3rd District Court of Appeal-Sacramento

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, Court of Appeal Case No. C079524

Plaintiff and Appellant, C.C.P § 425.16

v. (Super. Ct. No. 34-2013-34-2013-00155479)

Notice of Appeal filed June 11, 2015
THE REGENTS OF THE Remittitur Issued January 16, 2018
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA:
Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd,
Stephen Chilcott, Charles Witcher,
Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza,
Brent Seifert, Patrick Putney, Dorin
Daniliuc,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from an Order

Of The Superior Court, County of Sacramento
Hon. David I. Brown, Judge

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO RECALL THE REMITTITUR AND

REINSTATE THE APPEAL OR ALTERNATIVELY MODIFY THE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-787-3131
E-mail: [email protected]

Appellant, In Pro Per

TO THE HONORABLE VANCE W. RAYE, PRESIDING JUSTICE,

AND TO THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT:
-1-
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………..…………..3
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………12
THE REASON FOR THIS MOTION………………………………….13
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND…………,,,……..15

STATEMENTS OF FACTS AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE

REMITTITUR ON JANUARY 16, 2018 BY THE COURT OF
APPEAL THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT………………………………………………………………..16

I. DEFENDANTS’ VEXATIOUS, MALICIOUS, AND NEFARIOUS

RELITIGATING OF THE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION .16

II. NEW ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANTS FROM PORTER

SCOTT: LINDSAY A. GOULDING AND
OLATOMIWA T. AINA……………………………………… …28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND

ARGUMENT……………………………………………………..………31

I. THE REMITTITUR MUST BE RECALLED AND THE

ERRONEOUS UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED ON
OCTOBER 10, 2017 in Waszczuk v. Regents of University. Of
California C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) MUST BE
MODIFIED……………………………………..………………….30

II. THE REMITTITUR MUST BE RECALLED TO STOP THE

MALICIOUS ABUSE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM BY THE
DEFENDANTS ……………………………………………………35

III. THE COURT OF APPEAL MUST RECALL THE REMITTITUR

TO PRECLUDE THE FURTHER DEFENDANTS’ EGREGIOUS
MISCONDUCT………………………………………….…………37

-2-
CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………….39
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE………………………….……….41
PROOF OF SERVICE ………………………………………………….42

.......43
EXHIBITS 1-46..................................................................................

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Bryan v. Bank of America, 86 Cal.App.4th 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)…….13

In re Stein, S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018)………………… …,…………….15

Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1300 [ 24
Cal.Rptr.3d 780]…………………………………………………,…………29

In re Grunau, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 908, 169 Cal.App.4th 997 (Cal.App. Dist.6

12/30/2008)…………………………………………….. ………….…… …32

In re Rothrock (193 9) 14 Cal. 2d 34, 38-39 [92 P.2d 634]………………….32

In re McGee (195 1) 37 Cal. 2d 61 8-9 [229 P.2d 780])…………….……….32

In re Rothrock, 14 Cal.2d 34 (Cal. 1939)……………………….……………32

Weikel v. TCW Realty Fund II Holding Co. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1234,

1245……………………………………………………..……..……………..34

Flatley v. Mauro 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006),…………………..…………….35

Stenehjem v. Sareen, 226 Cal.App.4th 1405 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)……………...35

-3-
Cheveldave v. Tri Palms Unified Owners Ass’n, 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 792
(Cal. Ct. App. 2018)……………………………………………… …..…35,36

Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341, fn. 3, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767, 795 P.2d
1223.)…………………………………………………………………..……35

Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341, fn. 3, 272 Cal.Rptr.
767, 795 P.2d 1223……………….28

Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d
432, 51 P.3d 297……………………………………………………………….36

Lucido v. Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 341, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767, 795
P.2d1223.)………………………………………………………….………36,37

F.E.V. v. City of Anaheim, 15 Cal.App.5th 462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)………...36

Panos v. Great Western Packing Co. (1943) 21 Cal.2d 636, 637, 134 P.2d
242………………………………………………………………………….….36

Roos v. Red (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 870, 887, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d

446……………………………………………………………………..………37

Younan v. Caruso (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 401, 407, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 103.)……37

Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991)…………………..……………..37

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997, 88
L.Ed. 1250 (1944)………………………………………….…………….……38

Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580, 66 S.Ct.
1176, 1179, 90 L.Ed. 1447 (1946)………………………………………...…..38

In Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Co. v. Superior Court, 200 Cal.App.3d 272

(Cal. Ct.App.1988)…………………………………………...………………..38

Burton v. Sosinsky (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 562, 573 [250 Cal.Rptr.
33]………………………………………………………………….…………..38

-4-
California Satellite Systems, Inc. v. Nichols (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d
56, 70 [216 Cal.Rptr. 180]………………..30

Buchanan Home and Auto Supply Co v Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 544
F.Supp. 242, 244-245 (D SC, 1981………………………………………...….38

Mas v Coca-Cola Co., 163 F.2d 505, 507 (CA 4, 1947)…………………...….38

STATUTES

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 ………………...….13,15,35

Government Code § 12940(a)………………………………..……………..17,

California Government Code §§ 8547 et. Seq……………………………………………..…17

California Code of Civil Procedure Section C.C.P. § 916(a)………………….33

California Penal Code § 518…………………………………………..……….35

California Health and safety Code sec. 1278.5(6) …………..………………..15

COURT RULES

California Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c) ………………………..…………..…12

California Rules of Court -Rule 3.1110 (b) (1)…………………………….18,29

MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES

Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., California Supreme Court, Case No.

S245879……………………………………………………………………..…16

7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Judgment, § 280, p.820……………..34

EXHIBITS

Number and Title of the Exhibit: Page Number.

1. Remittitur to Trial Court Clerk, dated 01/16/20182.

10/10/2017- 3DCA unpublished opinions in the case
Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct.
10, 2017)

-5-
3. 02/09/2015- Court Order granting an anti-SLAPP motion to
Defendants Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Brent
Seifert, and Cindi Oropeza in Sacramento County Superior Court Case
No: 34-2013-4. 00155479-CU-WT-GDS Waszczuk vs. The Regents of
the University of California, Hon. David I. Brown.

4. 04//25/2018- Defendant Regents of the University of California's

Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff, set one
5. 10/03/2018- Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel Verified Responses for
Monetary and Terminating Sanctions, filed in the wrong Court,
Department 54
6. 10/11/2018- Waszczuk’s letter to Court Clerk in Department 54, Re:
Defendants’ 10/03/2018 Motion to Compel, monetary, and
terminating sanctions
7. 10/31/2018- Court Order sanctioning Waszczuk with $520. Re:
Defendants’ Motion to Compel, monetary and terminating
sanctions, Hon. David I. Brown
8. 11/14/2018- Duplicative Court Order sanctioning Waszczuk with
$520. Re: Defendants’ Motion to Compel, monetary and
terminating sanctions, Hon. David I. Brown
9. 02/08/2019- Court Order Re: Hearing on Order of Examination of
Judgment Debtor (Waszczuk) in Dept. 43, Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard
10. 02/10/2019- Waszczuk’s correspondence sent to Defendants’
Attorneys Daniel Bardzell and David Burkett, Re: Appearance and
Examination on February 8, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. at Department 43.
Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard, Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California- Meeting
summary with Bardzell
-6-
11. 02/11/2019- Defendants’ Attorneys Daniel Bardzell and David
Burkett, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Verified Responses to
Special Interrogatories Set One, Form Interrogatories - General Set
One, Form Interrogatories - Employment Set One, and for
monetary and terminating sanctions
12. 03/11/2019- Waszczuk’s ex parte application for an order permitting
him to file late the Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' Motion to
Compel and for monetary and terminating sanctions
13. 03/13/2019- Order Determining Disposition of 03/11/2019 of
Waszczuk Ex Parte Application, Re: Defendants’ Motion to Compel
and for monetary and terminating sanctions
14. 03/20/2019- Defendants’ Attorneys Daniel Bardzell and David
Burkett, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
Defendants', Motion to Compel Responses to Judgment Debtor
Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, and for
monetary and terminating sanctions
15. 04/12/2019- Waszczuk’s Opposition to the Defendants’, the Regents
of the University of California, frivolous and unwarranted Motion to
Compel for monetary and terminating sanctions
16. 04/26/2019- Court Order sanctioning Waszczuk with $1300, Hon.
Steven H. Rodda, Dept. 53, Re: Defendants’ Motion to Compel for
monetary and terminating sanctions
17. 04/26/2019- Court Reporter Transcript from the Court hearing with
Hon. Steven H. Rodda, Dept. 53. Defendants’ Motion to Compel for
monetary and terminating sanctions18. 06/12/2019-
Defendants’ Attorneys Daniel Bardzell and David Burkett,
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants',
-7-
 Motion to Compel Responses to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents, and for monetary and
terminating sanctions19. 07/05/2019- Waszczuk’s Opposition to
the 06/12/2019 Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to
Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents, and for monetary and terminating sanctions20.
07/05/2019- Waszczuk’s correspondence sent to the anti-
SLAPP motion Defendants’ former Attorneys Michael Pott and
Douglas Ropel, Re: legal fees awarded to them by the June 7, 2018
Court Order, Hon. David I. Brown, Dept. 5321. 05/22/2019 &
06/05/2019- Waszczuk’s inquiry sent to the State of California
Controller’s Office, Re: Waszczuk’s short-term disability benefits,
which were denied by Defendants in November 2011 but resurfaced
on March 21, 2019 as unclaimed property valued at $4,545.08.
22. 05/14/2014- State of California Employment Development
Department (EDD) notification informing Waszczuk that his
unemployment insurance benefits was reinstated after previously
being denied in 2013 by EDD, and Waszczuk’s Inquiry with EDD
dated May 25, 2014.
23. 08/08/2019- The California State Bar Decision and a copy of check
No. 01844793 in the amount of $14,500 issued to Waszczuk by the
California State Bar Client Security Fund as a reimbursement for the

-8-
 retainer stolen in 2014 from Waszczuk by his attorney Douglas
Stein. See Case : In re Stein, S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018)
24. 07/19/2019- Court Order sanctioning Waszczuk with $1300. Hon.
David I. Brown, Dept. 53, Re: Defendants’ 06/12/2019 motion to
compel for monetary and terminating sanctions
25. 07/19/2019- Court Reporter Transcript from the Court hearing with
Hon. David I. Brown, Dept . 53, Re: Defendants’ 06/12/2019 motion
to compel for monetary and terminating sanctions
26. 10/23/2019- Defendants’ Attorneys Daniel Bardzell and Nancy
Sheehan, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
Defendants', Motion to Compel Responses to Judgment Debtor
Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, and for
monetary sanctions
27. 10/24/2019- Defendants’ Attorney Daniel Bardzell’s e-mail
correspondence, Re: Defendants’ (the Regents of the University of
California) settlement offer
28. 05/21/2015- Waszczuk’ Response to the Defendants’ Attorney
David Burkett’s e-mail inquiry, dated May 19, 2015—Settlement
Offer
29. 11/15/2019- Defendants’ Attorney Daniel Bardzell’s correspondence
demanding Waszczuk pay the Regents of the University of
California the anti-SLAPP motion legal fees and monetary
sanctions
30. 11/18/2019- Copy of Check No. 139 in the amount of $1300 issued
by Waszczuk to the Regents of the University of California, with
attached 07/19/2018 Court Order which sanctioned Waszczuk with
$1300, Hon. David I. Brown
31. 12/04/2019- Waszczuk’s Opposition to 10/23/2019, Defendants’
-9-
 Attorneys Daniel Bardzell and Nancy Sheehan’s Motion to Compel
Responses to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents; and for monetary sanctions
32. 12/04/2019- Defendants’ new Attorneys Amanda Iler, Derek Hayes,
and Daniel Bardzell’s reply to 12/04/2019, Waszczuk’s Opposition to
10/23/2019- Defendants’ Attorneys Daniel Bardzell and Nancy
Sheehan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Judgment Debtor
Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, and for
monetary sanctions
33. 12/04/2019- Defendants’ new Attorneys Amanda Iler, Derek Hayes,
and Daniel Bardzell’s second reply to 12/04/2019, Waszczuk’s
Opposition to the 10/23/2019, Defendants’ Attorneys Daniel Bardzell
and Nancy Sheehan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Judgment
Debtor Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, and
for monetary sanctions
34. 12/13/2019- Court Order Tentative Ruling sanctioning Waszczuk
with $1300, Hon. David I. Brown, Dept. 53, Re: 10/23/2019
Defendants’ Motion to Compel and for monetary sanctions
35. 12/17/2019- Court Order affirming 12/13/2019 Tentative Ruling,
Hon. David Brown, Dept. 53, Re: 10/23/2019 Defendants’ Motion to
Compel and for monetary sanctions
36. 12/27/2019- Waszczuk’s Notice of Objection to the 12/13/2019 and
12/17/2019 Court Orders, Hon. David I. Brown, Dept. 53, Re:
10/23/2019 Defendants’ Motion to Compel and for monetary
sanctions
37. 04/26/2021- Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend
Page Limit for Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the

- 10 -
 Alternative, Summary Adjudication filed in violation of California
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110 (b)(1) and under false pretenses.
38. 04/27/2021- Waszczuk’s meet and confer correspondence sent to
Defendants’ Attorney Amanda Goulding, Re: 04/26/2021,
Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend Page Limit
for Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication
39. 04/12/2021- Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
of Irina Waszczuk filed by the new Defendants’ Attorney Olatomiwa
T. Aina in Department 43, Hon. Thadd Blizzard.
40. 04/27/21- Waszczuk’s meet and confer correspondence with
attachments sent to the Defendants’ Attorney Olatomiwa T. Aina,
Re: 04/26/2021, Re: Subpoena and Application and Order for
Appearance and Examination Case No. 34-2013-00155479,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California
41. 05/14/2021- Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication relitigating dismissed COA’s
from Waszczuk SAC by Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, granted to
them on 04/14/2015
42. 09/25/2015- Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of Defendant's Motion for Automatic Stay, filed pursuant to
C.C.P. §916(a), or in the Alternative, Motion for a Discretionary
Stay. Motion was filed by Defendants to block Waszczuk’s proposed
Third Amended Complaint (TAC). 43. 10/28/2015- Court Order
granting Defendants’ Motion for Automatic Stay, filed pursuant to
C.C.P. §916(a), or in the Alternative, Motion for a Discretionary
Stay. The Court Order blocked Waszczuk’s proposed TAC, which
- 11 -
 was never was submitted to and reviewed by the Court, Hon. David
I. Brown, Dept. 53.44. 09/03/2015- Copy of Waszczuk’s
proposed TAC sent to Defendants’ Attorney Douglas Ropel for
stipulation to file, and his 09/25/2015 negative response.
45. 09/30/2015- Waszczuk’s Request for Dismissal of four individual
defendants, Charles Witcher, Ann Maiden Rice, Dorin Daniliuc, and
Patrick Putney, from the Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et al., filed on
10/01/2015.
46. 12/04/2013- Waszczuk’s initial Wrongful Termination with six
causes of action, which included: 5. Violation and Breach of the
2009 Settlement-Agreement, 6. Violation of UC Policy PPSM
(Employee Evaluation Policy). Complaint was docketed on December 4,
2013 in Sacramento County Superior Court as Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The
Regents of the University of California Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd,
Stephen Chilcott, Charles Witcher, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza,
Brent Seifert, Patrick Putney, and Dorin Daniliuc.

INTRODUCTION
Under the California Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c), the plaintiff and
appellant, Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced “Vashchook”), hereby moves to
recall the remittitur issued on January 16, 2018 (Exhibit 1) in the trial court
register of action (ROA 128) and to reinstate his appeal, or alternatively, to
modify the erroneous unpublished opinion issued by the Court on
October 10, 2017 (Exhibit 2) and remand the new decision with
instructions for the trial court to vacate or void the trial court’s April 14,
2015 order and judgment (Exhibit 3) (ROA 57, 80and81). The 04/14/2015
trial court order and judgment granted the special motion to strike (anti-
- 12 -
SLAPP) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 five
individual defendants Mike Boyd, Danesha Nichols, Stephen Chilcott,
Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert (hereafter Defendants) striking from
Waszczuk’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) the first four causes of
action (COAs) which were: 1.) intentional infliction of emotional distress,
2.) tortious interference with economic advantage, 3.) harassment, failure to
prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under FEHA,
Government Code § 12940(a), and 4.) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation
California Government Code §§ 8547 et. seq .
Waszczuk cannot find a better authority than Bryan v. Bank of America, 86
Cal.App.4th 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) to justify filing a motion to recall the
remittitur more than two years after the remittitur was issued. In Bryan v.
Bank of America’s “Recall of the Remittitur” discussion, the Court
explained:
If the remittitur issues by inadvertence or mistake, or as a
result of fraud or imposition practiced on the appellate court,
the court has inherent power to recall it and thereby reassert
its jurisdiction over the cause. This remedy, though described
in procedural terms, is actually an exercise of an
extraordinary substantive power. Correction of the clerk’s
clerical or other mistakes in the remittitur is a very minor
aspect of the proceeding; its significant function is to permit
the court to set aside an erroneous judgment on appeal
obtained by improper means. In practical effect, therefore, the
motion or petition to recall the remittitur may operate as a
belated petition for rehearing on special grounds, without
any time limitations. [Citations.]” (Id. § 736, p. 765, italics
in original.)

THE REASON FOR THIS MOTION

The crux of and reason for this motion is not to attempt to relitigate
or delay the legal process which has been endlessly and maliciously

- 13 -
delayed by the defendants and their attorneys in filing the anti-SLAPP
motion on 12/01/2014. Rather, this motion seeks to end the intentional and
unrelenting pattern of misconduct by the defendants and their attorneys in
disregard of the Court’s benevolence in granting them the anti-SLAPP
motion on April 14, 2014, as affirmed by the Court of Appeal, Third
Appellate District (3DCA) 10/10/2017 in an unpublished opinion known as
Waszczuk v. Regents of University of California C079524 (Cal. Ct. App.
Oct. 10, 2017).
The 3DCA 10/10/2017 is erroneous itself and needs to be remanded
to the trial court with instructions to vacate or void the April 14, 2015 court
order and judgment which granted the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
After the remittitur was issued on January 16, 2018, the anti-SLAPP motion
defendants and the Regents of the University of California have been
maliciously relitigating the four stricken COAs of the anti-SLAPP motion
in an attempt to terminate the Waszczuk lawsuit against the UC Regents
and to extort money from Waszczuk and his wife.
Waszczuk does not see any other way to stop the defendants and their
attorneys’ despicable harassment, misconduct, malice, and abuse of the
system than to file this motion to recall remittitur and return the four
stricken COAs to the defendants because they have been begging for
almost two years to have them back.
The trial court has erred by granting the anti-SLAPP motion to the
defendants instead of allowing Waszczuk to cure the defective SAC in
December 2014 and in September 2015 by amendment and dismissing all
individual defendants. The defective SAC was filed on September 30, 2014
against Waszczuk’s will by his drug-addicted attorney, Douglas E. Stein,
on September 30, 2014. Stein was dismissed by Waszczuk on December
16, 2014 for stealing Waszczuk’s retainer and failing to object to the anti-
- 14 -
SLAPP motion. Awarded by the 10/10/2017 3DCA unpublished opinion in
Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10,
2017) Waszczuk’s attorney, Douglas E. Stein SBN 13248 was disbarred on
January 10, 2020 for gross professional misconduct in relation to In re
Stein, S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) and other crimes not related to his
representation of Waszczuk.
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/131248
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case was filed by Waszczuk representing himself on December 4,

2013 in the Sacramento County Superior Court, Register of Action (ROA 1),
case title: Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California,
Case No. 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS.
On December 1, 2014, five individual defendants listed in Waszczuk’s
9/30/2014 SAC filed a special motion to strike pursuant to the California Code of
Civil Procedure, Section 425.16. (C.C.P §425.16) On April 14, 2015, this Court
entered an order granting Defendants Danesha Nichols, Mike Boyd, Cindi
Oropeza, Brent Seifert, and Stephen Chilcott Special Motion to Strike (anti-
SLAPP Motion CCP § 425.16). Four COA’s were stricken from Second
Amended Complaint and judgment was entered in Defendants’ favor. ( See:
Exhibit 3) (ROA 75–81) The second amended complaint set forth eight causes of
action:
1.) intentional infliction of emotional distress, 2.) tortious interference with
economic advantage, 3.) harassment, failure to prevent harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation under FEHA, 4.) whistleblower/unlawful
retaliation, 5.) violation of Health and Safety Code, sec. 1278.5, 6.) breach of
written contract, 7.) wage and hour violations, and 8.) rescission – unlawful
contract.

- 15 -
 Before Waszczuk’s four causes of action were stricken by the Court
from the Second Amended Complaint, the Court had denied the plaintiff’s
Motion for Reconsideration (ROA 59) on 4/10/2015 and Waszczuk’s
motion to dismiss the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion for violation of the
discovery stay by the defendants’ attorneys. (ROA 64) (CCP § 425.16 (g)
On September 10/10/17, the Court of Appeal, in an unpublished
opinion in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App.
Oct. 10, 2017) affirmed the 4/14/2015 trial court judgment striking the first
four COAs from the Waszczuk’s SAC.
On November 9, 2017, the Court of Appeal denied Waszczuk’s
petition for rehearing filed on October 25, 2017. A petition for review
was filed with the California Supreme Court, Case No. S245879 and was
denied on January 10, 2018. The remittitur was issued by the Court of
Appeal on January 16, 2018.
STATEMENTS OF FACTS AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE
REMITTITUR ON JANUARY 16, 2018 BY THE COURT OF
APPEAL THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
I. DEFENDANTS’ VEXATIOUS, MALICIOUS, AND
NEFARIOUS RELITIGATING OF THE DISMISSED CAUSES
OF ACTION

Just after the remittitur was issued on January 16, 2018, the defendants,
empowered by the fraudulent 3DCA unpublished opinion in Waszczuk v.
Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) caused the
stricken COAs by the anti-SLAPP motion became the subject of a frivolous
relitigating with the goal of terminating Waszczuk’s lawsuit against UC
Regents and dismissed COAs became a tool for defendants’ attorney’s
criminal activity in the court of law to extort money from Waszczuk and his
wife.

- 16 -
 On April 25, 2018, Attorney David Burkett sent Waszczuk the
request for production of documents (Set 1) (Exhibit 4), If the Court
examines Exhibit 3, requests 1–8 on pages 3–4, it will be clear that
Attorney Burkett’s demand for documents regarding COA No. 3 which was
stricken from Waszczuk’s SAC pertaining to harassment and failure to
prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, was in violation of
Government Code § 12940 (A).
Request No. 9 was regarding COA No. 4 which was stricken from the SAC
and pertained to whistleblower/unlawful retaliation, in violation of
Government Code § 8547 et seq. Request 9 stated, “Please produce any
and all DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention that YOU were
subjected to retaliation for engaging in protected activities, in violation of
Government Code § 85547 et seq., exactly as it stated in stricken COA’s 4
from SAC ”
Waszczuk was forced by the defendant’s attorney’s frivolous and vexatious
motions and by the monetary sanction imposed by court order and threats
of a terminating sanction against UC Regents to produce thousands of
documents for the dismissed COAs.
On October 3, 2018, the defendants’ attorneys from Porter Scott,
David Burkett, and Daniel Bardzell, filed a motion to compel verified
responses to requests for production of documents (Set 1), for monetary and
terminating sanctions. The motion was deliberately filed in Department 54
(Exhibit 5) (ROA 163–180) and bypassed Judge Brown in Department 53
in a fraudulent attempt to obtain an order for monetary and terminating
sanction from Judge Christopher E. Krueger in Department 54. Judge
Krueger was unfamiliar with Waszczuk’s case, which had been pending for
four years, because he had never presided over it.

- 17 -
The Defendants did not even mention the four remining COAs in their
motion, which should have been one of the motions key subjects. Attorneys
Burkett and Bardzell were caught, and their evil, deceptive plan failed to
persuade Judge Krueger to terminate Waszczuk’s lawsuit.
On October 11, 2018, Waszczuk informed the court clerk in
Department 54 about the misconduct of the attorneys for the defendants
(Exhibit 6).
On October 17, 2018, the defendants’ attorneys, Burkett and
Bardzell, refiled the motion with Department 53. Judge Brown scheduled a
hearing for November 14, 2018. However, in a surprising turn of events on
October 31, 2018, Judge Brown issued an order to Waszczuk with $520 in
monetary sanctions (Exhibit 7), ROA 166). The court order stated:
The notice of motion provides the incorrect time and location
for the hearing. This matter has been assigned to Department
53 for law and motion purposes, and Department 53 hears law
and motion matters at 2 p.m. Moving counsel is directed to
immediately provide notice to Plaintiff of the correct time and
location of the hearing.

On October 14, 2018, Judge Brown issued a second court order for
the same motion to compel monetary and terminating sanction,
admonishing Burkett and Bardzell as follows due to their despicable
violation of California Rules of Court -Rule 3.1110 (b) (1) (Exhibit 7,
ROA 178):
The Court must point out Defendant’s procedural errors that
have rendered an otherwise simple motion confusing and
created unnecessary work for the Court. Defendant initially
noticed this motion for October 31, 2018, but included the
incorrect law and motion department on the notice. It then
apparently filed the identical motion and noticed it for hearing
on November 13 and 14, in this department.

- 18 -
The Court acknowledged Waszczuk’s November 12, 2018 correspondence
(ROA 178) that had been sent to the court by overnight mail, prior to the
scheduled November 14, 2018 hearing. Judge Brown noticed that
Defendants’ motion had been filed in the wrong department and that
Burkett and Bardzell slandered Waszczuk; thus, the Court admonished
them with the words in the duplicated October 31, 2018 court order, dated
November 14, 2018 (Exhibit 8, ROA 175, 176):
Further, while Defendant references Plaintiff’s “vexatious”
conduct in this action, that conduct has nothing to do with the
instant motion and, in any event, is not a basis for discovery
sanctions. Such ad hominem comments serve no useful
purpose in educating the court as to the party’s position
and distract more than they advocate. In short, they are
more cathartic than tactical.

However, in the two orders, dated October 31, 2018, and November
14, 2018, the Court failed to address Burkett and Bardzell’s evil attempt to
terminate the Waszczuk lawsuit by relitigating the COAs that had been
stricken through the anti-SLAPP motion.
On February 11, 2019, three days after Waszczuk met Defendants’
Attorney Daniel Bardzell in the cafeteria of Department 43, Bardzell and
Burkett filed another motion to compel, demanding monetary and
terminating sanction. The 2/08/2019 meeting between Waszczuk and
Bardzell in Department 43 was memorialized by the 2/08/2019 court order
(Exhibit 9) (ROA 189) and Waszczuk’s meet and confer letter which was
sent to Bardzell on 2/10/2019 (Exhibit 10).
The Defendants’ motion, which amounted to 396 pages of pleadings and
exhibits (Exhibit 11) (ROA 189–186), was almost identical to the motion
Attorneys Burkett and Bardzell deceptively filed in the wrong department
on October 3, 2018 in evil attempt to terminate Waszczuk’s lawsuit

- 19 -
 On March 11, 2019, Waszczuk filed the ex parte application for late
opposition to the defendants’ motion to compel monetary and terminating
sanctions (Exhibit 12)(ROA 198). Waszczuk requested that the Court
dismiss the defendants’ motion entirely for the reasons outlined on pages 2
and 3 of the ex parte application by informing the Court that the attorneys
from Porter Scott were tampering with the administration of justice to
injure Waszczuk and that the first four causes of action stricken from the
Waszczuk SAC by the anti-SLAPP motion granted to Defendants on April
14, 2015 must be completely excluded from the Defendants’ discovery
process.
By a March 13, 2019, court order (Exhibit 13, ROA 203), Judge
David I. Brown from Department 53 declined oral argument on
Waszczuk’s ex parte request. The Court also declined to dismiss the
defendants’ motion, which brought back into litigation the four dismissed
COAs stricken from Waszczuk ‘s SAC. Judge Brown did not impose
monetary and termination sanctions on Waszczuk, and in an order dated
3/13/20119, the Court ruled:
There has only been one previous discovery motion by
Defendant to compel responses. Plaintiff complied with that
order and provided responses, albeit some which Defendant
deemed insufficient in certain respects and, for that reason,
brought a motion to compel further responses. The Court will
not at this time find an abuse of the discovery process.

Contrary to the ruling, Judge Brown completely ignored fact that the
defendants relitigating the dismissed COAs, and, in the same manner as in
October and November 2018. Notorious Defendants Attorneys Burkett and
Bardzell, did not give up.
On March 20, 2019, just seven days after Judge Brown denied them
monetary and terminating sanctions, they filed another motion to compel

- 20 -
for monetary and terminating sanctions. This was almost identical to their
previous motions (Exhibit 14, ROA 205–211). Again , Burkett and
Bardzell bluntly mixed apple and oranges (UC Regents with anti-SLAP
motion defendants ) in evil attempt to terminate Waszczuk lawsuit .
On April 12, 2019, Waszczuk filed his opposition to Bardzell and
Burkett’s motion (Exhibit 15) (ROA 209).
The motion was finalized by a tentative court order, which instead of
imposing sanction against Defendants and their attorneys for a frivolous
motion and for the malicious relitigating of dismissed COAs, the Court
reimposed sanctions on Waszczuk. Thus, Waszczuk requested the court
hearing in Department 53.
A different judge, The Hon. Steven H. Rodda, presided over the hearing on
April 26, 2019 in Department 53. Judge Rodda ruled by court order
(Exhibit 16, ROA 2011):

Terminating Sanctions

The motion for terminating sanctions is denied. The post

judgment discovery at issue here was served by judgment
creditors, not Regents. Moving parties have already
obtained a judgment of dismissal in this case, as well as an
attorney fees award on the anti-SLAPP motion. Thus, it is
unclear why they are seeking a “terminating sanction” in
this context.Regents are not a party to the underlying
discovery or this motion, and, therefore, the Court will
not grant terminating sanctions to Regents. To the extent

Final Court Ruling

After hearing oral argument, the Court affirmed its tentative

ruling with the following modification: The order for
monetary sanctions was vacated.

At the end of the hearing with Judge Rodda, Waszczuk asked the Court
what he was supposed to provide to the defendants’ attorneys, because they
- 21 -
had already received everything. Judge Rodda responded, “You will have
to figure that out yourself” (court reporter’s transcript, page 8, Exhibit
17). Waszczuk figured out that the Defendants were trying to terminate
Waszczuk’s lawsuit by using dismissed COAs, which amounted to an
abuse of the court system and a bullying or blackmailing of the judges.
On June 12, 2019, Defendants Attorneys Burkett and Bardzell, filed
another motion for monetary and terminating sanctions, vexatiously and
maliciously using again the four dismissed COAs (Exhibit 18, ROA 213–
2019). Attached is Bardzell’s memorandum to support the frivolous
motion, which is almost identical to the previous motion. Waszczuk
opposed Defendants’ motion on July 5, 2019 (Exhibit 19)(ROA 2017). On
page 5 of his opposition, Waszczuk pointed out the following to the Court:
The Court does not need to read Defendants’ attorney Daniel
Bardzell’s Declaration or Memorandum of Point and
Authorities to find out how deceptive Porter Scott’s attorney
is. In his pleadings, Bardzell’s complete disregard of the
April 26, 2019, Court Order (Hon. Rodda) ROA 211, which
states in bold black letters that, “Regents are not a party to
the underlying discovery or this motion, and, therefore,
the Court will not grant terminating sanctions as to
Regents.”

Prior to the scheduled hearing on July 3, 2019, Waszczuk sent an inquiry

by e-mail, U.S. mail, and fax to the former attorneys (2014–2015) for the
Defendants, Michael Pott, and his partner in crime Douglas Ropel (Exhibit
20) who were beneficiaries of the court order dated June 7, 2018. In his
inquiry to Pott and Ropel Waszczuk stated:
I am working hard to recover the retainer stolen by my former
attorney, Douglas Stein, along with my short-term disability
insurance benefits of 2011–2012, which I eventually found
after seven years in the state controller’s office as unclaimed
property (Exhibit 21) as well as my unemployment insurance
benefit, which was reinstated by the California Employment
- 22 -
 Development Department in May 2014 and then mysteriously
disappeared. (Exhibit 22) I am working on recovering this
money so I can pay your legal fees regardless of if I believe
or not if these fees should be awarded to you or not. Please let
me know where you stand on this matter. Whether you like to
be associated with these fees and with UCOP organized
crime.

None of them responded to Waszczuk’s inquiry. On June 21, 2019, the

California State Bar informed Waszczuk that he was qualified for
reimbursement of the money stolen from him in December 2014 by
Douglas Stein, who was disbarred in January 2020.
On August 8, 2019, Waszczuk was reimbursed $14,500 by the State
Bar Client Security Fund (Exhibit 23) giving him the ability to pay some of
the legal fees awarded to the Defendants former attorneys Michael Pott and
Douglas Ropel, present attorney David Burkett, and Porter Scott paralegal
Marylin Gamper pursuant to the June 7, 2018 Court Order.
On July 19, 2019, the 6/12/2019 motion by the Defendants was
heard by Judge Brown on. In his decision (Exhibit 24, ROA 219), Judge
Brown repeated Judge Rodda’s statement from the previous order dated
April 26, 2019:
The motion for terminating sanctions is denied. The post
judgment discovery at issue here was served by Judgment
Creditors, not The Regents of the University of California
(Regents). Moving parties have already obtained a judgment
of dismissal in this case, as well as an attorneys’ fees award
on the anti-SLAPP motion. Thus, it is unclear why they are
seeking a “terminating sanction” in this context.

It was quite clear to Waszczuk that something was going terribly wrong
with his case in Department 53 when he looked at the facts and saw that the
judges were noticing the malice and gross misconduct of the Defendants

- 23 -
attorneys but were punishing Waszczuk with sanctions and letting the
attorneys harass him as much and as long as they wished.
Judge Brown, by his July 19, 2019 order, awarded $1,300 in sanctions
against the Defendants for their attorneys’ misconduct and fraud. During
that hearing on July 19, 2019, Judge Brown questioned Bardzell in his
statement, which can be found as follows on pages 5 and 6 of the RT
(Exhibit 25):
THE COURT: This is post judgment discovery. What are
you terminating? There’s already a judgment against Mr.
Waszczuk.

MR. BARDZELL: The motion is filed on behalf of the anti-

SLAPP defendants, but we’re okay with the tentative ruling at
this point.

THE COURT: So, he is okay with it.

Bardzell, who, with Burkett, filed five motions, which amounted to

thousands of pages of documents, maliciously harassing Waszczuk to
extort money from him and his wife, stated that he is now “okay with the
tentative ruling.” It is still a great mystery to Waszczuk as to how Judge
Brown justified a sanction of $1,300 dollars against Waszczuk, stating
“I’m not saying they can collect them. I’m saying that they are entitled
to them procedurally,” after Waszczuk mentioned his $1,500 Social
Security income (CRT, pages 11, 20–22).
On October 23, 2019, Defendants’ attorneys filed a Further Motion to
Compel Responses to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents; Monetary Sanctions, which totaled 235 pages of
documents (Exhibit 26, ROA 222–227). In contrast with other motions,
after four attempts, Defendants did not demand terminating sanctions.

- 24 -
The difference in the October 23, 2019 motion to the previous four motions was
that that Defendants’ Attorney Burkett was replaced with another Porter Scott
shareholder and attorney, Nancy Sheehan, who had been an employee at Porter
Scott for 34 years. Burkett was a leading attorney in the case Waszczuk v.
Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) since January
23, 2015. Nancy Sheehan’s name was added to the pleadings at a time when
she was gravely ill with metastatic breast cancer; she died on November 23,
2019, exactly one month after another evil-spirited motion was filed by
Defendant’s attorney Bardzell.
(https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sacbee/obituary.aspx?n=nancy-joan-
sheehanandpid=194994093).
Furthermore, what caught Waszczuk’s attention in the October 23, 2019
motion pleadings was that Porter Scott’s attorneys are “attorneys for
judgment creditors/former defendants,” in contrast with previous
pleadings in which the judgment creditors were not the former defendants.
On October 24, 2019, Waszczuk received an e-mail from Daniel
Bardzell who now representing “former Defendants” with a “settlement
offer.”
On October 31, 2019, Waszczuk briefly responded to Bardzell’s
offer assuming that David Burkett on his way out told Bardzell to send it.
David Burkett had sent a similar offer to Waszczuk in May 2015, and again
in August 2015 (Exhibit 28).
On November 12, 2019, another Porter Scott attorney and
shareholder, Derek Haynes was added to Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The
Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-00155479 (ROA
228).
On November 15, 2019, Defendant’s attorney Bardzel in his weird
and threatening correspondence (Exhibit 29) informed Waszczuk that
- 25 -
Porter Scott paralegal Marilyn Gamper was not permitted to cash out the
$520 from Waszczuk sent her on October 31, 2019 (legal fees awarded to
her by the 6/07/2018 court order in anti-SLAPP motion proceeding).
Waszczuk also paid $520 sanction awarded unjustly to the Defendants by
the Court on 10/31/2018. Check was cashed by Porter Scott’s attorneys.
Furthermore, Defendants’ Attorney Daniel Bardzell in his threatening scam
correspondence demanded from Waszczuk in bold letters that Waszczuk
must issue a check to pay all anti-SLAPP legal fees and costs payable to
the Regents of the University of California, the Defendant which is not
listed anti-SLAPP motion.
Defendants’ attorneys Bardzell and Burkett were informed that, on August
9, 2019, the State Bar of California Client Security Fund reimbursed
Waszczuk in amount of $14,500, stolen from him in December 2014, by his
attorney, Stein.
Bardzell and Burkett were also informed that on October 1, 2019,
Waszczuk received $25,000 from his wife to take care of Bardzell and
Burkett’s multiple extortion attempts, which began in 2015, using
Waszczuk’s wife as a blackmail tool to force Waszczuk to pay them the
anti-SLAPP legal fees.
Following Bardzell’s November 15, 2019 threatening letter, on November
18, 2019, Waszczuk issued a check in the amount of $1,300 to pay the
sanction imposed by the 7/19/2019 Court Order. However, in a short letter
dated November 21, 2019, Waszczuk asked Bardzell whether he would
prefer to reissue the $1,300-sanction check to the five former individual
defendants—Nichols, Chilcott, Seifert, Boyd, and Oropeza—instead of to
the Regents of UC. Furthermore, Waszczuk advised Bardzell that he should
ask Judge Brown to make sure that Nichols, Chilcott, Seifert, Boyd, and
Oropeza are the former defendants, as he claimed in his motion to
- 26 -
compel and for monetary sanctions filed on October 23, 2019, and in his
recent correspondence.
On December 4, 2019, Waszczuk filed his opposition to the Defendants’
October 23, 2019 further motion to extort money from Waszczuk or his
wife (Exhibit 31, ROA 235), emphasizing again that the Regents of UC
were not the defendants in the anti-SLAPP motion and, therefore, that they
were not entitled to any legal fees. This was clearly affirmed by two
different judges, The Hon. Rodda and The Hon. Brown, in different court
orders ( See: Exhibit 25, ROA 2011, and Exhibit 29, ROA 19).
Attorney Bardzell, and two new attorneys, Derek Hayes, and Amanda Iller,
filed two replies to Waszczuk’s December 4, 2019 opposition to their
motion. One reply was filed on the same day, December 4, 2019, entitled
“Reply to No Opposition” (Exhibit 32), and on December 6, 2019, they
filed a second reply to the opposition (Exhibit 33), (ROA 238).
On page 5, paragraph 4 of their December 6, 2019 reply, entitled
“Defendant Regents Is Entitled to Payment of Sanctions Awards,”
Porter Scott Attorney Amanda Iller, who was listed in the June 7, 2018
Court Order, demanded that legal fees be paid to the Regents of UC, in bold
letters stating.
Judgment Debtor has cited no legal authority for his position
that the REGENTS are not entitled to the sanction payment.
The REGENTS has paid for the defense of the Judgment
Creditors (Iler Deci. ¶ 6). “A monetary sanction may be
based not only on attorney’s fees and costs, but also on any
other reasonable expenses incurred.

Judgment Creditors respectfully request the Court clarify

for Judgment Debtor that the REGENTS is entitled to the
payment of sanction awards so that Judgment Debtor
does not continue to use that as an excuse for not paying
the amounts owed.

- 27 -
Waszczuk did not understand what the Defendant’s Attorney Amanda Iller
was talking about after Waszczuk sent two sanctions checks to Porter Scott,
one on October 31, 2019 in the amount of $520, and a second check on
November 18. 2019 for $1300 and wanted to pay legal fees to the former
Defendants attorneys from Porter Scott law firm listed in the 6/07/2018
court order.After Waszczuk read the Court’s tentative decision, issued on
December 12, 2019, and, to his disbelief, found out that Judge Brown
slammed Waszczuk with additional monetary sanctions of $1,300,
Waszczuk called the court clerk and requested a hearing on December 13,
2019 at 2:00 p.m.
At the court hearing, the defendants were represented by Attorney Bardzell.
Judge Brown admonished Bardzell and ordered the return of the $1,300
paid on November 18, 2019 to Waszczuk, and explained again to Bardzell
that that the Regents of UC were not defendants in the anti-SLAPP motion.
On December 27, 2019, Waszczuk filed a Notice of Objection to the Court
Orders Dated December 13 and 17, 2019(Exhibit 34and35)(ROA 241
and242), and Plaintiff’s Request for Court Order Modification.
Waszczuk submitted his Notice of Objection and the Request for
Modification of the court order (Exhibit 36) (ROA 244) because nothing
was in the December 17, 2019 court order that had been argued or said at
the December 13, 2019 hearing.
In his Notice of Objection, Waszczuk focused on the issue of the
defendants in the anti-SLAPP motion. He asked the Court to clarify
whether Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza, Seifert, and Boyd had been dismissed
by the anti-SLAPP motion or whether they were still the defendants in the
lawsuit.

- 28 -
II. NEW ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANTS FROM
PORTER SCOTT: LINDSAY A. GOULDING AND
OLATOMIWA T. AINA

Two new defendants Attorneys Goulding and Aina resumed their dirty
game with Waszczuk and with the new judge in Department 53.
one year and half after Waszczuk filed his Notice of Objection to the court
orders of December 14 and17, 2019, On April 26, 2021, Defendants’ Attorney
Lindsay A. Goulding, in violation of California Rules of Court Rule 3.1110 (a)
(1), served Waszczuk by e-mail an Ex-Parte Application for Leave to Extend
Page Limit for Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication in violation of California Rules of Court -
Rule 3.1110 (b) (1) without stating or marking on the pleading in which
Department the ex parte application would be filed or which judge would
handle the ex parte application. (Exhibit 37) (ROA 247–249)
Not letting the opposing party know which judge or department will make the
decision is gross professional misconduct and extrinsic fraud. “Extrinsic fraud
occurs when one party prevents the other from having his day in court.
Extrinsic fraud only arises when one party has in some way fraudulently been
prevented from presenting his or her claim or defense.” Sporn v. Home Depot
USA, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1300 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 780
Attorney Lindsay A. Goulding brought into her Ex Parte Application three
Stricken COAs by anti-SLAPP motion granted to the Defendants by the
Court on 4/14/2015 by the fraudulent and frivolous anti-SLAPP motion.
Lindsay Goulding’s deceptive Ex Parte Application should not have been
accepted and granted by the Court on the same day April 26, 2021 by the
Honorable Shama Hakim Mesiwala’s stamp, but in fact it was.

- 29 -
Waszczuk addressed the Attorney Amanda Goulding’s Ex Parte in the meet and
confer letter dated April 27, 2021, which was filed in the Court on April 28,
2021 (Exhibit 38) (ROA 250).
Simultaneously, another Porter Scott Attorney, Olatomiwa T. Aina, in
coordinated action with Amanda Goulding, served on Waszczuk a Subpoena
and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination filed in
Department 43 (Exhibit 39) (ROA 251-259) in attempt to break into
Waszczuk’s wife bank account and 401(k) plan to extort money from in a
similar manner to other Porter Scott attorneys attempts in 2019 who were not
awarded any legal fees in the anti-SLAPP motion and they were prohibited by
the Court to cash any check using the Regents of the University of California
name because Regents were not a party in the anti-SLAPP motion. Waszczuk
addressed the Olatomiwa T. Aina scam in the meet and confer letter dated April
27, 2021(Exhibit 40) (ROA 251).
On May 14, 20210 Defendants’ Attorneys Amanda Goulding and Olatomiwa
T. Aina filed in their scam to extort money from Waszczuk and his wife the 475
pages of documents with the defendant’s notice of motion and motion for
summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication (Exhibit 41)
(ROA 254-258). Seventy-five percent of the filed motion was the third and
fourth COAs stricken from Waszczuk’s SAC. Apparently, the defendants new
attorneys Goulding and Aina have high expectations that the new judge in
Department 53 would rule in their favor and that they would be able to extort
money from Waszczuk by relitigating the fraudulent anti-SLAPP motion COAs
by Motion for Summary Judgment .
Defendants attorneys perpetrated crime did not work as they anticipated with
Judge David I Brown from Dept. 53 in 2014-2019 and Judge Thadd A.
Blizzard from Dept. 43 and will not work this time with Judge Thadd A.

- 30 -
Blizzard from Dept. 43 and the new Judge Shama Hakim Mesiwala from Dept
53.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND
ARGUMENT
I. THE REMITTITUR MUST BE RECALLED AND THE
ERRONEOUS UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED ON OCTOBER
10, 2017 in Waszczuk v. Regents of University. Of California
C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) MUST BE MODIFIED

The false and harmful statement from page 3 of the opinion misled
Waszczuk into believing that five anti-SLAPP motion defendants, Nichols,
Seifert, Boyd, Oropeza and Chilcot were entirely dismissed from the
lawsuit and that the Regents of the University of California were the only
remaining defendants to the lawsuit.
“Plaintiff loses this appeal, but it is not the end of his lawsuit
for wrongful termination.” The trial court reminded plaintiff
at the hearing on the special motion to strike that the Regents
of the University of California (the Regents) were not
protected if they discriminated or retaliated against him and,
therefore, “[i]ndependent of the five individuals who are
before the Court on this motion, [plaintiff] still retains his
right to sue the Regents because they are still in the lawsuit
and he’s still the plaintiff.” In this context, we recite the brief
facts relevant to the issues plaintiff raises on appeal.”

Waszczuk in his December 27, 2019 Notice of Objection to the 12/12/2019

and 12/17/2019 (Exhibit 36) Court Orders (Exhibit 36) asked the trial court
to clarify the status of the five anti-SLAPP motion Defendants in the
Waszczuk ‘s lawsuit to stop Defendants Attorneys criminal extortion
activities in the Court. Waszczuk did not get the clarification from the trial
court and the attorneys for the defendants resumed their criminal extortion
activities after a year and a half by relitigating the dismissed by anti-SLAPP
motion COAs to scam money from Waszczuk in the motion for summary
judgment filed on 5/14/2021.
- 31 -
In re Grunau, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 908, 169 Cal.App.4th 997 (Cal.App. Dist.6
12/30/2008) The Court ruled that traditionally a remittitur could be recalled
only if the appellate judgment was the product of fraud or mistake (e.g., In
re Rothrock (193 9) 14 Cal. 2d 34, 38-39 [92 P.2d 634]), or inadvertence
(e.g., In re McGee (195 1) 37 Cal. 2d 61 8-9 [229 P.2d 780]).
The harmful false statement in the 3DCA opinion awarding Waszczuk’s
drug-addicted attorney who stole his client’s money and telling Waszczuk
that defendants were dismissed from the lawsuit is also a legitimate reason
for the 3DCA to recall the remittitur and reinstate the appeal or modify the
opinion and remand it to the trial court to vacate or void the April 14,2015
court order and judgment and other fraudulent orders which caused much
harm to Waszczuk and the integrity of the judicial system.
In re Rothrock, 14 Cal.2d 34 (Cal. 1939) the basis for the motion to recall
the remittitur was that the judgment of the court was improvidently granted
under a mistake of fact.
After attorneys for the defendants filed the Motion for Summary Judgment
in May 2019 relitigating COAs dismissed by the anti-SLAPP motion,
Waszczuk reviewed the trial court record and record on appeal and found
out through the Court Order dated 10/10/2017 how such a false and harmful
fact or mistake found its way to the 3DCA opinion in Waszczuk v. Regents
of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) contrary to the
4/14/2015 anti-SLAPP motion Court Order and Judgment. It is difficult to
remember all facts when one unresolved motion is pending in court for
almost seven years due to the defendants’ deception and relitigating of
matters that had been previously resolved by three different courts.
Waszczuk determined that the harmful false statement in the 3DCA opinion
originated from the Waszczuk Augmented Record on Appeal, submitted to
3DCA on 2/22/2016. More specifically from the September 25, 2015
- 32 -
defendants’ motion for automatic stay pursuant to C.C.P. § 916(a), or in the
alternative, motion for a discretionary stay (Exhibit 42) (ROA 105) and the
October 28,2015 Court Order which granted Defendants motion for
automatic stay (Exhibit 43) (ROA 118) which blocked Waszczuk from
filing the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) which he submitted to the
attorneys for the defendants by a stipulation to do so (Exhibit 44).
Defendants initially agreed to stipulation to file the TAC but quickly then
changed their positive approach to Waszczuk intention. By filing TAC
Waszczuk’s intention was to withdraw the appeal from 3DCA and amend
the SAC with only two COAs and without naming individual defendants in
the lawsuit. Waszczuk, in his 2015 TAC, focused on almost $1,000 000
monetary damages caused to him by his employers due to the violation
and breach of the January 30, 2009 Settlement Agreement the UC Regent
signed with him (TAC pages number 274–287). After the attorney for the
defendant filed the motion for automatic stay, Waszczuk dismissed four
other individual defendants (Ann Madden Rice, Charles Witcher, Patrick
Putney and Dorin Daniliuc) by filing a Notice of Dismissal on 10/01/2015
(Exhibit 45) (ROA 109-110). However, Waszczuk did not include anti-
SLAPP motion defendants Danesha Nichols, Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd,
Cindi Oropeza and Brent Seifert in this notice. The April 14, 2015 court
order and judgment granting Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion stated that
only the first four COAs were stricken from the SAC. In contrary the
9/25/2015 Defendants’ Motion for Automatic Stay and the 10/28/2015
court order stating that anti-SLAPP defendants are dismissed from the
entire lawsuit. . Waszczuk would like to emphasize that he did not sue
individual defendants in relation to the first four COAs in the defective
SAC but for violation and breach of the 2009 Settlement Agreement, The
Waszczuk’s drug-addicted attorney Douglas Stein blackmailed or bribed by
- 33 -
Defendant Porter Scott attorneys collaborated with them and changed the
venue of Waszczuk’s initial 12/04/2013 complaint.. The SAC was a fraud
and Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion was a fraud; thus, the 10/10/2017
unpublished opinion in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524
(Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) is fraudulent, and remittitur must be recalled
and the 4/14/2015 trial court order and judgment must be reversed to allow
Waszczuk to amend the defective Second Amended Compliant.
The defendants’ attorneys from Porter Scott ceased for one years and half
their almost two-year string of criminal money extortion activities after
Waszczuk, on December 27, 2019, filed a Notice of Objection to the Court
Order dated December 13 and 17, 2019, and Plaintiff’s Request for Court
Order Modification (see Exhibit 39, ROA 244).
In addition to the above on pages 8–11 of same document, Waszczuk
addressed five anti-SLAPP motion defendants in the context of whether
Defendants Danesha Nichols, Michael Boyd, Cindy Oropeza, Brent Seifert,
and Stephen Chilcott are former Defendants as Porter Scott attorney
labeled them in the last filed in 2019 motion on 10/23/2019.
In the May 14, 2021 Motion For Summary Judgment filed by the
Defendants, 75 percent of the 531 pages of the motion (ROA 254–259)
were documents unrelated to the 3th and 4th COAs that were stricken from
Waszczuk’s defective SAC by anti-SLAPP motion.
“Res judicata precludes piecemeal litigation by splitting a
single cause of action or relitigation of the same cause of
action on a different legal theory or for different relief.”
(Weikel v. TCW Realty Fund II Holding Co. (1997) 55
Cal.App.4th 1234, 1245.) A predictable doctrine of res
judicata benefits both the parties and the courts because it
“seeks to curtail multiple litigation causing vexation and
expense to the parties and wasted effort and expense in
judicial administration.” (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed.
1997) Judgment, § 280, p.820.)
- 34 -
Flatley v. Mauro 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006), cited 799 times by the
California Supreme Court, described the crime of extortion as follows:
“Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent...
induced by a wrongful use of force or fear...” (Pen. Code, § 518). This is
exactly what Plaintiff has been dealing with since December 2014, and the
Court must acknowledge this fact.
Filing the fraudulent and frivolous anti-SLAPP motion to obtain a favorable
judgment to relitigate a favorable decision with the goal of extorting money
from the opposing party by blackmail, threatening the adverse party and
bullying judges to destroy somebody’s life and livelihood are not protected
by the anti-SLAPP statute C.C.P 425.16 or any other law. Stenehjem v.
Sareen, 226 Cal.App.4th 1405 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)

II. THE COURT OF APPEAL MUST RECALL THE

REMITTITUR TO PRECLUDE THE FURTHER MALICIOUS
ABUSE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM BY THE
DEFENDANTS

The defendants’ notorious relitigating of stricken causes shows that the

defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion filed seven and a half years ago on
December 1, 2014 had a purpose other than furtherance of their rights of
petition and free speech under the United\ States or California Constitution
in connection with a public issue. Thus, the Court of Appeal must urgently
intervene by recalling the remittitur and precluding further malicious abuse
of the judicial system and Waszczuk by the defendants and their attorneys.
In Cheveldave v. Tri Palms Unified Owners Ass’n, 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 792
(Cal. Ct. App. 2018) the Court explained that: “the doctrine of collateral
estoppel is one aspect of the concept of res judicata.” citing (Lucido v.
Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341, fn. 3, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767, 795
P.2d 1223.) “Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, ‘precludes relitigating

- 35 -
of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings.’ “ (Mycogen Corp. v.
Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 51 P.3d
297.)
Furthermore, the Court explained collateral estoppel has five requirements:
“First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigating must
be identical to that decided in a former proceeding. Second,
this issue must have been actually litigated in the former
proceeding. Third, it must have been necessarily decided in
the former proceeding. Fourth, the decision in the former
proceeding must be final and on the merits. Finally, the party
against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in
privity with, the party to the former proceeding.” (Lucido v.
Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 341, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767,
795 P.2d 1223.)

Cheveldave v. Tri Palms Unified Owners Ass’n, 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 792 (Cal.
Ct. App. 2018) is the authority that exactly applies to the Defendants
misconduct and abuse of the court system since remittitur was issued on
January 16, 2018. Defendants’ legal gangsterism in the court must be
stopped by the Court of Appeal which erroneously affirmed the trail court
judgment dated April 14, 2015.
In F.E.V. v. City of Anaheim, 15 Cal.App.5th 462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)
Court explained that the
“doctrine of res judicata rests upon the grounds that the party
to be affected, or some other with whom he is in privity, has
litigated, or had an opportunity to litigate the same matter in a
former action in a court of competent jurisdiction, and should
not be permitted to litigate it again to the harassment and
vexation of his opponent. Public policy and the interest of
litigants alike require that there be an end to litigation.”
(Panos v. Great Western Packing Co. (1943) 21 Cal.2d 636,
637, 134 P.2d 242.)

The public policies underlying collateral estoppel are preserving the

integrity of the judicial system, promoting judicial economy, preventing

- 36 -
inconsistent judgments, and protecting litigants from vexatious litigation.
(Lucido v. Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 343, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767,
795 P.2d 1223 ; Roos v. Red (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 870, 887, 30
Cal.Rptr.3d 446 ; Younan v. Caruso (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 401, 407, 59
Cal.Rptr.2d 103.)
The only way to stop the Defendants and their attorneys from further
relitigating of the already litigated and dismissed four causes of action is to
recall the remittitur, reinstate the appeal, modify the 10/10/2017
unpublished opinion and remand it to the trial court with instructions to
vacate the April 14, 2015 Court Order and Judgment.

III. THE REMITTITUR MUST BE RECALLED TO STOP THE

DEFENDANTS’ EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT .

As the attached exhibits show, the litigation tactics of the defendants and
their attorneys from Porter Scott and their egregious misconduct
incapacitated bullied judges in trial court Department 53 and prevented
them from restoring the order and meaning of law in Department 53 and
generally in the trial court in this case. The Court of Appeal must act to
restore order and justice in this case by recalling the remittitur and vacate
and void the harm done to Waszczuk and the integrity of the justice system.
The trial court orders and decisions were obtained by the powerful Regents
of the University of California by intimidation, bullying, blackmailing,
extortion and possible bribery and racketeering. The stakes must be a lot
bigger in this case as the Court noticed on page 2 in the preliminary
statement of the unpublished opinion dated 10/10/2017. (See Waszczuk ‘s
Declaration in Support of this motion to recall remittitur.)
In Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) the Court noted that the
alleged sanctionable conduct was that the defendants had “(1) attempted to
deprive the Court of jurisdiction by acts of fraud, nearly all of which were
- 37 -
performed outside the confines of this Court, (2) filed false and frivolous
pleadings, and (3) attempted, by other tactics of delay, oppression,
harassment and massive expense to reduce plaintiff to exhausted
compliance.” This is exactly what Defendants are doing in the courts in this
case.In Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64
S.Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944). See also Universal Oil Products Co. v.
Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580, 66 S.Ct. 1176, 1179, 90 L.Ed. 1447
(1946) Courts ruled :The “historic power of equity to set aside fraudulently
begotten judgments,” is necessary to the integrity of the courts, for
“tampering with the administration of justice in [this] manner... involves far
more than an injury to a single litigant.”
In Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Co. v. Superior Court, 200 Cal.App.3d 272
(Cal. Ct. App. 1988) California decision on the inherent authority of courts,
affirmed that judges are empowered to act when a party seeks to take unfair
advantage of “the integrity of the judicial system.” This decision directly
addressed the fact that a court’s inherent powers include the authority to
terminate a case for litigation.
Under the “unclean hands” doctrine, a party is barred from relief if engaged
in any unconscientious conduct directly related to the transaction or matter
before the court. Burton v. Sosinsky (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 562, 573 [250
Cal.Rptr. 33]; California Satellite Systems, Inc. v. Nichols (1985) 170 Cal.
App. 3d 56, 70 [216 Cal.Rptr. 180].
The authority to dismiss a lawsuit for litigant misconduct is a creature of
the “clean hands doctrine” and is applicable to both equitable and legal
damages claims. Buchanan Home and Auto Supply Co v Firestone Tire and
Rubber Co., 544 F.Supp. 242, 244-245 (D SC, 1981). See also Mas v Coca-
Cola Co., 163 F.2d 505, 507 (CA 4, 1947).

- 38 -
Waszczuk comes before the Court with clean hands; the defendants and
their attorneys do not. They have engaged in extreme and abusive litigation
misconduct. First, they took advantage of Waszczuk’s drug-addicted
attorney, Douglas Stein. in 2014 and his friendship with Judge David I.
Brown, and then they took advantage of Waszczuk’s self-representation
after he dismissed Stein for gross misconduct in December 2014. The Court
should not aid or reward Defendants for their egregious misconduct in the
Court of Law.
CONCLUSION

On December 4, 2013, Waszczuk filed a wrongful termination lawsuit, in

pro per (Exhibit 46) (ROA 1)., Waszczuk sued the Defendants because
they violated, breached, and trashed the January 30, 2009 Settlement
Agreement they signed with Waszczuk. In the same way and manner
Defendants disregarded, disrespected, and trashed the April 14, 2015 Court
Order and Judgment granting them a Special Motion to Strike pursuant to
C.C.P 425.16 and in the same way they disregarded, disrespected and
trashed the 3DCA 10/10/2017 unpublished opinion in Waszczuk v. Regents
of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) which affirmed the
April 14, 2015 trial court judgment.
In light of the above presented facts, Waszczuk’s Declaration in Support,
and Waszczuk’s Request for Judicial Notice Waszczuk praying that the
relief sought by him should be granted and that the remittitur should be
recalled, the appeal should be reinstated or, alternatively the 3DCA
10/10/2017 unpublished opinion should modified. and remanded to the trial
court with instructions to vacate the April 14, 2015 Court Order and
Judgment which granted the anti-SLAPP motion to the Defendants.
Furthermore, Waszczuk prays the 3DCA award legal fees on the appeal and
- 39 -
sanction of the Defendants for the frivolous and fraudulent anti-SLAPP
motion filed on December 1, 2014.
Respectfully submitted on June 18, 2021 by the TrueFiling

___________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Plaintiff & Appellant

- 40 -
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.360(b)(1), I certify that

this Motion for Recall the Remittitur contains 8147 words, based on the
word- count feature of my word-processing program.

DATED: June 18, 20210

Jaroslaw Waszczuk

_______________________
Plaintiff & Appellant , In Pro Per

- 41 -
Proof of Service by US Mail and TrueFiling
Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10,
2017)
Re: 3DCA Case : Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California- Case No.: 34-2013-00155479

I, IRENA WASZCZUK the undersigned, declare that 1 am over 18 years of

age and not a party to the within cause; my address is 2216 Katzakian Way,
Lodi, CA. 95242. On June 18, 2021, I served a true copy of the attached
each of the following,
By placing the same copy in an envelope or envelopes addressed
respectively as follows: Plaintiff and Appellant Jaroslaw Waszczuk’
Motion to Recall Remittitur.

Lindsay A. Goulding -Via U.S Mail

PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825

Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court Via U.S Mail

Department 53 – Hon. Shama Hakim Mesiwala
813 6th Street, 2nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

Jorge E. Navarrete - Via TrueFiling

Supreme Court Clerk/Administrator
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister St.
San Francisco, CA 94102

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of

California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 17, 2021
, at Lodi CA

_____________________________________________________
IRENA WASZCZUK

- 42 -
EXHIBITS
1-46

- 43 -
EXHIBIT # 1
EXHIBIT # 2
Filed 10/10/17 Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, C079524

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No.

34201300155479CUWTGDS)
v.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Although Jaroslaw Waszczuk, a self-represented plaintiff, purports to appeal the

trial court’s order granting five individual employees of the University of California’s
special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) four causes of action arising from
their involvement in his termination, he does not argue the merits of the motion but
insists the judgment must be reversed because of systemic corruption including collusion
between his then lawyer, defense counsel, and the trial judge. He misunderstands his
burden on appeal, ignores the dispositive issues, provides no evidence of corruption or
untoward collusion, and fails to demonstrate either relevance or prejudice from the

1
shortcomings he cites. We need go no further than to answer the contentions he raises,
and in finding no merit in those claims, we affirm.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff, a Polish immigrant, feels deeply aggrieved by the University of
California (the University), his lawyer, the defense lawyer, and the trial judge. A brief
excerpt from a letter he sent to the general counsel for the University reflects his
bitterness as well as his belief that there is much more at stake than his mere wrongful
termination lawsuit. He wrote: “The stake in this lawsuit must be a lot bigger and more
important than the life of a 63-year-old Polish refugee who escaped communist
oppression and was promised protection from oppression in his new country by the US
government. Instead of protection from oppression, the Polish refugee received treatment
from the University of California that has been a lot worse than the treatment he received
in the Polish communist prison, where the communist’s prison guard was more respectful
to the political prisoners than UC management to its own employees.” His experience
has left him emotionally distraught. At the end of a hearing in the trial court, he
announced he was done and was going to go outside of the courtroom and shoot himself.
While plaintiff’s pain is clear, his legal analysis is not. We have carefully
scrutinized his briefs and the record in a diligent attempt to decipher his legal theories.
Much remains a mystery. We must reiterate what the trial court admonished plaintiff.
“At the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated like any
other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants
and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941,
944.) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct
rules of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also
Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984.” We add that plaintiff has an equal
responsibility to follow the California Rules of Court applicable to appeals, no matter

2
how sympathetic his claims may seem to himself or us. It is a responsibility he has
ignored to his peril.
Plaintiff’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules is his failure to cite to
the record.1 He makes grandiose accusations against the University for illegally
generating and selling electric power and for tax evasion, but those allegations are not
supported by citations to the record and are not relevant to the special motion to strike.
Plaintiff fails to appreciate the limited scope of our review, which stands in stark contrast
to the wide-ranging allegations plaintiff lodges which are untethered to the second
amended complaint or the special motion to strike. We are compelled to ignore any
factual allegations that are not supported by citations to the record.
Plaintiff loses this appeal, but it is not the end of his lawsuit for wrongful
termination. The trial court reminded plaintiff at the hearing on the special motion to
strike that the Regents of the University of California (the Regents) were not protected if
they discriminated or retaliated against him and, therefore, “[i]ndependent of the five
individuals who are before the Court on this motion, [plaintiff] still retains his right to sue
the Regents because they are still in the lawsuit and he’s still the plaintiff.” In this
context, we recite the brief facts relevant to the issues plaintiff raises on appeal.

1 An “appellant must support all statements of fact in his briefs with citations to the
record [citation] and must confine his statement ‘to matters in the record on appeal.’
[Citation.]” (Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 29.) “[I]t is counsel's duty to
point out portions of the record that support the position taken on appeal.” (Del Real v.
City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.) The Court of Appeal must not search
the record on behalf of an appellant or serve as “backup appellate counsel.” (Mansell v.
Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546.)

3
 FACTS
Plaintiff worked in the University of California Davis Medical Center’s Plant
Operations and Maintenance Department for 13 years. He received many years of
favorable performance reviews. In 2007, however, he was given a disciplinary transfer
from the central plant to the HVAC/plumbing shop. He filed a grievance and ultimately
entered into a settlement agreement with the University whereby he agreed to the transfer
in exchange for a promotion to an exempt position with a more prestigious job title.
In 2011 the University again initiated an investigation of plaintiff based on
complaints that he had violated University policies by engaging in acts of ethnic
discrimination constituting hate incidents in the workplace. He was terminated in 2012.
He appealed the termination and ultimately filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint.
In this court, he fixates on his belief the University’s suspension, investigation, and
termination were nothing more than a “witch hunt” designed to remove him, preferably
by getting him to quit, and thereby enable the University to resume its alleged tax-free
illegal power sales. He asserts, again without citation to the record, the University
attempted to assassinate him.
Plaintiff filed his first complaint, in pro. per., in December 2013. The complaint
included six causes of action: wrongful termination; retaliation; the intentional infliction
of emotional distress; failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; breach
of the settlement agreement; and violation of the University’s Personnel Polices for Staff
Members (PPSM) 23. Plaintiff thereafter hired a lawyer, Douglas Stein, who filed a first
amended complaint on his behalf in June 2014. The first amended complaint set forth
eight causes of action, including a cause of action entitled “Breach of Written Contract.”
The written contract referred to the settlement agreement plaintiff reached with the
University to resolve his first grievance. The first amended complaint did not, however,
contain a cause of action for violation of PPSM 23.

4
 In a meet and confer letter dated August 19, 2014, Michael Pott, representing the
Regents and the employees sued in their individual capacity, described a number of
deficiencies in the first amended complaint “that warrant the filing of a demurrer unless
they can be resolved by amendment.” Stein spent 10 hours reviewing the first amended
complaint and researching the law in light of the alleged deficiencies set forth in Pott’s
letter. By letter dated August 26, 2014, Stein agreed to amend the complaint in response
to those deficiencies he found legitimate and he explained why he rejected many others.
Stein prepared a second amended complaint with the same eight causes of action.
He signed the second amended complaint on September 8, 2014. Unbeknownst to him at
the time, his license to practice law was suspended on September 24, 2014, due to child
support issues that he resolved by October 7, 2014, but due to logistical aspects of the
process, the State Bar of California did not restore his license to an active status until
October 23, 2014. In the meantime, he filed the second amended complaint on
September 30, 2014.
On December 1, 2014, five defendants, Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert (the individual defendants) filed a special
motion to strike the first four causes of action in the second amended complaint as a
strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) suit (hereafter referred to as the
anti-SLAPP motion). (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) Stein, then unaware that plaintiff had
fired him, filed an opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion on plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff
did fire Stein, proceeded in pro. per., and requested an extension of time to file his own
opposition. Plaintiff filed his opposition late and exceeded the page limit. Nevertheless,
the trial court considered the entirety of plaintiff’s opposition and granted his request to
disregard the opposition filed by Stein.
On December 17, 2014, Stein filed an ex parte application for relief from the
potential defective filing of the second amended complaint. Stein explained to the court
that his license had been temporarily suspended because he had mistakenly paid the

5
wrong amount of child support for two or three months, a mistake that was quickly
rectified once he learned of it. The trial court granted Stein’s application and ruled that
the second amended complaint filed on September 30, 2014, “is deemed validly filed.”
In ruling on the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court
followed the requisite two-step process. First, the court examined the individual
defendants’ showing whether their acts were taken in furtherance of their constitutional
rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. The court found the
individual defendants made a prima facie showing. The individual defendants’ speech,
the court ruled, was “made in connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and
deciding the workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to University
policies.” Second, the court found that plaintiff did not sustain his burden of showing a
likelihood of prevailing on each of the elements of the four causes of action as well as
defeating the individual defendants’ affirmative defenses. The court, therefore, granted
the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
Plaintiff appeals.
DISCUSSION
I
The Allegations
Plaintiff believes that his employer, defense counsel, the trial judge, and even his
own lawyer, are corrupt and colluded to destroy his life. These allegations, not the merits
of the anti-SLAPP motion, are at the heart of plaintiff’s appeal. He writes: “There is no
need for Waszczuk to base this appeal on the merit of the case which is important and
Clerk Transcript is speaking for itself, if the whole legal process in this case was
corrupted by the Defendants’ attorney, Michael Pott, and Waszczuk’s attorney, Douglas
Stein misconduct, and their actions against Waszczuk were approved by the Court on
September 22, 2014, and December 17, 2014.”

6
 There is nothing we can decide in this appeal or write in this opinion that will
disabuse plaintiff of this fiercely held belief. He fails to understand that these very
serious allegations are not before us on appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion. We will
explain for his benefit what the record discloses to us—the utter absence of any evidence
to support even a colorable claim of misconduct by any of the lawyers or judicial officers
in this case. We will also briefly describe the procedural context in which the allegations
are made and the futility of pursuing his corruption theory against these individual
defendants. Despite the ferocity of plaintiff’s feelings to the contrary, the fact that the
second amended complaint did not contain what he hoped it would does not translate into
reversible error and the fact that his lawyer and defense counsel engaged in an interactive
process to avoid an unnecessary demurrer does not translate into corruption.
Let us begin with plaintiff’s focus on the second amended complaint. As best we
can decipher, his objection is twofold: (1) He is troubled that Stein did not pursue his
theories that the University breached the settlement agreement and failed to follow
internal policies by not providing him annual performance reviews for two years, and (2)
he accuses the trial court of improperly validating the filing when Stein’s license had
been temporarily suspended.
Both objections are irrelevant to the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion,
which sought to strike only four of the eight causes of action stated in the second
amended complaint. Whether or not Stein would have expanded the second amended
complaint to include additional causes of action has no bearing on whether the four
causes of action were properly stricken. In any event, we are baffled by plaintiff’s
insistence that Stein refused to include a cause of action for breach of the settlement
agreement is belied by the language of the sixth cause of action for breach of a written
contract which appears to embody that very claim.
Plaintiff fails to cite any authority to support his claim that the trial court
improperly validated the filing of the second amended complaint. The claim lacks both

7
legal authority and evidentiary support in the record. Rather, Stein was forthright in his
disclosure to the court. When he filed the second amended complaint he was unaware
that his status with the State Bar had changed. The reason for his very brief suspension
was unrelated to his competency or ethics in the practice of law. Rather, as Stein
explained, he made an inadvertent error on the amount he paid in child support for two or
three months. His license to practice was reinstated within about two weeks of his
discovery of the suspension. On these facts, there is not the slightest hint of impropriety.
To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—making an ex parte application to
assure the integrity of the document he inadvertently filed during the briefest of
suspensions for a minor transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He
should be commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of plaintiff’s interests.
Yet plaintiff asserts that defense counsel colluded with Stein to file a second
amended complaint designed to rob him of meritorious claims. He also contends that
Stein bowed to defense counsel’s untoward pressure to amend the complaint and
subjected his pleadings to the anti-SLAPP motion. He adds the naked allegation that the
trial court acted improperly as well because the trial judge had known defense counsel for
a number of years. Plaintiff’s allegations are without evidentiary support.
The record discloses a cordial, thorough, and appropriate exchange between two
lawyers engaged in a meet and confer process designed to avoid an unnecessary
demurrer. The thoughtful letters exchanged by counsel described the legal issues
presented by the first amended complaint and the authorities upon which they relied to
support their positions. Stein relented on a few minor issues, but held steadfast as to the
viability of his theories. Plaintiff’s sheer speculation about the lawyers’ motives is totally
unsubstantiated; indeed, the record belies his accusations.
In summary, we conclude plaintiff’s accusations of misconduct, corruption, and
collusion between the lawyers and the trial court are unsubstantiated and unfounded. But
even more importantly, they are irrelevant to the sole issue properly before us on

8
appeal—whether the trial court erred by granting the five individual defendants’ anti-
SLAPP motion to strike four of the causes of action alleged against them. We turn,
therefore, to the only relevant issue presented.
II
The Merits
The anti-SLAPP statute provides: “A cause of action against a person arising
from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech
under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a
public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that
the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the
claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) We review an order granting an anti-
SLAPP motion de novo. (Daniel v. Wayans (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 367, 379.)
As explained above, the trial court engages in a two-step process in determining
whether to grant an anti-SLAPP motion. (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State
University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061.) In this case, the trial court found the individual
defendants made a prima facie showing to satisfy the first prong and plaintiff did not
challenge this finding in his opening brief. Belatedly in reply, he contends that the
defendants did not “show any record or evidence that the Defendants Nichols, Chilcott,
Boyd, Seifert, and Oropeza, who brought the anti-SLAPP motion to strike Waszczuk’s
first four causes of action, were made in connection with the processing, investigation,
hearing, and deciding of the workplace complaints filed by Waszczuk.”
In short, the court acknowledged that University policies and procedures have the
force and effect of a state statute (Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000)
80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165); statutory procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized
by law as contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (Vergos v. McNeal
(2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos)); the constitutional right to petition includes
the act of seeking administrative action (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity

9
(1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1115); and investigations and investigatory reports prepared in
connection with an issue under consideration or review by an official body, such as a
public entity’s internal investigations, are protected activities under the anti-SLAPP
statute (Miller v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1383). Because the
speech of the individual defendants who were subject to the anti-SLAPP motion was
“made in connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and deciding the
workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to University policies,” the
court concluded the individual defendants satisfied their burden and shifted it to the
plaintiff to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Plaintiff insists that Vergos, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, cited by the trial court,
does not support the granting of the anti-SLAPP motion. We disagree. In Vergos, an
employee of the University named the manager who denied his administrative grievance
as a defendant in his sexual harassment lawsuit in her individual capacity. (Id. at
p. 1390.) The manager filed a special motion to strike contending that her statements and
communicative conduct in handling the employee’s grievances were protected by Code
of Civil Procedure section 425.16 because “they (1) were connected with an issue under
review by an official proceeding authorized by law, and (2) furthered the right to petition
of the plaintiff and similarly situated employees.” (Vergos, at p. 1394.) We agreed and
affirmed the judgment.
We pointed out that the manager’s only conduct targeted in the complaint involved
her hearing, processing, and deciding the employee’s grievances. (Vergos, supra,
146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1396.) Similarly, here the trial court’s finding parroted our
conclusion in Vergos. And the court reviewed the allegations against each of the five
individual defendants and reported their involvement as follows:
“The allegations of the SAC [second amended complaint] against Nichols attack
her protected participation in the official investigations. The SAC specifically alleges
Nichols’ communications regarding the investigation and her investigative conclusions.

10
Nichols was appointed to investigate Plaintiff’s whistleblower complaints, and was also
appointed to conduct an investigation into complaints of workplace violence filed by
Putney and Daniliuc. All were protected petitioning activities.
“The allegations against Boyd and Chilcott are limited to their receipt of emails
from Nichols relating to the investigations, and Chilcott’s sending of an email relating to
the investigation of Plaintiff. The emails are protected speech in connection with an
investigation process.
“The allegations against Oropeza and Seifert are based upon their investigation
into the emails plaintiff sent to Nichols in April 2012. Oropeza and Seifert conducted
their investigation pursuant to the University’s grievance protocol and reached
conclusions documented in a report.
“Boyd acted as Complaint Resolution Officer (“CRO”) at Step II of the
University’s PPSM 70 process, hearing and deciding Plaintiff’s appeal of his
termination.”
In sum, each of the individual defendants, like the manager in Vergos, were
involved in the investigation, hearing, processing, and/or deciding plaintiff’s and his co-
workers’ grievances. We conclude, as in Vergos, their conduct was within the protective
ambit of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Thus we must review the trial court’s
resolution of the second step in the analysis—whether plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood
of success on the merits.
Without citation to specific pages in the record or argument about the likelihood of
success of each element of the four causes of action or even a response to the trial court’s
thorough analysis, plaintiff invites us to review his 443-page opposition to the anti-
SLAPP motion and insists, again without analysis, that the evidence is “overwhelming.”
He falls miserably short of his duty on appeal to cite to the record, to present cogent
argument, and to support his argument with applicable legal authority. In this vacuum,
we turn to the trial court’s statement of decision wherein the court provides a brief and

11
apt rationale for finding plaintiff did not sustain his burden of showing a likelihood of
prevailing.
Plaintiff’s first cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress
fails because the tort requires a showing of outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of
human decency. The court found “[w]hat plaintiff has alleged, and what his evidence in
opposition appears to support, are complaints concerning personnel management by
defendants. Pleading of personnel management activity is ‘insufficient to support a claim
of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged.’
(Janken v. [GM Hughes Electronic (1996)] 46 Cal.App.4th [55,] 80.)” We agree with the
trial court that none of the allegations against these individual defendants involved in the
investigation and resolution of the grievances constitutes the type of outrageous conduct
beyond the bounds of human decency necessary to prevail on a claim of the intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff is unable to surmount the basic principle of law that an employee or
former employee cannot sue a current or former supervisor or employee for interfering
with his or her prospective economic advantage by inducing the employer to terminate
the plaintiff’s employment. (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24; Shepperd v.
Freeman (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 339, 347.) On this basis, the trial court properly
concluded plaintiff failed to provide any countervailing authority or analysis as to why
the facts before the court show the likelihood of prevailing on his interference with
prospective economic advantage cause of action.
Plaintiff’s discrimination claim meets another definitive legal obstacle. Individual
defendants cannot be sued for discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA), nor can they be sued for failing to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and

12
harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663-664;2 Janken v. GM Hughes
Electronic, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.) Plaintiff has not shown any likelihood of
surmounting this obstacle.
Finally, the trial court found that plaintiff did not establish that the individual
defendants’ conduct was in retaliation for his whistleblowing. The court explained: “The
mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted investigations and reached
conclusions with which Plaintiff does not agree with does not establish their investigatory
findings are an act of retaliation. Nor can Boyd’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s grievance at
the Step II level of PPSM 70 review be deemed to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is
no allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against Plaintiff that could be
deemed to be a retaliatory action.” In the absence of any evidence or analysis provided
by plaintiff, we have no basis for reaching a finding at odds with the trial court. Plaintiff
has not shown a likelihood of prevailing on a whistleblower retaliation cause of action.
(Gov. Code, § 8547.10.)
III
Plaintiff maintains he should have been allowed to amend his complaint for the
third time. As support he cites cases involving demurrers, not special motions to strike a
SLAPP. His authorities, therefore, are inapposite. The anti-SLAPP statute makes no
provision for amending the complaint once the court finds the targeted conduct is
protected speech. (Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1073.)

2 After Reno v. Baird, supra, 18 Cal.4th 640 was decided “the California Legislature
amended FEHA's harassment provision expressly holding individual employees liable for
their harassment.” (Scott v. Solano County Health & Soc. Orders Servs. Dep't (E.D. Cal.
2006) 459 F.Supp.2d 959, 966, citing Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j).) There is no
harassment claim targeted by the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.

13
 DISPOSITION
The judgment striking the four causes of action against defendants Nichols,
Oropeza, Seifert, Boyd, and Chilcott is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs
on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)

RAYE , P. J.

We concur:

NICHOLSON , J.

ROBIE , J.

14
EXHIBIT # 3
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 02/09/2015 TIME: 09:37:00 AM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: K. Pratchen
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:

CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 12/04/2013

CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

EVENT TYPE: Motion to Strike (SLAPP) - Civil Law and Motion - MSA/MSJ/SLAPP

APPEARANCES

Nature of Proceeding: Ruling On Submitted Matter (Motion to Strike (SLAPP)) Taken Under
Submission 2/6/2015
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert's
Special Motion to Strike the First through Fourth Causes of Action of Self-represented Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
This motion was continued to today's date to permit the self-represented plaintiff to file his own
opposition to the motion. Although no substitution of attorneys has yet been filed with the Court, the
court accepts the representation of plaintiff in his Dec. 29, 2014 Declaration in which declared that he
terminated Douglas Stein as his counsel of record on Dec. 16, 2014. A substitution of attorneys
signed by both former attorney and the plaintiff is still required to be filed with the Court by
plaintiff.
At the plaintiff's request, the Court has considered none of the papers filed by his former attorney
Douglas E. Stein in opposition to this motion. The Opposition papers filed by the self-represented
plaintiff were filed and served by US Mail on Jan. 23, 2015, instead of on Jan. 21, 2015, as ordered by
the Court. Further, the service was by US Mail, rather by personal delivery, facsimile transmission,
express mail, or other means reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties not
later than the close of the next business day after the time the opposing papers are filed, as required by
Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b). Moving party has therefore been deprived of at least three business days in
which to prepare their reply.
Additionally plaintiff's opposing Memorandum of Points and Authorities exceeds the 15 page limit
provided in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113. Despite this failure to comply with the California
Rules of Court, the Court has read and considered the entire 34 page document. In future filings, absent
ex parte order permitting a longer memorandum, the self-represented plaintiff is admonished to abide by
the page limitations.

DATE: 02/09/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 1

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

As noted, despite these failures to comply with the Court order and the applicable statutes, the Court has
considered plaintiff's opposition papers.

The Court declines to consider plaintiff's 17 page "Response to Defendant's Reply Brief" with attached
filed on Feb. 2, 2015, as there is no statutory right to such a supplemental brief.
Defendants' Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.
At the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and
is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v.
Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 941, 944) Thus, as is the case with attorneys,
self-represented litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th
1229, 1246-1247; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984.
Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint sets forth eight causes of action: the 1st for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, 2nd for tortious interference with economic advantage, 3rd for harassment, failure to
prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation under FEHA, 4th for whistleblower/unlawful
retaliation, 5th for violation of Health & Safety Code, sec. 1278.5, 6th for breach of written contract, 7th
for wage and hour violations and 8th for rescission - unlawful contract.
Moving party defendants move to specially strike the 1st through 4th causes of action, only, as each
arises out of acts in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue
and plaintiff cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits.
Anti-SLAPP procedure
The Court must follow a "two-step process for determining whether an action is a SLAPP." Navellier v.
Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88. First, whether the defendant has made a threshold prima facie
showing that the defendant's acts, of which the plaintiff complains, were ones taken in furtherance of the
defendant's constitutional rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. If the court
finds that such a showing has been made, then the plaintiff will be required to demonstrate that "there is
a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." The defendant has the burden on the first issue,
the threshold issue; the plaintiff has the burden on the second issue. Kajima Engineering & Construction,
Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 921, 928. "Only a cause of action that satisfies both
prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute--i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even
minimal merit--is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the statute." Navellier v. Sletten (2002)29
Cal.4th 82, 89.
Petition or Free Speech

Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (e) provides: "As used in this section, "act in furtherance of a person's right of
petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public
issue" includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or
judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement
or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or
judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law,..."
The California legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, known as the anti-SLAPP
statute, to provide a procedural remedy to dispose of lawsuits and causes of action that are brought to
chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for

DATE: 02/09/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 2

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

redress of grievances.(See Rusheen v Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1055-1056. These provisions
apply to SLAPP suits brought against public entities and public employees. See San Ramon Valley Fire
Prot Dist v Contra Costa County Employees' Ret Ass'n (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 343, 353; see also City of
Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 69.

It is well established that the policies of Defendant University, including the Personnel Policies for Staff
Members ("PPSM") and UC Davis Policy and Procedure Manual ("PPM"), have the force and effect of
state statute. (Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165.)

Statutory procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized by law for section 425.16 purposes.
(Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 35 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399.) The constitutional right to petition includes the
act of seeking administrative action. (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th
115.) Investigations and investigatory reports prepared in connection with an issue under consideration
or review by an official body, such as a public entity's internal investigations, are protected activities
under the anti-SLAPP statute. (See Miller v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 169 Cal App.4th 1373, 1383;
Hansen v California Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitiation (2008) 171 Cal.App.4th 1537, 1544; Briggs v.
Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal. 4th 1106.)
In this case, the speech by Chilcott, Boyd, Oropeza, Seifert, and Nichols that is at issue were made in
connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and deciding the workplace complaints filed by
Plaintiff and others pursuant to University policies.
The allegations of the SAC against Nichols attack her protected participation in the official investigations.
The SAC specifically alleges Nichols' communications regarding the investigation. (SAC, paras. 70 (l),
(o), (q), (s), (x), (AA)) and her investigative conclusions (SAC para. 70 (v), (KK)). Nichols was appointed
to investigate Plaintiffs whistleblower complaints, and was also appointed to conduct an investigation
into complaints of workplace violence filed by Putney and Daniliuc. All were protected petitioning
activities.
The allegations against Boyd and Chilcott are limited to their receipt of emails from Nichols relating to
the investigations, and Chilcott's sending of an email relating to the investigation of Plaintiff (SAC, para.
70(m), (x), (AA).) The emails are protected speech in connection with an investigation process.
The allegations against Oropeza and Seifert are based upon their investigation into the emails plaintiff
sent to Nichols in April 2012. Oropeza and Seifert conducted their investigation pursuant to the
University's grievance protocol and reached conclusions documented in a report.
Boyd acted as Complaint Resolution Officer ("CRO") at Step II of the University's PPSM 70 process,
hearing and deciding Plaintiff's appeal of his termination. In Vergos, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at
1399-1400, the Court held that defendant reviewer was entitled to the protection of the anti-SLAPP
statute for denying the grievance. Specifically, in Vergos, a state university employee pursued an
internal grievance against his supervisor for sexual harassment. In an administrative proceeding
authorized by the Regents of the University of California, the hearing officer denied the grievance. The
employee then filed a civil rights suit against the hearing officer, alleging that her decision had failed to
protect him from future harassment. (Id. at pp. 1390-1392, 1396-1397.) The hearing officer filed a
special motion to strike, contending that her communications were made in connection with an issue
under consideration in an official proceeding. (See § 425.16, subd. (e)(2).) The trial court denied the
motion. The Court of Appeal reversed because "[t]he gravamen of plaintiff's [claim] is [the hearing
officer's] communicative conduct in denying plaintiff's grievances. The hearing, processing, and
deciding of the grievances (as alleged in the complaint) are meaningless without a communication of the
adverse results." (146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1397.) Thus, Vergos recognized that the anti-SLAPP statute

DATE: 02/09/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 3

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

applies where liability is based on protected speech. (See Id. at pp. 1397-1399)
Moving parties have established that their speech and writings are protected as made in connection with
an issue under consideration or review by an official proceeding authorized by law. The burden
therefore shifts to plaintiff to show that he will prevail.
Probability That Plaintiff Will Prevail
Plaintiff must show a likelihood of prevailing on each of the elements of his causes of action, and must
also show a likelihood of defeating any applicable affirmative defenses. (Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994)
27 Cal.App.4th 809, 820, 824; see also Paul of Council v. Hanyecz (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1367,
overruled on other grounds in Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 68.)
The test to use to determine Plaintiffs probability of prevailing is similar to the standard applied to
evidentiary showings in motions for summary judgment, and the supporting facts must be demonstrated
by way of competent, admissible evidence. (Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th
628, 654-655.) The difference between summary judgment and anti-SLAPP is that the burden is on the
opposing party plaintiff to show the likelihood of prevailing.
In order to establish the necessary probability of prevailing, plaintiff was required both to plead claims
that were legally sufficient, and to make a prima facie showing, by admissible evidence, of facts that
would merit a favorable judgment on those claims, assuming plaintiff's evidence were credited. The court
does not, however, weigh the parties' evidence, in terms of either credibility or persuasiveness. Rather,
the defendant's evidence is considered with a view toward whether it defeats the plaintiff's showing as a
matter of law, such as by establishing a defense or the absence of a necessary element. 1-800
Contacts, Inc. v. Steinberg (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 568, 584-585.
1st For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
An essential element of pleading a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is a showing of
outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of human decency. Managing personnel is not outrageous
conduct beyond the bounds of human decency, but rather conduct essential to the welfare and
prosperity of society. A simple pleading of personnel management activity is insufficient to support a
claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged. If personnel
management decisions are improperly motivated, the remedy is a suit against the employer for
discrimination. Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal. App. 4th 55, 80.
What plaintiff has alleged, and what his evidence in opposition appears to support, are complaints
concerning personnel management by defendants. Pleading of personnel management activity is
"insufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is
alleged." (Janken, supra.)

Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the facts before the court show the
likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of action.
2nd Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage
Plaintiff's claim tortious interference with economic advantage against Defendants. An employee or
former employee cannot sue a current or former supervisor or employee for interfering with his or her
prospective economic advantage by inducing the employer to terminate the plaintiff's employment.
(Shepperd v. Freeman (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 339, 347; Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24.)
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the facts before the court show the

DATE: 02/09/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 4

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of action.

3rd for Discrimination

In the third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges violation of FEHA, both Section 12940(a) which prohibits
discrimination and Section 12940(k) which addresses the failure to prevent discrimination.
These claims are not properly pleaded against the individual Defendants as individuals cannot be sued
for discrimination under the FEHA, nor can they be sued for failing to prevent discrimination, retaliation,
and harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663- 664; see, also Janken, supra, at p. 63.) In
Janken the Supreme Court noted the "fundamental distinction" between the way the FEHA treats
harassment, on the one hand--for which supervisors may be held personally liable, and discrimination on
the other hand--for which, Janken held, individuals are not personally responsible.
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the facts before the court show the
likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of action.
4th for Whistleblower/Unlawful Retaliation
Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action brought pursuant to Gov. Code § 8547.10 for whistleblower retaliation.
Plaintiff has not established that moving defendants' conduct was in retaliation for plaintiff's
whistleblowing.
The mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted investigations and reached conclusions with
which Plaintiff does not agree with does not establish their investigatory findings are an act of retaliation.
Nor can Boyd's decision to deny Plaintiffs grievance at the Step II level of PPSM 70 review be deemed
to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is no allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against
Plaintiff that could be deemed to be a retaliatory action.
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the facts before the court show the
likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of action.

As a matter of law, Plaintiff has not shown that he can prevail on any of his four causes of action against
moving party defendants. Given the Court's determination the Court need not address the Regents'
other arguments based on Gov't Code 821.6. It bears noting, however, that immunity extends to
investigations even if there is a later decision not to institute administrative proceedings or to initiate a
prosecution. See Ingram v Flippo (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1293.
The anti-SLAPP motion is therefore granted as to moving defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott,
Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert only, as to the 1st through 4th causes of action, only.

The Discovery Stay is ordered lifted.

Prevailing defendants on a motion to strike must file a separate motion to recover their attorneys' fees
and costs.
The prevailing parties shall prepare a formal order for the Court's signature pursuant to C.R.C. 3.1312.

DATE: 02/09/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 5

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission.

SUBMITTED MATTER RULING

Having taken the matter under submission on 2/6/2015, the Court now rules as follows:
The Court affirms the tentative ruling.

DATE: 02/09/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 6

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 04/14/2015 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:

CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 12/04/2013

CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

EVENT TYPE: Motion - Other - Civil Law and Motion

APPEARANCES

Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter (Motion for Reconsideration of the 2/9/2015
Order) taken under submission on 4/10/15
TENTATIVE RULING
Self-represented Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dated Feb. 9, 2015 Anti-SLAPP Motion
is DENIED.
A self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater
consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.
App. 3d 941, 944) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct rules
of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell
(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was filed and served by US Mail on Feb. 20, 2015. No hearing date
appeared on the Motion papers. On Feb. 25, 2015, an Amended Notice of Motion reflecting the hearing
date of March 6, 2015 was filed and served by US Mail. That notice, counting backwards from March 6
to Feb. 20, allowed only 10 court days' notice instead of the required16 court days' notice, and allowed
none of the five additional calendar days for service by mail, as required by C.C.P., sec. 1005 and 12c.
The hearing date was continued to today's date at the request of the moving party.
Defendant's opposition to the motion for reconsideration objects to the untimely notice and further
asserts that moving party has failed to meet the requirements of a motion for reconsideration under
C.C.P., sec. 1008.
A motion for reconsideration must be made (i) within 10 days after service upon the party of written
notice of entry of the order and (ii) based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and (iii) to
the same judge or court that made the order. C.C.P. section 1008(a). C.C.P. section 1008 is the
exclusive means for modifying, amending or revoking an order. That limitation is expressly jurisdictional.

DATE: 04/14/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 1

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

Morite of California v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 485, 490.
Moving party fails to base his motion for reconsideration upon any new or different facts, circumstances,
or law. Instead, plaintiff contends that the Court failed to read his opposition and attached exhibits to the
anti-SLAPP motion. Moving party contends that the Court should have accepted his supplemental brief,
which argues that the SLAPP motion violated an earlier stipulation between the parties to permit the
filing of a second amended complaint, that some unidentified new authority applies to the anti-SLAPP
motion in an unidentified manner and that the Court erred in its anti-SLAPP ruling.
None of these contentions is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements that the motion for
reconsideration be "based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law."
A trial court has no jurisdiction to reconsider a prior order on the basis of different facts, circumstances
or law in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the failure to present them earlier. Baldwin v.
Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1192, 1200. Further, if the plaintiff is not required to
explain the failure to earlier produce pertinent legal authority that was available, the ability of a party to
obtain reconsideration would expand in inverse relationship to his competence. Without a diligence
requirement the number of times a court could be required to reconsider its prior orders would be limited
only by the ability of the party to belatedly conjure a legal theory different from those previously rejected,
which is not much of a limitation. Baldwin v. Home Savings, supra, 59 Cal. App. 4th 1192, 1199.
The Court has read and considered plaintiff's objections to the formal order. The Court will sign the
formal order submitted on the anti-SLAPP motion.

COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The Court affirmed the tentative ruling.

Having taken the matter under submission on 4/10/2015, the Court now rules as follows:

SUBMITTED MATTER RULING

The Court affirmed the tentative ruling.

Declaration of Mailing

I hereby certify that I am not a party to the within action and that I deposited a copy of this document in
sealed envelopes with first class postage prepaid, addressed to each party or the attorney of record in
the U.S. Mail at 720 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California.
Dated: April 14, 2015
E. Brown, Deputy Clerk _____s/ E. Brown_____
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242

DATE: 04/14/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 2

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

DAVID P.E. BURKETT

PORTER SCOTT
350 UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 200
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825

DATE: 04/14/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 3

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
 OEPAR

P O R T E R I S C O T T APR 1 4 •
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896
Douglas L. Ropel, SBN 300486
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
FAX: 916.927.3706
dburkettfalporterscott.com
6
Attorney for Defendants
7
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
8 MICHAEL BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DORIN DANILIUC, DANESHA NICHOLS,
CINDY OROPEZA. PATRICK PUTNEY, ANN MADDEN RICE,
9 BRENT SEIFERT, and CHARLES WITCHER
10
Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
11
^ 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

13
H 3 S _ VD
^ tn m OO ^
o 2 P; 14
> U O; Os JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASENO. 34-2013-00155479
15
: 0\ ON
Plaintiff, ' -feROPeSBDi- ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT,
3
17 NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND SEIFERT'S
SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST
18 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF
19 OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSIW OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFlP'S SECOND
GALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, AMENDED COMPLAINT
20 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE DATE: February 6,2015
21 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES TIME: 2:00 P.M.
22 WITCHER DANESHA NICHOLS. CINDY DEPT: 53
OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
23 PUTNEY. DORIN DANILIUC, and does I
through 50. inclusive. Complaint Filed: December 12,2013
24
Amended Complaint Filed: June 16,2014
25 Defendants SAC Filed: September 30,2014

26
///
27
28 ///

{01362378.OOCX} 1
(PROPOSED! ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAOSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 Defendants MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
2 OROPEZA, and BRENT SEIFERT ("Defendants") filed a Special Motion to Strike four causes of
3 action, as pleaded against them, from PlaintifTs Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Code of
4 Civil Procedure section 425.16. Specifically, Defendants brought the Motion to strike Plaintiffs
5 causes of action against them for: (1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (2) Tortious
6 Interference with Economic Advantage; (3) Discrimination and Failure to Prevent Harassment,
7 Discrimination, and Retaliation under Government Code section 12940, subdivisions (a) and (k);
S and (4) Whistleblower Retaliation under Govemment Code section 8547 et seq.
9 On Febmary 5, 2015, the Court issued a Tentative Ruling, which is incorporated as
10 Exhibit A, granting Defendants' Motion.,; Pursuant to PlaintifPs request, the Motion was heard
11 before the Honorable Judge David I. Brown on Febmary 6, 2015. After hearing from the parties
12 and taking the matter under submission, the Court affirmed its Tentative Ruling v^ith the issuance
o
o
a in 13 of a Minute Order on Febmary 9, 2015. The Court's Minute Order ruled as follows:
^ -3 (N
— \o
P eS IS» S
14 Defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy
^is < o"
ai 1^
o.<=^.
!£ £
1c
1J V 'Oropeza and Brent Seifert's Special Motion to Strike the First thfough
Fourth Causes of Action of Self-represented Plaintiffs Second Amended
W >. c ^ >< 16 Complaint is GRANTED.
fell ^ 5: ,
211 17 This motion was continued to permit the self-represented plaintiff to file
o his own opposition to the motion. Although no substitution of attorneys
18 has yet beenfiledwith the Court, the Court accepts the representation of
I plaintiff in his Dec. 29, 2014 Declaration in which declared that he
19
terminated Douglas Stein as his counsel of record on Dec. 16, 2014. A
20 substitution of attorneys signed by both former attorney and the
plaintiff is still required to befiledwith the Court by piaintifT.
21
22 At the plaintiffs request, the Cpurt has considered none of the papers filed
by his former attomey Douglas E. Stein in opposition to this motion. The
23 Opposition papers filed by the self-represented plaintiff were filed and
served by US Mail on January 23, 2015, instead of on January 21,2015, as
24 ordered by the Court. Further, the service was by US Mail, rather by
25 personal delivery, facsimile transmission, express mail, or other means
reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties not
26 later than the close of the next business day after the time the opposing
papers are filed, as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b). Moving party
27 has therefore been deprived of at least three business days in which to
28 prepare their reply.
I0I362378.DOCX} 2_
jPROPOSEDj ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
 \
Additionally, plaintiff's opposing Memorandum of Points and Authorities
exceeds the 15 page limit provided in Califomia Rules of Court, Rule
2 3.1113. Despite this failure to comply with the Califomia Rules of Court, ^
the Court has read and considered the entire 34 page document. In future
3 filings, absent ex parte order pemiitting a longer memorandum, the self-
4 represented plaintiff is admonished to abide by the page limitations.

5 As noted, despite these failures to comply with the Court order and the
applicable statutes, the Court has considered plaintiffs opposition papers.
6 The Court declines to consider plaintiffs 17 page "Response to
7 Defendant's Reply Brief filed on Feb. 2, 2015, as there is no statutory
right to such a supplemental brief.
8 f
Defendants' Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.
9
10 At the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be
treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater
II consideration than other litigants and attomeys. (Williams v. Pacific
Mutual Ufe Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 941, 944) Thus, as is the
12
o case with attomeys, self-represented litigants must follow correct rules of
o
Ol
a in 13 procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 1246-1247; see
[ _
3 0 0 — >o also Rajjpleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984.
CO V% oo O
O 6' ' t 14
O 5 < >- Second Amended Complaint
Vi g S S
> VJ ^ o> 15

^ < g
o tu <
>6 «> 16 Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint sets forth eight causes of action:
o r- u. (1) intentionaL infliction of emotional distress; (2) tortious interference
17 with economic advantage; (3) harassment, failure to prevent harassment,
ex. discrimination and retaliation under FEHA; (4) whistleblower/unlawful
18
retaliation; (5) violation of Health & Safety Code section 1278.5; (6)
19 breach of written contract; (7) wage and hour violations; and (8) rescission
- unlawful contract.
20
21 Moving party defendants move to specially strike the 1st through 4th
causes of action, only, as each arises out of acts in furtherance of the right
22 of petition of free speech in connection with a public issue, and plaintiff
cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits. '
23
24 Anti-SLAPP procedure

25 The Court must follow a "two-step process for determining whether an

action is a SLAPP." Navellier v. Sletien (2002)' 29 Cal.4th 82, 88. First,
26 whether the defendant has made a threshold prima facie showing that the
27 defendant's acts, of which the plaintiff complains, were ones taken in
furtherance of the defendant's constitutional rights of petition or free
28 speech in connection with a public issue. If the court finds that such a
(0I362378.DOCX)
(PROPOSEDI ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS,' OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
 showing has been made, then the plaintiff will be required to demonstrate
that "there'is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." The
defendant has the burden on the first issue, the threshold issue; the
plaintiff has the burden on the second issue. Kajima Engineering
Construction. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 921, 928.
"Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti- SLAPP
statule--i.e., that arisesfi-omprotected speech or petitioning and lacks
even minimal merit-is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the
statute." Navellier v., Sletten (2002)29 Cal.4th 82, 89.
6
7 Petition or Free Speech

8 Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (e) provides: "As used in this section, "act in
furtherance of a person'srightof petition orfi-eespeech under the United
9 States or Califomia Constitution in connection with a public issue"
10 includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a
legislative, executive, or 'judicial proceeding, or any other official
11 proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement or writing
made in coruiection with an issue under consideration or review by a
12 legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding(
o
o
a in 13 authorized by law... ." ^
t_ g Ol to
P 00 ^ «S• f~
O u - " sP;
" 14 The Califomia legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,
^
CO gi <
5, S M
> W o\ Icnown as the anti-SLAPP statute, to provide a procedural remedy to
OC < o" ^ 2 15 dispose of lawsuits and causes of action that, are brought to chill the valid
.— o .
16 exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the
govemment for redress of grievances.(See Rusheen v Cohen (2006) 37
o 17 Cal.4th 1048, 1055-1056. These provisions apply to SLAPP suits brought
against public entities and public employees. See San Ramon Valley Fire
18 Prot Dist V Contra Costa County Employees' Ret Ass'n (2004) 125
19 Cal.App.4th 343, 353; see also City ofCotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.
4th 69.
20
21 It is well established that the policies of Defendant University, including
the Personnel Policies for Staff Members ("PPSM") and UC Davis Policy
22 and Procedure Manual ("PPM"), have the force and effect of state statute.
(Kim V. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160,
23 165.) "1
24
Statutory procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized by law for
25 section 425.16 purposes. {Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 35 Cal.App.4th 1387,
1399.) The constitutional right to petition includes the act of seeking
26 administrative action. {Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity
27 (1999) 19 Cal.4th 115.) Investigations and investigatory reports prepared
in connection with an issue under consideration or review by an official
28 body, such as a public entity's internal investigations, are protected
<01362378.DOCX}
(PROPOSEDI ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
 activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. {See Miller v. City of Los Angeles
(2009) 169 Cal ARp.4th 1373, 1383; Hansen v California Dept of
Corrections and Rehabilitiation (2008) 171 Cal.App.4th 1537, 1544;
Briggs V. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal. 4th 1106.)

In this case, the speech by Chilcott, Boyd, Oropeza, Seifert, and Nichols
that is at issue were made in cormection with the processing, investigation,
hearing and deciding the" workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and
others pursuant to University policies.

The allegations of the SAC against Nichols attack her protected

participation in the official investigations. The SAC specifically alleges
Nichols' communications regarding the investigation. (SAC, ^ 70 (1), (o), ,
(q)> (s), (x), (AA)) and her investigative conclusions (SAC, ^ 70 (v),
(KK)). Nichols was appointed to investigate Plaintiffs whistleblower
10 complaints, and was also appointed to conduct an investigation into
complaints of workplace violencefiledby Putney and Daniliuc. All were
II protected petitioning activities.
12 The allegations against Boyd and Chilcott are limited to their receipt of
o
o
CM
lVi i n 13 emails from Nichols relating to the investigations, and Chilcott's sending
•= Ol
3 00 - <£>
C/) i n 00 O
of an email relating to the investigation of Plaintiff (SAC, ^ 70(m), (x),
o Ot ^
14 (AA).) The emails are protected speech in connection with an
u
investigation process.
ce: 15
LU
16 The allegations against Oropeza and Seifert are based upon their
OC 1^ 2 y <
investigation into the emails plaintiff sent to Nichols in April 2012.
o =5 W
17
OL. Oropeza and Seifert conducted dieir investigation pursuant to the
University's grievance protocol and reached conclusions documented in a
18 report.
19
Boyd acted as Complaint Resolution Officer ("CRO") at Step II of the
20 University's PPSM 70 process, hearing and deciding PlaintifPs appeal of
his termination. In Vergos, supra, 146 Cai.App.4th at 1399-1400, the
21
Court held that defendant reviewer was entitled to the protection of the
22 anti-SLAPP statute for denying the grievance.,Specifically, in Vergos, a
slate university employee pursued an intemal grievance against his
23 supervisor for sexual harassment. In an administrative proceeding
24 authorized by the Regents of the University of California, the hearing
officer denied the grievance. The employee then filed a civil rights suit
25 against the hearing officer, alleging that her decision had failed to protect
him from future harassment. (Id. at pp. 1390-1392, 1396-1397.) The
26 hearing officer filed a special motion to strike, contending that her
27 conaniunications were made in cormection with an issue under
consideration in an official proceeding. (See § 425.16, subd. (e)(2).) The
28 trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeal reversed because "[t]he
i0136237g.DOCX>
(PROPOSEDI ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
 gravamen of plaintiffs [claim] is [the hearing officer's] communicative
1 conduct in denying plaintiffs grievances. The hearing, processing, and
2 deciding of the grievances (as alleged in the complaint) are meaningless
without a communication of the adverse results." (146 Cal.App.4th at p.
3 1397.) Thus, Vergos recognized that the anti-SLAPP statute applies where
liability is based on protected speech. (See Id. at pp. 1397-1399)
4
5 Moving parties have established that their speech and writings are
protected as made in connection with an issue under consideration or
6 review by an official proceeding authorized by law. The burden therefore
7 shifts to plaintiff to show that he will prevail.

8 Probability That Plaintiff Will Prevail

9 Plaintiff must show a likelihood of prevailing on each of the elements of
10 his causes of action, and must also show a likelihood of defeating any
applicable affirmative defenses. (Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27
II Cal.App.4th 809, 820, 824; see also Paul of Council v. Hanyecz (2001) 85
Cal.App.4th 1356, 1367, overmled on other grounds in Equilon
12 Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53,68.) The test to
o
o
Ol
V <n 13 use to determine Plaintiffs probability of prevailing is similar to the
i_ O)
_
00
so
p
standard applied to evidentiary showings in motions for summary
Is 14 judgment, and the supporting facts must be demonstrated by way of
^fS o; o:
Ol-Ol
15
competent, admissible evidence. (Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim
tc < 6 ve ^ (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 654-655.) The difference between summary
tu >. c Ov Cv
J >< 16 judgment and anti-SLAPP is that the burden is on the opposing party
l -^ S plaintiff to show the likelihood of prevailing.
13 </i
17
In order to establish the necessary probability of prevailing, plaintiff was
18 required both to plead claims that were legally sufficient, and to make a
19 prima facie showing, by admissible evidence, of facts that would merit a
favorable judgment on those claims, assuming plaintifPs evidence were
20 credited. The court does not, however, weigh the parties' evidence, in
terms of either credibility or persuasiveness. Rather, the defendant's
21
evidence is considered with a view toward whether it defeats the plaintiffs
22 showing as a matter of law, such as by establishing a defense or the
absence of a necessary element. (1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Steinberg (2003)
23 107 Cal. App.4th 568, 584-585.)
24
1*' For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
25
An essential, element of pleading a claim for intentional infliction of
26 emotional distress is a shovnng of outrageous conduct beyond the bounds
27 of hunian decency. Managing personnel is not outrageous conduct beyond
the bounds of human decency, but rather conduct essential to the welfare
28 and prosperity of society. A simple pleading of personnel management
0
(OI362378.DOCX>
|PROPOSED| ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
 activity is insufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of
1
emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged. If personnel
2 management decisions are improperiy motivated, the remedy is a suit
against the employer for discrimination. (Janhen v. GM Hughes
Electronics (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55, 80.)

What plaintiffhas alleged, and what his evidence in opposition appears to

5 support, are complaints conceming personnel management by defendants.
Pleading of personnel management activity is "insufficient to support a
6 claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper
motivation is alleged." (Janken, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 80.) Plaintiff has
7
failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the facts before
8 the court show the likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of action.
9 2"** Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage
10
Plaintiffs claim tortious interference with economic advantage against
II Defendants. Ah employee or former emjiloyee cannot sue a current or
former supervisor or employee for interfering with his or her prospective
o
12 economic advantage by inducing the employer to terminate the plaintiff's
o
<N
13 employment. (Shepperd v. Freeman (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 339, 347;
L,
(—
2 Ol _
-r-i oo O
Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24.)
14
H i6gs Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the
— > W ov ov
< . o vo vD
15 facts before the court show the likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of
16 action. ^

in
17 3"" for Discrimination
18 In the third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges violation of the FEHA, both
19 section 12940(a), which prohibits discrimination, and Section 12940(k)
which addresses the failure to prevent discrimination.
20
These claims are not properly pleaded against the individual Defendants as
21
individuals cannot be sued for discrimination Under the FEHA, nor can
22 they be sued for failing to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and
harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663-664; see, also
23 , Janken, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.) In .lanken the Supreme Court
noted the "ftindamental distinction" between the way the FEHA treats
24
harassment, on the one hand—for which supervisors may be held
25 personally liable, and discrimination on the other hand~for which, Janken
held, individuals are not personally responsible.
26
27 Plaintiffhas failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the
facts before the court show the likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of
28 action.
(OI36237g.DOCX}
(PROPOSED} ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
 4'" for Whistleblower/Unlawful Retaliation
1

Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action brought pursuant to Government Code

section 8547.10 for whistleblower retaliation.

Plaintiff has not established that moving defendants' conduct was in

retaliation for plaintiffs whistleblowing.
1

The mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted investigations
and reached conclusions with which Plaintiff does not agree v\dth does not
establish their investigatoryfindingsare an act of retaliation. Nor can
Boyd's decision to deny Plaintiffs grievance at the Step II level of PPSM
70 review be deemed to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is no
allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against Plaintiff that
could be deemed to be a retaliatory action.
10
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the
11 facts before the court show the likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of
action.
12
o
o
Ol
13 As a matter of law. Plaintiff has not shown that he can prevail on any of
h
,
"5
- J, m
S -- )J?
~ ee 'o his four causes of action against moving party defendants. Given the
^ ( / } tn QO •
p u 2 P; 14 Court's determination the Court need not address the Regents' other
(J
> u o» o> arguments based on Govemment Code section 821.6. It bears noting,
oi < o" vb vo 15 however, that immtmity extends to investigations even if there is a later
16 decision not to institute administrative proceedings or to initiate a
prosecution. (See Ingram v Flippo (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1293.)
o 17
•n
The anti-SLAPP motion is therefore granted as to moving defendants
18
Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza and
19 Brent Seifert only, as to thefirstthrough fourth causes of action.

20 The Discovery Stay is ordered lifted.

21
Prevailing defendants on a motion to strike mustfilea separate motion to
22 recover their attorneys' fees and costs.
23 The prevailing parties shall prepare a formal order for the Court's
24 signature pursuant to C.R.C. 3.1312.

25
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Special Motion to Strike the four causes of
26
action enumerated above, as pleaded against Defendants, from Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint is hereby GRANTED.
28
(OI36237g.DOCX) 8
(PROPOSED! ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment be, and hereby is, entered in favor of
Defendants MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA,
and BRENT SEIFERT, and against Plaintiff JAROSLAW WASZCZUK for the four causes of
action asserted against them in the Second Amended Complaint.
5 ^ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are awarded their costs and the attorney's
6 fees incurred in conjunction with the Special Motion to Strike pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure
7 section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1). Defendants shall file a separate motion to determine the
8 amount to be awarded.
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 Dated: ,2015
11
12 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
o
Ol
13
DAVID I. BROWN
_ vo
t e« S«• S
JS APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT.
14
e«: < o"vb vo 15
UJ >. c 9\ Ov Dated: February _,2015 By.
y < 16
o s? i Jaroslaw Waszczuk, In Pro Per
3 V)
o
m
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
<OI36237g.DOCX)
(PROPOSEDI ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF

•• • \
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT # 5
 1 P O R T E R I S C O T T

2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FILED/ENDORSED

David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896 ,
3 Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
350 University Avenue, Suite 200 OCT - 3 2018
4 Sacramento, Califomia 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706 By: E, Medina
Deputy Clerk
dburkettfgjporterscott.com
6
7 Attorney for Defendant
8 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
9 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o
o Plaintiff, DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND
tN 13 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
•- (N
—
,2 00 o 14 v.
VD DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL
o ,3u °^ — r*^
VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS
C <
uo: \0 VD 15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
ON ON FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
u
t/3 OV Cv OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF SET ONE, SPECIAL
b- J X .16 CALIFORNIA. DAVIS HEALTH INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM
oI w <
f- tu SYSTEM, UC DAVIS MEDICAL INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET
17 CENTER, UC DAVIS, ANN MADDEN
o ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
18 RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM
CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
19 DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY
OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
20 PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN
21 DANILIUC, and Does 1 through 50, Date: October 31, 2018
inclusive. Time: 9:00 a.m.
22 Dept.: 54
23 Defendants.
Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
24 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
25
26
27
28

{01892012.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
 Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (the "UNIVERSITY" or
"DEFENDANT") respectfully submits the following memorandum of points and authorities in
support of its motion to: (1) compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK's verified
4 responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One),
5 Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One.); (2) deem
6 Defendant's Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted; (3) award monetary sanctions in the
amount of $5,200.00 to retum Defendant to the position it would have been had the subject
discovery responses been timely provided; (4) issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as a
result of Plaintiffs pattem of vexatious litigation tactics and failure to engage in the discovery
10 process; and (5) impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.
I.
11
INTRODUCTION
12 Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special
13 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
^ ^ ~
P ,2 00 — vg
h-
O ..
«/-! oo O
ov ^
14 Employment (Set One) and Requests for Admissions (Set One) on April 25, 2018. Responses were
> ^ ov ov
Oi < O 15 due on or before May 30, 2018. Defendant provided Plaintiff with an extension to June 20, 2018 to
U ^ C ov Ov
—
• " ..
16 provide responses to the requests. Plaintiff has completely failed to respond to any written
17 discovery and responses are overdue.
18 Defendant respectftilly requests the Court issue an Order to (1) compel Plaintiff to provide
19 verified responses to Defendant's Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special
20 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
21 Employment (Set One) and Request for Admissions (Set One); (2) deem Defendant's Request for
22 Admissions (Set One) admitted; (3) issue monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of
23 $5,200.00 for Defendant's fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion; and (4) issue the sanction
24 of termination of the present action as a result of Plaintiffs failure to provide responses to the
25 Defendant's written discovery despite receiving an extension of time to do so and in light of
26 Plaintiffs pattem of vexatious litigation tactics throughout the course of this litigation. Moreover, if
27 the Court is not willing, at this stage, to terminate the action, it should impose a reasonable deadline
28 of two weeks for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, if Plaintiff intends to
{01892012.DOCX} ' • 1
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
 1 further amend his complaint.
2 II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
3
4 Defendant UNIVERSITY served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents (Set

5 One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Eorm

6 Interrogatories - Employment (Set One), and Requests for Admissions (Set One) on April 25, 2018!

7 (See Declaration of Daniel Bardzell in Support of Motion to Compel ("Bardzell Decl."), ^ 2 and

8 Exhibit A.) By correspondence dated May 22, 2018, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to

9 respond to all such requests on the basis that he was sick. (See Bardzell Decl., 3 and Exhibit B.)
10 Defendants responded by email correspondence dated May 23, 2018 granting Plaintiff an extension
11 of time to respond until June 20, 2018. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiff completely
12 failed to respond to any such request by June 20, 2018 and same are currently overdue. (See
o
o
13 Bardzell Decl., H 4.)
L. •- r s
r - 3 oc — VO
t- 00 p
^ m
14 On Septernber 24, 2018, counsel for Defendant served a meet and confer correspondence
o g-=^ov Ovov ^
OS < o" VO
15 upon Plaintiff regarding the outstanding discovery responses wherein defense counsel indicated:
VD
OV OV
•b p-J X 16 [P]lease provide complete responses to all such outstanding requests no later than September 28,
UJ <
^•5 yf- u-
^ TO -

o
17 2018. If we do not have your complete responses by that date, we will file a niotion to compel
1^
18 responses and request monetary as well as terminating sanctions from the Court." (See Bardzell
19 Decl., H 5 and Exhibit D.)
20 By incoherent email correspondence also dated September 24, 2018, Plaintiff indicated, in
21
part:
22 Thank you for news about the Request for Production of Documents and Special
Interrogatories , I appreciate but I not sure yet what I am going to . I am waiting for
23 answers from the federal authorities in this matter.
I will let know . I mean time you can entertain yourself with my affirmative defense
24
of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. As Jeanine Pirro stated not so long ago , . UC Regent wife
25 Senator Feinstein's Unhinged Demon Rats attacking Judge Kavanaugh as I was
attacked and wasted by her husband and other unhinged UC demon , rats . Same
26 people only different is that I have no 1 penny on my account and I am for my SS
check on 28^*^ than I could buy ink for my printer and do eventually interrogatories.
27
(See Bardzell Decl., TI 6 and Exhibit E.)
28

{01892012.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
 Plaintiff failed to respond to any of the outstanding discovery requests by September 28,
2018 and same remain outstanding. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 7.)
3 On October 1, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an email correspondence to Defendant stating: "I
4 am working on the Interrogatories and other papers. Pleas give one more week to finish. Attached is
a part of interrogatories to show you that I am working on ." (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 8 and Exhibit
F.) Included was a rambling apparent partial draft response to Defendant's Special Interrogatories,
Set One without a verification. (See id.)

The course of litigation in this matter is lengthy and complex. The following is a brief
summary: Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on September 30,
10 2014. Among the several claims in the SAC are four causes of action against all named
11 Defendants': (1) intentional infiiction of emotional distress ("IIED"); (2) tortious interference with
12 economic advantage; (3) FEHA harassment and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination,
13 retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 12940(a); and (4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation
t 1 S3 _ VO
t/1 u~, 00 o in violation of Govemment Code §§ 8547 e/. ^e^.
O u =^ 2 14
.
1 <ag
> U ov Ov I ^
Each of these causes of action arises out of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant at the
Od •< o" ^ S '
c o^ 5^ University of Califomia at Davis Medical Center. In addition to Defendant UNIVERSITY^, these
17 causes of action were plead against Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN

18 CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT

19 SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, and DORIN DANILIUC for their participation in investigations
20 and disciplinary actions that ultimately resulted in Plaintiffs termination of employment with the
UNIVERSITY.
21
22 On December 1, 2014, Defendants BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA, and
23 SEIFERT ("anti-SLAPP Defendants") filed a Special Motion to Strike Plaintiffs causes of action
24 as pleaded against them. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 9.) The anti-SLAPP Defendants contended that
25 Plaintiffs causes of action against them arose from protected activities pursuant to Code of Civil
26 Procedure-' section 425.16; namely, their participation in the processing, investigation, hearing and
27 ' The First and Second Causes of Action in the Second Amended Complaint do not specifically identify Defendant UNIVERSITY
but do refer to employment with UC DAVIS within the cause of action.
28 2 See id., fn. I .
^ Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references in this Motion are to the California Code of Civil Procedure.
(01892012.DOCX} . 3
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
 deciding of complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to the policies and procedures of the
Defendant UNIVERSITY. (See id.)

On April 14, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting the Special Motion to Strike finding
that Plaintiff failed to establish a probability of prevailing on the causes of action pleaded against
the anti-SLAPP Defendants as required by section 425.16 and entering judgment in favor of the
anti-SLAPP Defendants. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 10 and Exhibit G.)

Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of the four remaining
individual Defendants RICE, WITCHER, PUTNEY, and DANILIUC. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 11 and
Exhibit H.) The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant remaining in the case.
10
On May 11, 2015, the anti-SLAPP Defendants filed a Motion for Fees and Costs pursuant to
11
CCP § 425.16, subdivision (c) and the Court's Order dated April 14, 2015 on Defendant's Special
12
Motion to Strike. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 12.) The motion sought recovery of approximately $33,000
13
• = S—OO VOo in fees and costs incurred by the anti-SLAPP Defendants in connection with the Special Motion to
, 1/5.. ov
v-\
14
Strike.
0^
_ < o"
o ^ ^ 15
ov ov
b c -i X 16 On June 29, 2018, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion for Fees and
UJ <
a- c « f - Lu

. o 17 Costs in the amount of $22,284 against Plaintiff (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 13 and Exhibit I.)
m
18 Plaintiff has represented that he will seek leave of the court to file a Third Ame;nded
19 Complaint. (See Bardzell Decl., Exhibit B.) At the outset ofthe appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion-
20 well over a year ago - Plaintiff provided Defendants with a draft of his Third Amended Complaint.
21 It is nearly three hundred pages long and includes meritless allegations of a conspiracy to cover-up

22 illegal power sales that purportedly involves all levels of state government, the University of

23 Califomia system, and local jurisdictions, including the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. To

24 date. Plaintiff has not sought leave of the Court to file a Third Amended Complaint.

25 III.
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
26 INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE). FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL (SET
ONE) AND FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT (SET ONE)
27
A party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath
28

{01892012.DOCX} .4
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
 1 separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: an answer containing the information
2 being sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party's option to produce writings, or an objection
3 to the particular interrogatory. (CCP § 2030.210(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed
4 fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order
5 compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) The party also waives objections
6 to the interrogatories (including those based on privilege and work product) by failing to respond
7 by the deadline. (CCP § 2030.290(a).)
8 Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to
9 a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have 'to demonstrate either good cause or
10 that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. {Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific
11 Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4"^ 390, 411.) A separate statement is not required
12 when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)
o
o
r4
i i ir, 13 In our case. Defendant has not received plaintiffs verified responses to Special
^ 00 — VO
H V3
O u-"^
oo o 14 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), or Form Interrogatories -
-U "
(= < Ov
00 (S M
Di < d ov ov 15 Employment (Set One). These interrogatories were properly served on Plaintiff on April 25, 2018.
vb VD
.- u Ov ov
_) X 16 (Bardzell Decl., Tl 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs responses were due on or before May 30, 2018. By
H £:
o
17 correspondence dated May 22, 2018, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond to all such
18 requests on the basis that he was sick. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 3 and Exhibit B.) Defendant responded by
19 email correspondence dated May 23, 2018 granting Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to
20 June 20, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiff did not respond to this discovery by
21 June 20, 2018, has not offered a valid excuse for his failure to respond and all such responses
22 remain outstanding. Defendant requires these discovery responses in order to properly defend itself
23 in this case and to determine the validity of plaintiffs claims.
24 Accordingly, Defendant respectfully request an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide
25 verified responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General
26 (Set One), and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One) without objections.
27 ///
28 ///

{01892012.DOCX) 5
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
 IV.
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the
party propounding the demand may move for an order compelling responses to the demand. (CCP
§ 2031.300(b).) In addition, a party who fails to respond waives any objections he otherwise could
have raised to the demand. (CCP § 2031.300(a).)
Defendant served Plaintiff with a Request for Production of Documents (Set One) on April
25, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs responses were due on or before May 30,
2018. Plaintiff requested and received an extension of time in which to respond yet failed to
10 respond by the extended deadline. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiffs responses remain
11 overdue and outstanding. (See id.)
12 Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide
o
o
(N
13 responses to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents (Set One), without objections.
3 oo
00 ^ VO ^
r - V5 ir^
H • r i 00
00 Oo
O u °^ 2 14 V.
— > U ov ov , ^
0-; < Q- VD ^ 1J DEFENDANT'S REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) SHOULD BE
DEEMED ADMITTED
5 g g --i X 16
o.|is< The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under
o
17 oath separately to each request. (CCP § 2033.210(a).) Each response shall answer the substance of
18
the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request. {Id.)
19
20 "If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response
[. . .] The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to
21 the requests[. . . .] The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of
22 any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed
admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction[. . . . ] It is mandatory that the court impose
23 a monetary sanction [. . .] on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a
timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion." (CCP §
24 2033.280(a-c).)
25 Defendant served Plaintiff with a Request for Admissions (Set One) including nineteen
26 requests on April 25, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs responses were due on
27 or before May 30, 2018. Plaintiff requested and received an extension of time in which to respond
28 yet failed to respond by the extended deadline. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiff s
{01892012.DOCX} 6
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
 1 responses remain overdue and outstanding. (See id.)
. 2 Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests an order that the tmth of all matters specified in
3 Defendant's Request for Admissions, Set One be deemed admitted pursuant to CCP § 2033.280.
4 VL
.5 MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AWARDED
Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in relevant part, that:
6
7 The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse
of the discovery process, or any attomey advising that conduct, or both pay the
8 reasonable expenses, including attoniey's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
9 conduct [. . .] If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the
court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction
10 acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of
the sanction unjust;
11
12 CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c) and 2033.280(c) provide that a court shall impose a ,
13 monetary sanction on any party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel responses to
r- 3 00 — VO
(— </5 m 00 o
O .. Ov -a- 14 interrogatories, request for production of documents or request for admissions.
— > v j a^ ov
< o" >o vd 15- Defendant has extended Plaintiff every opportunity to avoid court intervention in this
U ^ . S ov 5;

matter by providing Plaintiff with an extension of time to respond to all of the aforementioned
3
17 requests to which Plaintiff still failed to provide any response. Plaintiff has completely ignored
18 Defendant's discovery requests.
19 Plaintiffs attempt to evade his obligation to provide responses to discovery has made the
20 current motion necessary, despite being afforded opportunities to avoid the need for same.
21 To date. Defendants have incurred $3,900 in fees as a result of Plaintiff s failure to respond
22 to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form
23 Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One.) and Request for
24 Admissions (Set One.) (Bardzell Decl., Tl 15.) Defendant anticipates incurring an additional $1,300
25 to review Plaintiffs Opposition, prepare a reply and attend a hearing. (See id.) Therefore, sanctions
26 are proper. Moreover, even if Plaintiff serves responses upon notice of this motion in order to avoid
27 a court order. Defendant has nevertheless been forced to incur the expense of moving to compel
28 Plaintiffs compliance with his discovery obligations, despite efforts to achieve a cooperative
{01892012.DOCX} ' ' • 7 .
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
 1 result. As such, sanctions in the amount of $5,200 are appropriately awarded against Plaintiff for
2 the time and expense incurred by Defendant in filing this otherwise unnecessary motion.
VII.
TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE
The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may impose sanctions on any party
who engages in conduct that constitutes misuse ofthe discovery process. (CCP § 2023.030(a).)
•6
Misuses ofthe discovery process includes "failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method
7
of discovery" and "disobeying a court order to provide discovery." (CCP §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)
8
When a party fails to respond to an authorized method of discovery and/or fails to obey a court
9
order to provide discovery, the Court may impose monetary sanctions, terminating sanctions, or
10
both. (CCP § 2023.030(a), (d), (g).)
11
Courts have long held that terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is a willful
o.
12
o failure to comply with court orders, and should be issued where it appears that lesser sanctions
tN

f-^ •- 0 0^
13
L - 3 . VO
H CT) 1/-, OO O would not bring the offending party into compliance. {R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
o d-=^ 2: P; 14
> U ov ov ., (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Terminating sanctions are especially appropriate where a party
< o" vd ^ 1J
W c o^ o^
f— • — " .. fails to respond to discovery requests and ignores court orders. {See Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68
Cal.App.3d 372, 383.)
17
Terminating sanctions are appropriate in this case. Plaintiff has failed to provide any
18
verified responses to the Defendant's written discovery despite receiving an extension of time to do
19
so.
20
It is evident that Plaintiffs conduct is nothing more than a delaying tactic to prevent the
21
Defendant from engaging in basic discovery. Requiring Defendant to continue wasting time,
22
money, and Court resources to compel Plaintiff to litigate this case would be categorically unjust.
23
The aforementioned conduct has also prejudiced Defendant's ability to prepare for trial and will
24
interfere with the Court's ability ascertain the tmth in this case. It has thus become apparent that no
25
action will compel Plaintiff to comply with his discovery obligations, making terminating sanctions
26
appropriate.
27
Additionally, Plaintiffs pattem of vexatious litigation tactics throughout the course of this
28
{01892012.DOCX} 8
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
 litigation further indicates the need for terminating sanctions. Recently, Plaintiff engaged in
vexatious litigation tactics in connection with his opposition to Defendants' Motion for Fees and
Costs Pursuant to CCP § 425.16(c). The Court recognized Plaintiffs repeated improper filings in
its Tentative Ruling on Defendants' Motion for Fees and Costs dated June 7, 2018, affirmed and
adopted by its Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Fees and Costs Pursuant to CCP § 425.16(c)
dated June 29, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Exhibit I.) The Court's Tentative Ruling, in part, provided:
"First the Court must note that the opposition memorandum exceeds the 15 page limit
set forth in California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113 and Plaintiff failed to obtain an order
8 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1113(e) permitting an oversized meinorandum. The Court has
9 previously admonished Plaintiff for failing to comply with this mle."
[.-..]
10
Plaintiffs "notice of objection" to Defendants' supplemental declaration does nothing
11
more than repeat the issues discussed above related to his previous counsel and the'
12 alleged collusion with Defendants' counsel in addition to alleging that Defendants'
o
o counsel had attempted to provoke him into a physical confrontation. [. . .] There was no
tN
13 basis to file an'objection.'"
J 00 — VO
^ oo o
I/-J oo

O <J °^ 2 14 (Bardzell Decl., Exhibit I , Tentative Ruling on Defendants' Motion for Fees and Costs
> U ov ov _
cc; < o vd VD 1 J dated June 7, 2018, pg. 2-4.)
UJ ^ c 5; 5;
S g i -i X 16 Plaintiff has repeatedly filed multiple lengthy documents and pleadings and continues to
17 engage in tactics to delay the case and to force Defendant to expend additional funds in the defense
rn
18 of the action. Accordingly, Defendant requests that the Court grant terminating sanctions and issue
19 an Qrder dismissing the complaint against the remaining Defendant in its entirety, with prejudice.
20 VIH.
IF TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE NOT GRANTED. THE COURT SHOULD
21 IMPOSE A DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO SEEK LEAVE TO F I L E A THIRD
22 AMENDED COMPLAINT, IF AT A L L

23
As discussed supra. Plaintiff has represented that he will seek leave of the court to file a
24
Third Amended Complaint. At the outset of the appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion- well over a year
25
ago - Plaintiff provided Defendants with a draft of his Third Amended Complaint. It is nearly three
26
hundred pages long and includes allegations of a conspiracy to cover-up illegal power sales that
27
involves all levels of state govemment, the University of Califomia system, and local jurisdictions,
28
including the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. To date, Plaintiff has not sought leave of the
(0I892012.DOCX} ^ 9
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
 1 Court to file a Third Amended Complaint. In light of Plaintiffs vexatious litigation tactics
2 identified supra, if the Court is not willing, at this stage, to terminate the action, it should impose a
3 reasonable deadline of two weeks from the issuance of an Order on the present Motion to Compel
4 for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. This would eliminate the specter of
5 additional voluminous and unnecessary pleading amendments from further delaying the case and
6 causing Defendant urmecessary fees and costs.
7 IX.
8 CONCLUSION

9 Defendant has made every effort to allow for the cooperative exchange of information,
10 however Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses to Defendant's Requests for Production of
11 Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One),
12 Form Interrogatories - Ehiployment (Set One.) and Request for Admissions (Set One.) Defendant
o
o
fN
U m
13 is left with no option other than to file the instant motion. As such, Defendant seeks an Order (1)
fN
i- '3
H C/3 oo
»o oo 14 compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant's Requests for
O CJ ov
venu

U
CA

Ov
on tN

oi < o" vd
Ov
15 Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
5 ^ § -J X 16 General (Set One) and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One.); (2) deeming Defendant's
:D C/) 17 Request for Admissions, Set One admitted; (3) awarding sanctions in the amount of $5,200.00 to
o
18 return Defendant to the position it would have been had responses been timely provided; (4) issue
19 terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff s pattern of vexatious litigation tactics
20 and failure to engage in the discovery process; and (5) altematively, if termination is not granted, to
21 impose a two week deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, if at all.
22
Dated: October 3, 2018 PORTER SCOTT
23 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

24
25 David P. E. Bhrkett
26 Daniel J. Bardzell
Attomeys for DefendEint
27
28

{01892012.DOCX} 10
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
 Waszczuk V. Regents ofthe University of California, et ai
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
5
On the date below, I served the following document:
6
7 DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET
8 ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET
ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR
9 ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
10
BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
11 am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
12 course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
o
o
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
tN
13 addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
.,- ^ — VD
attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
•~ tN
t- 3 00 00 o
attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of
o OV 1^ 14
u I)
ov t-: nine in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving
00 53
— g<
> tN f N
ov OV
15 the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the
o '^S vd hours of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
f-
o: J X 16 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
o UJ < ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package
17 for collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the ovemight
delivery carrier.
18 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission,
I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
19 machine that 1 used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service
20 by electronic transmission, 1 caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
address listed below.
21
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
22
2216 Katzakian Way
23 Lodi, CA 95242

24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
foregoing is tme and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on October 3, 2018.
25
26
Wendy Strasser
27
28

{0I892012.DOCX} II
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
EXHIBIT # 6
EXHIBIT # 7
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 10/31/2018 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: R. Mays, M. Oreschak

CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 12/04/2013

CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

EVENT TYPE: Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion

APPEARANCES

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) Production 2) Special 3) Form-Gen. 4) Form-Empl. 5)

Admissions
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant Regents of the University of California's unopposed motion to compel responses and to deem
requests for admission admitted is granted as set forth below.
Interrogatories and Request for Production
The motion is granted.

No later than November 21, 2018, Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk shall serve verified responses, without
objections, to Plaintiff's form and special interrogatories (sets one) and requests for production (set one).
The Court received a letter from Plaintiff purportedly attaching his answers to special interrogatories.
The Court simply notes that no responses to form interrogatories or request for production were
attached to the letter and in any event, service of responses after the motion was filed does not moot the
motion. Defendant is still entitled to an order. To be clear, a motion is "made" when it is filed and
served. (CCP § 1005.5.) However, to the extent that any responses served after the motion was filed
comply with the above order, they need not be re-served.
Defendant's request for sanctions in connection with the motion to compel responses is denied as the
motion was unopposed. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 purports to authorize sanctions
if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery
authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing
sanctions under the C.R.C. must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing
sanctions. Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.
However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an
abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers
Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.

DATE: 10/31/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 1

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

Request for Admissions

Defendant's unopposed motion to deem matters in the requests for admission admitted is granted,
unless Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk serves, "before the hearing on the motion," proposed
responses that are in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280(c).)
Defendant's request for mandatory monetary sanctions is connection with the motion to deem matters
admitted is granted. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) However, the requested amount of $5,200 for this
straightforward discovery motion is plainly excessive. Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk shall pay to
Defendant a mandatory monetary sanction in the amount of $520 ($260/hr x 2 hrs). The monetary
sanction is to be paid on or before December 1, 2018. If the sanction is not paid by that date, Defendant
may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may be enforced by a
separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

The Court denies Defendant's alternate requests for issue, evidentiary, and/or terminating sanctions at
this time. The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the
party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose
sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment."
(Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 300, 304.) "The penalty should be
appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the
party entitled to but denied discovery. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793) The
discovery sanction cannot put the propounding party in a better position than they would have been in if
they had received the discovery. (Puritan Insurance Co. v Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal. App.3d 877,
884.)
Here, given that this is the first order with respect to the subject discovery, the drastic remedy of
terminating sanctions would be punitive. Further, while Defendant references Plaintiff's "vexatious"
conduct in this action, that conduct has nothing to do with the instant motion and in any event, is not a
basis for discovery sanctions. Such ad hominem comments serve no useful purpose in educating the
court as to the party's position, and distract more than they advocate. In short, they are more cathartic
than tactical.

Finally, the Court declines Defendant's requests that the Court impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek
leave to file a third amended complaint. Defendant indicates that Plaintiff has represented that he
intends to seek leave to file a third amended complaint which is represented as being nearly 300 pages
long. Plaintiff's decision to seek leave or not seek leave is his to make and the Court will not impose a
deadline as part of this discovery motion.
The notice of motion provides the incorrect time and location for the hearing. This matter has been
assigned to Department 53 for law and motion purposes and Department 53 hears law and motion
matters at 2 p.m. Moving counsel is directed to immediately provide notice to Plaintiff of the correct time
and location of the hearing.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling.

DATE: 10/31/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 2

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
EXHIBIT # 8
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 11/14/2018 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: R. Mays, M. Oreschak

CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 12/04/2013

CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

EVENT TYPE: Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion

APPEARANCES

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) Production 2) Special 3) Form-Gen 4) Form-Emp 5)

Admissions
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant Regents of the University of California's unopposed motion to compel responses and to deem
requests for admission admitted is granted as set forth below.
At the outset, the Court must point out Defendant's procedural errors that have rendered an otherwise
simple motion confusing and created unnecessary work for the Court. Defendant initially noticed this
motion for October 31, 2018 but included the incorrect law and motion department on the notice. It then
apparently filed the identical motion and noticed it for hearing on November 13 and 14 in this
department. Defendant wrote a letter to the Clerk requesting that the Clerk drop the November 13,
hearing, but never requested that the Clerk drop the October 31, 2018 hearing. (ROA 164). As a result,
the Court issued a ruling for the October 31, hearing. Subsequently, the Court received correspondence
from Defendant indicating that it believed the October 31, 2018 ruling was in error because it requested
the clerk drop that hearing. The only request received by the Clerk was the letter requesting that the
November 13, 2018 hearing be dropped. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the instant motion was
essentially filed three times for three separate hearing dates, it appears that Defendant intended to have
the matter heard on today's date. As a result, the Court vacates the ruling issued in connection
with the October 31, 2018 hearing. Though as seen below, the ruling will be essentially the same.
Interrogatories and Request for Production
The motion is granted.
No later than December 12, 2018, Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk shall serve verified responses, without
objections, to Plaintiff's form and special interrogatories (sets one) and requests for production (set one).
The Court received a letter from Plaintiff purportedly attaching his answers to special interrogatories.
The Court simply notes that no responses to form interrogatories or request for production were

DATE: 11/14/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 1

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

attached to the letter and in any event, service of responses after the motion was filed does not moot the
motion. Defendant is still entitled to an order. To be clear, a motion is "made" when it is filed and
served. (CCP § 1005.5.) However, to the extent that any responses served after the motion was filed
comply with the above order, they need not be re-served.
Defendant's request for sanctions in connection with the motion to compel responses is denied as the
motion was unopposed. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 purports to authorize sanctions
if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery
authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing
sanctions under the C.R.C. must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing
sanctions. Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.
However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an
abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers
Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.

Request for Admissions

Defendant's unopposed motion to deem matters in the requests for admission admitted is granted,
unless Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk serves, "before the hearing on the motion," proposed
responses that are in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280(c).)
Defendant's request for mandatory monetary sanctions is connection with the motion to deem matters
admitted is granted. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) However, the requested amount of $5,200 for this
straightforward discovery motion is plainly excessive. Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk shall pay to
Defendant a mandatory monetary sanction in the amount of $520 ($260/hr x 2 hrs). The monetary
sanction is to be paid on or before December 14, 2018. If the sanction is not paid by that date,
Defendant may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may be
enforced by a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)
The Court denies Defendant's alternate requests for issue, evidentiary, and/or terminating sanctions at
this time. The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the
party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose
sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment."
(Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 300, 304.) "The penalty should be
appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the
party entitled to but denied discovery. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793) The
discovery sanction cannot put the propounding party in a better position than they would have been in if
they had received the discovery. (Puritan Insurance Co. v Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal. App.3d 877,
884.)
Here, given that this is the first order with respect to the subject discovery, the drastic remedy of
terminating sanctions would be punitive. Further, while Defendant references Plaintiff's "vexatious"
conduct in this action, that conduct has nothing to do with the instant motion and in any event, is not a
basis for discovery sanctions. Such ad hominem comments serve no useful purpose in educating the
court as to the party's position, and distract more than they advocate. In short, they are more cathartic
than tactical.
Finally, the Court declines Defendant's requests that the Court impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek
leave to file a third amended complaint. Defendant indicates that Plaintiff has represented that he
intends to seek leave to file a third amended complaint which is represented as being nearly 300 pages
long. Plaintiff's decision to seek leave or not seek leave is his to make and the Court will not impose a
deadline on a hypothetical motion as part of this discovery motion.

DATE: 11/14/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 2

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.

COURT RULING
There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling.

DATE: 11/14/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 3

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
EXHIBIT # 9
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 02/08/2019 TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT: 43
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Thadd A. Blizzard
CLERK: S. Newsom
REPORTER/ERM: None
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: R. Singh

CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 12/04/2013

CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

EVENT ID/DOCUMENT ID: ,16681756

EVENT TYPE: Order of Examination - OX Calendar

CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Order for Appearance and Examination Jaroslaw "Jerry"
Waszczuk, 12/07/2018

APPEARANCES
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, self represented Plaintiff, present.
Dan Bardzell, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Nature of Proceedings: Hearing on Order of Examination of Judgment Debtor
The above entitled cause came before this court for hearing on Order of Examination of Judgment
Debtor this date with the above indicated parties present.
Judgment Debtor, Jaroslaw Waszczuk was sworn and examined.
The examination was concluded and the parties were released.

DATE: 02/08/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 1

DEPT: 43 Calendar No.
EXHIBIT # 10
[email protected]

From: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California. -
SUMMARY OF OUR MEETING IN THE COURT CAFETERIA ON FEBRUARY 8, 2019
Attachments: 00000-IN PRO PER.pdf; 0000-20190208-COURT ORDER APPEARANCE .pdf; 001-20180718- LETTTER
TO CLERK.pdf; 002-20181113- JUDGE BROWN BROWN.pdf; 003-ADM-2-2009- SETTLEMENT-
AGREEMENT (29-40).pdf; 004- REIBURSEMENT- STATE BAR.pdf; 005-20140718 LT DES to Coombs
(2).pdf; 006-20190129- SUPREME COURT CUIAB FILED.pdf; 007-12-15-2018 US TAX COURT.pdf;
FREEDOM OF SPEECH (004).jpg

 
 
From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk <[email protected]>  
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:58 PM 
To: [email protected]; Wendy Strasser <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'David Burkett' 
<[email protected]> 
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; whistleblower@judiciary‐rep.senate.gov; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected].; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 
Subject: Case No. 34‐2013‐00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California. ‐SUMMARY OF 
OUR MEETING IN THE COURT CAFETERIA ON FEBRUARY 8, 2019 

Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk, Plaintiff in Pro Per

2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-833-7080
Email: [email protected]

February 10, 2019

Sent by e-mail

Daniel Bardzell, J.D.

PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200

1
Sacramento, CA 95825

Subject: Appearance and Examination on February 8, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. at Department 43. Hon. Thadd
A. Blizzard, Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California.

RE: SUMMARY OF OUR MEETING IN THE COURT CAFETERIA ON FEBRUARY 8, 2019

Dear Mr. Bardzell,

For the record, I would like to briefly summarize our meeting that took place on February 8,
2019 in the Sacramento County Superior Court Cafeteria on the sixth floor at 9:30 a.m.
I and my witness, William Buckans (UC Davis Medical Center employee), viewed the meeting
as unpleasant, provocative, and hostile. William and I noticed that you were very nervous and
uncomfortable during the meeting. At some point when you started bringing my wife and children into
the terror I have been experiencing for the last 12 years from the University of California Office of the
President (UCOP) mob, William, who was sitting at the next table, turned his chair toward you and
looked at you. You did not know that William was my former coworker from the UC Davis Medical
Center 27 MW cogeneration plant where I worked from June 1999 to April 2007. You were also
informed previously that two Porter Scott attorneys attempted to provoke me into physical
confrontation outside the court room in February 2015 and in August 2017.
From your redundant and provocative questions about my wife, children, landlord, and the
insurance on my rental house, it was not difficult to conclude that Janet Napolitano is looking to inflict
a different type of harm to me and my family than to enforce the unlawful judgment (see the Letter to
the Clerk filed on July 18, 2018 and the Letter to Judge Brown filed on November 16, 2018).
Your questions about insurance on the rental house clearly indicate that UCOP mob led by
Janet Napolitano is planning a raid on my home with involvement from the Lodi Police or San Joaquin
Sheriff’s Department to terrorize me and my family by ransacking my house to cause psychological
trauma. As you probably read in court documents, I have been terrorized and hunted like a Jew during
the holocaust by the UCOP mob since January 2007, and I don’t see it ending soon while I’m still
alive.
During our meeting on February 8, 2019, I provided you with the following documents as potential
assets:

1. A copy of the January 31, 2009 Settlement Agreement by UC Regents and myself plus the
calculated damages of approximately $1,000,000 caused by UC Regents due to breach and
violation of this Settlement Agreement (attached).
2. The March 1, 2018 copy of the California Supreme Court decision, which ordered that I be paid
back my stolen retainer money in the amount of $14,694.33 plus 10% interest that I paid to my

2
 former attorney, Douglas Stein, for representation. Stein on Discipline Case No. S245982
(attached).
3. The unfinished case with Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, which is in conspiracy with
UC Regents that denied my short disability benefits in 2011. Minimum value $4,546 (attached).
4. The unfinished unemployment insurance benefits case pending in the California Supreme Court,
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board 3DCA Case No. C079254,
Supreme Court Case No. – Value $25,000 if prevail.
5. Whistleblower case pending in the U.S. Tax Court, Waszczuk v. United States Commissioner of
Internal Revenue Services, Docket No. 023105. The IRS whistleblower case is about an
enormous amount of unlawful power sales by regents in conspiracy with Enron and the
California Independent System Operator and related to multimillion dollars in tax fraud. Fraud
was disclosed in August 2012 by UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Duruisseau
in this interview with Sac Cultural Hub (attached). http://www.sacculturalhub.com/headlines/a-
look-back
“THE BLACKSMITH WAS GUILTY, BUT THE GYPSY WAS HANGED.” - Polish
proverb

In addition, after the meeting I forwarded to you my current bank statement from Rabobank and
an e-mail from Citibank with information about the account I have no access to. I believe that the
amount of $14,694.33 plus interest for five years should cover the judgment obtained by the Court by
David Burkett in violation of California Court Rules 3.1312 b, which states:

“That the prevailing party must, upon expiration of the five-day period provided for approval,
promptly transmit the proposed order to the court together with a summary of any responses of
the other parties or a statement that no responses were received pursuant to California Rule of
Court 3.1312(b).”

Defendants’ attorney David Burkett bluntly violated the California Rule of Court 3.1312(b) and did not
transmit to the Court the PLAINTIFF’S 90-page DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDER
AND JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COSTS TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP
MOTION C.C.P. 425.16 (c).

2018 David Burkett’s violation of Rule 3.1312(b) is a copycat scenario of the March 2015
PLAINTIFF’S DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P. 425.16 (ROA #73).

Very truly yours,

3
____________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff in Pro Per

CC: Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon. Thadd Blizzard, sent by U.S. Priority Mail on
February 11, 2019.
California Senator Cathleen Galgiani
State Bar of California
Lodi Police Department (Fax)
San Joaquin County Sheriff Department (Fax )
California Governor Office Hon. Gavin Newsom (FAX)
Consulate General of Polish Republic of Poland

Attachment:

4
EXHIBIT # 11
 1 P O R T E R I S C O T T
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896
3 Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
350 University Avenue, Suite 200 FILED/ENDORSED
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481 FEB I I 2019
•5 FAX: 916.927.3706
dburkett(a),pbrterscott.com By:
6 £• Medina
dbardzellfolporterscott.com ueputy ciert«
7
Attorney for Defendant
8 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
9 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11
12 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
o
o
13 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF
h
(—
=mS oo
- ^o POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
O .. o\ 14 SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION
> U OS
15 TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED
oi < o" ^
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
glig^ 16 OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM
CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET
o 17 SYSTEM, UC DAVIS MEDICAL ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
CENTER, UC DAVIS, ANN MADDEN EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; AND FOR
18
RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN MONETARY AND TERMINATING
19 CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, SANCTIONS
DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
20 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, Date: March 13,2019
21 PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN Time: 2:00 p.m.
DANILIUC, and Does 1 through 50, Dept.: 53
22 inclusive,
Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
23 Defendants. Amended Complaint Filed: June 16,2014
24 SAC Filed: September 30, 2014

25
26
27
28
(01965098.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
Page
3
4 I. INTRODUCTION 1

5 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2

6 A. Plaintiff Ignores Defendant's Initial Meet-and-Confer Efforts 3
7
B. Motion to Compel 3
8
C. Plaintiff Again Ignores Defendant's Meet-and-Confer Efforts 4
9
10 D. Plaintiff Failed to Pay Monetary Sanctions 4

11 III. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

(SET ONE), FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL (SET ONE)
12
o AND FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT (SET ONE)
o
(N
13 ARE EVASIVE, INCOHERENT AND INCOMPLETE 5
B
r- 3 00 ^
H Vi m oo
o g-<^ 2:rn I t A. Plaintiff Improperly Cites Extemal Documents 6
0^ I> ^< Ov
a
ai < 6^ 2 15 B. Plaintiffs Interrogatory Responses are Incomplete and In Some
OV i3v

Instances He Provided No Substantive Response Whatsoever 6

o .> I S ^ 16
D t/5
17 C. Plaintiff Responded " I don't know" to Some Interrogatories
18 Without Describing Efforts to Provide a Response 7
19
IV. DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO MONETARY SANCTIONS 8
20
V. TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE 10
21
22 VI. CONCLUSION ; 11

23
24
25
26
27
28

{0196S098.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

State Court Cases

Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court

(1997) 53 Cal.App.4"' 216, 221 9
6
Deyo V. Kilbourne
7
(1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782-783 5, 6, 8
8
Kahn v. Kahn
9 (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 372, 383 11
10
Mannino v. Superior Court
11 (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776 9
12 R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
o
o
fN
13 (1999) 75 Cal.App.4"^ 486, 496 : 11
B
u- <^
r - 3 oo — vo
H V2 m oo o
2:P; 14
1-
ov t~~
Saxena v. Goffney
(N f N (2008) 159 Cal.App.4"^ 316, 333 9
OS < d \D vd
Ov OV
15
u, . - u 5 Ov
^ State Road Dept. v. Florida East Coast Ry.
2 •- i"
0-, c ta
H tu
p or)
17 212 So.2d 315, 317(1) (Fla.App. 1968) •. 6
18 Statutes
19
Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 , 9
20
Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) 9
21
22 Code ofCivil Procedure § 2023.010(d) 10

23 Code ofCivil Procedure § 2023.010(g) '. 10

24 Code ofCivil Procedure § 2023.030(a) 8, 9, 10
25
Code ofCivil Procedure § 2023.030(d) 10
26
27 Code ofCivil Procedure § 2030.210(a) 5

28 Code ofCivil Procedure § 2030.220 5, 8

(0I965098.DOCX} iii
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 Code ofCivil Procedure § 2030.220(a) 5

Code ofCivil Procedure § 2030.220(c) 5, 8

Code ofCivil Procedure § 2030.290(c) 8, 9

Code ofCivil Procedure § 2030.300(a) 5

Code ofCivil Procedure § 2033.280 9

6
7 Govemment Code § 8547 2

8 Govemment Code § 12940(a) ; 2

9 Other Authority
10
4A Moore's Federal Practice (2d Ed. 1975)
11 Section 33.25(1), pp. 33-131- 33-132 6
12 Califomia Civil Discovery Practice, Section 8.55
o
o
fN
m 13 (C.E.B. 1975) : 6
fN
00 —
h- Vi i n 00
O u Ov >3-
14
< " Ov
Vt g
— > Ov
15
ai < o" ^
C Ov
U . .

O ^
§ -5 ^ 16
cu S
Vi
3
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{0I96S098.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POEVTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (the "UNIVERSITY" or
"DEFENDANT") respectfully submits the following memorandum of points and authorities in
3 support of its motion to: (1) compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK to provide
4 further verified responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set
5 One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One); (2) award monetary sanctions in the amount
6 of $5,460 to retum Defendant to the position it would have been had the subject discovery
7 responses been timely and completely provided; (3) issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as
8 a result of Plaintiffs repeated failure to engage in the discovery process.
9 1.
10 INTRODUCTION
11 Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories -

o
12 General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One) on April 25, 2018'. Responses
o
fN
B -r. 13 were due on or before May 30j 2018. Defendant provided Plaintiff with an extension to June 20,
VD
r- 3 oo 00 O
— r*^
Ov r-^
14 2018 to provide responses to the requests. Plaintiff then failed to provide responses to any of
<N rvi
i- Vi ov Ov
vb ^ 15 Defendant's requests, requiring Defendarit to file a Motion to Compel. The Court granted that
Ov 0\
oi 16 Motion and ordered Plaintiff to provide responses, without objections, by December 12, 2018 and
oi
o < o -wj ><
<
D Vi H tu
a. o 17 pay Defendant monetary sanctions by December 14, 2018 related to Plaintiffs failure to respond to
18 requests for admission.
19 After the initial Motion to Compel, Plaintiff ultimately served his responses to special
20 interrogatories on October 15, 2018 and responses to form interrogatories - general and form
21 interrogatories - employment on December 13, 2019. These responses were mostly incomplete.
22 Defendant has attempted to meet-and-confer with Plaintiff regarding these deficiencies, but
23 consistent with his practice throughout this litigation, Plaintiff has refused to sufficiently and
24 coherently respond. As a result. Defendant now respectfully requests a further Order compelling
25 Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies raised in this Motion. Defendant also requests sanctions, pursuant
26 to 2030.290(c), in the amount of $5,460 for the fees and costs incurred as a result of Plaintiffs
27 continued disregard for the discovery process.
28
' Additional discovery requests outside the scope of the present motion were also served by Defendant at that time.
{01965098.DOCX} 1 ^
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 1 Defendant respectfully requests the Court issue an Order to (1) compel Plaintiff to provide
2 fiarther verified responses, without objection, to Defendant's Special Interrogatories (Set One),
3 Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One); (2)
4 issue monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,460 for Defendant's fees and costs
5 incurred in bringing this motion; and (3) issue the sanction of termination of the present action as a
6 result of Plaintiff s pattern of failing to comply with his discovery obligations. .
7 II.
8 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
9 The course of litigation in this matter is lengthy and complex. The following is a brief
10 summary: Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on Septehiber 30,
11 2014. Among the several claims in the SAC are four causes of action against all named
12 Defendants^: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"); (2) tortious interference with
B "n 13 economic advantage; (3) FEHA harassment and failure to prevent harassment, discriminafion,
h '= 00 - vo
f— c/^ «-> 00 o
o u 2: P; 14 retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); and (4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation
< § g 15
> ^ Ov Ov in violafion of Govemment Code §§ 8547 et seq.
< o" ^

o > i e < ^" Each of these causes of action arises out of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant at the
D 00
o
in
17 University of Califomia at Davis Medical Center. In addition to Defendant UNIVERSITY^, these
18 causes of action were plead against Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN
19 CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT
20 SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, and DORIN DANILIUC for their participation in investigafions
21 and disciplinary actions that ultimately resulted in Plainfiffs terminafion of employment with the
22 UNIVERSITY. The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant remaining in the case.
23 Defendant UNIVERSITY served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form
24 Interrogatories - General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One) on April 25,
25 2018. (See Declarafion of Daniel Bardzell in Support of Mofion to Further Compel ("Bardzell
26 Decl."), 2 and Exhibit A.) By correspondence dated May 22, 2018, Plainfiff requested an
27
^ The First and Second Causes of Action in the Second Amended Complaint do not specifically identify Defendant UNIVERSITY
28 but do refer to employment with UC DAVIS within the cause of action.
^ S e e f n . 1.
{01965098.DOCX} 2
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 extension offimeto respond to all such requests on the basis that he was sick. (See Bardzell Decl., |
3 and Exhibit B.) Defendant's counsel responded by email correspondence dated May 23, 2018
granfing Plaintiff an extension of fime to respond until June 20, 2018. (See Bardzell Decl., 4 and
Exhibit C.)
5 A. Plaintiff Ignores Defendant's Initial Meet-and-Confer Efforts
6 On September 24, 2018, counsel for Defendant served a meet and confer correspondence
7 upon Plaintiff regarding the outstanding discovery responses wherein defense counsel indicated:
8 [P]lease provide complete responses to all such outstanding requests no later than September 28,
9 2018. If we do not have your complete responses by that date, we will file a motion to compel
10 responses and request monetary as well as terminating sancfions from the Court." (See Bardzell
11 Decl., H 5 and Exhibit D.)
12
o
o By incoherent email correspondence also dated September 24, 2018, Plaintiff indicated:
fN
B >n 13 Thank you for news about the Request for Production of Documents and Special
L_ •— fN — vO
P ,5 0000 O
Interrogatories . I appreciate but I not sure yet what I am going to . I am waiting for
V in C 14 answers from the federal authorities in this matter.
0 g'=^^ rO
o; t-~
15 I will let know . I mean fime you can entertain yourself with my affirmative defense
01 < 6 fN d
Ov OV of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. As Jeanine Pirro stated not so long ago , . UC Regent wife
H ^ \0 v ^
O ^ 2 as ov 16 Senator Feinstein's Unhinged Demon Rats attacking Judge Kavanaugh as I was
cu c attacked and wasted by her husband and other unhinged UC demon rats . Same
Vi
o
D
17 people only different is that I have no 1 penny on my account and I am for my SS
18 check on 28^^ than I could buy ink for my printer and do eventually interrogatories.
(See Bardzell Decl., H 6 and Exhibit E.)
19
Plaintiff failed to respond to any of the outstanding discovery requests by September 28,
20
2018. (See Bardzell Decl., H 6.)
21
On October 1, 2018, Plainfiff submitted an email correspondence to Defendant stafing: " I
22
am working on the Interrogatories and other papers. Pleas give one more week to finish. Attached is
23
a part of interrogatories to show you that I am working on ." (See Bardzell Decl., TI 7 and Exhibit
24
F.) Included was a rambfing apparent partial draft response to Defendant's Special Interrogatories,
25
Set One without a verification. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 8.)
26
B. Motion to Compel
27
Defendant was subsequently forced to file a Motion to Compel and needlessly incur the
28

{01965098.DOCX} 3 '
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 1 associated fees and costs. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 8.) On November 14, 2018, the Court issued its
2 tentative mling, which later became the ruling of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 1.06. (See
3 Bardzell Deck, Tl 9, and Exhibit G). There, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses,
4 without objections, to Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets one) and requests for
5 producfion (set one) no later than December 12, 2018. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 9, and Exhibit G).
6 Additionally, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant mandatory monetary sancfions in the
7 amount of $520 by December 14, 2018 for failure to provide responses to requests for admissions.
8 (See Bardzell Deck, TI 9, and Exhibit G.)
9 Plaintiff did subsequently provide responses to the special and form interrogatories, but they
10 were largely deficient as described in the present motion. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 11-12 and Exhibits
11 H and I.)
12 C. Plaintiff Again Ignores Defendant's Meet-and-Confer Efforts
o
o
fN
B m
tN
13 In light of Plaintiffs deficient responses to form and special interrogatories, defense
'3
0in0 vo
Vi 00 0
H
O tS ov 14 counsel sent Plaintiffs counsel a meet and confer correspondence on January 15, 2019, advising
enu

Ov r-'
SC

CA

fN fN
OV ov
>
oi < 0" vd vd 15 that Plaintiffs responses were deficient. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 13 and Exhibit J.)
c 0! ON
Universi:

u
- i >< 16 Plainfiff responded on January 15, 2019 by a series of argumentative and disjointed emails
Sacra
po:

FA
TE

17 which failed to address the interrogatory response deficiencies raised in Defendant's meet and
18 confer correspondence. (See Bardzell Deck, Tl 14 and Exhibits K.)
19 Plaintiff subsequently requested addifional time to respond to the meet and confer and the
20 parties agreed to extend the time for Defendant to file a mofion, if necessary, through Febmary 12,
21 2019. (See Bardzell Deck, Tl 15-17 and Exhibits L-N.)
22 By email dated January 25, 2019, Plainfiff further responded to Defendant's January 15,
23 2019 meet and confer correspondence by, in part, describing the interrogatories as harassing and
24 stating that Defendant should "File the mofion, and I , accordingly, will file the response to your
25 motion in court." (See Bardzell Deck, Tl 18 and Exhibits O.) As of the date of this Mofion, Plaintiff
26 has not provided amended responses. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 19.)
27 D. Plaintiff Failed to Pay Monetary Sanctions
28 In addition to Plaintiff willfially disregarding his discovery obligations, Plaintiff also
{01965098.DOCX) 4
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 1 violated the Court's previous Order by failing to fttlly pay Defendant monetary sancfions. (See
2 Bardzell Deck, Tl 9-10.) As set forth above, in its prior Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to pay
3 monetary sancfions of $520 by December 14, 2018. (See Bardzell Deck, Tl 9 and Exhibit G.)
4 Plainfiff provided checks amounting to only a small portion of the amount owed. (See Bardzell
5 Deck, Tl 10.) Defendant has not cashed such checks. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 10.) Plainfiff failed to
6 pay the required sancfion by December 14, 2018 and, to-date, Plaintiff has provided checks
7 amounting to only a small portion of the sanctions ordered by the Court. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 10.)
8 in.
9 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), FORM
10 INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL (SET ONE) AND FORM INTERROGATORIES -
11 EMPLOYMENT (SET ONE) ARE EVASIVE. INCOHERENT AND INCOMPLETE

o
12 A party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath
o
fN
ii m 13 sepeirateiy to each interrogatory by any of the following: an answer containing the information
r - 3 oo — vo
00 o
t - V3
— ^ 14 being sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party's opfion to produce writings, or an objection
ov I--
fN fN
Ov Ov
oi < 6 vd vd 15 to the particular interrogatory. (CCP § 2030.210(a).) Code ofCivil Procedure §2030.220 requires
Ov Ov
_i >< 16 that answers to interrogatories be "complete and straightforward." (CCP. §2030.220(a).) Code of
a. ta <
3 Vi
o
in
17 Civil Procedure §2030.220 requires that parties produce all information "reasonably available" to
18 them in response to interrogatories. (CCP. §2030.220(a).) That obligation requires that parties
19- take all reasonable steps to investigate and obtain information responsive to the request. (CCP.
20 §2030.220(c).) If parties do not have sufficient informafion to respond to a request after making a
21 reasonable inquiry, they must state that fact in their response. (Id.) They should also detail the
22 efforts made to obtain the informafion. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782-783.)
23 Parties cannot claim a lack of personal knowledge when the informafion "can be obtained from
24 sources under his control." (Id.) A party may move to compel further responses if an answer is
25 "evasive or incomplete." (CCP. §2030.300(a).)
26 Here, Plaintiff provided evasive, incomplete and incoherent responses to Defendant's
27 Form Interrogatories - General, Set One; Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One and Special
28 Interrogatories, Set One. (See generally Defendant's Separate Statement of Disputed Discovery
{01965098.DOCX} 5
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 in Support of Motion to Compel ("Defendant's Separate Statemenf).)
Plaintiffs rambling and incoherent responses contain a myriad of deficiencies. Same are
set forth in greater detail in Defendant's Separate Statement. Plainfiffs responses to the form and
special interrogatories are generally deficient for the following reasons:
5 A. Plaintiff Improperly Cites External Documents
6 As set forth in greater detail in Defendant's Separate Statement, in response to
7 interrogatories, including, but not limited to, Special Interrogatories No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12,
8 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 30, 37; and Form Interrogatories 6.4, 206.1,-206.2, and
9 207.1, Plainfiffs response cites to voluminous extemal documents and/or url addresses without
10 any specific page/line references or summary. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell
11 Decl., Exhibits H-I.) It is not proper to answer by cifing to an extemal document. (See Deyo supra,
12 84 Cal.App.3d at 783-784 ("[I]f a question does require the responding party to make reference to
o
o
fN
B 13 a pleading or document, the pleading or document should be idenfified and summarized so the
L_ •= fN
r- 3 oo — VD
H i n oo o
o u =^ 2 P; answer is fially responsive to the question[.]" (cifing Califomia Civil Discovery Pracfice, Section
— > U ov Ov , ,
< Q- vd ^ 1J 8.55 (C.E.B.1975); 4A Moore's Federal Pracfice (2d Ed. 1975), Secfion 33.25(1), pp. 33-131 to
w iv ^ 5:
33-132; State Road Dept. v. Florida East Coast Ry., 212 So.2d 315, 317(1) (Fla.App. 1968).)
3 Vi
17 (Further citafion omitted)). In instances where Plaintiff cites external documents, same are not
18 properly identified and summarized. (See Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at 783-784.) Therefore,
19 these responses are improper and incomplete.
20 B. Plaintifrs Interrogatory Responses are Incomplete and In Some Instances He
21 Provided No Substantive Response Whatsoever
22 Plaintiff provided a multitude of incomplete responses, including numerous instances
23 where subparts are ignored. The following is a representafive sample of the such deficiencies: In
24 response to Form Interrogatories 6.4 and 6.5, respecfively, asking Plaintiff to idenfify
25 examinations or treatment related to his claims, and any medication, prescribed or not, as a result
26 of injuries that his' attributes to his claims, Plainfiff provides incomplete responses. (See
27 Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Decl., Exhibit I.) Specifically, in response to
28 Interrogatory 6.4, Plaintiff fails to indicate the charges to date for health care services received.
{0i965098.DOCX} 6
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.) In response to Form
2 Interrogatory 6.5, Plaintiff fails to respond to subparts including (c) the date his prescription(s)
3 were prescribed orfiamished;(d) the dates you began and stopped taking it; and (e) the cost to
4 date. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.)
5 Moreover, in response to Form Interrogatories 10.1-10.3, which generally seek information
6 regarding treating physicians and treatment before and after the claims arose, Plaintiff fails to
7 identify any treating physicians or what treatment was sought beyond the facial reference to heart
8 surgery. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.) The content of the
9 response plainly calls for additional responsive information such as identifying information for the
10 doctor who performed heart surgery on Plaintiff.
11 Additionally, in response to Special Interrogatory No. 21; 23; 26; 28; 29, Plaintiffs fails to
12 provide contact information for persons he identifies as having knowledge of various protected
o
o
B «o 13 activities and retaliation related to his claims. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell
t- 3 g _ VD
Vi in OO

o u 2: ^ 14 Decl., Exhibit H.) Such incomplete responses interfere with Defendant's ability to prepare its
— > U ov
aS < o""^ 15 defense including identifying potenfial witnesses.
H
oi ^ 16
O Moreover, Plaintiff improperly combines numerous, responses into a single response
cu u.
O Vi
o
17 purportedly responsive to each. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Decl., Exhibit I,
18 Plainfiff s Response to Form Interrogatories 2012.1-2012.7.)
That information sought by the numerous aforementioned interrogatories is within
19
20 Plaintiffs control. As such, he was required to provide it and his responses are incomplete.
Plaintiff further provides no substantive response whatsoever to the following Form
21
22 Interrogatories - General, Set One: 6.7; 9.1; 12.1; 12.4; 13.1; 13.2; 50.2; 50.3; 50.4; and 50.5; Form
23 Interrogatories - Employment, Set One: 200.6; 202.1; 202.2; 203.1; 204.1; 204.2; 204.3; 204.4;
24 204.5; 207.2; 208.2; 210.6; 215.2; and Special Interrogatory No. 24.
25 C. Plaintiff Responded "I don't know" to Some Interrogatories Without Describing

26 Efforts to Provide a Response

27 In response to Form Interrogatories 12.5; 12.6 and 12.7: Plaintiff responded: " I don't

28 know." (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.) He fails to describe
{01965098.DOCX} 7
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 1 what search he has done to provide a response. These responses are incomplete. Similarly, in
2 response to Form Interrogatory 206.3, Plaintiff simply responds "Waszczuk is not sure what 206.3
3 asking him for[.]"(See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.) That is also
4 non-responsive.
5 Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220 requires that parties produce all informafion
6 "reasonably available" to them in response to interrogatories. (CCP. §2030.220(a).) That
7 obligafion requires that parties take all reasonable steps to investigate and obtain information
8 responsive to the request. (CCP. §2030.220(c).) If parties do not have sufficient information to
9 respond after making a reasonable inquiry, they must state that fact in their response. (Id.)
10 Plaintiff should be able to respond to such interrogatories as to his personal knowledge. If
11 he does not know, he has an obligation to detail the efforts made to obtain that information. (Deyo
12 supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at 782-783.)
o
o

B
fN
13 Moreover, additional responses are unintelligible or otherwise incomplete, as described in
h '= So - VD
H V3 <o 00 o
Defendant's Separate Statement.
o o - 2 ; P; 14
> U Ov Ov . .
< o" vd ^ 1 J Defendant requires complete discovery responses in order to properly defend itself in this
W ^v S 5; 5;
S Si g -> X 16 case and to determine the validity of plaintiffs claims. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully request
DV. 17
O an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide further verified responses to Defendant's Special
18 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories -
19 Employment (Set One) without objecfions.
20 IV.
21 DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO MONETARY SANCTIONS
22 Code ofCivil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in relevant part, that:
23
The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse
24 of the discovery process, or any attomey advising that conduct, or both pay the
reasonable expenses, including attomey's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
25 conduct [. . .] If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this tifie, the
26 court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sancfion
acted with substanfial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition
27 of the sanction unjust.
28 CCP §§ 2030.290(c) provides that a court shall impose a monetary sanction on any party

{01965Q98.DOCX} 8
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 who unsuccessfially opposes a motion to compel responses to interrogatories.
Pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290(c), Defendant is enfified to an award of sancfions against
Plaintiff as a result of his failure to provide appropriate responses to Defendant's interrogatories.
Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 authorizes an award of sanctions even when "the requested
5 discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed." (C.R.C, Rule 3.1348(a).)
6 Sanctions are also available when a party misuses the discovery process. (CCP.
7 §2023.030(a); "The '[f]ail[ure] to respond... to an authorized method of discovery' and '[mjaking
8 an evasive response to discovery' are defmed as '[mjisuses of the discovery process.'" (Saxena v.
9 Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 333.)
10 The California Court of Appeal has previously addressed the increasing misuse of the
11 discovery process similar to Plaintiffs behavior:

o
12 "We are . . . aware the discovery process is subject to frequent abuse and, like a
o
B 13 cancerous growth, can destroy a meritorious cause or defense . . . Our observations
(-, ' 3 f N — vo
oo o of the day-to-day practice of law lead us to conclude this cancer is spreading and
—
Ov
r*^ 14 judges must become more aggressive in curbing these abuses. Courts must insist
f N rvi
H t/2 Ov Ov discovery devices be used as tools to facilitate litigation rather than as weapons to
Oi
u d ' vd ^ 15 wage litigation. These tools should be well calibrated; the lancet is to be preferred
t- g °^ ^ over the sledge hammer."
O < g UJ < 16
cu
17 (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 221 (quoting Mannino v.
18 Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776.))
19 Awarding sanctions is particularly appropriate in this case as this is the second time

20 Plainfiff has forced Defendant to file a Motion to Compel. Defendant filed a Motion on October
21 17, 2018 after Plaintiff completely failed respond to Defendant's discovery requests for over four

22 and a half months. Plainfiff refused to provide those responses unfil Defendant finally filed its first
23 Mofion to Compel. (Bardzell Deck, TITI 11-12.)
24 Recognizing that this Court is reluctant to award monetary sancfions unless a party

25 unsuccessfully opposes a discovery motion, Plaintiff appears to have strategically elected not to
26 oppose Defendant's prior Motion. As a result, the only sanctions this Court imposed were those
27 required under CCP. § 2033.280 relafing to Plaintiffs failure to provide responses to the
28 Requests for Admission. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 9 and Exhibit G.) That sancfions award was in the
{01965098.DOCX} 9
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 amount of $520, which fell well short of fully reimbursing Defendant for all the fees it had to
needlessly incur in filing a Motion to Compel Plainfiffs other responses. Even then, Plainfiff
3 failed to pay the full amount the Court ordered. (See Bardzell Deck, TjlO.)
4 Although the Court denied Defendant's previous request for sancfions in connecfion with
5 the motion to compel responses to interrogatories and request for production, the Court further
6 indicated in its Order on Defendant's previous motion to compel that "repeated conduct of failing
7 to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process
8 and award sancfions on that basis." (See Bardzell Deck, T119, Exhibit G.)
9 Now, here we are again. Plaintiff failed to adequately respond to discovery. Defendant
10 communicated with Plainfiff multiple fimes in hopes of resolving these issues short of filing a
11 Motion to Compel. Unfortunately, Plaintiff failed to provide any further response, thereby
12 successfully forcing Defendant to again incur fees in filing this Motion.
o
o
fN
B u-i
13 This pattem is a clear abuse of the discovery process. Therefore, Defendant respectfully
3 0 0 — VD
Vi in OO <^
14 submits that sanctions are appropriate.
> U ov Ov . ^
a; < o" t Defendant has incurred $4,160 in fees associated with preparing the present motion. (See
W £^ c 5; o^

Bardzell Decl., TI 20.) Defense counsel anticipates incurring an additional $1,300 in fees in the
17 event Plaintiff opposes the Mofion and a hearing is necessary. (Bardzell Deck, TI 20.) As a result.
18 Defendant respectfully requests an award of sanctions in the amount of $5,460 for the fime and
19 expense incurred by Defendant in filing this otherwise unnecessary motion.
20 V.
21 TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE
22 The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may impose sanctions on any party
23 who engages in conduct that constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.030(a).)
24 Misuses of the discovery process includes "failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method
25 of discovery" and "disobeying a court order to provide discovery." (CCP §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)
26 When a party fails to respond to an authorized method of discovery and/or fails to obey a court
27 order to provide discovery, the Court may impose, among other relief, monetary sanctions and/or
28 terminating sancfions. (CCP § 2023.030(a), (d).)
{01965098.DOCX} 10
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 1 Coitrts have long held that terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is a willful
2 failure to comply with court orders, and should be issued where it appears that lesser sancfions
would not bring the offending party into compliance. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
1

(1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Terminating sanctions are especially appropriate where a party
5 fails to respond to discovery requests and ignores court orders. (See Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68
6 Cal.App.3d 372, 383.)
7 Terminating sanctions are appropriate in this case. Defendant initially sought terminating
sanctions against Plaintiff in connection with its previous motion to compel discovery. The Court
denied this request, providing: The Court denies Defendant's alternate requests for issue,
10 evidentiary, and/or terminating sanctions at this fime. [. . .] Here, given that this is the first order
11
with respect to the subject discovery, the drastic remedy of terminafing sancfions would be
12
o
o
punitive." (See Bardzell Deck, Exhibit G.)
fN
U - 'B
S «-> 13
<N
r - 3 00 — vo
It is evident that Plaintiffs conduct is nothing more than a delaying tactic to prevent
(— CO i n 00 o
O . r Ov r~- 14
Defendant from engaging in basic discovery. Requiring Defendant to continue wasting time,
> U ov Ov . ,
< O" ^ ^ i
W i> c 5 o^ money, and Court resources to compel Plaintiff to lifigate this case would be categorically unjust.
S gI X 16 The aforementioned conduct has also prejudiced Defendant's ability to prepare for trial and will
= " 17 interfere with the Court's ability ascertain the tmth in this case. Given that previous discovery

18 mofion practice failed to compel Plaintiff to comply with his discovery obligations, terminafing

19 sanctions are now appropriate.

20 Accordingly, Defendant requests that the Court grant terminafing sancfions and issue an

21 Order dismissing the complaint against the remaining Defendant in its entirety, with prejudice.

22 VI.

23 CONCLUSION

24 Defendant has made every effort to allow for the cooperative exchange of information,

25 however Plaintiff has failed to provide complete verified responses to Defendant's Special

26 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories -

27 Employment (Set One.) Defendant is left with no opfion other than to file the instant motion. As

28 such, Defendant seeks an Order (1) compelling Plainfiff to provide further verified responses,
{01965098.DOCX} 11
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 without objections, to Defendant's Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General
2 (Set One) and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One); (2) awarding sanctions in the amount
3 of $5,460 to retum Defendant to the position it would have been had complete responses been
4 timely provided; (3) issue terminafing sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of Plainfiffs repeated
5 failure to engage in the discovery process.
6
7
Dated February 11, 2019 PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

10 By
David P. E. Burkett
11 Daniel J. Bardzell
Attomeys for Defendant
o
12
o
fN
(—( 'B
3 «<N
-> _
13
r-* 3 00 ^ vo
b- Vi m oo o
o u 14
> U Ov ov . .
ci < O" ^ ^ t J

cu -5
O 17
in

18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28

{01965098.DOCX} 12
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
 Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et al.
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
On the date below, I served the following document:
6
7 DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
8 OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM
INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
9
EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND
10 FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS

11 BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
o
12 On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
o course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fiilly prepaid.
fN
u-i
fN
13 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
TT

vo
Sui

00
«n oo o
t~
addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
O o" ov f ^ 14 attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
venu

r-'
u
CA

OV
o
fN fN
OV attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of
Vi
oi < d" vd vd 15 nine in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving
tu c ov ov
OJ the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the
f-
ct J >< 16 hours of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
nive
acra
TE

<
POi

BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: 1 enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an

o 17 ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package
m for collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the ovemight
18 delivery carrier.
BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission,
19 I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
20 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service
by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
2.1 address listed below.
22
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
23 2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
24
25 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
26 foregoing is tme and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on Febmary 11, 2019.
27
28 Wendy E. Strasser
{01965098.DOCX} 13
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
EXHIBIT # 12
EXHIBIT # 13
EXHIBIT # 14
 •----------i44o.).._%...€r,...

• i
PORTER I SCOTT EHOCRSED
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241 896 201MM20 PM22
3 Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
350 University Avenue, Suite 200 U P F P11 OnN COURT OF CMIPONiA
COUNtY OF 5ACRAME0U
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
dburkett(porterscott.com
6 dbardzeIlporterscott,com
7
Attorney for Defendant
8 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

9 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103

10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11
12 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
13
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
14 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
V. DEFENDANTS', MOTION TO COMPEL
15
RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
16 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
17 CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, AND FOR MONETARY AND
UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC TERMINATING SANCTIONS
18
DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
19 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCO'IlT, CHARLES Date: April 26, 2019
WITCHER, DANESHA NIcHoLS, CINDY Time: 2:00 p.m.
20 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK Dept.: 53
PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1
21
through 50, inclusive, Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
22 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
Defendants. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
23 /
24

25
26
27

28

0I978654.DOCX)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3
4 INTRODUCTION ..........................................

5 II STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...........................................1

6
A. Plaintiff Failed to Provide Timely Responses to Defendant's Form and
7 Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and
Request for Admissions and Ignored Defendant's Related Meet-and-
8 ConferEfforts ...........................................................................................................3
9
B. Motion to Compel ....................................................................................................4
10
C. Plaintiff Failed to Pay Monetary Sanctions ..............................................................4
II
12 D. Plaintiff Again Ignores Defendant's Meet-and-Confer Efforts ................................5
0
0
13 E Second Motion to Compel ........................................................................................5
In oco
14 F. Plaintiff Further Ignores the .anti-SLAPP Defendants' Meet-and-Confer
- > C.) o Efforts Related to the Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of
<6' 15
Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) ...................5
E-X 16
o r .
III. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO
0 17
In JUDGEMENT DEBTOR REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
18 (SET ONE) AND JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE).................7

19 A. Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) .............................................................7

20
B. Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) .......................8
21
IV. MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AWARDED ...................................................9
22
V. TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE ........................................10
23
24 IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................11
25
26
27
28

(01978654.DOCX) 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
State Court Cases
3
Kahn v. Kahn
4
(1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 372, 383 10
5
R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
6 (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486,496 ........................................................................................10
7
Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants
8 (2007) 148 Cal.App.4tl 390,411 ........................................................................................8
9 Statutes
10
C.C.P. § 708.020 ............................................................................................................................ 7
II.
C.C.P. § 708.030 ............................................................................................................................ 7
12
C
C
13 C.C.P. § 2016.070 .......................................................................................................................... 7
I-. •S —
H at C
Oci °'Z 14 C.C.P. § 2023.010(d) ...................................................................................................................... 9
cg
_>Oac
<d\á 6
ce 15 C.C.P. § 2023.010(g) ...................................................................................................................... 9
16
H C.C.P. § 2023.030(a) ................................................................................................................ 9, 10
0
tin
17
C.C.P. § 2030.010 ..........................................................................................................................
18
19 C.C.P. § 2030.210(a) ...................................................................................................................... 7

20 C.C.P. § 2030.290(a) ...................................................................................................................... 8

21
C.C.P. § 2030.290(b) ...................................................................................................................... 8
22
C.C.P. § 2030.290(c) ...................................................................................................................... 9
23
24 C.C.P.2031.010 .......................................................................................................................... 7

25 C.C.P. § 2031.300(a) ...................................................................................................................... 8

26 C.C.P. § 2031.300(b) ...................................................................................................................... 8
27
C.C.P. § 2031.300(c) ...................................................................................................................... 9
28
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1245(b) ...................................................................................................... 8
{01978654.DOCX) ii
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 Defendants BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA, and SEIFERT ("anti-SLAPP

2 Defendants") respectfully submit the following memorandum of points and authorities in support
3 of their motion to: (1) compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK's verified

4 responses to Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment
5 Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) award monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,940 to return
6 Defendants to the position they would have been had the subject judgment debtor discovery

7 responses been timely provided; (3) issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of
8 Plaintiff's pattern of failure to engage in the discovery process.
9 1.
10

Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents
12 (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) on October 9, 2012. Responses were due
13 on or before November 13, 2018. Plaintiff has completely failed to provide any responses and
14 same are overdue.
15 Defendants respectfully request the Court issue an Order to (1) compel Plaintiff to provide
16 verified responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set
17 One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); and (2) issue monetary sanctions against
18 Plaintiff in the amount of $4,940 for Defendants' fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion;
19 and (3) issue the sanction of termination of the present action as a result of Plaintiffs failure to
20 provide responses to the Defendants' judgment debtor discovery.
21 H.
22 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
23 The course of litigation in this matter is lengthy and complex. The following is a brief
24 summary: Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on September 30,
25 2014. Among the several claims in the SAC are four causes of action against all named
26 Defendants:' (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("lIED"); (2) tortious interference with
27 economic advantage; (3) FEHA harassment and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination,
28 'The First and Second Causes of Action in the Second Amended Complaint do not specifically identify Defendant UNIVERSITY
but do refer to employment with UC DAVIS within the cause of action.
(01978654.DOCX) i
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); and (4) whistleblower/uniawful retaliation
2 in violation of Government Code §§ 8547 etseq,
3 Each of these causes of action arises out of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant
4 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ("UNIVERSITY") at the University of
5 California at Davis Medical Center. In addition to Defendant UNIVERSITY2, these causes of
6 action were pled against Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN

7 CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT

8 SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, and DORIN DANILIUC for their participation in investigations
9 and disciplinary actions that ultimately resulted in Plaintiff's termination of employment with the
10 UNIVERSITY. The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant remaining in the case.
11 On December 1, 2014, Defendants BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA, and
12 SEIFERT ("anti-SLAPP Defendants") filed a Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff's causes of action
0
0

13 as pled against them. (See Declaration of Daniel Bardzell in Support of Motion to Compel
.r,OC
14 ("Bardzell Decl."), ¶ 2.) The anti-SLAPP Defendants contended that Plaintiff's causes of action

<6' 15 against them arose from protected activities pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure' § 425.16;
16 namely, their participation in the processing, investigation, hearing and deciding of complaints

0 17 filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to the policies and procedures of the Defendant
Cr'

IS UNIVERSITY. (See Id.)

19 On April 14, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting the Special Motion to Strike finding
20 that Plaintiff failed to establish a probability of prevailing on the causes of action pled against the
21 anti-SLAPP Defendants as required by section 425.16 and entering judgment in favor of the anti-
22 SLAPP Defendants. (See Bardzell Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit A.)
23 Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of the four remaining
24 individual Defendants RICE, WITCHER, PUTNEY, and DANILIUC. (See Bardzell Decl., ¶ 4 and
25 Exhibit B.) The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant remaining in the case.
26
27
2
See Id., lii. I.
28 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references in this Motion are to the California Code of Civil
Procedure,
{01978654DOCX) 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 On May 11, 2015, the anti-SLAPP Defendants filed a Motion for Fees and Costs pursuant
2 to CCP § 425.16, subdivision (c) and the Court's Order dated April 14, 2015 on Defendant's
3 Special Motion to Strike. (See Bardzell Decl., ¶ 5.) The motion sought recovery of approximately
4 $33,000 in fees and costs incurred by the anti-SLAPP Defendants in connection with the Special
5 Motion to Strike. (See Bardzell Decl., Exhibit C.)
6 On June 29, 2018, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion for Fees and
7 Costs in the amount of $22,284 against Plaintiff. (See Bardzell Decl., 16 and Exhibit C.)
8 A. Plaintiff Failed to Provide Timely Responses to Defendant's Form and Special
Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions
9 and Ignored Defendant's Related Meet-and-Confer Efforts
10 Defendant UNIVERSITY served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form
11 Interrogatories - General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One) on April 25,
12 2018. (See Bardzell Decl., ¶ 7.) By correspondence dated May 22, 2018, Plaintiff requested an
13 extension of time to respond to all such requests on the basis that he was sick. (See Bardzell Decl.,
14 ¶ 8 and Exhibit D.) Defendant's counsel responded by email correspondence dated May 23, 2018
15 granting Plaintiff an extension of time to respond until June 20, 2018. (See Id.)
16 On September 24, 2018, counsel for Defendant UNIVERSITY served a meet and confer
17 correspondence upon Plaintiff regarding the outstanding discovery responses wherein defense
18 counsel indicated: "[P]lease provide complete responses to all such outstanding requests no later
19 than September 28, 2018. If we do not have your complete responses by that date, we will file a
20 motion to compel responses and request monetary as well as terminating sanctions from the
21 Court." (See Bardzell Decl., ¶ 9 and Exhibit B.)
22
By incoherent email correspondence also dated September 24, 2018, Plaintiff indicated:
23
24 Thank you for news about the Request for Production of Documents and Special
Interrogatories. I appreciate but I not sure yet what I am going to. I am Waiting for answers
25 from the federal authorities in this matter.
I will let know. I mean time you can entertain yourself with my affirmative defense of
26 Judge Brett Kavanaugh. As Jeanine Pirro stated not so long ago,. UC Regent wife Senator
27 Feinstein's Unhinged Demon Rats attacking Judge Kavanaugh as I was attacked and
wasted by her husband and other unhinged UC demon rats. Same people only different is
28 that I have no I penny on my account and I am for my SS check on 28Th than I could buy
ink for my printer and do eventually interrogatories.
{01978654.DOCX
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINtS AM) AUFFIORIlIES IN SUFI'ORI OF DEFLINDANIS' MOTION 10
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 (See Bardzell Dee!., ¶ 10 and Exhibit F.)
I
Plaintiff failed to respond to any of the outstanding discovery requests by September 28,
2
2018. (See Bardzell Deci., ¶ 11.)
3
On October 1, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an email correspondence to Defendant stating: "I
4
am working on the Interrogatories and Other papers. Pleas give one more week to finish. Attached
5
is a part of interrogatories to show you that I am working on." (See Bardzell Dee!., ¶ 12 and
6
7 Exhibit F.) Included was a rambling apparent partial draft response to Defendant UNIVERSITY's

8 Special Interrogatories, Set One without a verification. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 12.)

9 B. Motion to Compel

10 On October 17, 2018, Defendant UNIVERSITY was forced to file a Motion to Compel and

11 needlessly incur the associated fees and costs. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 13.) On November 14, 2018,

12 the Court issued its tentative ruling, which later became the ruling of the Court pursuant to Local

13 Rule 1.06. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 14, and Exhibit H.) There, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide

14 verified responses, without objections, to Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets one)

15 and requests for production (set one) no later than December 12, 2018. (See id.) Additionally, the
16 Court ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant UNIVERSITY mandatory monetary sanctions in the
17 amount of $520 by December 14, 2018 for failure to provide responses to requests for admissions.
18 (See id.)
19 Plaintiff did subsequently provide responses to the special and form interrogatories, but
20 they were largely deficient which necessitated the filing of a second motion to compel, as
21 described infra. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 15.)
22 C. Plaintiff Failed to Pay Monetary Sanctions
23 In addition to Plaintiff's willful disregard of his discovery obligations, Plaintiff also
24 violated the Court's previous Order by failing to fully pay Defendant UNIVERSITY monetary
25 sanctions. (See Bardzell DecI., 114-16.) As set forth above, in its prior Order, the Court directed
26 Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions of $520 by December 14, 2018. (See Bardzell Deci., ¶ 14 and
27 Exhibit H.) Plaintiff failed to pay the required sanction by December 14, 2018 and, to-date,
28 Plaintiff has provided checks amounting to only a portion of the sanctions ordered by the Court.

(01978654.DOCX}
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 (See Bardzell Deci., 114; 16.) Defendant has not cashed such checks. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 16)
2 D. Plaintiff Again Ignores Defendant's Meet-and-Confer Efforts
3 In light of Plaintiffs deficient responses to form and special interrogatories, defense
4 counsel sent Plaintiffs counsel a meet and confer correspondence on January 15, 2019, advising
5 that Plaintiff's responses were deficient. (See Bardzell DecI., 117 and Exhibit I.)
6 Plaintiff responded on January 15, 2019 by a series of argumentative and disjointed emails
7 which failed to address the interrogatory response deficiencies raised in Defendant's meet and
8 confer correspondence. (See Bardzell Deel., ¶ 18 and Exhibits J.)
9 Plaintiff subsequently requested, and was granted, additional time to respond to-the meet
10 and confer and the parties agreed to extend the time for Defendant to file a motion, if necessary,
11 through February 12, 2019. (See Bardzell Dee!., 119 and Exhibit K.)
12 By email dated January 25, 2019, Plaintiff further responded to Defendant's January 15,
13 2019 meet and confer correspondence by, in part, describing the interrogatories as harassing and
14 stating that Defendant should "File the motion, and I, accordingly, will file the response to your
15 motion in court." (See Bardzell Dccl., ¶ 20 and Exhibit L.) Plaintiff has not provided amended
16 responses.
17 E. Second Motion to Compel
18 On February 11, 2019, Defendant UNIVERSITY was forced to file a second motion to
19 compel further verified responses to form and special interrogatories and for monetary, and
20 terminating sanctions. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 21.) On March 12, 2019, the Court issued its tentative
21 ruling, which later became the ruling of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 1.06. (See Bardzell
22 DecI., ¶ 21 and Exhibit M.) There, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide further verified responses
23 to Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets one) no later than April 3, 2019. (See id.)
24 Additionally, the Court denied Defendant's request for monetary sanctions as the motion was
25 unopposed and also denied Defendant's request for terminating sanctions. (See Ed.)
26 F. Plaintiff Further Ignores the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Meet-and-Confer Efforts
27
28 The anti-SLAPP Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for
(01978654.DOCX)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) on October 9,
2 2018. (See Bardzell Dccl., ¶ 22 and Exhibit N.) Responses were due on or befoie November 13,
3 2018. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 22.) Plaintiff has completely failed to provide any responses and same
4 are overdue. (See id.)
5 On January 24, 2019, counsel for Defendants served a meet and confer correspondence
6 upon Plaintiff regarding the outstanding judgment debtor discovery responses wherein defense
7 counsel indicated: "This letter serves as Defendants [..j attempt to meet and confer regarding
8 Plaintiff's outstanding responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Request for Production of
9 Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories, Set One which were served on you on
10 October 9, 2018. Plaintiff has provided no response whatsoever. Please provide complete

11 responses by January 31, 2019 or we will file a motion to compel and seek sanctions." (See
12 Bardzell Deci., 123 and Exhibit 0.)
0
0
N
13 By email correspondence dated January 25, 2019, Plaintiff asserted, he never received a
In 0
0 t; 14 copy of the judgment debtor discovery requests and further provided: "Please send me the
15 aforementioned documents that were supposed to have been sent in October. 1 will look them over
u
o. to and respond to you with 30 days, or you may file the motion to compel if you wish." (See Bardzell

0
In
17 DecI., 124 and Exhibit P.) By email correspondence also dated January 25, 2019, the office of
C.'

18 counsel for Defendants provided Plaintiff with a further courtesy copy of Defendants' Judgment
19 Debtor Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories, Set
20 One which were previously served on Plaintiff on October 9, 2018. (See Id.)
21 Plaintiff responded by email also dated January 25, 2019, stating: "Never got this before.
22 Have a nice weekend Ms. Strasser. I feel sorry for you that you are working for guy like Burkett or
23 Bardzell. Tell them to file motion." (See Bardzell Dccl., ¶ 25 and Exhibit Q.)
24 On February 22, 2019, counsel for Defendant served, a further meet and confer
25 correspondence upon Plaintiff, providing: "This letter serves as Defendants II. J further attempt to
26 meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs outstanding responses to Defendants' [judgment debtor'
27 discovery requests]. Plaintiff has provided no response whatsoever and responses are more than
28 three months overdue. Our previous attempts to meet and confer on this issue have been

101978654D0CX) 6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 unsuccessful. If we do not receive complete responses by March 1, 2019, our next action will be to
2 file a motion to compel and seek sanctions." (See Bardzell Deci., 126 and Exhibit R.)
3 By email correspondence dated March 1, 2019, Plaintiff provided, in part: "I am not going
4 to quit my lawsuits voluntarily either regardless of what judges and justices from three different
5
California courts have done to me in the last four years. I did not provide the response by January
6 31, 2019 because the DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF [. . . and]
7
DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - SET ONE TO
8 PLAINTIFF [ ... ] were not sent to me on October 9, 2018 and I do not have any record of it[. . .
9
Porter Scott attorneys did not file a Motion to Compel as promised by the January 31, 2019 letter
10 nor did they formally resend the Interrogatories and Production for Documents to me with the new
11
date[. . .] If the Porter Scott attorneys want to file another Motion to Compel [. . .] I have no
12
control over it. I will not be surprised if the Motion is granted." (See Bardzell Deel., ¶ 27 and
13 Exhibit S.) Plaintiff further asserted that he provided some documents at the Judgment Debtor
14 examination in this matter. (See Id.)
15 III.
16 PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO
JUDGMENT DEBTOR REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
17 AND JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
18 A judgment creditor is allowed to use the following procedures provided for in the
19 Discovery Act to obtain discovery to assist in enforcing a judgment: (1) service of written
20 interrogatories to the judgment debtor under C.C.P. § 2030.010, et seq., and (2) service of a
21 document inspection demand to the judgment debtor under C.C.P. § 2031.010, et seq. (See C.C.P.
22 §§ 2016.070; 708.020; 708.030.)
23 A. Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One)
24 A party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath
25 separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: an answer containing the information
26 being sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party's option to produce writings, or an
27 objection to the particular interrogatory. (C.C.P. § 2030.210(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories
28 are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move

{01978654.DOCX)
7
EMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (C.C.P. § 2030.290(b).) The party also
2 waives objections to the interrogatories (including those based on privilege and work product) by
3 failing to respond by the deadline. (C.C.P. § 2030.290(a).)
4 Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject
5 to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause
6 or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v, Pacific
7 Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 411.) A separate statement is not required
8 when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)
9 In our case, Defendants have not received Plaintiffs verified responses to Judgment Debtor
10 Interrogatories (Set One). (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 28.) These interrogatories were properly served on
11 Plaintiff on October 9, 2018. (See Bardzell Deci., ¶ 22 and Exhibit N.) Responses were due on or
12 before November 13, 2018. (See id.)
13 Defendants require these discovery responses in order to enforce their judgment.
14 Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified
15 responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) without objections.
16 B. Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One)
17 If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the
18 party propounding the demand may move for an order compelling responses to the demand.
19 (C.C.P. § 2031.300(b).) In addition, a party who fails to respond waives any objections he
20 otherwise could have raised to the demand. (C.C.P. § 2031.300(a).)
21 Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents
22 (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) on October 9, 2018. (See Bardzell Decl.,
23 ¶ 22 and Exhibit N.) Responses were due on or before November 13, 2018. (See id.) Plaintiff's
24 responses remain overdue and outstanding. (See id.)
25 Therefore, Defendants respectfully request an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide
26 responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Request for Production of Documents (Set One),
27 without objections.
28 I/I

101978654.DOCX) 8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION 1
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 Iv.
2 MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AWARDED
3 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in relevant part, that:
4
The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the
5 misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay
the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of
6 that conduct [ ... ] If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this
7 title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the
sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
8 imposition of the sanction unjust.

9 C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) provide that a court shall impose a monetary

10 sanction on any party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel responses to interrogatories

11 or request for production of documents.

12 Defendants have extended Plaintiff every opportunity to avoid court intervention in this

13 matter by conducting extensive meet and confer efforts. Plaintiff has completely ignored

14 I Defendants' judgment debtor discovery requests.

15 Plaintiffs attempt to evade his obligation to provide responses to judgment debtor

16 discovery has made the current motion necessary, despite being afforded opportunities to avoid the

17 need for same.

18 To date, Defendants have incurred $3,640 in fees as a result of Plaintiff's failure to respond

19 to Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor

20 Interrogatories (Set One). (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 29.) Defendants anticipate incurring an additional
nI $1,300 to review Plaintiffs Opposition, prepare a reply and attend a hearing. (See Id.) Therefore,

22 sanctions are proper. Moreover, even if Plaintiff serves responses upon notice of this motion in

23 order to avoid a court order, Defendants have nevertheless been forced to incur the expense of

24 moving to compel Plaintiffs compliance with his discovery obligations, despite efforts to achieve

25 a cooperative result. As such, sanctions in the amount of $4,940 are appropriately awarded against

26 Plaintiff for the time and expense incurred by Defendants in filing this motion.
1
I-
I/I

28 I/I

0I978654.DOCX}
9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 V
2 TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE
3 The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may impose sanctions on any party
4 who engages in conduct that constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).)
5 Misuses of the discovery process includes "failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method
6 of discovery" and "disobeying a court order to provide discovery." (C.C.P. §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)
7 When a party fails to respond to an authorized method of discovery and/or fails to obey a court
8 order to provide discovery, the Court may impose monetary sanctions, terminating sanctions, or
9 both. (CCP § 2023.030(a), (d), (g).)
10 Courts have long held that terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is a willful
11 failure to comply with court orders, and should be issued where it appears that lesser sanctions
12 would not bring the offending party into compliance. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd
13 (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Terminating sanctions are especially appropriate where a party
14 fails to respond to discovery requests and ignores court orders. (See Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68
15 Cal.App.3d 372, 383.)
16 Terminating sanctions are appropriate in this case. Plaintiff has failed to provide any
17 verified responses to the Defendants' written judgment debtor. discovery despite extensive meet
18 and confer efforts by Defendants. Moreover, the Court has previously granted two motions to
19 compel discovery filed by Defendant UNIVERSITY in this case. (See Bardzell Decl., 114, 21 and
20 Exhibits i-i, M.) Plaintiff has plainly not been dissuaded from his pattern of failing to engage in the
21 discovery process.
22 It is evident that Plaintiffs conduct is nothing more than a delaying tactic to prevent the
23 Defendants from engaging in judgment debtor discovery. Requiring Defendants to continue
24 wasting time, money, and Court resources to compel Plaintiff to fulfill his obligations to
25 participate in the case, including judgment enforcement process, would be categorically unjust.
26 Plaintiffs demonstrated pattern of failing to provide discovery responses has prejudiced
27 Defendants' ability to prepare for trial, as well as enforce its judgment and will interfere with the
28 Court's ability to ascertain the truth in this case. It has thus become apparent that no action will

I 978654D0CX) 10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FORMONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 compel Plaintiff to comply with his discovery obligations, making terminating sanctions
2 appropriate.
3 Accordingly, Defendant requests that the Court grant terminating sanctions and issue an
4 Order dismissing the complaint against the remaining Defendant in its entirety, with prejudice.
5 VI.
6 CONCLUSION
7 Defendants have made every effort to allow for the cooperative exchange of information,
8 however Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor
9 Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One).
10 Defendants are left with no option other than to file the instant motion. As such, Defendants seek
11 an Order (1) compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to the anti-
12 SLAPP Defendants' Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and
0
0
13 Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) awarding sanctions in the amount of $4,940 to
H
H Ct 'fl
— O
14 return Defendants to the position they would have been had respobses been timely provided; (3)
<s'a 15 issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiffs continuing pattern of failure to
16 engage in the discovery process.
H
0 17
In
C,
Dated March 19, 2019 PORTER SCOTT
18 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION I I
19
20 By MJO4b/t(2(
David P. E. Burkett
21 Daniel J. Bardzell
22 Attorneys for Defendant

23
24
25
26
27
28

{01978654D0CX} 11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et at.
I
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My
business address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
5
On the date below, I served the following document:
6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'
7 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND
8 TERMINATING SANCTIONS
BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business
9 practices. I am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing
correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing,
10
it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed
envelope with postage hilly prepaid.
11
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
addressed below. (I) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at
12
C the attorney's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify
0
13 the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours
—'0 of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by
-'Cl) In coo
Os °'2 14 leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age
between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.
-<cc'
U a. o
15 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
0' overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package
16 for collection and overnight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight
delivery carrier. -
Cn BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax
0 17
In transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was
18 reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed
out, is attached
19 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept
service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic
20 notification address listed below.

21 Jaroslaw Waszczuk

22 2216 Katzakian Way

Lodi, CA 95242
23
24
I declare under, penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
25
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on March 20, 2019.
26

27
tsser
28

{01978654.DOCX)
12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
EXHIBIT # 16
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 04/26/2019 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Steven H Rodda
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM: V. Green CSR# 10529
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: Navi, A., R. Mays

CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 12/04/2013

CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

EVENT TYPE: Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion

APPEARANCES
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, self represented Plaintiff, present.
Daniel Bardzell, counsel present for defendant
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents
TENTATIVE RULING
Judgment Creditors Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert's, ("Judgment Creditors") Motion to
Compel Responses to Judgment Debtor's Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor's Requests for
Production of Documents, for payment of Monetary Sanctions, and for Terminating Sanctions is ruled on
as follows:
On April 14, 2015, the Court granted Judgment Creditor's Special Motion to Strike plaintiff's causes of
action. The Court subsequently granted their Motion for Attorneys fees in the amount of $22,284. (Ex. C
to the Declaration of Daniel J. Bardzell)
Judgment Creditors served the instant post-judgment discovery (Ex. N) on October 9, 2018. Judgment
debtor/plaintiff failed to provide any responses to the discovery. Judgment Creditors sent a second copy
of the discovery to judgment debtor on January 25, 2019, after he contended that he never received the
first set served in October. No responses were served prior to filing this motion on March 20, 2019.
Judgment Debtor has filed an opposition contending that he has now served responses to the discovery,
attached as Exhibits 1 and 2. The points and authorities in opposition to the motion do not address the
relevant issues in this motion but consists almost entirely of matters irrelevant to the discovery at issue.
Judgment debtor opposes this "unwarranted motion to compel."
Judgment creditor's Reply contends that the discovery responses were not code compliant because
they contained objections and plaintiff has waived objections by not timely responding. The Court is not
reviewing the adequacy of the responses attached to the Opposition. However, moving parties are
entitled to a court order compelling code compliant responses to the discovery. Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, Inc. v Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.
Judgment Debtor is ordered to serve further verified responses to the Judgment Debtor

DATE: 04/26/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 1

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production, as set forth in the separate statement,
without objections, on or before May 8, 2019.

Judgment debtor is also ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to moving parties in the
amount of $780 (3 hrs at the hourly rate of $260), plus the $60 filing fee, for a total fee award of
$840. This opposition was filed without substantial justification and therefore, moving parties
are entitled to monetary sanctions. The monetary sanctions must be paid on or before May 27,
2019. If those sanctions are not paid by that date, moving parties may prepare a formal order on
the two sanctions awards which may thereafter be entered as a separate judgment. See
Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608.

Terminating Sanctions
The motion for terminating sanctions is denied. The post judgment discovery at issue here was served
by judgment creditors, not Regents. Moving parties have already obtained a judgment of dismissal in
this case as well as an attorney fees award on the anti-SLAPP motion. Thus, it is unclear why they are
seeking a "terminating sanction" in this context.
Regents are not a party to the underlying discovery or this motion, and therefore the Court will not grant
a terminating sanctions as to Regents. To the extent plaintiff has not paid monetary sanctions to be paid
to Regents pursuant to prior court orders, Regents may prepare a formal order on that sanctions award
from the November 14, 2018 court order and then may enforce that award as a separate judgment
under Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608.
As stated above, Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to the Judgment Debtor Interrogatories
and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production, without objections, on or before May 8, 2019. Monetary
sanctions are to be paid as specified above.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING

After hearing oral argument the Court affirmed its tentative ruling with the following modification:
The order for monetary sanctions was vacated.

DATE: 04/26/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 2

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
EXHIBIT # 17
 1

1 IN THE SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT

2 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3 HON. STEVEN H. RODDA, DEPARTMENT 53
4 ---oOo---
5
)
6 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, )
)
7 Plaintiff, )
) Case No.
8 VS. ) 2013-00155479
)
9 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF )
CALIFORNIA, )
10 )
Defendant. )
11 _____________________________________
12
---oOo---
13
14 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
15
16 APRIL 26, 2019
17 ---oOo---
18
19
20 APPEARANCES:
21 For the Plaintiff:
22 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, In Pro Per
23
For the Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
24 CALIFORNIA:
25 PORTER SCOTT
BY: DANIEL BARDZELL, Attorney at Law
26 Sacramento, California
27
28 Reported by: VERONICA A. GREEN, CSR No. 10529

SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS 1

 2

1 FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2019

2 AFTERNOON SESSION
3 ---o0o---
4 The matter of JAROSLAW WASZCZUK versus THE
5 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant, case
6 number 2013-00155479, came on regularly this day before
7 the Honorable STEVEN H. RODDA, Judge of the Superior
8 Court of California, for the County of Sacramento,
9 Department 53.
10 The Plaintiff was represented by JAROSLAW
11 WASZCZUK, in pro per.
12 The Defendant, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
13 CALIFORNIA, was represented by DANIEL BARDZELL, Attorney
14 at Law.
15 The following proceedings were had:
16 ---o0o---
17 THE COURT: Waszczuk versus The Regents. Good
18 afternoon.
19 You are Mr. Waszczuk?
20 MR. WASZCZUK: Waszczuk, Jerry.
21 THE COURT: I will do my best. Sorry.
22 And your appearance, counsel?
23 MR. BARDZELL: Good afternoon, your Honor. Dan
24 Bardzell from Porter Scott representing Judgment
25 Creditors Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert.
26 THE COURT: I have read what you submitted.
27 Anything in addition to what you submitted?
28 MR. WASZCZUK: I came late for court. I would

SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS 2

 3

1 ask the Court to vacate the order and continue the

2 hearing with Judge Brown. This case is very complex.
3 It's six years old almost, and this is what I'm asking
4 for, the judge nullification, I believe.
5 THE COURT: That's right.
6 MR. WASZCZUK: And he knows the case.
7 THE COURT: I read the file.
8 MR. WASZCZUK: If we could argue about this
9 would be the best.
10 THE COURT: You are going to have to live with
11 me unless you disqualify me.
12 MR. WASZCZUK: I don't want to disqualify
13 anybody.
14 THE COURT: I'm going to hear this. This is my
15 responsibility here. I think this is pretty
16 straightforward in terms of the analysis. I know it has
17 quite a history. I'm familiar with that.
18 Your thoughts? Go ahead, tell me.
19 MR. WASZCZUK: Your Honor, I raised this issue
20 of a continuance with Judge Brown because he says second
21 time -- the second time defendant attempted to terminate
22 my lawsuit with Motion to Compel with different judge.
23 This is the reason.
24 The first time Mr. Bardzell went to -- on
25 October 3rd went to Judge Krueger and attempted to
26 terminate and got caught filing in their own department
27 the motion, then created -- I couldn't even go for a
28 hearing even.

SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS 3

 4

1 THE COURT: Well, the puzzling part of that for

2 me is --
3 MR. WASZCZUK: It is important, your Honor.
4 THE COURT: The question is whether or not you
5 responded to the discovery requests.
6 MR. WASZCZUK: Your Honor, the discovery was
7 resolved in Department 43 on February 8th.
8 THE COURT: There was a debtor's examination,
9 right?
10 MR. WASZCZUK: Everything -- the counsel brought
11 production for documents and brought interrogatories,
12 and I answered them question by question and gave him
13 documents, everything. And everything is documented in
14 my two exhibits.
15 THE COURT: Have you filed written responses
16 besides the ones filed after this hearing?
17 MR. WASZCZUK: This is the whole point. This
18 was the conversation between me and counsel on meet and
19 confer letters. And Exhibits 3 and 4, everything is
20 there. And counsel had chance to go to a judge and
21 complain if I didn't give him anything.
22 THE COURT: That was a separate proceeding.
23 MR. WASZCZUK: He got everything. I have
24 nothing more to give him. Your Honor, I don't have
25 anything more to give him. This is the point.
26 THE COURT: Let me hear from Mr. Bardzell now.
27 MR. BARDZELL: Your Honor, we agree with the
28 Court that the debtor examination that plaintiff brought

SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS 4

 5

1 up is a separate proceeding.
2 As we stated in our motion papers with respect
3 to this motion, we are entitled to receive timely
4 verified responses to the written debtor discovery.
5 Plaintiff failed to provide that discovery by the
6 deadline. We met and conferred. He did not serve
7 responses at the time we filed the motion. He did file
8 late responses, noncompliant, after we filed the motion.
9 And so we stand by our request.
10 THE COURT: At the debtor's examination, did you
11 ask him all of the same questions set forth in the
12 discovery requests?
13 MR. BARDZELL: We covered significant ground
14 related to the documented categories that were also
15 requested in the written discovery.
16 THE COURT: So wouldn't that just duplicate what
17 you requested in the discovery requests?
18 MR. BARDZELL: Well, at the debtor's examination
19 a number of questions were asked about his wife's
20 assets, and in that respect he was unwilling to provide
21 that information. We also served the written discovery,
22 which he did not timely respond to.
23 Additionally, at the debtor's examination there
24 was no court reporter. There was a lack of under oath
25 testimony. It was an informal proceeding.
26 THE COURT: Well, the debtor is a formal
27 proceeding, right? That's my experience.
28 MR. BARDZELL: I don't recall. I was under the

SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS 5

 6

1 impression it was under oath. There's lack of a written

2 record of that. We still believe we are entitled to the
3 responses -- verified responses to the written
4 discovery.
5 THE COURT: Okay.
6 MR. WASZCZUK: Your Honor?
7 THE COURT: Yes.
8 MR. WASZCZUK: Your Honor, I clearly wrote and I
9 told counsel at the meeting on February 8th that I don't
10 have access to my wife's financial bank or 401 or wages
11 or anything. We keep this separate for 30 years. She
12 is in different bank. She got no even debit card. They
13 are asking me about my wife all the time. Not only they
14 were trying to provoke me before in the court, attacking
15 my wife in the court and attacking me in this court.
16 I am not going to sue my wife to give them
17 information. I gave them phone number. She is 68.
18 She's still working in Nordstrom to maintain our life.
19 The Regents, they owe me for contract
20 $1 million. The Regents contract with me, your Honor,
21 and they are talking about 22,000. And I gave them
22 Nordstrom phone number, her job. I gave them
23 everything, where she bank. If they want to go after
24 her, go for it. This is written here, your Honor.
25 THE COURT: Anything further on this? Anything
26 further you want to say?
27 MR. WASZCZUK: Because I don't have anything
28 more to give them, you know.

SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS 6

 7

1 MR. BARDZELL: Your Honor, I just want to

2 reiterate that he did not provide written responses per
3 the deadline under the code. We believe we are entitled
4 to written responses to discovery.
5 THE COURT: Is the matter submitted for
6 decision?
7 MR. BARDZELL: Yes, your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Anything else you want to say before
9 I make a decision?
10 MR. WASZCZUK: Your Honor, I wanted to say
11 that -- I wanted to ask the Court -- I am on Social
12 Security. Those sanctions are unwarranted, your Honor.
13 I have nothing to give them anymore. And I am asking
14 the Court not to respond to them anymore for this.
15 THE COURT: Anything else?
16 MR. WASZCZUK: That is it, your Honor.
17 THE COURT: I'm going to confirm the tentative
18 ruling in this respect. You are going to be ordered --
19 you are ordered to consistently, pursuant to the
20 tentative order that I'm adopting, to provide the
21 responses. I'm going to vacate the sanctions under
22 these circumstances. The ordered sanctions as part of
23 the tentative ruling is vacated for monetary sanctions.
24 Otherwise, the tentative ruling is approved and
25 adopted in this respect. If it comes back again, Judge
26 Brown may impose the sanctions. That's up to him.
27 Thank you.
28 MR. WASZCZUK: No sanctions, your Honor?

SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS 7

 8

1 THE COURT: Not this time.

2 MR. WASZCZUK: Okay. Thank you very much.
3 I ask your Honor, I don't have anymore -- I
4 don't need to respond anymore for them?
5 THE COURT: The order is you respond. That's
6 the order.
7 MR. WASZCZUK: What do I have to give him?
8 THE COURT: You will have to figure that out
9 yourself.
10 (Proceedings concluded.)
11 ---oOo---
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS 8

 9

1 Certificate of Certified Shorthand Reporter

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
3 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO )
4 I, VERONICA A. GREEN, hereby certify that I am
5 an Official Certified Shorthand Reporter, and that at
6 the times and places shown, I recorded verbatim in
7 shorthand writing all of the proceedings in the
8 following described action completely and correctly, to
9 the best of my ability:
10 Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11 DEPARTMENT 53
HON. STEVEN H. RODDA
12
Case: JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
13 VS.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
14 CALIFORNIA Defendant
Case No:
15 2013-00155479
16 Date(s): APRIL 26, 2019
17
18 I further certify that my said shorthand notes
19 have been transcribed into typewriting, and that the
20 foregoing PAGES 1 to 9, inclusive, constitute an
21 accurate and complete transcript of all of my shorthand
22 writing for the dates and matter specified.
23 I further certify that I have complied with CCP
24 237(a)(2) in that all personal juror identifying
25 information have been redacted, if applicable.
26 Dated: May 31, 2019
27
______________________________________
28 VERONICA A. GREEN, CSR No. 10529

SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS 9

EXHIBIT # 18
 1 P O R T E R I S C O T T

2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896
3 Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
[email protected]
6
dbardzelKolporterscott.com
7
Attomey for Defendant
8
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
9
Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code §6103
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11
12
o JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
o
B in
13
•3 a - ^14 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
o
u c/^c i<n a<
00 o AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
O ON Ov
15 V. DEFENDANTS' FURTHER MOTION TO
< _ COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT
kQ
Oi.
•— IU . .
16 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND
O CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
(X
17 CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY
AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
18 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
19 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES Date: July 19, 2019
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY Time: 2:00 p.m.
20 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK Dept.: 53
21 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1
through 50, inclusive. Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
22 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
Defendants. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
23
24
25
26
27
28

(02023105.DOCX} 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3
4 I. INTRODUCTION
5 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .1
6
A. Plaintiff Failed to Provide Timely Responses to Defendant University's
7 Form and Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents
and Request for Admissions Necessitating Two Motions to.Compel
8 Regarding Such Requests 3
9
B. Plaintiff Ignores the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Meet-and-Confer Efforts
10 Related to the Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents
(Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) 4
11
12 C. Anti-SLAPP Defendants File a Motion to Compel Responses Judgment
o
o Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment
(N
13 Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) and for Terminating Sanctions 5
3

o 2: 14 D. Plaintiff Ignores the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Subsequent Meet-and-

on g < JT;
— > ri
oi. < 15 Confer Efforts Related to the Judgment Debtor Requests for Production .
C ON OS
u .. of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) 6
?^
o> " ^ 16,
cu 5 III. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO
17 JUDGMENT DEBTOR REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
18 (SET ONE) AND JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 7

19 A. Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) 8

20 B. Judgment Debtor Request for Production of Documents (Set One) 9
21
IV. MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AWARDED 10
22
23
v: TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE ; 11

24 VI. CONCLUSION : ; 13

25
26
27
28

{02023105.DOCX) 11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page
State Court Cases
3
4 Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants
(2007) 148 Cal.App.4"^ 390, 411 8, 9
5
6 Kahn v. Kahn
(1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 372, 383 11
7
Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
8 55 Cal.App.3d 77, 744 8
9
R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
10 (1999) 75 Cal.App.3d 372, 383 11
11 Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp.
12 (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914 8, 10
o
o
B m 13
t— .
32 00 —
»o00 NO
h- cn
o
1^ 14 Statutes
O — m
o^ f-^
oi < 6 Os Ov 15 Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 2
\D NO

ON ON
^ " i-J >< 16 Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c) 3
a< c iaUJ <
:D cn
17
o Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(d) ..11
• in
m
18
Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(g) ; 11
19
20 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) .......11

21 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(d) 11

22 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(g) 11
23
Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.010 7
24
Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.210(a) 8
25
26 Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(a) 8

27 Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(b) , 8

28 Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(c) ;.10
{02023105.DOCX) iii
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1
Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2016.070; 708.020; 708.030 7
2
Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 7
3
Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.250(1) 9
4
5 Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300(a) 8, 9
6 Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300(b) , , 9
7
Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300(c) : ;.; 10
8
Govemment Code § 8547 et seq 2
9
10 Govemment Code § 12940(a) • 2

11 Rules ofCourt, mle 3.1345(b) ; 9

12
o
o
fN
a in 13
t . -q fN
P — NO
H ,2
cn o«
m oo o
O — m
14
u =^ ^
^5< ON

CeS < o
ON
NO NO
ON
15
(—, • - 1) 0 \ ON
IJ oo c 16
^ s iH tu
O- c S
3 cn
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

{02023105.DOCX} IV
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 Defendants BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA, and SEIFERT ("anti-SLAPP
2 Defendants" or "Defendants") respectfully submit the following memorandimi of points and
3 authorities in support of their motion to: (1) compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY")
4 WASZCZUK's verified responses, without objections, to Judgment Debtor Requests for
Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) award
monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,160.00 to retum Defendants to the position they would
have been had the subject judgment debtor discovery responses been timely provided; (3) issue
8 terminating sanctions against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant REGENTS OF THE
9 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ("UNIVERSITY") as a result of Plaintiff s pattem of failure to
10 engage in the discovery process.
11 I.
12 INTRODUCTION
o
o
fN
13 Anti-SLAPP Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of
t- 3 oo —
i n oo
t - cn ON -q-
0 u Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) on October 9, 2018.
<• ON
^ g U ON fN

—> o ^ 5 15 Responses were due on or before November 13, 2018. Plaintiff has failed to provide verified and
ON ON
01 <
1 -J
2 UJ
^ 16 adequate responses and same are overdue.
Cu c ca u.
D Defendants respectfully request the Court issue an Order to (1) compel Plaintiff to provide
o
in 17
verified responses to the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of
18
Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) issue monetary sanctions
19 I

20 against Plaintiff in the amount of $4,160.00 for Defendants' fees and costs incurred in bringing this
21 motion; and (3) issue the sanction of termination of the present action as a result of Plaintiffs
.22 continuing pattem of failing to provide discovery responses.
IL
23
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
24
The course of litigation in this matter is lengthy and complex. The following is a brief
25
summary: Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on September 30,
26
2014. Among the several claims in the SAC are four causes of action against all named
27
28
{02023105. DOCX}
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 Defendants:' (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"); (2) tortious interference with
2 economic advantage; (3) FEHA harassment and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination,
3 retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 12940(a); and (4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation
4 in violation of Govemment Code §§ 8547 et seq.
5 Each of these causes of action arises out of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant
6 UNIVERSITY at the University of Califomia at Davis Medical Center. In addition to Defendant
7 UNIVERSITY^ these causes of action were pled against Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE,
8 MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
9 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, and DORIN DANILIUC for their
10 participation in investigations and disciplinary actions that ultimately resulted in Plaintiffs
11 termination of employment with the UNIVERSITY. The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant
12 remaining in the case.
o
o
fN 13 On December 1, 2014, anti-SLAPP Defendants filed a Special Motion to Strike Plaintiffs
Bm
u- fN — NO
r- 3 oo 00 O
H (/2 14 causes of action as pled against them. (Declaration of Daniel Bardzell in Support of Further
0 u-o^
fN f N

01 < 6
ON ON
NO NO
15 Motion to Compel ("Bardzell Decl."), Tl 2.) The anti-SLAPP Defendants contended that Plaintiffs
U >:> cON ON
^ ^ E J ><
W <
16 causes of action against them arose from protected activities pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure-'
a. c H u.
D cn 17 § 425.16; namely, their participation in the processing, investiga:tion, hearing and deciding of
o
•n
18 complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to the policies and procedures of the Defendant
19 UNIVERSITY. (M)
20 On April 14, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting the Special Motion to Strike finding
21 that Plaintiff failed to establish a probability of prevailing on the causes of action pled against the
22 anti-SLAPP Defendants as required by section 425.16 and entering judgment in favor of the anti-

/ • '. ' .
23 SLAPP Defendants. (Id. at ^ 3 and Exhibit A.)
24 ///
25
26
27 ' The First and Second Causes of Action in the Second Amended Complaint do not specifically identify Defendant UNIVERSITY
but do refer to employment with UC DAVIS within the cause of action.
2 ld.,fn. 1. .
28
^ Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references in this Motion are to the Califomia Code of Civil
Procedure.
{02023105. DOCX} 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of the four remaining
2 individual Defendants RICE, WITCHER, PUTNEY, and DANILIUC. (Id. at H 4 and Exhibit B.)
3 The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant remaining in the case.
4 On May 11, 2015, the anti-SLAPP Defendants filed a Motion for Fees and Costs pursuant
5 to CCP § 425.16, subdivision (c) and the Court's Order dated April 14, 2015 on Defendant's
6 Special Motion to Strike. (Id. at ^ 5.) The motion sought recovery of approximately $33,000 in fees
7 and costs incurred by the anti-SLAPP Defendants in cormection with the Special Motion to Strike.
8 (Id., Exhibit C.)
9 On June 29, 2018, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion for Fees and
10 Costs in the amoimt of $22,284 against Plaintiff (Id. at 6 and Exhibit C.)
11 A. Plaintiff Failed to Provide Timely Responses to Defendant UNIVERSITY'S Form and
Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for
12
o Admissions, Necessitating Two Motions to Compel Regarding Such Requests
o
fN
B m
13 In the underlying lawsuit from which the anti-SLAPP Defendants have been dismissed,
L_ •= <N
r-" 3 00 — NO
H cn
O
00 o
—
14 Plaintiff has engaged in a pattem of failing to adequately and timely respond to Defendant
ON t~~

^Is fN fN
ON ON
NO NO
15 UNIVERSITY'S discovery requests which has necessitated the filing of two motions to compel
oi < 6 ON ON

j'
^ S3 1
UJ
><
<
16 discovery by Defendant UNIVERSITY on October 17, 2018 and Febmary 11, 2019, respectively.
O .2; !iH u.
D cn 17 (Bardzell Decl., H 7-12.) In its mling on Defendant UNIVERSITY'S October 17, 2018 motion to
18 compel, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to
19 Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets one) and requests for production (set one) no
20 later than December 12, 2018. (Id. at H 9 and Exhibit D.) Additionally, the Court ordered Plaintiff
21 to pay Defendant UNIVERSITY mandatory monetary sanctions in the amount of $520 by
22 December 14, 2018 for failure to provide responses to requests for admissions. (Id.)
23 Plaintiff violated the Court's order by failing to fully pay such monetary sanctions and by
24 providing only deficient responses to the special and form interrogatories which necessitated the
25 filing of a second motion to compel on Febmary 11, 2019. (Id. at T| 9-12.)
26 The Court granted Defendant UNIVERSITY'S second motion to compel and ordered
27 Plaintiff to provide further verified responses to Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets
28 one) no later than April 3, 2019. (Id. at ^ 12 and Exhibit E.) Additionally, the Court denied

{02023105.DOCX} 3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 Defendant's request for monetary sanctions as the motion was imopposed and also denied
2 Defendant's request for terminating sanctions, (/of.)
3 B. Plaintiff Ignores the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Meet-and-Confer Efforts Related to the
Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment
4 Debtor Interrogatories (Set One)
5
The anfi-SLAPP Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for
6
Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) on October 9,
7
2018. (Bardzell Decl., 13 and Exhibit F.) Responses were due on or before November 13, 2018.
8
(Id. at 13.) Plaintiff has completely failed' to provide any verified responses and same are
9
overdue. (Id.)
10
On January 24, 2019, counsel for Defendants served a meet and confer correspondence
11
upon Plaintiff regarding,the outstanding judgment debtor discovery responses wherein defense
12
o
o counsel indicated: "This letter serves as Defendants [. . .] attempt to meet and confer regarding
fN
B m
13
>
H
'= 00 — NO
CO i n 00 p ^ ^
Plaintiffs outstanding responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Request for Production of
o « °^ 2 p; 14 Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories, Set One which were served on you on
> U ON ON . _
ai, < o so ^ 1 J
October 9, 2018. Plaintiff has provided no response whatsoever. Please provide complete
S 1 -J X 16
a- ta-
c cau H u. responses by January 31, 2019 or we will file a motion to compel and seek sanctions." (Id. at ^ 14
3 cn
o
in 17 and Exhibit G.)
18 By email correspondence dated January 25, 2019, Plaintiff asserted he never received a
19 copy of the judgment debtor discovery requests and further provided: "Please send me the
20 aforementioned documents that were supposed to have been sent in October. I will look them over
21 and respond to you with 30 days, or you may file the motion to compel if you wish." (Id. at ^ 15
22 and Exhibit H.) By email correspondence also dated January 25, 2019, the office of coimsel for
23 Defendants provided Plaintiff with a further courtesy copy of Defendants' Judgment Debtor
24 Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories, Set One
25
26
27
/ •. •
which were previously served on Plaintiff on October 9, 2018. (/i/.)

/// ".

28
{02023105. DOCX} A

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 Plaintiff responded by email also dated January 25, 2019, stating: "Never got this before.
Have a nice weekend Ms. Strasser. I feel sorry for you that you are working for guy like Burkett or
Bardzell. Tell them to file motion." (Id. at 116 and Exhibit I.)
On February 22, 2019, counsel for Defendant served a further meet and confer
correspondence upon Plaintiff, providing: "This letter serves as Defendants [. . .] further attempt to
meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs outstanding responses to Defendants' [judgment debtor
discovery requests]. Plaintiff has provided no response whatsoever and responses are more than
three months overdue. Our previous attempts to meet and confer on this issue have been
unsuccessful. If we do not receive complete responses by March 1, 2019, our next action will be to

10 file a motion to compel and seek sanctions." (Id. at ^ 17 and Exhibit J.)
11 By email correspondence dated March 1, 2019, Plaintiff provided, in part; " I am not going
12 to quit my lawsuits voluntarily either regardless of what judges and justices from three different
o
o
in
rJ
13 Califomia courts have done to me in the last four years. I did not provide the response by January
H 3 00 —
m 00
i— cn
O u ON 14 31, 2019 because the DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF [. . . and]
on g fN
<
< ri fN S 15 DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - SET ONE TO
o" ^ ON
5 ON
<U . .
6 -1 ^ 16 PLAINTIFF [. . .] were not sent to me on October 9, 2018 and I do not have any record of it[. . . .]
U.
1u
17 Porter Scott attomeys did not file a Motion to Compel as promised by the January 31, 2019 letter
18 nor did they formally resend the Interrogatories and Production for Documents to me with the new
19 date[. . .] If the Porter Scott attomeys want to file another Motion to Compel [. . .] I have no
20 control over it. I will not be surprised if the. Motion is granted." (Id. at T| 18 and Exhibit K.)

21 Plaintiff fiirther asserted that he provided some documents at the Judgment Debtor examination in

22 this matter. (Id.) ,

. 23 C. Anti-SLAPP Defendants File a Motion to Compel Responses Judgment Debtor

Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor
24 Interrogatories (Set One) and For Monetary and Terminating Sanctions
25 On March 20, 2019, the anti-SLAPP Defendants filed a Mofion to Compel Responses
26 Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor
27
Interrogatories (Set One), and for monetary and terminating sanctions. (Bardzell Deck, ^ 19.)
28
{02023105.DOCX} " ^

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 On April 15, 2019, while the anti-SLAPP Defendants' motion to compel judgment debtor
2 discovery was pending, Plaintiff served unverified, deficient responses to Defendants' Judgment
3 Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set
4 One). (Id. at ^ 20 and Exhibit L.)
5 'On April 25, 2019, the Court issued its tentative ruling, which later became the mling of
6 the Court pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 with a modificafion. (Id. at Tl 21.) The Court's final mling on
7 this motion rejected Plainfiffs argument in opposition that adequate responses were served
8 subsequent to the filing of the mofion and ordered Judgment Debtor "to serve further verified
9 responses to the Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production [.
10 , .] without objections, on or before May 8, 2019." (Id. and Exhibit M.)
11 Although the Court's tentative mling had initially also required Plaintiff "to pay reasonable
12 monetary sancfions to [the anfi-SLAPP Defendants] in the amount of $780 (3 hrs. at the hourly rate
o
o
fN 13 of $260), plus the $60 filing fee, for a total fee award of $840", this sancfions award was vacated
B m
fN — NO
H
,2 00 00 o
m 14 pursuant to the Court's final ruling. (Id.) The Court denied the anti-SLAPP Defendants further
O ON r~
fN fN
15 request for terminating sanctions related to the underlying lawsuit against the UNIVERSITY. (Id.)
^iu ON ON
NO NO
ON ON
as < dJ >< 16
^ " iUi <
Plaintiff failed to serve verified responses to the Judgment Debtor Interrogatories eind
a- c «
D C/3 17 Judgment Debtor Requests for Production without objections by May 8, 2019 in violation of the
o
m
18 Court's order and such responses remain outstanding. (Id. at T| 22.)
19
D. Plaintiff Ignores the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Subsequent Meet-and-Confer Efforts
20 Related to the Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and
21 Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One)

22 On May 31, 2019, counsel for Defendants served a meet and confer correspondence upon

23 Plaintiff regarding the outstanding judgment debtor discovery responses which indicated:

24 This letter serves as Defendants MICHAEL BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, BRENT

SEIFERT, CINDY OROPEZA, and DANESHA NICHOLS ("Defendants'") attempt to
25
meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs failure to provide fiirther responses to Defendants'
26 Judgment Debtor Interrogatories - Set One and Judgement Debtor Request for Production
of Documents - Set One.
27 As provided by the Court's April 27, 2019 Minute Order following its April 26,
2019 tentative mling, Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff was ordered to "serve further verified
28
responses to the Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for
(02023105.DOCX} fi .
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 Production, as set forth in the separate statement, without objections, on or before May 8,
1 2019."
2 Plaintiff has failed to provide any further responses whatsoever. Please provide
complete responses immediately or we will take further action, as needed.
3
(Bardzell Deck, 123 and Exhibit N.)
4
Plainfiff responded by email dated June 1, 2019, stating, in part:

I will respond to your inquiry within a few days (most likely next week). [. . .] Your
threating letter stating "Please provide complete responses immediately or we will take
fiirther action, as needed" made me feel very uncomfortable. I received your May 31, 2019
threat of unspecified further action on the seventh anniversary of the ill-plaimed but
8 unsuccessfiil provocation to end my employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma
Unit #11 by the specially assembled hit squad, which I nicknamed in the Court Documents
9
as the "Davis Death Squad." I hope that your new threat does not mean that the UCOP mob
10 led by Janet Napolitano gave the order to Porter Scott's special team to physically harm me
or my family members, taking into consideration previous Porter Scott attomeys'
11 provocations threats and 14 years of terror.
12 (Id. at H 24 and Exhibit O.)
o
o
fN
B m
13 Plaintiff further responded by email dated June 8, 2019, stating in part:
E- 3 S - NO
O cn m 00 o 14
U 1) ON •*
— m As I stated in my April 12, 2019 Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel and
t/2 i < ON
Oi u fN s:^ 15 Terminate Sanctions filed by you on March 20, 2019, for the Defendants' Judgment
UJ
H > ( J ON ON Debtor Interrogatories Set One and Judgment Debtor Request for Production of
oi
O <^> —o" ^ — 16 Documents Set One, and during the April 26, 2019 Court hearing with Judge Steven
&- .3 uC ON ON
5 td
17 Rodda, I have no more information to give you other than what you have received already.
D cn
o In fact, I should not give you any information in this matter, but this is a separate subject
in 18 that I wiir address after you file another Mofion to Compel or any other mofion related to
this case.
19
20 (Id. at H 25 and Exhibit P.)

21 III.
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO
22 JUDGMENT DEBTOR REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
23 AND JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

24 A judgment creditor is allowed to use the following procedures provided for in the
25 Discovery Act to obtain discovery to assist in enforcing a judgment: (1) service of written
26 interrogatories to the judgment debtor imder CC-P- § 2030.010, et seq., and (2) service of a
27 document inspecfion demand to the judgment debtor under CCP. § 2031.010, et seq. (CCP. §§
28
2016.070; 708.020; 708.030.)
{02023105.DOCX} 7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 A. Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One)
2 A party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath
3 separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: an answer containing the informafion
4 being sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party's opfion to produce writings, or an
objection to the particular interrogatory. (CCP. § 2030.210(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories
are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move
for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP. § 2030.290(b).) The party also

8 waives objections to the interrogatories (including those based on privilege and work product) by

9 failing to respond by the deadline. (CC^P. § 2030.290(a).)

10 Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject
11 to a 45-day time limit, and the propoimding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause
12 or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific
o
o
13 Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) A separate statement is not required
f- 3 fOO
N
—
m OO
O u ON -Sl- when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Rules of Court, mle 3.1345(b).)
< • ON f N
—>
ON 2 15 In our case. Defendants have not received Plaintiffs verified responses to Judgment Debtor
fN
a; < 2" )B ON
S ON

oi I- LZ ^ 16 Interrogatories (Set One). (Bardzell Deck, t 22.) These interrogatories were properly served on
y r-

o
in 17 Plaintiff on October 9, 2018. (Id. at T| 13 and Exhibit F.) Responses were due on or before
18 November 13, 2018. (M)
19 Plaintiff served imverified, deficient and late responses to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories

20 (Set One) on April 15, 2019. (Id. at 20 and Exhibit L.) Interrogatory responses served without a
21 verification are tantamount to serving no responses as all. (Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific

22 Securities Corp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914 ("Untimely or unswom statements are tantamovmt
23 to no response at all[.]") citing Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 55 Cal.App.3d
24 737, 744.).) Plaintiffs unswom responses are wholly insufficient and constitute a complete failure
25 to respond.
26 Plaintiffs late unverified interrogatory responses are not code-compliant discovery
27 responses. Plaintiff has waived any objections to^the requests by failing to timely respond to them.
28 (Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(a) [interrogatories] & 2031.300(a) [producfion
{02023105. DOCX} g
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION QF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 requests].) Instead of serving responses without objections, the unverified responses contain
2 outright refusals to provide information regarding Plaintiffs wife's finances. (Bardzell Deck,
3 Exhibit L, "Response to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Rpgs #1".) Defendants are entitled to that
4 information to determine what assets Plaintiff has (whether individually or as community
5 property), so they can determine what can be collected, and how to collect it, to pay the judgments
6 that he owes in this case. Plaintiff refused that provide that information at the debtor's examination
7 (which is part of the reason why Defendants have had to file this motion not\yithstanding their
8 attempt to resolve the issues in this motion by taking discovery into Plaintiffs assets via the
9 debtor's examination). (Id.)
10 Defendants require these verified interrogatory responses in order to enforce their,
11 judgment. Accordingly, Defendants respectfiilly request a further Order compelling Plainfiff to
12 provide verified and code-compliant responses to anti-SLAPP Defendants' Judgment Debtor
o
o
fN
B m
13 Interrogatories (Set One) without objections.
U- 3 fN
r- 3 oo _ NO
t- cn 00 g
^ rn
14 B. Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One)
fN

oi < 6
ON I3N 15 If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the
NO NO
ON OS
b 3 J >< 16 party propounding the demand may move for an order compelling responses to the demand.
o > sLU
H
<
ti.
D C/2
o
17 (CCP. § 2031.300(b).) The party to whom the demand for inspection is directed shall sign the
in
f^
18 response under oath unless the response contains only objections. (CCP. § 2031.250(1).) In
19 addition, a party who fails to respond waives any objecfions he otherwise could have raised to the
20 demand. (CCP. § 2031.300(a).)
21 As discussed supra, where, as here. Plaintiff has failed to provide any timely verified
22 responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propoimding
23 party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer
24 requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 411.) A separate
25 statement is not required when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Rules
26 ofCourt, mle 3.1345(b).)
27 Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents
28 (Set One) on October 9, 2018. (Bardzell Deck, ^ 13 and Exhibit F.) Responses were due on or

{02023105.DOCX} 9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 before November 13, 2018. (Id.) Plaintiffs responses remain overdue and outstanding. (Id. at ^ 13,
2 22.) .
3 Plainfiff served unverified, late and deficient responses to Judgment Debtor Requests for
4 Production of Documents (Set One) on April 15, 2019. (Id. at ^ 20 and Exhibit L.) As discussed
5 supra, discovery responses served without a verification are tantamount to serving no responses as
6 all. (Zorro Inv. Co., supra, 69 Cal.App.3d at 914.) Moreover, for the same reasons set forth supra
7 regarding Plaintiffs judgment debtor interrogatory responses. Plaintiffs responses to Judgment
8 Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) are not code compliant. Plaintiff s
9 imswom responses to Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) are
10 wholly insufficient and constitute a complete failure to respond.
11 Therefore, Defendants respectfiilly request an Order compelling Plainfiff to provide
12 verified responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Request for Production of Documents (Set
B m
13 One), without objections.
[_ - 3 rNi
— NO
H cn 5S
O 00 o 14 IV.
U
1/3
i <— ON I^'
rs f N
CtJ < Q- ON ON
15 MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AWARDED
W .5^ 3 NO NO
ON ON

^ " i JUJH ><•

<
16 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in relevant part, that:
U.
PH c ed
3 (/I 17
The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the
18 misuse of the discovery process, or any attomey advising that conduct, or both pay
the reasonable expenses, including attomey's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of
19 that conduct [. . .] If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this
20 fitle, the court shall impose that sanction imless it finds that the one subject to the
sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
21 imposition of the sanction imjust.
22 CCP. §§ 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) provide that a court shall impose a monetary
23 sanction on any party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel responses to interrogatories
24 or request for production of documents.
25 Defendants have extended Plaintiff every opportunity to avoid court intervention in this
26 matter by conducting extensive meet and confer efforts. Plaintiff has ignored his obligation to
27 provide verified and adequate responses to Defendants' judgment debtor discovery requests. He
28 has further failed to comply with the Court's order compelling responses.

{02023105. DOCX}
10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 Plaintiffs attempt to evade his obligation to provide responses to judgment debtor
2 discovery has made this second judgment debtor discovery motion necessary, despite being
3 afforded the opportunity to avoid the need for same.
4 To date. Defendants have incurred $2,860.00 in fees as a result of Plaintiffs failure to
5 respond to Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment
6 Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) since the Court mled on Defendants' inifial mofion to compel
7 judgment debtor discovery. (Bardzell Deck, ^ 26.) Defendants anticipate incurring an additional
8 $1,300 to review Plaintiffs Opposifion, prepare a reply and attend a hearing. (Id.) Therefore,
9 sanctions are proper. Moreover, even i f Plaintiff serves verified responses upon notice of this
10 motion in order to avoid a court order. Defendants have nevertheless been forced to incur the
11 expense of moving to compel Plaintiffs compliance with his discovery obligations, despite efforts
12 to achieve a cooperative result. As such, sanctions in the amount of $4,160.00 are appropriately
o
o
fN 13 awarded against Plaintiff for thefimeand expense incurred by Defendants in filing this motion.
B m
— NO
L_ -3 fN
OO p
— m
14 V.
ON I-^
fN fN
H cn
o
ON ON
NO SO
15 TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE
ON ON
oi u <
16 The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may impose sanctions on any party
O
oi
a. <C cd
D cn 17 who engages in conduct that constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (CCP. § 2023.030(a).)
o
in
18 Misuses of the discovery process includes "failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method
19 of discovery" and "disobeying a court order to provide discovery." (CCP. §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)
20 When a party fails to respond to an authorized method of discovery and/or fails to obey a court
21 order to provide discovery, the Court may impose monetary sanctions, terminating sanctions, or
22 both. (CCP § 2023.030(a), (d), (g).)
23 Courts have long held that terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is a willful
24 failure to comply with court orders, and should be issued where it appears that lesser sanctions
25 would not bring the offending party into compliance. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
26 (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Terminating sanctions are especially appropriate where a party
27 fails to respond to discovery requests and ignores court orders. (Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68
28 Cal.App.3d372, 383.)

{02023105.DOCX} 11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 Terminating sanctions are appropriate in this case. Plaintiff has failed to provide any
2 verified responses to the Defendants' written judgment debtor discovery despite extensive meet
3 and confer efforts by Defendants. Moreover, the Court has previously granted a motion to compel
4 judgment debtor discovery filed by the anti-SLAPP Defendants in this case. (Bardzell Deck, ^ 21
5 and Exhibits M.) Plainfiff has completely ignored the Court's order regarding the prior judgment
6 debtor discovery motion. (Id. at ^ 22.) Plaintiff has plainly not been dissuaded from his pattem of
7 failing to engage in the discovery process.
8 Additionally, the Court has previously granted two motions to compel discovery filed by
9 Defendant UNIVERSITY in the underlying lawsuitfi"omwhich the judgment at issue arose. (Id. at
10 ^ 7-12 and Exhibits D-E.) Although these further discovery failures pertain to discovery requests
11 served by Defendant UNIVERSITY rather than the anti-SLAPP Defendants, such aggravafing
12 circumstances regarding discovery in the underlying lawsuit, when considered along with
o
o
fN
ii m
13 Plaintiffs pattern of failing to engage in the judgment enforcement discovery process, warrant the
"3 fN
t r2 00 — 5 14 remedy of terminating sanctions of the underlying lawsuit against Defendant UNIVERSITY.
t — cn in 00 o
S fN fN
^ <I o<
>
" a
^ f:i'
ON ON . ^
Plainfiffs demonstrated pattem of failing to provide discovery responses has prejudiced
U ^^11).I 5^. ,5;
I- r ^
Defendants' ability to prepare for trial by necessitafing substantial expenditures of time and money
D cn
o 17 to compel Plaintiff to both (1) comply with his discovery obligations in the underlying lawsuit; and
18 (2) fulfill his judgment debtor discovery obligations to permit the anfi-SLAPP Defendants to
19 enforce their judgment.
20 Plaintiffs enduring lack of cooperation with the discovery process - despite a total of three
21 prior discovery motions - makes it apparent that no action will compel Plaintiff to comply with his
22 discovery obligations, making terminating sanctions appropriate.
23 Accordingly, Defendants request that the Court grant terminating sanctions and issue an
24 Order dismissing the complaint against the remaining Defendant UNIVERSITY in its enfirety,
25 with prejudice.
26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

{02023105.DOCX}
12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 1 VL
2 CONCLUSION
3 Defendants have made every effort to allow for the cooperative exchange of information,
4 however Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses to the anti-SLAPP Defendants'
,5 Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor
6 Interrogatories (Set One). Defendants are left with no option other than to file the instant motion.
7 As such. Defendants seek an Order (1) compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses,'without
objections, to the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of
Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) awarding anti-SLAPP
10 Defendants sanctions in the amount of $4,160.00 to retum them to the position they would have
11 been had responses been timely provided; (3) issue terminating sancfions against Plaintiff in favor
12 of Defendant UNIVERSITY as a result of Plaintiff s continuing pattern of failing to engage iri the
o
o
I—1
am
3 fN _
13 discovery process.
r-* 3 00 NO
E- cn m oo p
o u =^ 2: P; 14
> N j ON ON .. ^ Dated: June 12, 2019 PORTER SCOTT
< O" ^ ^ 1^
•ijj 2^ c o^ A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

S g g -J X 16
By.
17 David P. E. Burkett
18 Daniel J. Bardzell
Attomeys for Defendant
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02023105. DOCX}
13
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
 Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et al.
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE

4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this acfion. My
business address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:

7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES
8 AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND
9 TERMINATING SANCTIONS

10 BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
11 On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
12 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
o
o addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
fN
^ in
13 attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
•3 S - NO attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine
cn m 00 o
o «r <^ !^ 14 in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the
u i <• Jri documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours
> NJ CJN
oi < o " NO NO
15 ON
of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
W C ON ON
H BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
ai 16 ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package for
O
collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly, utilized drop box of the ovemight delivery
c/o 17 carrier.
BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I
18 faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
machine that \ used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
19
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
20 electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
address listed below. '
21
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
22 2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
23
24
25 I declare under penalty of perjury imder the laws of the State of Califomia that the

26 foregoing is tme and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on Jime 12, 2019.
27
28 Wendy Strasser

{02023105.DOCX}
14
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
EXHIBIT # 24
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 07/19/2019 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: D. Johnson-Mellado
REPORTER/ERM: L. Gallager # 8726
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: Alvi, N., R. Mays

CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 12/04/2013

CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

EVENT TYPE: Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion

APPEARANCES
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, self represented Plaintiff, present.
Dan Bardzell, Counsel for defendant
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Responses and Request for Production of Docs
TENTATIVE RULING
Judgment Creditors Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert's, ("Judgment Creditors") Motion to
Compel Responses to Judgment Creditors' Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor's Requests for
Production of Documents, for payment of Monetary Sanctions, and for Terminating Sanctions is ruled on
as follows.
On April 14, 2015, the Court granted Judgment Creditor's Special Motion to Strike plaintiff's causes of
action and entered judgment in favor of Judgment Creditors. The Court subsequently granted Judgment
Creditors' Motion for Attorneys' fees in the amount of $22,284. (Bardzell Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6, Exhs. A, C.)
Judgment Creditors served the instant post-judgment discovery on October 9, 2018. (Bardzell Decl. ¶13,
Exh. F.) Judgment debtor/plaintiff failed to provide any responses to the discovery. Judgment Creditors
sent a second copy of the discovery to judgment debtor on January 25, 2019, after judgment
debtor/plaintiff contended he never received the first set served in October. (Bardzell Decl. ¶ 14, Exh. G.)
After receiving no responses, Judgment Creditors filed a motion to compel responses on March 20,
2019. On April 15, 2019, while the motion to compel was pending, judgment debtor/plaintiff served
unverified responses. (Bardzell Decl. ¶ 20, Exh. L.)
On April 26, 2019, the Court granted Judgment Creditors' motion to compel and ordered judgment
debtor/plaintiff to serve further verified responses, without objections, on or before May 8, 2019. (ROA
211.) While monetary sanctions were initially granted in the tentative ruling, after hearing at oral
argument, the Court vacated the order for monetary sanctions.
Judgment debtor/plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court order and provide any further responses.
(Bardzell Decl. ¶ 23.) Judgment Creditors have attempted to meet and confer with judgment
debtor/plaintiff, but have been unable to obtain compliance with the Court's discovery order.

DATE: 07/19/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 1

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

Judgment Creditors now move to compel judgment debtor/plaintiff to serve further verified responses,
without objections, to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of
Documents. Judgment Creditors contend they have not received any verified responses from judgment
debtor/plaintiff and the unverified responses they have received are not code-compliant because they
contain an objection and refusal to provide the information, even though judgment debtor/plaintiff has
waived objections by not timely responding. Judgment Creditors contend the information sought is
relevant to enforce their judgment.
Judgment debtor/plaintiff has submitted points and authorities in opposition to the motion, but these do
not address the relevant issues in this motion, and consists almost entirely of matters irrelevant to the
discovery at issue.
Judgment debtor/plaintiff is again ordered to serve further verified responses to the Judgment
Debtor Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production, without objections, on or
before July 29, 2019.
The Court cautions judgment debtor/plaintiff that compliance with a facially valid court order is
mandatory. (See, e.g., In re Brambini (1923) 192 Cal. 19, 28-32; see also In re Berry (1968) 68
Cal.2d 137, 147.)
Judgment debtor/plaintiff is also ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to moving parties in the
amount of $1,300 (5 hrs at the hourly rate of $260), plus the $60 filing fee, for a total fee award of
$1,360. This opposition was filed without substantial justification and therefore, moving parties are
entitled to monetary sanctions. The monetary sanctions must be paid on or before August 19, 2019. If
those sanctions are not paid by that date, moving parties may prepare a formal order on the two
sanctions awards which may thereafter be entered as a separate judgment. (See Newland v Superior
Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608.)
Terminating Sanctions
The motion for terminating sanctions is denied. The post judgment discovery at issue here was served
by Judgment Creditors, not The Regents of the University of California ("Regents"). Moving parties have
already obtained a judgment of dismissal in this case as well as an attorneys' fees award on the
anti-SLAPP motion. Thus, it is unclear why they are seeking a "terminating sanction" in this context.
Regents are not a party to the underlying discovery or this motion, and therefore the Court will not grant
a terminating sanction as to Regents.
Conclusion

As stated above, judgment debtor/plaintiff is again ordered to serve verified responses to the
Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production, without
objections, on or before July 29, 2019. Monetary sanctions are to be paid as specified above.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
After hearing oral argument the Court affirmed its tentative ruling with the following modification:

DATE: 07/19/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 2

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

The Court vacated $60 filing fee from the tentative ruling as listed below:
Judgment debtor/plaintiff is ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to moving parties in the
amount of $1,300 (5 hrs at the hourly rate of $260), for a total fee award of $1,300.

DATE: 07/19/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 3

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
EXHIBIT # 25
 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 Page 1

·1· · · ·IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

·2· · · · · · · · ·FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

·3· · · · · · HON. DAVID BROWN, JUDGE, DEPARTMENT 53

·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · --oOo--

·5· JAROSLAW WASZCZUK,· · · · · · · · · )

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Plaintiff, )
· · · · · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · )· Number
·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )2013-00155479
· · THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CA,)
·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Defendant)
·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
10· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
11· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
12
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·--oOo--
13
· · · · · · · ·REPORTERS' TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
14
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · --oOo--
15
· · · · · · · · · · · · ·JULY 19, 2019
16
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · --oOo--
17
· · · · · · · · · · · · · APPEARANCES:
18
· · · · · · ·For the Plaintiff:
19
· · · · · · · JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, In Pro Per
20

21· · · · · · For the Defendant:

22· · · · · · DANIEL BARDZELL, Attorney at Law

23

24

25

26· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·--oOo--

27

28· · · · · · · · LAURI GALLAGHER, CSR No. 8726

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM YVer1f
 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 Page 2

·1· · · · · · · · · · · JULY 19, 2019

·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · --oOo--
·3· · · · · ·THE COURT:· The matter of the Waszczuk vs. The
·4· ·Regents, Defendant, Case Number 2013-00155479, came on
·5· ·regularly this day before Honorable DAVID BROWN, Judge
·6· ·of the Superior Court of the State of California, for
·7· ·the County of Sacramento, Department 53.
·8· · · · · ·The following proceedings were then had:
·9· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Item No. 1.
10· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· Daniel Bardzell from Porter
11· ·Scott, Defendants.
12· · · · · ·THE COURT:· A couple questions I have for you
13· ·first, Mr. Bardzell.· There's a 60 dollar filing fee.
14· ·Does that apply?· In other, words did you pay it?
15· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· No, the Regents are exempt --
16· · · · · ·THE COURT:· This isn't the Regents.· The
17· ·motion is made as I understand on behalf of --· oh, it
18· ·is the Regents.
19· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· The motion is made on behalf of
20· ·the anti-SLAPP defendants.
21· · · · · ·THE COURT:· The individuals?
22· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· Correct.
23· · · · · ·THE COURT:· That's what I asked.· It says you
24· ·are counsel for the Regents.· You don't say anybody
25· ·else.
26· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· I'm sorry.· The motion papers?
27· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Well, on your papers, it says you
28· ·are counsel for the Regents.· This motion is made on

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM YVer1f
 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 Page 3

·1· ·behalf of the individuals, I understand.· It is Boyd,

·2· ·Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert's motion to
·3· ·compel responses.· Right?
·4· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· That's correct.
·5· · · · · ·THE COURT:· But you didn't caption it that
·6· ·way.· This is a post judgment request for discovery?
·7· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· Correct.· That's an improper
·8· ·caption.
·9· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Does the Court allow you a 60
10· ·dollar filing fee, or did your individual defendants
11· ·pay that?
12· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· My understanding is they did
13· ·not pay the filing fee.
14· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Then the Court should vacate that
15· ·piece of the sanction; correct?
16· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· We would not be opposed to
17· ·vacating the filing fee.
18· · · · · ·THE COURT:· The Court will do that right now.
19· · · · · ·I have another question for you while we're
20· ·sitting here talking about this.· I looked at the
21· ·responses Mr. Waszczuk provided, which were part of
22· ·your papers, Mr. Bardzell.· It was attached, I believe,
23· ·to your declaration as exhibits -- answers to --
24· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· Exhibit L.
25· · · · · ·THE COURT:· The only thing I didn't see, I
26· ·didn't see any objections at all.· All I saw was no
27· ·signature.
28· · · · · ·Is the argument that there's no verification?

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM YVer1f
 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 Page 4

·1· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· That's part of the argument, Your

·2· ·Honor.· I will direct you to an example of an
·3· ·objection.
·4· · · · · ·If you look at page 6 of the response to
·5· ·Judgment Debtor Request for Production of Documents.
·6· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Page 6.· Give me a moment.
·7· · · · · ·I'm starting with you because I want to make
·8· ·sure Mr. Waszczuk understands why we're doing what
·9· ·we're doing.
10· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· Request for production number
11· ·21, the answer --
12· · · · · ·THE COURT:· It's protected by privileged work
13· ·product, right of privacy?
14· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· Correct.
15· · · · · ·THE COURT:· And the Court had previously
16· ·ordered that the motions be granted with no objections;
17· ·correct?
18· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· I don't have the ruling in
19· ·front of me.· I believe it was without objections.
20· · · · · ·THE COURT:· So if there are no objections, Mr.
21· ·Waszczuk should file amended responses without
22· ·objections.· No problem with that.
23· · · · · ·Did he provide verification because all of these
24· ·responses that I see here in Exhibit L that you
25· ·provided me include, "I declare under penalty of
26· ·perjury under the laws of the State of California that
27· ·the foregoing was true and correct."· That's an
28· ·appropriate jurat under 2015.5.· But he didn't sign it.

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM YVer1f
 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 Page 5

·1· ·Do you have a signed copy, sir?

·2· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· No, I do not.
·3· · · · · ·THE COURT:· That's one of the problems that we
·4· ·have here; correct?
·5· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· Correct.· He signed the
·6· ·declaration of service, but he did not sign the
·7· ·verification.
·8· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you.· You have answered all
·9· ·of my questions, Mr. Bardzell.
10· · · · · · Mr. Waszczuk?
11· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· Your Honor, what I see in here,
12· ·because I don't know exactly what defendants knows.· If
13· ·Your Honor look the register of action in this
14· ·proceeding --
15· · · · · ·THE COURT:· I did.
16· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· Then since October 3rd, they
17· ·filing the motion for termination sanction.
18· · · · · ·THE COURT:· I denied that motion for
19· ·terminating sanctions.
20· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I understand that, but Your
21· ·Honor, this is about money, not termination.
22· · · · · ·THE COURT:· If you don't do what you are
23· ·supposed to do, there may be a penalty.
24· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I understood.
25· · · · · · THE COURT:· This is post judgment discovery,
26· ·Mr. Bardzell.· What are you terminating?· There's
27· ·already a judgment against Mr. Waszczuk.
28· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· The motion is filed on behalf

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM YVer1f
 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 Page 6

·1· ·of the anti-SLAPP defendants, but we're okay with the
·2· ·tentative ruling at this point.
·3· · · · · ·THE COURT:· So he is okay with it,
·4· ·Mr. Waszczuk, but you have to provide him answers
·5· ·without objections and sign them under penalty of
·6· ·perjury.
·7· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I need to know what they want.
·8· · · · · ·THE COURT:· You answered them.· You didn't do
·9· ·a bad job.· I read all your answers.· Most of them were
10· ·pretty good.· I would have been happy with them if I
11· ·were Mr. Bardzell, but you didn't sign them, and there
12· ·were a couple objections that were pointed out to me.
13· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I gave Mr. Bardzell everything
14· ·on February 8th.
15· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Did you sign the answers, Mr.
16· ·Waszczuk?
17· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· Your Honor, we were in court --
18· · · · · ·THE COURT:· I don't care whether you were in
19· ·court.· Did you sign the answers?
20· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I believe so.
21· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Do you have Exhibit L?· Do you
22· ·have a copy of his motion in front of you?· It's
23· ·Exhibit L.· It should have a little tab at the bottom.
24· · · · · ·Please show him, Mr. Bardzell.
25· · · · · ·All right.· Exhibit L.· Go to the very end of
26· ·your response to the production of documents.· Go to
27· ·page 7.
28· · · · · ·Do you see where it says submitted on

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM YVer1f
 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 Page 7

·1· ·4-12-2019?· Page 7, line 26.· Do you need assistance?

·2· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· Yes.
·3· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Please assist him.· Go to page 7
·4· ·of your responses to the request for production of
·5· ·documents.
·6· · · · · ·Do you see a signature there at all?
·7· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· No.
·8· · · · · ·THE COURT:· He needs your signature.· Do you
·9· ·see the next one right underneath it, and if you go to
10· ·the end of that one too, guess what?· No signature.
11· ·That's page 8.
12· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· Your Honor, I don't believe
13· ·what they are talking about.
14· · · · · ·THE COURT:· I can't say they are wrong when I
15· ·look at the documents they give me, and I don't see a
16· ·signature.· All you have to do is sign it.· All I want
17· ·you to do is sign it.
18· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I can sign now.
19· · · · · ·THE COURT:· I recognize that, but I think it
20· ·would be more appropriate if you would answer it
21· ·without any objections at all.
22· · · · · ·You have to admit, Mr. Bardzell, most of these
23· ·substantive answers, "I don't own any real property."
24· ·"I don't have any jewelry."· "I don't know have any
25· ·bank accounts with X dollars in it."· "I don't own
26· ·stocks or bonds."
27· ·You said all of that, but you didn't sign it under
28· ·penalty of perjury because you didn't sign it.

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM YVer1f
 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 Page 8

·1· · · · · ·Once you sign it, that's what he needs.· These

·2· ·are civil procedures enacted by the legislature that
·3· ·you have to comply with.· At this point all have you to
·4· ·do is sign it and answer the ones that you objected to.
·5· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· I would point out that the
·6· ·major concern that we have with his responses, the ones
·7· ·that refer to the assets of his spouse, contained
·8· ·outright refusals to respond.
·9· · · · · ·THE COURT:· He's going to have to do that.
10· · · · · ·Unfortunately, you are going to have to make a
11· ·good faith inquiry or say you don't know.· If you say
12· ·you don't know, I may have a right to inquire as to why
13· ·you don't know.
14· · · · · ·Under California law, your spouse's assets maybe
15· ·liable for some piece of your judgment.· Just saying, I
16· ·think they have a right ask.· You can't object to it if
17· ·you think it's bad.
18· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I explain on February 8th to
19· ·Mr. Bardzell, he wrote production of documents. I
20· ·answered all of his questions in the court, and here is
21· ·the court order saying the examination was complete and
22· ·the parties were released.· And I asked Mr. Bardzell,
23· ·do you have any complaints, can you go to judge with
24· ·complaints, and he said no.
25· · · · · ·THE COURT:· That is the O.X.?
26· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· Yes, the examination.
27· · · · · ·THE COURT:· That has nothing to do with these
28· ·responses.

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM YVer1f
 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 Page 9

·1· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· He wrote the production of

·2· ·documents, and I answered question by question to him,
·3· ·and he is repeating this.
·4· · · · · ·THE COURT:· He has a right to ask different
·5· ·things in different way.
·6· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· Why he repeating the same?
·7· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Just so you know, people can use
·8· ·different methods of discovery to try to fare out the
·9· ·same stuff.· It's not always as graceful as you would
10· ·like, but it's permitted by the code.
11· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· The Department 53 judge is more
12· ·important than judge from Department 43.
13· · · · · ·THE COURT:· I will tell the Department 43
14· ·judge that.
15· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· And then another judge decide
16· ·and everything was concluded, and then another judge do
17· ·the same stuff.
18· · · · · ·THE COURT:· I don't know who the department 43
19· ·judge is.
20· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· Judge Blizzard.
21· · · · · ·THE COURT:· I will be sure to tell him.
22· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I gave him all information you
23· ·wanted, and I ask him in front of my witness, he was
24· ·witness, this guy.
25· · · · · ·THE COURT:· That was an order of examination.
26· ·All right.· Give me a moment.
27· · · · · ·MR. BARDZELL:· Nothing further, Your Honor.
28· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Mr. Waszczuk, you know what you

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM YVer1f
 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 Page 10

·1· ·need to do?

·2· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I don't know what I need to do.
·3· ·This is the problem.
·4· · · · · ·THE COURT:· You are going to have to respond
·5· ·again to these discoveries.· One is the
·6· ·interrogatories, the other is the request for
·7· ·production.· You can file the same answers, but you
·8· ·can't object or refuse to answer.
·9· · · · · ·Most of your answers are pretty good, and you
10· ·are going to have to sign it under penalty of perjury,
11· ·which you didn't do the first time.
12· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· Maybe I omitted that, Your
13· ·Honor.· Mr. Bardzell should just say, "Hey, can you
14· ·sign this?"
15· · · · · ·THE COURT:· There's a couple other things he
16· ·wants.
17· · · · · ·Make sure you sign it at least, and then he will
18· ·be back here telling me about the things you still
19· ·objected to, but I'm telling you now that the order
20· ·that I'm providing to you tells you not to object and
21· ·not to refuse to answer the few things that you refuse
22· ·to answer.
23· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· This is about to pay them legal
24· ·fees, not about discovery.· They never asked to pay --
25· ·when I sent my letter to the previous lawyer, they are
26· ·beneficiary of those legal fees awarded them.· They
27· ·don't want to do anything with those legal fees, Your
28· ·Honor.

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM YVer1f
 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 Page 11

·1· · · · · ·The Court want to know why?· I know why.

·2· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Sure, tell me.
·3· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· My lawyer saying prior to
·4· ·Thanksgiving, I offered him $20,000 to get help with
·5· ·the case.· Then they file the SLAPP motion -- they
·6· ·crafted the SLAPP motion during Thanksgiving, and day
·7· ·after on December 2, my lawyer pull out all money from
·8· ·my accounts, from retainer accounts, everything.· They
·9· ·cleaned the accounts and because, you know, they knew
10· ·that I will not be coming back.· I was placed on the
11· ·"no fly" list.· This is what it's about, Your Honor.
12· · · · · ·THE COURT:· The Court will affirm the
13· ·tentative ruling.· Do what you need to do, Mr.
14· ·Waszczuk.
15· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I appreciate, Your Honor, if
16· ·you cancel those sanctions.
17· · · · · ·THE COURT:· I cancelled $60.00 of them.
18· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I'm on social security, Your
19· ·Honor.
20· · · · · ·THE COURT:· I'm not saying they can collect
21· ·them.· I'm saying that they are entitled to them
22· ·procedurally.
23· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I don't want to file a motion
24· ·for reconsideration and go to Court of Appeal.
25· · · · · ·THE COURT:· I understand.· Thank you.
26· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· The Court harasses my old lady.
27· ·This is what it is.
28· · · · · ·(End of Proceedings.)

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM
 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 Page 12

·1· · · · · ·CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL SHORTHAND REPORTER

·2· ·State of California· )

· · · · · · · · · · · · · )· ss.
·3· ·County of Sacramento )

·4· · · · · I, LAURI GALLAGHER, hereby certify that I am a

·5· ·Certified Shorthand Reporter and that I recorded

·6· ·verbatim in stenographic writing the proceedings had

·7· ·JULY 19, 2019, in the matter of the Waszczuk vs. The

·8· ·Regents, Case Number 2013-00155479, completely and

·9· ·correctly to the best of my ability; that I have caused

10· ·said stenographic notes to be transcribed into

11· ·typewriting, and the foregoing pages 1 through 11

12· ·constitute a complete and accurate transcript of said

13· ·stenographic notes taken at the above-mentioned

14· ·proceedings.

15· · · · · ·I further certify that I have complied with

16· ·CCP 237(a)(2) in that all personal juror identifying

17· ·information has been redacted, if applicable.

18· · · · · Dated:· October 8, 2019.

19

20

21

22· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·LAURI GALLAGHER, CSR No. 8726

23

24· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·--oOo--

25

26

27

28

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 ·Index: $20,000..faith
BROWN 2:5
$ 8 D
C
$20,000 11:4 8 7:11 Daniel 2:10
$60.00 11:17 8th 6:14 8:18 California 2:6 4:26 DAVID 2:5
8:14
day 2:5 11:6
- A cancel 11:16
Debtor 4:5
cancelled 11:17
--ooo-- 2:2 accounts 7:25 11:8,9 December 11:7
caption 3:5,8
action 5:13 decide 9:15
1 care 6:18
admit 7:22 declaration 3:23 5:6
case 2:4 11:5
1 2:9 affirm 11:12 declare 4:25
Chilcott 3:2
19 2:1 amended 4:21 Defendant 2:4
civil 8:2
answers 3:23 6:4,9,15, defendants 2:11,20
2 19 7:23 10:7,9 cleaned 11:9 3:10 5:12 6:1

anti-slapp 2:20 6:1 code 9:10 denied 5:18

2 11:7
Appeal 11:24 collect 11:20 department 2:7 9:11,
2013-00155479 2:4 12,13,18
apply 2:14 compel 3:3
2015.5 4:28 direct 4:2
argument 3:28 4:1 complaints 8:23,24
2019 2:1 discoveries 10:5
assets 8:7,14 complete 8:21
21 4:11 discovery 3:6 5:25 9:8
assist 7:3 comply 8:3
10:24
26 7:1
assistance 7:1 concern 8:6
documents 4:5 6:26
attached 3:22 concluded 9:16 7:5,15 8:19 9:2
3
awarded 10:26 contained 8:7 dollar 2:13 3:10
3rd 5:16 copy 5:1 6:22 dollars 7:25
B correct 2:22 3:4,7,15
4 4:14,17,27 5:4,5 E
back 10:18 11:10
counsel 2:24,28
4-12-2019 7:1 enacted 8:2
bad 6:9 8:17
County 2:7
43 9:12,13,18 end 6:25 7:10 11:28
bank 7:25
couple 2:12 6:12 10:15
Bardzell 2:10,13,15,19, entitled 11:21
5 court 2:3,6,9,12,16,21,
22,26 3:4,7,12,16,22,24 examination 8:21,26
4:1,10,14,18 5:2,5,9,26, 23,27 3:5,9,14,18,25
4:6,12,15,20 5:3,8,15, 9:25
53 2:7 9:11 28 6:11,13,24 7:22 8:5,
19,22,26 9:27 10:13 18,22,25 6:3,8,15,17, exempt 2:15
18,19,21 7:3,8,14,19
6 behalf 2:17,19 3:1 5:28 8:9,20,21,25,27 9:4,7, Exhibit 3:24 4:24 6:21,
13,18,21,25,28 10:4,15 23,25
beneficiary 10:26
6 4:4,6 11:1,2,12,17,20,24,25, exhibits 3:23
Blizzard 9:20 26
60 2:13 3:9 explain 8:18
bonds 7:26 crafted 11:6
7 bottom 6:23 F
Boyd 3:1
7 6:27 7:1,3 faith 8:11

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 ·Index: fare..reconsideration
fare 9:8 inquire 8:12 money 5:21 11:7 piece 3:15 8:15
February 6:14 8:18 inquiry 8:11 motion 2:17,19,26,28 point 6:2 8:3,5
3:2 5:17,18,28 6:22
fee 2:13 3:10,13,17 interrogatories 10:6 pointed 6:12
11:5,6,23
fees 10:24,26,27 Item 2:9 Porter 2:10
motions 4:16
file 4:21 10:7 11:5,23 post 3:6 5:25
J
filed 5:28 N pretty 6:10 10:9
filing 2:13 3:10,13,17 jewelry 7:24 previous 10:25
5:17 Nichols 3:2
job 6:9 previously 4:15
fly 11:11 number 2:4 4:10
judge 2:5 8:23 9:11,12, prior 11:3
foregoing 4:27 14,15,16,19,20
O privacy 4:13
front 4:19 6:22 9:23 judgment 3:6 4:5 5:25, privileged 4:12
27 8:15 O.X. 8:25
problem 4:22 10:3
G JULY 2:1 object 8:16 10:8,20
problems 5:3
jurat 4:28 objected 8:4 10:19
gave 6:13 9:22 procedurally 11:22
give 4:6 7:15 9:26 objection 4:3
K procedures 8:2
good 6:10 8:11 10:9 objections 3:26 4:16,
19,20,22 6:5,12 7:21 proceeding 5:14
graceful 9:9 knew 11:9
October 5:16 proceedings 2:8 11:28
granted 4:16 product 4:13
L offered 11:4
guess 7:10 production 4:5,10 6:26
omitted 10:12
guy 9:24 lady 11:26 7:4 8:19 9:1 10:7
opposed 3:16
law 8:14 property 7:23
H order 8:21 9:25 10:19
laws 4:26 protected 4:12
ordered 4:16
happy 6:10 lawyer 10:25 11:3,7 provide 4:23 6:4
Oropeza 3:2
harasses 11:26 legal 10:23,26,27 provided 3:21 4:25
outright 8:8
Hey 10:13 legislature 8:2 providing 10:20

Honor 4:2 5:11,13,21 letter 10:25 P pull 11:7

6:17 7:12 9:27 10:13,28 liable 8:15
11:11,15,19 papers 2:26,27 3:22 Q
list 11:11
Honorable 2:5 part 3:21 4:1
looked 3:20 question 3:19 9:2
parties 8:22
I questions 2:12 5:9
M pay 2:14 3:11,13 10:23, 8:20
24
important 9:12
made 2:17,19,28 penalty 4:25 5:23 6:5 R
improper 3:7
major 8:6 7:28 10:10
include 4:25 read 6:9
make 4:7 8:10 10:17 people 9:7
individual 3:10 real 7:23
matter 2:3 perjury 4:26 6:6 7:28
individuals 2:21 3:1 10:10 recognize 7:19
methods 9:8
information 9:22 permitted 9:10 reconsideration
moment 4:6 9:26
11:24

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
July 19, 2019 ·Index: refer..wrote
refer 8:7 starting 4:7
W
refusals 8:8 State 2:6 4:26
refuse 10:8,21 stocks 7:26 wanted 9:23
Regents 2:4,15,16,18, stuff 9:9,17 Waszczuk 2:3 3:21
24,28 4:8,21 5:10,11,16,20,
submitted 6:28
register 5:13 24,27 6:4,7,13,16,17,20
substantive 7:23 7:2,7,12,18 8:18 9:1,6,
regularly 2:5 11,15,20,22,28 10:2,12,
Superior 2:6
released 8:22 23 11:3,14,15,18,23,26
supposed 5:23
repeating 9:3,6 words 2:14

request 3:6 4:5,10 7:4 T work 4:12

10:6 wrong 7:14
respond 8:8 10:4 tab 6:23 wrote 8:19 9:1
response 4:4 6:26 talking 3:20 7:13

responses 3:3,21 telling 10:18,19

4:21,24 7:4 8:6,28 tells 10:20
retainer 11:8 tentative 6:2 11:13
ruling 4:18 6:2 11:13 terminating 5:19,26
termination 5:17,21
S
Thanksgiving 11:4,6
Sacramento 2:7 thing 3:25
sanction 3:15 5:17 things 9:5 10:15,18,21
sanctions 5:19 11:16 time 10:11
Scott 2:11 true 4:27
security 11:18
U
Seifert's 3:2
service 5:6 underneath 7:9
show 6:24 understand 2:17 3:1
sign 4:28 5:6 6:5,11,15, 5:20 11:25
19 7:16,17,18,27,28 understanding 3:12
8:1,4 10:10,14,17
understands 4:8
signature 3:27 7:6,8,
10,16 understood 5:24

signed 5:1,5
V
sir 5:1
sitting 3:20 vacate 3:14
SLAPP 11:5,6 vacating 3:17
social 11:18 verification 3:28 4:23
5:7
spouse 8:7
spouse's 8:14

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Sacramento 10-11-2019 8:37AM
EXHIBIT # 26
EXHIBIT # 27
EXHIBIT # 29
EXHIBIT # 33
 1 PORTER I S C O T T
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Derek J. Haynes, SBN 264621
• 3 Aifianda L. Her, SBN 300268
Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
FILED/ENDORSED
4 350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, Califomia 95825 DEC - 6 2019
5 TEL: 916.929.1481
By: E. IVIedina
FAX: 916.927.3706
6 ueputy Citm

7 Attomeys for Defendant

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 Attorneys for Judgment Creditors/Former Defendants
MICHAEL BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, and BRENT
10 SEIFERT
Exempt From.Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
14 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASENO. 34-2013-00155479

15 Plaintiff, REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
16 JUDGMENT DEBTOR
17 INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
18 CALIFORNIA, et al., AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
19 Defendants. Date: December 13, 2019
20 Time: 2:00 p.m.
Dept.: 53
21
Corhplaint Filed: December 4, ,2013
22 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
23 SAC Filed: September 30, 2014

24
25
26
27
28

{02II7245.DOCX}
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
 1 I.
2 INTRODUCTION
3 Judgment Creditors/Defendants have now filed three Motions to Compel Judgment
4 Debtor/Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK to provide compliant responses to Judgment
5 Debtor Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Request for Production of Documents. All such Motions
6 have been granted, yet Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff still refuses to provide those responses. His most-
7 recent responses are identical to those this Court found deficient in ruling on the prior Motion.
8 That forced Judgment Creditors/Defendants to file the instant Motion to Compel and Request for
9 Monetary Sanctions. Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff failed to file a timely Opposition to the Motion. As a
10 result. Judgment Creditors/Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition. Thereafter, Judgment
11 Debtor/Plaintiff filed an untimely Opposition. Judgment Creditors/Defendants submit the Court should
12 disregard that Opposition as untimely. However, even i f the Court considers the Opposition, Plaintiff
13 concedes in that document that he has "no arguments" other than those the Court already rejected in
14 granting the prior Motions to Cornpel.
15 Judgment Debtor/Plaintiffs current Opposition is instead replete with incoherent and nonsensical
16 assertions that counsel for Judgment Creditors is engaging in extortion. Although unclear, it appears
17 Judgment Debtor/Plaintiffs assertions focus on an underlying Order from this Court where the Court
18 awarded Defendants the attorney's fees they incurred in successfully pursuing an Anti-SLAPP Motion.
19 Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff argues that three other lawyers from defense counsel's firm worked on that
20 motion, not the current lawyers. Judgment Debtor's email correspondence attached as Exhibit 5 to his
21 Opposition also claims that any fees that are paid must be paid to the individual Defendants who
22 prevailed on the Anti-SLAPP Motion and not to Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
•23 CALIFORNIA (herein "REGENTS"), who paid for those fees.
24 Those arguments, however, are entirely irrelevant to the pending Motion, which merely argues
25 that Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff failed to provide adequate responses to discovery requests. Judgment
26 Debtor/Plaintiff does not dispute that issue, nor can he given the responses are identical to the ones the
27 Court previously found deficient.
28 For these reasons and the reasons set forth in Judgment Creditors' moving papers, Judgment
{02117245 DOCX) 2
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
 1 Creditors' Motion should be granted. Judgment Creditors also respectfully request that the Court award
' 2 sanctions for Judgment Debtor's repeated abuse of the discovery process and disregard of previous court
3 orders. In addition. Judgment Creditors respectfully request the Court clarify that the REGENTS is
4 entitled to the payment of sanction awards as the REGENTS is incurring the costs associated with the
5 litigation against Judgment Debtor.
6 II.
7 JUDGMENT DEBTOR'S OPPOSITION SHOULD BE DISREGARDED BECAUSE IT WAS
8 UNTIMELY
9 Judgment Debtor's Opposition to the instant Motion was due on December 2, 2019. (Declaration of
10 Amanda L. Her [herein "Her Decl."], ^ 2.) On December 4, 2019, after no Opposition had been served or
11 even filed, Judgment Creditors filed a Reply to Plaintiffs Non-Opposition to Defendaiit's Motion to
12 Compel Responses to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents; and
13 for Monetary Sanctions. (Her Decl., ^ 3; Exhibit A, Reply to Plaintiffs Non-Opposition) Shortly
14 thereafter, counsel for Judgment Creditors received notification that Judgment Debtor filed an
15 Opposition. Counsel for Judgment Debtor then downloaded the relevant documents from the Court's
16 website. (Her Deck, ^ 4.) The proof of service indicated Judgment Debtor served the Opposition by mail,
17 even further delaying Judgment Creditors' receipt of Judgment Debtor's already untimely response. (Her
18 Deck, t 5.)
19 In his Opposition, Judgment Debtor completely fails to acknowledge that he failed to file a
20 timely Opposition under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). He does not offer any excuse, reason,
21 or authority for his actions. As such, the Judgment Creditors respectfully request that the Court exercise
22 its authority under Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300, refuse to consider Judgment Debtor's
23 untimely Opposition, and preclude Judgment Debtor from making any oral argument. (Bozzi v.
24 Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [the Court properly refiased to consider plaintiffs
25 untimely papers where plaintiff did not invoke any of the available procedures to obtain a court order
26 permitting late filing].)
27 Ill
28 III
{021I7245.DOCX} 3
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
 1 III.
2 JUDGMENT CREDITORS' MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE JUDGMENT
3 DEBTOR DID NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION FOR OPPOSING IT
4 Judgment Debtor offers no legal basis in his Opposition for his failure to, once again, provide
5 compliant discovery responses in a timely manner. In fact, he outright admits that he "has no fiirther
6 argument" beyond those arguments that the Court rejected in granting Judgment Creditors' earlier
7 Motions.
8 Rather than responding to the arguments Judgment Creditors set forth supporting their contention
9 that Judgment Debtor should be compelled to provide further discovery responses and that the Court
10 should award sanctions, Judgment Debtor instead makes conspiracy theory-type arguments about
11 counsel for Judgment Creditors extorting money from him.
12 As set forth in Judgment Creditors' moving papers, this is the third Motion Judgment Creditors
13 have been forced to file in attempting to collect the judgments owed in this case. This Court has now
14 ordered Judgment Debtor multiple times to serve fiarther verified responses to the Judgment Debtor
15 Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production without objection. {See Declaration of
16 Daniel Bardzell in Support of Further Motion to Compel [herein "Bardzell Decl."] 15, 21 and
17 Exhibits K and O attached thereto) He has not done so, choosing instead to serve verified versions of the
18 identical responses this Court previously deemed insufficient. Even more egregious is the fact that
19 Judgment Debtor acknowledged in an email that he does have responsive documents, but refused to
20 provide them except for in a face-to-face meeting.' (Bardzell Deck, t 28 and Exhibit V) Judgment
21 Creditors are not required to acquiesce to such a request. When counsel for Judgment Creditors
22 communicated as much to Judgment Debtor, he responded by urging Judgment Creditors to file the
23 instant motion—conduct that continues to violate this Court's orders. (Bardzell Decl. \ 30 and
24 Exhibit X)
25 Judgment Debtor should be sanctioned for opposing this Motion without substantial justification.
26 (Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(c) [interrogatories] & 2031.300(c) [production requests].)
27
28 ' Ttiis is just another effort in Plaintiffs long-line of efforts to intimidate and threaten defense counsel, the same type of
conduct that resulted in his termination from the University.
{02117245 DOCX) ; 4
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
 1 He has offered no legal basis for his failure to timely respond, or even for his failure to respond to the
2 numerous meet and confer attempts that Judgment Creditors have engaged in, as detailed in the moving
3 papers. Judgment Debtor's brazen defiance of multiple Court orders to serve fijrther discovery responses
4 is an unquestionable misuse of the discovery process for which monetary sanctions should be awarded.
5 (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(g); 2023.030 (a).) Judgment Creditors request an award of $5,460.00 as
6 set forth in the moving papers.
7 IV.
8 DEFENDANT REGENTS IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF SANCTIONS AWARDS
9 Judgment Debtor indicates in his Opposition and supporting exhibits that the REGENTS and
10 defense counsel are not entitled to the sanctions and fees awarded to date. (Opposition to Motion to
11 Compel Filed on October 23, 2019, pp. 4-5) In a November 21, 2019 email correspondence to counsel
12 for the REGENTS and Judgment Creditors, Judgment Debtor wrote, "As I advised you a few days ago,
13 the UC Regents should not cash the $1,300 check I sent to your office on November 18, 2019. The UC
14 Regents are not the party of the anti-SLAPP motion filed by Porter Scott's fomier attomey Michael Pott
15 on December 1, 2014." (Opposition, Exhibit 5.) Judgment Debtor goes on to offer to write individual
16 checks in the amount of $260.00 to each Judgment Creditor and insinuates he either has or will file a
17 complaint with the State Bar related to this issue.
18 Judgment Debtor has cited no legal authority for his position that the REGENTS are not entitled
19 to the sanction payment. The REGENTS has paid for the defense ofthe Judgment Creditors. (Her Decl. ^
20 6.) "A monetary sanction may be based not only on attomey's fees and costs, but also on any other
21 reasonable expenses incurred.'" {Argaman v, Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4''^ 1173, 1179 [emphasis added].)
22 As the REGENTS has incurred the expense of the Special Motion to Strike and subsequent discovery
23 proceedings associated with collecting the judgment, the REGENTS is the proper recipient of the
24 sanction payments. Judgment Creditors respectfully request the Court clarify for Judgment Debtor that
25 the REGENTS is entitled to the payment of sanction awards so that Judgment Debtor does not continue
26 to use that as an excuse for not paying the amounts owed.
27
111 •
28
III
(02117245 DOCX) . ^5 ^
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
 1 V. .
2 CONCLUSION
3 Based on the foregoing, Judgment Creditors respectfully submit that their Motion to Compel
4 Responses to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents; and for
5 Monetary Sanctions should be granted.
6
7 Dated: December 6, 2019 PORTER SCOTT
A PRCIFESSIONA TION
8
9
10 )erek J. Haynes
^Amanda L. Her
11 Daniel J. Bardzell
Attomeys for Judgment Creditors/Former
12
Defendants
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02117245.DOCX}
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
 Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et al.
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE

4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
.5
6 On the date below, I served the following document: REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES
7 AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS
8
BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
9
am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
10 On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
11 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
12 attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine
13 in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the
documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours
14 of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
15 ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package for
collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the ovemight delivery
16 carrier.
BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I
17 faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
18 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
19 address listed below.

20 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
21 2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242
22
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on December 6, 2019.
24
25
Cindy A<3bndinetti
26
27
28
(02117245.DOCX)
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
EXHIBIT # 34
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 12/13/2019 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: R. Mays, Alvi, N.

CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 12/04/2013

CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

EVENT TYPE: Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion

APPEARANCES
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, self represented Plaintiff, present.
Daniel J. Bardzell, counsel present for judgment creditors
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Interrogatoriesand Production of Documents
TENTATIVE RULING
Judgment Creditors Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza, and Seifert (collectively, "Judgment Creditors")
move to compel further responses from Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor Jaroslaw (Jerry) Waszczuk to
requests for production, set one, and interrogatories, set one. Judgment Creditors also request
sanctions in the amount of $5,460. The motion is ruled upon as follows.
As outlined in the Court's prior order of July 19, 2019, on April 14, 2015, the Court granted Judgment
Creditors' special motion to strike Plaintiff's causes of action and entered judgment in favor of Judgment
Creditors. The Court subsequently granted Judgment Creditors' motion for attorneys' fees in the amount
of $22,284. (See ROA 219.)
Judgment Creditors served the underlying discovery on October 9, 2018. The Court previously granted
motions to compel related to the discovery on April 26, 2018, and July 19, 2019. In both rulings,
Judgment Debtor was ordered to provide further verified responses, without objections. The July 19,
2019 order also imposed sanctions against Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor in the amount of $1,300.
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff attempted to provide further responses by email on the Court deadline of July
29, 2019. (Bardzell Decl. ¶ 22, Exh. P.) Counsel for Judgment Creditors sent correspondence on August
5, 2019, raising the issue of improper service and stating that the further responses "appear[ed] identical
to the responses . . . previously provided with the only difference being that you executed a verification."
(Id. ¶ 23, Exh. Q.) The parties continued to meet and confer. Judgment Debtor served verified responses
on September 6, 2019, which Judgment Creditor alleges again "appear identical to his previously
provided responses with the only difference being that he provided a properly executed verification for
each response." (Mot. at 8, citing Bardzell Decl. ¶ 26, Exh. T.) The parties continued to meet and confer
but no further responses have been received.
Judgment Creditors move to compel Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff to serve further Code-compliant verified

DATE: 12/13/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 1

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

responses, without objections, to the subject discovery.

Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff submitted a late-filed opposition to the motion but it largely does not address
the relevant issues in the motion. The opposition does include, in relevant part: "The Plaintiff has no
further argument or other arguments other than the Plaintiff already provided to the Court in his previous
opposition sand [sic] in the exhibits, attached to this opposition especially in the Plaintiff's November 18,
2019, response titled Re: Blackmail Sanctions to Porter Scott Attorney Daniel Bardzell 11/11/2019."
Judgment Creditors are entitled to the previously-ordered further Code-compliant verified responses,
without objection.

Conclusion
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff is again ordered to serve Code-compliant further verified responses to the
Judgment Debtor Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One, without objections, on
or before December 23, 2019.
The Court yet again cautions Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff that compliance with a facially-valid
court order is mandatory. (See, e.g., In re Brambini (1923) 192 Cal. 19, 28-32; see also In re Berry
(1968) 68 Cal.2d 137, 147.)
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff is also ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the moving parties in
the amount of $1,300 (5 hours at the hourly rate of $260), for the fees incurred since the Court's last
order compelling further responses to the same discovery. The opposition was filed without substantial
justification. The monetary sanctions are to be paid on or before January 13, 2019. If those sanctions
are not paid by that date, the moving parties may prepare a formal order on the sanction award, which
may thereafter entered as a separate judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th
608.)
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.

COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted.
The Court takes this matter under submission.

DATE: 12/13/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 2

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
EXHIBIT # 35
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 12/17/2019 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:

CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 12/04/2013

CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

EVENT TYPE: Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion

APPEARANCES

Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter (Motion to Compel Interrogatories and

Production of Documents) taken under submission on 12/13/2019
TENTATIVE RULING
Judgment Creditors Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza, and Seifert (collectively, "Judgment Creditors")
move to compel further responses from Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor Jaroslaw (Jerry) Waszczuk to
requests for production, set one, and interrogatories, set one. Judgment Creditors also request
sanctions in the amount of $5,460. The motion is ruled upon as follows.
As outlined in the Court's prior order of July 19, 2019, on April 14, 2015, the Court granted Judgment
Creditors' special motion to strike Plaintiff's causes of action and entered judgment in favor of Judgment
Creditors. The Court subsequently granted Judgment Creditors' motion for attorneys' fees in the amount
of $22,284. (See ROA 219.)
Judgment Creditors served the underlying discovery on October 9, 2018. The Court previously granted
motions to compel related to the discovery on April 26, 2018, and July 19, 2019. In both rulings,
Judgment Debtor was ordered to provide further verified responses, without objections. The July 19,
2019 order also imposed sanctions against Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor in the amount of $1,300.
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff attempted to provide further responses by email on the Court deadline of July
29, 2019. (Bardzell Decl. ¶ 22, Exh. P.) Counsel for Judgment Creditors sent correspondence on August
5, 2019, raising the issue of improper service and stating that the further responses "appear[ed] identical
to the responses . . . previously provided with the only difference being that you executed a verification."
(Id. ¶ 23, Exh. Q.) The parties continued to meet and confer. Judgment Debtor served verified responses
on September 6, 2019, which Judgment Creditor alleges again "appear identical to his previously
provided responses with the only difference being that he provided a properly executed verification for
each response." (Mot. at 8, citing Bardzell Decl. ¶ 26, Exh. T.) The parties continued to meet and confer
but no further responses have been received.
Judgment Creditors move to compel Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff to serve further Code-compliant verified

DATE: 12/17/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 1

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

responses, without objections, to the subject discovery.

Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff submitted a late-filed opposition to the motion but it largely does not address
the relevant issues in the motion. The opposition does include, in relevant part: "The Plaintiff has no
further argument or other arguments other than the Plaintiff already provided to the Court in his previous
opposition sand [sic] in the exhibits, attached to this opposition especially in the Plaintiff's November 18,
2019, response titled Re: Blackmail Sanctions to Porter Scott Attorney Daniel Bardzell 11/11/2019."
Judgment Creditors are entitled to the previously-ordered further Code-compliant verified responses,
without objection.

Conclusion
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff is again ordered to serve Code-compliant further verified responses to the
Judgment Debtor Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One, without objections, on
or before December 23, 2019.
The Court yet again cautions Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff that compliance with a facially-valid
court order is mandatory. (See, e.g., In re Brambini (1923) 192 Cal. 19, 28-32; see also In re Berry
(1968) 68 Cal.2d 137, 147.)
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff is also ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the moving parties in
the amount of $1,300 (5 hours at the hourly rate of $260), for the fees incurred since the Court's last
order compelling further responses to the same discovery. The opposition was filed without substantial
justification. The monetary sanctions are to be paid on or before January 13, 2019. If those sanctions
are not paid by that date, the moving parties may prepare a formal order on the sanction award, which
may thereafter entered as a separate judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th
608.)
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.

COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission.
Having taken the matter under submission on 12/13/2019, the Court now rules as follows:
SUBMITTED MATTER RULING
The Court affirmed the tentative ruling.

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242
DANIEL J. BARDZELL
PORTER SCOTT
350 UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 200
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825

DATE: 12/17/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 2

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
EXHIBIT # 36
EXHIBIT # 37
 1 PORTER I S C O T T
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
FILED/ENDORSED
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566 APR 2 6 2021
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481 By: -E. Medina
5 FAX: 916.927.3706 Deputy Clerk

6
Attomey for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAIVIENTO
10
11 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o Plaintiff, EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
o
13 TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR
r- 3 00 —
0\
V. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
O V 14 SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
O 2
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
pi. 2 S
CALIFORNL\, UNIVERSITY OF ADJUDICATION
hi ^ 16 CALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM,
O
a. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
3 t/>
17 DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
PUTNEY, DORIN DANE.IUC, and Does 1
20 through 50, inclusive. Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
21 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
Defendants. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
22
LL,
23
24
25
26
27
28

{0241.19S2.DOCX} 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
 1 I.
2 EX PARTE APPLICATION
3 Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ("UNIVERSITY")
4 hereby submits this Ex Parte Application for permission to file a Memorandinn of Points and
5 Authorities in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the altemative. Summary
6 Adjudication in excess of twenty pages pursuant to Rules 3.1113(e) and 3.1200 et seq. of the
7 Califomia Rules of Court. Rule 3.1113(e) allows a party to apply to the court for permission to file a
8 longer memorandum if the argument cannot be made within the stated page limit. Due to the lengthy
9 facts, multiple causes of action, and complex legal issues in this case, it is necessary that Defendant's
10 Memorandtun of Points and Authorities exceed twenty pages to adequately address the factual and
11 legal issues presented by the motion.
12 IL
o
o
r-i
B >n 13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES j
i _ •= rM
r " 3 00 — VO
r - I'l <n 00 o
O —. m 14 IN SUPPORT OF EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT
c^ 15
a: < d vd vd Defendant intends to move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
Ov Ov
-i >< 16
l i3e(/I Wf- u.< adjudication as the following causes of action: 1) harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to
17
o prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 12940(a); 2)
18
whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 8547; 3) retaliation under
19
Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 4) breach of written contract; 5) wage and hour misclassification;
20
and 6) rescission-unlawful contract. (Declaration of Lindsay A. Goulding in support of Defendant's
21
ExParte Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment that Exceeds 20 Pages ("Goulding
22
Decl. 13.) The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will necessarily require a detailed
23
discussion of the nature of Plaintiffs employment relationship with Defendant, the alleged
24
harassment of Plaintiff fi-om 2006 to 2013, as well as the individual defenses applicable thereto.
25
26 (Id.) The circumstances surrounding die allegedly harassing conduct will also require a detailed

27 discussion regarding the nature of the conduct, the timing, and the speakers and recipients of the

28 alleged harassment. (Id.) Further, a lengthy legal analysis will be required to address Plaintiffs

{0241.1952.DOCX} 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
 previous settlement agreement with Defendant. (Id.)
In order to address the lengthy facts, legal authority, and legal arguments regarding each of
3 Plaintiffs causes of action. Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its
4 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will need to exceed twenty pages. Therefore,
5 Defendants respectfully request that the court, pursuant to Rules 3.113(e) and 3.1200 et seq. of the
6 Califomia Rules of Court, allow it to submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in excess of
7 twenty pages, but not to exceed forty pages. Defendant will make a good faith effort to keep the
8 motion as concise as possible.
9 III.
10 CONCLUSION
11 For the reasons set forth above. Defendant has demonsttated good cause for an expansion
12 of the page limit and move this Court to permit Defendant to submit a memorandum of up to 40
o
o
13 pages in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.
f- 3 g — VO
i- i/i 00 o
O — m 14
cC [--•
r-j <N

a: < d
O ; Ov_
vd 15 Dated April 22, 2021 PORTER SCOTT
O ov A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
- j >< 16
o •I "mf- u.<
3 t/i
o 17
in

18 By.
Lindsay A. Goulding
19 Attorneys for Defendant
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

{02413952.DOCX}
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
 Waszczuk V. Regents ofthe University of California, et al
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE

4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:

7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S

EXPARTE FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT
8 EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
9
XX BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
10 am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
U course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fiilly prepaid.
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s) addressed
12 below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the attomey's
o
o office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attomey being
13 served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the horns of nine in the morning
-s — VD and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the
c/i ? ! 00 O
O — m 14 party's residence with some person not yoxmger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the
U ov moming and six in the evening.
!/3 5; u
ad < ^
ov Ov 15 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
d ^ ^
pJ 5> c bv Ov ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package fbr
16 collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the ovemight delivery
o li carrier.
a. 17 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I
o
•n
faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
18 machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
19 electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification address
listed below.
20
21 Jaroslaw Waszc2juk
2216Katzakian Way
22 Lodi, CA 95242
[email protected]
23
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
25 is tme and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on April 26, 2021.

26
27
28 Virginia Yao
{0241.1952.DOCX}
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
L:: U„ r;:^J

o
 1
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
6
Attorney for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103

9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11 JAROSLAW (“JERRY”) WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
12
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A.
350 University Avenue, Suite 200

13 GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF
Sacramento, CA 95825
PORTER | SCOTT

FAX: 916.927.3706
TEL: 916.929.1481

v. DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE

14 TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF
16 CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM,
UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
17 DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1
20
through 50, inclusive,
21
Defendants.
22 _____________________________________/
23 I, Lindsay A. Goulding, declare as follows:
24 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California
25 and am a partner with the law firm of Porter Scott, attorneys of record for Defendant REGENTS OF
26 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (“Defendant” or “UNIVERSITY”). I state the facts herein
27 of my own personal knowledge and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently
28 testify thereto.

{02413956.DOCX} 1
DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
 1 2. The Second Amended Complaint alleges the following causes of action: 1)
2 intentional infliction of emotional distress; 2) tortious interference with economic advantage; 3)
3 harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation
4 in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); 4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of
5 Government Code § 8547; 5) retaliation under Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 6) breach of written
6 contract; 7) wage and hour misclassification; and 8) rescission-unlawful contract.
7 3. Defendant intends to move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
8 adjudication as to the following causes of action: 3) harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to
9 prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); 4)
10 whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Government Code § 8547; 5) retaliation under
11 Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 4) breach of written contract; 6) wage and hour misclassification;
12 and 7) rescission-unlawful contract. The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will
350 University Avenue, Suite 200

13 necessarily require a detailed discussion of the nature of Plaintiff’s employment relationship with
Sacramento, CA 95825
PORTER | SCOTT

FAX: 916.927.3706
TEL: 916.929.1481

14 Defendant, the alleged harassment of Plaintiff from 2006 to 2013, as well as the individual defenses
15 applicable thereto. The circumstances surrounding the allegedly harassing conduct will also require
16 a detailed discussion as to the nature of the conduct, the timing, and the speakers and recipients of
17 the alleged harassment. Further, a lengthy legal analysis will be required to address Plaintiff’s
18 previous settlement agreement with Defendant.
19 4. In order to address the lengthy facts, legal authority, and legal arguments regarding
20 each of Plaintiff’s causes of action, Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support
21 of its Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will need to exceed twenty pages.
22 5. I contacted Plaintiff to inform him of this Application via telephone and email on
23 April 26, 2021 at approximately 9:02 a.m. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy
24 of my email correspondence to Plaintiff regarding Defendant’s request to exceed the page limit.
25 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
26 is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of April 2021, at Sacramento, California.
27 L
28
Lindsay A. Goulding
{02413956.DOCX} 2
DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
 EXHIBIT
“A”
01054547.WPD
From: Virginia Yao
To: [email protected]
Cc: Lindsay A. Goulding; Tomi Aina
Subject: Waszczuk v. Regents
Date: Monday, April 26, 2021 8:59:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png

Dear Mr. Waszczuk:

 
This is just to confirm our conversation this morning that our office is filing an Exparte
today on the papers to request a page extension to the Motion for Summary of
Judgment that we will be filing.  Thank you.  
 

Virginia Yao
Legal Assistant to Lindsay A. Goulding
  350 University Avenue | Suite 200 | Sacramento, CA 95825
T| 916.929.1481 x 331 F| 916.927.3706
www.porterscott.com

 
 
 Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al.
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:

7 DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE TO FILE
8 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
9
XX BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
10 am readily familiar with this business’ practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
11 course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s) addressed
12 below. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney’s
office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being
350 University Avenue, Suite 200

13 served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the morning
Sacramento, CA 95825

and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the
PORTER | SCOTT

FAX: 916.927.3706
TEL: 916.929.1481

14 party’s residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the
morning and six in the evening.
15 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package for
16 collection and overnight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery
carrier.
17 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I
faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
18 machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
19 electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification address
listed below.
20
21 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
22 Lodi, CA 95242
[email protected]
23
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on April 26, 2021.
25
26 v
27 ___________________________________
Virginia Yao
28

{02413956.DOCX} 3
DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
 1 P O R T E R I S C O T T

2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566 APR 2 7 2021
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481 Bv: D. JOHNSON-MELLADQ
5 FAX: 916.927.3706 DEPUTY CLERK

6
Attomey for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNrVERSITY OF CALIFORNL\
8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant io Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
II
JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASENO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o Plaintiff, tJatOPOOflPf^ ORDER ON
o
i i w-i
13 DEFENI^ffiST'S EX PARTE
— VO
00 o
14 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
— m
EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
. oi < 6
CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
« 5; g 16 CALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
o ADJUDICATION
17 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
C a

o
in DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHE.COTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
20 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
through 50, inclusive. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
21
Defendants.
22
23
24 /

25 An Ex Parte Application for an order permitting Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE

26 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNL\ to file a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
their Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Altemative Summary Adjudication exceeding 20
pages in length was filed with this Court on the above date and time. The Court has reviewed the
{024^4532.DOCX} 1

, gjPROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND PAGE

LIMIT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
 Ex Parte Application and found good cause to grant Defendant's request for a page extension.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE
UMVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA shall be permitted to file a Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of its Motion for Summaiy Judgment, or in the Altemative, Summary
Adjudication in excess of 20 pages, but not to exceed 40 pages.

Dated:
APR 2 7 2021
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
SHAMA H. MESIWALA

10
11
12
o
o

L_ • = (N
13
— \o
,t- t/) K oo o
O !^ 14
^ i< — a. 15
vd >f>
Ov ov
w <
16
o
<n
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02414532.DOCX}

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND PAGE

LIMIT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
EXHIBIT # 38
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk, Plaintiff in Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-787-3131
Email: [email protected]

April 27, 2021

Lindsay A. Goulding, Attorney

Porter Scott Law Firm
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825

The Regents of the University of California

1111 Franklin St., 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607

Subject: Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the

University of California, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott,
Charles Witcher, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Brent Seifert, Patrick
Putney, Dorin Daniliuc

Re: Defendants Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend Page Limit for Defendant's
Motion For Summary Judgment or, in The Alternative, Summary
Adjudication

Dear Ms. Goulding,

Yesterday, I asked you in which Court Department you filed your Ex Parte
Application for Leave to Extend Page Limit because you did not mark on the front
page of your pleadings which Court Department or which Judge would would

-1-
Ex Parte Application
handle your application. You are obliged to inform the opposite party what you are
filing and when and where you are filing it. What you have done is very
unprofessional.
As you probably know from the Court file, in October 2018, your
predecessors in this case, two former Porter Scott attorneys, David Burkett and
Daniel Bardzell, with the evil intention of ending my wrongful termination lawsuit
against the Regents of the University of California, bypassed Judge David Brown
in Department 53 and filed, on October 3, 2018 in Department 54, their deceptive
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM
INTERROGATORIES GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
(ROA 150-153) in an attempt to obtain an Order from Judge Christopher E.
Krueger or a stamped Order with Judge Krueger’s name.
Burkett and Bardzell were caught, and their evil plan failed. If you look at
the Burkett and Bardzell’s Notice of Motion and Motion (ATTACHMENT #1) of
October 3, 2018 and your Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend the Page Limit
(ATTACHMENT #2) filed on April 26, 2021, you will see that both Court
Documents were filed/endorsed by the same Deputy Clerk named E. Medina.
It seems to me that history is repeating itself and that Porter Scott’s new team of
Super Lawyers, Ms. Lindsay A. Goulding and Olatomiwa A. Aina, are rushing to
file a Motion for Summary Judgment in the same way that David Burkett and

-2-
Ex Parte Application
Daniel Bardzell rushed to file the Termination Sanctions in Department 54 instead
of Department 53 three years earlier.

YOUR MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

OF EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT

In general, as a Plaintiff, I have no problem with the Ex Parte Application for

Extension of the Page Limit. However, I took a closer look at your application to
identify your justification for the Extension of the Page Limit.
Your Memorandum of Points is interesting in relation to the Second
Amended Complaint (SAC) Eight Causes of Action (COA) (ATTACHMENT
#3), which reads as follows:
Defendant intends to move for summary judgment or, in the alternative,
summary adjudication as the following causes of action:
1) harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to prevent harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(a)
The above No. 1 Cause of Action in your Memorandum of Points and Authorities
is actually the THIRD CAUSE of ACTION in the SAC (Page Nos. 48–49) and
does not require an Extension of the Page Limit because the THIRD COA was
removed from the SAC in 2015 by the Anti-SLAPP Motion, C.C.P § 425.16
granted by the Court to the Defendants, Danesha Nichols, Mike Boyd, Stephen
Chilcott, and Brent Seifert.
2) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Government Code §
8547
The above No. 2 COA in your Memorandum of Points and Authorities is actually

-3-
Ex Parte Application
the FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC (Page Nos. 55–57) and does not
require an Extension of the Page Limit because FORTH COA was also removed
from the SAC in 2015 by the Anti-SLAPP Motion, C.C.P. § 425.16, granted by the
Court to the Defendants, Danesha Nichols, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, and Brent
Seifert.
3) retaliation under Health and Safety Code § 1278.5
This is actually the FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC (Page Nos. 55–
57) and does not require an Extension of the Page Limit because I have no intention
of pursuing this Cause of Action but I could change my mind in filing Third
Amended Complaint which was blocked in October 2015 to be file by Burkett ,
Bardzell and Judge David Brown’s Order
4) breach of written contract
This is actually the SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC, and it is the
most important COA in the entire Second Amended Complaint besides the age
discrimination and witch hunt of March 2011–December 2012, which has caused
me losses of approximately $1,000,000 in wages and benefits between December
2012 and the present.
5) wage and hour misclassification
This is actually the SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC. My
Attorney, Douglas Stein, did not understand or did not have any knowledge about
the University of California’s pay policies and employee classification. I was
perfectly happy with my classification and wages, but U.S Senator Feinstein’s
husband, Richard Blum, hunted me down for a different reason, which is pending
in the United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit
whistleblower case Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal

-4-
Ex Parte Application
Revenue Services Case No. 20-1407
(https://www.scribd.com/document/495490868/Jaroslaw-Waszczuk-v-IRS-
Commissioner-UNITED-STATES-COURT-OF-APPEALS-FOR-THE-
DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBIA-CIRCUIT).
6) rescission – unlawful contract
This is actually the EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC. Regardless
of whether the Settlement Agreement of January 2009 was lawful or unlawful, the
Settlement Agreement was violated and breached by UC Regents, my human rights
were violated, and I was disposed of at the age of 62 like a piece of garbage and
subjected to an assassination attempt on May 31, 2012 by the UC Davis Death
Squad.
I disagree with your statement that the Motion for Summary
Judgment/Adjudication will necessarily require a detailed discussion of the nature
of the Plaintiff’s employment relationship with Defendant.
I have all my employee performance reviews, which show that I was a good
employee and had a normal relationship with my employer. I was hunted down by
regents for a completely different reason than the one you are implying in your Ex
Parte Application.
I fail to understand why Porter Scott’s attorney is making attempts to bring back
into the lawsuit the Causes of Action dismissed from the SAC by the Anti-SLAPP
motion granted by the Court. Previously, David Burkett brought back the four dismissed
COAs into his requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. Now, you are
attempting to relitigate COAs that were already litigated for several years and are no
longer part of the Second Amended Complaint.

-5-
Ex Parte Application
In concluding this Meet and Confer letter, I would appreciate if you would clarify
with the Court the status of the four individuals Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd,
Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert. Please clarify whether these individuals are
still Defendants or whether they were dismissed by the anti-SLAPP motion in 2015
together with first four COAs. Porter Scott Attorneys once brought them back in
their pleading as Defendants and another time classed them as former Defendants,
stating that they are being represented by Porter Scott.
I noticed that in your April 26, 2021 Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend
the Page Limit for the Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication, you did not mention Stephen Chilcott, Mike
Boyd, Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert at all, which is in contrast to Burkett
Bardzell’s and other Porter Scott’s lawyers pleadings of 2018–2020. I am quite sure
that Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd, Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert do not want to
hear about this lawsuit or about Porter Scott’s Attorneys anti-SLAPP motion dirty
money attached to violation of my human rights and endless harassment of 70 years
old wife . Your first show off in this case did not go well for you Ms. Goulding . You
are dirty and unprofessional lawyer as same as your Porter Scott’s predecessors with
J.D degree and licenses from the State Bar of California .

Sincerely,

Jaroslaw Waszczuk,

-6-
Ex Parte Application
Mailing List

Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California et al.

Sacramento County No. 34201300155479CUWTGDS

Hon. Clerk of the Court

Sacramento County Superior Court
Department 53 – Hon. Shama H. Mesiwala
813 6th Street, 2nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

The Regents of the University of California

1111 Franklin St., 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607

Donna Hershkowitz – The State Bar of California Interim Executive Director

Vanessa Holton – The State Bar of California Interim Executive Director

Review Unit Office of General Counsel

80 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1617

-7-
Ex Parte Application
EXHIBIT # 39
 AT-138/EJ-125
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT Ar?ORNEY; STATE BAR NO.:
FOR COURT USE ONLY
NAME: Lindsay A. Gouiding, SBN 227195
FIRM NAME: Porfer Scott
STREETADDRESS: 350 Uolverslty AvBHue
CITY: Sacramento STATE: CA ZIPCODE: 95825
TELEPHONENO.: (916)929-1481 FAXNO.: (916)927-3706 FILED / ENqfORSBD
E-MAIL ADDRESS: [email protected], [email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR (name): Defendants Boyd, Chilcott, Selfert, Oropeza, and Nivhols
SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO MAY - 7 2021
STREETADDRESS: 720 9th Street
MAILING ADDRESS: 720 9th Street
CITYAND ZIPCODE Sacramento 95814
BRANCH NAME:
By \ Deputy Clerk

PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW WASZCZUK

DEFENDANT REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, etal.
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION CASE NUMBER:
n n ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT ATTACHMENT (Third Person) 34-2013-00155479
I I Judgment Debtor | x | Third Person
ORDER TO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION
1. TO (name): IRINA WASZCZUK
2. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR personally before this court, or before a referee appointed by the court, to
a. I I fumish information to aid in enforcement of a money judgment against you.
b. I X I answer conceming property of the judgment debtor In your possession or control or conceming a debt you owe the
judgment debtor.
c. I I answer conceming property of the defendant in your possession or control or conceming a debt you owe the defendant
that is subject to attachment.
DatesJULUJ * Z , ' 2 0 ^ n Time;9:00 A.M. Dept. or Div.:43 Rm.:
Address of cdwart l ' x l Is shown above | | is:
3. This order may be sen/ed by a sheriff, marshal, registered process server, or the following specially appointed person (name):

D a t e : I '-I ( »ao«24 ™ADD A. BLIZZARD

JUDGE

This order must be served not less than 10 days before the date set for the examination.
IMPORTANT NOTICES ON REVERSE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION
I X I Original judgment aeditor Q Assignee of record Plaintiff who has a right to attach order
applies for an order requiring (name): IRINA WASZCZUK
to appear and fumish Information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment or to answer conceming property or debt.
The person to be examined is
a. I I the judgment debtor.
b. I X I a third person (1) who has possession or control of property belonging to the judgment debtor or the defendant or (2) who
owes the judgment debtor or the defendant more than $250. An affidavit supporting this application under Code of Civii
Procedure section 491.110 or 708.120 is attached.
The person to be examined resides or has a place of business in this county or within 150 miles of the place of examination.
I I This court Is not the court in which the money judgment is entered or (attachment bnly) the court that issued the writ of
attachment. An affidavit supporting an application under Code of Civil Procedure section 491.150 or 708.160 is attached.
I I The judgment debtor has been examined within the past 120 days. An affidavit showing good cause for another examination
is attached.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correcL
Date: April 12 2021

Olatomlwa T. Aina 1^ (Plaiemiwa J, QUm

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)

(Continued on reverse) Page 1 ef 2

• FForm
n t m AdopMw^landatofy
AHrmforiC Use Code of Clvll Procedure,
Judidal Council of Cabfomia
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR §§ 491-110, 708.110, 708.120, 708.170
AT-138/EJ-12S [Ftev. Jjanuary 1, 2017] APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION Hww.courts.ca.gov

APR 1 2 2021 (Attachment—Enforcement of Judgment)

83
 . AT-138/EJ-125
' information for Judgment Creditor Regarding Service
If ybu want to be able to ask the court to enforce the order on the judgment debtor or any third party, you
nfiust have a copy of the order personally served on the judgment debtor by a sheriff, marshal, registered
process server, or the person appointed in item 3 of the order at least 10 calendar days before the date of
the hearing, and have a proof of service filed with the court.
IMPORTANT NOTICES ABOUT THE ORDER

APPEARANCE OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR (ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)

NOTiCE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR If you fall to appear at the time and place specified in this order,
you may be subject to arrest and punishment for contempt of court, and the court may make an
order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney fees incurred by the judgment creditor in this
proceeding.

APPEARANCE OF A THIRD PERSON (ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)

(1) NOTICE TO PERSON SERVED If you fall to appear at the time and place specified in this order,
you may be subject to arrest and punishment for contempt of court, and the court may make an
order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney fees incurred by the judgment creditor in this
proceeding.
(2) NOTICE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR The person in whose fevor the judgment was entered in this
action claims that the person to be examined under this order has possession or control of property
that is yours or owes you a debt. This property or debt is as follows (describe the property or debt):
Community property of Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor
Irina Waszczuk's employment wages
2000 Mercedes 320
Any and all community property owned by Plaintiff and Irina Waszczuk

If you claim that all or any portion of this property or debt is exempt from enforcement of the money
judgment, you must file your exemption claim in writing with the court and have a copy personally
served on the judgment creditor not later than three days before the date set for the examination.
You must appear at the time and place set for the examination to establish your claim of exemption
or your exemption may be waived.

APPEARANCE OF A THIRD PERSON (ATTACHMENT)

NOTICE TO PERSON SERVED If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order, you
may be subject to arrest and punishment for contempt of court, and the court may make an order
requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney fees incurred by the plaintiff in this proceeding.

APPEARANCE OF A CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP,

ASSOCIATION, TRUST, OR OTHER ORGANIZATION
It is your duty to designate one or more of the following to appear and be examined: ofTicers,
directors, managing agents, or other persons who are femiliar with your property and debts.

Request for Accommodations. Assistive listening systems, computer-assisted real-time captioning, or sign
language interpreter services are available if you ask at least 5 days before your hearing. Contact the clerk's
office for Request for Accommodation (form MC-410). (Civil Code, § 54.8.)
AT-138;EJ-125[Rev January 1,2017] APPLICATION A N D O R D E R FOR Pafle20f2

APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION

(Attachment—Enforcement of Judgment)
 1 PORTER I S C O T T
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
FILED/ENDORSED
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566 APR 2 6 2021
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481 By: -E. Medina
5 FAX: 916.927.3706 Deputy Clerk

6
Attomey for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAIVIENTO
10
11 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o Plaintiff, EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
o
13 TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR
r- 3 00 —
0\
V. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
O V 14 SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
O 2
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
pi. 2 S
CALIFORNL\, UNIVERSITY OF ADJUDICATION
hi ^ 16 CALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM,
O
a. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
3 t/>
17 DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
PUTNEY, DORIN DANE.IUC, and Does 1
20 through 50, inclusive. Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
21 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
Defendants. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
22
LL,
23
24
25
26
27
28

{0241.19S2.DOCX} 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
L:: U„ r;:^J

o
 1 I.
2 EX PARTE APPLICATION
3 Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ("UNIVERSITY")
4 hereby submits this Ex Parte Application for permission to file a Memorandinn of Points and
5 Authorities in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the altemative. Summary
6 Adjudication in excess of twenty pages pursuant to Rules 3.1113(e) and 3.1200 et seq. of the
7 Califomia Rules of Court. Rule 3.1113(e) allows a party to apply to the court for permission to file a
8 longer memorandum if the argument cannot be made within the stated page limit. Due to the lengthy
9 facts, multiple causes of action, and complex legal issues in this case, it is necessary that Defendant's
10 Memorandtun of Points and Authorities exceed twenty pages to adequately address the factual and
11 legal issues presented by the motion.
12 IL
o
o
r-i
B >n 13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES j
i _ •= rM
r " 3 00 — VO
r - I'l <n 00 o
O —. m 14 IN SUPPORT OF EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT
c^ 15
a: < d vd vd Defendant intends to move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
Ov Ov
-i >< 16
l i3e(/I Wf- u.< adjudication as the following causes of action: 1) harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to
17
o prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 12940(a); 2)
18
whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 8547; 3) retaliation under
19
Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 4) breach of written contract; 5) wage and hour misclassification;
20
and 6) rescission-unlawful contract. (Declaration of Lindsay A. Goulding in support of Defendant's
21
ExParte Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment that Exceeds 20 Pages ("Goulding
22
Decl. 13.) The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will necessarily require a detailed
23
discussion of the nature of Plaintiffs employment relationship with Defendant, the alleged
24
harassment of Plaintiff fi-om 2006 to 2013, as well as the individual defenses applicable thereto.
25
26 (Id.) The circumstances surrounding die allegedly harassing conduct will also require a detailed

27 discussion regarding the nature of the conduct, the timing, and the speakers and recipients of the

28 alleged harassment. (Id.) Further, a lengthy legal analysis will be required to address Plaintiffs

{0241.1952.DOCX} 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
 previous settlement agreement with Defendant. (Id.)
In order to address the lengthy facts, legal authority, and legal arguments regarding each of
3 Plaintiffs causes of action. Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its
4 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will need to exceed twenty pages. Therefore,
5 Defendants respectfully request that the court, pursuant to Rules 3.113(e) and 3.1200 et seq. of the
6 Califomia Rules of Court, allow it to submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in excess of
7 twenty pages, but not to exceed forty pages. Defendant will make a good faith effort to keep the
8 motion as concise as possible.
9 III.
10 CONCLUSION
11 For the reasons set forth above. Defendant has demonsttated good cause for an expansion
12 of the page limit and move this Court to permit Defendant to submit a memorandum of up to 40
o
o
13 pages in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.
f- 3 g — VO
i- i/i 00 o
O — m 14
cC [--•
r-j <N

a: < d
O ; Ov_
vd 15 Dated April 22, 2021 PORTER SCOTT
O ov A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
- j >< 16
o •I "mf- u.<
3 t/i
o 17
in

18 By.
Lindsay A. Goulding
19 Attorneys for Defendant
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

{02413952.DOCX}
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
 Waszczuk V. Regents ofthe University of California, et al
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE

4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:

7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S

EXPARTE FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT
8 EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
9
XX BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
10 am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
U course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fiilly prepaid.
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s) addressed
12 below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the attomey's
o
o office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attomey being
13 served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the horns of nine in the morning
-s — VD and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the
c/i ? ! 00 O
O — m 14 party's residence with some person not yoxmger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the
U ov moming and six in the evening.
!/3 5; u
ad < ^
ov Ov 15 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
d ^ ^
pJ 5> c bv Ov ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package fbr
16 collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the ovemight delivery
o li carrier.
a. 17 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I
o
•n
faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
18 machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
19 electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification address
listed below.
20
21 Jaroslaw Waszc2juk
2216Katzakian Way
22 Lodi, CA 95242
[email protected]
23
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
25 is tme and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on April 26, 2021.

26
27
28 Virginia Yao
{0241.1952.DOCX}
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
 1 P O R T E R I S C O T T

2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566 APR 2 7 2021
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481 Bv: D. JOHNSON-MELLADQ
5 FAX: 916.927.3706 DEPUTY CLERK

6
Attomey for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNrVERSITY OF CALIFORNL\
8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant io Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
II
JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASENO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o Plaintiff, tJatOPOOflPf^ ORDER ON
o
i i w-i
13 DEFENI^ffiST'S EX PARTE
— VO
00 o
14 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
— m
EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
. oi < 6
CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
« 5; g 16 CALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
o ADJUDICATION
17 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
C a

o
in DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHE.COTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
20 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
through 50, inclusive. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
21
Defendants.
22
23
24 /

25 An Ex Parte Application for an order permitting Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE

26 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNL\ to file a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
their Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Altemative Summary Adjudication exceeding 20
pages in length was filed with this Court on the above date and time. The Court has reviewed the
{024^4532.DOCX} 1

, gjPROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND PAGE

LIMIT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
 Ex Parte Application and found good cause to grant Defendant's request for a page extension.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE
UMVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA shall be permitted to file a Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of its Motion for Summaiy Judgment, or in the Altemative, Summary
Adjudication in excess of 20 pages, but not to exceed 40 pages.

Dated:
APR 2 7 2021
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
SHAMA H. MESIWALA

10
11
12
o
o

L_ • = (N
13
— \o
,t- t/) K oo o
O !^ 14
^ i< — a. 15
vd >f>
Ov ov
w <
16
o
<n
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02414532.DOCX}

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND PAGE

LIMIT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
EXHIBIT # 40
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk, Plaintiff in Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-787-3131
Email: [email protected]

April 27, 2021

Olatomiwa T. Aina, Attorney

Porter Scott Law Firm
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825

The Regents of the University of California

1111 Franklin St., 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607

Subject: Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Case no. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen
Chilcott, Charles Witcher, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Brent
Seifert, Patrick Putney, and Dorin Daniliuc

Dear Ms. Aina:

I am requesting that you clarify with the Court why, on April 22, 2021, at
approximately 2:00 P.M., I was served, at my residence in Lodi, CA, the following
Court documents:

• CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) for Personal Appearance and

Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things

-1-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
 and Trial or Hearing and Declaration Issued to IRINA WASZCZUK
Olatomiwa T. Aina on April 22, 2021. (ATTACHMENT 1)
• APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND
EXAMINATION with Court Hearing Date May 7, 2021 at 9:00 A.M. in
Department 43. (ATTACHMENT 2)
• DECLARATION OF OLATOMIWA T. AINA IN SUPPORT OF
JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S APPLICATION FOR APPEARANCE AND
EXAMINATION OF IRINA WASZCZUK. (ATTACHMENT 3)

The above documents were filed in court and served to me on April 22, 2021 with the
name IRINA WASZCZUK. The person IRINA does not live at 2216 Katzakian Way,
Lodi, CA 95242.

I assume that the documents were meant to be served to my wife of 49 years

IRENA WASCZUK. IRENA is a Polish first name. IRINA is a Russian and Ukrainian
first name. If this is about money, then her bank account and 401 K are under the name
IRENA WASZCZUK. I am sure you understand the consequences of trying to get
money from her bank account with the name IRINA instead of IRENA.

For the above reason alone, I am advising you to properly fill out and resubmit
the documents to the Court. Also, for your information, my legal Polish name is
JANUSZ JAROSŁAW, and my wife’s legal Polish name is IRENA WASZCZUK. We
are both Polish refugees and citizens of the Republic of Poland who have been living
in exile in the USA since November 1982 (ATTACHMENT 4). In 1982, we escaped
communist oppression only to be ruthlessly and endlessly oppressed and harassed by
the National -Socialists at the University of California and their servants from the law
firm Porter Scott Attorneys.

-2-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
https://www.scribd.com/document/494446114/Solidarity-Anti-Communist-Movement-
Poland-1980-1982

Furthermore, I am scratching my head as to why or who made you serve me the

old Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination, and
Declaration in Support drafted by former Porter Scott Attorneys Nancy Sheehan and
Daniel Bardzell at the end of October 2019. Looking at Nancy Sheehan and Daniel
Bardzell’s email addresses on the first page of your Declaration and reading
information in the Declaration about Judgment Debtor and Mrs. Waszczuk’s health
insurance through Mrs. Waszczuk’s employment at Nordstrom that it was not difficult
determine that document was drafted in October or early November of 2019.

My wife is not working at Nordstrom since March 2020, because she was laid
off and Nordstrom in Sacramento Arden Mall was permanently closed permanently
shortly after . She was employed for 31 years by Nordstrom as a seamstress-fitter.
My wife and I are both on Medicare Insurance and Social Security. If you need any
documents from Nordstrom, you will have to subpoena them directly from Nordstrom.

I found it inappropriate and upsetting because you served me Nancy Sheehan’s

old drafted court documents. Nancy Sheehan, Porter Scott’s employee of 34 years,
died of metastatic breast cancer on November 23, 2019 shortly after she and Bardzell
drafted the Subpoena, Application and Order for Appearance and Examination, and
Declaration in Support, which never served to me. Most likely you did not work Porter
Scott in October 2019.

https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sacbee/obituary.aspx?n=nancy-joan-
sheehan&pid=194994093

-3-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
 Nancy Sheehan’s premature death saddened me because my wife’s sister died a
few years ago of metastatic breast cancer in Poland, and Nancy Sheehan’s e-mail
address on your Declaration reminded me of what my wife Irena was going through
after her sister’s death.

VIOLATION OF STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF 45 DAYS TO

FILE APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND
EXAMINATION

In addition to the wrong addressee name filed on April 22, 2021, the Application
and Order for Appearance and Examination violates the statutory 45 days’ notice
requirement for filing the Application and Order Appearance and Examination.

For your convenience, I am attaching a copy of the Sacramento County Superior

Court Law Library Debtor’s Examination, which will help you properly file the
Application and Order for Appearance and documents with the Court Clerk Office
(ATTACHMENT 5).

There are two separate periods to consider when choosing your hearing date:
• Your hearing date must be at least 45 days after the date you file your papers.
• The Judgment Debtor must be served at least 10 days prior to the hearing
date California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 708.110(d).

Accordingly, your Court hearing date (counting 45 days from April 22, 2021) should
be set on Friday, June 11, 2021 due to Orders of Examination currently being heard in
Department 43 on Fridays at 9:00 A.M.

-4-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
 Not following the statutory notice requirements in filing the Application and
Order for Appearance and Examination will lead to the same result as the filing of
the Application and Order for Appearance and Examination submitted on October
24, 2018 by your predecessor, Daniel Bardzell, who did not comply with the
statutory notice requirements. The Application and Order submitted by Bardzell
was signed by the Judge from Department 37, Hon. Jennifer Blackwell, on
November 7, 2018, and the debtor’s examination had to be rescheduled, which
delayed the legal process (ATTACHMENT 6).

YOUR DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S AND

CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF
IRINA WASZCZUK DATED APRIL 12, 2021

Besides mentioning Nancy Sheehan’s e-mail in your Declaration, the front

page of your Declaration contains the following statement: “Attorneys for
Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Attorneys for
Judgment Creditors/Former Defendants MICHAEL BOYD, STEPHEN
CHILCOTT, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, and BRENT
SEIFERT.”

Since Porter Scott Attorneys’ Daniel Bardzell was teamed with Nancy
Sheehan in October 2019, in their pleadings, Porter Scott Attorneys is making
reference to Defendants Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy
Oropeza, and Brent Seifert as Former Defendants (ROA No.222- 245). I
addressed this issue with the Court in my PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW
WASZCZUK’S NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO THE COURT ORDER DATED
DECEMBER13 & 17, 2019 AND PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR COURT
ORDERS MODIFCATION – RE: OPPOSITION TO JUDGMENT CREDITORS’
-5-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
FURTHER MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AND MONETARY SANCTIONS filed December 27, 2019 (ROA No. 244)
(ATTACHMENT 7).

Prior to October 23, 2019, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols,
and Cindy Oropeza are Defendants. See Daniel Bardzell’s November 13, 2018
letter to Clerk of the Court (Attachment 6), in which Bardzell requested that
December 14, 2018 Examination of Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk be taken off
calendar due to a violation of the statutory 45 days’ notice requirement.

One year later, the Defendants Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert became Former Defendants. Porter
Scott Attorneys have had more than one year since my last Court filing dated
December 27, 2019 to clarify with the Court why Defendants Mike Boyd, Stephen
Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert suddenly became
Former Defendants in October 2019.

CONCLUSION

Legal documents, especially the Application and Order for Appearance and
Examination and the Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) for Personal Appearance and
Production of Documents, must be filed properly and with the proper legal name.
Otherwise, they are null and void. Because you are from Louisiana and a newly
licensed attorney by the State Bar of California, I would like to advise you to
familiarize yourself with this case, which has been pending in the Sacramento
County Superior Court since December 2, 2013, before you submit faulty
documents to the Court Clerk and send them to my residence.
-6-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
 This case is interconnected with the pending United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit whistleblower case Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services Case No.: 20-1407, which I have to attend
to in addition to responding to Porter Scott Attorneys’ negligence and deception.

https://www.scribd.com/document/495490868/Jaroslaw-Waszczuk-v-IRS-
Commissioner-UNITED-STATES-COURT-OF-APPEALS-FOR-THE-
DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBIA-CIRCUIT

As an attorney, you are an officer of the court who took an oath to uphold the
law. I assume you take responsibility as seriously as anyone else; you must adhere to
those rules and even report attorneys or people you see violating the rules. As a State
Bar Member, you are obligated, at the risk of serious consequences imposed by the
State Bar, to protect and preserve the courtrooms and the validity of any matter filed
with the clerk.

My former attorney Douglas Edward Stein (SB #131248) who was coerced
with a $300,000 bribe from former Porter Scott Attorneys Michael Pott, Douglas
Ropel, and David Burkett (Read: White Collar Criminals from the University of
California) to conspire with them against me and was used by them to harm me, was
disbarred by the State Bar for his crimes against me and his other clients
(ATTACHMENT 8).

If you read my March–May 2019 e-mail correspondences with State Bar of

California Executives, then you will understand that I am not taking Porter Scott
Attorneys’ legal gangsterism lightly.

https://www.scribd.com/document/504977994/20190320-State-Bar-Audit-
Request-for-Review
-7-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
https://www.scribd.com/document/504978933/20190329-Request-for-Review-
Additional-Information-and-Documents-Vanessa-Holton-Rachel-Grunberg

https://www.scribd.com/document/504979363/20190409-Request-to-Expedite-
Reimbursement-of-the-Theft-State-Bar-CEO-Leah-T-Wilson

https://www.scribd.com/document/504979845/20190515-Leah-Wilson-State-Bar-
Ceo-Reimbursement

In 2019, I recovered the money stolen from me by Douglas Stein and the
money stolen in 2011 by the University of California gangsters, namely my Short
Term Disability Insurance Benefits. I am still working on recovering the money
stolen from me in 2014, namely my Unemployment Insurance Benefits. However ,
because of the COVID 19 pandemic is not an easy task to deal with state of
federal agencies .

Finally, I am asking you to reschedule my wife’s court hearing examination

in Department 43 to June 2021. I am awaiting a second shot of the Moderna
COVID-19 vaccine. I am scheduled to be vaccinated on May 13, 2021 As we
know, this vaccine is not bulletproof, has not been approved by the FDA, and may
produce severe side effects for some people. At 70 years old, I am taking nine
different medications, and I am unsure of how I will be affected by the Moderna
vaccine thus I need some time for recovery from vaccine side effects if any to
attend the court hearing with my wife .

