Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2 Filed05/02/14 Page1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Celia M. Ruiz (SBN 87671)

Janice L. Sperow (SBN 129617)
Forrest F. Fang (SBN 122805)
RUIZ & SPEROW, LLP
2200 Powell Street, Suite 350
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: 510 594-7980
Fax: 510 594-7988
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND and
DEANNA SANTANA

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12

DARYELLE LAWANNA PRESTON,

13

Plaintiff,

14
v.

15
16
17

CITY OF OAKLAND; DEANNA SANTANA,

in her individual capacity; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive,

18

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 3:14-cv-2022

(Superior Court No. RG14 717585)

NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a)
(Federal Question)

19
20
21

TO:

CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT

22

TO:

PLAINTIFF DARYELLE LAWANNA PRESTON AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

23
24

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Deanna Santana, named as a Defendant in the abovecaptioned action, Case No. RG14-717585 in the files and records of the Superior Court of California,

25
26

County of Alameda, hereby files in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

27

California a Notice of Removal of said of action to the said United States District Court, pursuant to 28

28

U.S.C. 1441 and 1446, and is filing in said Superior Court a Notice of Removal.
1
____________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT DEANNA SANTANAS NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2 Filed05/02/14 Page2 of 2

1
2

Defendant Santana, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441 and 1446, presents the following facts to the
Judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California:

3
4

1.

A civil action bearing the above caption was commenced in the Superior Court of

California, County of Alameda, on March 17, 2014, and is pending therein.

5
2.

Defendant Santana first received copies of Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and

Summons in this action on April 2, 2014. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(a), copies of the original

Complaint, the Summons and the Civil Cover Sheet are attached hereto as Exhibit A, B & C,

respectively.

10

3.

In the Second Cause of Action of the original Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a

11
12
13

violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, which presents a federal question.

4.

The action is a civil action of which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28

14

U.S.C. 1331, and is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendant pursuant to the provisions

15

of 28 U.S.C. 1441(a), in that is arises under a federal statute.

16

5.

The other defendant, the City of Oakland which has been served with the original

17
18
19

Summons and Complaint, has joined in this Notice of Removal, as evidenced by the Joinder of
defendant City of Oakland filed concurrently herewith.

20
21

Dated: May 2, 2014

22
23

RUIZ & SPEROW, LLP

24
25
26
27

By: __/s/Forrest E. Fang_____________________

Celia M Ruiz
Forrest F. Fang,
Attorneys for Defendant
Deanna Santana

28
2
____________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT DEANNA SANTANAS NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page1 of 16

Exhibit A

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page2 of 16

1111111 11111 11111 II!II 11111 11111 111111111111111111

*12571182*

1
2
3
4

5
6

DAN SIEGEL, SBN 56400

SONYA Z. MEHTA, SBN 294411
SIEGEL & YEE
499 14th Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 839-1200
Facsimile: (510) 444-6698

FILED

ALAMEDA COUNTY

Attorneys for Plaintiff

DARYELLE LAWANNA PRESTON

8
9

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

11
12
13
14
15

16
17

DARYELLE LAWANNAPRESTON,

) Case

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

)
)
)

~\L\-.ll~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR

) DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE
vs.
) RELIEF
) Employment/Civil Rights
CITY OF OAKLAND; DEANNA
)
SANTANA, in her individual capacity; and ~ Jury Trial Demanded
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
)

18
19
20
21

1)

22

)
)
)

------------------------~)
24
2

5
26
27

28

Plaintiff Daryelle LaWanna Preston complains against defendants City of Oakland,

Deanna Santana, and DOES 1 through 10, as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

Plaintiff Daryelle LaWanna Preston was employed by defendant City of Oakland

as the Employee Relations Director of the City of Oakland when she reported several

Preston v. City of Oakland, et ai., No.

Verified Complaint-l

l'

..,

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page3 of 16

violations of state and local law to her supervisors and declined to follow orders that

would have violated the law.

