1 David P. Myers (SBN 206137) Justin M. Crane (SBN 251107)

2 Jason Hatcher (SBN 285481) THE MYERS LAW GROUP, A.P.C.

3 9327 Fairway View Place, Ste. 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

4 Telephone: (909) 919-2027

5 Facsimile: (888) 375-2102

6 Attorneys for Elizabeth Chapman and Cheryl M. Uyeda

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

ELIZABETH CHAPMAN, an individual, and CHERYL M. UYEDA, an individual

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, a governmental entity, CITY OF LOMPOC, a governmental entity, JESSICA CADIENTE, an individual, IRENE MACIAS, an individual, and DOES 1 through 10

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1. VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW 42 usc§ 1983

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

22 I. INTRODUCTION

23 This is an action brought by Plaintiffs ELIZABETH CHAPMAN and CHERYL M.

24 UYEDA ("Plaintiffs") against the CITY OF SANTA BARARA, CITY OF LOMPOC, JESSICA

25 CADIENTE, IRENE MACIAS, and other as of yet unnamed Defendants ("DOE Defendants")

26 (collectively referred to as "Defendants") alleging, among other things, violations of state law

27 and the federal and state constitutions. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages, interest,

28 attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

COMPLAINT - I -

ELECTRONICALLY FILEDSuperior Court of CaliforniaCounty of Santa BarbaraDarrel E. Parker, Executive Officer6/7/2017 8:00:00 AMBy: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy

17CV02496

1 II. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

2 1. This Court is the proper court and this action is properly filed in the County of Santa

3 Barbara and in this judicial district because Defendants and Defendants' obligations and liability

4 arise therein.

5 2. Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant City of Lompoc and previous

6 applicants with the City of Santa Barbara and residents of the County of Santa Barbara, State of

7 California. Plaintiff Chapman brings this suit against Defendant City of Santa Barbara,

8 Defendant Cadiente, and Defendant Macias. Plaintiff Uyeda brings this suit against Defendant

9 City of Lompoc, Defendant City of Santa Barbara, Defendant Cadiente and Defendant Macias.

10 3. Defendant City of Lompoc and Defendant City of Santa Barbara are local

11 governmental entities in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California.

12 4. Based on information and belief, Defendants Jessica Cadiente and Irene Macias

13 reside in the County of Santa Barbara.

14 5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise,

15 of DOES 1 through 10 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues the DOE Defendants by

16 fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities

17 when they have been ascertained.

18 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each and all of the acts

19 and omissions alleged herein were performed by, and/or are attributable to, all Defendants, each

20 acting as agents and/or employees, and/or under the direction and control of each of the other

21 Defendants, and that said acts and failures to act were within the course and scope of said

22 agency, employment and/or direction and control. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon

23 alleges, that at all times material hereto Defendants were and are the agents of each other.

24 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant DOES 1

25 through 10 are the partners, owners, shareholders, or managers of Defendants, and were acting

26 on behalf of Defendants.

27 8. At relevant times alleged herein, Defendant City of Lompoc employed Plaintiffs in

28 the Buellton Library of Defendant City of Lompoc, in the County of Santa Barbara, State of

COMPLAINT - 2-

1 California. In addition, Defendant Santa Barbara held positions for hire within the City of Santa

2 Barbara.

3 9. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise,

4 ~f DOES 1 through 10 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues the DOE Defendants by

5 fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities

6 when they have been ascertained.

7 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each and all of the acts

8 and omissions alleged herein were performed by, and/or are attributable to, all Defendants, each

9 acting as agents and/or employees, and/or under the direction and control of each of the other

10 Defendants, and that said acts and failures to act were within the course and scope of said

11 agency, employment and/or direction and control. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon

12 alleges, that at all times material hereto Defendants were and are the agents of each other.

13 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants DOES 1

14 through 10 are the partners, owners, shareholders, or managers of Defendant Employer, and were

15 acting on behalf of Defendant Employer in the payment of wages to Plaintiff.

16 III. FACTS COMMON TO MORE THAN ONE CAUSE OF ACTION

17 12. Plaintiffs Chapman and Uyeda worked for Defendant City of Lompoc at the Buellton

18 Public Library until they were terminated on or about June 12, 2015.

19 13. In 2014 and 2015, Plaintiff Chapman had multiple conversations with various public

20 officials regarding the Buellton Library. Plaintiff Chapman had these conversations in her

21 capacity as a citizen of the County of Santa Barbara. In these conversations, Plaintiff Chapman

22 raised concerns as to whether Defendant Cadiente should be placed in the recently vacated

23 Director of Library position. Plaintiff Chapman's concern was based on the fact that she

24 believed the City of Lompoc library management had engaged in a scheme in which the City of

25 Lompoc was charging the Buellton Library administrative costs for work that was not being

26 performed, for work that was dublicative, and/or for work that was historically performed by

27 Buellton staff. Plaintiff Chapman also requested the City of Lompoc follow California Civil

28 Service requirement by considering all applicants for the position and not just Defendant

COMPLAINT - 3-

1 Cadiente. Plaintiff Chapman was concerned that the City of Lompoc library management would

2 use this accounting scheme to create a deficit for the Buellton Library to justify service decisions

3 in the future including limiting days and hours of service for Buellton Library.

4 14. Soon after Defendant Cadiente was selected for the Library Director position,

5 Defendant Cadiente approached Plaintiff Chapman and stated that she was aware that the

6 "Buellton Staff' didn't want Defendant Cadiente hired as the Library Director. Plaintiff

7 Chapman believed that Defendant Cadiente made this statement to insure that Plaintiff Chapman

8 knew that Defendant Cadiente had heard of Plaintiff Chapman's opposition to her placement as

9 Library Director.

10 15. On or about April 30, 2015, Plaintiffs were informed that their positions would be

11 eliminated on June 13, 2015.

12 16. On or about May 14, 2015, Plaintiffs Chapman and Uyeda attended a Buellton City

13 Council meeting where changes to the Buellton Public Library were discussed. During the

14 public comments section of this public meeting, various individuals in the public comments

15 section made negative statements regarding library management including Defendant Macias and

16 Defendant Cadiente, that the Buellton Library should retain the Buellton staff, statements of

17 general support of the Buellton Staff, as well as alternatives and opposition to the move of

18 Buellton from Zone 2 to Zone 1. This meeting was attended by Defendant Cadiente and

19 Defendant Macias. This conduct included both verbal comments, written statements and

20 petitions, as well as clapping. Around the time of the May 14, 2015 meeting, various documents,

21 including signed petitions and letters, were submitted to the Buellton Library. These documents

22 were submitted by residents of the surrounding area. These documents included opposition to

23 the move from Zone 2 to Zone 1, alternative options from moving the Buellton Library, as well

24 as various other matters of public concern that was being submitted to the Buellton Library.

25 These documents were submitted to Plaintiff Chapman and Plaintiff Chapman made the

26 documents available to the general public by placing them on the counter at the Buellton Library.

27 17. On May 28,2015, Defendant Cadiente e-mailed Defendant Macias and stated that

28 the Buellton Library Staff were "throwing a fit" over the planned two-week closure of the

COMPLAINT -4-

1 Buellton Library. Plaintiff Uyeda had volunteered to work during this two week period in an

2 effort to ensure the residents would have access to the Buellton Library. Plaintiff Uyeda had

3 proposed to keep the library open on a volunteer basis and not as employees of the City of

4 Lompoc as she knew that her employment would have ended by that time.

5 18. On June 1, 2015, Defendant Cadiente informed the Lompoc Library staff of her

6 decision to resign her position with the City of Lompoc. On this same day, Defendant Cadiente

7 confirmed in an e-mail that "there was a lot of booing, clapping and finger pointing at Buellton"

8 in reference to the public comments made at the May l41h hearing. In another e-mailed,

9 Defendant Cadiente stated that "the Buellton staff and their friends and families are so

10 emotionally invested in this and have such tremendous hate for me ... " Defendant Cadiente also

11 stated that the Buellton City Council meeting "was extremely brutal and I was attacked from all

12 sides." Defendant Cadiente was commenting on the public meeting where citizens of Buellton,

13 and the surrounding areas, expressed concerns about the termination of the staff that they had

14 respected and that they valued. The public speakers, as well as some elected public officials,

15 stated that they did not like the way the staff was being treated and expressed a desire for the

16 staff to be rehired. In addition, the comments included opposition and alternatives to the move

17 from Zone 2 to Zone 1 for the Buellton Library.

18 19. On June 2, 2015, the County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors approved a

19 motion to move the Buellton Branch Library out of Zone 2 (Lompoc) into Zone 1 (Santa

20 Barbara) for inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2015-2016. On the same day, Defendant Cadiente sent

21 an e-mail to Defendant Macias that that the City of Lompoc administrative staff "high fived"

22 Defendant Cadiente with the dismissal of the Buellton Staff, which included Plaintiffs Chapman

23 and Uyeda, and that it will be Defendant Cadiente's "lasting legacy" to have to deal with

24 Buellton Library.

25 20. On June 9, 2015, it was announced that Defendant Cadiente had taken a top

26 managerial position at Santa Barbara Public Library, serving just under the Director of Santa

27 Barbara Library System, Defendant Macias.

28

COMPLAINT - 5 -

1 21. On or about June 12, 2015, Defendants terminated Plaintiffs from their positions at

2 the Buellton Public Library. On June 13, 2015, Defendant Cadiente became an employee of City

3 of Santa Barbara as Library Services Manager directly under Santa Barbara Library Director

4 Irene Macias.

5 22. In June of 2015, Plaintiffs Chapman and Uyeda applied for positions at the Buellton

6 Library with the City of Santa Barbara. They were each interviewed by various three person

7 panels.

8 23. By the end of June, Plaintiff Chapman was called by a member of the interview

9 panel and told that she would not be hired for a position within the City of Santa Barbara that

10 was to start July 1, 2015.

11 24. On or about June 18, 2015, Plaintiff Uyeda received a phone call from Defendant

12 Macias for an interview in which Defendant Macias stated that she has concerns about hiring Ms.

13 Uyeda. During this conversation, Defendant Macias repeatedly demanded whether Plaintiff

14 Uyeda was loyal to Defendant Macias. This included whether Plaintiff Uyeda "clapped" when

15 members of the public made comments that were critical of library management including

16 Defendant Cadiente. During this meeting, Defendant Macias questioned Plaintiff Uyeda who

17 had authorized the public petitions and letters to be made available at the Buellton. Plaintiff

18 Uyeda stated that it was Plaintiff Chapman who authorized the public written comments and

19 petitions to be made available at the public library. Defendant Macias stated that it was

20 inappropriate for the documents to be made available at the Buellton Library. Plaintiff Uyeda

21 was not hired for the position with the City of Santa Barbara.

22 25. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs have '

23 suffered and continue to suffer from emotional distress, loss of earnings and interest in amounts

24 as yet unascertained, but subject to proof at trial.

25 Ill

26 Ill

27 Ill

28

COMPLAINT - 6-

1 IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2 ( 42 usc § 1983)

3 26. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference all of the allegations contained in the

4 paragraphs above, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

5 27. The laws of Federal Constitutions set forth legal rights which have been violated by

6 the Defendants' wrongful conduct.

7 28. The Defendants conspired to retaliate against Plaintiffs in violation of their rights

8 afforded to them under the Federal Constitution and its Amendments. This retaliation deprived

9 the Plaintiffs of gainful employment and their right to freely participate in local government

10 guaranteed under the Federal as well as being associated with others that have participated in

11 local government. The aforementioned wrongful conduct by Defendants constituted a violation

12 of Article I, Section II of the California Constitution (Freedom of Association, Petition and

13 Speech). The Plaintiffs were also deprived of a protected property interest without due process

14 of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection) of the

15 Federal Constitution.

16 29. Defendants have acted under color of law to deprive Plaintiffs of their property rights

17 without due process under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution and State

18 law by their wrongful conduct of denying Plaintiff a position of employment because of her

19 attendance at public governmental meetings, her association with those that did participate in the

20 public meetings, and distribution of materials protected under the Constitution.

21 30. Defendants have acted under color of law to punish the Plaintiff for her exercise of

22 free speech rights set forth in the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution and when they

23 were retaliated against for attending a public governmental meeting.

24 31. In taking the actions as aforesaid, the Defendants, and each of them, violated 42 USC

25 § 1983.

26 32. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and each of them,

27 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other

28 employment benefits in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.

COMPLAINT - 7-

1 33. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and each of them,

2 Plaintiff has suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and mental pain and anguish, all to her

3 damage in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.

4 34. Plaintiff has also incurred and continues to incur attorneys' fees and legal expenses in

5 an amount according to proof at the time of trial.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment as follows:

1. For an award of damages in an amount according to proof with interest thereon;

2. For compensatory and general damages in an amount according to proof;

3. For past and future lost income and benefits;

4. For an award of punitive damages;

5. For injunctive relief;

6. For interest under Labor Code section 218.6 and any other applicable provisions;

7. For an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and interest thereon for reasons

including, but not limited to, Plaintiff conveying a significant public benefit; and all other

applicable law; and

8. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: June 6, 2017 THE MYERS LAW GROUP, A.P.C.

By:~~lf/~ David P. Myers Justin M. Crane Jason Hatcher Attorneys for Plaintiffs Elizabeth Chapman Cheryl M. Uyeda

COMPLAINT - 8-