Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - CS Item No. 3 Becerra, Alexis From: Jackie Angel Investor < Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 1:10 PM To: eComment Cc: Durham, Daniel Subject: Re: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION Attachments: Cardenal_-_Complaint[2].pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links. Anthony Cardenal v. City of Santa Ana police officer retaliation employment claim (attached) "On August 24th 2022, Cardenal exhausted his administrative remedies by causing City to be served with a government claim. On August 29th 2022, although Ciity, via its third party administrator, acknowledged receipt of the claim and stated that it "would be communicating with Cardenal in the near future in regard to this matter", Cardenal was never contacted and the claim was denied by operation of law. Additionally on or about August 29th 2022, Cardenal filed a complaint with the department of Fair employment and housing and, on September 6th, 2022, Cardenal caused both his complaint and the resulting right to sue notice to be served on City." "During this time, myriad claims have been made against City as a result of Chief Valentin's unlawful acts of, inter alia, harassment including claims of sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation. Despite these numerous claims of unlawful conduct over the years, City has allowed this unlawful conduct to continue." "The Major Enforcement Team ("MET") is a swat-like team "created" in January 2020 by City police chief David Valentin. Persons associated with MET are considered to be part of Chief Valentin's It "City entirely and improperly ignored the police department's "vote of no confidence" in Chief Valentin. On September 1st 2021, the POA membership completed a 'vote of no confidence' vote against Chief Valentin with 54%voting that they had no confidence that he was capable of being the chief of police. City responded a mere 87 minutes afterwards by posting a memo on social media with statements from mayor Vicente Sarmiento and city manager Christine Ridge voicing their support for chief Valentin. Commander Enriquez then sent this memo to all department employees. Cardenall formally complained/disclosed to City leadership in writing City's unlawful/inappropriate conduct and was entirely ignored. On September 2nd, 2021, Cardenal responded to Commander Enriquez and copied mayor Sarmiento, city manager Ridge, City attorney Sonia Carvalho and City human Resources director Jason Motsick, disclosing Chief Valentin's misconduct, as well as that of Sergeant Lizardi and his MET team "It amazes me that a professional government organization would allow Sergeant lessardi to continue to come to work everyday given the gravity of his actions. REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY Cardenal hereby demands a trial by jury. 11/15/22 https://cityofsantaanaca.nextrequest.com/requests/26-719 From:Jackie Angel Investor<jcordova4@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:21 PM 1 To: eComment<ecomment@santa-ana.org> Subject: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION Hello, we would like details on these closed session cases and why so many Santa Ana police officers are suing us. https://citVofsantaanaca.nextreguest.com/requests/26-719 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION Frank Rocha v. City of Santa Ana, WCAB Case No.: ADJ15955468; ADJ18623576; ADJ17697034 B. Stephen Hahm v. City of Santa Ana, WCAB Case No.: ADJ19377542; ADJ19377509; ADJ19885630 A. Anthony Cardenal v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022-01293127 B. John Kachirisky v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2023-01348299 C. Nelson Menendez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2023-01339537 D. Manuel Moreno v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01372127 E. Rita Ramirez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022-01287702 F. Judith Valdez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2023-01359457 From: Jackie Angel Investor <jcordova4@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 11:30:39 AM To: scarvalho@santa-ana.org <scarvalho@santa-ana.org>; anunez@santa-ana.org <anunez@santa-ana.org> Cc: Ryberg, Erinn <Erinn.Ryberg@asm.ca.gov>; eComment <eComment@santa-ana.org> Subject: City of Santa Ana, Formal Complaint Filed - City Attorney Notice Sonia R. Carvalho, FIRED * As general counsel to the City Today I was assured you would never be of service to me. After all these years, you offer me nothing, not even a return phone call. As our City Attorney, you can't be bothered. You are hereby put on notice. You are no longer my city attorney. Never did you represent me. {We The People} Never did you provide services for me<. Never did you counsel me or guide me in matters regarding the City of Santa Ana. This is the acknowledgement. -Santa Ana California Frank E. Rocha, a Police Services Dispatcher for the City of Santa Ana in 2024, had a total salary of $9,344.00, with regular pay of$8,639.09 . Total compensation including benefits and pension debt was $16,454.45. Stephen C. Hahm is a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, California, with a reported total pay of $337,526.05 in 2024, according to data from Transparent California. His compensation included a high regular salary along with additional pay and benefits typical of law enforcement officers. • 2024 Salary: $337,526.05 2021 Salary: $110,839.50 2 Anthony Cardenal earned $207,331 in 2017, according to public payroll data from Santa Ana. His job title was listed as a Police Officer. John Kachirisky, a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, had a total pay and benefits package of $347,114.56 in 2022 • 2022 (Pension Debt): $92,990.41 • Nelson A. Menendez worked as a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, earning a total pay of $196,996.30 which included a regular salary of$112,104.00. His total compensation, including benefits and pension debt coverage, was $361,812.66. • Salary Breakdown (2022): • Total Pay: $196,996.30 • Regular Pay: $112,104.00 • Benefits: $69,745.32 • Pension Debt: $95,071.04 • Manuel Moreno J. earned $432,264 in 2024, according to public payroll data from Santa Ana. His job title was listed as a Police Lieutenant (Rm). • According to public records, Manuel Moreno J.'s salary increased by 38% ($118,565) from 2023 to 2024. • Manuel Moreno J.'s salary was 190% higher than the average and 220% higher than the median salary at Santa Ana in 2024. • His salary was 164% higher than the average Police Lieutenant salary in 2024. Judith A. Valdez Police Officer (2020) Regular pay: $107,820.00 Overtime pay: $13,919.75 Other pay: $42,079.52 Total pay: $163,819.27 Benefits: $65,508.11 Pension debt: $68,406.54 Total pay & benefits: $297,733.92 3 lectrpoically Filed b Superior Court ofCalifornia, Gou y of Orange, 1112112,0221.014.17 AM. 0- 02241201 7-C�tWC7 a f OA#4-DAVID Ff.`LAMA A I, Clerkof the Court By K Trent,Deputy. Glerk:: § m-RDO SUMMONS rar��durtrus>�sNkY CITY OF SANTA ARIA, eta entity of unknown oti its;,and DO.E f, -5% YOU ARE BIRNG SUED BY PLAINTIFF: ttitt Tici11 t_1 hsyo boon suetl,The mot!riiq de6tde against you wlfhoutyour being hoard uaross you t0spond wkttiin 30 days,fed tha intOrin�kion below, -You hava'30 -ENGAR DAY after[hit sumihorlt-Mind t of papsrs 111t served onynu to:file o'ATIt#dn reepunaa at this Court.arid have a coley se,rvod on the plerntftf.Xutter gr ppftna call ru111 not RrQtqr'tyQ",Your uttltten.rosporme rnusl be 41 proper legal fgrrrtiryop wantr:the potaitta hesr.wur case ThQra:may be a harm fhrrn Ik Ol you cart use for your restrorim,You tin tltrr�i th%6 dourt ft�rrris and more infortnatiorr:at,the Cattfprrris Courts antirie half;Harp nler(w�urn srrd lnfo,as, dtilsellf tx,your hotirify lewltt nary„yrthq>+aurthQuss nedtibci1ao1+<Ityou wilrlotpay lhodling fee,ask lhoi court cferkfor w.faip waiv_,er form.if you da no is yorar r pone time,you may los the:csse by default,and your w.a�88.,mtsnak,and prpparly may .talon vdthdolfurther wztr°iing`B°M the..00Lrt. There are other loyal You may w9rlt to rml6 an 41tor y.rill away:It yeu"do not knr an attorrtefr,you may want kh'call an a forrray Mtarrat sArr a.lf ypu 11 rt of?d an aftney,you may bo oNibla.fbr1iRe 1e0at ierw.bes tram a nonpro t heal gemoes program.You can raCsia those ronprofll groups at the Collfornia legal Sw.ices Web slte( lawhplsc,oldb rtia,arv),,the California Cnurtt Online SelWelp G.enter (Wyrr!vxarfirrR}.r+ao.vAaitt'aelp),or ay. 00nWating'yourlvoal wurt'or aovoly barassoclatian.Nd?E,,the Cart has a statutory tfen iorw wed Fees aril i is on any-sw omerat&Elfbitcsliotl aresrj of$1b,€jua fir more:ira a rWW.04se,Thd ogurt'a lien mW kra pstd#ei�o tha cAurtwif..dismiss the Cws. 1A tSL1f l o.rhan tiecrror erlr, r`rrp r prar pe d6nim*Z6teq,is earl .pueoa t ddil n str tontra sib a Guchar�ou oar. rL Loa mfgrMacada a rtiMu�er�r,, ins 96 01A Dk a44A t bA940 d0puds'ro qiwfie erltfegven o0a 4T1wdP y,paPefes fees Para presw)w urra respuosto parestr7tcom esm lr er:que se er lraglre trna s a1 de osridarxre.�trto carte o< 9relt eari3ilsWoffirlica rfo is protega .$it mwesta por awitto vone'quo aster esn l rrttaf®t l oz cto sP essay due pprccaserr oe arr.le r rt . s pCrelbte qW.hop unfoxmWario quo arsted pueda v ar:para sit respu ts, i�r? uorrti sr r Pp °i rrritrlarlas tld f otlrle ar ir9 rrYraclla r err od G rttra de AyUdo d 1aa Co#es.da.CAIiltrrn W10(tivvww,srtcOttexa, ov),en to olbl2t a de lltyea do sva parr da o irile�rpr8 pue.a .queda ritda cet a ttin pue0.03gar la eriato do ptewtocidn,p el stbgetar rr do 1s Conti quo:le t un tprmpl�da erierrCl6n e peso de3 ct+ a i ntr pt gents ac respri a a tteorpo Ud de,p OdOr ei csstt perr ir7cuirfAUMte Na y1e Carte to pQrrra citaJtar air.a=uelnb,dlnaro y bienes"�11'n rxrd�arlrrertartsifi, le ratios requlsftos fegales.J 3 recemenr ahle rlue.lfanre a urt ss�+algada Gararefllateraente. W rra yearn O a Vn:O bagRla,pug NNW a am setvl de ramd rrr nahv s.$1 hQ'puWo:Aager a.un abr rla,as poslbie qua rampla parr fog:1e4uis`ltfrs fr ab arw 4rarlulw de;err ptiagmmo der servfclos 1egalpa.4p fines dRi ;cr,Auetfe gwov?tror estw grucns sin IT=ds loom en.e!sto web ate C,aftfarvis t.sga!'!Wftea. l v`lewhetpaatlfo nia:ar en e1 comm rim 46dr .€6 ia's Cortex da collibmia, auaartAXa.gbV)o parrldndoz6 on comcta cost la cotto o et ti rr la rfe abb9alft kddliis.AW20:.por.ley to aarfatlene derecho a!e+ altr =01as y the cobs exontos par impoveran givim iron sobra cfrelgt furl P ppraaivla f U., 0 0 arks db:valOrPrOide,ffiadiallo Wel"tdo ci luna rzotraeWn de arttlt?a/a on un cow do OsmchaOW,Tie,,m sire .. {fa ar l g trart7�rt do is rt6*arrt'es du que la Cate piae �deserettar i"desd Tho name ar:daddrassof the cQ11"tls: ;�upertor�i�tratn��r��ilt�r;in cnee deatasrs. �� ��-�t�ss.��a.cJX�� f Q 1 ombre y direcoidn de la:oorf&es}: Couh(yoforonge J04isfrshrrc,fiia law 700 We cont?er,DAVC west -- (anta A'rtm. 921701 Thu h nO,address,-jandta phdnEg ntin!.ber of piairMits attoraby.,or 01whtiffwIftTcut an attornay s`s. ( 1 q 13�ii >I#ir i?t#t f r f�i r rTa dal 1 f ra f abog000 dal domand io,DVoi f?m.snd#t fe quo t €t oYt1, X3 - ai Jar 1�P t L mrice L 1 inocnis.11h;L¢w GfffDv frmalwV ce v-L wtnaim (3I0)265*5nfl ...A'l�laiv hm-A--6 alvd, olling Wfis Mates CA 9f1274 OAT cierrir,toy. Deputy fra�hp) I a r tt f. � l s: r r f tr a r .T:r t fsa+ir�fario) f�it�unto) (.. prooforteMCff afthis sumrrxw4 use Prnof.of Ia�g-P71ijJ}' _ _- fta,Prushe-do ontregs de asta ctaldr n use e!°:ftaxr ularb Proaffrof 5brAw of:St ammo, rP084i0)j. NOTICE TO THE PERSON WIRVED,Y04 We sieTwid ,tl t 1LLI as :lnd.1A1du�i doWnd'arlt. . fir . as the arson sued r mlerthe ffolitious ria€ne of(' iecify): COP 415.5Q(mlnof) ] GGP 4.1(,20(datun.ct fpomti.,n) CCP 4115:tf1 (c�rrtst«i tat�e) t, CGP 418,40(ass©cifi6dn orpartnorship) .GCP 416.90(authorized pQrson) Other(specify): 4 . kiy Personal tfal(verY on{psPe), A14A4 0 I ,21 ......._- Jud[ilr oa caror.0 rron,a SUMMONS Cad63fGNiIr�a 1=11§§:41�,2p,ge�s eu, T&U t41c.awrd. trs1 drove. vsarv,va: � www.QebxQrr1i. Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orande, 11/21/2022 10:14:17 AM. 30-2022-01293127-CU-OE-CJC ROA 4 3 -DAVID H.YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By K. Trent, Deputy Clerk. A7TORMEY OR PANTY WiTHOuT ATTORNEY.(Name,State BarnaMber and adr;"s): FOR COURT USE ONLY CAA-410 Uohn A. Girardi t&BN: 54917) Law Offices of John G'irardi Lawrence J. Lennemann (SSN: 134,108) Law office of Lawrence J. Lennemann 29900 'Hawthorne Blvd,, Polling 111.11a Restates, CA 90274 TELEPHONENQC (310) '265-5799 PAX NO,(Opfoeal): E,MAILAI]ARF8S lennemannlaeQmail,caam ATTORNEYFOR(Nama):: plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF CACIfORNIA,COUNTY OF ORA14GE 5TREETADDfReSS: 70.0 Civic Oftnter Drive Wert: MAILINGAODfRE5s: 700 Civic Center Drive West GITYANOmP.CODE: Santa Ana, CA 9:2.703 eRANm.iNAME: Central Justice center GASENAME: AN1141ONY CARDEN T,, an Sndividt.ial vs-CITY OFF SANTA ANAran entity of unknown ori:gini, knd OCES 1. 7..50, L-nCIUGive CIVIL CASE COMER SHEET Complex, Cede Designation cAse Numan: La Unlimited LLimlted 30.2022•otz93i27-cu-oe.cic (Amount (Amount OCounter LJdainder . �. demanded demanded is Filed with flat appearance b defendant tuDeE: pp Y judge John C. Gastelum exceeds$25,000) $25,0 0 or.less.) (Col. Rules of Court,.rule 3,402) DEFT: ems .,-. Below must be Camp clad see..;structions ort:.a e 2. 1. Check one ox below or t e ease type k at�best describes#h!a case; Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation ElAuto(22) Breach of contras t1warranty(00) Cal.Rules of Court,:rules 3.406-.3.443) Unirisured motorist(46) Rule,3,740.coliectIons(09) AntltrustlTrade regulation(w) Oldfor PItPf37WD(penannai lnjurytProperty Other.ccalleetlons(09) Construction defect(eQ) GtarnageIVifrongful Beath)Tort Insurance coverage(18) Mass tort(4G) Asbestos-(04) +other contract(37) Securkles litigation(28) Product liability(24) Errvironmental/Taxle tort 30 Real Prnporly ( ) Medical malpractice(45) Eminent dorna€nlInverse Insurance coverage claims arising from the _. Other P1I13DAND 23 above'listed provisionally complex case( } �candemnatisn('l4) types(4i) Non-PUPt AVID(Other)Tort Wrongful eviction(33} Business toftnfair businein practice(07) Other real properly(26) enforcement of.Judgment Civil rights(081 unlawful 02tainer La Crtfarcementofjudgment(2n) Defamation(13) Commercial(31) blilscelianeoua Citric Oomplalht Fraud(10) Residential(32) RICO(27) Intellectual property(t9) Drugs(38) �Other complaint(not speaffiledabove) (42) Professional negligerce(26) 4tti 410t.Raview miscouaneaus Civil Petition Other non-PUPDA+VO tort°(36) A dt forfeiture(05) Partnership and corporate governance(21) E90thor layment Pottllon ro,,arbltrdfl€rn award(#t) �_Other petition(riatapec ft'ed&:dove) (43) Wrongful tarrnftgtiotl(36) VWt�t andate�2) omploymern 06) _ Other.judicial review(39) 2: This case is m is not Mcomplex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, If the case is complex,,mark the factor regwIn"exceptional jtadis.lsl manage a. Large number cf separately represented parties d. []large number of witnesses b. Ixtansive motion practic.raising difficult or none' e. ®Coordination with r6ated actions pending is one or more issues that will be time consuming to resolve courts in other counties,states,or countries, or in a federal c. Substantial az punt;of documentary evidence court f, JJ Substantial postludgmentjudicial supervision 3, Remedies sought(check et1 that apply): a. MmDnetary b. nc.nmonetary; daeleratory or injunctive rellef c, U punitive 4. Number Of.causes Of adtlan s ectiy): mhteeft)r(a)uinxation o@ Labor Gods 63102.5, {2}V,ibkation of FBFIA,13) Failure to TIOLle CDrrafti & Atticfn 6. This case I isLM is not a class action suit, 8. If there are any known related cases,Mile and serve a notice of related ease. (You may.us CM 015. Date: November 18, 2022 Lawrence J. Lennemann . {TYPE OR,PRINT NAME} t ! F RARTY OrtAT, NEY F0 RARTYj Mm NOTICE • Plaintiff Must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the-adtin.n or proceeding(except small claims.cases or oases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code,or Welfare and-institutions Code); (Cal.Rules of Court, rule 3.220.)Failure to file may result in sanctions. • File this saver sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. . If.this case Is complex under rule 3.400 et seq.of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties:to the action or proceeding. • Unless this is a c€ilecti.ons case Lander rule 3.740 or a complex case,this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. P P oppledim Man R - �!Gau)lcl!of C apSia CIVIL pvs��COVER SHEET Cot.RyleUsaol€ sun,ids o 2.3%3.220 3 4Q[1-33.4D3,3.7d0; .r ntRau 11 C ert;20z1) ®CE"RIeaseetral ElAdardsaidu milAdmfrilstr@lian eca 3:to apta,com ■Fps wwiI t i_'rs.ca,9VV CM-010 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper(for example,a com lalnt)In a civil case,you must complete and file,along with your first paper,the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1.This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed.You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet.In item 1,you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case.If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet,examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below.A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper.Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed In a civil case may subject a party, Its counsel,or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A"collections case"under rule 3.740 Is defined as an action for recovery of money owed In a sum stated to be certain that is not more than$25,000,exclusive of interest and attorney's fees,arising from a transaction in which property,services,or money was acquired on credit.A collections case does not Include an action seeking the following:(1 tort damages,(2)punitive damages (3)recovery of real property,(4)recovery of personal property,or(5}a prejudgment writ of attachment,The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it wllff be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules,unless a defendant files a responsive pleading.A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex.If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court,this must be Indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in Items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex,the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action.A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of Its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation,a counter-designation that the case is not complex,or,if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto Tort Corltract Brea Provisional) Complex Civil Litl anon Cal. Auto amaPersonal Injury/Property Breach of h of Rental/Leasntye (D6) Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) f Damage/Wrongful Death Breach of RenteilLease Uninsured Motorist(46) (if the Contract (not unlawful detainer Antitrust/Trade Regulation(03) case involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction) Construction Defect(10) motorist claim subject to Contract/Warranty Breach—Seller Claims Involving Mass Tort(40) arbitration,check this item Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Securities Litigation(28) instead of Auto) Negligent Breach of Contract/ EnvironmentallToxic Tort(30) Warranty Insurance Coverage Claims Other PI/PD/WD(Personal Injury/ Other Breach of ContractlWarranty (arising from provisionally complex Tort book Damage/Wrongful Death) Collections(e.g.,money owed,open case type listed above) (41) book accounts)(09) Enforcement of Judgment Asbestos(04) Collection Cas"eller Plaintiff Enforcement of Judgment(20) Asbestos Property Damage Other Promissory Note/Collectlons Abstract of Judgment(Out of j Asbestos Personal Injury! Case County) Wrongful Death Insurance Coverage(not provisionally Confession of Judgment (non- Product Liability(not asbestos or complex)(18) domestic relations) toxi"nvdroamentaq (24) Auto Subrogation Sister State Judgment Medical Malpractice(45) Other Coverage Administrative Agency Award Medical Malpractice— Other Contract(37) (not unpaid taxes) Physicians&Surgeons Contractual Fraud Petition/Certification of Entry of Other Professional Health Care Other Contract Dispute Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Malpractice Real Property Other Enforcement of Judgment Other Pl/PD/WD(23) Eminent Domaintinverse Case Premises Liability(e.g.,slip Condemnation(14) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint and fall) Wrongful Eviction(33) RICO(27) Intentional Bodily Injury/PD/WD Other Real Property(e,g.,quiet title)(26) Other Complaint(not specified (e.g.,assault,vandalism) Writ of Possession of Real Property above) (42) Intentional Infliction of Mortgage Foreclosure Declaratory Relief Only Emotional Distress Qulel Title Injunctive Relief Only(non- Negligent Infliction of Other Real Property (not eminent harassment) Emotional Distress domain,landlordRenant or Mechanics Lien Other PI/PD/WD loraclosure) Other Commercial Complaint Non-P11PDl4yD(Other)Tort Unlawful Detainer Case (non-torf/non•complex) Business TortlLinfair Business Commercial(31) Other Civil Complaint Practice(07) (non torf/non-complex) Civil Rights(e.g.,discrimination, Residential(if Drugs(38)(if the case involves illegal Miscellaneous Civil Petition false arrest)(not civil drugs,check this item;otherwise, Partnership and Corporate harassment) (08) report as Commercial or Residential) Governance(21) Defamation(e.g.,slander,libel) Judicial Review Other Petition(not specified u1 Frad( 6 Asset Forfeiture(05) above) ) Civil Harassment Petition Re:Arbitration Award 11 Intellectual Property(19) ( ) Workplace Violence Professional Negligence 25 Writ of Mandate(02) ( ) Elder/Dependent Adult Legal Malpractice Writ—Administrative Mandamus Abuse Other Professional Malpractice Writ—Mandamus on Limited Court Election Contest Case Matter (not medical or legal) Writ—Other Limited Court Case Petition for Name Change Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort(35) Review Petition for Relief from Late Employment Other Judicial Review(39) Claim Wrongful Terminatlon(36) Review of Health Officer Order Other Civil Petition Other Employment(15) Notice of Appeal--Labor Commissioner Appeals CM010[Rev.September1,20211 ®CEBIEsseotlaf CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Page xors cobcom WEerms SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE FORCOURTUSEONLY STREET AD PRESS: 700 W.Civic Center DRIVE MAILING ADDRESS: Too W.Civic Center Drive FILED CITY AND ZIP CODE:Santa Ana 92701 vpmtW7 cav#r#7'+U*AuF oRimCOUNTY OF ORAMW BRANCH NAME: Central Justice Center PL.ANTIFF:Anthony Cardenal Nov 23,2022 DEFENDANT:City of Santa Ana Clark at the SUpe4or Court Short Tit ta:CARDENAL VS.CITY OF SANTAANA By.K,TRENT,Deputy NOTICE OF HEARING CASE NUMBER:30-2022-01293127-CU-OE-CJC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Please take notice that a(n), Case Management Conference has been scheduled for hearing on 04/24/2023 at 08:45:00 AM in Department C11 of this court, located at Central Justice Center. Plaintiffs)/Petitioner(s) to provide notice to all defendant(s)trespondent(s). Parties who file pleadings that add new parties to the proceeding must provide notice of the Case Management Conference to the newly added parties. Pxiar to yow he.- ir►g ate,plea the ffie Cow"s websitB for the most cum inshu io regarding how to.appear for your hearingand ass services that are availab4e to an er your questions. Civil Matters-https:ltwww.occogdL.org/ ech -rel ionsI ivil trot ProbateAlesud Eleatih- :I v.nce uttr,x cdia-rel ionslnfo ate- i. tom- cal Appellatz Division- s_'/ r_ oo ..oigl a-r lati _W recoirdshtml ORTANTE:.Antes de•la f ha de s:n audiencia,visite el sition Vmb de la.Corte pares saber cuges sort l instr=ic es inis acttaales pam parti6par .1a audiencia y tener Aso a los servicios disponibles Para. responder a.mm preguntas, Baas Civiles- apses: occourtig e ;a-elationslenj:l. t i Casts de Ptobate y Salud Mental - s_ a.o urls.or / cc a:r lata ' rota €-oa, he .l�trrtt Di,646n de apelaci es-h ps://www Qm t .orgLm ld ptgls-records html QUAN TRONG:lhr& �ty phidn t6a c a quy vi,vul 16 g k4m tra trang mang cda t6a.in U U& h g: htfdng din m61 nhitA cich ra hi phift t6a ct a.qujr vi vi tit nh ch vu.hid€ i 'gip the m a fin: ��. nhffng DA D s--IF _ocpgwft-cr L e Tel ans cll t i T€i l Tuc Di Ch4c/S*cKhde Tmh Th'ai- s cccctt ct _or it i relate+ s p rhatc 1-1 h latt>al Batt phdc b p://ww v:occourts. .rg/Mgt raiatigns?appaala:records,html Clerk of the Court, By: , Deputy NOTICE OF HEARING Page:I i SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE Central Justice Center 700 W. Civic Center DRIVE Santa Ana 92701 SHORT TITLE: CARDENAL VS. CITY OF SANTA ANA CLERK CASE NUMBER:S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL 30-2022-01293127-CU-OE-CJC I certify that I am not a party to this cause. I certify that a true copy of the above Notice of Hearing has been placed for collection and mailing so as to cause it to be mailed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid pursuant to standard court practices and addressed as indicated below. The certification occurred at Santa Ana, California, on 11/23/2022. Following standard court practice the mailing will occur at Sacramento, California on 11/28/2022. Clerk of the Court, by: Deputy LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN LAW OFFICES OF JOHN GIRARDI 29900 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD 29900 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL Page:2 V31013a(June 2004) Code of Civil Procedure,§CON013(a) Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 11/21/2022 10:14:17 AM. 30 022-01293127-CU-OE-CJC-ROA#2- DAVID H.YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By K. Trent, Deputy Clerk. 1 JOHN A.GU ARDI, State Bar No. 54917 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN GIRARDI 2 . 29900 Hawthorne Boulevard Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 3 (310}265-5787 Telephone aohn i ohngirardilaw.corn LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN, State Bar No. 134108 5 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN 29900 Hawthorne Boulevard 6 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310)265-5788 Telephone 7 egnnemannle.@gmail.corn 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTHONY CARDENAL 9 ' 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF ORANGE 12 ANTHONY CARDENAL, an Individual CASE NO.: 30-2 0 2 2-012 9 s 12 7.0 U-O E-CJ C 13 PLAINTIFF ANTHONY CARDENAL'S 14 COMPLAINT FOR: Plaintiff, 15 (1)RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5; 16 vs. (2)RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE 17 FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT; AND 18 (3) FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE CITY OF SANTA ANA, an entity of unknown ACTION IN VIOLATION OF FAIR 19 origin; and DOES 1 - 50,Inclusive, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 20 21 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL '. 22 Defendants. Assigned for All Purposes Judge John C. Gastelum 23 24 25 Plaintiff Anthony Cardenal("CARDENAL"or"Plaintiff'),with knowledge as to his own acts and 26 based upon information and belief with regard to all other matters,by and through his attorneys of record, 27 28 alleges: 111 a CARDENALV.Cr[YOFSANTAANA CAssNO. CiOWL AINr 1 1. CARDENAL is an individual who, at all times relevant herein, is and was employed as a 2 police officer by Defendant City of Santa Ana("CITY"or"Defendant")at CITY's business office located 3 4 in the County of Orange, State of California. 5 2. CARDENAL alleges that CITY is a municipality doing business in the County of Orange, 6 State of California. The Santa Ana City Council, as the governing body of the City of Santa Ana, acts, 7 represents, and implements policy on the behalf of CITY. 8 ` 9 3. Defendants CITY and DOE Defendants 1 through 50 are hereinafter sometimes collectively . 10 referred to as"DEFENDANTS". I 1 4. On August 24,2022,CARDENAL exhausted his administrative remedies by causing CITY 12 to be served with a Government Claim. On August 29, 2022, although CITY, via its Third Party 13 14 Administrator, acknowledged receipt of the claim and stated that it "w[ould] be communicating with 15 [CARDENAL]in the near fixture in regard to this matter",CARDENAL was never contacted and the claim 16 was denied by operation of law.Additionally on or about August 29,2022,CARDENAL filed a Complaint 17 18 with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and, on September 6, 2022, CARDENAL caused 19 both his Complaint and the resulting Right-to-Sue Notice to be served on CITY. 20 5. CARDENAL is presently not aware of the true names and/or capacities of Defendants DOES 21 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. CARDENAL is 22 informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that said fictitiously named Defendants 23 24 are directly and proximately responsible for the injuries and damages alleged herein. CARDENAL will 25 amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of said fictitiously named Defendants when, 26 and if,ascertained. 