2 3 4

ANITA L. GRANT (State Bar No. 144603) County Counsel LLOYD C. GUINTIVANO (State Bar No. 242944) Deputy County Counsel 255 North Forbes Street Lakeport, California 95453 Telephone: (707) 263-2321 Facsimile: (707) 263-0702 Attorneys for County of Lake and the County of Lake Sheriffs Office

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LAKE COREY PAULICH VERIFIED ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT

Petitioner,
V.

Case No. CV410353 COUNTY OF LAKE; LAKE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

Respondents, County of Lake and Lake County Sheriff Francisco Rivero and the County of Lake (hereinafter, collectively, "County") respond to Petitioner, Corey Paulichs, petition for a writ of mandate (hereinafter, Petition) as follows: 1. In answer to Paragraph One of the Petition, the County is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 2. In answer to Paragraph Two of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis

26 27 28

1 2 3. 3 4
5

denies the allegations of that paragraph. In answer to Paragraph Three of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 4. In answer to Paragraph Four of the Petition, the County admits the allegations contained therein. In answer to Paragraph Five of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. In answer to Paragraph Six of the Petition, the County is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. In answer to Paragraph Seven of the Petition, the County is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. In answer to Paragraph Eight of the Petition, the County is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. In answer to Paragraph Nine of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. In answer to Paragraph Ten of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 11. In answer to Paragraph Eleven of the Petition, the County admits that Petitioner filed a claim against the County on or about April 4, 2011 for civil penalties and

6 7 5. 8 9 10 6. 11 12 13 7. 14
15

16 8. 17 18 19 9. 20 21 22 10. 23 24
25

26 27 28

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

damages. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. 2 12. 3 4
5

In answer to Paragraph Twelve of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

13.

In answer to Paragraph Thirteen of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. In answer to Paragraph Fourteen of the Petition, the County admits the allegations contained therein. In answer to Paragraph Fifteen of the Petition, the County admits the allegations contained therein. In answer to Paragraph Sixteen of the Petition, the County admits that Petitioner contacted Sheriff Francisco Rivero by telephone on March 13, 2011. The County denies the rest of the allegations therein. In answer to Paragraph Seventeen of the Petition, the County denies each and every allegation contained therein. In answer to Paragraph Eighteen of the Petition, the County admits that Sheriff Francisco Rivero (Sheriff Rivero") had discussions with Petitioner regarding the pursuit. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. In answer to Paragraph Nineteen of the Petition, the County admits that Sheriff Rivero reminded Petitioner of the rules and procedures of the Lake County Sheriffs Office. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. In answer to Paragraph Twenty of the Petition, the County admits that on or about March 13, 2011, Sheriff Rivero sent an email to Petitioner. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. In answer to Paragraph Twenty-One of the Petition, the County admits that

6 7 8 14. 9 10 15. 11 12 16. 13 14 15 17. 16 17 18. 18 19 20 19. 21 22 23 20. 24

25

26 21. 27 28

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

1 2 3 4
5

Sheriff Rivero sent a second email to Petitioner on or about March 14, 2011. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained thereinin constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the County denies each and every allegation contained therein. 22. In answer to Paragraph Twenty-Two of the Petition, the County admits to the allegations contained therein. 23. In answer to Paragraph Twenty-Three of the Petition, the County admits to the allegations contained therein. 24. In answer to Paragraph Twenty-Four of the Petition, the County incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Petition. 25.

6
7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

In answer to Paragraph Twenty-Five of the Petition, the allegations contained

therein quote a Government Code Section 3303. County avers that Government Code Section 3303 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents and denies any allegation not consistent with the statute cited. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein.

26.

In answer to Paragraph Twenty-Six of the Petition, the County admits that Sheriff Rivero had discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein.

27.

In answer to Paragraph Twenty-Seven of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that

basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 28. In answer to Paragraph Twenty-Eight of the Petition, the allegations contained
therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that

basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

29. In answer to Paragraph Twenty-Nine of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that

26 27 28

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

El

1 2 3 4
5 6 7

basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 30. In answer to Paragraph Thirty of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 31. In answer to Paragraph Thirty-One of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 32. In answer to Paragraph Thirty-Two of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 33. In answer to Paragraph Thirty-Three of the Petition, the County incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs I through 32 of the Petition. 34. In answer to Paragraph Thirty-Four of the Petition, the allegations contained therein quote a Government Code Section 3303(b). County avers that Government Code Section 3303(b) speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents and denies any allegation not consistent with the statute cited. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. 35. In answer to Paragraph Thirty-Five of the Petition, the County admits that Sheriff Rivero had discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. 36. In answer to Paragraph Thirty-Six of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 37. In answer to Paragraph Thirty-Seven of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

26 27 28

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

38.
2 3 4
5

In answer to Paragraph Thirty-Eight of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

39.

