HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09301986 - 1.4 AMENDED
CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BOARD ACTION
Claim Against the County, or District governed by)
thE:.3oard of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 30, 1986
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below),
Amount: Unspecified (280785) given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and
915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS".
CLAIMANT: WILLIAM AND CLAIRE GILBERT County Counsel
c/o Robert T. Lazzarini SEP U 8 1986
ATTORNEY: LOW, Ball & Lynch
601 California Street Martine= CA 94553
ADDRESS: San Francisco, CA 94108- Date received ,
2898 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: September 2 , 1986
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 29, 1986
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK
DATED: September 4, 1986 BY: Deputy
L. Hall
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2
This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated:�� /9$(o By: `' Deputy County Counsel
IV
111. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
its ft/�.Fx/,ocp
(x) This Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Ordere e ed in its minutes for this date.
SEP 3 01986 � /�
Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk,. 8y & ,_ Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'terved
or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to
.. consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator
LOW, BALL & LYNCH ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
601 CALIFORNIA STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108-2898 (415) 981-6630
C�
August 29
Clerk, Board of Supervisors R-EcEI V r�
County of Contra Costa
Administration Building AFP
P.O. Box 69 g T ELOR
Martinez , California 94553 Aq SU q a8
a A T
Attn: Jo Ann Heredia
RE: Addendum to Formal Claim
Dear Ms. Heredia:
Enclosed please find Addendum to Formal Claim Pursuant
to Government Code Section 910 on behalf of William M.
Gilbert and Claire Gilbert whose Claims were served on
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors August 19, 1986.
We have stated in the Addendum the date of the occurrence
as per your request.
Will you please send us back a copy of each of the Addendums
with a received mark thereon.
Very truly yours,
BA & LYNCH
Robert T. Lazzarini
RTL:ms J
Enclosures
PENINSULA OFFICE • 750 MENLO AVENUE, MENLO PARK. CALIFORNIA 94025-4702 • TELEPHONE (415) 321-2211
WALNUT CREEK OFFICE • 1990 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD.. WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94 59 6-3 703 • TELEPHONE(415) 934-9444
EI
ADDENDUM TO
JERK HI r
FORMAL CLAIM ey o PC
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 910
Claimants William M. Gilbert and Claire Gilbert, by
their attorneys, Low, Ball & Lynch, bring this Addendum to
the Claim served on the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors on
August 19, 1986 . Said Formal Claim is attached to this
Addendum.
DATE OF OCCURRENCE OR TRANSACTION WHICH GAVE
RISE TO THE CLAIM ASSERTED
This is a claim for indemnity and contribution arising
out of the service of a Complaint for Damages - resulting from
landslides which occurred on April 1, 1983 and October 29,
1983 near a drainage easement adjacent to property at 616
La Paloma Road in E1 Sobrante, California.
DATED: August 29, 1986.
LOW, BALL & LYNCH
I,
By
R bert TI. Atazzarini
}
DECEIVED
AUG IT IM
' p qBA CV R RS
CL K W5
NT T OeDu�Y
BY '''
FORMAL CLAIM, PURSUANT TO CODE SECTION 910
This claim is being presented on behalf of claimants
William M. Gilbert and Claire Gilbert, by their attorneys,
Low, Ball & Lynch. The claim is made against the County of
Contra Costa.
NAME AND POST OFFICE ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT:
William and Claire Gilbert, 4630 Driftwood Court, E1
Sobrante, California 94803 (415) 222-7860.
POST OFFICE ADDRESS TO WHICH PERSON PRESENTING THE CLAIM DESIRES
NOTICE TO BE SENT:
Low, Ball & Lynch, 601 California Street, 21st Floor,
San Francisco, California 94108.
DATE, PLACE AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF OCCURRENCE GIVING RISE
TO THE CLAIM ASSERTED:
This is a claim for indemnity and contribution arising
out of the service of a complaint for damages resulting from
a landslide that occurred in 1983 . The complaint is entitled
Allstate Insurance Company, Inc. v. Dennis C. Woodruff, et
al. and related cross-actions, Contra Costa Superior Court
Action No. 280785.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION 'OF THE INDEBTEDNESS, OBLIGATION, INJURIES,
DAMAGES OR LOSS INCURRED SO FAR AS IT MAY BE KNOWN AT THE TIME
OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE CLAIM:
Plaintiff is seeking recovery for compensation paid to their
insureds arising from property damage resulting from a
landslide. Claimants deny any responsibility, but if any
responsibility is imposed against said claimants, then they
would be entitled to indemnity and contribution from the
County of Contra Costa for the negligent and careless posses-
sion and control of certain real property described as a
drainage easement adjacent to the property at 616 La Paloma
Road, E1 Sobrante.
i
THE NAME OR NAMES OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES CAUSING
THE INJURIES, DAMAGE OR LOSS, IF KNOWN:
Unknown.
THAT AMOUNT CLAIMED AS OF THE DATE OF PRESENTATION OF CLAIM:
The amount of said claim is presently unknown.
DATED: —t �� LOW, BALL & LYNCH
r
BY:
OBEI2 r LA %! INI
Attorneys f WI AM M.
GILBERT and CLARE GILBERT
f
f,
. ID lnfNr7rVIRD
Ll
ADDENDUM TO Jk.;J
FORMAL CLAIM C CQ ®o SUP q
ORS
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 91 By �vuty
Claimants William M. Gilbert and Claire Gilbert, by
their attorneys, Low, Ball & Lynch, bring this Addendum to
the Claim served on the Clerk of -the Board of Supervisors on
August 19, 1986. Said Formal Claim is attahced to this
Addendum.
DATE OF OCCURRENCE OR TRANSACTION WHICH GAVE .
RISE TO THE CLAIM ASSERTED
This is a claim for indemnity and contribution arising
out of the service of a Complaint for Damages resulting from
landslides which occurred on April 1, 1983 and October 29,
1983 near a drainage easement adjacent to property at 616
La Paloma Road in E1 Sobrante, California.
DATED: August 29, 1986 .
LOW, BALL & LYNCH
By:
4obe t Lazzarini
• RECEI`1ED
sj
L 8 HELOR
C� OA F ST C V OR$
ey . . .. . .......... ,
FORMAL CLAIM, PURSUANT TO CODE SECTION 910
This claim is being presented on behalf of claimants
William M. Gilbert and Claire Gilbert, by their attorneys,
Low, Ball & Lynch. The claim is made against the County of
Contra Costa.
NAME AND POST OFFICE ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT:
William and Claire Gilbert, 4630 Driftwood Court, E1
Sobrante, California 94803 (415) 222-7860.
POST OFFICE ADDRESS TO WHICH PERSON PRESENTING THE CLAIM DESIRES
NOTICE TO BE SENT:
Low, Ball & Lynch, 601 California Street, 21st Floor,
San Francisco, California 94108.
DATE, PLACE AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF OCCURRENCE GIVING RISE
TO THE CLAIM ASSERTED:
This is a claim for indemnity and contribution arising
out of the service of a complaint for damages resulting from
a landslide that occurred in 1983 . The complaint is entitled
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Robert R. Sheets, et
al. and related cross-actions, Contra Costa Superior Court
Action No. 255495.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDEBTEDNESS, OBLIGATION, INJURIES,
DAMAGES OR LOSS INCURRED SO FAR A IT MAY BE KNOWN AT THE TIME
OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE CLAIM:
Plaintiff is seeking recovery for compensation paid to their
insureds arising from property damage resulting from a
landslide. Claimants deny any responsibility, but if any
responsibility is imposed against said claimants, then they
would be entitled to indemnity and contribution from the
County of Contra Costa for the negligent and careless posses-
sion and control of certain real property described as a
drainage easement adjacent to the property at 616 La Paloma
Road, E1 Sobrante.
THE NAME OR NAMES OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES CAUSING
THE INJURIES, DAMAGE OR LOSS, IF KNOWN:
Unknown.
THAT AMOUNT CLAIMED AS OF THE DATE OF PRESENTATION OF CLAIM:
The amount of said claim is presently unknown.
DATED: /!! LOW, BALL & LYNCH
Lii
Y
I / R E T. LAZZARINI
oAttorneys for WILLIAM M.
GILBERT and CLAIRE GILBERT
f
6AMENDED
CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BOARD ACTION
Claim Against the County, or District governed by)
the Board of Supervisors', Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 30, 1986
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below),
Amount: Unspecified (255495) given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and
915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". County Counsel
CLAIMANT: WILLIAM AND CLAIRE GILBERT
c/o Robert T. Lazzarini SEP 111986
ATTORNEY: LOW, Ball & Lynch
601 California Street Martinez, CA �t551
ADDRESS: San Francisco, CA 94108— Date received
2898 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: September 2 , 1986
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 29 , 1986
1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim, l
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK
DATED: September 11, 1986 BY: Deputy
L. Hall
11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2
(�} This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.6):
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: a ByDeputy County Counsel
1II. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (11County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
1V. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
�s��cNaD�D
This Claim 4 i rejected in full.
( ) Other:
1 certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date.
Dated: SEP 3 01986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk; By. `c-g! C_ Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'3erved
or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to
consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator
%A:,J, j�
ADDENDUM TO '�
FORMAL CLAIM cp ®o suv a
ORS
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 91
By """"" +�r
Claimants William M. Gilbert and Claire Gilbert, by
their attorneys, Low, Ball & Lynch, bring this Addendum to
the Claim served on the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors on
August 19, 1986. Said Formal Claim is attahced to this
Addendum.
DATE OF OCCURRENCE OR TRANSACTION WHICH GAVE ,
RISE TO THE CLAIM ASSERTED
This is a claim for indemnity and contribution arising
out of the service of a Complaint for Damages resulting from
landslides which occurred on April 1, 1983 and October 29,
1983 near a drainage easement adjacent to property at 616
La Paloma Road in El Sobrante, California.
DATED: August 29, 1986 .
LOW, BALL & LYNCH
By:
4obe t Lazzarini
a RECEIVED
AUG Su
L8 MELOEER
Cil OA F ST CC V ORS
aY . .. .. �. .. ....... .
FORMAL CLAIM, PURSUANT TO CODE SECTION 910
This claim is being presented on behalf of claimants
William M. Gilbert and Claire Gilbert, by their attorneys,
Low, Ball & Lynch. The claim is made against the County of
Contra Costa.
NAME AND POST OFFICE ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT:
William and Claire Gilbert, 4630 Driftwood Court, E1
Sobrante, California 94803 (415) 222-7860.
POST OFFICE ADDRESS TO WHICH PERSON PRESENTING THE CLAIM DESIRES
NOTICE TO BE SENT:
Low, Ball & Lynch, 601 California Street, 21st Floor,
San Francisco, California 94108.
DATE, PLACE AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF OCCURRENCE GIVING RISE
TO THE CLAIM ASSERTED:
This is a claim for indemnity and contribution arising
out of the service of a complaint for damages resulting from
a landslide that occurred in 1983 . The complaint is entitled
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Robert R. Sheets, et
al. and related cross-actions, Contra Costa Superior Court
Action No. 255495.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDEBTEDNESS, OBLIGATION, INJURIES,
DAMAGES OR LOSS INCURRED SO FAR AS IT MAY BE KNOWN AT THE TIME
OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE CLAIM:
Plaintiff is seeking recovery for compensation paid to their
insureds arising from property damage resulting from a
landslide. Claimants deny any responsibility, but if any
responsibility is imposed against said claimants, then they
would be entitled to indemnity and contribution from the
County of Contra Costa for the negligent and careless posses-
sion and control of certain real property described as a
drainage easement adjacent to the property at 616 La Paloma
Road, E1 Sobrante.
THE NAME OR NAMES OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES CAUSING
THE INJURIES, DAMAGE OR LOSS, IF KNOWN:
Unknown.
THAT AMOUNT CLAIMED AS OF THE DATE OF PRESENTATION OF CLAIM:
The amount of said claim is presently unknown.
DATED: 4f U-71 , 106 LOW, BALL & LYNCH
L.
Y
I-Attorneys
. LAZZARINI
for WILLIAM M.
GILBERT and CLAIRE GILBERT
CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 30, 1986
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below),
Amount: $85 . 99 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and
915.4. Please note all "WARN] G "nay (;,pur1S�
CLAIMANT: JAMES MICHAEL MOBLEY Cii
c/o Penny Scanlon SEP 0 2 1986
ATTORNEY: Public Defender CA 94553
3024 Willow Pass Road #100 Martinez,
ADDRESS: Concord, CA 94519 Date received
BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 29 , 1986
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 28 , 1986
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK
���
DATED: August 29 , 1986 BY: Deputy
L.hall
11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
( This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2
( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: hJ F.4 /q E4y: - Deputy County Counsel
1I1. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
k9j") This Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:.
1 certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order ent d in its minutes for this date.
SEP 3 01986
Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally`3erved
or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to
consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator
i CLXIM TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COP
* WXappiication to:
Instructions to Claimant0erk of the Board
.O.Box 911
Martinez.California 94553
A. Claims relating to causes 'of action for death or for injury to
person or to personal property or growing crops must be presented
not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of
action. -Claims relating to any other cause of action must be
presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause
of action. (Sec. 911.2, Govt. Code)
B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine
Street, Martinez, California 94553.
C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors,
rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in.
D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims
must be filed against each public entity. .
E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at end
o this form.
RE: Claim// by /1 )Reserved for Clerk' ng stamps
RECEIVED
Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) AUG Oct 1986
or DISTRICT) fp
F F�u� ORS <...
(Filln name ) Cl 0
iY .1. wtY
The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra
Costa or the above-named District in the sum of
and in support of this claim represents as follows:
�. When didthe damage orn3ury occur? Give exact date and hour]
W�iere did tie damage or in3ury occur? ?Include city and county
"7-
C,C /D C72ti 77 cW P�9C/c- 71% GO•v7724 eesS -A .
3. How did the damage or
1n3ury occur? Giveu�S details, use extra
sheets if required) wN�-�►/ �5�� a.ti /y1�9D�r�9 C?�u�v i y
'Derl- OF CoCWX77 v N s 7b C��t�7yt,4 �s77q G'v uti� 0��tiro ati ��soJli f�'L
c Lor -3 w� C'fl�✓.�rse ��.4�vivG w �-� G'Ce 77T- _S;
4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district
officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage?
W Ham"/✓ I��E�1"5�7� OA/
Gc�e-7e6 A",v7 �' 'r,4QA Q!
(over)
5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or
employees causing the damage or injury?
6. What damage or �n3uries do you claim resulted? �Gve dull extent
of injuries of damages claimed. - Attach two estimates for auto
damage) IC757- / PH-i 2 of -S��Z �"o D BeQr-e< &00-fe-K ,8&%q-Vr5�
2 - -
7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimate
amount of any prospective injury or damage. )
-------------
37-List the
------------
d addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals.
3. List .the expenditures. you made on account of this accident or injury:
DATE ITEM AMOUNT
B 007 /1/o T ye/ 7-
Govt. Code Sec. 910.2 provides :
"The claim signed by the claimant
SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by some person on his behalf."
Name and Address of Attorney ^
PrNti y .sewer/[-O V CiaimaMws Signature
Pic-8u c Oe��'N�c�2, l7 ll�$(6
Address' .