27 111 28 ;,III I CAROFNALV.CRY OFSANTAANA CASSNo. CObU%AOMr 1 6. CARDENAL is informed and believes,and upon such information and belief alleges,that, z at all relevant times, each and every Defendant was a principle, agent, employer, employee, manager, 3 4 supervisor, officer, shareholder and/or owner of each and every other Defendant, and each and every act 5 and/or omission of each and every Defendant occurred by and through the governing body and/or 6 management of the Defendant and within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment and/or 7 was approved and/or ratified by the acts and/or omissions of each and every other Defendant. 8 9 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10 A. Prior to his hiring as a CITY Police Officer,CARDENAL served in the United 11 States Air Force. 12 13 7. By way of brief history,following the attacks against the United States on September 11, 14 2001, CARDENAL enlisted in the United States Air Force. 15 8. In March 2002,CARDENAL entered basic training. 16 9. CARDENAL served as an intelligence analyst on active duty for six years with assignments 17 in Texas,Nevada,Washington DC,Bosnia and Korea. 18 19 10. After separating from active duty, CARDENAL transitioned into the Air Force Reserves 20 where he has continued to serve and has achieved the rank of Chief Master Sergeant. 21 B. Approximately 13 Years Ago, CARDENAL was Hired by CITY as a Police 22 23 Officer and was Subsequently Promoted and Selected for Prestigious Positions. 24 11. In 2009,CARDENAL was hired by CITY as a Police Officer. 25 12. In 2017, CARDENAL was selected to fill the roll of field training officer C FTO")and,as 26 a FTO,has trained approximately 30 officers. 27 13. In 2020, CARDENAL was promoted to Corporal. 28 l/l CmDENALv.CnYOFSmTAANA CASENO. CoAGIL NT 1 14. Additionally,CARDENAL served as a supplemental investigator in Crimes Against Persons 2 and Robbery divisions as part of the Violent Crime Reduction Program from 2017 to 2020. 3 4 C. CITY's Police Chief David Valentin. 5 15. Since 2017,David Valentin has been CITY's Police Chief. 6 16. During this time,myriad claims have been made against CITY as a result of Chief Valentin's 711 unlawful acts of, inter alia, harassment (including claims of sexual harassment), discrimination and 8 ' 9 retaliation. 10 17. Also during this time,although an effective police department functions as a whole,there is- 11 as CITY is well aware-much ongoing discussion and concern between CITY personnel regarding the fact 12 that Chief Valentin(and others at his behest)attempt to force personnel to choose between two"gangs"or 13 14 `camps" - Chief Valentin's "gang"/"camp" or the perceived "gang"/"camp" allegedly led by Police 15 Association("PDX)President Gerry Serrano. 16 � Chief Valentin has been repeatedly accused of-not simply allowing but-fostering these 17 "gangs"/"camps"within the Police Department, 18 19 19. Additionally,Chief Valentin has been repeatedly accused of activelyretaliating against those 20 who did not choose to be in his"gang"/camp"and of retaliating against those who even chose to associate 21 with those perceived to be in the other"gang"/"camp" 22 20. Despite these numerous claims of unlawful conduct over the years,CITY has allowed this 23 24 unlawful conduct to continue. 25 D. CITY's Major Enforcement Team. 26 21. The Major Enforcement Team("MET')is a SWAT-like team"created"in January of 2020 27 by CITY's Police Chief David Valentin. 28 22. Persons associated with MET are considered to be part of Chief Valentin's"gang"/"camp." CAmFN Lv.CnTorSAwAANA CANNO. COWL W 1 23. MET members are known to share gang-like matching black skull tattoos with the word 2 "MET",an ace of spades and the numbers"040". Historically,the ace of spades playing card was a token 3 4 of death used in the Vietnam war by American soldiers.US soldiers would drop ace of spades cards,which 5 were mass produced for the Army, on dead Vietnamese soldiers. Additionally, the Los Angeles County . 6 Sheriff gang"Jump Out Boys"are also known to use the ace of spades in their paraphernalia.The number 7 040 is a reference to MET's police radio code. 8 9 24. It has been reported that most MET members also carry challenge coin-like tokens. A 10 challenge coin is a small token or coin with an organization's name or slogan on it, typically given to 11 members as a sign of recognition or status within an organization. The token is adorned on one side with 12 an ace of spades decorated with a skull and number"31," a reference to the City's Police Department's 13 14 Orange County radio reference number.On the other side,the token reads"MET"and"ODERINT DUM 15 METUANT",Latin for"Let them hate,so long as they fear." 16 E. CITY,via its MEET Officers,Acted Unlawfully. 17 18 25. On August 9,2020, five CITY MET police officers(Darin Buchanan,Mark Campi,Oscar 19 Lizardi, Jonathan McKee, Jonathon Perez) were accused of verbally harassing two teenage girls and of 20 groping one of them on the buttocks at a Santa Ana Culichi Town restaurant. 21 26. The girls' family(who had been told by the officers that they were CITY police officers) 22 called 911 to report the incident. 23 24 27. The MET members reportedly fledprior to patrol officers arriving and later coordinated with 25 another officer(Andres Gil-who was eventually transferred to MET)to cover up the incident. 26 28, No police report was taken. 27 >lll 28 I1I CARMALV.CQYOFSmTAANA Co CABBNo. �aau�r 1 F. CITY,via its MET Officers, Continued to Act Unlawfully. 2 29. On May 5,2021,MET detective John Rodriguez was off duty in downtown Santa Ana with 3 4 his wife and brother-in-law at a bar. 5 30. Santa Ana Council Member JonathanHernandezwitnessedRodriguez(who Council Member 6 Hernandez recognized to be a CITY officer)and another man holding a struggling woman in a parking lot 7 ' in downtown Santa Ana, groping her breasts and telling her"chill,"and"shut up". 8 9 31. Council Member Hernandez called Chief Valentin and reported the incident directly to him. 10 32. Chief Valentin allegedly first responded by stating that the officer was retired but, when 11 Council Member Hernandez responded that he knew for a fact that the officerwas not retired,Chief Valentin 12 then changed his answer to say that the detective was retiring soon. 13 14 33. Rodriguez fled prior to being contacted by any on-duty personnel. 15 G. The Public Records Act Request. 16 34. Following this incident, Council Member Hernandez's friend, newspaper reporter Ben 17 Camacho, submitted a Public Records Act ("PRA")request for the names,photos and assignment of all 18 1. 19 CITY sworn Police Department personnel. 20 35. Many in the Police Department-unaware at the time of the reasoning behind this request- 21 were upset about their information being released and saw it as an officer safety issue. 22 36. There was a back and forth for about six weeks as the POA and its attorney Corey Glave 23 24 attempted to intervene on the officers'behalf in Court. 25 H. CITY's Police Officers React to CITY's Recision. 26 37. On June 19, 2021, the Police Depadment received email notification that the CITY/Chief 27 Valentin refused to support fighting the release of this information in Court. 28 38. Police Department personnel throughout the Department were extremely upset by this. CARDwALv.Cnvow9ANCAANA CASENO. COMPL M 1 I. CARDENAL was "Verbally Counseled" After he Met with Other Officers 2 Regarding the PRA Request and Perceived Officer Safety Issues. 3 4 39. CARDENAL was contactedby some of his former trainees who asked him to meetwith them 5 after Watch 3 roll call. 6 40. CARDENAL met with these officers in the roll call room following the roll call briefing and 7 they discussed the officer safety issues and the requirements of patrol officers to handle calls for service. 8 9 41. As CARDENAL walked out of the station to respond to a call for service,CARDENAL saw 10 Commander Sergio Enriquez(known to be in Chief Valentin's"gang"/"camp")outside smoking a cigar. 11 42. CARDENAL later learned that Commander Enriquez went inside and yelled at the Watch 1211 3 officers to go out in the field. 13 14 43. CARDENAL was later verbally counseled by Sergeant Hamlin(with Sergeant Achzinger 15 present)at the direction of Commander Enriquez for meeting with Watch 3 officers and purportedlykeeping 16 them from going out in the field. 17 J. CITY Falsely Claims that CARDENAL was Involved in a"No Obs"Directive. 18 19 44. On June 23,2021 Officer Daniel Gonzales contacted Sergeant Sontag in the gym prior to his 20 shift and asked if there was a"no obs" directive and mentioned that he heard CARDENAL was involved 21 in it. 22 45. Sergeant Sontag discussed this conversation with Commander Enriquez and was told to 23 24 author a memo to send to Internal Affairs. 25 46. When Sergeant Sontag objected, Commander Enriquez ordered him to author the memo. 26 47. Commander Enriquez repeatedly forced Sergeant Sontag-who was on probationary status 27 28 at the time-to change the verbiage in the memo before accepting it and forwarding it to Internal Affairs. 111 7 CammLv.CTTYOFSmTAANA CASSNO. COMPLAW - 1 K. CITYInitiated an Internal AffairsInvestigation against CARDENAL Based on 2 . this False Charge. 3 4 48. On June 25,2021,an Internal Affairs investigation was initiated against CARDENAL and 51 five officers were interviewed regarding what was discussed after Watch 3 roll call. 6 . 49. Officers Wiggs,Sattar and Taylor were present for the conversation and told Internal Affairs 7 that the conversation involved officer safety issues pertaining to the release of officers' photos and the 8 9 individual choice to conduct proactive enforcement stops. 10 50. None of the persons involved said that CARDENAL influenced or directed them in any way. 11 51. Officers Poti and Booth were interviewed because they were present when Officer Gonzales 12 ' asked Sergeant Sontag about the"no obs"directive. 13 14 52. As neither officer was present during the Watch 3 roll call discussion,neither provided any 15 information regarding same. 16 K. CITY Made Additional False Representations About CARDENAL and his 17 : Concerns for Officer Safety. 18 19 53. On June 30,2021,a POA general membership meeting occurred where approximately 150 20 members were present. 21 54. During this meeting, those perceived to be in Chief Valentin's "gang"/"camp", including 22 23 Sergeant Hernandez(the day before he was promoted to Commander),Sergeant Lizardi and Detective John 24 Rodriguez, all made false statements regarding the PRA request and the fact that"an officer"was telling 25 junior officers not to do proactive enforcement. 26 55. CARDENAL stood up and stated that he was the officer the rumors were being spread about 27 and that the rumors were false. 28 111 CAnwALv.Cnycw9AwAANA CAMNO. CON RLAM 1 56. At some point on this same date(June 30,2021),an anonymous letter was left in the Internal 2 Affairs mailbox falsely claiming that CARDENAL was instructing Watch 2 officers not to engage in 3 ' 4 proactive police work. 5 L. Chief Valentin Improperly Publicly Discussed the False Allegations Against 6 CARDENAL, Stated that the (not-yet-investigated) Allegations were 7 "Unforgivable"and Publicly Humiliated CARDENAL. 8 9 57. On July 1,2021,Chief Valentin went into CARDENAL's roll call(Watch 2)and also Watch 10 3 and explained that there was an ongoing investigation and that he was going to discuss the facts of it. 11 58. Chief Valentin continued the rumor that"an officer"was telling junior officers not to engage 12 in proactive police work and that the individual involved was"unforgivable". 13 14 59. He also discussed the PRA request that led to the photos being released. 15 60. Chief Valentin then opened the floor for questions. 16 61. After several other officers asked questions regarding the PRA request, CARDENAL told 17 Chief Valentin that he(CARDENAL)-the officer that the rumors were being spread about -did not wish 18 19 the topic to be publicly discussed. 20 62. CARDENAL then asked a legitimate question regarding the PRA request. 21 63. Chief Valentinproceeded to scream at CARDENAL in front ofmore than twentyDepartment 22 members. 23 24 64. Chief Valentin also spoke disparagingly about CARDENAL's service as both a police officer 25 and as a member of the military. 26 65. This went on for approximately five minutes. 27 28 66. Chief Valentin ultimately stormed out of the roll call room, slamming the door open on his way out. CARDENAL V.MY OP SANTA ANA CQMPI CASBNO. JlWI' 1 M. CITY Retaliated Against CARDENAL. 2 67. Later that night, CARDENAL was contacted by Corporal Baek, the Field Training 3 4 Coordinator. 5 68. He advised CARDENAL that he had been ordered to remove CARDENAL's trainee from 6 his car and that he was not to give CARDENAL anymore trainees. 7 N. CARDENAL piled a Formal Written Complaint in which he 8 9 Complained/Disclosed CITY's Unlawfulgnappropriate Conduct. 10 69. On July 20, 2021, CARDENAL, via SAPOA Attorney Glave, formally notified CITY 11 management of his complaints/disclosures against Chief Valentin: 12 "Please consider this letter as a complaint against Chief of Police David Valentin for creating and 13 fostering a hostile work environment for Santa Ana Police Officer Anthony Cardenal.Pursuant to 14 City policies and practices, as well as Penal Code §832.7(0(1), we fiuther request that the complaining party, Mr. Cardenal, be provided, through this office, a written notification the 15 disposition of this complaint within 30 days of the disposition. 16 As you are most likely aware,members of the Santa Ana Police Department became concerned that 17 the City, and Chief Valentin specifically, were not taking any action to protect officers from the release of their names, badge numbers and photographs. There was also concerns about officers' 18 confidence in Chief Valentin which led to a number of discussions among officers and complaints 19 being made to the employees'recognized employee organization. 20 On Thursday,July 1,2021,Officer Cardenas reported to work and attended the mandatory shift roll call. Chief Valentin and Commander Enriquez attended the roll call, apparently trying to gather 21 support ofthe Chief and his administration.Also in attendance were anumber of sergeants,corporals 22 and Officer Cardenal peers and trainees (including one assigned to Officer Cardenal.) 23 Chief Valentin stood in front of roll call and discussed several issues that were ongoing within the 24 department.He began by explaining his position on the release of the photographs and that officers should not pay attention to the"white noise"that was coming from the Santa Ana Police Officers 25 Association. Chief Valentin then addressed a pending internal Affairs investigation,that he knew 26 was focused on Officer Cardenal,indicating that the officer's alleged statements(which have been misrepresented)were unforgivable.He emphasizedthewordunforgivable,and told officers multiple 27 times that they should write that word down;thus,indicating that he had already determined the false allegations to be true.The tone of the Chief Valentin's message was abrasive and Officer Cardenal 28 believed that he was being chastised in front of his supervisors,peers and subordinates.In common phraseology,Valentin was trying to bully an officer in an open setting and in front of the people he works alongside every day. IM_ CAMMAL V.r-U Y 01V 8ANTA ANA CASH NO. CoUrLAM 1 Chief Valentin then opened the floor to questions. When a sergeant mentioned that there were 2 several officers in specialized units being excluded from having their information released because they worked in an undercover capacities,Chief Valentin was asked a serious question as to whether 3 the city and the court would consider excluding officers who wished to work in one of these units 4 `' in the future.Chief Valentin chuckled and said that he appreciated the creativity that members were trying to use to keep from being included in the release.If an officer spoke in support of the Chief s 5 decision,Valentin acted more professional in response. 6 Officer Cardenal then raised[his]hand and asked a question about some of the things Chief Valentin 7 had discussed, and to provide the Chief with a perspective of many officers in patrol. Officer Cardenal asked if the Chief would be willing to work alongside the POA and on behalf of the 8 department's members who did not want their information released.Chief Valentin responded by 9 first asking how many years Cardenal had in the department,and then exclaimed that he,the Chief ofPolice,did not need Cardenal'sperspectivebecausehe had 31 years ofperspective.ChicfValentin 10 became irate in his response and began yelling at Officer Cardenal,in front of the entire roll call,that Cardenal was out of line for asking the question (despite the fact that he opened up the floor for 11 questions and Cardenal was simply asking a question as a member concerned for the safety of 12 officers he works with). Chief Valentin then attacked Officer Cardenal's military service, training and experience, referencing Cardenal's military service and experience in a disparaging manner 13 several times.At one point,Chief Valentin went as far as to say that Cardenal was lucky to work in 14 Santa Ana and eluded to the fact that ifhe didn't like it,Cardenal could seek employment elsewhere. It is unclear if Chief Valentin simply lost his composure, or was trying to threaten Cardenal's 15 continued employment with the City of Santa Ana. 16 Chief Valentin ultimately apologized to the personnel present for his(unprofessional)outburst,but 17 then tried to shift the blame for his actions to Cardenal. Chief Valentin's behavior was unprofessional and beneath the expected professionalism that he hold his subordinates to. Officer 18 Cardenal was extremely upset by the Chief s actions,which included violating officers rights by 19 discussing an open investigation and spreading false rumors 20 Later that evening, Officer Cardenal was informed that Chief Valentin.had ordered Cardenal's trainee to be assigned to another officer,and that Cardenal was not to be assigned any more trainees. 21 It was later learned that Chief Valentin engaged in similar discussions about Officer Cardenal at 22 ` other roll call appearances. 23 Based on Valentin's conduct,Officer Cardenal has been receiving harassing messages from other 24 employees. Clearly, the Chief demonstration of retaliatory behavior has left the impression with others who support him,that they too can feel comfortable attacking Cardenal at work. 25 26 We are formally requesting that these matters be immediately investigated.If it was an officer that had engaged in these violations, he/she would immediately be placed on administrative leave in 27 order to protect the department and the investigation. Finally, we are requesting that an outside investigator be assigned to conduct the investigation and that the investigation be overseen by your 28 office or the City Council." 111 CAnExALv.CnYoaSMTAANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 ®. The Police Department Emails. 2 ' 70. On July 28, 2021, Sergeant Jim Armstrong sent an email to the entire Police Department 3 ' 4 professing his dedication to Chief Valentin and accusingPOA President Serrano of having a vendetta against 5 the Chief. 6 71. Corporal Leo Rodriguez responded to the entire Department to correct one ofthe statements 7 in Sergeant Armstrong's email. 8 9 72. Both of these individuals violated the Police Department email policy because they sent an 10 email to"PD ALL"without prior authorization from a Commander. 11 73. The same day, Sergeant Lizardi sent an email to "PD SERGEANTS" and "PD 12 CORPORALS" soliciting participation in an attempted removal of Sergeant Serrano as POA President. 13 14 74. Sergeant Montiel responded to all and said that he also did not support Sergeant Serrano. 15 75, On July 29, 2021, Deputy Chief Eric Paulson sent a Department-wide email reminding 16 personnel about the City's email policy. 17 18 76. On this date,CARDENAL responded to Sergeant Montiel's email,advising him that there 19 were several complaints that were made against Chief Valentin(including lawsuits)that had nothing to do 20 with Sergeant Serrano, 21 77. CARDENAL identified himself as one of these employees. 22 78. CARDENAL's email did not respond to the entire Department but, rather, to an email 23 24 between supervisors about the working conditions at the Department. 25 P. CITY Retaliated Against CARDENAL for his Protected 26 Disclosures/Complaints. 27 79. On August 5, 2021, CARDENAL - who had not violated Department email policy- was 28 written up by Commander Viramontes for purportedly violating same. 12 CARDm&v.CIPYOFSANPAANA CASSNO. COM'PrANY 1 80. However,none of the other four supervisors were written up or disciplined for their emails- 2 even though they arguably violated the policy-evidencing CITY's disparate treatment of CARDENAL. 3 4 81. CARDENAL responded in writing to Commander Viramontes, addressed the ongoing 5 retaliation and intimidation by Chief Valentin and his administration (those in Chief Valentin's 6 "gang"/"camp"), explained the reasons why his email did not violate policy and cited two policies that 7 supported his defense. Specifically. 8 9 "As I explained during our conversation, my email response to Sergeant Montiel was part of a conversation initiated by Sergeant Lizardi,wherein I explained that there were a dozen grievances 10 made by members of the department against Chief Valentin and his administration. [These grievances include complaints made by those in categories protected by the Fair Employment and 11 Housing Act.] My interpretation of that email chain was that there was a conversation being had 12 among Sergeants and Corporals, as leaders and supervisors of the Department,regarding the POA and the perceived retaliation and intimidation that has taken place within our agency. I believe 13 information sharing and communication to be critical in any successful organization, especially 14 between line level supervisors. And so with that in mind, I sent the email response to Sergeant Montiel. 15 V-:. 16 I want to memorialize one further comment I made to you regarding the Supervisor Log during out 17 conversation in this letter. It is my personal belief that I was targeted as a form of intimidation by Department Management with this counseling session and Supervisor Log entry.In saying this,I am 18 not accusing you of being the one responsible. However, you are not my direct supervisor or even 19 my assigned Watch Commander. You did not receive the email I sent, as it went to Sergeants and Corporals, and yet you were made aware of the fact that it was sent. When I asked if anyone else 20 would be counseled or disciplined for their emails in the same chain that I sent mine,you told me that you did not know because you were not in their Chain of Command. I find this method of 21 supervision to be targeted and retaliatory in nature,and I will not allow myself,or any subordinate 22 who ever works directly or indirectly for me,to be bullied in this matter. 23 Sir,I thank you again for your professionalism during our discussion." 24 Q. CARDENAL Complained of CI'f'Y's Unlawful Witness Intimidation. 25 26 82. On August 7,2021, Officer Wiggs notified CARDENAL that,prior to his interview with 27 Internal Affairs on June 25, Sergeant Lizardi confronted Officer Wiggs outside of Internal Affairs and 28 attempted to intimidate/coerce Officer Wiggs into making incriminating statements against CARDENAL during his interview. 33 CARDENAL V,cny OP SANI'A ANA COM CA9$NO. - - PLAZNl' - 1 83. CARDENAL immediately notified Attorney Glave of this information and he filed a 2 complaint with the City against Sergeant Lizardi. [It should be noted that, when CARDENAL listened to 3 4 all of the audio files of Internal Affairs investigation interviews, Sergeant Lopez referred to Corporal Johanna Perez as"Corporal Lizardi".This did not occur during any other interview she was a part of,nor 6 was she ever listed as Lizardi on any.part of the report. Although she became Sergeant Lizardi's wife 7 sometime last year,her last name was still Perez until recently.] 8 9 R. CITY Entirely and Improperly Ignored the Police Department's "Vote of No 10 Confidence"in Chief Valentin. 11 84. On September 1., 2021, the POA membership completed a Vote of No Confidence vote 12 against Chief Valentin with 54%voting that they had no confidence that he was capable of being the Chief 13 14 of Police. 15 85. CITY responded-a mere 87 minutes afterwards-by posting a Memo on social media with 16 statements from Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and City Manager Kristine Ridge voicing their support for Chief 17 Valentin. 18 19 86. Commander Enriquez then sent this Memo to all Department employees. 20 S. CARDENAL Formally Complained/Disclosed to CITY Leadership in Writing 21 CITY's Unlawful/Inappropriate Conduct and was Entirely Ignored. 22 87. On September 2,2021,CARDENAL responded to.Commander Enriquez and copied Mayor 23 24 Sarmiento, City Manager Ridge,City Attorney Sonia Carvalho and City Human Resources Director Jason 25 Motsick, disclosing,Chief Valentin's misconduct, as well as that of Sergeant Lizardi and his MET team; 26 111 27 ' lll 28 1. iR CARURNALv.My opSwaANA CASRNo. CoiMTLVNr 1 "I am very disheartened by the press release you forwarded on behalf of the City. Much of the 2 information being released by the City over the last two months is completely false,and I would like to know who authored this memorandum.The individual did not sign their name to it,and they are 3 quoting several senior City officials;to include the Chief of Police,City Manager and the Mayor. 4 I am very concerned by the continual dismissal of the Chiefs conduct by the City Manager, City 5 Attorney and Mayor.Their quotes in several articles posted in the Voice of OC and the OC Register discredit and discourage the members of our Department who have filed grievances,complaints and 6 ` even lawsuits against the Chief. The fact that these senior City officials have made it a point to 7 conflate the issue of the Chief s unprofessional and illegal conduct with Sergeant Serrano's alleged pension dispute shows me and other members of the Department that they are complicit in his 8 actions. Ms. Ridge's comment regarding the membership voting no confidence is, `hardly an overwhelming display of opposition for Chief Valentin,' is one of the most demoralizing things I 9 have read in quite some time. 10 The POA Vote of No Confidence has nothing to do with Gerry Serrano and everything to do with 11 the conduct of Chief David Valentin.The fact that every member had the right to a confidential vote, 12 and 54%of the membership saying they have no confidence in Chief Valentin clearly shows this to be true.In other words,nearly two hundred members felt strongly enough that Chief Valentin is unfit 13 to lead our Department; and City management dismissed our concerns without taking any time to consider the substance of our collective grievance. This is evidenced in the fact that you sent a 14 . response on behalf of the City a mere hour and twenty-seven minutes after the release of the POA 15 memo. 15 You yourself are a witness to the Chiefs conduct, as you were present in roll call with Chief 17 Valentin the day he berated me in front of twenty Department members for simply asking a question in an open forum that he provided.He spoke in a disparaging manner about my military training and 18 service,as well as my concern for the safety,well-being and concerns of junior patrol Officers.You 19. as a manager did nothing to intercede while he created a hostile work environment for me and everyone present.And to my knowledge,you have done nothing to correct the false narratives being 20 pushed out by the City's senior management. 21 As you may or may not be aware,I reported this incident to the City Manager through my attorney, 22 Corey Glave. The City has refused to take my complaint seriously,and based on the results of the Vote of No Confidence, many share in my dismay over the way City Officials are handling our 23 grievances.Who will do their part in holding this Chief accountable for his actions?Who will hold 24 Sergeant Oscar Lizardi accountable? He has been identified by Department personnel as someone who has intimidated sworn employees on behalf of Chief Valentin. Sergeant Lizardi and his unit 25 have a challenge coin with their motto on it: "Oderint Dum Metuant." This translates in Latin to, "Let them hate, so long as they fear."I pose this question to you, who exactly is supposed to fear 26 MET? Is it the citizens of the community of Santa Ana,or the members of the Department?Photos 27 of the coin are attached to this email for reference. 111 28 111 15 CARI)XNAL v.MY OF SANTA ANA CAsgNO. CVMP.nuvr 1 It appears to me that the City is dismissive.of our concerns because we do not have the rank to be 2 shown any respect. Would the city respond the same way if our views were shared by twelve Commanders and two Deputy Chiefs?We in Patrol are the personnel who respond and provide the 3 very best service possible to the citizens of this great city. My partners and I wear our badges and 4 Santa Ana Police patches with pride,and we will continue to police with integrity and compassion, regardless of the actions of any manager.With that being said,we deserve a Chief who will treat us 5 with dignity and respect, and City management who will ensure that managers who abuse their positional power are held accountable. 