Professional Documents
Culture Documents
9-25-2023-State Bar Complaint Against Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins
9-25-2023-State Bar Complaint Against Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins
I.
INTRODUCTION
To Whom It May Concern:
With this complaint, I am respectfully requesting that the State Bar of California’s
Chief Trial Counsel’s Office open an investigation against former State Bar of California
Interim Chief Trial Counsel (April 2015–September 2017) Gregory Paul Dresser, SBN
136532, who is now Director-Chief Counsel at the State of California’s Commission on
Judicial Performance (Commission), and Laura Ann Huggins, SBN #136532, former State
Bar of California Deputy Trial Counsel, currently employed by Erin Joyce Law, PC in
Pasadena, California, and her former superior, State Bar of California Senior Trial Counsel
Robin Brune.
II.
COURT CASES RELATED TO THIS COMPLAINT
-1-
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
1. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO.15-0-10110- LMA; CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT CASE IN RE STEIN, NO. S245982 (CAL. MAR. 1, 2018)
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-
00155479, filed on December 4, 2013, and 3DCA Cases C079524 & C095488 Waszczuk v.
The Regents of the University of California et.al . California Supreme Court Case No.
S245508 , S281719 involved judges from the County of Sacramento Superior Court DAVID
-2-
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
I. BROWN, Law & Motion Department 53; CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER, Law &
Motion Department 53; JENNIFER K. ROCKWELL, Order of Examination (OX)
Department 37; STEVEN H. RODDA, Law & Motion Departments 53 & 54 (a Retired
Judge on call) ; THADD A. BLIZZARD, Order of Examination (OX), Department 37;
SHAMA HAKIM MESIWALA, Law & Motion Department 53; and GEORGE A.
ACERO, Law & Motion Departments 53 & 54 backup. This wrongful termination case
involved my former attorney, STEIN, SBN 131248, who was disbarred in January 2020 for
professional misconduct; 14 Porter Scott attorneys; and two Horvitz & Levitz LLP attorneys
(listed below) in addition to myself as a pro per litigant. The following have been involved
since December 16, 2014:
1. MICHAEL WILLIAM POTT, SBN 186156, Porter Scott attorney & shareholder
2. DOUGLAS LEE ROPEL, SBN 300486, Pott and Burkett’s assistant
3. DAVID P.E. BURKETT, SBN 300933, Porter Scott attorney & shareholder
4. CECILIA GUEVARA, SBN 307159, Burkett’s assistant
5. DANIEL J. BARDZELL, SBN 313993, Burkett’s assistant
6. NASIM SAHAR TOURKAMAN, SBN 300933, Burkett’s assistant
7. CHAMBORD V. BENTON-HAYES , SBN 278970, Burkett’s assistant
8. COURTNEY DE GROOF, SBN 319334, Burkett’s assistant
9. NANCY J. SHEEHAN, SBN 109419, Porter Scott attorney & shareholder
10. AMANDA I. ILER, SBN 300268, Porter Scott senior attorney
11. DEREK J. HAYNES, SBN 264621, Porter Scott attorney & shareholder
12. LINDSAY A. GOULDING, SBN 227195, Porter Scott attorney& shareholder
13. OLATOMIWA T. AINA, SBN 325566, Goulding’s assistant
14. THOMAS L. RIORDAN, SBN 104827, Porter Scott attorney & shareholder
15. KAREN M. BRAY, SBN 175501, Horvitz & Levy LLP attorney & shareholder
16. H. THOMAS WATSON, SBN 16277, Horvitz & Levy LLP attorney & shareholder
III.
AGE AND IMMIGRATION STATUS
I noticed that the new State Bar of California’s Attorney Misconduct Complaint Form
contains three questions that apply to me and my wife.
-3-
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
Question No. 1: Does this complaint involve allegations of attorney misconduct where a
person 65 years of age or older was victimized?
As of today, I am 72 years old; my wife of 50 years, Irena Waszczuk, is also 72
years old.
Eight years ago, on February 27, 2015, Porter Scott attorney and shareholder David Burkett
sent his associate, Douglas Ropel, to a hearing before Judge Shelleyanne Chang in
Jaroslaw Jerry Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
(CUIAB)(ROA #28), Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CU-WM-GDS with the UC Regents as a
Real Party of Interest. Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., C079254 (Cal. Ct.
App. Dec. 27, 2018). Neither Ropel nor Burkett was counsel of record for this case in
February 2015. Burkett sent Ropel to the court for the sole purpose of confronting and
attacking me prior to the hearing. Ropel made vile, despicable threats to go after my (then)
65-year-old wife if I did not agree to drop the litigation against the Defendants in exchange
for legal fees in connection to the anti-SLAPP motion. The legal fees never should be
awarded to The Regents because the anti-SLAPP motion filed on December 1, 2014 by
Porter Scott attorney Michael Pott was a result of the my former attorney Stein crime and
conspiracy between him and Stein and collusion with Sacramento County Superior Court
Judge David I Brown
On August 8, 2017, after oral arguments, Defendants’ attorney Burkett, infuriated by
statements made by the Court of Appeals Justice Vance W. Raye during the oral argument
hearing and anticipating the Court’s decision, snapped and unloaded his anger on me and my
wife making vile threats against us. I thought that Burkett’s unwarranted attack in the 3DCA
building would lead to fisticuffs. Burkett instead became angered to the brink of beating up a
66-year-old old man right there in the halls of justice. Fortunately for me, I was accompanied
by a friend.
My wife became a soft target for the attorneys from Porter Scott who were representing The
Regents and, from April–July 2021, she was traumatized and victimized by Porter Scott
-4-
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
attorney Lindsay Goulding and forced to pay a ransom of $22,284 before Judge Thadd
Blizzard and his clerk in an unsuccessful attempt to frame her for criminal prosecution and
clean out her accounts to convince me to drop the litigations against The Regents
Yes. My wife, Irena Waszczuk, and I are immigrants from Poland. I am political refugee
who was forced by communist government along with my family, to leave Poland in 1982
due to my political activities against the communist regime.
https://www.scribd.com/document/494446114/Solidarity-Anti-Communist-Movement-
Poland-1980-1982).
IV.
THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LAURA ANN HUGGINS SBN #136532 AND
GREGORY PAUL DRESSER SBN 136532
A. The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA) Rigged and Fraudulent
Unpublished Opinion Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App.
Oct. 10, 2017) Caused By Gregory Dresser’ and Laura Huggins’ Professional and
Criminal Misconduct .
With this complaint, I am alleging that , between September 2015 and October 2017 Dresser,
Huggins, and their collaborators’ professional misconduct, and criminal misconduct including
and not limited to bribery , racketeering and conspiracy with my former employer The
University of California (hereafter The Regents ) or The Regents agents ,or attorneys and
Sacramento Courts staff led to issuance by the 3DCA totally fraudulent and rigged by rubber
stamp justice unpublished opinion Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal.
Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal
(Attachment No.1 on Flash Drive & DVD ) The 3DCA opinion was due to my appeal from
-5-
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
the the Sacramento County Superior Court judgment in anti-SLAPP motion (California
Code of Civil Procedure( C.C.P section 425.16) in my wrongful termination case against the
Regents filed on December 4, 2013 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California, Case No. 34-2013- 00155479
The compromised of 3DCA justices Vance Raye, Ronald B. Robie, and George Nicholson
unpublished opinion instead of condemning my former attorney the Unpublished Opinion
shamelessly commended my former attorney Douglas Stein—who was dismissed for gross
criminal misconduct after misrepresenting me in two cases stealing my money and colluded
with The Regents legal counsel Michael Pott and Judge of Superior Court David Brown.
After such heinous offenses, Stein proceeded to steal the entire retainer paid to him by in
June 2014. Stein’s crimes and criminal misconduct behavior would not have been possible to
condone from October 2015 to October 2017 without Gregory Dresser’s decision to do so
who as the employee and decision making State bar of California Chief Trial Counsel Office
executive apparently had his personal interest to condone the Stein’s crime and rigg the
3DCA opinion .
B. The Gregory Dresser’ , Laura Huggins and State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Investigator
Laura Sharek Conspiracy Against Waszczuk in October 2015-October 2017 .
This complaint would not be needed if Dresser and Huggins, given all of the resources
and information available to them, which they received from Wells Fargo Bank in 2015, had
-6-
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
properly prosecuted my former attorney, Stein, or turned him to state or federal law
enforcement authorities for prosecution due to theft of money instead of conspiring with The
Regents or their agents or attorneys and with Courts staff to condone Stein’s criminal
misconduct from October 2015 to October 2017 until 3DCA issued on October 10, 2017
rigged and fraudulent opinion in the anti-SLAPP motion in 3DCA Case C079524 Waszczuk
v. The Regents of the University of California.
The 10/101/ 3DCA opinion led to another two 3DCA rigged and fraudulent opinions and
travesty of justice served to me for another six years and another crime that resulted in The
Regents’ attorney from Porter Scott attacking my 70 years old wife and stealing $22,284
from her in July 2021.
C. The Further Allegations Against Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins
1. Base on documents, facts, and events, I allege that LAURA ANN HUGGINS and
GREGORY PAUL DRESSER, who as State Bar of California employees and officials
participated in the investigation and prosecution of Stein, violated the California State Bar
Rules of Professional Conduct and knowingly assisted or induced another to do so through
the acts of another person. This caused irreparable harm to my litigations in two complaints
filed in Sacramento Superior Court in December 2013 , enormous financial harm to myself ,
and the devastation of my and my family’s lives beside the Cost the Sacramento County
Superior Court , 3DCA and Supreme Court of California incurred because Dresser and
Huggin criminal misconduct .
2. The Dresser’s work history (1997-to Present) with the Morrison Foerster LLP, State Bar
of California and the California Commission on Judicial Performance, disclosed on
LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/gdresser) and other online sources left me no doubts
that Dresser was the one who, from April 2015 through October 2017, made or was involved
in the decisions in the State Bar investigation of my former attorney Stein, SBN 131248 to
-7-
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
condone Steins’s and other attorneys crimes and misconduct I reported to State Bar in the
time period of December 2014 through October 2017 .
3. The Dresser’s work history with State Bar of California and the California Commission on
Judicial Performance and other undisputed facts lead me to conclusion that Dresser was the
one who in September 2015 with evil intention to harm me caused that State Bar
Investigator Amanda Gormley and her supervisor Senior Trial Counsel Robin Brune were
removed from handling my complaint against Stein docked in the State Bar as a Case
Number: 15-O-10110-LMA.
4. In September 2015 Dresser in conspiracy with others caused that my complaint against my
former attorney Stein vanished together with assigned to the complaint State Bar Investigator
Amanda Gormley and her supervisor Senior Trial Counsel Robin Brune who already
concluded the investigation against Stein and the case was ready to be submitted to the State
Bar prosecutor in October 2015. Gormley and Brune were assigned by then Supervising
Senior Trial Counsel Robert A. Henderson to the Stein’s case on January 14, 2015 three
month before Dresser was hired in April 2015 by the State Bar .
5. From September 2015 to October 2017 Dresser to harm me and my litigations conspired
and collaborated with others included and not limited to Deputy Trial Counsel Huggins and
Investigator Supervisor Laura L. Sharek (Sharek) and State Bar Court Judge Maria Lucy
Armendariz (Armendariz) openly interfered and meddled in the judicial process pending in
the Court of Appel Third Appellate District (3DCA ) and tampered with the administration
of justice.
6. Gregory Dresser’ and his collaborators indisputably involved far more than severe financial
damages caused to me and my family and irreparable harm to my litigations in the two
-8-
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
Sacramento County Superior Court cases against The Regents of the University of California
in the San Joaquin County Superior Court writ of mandamus case (unemployment insurance
benefits case ) Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
(CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPii)—The Regents of the University of California (The
Regents), filed in the Court of Appeal on December 2, 2013 and ther wrongful termination
case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-
00155479, filed on December 4, 2013
7. The Dresser’s , Huggins and their collaborators conspiracy against me , which involved
interference and meddle in judicial process , caused and led to abuse of court system by the
The Regents of the University of California and California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board and their attorneys of record , corruption in the in the courts and abuse of power by
judges and justices in the Sacramento County Superior Court , The Court of Appeal Third
Appellate District and the California Supreme Court which resulted in three totally
fraudulent and rigged unpublished opinions issued by 3DCA Waszczuk v. Cal.
Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., No. C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018) California
Supreme Court Case No. S253713 & S245879 Waszczuk v. CUIAB and Waszczuk v. Regents
of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017),
https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal California Supreme Court
Case No. S245508 , Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., S245508 (Cal. Jan. 10, 2018)
https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-univ-of-cal, Waszczuk v. Regents of the
Univ. of Cal., No. C095488 (Cal. Ct. App. July 28, 2023)
https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal-1
V.
OCTOBER 2015–OCTOBER 2017, DRESSER’S INTERFERENCE IN THE
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA COMPLAINT AGAINST MY FORMER
ATTORNEY DOUGLAS STEIN, CASE NO.15-0-10110- LMA
-9-
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
A. Notice of Appeal in Waszczuk v. The Regents of The University of California,
3DCA Case No. C079524
Gregory Dresser was deployed from Morrison Foerster LLP to the State of
California Chief Trial Counsel in April 2015, at relatively the same time two unlawful
judgments were filed against me in Sacramento County Superior Court; one was a Writ
of Mandamus, Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPii)—The
Regents of the University of California (UC Regents), which legitimized the theft of my
unemployment insurance benefits. This was issued by Judge Shelleyanne Chang from
Department 23. The other unlawful judgement was in the Sacramento Superior Court
wrongful termination case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California, Case No. 34-2013- 00155479, filed December 4. This was an anti-SLAPP
motion orchestrated by my former attorney, Stein, and involved conspiracy, collusion, the
theft of my $20,000 retainer, and—most likely—bribery and racketeering. Judge David I.
Brown, of Dept. 53, was its author (Attachment #2 on the flash drive and DVD).
On May 7, 2015 and June 14, 2015, I filed in 3DCA Notices of Appeal of both judgments
(Attachment #3 on the flash drive and DVD).
- 11 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
Robin Brune -State Bar Case.15-0-10110- LMA-Attorney Douglas Stein’s
Criminal Misconduct and Theft of the $ 20,000
On September 25, 2015, sent an e-mail to State Bar Investigator Gormley asking her about
the status of his complaint against Stein. That same day, she replied as follows:
Mr. Waszczuk:
Your file with be submitted to the prosecutor by October 9.
Please communicate with me via regular mail or via fax.
You will receive a letter from our office when the case is
submitted to the prosecutor.
You will be contacted by the prosecutor if she needs
additional information.
After September 25, 2015, I never received an official letter from the State Bar stating
that Stein’s case had been submitted to the prosecutor. Gormley and Brune, who directly
supervised Gormley’s investigation against Stein, and Supervising Senior Trial Counsel
Robert A. Henderson vanished and disappeared together with my complaints against
Stein for another two years, just like my unemployment insurance benefits, which were
reinstated by the EDD on May 14, 2014. After I sent the TAC draft to Gormley, I received
on that same day an e-mail from Sacramento County Superior Court that notified me that
The Regents had filed a motion to block my TAC from being filed.
On October 28, 2015 Judge Brown granted the motion to The Regents and the TAC,
which was never submitted to the Court, was blocked from filing.
- 12 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
Since September 2015, for the next eight years, DRESSER became a TROJAN
HORSE in my litigation against The Regents, and my 2015 proposed 300-page-long TAC
became taboo in the courts and was never filed.
VI.
THE OCTOBER 12, 2017 CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE ANNOUNCEMENT
A. Dresser’s Move from The State Bar to the Commission on Judicial Performance
Stealing $20,000 from a client was a minor transgression for the authors of the
opinion.
Since The Regents signed a Settlement Agreement with me on January 30, 2009, the owners
or co-owners of the 27-MW cogeneration plant located at the UCDMC lost approximately
200 million tax-free dollars, or perhaps more, due to the lack of contract to sell power for
tax free profit .
On September 25, 2015, when I sent a copy of the proposed TAC to Gormley. The question
must be asked, why was it Dresser’s business to insert himself into my litigation against The
Regents by interfering and meddling in the judicial process? Dresser’s interference did not
end with Huggins’ October 10 , 2017 deceptive stipulation
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/15-O-10110-2.pdf with Stein signed on the same day
the 3DCA unlawful opinion in anti -SLAPP motion was issued by 3DCA Waszczuk v. Regents
of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017)
I do not believe that 3DCA Presiding Justice Raye had anything to do with the
unpublished opinion in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App.
Oct. 10, 2017) (anti-SLAPP motion). The opinion was unlawfully fabricated by the friends of
the Porter Scott attorneys employed by 3DCA and stamped .
A year earlier, on July 29, 2016, 3DCA issued a certified opinion for publication in the
ant-SLAPP motion Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 (Cal. Ct.
App. 2016), by Justices Vance Raye, George Nicholson, and Kathleen Butz. That Opinion
was delivered saying:
- 14 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for
the redress of grievances.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (a).) It has
been suggested that “[t]he cure has become the disease—SLAPP
motions are now just the latest form of abusive litigation.” (Navellier
v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 96 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.) (Navellier).)
And the disease would become fatal for most harassment, discrimination,
and retaliation actions against public employers if we were to accept the
Regents of the University of California’s (University) misguided reading
of the anti-SLAPP law and reverse the trial court’s denial of its motion
to strike. We agree with plaintiff Un Hui Nam that defendant did not
sustain its burden to demonstrate that the gravamen of her claims for
sexual harassment and retaliation arose from defendant’s protected First
Amendment activity. The trial court’s order therefore is affirmed.”
I was also unaware in August and September 2016 that, after the 3DCA
issued its opinion in Nam, The UC Regents, on September 27, 2016, filed a request
with the California Supreme Court to rescind its publication. The request was denied
on November 22, 2016.
The Nam case is from same UCDMC, and Ms. Nam was terrorized and sexually
harassed by the order of the same gangsters in its human resources department who were
the Defendants in my wrongful termination case and 3DCA anti-SLAPP motion appeal.
After Justice Raye, on October 10, 2017, delivered to me his unpublished
opinion that was the opposite of the opinion in Nam’s anti-SLAPP motion, now way I
can see how Raye could praise the theft of $20,000 and describe it as a minor
- 15 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
transgression. None of the justices who delivered the opinion in Nam are working in
3DCA any longer.
VII.
THE AFTERMATH OF THE REMITTITUR ISSUED ON JANUARY 18,
2018 IN WASZCZUK V. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL., NO. C079524 (CAL. CT.
APP. OCT. 10, 2017) (ANTI- SLAPP MOTION )
For known reasons, two of The Regents’ attorneys, David Burkett and Daniel
Bardzell, bypassed Judge Brown from Department 53 to employ Judge Christopher
Krueger, from Dept. 54, and Judge Jennifer Rockwell, from Dept. 37, to end my
lawsuit against The Regents via motion for termination sanctions in October 2018.
On October 3, 2018, Burket and Bardzell a filed motion for termination sanction
in Dept. 54 (Attachment #7 on the flash drive and DVD) and simultaneously filed an
Application and Order for Appearance and Examination on October 11, 2018 in Dept 37,
to frame me for a bench warrant and extract information about my wife’s bank and
401(K) retirement accounts.
Judges Rockwell and Krueger are friends who knew each other before they were
appointed to the bench; they worked for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in the
same office on State v. All Persons, 152 Cal.App.4th 1386 (Cal. Ct.App. 2007). Judge
Krueger’s wife, Kris Burks, is employed in 3DCA as a senior research attorney,
On November 7, 2018, Judge Rockwell, from Department 37, signed an
Application and Order for Appearance and Examination in violation of the 45-day
- 16 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
requirement (Civil Code of Procedure§§ 491.110, 708.110, 708.120, & Sacramento
Superior Court Local Rule 2.1, (Attachment #8 on the flash drive and DVD).
On October 14, 2018, I alerted Court Clerk by the letter in Department 53 about
The Regents evil intention to obtain termination sanctions from Judge Krueger
(Attachment #9 on the flash drive and DVD).
B. The Regents’ Attorneys Bullying Tactics Aimed at Judge David Brown from
Department 53 to Obtain Termination Sanctions November 2018- December
2019
- 17 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
and saw that he did not like what the attorneys representing The Regents were doing to me
and how they tried to force him to give them what they wanted.
The Regents attorneys’ over one year long multiple attempts to eliminate me from
court through bullying tactics aimed at Judge Brown clearly show that The Regents had
no chance to prevail with Judge Brown in any Summary Judgement Motion they might
have filed. Apparently, Brown realized that he had been drawn into a dirty game against
me in 2014 by a Porter Scott attorney and my former attorney Stein’s old friendship to
end my wrongful termination lawsuit. If The Regents had lost a summary judgment
motion and filed an appeal, they would have had a slim chance to prevail in 3DCA before
Presiding Justice Raye after Raye ruled against them in Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the
Univ. of Cal., 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016, https://casetext.com/case/un-hui-
nam-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal).
VIII.
THE REGENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN THE
SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT WRONGFUL TERMINATION CASE
- 18 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK V. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 34-2013- 00155479, FILED DECEMBER 4, 2013
On April 22, 2021, I was served, at my residence in Lodi, CA, the following hand-
delivered Court documents:
- 19 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
• CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) for Personal Appearance and Production
of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things and Trial or
Hearing and Declaration Issued to IRINA WASZCZUK by Olatomiwa T. Aina
on April 22, 2021 (Attachment #11 on the flash drive and DVD)
• An unsigned by a judge APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE
AND EXAMINATION with a court hearing date of May 7, 2021 at 9:00 A.M. in
Department 43 (Attachment #12 on the flash drive and DVD)
The above documents were served to me on April 22, 2021 with the name IRINA
WASZCZUK, of 95242, in relation to unlawful legal fees awarded in an anti-SLAPP
motion by Judge Brown in 2015. This was granted to The Regents after my former
attorney Stein conspired with The Regents’ attorney to end my litigation in December
2014. I have already provided information about what Dresser did in this matter, together
with Investigator Laura Sharek and Deputy Trial Counsel Laura Huggins in 2015–
2017. I responded to Aina’s request, which violated the 45 days rule, and sent a copy of
the response to Court Department 43. Aina resigned from her position at Porter Scott a
few days later (Attachment #13 on the flash drive and DVD).
After receiving a copy of my response to Aina, the Court Clerk altered the date on the
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE by hand and filed the stamped
application with Judge Thadd Blizzard on May 7, 2021 showing a new examination date of
July 2, 2021. The attorney could have simply written to my wife, Irena, and asked her to pay
the unlawfully awarded legal fees for the 2014 anti-SLAPP motion. In 2019, my wife gave
me $25,000 to pay these fees, but the attorneys did not want the money. They wanted
termination sanctions and to clean out her bank and 401(K) accounts. The attorneys had
already been paid the anti-SLAPP motion fees by The Regents’ insurance company,
- 20 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., but the eight years of litigation involved more
than fraudulent anti-SLAPP motion fees.
C. April 26, 2021 The Regents’ Ex-Parte Application for Leave to Extend Page
Limit for Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment or, in The Alternative,
Summary Adjudication
On April 26, 2021, simultaneous to the attack on my wife and in a scenario similar to
October–November 2018, The Regents’ two new attorneys, Goulding and her assistant Aina,
submitted to the Court an ex parte application for leave to extend the page limit. I noticed that
Goulding did not provide the number of the court department or judge’s name on the
application. This immediately suggested to me that something unusual was going on. I
quickly found that Judge Brown, who had presided over my cases since September 2014,
had left Department 53 at the end of December 2020, three years before his term was to end,
and he had been replaced by Judge Shama Hakim Mesiwala. I responded to Goulding’s
letter reminding her what her colleagues Burkett and Bardzel did in October 2018, bypassing
Judge Brown in an attempt to obtain termination sanctions from Judge Christopher Kreuger
(Attachment #14 on the flash drive and DVD).
I did not at that time realize that Dresser had launched a witch hunt investigation aimed at
3DCA Presiding Justice Vance Raye and caused Brown’s resignation.
The Judge Shama H. Mesiwala was a central staff attorney at 3DCA for 1.5 years, followed
by serving as a chambers attorney for Justice Robie for 11 years. She was appointed
commissioner in 2017 and, 10 months later, a judge in Sacramento County Superior Court
(January 2021) (https://www.courts.ca.gov/75426.htm).
- 21 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
included Chief Justice Guerrero (Chair), Attorney General Rob Bonta, and Acting Presiding
Justice Ronald B. Robie (see https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/commission-confirms-
appointment-third-district-court-appeal).
E. The Regents’ May 14, 2021 Motion for Summary Judgment or, in The
Alternative, Summary Adjudication In the Wrongful Termination Case Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California
On May 14 , 2021, with the arrival of a new Judge Shama Mesiwala in Department 53,
Goulding filed a massive amount of papers that were supposed to be a motion for summary
judgment (MSJ). This was coordinated with an ambush aimed at my wife’s bank and 401(K)
accounts. The MSJ was filed for the SAC and remined me of the COAs crafted by my former
attorney to steal my money and end my lawsuit in December 2014 (Attachment #15 on the
flash drive and DVD).
F. June 18, 2021 Motion to Recall the Remittitur and Request for Judicial Notice in
Support in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10,
2017)
In response to Goulding’s MSJ and attack on my wife, on June 18, 2021 I filed a Motion to
Recall Remittitur (Attachment #16 on the flash drive and DVD) and Request for Judicial
Notice in Support (Attachment #17 on the flash drive and DVD) to modify the October 10,
2017 3DCA fraudulent and unlawful unpublished opinion in the anti-SLAPP motion
Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017), which was
filed on December 1, 2014. As noted previously, this opinion never should have been issued.
However, Dresser’s interference and meddling in the judicial process in 2015–2017 made
it happen.
I forwarded a copy of the motion to recall remittitur and judicial notice with a cover letter to
the Clerk in Department 53 (Judge Mesiwala) with a request to file the copy (Attachment
#18 on the flash drive and DVD).
- 22 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
G. Judge Shama H. Mesiwala’s Disqualification
- 23 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
My wife, IRENA WASZCZUK, who has been the target of the Porter Scott attorneys’
criminal activities since February 2015, arrived with me and my good friend and former co-
worker from the UC Davis Medical Center, WILLIAM BUCKANS, who has been a witness
to Goulding’s set attack aimed at my wife. Buckans has always attended the court hearings in
Sacramento Court with me, due to the previous vile threats by Porter Scott’s attorneys in the
Court against me and my wife. The threats have been reported to the Court and the State Bar.
Upon arrival in Dept. 43, I noticed on the information board that Porter Scott attorney
Derek Hayes was listed in this attack aimed at my 70 years old wife.. However, Hayes was
not present. The Regents Attorney Lindsay Goulding appeared at the hearing and said she
was the one who was set and running whole interrogation . After the bailiff checked the
names the court clerk or judge’s assistant whose name I do not know became very rude and
pushy to get my wife interrogated. Then, I asked her what happened to my June 30, 2021 Ex
Parte Application for a continuance of this interrogation. She rudely responded that she did
not get the document and tried to begin my wife’s interrogation. The Court received my Ex-
Parte application on June 30, 2021 a same day it was filed in the Court by Rapid Legal
Services https://rapidlegal.com/ (ROA #262 Sacramento Superior Court Wrongful Termination
Case No. 34-2013-00155479 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California)
Goulding was sitting there, but said nothing. Finally, I told the clerk that there would be
no interrogation of my wife in this courtroom, and I informed her that I had a check in the
amount of $22,284 to pay whatever should be paid. The court clerk did not like this and tried
to force my wife to be interrogated by Goulding anyway .She tried to cut me out, stating that
I was not a party of this proceeding . I told her again that there would be no interrogation of
my wife, and I asked Goulding to whom I should write the check. The clerk interfered and
said that she does not know how to proceed. She then went to the judge’s chambers to get the
judge. After 10 minutes, Judge Blizzard appeared on the bench completely disoriented and
unprepared for the hearing and not knowing what the interrogation was to be about. He
started looking with the clerk for a Polish translator for my wife, even though I had written a
- 24 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
check for $22,284.in my hand. Finally, I forced Goulding to look at the check, which I
issued to the UC Regents and showed her my wife’s most recent Bank of America statement,
which verified that there were more than enough funds to cover the $22,284 .. Goulding did
not expect such an outcome when trying to set up my wife for the Bench Warrant to frame
her for criminal prosecution and to break into her bank account and her 401(K) life savings.
Judge Blizzard had no idea about these events because, apparently his clerk did not give
him to read my June 30, 2021 Ex Parte Application for a continuance of the hearing, which
included a copy of the Motion to Recall Remittitur, a copy for Judicial Notice (without
exhibits), and other attachments relevant to the ant-SLAPP motion legal fees. Goulding left
the court with the $22,284 bluntly stolen from wife’s account. I warned her not to harass
my wife anymore. Judge Blizzard issued a Court order to further intimidate my wife by
ordering her to return on August 6, 2021 if the case is not settled. The return hearing was set
just two days after the scheduled Court Hearing in Dept. 54 for Motion for Summary
Judgment before Judge Krueger
After this ambush - appearance in Dept. 43 on July 2, 2021 at 9:00 A.M., where
my wife paid a $22,284 ransom to Goulding, I noticed that the Court Dept . 43 issued an
order which filed together with a court order stating that Judge Sharma H. Mesiwala had
been disqualified, pursuant to CCP Section 170.6.
The Court Order dated July 2, 2021 stated :
Requested Examinee, Irma Waszczuk, was present with the Plaintiff, Jaroslaw
Waszczuk. The Plaintiff provided a check to Defendant's counsel in court.
Counsel accepted the check.
This matter is continued to August 6, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 43, all
parties are ordered to return. If the matter is settled by that date, Defendant's
counsel will contact the Court to drop the hearing.
It was not coincident that The Regents friends in 3DCA waited 19 days to file
on July 7, 2021, my Motion to Recall Remittitur submitted to 3DCA on June 18, 2021 to stop
Regents attorneys uncontrolled criminals activities in the Sacramento Courts and to prevent
- 25 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
money theft from my wife .
