Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/30256295/Clay-Greene-Complaint
Timestamp: 2016-07-23 20:18:19
Document Index: 435373328

Matched Legal Cases: ['§42', '§ 51', '§ 52', '§ 51', '§ 52', '§ 15610', '§ 15610', '§ 15610', '§87456', '§87219', '§87457', '§87457', '§87461', '§87462', '§87468', '§87468', '§ 15657', '§ 1021', '§ 1988', '§ 52']

UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more﻿23 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 ANNE N. DENNIS, SSN 172217 LAW OFFICE OF ANNE N. DENNIS 2360 Professional Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Telephone: (707) 528-3965 FAX: (707) 544-6539 STEPHEN F. O'NEILL, SBN 62317 MARGARET S. FLYNN, SBN 130815 TARKINGTON, O'NEILL, BARRACK & CHONG A Professional Corporation 100 Stony Point Road, Suite 270 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Telephone: (707) 576-1380 FAX: (707) 544-3144 Attorney for Plaintiffs ENDORSED FILED MAR 2 2 2010 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SONOMA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SONOMA CLAY M. GREENE, JANNETTE BIGGERSTAFF, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HAROLD SCULL, Deceased, Plaintiffs v THE COUNTY OF SONOMA; JOWEBER; SALLY LlEDHOLM; KAREN STAGG-HOURIGAN; MICHAEL BREWSTER; NORTH BAY AUCTIONS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, AGUA CALIENTE VILLA, an unknown business entity KIM DILLINGHAM, And Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants ) Case No. SPR-81815 ) J 6 t f4vv, eN TJ&: D ) COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) For: 1) Elder Financial Abuse 2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty 3) Fraud 4) Constructive Fraud 5) Constructive Trust 6) Violation of §42 USCA 1983 7) Violation of California Due Process Clause 8) Violation of Federal Due Process Clause 9) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distres 10) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 11) Unruh Civil Rights Act 12) Violation of Patients' Bill of Rights 13) Declaratory Relief 14) Accounting 15)Conversion 16) Conspiracy 17) False Imprisonment 18) Negligence 19) Failure to Discharge Mandatory Duty 20) Elder Abuse FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 1 2 Page 2 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff CLAY M. GREENE (hereafter "GREENE) is an adult and is, and at 3 all times herein was, a resident of Sonoma County, California. 4 5 2. Plaintiff JANNETTE BIGGERSTAFF is the duly appointed personal 6 representative of the Estate of Harold Scull, deceased (hereafter SCULL ESTATE"). Letters Testamentary issued on September 10, 2008 in Sonoma County Probate Case No. SPR- 80832 and have not been revoked. Said SCULL ESTATE is the successor in interest of Decedent HAROLD SCULL, herein. 7 8 9 10 3. Plaintiff GREENE was born November 3, 1931, and at the times complained II of herein, is and was over the age of 65 years and is an elder as defined by Welfare and 12 Institutions Code section 15610.27. 13 4. Plaintiff GREENE is a person over the age of seventy (70) years and is 14 entitled to preference in the setting of cases, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 15 36. 16 17 5. HAROLD SCULL ("Decedent") was born May 17, 1919 and died August 13, 18 2008. Prior to his death, Decedent was, at the times complained of herein, over the age of 65 years and an elder as defined by Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.27 and a resident of Sonoma County, California. 19 20 21 6. Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent were a gay couple who have been in a 22 committed relationship for over 25 years and lived together for approximately 20 years before Decedent's death in August, 2008. During that time, Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent enjoyed a quiet, retired life, which they planned to continue until their deaths. 23 24 25 26 7. Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent had enjoyed successful and varied careers during their lives. Decedent had worked for MGM Studios in the 1950's and 1960's and was a favorite of Louis B. Mayer during Hollywood's "studio" heyday. He had collected 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 3 numerous artifacts and memorabilia from that period, many of which were displayed in his 2 home. Additionally, Decedent was a retired businessperson and artist, who had collected 3 fine crystal, paintings, and other objects over his lifetime. Decedent was also the 4 beneficiary of an extensive collection of Mexican and Central American "Santos" religious 5 art and artifacts which were also displayed in his home. Plaintiff GREENE had worked in 6 early television during the same period, working with many stars in their early careers, and 7 collected memorabilia himself. Plaintiff GREENE also worked as caretaker for the Phleger 8 family, caring for Herman Phleger and his wife, Mary Elena Ph leger, until their deaths and 9 the sale of the family estate. Plaintiff GREENE was the recipient of many gifts from the 10 Phlegers, including artwork, furnishings, and objects. Plaintiff GREENE's family was also II prominent in early California history, including his grandfather HARRY GREENE and his 12 namesake CLAY M. GREENE, and he possessed many priceless family artifacts and 13 heirlooms of historical and monetary value. 8. Commencing on or about June 2008 and continuing until his death, [4 15 16 Decedent was the subject of a conservatorship in Sonoma Case No. SPR-80583. The Temporary Conservator was the Sonoma County Office of the Public Guardian, which 17 initiated the petition under the direction and supervision of Defendant LlEDHOM, who 18 executed documents and made representations under penalty of perjury in support of said 19 petition. Defendant STAGG-HOURIGAN also executed documents and made 20 representations under penalty of perjury in support of said petition. 21 22 9. Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA (hereafter "COUNTY") is, and at all times 23 mentioned herein was, a county and political subdivision of the State of California, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that said COUNTY is and was duly authorized and empowered to establish, maintain, operate and administer governmental services to residents of Sonoma County, including but not limited to services provided to elders and dependent adults who may require assistance with financial and other matters. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that said services are provided by and 24 25 26 27 28 through the Human Services Department (hereafter "HSO") a department, agency, office 2 and subdivision of Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA. Plaintiff is informed and believes 3 that HSD is established for the purpose, among other things, of protecting and improving 4 the well-being of individuals residing in Sonoma County, especially those who cannot 5 protect themselves. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Adult and Aging Services is a SUb-division of HSD and oversees the Office OF THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN/PUBLIC 6 CONSERVATOR (hereafter "OPC"). OPC was established, for the purpose, among other things, of ensuring the safety and well-being of vulnerable adults, providing protective and supportive services for seniors and others, advocating for seniors and others, investigating conservatorship matters on behalf of the COUNTY and acting as the legal representative 7 8 9 10 of individuals deemed unable to properly care for themselves or their finances or who II cannot resist undue influence or fraud. Plaintiff is informed and believes that OPC is 12 charged with and responsible for the services provided to seniors and others residing 13 within the County of Sonoma. 14 10. Defendant JO WEBER, is and was at the times hereof complained, the Director of HSO, a subdivision of Defendant COUNTY, and its' employee and agent responsible for the oversight and management of said Department, including but not limited to the Adult and Aging Division and the OPC and in doing the things hereinafter alleged was acting within the course and scope of her employment. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant WEBER'S employment duties include responsibility for the establishment and enforcement of protocols and guidelines for said HSD, including but not limited to the policies and procedures under which services are provided to seniors through said Department and in doing the things hereinafter alleged was acting within the course and scope of her employment. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 11. Defendant SALLY LlEDHOLM is, and was at the times hereof complained, the duly appointed and acting Public Guardian/Public Conservator for the County of Sonoma and its employee and agent. Defendant LlEDHOLM is and was at the times hereof complained responsible for the day-to-day management, oversight, training, and supervision of the OPC and all Deputy Public Guardian(s)/Deputy Public Conservator(s) for the COUNTY, including but not limited to Defendants BREWSTER and STAGG- 25 26 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PageS 2 HOURIGAN. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant LlEDHOLM's duties included but were not limited to the implementing and training of employees to administer the policies and procedures under which services are provided to seniors through said Office, and to ensure compliance by COUNTY employees and agents with the polices of the COUNTY and the laws of the State of California, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged was acting within the course and scope of her employment. 3 4 5 6 7 12. Defendant KAREN STAGG-HOURIGAN at the times herein complained is 8 and was an employee and agent of the County of Sonoma regularly assigned and acting as a Deputy in the OPC, and was at the times set forth herein an employee of Defendant COUNTY. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant STAGGHOURIGAN's duties included investigating and reporting on claims of possible neglect or harm involving seniors and others, the providing of services to seniors and others, including but not limited to financial management oversight, determination of living accommodations, evaluation for third party assistance with tasks of daily living, evaluation for medical and psychological services, and other actions and services for individuals who are or may be or become dependent on others for assistance, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged was acting within the course and scope of her employment. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 13. Defendant MICHAEL BREWSTER at the times herein complained is and wa an employee and agent of the County of Sonoma regularly assigned and acting as a Deputy in the OPC, and was at the times set forth herein an employee of Defendant COUNTY. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant BREWSTER's duties included investigating and reporting on claims of possible neglect or harm involving seniors and others, the providing of services to seniors and others, including but not limited to financial management oversight, determination of living accommodations, evaluation for third party assistance with tasks of daily living, evaluation 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for medical and psychological services, and other actions and services for individuals who 26 are or may be or become dependent on others for assistance, and in doing the things 27 hereinafter alleged was acting within the course and scope of his employment. 28 2 3 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant NORTH BAY AUCTIONS, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company organized and operating under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 6140 Highway 12, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California. 4 5 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant sued herein as AGUA CALIENTE VILLA (Hereafter "ACV") is a Limited Liability Company operating in California as JCES MANOR, LLC and doing business as AGUA CALIENTE VILLA in the County of Sonoma, State of California, with a business address at 17250 Valletti Drive, Sonoma, California. Defendant ACV operates as a residential care facility for seniors. 6 7 8 9 10 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes that KIM DILLINGHAM is a resident of the State of California and is and was at the times hereof complained, an employee, agent and manager of ACV. II 12 13 14 17. At all relevant times herein, Defendants maintained a close and confidential and fiduciary relationship with and stood in a position of trust to Plaintiff and Decedent, as more fully described herein. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants were each the agent and employee of the other and in doing the things alleged herein, were acting within the scope of such agency. Further, Defendants, and each of them, knowingly and willingly conspired and agreed among themselves to do the matters 15 16 17 18 19 described herein. 20 21 18. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued 22 herein as Does 1-50, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiffs' injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by their conduct. Each Defendant is the agent, employee, and/or servant of each of its coDefendants, and was at all times mentioned herein acting in the course and scope of said agency and/or employment. 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 7 19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at the times herein 2 mentioned, each of the defendants was the employer, employee, agent, servant, principal, 3 or subsidiary of the other Defendants and at all times acted within the course and scope of 4 such employment or agency and with the knowledge and approval of said co-defendants. locations, including but not limited to Sebastopol, Santa Rosa, Kenwood, and Sonoma. 5 20. Defendants conducted a variety of transactions, and made false and 6 misleading representations, all of which took place in the County of Sonoma at various 7 8 9 21. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants COUNTY, WEBER, L1EDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, NORTH BAY AUCTIONS, LLC and each of them, acted as fiduciary of Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent 10 II and were engaged in a confidential relationship with Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent, to 12 whom they owed the utmost duty of loyalty. Commencing on or about May 2008 and 13 continuing through the filing of the Complaint herein, Defendant COUNTY, by and through Defendants WEBER, LJEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER and others and each 14 15 of them, received cash sums from Plaintiffs accounts and took possession of and 16 disposed, sold, and converted personal property to their own use. These cash sums 17 included monies received from Plaintiff GREENE's Wells Fargo Bank account number 18 9295886932, taken by OPC on or about June 17, 2008; monies received from Decedent's 19 Bank of the West account number 168-050474; monies received from Decedent's Franklin Templeton Account number 109-90221656161; and cash on hand taken from Plaintiff 20 GREENE and Decedent's residence. Defendants COUNTY, WEBER, LlEDHOLM, 21 STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them also took custody and 22 control of Plaintiff GREENE's and Decedent's Social Security payments, dividends, 23 interest, and all of Plaintiff GREENE's and Decedent's sources of income. Defendant 24 COUNTY, by and through Defendants WEBER, L1EDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, 25 BREWSTER, NORTH BAY AUCTIONS and others and each of them, took possession of 26 the personal property of Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent located at their home on Barnett 27 Valley Road, Sebastopol. Said personal property included but is not limited to Oriental 28 rugs valued in excess of $50,000; Japanese folding screens valued in excess of $10,000; religious Santos artworks valued in excess of $1 0,000; a Toyota pickup truck with a value 2 3 in excess of $16,000; antique furniture, including chests, tables, dressers, and chairs valued in excess of $10,000; sterling silver ware and jewelry valued in excess of $5,000; paintings and art objects such as statues; antique china, fine crystal, carvings, decorative items and small collectibles valued in excess of $100,000; general household furnishings and appliances valued in excess of $5,000; garden art, including but not limited to statuary, antique and contemporary planters, fountains, and furniture valued in excess of $10,000; books, papers, photographs, and other personal memorabilia of great personal and 4 5 6 7 sentimental value, and two cats, priceless to Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent. Said 8 actions were reckless, done with undue haste, not authorized or allowed by law, without 9 the consent of the individuals whose property was taken, and after expressly being denied [0 the authority to take such acts by the Sonoma County Superior Court in [Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SPR-80583]. II 12 13 22. On or about April 2008, Decedent SCULL fell and was injured at their home on Barnett Valley Road in Sebastopol. Plaintiff GREENE called 911 to render assistance and Decedent SCULL was transported to Kaiser Hospital in Santa Rosa. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Decedent SCULL was suffering from ill health due to chronic medical conditions as well as indications of dementia and reduced mental capacity, which were known to Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23. On or about May, 2008, Defendant COUNTY by and through the OPC caused to be filed in the Superior Court of the County of Sonoma, a Petition for Appointment of Temporary Conservator of the Estate of HAROLD SCULL. [Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SPR-80583, hereafter "Conservatorship Case"]. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant COUNTY sought to have the ope appointed Decedent's Temporary Conservator, alleging immediate need to protect SCULL's estate from harm and make it accessible for his care. The Petition alleges Decedent SCULL was unable to care for himself or resist undue influence, suffered from a cognitive disorder, delirium, depression, and dementia. Despite know/edge of Decedent's 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 weakened condition and compromised mental functioning, Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER and others and each of them, failed to FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PageS 15 Page 9 2 Petition for Temporary Conservatorship of the Person of Decedent. Despite knowledge of Decedent's weakened condition and compromised mental functioning, Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER and others and each of them, prepared and induced Decedent SCULL to sign legal documents, including but not limited to a "Nomination of Conservator", which was submitted in support of their Petition and a designation for the Social Security Administration for the COUNTY to become Decedent's Representative Payee, as that term is defined by said Social Security Administration. Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them, further made representations and false and misleading statements in support of said Petition, including but not limited to accusing Plaintiff GREENE of committing physical abuse and financial abuse of Decedent, being a danger to Decedent, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 and failing to state the true nature of Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent's relationship, and 12 failing to notify Plaintiff GREENE of said proceedings, in violation of the laws of the State 13 of California and basic human decency. Said Petition requested authorization of 14 independent powers, including but not limited to the power to contract, the power to exercise stock rights, the power to pay, collect, and compromise debts and obligations of the estate, among others, pursuant to Probate Code sections 2590 et seq., as well as 16 17 authority to immediately liquidate Decedent's investment account with Franklin Templeton to provide for his care. Only the authority to liquidate the Franklin Templeton account was granted and all other requested independent powers were denied by the Court since the OPC had failed to demonstrate any factual necessity for these powers or how it would benefit the conservatee. Letters of Temporary Conservatorship of the Estate were issued to the Sonoma County Public Guardian on June 9, 2008. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. On or about May, 2008, Defendant COUNTY by and through the ope caused to be filed in the Superior Court of the County of Sonoma, a Petition for Appointment of a Probate Conservator of the Estate of HAROLD SCULL. [Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SPR-80583, hereafter "Conservatorship Case"}. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant COUNTY sought to have the OPC appointed Decedent's permanent Conservator, alleging immediate need to protect SCULL's estate from harm and make it accessible for his care. The Petition alleges 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Decedent SCULL was unable to care for himself or resist undue influence, suffered from a 2 cognitive disorder, delirium, depression, and dementia. Despite knowledge of Decedent's 3 weakened condition and compromised mental functioning, his need for continuing medical 4 treatment, and his inability to provide for himself, Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, 5 STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER and others and each of them, again failed to Petition for Conservatorship of the Person of Decedent. Despite knowledge of Decedent's weakened condition and compromised mental functioning, Defendants COUNTY, UEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER and others and each of them, prepared and induced Decedent SCULL to sign legal documents, including but not limited to a "Nomination of Conservator", which was submitted in support of their Petition. Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them, further made representations and false and misleading statements in support of said Petition, including but not limited to accusing Plaintiff GREENE of committing physical abuse and financial abuse of Decedent, being a danger to Decedent, and failing to state FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 10 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 the true nature of Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent's relationship, and failing to notify 15 Plaintiff GREENE of said proceedings, in violation of the laws of the State of California and basic human decency. On or about July 2,2008, the Sonoma County Superior Court in said Conservatorship Case granted the Petition and appointed OPC as permanent Conservator of the Estate; Letters of Conservatorship issued on July 9,2008. The Court again denied expanded estate management powers, finding that no specific factual necessity for the requested powers or how they would benefit Decedent SCULL, were provided in the Petition. The OPG was further directed to notice and file a Petition for Conservatorship of the Person of Decedent SCULL for hearing on August 27,2008. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25. On or about May 2008 and continuing through November 2008, Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER and others and each of them, failed to comply with said Orders of the Superior Court and exceeded the authority given OPC in said Orders, and engaging in actions harmful to Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE, 24 25 26 and their rights and property. These acts and omissions, include but are not limited to, 27 failing to liquidate Decedent's Franklin Templeton account, thereby incurring a loss in 28 value of the account in an amount in excess of $20,000; failing and omitting to marshal 11 Page 11 2 and secure the personal property assets of Decedent, including but not limited to those personal property assets described in Paragraph 21 , above; failing and omitting to protect said personal property assets from waste, theft, and damage; failing to inventory and appraise said personal property assets as required by Probate Code section 2610 et seq.; failing and omitting to obtain the required authority of the Superior Court to sell or otherwise dispose of said personal property assets prior to disposing of said property as required by Probate Code section 2540 et seq.: and in failing and omitting to obtain the consent, if able, of Decedent prior to the sale or disposition of said personal property assets as required by said Probate Code section(s). Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that on or about this same time, Defendants COUNTY, L1EDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and NORTH BAY AUCTIONS took possession of the personal property of Plaintiff GREENE without his consent and over his 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 objections. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants 13 COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, NORTH BAY AUCTIONS LLC, and others and each of them took personal possession of items of Plaintiffs' personal property, including but not limited to personal property described in Paragraph 21, above as well as musical instruments, televisions, bicycles, furniture, paintings, dishes, cookware, and art objects, among other things, and sold, kept, converted to their own use, and otherwise disposed of said property without the knowledge, or consent of Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent. Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, 14 15 16 17 18 19 BREWSTER, NORTH BAY AUCTIONS LLC, and others and each of them, after assuming 20 custody and control of said personal property assets, failed to protect said personal 21 property assets from waste, theft, and damage. Defendants further took actions and 22 engaged in conduct, including removing and disposing of property, for the benefit of said 23 Defendants and to the detriment of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' rights. 24 25 26. On or about May 2008 and continuing through January 2009, Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, DILLINGHAM, ACV, and others and each of them, falsely represented to Plaintiffs, to the Court, and to third parties 26 27 that Plaintiff GREENE suffered from dementia and was unable to manage his personal or 28 financial affairs. On or about September 2008 and continuing through January 2009, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants falsely represented that Plaintiff GREENE was suffering from "severe 2 dementia" and required placement in a "secure dementia unit". Defendants had no factual 3 basis for these allegations, and no basis for asserting said facts were true, and further 4 failed to take steps necessary to confirm or deny said allegations. Defendants further 5 lacked any legal authority to determine Decedent's or Plaintiff GREENE's living arrangements or social interaction, and lacked any legal authority to control where or with 6 whom Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent resided. Despite making said allegations, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 12 7 8 Defendant COUNTY, its agents and employees undertook no legal action to protect or assist Plaintiff GREENE, including but not limited to seeking the appointment of a 9 conservator for his person or estate. Despite having no authority to do so and without the 10 consent of and over the objections of Plaintiff GREENE, Defendant COUNTY, its agents II and employees, placed Plaintiff GREENE in ACV, a facility not suited to his needs, 12 lifestyle, or desires. 13 14 27. On or about June 2008 and continuing through November 2008 Defendants ACV, DILLINGHAM, COUNTY, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them, in Plaintiff GREENE's presence and in the presence of others, disparaged and 15 16 demeaned Plaintiff, calling him a "crazy old man", said he had "dementia" and was a "lost 17 cause", laughed at him, and told him to "shut up and go to your room". Defendants ACV, 18 DILLINGHAM, COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and 19 each of them, misrepresented Plaintiff GREENE's legal status, allowing and inducing 20 others to believe Plaintiff was the subject of a conservatorship and Defendant COUNTY, 21 LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them were Plaintiff GREENE's legal representative. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants COUNTY, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, DILLINGHAM, and 23 ACV further misrepresented Plaintiff GREENE's legal status to obtain and disclose 24 confidential medical, personal, and financial information, and in so doing caused harm and 25 distress to Plaintiff GREENE 22 26 27 28. On or about June 2008 and continuing through August 2008, Defendants 28 ACV, DILLINGHAM, COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them, did not allow Plaintiff GREENE access to Decedent, his partner 11 Page 13 of 25 years, who was terminally ill. On or about April 2008 and continuing through 2 November 2008, Defendants ACV, DILLINGHAM, COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, BREWSTER 3 and others and each of them, falsely imprisoned Plaintiff GREENE, keeping him behind a 4 locked gate at Defendant ACV's premises and restricting and limiting his movements and communication with his friends, family, and the general public. Defendants ACV, DILLINGHAM, COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them, falsely represented to Plaintiffs and others that Plaintiff GREENE was 5 6 7 incapable of caring for himself or living independently. In violation of his civil and 8 constitutional rights of freedom of association and liberty, Defendants COUNTY, L1EDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them, physically 9 10 removed Plaintiff GREENE from his residence, and transported him to Defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA's place of business. Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGGHOURIGAN, BREWSTER and others and each of them, made false representations and 12 13 promises concerning Plaintiff GREENE's living situation, falsely representing to Plaintiff 14 that he had no other choice of places to reside, that he lived at ACV's place of business, 15 and further coerced and induced Plaintiff GREENE to enter Defendant ACV's Premises and left him there with no means of transportation or money. Without Plaintiff's GREENE's 16 consent and over his objections, Defendants ACV, DILLINGHAM, COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, 17 STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them, informed Plaintiff 18 GREENE he was required to remain at AGUA CALIENTE VILLA's place of business, and 19 that this was his "new home". PLANTIFF GREENE believed these false representations, 20 believed he had no choice in the matter, and felt intimidated and threatened by Defendants. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants ACV, DILLINGHAM, COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them, further directed and implemented a plan and pattern of conduct conceived, 21 22 23 24 desiqned and directed toward convincing Plaintiff GREENE and Plaintiff BIGGERSTAFF, 25 as well as Plaintiffs' friends and acquaintances, that Plaintiff GREENE was required to remain at the ACV premises and was not allowed to exit the gated area of the ACV premises. Plaintiffs further allege that when Plaintiff GREENE tried to go outside the gated 27 area, Defendants ACV, DILLINGHAM, BREWSTER, and others and each of them, chased 26 28 him down and told him that he was not to leave, alleging that his confinement was for his FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 29. On or about August, 2008, Defendants MICHAEL BREWSTER and KAREN 3 own safety and protection. Plaintiff GREENE alleges that as a result of said conduct by DEFENDANTS ACV, DILLINGHAM, BREWSTER and others and each of them, Plaintiff was put in fear of physical harm, was and felt intimidated and attacked, and was and remains afraid and fearful he will be chased down and locked up again. 4 5 6 STAGG-HOURIGAN, as employees of the COUNTY acting in their official capacities as 7 Deputy Public Guardians, did disparage and demean Plaintiff GREENE in his presence 8 and in the presence of others, making and/or ratifying derogatory references to Plaintiff 9 GREENE's sexual orientation and age, stating "you know how those 'gay boys' are", and 10 rolling their eyes and smirking. On or about this same time, Defendant BREWSTER as an II employee of the COUNTY acting in his official capacity as Deputy Public Guardians stated 12 verbally in the presence of Plaintiff and others that Plaintiff GREENE's and Decedent's 13 landlord "didn't want queers in his house". After Decedents death, Defendants BREWSTER and STAGG-HOURIGAN further expressed displeasure at dealing with expressions of grief by a gay man who had lost his long-time partner. 14 15 16 30. On or about May 2008 and continuing through the filing of this Complaint, 17 Defendants COUNTY, L1EDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, NORTH BAY 18 AUCTIONS, and others and each of them, took possession and control of Plaintiffs' and 19 Decedent's personal property, including but not limited to bank accounts, furniture, vehicles, art, clothing, personal possessions, photographs, furnishings, and other items of 20 monetary and sentimental value, including but not limited to those items described in 21 Paragraph 21, above. Said Defendants failed to secure and protect said property from 22 damage and loss, and further damaged, distributed, sold, took, appropriated for their 23 personal use, and otherwise allowed unknown parties' access to said personal property, al 24 to Plaintiff and Decedent's loss in an amount according to proof. 25 26 31. On or about May 15,2008, Defendants COUNTY, L1EDHOLM, STAGG- HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them, at their first meeting with Plaintiff, induced Plaintiff GREENE to execute an Advance Notification of Representative Payment, naming the Sonoma County Public Guardian as his Representative Payee for the 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 15 purposes of collecting and disbursing his Social Security benefits, alleging said action was 2 taken at the direction of the Social Security Administration, that said action was necessary 3 and required by law, and that said action was taken in Plaintiffs and Decedent's best 4 interests. Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER and .. " 6 others and each of them falsely represented that Plaintiff GREENE lived alone, could no longer manage his finances, had nominated the ope to act as his representative, and that he would be moving to a board and care home. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the Sonoma County Public Guardian was subsequently appointed Representative Payee and remained in that capacity until January 2009. 5 7 8 9 lO 32. On or about May 2008 and continuing through the filing of this Complaint, Defendants COUNTY, L1EDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, NORTH BAY AUCTIONS, and others and each of them induced Decedent to execute an Advance Notification of Representative Payment, naming the Sonoma County Public Guardian as his Representative Payee for the purposes of collecting and disbursing his Social Security II 12 13 14 benefits, alleging said action was taken at the direction of the Social Security 15 Administration. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the Sonoma 16 County Public Guardian was subsequently appointed Representative Payee and remained in that capacity until SCULL's death in August, 2008. 17 18 19 33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that on or about June 2008 and continuing until Decedent SCULL's death in August 2008, Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, DILLINGHAM and ACV separated 20 21 Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent SCULL, and prevented and discouraged contact between 22 the couple. Plaintiff GREENE was separated from and prevented from visiting with his 23 dying partner, was not apprised of his condition or consulted regarding his care, despite 24 the fact that he was the named health care agent in a valid Medical Directive executed by 25 Decedent SCULL. Said actions by Defendants were reckless, unjustified, and left no-one 26 with superior authority to make medical decisions for Decedent at a time when medical 27 decision-making was inevitable. Furthermore, despite alleging deficits in both men which 28 would necessitate the appointment of Conservators of the Person to ensure their safety, OPC did not petition for Conservatorship of the Person for Decedent and only belatedly 5 petitioned for Conservatorship of Plaintiff GREENE. Defendants failed to notify Plaintiff 2 GREENE of Decedent SCULL's deteriorating condition, prevented Plaintiff's presence 3 during Decedent's final hours, and only informed him of his partner's death some days 4 after the fact. Plaintiffs further allege that in August 2008, Defendants STAGG- 6 HOURIGAN and BREWSTER, acting in their official capacity as Deputy Public Guardians and falsely representing they had the authority to control Plaintiff Greene's social contacts, failed and refused to allow his long time friend, Plaintiff BIGGERSTAFF to comfort him or remain with him when he was notified of his partner's passing. 7 8 9 34. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that on or about June 10 or July 2008 Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and II others and each of them, did forcibly remove Plaintiffs cats, "Sassy" and "Tiger" from Plaintiff and Decedent's residence on Barnett Valley Road, taking possession of the animals without Plaintiff GREENE's consent and over Plaintiff GREENE's objections and entreaties. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that an unknown male employee and agent of Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them, did in the course and scope of his 12 13 14 15 16 employment, and at the direction of other employees and agents of Defendant COUNTY, 17 did remove said cats from said residence, without cause or justification, taking them 18 forcibly by their necks and putting them into a truck in Plaintiff GREENE's presence. Said 19 unknown male employee and agent pushed Plaintiff GREENE to the ground when he told 20 them to stop. Said unknown male employee and agent laughed at Plaintiff and Plaintiff's 21 distress. Said taking was done over Plaintiff GREENE's objections and to his physical 22 and emotional pain and distress. Commencing on or about June 2008 and continuing thereafter through September 2008, said animals were in the custody and control of 23 Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and their agents 24 and employees, who had an obligation to care for and protect said animals/property and to 25 return said property to Plaintiff GREENE in good condition at his request. Defendants 26 COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and their agents and 27 employees, failed and refused to properly provide for and care for said property/pets. Said 28 animals were and have been kept from Plaintiff GREENE and their whereabouts unknown FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 17 3 -" to him, at the action and direction of said Defendants, without cause or justification, to 2 Plaintiff GREENE's pain and distress. 4 35. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that on or about June and July 2008, Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and NORTH BAY AUCTIONS and their agents and employees, did enter Plaintiff GREENE's and Decedent SCULL's residence for the purposes of taking possession of and identifying the personal property of Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent SCULL. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said employees and agents made comments regarding the quality and desirability of Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent SCULL's property, saying "this would look nice in my living room" and "my wife will love this". Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at that time and subsequently thereafter, said Defendants, and their agents and employees, did remove artwork, furniture, and other personal possessions and property including but not limited to the property described in Paragraph 21, above, from the residence at Barnett Valley Road. Said property was taken without Plaintiffs' knowledge, without their consent, and over their objections. When Plaintiff GREENE intervened and objected to the removal, unknown individuals, agents, and employee's of Defendants laughed at Plaintiff GREENE and denied his right to object to the removal. When Plaintiff GREENE attempted to notify Decedent of the actions of Defendants in removing said property, he was discouraged and 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 prevented from communicating with Decedent and from inquiring after and recovering said 20 property. When family members and friends of Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent attempted 21 to inquire after and recover said property, they were discouraged and prevented from doing so by Defendants COUNTY, BREWSTER, STAGG-HOURIGAN, LlEDHOLM, and NORTH BAY AUCTIONS, among others. 22 23 24 36. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that commencing in June 2008 and continuinq through August 2008 some or all of Plaintiffs' personal property, 25 26 including but not limited to the property identified in Paragraph 21, above, was converted 27 to the personal use and enjoyment of Defendants NORTH BAY AUCTIONS, LlEDHOLM, 28 STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and unknown agents and employees of Defendant COUNTY, and for their personal financial gain. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and 7 required by Probate Code section 2610 et seq. thereon allege that some or all of this property was sold by Defendants COUNTY, STAGG- 2 HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, LlEDHOLM, NORTH BAY AUCTIONS and unknown agents 3 and employees of Defendants COUNTY and NORTH BAY AUCTIONS at public auction 4 for a fraction of its true value, without notice or knowledge to Plaintiffs, without the consent 5 of Plaintiffs, and without legal authority or justification. Plaintiffs further allege that said property was not inventoried or appraised by Defendants COUNTY and L1EDHOLM as 6 8 37. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that on or about July 9 2008, Defendant COUNTY entered into a contractual agreement with Defendant NORTH 10 BAY AUCTIONS to sell the personal property of Plaintiffs, including but not limited to the II property identified in Paragraph 21, above. Said contract was entered into without the 12 knowledge and consent of Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent, who would not have 13 consented to the contract or the terms therein had they been so advised. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that said contract included a provision for a 25% commission to be paid to NORTH BAY AUCTIONS, that said amount is excessive and not in the best interests of Plaintiffs. 14 15 16 17 38. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that on or about 18 August 2008, Defendant NORTH BAY AUCTIONS did sell at public auction the personal 19 property of Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent, including but not limited to the property 20 identified in Paragraph 21, above, without legal authority, and without Plaintiff and Decedent's knowledge or consent, and to which they would not have consented had they known. 21 22 23 39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that as a proximate 24 result of Defendants COUNTY, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, LlEDHOLM, and NORTH BAY AUCTIONS' wrongful taking of the aforementioned property, including but 25 26 not limited to the property identified in Paragraph 21, above, Plaintiffs have sustained 27 losses which are the natural, reasonable, and proximate result of the wrongful taking, all to Plaintiffs' damage, in an amount according to proof. During the time of Defendants wrongful taking of the aforementioned property and the filing of this action, Plaintiffs have 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 18 2 3 properly expended time and money in pursuit of the wrongfully taken property, all to Plaintiffs' further damage in a sum not yet determined. As a further and proximate result 0 the acts alleged herein, it was necessary for Plaintiffs to employ agents and other attorneys to recover Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that they will incur additional attorneys' fees and expenses in recovering Plaintiffs' property. 4 5 6 7 40. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at the time Defendants made the representations described herein and engaged in the conduct described herein, they knew that these representations and this conduct would probably cause harm to Plaintiffs and that there was a substantial certainty of damage to Plaintiffs which would result from these representations and this conduct and they were further aware of the probable dangerous and harmful consequences to Plaintiffs of these representations and this conduct. Nevertheless, Defendants recklessly and intentionally made these representations and engaged in this conduct in conscious and deliberate disregard of Plaintiffs' rights and the injurious consequence to Plaintiffs and with the intent to oppress, defraud, and deceive Plaintiffs. Furthermore, Defendants willfully and 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 deliberately failed to avoid the dangerous and harmful consequences to Plaintiffs which \7 would probably result from these representations and conduct, but instead, recklessly, 18 consciously and deliberately disregarded the probable dangerous and harmful 19 consequences to Plaintiffs. Finally, even after demand by Plaintiffs to Defendants that 20 they rectify this conduct and cease these representations, Defendants, with knowledge 21 and notice of Plaintiffs' rights and of the probably dangerous and harmful consequences to Plaintiffs as a result of this conduct and representations and their continued failure to rectify this conduct, nevertheless failed and refused and continue to fail and refuse to rectify this conduct. 22 23 24 25 41. Commencing on or about 2007 and at all times herein complained, and 26 continuing through and to the death of Decedent SCULL and until the filing of the 27 Complaint herein, Defendants COUNTY, LlEDHOLM, WEBER, STAGG-HOURIGAN, and 28 BREWSTER knew of Plaintiff and Decedent's personal relationship, and with deliberate callousness and indifference and a desire to humiliate and disparage Plaintiff GREENE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 19 2 and Decedent and their personal relationship, separated them from each other, hindered and interfered with their contact and communication with each other, separated them from their property, including their beloved pet cats, and denied them physical, emotional and 3 4 financial support of each other, causing great physical and emotional suffering. Plaintiff 5 further alleges that Defendants BREWSTER and STAGG-HOURIGAN did demean and 6 disparage Plaintiff and Decedent including but not limited to the statements and actions set forth in Paragraph 29, above. Plaintiff GREENE further believes and alleges that Defendants BREWSTER and STAGG-HOURIGAN desired to punish him for a reason unknown to Plaintiff GREENE, and make an "example out of him" and that in doing the acts alleged herein and in making the statements alleged herein did so in their capacity as a deputy county conservator/guardian. 7 8 9 10 II 12 42. Defendant COUNTY authorized and ratified the wrongful conduct of Defendants LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN and BREWSTER, and others, Defendant's employees and agents, by knowing of and allowing said actions to continue, by implementing and continuing the pattern of conduct, and by further including and 13 14 15 incorporating their conclusions and actions in subsequent documents filed with the 16 Sonoma County Superior Court. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 17 that Defendant COUNTY further authorized and ratified said conduct by and through the 18 practices and patterns of the HSD through the guidelines, protocols, and polices designed, implemented, supervised and administered by HSD, and the lack thereof, in services provided to seniors. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants COUNTY, WEBER, and LlEDHOLM, through the OPC's failure to have adequate training and supervision guidelines in place, further ratified and authorized the wrongful conduct of its agents and employees, both orally and in writing, and allowed said agents and employees, including but not limited to Defendants LlEDHOLM, BREWSTER, and STAGG-HOURIGAN to act in the name and stead of Defendant COUNTY. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant COUNTY further encouraged and directed said employees and agents, including but not limited to Defendants LlEDHOLM, BREWSTER, and STAGG-HOURIGAN, to administer cases assigned to ope as expeditiously and economically as possible, without regard for the rights and desires of 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 20 II Page 21 2 the involved seniors and others, to utilize the services of preferred vendors, regardless of their suitability for a particular individual case, and to manage the estate(s) of the individuals in their care for the convenience of the OPC and Defendant COUNTY. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant COUNTY, by and through Defendants WEBER and LlEDHOLM, failed to ensure employees under their 3 4 5 direction and supervision were adequately trained and advised of changes in the law, 6 including but not limited to changes in the Probate Code, which directly impacted and 7 8 affected the method and manner in which services are provided to seniors under the care of Defendant COUNTY. 9 10 43. Defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA authorized and ratified the wrongful 12 conduct of Defendant DILLINGHAM, Defendant's employee, in that Defendant ACV allowed and encouraged her management and supervisorial style and allowed her to continue and perpetuate the wrongs complained of herein, failing to intervene despite being advised of the wrongs committed. Defendant ACV further authorized and ratified the wrongful conduct of Defendant DILLINGHAM in failing to adequately train and supervise her actions and interactions with clients and seniors, and allowed and encouraged the actions complained of herein. 13 14 15 16 17 18 44. Defendant NORTH BAY AUCTIONS authorized and ratified the wrongful conduct of its employees, in that said Defendant allowed and encouraged the comments and conduct complained of, and failed to ensure allowed her to continue and perpetuate the wrongs complained of herein. 19 20 21 22 45. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the actions of 23 defendants, as described in this complaint, occurred within Sonoma County, California, 24 and constitute "state action" as that term has been interpreted by relevant case law. 25 46. Defendants were guilty of recklessness and oppression and fraud and malice 26 27 in the commission of the acts of abuse alleged herein. 28 47. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants are FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 3 50. On or about February 11, 2009, Plaintiff CLAY M. GREENE presented a 4 in Paragraph 21, above, that they took, concealed, secreted, appropriated, or disposed of is justified. guilty of bad faith within the meaning of Probate Code section 859 and an award of twice 2 the amount of the property of the estate, including but not limited to the property described 5 48. Under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15657(a), Defendants are liable 6 to plaintiff for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, which have been devoted to the 7 litigation of this claim. 8 9 49. On or about February 11,2009, Plaintiff JANETTE BIGGERSTAFF, as Executor of the Estate of Harold Scull, Deceased, presented a claim to defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA. A copy of the Claim is attached as Exhibit A-1 and made a part hereof. On or about March 16, 2009, defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA rejected plaintiff's claim in its entirety. A copy of the Rejection is attached as Exhibit B-1 and made a part hereof. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 claim to defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA. A copy of this Claim is attached as Exhibit A- 2 and made a part hereof. On or about March 16, 2009, defendant COUNTY OF 17 SONOMA rejected plaintiff's claim in its entirety. A copy of the Rejection is attached as 18 Exhibit 8-2 and made a part hereof. 19 20 51. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant 21 COUNTY and its employees and agents, are and were subject to mandatory duties imposed by the following statutes: Probate Code sections, 1800, 2252, 2253, 2255, 2352, 2352.5, 2356.5, 2401, 2540, 2543, 2610, 2620, 2900, 2910, 2920, 2943, 2950, and 2952; 22 23 Welfare and Institutions Code section 157600 et seq.; Civil Code sections 51,52, and 24 52.1, and California Rules of Court 7.1059. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and 25 thereon allege that Defendant COUNTY and its employees and agents, are and were 26 subject to mandatory duties, including but not limited to the duties imposed as a result of 27 their fiduciary relationship to Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent, including but not limited to 28 the obligations imposed by Probate Code section 2101. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 22 3 Page 23 52. Under Civil Code section 3294, Defendants are liable for punitive damages. 2 53. Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for damages for the Decedent SCULL's pain and suffering. 4 5 6 7 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Elder Financial Abuse 8 (as to Defendants County of Sonoma; Jo Weber; Sally Uedholm; Karen Stagg-Hourigan; Michael Brewster; North Bay Auctions) 9 10 II 54. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 and Paragraphs 88 through 96 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 12 13 55. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that as Temporary Conservators, and subsequently Conservators, of the Estate of HAROLD SCULL, Defendants COUNTY, WEBER, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them, were charged with the management of and did manage Decedent SCULL's financial affairs from June 2008 to his death in August 2008. As such, Defendants enjoyed a confidential or fiduciary relationship with Decedent SCULL, a position they breached for a wrongful use and for their own benefit and financial gain. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that said Defendants' fiduciary duties continue until their discharge by the Sonoma County Superior Court. Said Defendants' breached their fiduciary duty to Decedent by the actions taken and not taken, as described in this Complaint. Said breach was deliberate and reckless, in that said Defendants had requested additional estate management powers which were denied by the Court in the Conservatorship Case, yet said Defendants engaged in said independent actions without the necessary Court approval and without following the mandates of the Probate Code. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 56. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants were Representative Payees for purposes of collecting Social Security benefits of HAROLD SCULL by virtue of their application with the Department of the Treasury, Department of 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT II Page 24 2 Social Security on or about May 15, 2008 and continuing until his death in August 2008. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants managed Decedent SCULL's financial affairs from June 2008 to his death. As such, Defendants enjoyed a confidential or fiduciary relationship with Decedent SCULL, a position they breached for a wrongful use and their own benefit and financial gain. 3 4 5 6 57. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants initiated a Petition for Conservatorship of Plaintiff CLAY M. GREENE on or about September 2008 until dismissing said Petition on or about November 2008. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that commencing on or about May 15, 2008 and continuing to November 2008, Defendants took possession of the property and assets of Plaintiff; informing Plaintiff they would assist him with management of his estate. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants enjoyed a confidential relationship with Plaintiff GREENE and managed his financial affairs. As such, Defendants enjoyed a confidential or fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff, a position they breached for their own benefit and financial gain. Said Defendants' breached their fiduciary duty to Plaintiff GREENE by the actions taken and not taken, as described in this Complaint. Said Defendants deliberately and recklessly took, sold and disposed of Plaintiff GREENE's personal property, including but not limited to the property described in Paragraph 21. Said actions were undertaken without authority or consent of Plaintiff, which was not sought or obtained. No inventory of the property was made before sale, no effort was made to determine the value of said property prior to its' disposition, and as a consequence said property sold for less than true value. 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 58. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants were Representative Payees for purposes of collecting Social Security benefits of CLAY M. GREENE by virtue of their application with the Department of the Treasury, Department of Social Security on or about May 15, 2008 and continuing until on or about January 2009. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants managed Plaintiff GREENE's financial affairs. As such, Defendants enjoyed a confidential or fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff, a position they breached for a wrongful use and their own benefit and financial gain. 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 25 2 59. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants COUNTY, WEBER, LIED HOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, and others and each of them, at all times relevant to this action, had the care and custody of Decedent HAROLD SCULL and Plaintiff GREENE, had voluntarily undertaken to supervise, arrange, manage and direct the care needs of Decedent SCULL and Plaintiff GREENE. Decedent SCULL and Plaintiff GREENE were induced to and did rely upon Defendants for their basi health, food, clothing, shelter, and personal needs, and the management and control of their personal and financial estates. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 60. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants COUNTY, WEBER, LlEDHOLM, STAGG-HOURIGAN, BREWSTER, NORTH BAY AUCTIONS and others and each of them, have taken, secreted and/or appropriated money and property from Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE which were not in the due and lawful performance of Plaintiffs' trust and that said Defendants' converted said money and property for said Defendants' own use. Said Defendants hold or have control of property that belongs to, or is held in express trust or resulting trust, for Plaintiffs. Despite demand 10 II 12 13 14 15 and request for transfer of said property to Plaintiffs, said Defendants, without good cause, 16 either continue to hold the property or have failed to make the property readily available to Plaintiffs. Said Defendants knew and should have known that Plaintiffs had the right to 17 18 have the property transferred or made readily available to Plaintiffs, and based upon 19 information supplied to Defendants, it was obvious to a reasonable person that Plaintiffs 20 had this right. 21 22 61. The conduct of Defendants and each of them constituted financial abuse under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5 as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30 23 24 25 62. Defendants and each of them are guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud 26 and malice within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5 and Civil Code section 3294. An award of punitive and exemplary damages is justified in an amoun according to proof. 27 28 4 63. Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657, Defendants are liable to 2 Plaintiffs for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including reasonable fees for the 3 services of Plaintiffs as executor, devoted to the litigation of this claim. 5 64. Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for Decedent SCULL's pain and suffering. 6 7 65. Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for PLAINTIFF GREENE's pain and suffering. 8 9 66. Under Probate Code section 859, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs' for twice 10 the value of the property recovered pursuant to said section. 11 12 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 13 14 15 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Fiduciary Duty 16 17 (as to Defendants County of Sonoma; Jo Weber; Sally Liedholm; Karen Stagg-Hourigan; Michael Brewster; North Bay Auctions) 18 19 20 67. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 60 and Paragraphs 88 through 96 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 21 22 68. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that during the periods of time alleged herein, Defendants occupied the positions of conservator, advisor, attorney-in-fact, custodian, trustee, agent and fiduciary to Decedent-Conservatee SCULL and Plaintiff GREENE. SCULL and GREENE reposed great trust and confidence in Defendants, and Defendants exercised a controlling influence over the mind and actions of Decedent-Conservatee SCULL and Plaintiff GREENE. 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 26 3 <. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 27 2 69. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that during this period of time, taking advantage of this trust, confidence, and influence, Defendants induced and persuaded Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE to execute the aforementioned documents, including but not limited to, Applications for Representative Payee, Nominations of Conservator, medical releases, and other documents, and engage in the aforementioned course of conduct allegedly undertaken with the representation that said actions were done in the best interests of Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent. Decedent and GREENE would not have executed those documents or engaged in such conduct had Defendants not taken advantage of the trust and confidence reposed in them by Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE and had Defendants not induced and persuaded Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE to execute those documents or engage in such conduct. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 70. In performing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted fraudulently, maliciously, and oppressively, within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5 and Civil Code section 3294, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof. 13 14 15 16 71. Under Probate Code section 859, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs' for twice 17 the value of the property recovered pursuant to said section. 18 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 19 20 21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Fraud 22 23 (as to Defendants County of Sonoma; Jo Weber; Sally Liedholm; Karen Stagg-Hourigan; Michael Brewster; North Bay Auctions) 24 25 26 72. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 60 and Paragraphs 88 through 96 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 27 28 15 75. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the true facts 73. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times 2 mentioned herein in the County of Sonoma. State of California, Defendants falsely, 3 fraudulently, and with the intent to deceive and defraud Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE, 4 represented to Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE that they would hold and administer their 5 property for their benefit. 6 7 74. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that in truth and in fact, 8 as Defendants well knew, their representations were false and fraudulent, and Defendants 9 did not intend to hold and administer Decedent's and Plaintiff GREENE's property for their 10 benefit. Defendants did not hold and administer Decedent's and Plaintiff GREENE's II property for their benefit, but converted their personal property, including but not limited to 12 bank accounts, furniture and furnishings, beloved pet cats, and personal property, as 13 described in Paragraph 21 herein, the total value of which is unknown to Plaintiffs, to 14 Defendants' own use. 16 were known to Defendants at the time of the making of said representations, and 17 Defendants knew the representations to be false and made them to deceive and defraud 18 Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE, and for the purpose of fraudulently inducing Decedent 19 and Plaintiff GREENE to act in reliance upon these representations and to entrust their 20 property to Defendants, and with the intent to prevent Plaintiffs from further inquiry as to 21 Defendants' true motives and desires. 22 23 76. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that that Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE had trust and confidence in Defendants, and believed in and relied on their honesty, fairness, good faith and superior knowledge, believed the representations to be true, relied on them, and thereby was induced to entrust their property to them and to refrain from taking any action to prevent them from converting their property to Defendants' own use. 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 28 28 2 Page 29 3 77. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE would not have allowed Defendants to convert their property to Defendants' own use by executing the aforementioned documents or engaging in the aforementioned conduct if the true facts had been known to them. 4 5 78. AS a proximate cause of Plaintiffs reliance upon these representations and subsequent conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered economic losses in an amount to be proven at trial. 6 7 8 9 79. In performing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted fraudulently, 10 maliciously, and oppressively, within the meaning of within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5 and Civil Code section 3294, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof. II 12 IJ 80. Under Probate Code section 859, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs' for twice the value of the property recovered pursuant to said section. 14 15 16 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 17 18 19 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Constructive Fraud 20 21 (As to Defendants County of Sonoma; Jo Weber; Sally Liedholm; Karen Stagg-Hourigan; Michael Brewster; North Bay Auctions) 22 23 81. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 60 and Paragraphs 88 through 96 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 24 25 82. At all times relevant to this action, there existed between Plaintiffs and Defendants, each of them, a fiduciary and/or confidential relationship upon which Plaintiffs 26 27 justifiably relied to their detriment. By virtue of the relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants, and each of them, a fiduciary duty existed. Pursuant to said duty, Defendants FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -'>, and each of them, owed the utmost good faith and fairness to Plaintiff in all matters 2 pertaining to Defendants' conduct with respect to Plaintiff's personal property. 3 4 83. Defendants, and each of them, accepted the reliance of Plaintiffs on the 5 fiduciary and/or confidential relationship. 6 7 Defendants, and each of them, breached the aforesaid duty as alleged 84. 8 herein, and in so doing gained an advantage over Plaintiff in matters relating to the 9 management and control of their assets. In particular and without limiting the generality of 10 the foregoing, in breaching said duty(ies) as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, II are required to disgorge their profits, and Plaintiff is entitled to an award in the amount of 12 these profits, and interest on all such sums from the date of injury. 13 14 85. In performing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted fraudulently, maliciously, and oppressively, within the meaning of within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5 and Civil Code section 3294, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof. 15 16 17 18 86. Under Probate Code section 859, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs' for twice [9 the value of the property recovered pursuant to said section. 20 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 21 22 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Constructive Trust 23 24 (As to Defendants County of Sonoma; Jo Weber; Sally Liedholm; Karen Stagg-Hourigan; Michael Brewster; North Bay Auctions) 25 26 A) Constructive Trust -Undue Influence 27 28 87. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 30 8 Page 31 2 88. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that on or about May 2008 and continuing through the filing of this complaint, Defendants took possession, custody and control of the finances and personal property of Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent, including but not limited to the property identified in Paragraph 21, above. 3 4 5 89. HAROLD SCULL was fragile and in ill health, and was subject to undue influence. Defendants controlled access to the Decedent SCULL, concealed and controlled and failed and refused to disclose Decedent SCULL's true financial condition to necessary parties, and concealed the nature and extent of their financial dealings with the Decedent SCULL from the Court, Plaintiffs, Executor BIGGERSTAFF and her attorney Ronald Preston. 6 7 9 10 II 12 90. CLAY GREENE was distressed due to his partner's health and other issues, the false reports of domestic violence, and under financial and personal pressure due to Defendant's blocking access to his and his long-time partner's funds, was under the control of Defendants and was subject to their undue influence. Defendants controlled access to the Plaintiff, concealed and controlled and failed and refused to disclose Plaintiff's true financial condition to necessary parties, and concealed the nature and extent of their financial dealings with the Plaintiff GREENE from the Court, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff's attorneys and agents and friends and interested parties. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 91. Prior to and at the times complained of herein, Decedent was in poor health, 20 elderly and susceptible to undue influence. Defendants gained a grossly oppressive and 21 unfair advantage over Decedent's physical, mental and emotional state, occupied a close and confidential relationship with the Decedent. and isolated him from Plaintiff GREENE and others for the purpose of controlling Decedent and making him subject to their own control, influence and direction. These acts were for the purpose and had the effect of making Decedent totally reliant on Defendants, and allowing Defendants to take complete control of all of Decedent's assets and direct his financial affairs for their own purposes. 22 23 24 25 26 27 92. Prior to and at the times complained of herein, Plaintiff GREENE was elderly and susceptible to undue influence. Defendants grained a grossly oppressive and unfair 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 3 advantage over Plaintiffs physical, mental and emotional state, occupied a close and confidential relationship with Plaintiff and isolated him from Decedent who was his longtime partner, his family, friends and others, transported Plaintiff GREENE to ACV, took custody and control of his motor vehicle and his financial affairs, for the purpose of controlling Plaintiff GREENE and making him subject to their own control, influence and 4 5 direction. These acts were for the purpose and had the effect of making Plaintiff GREEN 6 totally reliant on Defendants, and allowing Defendants to take complete control of all of 7 Plaintiff GREENE's assets and direct his financial affairs for their own purposes. 8 9 93. Further, Defendants were fiduciaries of Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE in 10 that they were named as representative payees for purposes of controlling and managing 11 Decedent's and Plaintiff GREENE's Social Security Benefits. Defendants also petitioned 12 for and acted as Conservators of Decedent from June 2008 until his death and petitioned for and did not withdraw their Petition for Conservatorship of Plaintiff GREENE from 13 September 2008 until November 2008. Defendants further assisted and advised Deceden 14 15 and GRENE in the management of their financial affairs and actively managed their affairs for them. 16 17 94. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege the actions taken and 18 the documents executed were not accomplished through an exercise of free will by 19 Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE but through the undue influence of Defendants. 20 95. Beginning on or about April 2008 and continuing until present, Defendants engaged in a course of conduct toward Decedent and GREENE designed for their own benefit in that: 21 22 23 a. Defendants undertook a campaign to isolate Decedent SCULL and 24 25 GREENE from each other, from outside influences, including family, close friends, and others; 26 27 b. Defendants seized and converted Decedent SCULL and GREENE's 28 personal property, furnishings, clothing, motor vehicles, bank accounts, and their beloved cats, for their own personal use and advantage; FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 32 II Page 33 2 c. Defendants concealed the nature and extent of their financial mismanagement and manipulations of Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE's assets from Decedent, Plaintiff GREENE, friends, interested parties, the Sonoma County Superior Court, and other family members; 3 4 5 d. Defendants undertook to change Decedent's residence and Plaintiff 6 GREENE's residence to separate addresses to facilitate their control over Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE and to isolate them from each other and from other close family and friends; and 7 8 9 e. Defendants failed to marshal or inventory said property, including but 10 12 not limited to the property listed in Paragraph 21, under their voluntary custody and control, and failed to account to Plaintiffs for the value of said property, paid excessive commissions and costs, and otherwise acted in a manner unfavorable to Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE and unfavorable to Decedent's interests and Plaintiff GREENE's interests and to the benefit of Defendants and their agents and employees. IJ 14 15 16 96. At the times complained of herein; Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE were under the continued influence of Defendants to such an extent that the documents executed and the actions undertaken were not the free and voluntary acts of Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE, but were procured by Defendants' acts and pressure on Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE, amounting to undue influence. 17 18 19 20 21 97. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that by reason of the 22 manner by which Defendants have obtained such property, and the receipts and profits thereon, Defendants are involuntary trustees holding such property, and the receipts and profits thereon, in a constructive trust for Plaintiffs with the duty to reconvey the same to Plaintiffs forthwith. 23 24 25 98. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and imposition of a constructive 26 27 trust is required to avoid the perpetration of a fraud upon Plaintiffs and the unjust enrichment of Defendants. 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 3 99. In performing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted fraudulently, maliciously, and oppressively, within the meaning of within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5 and Civil Code section 3294, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof. 4 5 100. Under Probate Code section 859, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs' for mice 6 the value of the property recovered pursuant to said section. 7 8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 9 B) Constructive Trust -Fraud 10 II 101. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 60 and Paragraphs 88 through 96 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 12 13 102. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege that, at all times relevant to this action, Decedent, Plaintiff GREENE and Defendants, and each of them had a fiduciary and/or confidential relationship upon which Decedent and Plaintiffs justifiably relied to their detriment. By virtue of the relationship between Decedent, Plaintiffs and Defendants, and each of them, a fiduciary duty existed. Pursuant to said duty, Defendants and each of them, owed the utmost good faith and fairness to Decedent SCULL and Plaintiff GREENE in all matters pertaining to Defendant's conduct with respect to Deceden and Plaintiffs' personal property. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 103. Defendants, and each of them, accepted the reliance of Plaintiffs and Decedent on the fiduciary and/or confidential relationship. 22 23 24 104. Defendants, and each of them, breached the aforesaid duty as alleged herein, and in so doing gained an advantage over Decedent and Plaintiffs in matters relating to the management of control of their assets. In particular and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in breaching said duties as alleged herein, Defendants, and 25 26 27 each of them, are required to disgorge their profits, and Plaintiff is entitled to an award in 28 the amount of these profits, and interest on such sums from the date of injury. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 34 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 35 105. But for Defendants' exercise of undue influence over them and/or 2 Defendants' fraudulent activity, Decedent and Plaintiffs would not have executed the 3 aforesaid documents or engaged in the conduct and actions described herein. 106. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that by reason of the 5 manner by which Defendants have obtained such property, and the receipts and profits 6 thereon, Defendants are involuntary trustees holding such property, and the receipts and 7 profits thereon, in a constructive trust for Plaintiffs with the duty to reconvey the same to Plaintiffs forthwith. 8 9 107. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and imposition of a constructive trust is required to avoid the perpetration of a fraud upon Plaintiffs and Decedent and the unjust enrichment of Defendants. 10 II 12 13 108. In performing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted fraudulently, 14 maliciously, and oppressively, within the meaning of within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5 and Civil Code section 3294, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof. 15 16 17 109. Under Probate Code section 859, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs' for twice 18 the value of the property recovered pursuant to said section. 19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 20 21 22 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of § of 42 U.S.C.A 1983 23 24 (As to Defendants County of Sonoma; Jo Weber; Sally Liedholm; Karen Stagg-Hourigan; Michael Brewster) 25 26 110. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 27 28 6 111. When Defendants took Plaintiff and Decedent from their residence, 2 separated them, and placed them in separate care facilities, and interfered with their 3 contact, communication, and personal and private relationship, they acted under color of 4 state law and deprived Plaintiff GREENE of his due process rights as secured by the 5 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 7 112. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' action, Plaintiff suffered 8 serious injury, including but not limited to extreme embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, 9 ridicule, physical upset, and emotional distress, as well as the deprivation of use of 10 plaintiff's motor vehicle and personal property, the deprivation of the care and II companionship of his lover and partner, the deprivation of the care and companionship of 12 his beloved pets. The full extent of Plaintiff's injuries is not known at this time, but Plaintiff 13 is informed and believes that the amount of these damages exceeds the jurisdictional 14 minimum established for this court. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to set forth the full 15 nature and extent of the damages once they have been ascertained with particularity. 16 17 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. 18 19 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of California Due Process Clause 20 21 (As to Defendants County of Sonoma; Jo Weber; Sally Liedholm; Karen Stagg-Hourigan; Michael Brewster) 22 23 113. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of 24 this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 25 114. By seizing Plaintiffs' property without first providing notice and an opportunity 26 to be heard on the question of ownership and the right to sell or otherwise dispose of said 27 property; Defendants deprived plaintiff of their property without due process of law in violation of Article I section 7 (a) of the California Constitution. 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 36 115. Prior to the interference of Defendants in his daily life, Plaintiff was given no 2 notice of any improper conduct on his part, nor was Plaintiff afforded any hearing or 3 opportunity to protest the proposed actions. Even after the removal from his residence, 4 Plaintiff has been afforded no procedural protection whatsoever. Specifically, plaintiff was 5 never given a chance to present the facts or propose an alternative action. Additionally, 6 plaintiff's dignity would not have been impugned by the forced removal from his residence, 7 the taking of his personal property and beloved cats, in front of Plaintiff's neighbors, all 8 without Plaintiff being afforded any chance to present his version of events or propose 9 alternative actions. By removing Plaintiff from his home and removing him to a board and 10 care home and taking all of his personal property, including but not limited to the property 11 described in Paragraph 21, without his consent, over his objections, and without any 12 procedural protection whatsoever and by failing and refusing to afford Plaintiff notice and a 13 fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the proposed actions; Defendants deprived 14 plaintiff of liberty without due process of law in violation of article I, section 7(a) of the 15 California Constitution. 16 116. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' action, Plaintiff suffered 17 serious injury, including but not limited to extreme embarrassment. humiliation, anxiety, 18 ridicule, physical upset and emotional distress as well as the deprivation of use of FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 37 19 Plaintiff's motor vehicle and personal property, the deprivation of the care and companionship of his lover and partner, the deprivation of the care and companionship of his beloved pets. The full extent of plaintiff's injuries is not known at this time, but Plaintiff is informed and believes that the amount of these damages exceeds the jurisdictional minimum established for this court. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to set forth the full nature and extent of plaintiff's damages once they have been ascertained with particularity. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 117. Under Probate Code section 859, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs' for twice 27 the value of the property recovered pursuant to said section. 28 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 3 Page 38 2 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Federal Due Process Clause 4 (As to Defendants County of Sonoma, Jo Weber; Sally Liedholm; Karen Stagg-Hourigan; Michael Brewster) 118. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of 5 this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 6 7 119. By seizing Plaintiffs' property, including but not limited to the property 8 identified in Paragraph 21, without first providing notice and an opportunity to be heard on 9 the question of ownership and the right to sell or otherwise dispose of said property; 10 Defendants deprived Plaintiff GREENE of his property without due process of law in II violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 12 120. Prior to the interference of Defendants in his daily life, Plaintiff GREENE was given no notice of any improper conduct on his part, nor was Plaintiff GREENE afforded any hearing or opportunity to protest the proposed actions. Even after the removal from his residence, Plaintiff has been afforded no procedural protection whatsoever. Specifically, Plaintiff was never given a chance to present the facts or propose an alternative action. Additionally, plaintiffs dignity would not have been impugned by the 13 14 15 16 17 18 forced removal from his residence, the taking of his personal property and beloved cats, in 19 front of Plaintiffs neighbors, all without Plaintiff being afforded any chance to present his version of events or propose alternative actions. By removing Plaintiff from his home and 20 removing him to a board and care home and taking all of his personal property, including 21 22 but not limited to the property described in Paragraph 21, without his consent, over his objections, and without any procedural protection whatsoever and by failing and refusing t afford Plaintiff notice and a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the proposed 23 24 actions, Defendants deprived plaintiff of liberty without due process of law in violation of 25 the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 26 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 Page 39 2 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 3 (As to Defendants County of Sonoma; Jo Weber; Sally Liedholm; Karen Stagg-Hourigan; Michael Brewster; Kim Dilling ham; Agua Caliente Villa) 4 5 121 . Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 6 7 8 122. Defendants conduct constituted financial abuse as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30 and physical abuse as defined in Welfare and 1 nstitutions Code section 15610.17. 9 10 II 123. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants' 12 conduct was intentional and malicious and done for the purpose of causing Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress. Defendants' conduct in confirming and ratifying the actions that were undertaken was done with knowledge that Decedent's and Plaintiff GREENE's emotional distress would thereby increase, and was done with a wanton and reckless disregard of the consequences to Decedent or Plaintiff GREENE. 13 14 16 17 18 124. As a proximate result of the acts alleged above, Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE suffered humiliation, mental anguish and emotional distress, and has been injured in their minds, all to Plaintiff's damage in an amount according to proof. 19 20 21 22 125. Defendants were guilty of recklessness and oppression and fraud and malice in the commission of the acts of abuse alleged herein. 23 24 126. In performing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted fraudulently, 25 maliciously, and oppressively, within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5 and Civil Code section 3294, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof. 26 27 28 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 Page 40 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 3 (As to Defendants County of Sonoma, Jo Weber; Sally Liedholm; Karen Stagg-Hourigan; Michael Brewster; Kim Dillingham; Agua Caliente Villa) 4 5 6 127. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of 7 this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 8 128. By undertaking the acts and conduct set forth herein, Defendants assumed a duty to do so with care. 9 !O II 129. Because Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE expected and relied upon Defendants to provide assistance, Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE made no other arrangements for assistance such as involving close friends or family members and professional fiduciaries in the management of their financial affairs. 12 13 14 15 130. Defendants, in breach of the duty described above, negligently and 16 carelessly handled Decedent's and Plaintiff GREENE's financial affairs, incurring unnecessary costs and expenses, otherwise burdening Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE with unnecessary and excessive debts, and diverting and using Decedent's and Plaintiff GREENE's financial resources and assets for Defendant's own use. 17 18 19 20 131. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants negligence and carelessness, Decedent and Plaintiff GREENE suffered financial losses and emotional and physical distress in an amount and manner according to proof. 21 22 23 24 132. Defendants were guilty of recklessness and oppression and fraud and malice in the commission of the acts of abuse alleged herein. 25 26 133. In performing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted fraudulently, 27 maliciously, and oppressively, within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 28 15657.5 and Civil Code section 3294, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 Page 41 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 3 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unruh Civil Rights Act 4 5 (As to Defendants County of Sonoma and Agua Caliente Villa) 134. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 6 7 8 9 135. Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA, operating by and through the Human Services Department is engaged in providing services and support to seniors, the disabled, and others. As such, Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA is a business and public accommodation as defined by Civil Code section 51. 10 11 12 13 136. Defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA is engaged in the business of providing 14 residential care and nursing services to seniors and the disabled. As such, Defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA is a business and public accommodation as defined by Civil Code section 51. 15 16 17 137. By their refusal to acknowledge the on-going relationship between Decedent and Plaintiff, by refusing and allowing Plaintiff GREENE contact and communication with his partner, solely on the basis of Plaintiff's sexual orientation, Defendants have violated Plaintiff GREENE's rights to be free from sexual orientation discrimination in their access to the full and equal advantages, privileges, and facilities of a business establishment as guaranteed by Civil Code section 51. 18 19 20 21 22 23 138. Defendants' violation of plaintiffs rights as guaranteed by Civ, Code, § 51 entitles plaintiff to receive compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief, all of which are provided for in Civ. Code, § 52 and are prayed for below. 24 25 26 27 139. In doing the acts alleged in this complaint, defendants knew or should have known that their actions were likely to injure plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 5 on that basis alleges, that defendants intended to cause serious injury to plaintiff and acted 2 with a willful and conscious disregard of plaintiffs rights as secured by Civ. Code, § 51, 3 thereby entitling plaintiff to recover treble damages, or a minimum of $4000, pursuant to 4 Civ. Code, § 52, subd. (a). 6 140. Defendants were guilty of recklessness and oppression and fraud and malice in the commission of the acts of abuse alleged herein. 7 8 141. In performing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted fraudulently, 9 maliciously, and oppressively, within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 10 15657.5 and Civil Code section 3294, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages in II an amount according to proof. 12 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 13 14 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Patient's Bill of Rights 15 16 (As to Defendants Kim Dillingham and Agua Caliente Villa) 17 142. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of 18 this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 19 20 143. At the times complained of herein, Plaintiff GREENE was a resident of Defendant's facility at 17250 Vailetti Drive, County of Sonoma. 21 22 144. On or about June 2008 and continuing through November 2008, Defendants did deny Plaintiff GREENE those basic rights commonly known as "the Patient's Bill of Rights" including but not limited to making disparaging and demeaning comments concerning his mental functioning, disclosed his private medical information without his 23 24 25 consent, interfered with his social relationships and freedom of movement and 26 27 communication, interfered with his mail, called him a "crazy old man" and told him to "go to his room", refused to allow him to leave the facility or go for a walk, laughed at him and otherwise humiliated and embarrassed him. 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 42 3 145. Defendants were guilty of recklessness and oppression and fraud and malice 2 in the commission of the acts of abuse alleged herein. 4 146. In performing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted fraudulently, maliciously, and oppressively, within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5 and Civil Code section 3294, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof. 5 6 7 8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 9 10 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Relief II 12 (As to Defendants County of Sonoma; Jo Weber; North Bay Auctions; Agua Caliente Villa) 13 14 147. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 15 16 148. There currently exists a dispute as to the validity of the purported sale of 17 Plaintiff's property, the value of said property, the propriety of Defendants actions with 18 respect to Plaintiffs relocation, the actions and related documents described herein, and 19 the ownership of personal property, including motor vehicles, bank accounts and personal 20 property described above. 21 149. An actual controversy now exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants as to 22 whether Defendants' seizure, sale, notice, and assistance policies, which provide for 23 seizure and sale of personal property without prior notice having been given to its owners 24 and without the owners having a right to contest the seizure or in a hearing of any sort, 25 violate Due Process of law as guaranteed by the United States and California 26 Constitutions. 27 150. An actual controversy now exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants as to 28 whether Defendants' relocation of Plaintiff and its assistance policies with respect to FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 43 2 elders, which provide for relocation of the elder from his residence without prior notice having been given and without the individual being given a right to contest the relocation 0 propose alternative arrangements in a hearing of any sort, violate Due Process of law as guaranteed by the United States and California Constitutions. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 44 3 4 5 151. Unless the court issues an appropriate declaration of rights, the parties will not know whether Defendants' policies and actions complies with the due process clauses of the United States and California Constitutions, and there will continue to be disputes and controversy surrounding the defendants' policies. In addition, hundreds of elders residing in Sonoma County in California may potentially be illegally deprived of their 6 7 8 9 10 property and rights for an extended period of time based on false claims, with no II opportunity for a reasonably prompt hearing at which they can make their position known and receive adequate protection under the law. 12 13 14 152. Therefore, Plaintiffs requests a court determination of the rights and 15 responsibilities of the parties with respect to the personal property, including motor [6 vehicles, bank accounts and personal property. 17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 18 19 20 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Accounting 21 22 (As to Defendants County of Sonoma; Jo Weber; Sally Liedholm; Karen Stagg-Hourigan; Michael Brewster; North Bay Auctions) 153. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 23 24 25 26 154. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that as a result of the aforementioned actions, Defendants have received Plaintiff and Decedent's personal property, including but not limited to motor vehicles, bank accounts, government benefits, 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 45 4 155. The value and amount of Plaintiff's and Decedent's personal property, including but not limited to, motor vehicles, bank accounts, government benefits, personal property, and other property, due from Defendants to Decedent and Plaintiffs is unknown to Plaintiffs and cannot be ascertained without an accounting of the receipts and disbursements of the aforementioned accounts and transactions. personal property as described in Paragraph 21, and other property the total value of 2 which is unknown by Plaintiffs, which is due to Plaintiffs and Decedent from Defendants as 3 previously alleged. 5 6 7 8 9 10 156. Plaintiffs have demanded an accounting of the aforementioned transactions and accounts from Defendants, and return of all of Plaintiff's and Decedent's property, but Defendants have failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to render such an accounting and return such property. II 12 13 14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 15 16 17 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Conversion 18 19 (As to Defendants County of Sonoma; North Bay Auctions; Jo Weber; Sally Liedholm; Karen Stagg-Hourigan; Michael Brewster;) 20 21 157. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of 22 this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 23 24 158. At all times mentioned herein, Decedent and Plaintiffs were and still are the owner with right to possession of and were and still are entitled to possession of the personal property of Plaintiff GREENE and Decedent, including but not limited to motor 25 27 26 vehicles, bank accounts, government benefits, personal property as described in Paragraph 21, and other property, having a value in excess of the minimum jurisdictional 28 amounts of this court. 2 159. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that in the County of Sonoma, State of California, Defendants converted and continue to convert said property and the rents and profits thereof of Plaintiffs and Decedent, including but not limited to motor vehicles, bank accounts, government benefits, personal property as described in Paragraph 21, and other property, to Defendants' own use and have refused and continue FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 46 3 4 5 to refuse to return said personal property to Plaintiffs. 6 7 160. Between the time of Defendants' conversion and the filing of this action, 8 Plaintiffs have expended sums, excluding attorneys' fees and costs associated with this 9 litigation, as a result thereof, all to Plaintiffs further damage in an amount according to 10 proof. II 12 161. In performing the acts herein alleged, Cross-Defendants acted fraudulently, maliciously, and oppressively, within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof. 13 14 15 162. Defendants were guilty of recklessness and oppression and fraud and malice in the commission of the acts of abuse alleged herein. 16 17 163. Under Probate Code section 859, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs' for twice the value of the property recovered pursuant to said section. 18 19 20 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 21 22 23 SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Conspiracy (As to All Defendants) 24 25 164. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of 26 this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 27 165. Defendants, and each of them, unlawfully conspired to deprive Plaintiffs and Decedent of property rights, constitutional rights, and personal freedoms by conspiring to 28 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 47 engage in the acts herein alleged, including fabricating and falsifying documents and 2 testimony. 3 166. As a proximate result of Defendants conspiracy, Plaintiffs have incurred financial losses and suffered severe emotional distress. 5 6 167. In performing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted fraudulently, 7 maliciously] and oppressively, within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294] thereby 8 justifying an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof. 9 168. Defendants were guilty of recklessness and oppression and fraud and malice in the commission of the acts of abuse alleged herein. 10 11 12 169. Under Probate Code section 859, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs' for twice the value of the property recovered pursuant to said section. 13 14 15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 16 17 18 SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION False Imprisonment (As to All Defendants) 19 20 170. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of 21 this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 22 23 171. As a proximate result of the acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff GREENE was injured in his health, strength, and activity, sustaining insult and injury to his body and shock and injury to his nervous system and person, including but not limited to stress, sleeplessness, confusion, depression, and anxiety. 24 25 26 27 172. As a further proximate result of the acts of Defendants, and each of them, as herein alleged, plaintiff was required to and did employ medical and psychological 28 2 3 professionals for examination, treatment and care of these injuries and did incur medical and incidental expenses as a result. As a proximate result of the acts of Defendants and each of them as herein alleged, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur, further medical and incidental expenses for the care and treatment of these injuries, the exact amount of which is unknown at the present time. 4 5 6 173. The acts of Defendants and each of them as herein alleged were willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, and oppressive, and justify the awarding of punitive damages. 7 8 9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 10 11 EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence (As to All Defendants) 12 13 14 174. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of 15 this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 16 17 175. The harm perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, was not readily discovered by Plaintiffs. 18 19 176. Defendants, and each of them, owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs while acting as fiduciaries for Plaintiffs, and Defendants, and each of them, have breached that duty of care. 20 21 22 177. As a result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiffs were injured. 23 24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 25 11/ 26 11/ 27 11/ 28 11/ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 48 2 Page 49 .. --........ 3 NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Discharge Mandatory Duty (As to Defendants County of Sonoma, Jo Weber; Sally Liedholm; Karen Stagg-Hourigan; Michael Brewster) 4 178. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 6 5 7 179. The mandatory duty imposed by said enactment(s) is designed to guard against the type of injury suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of the matters alleged in this Complaint. 8 9 10 II 180. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of the mandatory duty imposed by said enactments as described above, Plaintiffs sustained severe injuries and damages including stress, anxiety, confusion, physical agitation, sleeplessness, and other physical and mental ailments and suffering. Plaintiff also incurred medical and psychological services and expenses as a result. 12 13 14 15 16 181. As a further direct and proximate result of defendant's breach of the mandatory duty imposed by said enactments as described above, Plaintiffs have been generally damaged in a sum to be established according to proof. 17 18 19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below. 20 21 TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION Elder Abuse (As to Defendants Agua Caliente Villa and County of Sonoma) 22 23 182. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of 24 this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 25 26 183. At all times mentioned herein, defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA was a residential care facility for the elderly located in Agua Caliente, California. Defendants DOES 1-10 were other owners, managers, administrators, operators, employees and agents of defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA and/or defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA. 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 17 Page 50 184. At all times mentioned herein, defendants AGUA CALIENTE VILLA and 2 COUNTY OF SONOMA, as care custodians, were subject to the requirements of State, 3 County and City law. 4 5 185. In doing the things herein alleged, AGUA CALIENTE VILLA, COUNTY OF SONOMA and DOES 1-10, and each of them, acted as the agents, servants, and employees of their co-defendants, and each acted within the scope and course of said 6 7 agency and employment and with the knowledge, consent and approval of their cog defendants, who ratified their conduct. At all times herein mentioned, AGUA CALIENTE 9 VILLA, through its owner(s), administrator(s), and licensee(s) had knowledge of, ratified, 10 and/or otherwise authorized all of the acts or omissions that caused the injuries suffered b plaintiff CLAY M. GREENE, as more specifically set forth in this complaint. At all times herein mentioned, COUNTY OF SONOMA, through its employees and agents, had knowledge of, ratified, and/or otherwise authorized and approved all of the acts or omissions that caused the injuries suffered by plaintiff CLAY M. GREENE, as more specifically set forth in this complaint. II 12 13 14 15 16 18 186. At all times relevant to this action defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA and DOES 1-10 had the care and custody of plaintiff CLAY M. GREENE in that defendants were operating a residential care facility for the elderly, and/or providing care to elderly individuals such as plaintiff GREENE. 19 20 21 187. At all times relevant to this action defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA and 22 DOES 1-10 had the care and custody of plaintiff CLAY M. GREENE in that defendant 23 COUNTY removed GREENE from his home, deprived him of his clothing, his furniture and 24 other possessions, his means of transportation, as well as access to his own money, and 25 forced or induced him to reside at defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA. 26 27 188. At all times relevant to this action plaintiff CtA Y M. GREENE was over 65 years of age and was an "elder" under the provisions of Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.27. At all times relevant to this action defendants were "care custodians" under 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 Page 51 the provisions of Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610. 17(J), (t) and (y) and were in a trust 2 relationship with plaintiff. 3 4 189. Under Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.07, abuse of an elder includes neglect, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering, or the deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. 5 6 7 8 190. At all relevant times, defendants AGUA CALIENTE VILLA and COUNTY OF 9 SONOMA neglected and failed to provide proper care to plaintiff GREENE. 10 II 191. Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA forcibly removed plaintiff GREENE from 12 his private residence and forced or induced him to reside at AGUA CALIENTE VILLA 13 against his will. When defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA removed plaintiff GREENE from 14 his private residence, in addition to taking all of plaintiff GREENE's furniture, bedding and other personal belongings, defendant COUNTY also took plaintiffs clothing, including but not limited to his coats, underwear, pants, shirts, shoes, from the closet in his bedroom 16 and deprived plaintiff of these items by either selling or disposing of these items. 17 Defendant COUNTY also assumed control of plaintiff GREENE's finances and deprived 18 plaintiff GREENE of access to his money. Defendant COUNTY also took plaintiff 19 GREENE's truck, thereby depriving plaintiff GREENE of his means of transportation, and 20 told plaintiff GREENE that he had no choice but to reside at defendant AGUA CALIENTE 21 VILLA. After removing all of plaintiff GREENE's personal belongings from his private residence, but before placing plaintiff GREENE at AGUA CALIENTE VILLA, defendant 22 23 COUNTY left plaintiff GREENE at his private residence for some days, alone and without 24 any of his household possessions, including but not limited to bedding or a bed for 25 sleeping. 26 27 192. At the time these events occurred, defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA had no authority to dispose of plaintiff GREENE's property or to determine where plaintiff 28 GREENE would reside. Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA further abused plaintiff FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 52 5 193. Defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA wrongfully accepted plaintiff GREENE as a resident. Defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA knew or should have known that GREENE by conveying to defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA that plaintiff GREENE 2 suffered from dementia, that he was unable to make decisions for himself, and that plaintiff 3 GREENE should not be permitted to leave the premises of defendant AGUA CALIENTE 4 VILLA. 6 7 plaintiff GREENE did not want to reside at defendant facility, and knew or should have 8 known that defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA did not have authority to place plaintiff GREENE at AGUA CALIENTE VILLA, or any other facility. Having wrongfully accepted 9 10 plaintiff GREENE as a resident, defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA then failed to provide 11 proper and necessary services for plaintiff GREENE, and failed to maximize plaintiff's 12 function and well-being as required by law, and instead treated plaintiff GREENE 13 disrespectfully, deprived him of appropriate and meaningful activities, and mocked 14 plaintiff's efforts to engage in activities at defendant facility. 15 16 194. At all relevant times, defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA had unauthorized and unlawful delayed egress devices on doors and gates at this residential care facility for the elderly. These devices unlawfully prevented plaintiff GREENE from leaving the 17 18 premises as he desired. Defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA further unlawfully prevented 19 plaintiff GREENE from leaving the premises by having employees of AGUA CALIENTE 20 VILLA follow plaintiff GREENE if he tried to leave the premises, intimidating him and 21 instructing him that he was not allowed to leave the premises. On one occasion when plaintiff GREENE left the premises of AGUA CALIENTE VILLA in order to walk a friend 22 23 who was visiting him to her car, an employee or agent of defendant AGUA CALIENTE 24 VILLA followed plaintiff GREENE out to the street and aggressively admonished him for 25 leaving defendant's premises, to such an extent that plaintiff GREENE cowered in front of this individual, then instructed plaintiff GREENE that he was not allowed to leave the 26 premises, and forced plaintiff GREENE to end his visit with his friend and return to AGUA 27 CALIENTE VI LLA. 28 2 3 195. The actions taken by defendants COUNTY OF SONOMA and AGUA CALIENTE VILLA constituted elder abuse, as follows: a) Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA deprived plaintiff GREENE of goods or services necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering by taking and/or 4 5 controlling his personal possessions and money without authority or permission, leaving plaintiff GREENE in his house without any household possessions. and placing plaintiff 6 GREENE at a facility that was not suitable for him. Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA 7 abandoned and isolated plaintiff GREENE by leaving him in his house without any 8 household possessions, placing him in a facility with unlawful delayed egress devices on 9 doors and gates, and conveying to the facility that GREENE was demented and unable to 10 participate in activities. Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA abducted plaintiff GREENE by 11 intimidating him and depriving him of any ability to act independently, telling him that he 12 had no choice but to live at AGUA CALIENTE VILLA, thereby forcing him to reside at 13 AGUA CALIENTE VILLA against his will. Defendant COUNTY further committed elder 14 abuse by separating plaintiff GREENE from his significant other and long-time partner Harold Scull, by informing GREENE that he would have to say goodbye to Scull, and by 15 making it difficult or impossible for GREENE to have any sort of contact with Scull. 16 b) Defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA deprived plaintiff GREENE of 17 18 goods or services necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering by accepting GREENE as a resident without properly evaluating plaintiff's suitability for residence as required by California Code of Regulations, title 22, §87456, by failing to encourage 19 20 plaintiff to maintain and develop his fullest potential as required by California Code of 21 Regulations, title 22, §87219, by failing to perform a pre-admission appraisal as required 22 by California Code of Regulations, title 22, §87457, by failing to obtain proper consent for 23 GREENE's admission as required by California Code of Regulations, title 22, §87457(b), 24 by failing to determine the amount of supervision appropriate for plaintiff GREENE as required by California Code of Regulations, title 22, §87461. and by failing to determine if 26 the living arrangements at AGUA CALIENTE VILLA would be satisfactory for plaintiff 25 GREENE as required by California Code of Regulations. title 22, §87462. Defendant 27 AGUA CALIENTE VILLA isolated plaintiff GREENE by preventing him from leaving AGUA 28 CALIENTE VILLA, by intimidating and frightening plaintiff GREENE when he tried to leave FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 53 5 2 the facility, and by forcefully telling him that he was not allowed to leave the facility. These actions constituted a violation of California Code of Regulations, title 22, §87468(a)(6) which provides that a resident of a residential care facility for the elderly shall have the right "To leave or depart the facility at any time and to not be locked into any room, building, or on facility premises by day or night .... " These actions also constituted a violation of defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA's own statement of its residents' rights. Defendant AGUA CALIENTE VILLA further isolated plaintiff by preventing and interfering with visits with friends who came to AGUA CALIENTE VILLA to see plaintiff GREENE, and by preventing plaintiff GREENE from having reasonable access to a telephone to contact 3 4 6 7 8 9 his friends. These actions constituted a violation of California Code of Regulations, title 10 22, §87468(a)(6), (11) and (14), and also constituted a violation of defendant AGUA II CALIENTE VILLA's own statement of its residents' rights. 12 13 196. As a result of these actions by defendants COUNTY OF SONOMA and 14 AGUA CALIENTE VILLA, plaintiff GREENE suffered physical harm and mental suffering, 15 including post traumatic stress disorder, which required, and continues to require, medical and psychological care and treatment. 16 17 18 197. The damages and injuries suffered by plaintiff GREENE are the direct legal result of the negligent, reckless, willful, intentional, and malicious acts or omissions of the 19 defendants, and each of them. 20 21 198. The acts or omissions of defendants, and each of them, occurred under circumstances or conditions likely to produce physical or mental harm, and were caused by defendants who recklessly and willfully caused or permitted plaintiff, an elder, with knowledge that he was an elder, to suffer, or they inflicted unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering upon him, or having the care or custody of him, caused or permitted the person and health of the elder to be injured, or caused or permitted the elder to be placed in a situation such that his person or health was endangered. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 54 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 55 199. Under Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657(a) defendants are liable to 2 plaintiff GREENE for his attorney's fees and costs. 4 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for damages in a sum according to proof at trial. 5 6 DAMAGES ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 7 200. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff and the public have suffered and will continue to suffer including but not 9 8 10 limited to, the loss of his property, the rents and profits thereof, embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional distress. 11 12 201. Defendants' violation of plaintiff's rights, as guaranteed by Article I section 2 13 of the California Constitution, entitles plaintiff to receive compensatory damages, attorney 14 fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and injunctive relief. 15 16 17 PRAYER 18 WHEREFORE, plaintiff request judgment against defendants as follows: 19 20 1. For general damages according to law and proof; 21 2. For special damages according to law and proof; 22 23 3. For costs of suit; 24 4. For attorney's fees; 25 26 5. For Defendants, and each of them, to return to Plaintiffs all funds and assets 27 acquired by means of any act or practice declared by this court to be unlawful or 28 fraudulent, 2 6. For statutory damages 7. For Imposition of a Constructive Trust regarding all assets, including 3 personal property, and the issues, receipts, and profits thereon, of Plaintiffs and DecedentConservatee; 4 5 6 8. For an accounting from Defendants to Plaintiffs and the amount found to be 7 due from Defendants as a result of that accounting; 8 9. For an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof and as permitted by law; 9 10 II 10. For an award of damages against Defendants, pursuant to Probate Code section 869, in an amount twice the value of the property taken, concealed, or disposed of; 12 13 11. For an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs and executor's fees and costs pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657; 14 15 16 12. For an award of costs, including attorney fees pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5 and 42 U.S.C.A § 1988. 17 18 13. For treble damages pursuant to Civil Code section 52(a); 19 20 14. For reasonable attorney's fees, according to proof, pursuant to Civ. Code, § 52, subd. (a); 21 22 15. For a permanent injunction against defendants, and each of them, enjoining defendants from moving an elder from his or her residence without written notification to 23 24 the elder and the Sonoma County Superior Court of said proposed action. 25 16. A declaration of rights declaring defendants' policies and procedures to be unconstitutional as a violation of Article I section 2 of the California Constitution' , 26 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 56 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 57 17. Reasonable attorney fees according to proof, pursuant to Code of Civil 2 Procedure section 1021.5; 18. Such other relief as the court deems just and proper. 4 C-::' 9(._:, _. f-f.- ~~ .- I / ,- y ,-:> ,. "" L'/'''Z/':::'_?, =;;YJ Janette Biggerstaff, Executor OftheTstate of Harold Scull, Deceased, PLAINTIFF 5 DATED: March,;2 / 2010 --' 6 7 8 9 DATED: March~, 2010 10 Clay M."Greene, PLAINTIFF 11 12 DATED: Marche1L,2010 Anne N, Dennis, Attorney for Plaintiffs 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 [8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION I am the Plaintiff in this action. I have read the First Amended Complaint, and it is true 0 my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information or belief, and as t those matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that th foregoing is true and correct. Dated _;;. 2/· / c_"": Plaintiff FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 58 .. -... .. SUBMIT TO: Board of SUpervisors 575 AdmInistration Dr. 100A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Claim is AQalns.;rsl County of Sonoma OR 0 ,DistJictlAgency Please check. one: ~ew Claim 0 Amended Claim COUNTY OF SONOMA CLAIM FORM (Government Code Section 910. et seq.) (Instructions on back of fonn. If more apace i. needed. attach additfonal pages.) 1. Name of Claimant: ..:Jc... r-.ct 1:£ B i 9 ~ Qg_ <,.-k_ -0 Q ex Qc. Li:f-c 11 Flrwt 'S 'Midch I t..:.t 0 C- .41)) i2 IV c:/t-1 be"=< 11: ~ 0, ~ I).k? //1 q StrHt < CIty C ) StaCIe i Address: ;l 09 Humber () -f. Es.-kJp J-\e~ld &L~ II Cg tJ9jlrp ZIP 2. 3. Phone Number: A .... Code: (1-c t Hwnber: 9 yl <:c - yo (' ( 4. 5. 6. i , Daternme of loss. damage or injury:_--=Mo~nUCJth~; _S_<-_e_---I6$,a.l.r.f_ia._ct_~--.:::..--uY.=.r~: llm!=~; _ Location oHess, damage,or injury:. __ S_:;"_Qg,.=· o..--:la._..:;.;:;..-{..;..=t...:.;L=~~cL~:..Q,_·~ _ 7. Description of loss, damage or jnjury; __ ..S'~eQ..~._;:::;;o...~~:_·irt=~c.;..L'..Q-=-d~ _ B. How did the loss, damage or injury occur? ~ Q_ {2_a..~c. ~ c:. 9. Name(s} of County employee(s} causing loss, damage or injury, it known: ------------------- ~Qe_ O·--+kc t'-.Q-O 10. Amount claimed at present including estimated amount of any prospective foss: .--------~------ \Q__vJ0~"'t\_, q 11-1 0 U 4; i; Lt IV /, IJl / t -t? c! C" u / / W-L S 12. 11. Name{s) and addresses of witnesses, doctors and/or hospitals: (5eg cd i.:·~ ~ e d ~~------------------------------------ d yJa~1 czz.,m be .'gned and dated by claimant or person acting on claimant'. behalf. (AJ-k1.e1wJ /J ----s:mnilture: 1-f_.U 7~ ~~ Date: Fd 10 ,220 c) 9 OisbbutiDn: Original: Clert of !he Board; Copy: Risk Managemen! s:lIiIIbiiIi1fdrimfonnldainlrrrl.ttlc(~) Claim of Janette Biggerstaff, Executor of the Estate of Harold Scull, deceased Janette Biggerstaff, Executor of the Estate of Harold Scull, deceased vs. The County of Sonoma To: Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma You are hereby notified that Janette Biggerstaff. Executor of the Estate of Harold Scull, whose address is 209 A vienda Barbara, Sonoma, CA 95472, claims damages against the Estate from the County of Sonoma. This claim is based upon the breach of fiduciary duty by the Office of the Public Conservator and its employees, agents, and independent contractors which have engaged in a continuing course of conduct commencing on or about April 27, 2008 and continuing through and after August 13, 2008, including the violation of court orders issued in the Conservatorship of Harold Scull, Sonoma County Superior Court case number SPR- 80583. Which occurred at several locations in the County of Sonoma, including 11678 Barnett Valle Road, Sebastopol, CA, Kaiser Hospital, 401 Bicentennial Way, Santa Rosa, CA, Sonoma Healthcare Center, 1250 Broadway, Sonoma, Ca, Hill House, 8840 Egg Farm Lane, Kenwood, CA and at North Bay Auctions, 6140 Highway 12, Sebastopol, CA, and at 3725Westwind Blvd, Santa Rosa, CA under the following ci rcumstances: In excess of the authority granted by the Sonoma County Superior Court in the matter entitled "The Conservatorship of Harold Scull", Sonoma County Superior Court case number SPR-80583, and in violation of the laws of the State of Calif ami a, employees, agents, and independent contractors of the Office of the Public Guardian/Public Conservator, Department of Health Services, County of Sonoma, did remove Mr. Scull from his home, did fail to secure and preserve his assets and personal property, did remove his personal property from his residence, did sell and otherwise dispose of his personal property without authority or permission and without notice. These actions were taken without inventorying or accounting for the property taken or sold, and without regard for the true value of said property. These county employees, agents, and independent contractors arranged and contracted for the removal and sale of the personal property, did actively conceal their actions, and attempted to dissuade the lega~ represe~tative of the Estate from investigating the disposal of the property and from see.kmg a~pomtment as the representative of the Estate so as to prevent the filing of a claim against the County and its subordinates. Furthermore, on or about December 23, 2008, the Office of the Public Guardian/Public Conservator did cause to be filed a "First and Final Account" in said Conservatorship Case, a verified petition disclosing the disposition of Mr. Sculls property At the time of these actions. Mr. Scull was an adult over the age of 62 years. The actions of the agents. employees, and contractors of the County of Sonoma constitute elder financial abuse within the meaning of Cali fomi a law. The names of the public employees causing claimant's injuries under the described circumstances are: Sally Liedholrn, Michael Brewster. Karen Stagg-Hourigan, and North Bay Auctions, LLC. The injuries sustained by the claimant, as far as known, as of the date of presentation of this claim, consist of monetary damages for lost property in an amount constituting an unlimited civil case. , ," PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP , 1013a, 2015.5; cac 2008) I am employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the ,age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 440 South E Street, Suite 1, Santa Rosa, California, On this date I served the attached: Claim of Janette Biggerstaff, Executor of the Estate of Harold Scull, deceased on the following parties to this action by placing a true copy therein in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: Board of Supervisors 575 Administration Drive, Suite 100A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 f_1 (BY MAll) I placed each such sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid for first-class mail, for collection and mailing at Santa Rosa, California, following ordinary business practices, I am readily familiar with the practices of the firm for processing of correspondence, said practice being that in the ordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited in the United States Postal Service the same day as it is place for processing. LX.J (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) t caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s) noted above, r J (BY FACSIMILE) On , at a.m., I caused the said document to be transmitted by facsimile machine from telephone number (707) 544-6539 to the addressee noted above at the facsimilie numbers noted above. The transmission was reported as complete and without error, and the transmission report attached hereto was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. . I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregOing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on Febru~ry 11 2009, at Santa Rosa, California. -;; .' ' .z., &1£.'1'--'<' ANNE N. DENNIS COUNTY OF SQNOMA CLAIM FORM (Government COde Section 910, et seq.) SUBMIT TO: Board of Supervisors 575 Administration Dr, 100A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Claim is Against:~ County of Sonoma OR 0 District/Agency Piease check one: l&t New Claim 0 Amended Claim (Instructions on back of fonn. If more space i. needed, attach additf~nal pages.) 1. Name of Claimant: C 16. Y (II . 6- IZ. e e"v e... FI.-.t Middle La.t q01- A:de./e 612 ~lS tJ/J\;dfviC Number SDMt City) StIle. (~ C;~SY9-J_ llP 2. Address: 3. 4. Phone Number:....cArH~c~:OCS'~: _y!.._.:;;:_c_) 1-.:__....!H!!!!wn!!!!bei!!.!r.:._: _Ci.::::.,-_3_S?_' _-__:.S::...-S_~_I _ Name, Address and Phone No. of person(s) to receive notices. (If same as above, write ·same-,) . ~'0) 0 ~ ... J is, o_ --G ~.._;,j)e.L 0..1"- LcL~ (Tar Lf-Io J,;,u-iJ)'-._ ;r.:::- <, +~'LLLrf . r:_' , 1-b. t2C:'Yrl Cd.. C; C;. Vo Y 5, 6. DatefTime of loss. damage or injury: Month: S ~ Wx~[. .. ·..Qd y.ar: T!n!: location of"loss,d.amageorinjury: S ~ o,_~ ct-QC 7. Description of loss, damage or injury: __ ~="':=...;g,.g~' ___,,;C=,- ~_'......:.;;..~(..:.~"-Q_"=:loo,;.d _ 8. How did the loss, damage or injury occur? __ S_(:J.?.;:;;:'/~...:::a.....:;:...;;:;::..+:k:::....Jo!;~c~.k.::s;...l.d...:__ _ 9. Name(s) of Countyempfoyee(s} causing loss, damage or injury. it known: ,,<; ee. c_+h(~d 10, 11, Name(s} and addresses of witnesses, doctors and/or hospitals: .5' c.2. Q. ()..._~ c lu. d be .'gned and dated by d.'mant or person acting on claimant's behalf. signature::-'";'.........._.~:=;...-:7...;,.._u~(:-£l~::::..._..:::..(,.{/.,~"I'~~ . ..:__ _ Date: Fe4J / Ii ;:;; 6)0 9 Di:WOution: O~inal: CIe~ of the Boan::l: Copy: Risk Man,.ment $:\liatMlil)"dllimbmIdamrm,~OOJ3Om, '-" Claim of Clay M. Greene Clay M. Greene vs. The County of Sonoma To: The Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma You are hereby notified that Clay M. Greene. whose address is 907 Adele Drive, Apt. 78, Windsor, CA, 95492, claims damages from the County of Sonoma. This claim is based upon the breach of fiduciary duty by the Office of the Public Conservator and its employees, agents, and independent contractors which have engaged in a continuing course of conduct commencing on or about April 27. 2008 and continuing through and after November 20, 2008. Said injuries occurred at several locations in the County of Sonoma, including 11678 Barnett Valle Road, Sebastopol, CA • at Agua Caliente Villa, 17250Vailetti Drive, Sonoma, CA ,at North Bay Auctions 6140 Highway 12, Sebastopol, CA, and at 3725 Westwind Blvd, Santa Rosa, CA under the following circumstances: In violation of the laws of the State of California, employees, agents, and independent contractors of the Office of the Public Guardian/Public Conservator, Department of Health Services, County of Sonoma, did physically remove Mr. Greene from his home, did remove his personal property from his residence, did sell and otherwise dispose of his personal property without authority or permission and without notice. Said agents. employees. and independent contractors did cause Mr. Greene's beloved cats to be taken away. resulting in their death. These actions were taken without notice or an opportunity to object or seek counsel. without inventorying or accounting for the property taken or sold, and without regard for the true value of said property. These county employees, agents, and independent contractors arranged and contracted for the removal and sale of the personal property, did actively conceal their actions, and attempted to dissuade the claimant from salvaging his property or taking action against the County and its employees, and undertook actions to prevent and delay the filing of a claim against the County and its subordinates. Further, on or about December 23, 2008, the Office of the Public Guardian/Public Conservator caused to be filed a First Account and Final Report in the case "Conservatorship of Harold Scull" Sonoma County Superior Court case number SPR-80583, a verified petition claiming all property belonged to the Estate of Harold Scull and not accounting for any property belonging to Clay M. Greene. Agents, employees, and independent contractors hired by the County of Sonoma further falsely imprisoned Mr. Greene from on or about June 27,2008 through and until November 20, 2008 and did, against his will, disparaged and demeaned him. put him in a place where he suffered physical, emotional and mental harm. The actions and com~unica~ion.s of said a¥ents. employees, and independent contractors intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress and great mental suffering upon Mr. Greene. On · \ or about August 14,2008, employees of the County of Sonoma did violate Mr. Greene's civil and constitutional rights and did make disparaging remarks and gestures concerning his sexual orientation to a third party, causing further harm and distress. From the commencement of their contact with Mr. Greene on or about April 27, 2008 and continuing through December 2008, said agents, employees and independent contractors disregarded the almost 20-year committed relationship between Mr. Greene and his partner, Harold Scull, and separated, confined, and otherwise prevented Mr. Greene from seeing his partner during his final days, on account of his sexual orientation. Agents and employees of the County of Sonoma did further take possession of the cash assets of Mr. Greene and did, without authority and without notice, cause themselves to be named representative payee of his Social Security funds and did divert and withhold those funds on or about July 2008 and continued to do so through and until January 2009, failing to use said funds for the benefit of Mr. Greene, as required by law. At the time of these actions, Mr. Greene was an adult over the age of 62 years. The actions of the agents, employees, and contractors of the County of Sonoma constitute elder abuse and elder financial abuse within the meaning of California law. The names of the public employees at this point in time believed to have caused and causing claimant's injuries under the described circumstances are: Sally Liedholm, Michael Brewster, Karen Stagg-Hourigan, Agua Caliente Villa and North Bay Auctions, LLC. The injuries sustained by the claimant. as far as known, as of the date of presentation of this claim, consist of monetary damages for lost property, false imprisonment, discrimination, in an amount constituting an unlimited civil case. All notices or other communications with regard to this claim should be sent to Anne N. Dennis, attorney for claimant, 440 South E Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404. Dated: February 11, 2009 t2w~a~~ ANNE N. DENNIS, Attorney for Claimant (. PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP • 1013a, 2015.5; esc 2008) I am employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I ,:,m over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address IS 440 South E Street, Suite 1, Santa Rosa, California. On this date I served the attached: Claim of Clay M. Greene on the following parties to this action by placing a true copy therein in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: Board of Supervisors 575 Administration Drive, Suite 1 aDA Santa Rosa, CA 95403 [_j (BY MAIL) I placed each such sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid for first-class mail, for collection and mailing at Santa Rosa, California, following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practices of the firm for processing of correspondence, said practice being that in the ordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited in the United States Postal Service the same day as it is place for processing. LX_] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s) noted above. f J (BY FACSIMILE) On , at a.m., I caused the said document to be transmitted by facsimile machine from telephone number (707) 544-6539 to the addressee noted above at the facsimitie numbers noted above. The transmission was reported as complete and without error, and the transmission report attached hereto was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on Febru~ry 11, 2009, at Santa Rosa, California. J ~fiiLM4 '-,.: '. . t t .. ' b" .' ·t······ B'" \ "'7<'\ ,',F · ... . ..•...•.......•. - .--._ COUNTY Of SONOMA HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 575 Adminis(ration Drive, Suire 11 GB Santa ROS3, CA 95403 Telephone (7071 565-2331 Fax (707) 565-3770 ANN GOODRICH. HR DiT(CrOT www. sonoma- cou my. org orpOR.TUN1TY 51 DIVERSITY If:I SERVICE March 16, 2009 Anne N. Dennis, Attorney at Law 440 South E Street Santa Rosa, CA 95404 SUBJECT: CLAIMANT: DATE OF LOSS: CLAIM NO: NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM Janette Biggerstaff, Executor of Estate of Harold Scull v, County of Sonoma 8/13/2008 GC021346 Dear Ms. Dennis: The claim you presented to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on February 11, 2009 has been referred to the Risk Manager pursuant to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 66798 and California Government Code Section 935.4. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said claim was rejected on March 16,2009_ WARNING Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. (See California Government Code Section 945.6.) You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. This notice applies only to causes of action arising under California law for which a claim is mandated by the California Government Tort Claims Act, California Government Code sections 900 et. seq. Other causes of action, including those arising under federal law, may have shorter time limitations for filing. I f you would like to discuss your claim further, please cal! Cecilia Quiarnbao at (707) 565-2885. Sincerely, Cvu Marcia Chadbourne Risk Manager MClgeb c: Jo Weber, Human Services · . , (PROOf OF SERVICE BY MAIL~1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SONOMA J am employed in the County of Sonoma, California; 1 am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 575 Administration Drive, Suite 116C, Santa Rosa, CA 95403. I am readily familiar with my employer's business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United Slates Postal Service. On March 16, 2009, following ordinary business practice, I served the NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM on the parties in said cause, by placing on that date at my place of business, a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service where it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business, addressed as follows: Anne N. Dennis, Atttorney at Law 440 South E Street Santa Rosa, CA 95404 For the Claim of: Janette Biggerstaff, Executor of estate of Harold Scull GC021346 I certify (or declare), under penalty of perjury, *that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: March 16, 2009 (Signature) '" Proof of service by mail forms, bei ng signed under penalty of perj ury, do not require notarization. ".: . :.: .... '~;' .. ..: -.' ..... :. 'CO,UNTY.Of SONOMA HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 575 Adminisrrauon Drive, Suil<~ llGB Sam. Ros:!, CA 95403 Telephone (707) 565-2331 Fax (707l 565-3770 ANN GOODRICH, HR DirmDr www.sonoma-couocy.org OPPORTUNITY po DIVERSITY II'J SHlV1CE March l6, 2009 Anne N. Dennis, Attorney at Law 440 South E Street Santa Rosa, CA 95404 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF RETURN OF UNTIMELY CLAIM AND REJECTION OF CLAIM Clay M. Greene Unspecified GC021320 CLAIMANT: DATE OF LOSS: CLAIM NO.: Dear Ms. Dennis: The claim you presented to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on February II, 2009 has been referred to the Risk Manager pursuant to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 66798 and California Government Code Section 935.4. FOR PERSONAL INJURIES CLAIMS PRECEDING AUGUST 11.2008 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the claim you presented for causes of action for personal injuries occurring prior to August It, 2008, will not be accepted for consideration because the claim was not presented within six months of the date of accrual of the cause of action as required by law. See Sections 901 and 91 1.2 of the California Government Code. Because the claim was not presented within the time allowed by law, no action was taken on the claim. WARNING Your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors for leave to present a late claim. See Sections 911.4 and 912.2, inclusive, and Section 946.6 of the California Government Code. Under some circumstances, leave to present a late claim will be granted. See Section 911.6 of the California Government Code. FOR ALL OTHER CLAIMS Further, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN for causes of action of personal injuries after August 10,2008, and for property damages or losses the claim was denied on March 16, 2009. WARNING ,- Subject to certain exceptions, you have only (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. (See California Government Code Section 945.6.) You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you do desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. This notice applies only to causes of action arising under California law for which a claim is mandated by the California Goverrunent Tort Claims Act, California Government Code Sections 900 et. seq. Other causes of action, including those arising under federal law, may have shorter time limitations for filing. If you would like to discuss this matter further please contact Cecilia Quiambao at (707) 565~ 2885. Sincerely, Marcia Chadbourne Risk Manager Me/gcb c: 10 Weber, Human Services .... , I, . -' , (PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL-lO J 3a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SONOMA I am employed in the County of Sonoma, California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 575 Administration Drive, Suite 116C, Santa Rosa, CA 95403. I am readily familiar with my employer's business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, On March 16,2009, following ordinary business practice, I served the NOTICE OF RETUR..N OF UNTIMEL Y CLAIM AND REJECTION OF CLAIM on the parties in said cause, by placing on that date at my place of business, a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service where it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business, addressed as follows: Anne N. Dennis, Attorney at Law 440 South E Street Santa Rosa, CA 95404 For the Claim of: Clay M. Greene GC021320 I certify (or declare), under penalty ofperjury,*that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: March 16, 2009 (S i gnature) *Proof of service by mail forms, being signed under penalty of perjury, do not require notarization. PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP • 1 013a, 2015.5; CRC 2008) I am employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 2360 Professional Drive, Santa Rosa, California, 95403. On this date I served the attached: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the following parties to this action by placing a true copy therein in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: See Attached UU (BY MAIL) I placed each such sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid for first-class mail, for collection and mailing at Santa Rosa, California, following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practices of the firm for processing of correspondence, said practice being that in the ordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited in the United States Postal Service the same day as it is place for processing. U (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s) noted above. [ ] (BY FACSIMILE) On February 26,2010 at a.rn., I caused the said document to be transmitted by facsimile machine from telephone number (707) 544-6539 to the addressee noted above at the facsimilie numbers noted above. The transmission was reported as complete and without error, and the transmission report attached hereto was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 22, 2010, at Santa Rosa, California. Anne N. Dennis SERVICE LIST Greene v. County of Sonoma Margaret S. Flynn Tarkington, O'Neill, Barrack & Chong 100 Stony Point Road, Suite 270 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Fax: (707) 544-3144 Associated Counsel for Plaintiffs Gregory G. Spaulding Spaulding, McCullough & Tansil Ll.P 90 South E Street, Suite 200 P.O. Box 1867 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Fax: (707) 524-1906 Counsel for County of Sonoma and its employees William W. Hatcher, Jr. Hatcher & Rundel 114 Pierce Street Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Fax: (707) 545-0220 Counsel for North Bay Auctions, lLC Caroll. Healey Bishop I Barry I Drath 2000 Powell Street, #1425 Emeryville, CA 94608 Fax: (510)596-0899 Counsel for JCES MANOR llC dba Agua Caliente Villa and Kim Dillingham Bonnie A. Freeman Senneff Freeman & Bluestone, llP SO Old Courthouse Square, Suite 401 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Fax: (707) 526-0347 Counsel for Defendant Karen Stagg-Hourigan More From This UserUSGS Report on Proposed Sand Barrier Berm to Mitigate Oil Spill's Impact on Louisiana MarshesSmelt Protections/Pumping Restrictions Findings May 27, 2010Salmon Protections/Pumping Restrictions Decision of May 18, 2010~$5 27 10 Findings of Fact Re PI Motion SmeltCounty Lawyer's Motion to Compel Testimony From Harold Scull's LawyerMarch 9, 2010 Board of Supervisors Budget UpdateFTA Letter to MTC and BART on Oakland Airport ConnectorBattle Report of the USS Aaron Ward23460664 Battle Report of the USS Aaron Ward May 3 1945Generating Failure - Environment CaliforniaSanctuary Memo
Clay Greene Complaint by nytbayarea1.1K viewsEmbedDownloadCategories: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less