Declaration In Support

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.July 2, 2019

\OOOQQU‘IAWNH NNNNNNNNHJ-Ai-Awr-ar-AHMHH QQMAWNHO©OOQQUIAWNHO 28 WILLIAM HAYS WEISSMAN, Bar No. 178976 Electronically Filed wweissman@littler.com by Superior Court of CA, CHAD D. QREESON, Bar N0. 251928 County of Santa Clara, cgreeson@httler.com on 9/1 8/2019 6:00 pM LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. . _ Treat Towers ReVIewed By. M Vu 1255 Treat Boulevard case #1 9CV350776 Suite 600 Envelope: 341 0326 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: 925.932.2468 Fax No.2 925.946.9809 Attorneys for Defendants SOHAIL ASLAM, IJAZ ANWAR, AJIT MEDHEKAR, PAYACTIV, INC, AND SAFWAN SHAH SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PEDRO IBARRA, Case No. 19CV350776 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE PIERCE, DEPT. 2 V. DECLARATION OF CHAD D. GREESON IN PAYACTIV, INC., a Delaware SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER Corporation, SAFWAN SHAH; SOHAIL ASLAM; IJAZ ANWAR; AJIT DATE: January 7, 2020 MEDHEKAR; and DOES 1 - 25, inclusive, TIME: 9:00 a.m. DEPT. 2 Defendants. Complaint Filed: July 2, 2019 LiTTLER MENDELSON. P.C. heal owwww 1255 halal Boulevmd Selle 600 Walnul Creek. CA 94597 925.932.2‘56 I, Chad D. Greeson, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the courts of the State of California. I am an attorney with the law firm of Littler Mendelson, a Professional Corporation, and counsel of record for Defendants in the above-captioned matter, SOHAIL ASLAM, IJAZ ANWAR, AJIT MEDHEKAR, PAYACTIV, INC., AND SAFWAN SHAH (“Defendants”). The information set forth below is based on my own personal knowledge, and if called to testify as a witness to its contents, Icould and would be able to do so competently. / / / / / / / // DECLARATION OF CHAD D. GREESON ISO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 1 2. On August 13, 2019, Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiff s counsel a letter by fax. In this 2 letter, Defendants’ counsel identified the specific causes of action in the Complaint believed to be subj ect 3 to a demurrer or motion to strike. Defendants’ counsel also identified the basis of the deficiencies in the 4 Complaint with legal support. A true and correct copy of this correspondence is attached to this 5 Declaration as Exhibit A. 6 3. In this letter, Defendants’ counsel advised Plaintiff’s counsel that the seventh cause of 7 action for failure to prevent discrimination was fatally defective under the Fair Employment and Housing 8 Act (“FEHA”) because Plaintiff failed to include the claim in his administrative complaint filed with the 9 Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). 10 4. Defendants’ counsel met and conferred in a voice-to-voice teleconference With Shawn 11 Tillis, Plaintiff’s counsel, on September 4, 2019. Defendants’ counsel discussed the deficiencies in the 12 Complaint with Mr. Tillis, who requested one week to consider whether to amend the Complaint. 13 5. Defendants’ counsel further met and conferred with Mr. Tills for Plaintiff on September 14 10, 2019, to ascertain whether Plaintiff’s counsel would agree to amend. Defendants’ counsel raised a 15 number of additional concerns regarding deficiencies in the Complaint along with legal support. For 16 example, Defendants’ counsel advised Plaintiffs’ counsel that Plaintiff failed t0 exhaust his 17 administrative remedies and file a complaint with the DFEH in support ofthe claim for racial harassment 18 under FEHA within one year of'the alleged adverse employment action. Plaintiff was terminated 0n 19 December 4, 20 1 7, and he failed t0 file a DFEH complaint until February 12, 201 9. Defendants’ counsel 20 notified Plaintiffs’ counsel that the claim was barred for failure t0 comply with the administrative 21 exhaustion requirements and by the applicable statutes of limitation. 22 6. Similarly, during the call on September 10, 2019, Defendants’ counsel also advised Mr. 23 Tillis that the claims for failure to reasonably accommodate and failure to engage in a good faith 24 interactive process were all barred for similar reasons. Defendants’ counsel explained to Mr. Tillis that 25 none of these standalone FEHA claims were included in the DFEH complaint filed on February 12, 26 2019. Thus, the claims are now time-barred by the statutes of limitation. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s 27 counsel refused to amend. 28 7. After the call on September 10, 201 9, Defendants’ counsel emailed a letter to Plaintiffs’ “me" 35F???” m 2.a c _ [255 neg! Boulevam DECLARATION 0F CHAD D. GRBESON Iso DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER \OOOVQMAUJNH NNNNNNNNHHr-Ah-Ar-‘p-tr-‘b-‘o-tp-d QONM$WNHOKOOOQONM#WNHO 28 LITTLER MEN DELSON. P_C. 'l Tlea! OWN! 1255 heal Boulevald Suite 600 Vlalnul Creek. CA 94597 925.932.2‘38 counsel identifying the deficiencies discussed during the meet and confer along with relevant support. Defendants’ counsel advised Plaintiffs’ counsel that the race harassment claim under FEHA against the individual Defendants as well as the failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process claims against all Defendants had no legal merit, were frivolous, and therefore subj ect to sanctions. Defendants’ counsel requested that Plaintiff’s counsel reconsider his refusal to amend or dismiss these defective claims. A true and correct copy of this correspondence is attached as Exhibit B. 8. As ofnoon on September 1 1, 201 9, Mr. Tillis refused to amend the Complaint, prompting Defendants to file a demurrer and motion to strike. 9. Previously, Plaintiff Pedro Ibarra and PayActiv entered into a tolling agreement (“Agreement”), effective from October 25, 2018 until the date Plaintiff submitted his DFEH complaint on February 12, 2019---i.e., a period of 1 1 5 days. A true and correct COpy of this Agreement is attached to this declaration as Exhibit C. As evident from the face of the Agreement, the only parties to the Agreement are Plaintiff and PayActiv. The individual Defendants (Safwan Shah, Sohail Aslam, Ijaz Anwar, and Ajit Medhekar) are neither parties nor signatories to the Agreement. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 12th day of September, 201 9 in Walnut Creek, California. Dated: September 12, 201 9 WILLIAM HAYS WEISSMAN CHAD D. GREESON LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants SOHAIL ASLAM, IJAZ ANWAR, AJIT MEDHEKAR, PAYACTIV, INC., AND SAFWAN SHAH 4832-9461-981 l .I 08 l 778. 1004 3. DECLARATION OF CHAD D. GREESON ISO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER Exhibit A xhibit Litter“ FAcsmmLE COVER SHEET August 13, 2019 To: John D. Winer; Shawn D. Tillis Fax: [ 510.433.1001 ' Winer, Burritt & Tillis. LLP Fax #(s) verified before sending (initial): From: William Hays Weissman Fax: 925.891.2551 Length, including this cover tetter: 69 Pages If you do not receive ali pages. please call Sender's Phone Number. Message: Phone: Phone: 925.927.4545 CONFIDENTIALITY - The information cdntained in this fax message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above. This message is a communication from attorneys or their agents relating to pending legal matters and, as such, is intended to be privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error, and that any review. dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited; If you have received this communication in errori please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us by maii. Thank you. Transmittai Completed: am I pm Client Code: Littler Mendelson, P.C. Treat Towers. 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600. Walnut Creek. CA 94597 Tel: 925.932.2468 Fax: 925.946.9809 www.iittler.com User Number: 21 79 Littler Employment & labor law Solulions Worldwide'" August 13, 2019 VIA FACSIMILE 510.433.1001 John D. Winer Shawn D. Tillis Winer, Burritt & Tillis, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Re: Ibarra v. PayActiv, et al. Littler Mendelson, PC Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 William Hays Weissman 925.927.4545 direct 925.932.2468 main 925.891.2551 fax wweissman@littler.com Meet and Confer Re Sufficiency of Complaint and Settlement Inquiry Dear Mr. Winer and Mr. Tillis: As you know, this firm represents PayActiv and the individual defendants in the above-referenced matter. Enclosed please find notices of acknowledgement and receipt for service of the complaint. In addition, this letter is an attempt to meet and confer before filing a responsive pleading. We think it would be beneficial to lay out our views in writing, but would welcome an opportunity to discuss these issues as well. Please let us know about scheduling a call. Because you are Mr. lbarra's third counsel, not including periods when he represented himself, we think it might be useful to provide some background information. In April 2014 Mr. Ibarra met Safwan Shah, PayActiv's founder and CEO, at UC Santa Cruz where Mr. Shah was lecturing at the time. Mr. Ibarra represented that he possessed strong contacts and relationships in the agriculture industry and could play an instrumental role in promoting PayActiv within the California agriculture sector. As a result, PayActiv offered Mr. Ibarra a position, effective May 12, 2014, as a Business Support Manager with a $48,000 salary and 75,000 stock options with a four-year vesting schedule. Mr. Ibarra was the seventh employee of PayActiv, including the founders. In December 2014 PayActiv purchased a new Toyota Tacoma truck for Mr. lbarra's use. PayActiv paid for the fuel, maintenance, and