UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

Anthony J. Palik (SBN 01 LAW OFFICES OF FERNANDO F. CHAVEZ, INC. 0 Ninth Street, Suite Sacramento, CA Office: ( -1 Fax: ( - Attorneys for Plaintiff Jack Nichols UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION JOHN NICHOLS, aka JACK NICHOLS, v. Plaintiff COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CHERYL CRESON, STEVEN PEDRETTI, KEITH FLOYD, GEORGIA COCHRAN, CARL MOSHER, THOR LUDE, HAROLD BIXLER, and JOHN HALLIMORE, Defendants. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (1 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ( U.S.C. ( CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS ( U.S.C. ( NEGLECT TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS ( U.S.C. ( WRONGFUL EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION COMES NOW JOHN NICHOLS, also known as JACK NICHOLS, a natural person, appearing herein in his individual capacity, and sues the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; STEVEN PEDRETTI, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as the Deputy Agency Administrator and former Director of County Engineering of the Municipal Services Agency of the County of Sacramento; CHERYL CRESON, in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as the former Agency Administrator of the Municipal Services Agency of Sacramento County; KEITH FLOYD, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as County Counsel for the Municipal Services Agency of Sacramento County; GEORGIA COCHRAN, in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as the Director of Personnel for the Municipal Services Agency Complaint Page 1 Nichols v. County of Sacramento

of Sacramento of Sacramento County; CARL MOSHER, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as the current Director of County Engineering for the Municipal Services Agency of Sacramento County; THOR LUDE, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as the Chief of the Building Department for the Municipal Services Agency of Sacramento County; HAROLD BIXLER, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as the Chief Building Official for the Municipal Services Agency of Sacramento County; and JOHN HALLIMORE, in his individual capacity and as the Manger of the Building Permit Counter for the Municipal Services Agency of Sacramento County, and hereby states: JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff JACK NICHOLS is a natural person and, at all times material to this action, is or was a resident of Sacramento County, California.. Defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO is a local government agency of the State of California.. Defendant CHERYL CRESON, at all times herein alleged, was employed by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO as the Agency Administrator of the Municipal Services Agency (hereinafter the MSA. Defendant CRESON is sued both in her individual capacity, as well as in her official capacity as the Agency Administrator of the MSA. At all times alleged herein, defendant CRESON acted as the manager of plaintiff s employment by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO.. Defendant STEVEN PEDRETTI, at all times herein alleged, was employed by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO as the former Director of County Engineering of the MSA. Defendant PEDRETTI is sued both in his individual capacity, as well as in his official capacity as the Deputy Agency Administrator of the MSA. At all times alleged herein, defendant PEDRETTI acted as the manager of plaintiff s employment by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO.. Defendant KEITH FLOYD, at all times herein alleged, was employed by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO as Deputy County Counsel assigned to the MSA. Defendant FLOYD is sued both in his individual capacity, as well as in his official capacity as Deputy County Counsel assigned to the MSA. At all times alleged herein, defendant FLOYD acted as an investigator of the acts of official corruption alleged by plaintiff, the reporting of which resulted in plaintiff s termination of Complaint Page Nichols v. County of Sacramento

his employment.. Defendant GEORGIA COCHRAN, at all times herein alleged, was employed by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO as Personnel Director for the MSA. Defendant COCHRAN is sued both in her individual capacity, as well as in her official capacity as Personnel Director for the MSA. At all times alleged herein, defendant COCHRAN acted as the manager of plaintiff s employment by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO.. Defendant CARL MOSHER, at all times herein alleged, was employed by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO as the Director of County Engineering for the MSA. Defendant MOSHER is sued both in his individual capacity, as well as in his official capacity as the current Director of General Services for the MSA. At all times alleged herein, defendant MOSHER acted as the manager of plaintiff s employment by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO.. Defendant THOR LUDE, at all times herein alleged, was employed by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO as Chief of the Building Department for the MSA. Defendant LUDE is sued both in his individual capacity, as well as in his official capacity as Chief of the Building Department for the MSA. At all times alleged herein, defendant LUDE acted as the manager of plaintiff s employment by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO.. Defendant HAROLD BIXLER, at all times herein alleged, was employed by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO as the Chief Building Official for the MSA. Defendant BIXLER is sued both in his individual capacity, as well as in his official capacity as the Chief Building Official for the MSA. At all times alleged herein, defendant BIXLER acted as the manager of plaintiff s employment by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO.. Defendant JOHN HALLIMORE, at all times herein alleged, was employed by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO as the Manager of the Building Permit Counter for the MSA. Defendant HALLIMORE is sued both in his individual capacity, as well as in his official capacity as the Manager of the Building Permit Counter for the MSA. At all times alleged herein, defendant HALLIMORE acted as the manager of plaintiff s employment by the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO.. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and herein alleges, that there are other persons, whose Complaint Page Nichols v. County of Sacramento

identities are not known to him as of the time of the filing of this complaint, and who have participated as defendant parties to the misconduct alleged herein and who are therefore jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff pursuant to those causes of action. Therefore, plaintiff reserves the right to amend his complaint to state the identities of those individuals and join them as defendants, once their identities have been ascertained.. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and herein alleges, that he may know the identities of certain persons who may be jointly and severally liable for misconduct herein alleged, but that plaintiff does not have sufficient information at this time to determine their liability in this matter and name them as defendants herein. Therefore, plaintiff reserves the right to amend his complaint to state the identities of those individuals and join them as defendants, once their liability for misconduct has been ascertained.. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges at all times mentioned herein, that each defendant named herein was the agent and employee of each of the remaining defendants and, in doing the things herein alleged, were acting within the course and scope of such agency.. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges at all times mentioned herein, that each defendant herein permitted his or her executives, managers, supervisors, agents, contractors, and other employees to commit all of the acts alleged herein and ratified their conduct.. Legal remedies for the plaintiff accrued in Sacramento County, California, as a direct result of acts of the defendants in Sacramento County, California. Therefore, the proper venue for this action is the Eastern District of California, pursuant to U.S.C. 1(b.. This is an action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Furthermore, this is an action where all the parties either reside or are employed within the County of Sacramento, California. Therefore, this court may assert both personal jurisdiction of the parties, as well as subject matter jurisdiction of the action under U.S.C. 1,, and of the entirety of this action. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. From on or about March to January, 0, plaintiff was employed by defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (hereinafter COUNTY as a Supervising Building Inspector with Complaint Page Nichols v. County of Sacramento

responsibility for the supervision of various building inspections within said COUNTY.. On or about January, 0, plaintiff met with defendant STEVEN PEDRETTI and Deputy County Counsel, KEITH FLOYD. At that meeting, and in subsequent meetings, telephone conversations, and other communications, plaintiff informed Mr. PEDRETTI and Mr. FLOYD of corruption and other improprieties plaintiff had discovered in the Sacramento County Building Inspection Division. Among the corrupt activities reported by plaintiff were the following: a. That building inspectors employed by the defendant COUNTY and their Building Inspection Division were providing favorable treatment of the subjects of building inspections in consideration of a donation paid by the inspection subjects to a charity allegedly operated by the inspectors known as the Red Tag Breakfast Club; b. That building inspectors employed by the defendant COUNTY received hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations in cash and other valuable property in exchange for favorable treatment during building inspections conducted by the inspectors; c. That large amounts of the cash and other property collected by building inspectors in exchange for favorable treatment during building inspections conducted by them, constituting a total value of approximately Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($00,000.00, went missing and unaccounted for; d. That cash and valuable property collected by building inspectors in exchange for favorable treatment during building inspections conducted by them was used by the defendants and/or their agents for personal use in violation of the public trust and to fund illegal activities; e. That persons employed by the COUNTY were used to intimidate witnesses and to frustrate a public reporting of the illegal activities reported by plaintiff; f. That certain individuals who were responsible for illegally obtaining and misusing funds from the subjects of building inspections in exchange for favorable treatment during building inspections were rewarded for their illegal activities by a paid severance of their employment with defendant COUNTY; Complaint Page Nichols v. County of Sacramento

g. That public funds were misused, particularly monies deposited in the Very Low Income Housing Fund administered by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (hereinafter the SHRA, for the development of certain parcels of commercial real estate, where those moneys were obtained for the benefit of private development interests who themselves were the beneficiaries of certain unlawful acts perpetrated on their behalves by the defendant COUNTY and their agents, namely the targeting of certain real properties for redevelopment and the condemnation of those properties without affording due process to the subject property owners or adequate compensation for the taking of their properties; and that subject commercial property owners were also restricted from owning property and operating their businesses on that property in the COUNTY s jurisdiction for several years as a consequence of the defendants illegal actions; h. That certain retired building inspectors, some of whom had retired with paid severance as a consequence of their unlawful activities on behalf of the Red Tag Breakfast Club, had gone into private business charging a fee for advice given by them to certain business owners, who were the potential targets of unlawful building inspections, for advice as to how those property owners might avoid an adverse building inspection, and then used their influence and the payment of some of the monies received from their property owner clients to bribe building inspectors and persuade them to avoid citing the property owner for building code violations.. At or about the time of the January nd meeting, and out of an abundance of caution, plaintiff initiated an inquiry of Mr. PEDRETTI and Mr. FLOYD whether plaintiff was required to disclose three services provided to him by separate business entities operating in the County of Sacramento on his statement of economic interest forms. As a consequence of this inquiry, on or about September, 0, defendant COUNTY determined that plaintiff should have made those disclosures and imposed a six-month temporary demotion on plaintiff to the position of Building Inspector II.. Plaintiff appealed the temporary demotion to the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Complaint Page Nichols v. County of Sacramento

Service Commission upheld the temporary demotion - in significant part due to the Commission s determination that plaintiff, after serving the six-month demotion, would be able to...return to his prior duties... and reinstated in his former position as a Supervising Building Inspector.. On or about September, 0, plaintiff completed his temporary demotion; however, although he regained his title of Supervising Building Inspector of Complaints and Violations, plaintiff was not returned to the duties of that position as promised by the COUNTY s Civil Service Commission. Instead, plaintiff was placed behind the public counter in the County s building permit office rather than reinstated to his supervisorial duties. Defendants, and each of them, including those defendants whose identities or liability remain unknown to plaintiff, failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse to reinstate plaintiff to his original work assignment. Moreover, the defendants created a new duty statement for plaintiff which essentially relegated plaintiff to the same duties he held during the temporary demotion. In the meantime, Plaintiff s actual position as Supervising Building Inspector of Complaints and Violations was filled by another County employee.. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants, and each of them, including defendants whose identities or liability have not yet been determined, retaliated against plaintiff for disclosing his knowledge of corruption within the Sacramento Building Inspection Division by refusing to reinstate Mr. Nichols in his position as Supervising Building Inspector and permanently removing him from his job duties, and by misleading the Civil Service Commission concerning the temporary nature of the discipline imposed against him. The permanent removal of plaintiff from the position of Supervising Building Inspector of Complaints and Violations served to ensure that plaintiff would not be in a position to discover and disclose further improprieties that County employees may practice in the future.. On or about September, 0, plaintiff submitted a report to the Sacramento County Grand Jury which disclosed various acts of illegal activities, improprieties and corruption within the Sacramento County Building Inspection Division he uncovered while employed as a Supervising Building Inspector, including those alleged herein. As a result, plaintiff testified three times before the Grand Jury, most recently on October, 0. During the week of November, 0 several Complaint Page Nichols v. County of Sacramento

employees of the Building Inspection Unit, including plaintiff s immediate supervisor, JOHN HALLIMORE, and his former supervisor, defendant HARROLD BIXLER, were called to testify before the Grand Jury.. On or about November, 0, and as a direct consequence of plaintiff s disclosure of public corruption in the Municipal Services Agency of Sacramento County, plaintiff was served by the defendant, County of Sacramento, with a second notice of disciplinary action proposing his termination from County employment. Even though none of the allegations stated in the second notice of disciplinary action were true, correct, or warranted employment discipline, plaintiff was immediately placed on administrative leave. Thereafter, on or about January, 0, plaintiff s employment with defendant COUNTY was terminated. First Cause of Action VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ( U.S.C. for damages as to defendants County, Creson, Pedretti, and Floyd. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the foregoing general factual and jurisdictional allegations and incorporates them herein as though fully set forth.. Defendants, and each of them, violated plaintiff s civil rights when defendants, acting under color of a statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the State of California or County of Sacramento, subjected, or cause to be subjected, plaintiff to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States under the First Amendment thereto, namely the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances, when they or their coconspirators terminated plaintiff s employment with the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO because plaintiff had reported the defendants illegal activities alleged herein, among others, to the Sacramento County Grand Jury, as well as to other COUNTY representatives and law enforcement officials.. As a proximate consequence of defendants violation of plaintiff s civil rights, plaintiff suffered compensatory damages for lost future income in an amount to be proved.. As a proximate consequence of defendants violation of plaintiff s civil rights, plaintiff suffered general damages as a consequence of emotional distress caused by the defendants Complaint Page Nichols v. County of Sacramento

intentional, malicious, reckless, and oppressive misconduct.. As a proximate consequence of defendants violation of his civil rights, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter the future unlawful conduct of the defendants. 0. Plaintiff has been required to employ the undersigned attorney to bring this action on his behalf and is obligated to compensate his attorney reasonably. Therefore, as a consequence of defendants violation of his civil rights, plaintiff is entitled to the payment of his attorney s fees for prosecuting this action. Second Cause of Action CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS ( U.S.C. for damages as to defendants County, Creson, Pedretti, and Floyd 1. Plaintiffs restate and re-allege the foregoing general factual and jurisdictional allegations and incorporate them herein as though fully set forth.. Defendants, and each of them, violated plaintiff s civil rights when defendants, acting under color of a statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the State of California or County of Sacramento, conspired to subject, or cause to be subjected, plaintiff to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States under the First Amendment thereto, namely the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances, when they or their co-conspirators terminated plaintiff s employment with the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO because plaintiff had reported the defendants illegal activities alleged herein, among others, to the Sacramento County Grand Jury, as well as to other COUNTY representatives and law enforcement officials.. As a proximate consequence of defendants violation of plaintiff s civil rights, plaintiff suffered compensatory damages for lost future income in an amount to be proved.. As a proximate consequence of defendants violation of plaintiff s civil rights, plaintiff suffered general damages as a consequence of emotional distress caused by the defendants intentional, malicious, reckless, and oppressive misconduct.. As a proximate consequence of defendants violation of his civil rights, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter the future unlawful conduct of the defendants. Complaint Page Nichols v. County of Sacramento

. Plaintiff has been required to employ the undersigned attorney to bring this action on his behalf and is obligated to compensate his attorney reasonably. Therefore, as a consequence of defendants violation of his civil rights, plaintiff is entitled to the payment of his attorney s fees for prosecuting this action. Third Cause of Action NEGLECT TO PREVENT INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS ( U.S.C. for damages as to all defendants. Plaintiffs restate and re-allege the foregoing general factual and jurisdictional allegations and incorporate them herein as though fully set forth.. Defendants, and each of them, violated plaintiff s civil rights when defendants, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in Section of Title of the United States Code to wit, subjecting plaintiff to the deprivation of his right to petition the government for the redress of grievances were about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglected or refused to do so.. As a proximate consequence of defendants violation of plaintiff s civil rights, plaintiff suffered compensatory damages for lost future income in an amount to be proved. 0. As a proximate consequence of defendants violation of plaintiff s civil rights, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter the future unlawful conduct of the defendants. 1. As a proximate consequence of defendants violation of plaintiff s civil rights, plaintiff suffered general damages as a consequence of emotional distress caused by the defendants malicious, reckless, and oppressive misconduct.. Plaintiff has been required to employ the undersigned attorney to bring this action on his behalf and is obligated to compensate his attorney reasonably. Therefore, as a consequence of defendants violation of his civil rights, plaintiff is entitled to the payment of his attorney s fees for prosecuting this action. // // Complaint Page Nichols v. County of Sacramento

// FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Employment Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Cal. Labor Code sections 0. and 0 for damages as to defendants County, Creson, Pedretti, and Floyd. Plaintiffs restate and re-allege the foregoing general factual and jurisdictional allegations and incorporate them herein as though fully set forth.. The actions of defendants, and each of them, including any defendants whose identities or liability is yet unknown to plaintiff, as set forth above, were taken in retaliation for plaintiff s reporting of illegal and corrupt activities within the Municipal Services Agency for defendant County of Sacramento. The defendants conduct occurred in violation of Labor Code section 0., for which damages are recoverable under Labor Code section 0.. As a proximate result of defendants conduct as described in paragraphs through above, and in violation of Public Policy as set forth in Labor Code Section 0., defendants, and each of them, including unnamed defendants whose identifies or liability has not yet been determined, terminated plaintiff s employment.. As a proximate result of defendants, and each of their conduct, including unnamed defendants not yet identified, plaintiff has suffered harm, including lost earnings, and other employment benefits, humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish all to his damage in an amount to be established at trial (but, in any event, damages that far exceed the legally required amount of $,000.00.. In doing the acts set forth above, defendants, and each of them, including unnamed defendants not yet identified, knew that Labor Code Section 0. protected plaintiff when disclosing illegal and corrupt activities within the County of Sacramento s Building Inspection Division, and that retaliation against plaintiff as a result of these disclosures is unlawful. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants, and each of them, including unnamed defendants whose identities or liability has not yet been determined, subjected plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of plaintiff s rights by terminating his employment. Such conduct Complaint Page Nichols v. County of Sacramento

warrants assessment of punitive damages against all individual defendants currently named, as well as all individual unnamed defendants who have not yet been identified and who may subsequently be added to this suit.. On or about November, 0, plaintiff timely filed a claim against the County of Sacramento alleging the facts as set forth in this complaint. Attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, is a true and correct copy of plaintiff s claim against the County of Sacramento.. On or about December, 0, defendant, County of Sacramento issued a Notice of Rejection of Claim. Attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Rejection of Claim. 0. Plaintiff has been required to employ the undersigned attorney to bring this action on his behalf and is obligated to compensate his attorney reasonably. Therefore, as a consequence of defendants violation of his civil rights, plaintiff is entitled to the payment of his attorney s fees for prosecuting this action. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1. For the proof of his claims, plaintiff demands a jury trial in all his causes of action. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray for this Honorable Court to enter an Order awarding him Judgment in this action and for the following relief: 1. Compensatory damages for lost future income in an amount to be proved at trial;. General damages for emotional distress in an amount to be proved at trial as a consequence of the defendants intentional, reckless, malicious, and oppressive misconduct.. Exemplary damages in an amount in an amount to be proved at trial against all the defendants, who are jointly and severally liable therefore as a consequence of their reckless, malicious, or intentional wrongdoing, and/or because of the violation of important public policies protecting persons from the deprivation of their right to petition the government for the redress of their grievances.. Prejudgment interest in an amount to be proved. Complaint Page Nichols v. County of Sacramento

. Plaintiff s litigation costs.. Reasonable attorney s fees. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: December, 0 THE LAW OFFICES OF FERNANDO F. CHAVEZ, INC. /s/ Anthony J. Palik Anthony J. Palik, Esq. ## Complaint Page Nichols v. County of Sacramento