SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORINA COUNTY OF MONTEREY JESSICA KONEN and A.G., her minor child, Plaintiffs, v. LORI CALDEIRA, in her personal capacity; KELLY BARAKI, in her personal capacity; KATELYN PAGARAN, in her personal capacity; and SPRECKELS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants.

UPDATE:

CASE INFORMATION

Case Type: Civil Rights Unlimited (08)
Case Number: 22CV001813
Filing Date: 6/27/2022
Case Status: Active

Department 14 11/1/2022 9:00AM Conference: Case Management

MONTEREY COURTHOUSE
DEPARTMENT 14
2nd Floor

Hon. Carrie M. Panetta
Assistant Presiding Judge
Presiding Judge, Appellate Division
Direct Calendar Civil Trial Department
Complex Civil
Ex Parte Calendar  

  

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u_aK6vJc7MaNGFfLzOX5tTSC_GJK_hkV/view?usp=sharing

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

JESSICA KONEN and A.G., her minor child, Plaintiffs,

v.

LORI CALDEIRA, in her personal capacity; KELLY BARAKI, in her personal capacity; KATELYN PAGARAN, in her personal capacity; and SPRECKELS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT,Defendants.

COMPLAINT

42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)); INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS / GOV’T CODE § 815.2; NEGLIGENCE / GOV’T CODE § 815.2; NEGLIGENCE PER SE / GOV’T CODE §§ 815.2 AND 815.6; BANE ACT / GOV’T CODE § 815.2; CIVIL CONSPIRACY

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CLAIMS

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Substantive Due Process Right to Direct the Upbringing of One’s Children)

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS / GOV’T CODE § 815.2

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE / GOV’T CODE § 815.2
(Negligence, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Supervision)

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE PER SE / GOV’T CODE §§ 815.2 AND 815.6
(Violation of Cal. Educ. Code § 51100, et seq.)

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF BANE ACT / GOV’T CODE § 815.2
(Cal Civ. Code § 52.1(b))

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
(Against Caldeira, Baraki, and Pagaran)

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Court grant the relief requested herein, specifically that the Court render the following judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor and against Defendants:

i. A declaration that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights as alleged herein;

ii. Nominal, compensatory, treble, and punitive damages in an amount greater than $25,000;

iii. Attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, California Civil Code § 52.1(i), and California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; and

iv. Such other relief as the Court deems proper.

DHILLON LAW GROUP INC

Date: June 14, 2022

REFERENCES:

01.19.2022 Claim Letter to Spreckels Union School District

01.19.2022 Signed Claim Form #1

01.19.2022 Signed Claim Form #2

06.15.2022 Complaint

DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
Konen V. Spreckels Union School District
Schools brainwashing kids to identify as bisexual and transgender…all behind parents’ backs.

Attorney Neil Shapiro: ‘I have no qualms asking the court to hold them in contempt.’

Carmel pushes back council meeting to weigh appeal of public records lawsuit.
Pam Marino
September 26, 2018
MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY

On City Attorney Glen Mozingo & California Public Records Act

“The bigger issue is not Glen Mozingo and his resume,” Mozingo says, it’s whether the city can engage in personnel and other discussions where council members need to discuss confidential issues, like real estate negotiations and contracts, which are excluded from happening in public session under the Brown Act, the state’s open meetings law.

Mozingo believes O’Farrell misinterpreted the act.

“The Council is really behind a rock and a hard spot. It either violates the Brown Act or it elects to comply with this order that elicits a violation of the Brown Act,” Mozingo says.

SOURCE: Carmel city attorney lays out possible appeal to judge's public records ruling. Pam Marino  Sep 20, 2018

“The issue here isn’t Glen Mozingo’s resume,” Mozingo said. “All five council members voted in closed session in support of my resume and qualifications, so that issue is over. Disclosure of the documents would only show Royal Calkins has been making misrepresentations. The bigger issue is how this affects every city in the state. The question is if the city is protected in closed session, including with respect to performance evaluations and litigation.”

SOURCE: Judge rules Carmel must turn over city attorney resume documents

By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald

 POSTED: 09/17/18, 3:08 PM PDT

-it is never the law itself that is in the wrong; it is always some wicked interpreter of the law that has corrupted and abused it.