I must attend the court hearing with my wife because her level of English is
insufficient for her to be questioned by lawyers without proper translation and/or
question interpretation.
-8-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your
convenience.

Sincerely,

Jaroslaw Waszczuk

-9-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Mailing List

Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California et al.

Sacramento County No. 34201300155479CUWTGDS

Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court

Department 43 – Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard
720 9th Street 6th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

The Regents of the University of California

1111 Franklin St., 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607

Donna Hershkowitz – The State Bar of California Interim Executive Director

Vanessa Holton – The State Bar of California Interim Executive Director

Review Unit Office of General Counsel

80 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1617

- 10 -
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
 L _
s

£525? V_
gig M 7’ 32 2&7L/ M g‘fwf’fjff AT-138_/E._J-125
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR N05 FOR COURT use ONLY
NAME:
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
FIRM NAME: Porter Scott
STREET ADDRESS: 350
University Avenue
CITY: Sacramento CA Zip CODE: 95825
STATE:

TELEPHONENO.: (916) 929—1481 (916) 927-3706

FAX NO.:

E-MAILADDRESS: [email protected], [email protected]

ATToRNEY FOR (name): Defendants Boyd, Chilcott, Seifert, Oropeza, and Nivhols
'

SUPERIORCOURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

STREET ADDRESS: 720 9th Street

MAILING ADDREss: 720 9th Street

CITY AND ZIP CODE: Sacramento 95814

BRANCH NAME:

PLAINTIFF JAROSLAWWASZCZUK
DEFENDANTREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIA, et al.

APPLICATIONAND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION VCASE NUMBER:

ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT CI ATTACHMENT (Third Person) 34-2013-00155479
E] JudgmentDebtor Third Person
ORDERTO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION
1. TO (name): IRINA WASZCZUK
2. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR personally before this court, or before a referee appointed by the court, to
a. [j furnish information to aid in enforcement of a money judgment against you.
b. answer concerning property of the judgment debtor in your possession or control or concerning a debt you owe the
judgment debtor.
c. [I] answer concerning property of the defendant in your possession or control or concerning a debt you owe the defendant
that is subject to attachment.
Date: MAY 7, 2021 Time:9:00 A.M. Dept. or Div.:43 Rm.:
Address of court (II is shown above l: is:

3. This order may be served by a sheriff, marshal, registered process server, or the following specially appointed person (name):

Date:
JUDGE

This order must be served not less than 10 days before the date set for the examination.
IMPORTANT NOTICES ON REVERSE
‘

APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION

‘
4. Original judgment creditor E] Assignee of record I: Plaintiff who has a right to attach order
applies for an order requiring (name): IRINA WASZCZUK
to appear and furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment or to answer concerning property or debt.
5. The person to be examined is
a. |:| the judgment debtor.
b. a third person (1) who has possession or control of property belonging to the judgment debtor or the defendant or (2) who

1
owes the judgment debtor or the defendant more than $250. An affidavit supporting this application under Code of Civil
Procedure section 491.110 or 708.120 is attached.
6. The person to be examined resides or has a place of business in this county or within 150 miles of the place of examination.
7. I: This court is not the court in which the money judgment is entered or (attachment only) the court that issued the writ of
attachment. An affidavit supporting an application under Code of Civil Procedure section 491.150 or 708.160 is attached.
8. I: Thejudgment debtor has been examined within the past 120 days. An affidavit showing good cause for another examination
is attached.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: April 12 2021

(Waterman; Jr. (lma

u -

}
\

.
ommmiwa T, Aina
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)
l

(Continued on reverse) Page 1 on

c d to 1 P d
F
£583“8§Li‘il°&“éit?§ti§use
APPL'CAT'ON AND ORDER FOR §§ 491.110, 703,213,°7o£.“1'zof°7°§a.i%
,

AT~138IEJ~125 [Rev. January 1.2017] APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION www.courrs.ca.gov

(Attachment—Enforcement of Judgment)
 AT-138/EJ-125
”
Information for Judgment Creditor Regarding Service
'

If you want to be able to ask the court to enforce the order on the judgment debtor or any third party, you
must have a copy of the order personally served on the judgment debtor by a sheriff, marshal, registered
process server, or the person appointed in item 3 of the order at least 10 calendar days before the date of
the hearin and have a roof of service filed with the court.
,

IMPORTANT NOTICES ABOUT THE ORDER

APPEARANCE OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR (ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)
NOTICE TO JUDGMENT [DEBTOR If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order,
you may be subject to arrest and punishmentfor contempt of court, and the court may make an
order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorneyfees incurred by the judgmentcreditor in this
proceeding.

APPEARANCE OF A THIRD PERSON (ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)

(1) NOTICE TO PERSON SERVED If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order,
you may be subject to arrest and punishmentfor contempt of court, and the court may make an
order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorneyfees incurred by the judgmentcreditor in this
proceeding.
(2) NOTICE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR The person in whose favor the judgmentwas entered in this
action claims that the person to be examined under this order has possession or control of property
that is yours or owes you a debt. This property or debt is as follows (describe the property or debt):
Community property of Plaintiff/JudgmentDebtor
Irina Waszczuk's employmentwages
2000 Mercedes 320
Any and all communityproperty owned by Plaintiff and Irina Waszczuk

If you claim that all or any portion of this property or debt is exempt from enforcement of the money
judgment,you must file your exemption claim in writing with the court and have a copy personally
served on the judgmentcreditor not later than three days before the date set for the examination.
You must appear at the time and place set for the examination to establish your claim of exemption
or your exemption may be waived.

APPEARANCE OF A THIRD PERSON (ATTACHMENT)

NOTICE TO PERSON SERVED If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order, you
may be subject to arrest and punishmentfor contempt of court, and the court may make an order
requiring you to pay the reasonable attorneyfees incurred by the plaintiff in this proceeding.

APPEARANCE OF A CORPORATION,PARTNERSHIP,
;

ASSOCIATION,TRUST, OR OTHERORGANIZATION
It is your duty to designate one or more of the following to appear and be examined: officers,
directors, managing agents, or other persons who are familiar with your property and debts.

Request for Accommodations. Assistive listening systems, computer-assisted real—time captioning, or sign
language interpreter services are availableif you ask at least 5 days before your hearing. Contact the clerk’s
office for Request for Accommodation (form MC-410). (Civil Code, § 54.8.)
'

Page2of 2
AT-138lEJ-125[Rev.January1,2017] APPLICATIONAND ORDER FOR
APPEARANCEAND EXAMINATION
(Attachment—Enforcement of Judgment)
 ‘
MC-025
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
_

Jaroslaw Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et al. 34—2013-00155479

ATTACHMENT (Number): 2
( This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.)
14. All DOCUMENTS relating to any money or property held in trust for YOU.
15. All DOCUMENTS relating to any money or property held in trust for YOUR spouse.

16. All DOCUMENTS relating to any transfer of over $500 made to or from YOU from October 4, 2015 to
present.

17. All DOCUMENTS relating to any transfer of over $500 made to or from YOUR spouse from October 4,
2015 to present.

18. All DOCUMENTS relating to any COMMUNITY PROPERTY held by YOUR spouse.

19. All DOCUMENTS relating to any retirement account held by YOU.

20.All DOCUMENTS relating to any retirement account held by YOUR spouse.

21. All DOCUMENTS relating to any payroll stubs indicating earnings from any employment you have
engaged in from 2016 to the present.

(If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Page 2 of 2
Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.)
(A dd p ages as required)

.
Fantttfazsfl4529sant“ ATTACHMENT
M0025(Rev. July 1. 20091 to Judicial Council Form
Q
. , e

'
MC-025
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER
_

Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al. 34-2013-00155479

ATTACHMENT (Number): 2
(This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.)
1. A11 DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY YOUR current residence, including but not limited to
DOCUMENTS identifying YOUR ADDRESS, how long YOU have lived there, whether YOU own or rent
the residence, and the amount of YOUR rent or monthly mortgage payment.

All DOCUMENTS relating to any real estate in which YOU have an ownership interest, and any income
2.
YOU derive therefrom, whether directly or indirectly, including but not limited to real property deeds

3. All DOCUMENTS relating to any real estate in which YOUR spouse has an ownership interest, and any
income YOU or YOUR spouse derive therefrom, whether directly or indirectly, including but not limited to
real property deeds.

4. All DOCUMENTS relating to any business entity in which YOU have an ownership interest.

5. All DOCUMENTS relating to any business entity in which YOUR spouse has an ownership interest.

6. All DOCUMENTS relating to any property in which YOU have an ownership interest, including but not
limited to (i) all checking and savings accounts; (ii) jewelry; (iii) motor vehicles or watercraft; (iv) debts or
notes owed by another to YOU; (v) stocks, bonds, and other securities; and (vi) life insurance policies.

7. All DOCUMENTS relating to any property in which YOUR spouse has an ownership interest, including but
not limited to (i) all checking and savings accounts; (ii) jewelry; (iii) motor vehicles or watercraft (including
but not limited to vehicle ownership certificates); (iv) debts or notes owed by another to YOUR spouse; (v)
stocks, bonds, and other securities; and (vi) life insurance policies.

8. All DOCUMENTS relating to any safe or safety deposit box YOU or your spouse own or use and the
contents therein.

9. All federal and state corporate tax returns YOU have filed from 2012 to the present. -

10. All DOCUMENTS relating to any of YOUR property held by third parties. ~

11. All DOCUMENTS relating to any of YOUR spouse's property held by third parties.

12. All DOCUMENTS relating to any benefits YOU have received or currently receive, including by not
limited to any pension, disability compensation, or retirement pay.

13. All DOCUMENTS relating to any vested future interest YOU have in any property or in the payment of
any money.

(If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Page 1 of 2
Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.)
(Add pages as required)
‘

Ffll'éiéi’a‘irélfifléi’ofl’égfifnoi'nife ATTACHMENT www'cw'tmm‘ca'gw

moozsrRev.July1.20091 to Judicial Council Form

EXHIBIT # 43
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 10/28/2015 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:

CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 12/04/2013

CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

EVENT TYPE: Motion - Other - Civil Law and Motion

APPEARANCES

Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter (Motion for Automatic Stay) taken under
submission on 10/26/2015
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Regents of the University of California, Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Dorin Daniliuc,
Danehsa Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Patrick Putney, Ann Madden Rice, Brent Seifert and Charles
Witcher's motion for an automatic stay pursuant to CCP § 916(a), or in the alternative for a discretionary
stay is ruled upon as follows.
In the instant matter, Plaintiff asserts four causes of action against the above ten defendants for IIED,
tortious interference with economic advantage, FEHA harassment and failure to prevent, and
whistleblower retaliation in violation of Government Code §§ 8547 et seq. Plaintiff alleges four additional
causes of action for Violation of Labor Code § 1278.5, breach of contract, wage and hour violations and
rescission against Regents. The Court granted Defendants Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropez, and
Seifert's ("Dismissed Defendants") anti-SLAPP motion and ultimately entered judgment dismissing them
from the action. Plaintiff has appealed the judgment. Defendants Regents, Rice, Witcher, Putney and
Daniliuc ("Remaining Defendants") remain in the lawsuit on the first four causes of action. Regents
remains on the other four causes of action. Remaining Defendants seek a stay of the action pending the
appeal arguing that the proceedings are subject to an automatic stay pursuant to CCP § 916(a) or
alternatively that a discretionary stay is warranted.
The perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed
from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment
or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected
by the judgment or order. Code Civ Proc § 916 (a); see also Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino
(2005) 35 Cal. 4th 180.
To be clear, CCP § 916(a) stays all further trial court proceedings "upon the matters embraced in" or
"affected" by the appeal. "In determining whether a proceeding is embraced in or affected by the
appeal, we must consider the appeal and its possible outcome in relation to the proceeding and its

DATE: 10/28/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 1

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

possible results. '[W]hether a matter is 'embraced' in or 'affected' by a judgment [or order] within the
meaning of [section 916] depends on whether postjudgment [or postorder] proceedings on the matter
would have any effect on the 'effectiveness' of the appeal.'" (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino
(2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189 [citations omitted].) "If so, the proceedings are stayed; if not, the
proceedings are permitted." (Id.) "A trial court proceeding also affects the effectiveness of an appeal if
the possible outcomes on an appeal and the actual or possible results of the proceeding are
irreconcilable." (Id. at 190.) "The purpose of the automatic stay rule is 'to protect the appellate court's
jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided. The rule prevents the trial court
from rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other
proceedings that may affect it." (Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1428.)

Here the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff's appeal from the order and judgment following the
Dismissed Defendants' successful anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays the entirety of the
proceedings with respect to the Remaining Defendants who themselves did not bring an anti-SLAPP
motion. No Court has held that an appeal from an order granting, as opposed to denying, an
anti-SLAPP motion divests the trial court of jurisdiction, especially as to matters related to other
defendants. Indeed, Varian held that an appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion automatically
stayed further trial court proceedings on the merits, but made clear that such an appeal does not stay
proceedings related to causes of action that were not affected by the motion. (Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th
at 195, fn. 8 ["Such an appeal does not, however, stay proceedings relating to causes of action not
affected by the motion"].)
While it is true that Plaintiff asserted the first four causes of action against the Dismissed Defendants
and the Remaining Defendants based on allegations that each of them participated in a coordinated
campaign of unlawful conduct, only the Dismissed Defendants brought the anti-SLAPP motion.
Remaining Defendants were not parties to that motion. Remaining Defendants cite no authority for the
proposition that an automatic stay is mandated based on an appeal of the granting of other defendants'
anti-SLAPP motion simply because all are named in the same cause of action. Importantly, the conduct
of the Remaining Defendants was not at issue in the anti-SLAPP motion. They fail to articulate how a
possible outcome on appeal (e.g. a reversal of the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion and entering
judgment in the Dismissed Defendants' favor) is irreconcilable with the possible results on the same four
causes of action in these proceedings, specifically given that the conduct of the Remaining Defendants
was not addressed in those motions. Remaining Defendants complain that Plaintiff is a prolific motion
filer and there is a danger that Plaintiff will file numerous motions that will be heard and decided in the
Dismissed Defendants' absence and that if the judgment were reversed the Dismissed Defendants could
be inserted back into a case that may be significantly different. They point to the fact that Plaintiff
apparently intends to seek to file a voluminous Third Amended Complaint. But, speculation aside, this
fails to show how anything that could take place in these proceedings would render the appeal futile or
how the possible results on appeal and in these proceedings are irreconcilable. This is especially true
since Plaintiff has since dismissed Defendants Rice, Witcher, Putney and Daniliuc from the lawsuit and
the Regents is the only one of the five Remaining Defendants left in the action. Remaining Defendants
fail to articulate, for example, how it would be irreconcilable for them to be found liable on Plaintiff's
claims at trial even if the appeal affirmed the anti-SLAPP order and judgment of dismissal as to the
Dismissed Defendants.
In any event, even if it could arguably be said that there was a possibility of irreconcilable results
between the first four causes of action against the Remaining Defendants and the appeal which involved
the first four causes of action against the Dismissed Defendants, there are four other causes of action
asserted against the Regents which were not the subject of the Dismissed Defendant's anti-SLAPP
motion. Those causes of action were not implicated in any way in the anti-SLAPP motion and any
appeal related to the anti-SLAPP motion could not result in a stay of those causes of action. (Varian,
supra, 35 Cal.4th at 195, fn. 8 ["Such an appeal does not, however, stay proceedings relating to causes

DATE: 10/28/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 2

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

of action not affected by the motion"].) Yet, Remaining Defendants seek a stay of the entire action
pursuant to CCP § 916. They did not simply seek a stay of the first four causes of action.

However, the Court does agree that a discretionary stay of the proceedings pending resolution of
Plaintiff's appeal is appropriate. "Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in
the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency." (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33
Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) In fact "it may be in the interests of justice to stay a trial until another party's
appeal is decided..." (Id.) This is such a case. Here the Court finds that the interests of justice support
a stay. The Court is mindful of the inefficient use of judicial resources if a stay is not issued, specifically,
in the event the judgment is reversed. Consequently, Plaintiffs would then be entitled to try the matter
again as to those defendants who should have been at the first trial. The potential inefficiencies in this
approach are too numerous to mention. Indeed, the four causes of action that are the subject of the
appeal are also asserted against the Remaining Defendants and the allegations as to all the Defendants
appear factually intertwined and likely would involve much of the same evidence and issues. There is
thus a very real possibility that in the event Dismissed Defendants were returned to this action if the
judgment on appeal is reversed, any motions and/or discovery that were conducted in their absence
would need to be repeated. In addition, while there are four other causes of action asserted against the
Regents which were not the subject of the appeal, those causes of action also likely involve similar
evidence and witnesses and allowing piecemeal litigation would not be in the interests of justice. A stay
would promote judicial efficiency.
Plaintiff's opposition fails to present any persuasive argument against a stay. Rather Plaintiff presents
arguments going to the ultimate merits of the lawsuit and apparently the appeal. Plaintiff also indicates
that he intends to file a third amended complaint in which he intends to eliminate all individual
Defendants and simply leave his two causes of action for breach of contract and violation of Health &
Safety Code § 1278.5. The Court finds that this simply confirms the propriety of a stay under the
circumstances. Indeed, if the action is not stayed and Plaintiff were permitted to file the TAC and the
judgment against the Dismissed Defendants reversed, this could lead to extreme confusion regarding
the status of the case. That is, if the judgment against the Dismissed Defendants on the second
amended complaint is reversed the Dismissed Defendants would be returned to the action. However,
the TAC referred to by Plaintiff appears to no longer include any of the causes of action asserted against
them but Plaintiff is not contending that he has abandoned his appeal. The parties and the Court would
then need to sort out what the operative pleading would be. In the interim, the parties would have
litigated only the two causes of action against the Regents in the TAC and would then have to essentially
begin again with the four causes of action against the Dismissed Defendants. A stay is appropriate in
the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.
As a result, Remaining Defendants' request for a discretionary stay is granted. This action is stayed in
its entirety pending the resolution of Plaintiff's appeal.
Defendants' request for judicial notice is granted.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312 or other notice
is required.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission.

DATE: 10/28/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 3

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
University of California

SUBMITTED MATTER RULING

The Court affirmed the tentative ruling.

Declaration of Mailing
I hereby certify that I am not a party to the within action and that I deposited a copy of this document in
sealed envelopes with first class postage prepaid, addressed to each party or the attorney of record in
the U.S. Mail at 720 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California.

Dated: October 28, 2015

E. Brown, Deputy Clerk _____s/ E. Brown_____

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242
DOUGLAS L. ROPEL
PORTER SCOTT
350 UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 200
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825

DATE: 10/28/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 4

DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
 1 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK,
2 Lodi, CA 95242
Telephone: (209) 663-2977
3 Facsimile: (209) 370-8281
E-Mail: [email protected]
4
Plaintiff IN PRO PER -JAROSLAW (“JERRY”) WASZCZUK
5

7 DRAFT
8

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

11 IN AND FOR SACRAMENTO COUNTY
12 )
JAROSLAW (“JERRY”) WASZCZUK, ) Case No.: 34-2013-00155479
13 )
Plaintiff, ) Complaint- Wrongful Termination-
14 ) Employment:
vs. ) UNLIMITED CIVIL
15 )
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16 CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF )
CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALYH SYSTEM, ) 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT,
17 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC DAVIS, ) 2009- Settlement –Agreement
ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, ) 2) VIOLATION OF THE HEALTH &
18 STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES ) SAFETY CODE SECTION 1278.5
WICHTER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY )
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUS, and does 1 )
20 through 50, inclusive, )
)
21 Defendant. )
)
22 )
)
23 )
24

25
I. PREAMBLE & NATURE OF THE CASE
26 A. The shocking facts of this case would continue to frustrate and anger
27 Plaintiff and for sure will surprise the Court and Jury after they learn from Plaintiff’s wrongful
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 1 of 295
 1 termination complaint something completely different about the Defendant, the Regents of the
2 University of California (hereafter Defendant). The Court and the Jury will learn from Plaintiff’s,
3 Jaroslaw Waszczuk’s (pronounced Yaroslav Vashchook) (hereafter Plaintiff), wrongful
4 termination complaint that the perfect image of the University of California was created because
5 of the exceptional and outstanding education system that is globally recognized.
6 The Court and Jury also will learn from Plaintiff’s wrongful termination complaint
7 and will be shocked and surprised that the Defendant, to preserve this perfect, globally recognized
8 image of the University of California, would not hesitate to give orders to their officers and agents
9 to provoke and assassinate their own employee, the 61-year-old Plaintiff, using the university
10 police force. It happened on May 31, 2012, because Plaintiff became the subject of the Defendant’s
11 suspicious six-year-long paranoia that Plaintiff knew about the Defendant’s and the Defendant’s
12 agents and officers’ misconduct, corruption, unlawful business practices and criminally minded
13 activities in relation to the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant operation, where Plaintiff
14 worked from 1999 to 2007, and that Plaintiff would disclose this information to federal authorities.
15
B. The Court and the Jury will freeze in stunned disbelief, mouths agape, when they
16
learn that the Defendant create, encourage, and maintain a climate and culture in which managers,
17
supervisors, human resource personnel, investigators, executive directors, police officers, and
18
senior officials consistently, invariably, and repeatedly undertake actions to retaliate, harass, abuse,
19
and bully any staff who formerly or informally reports misconduct, discrimination, harassment,
20
and/or abuse.
21
C. They act embolden and brazen in fabricating investigations, fabricating reasons for
22
the adverse employment actions, constructing biased reports with knowledge the report will be
23
considered evidence, not interviewing key witnesses even though reports refer to statements
24
(claimed to be destroyed) from those un-interviewed witnesses. Literally, Federal government
25
investigators, union presidents, human resource consultants, journalists, and many other credible
26
professionals have been and continue to be incensed, outraged, and frustrated by the climate and
27
culture at University of California that thumbs their noses at the very laws they are supposed to
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 2 of 295
 1 enforce. The unlawful conduct of these self-expressed guardians and protectors of the law is,
2 almost without exception, accepted, condoned, and/or ratified up through to the highest paid and
3 highest ranking positions within the UC system.
4 D. By all metrics and parameters, the cabal and actions of these ‘people’ in furtherance
5 of it against the liberty interests of Plaintiff, as well as the best interests of University of California
6 is heretofore without equal in the mounting number of wrongful termination cases filed against
7 Defendant . This case demonstrates Defendant, by and through its managers, supervisors, and more
8 senior officials, knowingly violate the mandate of their own procedures and intentionally deprive
9 employees of due process.
10 E. In this matter, they set about to emotionally harm and extract from the workplace
11 61 old Plaintiff who, from 1999 to approximately April 2011, supervisors, including the main
12 complainer, described as an outstanding, responsible, dependable, and loyal employee of the
13 University of California. His yearly evaluations invariably described him as a very valuable
14 employee, that he could be counted on to make the right operational decisions, that he is very
15 conscientious and thorough, and dedicated to the future success of the University of California .
16 Plaintiff performed his job flawlessly without every receiving a complaint of any kind
17 F. This case establishes that Defendant have, unilaterally and of their own volition,
18 abandoned and discarded their obligations, responsibilities, and mandated duties as set forth in the
19 written, but not followed, Policies and Procedures Staff Manual (PPSM) and the written, but not
20 followed, Whistleblower Protection Policy. The Defendant, unilaterally and of their own volition
21 rendered illusory and inactive the policies and procedures written and intended as a fair, impartial,
22 and reasonable process to resolve challenges to adverse employment actions. Therefore, any
23 public policy interests favoring Defendant’s policies and procedures are minimal at best. Whereas
24 the actions, behavior, and conduct of the Defendant, Defendant’s managers, supervisors, and
25 senior officials are so repugnant, so unlawful and so improper, that public policy and the interests
26 of a safe, healthy, and well run hospital facility heavily outweigh the policies and procedures does
27 not see fit to follow. A cursory review of civil complaints filed in Federal Court and State Court
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 3 of 295
 1 over the recent few years demonstrates a significant number of complaints, with every one of them
2 alleging the same thing, retaliation for whistleblowing without any meaningful, fair, impartial, or
3 just procedures that allows a finding that the people supposedly implementing the fair procedures
4 are actually undermining, discriminating, and retaliating against the whistleblower in abusive,
5 destructive, and deceitful ways. A message must be sent to Defendant to force the Defendant to
6 change, to force them to understand they cannot hold the law up in one hand and actually use an
7 unlawful, very harmful, and concealed weapon hidden in their other hand. Too many people have
8 been hurt, have died, and will die if the judiciary does not take this opportunity to change our
9 community, our City, our area, and out State for the better.
10 G. Plaintiff primary duties were no small or trivial matters. To the contrary, Plaintiff
11 was solely responsible from June 1999 to March 2007 for operation and maintenance of the 27
12 MW cogeneration power plant in which provides utilities for the UC Davis Medical Center ,
13 In February 2009 Plaintiff was promoted to the position of the Associate Development Engineer
14 in UC Davis Medical Center HVAC shop and was responsible for operating UC Davis Medical
15 Center Metises Control System which is used to monitor and dispatch critical alarms in the
16 Medical Center , to detect, identify, and locate malfunctioning, failed, and/or failing machinery
17 and equipment, such as air conditioning units, heating units, refrigeration units, freezer units,
18 elevators, generators, and a host of other machines necessary and vital to the health, safety, and
19 welfare of patients and . Beside the above Plaintiff was responsible to back up servers, repair
20 computers if needed and review and close the work orders for HVAC shop crew.
21 II. PARTIES
22 Plaintiff
23 1. Plaintiff JAROSLAW WASZCZUK , and was at all relevant times, a resident of
24 the City of Lodi, and County of San Joaquin, California.
25 Plaintiff has been a Polish citizen in exile since November 1982. Plaintiff has lived and
26 worked in the United States in four different states. Plaintiff is 64 years and has been married for
27 43 years. Plaintiff has never broken any laws in this country. Both of Plaintiff’s children have four-
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 4 of 295
 1 year college degrees. They have both received honorary awards from two different presidents of
2 the United States of America for superior achievement in school. Plaintiff daughter Joanna was
3 given an award by President Ronald Reagan, and Plaintiff’s son George received an award from
4 President Bill Clinton.
5 Plaintiff holds and two years college degree in power plant operations, electric power
6 generation and management, and Plaintiff was trained and certified over the course of his
7 employment in Poland and in three different states of the US to maintain and operate different
8 power plants. Plaintiff was trained and certified to maintain and operate power plants which using
9 different types of fuel, including coal fire, biomass, natural gas and diesel, and different types of
10 turbines, like frame and jet engines and steam turbines. Plaintiff also knows about plumbing trade
11 and knows how to repair computers. Plaintiff speaks and writes three different languages. Plaintiff
12 was forced to leave Poland, his native country, by the Polish communist regime due to Plaintiff’s
13 involvement in struggle and u uprising against communism and Soviet domination in 1980-1981.
14 Defendant
15

16 2. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA are, and were

17 at all relevant times, the governing body of the University of California system, deriving its
18 creation, powers, and authority from the California Constitution. UC Davis, University of
19 California Davis Health System, and UC Davis Medical Center are not legally recognized as
20 entities separate from THE REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and therefore cannot
21 be sued or sue in their own right. However, UC Davis is a sub-organization of THE REGENTS
22 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA that is, and was at all relevant times, tasked with, among
23 other responsibilities, implementing, supervising, and managing daily, short-term, and long-
24 term operations for the University of California Davis Health System, UC Davis Medical Center
25 and outpatient medical clinics. The University of California Davis Health System is a sub-
26 organization of THE REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and UC Davis existing as
27 an administrative office tasked with implementing, supervising, and managing daily, short-term,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 5 of 295
 1 and long-term operations for UC Davis Medical Center and outpatient medical clinics. UC
2 Davis Medical Center is a sub-organization of THE REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF
3 CALIFORNIA and UC Davis existing with responsibility for implementing, supervising, and
4 managing daily, short-term, and long-term operations for an in-patient and out-patient health-
5 care facility, regional trauma center, medical research facility, and teaching hospital. Each
6 sub-organization is structured and holds itself out to the public as separate but associated
7 entities. Therefore, allegations and references in this complaint to “Plaintiff’s employer”,
8 “employer”, “medical center”, UC Davis and/or UCD mean and include THE REGENTS OF
9 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and its sub-organizations.
10 3. Defendant , the Regents of the University of California reside in Oakland ,
11 California.
12 4. The true names and capacities of DOES 1-50, inclusive, are presently unknown to
13 Plaintiff and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this
14 complaint to allege their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained.
15 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, alleges,
16 that Defendant sued herein, including DOE Defendants, were at times acting as the agent or
17 employee of each of the other Defendant and, in doing some of the acts alleged herein, was acting
18 within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment.
19 6. In doing the intentional acts herein alleged, the Defendants sued herein by real or
20 fictitious name were, at the time of the intentional acts, acting outside the course and scope of their
21 employment. The Defendants sued herein by real or fictitious name, in the commission or
22 intentional omission of the alleged intentional acts, were in the course and scope of pursuing the
23 ends of an agreed upon result, an express or implied agreement to achieve a desired injurious result,
24 and/or otherwise aided, abetted, cooperated with, and/or conspired with one another to do the acts
25 alleged herein.
26 COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, JAROSLAW PLAINTIFF, and alleges:
27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 6 of 295
 1 III. JURISDICTION and VENUE
2

3 7. Plaintiff and Defendant, in February 2009, the Regents of the University of

4 California entered into a written contract entitled Settlement- Agreement. The Defendant, the
5 Regents breached and violated the signed Settlement-Agreement, as hereinafter alleged, within
6 Sacramento County.
7 8. Defendant, the Regents of the University of California, per the 2009 Settlement -
8 Agreement signed with Plaintiff, agreed to employ Plaintiff infinitely as an Associate
9 Development Engineer at the UC Davis Medical Center HVAC Shop with an annual salary of
10 $70,000.00.
11 9. The great majority of the acts alleged herein occurred or took place in Sacramento
12 County. The individuals sued herein by Doe committed the great majority of actionable and
13 intentional acts in Sacramento County.
14 10. As described and alleged herein, as early as April 2011, the Defendant without any
15 warning and in bad spirit disregarded breached and violated entirely the signed 2009 Settlement-
16 Agreement with Plaintiff.
17 11. As described and alleged herein, the Defendant in complete disregard to the signed
18 2009 Settlement- Agreement and with malice orchestrated a one-and-and-a-half year-long,
19 despicable and unthinkable to any normal person, witch hunt campaign against Plaintiff and his
20 coworkers
21 12. As described and alleged herein, the Defendant in complete disregard to the signed
22 Settlement- Agreement with Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s outstanding employee record, Plaintiff’s age,
23 Plaintiff’s health condition, state and federal law, the University of California policies and
24 procedures, the Defendant in a maliciously orchestrated one and one and half year witch hunt
25 campaign, the Defendant and in their own madness and desperation to cover up their own
26 misconduct and wrongdoings made an attempt on May 31, 2012 to provoke and kill Plaintiff or
27 end Plaintiff’s employment at UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11, by a specially
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 7 of 295
 1 assembled team nick named by Plaintiff in documents as HR Death Squad or the UC Davis Death
2 Squad.”
3 13. As described and alleged herein, the Defendant wrongfully terminated Plaintiff‘s
4 employment on December 7, 2012, with full disregard and violation of the signed Settlement-
5 Agreement after an unsuccessful attempt to provoke and kill Plaintiff on May 31, 2012.
6
14. As described and alleged herein, the actions made by the Defendant, in breeching
7
and violating the signed 2009 Settlement-Agreement, resulted in wrongful and unlawful
8
termination of Plaintiff’s employment on December 7, 2012, which additionally caused Plaintiff
9
enormous destruction of his livelihood and financial losses.
10
15 In the months of April, May, June, and July 2011, the Defendant with full disregard
11
of the February 2009 Settlement- Agreement signed by Plaintiff with Defendant and with full
12
premeditation and disregard of UC Davis Policy PPSM 23 and PPSM 62and UCDMC Policy 1616,
13
singled out Plaintiff for termination of employment by ordering that Plaintiff should not be
14
provided with the Annual Performance Review (Evaluation), outlining Plaintiff’s job performance
15
for 2010/2011 which was mandated by UC Davis Policy PPSM 23, , and deprived Plaintiff of any
16
possibility to utilize administrative remedies to resolve the dispute under UC Davis Policy PPSM
17
70.
18
The Annual Performance Reviews (Evaluations) are the most important documents in the
19
employee–employer relationship; Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 958, 18 Cal.
20
Rptr. 2d 83 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)
21
16. As described and alleged herein, the Defendant, by despicably breaching and
22
violating the 2009 Settlement -Agreement signed with Plaintiff, ultimately waived and lost for
23
themselves all legal rights not to be sued in the State of California Courts of law, pursuant to
24
California law, for the laws violated by the Defendant as described and entitled in, but not limited
25
to, the included the Settlement-Agreement sections: PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT; LOST WAGE
26
CLAIM; RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS RELEASED CLAIMS;COVENANT NOT TO SUE;
27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 8 of 295
 1 WITHDRAWAL OF PENDING DISPUTES; SECTION 1542 RIGHTS WAIVED; OLDER
2 WORKERS BENEFITS PROTECTION ACT;
3 17. As described and alleged herein, the 2009 Settlement - Agreement was made and
4 entered into in the State of California and shall in all respects be interpreted and enforced in
5 accordance with California Law pursuant to the Settlement- Agreement, section No. 20.
6
18. As described and alleged herein, the Settlement-Agreement may not be modified
7
except by written amendment, characterized as such, and signed by the parties pursuant to the
8
Settlement-Agreement, section No. 16, which is entitled MODIFICATIONS IN WRITING
9
ONLY
10
Plaintiff complied, or substantially complied, with administrative processes and procedures then
11
in place for each cause of action associated with said administrative process or procedure. As to
12
each cause of action alleged herein pursuant to California’s “Whistleblower” statute, Plaintiff
13
alleges that he timely filed a complaint with the person identified by UC DAVIS as being the
14
person UC DAVIS designated to receive such complaints; UC DAVIS accepted the complaint;
15
UC DAVIS had 120 days to act on and/or issue a decision on Plaintiff’s complaint, unless UC
16
DAVIS notified Plaintiff that they extended the time; UC DAVIS issued two extensions of 60 days
17
each for UC DAVIS to act on the complaint; the most recent extension expired on January 31,
18
2014; it has been more than 120 days since the most recent deadline lapsed without a response
19
from UC DAVIS.
20
19. With respect to the remaining causes of action Plaintiff alleges he complied with,
21
complied, with administrative process or procedures and exhausted said administrative processes
22
or procedures. As an additional matter or as an alternate allegation, Plaintiff invokes the due
23
process clauses of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. Plaintiff is
24
informed and believes and thereon alleges that the due process clauses excused Plaintiff from
25
initiating, continuing, and/or adhering to any and all aspects of the alleged administrative processes.
26
Plaintiff, as an employee of the UC DAVIS, had at all relevant times a “liberty” or “property”
27
interest in his job. Defendant denied Plaintiff his due process rights by virtue of ignoring,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 9 of 295
 1 discarding, and/or disregarding critical aspects of their rules, processes, and procedures.
2 Defendant ignored, discarded, and/or disregarded their rules, processes, and procedures as they
3 concern a fair, impartial, and unbiased investigation, as they concern the retention and availability
4 of evidence, as they concern the prohibition against utilizing investigatory leaves as a subterfuge
5 to delay the process and to annoy, harass, and intimidate Plaintiff, and in other ways not yet known
6 or not yet knowable. These rules, processes, and procedures are, and were, in place to provide
7 employees, such as and including Plaintiff, a fair, equitable, and just opportunity to challenge or
8 contest the accusations leveled against him. By virtue of the foregoing, the allegations contained
9 herein, and the evidence adduced in court, Plaintiff’s due process rights require a finding that
10 Plaintiff is, and was, excused from initiating, following, and/or exhausting any employer
11 administrative policies and procedures for all actionable conduct in this action because defendants
12 with malice and complete disregard of it is own policies and rules deprived Plaintiff of available
13 administrative remedies to resolve the conflict.
14
IV. THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
15

16 The Perfect Image of the University of California

17
20. The University of California is governed by the Board of Regents. It has 10
18
campuses, a combined population of 238,700 students, 19,700 faculty members, 135,900 staff
19
members and over 1.6 million living alumni.. Seven of its undergraduate campuses are ranked
20
among the top 100, six among the top 50, and two among the top 25 U.S. universities for 2015,
21
public or private, according to U.S. News & World Report. Among public schools, two of its
22
undergraduate campuses are ranked in the top 5 (UC Berkeley at 1 and UCLA at 2), five in the
23
top 10 (UC San Diego at 8, UC Davis at 9, and UC Santa Barbara at 10), and all except the
24
newly opened UC Merced are in the top 100 (UC Irvine at 11, UC Santa Cruz at 35, UC
25
Riverside at 55, according to U.S. News & World Report rankings 2015[5]). UC Berkeley is
26
ranked third worldwide among public and private universities and two others—UCLA and UC
27
San Diego—are ranked among the top 15 by the Academic Ranking of World Universities
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 10 of 295
 1 21. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant, the Regents of the University California
2 (hereafter “Defendant”) with the University of California, Davis, Medical Center in Sacramento,

3 California, from June 1999 as a cogeneration power plant operator and associate development

4 engineer. Plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully and without a valid cause terminated by the

5 Defendant in December 2012 after 13 years of service and at the age of 61.

6 22. Besides regular duties at the UC Davis Medical Center, Plaintiff occasionally

7 provided representation or assistance for non-union employees and, on two occasions, for union-

8 represented employees in their complaints filed under the provision of UC Davis Policy PPSM
9 70 and the UC Davis Whistleblowing Retaliation Protection Policy PPM 380-17.
10 23. Plaintiff, in the course of his employment with the UC Davis Medical Center,
11 noticed, observed, and experienced by representing other employees, many publications, and his
12 own experiences that the Defendant created two different climates and images of the University
13 of California campuses.
14 The perfect image of the University of California is the exceptional and
15 outstanding education system that is globally recognized.
16 The Different Image of the University of California
17 24. As early as 2000, a climate and culture existed at the employer’s medical center in

18 Sacramento and its university campus in Davis that subjected staff to a hostile work environment,

19 including but not limited to, sustained abuse, bullying, discrimination, retaliation for

20 whistleblowing, harassment of all kinds, intimidation, favoritism, nepotism, health and safety

21 violations, falsification of documentation, fear of retaliation for reporting misconduct, and research

22 misconduct.

23 25. As early as 2000, the employer published rules, procedures, and policies that
24 express, claim, and state that the employer is committed to a culturally diverse and otherwise

25 lawful and healthy environment. The employer’s rules, procedures, and written material espouse

26 cultural diversity, promotion of a safe workplace, no tolerance for bullying or abuse, no tolerance

27 for exclusion or discrimination, and open disclosure without retribution for reporting report waste,

28 fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, or threat to public health.

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 11 of 295
 1 26. In truth and in fact, the employer aided, helped, allowed, and/or directly caused a
2 climate and culture of harassment, abuse, intimidation, and retaliation. The employer did not
3 implement, follow, and/or adhere to the substance of the employer’s written procedures, rules, and
4 policies. Consequently, UC DAVIS’ lack of enforcement of their policies rendered their rules,
5 procedures, and processes ineffective, defective, and illusory.
6 27. The employer allowed and/or contributed to the illusion of a harmonious workplace
7 that promoted resolution of workplace disputes in a fair and reasonable manner without harassment,
8 abuse, intimidation, or retaliation. Further, the employer allowed and/or contributed to the illusion
9 that promoted open disclosure without retribution for reporting waste, fraud, abuse of authority,
10 violation of law, or threat to public health.
11 28. The following represents some of the evidence of the employer’s climate and
12 culture of sustained abuse, bullying, discrimination, retaliation for whistleblowing, harassment of
13 all kinds, intimidation, retaliation, favoritism, nepotism, health and safety violations, falsification
14 of documentation, fear of retaliation for reporting misconduct, and research misconduct;
15 a) In May 2000, Plaintiff became involved in a UC Davis Medical
16 Center Integrated Access Unit case as an advisor to employees who
17 were abruptly removed from their jobs. Four workers became the
18 target of vicious and unscrupulous retaliatory action by management
19 for complaining about the safety issues in the department. They
20 were escorted off campus, suspended without pay, and placed on
21 investigatory leave. One of the complaining workers was accused of
22 serious misconduct and received a letter of dismissal. Assembly
23 Member Sarah Reyes, State Senator Deborah V. Ortiz and
24 Assembly Member Darrell Steinberg intervened with UC Davis
25 Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and brought four suspended
26 employees back to work;
27 b) In 2000, Plaintiff communicated to his manager that there were
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 12 of 295
 1 serious safety issues with risks of serious injury or death related to
2 safe operation of the central plant. Plaintiff ultimately had to report
3 the serious safety problems to CAL/OSHA. CAL/OSHA inspected
4 the plant and issued citations. The employer fixed the safety risks
5 only after CAL/OSHA issued citations. During the course of this
6 events, Plaintiff’s manager stated "Somebody will give this Polack
7 a bad evaluation and will fire him”
8

9 29. The other not-so-perfect image of the University of California that is far less

10 recognized is the violent, discriminating uprisings on the UC campuses. The violation of

employees’ civil and human rights is internally notorious although nobody externally would
11
believe it because of this entity’s outside image. It is a normal procedure for the University of
12
California administration and management to threaten workers beyond human decency if an
13
employee dares to complain about anything.
14
30. For fiscal year 2015–2016, the UC Regents allocated $24,742,000 for
15
employment practices liability to pay and conceal its discrimination and violation of employee
16
civil and human rights, rather than spending this huge amount of financial resources to hire
17
qualified job managers and supervisors and for proper training to supervise personnel. The list of
18
Defendant’ violations of employees’ civil and human rights, fraud, provocations, and unpunished
19
criminal activities and cover-ups is lengthy and has long history.
20
31. The enormous $22,500,000 fine for Medicaid and Medicare fraud committed by
21
five University of California medical centers
22
32. In 2003, tens of thousands of students were suddenly struck with tuition increases.
23
A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of 56,864 students who enrolled prior to 2003 in
24
professional majors and students enrolled in the spring and summer 2003 sessions whose tuition
25
was raised after they had already received bills for a lower fee. The lawsuit claimed breach of
26
contract related to fee increases. A San Francisco judge has ruled that the University of
27
California must pay a $33.8 million class action settlement.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 13 of 295
 1 33. In November 2003, $ 18 million settlement has been reached in the class action

2 lawsuit filed on behalf of 3,200 female employees that alleged that the controversial ranking

3 system for most of the lab's administrators, clerical staff and technicians was discriminatory, and
that they were working longer hours for less pay
4
34. In July 2004 a $1.3 million settlement has been reached in the discrimination
5
lawsuit filed by former medical intern David Dixon who alleged that he was dismissed from
6
UCLA's family medicine residency program in 1994 because he is black.
7

8
35. A class action lawsuit was brought against Los Alamos National Laboratory,

9
claiming that the University of California, which ran the laboratory from 1943 until 2006,

10 discriminated against women and Hispanics in pay, promotions, and educational opportunities.

11 As part of a settlement reached in mid 2007, a federal judge ordered a $16.4 million payout.

12 36. In 2007 Karen Moe Humphreys, a former Olympic gold medal swimmer who

13 became a coach and administrator at UC Berkeley, brought a gender discrimination lawsuit

14 against the university. The suit claimed that Humphreys, who worked at UC Berkeley from 1978

15 until she was laid off in 2004, allegedly lost her job in retaliation for complaining about the

16 treatment of women by the university's athletic department. The university denied Humphreys'

17 allegations. It also denied her claim that her layoff was unlawful, though it did agree to pay more

18 than $3.5 million to settle the gender discrimination lawsuit she brought against them. As part of

19 the agreement, Humphreys will be reinstated and then retire in January 2008 when she reaches

20 30 years with the university.

21 37. The imposed penalty $82,500 and proposed imposition of civil penalty in the

22 amount of $220,000 by the U.S. Department of Labor was for the establishment of an

23 unauthorized nuclear facility by the University of California-operated Los Alamos National

24 Laboratory.

25 38. In September 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture charged the university

26 with 61 violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The lawsuit claimed UC San Francisco

27 researchers kept animals in dirty cages and over bred them as well as improperly anesthetized

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 14 of 295
 1 sheep and kept poor records of monkey studies. The university has agreed to pay the U.S.
2 government a $92,500 fine for alleged violations

3 39. A lawsuit was filed in 2006 by the Coalition for Limiting University Expansion

4 and later joined by the city of Santa Cruz against the University of California, Santa Cruz. The

5 lawsuit accused the campus and its contractor of violating the federal Clean Water Act by
6 allowing water polluted with sediment to migrate from several construction sites into nearby
7 creeks, ponds and groundwater. In a settlement reached, the city and university agreed to revive a
8 stalled project to reduce sediment runoff into the city's Pogonip park, 640 acres of open space
9 below the campus, and ultimately into the San Lorenzo River. UCSC, under the agreement, will
10 pay $110,000 to restore damaged gullies in the Pogonip, UCSC's building company Devcon
11 Construction will contribute engineering and construction services valued at $40,000, and the
12 city will chip in $90,000.
13 40. Michael Burch worked as a wrestling coach for the University of California Davis
14 from 1995 through 2001. In April 2001, Arezou Mansourian and Chris Ng were removed from
15 the team. Burch publicly supported the two female wrestlers when they filed a claim with the
16 Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. One month later, Burch was informed that he
17 would no longer be retained. He filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming the school failed
18 to renew his contract because of his outspoken support for the two female wrestlers. In 2005, the
19 Supreme Court found that the Title IX law protected whistleblowers from adverse action of
20 employers. Michael Burch will receive $725,000 from the University of California to settle the
21 retaliation lawsuit.
22 41. Further, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed the imposition of a civil penalty
23 in the amount of $159,375 for radiological contamination committed by the University of
24 California-operated Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
25 42. Anneliese Yuenger died in 1999 at age 82; her family donated her body to the
26 university's medical school. A month later, Yuenger's ashes were returned to the family in a
27 plastic bag. An investigation revealed the ashes came from miscellaneous body parts burned
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 15 of 295
 1 several months prior to Yuenger death. An internal review exposed that the university could not
2 determine the final destination of more than 300 bodies donated between January 1995 and
3 August 1999. The University of California Board Of Regents agreed to pay a $500,000
4 settlement to the Yuenger family. The former director's business partner, Christopher Brown, has
5 also agreed to pay the family a $200,000 settlement.
6 43. The amount of $ 5,113,098 was a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice
7 for the University of California’s Art History Department discrimination against Meribeth
8 Graybill and violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Donna McDaniel, who committed suicide
9 after years of enduring what she considered to be a hostile work environment at UC Davis,

10 44. In February 2001, the Sacramento News and Review (SN&R) article entitled

11 “Standing Up to Bullies” quoted University of California, Davis, employee Jackie Quigg’s letter

12 she sent to an SN&R editor: “I felt bullied, belittled, discriminated powerless and angry.” Jackie
13 Quigg wrote of her experience of working for 13 years in the Ophthalmology Department at the

14 UC.
15 Plaintiff commented with words from Jackie Quigg’s experience in his
16 letter to an SN&R editor dated: February 10, 2001
17 “ Th e ab u sive b e ha v io r mu st b e witn e sse d an d we ll d oc u me n ted

18 in order for this to work. The other issue is that coworkers may be hesitant to
19 testify in court against an employer, the same employer who provides them a
20 paycheck. The fear of a backlash against those who testify is real.
21
Unfortunately, this great dependency for this paycheck will inhibit justice from
22
ever being served and the employer knows this. The power of employer
23
intimidation with no recourse on the part of the employee is in and of itself, the
24
very foundation for an abusive UC employer-employee work relationship. I
25
would like to ask Ms. Quigg if this situation still exists or was it resolved. I
26
need to know because it is hard to believe that anybody could cope with this
27
abuse and humiliation for 13 years. Is this is a true story?”
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 16 of 295
 1 Plaintiff’s employment was abruptly terminated after 13 years of abuse and
2 humiliation five years before his retirement at age 61. Jackie Quigg’s 13-year
3 story of abuse was a true story. Unbelievable. The SN&R article also
4 mentioned another story about UC Davis employee Donna McDaniel, who
5
committed suicide after years of enduring what she considered to be a hostile
6
work environment at UC Davis.
7 Police say it was around 3 a.m. on March 16, 2000, when McDaniel stood in
the garden of her gated front yard, leaned the “UC Davis Burnout” sign
8 against a tree, placed the .38 to her right temple, and ended her life.
9
“In making the sign and in using a gun to kill herself (few women who commit
10
suicide use a gun), Dickerson and others say it seems clear that McDaniel
11
wanted to use her death to make a statement.”
12
29. UC Davis Medical Center cogeneration power plant worker Todd Goerlich’s
13
suicide in December 2010 caused by the hostile working environment in the UC Davis Medical
14

15 Center is still unresolved and never was investigated. Todd Georlich’s suicide ten years after UC

16 Davis employee Donna McDaniel tragically took her life is the path of destruction chosen by a

17 pathologically dysfunctional institution run by arrogant and ruthless administrators at the

18 University of California’s ten different campuses.

19 30. UC San Francisco employee Mary Efferen wrote of her "observations and
20 experiences of faculty-staff interactions that were textbook examples of how to humiliate
21 individuals in front of group.
22 31. The University of California, which has contributed so much to the education and
23 the wealth of the state of California and the global community, is a pathologically dysfunctional
24 institution run by arrogant and ruthless administrators," wrote former UC Davis graduate student
25 Leuren Moret.
26 32. The U.S. Department of Labor imposed a civil penalty in the amount of
27 $1,707,000 by the U.S. Department of Energy for multiple violations of law and federal

28 regulations in the Los Alamos National Laboratory. There was also a $9,350 penalty for violation

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 17 of 295
 1 of the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act (15 USC §§ 2601 et seq.) in the University of
2 California Los Angeles’
3 33. Deliberate and unlawful discharge of machine oil for seven years to the
4 Sacramento River via a city storm drain from defective gear boxes in the UC Davis Medical
5 Center’s cogeneration power plant facility.
6 34. CAL/OSHA imposed a penalty in the amount of $7, 385,00 for safety violations
7 in the UC Davis Medical Center’s cogeneration power plant facilities that were not related to the
8
unlawful machine oil discharge to the Sacramento River.
9
35. In 2008 the University of California settled a lawsuit brought by Officer Chang, a
10
gay man who was employed as a campus police offer, paying him $240,000.00.
11
36. The University of California has agreed to pay $375,000 to settle a 2008 lawsuit
12
stemming from the suicide of a prison inmate who was under the supervision of university
13
psychiatrists.
14
37. The pepper spray attack against protesting students on November 18, 2011,
15
resulted in a settlement in the amount of $1 million for victims and $250, 000 in legal fees.
16
38. The 2011, an illegal medical experiment conducted by two neurosurgeons at the
17

18 UC Davis Medical Center under the supervision of UC Davis Vice Chancellor Claire Pomeroy

19 resulted in the deaths of several patients.

20 39. In 2011, credit cards embezzlement in the UC Davis Medical Center was

21 uncovered and reported by two UC Davis employees and confirmed by auditor William
Prindible, who conducted an audit. The two employees who reported the credit card
22
embezzlement and 60-year-old auditor, Prindible, were fired from the job and the white-collar
23
UC Davis Medical Center criminals who committed the crime are still being employed by the
24
UC Davis Medical Center. The Prindible’s case ended in a January 2015 settlement in federal
25
court, Plaintiff is unaware of the amount of the sum that was paid to the victimized William
26
Prindible (Federal Court Case No. 2:13-cv-02256-KJM-EFB). On May 30, 2012 ,the University
27
of California administration has unsuccessfully attempted to provoke and kill t Plaintiff or end
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 18 of 295
 1 Plaintiff’s employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11 after a witch hunt that
2 lasted more than a year.
3 40. The 2013 UC Davis Climate Survey conducted by Rankin & Associates showed

4 that 24% of UC Davis-surveyed employees (4,000 of 11,500) suffered while working in UC

5 Davis’s hostile and discriminatory work environment. The most recent survey conducted in all
6 UC campuses shows that situation in not better in other in campuses and percentage of
7 suffering , hostile and discriminatory work environment among employees is very high.
8 41. The October 2013 investigation report issued by former State of California
9 Supreme Court Justice Honorable Carlos Moreno stated that several high-profile incidents of
10 racial and ethnic bias and/or discrimination have occurred on the University of California Los
11 Angeles campus in recent years. The Defendant’s climate and culture of sustained abuse,
12 bullying, discrimination, retaliation for whistleblowing, harassment of all kinds, intimidation,
13 retaliation, favoritism, nepotism, health and safety violations, falsification of documentation, fear
14 of retaliation for reporting misconduct, and research misconduct was again publicized in 2014
15 42. In April 2014 the University of California regents agreed to pay $10 million to the
16 former chairman of UCLA's orthopedic surgery department, who had alleged that the well-
17 known medical school allowed doctors to take industry payments that may have compromised
18
patient care.
19
43. On August 11, 2014 a Sacramento jury found in favor of Janet Keyzer in
20
wrongful termination case against UC Regents and awarded damages to her in amount of
21
$730,000.00 plus Plaintiff’ attorney fees and cost amounted over $5,000,000.00.
22
44. Charges are pending in the discrimination case against UC Davis Medical Center
23
with the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed in November 2014 by the UC
24
Davis Medical Center involving a 60-year-old worker who was attacked by UC Davis Medical
25
Center management during his mother’s funeral and upon his return from workers’ compensation
26
disability.
27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 19 of 295
 1 45. The aforementioned examples are just a few of the incidents that illustrate the
2 despicably inhumane working environment the Defendant have created for its employees and how
3 many employees just live in dread of their bosses .
Plaintiff’s Employment with Dynegy Corporation 1989-1998
4

5 46. On October 2, 1989 Plaintiff was hired as a Power Plant Technician by the Power
6 Operating Company (POC) subsidiary of Power System Engineering Company (PSE, Inc.) from
7 Houston, Texas as an Operating Technician of the San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant
8 located in Lathrop, CA.
9
47. In 1990 the PSE, Inc. was acquired by the DOW Chemical Company’s subsidiary,
10
Destec Energy, Inc. and later by Dynegy Corporation, which was the competitor of Enron
11
Corporation in electric power generation in the USA.
12
48. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant was producing 50 MW of electricity
13
per hour and processing water to make high quality steam. The plant is selling electricity to the
14
Pacific Gas and Electric Company by contract and steam to the Auto Glass Manufacturer, Libby
15
Owens Ford, in Lathrop, CA.
16
49. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant was powered by the LM 5000
17
General Electric aeroderivative gas turbines.
18

19 The aeroderivative gas turbines are used in a variety of applications: - electrical power both for

20 utility baseload and peaking applications in both simple-cycle (gas turbine only) and combined-

21 cycle configurations. Simple-cycle refers to a gas turbine used alone; combined-cycle refers to an

22 application where the exhaust from the gas turbine is used to power a steam turbine to maximize

23 overall system efficiency - in-plant and independent power production and cogeneration (the
24 production of two forms of energy, usually steam and electricity from a single fuel source) in an
25 industrial or institutional facility - mechanical drive requirements, such as compressors, pumps
26 and other loads - marine propulsion of naval and commercial vessels. Industries that use
27 aeroderivative gas turbines include petroleum production, refining and pipeline operations,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 20 of 295
 1 enhanced oil recovery, chemical, food and pulp/paper processing, and institutional electricity and
2 heating for universities, hospitals and prisons. The aeroderivative gas turbines benefit from
3 aircraft engine technology developed to meet the power and reliability.
4 50. The Dynegy’s San Joaquin Cogeneration Plant supposedly was a cogeneration
5 Qualified Facility, which was governed by the Public Utility Regulatory Power Act, known as
6 PURPA. The PURPA Act was enacted in 1978 by the U.S. Congress to promote conservation of
7 energy.
8 51. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant as a cogeneration Qualified Facility
9 benefited from this status by having a 25% discount on purchase of natural gas from the Pacific
10 Gas and Electric (PG&E) Company and a tax break on the PG&E ratepayers expenses.
11 52. The 1978 Public Utilities Regulatory Policies, which established the guidelines
12 for cogeneration facilities applied to San Joaquin Cogeneration facility, where Plaintiff was
13 employed. The San Joaquin Facility used natural gas as a fuel for a combustion jet engine to
14 produce electricity and exhaust heat to heat water and produce steam. From the beginning of the
15 operation, the San Joaquin Facility has violated PURPA and California Law requirements in

16 order to be a Qualified Cogenerate. The company management was forcing its own employees to

17 release a huge amount of steam into the atmosphere, which was through the PG&E meter to

18 cheat the PURPA requirements instead of utilizing the thermal energy as was required by law. In

19 1994 the company’s senior management was advised by the San Joaquin Plant Manager to

20 resolve the existing problem with the PURPA violation. In retaliation, the mentioned plant

21 manager was fired and escorted out.

22 53. In 1989 the former State of California Chief of Department of Standard Labor

23 Enforcement (DLSE) or State of California Labor Commissioner Jose Milan was allowed to

24 govern the wages and working conditions for the San Joaquin cogeneration power plant in

25 Lathrop and other Dynegy’s cogeneration plants in California using the wrong Industrial Welfare
26 Commission Order (IWC), which was IWC order 4-89 O instead of IWC order 1-89; thus 119
27 Dynegy employees were defrauded of a significant amount of overtime, to which they were
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 21 of 295
 1 entitled under IWC Order 1-89.
2 54. In 1985 DLSE Chief Jose Milan was the resident of California and earned a juris
3 doctorate from the University of Houston School of Law; from 1985-1987 Jose Millan was a
4 Field Examiner for the State of California Agricultural Relation Labor Board and Program
5
Coordinator for the State of California Public Utilities Commissioner. In 1987 Mr. Millan
6
became employed by the State of California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.
7
55. In November 1995 all employees received a memo from the Headquarters in
8
Houston, TX. The memo stated that the employee’s Retirement and Savings Plan 401K was
9
mismanaged and that the Company would not make a Discretionary profit-sharing contribution
10
to the Plan for 1995 (5% percent of annual wages contribution).
11
56. Furthermore, the Independent Auditors’ Report performed on Plaintiff’s
12
employer’s behalf by the Deloitte & Touche LLP disclosed that the 401K Plan is lacking a
13
contribution to the employees’ accounts in the amount of $4,000,000,00 plus interest for the
14

15 years of 1991-1995.

16 57. After the 401K plan retirement fraud disclosure, Plaintiff asked his supervisor

17 about the unpaid overtime mandated by the Welfare Commission Order IWC 1-89 Part of unpaid

18 overtime shall be contributed to employees’ Retirement and Savings Plan 401K plus the

19 employer match contribution in the ratio dollar to dollar up to six percent of employee’s gross
20 annual income. Plaintiff did not have any intention to pursue the overtime issue but just asked
21 the question.
22 The overtime issue would never have surfaced if Plaintiff’s employer would have posted in the
23 Plant’s control room the IWC order 4-89 instead of IWC order 1-89.
24
58. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Plant Manager panicked and alerted the
25
Headquarters, and then IWC order 1-49 was posted on the information board next to IWC order
26
1-89. Shortly after, Plaintiff’s employer hired the prestigious law firm Pillsbury Madison &
27
Sutro LLP and Plaintiff received a letter from Sutro’s lawyer about the IWC order applicability
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 22 of 295
 1 for the San Joaquin cogeneration facility. The letter stated that State Labor Commissioner Jose
2 Milan permitted Plaintiff’s employer to utilize IWC Order 4-89 instead of IWC order 1-89.
3 Thereafter Plaintiff became a subject of retaliation and harassment without any reason because
4 Plaintiff had no intention to pursue the overtime issue outside. Plaintiff heard intimidating
5
statements from his supervisors that Hoffa disappeared and the president was killed in USA as
6
well. Plaintiff’s employment became quite unpleasant.
7
59. To stop the further retaliation and intimidation, Plaintiff had no choice but to ask
8
for help from the same state agency the State of California Department of Industrial Relations,
9
Division of the Labor Standard Enforcement, which permitted Dynegy to operate business in the
10
State of California under the wrong Industrial Welfare Commission order and Plaintiff filed a
11
claim with the Labor Commissioner Office in Stockton, CA for unpaid overtime.
12
60. On September 16, 1996, the DLSE Hearing Officer awarded Plaintiff $27,129.21,
13
which in 1996 was a significant amount of money. The Labor Commissioner from the Stockton
14

15 Office overturned his superior’s—the State Labor Commissioner Jose Milan’s—earlier decision

16 to permit Plaintiff’s employer to govern working conditions and pay by IWC order 4-89 instead

17 of IWC 1-89.

18 61. Right after the labor commissioner issued the decision in Plaintiff’s favor,

19 Plaintiff’s employer in retaliation suspended Plaintiff for almost two months without pay and
20 right away appealed the Labor Commissioner Decision in San Joaquin County Superior Court.
21 The Superior Court in Trial de Novo ruled in favor of Plaintiff’s employer.
22 62. Plaintiff appealed the IWC order 1-89 unfavorable the Superior Court Judgment
23 in the State of California Court of Appeal 3th Appellate District by representing himself in Pro
24
Per. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court Judgment and Plaintiff received his unpaid
25
overtime. The other 119 of Plaintiff’s coworkers recovered partially unpaid overtime through the
26
settlement-agreement that Plaintiff’s employer signed with the Division of Labor Standard
27
Enforcement.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 23 of 295
 1 63. Regardless of the fact that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Plaintiff’s case was
2 an unpublished decision, it caused the DLSE to restore the applicability of the IWC Order 1 to
3 govern working conditions and overtime pay for non-exempt employees working on an
4 alternative work schedule in all privately owned power plants in the State of California.
5
64. During the unpleasant dispute about unpaid overtime, the case took a different
6
turn and became a whistleblowing case due to fraudulent and unlawful operation of the San
7
Joaquin cogeneration facility by Plaintiff’s employer. The San Joaquin Cogeneration violated the
8
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requirements to operate as a Qualified Facility (QF)
9
under the 1978 Public Utility Regulatory Power Act enacted by the U.S. Congress.
10
65. Based on Plaintiff’s information, The Pacific Gas & Electric Company in
11
September 2007 filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff’s employer for fraud and breach of contract and
12
unfair business practices. As the result of filing the lawsuit, PG&E recovered by settlement
13
$100,000,000 for its own ratepayers, of which Plaintiff was one.
14

15 66. In retaliation, Dynegy terminated Plaintiff’s employment in January 1998.

16

17 Plaintiff’s Employment with Genentech Inc., from November 1998 to June 1999

18

19 67. After almost one year of unemployment in November 1998, Plaintiff was hired as
20 Utility Operator by Genentech, Inc. located in the City of South San Francisco.
21 68. Genentech, Inc. was the best employer Plaintiff ever worked for in the United
22 States, taking into consideration benefits and treatment of employees by company management.
23 69. The almost 100 miles distance to Plaintiff’s residence in Lodi to South San
24
Francisco and Plaintiff’s wife’s employment in Nordstrom Inc., Sacramento were deciding
25
factors that led Plaintiff to apply for the Cogeneration Plant Operator position with the UC Davis
26
Medical Center in Sacramento, which was only 32 miles away from Lodi, CA.
27
70. Also the Cogeneration Plant Operator position was a factor to apply for the job
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 24 of 295
 1 with UC Davis Medical Center because the job was basically the same as Plaintiff’s job with
2 Dynegy Company in Lathrop, California, where Plaintiff worked for nine years.
3

4 Plaintiff’s Job Description and Employment in UC Davis Medical Center Cogeneration Power
Plant Named “Central Plant “
5

7
71. Defendant hired Plaintiff on June 28, 1999 as a non-exempt senior power

8 plant mechanic or cogeneration power plant operator (hereinafter “plant operator”) to maintain

9 and operate the newly built, state-of-the-art 27 megawatt cogeneration power plant at UC Davis

10 Medical Center, Sacramento, California.

11 72. Besides operating and maintaining the cogeneration facility, Plaintiff was
12 responsible for monitoring and dispatching critical alarms on the day shift at the UC Davis
13 Medical Center via the computerized Metasys system, which was also programmed to
14 continuously monitor and record how much electricity, steam, hot water, and chilled water was
15 being generated by the central plant. The Metasys system was also designed to start up and shut
16 down heating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), as well as to adjust temperatures in the
17
administration and hospital patients’ rooms per request from working personnel at the UC Davis
18
Medical Center.
19
73. The UC Davis Medical Center’s cogeneration power plant, named the
20
“Central Plant,” includes a General Electric LM 2500—a 23 MW jet combustion gas turbine; a
21
heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)—a 4 MW back pressure steam turbine with capacity to
22
produce 89,000,00 pounds of steam per hour; four auxiliary steam boilers with 25,000-pound-
23
per-hour capacities for steam from each boiler; three centrifugal chillers; and three absorption
24
chillers that can produce 13,400 tons of chilled water per hour. The Central Plant also has five 2-
25
MW emergency diesel generators and other auxiliary heavy industrial-type machinery, including
26

27 a cooling tower, pumps, an ammonia injection system, a water demineralizer, a condenser, and a

28 chemical-injecting system.

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 25 of 295
 1 74. The UC Davis Medical Center’s peak load demand for electricity in
2 summer is 17 MW of electricity, 45,000 lb./hr. steam, and 10,000 tons/hr. of chilled water (spare
3 capacity: 10 MW of electricity).
4 75. The UC Davis Medical Center’s maximum load demand for electricity in
5
winter is 8 MW of electricity, 45,000 lb./hr. steam, and 10,000.00 tons/hr. of chilled water (spare
6
capacity: 19 MW of electricity).
7
76. The above numbers translated also of massive waste of energy, water,
8
extra and in huge amount of unnecessary emission of the two air pollutants carbon dioxide,
9
nitrous oxide beside of increasing the costs of the plant operation cost .
10
77. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is the state agency
11
responsible for providing implementation mechanisms, regulatory guidance and enforcement of
12
Assembly Bill 32 (AB32). AB32 includes statutory requirements requiring inventorying,
13
reporting and verification of GHG emissions, depending upon size and source type. UC Davis is
14

15 subject to these reporting requirements. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide

16 or its equivalent (MTCO2e) are required to report their annual emissions to the USEPA, and both

17 the Davis and Sacramento campuses have facilities that emit over 25,000 MTCO2e.

18 78. The 10 MW of electricity not produced and not sold during the summer

19 peak equals millions of dollars of lost revenue over 17 years of the Central Plant’s operations.
20 However if 10 MW extra of electricity was produced and was sold during the summer than
21 peak equals millions of dollars in extra revenue over 17 years of the Central Plant’s operations ;
22 79. Prior to building the cogeneration plant, the UC Davis Medical Center
23 Campus sourced electricity from the local publically owned utility, Sacramento Municipal Utility
24
District (SMUD). The oversized cogeneration plant right before energy deregulation in California,
25
and during that turbulent period, the UC Davis Medical Center took advantage of the opportunity to
26
generate and sell power to SMUD. When the power market deregulation took place cogeneration
27
facility was selling power at for the on the open market for higher bid via California Independent
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 26 of 295
 1 System Operator . Manipulation of power market caused power shortage and blackout in California
2 and in some day’s prices of electricity went up 800%. As the California Public Utility Commission
3 changed rules about generating and selling, the UC Davis Medical Center cogeneration facility
4 stopped generating and selling power for the spot market. However, in order to operate the
5 cogeneration plant LM 2500 jet engine operational off peak hours the cogeneration plant still sends
6 power to SMUD
7

8 The Federal Law Requirements to Build and Operate Cogeneration Facility

9

10
80. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Public
11
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) mandate that any cogeneration facility
12
certified and recognized by law as “the qualified cogeneration facility” must meet special
13
requirements in the ratio between electric energy production and thermal energy production.
14
A cogeneration facility is a generating facility that:
15
“sequentially produces electricity and another form of useful thermal energy
16
(such as heat or steam) in a way that is more efficient than the separate
17
production of both forms of energy. For example, in addition to the production
18

19 of electricity, large cogeneration facilities might provide steam for industrial

20 uses in facilities such as paper mills, refineries, or factories, or for HVAC

21 applications in commercial or residential buildings. Smaller cogeneration

22 facilities might provide hot water for domestic heating or other useful

23 applications. In order to be considered a qualifying cogeneration facility, a

24 facility must meet all of the requirements of 18 C.F.R. §§ 292.203(b) and
25 292.205 i5 for operation, efficiency and use of energy output, and be certified
26 as a QF pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 292.207. There is no size limitation for
27 qualifying cogeneration facilities.”
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 27 of 295
 1 81. Plaintiff is familiar with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s
2 regulation and PURPA because, prior to his employment with the UC Davis Medical Center,
3 Plaintiff worked for a private corporation with a similar cogeneration facility that did not meet
4 FERC and PURPA requirements to be certified as a “qualified cogeneration facility.” Plaintiff’s
5
previous employer committed enormous fraud against Pacific Gas and Electric Company
6
ratepayers and settled out of court for $100 million. The $100 million fraud occurred after only six
7
years of unlawful cogeneration facility operations similar to UC Davis Medical Center
8
cogeneration plant.
9
82. Based on the figures provided above regarding electricity, steam, and
10
chilled water production at the UC Davis Medical Center cogeneration plant, it is questionable
11
whether the UC Davis Cogeneration Facility operates according to FERC and PURPA law and
12
regulations.
13
83. Regardless of the $100 million fraud committed by Plaintiff’s previous
14

15 employer against Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Plaintiff’s previous employer was very

16 safety oriented and strictly enforced safety rules. It had outstanding safety rules and safety

17 training for employees. Plaintiff was hazmat certified and a first responder, and knew CPR.

18 Plaintiff had no problem adapting to UC Davis Medical Center, where safety rules and

19 regulations were disregarded and ignored by management and safety trainings were unknown
20 and viewed as unnecessary burdens and hassles.
21 84. UC Davis Medical Center’s state-of-the-art cogeneration facility, which
22 cost $70 million to build, was commissioned with many serious safety problems and hazards,
23 endangering working personnel and raising Plaintiff’s concern about his safety and that of his
24
coworkers, many of whom had little or no working experiences in power plant environments.
25
The State of California Law and International Law which Classified Cogeneration Power
26 Plants as a Manufacture and Industrial Facility
27 85. By State of California Industrial Welfare Commission Order #1, all power
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 28 of 295
 1 plants, including cogeneration facilities, are classified as manufacturing facilities and “Electricity
2 is a commodity which, like other goods, can be manufactured, transported and sold.” The Court
3 held in Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Superior Court (1962) 208 Cal. App. 2d 803, 81 that
4 the sale of a commodity is regulated by international law.
5
86. It is a question of law whether the University of California, as a non-profit
6
organization, can deliberately build, own, and operate an oversized cogeneration facility for the
7
primary purpose of producing and selling electric energy (a commodity) for profit by the
8
contract to the municipal utilities company or on the open market without meeting the
9
qualifications and requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as a “Qualified
10
Cogeneration Facility “
11
“Any applicant seeking QUALIFYING fACILITY ( QF)) status or
12
recertification of QF status for a generating facility with a net power
13
production capacity greater than 1000 kW must file a self-certification or an
14

15 application for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) certification

16 of QF status, which includes a properly completed 14 pages long Form 556.

17 Certain lines in this form will be automatically calculated based on responses

18 to previous lines, with the relevant formulas shown. You must respond to all of

19 the previous lines within a section before the results of an automatically

20 calculated field will be displayed. Applicants are required to file their Form
21 556 electronically through the Commission's e-Filing website. Pursuant to
22 18 C.F.R. § 292.207(a)(ii), applicant must provide a copy of self-certification or request
23 for Commission certification to the utilities with which the facility will interconnect
24
and/or transact, as well as to the State regulatory authorities of the states in which your
25
facility and those utilities reside. An applicant submitting a self-certification of QF
26
status should expect to receive no documents from the Commission, other than
27
the electronic acknowledgement of receipt described above. Consistent with its
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 29 of 295
 1 name, a self-certification is a certification by the applicant itself that the
2 facility meets the relevant requirements for QF status, and does not involve a
3 determination by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as to the status
4 of the facility. “
5
87. On August 6, 2012 UC Davis Medical Center Associate Vice Chancellor for
6
Diversity and Inclusion Dr. Shelton Duruisseau gave an interview to the Sacramento-based
7
African-American magazine Sub Cultural Hub. The interview was conducted by Donna Michelle
8
Ramos on and was entitled “A Look Back.”
9
Dr. Shelton Duruisseau, by his statement, confirmed that the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW
10
oversized cogeneration plant was built primarily to produce electric power for sale and profit
11
instead of to provide utilities for the UC Davis Medical Center.
12

13 88. It is also a question of law whether the Defendant committed

14 negligent hiring, fraud and misrepresentation by employing Plaintiff and other UC Davis Medical
15 Center cogeneration plant personnel and failing to provide information that the cogeneration plant
16 was being operated in violation of the federal law and regulations and could be subject to shut down
17 and personnel could face unemployment if violations were disclosed.
18 89. It is also a question of law whether the University of California, Davis, Medical
19 Center, as a higher education school of medicine, hospital and nonprofit organization, violated the
20 State of California Revenue and Taxation Code by engaging in commercial operation of a
21 cogeneration power plant business based on an electric power agreement with public or private utility
22 companies and made millions of dollars in profit from seventeen years of operation.
23 90. It is also a question of law whether the University of California, Davis, Medical
24 Center, as a higher education school of medicine, hospital and nonprofit organization, violated the
25 Internal Revenue Service’s Code Section 501(c)(3) by engaging in commercial operation of a
26 cogeneration power plant business based on an electric power agreement with public or private utility
27 companies and made millions of dollars in profit from seventeen years of operation. An organization
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 30 of 295
 1 that produces unrelated business income as a result of its unrelated trade or business may have to
2 pay taxes on that income.
3 91. It is also a question of law whether the University of California, Davis, Medical
4 Center, as a higher education school of medicine, hospital and nonprofit organization, violated the
5 Internal Revenue Service’s Code Section 501(c)(3 by using the revenue from the commercial
6 operation of a cogeneration power plant business to increase and maintain salary for UC Davis
7 Medical Center executives, management and UC Davis Medical Center cogeneration plant
8 personnel.
9 92. For example, in 2011, UC Davis Medical Center Chief Executive Officer Ann
10
Madden Rice was granted a raise of nearly $259,000, bringing her compensation to $960,000 a
11
year. UC Davis Vice Chancellor Claire Pomeroy, who was in charge of the UC Davis Medical
12
Center School of Medicine, was given a raise of nearly $27,000, bringing her compensation to
13
$664,275.
14
Funding for Rice’s and Pomeroy’s salaries comes from hospital fees, not the state’s general fund.
15
93. In December 2010, an exclusive 12% pay raise for UC Davis Medical Center
16
cogeneration plant operation resulted in four cogeneration plant operators’ blackmail petition
17
submitted to UC Davis Medical Center management, which stated that operators can no longer
18
operate the plant if they will not get a pay increase.
19

20
UC Davis Health System Executive Director Stephen Chilcott’s salary was increased from

21 $208,000 to $274,000 in four years, from 2010 to 2014.

22 94. UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles

23 Witcher, who is responsible for maintenance and operation of the cogeneration plant by his title

24 and position, received $64,000.00 in salary increase from his promotion to this position in 2007
25 to 2014. (Charles Witcher has a high school education only and has no qualification for this
26 position.)
27 95. UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 31 of 295
 1 Witcher, who is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the cogeneration plant by his
2 title and position, received a $64,000 salary increase from his promotion to this position in 2007
3 through 2014. (Charles Witcher has a high school education and has no qualification for this
4 position.)
5
96. It appears from the accessible public documents from the Federal Regulatory Energy
6
Commission’s Library that the UC Davis Medical Center, Central Plant is not the PURPA’s
7
Qualified Cogeneration (QF) facility and is not certified by FERC for legal operation and power
8
sale. However, if the UC Davis Medical Center, Central Plant was certified by FERC by the
9
Defendant’s self-certification, then it was done by fraud by inserting false data into FERC’s
10
required self-certification form.
11
97. Furthermore, if the UC Davis Medical Center, Central Plant was certified by
12
FERC, then would not have a problem obtaining a power-sale contract with the Sacramento
13
Municipal Utility District or selling surplus electrical energy on the spot market via the
14

15 California Independent System Operator (ISO)

16 98. Contrary to the UC Davis Medical Center, Central Plant, the UC San Diego
17 Cogeneration Plant, which is owned and operated by the Defendant (like the UC Davis Medical
18 Center Central), has no problem selling surplus energy on the spot market. The UC San Diego
19
Cogeneration Plant filed self-certification with FERC on May 24, 2000 according to FERC’s
20
Docket No. QF 00-63-001.
21
99. In addition to the above, the UC San Diego Cogeneration Qualified
22
Facility in 2010 received a $2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and installed
23
the world’s first microgrid master controller and related optimizer application. The Smart Grid
24

25 functions as a virtual power plant, scheduling energy self-generation, electricity imports, and

26 electric and thermal storage while factoring in the demand load and the variable price of
27
electricity to buy or sell.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 32 of 295
 1 100. The question concerns why the UC Davis Medical Central Plant has no Smart
2 Grid and cannot generate the sale of the huge amount of energy sitting in the 70 million state-of-
3 the-art 27 MW cogeneration facility or transmit the surplus energy to the UC Davis campus,
4 which is entirely dependent on outside energy sources, which are very expensive.
5 101. The question also concerns why the Defendant decided to invest and build 70
6 million 27 MW cogeneration facility for the UC Davis Medical Center that cannot be operated at
7 full capacity, losing approximately $100 million over the last 10 years instead of building a
8 bigger cogeneration facility for the UC Davis campus, which is entirely dependent on outside

9 energy sources.

10 102. According to the 2014 University Of California Annual Report Of Sustainable

11 Practices, the UC became a registered Electric Service Provider (ESP). As an ESP, the university

12 is able to self-supply electricity to its direct-access accounts. The self-supply electricity began

13 being generated in 2015. The 2014 UC Report of Sustainable Practices is, for the most part,

14 misleading and fraudulent in regard to green-gas emission on the campuses, especially the UC

15 Berkeley campus, and it is related to the operation of the cogeneration facility not owned or

16 operated by the Defendant but rather located on the UC Berkeley campus.

17 103. The question is as follows: Why is the Defendant, who registered as an ESP,
18 unable to operate the UC Davis Medical, Center Plant at full capacity and provide the energy to
19 other UC campuses, especially the UC Davis campus, or sell the energy on the spot market via
20 ISO?
21 104. Instead of hunting down the Plaintiff like an animal since 2006 for no reason
22 with a criminally minded attempt to assassinate the Plaintiff on May 31, 2012 and destroy the
23 Plaintiff’s life and his livelihood, the Defendant should take care of business and get a contract
24 for the sale of power from the UC Davis Medical Center, Central Plant. The Defendant should
25
also take care of those who attacked Plaintiff and misinformed the Defendant for the own
26
personal financial gain that Plaintiff will harm University business in relation to the UC Davis
27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 33 of 295
 1 Medical Center Central Plant operation and Plaintiff has to be destroyed what finally happened
2 in December 2012.
3
The Plaintiff’s Complaint with the State of California Division of Occupational Safety and
4 Health (DOSH), Better Known as Cal/OSHA in December 2000
5

6 105. The UC Davis Medical Center Cogeneration Power Plant/Central Plant

7 was commissioned in 1998 as a state- of-the-art facility, but for some reason was unfinished. As

8 a result, Central Plant equipment was unsafe to operate and posed life-threatening danger to

9 personnel. A power plant’s working environment is dangerous by nature, and if safety rules and

10 regulations are not followed, it will lead to disastrous consequences. Plaintiff came to Central

11 Plant from a very safety-oriented company and was shocked when, in 2000, Central Plant’s
12 manager said in front of other employees, “Somebody give this Polack a bad evaluation and
13 fire him,” after Plaintiff suggested some safety improvements. Plaintiff’s coworker Eduardo
14 Espinosa was so terrified by the Central Plant manager’s statement that he wrote a letter to UC
15 Vice President Judith Boyette and complained than quit his job. A Cal/OSHA intervention was
16 needed to convince the UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department
17 Management to improve the safety and fix some problems with unsafe equipment that should
18 have been fixed without Cal/OSHA intervention.
19 106. The arrogance of the PO&M Department Management was unbelievable
20 and unacceptable. The Cal/OSHA intervention fixed some minor problems, but major safety
21 problems in Central Plant went unnoticed or deliberately ignored by the Cal/OSHA inspector,
22 and there is not any record that Central Plant personnel were interviewed. The most dangerous
23 place was the oily cement floor underneath the cooling tower, which drained oil to the
24 Sacramento River via storm drain, but was unnoticed by the inspecting Cal/OSHA personnel.
25 Coincidently, when the Cal/OSHA inspection took place, Plaintiff was on his days off from
26 work.
27 107. In 2000, Plaintiff wrote in his Brief to Cal/OSHA:
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 34 of 295
 1 “Plaintiff believes that symbolic monetary penalties type ‘slap on the wrist’ is
2 a joke in contrary to the occurred safety violations and total ignorance of the

3 law by UCDMC Management. However, presence of the Cal/OSHA inspectors

4 in the facility had an “enormous impact and encouragement” for my employer

5 and direct supervisor to correct some problems with safety in the plant.”

6 108. Furthermore, Plaintiff wrote:

7 “The UCDMC like the other divisions of the UC System enjoys liberty and independence from

8 the State of California legislature and state agencies which enforcing wages and working
9 condition in private sector. This status was affirmed not only by the Government Codes but also
10 on many occasions by the Appellate Courts of the State of California. It is great that students and
11 professors, researchers and scientists have such unrestricted autonomy to freely work for the
12 good of people. The University of California has great prestige in this State as well in the nation.
13
However, it looks like the ordinary workers in this entity who provides services every day for
14
these great researchers, professors, students, and scientists keep them warm at winter time and
15
cool at summer time, these who keep this whole system running without failure have been
16
somehow forgotten and they are object of abuse, discrimination as well are being exposed to
17
unsafe working environment which is a subject of this response. It is unknown for me why the
18
workers are being treated this way in this high education prestigious school. I was very
19
concerned and worried seeing supervisors’ memos where he was calling his subordinates damn
20
or stupid or threatening others to fire them on spot in the place where employment is not at will.
21
Intimidation, ignorance, negligence, threats, power trip, unprofessional remarks toward
22

23 subordinates, lack of personal culture of the superiors replaced common sense, proper training,

24 normal working environment and human dignity and rights. The safety rules and laws were

25 replaced by intimidation, letters of warning, and suspension from work. Where is this

26 management’s philosophy coming from?”

27 109. Also, in 2000, four workers from the UCDMC Access Unit were

28 suspended for circulating a petition asking to discuss items related to workload, safety,

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 35 of 295
 1 ergonomics, and respect. California legislator intervention was needed, including but not limited
2 to State of California Assemblyman Honorable Darrel Steinberg, to bring these employees back

3 to work. Plaintiff was also asked to help these workers in regard to the despicable UCDMC

4 Management retaliation.

5 110. After Cal/OSHA issued the citation for negligence and safety violations in

6 the plant, UC Davis Plant Operation and Maintenance Department (PO&M) Manager Toni

7 Moddessette demoted Cogeneration Plant Superintendent Tom Kavanauch and replaced him

8 with Dan James, who was brought to the plant from the UC San Francisco Medical Center. The

9 situation in the plant changed for the better up until the present, but it has changed quickly for

10 the worse due to current plant manager Steve McGrath’s group of colleagues who came from his

11 previous plant near Jackson, CA. Two Central Plant operators, William Buckans and Rick

12 Tunello, became the target of constant harassment and were bullied by newly hired individuals
13 from the Jackson area. Shortly after they were hired, plant manager Dane James was coerced by

14 these individuals from Jackson to join them in attacks against Rick Tunello and William
15 Buckans. For some reason, these folks did not like Rick Tunello and William Buckans and were
16 pitting the Plant manager against them; trying to convince Dan James to fire Tunello and
17 Buckans.
18
111. In August 2003, Plaintiff’s coworker, Mike Murphy (who quit job in 2005), and
19 Plaintiff, received from the central plant maintenance supervisor Tom Kavanaugh a Preventive
20 Maintenance Work Order that required us to pressure wash all dirt and oil underneath the
21 Cooling Tower. We refused to pressure wash the oil to the storm drain. We took pictures using
22 Mike Murphy’s Sony Digital Camera and we told Tom Kavanaugh that we did not pressure wash
23 the oil to the storm drain. Several times Plaintiff approached an employee from the UC Davis
24 Medical Center’s Environmental Health and Safety Department (EH&S) who was visiting the
25 Central Plant frequently to sign Hazardous Work Permits (after a long time Plaintiff forgot his
26 name). The EH&S employee was not very anxious to discuss the oil problem under the Cooling
27 Tower and his response was, “Well if we get caught than we pay the price.”
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 36 of 295
 Violation of the State Health and Safety Code that require safe storage and disposal of
1 hazardous waste, Water Code and Fish and Game Code provisions that prohibit discharge of
hazardous waste or garbage into state waterways.
2

3 112. Some of the worst safety problems and environmental hazards in the
4 UCDMC state-of-the-art Central Plant were twenty-two (22) defective-by-design cooling tower
5 gearboxes.
6 113.. The defective cooling tower gearboxes were massively leaking machine
7 oil underneath the cooling tower and creating serious safety problems for the personnel working
8 underneath the cooling tower; in addition, the leaking machine oil created an enormous
9 environmental hazard. Every week, as usual, the Central Plant maintenance supervisor issued a
10 preventive maintenance work order to refill the cooling tower’s leaking gearboxes. The machine
11 leaked approximately 10 gallons of oil per week for seven (7) years, and the cooling tower floor
12 was washed out with water to the storm drain (river) or to the soil around the cooling tower when

13 the new cooling tower was under construction. Once a month or every three months, the Central

14 Plant maintenance supervisor (the same supervisor who said to Plaintiff that “Somebody

15 [should] give this Polack a bad evaluation and fire him”) also issued a preventive

16 maintenance work order to use a pressure washer to wash out the covered-by-oil gearboxes and

17 cooling tower underneath the floor and discharge everything to the City of Sacramento storm

18 drain connected to the Sacramento River.

19
114. It would cost $5,000/unit to replace the defective units, according to the

20 whistleblowing investigation report which copy of Plaintiff received in 2007 from UC Davis

21 Public Record Act Office. It was merely $110,000 and only 1/3 of the annual salary of UC

22 Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Shelton Duraisseau Ph.D whose idea was to build the 70

23 million dollar 27 MW cogeneration facility. However, UC Davis management’s solution to this

24 urgent safety and environment problem was a dilution, covering up the criminal activities and

25 retaliating against anybody who mentioned this problem. This safety and environment hazard

26 also created unbelievable hostility and an intolerable working environment. The working

27 environment of the Central Plant became very hostile and violent after the present Central Plant

28 manager brought a group of employees from his previous plant near Jackson, CA. The manager

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 37 of 295
 1 provided to them answers to the qualification test in order to cheat the hiring-qualification
2 requirements and to hire his friends. Not one of these folks would pass the qualification test for
3 this type of power plant. Beside the above issue, their qualifications do not match requirements
4 to be hired as the operators for the Central Plant. In exchange for such favor, these individuals
5 became undisputed and dedicated allies for the violating laws and regulations Plant Operation
6 and Maintenance Department and Central Plant management, attacking and bullying other
7 employees who were talking about safety or any problems related to work environment in the
8 Central Plant. These individuals without any hesitation added oil to the leaking gear boxes and
9 washed the leaking oil to the City of Sacramento storm drain Sacramento River. The hostility
10 created by management in the Central Plant lead to the suicide of one the Central Plant operators,
11 Todd Goerlich in December 2010.
12
The Accident and Injury Underneath Cogeneration Plant Cooling Tower
13

14 115. In 2002, one of Plaintiff’s coworkers, William Buckans, was inspecting

15 cooling tower fans, and Buckans fell on the cement floor because of the oily and slippery surface

16 underneath the cooling tower. As a result of this accident, Buckans was taken by ambulance to

17 the UCDMC emergency room with severe back pain. The accident was reported to the Central

18 Plant manager. However, the accident did not encourage management to take care of oil leaks

19 underneath the cooling tower, and every day, Central Plant operators were risking injury under

20 the cooling tower due to the daily routine duty of checking the oil level in leaking oil gear boxes

21 and the condition of the mechanical equipment.

22 After the above-mentioned accident, William Buckans asked plant managers and the

23 maintenance superintendent to apply a nonskid material to the work area where Buckans was

24 injured to prevent another—perhaps more serious—accident and injury. Buckans was absolutely

25 devastated when both supervisors said no to his request. It was unspeakable and unbelievable

26 that his superiors would force their subordinates to work in an extremely unsafe environment

27 without any hesitation. Beside his accident, three other workers got hurt working under the

28 cooling tower. The Central Plant manager, instead of taking care of safety problems, notoriously

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 38 of 295
 1 entertained himself by watching porn during working hours on a company computer and
2 harassing and bullying Buckans on any occasion he could find with his allies, nicknamed the
3 Jackson 5, who were fraudulently hired by him.
4 116. In August 2003, Plaintiff’ coworker Mike Murphy (quit job in 2005)) and
5 Plaintiff, received from the Central Plant maintenance supervisor Tom Kavanaugh, a Preventive
6 Maintenance Work Order which required us to pressure wash all dirt and oil underneath the
7 Cooling Tower. We refused to pressure wash the oil to the storm drain. We took pictures using
8 Mike Murphy’s Sony Digital Camera and we told Tom Kavanaugh that we did not pressure wash
9 oil to the storm drain. Several times Plaintiff approached employee from UC Davis Medical
10 Center Environmental Health and Safety Department(EH&S) who was visiting very Central
11 Plant very often to sign Hazardous Work Permits. (Over long time Plaintiff forgot his name) .
12 EH&S employee was not very anxious to discuss the oil problem under Cooling Tower and his
13 response was “Well if we get caught than we pay the price”
14

15 The Whistleblowing Complaint with UC Davis Vice Chancellor Office UC Davis Policy &
16 Procedure Section 380-17, August 2005

17 117. In August 2005, Plaintiff’s coworker William Buckans asked Plaintiff help
18
him with a Whistleblowing Complaint in regard to safety and environmental hazard caused by
19
leaking machine oil in the cooling tower gear boxes pursuant to UC Davis Policy and Procedure
20
Section 380-17. Plaintiff helped Buckans to write a letter to University of California Human
21
Resources Vice President Judith Boyette, which was sent on August 7, 2005, with the actual
22
whistleblower complaint and some evidence.
23

24 118. The UC Davis Management quickly made determination that Plaintiff was

25 helping his coworker William Buckans with his whistleblowing complaint. In an August 7, 2005

26 Improper Activities Report cover letter submitted to the University of California Human

27 resources Vice –President Judith Boyette, William Buckans made reference to UC Vice

28 President Judith Boyette’s employment with a Sutro Madison law firm of which Plaintiff was

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 39 of 295
 1 familiar through previous employment. In addition to the Sutro reference, the copy of the
2 Complaint for Injunction filed with the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino,
3 by the Attorney General of the State of California against AUTOZONE Inc, dated June 22, 2005
4 was attached to the Improper Activities Report cover letter.
5
Apparently, the filed the whistleblowing complaint s leaked, and the central plant became a war
6
zone.
7 119. Every morning, a mandatory central plant crew meeting was turned by
8 plant management into a hostile meeting. The plant manager and superintendent, backed by the
9 inviduals from Jackson plant , and without any hesitation showed anger aimed at William
10 Buckans and Plaintiff, to the point that the plant manager told Plaintiff that he would “send the
11 Gestapo on his ass” and asked him to step outside with him for a physical confrontation to
12 resolve William Buckan’s whistleblowing complaint. Plaintiff refused to step out.
13 120. William Buckan’s disclosure of the 7-year gross violation of state and
14 federal environmental and safety law by the UC Davis Medical Center triggered despicable
15 retaliation action aimed at Plaintiff and Buckans The Plaintiff’ believed for many years ass it
16
was the reason for retaliation and witch hunt orchestrated by the Defendant
17
121. To control the situation and take care of William Buckans and Plaintiff,
18 the UC Davis Office of the Chancellor deployed to the UC Davis Medical Center Human
19 Resources Department an attorney, Stephen Chilcott, who was listed as Defendant in Plaintiff’s
20 in the First and Second Amended Complaint (SAC & FAC).The Defendant’s retaliation goal
21 was in order to fabricate false cause and terminate Plaintiff’s and Buckans’ employment.
22 122.. According to the documents Plaintiff received in July 2007 from the UC
23 Davis Public Record Act Office, the UC Davis Assistant Executive Vice Chancellor Robert
24 Loesseberg –Zahl , who was handling Buckan’s Whistleblowing Complaint, very quickly
25 concluded the investigation without even bothering to interview any employee from the Central
26 Plant—including William Buckans, who submitted the complaint and who was injured due to the
27 accident, and was taken to the UCDMC Emergency Room due to unsafe conditions of the
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 40 of 295
 1 cooling tower cement floor with leaking oil from the gear boxes. Basically, the Buckan’s
2 Whistleblowing Complain about unlawful machine oil discharge for seven years to the river was
3 swept under the carpet and was concluded around October 2005. The Central Plant supervisors
4 and their allies who were fraudulently hired in the Central Plant received a green light to attack
5 Plaintiff and Buckans as they desired.
6
Hostility In The Central Plant in 2005-2006
7
123. In January 2006, Plaintiff had open heart surgery and was absent from
8

9 work for three months. When Plaintiff was ready to come back to the plant after a few

10 months of illness, the plant manager Dan James was trying to block Plaintiff’s return under

11 the false pretenses that Plaintiff did not provide him or the main office with the requested

12 FEMLA documents for his short disability. When Plaintiff provided him with proof that

13 Plaintiff had provided all documents to the plant manager and to the main office, Plaintiff
14 was told that the documents were lost and that he needed to provide new documents signed
15 by a physician.
16 124. In March 2006, Plaintiff was neither aware nor imagined that the attempt of the

17 plant manager, Dan James, to block Plaintiff’s return to the plant after short-term disability
18
related to Plaintiff’s open heart surgery was a broader preemptive move. The Defendant’ action
19
against Plaintiff to remove Plaintiff from the central plant or fire Plaintiff from the job was for a
20
completely different reason than Plaintiff thought for many years thereafter. Plaintiff believed
21

22 that helping his coworker, William Buckans, with his whistle-blowing complaint about the

23 Defendant’ misconduct in unlawfully discharging machine oil into the Scaramanto River via a
24
city storm drain for seven years was the was the main reason why the Defendant sought to
25
remove Plaintiff from the central plant in an attempt to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
26
125. In March 2006, it was most likely that Plant Manager Dan James did not know the
27

28 real reason why he was ordered to attack Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s coworker, Buckans.

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 41 of 295
 126. In March 2006, Plaintiff never would thought that one year later, in March 2007,
1

2 the Defendant would carry out ill and despicable plan and abruptly remove Plaintiff from the

3 central plant and reassign him to a different shop with threats of termination of employment
4
although he was the most experienced power plant operator.
5
127. Plaintiff does not remember exactly how this ended, but after Plaintiff came back
6

7 to work after short term disability than he then learned that his coworker William Buckans had

8 become a target of physical threats by other employees from Jackson 5 group. The situation in
9 the plant became so volatile that every morning’s operational meeting was like a war zone. One
10
of the Jackson 5 employees, Steve McGrath, was promoted to Central Plant maintenance
11
supervisor, which emboldened the Jackson group of employees to attack Plaintiff, William
12

13 Buckans and rick Tunello during the shift-turnover morning meetings. In September 2006.

14 Plaintiff coworker Rick Tunello was wrongly accused of missing a medical freezer alarm and
15
was served with unjustified suspension without pay. Plaintiff quickly found out that Rick Tunello
16
was groundlessly accused and was able to help Rick reverse the suspension decision, but Rick
17
Tunello was so fed up with being endlessly harassed and bullied by Jackson 5 group and plant
18

19 manager that he quit the job. This fact that Plaintiff helped Tunello turned the Plant Manager

20 and his Jackson allies entirely against Plaintiff , and they were furious that Plaintiff defended
21
Rick Tunello, whom they hated so badly and wanted fired him for reasons that were undescribed
22
and not understandable to Plaintiff and others workers.. They just hated him. Plaintiff’s loud and
23

24 clear complaint finally forced the Central Plant manager to advise his allies to stop attacks

25 against Plaintiff and Buckans. William Buckans was fed up with the attacks and in September
26 2006 reported the Central Plant manager Dan James for entertaining himself by viewing porn in
27
his cubicle on company time not knowing that reporting Dan James did not make any
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 42 of 295
 difference and Dan James would be forced be to quit anyway like Tony Moddessette who
1

2 brought him to Central Plant. The two high school educated individuals Charles Witcher and

3 Steve McGrath were already on the Stephen Chilcott’s and Director Robert Taylor’s list as a
4
replacements for Tony Moddessette’s and Dan James’ positions. .
5

6 The Central Plant Manager’s Porn Activities

7
128. The Human Resources attorney Stephen Chilcott, who was deployed to
8
UC Davis Medical in 2005 to carry out Defendant plan to remove Plaintiff and William
9
Buckans from the Plant conducted the investigation of Central Plant manager Dan James porn
10
activities in his cubicle on company time.
11
129. Shortly after the porn activities complaint was lodged against the central
12
plant manager, Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department Manager Tony
13
Moddessette became a scapegoat and was forced to resign and Charles Witcher was assigned as
14
the interim PO&M department manager. The difference between Moddessette and Witcher was
15

16 education. Moddessette had an MBA and Witcher, who was high school educated, could not

17 write a simple memo without help from HR or his secretary, but was willing to do harm to others

18 without asking questions. Also, Witcher was no challenge for Director Robert Taylor. Plaintiff

19 believes that Moddessette refused to participate in hunting down Plaintiff and Buckans right after

20 Buckans filed his whistleblowing complaint in August 2005 and that this also was one of the
21 reasons why he had to end his employment with the UC Davis Medical Center.
22

23 The December 2006-March 2007 “WITCH HUNT” Aimed At Plaintiff and William Buckans
24
130. On November 26, 2006, Stephen Chilcott sent an e-mail to William
25
Buckans entitled “Hostile Work Environment” and informed Buckans that he had concluded
26
investigation without any information about the findings. On December 4, 2006, just eight days
27
after Stephen Chilcott concluded his investigation, the especially assigned “witch hunter” from
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 43 of 295
 1 UCDMC Equal Opportunity Committee, Bettye Andreos, was assigned to hunt down Plaintiff
2 and William Buckans to remove them from the Central Plant and Plaintiff became the primary
3 target of the Stephen Chilcott’s crafted despicable preemptive retaliatory action .
4 131. The orchestrated preemptive retaliatory action against Plaintiff and
5
William Buckans a was led and carried out by the UCDMC Equal Opportunity Committee,
6
Chief Executive, Professional Service Officer and UCDMC Equal Opportunity Committee
7
Affirmative Action Officer Dr. Shelton Duruisseau and the Divisional Representatives of this
8
committee: UCDMC Director of Facilities and Construction Mike Boyd; HR Equal Opportunity
9
Manager Cindy Oropeza, Chair of this committee and UCDMC Assistant Director Hospital and
10
Clinics who appointed Charles Witcher as a new UCDMC Plant Operation; and Maintenance
11
Department interim manager Charles Witcher, who had no qualification ad education for this
12
position.
13
132.. The four-month-long witch hunt did not go as anticipated by Stephen
14

15 Chilcott and other attackers. Even Plant Manager Dan James and Plant Superintendent Tom

16 Kavanaugh refrained themselves from attacking Plaintiff and Buckans during the orchestrated

17 Kangaroo Court pseudo-investigation conducted by assigned witch hunter Bettye Andreos from

18 the UCDMC Equal Opportunity Committee. The fabricated accusations were based on the

19 supposed statements taken from fraudulently hired employees, nicknamed the Jackson 5.
20 Plaintiff walked out of the second interview conducted by a appointed Communist “Stalin-type”
21 prosecutor and judge Bettye Andreos, who had no clue what she is doing but was instructed to
22 prosecute Plaintiff and Buckans and end their employment with UC Davis Medical Center.
23 Plaintiff expressed his feelings about Bettie Andresos’ interrogation skills very loudly on his way
24
out from the Pathology Building on February 27, 2007. Also, he expressed his view about this
25
investigation about physical threats toward William Buckans during a meeting with HR Labor
26
Relations Supervisor Mike Garcia.
27
The March 8, 2007 “Investigation Report
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 44 of 295
 1 133. On March 8, 2007, Bettye Andreos, a witch hunter assigned by Director
2 Shelton Durruiseau Ph. D, issued her pseudo - investigation report.
3 If somebody unfamiliar with the entire situation in the Central Plant would read Ms. Andreos’
4 report would probably would come to conclusion that Plaintiff is the Grand Wiz of the KKK for
5
Northern California or a leader of the Arian Nation, Neo-Nazi, or guard in a Nazi concentration
6
camp whose goal is to exterminate Jews.
7
134. The Bettye Andreos Report dated March 8, 2007, accused Plaintiff that
8
Plaintiff is the person who created hostile environment in the Central Plant.
9
“It is my conclusion that the work environment in the Central Plant is not
10
consistent with the University’s Principles of Community and violates the
11
principles embodied in the policy on violence in the workplace through the
12
creation of an intimidating, disruptive and threatening environment, i.e., a
13
hostile work environment. I find it more likely than not that the hostile
14

15 work environment is attributable to one employee, Jerry Waszczuk, who

16 consistently uses hate and biased-based comments when engaged with co-

17 workers. There is no evidence that I was able to obtain that indicates Central

18 Plant management was assertive in addressing the issue of hate and biased-

19 based comments in the workplace.”

20
The Retaliatory Letter of Expectation dated March 22, 2007
21

22
135. As a result of reporting safety hazards and seven years of unlawful
23
massive machine oil discharge to the Sacramento River via city storm drain from the UC Davis
24
Medical Center Central Plant, on March 22, 2007, William Buckans received a Letter of
25

26 Expectation.

27 136. The Letter of Expectation Buckans received was made up out of the blue,

28 and the Letter of Suspension and Notice of Reassignment was the shorter version of the March 8,

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 45 of 295
 1 2007, “Witch Hunter” report issued by Bettie Andreos with the same despicable slander,
2 accusations, and threats of terminating Plaintiff’s employment.
3 137. William Buckans appealed his Letter of Expectation under UC Davis
4 Whistleblowing Protection Policy, and the Letter of Expectation was removed from Buckan’s
5
departmental file by UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoeof on August 27, 2007, with the
6
words:
7
“Nevertheless, I am, by copy of this letter, asking Chief Executive Officer
8
Rice and Executive , UC Davis Medical Center HR Director Gloria Alvarado
9
to review this matter further to determine if any additional corrective actions
10
may be required.”
11
138. UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoeof, UC Davis Health System (UCDHS) Center
12
HR Director Gloria Alvarado and UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) Chief Executive Officer
13
Ann Madden Rice did not know why Stephen Chilcott was deployed to the UC Davis Medical
14

15 Center .

16 139. For his successful mission in 2007 to remove Plaintiff from the Central Plant,

17 Chilcott was promoted to USCDHS HR labor relations supervisor; in 2008 Chilcott replaced

18 USDHS HR Labor Relation Manager Michael Sheesley and, at the end of 2009, Chilcott

19 replaced Gloria Alvarado as UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director .

20 140. The UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoeof’s order was meaningless because
21 immediately after the Letter of Expectation, was removed by Chancellor order., Buckans became
22 the subject of vicious management retaliation and was bullied by the group of employees
23 fraudulently hired by UC Davis Medical Center Plant management. The attacks and retaliation
24
against William Buckans continued until May 2012.
25

26 The Retaliatory Unlawful Suspension and Reassignment to the UC Davis Medical Center
HVAC Shop
27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 46 of 295
 1 140. On March 23, 2007, Plaintiff received the Letter Intent to Suspend and
2 Notice of Reassignment from the Central Plant to UC Davis Medical Center Plumbing
3 Shop/HVAC.
4 141. The Letter of Intent to Suspend and Notice of Reassignment defamed,
5
defaced, and portrayed Plaintiff as a bigot, racist, and violent employee, making him look like a
6
guard from a Nazi concentration camp or a KKK member and the letter was threating to
7
terminate Plaintiff’s employment, suspend, and reassigned Plaintiff to a different shop.
8
142. The March 23, 2007, Letter of Intent to Suspend and Notice of
9
Reassignment was based on the unofficial UC Davis Policy, which is the tool of the oppression
10
and tool to hunt down employees entitled “ The UC Davis’ Principle of Community.”
11
143. This UC Davis unconstitutional manifesto entitled “UC Davis Principle of
12
Community” is a UC Davis administration tool of oppression and malicious prosecution of
13
Christians, and any employee who has complained against the corrupted UC Davis
14

15 administration.

16 144. The scenario of attacking employees with this manifesto is simple. The

17 “accusation of racism, bigotry, violence”; then, Policy 1616 and Policy 380-15; then, the witch

18 hunt began with a witch hunter assigned by UC Davis administration executives . In charge of

19 the UC Davis manifesto entitled “Principles of Community” is Associate Executive Vice

20 Chancellor Rahim Reed. Rahim Reed is a very well-educated person. His only job for
21 $173,000.00 is to maintain and make sure that this unconstitutional tool is in motion, visible, and
22 inflicting fear in anyone who dares to criticize the UC Davis administration, point to a misuse of
23 university resources, or note a violation of law. In February 2008, this unconstitutional
24
manifesto and the tools of oppression were forcibly incorporated into UC Davis employees’
25
job description.
26
145.. In February 2011, Katehi, together with Rahim Reed, implemented an
27
unconstitutional (under both the Federal and California State Constitutions) policy incorporated
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 47 of 295
 1 into the “Principles of Community.” This “UC Davis Principle of Community” labeled
2 “CHRISTIANS AS A OPPRESSORS.” After the protest of the Alliance Defense Fund, a
3 Christian legal group, the definition of Christians as oppressors was removed from the manifesto
4 entitled “UC Davis Principle of Community.” However, Chancellor Katehi is still in power, and
5
Rahim Read still maintains the unconstitutional UC Davis Manifesto for $173, 000.00 per year,
6
spreading hate and intolerance across UC Davis. Labeling Christians as oppressors was nothing
7
else but Linda Katehi’s and Rahim Read’s ideological invitation for religious and political
8
cleansing in the UC Davis campuses .
9
146. The March 23, 2007, Letter of Intent to Suspend AND Notice of
10
Reassignment was signed by Interim Manager of the Plant Operation and Maintenance
11
Department Charles Witcher stated:
12
“You have a right to respond to this notice of intent to suspend either orally or
13
in writing. Such response must be received within eight (8) calendar days from
14

15 the date of issuance of such notice by your Official Reviewer — Robert

16 Taylor, Assistant Director, H&C. Mr. Taylor can be reached by telephone at

17 916-7342570. His mailing address is UCDMC, Administrative & Professional

18 Services, FSSB Suite 2100, and Sacramento, CA 95817.

19 In the event this intended action is taken, you will have the right to request
20 review of the action under Personnel Policies for Staff Members 70,
21 Complaint Resolution. If you wish to request review of the final action, you
22 must do so in writing as explained in the above policy, using the appropriate
23 complaint form. Your written request for review must be received in the
24
Employee & Labor Relations Office no later than 30 calendar days from the
25
date of the letter of suspension.”
26
147. Director Robert Taylor was one of the individuals who carry out
27
retaliation against Plaintiff and Buckans in December 2006 –March 2007. . On March 30, 2007,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 48 of 295
 1 Plaintiff submitted to Director Robert Taylor his 59-page Appeal Letter from Witcher’s Letter of
2 Intent to Suspend and Notice of Reassignment. Director Taylor acted as Skelly Reviewer.
3 Director Taylor denied Plaintiff’s appeal on April 16, 2007. On the same day, Charles Witcher
4 signed a Letter of Three Days of Suspension Without Pay and Notice of Reassignment to
5
Plumbing/HVAC Shop beginning on April 20, 2007.
6

7 The 2007 Complaint - Step I and Step II under the UC Davis Personnel Policies for
Staff Members PPSM 70,
8

10 148. The University of California Personnel Policies for Staff Members PPSM

11 70, Complaint Resolution, or Administrative Remedies are main subject in the Palmer v.