I am quite confident that I and my wife are not the only victims of criminals activities who
infiltrated the Sacramento courts .
Also on July 2, 2021, my wrongful termination case and the MSJ previously set for
8/4/2021 in Department 53 at 1:30 pm was reset for 8/4/2021 in Department 54 at 9:00 a.m.
(before Judge Krueger). Krueger and Judge Rockwell, in October –November 2018, were
employed by The Regents’ attorney to eliminate my wrongful termination lawsuit by
termination sanctions and to frame me for criminal prosecution in the same scenario as they
attempted with my wife in April–July 2021.
IX.
JULY 26, 2021 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY
FILED BY THE REGENTS’ ATTORNEY LINDSAY GOULDING
On July 26, 2021, Goulding filed a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING
ATTORNEY stating:
- 26 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
my knowledge, Burkett has been employed by Knox, Lemmon & Anapolsky, LLP since
October 2019.
Pott previously cut a deal with my former attorney Stein to decimate my original complaint. I
fired Stein in December 2017, and Pott left his firm one month later. Since then, Pott has been
employed by PRISM, in Folsom, CA. I had no clue what he was doing listed in a filing on my
case in 2021 along with Burkett.
Derek J. Haynes was a Porter Scott attorney who briefly appeared in my case in 2019 along
with Amanda Iler. He still works for Porter Scott.
X.
THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE GEORGE A. ACERO
A. August 4, 2021 Minute Court Order
After I saw Acero’s name on the Court Order as a judge, I learned that he had been
appointed to the bench by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 25, 2021. This is why
Porter Scott’s attorneys ceased all activities in my litigation and attacks in my case. They
knew that The Regents were working very hard with Governor Newsom and Chief of
Commission on Judicial Performance Dresser to replace inconvenient for them Judge
Brown with Judge Mesiwala, adding Acero as a Law & Motion Backup, in Departments
53 & 54, and to reorganize the 3DCA & Supreme Court by saying good bye to 3DCA
Presiding Justice Vance Raye and Supreme Chief Justice Tani-Cantil Sakauye .
- 28 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
the university’s tax-exempt status, Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 501(c)(3), and the State
of California Revenue and Taxation Code. From 2005–2008, a witch hunt was instigated
by UC Vice President Judith Boyette, an attorney who specializes in litigation regarding
tax-exempt entities. In 2008, Boyette left the University of California, but she resurfaced
in 2016 after being appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to a three-year term, from
June 2016–June 2019, https://www.hansonbridgett.com/Our-Attorneys/judith-w-boyette,
to the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities. She made sure
that my whistleblower claim would not surface; please see my September 19, 2023
Motion to Recall the Mandate in the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue Services Case No. No. 20-1407 (Attachment #20 on the flash drive
and DVD).
Acero resigned from Porter Scott in 2008, at relatively the same time that I defeated The
Regents in arbitration to restore my employment and position at the UCDMC’s 27-MW
cogeneration plant. Even though Acero was no longer affiliated with Porter Scott, he did not
stop representing the University of California’s administrators in the lawsuits brought against
them by aggravated employees who had been subject to wrongful termination.
Acero resurfaced in 2013, after my employment with UCDMC was terminated due to a
second witch hunt orchestrated by The Regents or, more precisely, by the white collar
criminals from the UC Office of the President (UCOP), in Oakland, CA.
On May 14, 2013, six months after my employment was terminated, Acero’s
friend from the UCDMC Risk Management Department, Analyst Maria Garcia,
forwarded to UCDMC Human Resources Labor Relations Department (HRLR) manager
Travis Lindsay some of my old writings on the Davis Vanguard blog about the UC
Davis’s unconstitutional pamphlet titled “UC Davis Principles of Community.” It has
notoriously been used to punish complaining employees or whistleblowers. Garcia was
heavily involved in my employment termination as early as March 2007, when she served
- 29 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
as a communicator between attorneys and management from Human Resources, the
UCOP, and the UC Office of the General Counsel regarding the progress of termination
of employment and, thereafter, the resulting litigation (Attachment #21 on the flash
drive and DVD).
Pott’s name resurfaced on April 2, 2013, in e-mail correspondence between UC Davis
Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo and HRLR manager Travis Lindsay.
Lindsay’s email stated (Attachment #22 on the flash drive and DVD):
I just left you a voice message. Jerry’s step 2 meeting is today at 1:00 at Davis
campus. Mike Boyd is the step 2 officer and Gina Harwood is attending on behalf
of HR.
I think we need to avoid giving Jerry the impression that we expect him to be
unsuccessful at step 2. Also, we have no guarantee that he will appeal to step 3. I
expect him to, but he didn’t appeal his previous suspension past step 2. Could you
say that the University is holding his whistle blower complaint in abeyance
pending the outcome of his PPSM 70 complaint, and if that complaint ends up at
step 3 the whistle blower complaint will we reviewed by the arbitrator?
Travis
P.S. If we end up at step 3 Michael Pott from Porter Scott will be the
University’s advocate. We expect Jerry to sue us at some point and thought it
would be a good idea to involve outside counsel prior to that point to put us in as
good of a position as possible.
Pott and Acero, working as the University’s advocates in 2005–2008, lost the arbitration in
2008 that Delmendo was worried about. The witch hunt of 2005–2008, especially in 2005–
2007, was almost identical to the one of 2011–2012, including but not limited to fabricated
accusations. Acero’s and Pott’s fingerprints were very visible in both efforts. In May 2013,
when Acero sent his e-mail to Garcia, he was representing The Regents in the wrongful
- 30 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
termination lawsuit filed by a UCDMC employee in Sacramento County Superior Court, Um
Hui Nam v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-00138396-
CUWTGDS; see also Acero’s anti-SLAPP motion in this case (Attachment #23 on the flash
drive and DVD). Acero’s anti -SLAPP motion became a subject of 3DCA Presiding
Justice Vance Raye’s comments in the Un Hui Nam opinion, in which he said:
It has been suggested that “[t]he cure has become the disease—
SLAPP motions are now just the latest form of abusive litigation.”
(Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 96, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 530, 52
P.3d 703 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.) (Navellier ).) And the disease would
become fatal for most harassment, discrimination, and retaliation actions
against public employers if we were to accept the Regents of the
University of California’s (University) misguided reading of the anti-
SLAPP law and reverse the trial court’s denial of its motion to strike.
This opinion was somehow forgotten by 3DCA in my appeal and in the 3DCA opinion
on Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017),
which was fabricated by Michael Pott in conspiracy with my former attorney Stein and in
collusion with Judge Brown.
The anti-SLAPP motion concerning Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524
(Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) was the second-most fraudulent and fabricated anti-SLAPP
motion The Regents’ attorneys filed. It was also the most expensive. My estimate is that,
from December 1, 2014, when Pott filed the motion, to July 2, 2021, when Lindsay
Goulding robbed my wife of $22,284 from her savings, The Regents or owners/co-
owners of the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant lost approximately $100 million
in tax-free money, perhaps more. This all could have been avoided if The Regents or
University administrators in Oakland had not listened to Acero, Pott, Goulding, and
other criminally minded advocates like Gregory Dresser and allowed me to retire from
the university in 2017 as I had planned. Evidence of my plans can be found with my
- 31 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
signing with the Regents a Settlement Agreement on January 30, 2009, as it guaranteed
me a job with the university until my retirement.
After I addressed Acero in my August 13, 2021 Opposition to the Motion For Summary
Judgment (p. 21) (Attachment #24 on the flash drive and DVD), and in Declaration in
Support of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities Motion for Reconsideration (pp.
5–9) on September 22, 2021 (Attachment #25 on the flash drive and DVD). Acero’s
name never re-appeared in my wrongful termination case, which has now gone on for 10
years.
XI.
THE COURT HEARING HELD VIA ZOOM, SEPTEMBER 1, 2021, IN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR DEPARTMENT 54 BEFORE HON.
CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
- 32 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
conspiracy with The Regents’ attorney.
The Regents’ attorney Lindsay Goulding, who fabricated and filed the MSJ on May 14, 2014
and robbed my 70 years old wife of $22,284 did not appear at the September 1, 2021 MSJ
hearing. Another Porter Scott attorney, Thomas Riordan, appeared for her, despite not being a
legal counsel of record in the case. Throwing Riordan into the game was no coincidence.
During the short hearing, Judge Krueger and Riordan acted like old friends. Riordan’s
(https://www.porterscott.com/person/thomas-l-riordan/) record in the State Bar database
(http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/104827) shows that he has quite a history
of professional misconduct, including multiple acts of violating court orders and findings of
contempt and harming the administration of justice (see
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/02-O-11078.pdf). Riordan worked for three years as
a research attorney with the 3DCA in Sacramento, where Judge Krueger’s wife, Kristine L.
Burks, is employed as a senior research attorney.
C. The Reason I was cut off after 10 minutes and denied being heard by Judge
Krueger -Re: The Regents Power Purchase Agreement with Sacramento
Municipal Utility District
I was cut off short during the hearing because I was ready to present exhibits about May 11–
31, 2012 events related to why someone from the UCOP had, at the last minute, made the
decision to keep me from returning to work on May 31, 2012, after a forced 10-month
absence. My return had been planned, and I had been ordered in a letter from my department
manager to report to work on May 31, 2012.
On May 31, 2012, The Regents finalized a power purchase agreement (PPA) with
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) to resume the sale of surplus power from the
- 33 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration, which had ceased after The Regents signed a Settlement
Agreement with me on January 30, 2009 (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/622460131/2012-UCDMC-27-MW-Cogenaration-Plant-
Power-Purchase-Agreement-with-SMUD). This cost them, or the co-owners of the plant,
millions of tax-free dollars. Just before Judge Krueger cut me off and ended the hearing, I had
in my hand a copy of the PPA, which I wanted to discuss in relation to the termination of my
employment. Most likely, if the hearing had been taking place in a courtroom, perhaps it
would have been a different story, but via Zoom and visible on YouTube, it was inconvenient
for Judge Krueger to listen to my testimony about violations of the university’s tax-exempt
status, millions of dollars tax evasion, and fraud due to violation of IRC 501(c)(3).
D. The Court hearing on September 1, 2021 with Judge Christopher Krueger Never
Should Have Taken Place
First, as I have pointed out many times before, I never had any intention of dealing with The
Regents’ tax evasion and fraud. During the course of my employment with the UCDMC as an
operator of the 27-MW cogeneration power plant (June 1999–April 2007), as an Associate
Development Engineer (February 2009–December 2012), and for three years thereafter, it
never crossed my mind that I would be hunted down because of a power sale worth millions
of tax-free dollars (see https://www.scribd.com/document/666103401/Jaroslaw-Waszczuk-s-
Work-History-With-UC-Davis-Medical-Center-1999-2012).
The Court records show that, from June 1999 through September 2015, the power sale by the
UCDMC’s cogeneration plant was never mentioned until I wrote my 300-page-long Third
Amended Complaint (TAC) and forwarded a copy of it to State Bar Chief Trial Counsel’s
Office Investigator Amanda Gormley, on September 25, 2015. Then, Interim Chief Counsel
Gregory Dresser removed her from the complaint against my former attorney, Douglas
Stein. She and my complaint vanished together for another two years. From June 1999
through June 2015, I thought that the Public Utility Regulatory Power Act of 1978, known as
- 34 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
PURPA, did not apply to public entities like the University of California. I never thought, or
cared, about this. Most likely, even if I had known, I would have kept my mouth shut, due my
experiences with my previous employer, Destec Energy Inc. (1989–1998), see
https://www.scribd.com/document/489028741/February-1999-Fire-in-My-Daughter-s-
Apartment-San-Carlos-California.
Second, Dresser’s conspiracy against me on The Regents’ behalf in October 2015 might
have made sense, because the PPA signed on May 31, 2012 between The Regents and SMUD
was not used, and on March 27, 2014, The Regents registered themselves with the California
Public Utilities Commission as an Electric Service Provider (ESP). On December 22, 2014,
The Regents successfully completed the Congestion Revenue Rights registration process with
California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The full story is in my addendum to IRS
FORM 2011, which I submitted to the IRS Whistleblower Office on September 3, 2022
(Attachment #27 on flash drive and DVD,see
https://www.scribd.com/document/600581546/09-03-2022-IRS-WBO-ICE-FORM-211-
APPLICATION-FOR-AWARD-Polish-Refugee-v-University-of-California-White-Collar-
Crime).
Third, tax evasion amounting to millions of dollars is a serious crime. Dresser’s meddling in
and tampering with the judicial process by holding the executive position with the State Bar’s
Chief Trial Counsel office and serving as the Director and Chief Counsel of the Commission
on Judicial Performance is very troubling. Taking into consideration that Sacramento
Superior Court Judge David I. Brown was bullied for more than a full year (November 2018–
December 2019) by The Regents’ attorneys and then forced by Dresser to resign in 2020
because he refused to meet their demand to serve me with termination sanctions to end my
litigation against them, it is safe to say that summary judgments would never have been
granted to The Regents if Judge Brown had remained in Department 53. Furthermore, The
Regents’ attorneys would never have filed the motion for summary judgement if Brown had
- 35 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
been in charge of Department 53 in 2021. They waited for several years, until The Regents,
with Dresser’s help, installed two new judges in Sacramento County Superior Court, Shama
Hakim Mesiwala, who replaced Judge Brown, and George A. Acero, who as an attorney
specialized in destroying University of California employees’ lives if they dared to complain
about the university’s management. Acero was installed as a back-up judge in Law and
Motion Departments 53 and 54.
Fourth, the September 1, 2021 Zoom hearing would not have taken place if the June 18, 2021
Motion to Recall the Remittitur issued on January 18, 2018 and the Request for Judicial Notice
of the rigged and totally unlawful October 10, 2017 opinion in anti-SLAPP motion Waszczuk
v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) had not been filed. The
Motion was denied on July 15, 2021 by 3DCA Presiding Justice Vance Raye’s rubber stamp. I
did not know in July 2021 that Raye was under siege from Dresser and The Regents for removal
from his post in 3DCA. I found about that when my appeal of Judge Krueger’s August 31, 2021
MSJ, fabricated by a Porter Scott attorney’s order and October 10, 202 judgment was pending
in 3DCA. The appeal was rigged in 2022 by manipulation of the record on appeal.
XII.
MY INQUIRES WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE IN 2021
In July 2021 after Porter Scott\s Attorney Lindsay Goulding who represents The Regents
ambushed my 70 years old wife and stole from her $22,284 in Sacramento County Superior
Court Department 43 in attempt to frame her for criminal prosecution and clean out her
accounts to convince me to drop the litigations against The Regents than I alerted
Commission on Judicial (Commission) performance about the crime because of involvement
- 36 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
in the crime Judge from Department 43 Thadd Blizzard and his clerk . My inquiry was not a
official complaint against Judge .
On September 16, 2021 I received a response to my worries from the Commission Secretary
to the Trial Counsel Ms. Michelle Kem.(Kem) . (Attachment # 28 on Flash Drive and
DVD). I replayed to Kem on October 8, 2021 (Attachment # 29 on Flash Drive and DVD).
- 37 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
The lawsuit was filed in relation to the 2011 student protest on the UC Davis campus, which
was used for an ill-crafted paper spray provocation to remove UC Davis Chancellor Linda
Katehi, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza, Lt. John Pike, and Captain Joyce Souza
from their posts. The Baker case was filed three weeks after the January 31, 2012 raid on my
psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft’s home in Lodi by the California Department of Social
Services in a witch hunt orchestrated by Dooley and his wife Diana Dooley, who was the
Secretary of California Health and Human Services.
(Attachment # 31 on Flash Drive and DVD).
Two weeks after I received the Letter of Termination, the parties in Baker v. Katehi et al.
filed a final proposed order to settle the case after a settlement agreement was stipulated on
September 26, 2012. The order had been signed by US District Court Eastern District of
California Judge John A. Mendez. My termination with UC Davis Medical Center was
precisely coordinated with the Baker case and settlement agreement by the UC General
Counsel’s office and three Porter Scott attorneys, Nancy J. Sheehan,
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sacbee/name/nancy-sheehan-
obituary?id=2059585Terence J. Cassidy,
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sacbee/name/terence-cassidy-
obituary?id=30483812 and Katherine Mola
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/264625 who represented the
Defendants in a lawsuit related to the November 18, 2011 pepper spray provocation to oust
Katehi and the three UC Davis police officers. At the UCDMC, the coordinators were Porter
Scott attorney Michael Pott https://www.prismrisk.gov/about-prism/news/new-prism-coo-
mike-pott/ and former Porter Scott attorney George Acero. https://law.ucdavis.edu/deans-
blog/george-acero-friend-king-hall-sworn-sacramento-superior-court-judge. . Both were
- 38 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
advising the UCDMC human resources department on how to proceed with the termination of
my employment.
XIII.
NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RECORD ON APPEAL IN THE 3DCA CASE
WASZCZUK V. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, NO.
C095488 - IN RELATION TO GREGORY DRESSER’S WITCH HUNT AIMED AT
3DCA PRESIDING JUSTICE VANCE RAYE AND RAYE’S REMOVAL FROM HIS
POST ON JUNE 1, 2022
A. Notice of Appeal
On December 23, 2021, I filed a Notice of Appeal concerning the October 28, 2021
Motion of Summary Judgment signed by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge
Christopher E. Krueger, from Department 54, which was docketed in 3DCA on
December 29, 2021 (Attachment #32 on flash drive and DVD).
B. Appellant’s Notice Designating Record on Appeal, Filed January 31, 2022
On January 31, 2022, I filed a Notice Designating Record on Appeal that requested the
production and transmittal to 3DCA 147 listed and described Court documents from the case
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-
00155479, filed on December 4, 2013, and the cross-connected case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest
(RPii)—The Regents of the University of California (The Regents), Case No. 34-2013-
80001699. The notice also requested the production of the Court Reporter’s Transcript
from the September 1, 2021 Court hearing VIA Zoom before Judge Krueger, which lasted
- 39 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
only 10 minutes (Court hearing for Motion for Summary Judgment, Attachment #33 on
flash drive and DVD).
2) The CT was certified on April 22, 2022 by Sacramento County Superior Court
Appellate Department CLERK KEVIN MICHAUD with his initials KM .
3) The DECLARATION OF MAILING, which should be dated and signed under penalty
of perjury by the Sacramento County Superior Court Clerk, most likely by KEVIN
MICHOUD, was left blank (undated and unsigned), rendering it basically invalid, and it
contained the wrong name of the Defendants’ attorney, Douglas Ropel, who does not
work for Porter Scott and has not represented the UC Regents since March 2016
- 40 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
(https://www.littler.com/lawyer-search?lawyer_auto=ropel,
4) The CRT from the September 1, 2021 Court Hearing with Judge Krueger, which was
due to be produced and transmitted to 3DCA by May 9, 2022, was not produced and
transmitted to 3DCA at all. The NOTICE to prepare CRT by the Court Reporter stated as
follows :
Appeal from the Honorable Judge DAVID BROWN instead of Judge
CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that you and each of you are hereby directed to
commence preparation of the REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT on Appeal in the
above-entitled action. The Appeal is to the THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL and the transcript is to contain the following dates, as designated by the
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
COURT DATES (CSR) NUMBE COURT REPORTER'S NAM
09/01/ 89 T. Tavale
Please notify the Appeals Unit in writing before the due date if no transcript
will be filed. Requests for an extension of time from the Third District Court of
Appeal should be filed prior to the due date.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this notice was sent to the aforementioned reporters
and the Court Reporter Supervisor via interoffice Email.
The above Notice to Prepare Court Reporter Transcript was supposedly sent by Clerk
- 41 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
KEVIN MICHAUD to Court Reporter TINA TAVALERO via interoffice mail with the
misleading statement that the Appeal was from Judge Brown, who resigned from
Department 53 in December 2020, and the CRT was from the September 1, 2021 hearing
with JUDGE CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER from Department 54.
On June 27–28, 2022 I learned via an e-mail chat between Executive Analyst from
the Court Reporter’s Board of California, Paula Bruning, and Sacramento County Superior
Court Reporters Valerie Haley and Tina Tavalero that Ms. Halley had not received any
appeal notice in Waszczuk v. the Regents of the University of California for the 9/1/2022
Court Hearing with Judge Krueger, but she produced the CRT for the Porter Scott
attorneys representing the UC Regents.
I examined again the April 8, 2022 Notice of Filing of Designation and Notice to
Reporters to Prepare Transcripts, which was sent by Deputy Clerk Kevin Michaud, from
Appeals Unit Room 102, under penalty of perjury, and discovered that a Notice was sent to
Ms. Tavalero with a due date to produce transcripts on appeal.
I forwarded Ms. Bruning’s e-mail to Ms. Tavalero, and Ms. Tavalero responded that she
had nothing to do with the CRT from the September 1, 2022 Court Hearing with Judge
Krueger. She stated in her email response:
I was not the court reporter for this case. My name was put on the appeal notice
by mistake. It had another court reporter's CSR No. and my name. I checked all
my notes and I was not the reporter on this. I sent a declaration to the 3DCA
stating that I was listed by mistake and I have no notes for any of the proceedings.
( See: Tina Tavalero Declaration in the case C095488 docket)
However, in her June 28, 2012 e-mail response, Ms. Tavalero did not state whether
she ever received the April 8, 2022 Notice of Filing of Designation and Notice to Reporters
to Prepare Transcripts, sent supposedly by Deputy Clerk Kevin Michaud, nor did she
comment on whether she had informed Michaud that she had nothing to do with the
September 1, 2021 hearing, or whether she advised Michaud that the notice had the wrong
Judge’s name on it.
- 42 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
How it is even possible for a Court Reporter to prepare a transcript on appeal per
notice from the Appellate Department with the wrong Judge on the notice? The above facts
of misconduct and raise serious questions that should be investigated and answered by
Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate Department Clerk KEVIN MICHAUD. This
is not a trivial matter. This is an obstruction of justice and unlawful interference with the
reviewing court’s proceedings.
Who FORCED OR COERCED the preparer of the CLERK TRANSCRIPT ON
APPEAL to deliberately and with malice and premeditation mislabel the CT with the wrong
judge’s name?
More precisely, who forced the CT preparer to replace JUDGE CHRISTOPHER
KRUEGER’S name with JUDGE DAVID BROWN from Department 53, and why? Judge
David Brown resigned in December 2020 two month after Commission on Judicial
Performance Director and chief Counsel Gregory Dresser launched witch hunt pseudo -
investigation against 3DCA Presiding Justice Vance Raye. Judge Brown had nothing to do
with The Regents Motion for Summary Judgment filed on May 14, 2021, which was
decided by JUDGE CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER on September 1, 2021 who to make
decision used the defective Second Amended Complaint which was filed on September
30,2014 in conspiracy of my former attorney Douglas stein with The Regents Attorney from
Porter Scott and to steal from me $ 20,000 and set me up for anti-SLAPP motion
Who forced KEVIN MICHAUD to certify the deliberately mislabeled and incomplete
CLERK TRANSCRIPT on appeal?
Who ordered KEVIN MICHAUD to withhold sending the CLERK TRANSCRIPT on
appeal to 3DCA for the next 68 days after its certification on April 22, 2022? The undated
and unsigned DECLARATION OF MAILING, which should have been signed by Michaud,
indicates that he perhaps did not want to deal with the orchestrated fraud, deception, and
unlawful interference with the reviewing court’s proceedings, and it needs to be investigated
who is behind this crime to derail the appeal process.
- 43 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
The superior court clerk must "promptly mail" to the Court of Appeal notification
of the filing of a notice of appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(c)(1).) "The
failure of a court reporter or clerk to perform any duty imposed by statute or these
rules that delays the filing of the appellate record is an unlawful interference with
the reviewing court's proceedings. . . ." ( Id., rule 8.23.) People v. Grimes, 172
Cal.App.4th 121 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)
Each item in the rules has the force of law (Carlson v. Department of Fish &
Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1272).
I outlined the details concerning how my appeal to 3DCA in Case C095488 was rigged by the
corrupted Court staff by manipulating and altering the record on appeal in my August 29,
2023 Inquiry/Request titled “Request for the 3DCA Clerk’s Office to transmit the
Supplemental Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal and Clerk’s Transcript Volume 1 to the Supreme
Court of California in the above-captioned Case No. C095488,” which I submitted to 3DCA
Clerk/Executive Officer Colette M. Bruggman on August 29, 202. and to California Supreme
Court Senior Deputy Robert Troy on September 7, 2023, together with a Petition for Review
(Attachment #34 on flash drive and DVD). Copies of my inquires to 3DCA and the
Supreme Court were also provided to Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge
Michael G. Bowman.
It is not difficult to conclude that, in Sacramento County Superior Court, the Appellate
Department Clerk Kevin Michaud by in April–June 2022, acted with malice to rig my
3DCA appeal by the orders of someone above him. Michaud was ordered to withhold the
incomplete and deceptively mislabeled record on appeal until the Director and Chief Counsel
of the Commission of Judicial Performance, Gregory Dresser, conclude his witch hunt
aimed at 3DCA Chief Justice Vance Raye. This finally happened on June 1, 2022 when
Raye was removed from office (Attachment #35 on flash drive and DVD,
- 44 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
https://cjp.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/40/2022/06/Raye_DO_Pub_Admon_6-1-
22.pdf).
It is also not difficult to conclude that Dresser, or his office, communicated the progress of
the witch hunt aimed at Vance to the UCOP; UC Office of General Counsel; or Porter Scott
attorneys who are well connected with the staff, judges, and justices in the Sacramento
Courts.
After Raye was removed by Dresser, 3DCA Justice Ronald Robie was appointed, or
appointed himself, the 3DCA’s Acting Administrative Presiding Justice. He attached
himself to my appeal case C095488. Robie was on the panel of 3DCA Justices who
decided the anti-SLAPP motion appeal with the totally unlawfully issued opinion on
October 10, 2017 in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct.
10, 2017), https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal. This anti-
SLAPP motion, which never should have been issued, was the result of Dresser and Laura
Huggins tampering with and meddling in 3DCA’s judicial process between October 2015
and October 2017. This was repeated by Dresser in 2020–2023, and his interference in the
judicial process took a much more drastic form that included the removal Judge David I.
Brown from the Sacramento Superior Court, Justice Vance Raye from 3DCA, and the
resignation of Supreme Court of California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye shortly after
Raye was removed on June 1, 2022.
XIV.
MY OCTOBER 2022–MARCH 2023 INQUIRES WITH THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA’S COMMISSION (COMMISSION) ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE SECRETARY TO TRIAL COUNSEL MICHELLE KEM
A. October 14, 2022 Inquiry with 3DCA Acting Administrative Presiding Justice
Ronald Robie
- 45 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
As previously noted, after my wife was ambushed by The Regents’ attorneys in July
2021, when they stole $22,284 from her, I sporadically sent information to the
Commission’s Trial Counsel, Michelle Kem, informing her of what the Sacramento
Court and The Regents’ attorneys were doing in my wrongful termination case, which
has been pending for almost 10 years three different state Courts. If I had received the
information from Wells Fargo in January 2015 that I received in October–
December 2022, it would be a very different story.
After I learned in October 2022 what the Gold Business Services Package account was about,
I sent more specific inquiries to Ms. Kem requesting intervention in my case. What the two
Courts’ staff members and judges and justices were doing in my appeal of 3DCA Case
C095488 in 2022 and 2023 to derail it before a decision was issued was both troubling and
unprecedented.
On October 14, 2022, I faxed to the Commission my inquiry to the 3DCA Acting
Administrative Presiding Justice Ronald Robie, who replaced Justice Vance Raye on June 1,
2022. The issue was my Appellant’s Opening Brief. I titled the fax: “Nothing got better in
3DCA since Chief Justice Vance Raye left 3DCA. The enclosed documents are for your
review and serious consideration.”
On November 1, 2022, I received a short response from the Commission’s Secretary to Staff
Counsel, Mary Harvey, stating:
- 46 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
has no jurisdiction over court personnel. (Attachment # 36 on the flash
drive and DVD)
- 47 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
send my complaints to directly to Robie and to Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding
Judge Michael Bowman (Attachment #38 on the flash drive and DVD).
D. November 18 , 2022 Inquiry Addressed to Kem Addressing the Augmented
Record Appeal
In this inquiry, I addressed 3DCA’s November 14, 2022 Court Order, which granted the
Appellant’s motion to augment the record on appeal in part and denied it in part. The
manipulated record on appeal clearly shows that the whole appeal was rigged and the results
of the appeal were known to The Regents’ attorneys long before the unpublished opinion was
issued on July 28, 2023 as Waszczuk v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., No. C095488 (Cal. Ct.
App. July 28, 2023, Attachment #39 on the flash drive and DVD).
F. November 29 , 2022 Follow Up Inquiry Regarding my Request for Intervention
Addressed to Kem
This letter contained additional information following up on my Request for
Intervention and my response to the November 1, 2022 letter from Harvey, which was
submitted to Kem’s office on November 10, 2022 and November 18, 2002. I also enclosed a
copy of my request to open the 2011–2012 State of California Department of Insurance
Investigation (Claim CS13-6707505) into Liberty Assurance Company of Boston (acquired
by Lincoln National Life Insurance company on May 1, 2018), which wrongly denied my
2011 short-term/supplement disability claim #4154074. I provided an explanation in the letter
detailing why I had submitted a copy of my request to the State of California’s Department of
Insurance (Attachment #40 on the flash drive and DVD).
In this informational letter, I addressed The Regents’ attorney Karen Bray’s request for
an extension of time to file a Respondent Brief in 3DCA Case C095488 (Appeal), beyond an
- 48 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
already granted 60-day extension of time. The case has been unlawfully dragged out in the
courts for more than nine years without resolution, perhaps with the expectation that I will
eventually die.
I addition, I again addressed in the letter The Regents’ attorneys actions against my
wife and provided detailed information about how she was terrorized and traumatized before
$22,284 was stolen from her (Attachment #41 on the flash drive and DVD).