insurance for the truck. PayActiv also increased his annual salary to $60,000 effective December 1, 2014, even though no other employee received a pay raise at that time. In an attempt to give Mr. Ibarra additional growth opportunities and a reduction in his commute, on July 1, 2015, PayActiv opened a satellite office in Salinas, California, to focus on the agriculture industry. He was given responsibility for that office, including developing a call center and spearheading business development of the PayActiv's PEPTO product for this sector. littler.com John D. Winer Shawn D. Tillis August 13, 2019 Page 2 In December 2015 Mr. Ibarra threatened to quit. He met with ljaz Anwar at PayActiv's San Jose office and argued that he was underpaid compared to other employees. He turned in his keys to the company truck in anticipation of resigning. Mr. Anwar talked him into staying. In addition, PayActiv gave Mr. Ibarra a new job title of Director of Operations, and increased his annual salary to $90,000, effective January 1, 2016. All this occurred notwithstanding the fact that Mr. lbarra's efforts to develop the PEPTO product in the agricultural market were unsuccessful. By the middle of 2016 PayActiv made a business decision to wind down the Salinas operations due to the continued loss of money. Mr. Ibarra was made aware of this decision in 2016. PayActiv closed the Salinas office by July 2017 and discontinued PEPTO. At this same time PayActiv established a more professional call center in San Jose. After the Salinas office closed, Mr. Ibarra began to work in San Jose, but it quickly became apparent that he lacked the appropriate skill sets needed. PayActiv searched for an appropriate role for him within the company. Despite efforts to find a position that fit for Ibarra, he was distracted and lacked commitment. For example, PayActiv discovered that he was working on non-PayActiv commercial activities during working hours with the Company. Nonetheless, PayActiv continued to pay Ibarra his salary and attempted to find a place for him. In October 2017 Mr. Ibarra sought Mr. Shah's advice about returning to school. Mr. Shah told him that he should finish school because his skills were not sufficient to grow with the Company. Mr. Ibarra then demanded that PayActiv continue to pay his full salary, health insurance, and for the company car for one to one and a half years so that he could attend school full-time without working. PayActiv declined. Mr. Ibarra then decided to stay at PayActiv rather than leave to attend school. On November 1, 2017, Safwan Shah met in person with Ibarra and communicated that his position had been eliminated. He advised Ibarra to work with ljaz Anwar and Sohail Aslam on whether any other position existed for him. Mr. Ibarra first called Mr. Anwar, who could not determine a role for Ibarra on the spot. Mr. Ibarra then called Mr. Aslam, who told Ibarra there was no available position in the technology department. Nonetheless, Ibarra was not told by anyone that he was actually fired on November 1, 2017, even though his position had been eliminated. Instead of working with Mr. Anwar to find a suitable role or coming to work, on November 2, 2017, Mr. Ibarra texted a photo of a doctor's note to Mr. Anwar that stated, "This patient is placed off work from 11/2/2017 through 12/1/2017." Attached as Exhibit 1 is the note for your reference. On November 3, 2017, Ibarra personally called a meeting of seven PayActiv employees who either worked directly or indirectly for him. The meeting occurred at 7:00 p.m. at Chili's in Morgan Hill. During the meeting Mr. Ibarra told the employees that their jobs were in jeopardy, encouraged them to quit and look for other jobs, and to collectively call in sick to impact the company, and to post negative comments about the company on social media because Mr. Shah would not like it. This meeting was reported to the company by several employees. Also beginning on or about November 3, 2017, anonymous social media posts began appearing about illegal conduct at PayActiv. When asked about the posts, Mr. Ibarra denied any involvement with them. John D. Winer Shawn D. Tillis August 13, 2019 Page 3 On November 12, 2017, Mr. Ibarra emailed Mr. Shah, Mr. Anwar and Mr. Aslam. His email claimed that "[t]hroughout the years we have had many conversations regarding the legality of certain areas of our business model." He then asserts "[c]urrently, I see them to be potentially illegal and highly misleading to our customers, users and public" and proceeds to identify ten items. Many of the items listed actually had nothing to do with legal issues, but rather concerned various business practices. On November 17, 2017, PayActiv, through this firm, informed Mr. Ibarra that his employment was terminated effective December 4, 2017, after the end of his leave of absence, but PayActiv offered to discuss an amicable separation. Later that day Mr. Ibarra wrote to Kabir Masa, David Carlick, Ajit Medhekar, Don Peppers, Amer Akhtar, Baba Shiv, Sanjiv Das and Jeanna Abbott, all of whom are either PayActiv board members or advisors, to further assert his alleged whistle blower claims. In response, on November 20, 2017, Board member Medhekar responded by email to Mr. Ibarra that the Board took his claims seriously and directed him to Littler for a further response. (See complaint paragraph 25.) In response, on November 22, 2017, Mr. Ibarra emailed Littler indicating he was a whistleblower. Attached to his email was PowerPoint showing his disclosure and, together with his email, implying that if he were reinstated and put on paid administrative leave, he would not report the alleged wrongdoing to various government agencies. These emails and PowerPoint are attached as Exhibit 2 for your reference. Sometime in December 2017, Mr. Ibarra filed a small claims action asserting that he was not paid all his wages owed, seeking $9,990. That matter was dismissed in February 2018 due to his failure to appear in court. Also in December 2017, Mr. Ibarra retained Structure Law Group to represent him. On January 29, 2018, Mr. lbarra's first counsel, Clint Webb of Structure Law Group, sent a demand letter seeking $2 million, two percent equity in the company, reinstatement of his position, $180,000 salary (which would have been a substantial increase) and benefits for five years guaranteed, and a seat on PayActiv's board. This letter is attached as Exhibit 3 for your convenience. This demand was declined. In March 2018 Mr. Ibarra filed a charge with the California Labor Commissioner, asserting he was owed about $14,000 in unpaid wages. However, after appearing for that matter, the Labor Commissioner determined that there was no merit to his claims of unpaid wages and agreed with PayActiv that he was actually overpaid. Mr. Ibarra represented himself before the Labor Commissioner, as Structure Law Group was no longer representing him by this point. Around June 2018, Mr. Ibarra retained his second counsel on his employment claims, James Richardson of Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP. Mr. Richardson sent an unspecified settlement demand on June 11, 2018. This demand made passing reference to Mr. Ibarra being on leave "per his physician's orders in order to attend to ailments caused by the stress of his work environment." Those ailments were not specified, nor were they specified in his DFEH claim filed on February 12, 2019, which merely claims he was on leave for "depressive state and anxiety disorder." The complaint states he suffered "stress." (See paragraph 24). To date, Ibarra has failed to provide any medical documentation or clear explanation from a medical professional to substantiate his self-directed leave. John D. Winer Shawn D. Tims August 13, 2019 Page 4 ln July 2018, Mr. Richardson sent a demand for $1,045,000. The parties agreed to mediate Mr. Ibarra’s empioyment claims. One February 1, 2019, mediation occurred with Daniel Quinn in Littler's San Jose office. Mediation failed, and immediately afterwards Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP withdrew as Mr. lbarra’s second counsel. While we do not have any information as to why Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP withdrew representation immediately after mediation, we believe it is because Mr. lbarra lied to his attorneys about his criminal record. Mr. Ibarra's criminai record is attached as Exhibit 4 for your convenience. On February 12, 2019, Mr. Ibarra apparently retained the Velez Law Firm in Roseville, California, to file a DFEH complaint for him. Thereafter Mr. Velez does not appear to have further represented Mr. Ibarra. We bring these facts to your attention in case you do not have the fuil background on this case given you are now Mr. lbarra’s fourth set of attorneys and come to this matter after almost two years. With this context we turn to our concerns regarding the subject complaint. No actionable claim is pied against Ajit Medhekar The complaint afleges three causes of action against Ajit Medhekar: the fifth cause of action for race harassment; the tenth cause of action for intentionai infliction of emotional distress; and the eleventh cause of action for deciaratory or injunctive relief. However, the complaint only references Ajit Medhekar in paragraph 11 identifying him as a California resident and in paragraph 25, quoting an email from him to plaintiff indicating receipt of his November 17, 2017, email and responding that PayActiv's counsel would address his concerns. The FEHA prohibits harassment of an empioyee based on ”race, religidus creed, coior, national origin, ancestry, physical disabiiity, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status.” Cal. Gov. Code, § 129400). To prevail on a claim for racial harassment, the piaintiff must show that: (1) plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome race harassment subjectively and objectively; (2) the harassment was based on his race; (3) the harassment unreasonably interfered with plaintiff’s work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment that seriously affected his psychological we!!