12 Regents of the University of California, 107 Cal.App.4th 899, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 567 (Cal.App.
13 Dist.2 04/08/2003) and Janet Campbell v. Regents of the University of California (Supra
14 S113275).
15 149. On April 19, 2007, Plaintiff filed Step I Complaint under PPSM 70 from
16 Witcher’s and Taylor’s decisions. Again, Director Robert Taylor was assigned as the Reviewer
17
for the Step I Complaint under PPSM 70 and denied Plaintiff’s Step I Complaint on May 10,
18
2007.
19
150. On April 20, 2007, after one month of administrative leave Plaintiff
20
reported himself to UCDMC Plumbing/HVAC Shop per Charles Witcher’s April 16, 2007,
21
Letter of Suspension and Notice of Reassignment. Plaintiff in HVAC shop was assign to monitor
22
and dispatch critical alarms on the day shift in UC Davis Medical Center via the computer
23
Metasys System. The Plumbing/HVAC shop Manager was Patrick Putney with Senior
24
Development Engineer and Shop supervisor was Dorin Daniliuc.
25
UCDMC Plant Operation & Maintenance Interim Manager Charles Witcher in his March 23,
26

27
2007

28 The 2006-2007 Annual Employee Performance Review

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 49 of 295
 1 151. Three months later, after Plaintiff was defamed, defaced, and portrayed as a bigot,
2 racist, and violent employee, making him look like a guard from a Nazi concentration camp or a
3 KKK member and after the letter which was threating to terminate Plaintiff’s employment,
4 suspend, or reassigned Plaintiff to a different shop on July 25, 2007, Charles Witcher signed
5 Plaintiff’s Employee Performance Review (Evaluation) for the 2006/2007 working period.
6 152. To Plaintiff’s disbelief, his Employee Performance Review grade was
7 “Meets Expectation” with comments that were better than what Plaintiff received in the previous
8 annual evaluations. This should have ended the story, Plaintiff’s suspension should have been
9 null and void, and Plaintiff should have been permitted to return to his normal duty in the Central
10 Plant. In Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 958, 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 83
11 (Cal.App.Dist.4 03/30/1993) the Court ruled:
12
“In light of the multitude of laws designed to protect the employee from
13

14
oppressive employment practices,*fn2 evaluations serve the important

15 business purpose of documenting the employer’s hiring, promotion, discipline

16 and firing practices. Moreover, the laudable practice of evaluating employees

17 is to be encouraged for other important reasons. The performance review is a

18 vehicle for informing the employee of what management expects, how the
19 employee measures up, and what he or she needs to do to obtain wage
20 increases, promotions or other recognition. Thus, the primary recipient and
21 beneficiary of the communication is the employee.”
22
153. Plaintiff 2006/2007 Evaluation stated:
23

24 “Jerry is a very knowledgeable and effective central plant operator. He is very

25 thorough in his operation and maintenance performance. He assists the
26 maintenance personnel when requested to do so. . He can be trusted to make
27 the right operational decisions and keep management informed of the status of
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 50 of 295
 1 the plant. Jerry is committed to the success of the central plant and the medical
2 center. His communication skills and professionalism toward some of his co-
3 workers needs some improvement.
4 Jerry is talented, precise and his daily paper work is excellent. He
5 communicates very well and always passes on information from his shift,
6 leaving detailed messages with the Central Plant operators.
7

8
Jerry was very instrumental in the setup of the computer and office area for the
9
Building Automation Monitoring. He has shown a strong knowledge of
10
computer software and hardware. He has been able to solve many computer
11
problems and install software programs when needed.
12

13
His overall job performance is outstanding. He is always willing to accept
14
extra work and is very dependable.”
15

16
The Annual Employee Evaluation period in UC Davis is from July 1 to June 30 next year and
17
had three grade levels: “Exceeds Expectation,” “Meets Expectation,” “Does Not Meet
18
Expectation.” Meets Expectation it was what an employee gets because of pay raises related to
19
evaluations. Plaintiff also received his normal wage increase due to receiving “Meets
20
Expectation” annual review.
21
After several time extensions and unsuccessful attempts to mediate the conflict through the HR
22
Mediation Office, on August 31, 2007, Plaintiff submitted to HR a Labor Relation Step II Appeal
23
from Director Taylor I Step Decision HR Case No: 03-PPS-013-06107. According to the UC
24
PPSM 70-Step II Review by Complaint Resolution Officer, the Complaint Resolution Officer
25

26 must convene a Step II meeting within 20 calendar days of the appeal to Step II. According to

27 HR Labor Relation Supervisor Mike Garcia, HR had an enormous problem finding anyone to act

28 as Complaint Resolution Officer to conduct a Step II hearing, which was required to include an

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 51 of 295
 1 investigation and witnesses interview.
2
The 2007 Complaint Step II Review PPSM -70
3

4
154. On November 13, 2007, HR Labor Relation Supervisor Mike Garcia
5
assigned UCDMC Director Mike Boyd as Step II Compliant Resolution Officer (CRO) to hear
6
Plaintiff’s case of unlawful suspension and reassignment. Mike Garcia wrote in his letter to Mike
7
Boyd who was listed in FAC and SAC as an individual Defendant.
8
“The Office of Labor Relations received the enclosed complaint filed in
9

10
accordance with Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM), Complaint

11 Resolution 70 (CR 70). Jaroslaw Plaintiff’s complaint was reviewed at the Step

12 I level and a Step Response was issued by Assistant Director, Robert B.

13 Taylor. Jaroslaw Plaintiff was not satisfied with the Step I Response and has

14 filed a timely appeal to Step II. “In accordance with CR 70 and UCD
15 Procedure 70.2, you have been appointed as the Complaint Resolution Officer
16 (CRO) for the Step II review of the above referenced matter. In accordance
17 with CR 70 and UCD Procedure 70.2, you have been appointed as the
18 Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO) for the Step II review of the above
19 referenced matter. As the CRO, you are charged with convening a Step Il
20
meeting. Please convene a Step II meeting on or before December 3, 2007.”
21

22 155. Mike Boyd in the period of 1998 to 2014 held the title of UC Davis

23 Medical Center Executive Director, Facilities Planning, Design and Construction. By his duty, he
24 was directly involved in construction of the Central Plant, commissioned in 1998. Director Boyd
25 is solely responsible, together with colleague UCDMC Director Robert Taylor, Director Shelton
26 Duruisseau PhD, UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Manager and Defendant
27 Charles Witcher, and UCDMC PO&M Principal Engineer Mike Lewis for unlawful—under state
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 52 of 295
 1 and federal law—massive machine oil discharge to the Sacramento or American River via city
2 storm for seven years without any consequences and including effort to cover up the crime.
3 156. The scheduled Step II hearing with Director Mike Boyd took place on
4 December 7, 2007, and he issued the decision on December 18, 2007. Mike Boyd in his biased
5 and outrageous decision did not even bother to address Plaintiff’s abrupt removal from the
6 Central Plant and move Plaintiff to Plumbing/HVAC due to the retaliation and witch hunt
7 orchestrated by him, Shelton Durruisseau, Robert Taylor, Defendant Cindy Oropeza, and others.
8 In 2007, besides holding the Director position, Mike Boyd was Equal Opportunity Committee
9 Divisional Representative together with Director Shelton Duruisseau PhD and Defendant listed
10 as individual Defendant in FAC and SAC Cindy Oropeza.
11 157.. Director Boyd’s decision in the Step II Appeal was sent to Plaintiff
12 on January 2, 2008, with a cover letter from HR Labor Relation Supervisor Mike Garcia, which
13 was sent to Director Shelton Duruisseau Ph.D and Director Robert Taylor. Plaintiff was outraged
14 by Boyd’s decision after receiving a glowing 2006/2007 Employee Performance Review
15 (evaluation) and on January 28, 2008, Plaintiff responded to Boyd’s decision with a 24-page
16 letter. In his letter, Plaintiff wrote to Boyd citing Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal.
17 App. 4th 958,18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 83 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993;
18 “I could only speculate that you and others are lacking any knowledge of UC
19 policies and procedures in regards to employer-employee relation. Your, and
20 others, complete disregard to the importance of the Annual Employee
21 Performance Review established by the UC and affirmed by the California,
22 and other states, appellate courts is very disturbing and unacceptable.
23 Your decision is very biased and is a continuance of the non written “witch
24 hunt “policy affirmed by some individuals from the UCDMC HR Department.
25 This case is not a court case. However, it looks like that this case won’t end
26 inside the UC system because of deliberate bias and lack of any good faith
27 from the UCDMC Management to end this case.”
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 53 of 295
 1 158. Plaintiff’s January 28, 2008, response to Boyd was CC’ed to Judith
2 Boyette. UC Vice President of HR; Robert J. Loessberg-Zahl, Assistant Executive Vice Chancellor
3 of UC Davis; Anna Orlowski, Health System Chief Counsel; Sh e lton Du ruisseau , Dire ctor
4 o f UCDMC; Robert Taylor, Director of UCDMC; Gloria Alvarado, Director of HR
5 at UCDMC; Michael Sheesley, Manager of HR at UCDMC; and Mike Garcia, Supervisor
6 LB HR at UCDMC; Bettye Andreos of the Pathology Dept.; Office of the Reagents and UC
7 General Counsel Office; and Charles Witcher, UCDMC PO&M Manager.
8 2007 Promotions
9 159. In addition to Plaintiff’s suspension and reassignment and his appeals,
10 individuals who were responsible, directly or indirectly, for the massive oil discharge to the
11
Sacramento River via city storm drain for the seven years enjoyed promotions and wages
12
increases. The individual Defendant listed in SAC and FAC Charles Witcher was promoted by
13
Director Robert Taylor to the permanent position of the UCDMC Plant Operation and
14
Maintenance Department Manager, Steve McGrath was promoted by Director Robert Taylor to
15
UCDMC Central Plant Manager position, Defendant Stephen Chilcott was promoted to a
16
UCDMC HR Labor Relation Manager position, Dennis Curry, participant in the 2005 cover-up
17
investigation related to the illegal oil discharge to the river, was promoted by Director Robert
18
Taylor to UCDMC PO&M Department Assistant Manager (Defendant Charles Witcher’s
19
Assistant). Dennis Curry was dismissed in June 2012 two weeks before he retired for taking
20

21 money from contractors. Dennis Curry was Plaintiff’s superior from 2007 to 2012.

22 Furthermore, in July 2007, UCDMC Plumbing/HVAC Shop Supervisor Dorin Daniliuc

23 (Defendant in this case), who operated his private HVAC business and his church business on

24 university time, disclosed to Plaintiff that he was given his supervisor position in UCDMC

25 HVAC shop by UCDMC Director Robert Taylor and Director Shelton Duruisseau Ph .D in
26 exchange for installing and maintaining heating and air-conditioning equipment in their private
27 residences. It was reported to UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo in July
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 54 of 295
 1 2011.
2 The Complaint Step III–ARBITRATION–UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 Filed On January 29,
2008 Case No. : 03-PPS-013-06107
3

4 160. Outraged by Director Boyd’s Step II Decision, Plaintiff filed with

5 UCDMC HR Labor Relation the Step III Appeal on January 29, 2008, which was Arbitration.
6 Plaintiff in his request for Arbitration attached his 24-page response to Director Boyd’s Step II
7
Decision. Plaintiff deliberately chose the University of California arbitrator instead of an outside
8
arbitrator, showing the extent to which the university system is corrupted.
9
The Arbitration Step III Appeal hearing was set for November 3 & 4 2008, 1 ½ years after my
10
suspension and reassignment from the Central Plant to HVAC shop.
11
UC Davis assigned to the hearing two UC Davis Campus HR attorneys who were also -licensed
12
by the California State Bar: UC Davis HR Assistant Director Dawn M. Capp J.D and HR
13
Analyst VII, Danesha Nichols J.D (Danesha Nichols is listed a s an individual Defendant in this
14
FAC and SAC ).
15
161. As Arbitration Step III Appeal Hearing Officer, UC Davis assigned
16

17 Connie Melendy, Assistant Vice Provost from the UC Davis Academic Personnel Offices

18 of the Chancellor and Provost.

19 162. The coordinator on the UC Davis Medical Center site was the newly

20 promoted HR Labor Relation Manager and attorney at law listed defendant in FAC and SAC

21 Stephen Chilcott J.D.

22 163. In 2007 and 2008, Plaintiff had a very hard time understanding why the
23 three different appeals pursuant to UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70 had to
24 continue after Plaintiff was provided with a good 2006/2007 evaluation. Plaintiff in 2008 made
25 an offer to settle the cases without demanding reassignment back to his previous position in the
26
Central Plant or a big monetary settlement. In preparation for the Appeal, Plaintiff reexamined
27
and reviewed all the documents he had and came to the conclusion that the point of dragging
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 55 of 295
 1 Plaintiff to the arbitration was to further humiliate him and that arbitration would end with same
2 result as Taylor’s and Boyd’s decisions in Step I and Step II Appeals. Thereafter, Plaintiff most
3 likely would be fired under false pretenses with an arbitrator slanderous decision as a backup.
4 For the arbitration hearing, Plaintiff ordered a sworn Court Reporter at his own all expense
5
because the university refused to share the cost.
6
164. In 2007 and 2008, Plaintiff did not know that his removal from the Central Plant
7
and reassignment to the HVAC shop served a different purpose than he suspected. Plaintiff also
8
did not know that, in January 2007, the Defendant hired Charles Robinson as the University of
9
California General Counsel. Robinson was previously employed as a General Counsel with
10
California Independent System Operator (ISO) and, apparently, the Defendant were hoping to
11
get a new contract for the sale of electric power with ISO by hiring him. The power sale contract
12
with Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and ISO was lost in 2003 or 2004, causing
13
the University to lose millions of dollars in revenue. Robinson was the right person to take care
14

15 of business and bring the revenue back, regardless of the fact that the UC Davis Central Plant

16 was not legally qualified to sell power to SMUD via ISO.

17 165. To prepare himself for the arbitration hearing, Plaintiff reviewed the

18 University of California and UC Davis policies and was trying to find the University of

19 California policy that could allow management to remove and reassign an employee to the
20 different shop against that employee’s will and as a disciplinary measure.
21 166. The Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) 62 Corrective Action
22 Policy had no such option.
23 167. Plaintiff found only the Principles of Reassignment for the UC Davis
24
Medical Center on the UC Davis Website, which had nothing to do with disciplining employees,
25
but forgot to present it during the arbitration.
26
168. Plaintiff submitted by e-mail the mentioned UCDMC Principles of
27
Reassignment to Hearing Officer Ms. Connie Melendy on November 9, 2008.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 56 of 295
 1 Ms. Melendy responded to Plaintiff e-mail with thanks for the Principles and cc’d my e-mail to
2 Defendant Danesha Nichols and Stephen Chilcott who from the beginning of the appeals process
3 together with Taylor and Boyd knew that the reassignment was unlawful and against any UC
4 Policies—especially Stephen Chilcott and Danesha Nichols, who were HR employees and
5
licensed by the State Bar with J.D. degrees. Chilcott was trying to control damages, but it did not
6
go far.
7
169. It was lucky for Plaintiff that he found the information and sent it to
8
Connie Melendy.
9
170. On December 19, 2008, Connie Melendy sent her Step III–Arbitration
10
decision to Plaintiff. The decision was not much different than the March 2007 “Witch Hunt”
11
decision issued by Bettie Andreos or Charles Witcher’s March 2007 Letter of Intent to Suspend
12
and Notice of Reassignment with exception of the following statement “The reassignment was
13
not for just cause. The remedy shall be to allow Mr. Plaintiff to return to Central Plant if he
14

15 desires.”

16 171. The Step III –Arbitration decision did not leave any doubt for Plaintiff that the

17 assigned University Hearing Officer would rule against Plaintiff if Plaintiff had not, by pure luck,

18 found the UC Davis Principles of Reassignment and sent it to Ms. Connie Melendy after the

19 Arbitration hearing. UC Arbitrator had no choice but to rule against the University and order the
20 University to let Plaintiff return to the central plant. To justify her decision against the University
21 and in favor of Plaintiff, Ms. Melendy, on pages 9 and 10 of her decision, explained in detail the
22 UC Davis Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) 62. Corrective Action —
23 Professional and Support Staff. These policies were well known prior to the arbitration for
24
witch hunter Bettye Andreos, Charles Witcher, Director Shelton Duruisseau, Director
25
Robert Taylor and Director Steven Chilcott, who hunted down Plaintiff and his coworker
26
William Buckans, and caused Plaintiff enormous humiliation, stress, anxiety, fear of losing
27
his employment and financial loss.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 57 of 295
 1 Furthermore, Hearing Officer Melendy brought Waszczuk’s Employee Performance Reviews
2 into her decision as follows:
3 Mr. Waszczuk’s past record, in the form of his documented performance
4 history, is remarkable for a complete absence of problems regarding
5
threatening behavior or inappropriate language prior to the corrective action
6
(Exhibit J1/1/ 2). He received “very good” performance ratings in 2000 and
7
2001, and “outstanding” ratings in 2002 and 2003. Beginning with the 2004
8
review, the rating categories on the performance forms were changed to
9
eliminate the “outstanding” category and substitute with a “meets expectation”
10
or “does not meet expectation” option for the supervisor. Thereafter, Mr.
11
Waszczuk consistently received “meets expectations” ratings for each year
12
through 2008. Many positive comments appear for each year, such as the
13
following comment that was consistently made each year of his employment in
14

15 the Central Plant:

16 “Jerry can be counted on to make the right operational decisions regarding the

17 plant, and to keep his supervisor informed of the operational status of the plant

18 and its equipment. Jerry is a valuable employee committed to the future

19 success of the Medical Center.” (Performance reviews from 2000, 2001, 2003,
20 2004, 2005, 2006)
21 There are no comments regarding threatening behavior or inappropriate
22 language in any of the annual evaluations from the time of Mr. Waszczuk’s
23 first evaluation in 2000 and including the 2006 evaluation that was written
24
prior to the suspension and reassignment. The University presented no
25
evidence to show that there were verbal or written discussions or performance
26
appraisals intended to caution or warn Mr. Waszczuk about inappropriate
27
behavior prior to the October 2007 evaluation (University Exhibit 13), which is
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 58 of 295
 1 a cumulative review by three supervisors (Central Plant supervisors Tom
2 Kavanaugh, Steve McGrath and HVAC Plumbing supervisor Patrick Putney).
3 That review, while overall very positive, contains the following comment
4 about Mr. Waszczuk’s behavior: ‘His communication skills and
5
professionalism toward some of his co-workers needs some improvement.’ His
6
overall job performance for 2007 is rated outstanding, with notations that he is,
7
‘... a very valuable member of the staff since joining the section in April... is
8
talented... accepts extra work... is dependable.’”
9

10 The Settlement –Agreement with the Regents of the University of California, Signed in
February 2009
11

12
172. After prevailing in the arbitration process, Plaintiff did not go back to the Central
13
Plant where his position was already replaced and where a group of employees from the Jackson
14
area who were hired fraudulently were helping Directors Shelton Durrisuseau, Robert Taylor,
15
Mike Boyd, and Charles Witcher to hunt down Plaintiff and William Buckans, which did not
16

17 incentivize Plaintiff to go back to the Central Plant.

18 173. Further, UC Davis assigned arbitrator Connie Melendy; in her 2008 decision,

19 besides the slanderous and untrue accusation aimed at Plaintiff, she suggested and strongly advised

20 Plaintiff to consider very thoughtfully and seriously, whether the environment of the

21 HVAC/Plumbing Shop, with its current supervisor and colleagues, would be more conducive to
22 Plaintiff’s future success. Under the best of circumstances, it is difficult to return to a worksite
23 where there is “animosity,” as Connie Melendy described, instead referring to it as a hostile work
24 environment that caused later the suicide one of the Central Plant Operator Todd Goerlich .
25 In April 2007 Todd Goerlich was hired as a Plaintiff’s replacement.
26
174. Plaintiff seriously considered the Arbitrator, Connie Melendy’s, suggestions to stay
27
permanently in the HVAC shop and never expected that two and one-half years after Plaintiff
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 59 of 295
 1 signed Settlement-Agreement with Defendant that Plaintiff would be hunted down like an animal
2 by same perpetrators as in 2006–2007.
3 175. The newly promoted UCDMC HR Labor Relations Manager and listed individual
4 Defendant in this FAC and SAC , Stephen Chilcott, solicited to settle the case.
5
176. In exchange for not going back to the Central Plant, Plaintiff was “promoted” from
6
his Central Plant Operator position to an indefinite, exempt Associate Development Engineer
7
position with an increase in the annual base salary of $8,000.00 ($70,000.00/year), which sounded
8
good to Plaintiff, but the annual gross income turned out to be a lot less then Plaintiff was earning
9
as a shift worker in the Central Plant with swing shifts and night differential, holiday pay, and
10
overtime pay.
11
177. For example, Central Plant Operator Chris Gangl’s annual earnings in 2008 was
12
$84,000 in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings $63,900 ; in 2009 his earnings was
13
$80,300 in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings of $82,600( Plaintiff’s earning was
14

15 included $ 13, 500 one time extra pay Plaintiff received 2009 Settlement –Agreement) ; in 2010

16 it was $80,500 in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings of $70,000 ; in 2011—after the 2010

17 blackmail pay-raise of 12% (a six steps pay-up pay raise and an additional step in May 2011),

18 Chris Gangl’s annual earnings jumped to $100,000; in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings

19 of $ 63,300; in 2012, Gang’s earnings was $97,300 in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings
20 of 70,000;( the last year of Plainiff’s employment) in 2013, it was $98,700; and in 2014, it was
21 $104,000.
22 178. This was the reason why in March 2011, Plaintiff sent a letter to UC Davis Medical
23 Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher and asked respectfully
24
for Charles Witcher to increase Plaintiff’s base salary accordingly, in one step (not six steps )
25
from Middle Step of $71,640/year to the 3rd Step of $80,922/year.
26
179. Plaintiff had no intention to pursue his request if denied because of the Settlement-
27
Agreement, which stated that Plaintiff was to be provided wages of $70,000/year. It was an error
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 60 of 295
 1 or misclassification in the Settlement-Agreement, because this was not a step in the Associate
2 Development Engineer title classification code 7182. The first step was $62,352/year and the
3 middle step was $71,640/year, which was closer to what Plaintiff was to receive pursuant to the
4 2009 Settlement-Agreement. Plaintiff’s wages were increased in May 2011 to $71,640.
5
180. If Plaintiff were still to be employed with UC Davis Medical Center, it would be
6
most likely that Plaintiff’s salary would change to $76,600/year without a step increase, because
7
the general classification of the Title Code 7182 has been changed for Middle Step, from
8
$71,640/year to $76,600/year.
9
181. The above example of Central Plant Operator Chris Gangl, who had a lot less
10
experience and no formal education in Power Plant operations, clearly proves the earning potential
11
that Plaintiff sacrificed in not going back to the hostile work environment created and permitted in
12
the Central Plant by the Defendant, not to mention that Central Plant Operator’s nonexempt
13
position is classified as lower than the exempt Associate Development Engineer position.
14

15 182. The other issue was that some Central Plant operators were hired 10 years after

16 Plaintiff was hired, and they received in December 2010 the 12% wage increase, and in May 2011,

17 the additional pay raise. Not one UC Davis skilled trade nonunion employee in December 2010

18 was dreaming to receive one penny in wage increase because of the strict budget constraint and

19 furlough of UC campuses. Some of employees were employed for more than 20 or 30 years and
20 were not considered for any wage increase in 2010.
21 183. Besides the $70.000.00 per year salary, Plaintiff received in the Settlement-
22 Agreement a small compensation in the amount of $13,500.00 for lost wages due to the witch hunt,
23 which resulted in suspension without pay and refinement in March 2007.
24
Shortly after Plaintiff signed the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement, the Regents of the
25
University of California UC Davis HR Assistant Director Dawn Capp, UC Davis attorney in
26
arbitration, lost her job. Most likely, Ms. Capp was fired or forced to quit a few months after
27
arbitration. The Hearing Officer, Ms. Connie Melendy, disappeared from the UC Davis landscape
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 61 of 295
 1 in 2010.
2
184. The 2009 Settlement-Agreement, Paragraph No. 19, states “CALIFORNIA LAW
3
This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of California and shall in all respects be
4
interpreted and enforced in accordance with California law.
5

6 185. At the time when Plaintiff signed the Settlement-Agreement, February 2009,

7 Plaintiff understood that the Defendant, if alleged of any violation of the Settlement-Agreement

8 by Plaintiff, would inform Plaintiff if Plaintiff had breached or violated the signed Settlement-

9 Agreement. Then, if Plaintiff disagreed, then the Defendant had the right to enforce the agreement

10 in a court of law. This was how Plaintiff understood this employee–employer contract. The
11 Defendant never alleged in one word anywhere that Plaintiff violated the signed Settlement-
12 Agreement, but freely slandered and defamed Plaintiff in at least six pseudo-investigation reports,
13 multi-investigatory leave letters, the April 2012 notice of intent to suspend without pay, the
14 September 2012 notice of intent to terminate Plaintiff’s employment, and the December 2012 letter
15
of employment termination.
16
The Working Environment In The UC Davis Medical Center Plumbing/HVAC
17
187. By title Associate Development Engineer title , Plaintiff basically became
18
Assistant for Plumbing/HVAC Shop Manager Patrick Putney who held the title of Senior
19

20
Development Engineer. Patrick Putney, who is also listed as the Defendant in this FAC and

21 SAC got very upset for reasons unknown to Plaintiff when he got news that Plaintiff settled the

22 case and became an exempt employee in his shop. Putney complained about to HR and started

23 pitting Shop Supervisor Dorin Daniliuc against Plaintiff .Daniliuc was given his supervisor job

24 in Plumbing job by Directors Robert Taylor and Shelton Durusseau in exchange for HVAC

25 service Daniluc provided to them in in their private residences by his private HVAC business
26 188. Everything settled down, and Plaintiff became very n isolated employee in
27 a small glass cage and was monitoring and dispatching UC Davis Medical Center critical alarms,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 62 of 295
 1 reviewing and closing work orders, backing up servers, and assisting shop maintenances with
2 shutdown and start-up HVAC equipment in hospital via computer, making temperature
3 adjustments in hospital patients’ rooms. Plaintiff was never invited to morning crew meeting but
4 did not complain.
5
189. From the beginning of Plaintiff’s new assignment, Plaintiff noticed that
6
the working environment was quite strange and unusual. The HVAC shop looked akin to an
7
unsupervised junkyard with filthy bathrooms, no showers for plumbers who were being exposed
8
every day to the hospital environment, no locker room, and no lunch room or break room to
9
consume meals or take rest breaks. The term “housekeeping” did not exist in the HVAC shop
10
manager’s or his assistant’s vocabulary. Both individuals were more concerned with how to
11
make a few extra bucks on the company’s time. Patrick Putney was cheating his employer of the
12
parking fee by hiding his private vehicles inside the shop. He was bringing chickens, ducks,
13
goats, sheep, and roosters from his house in his car trunk and was selling them to UCDMC
14

15 employees. Putney was trapping pigeons on the UCDMC roofs, bringing his kids to the shop for

16 babysitting and schooling, and selling soda from his private vending machine that he brought to

17 the shop.

18 Plaintiff later described his new working environment as a gypsy village in Eastern Europe,

19 which closely resembled the one portrayed by Sasha Cohen in the movie Borat.
20 190.. Dorin Daniliuc, who was and still is Patrick Putney’s assistant,
21 concentrated most of his attention on his private HVAC business, which he operated on company
22 time via cell phone; he would often disappear for most of the day with his business-equipped
23 van. Daniliuc was also bringing some foreign workers (Romanian nationals) to the shop to repair
24
his private vehicles. Daniliuc did not care much about what people thought about his unrelated
25
employment activities in the workplace. Daniliuc installed and maintained HVAC equipment for
26
two important UCDMC directors in their private residences, which apparently assured him of his
27
importance; his understanding was, “It’s nobody’s business what I am doing on company time.”
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 63 of 295
 1 To make sure that I got his message about his important connection with the directors, he sent
2 Plaintiff an e-mail dated July 9, 2007, from Director Robert Taylor, inviting him to a Falkland
3 Island, South Georgia, and Antarctica brown bag luncheon presentation
4 Dorin Daniliuc also ran the Romanian Church business affairs on company time and did not have
5
much time to oversee the crew and take care of his duties.
6
. 191. Plaintiff did not much attention to his supervisor’s activities and only
7
once in a while reminded Daniliuc about his duty but had no major problem with Daniliuc,
8
Putney, or his coworkers in the shop until the events in March 2011, which were triggered by a
9
secret 12% wage increase in December 2010 provided by Associate Vice Chancellor Shelton
10
Durruiseau, Director Robert Taylor, Director Mike Boyd and HR Director Stephen Chilcott for
11
the UCDMC Central Plant Operators.
12

13
The December 2010 secret 12% Pay Increase for UCDMC Central Plant Operators,
14
192. Plaintiff’s employment with the UC Davis Medical Center would have
15
lasted longer, and most likely Plaintiff would retire from University at age of 66 without any
16
problems. In March 2011 Plaintiff was 60 years old and it was Plaintiff goal to retire from
17

18
University six years later. . It did not happen and Plaintiff’s employment was converted by the

19 Defendant’s several agents and officers into Hell on the Earth.

20 193. In September 2010, one of the UCDMC Central Plant Operators, Jeff

21 Lancaster, discovered on the Sacramento Bee Webpage (Salary for Public Employees in

22 California) that Plaintiff’s 2009 annual salary was $82,295.00, not knowing that Plaintiff’s 2009
23 salary was a combination of Plaintiff’s $70,000.00 base salary and $13,500.00 extra pay per
24 February 2009 Settlement –Agreement for Plaintiff’s lost wages due to Plaintiff’s unlawful
25 reassignment from the Central Plant to the Plumbing/HVAC Shop in March 2007.
26 194. Jeff Lancaster was one of the few from the Central Plant who in
27 2005/2007 was used by UCDMC directors, Shelton Duruisseau, Robert Taylor, Mike Boyd and
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 64 of 295
 1 others to help them hunt down Plaintiff and William Buckans in 2005–2007 and to remove
2 Plaintiff from the Central Plant.
3 195. In the September 2010 undated petition, four undersigned individuals
4 attacked Plaintiff by making false statements about Plaintiff’s wages in relation to Metasys
5
System Operation on the day shift.
6
196. These undersigned petition individuals were the same individuals who,
7
together with Charles Witcher, attacked me and my coworkers in 2006/2007 and helped him to
8
abruptly remove Plaintiff from the Central Plant. It is suspected that the author of the petition
9
was bullied and harassed his coworker, Todd Georgic, who committed suicide. His words in the
10
petition “It is miracle that nothing tragic has happened yet” sounded like a threat. Todd
11
Georlich’s death was something very tragic that happened soon thereafter.
12
197. This tragic event was never investigated by the Human Resource
13
Department investigators. It is worth mentioning that Todd Georlich was the former coworker
14

15 and fried of the Central Plant manager Steve McGrath from his previous employment. A few

16 years back, Steve McGrath’s first wife committed suicide; now, his friend and former coworker

17 After the Todd Georlich suicide traumatized Central Plant Manager Steve McGrath tried

18 unsuccessfully to get a job in the UCDMC Carpenter shop and later in the HVAC shop.

19 198. Jeff Lancaster agitated another three individuals, Chris Gangl, Timothy
20 Cooper and Greg Russ to write and sign a petition and demanding a $4.00/hour pay raise,
21 pointing at Plaintiff’s salary and stating in the petition that Plaintiff was paid $15,000.00 more
22 per year than Central Plant Operators. Beside Plaintiff’s wages, these individuals were very
23 dissatisfied that their help and sacrifices for directors. Shelton Duruisseau, Robert Taylor and
24
Mike Boyd did not do and good because Plaintiff and Buckans was not fired from their jobs in
25
2005-2007 due to a witch hunt, They constantly bragged about and bullied and harassed William
26
Buckans after Plaintiff left the Central Plant in 2007.
27
199. Plaintiff received the copy of the undated black –mail petition signed by
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 65 of 295
 1 them shortly after the petition was written. The petition was addressed to UC Davis Medical
2 Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department Manager Charles Witcher who is the
3 defendant in FAC and SAC . Plaintiff showed the black –mail petition and gave a copy of it to
4 Charles Witcher’s assistant Dennis Curry, who visited Plaintiff’s new workplace.
5
200. Plaintiff briefly discussed the petition with Dennis Curry due to the fact
6
that there was a strict budget constraint on the University of California campuses and nobody
7
was getting a penny in wage increase. When Plaintiff later received the documents under the
8
Public Record Act related to this petition, Plaintiff found out that Charles Witcher’s, Director
9
Robert Taylor’s and others’ annual salaries were searched on the web by Lancaster, and the
10
search was submitted together with a petition to Witcher. The petition was the classic blackmail
11
demand for favors to cover up crime.
12
201. Shortly after the meeting with Dennis Curry , Plaintiff ignored and forget
13
about the whole petition. Dennis Curry was involved in the 2005 cover-up crime investigation
14

15 conducted by the UC Davis Chancellor’s office related to massive machine oil discharge to the

16 Sacramento River from the Central Plant.

17 202. However, Dennis Curry did not ignore Plaintiff’s discovery about the

18 blackmail pay increase petition and alerted Charles Witcher or Director Taylor a and the petition

19 for pay raise was rewritten and signed by 11 central Plant Operators .
20 203. The memo, letter, or petition, dated September 20, 2010, signed by 11
21 “Central Plant Operators” was addressed to CHARLES WITCHER, Manager of
22 PO&M,Department identified the subject matter as “…the monitoring of the Johnson Controls
23 Metasys Software program and dispatching of emergency and same day service calls to the Central
24 Plant during graveyard and weekend shifts.” In other words, the subject was the fact that the
25 Central Plant Operators covered shifts that Plaintiff did not work.
26 204. The memo, letter, or petition continued “…the Metasys and dispatching has
27 become a full time job to monitor and respond too (sic)...several years ago, we reached a point
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 66 of 295
 1 where we can no longer monitor these systems and operate, start, or stop the Central Plant. This
2 matter becomes critical when there is a casualty within the plant. We cannot troubleshoot and
3 respond to phone calls and Metasys alarms. It is a miracle that nothing tragic has happened
4 yet.” (Emphasis Added)
5 205. The letter, memo, and/or petition calculates the cost of “3 new employees”
6 to monitor the system for 24 hours over 3 shifts. .In their letter, memo, or petition, the plant
7 operators asked the employer to remove the Metasys monitoring obligation from the Plant, or in
8 the alternative, agree to give the plant operators raises of $4.00 per hour.
9 206.. CHARLES WITCHER sent the request to Director Robert Taylor ,
10 On November 18, 2010, ROBERT TAYLOR, the Assistant Director, Hospitals and Clinics, in the
11 Administrative and Professional Services arm of the employer, confirmed by email, that he was
12 just as knowledgeable of the situation as CHARLES WITCHER, and that he, MR. TAYLOR, was
13 in favor of the raise instead of addressing the serious issue raised in and by the petition.
14 Director Taylor did not address serious safety issue raised in the petition because was no serious
15 issue with the phone calls and Meatasys alarms.

16 207. The Central Plant Operation and the petition was just a black-mail
17 petition to get pay raise for something completely different than inability to operate the plant.
18 UCDMC Directors, Robert Taylor, Shelton Duruisseau Ph, D. Mike Boyd, Charles Witcher and
19 Stephen Chilcott did not have much choice. They bent to the petition demands and pay raise

20 most likely got approval from the UC Davis Chancellor’s office or the University of California

21 Office of the President due to the strict budget constraints and furlough on the campuses and the
budget crisis in the whole state, including State of California Courts.
22

23 208. The 12% pay raise for all Central Plant Operators was provided to all
24 Central Plant Operators. Some of them were hired a short time before the blackmail petition was
25 submitted, and it was unthinkable for anybody to get a 12% or six steps up pay raise as a non-
26 exempt union or non-union and even exempt University of California employee working only
27 for one or two years for University.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 67 of 295
 1 209. The 12% instant pay raise for the 13-person crew was most likely
2 provided because the Defendant entered into negotiations with the Sacramento Municipal Utility
3 District and ISO for a new electric power sale contract, which it had lost in 2003 or 2004. The
4 Central Plant cogeneration facility was being operated at 1/3 of its capacity and was losing
5
millions of dollars every year and the Defendant did not take any chance that there could be any
6
disturbance in the power contract negotiation. Without any question, Defendant secretly
7
provided a 12% wage increase for the Central Plant crew, based on four operators’ blackmail
8
petition for a pay raise.
9

10 The Attorney Danesha Nichol’s Deployment From The UC Davis Campus to UC Davis
11 Medical Center Human Resources Department in October 2010

12
210. After Plaintiff’s conversation with Dennis Curry, UC Davis Health
13
System HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott (defendant) requested that the UC Davis
14
Chancellor’s office deployed .Danesha Nichols, the listed Defendant in FAC and SAC to UC
15
Davis Medical Center to monitor the situation with the pay raise demanded by blackmail petition
16
for the Central Plant Operators.
17
211. Danesha Nichols was the UC Davis HR attorney who in 2007/2008 was
18
involved in Plaintiff’s Step III Appeal arbitration process against UC Davis Medical Center
19 management, and she was very familiar with the crime that was committed in the Central Plant
20 in the period of time spanning from 1998 to 2009 and Nichols was familiar with Plaintiff’s file .
21 212. Danesha Nichols arrived at UC Davis Medical in October 2010 with the
22 title of Investigation Coordinator in similar circumstances as Stephen Chilcott in 2005 and she
23 reported directly to Director Stephen Chilcott.
24 213. As Plaintiff stated previously, the UC Davis Medical Center’s newly built
25 in 1998 Cogeneration Power Plant/Central Plant was a pride and legacy left behind for former
26
UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and Shelton Duruisseau Ph.D., who was appointed to
27
the Medical Board of California, Division of Medical Quality, by Governor Arnold
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 68 of 295
 1 Schwarzenegger in 2004 and promoted in 2010 to Associate Vice Chancellor position. However
2 the Central Plant since 2003 did not generate millions of dollars in revenue as anticipated
3 because lack of power sale contract .
4 The December 2010 Central Plant Operator Locker Burglary
5
214. On December 17, 2010, Principal Engineer Mike Lewis who was in
6
charge of Central Plant issued a dramatic memo , stating,
7
“One of the Central Plant Operator’s locker was broken into and personal
8
effects were removed. This is a very serious offense and will not be tolerated.
9
This incident has been reported to UCDMC Police department and to UCDMC
10
Human Resources department for appropriate investigation and action. In my
11
entire career that consists of work at facilities both in the United States and
12
abroad I have never experienced an incident such as this. If the perpetrator is
13
found, appropriate action will be taken.”
14

15
215. Mike Lewis was Project Manager for Central Plant construction, start-up, and
16
commissioning. Mr. Lewis was the person who, by his title, position, and duty, was most responsible;
17
“he was obligated” to stop machine oil discharge from the leaking Cooling Tower gear boxes from
18
dispensing into the river and soil to prevent contamination of the natural environment. Mike Lewis, as
19
Principal Engineer, grossly neglected his duty and did not take any preventive measure to stop the oil
20
leak and discharge into the natural environment. Mike Lewis had no problem noticing William
21
Buckans’s feet elevated on the console and viewed it as disrespectful to him but was completely
22

23
unable to notice William Buckan’s accident underneath the cooling tower’s oily surface. Mike Lewis

24 also did not observe—for 7 years—the badly designed cooling tower gear boxes and unlawful massive

25 machine oil discharge into the nearby river and soil surrounding the cooling tower. Apparently, he was

26 ordered to do nothing about by Director Taylor or Director Shelton Duruisseau Ph.D or Director

27 Boyd.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 69 of 295
 The Central Plant Operator, Todd Goerlich’s Suicide on December 22, 2010
1

2
216. Five days after the Principal Engineer Mike Lewis issued his dramatic
3
memo about the incoming investigation to find perpetrator Central Plant Operator, Todd
4
Goerlich committed suicide. Then, the rest of the Central Plant Operators received a 12% pay
5
raise despite strict UC budget constraints and furlough in UC Campuses and no power sale
6
contract . Thereafter, everything got quiet. Nobody was questioned by an HR investigator or the
7
UC Davis Police Department about locker burglary. No more comments were made by any
8
Central Plant supervisors about Jeff Lancaster’s burglarized locker, no more dramatic memos
9
from the Principal were issued and Todd Georlich’s tragic death was quickly forgotten.
10

11
The Secret 12 % Pay Raise For Central Plant Operators –March 2011
12

13 217. Around March 5, 2011, Plaintiff somehow got into a conversation with

14 the operator from the central plant William Buckans about the December 2010 12% pay raise,
15 and Plaintiff received from Buckans a copy of the UCDMC Plant Operation and the letter from
16 maintenance manager Charles Witcher dated December 20, 2010, which confirmed a 12% pay
17 raise for the central plant operators.
18 218. The December 2010 12% pay raise that was secretly provided to central
19
plant operators was discriminatory to other non-union employees of the UC Davis Medical
20
Center who did not get one penny in wage increase in the last three years due to strict budget
21
constraints in the whole University of California system. The disclosure about the secret pay
22
raise for small groups of employees became a subject of discussion among workers at the other
23
shops in the UC Davis Medical Center. Plaintiff confronted his shop manager Patrick Putney and
24
Plaintiff asked Putney why the HVAC shop staff did not get a pay raise. Putney’s response was
25
that he knew about the pay raise, but was told to be silent about it to avoid any turmoil among
26
the other shops’ workers. Following the discussion with Patrick Putney, Plaintiff wrote an eight-
27
page letter to the department manager about the central plant operators’ December 2010 pay
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 70 of 295
 1 raise that was no longer a secret, and he asked department head Charles Witcher for a one-step
2 wage increase.
3

4
The Restricted Access to the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant
5 in March 2011

6
219. Consequently, right after Plaintiff asked his supervisors about the secret
7 12% pay raise for the Central Plant Operators, Department Principal Engineer Mike Lewis
8 issued a memo dated March 11, 2011, instructing Central Plant crew to do the following:
9

10 “Please inform all Central-Plant personnel that access to the Central Plant is

11 restricted to operators on duty and vendors performing work requested by the

12 University. All operators not on duty and other personnel with no direct reason

13 to be in the Central Plant shall not be granted access to the Central Plant. If

14 illegal access is gained to the Central Plant please call 4-2555 for a non-
15 emergency event or 911 for an emergency.
16 “If an employee not on duty or other individuals with no direct need to gain
17 access to the Central Plant request access to the Central Plant please contact
18 Charles Witcher, Mike Lewis, or Dennis Curry for direction. Thank you.”
19
That was a shocking memo. Never before had access to the Central Plant been restricted for off-
20
shift personnel.
21
The March 13, 2011, Plaintiff letter addressed to UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance
22
Manager Charles Witcher
23

24

25
220. A few days after Mike Lewis issued the memo about access to the Central

26 Plant, Plaintiff on March 14, 2011, sent a letter to Charles Witcher and asked him respectfully

27 for a one-step salary increase; Plaintiff also brought to Witcher’s attention safety and hygiene

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 71 of 295
 1 issues in the HVAC Shop and mentioned Tod Georlich’s suicide, who was Plaintiff’s
2 replacement in the Central Plant in March 2007, and he did not survive hostility created by UC
3
Davis Medical Center management through unwritten policies and its own rules .
4
The Defendant’s response to March 13, 2011 letter addressed to Charles Witcher was
5
letter of suspension for 10 days without pay in May 2012, Defendant’s criminally
6
minded but unsuccessful provocation to kill Plaintiff on May 31, 2012 , UC Police
7
Poster with Plaintiff’s photo and description which was closely akin to FBI posters for
8
“Most Wanted “ criminals and terrorists and termination of Plaintiff ‘s employment on
9
December 7, 2012 at Plaintiff ‘s age of 61 and half not to mention one and half year
10
long Defendant’s psychological terror aimed at Plaintiff by Defendant’s agents and
11
officers .
12

13 Dear Mr. Witcher:

14
I hope it's not any surprise for you that an employee is getting concerned after
15
he found out or discovered that one group of employees in the same
16
department got quite secretly a significant wage increase (over 10%) and he
17
was left behind and forgotten and did not receive a penny in this share of
18
dollars.
19

20 It is appears that Cogen Operators wages under Title Code 8094 for Non —

21 Represented were increased from level 5. to level 11.0. (Six levels up)

22
I would not write this letter but money talk and stirring people mind and saying
23
more simply I just feel discriminated in this share of goods.
24
At the best of my ability to write, I will try to explain why I feel discriminated
25
and left behind like an orphan in abandoned orphanage.
26

27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 72 of 295
 1 Last year in August 2010 after I came back to work from vacation, my
2 coworker from HVAC shop, Bill Rabidoux asked me if I will be willing to
3 work swing shift because HVAC shop manager told him that second shift
4 would be created for the Metasys System operation outside the Central Plant.
5
I responded that it would be no problem.
6

7 However, whole conversation got my attention and I concluded that during my

8 vacation absence the Metasys Operation is still unresolved issue for somebody

9 inside the department and he is trying to fix something that is not broken.

10
My other thought was that Central Plant Operators submitted complaint and
11
they are asking to remove the Metasys Operation from the Central Plant
12
Shortly after, in September 2010, I received by copy of the undated but signed
13
petition by four Central Plant operators in regards to Metasys Operation
14

15 After I read the petition and attached to the petition the wages disclosure
16 printed from the Sacramento Bee website, the first my thought was that the
17 petition is a follow up to their earlier complaint which I thought they submitted
18 in August during my vacation absence. The petition itself alleged that Metasys
19
System operation has became full time job to monitor and it was my
20
understanding from the petition that the $ 4.00 /hour wage increase for them
21
would magically convert the full time Metasys Operation job to relaxing
22
leisure in nice resort.
23

24
Furthermore , the individuals who signed the petition alleging (without

25 mentioning my name) that I am making $ 15,000.00 more than they are( I

26 wish) earning and I am doing considerably less than they are .

27 On top of this, petitioners are raising issue of three managers for twelve person
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 73 of 295
 1 crew in the Central Plant.
2
I don't know how they omitted Mr. Mike Lewis in their calculations who
3
appears to be in charge of these three mentioned managers. I don't know if it is
4
lack of respect for Mr. Lewis or they are targeting Central Plant Maintenance
5
Supervisor who I as heard he became a salt in their eyes. Few days later after I
6
got the petition I have heard from source different than Central Plant that
7
Central Plant Manager Mr. Steve McGrath making accusations that I was
8
involved in writing this petition for Central Plant Operators.
9

10 I did not want to engage myself in any conflict or discussion with these
11 individuals who are attacking my wages and my duty and I did pass the copy
12 of the petition to Mr. Dennis Curry.
13
Thereafter I forgot about it and concluded this event as a "NEVER ENDING
14
TRAUMA IN THE CENTRAL PLANT " taking in consideration that the same
15
group of individuals viciously and recklessly attacked me and other people in
16
the past, caused me enormous stress, suspension, my departure from the
17
Central Plant and loss of thousands of dollars in my earning"
18

19 At the end of December 2010 I got e-mail from William about his pay raise
20 and I thought that he is joking and I wrote him back that I got five thousand
21 dollars raise, than he sent me congratulation etc. I did not believe him in spite
22 of State financial crisis, furlough, budget constraints and UC President memos
23 about the cuts and possibility of big lay off in IJC system. Basically, I ignored
24
William information and was no further discussion about the pay raise in the
25
Central Plant.
26
The other subject in December 2010 in discussion was the tragic death of the
27
Central Plant employee who took his own life. Just day or two before it
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 74 of 295
 1 happened, I was joking with Tods over the phone and such news was very
2 terrible and unprecedented news for me. I have a problem to get this tragic
3 event off my mind because Todd was working in the place where I have
4 experienced bully behavior toward, Rick Tunello and William Buckans and
5
later toward me from well known group of employees in Central Plant and
6
authors of the last year petition for wage increase and remarks toward me in
7
this petition.
8
The other December 2010 story from the Central Plant is a story of the Jeff
9

10 Lancaster burglarized locker and supposedly stolen photos from the Jeff's

11 locker protected by the secret lock combination.

12 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER 2315 STOCKTON BOULEVARD

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95817
13
December 17, 2010
14 Central Plant
15
One of the Central Plant Operators locker was broken into and personal
16
effects were removed. This is a very serious offense and will not be tolerated.
17
This incident has been reported to VICEMC Police department and to
18
UCDMC Human Resources department for appropriate investigation and
19

20 action.All lockers will have their locks replaced with new and the master file

21 will be kept confidential. Need to provide instructions on what they need to do

22 or how they will be notified.In light of the professional attitude and excellent

23 performance of the Central Plant team this incident is extremely disappointing.

24 If whoever was responsible for this would put the same effort into being a team
25 player and working with others on the Central Plant staff, the work
26 environment in the Central Plant could be that much better.In my entire career
27 that consists of work at facilities both in the United States and abroad I have
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 75 of 295
 1 never experienced an incident such as this. If the perpetrator is found,
2 appropriate action will be taken.
3 Mike Lewis
Principal engineer
4 Plant Operations and Maintenance
5 After I read the William's statement, talk to him and I read Mr. Lewis letter, I
6 understood that somebody supposedly opened Jeff's Lancaster locker and took
7 his personal photos.
8 As I remember the only Plant Manager had the list of all lockers codes and he
9 could only open somebody's locker. This whole story sound and looks like
10
total hoax made up for who knows what reason or for April 1s` fool's day.
11
Who want's somebody's family photos and for what reason?
12
Mr. Lewis stating that he never experienced an incident such as this, he
13
probably was not aware that in the past the former Central Plant Manager got
14
into people lockers without their presence to search for sleeping equipment
15
because he was informed that operators are sleeping on the night shift.
16
My Wages and Working Condition
17
Dear Mr. Witcher:
18
The wages subject came again to my attention last week because William did
19

20
mention again his raise and again I thought that he is trying to "pull my legs"

21 and is joking. and in light of budget cuts e.tc I did not believe what is William

22 telling me until he sent me copy of your memo which stated that he got the pay

23 raise.

24 I am working in UC Davis Medical Center almost 12 years. A lot longer then

25 many operators in the Central Plant.
26 With my departure from the Central Plant I received by the Settlement —
27 Agreement $70, 000 per year salary and Associate Development Engineer
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 76 of 295
 1 Position.
2 I am not sure how we got to this $70, 000.00 salary, because according to the
3 HR Salary Scale under Title Code 7182 as Non —Represented employee I
4 should be in the Middle Range or step with $ 71640.00 per year or $34.31/hr
5
which is closest to the $70,000.00 per year I got two years ago . No one step in
6
salary range under Title code 7182 is set at $70,000.00
7
The $ 70,000.00 partially compensated my overtime and other extras I was
8
receiving as Central Plant Operator. I am estimating that Central Plant
9
Operators wages with their new over 10% raise would be around $85-90 K per
10
year taking in consideration their overtime and other extra pay they are getting.
11
The next range for salary scale under Title Code 7182 is $ 80922.00 per year
12
which I believe it would comparable what the Central Plant Operators will
13
make after the December 2010 pay raise.
14

15 I wrote the introduction and I summarized the latest events in the Central in

16 this letter not without reason

17 The petitioners have the right to say in the petition whatever they want about

18 my job but I know how to operate the Central Plant and could go and do it if

19 really needed or requested by management

20 I am not sure if the petitioners would be so happy to work in the place
21 where no designated place to eat meal at lunch is or break, where they
22 would have to use filthy bathrooms, no warm and clean locker room to
23 change clothes at the winter time. I am happy for Central Plant operators
24
they got the wage increase. However, I am asking for fair and equal
25
treatment in regards to wages
26
It is my understanding from my job description that my position has primary
27
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Central Plant.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 77 of 295
 1 It is also my understanding that Metasys System is integrated part of the
2 Central Plant and I have this duty for the full time.
3

4 Beside the Metasys Alarms I am doing other stuff requested by Patrick Putney
5
and I have well documented what I am doing beside the Metasys Operation.
6
Some days I am very busy and "dizzy" from the alarms but I don't have any
7
major problem to handle the job.
8
I don't take brakes with exception to lunch and I would like to have both
9
brakes integrated into lunch and take one hour lunch instead of two 15 minutes
10
brakes and 1/2 hour lunch. This would allow me to leave the shop to eat lunch
11
outside in cafeteria or walk around the campus to relax and get my blood
12
circulation normal
13
In conclusion I am respectfully asking and I would appreciate if my salary will
14

15 accordingly to next level under Title Code 7182 for Non —Represented

16 employees which I believe is a level 3.0

17 Sincerely

18 Jaroslaw Waszczuk

19

20 221. Plaintiff learned that prior to Todd Goerlich’s suicide, Goerlich frequently
21 complained to his friend Dereck Cole and his girlfriend that he had been harassed and bullied in
22 the Central Plant “by a person named Jeff.” That corresponds with William Buckans’s
23 observation how badly Todd Goerlich disliked Jeff Lancaster and, in particular, how different
24
and unapproachable Todd became when he worked a shift with Jeff Lancaster.
25
Dereck Cole was a newly hired HVAC Technician in a shop where Plaintiff worked. Cole was
26
hired just one month after Todd Georlich committed suicide, and Todd Georlich was the person
27
who provided the recommendation for Dereck Cole to be hired as an HVAC Technician by UC
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 78 of 295
 1 Davis Medical Center where Plaintiff had been working since 2007.
2 222. After access to the Central Plant was blocked and after Plaintiff sent his
3 letter to Charles Witcher on March 13, 2011, Charles Witcher’s secretary, Phyllis Reginelli,
4 showed up in the Central Plant with a hand-printed copy of UC Davis Policy 1616, for the UC
5
Davis Principle of Community, and attached to the policy’s roster was a handwritten Central
6
Plant Operator’s name and instructions on the roster to read and sign off on what you have
7
seen/read in these policies. That had never happened since the Central Plant was built in 1998:
8
that the secretary to the Department Head showed up with a request to read and sign a Violence
9
and Hate Policy and UC Davis Principle of Community, which was not a UC official policy. It
10
would be expected that after a suicide and locker burglary, somebody from the HR Department
11
would show up, do an investigation and provide the proper training on harassment, violence,
12
standing up to bullies, etc., for Central Plant personnel, knowing and being aware of how hostile
13
this place was and how it had contributed to an employee’s suicide.
14

15 223. The news about the pay raise got around, and in fear of turmoil, the UC

16 Davis Chancellor’s Office or UC Office of the President ordered a 2% pay raise to all UC Davis

17 Medical Center non-union employees, including to Central Plant Operators who had already

18 received a 12% pay raise. Normally, employees would receive a pay raise on July 1st if it were

19 approved after the Annual Performance Review to be given to employees for the 2010/2011
20 year. Plaintiff received the pay raise in May 2011 as well, and his salary increased from
21 $70,000.00 to $71,600 per year.
22 The April 2011 Retaliation
23 224. Instead of any response to my letter from Charles Witcher in April 2011,
24
Plaintiff’s manager, Patrick Putney, blatantly blamed him for missing and not dispatching a
25
hospital refrigerator critical alarm that resulted in a complaint against him by the hospital
26
pharmacy personnel. In a heated discussion, Putney humiliated Plaintiff in front of his teenage
27
daughter, whom he had brought to the shop on that day. Plaintiff told Putney that he didn’t miss
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 79 of 295
 1 such important alarms because Putney had made Plaintiff the perfect employee. The new facilities
2 were built in UCDMC and the new buildings were hooked up to the Metasys Monitoring System.
3 225. During the testing of the new building equipment, thousands of false alarms
4 from these buildings were coming to the Metasys Computer Monitoring System and Plaintiff had
5
to struggle to catch the real alarms and dispatch them. One day, when Plaintiff assumed shift from
6
the Central Plant Operators who were monitoring the alarms on others shifts, Plaintiff asked the
7
Central Plant operator why he did not clear these false alarms. Central plant operators surprised
8
Plaintiff with his response, as he said, “What are you talking about? We don’t have these
9
alarms on our computers.” Apparently, Plaintiff’s manager, Patrick Putney, with malicious
10
intent, was setting Plaintiff up to fail and to miss the real critical alarm in the jungle of thousands
11
of false alarms, which should have been disconnected from Plaintiff’s computer until the new
12
buildings were ready for service. When Plaintiff confronted Putney about it, he sarcastically
13
responded, “I am trying to make you perfect.” Plaintiff said ok and continued to train himself to
14

15 be perfect with these false alarms and not to miss the real one. Missing critical alarms and not

16 dispatching it could lead to enormous losses or even patient death in UC Davis Medical Center

17 Hospital.

18 226. Patrick Putney’s unfounded accusations about the missing refrigerator

19 critical alarm appeared to be a result of his and his assistant Dorin Daniliuc’s negligence to repair
20 the relevant refrigerator. After the alarm and complaint, it was discovered that the refrigerator was
21 due for repair, had an open work order, and the repair was not done. When Plaintiff proved that it
22 was their fault and that they had neglected their duty, they began to disrespect Plaintiff, showing
23 hostility towards Plaintiff; Plaintiff became the subject of vicious attacks, including and not limited
24
to stalking, intimidation, sabotaging Plaintiff’s job, provocations for physical confrontation and
25
unfounded accusations from these two individuals of being violent.
26
227. In May and June 2011, Patrick Putney turned off the lights in his office and
27
positioned himself in the chair toward Plaintiff and stalked Plaintiff for hours every day. Once in
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 80 of 295
 1 a while, Putney suddenly opened the door to Plaintiff’s office and yelled, “What are you doing?”
2 Plaintiff thought that Putney was crazy or on drugs.
3 No so long prior to Putney’s behavior—in March 2011—Plaintiff was making breakfasts for
4 Putney every morning and had quite a normal relationship with him and his assistant. Dorin
5
Daniliuc. Plaintiff never thought that the Putney’s behavior was staged and orchestrated by given
6
order from HR Director Stephen Chilcott and was related to UC Davis Central Plant data accessible
7
Via Matasys Alarm Control System
8
228.. Plaintiff was considering letting it go and even considering taking the blame
9
for this missing alarm just so he would not have to go through the hell he had experienced in
10
2006/2007. However, after Plaintiff saw that Charles Witcher’s assistant, Dennis Curry, got
11
involved in the missing alarm issue, Plaintiff did not take any chances of being convicted and
12
punished, as this had happened to one of his coworkers, Rick Tunello, in the central plant. Rick
13
Tunello had been wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted by Dennis Curry, and wrongfully
14

15 suspended for a missing refrigerator alarm without pay. Plaintiff’s intervention in the case, and

16 proof that it not was not Tunello’s fault, reversed Dennis Curry’s conviction.

17 229. The behavior and vicious attacks of Patrick Putney, Dorin Daniluc, Dennis

18 Curry and Charles Witcher aimed at Plaintiff in March, April, May, June and July of 2011

19 reminded Plaintiff of the training class he attended in March 30, 2000.

20 230. The March 30, 2000 training course, “Labor Principles in Public
21 Employment” for UC Davis Medical Center supervisors exactly resembled Putney, Daniliuc,
22 Curry and Witcher’s approach to resolving the dispute. The abovementioned course for supervisors
23 was hosted by UC Davis Medical Center Human Resources Executive Director Gloria Alvarado.
24
Ms. Alvaradao’s course lecture had nothing to do with labor principles in public employment, but
25
was a class that coached supervisors how to inflict fear, to intimidate and silence employees who
26
dare to complain. One of the course’s subjects was how to convince a subordinate that he is too
27
observant to demote himself. Plaintiff responded to Ms. Alvarado self-demotion instruction and
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 81 of 295
 1 Plaintiff was told that this class is not for Plaintiff after Plaintiff told Ms. Alvarado that he is not a
2 supervisor but a central plant operator.
3 After a short discussion with Plaintiff, Ms. Alvarado changed subjects and ended instructing
4 supervisors who attended the class on how to take control of the crew by intimidation and fear.
5
231. Putney, Daniliuc, Curry and Witcher, regardless of who instructed them to
6
viciously and maliciously attack Plaintiff in March, April, May, June and July of 2011, were
7
perfectly aware that Plaintiff in February 2009 signed a Settlement-Agreement with the Regents
8
of the University of California and that they grossly violated the agreement by attacking and
9
harassing Plaintiff. Witcher was one of four who signed the Settlement-Agreement on Defendant
10
at the UC Regents’ behalf.
11

12 May 2011
13
232. In May 2011, Plaintiff held two separate meetings with Department Head ,
14
Charles Witcher, to clarify the issue with the missing refrigerator alarm, to discuss the unusual and
15
psychotic behavior of Patrick Putney toward me, which was not limited to stalking Plaintiff from
16

17 his dark office, suddenly opening his dark office door from the inside and screaming “What are

18 you doing?” Thereafter, within minutes Dennis Curry showing up in the shop and talking to

19 Plaintiff like Plaintiff did something wrong, they both laughed in Patrick Putney’s Office. .

20 233. In May 2011 Patrick Putney held meetings with the crew and in a

21 threatening manner told everybody how good he is at firing people from the job if they not behave
22 up to his standards. One of the new shop employees, Dereck Cole, became so frightened that he
23 asked Putney if he was aiming his threats at him. One year later, Dereck Cole became another
24 victim of Patrick’s Putney, Dennis Curry, and Charles Witcher’s schemes and yet another
25 candidate to look for new employment. He was unspeakably victimized and asked me to represent
26
him with his complaints against Patrick Putney and Charles Witcher. Another Patrick Putney
27
victim is 72-year-old HVAC technician Richard Pawlaczyk. The Richard Pawlaczyk’s case was
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 82 of 295
 1 pending with State of California Fair Housing and Employment. Sadly and unexpectedly Richard
2 passed away on February 10, 2013. Consequently in month of May 2011 Plaintiff’s manager
3 Patrick Putney denied Plaintiff’s access to his time cards , work orders system and to sabotage
4 Plaintiff job Putney denied Plaintiff’s access to many Metasys system future . Plaintiff failed to
5
understand what caused such Putney’s rage against Plaintiff. Plaintiff knows now that Putney
6
follow the order of his superiors and that decision was made to terminate Plaintiff employment.
7
234. Plaintiff documented the May 2011 events in two separate letters
8
addressed to Charles Witcher and to Gina Harwood, who was assigned HR Consultant
9
to the HVAC shop. The letter to Charles Witcher dated May 24, 2011 is the best
10
description what Plaintiff was going through.
11
“As I stated during our last meeting, I do not want to file a complaint against
12
Patrick Putney. I would prefer for the situation to improve somehow and for
13
everything to return to normal in the workplace .Unfortunately, it does not
14

15 appear that this will be the case. Patrick is still working very hard to get on my

16 nerves and to eventfully provoke me into a verbal confrontation. During my

17 unfortunate heated discussion with Patrick about the neglected refrigerator, he

18 humiliated and ridiculed me in front of his teenage stepdaughter. His kids often

19 stay in his office and do their school homework there. I have never had
20 anything against his bringing his kids to work, but in the situation of the heated
21 argument, he went overboard. After the incident, we returned to work on
22 Monday, and I tried to smooth out everything. I even offered him breakfast,
23 but my attempt to make peace with him did not work, and the situation still
24
does not look good.
25
Shortly afterward, Patrick in a retaliatory manner requested that I find all of the
26
"unreliable alarms" in the Metasys . Without discussion, I found these unreliable
27
alarms for him. It took me almost a week to complete the task, after which Patrick
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 83 of 295
 1 again displayed his vicious behavior and upset me so badly that I thought I was
2 suffering a stroke or a minor heart attack. Patrick basically ceased normal
3 communication with me, including not saying "good morning” or “bye” at the end
4 of the day. As you know, Department Head Assistant Dennis Curry came to the
5
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) shop, and then we talked
6
Patrick Putney’s behavior and missing refrigerator alarm As I had known Patrick
7
for quite a while and was aware of his 360-degree turnaround, I knew the situation
8
was not going to end with my meeting with Dennis. I wrote in an email to Dennis
9
that the situation would probably get worse before it got better.
10
After the situation where Patrick failed to appreciate my finding the unreliable
11
alarms, a furious Patrick came to my office, together with Dorin as a witness,
12
and dumped on my desk the policy and procedures for central plant operators,
13
which explains how to operate the Metasys system, plus my job description.
14

15 He clearly intended to intimidate me, speaking the following words: "Do you

16 understand what this policy is for?" I thanked him the next day for providing

17 me with the Metasys policy three years after I had joined the HVAC shop and

18 12 years after I had begun operating Metasys. To participate in his "game," I

19 decided to provide him with the link to the UC Davis Medical Center
20 (UCDMC) Parking and Transportation Services Office and to advise him to
21 pay for his parking permit. For the past three years, he had parked for free on
22 the UCDMC premises by hiding his car inside the shop and playing a little
23 "catch me if you can” game with the parking cops. On top of this, I decided to
24
make this comment to him "What kind of managerial example is he setting for
25
his crew by showing that it is okay to cheat and steal from the employer while
26
at the same time having the ambition to became assistant PO&M [plant
27
operation and maintenance] manager after Dennis Curry retires?”
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 84 of 295
 1 I had hoped that after I talked to you, he would eventually stop trying to
2 intimidate and mistreat me.
3 The peace, however, did not last long. Yesterday and today, Patrick started a
4 new "kids game." He turned off the light in his office, which is next to mine, and
5
decided to sit at another desk nearby and watch me from the dark background to
6
see what I was doing on my computer. This made me very uncomfortable to
7
work at my station. This happened all day yesterday and today when I was
8
reviewing work orders; he came into my office and, from behind, loudly asked
9
me what I was doing. I told him that I was looking at completed workers. Then,
10
he responded that I had no right to look at work orders because it was not my
11
job; he told me that my job was to watch the Metasys. I knew he was trying to
12
create a confrontation with me for any reason. I simply told him not to worry
13
and that I had been reviewing and closing all of the completed work orders for
14

15 almost two years using Putney’s name and password, which was, of course, a

16 violation of UC policy giving me his password and order me to do his job.

17 The previous incident and today's incident show clearly that Patrick has no

18 remorse about hunting me down. From my perspective, I do not have a choice but

19 to defend myself against his vicious and unpredictable aggression.

20 I was surprised and shocked today that I was kicked out of my office after 3:15
21 PM by Dennis per Patrick’s request and thus could not finish this letter then. I
22 still don't understand why I got kicked out. I did not park my car without a
23 permit, and I did not do private jobs in the company shop. I just wanted a few
24
minutes after work to finish my letter to the PO&M manager.
25
I am not sure how I will concentrate on and do my job tomorrow as required if my
26
supervisor is doing everything possible to make my life miserable and hellish.
27
To avoid going through this hell and finally end Patrick’s hostility, I would be
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 85 of 295
 1 glad to offer an apology to Patrick. However, I am not sure how and for what
2 reason I should apologize to him.
3 Should I apologize to Patrick by saying that I have been doing a good job for
4 the past three years and don't have a history of neglecting my duties and of
5
missing Metasys alarms at UCDMC?”
6
235. Plaintiff did not realize or know in May 2011 that the vicious attack
7
against Plaintiff was performed with the same goal as that of the attack of 2006/2007, which
8
resulted in Plaintiff’s brutal removal from the Central Plant and his moving to the HVAC Shop.
9
The goal in both attacks was to cut off Plaintiff from the source of information about the electric
10
power generation by the UC Davis Medical Center cogeneration facility called the Central Plant.
11
The Metasys Monitoring System and Work Order System provided Plaintiff with all of the
12
information about the Central Plant’s operation and electric power, steam, hot water, and chill
13
water production.
14

15 236. Plaintiff thought that the 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed

16 with the Defendant, the Regents of the University of California, would protect Plaintiff from the

17 new attack if Plaintiff had not violated the Settlement-Agreement.

18 237.. The March 13, 2011, letter from Plaintiff to UC Davis Medical Center

19 Plant Operation and Maintenance Department (PO&M) Manager Charles Witcher raised red
20 flags, and the PO&M Department Management received an order from above that Plaintiff had
21 to be cut off from any source of detailed information provided to him by the Metasys Monitoring
22 System about the Central Plant and be removed from the premises at any means. The UC Davis
23 Medical Center PO&M Department Manager was the one of four UC Davis employees who
24
signed the 2009 Settlement –Agreement and Witcher was perfectly aware that unwarranted
25
attack against Plaintiff violates the signed Settlement –Agreement
26
June 2011
27

28 238. Due to continuous harassment and sabotaging the Plaintiff’s job, the

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 86 of 295
 1 condition of Plaintiff’s employment became intolerably stressful to the point that on June 22, 2011,
2 on short notification, Plaintiff asked Department Head Charles Witcher to give Plaintiff 3 days of
3 vacation to get away from Patrick Putney. The vacation days were granted and Plaintiff went home.
4 Regardless of the stress and feelings, in good faith and will, Plaintiff sent an email to Patrick
5
Putney and asked him to restore and normalize professional relationship.
6
239. Plaintiff did not get any response from Putney. Plaintiff did not know in June 2011
7
that a similar action to 2006/2007 action against Plaintiff was underway; a false complaint was
8
filed against Plaintiff with the HR Department and Plaintiff became the subject of second witch
9
hunt within two years taking into consideration date of the Settlement –Agreement Plaintiff signed
10
with the Regents of the University of California in February 2009. The month of June was the
11
month of annual employee performance review for the year 2010/2011 .In June 2011 Plaintiff did
12
not receive his employee performance review from his two supervisors Patrick Putney and Dorin
13
Daniliuc as it was mandated by the UC Davis Policy PPSM 23.
14

15 July 2011

16
240. On July 8, 2011, Plaintiff held a meeting with HR Labor Relation
17
Consultant Gina Harwood about the harassment and retaliation Plaintiff was experiencing. During
18
the meeting, Harwood deliberately failed to disclose the fact that the false and fabricated complaint
19
was filed by Plaintiff’s two supervisors, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc. A few days later,
20
Plaintiff was officially informed that the complaint has been filed against him and that an HR
21
investigator had been assigned to investigate the allegation. The assigned HR Investigator was HR
22
attorney Danesha Nichols, who was deployed from the UC Davis campus to UC Davis Medical
23
Center in October 2010 after Central Plant Operators submitted a black mail petition for pay raise.
24
241. Danesha Nichols was very familiar with the previous attack against Plaintiff
25

26 in 2006/2007 due to her involvement in Plaintiff’s arbitration process against the Defendant in

27 2008, which resulted in Plaintiff’s February 2009 Settlement-Agreement with the UC Regents.

28 Nichols aggressively and as soon as possible tried to schedule an interrogation meeting with

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 87 of 295
 1 Plaintiff. Plaintiff refused to meet with Nichols because HR refused to disclose to Plaintiff who
2 had filed the false complaint against Plaintiff, and Defendant’ new attack against Plaintiff was a
3 gross and despicable violation and breach of the Settlement-Agreement signed by Defendant.
4 242. Besides the investigation issues, Plaintiff on July 17 and July 24, 2011, sent
5
letters to UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown and asked him to intervene to stop Danesha
6
Nichols and others from violating the 2009 Settlement-Agreement. UC Davis Chief Counsel
7
Steven Drown was one of four UC Davis employees who had signed the 2009 Settlement on the
8
UC Regents’ behalf. Plaintiff is not only suspecting but most likely that not that UC Chief Counsel
9
Steven Drown was the person who in 2005 dispatched Stephen Chilcott to UC Davis Medical
10
Center to remove Plaintiff and William Buckans from the Central Plant under false fabricated
11
accusations and allegations and terminate the Plaintiff ‘s employment if possible.
12
243.. As a result of Plaintiff’s complaints to UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven
13
Drown about the Settlement-Agreement violations by the Defendant, the UC Davis Chief
14

15 Compliance Director, Wendy Delemendo, contacted Plaintiff and tried to convince Plaintiff to

16 file the complaint under the UC Whistle Blowing Policy. Plaintiff refused due to his and his

17 coworker’s experience in 2006/2007 when he helped his coworker William Buckans with the

18 Whistle Blowing case related to massive machine oil discharge via a storm drain to the Sacramento

19 River.
20 244. On July 29, 2011, Plaintiff responded to Delmendo’s whistleblowing
21 complaint invitation by letter with many questions about HVAC shop supervisor Dorin Daniliuc’s
22 relationship with two UC Davis Medical Center directors, Robert Taylor and Shelton Duruisseau
23 The Daniliuc’ relation with these two directors was to provide them HVAC services in their
24
private residences in exchange for Daniluc’s supervisory position in the HVAC shop. The
25
questions were never answered by UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo or any
26
of five investigation reports written by Danesha Nichols in December 2011 and February 2012.
27
245. Plaintiff also asked Executive Director Mike Boyd, who is a listed
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 88 of 295
 1 Defendant in FAC and SAC, for 30 days of administrative leave due to the ongoing assault on
2 Plaintiff. Plaintiff also asked HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott to intervene in the case and
3 stop the retaliation and further harassment. Plaintiff did not get a response from the HR Director,
4 but Director Mike Boyd denied Plaintiff’s request for 30 days of administrative leave. However,
5
Director Mike Boyd, together with the HR Workers Compensation Manager, advised Plaintiff to
6
file a fraudulent Workers Compensation Claim to leave the premises.
7
246. Plaintiff later learned that an HR Director Stephen Chilcott assembled the
8
team that would lead to Plaintiff’s conviction and termination of Plaintiff’s employment in
9
September 2011.
10
247. Also in July 2011, one of the HVAC shop plumbers, Kenny Diede, walked
11
into Plaintiff’s office and complained to Plaintiff that that his coworker Bill Rabidaux’s son was
12
illegally accessing shop computers. Bill Rabidaux’s son was a twice-convicted child
13
pornography felon on probation; he was prohibited to have a computer at home by court
14

15 order and was not allowed access to any computer with Internet. He should not have been

16 allowed to enter the HVAC shop premises at all.

17 248. This individual was a frequent guest in the HVAC shop, and his presence

18 was tolerated by Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc because Bill Rabidaux had a special

19 relationship with Charles Witcher’s assistant, Dennis Curry.

20 After Kenny Diede reported to Plaintiff that Bill Rabidaux’s son was accessing a company
21 computer, Plaintiff told Kenny Diede that Plaintiff would pass the information on to Patrick Putney
22 when he came back to his office. When Plaintiff told Putney about it, he got upset that Kenny
23 Diede had not waited for him with information and angrily asked Kenny whose side Kenny is s
24
on—“Jerry’s (Plaintiff’s) side or Putney’s side?” Kenny’s response was that he was not on
25
anybody’s side and that he was working in the shop and did not appreciate having a child
26
pornography felon accessing shop computers. Thereafter Kenny Diede had to look for a new job
27
due to harassment and intolerable working conditions, as Patrick Putney, Dorin Daniliuc, and
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 89 of 295
 1 Charles Witcher created hell for him.
2 249. In June or July 2011 Plaintiff did not receive his employee performance
3 review from his two supervisors, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc, as was mandated by the UC
4 Davis Policy PPSM 23.
5
250. In July 2011, UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director Chilcott,
6
with full disregard of the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement signed by Plaintiff with UC
7
Regents and full premeditation and disregard of UC Davis Policy PPSM 23 and PPSM 62 and
8
UCDMC Policy 1616, singled out Plaintiff for termination of employment by ordering that
9
Plaintiff should not be provided with the Annual Performance Review (Evaluation) mandated by
10
PPSM 23 outlining Plaintiff’s job performance for 2010/2011, thus depriving Plaintiff of any
11
possibility to utilize administrative remedies to resolve the dispute under UC Davis Policy PPSM
12
70. Annual Performance Reviews (Evaluations) are the most important documents in the
13
employee–employer relationship; Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 958, 18 Cal.
14

15 Rptr. 2d 83 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).

16 251. Only Stephen Chilcott as the HR Executive Director had the power to

17 order not to provide Plaintiff with his annual evaluation and deprive him of administrative

18 remedies under the UC Policy PPSM 70.

19 252.. In July and August 2011, UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director
20 Stephen Chilcott, in conspiracy with Director Michael Boyd and HR Workers Compensation
21 Manager Hugh Parker (Chilcott’s subordinate), made an attempt to remove Plaintiff from the
22 premises through the false and fraudulent Workers Compensation Claim. Plaintiff refused to file
23 a false claim, but a claim was filed on Plaintiff’s behalf anyway.
24
253. It is possible that UCDMC HR Workers’ Compensation Manager Hugh
25
Parker forged Plaintiff’s signature and filed the Workers’ Compensation claim on Plaintiff’s behalf,
26
taking into consideration that on May 31, 2012, Hugh Parker coordinated ill-minded but
27
unsuccessful provocation to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in UCDMC Trauma Unit #11 by
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 90 of 295
 1 an assembled UC Davis special team nicknamed in the documents “UC Davis Death Squad.”
2 254. At and of July 2011, Plaintiff’s private external hard drive in his office was
3 deliberately and “professionally” damaged when Plaintiff left his office for lunch. The external
4 hard drive circuit board was literally fried, most likely by high electric current and the damage was
5
invisible outside. When Plaintiff removed the cover, it was evident that the damage had been
6
caused by somebody who know how to do it—most likely Plaintiff’s manager, Putney, who by
7
trade had knowledge of what to do. Plaintiff summarized this incident in the Mistreatment
8
Complaint that he filed on August 30, 2011, with the UC Davis Medical Center HR Mistreatment
9
Office managed by HR Equal Opportunity Employment Manager Cindy Oropeza.
10
“I probably would not ask my doctor for stress leave on August 2, 2011,
11
but a few days prior I left for stress leave when my personal 500-GB,
12
USB-powered external hard drive (HD) had been fried/damaged by
13
somebody after I left it connected to the computer in my office and I left
14

15 my office for a one-hour lunch. This was a trigger point for my decision to

16 ask my doctor for a medical leave. The person who apparently fried my

17 hard drive with higher voltage knew what he was doing and how to do it. I

18 did not find any external physical damage to my hard drive but, after I

19 removed the cover, I found that the circuit board and motor had been
20 burned.
21 I am almost certain of who and why it was done, but I did not catch anybody by
22 hand. Therefore, I can only write and whine about this event. I did not take any
23 chances by remaining in my office any longer and getting electrocuted like my HD.”
24
255. It happened after over three months of nonstop attacks against Plaintiff including,
25
and not limited to, stalking and sabotaging Plaintiff’s job as orchestrated by the UC Davis Health
26
System HR department, the UC Davis chief counsel, and the UC Davis chief compliance office
27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 91 of 295
 1 and was carried out by individuals such as Patrick Putney, Dorin Daniliuc, Dennis Curry, Charles
2 Witcher, Robert Taylor, Danesha Nichols, Gina Harwood and Shelton Duruisseau.
3 256. Defendant were perfectly aware that Plaintiff is 60 years old and had open-heart
4 surgery a few years ago. Plaintiff was using nine different prescription medicines to survive every
5
day, including and not limited to medicine for high blood pressure, anxiety, and depression.
6

7 August 2011

8
257. In July 2011, Plaintiff asked many times and begged for the harassment to stop, as
9
well as the sabotaging of Plaintiff’s duties and job, so as not to escalate the conflict. Plaintiff’s
10
appeals did not work, and Plaintiff had to evacuate himself from the job site due to enormous
11
emotional distress caused by PO&M, the HR department management, and HR investigators.
12
Plaintiff’s physician placed Plaintiff on work-related stress sick leave until September 1, 2011. By
13
going on work-related stress sick leave, Plaintiff was hoping that, during his absence from work,
14
everything would settle down and Plaintiff would be able to continue his employment. Plaintiff
15
was also hoping that the UCDM HR assigned investigator, Attorney Danesha Nichols, would
16

17 interview all Plaintiff’s coworkers from the shop and would clarify the issues of the false and

18 fabricated accusations against Plaintiff. Plaintiff forgot or did not know in August 2011 that

19 Danesha Nichols was involved in the previous Plaintiff’s case together with Stephen Chilcott and

20 that Danesha Nichols was deployed in October 2010 to UC Davis Medical Center to monitor the

21 situation with the black –mail pay raise for the central plant operators.
22 258. Plaintiff’s coworker, Kenny Diede, was slandered and defaced on his annual
23 evaluation by Patrick Putney for reporting a twice-convicted child pornography felon for
24 accessing company computers. Later on, Plaintiff represented Kenny Diede in his complaints
25 pursuant to UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70 and Whistleblowing Retaliation
26
Policy to keep his job with UC Davis Medical Center.
27
259. The August 2, 2011 was Plaintiff’s last physical presence and last working
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 92 of 295
 1 day with the UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, California, and Plaintiff employment was
2 never restored as it was prior to the March 13, 2011 letter Plaintiff wrote to Charles Witcher and
3 prior to the incident with the critical missing refrigerator alarm.
4 260. On August 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed an official complaint against his
5
manager Patrick Putney with the UCDMC HR Mistreatment Office. The complaint was
6
incorporated into ‘Danesha Nichols’ phony investigation instead to be investigated separately by
7
the HR Mistreatment Office
8
261. Plaintiff was ready to go back to work on September 1st, 2011 and assume
9
his duty after 30 days of stress-related sick leave. Unexpectedly, on August 31, 2011, Plaintiff’s
10
last day of stress-related sick leave, Charles Witcher sent to Plaintiff a letter by e-mail that
11
informed Plaintiff that he was placing me on investigatory leave and that Plaintiff could not come
12
back to work. Furthermore, Charles Witcher informed Plaintiff is prohibited to contact university
13
employees and that the investigation would be finished in 14 days.
14

15 262. Plaintiff became very upset, stressed, and angry that could not go back to

16 work. Plaintiff got feeling that he would never get his job back, knowing that it was already

17 awarded to Bill Rabidaux, the father of the twice-convicted child pornography felon. Bill

18 Rabidoux should be punished, together with shop supervisors, for his participation in covering up

19 the parole violation of his sick-minded relative, instead of having the job granted to Plaintiff by
20 the Settlement-Agreement with the UC Regents. Also, Plaintiff would like to mention that when
21 Plaintiff was leaving the shop on August 2, 2011, Plaintiff had not had any problems with any of
22 his coworkers throughout the course of Plaintiff’s employment in the HVAC shop for four years.
23

24 September 2011

25
263. The UC Davis Medical Center PO&M Department Manager Charles
26
Witcher’s letter, dated August 31, 2011, placing Plaintiff on investigatory leave was an
27
unsuccessful attempt to force Plaintiff to quit his job or to participate in the investigation against
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 93 of 295
 1 himself. The orchestrated bogus investigation was based on fabricated and unfounded accusations-
2 - that had no paper trail or proof in Plaintiff personal HR or departmental file. Following the
3 Charles Witcher letter, on September 6, 2011, the UCDMC HR assigned investigator ‘Danesha
4 Nichols to send an e-mail to Plaintiff and basically ordered Plaintiff to meet her the next day in
5
the HR Office. The HR Personnel has no direct jurisdiction or power to give orders to employees
6
from different departments then Human Resources Department. Nichols did not follow the proper
7
procedure to schedule the investigatory meeting.
8
264. Plaintiff did not know at that point that Nichols had already interviewed the
9
assembled team for cause, conviction and Plaintiff employment termination. However, Plaintiff
10
suspected that something was not right because Plaintiff did not get any information from his
11
coworkers from the HVAC shop that any of them were interviewed by Nichols. It was a clear
12
indication that decision was made to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
13
265. Plaintiff was informed by the UC Davis Public Record Act office that
14

15 Nichols’s report that was issued as a cause to terminate Plaintiff on September 23, 2011, was

16 destroyed and was not available to Plaintiff to obtain from Nichols. Nichols most likely lied to

17 Public Record Act personnel because Nichols provided the copy of the Report to HR Workers

18 Compensation Office Manager Hugh Parker who was coordinator in May 2012 to end Plaintiff’s

19 employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit.

20 266.. Plaintiff responded angrily to Danesha Nichols’ request and refused to
21 participate, similar to 2006/2007 UCDMC’s prosecution.
22 267. Plaintiff asked the Mistreatment Office Manager, Cindi Oropeza,(listed
23 Defendant in FAC and SAC) to add Danesha Nichols and Charles Witcher to Plaintiff’s
24
mistreatment complaint, which Plaintiff filed against Patrick Putney on August 30, 2011.
25
268. Following Danesha Nichols’ request for a meeting with her on September
26
12, 2011, Charles Witcher sent me a letter and accused me of inappropriate communication with
27
Danesha Nichols, transmitting the same baseless accusation of violence and discrimination and
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 94 of 295
 1 making threats to take disciplinary action against me if I would not cease my communication about
2 the investigation with my coworkers. Charles Witcher did not mention the 2009 settlement –
3 agreement in his rant aimed at Plaintiff. The letter was written by HR because Charles Witcher
4 was a only tool in the hands of HR Director Stephen Chilcott and Charles Witcher with education
5
did not know how to write memos and letters.
6
269. Plaintiff responded to Charles Witcher’s letter on September 16,
7
2011, with the following words:
8
“First, I am requesting that you in your managerial capacity make immediate
9
decision and stop holding me hostage in my own home under the umbrella of
10
"Investigatory Leave with Pay" and let me return to work unconditionally.
11
You and HR Director Steven Chillcot acted like terrorists and have enslaved
12
me in my own home and you are both torching me with psychological terror to
13
force me to confess to the crimes based on fabricated false and groundless
14

15 accusations and allegations.

16 I am not your and Mr. Chillcot’s hostage and you both have to end this hostage

17 game immediately. I have been an employee of the University of California for

18 over 12 years and I am requesting to be treated like an employee of the

19 University of California with dignity and respect, as is shown on my Employee

20 Performance Reports, which many have your approval signature.
21 The PO&M and HR Management shall not act like a terrorist network toward
22 workers if problems arise, but shall solve the problems in a objective and
23 diligent way without bias, prejudice, and discrimination.”
24
Second, as I previously stated in my multiple correspondences, you had a
25
chance in your management capacity to resolve the problem in May 2011 and
26
later, and you completely failed to do so. So please do not write me about your
27
management capacity because it appears that your management capacity is not
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 95 of 295
 1 in proper synchronization with your ability to act in the way you should as the
2 Department Head. You cannot and you shall not protect someone who is
3 misusing University property, stealing, cheating, stalking, harassing, and
4 abusing not only his own subordinates but also abusing animals and members
5
of his own family. You shall not protect those who are working part-time and
6
getting paid a full-time salary, regardless of whether or not if they installed air
7
conditioner equipment in Director Taylor’s private residence. You shall stop
8
attacking and threatening those who are trying to put a stop to such activities
9
mentioned above.”
10

11
270. Plaintiff was so stressed out and already was using antidepressant and
12
nitroglycerine, and escalation of the conflict by Defendant forced Plaintiff to seek a doctor and
13
psychologist’s help to cope with the enormous emotional stress and anxiety in relation to
14

15 employment situation.

16 272. On September 22, 2011, Plaintiff’s physician placed Plaintiff on the work

17 stress-related sick leave until January 5, 2012.

18 273. On September 23, 2011, Plaintiff received an e-mail from one of my

19 former Central Plant coworker William Buckans that Bill Rabidaux (father of the child porn
20 felon who was accessing UCDMC computers in the HVAC shop) announced to others that
21 Plaintiff was fired from job and that
22 274. Plaintiff was not going back and anticipated that this was going to happen.
23 Apparently, Plaintiff physician who placed Plaintiff on stress-related sick leave stopped the
24
execution. Plaintiff did not think that Bill Roubideaux lied or made up that my employment
25
termination took place. The Roubideaux’s special relationship with Dennis Curry and Patrick
26
Putney made Plaintiff believed that Dennis Curry or Patrick Putney leaked the information about
27
Plaintiff’s employment termination before the termination letter was sent to Plaintiff .
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 96 of 295
 1 275. Roubideaux was very happy to announce my termination because he was
2 awarded my job. For the record, I asked HR to investigate this event. Of course, HR denied that
3 Plaintiff was terminated. However, two days prior Plaintiff’s employment termination
4 announcement by Bill Rubidoux, the PO&M Manager Charles Witcher sent Plaintiff a letter
5
with threats to terminate Plaintiff’s employment and words that the Plaintiff will be escorted to
6
the conference room for interview on September 21, 2011. Apparently, the UC Davis Police was
7
in standby to escort Plaintiff in and out or for the same reason as on May 31, 2012. Also, at same
8
time Bill Rubidoux was permanently moved from downstairs to Plaintiff’s upstairs office.
9
276. On September 26, 2012, by letter Plaintiff asked University of California
10
Office of the President (UCOP) Vice President of Human Resources, Mr. Dwain Duckett, for
11
intervention and independent investigation of the case. In the letter to Mr. Duckett Plaintiff
12
wrote:
13
, “By this letter, I am respectfully requesting from your office intervention to
14

15 stop the constant assault, harassment and vicious vendetta against me for last

16 few months by UCDMC PO&M and HR Department Management. The

17 conspiracy against me to end my employment with University of California is

18 so unspeakable and deceptive that I have a problem to find words to properly

19 describe the deception and heinous vendetta against a 60-year-old Polish

20 immigrant and employee of 12 years with University of California.”
21 277. On September 27, Plaintiff filed a Short Disability Claim with Liberty
22 Mutual Insurance Company of Boston The Disability Claim itself is another chapter that is
23 connected to this case.
24
October 2011
25

26
278. On October 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the State Bar of
27
California against UC Davis Medical Center’s two Human Resources Department Attorneys,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 97 of 295
 1 Executive Director of Human Resources Department in UC Davis Medical Center Stephen
2 Edward Chillcott, Bar # 196905 and Danesha Nicole Nichols, Investigation Coordinator in the
3 Human Resources Department and subordinate of Mr. Chillcott, who engaged in unethical
4 behavior, conspiracy against Plaintiff, and gross misconduct. State Bar Case No. 11-31088.
5

6 279. Due to constant unfounded accusations by Danesha Nichols, Charles

7 Witcher, and others, Plaintiff thought that maybe someone had filed the false complaint with the

8 UC Davis Police Department and accused me of violence and discrimination and other crimes

9 Plaintiff did not commit.

10 280. To clear this issue, on October 6, Plaintiff asked UC Davis Police Cpt.
11 Joyce Souza from the Professional Standard Unit to search my Police Record and check if any
12 record with my name was there.
13 Plaintiff, in his eight-page e-mail entitled “Request for Information in regards to the
14 unfounded accusation against me from UCDMC HR Attorneys and other individuals,”
15
pasted multiple examples of the despicable, unfounded, and defacing Plaintiff accusations. .
16
In his e-mail to UC Davis Police Cpt. Joy Souza with cc. to UC Davis Police Lt. John Pike (the
17
same Lt. John Pike who was pepper spraying protesting students on November 18, 2011 on the
18
UC Davis Campus).
19
281. Plaintiff wrote to Cpt. Joyce Souza on October 5, 2011 in his eight pages
20
e-mail letter:
21
“Dear Captain Souza:
22
I have been working for 12 years in the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
23
Operation and Maintenance, Sacramento Department. In last few months I
24

25 have been constantly accused by the UCDMC HR Attorney Danesha Nichols

26 and PO&M Department Manager Charles Witcher of being violent, making

27 discriminatory comments, etc. without any factual evidence in my employment

28 record, like evaluation or written or verbal warning.

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 98 of 295
 1 I would appreciate it if you would let me know if any complaint has been
2 filed by anyone against me with the UC Davis Police Department (UC
3 Campus or UC Medical Center) for the abovementioned fabricated
4 accusations and allegations for the period from
5
March 1, 2011 to the present time.
6
If so, then I would be glad to hear from the UC Davis Police Department
7
that the allegations against me are being investigated, and I will be glad to
8
answer any question related to the complaint. I would be glad to talk with
9
the UC Police Investigation Unit/Detectives instead of crooked HR
10
Attorneys from UCDMC.”
11
282. On October 6, 2011, Captain Joyce Souza from the UC Davis Police
12
Department responded to Plaintiff’s inquiries dated October 5, 2011, in regard to despicable and
13
unfounded accusations fabricated by the Defendant against Plaintiff. Captain Joyce Souza, in her
14

15 response, wrote:

16 Dear Mr. Waszczuk,

I have performed a check of our records system and there is nothing noting your name.
17 Please let me know if you need any further assistance.
Captain Joyce A. Souza
18 UC Davis Police Department

19 283. Plaintiff noticed that Captain Joyce Souza cc’d her e-mail response to her

20 superior, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza, and UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer

21 Wendy Delmendo, who assigned, in July 2011, UC Davis attorney Danesha Nichols to conduct a

22 pseudo-investigation against Plaintiff to fabricate a cause for Plaintiff’s termination of

23 employment on September 23, 2011, which did not happen.
24
284. On the same day, October 6, 2011, in response to Captain Souza’s
25
information, Plaintiff replied to and thanked Captain Souza for information about Plaintiff’s
26
police record, and Plaintiff cc’d his response to Chief Annette Spicuzza; Lt. John Pike; UC Davis
27
Chancellor Linda Katehi; UC Davis Medical Center CEO Ann Madden Rice; UC HR Vice
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 99 of 295
 1 President Dwain Duckett; UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo; UC Davis
2 Medical Center Directors Michael Boyd, Robert Taylor, Shelton Duruisseau and Stephen
3 Chilcott and investigator Danesha Nichols, who was fabricating, together with others, despicable
4 accusations against Plaintiff.
5
. 285. Also in October 2011, Plaintiff received a letter from the UCDMC HR
6
Disability Unit Counselor, Dennis Dark, who bragged in his correspondence about identifying
7
the job limitations and restrictions Plaintiff has. This made Plaintiff believe that Defendant had
8
changed course and were trying to find for Plaintiff a new place to work in UCDMC. Plaintiff
9

10 did not pay much attention to Mr. Dark’s proposition because his job in the HVAC shop as

11 Assistant Development Engineer fit Plaintiff perfectly and Plaintiff had no restrictions or

12 limitations to do the job with Plaintiff’s health and condition, with the exception of the stalking

13 and harassing by Plaintiff’s supervisors who made his life miserable and work conditions

14 intolerable.
15 286. On October 10, 2011, the UC Davis Medical Center HR investigator and attorney
16 Danesha Nichols sent to HVAC shop employee Kenneth Diede a threating and intimidating e-mail
17 message. Kenneth Diede was the employee who in July 2011 was reported to be a twice-convicted
18 child pornography felon on parole who had illegally accessed the HVAC shop computer and was
19
prohibited by court order to have or touch any commuter, especially one with Internet. Danesha
20
Nichols covered up the child porn criminal activities issue in her pseudo-investigation reports.
21
287. On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant with
22
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for Harassment, Retaliation, and ongoing
23
conspiracy against Plaintiff in the University of California Davis Medical Center.
24
288. On October 25, 2011, Plaintiff sent a request to the UC Davis Public
25
record Act office and requested documents related to the UCDMC CENTRAL PLANT - JEFF
26
LANCASTER'S BURGALIZED LOCKER ON DECEMBER 17, 2010 AND PAY RAISE FOR
27
UCDMC CENTRAL PLANT OPERATORS ON DECEMBER 20, 2010.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 100 of 295
 1 UCDMC CENTRAL PLANT - TODD GOERLICH'S SUICIDE ON DECEMBER 22,
2 2010.
3 289. On October 26, 2011, Plaintiff received a response from the University of
4 California Office of the President HR Director Christopher Simon, who informed Plaintiff that
5 UC Office of the President rejected Plaintiff’s inquiry to intervene in the case and conduct an
6
independent investigation.
7
“Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
8
This is in response to your faxes dated 9/25/2011 and 9/30/2011 to Vice
9
President Duckett in which you raised several concerns about management
10
actions at UC Davis Medical Center. I understand that these issues are
11
currently being investigated by the UC Davis Compliance Officer, Wendi
12
Delmendo.
13
The Office of the President provides oversight to the ten Campus University of
14
California system, while the Chancellor of each campus has responsibility for
15

16
the organization and operation of the campus. With the investigation by Ms.

17 Delmendo currently in progress, it would be inappropriate for the Office of the

18 President to intervene in this matter.

19 We have asked Ms. Delmendo to keep us apprised of the progress of this

20 investigation. We are confident that your serious concerns are being

21 appropriately addressed at this time.
Sincerely,
22
Christopher G. Simon
23 Director, HR Compliance
cc: Vice President Duckett
24 Compliance Director Delmendo
25
Director Epperson”
290. On October 29, 2011Plaintiff responded to UCOP HR Director Simon’s
26

27 letter

28 “Christopher Simon

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 101 of 295
 Director of HR Compliance
1 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
HR-UCOP Human Resources
2 1111 Franklin St., 5th Floor
Oakland , CA 94007-1449
3
Re: Reponse To Your Letter Dated October 26, 2011-The Progress Of The
4 Investigation
5 Dear Director Simon:
6
I appreciate your time and your response on behalf of Vice President Duckett.
7
It is almost one month passed by since I asked Vice President Duckett for
8
intervention in this case .
9
I would like to mention that the previous UC HR Vice President Mrs. Judith
10
Boyette , had no any problem to intervene if needed and respond personally to
11
employees complaint letters .
12
In my response to your letter I would try not to repeat what I wrote already in
13
my multi correspondence to Vice President Duckett , Mrs. Delmendo and
14
others UC Officials but at some point I have to rely on the facts of events and
15

16 my record and it would be difficult not to mention again what did happen .

17 It would be unnecessary to ask Vice President Duckett for intervention and

18 send the

19 Open Letter to The Honorable Members of UC Davis Ethics and Compliance

20 Risk Committee and the California State Assembly Members,and The Regents
21 Of The University of California entitled: "I FEEL LIKE A HUNTED JEW
22 DURING THE HOLOCAUST"
23 if, after my respectful request on July 13, 2011, I sent to UC Davis Medical
24 Center HR Executive Director Mr. Stephen Chilcott to intervene in the case.
25
Director Chilcott's subordinate, Investigation-Coordinator, Danesha Nichols,
26
would start her investigation or at least she start her investigation, after I sent a
27
lengthy letter dated July 31, 2011 to UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Mrs.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 102 of 295
 1 Dalmendo than would it would not be necessary to alert UC Office of the
2 President.
3 Instead of the investigation, the UCDMC Plant Operation & Maintenance
4 Management with full back up and support of the UCDMC HR Department
5
organized safari to hunt Waszczuk down and destroy him.
6
I had to evacuate myself from my work place on August 3, 2011 due to
7
enormous stress inflicted by psychopath supervisor, Patrick Putney, who
8
apparently had been given green light by the Department Manager Charles
9
Witcher and his Assistant Dennis Curry to make my life miserable as possible.
10
Beside the attempt to sabotage my job, employees who witnessed Putney
11
stalking me from his office with lights off and suddenly opening doors with
12
loud voice, did not give me any choice but to evacuate myself from the shop
13
and ask my doctor for stress leave.
14

15 I never experienced such behavior from any of my supervisor or coworker in

16 my entire life and I am hoping to never see again in my work environment

17 another psychopath supervisor like Patrick Putney who victimized not only

18 myself but others too.

19 The question must be asked whether Patrick Putney is mentally sick or

20 unstable and UCDMC shall request psychiatric evaluation. Whether he should
21 be present around other employees not to mention supervising others. Beside
22 the stalking me, I observed that his hands are almost constantly shaking
23 especially when he got excited or mad or even for no reason.
24
Hypothetically, I wondering what would happen if instead of 60 years old Jerry
25
Waszczuk, a younger female employee would be working in the office and
26
Patrick Putney would turn off lights in his office and would be stalking her as
27
he stalked Waszczuk.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 103 of 295
 1 The stalking would be witnessed and female employee would make complaint
2 as Waszczuk did to Department Head and HR that she being stalked and
3 harassed by supervisors.
4 Whether , after such complaint by female employee, Patrick Putney would be
5
removed instantly from his office to prevent sexual harassment and general
6
harassment lawsuit or UCDMC PO&M Department Management together
7
with the HR Department would organize the special safari to hunt her down
8
like an animal as they hunted Waszczuk?
9
Under the provision of the State of California Penal Code 646.9., stalking is a
10
criminal punishable offense. I think it is appropriate to ask hypothetical
11
question whether HR would call police and will get the restrain order against
12
Putney to protect stalked female employee or hunt her down for complaining
13
as it had been done to Waszczuk?
14

15 I sent my Open Letter To The Honorable Members of UC Davis Ethics and

16 Compliance Risk Committee, California State Assembly Members and The

17 Regents Of The University of California and Assembly Members and The

18 Regents Of The University of California on October 9, 2011 and miraculously

19 or coincidently next day on October 10, 2011 , the UCDMC Investigator

20 Danesha Nichols launched investigation and started interviewing all employees
21 from HVAC Shop and some employees from the Central Plant and
22 investigation is going on. The HVAC Shop social area experiencing
23 remodeling, painting and clean up. This very good and promising sign for
24
positive changes.
25
In conclusion of my letter as I wrote to UC Vice President, I strongly believe
26
that Charles Witcher, Patrick Putney, Dennis Curry, Danesha Nichols, Stephen
27
Chilcot, Mike Garcia, Cindy Oropeza and Mike Boyd are responsible for
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 104 of 295
 1 harassment, intimidation, abuse of power and conspiracy to fire me from the
2 job which was given me by the Settlement-Agreement signed with the UC
3 Regents in February 2009. The Settlement Agreement had been grossly
4 violated by the above mentioned individuals and I am expecting from my
5
employer to respect the signed Settlement -Agreement and let me return to
6
work .
7
I am not working for full three months. I don't have more sick leave hours . I
8
am actually using my vacation for my work stress related sick leave because
9
my short term disability have not been approved yet by Liberty Mutual
10
Insurance Company. My medical leave is nothing else but escape from the
11
harassment, mistreatment, vicious stalking by psychopath supervisor, and
12
unwarranted threats of termination of my employment by some of the above
13
listed individuals.
14

15 I need to go back to work as soon as possible and have normal work

16 environment without stalking me supervisor and without "Safari" .

17 I need to go back to work as soon as possible and have normal work

18 environment without stalking me supervisor and without "Safari" .

19 My Psychologist Dr. Bernhoft wrote on the form for Liberty Mutual Insurance
20 Company: “Stress issues are due not to being back to work " and " Client
21 should be allowed to return to work ASAP" (attached)
22 If UC won't let me go back to work as soon as possible than I respectfully
23 requesting answer ASAP what is the other option because I don't know. I have
24
to pay my bills and mortgage and FMLA protection ends after 90 days . I don't
25
need additional stress and more pills with my health condition.
26
I appreciate your prompt response in this matter and I am awaiting for
27
resolution to end this employer hostility against me .
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 105 of 295
 Sincerely,
1
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2

3 CC: Vice President- Dwaine Duckett

4 UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer - Wendy Delmendo
Director Epperson
5 Office of UC Regents .
Office of the President Yudof
6 Liberty Mutual”
7 November 2011
8

9
291. In November 2011, Plaintiff spent most of his time dealing with the

10 Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, which deprived Plaintiff of legitimate short-term

11 disability benefits. After Plaintiff used all his sick leave days and vacation days, Plaintiff was

12 basically left without income. The FMLA 90-day protection also ran out. UCDMC HR Labor

13 Relations Consultant Gina Harwood, for reasons unknown to Plaintiff, on November 14, 2011,
14 offered to Plaintiff an additional 12 weeks of supplemental FMLA time protection, which
15 Plaintiff declined. The short-term disability benefits had been denied to Plaintiff, so it was
16 nonsense to accept the FMLA protection extension to stay employed without the income.
17 292. In the response letter, dated November 23, 2011, to Gina Harwood,
18
Plaintiff wrote:
19
“At this point, I am not considering to file for an extension of my
20
medical leave under the Supplemental FMLA University Policy 2.210.
21
I am under enormous stress and pressure, and I have had enough. I was left
22
without a paycheck, so an extension of medical leave won’t help with at all.
23
The Settlement-Agreement I signed with the UC Regents in 2009 and my civil
24
rights were grossly violated by the University of California.
25
Contacting the benefits office regarding my current situation to discuss the
26
effect of my health and welfare benefits makes no sense to me.
27

28
The University is fully responsible and legally liable for my current health

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 106 of 295
 1 condition and the financial damages to me during this conflict.”
2 293. Thereafter, according to information Plaintiff received under Public
3 Records Act requests, the UC Davis chancellor requested from Danesha Nichols a confidential
4 report on Plaintiff, which was sent in November to Chancellor Linda Katehi. The exact day
5
when the confidential report was sent to Chancellor Katehi is unknown to Plaintiff because the
6
day was blacked out and removed by the UC Davis Public Record Act office. However, it
7
appears that the confidential report was sent prior to November 18, 2011, because Chancellor
8
Katehi deployed to the UC Davis Medical Center Lt. Matt Carmichael prior to November 18,
9
2011, to investigate Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff believes the main reason to deploy Lt. Matt
10
Carmichael to UC Davis Medical Center was to get Lt. Matt Carmichael out from the spotlight
11
of a premeditated pepper spray attack against protesting students on the UC Davis campus.
12
294. The premediated pepper spray attack ordered by Chancellor Katehi on November
13
18, 2011, was solely used to replace UC Davis Chief of Police Annette Spicuzza with Lt. Matt
14

15 Carmichael; fire from the job Lt. John Pike, who was ordered and used to casually and very visibly pepper

16 spray students; and force to retire UC Davis Captain Joyce Souza. Just after the premediated pepper spray

17 attack, Lt. Matt Carmichael, who on November 18, 2011, was in the UC Davis Medical Center, instantly,

18 as most likely planned, was assigned as the interim UC Davis chief of police. In May 2012, the new UC

19 Davis chief of police participated with Lt. James Barbour in the operation to provoke and kill or end
20 Plaintiff’s employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11.
21
295. On November 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the State of California
22

23
Department of Insurance against the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston for denying to

24 Plaintiff short-term disability benefits. The Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, without

25 conducting any reasonable investigation concerning its obligations under the contract,

26 breached its contract, without good or sufficient cause, for reasons extraneous to the contract

27 and for the purpose of frustrating Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the benefits of the contract.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 107 of 295
 1 Accordingly, Liberty Assurance Company of Boston—complicit with the University of
2 California—breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, treating Plaintiff differently and
3 applying different standards of conduct than with other claimants and other University of
4 California employees, without any legitimate justification. As a result of Liberty Assurance
5
Company of Boston’s breach and subsequent actions, Plaintiff has suffered and incurred (and
6
continues to suffer and incur) substantial losses of past and future earnings, compensation and
7
other benefits.
8
296. Three years later, in August and September 2014, the Liberty Assurance
9
Company of Boston made an attempt to settle the claim with Plaintiff for petty cash of $1,900.00.
10 Plaintiff declined such an offer, and the case is still unresolved.
11
297. November 2011 was a month of protests on University of California campuses,
12
and it was also the month when UC Davis Greek-born Chancellor Linda Katehi, nicknamed in
13
publications “Chemical Katehi,” on November 18, 2011, ordered gas attacks against peacefully
14
protesting students on the UC Davis Campus. In this way, Katehi observed and marked the 38th
15

16 anniversary of the student massacre at Athens Polytechnic by the Greek fascist military junta that

17 killed 25 people and injured over 1,000. In 1973, Linda Katehi was a student at Athens

18 Polytechnic.

19 298. A few days later, on November 23, 2011, UC Davis Vice Chancellor Claire

20 Pomeroy, who was in charge of UC Davis Medical Center School of Medicine, cried out in her e-mail
21 how the community was deeply shaken and disturbed by the pepper spraying of protesting students:
22
“Our university community is shaken by the deeply disturbing images we have
23
seen over the past few days. The video of the police action against peaceful
24
students stands in stark contrast to our deeply held commitments to freedom of
25
expression and to our UC Davis principles of community”
26

27 299. Plaintiff responded to Vice Chancellor Pomeroy’s outcry with the following words:
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 108 of 295
 1 Dear Ms. Pomeroy:
2

3 Can you do something about the National Socialism doctrine oriented and
4 entirely corrupted management in the UC Davis Medical Center, Plant
5 Operation and Maintenance and Human Resources Departments? The
6
Principles of Community does not exist in UCDMC and it is the empty slogan.
7
Your commitment to freedom of expression is also empty slogan as well. You
8
and others are receiving my letters for quite long and you and others don’t care
9
what the “UCDMC Gestapo” doing to me and how systematically is
10
destroying my and others livelihood and life. I am sending a few letters again
11
to you with hope that I will be heartened to see Ms. Pomeroy will order to
12
conduct a true investigation against the corrupted individuals in both
13
departments and restore a normal work environment in the UCDMC PO&M
14
Department.
15

16
Best regards and good luck with your commitment to freedom of expression.

17 JerryWaszczuk

18 Associate Development Engineer

19
300. Shortly after Plaintiff sent his message to Vice Chancellor Pomeroy cc’d to many
20
other University of California decision makers, Vice Chancellor Pomeroy was forced to resign due to
21
illegal medical experiments conducted under Pomeroy’s supervision for years by two UC Davis Medical
22
Center Dutch neurosurgeons, Dr. J. Paul Muizelaar and Dr. Rudolph J. Schrot, which caused
23 several patients’ deaths. So far, Plaintiff, with his words about the UC Davis Medical Center
24 National Socialism doctrine, was taking into consideration inhumane, illegal medical
25 experiments on humans in the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz conducted on camp inmates
26 by the notorious Dr. Joseph Mengele.
27 301. On November 23, 2011, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 109 of 295
 1 Commission informed Plaintiff that charges were filed against the University of California.
2
302. In addition to the above, on November 8, 2011, PO&M Manager Charles
3
Witcher, in his letter dated November 8, 2011, informed Plaintiff that he had denied Plaintiff
4
access to the university e-mail, with accusations that Plaintiff was sending inappropriate content
5

6 in his emails. Mr. Witcher also added a threat about the dismissal of Plaintiff’s employment if he

7 continued to communicate with others about the investigation and about hunting Plaintiff down.

8 Plaintiff responded to Mr. Witcher’s accusations and his denial of Plaintiff’s e-mail access with a

9 letter entitled “Gestapo on My Ass.” In Plaintiff’s response, he was making a “Gestapo”

10 reference to his previous UCDMC managers’ statements from the Central Plant. One manager
11 threatened Plaintiff with the words, “Somebody give this Pollack a bad evaluation and fire
12 him,” and another, in anger, was threatening Plaintiff that he would “Send the Gestapo on my
13 ass.”
14 303. Apparently, the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and
15
Maintenance Department Manager Charles Witcher; his superior, Director Mike Boyd; and HR
16
Executive Director Stephen Chilcott forgot that Charles Witcher signed a February 2009
17
Settlement-Agreement with Plaintiff on behalf of the regents of the University of California, and
18
if Charles Witcher felt that Plaintiff violated any paragraph of the Settlement-Agreement, then
19
Charles Witcher was to inform the UC Davis Medical Center Legal Department and UC Davis
20
Chief Counsel Steven Drown, who also signed the Settlement-Agreement, to enforce the signed
21
Settlement-Agreement according to California law without threatening, humiliating, harassing
22
and discriminating against Plaintiff.
23
304. The conclusion of this chapter is that the Defendant with Liberty
24

25 Assurance Company of Boston, by their malicious conspiracy against Plaintiff, left Plaintiff

26 without any source of income, which they thought would be a very convincing argument to make

27 Plaintiff quit his job. When it was done, UC Davis Medical Center HR Benefits Manager John

28 Peklar contacted Plaintiff by phone and was trying to convince Plaintiff to make an appointment

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 110 of 295
 1 with him to retire from the university at the age of 60. Plaintiff declined this option as well due
2 to that Plaintiff was not even eligible for early Social Security at age of 61 1/2 benefits which
3 would be very little income in comparison with Plaintiff was earning.
4 December 2011
5

6 305. In December 2011, Defendant again forgot that in February 2009 they

7 signed a settlement-agreement with Plaintiff, and Defendant, through the settlement-agreement,

8 agreed to employ Plaintiff indefinitely. The agreement was to be enforced by the California

9 Court according to the state of California’s laws if violated by any party which signed the

10 settlement- agreement.
11 306. On December 5, 2011, Plaintiff’s superior Charles Witcher, to Plaintiff’s
12 disbelief, sent to Plaintiff another threatening letter during Plaintiff’s sick leave due to work-
13 related stress, in which Witcher ordered Plaintiff to go to an investigatory interview with
14 Danesha Nichols on December 12, 2011. Four years after this, Plaintiff is still in disbelief that it
15
actually happened, but taking into consideration that Plaintiff’s employment almost ended in UC
16
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11 due to an unsuccessful provocation crafted by the same
17
management on May 30, 2012, then anything is possible at University of California.
18
307. To add another example, if one of workers for whom Plaintiff was
19
providing representation can be despicably attacked by the same UC Davis management during
20
his mother’s funeral, then employment at UC Davis Medical Center is full of surprises.
21
308. Plaintiff ignored Charles Witcher’s letter and his irresponsible threats to
22
dismiss Plaintiff from his employment during his stress-related sick leave. Removing Plaintiff
23
from sick leave unconditionally without Plaintiff’s physician’s permission and place Plaintiff on
24

25 unpaid leave was equal to suspension from work without pay.