6 Please remove my name from any finiher emails in the future that spread rumors and falsities as though they are fact." 8 9 88. CARDENAL never received the courtesy of a response to this email 10 T. CITY Paid the Same Investigator to"Investigate"CARDENALLIs Complaints, 11 who CARDENAL is Informed and Believe has round Each and Every of the 12 Many Complaints Against Chief Valentin to be Not Credible. 13 14 89. On September 9,2021,CARDENAL was interviewed via Zoom by Christina Ro-Connolly . 15 (an attorney assigned to investigate numerous complaints against Chief Valentin-all of which are believed 16 to have somehow been found`unfounded"and/or"not sustained"). 17 90. The interview lasted approximately 2.5-3 hours and CARDENAL disclosed many issues 18 19 involving Chief Valentin and his inner circle,including Sergeant Lizardi and his team's conduct. 20 91. The next day, on September 10,2021, CARDENAL received a letter in his work mailbox 21 that stated: 22 "Dear Village Idiot: 23 Do not ever speak on anyone's behalf. 24 You are not who you think you are. So keep your mouth shut-nobody wants to hear what you have to say." 25 26 92. CARDENAL immediately reported this to Attorney Glave and then to Commander . 27 Viramontes. 28 /ll 111 Ib CARUI;NALv.Crf7oFSANfAANA CABRNO. COMPLAWr 1 U. CITY Further Retaliated Against CARDENAL by Using his Complaint to 2 "Expand" the then-Inactive Investigation Against CARDENAL during which 3 4 False Testimony is Encouraged,Obtained and,Thereafter,Rewarded. 5 93. On September 12, 2021, Sergeant Lopez - citing the anonymous letter left in the Internal 6 Affairs mailbox - expanded his investigation to include Watch.2 Officers, despite three months passing 7 before interviewing anyone aside from the initial five officers. 8 9 94. CARDENAL is informed and believes that one of the officers interviewed on this date 10 (Officer Tanner Bell)provided false testimony during his interview and attributed harassing statements that 11 were made by another officer to CARDENAL. 12 95. (CARDENAL was,in fact,the person who stepped in during the described incident and told 13 14 the officer involved to leave OfficerBell alone.This officer,Jacob Wiggs,has since left the Department and 15 would testify that the statements provided by Officer Bell are false.) 16 96. Officer Bell was later rewarded with a transfer to Sergeant Lizardi's team. 17 97. . From September 12-October 26,2021, Sergeant Lopez conducted a total of 27 interviews 18 19 regarding CARDENAL's statements to Watch 2 and Watch 3 roll call. 20 98. The total number of individuals interviewed in this investigation, including CARDENAL, 21 was 32. 22 99. Not one person said that CARDENAL told, advised or directed them to stop conducting 23 24 proactive enforcement stops. 25 100. In order to justify sustaining the allegation that CARDENAL somehow caused a Watch 2/3 26 work slowdown, Sergeant Lopez pulled stats from two weekends prior to CARDENAL's June 19 27 conversation and compared them to two weekends after. 28 101. The two weekends after were for the weekend of and the weekend before the July 4'holiday. 17 CAHDENALv.CrrYOFSANTAANA CASHNO. COMM Awr - I 1 102. This is the busiest time of year for calls for service and CARDENAL was blamed for a drop 2 ' in proactive enforcement activities of two watches. 3 4 V. CITY Further Retaliated Against CARDENAL by Demoting him from 5 CorporaMO to Officer. G 103. On February 10,2022,CARDENAL was served a Notice of Intent to Discipline which stated 7 that Chief Valentin"inten[ded] to demote [CARDENAL] from [his] current rank as a Corporal and Field 8 9 Training Officer to Officer." 10 104. On March 3,2022,CARDENAL again emailed CITY Leadership to disclose/complain about 11 Chief Valentin's (and others perceived to be in his "gang"/"camp" acting at his behalf) misconduct and 12 intimidation tactics: 13 14 "I am writing to again inform you about the extremely demoralizing inaction on the part of the City of Santa Ana as it relates to Chief of Police David Valentin and his supporters.I copied each of you 15 in an email I sent to Commander Enriquez on September 2,2021,regarding the outrageous behavior of Police Department management. 16 1. 17 As I am sure you are aware, there have been complaints and lawsuits levied against SAPD management for their unprofessional, inappropriate and illegal conduct. Chief Valentin and his 18 cronies in police supervision and management open and substantiate Internal Affairs investigations 19 against those of us who speak out about the blatant disparity in how officers are treated. 20 In a recent investigation launched by Chief Valentin against me,wherein he told officers in multiple roll call briefings that my conduct (prior to being investigated) was unforgivable, I was able to 21 compare Sergeant Lopez' report to the audio files from the recorded interviews.It became obvious 22 that the report was completed in a way to make me sound like someone who masterminded a Patrol- wide work slowdown.This investigation was framed in a way to make me sound guilty in order to 23 justify Chief Valentin prior action (which are being investigated by Human Resources), and his 24 decision demoting me.Witness officers were outraged that their statements were twisted by Sergeant Lopez in his report.I believe this investigation was completed because I was vocal in my displeasure 25 with the fact that Chief Valentin released the photographs of nearly every Officer in the PRA related 26 to now retired Detective John Rodriguez' of duty incident in downtown on May 5,2021. 111 27 111 28 111 CARDENALV.CiTYOFSANTAANA _ CASENo. CO[ufP[ADU . 1 In addition to this, Chief Valentin continues to permit Sergeant Lizardi to operate with impunity. 2 Three different Officers identified Sergeant Lizardi last summer as having intimidated them on behalf of Chief Valentin.All three of these Officers are outstandingemployees,respected by their 3 peers and superiors alikeAt is interesting that all three Officers were on promotion/eligibility lists at the time Sergeant Lizardi intimidated them on Chief Valentin's behalf. Corporal Zroka on a Sergeant list,Officer Pace on a Corporal list and Officer Wiggs on the MET team eligibility list.As 5 of now,Corporal Zroka remains on the Sergeant list,Officer Pace was promoted to Corporal by the City Manager after Chief Valentin withheld his earned promotion and Officer Wiggs ultimately 6 withdrew his name from consideration for MET. 7 It amazes me that a professional government organization would allow Sergeant Lizardi to continue 8 to come to work every day given the gravity of his actions.Conversely,Officer Guzman sent a text 9 message to a group of his peers saying that he disagrees with the actions taken against me by Chief Valentin and Internal Affairs, and he was immediately placed on administrative leave without a 10 reason given. 11 Chief Valentin personally attacked me in roll call in front of more than twenty other Department 12 employees. He spoke disparagingly about my service as a member of the Department and as a member of the United States Air Force.This occurred on July 1,2021.1 made the City aware of this 13 conduct immediately.I was not interviewed for more than two months.It has been nearly six months 14 since that interview and I have not received any word on the status of the investigation. How does anyone find this fair, equitable or acceptable? 15 The disparity in Chief Valentin's treatment of the employees he manages, coupled with your lack .16 of intervention or any semblance of corrective action has left the vast majority of our Police 17 ` Department employees with an overwhelming feeling of disenfranchisement. Sadly,many of our members are afraid ofretribution and do not speak out about the unfair treatment they are subjected 18 to or observe.Morale has been decimated,friendships have been ruined,careers have been adversely 19 affected and there is no end in sight. Consider the analogy.now being shared by Department members: Chief Valentin is Vladimir Putin, Patrol personnel are Ukrainians,Command Staff and 20 Internal Affairs are the Russian military and City Staff'are other world leaders.What a disgusting, 21 but accurate depiction of the state of the Department. 22 Please intervene and hold these hostile actors.accountable; make our Department a more fair and 23 equitable working environment for everyone." 24 105. Again,CARDENAL never received the courtesy of a response. 25 111 26 1I1 27 111 28 111 19 CARDENALv.CrtToFSANTAANA, CASRNO. CAMPL,A1Nr 1 W. After CARDENAL's Additional Complaints/Disclosures, CITY Further 2 Retaliated Against CARDENAL. 3 4 106. Attorney Glave attempted to coordinate a Skelly Hearing with City Manager Ridge based on 5 the facts of this investigation and Chief Valentin's direct involvement - an attempt that was ultimately 6 unsuccessful. 7 107. On March 16,2022,CARDENAL received a"Notice ofAdverse-Removal ofAssignments" 8 9 via which ChiefValentin informedCARDENAL of Chief Valentin's"decision to REMOVE[CARDENAL] 10 from [his] current assignments as a Corporal and Field 'Training Officer with the Santa Ana Police 11 Department, effective immediately." 12 108. The instant action results. 13 14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 15 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5 16 (Against All DEFENDANTS) 17 109. CARDENAL realleges Paragraphs 1 through 108 above and incorporates same as though 18 19 fully set forth herein. 20 110. CARDENAL, as described more fully above, reported/disclosed to a government agency . 21 and/or law enforcement agency and/or a person with authority over her or to an employee with authority to 22 investigate, discover,or correct legal violations and/or noncompliance to DEFENDANTS.CARDENAL 23 24 had reasonable cause to believe that the information reported/disclosed a violation of state,or federal statute 25 and/or a violation of and/or noncompliance with a local, state and/or federal rule and/or regulation[i.e., 26 Penal Code §§186.22 13670 and Assembly Bill 958 (prohibition of gangs among police officers); 27 28 Government Code §§12900-12999 (California Fair Employment and Housing Act; Government Code §§12945.2 et seq.); The California [occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973; Labor Code §6310 zo CARDENALV,CrrVOFSAMAANA CAsSNO. 1 (workplace safety); Penal Code §§ 118, 127, 136.1 (perjury, suborning perjury, witness 2 tampering);Government Code§§6250 et sect.(California Public Records Act);Penal Code§§ 832.5,832.7 3 4 (police officer confidentiality,internal investigation mandates and public records act compliance.) 5 111. In response to the disclosures and complaints initiated by CARDENAL, DEFENDANTS 6 retaliated against CARDENAL as more fully described herein. 7 112. Because of the retaliation that CARDENAL faced,CARDENAL was demoted and suffered 8 ` other adverse employment actions. 10 113. DEFENDANTS' treatment of and response to the disclosures, complaints and grievances 11 filed by CARDENAL was in violation ofLabor Code §1102.5. 12 114. CARDENAL's reporting/disclosure of information was a contributing factor in 13 14 CARDENAL's demotion and suffering of other adverse employment actions. 15 115. Asa direct result of DEFENDANTS'actions as alleged above,CARDENAL suffered harm 16 and injury that was legally(proximately)caused by the conduct of DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury 17 includes, but is not limited to, special (economic) damages, general (non-economic) damages, litigation 18 19 costs, :future damages and past,damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors 20 and such further relief as shown at the time of Trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 21 116. Additionally,as a direct and proximate result of the above-described acts ofDEFENDANTS, 22 CARDENALhas necessarily incurred attorney's fees and costs and he is entitled,per,interalia,Labor Code 23 24 §§98.6(b), §1105, 1102.5(f), Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5 and Assembly Bill 1947 to the reasonable 25 value of such attorney's fees and costs. 26 Ill 27 'llI 28 "lll 21 CARDwmv.C7YcwSmTAANA "ENO. COWL4W l SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 2 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE 3 4 FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 5 (Against All DEFENDANTS) 6 117. CARDENAL realleges Paragraphs l through 116 above and incorporates same as though 7 fully set forth herein. 8 9 118. Section 12940,et.seq.of the California Government Code makes itunlawful for an employer 10 to retaliate against an employee in "terms, conditions or privileges of employment" because of their . 11 protected status. The Fair Employment and Housing Act("FEHA")protects,not only employees who make 12 a FEHA claim, but also, those who oppose acts made unlawful by the statute and/or testify, assist or 13 14 participate in any manner in proceedings or hearings. 15 119. As referenced above,DEFENDANTS retaliated against CARDENAL for his"opposition", 16 "assistance"and/or"participation"in the FEHA claim of others. 17 120. As detailed above,DEFENDANTS engaged in an action or a course and pattern or conduct 18 19 that, taken as a whole, materially and adversely affected the terms, conditions and/or privileges of 20 CARDENAL's employment. 21 121. As also detailed above,CARDENAL was treated differently by DEFENDANTS because of 22 his protected status [i.e., engaging in protected activities (participating as a witness in a 23 24 discrimination/harassment complaint,reporting/resisting discrimination/retaliation.] 25 122. As a direct and legal result of the retaliation against CARDENAL,CARDENAL suffered 26 harm and injury that was legally(proximately)caused by the conduct of DEFENDANTS. Said harm and 27 28 injury includes, but is not limited to, special (economic) damages, general (non-economic) damages, attorneys' fees[per Government Code§12965(b)],litigation costs, future damages and past damages,lost 22 CARDS [.Y.CnYOFSMTAANA CmEM. COMer.AtNr l economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors and such further relief as shown at the time of 2 Trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 3 4 123. In addition to the damages sought above,as a proximate result of DEFENDANTS'actions 5 as alleged above, CARDENAL will also seek all damages allowed by the Code. Government Code, 6 §12965(c). 7 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 8 ' 9 FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION 10 IN VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 11 (PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS) 12 . 124. CARDENAL realleges Paragraphs 1 through 123 above and incorporates same as though 13 14 fully set forth herein. 15 125. DEFENDANTS are suffering/have suffered with a number of lawsuits and complaints 16 (including but not limited to the complaints from CARDENAL) alleging discrimination, retaliation and 17 harassment and putting DEFENDANTS on notice and providing knowledge of the need to eliminate 18 19 discrimination,retaliation and harassment. 20 126. Under the law, as well as their own policies, DEFENDANTS had an obligation to take 21 corrective action to prevent further discrimination,retaliation and harassment of CARDENAL but failed to 22 do so in violation of Section 12940,et.seq, of the California Government Code. DEFENDANTS failed to 23 24 conduct proper investigations,failed to turn over the results of these investigations, failed to implement 25 `proper policies to prevent discrimination,retaliation and harassment and failed to properly punish those in 26 engaged in misconduct to deter finther such future actions. 27 111 2$ 111 23 CARDMa v.On Y OP 3ANTAANA CABRNO. C.aMPI.AINF 1 127. As a direct and legal result of the treatment CARDENAL,CARDENAL suffered harm and 2 injury that was legally (proximately) caused by the conduct of DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury 3 includes,but is not limited to,special(economic)damages,general(non-economic)damages,attorneys'fees 5 [per Government Code§12965(b)],litigation costs,future damages and past damages,lost economic earning 6 capacity in future employment endeavors and such further relief as shown at the time of Trial and in excess 7 of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 8 9 10 WHEREFORE, CARDENAL prays for Judgment against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as 11 follows: 12 1. For compensatory damages, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation,bonuses, 13 14 vacation and other employment perquisites and other special and general damages according to proof, 15 2. Damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress; 16 3. Interest, including pre judgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate; 17 4. Attorneys' fees and costs incurred herein; and 18 19 5. Costs of suit; and 20 6. Such ffu-ther and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 21 22 REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY 23 24 CARDENAL hereby demands a Trial by Jury. 25 26 DATED:November 15,2022 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN 27 28 By;__ Lawrence J. Lennemann LAWRENCE J.LENNEMANN Attorneys for plaintiff ANTHONY CARDENAL za CARDENALv.CnyoFSANTAANA CANNl. COMPLAM Becerra, Alexis From: Jackie Angel Investor < Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 2:31 PM To: eComment Cc: Durham, Daniel Subject: Re: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION SAPID is the liability Attachments: Moreno_-_Complaint[l].pdf, Menendez_-_Complaint[l].pdf -Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links. Manuel Moreno vs. City of Santa Ana police officer retaliation employment claim "On August 12023, Moreno filed a complaint with the California civil rights department and on August 15th 2023, Moreno caused the resulting right to sue notice to be served on City. Additionally, on November 3rd 2023, Moreno caused City to be served with a government claim. Although on November 7th 2023, City, via its third party administrator, acknowledged receipt of Moreno's claim and stated that its "investigation has begun" and it "would be communicating with Moreno in the near future in regard to this matter', on November 8th, 2023 (the next day) City's third party administrator wrote -without investigation or communication-that Moreno's claim was "rejected on 11/8/2023". exhausted his administrative remedies by causing City to be served with a government claim. On May 24 2023, although Ciity, via its third party administrator, acknowledged receipt of the claim and stated that it "would be communicating with Menendez in the near future in regard to this matter", Menendez was never contacted and the claim was denied by operation of law. Regarding employees being made to choose sides, gang camps within ranks Chief Valentin's gang vs. POA Gerry Serrano "Despite these numerous claims of unlawful conduct over the years, City has allowed this unlawful conduct to continue. "The coverup of officer John Rodriguez illegal immoral acts because of your friendship with officer Rodriguez City's Major Enforcement Team - met part of Chief Valentin's gang continued to act unlawfully The Culichi Town incident and City's resulting coverup of sexual predators City continued to retaliate against Moreno. "Wherefore, Moreno prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows: For compensatory damages, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation, bonuses, vacation and other employment perquisites and other special and general damages according to proof; Damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress; Interest, including prejudgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate; Attorneys fees and costs incurred herein; and Cost of suit; and Such further and other relief as the court deems just and proper. REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY i Moreno hereby demands a trial byjury. Dated January 8, 2024 https://cityofsantaanaca.nextreguest.com/requests/26-719 From:Jackie Angel Investor<jcordova4@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday,April 1, 2026 1:59:45 PM To: eComment<ecomment@santa-ana.org> Cc: ddurham@santa-ana.org<ddurham@santa-ana.org> Subject: Re: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION SAPD is the liability Nelson Menendez vs. City of Santa Ana police officer retaliation employment claim "On April 24 2023, Menendez exhausted his administrative remedies by causing City to be served with a government claim. On May 24 2023, although Ciity, via its third party administrator, acknowledged receipt of the claim and stated that it "would be communicating with Menendez in the near future in regard to this matter", Menendez was never contacted and the claim was denied by operation of law. Regarding employees being made to choose sides, gang camps within ranks Chief Valentin's gang vs. POA Gerry Serrano "Despite these numerous claims of unlawful conduct over the years, City has allowed this unlawful conduct to continue. "The coverup of officer John Rodriguez illegal immoral acts because of your friendship with officer Rodriguez City's Major Enforcement Team - met part of Chief Valentin's gang continued to act unlawfully The Brandon Lopez shooting "As City is well aware, on September 28th 2021, Brandon Lopez was shot and killed by members of the Anaheim Police department within City limits. For unknown reasons, despite the fact that the standoff occurred within City limits and, thus, within City's jurisdiction, Chief Valentin handed over control of the incident to the Anaheim Police department. "Wherefore, Menendez prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. For compensatory damages, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation, bonuses, vacation and other employment perquisites and other special and general damages according to proof; 2. Damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress; 3. Interest, including prejudgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate; 4. Attorneys fees and costs incurred herein; and 5. Cost of suit; and 6. Such further and other relief as the court deems just and proper. REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY Menendez hereby demands a trial byjury. Dated July 28, 2023 https://cityofsantaanaca.nextreguest.com/requests/26-719 2 From:Jackie Angel Investor<jcordova4@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:21 PM To: eComment<ecomment@santa-ana.org> Subject: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION Hello, we would like details on these closed session cases and why so many Santa Ana police officers are suing us. https://citVofsantaanaca.nextrequest.com/requests/26-719 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION Frank Rocha v. City of Santa Ana, WCAB Case No.: ADJ15955468; ADJ18623576; ADJ17697034 B. Stephen Hahm v. City of Santa Ana, WCAB Case No.: ADJ19377542; ADJ19377509; ADJ19885630 A. Anthony Cardenal v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022-01293127 B. John Kachirisky v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2023-01348299 C. Nelson Menendez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2023-01339537 D. Manuel Moreno v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01372127 E. Rita Ramirez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022-01287702 F. Judith Valdez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2023-01359457 From: Jackie Angel Investor <jcordova4@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 11:30:39 AM To: scarvalho@santa-ana.org <scarvalho@santa-ana.org>; anunez@santa-ana.org <anunez@santa-ana.org> Cc: Ryberg, Erinn <Erinn.Ryberg@asm.ca.gov>; eComment <eComment@santa-ana.org> Subject: City of Santa Ana, Formal Complaint Filed - City Attorney Notice Sonia R. Carvalho, FIRED As general counsel to the City Today I was assured you would never be of service to me. After all these years, you offer me nothing, not even a return phone call. As our City Attorney, you can't be bothered. You are hereby put on notice. You are no longer my city attorney. Never did you represent me. f We The People} Never did you provide services for me<. Never did you counsel me or guide me in matters regarding the City of Santa Ana. This is the acknowledgement. -Santa Ana California Frank E. Rocha, a Police Services Dispatcher for the City of Santa Ana in 2024, had a total salary of $9,344.00, with regular pay of$8,639.09 . Total compensation including benefits and pension debt was $16,454.45. Stephen C. Hahm is a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, California, with a reported total pay of $337,526.05 in 2024, according to data from Transparent California. His compensation included a high regular salary along with additional pay and benefits typical of law enforcement officers. • 2024 Salary: $337,526.05 2021 Salary: $110,839.50 3 Anthony Cardenal earned $207,331 in 2017, according to public payroll data from Santa Ana. His job title was listed as a Police Officer. John Kachirisky, a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, had a total pay and benefits package of $347,114.56 in 2022 • 2022 (Pension Debt): $92,990.41 • Nelson A. Menendez worked as a Police Officer for the City of Santa Ana, earning a total pay of $196,996.30 which included a regular salary of$112,104.00. His total compensation, including benefits and pension debt coverage, was $361,812.66. • Salary Breakdown (2022): • Total Pay: $196,996.30 • Regular Pay: $112,104.00 • Benefits: $69,745.32 • Pension Debt: $95,071.04 • Manuel Moreno J. earned $432,264 in 2024, according to public payroll data from Santa Ana. His job title was listed as a Police Lieutenant (Rm). • According to public records, Manuel Moreno J.'s salary increased by 38% ($118,565) from 2023 to 2024. • Manuel Moreno J.'s salary was 190% higher than the average and 220% higher than the median salary at Santa Ana in 2024. • His salary was 164% higher than the average Police Lieutenant salary in 2024. Judith A. Valdez Police Officer (2020) Regular pay: $107,820.00 Overtime pay: $13,919.75 Other pay: $42,079.52 Total pay: $163,819.27 Benefits: $65,508.11 Pension debt: $68,406.54 Total pay & benefits: $297,733.92 4 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 01/09/2024 01:22:24 PK 30..2024-013'72127-CL.J..OE."CJC- ROA#3- DAVID IH. YAMASAKI, C Ierk of the Court By K. Clirner, Deputy Clerk.. SUM-100 SUMM�ONS FOR couRr usE ONLY (CITACION JUDICIAL) (SOLO PARA USO 06 LA CORTE) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (A VISO AL DEMA NDA DO): CITY OF SANTA ANA, an entity of unkriown origin; wid DOES 1-50, Inclusive, YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESrA DEM All DANDO EL DEMANDANTE); MANUEL MORENO, an ffidividual NOTICE!You have been sued.The court may decide against you without rid unless you respond within 30 days.Read the i —r-atic n below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff-A letter or phone call will not protect you.Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case.There may be a court form that you can use for your response.You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center(www.courtinfo.ca,govlselff7elp),your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you.If you cannot pay the filing fee,ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form.If you do not file your response on time,you may lose the case by default,and your wages,money,and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements.You may want to call an attorney right away.If you do not know an attorney,you may want to call an attorney referral service.If you cannot afford an attorney,you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program.You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site(www.lawheliocalifornia.org),the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo,ca,govlselfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE:The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of$10,000 or more in a civil case.The couirt's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. 1A VISO]Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dies,la torte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versi6n. Lea la informaci6n a continuation. Vene 30 DAS DE CALENDARIO despu6s de qua le entreguen esta citation y papeles legates pare presenter Line respuesta por escrito en esta torte y hacer que se entregue Line copia al demandante. Una carte o Line flamada telef6nica no/o protegen. Su respuesta per escrito tiene qua ester an formato legal correcto si desea qua procesen su case en/a come.Es posible qua haya an formulario que usted pueda user pare su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formuiatios de la torte y m6s informaci6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cones de California(~.sucortexa.gov),en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o an/a Code que/a quede mJs cerca.Si no Puede pager la cuota de presentaci6n,Aida al secretario de la coite qua le d6 un formulario de exenci6n de pago de cuolas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo,Puede perder el case per incurriplimiento y la corte,I& podni guitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mis advertencia, Hay otros requisites legates. Es recomendable qua llame a Lin abogado inmediatamente.Si no conoce a Lin abogado,Puede 11amar a Lin servicio de remisidn a abogados. Si no puede pager a Lin abogado,as posible qua cumpla con los requisites pare obtener servicios legates gratuitos de Lin prograrria de aervicios legates sin fines de lucre. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucre en a/sitio Web de California Legal Services, (Www.lawheIpcafifomia.org), an el Centro de Ayuda de las Cones de Calilomia,(Www,sucorte,ca.gov)o poni6ndose on contacto con/a torte o a/ colegio do abogados locales.A VISO:Per ley,/a torte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos porimponer Lin gravamen sobre cualquier recuperaci6n de$10.000 6 miis de valor recibicle mediante un acuerdo o una concesi6n de arbitraje en un caso de derlecho civil. Tiene que pager e/gravamen de la corle antes de qua/a coite pueda desechar a/case. The name and address of the court is'. CASE NUMBER' (El nombre y direccOn de la torte es):SUPERIOR COURT 01:CAI,IF()RNIA fWnivro del Caso): COUNTY OF ORANGE 700 CIVIC CEN f ER DRIVE WEST SANTA ANA CA 92701 The name,address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney,or plaintiff without an attorney,is: (El nombre,la direccio'n v el n6mero de teldforio del'abodada del demand,ante, a del demandante que tan tierce abogrado,es): JOHN A.GTRARDI,(51f917) JOHN A. GIIZARDI,APC (316),265-5797 LAWMENCE.1.1-ENNEMANN (SBNA34108)LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J.LENNEMAINN(310)265-5788 29900 11AW-MORNE BLVD.ROLLING]HILLS ESTATE1,; CA 90274 DATE: Clerk, by Deputy (Fecha) (Secretario) (Adjunto) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form,POS-0 10).) (Para prueba de entrega de esta citati6n use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons,(POS-010)). [SEAL] NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: "you are served 1, = as an individual defendant. Z = as the person sued under the fictitious name of(specify): 3. tiKl on behalf of(specify)--Z'11-27 a--� �FtA;rft 144Y under: CCP 416,10(corporation) CCP 416.60(minor) CCP 416.20(defunct corporation) CCP 416.70(conservatee) CCP 416.40(association or partnership) CCP 416,90(authorized person) other(specify): 4. by personal delivery on(elate):TAiQU49Y 2,1 U,2�y' e 1 of I Form AdopTed for Mandatoly Use ------------- JuMelal Council of California SUMMONS GOd�e ol CiV,l Procedure§§412 20.465 SUM,100[Rev.July 1.20091 CEB www.ceb.com Bectrorfledy Ffled by &pedor Cour�of Caffornia, COUnty of Orange, 0,1109/2024 01:22:24 M 30-2024-01372127-C,U..OE-CJC - ROA 9 4 - AV I UYAMASAKI, Clerk of the Coud By K, Chmer, Deputy (",Ir . j-6��&W M C -010 PAFrt I ATTORNEY(Nwm,SeW G&nunftr.and addrenj: FOR COURT USE Oft V JOIiN A. GIRARDI (SBN 54917)JOHN A.GIRARDI,APC LAWRENCE J.LEINNEMANTIN(SBN 134108)LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J.LENNEMANN 2990,0 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ROLLING HILLSE STATES,CA 90274 TELEPHONE NO.: 010)205-5788 FAX NO,(OplooW; E-MALADDRESS: ATTQRNEYFOR(Nwne) PLAINTIFF SW'PERJORCOURT OFCAUFORNIA.COUNTY OF ORANGE STREET ADDMSs 700 CIVIC CMTER DRIVE MAJUNGADOREss,. 700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE crry'mozipcooE: SAN'TA ANA CA 92701 BRANcH a CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER CASE NAME. MU ANEL IMORENO.mi,Indh ClT)'OF SANTA ANA.numitity of unknown origin:and DOES 1-50.inclwsive. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBEM IM Unlimited L31.imitedl L3 Counter Joinder ................. (Amount (Amount juDG EH demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant exceeds$25,000) $25,000 or less (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3,402) OEM: '6jJ—()7W—MUSI be"66hm0 teed- 'rrritrcrCPai ni on lea 2) Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation BAuto(22) Breach of contraclAvarranty(06) (Cail.Rules of Court,rules 3.400-3.403) Uninsured motorist(46) Rule 3.740 collections(09) AnfitcustlTrade regulation(03) Other PUPDAND(Personal Injury/Property Other collections,(09) Construction defect(10) Carnage fflrongful Death)Tort Insurance coverage,(18) Mass tort(40) Asbestos(04) Other contract(37) Securities litigation (28) Product liability(24) Real Property Environmental/Toxic tort(30) Medical malpractice(45) L3 Eminent domiairginverse lnsurance owerage claims arising from the Other! PVPDJWD(23) condemnation(14) above listed provisionally complex case N -PIIPDMD(Other)Tort Wrongful eviction(3 3) types (41), Business torl/unfair business practice(0�7) Elother real property(26) Enforcement of Judgment Civil rights(08), Unlawful Detainer C3 Enforcement d judgment(20) Defernation(13) Commercial(31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud(16) Residential(32) RICO(27) Intellectual property(19) Drugs(38) E30t1 r complaint(rKA'specified above) (42) Professional negligence(25) Other non-PUPD)WD tort(35) Judicial Review Miscellaneous CivilPetition Asset forfeiture(05) Padnershipand corporate govemanoe(21) 1 Em loyment Petition re:arbitration award(11) Eldither petition(not specified above) (43) Wrongful termination(36) Writ of mandate(02) Other employment(15) Other judicial review(39) 2, This casenot complex under rule 3,400 of the California Mules of Court, if the case is complex,-mark the factors requiring exceptionaijudicial management: a. EJ Large number of separately represented parties d' E3Large number of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel a. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more issues that will be time-consuming to resolve courts in other counties,states,or countries,or in a federal c. L:3 Substantial amount of documentary evidence court f. :P Substantial postiudgmentjudicial supervision 3. Remedies sought(check all that apply): a. (Mmonetary b. E nonmonetary;declaratory or injunctive relief c. Q punitive 4. Number of causes of action rs eoft' (3)THREE;RETALIATION IN VIOLATIONOF LABOR CODE§1102.5.FEHA.AN'D FAILURE 10 CORRECT 5. This case Ca is aj;Lyn'ot a class action suit. 6. If there a a any known related cases,file and serve a notice of related case.. (You!�qpistrfrjnff-C�W­015.) Date:W LAREN7E'1J. ElNNE`t"IAIVN .......... iTYPE OR PRNr NAME) .......... NOTICE • Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code,Family Code,or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules,of Court,rule 3.220.)Failure to file may result in sanctions. • File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. • If this case is complex under rub 3,400 at seq. of the California Rules of Court,you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. • Unless this is a collections, case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only'. ..............­.........._'_'......... Pop 1 012 omn AcTo�iyrd k5�Wandwory N�so G 0.Esserea?�SrA U M.I 0 a 5.2.J -,3340j 3,740 oiialeu.rrwtka 3 220,3 4 Do, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ndW001A mMw.mdhq ca our M-0 0 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET' To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers, 9 you are filing a first paper(for example, a ocm hint) in a civil case,you must complete and file,along with your first pa er„the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on pa a 1.This information Will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers ofpcases filed. You must complete items 1 through on the sheet,In item 1,you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case.if the case fits both a ggeneral and a more specific type of case listed in item 1,. check the more speci�one.If the case has multiple causes of action,check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet,examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below.A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper.Failure to rile a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A"collections case"under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than S25,000,exclusive of interest and attorney's fees,arising from a transaction in which property„services, or money was acquired on credit.A collections case does not include an action seeking the foilowing: (1)tort damages, (2) punitive damages„ (3) recovery of real property'.(4)recovery of personal property,or(5 a prejudgment writ ct attachment The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it wil be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules,unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3,740. To parties in Complex Cases. in complex cases only,parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California pules of Court,this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 11 and 2.if a plaintiff designates a case as complex,the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all pa rties to the action.A defendant may ie and no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiff's designation,a counter-designation that the case is not complex,or, if the plaintiff has made no designation,a designation that the case is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Aulo Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil,Litigation mil, Auto(22)-Personal Injury/Pro y Breach of Conlract/Warranly(06) Y p (. Damagerwtongfui Death Breach..of RentailLease Rulers of Court Rules 3.400-3,403} Contract (nor unlawfuldelainer AntitrurstrTrade Regulation(03) Uninsured involves n uninsured(i re or w ful eviction Construction Clef (10) case ist clai s err jec M Claims Involving Mass Tort 40 rrioloris!crrm sitbjac!to Contracwarranty Breach-Seller � ( ) arbPlaintiff (no fraud orn A �arrce Securities Litigation(25) instead of arr cure)this rlerri Negligent ent Breach of Contra EnvkonmentallToxic Tort(30) instead of Warranty rParranl Insurance Coverage Claims Other PIlPt3 D(Personal InjuryP Other Breach of Conuac' arranty (arising from provisionally complex Property Darnagellififrongful Death) Collections(e.g.,,money owed.open case type listed above) (41) Tort book accounts) (05) Enforcement of Judgment Asbestos(04) Coils clion Case-Seller Plaintiff Enforcement of Judgment(20) Asbestos Property Damage Other Promissory FiotelCollectlons Abstract of Judgment(Out of Asbestos Personal Injury/ Case County) Wrongful Death Insurance Coverage(riot provisionally Confession of Judgment (non- Product Liability(not asbestos or complex)(18) domestic relations) foxi nuriron ntal) (2'4) Auto Subrogation Sister State Judgment Medical Malpractice(45) Other Coverage Administrative Agency Award Medical Malpractice- Other Contract(37) (nor unpaid taxes) Physicians&Surgeons Contractual Fraud PetitkordCertifiration of Entry of Other Professional Health Care Other Contract Dispute Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Malpractice %at Property Other Enforcement of Judgment Other PIAPDtwD(23) Eminent Domain/inverse Case Premises Liablity (e,g.,rihp Condemnalion(14.) Miscellaneous Clvil Complaint and fail) vVrongfut Eviction(33) RICO(27) Intentional Bodily lnjuryAPDAwD Other Peal Property Other Complaint(not srecifted' op y (e.g.,quiet title)(2'6) (e.g.,assault.vandalism) writ of Possession of Peal Property above) (42) Intentional Infliction of Mortgage Foreclosure Declaratory Relief Only Emotional Distress Quiet Tale Injunctive relief Only(non- Negilgent Infliction of Other Real Property (not eminent harassment) Emotional Distressdomain, y ( Mechanics Lien Other PirPD/wD 10feclo A e) eriarir,or Other Commercial Corn laint r`orecrosure) P Floe-PUPI3ME)(Other)Tort Case (non-torfirroon-co iex) Unlawful Dietalner Other Civil Complaini Business TortlUnfair Business" Commercial(31) Practice(07) eslinti 'ai(32) rt4(non-foion-cormprex) Civil Flights(e.g.,discrimination, Miscellaneous Civil Petition false arrest not civil Dnogsugs, (if ease ern, th rmse, Partnership and Corporate )( dry chi this r'terro,' other Governance(21 harassment) (tl6) report'as Cormrmercial or Residential) ) Defamation(e.g.,slander.tibel) Judicial Review Other Petition(not specifiedFra d(16) Asset Forfeiture(0 ) above) as f Civil Harassment Intellectual Proper 1°J Petition Pe:Arbitration Award(11) pe y( ) Workplace Violence Professional Negligence 5 writ of Mandate(02) R f2 ) E derADependenrt Adult Legal Malpractice Writ-Administrative Mandamus Abuse Other Professional Malpractice wnl-Mandamus on Limited Court Election Contest Case Fatter Petition for Flame Change (no!PI/PmedD/ D Tod( wril-Other Limited Court Case Petition f'or P el f from Late Other Floe-PI1PDrkmyD Tort(35) Review Claim Employment Other Judicial Review(39) Other Civil Petition Wrongful Termination(36) Review of Health Officer Order Other Employment(15) Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissiones Appeals gip, R.0yt _.._., n r� a wu a C l F r+ti l CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET ceb.com Forms, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ORANGE COUNTY 700 K CIVIC CENTER DRIVE SANTA ANA, CA 92701 437.CRT30.805559.81 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN,APC 2990O HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 437.805559. 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE � � ��y STREET ADDRESS: 700 W.Civic Center DRIVE MAILING ADDRESS: 700 W.civic Center Drive SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY AND ZIP C ODE°Santa Ana 92701 BRANCH NAME: Central Justice Center PLANTIFF:Manuel.Moreno Jan 12, 224 DEFENDANT:City of Santa,Ana Clerk of the Superior court $hart Title.MORENO VS.CITY OF SANTA ANA aad CASE NUMBER: NOTICE OF HEARING 30-2024-01372127-CU-OE-CJC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Please tame notice that al(n), Case Management Conference has been scheduled for hearing on 66/1412024 at 09:00:00 All in Department C18 of this court, located at Central Justice Center. Plaintiff(s)1Petitioner(s) to provide notice to all defiendant(s)/respondent( ). Parties who file pleadings that add now parties to the proceeding must provide notice of the Case Management Conference to the newly added parties.. 1-.NEPQ T_k T.prior to your hearing date,please check the Courts website,for the most current instructions regarding how to appear for your hearing and access services that are available to ar!swer your questions. Cii.`i.l ,fatters-hops,`°a � i:occourts o edxa-xelatitxs>'ci it.htmal Probate texatal health h a s occoua tts or )media-relations.` robate-mental-health.litnil Appellate l ivisi -laths,.T����v.occclurts.or� ed�a-relarions.`a peals-reco-rd,.1tini VNIPQRFA IE Antes de la fecha de su audieneia,visite el sitio xveh e la ertte para saber cuges son i s instrucciones=As actuales para participar en,la audiencia y tener acce o a los senricios dispo idles Para responder a sus preg urtas„ Caso$C,i�`ils_l�tt s:�y"�^~��°��,retccou�ris.or�;n�eclia-relations,"ci��il_l"�trz�ll Casos de Prro rate y alud ,Iental-ll ttp :: E�. cce ra seox ntedaa-relatir���s mate- e tal-health .l to l Die isidn de apelaciones-l�ttjRs %T w. ocr:ourtj as 'rnedia-telat onsl,a heals-records lit nl . V i T&QNT .T do righ phi�n tba cf1a qu�T vi,xmi l6ne lti t tra trau .rn vita t6a �.bit n hirdag d In trial nhat V ei c itch ra hau phi&t6 acft qua vi v,,k ti0 can atl i g dish,q hi n cat di gi M c p nh that mac cua°uy vj NTan �Ddu Su-,htips:<<'r �r. rcc zts.or Tie is relat sns,cis il:htrnl Tlitd Tic Di Clttic. c Kh6e Tinh Than.-Ltts,.i��� .oerourts.or ,x�e�l'ia�elat orzs,°` robots-��aental�ltealtlt.ltt 1. Bari phfi the-hops =� y y oceq a rya s>��e is relacic sza°`appeals-records.htrnl Clerk.of the Court, By: , Deputy NOTICE OF HEARING Paget 437.809559. 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFCRANGE Central Justice Center 700 W. Civic Center DRIVE Santa.Ana 92701 SHORT TITLE; MORENO VS., CITE' OF SANTA ANA CASE NUMBER:CLERK'SCERTIFICATE TE a YF SERVICE "Y MAIL 30-2024-01 72127-CU-CtE.CJC I certify that l arts not a party to this cause, I certify that a true copy of the above Notice of Hearing has been placed for collection and mailing so as to cause it to be mailed in a seated envelope with postage fully prepaid pursuant to standard court practices and addressed as indicated below. The certification occurred at aanta Ana, California, on 01112/2024. Following standard court practice the mailing will occur at Sacramento, California on 0111 12024. Clerk of the Court, by: , deputy LAW OFFICE OF I AWRENCE J. LENNE ANN,AP'C JOHN A.GIRARIJI, APC 29900 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD 29909 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ROLLING MILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 CLERICS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL wags:z V31013a(June 2004) Coda of Civil Procedure CCP1013(a) 437.805559. 3 of 3 EC�ectronicafly Filedby Superior Court of CaHfoirnia, County of Orange, tt1/091 024 1 2: 4 M (:)- 24-01 7212 - :U-0E-- JC - ROA , 2- DAVO H.YAINAA:AM, Clerk of fl-ie Court By t . Urn r, Deputy Q m°k, l JOHN A. GIRARDI, State Ear No. 54917 JOHN A. GIRARDI, A.PC 2 29900 Hawthorne Boulevard Rolling Dills Estates, CA. 90274 3 (31C1)m26 - 787 "Telephone 4 m LAB ''RENCE J. LENNE ANN, State Bar No. 134108 5 LAW OFFICE OF LA WREN CE J. LENNEMANN, APC 29900 Hawthorne Boulevard 6 ollin lfills Estates, A 90274 (310) 65-578 Telephone ttorne s for Plaintiff 10 SUPERIOR IJ T OF THE STATE E F CALIFORNIA I COUNTY F ORANGE 1 AN EL MORENO, an Individual CASE NO.: 13 PLAINTIFF A�NUEL 's l4 COMPLAINTF Plaintiff, 1 ) (I)RETALIATION IN VIOLATION F CODE§II 2.5 16 vs, ( ) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE 17 ) FAIR L Y NT AND . USING A CT; AN 18 CITY OF SANTA A.NA, an entity of unknown ) (3) FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION IN VIOLATION OF FAIR 19 origin; and DOES 1 - , Inclusive, ) EMPLOYMENT N USING ACT' ) 20 ) 21 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL ) 22 Defendants. ) ) 23 24 25 Plaintiff Manuel Moreno(" ORENO"or"Plaintiff"),with knowledge as to his own acts and based 26 27 upon information and belief with regard to all other matters, by and through his attorneys of record,alleges: 2 '// u MoRENO v. CeryoFS rAANa CASENO. COr I I MORENO is an individual who,at al I times relevant herein,is and was employed as a Police 2 Commander by Defendant City of Santa Ana("CITY"or"Defendant")at CITY's business office,located 3 4 in the County of Orange, State of California. 5 2. MORENO alleges that CITY is a municipality doing business,in the County of Orange, State 6 of California. The Santa Ana City Council,as the governing body of the City of Santa Ana,acts,represents, 7 and implements policy on the behalf of CITY. 8 9 3. Defendants CITY and DOE Defendants I through 50 are hereinafter sometimes collectively 10 referred to as "DEFENDANTS". 11 4. On or about August 1, 2023, MORENO filed a Complaint with the California Civil Rights 12 Department and, on August 15, 2023, MORENO caused the resulting Right-to-Sue Notice to be served on 13 14 CITY.Additionally,on November 3, 2023,MORENO caused CITY to be served with a Government Claim. 15 Although on November 7, 2023, CITY, via its Third Party Administrator, acknowledged receipt of 16 MORENO's claim and stated that its "investigation has begun" and it"w[ould] be communicating with 17 [MORENO] in the near future in regard to this matter", on November 8, 2023 (i.e, the next day) CITY's 18 19 Third Party Administrator wrote - without investigation or communication- that MORENO's claim "was 20 rejected on 11/8/2023." 21 5. MORENO is presently not aware of the true names and/or capacities of Defendants DOES 22 23 1 through 50, inclusive,and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names.MORENO is informed 24 and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that said fictitiously named Defendants are 25 directly and proximately responsible fbrthe injuries and damages alleged herein.MORENO will amend this 26 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of said fictitiously named Defendants when, and if, 27 ascertained. 28 2 MOMW V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENo. COMnAINT 1 b. MORENO is info ed and believes, and upon such information and belief'alleges,that, at all relevant times, each and every Defendant was a principle, agent, employer, employee, manager, 3 supervisor, officer, shareholder and/or owner of each and every other Defendant, and each and every act 5 and/or omission of each and every Defendant occurred by and through the governing body and/or management of the Defendant and within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment and/or 7 was approved and/or ratified by the acts and/or omissions of each and every other Defendant. h FACTUAL AC G DUN 10 A. For Decades,MORENO has been an Outstanding Police Employee of CITY,Resulting l l in Numerous Promotions, Including his Most Recent to Police Commander. 1 13 7. By way of brief background,MORE O -following decades of exceptional public service- 1 was promoted to his current position of police Commander with the City's Police Department. 15 g. As detailed herein, because of D O's reporting/disclosure of CITY's unlawful acts, 16 Valentin (.and those acting on his behalf) perceived MORENO as not being part of the below-described 17' "Valentin camp" but, rather, as part of the below-described"POA camp". 18 19 a CITY's RecentlySeparate olice Chief David Valentin and CITY's"Gangs,/Camps"'. 20 9. Valentin was CITY's Police Chief from 2017 until his November 2, 2023 separation. 21 10. While, on September,27, 2023,Valentin notified City that he was "retiring"[which he later 22 claimed, both in writing and orally (with Frank Sinatra's song "lily Way actually playing in the 3 24 background),was on"his terms''',"something that hasn't happened in four decades"],also on September 27, i 25 2023,Valentin wrote to CTTY: (1)"(a)lthough [he] intended to serve[CITY]as Chief of Police for several 26 more years, the fact is that over the course of the last five years, [he] was subjected to a targeted and 27 28 unrelenting campaign of harassment" and that, as a result of CITY's taping "no substantive action", he "fe[lt] [he]' ha[d] no choice but to retire." 3 COWLAINT 1 11. During Valentin's time as Police Chief, myriad claims were made against CITY as a result 2 of Valentin's (and those acting on his behalf) unlawful acts of,inter alia, harassment(including claims of 3 4 sexual harassment), discrimination and retaliation. 5 12. As CITY is well aware fromnumerous complaints and from other publicly-Bled lawsuits and 6 i claims,although an effective police department functions as a whole,it has been a common recent practice 7 (and the subject of much ongoing discussion and concern between CITY's police department personnel)for 8 9 Valentin(and others at his behest)to attempt to force personnel to choose between two"gangs"or"camps"- 10 what is referred to as "the Valentin camp" or what Valentin perceived to be the other "gang"/"camp'" I I allegedly led by then-Police Association C'POA'J President Gerry Serrano. 12 13 13. Valentin was repeatedly accused of not simply allowing but fostering these "camps"within 14 CITY's Police Department in violation of California law, the Califomia, Constitution and CTTY's own 15 policies and procedures. 16 14. Additionally, Valentin was repeatedly accused of actively retaliating/discriminating against 17 18 or harassing those who did not choose to be in his "camp" and of retaliating/discriminating against or 19 harassing those who chose to even associate with those perceived to,be in the other"camp�'. 20 15. It is also common knowledge that those perceived to be in the"Valentin camp"-even those 21 who repeatedly and significantly violate laws, statutes, regulations and policies - are not 22 23 charged/investigated/disciplined for such conduct while those not perceived to be in the"Valentin camp" 24 (especially those who stand up against the "Valentin camp ..s wrongful acts) are routinely 25 charged/investigated/disciplined for far less egregious purported "misconduct." 26 16. Despite the numerous complaints ofthis unlawful conduct over the years,CITY has allowed 27 this conduct to continue. 28 4 IMOMM V. MY OF SANTA ANA CASENOL COMPIAM I C. The Major EnforcementTearn ("'MET"'), the Culichl To Incident and Disparate 2 Discipline. 3 4 17. MET is a SWAT-like team"created" in January of 2020 by Valentin. 5 18. Persons associated with MET are considered to be part of"the Valentin camp"and receive 6 extreme and obvious favoritism from Valentin, regarding both promotions and lack of discipline. 7 D. The Culichi Town Incident and CITY's Resulting Cover-Up. 8 9 19. On August 9, 2,020, five CITY MET police officers (Dorin Buchanan, Mark Campi, then- 10 Sergeant Oscar Lizardi, Jonathan McKee and Jonathon Perez) were accused of verbally harassing two I I teenage girls and of sexually-assaulting one at the Culichi Town restaurant in'Santa Ana("the Culichi Town 12 Incident"'). The girls' family(who had been told by the officers that they were CITY police officers) and/or 13 14 others repeatedly called 911 to report the Culichi Town Incident. 15 20. The MET members fled prior to patrol officers arriving and also reportedly coordinated with 16 officer Andres Gil (who was thereafter,rewarded with a transfer to MET) to tell officers at the scene that they 17 should not take the mandated police report. 18 19 21. In violation of federal law, state law and CITY policy, no police report was taken. 20 22. Within days, then-Watch Commander MORENO was informed of this potential serious 21 misconduct involving members of MET and immediately reported same to, inter alia, then-Commander of 22 23 Internal Affairs Robert Rodriguez. Rodriguez thereafter confirmed to MORENO that he (Rodriguez) had 24 reported the Culichi Town Incident to Valentin. 25 23. The resulting three-year cover-up by Valentin (and others at his behest)and CITY's failure 26 to discipline those involved (who,for the most part were actually promoted)divided the police department 27 28 and was recently addressed in MORENO's May 24,2023 complaint detailing misconduct of a serious nature on the part of both Rodriguez and Valentin. MOREND V. C:rrY OF SANTA ANA CASENQ ICOWLAM Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit"A' is a copy of MORENO's subsequent below- 2 3 discussed May 24, 2023 complaint detailing misconduct of a serious nature on the part of both Rodriguez 4 and Valentin. 5 Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of investigative 6 journalist Ben Camacho's June 21, 2023 article entitled "[CITY] Delays In vestigalion of a Child Sexual 7 Assault by an Off—Duty 0jf1cer by More than Ha Year, Commander Alleges" which includes an 8 9 unredacted copy of MORENO's complaint released by an unknown person at IT 10 24. MOREND is inforined and believes that not only were the officers involved in the Culichi I I Town Incident not disciplined but they have received multiple promotions. 12 25. On May 9,2022, Valentin released a video regarding the Culichi Town Incident in which: 13 14 Valentin described how"a blog"[written by the above-referenced investigative journalist Camacho] that had been "shared on social media" contained "serious misinfannation"and 15 "baseless attacks on the integrity of some of the most dedicated members of our police department"; 16 17 Valentin stated that he wished to "assure the community my command staff and I hold our officers to the highest standards"and that"we investigate any allegations ofwrongdoing and 18 hold officers accountable to our department policies and the law"; and 19 Valentin then described how an"anonymous complaint'''was received"seven months"after 20 the Culichi Town Incident and then falsely stated: "Upon receiving the initial complaint, 21 an internal affairs investigation was opened." 22 26. However, per MORENO's detailed complaint: (1) as the "initial complaint[s]" were made 23 in August of 2020 (not seven months later) to various upper-level police personnel (including other 24 Commanders who will so testify);and(2)no investigation was admittedly opened until(atthe earliest)seven 25 26 months after the immediate complaints, this statement was false. 27 27. Despite this, Valentin retained (via significant CITY funds) purported "independent" 28 "investigators"(the OIR Group)who conducted an almost-year-long assessment based not only on the false lack-of-prompt-notice premise but admittedly interviewed only MET personnel (the OIR Report). 6 MORM90 V, CffYOF SANTA ANA CASENO. CONWL41NT 28. Thus, not surprisingly, the OIR.Report - which despite the fact that Valentin, Rodriguez, 2 various members of the command staff and numerous officers were aware of the Incident in August oft 20 3 4 -essentially opined"gee, it would be nice if your officers had promptly reported bad stuff up the chain." 5 29. On April 5,2023, in another released video, Valentin then weaponized the"assessment"to 6 falsely imply the absence of any wrongdoing. 7 30. Many,including MORENO-who had previouslybelieved that some independent entitymust 8 9 have been(during the past years)investigating City's Cu lichi Town incident cover-up of an alleged incident 10 of which numerous supervisors were indisputably aware- were shocked by the manipulated conclusions 11 of the OIR Report. 12 31. As a result of MORENO's complaint alleging serious misconduct, per CITY's Police 13 14 Department Policy 1010.8, both Valentin and Rodriguez should have immediately been placed on 15 administrative leave. However, CITY not only refused to place either officer on leave but, following 16 Valentin's separation, CITY actually promoted Rodriguez to Interim Police Chief 17 18 E. Other "Valentin GangtCamp" Misconduct. 