AUG 1" 42019

Law Office of Ritchie M. Lewis SBN# 231100 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

2 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
8608 Utica Ave., Su 212
Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730
3 AUG 1 4 2019
Ph: 909 948- 9890
4 Fax: 909 948- 9820 A. TORRE o

5 for Jamal Boyce

Attorney R
6

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY

8

Jamal Boyce, Case No. : RIC 1806767

10

Plaintiff SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

11
vs. 1. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code
12 1102. 5

County of Riverside, 2. Violation of Labor Code 1050

13
Paul Angulo, 3. Violation of Labor Code 1053
DOES 2 through 25, inclusive, 4. Libel
14
Defendants
15

16

17 Plaintiff, Jamal Boyce files this Second Amended Complaint to add a cause of action for

18
defamation in the form of libel, substitute Paul Angulo as Doe 1, to provide additional facts to
19
the original causes of action and after a meet and confer with counsel for the County of
20 Riverside.

21 Plaintiff has learned the true name of defendant designated in the complaint as Doe 1 and

22 substitutes the true name Paul Angulo for the fictitious name, Doe 1, wherever it appears in the

23
complaint but specifically in the fifth cause of action for Libel.
24 COMES NOW Plaintiff Jamal Boyce( hereinafter" Boyce) alleges causes of action

25 against the County of Riverside( hereinafter" Riverside") and DOES 2 through 25 as follows:

26 1. Plaintiff is an individual who presently resides with his wife and two children with his
27 parents in his parent' s home in Moreno Valley, California, County of Riverside.
28

1
 2. Defendant County of Riverside is a public entity in the State of California duly
2
organized under the laws of the State of California, and provided, among other things,
3
employment to employees. County of Riverside is a governmental entity, which came into legal
4
existence in or about 1893.

3. Defendant County of Riverside conducted business in the County of Riverside, State of

6
California and was plaintiffs only employer until January 2016. The County of Riverside
7
principal place of business was in the City of Riverside, California. Plaintiff resigned his position
8
with the County of Riverside to accept a position with Lynwood Unified School District, which
9
began February 2016.
10
4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of those Defendants sued herein as
11
Does 2 through 25 and for that reason has sued such Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff
12
will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to identify said Defendants when their
13
identities are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and

14
belief alleges, that each of said DOES named as a Defendant in this action is in some fashion

15
liable and legally responsible as alleged in this Complaint for the injuries and damages Plaintiff
16
has sustained.

17
5. In doing the things alleged in this Complaint, all of the Defendants were employees,
18
agents and or alter egos of their co-Defendants. As agents and employees, they acted within the
19
course and scope of such employment and agency. The conduct of each of the Defendants and
20
their agents and employees was authorized and/ or directed and/ or was subsequently ratified by
21
each of their co- Defendants. Defendants are vicariously liable for all employees, agents, and or
22
servants performing services on behalf of them.
23
6. The allegations of this complaint on information and belief are likely to have
24
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
25
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all times herein

26
mentioned, defendants, and each of them, when acting as a principal, were negligent in the
27
selection and hiring of each and every employee, agent and or servant and every other defendant
28 as its agents, servant or employee.

2
 1
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each and every one of the
2
wrongful acts of the employees, agents, and servants and or Doe defendants, were performed
3
under the instructions and approval, express or implied of the County of Riverside.
4
9. Prior to filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff presented a claim to the County of Riverside
5
pursuant to Calif. Government Code 911. 2. Riverside acted on the claim by rejecting it on
6
February 15, 2018. This complaint is timely filed within the six( 6) months after the rejection of
7
the claim.

8
10. Plaintiff, was an employee for the County of Riverside until he resigned his
9
employment as a Network Administrator in January 2016 to work for a school district. Three
1o
anonymous emails( attached) were circulated amongst County employees accusing executive
11
management, for the County of Riverside of illegal activity. The first email was disseminated on
12
or about June 24, 2014 and among other things, accused Auditor Controller Paul Angulo of
13
spending over$
100, 000 on personal Harvard and Berkley training at taxpayer' s expense. It also
14
accused Mr. Angulo of spending over$ 50, 000 of taxpayer' s money to finance MPA graduate
15
programs for Frankie Ezzat and another management level employee but will not pay for
16
advanced degrees for other employees.