2. First, plaintiff Preston refused to follow orders from her superior, defendant City

Administrator Deanna Santana ("Santana") to falsify official oral and written reports

about Oakland's Rainbow Teen Center ("RTC") that would wrongly state that Oakland

City Council member Desley Brooks ("Brooks") had intentionally approved illegal hiring

practices at RTC and signed off improperly on equipment receipts. If true, these

accusations would have violated Oakland City Charter 2J.8, which could result in

Brooks' removal from the Council.

10

3. Second, plaintiff Preston reasonably believed that Fire Chief Teresa Deloach Reed

11

("Reed") engaged in a violation of Oakland City Ordinance 12903, 1.10 when she

12

repeatedly directly negotiated and signed tentative agreements ("TAs") with Firefighters

13

Local 55 ("Local 55") without Ms. Preston present as Employee Relations Director or

14

City Council authorization. By law, Ms. Preston must have obtained approval from the

15

City Council for Reed to sign the contract.

16

4. Santana assisted Reed in attempting to conceal Reed's unlawful negotiation and

17

signature ofTAs, and Santana retaliated against Ms. Preston when she reported Reed's

18

acts to Santana and the City Attorney of Oakland.

19

5 Third, plaintiff Preston reasonably believed her superior, defendant Santana, and

20

Katano Kasaine ("Kasaine"), Treasury Manager and Personnel Director of the City of

21

Oakland, were engaged in violations of state law, includIng Cal. Gov't Code 3508.5,

22

when they failed to collect union dues from temporary part time employees represented

23

by the Service Employees International Union ("SEIU").

24

6. Ms. Preston reasonably believed that Kasaine interfered with the investigation of

25

the failure to collect union dues by contacting the President of the SEIU chapter and

26

promising to pay SEIU all dues owed in exchange for dropping the grievance, thereby

27

violating Cal. Gov't Code 3506.

28

Preston v. City of Oakland, et al., No.

Verified Complaint-2

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page4 of 16

) "t
I'

7. Plaintiff reported all of the above acts to her superior, defendant City

Administrator Santana.
8. Defendant Santana responded to plaintiffs reports to her regarding these

3
4

violations oflaw, and to plaintiffs refusal to obey illegal orders, by carrying out a series

of adverse actions culminating in plaintiffs termination.

9. Ms. Preston brings this action for violations of the California Labor Code

6
7

11025, and her constitutional right to free speech under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9
10

10.

Plaintiffs claims arise under the statutory law of the State of California and of the

United States.

11

11. The actions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in the County of Alameda.

12

PARTIES

12. At all relevant times, plaintiff Daryelle LaWanna

Preston was the Employee
,

13
14
15
16

Relations Director for the City of Oakland.

. 13. At all relevant times, defendant City of Oakland was a public entity and charter
city located in Alameda County.
14. At all relevant times, defendant Deanna Santana was the City Administrator for

17
18

the City of Oakland. She is sued in her individual capacity.

19

15. The true names and capacities of the defendants named herein as Does 1 through

20
.21

10,

inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise are unknown to

22

plaintiff, who therefore sues such defendants by fictitious names pursuant to Code of

23

Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that

24

each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in the manner set forth herein,

25

or some other manner for the occurrences alleged herein and that the damages as

26
27
28

alleged herein were proximately caused by their conduct. Plaintiff is informed and
believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously named defendants is a

Preston v. City of Oakland, et al., No.

Verified Complaint-3

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page5 of 16

, "'I

"

California resident. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show the true names and

capacities of each of the fictitiously named defendants when such names and capacities

have been determined.

4
STATEMENT OF FACTS
5
6

16. The City of Oakland ("City") hired plaintiff Daryelle LaWanna Preston as Human
Resources Manager in 2007 and then promoted her to Employee Relations Director in

early 2012.
17. Ms. Preston's duties were to oversee the Employee Relations Division, including

negotiating collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs"), investigating violations of CBAs,

10

managing disciplinary actions arid investigations, and processing grievances.

