1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James D. Weakley, Esq. Bar No. 082853 Brande L. Gustafson, Esq. Bar No. 267130 WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP 1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176 Fresno, California 93710 Telephone: (559) 221-5256 Facsimile: (559) 221-5262 [email protected][email protected]Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF KERN, et al. MARK L. NATIONS, COUNTY COUNSEL Andrew C. Thomson, CHIEF DEPUTY (SBN 149057) Kern County Administrative Center 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Telephone: (661) 868-3800 Facsimile: (661) 868-3805 [email protected]Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF KERN, et al. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BIG O RELIEF, a California Non Profit Mutual Benefit Corp, DOO H. YOON, an individual, EUNICE S. YOON, an individual, and ALVARO ORDAZ, an individual, Plaintiffs, vs. COUNTY OF KERN, et al. Defendants. __________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. [Kern Sup. Ct. Case No. BCV-17-102394] DECLARATION OF JAMES D. WEAKLEY IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION [28 U.S.C.§ 1441(b)] Complaint Filed: October 12, 2017 Trial Date: TBA Public Entity Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code section 6103 I , James D. Weakley, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before the courts in the State of California and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. I am a partner in the law firm of Weakley & Arendt, LLP, the attorneys of record for Defendants of Kern–sued herein as County of Kern, Kern County Board of Supervisors, Kern County Public Works - Code Compliance Division, Kern County Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney’s Office, County Counsel’s Office, ____________________________ Declaration of James D. Weakley in Support of Notice of Removal of Action Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 1 of 126
126
Embed
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 1 … · 2017-11-27 · James D. Weakley, Esq. Bar No. 082853 Brande L. Gustafson, Esq. Bar No. 267130 WEAKLEY & ARENDT,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James D. Weakley, Esq. Bar No. 082853Brande L. Gustafson, Esq. Bar No. 267130WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176Fresno, California 93710Telephone: (559) 221-5256Facsimile: (559) [email protected]@walaw-fresno.com
Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF KERN, et al.
MARK L. NATIONS, COUNTY COUNSELAndrew C. Thomson, CHIEF DEPUTY (SBN 149057)Kern County Administrative Center1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301Telephone: (661) 868-3800Facsimile: (661) [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF KERN, et al.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BIG O RELIEF, a California Non Profit MutualBenefit Corp, DOO H. YOON, an individual,EUNICE S. YOON, an individual, andALVARO ORDAZ, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.
Defendants.
__________________________________
)))))))))))))))
CASE NO.
[Kern Sup. Ct. Case No. BCV-17-102394]
DECLARATION OF JAMES D.WEAKLEY IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OFREMOVAL OF ACTION[28 U.S.C.§ 1441(b)]
Complaint Filed: October 12, 2017Trial Date: TBA
Public Entity Exempt from Filing FeesPursuant to Government Code section 6103
I , James D. Weakley, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before the courts in the State of
California and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. I am a partner
in the law firm of Weakley & Arendt, LLP, the attorneys of record for Defendants of Kern–sued herein
as County of Kern, Kern County Board of Supervisors, Kern County Public Works - Code Compliance
Division, Kern County Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney’s Office, County Counsel’s Office,
____________________________Declaration of James D. Weakley in Support of
Notice of Removal of Action
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 1 of 126
Kern County Fire Department, Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department, Kern
County Department of Agriculture and Measurement Standards, and Kern County Public Health
Department–(“County”), Greg Fenton, Mick Gleason, David Couch, Mike Maggard, Zack Scrivner,
Donny Youngblood, Lisa Green, Mark L. Nations, James L. Brannen (erroneously sued as James L.
Brennan), Gurujodha S. Khalsa, Lorelei Oviatt, Glenn Fankhauser, and Al Rojas (“Defendants”).
2. I am one of the attorneys primarily responsible for handling the defense of this litigation
on behalf of the aforementioned defendants. As such, I am thoroughly familiar with the facts and
issues in this matter and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify to each of
the matters set forth herein.
3. Defendants Lorelei Oviatt and Mark L. Nations, were first served with notice of this
action on October 24, 2017. The remainder of the defendants were served shortly afterward or are in
the process of being served by Plaintiffs. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” are true and correct copies
of the Summons, Complaint, Plaintiffs’ Demand for Jury Trial, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Notice of
Assignment to Judge for All Purposes and Notice of Order to Show Cause Re: CRC Rule 3.110 and
Notice of Case Management Conference, Superior Court of California, County of Kern Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Packet, and the ADR Stipulation and Order Form.
4. My office, in conjunction with Kern County Counsel, represent all named defendants
in this action, all of whom consent to and join in this matter being removed to the United States
District Court, Eastern District of California.
5. Leticia Perez and Charles F. Collins are identified in the Complaint as defendants. A
review of the Kern County Superior Court Docket for this case revealed that Plaintiffs filed a request
for dismissal without prejudice as to Leticia Perez and Charles F. Collins on November 6, 2017, which
was entered the same day by the Clerk and signed on November 7, 2017. My office obtained a copy
of each of the dismissals entered as to Ms. Perez and Mr. Collins. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is
a true and correct copy of the Request for Dismissal without Prejudice entered as to Leticia Perez on
November 6, 2017. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy of the Request for
Dismissal without Prejudice entered as to Charles F. Collins on November 6, 2017.
/ / /
____________________________Declaration of James D. Weakley in Support of
Notice of Removal of Action 2
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 2 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and that this declaration was executed in Fresno,
California on November 22, 2017.
/s/ James D. Weakley____James D. Weakley
____________________________Declaration of James D. Weakley in Support of
Notice of Removal of Action 3
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 3 of 126
Big O Relief, et al. v. County of Kern, et al.
Exhibit A
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 4 of 126
SUMMONS{crT{ctou JUÐ,c,AL}
NOTICE TO ÐEFENDANT:rAvrso AL ÐEMANÐAÐA):COUNTY OF KFRN, a political subdivision of the State of Califarnia;Additional Parties Atlachment Form is attached.
YOU ARE EEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:l¿o ssrÁ ÐEMANÐANÐO EL Ѐ*{ÁfVAÁffrËJ:SIG O RELIEF, a Califcrnia Non-profit Mutual Benefit Corporation, DOO H.
YOON, an individual, EUNICE S. YOON, an individual, and Alvaro Ordaz, anindividual.
The name and address of the court is: KERN COUNTY(El nombrc y diæcciön de la cañe es):
1415 Truxtun AvenueBakersfield, CA 93301
The nama, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs atlorney, or plaintiff withoul an atlorney, is:
{El nombre, la direcciôn y el númera de telêfana del abagado del demandanle, o deî demandante que na fiene aöogado. esj;Abraham Á,. Labbad, Esq., 1250 Walnut St., Unit 122, Pasadena, CA 91106, {818) 253-1529
DATE:
{Fecha}Clerk, by /s/ Araceli Wahl
Ðepuly{Adjunto)
ELECTRONICALLY FILEÐ1Al2gÍ2A17 10:27 AM
Kern Gounty Superior CourtTerry McNally
By Araceli Wahl, tleputy
NOTICEI You hsve þaen sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond withiß 3ü dâys. Read lhe informationbelow.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS afler this summoûs and legal papers are served on you to file a written respônse ãt thi$ cöurt and have a copyserved on the plai¡{iff. A letter or phone call wilt not protect you. Your wr¡Ren response mu$t be in proper legal forn if you wanl the court to hear yourcase. There may be a court form that you cafl use for your response. Ysu can lind these court forms and moro information at lhe talifomia Cou¡".s
Online $elf-Help Center {www.eouriinfo.ca.gavlsellhelp}, yrur county law library, or ihe coürthouse neårest you, ll you cannot pay the fling fee, gsk
the court clerk for a fee waive¡ form. lf you do not ile your response on liñe, yÕu may lcse the case by default, and your wages¡ rnoney, ånd propertymay be taken without furlher uarning from the court.
There sre other legal requirernents. You may wañt to call an attorney dght away. lf you do not kûow ân attômey, you rûay wãnt tû câll ân atlorneyreferral service. lf you cânnôt afford ân âttorney, you may be elþible for free legal servicee frorn a nonprofit legal se¡vices ptogram. You can locateihese nonproñt gfoups ât the Califomia Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpalifamia.aß), the Califatñ¡â Couûs Online Self-Help Cenþr{www.coudinfo.ca.gou/selfhelp}. or by contacting you¡ local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived feeÊ endcosts on åny ssül€mÊnt or sùitraiion award ol $10.0û0 or more in a civil case. Tle court's lien rnust be paid beiore the æurt ttill disrniss the cåse.gWSAt Lo han deßtandada. Si no respo*de dentta de 30 dlas, la cole puede decidir en su ¿er?trs sin ssc¡rc¡¡ar su ve¡stön Lea la ínførmaciön acantinuac¡ón.- - i"ni iO O¡eS ÐE CÁlFfrrâ¡t?ro desp¿rés de que le antreguen esla crlacrón y papÊtes ,sgates p€ ra prssentar una rÞspueslå por escnlo err eslaærle y hdær que $s €rtregrre una ctpia at deñandante. Una c$ta a ana llanada lelefónice na Ia Wtegen. Su respuesfa por escrito îlena qss êståren formata leçal coneata si desea gue procesen sø caso en la corle. Ës posiåte que haya un fo¡mulario qua usted puada usar pañ su respuesla.Puede enæntrareslos lo¡mulariss de la code y tnás informaciôn en d Çentrc da Ayuda de ,as Cortes de Callfamia $rnrru.sucoile"ca.goYr, en ¡âb¡btbleca de leyes dê su condado o êr ta corle quê lê quêds ¡aés cerca, Si no puede pagar la cwla de prasentadón, plda âl $ød:eldría &'þ coñeque b & w formuluia de exención de paga de cöslss. Si no pr€sen{a so respoesla a fiernpo, puede perder el caæ por lncumplimiento y la corJe l€pdrâ qultar su suedo, dìners y ô¡enes sr¡ mâs adve¡lencia.
llay olrgs requfcrtos lsgalss. Es recomendable que llame a un abogada inrnediataments, Si ¡o go¡oce a un aboga&, puode llamar a un sç¡vlcio derenís¡ún a afugados. Sl no pusde pagar a u1 abogado, €s Bos,ôts que cuøpla con /os requisilos para obtener seruíaios tegalos gratuitos de unpr8rama de sewieios legaløs sln fine6 de f{/cro, Paede enænlrar eslos grupos srn {ines de luca en el sltla *eb de Califanla lagal.Serureq¡lrwur.lawhelpcelifomla.org), en el Centrø d6 Ayudã de tas torfBs ds Çalifat7]jta, fryw,/v.sucode.câ,gov) o poméndose ën cantacto çfll la ærto e e,ælegia de eöogados locatas. ,qyrsoj Par tey, le code tiene derecho a rsclamar laa cuolas y åcs coslos exentos por imryar un graì/8rn¿n soô¡Bcualquiet recuperaeión de $1O,0OO ô más de valar recibídø Ítodianlð un âcuetdt o una concesión dc arb¡lrâle €n ün caso de derecho eivil. Tieno quepagar el gravamen de ta cor{e ânrês de {ue la carta pueda desecltar e/ c8so.
fivúnso del Cåsor: BCV-17-10?334NUMSEñ:
1012012017 TERRy MCNALLysurïrnon5, use P0s-olo).i
(Panpruebadeentregadeesfa citatiónusealformulanbProof of Serviceof Summona, FAS-Aß)).
ISEAL¡
3. n anbehalf al(specify):
under: fl--l cCP 416,10 (corporation)
[--l CCp 419.29 (defunct corporation)
CCP 416.60 (minor)
CC? 416,7A (conservatee)
CCP 41e.90 (authorized personJ
NûTICE TO THE P-RSON SERVED: You are served1. T--l as an individualdefendant.?. T*_l as lhe person sued under the fictilious name of {specl'fyJ.'
CC? 416 "4A (association or partnership)
olher fspecif);4. n by personaldelivery on{dafeJ:
Þreiôlt
SUMMONSform Adoplrd lor tvlsndalû.y Us¿Judiiiål Couor¡l of Cd¡forn¡åSUM-100 lRev. Jrry 1.?009¡
Codâ ol Civi¡ Procedlre $gal?.20, ¡65w.cagrtinto.êa.gov
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 5 of 126
SHORT TITLE:
- BIG O RELIEF, et al, vs. COUNTY OF KERN, et al. BCV-¡7-t02394
CÀ58 NUMBÊR:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE
+ Th¡s form may þe used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of al| parties on the summqns.-| lf this attachment is used, insert the followíng statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: "Additíonal Parties
Attachment form ís attached."
List additional parties (Check only one box. Use a separate page for each type ú parA.):
n Pþintiff [J Defendanl l--l Cross-Complainant [--l Cross-Defendant
GREG FENTON, individually and as Kern County Building Inspector; KERN COUNTY BOARD OFSUPERVISORS, collectively; LETICIA PEREZ" individually and as Kern County Supervisor; MICKGLEASON, individually and as Kem County Supervisor; DAVID CCIUCH, individually and as KernCounty Supcrvisor; MIKE MAGGARD, individually and as Kern County Supervisor; ZACK SCRIVNER,individually and as Kern County Supervisor, KERN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS - CODE COMPLIANCEDMSION, eollectively; KERN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, colleetively; DONNYYOLINGBLOOD, individually and as Kern County Sheriff; KERN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'SOFFICE, collectively; LISA GREEhi, individually and as Kern County District Attorney; KERN COUNTYCOUNSEL'S OFFICE, collectively; MARK L. NATIONS, individually and as Kern County Counsel;JAMES BRENNAN, individually and as Deputy Kern County Counsel; CHARLES F. COLLINS,individually and as Chief Depufy Kern County Counsel; GURUJODHA S. KHALSA, individualþ and as
Chief Deputy County Counsel; KERh¡ COUNTY FiRE DEPARTMENT, collectively; KËRN COUNTYPLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, collectively; LORELEI OVIATT,individually and as Director; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF'AGRICUTTURE ANDMEASUREMENT STANDARDS, collectively; GLENN FANKHAUSEI' individually and as
Commissioner; KERN COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, collectively; AL ROJAS,
individually and as Kern County Code ComplianccDivision Supervisor; and DOES I Through 1000,Inclusive.
2PagÊ 2 at
Form Adopted lof Mâf¡datofy useJrldiciål Council ol Ca¡ifÕmia
SUM-200{A} lRev. Januâry 1.2æ71
A DDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENTAttachment to Summons
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 6 of 126
Fnlqrcerent of Judgr¡s¡¡f I Entorcemad of Judgænt (20)C¡mrÍô.dâl{3t}
Rô3ñe$iat {æ}Drugù {AB)
ås!€l lortelu€ (û¡iP.ôtitioÁ rô: ar!¡tr.6fhD rÍ.ard {ll,lôtìt of rnartdåts {01}.
2.
3. Remodiossought lclisck at! that appty): s.f7lmonerary4, Numbe¡of
in othe¡ countles, stEtes. or ôountries, Õr ¡n a tederât courtSubstant¡sl postjudglTìont judiciãt supervisionb.[ã âûnmonelary;
te¡íÊf c. f?lpunltivo
Cttá-Ð16.)
RÚT
is is nol cÞmplgx undsrrnanagornont:
rule 3.4û0 of thê Cãlíforafa Ruls¡ of Coud. ff the case ls cornp¡ex, merk therfü
excoplional judíoiafLargs number of sopârûtêly repr€sßnted pârtigs d. large number of witnessesb. Extensiræ motion prac{íco raislng difficutt or novel s, Coo¡dinstlon with related sctions pending in one or morcissues that will be líms-consumlng lo ress¡ve
". l--l Slbstånlial amountofdocumenlarye$dence f f]
c0rrfb
5. Thlscsrocausas ofl-l ¡a
aclion (spealfy): IE is nol e class adion suíl€. lf the¡e ar9 any knowrì râlatod cåsés, filê ånd s€rve â notics of Þlaled case.l7
3
)casêsclaims cassbþr tled
rule Fa¡lure3.220.)a Íleto resultmay
mU3tyou serya of rhhs copy cover sheel rllo.t¡tsheet bêwi¡¡ ussd for ståt¡sticål PUTFO9aS
1. ¡a?4clvtl såsÊ COVER S}IEET
CJ, Sî*ldstr r,
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 7 of 126
INSTRUCTIONS ON HO!l' TÛ CQT$FLETE TFIE COV€R SHËET CM'T1O
To Plalntiffs a¡ld Others Filing Flrst Papers, lf yo-u are,filing â.first paper for example, a complaint) in a civif câse. you müstc9ry{9te qnd file, aiong with yður f¡€t paper, the C¡vi, Cass Covs;SåeBrc¡nta¡nà on pagå l. itr¡s diormatisn will be used io compile*tati$ics
-abou! the types and nrmbers of cases filed. You must complete items ,l through 6 on the sheet. ln item 1, ¡lou musi c¡eck
o.ne þ9I for the casefype that best describes the case. lf the case ¡* ¡ot¡ a general an? a more speo¡fic lype oi"a"e f¡"i"àinlt"* I,gheck lhe more speciflc one,. lf the case has multiple causes of action, check ihe bsx that best índicates ttre primary cause of action.To assist 1qu i1,co-mpleting the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are þrovide-o below. t;;;;sheêt musi be.iled only with your initiaf paper. Failure to file a cover shãet with lhe first papär filed in a civil cãse may sul¡Jct a par¡y,its ccunsel, or both to sancticns under ruìes 2.30 and 3.220 of the ealifornia Rules of Court.-lo Parties ln Rule 3'74t Collectlons Case¡. A "collçclions casei' under rule 3.740 is deflned as an âctian for recovery of moneyowed in a sum stãted to be csrtain ihat is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interesl and attorney's f€es, arising from a tránsadion inwhich propotty, sen¡ices, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include aá actíon,seet<in! the following: iil i"*damages; {2} punítive
-damãgee, (3} recovery of real property, t4) r€çovery of personat properrty, o¡ (5} ã prejudgmerìi wi¡t o¡
attachment The identification o{ a casê as 'a rule 3]4a collec{ons cå6e on ti¡s fo'gn meané *rãt ¡t'wiH bà äxeó*'froä the qenerattime-for-sorvice requ¡rements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A ruie 3.740 cofËitionicase will be subjectto the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740.To Parties ln Cornplex Cases. ln complex cases only, parties must also use he Civil Case Coyer Såeef to designate whether thecase is complex. lf a plaintiff believes the óase is complex under rule 3.4û0 of ihe Califomia Rules of Court, this must ¡e indicated bycompleting the appropria{e boxes in items 1 and 2. lf a plaintiff designates a case âs complex, the cover sheet musl be served with tl,recompla¡nt on all parties to lhe action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first ãppearanoe a joinder in theplaintlffs designation.,a counter{esignation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no dosìgnation, a de'signation thatthe case is comolex.
CASE TYPES AND ËXÀ¡IIPLESAulo ?o4 Contract Provlslonãlly ço¡np¡ex Clv¡l Lltigatlon {Gal.
Auto {221-Per*onal InjurylProperty Breach of Contrãctlwârrânty (06) Rulss ol tourt Ruùs 3.40f3,40¡)Damage,ìÀtrongful Þeath Bre¿cir of Rentâl/Lèãse Arll¡lrust/Trede Regulation {03)
Un¡nsureiJ MolÕrist (aS) ffl'ra ConFad {not unlawful éetalner Cons{ß¡-ction Ðefgd (1q)cese invofues an ininsurcd orwþngîul eviclion) , çlaims.lnvohrirìg Massïqrt (40)moto¡istcialm subjcg.to Çontrad¡1Àlananty Breach-Seller Scq¡rilles Litigaiion {28}atb¡t atlcin, eheck thts item Flalrrtlf {nof fra ud or n*gtþenee) Ënvl¡onmentavToxic Tort (30)Íñste'adof Auto] Negligsnl8r€ãch of Go¡tract/ lnsurance Coveragé Claims
OtherPliPÞ/Wn{PgraonaltnJuryl ^. S&nanty -. {atísing{rontprovlsÍanallyeanplexProperty Þarnagò&tÍrongtd óåãthl Other Bæadr of Conh.acliwaranty cas6 fyts,lstadååov€J (41)Tori colleclio¡s {ê,9", money owed, open Enlorcsmentof Judgmoat
1e.g., assaútt, iaidattsnr¡ olher Reat prqperty t€.g., qu¡et tidê) G6) 'ytoYe) ljz)r¡rentìioãa¡ rnflìdioã or wirã poiiásË¡òn äii*"¡ ÞrE;sñy' iliri"JÍ,j8fååi1"o,ll¿"*_Erlotionat Distr€$s Mortgage Fsreclosure åarassme¡¡l)Negrigent rnfliclron of Quiet nt¡ç Mechanics LienEmollonal Dis{ress Other Real properly (not emlnentOlher PvPD/1rlÐ domâiû; landtord/tenant, ar olhe¡ Comme¡cial.Complaint
C ase {no n-no ñ/n o n-co rn p I e x )ilon-PllF8ÍrYD{O{hor}Tort. ,r_¡_.. foreclasure) Other.iv¡t Cornpla¡ntElus¡ßess TortJtjnfair Businèss Unlawful Dåtãlãer
Olher Professionâl Mâlprac{ice Writ-l¡landamus on Límited Court{nat nedtcdt or têsat) care r\iauer s leu'| L
Ë:llli:l í:: H:låi F,XiË,"Oihe¡ Non"PllPD-t1ÂlD Tort {35} Wit-Other Umited Cgurt Case CtaiáEmploymsnt Revlew Other Civil petltionWrongfi:l Termination {36) Other Judicial Review (39)Olher Employmenl (15) - -
nãv¡erv ãt Healh ôt¡cer Or¡erNolice of Appeal-Labor
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 8 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
1l-
72
1?IJ
I4
15
16
7'l
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
L(rtvrrl-/lrlì t (r¡1 ttttr O RELIEF, ET AL
LAW OFFICES OF ABRAIIAM A. LABBAI)Abraham A. Labbad, Esq. (CA Bar No.: 271349)1 250 Walnut St., Unit 122
Pasadena, CA 91i06Office: {818) 253-1529Fax: (818) 530-9236Specially Äppearing and Limited ScopeAttorneys for Plaintiffs:
BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
BIG O RELIEF, a California Non-profitMutual Benefit Corporation, DOO H. YOON,an individual, EUNICE S. YOON, anindividual, and Alvaro Ordaz, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COUNTY OF KERN, apolitical subdivisionof the State of California; GREG FENTON,individually and as Kern County BuildingInspector, KERN COTINTY BOARD OFSUPERVISORS, collectively; LETICIAPEREZ, individually and as Kern CountySupervisor; MICK GLEASON, individuallyand as Kern County Supervisor; DAVIDCOUCH, individually and as Kern CountySupervisor; MIKE MAGGARD, individuallyand as Kern County Supervisor; ZACKSCRI\rNER, individually and as Kern CountySupervisor, KERN COLTNTY PUBLICWORKS _ CODE COMPLIANCEDIVISION, collectively; KERN COUNTYSHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, collectively;DONNY YOLINGBLOOD, individually andas Kern County Sheriff; KERN COUNTYDISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,collectively; LISA GREEN, individually andas Kern County District Attomey; KERNCOUNTY COTINSEL'S OFFICE,collectively; MARK L. NATIONS,individually and as Kern County Counsel;
ELECTRONICALLY FILED1Al12l2O'17 10 48
Kern County Superior CourtTerry McNally
By Vanessa Cofield,
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJTINCTTVE RELIEF ANDDAMAGES FROM RACKETEERING,CONSPIRACY TO ENGAGE IN APATTERN OF RACKETEERINGACTIVITY, AND RELATED CAUSESOF ACTION;
STIPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
corrNTY oF KERN (METROPOLITAN DTVISION)
Case No.: BCV-17-102394)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
1. Acouisition and Maintenance of anInteiest in and Control of an
2RICO Enterprise through a Patternof Racketeering Activity:18 U.S.C$$ 1961(5),1962(c);
3. Conspiracy to Engage in a Patternof Racketeering Activity: 18u.s.c. $$ 1961 (s), r962(d);
4. Assault;5. Battery;6. Negligence;7. Defamation: Libel Per Se and
Slander;8. Fraud/Intentional
Misrepresentation;9. Negligent Misrepresentation;10. lntentional Interference with
Prospective Economic Advantage;1 l. Negfigent Interference with
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL(18 U.S.C. 1961, et seq.; l8 U.S.C. 1964(Civil RICO Remedies).)
1
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 9 of 126
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
I2
13
74
1trAJ
16
1'l
t-B
19
20
2L
)t
ZJ
24
1Ë
JAMES BRENNAN, individually and aspeputy Kern County Counsel; CHARLES F.
COLLINS, individually and as Chief DeputyKern County Counsel; GURUJODHA S.
KHALSA, individually and as Chief DeputyCounty Counsel; KERN COUNTY FIREDEPARTMENT, collectively; KERNCOLINTY PLANNING AND NATURALRESOURCES DEPARTMENT, collectively;LORELEI OVIATT, individually and as
Director; KERN COLTNTY DEPARTMENTOF AGRICULTURE ANDMEA SUREMENT STANDARD S,
collectively; GLENN FANKHA USER,individuaily and as Commissioner; KERNCOUNTY PTIBLIC HEALTHDEPARTMENT, coliectively; AL ROJAS,individually and as Kern County CodeCompliance Division Supervisor; and DOES1 Through 1000, Inclusive,
(continued)
Defendants.
TO EACH PARTY AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
1. COMES NOW BIG O RELIEF, a California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation,
DOO H. YOON, an individual, EUNICE S. YOON, an individual, and ALVARO
ORDAZ, an individual (hereinafter'Plaintiffs'), and for causes of action for civil RICO
violations arising from Defendants' violations of 18 U.S.C. $1961, et seq. - RICO
violations and remedies -- 18 U.S.C. $$ 241 - conspiracy against rights -- and 242 -
deprivation of rights under color of law -- bring this Complaint for declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages.
JURISDICTION
2. This honorable Superior Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to the civil RICO
remedies at 18 U.S.C. T964, and the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Tafflin v.
Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Lou v
COMPLAINT OT SíC O RELIEF, ET AL
)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 10 of 126
1
2
3
4
tr
6
I
9
'7
10
11
I2
13
\4
15
76
t1
1B
19
20
22
24
25
3
Belzberg, 834F.2d730,hn.4 (9th Cir. 1987) (Caiifomia State courts have concurrent
jurisdiction of civil RICO claims).
PARTIES TO THE ACTION
3. That Plaintiff Big O Relief is and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was a
Caiifornia Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation authorized to conduct business in the
County of Kern and the State of Califomia. Big O Relief is an enterprise engaged in and
the activities of which affect or impact the state of California, to wit: a corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of California.
4. That Plaintiffs Doo H. Yoon and Eunice S. Yoon were and at all times mentioned in this
Complaint were owners of real property located in Kern County, Califomia, that is an
integral part of the Complaint herein.
5. That Plaintiff Alvaro Ordaz was and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was
proprietor of Big O Relief, located in Kem County, Califomia, that is an integral part of
the Complaint herein.
6. That Defendant County of Kern is a political subdivision of the State of California,
business form unknown, operating within Kern County, State of California.
7. That the business entity known as Big O Relief, whose business operation takes place in
Mojave, California, and real property, where the business entity is located, is the subject
of the present Complaint. Both business and real property that are the subject of this
action are located within Kern County, Califomia.
8. That Defendant Greg Fenton, individually, is a citizen of the State of California, and
performs the duties entrusted him as Kern County Building Inspector.
3
COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 11 of 126
1
2
3
Á
5
6
"l
I
9
10
11
I2
t-3
I4
15
16
71
1B
19
20
27
aa
23
24
25
4
9. That Defendant Kern County Board of Supervisors, coliectively, is a political subdivision
of the State of California, business form unknown, operating within Kern County, State
of California.
10. That Defendant Leticia Perez, individually , is a citizen of the State of California and
performs the duties entrusted her as Kern County Supervisor.
t l. That Ðefendant Mick Gleason, individually, is a citizer^ of the State of California and
performs the duties entrusted him as Kern County Supervisor.
12.That Defendant David Couch, individually, is a citizen of the State of California and
performs the duties entrusted him as Kern County Supervisor.
13. That Defendant Mike Maggard, individually, is a citizen of the State of California and
performs the duties entrusted him as Kern County Supervisor.
14. That Defendant Zack Scrivner, individually, is a citizen of the State of Califomia and
performs the duties entrusted him as Kern County Supervisor.
15. That Defendant Kern County Public Works - Code Compliance Division, collectively, is
a political subdivision of the State of Califomia, business form unknown, operating
within Kern County, State of California.
16. That Defendant Kern County Sheriff s Department, collectively, is a political subdivision
of the State of Califomia, business form unknown, operating within Kem County, State
of Califomia.
17. That Defendant Donny Youngblood, individually, is a citizen of the State of Califomia
and performs the duties entrusted him as Kern County Sheriff.
18. That Defendant Kern County District Attorney's Office, collectively, is a political
subdivision of the State of California, business form unknown, operating within Kern
County, State of California.
4
COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 12 of 126
3
4
5
1
2
6
1
9
10
11
!2
13
T4
15
Ìr)
T1
1B
19
20
27
22
¿3
24
25
5
19. That Defendant Lisa Green, individually, is a citizen of the State of California and
performs the duties entrusted her as Kern County District Attorney.
2A.ThatDefendant Kern County Counsel's Office, coilectively, is a political subdivision of
the State of California, business form unknown, operating within Kern County, State of
California.
2l.ThatDefendant Mark L. Nations, individually, is a citizen of the State of Califomia and
performs the duties entrusted him as and as Kern County Counsel.
22.ThatJames L. Brennan, individually, is a citizenof the State of California and performs
the duties entrusted him as Deputy Kem County Counsel.
23.ThatCharles F. Collins, individually, is a citizen of the State of California and performs
the duties entrusted him as Chief Deputy Kern County Counsel.
24.ThatGurujodha S. Khalsa, individuall¡ is a citizen of the State of California and
performs the duties entrusted him as Chief Deputy Kern County Counsel.
25.That Defendant Kern County Fire Department, collectively, is a political subdivision of
the State of California, business form unknown, operating within Kern County, State of
California.
26.ThatDefendant Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department, collectively,
is a political subdivision of the State of California, business form unknown, operating
within Kem County, State of California.
2T.ThatDefendant Lorelei Oviatt, individually, is a citizen of the State of California and
performs the duties entrusted her as Director of Kern County Planning and Natural
Resources Department.
tr.,
COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 13 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
B
9
'7
10
11fl
T2
1?
t4
15
76
71
1B
19
20
21,
22
23
24
z3
6
2S.ThatDefendant Kern County Department of Agriculture and Measurement Standards,
collectively, is a political subdivision of the State of Caiifomia, business form unknown,
operating within Kern County, State of California.
2g.ThatDefendant Glenn Fankhauser, individually, is a citizen of the State of California and
performs the duties entrusted him as Commissioner of the Kern County Department of
Agriculture and Measurement Standards.
30. That Defendant Kern County Public Health Department, collectively, is a political
subdivision of the State of Califomia, business form unknown, operating within Kern
County, State of California.
31. That Al Rojas, individually, is a citizen of the State of Califomia and performs the duties
entrusted him as Kern Counfy Code Compliance Division Supervisor.
32.Thetrue names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through 1000, whether individual,
corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiffs at the time of filing this
Complaint and Plaintiffs therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names and will
seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to show their true names or capacities when
the same have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege,
that each DOE Defendant is in some manner responsible for the events and happenings
herein set forth and proximately caused injury and damages to Plaintifß, as herein
aileged.
33. Defendants, collectively and individually, as persons within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.A.
$1961(3) and as persons employed by and/or associated with said enterprise, conducted
and participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of said enterprise
through apattem of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. $i962(c).
6
COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 14 of 126
1
2
3
A
5
6
1
I
9
10
11If
T2
13
1,4
15
t-6
L7
18
19
20
2T
zz
24
25
1
34. At all times mentioned herein, each DOE Defendant was the agent, employee, and
representative of the remaining Defendants and was at all times herein mentioned acting
within the scope of said agency, employment and representation.
35. All Defendants, named or DOE, that exist as political subdivisions of the County of Kern
and State of Califomia, andthat at all relevant times hereto operated under authority of
said political subdivision, are an enterprise engaged in and the activities of which affect
or impact the state of Califomia, to wit: Defendants, and each of them, are required to
execute the laws of the State of California and the County of Kern by way of their
individual positions as representatives of the public in their respective roles.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON AI,T, CAI}SES OF ACTION
36. The ordinances and laws that are herein alleged to have been violated, include but are not
limited to 18 U.S.C. $$ 241, conspiracy against rights, and242, deprivation of rights
under color of law, and arise from additional violations of sections of the Kern County
Ordinance Code, which were to be performed in Kern County, California, and violation
of Califomia Health and Safety Code, $11362.5, among others as cited herein.
37.The 9=pt$gte acts which constitute this pattern of racketeering activity are:
I . Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation:
a. Defendants', and each of their, fraudulent conduct involved convincing
the public in Kern County, California, that Defendants' actions toward
Plaintiffs' legal medical marijuana dispensary were lawfuI and necessary
to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of Kern County,
Califomia. (See Exhibit'A'- Press Release by Supervisor Zack
Scrivner.) Specifically , Zack Scrivner, member of the Kern County Board
of Supervisors, issued a statement to the public announcing a:
'7
COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 15 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
T2
13
74
15
16
!'1
1B
19
20
21
22
ZJ
24
25
B
"County crackdown on illegal medical marijuana dispensaries. [and] ThisEnforcement Task Force action commences an initiative to close all illegalmedical marijuana dispensaries that began operation after the May 10, 2016
Moratorium enacted by the Board of Superuisors. This Enforcement TaskForce is a collaborative effort between Kern County Public Works - Code
Compliance Division, Kern County Sheriff Department, District Attorney,County Counsel, Fire Department, Planning and Natural Resources,Department of Agriculture and Measurement Standards, and Public Health."
It should be noted that Supervisor Scrivner's allegations that all medical
marijuana dispensaries that were to be closed were "illegal" is false and
extremely defamatory to Plaintiff Big O Relief.
b. Mr. Scrivner further admitted: "The Enforcement Team seized several
thousand dollars in unsafe edible product of unknown origin, as well as
illegal bath salts."
c. As a direct result of Supervisor Scrivner's press release, on or about
August 24,2017, Kern County Enforcement Task Force agents,
representatives, and officers entered the business of Big O Relief, located
at L6940 State Highway 14, Mojave, California 93501, and forced their
way into Big O Reiief with guns drawn to effectuate the unlawful seizure
of medicinal products and materials belonging to Plaintiffs. During this
"taid" Plaintiffs' employees and representatives were unlawfully and
forcefully placed in handcuffs.
d. As a result of Defendants', and each of their, actions described herein, the
County, by way of Defendant Al Rojas, issued a notice of violation stating
Plaintifß may not operate as a collective or cooperative. The notice (See
Exhibit 'B' - Notice of Violation) states: "An inspection was conducted
on August 24,2017 and it has been determined that the property is in
ICOMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 16 of 126
1_
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
IZ
13
1,4
15
t_6
7'l
1B
19
20
21-
22
23
24
.E
9
violation of Kem County Ordinances Code section 5.85, ... more than
twelve marijuana plants are being cuitivated on the property.
e. The actions of Defendants were clearly in error and unlawful. Kern
County Ordinance Code section 5.84 clearly states that "Medical
marijuana cooperative" and "medical marijuana collective" are defined as
set forth in section IV of the California Attorney General Guidelines for
the Security and Non-diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use
issued in August 2008, as they now read or as arnended," which provides
that under section IV of the Califomia Attorney General Guidelines,
medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers may "associate within
the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate
marijuana for medical purposes." (H&S ç 11362.77 5 ...) recognizes a
qualified right to collective and cooperative cultivation of medical
marijuana. ($$ 1i362.7 , 11362.77, and 11362.775.) 1...1 If a person is
acting as primary caregiver to more than one patient under section
11362.7(d)(Z),he or she may aggregate the possession and cultivation
limits for each patient. Nonetheless, the County of Kern and its agents,
representatives and employees issued the above-referenced notice of
violation that clearly does not apply. As a result, the County has
maliciously prosecuted this case with apparent animus and goal to
eliminate dispensaries in Kern County.
f. Defendants Scrivner's and Rojas's, and by way of association and
representation ail Defendants', assertions and allegations against Piaintiffs
were in fact false and were made with the intent to deceive the public into
9
COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 17 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
B
9
1
10
11
13
I4
15
16
I1
1B
t-9
20
21_
22
aa
24
25
10supporting all Defendants'personal views about the medical marijuana
community and were further made to advance Defendants', and each of
their, personal and political aspirations.
g. Defendants', andeach of their, malicious and fraudulent actions were in
violation of 18 U.S.C. ç241, whereby Defendants, and each of them,
conspired to deprive Plaintiffs' rights to operate a lawful business under
California law, and U.S.C. $242,whereby Defendants intentionally
performed acts against Plaintiffs in order to deprive Plaintiffs of rights and
privileges under color of law
h. It is important to note that, as a result of the zealous, yet egregious, actions
of the Kern County Board of Supervisors and Defendants collectively,
officers employed by the Kern County Sheriff s Office have entered
medical marijuana dispensaries in Kern County, including Big O Relief,
and unlawfully confiscated property belonging to the dispensaries under
color of law. (See Exhibit 6cr-Newspaper article titled: "Former
Kern Co. Sheriffls deputies avoid prison for selling marijuana seized
in drug raids.") The actions of the Kern County Sheriffs Department,
Supervisor Scrivner, and all Defendants, were unlawful and clearly
without probable cause or any legal reason. Said actions placed all lawful
members of the medical marijuana community in fear of law enforcement
agents.
It is further important to note that Kern County Counsel, Mark L. Nations,
has argued that the ruling of the Fifth District Court of Appeals in County
of Kern v. T.C.E.F., loc., was inapplicable to the present matters affecting
10COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 18 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
74
t5
16
11
1B
19
20
21
22
¿J
24
25
11medical marijuana dispensaries in Kern County. Mr. Nations stated that
the T.C.E.F. case had nothing to do with medical marijuana issues, but
was only an elections matter. However, according to Kern County
Ordinance Code $ 5.36.020(14) - Declaration of Urgency, the ruling in
T.C.E.F. "has created uncertainty as to how and under what circumstances
the county may regulate current dispensaries and any future dispensaries
and how such local regulation will interact with the new state legislation
and its implementing regulations." In fact, the T.C.E.F. decision had the
effect of reinstating Ordinance G-7849, a medical marijuana ordinance.
Mr. Nations' interpretation of T.C.E.F. being a simple "elections case"
reveals his desire to fraudulently induce the public and those he reports to
of his interpretation of the law as he sees appropriate, without any regard
for the truth and/or actual law in the matter.
2. Defamation: Defendants', and each of them, made/published false defamatory
statements about Plaintiffs operating an "illegal" medical marijuana
dispensary. These false statements were madeþublished to the public via
press release and newspaper article by Defendants with the intent to cause
injury to Plaintiffs' personal and professional reputations, economic stability,
and were intentionally and negligently made to cause physical and economic
injury to Plaintiffs as a result of said actions. Defendants' actions were in
violation of 18 U.S.C. $241, whereby Defendants, and each of them,
conspired to deprive Plaintifß' rights to operate a lawful medical marijuana
dispensary under California law and U.S.C. $242, whereby Defendants
11COMPLÄINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 19 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
B
9
1
10
11
t2
13
!4
15
76
71
18
19
20
21,
aa
/1
24
25
I2performed acts against Plaintifß in order to deprive Plaintiffs of rights and
privileges under color of law.
3. Assault and Battery: Through their actions Defendants, and each of them,
caused Piaintiffs to not only fear a volitional unauthorized act by
their agents, representatives, or employees, but also to suffer such physical
attack by Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiffs were confronted by law
enforcement off,rcers who had aimed their guns at Plaintiffs to effectuate the
raid that was demanded by the Kern Counfy Board of Supervisors. Plaintiffs
were thereafter placed in handcufß during said raid on Big O Reiief.
Defendants' actions were not authorized by law and were the result of
Defendants County of Kern, their agents, representatives and employees
seeking to gain personal and professional (political) favor from the people of
Kern County.
Again, Defendants' actions were in violation of 18 U.S.C. 524I, whereby
Defendants, and each of them, conspired to deprive Plaintiffs' rights to
operate a lawful business under California law, and U.S.C. $242, whercby
Defendants performed acts against Plaintiffs in order to deprive Plaintiffs of
rights under color of law.
38. Other RICO predicate acts, although appearing to be isolated events, were actually part
the overall conspiracy and pattern of racketeering activity alleged herein, e.g. providing
misinformation to the public, via electronic and/or U.S. Post Office mail, for the personal
gain of Defendants, and each of them, and others involved in local and county politics,
including, but not limited to the dissemination of false information regarding businesses
operating as medical marijuana dispensaries. (See Kern County Ordinance Code, $5'86.)
12
COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 20 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
9
"7
10
11
13
74
15
16
1,'7
1B
19
20
21
22
24
25
1339. Section 2.01.010 of the Kern County Ordinance Code - Government accountability-
provides:
A. Counfy Officers and Employees. County officers, elected or appointed, and
employees have a duty of loyalty and a duty of care in fulfilling their publictrust in government service. These duties mandate knowledge of and
compliance with federal and state laws and regulations as well as countyordinances and administrative regulations that apply to each officer's and
employee's specific responsibilities. The duty of compliance extends to allcounty operations, including, but not limited to, accounting, purchasing,
contracting, delivery of services, and required reporting.
40. The primary objective of the racketeering enterprise has been to gain poiitical favor,
enhance individual Defendants' reputations in the community for political and personal
gain by inflicting severe and sustained economic and personal (physical and reputational)
hardship upon Plaintiffs, with the intent of impairing, obstructing, preventing and
discouraging Plaintiffs from operating a medical marijuana dispensary - a topic of great
debate among law-abiding citizens of the State of California. Defendants', and each of
their, actions were done despite Big O Relief operating as alegalbusiness within Kern
County, California.
41. Additionally, Defendant Kem County Planning Director Lorelei Oviatt disclosed at a
public Board of Supervisors meeting in August 2017 , that Kern County wanted to rid
Kern County of the existing medical marijuana dispensaries so that businesses from Los
Angeles could establish their business in Kern County. Director Oviatt further disclosed
that allowing such Los Angeles-based business to enter Kem County would save Kern
County money because the specified business has a history of filing nuisance iawsuits
against their competitors and paylng for the removai of existing dispensaries.
Defendants', and each of their, motivations entirely disregard the legality of existing
Kern County businesses and demonstrates the personal and professional disregard of the
citizens and businesses of Kem County.ra
COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 21 of 126
1
2
3
4
t
6
1
B
o
10
11
T2
13
14
15
L6
I1
1B
19
20
LI
22
ZJ
24
25
1442.Defendants accomplished their objectives by administering threats of criminal
prosecution, a slanderous smear campaign against Plaintiffs and other medical marijuana
dispensary businesses legally operating in Kern County, physically assaulting Plaintifß'
employees and agents, and confiscation of unique property from Plaintiffs' business.
43. These acts of racketeering, occurring within two years of one another, constitute a
of racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.A' $ 1961(5)'
44. Plaintiffs were injured in their business and property by reason of this violation of the
laws of California, in that, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' complained-of
acts, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including loss of property, loss of reputation, closure of
their business, physical and emotional injury from having guns pointed at them and
handcufß placed on their wrists unlawfully, and loss of eamings and profits.
45. As stated, this is a civil action for RICO remedies authorized by the federal statutes at 18
U.S.C. 196I et seq.; for declaratory and injunctive relief; for actual, consequential and
exemplary damages; and for all other relief which the above-referenced Superior Court
deems just and proper under all circumstances which have caused the present Complaint.
(See 18 U.S.C. $$ 196a(a) and (c).)
ORDIN
46. Section 5.86.020 of the Kem County Ordinance Code - Declaration of Urgency, provides
at subsection 10: "On April 5, 2016, the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled in the case
of Count)¡ of Kern v. T.C.E.F.. Inc., that the Kern County Board of Supervisors acted in
violation of Elections Code 9145 when it repealed Chapter 5.84 of Title 5 of the Kern
County Ordinance Code in 20l2,thus reinstating into law an ordinance chapter and
regulatory scheme that was repealed four (4) years ago." The repeal reinstated the
ordinance to what it was in2009 under Ordinance G-7849.
1_4
COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 22 of 126
a
4
5
1
2
6
1
B
9
10
11
1a
13
74
15
16
71
18
19
20
11
22
z)
24
25
Itr]J
47.Kem County Counsel Mark L. Nations' interpretation of this particular issue. On
September 26,2017 , during a Kern County Board of Supervisors meeting, Mr. Nations
argued that the ruling of the Fifth District Court of Appeals in County of Kern v.
T.C.E.F., Inc., was inapplicable to the present matters affecting medical marijuana
dispensaries in Kern County because T.C.E.F. was merely an "elections matter" case. Mr
Nations stated the T.C.E.F. case had nothing to do with medical marijuana issues. Again,
however, according to Kern County Ordinance Code $ 5.86.020(14) - Declaration of
Urgency, the ruling in T.C.E.F. "has created uncertainty as to how and under what
circumstances the county may regulate current dispensaries and any future dispensaries
and how such local regulation will interact with the new state legislation and its
implementing regulations." In fact, as stated above, the T.C.E.F. decision had the effect
of reinstating Ordinance G-7849, a medical marijuana ordinance. If the T.C.E.F. case was
merely an "elections case" as described by Mr. Nations, then why would the Kern Countl
Ordinance Code treat the Fifth District's decision with such gravity and importance? As
the lead legal counsel for the entire county, especially when providing legal counsel to
the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Nations' flimsy interpretation of relevant case 1aw reveals
his and his department's lack of understanding of the issues; or, alternatively, Mr
Nations' interpretation demonstrates his and his department's desire to fraudulently
induce the public and those he reports to his interpretation of the law as he sees
appropriate, without any regard for the truth and/or actual law in the matter or how those
interpretations negatively impact citizens and business of Kern County
48. Section 5.86.030 provides: "From and after the effective date of Ordinance G-8630, May
I0,2016,no medical marijuana dispensary, other than those in existence and operating
AJ
COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 23 of 126
1
2
3
4
q
6
1
o
o
10
ÌL
T2
13
L4
15
16
71
1B
19
20
2I
ZZ
23
24
ÔE
1_6
on the effective date of this ordinance, is permitted within the unincorporated areas of
Kern County during the period of time this ordinance is effective."
49. California Govemment Code $ 65858 provides:
(e) When an interim ordinance has been adopted, every subsequent ordinance
adopted pursuant to this section, covering the whole or apart of the same property, shallautomatically terminate and be of no further force or effect upon the termination of the
first interim ordinance or any extension of the ordinance as provided in this section.
50. Ordinance No. G-8630 is a subsequent ordinance imposing a moratorium on all "new"
applications for medical marijuana dispensary licenses within Kern County which
purported to take effect beyond the termination of the first (G-7849) ordinance and
second ordinance, or any extension of the (G-8630) ordinance. Therefore, it violates the
plain meaning of section 65858, subdivision (e), and would have been "of no further
force or effect" at the time Plaintiffs began operating Big O Relief in Mojave, California.
51. Nevertheless, Big O Relief was registered with the California Secretary of State's Office
as operating in Califomia as of October 22,2009. (See Exhibit 'Do.) On May 9,2016
Defendant Big O Relief obtained a "seller's Permit" from the Califomia State Board of
Equalization to operate in Mojave, California. (See Exhibit oE'.) Plaintifß have receipts
that show delivery of products from Big O Relief to clients between ApúL26,2016 and
May 6,20i6. (See Exhibit'F'.) In addition, on May 9,2016 Defendants entered a lease
for retail property in Mojave, California. (See Exhibit 'G'.)
52. Onluly 28,2016the County of Kern filed a Complaint for Preliminary and Permanent
Injunction for Violation of Kern County Ordinance Code, $5.86, against Big O Relief,
Doo H. Yoon, and Eunice S. Yoon, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive (Kern County
said Doe Defendants when they placed Plaintiffs in handcuffs in order to effectuate the
unlawful raid on Big O Relief.
82. In doing the acts as alleged above, Defendants intended to cause or to place Plaintifß in
the reasonable apprehension (fear) of repeated harmful and offensive contacts with
Plaintiffs' persons.
83. At no time did Plaintiffs consent to any of the acts of the Doe Defendants as alleged
above.
84. As a result of said Doe Defendants', and each of their, acts alleged above, Plaintiffs were
in fact placed in great apprehension of a harmful and offensive contact.
85. Defendants, and each of them individually and collectively, would benefit from the
removal of Big O Relief from Kern County by making false and fraudulent allegations
that Big O Relief was an illegal establishment and that Defendants, and each of them, had
caused Plaintiffs' removal.
86. As a further proximate result of the above-stated acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs were
prevented from attending to their usual occupation as a medical marijuana dispensary and
thereby lost earnings to Plaintiffs' damage.
87. The aforementioned-conduct of Defendants was willful and malicious and was intended
to oppress and scare Plaintifß and to benefit Defendants, and each of them, personally
and politically. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages.
COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 31 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
L2
l_3
14
15
76
11
1B
19
20
21,
22
z5
24
1Ê
24FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Battery)
88. Plaintiffs now re-allege each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby
incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
89. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the DOE Defendants
is, in some manner, responsible for the events and happenings herein set forth and
proximately caused injury and damages to Plaintiffs as herein alleged.
90. At all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant, and/or
employee of each of the other Defendants and was at all times herein mentioned acting
within the scope of said agency and/or employment.
91. Immediately after being piaced in great apprehension of a harmful and offensive contact
with their persons, Defendants placed Plaintiffs in handcuffs, causing extensive physical
and emotional injury to Plaintiff.
92.Indoing the acts as alleged above, Defendants acted with the intent to make a contact
with Plaintiffs' persons.
93. At no time did Plaintiff consent to any of the acts of Defendants alleged above.
94. As a proximate result of the acts of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintifß were hurt and
injured in their health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to their persons, all of
which have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiffs great mental, physical, and nervous
pain and suffering.
95. As a further proximate result of the acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs were prevented from
attending to their usual occupation as a medical marijuana dispensary and thereby lost
eamings to Plaintiffs' damage.
24COMPLAINT OF'BIG O R.ELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 32 of 126
2
3
1
4
tr
6
9
1
B
10
11
L2
1)1J
t4
15
16
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
2596. The aforementioned-conduct of Defendants was willful and malicious and was intended
to oppress and cause injury to Plaintiffs and to benefit Defendants, and each of them
personally and politically. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive
damages.
W(Negligence)
97. Plaintiffs now re-allege each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby
incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
98. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the DOE Defendants
is, in some manner, responsible for the events and happenings herein set forth and
proximately caused injury and damages to Plaintifß as herein alleged.
99. At all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was the agent, sewant, andlor
employee of each of the other Defendants and was at all times herein mentioned acting
within the scope of said agency and./or employment.
100. Defendants, and each of them, were Kern County Officers and/or employees and
pursuant to section 2.0i.010 - Govemment accountability - of the Kern County
Ordinance Code. Defendants, and each of them, as elected or appointed County officers
and employees, have a duty of loyalty and a duty of care in fulfilling their public trust in
government service. These duties mandate knowledge of and compliance with federal
and state laws and regulations as well as county ordinances and administrative
regulations that apply to each officer's and employee's specific responsibilities. The duty
of compliance extends to all county operations, including, but not limited to, accounting,
purchasing, contracting, delivery of services, and required reporting.
.C¿J
COMPLAINT OF BIG O R.ELIEF, ET.AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 33 of 126
1
2
3
4
trJ
6
1
B
ô
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I1
1B
l-9
20
2I
22
ZJ
24
25
26101. At all relevant times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, undertook
the obligations and duties bestowed upon them as elected/appointed/employed agents of
the County of Kern. Defendants, and each of them, undertook an obligation to follow the
laws of the State of California, including the laws of the County of Kern, at all times
relevant hereto. Defendants, and each of them, were held in a position of trust by the
citizens of Kem County and Plaintifß. As such, Defendants, and each of them, owed a
duty of trust and care to the people of Kern County to uphold the laws of the State of
California and, more specifically, the laws that some of the Defendants herein enacted in
the course and scope of their respective positions.
T02. Defendants breached the duties of loyalty and care that was owed to Plaintiffs and
clients of Plaintiffs'business by ignoring the lawful application of K.C.O.C., $5.86 to
Plaintiffs. Defendants' publication of defamatory statements about Plaintifß for their
own personal and political gain furthered the breach of duties owed to Plaintiffs.
Defendants further breached the duties owed to Plaintiffs when Defendants permitted
and/or acted to "raid" Plaintiffs' business on August 22,2017, without any legal,
probable or otherwise, cause to do so.
103. Defendants conspired to and/or permitted false, malicious and defamatory
statements about Plaintiffs operating an "illegal" medical marijuana dispensary.
Defendants, and each of them, are responsible for the publication of the false/defamatory
statements that were published to the general public with the intent of causing Plaintifß
economic and personal injury while promoting each Defendants' personal and political
clout in Kern County. Further, Defendants, and each of them, conspired to commit
assault and battery upon Plaintiffs for the purpose of gaining personal and professional
standing in Kern County.
26COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 34 of 126
1
2
3
4
tr
6
oo
9
'1
10
11
72
13
74
15
16
I7
l-B
19
20
2L
22
24
25
21104. Defendants' unlawful actions, that amounted to a breach of their duties that were
owed to all people of Kern County and the State of California, including Plaintiffs, began
on or about August 10,2017 and continued until the date of filing Plaintiffs' Complaint
herein. Again, Defendants published a press release that informed the general public that
Plaintiffs' business, Big O Relief, was an "illegal" medical marijuana dispensary and that
the Kern County Board of Supervisors were going to close Plaintiffs' business.
105. The tnrth of the matter was that, at the time of Defendants' above-cited
publication and reiated acts, Big O Relief was operating legally in Kern County under the
laws of the State of California and the Kern County Ordinance Code. By their
misconduct and breach of any duty owed to the people of Kern County, Defendants
committed violations of California law, including but not limited to, California Health
and Safety Code, $11362.5, and Kern County Ordinance Code, $ 5.86, et al.
106. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants, and each
of them, negligently, carelessly, wantonly, recklessly and unlawfully raided Big O Relief
on or about August 22,2017, and failed to protect Plaintiffs from any such acts, thereby
resulting in injuries and damages to Plaintiffs.
107. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants, County of Kern, Kern
Sheriffls Department, Kern County Board of Supervisors, Kern County Code
Enforcement Department and all other Defendants, who will be specifically identified
once discovery is conducted in the matter, who participated or furthered the false and
malicious defamatory statements about Plaintiffs that were published in a local
newspaper. Said Defendants knew or reasonably should have known the published
defamatory statements about Plaintiffs by the author of said statements, Defendant Zack
Scrivner, were false and would cause injury to Plaintiffs without legal reason for doing
21COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 35 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
72
13
a4
15
t6
71
1B
19
20
2t
aa
a1
24
z3
2Bso. Said acts of Defendants, and each of them, thereby proximately caused the injuries
and damages described below.
108. These acts of the Defendants, and each of them, showed a complete and total
disregard for the standards required ofpublic officials, agents, representatives, and/or
employees of the County of Kern. Defendants', and each of their, above-cited acts,
caused Plaintiffs irreparable reputational and financial harm and denied Plaintiffs' rights
provided by the citizens of the State of Califomia under California Health and Safety
Code, $i 1362.5, and section 5.86, et al., of the Kern County Ordinance Code.
109. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each
of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiffs have sustained severe, serious, and permanent injuries to
their personal and professional lives, all to their damage in a sum to be shown according
to proof and within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Defamation: Libel Per Se and Slander)
I 10. Plaintiffs now re-allege each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby
incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
11 1. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants have
published or re-published false and defamatory statements regarding Plaintiffs and that
Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that such statements were
false, were about Plaintiffs, and were likely to cause significant harm to Plaintiffs at the
time they were made.
Il2. In one instance of libelous statements by Defendants, collectively through
association and individually as to Zackscrivner, a press release was published by the
Kern County Board of Supervisors on or about August 10,2017. The press release
2B
COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 36 of 126
5
6
1
2
3
4
1
10
B
9
11
72
13
14
15
76
L7
1B
1ô
20
2!
