Electronically FILE DJ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 y Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 06/23/2020 02:36 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J . Lara,Deputy Clerk Carney R. Shegerian, Esq., State Bar No. 150461 CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com Anthony Nguyen, Esq., State Bar No. 259154 AN yen egerianlaw.com Stephanie Le, Esq., State Bar No. 324788 SLe@Shegerianlaw.com SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 145 S. Spring Street, Suite 400 Los Angeles California 90012 Telephone Number: 3 103 860-0770 Facsimile Number: (310) 860-0771 Attornevs for Plaintiff. ROBIN REID SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT ROBIN REID, Case No.: 18STCV05356 The Honorable Robert S. Draper PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ VS. DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT, LAURA STEPHANIE LE; EXHIBITS CHISM, MICHAEL BREGY, LUKE PAVONE, JEANIE DAVIS, and Plaintiff, DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Date: July 7, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 78 Defendants. Trial Date: None Action Filed: November 16. 2018 PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ....ooiiiiiiiiteiie cites n cess e seen 1 ARGUMENT coisas eae eae sates beaten ease essen 2 A, The Controllmg Denurrer Stam mr sesso sues sess sms ssn nem mo 2 (1) Reid’s Complaint Need Only State a Claim Under Any Possible Theory Against Defendants which was Satisfied. .........cccccoviiiiiiniinnnennne. 2 (2) The Complaint Need Only “Apprise the Defendant of the Basis Upon Which Plaintiff Is Seeking Relief.” .........occoooiiiiiie 3 (3) Reid’s Allegations Must Be Accepted as True. .........ccoceeeeveeeeciieiecciieceeinen, > B. Reid Has Sufficiently Pled Harassment Claims Against Defendants. ................. 4 (1) Reid Sufficiently Pleads That He Was Constructively Discharged Due to Intolerable Conditions Created By His Employer. .........c.cccccvvvieiiinnnnn. 4 (2) Reid Had A Qualifying Disability.........ccccceevviiieiiiiiiiiieieciiieciie cece 5 (3) Reid’s Second Cause of Action for Age Harassment is Sufficiently Pled Against the BHUSD, Bregy, and Pavone. ...........cccccoeveiiiiniieinniienen. 5 C. Reid has Sufficiently Pled Facts to Establish a Claims for Retaliation for Complaining of Age, Disability, and Associational Disability Discrimination and/or Harassment (COA 3 & 6)....cceeevvvivieeeiciiiiieeeeceieee ee 7 D. Reid has Sufficiently Pled his Disability Claims (Failure to Accommodate and Failure to Engage In the Interactive Process) (COA 8 & 10). ...coccveevveennnens 9 E. Reid Sufficiently Pleads a Cause of Action Under Violation of Labor CORE 1 T0040Fa CI SE 10 (1) Labor Code Section 1102.5 Does Not Require Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. ..........oooviiiiiiiiieiiiie iiss 12 (2) Defendants Received Timely Notice of Reid’s Claims. ................ccuvenee.ne. 12 (3) There is No Risk of Prejudice to Defendants and This Issue Is Appropriate at the Motion for Summary Judgment Phase Not on a DEIMUITET. « ti eee eee ees e see ee eae 13 F. If This Court Determines that Reid’s Complaint Is Insufficient, Leave to Amend. Is Respeptinlly Requester. sess nme mmom som sn sm ssmm som som 14 CONCLUSION... cotter eee sees st testes sateen tee sabe es baeeabeeens 14 -i- PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal. 4 121 ....ccocovoviveicreeeee, 6 Angie M. v. Sup. Ct. (Hiemstra) (1995) 37 Cal. App.4th 1217 ...cccooveiiiiieieeeee 13 Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962 .........ccoveoiiiiiiieeieeee ee 2 Barbosa v. IMPCO Techs., Inc. (2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 1116......ccovieiviiiiieiieeeen. 10 Barquis v. Merchants Collection Ass'n (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94 ........oovoiiieiiiiiiieeieeeen 2 Berger v. California Ins. Guar. Ass'n (2005) 128 Cal. App.4th 989 ....ccvvvveiieiiiiiieees 3 ge CAPA 2,4 CE Ape LR ee ee 12,13 Careau & Co. v. Security Pac. Business Credit (1990) 222 Cal. App.3d 1371............... 1,2 Collier v. City of Pasadena (1978) 142 Cal. App.3d 917 ...ovviiiiiiiece eee 11, 13 Couch v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (2014) 2014 WL 1577463......ccccovveeeeiiieeieeeennen. 12 County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal. App.4th 3 Dee v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal. App.4th 30.......ccoevviiiiiiiiiiiiieeieeee 4 DeJung v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal. App.4th 533... ceri 7 Del E. Webb Corporation v. Structural Materials Company (1981) 123 Cal APD. 3A 593 cereee eee ee estes eraser ae ee nnae eee 3 Diego v. Pilgrim United Church of Christ (2014) 231 Cal. App. 4th913 ................. 11,12 Ferrick v. Santa Clara University (2014) 231 Cal. App.4th 1337 .ccooviiiiiiieeeee. 10 Franklin v. The Monadnock Co. (2007) 151 Cal. App.4th 252.....cccoiiiiiiiiiieeeieeeees JZ Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc. (9th Cir. 1998) 150 F.3d 1217 .oooiieiiiiiieeeeeeeeee, 8 Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335.....coiiiiie eee eee 14 Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254 .....ooooiiiieee eee eee 5 Greesley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.LAPP.2d 630 ...cccuevieeiiiieiiieee cece cece 4 Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993) 510 U.S. 17 curries eee 4 A= PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jones v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2007) 152 Cal. ADD AT 1307s eet esate sate sateen 6 Lowe v. Monrovia (9th Cir. 1985) 775 F.2d 998... eee, 8 Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Production (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264 ............cccevvriviennenns 4 McCoy v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n (2013) 216 Cal. App.4th 283 over eeeeee 8 McDonald v. Sup. Ct. (Flintkote Co.) (1986) 180 Cal. App.3d 297 ....coecvviieiiieeiieeeee 14 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 ...oooviiieiiieeeee eee n 7 Mixon v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 192 Cal. App.3d 1306...................... 8 Morgan v. Regents of the University of California (2001) 88 Cal. App.4th 52 .............. 7,8 Myers v. Trendwest Resorts (2007) 148 Cal. App.4th 1403.......ooiiiiiiiiiiie eee 4 O’Mary v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. (1997) 59 Cal. App.4th 563 .................. 7 Patten rent Join Union High School Dist, supra, 134 Cal. App. #7419. oe. 11 Perkins v. Sup. Ct. (General Tel. Directory Co.) (1981) 117 Cal. App.3d 1.................. 2,3 Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686 .........ceovevviiiiieiiiieiieeeeeeeeee e, 2,4,6 Satyadi v. West Contra Costa Healthcare Dist. (2014) 232 Cal. App.4th 1022................ 12 Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal. App.4th 986.......cccvvevviiiveciieennn. 10 Sheridan v. Touchstone Television Productions, LLC (2015) 241 CAL ATTA, DOB 055005 3.505555 AS BSAA S50 SH 5 SAS BS hh 12 Steel v. Youthful Offender Parole BD. (2008) 162 Cal App, 4™ 1241 ......ccoevvvvvveveernnne. 4 Thompson v. City of Monrovia (2010) 186 Cal. App 4™ 860 ........ccocveveveeeeiceeeeeereene, 6 TWA v. Thurston (1985) 469 U.S. 111 ..cceiiiiiiiie ieee eects eee eee 7 Yanowitz vs. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal. 4M 1028.......coveveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, 8,11 Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240 .......cccovvvvevviieieiieeeieeeen 2 Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co. (9th Cir. 2002) 302 F.3d 1080.................... 10 Statutes Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(€) ....vveiieeeiiiieeeeiiiie eects eects eevee ease ee 3 Code of Civil Procedure § 452... eee eee eee eee essere aaa ae een 3 Government Code §§ 1 2D00=] ZOE cus cums ss oss ssinns wins ssmns inns jams muss 5is5565 8055 5 passim PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Government Code §8§ 12900-12996........oooeeeiieieeeiiiiieeeeee e e 8 Labor Code § T1026... cece eee eee eee eee eect ee eee eee eset aera ae ae ee eens 11 Labor Code § 244(Q) ..eeeeeeieiieieeiie ieee eee eee eee eee eset e ees rae eee aaaae eas 12 Labor Code § 08.0... a ean 12 Treatises Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group) .......cccccvvvveeenennee. 1,2,3 Si- PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Robin Reid (“plaintiff” or “Reid”), worked for defendants Beverly Hills Unified School District (“Defendant” or “BHUSD”) for close to 23 years, and at the time of his constructive termination he was 66 years old. Reid worked in a unique position as a residency investigator and was passionate about his work despite BHUSD’s constant violations of law, including his safety, as well as its failure to ensure a discrimination and harassment free environment. On the job, Reid had been assaulted and arrested, yet BHUSD overlooked Reid because of his age and eventually because of his disability after ongoing retaliation and harassment. Reid also associated with individuals with disabilities by refusing to unlawfully expel the disabled students that BHUSD was targeting. Reid made complaints about these practices. Furthermore, harassing comments about Plaintiff’s age were made such as that he was a “fat old man” and yet no matter how many times Plaintiff complained, nothing was ever done. Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“3 AC”) properly alleges ultimate facts giving rise to his claims for harassment and retaliation on the basis of age and, disability and associational disability; failure to provide reasonable accommodations; failure to engage in the interactive process; and violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 which clearly satisfies the liberal pleading threshold. That is all that is required by law. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group), § 6:127, citing Careau & Co. v. Security Pac. Business Credit (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1390 (“A complaint must allege the ultimate facts necessary to the statement of an actionable claim”). Furthermore, Defendants’ antagonistic and hostile comments regarding Reid’s age and pervasive comments berating plaintiff for being “old” and having “gray hair” and their simultaneous threats when he went on medical leave due to stress and other health problems sent a discriminatory message to plaintiff that he was unwelcome in the work place. This exact conduct has been found by the Supreme Court to be outside normal PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “managerial” duties and to constitute actionable harassment. Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686 (“management” activity could be actionable as harassment if it sent the employee a discriminatory message; e.g., that his race was unwelcome in the work place); see also Brennan v. Townsend & O Leary Enterprises, Inc. (2011) 199 Cal. App.4th 1336, 1352 (hostile work environment is established upon showing of workplace atmo- sphere permeated with discriminatory insult and ridicule). Reid was insulted and offended by these comments and actions taken against him after devoting decades of service since around 1995. Accordingly, Reid respectfully requests that this Court deny defendants’ Demurrer or, in the alternative, grant Reid leave to amend. 