3rd District Court of Appeal-Sacramento

Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-3131
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com

Appellant, In Pro Per

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

Jaroslaw Waszczuk Court of Appeal No. C079524

Plaintiff and Appellant,
Sacramento County Superior Court
v. No. 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS

The Regents of the University of
California, UC Davis, UC Davis
Medical Center, UC Davis Health
System, Ann Madden Rice, Mike
Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Charles
Witcher, Danesha Nichols, Cindy
Oropeza, Brent Seifert, Patrick
Putney, Dorin Daniliuc and Does
1– 50,
Notice of Appeal Filed on June 11, 2015
Remittitur Issued on January 16,2018
APPELLANT’S DECLARATION IN
SUPPORT OF THE
APPLICATION/MOTION TO RECALL
REMITTITUR

Defendants and Respondents.

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT

I, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, Plaintiff and Appellant,

(hereafter Waszczuk) declare the following:
1. Waszczuk was employed by the University of California, UC
Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) from June 1999 to February 2009 as a
central plant operator/power plant technician and from February 9, 2009, to
August 31, 2011 as the assistant development engineer.
1
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
 2. On August 31, 2011, Waszczuk’s employer UCDMC
permanently removed Waszczuk from the premises and on December 7,
2012 formally terminated Waszczuk’s employment.
3. On December 4, 2013, Waszczuk filed a wrongful
termination complaint in pro per against the Regents of the University of
California, (UC Regents), UC Davis Health System, UC Davis, UC
Davis Medical Center and nine of its employees who terrorized or
ordered others to terrorize and harass him. (See: Motion to Recall the
Remittitur Page 29 Exhibit 46)
4. Waszczuk’s December 2013 wrongful termination complaint was
simply and liberally construed. Waszczuk based the complaint on six causes of
action, which included a violation and breach of the 2009 Settlement
Agreement that Waszczuk had signed in good faith with the Regents of the
University of California and UC Davis Policy PPSM 23, which is the employee
annual performance review (evaluation) policy.
Waszczuk considered these two causes of action (COAs) the most
important in the complaint and were the bases to prevail in the lawsuit against
the Defendants.
4. On June 16, 2014, Waszczuk’s attorney, Douglas Stein filed
the First Amended Complaint (FAC) with eight causes of action, and by
amendment he changed the venue of the Waszczuk initial complaint by
removing the two most important COAs Nos. 5 and 6 from Waszczuk ‘s
initial 12/4/2013 complaint.
5. On September 30, 2014, Attorney Stein, while under suspension
of his license to practice law, filed the SAC, which was identical to the FAC
with regard to the COAs. In his briefs on the appeal, the Waszczuk provided
specific information about how the SAC filing by Stein and the defendants’
attorney, Michael Pott played out in court (see Appellant’s Reply Brief, page
no. 26, and Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing, page nos. 29–34).

2
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
 7. On December 1, 2014, five days after the Waszczuk visited Stein,
Defendants’ Attorney from Porter Scott law firm Michael Pott filed a frivolous
and fraudulent Special Motion to Strike the anti-SLAPP Motion, CCP § 425.16,
against the first four COAs to end Waszczuk’s lawsuit. The subjects to strike
were the four causes of action from Waszczuk’s defective SAC COAs. The
defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion is devoid of meaningful factual analysis,
invokes general statements of law, and mischaracterizes the quintessence of
Waszczuk’s action.
8. On or about December 15, 2014, Wells Fargo Bank informed the
Waszczuk that the retainer’s special bank account opened by Stein with the
Appellant’s $20,000 was empty and had been over-drafted. The Waszczuk
questioned Stein about this, dismissed him from both cases, and submitted a
complaint about him to the State Bar of California.
9. From the State Bar investigation In re Stein, S245982 (Cal. Mar.
1, 2018) http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/15-O-10110-2.pdf Waszczuk
learned that between June 2, 2014, and December 2, 2014, the respondent
issued 14 checks and initiated 31 debits directly from the trust account, totaling
$4,991.82, for personal transactions. He also learned that on December 3, 2014,
the client’s trust account had a negative balance of $-194.33.
Stein had rejected the $20,000 that Waszczuk offered him on
November 25, 2014, but instead withdrew approximately $15,000 from the
trust account on December 3, 2014, two days after the defendants’ attorney,
Pott, filed the anti-SLAPP Motion. If Stein had told Waszczuk in
November 2014 that he needed money because he was in a difficult
financial situation, Waszczuk would have lent him $10,000. However.
taking money from the trust account without informing Waszczuk and not
objecting to the anti-SLAPP motion gave the Waszczuk no choice but to
dismiss Stein from both cases.
10. In December 2014 Waszczuk was planning a trip to Poland
for the Christmas and New Year holidays to visit his family. Waszczuk
3
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
canceled the trip when he learned that on December 1, 2014, Defendants’
attorney filed the anti-SLAPP motion and observed Stein’s peculiar
approach to the filed motion. Since then, Waszczuk has not visited his
native country for fear of being placed on a “no-fly” list by UC President
Janet Napolitano’s colleagues from the U.S Department of Homeland
Security and then being barred from returning to the USA, just as had
happened to Yonas Fikre who was barred from air travel for over six years
for refusing to be an informant to the FBI. Fikre v. Fed. Bureau of
Investigation, 904 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2018)
11. On December 15 or 16, 2014, during a phone conversation, Stein
told the Waszczuk that he would get a lot of money in the new year and would
return the stolen retainer to Waszczuk.
12. On January 23, 2015, Waszczuk filed his Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP Motion. A half an hour after the court clerk
endorsed and filed the Appellant’s Opposition, the defendants’ leading attorney
and Porter Scott shareholder, Pott, informed the Waszczuk by e-mail that
January 23, 2015, was his last day of employment with Porter Scott. Pott was
replaced by another Porter Scott shareholder, David Burkett, and associate
attorney, Douglas Ropel.

THE DEFENDANT’S FORMER ATTORNEY AND

SHAREHOLDER OF THE PORTER SCOTT LAW FIRM DAVID
PONTUS EUGENE BURKETT J.D SBN # 241896

13.. David Burkett, the Defendants’ former attorney, employee

and shareholder of the Porter Scott law firm for 13 years, left Porter Scott
in October 2019. He was immediately replaced in this case by another
Porter Scott attorney, Nancy Sheehan. Gravely ill Nancy Sheehan died one
month later on November 23, 2019
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sacbee/obituary.aspx?n=nancy-
joan-sheehan&pid=194994093

4
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
 14. David Burkett had not wanted to be associated with Waszczuk’s
case, but he was somehow forced into a four-year involvement with the
fraudulent and frivolous anti-SLAPP motion left for him by Michael Pott.
Burkett left Porter Scott law firm and this case with $320 legal fees awarded to
him by a court order dated June 7, 2018.
15. The Defendants’ Attorney David Burkett did everything possible
to make Waszczuk end all litigation against the Regents of the University of
California and five individual defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott,
Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert and Cindi Oropeza or reverse the trial Court
Order dated February 9, 2015 (Hon. David I. Brown).
16. On February 27, 2015, David Burkett sent his associate, Douglas
Ropel, to a hearing before Judge Shelleyanne Chang in Jaroslaw Jerry
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
(CUIAB)(ROA #28) Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CU-WM-GDS with the UC
Regents as a Real Party of Interest. Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins.
Appeals Bd., C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018) Neither Ropel nor Burkett
was counsel of record for this case in February 2015.
Burkett sent Ropel to the court for the sole purpose of confronting and
attacking Waszczuk prior the hearing. Ropel made vile, despicable threats to go
after Waszczuk’s wife if he would not agree to drop the litigation against the
Defendants in exchange for legal fees in connection with the anti-SLAPP
motion. In February 2015, legal fees were not awarded to any party. ( See:
Waszczuk Petition for Rehearing in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524
(Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) Page No. 14. )
Defendants’ former attorneys from Porter Scott, Michael Pott, David
Burkett, Douglas and most likely Thomas L. Riordan and Attorney Ashante
Norton from the California Attorney General’s office know all details of what
happened to Waszczuk’s unemployment benefits that were reinstated by the
EDD in May of 2014. Waszczuk will further address this issue subsequent to
5
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
this Motion to Recall Remittitur for the Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins.
Appeals Bd., C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018) case. Stealing the
unemployment insurance benefits from somebody is a serious crime. ( See
Exhibit # 22 in Motion to Recall Remittitur) This serious crime which was
covered up needs to be uncovered. The bottom line is that the Waszczuk’s
unemployment insurance benefit was stolen in May 2015.
12. After Judge David I. Brown issued a final order granting the
Special Motion to Strike the four COAs from Waszczuk’s defective SAC on
4/14//2015 (ROA # 80), Defendants’ Attorneys Burkett and Ropel filed a
motion for grossly inflated legal fees and costs on May 11,2015 for the anti-
SLAPP motion. Porter Scott shareholder and leading attorney David Burkett in
the case declared (ROA 85) that he had only worked on the anti-SLAPP motion
for 1.2 hours, at a rate of $260 per hour, thus totaling $312 of the $32,738 of
fees that the defendants’ attorney was claiming. The legal fees show that
Burkett did not participate because he knew more than he wanted to know
about this fraudulent motion.
13. On May 19, 2015, just one month after the defendants obtained
the favorable decision to strike the COAs from the Waszczuk SAC and eight
days after they filed the Motion for Fees and Cost, unexpectedly, their attorney,
Burkett, asked the Waszczuk by e-mail what his settlement offer was.
Waszczuk outlined the settlement offer in his eight-page reply, dated May 21,
2015 (see Motion to Recall Remittitur, Exhibit No. 28). The Waszczuk recalls
that Burkett repeated his question about the settlement in exchange for anti-
SLAPP motion legal fees in July or August 2015.
14. On June 11, 2015, due to a lack of response from Burkett about
the Appellant’s settlement offer, the Waszczuk filed a timely Notice of Appeal
from the April 14, 2015 order by Judge Brown that granted the defendants a
special motion to strike the four COAs from the Appellant’s SAC.
15. On July 25, 2016, Defendants’ Attorney David Burkett
deliberately filed a defective Respondent Brief (RB ). Burkett’s RB did not cite
6
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
any court record but was a desperate attempt to receive a negative decision
from the Court of Appeal reversing the trial Court Order and Judgement
granting the anti-SLAPP motion to the Defendants by striking the first four
causes of action. Defendant’s Attorney Burkett, by his faulty RB filed on
07/25/2016, was begging the Court of Appeal to reverse the trial Court Order
dated April 14, 2015. For some reason somebody in the Porter Scott law firm
and somebody in the Court of Appeal made a different decision, and on
November 9, 2016 the Court, by its own motion, ordered that the RB filed July
25, 2016 be stricken for “failure to support any reference to a matter in the
record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the
matter appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)((1)(c).) The Court ordered
Respondent to refile the RB on or before December 15, 2016, instead of
rewarding Burkett and reversing the trial court’s April 14, 2015 Order and
Judgment which granted Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
17. On August 8, 2017, after oral argument, Defendants’
Attorney David Burkett, infuriated by statements made by the Court of Appeal
Justice Panel during the oral argument hearing and anticipating the decision of
the Court of Appeal, snapped and unloaded his anger on Waszczuk and
Waszczuk’s wife with vile threats. Waszczuk thought that Burkett’s
unwarranted attack in the 3DCA building would lead to fisticuffs. Instead of
being happy to win the appeal, Burkett instead became angered to the brink of
beating up 66-year-old Waszczuk right there in the halls of justice. Fortunately
for Waszczuk, he was accompanied by a friend. Unbelievable.
18. Waszczuk’s Application/Motion to Recall Remittitur shows the
pattern of Defendants’ Attorney David Burkett’s obsession with the four
stricken COAs from Waszczuk’s defective SAC which needs to be amended.
David Burkett and his successors’ relitigating of the four stricken COAs using
the fraudulent, oppressive anti-SLAPP motion after the remittitur was issued on
January 16, 2018 is an unprecedented abuse of the court system. Waszczuk
estimated that five consecutive, voluminous motions for monetary and
7
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
terminating sanctions filed in 2018–2019 by Burkett and his successors in cost
five times more than the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the Defendants on
December 1, 2014.
19. In addition to the prohibited-by-law prelitigation of matters which
have already been litigated, the filed motions to compel monetary and
terminating sanctions show how grossly inflated the $32,738 the claimed legal
fees and costs were for the anti-SLAPP motion by Burkett and the associated
Douglas Ropel. For the similar and even more time-consuming motions to
compel monetary and terminating sanction, Defendant’s attorneys were
demanding to be paid $5,000 for each filed motion. This is quite a different
number than $32,738 for one motion.
CONCLUSION
20. Waszczuk concluded his 12/04/2019 opposition to the
Defendant’s 10/23/2019 to the Judgment Creditors’ Further Motion to
Compel Responses to Judgment Debtors’ Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents as follows: (See: Motion to Recall Remittitur
Exhibit No. 31)

This anti-SLAPP motion, filed on December 1,

2014, against Plaintiff Waszczuk is most likely the most
expensive and most-time-consuming anti-SLAPP for the
Regents of the University California and for their notorious
advocates from Porter Scott Law corporation based in
Sacramento, CA since the California Legislature enacted
its anti-SLAPP law, California Code of Civil procedure §
425. 16, in 1992.
The Regents of the University of California or real
owners of the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW
cogeneration power plant were stripped from
approximately or at least $35,000,000 tax-free, cash since
their advocates from Porter Scott filed the anti-SLAPP
motion on December 1, 2014. $35,000,000 tax-free, cash is
lot of money to pay for an anti-SLAPP motion.
In Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 1 Cal.App.5th 1176
(Cal. Ct. App. 2016) the Court ruled that: “The California anti-SLAPP
8
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
statute was intended to counter the “disturbing increase in lawsuits brought
primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom
of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 425.16, subd. (a).) It has been suggested that “[t]he cure has become the
disease—SLAPP motions are now just the latest form of abusive
litigation.” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 96 (dis. opn. of
Brown, J.) (Navellier).) And the disease would become fatal for most
harassment, discrimination, and retaliation actions against public employers
if we were to accept the Regents of the University of California’s
(University) misguided reading of the anti-SLAPP law and reverse the trial
court’s denial of its motion to strike.”
Waszczuk is still wondering why Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the
Univ. of Cal., 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) is omitted from
Waszczuk ‘s 10/10/217 3DCA unpublished opinion. The anti-SLAPP
motion in Waszczuk’s litigations with the University of California is a
classic example of abusive litigation brought by UC Davis Medical Center
by whom both Un Hui Nam and Waszczuk were employed.

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration
was executed on the 18th day of June 2021 at Lodi, California.

________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk,
Plaintiff and Waszczuk In Pro Per

9
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.360(b)(1), I certify that

this Declaration in Support to Recall the Remittitur in Case Waszczuk v.
Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) contains
2599 words, based on the word- count feature of my word-processing
program.

DATED: June 18, 2021

__________________________

Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff & Appellant, In Pro Per

10
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
 Proof of Service by US Mail and TrueFiling

Re:Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10,
2017)
Re: 3DCA Case : Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California- Case No.: 34-2013-00155479

I, IRENA WASZCZUK the undersigned, declare that 1 am over 18

years of age and not a party to the within cause; my address is 2216
Katzakian Way, Lodi, CA. 95242. On June 17, 2021, I served a true copy
of the attached each of the following,
By placing the same copy in an envelope or envelopes addressed
respectively as follows: Plaintiff and Appellant Jaroslaw Waszczuk’
Declaration in Support the Motion to Recall Remittitur

Lindsay A. Goulding -Via U.S Mail

PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825

Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court Via U.S Mail

Department 53 – Hon. Shama Hakim Mesiwala
813 6th Street, 2nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

Jorge E. Navarrete - Via TrueFiling

Supreme Court Clerk/Administrator
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister St.
San Francisco, CA 94102

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of

California that
the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 18, 2021 , at
Lodi CA

_____________________________________________________
IRENA WASZCZUK

11
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR