lizardi) becausehe would have to perform exceptionally well just to be 3 4
considered. Meanwhile, candidates in " the Valentin camp" ( i. e., Lizardi) would only require minimal 5 preparation and were guaranteedto succeedsimply by showing up. 6 75. The announcementbecameofficial in earlyJanuaryandKACHIRISKY applied againfor the 7 position. KACHIRISKY also submitted an updated Enhanced Resume. 8 9
76. Therumor spreadingthrough the departmentwasthat Chief Valentin andhis commandstaff 10 had already created a Sergeant' s list ( with the top three candidates on the final list to be, in order: ( 1) 11 Johanna Lizardi; ( 2) former MET Corporal Travis Johnson; and( 3) current MET Corporal Luis Galleana) 12 and that the civil service testing processwas simply a" formality". 13 14
77• The testing process was announced by Senior Human Resources Analyst Lourdes Ferrer. Ms. 15 Ferrer is situated on the 4t' Floor of the police department within the Human ResourcesDivision near 16 Valentin' s office. While Chief Valentin' s command staff and supervisors refer to Ms. Ferrer as an impartial 17 detached city employee, since she is privy to the corrupt practices of Chief Valentin- particularly in recent 18 19 promotional processesrelated to the Lieutenant andCaptainpositions- sheknowingly operates/colludes in 20 the improper human resources processes.
21 78. Ms. Ferrer stated through written materials( aswell asvia averbal" orientation" presentation 22 on January4, 2023) that the testing processwould be nearly identical to the processin 2020. There would 23 24 be a written multiple- choice test of possibly 90 to 100 questions, the two internal interview panels, and an 25 external interview panel. In fact, it was quickly apparent that Ms. Ferrer's handout regarding the testing 26 process was the same used in 2020 because she neglected to even change the previous date to the current 27 date, still using" September 2020." This wasthe first of manyindications that this Sergeanttesting process 28 was being hastily assembledand pushedthrough asquickly aspossible. 19 KACAIItISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE NO.
COMPLAINT
1 79. Ms. Ferrer' shandouts stated that both the internal and practical examinations would be held 2 on the samedatefor eachcandidate(aswas the usual practice) andthat a 5-day grievanceperiod would be 3 4 allowed for eachinterview. Ms. Ferrer also statedthat the panel membershad yet to be chosen. However, 5 it was understoodby departmentmembersthat, asthe panel memberswould be chosenby Chief Valentin, 6 they would be highly favorable to his preferred candidates (i.e., those in" the Valentin camp.") 7 80. However, Ms. Ferrer informed the candidates that there would be a change in the multiple- 8 9 choice written test which was a departure from past practice. The test would now entirely consist of" in- 10 house" questions written by" subject matter experts" from within the department. No longer would any I I
questions from outside vendors such asDonnoe be utilized. As to whom these" subject matter experts" were, 12 how they were selected, or how they obtained their " expertise" was kept a complete mystery and not 13 14 disclosed. Who was formulating these questions, who vetted them for accuracy or correctness, and, most 15 importantly, who had accessto them remained a secret. Of course, this just addedto speculation aboutthe 16 increasing corruption of the testing processamongdepartmentmembers. 17 81. This change in the written test corresponded to a similar recent change in the Corporal written 18 19 test.The Corporal written testhadbeenalteredearlier in 2022to excludethe difficult Donnoe questionsand 20 instead consisted entirely of simpler, easier internally- generated questions. 21 82. It becamecommon discussion that the Corporal test was deliberately" dumbed down" to 22 benefit favorable" Valentin camp" candidates. In particular, the test was engineeredto be simpler in order 23 24 to directly benefit membersof Chief Valentin' s favored MET members,thereby enabling them to passthe 25 test and be promoted. As the MET team members were not known to be particularly astute or highly 26 educated, the Corporal test was specifically re- engineered to their lower capabilities. This was particularly 27 relevantwith this Sergeanttestingprocessasit now included severalMET teamcandidatesincluding Travis 28 Johnsonand Luis Galleana. It appeareda similar dynamic was now being utilized on the Sergeant's test. ao
KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 83. As with the Corporal test, when the preferred candidates passed the written test, their scores 2 would later be artificially inflated on the internal interviews to ensurehigh placement onthe final eligibility 3 list.
4 5 84. Ms. Ferrer further announced a new change in that the times and dates of the testing 6 componentswould now be "self-scheduled"by the candidatesthemselves. This was a departurefrom past 7 practice in which the test times for each candidate were randomly( and therefore fairly aspossible) generated 8 9 by computer.Now candidateswould benotified via email when they could log on andregister for time slots 10 to takethetest/interview. Naturally, this led to widespreadspeculationasto whether thenotifications would 11 be emailed simultaneously or if certain candidates( i. e.," the Valentin camp", specifically Lizardi and MET 12 team members) would receive it first and therefore schedule times most convenient for them. As this was 13 14 also kept a complete secret, speculation ran rampant about the widespread and increasing unfairness of the 15 process.
16 85. In the run-up to the written test, the namesof the panel memberswere finally announced. 17 The names were announced so that candidates could no longer speak with them or seek guidance from them 18 19 aboutthepromotional process.ThePractical Exercisepanel consistedof LieutenantsMat SorensenandGil 20 Hernandez and Sergeant Gary Couso. Sergeant Couso was the current MET Sergeant and all three were 21 closely affiliated with the SWAT Team. Moreover, all three were considered to be within " the Valentin 22 camp" andhighly approvedby him. The EnhancedResumeAssessmentpanel consistedof LieutenantsJoe 23 24 Marty and Roland Andrade and Sergeant Ricardo Diaz, all three of whom were considered to be within" the 25 Valentin camp."
26 86. On January 25, 2023, KACHIRISKY completed the written test which consisted of 90 27 questions. Unlike previous tests, this test contained very few questions related to Legal Sourcebook case law 28 and searchand seizureissues. The test primarily concernedpolicy andprocedure matters. 21 KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 87. Moreover, the test contained a number of questions taken directly from prior Sergeant and 2 Corporal written tests. Someof the material was datedandno longer applicable.Not only did this give rise 3 4
to the question of the reliability of the so- called" subject matter experts," but it demonstratedhow rapidly 5 the testhad beenassembled.It appearedto havebeen" thrown together" in arushto push it through. As the 6 testwasrelatively simple comparedto previous tests,all of the candidates,including KACHIRISKY, passed 7 the test.
8 9
88. During this time, Valentin appointed Lieutenant Lizardi to be in charge of the Training 10 Division and Human Resources. Moving Lizardi to Human Resources (where he would be privy to 11 information concerningthetestandtestingresults) was anenormousconflict of interest, given that his wife 12 was currently in the testing process.
13 14
89. The internal interviews were scheduled to occur two weeks after the written test- which was 15 normal practice in the SergeantandCorporal testingprocesses.It becameknown thattherewasa scheduling 16 problem with LieutenantAndrade ashehadtraining during theweek of theinterviews.Departmentmembers 17 confirmed this was correct through the ISE departmental scheduling system. Typically in this situation, 18 19 which frequently arisesduring testing processes,anotherranking memberof thedepartmentwould becalled 20 to fill in for the unavailable panel member. Lieutenant Andrade' s impending absence from the process 21 created a considerable stir among applicants because the remaining lieutenants who could replace him were 22 those considered( wrongly or rightly) to be from" the POA camp". In other words, only lieutenantswhom 23 24 Chief Valentin and his faction had labeled as " opposition" were available to replace Lieutenant Andrade. 25 This generatedsomeexcitement among those candidatesdeemedunpopular or associatedwith the wrong 26 "
camp" because there was a chance now that the panel might become slightly less biased against them with 27 a lieutenant not from the Valentin camp.
28 zz
KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 90. However, not one to leave anything to chance, Chief Valentin made the unprecedented move 2 of reschedulingtheEnhancedResumeAssessmentinterview to thefollowing week.This allowed Lieutenant 3 4
Andrade to remain on the panel and it avoided the " risk" of having to place a potentially unfriendly 5 lieutenant on the panel.
6 91. This unusual andunprecedentedmove by Chief Valentin to changethe dateof the Enhanced 7 Resume Assessment interview created confusion among the candidates as to when the Practical Exercise 8 9 would be held. It was assumedthat, in congruencewith pastpractice thatthe interviews beheld on the same 10 day, the Practical Exercise would also be pushedback a week. Moreover, since eachinterview required a 11 5-day grievanceperiod, the Practical Exercise could not be held a week before the ResumeAssessment. 12 However, contraryto pastpractice, CITY announcedthat the Practical Exercisewasto beheld asscheduled 13 14
and, therefore, occur a week before the Enhanced Resume Assessment. 15 92. The 5-daygrievanceperiod for thePracticalExercisewassimply eliminated. Theelimination 16 of a grievance period for an internal interview was not only extremely unusual, but highly unprecedented 17 for a civil service hiring process. When Ms. Ferrerwas confronted by candidatesabout this elimination of 18 19 the grievanceperiod for the Practical Exercise interview, sheinformed them that the grievanceperiod did 20 not apply to this interview ( despite past practice and what was written on her own handouts). Ms. Ferrer 21 claimed that, becausethePractical Exercisewas basedon a strict point scoring system, it was ineligible for 22 grievance.
23 24 93. However, as all of the componentsof the testing processwere points-based (and eventhe 25 written test which was an objective point scoring test had a 5- day grievance period), this made absolutely 26 no sense and was completely counterintuitive. Moreover, the Practical Exercise is far from an unbiased, 27 purely points- based scoring system. The interview involves a tactical scenario and there are no absolute 28 singular correctanswersin thesescenarios;otherwise,all police officers would betaughtthe onecorrectway 23 KACAIItISKY v. CFTY OF SANTA ANA CASE NO.
COMPLAINT
I to address these scenarios in the police academy and in training. Rather, these practical exercises and their 2 assessmentarehighly subjective and opento broad interpretation. Clearly, Ms. Ferrer was trying to justify 3 4 a decision made by Chief Valentin over which she either had no authority or control or shewas simply 5 unwilling or afraid to oppose him.
6 94. On February 9, 2023, KACHIRISKY completed the Practical Exercise. There were no 7 observers or members of Human Resources present during the interview. The panelists were essentially left 8 9 to their own devices.KACHIRISKY was informed laterthat daythat hehadpassedtheinterview andwould 10 proceed to the EnhancedResumeinterview the following week. 11 95. However, in the aftermath of the Practical Exercise interviews, a disturbing revelation was 12 uncovered through conversations between department members and panel interviewers. One of the 13 14 candidates had clearly failed the interview based on their unsatisfactory responses to the scenario. Two panel 15 membersreadily agreedthat the candidatehad failed. Another panel member indicated thathe personally 16 worked with the candidate, however, and knew the candidate could properly handle the scenario despite not 17 being able to articulate it sufficiently to passthe interview. This panel member subsequentlypersuadedthe 18 19 othertwo panel membersto alter their scoresin order to allow the candidateto pass. Department members 20 immediately began to speculate as to the identity of this candidate as well as how many other candidates 21 received this type of preferential treatment or treatment of the opposite effect. 22 96. On February 16, 2023, KACHIRISKY completed the Enhanced Resume Assessment. A 23 24 civilian employeefrom the Human ResourcesDivision was present in the interview room. However, she 25 was entirely and obviously preoccupied with her cell phone during the entire course of the interview and 26 seemed to be paying no heed to anything occurring during the interview. 27 97. Candidateswere subsequentlyinformed they would not be notified if they passedor failed 28 the EnhancedResumeAssessmentuntil February 27, 2023. This was an inordinately long period of time 24 KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
I ( well beyond the 5-day grievance period), and the reason provided was that two city holidays resulted in the 2 extendedtime frame. Talk quickly circulated among supervision, particularly at the patrol level, that this 3 4 extendedtime fame was being usedby Human Resourcespersonnelto alter the scoring on the interviews 5 according to Chief Valentin' s preferences. Whether true or not, the mere fact that supervisory level 6 personnelwere perpetrating this possibility was atestamentto themoral bankruptcy and lack of legitimacy 7 in the selection process. In other words, it had became commonly accepted that the selection process was 8 9 now completely corrupt.
10 98. Candidateswere then notified that the External Panelexamination wasto beheld during the 11 secondweek of March. Information begancirculating that OscarLizardi had met with potential external 12 panel membersat" Avila' s El Ranchito" restaurantat 2201 E. Ist Streetin SantaAna. While it would not 13 14 be unusual for a Human Resources Lieutenant to meet with prospective panel members for lunch, the fact 15 remainedthat Lizardi' swife was involved in thepromotional processandtheperceptionof Lizardi meeting 16 with panelmembersfurther confirmed the generalsentimentthat the selectionprocesswas entirely biased, 17 fraudulent and corrupt.
18 19
99. On February 27, 2023, KACHIRISKY was notified that he passedthe EnhancedResume 20 Assessment. While KACHIRISKY was relieved, given his prior experience with Enriquez, it was clear that 21 KACHIRISKY' s resume was very strong and far surpassed many of the candidates, particular in terms of 22 yearsof experiencein various assignmentsas a Lead Corporal. 23 24
100. On March 7, 2023, KACHIRISKY completed the External Panel interview. The panel 25 consisted of two lieutenants from the Orange Police Department and the Garden Grove Police Department 26 and a Captain from the Orange County Sheriff' s Department. No one else was present in the interview 27 including no representativefrom Human Resources.
28 zs
KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 101. There were two major irregularities from past practice in terms of the interview questions. 2 First, therewasno opening statementallowed. To completely eliminate this from theprocesswasextremely 3 4 unusual,previously unheardof in an external panel interview and a dramatic departurefrom pastpractice. 5 Candidatesarealwaysafforded anopportunity to explain their qualifications to anoutsidepanel in order to 6 familiarize thepanelwith the candidates'background andpreparation for the position. Particularly in terms 7 of the position of Sergeant, the importance of the candidates' experience in supervision and career 8 9
development goes without saying. However, it quickly became apparent why this was done: " The Valentin 10 camp" candidates(JohannaLizardi and the MET/ SWAT candidates)had very weak resumesanda glaring 11 lack of experience, particularly in terms of supervision/leadership and Corporal assignments. Thus, the 12 elimination of the opening statementpreventedthe other candidatesfrom outshining "the Valentin camp" 13 14 candidates at the very outset of the interviews. In other words, eliminating the opening statement was a 15 major disservice to candidatessuch as KACHIRISKY and a tremendousbenefit to " the Valentin camp" 16 candidates.
17 102. Secondly, thefirst question( in lieu of the opening statement)was an abbreviatedPractical 18 19 Exercise scenario. Despite having already completed a Practical Exercise interview, yet another Practical 20 Exercise scenario was introduced in this external panel interview. The initial Practical Exercise interview 21 involved a scenario in which an armed male was waving agun and acting erratically in front of his residence. 22 The scenarioin the external panel involved an armedsuspectwith agun who committed arobbery andhad 23 24 beentrackedto a specific location( i.e., a slightly different scenariocovering the exact sameground). This 25 was not only confusing( should candidatesreiterate everything they had said in the Practical Exercise asit 26 involved essentially the same tactical concepts, approaches, and considerations?) but made clear that this 27 question' s sole purpose was to serve to benefit the MET/ SWAT candidates because of their supposed 28 tactical knowledge and experienceby allowing them to highlight their SWAT backgrounds. 26 KACAIItISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE NO.
COMPLAINT
1 103. In the aftermath of the External Panel interview and before the final results were released, 2 it came to light that Oscar Lizardi was a friend of the Garden Grove Lieutenant who sat on the external 3 4 panel. Additionally, it alsowas learnedthat Lizardi had recently saton a Sergeant'shiring panel at Garden 5 Grove Police Department andhad specifically beenaskedby the GardenGrove command staff to treat one 6 of their own preferred candidatesfavorably. In other words, the GardenGrovel lieutenant" owed" Lizardi 7 a favor on this panel.
8 9
104. Basedon the information being circulated throughout the department, KACHIRISKY was 10 not hopeful of his chancesto withstand such a corrupt process ashe was aware that Chief Valentin was 11 extremely vindictive, particularly toward department members such ashimself who were affiliated with" the 12 POA Camp". In other words, unlike the other candidates who only had to worry about their own 13 14 performance, KACHHUSKY had to worry about specifically being targeted by Chief Valentin and those 15 acting on his behalf simply for being a perceived member of the "other" camp. 16 105. On March 15, 2023, the results were released and KACHIRISKY was informed he was 17 eliminated from the process after scoring a 61. 67% on the external interview. This was in stark contrast to 18 19
his scores in the mid- to- upper 80% range on the other componentsof the testing. 20 106. The rankings of the final eligibility list confirmed that the selection process was entirely 21 corrupt and tainted to the core. The top three candidatesand their order was the exact same ashad been 22 forecast by department members before the testing process even began: ( 1) Johanna Lizardi; ( 2) Travis 23 24 Johnson;and(3) Luis Galleana.Moreover, all of thepreferredSWAT membersrankedwell andwill achieve 25 promotion. As membersremarked throughout the department, the blatant corruption was now plainly" in 26 your face."
27 107. Chief Valentin and those acting on his behalf were no longer making any effort to hide the 28 unlawful corruption, favoritism anddiscrimination evenin aso-called" fair" civil serviceselectionprocess. 27 KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
I FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102. 5
3 4
Against All DEFENDANTS)
5 108. KACHHUSKY realleges Paragraphs 1 through 107 above and incorporates same as though 6 fully set forth herein.
7 109. KACHHUSKY, as described more fully above, reported/ disclosed to a government agency 8 9 and/or law enforcementagencyand/or apersonwith authority over her or to anemployeewith authority to 10 investigate, discover, or correct legal violations and/ or noncompliance to DEFENDANTS. KACHIRISKY 11 had reasonable cause to believe that the information reported/ disclosed a violation of state, or federal statute 12 and/ or a violation of and/ or noncompliance with a local, state and/ or federal rule and/ or regulation [ i. e., 13 14
Penal Code §§ 186.22, 13670 and Assembly Bill 958 ( prohibition of gangs among police officers); 15 Government Code §§ 12900-12999 (California Fair Employment and Housing Act; Government Code 16 §§ 12945. 2 et seq.); The California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973; Labor Code § 6310 17 workplace safety); Penal Code §§ 118, 127, 136. 1 ( perjury, suborning perjury, witness 18 19 tampering); Government Code§§ 6250 et seq. ( California Public Records Act); Penal Code§§ 832. 5, 832. 7 20 ( police officer confidentiality, internal investigation mandates and public records act compliance)]. 21 110. In responseto the disclosuresand complaints initiated by KACHIRISKY, DEFENDANTS 22 retaliated againstKACHIRISKY asmore fully describedherein. 23 24
111. Becauseof the retaliation that KACHIRISKY faced,KACHHUSKY was not promoted and 25 suffered other adverse employment actions.
26 112. DEFENDANTS' treatment of and response to the disclosures, complaints and grievances 27 filed by KACHHUSKY was in violation of Labor Code § 1102. 5. 28 as
KACFIIRISKY v. CFTY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 113. KACHIRISKY' s reporting/ disclosure of information was a contributing factor in 2 KACHIRISKY' s lack of promotion and suffering of other adverseemployment actions. 3 4
114. Asa direct result ofDEFENDANTS' actions as alleged above, KACHIRISKY suffered harm 5 and injury that was legally( proximately) causedby the conduct of DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury 6 includes, but is not limited to, special (economic) damages, general (non-economic) damages, litigation 7 costs, future damages and past damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors 8 9 andsuchfurther relief asshown atthetime of Trial andin excessof theminimal jurisdictional of this Court. 10 115. Additionally, asadirect andproximate result of theabove-describedactsof DEFENDANTS, 11 KACHIRISKY has necessarily incurred attorney' s fees and costs and he is entitled, per, inter alia, Labor 12 Code §§ 98. 6( b), § 1105, 1102. 5( f), Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Assembly Bill 1947 to the 13 14 reasonable value of such attorney' s fees and costs. 15 16 WHEREFORE, KACHIRISKY prays for Judgment against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as 17 follows:
18 19
1. For compensatory damages, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation, bonuses, 20 vacation and other employment perquisites and other special and general damages according to proof, 21 2. Damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress; 22 3. Interest, including prejudgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate; 23 24
4. Attorneys' fees and costs incurred herein; and 25 5. Costs of suit; and
26 6. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 27 28
29 KACAIRISKY v. CFFY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
I REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY
2 KACHIRISKY hereby demandsa Trial by Jury.
3 4
5 DATED: September 5, 2023 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN 6 7
By: Lawrence J Lennemann
8 LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN KACHIRISKY
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 30
KACHiRisKY V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENo.
COWLAINT
Becerra, Alexis
From: JackieAngel Investor <
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 2:00 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Durham, Daniel
Subject: Re: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTINGLITIGATIONSAPIDis the liability Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Nelson Menendez vs. City of Santa Ana
police officer retaliation employment claim
On April 24 2023, Menendez exhausted his administrative remedies by causing City to be served with a government claim. On May 24 2023, although Ciity, via its third party administrator, acknowledged receipt of the claim and stated that it " would be communicating with Menendez in the near future in regard to this matter", Menendez was never contacted and the claim was denied by operation of law.
Regarding employees being made to choose sides, gang camps within ranks Chief Valentin' s gang vs. POA Gerry Serrano
Despite these numerous claims of unlawful conduct over the years, City has allowed this unlawful conduct to continue.
The coverup of officer John Rodriguez
illegal immoral acts because of your friendship with officer Rodriguez City' s Major Enforcement Team - met part of Chief Valentin' s gang continued to act unlawfully The Brandon Lopez shooting " As City is well aware, on September 28th 2021, Brandon Lopez was shot and killed by members of the Anaheim Police department within City limits. For unknown reasons, despite the fact that the standoff occurred within City limits and, thus, within City' s jurisdiction, Chief Valentin handed over control of the incident to the Anaheim Police department.
Wherefore, Menendez prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:
1. For compensatory damages, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation, bonuses, vacation and other employment perquisites and other special and general damages according to proof;
2. Damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress;
3. Interest, including prejudgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate;
4. Attorneys fees and costs incurred herein; and
5. Cost of suit; and
6. Such further and other relief as the court deems just and proper.
REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Menendez hereby demands a trial byjury.
Dated July 28, 2023
https:// citVofsantaanaca. nextreguest. com/ requests/ 26- 719 1 From: Jackie Angel Investor< jcordova4@msn. com>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:21 PM
To: eComment< ecomment@santa- ana. org>
Subject: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION Hello, we would like details on these closed session cases and why so many Santa Ana police officers are suing us.
https:// citVofsantaanaca. nextrequest. com/ requests/ 26- 719 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION
Frank Rocha v. City of Santa Ana, WCAB Case No.: ADJ15955468; ADJ18623576; ADJ17697034 B.
Stephen Hahm v. City of Santa Ana, WCAB Case No.: ADJ19377542; ADJ19377509; ADJ19885630 A. Anthony Cardenal v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022- 01293127 B. John Kachirisky v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30- 2023- 01348299 C. Nelson Menendez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2023- 01339537 D. Manuel Moreno v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024- 01372127 E. Rita Ramirez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022- 01287702 F. Judith Valdez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30- 2023- 01359457 From: JackieAngel Investor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 11:30:39 AM
To: scarvalho@santa- ana. org < scarvalho@santa- ana. org>; anunez@santa- ana. org < anunez@santa- ana. org> Cc: Ryberg, Erinn < Erinn. Ryberg@asm. ca. gov>; eComment < eComment@santa- ana. org> Subject: City of Santa Ana, Formal Complaint Filed - City Attorney Notice Sonia R. Carvalho, FIRED
As general counsel to the City
Today I was assured you would never be of service to me. After all these years, you offer me nothing, not even a return phone call. As our City Attorney, you can' t be bothered.
You are hereby put on notice. You are no longer my city attorney.
Never did you represent me. fWe The People}
Never did you provide services for me<.
Never did you counsel me or guide me in matters regarding the City of Santa Ana.
This is the acknowledgement.
Santa Ana California
Frank E. Rocha, a Police Services Dispatcher for the City of Santa Ana in 2024, had a total salary of 9,344. 00, with regular pay of$ 8,639.09
Total compensation including benefits and pension debt was $ 16, 454. 45.
Stephen C. Hahm is a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, California, with a reported total pay of 337, 526. 05 in 2024, according to data from Transparent California. His compensation included a high regular salary along with additional pay and benefits typical of law enforcement officers. 2024 Salary: $ 337, 526. 05
2021 Salary: $ 110, 839. 50
2 Anthony Cardenal earned $ 207, 331 in 2017, according to public payroll data from Santa Ana. His job title was listed as a Police Officer.
John Kachirisky, a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, had a total pay and benefits package of 347, 114. 56 in 2022
2022 ( Pension Debt): $ 92, 990. 41
Nelson A. Menendez worked as a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, earning a total pay of 196, 996. 30
which included a regular salary of$ 112, 104.00. His total compensation, including benefits and pension debt coverage, was $ 361, 812. 66.
Salary Breakdown ( 2022):
Total Pay: $ 196, 996. 30
Regular Pay: $ 112, 104. 00
Benefits: $ 69, 745. 32
Pension Debt: $ 95, 071. 04
Manuel Moreno J. earned $ 432, 264 in 2024, according to public payroll data from Santa Ana. His job title was listed as a Police Lieutenant ( Rm).
According to public records, Manuel Moreno J.' s salary increased by 38% ($ 118, 565) from 2023 to 2024.
Manuel Moreno J.' s salary was 190% higher than the average and 220% higher than the median salary at Santa Ana in 2024.
His salary was 164% higher than the average Police Lieutenant salary in 2024.
Judith A. Valdez
Police Officer ( 2020)
Regular pay: 107, 820. 00
Overtime pay: 13, 919. 75
Other pay: $ 42, 079. 52
Total pay: $ 163, 819. 27
Benefits: $ 65, 508. 11
Pension debt: 68, 406. 54
Total pay & benefits: $ 297, 733. 92
3 Becerra, Alexis
From: JackieAngel Investor <
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 2:55 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Durham, Daniel
Subject: Re: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION Ramirez Complaint Attachments: Ramirez_-_ Complaint[ 2].pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Rita Ramirez vs. City of Santa Ana
police department retaliation employment claim
On July 18 2022, Ramirez exhausted administrative remedies by causing City to be served with a government claim. On July 20th 2022, although City, via its third party administrator, acknowledged receipt of the claim and stated that it " would be communicating with Ramirez in the near future in regard to this matter", Ramirez was never contacted and the claim was denied by operation of law. Additionally on or about July 18th 2022, Ramirez filed a complaint with the department of Fair employment and housing and on July 25th 2022, Ramirez caused both her complaint and the resulting right to sue notice to be served on City.
Police chief' s gang like loyalty tests
Physical threats made against employees to pick a side
Sexual harassment, condescending behavior from superiors City continually unlawfully retaliate against Ramirez
Unlawful termination of employee by City
Wherefore, Ramirez prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:
For compensatory damages, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation, bonuses, vacation and other employment perquisites and other special and general damages according to proof; Damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress;
Interest, including prejudgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate; Attorneys fees and costs incurred herein; and
Cost of suit; and
Such further and other relief as the court deems just and proper.
REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Ramirez hereby demands a trial by jury.
Dated October 21, 2022
https:// citVofsantaanaca. nextreguest. com/ requests/ 26- 719 From: Jackie Angel Investor< jcordova4@msn. com>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:21 PM
To: eComment< ecomment@santa- ana. org>
Subject: CONFERENCE WITH LEGALCOUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION 1 Hello, we would like details on these closed session cases and why so many Santa Ana police officers are suing us.
https:// citVofsantaanaca. nextrequest. com/ requests/ 26- 719 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION
Frank Rocha v. City of Santa Ana, WCAB Case No.: ADJ15955468; ADJ18623576; ADJ17697034 B.
Stephen Hahm v. City of Santa Ana, WCAB Case No.: ADJ19377542; ADJ19377509; ADJ19885630 A. Anthony Cardenal v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022- 01293127 B. John Kachirisky v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30- 2023- 01348299 C. Nelson Menendez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2023- 01339537 D. Manuel Moreno v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024- 01372127 E. Rita Ramirez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022- 01287702 F. Judith Valdez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30- 2023- 01359457 From: JackieAngel Investor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 11:30:39 AM
To: scarvalho@santa- ana. org < scarvalho@santa- ana. org>; anunez@santa- ana. org < anunez@santa- ana. org> Cc: Ryberg, Erinn < Erinn. Ryberg@asm. ca. gov>; eComment < eComment@santa- ana. org> Subject: City of Santa Ana, Formal Complaint Filed - City Attorney Notice Sonia R. Carvalho, FIRED
As general counsel to the City
Today I was assured you would never be of service to me. After all these years, you offer me nothing, not even a return phone call. As our City Attorney, you can' t be bothered.
You are hereby put on notice. You are no longer my city attorney.
Never did you represent me. { We The People}
Never did you provide services for me<.
Never did you counsel me or guide me in matters regarding the City of Santa Ana.
This is the acknowledgement.
Santa Ana California
Frank E. Rocha, a Police Services Dispatcher for the City of Santa Ana in 2024, had a total salary of 9,344. 00, with regular pay of$ 8,639.09
Total compensation including benefits and pension debt was $ 16, 454. 45.
Stephen C. Hahm is a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, California, with a reported total pay of 337, 526. 05 in 2024, according to data from Transparent California. His compensation included a high regular salary along with additional pay and benefits typical of law enforcement officers. 2024 Salary: $ 337, 526. 05
2021 Salary: $ 110, 839. 50
Anthony Cardenal earned $ 207, 331 in 2017, according to public payroll data from Santa Ana. His job title was listed as a Police Officer.
John Kachirisky, a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, had a total pay and benefits package of 2 347, 114. 56 in 2022
2022 ( Pension Debt): $ 92, 990. 41
Nelson A. Menendez worked as a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, earning a total pay of 196, 996. 30
which included a regular salary of$ 112, 104.00. His total compensation, including benefits and pension debt coverage, was $ 361, 812. 66.
Salary Breakdown ( 2022):
Total Pay: $ 196, 996. 30
Regular Pay: $ 112, 104. 00
Benefits: $ 69, 745. 32
Pension Debt: $ 95, 071. 04
Manuel Moreno J. earned $ 432, 264 in 2024, according to public payroll data from Santa Ana. His job title was listed as a Police Lieutenant ( Rm).
According to public records, Manuel Moreno J.' s salary increased by 38% ($ 118, 565) from 2023 to 2024.
Manuel Moreno J.' s salary was 190% higher than the average and 220% higher than the median salary at Santa Ana in 2024.
His salary was 164% higher than the average Police Lieutenant salary in 2024.
Judith A. Valdez
Police Officer ( 2020)
Regular pay: 107, 820. 00
Overtime pay: 13, 919. 75
Other pay: $ 42, 079. 52
Total pay: $ 163, 819. 27
Benefits: $ 65, 508. 11
Pension debt: 68, 406. 54
Total pay & benefits: $ 297, 733. 92
3 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 10/21/ 2022 12:12:55 PM. 30 022- 01287702- CU- OE- NJC - ROA# 2 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By K. Trent, Deputy Clerk. 1 JOHN A. GIRARDI, State Bar No. 54917
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN GIRARDI
2 29900 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
3 ( 310) 265- 5787 Telephone
j ohn(a,johngirardilaw. com
4 LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN, State Bar No. 134108
5 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN
29900 Hawthorne Boulevard
6 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
310) 265- 5788 Telephone
7 lennemannle(-, gmail. com
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
RITA RAMIREZ
9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF ORANGE
Assigned for All Purposes
12 Judge Nathan + u
RITA RAMIREZ, an Individual CASE NO.:
13 30- 2022- 01287702- CU- OE- NJC
PLAINTIFF RITA RAMIREZ' S COMPLAINT
14 FOR:Plaintiff,
15 1) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR
CODE § 1102. 5;
16 vs. 2) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT;17
3) DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
18 THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
CITY OF SANTA ANA, an entity of unknown ) ACT;
19 origin; and DOES 1 - 50, Inclusive,
4) HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE
20 FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT;
AND
21 5) FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE
22 Defendants. ACTION IN VIOLATION OF FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
23 24
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
25 Plaintiff Rita Ramirez (" RAMIREZ" or" Plaintiff'), with knowledge as to her own acts and based 26 upon information andbelief with regardto all othermatters,by andthrough her attorneysof record, alleges:
27 28
RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CA$ ENo.
COWLA NT
1 1. RAMIREZ is an individual who, at all times relevant herein, was employed by Defendant 2 City of Santa Ana(" CITY" or" Defendant") as CITY' s Police Administrative Manager at CITY' s business 3 4 office( s) located in the County of Orange, Stateof California. 5 2. RAMIREZ allegesthat CITY is amunicipality doing businessin the County of Orange, State 6 of California. The SantaAna City Council, asthe governing body of the City of SantaAna, acts,represents, 7 and implements policy on the behalf of CITY.
8 9
3. DefendantsCITY andDOE Defendants 1through 50 arehereinafter sometimescollectively 10 referred to as " DEFENDANTS".
11 4. On July 18,2022, RAMIREZ exhaustedher administrative remediesby causingCITY to be 12 served with a Government Claim. On July 20, 2022, although CITY, via its Third Party Administrator, 13 14 acknowledged receipt of the claim and stated that it" w[ ould] be communicating with [ RAMIREZ] in the 15 near future in regard to this matter", RAMIREZ wasnever contactedandthe claim was deniedby operation 16 of law. Additionally on or aboutJuly 18, 2022, RAMIREZ filed a Complaint with the Department of Fair 17 Employment and Housing and, on July 25, 2022, RAMIREZ caused both her Complaint and the resulting 18 19
Right- to- Sue Notice to be served on CITY.
20 5. RAMIREZ is presently not aware of the true names and/or capacities of Defendants DOES 21 1through 50,inclusive, andtherefore suessaidDefendantsby suchfictitious names.RAMIREZ is informed 22 and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that said fictitiously named Defendants are 23 24 directly andproximately responsiblefor the injuries anddamagesallegedherein.RAMIREZ will amendthis 25 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of said fictitiously named Defendants when, and if, 26 ascertained.
27 28
a
RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CASENo.
COMPLAINT
1 6. RAMIREZ is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that, at 2 all relevant times, each and every Defendant was a principle, agent, employer, employee, manager, 3 4 supervisor, officer, shareholderand/or owner of eachand every other Defendant, and eachand every act 5 and/or omission of each and every Defendant occurred by and through the governing body and/or 6 managementof the Defendant andwithin the courseand scopeof such agencyand/or employment and/or 7 was approved and/or ratified by the acts and/or omissions of each and every other Defendant. 8 9
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10 A. After Almost Three Decades of Exemplary Public Service Employment, 11 RAMIREZ was Recruited by CITY to be its Police Administrative Manager. 12 7. On July 3,2017, following decadesofpublic service,RAMIREZ beganher careerwith CITY 13 14 asthe Police Administrative Manager after being actively recruited from her prior employment. 15 8. During RAMIREZ' s 32 years of service in the law enforcement community( five years with 16 CITY), RAMIREZ was consistently a loyal and hard- working employee who received exemplary 17 performance evaluations.
18 19 9. Despite this, on July 7, 2022, RAMIREZ was unlawfully constructively terminated, after 20 suffering retaliation, discrimination and harassment due to circumstances entirely unrelated to her 21 performance. CITY' s termination of, and discrimination, harassment and retaliation against, RAMIREZ 22 violates California law, City' s own Municipal Code and policies and procedures and RAMIREZ' s civil 23 24
service rights.
25 B. Initially, CITY' s Police Chief was Thrilled with RAMIREZ and her Work. 26 10. More specifically, byway of brief background, Chief of Police David Valentin was initially 27 obviously very comfortable with RAMIREZ when she was hired. 28 3
RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CASENo.
COMPLAINT
1 11. In fact, Valentin told RAMIREZ that the best thing that now- former Deputy Chief Jim 2 Schnabl ever did for the police departmentwas to hire RAMIREZ. 3 4
C. Initially, RAMIREZ Apparently " Passed" CITY' s Police Chief' s Gang- Like 5 Loyalty" Tests.
6 12. Towards the end of February 2018, Valentin called RAMIREZ into his office to discuss 7 loyalty" and to explain his understanding of the concept of " loyalty". 8 9
13. During this sametime frame,asRAMIREZ' sthen-supervisorDeputy Chief Jim Schnablhad 10 beenon leaveafterbeing injured on duty, Valentin put RAMIREZ in chargeof aproj ectknown asTri- Tech. 11 14. In mid-March of 2018, Valentin askedRAMIREZ to go photograph Schnabl while he was 12 teaching at a Tri- Tech conference.
13 14
15. As it was well- known that Valentin greatly disliked both Schnabl( as well as former Deputy 15 Chief Doug McGeachy), it was obvious that Valentin' s intent was to " catch" Schnabl doing something 16 " wrong" and to " gather evidence" against him while he was out on leave. 17 16. Valentin made this request by asking: " Are you down for this?" This phrase struck 18 19
RAMIREZ as odd coming from Valentin as she recognized it as gang term - often usedto prove loyalty 20 where a more senior gang member asked an " underling" whether they were willing to do something 21 unsavory for the benefit of the gang.
22 17. In retrospect, Valentin was clearly aware that what he had asked RAMIREZ to do was 23 24 improper'.
25 26
27 28
Had Valentin' s request been legitimate, Valentin should have instructed Internal Affairs to take the photographs. This is just one of many examples of times when Valentin acts as if he can do what he wants, when he wants and how he wants and that normal procedures did and do not apply to him. 4 RAminzv. CrrYOFSANTAANA CASENO.
COMPLAINT
1 18. As RAMIREZ had only been employed for a few months, although she was very 2 uncomfortable with this request, RAMIREZ felt obligated to tell Valentin that she would do what Valentin 3 4 wanted in order to prove her" loyalty" and maintain her employment. 5 19. By this time, RAMIREZ had heard rumblings about how Valentin operated and did not want 6 to be in the position that otherswere in when they did not adequatelyprove or show their" loyalty" to him. 7 20. RAMIREZ did attend the conference, took the photos Valentin requested and sent them to 8 9 him from her work phone.
10 21. RAMIREZ felt dirty andusedandasthough shewasbeing disloyal to themanwho recruited 11 her for herjob but was afraid that if shedid not follow through with Valentin' s requestthat shewould be 12 considered" disloyal" and suffer an adverse employment action. 13 14
22• During this time, Valentin met with RAMIREZ on a bi- weekly basis to discuss the Tri- Tech 15 project and was friendly andwas very supportive.
16 23. Valentin continued to tell RAMIREZ that shewas doing a good job and even personally 17 deliveredher uniform barsto her office, leaving anoteon herdeskandplacing her Wonder Woman figurine 18 19 on top of the note.
20 24. Valentin would also routinely acknowledge RAMIREZ in the hallways. 21 25. Valentin regularly met with RAMIREZ and, at times, RAMIREZ would pop in to say" hi" 22 to Valentin and to check in on how he was doing.
23 24 26. On occasions,RAMIREZ andValentin would haveshortconversationsaboutfamily andlife 25 in general. RAMIREZ andValentin would also, on occasion, sendeachother encouragingtext messages. 26 27
28 s
RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CA$ ENo.
COMPLAINT
I D. However, CITY' s Police Chief Improperly Begins to View RAMIREZ as 2 Disloyal" for, Inter Alia, Attending the Retirement Party of a then- Deputy 3 4 Chief whom the Police Chief Perceived as an Enemy or Rival. 5 27. Shortly after this time, RAMIREZ received an invitation to Schnabl's retirement event. 6 28. Commander JoseGonzalez immediately spoke to RAMIREZ about the invitation and told 7 her that, if she was to attend, " the Chief would not be happy." 8 9
29. Concerned, RAMIREZ spoke with Valentin about what Gonzalez had told her. RAMIREZ 10 wondered: Was this yet another test of RAMIREZ' s " loyalty"? Was she being "jumped in", so to speak? 11 30. During this conversation, Valentin appeared to be okay with RAMIREZ attending Schnabl' s 12 retirement event.
13 14
31. However, Gonzalez later told RAMIREZ that Valentin had been aware of every person who 15 had attendedthe retirement event and that it had been" a bad idea" for her to go. 16 E. RAMIREZ is then Threatened for Meeting with Another of the Police Chiefs 17 Perceived Rivals/ Enemies, the CITY' s Police Officers Association President 18 19 Gerry Serrano.
20 32. In or about January of 2020, RAMIREZ had a meeting with Police Officer Association 21 (" POA") President Gerry Serrano. RAMIREZ wanted to assurethat shehad a good working relationship 22 with the POA and its leadership sinceRAMIREZ' s subordinateevidenceemployeeswere POA members. 23 24 33. As RAMIREZ had come to understand that there were issues between Valentin and Serrano 25 and that Valentin also considered Serrano a" rival", RAMIREZ told Valentin aboutherupcoming meeting 26 with Serrano prior to it occurring.
27 34. This meeting( and subsequent meetings) were strictly business and resulted from RAMIREZ 28 doing herjob asa manager.
6 RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CASENo.
COMPLAINT
1 3 5. On January 29, 2020, Valentin told RAMIREZ in atelephone call that preceded this meeting 2 with Serrano: " You better be careful who you associatewith." 3 4
36. RAMIREZ immediately understoodthat asthreat not to meet with Serrano. 5 37. RAMIREZ then began to notice a lot of drama and tension between McGeachy, Schnabl and 6 Peter Semelsburger and others with whom Valentin had" issues." 7 F. CITY, Continuing with its Gang- like Actions, Threatens RAMIREZ to " Pick 8 9 a Camp."
10 38. Around this same time, Gonzalez and then Commander Robert Rodriguez went to 11 RAMIREZ' s office and told her that sheneededto "pick a camp." 12 39. ( It was well known that Valentin viewed Serranoasthe leader of the other" camp.") 13 14
40. These " camps" had been the subject of much discussion throughout the department and 15 RAMIREZ felt as though she had just been delivered a message from the " gang leader"( i. e. Valentin) via 16 his more senior gang members.
17 41. RAMIREZ wanted no involvement whatsoever with this situation and explained to them that, 18 19 while sheworked for Valentin, shewasa CITY employeeandwould not be forced into choosing a" camp". 20 42. RAMIREZ understood that if she chose Valentin' s " camp", she could no longer associate 21 with those who were in Serrano' s " camp".
22 43. RAMIREZ was then told that, if she did not pick a" camp", shewould endup at the bottom 23 24 of the hill or bottom of the food chain.
25 44. During this time frame, Gonzalez, Anthony Bertagna and RAMIREZ would often go to 26 lunch.
27 45. At the time, RAMIREZ considered Gonzalez a close work friend and felt a lot of pressure 28 from him to pick a" camp".
7 RAminzv. CITYOFSANTAANA CASENO.
COMPLAINT
1 46. However, RAMIREZ was steadfast in her conviction that a professional organization should 2 not work this way andthat the SantaAna citizens expectedits CITY employeesto protect them from gang 3 4 activity- not to act like one.
5 47. At onepoint Gonzalez andRodriguez took RAMIREZ to dinner andagaintold RAMIREZ 6 that sheneededto "pick a camp."
7 48. RAMIREZ understood that they liked her and that they were trying to influence her to join 8 9 Valentin' s "camp."
10 49. RAMIREZ alsounderstoodthat, if they had relayedher first refusal to Valentin, RAMIREZ 11 would have already been" cast out."
12 50. RAMIREZ again told them that they were not in high school and she would not pick a 13 14 camp".
15 51. RAMIREZ madeit very clear to them that, while shewould support Valentin, shewas not 16 going to play this game of choosing sides.
17 52. RAMIREZ told them that she would not agree to completely disassociate herself from people 18 19
who were not in Valentin' s " camp" and that she could not- andwould not - work that way. 20 53. At this time, RAMIREZ hoped that, as long as she continued to do her job well and work 21 within the boundaries taking a very neutral position, shewould be allowed to simply do her work. 22 54. However, Valentin would not allow for that to happen. 23 24 G. CITY' s Police Chief Retaliated Against RAMIREZ for her Refusal to Pick a 25 Camp."
26 55. It soon became clear that RAMIREZ' s refusal to pick a " camp" had been delivered to 27 Valentin.
28 56. The way that Valentin communicated with RAMIREZ significantly changed. s
RAminzv. CITYOFSANTAANA CASL NO.
COMPLAINT
1 57. For sake of example, when RAMIREZ attempted to walk into Valentin' s office- just to say 2 hi" asshehad many times in the past- RAMIREZ was stoppedby Valentin' s assistant, Elizabeth Plotnik. 3 4
58. Plotnik made clear to RAMIREZ that shewas no longer allowed to just walk in. 5 59. Additionally, although the Tri- Tech project required Valentin' s attention, the bi-weekly 6 meetingsthat RAMIREZ andValentin had beenhaving cameto an abrupt stop. 7 60. RAMIREZ then attempted to schedule a few meetings with Valentin, only to have him cancel 8 9 eachand every one of them.
10 H. CITY Further Retaliated Against RAMIREZ for her Participation in and 11 Opposition to CITY' s Conduct in Violation of the Fair Employment and 12 Housing Act.
13 14 61. In September of 2020, a Women Leaders in Law Enforcement conference was conducted on- 15 line.
16 62. A few women CITY employeesdecidedthat, due to the training being virtual, they would 17 attend the conference together in a group at one of the sergeant' s houses. 18 19 63. All the women that attendedwere contactedby CITY, ordered to report to the station and 20 orderedto participate in the remaining portion of the conferencefrom there. 21 64. Needless to say, this - coupled with CITY' s sexist rude reference to the event as a" pajama 22 party" - created a lot of bad feelings.
23 24 65. Although RAMIREZ only becameawareof this incident after the fact, shewas askedby the 25 women to attend the remainder of the conference with them at the station. 26 66. RAMIREZ was happy to attend and did so.
27 28
9 RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CASENo.
COMPLAINT
1 67. After the conference was over, several of the attendees and RAMIREZ began to have a 2 discussionabouthow poorlywomen( both swornandnon-sworn) in thedepartmentwerebeing treatedunder 3 4 Valentin' s leadership.
5 68. RAMIREZ - as part of management - initially attemptedto defend Valentin. 6 69. As soon as Valentin learned of this discussion, he instructed Rodriguez to order RAMIREZ 7 to write a" memo" regarding her discussions.
8 9
70. On September11, 2020, RAMIREZ did asordered andsubmitted her 3-pagememo which 10 described the " topics of discussion" as:
11 0
The language used towards females versus males such as tone, demeanor, verbiage 12 and condescending behavior";
13 0
Double standardsin regardsto the way women aretreated in general"; 14 Retaliation for speakingup. If awoman complainsthenthey arebeing` emotional. 15 If a woman makes a ` mistake' then the mistake is magnified or highlighted 16 throughout their career and used against them."
17 71. RAMIREZ' s memo also detailed how the women discussed that" this type of behavior is the 18 19 `
culture' of the department and appears to be condoned by leadership"; "how [Valentin] is perceived to be 20 supportive of this type of behavior"; and that this behavior" starts at the top". 21 72. Of course, Valentin, himself, has also previously been accused of sexual harassment. 22 73. Additionally, while Valentin loves to give lip serviceto thephrase"oneteam,onemission", 23 24 he is known throughout the police department as the single largest violator of this philosophy. 25 74. Valentin is not only content with the division in the department but actively fosters it. 26 75. RAMIREZ came to understand that, when she was ordered to" write the memo", her memo 27 was actually expected to report back to Valentin regarding who said what to whom so the women at issue 28 could be" dealt with" ( i. e., RAMIREZ had been expected to " rat out" the women). io
RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CASENo.
COMPLAINT
1 76. Since RAMIREZ had written her memo in the opposite manner( i. e., to protect the women 2 who had legitimate claims regarding their treatmentunder Valentin), RAMIREZ' smemo- which spoketo 3 4 the tone andmessagethat the women were trying to communicate- displeasedValentin andwasultimately 5 describedby him as "very vanilla".
6 77. In sum, Valentin was upset that the memo failed to provide him with the identifying 7 information so that Valentin could use it later to retaliate against the individual women. 8 9
78. ( RAMIREZ is informed and believes that these women have made their own claims against 10 CITY.)
11 79. After RAMIREZ wrote her memo, Valentin went to meet with the women. 12 80. RAMIREZ did not attendthatmeetingbut learnedthatValentin simply walked into theroom 13 14 accompanied by Rodriguez and Lourdes Ferrer, introduced them to the group and told the women that, if 15 they had any issueswith him or anyonein the department,they could report it to either Rodriguez or Ferrer. 16 81. Valentin then turned and left.
17 82. By doing so, Valentin made it abundantly clear that he had no interest whatsoever in 18 19 addressingthe real issuessetforth in RAMIREZ' s memo. 20 83. Rather, Valentin simply said: " If you have a complaint, see these people." 21 84. Valentin' s abject lack of leadership at this pivotal moment was a serious blow to the 22 department.
23 24
I. CITY Continued to Unlawfully Retaliate Against RAMIREZ. 25 85. Valentin' s demeanor and actions towards RAMIREZ continued to deteriorate and escalate. 26 86. In or around May/ June of 2021, a Public Records Act (" PRA") Request was submitted for 27 an email from SergeantJim Armstrong to Valentin and others. 28 RAminzv. CITYOFSANTAANA CASL NO.
COMPLAINT
1 87. Assistant City Attorney Tamara Bogosian reviewed the PRA and provided RAMIREZ with 2 the document to be released.
3 4
88. The document was then releasedand printed in a local publication. 5 89. Valentin immediately called a meeting - with an approximate 10- minute notification - to 6 include RAMIREZ, Bogosian, Plotnik and others.
7 90. ( This was the first time RAMIREZ had met with Valentin- for any reason- in over one year.) 8 9
91. The obviously-angry Valentin askedwhy the email had beenreleased. 10 92. RAMIREZ explained that it had beenreleasedbecauseit was aresponsivepublic record. 11 93. Despite Bogosian' s specific statement to Valentin that she had instructed RAMIREZ to 12 release the document, Valentin became obviously upset with RARMIREZ ( not Bogosian), excused 13 14 RAMIREZ from the meeting and then continued the meeting with the rest of the attendees. 15 94. It was evident that RAMIREZ had clearly become Valentin' s" fall- guy" - first because she 16 refused to pick a" camp", then because she submitted a memo that did not" rat" on others and then because 17 she refused to withhold properly responsive documents from a PRA request. 18 19
J. CITY Continued to Unlawfully Retaliate Against RAMIREZ. 20 95. Shortly afterwards, although RAMIREZ served as the legally- recognized " custodian of 21 records" for CITY who was legally bound to abideby the PRA, Valentin, in anobvious improper effort to 22 control publicly released information, removed RAMIREZ from the handling of any PRAs that were 23 24 associated with Valentin or his office, the Voice of OC and the POA( or anyone associated with the POA). 25 96. Rather than Valentin following the law ( and/or blaming Bogosian for certain decisions), 26 Valentin refused to follow the law, blamed RAMIREZ and began to talk behind RAMIREZ' s back, falsely 27 implying to various personsin leadershipthat RAMIREZ did not know how to do her job. 28 12
RAminzv. CITYOFSANTAANA CASENO.
COMPLAINT
1 97. Additionally, Bogosian falsely accused RAMIREZ of attempting to release documents to 2 Serranoand, thereafter, Valentin repeatedthis false claim at a senior managementmeeting. 3 4
98. Then, after CITY was sued for failing to release records related to the Brandon Lopez 5 shooting, Sergio Enriquez improperly attempted to blame RAMIREZ for responding - although she had 6 respondedin the exact mannerthat shehad beeninstructed by him. 7 99. Valentin - in a further attempt to improperly" manage' the information provided( or, more 8 9 accurately, not provided) to Serrano - appointed Enriquez to respond to the PRAs. 10 K. CITY Continued to Unlawfully Retaliate Against RAMIREZ. 11 100. Relative to many of the above events, RAMIREZ has been identified as a witness in various 12 other legal matterspending againstCITY regarding Valentin' s conduct and, to date, hasparticipated in at 13 14 least three separate interviews in which she provided testimony in cases brought by other employees. 15 101. TheFair EmploymentandHousing Act protects- not only employeeswho themselvesmake 16 retaliation, discrimination and harassment claims but - those, like RAMIREZ who: ( 1) make a charge, 17 testify, assistor participate in any manner in proceedingsor hearingsunder the statute (the "participation 18 19
clause"); and/ or( 2) oppose acts made unlawful by the statute( the" opposition clause"). Government Code, 20 § 12940( h).
21 102. CITY' s retaliation against RAMIREZ' s for her participation in these matters ( and for 22 RAMIREZ' s expressedopposition to Valentin and CITY' s conduct) was clearly additional unlawful 23 24 retaliation and harassment.
25 L. CITY Continued to Unlawfully Retaliate Against RAMIREZ. 26 103. On January 26, 2022, RAMIREZ attended a meeting and Valentin was in the room and he 27 said in front of everyone: " Rita Ramirez, you' re still here, huh?", to which RAMIREZ replied: " Yes sir, 28 unlessyou fired me, and I didn' t know about it."
13 RAminzv. CITYOFSANTAANA CASENO.
COMPLAINT
1 104. Valentin then said: " I haven' t seen your name in lights lately". 2 105. RAMIREZ responded: " Just laying low, sir".
3 4
M. As a Result of CITY' s Unlawful Retaliation and Harassment, RAMIREZ was 5 Forced to Take a Leave of Absence. CITY Continued to Retaliate. 6 106. On March 15, 2022, RAMIREZ was forced to take a leave of absence as a result of the above- 7 described ongoing treatment.
8 9
107. Although RAMIREZ continuedto work part-time from homeapprovingreportsandfulfilling 10 certain other responsibilities, shewas forced to useher own sick time during this time. 11 108. During this time, CITY, in retaliation, removed the bulk of responsibilities from RAMIREZ 12 including all PRA requestseventhough RAMIREZ was not only the official custodian of recordsbut the 13 14
most trained and qualified individual in the police department), only to give her command authority over 15 the CDC/ Facilities - with which RAMIREZ had absolutely no experience. 16 109. RAMIREZ learned about this change - not from Valentin himself or from CITY' s Human 17 Resources Department but- from a fellow employee who contacted RAMIREZ to ask what had happened. 18 19
110. RAMIREZ told this employeethat shehad no idea what the employeewas talking about. 20 111. The employee then told RAMIREZ that a department- wide email had gone out which 21 publicized the changesin RAMIREZ' sjob responsibilities. 22 112. ( This issuewasonly addressedafterRAMIREZ complainedto her direct supervisorandlater 23 24 learnedthat the Police ManagementAssociation president met with Valentin.) 25 N. On April 6, 2022, RAMIREZ Made a Formal Written Complaint. 26 113. On April 6, 2022, RAMIREZ submitted an Inappropriate Conduct Complaint Report against 27 Valentin to which CITY failed to appropriately respond. 28 114. On May 3, then Deputy Chief Eric Paulson sentthe following email to JasonMotsick:
14 RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CA$ ENo.
COMPLAINT
I Attached to this communication is aperformance evaluation for Manager Rita Ramirez. Not 2 knowing if ManagerRamirez will return to work, I wanted to ensureher performance was documentedbeforemy retirementnext week.Foryour awareness,Rita'sevaluationis not due 3 until July 3rd,but I felt compelled to provide the City with my evaluation/observationsof her 4 performance for nine (9) of the 12 months of her rating period." 5 115. Although RAMIREZ is informed and believes that persons specifically substantiated 6 RAMIREZ' s claims when interviewed during the " investigation", on August 25, 2022, CITY provided 7 RAMIREZ with a " Notice of Completion of Investigation" which stated, in pertinent part, that " it was 8 9 determinedthat the allegations were not sustained" andthat CITY" determinedthat no violation of policy 10 occurred."
11 116. However, as later succinctly statedby Serrano following the results of yet another CITY 12 investigation":
13 14 Clearly the city has no commitment to provide a discrimination and harassment free workplace, rather quite the contrary. There has been numerous complaints and allegations of cover- up, 15 retaliation, excessiveforce, corruption, etc. yet every single complaint is dismissedin this fashion. 16 Clearly, this is dishearteningand againreasonsandevidencewhy the police departmentis so toxic 17 and the morale is lower that ever with officers leaving and even looking for career changes. 18 Very, very disappointing!!!"
19 O. On June 20, 2022, RAMIREZ was Constructively Terminated. 20 21
117. On June20, 2022, RAMIREZ forwarded the following email:
22 As the City is well aware, I have made a complaint regarding the ongoing harassment, discrimination andretaliation that I haveendured.I amalso awarethat other City employees 23 have made similar complaints and endured similar treatment. In fact, it appears my 24 involvement in these other complaints has also led to additional retaliation against me. 25 Despitethe City' sknowledge of the above,the situation hasescalatedto thepoint wheremy working conditions havebecomeintolerable. As such, and while I previously loved my job 26 and planned to remain employed for additional years, I certainly wished to end my career 27 under different circumstances. Based on all facts regarding this matter I have no choice but to retire from my position with the City, effective July 7, 2022, asreturning to work in the 28 current conditions would be impossible.
15 RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CA$ ENo.
COMPLAINT
I Please forward to me today( via email) my fully- executed Performance Evaluation, sent to 2 you early last month by my supervisorDeputy Chief Paulsonprior to his retirement. Please also forward to me today ( via email) any necessary documentation to effectuate my 3 retirement. I expect to receive my 5% performance bonusthat is due to me on July 3, 2022. 4 Finally, as I have been forced to burn my own time during my forced off absence over the 5 pasttwo months, pleaseconfirm today that the City will reimburse me for that time. 6 Please confirm receipt of this email."
7 118. Additionally, CITY refused to both honor RAMIREZ' s earned 5% performance bonus and 8 9 to reimburse RAMIREZ for the personal time shewas forced to use as a result of Valentin' s conduct. 10 119. On July 7, 2022, Claimant was constructively terminated. 11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
12 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102. 5
13 14
Against All DEFENDANTS)
15 120. RAMIREZ reallegesParagraphs1through 121aboveandincorporatessameasthough fully 16 set forth herein.
17 121. RAMIREZ, asdescribedmorefully above,reported/disclosedto agovernmentagencyand/or 18 19 law enforcement agency and/or a person with authority over her or to an employee with authority to 20 investigate, discover, or correct legal violations and/ or noncompliance to DEFENDANTS. RAMIREZ had 21 reasonable cause to believe that the information reported/ disclosed a violation of state, or federal statute 22 and/ or a violation of and/ or noncompliance with a local, state and/ or federal rule and/ or regulation [ i. e., 23 24 Penal Code §§ 186. 22, 13670 and Assembly Bill 958 ( prohibition of gangs among police officers); 25 Government Code §§ 12900-12999 (California Fair Employment and Housing Act; Government Code 26 §§ 12945. 2 et seq.); Government Code§§ 6250 et seq.( California Public Records Act), Penal Code§ 832.7.] 27 In responseto the disclosures and complaints initiated by RAMIREZ, DEFENDANTS retaliated against 28 RAMIREZ asmore fully describedherein.
16 RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CASENO.
COMPLAINT
1 122. Because of the retaliation that RAMIREZ faced, RAMIREZ was constructively terminated 2 i. e., was forced to resign).
3 4
123. DEFENDANTS' treatment of and responseto the disclosures, complaints and grievances 5 filed by RAMIREZ was in violation of Labor Code § 1102. 5. 6 124. RAMIREZ' sreporting/disclosure of information was a contributing factor in RAMIREZ' s 7 constructive termination.
8 9
125. Asa direct result of DEFENDANTS' actions as alleged above, RAMIREZ suffered harm and 10 injury that was legally ( proximately) causedby the conduct of DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury 11 includes, but is not limited to, special (economic) damages, general (non-economic) damages, litigation 12 costs, future damagesandpast damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors 13 14 and such further relief as shown at the time of Trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 15 126. Additionally, asadirect andproximate result of theabove-describedactsof DEFENDANTS, 16 RAMIREZ has necessarily incurred attorney' s fees and costs and she is entitled, per, inter alia, Labor Code 17 98. 6( b), § 1105, 1102. 5( f), Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Assembly Bill 1947 to the reasonable 18 19 value of such attorney's feesand costs.
20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
21 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
22 FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
23 24 Against All DEFENDANTS)
25 127. RAMIREZ reallegesParagraphs1through 126aboveandincorporatessameasthough fully 26 set forth herein.
27 28
17 RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CA$ ENo.
COMPLAINT
1 128. Section 12940, et. seq. ofthe California Government Code makes it unlawful for an employer 2 to retaliate against an employee in " terms, conditions or privileges of employment" because of their 3 4 protected status. The Fair Employment and Housing Act(" FEHA") protects, not only employees who make 5 a FEHA claim, but also, those who oppose acts made unlawful by the statute and/or testify, assist or 6 participate in anymanner in proceedingsor hearings.
7 129. As referenced above, DEFENDANTS retaliated against RAMIREZ:( 1) for her" opposition", 8 9 " assistance"and/or" participation" in the FEHA claim of others; and(2) for the making of her own FEHA 10 claim.
11 130. As detailed above, DEFENDANTS engaged in an action or a course and pattern or conduct 12 that, taken as a whole, materially and adversely affected the terms, conditions and/or privileges of 13 14
RAMIREZ' s employment.
15 131. As alsodetailedabove,RAMIREZ wastreateddifferently by DEFENDANTS becauseof her 16 protected status [ i. e., sex/ gender, disability( physical or mental), associationwith amember of aprotected 17 class, family care or medical leave and for engagingin protected activities (participating as a witness in a 18 19 discrimination/ harassment complaint, reporting/resisting discrimination/ retaliation, requesting/using a 20 disability related accommodation, requesting/ using family care and medical leave]. 21 132. As a direct andlegal result of the retaliation againstRAMIREZ dueto her protected status, 22 RAMIREZ suffered harm and injury that was legally ( proximately) caused by the conduct of 23 24 DEFENDANTS. Saidharm andinjury includes, but is not limited to, special( economic) damages,general 25 ( non- economic) damages, attorneys' fees[ per Government Code§ 12965( b)], litigation costs, future damages 26 and past damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors and such further relief 27 as shown at the time of Trial andin excessof the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 28 is
RAminzv. CITYOFSANTAANA CASENO.
COMPLAINT
1 133. In addition to the damages sought above, as a proximate result of DEFENDANTS' actions 2 as alleged above, RAMIREZ will also seek all damages allowed by the Code. Government Code, § 12965( c). 3 4
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
5 DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 6 PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS)
7 134. RAMIREZ realleges Paragraphs 1 through 133 above and incorporates same asthough fully 8 9
set forth herein.
10 135. Section 12940,et.seq. ofthe California GovernmentCodemakesit unlawful for anemployer 11 to discriminate against an employee in " terms, conditions or privileges of employment" because of the 12 protected status. DEFENDANTS engagedin an action or a course andpattern or conduct that, taken asa 13 14
Whole, materially and adversely affected the terms, conditions and/or privileges of RAMIREZ' s 15 employment.
16 136. RAMIREZ was treateddifferently by DEFENDANTS becauseof her protected status [i.e., 17 sex/ gender, disability( physical or mental), associationwith a member of a protected class, family careor 18 19
medical leave and for engaging in protected activities ( participating as a witness in a 20 discrimination/ harassment complaint, reporting/ resisting discrimination/ retaliation, requesting/ using a 21 disability related accommodation, requesting/using family careand medical leave]. 22 137. As a direct and legal result of the discrimination RAMIREZ suffered due to her protected 23 24 status, RAMIREZ suffered harm and injury that was legally ( proximately) caused by the conduct of 25 DEFENDANTS. Saidharm andinjury includes,but is not limited to, special( economic) damages,general 26 (
non- economic) damages, attorneys' fees[ per Government Code§ 12965( b)], litigation costs, future damages 27 andpast damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavorsand suchfurther relief 28 asshown at the time of Trial and in excessof the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 19 RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CASENo.
COMPLAINT
I FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 3 4
PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS)
5 138. RAMIREZ reallegesParagraphs1through 137aboveandincorporatessameasthough fully 6 set forth herein.
7 139. The harassment included but was not limited to unwanted and unwelcome comments directly 8 9 to RAMIREZ that were reported to andby RAMIREZ, asfurther allegedherein above. As further alleged 10 herein above, DEFENDANTS entirely failed to respond asmandatedby law. 11 140. The harassingconduct from DEFENDANTS was so severe,widespreador persistentthat a 12 reasonablepersonin RAMIREZ' scircumstanceswould haveconsideredthework environment to behostile 13 14
and abusive. RAMIREZ considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive. 15 141. DEFENDANTS whether or not named or designated as a Doe was/ were a supervisor with 16 actual or reasonably perceived authority over RAMIREZ and engagedin the harassing conduct against 17 RAMIREZ.
18 19
142. RAMIREZ was harmed and DEFENDANTS' conduct was a substantial factor in causing 20 RAMIREZ' s harm.
21 143. As adirect andlegal result of theharassmentRAMIREZ suffereddueto her protectedstatus 22 i.e.,sex/gender,disability( physical or mental), associationwith a memberof aprotectedclass,family care 23 24
or medical leave and for engaging in protected activities ( participating as a witness in a 25 discrimination/ harassment complaint, reporting/resisting discrimination/ retaliation, requesting/using a 26 disability related accommodation, requesting/ using family care and medical leave], RAMIREZ suffered 27 harm and injury that was legally( proximately) caused by the conduct of DEFENDANTS. Said harm and 28 injury includes, but is not limited to, special (economic) damages, general (non-economic) damages, ao
RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CASENo.
COMPLAINT
I attorneys' fees [ per Government Code § 12965( b)], litigation costs, future damages and past damages, lost 2 economic earningcapacity in future employment endeavorsand suchfurther relief asshown at the time of 3 4 Trial andin excessof the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 5 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION
7 IN VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
8 9
PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS)
10 144. RAMIREZ reallegesParagraphs1through 143aboveandincorporatessameasthough fully 11 set forth herein.
12 145. DEFENDANTS are suffering/have suffered with a number of lawsuits and complaints 13 14 ( including but not limited to the complaints from RAMIREZ) alleging discrimination, retaliation and 15 harassment and putting DEFENDANTS on notice and providing knowledge of the need to eliminate 16 discrimination, retaliation and harassment.
17 146. Under the law, as well as their own policies, DEFENDANTS had an obligation to take 18 19 corrective action to prevent further discrimination, retaliation and harassmentof RAMIREZ but failed to 20 do so in violation of Section 12940, et. seq. of the California Government Code. DEFENDANTS failed to 21 conduct proper investigations, failed to turn over the results of these investigations, failed to implement 22 proper policies to prevent discrimination, retaliation andharassmentand failed to properly punish those in 23 24 engaged in misconduct to deter further such future actions. 25 147. As a direct andlegal result of the treatment RAMIREZ suffered dueto her protectedstatus, 26 RAMIREZ suffered harm and injury that was legally ( proximately) caused by the conduct of 27 DEFENDANTS. Saidharm and injury includes,but is not limited to, special( economic) damages,general 28 non- economic) damages, attorneys' fees[ per Government Code§ 12965( b)], litigation costs, future damages 21 RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CASENo.
COMPLAINT
I and past damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors and such further relief 2 asshown at the time of Trial andin excessof the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 3 4
5 WHEREFORE, RAMIREZ prays for Judgment against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as 6 follows:
7 1. For compensatory damages, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation, bonuses, 8 9 vacation and other employment perquisites and other special and generaldamagesaccording to proof, 10 2. Damagesfor pain and suffering and emotional distress; 11 3. Interest, including prejudgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate; 12 4. Attorneys' fees and costs incurred herein; and 13 14
5. Costs of suit; and
15 6. Such further and other relief asthe Court deemsjust and proper. 16 17
REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY
18 19 RAMIREZ hereby demandsa Trial by Jury.
20 21 DATED: October 21, 2022 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN 22 23
24 By: Lawrence J. Lennemann
LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN
25 Attorneys for Plaintiff RITA RAMIREZ
26 27
28 az
RAminzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CASENo.
COMPLAINT
Zuniga, Diana
From: JackieAngel Investor <
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2026 3:12 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Durham, Daniel
Subject: Re: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION Valdez Complaint Attachments: Valdez_-_ Complaint[)]. pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Judith Valdez vs. City of Santa Ana
police officer retaliation employment claim
On August 8 2023, Valdez exhausted administrative remedies by causing City to be served with a government claim. City failed to respond to Valdez' s government claim which was thereafter denied by operation of law.
Additionally on July 28th 2023, Valdez filed a complaint with the California civil rights department and on August 8th 2023, Valdez caused both her complaint and the resulting right to sue notice to be served on City.
Retaliation, discrimination, harassment
City' s Failure to take corrective action
Police chief' s gang like loyalty tests
Physical threats made against employees to pick a side
Sexual harassment, condescending behavior from superiors, suffered due to her protected status Covid 19 pandemic created bad blood
Poor treatment of women employees in the department under Chief Valentin' s leadership City continually unlawfully retaliate against Valdez
Wrongfully disciplined and not promoted
Wherefore, Valdez prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:
For compensatory damages, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation, bonuses, vacation and other employment perquisites and other special and general damages according to proof; Damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress;
Interest, including prejudgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate; Attorneys fees and costs incurred herein; and
Cost of suit; and
Such further and other relief as the court deems just and proper.
REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Valdez hereby demands a trial by jury.
Dated October 24, 2023
https:// cityofsantaanaca. nextrequest. com/ requests/ 26- 719 Request 26- 892
Received
i
April 01, 2026 via web
Dear City Clerk,
Thank you for the 6 documents requested regarding CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING
LITIGATION
I noticed two cases were missing file information. Again, I am requesting records public so that anyone can see.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION cases Frank Rocha v. City of Santa Ana, WCAB Case No.: ADJ15955468; ADJ18623576; ADJ17697034 Stephen Hahm v. City of Santa Ana, WCAB Case No.: ADJ19377542; ADJ19377509; ADJ19885630 Thankyou
From: Jackie Angel Investor< jcordova4@msn. com>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:21 PM
To: eComment< ecomment@santa- ana. org>
Subject: CONFERENCE WITH LEGALCOUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION Hello, we would like details on these closed session cases and why so many Santa Ana police officers are suing us.
https:// citVofsantaanaca. nextreguest. com/ requests/ 26- 719 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION
Frank Rocha v. City of Santa Ana, WCAB Case No.: ADJ15955468; ADJ18623576; ADJ17697034 B.
Stephen Hahm v. City of Santa Ana, WCAB Case No.: ADJ19377542; ADJ19377509; ADJ19885630 A. Anthony Cardenal v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022- 01293127 B. John Kachirisky v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30- 2023- 01348299 C. Nelson Menendez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2023- 01339537 D. Manuel Moreno v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024- 01372127 E. Rita Ramirez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022- 01287702 F. Judith Valdez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30- 2023- 01359457 From: JackieAngel Investor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 11:30:39 AM
To: scarvalho@santa- ana. org < scarvalho@santa- ana. org>; anunez@santa- ana. org < anunez@santa- ana. org> Cc: Ryberg, Erinn < Erinn. Ryberg@asm. ca. gov>; eComment < eComment@santa- ana. org> Subject: City of Santa Ana, Formal Complaint Filed - City Attorney Notice SoniaR. Carvalho, FIRED4)
As general counsel to the City
2 Today I was assured you would never be of service to me. After all these years, you offer me nothing, not even a return phone call. As our City Attorney, you can' t be bothered.
You are hereby put on notice. You are no longer my city attorney.
Never did you represent me. { We The People}
Never did you provide services for me<.
Never did you counsel me or guide me in matters regarding the City of Santa Ana.
This is the acknowledgement.
Santa Ana California
Frank E. Rocha, a Police Services Dispatcher for the City of Santa Ana in 2024, had a total salary of 9,344. 00, with regular pay of$ 8,639.09
Total compensation including benefits and pension debt was $ 16, 454. 45.
Stephen C. Hahm is a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, California, with a reported total pay of 337, 526. 05 in 2024, according to data from Transparent California. His compensation included a high regular salary along with additional pay and benefits typical of law enforcement officers. 2024 Salary: $ 337, 526. 05
2021 Salary: $ 110, 839. 50
Anthony Cardenal earned $ 207, 331 in 2017, according to public payroll data from Santa Ana. His job title was listed as a Police Officer.
John Kachirisky, a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, had a total pay and benefits package of 347, 114. 56 in 2022
2022 ( Pension Debt): $ 92, 990. 41
Nelson A. Menendez worked as a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, earning a total pay of 196, 996. 30
which included a regular salary of$ 112, 104. 00. His total compensation, including benefits and pension debt coverage, was $ 361, 812. 66.
Salary Breakdown ( 2022):
Total Pay: $ 196, 996. 30
Regular Pay: $ 112, 104. 00
Benefits: $ 69, 745. 32
Pension Debt: $ 95, 071. 04
Manuel Moreno J. earned $ 432, 264 in 2024, according to public payroll data from Santa Ana. His job title was listed as a Police Lieutenant ( Rm).
3 According to public records, Manuel Moreno J.' s salary increased by 38% ($ 118, 565) from 2023 to 2024.
Manuel Moreno J.' s salary was 190% higher than the average and 220% higher than the median salary at Santa Ana in 2024.
His salary was 164% higher than the average Police Lieutenant salary in 2024.
Judith A. Valdez
Police Officer ( 2020)
Regular pay: 107, 820. 00
Overtime pay: 13, 919. 75
Other pay: $ 42, 079. 52
Total pay: $ 163, 819. 27
Benefits: $ 65, 508. 11
Pension debt: 68, 406. 54
Total pay & benefits: $ 297, 733. 92
4 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 10/24/2023 03:26:29 Phil. 30- 2023- 01359457- CU- OE- NJC - ROA# 4 - DAVID H. YAMASAKi, Clerk of the Court By R. Gardea, Deputy Clerk.
SUMA00
SUMMONS
FOR COURT USE Of4LV
SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
CiTACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
AWSO AL DEMANDADO):
CITY OF SANTA ANA, an entity of unknown origin; and DOES I - 50, 1zYCLERK
Inclusive, N,40ii " 1 5-2 y PMQ:
L
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
LO EST, 4 DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
JUDITH VALDEZ, an Individual
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.Theremaybe a courtformthatyou canusefor your response.You canfind thesecourtformsandmoreinformationat the CaliforniaCourts 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 farm. 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.govlselthelp), 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 court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. iAVISOf Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dies, la torte puede decidir an su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la information a continuaci6n.
Trene 30 DlAS DE CALENDARIO desputs de que le entreguen esta citacidn y papeles legales pars presenter Una respuesta par escrito en esta corte y hater que se entregue Una copia at demandante. Una Carta o una flamada telefonica no to protegen. Su respuesta par escrito tieee que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la torte. Es posible que hays un formulario que usted pueda user pare su respuesta.
Puede encontrar estos formuiarios de la torte y mas informaci© n en el Centro de Ayuda de les Cortes de California Mww. sucorte. ca,gov), en la biblioteca de! eyes de su condado o en la torte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacift Aida at secretario de la carte que le de un formularia de exencibn de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a dempo, puede perder el caso par incumplimiento y la Corte le pods quitar su sueldo, diners y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Nay otros requisites legales. Es recomendable que flame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede flamer a un servicio de remisi6n a abogadas. Si no puede pager a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos pare obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de serWcios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos gropps sin tines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, 6v%vw.lawhelpcalifornia. or9), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cores de Califomia, Mm. sucorte. ca.gov) o poniendose en contacto con le Corte o el colegio de abogados locates. A ViSO: Per ley, la carte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los castes exentos porimponer un gravamen sabre cuaiquierrecuperacion de$ 10, 000 o mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesidn de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de 1acarte antes de que la torte pueda desechar at caso.
The name and address of the court' s:
North JustiCP CenCcr
CASENUMBER'
NzIrnerouefcaso)_ 00- 4+) 2-= 0139= 94E7- CU- OE- NIC
El nombre y direccion de la carte es):
1275 North Berkeley Avenue
Fullerton, CA 92932 r3al n ! for All P4rf airsI471X C I< P Judge Craig Griffin le name. address. and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
l nombre, la direccion yyel n6mero de telf# ono del abogado del demandante o del demandante que no fiene abogado, es).:
John A. Girardi,( SEIN. 54917) John A. Girardi, APC 310) 265- 787 Lawrence J. Lennemann fSBN: 134108) Law Office of Lawrence J. Lennemann( 310) 265- 5788 29900 Hawthome Blvd. Rolline Hills Estates CA 90274
DATE: 4- jI
DA,: ID H.;' AMA:= AXI, clolrl. of the C, Urt
Clerk, by fjJ
i" iJ73 Q l U P '
0ardea . Deputy
Secretario) Adjunto)
For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons ( form P05- 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
SEAL]
1. as an individual defendant.
2. Q as the personsued underthe fictitiousnameof( specify):
3. on behalf of( specify):/ 17'y 0G4 Iv7f 171JP
i under: CCP 416. 10( corporation) CCP 416. 60( minor)
in it n
letflL# Q CCP 416. 20( defunct corporation) CCP 416. 70( eonsenfatee) CCP 416. 40( association or partnership) CCP 416. 90( authorized person) other( specify)-
4. 154 by personal delivery on ( date): Joyglxlff'z 1i 2- 4,2--3 Page, of 9 Form Adapted for Mandatory use SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure§§ 412 20, 455 Judicial Council ofcaliforniaCffi wwwcourBnro. ca. gov
SUM- 100[ Rev, July 1, 20091
www. ceil. com
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
FOR COURT USE ONLY
STREET ADDRESS: 1275 N. Berkeley Ave
F 1L E D
MAILING ADDRESS: 1275 N. Berkeley Ave SUPERIOR COURF OF CALIFORAYA CITY AND ZIP CODE: Fullerton 92838 GOUN1Y OF ORANGE
BRANCH NAME: North Justice Center
PLANTIFF: Judith Valdez
Nov 6, 2023
DEFENDANT: City of Santa Ana
Clerk of the Coun
Short Title: VALDEZ VS. CITY OF SANTA ANA By: R. Gardan, Deputy CASE NUMBER:
NOTICE OF HEARING 30- 2023- 01359457- CU- OE- NJC
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Please take notice that a( n), Case Management Conference has been scheduled for hearing on 04/ 05/ 2024 at 09: 30: 00 AM in Department N17 of this court, located at North Justice Center.
Plaintiff( s) IPetitioner( s) to provide notice to all defendants)/ 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.
QIEPQRXAM- Friar to your hearingdate.:.pleasecluck theCourt'swebsitefor themostcurrentinstructions regarding how to appear for your hearing and accessservices that are available to ansiver} our questions. civil matters- https kyw%voccourts. org media-relations. ci%-il_html Probate. Xlental Health- https: vi'%rx _occourts. org media- relations Probate- mental- health_html Appellate Division- https.. Avivw.occourts_org,media-relations appeals-records.html P!tl I&N- E. motes de la fecha de su audiencia, v1siteel sitio web de la Corte para sabor codes son las instruccionesInnisactualesParapartieiparerala audienciay tenetaccesoa los seiviciosdispolriiblespara responder a sus preyguuntas.
Casos Civiles- https: xA-%rx .occourts.org media-relations civil- html Ca%o+ de probate y Salud l- lental - Lnps: . tiy-iiy_occourts_org media-relations prolate- mental-health.html Division de apelaciones- hops: Nvwx`-.occourts.org media-relations. appeals-records.html Q `. N I-RO T'rudcnaky0u6nt6acfkaqu;-v , vul 16n+akip tratrangmpg c4at6a&adob4t nhtl!ng hirdnedin zndlnh t veicich rahAuphiin t6aefiaquavj v t4p cSnlnnhOngd'chvqhi4acdM RIMdip nhftg Chic mac c4a qu' vi
VainW Din Su- https: t-%-a- x-.occourts_org media-relations. cn-il. htinl Than Tuc Ali Chik. Urc Khde Tinh Thin- httpz:. 1;-%yNv.occourts. org, media- relations probate- mental- health_ html Ban ph4c thAtxa- https: avwmoccourts_org,media-relations appeals-records-html Clerk of the Court, By: Deputy
NOTICE OF HEARING
Page: 1
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFORANGE
North Justice Center
1276 N. Berkeley Ave
Fullerton 92838
SHORT TITLE: VALDEZ VS, CITY OF SANTA ANA
CASE NUMBER:
CLERK' S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL 30- 2823- 01369467- CU- OE- 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 F lluerton , California, on 11106/2023. Followingstandard court practice the mailing will occur at Sacramento, California on 1110712023.
Clerk of the Court, by: C%LhAm--'-,yDeputy
LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J, LENNEMANN, APC JOHN A. GIRARDl, APC 29900 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD 29900 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 i
CLERK' S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
Page: z
V31013a( June 2004) Code of Civil Promdure,§ CCPio13( a) i
I
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 10/24/2023 03:26:29 PM. 30- 2023- 01359457- C1l- OE- N. IC- ROA# 3 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By R. Gardea, Deputy Clerk.
CM- 010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY( Name, State Bernumber, and addmsa): FOR COURT USE ONLY J014N A. GIRARD1 ( SBN 54917)) OHN A, GTRAR. DL APC
LAWRENCE J LENNEMANN( SBN 134108) LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J LENNEMANN 29900 HAWTHORNE BOULFVARD
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274
TELEPHONE No,. ( 310) 265- 5788 FAX NO.( Opfiona!):
E-MAILADDRESS lennemannle@gmaiLmm
ATTORNEYFOR(Namaj PLAINTIFF
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
STREETADOREW North Justice Center
MAILING ADDRESS:
1275 North Berkeley Avenue
GTY AND? JP CODE:
Fullerton, CA 92832BRANCH NAME:
CASE NAME; JUDITH VAI. DE7. an Individual
CITY OF SANTA ANA, ancntity of unknownorigin; andDOES I - 50,Inclusive CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASENUMBER: 30=2023-01n94S7_CLI.OE-NJC Ca Unlimited Limited
Counter [ JoinderAmount Amount
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance b defendant uoaE:
pp Y Judge Craig Griffin
exceeds$ 25, 000) $ 25 000 or less) ( Cal. Rules of Court rule 3. 402 DEPT..
Items 1- 6 below must be con lets see Instructions on page .
1. Check one box below for the case type that beat describes this case, Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation BAuto(
22) Breach of contracUwarrenty( 06) ( Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400- 3, 403) uninsured motorist( 46) Rule 3. 740 collections( 09) Antitrust/ Trade regulation( 03) Lather PIIPQlWD( Personal in) urylProperty
Other collections( 09) Construction defect( 10)
Damage/ Wrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage( 18) Mass tort( 40) Asbestos( 04)
Other contract( 37) Securities litigation( 28)
Product liability( 24) Real Property
Environmentalrroxlc tort( 30)
Medical malpractice( 45) LZI Eminent domainllnverse Insurancecoverageclaimsarisingfromthe Other PVPDAND( 23) condemnation( 14) above listed proVsioneily complex case Wrongful eviction( 33)
types( 41)
PI/
Business tortlunfalr business practice( 07)
Nan• PQlWD( other) Tort
E] Othsr real property( 26) Enforcement of JudgmentBusiness Civil rights( 08) Unlawful Detalner ZI EnforcementofJudgment(20) Defamation( 13) Commercial( 31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud( 16) Residential( 32) RICO( 27)
Intellectual property( 19) d Drugs( 38) E30thercomplaint( not specified above) ( 42) Professional negligence( 25)
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil PetitionOther non- PIIPDAND tort( 35) Asset forfeiture( 05) Partnershipandcorporategovernance(21) Em loyment Petition re: arbitration award( 11) E30therpetition( Trot specified above) ( 43) Wrongful termination( 3e) Writ of mandate( 02)
Other employment( IS) 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.
E3
Large number of witnesses
b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordinationwith relatedactionspendingin one or more Issues that will be time- consuming to resolve courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal c, [ J Substantial amount of documentary evidence
court
f, © Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
3, Remedies sought( check all that apply); a. Urnonetary b, nonmonetary; declaratory or Injunctive relief c. 0 punitive
4. Number of causes of action ( specify),, ( 5) FIVE; 1) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE§ 1102,5.,2) FEHA, 3) Discrimination 5, This case [ I Is M] Is not a class action suit,
6. Ifthereare anyknownrelatedcases, file andservea noticeof relatedcase. (Youmayuse formCM-015.) Date; October 24, 2023
LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN r---
TYPE OR PRINT NAME) SIGNAT OR ATTORN PARTY)
NOTICE
e Plaintiffmustfile this coversheetwiththe first paperfiled in the actionor proceeding (exceptsmallclaimscasesor casesfiled under the Probate Cade, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). ( Cal. Rulesof Court, rule3 220.)Failureto file may result In sanctions.
a Filethis coversheet in additionto anycoversheetrequiredby localcourt rule. a If thiscase iscomplexunderrule 3.400 et seq, of the CaliforniaRulesof Court,you must servea copyof this coversheeton all other parties to the action or proceeding.
e Unlessthisisa collectionscaseunderrule3,740ora complexcase, thiscoversheetwillbeusedforstatisticalpurposesonly.
Frxrri Ada tad for Matigltory uba Cal. Rul@®®! o rr Iaa 30 3. p 0 3. 49D- 403, 3 74pp;dIc ounGItal aiorfll Il CEB1agemW CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. [a`n9ortlael2,iutlleleTdmfnletrafliCnatd, 10C1r 01jl ey 5slpEambar 1. 02t1 wwwsoun th
v
ceb. Com ' MF. C 90
CM- 010
INSTRUCTIONS ON MOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET
To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. Ifyou are filingafirst paper(for example,a complaint)in a civilcase,you trust complete and file,.along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statisticsaboutthe typesand numbersof casesfiled.Youmustcompleteitems 1through6 onthe sheet.In item1,you mustcheck one boxforthe casetype thatbest describesthe case.Ifthe casefits botha generaland a morespecifictypeof caselisted in item 1, checkthe morespecificone. Ifthe case hasmultiplecausesof action,checkthe boxthatbest indicatesthe primary causeof action.
To assistyou in completingthe sheet,examplesof the casesthat belongundereachcasetypein item 1are providedbelow.A cover sheetmustbefiledonlywithyourinitialpaper.Failuretofilea coversheetwiththefirstpaperfiledina civilcasemaysubjectaparty, Its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2. 30 and 3. 220 of the California Rules of Court.
ToPartiesin Rule3.740CollectionsCases, A"collectionscase"underrule3.740isdefinedasanactionforrecoveryofmoneyowed ina sumstatedto be certainthat is not morethan$25,000,exclusiveof interestandattorney's fees,arisingfroma transactionin which property,services,or moneywas acquiredancredit.A collectionscasedoesnot includean actionseekingthe following:(1 tort damages,(2 punitivedamages,(3)recoveryofrealproperty, (4)recoveryofpersonalproperty,or(5 a prejudgmentwritaattachment.Theidentificationofa caseasa rule3.740collectionscaseonthisformmeansthatitwillbeexemptfromthegeneral time-for-servicerequirementsand casemanagementrules,unlessa defendantfiles a responsivepleading.A rule3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740.
To Parties in Complex Cases, In complexcasesonly, partiesmustalso usethe CivilCaseCoverSheetto designatewhetherthe caseiscomplex.If aplaintiffbelievesthecaseiscomplexunderrule3.400oftheCaliforniaRulesofCourt,thismustbeindicatedby 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 complainton all partiesto the action.Adefendantmayfile andserveno laterthanthetime of itsfirst appearanceajoinder in the plaintiff's designation,a counter-designationthat the caseis notcomplex,or, if the plaintiffhas madeno designation, adesignationthat the case is complex.
CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
Auto Tort Contract
Auto( 22)- Personal Injury/ Property Breach of ContractfWarranly( 06) Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation( Cal.
DamageMkongful Death Breach of RentallLease Rules of Court Rules 3.400- 3.403) Uninsured Motorist( 46) ( ifthe Contract ( not unlawful detainer Antitrust/ Trade Regulation( 03) case involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction) Construction Defect( 10) motorlstclaim subject to ContractlWarranty Breach- Seller Claims Involving Mass Tort( 40) Plaintiff ( not fraud or negligence) Securities Litigation( 28) Insthaof uto)
his item
Negligent Breach of Contract/ EnvironmentallToxic Tort( 30)instead ofAuta) Wain Insurance Coverage Claims
Other PIIPDfWD( Personal lnjuryl Other BreachWarrantyfContractiWarranty a)ising from provisfonallycomplex Tort
Property DamageWrongful Death) Collections( e. g., money owed, open case type listed above) ( 41) book accounts)( 09) Enforcement of Judgment
Asbestos( 04) Collection Case- Selfer Plaintiff Enforcement of Judgment( 20) Asbestos Property Damage Other Promissory Note/ Collections Abstract of Judgment( Out of Asbestos Personal Injury/ Case County)
Wrongful Death Insurance Coverage( not provisionally Confession of Judgment ( non- Product Liability( not asbestos or complex)( 1 B) domestic relations) toxlcJenWorimental) ( 24) Auto Subrogatlon Sister State Judgment Medical Malpractice( 45) Other Coverage Administrative Agency Award Medical Malpractice- Other Contract( 37) not unpaid taxes) Physicians& Surgeons Contractual Fraud PetitionlCertiflcatlon of Entry ofOther Professional Health Care Other Contract Dispute Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Malpractice Real Property Other Enforcement of Judgment Other PI/ PD/ WD( 23) Eminent Domain/ Inverse Case
Premises liability( e. g., slip Condemnation( 14) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint and falo Wrongful Eviction( 33) RICO( 27)
Intentional Bodily Injury/ PDIWD Other Real Property( e. g., quiet title)( 26) Other Complaint( not specified e. g., assault, vandalism)
Writ of Possession of Real Property above) ( 42)
Intentional Infliction of Mortgage Foreclosure Declaratory Relief Only Emotional Distress Quiet Title InjunctiveReliefOnly(non-Negligent Infliction of Other Real Property ( not eminent harassment) Emotional Distress domain, landlordAenant, or Mechanics Lien Other Pi1PDIWD
foreclosure Other Commercial Complaint
Non- PIIPDIWD( Other) Tort Unlawful Detainer) Case ( non- torfMon- complex) Business Torl/ Unfair Business Commercial( 31) Other Civil Complaint Practice( 07) non4ort/ non- complex)
Rights( g., discrimination,Civil Ri Drugs
Residential( 32)
Drugs(36) ( if the case involves illegal Miscellaneous Civil Petition false arrest)( not civil drugs, check this item; otherwise, Partnership and Corporate harassment) ( 08) report as Commercial orRes/ dendal) Governance( 21) Defamation( e. g., slander, fibel) Other Petition( not specffedJudicial Review13) above)( 43) Fraud( 16) Asset Forfelture( 05)
Civil Harassment
Intellectual Property( 19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award( 11) Workplace Violence Professional Negligence( 25) Writ of Mandate( 02)
Elder/ Dependent Adult
Legal Malpractice Wr€- Administrative Mandamus Abuse
Other Professional Malpractice
Wrii- Mandamus on Limited Court Election ContestCase Matter not medical orlegal) Writ- Other Limited Court Case Petition for Name Change Other Non- PUPDf WD Tort( 35) Review
Petition for Relief from Late
ClaimEmployment Other Judicial Review( 39) Other Civil PetitionWrongful Termination( 36) Review of Health Officer Order Other Employment( 15) Notice of Appeal- Labor
Commissioner Appeals
CM: D1 [ Rev. epi er 1, z
OCE Er, seMki CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET naQe2orz
ceb. com WEMA
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 10/2412023 03:26: 29 PM. 30- 2 23- 01359457- CU- OE- NJC- ROA# 2- DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By R. Gardea, Deputy Clerk. 1 JOHN A. GIRARDI, State Bar No. 54917
JOHN A. GIRARDI, APC
2 29900 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
3 ( 310) 265- 5787 Telephone
j ohn(a-),johngirardi law. com
4 LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN, State Bar No. 134108
5 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN, APC
29900 Hawthorne Boulevard
6 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
310) 265- 5788 Telephone
7 1ermemann1e@g_rnail. com
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
JMITH VALDEZ
9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I I COUNTY OF ORANGE Assigned for All Purposes
12 Judge Craig Griffin
JUDITH VALDEZ, an Individual CASE NO.: 30- 2023- 01359457- Gt1- 4E- NJC 13 PLAINTIFF JUDITH VALDEZ' S COMPLAINT
14 FOR:Plaintiff,
15 1) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR
CODE § 1102. 5;
16 vs. 2) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT;17
3) DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
18 THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
CITY OF SANTA ANA, an entity of unknown } ACT;
19 origin; and DOES I - 50, Inclusive,
4) HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE
20 FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT;
AND
21 5) FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE
22 Defendants. ACTION IN VIOLATION OF FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
23 24
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
25 Plaintiff Judith Valdez (" VALDEZ" or " Plaintiff'), with knowledge as to her own acts and based 26 27
upon information andbelief with regardto all other matters,by andthrough her attorneysof record,alleges:
28 111
111
VALDEZ V, CiTY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 1. VALDEZ isanindividualwho,atalltimesrelevantherein,wasemployedbyDefendantCity 2 of Santa Ana(" CITY" or" DEFENDANT") as a Police Officer at CITY' s business office( s) located in the 3 4 County of Orange, Stateof California.
5 2. VALDEZ allegesthat CITY is amunicipality doing businessin the County of Orange, State 6 of California. The SantaAna City Council, asthe governingbody of the City of SantaAna, acts,represents, 7 and implements policy on the behalf of CITY.
8 9
3. DefendantsCITY andDOEDefendants1through50arehereinaftersometimescollectively 10 referred to as " DEFENDANTS".
11 4. OnAugust8,2023,VALDEZ exhaustedheradministrativeremediesbycausingCITY to be 12 served with a Government Claim. CITY failed to respond to VALDEZ' s Government Claim which was 13 14 thereafterdeniedby operationof law. Additionallyonor aboutJuly28,2023,VALDEZ filed aComplaint 15 with the California Civil Rights Department and, on August 8, 2023, VALDEZ caused both her Complaint 16 and the resulting Right- to- Sue Notice to be served on CITY. 17 5. VALDEZ is presently not aware of the true namesand/or capacitiesof Defendants DOES 18 19 1through 50,inclusive, andtherefore suessaidDefendantsby suchfictitious names.VALDEZ is informed 20 and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that said fictitiously named Defendants are 21 directly andproximately responsiblefor the injuries anddamagesallegedherein.VALDEZ will amendthis 22 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of said fictitiously named Defendants when, and if, 23 24 ascertained.
25 111
26 111
27 111
28 111
2 VALDHZ v. Cm OF, SANTA ANA CASSNO,
COMPLAINT
1 6. VALDEZ is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that, at all 2 relevanttimes, eachandeveryDefendantwasaprinciple, agent,employer,employee,manager,supervisor, 3 4 officer,shareholderand/orownerofeachandeveryotherDefendant,andeachandeveryactand/oromission 5 of each and every Defendant occurred by and through the governing body and/or management of the 6 Defendant andwithin the courseandscopeof suchagencyanal/or employment and/or was approvedand/or 7 ratified by the actsand/or omissions of eachand everyother Defendant. 8 9
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10 A. In November 2009, VALDEZ Began Her Career with CITY and, Thereafter, 11 Repeatedly ReceivedOutstanding Performance Evaluations, was Promoted and 12 Received No Non-Retaliatory Discipline.
13 14
7. On November 9, 2009, VALDEZ beganher careerwith the City as a Police Officer. 15 8. During VALDEZ' s almost 14years of service in law enforcement, VALDEZ has been a loyal 16 andhard-working employeewho received consistent" Outstanding" performance evaluations. 17 9. In or about February of2018, VALDEZ was promoted to Detective. 18 19
10. In or about February of 2019, VALDEZ was promoted to Corporal. 20 11. Other than the retaliatory discipline at issueherein, VALDEZ hasnever been disciplined. 21 12. Despite this, as set forth herein in detail, VALDEZ suffered retaliation, discrimination and 22 harassmentdueto circumstancesentirely unrelatedto her performanceandwasunlawfully disciplined and 23 24 not promoted. CITY' sdiscrimination, harassmentandretaliation againstVALDEZ violates California law, 25 CITY' s own Municipal Code and policies andproceduresand VALDEZ' s civil service rights. 26 111
27 1I1
28 111
3 VALOIIZ V, CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENG.
COWLAINT
1 B. Soon- to- be- Former Chief Valentin and CITY' s " Gangs/ Camps". 2 13. As CITY is well awarefrom numerouscomplaints andfrom otherpublicly- filed lawsuits(i.e., 3 4 Rita Ramirezv. City of SantaAna;AnthonyCardenalv. City of SantaAna, NelsonMenendezv. City of 5 Santa Ana, Manuel Moreno v. City of Santa Ana), although aneffective police departmentfunctions asa 6 whole, it has been a common recent practice (and the subject of much ongoing discussion and concern 7 between CITY' s police departmentpersonnel) for Chief Valentin( andothers at his behest) to attempt to 8 9
force personnel to choose between two" gangs" or" camps"- whatisreferredto as"theValentincamp"or 10 what Chief Valentin perceives to be the other " gang"/" camp" allegedly led by then-Police Association 11 (" POA") PresidentGerry Serrano.
12 14. VALDEZ is perceivedby ChiefValentin(andthoseactingonhisbehalf)asnotbeingpart 13 14 of" theValentincamp"andis, thus,perceivedasbeingpartof whatis referredto as "thePOAcamp". 15 15. Chief Valentin has been repeatedly accusedof not simply allowing but fostering these 16 " camps" within CITY' s Police Department,
17 16. Additionally, Chief Valentin has been repeatedly accused of actively 18 19 retaliating/ discriminating against or harassing those who did not choose to be in his " camp" and of 20 retaliating/discriminatingagainstorharassingthosewhochoseto evenassociatewith thoseperceivedtobe 21 in the other" camp".
22 17. It is also common knowledge that those perceived to be in the" Valentin camp"- even those 23 24
who repeatedly and significantly violate laws, statutes, regulations and policies - are not 25 charged/investigated/disciplinedfor suchconductwhile thosenotperceivedto bein the" Valentincamp" 26 (
especially those who stand up against the " Valentin camp"' s wrongful acts) are routinely 27 charged/investigated/disciplined for far less egregiouspurported" misconduct." 28 111
4 VALDRZV. CITYpBSANTAANA CAS6NIo.
COMPLAINT
1 18. Despitethe numerouscomplaintsof this unlawful conductovertheyears,CITY hasallowed 2 this conduct to continue.
3 4
19. Despite the above- alleged conduct of Chief Valentin( and the myriad of claims and lawsuits 5 arising out of his conduct), VALDEZ is informed and believes that Chief Valentin has communicated to G CITY that he will also be suing CITY for perceivedretaliation, harassmentandhostile work environment. 7 C. The Major Enforcement Team (" MET"), the Culichi Town Incident and 8 9
Disparate Discipline.
10 20. MET is a SWAT-like team"created" in Januaryof 2020by ChiefValentin. 11 21. personsassociatedwith MET areconsideredto bepartof" theValentincamp"andreceive 12 extreme and obvious favoritism from Chief Valentin, regardingboth promotions andlack of discipline. 13 14
22. For sakeof example, a very public anddisturbing incident involving the allegedAugust 9, 15 2000 sexual assault by off- duty CITY police officerls at the Culichi town restaurant - and the resulting 16 cover- up by Chief Valentin and those acting at his direction- was recently addressedin a May 24, 2023 17 complaintmadeby CommanderManuelMoreno,anunredactedcopyof whichwasreleasedby CITY and 18 19 includedasanattachedlink in investigativejournalistBenCamacho'sJune2t, 2023articleentitled"Santa 20 Ana Police Department DelaysInvestigation of a Child SexualAssault byan Off-Duty Officer byMore than 21 Half a Year, CommanderAlleges."
22 23. In fact, when the wife of one of the officers involved in the Culichi Town incident discussed 23 24 her husband's concernregardingthe incident, VALDEZ immediatelydisclosedsameto Commander 25 Moreno.
26 24. VALDEZ is informedandbelievesthatnot onlyweretheofficersinvolvedin theCulichi 27 28
Town Incident not disciplined but they have received multiple promotions. 111
s
VALDU V. OTY OF SANTA ANA CASHNO.
COMPLAW
1 25. Therearevariousadditionalexamplesincludingofficers (consideredpartof" theValentin 2 camp") who havecommitted significantly more seriousviolations thanVALDEZ( seebelow) but who have 3 4 receivedsignificantlylessdiscipline(i.e.,now-CommanderOscarLizardi- insteadof beingdisciplinedfor 5 beinginvolvedin theCulichiTownIncidentaswell asotherseriousmisconductcomplaints-wasrewarded 6 with anunprecedentedmeteoricrisefrom Sergeantto Commander; officerswhowerearrestedforDriving 7 Under the Influence received shorter suspensions than VALDEZ and were even allowed to utilize their 8 9 vacation time insteadof serving their suspensionswithout pay, etc.). 10 D. September of 2020,
11 26, In Septemberof 2020, during the COVID- 19Pandemic,anon-line Women Leadersin Law 12 Enforcement conference tools place.
13 14
27. Since the conference was virtual, Sergeant Rosa Ponce De Leon requested and received 15 permissionfrom Training SergeantGarryCousoto host agroupof women( including VALDEZ) atSergeant 16 Ponce de Leon' s residence so that the women could watch the Conference together. 17 28. However, later that day, Commander Matthew Sorenson contacted Sergeant Ponce De Leon 18 19 and orderedher and all the other women involved to report to the station the next day. 20 29. The women reportedto the station and were advisedto go into one of the classrooms. 21 30. As there was no computer set up for the video conference( and none of the computers in the 22 23
room worked), at onepoint all of thefemalesweresitting in front of a small laptopwatchingthevideo 24 conference.
25 31. CommanderSorensonmadeit apoint to give thefemalesin theroom averbal" counsel" and 26 tell them how the week would go.
27 32. After acouple of hours,they were orderedto wait in the Chiefs conferenceroom sincenone 28 of the classroom's audio/visual equipment were functioning. 6 V ALDFV V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 33. Deputy Chief Enrique Esparzaenteredtheroom andreprimandedthewomenwho had done 2 nothing improper.
3 4
34. Thewomenwerethenorderedtoparticipatein theremainingportionoftheconferencefrom 5 the police station.
6 35. Needlessto say,this conduct- coupledwith CITY' ssexistreferenceto the eventat Sergeant 7 Ponce de Leon' s residence as a" pajama part'- created a lot of bad feelings. 8 9
36. At somepoint in time, thewomen askednow-former CITY Police Administrative Manager 10 Rita Ramirez ( who has filed her own Superior Court Complaint for retaliation, discrimination and 11 harassment against CITY) to attend the remainder of the conference with them at the station. 12 37, After theconferencewas over, the womenbeganto discusshow poorly both sworn andnon- 13 14 sworn women in the police departmentwere being treated.under Chief Valentin' s leadership. 15 38. VALDEZ is informed and believes that, as soon as Chief Valentin learned of this discussion, 16 he ordered Ms. Ramirez to write a" memo" regarding the discussions - not so that he could address the 17 important issues - but so that he could learn who said what to whom and retaliate against them. 18 19
39. On September11,2020,Ms. Ramirez did asorderedandsubmittedher 3-pagememo which 20 described the " topics of discussion" as;
21 The language used towards females versus males such as tone, demeanor, verbiage and 22 condescendingbehavior";
23 Double standardsin regardsto the way women are treatedin general"; 24 Retaliation for speaking up. If a woman complains then they are being `emotional"'; and 25 26
If a woman makes a` mistake' then the mistake is magnified or highlighted throughout their career and used against them."
27 11l
28 111
VAL uzv. Wy OH SANTA ANA CASHNo.
COMP[. AW
1 40. This memo also detailed how the women discussed that" this type of behavior is the` culture' 2 of the department and appears to be condoned by leadership";"how [ Chief Valentin] is perceived to be 3 4
supportive of this type of behavior"; andthat this behavior" startsat the top." 5 41. As referenced above, VALDEZ is informed and believes that the" memo" Ms. Ramirez was 6 orderedto write was actually expectedto "rat out" to Chief Valentin which woman dared to question his 7 actions.
8 9
42. SinceMs. Ramirez wrote her memo in the oppositemanner( i.e.,to protect thewomen who 10 hadlegitimate claims regardingtheir treatmentunder Chief Valentin), Ms. Ramirez'smemo- which spoke 11 to the tone and message that the women were trying to communicate - did not go over well with Chief 12 Valentin and, as detailed in Ms. Ramirez' s Complaint, led to significant retaliation against Ms. Ramirez. 13 14
43. VALDEZ is informed and believes that Chief Valentin was upset that the memo failed to 15 provide him with identifying information sothat he could useit to retaliate againstthe individual women. 16 44. Later that day, Chief Valentin walked into the conference room with Assistant Chief Robert 17 RodriguezandHumanResourcesAnalystLourdesFerrer, introducedthemto thegroupandadvisedthat, 18 19 if the women wished to file a complaint, they were to go through the" proper channels"andreport it to one 20 of these other two persons.
21 45. Chief Valentin then turned around and left. 22 46. At that point in time, no one in the room wanted to file a complaint. 23 24 47. Rather, they simply wished to speakto Chief Valentin abouthow things could be handled 25 differently and improved.
26 48. However, Chief Valentin refused to speak with the women and had left the room. 27 28
49. In doingso, ChiefValentin madeit abundantlyclearthathehadno interestin addressing thesevery real and important issues.
s
VALDP. Zv, MY OPSANTAANA CASENO.
COMPLAINT
1 50. Chief Valentin' s lack of leadership at this pivotal moment was a seriousblow to CITY' s 2 Police Department.
3 4
E. October of 2020.
5 51. In October of 2020, VALDEZ applied to promote to Sergeant. 6 52. Theprocessconsistedof awritten exam,apractical applicationinterview, aresumeinterview 7 and an external interview.
8 9
53. Both Deputy Chief Enriguez and CommanderSorensonwere on theinterview panel. 10 54. VALDEZ wasadvisedthat shehad" failed" both the practical application interview andthe 11 resume portion.
12 55. However,forvariousreasons,VALDEZ isinformedandbelievesthatsheperformedaswell 13 14 as (or better than) those individuals who passed. 15 56. VALDEZ is alsoinformed andbelievesthatshe"failed" becausebothDeputy Chief Enriguez 16 and Commander Sorenson were upset about VALDEZ' s activities discussed above. 17 57. Indeed,the only two femalesthat" failed" were VALDEZ and Elizabeth Granados- two of 18 19
the women who were involved in the Women Leaders in Law Enforcement conference incident. 20 F. February of 2021.
21 58. In Februaryof 2021,VALDEZ wasinterviewedregardingthe incident attheWomen Leaders 22 in Law Enforcement conference - not by an outside investigator but, rather, by Ms. Ferrer who had been 23 24 directly involved in the incident which shewas purportedly" investigating." 25 59. During VALDEZ' s brief approximately 15-minutes interview, VALDEZ stated,inter alia, 26 that;( 1)all involved felt Chief Valentin could haveactedin asignificantly moreproductive andprofessional 27 28
manner; and(2) ChiefValentinsimplytelling thewomento "gothroughtheproperchannels" and"file a complaint" communicated his clear disinterest in this important issue. 9 VALDEZv. CITY OFSANTAANA CmRNo.
COMPLAINT
1 60. Additionally, sinceChief Valentin hadorderedMs.Ferrertoconducttheinterview, VALDEZ 2 is informed andbelieves that Ms. Ferrerprovided Chief Valentin with the sum andsubstanceof her( and 3 4 theotherwomen' s)interviews because,sincethat time, Chief Valentin( andthoseacting on his behalf) have 5 continued to retaliate against her/ them.
6 G. May 2021..
7 61. VALDEZ applied to for theCorporal position in thePolice Department'sBackgroundsunit, 8 9 headedby Commander Sorenson.
10 62. Although VALDEZ had alreadybeenaCorporal for two yearsandhadcrosstrained andhad 11 aclearunderstandingof theposition, it wasgiven to ajunior Corporal with hardly anyexperiencein thefield 12 as a supervisor,
13 14
H. Summer 2021.
15 63. In or aboutthis time, Chief Valentin hired then-USC Director of Public SafetyAlma Burke 16 to moderate multiple meetings with the Police Department' s sworn officers to discuss the issues that the 17 females are experiencingat the department,both positive andnegative. 18 19
64. Theroomwasdividedby individualswhowerein" theValentincamp"andthosewhowere 20 tryingto stayundertheradardueto fearof retaliationfrom ChiefValentinandthoseactingonhis behalf. 21 65. The female officers were advised that their comments and concernswould be provided in 22 report- form to Chief Valentin with recommendations. 23 24
66. However, the officers werealso specifically told that the commentsandconcernsaddressed 25 in thereport would be confidential( i.e,,thenamesof the personsmalting commentswould not be reported 26 to Chief Valentin).
27 111
28 to
VALDEZV, MIT OFSAN7AANA CAMNo.
COMPLAINT
1 67. Indeed, in an attempt to have the females speak honestly without fear of retaliation, 2 Moderator Burke repeatedly mentionedto all the femalesthat any commentsand concernswould not be 3 4
repeated to other members of the Police Department.
5 68. While Moderator Burke ultimately wrote areport andprovided it to Chief Valentin, noneof 6 the involved female officers received a copy of the report or were informed of the report' s conclusions or 7 recommendations.
8 9
69, However, contrary to thepromised confidentiality, it soonbecamecommonknowledge that 10 thefemaleofficers' commentsweresharedwith commandstaffwho,presumably,sharedthesecomments 11 with Chief Valentin.
12 I. November 2021.
13 14
70. It hasbeenalong-standingcustom, traditionandwell-establishedcourtesywithin CITY' s 15 PoliceDepartmentthat,if andwhenanofficerwishesto signupfor acertainpatrolteam,thepotentialteam 16 membercontactstheteam'scorporaland/orsergeantto let thesupervisorknowthatthepotentialteammate 17 is interestedin that specific teamsothat, inter alia, thesupervisor/scanprovide thepotential memberofficer 18 19 with expectations for the team.
20 71. Despitethis well- known custom,tradition andcourtesy,inNovember of 2021,VALDEZ was 21 notified that an anonymous complaint had been initiated against her( via an anonymous complainant) for 22 her actions in line with same.
23 24 72. VALDEZ laterlearnedthatthecomplaint wasinitiated by then-MET Corporal Luis Galeana. 25 73. Then- MET Corporal Galeana initiated the complaint- not on behalf ofhimself- but on behalf 26 of two female officers who had advisedboth of their supervisors (one of them being then-MET Corporal 27 28
Galeana)that they did not want to file a complaint againstVALDEZ. 111
VALD133ZV. Cri' Y OF SANTA ANA CME No,
COMP) AIM
1 74. Then-MET Corporal Galeanahad alsobeen advisedby CommanderJulian Rodriguez that 2 there was no needfor a Memo to be submittedasthe "issue" had alreadybeenresolved. 3 4
75. In fact, three different Watch Commanders ( Commander Rodriguez, Commander Andrew 5 Alvarez and CommanderJasonViramontes) were awareof the incident involving VALDEZ and all three 6 agreedthat the issuehad beenhandled( i.e.,resolved) andthat there wasno needto move forward with any 7 formal Memo.
8 9
76. However, then- MET Corporal Galeana failed to follow orders and took it upon himself to 10 write the anonymousletter and to place it in the Internal Affair mailbox.
I I J. September 2022.
12 77. On September 15, 2022, VALDEZ received a Memo entitled" Administrative Investigation- 13 14
Notification of Interview" advising VALDEZ that CITY' s Police Department was conducting an 15 investigation into the following alleged events:
16 During the sign-upsprocessfor the 2022 patrol year,in November 2021, it is allegedtwo officers 17 were denied their choice of signing up for your patrol team. It is farther alleged you may have contactedthem after they had already signedup for your team,told themthe spotsthey chosewere 18 savedfor otherofficers,anddirectedthemtochose[sic]anotherpatrolteam.It is furtherallegedyou 19 mayhavedeniedthetwo officerstheirrightto signupfor theirpreferredpatrolteamdueto gender or other perceived characteristics.
20 TheDepartmentPolicies you mayhaveviolated[ sic] put is not limited to is[ sic]: DepartmentPolicy 21 320. 5. 1 ( Laws Rules and Orders), Department Policy 320. 3. 2 ( Supervisor Responsibilities), and 22 Policy 320.5.3 (Discrimination, Oppression, or Favoritism)." 23 78. Putting asidefor amoment the irony that VALDEZ wasbeing investigatedfor violations for 24 thesepolicies-whilethosein" theValentincamp"repeatedlyengagedin actual"discrimination,oppression 25 26 or favoritism" androutinely violated numerousothermuch moresignificant andseriouslaw, regulationsand 27 policies - there is no dispute that VALDEZ' s purportedly " improper" conduct was routinely permitted, 28 practiced and encouragedby other police supervisors. 111
12 VALD& v. CffYOFSANTAANA CASSNO,
COMPLAINT
1 79. Indeed,repeatedreferencewasmadeto samebyvariouswitnessesduringCITY' sresulting 2 "
investigation."
3 4
K. November 2, 2022.
5 80. VALDEZ was notified via a Memo that Chief Valentin " concur[ ed] with Commander 6 Gonzalez's SUSTAINED findings for violating DepartmentPolicy 320.3.2( d) SupervisorResponsibilities 7 Theunequalor disparateexerciseof authority on thepart of a supervisortoward anymember for malicious 8 9 or other improper purposes.)."
10 81. As a result, Chief Valentin recommended that VALDEZ receive discipline of a " 50- hour 11 SUSPENSION without OP TIONS [ sic]", i.e., without pay. 12 82. This resulting discipline was clearly retaliatory as: ( 1) VALDEZ is awareof various persons 13 14 (
who predominately- if not all- fall within" the Valentin camp") who have committed grossviolations of 15 policy andlaw andwho havenot only not beensimilarly punished(much lessevenchargedor investigated) 16 but who haveactually receivedvariouspromotions; and(2)V ALDEZ is awareof variouspersonswho have 17 beentold by supervisorsnot to signup for certain teamsbecausetherewas alreadyasetgroup of peoplethat 18 19 weregoingto beon certainteamswhowereneverchanged, investigatedor disciplined. 20 L. December 2022.
21 83. An inquiry was submittedto InternalAffairs regardingthen-MET Corporal Galeana'sfailure 22 to report a useof force which was caught on Body-Worn Camera. 23 24 84. Prior to the inquiry being submitted, Assistant Chief RobertRodriguez advisedsupervisors 25 that then-MET Corproral Galeana's failure to do his job was merely a" training issue". 26 111
27 llr
28 111
13 VALDEZ V. CSTYOF SANTA ANA CASENO.
COA'Immur
1 85. Then- MET Corporal Galeana was purportedly " investigated" ( for the above serious 2 misconduct involving three policy violations caught on camera) and, while the outcome of CITY' s 3 4 "
investigation" is not publicly known, not only was there has been no public discipline ( i. e., demotion, 5 suspension, etc.) but, in July of 2023, then-MET Corporal Galenawas actually promoted to Sergeant. 6 M. December 2022.
7 86. VALDEZ appearedat a Skelly meeting with Chief Valentin, the Assistant Chief and the 8 9 Internal Affairs Commanderat which time VALDEZ presentedbullet points addressingthe obvious flaws 10 in CITY' s" investigation" of theclaims againsther,pertinentnotestakenfrom theaudio interviews andtext 11 messageswritten by one of the complainants.
12 87. VALDEZ is informed andbelievesthat CITY essentiallyignoredthe information provided. 13 14 N. January 2023.
15 88. On January 18, 2023, VALDEZ applied for the sergeantpromotional. 16 89. By this time, VALDEZ hadbeenapatrol Corporal for four yearsandhadacquiredextensive 17 experience relevant to the sergeant position.
18 19 O. January/ February 2023.
20 90. On January 26, 2023, one week after VALDEZ applied for promotion, CITY decided to 2t
impose VALDEZ' s suspension.
22 23
91. VALDEZ servedhersuspension-withoutpay- on January26,January27,FebruaryI and 24 February 2, 2023.
25 92. In January2023,VALDEZ took andpassedthe written sergeanttest. 26 93. In February, VALDEZ participated in andpassedthe practical application. 27 28
94. About a week later, VALDEZ interviewed for the enhancedresumeportion. 11I
14 VALDHZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CAsr No,
COMPLA NT
1 95. Although VALDEZ felt she did extremely well during this interview, at the very end, 2 Commander Roland Andrade ( viewed as pro-Valentin) asked VALDEZ about her recently-imposed 3 4
discipline.
5 96. VALDEZ respondedthat,perthe adviceof herunion attorney,shewasunableto discussthat 6 subject asher discipline waspotentially subject to the appealsprocess. 7 P. ] February 2023.
8 9
97. On February 27, 2023, despite VALDEZ' s above- referenced consistent " Outstanding" 10 PerformanceEvaluations, VALDEZ wastold thatshehad" failed" thesergeantpromotionalprocess. 11 98. When VALDEZ met with the panel members,they eachtold her that shefailed becauseof 12 heralready-serveddiscipline- disciplineof whichCITY wasindisputablyawareprior to hercompetingin 13 14 the promotional.
15 99. Not surprisingly, despitehaving less experienceand being less qualified, at the top of the 16 Sergeantpromotional list was JohannaLizardi, wife of" Valentin camp" member OscarLizardi. 17 100. In, fact, now- Commander Oscar Lizardi, despite his involvement in Culichi Town and despite 18 19 being the subject of various serious misconduct complaints, was rewarded by Chief Valentin with an 20 unprecedentedmeteoric post-Culichi Town incident rise from Sergeant-to-Commander. 21 101. TheFebruary2023promotional outcomeconfirms that this favorabletreatmenthasalsobeen 22 afforded to Oscar Lizardi' s wife, Johanna.
23 24 Q. July 2023.
25 102. VALDEZ applied for the MET Corporal Position. 26 103. ]- laving worked different suppressionteams,aswell asvice/narcoticsasadetective,andafter 27 28
working as a Corporal for over four years, VALDEZ' s experience made her the best candidate for the position.
is
VALpBLv. CITY OFSANTAANA CMEM.
COWLAIITr
1 104. However, VALDEZ wasnotified by CommanderSorensonthatCITY haddecidedto gowith 2 ajunior corporal with lessthan a year of supervisory experience. 3 4
105. Commander Sorenson told VALDEZ that if he could have put a condition of SWAT 5 experiencerequired on thejob bulletin memo, he would have,but that he was told not to do so. 6 106. Commander Sorensonalsotold VALDEZ that a detective corporal spot would be opening 7 soon in the Sex Crimes Unit.
8 9
107. Notably, asVALDEZ hasnot worked sexcrimes,shewasunsurewhy hewould mention that 10 particular unit asa fit for her.
11 108. However, the Sex Crimes Unit is comprised of multiple females. 12 R. Post- August 2023 Government Claim and DFEH Complaint Service on CITY. 13 14
109. Following VALDEZ' sAugust 2023serviceof herGovernmentClaim and DFEH Complaint 15 on CITY, Chief Valentin has continued to retaliate against her ( i. e., via his childish acts designed to 16 evidencehis contempt by publicly ignoring her).
17 110. Additionally, in September2023,AssistantPolice Chief RobertRodriguezorderedSergeant 18 19 Matt Wharton to changeVALDEZ' s yearly evaluationreflect her discipline andorderedhim to changethe 20 scorefrom a 5 to a 2, in essencecontinuing to retaliate againstVALDEZ for already-serveddiscipline. 21 111. In sum, asaresultof CITY' songoingretaliation,discriminationandharassmentremaining 22 widespread and unaddressed, VALDEZ has suffered significant damage. 23 24 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
25 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102. 5
26 Against All DEFENDANTS)
27 2$
112. VALDEZ reallegesParagraphs1through11f aboveandincorporatessameasthoughfully set forth herein.
16 VALDEZ V. CYf'Y OF SAN7A ANA CASEM.
COMPLAW
1 113. VALDEZ, asdescribedmorefully above,reported/disclosedto agovernmentagencyand/or 2 law enforcementagencyand/or a personwith authorityoverher or to an employeewith authorityto 3 4
investigate, discover, or correct legal violations and/or noncompliance to DEFENDANTS. VALDEZ had 5 reasonable cause to believe that the information reported/ disclosed a violation of state, or federal statute 6 and/or a violation of and/or noncompliance with a local, state and/or federal rule and/or regulation [ i.e., 7 Government Cade §§ 12900-12999 (California Fair Employment and Housing Act; Government Code 8 9 §§
12945. 2 et seq.; Penal Code§§ 186.22, 13670andAssemblyBill 958(prohibitionof gangsamongpolice 10 officers); Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. IPenal Code §§ 11164 et. seq) ( police officers are 11 mandated reporters); Penal Code §§ 118, 127, 136. 1 ( perjury, suborning perjury, witness 12 tampering/intimidation); City of SantaAna.Municipal CodeandSantaAna Police DepartmentPolicies.] Tn 13 14 responseto the disclosures and complaints initiated by VALDEZ, DEFENDANTS retaliated against 15 VALDEZ asmore fully describedherein.
16 114. Becauseof theretaliationthatVALDEZ faced, VALDEZ waswrongfully disciplinedand 17 not promoted.
18 19 115. DEFENDANTS' treatmentof andresponseto thedisclosures, complaintsandgrievances 20 filed by VALDEZ was in violation of Labor Code § 1102. 5. 21 116. VALDEZ' s reporting/disclosure of information was a contributing factor in VALDEZ' s 22 suffering of adverseemployment actions.
23 24 117. Asa direct result of DEFENDANTS' actions as alleged above, VALDEZ suffered harm and 25 injury that was legally (proximately) causedby the conductof DEFENDANTS. Saidharm and injury 26 includes, but is not limited to, special (economic) damages, general (non-economic) damages, litigation 27 28
costs, futuredamagesandpastdamages, lost economicearningcapacityin futureemploymentendeavors andsuchfurther relief asshown atthetime of Trial andin excessof theminimal jurisdictional of this Count. 17 vAmRz v. CaY of SAN, A ANA CASH No.
COMPLAW
1 118. Additionally, asadirect andproximate resultofthe above-describedactsof DEFENDANTS, 2 VALDEZ hasnecessarilyincurred attorney's feesand costsandsheis entitled, per, inter alia, Labor Code 3 4 §§
98. b( b), § 1105, 1102.5(f), Codeof Civil Procedure §1021.5 andAssemblyBill 1947to thereasonable 5 value of such attorney's feesand costs.
6 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
7 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
8 9
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND DOUSING ACT
10 Against All DEFENDANTS)
11 119. VALDEZ reallegesParagraphs1through118aboveandincorporatessameasthoughfully 12 set forth herein.
13 14
120. Section 12940,et.seq.ofthe California GovernmentCodemakesit unlawful for anemployer 15 to retaliate against an employee in " terms, conditions or privileges of employment" because of their 16 protectedstatus. The Fair Employment and.Housing Act(" FEHA") protects, not only employees who make 17 a FEHA claim, but also, thosewho opposeactsmadeunlawful by the statuteand/or testify, assistor 18 19 participate in anymanner in proceedingsor hearings. 20 121. As referenced above, DEFENDANTS retaliated against VALDEZ because she: ( 1) 21 participatedasa witnessin a discriminationor harassmentcomplaint; and/or (2) reportedor resistedany 22 form of discrimination or harassment. As detailed above, VALDEZ was treated differently by 23 24 DEFENDANTS ( i. e., retaliated against) because of same. 25 122. As detailed above,DEFENDANTS engagedin anaction or acourseandpatternof conduct 26 that, taken as a whole, materially and adverselyaffectedthe terms, conditionsand/or privileges of 27 VALDEZ' s employment.
28 Ill
is
VALDEZv. CI' ITYoFSANTAANA CASENO.
COMPI. ATNT
1 123. As a directandlegalresultof theretaliationagainstVALDEZ dueto herprotectedstatus, 2 VALDEZ sufferedharm andinjury that waslegally( proximately) causedby theconductof DEFENDANTS. 3 4 Saidharmandinjury includes,butis notlimited to, special(economic)damages, general(non-economic) 5 damages, attorneys' fees [ per Government Code § 12965( b)] and such further relief as shown at the time of 6 Trial and in excessof the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 7 124. In additiontotheabovedamages,asaproximateresultof DEFENDANTS'actionsasalleged 8 9
above, VALDEZ will also seek all damages allowed by the Code. Government Code, § 12965( b), ( c). 10 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
11 DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 12 PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANT' S)
13 14
125. VALDEZ reallegesParagraphs1through124aboveandincorporatessameasthoughfully 15 set forth herein.
16 126. Section12940,et.seq. ofthe California GovernmentCodemakesit unlawful for anemployer 17 to discriminate against an employee in " terms, conditions or privileges of employment" becauseof the 18 19 protectedstatus. DEFENDANTSengagedin anactionor a courseandpatternor conductthat,takenasa 20 whole, materially andadverselyaffectedtheterns, conditions and/or privileges ofVALDEZ' semployment. 21 127. VALDEZ was treated differently by DEFENDANTS becauseof her protected status [i.e., 22 sex/gender, associationwith a memberof a protectedclass] and for engagingin protectedactivities 23 24 ( participating as a witness in a discrimination/ harassment complaint, reporting/ resisting 25 discrimination/ retaliation).
26 11l
27 11l
28 19
VALDFZv, CrTYOFSANTAANA CASENO.
COWLATNT
1 128. As a direct andlegalresultof thediscriminationVALDEZ suffereddueto herprotected 2 status, VALDEZ suffered harm and injury that was legally ( proximately) causedby the conduct of 3 4 DEFENDANTS. Saidharmandinjury includes,butis notlimitedto,special(economic)damages,general 5 ( non- economic) damages, attorneys' fees[ per Government Code§ 12965( b)] and such further relief as shown 6 at the time of Trial andin excessof the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 7 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 9
HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 10 PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS)
11 129. VALDEZ reallegesParagraphs1through128aboveandincorporatessameasthoughfully 12 set forth herein.
13 14
130. Theharassmentincludedbutwasnotlimitedtounwantedandunwelcomecommentsdirectly 15 to VALDEZ that were reported to and by VALDEZ, as further alleged herein above. As further alleged
1.6 herein above,DEFENDANTS entirely failed to respond asmandatedby law. 17 131. Theharassingconductfrom DEFENDANTSwassosevere,widespreadorpersistentthata 18 19 reasonablepersonin VALDEZ' scircumstanceswould haveconsideredthe work environment to behostile 20 and abusive. VALDEZ considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive. 21 132. DEFENDANTS whether or not named or designated as a Doe was/ were a supervisor with 22 actual or reasonablyperceived authority over VALDEZ and engagedin the harassingconduct against 23 24 VALDEZ.
25 133. VALDEZ washarmedandDEFENDANTS' conductwasa substantialfactorin causing 26 VALDEZ' s harm.
27 Ill
28 111
20 VALD LV. Crry of SANTA ANA CASENO,
COMPLAINT
1 134. As adirectandlegalresultof theharassmentVALDEZ sufferedduetoherprotectedstatus 2 i. e., sex/gender, associationwith a member of a protected class and for engagingin protected activities 3 4 ( participating as a witness in a discrimination/ harassment complaint, reporting/ resisting 5 discrimination/ retaliation)], VALDEZ sufferedharmandinjury that waslegally( proximately) eausedbythe 6 conduct of DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury includes, but is not limited to, special (economic) 7 damages, general( non- economic) damages, attorneys' fees [ per Government Code § 12965( b)] and such 8 9 further relief asshown at the time of Trial and in excessof the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 10 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION
12 IN VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
13 14 PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS)
15 135. VALDEZ reallegesParagraphs1through 134aboveandincorporatessameasthough fully 16 set forth herein.
17 136. DEFENDANTS are suffering/ have suffered with a number of lawsuits and complaints 18 19 ( including but not limited to the complaints from VALDEZ) alleging discrimination, retaliation and 20 harassmentand putting DEFENDANTS on notice and providing knowledge of the need to eliminate 21 discrimination, retaliation and harassment.
22 137. Under the law, as well as their own policies, DEFENDANTS had an obligation to take 23 24 correctiveaction to prevent further discrimination, retaliation andharassmentof VALDEZ but failed to do 25 so in violation of Section 12940, et. seq. of the California Government Code. DEFENDANTS failed to 26 conduct proper investigations, failed to turn over the results of theseinvestigations, failed to implement 27 properpoliciesto preventdiscrimination,retaliationandharassmentandfailedto properlypunishthosein 28 engaged in misconduct to deter further such future actions. 21 VALDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASBNO.
1 138. As a direct and legal result of the treatment VALDEZ suffered dueto her protected.status, 2 VALDEZ sufferedharm andinjury thatwaslegally( proximately) causedbytheconductof DEFENDANTS. 3 4 Saidharm and injury includes,but is not limited to, special( economic) damages,general(non-economic) 5 damages, attorneys' fees [ per Government Code§ 12965( b)] and such further relief as shown at the time of 6 Trial and in excessof the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 7 8
9 WHEREFORE, VALDEZ praysfor JudgmentagainstDEFENDANTS, andeachofthem, asfollows:
10 1. For compensatorydamages, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation,bonuses, 11 vacationandotheremploymentperquisitesandotherspecialandgeneraldamagesaccordingto proof; 12 2. Damagesfor pain and suffering and emotional distress; 13 14
3. Interest, including prejudgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate; 15 4. Attorneys' fees and costs incurred herein; and 16 5. Costs of suit; and
17 6. Suchfurtherandotherrelief astheCourtdeemsjust andproper. 18 19
20 REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY
21 VALDEZ hereby demandsa Trial by Jury.
22 23
24 DATED: October 24, 2023 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN 25 26
By: Lawrence J. Lennemann
27 LAWRENCEJ. LENNEMANN
Attorneys for Plaintiff JUDITH VALDEZ
28 zz
VALmz V, 0TY of SANTAANA CA89NO.
COMPLAINT
Becerra, Alexis
From: Ann Frazier <
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 7:13 PM
To: eComment
Subject: One Broadway Plaza
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Please do not approve One Broadway Plaza. It would not benefit the people of Santa Ana. It does not include affordable housing, it would cast a literal and figurative shadow across a swath of the city, create more complicated traffic patterns and negatively impact our community especially the Willard neighborhood.
Our city, the second oldest in the county, has beautiful architecture in our historical buildings both residential and commercial. This behemoth which would stand nearly 500 feet does not add the charm of Santa Ana and, in fact, distracts from our unique neighborhoods' appeal.
Perhaps Mr. Harrah should consider building a tower in a more conducive area like near the airport. Consider the fact that the Reagan Building is 176 feet tall while one of the tallest in the county near the Spectrum is 323 feet. One Broadway Plaza would rise nearly 500 feet into our skyline. The land at 10th and Broadway is better suited for a park as a place for the surrounding neighborhood to relax and enjoy outdoor space without a towering, unnecessary edifice blocking their sun and sky.
Also, I have lived in Santa Ana most of my life and I appreciate our diverse community and our distinct neighborhoods. I was here in and voted against this building. Most of our current citizens did not have the opportunity to express their opinion on this structure. Furthermore, some people who voted in favor of it no longer live here. I think it should be up to the voters to decide if Santa Ana wants this monstrosity. Don' t let private interest sway you from doing the right thing.
Thank you for all you do for our city. Make the right choice by voting no against this unnecessary skyscraper.
In appreciation,
Ann Curley Frazier
Ward 3
1 Becerra, Alexis
From: JackieAngel Investor <
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 8:23 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Re: Settlement and Release Agreement 12/ 20/ 24 re: 2525 Main Street Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.
From: Jackie Angel Investor<
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 3:06: 54 PM
To: dianefradkin@hotmail. com <
Subject: Settlement and Release Agreement 12/ 20/ 24
Dear Ms. Fradkin,
I am writing to inquire about the Settlement and Release Agreement between " Santa Ana Citizens for Responsible Development" and " AC 2525 Main LLC" entered into as of December 20, 2024. Where does the 15, 000 settlement payment go?
I am requesting City Charter section regarding contracts with developers specifically the part where it lists consequences of unlawful action, redress and the process to null and void contracts, plus the blacklisting procedure of those developers from doing business in the city whom have been found to have violated state law. Redevelopment Department Specifically, the resulting action City of Santa Ana took against Local developer Ryan Ogulnick is being fined for violating state law by allegedly laundering campaign money and failing to disclose the original source of over 300, 000 spent on mailers in the 2018 Santa Ana election.
Developer Ryan Ogulnick during the Nov. 19 2024 Santa Ana City Council meeting.
Thank You,
Jackie Cordova
Santa Ana Residents Against Corruption
i
Flores, Dora
From: TomFrazier <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April
To: eComment
Subject: Non-AgendaItemONEBROADWAYPLAZA
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
DearMayorandCityCouncilMembers,
I amwritingto youtodayto expressmyoppositionto theproposedOneBroadwayPlaza (OBP) project. Theproposedprojectdoesnotbenefitor servethecurrentresidentsof SantaAnanorthefuture Santanerosandwouldalterthehistoriclandscapeandarchitectureof ourcity.
A 37storyluxuryapartmentcomplex/highendcommercialdevelopmentwill notservetheoverwhelming workingclassresidentsof SantaAna. The600plusunits, consistingprimarilyof studioandonebedroom apartments, will beunaffordableto thevastmajorityof ourpopulation. TheFiveStarroof-toprestaurants, the TavernontheGreen", andaWholeFoodsstylegrocerystorewouldbeoutof reachandnotbenefitthecurrent neighborhoodsof Willard, FrenchPark, Lacy, Logan, andFrenchCourt. I stronglyencourageallof youto walktheseneighborhoodsanddiscusstheirfeelingsonthismatter. Further, thefamiliesandstudentsof the schoolsincloseproximityto theOBPproposedprojectshouldbeinterviewedandhavetheirconcernstaken intoconsideration.
OBPwouldnotappearto servethefutureresidentsof SantaAnaandwouldlikelyonlybenefitthepeople ableto affordto occupythetower. DespiteHarrah'sdreamof appealingto theIrvineandNewportCoast residentsfor relocatingto OBP, theobviousfuturedemographicof SantaAnaisgoingto continueto be majoritylatinoandworkingclass. It wouldbedifficultfor the600plusresidentsof thetowerto sufficiently supporttheproposedbusinessesontheprojectsiteletalonebenefitingbusinessesindowntown.
Thehistoriclandscapeandarchitectureof SantaAnawouldbecompromisedbytheOBPproject. The37 storyglasstowerwoulddwarfourlandmarkwatertower - reachingaheightnearlythreetimesashigh. The proposed2,400space-8 story-abovegroundparkingstructurewoulddisturbthehistoricarchitectureinthearea andbeanuglyandunwelcomingeyesoreto theentranceto thedowntowndistrict (takealookattheparking structuresnorthof the22freewaynearGrandAve. thatservethehospitalcomplexandtheparkingstructureoff of the57freewaynearKatellaAve. for anideaof whatthismightlooklike).
TheOneBroadwayPlazatowerisessentiallyamiddlefingerto thesurroundingneighborhoodsandto the cityasawhole. I amallfor responsibledevelopment - theOBPisnotaprojectthatwouldbenefitourcity. Do youwantthistowerto beyourlegacy? RememberyourSantaAnaroots. Votethisprojectdownif andwhenit ispresentedto youandpushfor responsiblecityservingdevelopments.
Thanks.
TomFrazier Ward3
60plusresidentof SantaAna
35yearUnionmember (RetiredTeamster)
1