11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.22
23
24
25
26
27
28

18. On or around February of 2012, defendant Santana asked Ms. Preston to falsify a
report about the East Oakland's Rainbow Teen Center ("RTC") and state that City
Councilwoman Desley Brooks intentionally and knowingly engaged in hiring practices
and purchasing at RTC that violated City Charter 218.
19. MS.Preston refused to sig!l off on this report because she had personally
witnessed Brooks' emails asking for guidance on the hiring practice, and Brooks
receiving no response from City staff. Ms. Preston later found that then Personnel
Director Andrea Gourdine, not Brooks, approved the prohibited hiring practice.
20.0n March 16, 2012, at an open Oakland City Council meeting, defendant Santana
asked Ms. Preston to testify that Brooks was present at a meeting where Santana
explained the problems in hiring for the RTC, and that Santana's office had been
providing this information for months. Ms. Preston came to the microphone and stated,
"I'm sorry, Desley Brooks was not present at that meeting, nor did we give Ms. Brooks
any information about this hiring issue."
21.

Ms. Preston was Chief Negotiator for the City of Oakland from 2008-2012. Under

Oakland City Ordinance 12903, the Oakland City Council must approve all contracts. As
Chief Negotiator and by virtue of Oakland City Resolution 55881, only Ms. Preston and

Preston v. City of Oakland, et ai., No.

Verified Complaint-4

'.

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page6 of 16

')

the City Manager had the authority to represent the City in employer-employee

relations.

22. On or around July of 2013, Ms. Preston learned that Fire Chief Reed had, for the

second time,. signed a tentative agreement ("TA") with Local 55, without Council

approval or City Manager representation, in violation of City Ordinance 12903 and

Oakland City Resolution 55881. These TAs granted additional economic benefits to

Local 55 Ms. Preston reported these acts to defendant Santana.

8
9

23. On July 3, 2013, Ms. Preston sent a memo informing the City Attorney that Reed
had signed the TA.

10

24. Reed then convinced Ms. Preston's newest staff person, Winnie Anderson, to sign

11

off on the TA, which Anderson did, and also informed Ms. Preston that she had done so.

12

Ms. Preston told Anderson that Anderson did not have the authority to sign the TA.

13

Anderson then reported this back to Reed.

14

25. Upon information and belief, Reed informed Santana of Ms. Preston's attempt to

15

stop the violation of City policy. Santana then called Ms. Preston and in an angry tone

16

told her that getting City approval was a waste of time. Ms. Preston responded that she

17

would not intentionally violate City policy. After this, Reed repeatedly came to Ms.

18

Preston asking her to sign off on the TA, but Ms. Preston refused because of the failure

19

to get City Council approva1.

20

26. On or around August 6, 2013, Katano Kasaine, City Treasury Manager and now

21

Personnel Director, attended a SEIU part time employees negotiating meeting and

22

stated that, for several years, she had not been deducting dues from part time

23

employees' salaries because they complained to her about paying dues. Kasaine's action

24

was in violation of the City's contract with SEIU and Ca1. Gov't Code 3508.5.

25

27. On September 5, 2013, Ms. Preston informed Kasaine in an email that Kasaine

26

was subject to an investigation because a grievance had been filed in regards to her

27

statement to SEIU that s,he had stopped collecting dues from part time employees.

28

Kasaine responded orally that she did not state that in the meeting. However, Employee

Preston v. City of Oakland, et al., N 9.

Verified Complaint-5
I

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page7 of 16

Relations staff members Sonia Laura and Winnie Anderson were witnesses to Kasaine

saying that she was not collecting dues and took notes to this effect.

28. On September 8, 2013, Ms. Preston informed Kasaine for a second time that she

was subject to the grievance investigation because of her statement that she was not

collecting dues. Kasaine then complained to Santana about Ms. Preston's concerns.

29. On September 12, 2013, Ms. Preston emailed City Attorney Barbara Parker ("City

Attorney") and Santana to inform them of the grievance filed against Kasaine and the

City of Oakland for failing to collect dues.

30.Santana responded over email that the City Attorney's office would now do the

10

investigation and in fact must do the investigation because Ms. Preston's office was

11

"biased," even though it was Ms. Preston's job duty to conduct such investigations under

12

Administrative Instruction 523 and long $tanding City practice.

