Complaint Preston V Oakland

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: ffang@ruizlaw.com
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

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'
..,
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
) "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

, "'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.

'.

')
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.

I
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

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

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;

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

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
", 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.

Exhibit B
Exhibit C
"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
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)
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.
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: ffang@ruizlaw.com
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
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

Complaint Preston V Oakland

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint Preston V Oakland

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Celia M. Ruiz (SBN 87671)

DARYELLE LAWANNA PRESTON,

CITY OF OAKLAND; DEANNA SANTANA,

Case No.: 3:14-cv-2022

CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT

PLAINTIFF DARYELLE LAWANNA PRESTON AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

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

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

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

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

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

Dated: May 2, 2014

RUIZ & SPEROW, LLP

By: __/s/Forrest E. Fang_____________________

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

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

DAN SIEGEL, SBN 56400

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR

Plaintiff Daryelle LaWanna Preston complains against defendants City of Oakland,

Plaintiff Daryelle LaWanna Preston was employed by defendant City of Oakland

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

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

would have violated the law.

Brooks' removal from the Council.

City Council for Reed to sign the contract.

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

acts to Santana and the City Attorney of Oakland.

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

violating Cal. Gov't Code 3506.

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

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

of adverse actions culminating in plaintiffs termination.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. At all relevant times, plaintiff Daryelle LaWanna

Relations Director for the City of Oakland.

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

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

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

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

have been determined.

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

managing disciplinary actions arid investigations, and processing grievances.

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

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

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

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

Anderson then reported this back to Reed.

to get City Council approva1.

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

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

City of Oakland for failing to collect dues.

Administrative Instruction 523 and long $tanding City practice.

Kasaine would be the investigator of her own grievance.

and refusing to deal with the problem.

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

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

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

required by the contract between the City and the SEIU:

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

By: /s/Forrest E. Fang___________________