19 32. There are various additional examples, including officers (considered part of"'the Valentin 20 camp") who have conunitted serious policy violations but who have received significantly less discipline 21 than those considered to be in the "POD. camp" (i.e., now Oscar Lizardi - instead of being 22 23 disciplined for being involved in the Culichi Town Incident as well as other serious misconduct complaints 24 (including a recently settled federal court matter involving an assault against a minor riding a bicycle) -was 25 rewarded with an unprecedented meteoric rise from Sergeant to Commander;officers who were arrested for 26 Driving Under the Influence received shorter suspensions than those perceived to be in the"PCB camp"and 27 28 were even allowed to utilize their vacation time instead of serving their suspensions without pay, etc.). 7 MORENO V. WY OF SAWA ANA CAS NO. ICON1PLAM I F. The September 2020 Women Leaders in Law Enforcement Conference. 2 33, In early September of202O,an on-line Women Leaders in Law Enforcement conference took 3 4 place. 5 34. Since the conference was virtual, Sergeant Rosa Ponce De Leon requested and received 6 permission to host a group of women at Sergeant Ponce de Leon's residence so that the women could watch 7 the Conference together. 81 35. As CITY is aware from various other claims/complaints,CITY proceeded to retaliate against 9 10 not only the women involved (i.e., Sonia Rojo and Judy Valdez who have both filed their own actions I I against CITY)but those who opposed such treatment[i.e.,now-former Police Administrative Manager(i.e, 12 the civilian rank of a Police Commander) Rita Ramirez (who has filed her own action against CITY) and 13 14 MORENO]. 15 36. Specifically, on September 11,2020, Ms.Ramirez submitted a 3-page memo to then-Chief 16 Valentin which discussed,inter alia: (1)"the language used towards females versus males such as tone, 17 demeanor, verbiage and condescending behavior";(2)"double standards in regards to the way women are 18 19 treated in general";(3)"retaliation for speaking up. If a woman complains then they are being`emotional""'; 20 and (4)"if a woman makes a'mis,take' then the mistake is magnified or highlighted throughout their career 21 and used against them." 22 23 37. Ms. Ramirez's memo also detailed how the women discussed that"this type of behavior is 24 the 'culture' of the department and appears to be condoned by leadership";"how[Valentin]is perceived to 25 be supportive of this type of behavior"; and that this behavior"it starts at the top." 26 38. Valentin's subsequent refusal to speak with the women made it abundantly clear that he had 27 28 no interest in addressing these very real and important issues. 39. Valentin's lack of leadership at this pivotal moment was a serious blow to the department. 8 IMO REM V. CnY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. CONVIAINT 40�. in September/October 2020, MG NO was the Day Watch Commander and was working 2 when a shooting occurred with multiple victims. 3 41. The: shooting, which occurred at an apartment complex, garnered a major police response. 4 5 42. Per custom and practice, two of the sergeants who, had responded to the incident (Sergeant 6 Jim Armstrong and Sergeant Michael Gonzalez) subsequently conducted informal debriefings on the 7 incident during the W-I and W-2 roll calls. 8 9 43. Sergeant Rosa Ponce de Leon did not respond to the incident but some of her officers had lio and they asked her to discuss some issues they had observed.,Sergeant Ponce de Leon did so, in the presence I I of Sergeant Armstrong. 12 44. The following week, Valentin sent an email, and ordered supervision to cease any further 13 14 debriefs related to this incident until an official debrief had been conducted. 15 45, Then-Deputy Chief Eric Paulson ordered MORENO to coordinate and facilitate the official 16 debrief to include any and all sergeants and commanders that had responded and/or had any involvement 17 in the incident. 18 19 46. The debrief went well until the question-and-answer portion when MET-member then- 20 Sergeant(now Commander)Oscar Lizardi suggested that no further informal debriefs be conducted so that 21 no "misinformation" was disseminated. 22 47. MORENO asked Sergeant Lizardi whether any misinformation had been disseminated and 23 2,4 Lizardi responded that he"had heard" that Sergeant Ponce de Leon's debrief included misinformation. 25 48. It became clear to MORENO that CITY was retaliating against Sergeant Ponce de Leon for 26 her (and the other women"s) above-referenced complaints following the Women Leaders in Law 27 Enforcement conference. 28 9 MORERO V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CAsENo. COWLAWT 1 49. MORENO-who opposed this unlawful treatment-asked for Sergeant Armstrong's opinion 2 since he had been present during Sergeant Ponce de Leon's statements. 3 4 50. Sergeant Armstrong responding by confinning that he had not he any disinformation. 5 51. After the debrief concluded, MORENO confronted Sergeant Lizardi about spreading 6 unsubstantiated falsehoods about Sergeant Ponce de Leon and asked him to disclose who had told him. 7 Sergeant Lizardi refused. 8 9 G. CITY Proceeds to Retaliate Against MORENO. 10 52. Within days (and with no investigation in violation of California law and CITY' s own I I policies and procedures),Valentin ordered Deputy Chief Paulson to write a negative log entry(i.e., "write 12 up")regarding IVIED O's conversation with Sergeant Lizardi. 13 14 53. Shortly thereafter,Comman der Phil Craftapologized to MORENO forwriting a negative log 15 entry about MORENO regarding his conversation with Sergeant Lizardi. 16 54. MORE NO was confused because he had already received the negative log entry from Deputy 17 Chief Paulson. 18 19 55. Commander Craft stated that he had also been ordered to write,a separate negative log entry 20 about the same incident. 21 56. MORENO emailed Rodriguez and asked that he produce this secret confidential 22 23 memorandum that CITY had unlawfully intended - in violation of MORENO's Public Safety Officers 24 Procedural Bill of Rights Act rights - to conceal from MO ENO. 25 57. Withinminutes,Rodriguez walked into the Watch Commander's Office and gave MORENO 26 a copy of the memo. 27 28 58, MORE NO reviewed the memo and confirmed it contained negative comments about him. to MOREM V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENa ICOMA94T I H. CITY Continued to Retaliate Against MORENO. 2 59. In November 2020, MORENO was removed from Field Operations Patrol Watch 3 4 Commander-without notice and after he had already signed up to be the Daytime Watch Commander-and 5 transferred to the Investigations Division Commander where he would have no further direct daily contact 6 with patrol officers. 7 60. MORENO only learned of this transfer at a regularly-scheduled management meeting via a 8 9 power point presentation. 10 61. As MORENO had already signed up for DaYtime Watch Commanderduties for the upcoming 11 2021 year, his child care had already been established based on his anticipated schedule. 12 62. This last minute clearly retaliatory transfer created a hardship for him and cost him an 13 14 additional approximately $600.00 per month in child care costs. 15 1. CITY Continued to Retaliate Against MORENO. 16 63. In January 021,MORENO was moved to his new"office"which had a placard of"'storage" 17 as the occupant's title. 18 19 64. MORENO was informed by the prior occupant that the"storage"placard had not previously 20 been on that door. 21 J. MORENO Continued to Disclose/Complain. 22 23 65. In July 202,1,MORENO, as Police Management Association Vice President,participated in 24 a grievance filed by then-Commander Michael Clabom.(current Police Chief of the Los Alamitos Police 25 Department)which alleged improper bias by Valentin with regard to the Deputy Chief promotional process. 26 66. In July 2021, MORENO was verbally assaulted by Commander Jose Gonzales in 27 28 MORENO's office when Commander Gonzales came to "discuss"' Commander Claborn's grievance. 67. Commander Gonzales repeatedly accused MORE NO of"conspiring with the POA". IMMM V CrY OF SAKrA ANA CASENa COWLAWT 68. When MORENO told him to stop making the false allegation and apologize, Commander 2 ;i Gonzales responded: "Fuck you." 3 4 69. This was witnessed by at least two other City police officers. 5 1. CITY Continued to Retaliate. 6 7'0. In August 2021, MORENO was notified that then-Sergeant Lizardi had served a Public 7 Records Request for emails between MORENO,Deputy Chief Paulson and then-POA President Serrano. 8 9 L. CITY Continued to Retaliate. 10, 71. In November 2021,MORENO was notified-via email-that his position as the Investigative I I Services Commanderhad been dissolved and that he was being reassigned to be the Comman der of Criminal 12 Investigative Division. 13 14 72. After a year in that assignment, MORENO was again reassigned to be the Commander of 15 Urban Area Security Initiative and Quality of Life Team in Field Operations,. 16 73. These clearly retaliatory repeated reassignments were contrary to, policy and practice. 17 M. MORENO Continued to Disclose/Complain. 18 i 19 74. In February 2022, MORENO was interviewed twice by CITY's "independent"third-party 20 investigators as part of other claimants' Fair Employment and Housing Act ('TEHA') complaints, 21 75. During these two interviews,MORENO both further disclosed additional unlawful conduct 22 23 of CITY and supported the claims of these FEHA complainants (i.e., participated as a witness and 24 reported/resisted). 25 76. As a result of MORENO's filing of the grievance on behalf of Commander Claborn, then- 26 Director of Human Resources Jason Motsick(currently believed to be on an extended leave of absence)was 27 28 told(and told others including Commander Matt Sorenson)that MORENO was"conspiring"with the POA and/or its then-President Serrano. 12 MOREND V. CffY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT I N. CITY Continued to Retaliate., 2 77. In March 2023, when MORENO was at an Awards ceremony at the Bowers Museum, after 3 4 Rodriguezand CommanderElms had inquired about MO,RENO's recent surgery and the scarnearhis,neck, 5 then-Commander of Internal Affairs Gonzales made the homophobic comment: 6 "Is that where Gerry Sen-ano was kissing you?" 7 78. This inappropriate comment was heard by Rodriguez -contrary to policy-who did not say 8 9 a word, 10 0. CITY Continued to Retaliate. 11 79. In March 2023, MORENO was advised via a phone call from Deputy Chief Enriquez that 12 13 finis5%bonus would be delayed until July 2, 2023 because he had been off on"injured on duty" ("1013") 14 leave (as a result of the above-referenced surgery) since January 12, 2023 despite the fact that: (1) 15 MORENO's 2021 bonus was not delayed when MORENO was on IOD leave for two months; and (2) 16 CITY's policies and the relevant Memorandum of Understanding do not provide for such delay. 17 P. MORENO Continued to Disclose/Complain. 18 ' 19 80. On May 24, 2023, MORENO forwarded to CITY his above-reforenced complaint 20 81. This complaint also detailed misconduct on the part of now-Commander Lizardi. 21 82. In response,CITY refused to place,any officer on administrative leave but allowed them to 22 23 remain at work, in violation of not only CITY's own policies but basic human resources best practices and 24 California law. 25 83. Additionally,in response,after considerable delay,CITYretaineda purported"independent" 26 investigator who obtained an Order from the then-City Manager (who retained an attorney and received a 27 28 payout from CITY)threatening MORENO with discipline and/or termination for not participating ins e. 13 M9]RE140,V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. ICOMPLAINT 1 84. Since the filing of MORENO's May 24, 2023 complaint, CITY's indefensible decision to 2 allow Valentin and Rodriguez to continue to directly supervise MORENO, not surprisingly, resulted in 3 4 Valentin's ongoing ability to continue to retaliate in various manners against him and others who have dared 5 to speak out against his unlawful/improper acts, including,inter alia,his ability to continue to make not-so- 6 subtle threats and take actions against certain CITY whistle blowers. This behavior is documented by 7 MORENO in subsequent complaints to CITY. 8 9 85. Additionally,since the filing of MORENO's May 24,2023 complaint,Valentin and Lizardi 10 have repeatedly and publicly ignored MORENO. This was also documented by MORE NO in subsequent I I complaints to CITY. 12 CITY Continued to Retaliate. 13 14 86. On June 1, 2023, CITY responded to MORENO's complaint detailing misconduct of a 15 serious nature by threatening that MORENO and Deputy Chief'Paulson were at fault for not completing a 16 "Blue Team entry" for the incident. 17 18 87. However, per the attached Exhibit "A", MCA RENO indisputably precisely followed the 19 requisite protocol set forth in CITY's Policy 1010.6.1(a)(b). 20 R. CITY Continued to Retaliate. 21 88. As referenced above, in June 2023, CITY publicly released an un-redacted copy of 22 MORENO's May 24, 2023, Complaint resulting in CITY's entire Police Department being made aware of 23 24 MORENO's allegations. 25 S. CITY Continued to Retaliate. 26 89. On July 8, 2023,after CITY had been aware for years that MORENO wished to attend the 27 28, prestigious FBI National Academy("FBINA"),Valentin forwarded an email to commanders which stated, in pad: 14 MORFM V. CrrYOF SANTAANA CASENa -I COWWNT I "For those of you interested in attending this exceptional career training and global 2 networking opportunity,I encourage you submit your interest. Generally, the wait to attend is MYRS, but that can fluctuate if your willing to sign up for a back up last minute 3 cancellation slot.There is NO time&grade requirement;the day your promoted to CMDR, 4 you can submit official interest.The Training Division tracks order ofsubmitted interest and we have always honored that order unless expressly waived by the applicant or there is an 5 extenuating employment reason. All attendees require expressed written approval by the Chief to the FBI." 6 7 90. That same day,MORENO learned that Rodriguez- who had shown his lack of interest by 8 allowing two other commanders to bypass him to attend the Academy-told Commander Chuck Elms that 9 he: had begun to physically prepare to attend the Academy when the next opening is available. 10 11 91. On July 19, 2023,MORENO received an email from the FBINA which stated, in part: 12 "FBI Los Angeles Executive Management is requesting that all waltlisted candidates submit a resume and a letter of recommendation from their Chief or Sheriff to better evaluate all of 13 the National Academy candidates for selection. 14 Your resume and letter of recommendation will be due by close of business on Friday 15 August 18,2023.Any candidates who did not submit a resume and letter of recommendation 16 will be removed from the FBI Los Angeles National Academy waitlist. Please confirm that you: (1)are still interested and (2)have at least three years remaining in law enforcement." 17 [Emphasis in original.] 18 92. On that same day,MORENO forwarded the email to Valentin and stated: 19 "Can you please provide me a timely letter of recommendation to attend the FBI National 20 Academy? 21 Please see the below email from the representative ofFB I National Academy(David Wong)." 22 23 93. However, over the next month, Valentin continued to kick MORENO's request down the 24 chain of command,from Rodriguez to Lizardi. 25 94. Finally, in the afternoon of August 18, 2023, Valentin forwarded the "letter of 26 recommendation" (addressed to the FBI) which stated, in full: 27 "I am writing to recommend the following Santa Ana Police Department ("SAPD") peace 28 officers for acceptance into the FBI National Academy: rs MORENO V. CrfY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. CONWLAINT I - Santa Ana Police Assistant Chief Robert Rodriguez 2 - Santa Ana Police Commander Manuel Moreno - Santa Ana Police Commander Gil Hernandez 3 - to Ana Police Commander Roland Andrade 4 - Santa Ana Police Commander Julian Rodriguez -Santa Ana Police Commander Rosa Ponce de Leon 5 - Santa Ana Police Commander Jorge Lopez 6 The Deputy Chief of the Administration Bureau at SAPD has individually met with each of 7 the above named nominees who have advised they meet the minimum requirements to attend the National Academy Program. Additionally, for many years,these nominees,have served 8 the Santa Ana community well and have contributed to the public's safety in a unique and 9 meaningful way. I have no doubt the above listed officers will excel in the FBI National Academy and make a meaningful impact." 10 11 95. However,as further discussed below, Valentin's correspondence-listing Rodriguez first in 12 order- failed to mention that earlier that same day,a Notice of Confidential Administrative Investigation 13 (""Notice")had been served on MORENO acknowledging receipt of his May 24, 2023 complaint against 14 Rodriguez for serious misconduct. 15 16 T. MORENO Continued to Disclose/Complain. 17 96. As referenced above, on August 15, 2023, MORE NO served his California Civil Rights 18 Department Complaint on CrrY. 19 U. CITY Continued to Retaliate. 20 21 97. On August 18,2023,MO NO received the above-referenced Notice which stated,in part: 22 "This Notice acknowledges receipt of your complaint relating to Assistant Chief Rodriguez, Allegations of this nature are treated by City of Santa Ana seriously and on a confidential 23 basis,to the extent permitted by law."' 24 25 26 27 28 16 MQPJM V Cn-Y OF SAWA ANA CASENO. COWLAM 98. Although the August 18 Notice specifically stated that MORENO "ha[d] the right to 2 representation during this interview", on August 28,(i.e.,ten days later)City Manager Ridge:(1)claimed- 3 4 directly contrary to both the Notice and longstanding CITY practice®that MO NC did not have the right 5 to representation during the interview; and (2)ordered MORENO to appear on one of three specific dates 6 which CITY knew were inconvenient for his counsel (resulting in MORENO's counsel being forced to 7 change travel plans) under threat of"discipline"against MORE NO. 8 9 99. Also on this date,the"impartial"investigator improperly requested that MORENO "furnish 10 evidence of [his] medical unavailability", claiming - despite the fact that CITY essentially ignored 11 MORENO's complaint in August of 2020(i.e.,three years ago)and in May of 2023(i.e.,three months ago)- 12 that it was somehow MORENO's fault that"(t)his matter has dragged on. 13 14 100. On October 26,2023,per Valentin's separation, CITY REpmoted Rodriguez(i.e.,one of the 15 subjects of MORENO's Complaint)to"Acting(Interim) Chief of Police". 16 101., Thus, contrary to the August 18, 2023 Notice, not only did CITY publicly release 17 18 MORENO's allegations (i.e.,CITY did not"treat[the allegations] on a confidential basis")but CITY then 19 publicly confirmed the insignificance of same(i.e.,CITY did not take MORENO's claims "seriously") by 20 promoting the subject of same. 21 V. CITY Continued to Retaliate. 22 23 102. On October 31, 2023,per CITY's past practice and established precedent, whenever there 24 has been an anticipated absence/or absence of a Deputy Chief in a particular Bureau for a prolonged period 25 of time, the senior commander of that Bureau has been made the Acting Deputy Chief. 26 103. Such appointment results in a 10%percent increase in salary until a permanent position is 27' 28 appointed(which could take approximately one year). MORENO V. CrrY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COWeLAM 1 104. As MORENO was the senior Commander in the Field Operations Bureau,MORENO should 2 have been selected to be the,Acting Deputy Chief of Field Operations. 3 4 105. Contrary to past practice and established precedent,CITY did not elevate MORENO but, 5 rather, announced that: (1)Deputy Chief Enriquez would serve as the Assistant Chief of Police (with three- 6 star insignia leading the Field, Operations, Bureau); and (2) Commander Gonzalez(current Commander of 7 Internal Affairs/Executive Officer) would serve as Acting Deputy Chief for the Administration Bureau. 8 9 106. In other words, CITY moved Deputy Chief Enriquez (current Deputy Chief of the 10 Administration Bureau)to be the Deputy Chief of the Field Operations Bureau in order to retaliate against I I MORENO by not elevating him to Acting Deputy Chief of Field Operations. 12 107. Simply,as CITY's ongoing retaliation remains widespread and unaddressed,MORENO has 13 14 suffered significant damage. 15 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 16 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE§1102.5 17 (Against All DEFENDANTS) 18 19 108. MORENO; real leges Paragraphs, I through 107 above and incorporates same as though fully 20 set forth herein. 21 109., MO ENO,as described more fully above,reported/dis closed to a government agency and/or 22 23 law enforcement agency and/or a person with authority over her or to an employee with authority to 24 investigate, discover, or correct legal violations and/or noncompliance to DEFENDANTS.MORE NO had 25 reasonable cause to believe that the information reported/disclosed is a violation of state,or federal statute 26 and/or a violation of and/or noncompliance with a local, state and/or federal rule and/or regulation [i.e., 27 28 Penal Code §§1 .22, 13670 and Assembly Bill 958 (prohibition of gangs among police officers); Government Code §§12900-12999 (California Fair Employment and Housing Act; Government Code MOMM V. MY OF SAWTA ANA CA NO, COKVL04T I §§12945.2 et seq.); Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act.lPenal Code, §§11164 et. seal) (police officers 2 are mandated reporters); Penal Code §§118, 127, 136.1 (perjury, suborning perjury, witness 3 4 tamperinglintimidation); Government Code §§18500, et. seal (civil service laws); City of' Santa Ana 5 Municipal Code and Santa Ana Police Department Policies]. 6 110. In response to the disclosures and complaints initiated, by MORENO, DEFENDANTS 7 retaliated against MORENO as more fully described herein. 8 9 111. Because of the retaliation that MORENO faced, MORENO was not promoted, denied 10 workplace opportunities and suffered other adverse employment actions. 11 112. DEFENDANTS' treatment of and response to the disclosures, complaints and grievances 12 filed by MORENO was in violation of Labor Code §1102.5. 13 14 113. MORENO's reporting/disclosure of information was a contributing factor, in 15 EFENDANTS' causing MORENO not to promote, DEFENDANTS' denial of workplace opportunities 16 to MORENO and MORENO's suffering of other adverse employment actions. 17 114. Asa direct result of DEFEND ANTS'actions as alleged above,MORENO suffered harm and 18 19 injury that was legally (proximately) caused by the conduct of DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury 20 includes, but is not limited to, special (economic) damages, general (non-economic) damages, litigation 21 costs,future damages and past damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors 22 23 and such further relief as shown at the time of Trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 24 115. Additionally,as a direct and proximate result of the above-described acts of DEFENDANTS, 25 MORE NO has necessarily incurred attorney's fees and costs and he is entitled,per,inter alia, Labor Code 26 §§98.6(b), §11015, 1102.5(f), Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5 and Assembly Bill 1947 to the reasonable 27 value of such attorney's fees and costs. 28 111 MOREND V. CrrV OF SANTA ANA CASENO. ICOMAINT I SECOND CAUSE ACTION 2 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION F THE 3 4 FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSINGCT 5 (Against rest All DEFENDANTS) 116. MORE NO realleges Paragraphs 1 through 115 above and incorporates same as though fully 7 set forth herein. g 9 117. Section 12940,et.seq.of the California Government Codernakes itunlawful for an employer 10 to retaliate against and/or harass an employee in "terms, conditions or privileges ofemployment" because 11 oftheir protected status. The Fair Employment and Housing Act("FEED.")protects, not only employees 12 13 who make a FEHAr claim,but also,those who oppose acts made unlawful by the statute and/or testify,assist 1 or participate in any manner in proceedings or hearings. 15 118. MORENO was treated differently because of his protected status [ i.e., `opposing"", 16 5`assisting" or"participating" in others' FEHA cases) by DEFENDANTS. 17 18 119. As a direct and legal result of the retaliation MORENO suffered due to his protected status, 19 MONO suffered harm and injury that was legally (proximately) caused by the conduct of 20 DEFENDANTS.NTS. Said harm and injury includes,but is not limited to,special(economic)damages,general 1 (non-economic)damages,attorneys'fees[per Government Code§12965(b)],litigation costs,future damages 22 2and past damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors and such further relief 24 as shown at the time of Trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 25 120. In addition to the damages sought above, as a proximate result of'D Fp.NRANTS' actions 26 as alleged above,MORENO will also seek all damages allowed by the Code.Government Code, §129C5(c)_ 27 Pfl 21 20 COMAW I THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 2 FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION 3 4 IN VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 5 (PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS) 6 121. MORENO realleges Paragraphs I through 120 above and incorporates same as though fully 7 set forth herein. 8 9 122. DEFENDANTS are suffering/have suffered with a number of lawsuits and complaints, 10 (including but not limited to the complaints from MORENO) alleging discrimination, retaliation and I I harassment and putting DEFENDANTS on notice and providing knowledge of the need to eliminate 12 discrimination, retaliation and harassment. 13 14 123. Under the law, as well as their own policies, DEFENDANTS had an obligation to take 15 corrective action to prevent further discrimination, retaliation and harassment of MORENO but failed to do 16 so in violation of Section 12940, et- seq. of the California Government Code. DEFENDANTS failed to 17 18 conduct proper investigations, failed to turn over the results of these investigations, failed to implement 19 properpolicies to prevent discrimination,retaliation and harassmentand failed to properlypunish those who 20 engaged in misconduct to deter further such future actions. 