17
11. As the perceived illegal activity of misappropriating, deceit and or concealing the use
18
of government funds by a County executive seemed to become personal to Mr. Angulo and Ms.
19
Ezzat, Ms. Ezzat became concerned with the source of the email. At all relevant times, Ms. Ezzat

20
reported to Mr. Angulo.

21
12. Plaintiff' s supervisor at the time, Josetti Fields, was asked on or about June 25, 2014

22
by Ms. Ezzat, who directly supervised Ms. Fields, if Ms. Fields knew who sent the disparaging
23
email on June 24, 2014. To evidence the County' s obsession with the source of the email as
24
opposed to the accuracy thereof, Ms. Ezzat asked Ms. Fields if she could determine if the source
25
of the email was from a County or personal computer. Ms. Fields informed Ms. Ezzat in June
26 2014 she was unaware who sent the email.

27
13. On or about July 7, 2014, within days of Ms. Fields returning from vacation, Ms.
28
Ezzat made her suspicions known when she asked Ms. Fields if County employee, Marla

3
 1
Pendleton was the source of the email and if Ms. Fields could determine who was forwarding the
2
email throughout the county as other departments acknowledged receiving the June 24, 2014
3
email.

4
14. Knowing that Ms. Ezzat believed Ms. Pendleton was the whistleblower and Ms.
5
Fields informed Ms. Ezzat she did not believe Ms. Pendleton was the source of the email, Ms.

6
Fields knew she had become a witness for Ms. Pendleton against the County of Riverside as she
7
was privy to the Marla Pendleton suspicions by Riverside County management.
8
15. Ms. Ezzat felt so strongly that Ms. Pendleton was the email source, in early July 2014
9
she admitted to Ms. Fields she believed Ms. Pendleton was the source as she had access to all of

10
the information contained in the email. Ms. Ezzat added that two County managers were also of
11
the opinion Ms. Pendleton authored the June 24, 2014 email. County Manager Ms. Elias told Ms.
12
Fields, Ms. Ezzat was of the opinion Ms. Pendleton was responsible for creating and sending the
13
email. It had become common knowledge Ms. Ezzat was blaming Ms. Pendleton for authoring
14
the subject emails. Ms. Fields appeared to be the only management level employee who stated
15
opposition to the County belief Ms. Pendleton was the source of the emails. Therefore Ms. Fields
16
had become a witness on behalf of Ms. Pendleton against the County for any adverse
17
employment action taken against Ms. Pendleton.

18
16. On or about August 6, 2014, Ms. Pendleton was demoted by the County of Riverside.
19
17. September 23, 2014 Ms. Fields was placed on Paid Administrative Leave by the
20
County of Riverside, allegedly to investigate allegations of misconduct. Ms. Fields was
21
subsequently terminated in 2015 and filed a lawsuit against the County of Riverside for wrongful
22 termination.

23
18. The County of Riverside received a Notice of Deposition in the matter of Fields v
24
County of Riverside, for Jamal Boyce, to be taken on October 12, 2015. Plaintiff Boyce did in
25
fact testify in the case involving his former supervisor, Ms. Fields and offered favorable
26
testimony to her competency and she did not engage in unethical conduct.
27
19. After leaving the school district, Mr. Boyce was offered a job with Riverside County
28
Transportation Commission on November 7, 2017, with the starting date of employment