22
24
z3
29specifically identified Big O Relief as an "illegal" medical marijuana dispensary
operating in Mojave, California. The press release advised readers of the release that the
actions of the Board of Supervisors was lawfül under section 5.86 of the Kern County
Ordinance Code. As provided above, the legality of Big O Reliefs operation has not been
decided on the merits by a court of law. The information provided in the Board of
Supervisors' press release was then re-published in a local newspaper to citizens of Kem
County. (See Exhibit'I'- Newspaper Articles regarding "Unlawful" medical
marijuana dispensaries, including Big O Retief.)
I i3. The allegations made by Supervisor Zack Scrivner and the Kern County Board of
Supervisors was libel per se because it clearly and unequivocally identified Plaintiff Big
O Relief, made statements about Big O Relief that said Big O Relief was an'oillegal'o
business (which has not been determined by a court of law), thereby causing people who
would normally do business at Big O Relief for their lawful medical needs to not do so
for fear of prosecution.
I14. In another instance of defamatory action taken by Defendants against Plaintiffs,
Defendant Kern County Planning Director Lorelei Oviatt clearly stated "there are no
legal dispensaries in Kern County because we [Kem County] have never permitted any
medical marijuana dispensary to operate in Kern Counfy." Ms. Oviatt's statement ignores
the fact that the State of Caiifornia permits medical marijuana dispensaries to operate in
California. A failure on the part of Kern County to grant an operator's permit for a lawful
business does not make that business unlawful.
I 15. Such statements by Director Oviatt at a public hearing of the Kern Cotrnty Board
of Supervisors is slanderous to Plaintifß because, when coupled with the press release
issued by Zack Scrivner and the Board of Supervisors that specifically named Plaintiff
-29COMPLAINT OT'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 37 of 126
1
2
3
4
tr
6
'7
8
9
10
11
1_2
13
14
15
16
I'7
1B
19
20
27
22
24
25
30Big O Reiief as an "illegal" medical marijuana dispensary, people who heard the false
allegations of Ms. Oviatt would believe that Big O Relief was not a lawful business and
therefore avoid doing business with Big O Relief.
116. Director Oviatt identified the purpose of removing Big O Reiief from Kern
County when she stated that Kern County planned to allow similar medical marijuana
dispensaries that presently operate in Los Angeles, California, to reiocate to Kern
County. Statements made by Ms. Oviatt identify Defendants' and each of their, intent in
allowing the Los Angeles-based dispensaries to relocate to Kern County was because saic
dispensary had a history of causing other dispensaries to close by filing their own
nuisance actions against their competitors. According to Ms. Oviatt, the County would
save money by not having to pay for the legal actions to seek court approval to close the
dispensaries themselves. Given the statements of Director Oviatt, it is clear that
Defendants are willing to intentionally injure lawful Kern County businesses in order to
gain political and personal favor from the citizens of Kern County by suggesting that
they, Defendants, saved the County of Kern some money.
717. All of the above statements were made with malice and intent to injure Plaintiffs'
business and business reputation. Defendants have repeatedly made false and injurious
statements about Plaintiffs. In the above-cited instances of false and defamatory
information being disseminated to the public by Defendants the information published
was intended to injure Plaintiffs.
118. Pursuant to the laws of the State of California and the Kern County Ordinance
Code, Big O Relief was in existence and operating prior to the Moratorium that was
enacted on May 10,2016. (See K.C.O.C., $5.86.) Therefore, Plaintifß were not operatin¡
"illegally," at any time referenced herein.
30COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 38 of 126
1
2
5
6
'7
B
3
4
9
1-2
10
11
74
15
16
11
1B
19
20
27
22
24
atrZJ
31119. Doe and other Defendants, whose identities have not yet been specifically
identified, relied on the information given them by the Board of Supervisors, and other
named Defendants, that Plaintiffs were operating illegally and took action to stop
Plaintiffs' alleged unlawful activities. Specifically, said Defendants raided Big O Relief
on August 22,2A17, with guns drawn and the application of handcuffs to Plaintiffs, their
agents, representatives and employees. Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend the
Complaint once the names of the Doe Defendants herein-mentioned are known.
120. As a result of such libelous and slanderous defamatory statements, Plaintiffs have
thereby suffered injury and damage to their personal and professional reputations and to
their persons in an amount to conform to proof at trial, but in no event less than the
jurisdictional minirrum of this Court.
12I. Because the defamatory statements were made with malice and intent to injure,
Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary and punitive damages in a sum appropriate to punish
such Defendants.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud/Int entíonal Mis repr es entation)
122. Plaintifß now re-allege each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby
incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
I23. On or about August I0,2017 and Septemb er 2,2017 , Defendants Kem County
Board of Supervisors and, specifically and individually, Zack Scrivner, Mick Gleason,
Leticia Perez,David Couch, Mike Maggard made the following representations to the
public via a press release that was re-published in a local newspaper:
31COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 39 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
ô
10
11
72
t-l
!4
15
I6
I1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
za
32a. That the County of Kern was raiding all medical marijuana dispensaries that are
operating illegally in the County of Kern, which included Defendants' business, Big
O Relief;
b. That the actions taken against Big O Reiief and other medical marijuana
dispensaries was authorized pursuant to Kern County Ordinance Code section 5.86;
c. That Big O Relief was an illegai medical marijuana dispensary.
The representations made by said Defendants were in fact false. The true facts124.
were:
a. That Big O Relief had been in existence and operation prior to the enactment of
the Moratorium date of May'10,2016;
b. That Big O Relief was not operating illegally when it was physically raided by
Defendants' agents, representatives, and employees on August 22,2017;
c. That Defendants knew or had reason to know that Big O Relief was operating
legally, pursuant to California and Kern County laws;
c. That Defendants were targeting all medical marijuana dispensaries that were not
on a list compiled by Defendants. Defendants intentionally and/or negligently failed
to investigate the legality of their statements and actions regarding Big O Relief and
Plaintiffs and regarding the legality of the raids that were conducted on medical
marijuana dispensaries operating in Kern County, including Big O Relief.
d. That, had Defendants properly investigated the truth or falsity of Big O Relief s
status as a legal medical marijuana dispensary they would have discovered that it was
in fact in existence and operating prior to the May 10, 2016 Moratorium, supra.
e. That the above-cited press release, newspaper articles, subsequent raid on Big O
Reliel and statements made by Planning Director Oviatt provided support for certain
COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 40 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
B
9
10
11
72
13
I4
15
16
L'7
1B
19
20
21
z¿
23
24
atr
a2Defendants' political interests and ambitions by allegedly "protecting the citizens" of
Kem County from "illegal" medical marijuana dispensaries.
L25. When the above-identif,red Defendants, and each of them, made or caused these
representations to be published to the public and authorizedthe uniawful raid on Big O
Relief, they knew the statements about Big O Relief and Plaintiffs to be false and made
these representations with the intention to deceive and defraud the public at large and to
induce the public to act against Plaintiffs' personal and professional interests and to
believe Defendants' representations to fuither Defendants' personal and professional
þolitical) interests.
126. Reliance by the public in general on the above-identified Defendants'
representations was justified because Defendants held elected positions of trust and
authority in Kern County.
ï27. Further, no matter how much evidence was presented to Defendants, and each of
them collectively and individually, they refused to acknowledge the fact that Plaintiffs
were operating legally at the time Defendants made their false statements.
L28. As a proximate result of the fraudulent conduct of said Defendants, Big O Relief
was unlawfully raided by law enforcement officials, thereby causing great and
injury to Plaintiffs' financial, emotional, reputational, and personal security.
l2g. As a proximate result thereof, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be
proven attrial, but not less than the jurisdictional iimit of this Court.
i30. The aforementioned conduct was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit and/or
concealment of material facts known to Defendants, with the intention on the part of
Defendants of gaining personal and professional (political) favor from the constituents of
their respective public offices by thereby depriving Plaintiffs of property, legal rights or
22
COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEFO ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 41 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
B
9
't
10
11
72
13
74
15
76
1'7
1B
19
20
21,
22
23
24
25
leeallv. Dursuant to Califomia and Kêfn County laws;COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELÍEF, ETAL
34otherwise causing injury, was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and
unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights, so as to justify an award of
exemplary and punitive damages.
. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(N egl igent Mis r ep r es ent a t ion)
13l. Plaintiffs now re-allege each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby
incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
I32. As cited above, Defendants, and each of them collectively and by way of
association/respondeat superior, made the following representations to the public via a
press release that was re-published in a local newspaper:
133
a. That the County of Kern was raiding all medical marijuana dispensaries that are
operating illegally in the County of Kern, which included Defendants' business, Big
O Relief;
b. That the actions taken against Big O Relief and other medical marijuana
dispensaries was authorized pursuant to Kern County Ordinance Code section 5.86;
c. That Big O Relief was an illegal medical marijuana dispensary.
The representations made by said Defendants were in fact false. The true facts
were:
a. That Big O Relief had been in existence and operation prior to the enactment of
the Moratorium date of May 10,2016;
b. That Big O Relief was not operating illegally when it was physically raided by
Defendants' agents, representatives, and empioyees on August 22,2017;
c. That Defendants knew or had reason to know that Big O Relief was operating
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 42 of 126
3
4
5
6
1
2
'1
10
Õ
9
11
1-2
l_J
74
15
76
t'l
LB
19
20
27
a')
23
24
{
25
35c. That Defendants were targeting all medical marijuana dispensaries that were not
on a list compiied by Defendants. Defendants intentionally andlor negligently failed
to investigate the legaiity of the raids on medical marijuana dispensaries operating in
Kern County, including Big O Relief.
d. That, had Defendants properly investigated the truth or falsity of Big O Relief s
status as a legal medical marijuana dispensary they would have discovered that it was
in fact in existence and operating prior to the May 10, 2016 Moratorium that
Defendants maliciously relied-upon when they issued the above-mentioned press
release and authorized the ensuing raid on Plaintiffs' business.
e. That the above-cited press releases and subsequent raid on Big O Relief provided
support for Kern County Board of Supervisors members' political interests and
ambitions by protecting the citizens of Kern County from "illegal" medical marijuana
dispensaries.
I34. When Defendants, and each of them, made or caused these representations to be
published to the public and authorized the unlawful raid on Big O Relief, they knew or
should have known them to be false and allowed these statements which resulted in
deceitful and fraudulent representations to the public atlarge, thereby resulting in the
inducement of the public to act in reliance on Defendants' representations so that
Plaintiffs' business would be closed.
135. Reliance by the public in general on Defendants' representations was justified
because Defendants held positions of hust and authority in Kern County.
136. Further, no matter how much evidence was presented to Defendants, they refused
to acknowledge the fact that Plaintiffs were operating legaily at the time Defendants
made their false statements about Plaintiffs.
35COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 43 of 126
1
2
J
4
É
6
1
B
9
T2
t0
11
i_3
t4
15
16
II
1B
19
20
2L
))
23
24
25
36137. As a proximate result of the fraudulent conduct of Defendants, Big O Relief was
unlawfully raided by law enforcement officials, thereby causing gteat and irreparabie
injury to Plaintiffs' financial, emotional, reputational, and personal security.
138. As a proximate result thereof, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be
proven attnal, but not less than the jurisdictional limit of this court.
139. The aforementioned-conduct was a negligent misrepresentation, deceit and/or
concealment of material facts known to Defendants, for the purpose or result of gaining
political favor from the constituents of their positions by thereby depriving Plaintiffs of
property,legal rights or otherwise causing injury, was despicable conduct that subjected
Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintifß' rights, so as to
justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentíonal Int erferenc e with Pro sp ective E c onomic Advantage)
140. Plaintifß now re-allege each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby
incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
I41. Defendants targeted Big O Reiief in order to stop patients/clients from
frequenting Plaintiffs' medical marijuana dispensary, thereby causing Plaintifß great
financial injury and damage to Plaintiffs' reputations in the community and to interfere
with business relationships that Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have
known that Plaintiffs had with existing and prospective clients.
142. Defendants knew, or had reason to know, that informing the citizens of Kern
County that Big O Relief was an "illegal" medical marijuana dispensary would directly
interfere with any existing and/or prospective economic advantages Big O Relief had or
would have with existing and potential medicai marijuana patients/clients.
CoMPLAINT oF Biå o RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 44 of 126
1
2
3
4
trJ
6
1
B
9
10
11
1_2
t-3
1-4
15
16
11
1B
19
20
27
zz
z-)
24
25
31143 . As a proximate result of the fraudulent/egtegious conduct of Defendants,
Plaintiffs have suffered great and irreparable financial injury. As a proximate result
thereof, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be proven attrial, but not iess than
the jurisdictional limit of this eourt.
144. The aforementioned-conduct was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit and/or
concealment, with the intention on the part of Defendants of denying Plaintiffs financial
gain by thereby depriving Plaintiffs of property, legal rights or otherwise, causing injury,
and was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship and
conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights, so as to justiff an award of exemplary and
punitive damages.
USE OF
(Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
ï45. Plaintiffs now re-ailege each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby
incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
146. Defendants, and each of them, as elected public officials and agents and
representatives of the County of Kern, owed a duty to Plaintifß to uphold the laws of the
State of California and the County of Kern in order to promote the safety, growth, and
prosperity of the citizens of the State of Caiifornia and the County of Kern.
147. On or about August 10,2017 and september 2,20L7, Defendants made
statements that the County of Kem was raiding all medical marijuana dispensaries that
are operating illegally in the County of Kern. Defendants included Big O Reliet which
was operating in Mojave, California, as one of the medical marijuana dispensaries that
were operating "illegally," and that the actions taken against Big O Relief and other
31COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 45 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
I2
13
I4
15
16
I1
1B
19
20
21_
a.)
23
24
20medical marijuana dispensaries was authorized pursuant to Kern County Ordinance Code
section 5.86.
I48. Defendants knew that Big O Relief was operating and in existence in Mojave,
California, at the time the Moratorium was enacted, supra.
149. Defendants targeted Big O Relief in order to stop patients/clients from
frequenting the medical marij uana dispensary.
150. Defendants knew, or had reason to know, that informing the citizens of Kern
County that Big O Relief w"as an "illegal" medical marijuana dispensary would directly
interfere with any existing clientele Big O Relief had or would have with existing and
potential medical marij uana patients/c lients.
151. Defendants breached the duty owed to Plaintifß when Defendants ignored
Califomia law and the Kern County Ordinance Code by intentionally attacking, as
described above, Plaintiffs' business operations, reputation, and financial stability.
152. As a proximate result of the fraudulent conduct of Defendants, and each of them,
Plaintiffs suffered great and irreparable fînancial injury. As a proximate result thereof,
Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be proven atúal, but not less than the
jurisdictional limit of this Court.
153. The aforementioned-conduct of Defendants, and each of them, was an intentional
misrepresentation, deceit and/or concealment, with the intention on the part of
Defendants of denying Plaintiffs financial gain by thereby depriving Plaintiffs of
property, legal rights or otherwise, causing injury and was despicable conduct that
subjected to cruel and unjust hardship and conscious disregard of Plaintifß' dghts, so as
to justiff an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
38COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 46 of 126
1
2
a
4
5
6
't
I
9
10
11
a2
13
14
t-5
fo
1_'7
1B
19
20
a1
ZZ
ZJ
24
25
?oSE OF
(Conversion)
I54. Plaintiffs now re-allege each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby
incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
155. Plaintiffs are, and at all times relevant herein were, the owners/proprietors of or
entitied to immediately possess the property normally associated with operating Big O
Reliel a medical marijuana dispensary.
i56. Defendants wrongfully interfered with Plaintiffs'interests in the above-described
property by undertaking the following acts: On or about August 22,2017, Defendants
wrongfully took possession and control of products and merchandise legally belonging to
Plaintiffs.
157. While Defendants were in the possession of the converted goods, they aitered,
damaged and/or destroyed the items at issue.
158. Defendants conspired with other Defendants to convert the above-mentioned
property, so that the activities of one are attributable to all.
159. As a result of Defendants' acts of conversion, Plaintiffs have been damaged in the
sum or sums to be proven attnal, including all compensatory damages. Further,
Defendants are further entitled to compensation for the time and money expended in
pursuit of the property.
160. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, malice,
and in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintifß, and Plaintiffs are therefore entitled
to punitive damages according to proof at the time of trial.
39COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 47 of 126
1
2
3
4
B
9
5
6
1
10
11
I2
.LJ
14
15
I6
tt
18
19
20
ô1LI
L¿
23
24
25
40THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Reliefl
161. Plaintiffs now re-allege each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby
incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
162. Big O Relief was in existence and operating prior to the effective date of the May
10,2016 Moratorium as provided in Kern County Ordinance Code, $5.86. The above-
cited documents and information indicate that Big O Relief was "in existence" and
"operating" prior to the May 10, 20i6 Moratorium and thus should not have been raided
under color of 1aw fKern County Ordinance Code, $5.86).
163. Further, Big O Relief was raided under color of law by Defendants prior to any
determination by a court of competent jurisdiction that Big O Relief was actually an
"illegal" medical marijuana dispensary.
164. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and
Defendants because the County of Kern, through actions taken by members of the Board
of Supervisors and agents, representatives, and employees of the County of Kern (all
remaining Defendants), demonstrate their refusal to accept the fact that Big O Relief was
in fact in existence and operating prior to the May 10, 2016 cut-off date as imposed by
Rule 5.86 of the Kem County Ordinance Code.
165. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that
Plaintiffs may ascertain the rights and duties afforded them under the laws of the State of
California and the Kern County Ordinance Code.
40COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 48 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
IL
13
T4
15
16
I'7
10
19
20
aa
23
24
25
4LFOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(P r el im inary Inj unc t io n)
166. Plaintiffs now re-allege each and every aliegation as set forth above, and hereby
incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
167. Plaintiffs are informed and thereupon beiieve Defendants will take fuither steps to
close Plaintiffs' legal business and take possession of the unique products, books,
income, and fumishings within the medical marijuana dispensary known as Big O Relief.
168. The Defendants' and each of their, wrongful conduct, unless and until enjoined
and restrained by order of this Court, will cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs
by continuous slanderous/defamatory publications and by unlawfully confiscating
products and merchandize created by Plaintiffs and thereby denying Plaintiffs the benefit
of rightful and lawful ownership interest in said items and business.
169. As a proximate result of the Defendants', and each of their, continued wrongful
conduct, the full amount of damage is not now known to Plaintifß, and Plaintifß will
amend this Complaint to state this amount when it becomes known or upon proof of
damages.
\ilHEREFORE, pursuant to the statutes at 18 U.S.C. I96a@) and (c), Plaintiffs pray for
judgment against Defendants and DOES I through 1000, each of them as follows:
FOR THE FOLLOWING CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION and Maintenance of an Interest in and Control of
an Enterprße Engaged in a Pattern of RacketeeringActivity:18 U.S.C. SS I96l(5), 1962(b)):
1. That this Court liberaliy construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants,
both jointly and severally, have acquired, maintained, and acted upon, both directly and
indirectly, an interest in and./or control of a RICO enterprise of persons and of other individuals
4tCOMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 49 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
l_0
11
72
13
1-4
15
16
]-'l
1B
19
20
27
22
23
24
ôÊ¿J
who were associated in fact, all of whom engaged in, and whose activities did affect, the lawful42
operation of Plaintiffs'business venture in violation of i8 U.S.C. 1962(b).