21 124. Asa direct and legal result of the treatment MORENO, MORENO suffered harm and injury 22 23 that was legally(proximately),caused by the conduct of DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury includes,but 24 is not limited to, special (economic) damages, general (non-economic) damages, attorneys' fees [per 25 Government Code §12965(b)], litigation costs, future damages and past damages, lost economic earning 26 capacity in future employment endeavors and such further relief as shown at the time of Trial and in excess 27 of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 28 fJJ 21 MO"M V. CfrVOFSMTAAIqA CASENO. COWAur EXHIBIT "A " SUMMARY On 4/5/2023, Chief David Valentin sent members of the SAPD command staff an email wherein he attached the following message and a corresponding link to a document titled"Office of Iaadenendent Review Assessaaaent- City of Santaall: "Please see the attached Office of Independent Review (01R)Assessment and my Chiefs Community Debriefing message,found in the link below, related to our Major Enforcement Team (MET). This Community Debriefing message is afollow up to my initial May 2022 message. You will note a stark difference in our S,4PD assessment compared to other agencies that have addressed similar allegations, and who have not responded proactively,focused on transparency and growth. We will continue our focus on our constitutional, dual policing strategy of Community Based and Traditional Policing". I reviewed the Assessment that was conducted by the Office of Independent Review. After reviewing the portion titled Case, Two: Alleged Of-Duty Assault and Failure to Report,, I became concerned with the recommendations made under the section titled Recommendation for jXa1tM1ER1LoM specifically: "Thefailure of SAPD to promptly and thoroughly investigate these serious allegations shows that responsive systemic reforms are warranted,First,policy should be written to instruct all personnel that any allegation of misconduct andlor criminal behavior made against them (either on or off duty)should be promptly reported to SAPD's chain of command Second,policy should be written requiring that uniformed officers who are apprised of any allegation of potential criminal conduct by Department members,should promptly not their chain of command Finally,policy should be written to ensure that any Internal Affairs investigation be required to interview any idented officer subjects or witnesses to any allegation of sexual'misconduct. RECOAWENDATION TWO: SAID should write policy requiring all personnel to promptly report any allegation of misconduct and/or criminal behavior through the chain of command: RECOMMENDATION THREE: SAPD should write policy requiring all patrol officers who receive an allegation of misconduct and/or criminal behavior against police employees to promptly report that allegation to their chain o command and/or Internal Affairs. )f RECOMMENDATION FOUR: SAPD should write policy requiring that any Internal Affairs investigation should interview all identified witness and subject officers connected to the misconduct allegation. Again, this is not to say that a timely investigation by Internal Affairs personnel would have proven the allegation to be true. But it would have allowed for an investigation to proceed when memories were fresh and video evidence,was potentially available, and could have allowed for a more conclusive outcome in either direction. S,4PD shouldprioritize changes that would help prevent afiture recurrence ofthis lost opportunity", I also became concerned with the following assertions made by the Office of Independent Review under the heading titled Internal Affairs In vesfikqkI "The Internal Affairs investigation was severely hampered by the time lag between the incident and the anonymous complainant's submission to the Department. As detailed above, the complaint letter was received some seven months after the incident. This meant, among other things, that any relevant video from the restaurant's camera system had been lost Moreover, the victim had returned to her home state, and the geographic barriers complicated theproceV3 of interviewing her, accomplishing an identification of possible subjects, etc. Had an investigation been initiated more promptly, relevant evidence would have,been more readily available. "' • "As a result(and in coi#unction with the handling officer's relegation of the incident to "call notes,"SAPD's command staff was riot formally and contemporaneously apprised of the incident and allegations.Had that occurred, the retrieval ofsurveillance video from the restaurant and the purmeit of other investigative leads would obviously have been more effective". • "OIR Group load full access to both completed investigations and was able to make informed judgments about their adequacy; the findings listed below are accompanied by systemic recommendationsfor improving SAPD administrative processes in the future' The reasons for my concerns are as follows: The Santa Ana Police Department currently has Department Policy in place that addresses when and how to investigate a complaint of alleged police misconduct. The incident that occurred at the Culichi Town Restaurant occurred on Sunday August 9, 2020. During that time, I was assigned to the Watch Commander's Office as a Commander for the "B" side which works Wednesday through Friday and every other Saturday. On the night this incident occurred,my counterpart Commander Andy Alvarez was the assigned Watch Commander and his assigned days were Sunday through Tuesday and every other Saturday. Approximately a week after the incident,I was approached by Sergeant Luis Barragan,who at the time was assigned as the Watch 2 sergeant of the Sou coast District(280 . 1 subsequently learned kom. Sergeant Barra,gan, that he was not working on the night of the incident, however when he retmued to work he learned about the incident which had occurred at the ichi To restaurant. Officer's that responded to the call were concerned how the alleged sexual assault by one of members of the MET to was investigated. Sergeant Barragan stated that his officers told him that some members from the SAPD's Major Enforcement Team (MET) were off-duty and were patronizing the Culichi To Restaurant. Sergeant Barragan indicated that his officers told him that Officer Andres, Gil also responded and proceeded to interfere and impede in the manner in which the investigation was conducted. Sergeant Barragan also learned that one of the,responding' officers viewed a cell phone video that had been taken by an unknown patron. According to this officer, he told Sergeant Barragan that the video had captured Sergeant Lizardi (off-duty) at the incident. Sergeant Barragan's officers were concerned because it involved members of the MEET to and because there was outside interference by on and off-duty officers at the scene.They felt that the sexual assault investigation had not been handled properly because members of the MET to had been involved and other officers(on-duty and off-duty officers)ensured that the proper documentation and notifications were not conducted. They also expressed concern of retaliation from members of other SAPD personnel if they reported this alleged misconduct in a formal manner. After Sergeant Barragan's reporting of the alleged misconduct. I met with my direct supervisor, Deputy Chief Eric Paulson.I advised Deputy Chief Paulson of what had been reported by Sergeant Barragan, Deputy Chief Paulson was immediately concerned about the allegations and we agreed that I would formally advise Deputy Chief Rodriguez,, who at the time of this incident still held the rank of Commander and was the Commander of the Internal Affairs Unit- As I prepared to meet with Deputy Chief Rodriguez, he stopped by the Watch Commanders Office. I told DC Rodriguez that I had something important to discuss with him. He sat down and I reported the alleged misconduct that Sergeant Barragan had reported to me. I specifically told DC Rodriguez that Sergeant Lizardi was allegedly present when members of our MET team were involved in an alleged sexual assault incident at the Culichi Town Restaurant. I printed a copy of the incident from the INFORM RMS system and I handed him the copy of the call for his review. We ended our conversation and he exited the Watch Commander's, Office. I advised DC Paulson that I met with DC Rodriguez and reported the alleged misconduct to him. Approximately 7-10 days later, DC Rodriguez came into the Watch Commander's office and I asked him about the alleged misconduct investigation. DC Rodriguez' response to me by saying, that since:there has been no citizen complaint, so no investigation was needed.I responded to him by saying, "what about my complaint, I reported misconduct." DC Rodriguez did not respond to me and exited the Watch Commander's Office. I immediately reported this interaction, in person, to DC Paulson. This interaction was done in person and I also believe we may have/or not have exchanged emails, about our conversations referencing this matter. I also shared any interactions, with DC Rodriguez, with my peer Commander Chuck Elms. Specifically, we discussed that it appeared that DC Rodriguez had not taken my complaint of misconduct seriously and was not going to immediately initiate an Internal Affair's investigation In addition, another SAPD field supervisor expressed to me similar misconduct allegations that Sergeant Barragan had made.This supervisor is fearful of retaliation by SAPD,personnel so he/she is not comfortable, at this time, to be identified. A few weeks after my interaction with DC Rodriguez, I was talking to Commander Andrew Alvarez. We began discussing the incident at Culichi Town, I told him about my interaction with DC Rodriguez and Commander Alvarez told me that he too had received complaints from some of his officers about the alleged sexual assault at Culicbi Town. Commander Alvarez also told me that he had also reported the alleged misconduct by our officers to DC Rodriguez. On April 6, 20231 spoke to Sergeant Barragan;we discussed the Assessment by the 0111 and his initial reporting of the alleged misconduct. I spoke to Commander Alvarez on April 7, 2023 and I advised him that I was going to make an allegation of misconduct against DC Rodriguez about this incident. Commander Alvarez stated he would be available to be interviewed and discuss his interaction with DC Rodriguez regarding the alleged misconduct of our officers at the Culichi To restaurant. BACKGROUND In March of 2015 through December of 2017, both DC Rodriguez and I were assigned to the Internal Affairs Division as Sergeants/Inspectors.During that time,DC Rodriguez and I conducted numerous misconduct investigations involving our police personnel. During these investigations, DC Rodriguez and I had countless, discussions about SAPD Policies and Procedures specifically, Administrative Investigations and Personnel Complaints. In these discussions, we discussed proper reporting of misconduct and when an Internal Affairs investigation would be warranted, The afbimentioned four recommendations made by the Office of Independent Review,have been in effect by the SAPD since DC Rodriguez and I were assigned to Internal Affairs (circa 2015). The following exemplify how some SAPD Personnel followed established SAPD, Policy: • Once Sergeant Barragans officers reported alleged misconduct to liun,he came directly to me as a commander in Field Operalions,and reported the misconduct. • I then notified my direct supervisor Deputy Chief Paulson of the misconduct • I then reported the alleged Misconduct to the Commanding Officer of our Internal Affairs Unit, DC Rodriguez. • Commander Alvarez was also notified of alleged officer misconduct and he too notified DC Rodriguez- As Commander of the Internal Affairs Unit in August of 2020, DC Rodriguez should have followed established SAPD policy and immediately initiated an internalaffairs investigation. It is my belief that the Office of Independent review was not made aware of the above-mentioned facts, because had they been aware, they would not have in good faith written the following statements in the Assessment: "Instead,lite incident was documented in a cursory fashion and did not rise to the attention of the Department's command staff. Yhefailure of the handling officer to notify his chain of command about the allegations received was a serious misstep that also should have been considered as part of the eventual administrative investigation that did occur". "As a result(and in conjunction with the handling officer's relegation of the incident to "call notes, "SAPD's command staff was not formally and contemporaneously apprised of file incident and allegations. Had that occurred, the retrieval ofsurveillance video from the restaurant and the pursuit of other investigative leads would obviously have been more effective". "...Had an investigation been initiated more promptly, relevant evidence would have been, more readily available. CONCLUSION In the INTRODUCTIONAND BACKGROUND portion of the Assessment report the Office of Independent Review made the following statement: "OIR Group had full access to, both completed investigations and was able to make informed judgments about their adequacy; the findings listed below are accompanied by systemic recommendations for improving SAPD administrative processes in the future. " Up until the Office of Independent Review published the Assessment, I believed that SAPD's Internal Affairs Investigation would account and accurately explain the seven-month gap from when misconduct was reported(August 2020)to DC Rodriguez to when SAID received the anonymous complaint(—March 2021). It is my belief that if the Office of Independent Review, was made aware that Commander Alvarez and I had indeed followed SAPD policy/procedure, with regards to the reporting of officer misconduct, they would not have made some of the assertions and recommendations they did. Additionally,had an Internal Affairs Investigation been initiated in August of 2020 instead of 7 months later, our Internal Affairs Unit would have had the ability to conduct a more thorough and accurate investigation. This 7-month delay impeded and interfered with the alleged sexual assault and Internal Affairs investigation. On 4/11/23, 1 met with DC Rodriguez and we discussed the OIR's Assessment report. DC Rodriguez did not deny that I had reported misconduct to him shortly after the Culichi Town incident. I asked him why an Internal Affairs investigation was not immediately started. DC Rodriguez stated that the reason he did not initiate an investigation was because I had not followed the proper SAPD protocol of completing a BLUETEAM entry about the incident.I asked DC Rodriguez if he had told Chief Valentin about the misconduct I had reported. DC Rodriguez indicated that he indeed did notify Chief Valentin at the time I reported it to him. DC Rodriguez stated that he adinits and assumes fiill responsibility for not initiating an Internal Affairs investigation until 7 months later. I believe that DC Rodi iguez may have violated SAPD policy 1010 Administrative Investigations and Personnel Complaints by not irrunediately initiating an Internal Affairs investigation when Cornmander Alvarez and I reported the alleged officer misconduct. WITNESSES Sergeant Luis Barragan Field Operations-Patrol Deputy Chief Eric Paulson (retired) Eric Paulson can be reached at(406) 595-7'703 COMPLAINANT Commander Andrew Alvarez(retired) Andy Alvarez can be reached at(714) 337-2530 Respectfully, Manny Moreno Commander-Field Operations EXHIBIT "B " SAPD Delays investigation of a Child Sexual ASSaUlt 7110123, 12:31 PM *KNOCKLA News Analysis Opinion Culture 0�' . ................................................. TRENDING HOUSING RIGHTS POLICE BRUTAUTY CURREN PRICE LGBTQ RIGHTS NEWS ORANGE COUNTY POLICE SANTA ANA SEXUAL ASSAULT Santa Ana Police Department Delays Investigation of a Child Sexual Assault by an Off-Duty Officer for More Than Half a Year, Commander Alleges Ben Camacho June 21, 2023 Mips:filknock-la corn/santa-an,a-police-department-de lays-i nve stigation—,child-sexua I-assa ult-by-an-aff-duty-officer-for-rn ore-than-ha If-a-year/ Page 1 of 7 AP,D belays Investigation of a Child Sexual Assault 2/10123, 12- 1 2 o� V i i , 1 v I i Santa Any. Ponce Department on Civic Center Drive in June (Photo: Bea. Camacho I Knock LA) Then-Inter al Affairs commander Robert Rodriguezel the investigation f a child's alleged sexual assault by off-duty officers of the Santa Ana Police Major Enforcement Team (MET) in August 2020, according to a :q g 1 , , submitted to the City of Santa Aga,® The complaint further alleges that SAPD withhelde information from a evaluation 1.) the Office of In( endent lZeview The complainant, a r Manuel Moreno, detailed exactly how Internal Affairs ,w ttmmu the t CulichiTown Incident, and shielded the involved fivers from investigation and potential prose ution. In hiscomplaint, Moreno stated httpso1/knock-lo. om/santa-ana-pence-department-delays-!nvestigation child-sexual-assault-dy-air-off-duty--officer-for-more-than-half-a-year/ Page 2 of 7 SAPD Delays Investigation of a Child Sexual Assault 7/10123,12:31 PM that during the initial response to the incident, officer Andres Gil, proceeded to "interfere [with] and impede" the investigation. it was later 64,a,wgr .l a E`-F" short, a,fteir lie lie ) make the,,J,n,f-_W nt,fm nE a. Gil denied being contacted by MET that night, according to OIR's report. Knock LA's requests for comment from Gil went unanswered. "They felt that the sexual assault investigation had not been handled properly because members of the MET team had been involved and other officers (on-duty and off-duty officers) ensured that the proper documentation and notifications were not conducted," the complaint states regarding some of the responding officers. Improper Handling of Sexual Assault Allegations During the initial response to the incident, SAPD officers viewed then- sergeant Oscar Lizardi on cell phone footage captured by the father of the child who was assaulted, according to 'bod, -'worn carne�ra footag and the complaint. The cell phone footage showed L:izardi outside the restaurant with another officer. T IR's report on the incident states that Lizardi never reported the incident to the chain of command even after returning to work. No official report on the incident states which officer committed the alleged sexual assault. The report recommends that SAPD "write policy requiring all personnel to https:ilknock-lia,com/santa-ana-police-department-de,lays-investigation-.-child-sexual-assault-by-an-off-duty-officer-for-more-than-half-a-year/ Page 3 of 7 SAPD Delays Investigation of a Child Sexual Assault 7/10/23, 12:31 PM any promptly report allegation of misconduct and/or criminal behavior I through the chain of command" but does not mention that Chief David Valentin and then-1A commander Robert Rodriguez knew about the incident within at least weeks of it occurring. The report also does not acknowledge that such fjQjjgypjrt u A01 1 L t-' , Lizardi was promoted to commander in June 2022. Lizardi did not respond to requests for comment. Following the OIR's report in March, r�ftiri released a ideo staterylent that omitted information regarding the timeline of the Culichi Town Incident's cover-up. "Responding officers ultimately concluded no crime had occurred. Seven months, later the department received an anonymous complaint: off-duty members of MET were alleged to have been the ones involved in the alleged conduct," Valentin states in the video. The chief made no mention of Rodriguez being aware of the incident soon after it happened or Rodriguez telling him about the incident around the same time. The Consequences of a Delayed Investigation The OIR's report also states that when the investigation happened seven months later, an investigator, called one of the victims, for an interview. The victim "asked why it had taken so long to contact her about the incident; the investigator did not directly answer the question" Rodriguez was promoted to deputy chief in August 2021. hups:111knock-la.corn/santa-ana-poli ce-departme nt-de lay s-inve stigation-.-chi I d-sexua I-assa ult-by-an-off-duty-o,fficer-for-m ore-t han-half-a-year/ Page 4 of 7 SAPD Delays investigation of a Child Sexual Assault 7110/23, 12.31 PM The OIR reported that the seven-month delay "severely hampered" the IA investigation into the incident. The report also, states that "SAPD's command staff was not formally ... apprised of the incident and allegations." This is at odds with Moreno's account of informing Rodriguez, who had also informed the chief, according to the complaint., In an email, Michael err co from the OIR stated, "My work was based on a review of the investigative materials that were provided to me. At this juncture, I cannot comment beyond the public report that was issued based on our review of those materials." Rodriguez, did not respond to requests for comment. In his complaint, Moreno stated, "It is my belief that the Office of Independent [R]eview was not made aware of the ... facts" How Gang-Like Behaviors Further Hampered the Investigation The OIR assesse ET's culture in response to ME— rrll. .. .........I tke 12. j(-d L in April 20�22, which includes matching skull ayi tattoos,, a Latin slogan stating "Let them hate, so long as they fear and a challenge coin with an ace of spades and a skull. MET members stated that the tattoo is not a "malevolent" or a "gang-oriented" tattoo because it is not mandatory nor is it visible when in uniform. "[T]hey claim that the skull is less about a preoccupation with death or killing than it is something that simply 'looks cool,... states the! report. https:J/knock-la.com/san,ta-ana-pa lice-depart me nt-dallays-Investigation--chiId-sex ua I-assault-b V-an-off-diuty-officer-for-m ore-than-half-a-ye,arl Page 5 at 7 SAPD Delays Investigation of a Child Sexual Assault 7/10/23,12: 1 PM MET's slogan, according to OIR, "seems directly contrary to the Police Department's larger message of community collaboration and trust building. ideally, no one in the community should either to or fear those entrusted with providing public safety ..." The slogan, according to MET, is directed at "the 'hardcore criminals" in the City whom they had antagonized with their suppression campaign" According to emails regarding interview scheduling, the OIR interviewed only MET members about the allegations against them. An anonymous source within the department stated that "'Nobody else was interviewed for the OIR report because it was never meant to be a full and thorough investigation. The department never made any except the MET team members available to Gennaco because they would never want anyone to expose to an independent investigative body what goes on within the police department." The ongoing power struggle within the Santa Ana Police Department shows what happens when officials relinquish their leadership and choose to ignore a child's sexual assault allegations against one of their own. The complaint has also reached the i,nboxes of the California state attorney general, the FBI and the Orange County district attorney. SAPD did not respond to requests for comment. The kind of journalism you actually read to the end. Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of Knock LA right to your in box. https:/Iknock-la.com/santa-ana-pollce-dep,artment-delays-]nvestlgation-..,child-sexual-assault-by-an-aff-duty-officer-fo,r-more-than-haIf-e-year/ Page 6 of 7 SAIRD Delay's Investigation of a Child SeXUal assault 7110123, 12:31 PM k',',irmck, LA rs c� connkw,at&"i jr rcject, vcai,o tW by Gj ,r411'Md E.,twYa ays LA, ore ("Im6", the ;,Y, 'r L A, Ad1111",")(JI LJ,PP 0 R] O(JR, VE,4100i 'u"MiTIF" F01,R, (JS L""S T i p"i https./Iknock-la.com/santa-ana-police-department-delays-investigation--.chiid-sexual-assault-by-an-off-duty-officer-for-mare-thian-half-ai-yearl Page 7 of 7 WHEREFORE, MO ENO prays for Judgment against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as 2 follows: 3 4 1. For compensatory damages, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation, bonuses, 5 vacation and other employment perquisites and other special and general damages, according to proof; 6 2. Damages, for pain and suffering and emotional distress; 7 3. Interest, including pre-judgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate; 8 9 4. Attorneys' fees and costs incurred herein; and 10 5. Costs of suit; and 11 6. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 12 13 14 REQPE511gR1R1ALAY1M 15 MORENO hereby demands a Trial by Jury. 16 17 DATED: January 8, 2024 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN 18 19 By: Lawrence J Viennemann 20 LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN 21 Attorneys for Plaintiff MANUEL MORENO 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 MORM V, CffY OF S,ANrA ANA CASENO Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 07/28/2023 04:03:08 PM. 30- 23-01339537-CU-OE-WJC- ROA#2- DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By K. Climer, Deputy Clerk. 1 JOHN A. GIRARDI, State Bar No. 54917 JOHN A. GIRARDI, APC 2 29900 Hawthorne Boulevard Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 3 (310) 265-5787 Telephone j ohn(ai j ohngirardilaw.com 4 LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN, State Bar No. 134108 5 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN 29900 Hawthorne Boulevard 6 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310) 265-5788 Telephone 7 lennemannle(cr),gmail.c om 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff NELSON MENENDEZ 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF ORANGE Assigned for All Purposes 12 Judge Sheila Recio NELSON MENENDEZ, an Individual ) CASE NO.: 13 ) 0 2023 0133953E CU OE IwJ 14 ) PLAINTIFF NELSON MENENDEZ'S Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR: 15 (1)RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5; 16 vs. ) (2) DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF ) THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING 17 ACT; 18 ) (3) HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, an entity of unknown ) FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT; 19 origin; and DOES 1 - 50, Inclusive, AND 20 (4) FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION IN VIOLATION OF FAIR 21 EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 22 Defendants. ) REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 23 24 25 Plaintiff Nelson Menendez("MENENDEZ"or"Plaintiff'),with knowledge as to his own acts and 26 based upon information and belief with regard to all other matters, by and through his attorneys of record, 27 28 alleges: i MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 1. MENENDEZ is an individual who, at all times relevant herein, is and was employed as a 2 police officer by Defendant City of Santa Ana("CITY"or"Defendant")at CITY's business office located 3 4 in the County of Orange, State of California. 5 2. MENENDEZ alleges that CITY is a municipality doing business in the County of Orange, 6 State of California. The Santa Ana City Council, as the governing body of the City of Santa Ana, acts, 7 represents, and implements policy on the behalf of CITY. 8 9 3. Defendants CITY and DOE Defendants 1 through 50 are hereinafter sometimes collectively 10 referred to as "DEFENDANTS". 11 4. On April 24, 2023, MENENDEZ exhausted his administrative remedies by causing CITY 12 to be served with a Government Claim.Although on May 24,2023,CITY,via its Third Party Administrator, 13 14 acknowledged receipt of the claim and stated that it"w[ould]be communicating with[MENENDEZ] in the 15 near future in regard to this matter", MENENDEZ was never contacted and the claim was denied by 16 operation of law. Additionally, on or about April 24, 2023, MENENDEZ filed a Complaint with the 17 California Civil Rights Department and, on May 1, 2023, MENENDEZ caused the resulting Right-to-Sue 18 19 Notice to be served on CITY. 20 5. MENENDEZ is presentlynot aware ofthe true names and/or capacities of Defendants DOES 21 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. MENENDEZ is 22 informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that said fictitiously named Defendants 23 24 are directly and proximately responsible for the injuries and damages alleged herein. MENENDEZ will 25 amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of said fictitiously named Defendants when, 26 and if, ascertained. 27 28 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 6. MENENDEZ is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that, 2 at all relevant times, each and every Defendant was a principle, agent, employer, employee, manager, 3 4 supervisor, officer, shareholder and/or owner of each and every other Defendant, and each and every act 5 and/or omission of each and every Defendant occurred by and through the governing body and/or 6 management of the Defendant and within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment and/or 7 was approved and/or ratified by the acts and/or omissions of each and every other Defendant. 8 9 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10 A. Over 25 Years Ago, MENENDEZ was Hired by CITY as a Police Officer, Received 11 Consistent "Outstanding" Performance Evaluation and Served in Leadership Roles. 12 7. By way of brief background, for approximately 25 years MENENDEZ has been employed 13 14 by CITY as a police officer. 15 8. During his employment,MENENDEZ received both consistent"Outstanding"Performance 16 Evaluations and various recognitions/awards. 17 9. Additionally, as discussed in more detail below, MENENDEZ serves on the Board of 18 19 Directors for the Police Officers Association("POA")and was instrumental in coordinating the successful 20 September 1, 2021 Vote of No Confidence against Police Chief David Valentin. 21 B. CITY's Police Chief David Valentin. 22 10. Since 2017, David Valentin has been CITY's Police Chief. 23 24 11. During this time,myriad claims have been made against CITY as a result of Chief Valentin's 25 (and those acting on his behalf) unlawful acts of, inter alia, harassment (including claims of sexual 26 harassment), discrimination and retaliation. 27 28 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 12. Also during this time,and as CITY is well aware from other publicly-filed lawsuits(i.e.,Rita 2 Ramirez v. City of Santa Ana;Anthony Cardenal v. City of Santa Ana) which MENENDEZ incorporates 3 4 herein,although an effective police department functions as a whole,there has been-as CITY is well aware 5 - a common recent practice (and the subject of much ongoing discussion and concern between CITY 6 personnel)that Chief Valentin(and others at his behest) attempt to force personnel to choose between two 7 "gangs" or "camps" - Chief Valentin's "gang"/"camp" or what Chief Valentin perceives to be the other 8 9 "gang"/"camp" allegedly led by Police Association("POA") President Gerry Serrano. 10 13. As discussed in more detail below,MENENDEZ is perceived by Chief Valentin(and those 11 acting on his behalf) as being part of the "Serrano gang/camp" and not part of the "Valentin gang/camp". 12 14. Chief Valentin has been repeatedly accused of- not simply allowing but - fostering these 13 14 "gangs"/"camps"within the Police Department. 15 15. Additionally,Chief Valentin has been repeatedly accused of actively retaliating against those 16 who did not choose to be in his "gang/camp" and of retaliating against those who even chose to associate 17 with those perceived to be in the other"gang/camp". 18 19 16. Despite these numerous claims of unlawful conduct over the years, CITY has allowed this 20 unlawful conduct to continue. 21 C. CITY Police Officer John Rodriguez. 22 17. In or about 2018, an incident occurred involving CITY's police officer John Rodriguez, a 23 24 close friend and associate of Chief Valentin. 