'15 ALAIN President and/or member of the Boatd of Directors of the Plainti: 26 23 '00 ISI 19 PO. Box 2161 - Santa Monica, CA 90407?21 61 i (310) 393?1486 Telephone I (310) 395-5801 Fax I Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOHN AKI and RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPUTY DISTRICT i ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION JOHN AKI and RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION V. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DISTRICT ATTORNEYE PAUL DISTRICT DOES I 20; inclusive; 27 District Attorneys Association. Plaintiffs; Defendants. RICHARD A. State Ea: No. 091671 EADDEN, WEXLER a LEVINE 1428 Seeond Street COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE I EUPEFERQ E: uni ERSIDE SEP 0 42014 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ERIC 140-3533}! CASE RELIEF FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIDII for VieIation of 42 United States Code 1933 allege as follows 1 FOR DAMAGES, INIDNCTIVE ARI) DEEIARATEIRY REL :iE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY [Unlimited Civil Action] I. For a Fixst Cause of Action by Plaintiff John Aki against Defendants County of 2'2 Riverside; Riverside Distriet Attorneys Of?ee; Paul Zeilerhaeh; Distriet Attorney; Does times mentioned herein Plaintiff John Aki was a Deputy District Attotney employed in the Riverside District Attorney?s Of?ce for the County of Riverside and was the if Riverside County Deputy At all times mentioned herein; Plaintiff Riverside County Deputy District BURT I I as aIii: RIDE 5138 mil Attorneys Association was a recognised employee organization as defined in California i Government Code Section 3501, formally recognized by the County to represent employees in the Riverside District Attorney?s Office, including Deputy District Attorneys on all matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations, including but not limited to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. 4. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant County of Riverside (hereinafter Iefarmd to as County?) was, and is, a public agency organized and enistingunder the laws and 5 Constitution of the State of California and operated the Riverside District Attorneys Of?ce with its principal place of business within the venue and jurisdiction in this Court. Defendants County and Riverside District Attorney?s Office were ?persons? within the meaning of 42 United .States Code Section 1983 charged by its laws and ordinances with the general supervision of employees in the Riverside District Attorney?s Of?ce. 5. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Paul Zellerbach was the District Attorney for the County of Riverside and charged with the administration and management of the Office of Riverside District Attorney and, in that capacity, approved and administered the - policies and practices complained herein. 6. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as DOES 1 - 20, inclusive. Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend its Complaint to allege said Defendants? true names and capacities when the same are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereon alleges that said fictitiously named Defendants are responsible in some manner for the injury to the Plaintiff alleged herein. 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, are, and were at all times mentioned herein, the agents, employees of the remaining co-Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants were acting within the . course and scope of such agency and employment. 8. Plaintiff John Aki employment as a Deputy District Attorney with .i the Riverside District Attorneys Office in January 1993. During the course of his employment COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, WJUNCTWE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF Ill'l'l? HJGH samm_ 15 with the District Attorney?s Of?ce, Aid performed his prosecutorial duties with professionalism and skill and had been selected as Prosecutor of the Year on five (5) occasions, as well a 3 National Capital Litigation trial lawyer of the year. 9. During the term of ?ice of Zellerbach as District Attomey, signi?cant labor i relations controversies arose between Zellerbach and Aki as President and/ or member of the Board of Directors of the Plaintiff Riverside County Deputy District Attorneys Association, including but not limited to litigation concerning Zellerbach?s intention to terminate approximately 10 recently hired Deputy District Attorneys and replace with new employees 1 selected by Zellerbach, controversy respecting Zellerhach?s intended hiring as a Deputy District Attorney of a political supporter who was alleged involved in prosecui?rial/ 11116131111331 misce?duct during his former employment in another District Attorney?s of?ce, and Association grievances ?led against the Riverside District Attomeyis Office regarding computer-camera surveillance capabilities within the workplace and 111vas1on of prlvacy of nursing female Deputy District Attorneys. 10. In or about March 2013, Mike Hestrin, then Deputy District Attorney for the County of Riverside announced. his candidacy against Zellerbach for the of?ce of District Attorney for the County of Riverside, ll. Commencing on or about Septernher 9, 2013, District Attorney Paul Zellerbach, County of Riverside, and their agents and employees engaged in a pattern of retaliation, discrimination, restraint and/or interference with the exercise of Plaintiff John Aki?s statutory constitutional rights and privilege to engage in free speech, political activity and participation in activities as President and/or Board Director of the recognized employee organization, Riverside County Deputy District Attorneys Association, respecting the support 5 of the candidacy of Mike (then Deputy District Attorney for the Riverside District ij?rside against the Defendant incumbent Paul Zellerhach, as well as in retaliation for the exercise of Altils responsibilities as Association President respecting labor relatlons matters. cosmiimr son DAMAGES, Wiuaoriva AND oaoLanaroav RELIEF - . . Attomeyls Of?ce) for the upcoming election for the office of District Attorney of the County of 1-. I kWh-J Plaintiff Aki endorsed. and actively engaged o' in political activity in support of the candidacy of Mike Hestrin for District Attorney: and participated in the creation and/or issuance which was critical of the performance of Zellerbach in his duties as District Attorney, as well as Where he had been assigned throughout his 17 year career to the Indio of?ce (Eastern Division) contrary to well-established past practice in the District Attorneys? Of?ce. The involuntary reassignment was motivated by District Attorney Zellerbach in order to facilitate monitoring of Plaintif off-duty campaign activities in support of Mike Hestrin. interfere with such campaign activitich and for the purpose of deliberately imposing hardship and burden on leave daya off to conduct Associationfpolitical activity on the scheduling of a criminal trial assigned to Plaintiff. In addition. Defendants and their agents and employees. without legal justification. conducted administrative investigations of Alti in an effort to discover misconduct I. Zellerbach and his. agents and employees caused the removal of Plaintiff from his on?call 5 an improved District Attorney? Of?ce under new leadership. I Plaintiff by a commute of approximately 4 hours roundtrip from Plaintiffs then recently approximately 10 years and thereby deprived Plaintiff corresponding compensation of which Plaintiff was otherwise entitled. 12. During the course of the political campaign for the election of District Attorney: of public statement, press releases and campaign materials in support of the Hestrin campaign addressed relevant law enforcement issues in the community and presenting Hestrin?s vision for 13. Speci?cally. in or about September 9. 2013. Plaintiff John Aki was involuntarily transferred from the downtown Riverside of?ce of the District Attorney (Western Division) relocated residence in Murrieta. 14. On or about November 13:, 2013, Plaintizf Aki discovered that District Attorney Paul chlerbach and his agents and employees had secretly conducted an administrative investigation regarding Plaintiff Aki as to the propriety of his legitimate utilization of a annual and impose disciplinary action. 7 Aki discovered? District Attorney Paul 15. Onor about January 9, 20145 Plainti' responsibilities on Officer Involved Shooting hivestigations of which he had been assigned for - - -. M4. . COMPLAINT son DAMAGES. mamcrivs awn oncranaronv RELIEF mew-2?si 27* 28 3 election loss to Mike Hestrin for the office of District Attorney, Aki was reassigned to the Gang Unit of the District Attorneyis Office which was a less desirable and prestigious assignment. conduct under color of statute, ordinances, regulations, customs andfor usages of the State of 1 immunities secured to him as a result of Defendants illegally retaliating against Plaintiff Aid in i the exercise of his First Amendment constitutional right of free speech and political activity and salary, benefits, diminution of retirement benefits, increased transportation expenses, and limited to, humiliation, indignity, loss of professional and personal reputation, physical and District Attorney (Western Division), and on-?call responsibilities on Officer Involved Shooting Amendment of the United States Constitution and Title 42 United States Code Section 1983. 16. Commencing in or about July, 2014 and subsequent to Paul Zellerbach re? 17. The Defendants, and each of them, have committed the herein illegal acts and California, County of Riverside, and have deprived Plaintiff Aki of his rights, privileges and was denied equal protection in Vi?l?ti?? of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 13. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff Alrirhas suffered actual damages, including but not limited to loss of compensatory damages for violation of constitutional and statuton rights including, but not emotional injuries in an amount according to proof and in excess of $25,000.00. 19. Defendant Zellerbach has willfully, Wantonly and intentionally acted to oppress and injure the Plaintiff Alti as the result of Plaintiff? legitimate exercise of his constitutional right of free speech, participation in an election campaign, and participation in activities of the i recognized employee organization justifying an award of punitive damages against Defendant Zellerbach in a sum according to proof. 20. Unless and until equitable relief is issued by this Court, including a mandatory injunction restoring Plaintiff Aki to his assignment in the donmtownRiVerside office of the investigations, and enjoining the Defendants from enforcing their unconstitutional policies and practices against Plaintiff Alri, Plaintiff will continue tosuffer irreparable injtuy and loss as a result of Defendants violating Plaintiff? a constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth COMPLAINT- FOR cannons, INJUNCTWE AND nacmaaronr RELIEF 1 2t. On February 20, 2014, Plaintiff Al