2. That ail Defendants and all their directors, offrcers, employees, agents, servants and all
other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during
pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from acquiring or maintaining, whether
directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any RICO enterprise of persons, or of other
individuals associated in fact, who are engaged in, or whose activities do affect the lawful
operation of Plaintiffs' business venture.
3. That all Defendants and all of their directors, ofÍicers, employees, agents, servants and
all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during
pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from committing any more predicate acts in
furtherance of the RICO enterprise alleged in this Complaint.
4.Thatall Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages
derived from their several acts of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C.1962(b) and,
from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s).
5. That judgment be entered for Plaintiffs and against all Defendants for Plaintiffs' actual
damages, and for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C.
1962(b), according to the best available proof.
6. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiffs treble (triple) damages, under authority of 18
U.S.C. 1964(c), for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C.
T962(b), according to the best available proof.
7.That all Defendants pay to Plaintifß all damages sustained by Plaintifß in
consequence of Defendants' several violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b), according to the best
available proof.
42COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 50 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
12
13
T4
15
16
T1
1B
1ô
20
27
22
23
24
25
8. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiffs his costs of the iawsuit incurred herein including,43
but not limited to, all necessary research, all non-judicial enforcement and all reasonable
counsel's fees, at a minimum of $250.00 per hour worked.
9. That ail damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages
derived by all Defendants, from their severai acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1962(b) and from ali other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s), be deemed to be
held in constructive trust, for the benefit of Piaintiffs, their heirs and assigns.
10. That Plaintiffs have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper,
under the circumstances of this action.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: (Conduct and Participation in a HICO Enterprise through a
Pattern of RacketeeringActivity:18 U.S.C. SS 1961(5), 1962(c)):
1. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants
have associated with a RICO enterprise of persons and of other individuals who were
associated in fact, all of whom did engage in, and whose activities did affect, the iawful
operation of Plaintiffs' business venture in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C.
t962(c).
2. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants
have conducted and/or participated, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of said RICO
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the zuCO laws at 18
U.S.C. $$ 1961(5) ("pattern" defined) and 1962(c) supra.
3. That all Defendants and all of their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all
other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily
during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from associating with any
43COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 51 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
a2
13
L4
15
I6
71
tofo
1ô
20
21
22
¿J
24
ôÉl.-t
44RICO enterprise of persons, or of other individuals associated infact, who do engage in,
or whose activities do affect, the lawfui operation of Plaintiffs' business venfure.
4. That all Defendants and all of their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all
other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily
during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from conducting or
participating, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of any RICO
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the zuCO laws at 18
U.S.C. $$ 1961(5) and.l962(c), supra.
5. That all Defendants and all of their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all
other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily
during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from committing any more
predicate acts in furtherance of the RICO enterprise alleged in COUNT TWO, supra.
6. That all Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived
from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C.1962(c), supra, and from
all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s).
7. That judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against all Defendants for Plaintifls actual
damages, and for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18
U.S.C. 1962(c), supra, according to the best available proof.
8. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff treble (triple) damages, under autholity of 18 U.S.C.
1964(c), for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C.
1962(c), supra, according to the best available proof.
9. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff all damages sustained by Plaintiff in consequence of
Defendants' several violations of i8 U.S.C. T962(c), supra, according to the best
available proof.
44COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 52 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
't
B
o
10
11
72
13
74
15
16
L1
1B
19
20
21
22
24
.E
4510. That all Defendants pay to Plaintifß costs of the lawsuit incurred herein including, but
not limited to, all necessary research, all non-judicial enforcement and all reasonable
counsei's fees, at a minimum of $250.00 per hour worked (Plaintiff s standard
professionalrate at start ofthis action).
1i. That all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived
by all Defendants, from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1962(c), supra, and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s), be
deemed to be held in constructive trust, for the benefit of Plaintiffs, their heirs and
asstgns.
12. That Plaintiffs have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper,
under the full range of relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: (Conspiracy to Engage in a Pqttern of Racketeering Activity:
18 U.S.C. SS 1961(s), re62(d)):
1. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants
have conspired to acquire and maintain an interest in, and/or conspired to acquire and
maintain control of, a RICO enterprise engaged in a pattem of racketeering activity in
violation of I 8 U.S.C. $ $ 1 96 1 (5), 1962{b) and (d), supra.
2. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants
have conspired to conduct and participate in said RICO enterprise through a pattem of
racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. $$ 1961(5), L962(c) and (d), supra.
3. That all Defendants and all their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all
other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily
during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from conspiring to acquire or
45COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 53 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
9
10
11
1_2
IJ
14
15
16
71
1B
19
20
27
22
23
24
uq
46maintain an interest in, or control of, any RICO enterprise that engages in a pattern of
racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. $$ 1961(5), 1962(b) and (d), supra.
4. That ail Defendants and all their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all
other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily
during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from conspiring to conduct,
participate in, or benefit in any manner from any zuCO enterprise tbrough a pattern of
racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. $$ 1961(5),1962(c) and (d), supra.
5. That all Defendants and all their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all
other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily
during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from committing any more
predicate acts in furtherance of the RICO enterprise alleged in COUNT THREE supra.
6. That ail Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived
from their several acts of racketeering in violation of l8 U.S.C. 1962(d), supra, and from
all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s).
7. That judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against all Defendants for Plaintiffs' actual
damages, and for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18
U.S.C. I962(d), supra, according to the best available proof.
8. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiffs treble (triple) damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C.
T964(c), for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C.
1962(d), supra, according to the best available proof.
9. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiffs all damages sustained by Plaintiffs in consequence
of Defendants' several violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), supra, according to the best
available proof.
46COMPLAINT OF'BIG O R.ELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 54 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
9
1"2
10
11
l-3
t4
15
I6
T1
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10. That ail Defendants pay to Plaintiffs costs of the lawsuit incurred herein including, but41
not limited to, all necessary research, all non-judicial enforcement, and all reasonable
counsel's fees, at a minimum of $250.00 per hour worked (Plaintiffls attorney's standard
professionalrute at start of this action).
11. That all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived
by all Defendants, from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1962(d), supra, and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s), be
deemed to be held in constructive trust, for the benefit of Plaintiffs, their heirs and
assigns.
T2. That Plaintiffs have such other and fu*her relief as this Court deems just and proper,
under the fulIrange of relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Assault):
1. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants,
both jointly and severally, have acquired, maintained, and acted upon, both directly and
indirectly, an interest in and/or control of a RICO enterprise of persons and of other
individuals who were associated in fact, all of whom engaged in, and whose activities
were in furtherance of Defendants' assault upon Plaintifß
2. That all Defendants, individually and as parties to a conspiracy, pay to Plaintiffs all
damages sustained by Plaintiffs in consequence of Defendants', individually and as
parties to a conspiracy, several acts of assault - including Defendants' unlawful and
unwarranted acts of aiming firearms at Plaintiffs and placing Plaintifß in handcuffs -supra, according to the best available proof. This prayer includes a demand for attorney's
fees and costs of suit. California Code of Civil Procedure $1021 allows for the recovery
of attomey's fees where provided forby statuts. Penal Code $1202.4 authorízes a victim
4'7
COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 55 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
ô
10
11
!¿
13
74
15
16
77
18
19
20
27
zz
z3
24
25
4Bof a crime to receive "actual and reasonable attomey's fees and other costs of collection"
of restitution.
3. That Plaintiffs have such other and firrther relief as this Court deems just and proper,
under the fulI range of relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Battery):
l. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants,
both jointly and severally, have acquired, maintained, and acted upon, both directly and
indirectly, an interest in and,/or control of a RICO enterprise of persons and of other
individuals who were associated in fact, all of whom engaged in, and whose activities
were in furtherance of Defendants' battery upon Plaintiffs.
2. That all Defendants, individually and as parties to a conspiracy) pay to Plaintiffs all
damages sustained by Plaintifß in consequence of Defendants', individually and as
parties to a conspiracy, several acts of battery - including Defendants unlawful and
unwarranted acts of aiming firearms at Plaintiffs and placing Plaintiffs in handcuffs -supra, according to the best available proof. This prayer includes a demand for attomey's
fees and costs of suit. California Code of Civil Procedure $ 1021 allows for the recovery
of attorney's fees where provided for by statute. Penal Code $1202.4 authorizes a victim
of a crime to receive "actual and reasonable attorney's fees and other costs of collection"
of restitution.
3. That Plaintiffs have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper,
under the fullrange of relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (ltlegligence):
1. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants,
both jointly and severally, have acquired, maint¿ined, and acted upon, both directly and
48COMPLA.INT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 56 of 126
1
2
a
4
5
6
'7
9
10
11
72
13
L4
15
16
II
1B
19
20
2I
22
23
24
z5
49indirectly, an interest in andlor control of a RICO enterprise of persons and of other
individuals who were associated in fact, all of whom engaged in, and whose activities
were in furtherance of Defendants' negligent actions.
2. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiffs all damages sustained by Plaintiffs in consequence
of Defendants' several negligent actions, supra, according to the best available proof,
pursuant to California Civil Code, $3333 - Compensatory Damages.
3. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiffs all damages resulting in Emotional Distress (Erlich
v. Menezes, 2I Cal. 4th 543,87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 886, 98i P.2d 978 (1999) (Recovery is
available if emotional distress arises out of defendant's breach of some other legal duty
and is proximately caused by breach of that independent duty; even then, with rare
exceptions, that breach of duty must threaten physical injury, not simply damage to
property or financial interests.) Here, Defendants' breach of their duties to adhere to the
laws of the State of California and of Kern County, supra, resulted in emotional distress
of Plaintiffs, and each of them, by Plaintiffs having guns pointed at their faces and
handcuffs placed on their arms in addition to the property damage Defendants inflicted
on Plaintiffs.
4. That Plaintiffs have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper,
under the full range of relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Libel/Slander):
1. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants,
both jointly and severally, have acquired, maintained, and acted upon, both directly and
indirectly, an interest in and/or control of a RICO enterprise of persons and of other
individuals who were associated in fact, all of whom engaged in, and whose activities
were in furtherance of Defendants' libelous and slanderous statements upon Plaintiffs
49COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 57 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
I2
13
74
15
1_6
I'7
1B
19
20
aa
z5
24
25
2. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiffs compensatory damages sustained by Plaintiffs in50
consequence of Defendants' libelous actions, supra, according to the best available proof,
pursuant to California Civil Code, $$ a8a(aXa) and3333 - Compensatory Damages.
3. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiffs special damages sustained by Plaintiffs in
consequence of Defendants' libelous actions, supra, according to the best available
proof, pursuant to California Civil Code, $$ a8a( )@) - Special Damages.
4. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiffs punitive damages for Defendants', and each of
their, egregious acts, supra, including Defendants' libeious actions, supra, pursuant to
California Civil Code, $$ a8a(a)(c), (d), and3294 - Punitive Damages.
5. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiffs nominal damages for Defendants', and each of
their, egregious acts, supra, including Defendants' libelous actions, supra. (Hearne v. De
65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 473 (1997) (if conversion of property is legal cause of harm to
plaintiff s feelings, damages may be allowable for the harm, as when defendant
intentionally deprives plaintiff of essential household furniture, which humiliates
plaintiff, a result that defendant should haverealized would follow).
7 . As a result of Defendants' acts of conversion, Plaintiffs hereby pray for Injunctive Relief
(Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $$525 et seq.). Preliminary injunction generally not proper method
to obtain possession of personal property. (Yqqrhigg_v. Gfgene, I39 Cal. App. 3d 989,
997-998,189 Cal.Rptr. 132 (1983). However, injunction is proper method to prevent
dissipation of wrongfully obtained res. Heckmann v. Ahmanson, 168 Cal.App.3d 119,
136,214 Cal. Rptr. 177 Q985).
8. That Plaintifß have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper,
under the full range of relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declararory Reliefl:
1. Plaintifß hereby request a judiciai declaration at this time in order that Plaintifß may
ascertain the rights and duties afforded them under the laws of the State of California and
the Kern County Ordinance Code.
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Preliminary Injunction):
1. Plaintiffs hereby pray that Defendants', and each of their, wrongful conduct, be enjoined
and restrained by order of this Court to prevent great and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs
by continuous libelous/defamatory publications and by the unlawful conversion of
Plaintiffs' products and merchandize.
54COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 62 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
t2
13
1-4
15
l- c)
71
1B
\9
20
2L
¿L
z-)
24
55
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: October Il,2Al7 LA\il OFFICES OF ABRAHAM A. LABBAD
ABRAHAM A. LABBAD,Limited Scope Attorney for PlaintiffsBig O Reliet Doo H. Yoon, Eunice Yoon, andAlvaro Ordaz
55COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 63 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
I
L2
I i,
11
14
AETJ
16
1_'l
to
l.v
¿v
LL
22
23
LÀIV OTFICES OF ABRÅHAM A. L,{88,4.ÐAbr¿harn Ä" Labbad, Esq. {CA Bar No": 27lî,4g)1?50 V/alnut Sr., Unit lZzPasadena, CA 91 106Office: (818) 253-1529Fax: {818} 53t-9236Specially Âppearing ard Limifecl ScopeAttorncys for Plaintiffs:
B¡C O RELIËF, ËTAL
BIG O RËIIEF, a California Non-profitMutual Benefit Corporation, DOO H. YOON,an individual, EUNICË S. YOON, anindividual, and.Alvaro Ordaz, an individual,
Plaiatift's,
vs.
CûLTNTY OF KERN, apolirical subdivisionof the State of California; GREG FENTON,individually and as Kem County Buildinglnspector, KÐRN COUNTY BOARD OFSUPERVISORS, collectively; LETICIAPERE-Z, individually and as Kern CountySupervisor; MICK GLEASON, individuallyand as Kem County Supervisor; DAVIDCOUCFI, individually and as Kem CountySupewisor; MIKE MACGARD, individuallyand a¡ Kern County Supervisor; ZACKSCRIIfNER, individually and as Kem CountySupervisor, KEtuN COUNTY PUBLICWORKS _ CODE COMPLIANCEDIVISION, collectively; KERN COUNTYSIIER"IFF' S DÐPARTMENT, collectively;DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, individually andas Kem Corurty Sheriff; KERN COUNTYDISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFiCE,collectively; LISA GREEN, individually andas Kem County District Attorney; KERNCOLTNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE,collectively; MARK L. NATIONS,individually and as Kern County Counsel;It/
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10112t201710:48 AM
Kern County Superior Court
Terry McNallyBy Vanessa Cofield, Deput
SUPERIOR COURT OT'THE STATE ÛF CÁ.I.IFORNI.4'
CûUNTY OF KERN {METROPOLTTAN DTVTSTON)
)))j))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Case No.: BCV-174A2394
A'I-TACHMENTS TO COMPLAINTFOR DECLARATORY ANDTNJUNCTryE RELIEF AND DAMAGESFROM RACKETEERING,CONSP1RACY TO ENTA.GE iN APATTERN OF RACKETEERING.A.C]]VITY, AND RËLATED C^A.USESOF ACTTON
J.
2\
ATTACHMENT OF EXHIBITS TO COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELTEF., ET AL
ry
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 64 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
I
'1 ^
21
1t
L3
t4
1f,LJ
16
1?
1A
19
an
2\
¿¿
23
24
aÉ
JAMES BRENNAN, individuaily and aspeputy Kem L-'ounty Corursel; CHAR.LES F.COLLINS, índividually and as Chief DeputyKern Cou¡rty Counsel; GURUIOIHA S"
KI-IALSA, individually and as Chief DeputyCounty Counsel; KËRN COLTNTY FìREDEPARTMENT, collectively; KERNCOLNTY PLANNTNG AND NATURALRËSOURCES DEPARTMENT, collecriveiy;LORELËI OVIATT, individually and asDirector; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENTOF AGRiCULTURE ANDMËASUREMENT STANDARDS,ccllectively ; CLENN FANKHAUSER,individually and as Conrmissioner; KERNCOIINTY PUBLIC HE¿\LTHÐEP¡,.RTh{ENT, collectively; AL ROJAS,individually and as Kern CouÍy CodeCompliance Ðivision Supervisor; and DOES1 Through l0û0, Inclusive,
(continued)
Defenda¡ts.
TO EACH DEFENÐANT IN THË ABOVE-REFEREì{CED MATTER, AND TO THËIR
ATTORNEY OF RECORD: PLAINTIFFS HEREBY A.TTACI{ THÐ FOLLOWING
EXHIBITS TÛ THEIR COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY ANÐ INJUNCTruN RELIEF
ANÐ DAMAGES FROM RACKETEERING, CONSPIRACY TO ENGAGE IN A FATTERì\I
OF RACKË]EERING IIC.|IVITY, AND RELATED CAUSE$ OF ACTION, that is fîIed
herewith.
Respeetfully submitted,
Dated: October 11,2017 LAMFFICES OF ABRAH.dM A. LABBAD
ABRAHA.M A. LABBAD,Limited Scope Attorney for PlaintiffsBig O Reiief, Doo H. Yoon, Eunice Yoon, and
Alrpro Ordaz
,{TTÀCHMENT OF ËXHIBITS TO COMPLÁINT OF BIG O RELIEF, ET AL
i))i)))))))))))))))))))))
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 65 of 126
Êxhibit n
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 66 of 126
P¡rnning arld Natural ftsto$rces, ÐeFðrtmer¡t of A8riculture and Measurer$ênt Stsnd¡rds. ¡nd Fubltc Health'
The Ê¡forcement Têam rei¿ed sever¡l thou¡and dsllars ir¡ unsafe edlble praduct of unknown odgin. alivrll ¡: tllegal blth salts. ln ôddat¡oo, ¡everal fiotlcûs of violation were lssued.
Medkal marijuana dlrpensaries fbat opêrate withost regard for roning" lire. butlding and health codes
endanger c¡rrnmunlties. llfegal dispensaries often create a cllmate of law{e¡sne¡¡ and have defimeo¡alimpacts on <ommunitfes with increasod ïr¡stances ol robberíes, shootings, and even one kldnapptng and
tort$rÈ €i'sc connected with a dlspensery ln 2O15"
"Thû âcliofìs laken tqday send a Strong mesgage to lhts€ operating illegal dispens¡rles thnt th?ir dôyj
¡n l(em County er€ nuûìbered," s¡ld Zack Scrivner, Second Dist.ict Supervlsar, who accompanlad the
to the tountY. shalt not tollpenalties. A haarhgretuming it to *re
tlF V¡OLATlgtrt, if afrar the
of &e Keffi
E:XH|BIT :B Page 2 at 4Scanned by CamScanner
that you have awlth the srdinance
hearing before thea hearlng ie not
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 70 of 126
Õ
lrlolice of Heari*gDate: _ .