25 18. Following the incident, the following letter was sent to Chief Valentin: 26 "The Police Department you have built is a great testimony to your leadership.Ultimately,will you 27 be known for your outstanding achievements or the cover up of Officer John Rodriguez[?] 28 4 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT I In 2018, Officer John Rodriguez worked together with a new [then-probationary] officer named 2 Chiguano. They pulled a car over and Officer Rodriguez approached the vehicle with his camera purposefully turned off.Officer Rodriguez used profanity and verbally attacked the person in the car 3 calling him derogatory names possiblyhaving to do with their sexual orientation.Afterwards,Officer 4 Rodriguez directed Officer Chiguano to walk up to the car with his camera turned on and pretend it was the original police contact with the driver in order to deny the drivers['] claims. When the 5 officer discovered the occupant had recorded the entire disgraceful encounter with Officer Rodriguez on the drivers['] personal cell phone, Officer Rodriguez directed Officer Chiguano to falsely arrest 6 the driver and destroy the cell phone that contained all the evidence. Officer Rodriguez told Officer 7 Chiguano to lie and document the phone had been left inside the care to absolve himself of the missing cell phone. Officer Chiguano, as a new employee, followed the orders given to him by his 8 former field training officer and a veteran officer. 9 Currently, there is an investigation by the Orange County District Attorney's office and Internal 10 Affairs into Officer Chiguano. The majority of the employees of your police department are aware John Rodriguez is mostly to blame for this incident and he is distancing himself from Officer 11 Chiguano and wants to put all blame on him. Officer Rodriguez had told lies as to how the incident 12 happened in order to make himself look innocent. Officer Rodriguez has been asked and he has told numerous people he will rectify the situation because his connections to the Police Chief and others 13 in power.Officer Rodriguez is utilizing his new team to pressure and intimate Officer Chiguano into 14 staying quiet and taking the blame. 15 Chief Valentin, the employees of the Santa Ana Police Department are aware of this case. Your employees are aware of your connection to Officer Rodriguez. Your employees are aware of the 16 connection with John Rodriguez and the Police Officers Association.Your employees are aware of 17 the connection between the District Attorney's office and Officer Rodriguez. Your employees are aware of the connections Officer Rodriguez has with Internal Affairs. All of these relationships 18 would allow Officer Rodriguez to walk away from this investigation and not take any responsibility. 19 As the Chief of Police, will you look the other way? As Chief of Police, will you leave it up to 20 another entity to investigate this matter knowing everyone will remain quiet so you can clean your 21 hands of this investigation[?] 22 The Santa Ana citizens and your employees hope you will take immediate action! Otherwise, how long before the public is made aware?How long before the victims[`] attorney is notified with exact 23 details[?] How long before the City Manager and council members are informed what you have 24 allowed[?] Everyone awaits to see if you take action or sweep this under the rug because of your friendship with Officer Rodriguez. 25 What Officer Rodriguez did is illegal, immoral and has left many employees wondering why the 26 Chief of Police constantly praises Officer John Rodriguez as being an example for everyone to 27 follow when everyone knows about this cover up. Either way, the truth will be known by all. 28 Your employees" 5 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 19. Indeed,this is one ofvarious on-and-off duty incidents involving Officer Rodriguez on which 2 Chief Valentin not only failed to taken appropriate action and Chief Valentin allowed Officer Rodriguez to 3 4 publicly accuse MENENDEZ as being the author of this Memo and of forwarding same to the Orange 5 County District Attorney's Office. 6 20. Although this letter was,in fact,forwarded to the Orange County District Attorney's Office 7 (who employs many retired CITY police officers as investigators),MENENDEZ is informed and believes 8 9 that Officer Rodriguez was neither criminally-charged nor even interviewed/investigated for his role. 10 21. During this time period,Officer Rodriguez spoke and j oked openly about these investigations 11 in team meetings and in roll call, specifically and repeatedly about the driver being a perceived homosexual. 12 D. CITY's Major Enforcement Team. 13 14 22• The Major Enforcement Team("MET")is a SWAT-like team"created"in January of 2020 15 by CITY's Police Chief David Valentin. 16 23. Persons associated with MET are considered to be part of Chief Valentin's "gang/camp." 17 24. Officer Rodriguez was rewarded for his above-described conduct, not only by being 18 19 appointed as a founding member of the MET but bybeing allowed to hand-pick the other MET officers(i.e., 20 his former trainees and other brand new non-lateral officers.) 21 25. Officer Rodriguez openly bragged that Chief Valentin gave him the authority to pick and 22 choose whom he wanted to become MET officers and,not surprisingly,those perceived to be in the Valentin 23 24 "gang/camp"were chosen while officers with more seniority and more experience(who were not perceived 25 to be in the Valentin"gang/camp") were not chosen. 26 26. MET members are known to share gang-like matching black skull tattoos with the word 27 "MET", an ace of spades and the numbers "040". Historically, the ace of spades playing card was a token 28 of death used in the Vietnam war by American soldiers.US soldiers would drop ace of spades cards,which 6 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT I were mass produced for the Army, on dead Vietnamese soldiers. Additionally, the Los Angeles County 2 Sheriff gang"Jump Out Boys"are also known to use the ace of spades in their paraphernalia. The number 3 4 040 is a reference to MET's police radio code. 5 27. It has been reported that most MET members also carry challenge coin-like tokens. A 6 challenge coin is a small token or coin with an organization's name or slogan on it, typically given to 7 members as a sign of recognition or status within an organization. The token is adorned on one side with 8 9 an ace of spades decorated with a skull and number "31," a reference to the City's Police Department's 10 Orange County radio reference number. On the other side, the token reads "MET" and"ODERINT DUM 11 METUANT", Latin for"Let them hate, so long as they fear." 12 E. In January-February 2020,MENENDEZ was Asked by Persons-Not Perceived 13 14 to be in Valentin's Camp/Gang- to Apply for a Special Assignment. 15 28. In January-February 2020, CITY's police department had two openings for a special 16 assignment in the Quality of Life Unit which focuses on CITY's homeless/transient crisis. 17 29. Both then-Deputy Chief Eric Paulson and Watch Commander Many Moreno asked 18 19 MENENDEZ-who is fluent in Spanish and then had 20-plus years of experience-to apply for the position. 20 30. At the time MENENDEZ applied, no other person had applied for the position. 21 31. Then,Officer Jason McFall,a non-Spanish speaking recent lateral and probationary officer, 22 applied. 23 24 32. Thereafter, several days before the oral interview exam, officer Amanda Brown - a non- 25 Spanish speaking junior officer with less than five years experience - applied for the position 26 33. After MENENDEZ was interviewed,he was told that Chief Valentin's close friend,Sergeant 27 Juan Montiel, had chosen the other two applicants -but not MENENDEZ- for the special assignment. 28 7 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT I F. CITY,via its MET Officers, Continued to Act Unlawfully. 2 34. On August 9, 2020, five other CITY MET police officers (Dorin Buchanan, Mark Campi, 3 4 then-Sergeant Oscar Lizardi,Jonathan McKee,Jonathon Perez)who- as referenced above had been hand- s picked for this assignment by Officer Rodriguez with Chief Valentin's blessing-were accused of verbally 6 harassing two teenage girls and of sexually-assaulting one at the Culichi Town restaurant in Santa Ana("the 7 Culichi Town Incident"). 8 9 35. The girls' family (who had been told by the officers that they were CITY police officers) 10 and/or others repeatedly called 911 to report the Culichi Town Incident. 11 36. The MET members reportedly fled prior to patrol officers arriving. 12 37. The MET members also reportedly coordinated with officer Andres Gil to tell officers at the 13 14 scene that they should not take the mandated police report. 15 38. Thus, in violation of federal law, state law and CITY policy, no police report was taken. 16 39. Officer Gil was eventually rewarded with a transfer to MET. 17 G. Almost Immediately, MENENDEZ was Informed of the Culichi Town Incident and 18 19 Reported Same to CITY. 20 40. On August 9, 2020, MENENDEZ received a phone call at approximately 0230 hours from 21 a witness to the Culichi Town Incident. 22 41. Upon arriving at work,MENENDEZ looked for the police report so that he could direct the 23 24 witness to the handling detectives/officers. 25 42. MENENDEZ then learned that,as referenced above,the responding officers had failed to file 26 the requisite police report. 27 43. However, as several 911 calls had been made, an incident number (200805316) - and a 28 related Incident Detail Report -had been generated. s MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 44. A review of the Incident Detail Report evidences some obvious irregularities: 2 • Although Culichi Town is in the"Southcoast areas",Watch 3(graveyard)officers responded 3 from three different areas (Southcoast, Westend and Southeast) evidencing that this was a 4 significant incident, requiring multiple units to respond; and 5 Despite this(and despite the fact that then-probationaiy Sergeant Rich Riberio who,contrary to typical CITY practice,was thereafter promoted shortly after passing probation,was shown 6 as"available"and should have been at the call),not a single patrol supervisor-was on scene. 7 45. MENENDEZ(and many others at CITY) are informed and believe that the only reasonable 8 9 conclusion to be drawn from the above is that one or more of the involved MET officers contacted the 10 supervisor/s and told them not to respond. 11 H. Almost Immediately, MENENDEZ Reported the Culichi Town Incident to 12 CITY. 13 14 46. When MENENDEZ discovered that no police report had been filed,MENENDEZ reported 15 the Culichi Town Incident to Watch Commander Manny Moreno. 16 47. MENENDEZ is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Commander Moreno then 17 reported the Culichi Town Incident to then-Commander(and current Assistant Chief)Robert Rodriguez of 18 19 professional Standards Bureau: Internal Affairs who then reported the Culichi Town Incident to Chief 20 Valentin. 21 48. [Commander Moreno's unredacted complaint was subsequently released by an unknown 22 person and became the subject of a June 21, 2023 article by investigative journalist Ben Camacho entitled 23 24 "Santa Ana Police Department Delays Investigation of a Child Sexual Assault by an Off-Duty Officer by 25 More than Half a Year, Commander Alleges." (See Section"I"below.)] 26 49. Within a few months, CITY removed Commander Moreno from his Watch Commander 27 position and placed him in"police records"with a closet-sized office where he would have no further direct 28 daily contact with patrol officers. 9 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 50. MENENDEZ is informed and believes and thereon alleges that,approximately one week after 2 the Culichi Town Incident,the non-police employee witness was contacted by at least two MET members, 3 4 via telephone, and told, words to the effect: "Keep your mouth shut." 5 51. MENENDEZ is also informed and believes and thereon alleges that,during this time period, 6 MET members also threatened various patrol officers to "keep their mouths shut"about the Culichi Town 7 Incident and that, if they did not do so, their careers would be "over". 8 9 52. Since the Culichi Town Incident, almost all of the involved officers have been"rewarded" 10 by Chief Valentin(and those acting on his behalf) for staying quiet by being promoted and/or placed into 11 special details. 12 I. Let's Skip Ahead and Look at Commander Moreno's Recent Complaint. 13 14 53. The Culichi Town Incident has been an"open secret" at CITY since August of 2020. 15 54. On May 9,2022,Chief Valentin released a video in which he described how"a blog"[written 16 by the above-referenced investigative journalist Camacho]that had been"shared on social media"contained 17 "serious misinformation" and"baseless attacks on the integrity of some of the most dedicated members of 18 19 our police department." 20 55. In the video, Chief Valentin also stated that he wished to "assure the community my 21 command staff and I hold our officers to the highest standards" and that"we investigate any allegations of 22 wrongdoing and hold officers accountable to our department policies and the law." 23 24 56. Chief Valentin then described how an"anonymous complaint"was received"seven months" 25 after the Culichi Town Incident and then stated: 26 "Upon receiving the initial complaint, an internal affairs investigation was opened." 27 57. However, as: (1) the "initial complaint[s]" were made in August of 2020; and (2) no 28 investigation was admittedly opened until (at the earliest) seven months later, this statement was false. io MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 58. Despite this, Chief Valentin retained purported "independent" "investigators" (the OIR 2 Group)who conducted an almost-year-long assessment based,not only on the false lack-of-prompt-notice 3 4 premise, but, pursuant thereto - admittedly- interviewed only MET personnel. 5 59. Thus, not surprisingly, the OIR Report which - despite the fact that Chief Valentin and 6 Assistant Chief Rodriguez,various members of the command staff and numerous officers were indisputably 7 aware of the incident in August of 2020 - essentially opined "gee, it would be nice if your officers had 8 9 promptly reported bad stuff up the chain." 10 60. On April 5, 2023, in another released video, Chief Valentin then weaponized the 11 "assessment"to falsely imply the absence of any wrongdoing 12 61. Many at CITY's police department-who were informed and believed that some independent 13 14 entity must have been(during the past years) investigating CITY's cover-up of allegations against its own 15 officer of a sexual assault against a minor of which numerous supervisors were indisputably aware-were 16 shocked by the conclusions of the OIR Report. 17 62. On May 24, 2023, Commander Moreno (one of those shocked by the report) made his 18 19 complaint of "misconduct of a serious nature"which detailed reports to him and his reporting to others and 20 which states, in part: 21 "Up until the Office of Independent Review published the Assessment, I believed that SAPD's 22 Internal Affairs Investigation would account and accurately explain the seven-month gap from when misconduct was reported(August 2020)to DC Rodriguez to when SAPD received the anonymous 23 complaint(—March 2021). 24 It is my belief that if the Office of Independent Review,was made aware that Commander Alvarez 25 and I had indeed followed SAPD policy/procedure, with regards to the reporting of officer 26 misconduct, they would not have made some of the assertions and recommendations they did. Additionally, had an Internal Affairs Investigation been initiated in August of 2020 instead of 7 27 months later, our Internal Affairs Unit would have had the ability to conduct a more thorough and accurate investigation. This 7-month delay impeded and interfered with the alleged sexual assault 28 and Internal Affairs investigation." MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 63. With regard to post-OI Report communications,Commander Moreno's complaint also stated: 2 "On 4/11/23, I met with DC Rodriguez and we discussed the OIR's Assessment report. DC 3 Rodriguez did not deny that I had reported misconduct to him shortly after the Culichi Town incident 4 . . . I asked DC Rodriguez if he had told Chief Valentin about the misconduct I had reported. DC Rodriguez indicated that he indeed did notify Chief Valentin at the time I reported it to him"; and 5 "On April 6, 2023 I spoke to Sergeant Barragan; we discussed the Assessment by the OIR and his 6 initial reporting of the alleged misconduct. 7 I spoke to Commander Alvarez on April 7, 2023 and I advised him that I was going to make an 8 allegation of misconduct against DC Rodriguez about this incident. Commander Alvarez stated he 9 would be available to be interviewed and discuss his interaction with DC Rodriguez regarding the alleged misconduct of our officers at the Culichi Town restaurant." 10 11 64. Commander Moreno's complaint also detailed some of the reports to him and by him: 12 "Approximately a week after the incident, I was approached by Sergeant Luis Barragan,who at the time was assigned as the Watch 2 sergeant of the Southcoast District(280). I subsequently learned 13 from Sergeant Barragan, that he was not working on the night of the incident, however when he 14 returned to work,he learned about the incident which had occurred at the Culichi Town restaurant. Officer's that responded to the call were concerned how the alleged sexual assault by one of 15 members of the MET team was investigated. Sergeant Barragan stated that his officers told him that some members from the SAPD's Major Enforcement Team (MET) were off-duty and were 16 patronizing the Culichi Town Restaurant. Sergeant Barragan indicated that his officers told him that 17 Officer Andres Gil also responded and proceeded to interfere and impede in the manner in which the investigation was conducted. Sergeant Barragan also learned that one of the responding officers 18 viewed a cell phone video that had been taken by an unknown patron. According to this officer,he 19 told Sergeant Barragan that the video had captured Sergeant Lizardi (off-duty) at the incident. Sergeant Barragan's officers were concerned because it involved members of the MET team and 20 because there was outside interference by on and off-duty officers at the scene. They felt that the sexual assault investigation had not been handled properly because members of the MET team had 21 been involved and other officers (on-duty and off-duty officers) ensured that the proper 22 documentation and notifications were not conducted.They also expressed concern ofretaliation from members of other SAPD personnel if they reported this alleged misconduct in a formal manner. 23 24 After Sergeant Barragan's reporting of the alleged misconduct, I met with my direct supervisor, Deputy Chief Eric Paulson. I advised Deputy Chief Paulson of what had been reported by Sergeant 25 Barragan. Deputy Chief Paulson was immediately concerned about the allegations and we agreed that I would formally advise Deputy Chief Rodriguez, who at the time of this incident still held the 26 rank of Commander and was the Commander of the Internal Affairs Unit.As I prepared to meet with 27 Deputy Chief Rodriguez, he stopped by the Watch Commanders Office. I told DC Rodriguez that I had something important to discuss with him. He sat down and I reported the alleged misconduct 28 that Sergeant Barragan had reported to me. 12 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT I I specifically told DC Rodriguez that Sergeant Lizardi was allegedly present when members of our 2 MET team were involved in an alleged sexual assault incident at the Culichi Town Restaurant. I printed a copy of the incident from the INFORM RMS system and I handed him the copy of the call 3 for his review. We ended our conversation and he exited the Watch Commander's Office. 4 I immediately reported this interaction, in person, to DC Paulson. This interaction was done in 5 person and I also believe we may have/or not have exchanged emails, about our conversations referencing this matter. 6 7 I also shared my interactions, with DC Rodriguez, with my peer Commander Chuck Elms. Specifically, we discussed that it appeared that DC Rodriguez had not taken my complaint of 8 misconduct seriously and was not going to immediately initiate an Internal Affair's investigation 9 In addition, another SAPD field supervisor expressed to me similar misconduct allegations that 10 Sergeant Barragan had made. This supervisor is fearful of retaliation by SAPD personnel so he/she is not comfortable, at this time, to be identified. 11 12 A few weeks after my interaction with DC Rodriguez,I was talking to Commander Andrew Alvarez. We began discussing the incident at Culichi Town, I told him about my interaction with DC 13 Rodriguez and Commander Alvarez told me that he too had received complaints from some of his 14 officers about the alleged sexual assault at Culichi Town. Commander Alvarez also told me that he had also reported the alleged misconduct by our officers to DC Rodriguez." 15 16 65. While Commander Moreno's complaint did not reference MENENDEZ by name, there is 17 no dispute that MENENDEZ reported same to Commander Moreno almost immediately and that CITY 18 knew or reasonably suspected that MENENDEZ was one of the initial reporters. 19 66. MENENDEZ is informed and believes that, per CITY's Police Department Policy 1010.8, 20 21 both Chief David Valentin and Assistant Chief Robert Rodriguez should have immediately been placed on 22 administrative leave. 23 67. However, as of the filing of this Complaint,both Chief David Valentin and Assistant Chief 24 Robert Rodriguez remain at CITY, directly supervising Commander Moreno. 25 26 J. Going Back to the Relevant Time-Line,CITY,via its MET Officers,Continued 27 to Act Unlawfully. 28 68. On May 5, 2021, MET detective Rodriguez was off duty in downtown Santa Ana for the Cinco de Mayo block party with his wife and brother-in-law at a bar. 13 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 69. MENENDEZ and other patrol officers were sent to assist with the crowd and with shutting 2 down/closing off all streets to vehicle traffic. 3 4 70. As MENENDEZ stood monitoring the crowd at the corner of 3rd and Broadway Street, he 5 and the other officers could see off duty Officer Rodriguez, walking around, potentially intoxicated. 6 71. (It was later learned that,while at Copper Door Bar, Officer Rodriguez became involved in 7 a verbal fight with his wife and in a fist fight with other individuals in a parking lot behind the bar.) 8 9 72. At this time, Santa Ana Council Member Jonathan Hernandez witnessed Officer Rodriguez 10 (who Council Member Hernandez recognized to be a CITY officer) and another man holding a struggling 11 woman in a parking lot in downtown Santa Ana, groping her breasts and telling her"chill,"and"shut up". 12 73. Council Member Hernandez called Chief Valentin and reported the incident directly to him. 13 14 74. Chief Valentin allegedly first responded by stating that the officer was retired but, when 15 Council Member Hernandez responded that he knew for a fact that the officer was not retired,Chief Valentin 16 then changed his answer to say that the detective was retiring soon. 17 75. Officer Rodriguez fled prior to being contacted by any on-duty personnel. 18 19 K. The Public Records Act Request. 20 76. Following this incident, Council Member Hernandez's friend, investigative journalist 21 Camacho, submitted a Public Records Act ("PRA") request for the names, photos and assignment of all 22 CITY sworn Police Department personnel. 23 24 77. Many in the Police Department-unaware at the time of the reasoning behind this request- 25 were upset about their information being released and saw it as an officer safety issue. 26 78. There was a back and forth for about six weeks as the POA and its attorney Corey Glave 27 attempted to intervene on the officers' behalf in Court. 28 14 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 79. Additionally, it appeared clear to the officers that Chief Valentin was, once again, refusing 2 to hold Officer Rodriguez accountable for his actions at the expense of other officers(especially those who 3 4 resided with their families within CITY limits). 5 80. Within a few months, in or about November of 2021, Officer Rodriguez retired from CITY 6 and was able to secure subsequent employment with the Orange County Sheriff's Department. 7 81. MENENDEZ is informed and believes Chief Valentin refused to hold Officer Rodriguez 8 9 responsible for his off duty actions because Chief Valentin knew Officer Rodriguez would be retiring soon 10 and knew that he wanted to apply with the District Attorney's Office and/or the Orange County Sheriff s 11 Department and that he would be ineligible for same with a pending Internal Affairs investigation. 12 L. CITY's Police Officers React to CITY's Decision. 13 14 82. On June 19,2021,CITY's Police Department received email notification that the CITY/Chief 15 Valentin refused to support fighting in Court the release of the PRA requested information. 16 83. Police Department personnel throughout the Department were extremely upset by this. 17 M. The June 30, 2021 POA General Membership Meeting. 18 19 84. On June 30, 2021, the POA held a General Membership meeting. 20 85. As a result of various issues addressed above, one of the main topics at this meeting was a 21 potential "no confidence"vote against Chief Valentin. 22 86. One incident discussed(by MENENDEZ and others)in detail was the May 5,2021 off-duty 23 24 fght involving MET Detective Rodriguez. 25 87. At no time did Rodriguez take any responsibility for his actions. 26 27 28 15 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT I N. Chief Valentin Reacted to the Potential No Confidence Vote by Attempting to 2 Threaten Officer not Considered to be in his "Camp/Gang". 3 4 88. During the first few days of July 2021,Chief Valentin responded by attending Watch 1,2 and 5 3 roll calls in an attempt to intimidate officers against voting for"no confidence." 6 89. During these roll calls, Chief Valentin said something along the lines of: "If you don't like 7 working at Santa Ana, go to some other police department." 8 9 90. For whatever reason,certain persons at CITY have decided(and made public their decision) 10 that the Orange Police Department to be a"low level", "not serious"police department. 11 91. In July of2021,following Chief Valentin's above statements,MENENDEZ and several other 12 patrol officers received City of Orange Police Department applications in their police department mailboxes. 13 14 92. As MET Officers Buchanan, Perez and Andres were witnessed near the mailboxes during 15 the relevant time frame,it became obvious to many that members of the Valentin "camp/gang"had placed 16 the applications in non-Valentin"camp/gang" officers' mailboxes. 17 93. MENENDEZ immediately filed a complaint with Commander(now Deputy Chief) Sergio 18 19 Enriguez. 20 94. MENENDEZ was not interviewed until December of 2021 and then only by a city personnel 21 employee. 22 95. To date, CITY has failed to provide MENENDEZ with the results of its "investigation." 23 24 O. The July 7, 2021 POA Board of Directors Meeting. 25 96. On July 7, 2021, MENENDEZ attended the "open" POA Board of Directors meeting. 26 97. During this meeting, MENENDEZ made the motion for a membership ballot "vote of no 27 confidence" against Chief Valentin. 28 98. The motion was voted on and passed by the Board. 16 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT I P. As Referenced Above,MENENDEZ was Instrumental in the Successful Vote of 2 No Confidence Against Chief Valentin. 3 4 99. In August of 2021, the vote of no confidence ballots went out to the POA membership 5 100. On September 1, 2021, the POA membership completed a Vote of No Confidence vote 6 against Chief Valentin with 54%voting that they had no confidence that he was capable of being the Chief 7 of Police. 8 9 101. It is believed that the passage percentage would have been significantly higher had the 10 officers not been in fear that Chief Valentin would somehow learn of their vote and that they would then also I I experience retaliation, 12 Q. CITY Entirely Ignored the Police Department's Vote of No Confidence. 13 14 102. While most cities respect their own police department's no confidence vote,CITY responded 15 -a mere 87 minutes afterwards-by posting a Memo on social media with statements from Mayor Vicente 16 Sarmiento and City Manager Kristine Ridge voicing their support for Chief Valentin. 17 103. Commander Enriquez then sent the CITY Memo to all Department employees. 18 19 R. The Brandon Lopez Shooting. 20 104. As CITY is well aware, on September 28, 2021, Brandon Lopez (cousin of current City 21 Council Member Johnathan Hernandez)was shot and killed by members of the Anaheim Police Department 22 within CITY limits. 23 24 105. (For unknown reasons, despite the fact that the standoff occurred within CITY limits and, 25 thus,within CITY's jurisdiction,Chief Valentin handed over control of the incident to the Anaheim Police 26 Department.) 27 28 17 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT I S. CITY's Fake Wanted-for-Murder Flyer. 