26 309. Plaintiff was without income; the situation could not get any worse, and

27 Witcher’s threating letter was nothing else but ill-minded harassment and an attempt to

28 intimidate Plaintiff and to make Plaintiff to quit his job voluntarily and wave his legal rights

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 111 of 295
 1 outlined by the February 2009 Settlement –Agreement.
2 310.. On December 14, 2011, Plaintiff’s psychologist Dr. Bernhoft Ph.D., sent
3 an informational letter to Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, stating that Plaintiff’s mental
4 health significantly deteriorated due to the situation with Plaintiff’s employment and denial by
5
Liberty’s Short-Term Disability Benefits.
6
311. After the Defendant’s despicable action of removing Plaintiff from sick
7
leave, Plaintiff was expecting termination as the next Defendant step and Plaintiff had decided to
8
retrieve his private belongings from his UC Davis Medical Center HVAC shop office.
9
312. On December 19, 2011, Plaintiff sent a letter to HR Consultant Gina
10
Harwood stating that Plaintiff would be checking his personal file and that Plaintiff would like to
11
get his personal belongings from his HVAC shop office. Plaintiff asked Gina Harwood for UC
12
Davis police assistance to retrieve his private belongings, including, but not limited to, two
13
private computer hard drives.
14

15 313. Besides the above, Plaintiff informed Gina Harwood that Plaintiff was

16 willing to have a meeting with HR Investigator Danesha Nichols if she was willing to meet

17 Plaintiff on the same day that Plaintiff would be retrieving his personal file and his belongings

18 from his office. Gina Harwood responded that she set up the meeting with Danesha Nichols on

19 December 22, 2011, and that all Plaintiff’s belongings would be delivered to the HR building in
20 the morning and available for pick up at the time of Plaintiff’s appointment with Danesha
21 Nichols.
22 314. Gina Harwood also informed Plaintiff that the computers containing the
23 hard drives Plaintiff made reference to were deployed outside of the HVAC shop due to the
24
sensitive nature of the systems on those computers and the department being concerned about
25
removing the hard drives at that time. Also, Gina Harwood asked Plaintiff to provide receipts
26
showing the purchase of these hard drives, and the university would reimburse him for the cost.
27
315. Plaintiff installed his private hard drives in the company computers as a
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 112 of 295
 1 back up with his new manager Patrick Putney’s permission after he was abruptly removed from
2 the Central Plant to the HVAC shop in March 2007.
3 316. Plaintiff organized his office in the HVAC shop and not only installed his
4 private hard drives in two company PC computers but also purchased at his own expense a top-
5
of-the-line HP PC computer and installed it in his office to efficiently and professionally do his
6
job. The extra hard drives were installed for data backup.
7
317. In addition to the above, when Plaintiff arrived in HVAC shop in March
8
2007, Plaintiff noticed that the HVAC shop crew had no computers to do their time cards every
9
morning look their assignment and complete their work orders as well to have access to the
10
university policies and procedures via Internet and intranet and company e-mail. Every morning,
11
workers were lining up in the shop manager’s office to do their time cards and work orders on
12
one designated computer. It was an enormous waste of working time every day.
13
Plaintiff finally convinced two of his supervisor to bring used computers from the warehouse that
14

15 were already decommissioned and provide them to the crew for work orders and time cards.

16 Plaintiff cleaned, repaired and reprogrammed the old computers and provided them to HVAC

17 shop crew members to make their everyday job a lot easier and more efficient.

18 318. Besides the above, Plaintiff informed Gina Harwood that Plaintiff was

19 willing to have a meeting with HR Investigator Danesha Nichols if she was willing to meet
20 Plaintiff on the same day that he would be retrieving his personal file and his belongings from
21 his office.
22 319. Gina Harwood did set up an appointment with Danesha Nichols on
23 December 22, 2011.
24
320. When on December 22, 2011, Plaintiff arrived for the meeting with
25
Danesha in the UC Davis Medical Center HR building, a UC Davis police cruiser with officers
26
inside was on standby next to the building and Danesha Nichols had the assistance of a male
27
person who disclosed to Plaintiff during the conversation that he had previously worked as a
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 113 of 295
 1 security officer for the Littler Mendelson Law Firm in San Francisco on California Street, a place
2 which Plaintiff was very familiar with.
3 321. Meeting with Danesha Nichols was unproductive. However, later, Plaintiff
4 regretted that he got himself into this meeting because of her cover-up for management
5
misconduct and the child porn felon. ‘Danesha Nichols was pleasant at the meeting, but her clear
6
goals were to slander Plaintiff in her pseudo-investigation reports and get a pay raise, which she
7
did indeed receive regardless that Danesha Nichols received from Plaintiff 12 GIG of
8
information on the flash drive which Plaintiff provided to Danesha Nichols prior the meeting
9
with her. The only benefits from the meeting were that Plaintiff learned from Danesha Nichols’
10
report that she interviewed a hand-picked team she had picked in August and she crafted the
11
false cause for Plaintiff’s employment termination planned for September 23, 2011.
12
322. After meeting with Danesha Nichols, Plaintiff was placed again on
13
investigatory leave or administrative leave with pay. Plaintiff lost track of whether he was on
14

15 investigatory, investigation, administrative or other made-up leave by the UC Davis perpetrators.

16 323. The Defendant’ reckless and unwarranted attacks against Plaintiff in 2011

17 and gross violation of the 2009 settlement-agreement, along with harassment, retaliation,

18 enormous stress and anxiety, and the fear of losing employment, caused Plaintiff financial losses

19 in relation to his employment, which amounted to the approximate sum of $21,000.00, taking
20 into consideration accrued sick leave and vacation hours, which Plaintiff was forced to use due to
21 stress-related sick leave caused by the Defendant and the Defendant’ conspiracy with Liberty
22 Assurance Company of Boston, which resulted in Plaintiff’s short-term disability being denied.
23
January 2012
24

25
324. On or about January 10, 2012, Plaintiff noticed on his pay stub for the pay
26
period with an end date of 12/24/2011, that Plaintiff’s title had been changed without his
27
knowledge, and for an unknown reason, from Associate Development Engineer to Programmer I,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 114 of 295
 1 which did not correspond in any way with Plaintiff’s title of Associate Development Engineer.
2 Plaintiff was promoted to Associate Development Engineer by the February 2009 Settlement-
3 Agreement that Plaintiff signed with the Defendant, the UC Regents of the University of
4 California. The Associate Development Engineer, under UC Davis Title Code 7182, was an
5
exempt position. Programmer I, under Title Code 7281, was a non-exempt employee title, with a
6
maximum earning of $30.69/hour, which translated to $3.62 less per hour than Plaintiff was
7
making under Title 7182 in Middle Step, with a Maximum Step earning of 43.20/hour for Title
8
Code 7182, translating to $12.51 less per hour for Title Code 7281 maximum earnings.
9
325. Plaintiff did not know why the job title change was made and could only
10
speculate that the Defendant made the decision to reassign Plaintiff to a different location.
11
However, Plaintiff failed to understand why nobody approached Plaintiff and made the
12
proposition to Plaintiff to find out if Plaintiff would be willing to make a change from the signed
13
2009 Settlement-Agreement, and work in a different shop.
14

15 326. If, in January 2012, Plaintiff would have known that the Defendant’ goal

16 was to separate Plaintiff from Metasys System and from any data and information related to the

17 UC Davis Medical Central Plant operation, then Plaintiff would most likely have taken a

18 different approach to the problem. Plaintiff would have attempted to renegotiate the signed

19 February 2009 Settlement-Agreement with the Defendant, regardless of the psychological terror,
20 harassment and despicable attacks on Plaintiff’s character and integrity that the Defendant
21 committed.
22 327. Plaintiff had no clue as to why this was done or who did it, but the
23 Defendant ignored the fact that according to the February 2009, the Settlement-Agreement,
24
Plaintiff’s position and work place cannot be changed without Plaintiff’s consent or a Court
25
Order.
26
328. On January 18 , 2012, Plaintiff noticed by looking at his pay stub dated
27
January 18, 2012, that Plaintiff had been de-enrolled by the Defendant from the medical, dental
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 115 of 295
 1 and vision insurance coverage plans.
2 329. On the same day, January 18, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to UC Davis
3 Medical Center Benefits Manager John Peklar, who tried in December 2012 to convince Plaintiff
4 to quit, and asked Mr. Peklar to immediately reinstate Plaintiff’s medical Benefits. Plaintiff
5
urgently needed to get his prescription medicine, and his medical lab had to be done soon, so the
6
Defendant de-enrolled Plaintiff from his medical insurance benefits.
7
Besides the above, Plaintiff mentioned to Mr. Peklar that Plaintiff’s job title had been changed
8
from Assistant Development Engineer to Programmer I, and asked Mr. Peklar to correct this
9
problem as well.
10
330. Due to conspiracy with the Defendant and fraudulent denial of
11
Plaintiff ‘s short term disability claim by the Liberty Life Assurance Company of
12
Boston , On January 24, 2012 the Plaintiff sent a letter to UC Davis Medical Center
13
HR Benefits Manager, John Peklar and requested to cancel Plaintiff’s Supplemental
14

15 Disability Insurance with the Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston and Plaintiff

16 advised John Peklar that he make sure that that premium for this insurance will not be

17 collected anymore through the University of California payroll system.

18 331. On January 25, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to the UC Office President

19 liaison Mike Waldman, who was responsible for administrating the supplemental short-term
20 disability benefits, to intervene with Liberty Assurance Company Boston to pay Plaintiff’s
21 legitimate benefits, which were denied in November and December 2012. Plaintiff did not get
22 any response from Mr. Waldman.
23 332. At the end of January 2012, Plaintiff learned that his long-time physician,
24
who placed Plaintiff on stress-related sick leave for fourth months, wouldn’t provide any longer
25
medical service for Plaintiff and that Plaintiff’s psychologist’s residence in Lodi was raided by
26
the State of California Department of Social Services.
27

28 February 2012

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 116 of 295
 1

2 333. On February 8, 2012, UC Davis Medical Center HR Benefits & Equal

3 Employment Opportunity Manager Cindy G. Oropeza contacted Plaintiff by phone and asked
4 Plaintiff whether he was interested in informally resolving the conflict that had been long
5 ongoing and unresolved between Plaintiff and Defendant since April 2011. Plaintiff told Cindy
6
Oropeza that Plaintiff is always open to constructive discussion to informally resolve the
7
problem.
8
334. On the same day, February 8, 2012, Plaintiff confirmed receipt of an
9
invitation for informal dispute resolution via e-mail correspondence to Cindy Oropeza. Plaintiff
10
also confirmed his phone discussion with Ms. Oropeza and emphasized again that Plaintiff is
11
always open to discussion to find the best resolution for both sides of the conflict.
12
335. Furthermore, Plaintiff stated in his e-mail correspondence with Cindy
13
Oropeza that Plaintiff’s priority is to get his job back, granted and guaranteed, by the February
14
2009 Settlement –Agreement that Plaintiff signed with Defendant, the Regents of the University
15

16 of California.

17 336. Plaintiff in good faith also forwarded to Cindy Oropeza the latest e-mail

18 correspondence with Danesha Nichols, the investigator UC Davis Medical Center assigned to the

19 case, which stated that, if Plaintiff’s employer is looking for an informal resolution of the

20 problem, then Plaintiff would prefer not to see or read Danesha Nichols’ investigation findings
21 and the Defendant’ action based on Danesha Nichols’ findings. It would save Plaintiff’s and
22 others’ time and, if Plaintiff read the findings, would turn the ongoing conflict in a new direction
23 and open up a new, unpleasant dispute. Plaintiff also stated that he is very tired and very stressed
24 out from dealing with this conflict. Cindy Oropeza responded that UC Davis Medical Center’s
25
HR Labor Relation Manager will contact Plaintiff shortly and will set a meeting with Plaintiff to
26
discuss the possibility of resolving the conflict informally.
27
337. . Plaintiff’s meeting with HR Labor Relations Manager, Mike Garcia, took
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 117 of 295
 1 place in Mr. Garcia’s office in the HR Building on February 14, 2012. The meeting was fruitless
2 and Plaintiff was basically asked how much Plaintiff will ask, dollar-wise, to voluntarily quit his
3 job. During the discussion Plaintiff proposed that he will quit his job if Defendant will pay
4 Plaintiff his annual wages in a lump sum until Plaintiff is eligible for full Social Security
5
Benefits at age 66. Plaintiff, in February 2012, was close to 61 years old with his 61st birthday
6
coming up on May 30, 2012.
7
338. Plaintiff noticed during the meeting that Mike Garcia was stressed out;
8
Mr. Garcia told Plaintiff that he is very concerned about the whole situation, that it is very
9
unpleasant for him to deal with this problem and he is ready to retire from the University.
10
Plaintiff believes that Mike Garcia was, in 2012, similar to Plaintiff in age.
11
339. The meeting lasted approximately 30 minutes. Mike Garcia did not make
12
any promises or offers to Plaintiff during the meeting.
13

14 340. Plaintiff does not know why Plaintiff was asked to meet with Mike Garcia,
15 but Plaintiff believed that the Right to Sue Letter dated January 26, 2012, which Plaintiff
16 received from the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Right Division and of which a carbon copy
17 was sent to the UC Davis Medical Center was one of the reason for explore possibility of
18 informal resolution.
19
341. In February 2012 and for a long time thereafter, Plaintiff had no intention
20
to sue the Defendant; instead, Plaintiff was hoping that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
21
Commission (EEOC) would help him deal with his ongoing employment dispute with the
22
Defendant. However, when Plaintiff filed a complaint with U.S. EEOC against Defendant and
23

24
subsequently went to the EEOC’s San Francisco Office for an interview, Plaintiff was dismayed

25 to find that the EEOC intake officer was terrified of filing a complaint against the University of

26 California and dealing with UC attorneys. Plaintiff had no choice but to ask for a Right to Sue

27 Letter. Plaintiff could not find an attorney and was trying to get an extension of the Right to Sue

28 Letter but his extension request was denied by the EEOC Director. Thereafter, Plaintiff was

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 118 of 295
 1 almost killed by UC Davis police in the UC Davis Medical Trauma Unit # 11, after which his
2 employment ended due to the ill minded, heinous provocation and trap that was successfully set
3 by the criminally minded UC Davis administration.
4
342. Plaintiff believes the Defendant’ other reason for meeting with Plaintiff
5
and discussing informal resolution in February 2012 were Danesha Nichols’ pseudo
6
investigation reports, which Danesha Nichols already issued and signed but had not yet provided
7
to Plaintiff.
8
343. Defendant were perfectly aware that Plaintiff would be outraged by any
9

10 negative remarks in the reports about him. Plaintiff, since February 2009, was working for

11 Defendant under a Settlement – Agreement (the Contract) as an Associate Development

12 Engineer and had reminded the Defendant in almost every correspondence with them since April

13 2011 that they were breaching and violating the Settlement – Agreement they had signed with

14 Plaintiff.
15 344. In addition to the above, Plaintiff learned in February 2012 that HR Labor
16 Relation Manager Mike Garcia replaced HR Consultant Gina Harwood with experienced
17 attorney Jill Vandeviver to handle Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s coworkers’ complaints from the
18 same Department in which Plaintiff worked.
19
345. Besides the above, Plaintiff’s two coworkers, Kenny Diede from the
20
HVAC Shop and William Buckans from the Central Plant, asked Plaintiff to represent them in
21
their complaints pursuant to UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70. Plaintiff agreed
22
to represent Kenny Diede and William Buckans with their complaints Step II appeals.
23

24
March 2012
25

26 346.. On March 7, 2012, Plaintiff received a two-page letter from UC Davis

27 Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo, which informed Plaintiff that Danesha Nichols had
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 119 of 295
 1 concluded the investigation in the whistleblowing complaint case #11-079, EP#2001, supposedly
2 assigned by Wendi Delmendo in July 2011. It was the complaint that Plaintiff never filed with
3 UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo’s office.
4 On the contrary, in July 2011, Plaintiff sent two complaint letters to UC Davis Chief Counsel
5
Steven Drown, and Plaintiff was complaining to the UC Davis chief counsel about the 2009
6
Settlement-Agreement violations by the Defendant. UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown
7
signed the 2009 Settlement-Agreement on the Defendant’, the Regents of the University of
8
California, behalf.
9
347. Plaintiff’s first letter to the UC Davis chief counsel, dated July 17, 2011,
10
was entitled “Settlement-Agreement Violations by UC Davis Medical Center PO&M
11
Department Supervisors and Managers as well by some of the HR Labor Relation Department
12
Personnel (Gina Harwood or Mike Garcia).”
13

14 348. Plaintiff’s second letter to the UC Davis chief counsel, dated July 24, 2011,

15 was entitled “Settlement-Agreement Violations, HR Department Personnel — Ms. Danesha Nichols

16 & Mrs. Gina Harwood, Invitation to Commit Fraud.”

17 349. In response to Plaintiff’s complaints to the UC Davis chief counsel about the

18 2009 Settlement-Agreement violation by the Defendant, on July 26, 2011, UC Davis Chief

19 Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo sent Plaintiff an invitation to file a whistleblowing complaint.

20 350. On July 31, 2011, Plaintiff responded with a seven-page letter to UC

21 Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo’s invitation and advised her that none of the

22 violations she outlined in her letter were qualified to file a claim against under the “UC

23 Whistleblower” policy.
24 351. Furthermore, the mentioned violations should have been be corrected
25 immediately by UC Davis Medical Center senior management through the administrative
26 process. The violations were so obvious and known by the general employee population in the
27 UC Davis Medical Center PO&M Department. All Plaintiff letters were forwarded to UC Davis
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 120 of 295
 1 Medical Center directors, and they should have taken care of business as the directors and
2 administrators. Plaintiff was aware that the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer is dragging
3 Plaintiff in her deceptive whistleblowing complaint game.
4 Plaintiff also informed the UC Davis chief counsel that UC Davis Medical Center Plant
5
Opertaionand Maintenance management misconduct were addressed in Plaintiff’s response
6
dated July 15, 2011, addressed to HR Consultant Gina Harwood, who was handling the case
7
from the HR side.
8

9 352. In her March 7, 2012, letter entitled “Outcome of Whistleblower Investigation,

10 Case #11-079, EP#2001,” UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo must have
11 forgotten about the Settlement-Agreement Plaintiff signed in 2009 with the UC regents. The UC
12 Davis chief compliance officer also forgot in her letter the real issues, problems and violations, which
13 were pointed out by Plaintiff in the letter dated March 13, 2011, addressed to UC Davis Medical
14 Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher and in Plaintiff’s letter
15 dated July 31, 2011. The serious matters which were reported by Plaintiff and which eventually
16 would fall in to category of whistleblowing complaints but never were investigated, including and
17 not limited to UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant operator Todd Goerlich’s suicide in December
18 2010, the burglary in the Central Plant locker room in December 2010, the secret 12% pay raise for
19 the Central Plant operators in December 2010 provided to them based on the blackmail petition,
20 child pornography activities in the UC Davis Medical Center HVAC shop, and UC Davis HVAC
21 Shop Supervisor Dorin Daniluc’s special relationship with two corrupted UC Davis Medical Center
22 directors, perhaps Robert Taylor and Shelton Duruisseau Ph.D, who besides holding director
23
positions in UC Davis Medical Center were appointed to the State of California Medical Board by
24
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2004.
25
353. On March 11, 2012, Plaintiff responded to Wendi Delmendo’s insulting conclusion
26
of Danesha Nichols’ pseudo-investigation, and Plaintiff pasted in his response the letter he wrote to
27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 121 of 295
 1 Wendi Delmendo on July 31, 2011, to remind her about the real problems in the UC Davis Medical
2 Center.
3 354. On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff sent an open letter to the investigator Danesha Nichols,
4 assigned by Wendi Delmendo, and Plaintiff further addressed the outcome of Danesha Nichols’
5 investigation outlined in Wendi Delmendo’s letter dated March 7, 2012.
6 355. On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter together with eight pages of statements
7 of facts to Leslie Moore, assistant director, Safety and Hospitality Service, who was assigned by
8
the UC Davis HR Department as the compliance resolution officer (CRO) to conduct a hearing
9
on the complaint step II appeal filed by Kenneth Diede against the HVAC shop manager Patrick
10
Putney pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM 70. Kenneth Diede, in July 2011, reported a twice-
11
convicted child pornography felon who was illegally accessing HVAC shop computers. The
12
shop manager, Patrick Putney, retaliated against Kenneth Diede for reporting the porn felon by
13
issuing a bad annual evaluation and made Kenneth Diede’s life miserable and working
14
conditions in the shop intolerable.
15
356. In response to Plaintiff’s letter addressed to CRO Leslie Moore, on March 21,
16
2012, UC Davis HR Labor Relation Manager Humberto “Mike” Garcia sent a letter to Plaintiff
17

18 stating that he understood that Plaintiff is representing William Buckans and Kenny Diede

19 through the PPSM 70 complaint appeal process. However, since Plaintiff was on paid

20 investigatory leave, Plaintiff would not be permitted to attend any procedural meetings with

21 (CRO) related to both of Plaintiff’s clients’ (as he stated) complaints until a decision was made

22 in the matter related to the allegations made against Plaintiff. Furthermore, Humberto Garcia
23 stated that the university was amenable to placing both the William Buckans and Kenny Diede
24 complaints in abeyance until a decision was made in the matter referenced above and that
25 Plaintiff may elect to submit his arguments to the CRO in writing or Plaintiff’s clients (as he
26 stated) may elect to be represented by someone else.
27

28 357. Plaintiff met Humberto Garcia on February 14, 2012 in the UC Davis

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 122 of 295
 1 Medical Center HR building to discuss the informal resolution of the ongoing dispute. HR
2 Investigator Danesha Nichols issued an investigation report and concluded her pseudo-
3 investigation on February 9, 2012. UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo
4 confirmed by the letter dated March 7, 2012, that Danesha Nichols finalized her investigation,
5
and nothing in the chief compliance officer’s letter indicated that any other investigation was
6
going on that could justify keeping Plaintiff on investigatory leave instead of letting him come
7
back to work. William Buckans and Kenny Diede were not Plaintiff’s clients but Plaintiff’s
8
coworkers from the same UC Davis Medical Center department, and Plaintiff provided
9
representation to them in their administrative complaints. It is a mystery for Plaintiff why
10
Plaintiff was prohibited from attending the CRO meeting for William Buckans and Kenny
11
Diede if it was not a problem for Humberto Garcia to meet Plaintiff on February 14, 2012, in his
12
UC Davis Medical Center office.
13

14
358. Today, Plaintiff looks at Humberto Garcia’s e-mail letter dated March 21,
15
2012, differently than Plaintiff looked at it in March 2012. Today, Plaintiff looks at Humberto
16
Garcia’s e-mail letter, , as a letter that may have saved Plaintiff’s life, taking into consideration
17
who was in charge of the UC Davis Police Department in March 2012 and why Mathew
18
Carmichael was assigned as interim UC Davis Police Chief by UC Davis Administration.
19
Humberto Garcia and HR attorney and Humberto Garcia assistant Jill Vanderviver, did not
20
survive long after February 2012 attempt to resolve informally with Plaintiff ongoing dispute.
21

22 359. In addition to the above, on March 19, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to

23 University of California Senior Vice President Chief Compliance and Audit Officer Sheryl Vacca

24 and asked her for an independent investigation. Also, Plaintiff requested under the Public Record

25 Act provision all the documents related to Danesha Nichols and Wendi Delmendo’s pseudo-

26 whistleblowing complaint investigation, which concluded in February and March 2012.

27 April 2012

28 April 2012- The Stephen Chilcott’s Unsigned Letter

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 123 of 295
 1 360. Under the Public Record Act, Plaintiff received an unsigned letter dated
2 April 5, 2012, which was addressed to him. The letter was typed by or for UC Davis Health
3 System HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott who, in 2009, solicited and most likely crafted
4 the Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed with the Defendant, the Regents of the University
5
of California. The Agreement guaranteed Plaintiff’s indefinite employment with the University
6
of California as the associate development engineer.
7
361. Stephen Chilcott’s unsigned letter, dated April 5, 2012, stated that Plaintiff
8
is currently on UC Davis Health System administrative leave with pay while options for possibly
9
returning to work are being reviewed, which contradicts UC Davis Medical Center HR Labor
10
Relation Manager Humberto Garcia’s letter dated March 21, 2012, which stated that Plaintiff is
11
on investigatory leave and that Plaintiff is not permitted to attend any procedural meetings to
12
represent his coworkers in their complaints under UC Davis Policy PPSM70, the Step II appeals.
13
Furthermore, Stephen Chilcott’s letter stated that UC Davis Health System Labor Relations
14

15 would contact Plaintiff when the administrative review has been completed without any specifics

16 of what administrative review Stephen Chilcott had on his mind.

17

18 April 2012- The Complaint with U.S Department of Labor , OFCCP Office

19

20 362. Due to UC Davis Medical Center HR Labor Relation Manager Humberto

21 Garcia’s letter dated April 21, 2012, which prohibited Plaintiff from representing two of his
22 coworkers, Kenneth Diede and William Buckans, with their complaint under UC Davis Policy
23 PPSM 70, on April 9, 2012, Plaintiff sent by mail a complaint and request for intervention and
24
help to Regional Director of the U.S. Department of Labor for Office of Federal Contract
25
Compliance Programs (OFCCP) William D. Smitherman on William Buckan’s, Kenny Diede’s
26
and Plaintiff’s own behalf.
27
363. The University of California is a federal contractor, and Plaintiff was
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 124 of 295
 1 advised by the U.S. OFCCP in November 2011 that a complaint with U.S. OFCCP has to contain
2 more than one person to be considered, reviewed and pursued by OFCCP.
3 364. On April 12, 2012, Plaintiff received a response from U.S EEOC San
4 Francisco office to his, William Buckan’s, and Kenny Diede’s April 9, 2012, complaint with
5
information that the complaint was forwarded to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
6
Commission (EEOC) and a comment stating that, upon review of the contents of the
7
correspondence, it became clear that Plaintiff mistakenly sent the complaint to the OFCCP
8
instead of to the EEOC, contrary to the already-mentioned November 2011 EEOC advice.
9
Plaintiff did not want to pursue the new claim with the EEOC after the previous EEOC intake
10
officer’s trauma of dealing with the University of California’s attorneys.
11
365. Also on April 12, 2012, Plaintiff, for unknown reasons, received a letter
12
from UC Davis HR Benefit Manager John Peklar about Plaintiff’s short-term disability benefits,
13
Liberty Assurance Company of Boston (Liberty) which in conspiracy with the Defendant was
14

15 denied in November and December 2011 to Plaintiff. . Further, Plaintiff’s complaint against

16 Liberty had been pending with the state insurance commissioner’s office since November 2011.

17 UC Davis HR Benefits Manager John Peklar was the person who disenrolled Plaintiff from

18 medical insurance in December 2011 without Plaintiff’s knowledge. Since Plaintiff did not want

19 to risk being left without medical insurance, he enrolled himself and his wife in medical
20 insurance with Nordstrom Corporation, where Plaintiff’s spouse has been employed since 1990,
21 paying an extra $200/month.
22
April 2012 – Letter Of Intent to Suspend with 10 Days without Pay
23

24
366. Instead of a response from the Defendant in regard to the informal
25
resolution initiated by the Defendant in February 2012, Plaintiff, on April 13, 2012, received
26
from the Defendant a Letter of Intent to Suspend signed by the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
27
Operation and Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher—the same Charles Witcher who,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 125 of 295
 1 on March 23, 2007, signed a very similar letter with intent to suspend Plaintiff using very similar
2 lies and unfounded accusations defacing and defaming Plaintiff. Charles Witcher’s 2007 Letter
3 of Intent to Suspend lead Plaintiff to obtain a promotion from the position of cogeneration plant
4 operator to associate development engineer with a $7,000.00 base salary increase and indefinite
5
employment with the University of California granted and guaranteed to Plaintiff by the
6
February 2009 Settlement–Agreement Plaintiff signed with the Regents of the University of
7
California after Plaintiff successfully defeated the Defendant in arbitration with an arbitrator
8
assigned by the UC Davis administration. Charles Witcher was one of four who signed the 2009
9
Settlement–Agreement on the Defendant’ behalf.
10
367. The Letter of Intent to Suspend informed Plaintiff that the Defendant
11
intended to suspend Plaintiff for a period of ten (10) working days commencing on April 25,
12
2012. The reasons that were given for the issuance of this letter were the Defendant’ lies and
13
unfounded accusations that Plaintiff continued inappropriate behavior in the workplace.
14

15 Specifically, the Defendant’ lies accused Plaintiff that his behavior was in violation of UCDHS

16 Policy 1616 — Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and UC Davis Policy and

17 Procedure 380-15 Staff Complaints of Discrimination. Additionally, unfounded accusations and

18 lies in the letter implied that Plaintiff failed to adhere to specific instructions during the

19 investigation to refrain from engaging in email communications with witnesses, which interfered
20 with the investigation, as outlined in the report.
21 368. Furthermore, the unfounded allegations in the Letter of Intent to Suspend
22 were made that on March 8, 2011, April 21, 2011, and May 5, 20011, Plaintiff engaged in
23 behavior that violated UCDHS Policy 1616—Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace. It
24
was alleged that Plaintiff’s behavior was disruptive and intimidating to Dorin Daniliuc when he
25
allegedly pointed his finger in his face and used profanity on March 8, 2011. Further, on April
26
21, 2011, Plaintiff allegedly became disruptive and intimidating toward Patrick Putney during a
27
discussion regarding the Putney and Daniliuc ’s work performance as Plaintiff understood the
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 126 of 295
 1 letter. An investigation was conducted and both of these allegations were substantiated. At the
2 end of the statement, Plaintiff was advised to see attached report Issue #1, #2, and #3. If the
3 accusations were true, then the lies regarding the use of profanity and disruptive behavior in
4 March and April would have had an impact on Plaintiff’s 2010–2011 Employee Performance
5
Review(Evaluation ) because the alleged violations fell into the 2010–2011 evaluation period
6
(i.e., rather than the 2011–2012 period). Especially it would happen because Dorin Daniliuc and
7
Patrick Putney were Plaintiff’s supervisors and Plaintiff and Putney and Daniliuc would punish
8
Plaintiff right away by issuance of letter of expectation, written warning or even suspension from
9
work right after alleged incident by using UC Davis Progressive Discipline Policy PPSM 62. The
10
“does not meet expectation evaluation” for 2010-2011 work period would follow, It would be
11
done according to UC Davis progressive discipline Policy PPSM 62.
12
369. Since February 2009, Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant by the
13
Settlement–Agreement (Contract), which is enforceable only by State of California law and the
14

15 State of California Court of Law, not by slanderous pseudo-investigation reports that financially

16 harm and defame Plaintiff (i.e., Witcher’s Letters of Intent to Suspend).

17 370. At the end of the letter, Plaintiff was instructed that Plaintiff has the right

18 to respond, either orally or in writing, to the notice of intent to suspend. Plaintiff’s response must

19 be received by the Skelly Reviewer, Michael Pansius (916-734-6572), within eight (8) calendar
20 days from the date of issuance of this letter.
21 371. The assigned Skelly Reviewer, Michael Pansius, was the subordinate of
22 UC Davis Medical Center Director Mike Boyd from the facilities construction and design
23 department.
24
372. In July 2011, Director Mike Boyd took charge of the UC Davis Medical
25
Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and became Charles Witcher’s superior.
26
373. Director Mike Boyd took charge of the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
27
Operation and Maintenance Department after his partner in crime, Director Robert Taylor, left
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 127 of 295
 1 his post one year before his retirement. The UC Davis Medical Center Directors Mike Boyd,
2 Robert Taylor and Shelton Durressau, Ph.D, were responsible for a massive, unlawful, and
3 deliberate machine oil discharge from defective cooling tower gear boxes to the Sacramento
4 River for seven years (i.e., from 1998 to 2005).
5
374. Never before had UC Davis Plant Operation and Maintenance belonged to
6
the Facilities Construction and Design Department of which Boyd was in charge. Construction
7
and Design is a strictly engineering department without maintenance personnel. Apparently, due
8
to the central plant operators’ blackmail petition for a 12% pay raise, the old crime related to the
9
central plant’s unlawful oil discharge to the river—for which Boyd was responsible—resurfaced
10
and Boyd was forced to take charge of the plant operation and maintenance department after
11
Robert Taylor left his post.
12
375. After Plaintiff received Witcher’s letter to suspend, Plaintiff was furious
13
and in disbelief that he was receiving such subhuman treatment by the Defendant. The
14

15 Defendant, in a gross violation of the 2009 Settlement–Agreement, caused Plaintiff significant

16 financial losses in 2011 and Plaintiff lost all accrued vacation and sick leave hours. Plaintiff’s

17 total financial losses in 2011 amounted to approximately $21, 000, due to the inhumane

18 treatment that Plaintiff received from the Defendant.

19
376. On April 15, 2012, Plaintiff requested from Defendant all available
20
documents related to the UC Davis Medical Center HR investigator pseudo-investigation. The
21
requested documents that were included were all generated by Danesha Nichols’ investigatory
22
reports.
23

24
377. On April 20, 2012, Plaintiff responded to the Defendant’s Letter Intent to

25 Suspend signed by Charles Witcher and, in his 26-page response, demanded from the assigned

26 Skelly reviewer, who did not know Skelly law, to entirely disregard and dismiss all lies and

27 unfounded accusations outlined in the Witcher suspension letter.

28 April 2012- “ Welcome to Romania Slide Show”

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 128 of 295
 1

2 378. In great disappointment over the investigatory reports and the unwarranted
3 attack on Plaintiff with the Letter of Intent to Suspend, on April 27, 2012, Plaintiff sent a short
4 email to Danesha Nichols expressing his feelings about her reports. Plaintiff attached to the e-
5
mail a video clip/slide show entitled “Welcome to Romania.” It shows post-communist
6
devastated Romania and some scenes in the slide show had lot in common with the landscape in
7
the HVAC shop supervised by Dorin Daniliuc and Patrick Putney.. Later, the “Welcome to
8
Romania” slide show was exploited and repeatedly used to attack Plaintiff and as cause and
9
pretext to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
10
379. Danesha Nichols attempted to bully and intimidate Plaintiff, and she
11
received a proper response from Waszczuk. Waszczuk reported Nichols and Chilcott to the State
12
Bar in October 2011and 2013 and reported Nichols to UC Davis Police (Captain Souza and Lt.
13
Pike). If the UC Davis investigator was to investigate Nichols for anything, it would be Central
14

15 Plant Operator Todd Georlich’s suicide, which occurred on December 22, 2010; Central Plant

16 Operator Jeff Lancaster’s locker burglary; the secret 12% pay raise for central plant operators in

17 December 2010, based on blackmail petition; Daniliuc’s involvement in his private enterprise on

18 company time, as well the fact that he was employed by two UCDMC Directors—Robert Taylor

19 and Shelton Duruisseau—in their private residences in exchange for giving him a supervisor
20 position and access to free HVAC parts and equipment and presence in the HVAC shop, though
21 he was a twice-convicted child pornography felon who illegally was accessing the UCDMC
22 HVAC shop computer during his probation or parole time.
23 380. Danesha Nichols swept under the rug the child pornography felony matter
24
in her report instead of turning porn felon into authorities and obtaining a restraining order.
25
Instead, in her reports Nichols made Plaintiff look five times worse than , a twice-convicted child
26
pornography felon; thus, Nichols grossly violated law by not reporting a felon on probation to
27
authorities and grossly violating the 2009 Settlement–Agreement that Plaintiff signed with the
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 129 of 295
 1 Regents of the University of California by defacing and demeaning Plaintiff in her reports. The
2 Settlement–Agreement prohibited the Defendant from making any disparaging and untrue
3 statements aimed at Plaintiff. Further, Nichols, Seifert, and Oropeza’s fabricated reports are not
4 only disparaging to Plaintiff, but defame Plaintiff’s character and integrity and signify a gross
5
violation of his civil rights.
6

7 May 2012
May 2012- Defendant Preparation for the May 31, 2012 Provocation to Kill Plaintiff
8

9
381. In April and May 2012, Plaintiff did not know or was aware that the
10
Defendant were negotiating the new power sale contract with the Sacramento Municipal Utility
11

12 District (SMUD) and the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant cogeneration facility. The

13 Defendant got very inpatient with Plaintiff’s continued presence on the Defendant’ payroll list.

14 382 .The psychological terror, abuse, harassment, and retaliation that Plaintiff

15 was subjected to for almost one year, which was orchestrated and carried out by the Defendant’
16 lawyers, managers, and psychologists at the UC Davis Medical Center HR Department with the
17 full support of the UC Davis Chancellor Office and the University of California Office of the
18 President did not work to force Plaintiff to quit voluntarily The decision was made to eliminate
19 Plaintiff by provocation and by means of a bullet from the pistol of UC Davis Police Lt. James
20 Barbour who was assigned by Defendant to carry out assassination on May 31, 2012.
21 383. On May 1, 2012, Plaintiff did not know how close Plaintiff was to being
22 killed or his employment ending in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11 due to the
23 ill-crafted provocation of an especially assembled team, which Plaintiff later nicknamed in
24
documents “UC Davis Death Squad.”
25
384. The first stage of preparation to provoke and eliminate Plaintiff was the
26
February 14, 2012, fruitless meeting with Humberto Garcia from the UC Davis HR Department,
27
which was intended to informally resolve conflict or let Plaintiff return to work after six months
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 130 of 295
 1 of Plaintiff’s involuntary absence. The meeting was organized to identify how anxious or eager
2 Plaintiff was to leave his job and what pressure needed to be applied to make it happen.
3 385. The second preparation step to provoke and eliminate Plaintiff came in
4 March 7, 2012, with UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo’s whistle-blowing
5
decisions about the chickens, roosters, ducks, goats, and sheep sale in the UC Davis Medical
6
Center HVAC shop by supervisors Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc.
7
386. The third preparation step to provoke and eliminate Plaintiff came in March
8
21, 2012, when Plaintiff received a letter from Humberto Garcia of the UC Davis Medical Center
9
HR Labor Relations Department informing Plaintiff that Plaintiff was still on investigatory leave
10
and was prohibited from entering UC Davis Medical Center premises to represent his coworkers
11
in their complaints appeals hearings with a Compliance Resolution Officer. This happened after
12
all the pseudo-investigations conducted by UC Davis HR investigator Danesha Nichols were
13
finished and four pseudo-investigation reports were issued.
14

15 387. The fourth preparation step to provoke and eliminate Plaintiff was the April

16 13, 2012, Letter of Intent to Suspend Plaintiff without pay for 10 days during Plaintiff‘s already

17 nine (9) months forced absence from work. The letter of intent to suspend did not even say or

18 inform Plaintiff when Plaintiff was supposed to return to work

19 May 2012 – May 7, 2012 Events

20 388 On May 7, 2012, Plaintiff received information at a gathering of the UC
21 Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance managers and supervisors at the UCDMC
22 Police Station. The gathering included but was not limited to the presence of Charles Witcher,
23 Dennis Curry, Sue Carter, Patrick Putney, Steve McGrath, and Dorin Daniliuc.
24
389. On May 7, 2012, to prime Plaintiff for May 31, 2012 provocation ,
25
ordered UCDMC HR assigned pseudo Skelly Officer Michael Pansius to sign “HIS” decision to
26
suspend and deprive Plaintiff of his 10 days of earnings. Plaintiff’s budget was already stretched
27
due to last year’s financial losses caused by the Defendant, and Plaintiff was not happy about it
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 131 of 295
 1 at all.
2 390. On May 7, 2012, the UC Office of the President’s Director of
3 Investigations John Lohse got involved in the conflict against Plaintiff by sending Plaintiff a
4 letter in which he defended the corrupt UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo.
5 Afterwards, Plaintiff checked out John Lohse’s biography and found that:
6 “John A. Lohse is the Director of Investigations in the Office of the Senior
7 Vice President and Chief Compliance and Audit Officer of the Regents of the
8
University of California. He is responsible for coordinating, tracking,
9
managing and conducting investigations at the Office of the President and
10
system-wide. Mr. Lohse came to the University of California in January 2004
11
after a career with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), where he served
12
as a Special Agent, Associate Division Counsel and Chief Division Counsel
13
for the FBI’s San Francisco Division. In addition, the United States Attorney
14
for the Northern District of California appointed Mr. Lohse as a Special
15
Assistant United States Attorney. Prior to his service with the FBI, he was a
16
criminal prosecutor with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Phoenix,
17

18 Arizona. Mr. Lohse is a member of the State Bars of California and Arizona.

19 He is also a Private Investigator, licensed by the State of California. He was at

20 relevant time is a Director of Association of Work Place Investigators (AWI).”

21 391. Plaintiff was very impressed with Director John Lohse professional career

22 and achievements. However, in the situation Plaintiff found himself in with respect to his

23 employment, Plaintiff was convinced that Director Lohse was coordinating unknown actions

24 against Plaintiff and that Director Lohse perfectly fit the profile of framing Plaintiff. Plaintiff

25 expressed his thoughts in a response letter to Director John Lohse dated May 14, 2012. After

26 Plaintiff responded to Mr. Lohse’s letter and sent to his office a few other documents related to

27 the case, Plaintiff never heard from Lohse again.

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 132 of 295
 1 392. May 7, 2012, was a very busy day. Plaintiff did not know at this point
2 whether there was a coordinated action against Plaintiff to elevate Plaintiff’s stress level to the
3 expectations of the conspirators.
4 May 2012- The May 11, 2012 Ten Days Suspension Letter Without Pay
5

6
393. On May 11, 2012, Charles Witcher was ordered to serve Plaintiff a 10-
7
day suspension without pay from May 16, 2012, to May 30, 2012. The letter was based on
8
unspecified and fabricated accusations and allegations that were never witnessed by anybody.
9
Plaintiff’s stress levels and blood pressure went up, and nitroglycerine and Lorazepam were very
10
helpful.
11
May 11, 2012
12

13
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
524 Swallow Lane
14 Lodi, CA 95240

15
RE: Letter of Suspension
16
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I am suspending you for a
17
period of ten (10) working days without pay, commencing May 16, 2012
18
through May 30, 2012. The reason for this action is your continued
19
inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Specifically, your behavior is in
20
violation of UCDHS Policy 1616 — Violence and Hate Incidents in the
21
Workplace and UC Davis Policy and Procedure 380-15 Staff Complaints of
22
Discrimination. Additionally, your failure to adhere to specific instructions
23
during the investigation to refrain from engaging in email communications
24

25
with witnesses interfered with the investigation as outlined in the report.

26 The suspension will begin on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 and end on

27 Wednesday, May 30, 2012. You are expected to report to work at 8 a.m.

28 on Thursday, May 31, 2012 to Facilities Support Services

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 133 of 295
 1 Building, :4800 2 nd Avenue, Suite 1500, Sacramento, CA, to Charles
2 Witcher. No new information has been received to cause a change in the
3 action.
4 On an immediate and sustained basis, I expect you to:
5
Follow and abide by all UC Policies and Procedures
6
Show respect and remain professional at all times in the workplace
7
Follow the direct orders given to you by a superior
8
Attend classes as requested by management, specifically in regard to
9
communication and respectful treatment
10
Failure to meet my expectations may result in further corrective action up
11
to and including dismissal.
12
You have the right to request review of this action under Personnel
13
Policies for Staff Members 70 - Complaint Resolution. If you wish to
14

15 request review of this action, you must do so in writing, using the

16 appropriate complaint form. A written request must be received in the

17 Employee & Employee & Labor Relations office no later than thirty (30)

18 calendar days from the date of this letter.

19 Charles Witcher
20 Manager, Plant Operations and Maintenance
Attachments: Proof of Service
21 Skelly Decision
22
cc' [Department File]
[UCDHS Employee & Labor Relations w/attachment]
23 [UCDHS HR Records w/attachment]
24

25 394. In Charles Witcher’s Letter of Suspension, dated May 11, 2012, Plaintiff
26 was instructed to report to Charles Witcher’s office on May 31, 2012, at 8:00 a.m. Plaintiff was
27 not aware that just a day before, Charles Witcher had been instructed by Brent Seifert, Cindy
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 134 of 295
 1 Oropeza, or Stephen Chilcott from the HR Department to write and hand to Plaintiff the
2 investigatory leave note upon Plaintiff’s arrival, which, according to documents, should trigger
3 events which would end Plaintiff’s employment in the UC Davis Trauma Unit # 11 with Trauma
4 Unit Manager Karen Kouertas on standby to receive Plaintiff.
5
395. On May 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM
6
70 against Defendant’ wrongful suspension
7

8 May 2012 – The Defendant Attack Aimed at Plaintiff Coworkers , Kenny Diede
and William Buckans
9

10
397. In further preparation to send Plaintiff to the trauma unit, on May 18 and
11
23, 2012, PO&M Manager Charles Witcher, Patrick Putney, Dennis Curry, and Mike Lewis, in a
12
retaliatory manner, attacked the two coworkers Plaintiff was representing in complaints against
13
some of the above-mentioned individuals. Within one week, Kenny Diede and William Buckans
14
were served with despicable Letters of Expectation, which were based on phony, unfounded, and
15
fabricated accusations.
16

17 May 2012- Plaintiff Protest Letter Entitled “ The Retaliation Isn’t Wise’

18 398. On May 24, 2012, Plaintiff issued a 13-page protest letter entitled, “The

19 Retaliation Isn’t Wise,” against management’s vicious attack on Kenny Diede and William

20 Buckans and sent it to the perpetrators and senior management and administration at UC Davis

21 and the UC Office of the President.

22 May 2012- The Stress Management Class
23 399. Per instruction in the Defendant’s letter of suspension, dated May 11, 2012,
24 on May 30, 2012, Plaintiff, with his two coworkers Kenny Diede and William Buckans, attended
25 voluntarily a stress management class at UC Davis Medical Center HR Building Tycon III.
26
Plaintiff signed for class one week before.
27
400. Just after Plaintiff had arrived and signed into the class, which was open to
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 135 of 295
 1 any UC Davis Medical Center employee who wanted to participate, Plaintiff was approached by
2 the class host HR Licensed Social Worker Marjorie Trogdon Shock and HR Workers
3 Compensation Manager Hugh Parker. To his disbelief, Plaintiff, after a short conversation with
4 Shock and Parker, was asked to leave the class and told that it was out of the question that Plaintiff
5
could stay and participate in the discussion. Plaintiff left the class and drove home without any
6
further incidents. Plaintiff did not know that or was aware on his 61st Birthday he was sentenced
7
to death by Defendant because on May 29, 2012 Defendant signed so long awaited power sale
8
contract with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District to sell surplus electrical energy from the
9
UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant cogeneration facility.
10
May 2012- May 30, 2012- Plaintiff’s 61st Birthday
11

12
401. May 30, 2012, was Plaintiff’s 61st birthday and on May 30, 2012, Plaintiff
13
did not know that the HR Workers Compensation Manager was a coordinator of the assembled
14

15 “UC Davis Death Squad” and planning to end Plaintiff’s employment with the University of

16 California on May 31, 2012 (the next day) at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit. Plaintiff

17 also did not know on his 61st birthday that the host of the stress management class Marjorie

18 Trogdon Shock was also a member of the assembled “UC Davis Death Squad,” the goal of which

19 was to end Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Trauma unit # 11 because Defendant signed
20 power sale contract for UCDMC Central Plant with Scaramanto Municipal Utility Distict
21 on May 29, 2012.
22 402. On May 31, 2012, per Defendant’ suspension letter dated May 11, 2012,
23 Plaintiff was scheduled to return to work after 10 months of absence and report to Charles
24
Witcher’s office in Bldg. 68.
25
403. Plaintiff had heard from his coworkers that the carpenter shop was
26
building two extra offices on the first level of Building 68, and Plaintiff was hoping that
27
Defendant would eventually move Plaintiff from the HVAC shop to Bldg. 68 and that the
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 136 of 295
 1 conflict would end.
2 May 2012- The May 31, 2012 Defendant Provocation to Kill Plaintiff
3

4 404. On May 31, 2012, I drove to work and parked my car next to HVAC shop
5
as usual with a valid parking permit. Before Plaintiff reported to the Department Head Charles
6
Witcher’s office, Plaintiff went to the Marriott Hotel across from the HVAC shop to eat
7
breakfast in the cafeteria. I met my two coworkers, who joined me for breakfast.
8
405. Plaintiff was not expecting to be placed on investigatory leave again,
9
which Plaintiff hated, and Plaintiff wanted to go back to work after such a long period of absence
10
regardless of the fact that Plaintiff had been subjected by Defendant to more than one year of
11
psychological terror, harassment, retaliation, significant loss of income, and multiple threats of
12
employment termination. Plaintiff could expect anything but never expected that that highly
13
regarded University of California would assemble a “Death Squad” to resolve the dispute with
14

15 the employee by using the police force to end the employee’s career with the university at the

16 trauma unit.

17 406. On May 30, 2012, just one day before the ill-planned provocation, HR

18 Supervisor Brent Seifer sent an e-mail to HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott stating that

19 Plaintiff’s superior Charles Witcher understands that Jerry (Plaintiff) will report to his office
20 tomorrow at 8 am. As soon as Jerry (Plaintiff) arrived, Charles would be issuing the
21 investigatory leave letter and directing him to meet with me.
22 407. On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff arrived at 8:00 a.m. at the Department Head
23 Charles Witcher’s office, and Charles Witcher handed Plaintiff a letter and sent him to the HR
24
Building Tycon III for an interview with HR Supervisor Brent Seifert. Maybe if Plaintiff had read
25
Charles Witcher’s letter in his office and found out that the Defendant were placing Plaintiff again
26
on investigatory leave and not letting him return to work after 10 days suspension, Plaintiff would
27
probably not have appreciated such actions. If Plaintiff had known that Defendant had maliciously
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 137 of 295
 1 attacked Plaintiff with a new phony investigation and that Plaintiff would be handed another
2 investigatory leave letter which could have been sent by e-mail or fax to Plaintiff, Plaintiff would
3 not even have bothered to go to UC Davis Medical Center on May 31, 2012. However, the
4 Defendant’ luring of Plaintiff to the workplace on May 31, 2012, was motivated by different goals
5
and reasons and involved deliberate premeditation not inform Plaintiff about the new investigatory
6
leave.
7
May 2012-I felt again like a Hunted Jew during the Holocaust.”
8

10
408. Plaintiff did not read the letter in Charles’ office and went straight to the
11
Human Resources Tycon Building for the meeting with Brent Seifert. HR Supervisor Brent Seifert
12
looked at Plaintiff upon his arrival like he wanted to ask Plaintiff what Plaintiff was doing in the
13
HR building meeting. At the end of the meeting—which was about phony, new, unfounded, made-
14

15 up, and out-of-the-blue accusations against Plaintiff and life in Romania, of which Brent Seifer

16 did not even know where it was located, Plaintiff asked Brent Seifert, “What’s next?” In response,

17 Brent Seifert said, “Didn’t you read the letter Witcher gave you? You are on investigatory leave

18 for the next two weeks.”

19 409. Plaintiff looked at the letter he received from Witcher, said ok, then left the
20 HR Building and Plaintiff went home. Plaintiff did not like the investigatory leave and Plaintiff
21 expressed his feelings thereafter in a letter entitled “I feel again like a Hunted Jew during the
22 Holocaust.” This is how the HR “Death Squad’s” plot to send Plaintiff the UC Davis Medical
23 Center # 11 failed.
24
410. Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, knew that something was wrong but Plaintiff
25
did not know any details about the malicious plan of the UC Davis Death Squad, “Kill Waszczuk,”
26
nor the unsuccessful provocation, until Plaintiff received relevant documents under the Public
27
Record Act Provision of November 2011. The documents are very clear as to what Defendant had
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 138 of 295
 1 planned for Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, the day after Plaintiff’s 61st birthday.
2

3 JUNE 2012
4 June 1,2012- Hugh Parker’s E-Mail to the Members of the ” UC Davis Death Squad”
5

6
411. On June 1, 2012, one day after falling ill and the maliciously crafted
7
provocation by the assembled UC Davis Death Squad, the coordinator of the provocation, HR
8
Workers Compensation Manager Hugh Parker, sent e-mail message to the other members of the
9
assembled UC Davis Death Squad members stating that
10
“Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) had returned to work yesterday from his
11
suspension and was placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At
12
issue are writings sent by Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) while on leave. Mr.
13
Waszczuk (Plaintiff) did not display any anger when told he was being
14

15 placed on investigatory leave.

16 412.. The Hugh Parker e-mail statement read: “At issue are writings sent by Mr.

17 Waszczuk (Plaintiff) while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) did not display any anger when

18 told he was being place on investigatory leave.” This translates to the following: that Plaintiff,

19 after almost one year of absence due to the Defendant’ psychological terror aimed at Plaintiff,
20 including threatening Plaintiff’s employment and livelihood by means of multiple investigatory
21 leave letters, which Plaintiff received from the Defendant as ill-planned provocations, should be
22 triggered to become angry and violent so that the UC Davis renegade Police Lt James Barbour,
23 bribed by means of a $35,000 wage increase by UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11,
24
will do the job to eliminate Plaintiff from the UC Davis Medical Center landscape forever.
25
Apparently, UC Davis assembled Death Squad members underestimated Plaintiff and mistook
26
Plaintiff for somebody whose employment they had ended with UC Davis in this way.
27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 139 of 295
 1 413. Plaintiff believes that similar provocation to end Plaintiff’s employment was
2 planned under the supervision and coordination of Hugh Parker on September 23, 2011, and that
3 this failed as well. According to Public Record Act documents received by Plaintiff, the report
4 crafted by Danesha Nichols to end Plaintiff’s employment on September 23, 2011, was
5
destroyed by the Defendant but Plaintiff believes that the report was not destroyed because
6
Danesha Nichols provided a copy of the report to Hugh Parker and the report should exist on the
7
Defendant’ servers if it was generated and saved and transmitted anywhere by means of
8
electronic mail.
9
414. Plaintiff looked at the assembled UC Davis Death Squad members’
10
names to identify who they are. The names of David Levine, Debra Schmidt, Marjorie Trogodon
11
Shock, Neil Speth, Carol Kirshnit, Karen Kouretas, Cindy Oropeza, Glynis Foulk, James
12
Barbour, and Travis Lindsay were all displayed on Hugh Parker’s e-mail message sent by Parker
13
on June 1, 2011. UC Davis Health System Executive Director Stephen Chilcott did not appear
14

15 among the eleven names of the assembled UC Davis Death Squad, but Stephen Chilcott’s name

16 appeared in the email dated May 30, 2012, which was sent by HR Supervisor Brent Seifert to

17 Stephen Chilcott in preparation for the ill-minded provocation and Plaintiff’s execution by UC

18 Davis Police.

19 June 1, 2012-The Members of the ” UC Davis Death Squad”

20

21 415. STEPHEN CHILCOTT J.D. – SBN # 1969905 Executive Director of

22 the UC Davis Health System Seventeen Human Resources Department and Services since
23 July 1, 2010, Superior of: Hugh Parker, Debra Schmidt, Marjorie Trogodon Shock, Neil Speth,
24
Carol Kirshnit, Cindy Oropeza, Brent Seifert, and Travis Lindsey.
25
416. Consequently, Stephen Chilcott, as the Executive Director of UC Davis
26
Health System (UCDHS), who was in charge of the Human Resources seventeen departments
27
and services, is responsible for the conspiracy, along with the other listed individuals, to cover up
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 140 of 295
 1 committed past unlawful activities committed by UCDHS directors and managers. He also
2 deprived Plaintiff of his employment with the University of California in the following manner:
3 417. HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, in January 2009, solicited
4 Plaintiff to sign a Settlement-Agreement with the Regents of the University of California, which
5
provided Plaintiff’s indefinite employment with the University of California as an Associate
6
Development Engineer. Two years later, Stephen Chilcott turned around and violated the
7
settlement-agreement and dismissed Plaintiff without valid cause and in violation of every
8
possible University policy that applies to employee-employer relations, not to mention Plaintiff’s
9
age and health condition.
10
418. HR. Executive Director Stephen Chilcott kept Plaintiff like a slave for
11
more than one year on investigatory administrative paid and unpaid leave, in violation of UC
12
Davis Policy PPSM 63 and any common sense and logic. This was approved by Stephen Chilcott
13
in an attempt to psychologically terrorize Plaintiff to force Plaintiff to quit the job that was
14

15 granted to him by the 2009 Settlement-Agreement signed with the UC Regents, which HR

16 Director Stephen Chilcott grossly solicited and supervised then violated and disregarded.

17 419. Stephen Chilcott, as the Executive Director, a licensed Attorney at Law,

18 and the Locally Designated Official (LDO), with full knowledge of wrongdoing, conspired in a

19 premeditated fashion with other Defendant and UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi
20 Delmendo to cover the others’ crimes and gross misconduct, deliberate interference, and
21 retaliation against Plaintiff for reporting management misconduct and violation of state and
22 federal law and established University of California Policies and Procedures.
23 420. HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, with malice and disregard for
24
state and federal law, conspired and dedicated himself to ending Plaintiff’s employment, doing
25
whatever it would take, and conspired with others, known and unknown, to kill Plaintiff or end
26
Plaintiff’s employment on May 31, 2012, in UC Davis Trauma Unit # 11, thus violating not only
27
Plaintiff’s civil rights but also, despicably, Plaintiff’s human rights to work and live.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 141 of 295
 1 421. BRENT SEIFERT J.D. –SBN #249305, UC Davis Health System HR
2 Labor Relation Supervisor from April 2011 to March 2013, Stephen Chilcott’s subordinate in
3 2011–2012, likened attorney by the California State Bar.
4 422. Brent Seifert, as Employee and Labor Relations Supervisor for the
5
University of California at Davis Health System (“UCDHS”) from April 2011 to March 2013
6
and a labor law attorney with a J.D. degree, should know how “Personnel Policies for Staff
7
Members (PPSM) 62. Corrective Action — Professional and Support Staff” works instead
8
of participating in hunting down the 60-year-old Plaintiff like an animal and threatening
9
Plaintiff like a subhuman, thereby conspiring in a joint venture with his superior HR
10
Executive Director Stephen Chilcott and others, known and unknown, to kill Plaintiff or
11
end Plaintiff’s employment on May 31, 2012, in UC Davis Trauma Unit # 11, thus violating not
12
only Plaintiff’s civil rights but also, despicably, Plaintiff’s human rights to work and live.
13
423. CINDI OROPEZA- Human Resources Manager for Affirmative
14

15 Action/EEOC Real Title: Manager Benefits, EEO, Resident/Fellow Program HR Administrator,

16 Title IX Officer — Sexual Harassment, Mediation Services, ASAP, Early

17 Resolution/Inclusion in UC Davis Health System, HR Executive Stephen Chilcott’s

18 subordinate.

19 424. As early as 2006, Cindi Oropeza (hereinafter Oropeza), together with

20 Associate Executive Director Shelton Duruisseau, Ph.D., and Executive Director and
21 Defendant Mike Boyd and Pathology Department Manager Bettye Andreos, was a Divisional
22 Representative of the University of California, Davis Health System’s Equal Opportunity
23 Committee and held the position of chair of this Committee.
24
425. As the chair of this Equal Opportunity Committee, Oropeza was
25
responsible, together with Associate Executive Director Shelton Duruisseau, Ph.D., and
26
Executive Director Mike Boyd and Director Taylor, for assigning the “witch hunter” Bettye
27
Andreos, who was a member of this committee. The despicable massive witch hunt against
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 142 of 295
 1 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s coworker William Buckans in 2006/2007, which intended to destroy
2 Plaintiff’s and Buckans’s livelihood, was retaliation for Buckan’s reporting on the unlawful
3 machine oil discharge from the Central Plant to the Sacramento or American River for seven
4 years via a city storm drain. The three above-mentioned directors were responsible for this
5
crime, as well as a few other criminally minded and corrupted individuals.
6
426. In 2011, Cindi Oropeza was in charge of the Mistreatment Office and UC
7
Davis Mistreatment Policy. Plaintiff filed a complaint on August 30, 2011, and a Mistreatment
8
Report against Defendant Patrick Putney and Defendant Danesha Nichols. Then, instead of
9
independently reviewing Plaintiff complaint, Oropeza conspired with HR Executive Director
10
Stephen Chilcott, thereby eliminating the Mistreatment Office and the Mistreatment Policy,
11
making them null and void. Oropeza gave Plaintiff’s complaint to HR attorney Danesha Nichols
12
for review, knowing that Nichols had already fabricated a report with a false accusations against
13
Plaintiff as a cause for Plaintiff’s termination, which was scheduled for September 23, 2011, of
14

15 which information was leaked out regarding the attempt to terminate Plaintiff, and Plaintiff did

16 not report to the UCDMC HR Building on this day. The Danesha Nichols Report for termination

17 was destroyed according to UC Davis Public Record Act office personnel.

18 427.. In February 2012, Oropeza called Plaintiff residence to arrange a meeting

19 with HR Labor Relation Manager Mike Garcia for informal conflict resolution. Plaintiff, in good
20 faith, held the meeting with Garcia and presented his proposition to resolve the conflict. Instead
21 of a counter offer or proposition to resolve, Plaintiff was suspended in May 2012 for 10 days
22 without pay, his two coworkers to whom Plaintiff provided representation came under vicious
23 attack, Garcia was replaced by a new HR Labor Relation Manager, and Garcia’s assistant Jill
24
Vandeviver was fired. Oropeza’s name is listed in a group of UC Davis employees who were
25
members of a specially assembled team nicknamed in the documents by Plaintiff “The UC Davis
26
Death Squad.”
27
428. On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff became the subject of an ill-crafted but
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 143 of 295
 1 unsuccessful provocation to kill Plaintiff by UC Davis Lt. James Barbour, who was bribed by
2 means of a $35,000 wage increase to end Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Trauma Unit
3 No. 11.
4 429. The May 31, 2012, provocation to kill Plaintiff did not work as
5
anticipated; Oropeza then volunteered to craft, together with defendant Brent Seifert, a report
6
that defamed Plaintiff with false allegations in order to terminate Plaintiff on September 20,
7
2012. It was one year after Danesha Nichols had fabricated her report for Plaintiff’s termination
8
scheduled for September 23, 2011. Both reports are in gross violation of the 2009 Settlement
9
–Agreement signed by Plaintiff with Defendant.
10
430. Cindy Oropeza willfully participated in the plot to physically harm or
11
kill Plaintiff with full knowledge of the consequences of what she was doing, thus violating
12
not only Plaintiff’s civil rights but also despicably violating Plaintiff’s human rights to
13
work and live.
14

15 431. NEIL SPETH, DO—Medical Director of the UCDMC HR Employee

16 Health Services, HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott’s subordinate.

17 Plaintiff met Neil Speth in 2005 through the course of his employment at the UCDMC Central

18 Plant. Dr. Neil Speth almost killed Plaintiff in 2005 by forcing Plaintiff to take a spirometer test

19 against Plaintiff’s will. As a result of Dr. Speth’s irresponsible actions, Plaintiff landed
20 unconscious in the UCDMC ER. Plaintiff informed Dr. Speth at the relevant time that because of
21 Plaintiff’s medical condition, Plaintiff could not take a spirometer test. Plaintiff intended to take
22 legal action against Dr. Speth, but a few months later, Plaintiff had open-heart surgery and dropped
23 the idea to take Dr. Speth to court.
24
432. Plaintiff is not sure what kind of assignment Hugh Parker, the coordinator
25
of the HR Death Squad action against Plaintiff, gave to Dr. Speth for May 31, 2012, but it is
26
apparent that Dr. Speth had an assignment to ensure that Plaintiff stop breathing in the Trauma
27
Unit after the Lt. James Barbour’s response to UC Davis Death Squad Coordinator Hugh Parker’s
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 144 of 295
 1 call on May 31, 2012.
2 433. GLYNIS FOULK—Emergency Preparedness Coordinator at UC Davis
3 Medical Center Glynis Foulk’s position title speaks for itself. The HR Death Squad assignment
4 for Glynis Foulk was probably to block the route to the trauma unit if he received a sign
5
from the Death Squad Coordinator Hugh Parker that Plaintiff was still breathing after Lt.
6
James Barbour’s response to Hugh Parker’s call on May 31, 2012.
7
434. DAVID LEVINE—UC Davis Health System Counsel.
8
Waszczuk never met this individual. However, the presence of the UCDMC Counsel in the “HR
9
Death Squad” war game is an undoubted indication that the plan to “disable” Plaintiff on May
10
31, 2012, was precise, covering every possible angle, including the legal angle.
11

12
435. CAROL KIRSHNIT, Ph.D, and MARJORE TROGODON SHOCK,
13
LCSW—Members of the UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENETR HR Academic and Staff Assistance
14

15 Program.

16 436. Carol Kirshnit is a licensed clinical psychologist and the coordinator of the

17 Academic and Staff Assistance Program at UC Davis Health System, and Marjorie Trogodon

18 Shock is a licensed clinical social worker with over 20 years of clinical experience.

19 Plaintiff believes that Carol Kirshnit, Ph.D, was the person who, as a doctor of psychology,
20 professionally advised her Superior HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott and the UC
21 Davis Death Squad coordinator Hugh Parker as to whether Plaintiff was properly primed
22 and aroused to be provoked and killed on May 31, 2012, and whether Plaintiff’s
23 employment would end in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit .
24
437. Marjorie Trogodon Shock was the person who, on May 30, 2012,
25
together with the Death Squad Coordinator, removed Plaintiff from the stress management class.
26
Apparently, Shock was perfectly aware and informed about the ill-crafted provocation of May
27
31, 2012, to kill Plaintiff. Plaintiff believes that her participation in the plot was to comfort
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 145 of 295
 1 and consult staff after Plaintiff’s death or his being deadly harmed by UC Davis Police Lt
2 James Barbour, who was assigned to the provocation plot
3 438. HUGH PARKER—UC Davis Health Systems Manager, Workers’
4 Compensation, Ergonomics, Disability Management. HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott’s
5
direct subordinate.
6
439. Plaintiff knew Hugh Parker since 2000 and met Hugh Parker two times
7
when Hugh Parker held a Consultant position in HR Labor Relations. Plaintiff never expected
8
that Hugh Parker, as HR Workers Compensation Manager, would become a Trojan Horse in
9

10 Plaintiff’s employment termination and that Parker would become a coordinator of the UC Davis

11 Death Squad and of the maliciously crafted provocation to kill Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, or end

12 Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical Center. Plaintiff hopes that Hugh Parker

13 sooner or later, together with the co-conspirators, will get what he deserves according to

14 state and federal law.

15
440. TRAVIS LINDSEY licensed attorney at law—The New UCDMC HR
16
Labor Relations Manager who replaced Mike Garcia on May 1st 2012. Direct subordinate of HR
17
Executive Director Stephen Chilcott.
18
441. Travis Lindsey was the most active and notorious member of the
19

20 assembled UC Davis Death Squad. In May 2012 and thereafter, Lindsey was looking for any

21 reason she could use to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff looked at Lindsey’s job

22 history and credentials on the Web and it appears that Lindsey never advanced in his attorney

23 legal career beyond the position of associate attorney in four different law firms from January

24 2003 to May 2012. The working record also shows that Lindsey never worked in a Human
25 Resources department at any private enterprise or public employment, did not have any
26 supervisory or managerial experience, and had not directly handled any labor issues prior to
27 being hired by UC Davis Medical Center in 2012.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 146 of 295
 1

2 442. LT. JAMES BARBOUR—UC DAVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT

3 Lt. James Barbour in May 2012 was assigned by the new UC Davis Police Chief Matt
4 Carmichael to kill or harm Plaintiff with a deadly weapon on May 31, 2012, in a maliciously
5
crafted unsuccessful provocation in exchange for a $35,000 wage increase. Multiple email
6
correspondences between the coordinator of the assembled UC Death Squad Hugh Parker shows
7
the Lt.’s Barbour dedication to attack Plaintiff by any means after the unsuccessful
8
provocation on May 31, 2012.
9
443.. KAREN KOUERTAS—R.N., M.S.N. Nurse Manager for UC Davis
10
Medical Center Trauma Nursing Unit (TNU) # 11
11
The Davis 11 Trauma Nursing Unit (TNU) is a 36-bed acute care
12 specialty and telemetry unit that primarily provides inpatient care and
treatment for patients who have sustained blunt or penetrating injury, as
13 well as those who may require surgical intervention. This includes care of
patients with suspected or confirmed intra-abdominal injuries, complex
14 wound management, orthopedic fractures, head/neck/face injuries, brain
trauma, chest trauma, and pulmonary injury.
15

16 444. By reading the purpose of Trauma Nursing Unit # 11 at UC Davis Medical

17 Center, it creates an unbelievably chilling picture of what the “HR Death Squad Members,”
18 including Karen Kouertas, had in their sick minds in relation to the meticulously and maliciously
19 crafted provocation of May 31, 2012, to eliminate Plaintiff from UC Davis Medical Center
20 landscape.
21 445. In July 2013, Plaintiff made an attempt to find out through the State of
22 California Board of Registered Nurses the capacity of Karen Kouretas’s involvement in the
23
activity of the assembled UC Davis Death Squad.
24
446. It is very important for the Board of Registered Nursing to know that the
25
board is issuing licenses not only to nurses who work very hard to take care of sick and ill people
26
but also to nurses, like Karen Kouretas, who collaborate and associate themselves with a group
27
of people whose goals are to provoke, kill, and deliver their victims to her unit for unspecified
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 147 of 295
 1 treatments. This is my main concern: whether Karen Kouretas should be eligible to hold an RN
2 license for such activities.
3 June 6, 2012 –Plaintiff’s Paystub
4 447. On June 6, 2012, Plaintiff received his paystub with pay period ending
5
May 26, 2012, with only $182.00 because the May 11, 2012, unwarranted suspension without
6
pay for 10 working days.
7
448. On June 6, 2012, one week after the unsuccessful provocation to end
8
Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11, the UC Davis
9
Medical Plant Operation and Maintenance Assistant Manager Dennis approached Plaintiff’s
10
coworker Kenny Diede in a threatening manner and requested that Kenny Diede stay as far away
11
as possible from Plaintiff. Plaintiff, in 2012, provided representation to Kenny Diede about his
12
complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70. Thereafter, Dennis Curry sent a threatening and
13
intimidating e-mail to Plaintiff with cc to many UC administrators and management.
14

15 449. Dennis Curry in June 2012 became subject to an investigation by the UC

16 Davis Compliance Office due to borrowing from contractors who were working in UC Davis

17 Medical Center and not giving them the money back.

18 450. Dennis Curry was removed from the premises just two weeks before he

19 retired from the University and after 35 years of service.

20 June 12, 2012- Plaintiff Letter to the UC Davis Medical Center Compliance & Privacy
Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman
21

22
451. On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff sent a 24-page letter to the UC Davis Medical
23
Center Compliance & Privacy Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman. The letter was entitled:
24
“THE SUMMARY OF THE FEW UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN UC DAVIS
25

26 MEDICAL CENTER PO&M AND HUMAN RESOURCES

27 DEPARTMENTS; POSITIONS AND WAGES; DENNIS CURRY &

28 CONTRACTOR(S); UCDMC DIRECTORS & DORIN DANILUC; SHORT

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 148 of 295
 1 TERM DISABILITY BENEFIT FRAUD; THE DECEMEBER 2010 PAY
2 RAISE FOR CENTRAL PLANT OPERATORS.
3 PATRICK PUTNEY & RAM SAMI NAIDU IN LIGHT OF DANESHA
4 NICHOLS’S RULING ON CHILD PORN ISSUE IN THE HVAC SHOP. “
5
The Center Compliance & Privacy Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman was investigating
6
Dennis Curry relation with contractors working in the UC Davis Medical Center.
7

8
June13, 2012 – The Investigatory Leave Extension
9
452. On June 13, 2012, UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and
10
Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher sent an email letter to Plaintiff stating that
11
Plaintiff’s investigatory leave was being extended from June 14, 2012, through June 27, 2012.
12
Furthermore, the e-mail stated that Plaintiff was thereby relieved from all work duties for the
13
duration of this investigation. This duration was intended to allow additional time to collect
14

15 relevant information and determine the facts surrounding e-mails that Plaintiff sent, which were

16 believed to contain discriminatory content. Plaintiff would remain on pay status during that time.

17 During this leave, Plaintiff would not be allowed to have access to the work place. Plaintiff

18 would remain available during business hours should it be required that Plaintiff participate

19 in this investigation. There was no word in Witcher’s e-mail that Plaintiff violated the 2009
20 Settlement-Agreement signed by Plaintiff with the UC Regents.
21 June 14, 2012-The State of California’s Insurance Commissioner Office Decision
22

23 453. On June 14, 2012, two weeks after the unsuccessful provocation to end
24
Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11, Plaintiff received a
25
decision from the State of California’s Insurance Commissioner Office in regard to the complaint
26
Plaintiff filed in November 2011 against the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, which, in
27
conspiracy with the Defendant, denied Plaintiff Short Term Disability Benefits. The decision,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 149 of 295
 1 issued after an eight-month investigation, stated that: “After reviewing the information provided,
2 we conclude that we are unable to assist you further with this matter. The issues involved with
3 your complaint indicate that there is a difference of opinion between you and the insurance
4 company that this Department, as outlined in California Insurance Code Section 12921.4(a), does
5
not have the authority to decide.” How convenient.
6
June 21, 2012 – Plaintiff’s Letter to UC Davis Police Captain Joyce Souza
7
454. On June 21, 2012, Plaintiff sent a summary and request for information
8
letter to UC Davis Police Captain Joyce Souza to whom Plaintiff, since October 2011, was
9
providing information about the ongoing situation at UC Davis Medical Center. Plaintiff sent a
10
letter to Captain Souza due to the unusual greeting Plaintiff received from UC Davis Police Lt.
11
James Barbour three weeks after Plaintiff was almost killed due to the ill-planned provocation.
12
As in October 2011, Plaintiff asked Captain Souza for information about any complaint that had
13
been filed against Plaintiff by anybody with the UC Davis Police Department (UC Davis
14

15 Campus or UC Davis Medical Center) from the period of November 1, 2011, to the present time.

16 455. Furthermore, in his letter to Captain Joyce Souza, Plaintiff stated that

17 based on multiple correspondences that Plaintiff forwarded to Captain Souza’s office, Captain

18 Souza was most likely aware that Plaintiff had not been working since August 2, 2011. Plaintiff

19 spent eight months of this period on administrative leave and investigatory leave plus 10 days of
20 suspension without pay as a retaliation. Plaintiff elaborated in his letter to Captain Souza that it is
21 not difficult for anyone to figure out that the eight months on administrative and investigatory
22 leave indicate that something went terribly wrong or is going to go terribly wrong for a long time
23 in the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and Human
24
Resources Department.
25
The UC Davis Pepper Spray Incident investigation took only five months to issue the final
26
report. (From November 2011 to March 2012) and Plaintiff’s case has been going since
27
March 13, 2011.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 150 of 295
 1 456. Plaintiff also asked Captain Souza whether she could give Plaintiff, under
2 the provision of the Government Code 6254(f), a copy of the report about UC Davis Medical
3 Center PO&M Management’s meeting with UC Davis Police on May 7, 2012. If this was
4 possible, Plaintiff would have been glad to send to Captain Souza’s office the signed Report
5
Request Form added by Plaintiff. As Plaintiff recalls, shortly after, Plaintiff received an e-mail
6
from Captain Souza informing Plaintiff that Captain Souza had retired from the University of
7
California and would no longer be responding to my requests.
8
June 22, 2012 – The HR Consultant Gina Harwood’s Announcement
9
457. On June 22, 2012, one of the most deceptive and dishonest UC Davis
10
Medical Center HR Consultant’s, Gina Harwood, announced with triumph by letter that the UC
11
Davis Medical Center HR Labor Relations Manager Humberto Garcia and attorney and HR
12
Consultant Jill Noel Vandeviver were no longer working for HR Labor Relations and that she
13
was taking over Plaintiff’s coworkers Kenny Diede and William Buckans’ complaints, which
14

15 were filed under Policy PPSM 70 and to whom Plaintiff was providing representation. Gina

16 Harwood was removed by Humberto Garcia in January or February 2012 to handle Plaintiff and

17 his coworkers’ complaints, which were assigned to HR consultant Jill Noel Vanderviver.

18 458. On June 24, 2012, Plaintiff responded to Gina Harwood’s announcement

19 about Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver’s departure from UC Davis Medical Center with
20 a 10-page letter.
21 June 27, 2012 – The Investigatory Leave Extension
22 459. On June 27, 2012, Plaintiff called UC Davis Medical Center Plant
23 Operation Manager Charles Witcher and asked him about Plaintiff’s status because the last
24
investigatory leave letter had expired on June 27, 2012. Thereafter, Charles Witcher sent Plaintiff
25
another routine two-weeks extension, stating that the letter confirmed that Plaintiff’s
26
investigatory leave was being extended from June 28, 2012, through July 11, 2012. Plaintiff was
27
hereby relieved from all work duties for the duration of this investigation. This would allow
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 151 of 295
 1 additional time to determine the facts surrounding e-mails Plaintiff was believed to have sent
2 containing discriminatory content and to collect relevant information. Plaintiff would remain on
3 pay status during this time.
4 During this leave, Plaintiff would not be allowed to have access to the work place. Plaintiff was
5
to remain available during business hours should they require his participation in the
6
investigation. This was exactly the same letter as the one Plaintiff had received on June 13, 2012.
7
June 27, 2012 – The Palintiff’s Response to The Investigatory Leave Extension
8
460. Not to let Charles Witcher think that Plaintiff liked staying at home or
9

10 enjoyed being UC Davis Medical Center management’s prisoner, sentenced to one year of home

11 arrest for unknown causes, Plaintiff responded to Witcher’s investigatory extension letter as

12 follows:

13 “Do you have any clue who is being investigated and why this investigation is
14 causing me this Investigatory Leave for such a long time?
15
Did you receive any threats against me and are you keeping me out of the
16
Medical Center for my safety or is it for a different reason?
17
I am just curious because it is weird and makes me very nervous that I am still
18
on the UC Payroll for so long and I can’t work. I am getting all kinds of
19
information and it makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes of
20
your Investigatory Leave. I am not sure if all the information I am receiving is
21
true but, almost always, rumors and gossip contain 5% of the truth.
22
Today, I received information about the Director Taylor and Mike Pansius’
23

24
retirement. A few weeks ago, I heard about Dennis Curry’s suspension or

25 administrative leave just before his retirement. Last Friday, I received official

26 information about Mike Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver’s departure from the

27 HR Labor Relations Department.

28 Today, my Investigatory leave was forgotten. It was a very hard decision for

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 152 of 295
 1 me to call you about this investigatory leave, and I almost decided to drive to
2 work tomorrow, but I did not want to be approached by Dennis Curry or
3 UCDMC Lt. James Barbour after they sent me special email advise, not to
4 mention the possibility of meeting or being approached by or stalked by the
5
HVAC Shop chicken, ducks, and goats merchants manager. It is still blowing
6
my mind that this jerk is still there and is supervising people after what he has
7
done to me and after all the damages he has caused to the UCDMC working
8
environment. His behavior affected me and involved many other people in this
9
mess for no reason. Can’t you make the wise decision to move this guy from
10
the HVAC Shop to a different place and give a people a break.
11
I am also hearing all the time that people from the HVAC shop love to have
12
Steve McGrath or Corey from the PM shop as their supervisors. Don’t think
13
any of them are my friends. I know Steve quite well but I don’t know Corey
14

15 and I only built my positive opinion of Corey from the HVAC and PM shops

16 people, who I know and have good relations with.

17 Do you know who is in charge of the HR Labor Relations after Mike Garcia

18 left? I thought a few my months back that Jill Noel Vandeviver was going to

19 replace Mike with her very aggressive introduction to the ongoing matters
20 related to myself, Kenny Diede, and William Buckans, as well as associated
21 PO&M personnel. It is my understanding that an Investigatory Leave Letter
22 has to be approved by HR Labor Relation Chief.
23 Also, there is an issue with my employee evaluation for 2010/2011. I am still a
24
UC employee and would appreciate it if you provide me with the evaluation
25
for 2010/2011. At least for the period I was in the shop and was working until
26
August 2, 2011. The time for 2011/2012 evaluations is approaching, and I am
27
not sure how I should be evaluated when I am not working and due to a
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 153 of 295
 1 pending dispute. Please advise me, or should I direct this problem to the HR
2 Chiefs. Charles Witcher responded with another two Investigatory Leave
3 Extension and Notice of Termination of Plaintiff’s employment.
4
July 2012
5

6
July 3, 2012—HR Consultant Gina Harwood’s Letter Entitled
7 “Jerry Waszezuk Timeline/Summary”
8

9
461. On July 3, 2012, notoriously deceptive UC Davis Medical Center HR
10
Consultant Gina Harwood sent an e-mail to her supervisor, Brent Seifert, with the attached letter
11
(“Jerry Waszczuk Timeline /Summary”) described by Gina Harwood as “thrown together really
12
quick.” Besides, the mentioned summary was full of slanderous lies and unfounded, made-up
13
accusations about Plaintiff, which she began generating in 2011 and is repeating with demeaning
14
lies about Plaintiff in this summary. Gina Harwood also complained to Brent Seifert about
15
dismissed in June the HR Labor Relation Consultant, Jill Noel Vandrviver . HR consultant Jill
16

17
Noel Vandrviver was dismissed together with the HR Labor Relation Manger, Humberto Garcia

18 in June 2012. Gina Harwood was removed in January or February 2012, from handling Plaintiff

19 and Plaintiff’s coworker’s complaints against Plant Operation Maintenance Department

20 management misconduct, retaliation and harassment. It was most likely that Gina Harwood

21 contributed much of her effort to make Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vanedviver dismissed
22 from their jobs in retaliation for being removed from the assignment.
23 462. In her July, 2012, full-of-lies defacing-the-Plaintiff summary, Gina Harwood wrote:
24 Jerry Waszczuk Timeline/Summary
25 “Jaroslaw Waszczuk is an employee in the HVAC Shop as an Associate
26 Development Engineer, he has been employed for 13 years. He is responsible
27
for monitoring the Metasys system which monitors alarms throughout the
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 154 of 295
 1 health system. Ms. Waszczuk has the responsibility to act when an alarm goes
2 off in the system.
3 In April 2011, it was discovered that a refrigerator alarm had gone off several
4 times over an 11 day period. Mr. Waszczuk was approached about the missed
5
alarms and reacted inappropriately to management, it was reported he was
6
yelling and screaming at his supervisor. The Assistant Manager reported to the
7
workplace and removed Mr. Waszczuk from the workplace and calmed him
8
down. A similar incident of behavior from Mr. Waszczuk occurred in May
9
2011,
10
Mr. Waszczuk sent an email to Charles Witcher regarding issues he was
11
having in the workplace. Mr. Witcher had a meeting with him to discuss the
12
allegations. The department met with Principal Labor Relations Consultant
13
Gina Harwood regarding his behavior and the missed alarm. Ms. Harwood also
14

15 received a complaint letter from Mr. Waszczuk with. Multiple allegations, this

16 all took place at the end of May beginning of June. Mr. Waszczuk stated that

17 Mr. Witcher was handling his complaint. Ms. Harwood asked to meet with Mr.

18 Waszczuk as a follow up to his complaint, meeting took place the second week

19 of July. Prior to the meeting, Patrick Putney filed a violence in the workplace
20 incident related to the April and May incidents. Ms. Waszczuk made several
21 allegations in his email and during the meeting related to misuse of University
22 resources by his supervisors, Ms. Harwood sent the information to Wendi
23 Delmendo for review and Danesha Nichols was appointed to investigate the
24
allegations from Mr. Waszczuk and the Violence in the Workplace complaints.
25
During the investigation, Mr. Waszczuk was placed on investigatory leave. He
26
began a letter/email writing campaign to multiple UC employees. The email
27
communications were inflammatory and contained discriminatory comments
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 155 of 295
 1 as well as personal attacks on various staff in the department and HR. Mr.
2 Waszczuk sent his emails to UC employees at various locations and continued
3 to send them after being directed to communicate directly with the
4 department. During the investigatory process, he initially refused to meet with
5
the investigator. He eventually agreed to a meeting and participated in the
6
investigatory interview, The investigator issue 3 separate reports based on her
7
investigation. The report regarding Mr. Waszczuk substantiated that he
8
violated policy 1616 — Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace, 380-
9
15 Staff Complaints of Discrimination. Mr. Waszczuk was suspended for 10
10
days without pay. He has filed a formal complaint regarding the suspension
11
was denied at step 1. Step 2 appeal due July 16, 2012.
12
Mr. Waszczuk has had sporadic periods of medical leave throughout the
13
last year. He was provided information on workers compensation and
14

15 denied to file. He applied for Liberty Mutual and his claim was denied,

16 Throughout the entire process, he has continued to send inflammatory emails

17 regarding staff members to members of the UC community and outside parties.

18 He was placed on investigatory leave immediately following his suspension for

19 allegations that he continued to send emails with discriminatory language. He

20 currently has 2 formal PPSM complaints, one for his suspension and one for
21 his most recent investigatory leave. HR has received several complaints from
22 staff stating they do not wish to receive his emails, His supervisors have both
23 filed stress claims identifying his behavior as the cause. “
24

25
463. The Summary itself as no so much interesting but interesting is why HR
26
Labor Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert requested the summary on Plaintiff from Gina Harwood.
27
Brent Seifert listed in Hugh Parker’s e-mail chat dated June 1, 2012 about May 31, 2012 ill crafted
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 156 of 295
 1 but unsuccessful provocation which should end Plaintiff employment in UC Davis Medical Center
2 Trauma Unit # 11.
3 464. In May 2012 Brent Seifert also together with HR Equal Opportunity
4 Employment Manager Cindy Oropeza to fabricate cause for Plaintiff termination if planned and
5
ill crafted provocation to kill Plaintiff will fail on May 31, 2012.
6
465. It is appear from Gina Harwood’s summary that was some urgency to deal
7
with Plaintiff after Plaintiff sent letters on June On June 12, 2012 Plaintiff sent 24 pages letter to
8
the UC Davis Medical Center Compliance & Privacy Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman
9
2012 with new information about the UC Davis Medical Center Management misconduct, the
10
June 21, 2012 letter UC Davis Police Captain Souza and requested information about UC Davis
11
Management Plant Operation and Maintenance Department managers and supervisors gathering
12
in UC Davis Medical Center Police Station on May 7, 2012 . Also in the letter to Captain Souza
13
Plaintiff discussed his status of being kept on investigatory and administrative leave for one year
14

15 without knowing why and in contrary and in light of the widely publicized in media November

16 18 , 2011 pepper spray attack ordered by UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and investigation of

17 this incident which concluded within five months . Plaintiff did not understand for what crime his

18 being kept hostage for one year on investigatory leave and why he is being investigated.

19 466. Beside the letters to Captain Souza and Compliance Investigator Gina
20 Gauilaumme –Holleman Plaitiff on June 27, 2012 sent letter to his Department Head Charles
21 Witcher and demanded answer why Plaintiff is kept on investigatory leave and why he is not
22 being permitted to go back to work and do his duty . Plaintiff never received response from Charles
23 Witcher to his inquiry.
24
July 3, 2012 – The Plaintiff’s , Kenny Diede ‘s and William Buckan’s Complaints under UC
25 Davis Policy Complaint Resolution Policy PPMS 70
26 467. On July 3, 2012 Plaintiff and his two coworkers Kenny Diede and William
27 Buckans received from HR Consultant Gina Harwood Decisions in Step I Complaints Plaintiff
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 157 of 295
 1 filed on his and two mentioned coworkers behalf in June 2012.
2 468. In May 2012 two Plaintiff’s coworkers Kenneth Diede and William
3 Buckans were attacked by their supervisors and served with despicable and maliciously crafted
4 letters of expectations. The letters of expectations were served to them not because they did
5
something wrong but to humiliate and harass them because Plaintiff was providing to them
6
representation in their complaints against management misconduct harassment and retaliation.
7
469. The Department Head Charles Witcher who was responsible this reckless
8
against Kenny Diede and William Buckans and routinely with help of HR Consultant Gina
9
Harwood further humiliated Kenny Diede and William Buckans and denied their Step I
10
Complaints
11
470. Plaintiff’s complaint filed in June 2012 was against Defendant for deny
12
Plaintiff right to attend open for every employee UC Davis Employee Appreciation Day (Picnic
13
type event with free food and music and other attraction) Also , complaint was against
14

15 Defendant for serving Plaintiff every two weeks for almost one year letters of Investigatory

16 Leave and denying Plaintiff right to work It was done in violation of UC Davis Policy PPSM 63

17 and 2009 Settlement-Agreement Plaintif signed with the Defendant. .

18 322. The other Plaintiff complaint Step I under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 was still pending

19 against Defendant for 10 days suspension without pay.

20 July 18, 2012- Mark Montoya’s Interview with Gina Gaullaume-Holleman from UC Davis
Medical Center Chief Compliance Office
21

22 471. On July 18, 2012, Investigator Gina Gaullaume-Holleman from the UC

23 Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) Chief Compliance Office interviewed one of my coworkers
24 from the HVAC shop. Mark Montoya
25 322.Mark Montoya, Plumber from the Plumbing /HVAC where Plaintiff was surprised that he was
26
called unexpectedly to be interviewed with Gina Guillaume-Holleman.
27
472. Mark Montoya was even more surprised when Gina Gaulliuaum -Hollmann
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 158 of 295
 1 showed him a Plaintiff ‘s photo and asked Mark Montoya whether Plaintiff was and is a threat
2 for him and without any hesitation she attempted to solicit it from Mark Montoya confirmation
3 signature on the affidavit which stated that Plaintiff is treat for him and dangerous individual.
4 Mark Motoya refused and left the Gina Gaulliuaume –Hollmann’ s Office
5
473. After Mark Montoya left Gina Gaulliuaume –Hollmann’ s Office than
6
immediately he told his coworker Kenny Diede about and disclosed the information. Mark
7
Montoya had no clue why he was picked –up as only person from HVAC shop for this Defendant’s
8
malicious and criminally minded attempt to frame Plaintiff.
9
474. Plaintiff has general idea why and by who Mark Montoya was singled out
10
for this Defendant conspiracy to frame Plaintiff after untuneful May 31, 2012 provocation to kill
11
Plaintiff by assembled UC Davis Death Squad. Kenny Diede called Plaintiff on same day and
12
disclosed Mark Montoya’s revelation to Plaintiff.
13
475. In July 2012 Plaintiff did get stress out so much about Mark Motoya’s
14

15 interview revelation and his disclosure about conspiracy to frame Plaintiff because in July 2012

16 Plaintiff did not know at that time anything about May 31, 2012 provocation to kill him or end

17 Plaintiff’s employment in the UCDMC Trauma Unit # 11 .

18 476. Plaintiff suspected that something was wrong but did have any evidence to

19 proof anything bedside that he was removed from stress management class on May 30, 2012 and
20 was served with Investigatory Leave letter on May 31, 2012 and was not permitted to work by
21 Defendant.
22 477. Few days later mark Montoya called Plaintiff and confirmed what Kenny
23 Diede told Plaintiff about his interview with Gina Gaulliuaume –Hollmann’on July 18, 2012.
24
325. On July 23, Plaintiff decided for the record to write few additional words to Gina
25
Gaulliuaume –Hollmann’as follow;
26
“Dear Ms. Guillame -Holleman:
27
For the record and in addition to my previous e-mail I would like to inform
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 159 of 295
 1 you that the person to whom you show my photo and asked him if am a threat
2 for him confirmed the fact. The interviewed person called me last Saturday and
3 told me about your " I am looking for Jerry Waszczuk Most Wanted Bandit by
4 the University of California"
5
The initial information I received was from the second hand. The interviewed
6
person also disclosed information to me that he had been questioned by Patrick
7
Putney just after meeting with you about the interview subject and what you
8
was asking him during the interview. Also, I have learned that you asked the
9
interviewed person whether anybody in HVAC shop is honest. I could answer
10
your question as follow: Beside the Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc the
11
HVAC shop employees are honest people. However, I found out in Danesha
12
Nichol's Report that some of them were coerced by Putney, Curry and Daniluc
13
and they said some things which no makes sense or logic. I know what the
14

15 reason was behind for their statements but I don't care much it because I never

16 had any problem with any of my coworkers in the HVAC shop during my

17 employment from March 2007- to August 2, 2012 and will not have any

18 problem if I eventually comeback to work .

19 I will not make big deal about my" photo and your question “Apparently you
20 was instructed by somebody to find cause for my employment termination. I
21 like to mention that at first I got outraged about your interview with my
22 coworker but after the interviewed person called me about than I told my to
23 myself: . Why I have to stress myself for something I have no control over
24
until the whole case go to court. "
25
You as an employee of UCDMC Compliance office shall follow Canons of
26
Ethic during the interview. By showing my photo and trying makes me like
27
most wanted at large bandit is not going to help my employer in any way but
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 160 of 295
 1 for sure it will help me in the court proceeding . If anybody could be dangerous
2 in the HVAC shop than the person is Patrick Putney who according to
3 information I am receiving, he is acting lately very erratically and he snapping
4 and his hands are shaking like a wheel with bad alignment . This guy lost his
5
only support who was Dennis Curry . Dorin Daniluc is not in shop to help him.
6
Dorin is probably scare to be there by knowing Patrick, behavior and his
7
weapon arsenal he has in his compound on the country.
8
Attached is the print out of the Habanero Hot Restaurant in Lodi where
9
Patrick Putney and Dennis Curry have enjoyed free meals thanks to Tech - Mar
10
Contractor "hospitality and generosity" .
11
I think that such things should be the subject of your investigation instead
12
of looking whether 61 old Jerry Waszczuk is candidate for the Poster of
13
the "Most Wanted and Dangerous Bandits at Large"
14

15 I addition attached is the printout of the "AAPC Code Of Ethics" as an

16 reminder.

17 Jerry”
July 25, 2012 – HR Director Stephen Chilcott’s e-mail
18 to HR Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsey
19

20 479. Apparently after Plaintiff send inquires to UC Davis Police Department,

21 Investigator Gina Gaullaume-Holleman, the UC Davis health System Executive Director
22 Stephen Chilcott was alerted and requested on July 25, 2012 from his subordinate, the new HR
23 Labor Relation Manger Travis Lindsey to provide him with a summary of the UC Davis
24 Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department matter as a rationale for
25
early assignment of defense counsel that they can provide to UC Davis Health System Chief
26
Counsel Anna Orlowski.
27
July 31, 2012 Step II Appeals , UC Davis Policy PPSM 70
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 161 of 295
 1 480. On July 31, 2012 Plaintiff filed Step II appeals with UC Davis Medical
2 Center HR Department on behalf on his two coworkers Kenny Diede and William Buckans who
3 were denied Step I complaints on July 3, 2012 by Department Head Charles Witcher and HR
4 Consultant Gina Harwood for their complaints against their supervisors which attacked the and
5
serve them with unwarranted letters of expectations.
6
AUGUST 2012
7
August 1, 2012- The Extension of Investigatory Leave
8

9
481. On August 1, 2012, Defendant sent Plaintiff another two-week extension of
10
the Investigatory Leave. This time the Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher,
11
who routinely signed the investigatory leave letter, which was at this point close to the one-year
12
anniversary of the first investigatory leave letter that Witcher signed on September 1, 2011.
13

14
August 2, 2012 – The UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo’s e-mail
15 to Kenney Diede

16 482. On August 2, 2012 the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy

17 Delmendo sent an e-mail to the Plaintiff’s coworker Kenney Diede, attempting to drag Kenny

18 Diede into a deceptive and useless whistleblowing complaint, just as she had attempted to do

19 with Plaintiff in July 2011. Plaintiff was almost killed on May 31, 2012, due to Wendy

20 Delmendo’s effort and dedication to destroy the UC Davis employees life’s and livelihoods
21 instead of providing help to them .
22 483. In her August 2, 2012, email letter to Kenny Diede (whom Plaintiff was
23 successfully representing in his complaints against management misconduct under the UC Davis
24 Policy PPSM 70), Wendy Delmendo wrote:
25
“I recently learned that you have filed a grievance in which you allege you
26
have been subject to retaliation. I am writing to inform you that your allegation
27
of retaliation may also be eligible for review under the University’s
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 162 of 295
 1 Whistleblower Protection Policy. If you believe you were retaliated against
2 because you made a protected disclosure, you may file a complaint of
3 whistleblower retaliation by sending me a signed, sworn statement of your
4 complaint using the form available at (Web site).”
5
484. Kenny Diede was the person who had had the courage, in July 2011, to
6
report a twice-convicted child pornography felon to the federal court parole; this felon was often
7
a guest at the UC Davis Medical Center HVAC shop and was accessing the shop commuters.
8
The felon was prohibited by court order from touching any computer with access to the Internet
9
regardless of whether it was his home computer or an outside computer.
10
485. The UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo was the
11
person who in July 2011 assigned HR investigator Danesha Nichols and ordered her to fabricate
12
a cause for Plaintiff’s employment termination and to cover up in her pseudo-reports the
13
unlawful child pornography felon activities taking place on the premises, as well as management
14

15 misconduct, harassment, retaliation, abuse of power, violation of state and federal law, and

16 Delmendo openly participating in Plaintiff’s employment termination in 2012 and almost getting

17 Plaintiff killed with her help.

18 486. As Kenny Diede’s representative, Plaintiff advised Kenny Diede to

19 decline Wendy Delmendo’s deceptive and misleading offer with the following words in
20 response:
21 Dear Ms. Delmendo:
22 I appreciate your concern. However, I am not sure what you are referring to in
23 your letter in regard to my complaints.
24
For your information, I filed two complaints against my manager Patrick
25
Putney’s vendetta and retaliation. (I believe that you are very familiar with this
26
person’s name). I am not only a victim of Patrick’s Putney behavior. My two
27
complaints against Patrick Putney are pending and problems probably would
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 163 of 295
 1 not exist if HR Department would be more persistent in dealing with this
2 vindictive and horribly terrifying behavior in the work place.
3 One complaint I filed is related to my 2010/2011 evaluation and has been
4 pending unresolved by the UCDMC HR for almost one year. The other
5
complaint is pending since June 2012 and is related to the Letter of
6
Expectation, which is based on ridiculous and unfounded accusations and
7
which I received in May 2012. Both complaints are in the Appeal II process
8
and being handled by Mrs. Gina Harwood from the HR Labor Relations
9
Department.
10
I am being represented in both complaints by my coworker Jerry Waszczuk.
11
I would like to thank you again for writing to me but I believe that an
12
independent arbitrator or court of law is a better way to deal with managers
13
such as Patrick Putney.
14

15 If you have any additional questions or concerns please contact my complaints

16 representative Jerry Waszczuk, who will be glad to answer any of your

17 questions.

18 His phone number is 209-663-2977.

19 E-Mail: [email protected] “
20 487. In addition to the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Title, on February 2, 2014,
21 Wendy Delmendo accrued the “Lead Discrimination Officer” title per order of the University of
22 California President Janet Napolitano after an enormous discrimination scandal on the University
23 of California, Los Angeles campus.
24
The Lead Discrimination Officer title fits Wendy Delmendo perfectly. She advanced herself in
25
her skill in how to discriminate and hurt employees while advising UC Davis administration
26
without leaving a trace of discrimination and harassment.
27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 164 of 295
 1 August 9, 2012- The HR Consultant Gina Harwood’s Letter to Kenny Diede
2

3 488. After UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo’s

4 unsuccessful attempt to drag Kenny Diede into her whistleblowing complaint trap, the HR
5
Consultant Gina Harwood sent a letter to Kenny Diede and informed him that this letter serves as
6
confirmation that the above Kenny Diede’s complaint had been filed under UC Davis Policy
7
PPSM 70 and will be placed in abeyance pending Mr. Waszczuk’s (Plaintiff’s) ability to
8
attend a Step 2 meeting as Kenny Diede’s representative. When Waszczuk (Plaintiff) was
9
free to serve as Kenny Diede’s representative at the meeting, Gina Harwood would remove the
10
complaint from abeyance and a meeting would be scheduled.
11
489. From Gina Harwood’s letter, Plaintiff learned that Defendant were in
12
violation of all rules, law, and the 2009 Settlement-Agreement by prohibiting Plaintiff from
13
not only working but also representing his coworkers in their complaints. The other
14

15 Plaintiff’s coworker William Buckans, to whom Plaintiff was providing representation, received

16 a similar letter from Gina Harwood.

17 August 9, 2012 – The Letter of Expectation served to HVAC Technician Dereck Cole .
18
490. Following the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo’s
19
invitation to her whistleblowing “Russian Roulette” game and Gina Harwood’s letter prohibiting
20
Plaintiff from working and representing his coworkers, Defendant attacked another coworker of
21
Plaintiff called Dereck Cole.
22

23 491. On August 9, 2012, Plaintiff’s coworker and HVAC Shop technician

24 Dereck Cole was attacked by means of a maliciously crafted Letter of Expectation that gave
25 Plaintiff goose bumps. The letter of expectation by UC Davis Policy PPSM 62 should not even
26 be considered disciplinary action and should be served to employees as a tool for performance
27 and behavior improvement.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 165 of 295
 1 491. The letter of expectation was issued to Dereck Cole by HR and was signed
2 by Dereck Cole’s shop Manager Patrick Putney. It was closely akin to a Notice of Intent to
3 terminate his employment and was issued for the purpose of terrifying him and other employees
4 and silencing them.
5
492. Dereck Cole was attacked in a similar manner and style to the way Plaintiff
6
and two other coworkers were attacked by department management and Human Resources Labor
7
Relation staff.
8
493. Shortly after Dereck Cole was served with a malicious letter of expectation,
9
a “Does Not Meet Expectation” annual employee performance review was served to Dereck as a
10
clear message that he was being singled out for termination.
11
494. Dereck Cole was Plaintiff’s coworker who, in February 2011, had
12
disclosed to Plaintiff that the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant Operator Todd
13
Goerlich, who had committed suicide on December 22, 2010, was harassed and bullied in the
14

15 work place prior to taking his own life. In March 2011, Plaintiff brought this information to the

16 Defendant’ attention.

17 494. Todd Goerlich, who replaced Plaintiff in April 2007, was Dereck Cole’s

18 best friend since high school and he left behind a one-year-old child.

19 495. Shortly after this, Dereck Cole was attacked and turned to Plaintiff for help.
20 Plaintiff agreed to represent him in his complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70, regardless of
21 the fact that Plaintiff had little time and was very busy with his own defenses and those of his two
22 coworkers against harassment and the Defendant’ retaliation. Plaintiff had to sacrifice a lot to take
23 on and handle another retaliation and harassment case against the vicious, unscrupulous, malicious,
24
and vindictive UC Davis management and administration.
25
August 16, 2012-The Extension of the Investigatory Leave
26 (August 16, 2012-September 28, 2012)
27 496. On August 16, 2012, the Defendant sent Plaintiff another extension of the
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 166 of 295
 1 investigatory leave. However, this time the investigatory leave letter, which was routinely signed
2 by Plaintiff’s department head Charles Witcher, stated that the investigatory leave was extended
3 for one month and half from August 16, 2016, to September 28, 2012, instead of the routine two-
4 week period. Such a long-term extension caught Plaintiff’s attention and, at first, Plaintiff
5
thought it was a misprint and should be August 28, 2012 instead of September 28, 2012.
6
497. To clarify the investigatory leave letter date issue, Plaintiff sent, on the
7
same day, an e-mail to Charles Witcher and asked him whether September 28, 2012, was the true
8
date. In response, Charles Witcher confirmed that it was the true date and cc-ed his response to
9
UC Davis HR Director Stephen Chilcott and HR Labor Relation Supervisor Brent.
10
Plaintiff thanked Charles Witcher for clarification and then forwarded the mail conversation to
11
UC Davis Medical Center CEO Ann Madden Rice, UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi
12
Delmendo, UC HR Vice President Dwain Duckett, and UC HR Director Christopher Simon, as
13
well as the UC Regents Office and UC Chancellor Office, with only one comment: “For your
14

15 review and consideration.”

16 498. This long extension of investigatory leave passed the one-year anniversary

17 of the September 1, 2011, first investigatory leave letter, which the Defendant had served

18 Plaintiff. Plaintiff became very concerned that something more drastic was going on with

19 Plaintiff’s employment due to the vicious attack against Plaintiff’s coworker Dereck Cole, as
20 well as Wendy Delmendo and Gina Harwood’s letters to Plaintiff’s coworker, Kenny Diede, and
21 the endless pseudo-investigations conducted by the assigned Defendant, two of “UC Davis Death
22 Squad’s” members, Brent Seifert and Cindy Oropeza, from the UC Davis Medical Center HR
23 Department.
24
499. Plaintiff was not mistaken that that something more drastic was going on
25
and finally uncovered it after Plaintiff, in November 2011, received a bulk e-mail
26
correspondence exchange between the perpetrators, who were plaining another provocation to
27
deliver Plaintiff to the UC Davis Medical Center # 11 to silence Plaintiff forever. Plaintiff was
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 167 of 295
 1 not sure and did not know why Defendant were trying to provoke and kill Plaintiff. Nothing was
2 making any sense and Plaintiff was very concerned about what he had stepped into that was
3 causing such unknown and unheard actions against employees, including the permission to use
4 deadly force to end an employee’s employment by ending the employee’s life.
5
500. On the same day, August 16, 2012, HR Director Stephen Chilcott and the
6
remaining HR Labor Relations Manager Travis Lindsey reminded Plaintiff that his coworkers’
7
cases, which Plaintiff was representing, were being placed in abeyance. Travis Lindsey
8
responded that Charles Witcher had already sent to Plaintiff an investigatory leave extension.
9

10

11 August 28, 2012–The Letter to Compliance and Privacy Program Investigator

Gina Guillaume-Holleman
12

13 501. On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to Compliance and Privacy
Program Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman about the unfair overtime distribution in the
14
HVAC shop with following information and concerns.
15

16 “I am sending you the copy of the letter of expectation issued for HVAC

17 Technician Dereck Cole by Patrick Putney on August 9, 2012. I would prefer

18 not to explicitly elaborate on the allegations in the letter”

19 However, I would appreciate if you would interview Dereck Cole, and

20 he will describe in his own words why he was victimized by Patrick
21 Putney. I spoke with Derek briefly on the phone on two occasions after
22 he received the mentioned letter of expectation on August 23, 2012.
23 According to the information he gave me, the accusations in the letter are
24
fabricated and untrue, and the letter of expectation is the retaliation for
25
complaining about the unfair and preferential overtime distribution by Patrick
26
Putney. A few months ago, and in one of my letters, I warned Charles Witcher
27
that the preferential and unfair overtime distribution in the HVAC shop is the
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 168 of 295
 1 fast brewing conflict among employees. Dereck Cole is the fourth person in
2 HVAC shop to be victimized by Patrick Putney with Charles Witcher's
3 blessing because of workers’ legitimate complaints.
4 If you consider the moral side of Patrick Putney and his "knowledge and
5
disregard for UC Policies, law, and Principle of Community," which he
6
is referring to in the letter of expectation, then the whole picture is quite
7
clear, and Mr. Putney should receive so many letters of expectations
8
that he could use them as wallpaper to cover the walls in his office and
9
still have some left over. I would like to point out that the letter of
10
expectation received by Dereck Cole is dated August 9, 2012 and was received
11
by Dereck Cole on August 23, 2012, one month after Dereck Cole's alleged
12
misbehavior on July 24, 25, and 26. Also, Patrick Putney described Dereck
13
Cole as a plumber. As I know, Dereck Cole is a HVAC technician and not a
14

15 plumber.”

16
502. The subject of the unfair overtime distribution was one of the HVAC shop
17
technicians, George Ursu, who is the friend the HVAC shop supervisors Dorin Daniliuc. It was
18
most likely that the excessive overtime was a fraud and George Ursu never worked most of the
19

20
overtime but got paid the same as Dorin Daniliuc, who was officially working full time, though

21 he actually employed himself in his private HVAC business and private church more than 50

22 percent during company time.

23 503. After the complaint was made by Dereck Cole, George Urusus’s overtime
24
dropped $10,000 in 2013, and after Dereck Cole, in retaliatory action against him, was removed
25
from the HVAC shop, George Urus’s overtime bounced back with $11,000 in 2014.
26

27
August 28, 2012–E-mail from UC Davis Health System HR Workers' Compensation,
28 Ergonomics, Disability Manager Hugh Parker

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 169 of 295
 1

2 504. On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff received an e-mail from HR Workers’

3 Compensation, Ergonomics, and Disability Manager Hugh Parker. Hugh Parker
4 requested that Plaintiff remove him from the e-mail list as follows:
5
Mr. Waszczuk,
6
Please remove me from your e-mail mailing list as I am not interested in
7
receiving information related to employee and labor relations issues.
8
Thank you.
9
Hugh R. Parker, Manager
10
Workers' Compensation, Ergonomics, Disability Management;
11
505. Plaintiff was surprised with such a request from Hugh Parker because
12
Plaintiff knew Hugh Parker for quite some time, and Plaintiff thought that Hugh Parker was the
13
replacement for HR Labor Relation Manger Humberto Garcia who was dismissed in June On
14

15 August 28, 2012, Plaintiff did not know who replaced Humberto Garcia, and HR Consultant

16 Gina Harwood was unresponsive when Plaintiff asked her who her manager was after she sent

17 information to Plaintiff on June 22, 2012 that Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver were

18 no longer employees of the UC Davis Medical Center HR Labor Relations.

19 506. On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff did know that Hugh Parker was the
20 coordinator and conductor for the assembled group of UC Davis employees, nicknamed by
21 Plaintiff in the documents as “The UC Davis Death Squad,” which on May 31, 2012, in the ill-
22 planned provocation, attempted to kill or end Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical
23 Center Trauma Unit #11. From the Public Act Records documents, Plaintiff learned about Hugh
24
Parker’s special assignment that had coordinated an assault on Plaintiff to terminate his
25
employment through ill-minded and orchestrated provocation on May 31, 2012.
26
507. In July and August 2011, Plaintiff exchanged with Hugh Parker his
27
opinion about the UC Davis Medical Center fraudulently using the Workers Compensation
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 170 of 295
 1 system to remove from the premises employees complaining about management misconduct,
2 harassment, and retaliation against employees. In July 2012, Hugh Parker, most likely with his
3 superior, HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott—together with UC Davis Medical Center
4 Facilities and Construction Executive Director Mike Boyd—attempted to convince Plaintiff to
5
file a fraudulent Workers Compensation Claim. When Plaintiff refused, the Workers
6
Compensation Claim was filed on Plaintiff’s behalf anyway, but Plaintiff rejected the fraud and
7
filed a complaint with the State of California Workers Compensation Department Fraud
8
Division.
9
508. When the fraudulent Workers Compensation Claim did not work to
10
remove Plaintiff from the premises, Plaintiff was placed on bogus investigatory leave on
11
September 1, 2011 by the UC Davis administration until Plaintiff’s employment was terminated
12
on December 7, 2012 by the Letter of Termination dated December 5, 2012, which was signed
13
by the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher.
14

15 509. In May 2012, Plaintiff learned from the Public Record Act documents he

16 received that Hugh Parker had requested the investigation report on Plaintiff from HR

17 Investigator Danesha Nichols, which was fabricated for the purpose of the ill-planned

18 termination of Plaintiff’s employment on September 23, 2011.”

19 The information about the planned attempt to terminate Plaintiff’s employment was leaked and
20 the plan failed. HR Investigator Danesha Nichol’s report, which Hugh Parker requested from her,
21 was destroyed according to the UC Davis Public Record Office, and a copy was never provided
22 to Plaintiff.
23 Plaintiff is not certain”, but it appears that September 23, 2011 was the Defendant’s first
24
attempt to provoke the physical confrontation from Plaintiff, physically hurt him, and then
25
dismiss him with accusations that he was violent.
26
510. Plaintiff’s opinion is based on the fact that, two days prior to September
27
23, 2011, he received a letter from his Department Head Charles Witcher stating that he would
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 171 of 295
 1 be escorted to the HR Investigator office when he arrived at the UC Davis Medical Center that
2 day. In November 2012, Plaintiff learned from the Public Record Act documents that Hugh
3 Parker was the conductor and coordinator of the assembled team nicknamed by Plaintiff in the
4 documents as “The UC Davis Death Squad,” which attempted to kill or end Plaintiff’s
5
employment on May 31, 2012 at the UC Davis Medical Trauma Unit #11.
6
August 29, 2012-The Letter from Compliance and Privacy Program Investigator
7 Gina Guillaume-Holleman

8
511. On August 29, 2012, Plaintiff received a letter from the Compliance and
9
Privacy Program Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman.
10
512. By means of this letter, Plaintiff was notified that the UCD Davis Health
11
System (UCDHS) Compliance Department had completed its investigation of allegations and
12
was advising of possible policy violations regarding a PO&M manager who allegedly accepted
13
money from vendor(s) for personal use and a PO&M supervisor allegedly using a paintball gun
14
on university premises. Both matters had been investigated and no proof of violations was
15
provided by Plaintiff or obtained during the investigation.
16

17 513. Gina Guillaume-Holleman was the Defendant’ investigator who, on July

18 18, 2012, interviewed one of Plaintiff’s coworkers from the UCDHS HVAC shop, Mark Montoya.

19 During the interview, Gina Guillaume-Holleman showed Mark Montoya Plaintiff’s photo and

20 asked him whether Plaintiff was a threat to him and, thereafter, she made an attempt to solicit Mark

21 Montoya to sign an affidavit that Plaintiff was dangerous. Outraged by her demand, Mark Montoya
22 left the interview and went to the HVAC shop and mentioned what had happened to one of
23 Plaintiff’s other coworkers, who called Plaintiff and disclosed the information about Mark
24 Montoya’s interview. A few days later, Mark Montoya personally confirmed the information about
25 Gina Guillaume-Holleman’s demand.
26
514. At the end of August 2012, Plaintiff was not worried about any investigation
27
but was worried about his own status due to the almost year-and-a-half-long, ongoing, vicious,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 172 of 295
 1 despicable, and unthinkable witch hunt by Defendant against Plaintiff and his coworkers. Plaintiff
2 constantly was on the verge of a nervous breakdown, having dealt with repeated violations of his
3 civil and human rights caused by the Defendant’ psychological torture and the fact that he did not
4 know what was going to happen to him from one day to the next, not to mention the fact that
5
Plaintiff was 61 years old, had open-heart surgery, and was on nine different medications.
6
515. Deeply stressed due to the Defendant’ outrageous behavior and his
7
unknown day-to-day employment status, Plaintiff asked Bank of America for permission to sell
8
his house on short sale. Plaintiff lost his house, which was supposed to be his retirement home,
9
adding more stress to his spouse and himself and worsening his mental health. Plaintiff’s lost
10
enjoyment for life.
11

12 SEPTEMBER 2012
13 September 4, 2012—Kenneth Diede’s Letter to Department Head Charles Witcher.
14
516. On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff’s coworker from the HVAC shop to
15
whom Plaintiff was providing representation under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70, submitted a
16

17 complaint letter against HVAC shop manager and supervisor Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc.

18 These two individuals attacked Kenneth once again and converted his 2012 annual employee

19 evaluation into retaliation documents.

20 517. Since July 2011, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc had been making

21 Kenneth Diede’s life miserable and his working conditions intolerable after Kenneth Diede
22 reported twice-convicted child pornography felon, Sean Robideaux , who was illegally
23 surfing the web on the HVAC shop commuters with Patrick Putney’s knowledge and permission.
24 Being on parole for his second child pornography strike Sean Robideaux , was not allowed to
25 touch a computer connected to the Internet per federal court order (Case: 2: 6 –cr- 00418-LKK,
26
The United States of America v. Sean Christopher Robideaux, United States District Court, Eastern
27
District of California, Indictment Violation(S) 18 U.S.C § 2252 () (4)(B) –Possession of Visual
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 173 of 295
 1 Depiction of Minors in Sexually Explicit Conduct ).
2 518. In the conclusion of his complaint letter to Charles Witcher, Kenneth
3 Diede wrote:
4
‘It is your responsibility to change the intolerable working condition in the
5
shop and stop Putney’s vicious and menacing attacks on me and others. I am
6

7 requesting, by this letter, that this be done immediately.’

9
September 9, 2012—Plaintiff Letter to Brent Seifert—UC Davis Medical Center HR Labor
10 Relation Supervisor and Principal Labor Relation Consultant
11
519. For over one year, the Defendant subjected Plaintiff to malicious
12

13
psychological terror, persecution, civil and human rights violations, enormous stress and worries

14 as a result of losing his home and, most likely, his employment at the age of 61 and a slim

15 chance to find any employment due to his age and health.

16 520. Due to unknown means regarding the ways in which the Defendant intended to do
17 Plaintiff further harm on September 9, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to UC Davis Medical Center HR
18 Labor Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert with an inquiry to update Plaintiff about his bogus
19 investigation against Plaintiff to which he was assigned in May 2012. Plaintiff wrote the following
20 in his September 9, 2012, letter: The original letter was edited by the Professional Proof Reader
21 for the purpose to avoid confusion about merit in the letter-Original upon request)
22
“Dear Mr. Seifert:
23

24 By this letter I am requesting that you provide me with information on the

25 status of the phony investigation you have been conducting since May 31,
26 2012. I am not sure if you remember that you have been assigned to investigate
27 to determine the facts surrounding the e-mails I supposedly sent that were
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 174 of 295
 1 believed to contain discriminatory content and to collect relevant information
2 (see attached copy of Charles Witcher’s letter dated May 31, 2012, entitled
3 “Investigatory Leave”).
4
I am more than sure that Charles Witcher’s “Investigatory Leave” letter
5
dated May 31, 2012, was a precisely crafted provocation by the human
6

7 resources department with probable help from the former FBI Agent

8 employed by the UC Office of the President Mr. John Lohse and HR

9 psychologists from the UCDMC ASAP club. Unexpectedly Mr. Lohse,

10 contacted me shortly before my suspension in May 2012.

11
When I read it on the Association of Workplace Investigators web page, I
12
choked and said to myself, “This guy with such an impressive background
13
career and connections that he is a perfect guy to frame me.”
14

15 The May 31, 2012, provocation followed Witcher’s and the HR department’s
16 cowardly and ill-crafted action that placed me on ten days’ suspension without
17 pay after Danesha Nichols’ phony investigation and my five-month
18 administrative/investigatory leave.
19
It is not coincidental that the Mr. Lohse got involved to help cover up the UC
20

21
Davis and UC Davis Medical Center management’s corrupted and unlawful

22 activities, which are happening in every pointed place and involving UC Davis

23 “chiefs and Indians” including, but not limited to, HR Chief Stephen Chilcott;

24 UC Investigators Danesha Nichols, Gina Guillaume-Holleman, and her boss,

25 Teresa Porter; internal audits chief and UC Davis police officers such as Lt.
26 James Barbour, who once gave me special advice with former U.S. President
27 Ronald Reagan regarding the U.S. Marines. UC Davis Chief Compliance
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 175 of 295
 1 Officer Mrs. Wendy Delmendo, who needs another Chief compliance officer
2 to replace herself, in compliance with state and federal law and UC policies is
3 leading the pack of “chiefs and Indians” corrupt circle.
4
The May 31, 2012, precise and ill-crafted provocation had one goal: Make
5
Jerry Waszczuk mad, hostile, and snap by handing him another investigatory
6

7 leave letter and launch another phony investigation against him. If he will snap

8 and get hostile, then Lt. Barbour will take care of him and he will be done.

9
What a mistake. Jerry Waszczuk never became hostile and never snapped.
10
Instead, Jerry Waszczuk used his pen and computer to defend himself and
11
others abused and harassed by vicious, vindictive, corrupt, and criminally
12
minded UCDMC chiefs.
13

14 Furthermore Plaintiff wrote in his letter to Brent Seifert :

15
Almost three and a half months have passed since we met in HR Tycon II
16
building. We did not have too much talk about anything because you were
17
completely unprepared for the meeting since you did not expect that I would
18
ever get to your office after Witcher executed the investigatory letter that
19
should have ended the issue with Jerry Waszczuk.
20

21 The meeting that you improvised was about the country of Romania,
22
Romanians, and Reggae. I have summarized the meeting in the letter I wrote to
23
you the day after we met and there is no need to elaborate further about it.
24

25 The reason why I am writing to you is to determine the status of this “after

26 unsuccessful provocation” and phony investigation for which you had been set

27 up by the corrupted upper-circle UCDMC chiefs.

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 176 of 295
 1 In the conclusion of my letter, I ask you again to provide me with the status
2 of this phony investigation that is not only causing me this endless “home
3 arrest” in the form of investigatory leave, but also uncertainty regarding my
4 further employment.
5
The situation is taking a toll on my wife and family. I am forced to short
6

7 sell my house and if it does not go through, then I will let the house be

8 foreclosed. The Bank of America is aware of what my employer is doing to

9 me and leaning toward a short sale instead of a foreclosure. After I

10 stabilize my situation with my house, I will make sure that my employer

11 will pay the bill for this reckless harassment and assault on me and I will
12 pay for a new house of my choice.”
13
521. The September 9, 2012, Plaintiff’s letter to Brent Seifert was the first time that
14
Plaintiff informed the Defendant of Plaintiff’s awareness that the May 31, 2012, reckless Defendant
15
action against Plaintiff was nothing but the Defendant’ malicious and ill-crafted provocation to harm
16
Plaintiff.
17
522. On September 9, 2012, Plaintiff did not have any evidence or documents proving
18
that for the May 31, 2012, provocation, the Defendant assembled a special team nicknamed in
19
Plaintiff’s document “The UC Davis Death Squad” to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in the UC
20
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11. Plaintiff based his opinion on observed event facts,
21
information from his coworkers, the Defendant’ reckless attacks in May 2012 aimed at Plaintiff and
22
his coworkers to whom Plaintiff was providing representation, and by removing Plaintiff from the
23
stress management class one day before the provocation on May 30, 2012.
24 “
September 12, 2012—The e-mail entitled “Review of the Waszczuk Investigation”
25

26 523. On September 12, 2012, at 9:36 PM, the UC Office of General Counsel
27 Senior Legal Counsel Mia Belk sent an e-mail to UC Davis Medical Center HR Labor Relation
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 177 of 295
 1 Manager Travis Lindsey with attachment entitled “Review of the Waszzsczuk investigation-
2 CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION (misspelled Plaintiff’s name ). Mia Belk’s e-mail
3 message to Travis Lindsey was blacked out by the UC Davis Public Record Office before it was
4 delivered to Plaintiff in November 2012 .
5
524. On the same day—September 12, 2012—at 10:38 PM, HR Labor Relation
6
Manager Travis Lindsey forwarded Mia Belk’s review of the Waszczuk Investigation to UC Davis
7
Health System (UCDHS) HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott with a cc to HR Supervisor
8
Brent Seifert who, in May 2012, was assigned with HR Employment Opportunity and Diversity
9
Manager Cindi Oropeza to fabricate a false report on Plaintiff as the cause for the termination of
10
his employment if planned provocation would not work.
11
525. On September 13, 2012, at 7:50 AM, the HR executive director replied to
12
Travis Lindsey’s e-mail and instructed the HR labor relations manager to share Mia Belk’s
13
“Review of the Waszczuk Investigation” with UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi
14

15 Delmendo, UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski and UC Davis Health System

16 Chief Compliance Officer Teresa Porter and to let them know that the HR department was

17 proceeding with Waszczuk’s (Plaintiff’s) termination as planned.

18 526. Furthermore, HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott instructed Travis

19 Lindsey to make suggested revisions and finalize the documents and letter of intent to terminate
20 the issue as soon as possible. In addition to the letter of intent to terminate, HR Executive Director
21 Stephen Chilcott instructed Travis Lindsey to discuss the assignments of the Skelly officer with
22 Plaintiff’s superior, UC Davis Medical Center Executive Director Mike Boyd.
23 527 The UCDHS HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott’s confidential
24
communication response is interesting because it shows that HR Equal Employment Opportunity
25
and Diversity Manager Cindi Oropeza was not copied on Stephen Chilcott’s e-mail. Cindi Oropeza
26
was assigned with Brent Seifert to fabricate a bogus report as the cause for Plaintiff’s termination
27
of employment.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 178 of 295
 1 528. As Plaintiff knows, Cindi Oropeza was an old friend of prior HR Labor
2 Relations Manager Humberto Garcia, who attempted to informally resolve an ongoing dispute
3 with Plaintiff informally in February 2012; thereafter, Garcia was replaced by Travis Lindsey. It
4 makes Plaintiff wonder whether Cindi Oropeza was on same list as Humberto Garcia and opposed
5
Plaintiff’s termination, but was forced as well—under the threat of termination—to craft a false
6
and slanderous report as a cause to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
7
529. The other interesting fact in HR executive director’s reply to Travis
8
Lindsey is that the UC Office of the President (UCOP), Office of the General Counsel made the
9
decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment, contrary to UCOP HR Director Christopher
10
Simon’s response to Plaintiff’s September 2011 inquiry for intervention in the case.
11
On September 25, 2011, Plaintiff sent the inquiry for help and to intervene in the case
12
to the UC HR Senior Vice Chancellor Dwain Duckett’s .
13
530. On October 26, 2011, The UCOP HR Director Christophe Simon
14

15 responded to Plaintiff September 2011 inquiry on UC HR Senior Vice President Duckett’s

16 behalf, stating that:

17
“This is in response to your faxes dated 9/25/2011 and 9/30/2011 to Vice
18
President Duckett in which you raised several concerns about management
19
actions at UC Davis Medical Center. I understand that these issues are
20
currently being investigated by the UC Davis Compliance Officer, Wendi
21
Delmendo.The Office of the President provides oversight to the ten Campus
22
University of California system, while the Chancellor of each campus has
23
responsibility for the organization and operation of the campus. With the
24
investigation by Ms. Delmendo currently in progress, it would be
25

26 inappropriate for the Office of the President to intervene in this

27 matter.We have asked Ms. Delmendo to keep us apprised of the progress of

28 this investigation. We are confident that your serious concerns are being

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 179 of 295
 1 appropriately addressed at this time.”
2
531. One year later, UC Davis Chief Counsel Wendy Delmendo again assigned
3
two HR investigators, Cindi Oropeza and Brent Seifert, to fabricate another report for a cause to
4
terminate Plaintiff’s employment. However, it is not UC Davis or UC Davis Medical Center
5
administration that decided to terminate Plaintiff’s employment; rather, the UC Office of the
6
President and UC Office of the General Counsel decided Plaintiff ‘s fate in contrary to UCOP
7

8
Director Christopher Simon letter.

9 532. UC Senior Counsel Mia Belk disappeared from the University of California

10 landscape two months after she issued her confidential review of Waszczuk’s investigation. Mia

11 Belk was not the only individual who disappeared from the University of California landscape

12 after involvement in Plaintiff’s dispute with the university.

13 533. The question is whether the 2009 Settlement–Agreement with the Regents
14 of the University of California signed by Plaintiff was a part of the reason why nobody at UC
15 Davis wanted to make the final decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment and passed it to the
16 UC Office of the President and UC General Counsel Office or it was a different more serious
17 reason.
18

19 September 13, 2012—The UC Davis Death Squad Preparation for Plaintiff’s Final Departure
from the University of California. (By documents received from UC Davis Public Record Act
20 Office)

21
534. Following the September 12, 2012, University of California Office of the
22
General Counsel’s decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment the UCDHS HR Executive
23
Director Stephen Chilcott sent on September 13, 2012, the information about Plaintiff’s planned
24
employment termination to the UC Davis police and assembled a group of UC Davis
25
representatives (nicknamed in Plaintiff’s documents as the UC Davis Death Squad, due to an ill-
26
crafted provocation by the Defendant on May 31, 2012, to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in
27
the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 180 of 295
 1 535. From the bulk of documents Plaintiff received from the UC Davis Public
2 Record Act office in November 2012, Plaintiff learned, as follows, that
3 361. On September 13, 2012, UC Davis police sent an e-mail to the UC Davis Death Squad
4 coordinator, HR Workers Compensation Manager Hugh Parker, and HR Labor Relations Manager
5
Travis Lindsey with a cc to UC Davis Police Chief secretary Willette Roy stating,
6
“Hugh, I have talked with Chief Carmichael, and we should get the violence
7 in the workplace group together sometime to discuss a threat assessment on
Jerry (Plaintiff). Travis, is that acceptable to you? Jim.
8
Travis Lindsey responded that he agreed.
9 536. Furthermore, on the same day UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour wrote
to Hugh Parker:
10
Chief Carmichael said there is a psychologist on retainer that helps with this? (Dr. White?)
11
(with question mark at the end of the sentence).
12

13
536. On September 14, 2012, UC Davis Death Squad Coordinator Hugh

14 Parker’s secretary, Sonia Guerrero-Rodriguez, sent an e-mail invitation for a meeting to other

15 UC Davis Death Squad members with the following subject in the e-mail: “Threat Assessment -

16 J. Waszczuk.” The message read, “Please provide me with the best time and date, from the

17 options below, to discuss the item in subject. I’d like to send out a meeting invitation as soon as
18 possible.” The message was ended with Muriel Strode’s quote “Do not follow where the path
19 may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”
20 537. Sonia Guerrero-Rodriguez sent her message to the following member
21 members of the UC Davis Death Squad: Brent Seifert, the UCDMC Labor Relations Supervisor;
22 UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour; UCDMC HR Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity
23
Manager Cindi Oropeza;UC Davis Health System Counsel David Levine; UC Davis Risk
24
Management Department employee Debra Schmidt; UC Davis Medical Center Emergency
25
Preparedness Coordinator Glynis Foulk; Manager of Workers’ Compensation, Ergonomics, and
26
Disability Hugh Parker, who wanted to see Plaintiff in July 2011 on workers compensation leave
27
and, in May and September 2012, wanted to see Plaintiff disabled in UC Davis Medical Center
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 181 of 295
 1 Trauma Unit #11; R.N., M.S.N. Nurse Manager Karen Kouretas, who was in charge UCDMC
2 Trauma Nursing Units (TNU) # 11,
3 “Trauma unit is a 36-bed acute care specialty and telemetry unit that
4 primarily provides inpatient care and treatment for patients who have
5
sustained blunt or penetrating injury, as well as those who may require
6
surgical intervention. This includes care of the patient with suspected or
7
confirmed intra-abdominal injuries, complex wound management,
8
orthopedic fractures, head/neck/face injuries, brain trauma, chest trauma,
9
and pulmonary injury.”
10
538. Additional recipients of the email included Marjorie Trogdon-Shock, an
11
HR licensed clinical social worker who, together with Hugh Parker on May 30, 2012, removed
12
Plaintiff from the stress management class she hosted; Carol Kirshnit, Ph.D. who, like Marjorie
13
Trogdon-Shock L.C.S.W, was a member of the UCDMC HR Academic and Staff Assistance
14

15 Program; Neil Speth, D.O., the medical director of UCDMC HR Employee Health Services; and

16 Travis Lindsay, the new UCDMC HR labor relation manager who replaced MikeGarcia in May

17 2012.

18 539. The proposed dates for the UC Davis Death Squad’s meeting were

19 September 18, 2012, from 10 to 11 AM; September 20, 2012, from 1 to 2 PM, and September 21,
20 2012, from 9 to 10 AM.
21 540. UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour responded that he was available for the
22 meeting on Tuesday, September 18, 2012. Plaintiff does not know when the meeting took place
23 because 21 pages of e-mail chat between UC Davis Death Squad Members that Plaintiff received
24
from the UC Davis Public Record Act Office were blacked out in same manner as the e-mail chat
25
of this group for the May 31, 2012, provocation to send Plaintiff to the UC Davis Medical Trauma
26
Unit.
27
541. The presence and participation in this group including the UC Davis
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 182 of 295
 1 Medical Center Trauma Unit manager, police, psychologists, legal counsel, medical director of
2 HR health services and others is speaking for itself that this group is closely akin to a terrorist
3 organization that operated with full knowledge under the umbrella of the Regents of the University
4 of California to provoke, kill, and cover up the cause of employee death. It is more likely than
5
not that similar terrorist groups operate on other UC campuses and are sponsored and
6
employed by the Regents of the University of California.
7

8 September 23, 2012—Letter to Charles Witcher

9 542. Plaintiff, who was subjected to psychological terror by the Defendant, was

10 put under extreme stress after being forced again to leave the premises for the month-and-a-half-

11 long investigatory leave, which was issued and served to Plaintiff on August 16, 2012.
12 543. On September 23, 2012, Plaintiff wrote an open letter to his
13 Department Head, UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles
14 Witcher, entitled
15 A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE LATEST COMPLAINTS UNDER THE PPSM 70 AGAINST
16
STEVE McGRATH AND PATRICK PUTNEY. (OPEN LETTER).
17
Plaintiff wrote the letter just two days before Witcher was ordered by HR Executive Director
18
Stephen Chilcott to sign the Notice to Intent to Dismiss (Plaintiff) for Serious Misconduct.
19
544. Aside from Plaintiff’s latest complaints about coworkers, made under UC Davis
20
Policy Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM70, the, Plaintiff elaborated about the previous
21
Department Head, Tony Moddessette, who was forced to leave in 2006 and was replaced by
22
Charles Witcher. This happened shortly before Plaintiff and his coworker William Buckans were
23
subject to the vicious attack and persecution orchestrated by the Defendant, which resulted in
24
Plaintiff’s suspension in March 2007 and his abrupt removal from the UC Davis Medical Center
25

26 Cogeneration Power Plant (“Central Plant”), where Plaintiff had been employed since June 1999.

27 Plaintiff’s suspension and reassignment in March 2007 was affirmed by Charles Witcher, who

28 was then the interim manager of the Plant Operation and Maintenance Department. While

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 183 of 295
 1 Witcher’s predecessor Tony Moddessette had an MBA degree and was not friends with anybody,
2 Charles Witcher was an electrician with only a high school diploma, but he was friends with one
3 very important person, UC Davis Medical Center Director Robert Taylor.
4 545. Plaintiff, in his letter to Charles Witcher, stated:
5
(This letter was edited by a professional proofreader to avoid confusion and
6
misunderstandings.)
7
Dear Charles:
8
INTRODUCTION
9
Besides the formal complaints under PPSM 70, which already have
10
been filed with HR against Steve McGrath and Patrick Putney by
11
various employees, I would like to address some of my concerns in
12
relation to the previously mentioned complaints.
13
I remember when Tony Moddessette was the manager of the Plant Operation
14

15 and Maintenance Department. At the time, there were problems within the

16 Central Plant in relation to shift differential pay and other labor/management

17 issues.

18 Moddessette was “rough and tough” and sometimes was unpleasant, but he did

19 not ever hesitate to come to the Central Plant, sit at the center of the control
20 room, and have an open discussion about the problems within in the plant.
21 Tony Moddessette did not hesitate to tell me, “Jerry, I don’t give a f...k what
22 you say,” but he would listen and fix the problems.
23 Tony Moddessette had no problem reversing the Plant Manager’s unjustified
24
decision to issue a written warning to one of the Central Plant operators. He
25
also did not hesitate to tell Jeff Lancaster that he was not hired to wash his
26
personal cars on company time.
27
Tony Moddessette did not hesitate to remove Tom Kavanaugh from his Central
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 184 of 295
 1 Plant manager position because of poor behavior toward his subordinates and
2 safety problems in the Central Plant. An indisputable fact is that Moddessette
3 never persecuted workers like Charles Witcher did.
4 I am not sure what caused Moddessette’s fall in the UC Davis Medical Center.
5
I can only guess that his departure from UCDMC was partly due to a colleague
6
from the Navy whom he hired as Central Plant Manager. Dan James basically
7
was overpowered by the Central Plant folks from the Jackson Area, who gave
8
him a false and unusual sense of security.
9
Unlike Tony Moddessette, Charles Witcher never advised Patrick Putney that
10
employees are obligated to pay their parking fees if they are parking on the
11
company premises.
12
Unlike Tony Moddessette, Charles Witcher never told Patrick Putney that the
13
HVAC and Plumbing Shop was meant to provide support and services for the
14

15 hospital/campus and was not a place to illegally park his personal vehicle,

16 chase roosters, or sell ducks and other livestock in the shop.

17 Unlike Tony Moddessette, Charles Witcher never told HVAC Shop Supervisor

18 Dorin Daniliuc that he had to work 8 hours every day, that company time

19 should not be used to run a private business, or that he should not bring his
20 personal auto mechanics in and use the UCDMC shop for his private HVAC
21 business.
22 Unlike Tony Moddessette, Charles Witcher immediately began to torment
23 others after taking over the department from Tony Moddessette in 2006. Six
24
years later, Witcher’s persecution continues.
25
The last six years speak for themselves. Those who have engaged in this
26
persecution must love to watch other people suffer and live in misery.
27
THE COMPLAINTS
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 185 of 295
 1 What I am most concerned about concerning the latest complaints filed under
2 PPSM 70 is the William Buckans complaint, which will open old wounds
3 related to Steve McGrath and former Plant Manager Dan James, who passed
4 away not so long ago, may he rest in peace.
5
William Buckan’s last complaints against Steve McGrath and Mike Lewis will
6
force me to bring Dan James’ name into this whole mess. At the relevant time
7
in 2006, Witcher did not have a clue as to what was going on in the Central
8
Plant and without any reason, Witcher orchestrated your harassment of
9
William Buckans and me. It is unfortunate that Dan James was the plant
10
manager at that time, and he got involved in the whole mess.
11
I may have had some objections to Dan James holding the position of plant
12
manager, but I would hate to bring his name back into this ongoing mess
13
because Steve McGrath cannot control his buddies. Steve McGrath is
14

15 retaliating against William for no particular reason.

16 Dan James and Tony Moddessette were Vietnam War veterans. I have a lot of

17 respect for their sacrifices and their choice to risk their lives for the greatest

18 country on Earth.

19 Apparently Steve McGrath and Mike Lewis did not think or did not care that
20 harassing, bullying, and constantly retaliating against William for years in an
21 effort to make him quit his job would bring Dan James back into the mess that
22 they have created and participated since 2006.
23 You probably don’t know that William Buckans and Rick Tunello had a very
24
good relationship with Dan James because of their common life experiences.
25
However Dan James was quickly overpowered by the Jackson clique, and he
26
turned on Rick and William because the Jackson clique hated them. You
27
probably don’t know that William Buckans had a very good relationship with
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 186 of 295
 1 Dan James because both served their country. Dan James served in the US
2 Navy from 1967 to 1991; he operated the ship’s power plant and a LM2500 jet
3 engine like we have in the Central Plant.
4 Unlike the clique that Steve McGrath brought from his previous plant, William
5
Buckans did not have to cheat to pass his UCDMC test and get hired as an
6
operator. He passed his test because he had a lot of previous knowledge and
7
experience.
8
In addition to Dan James’ issues, I am very hesitant to bring Steve McGrath’s
9
personal life issues into William’s defense. I really hate to do it. I would prefer
10
to see Steve stop his retaliatory habits and leave William alone.
11
It is up to you and Steve McGrath to stop further action under PPSM 70.
12
Together, you can correct the problems and you will not have to reintroduce
13
the name of Dan James, who should be resting quietly in peace.
14

15 I would like to mention that, not so long ago, Hugh Parker from HR sent me an

16 email and wrote that he is not interested in labor relations issues. Mr. Parker

17 was an HR labor relations consultant, and one of the complaints I am handling

18 is strictly related to him. He will soon be dealing again with the labor relations

19 issues related to the peaceful Workers’ Compensation Office.

20 The latest complaints under PPSM 70 were filed with HR by Dereck Cole and
21 Kenny Diede against Patrick Putney (Letters of Expectations and Evaluation).
22 I will not elaborate about the merit of the mentioned complaints because they
23 are specifically outlined in the related documents.
24
At this point, I would like to only mention again the overtime distribution in
25
the HVAC shop, which was the subject of Patrick Putney’s retaliation against
26
Dereck Cole (who complained about it).
27
I will officially ask Gina Guillaume-Holleman from the Compliance & Privacy
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 187 of 295
 1 Investigations Department to investigate these issues and to make a
2 determination about whether there re discrepancies in overtime distribution.
3 The allegations were brought against George Ursu, who is not a plumber or an
4 HVAC technician in the HVAC shop but has nevertheless apparently been
5
given a lot of overtime that belonged to the plumbers and HVAC technicians.
6
I saw George Ursu’s overtime income earned for 2010 and 2011 on the official
7
UC webpage. It is no wonder that people are concerned when his overtime is
8
10 times higher than other workers’.
9
I can’t look myself at George Ursu’s work orders to determine whether his
10
earned overtime is legitimate or not. I would like to remind you that I was
11
denied access to the work order system last year. I am far from accusing
12
George of any wrongdoing because of his overtime earnings, but they must be
13
investigated to clear the air and to prevent any more hostility or retaliation
14

15 related to this subject. I have nothing against George as a person or a coworker

16 regardless of his statements in the Danesha Nichols report. I am just

17 representing my coworkers in their complaints and trying to do my job as best

18 as I can with the limited resources I have after being banned and isolated from

19 the HVAC shop for over a year.

Regards,
20
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
21 Representative for William Buckans, Kenny Diede and Dereck Cole
CC: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
22
September 25, 2012—Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct
23

24
546. As Plaintiff anticipated that something would happen to him during the
25
one-and-a-half month investigatory leave and the lack of response from HR Labor Relations
26
Supervisor Brent Seifert’s investigation, on September 26, 2012, Plaintiff received by overnight
27
mail the Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct dated September 25, 2012. It was
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 188 of 295
 1 routinely similar to other documents that Plaintiff received in the past by the UCDMC Plant
2 Operation and Maintenance Department Manager Charles Witcher.
3 The notice stated that:
4 “Re: Notice Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct
5
“The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I intend to dismiss you
6

7 from your position as a Sr. Development Engineer in Plant Operations and

8 Maintenance. The reason for this action is your failure to adhere to UC Davis

9 Policy and Procedure 380-15, Staff Complaints of Discrimination, UCDHS

10 1616, Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and the Principles of

11 Community.
12
On or about April 27, 2012, you sent an e-mail to Danesha Nichols,
13
UCDHS Investigations Coordinator stating your disagreement with an
14
investigation report she had issued dated February 9, 2012. The report found
15
that it was more likely than not that you had violated UCDHS Policy 1616
16
(Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace) ("1616"), UC Davis Policy
17

18 and Procedure Manual, Section 380-15 (Staff Complaints of Discrimination)

19 ("38015"), and engaged in insubordinate behavior in relation to the

20 investigation. Based on these findings I issued you a letter on or around April

21 13, 2012, informing you that I intended to suspend you without pay for ten

22 days. Attached to your April 27, 2012 e-mail was a video slideshow entitled
23 "Welcome to Romania". Based on the subject matter and content of the
24 communication, an investigation was requested to determine if the
25 communication violated University policies and procedures. During this time
26 you were placed on investigatory leave-.
27
Brent Seifert, Employee and Labor Relations Supervisor and Cindy Oropeza,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 189 of 295
 1 EEO Manager conducted the investigation. During the investigation they
2 learned of additional e-mails you had sent to co-workers and other UC
3 employees that were alleged to be discriminatory and disruptive. As a result,
4 these communications were included in the investigation.
5
While the investigation was pending you sent additional e-mails to co-workers
6

7 and other UC employees that contained inappropriate and discriminatory

8 language (see attached e-mails). The following are excerpts from these e-mail

9 communications:

10
May 10, 2012 - "Somebody will give this Pollack bad evaluation and fire him
11
or will send Gestapo on his Ass"
12

13 June 6, 2012 - "because you will go straight to Hell for what you have done to

14 me in the last 12 months together with psychopath Putney , Witcher and HR

15 "Devil Advocates." and "GO TO HELL ALL OF YOU AND BURN THERE
16 UNTIL YOU EVAPORATE IN SHAME FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE
17 TO ME AND OTHERS
18
June 22, 2012 — PDF attachment to email titled "20120613 to Gina
19
Gaullaume-Holleman" - "I don 't know why but the Patrick Putney's working
20

21
environment culture in the HVAC shop is closely akin to the culture of Eastern

22 Europe Gypsy Village from the Borat's movie or Flea market in

23 Galt."September 10, 2012 — "..Dorin Danuliuc brought the Gypsy's culture

24 from Romania, cheating and stealing from his employer..."

25
Mr. Seifert and Ms. Oropeza concluded their investigation and issued a report
26
dated September 20, 2012, which is attached to this Notice. The investigation
27
report substantiated that you sent disruptive and intimidating e-mail
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 190 of 295
 1 communications regarding Mr. Daniliuc's national origin in violation of 1616.
2 In addition, it was substantiated that you sent harassing communications
3 regarding Mr. Daniliuc that were in violation of 380-15.
4
As discussed above, on or around April 13, 2012, prior to your e-mail to Ms.
5
Nichols, you were issued a Letter of Intent to Suspend for ten (10) days for
6

7 violation of 1616, 380-15, and insubordinate conduct. The letter outlined my

8 expectations that you abide by all UC policies and procedures, show respect

9 and remain professional at all times in the workplace, and follow the direct

10 orders given to you by a supervisor. After the Skelly process was completed

11 you were issued a Letter of Suspension on May 11, 2012 outlining the
12 expectations noted above. Additionally, you were provided the pertinent text
13 from UCDHS policy 1616 and UC Davis P&P Chapter 380-15 as part of the
14 investigation report issued by Ms. Nichols, and attached to the Letter of Intent
15 to Suspend.
16
Despite my repeated efforts to address your inappropriate and discriminatory
17

18 communications, you continue to send e-mails to numerous UC Staff

19 containing offensive and discriminatory language directed at several protected

20 classifications. Your failure to follow direct orders and the expectations set for

21 you is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Your actions imply that you

22 believe you are above the rules and I cannot subject staff and your co-workers
23 to your continued discriminatory comments. Your blatant disregard for the
24 policies and procedures of this University, combined with your failure to
25 follow directives has left me with no alternative but to dismiss you from
26 University employment.You have the right to respond to this notice of intent to
27
dismiss for Serious Misconduct either orally or in writing. Your response must
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 191 of 295
 1 be received by the Skelly Reviewer, Allen Tollefson, Assistant Vice
2 Chancellor, and Facilities Management. Mr. Tolleffson can be reached at the
3 following: UC Davis, Facilities Services Building, Davis, CA 95616, 530-752-
4 5418 within eight (8) calendar days from the date of issuance of this letter. You
5
will remain on paid administrative leave until a final determination is made.”
6
547. Apparently, after Plaintiff sent the letter on September 9, 2012, to HR Labor
7

8
Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert and let him know that Plaintiff was aware that May 31, 2012,

9 was the date of the maliciously and ill-crafted provocation by the Defendant, somebody had the

10 idea to lure Plaintiff to the premises and hand Plaintiff the Notice of Intent to Dismiss with such

11 outrageous and sickening accusations in an attempt to provoke Plaintiff and expose him to the

12 UC Davis Death Squad’s attack.

13 September 26, 2012 – UC Davis Police Department Poster
“ PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY”
14

15
548. Instead of luring Plaintiff to the premises, the UC Davis Death Squad decided that
16
the UC Davis Police would issue a poster bearing Plaintiff’s photo and the verbiage “PERSON
17
NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY,” which was similar to the “FBI’s Most Wanted”
18
signage.
19

20 549. The UC Davis Police Poster stated:

21
“Jaroslaw Waszczuk is currently on administrative leave from
22
employment with the UC Davis Med Center. Mr. Waszczuk is not
23
authorized to be on UC Davis property without a legal reason or a medical
24
emergency.
25

26 Mr. Waszczuk is described as an older white male with brown and gray

27 hair. He is approximately 5’8” and 190 lb.

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 192 of 295
 1 If Mr. Waszczuk is seen trespassing on University of California Davis
2 properties, please contact the Davis Police Department immediately at
3 916-734-1555.”
4

5
550. The UC Davis Police poster that said “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED
6
ON PROPERTY” and included Plaintiff’s photo and description was distributed around the UC
7
Davis Medical Center Campus and most likely was sent to managers and UC Davis employees
8
by electronic mail. UC Davis Police did not inform Plaintiff that he was not authorized on UC
9
Davis premises, and Plaintiff did not know what UC Davis Police would do if Plaintiff
10

11 unexpectedly showed up at the UC Davis Medical Center or the UC Davis Campus.

12 551. Plaintiff spent over one year on investigatory leave, under which he was

13 prohibited from being on the UC Davis premises, and Plaintiff never intended to go uninvited to

14 UC Davis Medical Center when he was on investigatory leave. Plaintiff did not understand why

15 the Defendant issued such a humiliating and disparaging Plaintiff poster.

16 552. In addition, the Defendant did not inform Plaintiff that the poster was
17 issued and distributed. The question is this: What were the Defendant’ intentions?
18 553. After the Defendant’ ill-minded but unsuccessful provocation to kill
19 Plaintiff or end his employment at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit, Plaintiff
20
experienced terrifying thoughts that never left his mind. Plaintiff is still terrified to think what
21
would have happened to him on May 31, 2012, if the criminally minded Defendant’ provocation
22
had been successful or what would happen if Plaintiff showed up unexpectedly at UC Davis
23
Medical Center for medical treatment, not knowing that a poster was distributed around campus
24
and that UC Police had been instructed to attack Plaintiff upon his arrival.
25
554. Plaintiff was informed about the Defendant’ “PERSON NOT
26
AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY” poster by a coworker who took a picture of the poster with
27
his cellular phone and sent the photo to Plaintiff.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 193 of 295
 1 555. Plaintiff was outraged when he was informed about the poster. Even a
2 felon who was twice convicted for child pornography and who was illegally accessing UC
3 Davis’s Medical Center HVAC shop computer was not awarded with such recognition.
4 Plaintiff, on the other hand, was a University of California employee for 13 years and had an
5
outstanding employee record.
6
556. The child porn felon motto “Silence or I Kill You” on the social media
7
Facebook page closely resembled the Defendant’s behavior after the which assembled a special
8
group of employees—nicknamed by Plaintiff the “UC Davis Death Squad”—with the purpose of
9
silencing Plaintiff forever in an unsuccessful and criminally minded provocation on May 31,
10
2012.
11
557. Plaintiff responded to the Defendant’ disparaging, humiliating and
12
terrifying behavior with a seven-page open letter dated September 30, 2012, which Plaintiff
13
addressed to UC Davis Police Chief Matt Carmichael. Plaintiff also sent an inquiry to the UC
14

15 Davis Public Record Act office for documents related to another of the Defendant’ acts of

16 psychological terror, which Plaintiff had been subjected to for over one year.

17

18 September 26, 2012 - The War Like Hysteria and Propaganda

19

20 558. The Defendant war-like hysteria and propaganda did not end with
21 placing the “Persona Non Grata” poster complete with Plaintiff’s photo and description around
22 UC Davis Medical Center.
23 559. On September 26, 2012, the UC Davis Health System HR Executive
24
Director Stephen Chilcott, who directly communicated the operation to the UC Office of the
25
President, sent an e-mail entitled “Confidential – Jerry Waszczuk (Plaintiff)” to the HR Labor
26
Relations Department Manager Travis Lindsey to ask the UC Davis Police department to offer to
27
speak to any of the supervisors or employees of the Plant Operation and Maintenance
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 194 of 295
 1 Department Head Charles Witcher about safety at work and the relevant agencies that should be
2 contacted according to the location they live in, as well as guidance in terms of safety
3 precautions, etc.
4 560. Furthermore, Travis Lindsey was instructed by Stephen Chilcott to ask
5
for police patrols to start immediately and to include the Ticon 3 Human Resources
6
Building. He was also instructed to ask UC Davis Police to continue patrols through 10/31 at
7
which time the patrols would be reassessed.
8
Also, Travis Lindsey was instructed by Chilcott to ask UC Davis Police what resources the
9
UC Davis Police Department might need and could be assigned by Chilcott, the Skelly
10
reviewer, and the Assistant Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson from the UC Davis Campus.
11
561. UC Davis Police Department Lt. James Barbour responded to Travis
12
Lindsey’s request and said he had assigned Police Officer Thomas McGee to the UC Davis
13
Assistant Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson’s Office.
14

15 562. UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour was reassigned from the UC Davis

16 Campus to the UC Davis Medical Center, which represented an enormous demotion and

17 involved a decrease to his salary, after the November 18, 2011, pepper spray attack against

18 protesting students on the UC Davis Campus. Documents show that Lt. James Barbour got

19 sucked into the action against Plaintiff by the “UC Davis Death Squad,” most likely not knowing
20 what the case was about. Apparently, he was promised that his salary would be restored to its
21 normal level. By reading the Public Record Acts documents, one can see that Lt Barbour was
22 dedicated to attacking Plaintiff in 2012 by any means.
23 September 26, 2012 – The Confidential Investigation Report
24
563. On September 26, 2012, Plaintiff received the Confidential Investigation
25

26 Report from the Defendant; it was attached to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious

27 Misconduct.

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 195 of 295
 1 564. The Confidential Investigation Report Regarding Allegations
2 Concerning Jaroslaw Waszczuk (Plaintiff) Plant Operations and Maintenance–HVAC
3 Shop was prepared by HR EEO Manager Cindi Oropeza and HR Labor Relations
4 Supervisor Brent Seifert.
5
565. The unfounded accusations and allegations in the report were fabricated based on
6
the previous reports and were basically copied and pasted from the March 2007Bettye Andreos
7

8
Report and December 2011 and February 2012 Danesha Nichol’s reports. The only difference

9 was that Romanians were used in the reports instead of Jews to make Plaintiff look like a KKK

10 member or Nazi concentration guard.

11 566. Plaintiff, outraged by the Defendant’ sickening, fabricated accusation in

12 the report, responded to Cindi Oropeza and Brent Seifert with an open letter dated September 28,
13 2012.
14 567. In addition to the open letter response, Plaintiff sent an inquiry to the UC
15 Davis Public Record Act office for all documents related to the Defendant’ Notice of Intent to
16 Terminate Plaintiff.
17 OCTOBER 2012
18

19
October 1, 2012—Open Letter to the UC Davis Police Chief
20

21
568. Plaintiff was outraged by the UC Davis Police Department’s humiliating and
22
disparaging “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED ON THE PROPERTY” poster, which was
23
issued and distributed around UC Davis campus on September 26, 2012.
24
569. On October 1, 2012, Plaintiff wrote an open letter to new UC Davis Police Chief
25
Matt Carmichael, who replaced Annette Spicuzza and to Chancellor Katehi, who ordered the
26
firing of his colleague, Lt. John Pike, in August 2012.
27

28 570. In September 2011, Plaintiff asked a UC Davis Police captain Joyce Souza for

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 196 of 295
 1 help due to the Defendant’ despicable, unfounded and fabricated allegations against Plaintiff,
2 which were distributed around by Plaintiff’s department head and by HR staff. Since then,
3 Plaintiff has sent information from the UC Davis Medical Center to UC Davis Police Captain
4 Souza (along with Lt. John Pike and UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza). All three lost
5
their jobs with the UC Davis Police Department in 2012, as did Plaintiff, UC Davis HR
6
Labor Relations Manager Humberto Garcia and his assistant Jill Noel Vandeviver, who
7
attempted to resolve the dispute with Plaintiff informally.
8
571. Plaintiff wrote the following open letter entitled “OPEN LETTER TO
9
UC DAVIS POLICE CHIEF MATT CARMICHAEL IN RE: UC DAVIS POLICE
10
WARRANT AGAINST WASZCZUK”
11
Dear UC Davis Police Chief:
12
To this open letter, I have attached for your review the copies of my previous
13
correspondence with the UC Davis Police Department. I have also attached a
14

15 few more current photos of myself. My photo on the UC Davis Police Warrant

16 is outdated and was taken probably 10 years ago, prior to my 2006 open heart

17 surgery and left eye surgery. HR has a newer photo, which was taken when I

18 changed positions in February 2009 from central plant operator to assistant

19 development engineer.
20 I have no doubt that the UC Davis Police bulletin with my outdated photo was
21 issued to humiliate me, as it sounds like an arrest warrant. This is an
22 outrageous abuse of authority by the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation
23 and Maintenance Department (UCDMC PO&M), the HR Department and the
24
UC Davis Police Department. Such management actions were taken to cause
25
Waszczuk severe emotional distress, and they were done with a willful and
26
conscious disregard of both the law and UC policies.
27
The conduct of UCDMC management and the UC Davis Police Department
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 197 of 295
 1 caused Waszczuk to suffer severe emotional distress, humiliation, anguish,
2 stress and depression. The conduct of UCDMC management and the UC Davis
3 Police Department also caused other incidental and consequential damages and
4 expenses.
5
The conduct shown by UCDMC management and the UC Police Department is
6
outrageous and was done in a malicious, fraudulent and oppressive manner to
7
injure Waszczuk. This spite was caused by management’s failure to adequately
8
represent Waszczuk, and it was done in conscious disregard of Waszczuk’s
9
employee and civil rights.”
10
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
11
572. The Defendant’ distribution of the poster with Plaintiff’s photo on and
12
their choice to make Plaintiff look like a most-wanted terrorist amounts to malicious and
13
despicable defamation of Plaintiff’s character and integrity.
14

15 573. The Defendant have not mentioned in any previous document this

16 “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED ON THE PROPERTY” poster, which defaced and

17 humiliated Plaintiff.

18 October 1, 2012—Extension of Time to File Response with Skelly Reviewer

19 574. On October 1, 2012, Plaintiff received an extension to file a

20 response/appeal with the assigned Skelly reviewer, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen
21 Tollefson. The extension was in regard to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious
22 Misconduct, which Plaintiff received from the Defendant on September 25, 2012. In an e-mail
23 dated October 1, 2012, Charles Witcher wrote:
24
Good afternoon Mr. Waszczuk,
25
This e-mail is to inform you that you have received an Extension of Time to
26
File Response. The University will place the action in abeyance pending the
27
response on your request for information. You will be provided (8) calendar
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 198 of 295
 1 days to respond to the Letter of Intend to Dismiss once the University responds
2 to your information request. If you have any questions please contact me.
3 Sincerely,
4 Charles Witcher, Manager
5
Plant Operations & Maintenance
6
575. Plaintiff briefly responded to the Charles Witcher e-mail as shown below.
7
Note: to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s response to Charles Witcher
8
was corrected by a professional proofreader.
9
Thank you, Mr. Witcher, and I appreciate your prompt response
10
regardless of our differences.
11
I would also like to mention that the Notice of Intent to Dismiss and the
12
insulting investigatory report have caused me to experience enormous stress
13
and a nervous breakdown.
14

15 I had to see my physician to get the extra medicine I needed to maintain my

16 stability. This is an additional reason to provide me with the time extension for

17 filing my response with the Skelly reviewer.

18 I believe that you are aware that I am already on nine different prescription

19 medicines.
20 I am assuming that you have read my last open letter to Mrs. Oropeza and that
21 you or Brent Seifert will question Dorin Daniliuc about his (and others’) lies,
22 which were inserted into the report.
23

24
Sincerely,
25
Jerry “
26

27
576. In addition to Plaintiff’s response to Charles Witcher’s extension, on October 3,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 199 of 295
 1 Plaintiff sent another letter to the authors of the fabricated investigatory report, which was used
2 as cause to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff read the Cindi Oropeza and Brent Seifert
3 Investigation and Confidential Report, dated September 20, 2012, and Plaintiff still had no clue
4 why he was being kept off of campus on investigatory leave for over one year. Even if the
5
unfounded allegations in the report were true, this action would still not be legal. By UC policy,
6
such actions are not qualified as causes for employee termination when the employment is not at
7
will.
8
October 4, 2012—Letter from the UCDHS HR Workers’ Compensation Office
9
577. Following the October 1, 2012, letter that Plaintiff sent to UC Davis Police Chief
10
Matt Carmichael, the UC Davis HDHS HR Workers’ Compensation Office sent Plaintiff the
11
following letter with the attached workers’ compensation claim.
12

13 October 1, 2012
14
RE: Workers’ Compensation Stress/Psychiatric related claim
15
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
16

17 In an e-mail we received dated 10/01/2012 you indicate that you have suffered
18 “severe emotional distress” from your employment at the UC Davis Health
19
System. As such, if you wish to pursue a psychiatric injury claim, related
20
to your employment at UC Davis Health System, please fill out the
21
enclosed DWC-1 Form and return to our office at:
22

23 UC Davis Health System

24
Workers’ Compensation Dept.
25

26

27 Sincerely,

28 Michael Tyler

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 200 of 295
 1 579. There would be nothing unusual about this letter if UC Davis Health System
2 Workers Compensation Office Manager Hugh Parker was not also one of the many people who
3 were causing Plaintiff severe emotional pain, depression, humiliation and psychological terror
4 for over one year.
5
580. In July and August 2011, on the order of HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott,
6
Hugh Parker and UC Davis Medical Center Facility Director Mike Boyd attempted to remove
7
Plaintiff from the premises by offering to file a fraudulent workers’ compensation claim. When
8
Plaintiff rejected and refused such resolution, someone from the HR Workers’ Compensation
9
Office filed a fraudulent workers’ compensation claim on Plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff reported the false claim
10
to the State of California Department of Insurance Fraud Division.
11
581. Hugh Parker participated in an unsuccessful attempt to terminate
12
Plaintiff’s employment on September 23, 2011. Based on the record, Plaintiff believes that this
13
was the first attempt to terminate Plaintiff coordinated by Hugh Parker.
14

15 582. On May 30, 2012, Hugh Parker removed Plaintiff from stress management

16 class instead of encouraging Plaintiff to attend such classes, despite knowing what Plaintiff was

17 going through in his dispute with his employer

18 583. On May 30, 2012, Plaintiff did not know that Hugh Parker was a

19 coordinator for the Defendant’ specially assembled group of UC Davis employees, which
20 Plaintiff nicknamed the “UC Davis Death Squad” in the officially generated document
21 584. On May 31, 2012, and in September 2012, Hugh Parker (as conductor of
22 the aforementioned group) coordinated a malicious but unsuccessful provocation involving UC
23 Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael and Lt. James Barbour to ambush and kill Plaintiff or
24
otherwise end his employment at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11.
25
585. Plaintiff rejected the Defendant’ offer to file a false workers’
26
compensation claim. Apparently the Defendant attempted to escape enormous legal liability
27
using frequent workers’ compensation claims to further attack and distract Plaintiff from the real
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 201 of 295
 1 cause of Plaintiff’s employment termination. After one-and-a-half years of psychological terror,
2 Plaintiff and his family life had been turned upside-down.
3

4 October 22, 2012—HR Consultant Gina Harwood’s Letter to Plaintiff.

5

6
586. One month after the Notice of Intent to Terminate was issued, on October 22, 2012,
7
Plaintiff received an interesting letter from HR Consultant Gina Harwood, who replaced Jill Noel
8
Vandviver on June 22, 2012. Gina Harwood’s letter stated:
9
Re: Service as PPSM Complaint Representative
10
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
11 This letter is to inform you that due to the completion of the investigation, you
12 are no longer on investigatory leave. Your leave status has changed to
13 administrative leave with pay while the personnel action is pending.
14 Due to the change in your status, you will be permitted to serve as the
15 representative in complaint meetings for Kenneth Diede, William Buckans

16 and Dereck Cole. The following complaints will be removed from abeyance

17 and a Complaint Resolution Officer will be appointed:

William Buckans — Complaint #: 03-PPS-011-11/12, 03-PPS-024-11/12, 03-
18
PPS-023/11/12 Kenneth Diede — Complaint #: 03-PPS-025-11/12, 03-PPS-
19
017-11/12
20
In addition, I am in receipt of your appeal to Step 2 for Dereck Cole’s
21
Complaint, 03-PPS-003-12/13 and a Complaint Resolution Officer will be
22
assigned.
23 As the representative on file for the above referenced complaints, you will
24 receive copies of the appointment letters for the Complaint Resolution Officer.
25 Please let me know if you have any questions.
26 Sincerely,
27 Gina Harwood, SPHR “
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 202 of 295
 1 587. This first time UCDHS HR Labor Relations stated that Plaintiff
2 was permitted to serve as the representative for other University of California
3 employees, his status changed from the investigatory leave to administrative leave. The
4 Defendant placed Plaintiff on investigatory leave several times over one-and-a-half
5
years, and Plaintiff fount it outrageous that he could be prohibited from entering the
6
university’s property for meeting with hearing officer. Every University of California
7
employee has the right to the representation of his or her choice. Even organized labor
8
employees represented by unions have the right to be represented by a nonunion
9
representative. Plaintiff knows this because he was helping union employees in their
10
complaints against UC Davis Medical Center’s management.
11
588. Gina Harwood’s letter did not specify how Plaintiff was supposed to represent his
12
three coworkers at hearings at the UC Davis Medical Center or the UC Davis campus. Plaintiff
13
was scheduled to meet with assigned a HR Compliance Resolution Officer (CRO) after the UC
14

15 Davis Police Department issued and distributed the poster with Plaintiff’s photo and

16 description, which prohibited Plaintiff from being on the premises.

17 589. In a letter to Gina Harwood dated October 17, 2012, Plaintiff asked Gina

18 Harwood specific questions that she, as the Defendant’ representative, failed to answer in her

19 response dated November 22, 2012,.

20 590. Plaintiff’s questions to Gina Harwood were:
21
Do the employees I represent have the right to have me as their representative
22
after I am no longer employed by UC?
23

24 If the answer is “yes,” the next question is whether the University of

25 California will let me enter UCDMC premises for appeals hearings, and if
26 that is not the case, whether UCDMC will move the hearings outside of
27 UCDMC premises.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 203 of 295
 1 It is my understanding that according to PPSM 70, grievant have the right to
2 the representation of their choice.
3 It is also my understanding that UCDMC Management, in cooperation with the
4 UC Davis Police Department, issued a warrant that prohibits my presence on
5
UC Davis’s property, if not all of the University of California’s premises. The
6
warrant does not state whether I will be arrested or shot if I enter the UC
7
premises uninvited or if I walk on Stockton Boulevard, next to the HR
8
Building. I am just curious.
9
I and the represented employees would like to know as soon as possible how
10
UCDMC HR Labor Relations will handle the problem that their representation
11
has been jeopardized by the warrant issued against Waszczuk.”
12
591. Obviously, Gina Harwood was advised by the Defendant’ attorney not to
13
elaborate on her response about the humiliating poster of Plaintiff issued by UC Davis Police on
14

15 September 26, 2012. Gina Harwood knew that Plaintiff had, in February 2009, signed the

16 Settlement-Agreement with the Regents of the University of California. Gina Harwood and other

17 perpetrators knew that the UC Davis Police poster was an indefensible breach of the Settlement-

18 Agreement signed by the Defendant and Plaintiff. The Defendant’ poster went beyond

19 disparaging Plaintiff. It was an act of malice beyond of human decency aimed at Plaintiff, and it
20 alone can be the subject of litigation against the Defendant.
21 October 30, 2012-The UC Davis Medical Center HVAC Shop Supervisors Patrick Putney and
Dorin Daniluc’s Attempt to Provoke Dereck Cole for Physical Confrontation
22

23
592. Just two days after Plaintiff wrote a letter to Director Boyd about UC Davis
24
management’s despicable retaliation and vendetta against HVAC shop technician Dereck Cole
25

26 on October 30, 2012, two of Dereck Cole’s supervisors, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc,

27 approached him in the hospital cafeteria during his break and verbally assaulted him in front of a

28 surveillance camera with clear intention to provoke him into physical confrontation and end

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 204 of 295
 1 Dereck’s employment.
2 593. Dereck Cole did not fall into Putney and Daniliuc’s or their superiors’ plan to be
3 eliminated through provocation and walked away from them. In tears, he went straight to the
4 office of HR Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsey.
5
594. Dereck described his meeting with Travis Lindsey in an aftermath e-mail he sent
6
to Lindsey on October 30, 2012.
7
Travis,
8
I wanted to thank you for the time you gave me to present the harassment and
9
vindictive actions once again inflicted by Patrick Putney. I’m a little
10
embarrassed and usually don’t tear up at work but this behavior from
11
Patrick has caused a lot of anxiety and fear for my job as well as my
12
health. It has broken me down to the point where I feel threatened and
13
attacked since the appeal on my Letter of Expectation.
14

15 Thanks again for your support and consideration,

16 Respectfully,

17 Dereck

18 595. After meeting with Lindsey, Dereck Cole was removed from the HVAC shop and

19 reassigned to the preventive maintenance shop. The surveillance footage from the hospital
20 cafeteria should be checked, and appropriate disciplinary action should be taken against Patrick
21 Putney and Dorin Daniliuc. Dereck Cole was a victim of two UC Davis medical supervisors
22 supported by Department Head Charles Witcher, HR Labor Relations staff, corrupt UC Davis
23 Chief of Police Matt Carmichael, and his lieutenant James Barbour. If Dereck Cole had called
24
UC Davis police right after incident in the cafeteria, then he would most likely be accused and
25
investigated instead of Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc.
26
597. Plaintiff represented Dereck Cole in his complaints against these two supervisors
27
in a retaliation complaint pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM 70. Right after the confrontation in
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 205 of 295
 1 cafeteria occurred, Plaintiff requested from the UC Davis Public Record Act office .
2 a copy of the surveillance tape from the cafeteria in relation to this attack against Dereck
3 Cole.
4 598. The UC Davis Public Record Act office informed Plaintiff on two occasions that
5
the surveillance tape from UC Davis Medical Center Hospital Cafeteria for October 30, 2012
6
was destroyed and unavailable.
7

8
NOVEMBER 2012
9
November 2, 2012 – Public Record Act Request
10

11
599. On November 2, 2012, Plaintiff received a response from the UC Davis Public
12
Record Act (PRA) office to his request for PRA documents related to the Defendant’s Notice
13
Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct dated September 25, 2012.
14

15 600. Plaintiff briefly reviewed the received PRA documents and several pages of e-

16 mail correspondence dated June 1, 2012, which were sent by the UC Davis Health System

17 (UCDHS) HR Workers Compensation, Ergonomic and Disability Manager Hugh Parker to

18 David Levine, Debra Schmidt, Marjorie Trogodon Shock, Neil Speth, Carol Kirshnit, Karen

19 Kouretas, Cindy Oropeza, Glynis Foulk, James Barbour, and Travis Lindsay.
20 601. On the first page of the e-mail with subject “Jaroslaw ‘Jerry’ Waszczuk –PO&M
21 employee,” Hugh Parker wrote:
22

23 “Mr. Waszczuk returned to work yesterday from his suspension and was
placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At issue are writings sent by
24 Mr. Waszczuk while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk did not display any anger when
told he was being place on investigatory leave.”
25

26 602. After Plaintiff read Hugh Parker’s e-mail message, checked Hugh Parker’s
27 recipients, and found out who these people were, Plaintiff got goosebumps realizing that this e-
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 206 of 295
 1 mail was about the May 11, 2012 Letter of Suspension, which was maliciously crafted to lure
2 Plaintiff onto the premises.
3 603. When Plaintiff found out that Karen Kouretas, the UC Davis Medical Center
4 Trauma Unit # 11 manager, was listed on the e-mail, Plaintiff got very nervous and uncertain
5
about who was behind his employment termination.
6

7
604. Plaintiff combined Karen Kouretas’s name with Neil Speth, James
8
Barbour, Glynis Foulk, and David Levine with what happened to Plaintiff on May 30, 2012 and
9
what Plaintiff wrote in his letter dated September 9, 2012 to Brent Seifert and the UC Davis
10
Police. On September 26, 2012, a defaming “Persona Non Grata” poster with Plaintiff’s photo
11
and description surfaced. Plaintiff had no any doubt that May 31, 2012 was a maliciously crafted
12
provocation to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit
13
No. # 11.
14

15 605. Plaintiff already covered this subject in the Statements of Facts, June

16 2012 chapter.

17

18 November 5, 2012 – Letter to Charles Witcher

19

20 606. On November 5, 2012, Plaintiff sent an inquiry to UCDHS PO&M

21 Department Manager Charles Witcher and requested that the Defendant reimburse Plaintiff for a
22 parking permit and two computer hard drives. Charles Witcher was the person who signed the
23 September 25, 2012 Notice Intent to Terminate Plaintiff.
24 (Note: to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s response to Charles Witcher
was corrected by a professional proofreader.)
25
Re: PARKING FEE AND REIBURSEMENT OF TWO COMPUTER HARD DRIVES
26

27 Dear Mr. Witcher:

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 207 of 295
 1 By this letter, I am respectfully requesting that my employer, UC Davis
2 Medical Center, reimburse me the parking fee deducted from my paychecks
3 every two weeks for the period from August 2, 2012 to the current payday
4 November 7, 2012.
5
As we both know, I have not parked my car on company premises since
6

7 August 2, 2011, with exceptions of the few hours to interview with ‘Danesha

8 Nichols in December 2011, a half-hour during a meeting with Humberto

9 Garcia in February 2012, and maybe 2 hours during the interview with Brent

10 Seifert on May 31, 2012. Total reimbursement should equal approx., $768.00;

11 see attached pay stubs.

12
Besides the above, I am still waiting for the two computer hard drives (HDs),
13
which should be returned to me. One HD was 1T and the other was 500 Gig.
14
Both HDs were installed with Putney’s permission on the company computers
15
as a backup for servers and other things. Gina Harwood wrote to me stating the
16
both computers were taken away from my office, and she asked me whether I
17

18 have receipts for the disks. I don’t, but I need my HDs back or need to be

19 reimbursed approx.$150.00.

20 Sincerely,

21 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
22
607. The Defendant never reimbursed Plaintiff for the parking permit or the
23
two hard drives.
24
November 12, 2012- The Brief for Oral Response Submitted by Plaintiff to Assigned Skelly
25 Reviewer. UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson
26

27 608. On September 12, 2012, Plaintiff submitted the chronological, 23-page

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 208 of 295
 1 long brief for a yet- to -be -scheduled meeting with assigned Skelly Reviewer Allen Tollefson
2 with a short cover letter that explained the purpose of the brief prior the meeting.
(Note: to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s letter to Allen
3 Tollefson was corrected by a professional proofreader.)
4
Re: Brief for Oral Response. The Notice Intent to Dismiss
5

6 Dated September 25, 2012 by “The UC Davis Medical Center ‘HR Death
7 Squad’”
8
Dear Vice Chancellor Tollefson:
9

10 Besides the yet-to-be-scheduled meeting with you, I am sending you a short

11 brief as a helpful tool so you and I may have a productive discussion, if any.In
12
addition to the mentioned brief, I would like to let you know that I have
13
become very hesitant to go to the Davis campus or UCDMC campus for any
14
meetings after I read the documents that I received under the Public Record
15
Act provision. For the above reason, I am asking you for permission to bring
16
one or two of my trusted coworkers to the meeting.
17

18 It clearly appears from the bulk of the e-mail correspondence that certain

19 individuals from the UCDMC HR department, led by HR Executive Director

20 Stephen Chilcott, new Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsay, Cindy
21 Oropeza, and others, were planning to carry out their malicious and well-
22 crafted, evil conspiracy plot to provoke me and kill or send me to the UCDMC
23
Trauma Unit with severe blunt or penetrating injury on May 31, 2012. From
24
now on, I will call them the “HR Death Squad.” The explanation for the name
25
given to these individuals is located in the brief.
26

27 The assigned executor to carry out the plot to send me to my death or send me

28 to the UCDMC trauma unit to meet Karen Kouretas was the UC Police Lt.

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 209 of 295
 1 James Barbour, who apparently loves “War-Games” and bloodshed. I am
2 assuming that this did not happen without the permission of the new UCDPD
3 Chief Matt Carmichael and the top guns in the UC Davis and UCDMC
4 campus. It is a very chilling and disturbing matter to deal with, but what other
5
choices do we have not to deal with the “HR Death Squad”? I am still waiting
6
for more documents under the Public Record Act provision to have more
7
insight into the UCDMC “HR Death Squad” activities against victimized
8
workers and some supervisors.
9

10 I am hoping that eventually the FBI and district attorney will step in and break

11 this vicious and unscrupulous “HR Death Squad” into pieces.

12
Besides my own safety, I am very concerned about my coworkers’ safety, to
13
whom I am providing representations with their complaints. Patrick Putney’s
14
latest vicious attack on Dereck Cole was very disturbing and scary.
15
Sincerely,
16
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
17

18 609. The letter to Allen Tollefson was the first time Plaintiff nicknamed the assembled

19 Defendant group “HR Death Squad,” which in criminally minded, unsuccessful provocation
20 attempted to end Plaintiff’s employment at UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11. Later,
21 Plaintiff changed the nickname from “HR Death Squad” to the “UC Davis Death Squad” due to
22 the involvement of the UC Davis police in the ill-planned assaults on Plaintiff.
23 610. On November 13, 2012, Skelly Reviewer Allen Tollefson responded to Plaintiff’s
24
letter and scheduled the meeting with Plaintiff on November 16, 2012 on the UC Davis campus.
25
611. On November 16, 2012, Plaintiff attended the meeting with assigned Skelly
26
Reviewer and UC Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson to discuss Plaintiff’s unwarranted
27
and without-valid-cause employment termination.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 210 of 295
 1 612. Plaintiff arrived at the meeting with his trusted coworker from the UCDHS
2 HVAC shop, Kenneth Diede, as a witness. Plaintiff did not notice any UC Davis police presence
3 near his and his coworker’s office, where the meeting took place.
4 613. The meeting with Skelly Reviewer Allen Tollefson was cordial and pleasant.
5
Plaintiff focused on the issues he outlined in the brief, which Plaintiff sent to Tollefson on
6
November 12, 2012. Plaintiff especially focused on his employee performance reviews
7
(evaluations) for years 2010–2011 and 2011–2012, which are mandated by the UC Davis Policy
8
PPSM 23 and without providing Plaintiff evaluations for these years, the termination of
9
employment shall should be considered void, not to mention the February 2009 Settlement-
10
Agreement Plaintiff signed with the regents of the University of California. The meeting lasted
11
approximately one or one and half hour. Plaintiff did not have high expectations regarding the
12
outcome of the meeting, but Plaintiff followed the UC policies and held onto a little hope that the
13
UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor would change Plaintiff’s fate and give Plaintiff his job
14

15 back. Plaintiff was unaware on November 16, 2012 and a long time after the meeting that

16 Plaintiff’s fate was already decided a long time before the meeting with Allen Tollefson’ by the

17 Regents of the University of California the UC Office of the President,(UCOP) and the UC

18 Office of the General Counsel for a completely different reason. Plaintiff thought he was being

19 hunted down like an animal or subhuman by the UC Davis administration’s designated thugs.
20 614. On November 18, 2012, Plaintiff sent to Skelly Reviewer Allen Tollefson the
21 meeting summary letter entitled “Our Meeting on November 16, 2012. -The Notice Intent to
22 Dismiss Dated September 25, 2012 BY “The UC Davis Medical Center “’HR Death
23 Squad.’”
24 (Note: to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s letter to Allen
Tollefson was corrected by a professional proofreader.)
25
Re: Our Meeting on November 16, 2012.
26
The Notice of Intent to Dismiss dated September 25, 2012.
27
Dear Vice Chancellor Tollefson:
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 211 of 295
 1 Thank you for the opportunity and time to meet with you to discuss my
2 employment termination.
3 For the record, the meeting took place on the UC Davis Campus, at the
4 location of 1050 Extension Center Drive, Davis, CA 95616 on November 16,
5
2012, at 9:00 A.M.
6
Besides your and my presence at the meeting, Mr. Kenneth Diede attended
7
the meeting as my trusted coworker and witness to the meeting. Mr.
8
Kenneth Diede did not participate in our approximately one-hour
9
discussion. The purpose of this letter is not to summarize our one-hour
10
meeting but to capture what was not discussed at the meeting. In my brief
11
for the oral response that I sent to your office on November 13, 2012, I
12
have skipped almost one year of facts from the “battlefield” between me
13
and the UCDMC “HR Death Squad.” I assumed that you would be strictly
14

15 focused on Charles Witcher’s notice of intent to dismiss dated September

16 25, 2012. The notice not say too much besides some quotes taken out of

17 context from my letters that I wrote due to the vicious and unscrupulous

18 war against me, which has lasted over one year and is still going.

19
The very powerful forces from the UCDMC Human Resources Department
20
and the UC Davis campus, as well as the involvement of the director of the
21
investigation sent from the UC Office of the President against me in May
22
2012, make me believe that the reason or reasons to harm me were not
23
my reporting of Patrick Putney’s chickens, roosters, goats, sheep and
24
other animals for sale in the UCDMC HVAC shop. I do not believe
25

26 that it was due to me reporting Patrick Putney’s habit to cheat his

27 employer out of the parking fee for four years by hiding his car inside

28 the shop. I don’t believe reporting Dorin Daniluc’s private and

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 212 of 295
 1 notorious activities while on company time was the reason to attack me
2 with such brutal impact. Even writing about Dorin Daniluc’s provided
3 services for Director Robert Taylor at his private residence would not
4 justify such an assault.
5
I was thinking that, most likely, the reasons “to kill” could be due to the
6

7 writing in the letter dated March 13, 2011, referring to the central plant

8 operator Todd Georlich’s tragic suicide that took place in December 2010

9 as well as the secret and fraudulent 12% pay raise the central plant

10 operators received in December 2010. But I am not so sure.

11
The other reason that I was thinking it could be is the child pornography
12
issue reported in August 2011 by my coworker Kenny Diede in his
13
2010/2011 employee evaluation complaint under the PPSM 70. The
14
complaint is still unresolved. Kenny Diede became a subject of retaliation
15
by Patrick Putney with Charles Witcher’s support and approval. I am
16
representing Kenny with his complaints under PPSM70. It is very bizarre
17

18 that the child pornography issue was completely ignored by Danesha

19 Nichols in her investigation report, but the graphic video clip about the

20 devastation of Romania by the communist regime that I sent to her became

21 a pretext to use as a “secret weapon” to attack me and terminate my

22 employment regardless of the fact that the mentioned video is widely

23 accessible to anyone on the Web. Another bizarre fact is Mr. Hugh
24 Parker’s involvement with the “HR Death Squad” operation that took place
25 against me on May 30 and May 31, 2012. Mr. Hugh Parker is not a
26 UCDMC HR labor relations team member. Mr. Hugh Parker is the
27
UCDMC HR workers’ compensation department manager. On May 30,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 213 of 295
 1 2012, Mr. Hugh Parker, together with Mrs. Marjorie Trogdon Shock, the
2 licensed clinical social worker from the HR Academic and Stuff Assistance
3 Program, was hosting the “Class on Stress Management.”
4
The “Class on Stress Management” enrollment document dated May 23, 2012,
5
stated that “Participants will learn how to identify their anger triggers,
6

7 including thoughts. The class will describe effective responses to anger,

8 including coping thoughts and relaxation techniques.

9
Although stress and anger affect everyone, anger can be problematic if people
10
use it to gain control and express it unprofessionally.”
11

12 I received information about the class on May 23, 2012, from my former

13 central plant coworker William Buckans, who on the same day received a letter

14 of expectation (subject of unresolved complaint under PPSM 70), and the

15 information about the “Class on Stress Management” was attached.
16
I decided to enroll in the class, and I encouraged Kenny Diede and William
17
Buckans to do the same.
18

19 I showed up to class on time with my two colleagues. Before the class had
20 begun, Hugh Parker, with the help of Licensed Clinical Social Worker Mrs.
21 Marjorie Trogdon Shock, kicked me out of the class.
22
It was quite a surprise to me because I was constantly being accused that I
23

24
am angry, hostile etc. Such a class would be appropriate for a person who

25 is accused of not controlling his anger.

26
If I knew that Mr. Hugh Parker, along with Mrs. Trogdon Shock and the
27
other members of the “HR Death Squad,” had planned to send Jerry to the
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 214 of 295
 1 UCDMC trauma unit or to funeral home the next day, May 31, 2012, then I
2 would have never enrolled myself in the “Class on Stress Management” and
3 would have encouraged my coworkers not to either. It sounds like a Russian
4 roulette game to me.
5
Two days later, on June 1, 2012, Mr. Hugh Parker wrote in his e-mail
6

7 addressed to the other UCDMC “Death Squad” members:

8
“Mr. Waszczuk returned to work yesterday from his suspension and was
9 placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At issue are writings sent by
Mr. Waszczuk while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk did not display any anger when
10 told he was being place on investigatory leave.
11
Hugh R. Parker, Manager”
12

13
Could you imagine what would or could have happened if Mr. Parker,
14
along with Mrs. Shock, would not have “shocked” me and did not kick me
15

16
out from the “Class on Stress Management” on May 30, 2012?

17 I imagined that after attending the “Class on Stress Management,” I would

18
kiss and hug Mr. Charles Witcher and probably add him to my Christmas list
19
to send him presents every year as appreciation for again placing me on
20
investigatory leave, contrary to what I was writing about in my letters. I would
21
probably send flowers to Danesha Nichols, Wendy Delmendo, Gina
22
Harwood, Teresa Porter, and Gina Holleman and apologize to them
23
because I did not see how hard they were working to cover up the scum,
24
conspiracy, retaliation, fraud, and revenge of HR and the Plant Operation
25
and Maintenance managers’ outrageously vindictive behavior toward
26
workers.
27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 215 of 295
 1 Mr. Hugh Parker, in his e-mail dated August 28, 2012, wrote the following
2 to Waszczuk:
3 From: Hugh Parker [mailto:[email protected]]
4 Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:59 AM
5
To: Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk
6
Subject: Re: Dereck Cole -Letter of Expectation dated August 9, 2012
7 Mr. Waszczuk,
Please remove me from your e-mail mailing list as I am not interested in
8
receiving information related to employee and labor relations issues.
9 Thank you.
Hugh R. Parker, Manager’Workers’ Compensation, Ergonomics, Disability
10 Management
As we spoke on Friday, I am sending to you the letter entitled I FEEL LIKE
11
A HUNTED JEW DURING THE HOLOCAUST that I wrote on October 9,
12 2011, which I addressed to the honorable members of the UC Davis Ethics and
Compliance Risk Committee, California State Assembly members, and the
13 regents of the University of California, plus the other relevant documents.
14
Prior to the above letter, I sent the e-mail to Danesha Nichols with the
15
request to interview all of my coworkers from the HVAC shop in regard to
16
the allegations against me and my allegations against Dorin Daniluc and
17
Patrick Putney.
18

19 The interviews did not happen until October 10, 2012 after I sent the letter
20 to the members of UC Davis Ethics and Compliance Risk Committee.
21
In addition to, I am forwarding to you an e-mail which I sent l to UC Davis
22

23 Police Captain Joyce Souza in spite of the transmission of Danesha

24 Nichols’ false accusations against me, which alleged that I am violent and

25 make discriminatory comments. I thought that somebody had filed some

26 kind of phony report to the police and that Danesha Nichols was in

27 possession of the document and making noise in her irresponsible

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 216 of 295
 1 correspondence. I think that the correspondence with Captain Souza is
2 a very important piece of evidence that proves that everything against
3 me has been fabricated along with the (still unknown to me) reason to
4 fire me from the job without cause.
5
In conclusion, I still don’t know why and am very concerned about the real
6

7 reason for UCDMC “Death Squad” to physically harm or kill me on May

8 31, 2012. I am wondering what these conspiring individuals had in their

9 minds by believing that they could set me up and make me seem violent

10 and dangerous. Hypothetically, I understood their plan: After Mr. Witcher

11 handed me another investigatory-leave letter just after suspension from

12 work, I would attack Mr. Witcher—who was not warned about their plan—
13 would become a casualty of the “HR Death Squad” war, and I would be
14 finished. This is very sick and unbelievable.
15
At this point, I am not sure whether we are dealing with a child-porn ring
16
within UCDMC, workers-compensation fraud, or massive short-term disability
17

18 fraud.

19 It seems to me that Mr. Chilcott was trying to train his crew on how to deal
20
with “rebellious” workers, knowing that I would not give up so quickly, and he
21
was trying to find out how long I would resist the attacks and his blitzkrieg.
22

23 Maybe it was a bit of everything and at some point got so out of control and

24 had so many people involved for no reason; now, somebody must pay the cost

25 of the whole operation.

26
I will cease any further action and correspondence until I receive the final
27
employment-termination notice. I have no time to deal with this since I have to
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 217 of 295
 1 find a place to live due to my house was sold on short sale due to my uncertain
2 employment situation I have to prepare myself for several hearings in regard to
3 the PPSM 70 appeals due at the end of this month and the beginning of the
4 next month.
5 However, if you have any questions, need any additional documents or
6 information, or you would like to meet with me again, I am always ready to
7 cooperate in this final solution.
8 Sincerely,

9 Jaroslaw Waszczuk

10 Enclosed:

11 Eduardo Espinosa’s letter dated October 09, 2009 to UC Vice

12 President Judith Boyette. The letter clarifies the statement “Somebody
13
tell me to give this Polack a bad evaluation and fire him” in Waszczuk
14
letters,Hugh Parker’s letter with invitation to file the fraudulent worker’s
15
compensation claim, which Waszczuk refused to do;letter dated July 22,
16
2011 and addressed to UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown in regard
17
to the 2009 settlement-agreement violation;E-mail dated October 03,
18
2011 to Danesha Nichols with request to interview all workers from the
19
HVAC shop plus Manuel Saldana, Dorin Daniluc’s previous supervisor,
20
who had similar problems with Dorin Daniliuc’s habit of using company
21
time for his private business. Danesha Nichols did not interview Manual
22

23 Saldana and acquitted Dorin Daniliuc from all allegations regardless of

24 Daniliuc’s obvious, everyday misconduct,. Letter dated October 9, 2011

25 to UC Davis Ethics and Compliance Risk Committee, UC Regents and

26 State of California Assembly members; Letter dated October 06, 2011 to

27 UC Davis Police Captain Joyce Souza with request to check whether

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 218 of 295
 1 anybody filed a complaint or reported Waszczuk to the UCDPD due to
2 constant, unfounded accusations against him transmitted by the HR
3 attorneys and other individuals; Letter dated November 9, 2012 to
4 Charles Witcher. The letter clarifies the Waszczuk “Gestapo on my ass”
5
statement in outgoing correspondence; Letter dated November 23, 2011
6
to Gina Harwood. In the letter, Waszczuk has declined Gina Harwood’s
7
offer to file a request for extension of his medical leave under
8
Supplemental FMLA University Policy 2.210;
9
Pay stub with period end date 12/24/2011. The pay stub shows that
10
position title has been changed without Waszczuk’s knowledge from
11
assistant development engineer to programmer I. No clue why; the Class
12
on Stress Management invitation dated May 23, 2012;The e-mail from
13
Hugh Parker dated August 28, 2012 requesting his removal from the e-
14

15 mail mailing list; Letter dated September 9, 2012 to Brent Seifert with

16 request for investigation status update. In that letter, on the pages 2 and

17 3, Waszczuk has perfectly described ill-crafted provocation against him

18 on May 31, 2012, not knowing anything about the involvement of so

19 many people from the HR department, UCDPD police, trauma unit, and
20 UCDMC counsel until Waszczuk received documents under the Public
21 Record Act Provision in October 2012; Letter dated September 23, 2012
22 (Two days before the notice intent to terminate issued by Charles
23 Witcher on September 25, 2012 followed by the “Most Unwanted” Lt.
24
James Barbour’s warrant); October 4, 2012 e-mail from Michael Tyler as
25
an acknowledgment that I decline the offer for the workers-compensation
26
claim. I don’t file fraudulent claims.
27
CC: To Whom It May Concern
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 219 of 295
 1 615. In the post-meeting letter to Allen Tollefson, Plaintiff clearly pointed
2 out that there must be a different reason for why Plaintiff was being pursued with such
3 force and was nearly killed in the criminally minded provocation. However, Plaintiff
4 still had no clue what it was about. Plaintiff survived the Soviet Union and Communist
5
prisons for his political activities and struggled against the Communist regime in Soviet-
6
dominated Poland; yet, what he was experiencing at the University of California went
7
beyond Plaintiff’s imagination.
8
616. Besides Plaintiff’s meeting with the Skelly reviewer, on November 14, 2012,
9
Plaintiff sent a short e-mail to former UCDHS HR Labor Relation Consultant Jill Noel
10
Vandeviver, who was dismissed on June 22, 2012 together with her boss and manager of
11
HR Labor Relation Humberto Garcia. Jill Noel Vandeviver and Humberto Garcia were
12
handling Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s coworkers’ complaints to whom Plaintiff was providing
13
representation. Humberto Garcia was replaced by Travis Lindsey and Jill Noel Vandeviver
14

15 was replaced by Gina Harwood. Plaintiff was searching for clue as to what triggered the

16 Defendant’ brutal and merciless action against Plaintiff. In his letter to Jill Noel Vandeviver,

17 Plaintiff wrote:
(Note: to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s e-mail to Jill Noel
18 Vandeviver was corrected by a professional proofreader.)
19
Re: Brief for Oral Response -Notice Intent to Dismiss. - UCDMC “HR Death
20
Squad”
21
Good Morning Ms. Vandeviver:
22
I am writing a few words to you because it appears that my employer, UC
23
Davis Medical Center made an attempt to frame me, provoke me, and kill me
24

25 or send me to the trauma unit in bad shape in May of 2012. Somehow, it did

26 not work out for the UCDMC “HR Death Squad.” I perfectly described the

27 whole provocation in my letter addressed to Brent Seifert on September 10,

28 2012, not knowing anything about it until I got a PRA request almost one

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 220 of 295
 1 month after I wrote the mentioned letter.
2 You were employed in May 2012 and you were in charge of the cases related
3 to my coworker and me. At some point, I thought that you would replace Mik
4 Garcia as a manager of Labor Relation because of your experience and
5
education. I was very surprised that you left after Gina Harwood sent me a
6
“Happy Announcement” that you and Mike Garcia were gone. (Attached). I
7
am not expecting you to give me any feedback about what happened or what
8
why the “HR Death Squad” wanted to send me to the trauma unit or the
9
cemetery. I am just giving you this information because I did not see any
10
documents where you or Mike Garcia participated in the plot to kill me or
11
send me to the trauma unit badly injured.
12
Best Regards,
13
Jerry Waszczuk
14

15 617. In November 2012, Jill Noel Vandeviver worked for the State of

16 California Hospitals after she left UC Davis Medical Center.

17

18 DECEMBER 2012

19 December 5, 2012 –The Letter of Termination

20 618. On December 5, 2012, UCDHS Plant Operation and Maintenance
21 Manager Charles Witcher sent to Plaintiff the Letter of Termination effective December 7,
22 2012 by e-mail with the attached Skelly Reviewer decision dated December 3, 2012. The
23 Witcher e-mails stated:
24
Dear Jerry:
25
Attached below is a letter informing you that I am dismissing you from your
26
position as a Sr. Development Engineer, Plant Operations and Maintenance at
27
UC Davis Health System effective December 7, 2012. Skelly Officer’s
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 221 of 295
 1 recommendations dated December 5, 2012 and Proof of Service are also
2 included. This Letter of Termination and attachments has also been sent to you
3 in US Mail today.
4 Sincerely,
5
Charles Witcher
6
432. The attached Letter of Termination stated:
7
Re: Letter of Termination
8

9 The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I am dismissing you from your

10 position as a Sr. Development Engineer in Plant Operations and Maintenance

11 at UC Davis Health System effective December 7, 2012. The reason for this

12 action is your failure to adhere to UC Davis Policy and Procedure 380-15,

13 Staff Complaints of Discrimination, UCDHS Policy and Procedure 1616,

14 Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and the UC Davis Principles of
15 Community as outlined in my Letter of Intent to Dismiss for Serious
16 Misconduct dated September 25, 2012. The Skelly Review process provided
17 no new information that would cause me to change this intended action. You
18
are to immediately return all University property, including but not limited to:
19
ID badge, keys, equipment (computers, books, cell phones, disks/manuals),
20
uniforms and work product (electronic/paper files), etc. You have the right to
21
request review of this action under Personnel Policies for Staff Members 70
22
Complaint Resolution. If you wish to request review of this action, you must
23
do so in writing, using the appropriate complaint form. A written request must
24
be received in the UCDHS Employee & Labor Relations office no later than
25
thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this letter. You should immediately
26
contact the UCDHS Benefits Office at (916) 734-8099 to make an appointment
27

28 with a benefits counselor to determine the effect of this action on your benefits.

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 222 of 295
 Sincerely
1
Charles Witcher,Manager, Plant Operations & Maintenance
2 UCDHS
3 Attachment: Proof of Service;Skelly Officer's recommendations dated
December 5, 2012
4
Cc: Mike Boyd (w/o attachments); Department File; Personnel File/Records
5 Department (via E&LR Consultant);Employee and Labor Relations Consultant
(2);Unemployment Insurance Coordinator-Davis Campus HR w/attachment
6

7
619. The Skelly Reviewer , UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen

8 Tollefson’s decision dated December 3, 2012 and Charles Witcher’s Letter of Termination were

9 just formalities. No outstanding work history or performances outlined in Plaintiff’s employee

10 performance review (evaluations) were mentioned. Neither decision mentioned the February

11 2009 Settlement-Agreement Plaintiff signed with the regents of the University of California,
12 which guaranteed Plaintiff a job with the University as the Associate Development Engineer.
13
“December 3, 2012
14 Travis Lindsey
Manager
15 Employee & Labor Relations
University of California, Davis, Health System
16
Re: Letter of Intent to Dismiss--Jaroslaw Waszczuk
17

18 Dear Mr. Lindsey,

19
I have completed my review of the intended action regarding Mr. Waszczuk.
20
Mr. Waszczuk exercised his Skelly rights and requested a meeting and
21
provided to me additional written documentation in support of his argument. I
22
held the Skelly meeting on November 16, 2012 at 9:00am. Those in attendance
23
were Mr. Waszczuk, Kenny Diede (witness), and me .Mr. Waszczuk did not
24
deny the information contained in the September 25, 2012 Notice of Intent to
25
Dismiss and in the documentation attached to the notice. He stated that his
26

27
actions were taken out of context and that he has the right to voice his opinion

28 about the wrong doings of the Department. Mr. Waszczuk has a very negative

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 223 of 295
 1 opinion about the department and the management team's behavior, along with
2 the UCDI-IS Human Resources department. While some of the circumstances
3 Mr. Waszczuk presented are concerning, this does not excuse his aggressive
4 conduct towards individuals in the Department. Ills failure to follow direct
5
instructions and ignore University policy is not excused by his perceived
6
retaliation. After meeting with him and my careful review of the documents
7
provided to me, I find that there are reasonable grounds to believe Mr.
8
Waszczuk engaged in the conduct as charged and that the proposed action
9
should be upheld.
10 Sincerely,
Assistant Vice Chancellor
11 University of California, Davis
cc: Charles Wichter
12
620. Regardless of Tollefson’s motivation and order he got from the
13
Defenadats , he grossly violated the Skelly Law, depriving Plaintiff the opportunity to find any
14
employment.
15

16
“In Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 194, the California
17 Supreme Court ruled that:
18
‘as part of constitutionally guaranteed due process, public employees are
19 entitled to certain procedural safeguards before discipline, which is
sufficiently severe to constitute a deprivation of a liberty or property right is
20 imposed on them. The constitutionally protected liberty interests requiring
Skelly protections arise whenever the allegations against an employee are
21 sufficiently onerous to seriously impact the employee’s ability to find future
work in his/her chosen career.’”
22

23
621. Skelly Reviewer Allan Tollefson held a meeting with UCDHS HR Labor
24
Relation Manager Travis Lindsey on September 24, 2012 and was coached on what decision
25
was expected from him in Plaintiff’s case.
26
622. Just before Plaintiff’s loss of employment, Plaintiff lost his house on a short sale
27

28
and rented a house so as not to deal with a mortgage company during his unemployment.

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 224 of 295
 1 December 18, 2012- Plaintiff’s Benefits upon Termination of Employment
2

3 623. On December 18, 2012, Plaintiff sent an e-mail inquiry to USDHS HR Labor
4 Relation Consultant Gina Harwood for clearance to enter the HR building on December 20,
5
2012 to take care of his remaining benefits upon termination of employment:
6
Subject: Meeting with Janette Manuel in the Ticon III Bldg. on 12/20/2012 at 9:00
7
Hi Gina:
8
Would you please provide me clearance with UCDPD to go to Ticon III
9
Bldg. on 12/20/2012 at 9:00 a.m. for a meeting with Janette Manuel?It
10
came to my attention that the UCDPD “Most Unwanted” police warrant
11
with my photos is still hanging in the HVAC shop and probably in other
12
UCDMC places. I don’t want be shot by in the back by Lt. James
13
Barbour’s forces for entering the Ticon III Bldg. to discuss my benefits
14

15 upon termination of my employment.

16 I appreciate your prompt response in this matter.

17 Jerry

18 436. Gina Harwood responded,

19 “Hi Jerry: There is no problem with you attending a meeting on Thursday
20
in HR. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
21
Gina”
22
624. On December 20, 2012, Plaintiff, who was not yet eligible for early Social
23
Security benefits at age sixty one and half , signed all necessary documents to cash out and
24
transfer to an IRA account his University Retirement money. Plaintiff estimated that it will let
25
him get by for another three years, without additional income equal to what Plaintiff was making
26
as a University of California employee.
27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 225 of 295
 December 16, 2012 – Plaintiff’s Application for Unemployment Insurance Benefits with State
1 of California Employment Development Department
2
625. Nine days after receiving a letter of employment termination, Plaintiff filed an
3
application for unemployment insurance benefits with the State of California Employment
4
Development Department (EDD).
5
626. The Defendant in outrageous disregard of the February 2009 Settlement–
6

7 Agreement signed with Plaintiff and in disregard of Plaintiff’s outstanding working record ,

8 slandered and defamed Plaintiff with the Employment Development Department, thus causing

9 denial of Plaintiff’s unemployment insurance benefits by EDD.

10 627. By the reckless, despicable and inhumane Defendant’ continuous attack aimed at

11 Plaintiff, the Defendant caused Plaintiff additional enormous stress, anxiety and financial harm
12 in the period when Plaintiff was not eligible yet for earlier Social Security Benefits and was
13 awaiting to cash out his University Retirement money and transfer it to an IRA account.
14 628. Plaintiff’s unemployment insurance benefits case is pending in the State of
15 California Court of Appeal 3rd Appellate District, Case Caption Waszczuk v. California
16
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board No. C079254, the County of Sacramento Superior
17
Court Case No. 34201380001699CUWMGDS.
18
JANUARY 2013
19

20 January 3, 2013- Plaintiff’s Step I Complaint Pursuant to the UC Davis Complaint Resolution
Policy PPSM 70.
21

22 629. On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Step I Complaint pursuant to the UC Davis
23 Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70. The Step I complaint was the initial appeal from the
24 Defendant’ decision terminating Plaintiff’s employment on December 7, 2012.
25 630. The termination letter stated that Plaintiff has rights to request review of the
26 Defendant’ employment action under Personnel Policies for Staff Members 70 - Complaint
27
Resolution.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 226 of 295
 1 631. Plaintiff at first did not have the intention to file a complaint under the UC Davis
2 Policy PPSM due to the fact that Plaintiff already sent a 23-page brief to the Skelly Reviewer in
3 December and made a complaint wherever it was possible and the another complaint would have
4 the same effect as the previous one.
5
632. Plaintiff was on the edge of a major nervous breakdown and was worried about
6
getting a heart attack after Plaintiff lost his employment income, house medical insurance and
7
other benefits and felt that filing another complaint just nonsense and futile.
8
633. Since February 2009, Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant pursuant to the
9
Settlement–Agreement that the Defendant signed with Plaintiff after the Defendant were
10
defeated by Plaintiff in the 2008 arbitration process. The Defendant not only violated and
11
breached the Settlement-Agreement they signed with Plaintiff, but despicably violated Plaintiff’s
12
constitutional rights, employee, civil and human rights beyond anyone’s imagination and beyond
13
the signed Settlement-Agreement.
14

15 634. Plaintiff’s mind was and still is constantly and unstoppably occupied by the

16 Defendant’ criminally minded May 31, 2012 provocation. Undoubtedly it was the Defendant’

17 goal to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11.

18 Plaintiff is still obsessively thinking about and can’t get it out of his mind because the Defendant

19 never in one word in any document address their own disgraceful, despicable and criminally
20 minded action against their own employee, who provided service for the Defendant for 13 years
21 and almost ended his employment in death.
22 635. Plaintiff expressed and emphasized his feelings about the Defendant’ way to
23 resolve the labor dispute with Plaintiff in the cover letter to the Step I Complaint Plaintiff sent to
24
UCDHS HR Labor Relation Consultant Gina Harwood on January 2, 2013.
25
636. Together with a cover letter, Plaintiff sent to Gina Harwood a copy of the
26
February 2009 Settlement–Agreement, the copy of Plaintiff’s Brief for Oral Arguments sent by
27
Plaintiff to Skelly Reviewer, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson, on
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 227 of 295
 1 November 12, 2012, copies of complaint letters dated July 17, 2011 and July 24, 2011 that
2 Plaintiff sent to UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven A. Drown, who signed the February 2009
3 Settlement–Agreement with Plaintiff on the Regents of the University of California’s behalf. In
4 the cover letter to Gina Harwood, Plaintiff wrote:
5
(Note: to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s letter Gina Harwood was
6 corrected by a professional proofreader.)

7
Re: The Letter of Termination Dated December 5, 2012- Request
8 for Review under PPSM 70.

9 Dear Mrs. Harwood:

10
The Letter of Termination issued by Mr. Witcher states:
11
“You have the right to request review of this action under Personnel Policies
12
for Staff Members 70 - Complaint Resolution. If you wish to request review of
13
this action, you must do so in writing, using the appropriate complaint form. A
14
written request must be received in the UCDHS Employee & Labor Relations
15
office no later than thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this letter.”
16
I did not have any intention to follow the Letter of Termination advice and file
17
a request for review with the HR Labor Relation Office, which has caused the
18
termination of my employment with University of California after 13 years of
19

20 service.

21 I was sure that filing a request for review under PPSM 70 would be

22 unnecessary and a redundant action on my part, since I already submitted a 23-

23 page brief for the Oral Response to The Notice Intent to Dismiss dated

24 September 25, 2012, which includes hundreds of pages of exhibits to UC

25 Davis Skelly Reviewer Mr. Allen Tollefson.
26 My detailed objection and direct explanation in the meeting with Mr. Tollefson
27 as to why my employment is subject of wrongful termination did not change
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 228 of 295
 1 anything, and my employment was terminated anyway.
2 After I received the final Letter of Termination of my employment, my intent
3 was to write a Letter of Condemnation to the Skelly Reviewer & UC Davis
4 Assistant Vice Chancellor Mr. Allen Tollefson for his “Sergeant Shultz, I see
5
nothing, I hear nothing, I read nothing” decision (reference to the “Hogan’s
6
Heroes” TV serial about WW II).
7
The multiple complaints I filed and complaint letters I wrote to various UC
8
officials in the period of more than one year, as well as the abovementioned
9
brief I submitted to the Skelly Reviewer, caused me to believe that I
10
completely exhausted the University administrative remedies other than taking
11
further legal court action against UC Regents for wrongfully terminating my
12
employment.
13
However, during my preparation to the wrongful termination court action
14

15 against the University of California, I reviewed the State of California and

16 Federal Court cases in relation to employees’ wrongful terminations.

17 Three of the cases that I reviewed caught my attention, and this is why I have

18 decided to file a request for review under the PPSM 70. I have to be certain

19 that I would not be precluded to file the wrongful termination lawsuit or else I
20 will be defeated like the two Plaintiffs in Janet Campbell v. Regents Of The
21 University of California S113275; Ct.App.1/1 A097560; San Francisco Super.
22 CT. No. 312736 and Patricia M. Palmer v. Regents Of The University of
23 California 2nd App. Div.7 B154868; Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.BC
24
187036.
25
The third case is the newest wrongful termination lawsuit, which is interesting
26
because of the astronomical jury verdict for Plaintiff. The Ani Chopourian v.
27
Catholic Healthcare West wrongful termination case in Federal Court included
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 229 of 295
 1 nasty and intolerable working conditions, sexual harassment, and a violation of
2 section 1278.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code.
3 The astronomical $167 million dollar jury verdict against the defendant in the
4 case, as well as the lawsuit itself, have no relation to the University of
5
California or my employment termination”?
6
However, the astronomical jury verdict sent the strong message to the other
7
employers who are violating the law as well as their own established policies,
8
which outline that abusing power, harassing, and retaliating against employees
9
with legitimate complaints could result in stiff and astronomical penalties
10
The Ani Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare West case makes me wonder how
11
severe the jury verdict would have been if, besides the wrongful termination
12
and sexual harassment, Ani Chopourian’s employer set a trap to provoke, kill,
13
or send her to the hospital’s trauma unit badly injured like my employer
14

15 planned to do with me on May 31, 2012.

16 The date of May 31, 2012 constantly occupies my mind with unanswered

17 questions and thoughts in relation to the ill-planed UCDMC HR “Death

18 Squad” provocation and assault me with deadly force.

19 Would I have survived or would have been disabled for the rest of my life if I
20 survived? If I was taken to the UCD Trauma Unit, would my IV be filled with
21 toxic doses of drugs that could have contraindicated the medicines I am
22 currently taking, since the UCD wouldn’t know my medical history? Would I
23 become part of a deadly and illegal medical experiment? Ani Chopourian is
24
not asking herself these questions. I do not wish anybody to have his/her mind
25
occupied by such trauma that the UC Davis Medical Center Human Resources
26
Department caused me. “Sometimes I think that I should have never asked for
27
the documents that I received under the Public Record Act because of how
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 230 of 295
 1 close to the cemetery or UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit I actually
2 came.”
3 The two abovementioned lawsuits for wrongful terminations against The UC
4 Regents have addressed a lot of mandatory administrative remedies and
5
damages mitigation with UC. I surely exhausted all remedies by complaining
6
about the violation of public policies by my employer. I am unsure how I will
7
mitigate anything with my employer, who signed with me a Settlement–
8
Agreement in 2009. Two years later, the signed Settlement–Agreement was
9
trashed by my employer, and the special safari to hunt down and kill a 60-year-
10
old employee in April 2011 began. It is horrible to think about.
11
The outrageously fabricated and malicious accusations, lies, allegations, and
12
assertions against me by the HR Investigators show how meaningless the UC
13
Policies are for those who are unscrupulously and cruelly violating the laws
14

15 and human and employee rights; they are also abusing the power given to them

16 by the UC System

17 The UCDMC HR Investigators’ malicious lies were converted into accusations

18 in the Letter of Suspension. The May 31, 2012 death trap, the Notice Intent to

19 Dismiss, and, finally, the Letter of Termination dated December 5, 2012

20 further proved the UCDMC management’s malice and outrageous abuse of
21 power in dealing with labor relation issues and violations of law and UC
22 Policies.”
23 The UCDMC and UC Davis Campus Compliance and Internal Audits Offices
24
covered up and gave the green light for UCDMC Management to abuse its
25
power and violate the law and UC Policies. This is so obvious and well
26
documented in this case that the jury will have no problems reaching a verdict
27
and providing a special message to the UC Regents.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 231 of 295
 1 “The “Wedge Extractor” (Gerry Preciado) was hired by the “HR Death Squad”
2 leader , UCDHS HR Executive Director Stephen Chillcot after the Notice of
3 Intent to Terminate my employment, which was only a desperate act to
4 downplay, minimize, and apply the smoke screen for the serious problems
5
caused by the UCDMC PO&M and HR Department regarding Labor Relations
6
issues and matters.”
7
I read the “Wedge Extractor’s” Report which is a perfect reason to file another
8
complaint under the UC meaningless Whistle Blowing Policy for misuse and
9
abuse of UC resources and monies to cover up the UCDMC management’s
10
abuse of power and public policies violation.
11
Instead of hiring a “Wedge Extractor,” Mr. Chillcot should extract himself
12
from his office, along with other HR “Death Squad” members who willfully—
13
and without the pressures from their superiors—participated in the ill-minded
14

15 and planned deadly assault on Waszczuk May 31, 2012. Without a doubt, it

16 would help UC Regents avoid costly litigations in the future.

17 Attached is the Complaint/Request for Review – Letter of Termination,

18 dated December 5, 2012.

19 Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
20
CC: UC President Mark Yudof, UC Regents, UC Davis Chancellor Lynda Katehi,
21 and UC Davis Vice Chancellor Ralph Hextler.
22

23
January 3, 2013 –Addendum to the Wrongful Termination Complaint PPSM 70 Step I Appeal
24
638. In the Step I Complaint and the addendum to the complaint, Plaintiff
25
alleged as follows.
26

27 a) University policy or procedure violated (if any).

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 232 of 295
 1 Nondiscrimination in Employment (PPSM 12); the University of California
2 "JUST CAUSE" doctrine. PPMS 380 Section 17(E). Improper Governmental
3 Activities/Whistleblower Protection. Abuse and wrongfully applying the
4 doctrine of “Preponderance of Evidence". UCDHS Policy 1616 and 380-15
5
In addition to the already mentioned violation of the UC Policies the
6 UCDMC Management violated the following State and California and
Federal Law by wrongfully firing Waszczuk
7
Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code 12900; National Labor;
8
Title VII. Civil Rights Act of 1964: 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) Relations Act, 29
9
U.S.C. 158(a)(4); Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: 29 U.S.C.
10
215(a)(3);Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 OSHA; 29 U.S.C.
11

12 660(c);Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) Anti-Retaliation

13 Provisions: Gov. Code Section 12940(3);California Occupational Safety and

14 Health Act of 1973 (CaU0SHA) Anti Retaliation Provisions;Labor Code

15 Sections 6310-6312; Right of employees to disclose information to

16 government or law enforcement agency; Labor Code Section 1102.5 and Right
17 of state employees to blow whistle Gov. Code Sections 10543.
18 ADDENDUM TO THE WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT
19 De sc r i be y o ur c o m p la i n t i n de ta i l , i nc l u d i ng t he fo l lo w i ng
fiv e po i n ts . Atta c h a d di tio na l s he e t s if ne e de d .
20
3. How did the management act violate policy or procedure?
21

22 The termination of Waszczuk’s employment is a malicious and gross

23 violation of law and is pure and undisputable retaliation against Waszczuk for

24 exposing and reporting University of California Davis Medical Center managers

25 and supervisors who were suspected of committing illegal activities, as he called

26 attention to their unspeakable violations of University of California policies as

27 well as of state and federal law. Waszczuk’ May 2012 suspension without pay
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 233 of 295
 1 and his subsequent termination of employment is based on the fabricated lies
2 and accusations of his supervisors, some of Mr. Waszczuk’ coerced coworker
3 and UCDMC human resource (HR) investigators along with Mr. Waszczuk’
4 taken-out-of-context statements in his correspondence with various UC
5
managers, executives, and investigators.
6
2009 SETTLEMENT- AGREEMENT VIOLATION BY THE UCDMC
7 MANAGAMENT

8 The UCDMC management by firing Waszczuk from his job breached and
9
violated the 2009 Settlement-Agreement between Waszczuk and the Regents
10
of the UC. As early as of July 2011. Waszczuk submitted two letters of
11
complaint to the UC Davis campus Chief Counsel Mr. Steven A. Drown and
12
asked him to advise violators of the signed Settlement-Agreement to stop
13
assaulting Waszczuk and to restore order in Waszczuk’ workplace. The letters
14
dated July 17 and 24, 2011 are self-explanatory, and no reason exists to
15
elaborate further about my employment malice in relation to the settlement –
16
agreement. It is only appropriate to mention that Mr. Drown as the UC Davis
17
chief counsel signed the mentioned agreement on behalf of the UC Regents.
18

19 Mr. Drown was obligated to act to prevent further violation of the agreement,

20 unthinkable harassment, and retaliation which almost ended in UC Davis

21 Police’s assaulting Waszczuk with a deadly weapon on May 31, 2012, as well

22 as Waszczuk’ unwarranted employment termination on December 7, 2012.

23 The UC “Just Cause” Doctrine

24 The UC Davis Health System (UCDHS) Web Page States:
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/hr/hrdepts/labor_relations/just_cause.html
25
"Just cause" is the guiding principle that we utilize as a public employer
26

27 whenever we engage in some form of corrective action or progressive discipline

28 for our employees. Supervisors are always expected to have "just cause" when

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 234 of 295
 1 disciplining an employee.
2 My Response :
3 I am not sure as to whether the supervisors who have caused me so much pain
4 and suffering since April 2011 understands the meaning of the “just cause”
5
doctrine, taking into consideration that they covered up their severe
6
misconduct, including and not limited to dishonesty misappropriation of
7
university property, and acts to endanger others.
8
Furthermore, the doctrine of just cause requires that management rules, orders,
9
and disciplinary actions be applied in a consistent and nondiscriminatory
10
manner. I do not know how any employee could expect nondiscriminatory
11
discipline action from a manager or supervisor who is stalking his subordinate
12
from a dark office and with a company camera or who his violently attacking
13
his subordinate in a university cafeteria.
14

15 I will leave to my attorney the further interpretation of the UCDHS just cause,

16 Preponderance of Evidence Doctrine PPSM 23 and other policies in relation to

17 my employment termination on December 7, 2012.

18 Besides the above, the UCDMC is accredited by The Joint Commission, a

19 not for-profit organization dedicated to raising the level of safety and

20 quality of care in all health care settings.
21 The UC Davis Center for Professional Practice of Nursing pamphlet “What's
22 New in 2011” states that “[t]he Medical Center does not take disciplinary
23 action or retaliate against an employee for bringing forward quality of care
24
and patient safety concerns.”
25
In the same year Waszczuk on July 11,2011wrote to UCDMC HR Director
26
Stephen Chillcot:
27
“I was not aware that Gina Harwood gave unintentionally the green light and
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 235 of 295
 1 blessing to my managers for alternation of my duty and the sabotage of my job.
2 Her decision added so much high BTU fuel to the fire, and this fire needs to be
3 extinguished as soon as possible for the benefits of UCDMC, involved parties
4 in the conflict, and especially for the benefit of the hospital patients who can't
5
be put at risk because the war is going on in PO&M Department HVAC
6
[Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning] Shop. I really don't care what is
7
going to happen to me, but I am really concerned about hospital patients’ care
8
in relation to my duty.”
9
One year later, the same Mr. Chillcot with his new “henchman on the block,”
10
Travis Lindsey, not only retaliated against an employee who reported UCDMC
11
management’s wrongdoing but also engaged in activities as a UCDMC HR
12
“Death Squad” leader in an effort to commit a heinous crime for the sake of
13
protecting UCDMC management’s false image as well as to protect the fat
14

15 paychecks that he and others were receiving regardless of their qualifications

16 to lead.

17 I am so traumatized when I think about the UCDMC trauma unit, which was

18 ready for me on May 31, 2012.

19 However, today I am less surprised about Mr. Chillcot’s war game, after the
20 newspapers and television (TV) news have announced that under the
21 supervision of humanitarian off the Year, Mrs. Claire Pomeroy and UCDMC
22 CEO Mrs. Ann Madden Rice, the UCDMC created an oasis for neurosurgeons
23 whose activities were closely akin to Dr. Mengele’s from the Auschwitz Death
24
Camp—characterized by ill-minded illegal medical experiments. The only
25
difference was that Dr. Mengele was declared a war criminal and sentenced to
26
death in absentia. The two UCDMC “Mengeles” were fired from their jobs,
27
and Mrs. Pomeroy resigned from her position under false pretenses. Mrs. Rice
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 236 of 295
 1 still maintains her throne.
2 If I read today the statement about The Joint Commission in Director Robert
3 Taylor’s e-mail dated July 11, 2009, entitled “Antarctica Presentation” and his
4 unusual and reported past relationship with Dorin Daniliuc , which still awaits
5
clarification, I sometimes think that it was the reason I came under vicious
6
attack in 2011 and was fired in December 2012.
7
If I think today about Mr. Hugh Parker’s action in the Managing Stress
8
classroom on May 30, 1951, I understand today why I had to leave the
9
classroom. It was impossible for Mr. Parker to let me stay in the classroom
10
with my two coworkers: It would screw up his and others’ plans for an ill-
11
planned provocation and my departure to the UCDMC trauma unit one day
12
later. It is worth mentioning that Mr. Parker is an HR workers compensation
13
manager who helps employees who are hurt on the job. I did not know that Mr.
14

15 Parker was dedicated to helping me to acquire disability and to serving me his

16 workers compensation papers in the UCDMC trauma unit.