-
Page 3
NqT,FlCÂTIOfl LlsT
tlro f 58775
''1. Doo Yoorv and
'17,û2"Fliqkinger Couñ , -
RE: 1$940 Hiahwev'14- lt¡Loígve
APN:235-Ûâ0-2J
ËXHlBlT B Page 3 of 4Scanned b.r CamScanner
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 71 of 126
OÛMPLETION ÕF. THls FORM ls VÕLüNTARY. If you elect not to provide therequested information,..please sþn this brm where incicated befow. Any financíalinfonnation provided wilibe tonriãurø in the assessment of an administraüle penaþshauld the nuisance describ"¡ t $; Noüce of Violalion not be abated in lhe timeprovided- RETURN THls FoRtu ¡urr¡Èo¡ÅTEly ro ï-tE ENFoRctNG oFFtcER.
Natice of HearingDate:Page 4
NAIT4E:
Nsme and address oJ cunent employer:
Your annusl incorne last year:
Your cunent rnonthly income:
Åddress{es} of any raal propedy owned byyou:
Make, rnodel and year of each motor vehiclE or¡rned by you:
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that theinformation I have provided regarding myfinancialconditíon is {rue and correct.
Daled
S¡gnature of Declarant
ELË0T|ON NoT TO PROVIDE FINANCI,{L INFOR},IATION
I elect NOT to provide myfinancíal information.
EXHIBIT ß Page 4 aî 4Scanned by CamScanner'
Dated:Sþnature
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 72 of 126
Exhlbit C
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 73 of 126
ct3t2t17 Fsrmer Xern Co, Sheriffs deputies avoid prison lor selling rûarijuanâ geized in drug råíds - !A Times
Former Kern Co. Sheríffs deputíes ayoid prisonfor selling marìiuana seized in drug raids
Logân Âugurt and ûerlck Panney Ëntêrsd guilty pleae to cons$ring 1o distributs marijuana in 2O14.
ByVeranica Rodra
AIJGUST 8, ?01?.2:.t5 PM
wo fc¡rrner Kern County Sheriffs deputies avoided prison tirne Monday for stealirag and selling
mar$uana that was seized during drug busts.
lngan.Àugust and Derrick Peaney were sentenced Monday to th¡ee years' probation fcr the charge of
conspirac¡ to dist¡ibute and possess with the intent to distribute mar$uana, according to the U.S. attorney
of6ce in Fresno.
August,,a 3o-year-old Bakerstìeid resident, was also ordered to ssve 1,5oo hours of community service and
farfeit $16,5oo earned in the traffi.cking operation, t'ederal authorities said.
penney, a 34-year-old Star, Idaho, resident, must serye e5o bours in communþ service and sulrender $l,eoo,
Sãtå ls uBdðtcd to the Cð¡iforniã Euslness Search on Wednesdãy ànd Saturdèyrncmings, Racults r€ßêct v?ork pfoccsse{, tJlrÊugh Frldåy. September 23, 2016. pleåse
Sfer.to P;ocesslng Tlmos for ths rec¡lved Oaies of ãllngs cu¡rently þeing processed,Tbe data provlded ls not a compl:tc or ce¡tllled recoJ ef ¿n enflty.
' ¡f thè stðtu' 0r the corpôratron k 'sunenderr- ttre ågâot for ¡ervrce ðf pr0ce35 ¡sautornatrcarry rcvoked. please rcfer to ca[fomrà Gorpcraüons code sscdon ¿114lor lnfqm¿üon rêlr$ng to ¡grvtcs upon co¡?orãüon3. th¡t have surrcndered.I For tnformltron on droc*Jng or rcservrng I name, refer to. Namô ¡""u"urüv.. For lßfomåtlon on orderlng .€Êlflcðtes;coplcà oi docsmantc lndlôr starus r€portsor þ faquest ù more extenslve sesrch, rsf€r to Informriþn R€qucata.. ror help with searchlng ðn erit¡ty nüme, refer to Siarch Tlp¡,
' For descrlptlons of the võrl'us lTerds and s¡¡lus types, refer !o Fleld D,escrrpïoneand Ststu¡ Deflnl{sns,
Hodify search N€lv sè5rch prr¡t€r Frlendry B¡ck to soarcl¡ Rcs'rts
loll qn$Z$t6l:û3 IIM
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 78 of 126
nls tEñ¡r F V¡¡JO t¡¡ll- g¡al(EÐ gR cÂtsE¡-ÊÐ ¡rû ts taõf l¡ArËrEnAg.¡. f .tþrJ s€tr ìrgtft 6{Js$c5sm ¡JmF ûrr o¡  p¡¡ïræ?. r¡c']ry us on vos æ(t.o g€¡ÊsFoirg&.€ FaR âr¡5g ¡D rrsÊ T¡ù€sorltoBv ¡lt r€t oPËÊAtmtr l}f 8$tt6,For grcæral tax q¡¡os$onc. plç¡:r cell our Custom.r $ervlce tcnþr at 1-8OO*,1{Xþ?tlö ftTyfl t}.
Forlrtformaton on your riglrtq cortætthâTarçe¡ore'tlgrhtsAdvac¡tc offæ at'l-888rlll-2?98 oilt-91t-g&2?Sg.
tlOË-142-R5€V. 16{11-lrt} :
I
NAT'ff TO PEAMrïEÍIYataerq*úto'¿Ery*Wød Std¡e l*s llg¡tryfue ü ôôalrof )ð..t¿ratBsg tà& Ê¡nrl docarDl åfory you to ûat Þnrlsé'"
t\þt 1*lryrt¡p.súãss
Drsplly cðñsptê{ro{r9&y ÄT þrJÅËÊ ûF unIü|E:lt roi üic! tttlrEÞ
 rtëìsåf¡E To oüß HEtìt pERHtT l{otÐEñ
Àa a rdbr, to$ Ì¡rrç rlgûrb rrd nçorrtUrula rrr br ütc Slcû rrrd lñü Trr( t r. h .rd.r þendoavor grtd to ba$ar u.âdâr€tand lh¡ lru, u¡¡ offcrürc folloukç raworc of halp
' Visíting ou ¡¡ebs te dt ¡t¡rt¡w-bae;ôalpy. \ôshing a field olice' Àttending a Basic Sales and Use Tær Law clsss ofTered at one of q¡r fidd sf€€ã. Serding yotr questions tn wriling to âûy one ot or"r offi¡æs. tallir¡g owloü-faÊ Custo..is Ss\r¡cêCerrts at 1-80û-400-7115 fTY:711)
yor¡ ln yçtr
Al I ¡clltr, you havc üÉ right þ bct¡s rrs¡l¡ cprËlIc¡tar for morcNrandlee ttr¡t yo,t¡ inlend to rceetl. You al*o trevc ürerarponCb[ityolnotml¡¡¡dngr.ra¡c a.ritflert¡gìfllrll¡ lh¡ ¡¡l¡otrxlr lrnporodupoat|l robller, ..
. You havsthêrigtrttosækrrirnbürsernêntofthetarrfasmyourc¡¡sto.rner i i' You are respÕnsibla for ñ[ng and paylng yorr eahs a¡'¡d uss tÐ( rst¡¡rls tin¡dy t:
' Yo{J have the rþhl to bs trêatêd in a fak and aquitaUe rnanrr€r by the €mdoylês cf the Cânfo#ria Stde IEoard o{ &¡alization (BOË}
I. Youfsresponslblelorfollowingther€gulstionssdlorthbythe8ôE I '
As a sdlã, you ¡!r€ €xp€cted to mainlais th€ nörñial books and reconts cf a fruds¡t buslnessprsoc- You am r€quirsd 10
maintain tiæ*e boaks ard reæds for no less tlwr four yearg a¡rd rnke thdn â\t3¡lâUê lof inspåclíon by a BOE rêpr€sgüatfusrrhen requested. YûJ are also el(pæt€d lo ño$ry us if you re bying, sdling, addrrg a locatþn, or dsconlinuing ¡rrour büsinæs,adcling or úop¡ing s partns, offcer, or rrember, or ufnn you üB noving any or all d you business locations. lf it becomænec€5s¿ry 10 swr€ndÊr this peflnitt yorJ shorrlcl of*y do so by ma¡nr€ it lo a BOE ofÍce, or giving it to a BOE represedativs.
ll yorr rtorJb lil€ to knõÂ, more abotf youf rights as a tðçryer, or il you ara unable to f€solve âô issus wilh thâ 8OE, p¡€asêcsñtact the Taxpayers' Rþhts Ârlvocate offrce for lrelp Ð ealling loll-free. 1¿88324€7S8 or 1-916-324-2798' Iheir tâxnurnb€r Ís 1-S16-323-3319- t '
Ploa¡o poet ltrle pcrmlt at t}lc ad(hoee for wtrlc*r Rry¡r l¡sr¡cct and ¡t ¡ nàrcn v¡i¡¡þ to ysr¡r cuetorÍert' i
C.AL¡FONMA STATE BOAFID OF TQUALIZATION
Sål€s and Us? Ta¡< Dgøtmsrrl
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 81 of 126
Exhibit F
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 82 of 126
ORDERËD
L/ I
SHIFPED
'cuslot¡En onDER No. $010 nY
S/rSprf cu l'$
( \ (4SOLDTO
/t1uJw€ t14TI]Y, SîATE,
AODRESS
'ç**+arc\ .59{(7
PRIBT
7
t)
F,CI.8.
UNIT
DArI*1
t¡gcñ(J
v)Þ{
(JÞ'
0)
fú()(/)
ro
ll!
ÀTL
236230
1 l6
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 83 of 126
am0'R[llffllHlBffi$llEIT
|, fotn ¿. î/r* ê"r¡ t7 P*t ,Ç,,'t/{ c
F'LOT&IEF,: CAS lTsa CONSTGI*MENT
CONCE}iITF,.{TE: COlVSTGI\TME}TT-
EÐIBLES : C*'SH- COIT$IGNMEIíT-
TOPICåJ,S :Cå.SH- CONSIGNMENT-
FÂTTEl{TSIG þ*au
PHO}I:N# { {l* qfï-t?rt
OFFICE u8E olstY
OFT'ICEÏü:<vFV
)-z^t6
J-7-/á
EXHIBIT F Page 2 aî 5Scanned by CamScanner
--**-
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 84 of 126
üUSTOMTR'S ORÛER NÛ.
'{-- { {
11 I (__/'NA[/18.I
AüÛRE*1
ü4L{I ll*I-'t J, ¿/11 ttttT
srryïTþj q,uüCITY,
MÜSË."x' ON.ÀCCTC.O,D,
AM0tIÍì¡TQUAN I}ESCRIPTION
\-^r'.T
2
3 tv
4
¡5
tIIt6
7
IB
o
10
11
¡¡
I12
RTæIVED BY
wv'-'*'F{çFilqrç'
fr\,',,.t) [-., i,ì' J ',1"!.
) t:,,,/ì " ,) j iI
i¡Iòç
!iIfia"å
5tir
7
t4tl¿,4
'F
Ii"t-¡¡:
ËÊe's'-ãËñt.äcl
EK
$,ã
RENÛË 01'1t
EXHIB|TFPage3of
:'.1s,.ils:i!î!a3
o?so KEEP THIS SLIP FOR REFE
Scanned by CarnScanner
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 85 of 126
i
tI¡
I¡1
fI
t
t-
¡.
CUSTÛMER'S ÛRDTR NT"?¿ 7- 16
¡,\ l"t t; r{-NAMËtt
l{t{¿d tft'*
, *t-Ui_._îf,ü 7smrË IPãrtlt.
t.CI.0CASH
r(\
THARGË ON.ATCT. MCISE. NETD
t quAN. DESCFIPTIOI\¡ AM0UNT -1 / /'z lt .t2
I
3T.-r 4- I
IIa
t
4
5I
¡I
Þ
7
IB
IIIIII
10
11
12
ffi'¿.,r:rl; ,i ?t
:l
J
It
I
i,
,tt
ItJ
.'II
í't
,I;I.tI.I
II!ô¡i
T,Íå;1
.l$
f'.t
$t
ItIl:I
;!'i'l
å,Tffo,'u,uo KEEP Tllls SLIP FOR REFEEHISËn r päåL 4 ot:bScanned by CamScanner
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 86 of 126
j' \
il- t'
f
ii,)!.t
r{}{,
Itt
En's ûRüit{ N0.TUSTÛM
I þ-{-NAI\48
n \ADÛRESS
{a :/lf
[ÅsH c.ü.Û CTIARGE ACüT RETD PAID
8UAN. ÐESCR¡PTION AMtlUlì¡T'l
2
3
4L
5
ñ
7
I
g
10
11
12
_tRECEIVËD BY
REFERENCE OI-11
EXHIBIT F Page 5 of 5Scanned bY CamScanner
T-4ø24914e25A KEEP THIS SLIP FOR
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 87 of 126
Exhibit G
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 88 of 126
z TERI: Tho b,m bagÍt m (d81e)gtt"C,aläf'-?-Y ' fçcrrnqremü*UarÊ.¡iX À l-c¡¡o:s¡<t¡ldtrfrùBtoüì(.tós)ñ;'-;;;' ì,*,' ffiî,-ì â ffi*f;ffi?E$Hb" k""'ddõ p'.',cí,ã'åiffiIr'''ó,i* er oo".Gì.¿! ' È r¡qrt¡æ¡rqü¡c gu
Tanmt by Lrldorú r L¡do.ú. ¡g.r*. -rü& 3 deÐ ûr l¡ rrð¡r. ïrc brgy {¡t¡arcrt crd l¡oa¡*ec'tf -üb áen"ê,tirtt L ,rr,.üod
tnd h tltruc' s h ¡lkot r ¡rroû¡d..rd * *¡e ¡¡ocó¡a¡. nri u aornglt tlúr t¡ roq¡Índ 0) rrJ b. *øn frrr*¡a*u*¿çnrf üdüe btstcl tu LÙr¡ rd omct, ¡drnry òc r# upcrbyr FospecürDt¡r*rüpr¡åæc attd (It nrry bôbtùd byr-ûúdú É a tüillrH br¡¡dr düb æür" Tær # pr€Daó, æ¡b, oå o*l* b tadårú ¡v t$ar,u"l-ååo.i"rrfiffú rl.b. h.ad h csúOorrca) rær¡¡ùù q¡lCd by ¡ pl¡Ocdua ¡*lb¡ q bri¡q.
tl" l¡llDroiot TRAIEFE T.¡sn acf6 üd nr. 8!¡Êrr d L¡úsü¡ ll¡* ûa bo àsúti¡d I Lodord tnrbr ü* ¡r¡or¡e¡¿L¡ndatl Út bc nlceoed of rry fúror *lgdút b Trtri ngrû! b ertt Oopolt orry f âê ritrfy dÐql C ¡*rnc¿ ¡ fãn çsr¡{ù la¡ûfrf' * f Úr aorty d.po* 3 rcù¡âfy ffind b-ü¡a ffiltr. ¡d *t itr ¡fi¡Oorn r$¿¡riú oæer¡oñt L*br, h ¡:ba¡a<!d any *¡füaloùft b Tülrrt tFsr t"r¡rlmtt U¡*r.