4
 1
December 4, 2017. Prior to being offered the position with the Transportation Commission, Mr.
2
Boyce signed a waiver in August 2017 allowing the Transportation Commission to conduct a
3
complete background investigation. The application for the position with Riverside County
4
Transportation Commission, which authorized contacting previous employers, was signed by
5
Mr. Boyce on August 4, 2017.
6
20. On or about December 12, 2017, approximately one week after plaintiff' s
7
employment with Riverside County Transportation Commission began, plaintiff was interviewed
8
by John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director for the Transportation Commission. The
9
interview according to Mr. Standiford, was motivated by Riverside County Transportation
1o
Commission Executive Director, Anne Mayer, who had receive several phone calls from the
11
County of Riverside that Mr. Boyce sabotaged the County of Riverside' s IT system. Elected
12
official Paul Angulo for the County of Riverside left a voice message for Ms. Anne Mayer,
13
Executive Director for Riverside County Transportation Commission in early December 2017
14
after Plaintiff began working for Riverside County Transportation Commission and disseminated
15
false information to Ms. Mayer when she returned the phone call the same day, alleging Mr.
16
Boyce damaged Riverside County' s computer system. County of Riverside Manager Dave
17
Roberts also provided false information to plaintiffs new employer, that Mr. Boyce damaged the
18
county of Riverside' s computer system.
19
21. Despite Mr. Boyce indicating in the interview he had not done anything except testify
20
against the County of Riverside. Mr. Boyce indicated he wiped his computer clean before
21
leaving the department. He returned all equipment assigned to him fully intact and nothing was
22
in a damaged state. All pertinent information was saved on a network share that was provided to
23
the transition team. On December 20, 2017 Mr. Boyce received a letter from Riverside County
24 Transportation Commission that stated," Due to information we have received, which was not

25
disclosed to us during your interviews with the Commission, we have decided to terminate your
26 employment."

27
22. The illegal scheme of the County of Riverside in contacting plaintiff' s new employer,
28
Riverside County Transportation Commission, in or about December 2017, to falsely accuse

5
 1
plaintiff of wrongdoing, culminated with plaintiff receiving a Notice of Termination of
2
Employment on December 20, 2017. Plaintiff has not found comparable employment as of this
3
date.

4
23. At all times mentioned in this complaint, County of Riverside regularly employed
5
more than fifty( 50) persons.
6
24. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants
7
knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed to do the acts herein alleged. Defendants did these
8
acts pursuant to and in furtherance of their conspiracy. Defendants furthered their conspiracy by
9
cooperation, lending aid, encouragement, ratification and adopting the acts of each other.
10
25. Plaintiff, who began working for Riverside County Transportation Commission on
11
December 4, 2017, had been competently performing his professional responsibilities since date
12
of hire. In fact the termination letter plaintiff received from Riverside County Transportation
13
Commission clearly states he was terminated because he allegedly did not disclose something in
14
the interview.

15
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

16
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 1102. 5 ( b)& ( c)

17
Against all Defendants)

18
26. Plaintiff incorporates each allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 25.
19
27. At all times relevant to this Complaint, California Labor Code 1102. 5 was in effect

20
and applied to Defendants. Labor Code section 1102. 5 provides in part that
21
a) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not make, adopt,
22
or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing
23
information to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over
24
the employee, or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or
25
correct the violation or noncompliance, or from providing information to, or testifying
26
before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee
27
has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or

28 federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or

6
 1
regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee' s job
2
duties.

3
b) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate
4
against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the
5
employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement
6
agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the
7
authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for
8
providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an
9
investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the
1o
information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or

11
noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether

12
disclosing the information is part of the employee' s job duties.
13
c) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate
14
against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a
15
violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state,

16
or federal rule or regulation.

17
d) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate
18 b), or
against an employee for having exercised his or her rights under subdivision( a), (

19
c) in any former employment.
20
28. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the above code section as he testified as a
21
witness in a lawsuit involving his former manager who filed a complaint against the County of
22 Riverside for wrongful termination of employment in violation of Labor Code 1102. 5.

23
29. Not only was Plaintiff a witness to the fact he believed his former manager, Ms.
24
Fields, was a good employee and she did not engage in unethical conduct, he had given his new
25
employer, Riverside County Transportation Commission over three months to investigate his
26
background before he was offered the position and four months before plaintiff' s first day of
27 work.

28

7
 1
30. Plaintiff believes The County of Riverside violated Labor Code sections 1050, 1053
2
and 1054 as well as Civil Code 1710, in delivering unsolicited and false information and or
3
material to Riverside County Transportation Commission in or about December 2017 causing
4
plaintiff to be terminated. The false information was transmitted by Riverside County elected
5
official Paul Angulo and management level employee for Riverside County, Dave Rogers. Mr.
6
Angulo and Mr. Rogers both informed Ms. Mayer that Mr. Boyce damaged Riverside County' s
7
proprietary information and or their Information Technology system. There are two Riverside
8
County employees, who possessed personal knowledge, testified Mr. Boyce did not damage the
9
County' s IT system or proprietary information
10
31. As a direct and foreseeable result of the aforesaid retaliatory acts of Defendants,
11
Plaintiff has lost and will continue to lose income and benefits in an amount to be proven at time
12
of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with pre judgment interest pursuant to
13
Civil Code 3287 and/ or any other provision of law providing for pre judgment interest.
14
32. As a result of the aforesaid acts of defendants, Plaintiff claims general damages for
15
mental and emotional distress and aggravation in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
16
33. As a proximate result of the foregoing conduct, which violated the provisions of
17
Labor Code 1102. 5, Plaintiff has been forced to and will incur attorney fees and costs in the
18
prosecution of this litigation, in an amount to be proven at trial.
19
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

20
VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 1050

21
Against all Defendants)

22
34. Plaintiff incorporates each allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 33.
23
35. After plaintiff affording his new employer, Riverside County Transportation
24
Commission, over four months to investigate his background, plaintiff accepted their offer to be
25
employed with them as an Information Technology( IT) Administrator. Plaintiff began his
26
employment on December 4, 2017 earning $ 9,000 a month or$ 108, 000 a year.
27
36. In Defendant' s realization, Plaintiff would not participate in a scheme to blame and
28
take adverse employment action against Ms. Fields, opposed any adverse action to be taken

8
 1
against Ms. Fields by defendants and was a key witness who testified to facts likely favorable to
2
Ms. Fields and likely adverse to Defendants, Defendants conduct was in violation of, among
3
other things, California Labor Code section 1050 which states as follows:
4
Any person, or agent or officer thereof, who, after having discharged an employee from
5
the service of such person or after an employee has voluntarily left such service, by any
6
misrepresentation prevents or attempts to prevent the former employee from obtaining
7
employment, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
8
37. Since the deposition of Mr. Boyce was noticed for October 12, 2015 in the Fields v

9
County of Riverside lawsuit, he was obligated to testify consistent with Calif. Code of Civil
1 o
Procedure 2025.

11
38. Plaintiff learned after receiving Notice of Termination on December 20, 2017, there is
12
nothing negative in his personnel file with the County of Riverside. The first sentence in the
13
termination letter from Riverside County Transportation Commission states as follows:
14
Due to information we have received, which was not disclosed to us during your
15
interviews with the Commission, we have decided to terminate your employment."
16
The misrepresentations communicated by Mr. Angulo and Dave Rogers to Ms. Mayer,
17
the Executive Director for Riverside County Transportation Commission, where Plaintiff was
18
employed, caused Plaintiff to be suspended and terminated from his employment.

19
39. As a direct and foreseeable result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, including
20
County of Riverside agents, employees and or representatives misrepresenting to Ms. Anne
21
Mayer that plaintiff sabotaged the County of Riverside' s IT system, Plaintiff has lost and will
22
continue to lose income and benefits in an amount to be proven at time of trial. Plaintiff claims
23
such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code section 3287
24
and/ or any other provision of law providing for pre judgment interest. Additionally plaintiff is
25 entitled to treble damages under Labor Code 1054.

26
40. As a result of the aforesaid acts of defendants, Plaintiff claims general damages for
27
mental and emotional distress and aggravation in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
28 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

9
 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 1053

2
Against all Defendants)

3
41. Plaintiff incorporates each allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 40.
4
42. After plaintiff agreed to a background check and checked the box" yes" on the
5
employment application when asked if Riverside County Transportation Commission can contact
6
his previous supervisor for a reference on July 30, 2017, when he started work on December 4,
7
2017, he believed the references were very supportive of him.
8
43. Riverside County Transportation Commission Executive Director, Anne Mayer,
9
received several phone calls from the County of Riverside that Mr. Boyce sabotaged the County
1o
of Riverside' s IT system.

11
44. Labor Code 1053 states as follows:

12
Nothing in this chapter shall prevent an employer or an agent, employee,
13
superintendent or manager thereof from furnishing, upon special request therefor,
14
a truthful statement concerning the reason for the discharge of an employee or
15
why an employee voluntarily left the service of the employer. If such statement
16
furnishes any mark, sign, or other means conveying information different from
17
that expressed by words therein, such fact, or the fact that such statement or other
18
means of furnishing information was given without a special request therefor is
19
prima facie evidence of a violation of sections 1050 to 1053.
20
45. According to John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director for Riverside County
21
Transportation Commission, Ms. Mayer received several calls from commissioners, agents and

22
or employees from the County of Riverside indicating plaintiff sabotaged the County' s network.
23
Since there is nothing in Plaintiff' s personnel file regarding allegations of him compromising or
24
sabotaging the defendant' s IT system, the information provided to plaintiff' s new employer
25
appears to have been unsolicited and had nothing to do with why he voluntarily left the County
26
of Riverside. Riverside County Transportation Commission had in excess of four months to
27
investigate plaintiff's background, allowing plaintiff to commence his employment with them on
28
December 4, 2017 and apparently found nothing disturbing until defendants contacted the new

io
 1
employer in December 2017 misrepresenting facts to the detriment of plaintiff. Elected official
2
Paul Angulo and manager Dave Rogers made material misrepresentations accusing Plaintiff of
3
damaging Riverside County' s IT system and or their proprietary information to Ms. Mayer, the
4
Executive Director for Riverside County Transportation Commission where Plaintiff had been
5
recently hired in December 2017. On December 6, 2017 after speaking to Anne Mayer, Paul
6
Angulo sent an email to Aaron Hake at Riverside County Transportation Commission
7
misrepresenting Plaintiff destroyed three computers on his last day of work, Plaintiff secretly
8
recorded supervisor' s conversations with him, took compromising photos of people and Plaintiff
9
used vulgarity in department meetings.
10
46. As a direct and foreseeable result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, including
11
County of Riverside agents, employees and or representatives misrepresenting to Ms. Anne
12
Mayer that plaintiff sabotaged the County of Riverside' s IT system, Plaintiff has lost and will
13
continue to lose income and benefits in an amount to be proven at time of trial. Plaintiff claims
14
such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code section 3287
15
and/ or any other provision of law providing for pre judgment interest.
16
47. As a result of the aforesaid acts of defendants, Plaintiff claims general damages for
17
mental and emotional distress and aggravation in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
18
competently performing her responsibilities, serves the interest of the public in not allowing
19
former employers to cause a witness in a case against the former employer, to be terminated by
20
his new employer because the plaintiff opposed perceived illegal conduct or testified as a witness
21
in the case that involved allegations of illegal conduct involving misuse of government funds.
22
Because these acts were carried out by officers, directors and or managing agents of defendant in
23
a despicable, deliberate and intentional manner, plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages
24
from Paul Angulo, in a sum sufficient to punish and deter such future conduct.
25
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26 LIBEL

27 Against all Defendants)

28

I
 1
48. The allegations of all paragraphs in this complaint are alleged and incorporated in this
2
fifth cause of action. This cause of action is against the County of Riverside and Paul Angulo.
3
49. Defendant, Paul Angulo was an elected official for the County of Riverside in
4
December 2017 and remains an elected official today for the County of Riverside.
5
50. Defendant, Paul Angulo, an elected official for the County of Riverside in December
6
2017 was acting in the course and scope of his official duties as an elected official with the
7
County of Riverside when he misrepresented information in a written document dated December
8
6, 2017 to Aaron Hake, employed with Riverside County Transportation Commission regarding
9
Plaintiff damaging the IT system belonging to the County of Riverside, causing Plaintiffto be
o
suspended and terminated from his new employment with Riverside County Transportation
11
Commission. Mr. Angulo testified the system crashed within a day of Mr. Boyce leaving the
12
County of Riverside. However Mr. Blayton, an employee for the County of Riverside when he
13
testified, stated he deactivated Mr. Boyce' s computer account the day after Mr. Boyce left the
14
County of Riverside. Mr. Blayton testified Mr. Boyce did not damage anything.
15
51. Defendant Angulo was an agent for the County of Riverside and was acting in the
16
course and scope of such agency when he provided false information to Ms. Mayer and sent the
17
December 6, 2017 email to Aaron Hake, drafted with false information regarding Plaintiff, Jamal
18
Boyce. Henry Ong, an employee for the County of Riverside, allegedly did a forensic analysis of
19
the alleged damaged computers but Mr. Angulo admits to never talking to him regarding his
20
conclusions.

21
52. On December 6, 2017 Defendant Angulo sent an email at 1: 53 pm to Aaron Hake, an
22
employee with Riverside County Transportation Commission, accusing Plaintiff of destroying
23
three computers belonging to the County of Riverside on Plaintiff' s last day of work, Plaintiff
24
secretly recording supervisor' s conversations with him, took compromising photos of people and
25
Plaintiff used vulgarity in department meetings. The email references Plaintiff by name. This
26
email is attached as Exhibit A and made a part hereof.
27
53. Defendant' s acts as herein alleged were carried out by officers, directors and or
28
managing agents of defendant, and were committed fraudulently, maliciously or oppressively

12
 1
with the intent of injuring plaintiff, and or with a willful and conscious disregard of plaintiff' s
2
right to work without being retaliated against by a former employer because he testified as a
3
witness in a whistleblower case against the County of Riverside. In the case against the County
4
of Riverside where plaintiffpreviously testified, there were emails alleging impropriety
5
including misuse of funds by Riverside County, that culminated in one employee being
6
terminated and another being demoted whom the county believed authored the emails or
7
potentially would be an adverse witnesses against the County of Riverside.
8
54. The previous testimony by plaintiff in the Fields v County of Riverside case, that
9
could be perceived as adverse to the County of Riverside, as plaintiff testified his manager was
10
competently performing her responsibilities and she was not engaging in unethical conduct by
1
using her computer for periodic personal use as Plaintiff testified other employees used their
12
computer for personal use without being terminated. Mr. Boyce' s testimony serves the interest of
13
the public in not allowing former employers to cause a witness in a case against the former
14
employer, to be terminated by his new employer because the plaintiff opposed and or testified as
15
a witness in the case that involved allegations of illegal conduct involving misuse of government
16
funds. Because these acts were carried out by officers, directors and or managing agents of
17
defendant in a despicable, deliberate and intentional manner, plaintiff is entitled to recover
18
punitive damages from Defendant Paul Angulo, in a sum sufficient to punish and deter such
19
future conduct.

20
55. Plaintiff enjoyed a good professional reputation with the County of Riverside while
21
employed there. Management for the County of Riverside organized a going away party for the
22
Plaintiff. Mr. Angulo, not only attended the party, publically applauded Jamal for his work, cried
23
and gave Plaintiff a hug.
24
56. The December 6, 2017 written document referenced above is false as it pertains to
25
Plaintiff. Mr. Angulo testifies he wrote the document accusing Mr. Boyce of damaging Riverside
26
County' s computer system without any personal knowledge and without ever seeing a document
27
concluding Mr. Boyce damaged the subject computers.
28

13
 57. The December 6, 2017 email is libelous on its face in violation of Calif. Civil Code
2
section 45 as the December 6, 2017 email significantly harmed Plaintiff' s professional reputation
3
as it caused him to be terminated from his employment.
4
58. The email accuses Plaintiff of destroying three computers on his last day when in fact
5
existing employees, one who deactivated Plaintiff' s computer the day after Plaintiff' s
6
employment ended with the County of Riverside, testified Mr. Boyce did not damage any
7
computers or proprietary information. The other witness was asked by Riverside County
8
management to investigate whether Plaintiff damaged the computer or proprietary information
9
belonging to the County of Riverside. After conducting the requested investigation he testified
10
Plaintiff did not damage anything.
11
59. Paul Angulo testified he never spoke with anyone at the Riverside County
12
Information Technology Office that Jamal Boyce damaged the subject computers, he admitted he
13
did not see any written documents that Jamal Boyce damaged the subject computers, he never
14
discussed the issue with Mr. Boyce and two County of Riverside employees testified Jamal
15
Boyce did not damage the County computers. One of the witnesses was asked my management
16
to investigate and he concluded Jamal Boyce did not cause any damage to the computers. The
17
County of Riverside in Responses to Request For Production of Documents represented the
18
County does not have any documents evidencing the theory or belief Jamal Boyce caused
19
damage to the County of Riverside' s computer system.
20
60. The email was seen and read by Aaron Hake who was employed with Riverside
21
County Transportation Commission where Plaintiff started working on December 4, 2017.
22
Plaintiff was suspended a few days later and on December 20, 2017 Plaintiff received a Notice of

23 Termination Letter from his Due to

new employer, which stated in the first sentence, "

24
information we have received, which was not disclosed to us during your interviews with the
25
Commission, we have decided to terminate your employment."
26
61. As a proximate result of the above- described publication, Plaintiff was terminated
27
from his employment with Riverside County Transportation Commission after only a few weeks
28

14
 1
of employment. This will harm his professional reputation, causing Plaintiff to exhibit feelings of
2
shame, mortification and hurt feelings all to his general damages.
3
62. The above described publication was created by Mr. Angulo in his official capacity
4
with the County of Riverside as an elected official and within the scope and authority of his
5
professional responsibilities with the County of Riverside with malice, in that other Riverside
6
County employees have verified that Plaintiff did not damage computers or data belonging to the
7
County of Riverside. The Riverside County witness who saw the computer the very next day
8
after Plaintiff quit, testified Mr. Boyce did not damage anything. The other witness was asked by
9
Riverside County management to investigate whether Plaintiff damaged the computer or
1o
proprietary information belonging to the County of Riverside and he testified Plaintiff did not
1 1
damage the computers.

12

13
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against all Defendants according to proof as
14
follows:

15
1. For general damages;
16
2. Special damages;

17
3. Treble damages consistent with Labor Code 1054

18
4. Interest on Compensatory damages at the legal rate from the date of injury or pursuant
19
to CCP section 3291;

20
5. Punitive damages against Paul Angulo individually
21
6. For other compensatory damages for emotional distress and other economic losses;
22
7. Attorney fees;
23 8. Costs and expenses of suit incurred herein;

24
9. For other just and proper relief;
25

26

27 Dated: 30, 2019 LAW OFFICE OF RITCHIE M. LEWIS

July
28

15
 1

3 tchie M. Lewis, Attorliffol Plaintiff

8608 Utica Ave., Su 212
4
Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16
 1
Declaration of Service

2
State of California, County of San Bernardino.
3
The undersigned hereby declares the following:
4 1. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action.
5 2. My business address is 8608 Utica Ave., Rancho Cucamonga, California.

6
3. On the date indicated below, I served a true copy of the document entitled:
7
2nd Amended Complaint
4. The documents were served:
8

9
By placing an original or true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage fully

10
prepaid, in the United States mail at Rancho Cucamonga, California, addressed as

indicated below.
11

12 By Certified Delivery Return Receipt Requested

13 By personal service on the identified person by delivering a true copy to said person at

the address indicated below.

14

15 By facsimile transmission.

16 By Over Night Delivery

ADDRESSEE: Robert Rabe

17
Stone Busailah, LLP

18 1055 East Colorado Blvd, Ste 320

Pasadena, Calif. 91106
19

Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart

20 Keith R. Dobyns
555 Anton Blvd, Ste 1200
21
Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626- 7670

22
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that
23
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed jl 1 .51 2019, at CO( to C00(` Curno 4California.
24

25

G20iy Banks

Declaration of Service - 1