- being; and (4) that there is a bas§s for empioyer liability. Thompson v. City of Monrovia, 186 Cal.AppAth 860, 876 (2010); Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital,- 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 608 (1989). Notably, a daim for racial harassment must provide that the conduct complained of is severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a work environment that qualifies as hostile or abusive'to employees because of their race. See Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, 38 Cal.4th 264, 278-279 (2006). Here, not a single fact supports a ciaim that Mr. Medhekar individually harassed Mr. Ibarra on account of his race. There is no mention of any statements or written documents such as emails by Mr. Medhekar directed at Mr. Ibarra. The only reference to a communication, an email indicating receipt of Mr. lbarra’s email and that the Board takes his concerns seriously, cannot support a racial harassment claim. John D. Winer Shawn D. Tilfis August 13, 2019 Page 5 To these facts we add the fact that Mr. Medhekar is not mentioned in the DFEH complaint, and therefore Mr. Ibarra failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Cole v. Antelope Valley Unfon High School Dist, 47 Cal.App.4th 1505 (1996). Further, the time to amend his DFEH complaint has expired, and therefore no raciaf related claims could be alleged against him. Therefore, Mr. lbarra’s ciaim for racial harassment against Mr. Medhekar should be stricken from the complaint. In order to prevail on his cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Mr. lbarra must establish: ”(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless ' disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct.” Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1051 (2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). lbarra must establish that Mr. Medhekar’s conduct was ’.’so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.” Alcorn v. Anbro Eng., Inc., 2 Cal.3d 493, 499 n. 5 (1970). ln addition to the requirement that Mr. Medhekar's conduct be outrageous, its conduct must be "intended to inflict injury or engaged in withthe realization that injury will result." Hughes, 46 Cal. 4th at 1051 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Again, as with his racial discrimination cause of action, there are no facts alfeged in the complaint that demonstrate anything remotely necessary to support an intentiona! infliction of emotional distress cause of action. As such, Mr. ibarra’s cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Mr. Medhekar should afso be stricken from the complaint. Eleventh cause of action for iniunctive and declaratog relief is defective Mr. Ibarra seeks a rather sweeping and far reaching injunction and declaratory relief covering numerous issues, including ordering PayActiv to remove negative or discriminatory references from his personnel file, a declaration that Mr. lbarra’s civil rights were violated, an order requiring harassment training and redistribution of anti-harassment policies, an order requiring PayActiv to set up a database to track harassment and discrimination claims along with an 800-number to report such conduct, and numerous orders seeking to declare PayActiv a creditor within the meaning of federal law (15 U.S.C. section 1601 et seq.), and limitations on its abiiity to extend ”credit” and requirements to make disclosures. On theirface none of these requests appear applicable to any of the individual defendants, and rather appear directed solely to PayActiv. As such, the individual defendants should be stricken from the eleventh cause of action. Irrespective, California has enacted a declaratory relief act. Cai. Code Civ. Proc., § 1060. Generally, the elements of declaratory relief are a (1) person interested under a written instrument (such as a deed or will), (2) actua! controversy, and (3) request for a declaration of rights and duties. Cardellini v. Casey, 181 Cal.App.3d 389, 395 (1986). Federal law is similar. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201; Medlmmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc, 549 U.S. 118, 126 (2007). John D. Winer Shawn D. Tillis August 13, 2019 Page 6 Here, there is no allegation in the complaint of any written instrument between Mr. lbarra and PayActiv (or any of the individual defendants) fOr which declaratory relief would be appropriate. Moreover, to the extent that the eleventh cause of action seeks a declaration that PayActiv is a creditor under federat law or is extending credit within the meaning of the Code of Federal Regulations (see complaint paragraph 121), there are no allegations in the complaint ofany actual controversy between PayActiv and Mr. Ibarra, As such, it is» not clear that he has standing to seek such relief, is not also not properly pled as an actuai cause of action. Therefore, we request that the eleventh cause ofaction be dropped from the complaint, but at a minimum the individual defendants and paragraphs 121(l) through 121(r) be struck from the complaint. First‘cause of action for whistleblower violation is defective Labor Code section 1102.5(3) prevents an employer from establishing a rule, regulafion or policy that prohibits an employee from reporting potential violations of law. Section 1102.5(b) prohibits an employer or person acting on behalf of an empioyer from retaiiating against the employee "because the employer beiieves that the employee disciosed or may disclose information” relating to a violation of law. Section 1102.5(c) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who refuses to participate in mega! activity. Section 1102.5(d) protects employees who engage in any of the activities under subsections (a), (b) or (c). in order to establish a violation, lbarra must first establish that he ”disclosed” to defendants information relating to illegal activity. He must then establish that defendants "retaliated” against him because he disclosed illegal activity to them (because there are no facts demonstrating that he ever reported this ”illegal” activity to any government agency). If he meets those burdens, then defendants may establish a legitimate nondiscriminatory business reason for lbarra’s termination. Hager v. County of Los Angeles, 228 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1540 (2014). ”[T]he report of information that was already known did not constitute a protected disclosure.” Mize- Kurzman v. Marin Community College Dist, 202 Ca¥.App.4th 832, 858 (2012). After reviewing the plain meaning of the term ”disclosure" and federal authorities, the court explains: [An] employee’s report to the employee’s supervisor about the supervisor’s own wrongdoing is not a ”disclosure” and is not protected whistleblowing activity, because the employer already knows about his or her wrongdoing. Moreover, criticism delivered directly to the wrongdoers does not further the purpose of either the federai WPA or the California whistleblower laws to encourage disciosure of wrongdoing to persons who may be in a position to act to remedy it. Id., at 859 (internal citations omitted). John D. Winer Shawn D. Tillis August 13, 2019 Page 7 In addition, "[d]ebatable differences of opinion concerning policy matters [are] not disclosures of information under Labor Code section 1102.5 . . . . Disclosures related to the wisdom or efficacy of a policy are subject to the debatable policy matters limitation .... " Mize-Kurzman, 202 Cal.App.4th at 852, 854. As further explained by the court: [W]e do not intend to convey the idea that any mere thought, suggestion, or discussion of an action that someone might consider to be a violation of a law, rule, or regulation is a justification for a whistleblower complaint. Discussion among employees and supervisors concerning various possible courses of action is healthy and normal in any organization. It may in fact avoid a violation. Id., at 859-860 (quoting Reid v. Merit Systems Protection Bd. (Fed.Cir. 2007) 508 F.3d 674) (italics in the original). Here, the only information regarding his alleged disclosures appear in Paragraph 23 of the complaint. The complaint fails to allege that Mr. Ibarra actually disclosed illegal information to either Mr. Shah, Mr. Anwar or Mr. Aslam that was not already known to them, or that was in fact illegal. His November 12, 2017, email sent after he was told his position was eliminated also does not appear to constitute a disclosure because it does not clearly disclose any allegedly illegal activity or activity that was not already known to PayActiv. Even if he could establish that he made a disclosure, which is highly questionable, PayActiv is only liable for a violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 if it terminated Mr. Ibarra for his disclosure. It did not. Mr. Ibarra was terminated after his position was eliminated due to his own failure to meet the business objectives of the job for which he was hired. After being told this, rather than work with PayActiv to find a suitable role for him, Mr. Ibarra simply chose to go out on an unspecified leave of absence and thereafter claim to be a whistleblower. Keep in mind that at the time Mr. Ibarra put himself on his unspecified an unapproved leave of absence PayActiv had a total of 18 employees. As such, neither the 'Family and Medical Leave Act nor the California Family Rights Act applied to PayActiv. It is irrelevant that Ibarra may disagree with or contest the fairness of PayActiv's business-related decisions. See Arteaga v. Brinks, Inc., 163 Cal.App.4th 327, 343 (2008}. Rather, as here, PayActiv was free to exercise business judgment in making a myriad of personnel and general business decisions. See Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Med. Cntr., 56 Cal.App.4th 138, 155 (1997). Accordingly, PayActiv easily meets its burden to show it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions regarding Mr. lbarra's employment. Mr. lbarra's alleged disclosures of wrongdoing were not even remotely a factor in any such actions or decisions. Accordingly, we ask that the first cause of action be struck from the complaint because no disclosure nor retaliatory action occurred. At a minimum the complaint must be amended to properly pied facts showing what illegal conduct was disclosed to Mr. Shah, Mr. Anwar, or Mr. Aslam that was not known and does not constitute a difference of opinion about business practices, including the dates and details of such disclosures. John D. Winer Shawn D. Tiliis ' August 13, 2019 Page 8 Second, third and fourth causes of actions relating to disability are defective To succeed on his disability claims, lbarra must establish that: (i) he suffered from a disability; (2) he was ”otherwise qualified" to do his job; and (3) he was subjected to adverse emptoyment action because of his disability. Faust v. Calif. Portland Cement-Co., 150 Cal.App.4th 864, 886 (2007); see also Green v. State of COL, 42 Caf.4th 254, 257, 260 (2007). In addition, in order to prevail on a claim for failure to accommodate under Government Code section 12940(m), Ibarra must prove: (1) that he suffered from a‘disability; (2) that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the position; and (3) that PayActiv failed to ”reasonably accommodate” his alleged disabiiity. Scotch v. Art Inst. of Cat, 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1009-1010 (2009). To establish that he was a ”quaIified individual,” Mr. lbarra must show, inter alia, that he was "abie to perform the essential functions of [his] job with or without accommodation.” Green v. State of COL, 42 Cal.4th at 260. Here, the doctor’s note of November 2, 2017, provides no information regarding Mr. lbarra’s leave. The complaint fails to allege that he has a disability, the nature of his stress, orthat the stress was work related. He fails to aliege that he requested an accommodation, and if so, when and of what kind. Without such facts he cannot carry his burden of pleading causes of action relating to disability discrimination, failure to accommodate or faiiure to engage in the interactive process. Moreover, his DFEH complaint falsely claims that Mr. Ibarra ”informed his superiors including the CEO and COOS of his physical disability.” There is no documentation to support that any ”physical disability” was disciosed to PayActiv _ tn addition, even if Mr. lbarra could piead such causes of action, the California Workers’ Compensation Act provides a detaiied and comprehensive system of remedies for work related injuries that are the ”sole and exciusive remedy" for such injuries, and are avaiiabie onty in proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. See Cal. Lab. Code, §§ 3602(a), 5300. Subject to only limited exceptions, none of which are relevant here, workers’ compensation is the only remedy available to injured employees against the employer responsible for injuries ”arising out of and in the course of employment,” including mental injuries. Cal. Lab. Code, §§ 3600-3602, 5300; Shoemaker v. Myers, 52 Cal.3d. 1,16, 18 (1990L For example, the California Supreme Court has held that claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) related to an employee’s termination, and even for alleged whistleblower retaiiation like that alleged here, are barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Miklosy v. The Regents of the Univ. of Ca[., 44 Cal.4th 876, 902-03 (2008) [Act preempted plaintiff- employees’ claims for NED allegediy suffered as a result of employer’s whistleblower retaliation]; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 24 CaL4th 800, 814¢815 (2001) [emotional distress allegedly caused by empioyer's abusive conduct during termination process held “collateral to or derivative of a compensable workplace injury”]; Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist, 43 Cal.3d 148, 160 (1987) [claims are barred by the Act ”when the misconduct attributed to the employer is actions which are a normal part of the empioyment relationship, such as demotions, promotions, criticism of work practices”].) An employee cannotf'avoid the exclusive remedy provisions of the Labor Code by characterizing the John D. Winer Shawn D. Tillis August 13, 2019 Page 9 empioyer’s decisions aé manifestiy unfair, outrageous, harassment, or intended to cause emotionai disturbance.” Cole, 43 Cal.3d at 160. Unless Mr. lbarra choses to now make up facts that are untruthful, there is simply no allegations that could be made to support these ciaims. Even if they survive a demurrer, he will lose on summary judgment, and if he seeks to fabricate evidence now PayActiv will aggressively pursue sanctions. Therefore, we believe the second, third and fourth causes of action should be dropped from the complaint. ‘ Fifth. sixth and seventh causes of action relating to race harassment. discrimination and failure to prevent are defective On February 12, 2019, Mr. lbarra fiied his DFEH complaint. The DFEH complaint is defective in several ways. For example, it claims retaliation under the FMLA and CFRA even though these laws never appfied to PayActiv because it only had 18 employees at the time of the alleged conduct. Thus, these claims are not even actionable. in addition, the Government Code states that a DFEH complaint "shall set forth the particulars” of the practices alleged to have violated FEHA. Gov. Code § 12960(b). 1n addition, the DFEH complaint ”shall . contain other information as may be required by the department [i.e., the DFEH].” By regulation adopted in 2011, the DFEH states that an administrative complaint filed to obtain an immediate right-to-sue letter ”shatl” contain, in addition to other requirements, ”a description of the alleged act or acts of discrimination, harassment or retaliation; and [1 the date or dates each alleged act of discrimination, harassment or retatiation occurred, including the date of the last or most recent alteged act.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 10005(d)(3) & (4).) None of the allegations meet these requirements. Rather, the DFEH complaint merely alleges in very general terms that derogatory comments were made on a constant basis, but no specific dates are aileged. More importantly, as expressly required by the DFEH regulations, no explanation of the date of the ‘ast or most recent aileged act is set forth. This makes it impossible to establish that the DFEH was timely filed. At best the complaint appears to allege that conduct that occurred in 2016 around the time of the presidential election, but no other details are provided. Based on that time frame the DFEH complaint would be untimely, and therefore Mr. ibarra’s race harassment claim could not stand. As s_uch, his claims would be time barred. In addition, the seventh cause of action for failure to prevent racial harassment or race discrimination is also defective. E.g., Veronese v. Lucasfilm Ltd., supra, 212 Cai.App.4th at 28; Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist, supra, 63 CaLApp.4th at 286.) The DFEH complaint does not state any "particuiars" of a faiiure to prevent claim, nor describe any alleged failure to prevent or the date or dates such faiiure to prevent occurred, as required. Gpv. Code § 12960(b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 10005(d)(3) 8L (4). Thus, Mr. lbarra failed to exhaust his administrative remedies Cr: this cause of action, and it should be struck from the complaint. John D. Winer Shawn D. Tillis August 13, 2019 Page 10 We hope this meet and confer is helpful in laying out some of the background regarding this matter and setting forth the facial defects we see in the complaint. Please let us know by August 23, 2019, if you will amend the complaint. Otherwise will prepare a demurrer and motion to strike. As noted, we would welcome an opportunity to discuss the matter with you by phone. PayActiv and the individual defendants remain committed to having discussions about a potential resolution of this matter on reasonable terms. Please let us know if you have any interest in doing so. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Willia Attac ".','-d-:'-"-.~u».a-o' 908-015 V 903-0152."; .. rancounrmom? “-._ 5-. Pas 015 . EXHIBIT 1 I I *3 Wit ‘1' f“ Sb” 92);: M ‘9’ an" o}: ..' 3A we, 9.: tack 1i- 4 J3 g; a 337“! 1: 33$? 