2. ARGUMENT A. The Controlling Demurrer Standard (1) Reid’s Complaint Need Only State a Claim Under Any Possible Theory Against Defendants which was Satisfied. “[I]t 1s error for a trial court to sustain a demurrer when the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory.” Franklin v. The Monadnock Co. (2007) 151 Cal. App.4th 252, 257, citing Barquis v. Merchants Collection Ass'n (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 103; Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967. “A complaint must allege the ultimate facts necessary to the statement of an actionable claim. It is both improper and insufficient for a plaintiff to plead the evidence by which he hopes to prove such ultimate facts.” Weil & Brown, supra, § 6:127, citing Careau, supra, at 1390. “Ultimate facts” are “those which raise issues on which the right to recover depends, i.e., the essential elements of a cause of action.” Id. at § 6:124.! The complaint must be I As some courts hold, “What is important is that the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief.” Perkins v. Sup. Ct. (General Tel. Directory Co.) (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 (emphasis added), citing Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240. 2 PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 construed “liberally . .. with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” C.C.P. § 452. Reid’s operative Complaint more than satisfies this pleading standard with facts that transpired over several years and were ongoing. Numerous individuals at BHUSD took negative actions against Reid ultimately forcing him out of a career that he enjoyed and dedicated himself to. (2) The Complaint Need Only “Apprise the Defendant of the Basis Upon Which Reid Is Seeking Relief.” “The distinction between ‘ultimate facts’ and ‘evidentiary’ matters and ‘legal con- clusions’ is of diminishing importance. Our courts have become increasingly liberal in their attitude toward pleading-in some cases approximating the notice-pleading stan- dards of federal courts.” Weil & Brown, § 6:128, citing Perkins v. Sup. Ct. (General Tel. Directory Co.) (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1). “The distinction . .. is not at all clear and involves at most a matter of degree . . . What is important is that the complaint as a whole contains sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief.” Id. at 6. The facts alleged are not vague but rather sufficiently inform Defendants of specific instances and witnesses to these actions. Discovery will further develop this case, but Defendants have proper notice on what this case about as of now. (3) Reid’s Allegations Must Be Accepted as True. As well, plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. Del E. Webb Corporation v. Structural Materials Company (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604. A judge should not sustain a demurrer unless the objection is clearly well taken. The complaint must be construed “liberally with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” C.C.P. § 452. A demurrer will lie only when a “[f]ailure to plead ultimate facts subjects the complaint to demurrer for ‘failure to state facts constituting a cause of action.” Weil & Brown, § 6:126, citing Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(e); Berger v. California Ins. Guar. Ass’n (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 989, 1006. A complaint that shows some right to relief is held sufficient against a demurrer-even though the facts are not clearly stated or are intermingled with irrelevant matters or if the plaintiff has 3- PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 demanded relief to which he or she is not entitled. Greesley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639. B. Reid Has Sufficiently Pled Harassment Claims Against Defendants. An employer is liable under FEHA for harassment because of an employee’s age, disability, for taking medical leave and associational disability when “the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of [the harassment] and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Government Code § 12940(j)(1). Whether conduct is harassing is “usually a question of fact” for the jury. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993) 510 U.S. 17, 23. An employer is strictly liable for its supervisors’ actions. Myers v. Trendwest Resorts (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1421. The law provides that even a single offensive act or comment by a supervisor is sufficient for liability. Dee v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal. App.4th 30, 36. Harassing conduct is conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment. Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Production (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 279. A hostile work environment is established upon a showing of a work place atmosphere permeated with discriminatory insult and ridicule. Brennan, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at 1352. The Supreme Court in Roby, supra, 47 Cal.4th 686, clarified that “management” activity could be actionable as harassment if it sent the employee a discriminatory message (e.g., that his age and disability was unwelcome in the work place). (1) Reid Sufficiently Pleads That He Was Constructively Discharged Due to Intolerable Conditions Created By His Employer. In order to establish constructive discharge as an adverse employment action under FEHA, “an employee must plead and prove by the usual preponderance of the evidence standard, that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee’s resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would be compelled to resign.” (Steel v. Youthful Offender Parole BD. (2008) 162 Cal App, 4" 1241, 1253). Here, Reid pleads that he was threatened in a meeting that 4- PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “they are getting rid of the dead weight” and “look what happened to Tedford” (referring to his former supervisor over the age of 40 who was likewise terminated). (3AC, 9 11u). Reid was kept there for several hours and further threatened that that “Laura wants to know every move you make.” Id. At some point, another employee had to intervene and say that “enough was enough” and to let Reid go home. Id. Reid subsequently went out on medical leave a few days later and at which point he was further harassed during his leave that if he were not to report back that it would be considered “insubordination” Plaintiff had no other choice by to terminate his employment. (3AC, 4 11v-y,12). (2) Reid Had A Qualifying Disability. A qualifying disability under FEHA is a prerequisite for any claim having to do with disability discrimination and/or harassment. A qualifying mental disability under FEHA includes “any mental or psychological disorder ... such as... emotional or mental illness” that “limits a major life activity.” (12956, subd. (j)(1).). For stress and anxiety to constitute a FEHA- qualifying disability, according to Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Medical Foundation, they would have to prevent Reid from participating in the particular type of job that he had held, in this case a residency investigator who was subjected to constant danger, including being physically attacked to which Defendants did nothing about. (3AC, 9 Llc). “The plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she was qualified for the position sought or held in the sense that he or she is able to perform the essential duties of the position with or without reasonable accommodation.” Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 267. Here, had defendants accommodated Reid by taking his complaints about the safety conditions seriously, he would have been able to continue forward with his position. (3) Reid’s Second Cause of Action for Age Harassment is Sufficiently Pled Against the BHUSD, Bregy, and Pavone. In order for Reid to be able to successfully make a claim of age harassment under FEHA, Reid needs to show (1) his membership in a protected group (in this case the fact that he is over forty); (2) that he was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the -5- PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 harassment complained of was based on Plaintiff's membership in that group; (4) the harassment complained of was sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of the employment relation and created an abusive working environment. (See Jones v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2007) 152 Cal. App.4™ 1367, 1377: Thompson v. City of Monrovia (2010) 186 Cal. App 4™ 860, 876). Harassment may be verbal, physical or visual and “communicates an offensive message to the harassed employee” (Thompson v. City of Monrovia (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4™ 860,877 city Roby v. McKesson Corp. (20089) 47 Cal 4th 686, 706). Plaintiff mush show a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine or a generalized nature.” (Id. citing Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal. 4" 121, 131). A plaintiff must prove that the defendants’ conduct “would have interfered with a reasonable employee’s work performance and would have seriously affected the psychological well-being of a reasonable employee,” (Thompson v. City of Monrovia, supra, 47 Cal. 4% at 877). Reid has pled a sufficient claim for age harassment for multiple reasons. First, the 3AC alleges in detail the harassment occurred consistently from approximately 2014 to until when Reid’s employment was terminated in 2017. (3AC, § 11f). Furthermore, Reid provides specific examples of when he was subjected to such behavior which include but are not limited to (1) Reid being called a “fat old man,” (2) having his gray hair touched to signify his age; (3) Davis mouthing the words “he’s old” while holding her nose with one hand and moving her hand around to signal that he smelled. Id. Reid was constantly subjected to disparaging comments about his appearance and intelligence, which were belittling, humiliating, embarrassing, and had some form of correlation to his age. /d. These comments were made in front of others, including Reid’s supervisors like Chism who did absolutely nothing about the comments. Id. Reid complained to supervisors regarding the harassing behavior he was subjected to, but they always dismissed his complaints saying something along the lines of that he should not take Davis seriously. /d. However, the constant attacks by Davis were truly taking a toll on Reid, and the fact that supervisors were not taking any steps to stop Davis’ conduct, made Reid feel uneasy and -6- PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unsafe. Id. Further, Reid specifically pleads that Luke Pavone (“Pavone”), the Executive Director of Human Resources for BHUSD, and Michael Bregy (“Bregy”), the Superintendent for BHUSD, had knowledge of said conduct, and failed to take any steps to prevent it from happening. ld. Moreover, as to Pavone, Reid again contacted Pavone in relation to another harassing incident he was subjected to in order to have Pavone remedy the solution, but instead Pavone dismissed Reid’s complaint and failed to take any remedial action. (3AC, § 1 1n). Moreover, in July of 2017, Reid investigated a family that was reported not to be residing within the district. (3AC, 9 11h). Reid immediately brought the investigation to Bregy’s attention, but rather than proceed according to BHUSD’s policies and the law, Bregy instructed Reid not to investigate any further and warned Reid, “do not continue with this.” (3AC, § 11h-1). The hostile environment caused Reid stress, anxiety, dry heaving, and several panic attacks. He was given medicine to treat his severe emotional distress. (3AC, § 11g). Reid was even threatened that they are “getting rid of the dead weight around here” and reminded Reid “look what happened to Tedford” referring to a former employee over the age of 40 who was likewise terminated. (3AC, 4 11u). For all these reasons, Reid’s claim of age harassment is sufficiently pled. C. Reid has Sufficiently Pled Facts to Establish a Claims for Retaliation for Complaining of Age, Disability, and Associational Disability Discrimination and/or Harassment (COA 3 & 6). With direct evidence of discrimination, there is no need for inferences, presumptions, or shifting burdens, rendering unnecessary the test set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792. TWA v. Thurston (1985) 469 U.S. 111, 122 (emphasis added); see also DeJung v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 533, 550. O’Mary v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 563; Morgan v. Regents of the University of California (2001) 88 Cal. App.4th 52, 69-70; Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, 1. PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Inc. (9th Cir. 1998) 150 F.3d 1217, 1221. Further, “showing that a significant participant in an employment decision exhibited discriminatory animus is enough to raise an inference that the employment decision itself was discriminatory...” DeJung, supra, 551. “The decision as to an employer's true motivation plainly is one reserved to the trier of fact.” Lowe v. Monrovia (9th Cir. 1985) 775 F.2d 998, 1008.“Very little direct evidence of the employer's discriminatory intent” is required to survive summary judgment. Morgan v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 69. “Determining the weight of dis- criminatory or ambiguous remarks is a role reserved for the jury.” Id. at 541. In establishing his prima facie showing of discrimination under FEHA, plaintiff showed that he was (1) a member of protected classes, as he had a disability in the form of ongoing stress and anxiety from Defendants conduct towards him that effected a major life activities, including his ability to work, therefore necessitating his medical leave, he was associated with individuals that had disability when he refused to target students with disabilities as directed by Chism and he was over the age of 40; made protected complaints of illegal conduct; (2) qualified for his job, as is shown by his exemplary work history and in meeting qualifications to do his job; and (3) was constructively terminated. Mixon v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1306, 1318; Government Code §§ 12940, 12926(m). “Actions for retaliation are inherently fact-driven; it is the jury, not the court, that is charged with determining the facts.” McCoy v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 283, 299. The elements of a prima facie case for FEHA retaliation are: (1) the employee engaged in protected activity; (2) the employee was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link between the protected activity and adverse action. Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042. Moreover, Reid specifically pled that he complained about the comments in regards to his age made by Davis to his supervisors. (3AC, § 11f.) However, Reid’s supervisors always dismissed Reid’s complaints saying something along the lines of that he should not take Davis seriously. /d. Further, Reid pled that his age and/or other characteristics -8- PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 were motivating factors in defendants’ decision to terminate his employment and to take adverse job actions against him. (3AC, 41.) For the reasons stated above, Reid has sufficiently pled his third and sixth causes of actions. D. Reid has Sufficiently Pled his Disability Claims (Failure to Accommodate and Failure to Engage In the Interactive Process) (COA 8 & 10). Reid alleges in numerous places in his complaint that he engaged in protected activity for purposes of his retaliation claims. Importantly, Complaints of FEHA violations constitute protected activity. (Cal. Gov. Code section 12940(h) (opposing harassment and discrimination believed to be unlawful under FEHA constitutes protected activity). Additionally, taking medical leave due to a disability constitutes protected activity. Id. Reid engaged in this exact activity. Reid informed BHUSD that he was experiencing stress, anxiety, dry heaving and panic attacks but not only that, he also informed numerous people about other workplace injuries in the course of the investigations he conducted. (BAC, § 11g.) Reid specifically indicated that he was experiencing said conditions due to the constant harassment and hostile environment that he was facing. Id. Reid specifically asked for accommodations by asking defendants to do something about the harassment he was experiencing, however, nothing was done to provide any sort of accommodation to Reid about his requests, and Reid was forced to stay in an environment that caused him stress, anxiety, dry heaving, and panic attacks. (/d.) Reid made it known that he had sustained injuries and that he needed the school to address potential dangers that he was experiencing but they ignored his pleas and forced him to expose himself to potential attacks from people and parents while verifying the residency of BHUSD’s students. (3AC, § 11h-k.) Although an employee must request accommodation before the parties engage in the process, he does not have to use any particular word, nor need the employer know the name or diagnosis of the disability. Gelfo at 34, fn. 22; Prilliman at 954; Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co. (9th Cir. 2002) 9. PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 302 F.3d 1080, 1089. The employer’s duty to engage in the interactive process is continuous. Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1013. Defendant BHUSD is strictly liable for any failure which it engaged in this case. In November of 2017, Reid had to go on medical leave in relation to his ongoing health concerns and the stress induced by the harassment and retaliation. (3AC, 9 11v.) Immediately after going on medical leave, Reid’s supervisors harassed and threatened Reid with numerous e-mails that threatened that he needed to come back before his medical leave was over or else he was going to be considered “insubordinate” and Reid would be subject to discipline. (3AC, J 11w.) Reid was effectively being targeted for taking time off to be on medical leave, and his job was placed in jeopardy with threats that if he did not return from his medical leave that it would be considered “insubordination.” (BAC, 9 11x.) His supervisors observed Reid depressed and deeply hurt and upset about the treatment he was forced to accept. Reid’s employer was on notice. This by itself is sufficient to sustain his retaliation claims, in the totality of a myriad of other instances that stress retaliatory behavior on behalf of the Defendants. Finally, as stated above, Reid experienced an adverse employment action by way of his constructive termination. Therefore, Reid well exceeds the pleading standard for his retaliation claims and failure to accommodate. E. Reid Sufficiently Pleads a Cause of Action Under Violation of Labor Code 1102.5. Section 1102.5 reflects the broad public policy interest in encouraging workplace whistleblowers, who may without fear or retaliation report concerns regarding an employer’s illegal conduct. Ferrick v. Santa Clara University (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1355. An employee who complains internally about, or refuses to participate in, an employer’s illegal conduct engages in protected activity that supports a wrongful termination claim. Labor Code §1102.5(b)-(c). Numerous cases have upheld tortious discharge claims despite no finding of section 1102.5 violations. Barbosa v. IMPCO Techs., Inc. (2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 1116, 1122-1123 (employee’s good faith but -10- PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 mistaken belief protected from retaliation under wrongful termination claim); Diego v. Pilgrim United Church of Christ (2014) 231 Cal. App. 4th 913, 923 (perceived whistleblower protected); see also Collier v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 1117, 1127. The causal connection requirement for a Labor Code section 1102.5 claim is lower than that for a FEHA claim. While a FEHA claim requires a showing that the protected activity was a “substantial motivating reason” for the adverse action, a section 1102.5 claim requires only a showing that the protected activity was a “contributing factor” in the employment termination. Labor Code §1102.6. The FEHA materiality test is applied to section 1102.5, subsection (b) lawsuits for determination of adverse employment action.” (Patten v. Grant Join Union High School Dist., supra, 134 Cal. App. 41 at 9. 1388). As discussed above, the SAC does sufficiently allege facts to establish adverse employment action. The standard is where the employer’s action materially affects the terms, conditions or privileged of employment. (Yanowitz vs. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal. 4™ 1028, 1052). Ridicule, intimidation and insults may establish employment action, of they are “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” (Id. At pp. 1052-1053). Here, Reid pleads that he was threatened in a meeting that “they are getting rid of the dead weight” and “look what happened to Tedford” (referring to his former supervisor over the age of 40 who was likewise terminated). (3AC, q 11u). Reid was kept there for several hours and further threatened that “Laura wants to know every move you make.” (/d.) At some point, another employee had to intervene and say that “enough was enough” and to let Reid go home. (/d.) Subsequently, Reid went out on medical leave a few days later and after he was further harassed during his leave that if he were not to report back that it would be considered “insubordination,” Plaintiff had no other choice by to terminate his employment. (3AC, § 11v-y, 12.) Further as alleged above and in the 3AC in great detail, Reid specifically opposed conduct that he deemed to be illegal such as violations of the Mckinley-Vinto Act, = 1.]~ PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attempting to expel students with disabilities, and refusing to investigate clear violations of policy due to the fact that students had connected parents. (1) Labor Code Section 1102.5 Does Not Require Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. Exhaustion of administrative remedies through the Labor Commissioner is not required prior to filing a suit for damages under Labor Code section 98.6 or 1102.5. Labor Code § 244(a) (“An individual is not required to exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in order to bring a civil action under any provision of [the Labor] [C]ode, unless that section under which the action is brought expressly requires exhaustion of an administrative remedy” (brackets added)); Satyadi v. West Contra Costa Healthcare Dist. (2014) 232 Cal. App.4th 1022, 1032; see Couch v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (2014) 2014 WL 1577463, 6 (addressing legislative changes); Sheridan v. Touchstone Television Productions, LLC (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 508, 517 (exhaustion not required for § 6310 claims). (2) Defendants Received Timely Notice of Reid’s Claims. A DFEH complaint must be filed within one year of the last incident of alleged unlawful conduct. Government Code § 12960(d). Specific as to equitable tolling, “[t]he timely notice requirement essentially means that the first claim must have been filed within the statutory period.” Downs, supra, 58 Cal. App. 4th at 1100. The first claim must also identify the same defendants as the second claim. /d.; California Restaurant Management Systems v. City of San Diego, (2011) 195 Cal. App. 4th 1581, 1594. Here, Reid filed a charge of discrimination with the DFEH on January 29, 2018, apprising Defendants of the claims he would bring against Defendants. (Declaration of Stephanie Le, “Le Decl.” 9 2, Exh. 1). In the Right to Sue letter, individual Defendants Laura Chism, Luke Pavone, Michael Bregy and Jeannie Davis are named. (/d.) 1 1 1 «12 PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (3) There is No Risk of Prejudice to Defendants and This Issue Is Appropriate at the Motion for Summary Judgment Phase Not on a Demurrer. A DFEH complaint must be filed within one year of the last incident of alleged unlawful conduct. Government Code § 12960(d). Specific as to equitable tolling, “[t]he timely notice requirement essentially means that the first claim must have been filed within the statutory period.” Downs, supra, 58 Cal. App. 4th at 1100. The first claim must also identify the same defendants as the second claim. /d.; California Restaurant Management Systems v. City of San Diego, (2011) 195 Cal. App. 4th 1581, 1594. Under equitable tolling, a plaintiff's first claim must allege identical or similar facts so that “defendant’s investigation of the first claim will put him in a position to fairly defend the second.” Downs v. Department of Water & Power (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 1100. The critical question is whether the first claim allows defendant to determine what evidence may be needed to defend the second claim. Collier v. City of Pasadena (1978) 142 Cal. App. 3d 917, 925. Further, where a party has already presented evidence to support the cause of action in the amendment, the adverse party does not incur prejudice if the amendment is allowed. County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal. App.4th 1544, 1618 (emphasis added). Prohibiting such an amendment is an abuse of discretion. /d. Here, Reid filed a charge of discrimination with the DFEH on January 29, 2018, apprising Defendants of the claims he would bring against Defendants. (Le Decl., 9 2; Exh. 1.) In the Right to Sue, individual Defendants Laura Chism, Luke Pavone, Michael Bregy and Jeannie Davis are named. (/d.) Defendants were aware Reid would bring forth claims of harassment, discrimination and retaliation based on the protected statuses alleged in the complaint. (/d.) Therefore, the demurrer should be denied as to this claim. 1 1 1 -13- PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 F. If This Court Determines that Reid’s Complaint Is Insufficient, Leave to Amend Is Respectfully Requested. If this Court determines that plaintiff’s Complaint is insufficient in any manner, leave to amend is respectfully requested. “Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given.” Angie M. v. Sup. Ct. (Hiemstra) (1995) 37 Cal. App.4th 1217, 1227. In the case of an original complaint, a plaintiff need not even request leave to amend: “Unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion, irrespective of whether leave to amend is requested or not.” McDonald v. Sup. Ct. (Flintkote Co.) (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 297, 303-304. It is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend when there 1s any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action. Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349. Thus, Reid respectfully requests this Court to allow Reid to add more facts, if needed 3. CONCLUSION Plaintiff, Robin Reid, respectfully requests that this Court overrule defendants’ Demurrer to plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. Alternatively, plaintiff requests leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to plead additional facts to the extent that this Court deems it necessary to support plaintiff’s claims. Dated: June 23, 2020 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Attorneys for Plaintiff, ROBIN REID -14- PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE LE I, Stephanie Le, declare as follows: 1. Iam an attorney at law, duly authorized to practice law before all of the courts of the State of California. I am an associate for the attorney of record for plaintiff, Robin Reid, in this case. I am familiar with the files, pleadings, and facts in this case and could and would competently testify to the following facts on the basis of my own personal knowledge. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s DFEH Complaint filed on January 29, 2018. I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 22nd day of June, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. =f Stephanie Le, Esq. DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE LE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER EXHIBIT 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GOVERNOR EDMUND G. BROWN LA. DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA 1 95758 (800) 884-1684 | TDD (800) 700-2320 http://www.dfeh.ca.gov | email: contact.center@ dfeh.ca.gov January 29, 2018 Carney Shegerian 225 Santa Monica Boulevard Santa Monica, California 90401 RE: Notice to Complainant's Attorney DFEH Matter Number: 201801-00976029 Right to Sue: Reid / Beverly Hills Unified School District et al. Dear Carney Shegerian: Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your Notice of Case Closure and Rightto Sue. Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named respondents. Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for information regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience. Be advised thatthe DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it meets procedural or statutory requirements. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GOVERNOR EDMUND G. BROWN JR. DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING PRECTOR KEVIN KSH 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA 1 95758 (800) 884-1684 | TDD (800) 700-2320 http://www.dfeh.ca.gov | email: contact.center@ dfeh.ca.gov January 29, 2018 RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint DFEH Matter Number: 201801-00976029 Right to Sue: Reid / Beverly Hills Unified School District et al. To All Respondent(s): Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records. Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact information. No response to DFEH is requested or required. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GOVERNOR EDMUND G. BROWN LA. DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA 1 95758 (800) 884-1684 | TDD (800) 700-2320 http://www.dfeh.ca.gov | email: contact.center@ dfeh.ca.gov January 29, 2018 Robin Reid 225 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 700 Santa Monica, California 90401 RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue DFEH Matter Number: 201801-00976029 Right to Sue: Reid / Beverly Hills Unified School District et al. Dear Robin Reid, This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective January 29, 2018 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint. This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter. To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing © 00 dN o o u n B A WwW N B R N N N N NN N N N N N HB RB RB RB B F R Rm Rm m p co ~N o o u e BA W N FP O O O W 0 N N Oo Ul u BB W N N +H O COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) In the Matter of the Complaint of Robin Reid DFEH No. 201801-00976029 Complainant, VS. Beverly Hills Unified School District 255 South Lasky Drive Beverly Hills, California 90212 Laura Chism 255 South Lasky Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90212 Luke Pavone 255 South Lasky Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90212 Michael Bregy 255 South Lasky Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90212 J eannie Davis 255 South Lasky Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90212 Respondents. 1. Respondent Beverly Hills Unified School District is an employer subjectto suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). 2. Complainant Robin Reid, resides in the City of Santa Monica State of California. 3. Complainant alleges that on or about December 29, 2017, respondent took the following adverse actions: -1- Complaint- DFEH No. 201801-00976029 Date Filed: January 29, 2018 © 00 dN o o u n B A WwW N B R N N N N NN N N N N N HB RB RB RB B F R Rm Rm m p co ~N o o u e BA W N FP O O O W 0 N N Oo Ul u BB W N N +H O Complainant was harassed because of complainant's family care or medical leave (cfra), age (40 and over). Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's age (40 and over) and as a result of the discrimination was forced to quit, reprimanded, demoted, asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, denied any employment benefit or privilege. Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form of discrimination or harassment, requested or used california family rights actor fmla and as a result was forced to quit, reprimanded, demoted, asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied family care or medical leave (cfra). Additional Complaint Details: Other harms include: denied a workplace free of harassment; denied a good faith interactive process; retaliated against for making protected complaints. 2- Complaint- DFEH No. 201801-00976029 Date Filed: January 29, 2018 © 00 dN o o u n B A WwW N B R N N N N NN N N N N N HB RB RB RB B F R Rm Rm m p co ~N o o u e BA W N FP O O O W 0 N N Oo Ul u BB W N N +H O VERIFICATION |, Pamela Mahle, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. | have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based on information and belief, which | believe to be true. On January 29, 2018, | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Santa Monica, California -3- Complaint- DFEH No. 201801-00976029 Date Filed: January 29, 2018 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REID v. BHUSD, et al. LASC CASE NO.: 18STCV05356 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am an employee in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address 1s 145 S. Spring Street, Suite 400, Los Angeles, California 90012. On June 23, 2020, I served the foregoing document, described as “PLAINTIFF ROBIN REID’S OPPOSITION T EFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFEF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE LE; EXHIBITS” on all interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: Dennis J. Walsh, Esq. Antoine Pitts, Esq. WALSH & ASSOCIATES, APC. 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 800 Encino, California 91436 [] (BY MAIL) As follows: [1] Iplaced such envelope, with postage thereon prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California. [1 Iam “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collecting and processing corre- spondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. ostal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid, at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that, on motion of the party served, service 1s presumed invalid if the postal cancellation or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in this affidavit. (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) I sent such document via electronic mail to the number(s) noted above. X O (BY FED EX) I placed such envelopes in a designated Federal Express pick-up box (for over-night service) at Los Angeles, California. x Gals) I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of alifornia, that the above is true and correct. Executed on June 23, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. Michael Ordonez %