�'01VGa12-O/ Qom-
Telephone No. Telephone top.. ?d -Shoo
NOTICE
Section 72 of the Penal Code provides:
' Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or
for payment to any state board or officer, ' or to any county, town, city
district, ward or village board or officer', authorized to allow or pay
the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher,
. or writing, is guilty of a felony. "
CD
m m M rn—' Z O D D L-
r r 0 0 -�
O m Z Z
1
1
r D O -04 13 El El
2 \ N O Z
Ay m � 0 2
Z \ CA
.� m N N \ A n
m o co (71 0 H
z z G �_
D b C m -♦ > ;
n :
y m ri o m c
V � o
�MZ D
0 ❑❑❑� " ;
Nm
m 0D ~ V V m Z
O � i0Z p Cl)
`<m^ ANN m
a H r- V
0
_ \ r
ON
7
gA" OHO
0T
M
t a •. a D
:?<
` D
CD
J,
° _; •r: 7
o, cn cn cn n (,n co �^
i fn-
5
ego �'" tk '�• Y. s Ln
LA 0
CD
to
)I Limed e.; ! " i.•r.0.. .• is .ra 7br 2'. Y � � I
x
t
;o p ca O
A � 3 DoT
3 @ W 0
70 1 N x� (D Q.. r.► p
n a p c,� O
A ✓
3
go C O
it`i 7c m C
Jv
ro 3
o rn
3 ° Vo
X a O cp vs cn T C> T M4
o a m o Q Z
co
p N
� � m
� w
fl M
/ Q
n m
K Z op -n
�_ G7 -'
_ (p T
(DN N Vt n
N
O
rn
fV
r
t CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 30, 1986
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below),
given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 a n d
Amount: Unspecified
CLAIMANT: MASON GEISINGER ET AL 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS".
County Counsel
c/o Louis F. Schofield, Esq. SEP 0 2 1986
ATTORNEY: N. Kathleen Strickland, Esq.
P. O. Box 5168 Martinez, CA 94553
ADDRESS: Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Date received
BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 29 , 1986
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 26 , 1986
Certified'P 139 945 430
1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK
DATED: August 29 , 1986 BY: Deputy
L. Hall
11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(X) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2
(/ �) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated;!j�l Deputy County Counsel
I11. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
1V. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
(� This Claim is rejected in full.
(( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order t d in its minutes for this date.
Dated: SEP 3 0 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk,. By. Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally`terved
or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to
..consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator
/ 1
CLAIM TO: , BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
i
Instructions to Claimant
A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to
person or to personal property or growing crops must be presented
not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of
action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be
presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause
of action. (Sec. 911. 2, Govt. Code)
B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine
Street, Martinez , CA 94553 (or mail to P.O. Box 911, Martinez, .CA) .
C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors ,
rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in.
D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims
must be filed against each public entity.
E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims , Penal Code Sec. 72 at end
of this form.
RE: Claim by ) Res ling stamps
MASON GEISINGER through their ) FR7CEIEI�
attorney N. Kathleen Strickland )
Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) 11
.l8 �HEL011'1or DISTRICT) C R S
(Fill in name) ) L
. . .• •�
The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra
Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $
and in support of this claim represents as follows :
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour)
April 22 , 1986
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county)
Monte Verde Drive, El Sobrante, Contra Costa County
- - - - -------------------------------------------------------
- -----
3.--How---d-id-the damage or injury occur? (Give full details, use extra
sheets if required) Plaintiff ' s mother Moscarelli drove a
vchicle on Monte Vista Road which allegedly became lodged between a
water pipe and trench. In attempting to extricate her vehicle therefrom
it went out of control and over a 400 foot embankment . Meagan Moscarelli
was killed and her infant daughter filed suit through her Guardian Ad Litem.
----W-h-- -- ----- --- -- -------- -- --- ---- -- ------ -- --------
4. at--pa-rticular-= - - - - - - - - - -
act or omission on the part of county or district---
officers , servants or employees caused the injury or damage?
Claimant seeks equitable indemnity from the County of Contra Costa because
,.;iaimant is informed and believes that the County of Contra Costa owned,
possessed, controlled, designed, created, repaired, supervised, inspected,
constructed, maintained, used and permitted the property where the
(over)
.:hat are the names of county or district officers , servants or
employees causing the damage or injury?
Unknown
- -- ------------------------------------------------------
6-.--Wh-at--damage--------or--injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent
of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto
damage)
Since this is a claim for equitable indemnification the damages are
unspecified at this time .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated
amount of any prospective injury or damage. )
(See attached claim)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals.
Unknown . This claim arises from a lawsuit filed in Superior Court
of Alameda County No. H 117310-9 alleging personal injury and
wrongful death. Discovery has not begun . It is believed plaintiff
was treated at Doctors and Children ' s Hospital . All witnesses are
listed in the CHP report .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury:
DATE ITEM AMOUNT
Claimants have already been damaged to the ,.extent they have been
brought into the lawsuit as Cross-defendants, thereby incur-ring
at this time resultant legal fees and expenses .
Govt. . Code Sec. 910. 2 provides :
"The claim signed -by. the claimant
SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by 'some person o his behalf. "
Name and Address of Attorney ,
Louis F. Schofield, Esq. 1 imig ure
N. Kathleen Strickland, Esq.
BURNHILL, MOREHOUSt, BURFORD, d ess
CHOFIELD & SCHILLER, INC.
P. 0. Box 5168, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone No. (415)937=4950 Telephone No.
NOTICE
Section 72 of the Penal Code provides:
"Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or
for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, town, city
district, ward or village board or officer, authorized to allow or pay
the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher,
�T-
writing, is guilty of a felony. "
j
CLAIM TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
(CONTINUED)
4. subject accident occurred to exist in a hazardous condition due
to its narrow width, drainage pipe and trench and failed to take
any action to warn the public of such hazard or to repair such
hazard.
LOUIS F. SCHOFIELD, ESQ.
N. KATHLEEN STRICKLAND, ESQ.
BURNHILL, MOREHOUSE, BURFORD,
SCHOFIELD & SCHILLER, INC.
1220 Oakland Blvd. , Suite 200
P. 0. Box 5168
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (415) 937-4950
Attorneys for Claimant,
MASON GEISINGER
Before the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County
In the Matter of the Claim of:
MASON GEISINGER, CLAIM ON GOVERNMENTAL
ENTITY PURSUANT TO
Claimant GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
901 ET SEQ.
V.
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY:
On behalf of MASON GEISINGER, plaintiff, claimant makes this
claim for equitable indemnification and contribution against the
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA in an unspecified sum, to be amended at a
later time when said damages accrue, and make the following
statment in support of said claim:
1. Claimant' s address is 8600 Monte Verde Drive, E1
Sobrante, California.
2. Notices concerning the claim should be sent to Louis F.
Schofield, c/o Burnhill , Morehouse, Burford, Schofield &
Schiller, 1220 Oakland Blvd., Suite 200, P. 0. Box 5168, Walnut
Creek, CA 94596, attorneys for and acting on behalf of claimant.
1
f
3. The date upon which this cause of action for equitable
indemnity or partial equitable indemnity accrues is on the date
defendant was served with a Complaint giving rise to said claim
which in this instance was July 14, 1986.
4. This claim arises from a lawsuit filed in Superior Court
of Alameda County, No. H117310-9 alleging personal injury damages
and wrongful death as a result of a vehicular accident occurring
on April 22, 1986 on Monte Verde Drive, in E1 Sobrante, within
the County of Contra Costa.
5. It is alleged that plaintiff's mother MEAGAN MOSCARELLI
was driving a vehicle on Monte Verde Drive which allegedly became
lodged between a water pipe and trench. In attempting to
dislodge the vehicle, the vehicle allegedly went out of control
and over a 400 foot enbankment. Plaintiff's mother died and
plaintiff has brought this suit through her guardian ad litem.
6. Claimant seeks equitable indemnity from the County of
Contra Costa because claimant is informed and believes that the
County of Contra Costa through its employees negligently and
carelessly approved, inspected, controlled, supervised, operated,
permitted, and otherwise condoned the placement of the water pipe
on the property, the existence of the trench on the road, and
that furthermore the county knew or should have known of the
existence of this condition on the roadway which created a
substantial risk of injury from this dangerous and defective
addition in that the county .failed to exercise due care and
remedy and/or warn all users of the roadway of this dangerous and
defective condition.
7. Furthermore, claimant seeks equitable indemnity from the
County of Contra Costa because claimant is informed and believes
1)
`f
that the County of Contra Costa knew or should have known of the
existence of a prior landslide on this road due to a defective
water main which significantly reduced the width of the road and
that thereafter the county negligently and carelessly permitted
this roadway to exist in this condition without marking the road
with adequate signs, lights, barriers, dividers, reflecters, and
other warning devices so as to inform the public of this
hazardous road.
8. At this time the names of the public employees causing
the injury damage and loss referred to above in paragraphs 6 and
7 are unknown.
9. Since this claim is based on equitable indemnification
principles, the amount of damages sustained is unknown at this
time. Claimants have already been damaged to the extent they
have been brought into the lawsuit as cross-defendants, thereby
incurring at this time resultant legal fees and expenses.
Claimants may be further damages if they are found liable to the
plaintiff or any other cross-complainant in this action.
Dated: August 27, 1986 BURNHILL, MOREHOUSE, BURFORD,
SCHOFIELD & SCHILLER, INC.
By
N. KA HLEEN STRI LAND
Attorneys for Claimant
3
CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 30 , 1986
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below),
Amount: $5 . 645 , 000. 00 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and
915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". County Counsel
CLAIMANT: BRIAN ANDERSON
c/o Judith A. Cohen SEP U 8 1986
ATTORNEY: Lerner, Cohen, Stein & Lubin Martinez, CA 94,553
615 Battery St, 6th Floor
ADDRESS: San Francisco , CA 94111 Date received
BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: September 2 , 1986
BY MAIL POSTMARKED:August 29 , 1986
Certitied F 453 951 875
1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK
DATED: September 2 , 1986 BY: Deputy
L. Hall
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(V) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2
( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated;/ , /�0 By ' eputy County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
(� This Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order enter in its minutes for this date.
Dated: SEP 3 0 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'Served
or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to
consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator
1
ROBERT S. STEIN. STEIN 8. LU B I N
MARK D. LUBIN• ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE
HENRY LERNER
CHERYL A. CLARKE 61S BATTERY STREET, SIXTH FLOOR (415) 981-0550
TELECOPY
SHARON K. WASSERMAN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
(415) 981-4343
JUDITH A.COHEN _
•A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION -
August 29, 1986
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED �,��
P 453 951 875
SC'P X1965
Clerk of the Board sy •. °Na °sip°R
Board of Supervisors for a6
the County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez , CA 94553
Re: Brian Anderson
To the Clerk of the Board:
This firm represents Mr. Brian Anderson. Mr. Anderson
was injured in a collision on May 28, 1986 in Contra Costa
County. I am enclosing the original of Mr. Anderson' s Claim for
Personal Injury and two copies of that claim.
Please file the original Claim for Personal Injury with
the County of Contra Costa, and please conform the copies and
return them to us in the envelope provided.
I
Thank you in advance for,your help in this matter.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Cohen
JAC:cj/67
Enclosures
i
I HENRY LERNER'
JUDITH A. COHEN
2 STEIN & LUBIN
615 Battery Street, 6th Floor T
3 San Francisco , CA 94111 �'G`�EiIVEL
Telephone: (415) 981-0550 JJ�w
4
Attorneys for SFP ^�a$6
5 Brian Anderson
CL $� osuo ofYj
as
6 K N h
Claim of BRIAN ANDERSON, ) �r
7 )
Claimant , )
8 ) CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY
VS. ) COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
9 )
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, c/o )
10 THE CLERK OF THE BOARD, )
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR )
11 THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA. )
12
13 TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA:
14 Brian Anderson hereby makes a claim against the
15 County of Contra Costa for the sum of $5, 645, 000 . 00 and makes
16 the following statements in support of that claim:
17 1 . Claimant ' s Post Office address is
18 2038 Brighton Drive, Pittsburg, California 94565.
19 2. Notices concerning the claim should be sent
20 to Claimant ' s attorneys, Henry Lerner, Judith A. Cohen, Stein &
21 Lubin, 615 Battery, 6th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111 .
22 3 . The incident giving rise to this claim
23 occurred on May 28 , 1986, at the intersection of Oak Grove Road
24 and Diablo Shadows Drive, in Walnut Creek, California.
25 4.. On May 28, 1986 , Mr. Anderson, after coming
26 to a complete stop on his motorcycle, attempted a left turn in
27 the southbound, left-hand turn lane of Oak Grove Road at the
28 intersection of Diablo Shadows Drive. The intersection of Oak
1.
I Grove Road and Diablo Shadows Drive was in a dangerous
2 condition due to the fact that the traffic control indicators
3 in the northbound direction of Oak Grove Road were obscured :by
4 trees, bushes and shrubs, the speed limit was too high for
5 conditions , and the roadway was inadequately signed. Due to
6 that dangerous condition a car traveling north on Oak Grove
7 Road failed to stop at the stop sign at the intersection of Oak
8 Grove Road and Diablo Shadows Drive and collided with
9 Mr. Anderson as he attempted the above-mentioned left turn,
10 causing him serious injuries.
11 5. Mr. Anderson' s injuries resulting from the
12 collision include the following: Mr. Anderson' s right leg was
13 crushed by the impact of the collision, and he required ongoing
14 hospitalization from May 28, 1986 , through and beyond the date
15 of this claim, including treatment for the crushed leg and
16 other flesh wounds as well as treatment for severe trauma, and
17 as an ultimate result of the collision Mr. Anderson has had the
18 lower part of his right leg amputated from the knee down, and
19 he will require a prosthesis and ongoing medical attention for
20 the rest of his life.
21 6. Names of the public employees causing
22 Mr. Anderson ' s injuries are unknown.
23 7. Mr. Anderson' s claim as of the date of this
24 claim is $5 ,645, 000 . 00.
25
26
27
28
2 .
-- 1 8. The basis of computation of the above
2 amount is as follows:
3 Medical expenses incurred as of
July 24 , 1986 $ 45,000. 00
4 Estimated future medical expenses $ 500,000. 00
Loss of wages $ 100 , 000 . 00
5 General damages $5,000,000 . 00
6 Total $5, 645 ,000. 00
7 Dated: August 29, 1986.
8
STEIN & LUBIN
9
10
By
11 Judith A. Cohen
Attorneys for Claimant
12 Brian Anderson
13
14
15
16 _ -
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Clair. Av-1-nst the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 3.0, 1986
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below),
Amount: $500, 000. 00 given pursuant to Government Code Seccou6lyacoun"I
915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS".
CLAIMANT: AMY LEIDER, SEP U 2 1986
c/o John M. Starr Martinez, CA 84553
ATTORNEY: 1985 Bonifacio Street, Suite 201
Concord, CA 94520
ADDRESS: Date received
BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: Angiigt: 27 . 1q86
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 26 , 1986
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK
DATED: August 29 , 1986 BY: Deputy
L. Hall
11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2
( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated:c �h� O !�(� By: I (/J �puty County Counsel
T
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) v County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
(x) This Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in fiitss�minutes for this date.
Dated: SEP 3 0 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By_ • �Q � Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'�erved
or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to
.. consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator
't
CLAIM AGAINST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
To: Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa ccFR " r
651 Pine Street e, supfR
Martinez, CA 94553 q 0.9s
Pursuant to §910 of the Government Code , claim is
presented to the County of Contra Costa as follows:
1 . The name and post office address of the claimant :
Amy Leider , 1391 Pear Drive, Concord , California , 94518 .
2. The post office address to which the person
presenting the claim desires notice to be sent: Law Office of
John M. Starr , 1985 Bonifacio Street , Suite 201 , Concord ,
California , 94520 .
3 . The date , place , time , location and other
circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to
the claim asserted :
June 12 , 1986 , at about 5 :05 p.m. , Alhambra Valley
Road near the intersection with Ferndale Road , the County of
Contra Costa negligently constructed , maintained , controlled , and
operated Alhambra Valley Road so as to render the roadway unsafe
when the road was used in a reasonable and prudent manner . The
County of Contra Costa also failed to adequately warn motorists of
a dangerous and unsafe condition thereby creating a trap for
motorists .
4 . A general description of the indebtedness ,
obligation, injury, damage , or loss incurred so far as it may be
known at the time of presentation of the claim: Medical
- 1 -
expenses , disfigurement , collapsed lung , wage loss , physical pain
and suffering , mental and emotional distress.
5 . The name ( s) of the public employee( s) causing the
injury, damage , or loss , if known :. unknown at this time .
6 . The amount claimed as of the date of presentation of
the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective
injury, damage or loss , insofar as it may be known at the time of
presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation
of the -amount : $500 ,000 ..00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct . Executed at Concord , California on August 21 ,
1986 .
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN M. STARR
JO N M. STARR
torney for Claimant
2 -
. 4
1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
2 I declare that I am employed in the County of Contra
3 Costa, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not
4 a party to the within cause . My business address is 1985
5 Bonifacio Street , Suite 201 , Concord , California , 94520. On
6 August 26 , 1986 , I served the within Claim Against Contra Costa
7 County on the listed party in said cause , by placing a true copy
8 thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
9 prepaid , in the United States mail at Concord , California,
10 addressed as follows :
11, Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
12 651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
,13
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
14 _
is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on
15
August 26 , 1986 , at Concord , California .
16
17
18 C4or i R. Bisord i
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LAW OFFICE OF
JOHN M. STARR
1985 Donifacio Street
Suite 201
Concord,CA 94520
!415)685-9000
CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14-1
Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
'the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 30, 1986
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below),
Amount: $60, 000. 00 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and
915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS".
CLAIMANT: LOURN ALDEN LOBER County counsel
c/o Don Smith S k P 0 2 1986
ATTORNEY: P. O. Box 364
Pinole, CA 94564 martinet, CA 94553
ADDRESS: Date received
BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 29, 1986
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 28 , 1986
certitied P 292 851 211
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK
DATED: August 29 , 1986 BY: Deputy
e.-2L. Ha
ll
11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2
( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: By` y County Counsel
II1. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
(� This Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
1 certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order ente d in its minutes for this date.
SEP 3 01986 `
Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'3erved
or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to
consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator
r r
1 DON SMITH
;TTORNEY AT LAW
2 ff$RXWXKP[KX9KRE9X P.O. BOX 364
PINOLE , CA 94564
3 (415) XZXXRR9,XX 724-5494
4
5 Attorney for Claimant
6
7 RECEIVED
8 IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF AU u �106
LOURN ALDEN LOBER
9 P AT LOR
VS. CLER B T SUP I RS
10 L
.. .. . ..t.. ory
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
11 CALIFORNIA /
12
13
14 Don Smith on behalf of Lourn Alden Lober presents this
15 claim to Contra Costa County, California pursuant to Section 910
16 of the California Government Code.
17 The name and post office address of Lourn Alden Lober is
18 6 Coleen Court, San Pablo, California, 94806 .
19 Don Smith desires notice of this claim to be sent to
20 P .O. Box 364 , Pinole, California, 94564 .
21 On May 22 , 1986 at approximately 5 : 15 P.M. claimant was
22 injured by excessive use of force and abuse of authority of
M
23 Deputy Gray, Contra Costa County Sheriff' s Department. While
� rn
Ln 24 on duty on Beat 2 , West Contra Costa County. On August 18 , 1986
o
P4 N 25 Deputy Gray again used excessive force, abuse of authority, and
J26 harrassment when encountering claimant.
v : Cr 27 On Mav 22, 1986 claimant stopped at the corner of Tara
T
= C: l
n ti W 28 Hills Drive and Limerick Road, San Pablo, Contra Costa County,
0 ° U')
� a 4
- 1 -
I California, preparatory to making a right hand turn from
2 Limerick Road onto Tara Hills Drive. Claimant encountered
3 difficulty with his clutch at the intersection and while
4 attempting to repair the problem he was approached by Deputies
5 Gray and Robert Fisher, who had pulled up behind claimant' s
6 vehicle.
7 When the deputies approached the vehicle they observed a
8 . 357 magnum revolver lying on the seat of claimant' s vehicle.
9 The deputies immediately ordered claimant out of the vehicle
10 and deputy Fisher took claimant into the middle of the street,
11 six (6) to eight (8) feet away from the vehicle , and hand-
12 cuffed him. While claimant was being handcuffed deputy Gray
13 approached to within a distance of approximately four (4)
14 feet from claimant and while deputy Gray held his service
15 revolver at hip level pointed at claimant and told claimant
16 if he made one move deputy Gray would "blow his (claimant' s)
17 fucking brains out. " At the time deputy Gray made this threat
18 claimant was handcuffed and immobilized with deputy Fisher
19 standing behind or beside claimant. The deputies transported
20 claimant to the Contra Costa County Jail in Martinez and
21 throughout the trip deputy Gray was rude and abusive to
22 claimant.
23 Among objects found in claimant' s -vehicle-were=a_ Nazi
24 armband purchased as a war souvenir and monograph notes
25 concerning Russian history from the. late 1800 ' s-early 1900 ' s
26 periods. During the trip to Martinez deputy Gray specifically
27 accused claimant of being a political extremist and told
28 claimant America did not need people like claimant.
2 -
1 Deputy Gray ' s words and actions during the period of
2 detention, arrest, and transport to the county jail were
3 intended to harass., intimidate, and menace claimant. Said
q actions by deputy Gray were partially, at least, motivated
5 by Deputy Gray' s perception of claimant' s political beliefs
6 and thereby are a violation of claimant' s civil rights.
7 On August 18 , 1986 , Deputy Gray stopped claimant on
8 San Pablo Avenue, between Atlas Road and Shamrock Drive,
9 San Pablo, Contra Costa County, California, ostensibly for
10 a defective brake light. After seeing claimant' s driver' s
11 license and registration, deputy Gray stated he recognized
12 claimant and then compelled claimant to leave his vehicle
13 and undergo a pat down. Deputy Gray expressed no concern
14 for his safety in claimant ' s presence prior to seeing
15 claimant' s license, despite advising claimant "I thought
16 I recognized you" , and deputy Gray' s action in searching
17 claimant was solely for the purpose of harassing, intimidating,
18 and menacing claimant.
19 Claimant sustained severe shock to his mental and emotional
20 well being by the wrongful acts of deputy Gray, and by deputy
21 Gray' s violation of claimant' s civil rights.
22 Claimant suffered damages caused by the harrassing,
23 intimidating, and menacing acts of deputy Gray and by violation
24 of claimant's civil rights in the _ sum of Sixty-Thousand Dollars
25 ($60, 000. 00) .
26 Don Smith, on behalf of Lourn Alden Lober, alleges the
27 excessive use of force and abuse of authority was caused by
28 the following public employee:
- 3 -
S
1 Deputy Gray, Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department.
2 Lourn Alden Lober claims damages in the sum of Sixty-
3 Thousand Dollars ($60,000. 00) for injury to his mental and
4 emotional well being caused by the harassing, intimidating,
5 and menacing acts of deputy Gray, and by Deputy Gray' s violation
G of claimant' s civil rights .
7 DATED: August 28, 1986
8
n
9
10 DON SMITH
Attorney for Claimant
11
12
13
14
15
lG
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 4 -
CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 30, 1986
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below),
Amount: $450. 00 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and
915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". County Counsel
CLAIMANT: MARJORIE JOHN HILLS Si P () 8 1956
ATTORNEY: Aartinet, CA 94553
ADDRESS: 344 Camino Ricardo Date received
Moraga, CA 94556 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: September 3 , 1986
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: September 2 , 1986
1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK
DATED: September 4, 1986 BY: Deputy
L. Hal
11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
�) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2
( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: /9 �o By �uty County Counsel
111. FROM: Clerk Jof the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
O This Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date.
Dated: SEP 3 U 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By. cz Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally`terved
or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to
., consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator
('?;AIM TO: r. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COP*rF0 jtapplication to:
Instructions to ClaimantC!erk of the Board
on e S�.i ,viol
Martinez,California 94553
A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to
person or to personal property or growing crops must be presented
not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of
action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be
presented not later than one year after the accrual of the -cause
of action. (Sec. 911.2, Govt. Code)
B. .Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine
Street, Martinez, California 94553.
C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors,
rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in.
D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims
must be filed against each public entity. .
E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at end
o this form.
RE: Claim .by )Reser ng stamps
RECEEI�
Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA)
LSAT HELOR
or DISTRICT) E C 6 FSTP oRs
(Fill in name By ... vary
.
The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim againstthe County of Contra
Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ C'p
and in support of this claim represents as -follows:
----------------- --------z--------------------------------------- ---
l. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour]
3V ZA z1711� ✓ 0af `YI
-- --- T---- T----------- -------� -----------------Y-----
. W�iere did the da2m/,age or inJury occur. �/(Includ�e city and
county-----
wL 11r/�,f � GIU�C6IiPL A_i+ i
3. How did the dama a or in 'ur occur? Give fuii details use extra
sheets if required)
4. What particular act or omission on the part of 'county or district
officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage?
����.� .�ti�- .� � .�"anti crL •/�U�`f-�-�-� �
w tover)
. ��
5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or'
employees causing the damage or injury?
6. What d age or injuries do you claim resulted? Give full extent
of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto
dama e)
OY" , =4
7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include ;rhe estimated
amount of an9sPe;ivurY 4z/�d age. )
--- --------------------------------�----------------P-----1j=`.ems -- -
B. Names and addr�esses oaf witnesses doctors and hospitals. pL
411-1
9. List the expenditures"you made on account of this accident or injury:
DATE ITEM AMOUNT
Govt. Code Sec. 910.2 provides :
"The claim signed by the claimant
SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) -or by some person on bis behalf. "
Name and Address of Attorney ,�-? ,G� ALI &
;
r, C im _ t s S gnatur
- .off.
Address
Telephone No. Telepho e No. 2Z� - 1772-
NOTICE
Section 72 of the Penal Code provides:
"Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or
for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, town, city
district, ward or village board or officer, authorized to allow or pay
the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher,
or writing, is guilty of a felony. "
,
lor
The Board of Supervisors Contra larktdI f the oar
Clark m the Board
Costa �d
County Administration Building co�4rny n3�i��atar
651 Pine St., Room 106 County
Martinez, California 94553
Tom Powers,tet District
Nancy C.Fohdon,2nd District
iAoe.rt 1.Schroder,3rd District
&wm WrIght McPsek,4th District
Tom TorNkson,5th District
August 21 , 1986
Mr. & Mrs . J.J. Hills
844 Camino Ricardo
Moraga, CA 94556
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hills :
Your inquiry relative to filing a claim for damages
has been forwarded to me by Deloris J. Heish, Executive
Secretary to the Public Works Director.
To facilitate the handling of your claim, a self-
explanatory claim form is enclosed. Please complete the
form, sign it, and return it to tke address indicated as
soon as possible.
Yours very truly,
o
Jeanne 0. Maglio
Chief Clerk
JOM:lh
Enc
Contra Public Works Department I.Michael Walford
Costa 651 Pine Street, Sixth Floor Public Works Director
County Martinez, California 94553-1291 Barton J.Gilbert
Chief Deputy
August 20, 1986
Mr. and Mrs. J. J. Hills
844 Camino Ricardo
Moraga, CA 94556
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hills:
I am in receipt of your August 8 letter to Mike Walford, Director of Public
Works, regarding the damage to the paint on your 10,85 Subaru. In the letter
you state that you expect redress from the County, and ask what the proper
channels are to obtain that redress. Mr. Watford is away, so I am respond-
ing on his behalf.
Your letter should go to the Clerk-of-the-Board of Supervisors, stating the
problem. They, in turn, will mail you a claim form with instructions as to
how you are to proceed.
I have hand carried your letter to Jeann Maglio, Chief Clerk, Board of
Supervisors. She is located in room.y0r,"°ot�the Administration Building, 651
Pine Street, Martinez. You should be recdiving a claim form in the very
near future.
Very 1 ruly yours,
Deloris J. Heisch, Executive Secretary to
'.J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director
.dj*h %
claim.t8
cc: J. Maglio 6N�
844 Camino Ricardo
Moraga, CA 94556
August 8, 1986
RECEIVED
Director
Publ is works AUG 12 1986
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street Public Works Dept.6th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Director:
Thi s i s a fol l ow up to my August 6, 1986 1 etter to you i n w hi ch
I described the damage to my 1985 Subaru because of the oil coating
appl ied to Taylor Boulevard. You will recall that in that letter I
indicated I drove a long stretch on Taylor on July 30, apparently right
after the oil appl icati on of the oil coating, and that I noted as a
result of this drive the Subaru had been coated with an oily, tough
granular substance.
Upon further examination of my can, I realize now that the
damage resulting f ran my drive on Taylor is much worse than I described
in my August 6 letter. Because there was other traffic in front, beside,
and behi nd me duri ng thi s drive, the oil coati ng f ran Tayl or was
propelled onto the roof, hood, and other areas of the car. Awash job
did not remove this material, and the rough, oily, gritty material can
easily be felt. I woul d be pl eased to drive the car to your office for
i nspecti on, or an i nspector f ran your off ice -soul d exami ne the car at my
hone.
It would appear to me that tho paint job on my expensive, 1985
Subaru 4WD Turbo is ruined because of my drive on Taylor. I do expect
redress from the County since there were no signs whatever to warn
motorists to avoid Taylor because of the oil coating. Accordingly, I
would appreciate your informing me of my proper channels for redress. I
can be reached at 376-6772. My husband' s work number is 836-8103 (John
J. Hills).
Sincerely, Q�
Marjorie L. Hills
John J . ills
/, o y
CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BOARD ACTION
Clair Against the County, or District governed by)
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 30 , 1986
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below),
Amount: $296 . 90 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and
915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". COur" Cwnvo
CLAIMANT: EAST CONTRA COSTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT
c/o James M. Day Jr. SEP U2 1986
ATTORNEY: Downey, 'Brand, Seymour & Rohwer
Martinez, CA 94553
Attorney At Law
ADDRESS: 555 Capitol Mall Date received
Sacramento, CA 95814 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 27 , 1986
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 26, 1986
1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK
DATED: August 29 , 1986 BY: Deputy
L. Hall
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(�) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2
( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: By e y County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
XThis Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date.
Dated:
SEP 3 0 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By 0�5<_ inDeputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov, code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'terved
or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to
. consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator
CLAIM TO:.; '
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Instructions to Claimant
A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to
person or to personal property or growing crops must be presented
not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of
action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be
presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause
of action. (Sec. 911. 2, Govt. Code)
B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine
Street, Martinez , CA 94553 (or mail to P.O. Box 911, Martinez, 'CA) ._
C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors,
rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in.
D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims
must be filed against each public entity.
E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at end
of this form.
RE: Claim by ) Reserve stamps
EAST CONTRA COSTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT RECEI`IED
Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA)
) v s e-
or DISTRICT) K N su oas
Fill in name) ) By ' ' ' .`' .. .. """" o.vury
The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra
Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ 296.90
and in support of this claim represents as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour)
June 11, 1986 - 10:00 A.M.
-----------:----------- --------------------------------------------
---
2. Where did the damage o-r-injury occur? (Include city and county)
Walnut Boulevard near Brentwood, Contra Costa County.
-- ----------------------- --------------------------------
3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details, use extra
sheets if required)
ECCID pickup Unit No. 6 was following a county truck on Walnut Boulevard which had
recently been gravelled. Rock flew up and cracked windshield on Unit No. 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 . What particular act or omission on the part of county or district
officers , servants or employees caused the injury or damage?
Allowing loose rock to be picked up and hurled at ECCID vehicle following
behind county vehicle.
(over)
5. What are the names of county or district officers; ..servants..r....0 ,.„.:
} employees causing the damage or injury?
Unknown.
- -- - - ------------------------------------------------------
---
6. Wh-at-d-amage------or--injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent
of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto
damage)
No injuries. Broken windshield on Unit No. 6.
--------------------------7----------=-----------------------------------
7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated
amount of any prospective injury or damage. )
No further injury or damage foreseen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals.
Roger Lindsay, E.C.C.I.D. Employee and drive of Unit No. 6. .
Rt 2 Box 195
Brentwood, Calif. 94513
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. ; List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury:
DATE ITEM AMOUNT
6-16-86 Replacement of windshield $296.90
4
i
1
f
Govt. Code Sec. 910.2 provides :
"The claim signed by the claimant
SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by some ers on his behalf. ”
Name and Address of Attorney
James M. Day Jr. _.Ross ersClaimant' i
s gnatureManager
Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer P... :O. .Box ,69.6
Attorneys at Law Address
Brentwood, Calif. 94513
555 Capitol Mall - Sacramento, Ca. 95814
Telephone No. 916-441-0131 Telephone No. 415 - 634-3544
**************************************************************************
NOTICE
Section 72 of the Penal Code provides:
"Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or
for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, town, city
district, ward or village board or officer, authorized to allow or pay
the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher,
or writing, is guilty of a felony. "
� 1
4.
G. HOSE & SONS FF
230 Chestnut Street JOB WORK ORDER
Brentwood, California 94513 DATE OF RDER
(415) 634-5609 e
CU TOMER•S ORDDE�RNN 0. IPHONE STA ING D oe
BIL f ORDER TAKEN BY
ADDs� .•
C1DAY WORK
a v O CONTRACT
7 ❑ EXTRA
JOB NAbMA14D LO TI
G
.O /
Df=klP3{ON WORK 1JOB PHONE
`55
e:)21 ?_c ��
TOTAL MATERIALS
TOTAL LABOR
TAX -
DATE MPL WORK ORDERED By
TOTAL AMOUNT
s•. 1 hetebv acknos edge In satisfactory completion 0 No one home O Total amount due ❑Total billing to
o1 the above described work, !n for above work or be mailed when
f` � \; job finished
Signature �Q'" �- . FSS f==if TERMS 30 DAYS
Any portion of the previous balanpb remaining unpaid 30 days after the end of the month follow- .
ing purchase will be subject to a finance charge of 1 and one-half percent. (18 percent per annum).
CLAIM i3O`t
'
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
°Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT Sevtesber 30 , 1986
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below),
Amount: $2, 149. 13 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and
915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS".
CLAIMANT: JESS QUESADA ET AL claim # 05-1237-902 County Counsel.
ATTORNEY: c/o Steven Gonsalves S; P U S 1986
State Farm Insurance Co. Martinez, CA 9a��3
ADDRESS: P. O. Box 4011 Date received
Concord, CA 94524 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: September 5 , 1936
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: September 4, 1986
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK
DATED: September 8 , 1986 BY: Deputy Xtfoe
L. Hal
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2
( �) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: /`Pj If g6By: iJ`'� �"�-�--�'tfeputy County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
( This Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order enter d in its minutes for this date.
Dated: �� 3 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, 8y Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personallyiterved
or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to
consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator
ti�
4 �
CLAIM TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA CO§*Q Wapplication to:
Instructions to ClaimantC!erk of the Board
Martinez,California 94553
A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to
person or to personal property or growing crops must be presented
not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of
action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be
presented not later than one year after the accrual of the -cause
of action. (Sec. 911.2, Govt. Code)
B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine
Street, Martinez , California 94553.
C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors,
rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in.
D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims
must be filed against each public entity. .
E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at end
his form.
RE: Claim by )Reserved f 1 ing
tamps
.Tess Qu a Sa.dg ,- )
R�CEIV
5ym-E r- „ys _ c a. j EP X086
Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) S
P HELL RV ORS
F SUP
or DISTRICT) CL K
(Fillin name )
BY
The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra
Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ 2/91 6
and in support of this claim represents as follows:
------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ---
1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour]
•3l •�� 10:06 ANS
�. Where did-the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county)
1 I I law► cntOf R✓E A�r►�tc�ita , Cowfva Cosmo
-''-----------------m- ----------------------- ---- ---- ---------
3. How did the daage---o-r injury occur? (Givedetai3s, use extra
sheets if required)
Cw was l tq&lI y Park-ed N4 waa I�:�f- b�. a co> -P� 0
4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district-
officers , servants or employees caused the injury or damage?
a p"kd VrAide_ .
(over)
5. What P,re the names of county or district officers, servants or"
employees causing the damage or injury?
---------------------------------------------------- -------------------
6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? Give full extent
of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto
damage)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated
amount of any prospective injury or damage. )
ter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals.
roil'a
�7-7
List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury:
DATE ITEM AMOUNT
. 8.30 .86
Govt. Code Sec. 910.2 provides :
"The claim signed by the claimant
SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by some person on his behalf. "
Name and Address of Attorney
50* k fAA pksm*u4cce ,Co• CL#05.MJJ— P2- Claimant' s Signature
po 11011 (O C,6vaf Co, , 1-1/572-4 Address
90VOK q0 sa4vW
Telephone No. 68n•11/p6 fyQ-7,46 ;p Telephone No.
NOTICE
Section 72 of the Penal Code provides:
"Every person who, with intent to defraud, ,presents for allowance or
for payment to any state board or officer, :or to any county, town, city
district, ward or village board or officer, authorized to allow or pay
the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher,
or writing, is guilty of a felony. "
TLATNr
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 30, 1986
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below),
Amount: $42 000 000. 00 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and
' 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". County Counsel
CLAIMANT: MICHAEL PHILLIPS ET AL
c/o Orinda Records StP 10 1986
ATTORNEY: P. O. Box 838
Orinda, CA 94563 Martinez, CA 9453
ADDRESS: Date received
BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 29, 1986
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 27 , 1986
P 466 708 084
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK
.DATED: September 9, 1986 BY: Deputy
L. Hall
11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the,.B.oard of Supervisors
(�() This claZqX
i comp les subs nti lly with Sections 910 and 910.2 CJ 6L
( ) This claim FAIL omply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The oard y of act-for tXc X10
(�Q Claim is not timely led!t T Clerk should r urn claim on ground that it w filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated6(, , . /a, lly,?6 By c-t c- L Deputy County Counsel
le
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
�e o
( l Claim was returned astntimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
( 1 This Claim is rejected in full.
( X) other: Portion of ori inal claim not previouslyreturned as untimelyis
red
rejected in tull .
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order a terin 'ts minutes for this date.
Dated: SEP 3 0 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'terved
or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to
., consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator
l CLAIM OF MICHAEL PHILLIPS, )
C.J. BLACK, )
2 C.J. BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ) CLAIM FOR INJURIES
ORINDA RECORDS )
3 )
4 vs ; RECEIVED
)
5 GARY T. YANCEY, ) AV G pC,i%19186
BRAD NIX, )
6 JAMES L. SEPULVEDA ) P BA Boa
OF/AND ) CSE ON 5T aE R8
7 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE )
By .. 1.... ty
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY )
8 )
9
10 TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISIORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, with a mailing
11 address of 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California 94553
12 You are hereby notified that MICHAEL PHILLIPS, C.J. BLACK AND C.J.
13 BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ORINDA RECORDS, with a mailing address of c/o Orinda
14 Records, P.O.. Box 838, Orinda, California 94563, claims damages from Gary T.
15 Yancey, Brad Nix and James L. Sepulveda and The District Attorney's Office
16 of Contra Costa County whose mailing address is P.O. Box 670, Martinez,
17 California 94553 in the amount, computed as of the date of presentation of
18 this claim, of $ 42,0009000.00. ,.
19 This claim is based on the injuries (said claim does not have a cause
20 of action for death, injury to a person as in body harm, personal property or
21 growing crops as described in Section 911.2 of the Government Code. This is
22 a claim relating to other causes of action as .presented herein following) as
23 sustained by the Claimants on or about August 8, 1985 and continuing as
24 discovery is still on-going, and occurred in or about the vicinity of Contra
25 Costa County and throughout the State 'of California, all under the following
26 circumstances:
27 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
28 A malicious and carefully orchestrated scheme in which a number of
-1-
1 small businesses located in Contra Costa County are being victimized by Gary
2 T. Yancey, the District Attorney and two of his Deputies by the names of
3 Brad Nix and James L. Sepulveda.
4 Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda are targeting specific small businesses
5 and filing various fictitious blown-up and exaggerated allegations which
6 include hugh fines. Upon the victimized small business being served, it
7 would contact their lawyer only to find that legal costs would be as high as
8 $25,000.00 and that it could take 2 years or more to go to trial. At the
9 same time, Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda would threaten the small business with
10 closing them down through revolking of business licenses, actions by the
11 Health Department and/or releasing damaging statements to the press so that
12 the public would lose confidence in the business or its products and/or
13 services.
14 With Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda having knowledge of the unaffordable
15 legal fees for the small business and, the use of constant "Strong Arm Tactics"
16 by them, they would then offer the small business a "Deal" which was composed
17 of restrictions and a payment. However, one major point was that any and al
18 future similar actions (as well as'
some that were added) by the small business
19 would carry a very grave and constly,consequence, which, was setting -up the
20 small business for Round Two.
21 In the end these extortion and coercion tactics forced a number of
22 small businesses, which included Service Stations, Record Companies, Consultants,
23 Clubs and others, to have no other financial solution but to consider succumbing.
24 The claimants Michael Phillips, C.J. Black and C.J. Black DBA Orind
25 Records are but one of the victims of Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office
26 of the District Attorney, as related to the aboye s.cheme.and actions.
27 The Office of the District Attorney, Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda have
28 used Declarations which contain perjured statements as well as false and/or
-2-
1 "doctored" documents, all of which they have knowledge of, against the
2 Claimants.
3 The scheme is being used by Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office
4 of the District Attorney for a number of reasons, each of importance and
5 standing on its own as well as -combined for strength and they are: First,
6 the statistic released for 1985 shows that the District Attorney's Office had
7 a felony conviction rate of less than i (i.e. , of 3042 cases that were filed
8 as felonies only 1488 convictions occurred in the Supreior Court for a mere
9 49% felony conviction rate of cases originally filed) . The underlining
10 personal gain is to increase this rate and "Keep their Job." Poor performanc
11 means poor support and funding.
12 Second, by filing actions against small businesses who can not affor
13 the high cost of legal battles, even when the business is right and IS THE
14 VICTIM OF THE D.A. 's OFFICE, with said businesses succumbing, a higher "Hit
15 Rate" can now be achieved thus taking on a personal -klory and making the
16 individuals (Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda)..efficiency report "look good."
17 Third, by filing actions against small businesses and having said
18 small business have no other finaneial solution but to consider succumbing,
19 then money is brought into the 'coffers 'of the County of Contra Costa. As
20 Mr. Nix has said repeatly, "I am measured on the amount of settlements, in
21 dollar amounts, which I can bring into the County."
22 Fourth, based on the large staff that Yancey has and the budget that
23 he must spend .(or loose it due to not generating enough work/cases) , Yancey
24 must keep the staff working at full capacity (and past this) . It is the old
25 government ploy that budgets must be fully strained so that the next time a
26 budget is borught before the governing powers and the deciding powers for
27 granting budgets and money for operations, that it can be shown how much has
28 been accomplished and how "over worked and under staffed" the agency (the
-3-
] D.A.'s Office) is during the fiscal year. ' It's an old game with new players.
2 And finally, what would be a better way than to offset other actions
3 such as the law suit by the Pittsburg Police Lt. 'Bank's naming Yancey, the
4 use by Yancey of a boy to test sexual abuse. allegations and whose mother
5 has retained an attorney who is to prepare a $1 million claim naming Yancey
6 and others, the credit scam in which 7 employees of Yancey have been charged
7 with falsifying financial statements and doctoring credit applications,
8 employees of Yancey who are in a de-tox programs, an employee "whistle-blower '
9 at Unocal oil refinery who came forward in January 1985 and. described how
10 the company bypassed pollution discharge controls into the Bay and deliberate .y
11 falsified test data to the governing regulatory agency and Yancey said he
12 could do nothing, etc., than by bring actions and press attention towards the
13 small businesses here in Contra Costa County.
14 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO CONSPIRACY
15 The claimants have sustained injury due to Conspiracy by Yancey, Nix
16 Sepulveda and the Office of the District Attorney, as each of them, willfully
17 and knowingly conspired and agreed amoung themselves to destroy
18 the Claimants business and financidl credit by contacting accounts of the
19 Claimants, contacting individuals to include Judge(s) in the Walnut Creek-
20 Danville Municipal Court and by contacting vendors with false, prejudice and
21 injureous statements againt and concerning the Claimants.
22 Further, said Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office of the District
23 Attorney has filed a damaging legal action which was willful and spitful and
24 for the purpose of ruining and to place into bankruptcy the Claimants.
25 Further, said Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office of the D.A. want d
26 to destroy the Claimants business and reputations through the interference
27 with the Claimants suppliers, trade and industry individuals and companies,
28 and bank relationshipsp as well as potential investors.
-4-
1 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office cooperated, aided
2 and encouraged and ratified and adopted acts, herein described and other acts
3 yet to be determined as discovery is on-going, which resulted in actual damag
4 to the Claimants from the tortious act or acts done in pursuance of the
5 conspiracy.
6 That the conduct of Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office
7 was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for the rights of the Claimants
8 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO THE
9 FALSEFICATION OF DOCUMENTS
10 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office did accept stateme ts,
11 documents and Declarations which they knew to be false and they did this
12 willfully and knowingly. That they knew that Declarations as received from
13 Norman Varney and Lynn Packer declared and affirmed in a particular manner
14 and/or to a particular fact in which it was stated willfully and contrary to
15 the true facts of the material addressed in said Declarations, was false and
16 damaging matter,
17 That the basis of a legal action as filed by the Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda
18 and the D.A. 's Office (Case No, 275765) included affidavits/Declarations as
19 described herein above which contained the statements in which they knew to
20 be false or knew to be with disregard as to the truth. That by doing this
21 such actions are contemptuous and were intended to mislead and distort for
22 the purpose of dollar gains and for the purpose of damaging the business
23 essence and operations and the creditability of the Claimants.
24 That these individuals did these actions with complete disregard fol
25 the legal system and in collusion with each other, Said action was willful
26 and spitful and for the purpose of harassing, vexing, ruining, degrading and
27 trying to control the business activities of the Claimants,
28 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office were advised that
-5-
I the Declarations were, .in fact, containing false information and statements
2 and that they knew of the true facts but failed to and would not act on the
3 disqualification and/or prosecution of said declarants. That it was intended
4 to generate and create false declarations for the purpose of harassing the
5 Claimants and to use said Declarations in an overall "Strong Arm Tactic" to
6 threaten and to extort money from the Claimants.
7 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO COERCION
8 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and
9 knowingly conspired to compel the Claimants to act or think in a given manner
10 said manner to be profitalbe to themselves.
11 That they dominated and/or restrained the trade and business functions
12 of the Claimants through and by their damaging and injureous actions. That
13 these actions were willful and spitful and for the purpose of harassing,
14 vexing, ruining, degrading and placing into bankruptcy the Claimants.
15 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for
16 the rights of the Claimants.
17 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO
18 INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS
19 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and
20 knowingly, by the actions and statements hereinabove and as following, exposed
21 the Claimants to hatred, •contempt and distrust amoung both the Claimants
22 profession, venders of products, bank(s), agencies and buyers of their products.
23 That these actions and statements had such an effect as to disrupt
24 the performance of the business operations of the Claimants. That further
25 said acts jeopardized the relationship between venders, banks and buyers of
26 the products of the Claimants as well as potential investors.
27 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for
28 the rights of the Claimants.
-6-
I INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO EXTORTION
2 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and
3 knowingly, by their actions and statements as described herein tried to/
4 placed fear of/succeeded, by coercion and intimidation, to obtain money and/
5 or goods from.the Cliamants.
6 That during meetings with Nix and Sepulveda as well as during telephone
7 conversations beginning August 8, 1985 and continuing until the present, these
8 individuals used "Strong Arm Tactics" and threats of large fines, putting the
9 Claimants out of business, controling all aspects of the Claimants present
10 business and future business operations and directions. That through these
11 actions which included harassing, that they tried to force the signing of
12 various papers and documents which would be determental to the existance of
13 the Claimants both now and in the future.
14 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office threatened, coerced
15 and intimidated the Claimants and carried out reprisals through their actions.
16 That they exposed the Claimants to hatred, contempt and mistrust amoung vender;,
17 banks, potential investors and accounts of the Claimants.
18 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for
19 the rights of the Claimants.
20 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO
21 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
22 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and
23 knowingly have intentionally harassed, shamed and mortified the Claimants by:
24 contacting individuals, Courts, venders, accounts, potential investors and
25 banks with false and injureous statements concerning the Claimants; entering
26 into a conspiracy; wilful misconduct; misleading and distorting facts for the
27 purpose of dollar gains and for the purpose of damaging the business essence
28 and operations and creditability of the Claimants; coercion; exposing the
-7-
I Claimants to harted, contempt and distrust amoung their profession, venders,
2 banks, potential investors and accounts of the Claimants; using "Strong Arm
3 Tactics" to extort money and other items; making false representations; Fraud;
4 Deceit; Malice and other actions which will be attested to at the time of the
5 hearing/trial.
6 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for
7 the rights of the Claimants.
8 That as a direct and proximate cause of these actions the Claimants
9 have suffered further severe emotional distress and anguish and continue to
10 suffer emotional distress and anguish.
11 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and The D.A.'s Office have willfully
12 intended to cause the Claimants severe emotional distress and anguish through
13 their reckless disregard of the probability that said conduct would cause
14 emotional distress to the Claimants.
15 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO
16 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION'OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
17 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office were under the duty
18 to exercise due care in the preventipn of Emotional Distress to the Claimants
19 and that they have breached this duty, acting with reckless disregard of the
20 probability that said conduct would cause severe Emotional Distress and anguis
21 and as a direct and proximate result of this conduct the Claimants have suffer( d
22 and continue to suffer great mental and nervous. pain and suffering.
23 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard dor
24 the rights of the Claimants.
25 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO-BARRATRY
26 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and
27 knowingly, by their actions, excited legal action for the purpose of continuan e
28 and work for their Office and themselves. That they are judged on a the number
-8-
1 of legal actions they file as well as the amounts of money they bring in by
2 such actions.
3 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office know that many
4 individuals and companies and that of the Claimants, can not afford the time
5 or the money to fight legal actions as filed by them. That through fear and
6 constant "Strong Arm Tactics" they anticipate that the indiviudlas and/or
7 companies named by them in actions will settle for sums which are part of the
8 overall fund they are judged by, thus making the scheme that the are invloved
9 in a personal gain.
10 That Nix has already been charged with "Substantial Prosecuting
11 Misconduct" in a decision rendered by Judge Richard E. Arnason of the Supreior
12 Court on May 5, 1985, Case No. 29792,. in which Judge Arnason stated, "Uncoubte ly
13 the record here, and the testimony presented in the hearing in this matter,
14 reveals a pattern of SUBSTANTIAL PRESECUTING MISCONDUCT."
15 That Yancey, who was the prosecutor in another case as the Court
16 of Appeals (161 Cal. App. 3d 961 dated November 1984) had ruled, "We conclude,
17 however, that the prosecutor's (Yancey) voir dire of Gamer crossed the line
18 separating proper advisement from ittimidation. The District Attorney's
19 statements represent the type of THREAT or COERCION which has been held to
20 violate due process." The Court furhter ruled, "Gamer was a material witness
21 PREVENTED form testifying by the THREATENING STATEMENTS OF THE PROSECUTOR -
22 Yancey."
23 That this conduct was fraudulent, pppressive and without regard for
24 the rights of the Claimants.
25 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO CORRUPTION
26 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and
27 knowingly have intentionally harassed, shamed and mortified the Claimants by
28 their actions to sustain injury to the Claimants due to each of the above herein
-9-
1 injuries sustained as listed as: the General Allegations; Conspiracy; Falsefic -
2 tion of Documents; Coercion; Interference With Business; Extortion; Intentiona
3 Infliction of Emotional Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress;
4 and Barratry, all allegations as stated therein hereinabove.
5 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for
6 the rights of the Claimants.
7 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO ACTUAL MALICE
8 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D,A. 's Office willfully and
9 knowingly have intentionally harassed, shamed and mortified the Claimants by
10 their actions of ill will with a desire to harm through the sustaining of the
11 injuries as described herein above, to include all allegations, as listed as
12 in the: General Allegations; Conspiracy; Falsefication of Documents; Coercion;
13 Interference With Business; Extortion; Intentional Infliction of Emotional
14 Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Barratry; and Corruption
15 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for
16 the rights of the Claimants.
17 ADDITIONAL FACTS AND INFORMATION
18 The names of the public employees causing the Claimant's injuries
19 under the herein above described circumstances are: Gary T. Yancey, Brad Nix
20 and James L. Sepulveda. Based on Discovery being on-going, other names and
21 acts may be discovered as which time it would be requested to amend this
22 Claim. That the Claimants do not know the true names or capacities of all
23 of the public employees causing the Claimants injuries and that the Claimants
24 will seek leave to amend this Claim for Injuries to show the true name(s)
25 and capacities of each as they become known to the Claimants.
26 The injuries sustained by the Claimants, as far as known, as of the
27 date of the presentation of this Claim, consist of: that as described in the
28 General Allegations herein above; Conspiracy; Falsefication of Documents;
-10-
1 Coercion; Interference With Business; Extortion; Intentional Infliction of
2 Emotional .Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Barratry;
3 Corruption and Actual Malice, all allegations stated herein above.
4 AMOUNT OF 'CLAIM
5 The amount claimed, as of the date of presentation of this claim is
6 computed as follows:
7 Damages Incurred To Date
8 General Allegations
9 General Damages $1,000,000.00
10 Special Damages 1,000,000.00
11 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00
12 Conspiracy
13 General Damages 1,000,000.00
14 Special Damages 1,000,000.00
15 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00
16 Falsefication of Documents
17 General Damages 500,000.00
18 Punitive/Exemplary 500,000.00
19 Coercion
20 General Damages 1,000,000.00
21 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00
22 Interference With Business
23 General Damages 23000,000.00
24 Punitive/Exemplary 2,000,000.00
25 Extortion
26 General Damages 1,000,000.00
27 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00
28
-11-
] Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
2 Exemplary Damages $1,000,000.00
3 Punitive Damages 1,000,000.00
4 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
5 Exemplary Damages 1,000,000.00
6 Punitive Damages 1,000,000.00
7 Barratry
8 General Damages 300,000.00
9 Punitive/Exemplary 200,000.00
10 Corruption
11 General Damages 2,000,000.00
12 Special Damages 2,000,000.00
13 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00
14 Actual Malice
15 General Damages 2,000,000.00
16 Special Damages 2,000,000.00
17 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00
18 Loss of Earnings 500,000.00
19 Other just relief To be Determined
20 Legal Fees and Costs To be Determined
21 Total Damages incurred to date $302000,000_00
22 Estimated Prospective Damages As Far As Known
23 Future Expenses 1,000,000.00
24 Loss of 'Earnings 1,000,000.00
25 General Damages 5,000,000.00
26 Special Damages 5,000,000.00
27 Legal Fees and Costs To be Determined
28 Total Estimated Prospective Damagesj1220002000_00
-12-
1 Total Amount Claimed as of the Date of
2 Presentation of this Claim x_4210001000.00
3 ALL NOTICES OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS WITH REGARD TO THIS CLAIM SHOULD
4 BE SENT TO THE CLAIMANTS AT:
5 MICHAEL PHILLIPS
6 C.J. BLACK
7 C.J. BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ORINDA RECORDS
8 c/o Orinda Records
9 P.O. Box 838
10 Orinda, CA 94563
11 That the Claimants will pray for additional claims/amounts based
12 on any additions or changes of the claims or any change as to any amendments
13 to this claim.
14 Respectfully submitted,
15 DATED: August 4, 1986
16
17
MICHAEL PHILLIPS
18
19
20
C.J. BLACK
21
22 Ni,
23
C.J-.- BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ORINDA RECORDS
24
25
26
27
28
-13-
APPLICATION W T47
TO. FILE LATE CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BOARD ACTION
Application to File Late Claim ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT September 30, 1986
Against the County, Rotting ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
Endorsements, and Board Action.) notice of the action taken on your application by
(All Section References are to the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below),
California Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 and
915.4. Please note the "WARNING" below.
Claimant: MICHAEL PHILLIPS ET AL County counsel
c/o Orinda Records
Attorney: P. O. Box 838 SEP
Address:
Orinda, CA 94563 Martinez, CA 94553
- -
Amounts $42, 000 , 000. 00 By delivery to Clerk on August 29 , 1986
Date Received: August 29 , 1986 By mail, postmarked on August 27 , 1986
Certified P 466708701
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above noted Application to ile to Claim.
DATED: August 29 , 1986PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy
L. Hall
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
( ) The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6).
(�G) The Board should deny this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6).
DATED: �a �) /VgkR WESTMAN, County Counsel, B,-f,-./-
III.
III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present
(Check one only)
( ) This Application is granted (Section 911.6).
)' This Application to File Late Claim is denied (Section 911.6).
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its
minutes for this date.
DATE: SEP 3 0 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy
WARNING (Gov. Code 3911.8)
If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the
appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code
Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See Government Code Section 946.6. Such
petition must be filed with the court within six (6) months from the date your application
for leave to present a late claim was denied.
You may seek the advise of any attorney of your choice in connection with this
matter. If you want to consult an attorney, u should do so immediately.
IV. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel 2 County Administrator
Attached are copies of the above Application. We notifed the applicant of the
Board's action on this Application by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof.
has ben filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section
29703.
DATED: SEP 3 01986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By 19(. 70/ Deputy
V. FROM: 1 County Counsel 2 County Administrator TO: Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors
Received copies of this Application and Board Order.
DATED: County Counsel, By
County Administrator, By ,
APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM '
f
.c
i
1 CLAIM OF MICHAEL PHILLIPS, )
C.J. BLACK, )
2 C.J. BLACK DOING BUSINESS ) APPLICATION TO PRESENT
AS ORINDA RECORDS ) A LATE CLAIM AS DIRECTED
3 ) BY L. HALL, DEPUTY CLERK
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
4 vs ) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
5 GARY T. YANCEY, )
BRAD NIX, )
6 JAMES L. SEPULVEDA ) RECEIVED
OF/AND )
7 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ) AUG
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY )
8 )
Cl ' suP RS
9 ON T
8Y
10 TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, with
11 a mailing address of P.O. Box 911, Martinez, CA 94553.
12 Application is hereby made for leave to present the
13 attached claim for injuries based on the claim that it was pre-
14 sented late as it was not presented within 100 days after the
15 event or occurrence as required by law.
16 The reason for the delay in presenting this claim is
17 as follows :
18 1. In a Notice to Claimant as signed by L. Hall,
19 Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors which was dated August
20 21, 1986, a statement was made regarding why the return of the
21 Claim as well as what the recourse was which included the present
22 ation of a Late Claim.
23 Since this claim does not relate to a cause of action
24 for death or for injury to a person or to personal property or
25 growing crops, it need not be presented "not later than the looth
26 day after accrual" as Gov. Code Section 911. 2 states:
27 A CLAIM RELATING TO ANY OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION
28 SHALL BE PRESENTED AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 2 OF
-1-
1 THIS CHAPTER NOT LATER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE
2 ACCRUAL OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION
3 Based on the fact that the Claims do not have causes
4 of action relating to death, injury to a person, personal property
5 or the growing of crops , then it is our belief that we had one
6 full year to file. Based on the date of August 8 , 1985 as stated
7 on page 1 of the Claim for Injuries, then the date of August 6 ,
8 1986 was within the one year limit.
9 2. On May 19, 1986 a Cross-Complaint in the Case No.
10 275765 was filed which included causes of action regarding the
ll injuries as cited in the attached Claim For Injuries.
12 A Demurrer was filed by Mr. Watrous who represented
13 Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda during the hearing which was held on
14 July 21, 1986 in Dept 13, the Honorable Judge Patsey presiding.
15 As part of the Demurrer Mr. Watrous claimed, "Cross-
16 Complainants failed to allege any compliance with the claims
17 presentation requirement of the California Tort Claims Act. "
18 Judge Patsey ruled that the Demurrer to the Cross-
19 Complaint was sustained with the Cross-Complainants having 30
20 days from the ruling on the Demurrer set for hearing on August
21 3rd, 1986 to file an amendment.
22 Therefor, as one of the cures to the Demurrer is the
23 filing which Judge Patsey has seen fit to allow if done within
24 the 30 days allowed.
25 We therefore find it hard to understand the refusal of
26 the filing of our Claim For Injuries when a _Judge is allowing
27 such actions as to cure an sustained Demurrer which includes
28 language regarding claims presentation.
-2-
] 3. Yancey and his Office are in "Deep Trouble" which
2 can be attested to based on the following:
3 a. Yancey has been in trouble since 1984 . In a
4 case in which Yancey was the prosecutor the Court of Appeals
5 (161 Cal. App. 3d 961 dated November 1984) ruled, "We conclude
6 however, that the prosecutor' s (Yancey) voir dire of Gamer crossed
7 the line separating proper advisement from intimidation. The
8 District Attorney's statements represent the type of THREAT or
9 COERCION which has been held to violate due process. " The Court
10 further ruled, "Gamer was a material witness PREVENTED from
11 testifying by the THREATENING STATEMENTS OF THE PROSECUTOR
12 (Yancey) . "
13 b. Yancey is presently being sued by Pittsburg
14 Police Lt. Banks based on the handling of Banks by the D.A. ' s
15 Office regarding an illegal search and seizure. Exhibit A.
16 c. Yancey has used a boy to test sexual abuse
17 allegations and the State confirmed that Bell , a police officer
18 who was involved in this case, could be charged with said child
19 molestation charges. To add to the fact that Yancey did not M
20 the charges the mother of the boy is/has prepared a law suit
21 naming Yancey. Exhibit B.
22 d. The D.A. 's Office has been invloved with a
23 Credit Scam in which 7 of its employees are accused of doctoring
24 credit applications and using their position in the Office to
25 do so. Exhibit C.
26 e. An article in the Contra Costa Times implied
27 that there were members of the Staff of the D:A. ' s Office that
28 were in a de-tox program.
-3-
l = The Claimants respectfully request that the attached
2 Claim For Injuries be allowed and acted on by the Board of
3 Supervisors, Contra Costa County.
4 Further, a full trial/hearing be conducted and that
5 the charges/claims be sustained.
6 DATED: August 26, 1986
7 Respectfully submitted,
8
9 �
MICHAEL PHILLIPS
10
11
12
13 C.J. BLACK
14
15 �e n D C'--Zi1Ei,
16 C. j' BLACK DBA ORINDA RECORDS
17
18
19
20
21
.22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
I CLAIM OF MICHAEL PHILLIPS, )
C.J. BLACK, )
2 C.J. BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ) CLAIM FOR INJURIES
ORINDA RECORDS )
3 )
4 vs )
5 GARY T. YANCEY, )
BRAD NIX, )
6 JAMES L. SEPULVEDA )
OF/AND )
7 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE )
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY )
8 )
9
10 TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISIORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, with a mailing
11 address of 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California 94553:
12 You are hereby notified that MICHAEL PHILLIPS, C.J. BLACK AND C.J.
13 BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ORINDA RECORDS, with a mailing address of c/o Orinda
14 Records, P.O. Box 838, Orinda, California 94563, claims damages from Gary T.
15 Yancey, Brad Nix and James L. Sepulveda and The District Attorney's Office
16 of Contra Costa County whose mailing address is P.O. Box 670, Martinez,
17 California 94553 in the amount, computed as of the date of presentation of
18 this claim, of $ 42,0009000.00.
19 This claim is based on the injuries (said claim does not have a cause
20 of action for death, injury to a person as in body harm, personal property or
21 growing crops as described in Section 911.2 of the Government Code. This is
22 a claim relating to other causes of action as presented herein following) as
23 sustained by the Claimants on or about August 8, 1985 and continuing as
24 discovery is still on-going, and occurred in or about the vicinity of Contra
25 Costa County and throughout the State of California, all under the following
26 circumstances:
27 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
28 A malicious and carefully orchestrated scheme in which a number of
-1-
1 small businesses located in Contra Costa County are being victimized by Gary
2 T. Yancey, the District Attorney and two of his Deputies by the names of
3 Brad Nix and James L. Sepulveda,
4 Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda are targeting specific small businesses
5 and filing various fictitious blown-up and exaggerated allegations which
6 include hugh fines. Upon the victimized small business being served, it
7 would contact their lawyer only to find that legal costs would be as high as
8 $25,000.00 and that it could take 2 years or more to go to trial. At the
9 same time, Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda would threaten the small business with
10 closing them down through revolking of business licenses, actions by the
11 Health Department and/or releasing damaging statements to the press so that
12 the public would lose confidence in the business or its products and/or
13 services,
14 With Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda having knowledge of the unaffordable
15 legal fees for the small business and, the use of constant "Strong Arm Tactics"
1.6 by them, they would then offer the small business a "Deal" which was composed
17 of restrictions and a payment. However, one major point was that any and al
18 future similar actions (as well as some that were added) by the small business
19 would carry a very grave and constly consequence, which, was setting up the
20 small business for Round Two,
21 In the end these extortion and coercion tactics forced a number of
22 small businesses, which included Service Stations, Record Companies, Consultant
23 Clubs and others, to have no other financial solution but to consider succum 'n
24 The claimants Michael Phillips, C.J. Black and C.J. Black DBA Orind
25 Records are but one of the victims of Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office
26 of the District Attorney, as related to the aboye scheme and actions.
27 The Office of the District Attorney, Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda have
28 used Declarations which contain perjured statements as well as false and/or
-2-
1 "doctored" documents, all of which they have knowledge of, against the
2 Claimants.
3 The scheme is being used by Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office
4 of the District Attorney for a number of reasons, each of importance and
5 standing on its own as well as combined for strength and they are: First,
6 the statistic released for 1985 shows that the District Attorney's Office had
7 a felony conviction rate of less than 2 (i.e. , of 3042 cases that were filed
8 as felonies only 1488 convictions occurred in the Supreior Court for a mere
9 49% felony conviction rate of cases originally filed) . The underlining
10 personal gain is to increase this rate and "Keep their Job." Poor performanc
11 means poor support and funding.
12 Second, by filing actions against small businesses who can not affor
13 the high cost of legal battles, even when the business is right and IS THE
14 VICTIM OF THE D.A. 's OFFICE, with said businesses succumbing, a higher "Hit
15 Rate" can now be achieved thus taking on a personal :dory and making the
16 individuals (Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda) efficiency report "look good."
17 Third, by filing actions against small businesses and having said
18 small business have no other financial solution but to consider succumbing,
19 then money is brought into the coffers of the County of Contra Costa. As
20' Mr. Nix has said repeatly, "I am measured on the amount of settlements, in
21 dollar amounts, which I can bring into the County."
22 Fourth, based on the large staff that Yancey has and the budget that
23 he must spend (or loose it due to not generating enough work/cases) , Yancey
24 must keep the staff working at full capacity (and past this) . It is the old
25 government ploy that budgets must be fully strained so that the next time a
26 budget is borught before the governing powers and the deciding powers for
27 granting budgets and money for operations, that it can be shown how much has
28 been accomplished and how "over worked and under staffed" the agency (the
-3-
j D.A..'s Office) is during the fiscal year. It's an old game with new players,
2 And finally, what would be a better way than to offset other actions
3 such as the law suit by the Pittsburg Police Lt. Bank's naming Yancey, the
4 use by Yancey of a boy to test sexual abuse allegations and whose mother
5 has retained an attorney who is to prepare a $1 million claim naming Yancey
6 and others, the credit scam in which 7 employees of Yancey have been charged
7 with falsifying financial statements and doctoring credit. applications,
8 employees of Yancey who are in a de-tox programs, an employee "whistle-blower '
9 at Unocal oil refinery who came forward in January 1985 and described how
10 the company bypassed pollution discharge controls into the Bay and deliberate .y
11 falsified test data to the governing regulatory agency and Yancey said he
12 could do nothing, etc., than by bring actions and press attention towards the
13 small businesses here in Contra Costa County.
14 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO CONSPIRACY
15 The claimants have sustained injury due to Conspiracy by Yancey, Nix
16 Sepulveda and the Office of the District Attorney, as each of them, willfully.
17 and knowingly conspired and agreed amoung themselves to destroy
18 the Claimants business and financial credit by contacting accounts of the
19 Claimants, contacting individuals to include Judge(s) in the Walnut Creek-
20 Danville Municipal Court and by contacting vendors with false, Prejudice and
21 injureous statements againt and concerning the Claimants.
22 Further, said Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office of the District
23 Attorney has filed a damaging legal action which was willful and spitful and
24 for the purpose of ruining and to place into bankruptcy the Claimants.
25 Further, said Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office of the D.A. want d
26 to destroy the Claimants business and reputations through the interference
27 with the Claimants suppliers, trade and industry individuals and companies,
28 and bank relationships9 as well as potential investors.
-4-
I That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office cooperated, aided
2 and encouraged and ratified and adopted acts, herein described and other acts
3 yet to be determined as discovery is on-going, which resulted in actual damag
4 to the Claimants from the tortious act or acts done in pursuance of the
5 conspiracy,
6 That the conduct of Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office
7 was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for the rights of the Claimants
8 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO THE
9 FALSEFICATION OF DOCUMENTS
10 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office did accept stateme t:
11 documents and Declarations which they knew to be false and they did this
12 willfully and knowingly. That they knew that Declarations as received from
13 Norman Varney and Lynn Packer declared and affirmed in a particular manner
14 and/or to a particular fact in which it was stated willfully and contrary to
15 the true facts of the material addressed in said Declarations, was false and
16 damaging matter,
17 That the basis of a legal action as filed by the Yancey, Nix, Sepul d.
18 and the D.A. 's Office (Case No, 275765) included affidavits/Declarations as
19 described herein above which contained the statements in which they knew to
20 be false or knew to be with disregard as to the truth. That by doing this
21 such actions are contemptuous and were intended to mislead and distort for
22 the purpose of dollar gains and for the purpose of damaging the business
23 essence and operations and the creditability of the Claimants.
24 That these individuals did these actions with complete disregard fo
25 the legal system and in collusion with. each other, Said action was willful
26 and spitful and for the purpose of harassing, vexing, ruining, degrading and
27 trying to control the business activities of the Claimants.
28 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office were advised that
-5-
1
1 the Declarations were, in fact, containing false information and statements
2 and that they knew of the true facts but failed to and would not act on the
3 disqualification and/or prosecution of said declarants. That it was intended
4 to generate and create false declarations for the purpose of harassing the
5 Claimants and to use said Declarations in an overall "Strong Arm Tactic" to
6 threaten and to extort money from the Claimants.
7 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO COERCION
8 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and
9 knowingly conspired to compel the Claimants to act or think in a given manner
10 said manner to be profitalbe to themselves.
11 That they dominated and/or restrained the trade and business functions
12 of the Claimants through and by their damaging and injureous actions. That
13 these actions were willful and spitful and for the purpose of harassing,
14 vexing, ruining, degrading and placing into bankruptcy the Claimants.
15 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for
16
the rights of the Claimants.
17 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO
18 INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS
19 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and
20 knowingly, by the actions and statements hereinabove and as following, exposed
21 the Claimants to hatred, contempt and distrust amoung both the Claimants
22 profession, venders of products, bank(s), agencies and buyers of their products
23 That these actions and statements had such an effect as to disrupt
24 the performance of the business operations of the Claimants. That further
25 said acts jeopardized the relationship. between venders, banks and buyers of
26 the products of the Claimants as well as potential investors.
27 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for
28 the rights of the Claimants.
-6-
I INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO EXTORTION
2 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and
3 knowingly, by their actions and statements as described herein tried to/
4 placed fear of/succeeded, by coercion and intimidation, to obtain money and/
5 or goods from the Cliamants,
6 That during meetings with Nix and Sepulveda as well as during telepho e
7 conversations beginning August 8, 1985 and continuing until the present, these
8 individuals used "Strong Arm Tactics" and threats of large fines, putting the
9 Claimants out of business, controling all aspects of the Claimants present
10 business and future business operations and directions. That through these
11 actions which included harassing, that they tried to force the signing of
12 various papers and documents which would be determental to the existance of
13 the Claimants both now and in the future,
14 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's_ Office threatened, coerced
15 and intimidated the Claimants and carried out reprisals through their actions,
16 That they exposed the Claimants to hatred, contempt and mistrust amoung vender ;,
17 banks, potential investors and accounts of the Claimants,
18 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for
19 the rights of the Claimants,
20 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO
21 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
22 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and
23 knowingly have intentionally harassed, shamed and mortified the Claimants by:
24 contacting individuals, Courts, venders, accounts, potential investors and
25 banks with false and injureous statements concerning the Claimants; entering
26 into a conspiracy; wilful misconduct; misleading and distorting facts for the
27 purpose of dollar gains and for the purpose of damaging the business essence
28 and operations and creditability of the Claimants; coercion; exposing the
-7-
1 Claimants to harted, contempt and distrust amoung their profession, venders,
2 banks, potential investors and accounts of the Claimants; using "Strong Arm
3 Tactics" to extort money and other items; making false representations; Fraud;
4 Deceit; Malice and other actions which will be attested to at the time of the
5 hearing/trial,
6 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for
7 the rights of the Claimants.
8 That as a direct and proximate cause of these actions the Claimants
9 have suffered further severe emotional distress and anguish and continue to
10 suffer emotional distress and anguish,
11 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and The D.A.'s Office have willfully
12 intended to cause the Claimants severe emotional distress and anguish through
13 their reckless disregard of the probability that said conduct would cause
14 emotional distress to the Claimants.
15 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO
16 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
17 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office were under the duty
18 to exercise due care in the prevention of Emotional Distress to the Claimants
19 and that they have breached this duty, acting with reckless disregard of the
20 probability that said conduct would cause severe Emotional Distress and anguis
.21 and as a direct and proximate result of this conduct the Claimants have suffer( d
22 and continue to suffer great mental and nervous pain and suffering.
23 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for
24 the rights of the Claimants.
25 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO BARRATRY
26 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and
27 knowingly, by their actions, excited legal action for the purpose of continuance
28 and work for their Office and themselves. That they are judged on a the numbe
-8-
I of legal actions they file as well as the amounts of money they bring in by
2 such actions.
3 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office know that many
4 individuals and companies and that of the Claimants, can not afford the time
5 or the money to fight legal actions as filed by them. That through fear and
6 constant "Strong Arm Tactics" they anticipate that the indiviudlas and/or
7 companies named by them in actions will settle for sums which are part of the
8 overall fund they are judged by, thus making the scheme that the are invloved
9 in a personal gain.
10 That Nix has already been charged with "Substantial Prosecuting
11 Misconduct" in a decision rendered by Judge Richard E. Arnason of the Supreior
12 Court on May 5, 1985, Case No. 29792, in which Judge Arnason stated, "Uncoubte 1;
13 the record here, and the testimony presented in the hearing in this matter,
14 reveals a pattern of SUBSTANTIAL PRESECUTING MISCONDUCT."
15 That Yancey., who was the prosecutor in another case as the Court
16 of Appeals (161 Cal. App. 3d 961 dated November 1984) had ruled, "We conclude,
17 however, that the prosecutor's (Yancey) voir dire of Gamer crossed the line
18 separating proper advisement from intimidation. The District Attorney's
19 statements represent the type of THREAT or COERCION which has been held to
20 violate due process." The Court furhter ruled, "Gamer was a material witness
21 PREVENTED form testifying by the THREATENING STATEMENTS OF THE PROSECUTOR -
22 Yancey."
23 That this conduct was fraudulent, pppressive and without regard for
24 the rights of the Claimants.
25 INJURY SUSTAINED .DUE TO CORRUPTION
26 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and
27 knowingly have intentionally harassed, shamed and mortified the Claimants by
28 their actions to sustain injury to the Claimants due to each of the above herein
-9-
1 injuries sustained as listed as: the General Allegations; Conspiracy; Falsefic -
2 tion of Documents; Coercion; Interference With Business; Extortion; Intentiona
3 Infliction of Emotional Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress;
4 and Barratry, all allegations as stated therein hereinabove.
5 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for
6 the rights of the Claimants.
7 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO ACTUAL MALICE
8 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D,A. 's Office willfully and
9 knowingly have intentionally harassed, shamed and mortified the Claimants by
10 their actions of ill will with a desire to harm through the sustaining of the
11 injuries as described herein above, to include all allegations, as listed as
12 in the: General Allegations; Conspiracy; Falsefication of Documents; Coercion;
13 Interference With Business; Extortion; Intentional Infliction of Emotional
14 Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Barratry; and Corruption
15 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for
16 the rights of the Claimants.
17 ADDITIONAL FACTS AND INFORMATION
18 The names of the public employees causing the Claimant's injuries
19 under the herein above described circumstances are: Gary T. Yancey, Brad Nix
20 and James L. Sepulveda. Based on Discovery being on-going, other names and
21 acts may be discovered as which time it would be requested to amend this
22 Claim. That the Claimants do not know the true names or capacities of all
23 of the public employees causing the Claimants injuries and that the Claimants
24 will seek leave to amend this Claim for Injuries to show the true name(s)
25 and capacities of each as they become known to the Claimants.
26 The injuries sustained by the Claimants, as far as known, as of the
27 date of the presentation of this Claim, consist of: that as described in the
28 General Allegations herein above; Conspiracy; Falsefication of Documents;
-10-
1 Coercion; Interference With Business; Extortion; Intentional Infliction of
2 Emotional Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Barratry;
3 Corruption and Actual Malice, all allegations stated herein above.
4 AMOUNT OF CLAIM
5 The amount claimed, as of the date of presentation of this claim is
6 computed as follows:
7 Damages Incurred To Date
8 General Allegations
9 General Damages $1,000,000.00
10 Special Damages 1,000,000.00
11 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00
12 Conspiracy
13 General Damages 1,000,000.00
14 Special Damages 1,000,000.00
15 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00
16 Falsefication of Documents
17 General Damages 500,000.00
18 Punitive/Exemplary 500,000.00
19 Coercion
20 General Damages 1,000,000.00
21 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00
22 Interference With Business
23 General Damages 2,000,000.00
24 Punitive/Exemplary 2,000,000.00
25 Extortion
26 General Damages 1,000,000.00
27 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00
28
-11-
I Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
2 Exemplary Damages $1,000,000.00
3 Punitive Damages 1,0000000.00
4 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
5 Exemplary Damages 1,000,000.00
6 Punitive Damages 1,000,000.00
7 Barratry
8 General Damages 300,000.00
9 Punitive/Exemplary 200,000.00
10 Corruption
11 General Damages 2,000,000.00
12 Special Damages 2,000,000.00
13 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00
14 Actual Malice
15 General Damages 2,000,000.00
16 Special Damages 2,000,000.00
17 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00
18 Loss of Earnings 500,000.00
19 Other just relief To be Determined
20 Legal Fees and Costs To be Determined
21 Total Damages incurred to date $30:000=000_00
22 Estimated Prospective Damages As Far As Known
23 Future Expenses 1,000,000.00
24 Loss of Earnings 1,000,000.00
25 General Damages 5,000,000.00
26 Special Damages 5,000,000.00
27 Legal Fees and Costs To be Determined
28 Total Estimated Prospective Damagesj12j000s000_00
-12-
1 Total Amount Claimed as of the Date of
2 Presentation of this Claim 1-4210001000_00
3 ALL NOTICES OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS WITH REGARD TO THIS CLAIM SHOULD
4 BE SENT TO THE CLAIMANTS AT:
5 MICHAEL PHILLIPS
6 C.J. BLACK
7 C.J. BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ORINDA RECORDS
8 c/o Orinda Records
9 P.O. Box 838
10 Orinda, CA 94563
11 That the Claimants will pray for additional claims/amounts based
12 on any additions or changes of the claims or any change as to any amendments
13 to this claim.
14 Respectfully submitted,
15 DATED: August 4, 1986
16
17 ��
MICHAEL PHILLIPS
18
19
20
C.J. K
21
22
23
C.J. BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ORINDA RECORDS
24
25
26
27
28
-13-
EXHIBIT PACE
Taken from the Contra Costa Times
Wednesday, May 21, 1986
Page 4A
y
Yanceymaye
by
Pittsburgol�ce
MARTINEZ — District Attor- Banks and his attorneys, includ- other allegations related to Banks
ney Gary Yancey may still be ing Michael D. Tucevich, who is having been searched Feb. 14,
sued in connection with a drug running for district attorney 1985. Banks was suspected of
probe of a Pittsburg lieutenant against Yancey, the right to sub- placing a bindle of cocaine on top
who has filed a $1 million claim mit a revised complaint within 30 of his Pittsburg police department
against the county's top prosecu- days for a second shot at a lawsuit locker.
tor. against Yancey. McGrath said that Banks'com-
Yancey was believed to be im- The Tucevich and Yancey race plaint had been not been specific
mune from Pittsburg police Lt. will be settled when voters go to enough.
Jim Banks' lawsuit after Contra the polls on June 3. McGrath's amendment on
Costa County Superior Court "This is a victory in our favor," Tuesday means that if a more spe-
Judge Robert McGrath threw out said Tucevich on Tuesday. cific complaint is filed within 30
six of the seven causes of action Tucevich said that if the suit is days,the judge will take a second
cited in Banks' lawsuit against allowed to go ahead, he will take look at it and may not throw it out
Yancey. Yancey's deposition, which Tuce- on the ground that Yancey isim- .
But on Tuesday, McGrath vich predicted will show Yancey mune from prosecution.
amended his ruling. The judge personally OK'd the drug probe Yancey may still be sued on
said a sentence in last week's rul- against Banks in February 1985. the basis of defamation, a cause
ing inadvertently had been omit- In last week's notice, McGrath of action McGrath didn't throw
ted. said Yancey could not be sued for out last week but gave Banks' at-
The amended ruling restores to illegal search and seizure and five torneys 30 more days to rephrase.
• 74•a Am A«1a•"I•
Mo°°`''�I�.' EXHIBIT PAGE,
> okfw a"
Im0*4 �'
Vol IN a/vw">�F ww � a
•p 4nm•pit aa.t�a Ire
No
�p aps Awrk w 4 st
�►19 djas""d• d►OR t•W
a top*na
MR pqw we
>�Qo p
ARP av*4 poe�� .�
+.►rpt o
nfu►apm •� -`�
lo►p P las ppP�AIMP em j;lt
no
w
w"m U111
araiH>�MPF A P4om, WWI
• ®®14mmAiapw s
.�sapa�a0q Pat•• •qi. r It
Iff
�e �I
Uf tm• It
a`p
IP�t•W P I�t•1 a
son 4r
OR
- o•»�� >o�atp
AL
let 1p
iFmCC1 aWP f
•!���w tAvellalAp+W IPP • stto paso, Lrgt
'aAI IP�e ,m •p•m. pwa
POM AAM I v4L
q 31 wo
•�t+apio t a4 au ma P+otpa*A o—
pps••R•It am•gI'�N•r Ptp
wwLLLq oast 9* Aq p 1, 1 awRM
��rMI IN
6R= ,
a of 11 1 •MN
09 pan�fts I1•i mt arae 14 e 8 E lit/
axpoo Pw wd io aompt s '
P#w ••
Mom Y >•W oo{ NJP81 •1 � '�
P•PstPI���. :-
hown$:)471•Ivsme-84 Vw#" E p
•ttl�aaAi#t M Po ole 4
la PIM a•u.API••..
Fill
0=4=126"M04 Q raw
,t"tar on":z"aR inoQ,m! � �►
rr •ants ma PMI w W" � Pp
Lq oP$MR o Pao I.aPom-•II
Df
r, U �.«�
s
EXHIBIT G' PAGE ►
Peps 2A--Contra Costa Times Tuesday,A*22. 1916
i
1, T o more in . . s. oince .,
w
chArge. . .. in " , red*it .-' ' 's* "c'' 'a ' 'm . ,-,. , , , .
By Per Yansaon Nov. 15, 11985, and Andelin on May such as doing community volunteer
W writer 29, 1985, according to the criminal work or attending special classes.
MAR'I04 Z — Two more. Dis- complaint. Both women Are sched- Another District Attorney's
trict Attorney's employees have Wed to be arraigned Aug. 4. clerk, Stephanie Bruton, of Rich-
been cliarged with falsifying finan- ."They dl$n't have very good mond,and Stefanie Peete,who was
cial statements, bringing to seven credit in their own names because head of the Victim Witness Assis-
the number of employees accused they haven't paid their bills,so they tance Program, will be arraigned
of doctoring credit applications. tried to set up credit In another Aug. 4. Bruton has been charged
Julie Price and Suzie Andelin name hoping the computer would with one count of falsification offi-
were suspended Friday from their not deck it,"said Waddell. nanciai statements and Peete with
derical jobs in the District Attor Similar misdemeanor charges ' five counts.
s Office and ed with one were filed J 3 five other
..�Y' �'g ulY. According to Waddell,Peete was
misdemeanor count each of falsify- District Attorney's Office employ- the "Pied Piper" of the group.be-
- Da-
i.
.
ting financial statements, Senior ea. They are accused of misspell- t�use she had shown Dockery, Da-
i. Deputy District Attorney Jadk Wad- Ing their names and lying about vis, Edwards and Bruton that they
dell said Monday. their dates of birth and social sm- could obtain credit from the Univer- .
The two Antioch women used rity numbers to seek loans from a city and State Employees Credit
')phony"Information in applying for credit union,according to court doc-: Union by saying they worked for
a line of credit and Visa credit cards uments. the state.
at Wells Fargo Bank in San Francis- David Davis of Antioch, Linda
}
co,said Waddell. - • Edwards of Pittsburg and Joanne discovered ci Prosecutors said the scam was
discovered in June when the credit
a' Price and Andelsn clanged their Dockeryof Concord were arraigned union became suspicious and called
dates of birth and Social Security Monday in Mt. Diablo Municipal the District Attorney's Office in
numbers, according to court docu- . Court.
meats filed in.Mt. Diablo Municipal They are scheduled to return to Martinez to check on Peete and the
.Court. Price also misspelled her court on Aug. 4 to find out if they four decks, all of whom had ob-
tained,about $3,600 in loans from
. � name, "Pryce;' while Andelin used are e1�,�ble for.the District Attor- . the institutioa J
"Andelyn"on the credit card appli-- .ney'i diversion program, which is
cations in an attempt to fool the designed as an alternative to prison. Peete is still being investigated
computers probing their credit Under the program,the prosecution . on suspicion of having filed false fi-
backgrounds,Waddell said. will dismiss charges if the defen- " nancial applications with other insti-
1 Price applied for the Visa card dants agree to fulfill certain terms, tutions,said Waddell.
CLAIM �' O
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 30, 1986
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below),
Amount: $1 , 704,000. 00 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and
915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS".
County Counsel
CLAIMANT: JOYCE WOLF HOFFERBER
ATTORNEY:
S k P 0 8 1986
ADDRESS: F—ROOM 10 Date received Martinez, CA 94553
Martinez Detention BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: September 3 . 1986 Pub.Def.
Martinez , CA 94553
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: no postmark
1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK(-��\ • C��_
DATED: September 4, 1986 BY: Deputy
L. Hall
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2
f/�J This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: �� f b lO By: uty County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
( This Claim is rejected in full.
( )
Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order enter d in its minutes for this date.
Dated: SEP 3 0 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By - � Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'3erved
or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to
. consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
CC: Claimant County Counsel . County Administrator
�• t 511 C6� �`��-;� �� �..► -- ----- ._..
1�-, ci 3o Obf4
- �fp
ct
Ft
tc�
AV
• • itAi -1
7�
vv -to
....... t rCL
co
41
071 ,
�Q CONTRA COSTA -COUNTY Y
• i��iME! �'
6if!*r
DATE: �"M96l 'R89M►
L'fM T
Ar... A6A.6
c
6- 11
4 oa
----- 000
- �-------__ out d_ w -— --OLA -- I atsiw►
RECEIVE
ROUTED TO: O OGRAMS 0 -CU'
O MEDICAL
---------------------- -------- ------------- ---------
ANSWER: CO) APPROVED ED - (,State reason)
BY: /00,
Title Employee Name Employee # �Y
P' kept by inmate, Yellow to inmate, White to Booking f
CONTRA COSTA NT
k IAfit�� A4W-*0
�te�t
DATE: ,
C"" #*q• 0 R�E$lfE Q OR+RAW E Q APP&k
c' . �.� 0
RECE BY:
ROUTED TO: PROGRAMS 0 CUSTODY 0 MEDICAL
ANSWER: 0 APPROV 0 DENIE - (State reason)
BY: '
_k it e - mp ogee Name - Employee #
�>
s P' kept by inmate, Yellow to inmate, White to Booking fi
f i
S A ti C3
I
o t CONTRA COSTA COUNT Y
DATE: ` ,-.z) (b\p PIM t-E- R@9F4�
L
i
1
i
a
•r
RECEI BY:
4
ROUTED TO: PROGRAMS 0 CUSTODY 0 MEDICAL
----------------- - ------------------ --------------------- t,
ANSWER: O APPROV 0 DENIE - (State reason)
• t
r
a
BY: '
t e Employee Name - Emp oyee # 'r
Pin ept by inmate, Yellow- to inmate, White to Booking ile .,
f:
1
APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
' BOARD ACTION
Application to File Late Claim ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT September 30, 1986
Against the County, Routing ) The copy of this document mailed W- you is your
Endorsements, and Board Action.) notice of the action taken on your application by
(All Section References are to the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below),
California Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 and
915.4. Please note theRNARNING" below.
Claimant: SHARON AND DANNY FIELDS County Counsel
Attorney: c/o Bostwick & Tehin SEP 0 8 1986
One Lombard Martnezi
Address: San Francisco, CA 94111 , CA 94553
Amount: $5 , 000, 000. 00 By delivery to Clerk on September 3 , 1986
Date Received: By mail, postmarked on September 2 , 1986
Certified P 194 098 574—
I.
4I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above noted Application to ?File Late Claim.
DATED: 9-04.-36 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, Byry
Deputy
L. Hall
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
( ) The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6).
(X) The Board ,should deny this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6).
DATED: County Counsel, By ty
III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present
(Check one only)
( ) This Application is granted (Section 911.6).
(X) This Application to File Late Claim is denied (Section 911.6).
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its
minutes for this date.
DATE: SEP 3 0 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy
WARNING (Gov. Code §911.8)
If you Wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the
appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code
Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See Government Code Section 946.6. Such
petition must be filed With the court Within six (6) months from the date your application
for leave to present a late claim Was denied.
You may seek the advise of any attorney of your choice in connection With this
matter. If you want to consult an attorne u should do so immediately.
IV. FROM: Clerk of the Board 1 County Counsel 2 County Adminis rator
Attached are copies of the above Application. We notifed the applicant of the
Board's action on this Application by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof.
has ben filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section
29703.
DATED. SEP 3 01986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy
V. FROM: 1 County Counsel 2 County Administrator TO: Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors
Received copies of this Application and Board Order.
/ County Counsel, By
County Administrator, By
APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM
rr
ti
BOSTWICK & TEHIN
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
TELEPHONE ONE LOMBARD 333 QUEEN STREET
14151 421-5500 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 SUITE 900
HONOLULU 96813
18081 536.7771
September 2 , 1986
CERTIFIED/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa 1:0
Admnistration Bldg.
Martinez, CA 94553
Re : Claims of Sharon and Danny Fields
Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed herewith is a Claim involving a potential
medical malpractice action on behalf of Sharon and Danny
Fields. This claim was timely submitted within 100 days
from the date that the plaintiffs discovered or should have
discovered the alleged malpractice . You returned the Claim
by Notice dated July 30, 1986 , on the grounds that "it was
not presented within 100 days after the event or occurrence
as required by law" .
The 100 day period in medical malpractice claims does
not beginning running until the plaintiffs discover or have
reason to discover the malpractice. This rule was recited
in the Fields ' Claim and supporting case authorities were
included, with full citations.
In summary, the Fields ' Claim for medical malpractice
was timely filed under the applicable rules of law, and any
question as to their timeliness could only be addressed as
a factual matter at the time of jury trial in this case.
I feel that a late Claim is inappropriate , but in order
to accommodate the County' s interests, I am willing to
present one for consideration. In the event that the late
Claim is denied and I am required to make a motion for
relief from the Superior Court, I will at that time ask for
all fees and costs incurred in connection with submitting a
late Claim and providing the explanations and legal citations
in the original claim.
BOSTWICK & TEHIN
PROFESSIOWAL CORPORATIONS
Board of Supervisors
Page Two
September 2, 1986
Therefore, please be advised that in the event you
continue with your decision not to consider the Claim on its
merits but only consider a late Claim, I will request from
the Court at the time of my motion for relief from the
Government Code that the need for such relief is pointless
and the County has required Claimants to undertake useless
tasks in presenting their claim. The attorneys fee claim at
the time of the motion for relief will include time spent in
preparation of the late claim to accommodate the County' s
demands, and the time spent in moving the Court for relief
from late Claim and award of attorneys fees.
In the event that you decide to reconsider your
position and address the original late claim on its merits,
please advise me accordingly.
In addition to Claimants original Claim in this
matter, I am also enclosing Application for Late Claim on
behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Danny Fields.
Very truly yo s,
P
if
J LEY DOT
JND/kc
Enclosures
1 BOSTWICK & TEHIN
ONE LOMBARD STREET
2 SAN' FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415/421-5500EC�
3 ��1�D
Attorneys for Claimants
4
CLERK 8 E O
6E ORS
8y .............
8 IN' THE MATTER OF:
9 APPLICATION OF SHARON" FIELDS
and DANNY FIELDS for Permission
10 to Present a Claim Not Timely
Presented to the COUNTY OF
11 CONTRA COSTA,
APPLICATION' FOR PERMISSION'
12 vs . TO FILE A CLAIM NOT TIMELY
13 PRESENTED
14 TO: THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND ITS GOVERNING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
15 1 . This Petition is made on behalf of SHARON' FIELDS and
16 DANNY FIELDS to file a Late Claim under the provisions of Section
17 911. 4 and 911 . 6 of Government C6de of the State of California,
18 against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, in connection with a Claim for
19 possible damages arising out of negligent conduct occurring
20 between June and November, 1983 .
21 2. The circumstances surrounding the reasons for the request
22 to file the claim at this time are set forth in the Declarations
23 of SHARON- FIELDS and DANNY FIELDS, which are appended hereto.
24 3. This application and permission to file a claim not
25 timely presented is timely and proper in that it is done within a
26 reasonable time and is not later than one year from the date the
BOSTWICK 6 TEMIN
PROrESS10NAL CORPORATIONS
ONE LOMBARD
SAN FRANCISCO 94111.118E 1
(415) 421.5500
l
I Petitioners were advised of the injuries and damages and the
2 attendant facts and circumstances thereof which are the subject of
3 this claim.
4 4 . As shown by the Declaration hereto attached, the delay in
5 presentation of the claim is not unreasonable, and the COUNTY OF
6 CONTRA COSTA is not prejudiced by Claimants ' Application for Late
7 Claim, and Claimants original claim was presented within the time
8 specified in Section 911 . 2.
9 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the COUNTY OF
10 CONTRA COSTA grant permission to Claimants herein to present their
11 claim previously presented and thereafter duly consider the
12 merits of said claim.
13
14 DATED: AugustGL; 1986
15 BOSTWICK & TEHIN
16
I � f
-J
17
J NILEY ORTI
18 Attorney for Claimants
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BOSTWICK 6 TEHIN
PROPESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ONE LOMBARD
SAN FRANCISCO 94111-1188 2
(415) 471-5500
i
1 BOSTWICK & TEHIN
ONE LOMBARD STREET
2 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415/421-5500
3
4 Attorneys for Claimants
IN THE MATTER OF:
5
6
7
8 APPLICATION OF SHARON FIELDS
and DANNY FIELDS for Permission
9 to Present a Claim Not Timely
Presented to the COUNTY OF
10 CONTRA COSTA,
DECLARATION' OF SHARON'
11 vs. FIELDS AND DANNY FIELDS
IN' SUPPORT OF APPLICATION
12 TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM
13 /
14 We, SHARON FIELDS and DANNY FIELDS, declare:
15 1 . Between June and November of 1983, Claimant SHARON' FIELDS
16 was treated and hospitalized at MARTINEZ MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
17 formerly known as CONTRA COSTA BOUNTY HOSPITAL and received
18 improper care and treatment, resulting in a stroke and related
19 injuries.
20 2 . Claimant SHARON' FIELDS was incapacitated by this episode
21 for approximately two years and unable to ascertained the nature
22 or extent of her injuries and damages until she was able to
23 consult with an attorney in May, 1986 . An investigation into the
24 facts of the accident was immediately begun.
25 3. There exists the potential for a medical malpractice
26 action in connection with SHARON, FIELDS ' care. Claimants are
BOSTWICK a TEHIN
IRiOPOSSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ONE LOMBARD
SAN FRANCISCO 941 i 1.11 B6 1
(415) 421-8500
i
1 investigating the circumstances of her hospitalization and the
2 medical care provided and accordingly are submitting this
3 application for leave to file a late claim.
4 4 . Immediately upon discussing the potential negligence of
5 the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, Claimants immediately caused a claim
6 to be presented to the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA. The claim, dated
7 July 11 , 1986, is attached hereto for consideration on its merits
8 by the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA.
9 5 . Prior to the time of the original claim, Claimants had no
i
10 reason to believe or suspect or discover any potential involvement
11 or liability in this case as to the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA.
12 6. The original claim to the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA was
13 submitted pursuant to California law and erroneously rejected/
14 returned by letter dated July 30, 1986 . Therefore, this application
15 for leave to present a late claim is being submitted.
16 7 . The Claim in this matter was presented within the first one
1
17 hundred (100) days after claimara,ts discovered or had reason to
18 discovery the incidence of medical negligence; and should the
19 County reject this claim, there is no prejudice to the COUNTY OF
20 CONTRA COSTA and the substance of the claim was first presented in
21 July 1986.
22 8 . Claimants make this request under the provisions of the
23 Government Code and ask that permission be granted to file the
24 late claim and thereafter to have their claim considered on its
25 merits.
26 We declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
BOSTWICK 6 TEHIN
PRORMS10NAL CORPORATIONS _
OUR LOMBARD ^
SAN FRANCISCO 94111.1186 L
(41S)421.6500
ft'dExeA gust t , 1986 , at San Francisco, CA.
3
SHARD TF,T'ELDS DANNY FIELDS
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BOSTWICK 6 TEHIN
PROPESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ONE LOMBARD
SAN FRANCISCO 94111-1186 3
(416)421.8800
• �C t
CLAIM AGAINST CONTRA. COSTA COUNT
�FStiE
This Claim is made on behalf of SHARON FIELDS and
DANNY FIELDS against the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. ,y
To: Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
Administration Bldg.
Martinez, CA 94553
The following Claim(s) for damage are hereby made by
SHARON FIELDS and DANNY FIELDS, and the particulars of the
Claim(s) are as follows:
1. Name and Address of Claimant:
SHARON FIELDS
DANNY FIELDS
Permanent &
Current Address:
1029 Geary Street,
Apartment 57
San Francisco, CA
94109
2. Address to Which Notices Are to be Sent:
Bostwick & Tehin
One Lombard Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
415/421-5500
3. Amount of Claim:
$5, 000, 000. 00
4. Date and Place of Occurrence:
June, 1983, Contra Costa County. Hospital, Martinez, CA.
The potential of medical negligence has not yet been
discovered, and same will be more fully ascertained when
medical records are obtained.
5. Other Circumstances of the Occurrence:
Claimant was hospitalized at Contra Costa County
Hospital in June, 1983, and received improper care and
treatment, resulting in the below-described injuries.
1
There exists the potential for a medical malpractice
action in connection with SHARON FIELDS' care. Claimants
are investigating the circumstances of her hospitalization
and the medical care provided and accordingly are sumbitting
a claim. - Claimants believe that their investigation may
show that a's a direct and proximate result of the negligent
treatment and medical care rendered by personnel, staff,
agents and employees of CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, SHARON
FIELDS sustained severe injury. Claimant DANNY FIELDS wit-
nessed the events leading to and surrounding the care.
This claim is submitted within 100 days of the accrual
of claimants ' cause of action. Claimants have not
discovered the potential negligence of CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
as yet, as medical records have not been received or
medical opinions obtained. However, this claim is filed to
protect the legal rights and interest of Claimants , as there
exists a potential of negligence. Claimants' cause of
action, therefor, accrued, if at all, at the very earliest,
on May 30, 1986. Less than 100 days has expired since any
potential accrual of claimants ' cause of action and this
claim is timely. Donabedian v. Manzer (1984) 153 Cal.App. 3d
592; Whitfield v. Roth (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 874; Scott v.
Los Angeles (1977) 73 Cal.App. 3d 476.
Claimants were caused to incur expenses for the medical
care and treatment of SHARON FIELDS, for the damages she
sustained in the incident herein mentioned; and further,
DANNY FIELDS sustained a loss of care, comfort, society,
protection and consortium. DANNY FIELDS also suffered
emotional distress as a result of his wife' s injuries.
Claimants, upon information and belief, allege that the
entity upon whom this claim is filed was careless and
negligent in their care and treatment of SHARON FIELDS.
6. Itemization of Injuries, Extent of Damage
and Basis of Computation
As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned
acts, conduct and omissions of the entity against whom this
claim is filed, claimants have suffered and sustained
injury. Claimants claim general and special damages arising
out of the aforementioned occurrence.
7. Employees Causing Injury and Damage:
Employees and agents of the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
responsible for the occurrences identified herein are
presently unknown.
2
DATED: July 11, 1986
J NIL DORI
3
CLAIM AGAINST CONTRA COSTA COUNT 6y ,CCS ODq� 19P6
Oss'S'R
Ov�BO�
This Claim is made on behalf of SHARON FIELDS and
DANNY FIELDS against the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.,
To: Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
Administration Bldg.
Martinez, CA 94553
The following Claim(s) for damage are hereby made by
SHARON FIELDS and DANNY FIELDS, and the particulars of the
Claim(s) are as follows :
1. Name and Address of Claimant:
SHARON FIELDS
DANNY FIELDS
Permanent &
Current Address:
1029 Geary Street,
Apartment 57
San Francisco, CA
94109
2. Address to Which Notices Are to be Sent:
Bostwick & Tehin.
One Lombard Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
415/421-5500
3. Amount of Claim:
$5, 000, 000. 00
4. Date and Place of Occurrence:
June, 1983, Contra Costa County Hospital, Martinez, CA.
The potential of medical negligence has not yet been
discovered, and same will be more fully ascertained when
medical records are obtained.
5. Other Circumstances of the Occurrence:
Claimant was hospitalized at Contra Costa County
Hospital in June, 1983, and received improper care and
treatment, resulting in the below-described injuries.
1
There exists the potential for a medical malpractice
action in connection with SHARON FIELDS' care. Claimants
are investigating the circumstances of her hospitalization
and the medical care provided and accordingly are sumbitting
a claim. Claimants believe that their investigation may
show that as a direct and proximate result of the negligent
treatment and medical care rendered by personnel, staff,
agents and employees of CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, SHARON
FIELDS sustained severe injury. Claimant DANNY FIELDS wit-
nessed the events leading to and surrounding the care.
This claim is submitted within 100 days of the accrual
of claimants ' cause of action. Claimants have not
discovered the potential negligence of CONTRA. COSTA COUNTY
as- yet, as medical records have not been received or
medical opinions obtained. However, this claim is filed to
protect the legal rights and interest of Claimants, as there
exists a potential of negligence. Claimants' cause of
action, therefor, accrued, if at all, at the very earliest,
on May 30, 1986 . Less than 100 days has expired since any
potential accrual of claimants ' cause of action and this
claim is timely. Donabedian v. Manzer (1984) 153 Cal.App. 3d
592; Whitfield v. Roth (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 874; Scott v.
Los Angeles (1977) 73 Cal.App. 3d 476.
Claimants were caused to incur expenses for the medical
care and treatment of SHARON FIELDS, for the damages she
sustained in the incident herein mentioned; and further,
DANNY FIELDS sustained a loss of care,- comfort, society,
protection and consortium. DANNY FIELDS also suffered
emotional distress as a result of his wife' s injuries.
Claimants, upon information and belief, allege that the
entity upon whom this claim is filed was careless and
negligent in their care and treatment of SHARON FIELDS.
6. Itemization of Injuries, Extent of Damage
and Basis of Computation
As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned
acts, conduct and omissions of the entity against whom this
claim is filed, claimants have suffered and sustained
injury. Claimants claim general and special damages arising
out of the aforementioned occurrence.
7. Employees Causing Injury and Damage:
Employees and agents of the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
responsible for the occurrences identified herein are
presently unknown.
2
ATgD. JulY 11
1986
D DO
f,
3