13

31. Ms. Preston then called City Attorney Parker who said her office would not

14

conduct such investigations, which Ms. Preston then repOlted to Santana. Ms. Preston

15

requested over email that Santana employ an outside auditor to determine exactly what

16

the City owed to the union. Ms. Preston asked for this outside audit because otherwise

17

Kasaine would be the investigator of her own grievance.

18
19

32. Santana responded furiously in a phone call, stating "We are not doing this,"
meaning the outside audit.

20

33. On September 12, 2013, Santana sent an email to Ms. Preston stating that the

21

City Administrator's office would not conduct an investigation at all, effectively ignoring

22

and refusing to deal with the problem.

23

34. On September 17, 2013, at an open City Council meeting, Kasaine had on the

24

agenda a report to implement a recently negotiated two percent wage increase for all

25

miscellaneous City employees. The newly created Employee Relations classification, of

26

which Ms. Preston was the Director, was 'not included in the ordinance and therefore

27

would not receive the raise. Ms. Preston immediately complained about this to Santana.

28

Santana then instructed Kasaine to postpone the item until it was corrected. Upon

Preston v. City of Oakland, et al., No.

Verified Complaint-6

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page8 of 16

information and belief, Kasaine's action was motivated by her intent to retaliate against

Ms. Preston.

35 On September 19, 2013, Kasaine further informed the SEIU that the City was

failing to collect dues from hundreds of part time employees and failed to remedy or

disclose this fact. Kasaine also revealed that the City failed to conduct new member

orientations, notify part time employees of obligations to paydues, and issue reports, all

required by the contract between the City and the SEIU:

8
9
10

36. Ms. Preston then formally notified Kasaine of the grievance against her by the
SEIU and notified her that she should not communicate with the union.
37. On September 29, 2013, Ms. Preston wrote an email to Santana informing her

11

that Kasaine was violating the grievance investigation against her by contacting union

12

representative Dwight McElroy, President of the City of Oakland Chapter of SEIU Local

13

1021, and promising him that the union would get the money owed to it by the City if the

14

union dropped the grievance and stopped talking to Ms. Preston, thereby interfering

15

with an investigation, which is unlawful under Cal. Gov't Code 3506.

16

38.In addition, Ms. Preston informed Santana that it was a violation of City

17

Administrative Instructions 521 and 523 for Kasaine to participate in the investigatory

18

process of the grievance regarding her actions. .

19

39. In response, Santana called Ms. Preston and told her that she must not tell the

20

City Council about SEIU's grievance against Kasaine for stopping the collection of dues.

21

40.0n October 1, 2C)13, at a closed City Council meeting, Ms. Preston responded to

22

questions from the Council about the SEIU grievance for dues deductions. She told the

23

Council that SEIU had filed a grievance against Kasaine on this issue, in contravention

24

of Santana's order the night before.

25
26

41. On October 3, 2013, defendant Santana informed Ms. Preston that she was
terminated from City employment. Santana provided no reason for the action.

27
28

Preston v. City of Oakland, et al., No.

Verified Complaint-7

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page9 of 16

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

42. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies by filing a claim with the City
of Oakland on January 3,2014. The City denied that claim on January 8,2014.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF

LABOR CODE SECTION 1102.5
(against defendant City of Oakland)
(Cal. Lab. Code 1102.5)

6
7

43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 42 above as though fully

set forth herein.

44. By virtue of the foregoing, defendant City of Oakland retaliated against plaintiff

10

for disclosing what she reasonably believed were violations of municipal and state laws

11

to her supervisors and for refusing to take part in unlawful activities in violation of

12

Labor Code section 1102.5.

13
14
15
16
17

18

SECOND CIAIM FOR VIOIATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS

(against defendants Deanna Santana, and Does 1-10)
(42 U.S.C. 1983)

45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 44 above as though fully

set forth herein.
46.Byvirtue of the foregoing, defendants Deanna Santana and Does

1-10,

acting

19

under color of state law, wrongfully deprived plaintiff of her free speech rights

20

guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States by participating in adverse

21

employment actions against plaintiff in retaliation for her speech addressing issues of

22

public concern and refusing to participate in unethical ancl unlawful conduct by

23

defendants.

24
25
26
27

28

DAMAGES

4TAs a result of the actions of defendants, plaintiff has been injured and has

suffered damages as follows:

a. She has lost compensation and other employment-related benefits to which
she has been entitled and will lose such compensation and benefits in the future;

Preston v. City of Oakland, et al., No.

Verified Complaint-8

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page10 of 16

b. She has suffered from emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation,

and has suffered damage to her professional reputation and standing;
c. She has incurred out-of-pocket expenses for health care benefits.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

48.In taking the ac~ions alleged above, Defendants Deanna Santana and Does 1-10

engaged in the conduct alleged herein with malice, oppression, and reckless disregard of
I

plaintiffs right to be free of retaliation for engaging in protected free speech.

Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against defendants Deanna

Santana and Does 1-10 in this action.

10
11

12

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Court grant her relief as follows:
(1)

Injunctive relief to require defendant City of Oakland to reinstate her as

13

Employee Relations Director of City of Oakland together with all pay, benefits, seniority,

14

and emoluments of that position; and treat her without retaliation;

15
16

Compensatory 'damages for past and future lost wages and benefits, in an
amount to be determined;

17

(3)

Interest at the legal rate;

18

(4)

General damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, in an amount

19

to be determined;

20

(5)

Special damages for out-of-pocket expenses;

21

(6)

Punitive'damages, in an amount to be determined;'

22

(7)

Attorney fees;

23

(8)

Costs of suit; and

24

(9)

Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

25

26
27

28

Preston v. City of Oakland, et al., No.

Verified Complaint-9

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page11 of 16

Dated: March 12, 2014

4
5

By:

I,
Dan Siegel

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Daryelle La Wanna Preston

8
9
10
11

12

13
14

15
16
17

18
19
20
21
22

23
24

25
26
27

28

Preston v. City afOakland, fit al., No.

Verified Complaint-1O

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page12 of 16

", l.

VERIFICATION

I, Daryelle LaWanna Preston, declare as follows:

I am the plaintiff to this action. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and

know its contents. The matters stated in the Verified Complaint are true based on my

own knowledge, except where stated on jnformati~m and belief, and as to such matters, I

believe it to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that

the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 12,

2014,

at Oakland, California.

10

11
12

13
14

15

16
17

18
19
20
21
22

23
24

25

26
27
28

Preston v. City' of Oakland, et ai., 'No.

Verified Complaint-11

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page13 of 16

Exhibit B

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page14 of 16

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page15 of 16

Exhibit C

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-1 Filed05/02/14 Page16 of 16

"nORN ( Y OR PARTY WITHOUT AI TORNEV (Name SwreBal numbel

_ :Sonya Z _ Meht d 294Hl

& Yee
- Slcgel
1199 14th St , S u ite 300
Oakland C/\ 94612
Tfl(PIION ( N D
( SIO) 839 - 1200
All OR N EY FOR

(N~meJ

..)

rM " O

444-6698

(SIO)

e M -010
FOR CDUR f USE" O N/. Y

EN,fORSC:O
.IU"D
~ L ...~ [ '
\ AI 1" uA CO:1~,rTv

Plain t itf

SUPERIOR COURT OF CA UF OR NIA, COUNTY OF

STIlEETAOORESS

.""i>OO,~

Alameda Cou nty

1225 Fallon St

11A,i

MAI L ING ADO llE SS

CIl"Y I\NDIIT'COOE
URANCH NAME

Oa kl and I
Rene C .

CA 94612
Davi dson Courthouse

C IVIL CASE COVER SHEET

Unl imited

Limited
(Amou nt
(Amount
demanded
demanded is
exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less

"

~N~~

Com plex Case Designation

Counter

l"t

J oinder

IHE .... UP-

By Lane!1e

Pres t o n v . City of Oakla nd , Santana

CASE NAME :

IX}

CLERK OF

B '"

!::.Rlon- '':.'
_. :''Jr,",,,',

t:ffln. O~Pltf

ll~

JUDGE

Filed wi th firs! appearance by defendant

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)

DEPT

/Jems 1-6 below fIll lSI be completed (see ins/ructions on page 2),
1. Check one box below for th e case type Ihal best d escribes Ihis case:

Au to Tort
AuIO(22)
Uninsured motOrist (45)

Rule 3.740 colleCllOns (09)

Other co lleC\lons (09)
Insurance coverage ( 18)
Olher contract (37)

Ot her PllPDfWO (PersonallnjurylProperty

Oamag clWrong 'ul Death ) Tort

Provisionally Complex Ci vil Li tigati o n

Lf?1. Rule s of Court, rules 3,400-3.403)
Antilrus\fTrade regulation (03)
Construction defecl ( 10)
Mass tort (40)
Securities hhg3t1On (2S)
EnlllfonmentaVToxtc tort (30)
Insurance cover age claims arising from the
above listed provis,onally complex case
types (4t )

Contract

~ B,",oh 01 oo",,,,Uw,,,,",y (06)

M""o,
''') (24)
Product I,abil'ty
MedK:al malpractice (45)
Other PIIPDIWO (23)

Rea l Property
Eminent domalJl/lnverse
condemnallon (14)
Wrongful eviction (33)
Other rea l property (26)

Non-PIIPONVD (Other) Tort

BuslJless tortJunfaif business practice (07)
CIVIl rrghts (OS)
Def;)malion (13)
Fraud (16)
Inlellectual propc' ly (19)
PrOfeSSional neglrgence (25)
Other non-PI/PDIWD 1011 (35)

~
~

Employmen t

Enforcement of Judgment
Enforcement of Judgment (20)

Unlawful Detainer
Commercial (3 1)
Residenti;)1 (32)
Drugs (38)
Judicia l Review

Er:I Wrongfulterm,nalion
(36)
Other employment ( 15)

B
B

Miscellaneous Ci vi l Complaint
RICO (27)
Other compl;)ln t (nol specified above} (42)

A",II"I,,,,,"
(05)
Petition re: a,bilralion award ( 11 )

Miscellaneous Civi l Petiti o n

Partne,sh,p and cOrPOrale governance (21)
Dlher pelltlon(nol speCIfied above) (43)

Wm of mandate (O2)
Other judie!;)1 review (39)

2 . This case
is
IX) is not
comp lex under rul e 3AOO of the Californi a Ru les of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
facto r s requiring excepti onal judicial management:
large number of separately represe nted parties
d.
Large number of w itnesses
b.
Exte nsive motion practice raising diffic ult o r novel
e.
Coordinati o n with re late d actions pending in one or more co urts
issues that will be lime-co nsuming 10 resolve
in othe r counties, sta tes, o r cou ntries, o r in a federat co u rt
c.
Subs tanti al amount 01 documentary eviden ce
I.
Substantial postj udgment judicial s upervision
m o netary b .
nonmonelary: d eclaratory or injuncli ve relief c .
punitive
3 Remedies sought (e/leck al/ 1/181 apply): a .
4 Number o f causes ofactionl.eecify): (I) Cal. Labor Code II02.~, dnd (21 42 U . S . C . 1983 , Fust Amendment
is
is no t
a c lass action sui t.
5 This case
6 . II there are any known rela ted cases, fil e and serve a notice 0 related case. (You ay use orm M -O l5)

,B

!Xl

Date.

Mebt' a
(TYPE OR PR INI NAMEi

!Xl

03/14/14

Sonya

!Xl

-~

I .-NA-rlJREO PARrY OR " nORNEY FOR PARTY)

NOTICE
P lain tiff m us t fi le this cover s heet with the fi rst paper filed in the aelion o r proceeding (except small claim s cases o r cases fil ed
unde r Ih e Probate Code , Family Code, or Welfare an d Inslitul ions Code) . (Cal. Ru les of Court , rule 3 .220.) Failure to file may result
in sanctions.
File this cover sheet in additio n 10 any cove r s heet required by local court rule .
If th is case is comple x und el rule 3.400 et seq . of the Calilo rnia Rules of Court, yo u m ust serve a co py of thi s cover s h ee t on , II
other partie s to lhe ac tion o r procee ding.
U n less Ihis is a co llecti on s case under rule 3.7 40 or a comp lex case, thi s cove r sheet will be use d for statis tica l purposes only.
P~!I.lot2

C IVIL CAS E COVER SHEET

Cal R"'e> of c""'~ 'ules 2 30 3 no 3 ,,0Q-3 4ga 3 740.

C;ol Stand'" ,'" Judooal ~h~~~ ca~'?

Daryell e Lal1anna Pz:-eston

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-2 Filed05/02/14 Page1 of 2

JS 44 (Rev. 12/12)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Daryelle Lawanna Preston

City of Oakland
Deanna Santana

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

NOTE:

Alameda

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Sonya Z. Mehta, Siegel & Yee
499 14th St., Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612, (510) 839-1200

Celia M. Ruiz, Janice L. Sperow & Forrest E. Fang

Ruiz & Sperow, LLP
2200 Powell Street, Ste. 350, Emeryville, CA 94608

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)

1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

U.S. Government
Defendant

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
1

DEF
1

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4
of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State

Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

Foreign Nation

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)

CONTRACT

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other

BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark

LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609

OTHER STATUTES

375 False Claims Act

400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions

V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 Original
Proceeding

2 Removed from
State Court

Remanded from
Appellate Court

4 Reinstated or
Reopened

5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)

6 Multidistrict
Litigation

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

42 U.S.C. 1983

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

Retaliation (First Amendment)

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

DOCKET NUMBER 3:14-cv-2022

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

/s/Forrest E. Fang, Attorney

05/02/2014
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

Print

APPLYING IFP

Save As...

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12)

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-2 Filed05/02/14 Page2 of 2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)

(b)

(c)

Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II.

Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III.

Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV.

Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V.

Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

VI.

Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII.

Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-3 Filed05/02/14 Page1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Celia M. Ruiz (SBN 87671)

Janice L. Sperow (SBN 129617)
Forrest F. Fang (SBN 122805)
RUIZ & SPEROW, LLP
2200 Powell Street, Suite 350
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: 510 594-7980
Fax: 510 594-7988
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND and
DEANNA SANTANA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

DARYELLE LAWANNA PRESTON,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15
16
17
18

CITY OF OAKLAND; DEANNA SANTANA,

in her individual capacity; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 3:14-cv-2022

(Superior Court No. RG14 717585)

PROOF OF SERVICE

19
20
21
22
23

I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the
within action. My business address is 2200 Powell Street, Suite 350, Emeryville, California 94608. On
May 2, 2014, I caused the following document(s) in Alameda County Superior Court Case No.
RG08376987, referred to as Preston vs. City of Oakland, et al., to be served by the method indicated
below:
NOTICE OF REMOVAL

24
25
26
27
28

CIVIL COVER SHEET

by transmitting via facsimile on this date from fax number 510-594-7988 the document(s) listed
above to the fax number(s) set forth below. The transmission was completed before 5:00 p.m. and was
reported complete and without error. The transmitting fax machine complies with Cal.R.Ct 2003(3).
1
____________________________________________________________________________________
PROOF OF SERVICE

Case3:14-cv-02022-NC Document2-3 Filed05/02/14 Page2 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

xx by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid,
in the United States mail at Emeryville, California addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar
with the firms practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice,
it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid
in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed
invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit
for mailing in this Declaration.

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope(s) and by causing personal delivery
of the envelope(s) to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.

by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth
below.

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope(s) and consigning it to an express
mail service for guaranteed delivery on the next business day following the date of consignment to the
address(es) set forth below.

by transmitting via email to the person(s) at the email address(es) listed below.

Sonya Z. Mehta
Siegel & Yee
499 14th St., Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
and correct. Executed on May 2, 2014, at Emeryville, California.

18
19

___/s/ A. Fabian Silveyra____________________

A. Fabian Silveyra, File Clerk

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
____________________________________________________________________________________
PROOF OF SERVICE