2 106. On or about October 23,2021 (the same day that Mr.Lopez's family members were holding 3 4 a memorial concert for Mr. Lopez), CITY posted a fake Wanted-for-Murder flyer-using an actual Police 5 Department official document which, inter alia: 6 Contained a photo of MENENDEZ in his CITY uniform; 7 • Referenced Chief Valentin by name in the upper right-hand corner, an actual "Case 8 Number", actual Penal Code sections 182 (conspiracy), 187 (murder) and 664 (attempted 9 murder); 10 Falsely stated that MENENDEZ (whom the Wanted-for-Murder Flyer refers to as a "BOZO")"observed the suspect display a handgun"and"advised over SAPD primary radio 11 frequency" of"his" observations; 12 • [Contrary to the Wanted-for-Murder Flyer, body-worn camera footage clearly showed that 13 MENENDEZ had merely relayed the - what-turned-out-to-be-incorrect- "417 right hand" 14 (i.e., "brandishing a firearm")observations made by City officers Kenney Aguilar and Luis Galeana during the September 28, 2021 incident]; 15 • Falsely stated that MENENDEZ "was absolutely lying" about seeing a gun in Mr. Lopez's 16 possession; 17 • Stated that Mr. Lopez had been "murdered" and falsely inferred that MENENDEZ was 18 somehow responsible for his "murder"; 19 Stated that MENENDEZ was "known to frequent the POA"; 20 • Falsely stated that MENENDEZ was also "known to frequent . . . Main Street and 15" 21 Street" - an area known for transvestite/homosexual prostitution - and referred to 22 MENENDEZ as "Nelson MENendez aka `Full Nelson"'; 23 Falsely claimed that MENENDEZ has"prior arrests for PC 647"(i.e., illegal sexual conduct, 24 including prostitution); 25 Stated that MENENDEZ "is known to associate with Miranda" in reference to another 26 officer who also coordinated the Vote of No Confidence against Chief Valentin; and 27 Otherwise falsely insinuated that MENENDEZ is unfit to be a police officer. 28 107. Also on October 23,2021,MENENDEZ learned that the fake Wanted-for-Murder Flyer had been posted in various places in the CITY's police department's roll call room. is MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 108. The officer who informed MENENDEZ about the Wanted-for-Murder Flyer was 2 subsequently terminated after speaking out against Chief Valentin's decision to retaliate against (i.e., 3 4 demote)another officer after that officer's protected disclosures.Both officers also have pending litigation 5 claims against CITY. 6 109. MENENDEZ learned that another officer took four fake Wanted-for-Murder Flyers down, 7 threw away three and placed the fourth in MENENDEZ's mailbox. 8 9 110. MENENDEZ immediately drove to the police station to report this incident to Watch 10 Commander Gil Hernandez. 11 111. MENENDEZ also retrieved the three fake Wanted-for-Murder Flyers that had been thrown 12 away and provided them to Commander Hernandez at which time MENENDEZ stated: 13 14 "I want to make this absolutely clear. I am filing a formal hostile work environment complaint and expect an investigation." 15 16 112. MENENDEZ was assured that the incident would be properly addressed. 17 113. Later that day, Commander Hernandez told MENENDEZ that Commander Hernandez had 18 contacted Deputy Chief Henry Esparza who stated that MENENDEZ's complaint would be investigated. 19 T. CITY Failed to Properly Investigate MENENDEZ's Complaint. 20 21 114. This investigation should have been rather straight-forward. 22 115. A Wanted-for-Murder Flyer is an official document used by CITY's police department and 23 its creation requires one to first log into a police department computer at the station or inside a police vehicle 24 using one's badge number, password and key card. 25 26 116. Records reveal that the Wanted-for-Murder Flyer was posted on October 23, 2021 between 27 the hours of 1445-1700. 28 19 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 117. There is a very finite set of CITY employees who worked on October 23, 2021 during the 2 relevant time period and their movements are recorded-by the CAD system and by the GPS on their police 3 4 units -when using their key card to enter the police department. 5 118. Almost immediately MENDENDEZ learned that two CITY sergeants were in the sergeant 6 office and witnessed specific MET officers go down to the first floor(i.e., near the roll call room) during 7 the relevant time frame and then, soon thereafter, return laughing to their offices on the third floor. 8 9 119. Although MENENDEZ told investigator Sergeant Javier Aceves the names of both sergeant 10 witnesses, MENENDEZ is informed and believes that they (and other relevant witnesses) were never 11 interviewed. 12 120. Indeed, MENENDEZ's interview was purposefully delayed until one month after Officer 13 14 Rodriguez retired(i.e., MENENDEZ was not interviewed until December of 2021) - after which he heard 15 nothing further for approximately 15 months -allowing Officer Rodriguez to obtain his above-referenced 16 November 2021 post-CITY employment at the Orange County Sheriff's Department. 17 U. Throughout October and November of 2021, MENENDEZ Continued to 18 19 Complain and CITY Continued to Essentially Ignore Same. 20 121. On October 27,2021, a POA general membership meeting was held at which time the Vote 21 of No Confidence was discussed 22 122. At this meeting,MENENDEZ made several comments supporting the Vote and pointed out 23 24 false information provided by Commander Lizardi, Commander Hernandez and others known to be in the 25 Valentin "camp/gang". 26 123. At this time Valentin supporter Sergeant Richard Shin (who ran against and was defeated 27 by POA President Serrano for the POA President position) made his displeasure regarding MENENDEZ 28 known. 20 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 124. On November 9, 2021, MENENDEZ returned to work after a vacation. 2 125. On his first day back,Sergeant Shin walked into the roll call room,interrupted a private team 3 4 meeting between MENENDEZ, his teammates and his supervisors and told MENENDEZ that he 5 immediately"needed to see [MENENDEZ] outside in the hallway." 6 126. When the two men went out to the hallway, Sergeant Shin was visibly upset and attempted 7 to argue with MENENDEZ about various POA issues in which MENENDEZ held opinions contraryto those 8 9 of the Valentin"camp/gang.". 10 127. That same day (November 9, 2021), MENENDEZ filed a hostile work environment 11 complaint via his chain of command. 12 128. As of the filing of this Complaint, MENENDEZ has not been contacted by anyone at CITY 13 14 regarding this complaint. 15 V. The 2021 Request for Change of Assignment Promotional. 16 129. In or about November of 2021, MENENDEZ participated in the "request for change of 17 assignment'for the Field Training Officer("FTO") position, a prerequisite for applying for the position of 18 19 Corporal. 20 130. Shortly thereafter, MENENDEZ was informed that he was No. 1 on the List. 21 131. However,on April 22, 2022, MENENDEZ learned that certain persons had been promoted 22 ahead of him and that MENENDEZ remained on a six-month eligibility list. 23 24 132. Thereafter,on or about November 16,2022,MENENDEZ received an email informing him 25 that the City was"currently accepting Request for Change of Assignment for the position of Field Training 26 Officer." 27 133. In other words, CITY had purposefully allowed the List- on which MENENDEZ was the 28 No. 1 candidate- to expire and was now conducting another promotional exam. 21 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT I W. CITY's Pathetic "Investigation" of the Wanted-for-Murder Flyer Incident. 2 134. In December of 2021, while MENENDEZ was working his normal patrol shift and in the 3 4 middle of an investigation, Internal Affairs Sergeant Aceves called MENENDEZ into the Internal Affairs 5 office for an unspecified discussion. 6 135. Sergeant Aceves and Sergeant Gutierrez (who both fall squarely within the Valentin 7 "camp/gang")proceeded to conduct a digitally-recorded interview regarding the Orange Police Department 8 9 application placed in MENENDEZ's mailbox. 10 136. As MENENDEZ had been provided with no notice of either the meeting or the subj ect matter 11 of same, he was unable to bring or refer to any of his documentation or notes regarding same. 12 137. When talking about the application in the mailbox,Sergeant Aceves asked:"is there anything 13 14 else you want to report?"and then got up,left the interview room and returned with one of the Wanted-for- 15 Murder Flyers that MENENDEZ had provided to Commander Gil Hernandez. 16 138. MENENDEZ responded and clearly articulated all of his concerns, including all the certain 17 additional retaliation he would suffer, if the Wanted-for-Murder Flyer was made public. 18 19 139. MENENDEZ also clearly stated who he believed was involved in the creation/posting of the 20 Wanted-for-Murder Flyer bulletin based on the information stated on the Wanted-for-Murder Flyer itself. 21 140. Both Sergeant Aceves and Sergeant Gutierrez showed little interest and asked few questions. 22 X. The February 2022 Complaint. 23 24 141. Oscar Lizardi has, despite various serious misconduct complaints,been rewarded by CITY 25 with an unprecedented meteoric post-Culichi Town Incident rise from Sergeant to Commander. This 26 treatment has also recently been afforded to Lizardi's wife with her own promotion over other those clearly 27 more qualified and experienced. (Assistant Chief Rodriguez was Lizardi's best man at his most-recent 28 wedding.) 22 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 142. Apparently, some time in 2021, a license plate that read"040BOZO"had been placed on a 2 MET vehicle. At or about that time, a picture was taken of it and the picuture was circulated throughout 3 4 CITY. 5 143. Months later,on or about February 8,2022,a picture of the license plate including the MET 6 unit was posted in several places in CITY's police department, including the Station Supervisors Office. 7 144. MENENDEZ was not working on February 8, 2022. 8 9 145. However, then-Sergeant Lizardi was seen by various persons holding a picture and having 10 a highly unprofessional screaming/yelling meltdown. 11 146. MENENDEZ is informed and believes that then-Sergeant Lizardi went into the station 12 supervisors office, yelled at various corporals (who were not perceived to be in the Valentin"gang/camp" 13 14 and who were later "failed" during the sergeants' promotional exam which by-then-Commander Lizardi 15 oversaw) and then went into the Watch Commanders Offices (which faces a room with approximately 15 16 chairs for officers to write reports), accusing MENENDEZ of posting them in the station supervisor office, 17 yelling words to the effect: "I know this was Nelson Menendez." 18 19 147. When MENENDEZ arrived at work the following week, he found one of the crumbled 20 "040BOZO" papers shoved into his work mailbox. 21 148. MENENDEZ immediately filed a complaint against then-Sergeant Lizardi. 22 149. At this time, then-Sergeant Lizardi was attempting to promote to Commander. 23 24 150. While CITY policies/procedures mandate that an Internal Affairs investigation be initiated, 25 CITY not only failed to initiate the requisite Internal Affairs proceeding but failed to initiate any sort of 26 investigation as other CITY policies and procedures bar an officer from promoting if he is the subject of an 27 active Internal Affairs investigation and/or complaint. 28 151. In June of 2022, Lizardi was promoted to Commander. 23 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 152. Only after the commander promotional did CITY interview MENENDEZ. 2 153. As referenced below,it was not until almost a year later on May 8,2023 -after MENENDEZ 3 4 had filed both his Government Claim and his Civil Rights Department Complaint-that MENENDEZ was 5 notified that CITY found"there was no violation of City Department policy." 6 Y. CITY's February 2022 "Investigation." 7 154. On February 10, 2022, MENENDEZ was ordered by CITY to cooperate with an interview 8 9 being conducted by purported"independent" "outside" investigator Christina J. Ro-Connolly. 10 155. MENENDEZ is informed and believes that, despite the fact that various witnesses have 11 supported the various claims made by many at CITY, Ms. Ro-Connolly has failed to sustain a single 12 complaint made by anyone against CITY (who is paying her/her firm significant fees). 13 14 156. Indeed, MENENDEZ is informed and believes that, following one interview, Ms. Ro- 15 Connolly even took it upon herself to initiate a complaint based upon the testimony provided by the witness 16 and, thereafter, still failed to sustain what was, in essence, her own complaint. 17 157. During this interview, MENENDEZ was primarily asked questions regarding Chief 18 19 Valentin's retaliatory conduct and his conduct during the vote of no confidence. 20 158. During the interview,MENENDEZ also briefly explained the issue ofthe Wanted-for-Murder 21 Flyer to Ms. Ro-Connolly. 22 159. The following day(February 11,2022),Ms.Ro-Connolly requested that MENENDEZ email 23 24 a copy of the Wanted-for-Murder Flyer to her and MENENDEZ did as requested at 1551 hours, 25 160. However, since that time, MENENDEZ has heard nothing further from Ms. Ro-Connolly. 26 Z. The Summer of 2022. 27 161. In June/July of 2022, MENENDEZ rejoined the POA Board of Directors as a patrol 28 representative. 24 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 162. On August 22 2022,Officer David Guzman was interviewed as a witness for the Wanted-for- 2 Murder Flyer investigation. 3 4 163. MENENDEZ is informed and believes that, during Officer Guzman's interview, he 5 implicated Officer Rodriguez (who would often use the term"Full Nelson treatment" and otherwise made 6 fun of persons being black-balled within the police department) as one of the persons who took part in the 7 creation/posting of the Wanted-for-Murder Flyer. 8 9 164. Two days later,on August 24,2022,CITY terminated Officer Guzman,over the purportedly 10 inappropriate nature of a text message he sent following Officer Anthony Cardenal's demotion. 11 165. Officer Guzman has since filed a Complaint against CITY and,as referenced above,Officer 12 Cardenal has a pending Orange County Superior Court Complaint. 13 14 AA. As MENENDEZ Warned, After the Wanted-for-Murder Flyer was Made 15 Public, CITY Retaliated Against MENENDEZ. 16 166. On April 4, 2023, investigative journalist Camacho published an article entitled "Callous 17 Prank at Santa Ana Police Department Reveals Culture of Harassment"which included a picture of the 18 19 Wanted-for-Murder Flyer. 20 167. MENENDEZ has no knowledge of how or from whom Mr.Camacho obtained the document. 21 168. Indeed, MENENDEZ is informed and believes that CITY responded to multiple Public 22 Records Act requests by refusing to release the fake Wanted-for-Murder Flyer, claiming that it was exempt 23 24 from release because it is not a public records but"musings about a colleague's shortcomings." 25 169. Per a quotation in the Camacho article: 26 "Investigations against [supporters of the chief] do not work because the chief handpicks who will 27 work in internal affairs.The chief only allows investigators who will cover up,lie, [or]look the other way if they are ordered to. Meanwhile those same IA investigators will harshly discipline [and/or] 28 terminate officers not in the chief s camp for something extremely minor in comparison." 25 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 170. Per a quote attributed to Council Member Hernandez in the Camacho article: 2 "When they kill your family member, it doesn't just end there. They will make flyers that will kill 3 your soul and the character of the deceased. This[Wanted-for-Murder Flyer]is lawless, reckless, 4 and it is a small look at what is happening inside of this department." [Emphasis added.] 5 171. Despite this clear CITY admission,CITY has refused to hold anyone accountable but,rather, 6 has retaliated against MENENDEZ. 7 172. That same day, MENENDEZ emailed current Commander of Internal Affairs Gonzalez 8 9 requesting a status update regarding the investigation and the fact that MENENDEZ's internal investigation 10 complaint had been made public without his consent. 11 g$, In Late April/early May 2023,MENENDEZ Served his Government Claim and 12 Civil Rights Department Complaint. 13 14 173. As referenced above, on April 24, 2023, MENENDEZ caused CITY to be served with a 15 Government Claim and on May 1, 2023, MENENDEZ caused the CITY to be served with the California 16 Civil Rights Department's Right-to-Sue Notice. 17 174. Only after MENENDEZ - via his retained counsel - served these two pre-civil complaint 18 19 documents did CITY forward MENENDEZ responses to two (but not other) "investigation"notices. 20 175. Specifically, on May 8, 2023, CITY forwarded a "Notice of Completion of Investigation" 21 which stated: 22 "On February 6,2022,you made complaints about harassment and bullying by an unknown person 23 or persons,where inappropriate material was placed inside of your officer's mailbox. [Sergeant Abel 24 Alcantar] was assigned to look into this matter. 25 This memorandum is to notify you that a thorough and comprehensive investigation was conducted to determine if a violation of City or Departmental policy occurred. The investigation included 26 multiple interviews and document review. 27 After careful examination of the evidence, we were unable to identify the person or persons 28 responsible for the placement of the materials discovered in your mailbox. The investigation determinated the [sic] there was no violation of City or Department policy. As a result, no administrative action will be taken. 26 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT I The City would like to remind you,however,of its zero tolerance policy and commitment to provide 2 a discrimination and harassment-free workplace. This canon prohibits employees from retaliating against anyone for having reported harassment or for participating in the complaint and investigation 3 process. If the City receives a report of actions, comments or conduct that are believed to be 4 discriminatory,harassing or retaliatory for participation in this or any other complaint process,the City will investigate.If the allegations are substantiated,discipline up to and including dismissal may 5 be imposed. 6 Thank you for your cooperation." 7 176. Additionally,on August 5,2023,MENENDEZ received notification that another complaint 8 9 (erroneously referred to as a"Citizen's Complaint")by CITY had purportedly been "investigated": 10 "Your complaint regarding the actions of our police employee(s) has been investigated. The investigation revealed insufficient information available to determine who created and/or posted the 11 materials you submitted. The case has been closed. If you have any new information,please submit 12 it for consideration[.] 13 The Santa Ana Police Department is committed to providing quality service.You can be assured that 14 your complaint was treated seriously and that a thorough investigation was conducted. Should you have any questions about this investigation, you may contact Commander Gonzalez at (714) 245- 15 8009." 16 177. In light of CITY's above-detailed unlawful acts and omissions, the instant action results. 17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 18 19 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5 20 (Against All DEFENDANTS) 21 178. MENENDEZ realleges Paragraphs 1 through 177 above and incorporates same as though 22 fully set forth herein. 23 24 179. MENENDEZ, as described more fully above, reported/disclosed to a government agency 25 and/or law enforcement agency and/or a person with authority over her or to an employee with authority to 26 investigate, discover, or correct legal violations and/or noncompliance to DEFENDANTS. MENENDEZ 27 had reasonable cause to believe that the information reported/disclosed a violation of state,or federal statute 28 and/or a violation of and/or noncompliance with a local, state and/or federal rule and/or regulation [i.e., 27 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT I Penal Code §§186.22, 13670 and Assembly Bill 958 (prohibition of gangs among police officers); 2 Government Code §§12900-12999 (California Fair Employment and Housing Act; Government Code 3 4 §§12945.2 et seq.); Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act.lPenal Code §§11164 et. seq) (police officers 5 are mandated reporters); Penal Code §§118, 127, 136.1 (perjury, suborning perjury, witness 6 tampering/intimidation);Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7 (police officer confidentiality, internal investigation 7 mandates and public records act compliance); Government Code §§18500, et. seq(civil service laws); City 8 9 of Santa Ana Municipal Code and Santa Ana Police Department Policies.) 10 180. In response to the disclosures and complaints initiated by MENENDEZ, DEFENDANTS 11 retaliated against MENENDEZ as more fully described herein. 12 181. Because of the retaliation that MENENDEZ faced,MENENDEZ was not promoted,denied 13 14 workplace opportunities and suffered other adverse employment actions. 15 182. DEFENDANTS' treatment of and response to the disclosures, complaints and grievances 16 filed by MENENDEZ was in violation of Labor Code §1102.5. 17 183. MENENDEZ's reporting/disclosure of information was a contributing factor in 18 19 DEFENDANTS'causing MENENDEZ not to promote,DEFENDANTS'denial ofworkplace opportunities 20 to MENENDEZ and MENENDEZ's suffering of other adverse employment actions. 21 184. Asa direct result of DEFENDANTS' actions as alleged above,MENENDEZ suffered harm 22 and injury that was legally(proximately) caused by the conduct of DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury 23 24 includes, but is not limited to, special (economic) damages, general (non-economic) damages, litigation 25 costs, future damages and past damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors 26 and such further relief as shown at the time of Trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 27 28 28 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 185. Additionally,as a direct and proximate result ofthe above-described acts of DEFENDANTS, 2 MENENDEZ has necessarily incurred attorney's fees and costs and he is entitled,per,inter alia,Labor Code 3 4 §§98.6(b), §1105, 1102.5(f), Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5 and Assembly Bill 1947 to the reasonable 5 value of such attorney's fees and costs. 6 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 7 DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE 8 9 FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 10 (Against All DEFENDANTS) 11 186. MENENDEZ realleges Paragraphs 1 through 185 above and incorporates same as though 12 fully set forth herein. 13 14 187. Section 12940,et.seq. of the California Government Code makes it unlawful for an employer 15 to discriminate against an employee in "terms, conditions or privileges of employment" because of their 16 protected status. DEFENDANTS engaged in an action or a course and pattern or conduct that, taken as a 17 whole, materially and adversely affected the terms, conditions and/or privileges of MENENDEZ's 18 19 employment. 20 188. MENENDEZ was treated differently because of his protected status [sexual 21 orientation/perceived sexual orientation] by DEFENDANTS. 22 189. As a direct and legal result of the discrimination MENENDEZ suffered due to his protected 23 24 status, MENENDEZ suffered harm and injury that was legally (proximately) caused by the conduct of 25 DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury includes,but is not limited to, special(economic)damages,general 26 (non-economic)damages,attorneys'fees[per Government Code§12965(b)],litigation costs,future damages 27 and past damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors and such further relief 28 as shown at the time of Trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 29 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 190. In addition to the damages sought above, as a proximate result of DEFENDANTS' actions 2 as alleged above, MENENDEZ will also seek all damages allowed by the Code. Government Code, 3 4 §12965(c). 5 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 6 HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE 7 FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 8 9 (Against All DEFENDANTS) 10 191. MENENDEZ realleges Paragraphs 1 through 190 above and incorporates same as though 11 fully set forth herein. 12 192. Section 12940,et.seq. of the California Government Code makes it unlawful for an employer 13 14 to harass an employee in"terms,conditions or privileges of employment"because of their protected status. 15 DEFENDANTS engaged in an action or a course and pattern or conduct that, taken as a whole,materially 16 and adversely affected the terms, conditions and/or privileges of MENENDEZ's employment. 17 193. The harassment included but was not limited to unwanted and unwelcome comments directly 18 19 to MENENDEZ that were reported to and by MENENDEZ,as further alleged above.As also alleged herein 20 above, DEFENDANTS entirely failed to respond as mandated by law. 21 194. The harassing conduct from DEFENDANTS was so severe,widespread or persistent that a 22 reasonable person in MENENDEZ's circumstances would have considered the work environment to be 23 24 hostile and abusive. MENENDEZ considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive. 25 195. MENENDEZ was harmed and DEFENDANTS' conduct was a substantial factor in causing 26 MENENDEZ's harm. 27 196. As a direct and legal result of the discrimination MENENDEZ suffered due to his protected 28 status, MENENDEZ suffered harm and injury that was legally (proximately) caused by the conduct of 30 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT I DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury includes,but is not limited to, special(economic)damages,general 2 (non-economic)damages,attorneys'fees[per Government Code§12965(b)],litigation costs,future damages 3 4 and past damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors and such further relief 5 as shown at the time of Trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 6 197. In addition to the damages sought above, as a proximate result of DEFENDANTS' actions 7 as alleged above, MENENDEZ will also seek all damages allowed by the Code. Government Code, 8 9 §12965(c). 10 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION 12 IN VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 13 14 (PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS) 15 198. MENENDEZ realleges Paragraphs 1 through 197 above and incorporates same as though 16 fully set forth herein. 17 199. DEFENDANTS are suffering/have suffered with a number of lawsuits and complaints 18 19 (including but not limited to the complaints from MENENDEZ) alleging discrimination, retaliation and 20 harassment and putting DEFENDANTS on notice and providing knowledge of the need to eliminate 21 discrimination, retaliation and harassment. 22 200. Under the law, as well as their own policies, DEFENDANTS had an obligation to take 23 24 corrective action to prevent further discrimination, retaliation and harassment of MENENDEZ but failed 25 to do so in violation of Section 12940, et. seq. of the California Government Code. DEFENDANTS failed 26 to conduct proper investigations, failed to turn over the results of these investigations, failed to implement 27 proper policies to prevent discrimination,retaliation and harassment and failed to properly punish those who 28 engaged in misconduct to deter further such future actions. 31 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT 1 201. Asa direct and legal result of the treatment MENENDEZ„MENENDEZ suffered harm and 2 injury that was legally (proximately) caused by the conduct of DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury 3 4 includes,but is not limited to,special(economic)damages,general(non-economic)damages,attorneys'fees 5 [per Government Code§12965(b)],litigation costs,future damages and past damages,lost economic earning 6 capacity in future employment endeavors and such further relief as shown at the time of Trial and in excess 7 of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 8 9 10 WHEREFORE, MENENDEZ prays for Judgment against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as 11 follows: 12 1. For compensatory damages, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation, bonuses, 13 14 vacation and other employment perquisites and other special and general damages according to proof, 15 2. Damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress; 16 3. Interest, including pre judgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate; 17 4. Attorneys' fees and costs incurred herein; and 18 19 5. Costs of suit; and 20 6. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 21 22 REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY 23 24 MENENDEZ hereby demands a Trial by Jury. 25 26 DATED: July 28, 2023 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN 27 28 By: Lawrence J. Lennemann LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN Attorneys for Plaintiff NELSON MENENDEZ 32 MENENDEZ V. CITY OF SANTA ANA CASENO. COMPLAINT