In answer to Paragraph Thirty-Nine of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

6
7

40.

In answer to Paragraph Forty of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

8
9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

41.

In answer to Paragraph Forty-One of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

42.

In answer to Paragraph Forty-Two of the Petition, the County incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 41 of the Petition.

43.

In answer to Paragraph Forty-Three of the Petition, the allegations contained therein quote a Government Code Section 3303(c). County avers that Government Code Section 3303(c) speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents and denies any allegation not consistent with the statute cited. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein.

44.

In answer to Paragraph Forty-Four of the Petition, the County admits that Sheriff Rivero had discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein.

45.

In answer to Paragraph Forty-Five of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

46.

In answer to Paragraph Forty-Six of the Petition, the allegations contained

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

rev

therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that

2 3 4
5

basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 47. In answer to Paragraph Forty-Seven of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 48. In answer to Paragraph Forty-Eight of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 49. In answer to Paragraph Forty-Nine of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 50. In answer to Paragraph Fifty of the Petition, the County incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs I through 49 of the Petition. 51. In answer to Paragraph Fifty-One of the Petition, the allegations contained therein quote a Government Code Section 3303(d). County avers that Government Code Section 3303(d) speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents and denies any allegation not consistent with the statute cited. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. 52. In answer to Paragraph Fifty-Two of the Petition, the County admits that Sheriff Rivero had discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. 53. In answer to Paragraph Fifty-Three of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 54. In answer to Paragraph Fifty-Four of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

26 27 28

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

1 2 3 4
5

basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 55. In answer to Paragraph Fifty-Five of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 56. In answer to Paragraph Fifty-Six of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 57. In answer to Paragraph Fifty-Seven of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 58. In answer to Paragraph Fifty-Eight of the Petition, the County incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs I through 57 of the Petition. 59. In answer to Paragraph Fifty-Nine of the Petition, the allegations contained therein quote a Government Code Section 3303(e). County avers that Government Code Section 3303(e) speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents and denies any allegation not consistent with the statute cited. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. 60. In answer to Paragraph Sixty of the Petition, the County admits that Sheriff Rivero had discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011 in which he reminded Petitioner of Petitioners duties as deputy sheriff sergeant. County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. 61. In answer to Paragraph Sixty-One of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 62. In answer to Paragraph Sixty-Two of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

26 27 28

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

F:

1 2 3 4
5

basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 63. In answer to Paragraph Sixty-Three of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 64. In answer to Paragraph Sixty-Four of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 65. In answer to Paragraph Sixty-Five of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 66. In answer to Paragraph Sixty-Six of the Petition, the County incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs I through 65 of the Petition. 67. In answer to Paragraph Sixty-Seven of the Petition, the allegations contained therein quote a Government Code Section 3303(g). County avers that Government Code Section 3303(g) speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents and denies any allegation not consistent with the statute cited. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. 68. In answer to Paragraph Sixty-Eight of the Petition, County admits that Sheriff Rivero had discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011. County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. 69. In answer to Paragraph Sixty-Nine of the Petition, County admits that Sheriff Rivero had discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011. County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. 70. In answer to Paragraph Seventy of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

6 7 8

H
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

26 27 28

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

1 2 3 4
5

71.

In answer to Paragraph Seventy-One of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

72.

In answer to Paragraph Seventy-Two of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

73.

In answer to Paragraph Seventy-Three of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

74.

In answer to Paragraph Seventy-Four of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

75.

In answer to Paragraph Seventy-Five of the Petition, the County incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs I through 74 of the Petition.

76.

In answer to Paragraph Seventy-Six of the Petition, the allegations contained therein quote a Government Code Section 3303(i). County avers that Government Code Section 3303(i) speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents and denies any allegation not consistent with the statute cited. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein.

77.

In answer to Paragraph Seventy-Seven of the Petition, County admits that Sheriff Rivero had discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011. County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein.

78.

In answer to Paragraph Seventy-Eight of the Petition, County admits that Sheriff Rivero had discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011. County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein.

79.

In answer to Paragraph Seventy-Nine of the Petition, the allegations contained

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

10

1 2 3 4
5 6

therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 80. In answer to Paragraph Eighty of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 81. In answer to Paragraph Eighty-One of the Petition, the County incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs I through 80 of the Petition. 82. In answer to Paragraph Eighty-Two of the Petition, the County is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 83. In answer to Paragraph Eighty-Three of the Petition, the allegations contained therein quote a Government Code Sections 3502 and 3504. County avers that Government Code Sections 3502 and 3504 speak for themselves and are the best evidence of its contents and denies any allegation not consistent with the statutes cited. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. 84. In answer to Paragraph Eighty-Four of the Petition, the allegations contained therein quote a Government Code Section 3502. County avers that Government Code Section 3502 speak for themselves and are the best evidence of its contents and denies any allegation not consistent with the statutes cited. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. 85. In answer to Paragraph Eighty-Five of the Petition, the allegations contained therein quote a Government Code Sections 3502 and 3503, and the Pacific TeL & TeL Co. v. N.L.R.B. (9th Cir. 1983) 711 F.2d 134, 137. County avers that Government Code Sections 3502 and 3503, and Pacific TeL & TeL Co. v. N.L.R.B. (gth Cir. 1983) 711 F.2d 134, 137. speak for themselves and are the

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

26 27 28

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

11

best evidence of its contents and denies any allegation not consistent with the
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

statutes and case cited. The allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. The County denies the rest of the allegations contained therein. 86. In answer to Paragraph Eighty-Six of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 87. In answer to Paragraph Eighty-Seven of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 88. In answer to Paragraph Eighty-Eight of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 89. In answer to Paragraph Eighty-Nine of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 90. In answer to Paragraph Ninety of the Petition, the County incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs I through 89 of the Petition.
91.

In answer to Paragraph Ninety-One of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

92.

In answer to Paragraph Ninety-Two of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

93.

In answer to Paragraph Ninety-Three of the Petition, the allegations contained

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 94. In answer to Paragraph Ninety-Four of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph. 95. In answer to Paragraph Ninety-Five of the Petition, the allegations contained therein constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required and on that basis denies the allegations of that paragraph.

AS A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, County alleges that said Petition, and each and every allegation contained in said Petition, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim against the County.

AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, County alleges that the petitioner has not exhausted administrative remedies. Ill AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, County alleges that the petitioner has an adequate remedy available other than mandamus. IV AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, County alleges that the petitioner has "unclean hands." V AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, County alleges that Government Code Section 3303 does not apply to any interrogation of a public safety

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

13

officer in the normal course of duty, counseling, instruction, or informal verbal 2 admonishment by, or other routine or unplanned contact with a supervisor or any other 3 public safety officer. Government Code Section 3303(i). 4
5

VI AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, County alleges that

6 the writ of mandamus, if enforced, would prevent the Lake County Sheriff from properly
7

supervising his deputy sheriff sergeants in accordance with the Lake County Sheriffs

8 Office rules and procedures. 9 10 VII AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, County alleges

11 that the Petition, and each and every allegation stated therein, whether considered 12 singly or in any combination, fails to state a ground for relief because the County acted 13 under a good faith belief in compliance with statutory requirements. 14 15 VIII AS An EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, County alleges

16 the Lake County Sheriffs purpose for his discussions with Petitioner is to instruct and 17 train the Petitioner of following the Lake County Sheriffs Office rules and procedures to 18 prevent Petitioners mistake from happening again. 19 20 IX AS A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, County alleges that

21 the County has proceeded in the manner required by law and that its decision is 22 supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record and that its findings 23 are supported by the evidence in this matter. 24 25 X AS A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without waiving its

26 foregoing answer or defenses, County alleges that any and all conduct of which 27 28

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

14

1 Petitioner complains herein, and which is allegedly attributable to County, were a just 2 and proper exercise of discretion undertaken for a fair and honest reason and regulated 3 by good faith under the circumstances then existing. 4 5 Xl AS AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, County alleges

6 that at all times mentioned in said Petition, County acted in good faith and with due 7 regard for the rights of the Petitioner and its members. 8 9 XII AS A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without waiving

10 its foregoing answers or defenses, County alleges that Petitioner has failed to mitigate 11 its damages, if any. 12 13 AS A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without

14 waiving its foregoing answer or defenses, County alleges that any and all acts or 15 omissions which allegedly caused injury or damage as set forth in the Petition were 16 caused by the acts or omissions of parties other than the County, and, therefore, the 17 County is not liable to Petitioner for any of the alleged injuries or damages pursuant to 18 Government Code Section 820.8. 19 20 AS A FOURTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, County

21 alleges that each and every cause of action in said Petition fails to state sufficient facts 22 to entitle Petitioner to recover attorneys fees in this action, as a matter of law. 23 24
25

XV AS A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, County alleges that Government Code Section 3303 was not intended to elevate all communications

26 into investigations. 27 28 Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

15

Xv I AS A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without waiving

3 foregoing answer or defenses, to the extent the allegations made against the County 4 enlarge upon facts, contentions or theories set forth in the Petition, said Petition is in 5 violation of California Government Code Sections 900 et seq. and County expressly 6 reserves the right to move to strike any and all such allegations and to object to the 7 admission of any evidence directed to the proof thereof. 8 9 XVII AS A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without

10 waiving foregoing answer or defenses, County alleges immunity to the imposition of 11 liability of damages pursuant to the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act 12 (California Government Code Sections 800 et seq.). 13 14 AIII AS AN EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without

15 waiving the foregoing answer or defenses, County alleges that the Lake County Sheriff 16 neither prohibited nor prevented Petitioner from submitting Petitioners overtime hours 17 for the off-duty discussions between the Lake County Sheriff and Petitioner on or about 18 March 13, 2011. 19 20 0 VA AS A NINETEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without

21 waiving the foregoing answer or defenses, County alleges that the Lake County Sheriff 22 conducted his discussions with Petitioner in a reasonable manner in light of the 23 seriousness of the incident that occurred on or about March 13, 2011. 24 25 AS A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without

26 waiving the foregoing answer or defenses, County alleges that the Lake County Sheriff 27 28

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

16

1 purpose in having discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011 was not 2 punitive (i.e. would not lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension, reduction in salary, 3 written reprimand, or transfer for purposes of punishment). 4
5

XXI AS A TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without

6 waiving the foregoing answer or defenses, County alleges that the Lake County Sheriff
7

did not prevent Petitioner from using a tape-recorder during the discussions. XXII AS A TWENTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without

8 9

10 waiving the foregoing answer or defenses, County alleges that the Lake County Sheriff 11 did not prevent Petitioner from obtaining representation. 12 13 XXIII AS A TWENTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without

14 waiving the foregoing answer or defenses, County alleges that the Lake County
15

Sheriffs discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011 did not consist of

16 wages, hours, or working conditions. 17 18 FYOKA AS A TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without

19 waiving the foregoing answer or defenses, County alleges that the Lake County 20 Sheriffs discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011 did not consist of a 21 new policy towards bargaining-unit employees and did not consist of a new policy 22 towards Petitioner. 23 24
25

XXV AS A TWENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without waiving the foregoing answer or defenses, County alleges that the representation

26 provisions of Government Code Sections 3500 et. seq. do not apply to the Lake County 27 28

Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

17

Sheriffs discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011. XXVI AS A TWENTY-.SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without waiving the foregoing answer or defenses, County alleges that the Lake County Sheriffs discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011 consisted of a reminder and reiteration of the Lake County Sheriffs Office rules and procedures to train and instruct Petitioner. XXVII 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

AS A TWENTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, without waiving the foregoing answer or defenses, County alleges that the Lake County Sheriffs conduct and his discussions with Petitioner on or about March 13, 2011 consisted of routine actions in the normal course of his duties as Sheriff. WHEREFORE, the County prays that: 1. 2. 3. 4. The Petitioners petition for writ of mandate be denied; Petitioner take nothing by its proceeding; Respondents recover their costs in this proceeding; and The Court award such other relief as it considers proper.

Date: August 10, 2011

Respectfully submitted, ANITA L. GRANT County .._ By: LLOYD C. GUINTIVANO Deputy County Counsel Attorney for Respondents, Francisco Rivero, Lake County Sheriff, and The County of Lake

26 27 28 Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

1 2 3 4
5 I, Jeff Rein, declare:

YA1IIIl[s]

That I am the Deputy County Administrative Officer for the County of Lake, one of the above named respondents, and am authorized to make this Verification for and on its behalf; That I have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT that I am informed that there is no single person who has personal knowledge of all of these matters, that the responses in this document are based upon information assembled by its employees and its agents; and that I am informed and believe that the responses based upon that information are true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15

Executed in Lakeport, California on this I

oth day of August, 2011.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 Verified Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate 19 Oepu y County Administrative Officer County of Lake

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

II.I.]aS]1 4AISI

I, the undersigned, declare: I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Lake, State of California. I am over 18 years of age and not a party to the within matter. My business address is 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, California. On August 10, 2011 I served a copy of the following document(s) addressed as follows:
AIVIL

United States Postal Service by placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with offices practice, whereby the mail is deposited in the United States Postal Service mailbox in the City of Lakeport, California. X United Parcel Service express overnight delivery by placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with offices practice, whereby the mail is delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by United Parcel Service to receive documents, in an envelope or package designated by United Parcel Service with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served at that partys place of residence. Mr. Christopher Miller, Esq. Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Johnsen 1912 1" Street, Suite 102 Sacramento, CA 95814 Deposited in the Lake County Courthouse box, Fourth Floor, Superior Court Clerks Office, 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, California 95453. Federal Express. F ax* Personally delivered to person(s) at add ress(es) listed below.

23 24 25 26 27

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on August 10, 2011, at Lakeport, California.

Lloyd C. Guintivano
28