54:; SUMMONS CI TA CION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: CITY OF LOS ANGELES and DOES (A vrso AL DEMANDADO): through 100, inclusive COPY OF 021011491me Les Suncrior Court AUG 08 2018 Sherri Fl. Carter. txecuuve Of?cer/clerk YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: JAMES WILLIS BvShaunva Bowen. Deputy (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not ?le your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonpro?t legal services program. You can locate these nonpro?t groups at the California Legal Services Web site (wwaawhelpcaiifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. VISOI Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dies. to corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea Ia informacidn a continuacion Tiene 3O DE CALENDARIO despu?s de que la entreguen esta citaci?n papeies Iegaies para presenter una respuesta por escrito en esta corte hacer que se entregue una copia at damandante. Una carta una Iiamada telefdnioa no to protegen. Su respuesta per escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea qua procesen su case en la corte. Es posibie que haya un formutarie que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios do to corte mas informacidn en et Centre de A yuda de Ias Cortes de Califomia en la biblioteca de ieyes de su condado 0 en ia corte que Ie quads mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacidn, pida at secretario de la corte our,- to do on tonnutario de exenoion do page do ouotas. Si no presents 50 respuesta a tiempo. puede perdar at case our incumptimiento to cone to padre quitar su sueido, dinero bienes sin mas advertenoia. Hay otres requisites lie-gates. Es recomendabte que Home a un aoogado inmediatamente. Si no eonooa a un aoegado. puee?e iiamer a un sann'cie de remisr?en a abogados. Si no puede pager a on eoogado. es posioie due cumpia con ios requisites para ootener servicios legaies gratuitos de on programs do servioios Iegates sin fines de iuoro. Puede enoontrar sates grupes sin fines de tucro an at sitio web de Catiternia Leger Services. an at Centre de Ayuda do Ias Cortes de California, Weueedecagov) poni?ndese en contacto con to code of oeiegio ole abogados iocaies. A VISO: For toy, is corte tiene dereche a rectamar ias euetas tea castes exentos per impenar un gravaman sot-re recuperacidn de $10,000 or mas de vaior recibida mediante un acuerdo una concession de arbitraja en on case do dereotro ciuii. Tiene qua pager ei gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar 9/ case. he name and address ofthe court is: msenuu . (Einombreydireccion dela corte es): (Numemdgg?'z 1 7 1 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT 111 NORTH HILL STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 The name. address, and telephone number of plaintiff?s attorney. or plaintiff without an attorney. is: (El nombre, Ia direcci?n at numero de tei?fone dei abogado del demandante, 0 do! demandante que no tiene abogado, as): GREGORY E. SMITH (SBN 134385) (310) 777?7894 (310) 777?7895 LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY w. SMITH FAX 9100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 345E QMUN r?b BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 ??h?ma DATE: AUG 0 Clerk. EH .Deputy {Fecha} 8 (Secretan'o) (Adamo) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use at formulan'o Proof of Service of Summons, NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. C) as an individual defendant. 2. as the person sued under the ?ctitious name of (specify): 3. on behalf of (specify): under: CCP 416.10 (corporation) i CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) i . CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) other (specify): 4. by personal delivery on (date): Page1of1 SUMMONS So?ail-IS Code of Procedure 412 20, 465 SUM-100 [Rev July 1. 2009} t?l ?lls GREGORY W. SMITH (SBN 134385) CONFORMED COPY DIANA WANG WELLS (SBN 284215) Loor:0mm.mien K. AL FAIZ (SBN 284309) LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY w. SMITH AU 0 9100 Wilshire?Boulevard, Suite 345E Sh 6 8 2018 Beverly Hills, alifornia 90212 adamant,? - Telephone: (310) 777-7894 3 en Telecopier: (310) 777-7895 W?ddawem Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMES WILLIS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES JAMES WILLIS, CASE NOCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES I 1. WHISTLEBLOWER CITY OF LOS ANGELES and DOES 1 RETALIATION (LABOR through 100, inclusive, 1102-5) I DefendantS- I DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff JAMES WILLIS (?Plaintiff?) was and is a person residing in LOS Angeles County, State of California, and was and is a competent adult. 2. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of the City Of LOS Angeles employed as an Assistant Inspector General at the Office of the Inspector General. 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant City of LOS Angeles (?City?) was and is a municipal entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. At all times pertinent -1- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES hereto, Defendant City owned, controlled, and operated the law enforcement agency known as the Los Angeles Police Commission and the Office of the Inspector General. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants DOES 1 through 33, inclusive, and each of them, were, at all times relevant hereto, public, business and/or other entities whose form is unknown, committing torts in and/or engaged as a matter of commercial actuality in purposeful economic activity within the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants DOES 34 through 67, inclusive, and each of them, were, at all times relevant hereto, individuals, residing in and/or committing torts within the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that DOES 68 through 100 inclusive, and each of them, at all times relevant hereto, were residents of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and were agents, partners, and/orjoint venturers of Defendants and/or DOES 1 through 33, inclusive, acting as supervisors, managers, administrators, owners, and/or directors or in some other unknown capacity. 7. The true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, whether individual, corporate, associate or othen/vise, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will file DOE amendments, and/or ask leave of court to amend this complaint to assert the true names and capacities of these Defendants when they have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that each Defendant herein designated some manner, negligently, wrongfully, or othenNise, responsible and liable to Plaintiff for the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged, and that Plaintiff?s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by their conduct. 8. Plaintiff has timely filed governmental tort, and other claims with the Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff filed a Governmental Tort Claim with the City of Los -2- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Angeles, on or about June 25, 2018, which claim was rejected by Defendant City of Los Angeles on or about July 11, 2018. 9. Plaintiff has complied with and/or exhausted any applicable claims statutes and/or administrative and/or internal remedies and/or grievance procedures, or is excused from complying therewith. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION (LABOR CODE SECTION 1102.5) BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM 10. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 above, and incorporates same by reference as though set forth fully herein. 11. Plaintiff was assigned to the Office of the Inspector General and supervised the Special Investigations and Compliance Section. His duties included overseeing investigations concerning deficient systems, practices and serious officer misconduct within the Los Angeles Police Department. 12. On or about November 12, 2015, while Alex Bustamante was the Inspector General (IG) and Plaintiff?s supervisor, Plaintiff was working in an area that was equipped with a close circuit monitor of the OIG conference room. While glancing at the monitor, Plaintiff noticed that an unknown female was sitting alone in the conference room. 13. Plaintiff observed that the person in the room was using her cell phone to photograph documents that were spread before her on the conference table. Plaintiff learned from Siv Chan, an OIG employee, that the unknown female in the room was Lisa Bartley, a KABC news reporter. As Bartley left the conference room, she put the documents in an envelope and handed them to Chan. 14. Plaintiff asked Chan to give him the envelope that he had just received from Bartley. Plaintiff looked at the documents in the envelope and was surprised to find that the content was comprised of secret logs which were law enforcement sensitive. The -3- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES logs contained the names of law enforcement officers, possiblyjudges, prosecutors, federal agents, and task force code names, connected to a senior gang member that had turned informant. 15. Plaintiff recognized handwriting on the envelope as Inspector General Alex Bustamante's writing. Further, Plaintiff learned from Siv Chan that Bustamante had directed Chan to provide Bartley the envelope consisting of the confidential information. 16. On or about November 16, 2015, Plaintiff reported to the commanding officer of constitutional policing, Arif Alikahn, that Bustamante had released confidential information concerning law enforcement officers, possibly judges, prosecutors, federal agents, and task force code names to Lisa Bartley, compromising confidential investigative information. Plaintiff believed that by Bustamante turning over this information to the media, lives could be in jeopardy. 17. On or about November 18, 2015, Plaintiff called the Executive Director of the Police Commission, Richard Tefank, disclosed to him that Bustamante turned over the logs to Lisa Barkley. The reported directly to the Police Commission and the Commission supervised and had the authority to hire, fire and discipline Bustamante. 18. Later that day, Plaintiff met with Police Commission president, Matt Johnson and Tefank. The first question Johnson asked was whether Plaintiff gave anyone a report that Plaintiff had prepared for the Commission outlining the serious charges against Bustamante. Johnson appeared to be more concerned with containing knowledge of Bustamante?s wrongful behavior than taking action against the him. 19. On or about February 2, 2016, Plaintiff reported Bustamante?s improper conduct as stated herein to the City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission because he believed no action would be taken against Bustamante for his improper activities. 20. Plaintiff disclosed to the Ethics Commission that Bustamante violated Section 49.5.3 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code which states: current or former City official or agency employee shall not misuse or disclose confidential information acquired as a result of City service.? -4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 21. As a result of the disclosures made by Plaintiff as set forth herein, Plaintiff was subjected to multiple adverse employment actions, including, but not limited to, minimizing his investigative responsibilities and ultimately terminating his employment. 22. Plaintiff engaged in legally protected activities under Labor Code section 1102.5 and 1102.6, by disclosing what he reasonably believed to be a violation of Section 49.5.3 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. 23. After Plaintiff made the disclosures stated herein to his superiors and the Ethics Commission, Defendants, and each of them, retaliated against Plaintiff by taking the above-described adverse actions against him. Said actions of retaliation were a direct violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, and pursuant to Labor Code section 1102.6, Defendants, and each of them, have the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that each of the adverse employment actions alleged herein would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if Plaintiff had not engaged in activities protected by Labor Code section 1102.5. 24. A contributing cause for Defendants, and each of them, engaging in the foregoing adverse employment actions against Plaintiff was to retaliate against him for disclosing the violation of Section 49.5.3 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. 25. As a legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer physical, mental, and emotional injuries, pain, distress, suffering, anguish, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, sham, injured feelings, shock, humiliation and indignity, as well as other unpleasant physical, mental, and emotional reactions as a result of physical injury, damages to reputation, and other non- economic damages, in a sum to be ascertained according to proof. Said damages are of the type that any person would suffer as result of the illegal and wrongful conduct of the City. Plaintiff does not claim that he has suffered any illness as a result of the conduct of the City. Plaintiff claims general damages for such mental distress and aggravation in an amount of be proven at time of trial. 26. As a further legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiff has suffered loss of income, wages, earnings, and earning capacity, loss to his pension, inability to seek further employment in his chosen profession, law enforcement, and other economic loss, causing Plaintiff to sustain damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof. 27. As a further legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered other incidental and consequential damages, in an amount according to proof. 28. As a further legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3287. 29. Plaintiff further requests that the Court render appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief to remedy the violations and to prevent future violations of a like or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, and each of them from any further violations of Labor Code section 1102.5. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. For physical, mental, and emotional injuries, pain, distress, suffering, anguish, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shame, injured feelings, shock, humiliation and indignity, as well as other unpleasant physical, mental, and emotional reactions arising from physical injury, damages to reputation, and other non-economic damages, in a sum to be ascertained according to proof; 2. For loss of income, wages, earnings, and earning capacity, depreciation of pension, and other economic loss in an amount to be ascertained according to proof; 3. Other actual, consequential, and/or incidental damages in a sum to be ascertained according to proof; 4. Costs of suit herein incurred; 5. Pre-judgment interest; -6- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES lnjunctive or other extraordinary relief to remedy the violations described herein and to prevent future violations of a like or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, and each of them from any further violations of Labor Code section 1102.5. 7. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: August 7, 2018 By: LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY W. SMITH w. SMITH DIANA WANG WELLS Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMES -7- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES