Meet and Confer - Ex Parte - L. Goulding - Porter Scott

Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk, Plaintiff in Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way

Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-787-3131
Email: jjw1980@live.com
April 27, 2021
Lindsay A. Goulding, Attorney

Porter Scott Law Firm
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
The Regents of the University of California

1111 Franklin St., 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607
Subject: Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the

University of California, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott,
Charles Witcher, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Brent Seifert, Patrick
Putney, Dorin Daniliuc
Re: Defendants Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend Page Limit for Defendant's
Motion For Summary Judgment or, in The Alternative, Summary
Adjudication
Dear Ms. Goulding,
Yesterday, I asked you in which Court Department you filed your Ex Parte
Application for Leave to Extend Page Limit because you did not mark on the front
page of your pleadings which Court Department or which Judge would would
-1-
Ex Parte Application
handle your application. You are obliged to inform the opposite party what you are
filing and when and where you are filing it. What you have done is very
unprofessional.
As you probably know from the Court file, in October 2018, your
predecessors in this case, two former Porter Scott attorneys, David Burkett and
Daniel Bardzell, with the evil intention of ending my wrongful termination lawsuit
against the Regents of the University of California, bypassed Judge David Brown
in Department 53 and filed, on October 3, 2018 in Department 54, their deceptive
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM
INTERROGATORIES GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
(ROA 150-153) in an attempt to obtain an Order from Judge Christopher E.
Krueger or a stamped Order with Judge Krueger’s name.
Burkett and Bardzell were caught, and their evil plan failed. If you look at
the Burkett and Bardzell’s Notice of Motion and Motion (ATTACHMENT #1) of
October 3, 2018 and your Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend the Page Limit
(ATTACHMENT #2) filed on April 26, 2021, you will see that both Court
Documents were filed/endorsed by the same Deputy Clerk named E. Medina.
It seems to me that history is repeating itself and that Porter Scott’s new team of
Super Lawyers, Ms. Lindsay A. Goulding and Olatomiwa A. Aina, are rushing to
file a Motion for Summary Judgment in the same way that David Burkett and
-2-
Daniel Bardzell rushed to file the Termination Sanctions in Department 54 instead
of Department 53 three years earlier.
YOUR MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

OF EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT
In general, as a Plaintiff, I have no problem with the Ex Parte Application for

Extension of the Page Limit. However, I took a closer look at your application to
identify your justification for the Extension of the Page Limit.
Your Memorandum of Points is interesting in relation to the Second
Amended Complaint (SAC) Eight Causes of Action (COA) (ATTACHMENT
#3), which reads as follows:
Defendant intends to move for summary judgment or, in the alternative,
summary adjudication as the following causes of action:
1) harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to prevent harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(a)
The above No. 1 Cause of Action in your Memorandum of Points and Authorities
is actually the THIRD CAUSE of ACTION in the SAC (Page Nos. 48–49) and
does not require an Extension of the Page Limit because the THIRD COA was
removed from the SAC in 2015 by the Anti-SLAPP Motion, C.C.P § 425.16
granted by the Court to the Defendants, Danesha Nichols, Mike Boyd, Stephen
Chilcott, and Brent Seifert.
2) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Government Code §
8547
The above No. 2 COA in your Memorandum of Points and Authorities is actually
-3-
the FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC (Page Nos. 55–57) and does not
require an Extension of the Page Limit because FORTH COA was also removed
from the SAC in 2015 by the Anti-SLAPP Motion, C.C.P. § 425.16, granted by the
Court to the Defendants, Danesha Nichols, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, and Brent
Seifert.
3) retaliation under Health and Safety Code § 1278.5
This is actually the FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC (Page Nos. 55–
57) and does not require an Extension of the Page Limit because I have no intention
of pursuing this Cause of Action but I could change my mind in filing Third
Amended Complaint which was blocked in October 2015 to be file by Burkett ,
Bardzell and Judge David Brown’s Order
4) breach of written contract
This is actually the SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC, and it is the
most important COA in the entire Second Amended Complaint besides the age
discrimination and witch hunt of March 2011–December 2012, which has caused
me losses of approximately $1,000,000 in wages and benefits between December
2012 and the present.
5) wage and hour misclassification
This is actually the SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC. My
Attorney, Douglas Stein, did not understand or did not have any knowledge about
the University of California’s pay policies and employee classification. I was
perfectly happy with my classification and wages, but U.S Senator Feinstein’s
husband, Richard Blum, hunted me down for a different reason, which is pending
in the United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit
whistleblower case Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal
-4-
Revenue Services Case No. 20-1407
(https://www.scribd.com/document/495490868/Jaroslaw-Waszczuk-v-IRS-
Commissioner-UNITED-STATES-COURT-OF-APPEALS-FOR-THE-
DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBIA-CIRCUIT).
6) rescission – unlawful contract
This is actually the EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC. Regardless
of whether the Settlement Agreement of January 2009 was lawful or unlawful, the
Settlement Agreement was violated and breached by UC Regents, my human rights
were violated, and I was disposed of at the age of 62 like a piece of garbage and
subjected to an assassination attempt on May 31, 2012 by the UC Davis Death
Squad.
I disagree with your statement that the Motion for Summary
Judgment/Adjudication will necessarily require a detailed discussion of the nature
of the Plaintiff’s employment relationship with Defendant.
I have all my employee performance reviews, which show that I was a good
employee and had a normal relationship with my employer. I was hunted down by
regents for a completely different reason than the one you are implying in your Ex
Parte Application.
I fail to understand why Porter Scott’s attorney is making attempts to bring back
into the lawsuit the Causes of Action dismissed from the SAC by the Anti-SLAPP
motion granted by the Court. Previously, David Burkett brought back the four dismissed
COAs into his requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. Now, you are
attempting to relitigate COAs that were already litigated for several years and are no
longer part of the Second Amended Complaint.
-5-
In concluding this Meet and Confer letter, I would appreciate if you would clarify
with the Court the status of the four individuals Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd,
Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert. Please clarify whether these individuals are
still Defendants or whether they were dismissed by the anti-SLAPP motion in 2015
together with first four COAs. Porter Scott Attorneys once brought them back in
their pleading as Defendants and another time classed them as former Defendants,
stating that they are being represented by Porter Scott.
I noticed that in your April 26, 2021 Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend
the Page Limit for the Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication, you did not mention Stephen Chilcott, Mike
Boyd, Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert at all, which is in contrast to Burkett
Bardzell’s and other Porter Scott’s lawyers pleadings of 2018–2020. I am quite sure
that Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd, Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert do not want to
hear about this lawsuit or about Porter Scott’s Attorneys anti-SLAPP motion dirty
money attached to violation of my human rights and endless harassment of 70 years
old wife . Your first show off in this case did not go well for you Ms. Goulding . You
are dirty and unprofessional lawyer as same as your Porter Scott’s predecessors with
J.D degree and licenses from the State Bar of California .
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk,
-6-
Mailing List
Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California et al.

Sacramento County No. 34201300155479CUWTGDS
Hon. Clerk of the Court

Sacramento County Superior Court
Department 53 – Hon. Shama H. Mesiwala
813 6th Street, 2nd Floor
The Regents of the University of California

1111 Franklin St., 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607
Donna Hershkowitz – The State Bar of California Interim Executive Director

Vanessa Holton – The State Bar of California Interim Executive Director
Review Unit Office of General Counsel

80 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1617
-7-
P O R T E R I S C O T T
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896
3 Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
FILED/ENDORSED
4 Sacramento, Califomia 95825 OCT -3 2018
TEL: 916.929:1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706 By:. E. Medina
dburkett(5),porterscott.com Deputy Clerti
6
7 Attorney for Defendant
8 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
9 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11
o
u
oo
w
•=; <^
3 00 —
^
IO 00
ON
<
C ON
i . .
^
o
Ir— '1 ON Si"

ON
^
12 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK,
13
14
15
V.
Plaintiff,
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION

AND MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET
FOR
ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET

u
H 16 OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
O
Cu CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH GENERAL SET ONE, FORM
o 17 SYSTEM, UC DAVIS MEDICAL INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT
18 CENTER, UC DAVIS, ANN MADDEN SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR
RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR
19 CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, MONETARY AND TERMINATING
DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY SANCTIONS
20 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
21 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does Date: October 31, 2018
1 through 50, inclusive. Time: 9:00 a.m.
22 Dept.: 54
Defendants.
23
24 Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
25 SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
26
27
{0189I977.DOCX} 1
28
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE,
FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT SET
ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING
SANCTIONS
1 TO PLAINTIFF:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the above date, time and department of this Court,
3 Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA . (the "UNIVERSITY" or
4 "DEFENDANT"), will move the Court to Compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY")
5 WASZCZUK's verified responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special
6 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
7 Employment (Set One.); (2) deem Defendant's Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted; (3)
8 award monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,200.00 to retum Defendant to the position it would
9 have been had the subject discovery responses been timely provided; (4) issue terminating
10 sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff s pattem of vexatious litigation tactics and failure
11 to engage in the discovery process; and (5) impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a
12 Third Amended Complaint.
o
o
13 This Motion is made on the grounds that good cause exists to compel Plaintiff s verified
u. — NO
3 -oo oo o
t - V3 1^ 14 responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One),
U —
i<
on
o- ON' r-.-
ON ON
a: < _Q - ^ V£ 15 Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One;); (2)
" ON ON
pJ ^N S
a: J >< 16 deem Defendant's Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted; (3) award monetary sanctions in
UJ <
3 (Z) H u: 17 the amount of $5,200.00 to retum Defendant to the position it would have been had the subject
18 discovery responses been timely provided; (4) issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff; and (5)
19 impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint because Plaintiff
20 has completely failed to respond to any such discovery request and responses remain outstanding
21 and overdue despite significant meet and confer efforts by Defendant.
22 Moreover, the sanction of termination of the present action is warranted as a result of
23 Plaintiffs failure to provide responses to the Defendant's written discovery despite receiving an
24 extension of time to do so and in light of Plaintiffs pattem of vexatious litigation tactics
25 throughout the course of this litigation.
26 If the Court is not willing, at this stage, to terminate the action, good cause exists for the
27
{01891977.DOCX} • " 2 .
28
SANCTIONS
1 Court to impose a reasonable deadline of two weeks for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third
2 Amended Complaint, if Plaintiff intends to fiarther amend his complaint, so as to prevent
3 voluminous and unnecessary pleading amendments from fiirther delaying the case and causing
4 Defendant unnecessary fees and costs.
5 This motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Declaration of Daniel J. Bardzell,
6 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the Motion, the pleadings and papers on file
7 in this action, and any evidence that may be submitted at the time of the hearing. A proposed form
8 of Order is also included.
9 Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative mling on the merits of
10 this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative
11 rulings for the department may be downloaded from the Court's public access site. If you do not
12 have online access, you may call the dedicated phone number for the department as referenced in
ii 13 the local telephone directory, between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before
(N — NO
00 o
h- on
O g"=^ ON
14 the hearing and listen to the tentative mling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by
^1 < ON
\0 <>
15 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.
< o" ^ _
-J
UJ
X
<
16
O [- u . Dated: October 3, 2018 PORTER SCOTT
3
o
c/5 17 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
18
By
19
David P. E. Burkett
20 Daniel J. Bardzell
Attomeys for Defendant
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(0189I977.DOCX}
28
SANCTIONS
1
Waszczuk V. Regents ofthe University of California, et al.
2 Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
3
PROOF OF SERVICE
4
At the time of service, 1 was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My
5 business address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
6
On the date below, I served the following document:
7
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED
8 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE,
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL
SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM
10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND
TERMINATING SANCTIONS
11 BY MAIL: 1 placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
12 On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
o
o course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
(N
13 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
tH .2
1^ 00 —
oo S
o addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
O .. ON '^J- 14 attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
— >- attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hoUrs of
<.
^
O" VO
ON
^
15 nine in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving
uo the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the
H to
^ LI -j X 16 hours of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
O > I- LU <
a. E 5^ BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: 1 enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
o
17
ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package
18 for collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the ovemight
delivery carrier.
19 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission,
I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
20 machine that fused. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service
21 by electronic transmission, 1 caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
address listed below.
22 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
23
Lodi, CA 95242
24
I declare under penalty bf perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
25 foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on October 3, 2018.
26
27 Wendy Strasser
28 {0I89I977.DOCX} 1
SANCTIONS
1 P O R T E R I S C O T T
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896
3 Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
dburkett(S)porterscott.com
6
7 Attomey for Defendant
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11
12 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
13 Plainfiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S

(- 3 00 — VO
OO o MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED
o 14 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
u 3
C < t;
V.
OJ
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET
<>
r.) fN
oi. Ov ON 15
u o' S — THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET
H C 5: ON
oi
O
u . 16 OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
E -J X
a. a UJ < CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH GENERAL SET ONE, FORM
o H u. 17 SYSTEM, UC DAVIS MEDICAL INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT
18 CENTER, UC DAVIS, ANN MADDEN SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR
RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR
19 CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, MONETARY AND TERMINATING
DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY SANCTIONS
21 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does Date: October 31, 2018
1 through 50, inclusive. Time: 9:00 a.m.
22 Dept.: 54
Defendants.
23
Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013

Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
{01892017.DOCX} 1
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR
MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
On October 31, 2018, Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
("Defendant") brought a Motion to Compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK's
verified responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories
(Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set
One.); (2) deem Defendant's Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted; (3) award monetary
sanctions in the amount of $5,200.00 to retum Defendant to the position it would have been had
the subject discovery responses been timely provided; (4) issue terminating sanctions against
8 Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff s pattem of vexafious litigation tactics and failure to engage in the
9 discovery process; and (5) impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended
10 Complaint.
11 Upon consideration of the arguments on file, the Court rules as follows:
12 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
o
o
(N
13
n— 3 oo — NO 1. Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiffs verified responses to Requests for
00 o
^ m
14 Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form
ON
ON ON
Interrogatories - General (Set One) and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set
< vd NO 15 One) is GRANTED.
goN Ov
o > UJ < 16
Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses to Defendant's Requests for
o 17 Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form
Interrogatories - General (Set One) and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set
18 One) without objection by November 7, 2018.
19
3. Defendant's Request for Admissions (Set One) are deemed admitted in full by
20 Plainfiff
21
Monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,200.00 are awarded against Plaintiff and in
22 favor of Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA related
to the present Motion.
23
24 Defendants' Motion for Termination Sanctions is GRANTED and all causes of
action against the remaining Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
25
26 Plaintiff shall seek leave from the Court to file a Third Amended Complaint within
two weeks of date of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to seek leave to amend by this
27
{01892017.DOCX)
28 [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO
date, he shall be precluded fromfiartheringamending his Complaint.
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
4
Dated:
•5 JUDGE OF THE COURT
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
o
o
<s
13
•- fN
.5 00
O 14,
U c < ON
(N fN
ON Ov
ai < o- vd Nd 15
UJ <7v 0\
H
Qi - j >< 16
O
o. f- 2:
o 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
{01892017.DOCX} 3
28 [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO
1 PORTER I S C O T T
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
FILED/ENDORSED
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566 APR 2 6 2021
TEL: 916.929.1481 By: -E. Medina
5 FAX: 916.927.3706 Deputy Clerk
6
Attomey for Defendant
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAIVIENTO
10
11 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o Plaintiff, EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
o
13 TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR
r- 3 00 —
0\
V. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
O V 14 SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
O 2
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
pi. 2 S
CALIFORNL\, UNIVERSITY OF ADJUDICATION
hi ^ 16 CALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM,
O
a. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
3 t/>
17 DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
PUTNEY, DORIN DANE.IUC, and Does 1
20 through 50, inclusive. Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
21 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
Defendants. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
22
LL,
23
24
25
26
27
28
{0241.19S2.DOCX} 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
L:: U„ r;:^J
o
1 I.
2 EX PARTE APPLICATION
3 Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ("UNIVERSITY")
4 hereby submits this Ex Parte Application for permission to file a Memorandinn of Points and
5 Authorities in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the altemative. Summary
6 Adjudication in excess of twenty pages pursuant to Rules 3.1113(e) and 3.1200 et seq. of the
7 Califomia Rules of Court. Rule 3.1113(e) allows a party to apply to the court for permission to file a
8 longer memorandum if the argument cannot be made within the stated page limit. Due to the lengthy
9 facts, multiple causes of action, and complex legal issues in this case, it is necessary that Defendant's
10 Memorandtun of Points and Authorities exceed twenty pages to adequately address the factual and
11 legal issues presented by the motion.
12 IL
o
o
r-i
B >n 13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES j
i _ •= rM
r " 3 00 — VO
r - I'l <n 00 o
O —. m 14 IN SUPPORT OF EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT
c^ 15
a: < d vd vd Defendant intends to move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
Ov Ov
-i >< 16
l i3e(/I Wf- u.< adjudication as the following causes of action: 1) harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to
17
o prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 12940(a); 2)
18
whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 8547; 3) retaliation under
19
Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 4) breach of written contract; 5) wage and hour misclassification;
20
and 6) rescission-unlawful contract. (Declaration of Lindsay A. Goulding in support of Defendant's
21
ExParte Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment that Exceeds 20 Pages ("Goulding
22
Decl. 13.) The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will necessarily require a detailed
23
discussion of the nature of Plaintiffs employment relationship with Defendant, the alleged
24
harassment of Plaintiff fi-om 2006 to 2013, as well as the individual defenses applicable thereto.
25
26 (Id.) The circumstances surrounding die allegedly harassing conduct will also require a detailed
27 discussion regarding the nature of the conduct, the timing, and the speakers and recipients of the
28 alleged harassment. (Id.) Further, a lengthy legal analysis will be required to address Plaintiffs
{0241.1952.DOCX} 2
previous settlement agreement with Defendant. (Id.)
In order to address the lengthy facts, legal authority, and legal arguments regarding each of
3 Plaintiffs causes of action. Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its
4 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will need to exceed twenty pages. Therefore,
5 Defendants respectfully request that the court, pursuant to Rules 3.113(e) and 3.1200 et seq. of the
6 Califomia Rules of Court, allow it to submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in excess of
7 twenty pages, but not to exceed forty pages. Defendant will make a good faith effort to keep the
8 motion as concise as possible.
9 III.
10 CONCLUSION
11 For the reasons set forth above. Defendant has demonsttated good cause for an expansion
12 of the page limit and move this Court to permit Defendant to submit a memorandum of up to 40
o
o
13 pages in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.
f- 3 g — VO
i- i/i 00 o
O — m 14
cC [--•
r-j <N
a: < d
O ; Ov_
vd 15 Dated April 22, 2021 PORTER SCOTT
O ov A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
- j >< 16
o •I "mf- u.<
3 t/i
o 17
in
18 By.
Lindsay A. Goulding
19 Attorneys for Defendant
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02413952.DOCX}
Waszczuk V. Regents ofthe University of California, et al
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S

EXPARTE FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT
8 EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
9
XX BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
10 am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
U course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fiilly prepaid.
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s) addressed
12 below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the attomey's
o
o office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attomey being
13 served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the horns of nine in the morning
-s — VD and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the
c/i ? ! 00 O
O — m 14 party's residence with some person not yoxmger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the
U ov moming and six in the evening.
!/3 5; u
ad < ^
ov Ov 15 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
d ^ ^
pJ 5> c bv Ov ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package fbr
16 collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the ovemight delivery
o li carrier.
a. 17 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I
o
•n
faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
18 machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
19 electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification address
listed below.
20
21 Jaroslaw Waszc2juk
2216Katzakian Way
22 Lodi, CA 95242
JJW1980@LrVE.COM
23
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
25 is tme and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on April 26, 2021.
26
27
28 Virginia Yao
{0241.1952.DOCX}
1 PORTER I S C O T T
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
6
Attomey for Defendant
7
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
8
Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant io Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11
JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o
o Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER ON
13 DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE
— VO
f- !?! 00 O
14 v. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
O o"^ — f*^
EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR
ai < 6 vd vd
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
0\ CV DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
9^ .be Ov Ov CALIFORNL\, UNIVERSITY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
J >< 16
o •i>S5 Swf- <t CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
CL.
17 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC ADJUDICATION
o DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
»n
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
20 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1 Amended Complaint Filed: Jime 16, 2014
through 50, inclusive. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
21
Defendants.
22
23
24 /
25 An Ex Parte Application for an order permitting Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE
26 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA to file a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
their Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Altemative Summary Adjudication exceeding 20
pages in length was filed with this Court on the above date and time. The Court has reviewed the
{02414^.DOCX} 1
cc; [^OPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND PAGE

LIMIT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Ex Parte Application and found good cause to grant Defendant's request for a page extension.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA shall be permitted to file a Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of its Motion for Sununary Judgment, or in the Altemative, Simimary
Adjudication in excess of 20 pages, but not to exceed 40 pages.
Dated:
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
10
11
12
o
o
13
— VD
f - t« 00 o
C: 14
— <n
Ov CV
ai < d vd vd 15
Ov Ov
l i e e < 16
o• 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{024145.^2.DOCX}
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND PAGE

LIMIT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
6
Attorney for Defendant

9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11 JAROSLAW (“JERRY”) WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
12
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A.
13 GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF
PORTER | SCOTT
FAX: 916.927.3706
TEL: 916.929.1481
v. DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE

14 TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF
16 CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM,
UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
17 DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1
20
through 50, inclusive,
21
Defendants.
22 _____________________________________/
23 I, Lindsay A. Goulding, declare as follows:
24 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California
25 and am a partner with the law firm of Porter Scott, attorneys of record for Defendant REGENTS OF
26 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (“Defendant” or “UNIVERSITY”). I state the facts herein
27 of my own personal knowledge and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently
28 testify thereto.
{02413956.DOCX} 1
DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
1 2. The Second Amended Complaint alleges the following causes of action: 1)
2 intentional infliction of emotional distress; 2) tortious interference with economic advantage; 3)
3 harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation
4 in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); 4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of
5 Government Code § 8547; 5) retaliation under Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 6) breach of written
6 contract; 7) wage and hour misclassification; and 8) rescission-unlawful contract.
7 3. Defendant intends to move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
8 adjudication as to the following causes of action: 3) harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to
9 prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); 4)
10 whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Government Code § 8547; 5) retaliation under
11 Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 4) breach of written contract; 6) wage and hour misclassification;
12 and 7) rescission-unlawful contract. The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will
13 necessarily require a detailed discussion of the nature of Plaintiff’s employment relationship with
PORTER | SCOTT
FAX: 916.927.3706
TEL: 916.929.1481
14 Defendant, the alleged harassment of Plaintiff from 2006 to 2013, as well as the individual defenses
15 applicable thereto. The circumstances surrounding the allegedly harassing conduct will also require
16 a detailed discussion as to the nature of the conduct, the timing, and the speakers and recipients of
17 the alleged harassment. Further, a lengthy legal analysis will be required to address Plaintiff’s
18 previous settlement agreement with Defendant.
19 4. In order to address the lengthy facts, legal authority, and legal arguments regarding
20 each of Plaintiff’s causes of action, Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support
21 of its Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will need to exceed twenty pages.
22 5. I contacted Plaintiff to inform him of this Application via telephone and email on
23 April 26, 2021 at approximately 9:02 a.m. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy
24 of my email correspondence to Plaintiff regarding Defendant’s request to exceed the page limit.
26 is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of April 2021, at Sacramento, California.
27 L
28
Lindsay A. Goulding
{02413956.DOCX} 2
EXHIBIT
“A”
01054547.WPD
From: Virginia Yao
To: JJW1980@LIVE.COM
Cc: Lindsay A. Goulding; Tomi Aina
Subject: Waszczuk v. Regents
Date: Monday, April 26, 2021 8:59:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:

This is just to confirm our conversation this morning that our office is filing an Exparte
today on the papers to request a page extension to the Motion for Summary of
Judgment that we will be filing. Thank you.

Virginia Yao
Legal Assistant to Lindsay A. Goulding
350 University Avenue | Suite 200 | Sacramento, CA 95825
T| 916.929.1481 x 331 F| 916.927.3706
www.porterscott.com

Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al.
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
7 DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE TO FILE
8 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
9
XX BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
10 am readily familiar with this business’ practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
11 course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s) addressed
12 below. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney’s
office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being
13 served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the morning
and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the
PORTER | SCOTT
FAX: 916.927.3706
TEL: 916.929.1481
14 party’s residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the
morning and six in the evening.
15 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package for
16 collection and overnight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery
carrier.
17 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I
faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
18 machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
19 electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification address
listed below.
20
21 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
22 Lodi, CA 95242
JJW1980@LIVE.COM
23
is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on April 26, 2021.
25
26 v
27 ___________________________________
Virginia Yao
28
{02413956.DOCX} 3
1 ANN MADDEN RICE (CEO UCD Health Services), MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT
2 (Executive Director, Human Resources), CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS,
3 CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does
4 1 through 20, as follows:
5 IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
[INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS]
6
101. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
7
through 100, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
8
102. Defendants, and each of them, acted in concert with intent to cause Plaintiff severe
9
emotional distress. The evidence is clear and convincing, at the least, that the defendants, with
10
premeditation, undertook acts that denied the reality of the abuse experienced by the Plaintiff and
11
fabricated nature of the “complaints” made about the plaintiff.
12
103. The acts and omissions as alleged herein, separately and taken together, are so
13
extreme and outrageous that the defendants, and each of them, acted outside the course and scope
14
of their employment with UC DAVIS. The depth, length of time, and nature of the acts are so
15
extraordinary that no reasonable person can conclude such acts and omissions are within the
16
course and scope of duties as a manager, supervisor, or officer of a public entity such as and
17
including UC DAVIS.
18
104. Defendants’ actions as herein alleged do, and did, constitute extreme and
19
outrageous conduct.
20
105. Defendants’ acted with intent of causing, or with reckless disregard for the
21
probability of causing, severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.
22
106. As a proximate result of the acts alleged herein Plaintiff suffered severe or
23
extreme emotional distress, entitling plaintiff to damages, including but not limited to, medical
24
expenses, lost income, other special damages, general damages, and exemplary damages, all in
25
an amount to be proven at trial
26
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth
27
COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Second Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
28
Page 49 of 63
Civil Complaint-Employment
1 ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER,
2 DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN
3 DANILIUC, and Does 1 through 20, as follows:
4 V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
[TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE]
5
6
7
108. At all relevant times, Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD,
8
STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA,
9
BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, DOES 1 through 20, knew of the
10
existence of the settlement agreement between plaintiff and UC DAVIS and/or plaintiff’s
11
property rights in his public employment with UC DAVIS described herein.
12
109. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, knew that managers and
13
supervisors, including defendants PUTNEY and WITCHER, evaluated plaintiff as a “very
14
valuable employee”, “OUTSTANDING. Exceeds Expectations”, “…performance has been
15
excellent…”, “…overall job performance is outstanding…”, “…have not been any problems with
16
missed alarms…”, “...very instrumental...monitoring...alarm/ status of critical equipment...”,
17
“…Helping…managing the work order system…providing computer support…”, “…also
18
helping with closing work orders…”, “…is talented, precise and his daily paper work is
19
excellent…”, “…can be counted on to keep management informed status of the plant and
20
equipment…”, and “…committed to the future success of the Medical Center…”
21
110. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, knew that no employee, co-
22
employee, manager, supervisor, including defendants PUTNEY, DANILIUC, CURRY and
23
WITCHER, and/or administrator ever complained about, had to investigate or consider concerns
24
regarding, and/or so much as heard rumors that plaintiff engaged in discriminatory acts, made
25
discriminatory statements, and/or presented a disruptive or violent risk within the work place.
26
111. To be sure, Defendants, and each of them, knew plaintiff is, and was at all relevant
27
times, precise in his work, could be counted on to keep management informed of the status of the
28
Page 50 of 63
1 plant and equipment, committed to the future success of the Medical Center, and rightfully and
2 lawfully expected that no person, let alone supervisors, managers, Human Resource personnel,
3 and others would be dishonest, fabricate stories about him, disregard evidence, disregard policies
4 and practices for impartial investigations, disregard defendants’ actions on plaintiff’s well-being,
5 and/or set about to cause him emotional harm, all with the intent to ensure that plaintiff never
6 returned to work again.
7 112. Defendants, and each of them, knew that their actions, including but not limited
8 to the actions described herein, as well as their actions issuing investigatory leaves in violation
9 of policies and procedures, would cause and did cause plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress,
10 especially when not one person left employed by UC DAVIS looked at, considered, and/or
11 analyzed the actual evidence, such as the work orders showing PUTNEY and DANILIUC falsely
12 accused the plaintiff of missing a critical alarm, plaintiff’s evaluations written by PUTNEY,
13 surprising plaintiff twice with re-issued investigatory leaves when plaintiff believed he was
14 returning to work, instructing plaintiff not to send emails to anyone other than WITCHER even
15 though WITCHER as well as every other manager or supervisor never responded in a serious
16 manner to plaintiff, the employees considering plaintiff’s PPSM 70 complaints were copied on
17 emails from the other defendants from an early point in the sequence of events, the conclusions
18 of a group of attorneys and experienced managers on the misconduct disclosed by plaintiff were
19 absurd and unbelievable, and the sudden and not previously an issue discipline issued against co-
20 employees plaintiff represented challenging the discipline.
21 113. The only conclusion that is more likely than not, actually clear and convincing,
22 considering all the evidence, including the examples described herein, is that defendants, and
23 each of them, coordinated their actions, conferred with each other, and otherwise had a common
24 goal and/or understanding to either force plaintiff to quit and/or force him to act or behave in
25 ways that would provide them a subterfuge for his termination. Meanwhile, defendants, and each
26 of them, set about to extricated plaintiff from his employment because plaintiff was a
27 whistleblower, and a significant percentage of employees who report misconduct suffer
28 retaliation, abuse, harassment, and ultimately separation from their employment.
Page 51 of 63
1 114. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that his employment would be available for
2 him to work, earning an hourly rate, plus benefits, and all other compensation due under the law
3 so long as plaintiff continued to do his work and perform at the workplace as he had since 1999.
4 115 Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged herein with the intent to harm Plaintiff
5 financially and to induce plaintiff and/or UC DAVIS to violate the Settlement Agreement, and/or
6 to take away plaintiff’s property rights in his employment without the benefit of the processes,
7 procedures, and safeguards provided for such things under the law, including UC DAVIS’ own
8 policies and rules.
9 116. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants actions and omissions
10 described herein, as well as based on evidence not disclosed herein, plaintiff was damaged, and
11 continues to experience damages, in an amount that excess $75,000.00 per year, for no less than
12 6 years, and/or the number of years from the date plaintiff last received his income to the date
13 plaintiff intended to retire. When Plaintiff has ascertained the full amount of its damages, it will
14 seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint and/or by evidence at the time of trial provide proof
15 accordingly.
16 117. Plaintiff alleges that one of more of the defendants acted with reckless disregard
17 for plaintiff’s rights and/or failed to perceive, observe, and act as a reasonable person under the
18 same or similar circumstances. Further, said reckless disregard for plaintiff’s rights and/or
19 negligence were substantial factors in the damages plaintiff sustained.
20 118. The conduct of one or more of the Defendants as described herein was purposeful
21 and intentional and was engaged in for the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of property or legal
22 rights or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected to cruel and unjust
23 hardship in conscious disregard of its rights, and was performed with fraud, oppression or malice
24 so as to justify an award of exemplary or punitive damages against such Defendants in an amount
25 according to proof at trial.
26 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
27 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Third Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
28 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
Page 52 of 63
1 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
2 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 21
3 through 40, as follows:
4 VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
[HARASSMENT and FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION,
5 RETALIATION: Government Code § 12940 (a)]
6 119. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
7 through 118, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
8 119a. Government Code § 12940(a) provides “It is an unlawful employment
9 practice...For an employer, because of the…national origin, ancestry…mental disability, medical
10 condition… of any person…to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from…to
11 discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of
12 employment.”
13 120. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each
14 of them, coordinated, cooperated, agreed, and/or had an understanding to misuse, abuse, and/or
15 disregard California law, the REGENTS’ polices, and UC DAVIS’ procedures to deny plaintiff’s
16 rights to return to work. Furthermore, Defendants, and each of them, coordinated, cooperated,
17 agreed, and/or had an understanding to utilize plaintiff’s national origin and ancestry against him,
18 inter alia, Plaintiff, born and raised into adulthood in Poland under the communist rule of the
19 Soviet Union, arrived in America as an asylum seeker and was granted political asylum.
20 Defendants knew that plaintiff personified cultural diversity with undisputed differences and
21 difficulties expressing himself in English. Defendants, and each of them, knowingly ignored
22 Plaintiff’s culturally diverse characteristics and traits, and, attempted to judge, evaluate, and
23 critique Plaintiff utilizing narrow, shallow, and discriminatory standards, such as, but not limited
24 to, UC DAVIS’ Standards of Community. Multiple scholars and civil rights experts have advised
25 UC DAVIS that the Standards of Community express and espouse discriminatory and
26 unconstitutional standards.
27 120a. Further, defendants, and each of them, intentionally created and caused scenarios
28 that they knew would cause plaintiff to suffer from anxiety, anger, and emotional distress,
Page 53 of 63
1 because the defendants knew, based on plaintiff’s own admissions and the defendants’
2 experience that plaintiff would manifest and/or alleviate his anxiety, anger, and emotional
3 distress by writing and sending letters or emails, which, to the uninformed and/or malice minded
4 person, might be unorthodox. However, defendants, and each of them, knew plaintiff did not
5 have any history of violence, did not have any history of racism, and did not have any history of
6 any discrimination.
7 121. Defendants, and each of them, further discriminated against plaintiff based on his
8 mental disability and medical condition as described herein.
9 122. Defendants and its agents, managers and employees, violated California Government
10 Code §12940, by failing to adequately supervise, control, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the
11 conduct, acts, and failures to act as described herein. As such, Defendant and the Individual Defendants
12 failed to fulfill their statutory duty to take all reasonable and necessary steps to prevent discrimination,
13 harassment, and retaliation from occurring in the workplace, as required by California Government
14 Code §12940(k)
15 123 . Beginning in approximately April for 2011, Defendants fabricated and conjured up
16 false accusations, false reports, and feigned complaints, and, undertook oppressive, abusive, and
17 discriminatory acts that continued up to and through December 7, 2012, the effective date of plaintiff’s
18 termination.
19 124 .In truth and in fact, Plaintiff did not do anything wrong. It is undisputed that plaintiff
20 attempted to persuade defendants, and each of them, to settle, resolve, and/or put an end to whatever
21 acrimony might have existed on the part of defendants, and each of them, at the workplace. Defendants,
22 and each of them, never responded to or reacted to plaintiff’s attempts to live and let live, and to get
23 plaintiff back to his employment.
24 125. Defendants knew plaintiff became distressed, angry, and upset with each and every
25 false accusation, false report, and feigned complaint, and, with each unfounded adverse employment
26 action, such as but not limited to, a biased, one-sided, and incomplete investigation report, or, the lack
27 of meaningful investigation into the misconduct plaintiff actually reported, or, notifying plaintiff of an
28 Notice of Investigatory Leave one day before his post-stress leave return to work on September 1, 2011,
Page 54 of 63
1 or, personally handing an unsuspecting plaintiff, who expected to start work, another Notice of
2 Investigatory Leave on May 31, 2012, with a crisis team on stand-by, or, being instructed not to
3 communicate with employees even though plaintiff represented them and there was no indication
4 plaintiff was disrupting an investigation.
5 126.. Defendants, and each of them, as part and parcel of their ongoing, continuing, and
6 repeated retaliation, harassment, and abuse for whistleblowing about misconduct, engaged in a course
7 of action that constituted, separately and cumulatively, discrimination, harassment and retaliation
8 because of national origin, ancestor, mental condition, and/or medical condition.
9 127. The discrimination, harassment and retaliation are continuous and persist to date
10 against Plaintiff.
11 128. As a result of Defendants' failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination,
12 harassment and retaliation, Regents have allowed WITCHER and the other defendants to continue to
13 harass and retaliate against Plaintiff in compensation and terms of employment. Every day and week
14 there is some new harassing, retaliatory plan to drive Plaintiff out of out of UCD, disparage him, or take
15 compensation from him. Plaintiff has suffered substantial economic losses in wages and benefits,
16 damages to reputation, credit and other financial injuries in an amount to be determined at trial.
17 129. As a result of Defendants' harassment and discrimination and the failure to prevent
18 and/or take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, Plaintiff suffered
19 compensatory damages, consisting of mental anguish, humiliation, alienation, emotional distress and
20 embarrassment in a sum according to proof at the time of trial.
21 130. Pursuant to California Government Code §12965, Plaintiff requests the award of
22 attorneys’ fees against Defendants under this cause of action.
24 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Third Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
25 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
26 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
27 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 21
28 through 40, as follows:
Page 55 of 63
1 VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 [WHISTLEBLOWER/UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 8547 et. seq.]
3
4
5
132. Government Code §8547.10 states (a) A University of California employee,
6
including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment may file a written complaint
7
with his or her supervisor or manager, or with any other university officer designated for that
8
purpose by the regents, alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion,
9
or similar improper acts for having made a protected disclosure, together with a sworn statement
10
that the contents of the written complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be true, under
11
penalty of perjury.
12
133. The complaint shall be filed within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal
13
complained about. §8547.10. provides “(a) A University of California employee, including an
14
officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment may file a written complaint with his or
15
her supervisor or manager, or with any other university officer designated for that purpose by the
16
regents, alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar
17
improper acts for having made a protected a protected statement that the contents of the written
18
complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be true, under penalty of perjury. The
19
complaint shall be filed within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about.
20
Plaintiff’s disclosures and reports concerned, or plaintiff had a good faith belief that his disclosures
21
concerned, activity by and/or conditions existing due to misconduct, including but not limited to waste,
22
fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, or threat to public health.”
23
134. Plaintiff’s reports include, but are not limited to, reports of the coordinated efforts to
24
deny him his employment as well as the apparent ratification and/or complicity of officers of the UC
25
system.
26
135. The outrageous conduct of the Defendants described above was done with malice,
27
fraud and oppression and with reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff
28
Page 56 of 63
1 requests the assessment of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants, in an amount
2 appropriate to punish and make an example of them.
3 136. Plaintiff seeks all available damages including punitive damages for retaliation against
4 him as a whistleblower under the California Whistleblower Protection.
6 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Sixth Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
7 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, and Does 21 through 50, as
8 follows:
VIII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9 [HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 1278.5]
12 138. The California Legislature enacted Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 because “… it
13 is the public policy of the State of California to encourage patients, nurses, members of the
14 medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe
15 patient care and conditions. The Legislature encourages this reporting in order to protect patients
16 and in order to assist those accreditation and government entities charged with ensuring that
17 health care is safe. The Legislature finds and declares that whistleblower protections apply
18 primarily to issues relating to the care, services, and conditions of a facility and are not intended
19 to conflict with existing provisions in state and federal law relating to employee and employer
20 relations…” (Emphasis Added)
21 139. § 1278.5(b) (1) provides “No health facility shall discriminate or retaliate, in any
22 manner, against any patient, employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care
23 worker of the health facility because that person has…Presented a grievance, complaint, or
24 report to the facility, to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility,
25 or the medical staff of the facility, or to any other governmental entity…” (Emphasis Added)
26 140. § 1278.5(d)(1) states “There shall be a rebuttable presumption that discriminatory
27 action was taken by the health facility, or by the entity that owns or operates that health facility,
28 or that owns or operates any other health facility, in retaliation against an employee, member of
Page 57 of 63
1 the medical staff, or any other health care worker of the facility, if responsible staff at the facility
2 or the entity that owns or operates the facility had knowledge of the actions, participation, or
3 cooperation of the person responsible for any acts described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b),
4 and the discriminatory action occurs within 120 days of the filing of the grievance or complaint
5 by the employee, member of the medical staff or any other health care worker of the facility”
6 141. § 1278.5(d)(2) provides “…For purposes of this section, discriminatory treatment
7 of an employee…includes, but is not limited to, discharge, demotion, suspension, or any
8 unfavorable changes in, or breach of, the terms or conditions of a contract, employment, or
9 privileges of the employee.”
10 142. Defendants, and each of them, were well aware of plaintiff’s disclosures
11 concerning the deficiencies and problems within the HVAC Plumbing Shop as well as the
12 function and operation of the Metasys alarm monitoring system. Each disclosure by plaintiff
13 related to and concerned matters that directly impacted, or foreseeably would impact, the safe
14 and healthy condition of the hospital.
15 143. Each retaliatory action occurred, or, started and thereafter continued, or had its
16 roots in actions begun, within 120 days of plaintiff notifying and/or complaining to the
17 defendants, and each of them.
18 144. Plaintiff is entitled to all damages authorized and recoverable under Health &
19 Safety Code § 1278.5.
20 WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
21 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Sixth Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
22 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 41 through 50, as
23 follows:
24 IX. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
[BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT]
25

28 146. The contract between plaintiff and defendant is, and was at all relevant times, a written
Page 58 of 63
1 contract. The written contract is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates
2 into this complaint each term, condition, and paragraph of the contract as required by law. Pursuant to
3 the contract, defendant promised plaintiff an exempt position inside the HVAC Plumbing Shop with a
4 title of Development Engineer. Plaintiff accepted the position under the agreement and was installed
5 at the location with PUTNEY as his supervisor and WITCHER his manager.
6 147. At some point, currently unknown to plaintiff, UC DAVIS agreed, allowed, and/or
7 ratified DANILIUC as plaintiff’s supervisor even though DANILIUC had the same or lower
8 classification accepted by plaintiff under the contract.
9 148. According to the agreement, plaintiff nor UC DAVIS were to disparage each other.
10 Plaintiff at all times expressed his good faith beliefs of the truth. However, CHILCOTT in an email
11 disparaged plaintiff, creating the impression plaintiff was a problem, when in reality plaintiff was a
12 valuable employee, who had the best interests of the hospital always in mind, and was the victim of an
13 outrageous but actual coordinated effort to cause him emotional distress.
14 149. UC DAVIS, by and through its employees, agents, and officers, kept plaintiff out of the
15 workplace for no apparent reason. Defendant placed plaintiff on Investigatory Leaves, Administrative
16 Leaves, yet the evidence shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, UC DAVIS was intentionally keeping
17 plaintiff out of the work location promised in the contract, and, waiting to find a pretext basis to
18 terminate plaintiff.
19 150. UC DAVIS promised and plaintiff accepted an exempt position. However, plaintiff’s
20 job duties did not change in any appreciable manner from his position as a non-exempt employee. In
21 addition, inserting DANILIUC as plaintiff’s supervisor extinguished any appearance or actual
22 discretion or other characteristics of an exempt position.
23 150a. The written agreement contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
24 or, an understanding that neither party will do anything unlawful and/or take action that
25 undermines and/or deprives plaintiff of one or more of the benefit of the bargain. Further, that,
26 provided plaintiff performed his duties in a manner that met or exceeded expectations, he would
27 be entitled to work and remain on the job until his retirement age. Further, that defendants, and
28 each of them, could terminate plaintiff’s employment only with just cause.
Page 59 of 63
1 150b. Defendants, and each of them, breached the contract by subjecting plaintiff to a
2 hostile work environment, keeping plaintiff away from the workplace, retaliation against plaintiff,
3 and terminating his employment.
4 151. The aforementioned acts constitute material breaches of the contract.
5 152. Plaintiff seeks and is entitled to all special and consequential damages as allowed by
6 law, including but not limited to lost-income, hourly wages for the missed lunch and break time plaintiff
7 would have enjoyed as a non-exempt employee. The contract provides for and plaintiff seeks costs as
8 well as attorney fees.
10 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Seventh Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
12 follows:
13 X. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
[DFEH/LABOR CODE (Age Discrimination, Failure of Interactive Process, Medical
14 Discrimination, Retaliation, wage and hour)]
16 through 152, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein
17 154. The contract provision attempting to set plaintiff’s job as an exempt position is void as
18 against public policy, or, voidable as a direct result of defendants’ failure to provide a truly exempt
19 position.
20 155. Defendants, and each of them, misled and lied to plaintiff and kept the truth from
21 plaintiff concerning the true nature of his position as well as his rights under the law. Regardless,
22 plaintiff filed a DFEH complaint and received a Right to Sue Letter.
23 156. Plaintiff’s position was not an exempt position. Plaintiff’s duties as alleged herein were
24 substantially the same before the contract and after the contract.
25 157. With respect to wage and hour, Plaintiff seeks damages at the rate of $70,000.00 per
26 year, divided by 50 weeks, divided by 40 hours, multiple by 1.5 hours per day, multiple by 5 days per
27 week, multiple by 50 weeks per year, multiple by 5.5 years, equals $103,125.00, plus all treble or
28 punitive damages allowed by law.
Page 60 of 63
1 157a. Plaintiff was over-40 years old when defendants undertook their coordinated
2 assault on plaintiff’s right to work. Plaintiff’s protected activities and disclosures were also a
3 substantial factor in defendants’ harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Defendants, and
4 each of them, knowingly and intentionally denied plaintiff the benefit of the good faith interactive
5 process mandated by law, even though plaintiff made several attempts for defendants to reverse
6 their abhorrent behavior. Plaintiff was a quadruple bypass surgery survivor and taking
7 approximately 12 medications during the time defendants committed their acts described herein.
8 UC DAVIS, as part of a plan to hand plaintiff another Notice of Investigatory Leave upon his
9 return for work on May 31, 2012, assembled a crisis team, which demonstrates that UC DAVIS
10 knew, believed, and/or intended their actions would harm plaintiff, and potentially other innocent
11 people, but that did not stop them.
12 158. Plaintiff seeks all damages, including costs and attorney fees as allowed by law.
14 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for an Eighth Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
16 follows:
17 XI. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
[RESCISSION-UNLAWFUL CONTRACT]
18

20 through 158, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein
21 160. Plaintiff’s acceptance of the “exempt” classification for the job title taken
22 pursuant to The Settlement Agreement was a material aspect of the contract. An employer cannot
23 contract around Labor Laws with respect to wages, hours, meals, and breaks without running
24 afoul of the law and voiding the contract.
25 161. The contract is void as against public policy, and, the subject matter of the contract
26 is unlawful.
27 162. Defendant knew, or should have known, at the time the parties signed the contract
28 that the contract was void. Further, defendants knew, or should have known, that plaintiff relied
Page 61 of 63
1 on defendants to believe the contract was valid and enforceable. Defendants, to the present time,
2 have misled plaintiff into believing the contract was valid and enforceable.
3 163. In or about May 2014, plaintiff discovered the truth, that the contract was void as
4 against public policy and unlawful subject matter.
5 164. Defendants’ are estopped to assert any technical defense in light of the actions
6 and omissions described herein.
7 165. As a direct and proximate result of the rescission of the contract, plaintiff has
8 been damaged in an amount equal to his hourly wage multiplied by the number of hours of lunch
9 and breaks he missed.
10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
11 1. for general and compensatory damages according to proof;
12 2. For lost salary, both front and back pay, bonuses, benefits and any other benefits to
13 which Plaintiff would have been entitled to by reason of his employment with Defendant UC
14 REGENTS, according to proof;
15 3. Punitive and exemplary damages against Individual Defendants;
16 4. Damages and attorney fees as allowed under the Labor Code;
17 5. for prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;
18 7. for costs of suit incurred herein;
19 8. Damages for whistleblower retaliation under Government Code 8547 including
20 punitive damages against all Defendants, and Attorney’s fees;
21 9. Breach of contract damages, including costs and attorney fees;
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
Page 62 of 63
1 10. Damages, Costs, attorney fees, and all other allowable damages and relief
2 authorized under Health & Safety Code § 1278.5
3 11. Rescission of the contract and for such other and further relief as the Court deems
4 just and proper.
5
6 DATED: September 2, 2014 Law Office of Douglas E. Stein

7
8 By: _________________________
DOUGLAS E. STEIN
9 Attorney for Plaintiff
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 63 of 63

Meet and Confer - Ex Parte - L. Goulding - Porter Scott

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meet and Confer - Ex Parte - L. Goulding - Porter Scott

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk, Plaintiff in Pro Per

2216 Katzakian Way

April 27, 2021

Lindsay A. Goulding, Attorney

The Regents of the University of California

Subject: Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the

Dear Ms. Goulding,

YOUR MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

In general, as a Plaintiff, I have no problem with the Ex Parte Application for

Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California et al.

Hon. Clerk of the Court

The Regents of the University of California

Donna Hershkowitz – The State Bar of California Interim Executive Director

Review Unit Office of General Counsel

Ir— '1 ON Si"

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION

ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET

13 Plainfiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S

Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013

7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S

cc; [^OPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND PAGE

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND PAGE

8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103

v. DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE

Dear Mr. Waszczuk:

7 DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF

26 145. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1

19 159. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1

6 DATED: September 2, 2014 Law Office of Douglas E. Stein

You might also like