4s. LEG i gig? c u x4 5 EXHIBIT 2 I E Weissman, William Hays From: Pedro Ibarra Sent: Friday, November 24, 2017 9:48 AM To: Weissman, William Hays Subject: Rez'Your email re PayActiv Attachments: WBExecution2017.pptx htt ://assemb1 .ca. ov/dail lle On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Weissman, William Hays wrote: That's fine. William Hays Weissman Littler Mendelson, P.C. Tel 925.927.4545 Cell 925.324.3960 On Nov 24, 2017, at 7: 14 AM, Pedro Ibarra wrote: Good morning Mr. Weissman, I am driving back from visiting family. May we reschedule for 9:45 am this morning? I deeply apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you. Regards, Pedro “Wrong does not cease t0 be wrong because the majority share in it. ”- Leo Tolstoy Sent from my iPhone On Nov 24, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Weissman, William Hays wrote: Iwill call you at 9 am. There is no estimated length as I think that largely depends upon you. The topic is how you and PayActiv to move forward fi'om here. William Hays Weissman Littler Mendelson, P.C. Tel 925.927.4545 Cell 925.324.3960 On Nov 23, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Pedro Ibarra wrote: Dear Mr. Weissman, Tomorrow (1 1/24/2017) at 9 am PST works for me. Truly appreciate ifyou may please provide with me With points ofyour discussion and eXpected length ofphone call (without my contribution). Please advise if this time works for you. Have a great Thanksgiving and Happy Holidays to you and family! Regards, Pedro - Mobile # 83 1.7064838 “Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.” - Leo Tolstoy” On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Weissman, William Hays wrote: Mr. Ibarra, Do you have some time to discuss this matter on either Friday or Monday next week? If so, please just let me know a time. Thanks, William ' William Hays Weissman, Shareholder 925.927.4545 direct 925.324.3960 mobile 925.891 .2551 fax wweissman@littlcr.com Treat Towers, 1255 Treat Blvd. Suite 600 1 Walnut Creek 9A 94597 1 littlemom Employment & Labor Law Solutions Worldwide From: Pedro Ibarra [mailto:ibalrajkey@gmail.com[ Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 8:42 AM To: Ajit Medhekar Cc: David Carlick; Kabir Misra; Weissman, William Hays Subject: Re: Your email re PayActiV Dear William, As Ihave made my claims pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1102.5 a-i, (Whistleblower) which state in part "(b) An employer, or anyperson acting 0n behayoftlze employer, shall not retaliate against an employeefor disclosing information, t0 aperson...who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance... " as I have dutifully disclosed my allegations to all executives and advisors Ajit, David and Kabir whom have the authority to investigate before I seek a governmental review. I wish to respectfully request to this board my reinstatement of position at PayActiv, specifically wages and benefits until all investigations are resolved. If this board selects to d9 so Iwould ‘ recommend to be put on paid administrative leave. A good faith reinstatement ofwages, benefits and position by the advising board will be highly commendable and unrelated. Thank you. Happy Holidays! Regards, Pedro “Wrong does not cease t0 be wrong because the majority share in it. ” - Leo Tolstoy On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Ajit Medhekar wrote: Dear Pedro, Thank you very much for you email to me and other board members/advisors regarding your concerns about PayActiv. Rest ' assured that we take such matters very seriously and have requested our attorney, William Weissman of Littler Mendelson PC, to be the point-person to respond on our behalf while the matter is being evaluated. Please direct all your filture enquiries to him directly. Best regards, Ajit Ajit Medhekar Director & Co-Founder w... . . E u-asumma- www.payactiv.com This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use ofthe intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended. recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies ofthis message. Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part of the international legal practice Littler Global, which operates worldwide through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.1itt1er.com for more information. This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part ofthe international legal practice Littler Global, Which operates worldwide through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.littler.com for more information. This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use :of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you'are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies ofthis message. Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part ofthé international legal practice Littler Global, which operates worldwide through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.littler.com for more information. FinTech PayActiv Board Whistleblower NotificatiOn, Timing & Employee Protection Alerted PayActiv Advisers and investors: Email Nov. 17th, 2017 l l I O l I I I l i Ajit Medhekar David Carack Kablr Masa Don Peppers Amer Akhtar Baba Shiv Sanjlv Das Jeanna Abbott Rajlv ta! Peter Verblca Ajit/Board Emaii'Response Nov 20, 2017 "...matter is being evakzated.” ‘ ,. M .‘ w. ‘ .. w . ,., ... “ M. . we .‘ . 5:553”? MW ”W5137§§SGT?! (in;'(" ’WSE '7‘” (3""77’W’VCL‘W"“3"“’5“;54 " ‘W’b"P‘"“5;“""""““a Qg'u L‘ roam?h... I _ .«uJ‘ V" L45“; €44; 3. _(t(m qkr ,M0" Qfimfi'f .94.‘ b ”pain““,5"? ' 1;...«4. b n- 2ft? V: w» w 33553;?» A-wg Sf$¥m2,912, “~‘,_m~,5§ 333.? NA'Nigw”;’w “543a: -.- > Ix :N-g. ~ 3'"??? ~' w ' w x‘Mm: art’uw'v, Jaw ‘ ‘r 31’? 35:75". m». .3 3’“ .4:gum3-1.3 "191$ “15.34?” ‘um.Nu“V'fl‘ WFQW‘ "7:1 ‘:-N“‘)’ *(W‘£3.9qu ixeéifibflo-kmr: frdk‘vm“' 51-”,MM; 3533“” internal Remedy: Whistleblower Protection and Resources Email Request: Nov 22, 2017 Seeking reinstatement of position and wages followed by paid administrative leave pendinginternal and government regulators review. l I 1 l I I l I l --I Ajit Medheka David Catlick Kabir Masa Don Peppers Amer Akhtar Baba Shiv Sanjiv Das Jeanna Abbott Rajiv La] Peter Verbica Response: Company Attorney Nov 22, 2017 seeking meeting. ..--.- u, w‘w- u i” ow.» -' ' ° r,- ’ "’ I 'u'tn %r&:,::€ ‘ "J, 4w”, finfizg “155‘ fl v I .. RV”. £f3rib~k ~ g” u. w... y , . w Emjrjl;.‘M~i @329“0Y7.“ w‘l‘ nu _. v _ .. ”A 4,»; W‘AL. ,; , - ~ . V33! ‘3}, :5»;M». (?w... ' I ,- 13,; ‘3 £2”W~~ “vii? . A1: r r." - ,,‘v. a .r”Max r095 v“ . w .» . ‘ ., .' .' ,x...¢uw15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 m r-«v‘ z: All of the above violations are contrary to the form, force, and effect of the Statute in such Case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of California; Dated: October 19; 2000. RONALD L.'RUIZ DISTRICT ATTORNEY ?waJEFFREY s. ROSELL ASSISTANT DISTRIC WPD J.' ERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA · County of Santa Cruz People of the State of California vs. PEDRO IBARRA Case No. F00887 MINUTE ORDER ==================~=============~=================================. === Dept.3 10/19/00 9:00 am TRIAL READINESS CONFERENCE =;================================================================---- Charges: 1) 664/213{A)(l)A. PC-FA, 2) 459 PC-FA, 3) 236 PC-FA 4) 236 PC-FA, 5) 136.l(C)(l) PC-FA MATTER CALLED IN DEPT. 4. Honorable Judge Heather D. Morse presiding. Clerk: L. Sepulveda. Court Reporter: D. Gallagher. Deputy District Attorney: J. Rosell Defendant is present with Attorney T. Salatich, NEXT COURT DATE(S): Confirmation of Jury Trial set for 10/20/00 at 8:15 in Dept. 3. Defendant is ordered to be personally present. CUSTODY STATUS: Defendant remains out of custody on posted bail bond. ---------~- MINUTE ORDER END/ jr -------------------------- KOWQQU'I $1.0M!“ p C3 11' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22, 23 24' 25 26 27 28 :91 «1 0' { x; t MED" SUPEHKNZCOURT 'C {FORMA C \3' I-‘n Rug RONALD L. RUIZ, DISTRICT ATTORNEY 0 OCTIB PHI > 6 COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 701 OCEAN STREET. ROOM 200 SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA 95060 TELEPHONE: (831) 454-2400 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PEOPLE SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SANTA CRUZ THE PEOPLE 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. F00887 vs. ) - ) COMPLAINT -- CRIMINAL PEDRO IBARRA g FIRST AMENDED ) Date: 10/19/00 ) Time: 09:00 A.M. ) Dept: 3 Defendant(s), ) Event: TRC Ronald L. Ruiz, District'Attorney of the County of Santa Cruz, State of California, accuses PEDRO IBARRA of the following crime(s) committed in the County of Santa Cruz, State of Califor- nia: \l COUNT 01 A Violation of section 211 of the Penal Code of the State of California, a felony committed on or about June 15, 2000 in that at said time and place the above named defendant(s) did unlawfully and by means of force and fear take personal property from the person, possession and immediate presence of SUZI GAR- CIA, and said offense was perpetrated in an inhabited dwelling house, trailer coach and inhabited portion of a building. It is further alleged, pursuant to Penal Code section 213(a)(1)(a), that the above offense was committed by PEDRO IBARRA who volun- mmdmmlh 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19- 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 tarily acted in concert and entered a structure described in that section. \V COUNT 02 A Violation of section 459 of the Penal Code of the State of California, a felony committed on or about June 15, 2000 in that at said time and place the above named defendant(s) did _unlawfully enter an inhabited dwelling house and trailer coach and inhabited portion of a building occupied by SUZI GARCIA, with the intent to commit larceny and any felony. "NOTICE: The above offense is a serious felofiy within the meaning of Penal’Code Sec- tion 1192.7(c)." It is further alleged that the above offense is in violation of Penal Code seetion 462(a). COUNT 03 A Violation of section 29% of the Penal Code of the State of California, a felony committed on or about June 15, 2000 in that at said time and place the above named defendant(s) did unlawfully violate the personal liberty of SUZI GARCIA, said violation being effected by violence, menace, fraud, and deceit. COUNT 04 A Violation of section 23g of the Penal Code of the State of California, a felonx committed on or about June 15, 2000 in that at said time and place the above named defendant(s) did unlawfully violate the personal liberty of STEPHANIE GARCIA, said: violation being effected by violeQSF, menace, fraud, and deceit. COUNT 05 A Violation of section 136.1(C)(1) of the Penal Code of the State of California, a felony committed on or about June 15, 2000 in that at said time and place the above named defendant(s)” did knowingly and maliciously do an act described in subdivisions (a) and (b)-and such act was accompanied by force and an express and implied threat of force and violence upon SUZI GARCIA and a third person and the_property of a victim, witness and third per~ 10 11 12 13 14' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 q ow tn 9 u: co H $011. Therefore, complainant declares under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 16, 2000 at Santa Cruz, California. RONALD L. RUIZ- DISTRICT ATTORNEY JE Y S. ROSELL ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY WPD EC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Santa Cruz People of the State of California vs. PEDRO IBARRA Case No. F00887 MINUTE ORDER ================================~===================================== Dept.3 10/12/00 9:00 am TRIAL READINESS CONFERENCE ==-=================================================================== Charges: 1) 664/213(A) (l)A PC-FA, 2) 459 PC-FA, 3) 236 PC-FA 4) 236 PC-F A, 5) 136 .1 (C) (l} PC-F A -----------------------------------------------------------------· ---- Honorable Judge Thomas E. Kelly presiding. Clerk: J. Ruiz. Court Reporter: A. Allen. Deputy District Attorney: J. Rosell Defendant is present with Attorney T. Salatich. Time continues to be waived. NEXT COURT DATE(S}: MIL appearance on 10/13/00 at 13:30 is vacated. JT appearance on 10/16/00 at 9:00 is vacated. Trial Readiness Conference set for 10/19/00 at 9:00 in Dept. 3. Case is set for Motions in Limine on 10/20/00 at 13:30 in Dept. X. Case is set for Jury Trial on 10/23/00 at 9:00 in D7pt. 3. Defendant is ordered to be personally present. CUSTODY STATUS: Defendant remains out of custody on posted bail bond. =========== MINUTE ORDER END/ cak ============= SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Santa Cruz People of the State of California vs. PEDRO IBARRA Case No. F00887 MINUTE ORDER =:==================================================================== Dept.3 08/30/00 8:15 am ARRAIGNMENT {Information) =~=-=============================================:==================== Charges: 1) 664/213{A) {l)A PC-FA, 2) 459 PC-FA, 3) 236 PC-FA 4) 236 PC-FA, 5) 136.l{C) (1) PC-FA Honorable Judge Thomas E. Kelly presiding. Clerk: J. Ruiz. Court Reporter: A. Allen. Deputy District Attorney: J. Rosell Defendant is present with Attorney T. Salatich. A copy of the Information is provided to defendant/counsel. Formal reading, arraignment on the charges, and advisement of Constitutional rights are waived. Defendant pleads NOT GUILTY to all counts. Defendant denies allegations. Time is not waived. Last day: 10/30/00. NEXT COURT DATE(S): Trial Readiness Conference set for 10/12/00 at 9:00 in Dept. 3. Case is set for Motions in Limine on 10/13/00 at 13:30 in Dept. 3. Case is set for Jury Trial on 10/16/00 at 9:00 in Dept. 3. CUSTODY STATUS: Defendant remains out of custody on posted bail bond. ----------- MINUTE ORDER END/ ljc ------~------ ..«A 10 ll 12m 13 14H 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22" 23 24 25 zen 27 28 i * man n SUPERIOR COUR: OFCALWORNl r30. OF s mm C‘s“? RONALD L. RUIZ, DISTRICT ATTORNEY 00w Pf; 2; gsCOUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 701 OCEAN STREET, ROOM 200 SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA 95060 TELEPHONE: (831) 454-2400 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PEOPLE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SANTA CRUZ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) NO: F0088? ) Plaintiff, ) INFORMATION VS. ) DATE: 08/30/00 ) TIME: 08:15 AaM. PEDRO IBARRA ) DEPT: 3 . ) ) ) ) Defendant(s)’ ) The District Attorney of the County of Santa Cruz, State of California, accuses PEDRO IBARRA of the following crime(s) com~ mitted in the County of Santa Cruz, State of California: COUNT 01 A Violation of section 664/211 pf the Penal Code of the State of California, a felony committed.on or about June 15, 2000 in that at said time and place the aboVe named defendant(s) did unlawfully and by means of force and fear attempt to take pei- sonal property from the person, possession, and immediate presence of SUZI GARCIA, and said offense was perpetrated in an inhabited dwelling, trailer coach and inhabited portion of a building. It is further alleged, pursuant to Penal Code sectiofi 213(a)(1)(a), that the above offense was committed by thé dgfend~ ant who voluntarily acted in concert and entered a structure hum \O m \I‘O‘i U1 10 11 12 13 14 15H 16 A 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 24 25 25 27 28 ”-‘I described in that section. COUNT 02 A Violation of section 459 of the Penal Code of the State of California, a felony committed on or about June 15, 2000 in that at said time and place the above named defendant(s) did- unlawfully enter an inhabited dwelling house and trailer coach and inhabited.portion of a building occupied by SUZI GARCIA, with the intent to commit larceny and any felony. "NOTICE: The above offense is a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code Sec- tion 1192.7(0)." It is further alleged that the above offense is in violation of Penal Code section 462(a). COUNT 03 A Violation of éection 236 of the Penal Code of the State of California, a felony committed on or about June 15, 2000 'in that at said time’and place the above named defendant(s) did unlawfully violate the personal liberty of SUZI GARCIA, said violation being effected by violence, menace, fraud, and deceit. COUNT 04 A Violation of section 236 of the Penal Code of the State of California, a felony committed on or about June 15, 2000 in that at said time and place the above named defendant(s) did unlawfully violate the personal liberty ofi STEPHANIE GARCIA, said. violation being effected by violence, menace, fraud, and deceit. COUNT 05 A Violation of section 136.1(C)(1) of the Penal Code of the State of California, a felony committed on or about June 15, .2000 in that at said time and place the above named defendant(s) did knowingly and maliciously do an act described in subdivisions (a) and (b) and such act was accompanied by force and an express and implied threat of force and violence upon SUZI GARCIA and a third persofi and the property of a victim, witness and third.per~ SOD . 10" ll 12 13 14: 15 men 17 18 19w 20 21, 22 23' 24 25 26' 27 28 All of the above violations are cofitrary to the form, force, and effect of the Statute in such caSe made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of California. Dated: August 24, 2000. RONALD L. RUIZ DISTRICT ATTORNEY ' :gZAZLuLCAV FRE S. ROSELL AS ISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY gin Mémwé- ' ( / .dUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNitt County of Santa Cruz People of the State of California vs. PEDRO IBARRA Case No, F00887 MINUTE ORDER ==--================================================================== Dept,3 08/18/00 9:00 am CONTINUED PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION ------=-----========-=============~=========================-===-===-- Charges: 1) 664/213(A)(l)A PC-F H, 2) 459 PC-F H, 3) 236 PC-F H 4) 236 PC-F H, 5) 136.l(C)(l) PC-F H Honorable Judge Thomas E. Kelly presiding. Clerk: C. Kirby. Court Reporter: C. Love. Deputy District Attorney: J. Rosell Defendant is not present; represented by Attorney T. Salatich. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION COMMENCED. Day 2 of hearing. Witnesses are sworn and testify on behalf of the People. ( 1) Officer Williamson (WPD) The Court finds sufficient cause on Ct(s) 1-5. DEFENDANT IS ORDERED HELD TO ANSWER. Information is to be filed. NEXT COURT DATE(S): Defendant is ordered to appear 08/30/00 at 8:15 in Dept. 3 for Arraignment on Information. Defendant is ordered to be personally present. CUSTODY STATUS: Defendant remains out of custody on posted bail bond. ----------- MINUTE ORDER END/ jr ============= SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Santa Cruz People of the State of California vs. PEDRO IBARRA Case No. F00887 MINUTE ORDER ==-================================================~~=====~=========== Dept.3 08/07/00 1:30 pm PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION ====================================================================== Charges: 1) 664/213(A) (l)A PC-FA, 2) 459 PC-FA, 3) 236 PC-FA 4) 236 PC-FA, 5) 136.l(C) (1) PC-FA Honorable Judge Thomas E. Kelly presiding. Clerk: c. Davey. Court Reporter: T. O'Connor. Deputy District '.Attorney: J. Rosell Defendant is present with Attorney T. Salatich. Case is called for Preliminary Examination. Day 1 of hearing. WITNESSES ARE SWORN AND EXAMINED: The following witnesses are sworn and testify on behalf of the People: ( 1) John Espinosa ( 2) Kim Austin Defendant waives one continuous hearing. NEXT COURT DATE(S): Preliminary Examination is continued for further hearing on 08/18/00 at 9:00 in Dept. 3. Defendant is ordered to be personally present. CUSTODY STATUS: Defendant remains out of custody on posted bail bond. ----------- MINUTE ORDER END/ cd ============= provide NOTE: This is an Appearance Bond and cannot be' construed as a guarantee for failure to nor can it be used as a Bond on Appeal. payments, back alimony payments, FINES or Wage Law claims, I a ¥ f. 3;"; '._ ”ct {‘31-}. .. :. , » 1“ 3 0...... I. :. ' .I. ,~" ’.;‘.:I I CG J”. F“ ’3": ~. i NATIONAL AUTORRBfiE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. l’- NAMESAND:DIEHESS o]; BAISAGENCY "-1 AL OBNIA CORPORATION an a r112 0n S c/o ASSOCIATED BONDAND INSURANCE AGENCY 99 scum LAKE AVENUE. SUITE soo. PASADENA. CA 91 101-2643 287 water St‘ ’ sama cruz’ CA 95060 TELEPHONE: (626) 449-0449 L TEL 831-425-1 180 J IN THE ................§399535 .................. COURT orTHE ................................S.31.33ny?......................... JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY 0F ........................ .S.3933.933? ...................... , STATE 0F CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA, F00887 BAIL BOND Plaintiff, CASE No ............................................ vs. 3 Drw DEPT. No. .................................. ................................ Pedmlban‘a . MT 7 0 8 8 2 Defendant Defendant PedrOIbarra ......................................................................................................................................... (Name of Defendant) Booking No havmg been admitted to bad 1n the sum of ........0neHundredThousand&00/loo....................................................................... ................................................................................. Dollars ($ 10030000 ), and ordered to appear in the above-cntitled count on 08/97/00 . 1:30 PM 19 on 459 / 182mm) / 136mm) 1212.5(A) PC charge”.................................2§H‘;gfxsééggé.ca... .............................. ........ , ................1.3%.'._'.1.1§s.a;l;&ifé;:_.6}.rragfi§,.3. ...... . ......... , Now, the NATIONALAUTOMOBILE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., a California corporation, hereby undertakes that the above-named defendant will appear in the above-named court on the date set forth to answer any charge in any accusatory pleading based upon the acts supporting the complaint filed against him/her and all duly authorized amendments thereof, in whatever court it may be prosecuted, and will at all times hold him/herseif amenable to the orders and process of the court, and, if convicted, will appear for pronouncement of judgment or grant of probation; or if he/she fails to perform either of these conditions, that the NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE AND CASUALTY INSUIEfi)6%ug8rédaTEggg%%cf&%3ifocbration will pay the People of the Sltjaotfia :fS Calisgrwgoothe sum o)f If the forfeiture of this bond be ordered by the Court, judgment may be summarily made and entered forthwith against the said NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE C0,, a California corporation, for the amount of its undertaking herein, as provided by Sections 1305 and 1306 of the California Penal Code. THIS BOND IS VOID IF LIMITS ALTERED on BRASBD, IF COM- gyfé'HONALA BINED WITH OTHER BONDS OF ‘THIS COMPANY TO FURNISH BAH... $1001000@ 0R IF WRITTEN IN EXCESS OF ............................................. BY / I ' AUG 3 0 2000 C 'Attomcfi'fin-FBSS THIS BOND IS VOID IF POSTED . AFTER ............................................. ' I certify under penalty of perjury that I am a licen ed Igil géfigigf the National Automobile and Casualty Bafiilgm Co. and that} am executing this bail bond at. . .. ".6 ..................................................................... ,C'aiifomia on ........_f; ................. éity orTo h . (Date) The Premium Char%ed for _ /4/ this Bond xs $ ............’000 1 ......................................... . ........... . Signature of Bail AgentPer Annum. A i Approvedthis ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,dayofw,wm__m_/_____ ’19 ....... Name ............................................................................................ FORM NO. 7504 7/98 Title .............................................................................................. .- h 5 _ rpm... SAM. A cnuz COUNTY SHERIFF-cononi (0‘97BOOKING u . seamed}? , BOOKING SHEET , - g; NAME ’ LAST Fansr MIDDLE ARREST onsmme ARRES? Hepomu BOOKING wwemms IBQR RA , PEDRB SQLIEJAS OéllfifQQ 0335 XXU036’38- 06/‘15f00 1103. .snumasn cu n Fa: a soc. sec. x BOOKING FAcunv eooxma OFFICER 8‘197464 Aififfififl-‘BBO _ . HATER ST C U i'i LDCKRIIJGE HOME Aooaess cm sums prions» Booms type ' 143 PAULSEN R30 MATSBNUILLE CA ?‘6‘87930 FRESH ARREST sacs sax AGE DATE o! mam no.3. omens ucé‘Nsa n (on awn sure PAROLE) Paoa. AGENT HISPfiNIC H 2'2. 05/19/78 Cé BS3231474 _‘ Cé HAIR evas H'r. m. LANGUAGE ALIAaES) ”fl - ~ .ELK. BRO 50.4 170 _ SALINQS ; PEBRB IBA-R RA ; SQLJN'QQ‘? : PEDRO IBA R‘RR §- SALIENTcHAnAcweaIsncs ~ amsnesncv NAME EMEEGENGY Aconsss crrv STATE pHONE a: .F- RANCISCD IBRRRR . ' ’ 7688 1‘82 Ann. Aeewcv Aaaesme OFFICER to fl Locmou 0F ARREST cm sm‘e UPI! BJC X 365 BREE LANE J U-ATSDNVILLE CA OCCUPATION ' EMPLOYER ADDRESS _ cm sure STUDENT cymees waamm u Issume AGENCY BAIL Hes Pf} 459 BAIL INCREASE PER YUNTS £06387 SC/FEL. " $00000 CHARGES ‘ WARRANW Issume Aeeucv BML n'ss CHARGES WARRANH :ssume AGENCY aAzL ass CHARGES WARRANT a Issume Aéency 3A". ass CHARGES WARRANT: ussume Aeeucv BAIL Res cuAaGes WARRANT» assume AGENCY BAIL ass cHAaees waaamn Issume AGENCY} 3A“. ass ~ CHARGES WARRANT a asé‘ume Ae'ech “’ ~ “'"" cunaeas WARRANT a Issume AGENCY Tms DEFENOAM HA9 BEEN msonmso 0F Hus: a mam To APPEAR BEFORE A MAGISTRATE Pen secnou 821 analon 822 Pumas ca OF THE PENN. cooE. DEFENDANT.D om mo nor aaouesw APPEARANCE BEFORE A MAGtsmATa o ‘ w :NMATE SIGNATURE PHONE 9 OFFICER SiGNATURE fl . BADGE NO. FHQNE g {HAVE BEEN P ITTEO A 7O ‘ONE AND ASGWEN HTUNITY 1’0 GOMPLEI‘E1W0 {2] PHONECALLS PER 851.5 PCfix DATE More “ _w "D .7 ‘ 197464 OFFICER 5K3mmme I BADGE Mo. IBARRA, PEDRO5am“ ‘ , . 1018722 ___, RELEASED Toomceasuemwae oepAmMENr BADGE N0. E one TIME ~ RELEASE TYPE 5ND naeceum aaNDSMAN/omsn aouoAMT mosey Boa Dan nor {310% nos cars 034a mot DATE TIME RELEASE me anomaecapw Bonosmmomen aouo AMT amass: non nan nor 01w. nca UTs 0349 nor . DIstrlbu Han: MT/JM - W wmte-aaoklng Record Canary-SHF. Record Eggsgfagfigfi erue-coum pink-M. E!Jam‘m'fiE: Ar?AD 13:39.? ' G(eOfl-DA.O. ' GOId-vconfloi CODY ___ _.,.J r·· SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Santa Cruz People of the State of California vs. PEDRO IBARRA Case No. FO0887 MINUTE ORDER ========================================;============================= Dept.3 07/12/00 8:15 am CONFIRM PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION ======-=============================================~======-========== Charges: 1) 664/213(A} (l)A PC-FA, 2) 459 PC-FA, 3) 236 PC-FA 4) 236 PC-FA, 5) 136.l(C)(l) PC-FA Honorable Judge Thomas E. Kelly presiding. Clerk: J. Ruiz. Court Reporter: P. Boyd. Deputy District Attorney: J. Rosell Defendant is present with Attorney T. Salatich. Time continues to be waived. NEXT COURT DATE(S): PX appearance on 07/31/00 at 9:00 is vacated. Preliminary Examination is set for 08/07/00 at 13:30 in Dept. 3. Defendant is ordered to be personally present. CUSTODY STATUS: Defendant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff until next appearance. Bail remains set at $100000.00. =========== MINUTE ORDER END/ cak.============= r· SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Santa Cruz People of the State of California vs. PEDRO IBARRA case No. F0O887 MINUTE ORDER ====================================================================== Dept,3 07/10/00 8:15 am APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL =================================================-==================== Charges: 1) 664/213(A)(l)A PC-FA, 2) 459 PC-FA, 3) 236 PC-FA 4) 236 PC-FA, 5) 136,l(C)(l) PC-FA Honorable Judge Thomas E, Kelly presiding. Clerk: C. Kirby. Court Reporter: P. Boyd. Deputy District Attorney: J, Rosell Defendant is present with Attorney T. Salatich, NEXT COURT DATE(S): Case is set for 07/12/00 at 8:15 in Dept. 3 for confirmation of Preliminary Examination. Defendant is ordered to be personally present. CUSTODY STATUS: Defendant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff until next appearance. Bail remains set at $100000.00. ----------- MINUTE ORDER END/ cak ============= t@Pt@B< SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Santa Cruz People of the State of California vs. PEDRO IBARRA Case No. F00887 MINUTE ORDER =====~=============================================;===============~-= Dept.3 07/06/00 8:15 am SET =------.------------------------- ------------------------------------- Charges: 1) 664/213(A) (l)A PC-FA, 2) 459 PC-FA, 3) 236 PC-FA 4) 236 PC-F A, 5) 136 .1 (Q) (1) PC-F A Honorable Judge Thomas E. Kelly presiding. Clerk: J. Ruiz. Court RepoFter: A. Allen. Deputy District Attorney: J. Rosell Defendant is present without counsel. Defendant is to obtain counsel. Defendant waives time. Motion to increase bail heard. Motion is denied. NEXT COURT DATE(S): Case set for 07/10/00 at 8:15 in Dept. 3 for Appearance of Counsel. Preliminary Examination is set for 07/31/00 at 9:00 in Dept. 3. Defendant is ordered to be personally present. CUSTODY STATUS: Defendant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff until next appearance. Bail remains set at $100000.00. ----------- MINUTE ORDER END/'jr ============= r SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Santa Cruz People of the State of California vs. PEDRO IBARRA Case No. F00887 MINUTE ORDER ==-===========.=======~=======~====================;================== Dept.3 06/19/00 8:15 am ARRAIGNMENT ====================================================================== Charges: 1} 664/213(A) (l)A PC-FA, 2) 459 PC-FA, 3) 236 PC-FA 4} 236 PC-FA, 5) 136.l(C} (1) PC-FA Honorable Judge Thomas E. Kelly presiding. Clerk: C. Davey. Court Reporter: A. Allen. Deputy District Attorney: D. Wong Defendant is present Public Defender is appointed. Public Defender Azevedo is present. Formal reading of complaint and advisement of Constitutional Rights are waived. Copy of complaint is provided to defendant/counsel Defendant pleads NOT GUILTY to all counts. Time is not waived. Last day: 07/03/00. NEXT COURT DATE(S): Preliminary Examination is set for 07/03/00 at 9:00 in Dept. 3. Defendant is ordered to be personally present. CUSTODY STATUS: Defendant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff until next appearance. Bail remains set at $100000.00. ----------- MINUTE ORDER END/ cak ============= SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Santa Cruz People of the State of California vs. PEDRO IBARRA Case No. F00887 MINUTE ORDER ==============================================~======================= Dept.3 07/03/00 9:00 am PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION ==========-=========================================================== Charges: 1) 664/213(A) (l)A PC-FA, 2) 459 PC-FA, 3) 236 PC-FA 4) 236 PC-F A, 5) 136 .1 (C) (1) PC-F A Honorable Judge Thomas E. Kelly presiding. Clerk: J. Ruiz. Court Reporter: L. Miramontes. Deputy District Attorney: D. Wong Defendant is present with Public Defender delaPena. Public Defender declares conflict. Public Defender is relieved. Defendant is to obtain counsel. If private counsel not present at next court date court to appoint alternate public defender. Defendant waives time (10 days). NEXT COURT DATE(S): Case is calendared for 07/06/00 at 8:15 in Dept. 3 for setting. Defendant is ordered to be personally present. CUSTODY STATUS: Defendant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff until next appearance. Bail remains set at $100000.00. ----------- MINUTE ORDER END/ jr _\ __________ _ ‘0QO 10 11 12' 13 ' 14 15 16 17 18 19 ' 20 21 22 23‘ 24H 25 > 261 27' 28 c“ vfl$V 3‘55: C'i’ D?“ ~53 xi f {ijer§; Ié‘ RONALD L. RUIZ, DISTRICT ATTORNEY _ m r ‘ COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 00 ‘U’ ’0 m 1‘ 57 701 OCEAN STREET,- ROOM zoo CQ’z-Nx SANTA cnuz, CALIFORNIA 95060 K“ TELEPHONE: {831) 454-2400 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PEOPLE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA’ COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ THE pEopLE 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA, ) . ) plaintiff, ) Case No.Wvs. ) ) COMPLAINT - - CRIMINAL pEDRo IBARRA ) ‘ . (m. )W/ PW“? Egm’ém ) Date: 06/19/00Mmomo WC ) Time: 03:15 A.M. A ) Dept: ' Defendant (s) , ) 'Event: ARRE a Ronald L. Ruiz, District Attorney of the County of Santa Cruz,.State of California, accuses PEDRO IBARRA of the following crime(s) committed in the County of Santa Cruz, State of Califor~ nia: I COUNT 01 A Violation of section 664/211 of the PenéEICodexBEqfifiei State of'California, a felony committed on or about June 15,;2000 in that at said time and place the aboVe named defendant(s) aid unlawfully and by means of force and fear attempt to take per- sofial property from the person, possession, and immefiiate 3' presence of SUZI GARCIA, and said offenéé was perpetrated intan inhabited dwelling, trailer coach and inhabited portion'of‘a bfiilding. It is further alleged, pursuant to Penal Code section 213(a)(1)(a), that the above offense was committed by the defend- 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 27 28H ént who voluntarily acted in concert and entered a structure described in that section. COUNT 02 A Violation of section 459 of the Penal Code of the State of California, a felony committed on or about June 15, 2000 in that at said time and place the above named defendant(s) did unlawfully enter an inhabited dwélling house and trailer coach and inhabited portion of a building occupied by SUZI GARCIA, with the intent to commit larceny and any felony. “NOTICE: The above offense is a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code Sec- tion 1192.7(c)." It is Earther alleged that the above offense is in violation of Penal Code section 462(a). COUNT 03 A Violation of section 236 of the Penal Code of the State of California, a felony committed on or about June 15, 2000 in that at said time and place the above named defendant(s) did unlawfully violate the personal liberty of SUZI GARCIA, said violation being effected by violence, menace, fraud, and deceit. COUNT O4 A Violation of'section 236 of the Penal Code of the State of California, a felony committed on or about June 15, 2000- in that at said time and place the above named defendant(s) did pnlawfully violate the personal liberty of STEPHANIE GARCIA, said violation being effected by violence, menace, fraud, and deceit. COUNT 05 A Violation of sedtion 136.1(C)(l) of the Penal deé of the State of California, a Eggggx committed on or about June 15, 2000 in that at said time and place the above named defendant(s) did knowingly and.maliciously do an act described in subdivisions .(a) and (b) and such act was accompanied by force and an express and implied threat of force and violence upon SUZI GARCIA and a third person and the prbperty of a victim, witness and third per- 10 11 12' l3_ l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21" 22 23“ 24. 25“ 26, 27 28 AV son. Therefore, complainant declares under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is prue and correct. Executed on JUne 16, 2000 at Santa Cruz, California. RONALD L. .' RUIZ DI TRICT ATTORNEY ARY BRAYTO . T// Assxs DIS Ic_ A, pm}! . WPD _ - ;_,».)\'TA CRUZ COWTVfiSHERIFF-CORQNER - lg" _ 43-42.:1'834?‘ . . ' A ‘ BQGKING SHEET .2, sooxi‘ne u NAME LAST ' . '. . FIRST MiooLE ARRESTDATEITIME . ; ARREST REFORM _ BOOKING DA‘iEITIME mmmé, {Ammo mum" v» low woo étz'fifi‘ ~ xxu’w 1.3? ~ (36315;!00 1101 sNUMBEn ‘ cw Féls- 71; ’j soc seen .aookmsFAchlrv I aooxmeomcen $93119::M4 nmha-‘ofi: _ Lmrrsme C: n N ;,_..um<:ré3::m3-t-: V '» HOMEADDRESS ' CiTY STATE PHONEN ‘ .. ’ BOOKINGTYPE 1323 MULSCM mi umsmmu. ,L:-’.ff cm Mizrme ”2551-11 Aiém-is ; RACE sex gee DATEothn-r 9.0: 'a. oéwans‘ ucswssnomom . ~_. sTA‘re. pAROLEIpaoa.. .- .- AGENT HIS:”F’Nfli- .N 132 05f19/7f3‘ :Cfi. "'"2?474 CA; ' ' . ‘ HAIR . eves HL , 1LANGUAGE ‘ ' n': ALIA'5(55) ‘ swamcfiAnAcfeass nos 3mm: mm: 50:: 151.70. f‘m.,tti§:8',ij'raiiiiirblj’mmA,-sz¢,i_..xlxé:a3.. 43mm :3133mum; _ éééfiééubgmmé . EMERGénchou‘néss‘: n ‘ U ' ' Em? I; . “Smiré PHonéu -~'FRfiNCI$LQ Igmmfi . . .. .: . 1 ?6’3833‘33 . .. _. ' Ann AGENCY Anaesrmsomcea . ' :01! ' V LOCATIONOFARHEST ' ‘ ' CITY STATE. . 1:13.913 'v M 1%.“: i_ ' n X . . 365 BR)" m‘fl-Igfl 7 . V __ ”QTEDNVICLLE'-'-,.-:'._. A.CA 3-3 j OCCUPATION *‘ z EMPLOYER _ I _ Aooness V _ “vwcm' . H smie ‘sTLJJJf'NT WARRANT u assume AGENCY1:33;- . . , - _ BAIL v °Pt: 43:.“ Bé‘tfg..-Ir~mr_«zsrms£ PER rams _ _ __ _. 333F153“, vacancy 'CHAaees H ' ' M I whammy ' ‘Is'sméJé'AGENc'v‘ " am. ' ' Ra’s. Res - -, .cHAnees ”1 12:15, _;r‘ ~ ' ~wmiim‘w‘ ' ‘ aésumemééucv '_..'.‘:a'A'u.‘ ' ' 'Res cmabés 1.er :U' A fl I I ‘ . WARR'AN‘EH' ' > H XssuiNG-AGENCYI'D -- BAIL a Bés WARRANT} H ‘ IséUINéAéenci' ' .aKuQ- ' H Res ' ?WAhR'ANZré A , ' IssuiNéAGéNc+ _' éAiL ' ' ~ Ra's” wAéRANTu ' _ L issumméencv “3'5"...1” : I Rés \ :: CHARGES avO § CHARGES . ' ' ' wAfiaANn ' ' iééUINIG'A'q'ENé? "'Hh";'”"""""""“;"“'“"""3;; ' CHAHéés H - A ' ' _- w'AfiRA'NTo I __ I. ‘_ . iSSUINGA'éEimY J" n 1‘ .« .5 {Hus DEFENDANT HA3 BEEN INFORMED 0F His: a RIGHT 'ro APPEAR BEFORE A MAGISTRATE PER SECTION 821 qndloa 822 1; :oF‘ THE PENAL cove. ogrenomr.. mo mu NOT REQUESI A‘éPE‘ARANCE s_er-‘oas «MAGISTRATE . ZINMNESIGNATURE . a a I '_: ?BONEH: OFFICERSIGNMURE I ' I I BADGE N0 ‘ i L 'éH'o‘Né‘fiw ">7 aHAvenaEN Pa néonccfiggTo nsA/mfAsGWQmunmmcommemotamonecaus Penastspc _ _' ' - Vj-f.-fi g» . . . ‘ - DATE m ‘3 " bmoenszem‘mae‘ .1" I 3 I -". 7 aAerNO IBWPEDROSALINAS .. ...... . . -. .' . ~ 3- ' " ' ’ ~.'_'-_ ~ 1013722 ._-'...-.. _RELEASEDTOOFFIGERSIGNATUHE DEPARTMENT _ BADGENO _ ; . ‘_ .v -. .-29...? DOR D-BD DDT 010%- : DATE - fl nus . .RELEAsewpé fl - H ,auomaecewn BONDSMANIOTHEH eonmm _' ._ Baoéen ‘ W 'n'ca .ms mas D07 a H3133": " ' DATE TIME I aELEASETYPE .~ anomaacslpn 'aonosmmomea aonom-r H aAbeeu = non Dec DDT 010% ' ~ -' ‘ . . -. :Dce Ens 0849 Clot . 1.; .. - ' . . , ' ~' ' . ' Drsmbuuom M‘rldng ‘ ‘I " ‘ '- ‘ . ‘ ~ ‘ I --_. .. - : -’White'-Bo'okin R'epor Canary-SHF HecomRammeomcmag-t ._ . _ . , .._._.__..Vm_cm e . h PWM - oarsnmamaw ‘ ‘couaTscdpy . '_ ‘--ereen-D;Ao. 'aom-Conuoscopy l: M‘ Z , 2 IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT .COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, STATE OF CALIFORNIA EQUEST FOR SETTING BAIL 494/26: 55AM? .Zé‘mdh __ 275476 /{ 2:949 ""‘Na’r’ne’b‘f def'enda‘nt ' {Date of booking Time g 70.“: 9:: 11-7 ' ' a .rjf‘fgyg #44 f gig flag. flyyMM/éfl» 753??» M Address ca W 2:; , £4 V5? 2361544114, /Jé_,xm//J. =2 's 5:33 Charge s}? nu Brief summary of alleged crime: 5;an Zzaéé' x5699 A‘é’ué} flaw // 7?) £54, éxr/aécA/Aw/éxWWM fl"ma /%7