Jeremy Bentham, A FRAGMENT ON GOVERNMENT, PREFACE
(I WORKS 231) 1776

JOSEPH W. HESTON, KSBW PRESIDENT & GENERAL MANAGER: ‘…we bet the City Council’s arrogance will lead them to litigate this again – and Carmel will likely lose, again! But the real losers will be Carmel taxpayers: tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills, and the man at the middle of all this - City Attorney Mozingo - collecting fees for his work…We’ll find out this week, if this City Council truly serves the public.’

Editorial: Mozingo Morass 
KSBW 8
Sep 21, 2018
JOSEPH W. HESTON
KSBW PRESIDENT & GENERAL MANAGER

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA,, CLOSED SESSION, September 26, 2018

CANCELLED

City Council Special Meeting Agenda - Closed Session 09-26-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - CLOSED SESSION
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
OPEN SESSION 3:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION 
A.. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), Calkins v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea; Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 18CV00253

Intended Decision, Robert A. O’Farrell, Judge of the Superior Court: ‘These documents are not automatically immunized from disclosure simply because, as the city suggests, Mr. Mozingo considers them private,’ O’Farrell wrote in his 11-page ruling, which he released Friday. ‘Moreover, Mr. Mozingo waived any privacy interest he may have had in these documents when he voluntarily submitted his qualifications to the City when applying for a public position, and those qualifications were made public.’

Transparency wins in Carmel vs. Calkins battle

Amy Larson  

KSBW.com Digital Media Manager

September 14, 2018

Judge orders Carmel to turn over documents in public records lawsuit.
Pam Marino
MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY
September 14, 2018

SEPTEMBER 14, 2018
Breaking: Judge rules Carmel must release public documents
In Calkins v. Carmel, a victory for access to government information
By Joe Livernois

ABSTRACT: RE: Intended Decision, Robert A. O’Farrell, Judge of the Superior Court: Importantly, “Disclosable public records do not automatically gain confidential status, and thus immunity from disclosure, simply because they were brought to a closed session.” Disposition Petitioner's petition for writ of mandate is granted. The City must expeditiously disclose the requested Documents. The court directs Petitioners' counsel to prepare appropriate judgments and writs consistent with this decision, present them to opposing counsel for approval as to form, and return them to this court for signature.

FILED SEP 14, 2018
Intended Decision
Royal Calkins, Petitioner, vs. City of Cannel-by-the-Sea, Respondent.
Case No.: 18CV002532
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY

Attorney Neil L. Shapiro, representing Voices of Monterey Bay & Transparency in Government: ‘…under the city’s argument, any government agency could hide relevant documents for any public matter by introducing them into closed-door meetings under the Brown Act.’

Royal Calkins vs. Carmel
KSBW8 September 7, 2018
Felix Cortex

Ruling in Carmel records lawsuit expected within days.

Pam Marino

Sep 7, 2018

MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY

SEPTEMBER 7, 2018
Carmel defends its city attorney

In Royal Calkins v. City of Carmel by-the-Sea, a dispute over public records

By Joe Livernois

UPDATE: ROYAL CALKINS Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents. Case No.: 18CV002532 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY

SEPTEMBER 6, 2018
The Partisan: More than the usual suspects

Local elections plus PG&E, Cal Am and a Carmel city attorney update

OPINION | 

By Royal Calkins

CARMEL GOES TO COURT

ABSTRACT: Document copies of REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, DECLARATION OF NEIL L. SHAPIRO IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF GERARD A. ROSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE and DECLARATION OF ROYAL CALKINS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE are embedded with selected excerpts reproduced.

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

ROYAL CALKINS Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents.

Case No.: 18CV002532

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

CONCLUSION

"'Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.' Brandeis, Other People's Money p. 62" quoted in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 67. Fair Political Practices Com. v. Suitt (l979) 90 Cal.App.3d 125, 132. The California Legislature enacted both the Brown Act and the Public Records Act in recognition of the reality that government works best for those it governs when it operates openly. Respondent City asks this Court to allow it to shove government back into the dark shadows, away from public inquiry. Instead, this court should grant the requested writ and allow the public to see its records.

DECLARATION OF NEIL L. SHAPIRO IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
ROYAL CALKINS Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents.
Case No.: 18CV002532
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY

DEPOSITION OF GLEN MOZINGO, CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: Wednesday, August 22, 2018
TIME 10 : 04 A.M . - 10 : 52 A .M.
LOCATION: Absolute Court Reporters
80 Garden Court , Suite 270
Monterey, California
REPORTED BY: Jenna Osborn, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 8681

OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF GERARD A. ROSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
ROYAL CALKINS Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents.
Case No.: 18CV002532
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Rose Declaration in its entirety stands in sharp contrast to the proper standards of behavior expected by this Court. Rather than illuminating the record with facts relevant to this Court's inquiry, it offers nothing more than a vicious and unfounded personal attack on Calkins. As such, it speaks more to the character of the declarant than it does the character of Calkins. Moreover, it ignores this Court's standards of civility, is offensive to any reasonable practitioner, and accomplishes nothing. To the contrary, it appears to be a sad attempt to deflect this Court's attention from the reality that respondent City of Carrnel-by-the-Sea lacks legal or logical support for its refusal to disclose public records.

DECLARATION OF ROYAL CALKINS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
ROYAL CALKINS Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents.
Case No.: 18CV002532
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY

REFERENCE: 18CV002532

Calkins, Royal vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

HEARINGS

Department 14 9/7/2018 9:00AM Hearing: Writ
Department 14 11/6/2018 9:00AM Conference: Case Management

Public Portal
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY

ROYAL CALKINS, an Individual, Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents. CASE NO.: 18CV002532 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY

UPDATE

AUGUST 23, 2018
The Partisan: Carmel Attorney Mozingo maintains he received big congressional medal despite compelling evidence to the contrary

OPINION | 

By Royal Calkins

Respondent City of Carmel-By-The-sea's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Applicatioin-p... by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

RESPONDENT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION/PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

ROYAL CALKINS, an Individual, Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents. 

CASE NO.: 18CV002532
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
August 17, 2018

Declaration of Jon r. Giffen 08-17-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

DECLARATION OF JON R. GIFFEN IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION/PETITlON FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
ROYAL CALKINS, an Individual, Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents.
CASE NO.: 18CV002532
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
August 17, 2018

REFERENCE: Public Portal
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY

18CV002532
Calkins, Royal vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

---

HEARINGS
Department 13  7/12/2018 10:00AM Hearing: Exparte Application Held

Department 14  9/7/2018 9:00AM Hearing: Writ

Department 14  11/6/2018 9:00AM Conference: Case Management

ROYAL CALKINS, an Individual, Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 -through 10, inclusive Respondents. Case Number 18CV002532 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY

ABSTRACT: RE: 18CV002532
Calkins, Royal vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
CASE INFORMATION

Case Type: Writ of Mandate Unlimited (02)
Case Number: 18CV002532
Filing Date: 7/9/2018
Case Status: Active

In the aforementioned case, the Petition: Writ of Mandamus (filed by Royal Calkins, 7/9/2018), Memorandum: Points and Authorities (filed by Royal Calkins, 7/9/2018), Answer (filed by City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 7/10/2018) and Declaration (filed by City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 7/10/2018) document copies are embedded. On July 12, 2018, Hearing: Exparte Application was held, Hon. Vanessa W. Vallarta, Monterey Courthouse. Hearing: Writ is scheduled for September 7, 2018 @ 9:00 A.M., Hon. Marla O. Anderson and Conference: Case Management is scheduled for November 6, 2018 @ 9:00 A.M., Hon. Marla O. Anderson, Monterey Courthouse. The PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE: WHEREFORE, PETITIONER PRAYS FOR JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS
1. That this Court issue an Alternative Writ of Mandate commanding Respondent City to allow the inspection of, and to provide a copy of, each requested record, or to show cause before this Court at a date and time to be specified by the Court why it has not done so, and why it should not be compelled to do so.
2. That on the return of the Alternative Writ and the hearing of this Petition, this Court issue its Peremptory Writ of Mandate commanding Respondent City to allow inspection of to provide a copy of, each requested document.
3. For an award of attorney’s fees to Petitioner pursuant to Government Code §6259(d);
4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
5. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: July 7, 2018 NEIL L. SHAPIRO
LAW OFFICES OF NEIL L. SHAPIRO
By _________________________
Neil L. Shapiro
Attorneys for Petitioner ROYAL CALKINS
The MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, and based on the evidence contained in the Petition filed herewith, this Court should issue an alternative writ of mandate commanding the City to provide access to those records reviewed by the Council in making the decision expressed by Council Member Carrie Theis on June 5, 2018, and subscribed to by the other four members of the Council, or to show cause why it should not be required to do so. Following a hearing on the Petition, this Court should issue a peremptory writ of mandate commanding such public access.
Dated: July 7, 2018 NEIL L. SHAPIRO
LAW OFFICES OF NEIL L. SHAPIRO
By _________________________
Neil L. Shapiro
Attorneys for Petitioner ROYAL CALKINS