3¡. SltBORüfAIþl* Tll¡ ry¡rnef tr bä ütorffi Þ C rdt¡ Lrr rld, C |..¡¡dc¡f¡ optht fr læ tt any lrd rt ôd ol ùr¡d or tbdlttÒ{.e9ÌÈ..q¡..tÛypaædçonthrredpmprdyolrùlôürffiúr.rp.rtt¡dbüf dEËÍÉgt$esrlr¡ltnprn{rc¡.ri6bJrilollct rn¡e¡b¡¡g¡o¡ddqË'lld..lrÌrrt¡rãdffir.tfffis¡å3b'ûúhndtïd.adof¡n'drnodgûg.ütf!.tþdlrrx¡cif¡¡dftqlxlro{Tts*lð¡f ¡ç¡tp¡rdorof ür¡ffi¡flfidùsÕrù.df TÍr*LtdhffiürdúÈ¡one t î.ù¡* pilr üE Rût r¡d *ru Ít prtñ¡ tdtu gormrs d üå ryrrrd. rfu tf r¡rc.frlrûb dü|lte bøþdfll¡¡rû!!tbûs. f srysst¡gFqtl*t, rgnrúlrydæÈulrvttrbqncnrrf ile.lh rælrypdoßp.þrþtb Iq¡of ¡üprlþgr!dædof ùnd,*gra¡Élc,rtdgfËübt rñþTd!É*, f¡¡¡¡fc¡rxtd-brd¡oa¡¡dphrú¡nrrutÊp.dðd ottn¡¡{.or $Ðlíd læ, c ütc d¡h dr¡êorûr$
3t" TË}¡AXT REPnË!ËfffÁñOf* CREü[: ¡¡¡¡ çs¡t¡ tt¡¡1 ¡| sfrgñ.! h T¡¡ril f¡¡¡ö do¡{'{*3 rú rg¡5¡ 4g[cdon ra ærere.TÍlñt rñdàû t.t¡{otd ñd l¡õlq(r) Þ dú¡ Tülstr arü(& rlprl X 3r oa rlt¡¡fürm üd pülodcdy û¡trg |.rgt¡}, h coillc&n rfrtâ¡trûttd' moücddÈ a-1årwil*düÞ rg¡!ürrnL l¡odord rry crd ** rijxnct {Ð t¡*¡¡ oco¡pnf:¡rA¡ra
-rnon*efpo¿ *g" "!S æcr{slç ü gl d rç !rr, wø d¡oÊn¡.r¡ tE ¡*¡r¡úta h Tãr¡a; Tf{cdrñ t 3è À;.gcÉy. "-di ü-r ¡aiioü¡¡ s¡Tx|ûflruoslt ¡nryÈo¡ålstdþrtreüæorftgtmcy. trTril**l¡rpry Ror{rraornpltrürrnyoütorrilg¡don {todar'n8¡¡!qï¿![
!¡t"Cgl$llilrgflctÉæl.¡:fËÞr€cE8ttf,lTrlTlñåRtlE: L¡rdodri¡bclhdl]sPrrcltæ gfr*,ogtrnrno:beonrçÉd byaC;fãedAs¡ Spocbl¡t f sô, t-üdtorû ffi hd thc k¡rha t¡+ * Ettæ ¡rt Oar ¡*nìñ* iû ñ¡ a *pÞa.';fiùr6{taüd¡cc¡¡rùryrhxl¡r!¡ grrrrntb Chf Corlc Bcen S.Sil -35. Dß¡FLtlE REgOUtnoil¡
À
a
rpllsOttEFeTcarf gdL*rdcd.enôlonü&drbilrp'¡rcd*r¡¡lxoùû¡gücbdr&ola¡r,trtrådc}¡¡abúriFotsm td ¡lrç {f. d.b 3r.'t í5dúoñ û rtHolr. !dú b. ir r¡*¡.r rærdr ¡n¡ t¡ f¡r rlgrr ãr *f¡ r
'x¡ar*¡* oiBñ¡l¡lt Atrt ddÛl ùy rltrq b¡ü Êær¡¡¡ b prË** b lll.r¡úr q sffion fl tü ilrt h *¿có ¡¡¡llg Ca¡nX iuú- O Ae
ìalfxtaf*.' 'l{oïlcÉBY¡}¡¡n¡-ü{Gt}lT}tE8pÅcE8H-Oüyot AnEÀcREEilerO}r¡ìrEAttrffiputEÂRrilxG'OUroF IHE IATTEnS ncuÐED D¡ TIE îmfix*Íþl¡ OF ÐËPttfEr FROìrlSoN DFCÞÊD sy ]€ttnllARHlRltNOil AS PRÍTVÍI'ED BY CÂIFORI.üA LAW AT¡D YOT' ARE Eì'nlG UP AT{Y RGHÎEI YOU MGHTFossESS þ IIAYE TllE Dû8FUIE LÍñGATED D{ A COIJRT OR.f,nYfF|AL BY nüruf're N THE 3PACEBã¡rr Yoü åRE Gil$tc UP YOt R &rDElÂL nrerffS TO OFqOyERv Ât{D AppEÂt, InILEES Tt{o€ERI€HIS åNE SPECF¡CAI.LT I}¡CLI.,DED Fl THE'ARSTRAIIüI OF D¡$¡U'TB' PRüfiSilO}'" F YOr' RËFUSETU SUST'I TIO ARStrRATIOil åFÍER AGRËEFIG TO TT¡S Prcìñf,OII YIOI' IAY BE ffiI.88 TOåRBTTNÂIE UUT¡TR THÊ AI'THOüTY OF THE CàLFORIGT CODE * CIVü. PROCEDT'RE. YOI'RACREflEIIT T(¡ THE ÂRBTTRÂÍIOII PNS'F¡OT{ ¡8 I'OLUTÎ^RY.':ît€ HAI,S READ
^ltD t XDERSTTÂilO TltË FOREGOü|G ål{Ð âcRÊE TO St SUI IxSpUTGl¡ ARrSüi¡c(x,T OF THÊ NArTE:RS
¡Å,R¡ilTRâTrllLTII{CLUDED ITI THE'AÍEITRÀTIO" OF DISPUTEg PRg\IISþÌ¡ TO IEU¡TRAL
^ssooñúr{ oF Ërrrdõ;öin}r¡o *a;æalr^ro, F rå¡¡E As ro r}€ IEG^L v^LÞtryo8 ÅÕct.,R^cr oF r¡{Y PRc¡'lsþr¡ o{ ¡¡rr s*cinö;l^xgtgtor¿ r ne¡¿-esi'Âri'äolrËn ¡s î€ Fgndó¡-i*À¡Þ ro Ar'rsÉ or¿ iÉAL €trÅîEïRÁ¡{8åSÍOH¡.5rq.¡DESRËr¡6¡ÀLærrxrnrri:e,'ööih¡ri}rræ¡.repRoFg}gñrAL
ü.ËË*ËËË.F_æ iffi¡.Ëu".,**ffi^i#rt¡o e¡¡t.rùo þ b Csdr t Ehb.S e,rrroruc-rrtrñDlan r i RËÂL ESTATE HJSTESs'sERucEs. ¡}c,&J.#Ëf;,iffiffiåp*tDI RË\¿SED tznã lFÅcE { oF r}
{a} "t n¡d¡cs¡ ¡naijrno coopcrrdw or collca$w ruy not bc
túþd withi¡ o¡¡ thousad (1,000) *¡Ê of a lobool tËn$üd¡ilm ü! Fl¡ürt cn¡rtsè o a dirycosrry.!¿ fbà 919!'st PTqftyI¡ao of tÉ poiq¡tl of ¡ ¡obool qr ar r'ld!ù ¡ labool ir opcraæd'
tb) A ;cå¡c"i nariilarø mofctsdvÊ or collccdvs ôåll bc
úi¡æd rs ¡ p*soroy for ¡ontg F¡rPoEcr'(cl -Mcå¡cal B¡i¡itt¡{¡s Coopcrdw tùtd f'{t{$ Muduanað;t¡êcüvc" ü! d!âFod ts r¡l fttür l¡ ¡ladoq fV sf ¡bc CrliftmhIrttûnly o0r0râl oulddbÉ fbr lhs stqlityand Nondivcrsioro ofU¡ritu¡,i¡ Orcw¡ ôrM¡dlc¡l Usc lsn¡cd l¡ Atryt$t' 20Ot, us they
mw ¡e¡d oras oc¡¡d¡¿{d} åny pcnon rv}¡o úolatcs rny pmviaion in lbir sætion is
¡¡uùltY of a mtrdcncuor.
{KCOC $ 5.&{.olo {200e).)
lg. Following the c¡¡claæ¡ of rlre 2009 frlnanca" tbê Bo¡¡d coactcd ftl¡¡¡¡cc
litq. t gTg¡ {t¡c.,Ðirpoeisary ðln'}. 1Ae Þir,pcnsary B¡¡ agrcod¿d Ch¡Écr 3.8{ to Prûhibi¡ t}¡c
oporrfíor¡ of rry rnodicet muijruna dspørøy ia all uoturporafod ¡¡t¡s of thc Curnty. Thc
Di¡psr,r¡ry B¡n was sct to t¡lce cf€$ in 30 days. A proEst peütioo t¡¡os fltod with thc Kcra
Cor¡¡ry Á.rditor{ostroilsr.Coünty Clcrlc Ttc pctition supcrdcd rbe Ðiryaaary Ban by
opcolion of t¡w, md rcquiFd the Bor¡d ¡o ehhcr æpcel ttæ DÍrperuary Ba¡ o¡ placc it on tha
bsllot for tlra voter¡ of ttn county lo sppFov€, on Fcbruary 2l' 2012, in æsponæ to rhc prottst
Corçldnt br PrclirnùorY and Pc¡o¡¡¡old lqiundio¡t Ab¡ha¡oot ¡nd Clvll Pc¡tâlth5
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 99 of 126
t7
1e
1g
2A
21
z2
23
24
2:5
2ð
27
28
pctition, ùc 8oa¡d plnccd al ûrdinnncc {"Mcasurc ü') on ùc Junc 5, 20lU hallot fi¡r lhc vot€rs
of tln Cotmty to appmvc, u¿hictr wr¡uld havc rcqulrrd Mcdical Marijuane Dispcnsariar to bc
Ioc¿ted in lin¡its¡l dl¡uiots wlrhin rl¡c County" ûn ljob¡uary 28,2At2, alsc ia æsporuc to dæ
19.0d.S79, Such violadon¡ rrt nrbjccr m inJruction rrd ¡bffic¡t u¡¡dgr KCOC ott¡ptcr t9.l 14.
25. P¡a¡¡¡¡ítrir r¡so psrm¡ttod to scÊk o cojoi¡ ¡nd abots this Fblic cuisarlcÊ pursull bCivi¡ Coda æ.Êion 34?9 crrcç.
26. Clvil &¡caion 34?9rttls is p¡rî:
'{nythiqg {ålch lr iqfuiu¡ lo lËlü¡' im¡t¡din$ bu not limit¡d to,
tbo ¡llq¡l ¡nls of s¡lrdlod albcranccg or lr hdcccat or oifcn¡ivato tbe scosc¡ or rn obctntctlon to tb¡ ûce u¡c of pcoprty, so æ ¿o
idüûrc with thl aonfi¡t¡bl¡ cqþyu!ût of liÈ or goperty...is a¡¡¡l¡aocc.
21. Civil Coda scotioo 3¡18Û st¡t¡¡:
å ¡nrblic nuisanc€ ls æ wtrich aff€ots at thc s&me ti¡ns rtr €ntkecor{r'lr¡Dity or lslghboúood, or tûy coo¡idsrsblE nr¡mbcr ofpssofis, elthough t!Ê ctßmt of tbc annoyaocc or dsn¡rgc innictcdupm lndivtduab msY tc unú$ut
Powered by RG,{R OqtiFe lublic¡tion Softw$e from Lions Light Coqporation
O Copyright 20i7
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 109 of 126
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF KERNBAKERSFIELD COURT
1415 TRUXTUN AVENUEBAKERSFIELD CA sggol
FOR COURT USE ONLY
F¡leoSuprnroR Counr or CalrFoRNrA
Cou¡¡ry or KERI.¡
OcroaeR 13,2A17
TEnny McNnllv, C¡-ERr
Bv Va*tt-s,s¿' HiA^d. DepuryPLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:ALVARO ORDAZBIG O RELIEF, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT MUTUAL
BENEFIT CORPORÄTIONDOO H YOON
DEF'ENDANT/RE S POI\DENT :KERN COTJNTY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICTILTT]RE AND
MEAST]REMENT STANDARDS, COLLECTTVELYKERN COUNTY PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT, COLLECTTVELYKERN COTJNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, COLLECTIVELY
CASENUMBER:
BCV-L7-102394
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO JUDGE F'OR ALL PURPOSES ANDNOTICE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CRC RULE 3.110 AND
NOTICE OF' CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
By order of the presiding judge, the above entitled case is assigned to the Honorable Stephen D. Schuett for all purposes. Itwill be managed on the direct calenda¡ program in Bakersfield Department 10 until its conclusion. Peremptory challenges, ifany, must be made within the times set out in CCP $170.6. Please include the initials SDS after the case number on all firturepleadings filed in this case.
TO PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF''S COUNSEL:You are ordered to appear on January 25,2t18 in Bakersfield Department 10 at 8:30 AM in the above entitled court togive any legal reason why sanctions shall not be imposed for failure to serve the complaint on all named defendants and fileproof(s) of service with the court within sixty (60) days after the filing of the complaint pursuant to California Rules ofCourt, Rule 3.110. All appearances are mandatory, unless the court receives the required proof(s) of service five (5) courtdays prior to the hearing date, and then no appearance is necessary.
TO EACH PARTY AND THEIR RESPECTTVE ATTORNEY(S) OF RECORD:This case is set for Case Management Conference, by the Honorable Stephen D. Schuett on Äpril 10, 2018at 8:15 AM in Bakersfïeld Department l0 ofthe above entitled court. Case management statements are to be filed atleast fifteen 115) davs prior to the conference in with Califomia Rules of Court- Rules 3.720 - 3.730. Allpa¡ties shall comply with California Rules of Court. Rules 3.720 - 3.730.
NOTICE TO PLAINTIF'F''S COUNSELIMPORTANT: You are required to serve this Notice of Assignment and Notice of Order to Show Cause Date andNotice of Case Management Conference l)ate with the Summonso Complaint [Local Rute 3.7(a)lo AlternativeDispute Resolution (ADR) Information Packet, and ADR Stipulation and Order Form ( California Rules of CourfRuIe 3.221).
NOTICE TO CROSS COMPLAINANT'S COT.]NSELIMPORTANT: If you are bringing a cross complaint against new parties, you arer likewise, required to serve thisNotice of Assignment pursuant to California Rules of Courtn Rule 3.110 and Notice of Order to Show Cause dateand Notice of Case Management Conference date on the new cross defendants.
Notice of Assignment/Notice of O¡der to Show Cause Re CRC 3.1l0/Notice of Case Manageinent Conference
Page 1 of4
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 110 of 126
Date: October !3,2017
TERRY MCNALLYCLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Vo*t e.t'sa,
Vanessa Cofield, Deputy ClerkBy:
Notice of Assignment/Notice of O¡de¡ to Show Cause Re CRC 3.1lO/l{otice of Case Ma¡ragernent Conference
Page? of4
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 111 of 126
The Clerk of the Superior Court's office has rsceived a civil cornplaint from you for filing. Pursuanl to the Trial CourlDelay Reduction Act, your case has been assigned to the Honorable Stephen D. Schuett as monitoring judge.
Judge Stephen D. Schuett has instituted a direct calendaring system for all cases assigned to himlher as the monitoringjudge.
All law and motion, case management and trial setting conferences, ex parte matters and trials will be scheduled before
hin/her in Bakersfield Department 10. This will involve all cases in which the clerk has assigned the initials SDS to the
complaint at the tirne of filing. Counsel is expected to make the initials of the monitoring judge a part of the case numberon all pleadings and papers.
Judge Stephen D. Schuett expects that all law and motion hearings to be heard by him/her be set within five (5) days offhe earliest date that they may be heard, given mail notice of hearing. Law and motion matters must be reserved bYgsing to the website address http:/lkerncgurtlink.com for the Kern Courtlink Online Reservation Svstem. Thewebsite is available at anv time. You mav calendar motions as scheduled below. Ex-parte mafters require pre-clearance.
At the time of filing the complaint, plaintiffs counsel will be given a Notice of Case Management Conference which sets a
conference approximately one hundred sighry (180) days after filing of the complaint. This notice must be served with the
summons and complaint on all defendants. Defendants must serve the notice on all crossdefendants named. The notice mustalso be served on interveners and lien claimants.
Telephonic appearances for case management conferences and law and motion hearings are available through Court Call.
The toll free telephone lumber for Court Call is (888) 88-COURT. Proper procedu¡es must be complied with under
Califomia Rules of Court. Rule 3.670. Arrangements to make appearances through Court Call must be made at least five (5)
court days prior to the hearing date.
Another judge will hear settlement conferences in cases assigned to Judge Stephen D. Schuett. However, those cases that do
not settle will be set for trial before him/her.
To confirm any hearing on calendar, for general questions regarding cases assigned to Judge Stephen D. Schuett or to pre-
clear an ex-parte hearing, contact the Direct Calendaring Clerk at 661-868-5404. To check on tentative rulings from Judge
Chapin or Judge Clark, go to the court's website address "http/www.kern.courts.ca.gov/", after 4:00 pm, and click ontentative rulings. Judge Lampe does Ug¡Loffertentative rulings.
Notice of Assignmert/Notice of Order to Sbow Cause Re CRC 3.1I0/Notice of Case Management Co¡ference
Page 3 of4
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 112 of 126
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF KERN
SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES
At least fifteen (15) days prior to the case management conference, each party shall prepare, file and serve on each other party
a case management conference report providing the Court with the following information:
1. The "at-issue" status of the case including any new parties that may be contemplated;
Z. A brief statement of the tSrpe of case and the general facts or contentions;3. A description of the discovery done to date and that contemplated to be done;4. Estimated time for trial and whether a jury is demanded;5. Whether or not the case is entitled to priority in trial setting and if so, the legal authority thereof;6. An evaluation of the case for alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration fiudicial or binding), mediation or
private j udge handling;7 . If a person injury action, a description of the i4juries sustained by each plaintiff and the elements of claimed damage;
8. A statement of any settlement negotiations undertaken thus far;9. The name of the attorney primary responsible for the case on behalf of the party filing the report.
More than one party may join in the filing of a single report.
The case management conference shall be attended by the attorney primarily responsible for the case on behalf of each part¡z
or a member of his or her firm or counsel formally associated in the case. The attorney attending shall be thoroughlyfamiliar with the case, and be able to engage in meaningful discussions with court and counsel, and to enter into agreements
on behalf of his or her client on the following subjects:
1. The "at-issue" status of the case including the dismissal of the unnamed doe defendants or cross-defendants byagreement of all parties;
2. Discovery conducted and remaining to be done;3. Amenability of the case to alternative dispute resolution including, but no limited to, arbitration fiudicial or binding),
mediation, and private judge handling.4. Delineation of issues including stipulation of facts not in substantial controversy;5. Settlement prospects;6. Setting the matter for trial, pre-trial conferences, settlement conference or further case management conference;
7 . Any other matters relevant to the processing of the case to a final resolution.
Any violation of these rules shall result in the imposition of substantial sanctions which may include monetary, issue,
termination, or other appropriate sanctions.
Notice of Assignment/Notice of Order to Show Cause Re CRC 3.1 10/Notice of Case Management Conference
Page 4 of 4
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 113 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
9
10
11
I2
13
74
15
16
T7
10lo
19
20
.>1
22
23
24
25
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FOR RICO COMPLAINT OF BIG O RELIEF', ET AL
LA\ry OFFICES OF ABRAHAM A. LABBADAbraham A. Labbad, Esq. (CA Bar No.: 27 1349)1 250 Walnut St., Unit 122
Pasadena, CA 91106Office: (818) 253-1529Fax: (818) 530-9236Specially Appearing and Limited ScopeAttorneys for Plaintiffs:
BiG O RELIEF, ET AL
BIG O RELIEF, a California Non-profitMutual Benefit Corporation, DOO H. YOON,an individual, EUNICE S. YOON, an
individual, and Alvaro Ordaz, an individual,Plaintiffs,
COUNTY OF KERN, a political subdivisionof the State of Caiifomia; GREG FENTON,individually and as Kern County BuildingInspector, KERN COTINTY BOARD OFSUPERVISORS, collectively; LETICIAPEREZ, individually and as Kern CountySupervisor; MICK GLEASON, individuallyand as Kern County Supervisor; DAVIDCOUCH, individually and as Kern CountySupervisor; MIKE MAGGARD, individuallyand as Kern County Supervisor; ZACKSCRI\rNER, individually and as Kern CountySupervisor, KERN COUNTY PUBLICWORKS _ CODE COMPLIANCEDIVISION, collectively; KERN COLTNTYSHERIFF' S DEPARTMENT, collectively;DONNY YOTINGBLOOD, individually and
as Kern County Sheriff; KERN COUNTYDISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,collectively; LISA GREEN, individually and
as Kern County District Attomey; KERNCOLTNTY COLINSEL'S OFFICE,collectively; MARK L. NATIONS,individually and as Kern County Counsel;
ELECTRONICALLY FILED1At1212017 10:48 AM
Kern County Superior GourtTerry McNally
By Vanessa Cofield, Deputy
Case No.: BCv-17 -102394
PLAINTIFFS' DEMAND FOR ruRYTRIAL (relating to the followingComplaint):
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTWE RELIEF ANDDAMAGES FROM RACKETEERING,CONSPIRACY TO ENGAGE IN APATTERN OF RACKETEERINGACTIVITY, AND RELATED CLAIMS;AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
(c.c.P., $592.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
couNTY oF KERN (METROPOLITAN DIViSION)
VS
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
1
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 114 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
I2
13
I4
15
16
I'7
LB
19
20
21,
LZ
24
25
JAMES BRENNAN, individually and as
peputy Kern Counfy Counsel; CHARLES F.
COLLINS, individually and as Chief DeputyKern County Counsel; GURUJODHA S.
KHALSA, individually and as Chief DeputyCounty Counsel; KERN COLINTY FIREDEPARTMENT, collectively; KERNCOLINTY PLANNING AND NATURALRESOURCES DEPARTMENT, collectively;LORELEI OVIATT, individualiy and as
Director; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENTOF AGRICULTURE ANDMEASUREMENT STANDARDS,collectively; GLENN FANKT{AUSER,individually and as Commissioner; KERNCOT'NTY PUBLIC HEALTHDEPARTMENT, collectively; AL ROJAS,individually and as Kern County CodeCompliance Division Supervisor; and DOES1 Through 1000, Inclusive,
(continued)
Defendants.
TO EACH PARTY AND TO THEIR COI-INSEL OF RECORD:
1. Plaintiffs in the present matter hereby give NOTICE of their DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL in the above-referenced action, pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure,
$s92.
Respectfuily submitted,
Dated: October ll,20l7 tAW OFFICES OF ABRAIIAM A. LABBAD
ABRAHAM A. LABBAD,Limited Scope Attorney for PlaintifßBig O Reliet Doo H. Yoon, Eunice Yoon, and
Alvaro Ordaz
2
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FOR RICO COMPLAINT OF'BIG O RELTEF, ET AL
)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 115 of 126
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERNALTERNATIVË DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)
INFORMATION PACKET
Kern County Superior Court encourages, and under certain circumstances, may require parties to tryADR before trial. Courts have also found ADR to be beneficial when used early in the case process'
The courts, community organizations and private providers offer a variety of ADR processes to helppeople resolve disputes without a trial. Below is information about the potential advantages and
disadvantages of ADR, the most common types of ADR, and how to find a local arbitrator, mediatoror neutral evaluator. You may find more information about these ADR processes atwww. cou rts. ca. gov/p rog ram s/ad r.
Possible ntaoes and Di es of ADRADR may have a variety of advantages or disadvantages over a trial depending on the type of ADRprocess used as well as the particular type of case involved.
Possible ES: Saves time; saves money; gives the parties more control over thedispute resolution process and outcome; helps to preserve and/or improve party relationships
Possible Disadvantaqes: May add additional time and costs to the litigation if ADR does not
resolve the dispute; procedures such as discovery, jury trial, appeals, and other legal protections may
be limited or unavailable.
Most Common Tvoes of ADRMediation: A neutral person or "
constructive manner so the parties canoutcome, but helps the parties to do souseful where ongoing relationships are
mediator" helps the parties communicate in an effective andtry to resolve their dispute. The mediator does not decide the. Mediation is generally confidential and may be particularlyinvolved, such as between family members, neighbors,
employers/employees or business partners.
Settlement Conferences: A judge or another neutral person assigned by the couñ helps theparties to understand tfre iirengths and weaknesses of their case and to discuss settlement. Thejudge or settlement conference neutral does not make a decision in the case but helps the parties tonegotiate a settlement. Settlement conferences may be particularly helpfulwhen the parties have
very different views about the likely outcome of a trial in their case.
Neutral Evaluation: The parties briefly and informally present their facts and arguments to aneutral peison who is often an expert in the subject matter of the dispute. The neutral does not
decide the outcome of the dispute, but helps the parties to do so by providing them with a non-bindingopinion about the strengihs, weaknesses and likely outcome of their case. Depending on the neutral
evaluation process, and with the parties' consent, the neutral may then help the parties try to
negotiate a settlement. Neutral evaluation may be appropriate when the parties desire a neutral'sopinion about how the case might be resolved at trial; and, if the primary dispute is about the amountoi damages or technical issues, the parties would like a neutral expert to resolve those disputes.
Information Packet per CRC Rule 3'221 - Last Modified 112612017
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 116 of 126
Arbitration: The parties present evidence and arguments to a neutral person or "arbitrator"
who then decides the outcome of the dispute. Arbitration is less forrnal than a trial, and the rules ofevidence are generally more relaxed. lf the parties agree to binding arbitration, they waive their rightto a jury trial and agree to accept the arbitrator's decision. With nanbinding arbitration, any party mayreject the arbitrator's decision and request a trial. Arbitration may be appropriate when the partieswant another person to decide the outcome of their dispute but would like to avoid the formality, timeand expense of a trial, or desire an expert in the subject matter of their dispute to make a decision.
Local Gourt ADR ProqramsThe Superior Court, County of Kern offers two types of ADR: Arbitration in cases in which theamount in controversy as to each plaintiff is $50,000 or less; and DRPA mediation services on theday of the hearing, settlement conference or trial.
Arbitration: The Superior Couri of California, County of Kern does use Arbitrators in civil caseswhere the amount in controversy as to each individual plaintiff is $50,000 or less. The Couft mayorder the parties to Arbitration or the parties may agree to Arbitration any time before the first casemanagement conference statement is filed.See Local Rule 3.14 at mn¡w.kern.courts.ca.qov/local rules of cout1.
Dispute Resolution Program Act (DRPA): The Superior Court of California, County of Kern alsooffers mediation services in small claims and unlawful detainer, civil harassment, family law andprobate matters. The Court has contracted with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) under the DisputeResolution Programs Act (DRPA) to provide these mediation services. For more information aboutBBB Mediation Services contact www.mediationservicesbvbbb'orq.
AÐR Coordinator:Although complaints about arbitrators and mediators are rare, the Superior Court of California,County of Kern does provide a complaint procedure in our Local Rules, Rule 3.14.7. lf you have a
complaint or a concern with any of this Court's ADR programs, or simply have a question about ADR,please contact the ADR Administrator at [email protected] or 661-868-5433.
Resources:California Department of Consumer Affairs: www.dca.ca.qovlconsu merlmediation ouidesJ udicial Branch Gal iforn ia Gourts - ADR: www.courts.ca.qov/selfhep-adrAD R Sti p u I ation Form : www. kern.cou rts. ca.qovll i n ks/4/fi le
Information Packet per CRC Rule 3.221 - Last Modified 112612017
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 117 of 126
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT AfiORNEY
NAME:
FIRM NAME:
ADDRESS:
clry:
E MAIL ADDRESS (Opflbna¡):
ATTORNEY FOR (Narne):
STATÉ BAR NO,:
STATE:
TELEPHONÉ NO,:
FAx NO. (Opfr'oraD:
ZIP CODE:
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERN
STREEf AÐDRESS:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITYAND ZIP CODE:
BRANCH NAME:
FORCOURT USEONLY
PLAINTIFF:
DEFENDANT:
CASE NUMBER:
ADR STIPULAT¡ON AND ORDER FORM
1. Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.22I(a)$), the parties and their attorneys stipulate that all claims in
this action willbe submitted to the following alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process:
a. fl Private Mediation.
b. f] Neutral Evaluation.
c. E einding Arbitration.
d. fl Referee/Special Master.
e. f] Settlement Conference with Private Neutral.
f. I Non-binding Judicial Arbitration pursuant to CCP$1141.10 et seq., and applicable Rules of Court.
g. n Discovery will remain open until 30 days before trial.
h. fl other:
2. It is also stipulated that:
a. (name of individual neutral, not organization)
has consented to and will serve as
b (neutral function/process) and that the session will take place on
(enter a FIRM date) and that all persons necessary to effect a settlementc. onand having full authority to resolve the dispute will appear at such session.
KC ADR-101 (Mandatory) Rev.07/2014
ADR STIPULATION AND ORDER FORMPage I of2
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 118 of 126
CASE NUMBER:PLAINTIFF:
DEFENDANT:
3. Date
à. On behalf of Plaintiff/s
(TYPE ORPRINTNAME) (SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY)
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
f Continu ed on Attachment 3a (formMc-025).
b. On behalf of DefendanVs
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
('TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
I Continued on Attachment 3ø (form MC-025).
4. ORDER:
(SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY)
(SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY)
(SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY)
20_a.t _a. X the ADR process is to be completed by
-,20-.
b. fI fne Case Management Conference currently set fora.m./p.m. in Department
f. I Judicial Arbitration Order Review Hearing will be set by notice upon assigrunent ofarbitrator.
IT SO ORDERED.
Date:_ruDICIAL OFFICER
KC ADR-101 (Mandatory) Rev. 07 12014
ADR STIPULATION AND ORDER FORMPage2 oî2
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 119 of 126
Big O Relief, et al. v. County of Kern, et al.
Exhibit B
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 120 of 126
STATE BA« NO: 271349ATTORNEY OR PARTY MTHOUT ATTORNEY.-
name: ABRAHAM A. LABBADFIRM name: law OFFtCE OF ABRAHAM A. UBBADstreet ADDRESS: 1250 WALNUT ST.. UNIT 122ci^: PASADENA 3TATE:CA EIPCOOE: 91106TEIEPKONENO.: (818)253-1529 P.OCNO.: (818) 530-9236B-MAo, ADDRESS: [email protected] FOR {Name). 8IG O RELIEF, 9 CattfomlB Non-profit Mutual Benefit Corporation,SlJ<blAO f^niirrr nr r ■ i n i ■ L 1SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERNSTREETA0DRE88: 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUEMAIUNOAOORESS: 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUEciTYANDaPcooE: BAKERSFIELD 93301
»^nchname: metropolitan DIVISION
Plaintiff/Petitioner: BIG O RELIEF, elalDefendant/Respondent; COUNTY OF KERN, at al
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
CIV-110
FOR COUHT use ONLY
ELECTRONICALLY FILED i
11/6/2017 8:00 AM
Kern County Superior Cou;rt
Terry McNally jBy Araceli Wahl, Depujy
CASE NUMBER:
BCV-17-102394
A conformed copy will not ba returned by the clerk unleas a method of return is provided with the document.
StlomljcaT^Ruyea of CwymlelTTMand 3.77^^^ of action In a daes1. TO THE Cl^RK: Please dismiss this action as fellows
a- (1) □ With prejudice (2) Q Without prejudiceb. (1) □ Complaint (2) Petition
(3) cm Cross-complaint filed by (name):(^) I I Cross-complaint filed by (name):
L_J Entire action of all parties and ail causes of action(8) 1X1 Other (specify).- Dismiss action as to LETICIA PEREZ, indlvWoally.2. (Complete In^ cases except family law cases.)
The court did Xl bid not waive court fees and costs for a party liclerk. If court fees and costs were waived, the declaretion on the back ofthi
Dale: November 2,2017ABRAHAM A. LABBAD. ESQ.(TYPEORPRINTNAMEOf XI AHORNEY (_] PARTYWTTHOUTATTORNEY)
on (date)'.on (date)'.
may be obtained ̂ m the
parties only of spedfled eaus«s pf «ctfon cnJy,or a sppclfiGd cn>»9<oiRpl8lnis only, so atalp and idenfi^ the paities. ofaction, or croas<onip!aints to ba dtsntlssed.
irrfomscomple
3- TO THE CLERK: Consent to the above dismissal is hereby given.'Date:
- L(TVPEORPRINTNAMeOF P j aTTORNEy" T!T party WITKOUTATTGHNEV)~ c^-oon^Int - or Roaponse (Family Law) soeUng ofrirmativQf«fef- ia Oft rao. the attorney for crosa-complatnant (rospondant) must siQntW» consent tf required by Code of Civil Prooedtrro eocOon 581 (0 Of (Qa
_ _ (SKSNATURg)Attorney or party yWjtxkit attorney for;j-*.J Pteintlff/Petilioner j I Defendant/Respondenti I Cross Complainant
(To be completed by clerk)4. 12^ Dismissal entered as requested on (date): 11/06/20175 iZD Dismissal entered on /cfsfe;: as to only/name;:®' I Dismissal not entered as requested for the following reasons (specify)'.
(StONATURE)Attorney or party without attorney for1—] Plaintiff/Pellboner I I Defendant/RespondentL I Cross Complainant
7. a. (O Attorney or party without attorney nouned on/dafe;: 11/7/2017b. CD Attorney or party without attorney not notified. Filing party failed to provide
cm 3 copy to be conformed I I means to return conformed copyDate: 11/7/2017 Clerk, byFem Adoptad forMand«to(y UmJudicial Counel of CaUorNoav-lio puv. Jen, 1, soiaj REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 121 of 126
PlalnttfryPetilloner BIG O RELIEF, et alDefendant/Respondent; COUNTY OF KERN, et af
CASE number;
BCV-17-102394
RECOVERY OF WAIVED COURT FEES AND COSTS
r'® S10.000 or n<or« Incourt has a Llutoiv awirallon award, madlatlon seltlamanl. or other means, theeatisllad. «4!?. S§ 68«7o '"®'' """I »«" l»
I Declaration Concerning Waived Court Fees1. Ttie court waived court fees and costs in this action for (name):Z The person named in item 1 is (check one below):
®' I—I "0* fscovering anything of value by this action,b- □ recovering less than $10,000 In value by this action.
, «»™1n8 510.000 or more In value by this action. (Itllemlclseheek0d.mm3mu^beoomplele(l.)3. □ A« court fees and court costs that were waived In this action have been paid to the court (check one): y,.I declare under penalty of perlury under the laws of the State of CaBfomla that the Information above Is tme and correctDate:
CtV-1 to (Rev. January 1.201^ REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL Pa8«3e(2
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 122 of 126
Big O Relief, et al. v. County of Kern, et al.
Exhibit C
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 123 of 126
Ctv.110STATeaARNa 271349
ATTORNEY OR PARTY wnHOUT ATTORNEV;
NAME: ABRAHAM A. LABBAD
firm NAME LAW OFFICE OF ABRAHAM A. LABBADSTREETADOReea 1250 WALNUT ST.. UNIT 122
oty: PASADENA STATE: OA sPccosgitOBtelepmoneno.: (818) 253<1529 faxno.: (818) 530>9236E^wn. ADDRESS: [email protected] FOR BIG 0 RELIEF, a California Non-profit Mutual Benefit Con)ora«on.SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERNSTREET ADDRESS: 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUEmajung ADDRESS: 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUECITY AND ZIP code: BAKERSFIELO 93301
SRANCKMAUE: METROPOLITAN DIVISION
PlalntlR/Petitlonen BIG O RELIEF, et al
Defendant/Respondent: COUNTY OF KERN, et al
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
FOR COVRT USE ONLY
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/6/2017 8:00 AM
Kern County Superior Court
Terry McNally
By Aracell Wahl, Deputy
CASE NUMBER:
BCV-17-102334
A conformed copy will not be returned by the clerk unless a method of return is provided with the document
derivative action or a class action or of any party or cause of action In a classaction. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.760 and 3.770.)TO THE CLERK: Please dismiss this action as follows: ~~ ~a- {<) □□ With prejudice (2) Without prejudiceb- (1) [ZD Complaint (2) □□ Petition
(3) I i Cross-complaint filed by/name); on (date):(4) I I Cross-compiaint filed by (name): on (date):(5) i I Entire action of all parties and all causes of action(6) [T] Other (specify):* Dismiss action as to CHARLES F. COLUN^ripd/diSSaily.
2. (Comfdete In ail cases except fymifylaw cases.) 'The court [ZD did I ■« 1 did not waive court fees and costs for a party/fn thl/dhsef^ informatjtclerk. If court fees and costs were waived, the declaration on the back of this fotpf must Je completed).
Date: November 2,2017ABRAHAM A. LABBAD. ESQ.(TYPE OR PRINT NAKg OP [ | ATTORNEY j PARTY WITHOUT ATTCRNEYl //^ (SIGNATUR
I may be obtained ̂ om^he
*if disntlssBi requostpd i& of spedSed paRlss only of specified causes of action only,or of specified oross-complaints only, so stole and IdentIV the perfles. causes ofactioa or cross-complBlnts to be dismissed.
.Attorney or partU wit
3. TO THE CLERK: Consent to the above dismissal Is hereby given.Date:
i(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OP □ ATT0RNg7~'P™^ PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY)"Ha cross-complatnt - or Response (Family Law) aeeking sfflrmativarelief- Is on file, the attorney for cro8s<oo(nplaln8nt (respondent) must signmis consent If requirsd by Ckide of Civil Procedure section 601 0) or (J).
Attorney or party without attorney for:L- 1 Plaintiff/Petitioner I I Defendant/Respondent1 I Cross Complainant
(To be completed by dork)4. IX 1 Dismissal entered as requested on (date):^ 1 /06/20175 I I Dismissal entered on (date): as to only/name;:6. I I Dismissal not entered as requested for the following reasons (specify):
'7. a. [AJ Attorney or party without altomey notified on fdafe^'l 1 /7/2017b. I I Attorney or party without attorney not notified. Filing party tolled to provide
I 1 a copy to be conformed I I means to return conformed c<^yDale: 11/7/2017 Clerk, by /s/ Araceli Wahl Deputy PagalofsFonn Adopted for Mandslaiy UmAiddolCoiBwaofCMirtKMaQV>110{R«v.Jtft. 1.2013)
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL Cola of CNil Procedun. i S81 St Gov. Com.% 6S837(e); ON. Rutet d Court, nilo 3.1300
Mn«Mr.OO<«<f.cs.pov
-L
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 124 of 126
CIV-110Plaintiff/Petitioner; BIG 0 RELIEF, etal
Defendant/Respondent: COUNTY OF KERN, et alCASSNUMSER:
BCV-17-102394
COURTS RECOVERY OF WAIVED COURT FEES AND COSTSIf a party whose court fees and costs were Initially waived has recovered or will recover $10,000 or more Invalue by way of settlement, compromise, arbitration award, mediation settlement, or other means, thecourt has a statutory lien on that recovery. The court may refuse to dismiss the case until the lien issatisfied. (Gov. Code. § 68637.)
I Declaration Concerning Waived Court Fees1. The court waived court fees and costs in this action for (name):
2. The person named in item 1 is (check one below):
0- 1 I not recovering anything of value by this action.I I recovering less ttian $10,000 In value by this action.t 1 I'ocovering $10,000 or more In value by this action. (If Item 2c Is checked, item 3 must be completed.)
1—I A" fees and court costs that were waived in this action have been paid to the court (check one): Ves
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Callfomia that the Information above Is true and correct.
Date;
No
rrVPE on PRtNT NAME OP □ ATTORNEY | 1 PARTY MAXIMO DECLARATION) (SieNATURE)
OV'ltO [R«'. Januaiy 1,2013) REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL Pag>2ara
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 125 of 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am employed in the County of Fresno, State ofCalifornia, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176, Fresno, California 93710.
On the date set forth below, I placed in a sealed envelope and served a true copy of the within
DECLARATION OF JAMES D. WEAKLEY IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION
addressed as follows:
Abraham A. Labbad1250 Walnut Street, Unit 122Pasadena, CA 91106Phone: (818) 253-1529Fax: (818) 530-9236E-Mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs BIG O RELIEF, DOO H. YOON,EUNICE S. YOON, and ALVARO ORDAZ
: BY MAIL I am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business forcollection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited in the ordinary course of business.
I caused each envelope, with postage fully prepaid, to be placed in the United States mail, atFresno, California.
9 BY HAND I hand delivered each envelope to the office listed above.
9 BY FACSIMILE I served the above-mentioned document from Facsimile Machine No.:(559) 221-5262 to the interested parties at the facsimile numbers listed above.
9 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS I am readily familiar with the business practice at my place ofbusiness for collection and processing of correspondence for overnight delivery with Federal Express.Such correspondence will be deposited with a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express forreceipt on the same day in the ordinary course of business.
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whosedirection the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true andcorrect, and that this proof of service was executed at Fresno, California, on November 22, 2017.
/s/ Prisma Valencia Prisma Valencia
____________________________Declaration of James D. Weakley in Support of
Notice of Removal of Action 4
Case 1:17-cv-01566-LJO-JLT Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 126 of 126