17 I am not sure what more should I write in this final complaint under PPSM 70.

18 I am so traumatized and stressed out, but thanks to God, I escaped the May 31,

19 2012, attack unharmed and I am still alive.

20 Should I write about Lt. James Bolfour’s and Mr. Dennis Curry threatening e-
21 mail; Ms. Danesha Nichol’s , Mr. Brent Seifert’s, and Ms. Cindy Oropeza’s
22 libelous and full-of-lies reports; my coworkers’ complaints about the same
23 managers; the letters of recognition that Mr. Dereck Cole received; and finally
24
the documents I received under the California Public Records Act? I think I
25
covered most everything in my previous correspondence and complaints, and
26
the rest I will leave to be resolved in a court of law if my employer will not
27
mitigate and resolve this wrongful termination of my employment before I file
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 237 of 295
 1 the lawsuit. So far, I do not see any good will or faith on the part of UC to
2 make any move in the right direction and to end the conflict. For the record, I
3 deny and condemn all allegations in the PO&M manager Mr. Charles
4 Witcher’s intent-to-dismiss notice dated September 25, 2012; the Skelly
5
Reviewer Mr. Tollefson’s opinion dated December 3, 2012; and the
6
termination letter dated December 5, 2012, as baseless, groundless, malicious,
7
acts of oppression and unthinkable in work place retaliation.
8
5. How were you adversely affected?
9
The termination of Waszczuk’ employment after 13 years of service and five
10
years prior to his Social Security retirement were done with the malicious
11
intention of causing Mr. Waszczuk financial harm and severe emotional
12
distress and were done with a willful and conscious disregard of the likelihood
13
of causing Waszczuk such distress.
14

15 The conduct of management especially stalking Waszczuk and holding him

16 hostage in his own home by abusing the UC Investigatory Leave Policy;

17 suspending Waszczuk without pay; plotting to kill or severely harm Waszczuk

18 on May 31, 2012; and finally terminating his employment on December 7,

19 2012 did, in fact, cause Waszczuk to suffer severe emotional distress,

20 embarrassment, humiliation, pain and anguish, stress, and depression. The
21 conduct of management further caused Waszczuk’s loss of present and future
22 income, significant decreases in his UC retirement fund, and other incidental
23 and consequential damages and expenses, not to mention the enormous stress
24
that Mr. Waszczuk’s wrongful termination has caused his spouse as well.
25
The conduct of management was extreme and outrageous; was done in a
26
malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive manner; was intended to injure
27
Waszczuk; was executed with an improper and evil motive amounting to
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 238 of 295
 1 malice and spite stemming from management's failure to adequately
2 represent Waszczuk and was done in conscious disregard of Waszczuk's
3 employee and civil rights. The Settlement-Agreement that Waszczuk
4 signed with the UC Regents in February 2009 became a worthless piece of
5
paper. The position and job duty outlined in the Settlement-Agreement was
6
given to a person who was a relative of the reported child pornography
7
felon who illegally and in violation of his parole accessed the UCDMC
8
computer. In this matter, the HVAC shop supervisors openly and with full
9
knowledge participated in allowing the felon who was convicted twice of
10
child pornography to violate his court parole by letting him access a
11
company computer on UCDMC premises. The mentioned individual
12
previously was fired from UCDMC and should be restrained from being
13
present on UCDMC premises without a valid reason. Instead, the UCDMC
14

15 investigator has ignored and covered up the entire issue in her report.

16 Waszczuk’s coworker experienced outrageous retaliation for reporting the

17 presence of a child pornography felon on company premises, and

18 Waszczuk believes that the father of the convicted child pornography felon

19 was promised to have Mr. Waszczuk’s job and position a long time before
20 April 2011. This was yet another reason to retaliate against and harass
21 Waszczuk as well as to later terminate his employment.
22 6. Resolution Requested
23

24
Waszczuk is requesting in good faith the following resolution to end the
25
conflict without further costly litigations.
26
After receiving and reviewing my request/complaint, the UC immediately
27
shall restore my employment in the spirit of the signed 2009 Settlement-
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 239 of 295
 1 Agreement with the UC Regents with an increased salary to $82,000/year
2 and all of the benefits that Mr. Waszczuk had prior to the termination of
3 his employment.
4 For the enormous amount of emotional distress inflicted on Waszczuk as a
5
result of the malicious and ill planned provocations and planned May 31,
6
2012, assault on Waszczuk with deadly force, which will probably occupy
7
his mind for the rest of his life, Waszczuk is requesting from the UC
8
compensation in the amount of $10,000,000 dollars (10 million dollars).
9
The amount of the requested compensation looks and sounds big.
10
However, if taking into consideration the astronomical jury award in the
11
Ani Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare West lawsuit and the reason
12
behind the astronomical compensation for harassment and retaliation in
13
that case, Waszczuk should be awarded at least twice what Plaintiff was
14

15 awarded in Ani Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare West in his wrongful

16 termination case goes to court.

Respectfully Submitted on January 3, 2013
17 Jaroslaw Waszczuk - Grievant
CC: UC Regents, UC President Mark Yudoff, UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi,
18 UC Davis Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter

19 639. Plaintiff’s Grievance was confirmed by UCDHS HR Labor Relations on

20 January 8, 2013 with assigned Case No. 03-PPS-014-12/13.

21 January 19, 2013- UC Davis PPSM Step II Decisions in the unwarranted Letters of
Expectation Plaintiff’s coworkers William Buckans, Kenny Diede and Dereck Cole were
22 attacked by UC Davis Management in May and August 2012.
23 640. On or around January 19, Plaintiff received from UCDHS HR Labor
24 Relation the Step II Appeal- decisions for the complaints Plaintiff filed on his three coworkers,
25 Kenneth Diede, William Buckans and Dereck Cole were served in May and August 2012.
26 Plaintiff provided representation for the mentioned coworkers pursuant to UC Davis Compliant
27 Resolution Policy PPSM 70.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 240 of 295
 1 641. The Step I Appeals were denied for Kenneth Diede, William Buckans and
2 Dereck Cole by UCDHS Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher, who
3 signed the Letter of Termination of Plaintiff’s employment, which was served to Plaintiff on
4 December 5, 2012.
5
642 On December 4, 2012, Plaintiff as a representative held a Step II appeal
6
meeting on the UC Davis Campus with the UCDHS HR assigned Compliant Resolution Officer
7
(CRO), retired UC Davis HR Director Elizabeth A. Mayer.
8
643. Magically, Elizabeth A. Mayer reversed Charles Witcher’s decision
9
who denied the Step I Appel and Meyer ruled in favor of Kenneth Diede, William Buckans and
10
Dereck Cole.The letter of expectation served to Dereck Cole which was very similar to the
11
Notice of Employment termination. The Elizabeth Mayer’s decisions made Plaintiff believe that
12
the Defendant successfully manipulated Plaintiff, to distract him by attacking Plaintiff’s
13
coworkers to divert Plaintiff’s attention from the Defendant’ more serious misconduct and
14

15 violation of law, for which disclosure would have more serious consequences.

16 February 2013

17

18 February 1, 2013- PPSM 70 Step I Appeal Decision in Plaintiff’s Dismissal

19 Case No. 03-PPS-014-12/13

20 644.. On February 1, 2013 Plaintiff received from UDHS HR Labor Consultant
21 Gina Harwood PPSM the Step I appeal decision in Plaintiff’s dismissal Case No. 03-PPS-014 -
22 12/13. Gina Harwood’s cover letter stated:
23 Grievant: Jaroslaw Waszczuk
File Number: 03-PPS-014-12/13
24 Issue(s): Dismissal
Please consider this the University's Step I response to the above referenced
25

26 complaint. The complaint alleges that your dismissal from employment was a

27 violation of University policy and did not follow the just cause standard. The

28 requested remedy is reinstatement to your position with a salary increase and

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 241 of 295
 1 compensation in the amount of $10,000,000.
2 Your complaint was submitted to Thomas Rush, Manager, Facilities Design
3 and Construction for review at Step I. Mr. Rush has reviewed the complaint
4 and supporting documentation and has issued his response, see attached. Ms.
5
Rush did not find that your dismissal was a violation of University Policy and
6
finds that your dismissal was appropriate. The complaint and requested
7
remedies are denied.
8
You have the right to appeal this decision to Step II of the Complaint
9
Resolution Process. Your written appeal must be received in our office within
10
30 days from the date of this response. If you choose not to submit an appeal,
11
the complaint will be closed based on this response.
12 Sincerely,
Gina Harwood, SPHR
13 Attachment: Step I response
Proof of Service
14 Cc: Complaint File
Charles Witcher
15

16
645. The actual three-page Step I Appeal Review was signed by USDHS
17

18 Manager of Facilities Design and Construction Thomas Rush, whom Plaintiff never heard of or

19 met. Normally Step I Appeal is reviewed by the Department Head, which was Charles Witcher,

20 who signed the termination letter. In such a situation, HR, by writing the review, had to insert a

21 different name than the Department Head name.

22 646. Thomas Rush was a subordinate and colleague of the USDHS Facilities
23 Design and Construction Executive Director Mike Boyd, who in July 2011 also became Director
24 for the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and became the
25 direct superior of Charles Witcher and indirectly Plaintiff superior. It was no coincidence that
26 Thomas Rush’s name was selected for Step I review. It is the second time Mike Boyd’s
27
subordinate was assigned to review Plaintiff’s appeal. First was Michael Pansious in May 2012,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 242 of 295
 1 to review the 10 days’ suspension without pay served to Plaintiff, as a lure to provoke and kill
2 Plaintiff, on May 31, 2012.
3 647. If Thomas Rush actually wrote the decision in Step I, then he
4 somehow forgot to mention in his decision the supportive documents that Plaintiff provided with
5
his Step I Appeal, which included the February 2009 Settlement–Agreement that Plaintiff signed
6
with the Regents of the University of California (Defendant), the copy of Plaintiff’s Brief for
7
Oral Arguments sent by Plaintiff to Skelly Reviewer, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen
8
Tollefson on November 12, 2012, and copies of complaint letters dated July 17, 2011 and July
9
24, 2011 that Plaintiff sent to UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven A. Drown, who signed the
10
February 2009 Settlement–Agreement with Plaintiff on the Regents of the University of
11
California’s behalf. It is possible that Gina Harwood did not bother to provide the mentioned
12
documents to Thomas Rush. It would probably not make any difference anyway and he would
13
write what he was told to write, or it was written for him by Gina Harwood or HR’s other
14

15 attorney. The Thomas Rush decision is even worth to be pasted into this amended complaint.

16

17 February 28, 2013- Plaintiff’s Step II Appeal PPSM 70-Dismisal

18

19 648. On February 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Step II Appeal from the December 7, 2012
20 Employment Termination Pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 asking $10,000,000 for the
21 unthinkable psychological tortures that Plaintiff experienced from the Defendant in one year and
22 a half of inhumane prosecution and attempts to provoke and kill Plaintiff. In his 19 –page
23 appeal , Plaintiff just vented out his stress and anger knowing that any appeal will not do Plaintiff
24
any good after the Defendant attempted to provoke and kill Plaintiff and UC Davis Police issued
25
and distributed around UC Davis Campuses the “Most Unwanted Persona Non Grata” poster
26
with Plaintiff’s photo and description on it.
27
649. In conclusion of the Step II Appeal request, Plaintiff wrote:
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 243 of 295
 1 “CONCLUSION

2 In conclusion, I would like to say that I survived communism, a

3 communist prison, and Witcher’s assault on me in 2007, and I will survive
4 this wrongful and unjustified employment termination after 12 years of
5
service.”
6

7
MARCH 2015
8

9
March 7, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference Complaint with UC
10
Davis Vice Chancellor and Provost Office
11

12 650. On March 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Whistleblowing Retaliation and

13 Interference Complaint with the UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s Office due to Plaintiff’s protected

14 activities by the GOVERNMENT CODESECTION 8547-8547.13, which states:

15 8547.10. (a) A University of California employee, including an officer or
16 faculty member, or applicant for employment, may file a written complaint
17 with his or her supervisor or manager, or with any other university officer
18 designated for that purpose by the regents, alleging actual or attempted acts of
19
reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar improper acts for having made
20
a contents of the written complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be
21
true, under penalty of perjury. The complaint shall be filed within 12 months of
22
the most recent act of reprisal complained about.
23
(b) Any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation,
24
threats, coercion, or similar acts against a University of California employee,
25
including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment for
26
having made a protected disclosure, is subject to a fine not to exceed ten
27
thousand dollars ($10,000) and imprisonment in the county jail for up to a
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 244 of 295
 1 period of one year. Any university employee, including an officer or faculty
2 member, who intentionally engages protected disclosure, together with a sworn
3 statement that the in that conduct shall also be subject to discipline by the
4 university.
5

6
651. Plaintiff with his Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference complaint
7
form submitted to the UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s office a 35-page brief, 1500 pages of
8
supportive documents and a cover letter, which stated:
9 ‘March 7, 2013
The Honorable Ralph J. Hexter
10 Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
Mrak Hall, Fifth Floor
11 University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
12 Davis, CA 95616
13 Re: Retaliation and Interference Complaint
14 Dear Vice Chancellor Hexter,Enclosed is a copy of my Retaliation and
15 Interference Complaint against certain individuals who are managing the UC
16 Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, California, where I was employed for
17 over thirteen years and where my employment was abruptly and without valid
18
and legitimate reason terminated on December 7, 2012.
19
In addition to the managing officers at the UC Davis Medical Center, who are
20
included in the complaint, UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael and his
21
subordinate, Lieutenant James Barbour, are included in the complaint for
22
alleged act(s) of provocation and conspiracy with other individuals listed in the
23
complaint in an attempt to murder me on May 31, 2012 or send me to the UC
24
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit in a state of extreme harm.
25
It is very disturbing—even unthinkable—that UC Davis leaders should
26
use the UC Davis Police Department to resolve labor disputes with
27

28 employees who are making complaints. The original Retaliation and

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 245 of 295
 1 Interference Complaint included approximately 1,500 pages of documents and
2 photos that I sent to your office yesterday by U.S. Certified Mail.
3 I would like to inform you that I am representing myself in this matter until
4 such time as I decide to hire an attorney at law.
5
If you have any questions or concerns, the University of California Legal
6
Counsel or other investigators may contact me at their convenience in the
7
event that you decide to review the complaint and investigate the allegations.
8 Best Regards
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
9 CC: UCDMC Principal; HR Labor Relations Consultant Gina Harwood; UC
President Mark Yudof; UC Regents Office; UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi”
10

11 652. In June 2013, Plaintiff Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference Complaint

12 was transferred from the UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s and Provost office to the UC Office of the
13 President (UCOP) Ethics, Compliance and Audit Services.
14 653. The UC Office of the President Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg was assigned
15 to investigate Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference Complaint.
16 654. The investigation was presided over by two UC Senior Vice Presidents, Sheryl
17
Vacca and Daniel Dooley.
18
655. Plaintiff met UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg twice. Plaintiff’s coworker
19
William Buckans witnessed the meetings. Investigator Judith Rosenberg was not very anxious to
20
investigate and she showed her feelings about. The UCOP Principal Investigator probably knew
21
that the Regents, Office of the President and UC Office of the General Counsel were responsible
22
for Plaintiff’s termination without knowing the cause.
23
656. One year later in June 2014, Judith Rosenberg issued her investigation Report,
24
which had nothing to do with any investigation. Judith Rosenberg repeated the defaming and
25
defacing statements made about Plaintiff by three previous investigators, Danesha Nichols, Brent
26

27 Seifert and Cindi Oropeza who portrayed Plaintiff far worse, as a two time convicted child

28 pornography felon who was illegally accessing UC Davis Medical Center HVAC shop

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 246 of 295
 1 computers while on parole.
2 657. In the one letter after the meeting with Judith Rosenberg, Plaintiff asked
3 her not to copy Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert and Cindi Oropeza in her investigation and said
4 that Plaintiff liked to remember Rosenberg as a good person. This did not happen.
5
659. On September 10, 2014 more than 18 months after Plaintiff filed his 35-
6
page long Whistleblowing and Interference Complaint with 1500 supportive documents, Plaintiff
7
received a half-page decision signed by the UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley.
8
660. UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley wrote in his decision:
9 September 10, 2014
10 Re: Your Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint
11
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
12
In my role as the Locally Designated Official (LDO) for the University of
13

14 California System, I have carefully reviewed the investigation report prepared

15 by Judith Rosenberg, who investigated your allegations of whistleblower

16 retaliation under the University's Whistleblower Protection Policy. While Ms.

17 Rosenberg found that you had made protected disclosures under the

18 Whistleblower Policy, she concluded that the preponderance of the evidence

19 did not substantiate your allegation that your protected disclosures were a
20 contributing factor in the University's decision to suspend you without pay
21 from May 16 to May 30, 2012, or in the University's subsequent decision to
22 terminate your employment. She further concluded that the University's
23
decision to place you on investigatory leave and the California Employment
24
Development Department's denial of unemployment benefits did not constitute
25
adverse employment actions.
26
I agree with Ms. Rosenberg's analysis and conclusions. In light of the
27
foregoing, it is my decision that you have failed to meet your burden of
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 247 of 295
 1 demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that you were subjected to
2 adverse employment action as a result of engaging in conduct protected by the
3 Whistleblower Protection Policy. I am therefore closing the University's file
4 with regard to your complaint.
5
Thank you for cooperating with the University's investigation.
6 Sincerely,
7 Daniel M. Dooley
Senior Vice President
8 Locally Designated Official
cc: Senior Vice President Vacca
9 Chief Compliance Officer Delmendo
10

11 661. The question is whether the UC Senior Vice President, who was overseeing Judith
12 Rosenberg, was aware of all the details of the case and why Plaintiff became a subject of such a
13 vicious retaliation from the Defendant, which lasted for more than a year and half and was
14 continued by the Defendant after Plaintiff’s termination through the State of California
15
Employment Development Department and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
16
Board than in State of California Sacramento of Sacramento Superior Court Department 23 with
17
Presiding Judge Hon. Shaleyanne Chang.
18
662. The University of California Office of the President (UCOP) Principal
19
Investigator Judith concluded her pseudo-investigation in Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation
20
and Interference Complaint on June 23, 2013, which was a year and four months since Plaintiff
21
filed the complaint on April 7, 2013 with UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor Office.
22
663. Judith Rosenberg’s Confidential Investigation Report issued on June 23, 2014
23
was more or less a summary of the previous several fabricated reports as a cause for Plaintiff’s
24

25 May 2012 ten-day suspension without pay and employment termination on December 7, 2012.

26 664. Judith Rosenberg’s investigation report has nothing to do with any investigation

27 and was basically based on slanderous and libelous fabrication issued by UC Davis Health

28 System HR-assigned investigators, Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert and Cindi Oropeza.

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 248 of 295
 1 665. The Judith Rosenberg Investigator Report was basically expanded Notice Intent to
2 Dismiss and the Skelly Reviewer, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson’s
3 decision, which provided for the Defendant’ false and outrageous justification for Plaintiff’s
4 employment termination.
5
666. Judith Rosenberg was the first University of California Official who mentioned
6
the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed with the Regents of the University
7
of California, and the Settlement-Agreement guaranteed employment for Plaintiff as the
8
Associate Development Engineer; due to that, the Defendant were defeated by Plaintiff in the
9
arbitration process in 2008.The previous case or dispute arose for exactly the same reason as this
10
ongoing litigation with the difference that, in the previous dispute, Plaintiff was slandered
11
defamed, defaced, wrongly accused and wrongfully suspended and resigned by the Defendant.
12
667. The present litigation arose when Plaintiff was slandered, defaced,
13
defamed and wrongfully suspended and terminated by the Defendant.
14

15 668. Judith Rosenberg, in her investigation report on page 19, described in a

16 misleading way the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed with the Regents

17 of the University of California as a cash settlement.

18 669. Judith Rosenberg, as the University of California Principal Investigator

19 and experienced attorney at law, was perfectly aware what the 2009 Settlement-Agreement was
20 about and how grossly and unscrupulously it was violated by the Defendant.
21 670. Judith Rosenberg was perfectly aware that the Defendant defamed,
22 defaced and libeled Plaintiff by issuing, two months before he was terminated, the “PERSON
23 NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY” poster. Plaintiff’s photo and description were also
24
included on the poster, which was distributed around the UC Davis Medical Center Campus and,
25
most likely, sent to managers and UC Davis employees by electronic mail. Plaintiff was still a
26
University employee and received treatment like a “Most Wanted” criminal by the FBI.
27
671. Plaintiff is not certain whether Judith Rosenberg was aware or knew prior
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 249 of 295
 1 to writing and signing the investigation report what this case was really about. As an experienced
2 attorney at law and UC Principal Investigator, Judith Rosenberg knows for certain that the
3 allegations against Plaintiff, whether false or true, did not warrant keeping Plaintiff on
4 investigatory and administrative leave for over one year with pay or without pay and ten days
5
suspension without pay as well as terminating his employment.
6
672. Plaintiff believed that Judith Rosenberg discovered why Plaintiff became the
7
subject of unthinkable and despicable retaliation and employment termination after he submitted
8
the seven-page long letter to Rosenberg on the March 11, 2013 post-meeting with her. The letter
9
in 2015 was submitted to the court as an exhibit and was vigorously objected by the Defendant’
10
counsel. Plaintiff, representing himself, did not have a clue why the Defendant’ attorney objected
11
so aggressively to this exhibit.
12
673. Also, in 2013, Plaintiff did not know that his fated separation from the University
13
was decided by the Regents of the University of California, the University of California Office of
14

15 the President and the University of California Office of the General Counsel or that the very

16 narrow group of the University officials knew what this case was about.

17 674. The 2009 Settlement-Agreement Plaintiff signed with the Regents of the

18 University of California was not mentioned in by UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley in his

19 decision.
20 675. UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley resigned or was forced to resign from
21 his $400,000 job with the University of California shortly after he signed the decision in
22 Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation Complaint.
23 676. UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley from November 2011-April 2012 was a
24
member of the Task Force Team, which investigated a pepper spray attack ordered by UC Davis
25
Chancellor Katehi against protesting students on November 18, 2011. The Task Force Team, of
26
which UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley was a member, caused unemployment for UC
27
Davis Police Captain Joy Souza , Lt. John Pike and UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 250 of 295
 1 who was replaced by corrupted Matt Carmichael.
2 The Task Force Team investigation and Lt. John Pike and Annette Spicuzza firing from job with
3 war like propaganda all over r the media was nothing else but the smoke screen to protect
4 corrupted and rotten to the bones the University of California administration and system.
5
APRIL 2013
6

7 April 3, 2013 – The letter to UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd
Termination of Plaintiff’s Employment – PPSM 70 Step II Appeal Hearing on April 2, 2013
8
677. On April 2, 2013, the Step II Appeal hearing took place in Plaintiff’s employment
9
termination pursuant to the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 with the presiding Complainant
10
Resolution Officer at the hearing, UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd, who
11
was Plaintiff’s indirect superior and, by the position and title, was responsible for Plaintiff’s
12
employment termination.
13
678. Plaintiff followed the instruction in the Letter of Termination dated December 5,
14
2012 and filed the complaint pursuant to the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70.
15

16 679. In 2013, Plaintiff was uncertain whether he should pursue his employment

17 termination complaint under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 or file the lawsuit to enforce the

18 February 2009 Settlement-Agreement that the Defendant i.e., the Regents of the University of

19 California signed with Plaintiff

20 700. Plaintiff, by filing the complaints pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM, had little
21 hope that his employment and position, provided to him by the 2009 Settlement-Agreement,
22 would be eventually restored without litigation or knowing that the decision to terminate him
23 came from the Defendant’ Headquarters in Oakland, CA and was carried out by Director Boyd
24 and others.
25
701. Plaintiff summarized the April 2, 2013 Step II Appeal Hearing as follows:
26 April 3, 2013

27 “Mike Boyd, Executive Director

Facilities Planning, Design and Construction
28 UC Davis Medical Center

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 251 of 295
 Sacramento, CA 95817
1
Re: Termination of Employment – PPSM 70 Step II Appeal Hearing
2 on April 2, 2013
3 Dear Director Boyd:
4
Thank you for the opportunity to meet you and discuss my employment
5
termination matter during yesterday’s Step II Appeal Hearing, which took
6
place in UC Davis Campus HR Building. It was my understanding from our
7
discussion that you don’t have a clear picture about the taken-out-of-context
8

9 statements that were outlined in the Notice Intent to Dismiss for Serious

10 Misconduct.

11 I recently filed an Appeal with the California Insurance Appeal Board in

12 relation to my unemployment benefits, which shall not be denied by my

13 employer during the pending internal appeals under the PPSM 70appeals.
14 The abovementioned appeal with the California Insurance Appeal Board is
15 similar to my PPSM Step II Appeal, but is more focused and specifically
16 addresses the out-of-context statement written in Charles Witcher’s Notice
17 Intent to Dismiss dated September 25, 2012.
18
Together with this letter, I am sending you a copy of my Appeal Brief and the
19
relevant exhibits I submitted to the California Insurance Appeal Board.
20
I hope that the enclosed documents and your careful review of Oropeza and
21
Seifert’s Investigatory Report, which is based on lies, false statements and
22
fabricated accusations by a handful of people, will help you understand that
23
this case will not end with your hearing or in arbitration but, instead, will
24
ultimately be pursued in a court of law and justice will be served.
25
Besides the above, I am respectfully asking you for help on behalf of my
26
HVAC shop coworker, Kenny Diede, whose life and working conditions in the
27

28 HVAC shop became miserable and intolerable due to harassment and

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 252 of 295
 1 retaliation by Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc after Kenny reported child
2 pornography twice-convicted felon on shop premises. Kenny would be very
3 grateful if you would use your executive power as a director to help him to
4 move him to different department and away from Patrick Putney and Dorin
5
Daniluc’s harassment. I am representing Kenny in his complaints against
6
Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc and I know that he has all the qualifications
7
and experience to work at either the UC Davis Campus or the UC Davis
8
Medical Center Fire Department. If a formal request from Kenny is needed to
9
move him from the HVAC shop, then he will submit one immediately. I
10
believe that relocating Kenny will contribute to healing the ongoing conflict,
11
ease the tension in the HVAC shop, and enable him to withdraw his complaint.
12
To conclude this letter, I would like to repeat my statement from the hearing
13
that I am always open to and ready for constructive discussion that will end the
14

15 conflict without having to involve lawyers and litigation.

16 Best Regards,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
17 CC: HR, Charles Witcher , Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter, Kenny Diede .

18
MAY 2013
19 May 2, 2013 – UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd’s – PPSM 70 Step II
Appeal Decision In Plaintiff’s Employment Termination Complaint
20
702. On May 2, 2013, UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd
21
issued a decision in Plaintiff’s Step II Appeal employment termination complaint as follows
22
703. Plaintiff’s hope that Director Boyd, with his executive power, would find
23
a different solution was broken like a soap bubble”?
24
May 5, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Response to Director Boyd’s Step II Decision
25

26

27 704. Regardless of Plaintiff’s feelings about the retaliation and employment

28 termination, Plaintiff respected Director Boyd as a UC Davis Medical Center educated

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 253 of 295
 1 professional. However, after Plaintiff read in disbelief Director Boyd’s Step II Appeal Decision,
2 he was outraged by Boyd’s out-of-touch decision. Plaintiff could not curb his emotions and
3 expressed his feeling about Boyd in his letter dated May 5, 2013 as follows:
4
May 5, 2012
5
Mike Boyd, Executive Director
6 Facilities Planning, Design, and Construction
UC Davis Medical Center.
7 4800 2nd Avenue,
Sacramento, CA 95817
8
Subject: Response to your decision dated May 2, 2013—Response to Step 2 Appeal
9 (File #03-PPS- 014-12/12) regarding my employment termination.

10 Mr. Boyd:
On April 2, 2013, we held a meeting on the UC Davis Campus. On the same-day, UC
11

12 Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo wrote me a letter and informed me

13 that she had accepted my complaint under the university’s Whistleblower Protection

14 Policy.

15

16 Furthermore, Ms. Delmendo explained that my whistleblower retaliation

17 complaint was put on hold and stay in abeyance until the final step of the 70
18 PPSM complaint process and until my PPSM 70 complaint proceeded to the
19 hearing, where the hearing officer will review my whistleblower retaliation
20 complaint along with my PPSM70 complaint. In her letter, Ms. Delmendo
21
failed to explain what would happen with my whistleblower retaliation
22
complain if I did not appeal your PPSM70 Step II decision.I view your
23
decision as a further malicious retaliation, full of lies and misstatements,
24
following the termination of my employment. This is not the first time we have
25
met, and it is not the first time I am responding to your decision, which makes
26
me sick to my stomach. I find it suspicious and inappropriate that the person
27
who is responsible for the termination of my employment and who has
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 254 of 295
 1 previously issued biased decisions against me has been assigned as the CRO to
2 review the case. As I recall, in March of 2012, you were removed from your
3 assignment as a Compliant Resolution Officer from Case No. 03-PPS-017-
4 11/12 due to Kenneth Diede’s objection.
5
I did not object to your assignment in the termination case. You should have
6
figured out on your own that you should not have participated in review of my
7
employment termination process as the assigned CRO and as the person
8
directly responsible for my employment termination. In fact, I am wondering
9
what compelled you to take this assignment. I believe that it is your and
10
Witcher’s revenge for being defeated in 2008, or that you are perhaps a
11
member of the circle of the corrupt UCDMC establishment, which (under the
12
umbrella of empty UC Davis “Principles of Community” slogans) viciously
13
and vindictively attacks anybody who points out “serious misconduct” and the
14

15 criminal-minded activities of those who were given supervisor and manager

16 positions by directors like yourself.

17 Decision Dated May 2, 2013

18 Page No. 1

19
Boyd: “During the meeting, Mr. Waszczuk asserted that the
termination was an act of retaliation that is linked to complaints he
20 made about his supervisors and management staff within PO&M when
working at the Central Plant from 1999 to 2007 and more recent
21 allegations and concerns that he raised in 2010 and 2011. This assertion is
consistent with similar assertions he made in his Step I Appeal and in the
22 documentation provided in the Step II Appeal submittal. He also maintains
that the disciplinary actions have been taken represent a breach of the
23 2009 Settlement-Agreement between him and the University.”

24 My response: The above statement of Boyd’s is a lie. During the meeting, I

25 did not make any assertion that my termination was an act of retaliation linked
26
to the complaint I made about my supervisors and management when working
27
at the Central Plant from 1999 to 2007. I did not file any formal complaint
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 255 of 295
 1 against any manager or management when I was working in the Central Plant,
2 and I am not asserting anything what happened prior the signed agreement
3 settlement-agreement in February 2009. I view the period from April 2011 to
4 December 2013 as a time of unspeakable harassment, retaliation, malice,
5
intolerable working conditions, and believe that my suspension from work and
6
the termination of my employment are the result of a vendetta on the part of
7
Witcher and yourself that began in 2006. Furthermore, your decision is a
8
continuance of this vendetta and a gross violation by you and others of the
9
February 2009 signed Settlement-Agreement.
10

11 During our discussion, I pointed out to you the following fragment from
12 Seifert and Oropeza’s report, in order to help you understand how Seifert and
13 Oropeza crafted cause for you to terminate my employment.
14

15 “Mr. Putney reported that Mr. Waszczuk's volume of unprofessional

emails, his filming of employees in the workplace without their consent,
16 the volatile outbursts of anger, and the repeated ethnic slurs towards Mr.
Daniluc's ancestry and the ethnicity of other employees Of Romanian
17 descent created an intolerable, threatening, and harassing work
environment.”
18

19 After I read you this fragment from Oropeza and Seifert’s report, I asked you
20 the following question in relation to Putney’s lies:
21
“Mr. Boyd, you were born in and have lived your entire life in the USA,
22
right?” You answered, “yes.” I then asked you, “Do you know or did you
23
ever hear any ethnic slurs in this country directed against Romanians,
24
similar to nigger, Pollack, wetback, or other such slurs?” You responded
25

26
that you didn’t know, and that you never heard any slurs directed

27 towards Romanians. I responded, “I don’t know either. Did you ask

28 Putney whether he or Daniliuc know any ethnic slurs about Romanians, not to

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 256 of 295
 1 mention Daniluc’s comparison of Mexicans to cockroaches?” This is only one
2 of Putney’s multiple lies, which I provided to you as an example of how the
3 false cause for termination of my employment was built by Nichols, Seifert,
4 and Oropeza upon the request of you and other rotten individuals. My response
5
to Step I of the Appeals process was very detailed and to the point. In addition
6
to my Step II Appeal detailed request and response, after the meeting I sent
7
you the brief and exhibits I wrote and prepared for the California
8
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, because you were quite unprepared
9
for the meeting on April 2, 2013.
10

11 I have already decided to spend my entire UC retirement, if necessary and live

12 on my Social Security for the purpose to teach corrupt individuals like you,
13 Witcher, Chillcott, Nichols, Oropeza, Seifert, Lindsey, and a few others an
14 unforgettable lesson in court about the American justice system. In contrast to
15 you and others like you, I believe strongly in the American justice system, and
16
justice must be served. This is my promise, and I always keep my promises. I
17
will make sure you are first in line for deposition out of all the members of this
18
corrupt UCDMC clique, and I will attempt to cause you to change your name
19
and behavior from “Director Boyd” to “Director Void.” For the attempt to
20
provoke me and kill me on May 31, 2011, I will not allow the UCDM HR
21
Death Squad to escape the consequences of this crime.
22

23 Additionally, I am quite surprised that you reduce yourself to the level of

24 people like Daniliuc, Putney, Witcher, and the liars from HR with J.D. degrees.
25 Apparently abused and harassed workers, a twice-convicted child
26 pornography felon accessing company computers, mutilated sheep, goats,
27
ducks, roosters, and defecation on the HVAC shop premises and the Central
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 257 of 295
 1 Plant worker suicide does giving you some kind thrill and occasion to be
2 noticed a visible. It really makes me wonder what common ground you
3 Chillcot and Witcher could have with people like Putney, Daniliuc, Curry and
4 child porn convict etc.
5 Revenge and retaliation isn’t wise.
6 See you in court.
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
7 Enclosure:
CC: Ralph Hexter, Linda Katehi, Ann Rice, Mark Yudof , UC Regents , Wendy
8 Delmendo ; Travis Lindsey , Gina Harwood
9
705. Plaintiff met Director Boyd one more time after his employment
10
termination due to a scheduled hearing on December 5, 2013 for the Step II Appeal pursuant to
11

12
UC Davis’ Policy PPSM 70.

13 706. On December 5, 2013, exactly one year after the Defendant terminated

14 Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff held a meeting with Boyd in the UC Davis Medical Center.

15 Boyd was assigned as the Compliant Resolution Officer (CRO) Step II Reviewer in the Case No.

16 03-PPS-011-12/13. During the meeting, Plaintiff was representing HVAC Technician Dereck
17 Cole in his complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 for his 2011/2012 “Does Not Meet
18 Expectation Employee Performance Review (Evaluation).” The “Does Not Meet Expectation
19 Evaluation” was basically the last step for the employee to be terminated if he did not improve
20 his performance and behavior and achieve the goals for the next evaluation period, as outlined by
21
the supervisors or managers in the employee evaluations.
22

23 707. Mike Boyd, as Executive Director and Complaint Resolution Officer, and

24 as Plaintiff’s superior, knew that the Employee Performance Reviews (evaluations), mandated by

25 UC Davis Policy PPSM 23, are the most important documents to make a decision in any adverse

26 employer action against an employee, including suspension and employee termination.

27 708. Plaintiff could not find one word about his Employee Performance
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 258 of 295
 1 Reviews from 201/2011 and 2011/2012 or about any Performance Reviews from 1999–2012 in
2 Boyds, and his two subordinates, Rush and Pansious, decisions of Plaintiff’s complaint–appeals
3 from the unlawful suspensions and the unlawful employment termination
4 709. Director Boyd should know as Complaint Resolution Officer that Plaintiff
5
advised him in his 24-page letter dated January 28, 2008 how important an Employee
6
Performance Review is in employer-employee relations, as citted in the letter Jensen v. Hewlett-
7
Packard Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 958, 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 83 (Cal.App.Dist.4 03/30/1993).
8
710. Regardless of the 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed with
9
the Defendant, which was despicably violated, breached and disregarded by the Defendant,
10
Director Boyd’s decision in the Step II Appeal further shows that Plaintiff was not given the
11
same chance as Plaintiff’s coworker, Derecek Cole, to whom Plaintiff was provided
12
representation.
13
711. The Defendant simply singled out Plaintiff for termination and did not
14

15 provide him with evaluations for the last two years of his employment mandated by UC Davis

16 Policy PPSM 23, thus maliciously depriving Plaintiff of the UC Davis administrative remedies

17 under UC Davis Policy PPSM 23 and violating his employment and civil rights to be treated

18 equally beside the breaching and violating 2009 Settlement –Agreement

19

20 Plaintiff’s 1999-2010 Employees Performance Review

21

22
YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR
23
1999-00 “…performance very good” Kavanagh
24 “has become a very knowledgeable and effective central, plant
operator” --
25 “very conscientious and thorough” --
“can be counted on to make the right operational decisions” --
26 “valuable employee” --
“committed to the future success of the Medical Center” --
27 VERY GOOD often exceeded expectations and standards --

28 2000-01 Same or similar to 1999-2000 A. Moddesette

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 259 of 295
 1

2 YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR

3 OUTSTANDING consistently exceeded expectations and
2001-02 standards DAN JAMES
4
2002-03 “Performance… outstanding” --
5 “can be counted on to keep management informed status of the
plant and equipment” --
6 “very valuable employee” --
7 2003-04 Same or similar to 2002-03, meets expectations DAN JAMES
8 2004-05 Same or similar to 2002-03, meets expectations DAN JAMES
9 2005-06 Sane or similar to 2002-03, meets expectations DAN JAMES
10 “…Tom Kavanagh and Steve McGrath…” supervisors until
2006-07 4/27/2007 McGRATH
11 “…PUTNEY…” Supervisor beginning 4/27/2007 --
“has been a very valuable member of our staff” PUTNEY
12 “performance has been excellent” PUTNEY
“have not been any problems with missed alarms” PUTNEY
13 “…is talented, precise and his daily paper work is excellent.” PUTNEY
“…communicates very well…” PUTNEY
14 “…instrumental in the setup of the compute…r” PUTNEY
“…instrumental… office area for the Building Automation
15 Monitoring.” PUTNEY
“…strong knowledge of computer software and hardware.” PUTNEY
16 “…overall job performance is outstanding…” PUTNEY
“…very dependable…” PUTNEY
17
2007-08 “…a very valuable member of our staff…” PUTNEY
18 “performance has been excellent” PUTNEY
“have not been any problems with missed alarms” PUTNEY
19 “…overall job performance is outstanding.” PUTNEY
“…has improved his communication skills and interactions with
20 co-workers.” WITCHER
21 2008-09 “…a very valuable member of our staff…” PUTNEY
“performance has been excellent” PUTNEY
22 “have not been any problems with missed alarms” PUTNEY
“…also helping with closing work orders…” PUTNEY
23 “…maintaining the Work Order System back log…” PUTNEY
“…overall job performance is outstanding.” PUTNEY
24 “OUTSTANDING. Exceeds Expectations. PUTNEY
25 2009-10 “OUTSTANDING. Exceeds Expectations. PUTNEY
“performance has been excellent” PUTNEY
26 “have not been any problems with missed alarms” PUTNEY
“…Helping…managing the work order system…providing
27 computer support…” PUTNEY
“helpful…providing BMS…information to senior staff PUTNEY
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 260 of 295
 1

2 YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR

during…investigation”
3 “...very instrumental...monitoring...alarm/ status of critical
equipment...” PUTNEY
4 503. Plaintiff’s evaluations2010-2011and 2011-2012 are missing.

7 May 7 , 2013 – The Right to Sue Notice

9 712. On May 7, 2013, Plaintiff obtained the Right To Sue Notice from the State
10 of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing DFHH Matter: 112740-49836-R
11 after losing hope that the wrongful termination and discrimination that the Defendant caused him
12 could be resolved without litigation.
13 DECEMBER 2013
14 December 4, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Wrongful Termination Complaint Against the Defendant with
the State of California County of Sacramento Superior Court
15

16
713. On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff in Pro Per filed in State of California,
17
County of Sacramento Superior Court the Wrongful Termination Complaint.
18
714. On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff simultaneously filed in the State of
19
California, County of Sacramento Superior Court a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus,
20
Administrative Mandamus (CCP § 1085;1094.5) to order the California Unemployment
21
Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and/or The Employment Development Department (EDD) to
22
calculate and provide unemployment benefits to Plaintiff or a remand for a rehearing to award
23
such benefits related to Plaintiff’s December 7, 2012, employment termination.
24
715. Defendant in further despicable violation and breach of the February
25
2009Settlement-Agreement, with an evil spirit, defaced and defamed Plaintiff with the State of
26
California Employment Development Department for the purpose of denying Plaintiff ‘s
27
unemployment benefits after terminating Plaintiff’s employment.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 261 of 295
 1 716. It happened just after Defendant kept Plaintiff out of premises for over a
2 year and a half on a bogus paid investigatory and administrative leave only to psychologically
3 terrorize Plaintiff and try to force Plaintiff to quit his job.
4 717. Plaintiff’s unemployment insurance benefit case is still pending in the
5 State of California Court of Appeal Third Appellate District, Case Caption Waszczuk v.
6 California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board No. C079254, the County of Sacramento
7 Superior Court Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CU-WMGDS.
8
In Writ of Mandamus against CUIAB and Real Party in Interests (Defendants), Plaintiff was
9
represented by an attorney, Douglas Stein, until Plaintiff dismissed Douglas Stein for gross
10
misrepresentation in December 2014.
11
March 2014
12

13
718. On March 11, 2014, Plaintiff sent a letter to the University of California
14
Office of the President (UCOP) Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg, who had been handling
15
Plaintiff’s whistleblowing retaliation complaint since June 2013. Plaintiff filed the
16
whistleblowing retaliation complaint with the UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor’s Office on
17

18 March 7, 2013, after Plaintiff’s employment was terminated by Defendants.

19 719. The purpose of Plaintiff’s March 11, 2014, 10-page-long letter to Judith

20 Rosenberg was to summarize Plaintiffs’ meeting with her, which took place in Defendants’

21 Headquarters in Oakland, California, on February 19, 2014.

22 720. In his letter to Judith Rosenberg, Plaintiff mentioned the interview the UC
23 Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru issea u ga ve to Sacramento African-
24 American magazine Sub Cultural Hub. The interview was conducted by Donna Michelle Ramos
25 on August 6, 2012, and was entitled “A Look Back.”
26 721. Dr. Shelton Du ru isseau wa s o ne o f De fe nda n ts and p e rpe tra tors
27
who pa rtic ip a ted in the d esp ica b le re ta lia to ry p re em p tive ac tion a ga in st Pla intiff
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 262 of 295
 1 in 2 006 –20 08 a nd 20 11– 201 2 .
2 722. Plaintiff in his March 11, 2014, letter to UCOP Investigator Judith
3 Rosenberg wrote:
4
“Shortly after Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru isse au retired, he
5

6 threw a retirement party in his Eldorado Hill residence. The two guests of

7 honor at the party were Mayor of Sacramento Mr. Kevin Johnson and Mr.

8 Shelton Duruisseau’s colleague, UC Davis Medical Center Director Robert

9 Taylor. Besides the lavish retirement party, Dr. Duruisseau gave an interview

10 to Sacramento African-American magazine Sub Cultural Hub. The interview

11 was conducted by Donna Michelle Ramos on August 6, 2012, and was entitled
12 “A look back.”
13

14 While reading the “A look back” interview with Dr. Duruisseau, a few
15
statements caught my attention. The first statement that caught my attention
16
was:
17

18 “Internally, I convinced the university to build its own central plant

because we recognized our patients come into the hospital on ventilators,
19 etc. They couldn’t be disrupted, so by having our own central plant the
health system doesn’t depend on any central outfit to supply water, power,
20 etc. SMUD, PG&E are backup systems for us. We sold enough power to
the State for the central plant to be paid for in the first four years. Lots of
21 energy companies like Enron all around the country caused prices to go
up. The plant provides stable power for the campus without interruption
22 and without blackouts. This plant was built out for 50 years capacity; we
are only using 9%, so we have lots of room built in for growth.”
23

24

25

26 I am very skeptical about Dr. Duraisseau’s statement that the Central Plant sold
27
enough energy in its first four years of operation to cover the cost of building
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 263 of 295
 1 the Central Plant. As I recall, the contract to sell power to the electrical grid
2 was in limbo, and at that point the Central Plant did not make much money
3 from power sale. At night time we were giving away 2 MW of power for free
4 to SMUD to keep Central Plant’s 25 MW gas engine operational. The
5
statement that the plant was built for 50 years of capacity and that we are using
6
9% of it translate into the fact that UC invested $70 million or more, yet a large
7
part of this investment is frozen for many years to come. This is obviously an
8
enormous waste of millions of dollars to build something that can’t be utilized
9
fully. Apparently, the decision makers whose names appear on the plaque
10
located in the entry to the Central Plant did not have any clue what UC Davis
11
Medical needed with regard to demand for electric and thermal energy. The
12
names mentioned on the plaque are UC Davis Chancellor Larry N. Vanderhoef
13
(retired), UC Davis Medical Center Director Hospital and Clinic Frank J.
14

15 Lodge, Associate Director Shelton Duruisseau Ph. D., Manager of Plant

16 Operation and Maintenance Department Tony Moddessette MBA, Project

17 Manager and Principal Engineer Mike Lewis, Construction Manager David

18 DeRusso, and Principal Engineer from Brown and Caldwell James L. Bartlett.

19

20 Apparently, in 1998 Dr. Duraisseau and Project Manager Mr. Mike Lewis had
21 no clue what a cogeneration facility stands for and what criteria such a facility
22 must meet to be in compliance with federal law (FERC).
23

24
By reading the 2012 “A look back” interview and seeing Dr. Duraisseau’s
25
name on the plaque in the Central Plant, it is not difficult to conclude that the
26
Central Plant for him and others was like a sacred and untouchable place built
27
for future generations to remember “great” UC Davis leaders. However, the
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 264 of 295
 1 Central Plant lacked safety for employees and caused massive contamination
2 of the natural environment by discharging leaking machine oil from defective
3 leaking cooling tower gearboxes to the city storm drain (river) for seven years.
4 ‘From the Dr. Duraisseau’s interview was not difficult for Plaintiff to
5
determine and conclude that the UC Davis 27 MW cogeneration power plant
6
named Central Plant by the Defendants did not meet requirements of Federal
7
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Public Utility Regulatory
8
Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) which mandated that any cogeneration facility
9
certified and recognized by law as “the qualified cogeneration facility” must
10
meet special requirements in the ratio between electric energy production and
11
thermal energy production.
12
723. When UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg, as a ve ry ex pe rien ced
13
a ttorney and in ve stiga tor read Plaintiff’s letter and statement about the UC Davis Assistant
14

15 Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru isse au ’s in te rv ie w, she had no p rob lem figu rin g ou t

16 why in Ma rc h 20 07 Pla in tiff was remo ve d fro m the Cen tra l Pla nt why De fe nda n ts

17 sign ed Se ttlem en t-Ag ree men t with Plain tiff in Feb ru ary 200 9 , an d why Pla intiff

18 wa s a tta ck ed a ga in in 201 1 an d fire d fro m th e job in De ce mbe r 2 012 . Th e

19 m illio ns of do lla rs o f reve nue fro m the produ c tion and sa le of ele c trica l e ne rg y
20 b y the UC Dav is Me d ica l Cen tra l Pla n t was th e issu e an d b ig p ro b lem
21 724. Plaintiff is familiar with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s
22 (FERC’s) regulation and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) because
23 prior to his employment with UC Davis Medical Center, Plaintiff worked for a private corporation
24
with a similar cogeneration facility that did not meet FERC and PURPA requirements to be
25
certified as a “qualified cogeneration facility.” Plaintiff’s previous employer committed enormous
26
fraud against Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers and settled out of court for $100
27
million. The $100 million fraud occurred after only six years of unlawful cogeneration facility
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 265 of 295
 1 operations similar to those of UC Davis Medical Center’s cogeneration power plant.
2 725. It was also not difficult to determine for UCOP Principal Investigator
3 Judith Rosenberg that the UC Davis Medical Center cogeneration’s primary purpose was
4 providing utility for UC Davis Medical Center because instead of to generate millions of dollars
5
in profit from the sale of electric power to the public utilities companies or an on-the-spot sale in
6
the open market .
7

8
726. Besides the letter to the UCOP Investigator, on March 17, 2014, Plaintiff
9
sent a six-page letter to Sac Cultural Hub Senior Staff Writer/News Reporter Donna Michelle
10
Ramos about her August 6, 2012, interview with UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr.
11
Shelton Du ru isseau .
12

13 “A few days ago, I wrote letters to two UC Office of the Presidents’ officials,
14 Principal Investigator Ms. Judith Rosenberg and UC Senior Vice President
15
Dan Dooley, and I mentioned your interview with Mr. Shelton Duruisseau in
16
my letter because Mr. Shelton Duruisseau made a statement about the UC
17
Davis Medical Center Central Plant where I was employed for several years. I
18
am enclosing both letters for context.”
19
727. Even after the reading Dr. Shelton Du ruisse au ’s u n in te ntiona l
20
c on fe ssion du rin g the in te rv ie w a bou t th e en ormo us p ro fit th e Ce ntra l Plan t
21
g ene ra ted and after writing a Ma rc h 11 , 2014 , le tte r to UCOP In ve stiga to r Jud ith
22
Ro se nbe rg , Pla in tiff d id no t th in k tha t th e De fen da nts’ v ic ious re ta lia tion
23
strik es ag ainst Pla in tiff wa s a pree mp tiv e we ll-orche stra te d De fend an ts ac tio n
24

25 re la ted in direc tly o r to the $ 100 ,0 00 ,0 00 fraud co mm itte d by Pla in tiff’s prev iou s

26 e mp lo ye r in re la tion to FERC regulations and PURPA law.

27 728. Plaintiff during his employment with UC Davis Medical Center was not

28 interested in ever looking into the issue of whether or not the Central Plant was being operated

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 266 of 295
 1 according to the FERC regulations law and PURPA requirements. Plaintiff was concern about
2 safety in the first few years of his employment in Central Plant because the plant in some areas
3 was unsafe for operating personnel.
4 729. Plaintiff lost employment for one year after reporting his previous
5
employer for fraud during a dispute involving $27,000 in unpaid overtime wages due to Plaintiff.
6
The dispute caused Plaintiff and his family a lot of suffering and bankruptcy.
7
730. Furthermore, the UC Davis Medical Center cogeneration facility was built
8
and commissioned in 1998, at a time when the electric power market in the State of California
9
had become the subject of deregulation, and Plaintiff never would have thought that the FERC
10
and PURPA law and regulations were still applicable to the UC Davis Medical Central Plant’s
11
electric power production and sale.
12
731. Besides the above, Plaintiff thought the FERC regulations and PURPA
13
law were not applicable to the University of California because of the University’s great
14

15 autonomy and independence from the state and federal laws and regulations.

16 732. Even if Plaintiff would have thought about the Central Plant’s PURPA

17 qualification, Plaintiff was not willing to spend his own $10,000 and lose his job again at his

18 age for the purpose of filing a complaint with FERC in an attempt to nullify the Central Plant

19 certification issued by FERC and obtained by Defendants in the self-certification process (if
20 any). Also, it would never would crossed Plaintiff’s mind that Defendants committed fraud
21 against another entity in the same manner that Plaintiff’s previous employer did because Central
22 Plant was built to provide utility for UC Davis Medical Center and that surplus energy should be
23 sold because electric energy cannot to be stored like the other product.
24
733. The previous Plaintiff’s employer committed an enormous $100,000,000
25
fraud against Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers in 1989–1996, violating the PURPA
26
mandated requirements for operating a cogeneration facility.
27
734. The March 11, 2014, letter to the UCOP Principal Investigator Judith
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 267 of 295
 1 Rosenberg was the first time Plaintiff had thought of and suspected Defendants’ violation of
2 FERC regulations and PURPA law, but Plaintiff was so quickly distracted by Defendants, the
3 State of California Attorney General Deputy Ashante Norton who was legal counsel for CUIAB
4 and by his own attorney, Douglas Stein, that Plaintiff even did not think to check FERC
5
website to find out whether the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant was certified and
6
considered a Qualified Facility (QF) under FERC regulations and PURPA law. The Central Plant
7
lost power sale contract in 2003 or 2004 and was losing millions of dollars every year because
8
could not sell surplus power.
9
735. When Plaintiff was hired by Defendants in June 1999 as a UC Davis
10
Medical Central Plant Operator, the plant was unsafe for personnel to operate because it was
11
commissioned unfinished, and Plaintiff only cared about his own safety and that of his
12
coworkers. Plaintiff did not want to get hurt or see his coworker die because the plant was unsafe
13
to operate and the belligerent department management completely ignored safety suggestions to
14

15 improve situation and Plaintiff was threatened with employment termination when Plaintiff

16 asked his manager to do something about.

17 After the Letter

18 736. After Plaintiff wrote the letter to UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg on

19 March 11, 2014, and Sac Cultural Hub Senior Staff Writer/News Reporter Donna Michelle
20 Ramos on March 17, 2014, Defendants reacted sharply and went viral to divert Plaintiff’s
21 attention from the huge profits generated by the Central Plant from electrical energy sale
22 disclosed which was disclosed by UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru isseau
23 in h is in te rvie w with Do nna Ramo s.
24
737. On March 20, 2014 Plaintiff received e-mail correspondence from UC
25
Davis Health System Human Resource (HR) Labor Relations Manager Travis Lindsey. More
26
than two years after Plaintiff’s employment termination, attempted to advise Plaintiff of where
27
Plaintiff should send information about Defendants and where not to send it. Plaintiff responded
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 268 of 295
 1 to Travis Lindsey’s advice by explaining that he belonged to the Federal Penitentiary Facility for
2 what he had done with other individuals like him to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s co-workers in 2012.
3 However, in March 2014, Plaintiff did not connect Travis Lindsey’s strange e-mail
4 correspondence to the UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Duru isseau ’s
5
in tervie w with Do nna Ram os and Pla in tiff’s le tte r to h er.
6
735. In March 2014, Plaintiff was not aware that Superior Court Judge Hon.
7
Shelleyanne W.L. Chang was signed to the Plaintiff Writ of Mandamus Case just a few days
8
after Plaintiff wrote the letter to Judith Rosenberg.
9
736. Even Plaintiff would know in March 2014 about Hon. Shelleyanne
10
Chang’s assignment to Plaintiff’s Writ of Mandamus case that it would not make any difference
11
for Plaintiff because Plaintiff was represented by an attorney in Writ of Mandamus case, and
12
Plaintiff did not know many other facts that were negatively impactful or were damaging to
13
Plaintiff’s court complaints against Defendants.
14

15 737. In March 2014, Plaintiff was also not aware of the fact that on February

16 24, 2014, the attorney in the unrelated Plaintiff’s wrongful termination case pending in the same

17 Sacramento Superior Court (Janet Keyzer v. The Regents of the University of California, Case

18 No. 34-2010-00079869-CU-WT-GDS) filed a Plaintiff’s Peremptory Challenge (CCP § 170.6)

19 against Judge Shelleyanne Chang in which Attorney Mary -Alice Coleman declared that:
20
“The Honorable Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, the Judge before whom the
21
trial in the aforesaid matter is pending or to whom the aforesaid trial is
22
assigned, is prejudiced against me or Plaintiff so that Plaintiff cannot or I
23
believe that Plaintiff cannot have a fair and impartial hearing before this
24

25 Judge.”

26 It is happened shortly prior Hon. Shelleyanne Chang’s assignment to Plaintiff’s

27 Writ of Mandamus Petition case.

28 738. Hon. Shelleyanne Chang has been the subject of a Peremptory Challenge

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 269 of 295
 1 in Janet Keyzer’s wrongful termination case against the same Defendant as in Plaintiff’s
2 wrongful termination case and the Real Party of Interest in the Writ of Mandamus case.
3 739. Besides the Judge Shelleyanne Chang was not only judge in the
4 Scaramanto Superior Court to handle Writs of Mandamus. The three other judges from the
5
Sacramento Superior Court were handling Writs of Mandamus in the County of Sacramento
6
Superior Court: Hon. Timothy M. Frawley from Department 29, Hon. Michael P. Kenny from
7
Department 31, and Hon. Christopher E. Krueger.
8
740. Furthermore, nothing would be unusual or suspicious about reassigning
9
Plaintiff’s Writ of Mandamus case to Judge Shelleyanne Chang if Hon. Judge Shelleyanne
10
Chang and CUIAB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Marylyn Tays would not work
11
together in the Office of Legal Affairs of Governor Gray Davis.
12
741. Administrative Law Judge Marilyn Tays was outrageously biased against
13
Plaintiff during the conducted hearing on March 13, 2013. ALJ Marilyn Tays’ disrespectful
14

15 attitude toward Plaintiff and his witnesses could best be described with her statement after

16 Plaintiff made a statement about his coworker’s suicide, caused by Defendants’ hostile working

17 environment. ALJ Marilyn Tays responded: “All right, I guess he is not here.” When Plaintiff

18 heard this, I had no doubt where ALJ Marilyn Tays was going with her hearing.

19 742. Furthermore, Hon. Shelleyanne Chang, besides working together with

20 ALJ Marilyn Tays in the Office of the Legal Affairs of Governor Gray Davis, graduated from
21 the same University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law as ALJ Marilyn Tays in the same
22 time period of 1991, Both were admitted to the State Bar of California six months apart.
23 743. Furthermore, Hon. Shelleyanne Chang graduated in the same time period
24
of 1991 from the same University of the Pacific George School of Law as UC Davis Health
25
System and UC Davis Medical Center Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski. Both Hon. Shelleyanne
26
Chang and Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski were admitted to the State Bar of California in
27
December 1991.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 270 of 295
 1 744. After Hon. Shelleyanne Chang in March 2015 denied Plaintiff’s Writ of
2 Mandamus Petition after Plaintiff’s oral arguments, the victimized Plaintiff had no doubt that
3 Hon. Shelleyanne Chang’s ruling had nothing to do with State of California justice system but
4 rather to support the Defendants attempted to escape liability for not only Plaintiff’s wrongful
5
termination .
6
April 2014
7

8
745. Following the March 2014 Hon. Shelleyanne Chang reassignment, Travis
9
Lindsey’s email correspondence, and Plaintiff’s letters to UCOP Investigator
10
Judith Rosenberg ,the California Deputy Attorney General Ashante L. Norton, who represents
11
CUIAB as a Legal Counsel , filed on April 1, 2014, a frivolous Notice of Demurrer in Plaintiff’s
12
Writ of Mandamus case to distract Plaintiff and made Plaintiff forget about UC Davis Assistant
13
Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru isse au ’s in te rv ie w with Donn a Ram os.
14

15 746. On April 17, 2014, Defendants as the Real Party in Interest in the Writ of

16 Mandamus case filed in the court a Joinder supporting CUIAB’s legal counsel Notice of

17 Demurer. Defendants’ Joinder supporting CUIAB Demurer would perhaps not been strange to

18 Plaintiff if the four top-notch attorneys from the UC Office of the General Counsel had not

19 appeared on Joinder pleading, including Charles F. Robinson, UCOP General Counsel; Karen J.
20 Petrulakis, UCOP Chief Deputy General Counsel; Cynthia A. Vroom, UCOP Senior Counsel;
21 and Margaret L Wu, UCOP Managing Counsel.
22 747. Writ of Mandamus for the unemployment insurance benefits is not the
23 million-dollar case that required the involvement of the four top-notch legal counsels from the
24
UC Office of the General Counsel, especially the UC General Counsel Charles F. Robinson,
25
reports directly to UC Regents.
26
748. In addition to the above, in January 2015, Plaintiff filed an Objection to
27
the Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motion and included the Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 271 of 295
 1 Du ru isseau ’s b iog raph y an d the Ma rch 11 , 20 14 , le tte r add re ssed to the UCOP
2 Prin cipa l Inv estiga to r Jud ith Ro se nbe rg , wh ich a dd re ssed Dr. Shelton Du ru isseau ’s
3 2 012 in terv ie w ab ou t th e UC Da vis Med ic a l Cen tra l Plan t with Sacramento African-
4 American magazine Sub Cultural Hub.
5
749. Defendant objected Plaintiff’s abovementioned exhibits. However, the
6
Court overruled Defendants’ objection. It is worth mentioning that Dr. Shelton Duru isse au ,
7
b eside h is po sition as an Asso cia te Vic e Cha nce llor, wa s a lso ap po in te d by Sta te
8
o f Ca lifo rn ia Go ve rn or Arno ld Sch warzen egg e r to the Ca lifornia Med ica l Bo ard .
9
750. In April 2014, Plaintiff was not aware that UC General Counsel Charles
10
Robinson, prior to joining the University in January 2007, served as Vice President, General
11
Counsel, and Corporate Secretary for the California Independent System Operator Corporation
12
(ISO), California’s wholesale electric transmission operator, based in Folsom, California, in
13
2000–2007. It is worth mentioning that the California Independent System Operator Board of
14

15 Governors members and the members of the Board of University of California Reagents are

16 nominated by the governor of California and confirmed by the State of California Senate.

17 751. In 1999–2003 ISO was the distributor of electric power sold by UC Davis

18 Medical Center Central Plant on the open market. Plaintiff was employed in the UC Davis

19 Medical Center Central Plant by Defendants from June 1999 to March 2007.

20 752. The UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant in 1999–2003 was selling

21 power at the highest bids on the spot in the market via ISO exactly in same way as Enron or

22 former Plaintiff employer Dynegy, manipulating power and causing a rolling shortage of energy

23 in the State of California and rolling blackouts.

24 753. Defendant were manipulating the electric power sale on a small scale in

25 comparison to Enron or Dynegy, but even selling 15 MW was enough to provide electricity for

26 15,000 people. In 2002, the former Plaintiff employer Dynegy and 10 other energy suppliers that
27 contributed to California’s energy crisis and rolling blackouts were fined with small fines in the
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 272 of 295
 1 amount of $122 million dollars. Dynegy and others probably would not pay the fines if their
2 Board of Director members would be nominated by the State of California Governor, like ISO’s
3 Board of Governors and members of the Board of University of California Regents.
4
754. At the same time in January 2007, when Charles Robinson joined the
5
University, Plaintiff became a subject of Defendants’ despicable attacks, not knowing why he
6
was being attacked, and in March 2007, Plaintiff was suspended from work and was abruptly
7
removed from the Central Plant and reassigned to the UC Davis Medical Center HVAC shop
8
with the threat of employment termination. Three months later, Plaintiff received his annual
9

10 employee performance review (evaluation) for 2006–2007, and Plaintiff’s evaluation looked

11 nothing like what happened in 2006–2007 in contrary to the suspension and reassignment March

12 2007 letter that defaced and defamed Plaintiff.

13 755. In January 2007, Charles Robinson joined the University as the General
14 Counsel, and he knew all of the secrets about the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration
15 facility’s electric power production, distribution, and sale via California Independent System
16 Operator (ISO).
V. CONCLUSION
17

18

19 756. The reason for Defendant’ despicable conspiracy against Plaintiff did not

20 cross Plaintiff’s mind until June 2015 during Plaintiff’s preparation to file Plaintiff’s Opposition

21 to the Defendant’ Legal Fees and Cost in relation to Defendant’ Anti- Strategic Lawsuit Against

22 Public Participation (SLAPP) Motion.

23 757. Plaintiff did not had a clue that Plaintiff’s victory in 2008 arbitration

24 against Defendant —which ended with the 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed with

25 Defendant—was signed by Defendant in evil spirit and bad faith. The arbitration and the

26 Settlement –Agreement was just a short and unexpected delay for the Defendant before the

27 Defendant exercised and launched a second preemptive retaliatory strike against Plaintiff to end

28 Plaintiff’s employment with the University of California which orchestrated by UC Davis Health

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 273 of 295
 1 System Human Resourced Executive Director Stephen Chilcott and few other and UC Office
2 of the President officials including and not limited to UC General Counsel Charles Robinson
3 and his Deputy Steven Drown who signed the Settlement- Agreement on behalf of UC Regents
4 in February 2009.
5

6 VI. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

[BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT]
7

8 759. The First Cause of Action in this THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT is

9 the PRIMARY CAUSE OF ACTION, which is a violation and breach of contract by the
10 Defendant, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UC) (hereafter
11 Defendant). The February 2009 contract was entitled by the Defendants the SETTLEMENT
12 AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE.
13 760. In February 2009, Defendants solicited and signed Settlement Agreement
14 with the Plaintiff, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, (hereafter Plaintiff). Per Settlement Agreement,
15 the Defendant agreed to employ Plaintiff in the exempt position of Associate Development
16 Engineer with an annual base salary of $70,000.00 (seventy thousand dollars) since February
17 2009.
18 761. In 2009, Defendants erroneously misclassified Plaintiff’s salary in the
19 signed Settlement –Agreement, stating that they would instead provide Plaintiff with a salary of
20 $71,640/year pursuant to UC Davis Title Code 7182, the Middle Step Salary Grade. The
21 Defendant provided to Plaintiff with a salary to the amount of $70,000/year, which does not
22 exist in the UC Davis Title Code 7182.
23 762. In March 2011, Plaintiff asked the Defendants for a one-step pay increase
24 under the UC Davis Title Code from the Middle Step of $71,640 to the 3rd Step Salary Grade of
25 $80,922.00.
26 763. However, it is for the Court and Jury to decide whether Plaintiff was
27 entitled to a salary increase according to the UC Davis Title Code 7182 for the Associate
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 274 of 295
 1 Development Engineer position or whether Defendant was not obligated to increase the
2 Plaintiff’s salary according to the UC Davis or University of California pay policies and Title
3 Codes or by the Settlement-Agreement is governing the Plaintiff’s salary.
4 764. In May 2011, the Defendants corrected Plaintiff’s salary pursuant to UC
5 Davis Title Code 7182, Middle Salary – Grade $71, 600 /year without correcting the Settlement -
6 Agreement or retroactively altering the pay difference from February 2009 to May 2011 instead
7 of the 3rd Step Salary Grade of $80,922.00.
8 765. Instead of the 3rd Step Salary Grade Increase, Plaintiff, in May 2011,
9 experienced an unthinkable attack by the Defendants, including sabotaging Plaintiff’s job and
10 having a manager stalk Plaintiff in an attempt to force Plaintiff to quit his job and to prepare for
11 the termination of the Plaintiff’s employment at the HVAC Shop.
12 766. Per the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to work at the UC Davis
13 Medical Center, Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) shop in good faith and
14 agreed not to sue Defendants for the adverse unlawful retaliatory actions that the Defendants
15 took against Plaintiff between 2006 and 2008.
16 767. However, the Defendants in 2011–2012 entirely disregarded, breached,
17 and violated the signed settlement, turning Plaintiff’s livelihood into a living hell and terminating
18 Plaintiff without a valid reason on December 7, 2012, thus causing Plaintiff enormous financial
19 losses estimated at approximately one million dollars in wages and benefits alone, not to
20 mention other damages to which Plaintiff is entitled as a result of the suffering caused by the
21 inhumane adverse actions of Defendant against Plaintiff during the course of Plaintiff’s
22 employment with the University of California and after Plaintiff’s employment termination.
23 768. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in the paragraphs, including
24 subparagraphs 1 through 760, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at
25 length herein.
26 769. The contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is and was at all relevant
27 times a written contract. The written contract is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 1. Plaintiff hereby
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 275 of 295
 1 incorporates into this complaint each term, condition, and paragraph of the contract as required by law.
2 Pursuant to the contract entitled SETTLEMENT- AGREEMENT, Defendants promised Plaintiff an
3 exempt position in the UC Davis Medical Center HVAC /Plumbing Shop with the title of Assistant
4 Development Engineer after Plaintiff prevailed in November 2008 in the arbitration process against
5 Defendants after Defendant made an attempt to terminate unsuccessfully Plaintiff’s employment in 2007.
6 770. In 2009, Plaintiff understood and still understands that by signing the
7 Settlement –Agreement with the Defendant, any differences or problems which arose during the
8 course of the Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants would be resolved in good faith by both
9 parties and that the parties would inform each other about any suspected, occurred, alleged, or
10
implied violation or breach of the signed Settlement – Agreement before the parties exercise
11
legal remedies to enforce the Settlement Agreement or change the venue of the Settlement
12
Agreement pursuant to §16. MODIFICATIONS IN WRITING ONLY.
13
771. This document may not be modified except by written amendment,
14
characterized as such and signed by the parties.; § 20 CALIFORNIA LAW This Agreement is
15
made and entered into in the State of California and shall in all respects be interpreted and
16
enforced in accordance with California law and § 21 BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement
17
shall bind the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assignments of each party and inure
18
to the benefit of each party its heirs.
19

20 772. Plaintiff in November 2008 did not realize that the prevailing, in

21 arbitration, and signing the Settlement – Agreement in February 2009 in good faith with the

22 Defendant was only a short time before Defendants would carry out their evil-spirited plan to

23 terminate the Plaintiff’s employment. The Plaintiff outlined and described the extreme,

24 outrageous, atrocious, and utterly intolerable conduct of the Defendants in paragraphs and
25 subparagraphs 1 through 144.
26 773. The Defendant, the Regents of the University of California, by and through its
27 own employees, agents, and officers, kept Plaintiff out of the workplace for over one year for no apparent
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 276 of 295
 1 reason. Defendants placed Plaintiff on Investigatory Leaves, Administrative Leaves, yet the evidence
2 shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that UC DAVIS was intentionally keeping plaintiff out of the work
3 location promised in the contract and was waiting to find a pretext or basis to terminate Plaintiff’s
4 employment. This happened for only one reason: because Defendant negotiated the long-awaited power
5 sale contract for UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.
6 The Defendants apparently were falsely informed through their employees, agents, and officers that
7 Plaintiff was an imminent threat to their obtaining the long awaited and profitable power sale contract.
8 774. After keeping Plaintiff out of the work place for almost one year, the Defendants
9 could not find the pretext or basis to terminate Plaintiff because there were none. They then ordered their
10 own employees, agents, and officers to exercise the criminally minded plan to provoke and assassinate
11 Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, using the UC Davis Police force.
12 775. The Defendants plan failed. The Defendant then made the attempt to repeat the
13 May 31, 2012, heinous plan to kill Plaintiff in September 2012 but the plan was canceled because Plaintiff
14 warned Defendant and Defendant’s agents and officers on September 10, 2012 that Plaintiff was aware
15 that May 31, 2012, was the date that the Defendants’ unsuccessful provocation was ill crafted to harm
16 Plaintiff.
17 776. According to the Settlement-Aagreement, §19 MUTUAL NON-

18 DISPARAGEMENT neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants were to disparage each other. Plaintiff at all

19 times expressed his good faith beliefs in the truth. When, in reality, Plaintiff was a valuable employee,
20 who had the best interests of the hospital always in mind, the Defendants not only disparaged Plaintiff
21 but made Plaintiff look like the most-wanted criminal.
22 777. In September 2012, two month before Plaintiff’s employment termination, the
23 Defendant ordered own officers, agents, and UC Davis Police to issue a poster similar to the FBI’s “Most
24 Wanted” criminals posters with Plaintiff’s photo and description on. The issued UC Davis Police
25 poster was distributed around UC Davis Campuses without informing Plaintiff about it. The Defendants
26 wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment on December 7, 2012.
27 778. The written Settlement - Agreement contains an implied covenant of good
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 277 of 295
 1 faith and fair dealing or an understanding that neither party will do anything unlawful and/or take
2 action that undermines and/or deprives plaintiff of one or more of the benefit of the bargain.
3 Further to this, as long as Plaintiff performed his duties in a manner that met or exceeded
4 expectations, he would be entitled to work and remain in the job until his retirement age.
5 779. The Defendants breached this contract by subjecting the 60-year-old
6 Plaintiff to a hostile work environment and psychological terror. This terror was carried out and
7 orchestrated by the Defendant’s own agents and officers for over one year, including keeping
8 plaintiff away from the workplace for over one year, retaliating for no reason whatsoever against
9 Plaintiff, and terminating his employment without one single statement, word ,allegation, or
10 notification in the April 2012 Notice of Intent to Suspend, the May 2012 Letter of Suspension, the
11 September 25, 2012 Notice of Intent to Terminate Plaintiff Employment, the December 5, 2012
12 Letter of Termination, and five bogus pseudo investigation reports that the Defendants’ officers
13 fabricated as a cause for Plaintiff employment termination without one word in reports that
14 Plaintiff breached the signed contract thereby defacing and defaming Plaintiff.
15 The aforementioned acts constitute material breaches of the contract.
16 780. Plaintiff seeks and is entitled to all special and consequential damages as allowed
17 by law, including but not limited to lost income, benefits, that Plaintiff would have enjoyed as an exempt
18 employee under the written contract. The contract provides for and Plaintiff seeks costs as well as
19 attorney fees.
20 781 Due to breach and violation of the contract and wrongful termination of Plaintiff
21 employment, Plaintiff prays for the Judgment against the Defendants for monetary and punitive damages
22 due to Plaintiff as follows:
23 The 2011 Plaintiff’s Losses Due to Breach and Violation of the Contract by Defendants
24
782. The 2011 Plaintiff’s annual base salary was $71,600 and Defendant paid
25

26 to Plaintiff only $63,271.60.

27
783. The Plaintiff loss of 2011 base salaries earnings were $8,328.40 plus 10% daily
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 278 of 295
 1 compound interest for the time period until the Defendants pay the damages. The Plaintiff’s loss of
2 income in the above-mentioned amount occurred and are due to Plaintiff because of the Defendants’
3 despicable retaliatory action against Plaintiff by keeping Plaintiff out of the premises on administrative
4 leave without pay and denying him short-term disability benefits in conspiracy with Liberty Assurance
5 Company of Boston.
6 784. In addition to the base $ 8,328.40 salary loss, Defendant shall compensate
7 Plaintiff for 158.69 hours of accrued sick leave and 163 hours of vacation at the rate of $34.31/hour in
8 the amount of $11,037.00 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants pay
9 the damages. Plaintiff would have used his accrued sick leave and vacation hours due to the enormous
10 infliction of emotional distress caused by the Defendants’ despicable and inhumane harassment.
11 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff for 2011 in sum of
12 $19,365.58 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants pay to Plaintiff
13 the requested amount.
14 The 2012 Plaintiff’s Losses Due to Breach and Violation of the Contract by Defendants
15

16 785. The Plaintiff’s loss due to breach of contract in 2012 involved base salary
17 earnings of $8,882.00 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants pay to
18 Plaintiff the requested amount.
19 44.28 hours at a rate of $34.31/hour were accrued or would have been accrued in sick leave if
20 the Defendants had not breached the contract and if Plaintiff had been employed by the Defendants.
21 44.28 hour x $34.1 = $1,519.20 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the
22 Defendants pay Plaintiff the requested amount.
23 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff for
24 2012 in sum of $10,401.20 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants
25 pay to Plaintiff the requested amount.
26

27 The Plaintiff’s Employment Termination by the Defendant Five Years prior to the Plaintiff’s

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 279 of 295
 full Social Security Retirement at Age 66 on May 30, 2017 or December 31, 2017.
1

2 786. The Plaintiff’s base salary earning from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017,
3 would be $358,200 if the Defendants had not breached the contract, and Plaintiff would have earned the
4 above amount until Plaintiff retired at the age of 66 and a half on December 31, 2017, as Plaintiff planned
5 to do.
6 787. The Plaintiff’s earning would be higher if Plaintiff were to receive pay raises in
7 this period or if the Defendants would reclassify Plaintiff’s annual salary. The Middle Salary Grade for
8 Associate Development Engineer pursuant to the UC Davis Title Code 7182 has been changed
9 effective July 1, 2014 from $ 71,640.00 to $76,600.00 annually.
10 $71,640 base annual salary x 5 years = $358,200. Plaintiff would earn this if
11 employed by the Defendants plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants
12 pay the requested amount.
13 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff in sum of
14 $358,200 plus 10% daily compound interest
15 788. The 221.4 hours of accrued sick leave and 886.2 hours of accrued vacation
16 at a pay rate of $34.31 = $38,001.00. Plaintiff would earn this if employed by the Defendant plus
17 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants pay the requested amount.
18 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff in sum of
19 $38.001 plus 10% daily compound interest
20

21 The Plaintiff’s University of California Retirement Income and Plaintiff Social

Security Benefits Income
22

23
789. Defendants breached the signed contract with Plaintiff and unlawfully
24
terminated Plaintiff on December 7, 2012 at the age of 61 and a half. The Plaintiff, at age 61 and
25
a half, was not eligible to receive even the earlier Social Security income benefits for which
26
Plaintiff could apply in May 2013. For the full Social Security income benefit would have work
27
until year 2017.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 280 of 295
 1 790. Besides the Social Security income, Defendant slandered and defaced
2 Plaintiff with State Of California Employment Development, and Plaintiff was denied
3 Unemployment Insurance benefit, thus the Defendant left Plaintiff without any income. The
4 Defendant caused Plaintiff to be denied unemployment insurance benefits for only one reason: to
5 justify retaliation against Plaintiff. However, Defendants forgot about the signed contract that
6 governed Plaintiff’s employment since February 2009 and which was grossly breached by the
7 Defendant.
791. Besides breaching the contract, the Defendants violated the Skelly Law
8

9 and terminated the 61-and-a-half-year-old Plaintiff without the possibility of the Plaintiff being

10 hired by any employer at his age, thus depriving Plaintiff of any income until Plaintiff received
11
earlier retirement Social Security income benefit at age of 62 or the University Retirement
12
Benefits.
13

14 In Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 194, the California

15 Supreme Court ruled that: "as part of constitutionally guaranteed due process,
16 public employees are entitled to certain procedural safeguards before discipline
17
which is sufficiently severe to constitute a deprivation of a liberty or property
18
right is imposed on them. The constitutionally protected liberty interests
19
requiring Skelly protections arise whenever the allegations against an employee
20
are sufficiently onerous to seriously impact the employee's ability to find future
21
work in his/her chosen career."
22

23 792. By Breaching contract and violating the Skelly Law, the Defendants
24 terminated Plaintiff without the possibility of finding other employment at his age and with his
25 health. They denied Plaintiff’s unemployment insurance benefits, thus Plaintiff was left without
26 any income, health insurance, or life insurance.
27 793. n such a situation, Plaintiff was forced to cash out a lump sum from his
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 281 of 295
 1 taxable University Retirement Benefits to the amount of $300,000 to maintain his and his spouse’s
2 life at as normal a level as possible for the next few years.
3 794. If the Defendant had not terminated Plaintiff’s employment in December
4 2012 and had employed Plaintiff until 2017, Plaintiff would have had a monthly income to the
5 amount of $2,521 from his University Retirement, which would combine with his $2,105 Social
6 Security income.
7 795. If Plaintiff had been employed until the age of 66, he would have decided
8 to cash out his University Retirement in a lump sum of cash to the amount of $349,057 or more,
9 and accordingly, $397,510, if Plaintiff had been employed until the age of 70.
10 796. The University of California retirees are eligible for medical, dental,
11 vision, legal, and AD&D benefits if they opt into the monthly income retirement benefit instead
12 of receiving a lump sum cash out.
13 Furthermore, any University employee is eligible for retirement benefits in the form of a monthly
14
income or lump sum cash out if employed with the University for least five years and is 59 and a
15
half years old. The Defendants unlawfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment five years prior to
16
his being fully eligible for Social Security Retirement.
17
THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants shall compensate Plaintiff to an
18
amount that is equal to the retirement benefits for five years of employment, or $97,510,
19
whichever is greater.
20
797. The Defendants, due to their breaching contract, unlawfully terminating
21
Plaintiff in December 2012, and forcing Plaintiff to take Social Security benefits income at age
22
62.
23
THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants , shall pay Plaintiff the difference
24
between the Plaintiff’s earlier Social Security income and Plaintiff’s full Social Security income
25
to the amount of $591/ month since June 2013 and until Plaintiff dies or in lump sum for 25 years
26
or 300 months, which is equal to $177, 300, whichever is more convenient for the Defendants to
27
pay.
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 282 of 295
 1 The Plaintiff’s Health and Dental Insurance
2

3 798. In 2011, Defendants grossly and despicably breached the contract and
4 performed inhumane harassment of the Plaintiff in an attempt to terminate Plaintiff or force him
5 to quit. The Defendant, through town agents and officers, de-enrolled Plaintiff from the Medical
6 and Dental Health Insurance benefits and denied Plaintiff’s Short Term Disability Insurance
7 benefits when Plaintiff was on stress-related sick leave caused by the Defendants’ agents and
8 officers.
9 799. When Plaintiff noticed in January 2012 that the Defendants had de-enrolled
10 Plaintiff from the Health and Dental Insurance and changed Plaintiff’s position without the
11 Plaintiff’s knowledge from an Associate Development Engineer to Programmer I (Demotion),
12 Plaintiff thought that Plaintiff would be terminated soon and so Plaintiff’s spouse enrolled Plaintiff
13 in her employer Nordstrom’s Corporation Health and Dental Insurance Benefits in January 2012.
14 Thanks to Plaintiff’s wife’s employer, Plaintiff has Health and Dental Insurance coverage
15 including medicine.
16 800. The Defendants re-enrolled Plaintiff into the Health and Dental Plan in
17 January 2012 but Plaintiff did not de-enroll himself from his spouse’s employer health insurance
18 and dental plan because he would be not able to re-enroll if Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s
19 employment, which occurred in December 2012.
20 801. Since February 2012, Plaintiff maintained his health and dental insurance
21 with his spouse’s employer Nordstrom Corporation, and this insurance would be maintained until
22 Plaintiff’s spouse’s retirement in September 2017. This increased the Plaintiff’s spouse’s monthly
23 premium for health and dental insurance from $94.00/month to $382.00/month. The difference
24 in premium, which is $288/month.
25 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Plaintiff , shall be compensated by the Defendants
26 from February 2012 to September 2017 until Plaintiff’s wife retires from Nordstrom at age 66,
27 which is 56 months x 288= $16,128.00 total sum due to Plaintiff
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 283 of 295
 1
The Plaintiff’s Supplemental Life Insurance, Accidental Death and
2
Dismemberment, and Dependents Life Insurance
3

4 802. For 13 years of employment with the University of California, Plaintiff was
5 paying premiums every paycheck to the amount of $149.90 for Supplemental Life Insurance, A&D,
6 and Dependents Life Insurance, totaling $23,384 in premiums alone for 13 years. Plaintiff was
7 insured by Supplemental Life Insurance to the amount of $280,000, by Accidental Death and
8 Dismemberment Insurance to the amount of $500,000, and by Dependents Life Insurance to the
9 amount of $100,000.
10 803. The Defendants erased the above-mentioned Plaintiff’s benefits due to their
11 reckless violation of a signed contract with Plaintiff and unlawfully terminating Plaintiff’s
12 employment on December 7, 2012, at the of age 61 and a half, knowing that the Plaintiff had had
13 open-heart surgery and other health problems and that Plaintiff, at his age and health, would either
14 not be able to obtain Life Insurance, Accidental Death and Dismemberment, and Dependents Life
15 Insurance at all or, if so, that the premiums would be so high that Plaintiff wouldn’t even be able
16 to dream about having Life Insurance.
17 804. Due to their breach and violation of the signed February 2009 contract with
18 Plaintiff, the Defendants are liable for paying his spouse the mentioned benefits if Plaintiff dies.
19 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay the mentioned benefits to his
20 spouse if the Plaintiff dies.
21 805. The other option is that Plaintiff will find an insurance company that would be

22 willing to provide these benefits to Plaintiff and Defendant will pay the premiums until the
23
Plaintiff dies. EXAMPLE: Banner Life Insurance Company-
24
Semi-Annually: 4,720.05Quarterly:2,406.30Monthly (EFT):809.81
25

26 The Plaintiff’s House in Lodi, California.

27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 284 of 295
 1 806. In 2003, Plaintiff bought a four-bedroom, two-bathroom house with a brand
2 new built-in 10” deep swimming pool for the price of $315,000 when house market prices were
3 being manipulated by Banks and Mortgage Companies.
4 807. Plaintiff was able to maintain the high monthly mortgage payment working
5 in the UC Davis Medical Central Plant as an operator with overtime, holiday pay, and shift
6 deferential pay as an extra income.
7 808. In March 2007, the Defendants abruptly and unlawfully removed Plaintiff
8 from the Central Plant and reassigned Plaintiff to UC Davis Medical Center HVAC Shop, thinking
9 that Plaintiff would be interfering with the Defendants efforts to negotiate and obtain millions of
10 dollars from an electric power sale contract with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District
11 (SMUD). The Defendants lost their previous contract in 2003 or 2004 and, since then, have lost
12 millions of dollars in revenue because the surplus energy from the Central Plant was no sold.
13 809. In 2009, Plaintiff signed the Settlement – Agreement (contract) with the
14 Defendants and, in good faith, agreed to work permanently at the UC Davis Medical HVAC shop
15 as an exempt employee and was given an Associate Development Engineer Position by contract.
16 810. In 2011 and 2012, the Defendants recklessly violated and breached the
17 signed contract. In fear and panic after losing his job, Plaintiff sold his house on short sale in fall
18 2012, informing the Defendants about prior to the sale on September 10, 2012 by letter to Brent
19 Seifert ( See page No .171-172) The Defendants did not care about devastating Plaintiff’s or
20 Plaintiff’s spouse’s livelihood or emotions, and the Plaintiff’s spouse had wanted to keep this
21 house for the rest of her life.
22 811. Plaintiff was lucky that two weeks prior to the termination, Plaintiff was
23 able to rent a home with a monthly rent of $1,765.
24 812. Due to losing his house, Plaintiff has no tax deduction and is paying huge
25 amounts of taxes, draining his University Retirement instead of having a tax return.
26 813. Due to the breach of contract and unlawfully terminating Plaintiff’s
27 employment, the Defendants are fully liable for the Plaintiff’s lost house and the fact that he and
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 285 of 295
 1 his spouse are devastated financially and emotionally.
2 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay $450,000 for inflicted damages in
3 relation to Plaintiff’s house so that Plaintiff can buy new house and restore his and his spouse’s normal
4 life they had have the prior reckless breach of contract by the Defendant .
5 814. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of breach of the Settlement Agreement with
6 evil spirit by the Defendant the paragraphs, including subparagraphs 1 through 813, inclusive, and
7 incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
8 815. Defendant breached the 2009 Settlement –Agreement by acting in concert
9 with intent to cause Plaintiff severe emotional distress. The evidence is clear and convincing, at
10 the least, that the Defendant, with premeditation, undertook acts that denied the reality of the abuse
11 experienced by Plaintiff and fabricated nature of the “complaints” made about Plaintiff.
12 816. The acts and omissions as alleged herein, separately and taken together, are
13 so extreme and outrageous that the Defendant, and each of them, acted outside the course and
14 scope of their employment with the University of California . The depth, length of time, and nature
15 of the acts are so extraordinary that no reasonable person can conclude such acts and omissions
16 are within the course and scope of duties as a manager, supervisor, or officer of a public entity
17 such as and including University of California .
18 817. Defendant’ breach of signed contract with evil spirit and bad faith as herein alleged
19 do, and did, constitute extreme and outrageous conduct.
20 818. Defendant’ by breaching the contract acted with intent of causing, or with reckless
21 disregard for the probability of causing, severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.
22 WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment as proximate result of breaching the contract
23 the acts alleged herein Plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress, entitling Plaintiff to
24 damages, including but not limited to, medical expenses, lost income, other special damages,
25 general damages, and exemplary damages, all in an amount to be proven at trial.
26
Breach of the Settlement –Agreement by the Defendant and Infliction of Emotional Distress
27 to Harm Plaintiff

28 819. To be sure, Defendant, and Defendant’s agents sand officers knew Plaintiff is, and

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 286 of 295
 1 was at all relevant times, precise in his work, could be counted on to keep management informed
2 of the status of the plant and equipment, committed to the future success of the Medical Center,
3 and rightfully and lawfully expected that no person, let alone supervisors, managers, Human
4 Resource personnel, and others would be dishonest, fabricate stories about him, disregard evidence,
5 disregard policies and practices for impartial investigations, disregard Defendant’ actions on
6 Plaintiff’s well-being, and/or set about to cause him emotional harm, all with the intent to ensure
7 that Plaintiff never returned to work again.
8 820.. Defendant and Defendant’s officers and agents by breaching and disregarding the
9 signed Settlement –Agreement alleged in ( knew that their actions, including but not limited to
10 the actions described herein, as well as their actions issuing investigatory leaves in violation of
11 policies and procedures, would cause and did cause Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress,
12 especially when not one person left employed by University of California looked at, considered,
13 and/or analyzed the actual evidence.
14 821. The only conclusion that is more likely than not, actually clear and
15 convincing, considering all the evidence, outlined in Plaintiff’s referred allegations contained in the
16 paragraphs, including subparagraphs 1 through 760, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as
17 though fully set forth at length herein.
18 822. Defendant and Defandant’s agents and officers and each of them,
19 coordinated their actions, conferred with each other, and otherwise had a common goal and/or
20 understanding to either force Plaintiff to quit and/or force him to act or behave in ways that would
21 provide them a subterfuge for his termination. Meanwhile, Defendant, and Defendant’ s agents
22 and officers set about to extricated Plaintiff from his employment because Plaintiff was a
23 suspected whistleblower, and a significant percentage of employees who report misconduct suffer
24 retaliation, abuse, harassment, and ultimately separation from their employment.
25 823. Plaintiff by signing the Settlement-Agreement in February 2009 with Defendant
26 had a reasonable expectation that his employment would be available for him to work, plus benefits,
27 and all other compensation due under the law so long as Plaintiff continued to do his work and
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 287 of 295
 1 perform at the workplace as he had since 1999.
2 824. Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged herein with the intent to harm Plaintiff
3 financially and to induce Plaintiff and to violate the Settlement-Agreement, and/or to take away
4 Plaintiff’s property rights in his employment without the benefit of the processes, procedures, and
5 safeguards provided for such things under the law, including the University of California own
6 policies and rules.
7 825. As a proximate result of the breach of the Settlement –Agreement and conduct of
8 Defendant actions and omissions described herein, as well as based on evidence not disclosed
9 herein, Plaintiff was damaged, and continues to experience damages, in an amount that excess
10 $75,000.00 per year, for no less than 5 years, and/or the number of years from the date Plaintiff
11 last received his income to the date Plaintiff intended to retire. When Plaintiff has ascertained the
12 full amount of its damages, it will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint and/or by evidence
13 at the time of trial provide proof accordingly.
14 826. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant by breaching and violating the signed Settlement
15 –agreement acted with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and/or failed to perceive, observe,
16 and act as a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances. Further, said reckless
17 disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and/or negligence were substantial factors in the damages Plaintiff
18 sustained.
19 827. The conduct of on the Defendant as described herein was purposeful and intentional
20 violation and breach of the signed Settlement –Agreement with Plaintiff and Defendant was
21 engaged in for the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of property or legal rights or otherwise causing
22 injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious
23 disregard of its rights, and was performed with fraud, oppression or malice.
24 828. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant and
25 Defendant agents , and each of them, by violating and breaching the signed Settlement –
26 Agreement coordinated, cooperated, and/or agreed to misuse, abuse, and/or disregard University
27 of California polices and protections so that they could disregard Plaintiff’s rights to return to
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 288 of 295
 1 work intentionally created and caused scenarios that they knew would cause Plaintiff to suffer
2 from anxiety, anger, and emotional distress, because the Defendant knew, based on Plaintiff’s
3 own admissions and the Defendant’ experience that Plaintiff would manifest and/or alleviate his
4 anxiety, anger, and emotional distress by writing and sending letters or emails, which, to the
5 uninformed and/or malice minded person, might seem harsh. However, Defendant, and each of
6 them, knew Plaintiff did not have any history of violence, did not have any history of racism, did
7 not have any history of any discrimination, and his letters and writings misrepresented who
8 Plaintiff is as a person.
9
Government Code Section 12940 provides “It is an unlawful employment practice, (a) For an
10
employer, because of the…national origin, ancestry…mental disability, medical condition… of
11
any person…to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from…to discriminate
12
against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”
13
WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment so as to justify an award of exemplary or punitive
14
damages against such Defendant in an amount according to proof at trial.
15

16 The Violation and Breach of Settlement –Agreement by the and Defendant’s Discrimination
against Plaintiff Base on his Mental and Medical Condition
17

18
829. Defendant and Defendant’s agents and officers by breeching and violating the
19
2009 Settlement –Agreement, further discriminated against Plaintiff based on his mental
20
disability and medical condition as described herein.
21

22 830. Defendant and its agents, managers and employees, by violating and breaching the

23 signed Settlement –Agreement with Plaintiff violated California Government Code §12940, by failing

24 to adequately supervise, control, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the conduct, acts, and failures to

25 act as described herein. As such, Defendant and the Individual Defendant failed to fulfill their statutory

26 duty to take all reasonable and necessary steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from

27 occurring in the workplace, as required by California Government Code §12940(k).

28 831.. Despite Plaintiffs complaints about violation and breach of 2009 Settlement Agreement

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 289 of 295
 1 by Defendant’s agents and Officers, Defendant failed to take steps to prevent the harassment,
2 discrimination and retaliation and to stop breach and violation of the signed contract with Plaintiff.
3 832.. Plaintiff knew he did nothing wrong. Plaintiff initially believed that Defandant would
4 easily determine that fabricating false complaints where none existed for years beforehand. It is
5 undisputed that Plaintiff attempted to persuade Defendant and Defendant’s agents and officers as early
6 as in May 2011 , to settle, resolve, and/or put an end to whatever acrimony might have existed on the
7 part of Defendant, and Defendant’s agents and officers , at the workplace. Defendant, and Defendants
8 agents and officers, never responded to or reacted to Plaintiff’s attempts to live and let live, and to get
9 Plaintiff back to his employment.
10 833. Defendant and Defendant’s agents by purposely and with evil spirit and faith violating
11 and breach the 2009 Settlement –Agreement knew that Plaintiff became distressed, angry, and upset
12 with each and every adverse unfounded adverse employment action, such as but not limited to, a biased,
13 one-sided, and incomplete investigation reports, the lack of meaningful investigation into the misconduct
14 Plaintiff actually reported, or, handing Plaintiff a Notice of Investigatory Leave in September 2011 when
15 Plaintiff believed he was returning to work, or, handing Plaintiff another Notice of Investigatory Leave
16 on May 31, 2012, with a crisis team on stand-by, or, being instructed not to communicate with employees
17 even though Plaintiff represented them.
18 834. Defendant and Defendant’s agents and officers by purposely and with evil spirit violated
19 and breached the signed 2009 Settlement –Agreement with Plaintiff as part and parcel of their ongoing,
20 continuing, and repeated retaliation, harassment, for the purpose to cover up and conceal their
21 misconduct misconduct, violation of state and federal law ,engaged in a course of action that constituted,
22 separately and cumulatively, discrimination, harassment and retaliation because of national origin,
23 ancestor, mental condition, and/or medical condition.
24 835. The discrimination, harassment and retaliation are continuous and persist to date against
25 Plaintiff.
26 836. As a result of violation and breach of 2009 Settlement –Agreement by Defendant and
27 Defendant’ and Defendant’s agents and officers failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 290 of 295
 1 discrimination, harassment and retaliation, Defendant and Defendant’s agents and officers every day and
2 week occupied themselves with new harassing, retaliatory plans to drive Plaintiff out of out of University
3 of California, disparage him, or take compensation from him. Plaintiff has suffered substantial economic
4 losses in wages and benefits, damages to reputation, credit and other financial injuries in an amount to
5 be determined at trial.
6 834. As a result of Defendant’ breach and violation of the 2009 Settlement –Agreement signed
7 with Plaintiff harassment and discrimination and the failure to prevent and/or take reasonable steps to
8 prevent discrimination and harassment,
9 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants Plaintiff requests the award of attorneys’ fees against
10 Defendant under pursuant to California Government Code §12965.
11
The Purposed Violation and Breach of Settlement –Agreement by the
12
Defendant’s ,Retaliation and Discrimination against Plaintiff for the reason to Cover Up and
13 Condone Defendant’s Officers and Agents Unlawful Activities , Frauds and Corruption
Reported by Plaintiff is Violation of the Government Code Section 8547 et. seq
14
835. Plaintiff’s disclosures and reports concerned, or Plaintiff had a good faith belief that his
15
disclosures concerned, activity by and/or conditions existing due to misconduct, including but not limited
16
to waste, fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, or threat to public health.
17
836. Plaintiff’s reports include, but are not limited to, reports of the coordinated efforts to deny
18
him his employment as well as the apparent ratification and/or complicity of officers of the UC system.
19
837. The outrageous conduct of the Defendant described above was done with malice, fraud
20
and oppression and with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff.
21
838. Plaintiff seeks all available damages including punitive damages for breach of the
22
settlement agreement and retaliation against Plaintiff as for reporting Defendant and Defendant’s agent’s
23
waste and misuse of University’s resources, misconduct and violation of the state and federal laws and
24
regulations
25
THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that requests the assessment of exemplary and punitive damages
26
against Defendant, in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of Defendant. .
27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 291 of 295
 The Violation and Breach of Settlement –Agreement by the Defendant in Regards to § No.
1
7 and § No 8. of the settlement –agreement
2

3
839. Defendant and Defendant’s agents and officers purposely and with evil spirit
4
violated and breached the signed 2009 Settlement –Agreement with Plaintiff as part and parcel
5

6 of their ongoing, continuing, and repeated retaliation, harassment, for the purpose to cover up

7 and conceal their misconduct, violation of state and federal law ,engaged in a course of action
8
that constituted not be released from liability under § No. 7 and § No 8. of the settlement –
9
agreement to be sue for and Defendant is liable for violation of not limited to the Immigration
10
Reform and Control Act; the Family Medical Leave Act and the Higher Education Employer-
11

12 Employee Relations Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil

13 Rights Act of 1991, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Americans with
14
Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act), the
15
law of contract and tort; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
16

17 VII. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

18 [VIOLATION OF THE HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTION 1278.5]]
19 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Second Cause of Action, alleges against Defendant,
20 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
21 and Does 1 through 50, as follows:
22 840. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 189
23 through 760, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
24
841. Selling live animals goats, ducks, sheep, roosters, chickens from the HVAC shop
25
by Defendant officers and having the animal’s defecation around the HVAC Plumbing Shop
26
was not only misuse of a University property and resources but serious disregard of the hygiene
27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 292 of 295
 1 and violation of the health and safety code not to mention that UC Davis Medical Center is a flea
2 market to sell goats an chicken but is it well respected medical facility not mention animal cruelty
3
Plaintiff observed.
4
842. Not one of the more than 12 executives, managers, supervisors, or officers that
5
reviewed the matter recognized that the liability issues alone are substantial enough to warrant
6
severe and serious consequences. Not one of the more than Defendant 12 executives, managers,
7
supervisors, or officers that reviewed the matter so much as mentioned the risk that employees,
8
who interact with the hospital environment, without scrubbing, might be exposed to animal and
9
avian bacteria.
10

11 843. The California Legislature enacted Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5 because

12 “… it is the public policy of the State of California to encourage patients, nurses, members of the

13 medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe

14 patient care and conditions. The Legislature encourages this reporting in order to protect patients

15 and in order to assist those accreditation and government entities charged with ensuring that health

16 care is safe. The Legislature finds and declares that whistleblower protections apply primarily to

17 issues relating to the care, services, and conditions of a facility and are not intended to conflict

18 with existing provisions in state and federal law relating to employee and employer relations…”

19 (Emphasis Added)

20 844. Section 1278.5(b) (1) provides “No health facility shall discriminate or retaliate, in
21 any manner, against any patient, employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care
22 worker of the health facility because that person has…Presented a grievance, complaint, or report
23 to the facility, to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility, or the
24 medical staff of the facility, or to any other governmental entity…” (Emphasis Added)
25 845. Section 1278.5(d)(1) states (d) (1) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that
26 discriminatory action was taken by the health facility, or by the entity that owns or operates that
27 health facility, or that owns or operates any other health facility, in retaliation against an employee,
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 293 of 295
 1 member of the medical staff, or any other health care worker of the facility, if responsible staff at
2 the facility or the entity that owns or operates the facility had knowledge of the actions,
3 participation, or cooperation of the person responsible for any acts described in paragraph (1) of
4 subdivision (b), and the discriminatory action occurs within 120 days of the filing of the grievance
5 or complaint by the employee, member of the medical staff or any other health care worker of the
6 facility”
7 846. Section 1278.5(d)(2) provides “…For purposes of this section, discriminatory
8 treatment of an employee…includes, but is not limited to, discharge, demotion, suspension, or any
9 unfavorable changes in, or breach of, the terms or conditions of a contract, employment, or
10 privileges of the employee.”
11 847. Defendant, and each of them, were well aware of Plaintiff’s disclosures to the
12 facility of deficiencies and problems within the HVAC Plumbing Shop as well as the function and
13 operation of the Metasys alarm monitoring system. Each disclosure by Plaintiff related to and
14 concerned matters that directly impacted, or reasonably and foreseeable would impact, the safe
15 and healthy condition of the hospital.
16 848. Each of Plaintiff’s disclosures occurred within 120 days of Plaintiff notifying
17 and/or complaining to the Defendant
18 .
19
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendant, as follows:
20
1. for general and compensatory damages according to proof;
21
2. For lost salary, both front and back pay, bonuses, benefits and any other benefits to which
22
Plaintiff would have been entitled to by reason of his employment with Defendant UC
23
REGENTS, according to proof;
24
3. Punitive and exemplary damages against Defendant;
25
4. Damages and attorney fees as allowed under the Labor Code;
26
5. for prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;
27
7. For costs of suit incurred herein;
28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 294 of 295
 1 8. Damages for retaliation in to Government Code 8547 including punitive damages
2 against Defendant, and Attorney’s fees;
3 9. Breach of contract damages, including costs and attorney fees;
4 10. Damages, Costs, attorney fees, and all other allowable damages and relief
5 authorized under Health & Safety Code § 1278.5
6 11. For other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
7

8 DATED: June 12, 2021

9

10 By: _________________________
11

12 Jaroslaw Waszczuk

13 Plaintiff In Pro Per

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT-EMPLOYMENT

Page 295 of 295
EXHIBIT # 45
 CIV-120
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address):
IN PRO PER FOR COURT USE ONLY
Jaroslaw Waszczuk; IN PRO PER
2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi CA 95242
TELEPHONE NO.; (209) 663-2977 FAXNO.; (209)370-8281 FILED
E-MAIL ADDRESS: jjw1980(g!ive.com Superior Court Of CaVifomfa,
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): JarOSlaW WaSZCZUk

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

STREET ADDRESS; 720 9th Street
MAILING ADDRESS: 720 9th Street
CITY AND ZIP CODE; Sacramento 95814
BRANCH NAME; Biii , Depu^
C a s B Numbur:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Jaroslaw Waszczuk
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: The Rcgcnts of the University of Califomia 34-2013-0015S47S
NOTICE O F E N T R Y O F DISMISSAL AND P R O O F O F S E R V I C E CASE NUMBER;
I I Personal Injury, Property Damage, or Wrongful Death
CZH Motor Vehicle [!• Other
I I Family Law 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
1 1 Eminent Domain
rZJ other (specify): Wrongful Termination -Employment
TO ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES WITHOUT ATTORNEYS: A dismissal was entered in this action by the cJSrl^as shown on the
Request for Dismissal. (Attach a copy completed by the clerk.)
Date:
Jaroslaw Waszczuk N
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF I I ATTORNEY • I • 1 PARTY VtflTHOUT ATTORNEY) |f (SIGNATURE)

PROOF OF SERVICE
1. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this cause. My residence or business address is:

2.1 >^ I I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. I served a copy of the Notice of Entry of
Dismissal and Request for Dismissal by mailing them, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, as follows:
a. I I I deposited the envelope with the United States Postal Sen/ice.
1} I I I placed the envelope for collection and processing for mailing following this business's ordinary practice with
which I am readily familiar. On the same day conrespondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited
in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service,
c. Date of deposit: 9/30/2015 d. Place of deposit (city and state): L o d i , C A 9 5 2 4 0
e. Addressed as follows (name and address):
Douglas Repel ,350 University AvejSuite 200; Sacramento 95825
3 I I I served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Request for Dismissal by personally delivering copies as shown below:
a. Name of person served:
b. Address at which person served:
c. On (dafe); d. At (time):

I served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Request for Dismissal by electronically sen/ing copies as shown below
(complete if electronic service is used based on a court order or agreement of the parties):
a. Name of person served:
b. Electronic service address of person served:
c. On (date): d. At(f/me).-
e. Electronic service address from which I served the documents:
I I Proof of electronic service is attached.
5- I—I Proof of service on additional parties is attached.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: September 3 0 , 2 0 1 5
Irena Waszczuk ^
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) Page 1 of 1
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code of Civil Procedure, § 581 et seq.;
Judicial Council of Califomia NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DISMISSAL Cal. Rules of Court, mle 3.1390
CIV-120 [Rev. January 1,2012] www.courts.ca.gov
AND PROOF OF SERVICE
 CIV-110
ATTORNEY OR PARTY wn>IOUT ATTORNEY (Wame, State Bar number, and address)
FOR COURT USE ONLY
Jaroslaw Waszczuk ; IN PR'O PER
2216 Katzakian Way , Lodi CA 95242
TELEPHONE NO: ( 2 0 9 ) 6 6 3 - 2 9 7 7 FMt^O. (Optional): (209)370-8281
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional):[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR (Wame;: Jaroslaw
Waszczuk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
STREET ADDRESS: ^ 2 0 9 t h S t r e e t OCT - 1 2015
MAILING ADDRESS 720 9th street
CITY AND ZIP CODE: Sacramento, CA 95814
BRANCH NAME: Civil By R. CASTILLO
Deputy Clerk
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Jaroslaw Waszczuk; IN PRO PER
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: The Regents of the University of California
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL CASE NUMBER: 34-2013-00155479

A conformed copy will not be returned by the clerk unless a method of return is provided with the document.
This form may not be used for dismissal of a derivative action or a class action or of any party or cause of action in a
class action. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.760 and 3.770.)
1. TO THE CLERK: Please dismiss this action as follows:
a. (1) I • I With prejudice (2) j j Without prejudice
b. (1) CZHJ Complaint
Complaint (2) £13 Petition
(3)1 ] Cross-complaint filed by (name): on (date):
(4) I I Cross-complaint filed by (name): on (date):
(5) I I Entire action of all parties and all causes of action
(6) I • ! Other (specify):* Defendants : Charles Witcher, Ann Madden Rice, Dorin Daniliuc , Patrick Putney
2. (Complete in all cases except family law cases.)
The court I I did I «^ I did not waive court fees and costs for a party in this cas|. (This infonnation m^jylfe obtained from
the clerk. If court fees and costs were waived, the declaration on the back off/?/;
Date: September 30, 2015
J^rpglavy Wqsai?uk . . . . .
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF I I ATTORNEY j • | PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) '(SIGNATURE)

*lf dismissal requested is of specified parties only of specified causes of action Attomey or party without attorney for:
only, or of specified cross-complaints only, so state and identify the parties, I I Plaintiff/Petitioner I *^ I Defendant/Respondent
causes of action, or cross-complaints to be dismissed.
Cross-Complainant
3. TO THE CLERK: Consent to the above dismissal is hereby given.'
Date: 9/30/2015
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF j | ATTORNEY | • | PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY)

' If a cross-complaint - or Response (Family Law) seeking affirmative Attomey or party without attorney for:
relief - is on file, ttie attomey for cross-complainant (respondent) must
sign this consent if required by Code of Civil Procedure section 581 (I) I I Plaintiff/Petitioner I I Defendant/Respondent
orO).
I I Cross-Complainant
(To beafmpleted by clerk) _
4. I Ir I Dismissal entered as requested on (dafej: ULI ~ I tUID

5 I I Dismissal entered on (date): as to only (name):

6. I I Dismissal not entered as requested for the following reasons (specify):

7. a. I I Attorney or party without attomey notified on (date):

b. I I Attorney or party without attorney not notified. Filing party failed to provide
I I a copy to be conformed I I means to return conformed copy

Date: OCT - 1 2015 Clerk, by , Deputy

Page 1 of 2
Form Adopted for Mandatoiy Use Code of Civil Procedure, § 581 et seq.;
Judicial Council of California EQUEST FOR DISMISSAL Gov. Code, § 68837(c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1390
CIV-110 [Rev. Jan. 1,2013] www.courts.ca.gov
 CIV-110
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Jaroslaw Waszczuk ; IN PRO PER CASE NUMBER:
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: The Regents of the University of California 34-2013-00155479

COURT'S RECOVERY OF WAIVED COURT F E E S AND COSTS

If a party whose court fees and costs were initially waived has recovered or will recover $10,000 or
more in value by way of settlement, compromise, arbitration award, mediation settlement, or other
means, the court has a statutory lien on that recovery. The court may refuse to dismiss the case until
the lien is satisfied. (Gov. Code, § 68637.)

Declaration Concerning Waived Court Fees

1. The court waived court fees and costs in this action for (name):
2. The person named in item 1 is (check one below):
a- 1 «^ I not recovering anything of value by this action.
b. I I recovering less than $10,000 in value by this action.
c. I I recovering $10,000 or more In value by this action. (If item 2c is checked, item 3 must be completed.)
3.1 I All court fees and court costs that were waived in this action have been paid to the court (check one): I I Yes No

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the information above is true afidicorrect.

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF | | ATTORNEY [ • | PARTY MAKING DECLARATION) (SIGNATURE)

CIV-110 [Rev. January 1,2013] Page 2 of 2

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL