You are on page 1of 33

t!

M- 1 00
SUMMONS FOR COURT USE ONLY
(SOLO PARA usa DE LA CORTE)
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(A VISO AL DEMANDADO):
City Of Alameda , a chaliered City; " AdditionaJ Parties Att'lchment form
is attached.
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): /I.
vi
David Kapler

NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days.
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 wil not protect you. Your written response must bein 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 (WlV1v. courtinfo. ca. govlselfhelp), your county law libnary. or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the fiing fee. ask
the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file 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 attomey
referral service. If you cannot afford an attomey, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofi legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcafifomla. org), the California Courts Online Self- Help Center
(ww. courtinfo. ca. govlselfhelp). or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
costs on any settement or arbitnation award of $10 000 or more in a civil case. The court' s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
fA VISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias !a corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion
continuaci6n.
Tiene 30 OiAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que Ie entreguen esta citaci6n y papeles lega/ s parapresentar una respuesta pOl' eserito en esta
corte y haeer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta una lIamada telef6nica no 10 protegen. Su respuesta par escrito liene que eslar
en fonnato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
Puede eneontrar estos fonnularios de la corte y mas informacion en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www. sucorte. ca. gov). en
biblioteca de leyes de su condado en la corte que Ie que de mas cerea. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario de la corte
que Ie de un formulario de exenei6n de pago de cuotas. SI no presents su respuesta tlempo , puede perder el casa pOl' incump/imiento y la corte
podro quitar su sueldo. dlnero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay atros requisitas legales. Es recomendable que lIame un ab ogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce un abogado, puede llamaI' un servicio de
remision abogados. Si no puede pagar un abogada , es posible que cumpla con los requisitos pera obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrr estos gl1pos sin fines de lucra en elsilio web de California Legal Services,
(ww.lawhelpcalifornia. org), eneICentradeAyudadelasCortesdeCalifornia (wwv... suGorte. ca. gov) poniendose en contacto con la corte 0 el
colegio de abagados locales. VISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho reclarnar las cuotas y 105 costos exenlos par impolJer un gravamen sabre
cua/quier reeuperacion de $10 000 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.

The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMBER.

(EI nombre y direcci6n de la corte es): Hayward HaJJ of Justice


B1il1 / 0 9 3 3
24405 Amador Street , Hayward , CA 94544

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(EI nombre , la direcci6n el numero de telMono del abogado del demandante del demandante que no tiene abogado . es):
Denise Eaton May, Esq. 15250 Hesperian Blvd. , Suite 200 , San Leandro , CA 94578 510- 888- 1345

DATE: APR 1 4: 2D\1\T SWEETEN


(Fecha) OfRCERlClE'
Ierk
ecretariO)
, by DEB A F JRTADO , Deputy
(Adjunto)
(,,UTIVE
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (fonn POS- 01O).)
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citati6n use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons (POS- 010)).
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
(SEAL)
1. as an individual defendant.
2. as the persoll sued under the fictitious name of (specify)'

3. on behalf of (specify):

under: CCP 416. 10 (corporation) CCP 416. 60 (minor)


CCP 416. 20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416. 70 (conservatee)
CCP 416.40 (association or partership) CCP 416. 90 (authorized person)
other (specify):
4. by personal delivery on (date):
Pogo 1 Qf1
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use SUMMONS Code of Civil ProcedUJe 9 d1Z. , 455
Judicial Council of Califomi" w'.vw.COurtir1fo.ca. gov
SUM. 100 (Rev. July 1 2009)
"'"

SUM- 200(A)
SHORT TITLE
Dave KapJer v. City of Alameda , Lena Tam , et ai , Does 1-

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE


-t This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons.
.. If this attachment is used , insert the following statement in the plaintjff or defendant box on the summons: " Additional Parties
Attachment form is attached.

List additional parties (Check only one box. Use separate page for each type of part.):

Plaintiff Defendant D Cross- Complainant D Cross- Defendant


CITY OF ALAMEDA, a chartered City; LENA TAM , a member of the COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA , individually and as a public officer; DEBRA KURITA individuaJly and in her official capacity;
ANN MARIE GALLANT, individual1y and in her offcial capacity,

DOES 1 50
Defendants.

Page
Page 1 of 1
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
Judicial Council of Califoria
ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT
SUM. 200(A) fRev . January " 2D07j Attchment to Summons
CM-10
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WlTHQU A 1),.Iii; (N""b Ste Ba numbr, andadress): 'm FO CO USE ONY
Dense Eaton May. Hsq. BN 116700)
Attorney at Law
15250 Hespert Blvd. , Suite 200 0CfE
San Leadro , CA 94578 FiLE))
TELEPHONE NO 510- 888- 1345 FAX NO. 510- 315- 3015
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): David Ka ler
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA , COUNT OF Alameda
1 4e 20'1
STREET ADESS 24405 Amador Street
MALING ADDRESS:
CITY AND ZJP COE Hayward , 94544
BRANCH NAE' Ha ard Hall of Justice
CASE NAME:
David Kapler v. City of Alaeda Lena Tam , et al, Does 1-
. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET --D
(Amount (Arnount Counter Joinder
Unlimited Limited
Complex Case Designation
ENU
I;;
I'r
! \1 \! (1

demanded demanded is Filed wih firs appearance by defendant


000) $25 000 or less) (CaL Rules of Court, rule 3.402)
JUDGE:

DEPT
exceds $25
Items 1-t below must be comptted (se inslctons on page 2).
1. Che one box below for th debe this cae:
Auto
Auo Tort
(22)
cae type tht bet
Contract
Brech of amtractwarTant (06)
Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
(CaL Rule of Court rule 3.43.4)
Anti5trade regulation (03)

(04)
Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3. 740 collectons (09)
Oter collections (09) Constructon defect (10)
Tort D
Other PlIPDIW (Personallnjury/Propert
Damagerongfl De)
Asos
Prud f!3fity (24)
Medical malpractice (45)
Oter PUPDfW (23)
Real Propert
Eminent dDmainllnvers
Insance covege (18)
Oter contnct (37)

condemnation (14)
Mass tort (40)
Secues lrogation (28)
Envromentlff oxic tort (30)
Insunance coverage daims arising from the
abo lisled provisionally complex case
NonllDlWfOtTort D Wrongful evicton (33)
Other real propert (26)
tys (41)
Enforcment of Judgment
Cil rihts (08) Unlal
Business torUunfair business practice (07)

Defamation (13)
Detainer
Commercial (31)
Enfocement of judgment (20)
Misllaneous Civil Complaint
Fraud (16) Residential (32) RICO (27)
Intellectual propert (19)
Ast fo
Profeional negligence (25) Drgs (38)
Judicial Reew
Otr complaint
Miscellaneous Civ! Petion
(not spcied above) (42)

Employment (36) D D
Otr non- PIIPDNV

Wrongl terminatioo
turt (35) (05)
Petion re: arbtntion award (11)

Wrt of mandate (02)


Partnership and corponate governance (21)
Otr petition (not sped above) (43)
emloent (15) D re
2. This case is
Oter Ottr jud03! (39)
is not cornplex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is cornplex , rnari the
factors reuiring exceptional judicial rnanagement
a. Large numbr of separately repreented part d. Large nurnber of witnes
b. Extensive rnotion practice raising diffcult or novel e. Coordination wih related actions pending in one or more courts
ises that will be tinsming to resolve inotr counties, stes , or countr , or in a federal court
c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. Substntial postjudgment judicial supervision

3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): L2 monetary b. GJ nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. GJ punitive
4. Number of (speci):
causes of acton

5. This ca D is GJ is not a cl acton suit


6. If thene are any known related cases , file and serve a notice of nelated case. (You may use form CM-015.)
Date: April 8, 2011
Denise Eaton May, Esq. t5d -1:7)4-/.1'
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE a= PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PAB)

NOTICE
. Plaintiff must file this cover sheet wi
the firs paper filed in the acton or proing
(except smll claims or cases filed ca
under the Probate Code , Family Code, orWelfane ancllnstiutons Code). (Cal. Rules of Court rule 3220. ) Failure to fie may result
in sandions

Us
. File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet reuired by local court rule.
. If this cais coplx
under rule 3. 400 et se. of th Califoria Rule of Court you must serv a copy of this cover sheet on all
other partes to the acton or proceding.
. Unless this is a collections case under rule 3. 740 or a complex case, this cover sheet win be used for statistical purposes onlv

Judicil
Fon Ma Condl of Calimi.
for

CM-10 fRev- July 1 20071


CML CASE COVER SHEET
,sage 1 of 2
CaL Ru,, of
Cal
Co rues 2. 3220. 3 4034C3. 3740
Stara of Jud,,,1 Adm , st. 3.
,qJlmunmfon. gtv
CM-010
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET
To Plainti and Oters Filng Firs Papers. If you are filing a firs paper (for example , a complaint) in a civil case , you must
complete and file, alon wit your first paper , th Cil Case Cover Sheet containe on page 1. This infonmtin will be used to compile
statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must cornplete itms 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1 , you rnust check
one box for the case
ch ty
that bet decrbe th case. If the case fi both a generl and a more spec ty of case listed in item 1
the more spcific one. If the case ha mulle caus of acton chec th bo tht bet indicate the cause of acton. priry
To ast you in comping th sht, exaple of th case that belog und eac ca
type in item 1 are prvide below. A cover
sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet wi the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a part,
its counsel , or both to sanctons under rules 2. 30 and 3. 220 of the Califrnia Rule of Court.
To Part in Rule 3.740 Collection Case. A " colfeons case " under rule 3. 740 is defined as an acton for recovery of rnoney
ow in a sum stte
to be certin tht is not mor than $25 00. excliv of intere and attrny's fe , ariing frm a trnsactn in
which property, selVices , or rnoney was acquired on credilA collectons case doe not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort
damages , (2) punitve damaes , (3) recovery of rel prort, (4) revery of persnal propert, or (5) a prejudgment wrt of
attachment The identcation of a case as a rule 3. 740 collections case on this form means that it win be exempt frrn the general
time-for-service requirements and case managemen rules , unles a defendant file a responsive pleading. A rule 3. 740 collections
case wil be subject to the requireents for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 740.
To Partes in Complex Cases. In complex case only, partes must also use the eM! Case Cover Sheet to desgnate whether the
case is complex. If a plaintiff beieve the ca
is coplx under rule 30400 of th
California Rule of Court this must be indicated by
cornpleting the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex , the cover sheet rnust be selVed with the
complaint on all partes to the acton. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of it first appearance a joinder in the

is complex.
plaints designation , a counter-desgnation that the case is not rop!x , or , if
the
Auto ca
Tort CASE TYES AND EXMPLES
th
plaintff has mae no designation , a desgnation that

Aut (22f-ersna! InjurylProp


Death Contrct
Breach of Contractarrant (06)
Provisionally Complex Civil Litgaton (CaL
Rule of Cort Rule 3. 40.403)

itm
Antrade Regutation (03)

Au)
Bream of Rentaillease
DamageJngfl
Uninur Moort (46) (ifthe Cotrct (not unta
Or wrongful eVictIOn)
detaner Cons Defect (10)
Claims Involving Mass Tort (40)
case invOlves an uninsured
Con1actTTnty Breller Secu

TortDeath)
Ligation (28)

arbitrti
instea of
ch
motorisl daim subjef to
this Plain (not frud Dr
Neligent Bracn of Contact
negligence) Envronmematr oxc Tort (30)
Illsuce Cover
Warranty (arising frm provisionally complex
Other PlfPDIW (Personallnjuryf
Otr Breach of Cotrctrrnty (41)
Propert Damage!ngfl case
Enforcnt of Judgmt
typ listed above)
Col!eons (e. g.. mony owed. open
Asbestos (04)
Damage book accunts) (09)
Collen Caseli Plati
Enforcment of Judgment (20)
Abs
IIngl
asbs Deth
Asbetos Property of Jugmet (Out of
County)
Asestos Personallnjuryl Other PromIssory Note/Collectons
Case Confeion of Judgment (non-
Prouct liabilit (not or
Insunce Covge (not provisionally doesc reations)
(24)
coplex) (18) . Sisr State Judgment

Malpractce
toxic/envirometal)
Medical Malpractice (45) Auto Subrogation Administrative Agency Award
Medical Otr Coverage (not unpaid taxes)

(23)
PhysGians & Surgeons Petition/Cecation of Entr of

MalpractceEmt
Oter Contrct (37)
Judgment on Unpaid Taxes
Other Profeional Helth Care Contractl Fraud
Oter Enment of Judgmnt
OterContct Dispute

and g., siip Rel Propert Case


Otr PIIDIW
Pris faU) liabilit (e. DomainInvers Miscellaeous Civl Complaint

Ditr
Condemnaton (14) RICO (27)
!nteonal Bodily
(e. , assault
!njulPDIW
, vandalism) Wr
Oter Real Propert (e.
Ev;ctoo (33)
g., quiet tie) (26)
Otr Coain
above) (42)
(not specied

Declaratory Relief Only


Intentiooai iniicton of Wr of Posson of Reai Propert Injunct Relief Only (non-
Emotinal Mortage Foreosure harassment)
Negligent IntJctkm of QUit Tit Mectnics lin
Emotional Distress Other Real Propert (not eminent Oter Commercil Complaint
Otr PIIPDIW domain , landlorenant Case (non-toon-complex)
Non-POI (Oter) Tort
Bwne Torair Busines
Practce (07)
foreclosre)
Unlal Detainer Other Civl Complaint
(nonctoorlex)

(13)
CommerGial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Petion
Civil Rights (e. g.,
false arr)
dismination
(no dvii
Resential (32)
Drgs (38) (if the ca invoves illeal
Parthi and Corporate
Governnce (21)
check this item; otherwse,
harassnt)
, slr
(08) drugs, (not

(19) Resal) Oter Petiton


Defamti (e. , tihe) mprt as Commeal or above) (43)

Fraud (16)
(25)
Judicil Review Civil Harassent
Ast Forture (05) Worlace Violnce
Inteleual Prope Petion Re: Artin Award (11) EldrlDpendnt Adult
Profnal Neen v. of Mande (02)
legal Malpnactice Writ-Administrtive Mandamus
Othr Professional Malpnactce WIt-andamus on Limit Court
Abe
Election Contest
Petion for Name Change
(not mooical Case Malter
or legal) Petion for Relief From late
Other Non- PIIPDIW Tort (35) Wri!-Oher Limite Court Case Claim
EmplvJ...eht Review Other Civl Petition
Wrongfl Termination (36)
Otr Employment (15)OtRevi
Juical Revi (39)
of Helt Ofr Orr
Notice of Appeal-abor
Commision Apals
CM-OlO fRev. July 1 . 2007) Pogo 2of2
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
DENISE EATON- lVlr\Y , Esq. , State Bar No. 116780
Law Offices of Denise Eaton Mal'
15250 Hespel'ian Blvd. Suite 200
San Leandro , CA 94578

Telephone: (510) 888- 1345


Facsimile: (510) 315- 3015 i J.
2. t.\ '/ 1).
(,:.Ji

Attorney for Claimant , David Kapler

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA


COUNTY OF ALAJvIEDA

DA V1D Ki-\PLER, Case No. j! iG 11 5 '1 0 33


Plaintiff COMPLAINT FOR DA.l\1..\GES:
Breach of Contract , Express and Implied;
CITY OF ALAIVIEDA a chartered Intentional Interference with Economic
City; LENA TAM , a lember of the Relationship; Breach of Covenant of Good
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Faith and Fair Dealing; Wrongful
ALl\lvlEDA. individuallv and as Termination in Violation of Public Policy;
public offic r; DEBRA I(URITA Constructive Discharge; Defamation;
individuallv and in her official
capacity; ANN lVLA.RIE GALLANT Violation of Government Code Section
individually and in her offcial 3250 , et seq (Firefighter s Bil of Rights);
capacity, Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress; and
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
DOES 1 - 50.
DElVLA.ND FOR JURY TRlb-L
Defendants.

kJ.J
Plaintiff DAVID KAPLER ("E.APLER" or " plaintiff' ), allege:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. Defendant CITY OF ALAIEDA ("CITY" or " defendant ) is and at all times

herein mentioned is a city government , formed as a " Charter City " in the State of
California, County of Alameda.

Kapler.: Complaint For Damages


2. Defendant CITY was the employer of KAPLER for all times mentlOn in this
complaint until his constructive and wrongful termination from employment
with the CITY on 01 about November 5 2010.

3. The COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALA1'\1EDA ("COUNCIL" ), is and at all times


mentioned in this complaint was , the governing and decision making body of the
CITY \vith the power to make all decisions relevant to this complaint.

4. Defendant LENA TAJ\JI ("TAJVI" ), is , and at all times mentioned in this complaint
was a member of the COUNCIL of the CITY. As a Council Member TAM
performed her duties as an individual and as an agent for the CITY.

5. Defendant DEBRA KURITA ("KURITA" ), is , and at all times mentioned in this


complaint , the former City Manager for the CITY. As City Manager KURITA
performed her duties as an individual and as an employee and agent ofthe CITY.

6. Defendant ANN l'Li\RIE GALhi\NT ("GALLANT" ), is , and at all times mentioned


complaint was Interim City Manager for the CITY. As Interim City
in this

Manager for the CITY. GALLi\NT performed her duties as an individual and as
an employee and agent of the CITY.

7. KAPLER was at all times mentioned in this complaint , a resident of the City of
Alameda, County of Alameda . California.

8. Unless otherwise alleged in this complaint , Ki\. PLER is informed and believes
and on the basis of that information and belief alleges , that at all times
mentioned m this complaint , defendants were the agents and employees of their
codefendants , and in doing the things alleged in this complaint , were acting

within the course and scope of that agency and employment.

Kapler Complaint For Damages


').,
') ')

9. Plainti1f does not know the true names of defendants DOES 1 through 50

inclusive , and therefore sues them by those fictitious names Plaintiff is


informed and believes that DOE defendants are California residents.

10. On October 1 , 2007. plaimiff \vas employed by defendant employer , CITY , as Fire
Chief. As such, plaintiff was empowered with all of the duties , rights and

privileges of a CITY Fire Chief. The Plaintiff was specifically included in the
provisions of Government Code sections 3250 , et seq., more commonly known
the " Firefighters ' Bil of Rights " or " FFBOR"

11. As the CITY's Fire Chief, Plaintiff engaged in negotiations with the CITYs
Firefighter bargaining unit , IAFF Local No. 689 , pursuant to the " Meyers- Milias
Brown Act" or " MMBA" , Government Code sections 3500 , et seq.

12. On August 17 , 2007 , defendant KURITA , drafted or caused to be drafted a letter


14
to plaintiff offering him employment as the CITY'S Fire Chief. The letter defines
the terms of the employment.

13. Plaintiff bved in the state of Minnesota at the time he received the August 17
2007 let.ter with t.he offer of employment.. Based on the offer and its terms , the
Plaintiff moved his possessions to California in late September 2007 at great. I
expense.

14. Prior to the move , KURITA and plaintiff met and discussed the terms of the
plaintiffs employment with the CITY. In addition to the terms of the August 17
,"J
2007 offer of employment. to plaintiff, KURITA agreed to additional terms that
Rhe did not memorialize in writing.

15. KURITA agreed , in lieu of Plaintiffs use of a CITY Vehicle , and as part of his
compensation package , Ki\LER woulcl use his personal vehicle on CITY

Kapler Complaint For Damages


..,)
')"",
-'''
")

business related to his duties. In exchange , KURITA agreed that Plaintiff could
fuel KA.PLER' s personal vehicle with gasoline from CITY o'\vned fire stations.

Hi. KURITA did not specifically define any limits on the use of gasoline , verbally or
in writing with Plaintiff The use of gasoline was not restricted to one particular
personal vehicle; but , instead , applied to any personal vehicle Plaintiff used on
CITY business.

17. A term of the agreement between Plaintiff, KURITA, and the CITY Vi'S that
Plaintiff would accrue post retirement medical benefits upon the completion of

three years , or effective October 1 , 2010, if he remained employed through that


date.

18. From the commencement of Plaintiffs employment , his performance was

exemplary. Plaintiff performed the duties of his position according to the terms
of his agreement with the CITY , and according to the rules , policies and

procedures enacted by the CITY.

H3. Plaintiffs duties, as Fire Chief included but were not limited to the oversight of
the Fire Department budget. Additionally, the Fire Chief participated in
negotiations with the bargaining units employed with the City Fire Department.
Specifically, pursuant to the " Meyers- Milias Brown Act" ("MMBA" ), Government
Code section 3500 , et seq. , the Plaintiff participated in bargaining with IAFF
Local No. 689.

20. In 2008 and continuing into 2009 , the CITY began to expenence considerable
budget problems. As a result , Plaintiff was required to make budgetary cuts that
were not popular with the CITY' S firefighter union , IAFF Local No. 689.
Consequently, various individuals , whose identity is not presently known to the
Plaintiff, began to take retaliatory action against the Plaintiff.

Kapler Complaint Far Damages


21. Defendants CITY , TAM , and GALLANT were aware of the conspiratorial and
retaliatory actions against. KA.LER by members of the firefight.er union and
others prior to August 2010.

22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based on that information alleges that
defendant. LENA TAM ("Tam ), conspired with members ofthe firefighter s union
to wrongfully remove Plaintiff. In addition , TAM: attempted to coerce GALLJ\NT
and others to terminate Plaintiff without good cause in interference with the
agreement between CITY and Plaintiff, as well as in violation of the CITY'S
Charter and personnel policies.

23. Plaintiff is informed and believes that his termination from the position of Fire
Chief was politically motivated and conspired by the unlawful collusion between
TAM and IAFF local 669 members , and was in retaliation for his refusal to

succumb to TAM and the IAFF unlm.vful demands to disregard his


responsibilities and duties as Fire Chief to make decisions concerning the dire
financial straits of the CITY

24. Plaintiff is informed and believes that TA.lVI regularly communicated confidential
information Plaintiff and others discussed in closed session regarding proposed
budget cuts to impacting IAFF 689 member , in violation of Brown Act which
motivated the union to pressure the council to find a reason to get rid of Plaintiff
at any cost.

25. Plaintiff is informed and believe that CITY's purported reason for terminating
his employment , including the subsequent biased inadequate investigation is
pretext , and that the decision to terminate his employment was guided by TAM
and the COUNCIL' s ilegal eollusion with IAFF and political interference vvith
personnel matters in order to further their re-election. Plaintiff is informed and
believe that Li\FF contributed to T.t\lvl's campaign and TAM in return blew the

Kapler. Complaint For Damages


lssue of gas out of proportion so that it could be used as a basis to get rid of
plaintiff and pushed the COUNCIL via threats and intimidation to terminate

Plaintiff.

26. On or about August 18 , 2010 , several n6\'\' s articles , generally circulated in the
City of Alameda , the San Francisco Bay Area , state wide and nationally, were
printed about the Plaintiff. Serious false and defamatory allegations were

published that the Plaintiff used CITY gasoline in his personal vehicle without
Defendants ' permission or authorization.

27. On or about August 18 , 2010 , Plaintiffs photograph was printed in newspapers

of general circulation , without the Plaintiffs permission. The photographs were

taken and/or obtained by and published by employees , agents , offcials , or

assigns of defendant CITY.

28. On or about August 18 , 2010, the general public was made aware of the
photograph and allegations putting the Plaintiff in a false light to his community
and peers in his profession.

29. On or about August 18 , 2010 , and thereafter , CITY officials , employees , agents
and assigns, failed to notify the public that Plaintiff used the gasoline and filled
his personal vehicle by agreement of CITY officials , KURITA and

30. On or about mid- September 2010 , CITY , its officials , employees , agents and

assigns conducted or caused to be conductecl an investigation of the allegations


'7 ..
improper by Plaintiff of CITY owned gasoline. The investigation was biased in
its conduct and result. Although the investigation found that there was an
agreement between KURITA and Plaintiff authorizing the use of CITY gas for
Plaintiffs peTsonal vehicle; nevertheless, the CITY , its offcials , employees,

agents and assigns decided to terminate Plaintiff for this purported reaS011.

Kapler Complaint For Damages


31. On September 17 , 2010 , GALLANT , who was aware of the terms and conditions
of Plaintiffs employment agreement, notified Plaintiff that the CITY had

determined it would terminate Plaintiffs employment effective September 24


2010, one week before his insurance benefit vested pursuant to the agreement
hire. The CITY did not terminate the Plaintiff on September 17 , 2010; but. CITY
did not withdl'avv its letter of intent to terminate the Plaintiff effective
September 24 , 2010. The CITY c.ontinued its efforts to terminate the Plaintiff

and subsequently decided to terminate Plaintiff at its October 31 , 2010 Board


meeting, contrary to the recommendation of staff.

32. On November 5, 2010 , plaintiff was forced to submit a letter of resignation in


lieu of termination. Defendants had determined it would terminate the claimant
at the time he submitted the letter of resignation. The letter of resignation was
an attempt to preserve the Plaintiffs over 40 year exemplary employment record.
The Plaintiff did not have any choice in the separation from employment.

33. At the time of the termination the Plaintiffs annual salary was greater than
$195 000. 00.

34. Plaintiff ha. 8 at all times duly performed all the conditions of the employment I

agreement between he and the CITY until prevented from doing so by

Defendants. At all times relevant to this complaint , Plaintiff has been ready,
willing and able to perform his job. Additionally, the Plaintiff has not violated
any terms of employment contained in CITY policies, procedures and practices.

35. Pursuant to Government Code section 900 , et seq. , on January 7 , 2011 , the i
Plaintiff filed a Government Tort Claim ' with the appropriate authority for the
CITY. On February 17, 2011, the City rejected the timely filed claim Thus , tlllS
action is timely filed and is in compliance with Government Code section 945.
28 i

Kapler Complaint For" Damages


36. As a Fire Chief employed by a California public entity, Plaintiff is entitled to the
protections of the " Firefighter s Bil of Rights , California Government Code

section 3500 , et seq.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF CONTRACT

(Against Defendant CITY , KURITA , and GALLANT)

37. Plaintiff incorporates into this cause of action by reference Paragraphs 1 through
34 herein as though each were fully set forth in this cause of action.

38. Plaintiff was employed with defendant CITY by a contract of hire entered into
bet\veen he and the CITY , through its employee and agent KURITA. The terms
of the contract relied on by Plaintiff include but are not limited to:
A. Written personnel policies , enacted and implemented by the CITY

including but not limited to provisions of the CITY Civil Service


Ordinance , the CITY Charter , provisions ofthe applicable Memoranda of

Understanding, compensation planes) covering the position of Fire Chief

and applicable to Plaintiff which provide that employees shall be

disciplined for cause:

B. The terms of the written offer of employment to Plaintiff by the CITY

7'" through its agent KURITA, which terms include , explicitly or implicitly, a

promise not to terminate the claimant as long as he performs under the

terms, conditions and requirements of this position.

C, Specifically, KURITA offered the claimant a position as Fire Chief, with a

Kapler Complaint For Damages


') ..

rate of pay at Step 5 of the then ClUTent salary scale. Additionally,


KURITA agreed that as part of the Plaintiff's compensation, and in lieu of

car allowance as described in the " City of Alameda Executive

Management Compensation Plan , that Plaintiff could fill his vehicle,


used on CITY business, ,,\rith gasoline from a CITY owned fuel station

during the term of his employment.

D. Additionally, KURITA offered the claimant post retirement Health and


Welfare benefits pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between

the City of Alameda and Alameda Fire :Management Association. Such


benefit included lifetime , post retirement medical benefits 3S long as the

claimant remained employed with the CITY for at least three years , or to

October I , 2010.

39. Defendant CITY bTcached its contract with plaintiff by:

A. Failing to treat plaintiff in accordance \vith defendant s stated policies;

B. Initiating an action to terminate plaintiff in breach of the implied and


explicit promises made to him;
C. Initiating an action to terminate plaintiff in breach of its policies and
practices;
D. Initiating an action to terminate plaintiff despite the agreements between
plaintiff and KURITA; and

E. Refusing to provide the plaintiff the specific benefit of his negotiation with
KURITA and CITY. post retirement health and welfare benefits , despite
the fact plaintiff was employed the requisite three years.

Kapler. Complaint For Damages


40. Defendant employer has refused and continues to refuse to allow plaintiff the
benefits of his employment contract or to perform under the contract in the

agreed upon manner.

41. As a direct , foreseeable , and proximate result of defendant employer s breach,

plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings , and
job benefits , the precise amount of which wil be proven at trial.

42. As a further direct and proximate result of defendants ' unlawful conduct
plaintiff has suffered extreme and severe anguish , humiliation , emotional
distress , nervousness , tension , anxiety, and depression , the extent of which is not
fully known at this time , and the amount of damages caused by defendants
conduct is not yet fully ascertained but in an amount the precise amount to be
proven at the time of trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH


ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP

(Against defendants COUNCIL , KURITA , TAM in her official and individual


capacities)

43. Plaintiffs incorporate into this cause of action by reference Paragraphs 1 through
40 herein as though each were fully set forth in this cause of action.

44. Defendants KURITA and T bJ1 knew of the contractual express or implied
relationship between plaintiff and CITY. KURITA negotiated and entered into
the contractual relationship with Plaintiff on behalf of the CITY. TAM was
aware of the relationship as a COUNCIL member and based on her knowledge of
26 the 'working relationships of the CITY and KAPLER.

45. In or about early 2010 , TM1 began attempts to interfere with the economic
relationship between plaintiff and CITY when she attempt.ed to direct others to
Kapler Complaint For Damages
')

terminate I\.. PLER' s employment without sufficient cause or justification , and in


violation of his contract of hire with the CITY, said contract entered into with
KURITA.

46. In or about September 2010 , GALL.4.NT cooperated \:"ith TAuvI in the interference

with KAPLER' S contractual relationship \vith the CITY when , with full
knowledge of that relationship, each assisted TAJ1 in her efforts by assisting
with Ki PLER) S wrongful termination described herein above.

47. As a result of defendants ' unlawful conduct plaintiff has suffered general
damages in an amount in excess of $2 000 000.

48. As a further proximate result of defendants ' unlawful conduct , plaintiff suffered
the following special damages: a loss of salary and attendant benefits; a loss of
title and attendant benefits in the plaintiffs profession; all to plaintiffs injury in
an amount in excess of $2 000 000.

49. Defendants ' conduct arose from il-\vil toward plaintiff and a desire to oppress
plaintiff and with the wrongful intention of injuring plaintiff. The conduct was
taken with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice and in conscious
disregard of plaintiffs rights and abilities. Because the actions taken toward
plaint.iffwere carried out in a cold , deliberate, callous and intentional manner in
order to injure and damage plaintiff, plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive
damages from defendants in an amount according to proof and in and amount
appropriate to punish and make an example of defendant.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH


AND FA1R DEALING

(Against defendant CITY , and defendants, TAM, KURITA, GALLANT , in both


their individual and official capacities)

Kapler Complaint For Damages


50. Plaintiff incorporates into this cause of action by reference Paragraphs 1 through
47 herein as though eacb were fully set forth in this cause of action.

5 L As a result of the employment relationship which existed between plaintiff and


CITY , the expressed and implied promises made in connection with that
relationship, and the acts , conduct , and communications resulting in these
implied promises , defendant employer , CITY , promised to act in good faith
toward and deal fairly "'lith plaintiff which requires , among other things , that:

A Each party in the relationship must act with good faith toward the other
concerning all matters related to the employment;

B. Each party in the relationship must act with fairness toward the other
concerning all matters related to the employment;

C. Neither party would take any action to unfairly prevent the other from
obtaining the benefits of the employment relationship:

D. Defendant employer would similarly treat employees who are similarly


situated;

E. Defendant employer would comply with its own representations , rules


policies , and procedures in dealing with plaintiff;

F. Defendant employer would not terminate plaintiff without a fair and


honest cause , regulated by good faith on defendant employer s part;

G. Defendant employer would not terminate plaintiff in an unfair manner;


and

H. Defendant employer vi'uld give plaintiffs interests as much


consideration as it gave its own interests.

Kapler Complaint For Damages


52. Defendant employer s notice of termination , and subsequent , constructive
termination of plaintiff was wrongful , in bad faith, and unfair , and therefore a
violation of defendant employer s legal duties. Plaintiff alleges that defendant
employer breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it:

A. Refused to abide by its own policies when dealing with plaintiff;

B. Denied the existence of the contract between KURITA and plaintiff, and
between CITY and plaintiff;

Unfairly prevented the plaintiff from obtaining the benefits of his


employment relationship;

D. Terminated plaintiffs employment for false reasons and in a manner that


was inconsistent with defendant employer s stated policies and practices.

53. Defendant employer s breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing was a
substantial factor in causing damage and injury to plaintiff. As a direct and
proximate result of defendant employer s unlawful conduct alleged in this
complaint , plaintiff has lost substantial employment benefits with defendant
employer , including the damage to his reputation , lost wages , and other
employee fringe benefits in the amount in excess of $2 000 000 , the precise
amount of \v hich will be proven at trial.

54. As a further direct and proximate result of defendant employer s \-vrongful

conduct , plaintiff has suffered extreme anguish , humiliation, emotional distress


the extent of which is not fully known at this time , but the amount of damages,
the precise amount of which \vil be proven at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF AC'I' ION - WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION


OF PUBLIC POLICY

Kapler. Complaint For Damages


(Against Defendants - CITY , and against defendants TAM, KURITA,
GALLANT , in hoth their individual and official capacities)

55. Plaintiffs incorporate into this cm.lse of action by reference Paragraphs 1 through
. 52 herein as though each were fully set forth in this cause of action.

56. At a11 times mentioned , Plaintiff was an employee of the CITY performing his

duties in an exemplary manner. Plaintiff was fully qualified for the position of

CITY Fire Chief.

57. CITY terminated Plaintiff in violation of its agreement with the Plaintiff
implicit and direct. Additionally, CITY terminated the claimant in violation of
public policy, contained in the lVlVBA.

1'1
. .J 58. The reasons proffered by DEFENDA.NT employer , CITY , for terminating the
Plaintiff were pretext because the CITY and the PlaintifI agreed to the terms of
the Plaintiff s use of gasoline at the time it entered into the contract of hire.

59. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon that information and belief
alleges that DEFENDANTS terminated the Plaintiff because of Plaintiffs
performance of his duties in facilitating negotiations with the CITY Firefighter
union and in violation of the public policy implicit and/or direct in the MMBA.

Plaintiff also believes the CITY , TAM and others conspired to terminate the

Plaintiff with the intent to harm his interest in the benefits that would accrue on
his third year anniversary, October 1 , 2010 , pursuant to the agreement of hire.

60. The constructive and wrongful termination of plaintiff was in violation of public

policy delineated by reference in the Meyers- Milias Brown Act , at Government


Code section 3500 , et seq. Plamtiff alleges that his termination was wrongful
because it was the result of retaliatioll for the exemplary performance of his duty
to the CITY in labor negotiations with the firefighters ' union IAF local G89.

Kapler Complaint For Damages


61. Plaintiff further alleges that as a direct , foreseeable , and proximate result of
defendant employer s wrongful termination of plaintiff in violation of the public
policy of the State of California, plaintiff has lost and will continue to lose income
and benefits. and has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation
embarrassment , mental and emotional distress , and discomfort all to plaintiffs
damage in an amount in excess of $2 000 000 , the precise amount of which wil
be proven at trial.

62. Because the acts taken toward plaintiff were carried out by managerial

employees acting in a deliberate , cold , callous , malicious , oppressive , fraudulent


and intentional manner in order to injure and damage plaintiff, plaintiff requests
the assessment of punitive damages against individual defendants in an amount
appropriate to punish and make an example of defendants.

63. As a direct , foreseeable , and proximate result of DEFENDANTS' wrongful acts


Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings , job
benefits , and reputation , and has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation
embarrassment , mental and emotional distress , and discomfort , all to plaintiffs
damage in an amount in excess of $2 000 000 , the precise amount of which will
be proven at trial.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE

(Against Defendant CITY , and individual defendants TAM , KURITA, and


GALLANT, in both their individual and official capacities)

64. Plaintiff incorporates into this cause of action by reference Paragraphs 1 through
61 herein as though each were fully set forth in this cause of action.

Kapler Complaint For Damages


65. At all times mentioned herein the CITY agreed , implicitly or directly, that the
Plaintiff would remain employed as long as he satisfactorily perrormed his
services to the CITY.

66. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based on that imormation alleges that
beginning before August 18 , 2010 , and thereafter , the DEFENDANTS , its

employees , agents, 01' assigns, conspired to create facts to justify the premature
termination of Plaintiff Toward that end the DEFENDANTS acquiesced to the
publication or false information about the Plaintiff, and the terms and conditions
of his employment , in public forums and news reports of general circulation.
Thereafter, the DEFENDANTS relied on the raIse inrormation to terminate

Plaintiffs services. On September 17 , 2010 , DEFEND !\TS notified the Plaintiff

of its intent to \vrongfully terminate the Plaintiff from employment.

67. The wrongful actions of CITY and DEFENDANTS either intentionally created or
knowingly permitted intolerable and unusually aggravating working conditions
for Plaintiff

68. Plaintiff notified CITY and DEFENDANTS of the intolerable working conditions
created by the conspiracy to ruin Plaintiffs reputation. CITY and
DEFENDANTS insisted on continuing with the wrongful acts , including but not
limited to, the defamatory publications and refusal to abide by the agreement(s)
of hire , and its own policies and practices. Thus , Plaintiff was compelled to
resign in light of the CITY and DEFENDANTS treatment of Plaintiff

24. 69. As a result of the wrongful acts of DEFENDANTS , Plaintiff was wrongfully
forced to submit his resignation on November 5 , 2010 in an attempt to mitigate
the damage to his reputation after over 40 years of employment.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION - INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL


DISTRESS
Kapler. Complaint For Damages
(Against individual defendants TAM , KURITA , GALLANT, in both their
individual and official capacities)

70. Plaintiffs incorporatE; into this cause of action by reference Paragraphs 1 through
f;7 herein as though each were fully set forth in this cause of action.

71. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based on that information alleges that
all times mentioned herein , DEFENDANTS conduct was intentional and
malicious and done for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to suffer humiliation
mental anguish , and emotional and physical distress.

72. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS' acts and/or omissions to act , as


hereinabove alleged , Plaintiff suffered severe humiliation , mental anguish , and
emotional and physical clstress , and has been injured in mind and body.
Additionally, Plaintiff has suffered lost wages , medical and related benefits , and
incurred considerable expense.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL


DISTRESS

(Against defendants CITY, TAM , KURITA , and GALLANT)

73. Plaintiffs incorporate into this cause of action by reference Paragraphs 1 through
70 herein as though each were fully set forth in this cause of action.

74. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based on that information alleges that
aU times mentioned herein . DEFENDANTS knew , or should have knovvn , that
their failure to exercise due care in the performance of the terms of its
agTeement(s) with Plaintiff would cause plaintiff severe emotional distress.

Kapler. Complaint For Damages


75. As a proximate result ofDEFENDAcl\TS' acts and omissions to act as described
hereinabove Plaintiff has suffered humiliation , mental anguish , and emotional
and physical distress.

76. As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS' acts and omissions to act as


described hereinabove and the consequences proximately caused by it , as
hereinabove alleged , plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress and mental
suffering, to amount subject to proof at trial. Additionally, Plaintiff has suffered
lost. wages, medical and related benefits , and incurred considerable expense.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION - DEFAMATION

(Against defendants CITY and individual defendants KURITA and TAM in


both their individual and official capacities)

77. Plaintiffs incorporate into this cause of action by reference Paragraphs 1 through
74 herein as though each were fully set forth in this cause of action.

78. Defendants and its agents falsely accused plaintiff of using CITY gas for
personal use without. authorization.

79. Plaintiff is informed and believes and , based on that information and belief
alleges , that defendant and its agent.s published their words or belief that
plaintiff had , without authorization , used CITY gas in his personal vehicles and
for personal use. The statements were made orally and published in several
newspapers of general circulation.

80. Defendants, and its agents , kne\v the statements were false because plaintiff was
granted authorization to use CITY gas in his personal vehicle as part of his
contract of hire \vith KURITA. Nevertheless , defendants failed to counter the
defamatory publications against plaintiff, knowing them to be false. The

Kapler. ComplaiTIt For Damages


').. ,.

defendants acted intentionally, and with malice towards plaintiff in the initial
publication and in acquiescing to the defamatory statements.

81. As a result of defendants ' unlawful conduct plaintiff has suffered general
damages to his reputation in an amount in excess of $2 000 000.

82. As a further proximate result of defendants ' unlawful conduct , plaintiff suffered
the rollowing special damages: a loss or salary and attendant benefits; a loss of
title and attendant benefits in the plaintiffs profession: an to plaintiffs injury in

an amount in excess of $2 000 000.

83. Defendants ' conduct arose from ill-wil toward plaintiff and a desire to oppress
plaintiff and with the vvrongful intention of injuring plaintiff. The conduct was
taken with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice and in conscious
13
disregard of plaintiffs rights and abilities. Because the actions taken toward
plaintiff were carried out in a cold , deliberate , callous and intentional manner in
order to injure and damage plaintiff, plaintif is entitled to recover punitive
damages from defendants in an amount according to proof and in and amount
appropriate to punish and make an example of derendant.
18
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF FIREFIGHTERS BILL OF
RIGHTS

(Against defendant CITY)

84. Plaintiffs incorporate into this cause of action by reference Paragraphs 1 through
81 herein as though each were fully set forth in this cause or action.

85. Plaintiffs employment with the CITY was protected under California
Government Code Section 3250 , et seq. (otherwise known as the Firefighters ' Bill
27
of Rights).

Kapler Complaint For DamagE's


86. Defenclant CITY, its employees , agents , and assigns, were aware that the
Plaintiffs employment was included within the provisions of the Firefighters ' Bill
of Rights. Nevertheless , in contravention oftheyrotections , rights and duties,
covered in that Bill , defendant permitted and participated in the wrongful acts
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 82 , and incorporated herein by reference.

87. As a result of defendants ' unlawful conduct plaintiff is entitled to the damages
set forth in the firefighter s bill of rights , $25 000. 00 for each violation , in a total
amount to be proven at triaL

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS


AND EACH OF THEM , AS FOLLOWS:

For an order declaring that defendant violated Government Code section 3250 , et
seq.

2. For an order compellng defendant to immediately convey to plaintiff the total


funds of $25, 000. 00 for each violation of Government Code section 3250 , et seq.

3. For compensatory damages , including lost wages and benefits , and emotional

distress damages , in an amount according to proof;

4. For punitive damages against individual defendants;

6. For preJudgment interest at the legal rate on all amounts claimed;

6. For all damages for the proximate and foreseeable loss resulting from defendant's
breach of contract;

7. For costs of suit herein incurred; and

8. For such other and further relief as the COlU' t may deem just and proper.

Kapler Complaint For Damages


') ,.

DEIv1A.ND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands trial of this matter by jury.

Date: April L, 2011


Denise Eato May

Attorney for Plaintiff

12

26

Kapler Complaint For Damages


Ashevi lie Realty Assoc Fax:B2B-258-3633 7 2G11 OB;21pl1 P001!G01

VERIFCATIN

fOre L DAVI KAI$R am a plaiti in


oov t and knOw th g;teD. thref. ', eae
the

tre.
ntit1ed act I 1:ve :r d th.e
knll:Q:e, . .pt as to thse. matters whi are the:raIeged on .itin m.
beli f, and as to those matts, I believe it to be
I dee -uder pena Qf perjur Under the laws of the State of
my oW is tre' of

Ca that

:oo 7J;/"id- DAVI KA:g

19'

23 .

25

t..

You might also like