The Answer by Carmel-by-the-Sea to Petition For Writ of Mandate:

Wherefore, Respondent prays for a Judgment in its behalf as requested below.
Affirmative Defenses
1. The Petition fails to state facts sufficient to support a legitimate claim for relief;
2. The Petition is barred by reason of false allegations which have been asserted by Petitioner; and
3. Petitioner has failed to assert justifiable claims for attorneys fees under Government Code section 6259(d).
Prayer for Relief
Respondent prays for a judgment in its favor as follows:
1. That the Court reject the false and fraudulent Petition asserted against Respondent, including its pendent claim for a writ of mandate and/or order to show cause, in its entirety, with prejudice;
2. For attorneys fees in favor of Respondent as provided in the California Government Code;
3. For its costs of suit incurred herein; and
4. For such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
Dated: July 10, 2018 The Law Office of Gerard A. Rose
By Gerard A. Rose
Attorneys for Respondent

  

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
ROYAL CALKINS, an Individual, Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 -through 10, inclusive Respondents.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
ROYAL CALKINS Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY

Declaration of Gerard A. Rose In Opposition to Motion for Writ of Mandate
Royal Calkins, Petitioner, vs. Carmel-by-the-Sea; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents.
Case No. 18 CV 002532
Superior Court of the State of California
County of Monterey
Unlimited Jurisdiction

Answer by Carmel-by-the-Sea to Petition For Writ of Mandate
Royal Calkins, Petitioner, vs. Carmel-by-the-Sea; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents.
Case No. 18 CV 002532
Superior Court of the State of California
County of Monterey
Unlimited Jurisdiction

REFERENCE:
JULY 9, 2018
UPDATED WITH CITY’S VIGOROUS RESPONSE: Voices goes to court for answers about Carmel city attorney’s specious résumé

Read the petition | Memorandum of Points and Authorities
Declaration by Gerard Rose | Carmel’s point-by-point response

Additional update: Superior Court hearing on Voices’ public records lawsuit now scheduled for Sept. 7.

By Royal Calkins

State Farm General Insurance Company vs City of Carmel-By-The-Sea THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1) Negligence 2) Dangerous Condition of Public Property 3) Inverse Condemnation

ABSTRACT: RE; SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.:16CV002381 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1) Negligence 2) Dangerous Condition of Public Property 3) Inverse Condemnation On January 4, 2017, Ashley Stander, Law Offices of Geordan Goebel, Attorneys for Plaintiff, submitted to the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1) Negligence 2) Dangerous Condition of Public Property 3) Inverse Condemnation. A fourth Conference Case Management and Conference: Trail Setting are scheduled for December 12, 2017, Department 15, according to the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY website. The THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1) Negligence 2) Dangerous Condition of Public Property 3) Inverse Condemnation document copy is embedded; named, including "City Forester." FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION, NEGLIGENCE [Cal. Gov. Code§§ 815.2, 815.6, 818.6. Municipal Code §17.481 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY [Cal. Gov. Code§ 835} THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION, INVERSE CONDEMNATION [Cal. Const, art. I,§ 19)

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendants, and each of them as follows:

1. For the sum of $64,792.40 and for interest thereon at the maximum legal rate from and after November, 2015;
2. For costs of suit, expert fees and attorneys’ fees incurred therein;
3. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

16cv002381 Third Amended Complaint for Damages 1-4-2017 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY
UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
Case No.:16CV002381
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1) Negligence
2) Dangerous Condition of Public Property
3) Inverse Condemnation

State Farm General Insurance Company vs City of Carmel-By-The-Sea: OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

ABSTRACT: RE: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 16CV002381 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT On March 7, 2017, Ashley Stander, Law Offices of Geordan Goebel, Attorneys for Plaintiff, submitted to the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT. 1. ANY VALIDLY PLED CLAIM DEFEATS A DEMURRER. 2. PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SETS FORTH SUFFICIENT FACTS TO STATE ALL THREE CAUSES OF ACTION. A. The City's Violation of its Own Code Section Proximately Caused the Damages as Allege Herein. B. The City's Exercise of Dominion and Control over Trees within its Limits Prevented Property Owners from Rectifying Dangerous Condition of Property. C. Inverse Condemnation
3. CONCLUSION. The TAC sets forth sufficient facts to establish causes of action against the City. The demurrer should be overrruled.
The OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT document copy is embedded.

16cv002381 Opposition to Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint 3-7-2017 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
Case No.: 16CV002381
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

State Farm General Insurance Company vs City of Carmel-By-The-Sea: OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

ABSTRACT: RE: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and DOES 1 through I 0, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 16CV002381 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS On March 7, 2017, Ashley Stander, Law Offices of Geordan Goebel, Attorneys for Plaintiff, submitted to the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. 1. STATE FARM'S COMPLAINT IS BASED UPON THE CITY'S VIOLATION OF ITS OWN ORDINANCE. 2. THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS FRIVOLOUS AND IN BAD FAITH. 3. CONCLUSION. The City's frivolous sanctions motion should be denied. Plaintiff's complaint is brought in good faith, and is supported by the facts and the law. The OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS document copy is embedded.

16cv002381 Opposition to Motion for Sanctions 3-7-2017 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and DOES I through I 0, inclusive, Defendants.
Case No.: 16CV002381
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Plaintiff, v. STOFFER JOZEF WAGELAAR AND ANNA DEPASQUALE WAGELAAR, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE JOSEF WAGELAAR REVOCABLE TRUST ESTABLISHED BY DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED JANUARY 31, 2007 AS RESTATED JULY 24, 2014; DOES 1-25. Defendants. (17CV002052)

ABSTRACT:  On June 6, 2017, in SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY, Attorneys for Plaintiff, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, namely Donald Freeman, Esq. City Attorney Carmel-by-the-Sea and Glen R. Mozingo, Esq. Assistant City Attorney, filed a VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF in CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Plaintiff,v. STOFFER JOZEF WAGELAAR AND ANNA DEPASQUALE WAGELAAR, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE JOSEF WAGELAAR REVOCABLE TRUST ESTABLISHED BY DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED JANUARY 31, 2007 AS RESTATED JULY 24, 2014; DOES 1-25. Defendants (Case Number 17CV002052).

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.08.060 CITY ORDINANCE (89-17)

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

REQUEST FOR AN ACCOUNTING OF ILLEGAL RENTAL OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN THE R-1 DISTRICT

(Carmel Municipal Code Section 3.32.080)

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE OF DEFENDANTS TO REGISTER WITH THE CITY AS AN OPERATOR OF A HOSTELRY

(Carmel Municipal Code Section 3.32.050)

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO COLLECT TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX AND REPORT RENTS

(Carmel Municipal Code Sections 3.32.020, 3.32.040, 3.32.060)

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA prays for reliefs as follows:

1.  That under C.M.C. Code Section 17.08.060 Prohibited Uses, City Ordinance (89-17) Defendants, Stoffer Jozef Wagelaar and Anna De Pasquale Wagelaar, their successors, agents, representatives, employees, and all persons or entities who act in concert with or on behalf of the Defendants be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from committing any act in violation of C.M.C. Code Section 17.08.060 Prohibited Uses, City Ordinance (89-17) including the violations alleged in the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action.
2. That under C.M.C. Code Section 17.080.060 Prohibited Uses, City Ordinance (89-17), Defendants be ordered to pay an amount to be determined at the time of trial for each violation of the City Ordinance (89-17).
3. That the Defendants, Stoffer Jozef Wagelaar and Anna De Pasquale Wagelaar, be required to turn over to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Complaint, an accounting indicating any and all rentals of less than thirty (30) consecutive days of the Wagelaar residence and any and all other rentals of less than thirty (30) consecutive days of single-family residences in the R-1 district from June 1^st 2015 through the date of filing of this Complaint.
4. That Plaintiff recovers its costs of the suit herein, including attorneys' fees and costs of investigation.
5.  For such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper.

The City of Carmel by the Sea vs. Stoffer Jozef Wagelaar, Co- Trustees of the Josef Wagelaar Revocable Trust Established By Declaration of trust dated January 31,2007 as restated July 24, 2014, et al. (17CV002052) case file copy, including Summons, Notice of Judicial Assignment and Case Management Conference and VERIJFIEID COMPLAINT including EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT D, EXHIBIT E, EXHIBIT F, EXHIBIT G, EXHIBIT H, EXHIBIT I, EXHIBIT J and EXHIBIT K, is embedded. At the August 8, 2017 city council meeting, Announcements from Closed sessions, City Attorney Glen Mozingo stated that the matter had been “settled.”  Defendant agreed he was in violation of the law and has agreed to pay the City a “fee” of $42,100.   And provided there are no further violations in the next 24 months, at the end of 24 months the City intends to waive city attorney fees, some small percentage of the TOT tax, first tier penalties, second tier penalties, fraud penalties and interest.  For others engaging in similar unlawful conduct, the City will invoke an amnesty period of 90 days for those to contact the City, after which time the City will prosecute alleged violators. 

17CV002052  Wagelaar by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Plaintiff, v. STOFFER JOZEF WAGELAAR AND ANNA DEPASQUALE WAGELAAR, AS COTRUSTEES OF THE JOSEF WAGELAAR REVOCABLE TRUST ESTABLISHED BY DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED JANUARY 31, 2007 AS RESTATED JULY 24, 2014; DOES 1-25. Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CMC: 17.08.060 PROHIBITED USES ORDINANCE 89-17 (PROPERTY OWNER UTILIZING PROPERTY FOR TRANSIENT LODGING USES FOR REMUNERATION IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT).

ILLEGAL COMMERCIAL USE OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R-1 DISTRICT.

REQUEST FOR AN ACCOUNTING OF ILLEGAL RENTAL OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITHIN THE R-1 DISTRICT.

FAILURE OF DEFENDANTS TO REGISTER WITH THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AS AN OPERATOR OF A HOSTELRY.

FAILURE TO COLLECT TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX AND REPORT RENTS

EXHIBIT A Copy of the December 29, 2015 letter
EXHIBIT B VRBO website April 4, 2016
EXHIBIT C Second notice of violation to Defendants April 30, 2016
EXHIBIT D Defendant Josef Wagelaar returned a signed letter acknowledging receipt of Notice of Violation, May 9, 2016
EXHIBIT E VRBO website and found the property "Dutch Casetta" August 8, 2016
EXHIBIT F Via e-mail and telephone conversations, March 14, 2017 Rayne Fairsom
EXHIBIT G Email correspondence March 24, 2017 Gregory Griffith
EXHIBIT H Ee-mail correspondence. March 25, 2017 Raymundo Diazleal.
EXHIBIT I Copies of C.M.C. Section 17.08.060 is an infraction and is subject to civil and  criminal enforcement pursuant to C.M.C. Sections 1.16.010 (c) (3) (b) and _l.16.0l0 H.
EXHIBIT J Copy ofC.M.C. Section 3.32.080
EXHIBIT K Copy of M.C. Chapter 3.32 entitled ''Transient Occupancy Tax"

REFERENCE:

Ewing v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1579 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. Oct. 9, 1991)

EWING v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Supreme Court Case:	S023822
Court of Appeal Case(s):	Sixth Appellate District H007702
Case Caption:	EWING v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Case Category:	Review - Civil Appeal
Start Date:	11/15/1991
Case Status:	case closed
Issues:	none
Disposition Date:	01/08/1992 Petition of review Denied