H. My March 3, 2023 Follow Up Inquiry Addressed to Kem Further Addressing
Bray’s Respondent Brief
My letter, in which I commented, “This is How the Holocaust Happened. Evil
Prevails when Good Men and Women Do Nothing,” addressed Bray’s behavior
further.
On March 1, 2023, I sent a letter to Bray about the Respondent Brief that was due
to be filed on February 16, 2023, after an extra 30 days’ extension had been granted
above the 60-day extension she had already been granted. Bray used her mother’s
death as an excuse for her failure to file (Attachment #42 on the flash drive and DVD,
https://www.scribd.com/document/629 1 79226/03-01-2023-Letter-to-Karen-Bray-
Failure-to-File-Respondents-Brief).
On February 17, 2023, 3DCA should have sent her a notification about her failure to file
the brief in a timely manner. On February 22, 2023, 1 sent a reminder to the 3DCA clerk
about the Brief not being filed. That same day, the clerk reminded Bray about her failure
to file.
A. Dresser’s Letter
Dresser’s short letter was a response to my March inquiry sent to Kem and the
members of the Commission on March 14, 2023. It stated (Attachment #44 on the flash
drive and DVD):
- 50 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
email. Please be advised that the commission is unable to assist you with
your request.
Dresser’s name sounded familiar to me. I came across it in lawsuits that were pending in
Sacramento County Superior Court at relatively the same time as my wrongful termination
case with same judge, David Brown, presiding. Those cases were Dina Padilla vs.
Commission on Judicial Performance, Case No. 34-2018-00242031-CU-MC-GDS, and
3DCA case Chodosh v. Comm’n on Judicial Performance, Case No. C091221, in which
Dresser was an individual defendant.
- 51 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
In the January 10, 2023 inquiry to Kem, I addressed Chodosh v. Commission
on Judicial Performance et al., Number C091221, in relation to my Appellant’s
motion to recall the remittitur and request for judicial notice filed on June 18, 2021 in
3DCA case No. C079524, Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California.
The motion to recall the remittitur and request for judicial notice was denied on July
15, 2021 by 3DCA Presiding Justice Raye, who was under investigation by Dresser
for alleged judicial misconduct. This happened two weeks after my wife was
ambushed Goulding as detailed above.
B. SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE dated September 8, 2017
After I received the March 15, 2022 letter from Dresser, I searched my computer for
Dresser’s name. Surprisingly, it appeared in a State Bar of California Office of Chief Trial
Counsel SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE dated September 8, 2017
(Attachment #46 on the flash drive and DVD).
The front page of the Acknowledgement of Receipt of Receipt of Subpoena, contained the
following senders names
• STEVEN J. MOAWAD, SBN 190358– CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
• GREGORY DRESSER, SBN 136532-DEPUTY CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
• SUSAN CHAN, SBN 233229 -ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
• ROBERT A. HENDERSON, SBN 173205 -SUPERVISING ATTORNEY
• LAURA HUGGINS , SBN 294148– DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL
In September 2017 I was unfamiliar with Steven J. Moawad . Susan Chan , Laura Huggins &
Gregory Dresser’s names . Only Robert A. Henderson’s name sounded familiar because he
on January 14, 2015 informed me that that Gormley had been assigned to investigate my
complaint under the direct supervision of Senior Trial Counsel Robin Brune
I looked at the subpoena and noticed Dresser’s name next to Chief Trial Counsel Steven J.
Moawad and Laura Huggins. What first came to mind were Gormley and Brune, who were
removed from Stein’s case in September 2015. The silence and lack of response from Kem
since October 2021, summarized by a meaningless half- page letter from Dresser on March
- 52 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
15, 2023, was nothing but repentance for the removal of Gormley and Brune in 2015 from
Stein’s case to cover up The Regents crimes amounted in the millions of dollars tax evasion
and fraud due to violation of the university exempt status IRC 501 ( c ) ( 3) and other state
and federal law .
I.
CONCLUSION
In light of the above facts and evidence, I am respectfully requesting that the State Bar
of California Chief Trial Counsel fully investigate the actions of October 2015–October
2017 by former Deputy Chief Trial Counsel Laura Huggins and her collaborators’
misconduct in relation to my complaint against my former attorney, Douglas Edward
Stein, and the crimes he committed, including but not limited to the theft of my retainer
money and the theft of unemployment insurance benefits.
In light of the above facts and evidence, I am respectfully requesting that the State Bar of
California Chief Trial Counsel fully investigate Gregory Dresser’s alleged criminal
misconduct, which includes and is not limited to tampering with and meddling in the
judicial process in my wrongful termination lawsuit of 2015–2018 and again in 2020–2023,
on behalf of The Regents of the University of California or executives from the UCOP, as
described in my complaint. Dresser’s actions have caused financial devastation and a
diminished quality of life in general for me and my family.
A complaint against several attorneys from the Porter Scott and Horvitz and Levy LLP law
firms will shortly follow this complaint.
_____________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
- 53 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
Evidence in the form of the attachments on the flash drive and DVD. Hard paper copies
are available upon request.
- 54 -
Complaint against Attorneys Gregory Dresser and Laura Huggins .
Filed 10/10/17 Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
1
shortcomings he cites. We need go no further than to answer the contentions he raises,
and in finding no merit in those claims, we affirm.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff, a Polish immigrant, feels deeply aggrieved by the University of
California (the University), his lawyer, the defense lawyer, and the trial judge. A brief
excerpt from a letter he sent to the general counsel for the University reflects his
bitterness as well as his belief that there is much more at stake than his mere wrongful
termination lawsuit. He wrote: “The stake in this lawsuit must be a lot bigger and more
important than the life of a 63-year-old Polish refugee who escaped communist
oppression and was promised protection from oppression in his new country by the US
government. Instead of protection from oppression, the Polish refugee received treatment
from the University of California that has been a lot worse than the treatment he received
in the Polish communist prison, where the communist’s prison guard was more respectful
to the political prisoners than UC management to its own employees.” His experience
has left him emotionally distraught. At the end of a hearing in the trial court, he
announced he was done and was going to go outside of the courtroom and shoot himself.
While plaintiff’s pain is clear, his legal analysis is not. We have carefully
scrutinized his briefs and the record in a diligent attempt to decipher his legal theories.
Much remains a mystery. We must reiterate what the trial court admonished plaintiff.
“At the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated like any
other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants
and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941,
944.) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct
rules of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also
Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984.” We add that plaintiff has an equal
responsibility to follow the California Rules of Court applicable to appeals, no matter
2
how sympathetic his claims may seem to himself or us. It is a responsibility he has
ignored to his peril.
Plaintiff’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules is his failure to cite to
the record.1 He makes grandiose accusations against the University for illegally
generating and selling electric power and for tax evasion, but those allegations are not
supported by citations to the record and are not relevant to the special motion to strike.
Plaintiff fails to appreciate the limited scope of our review, which stands in stark contrast
to the wide-ranging allegations plaintiff lodges which are untethered to the second
amended complaint or the special motion to strike. We are compelled to ignore any
factual allegations that are not supported by citations to the record.
Plaintiff loses this appeal, but it is not the end of his lawsuit for wrongful
termination. The trial court reminded plaintiff at the hearing on the special motion to
strike that the Regents of the University of California (the Regents) were not protected if
they discriminated or retaliated against him and, therefore, “[i]ndependent of the five
individuals who are before the Court on this motion, [plaintiff] still retains his right to sue
the Regents because they are still in the lawsuit and he’s still the plaintiff.” In this
context, we recite the brief facts relevant to the issues plaintiff raises on appeal.
1 An “appellant must support all statements of fact in his briefs with citations to the
record [citation] and must confine his statement ‘to matters in the record on appeal.’
[Citation.]” (Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 29.) “[I]t is counsel's duty to
point out portions of the record that support the position taken on appeal.” (Del Real v.
City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.) The Court of Appeal must not search
the record on behalf of an appellant or serve as “backup appellate counsel.” (Mansell v.
Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546.)
3
FACTS
Plaintiff worked in the University of California Davis Medical Center’s Plant
Operations and Maintenance Department for 13 years. He received many years of
favorable performance reviews. In 2007, however, he was given a disciplinary transfer
from the central plant to the HVAC/plumbing shop. He filed a grievance and ultimately
entered into a settlement agreement with the University whereby he agreed to the transfer
in exchange for a promotion to an exempt position with a more prestigious job title.
In 2011 the University again initiated an investigation of plaintiff based on
complaints that he had violated University policies by engaging in acts of ethnic
discrimination constituting hate incidents in the workplace. He was terminated in 2012.
He appealed the termination and ultimately filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint.
In this court, he fixates on his belief the University’s suspension, investigation, and
termination were nothing more than a “witch hunt” designed to remove him, preferably
by getting him to quit, and thereby enable the University to resume its alleged tax-free
illegal power sales. He asserts, again without citation to the record, the University
attempted to assassinate him.
Plaintiff filed his first complaint, in pro. per., in December 2013. The complaint
included six causes of action: wrongful termination; retaliation; the intentional infliction
of emotional distress; failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; breach
of the settlement agreement; and violation of the University’s Personnel Polices for Staff
Members (PPSM) 23. Plaintiff thereafter hired a lawyer, Douglas Stein, who filed a first
amended complaint on his behalf in June 2014. The first amended complaint set forth
eight causes of action, including a cause of action entitled “Breach of Written Contract.”
The written contract referred to the settlement agreement plaintiff reached with the
University to resolve his first grievance. The first amended complaint did not, however,
contain a cause of action for violation of PPSM 23.
4
In a meet and confer letter dated August 19, 2014, Michael Pott, representing the
Regents and the employees sued in their individual capacity, described a number of
deficiencies in the first amended complaint “that warrant the filing of a demurrer unless
they can be resolved by amendment.” Stein spent 10 hours reviewing the first amended
complaint and researching the law in light of the alleged deficiencies set forth in Pott’s
letter. By letter dated August 26, 2014, Stein agreed to amend the complaint in response
to those deficiencies he found legitimate and he explained why he rejected many others.
Stein prepared a second amended complaint with the same eight causes of action.
He signed the second amended complaint on September 8, 2014. Unbeknownst to him at
the time, his license to practice law was suspended on September 24, 2014, due to child
support issues that he resolved by October 7, 2014, but due to logistical aspects of the
process, the State Bar of California did not restore his license to an active status until
October 23, 2014. In the meantime, he filed the second amended complaint on
September 30, 2014.
On December 1, 2014, five defendants, Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert (the individual defendants) filed a special
motion to strike the first four causes of action in the second amended complaint as a
strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) suit (hereafter referred to as the
anti-SLAPP motion). (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) Stein, then unaware that plaintiff had
fired him, filed an opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion on plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff
did fire Stein, proceeded in pro. per., and requested an extension of time to file his own
opposition. Plaintiff filed his opposition late and exceeded the page limit. Nevertheless,
the trial court considered the entirety of plaintiff’s opposition and granted his request to
disregard the opposition filed by Stein.
On December 17, 2014, Stein filed an ex parte application for relief from the
potential defective filing of the second amended complaint. Stein explained to the court
that his license had been temporarily suspended because he had mistakenly paid the
5
wrong amount of child support for two or three months, a mistake that was quickly
rectified once he learned of it. The trial court granted Stein’s application and ruled that
the second amended complaint filed on September 30, 2014, “is deemed validly filed.”
In ruling on the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court
followed the requisite two-step process. First, the court examined the individual
defendants’ showing whether their acts were taken in furtherance of their constitutional
rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. The court found the
individual defendants made a prima facie showing. The individual defendants’ speech,
the court ruled, was “made in connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and
deciding the workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to University
policies.” Second, the court found that plaintiff did not sustain his burden of showing a
likelihood of prevailing on each of the elements of the four causes of action as well as
defeating the individual defendants’ affirmative defenses. The court, therefore, granted
the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
Plaintiff appeals.
DISCUSSION
I
The Allegations
Plaintiff believes that his employer, defense counsel, the trial judge, and even his
own lawyer, are corrupt and colluded to destroy his life. These allegations, not the merits
of the anti-SLAPP motion, are at the heart of plaintiff’s appeal. He writes: “There is no
need for Waszczuk to base this appeal on the merit of the case which is important and
Clerk Transcript is speaking for itself, if the whole legal process in this case was
corrupted by the Defendants’ attorney, Michael Pott, and Waszczuk’s attorney, Douglas
Stein misconduct, and their actions against Waszczuk were approved by the Court on
September 22, 2014, and December 17, 2014.”
6
There is nothing we can decide in this appeal or write in this opinion that will
disabuse plaintiff of this fiercely held belief. He fails to understand that these very
serious allegations are not before us on appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion. We will
explain for his benefit what the record discloses to us—the utter absence of any evidence
to support even a colorable claim of misconduct by any of the lawyers or judicial officers
in this case. We will also briefly describe the procedural context in which the allegations
are made and the futility of pursuing his corruption theory against these individual
defendants. Despite the ferocity of plaintiff’s feelings to the contrary, the fact that the
second amended complaint did not contain what he hoped it would does not translate into
reversible error and the fact that his lawyer and defense counsel engaged in an interactive
process to avoid an unnecessary demurrer does not translate into corruption.
Let us begin with plaintiff’s focus on the second amended complaint. As best we
can decipher, his objection is twofold: (1) He is troubled that Stein did not pursue his
theories that the University breached the settlement agreement and failed to follow
internal policies by not providing him annual performance reviews for two years, and (2)
he accuses the trial court of improperly validating the filing when Stein’s license had
been temporarily suspended.
Both objections are irrelevant to the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion,
which sought to strike only four of the eight causes of action stated in the second
amended complaint. Whether or not Stein would have expanded the second amended
complaint to include additional causes of action has no bearing on whether the four
causes of action were properly stricken. In any event, we are baffled by plaintiff’s
insistence that Stein refused to include a cause of action for breach of the settlement
agreement is belied by the language of the sixth cause of action for breach of a written
contract which appears to embody that very claim.
Plaintiff fails to cite any authority to support his claim that the trial court
improperly validated the filing of the second amended complaint. The claim lacks both
7
legal authority and evidentiary support in the record. Rather, Stein was forthright in his
disclosure to the court. When he filed the second amended complaint he was unaware
that his status with the State Bar had changed. The reason for his very brief suspension
was unrelated to his competency or ethics in the practice of law. Rather, as Stein
explained, he made an inadvertent error on the amount he paid in child support for two or
three months. His license to practice was reinstated within about two weeks of his
discovery of the suspension. On these facts, there is not the slightest hint of impropriety.
To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—making an ex parte application to
assure the integrity of the document he inadvertently filed during the briefest of
suspensions for a minor transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He
should be commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of plaintiff’s interests.
Yet plaintiff asserts that defense counsel colluded with Stein to file a second
amended complaint designed to rob him of meritorious claims. He also contends that
Stein bowed to defense counsel’s untoward pressure to amend the complaint and
subjected his pleadings to the anti-SLAPP motion. He adds the naked allegation that the
trial court acted improperly as well because the trial judge had known defense counsel for
a number of years. Plaintiff’s allegations are without evidentiary support.
The record discloses a cordial, thorough, and appropriate exchange between two
lawyers engaged in a meet and confer process designed to avoid an unnecessary
demurrer. The thoughtful letters exchanged by counsel described the legal issues
presented by the first amended complaint and the authorities upon which they relied to
support their positions. Stein relented on a few minor issues, but held steadfast as to the
viability of his theories. Plaintiff’s sheer speculation about the lawyers’ motives is totally
unsubstantiated; indeed, the record belies his accusations.
In summary, we conclude plaintiff’s accusations of misconduct, corruption, and
collusion between the lawyers and the trial court are unsubstantiated and unfounded. But
even more importantly, they are irrelevant to the sole issue properly before us on
8
appeal—whether the trial court erred by granting the five individual defendants’ anti-
SLAPP motion to strike four of the causes of action alleged against them. We turn,
therefore, to the only relevant issue presented.
II
The Merits
The anti-SLAPP statute provides: “A cause of action against a person arising
from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech
under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a
public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that
the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the
claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) We review an order granting an anti-
SLAPP motion de novo. (Daniel v. Wayans (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 367, 379.)
As explained above, the trial court engages in a two-step process in determining
whether to grant an anti-SLAPP motion. (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State
University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061.) In this case, the trial court found the individual
defendants made a prima facie showing to satisfy the first prong and plaintiff did not
challenge this finding in his opening brief. Belatedly in reply, he contends that the
defendants did not “show any record or evidence that the Defendants Nichols, Chilcott,
Boyd, Seifert, and Oropeza, who brought the anti-SLAPP motion to strike Waszczuk’s
first four causes of action, were made in connection with the processing, investigation,
hearing, and deciding of the workplace complaints filed by Waszczuk.”
In short, the court acknowledged that University policies and procedures have the
force and effect of a state statute (Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000)
80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165); statutory procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized
by law as contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (Vergos v. McNeal
(2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos)); the constitutional right to petition includes
the act of seeking administrative action (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity
9
(1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1115); and investigations and investigatory reports prepared in
connection with an issue under consideration or review by an official body, such as a
public entity’s internal investigations, are protected activities under the anti-SLAPP
statute (Miller v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1383). Because the
speech of the individual defendants who were subject to the anti-SLAPP motion was
“made in connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and deciding the
workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to University policies,” the
court concluded the individual defendants satisfied their burden and shifted it to the
plaintiff to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Plaintiff insists that Vergos, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, cited by the trial court,
does not support the granting of the anti-SLAPP motion. We disagree. In Vergos, an
employee of the University named the manager who denied his administrative grievance
as a defendant in his sexual harassment lawsuit in her individual capacity. (Id. at
p. 1390.) The manager filed a special motion to strike contending that her statements and
communicative conduct in handling the employee’s grievances were protected by Code
of Civil Procedure section 425.16 because “they (1) were connected with an issue under
review by an official proceeding authorized by law, and (2) furthered the right to petition
of the plaintiff and similarly situated employees.” (Vergos, at p. 1394.) We agreed and
affirmed the judgment.
We pointed out that the manager’s only conduct targeted in the complaint involved
her hearing, processing, and deciding the employee’s grievances. (Vergos, supra,
146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1396.) Similarly, here the trial court’s finding parroted our
conclusion in Vergos. And the court reviewed the allegations against each of the five
individual defendants and reported their involvement as follows:
“The allegations of the SAC [second amended complaint] against Nichols attack
her protected participation in the official investigations. The SAC specifically alleges
Nichols’ communications regarding the investigation and her investigative conclusions.
10
Nichols was appointed to investigate Plaintiff’s whistleblower complaints, and was also
appointed to conduct an investigation into complaints of workplace violence filed by
Putney and Daniliuc. All were protected petitioning activities.
“The allegations against Boyd and Chilcott are limited to their receipt of emails
from Nichols relating to the investigations, and Chilcott’s sending of an email relating to
the investigation of Plaintiff. The emails are protected speech in connection with an
investigation process.
“The allegations against Oropeza and Seifert are based upon their investigation
into the emails plaintiff sent to Nichols in April 2012. Oropeza and Seifert conducted
their investigation pursuant to the University’s grievance protocol and reached
conclusions documented in a report.
“Boyd acted as Complaint Resolution Officer (“CRO”) at Step II of the
University’s PPSM 70 process, hearing and deciding Plaintiff’s appeal of his
termination.”
In sum, each of the individual defendants, like the manager in Vergos, were
involved in the investigation, hearing, processing, and/or deciding plaintiff’s and his co-
workers’ grievances. We conclude, as in Vergos, their conduct was within the protective
ambit of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Thus we must review the trial court’s
resolution of the second step in the analysis—whether plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood
of success on the merits.
Without citation to specific pages in the record or argument about the likelihood of
success of each element of the four causes of action or even a response to the trial court’s
thorough analysis, plaintiff invites us to review his 443-page opposition to the anti-
SLAPP motion and insists, again without analysis, that the evidence is “overwhelming.”
He falls miserably short of his duty on appeal to cite to the record, to present cogent
argument, and to support his argument with applicable legal authority. In this vacuum,
we turn to the trial court’s statement of decision wherein the court provides a brief and
11
apt rationale for finding plaintiff did not sustain his burden of showing a likelihood of
prevailing.
Plaintiff’s first cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress
fails because the tort requires a showing of outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of
human decency. The court found “[w]hat plaintiff has alleged, and what his evidence in
opposition appears to support, are complaints concerning personnel management by
defendants. Pleading of personnel management activity is ‘insufficient to support a claim
of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged.’
(Janken v. [GM Hughes Electronic (1996)] 46 Cal.App.4th [55,] 80.)” We agree with the
trial court that none of the allegations against these individual defendants involved in the
investigation and resolution of the grievances constitutes the type of outrageous conduct
beyond the bounds of human decency necessary to prevail on a claim of the intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff is unable to surmount the basic principle of law that an employee or
former employee cannot sue a current or former supervisor or employee for interfering
with his or her prospective economic advantage by inducing the employer to terminate
the plaintiff’s employment. (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24; Shepperd v.
Freeman (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 339, 347.) On this basis, the trial court properly
concluded plaintiff failed to provide any countervailing authority or analysis as to why
the facts before the court show the likelihood of prevailing on his interference with
prospective economic advantage cause of action.
Plaintiff’s discrimination claim meets another definitive legal obstacle. Individual
defendants cannot be sued for discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA), nor can they be sued for failing to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and
12
harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663-664;2 Janken v. GM Hughes
Electronic, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.) Plaintiff has not shown any likelihood of
surmounting this obstacle.
Finally, the trial court found that plaintiff did not establish that the individual
defendants’ conduct was in retaliation for his whistleblowing. The court explained: “The
mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted investigations and reached
conclusions with which Plaintiff does not agree with does not establish their investigatory
findings are an act of retaliation. Nor can Boyd’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s grievance at
the Step II level of PPSM 70 review be deemed to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is
no allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against Plaintiff that could be
deemed to be a retaliatory action.” In the absence of any evidence or analysis provided
by plaintiff, we have no basis for reaching a finding at odds with the trial court. Plaintiff
has not shown a likelihood of prevailing on a whistleblower retaliation cause of action.
(Gov. Code, § 8547.10.)
III
Plaintiff maintains he should have been allowed to amend his complaint for the
third time. As support he cites cases involving demurrers, not special motions to strike a
SLAPP. His authorities, therefore, are inapposite. The anti-SLAPP statute makes no
provision for amending the complaint once the court finds the targeted conduct is
protected speech. (Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1073.)
2 After Reno v. Baird, supra, 18 Cal.4th 640 was decided “the California Legislature
amended FEHA's harassment provision expressly holding individual employees liable for
their harassment.” (Scott v. Solano County Health & Soc. Orders Servs. Dep't (E.D. Cal.
2006) 459 F.Supp.2d 959, 966, citing Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j).) There is no
harassment claim targeted by the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
13
DISPOSITION
The judgment striking the four causes of action against defendants Nichols,
Oropeza, Seifert, Boyd, and Chilcott is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs
on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
RAYE , P. J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , J.
ROBIE , J.
14
ATTACHMENT # 2
1 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK,
2 Lodi, CA 95242
Telephone: (209) 663-2977
3 Facsimile: (209) 370-8281
E-Mail: ucdmclaborchat@att.net
4
Plaintiff IN PRO PER -JAROSLAW (“JERRY”) WASZCZUK
5
7 DRAFT
8
25
I. PREAMBLE & NATURE OF THE CASE
26 A. The shocking facts of this case would continue to frustrate and anger
27 Plaintiff and for sure will surprise the Court and Jury after they learn from Plaintiff’s wrongful
28
28
28
3 California, from June 1999 as a cogeneration power plant operator and associate development
4 engineer. Plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully and without a valid cause terminated by the
5 Defendant in December 2012 after 13 years of service and at the age of 61.
6 22. Besides regular duties at the UC Davis Medical Center, Plaintiff occasionally
7 provided representation or assistance for non-union employees and, on two occasions, for union-
8 represented employees in their complaints filed under the provision of UC Davis Policy PPSM
9 70 and the UC Davis Whistleblowing Retaliation Protection Policy PPM 380-17.
10 23. Plaintiff, in the course of his employment with the UC Davis Medical Center,
11 noticed, observed, and experienced by representing other employees, many publications, and his
12 own experiences that the Defendant created two different climates and images of the University
13 of California campuses.
14 The perfect image of the University of California is the exceptional and
15 outstanding education system that is globally recognized.
16 The Different Image of the University of California
17 24. As early as 2000, a climate and culture existed at the employer’s medical center in
18 Sacramento and its university campus in Davis that subjected staff to a hostile work environment,
19 including but not limited to, sustained abuse, bullying, discrimination, retaliation for
20 whistleblowing, harassment of all kinds, intimidation, favoritism, nepotism, health and safety
21 violations, falsification of documentation, fear of retaliation for reporting misconduct, and research
22 misconduct.
23 25. As early as 2000, the employer published rules, procedures, and policies that
24 express, claim, and state that the employer is committed to a culturally diverse and otherwise
25 lawful and healthy environment. The employer’s rules, procedures, and written material espouse
26 cultural diversity, promotion of a safe workplace, no tolerance for bullying or abuse, no tolerance
27 for exclusion or discrimination, and open disclosure without retribution for reporting report waste,
9 29. The other not-so-perfect image of the University of California that is far less
3 system for most of the lab's administrators, clerical staff and technicians was discriminatory, and
that they were working longer hours for less pay
4
34. In July 2004 a $1.3 million settlement has been reached in the discrimination
5
lawsuit filed by former medical intern David Dixon who alleged that he was dismissed from
6
UCLA's family medicine residency program in 1994 because he is black.
7
8
35. A class action lawsuit was brought against Los Alamos National Laboratory,
9
claiming that the University of California, which ran the laboratory from 1943 until 2006,
10 discriminated against women and Hispanics in pay, promotions, and educational opportunities.
11 As part of a settlement reached in mid 2007, a federal judge ordered a $16.4 million payout.
12 36. In 2007 Karen Moe Humphreys, a former Olympic gold medal swimmer who
14 against the university. The suit claimed that Humphreys, who worked at UC Berkeley from 1978
15 until she was laid off in 2004, allegedly lost her job in retaliation for complaining about the
16 treatment of women by the university's athletic department. The university denied Humphreys'
17 allegations. It also denied her claim that her layoff was unlawful, though it did agree to pay more
18 than $3.5 million to settle the gender discrimination lawsuit she brought against them. As part of
19 the agreement, Humphreys will be reinstated and then retire in January 2008 when she reaches
21 37. The imposed penalty $82,500 and proposed imposition of civil penalty in the
22 amount of $220,000 by the U.S. Department of Labor was for the establishment of an
24 Laboratory.
25 38. In September 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture charged the university
26 with 61 violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The lawsuit claimed UC San Francisco
27 researchers kept animals in dirty cages and over bred them as well as improperly anesthetized
28
3 39. A lawsuit was filed in 2006 by the Coalition for Limiting University Expansion
4 and later joined by the city of Santa Cruz against the University of California, Santa Cruz. The
5 lawsuit accused the campus and its contractor of violating the federal Clean Water Act by
6 allowing water polluted with sediment to migrate from several construction sites into nearby
7 creeks, ponds and groundwater. In a settlement reached, the city and university agreed to revive a
8 stalled project to reduce sediment runoff into the city's Pogonip park, 640 acres of open space
9 below the campus, and ultimately into the San Lorenzo River. UCSC, under the agreement, will
10 pay $110,000 to restore damaged gullies in the Pogonip, UCSC's building company Devcon
11 Construction will contribute engineering and construction services valued at $40,000, and the
12 city will chip in $90,000.
13 40. Michael Burch worked as a wrestling coach for the University of California Davis
14 from 1995 through 2001. In April 2001, Arezou Mansourian and Chris Ng were removed from
15 the team. Burch publicly supported the two female wrestlers when they filed a claim with the
16 Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. One month later, Burch was informed that he
17 would no longer be retained. He filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming the school failed
18 to renew his contract because of his outspoken support for the two female wrestlers. In 2005, the
19 Supreme Court found that the Title IX law protected whistleblowers from adverse action of
20 employers. Michael Burch will receive $725,000 from the University of California to settle the
21 retaliation lawsuit.
22 41. Further, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed the imposition of a civil penalty
23 in the amount of $159,375 for radiological contamination committed by the University of
24 California-operated Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
25 42. Anneliese Yuenger died in 1999 at age 82; her family donated her body to the
26 university's medical school. A month later, Yuenger's ashes were returned to the family in a
27 plastic bag. An investigation revealed the ashes came from miscellaneous body parts burned
28
10 44. In February 2001, the Sacramento News and Review (SN&R) article entitled
11 “Standing Up to Bullies” quoted University of California, Davis, employee Jackie Quigg’s letter
12 she sent to an SN&R editor: “I felt bullied, belittled, discriminated powerless and angry.” Jackie
13 Quigg wrote of her experience of working for 13 years in the Ophthalmology Department at the
14 UC.
15 Plaintiff commented with words from Jackie Quigg’s experience in his
16 letter to an SN&R editor dated: February 10, 2001
17 “ Th e ab u sive b e ha v io r mu st b e witn e sse d an d we ll d oc u me n ted
18 in order for this to work. The other issue is that coworkers may be hesitant to
19 testify in court against an employer, the same employer who provides them a
20 paycheck. The fear of a backlash against those who testify is real.
21
Unfortunately, this great dependency for this paycheck will inhibit justice from
22
ever being served and the employer knows this. The power of employer
23
intimidation with no recourse on the part of the employee is in and of itself, the
24
very foundation for an abusive UC employer-employee work relationship. I
25
would like to ask Ms. Quigg if this situation still exists or was it resolved. I
26
need to know because it is hard to believe that anybody could cope with this
27
abuse and humiliation for 13 years. Is this is a true story?”
28
15 Center is still unresolved and never was investigated. Todd Georlich’s suicide ten years after UC
16 Davis employee Donna McDaniel tragically took her life is the path of destruction chosen by a
19 30. UC San Francisco employee Mary Efferen wrote of her "observations and
20 experiences of faculty-staff interactions that were textbook examples of how to humiliate
21 individuals in front of group.
22 31. The University of California, which has contributed so much to the education and
23 the wealth of the state of California and the global community, is a pathologically dysfunctional
24 institution run by arrogant and ruthless administrators," wrote former UC Davis graduate student
25 Leuren Moret.
26 32. The U.S. Department of Labor imposed a civil penalty in the amount of
27 $1,707,000 by the U.S. Department of Energy for multiple violations of law and federal
28 regulations in the Los Alamos National Laboratory. There was also a $9,350 penalty for violation
18 UC Davis Medical Center under the supervision of UC Davis Vice Chancellor Claire Pomeroy
20 39. In 2011, credit cards embezzlement in the UC Davis Medical Center was
21 uncovered and reported by two UC Davis employees and confirmed by auditor William
Prindible, who conducted an audit. The two employees who reported the credit card
22
embezzlement and 60-year-old auditor, Prindible, were fired from the job and the white-collar
23
UC Davis Medical Center criminals who committed the crime are still being employed by the
24
UC Davis Medical Center. The Prindible’s case ended in a January 2015 settlement in federal
25
court, Plaintiff is unaware of the amount of the sum that was paid to the victimized William
26
Prindible (Federal Court Case No. 2:13-cv-02256-KJM-EFB). On May 30, 2012 ,the University
27
of California administration has unsuccessfully attempted to provoke and kill t Plaintiff or end
28
28
5 46. On October 2, 1989 Plaintiff was hired as a Power Plant Technician by the Power
6 Operating Company (POC) subsidiary of Power System Engineering Company (PSE, Inc.) from
7 Houston, Texas as an Operating Technician of the San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant
8 located in Lathrop, CA.
9
47. In 1990 the PSE, Inc. was acquired by the DOW Chemical Company’s subsidiary,
10
Destec Energy, Inc. and later by Dynegy Corporation, which was the competitor of Enron
11
Corporation in electric power generation in the USA.
12
48. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant was producing 50 MW of electricity
13
per hour and processing water to make high quality steam. The plant is selling electricity to the
14
Pacific Gas and Electric Company by contract and steam to the Auto Glass Manufacturer, Libby
15
Owens Ford, in Lathrop, CA.
16
49. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant was powered by the LM 5000
17
General Electric aeroderivative gas turbines.
18
19 The aeroderivative gas turbines are used in a variety of applications: - electrical power both for
20 utility baseload and peaking applications in both simple-cycle (gas turbine only) and combined-
21 cycle configurations. Simple-cycle refers to a gas turbine used alone; combined-cycle refers to an
22 application where the exhaust from the gas turbine is used to power a steam turbine to maximize
23 overall system efficiency - in-plant and independent power production and cogeneration (the
24 production of two forms of energy, usually steam and electricity from a single fuel source) in an
25 industrial or institutional facility - mechanical drive requirements, such as compressors, pumps
26 and other loads - marine propulsion of naval and commercial vessels. Industries that use
27 aeroderivative gas turbines include petroleum production, refining and pipeline operations,
28
16 order to be a Qualified Cogenerate. The company management was forcing its own employees to
17 release a huge amount of steam into the atmosphere, which was through the PG&E meter to
18 cheat the PURPA requirements instead of utilizing the thermal energy as was required by law. In
19 1994 the company’s senior management was advised by the San Joaquin Plant Manager to
20 resolve the existing problem with the PURPA violation. In retaliation, the mentioned plant
22 53. In 1989 the former State of California Chief of Department of Standard Labor
23 Enforcement (DLSE) or State of California Labor Commissioner Jose Milan was allowed to
24 govern the wages and working conditions for the San Joaquin cogeneration power plant in
25 Lathrop and other Dynegy’s cogeneration plants in California using the wrong Industrial Welfare
26 Commission Order (IWC), which was IWC order 4-89 O instead of IWC order 1-89; thus 119
27 Dynegy employees were defrauded of a significant amount of overtime, to which they were
28
15 years of 1991-1995.
16 57. After the 401K plan retirement fraud disclosure, Plaintiff asked his supervisor
17 about the unpaid overtime mandated by the Welfare Commission Order IWC 1-89 Part of unpaid
18 overtime shall be contributed to employees’ Retirement and Savings Plan 401K plus the
19 employer match contribution in the ratio dollar to dollar up to six percent of employee’s gross
20 annual income. Plaintiff did not have any intention to pursue the overtime issue but just asked
21 the question.
22 The overtime issue would never have surfaced if Plaintiff’s employer would have posted in the
23 Plant’s control room the IWC order 4-89 instead of IWC order 1-89.
24
58. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Plant Manager panicked and alerted the
25
Headquarters, and then IWC order 1-49 was posted on the information board next to IWC order
26
1-89. Shortly after, Plaintiff’s employer hired the prestigious law firm Pillsbury Madison &
27
Sutro LLP and Plaintiff received a letter from Sutro’s lawyer about the IWC order applicability
28
15 Office overturned his superior’s—the State Labor Commissioner Jose Milan’s—earlier decision
16 to permit Plaintiff’s employer to govern working conditions and pay by IWC order 4-89 instead
17 of IWC 1-89.
18 61. Right after the labor commissioner issued the decision in Plaintiff’s favor,
19 Plaintiff’s employer in retaliation suspended Plaintiff for almost two months without pay and
20 right away appealed the Labor Commissioner Decision in San Joaquin County Superior Court.
21 The Superior Court in Trial de Novo ruled in favor of Plaintiff’s employer.
22 62. Plaintiff appealed the IWC order 1-89 unfavorable the Superior Court Judgment
23 in the State of California Court of Appeal 3th Appellate District by representing himself in Pro
24
Per. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court Judgment and Plaintiff received his unpaid
25
overtime. The other 119 of Plaintiff’s coworkers recovered partially unpaid overtime through the
26
settlement-agreement that Plaintiff’s employer signed with the Division of Labor Standard
27
Enforcement.
28
16
17 Plaintiff’s Employment with Genentech Inc., from November 1998 to June 1999
18
19 67. After almost one year of unemployment in November 1998, Plaintiff was hired as
20 Utility Operator by Genentech, Inc. located in the City of South San Francisco.
21 68. Genentech, Inc. was the best employer Plaintiff ever worked for in the United
22 States, taking into consideration benefits and treatment of employees by company management.
23 69. The almost 100 miles distance to Plaintiff’s residence in Lodi to South San
24
Francisco and Plaintiff’s wife’s employment in Nordstrom Inc., Sacramento were deciding
25
factors that led Plaintiff to apply for the Cogeneration Plant Operator position with the UC Davis
26
Medical Center in Sacramento, which was only 32 miles away from Lodi, CA.
27
70. Also the Cogeneration Plant Operator position was a factor to apply for the job
28
4 Plaintiff’s Job Description and Employment in UC Davis Medical Center Cogeneration Power
Plant Named “Central Plant “
5
7
71. Defendant hired Plaintiff on June 28, 1999 as a non-exempt senior power
8 plant mechanic or cogeneration power plant operator (hereinafter “plant operator”) to maintain
9 and operate the newly built, state-of-the-art 27 megawatt cogeneration power plant at UC Davis
11 72. Besides operating and maintaining the cogeneration facility, Plaintiff was
12 responsible for monitoring and dispatching critical alarms on the day shift at the UC Davis
13 Medical Center via the computerized Metasys system, which was also programmed to
14 continuously monitor and record how much electricity, steam, hot water, and chilled water was
15 being generated by the central plant. The Metasys system was also designed to start up and shut
16 down heating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), as well as to adjust temperatures in the
17
administration and hospital patients’ rooms per request from working personnel at the UC Davis
18
Medical Center.
19
73. The UC Davis Medical Center’s cogeneration power plant, named the
20
“Central Plant,” includes a General Electric LM 2500—a 23 MW jet combustion gas turbine; a
21
heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)—a 4 MW back pressure steam turbine with capacity to
22
produce 89,000,00 pounds of steam per hour; four auxiliary steam boilers with 25,000-pound-
23
per-hour capacities for steam from each boiler; three centrifugal chillers; and three absorption
24
chillers that can produce 13,400 tons of chilled water per hour. The Central Plant also has five 2-
25
MW emergency diesel generators and other auxiliary heavy industrial-type machinery, including
26
27 a cooling tower, pumps, an ammonia injection system, a water demineralizer, a condenser, and a
28 chemical-injecting system.
15 subject to these reporting requirements. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide
16 or its equivalent (MTCO2e) are required to report their annual emissions to the USEPA, and both
17 the Davis and Sacramento campuses have facilities that emit over 25,000 MTCO2e.
18 78. The 10 MW of electricity not produced and not sold during the summer
19 peak equals millions of dollars of lost revenue over 17 years of the Central Plant’s operations.
20 However if 10 MW extra of electricity was produced and was sold during the summer than
21 peak equals millions of dollars in extra revenue over 17 years of the Central Plant’s operations ;
22 79. Prior to building the cogeneration plant, the UC Davis Medical Center
23 Campus sourced electricity from the local publically owned utility, Sacramento Municipal Utility
24
District (SMUD). The oversized cogeneration plant right before energy deregulation in California,
25
and during that turbulent period, the UC Davis Medical Center took advantage of the opportunity to
26
generate and sell power to SMUD. When the power market deregulation took place cogeneration
27
facility was selling power at for the on the open market for higher bid via California Independent
28
10
80. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Public
11
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) mandate that any cogeneration facility
12
certified and recognized by law as “the qualified cogeneration facility” must meet special
13
requirements in the ratio between electric energy production and thermal energy production.
14
A cogeneration facility is a generating facility that:
15
“sequentially produces electricity and another form of useful thermal energy
16
(such as heat or steam) in a way that is more efficient than the separate
17
production of both forms of energy. For example, in addition to the production
18
22 facilities might provide hot water for domestic heating or other useful
15 employer against Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Plaintiff’s previous employer was very
16 safety oriented and strictly enforced safety rules. It had outstanding safety rules and safety
17 training for employees. Plaintiff was hazmat certified and a first responder, and knew CPR.
18 Plaintiff had no problem adapting to UC Davis Medical Center, where safety rules and
19 regulations were disregarded and ignored by management and safety trainings were unknown
20 and viewed as unnecessary burdens and hassles.
21 84. UC Davis Medical Center’s state-of-the-art cogeneration facility, which
22 cost $70 million to build, was commissioned with many serious safety problems and hazards,
23 endangering working personnel and raising Plaintiff’s concern about his safety and that of his
24
coworkers, many of whom had little or no working experiences in power plant environments.
25
The State of California Law and International Law which Classified Cogeneration Power
26 Plants as a Manufacture and Industrial Facility
27 85. By State of California Industrial Welfare Commission Order #1, all power
28
18 to previous lines, with the relevant formulas shown. You must respond to all of
20
UC Davis Health System Executive Director Stephen Chilcott’s salary was increased from
22 94. UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles
23 Witcher, who is responsible for maintenance and operation of the cogeneration plant by his title
24 and position, received $64,000.00 in salary increase from his promotion to this position in 2007
25 to 2014. (Charles Witcher has a high school education only and has no qualification for this
26 position.)
27 95. UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles
28
16 98. Contrary to the UC Davis Medical Center, Central Plant, the UC San Diego
17 Cogeneration Plant, which is owned and operated by the Defendant (like the UC Davis Medical
18 Center Central), has no problem selling surplus energy on the spot market. The UC San Diego
19
Cogeneration Plant filed self-certification with FERC on May 24, 2000 according to FERC’s
20
Docket No. QF 00-63-001.
21
99. In addition to the above, the UC San Diego Cogeneration Qualified
22
Facility in 2010 received a $2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and installed
23
the world’s first microgrid master controller and related optimizer application. The Smart Grid
24
25 functions as a virtual power plant, scheduling energy self-generation, electricity imports, and
26 electric and thermal storage while factoring in the demand load and the variable price of
27
electricity to buy or sell.
28
9 energy sources.
11 Practices, the UC became a registered Electric Service Provider (ESP). As an ESP, the university
12 is able to self-supply electricity to its direct-access accounts. The self-supply electricity began
13 being generated in 2015. The 2014 UC Report of Sustainable Practices is, for the most part,
14 misleading and fraudulent in regard to green-gas emission on the campuses, especially the UC
15 Berkeley campus, and it is related to the operation of the cogeneration facility not owned or
17 103. The question is as follows: Why is the Defendant, who registered as an ESP,
18 unable to operate the UC Davis Medical, Center Plant at full capacity and provide the energy to
19 other UC campuses, especially the UC Davis campus, or sell the energy on the spot market via
20 ISO?
21 104. Instead of hunting down the Plaintiff like an animal since 2006 for no reason
22 with a criminally minded attempt to assassinate the Plaintiff on May 31, 2012 and destroy the
23 Plaintiff’s life and his livelihood, the Defendant should take care of business and get a contract
24 for the sale of power from the UC Davis Medical Center, Central Plant. The Defendant should
25
also take care of those who attacked Plaintiff and misinformed the Defendant for the own
26
personal financial gain that Plaintiff will harm University business in relation to the UC Davis
27
28
7 was commissioned in 1998 as a state- of-the-art facility, but for some reason was unfinished. As
8 a result, Central Plant equipment was unsafe to operate and posed life-threatening danger to
9 personnel. A power plant’s working environment is dangerous by nature, and if safety rules and
10 regulations are not followed, it will lead to disastrous consequences. Plaintiff came to Central
11 Plant from a very safety-oriented company and was shocked when, in 2000, Central Plant’s
12 manager said in front of other employees, “Somebody give this Polack a bad evaluation and
13 fire him,” after Plaintiff suggested some safety improvements. Plaintiff’s coworker Eduardo
14 Espinosa was so terrified by the Central Plant manager’s statement that he wrote a letter to UC
15 Vice President Judith Boyette and complained than quit his job. A Cal/OSHA intervention was
16 needed to convince the UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department
17 Management to improve the safety and fix some problems with unsafe equipment that should
18 have been fixed without Cal/OSHA intervention.
19 106. The arrogance of the PO&M Department Management was unbelievable
20 and unacceptable. The Cal/OSHA intervention fixed some minor problems, but major safety
21 problems in Central Plant went unnoticed or deliberately ignored by the Cal/OSHA inspector,
22 and there is not any record that Central Plant personnel were interviewed. The most dangerous
23 place was the oily cement floor underneath the cooling tower, which drained oil to the
24 Sacramento River via storm drain, but was unnoticed by the inspecting Cal/OSHA personnel.
25 Coincidently, when the Cal/OSHA inspection took place, Plaintiff was on his days off from
26 work.
27 107. In 2000, Plaintiff wrote in his Brief to Cal/OSHA:
28
5 and direct supervisor to correct some problems with safety in the plant.”
7 “The UCDMC like the other divisions of the UC System enjoys liberty and independence from
8 the State of California legislature and state agencies which enforcing wages and working
9 condition in private sector. This status was affirmed not only by the Government Codes but also
10 on many occasions by the Appellate Courts of the State of California. It is great that students and
11 professors, researchers and scientists have such unrestricted autonomy to freely work for the
12 good of people. The University of California has great prestige in this State as well in the nation.
13
However, it looks like the ordinary workers in this entity who provides services every day for
14
these great researchers, professors, students, and scientists keep them warm at winter time and
15
cool at summer time, these who keep this whole system running without failure have been
16
somehow forgotten and they are object of abuse, discrimination as well are being exposed to
17
unsafe working environment which is a subject of this response. It is unknown for me why the
18
workers are being treated this way in this high education prestigious school. I was very
19
concerned and worried seeing supervisors’ memos where he was calling his subordinates damn
20
or stupid or threatening others to fire them on spot in the place where employment is not at will.
21
Intimidation, ignorance, negligence, threats, power trip, unprofessional remarks toward
22
23 subordinates, lack of personal culture of the superiors replaced common sense, proper training,
24 normal working environment and human dignity and rights. The safety rules and laws were
25 replaced by intimidation, letters of warning, and suspension from work. Where is this
27 109. Also, in 2000, four workers from the UCDMC Access Unit were
28 suspended for circulating a petition asking to discuss items related to workload, safety,
3 to work. Plaintiff was also asked to help these workers in regard to the despicable UCDMC
4 Management retaliation.
5 110. After Cal/OSHA issued the citation for negligence and safety violations in
6 the plant, UC Davis Plant Operation and Maintenance Department (PO&M) Manager Toni
7 Moddessette demoted Cogeneration Plant Superintendent Tom Kavanauch and replaced him
8 with Dan James, who was brought to the plant from the UC San Francisco Medical Center. The
9 situation in the plant changed for the better up until the present, but it has changed quickly for
10 the worse due to current plant manager Steve McGrath’s group of colleagues who came from his
11 previous plant near Jackson, CA. Two Central Plant operators, William Buckans and Rick
12 Tunello, became the target of constant harassment and were bullied by newly hired individuals
13 from the Jackson area. Shortly after they were hired, plant manager Dane James was coerced by
14 these individuals from Jackson to join them in attacks against Rick Tunello and William
15 Buckans. For some reason, these folks did not like Rick Tunello and William Buckans and were
16 pitting the Plant manager against them; trying to convince Dan James to fire Tunello and
17 Buckans.
18
111. In August 2003, Plaintiff’s coworker, Mike Murphy (who quit job in 2005), and
19 Plaintiff, received from the central plant maintenance supervisor Tom Kavanaugh a Preventive
20 Maintenance Work Order that required us to pressure wash all dirt and oil underneath the
21 Cooling Tower. We refused to pressure wash the oil to the storm drain. We took pictures using
22 Mike Murphy’s Sony Digital Camera and we told Tom Kavanaugh that we did not pressure wash
23 the oil to the storm drain. Several times Plaintiff approached an employee from the UC Davis
24 Medical Center’s Environmental Health and Safety Department (EH&S) who was visiting the
25 Central Plant frequently to sign Hazardous Work Permits (after a long time Plaintiff forgot his
26 name). The EH&S employee was not very anxious to discuss the oil problem under the Cooling
27 Tower and his response was, “Well if we get caught than we pay the price.”
28
3 112. Some of the worst safety problems and environmental hazards in the
4 UCDMC state-of-the-art Central Plant were twenty-two (22) defective-by-design cooling tower
5 gearboxes.
6 113.. The defective cooling tower gearboxes were massively leaking machine
7 oil underneath the cooling tower and creating serious safety problems for the personnel working
8 underneath the cooling tower; in addition, the leaking machine oil created an enormous
9 environmental hazard. Every week, as usual, the Central Plant maintenance supervisor issued a
10 preventive maintenance work order to refill the cooling tower’s leaking gearboxes. The machine
11 leaked approximately 10 gallons of oil per week for seven (7) years, and the cooling tower floor
12 was washed out with water to the storm drain (river) or to the soil around the cooling tower when
13 the new cooling tower was under construction. Once a month or every three months, the Central
14 Plant maintenance supervisor (the same supervisor who said to Plaintiff that “Somebody
15 [should] give this Polack a bad evaluation and fire him”) also issued a preventive
16 maintenance work order to use a pressure washer to wash out the covered-by-oil gearboxes and
17 cooling tower underneath the floor and discharge everything to the City of Sacramento storm
19
114. It would cost $5,000/unit to replace the defective units, according to the
20 whistleblowing investigation report which copy of Plaintiff received in 2007 from UC Davis
21 Public Record Act Office. It was merely $110,000 and only 1/3 of the annual salary of UC
22 Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Shelton Duraisseau Ph.D whose idea was to build the 70
24 urgent safety and environment problem was a dilution, covering up the criminal activities and
25 retaliating against anybody who mentioned this problem. This safety and environment hazard
26 also created unbelievable hostility and an intolerable working environment. The working
27 environment of the Central Plant became very hostile and violent after the present Central Plant
28 manager brought a group of employees from his previous plant near Jackson, CA. The manager
15 cooling tower fans, and Buckans fell on the cement floor because of the oily and slippery surface
16 underneath the cooling tower. As a result of this accident, Buckans was taken by ambulance to
17 the UCDMC emergency room with severe back pain. The accident was reported to the Central
18 Plant manager. However, the accident did not encourage management to take care of oil leaks
19 underneath the cooling tower, and every day, Central Plant operators were risking injury under
20 the cooling tower due to the daily routine duty of checking the oil level in leaking oil gear boxes
22 After the above-mentioned accident, William Buckans asked plant managers and the
23 maintenance superintendent to apply a nonskid material to the work area where Buckans was
24 injured to prevent another—perhaps more serious—accident and injury. Buckans was absolutely
25 devastated when both supervisors said no to his request. It was unspeakable and unbelievable
26 that his superiors would force their subordinates to work in an extremely unsafe environment
27 without any hesitation. Beside his accident, three other workers got hurt working under the
28 cooling tower. The Central Plant manager, instead of taking care of safety problems, notoriously
15 The Whistleblowing Complaint with UC Davis Vice Chancellor Office UC Davis Policy &
16 Procedure Section 380-17, August 2005
17 117. In August 2005, Plaintiff’s coworker William Buckans asked Plaintiff help
18
him with a Whistleblowing Complaint in regard to safety and environmental hazard caused by
19
leaking machine oil in the cooling tower gear boxes pursuant to UC Davis Policy and Procedure
20
Section 380-17. Plaintiff helped Buckans to write a letter to University of California Human
21
Resources Vice President Judith Boyette, which was sent on August 7, 2005, with the actual
22
whistleblower complaint and some evidence.
23
24 118. The UC Davis Management quickly made determination that Plaintiff was
25 helping his coworker William Buckans with his whistleblowing complaint. In an August 7, 2005
26 Improper Activities Report cover letter submitted to the University of California Human
27 resources Vice –President Judith Boyette, William Buckans made reference to UC Vice
28 President Judith Boyette’s employment with a Sutro Madison law firm of which Plaintiff was
9 work for three months. When Plaintiff was ready to come back to the plant after a few
10 months of illness, the plant manager Dan James was trying to block Plaintiff’s return under
11 the false pretenses that Plaintiff did not provide him or the main office with the requested
12 FEMLA documents for his short disability. When Plaintiff provided him with proof that
13 Plaintiff had provided all documents to the plant manager and to the main office, Plaintiff
14 was told that the documents were lost and that he needed to provide new documents signed
15 by a physician.
16 124. In March 2006, Plaintiff was neither aware nor imagined that the attempt of the
17 plant manager, Dan James, to block Plaintiff’s return to the plant after short-term disability
18
related to Plaintiff’s open heart surgery was a broader preemptive move. The Defendant’ action
19
against Plaintiff to remove Plaintiff from the central plant or fire Plaintiff from the job was for a
20
completely different reason than Plaintiff thought for many years thereafter. Plaintiff believed
21
22 that helping his coworker, William Buckans, with his whistle-blowing complaint about the
23 Defendant’ misconduct in unlawfully discharging machine oil into the Scaramanto River via a
24
city storm drain for seven years was the was the main reason why the Defendant sought to
25
remove Plaintiff from the central plant in an attempt to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
26
125. In March 2006, it was most likely that Plant Manager Dan James did not know the
27
28 real reason why he was ordered to attack Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s coworker, Buckans.
2 the Defendant would carry out ill and despicable plan and abruptly remove Plaintiff from the
3 central plant and reassign him to a different shop with threats of termination of employment
4
although he was the most experienced power plant operator.
5
127. Plaintiff does not remember exactly how this ended, but after Plaintiff came back
6
7 to work after short term disability than he then learned that his coworker William Buckans had
8 become a target of physical threats by other employees from Jackson 5 group. The situation in
9 the plant became so volatile that every morning’s operational meeting was like a war zone. One
10
of the Jackson 5 employees, Steve McGrath, was promoted to Central Plant maintenance
11
supervisor, which emboldened the Jackson group of employees to attack Plaintiff, William
12
13 Buckans and rick Tunello during the shift-turnover morning meetings. In September 2006.
14 Plaintiff coworker Rick Tunello was wrongly accused of missing a medical freezer alarm and
15
was served with unjustified suspension without pay. Plaintiff quickly found out that Rick Tunello
16
was groundlessly accused and was able to help Rick reverse the suspension decision, but Rick
17
Tunello was so fed up with being endlessly harassed and bullied by Jackson 5 group and plant
18
19 manager that he quit the job. This fact that Plaintiff helped Tunello turned the Plant Manager
20 and his Jackson allies entirely against Plaintiff , and they were furious that Plaintiff defended
21
Rick Tunello, whom they hated so badly and wanted fired him for reasons that were undescribed
22
and not understandable to Plaintiff and others workers.. They just hated him. Plaintiff’s loud and
23
24 clear complaint finally forced the Central Plant manager to advise his allies to stop attacks
25 against Plaintiff and Buckans. William Buckans was fed up with the attacks and in September
26 2006 reported the Central Plant manager Dan James for entertaining himself by viewing porn in
27
his cubicle on company time not knowing that reporting Dan James did not make any
28
2 brought him to Central Plant. The two high school educated individuals Charles Witcher and
3 Steve McGrath were already on the Stephen Chilcott’s and Director Robert Taylor’s list as a
4
replacements for Tony Moddessette’s and Dan James’ positions. .
5
7
128. The Human Resources attorney Stephen Chilcott, who was deployed to
8
UC Davis Medical in 2005 to carry out Defendant plan to remove Plaintiff and William
9
Buckans from the Plant conducted the investigation of Central Plant manager Dan James porn
10
activities in his cubicle on company time.
11
129. Shortly after the porn activities complaint was lodged against the central
12
plant manager, Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department Manager Tony
13
Moddessette became a scapegoat and was forced to resign and Charles Witcher was assigned as
14
the interim PO&M department manager. The difference between Moddessette and Witcher was
15
16 education. Moddessette had an MBA and Witcher, who was high school educated, could not
17 write a simple memo without help from HR or his secretary, but was willing to do harm to others
18 without asking questions. Also, Witcher was no challenge for Director Robert Taylor. Plaintiff
19 believes that Moddessette refused to participate in hunting down Plaintiff and Buckans right after
20 Buckans filed his whistleblowing complaint in August 2005 and that this also was one of the
21 reasons why he had to end his employment with the UC Davis Medical Center.
22
23 The December 2006-March 2007 “WITCH HUNT” Aimed At Plaintiff and William Buckans
24
130. On November 26, 2006, Stephen Chilcott sent an e-mail to William
25
Buckans entitled “Hostile Work Environment” and informed Buckans that he had concluded
26
investigation without any information about the findings. On December 4, 2006, just eight days
27
after Stephen Chilcott concluded his investigation, the especially assigned “witch hunter” from
28
15 Chilcott and other attackers. Even Plant Manager Dan James and Plant Superintendent Tom
16 Kavanaugh refrained themselves from attacking Plaintiff and Buckans during the orchestrated
17 Kangaroo Court pseudo-investigation conducted by assigned witch hunter Bettye Andreos from
18 the UCDMC Equal Opportunity Committee. The fabricated accusations were based on the
19 supposed statements taken from fraudulently hired employees, nicknamed the Jackson 5.
20 Plaintiff walked out of the second interview conducted by a appointed Communist “Stalin-type”
21 prosecutor and judge Bettye Andreos, who had no clue what she is doing but was instructed to
22 prosecute Plaintiff and Buckans and end their employment with UC Davis Medical Center.
23 Plaintiff expressed his feelings about Bettie Andresos’ interrogation skills very loudly on his way
24
out from the Pathology Building on February 27, 2007. Also, he expressed his view about this
25
investigation about physical threats toward William Buckans during a meeting with HR Labor
26
Relations Supervisor Mike Garcia.
27
The March 8, 2007 “Investigation Report
28
16 consistently uses hate and biased-based comments when engaged with co-
17 workers. There is no evidence that I was able to obtain that indicates Central
18 Plant management was assertive in addressing the issue of hate and biased-
22
135. As a result of reporting safety hazards and seven years of unlawful
23
massive machine oil discharge to the Sacramento River via city storm drain from the UC Davis
24
Medical Center Central Plant, on March 22, 2007, William Buckans received a Letter of
25
26 Expectation.
27 136. The Letter of Expectation Buckans received was made up out of the blue,
28 and the Letter of Suspension and Notice of Reassignment was the shorter version of the March 8,
15 Center .
16 139. For his successful mission in 2007 to remove Plaintiff from the Central Plant,
17 Chilcott was promoted to USCDHS HR labor relations supervisor; in 2008 Chilcott replaced
18 USDHS HR Labor Relation Manager Michael Sheesley and, at the end of 2009, Chilcott
26 The Retaliatory Unlawful Suspension and Reassignment to the UC Davis Medical Center
HVAC Shop
27
28
15 administration.
16 144. The scenario of attacking employees with this manifesto is simple. The
17 “accusation of racism, bigotry, violence”; then, Policy 1616 and Policy 380-15; then, the witch
18 hunt began with a witch hunter assigned by UC Davis administration executives . In charge of
19 In the event this intended action is taken, you will have the right to request
20 review of the action under Personnel Policies for Staff Members 70,
21 Complaint Resolution. If you wish to request review of the final action, you
22 must do so in writing as explained in the above policy, using the appropriate
23 complaint form. Your written request for review must be received in the
24
Employee & Labor Relations Office no later than 30 calendar days from the
25
date of the letter of suspension.”
26
147. Director Robert Taylor was one of the individuals who carry out
27
retaliation against Plaintiff and Buckans in December 2006 –March 2007. . On March 30, 2007,
28
7 The 2007 Complaint - Step I and Step II under the UC Davis Personnel Policies for
Staff Members PPSM 70,
8
10 148. The University of California Personnel Policies for Staff Members PPSM
11 70, Complaint Resolution, or Administrative Remedies are main subject in the Palmer v.
12 Regents of the University of California, 107 Cal.App.4th 899, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 567 (Cal.App.
13 Dist.2 04/08/2003) and Janet Campbell v. Regents of the University of California (Supra
14 S113275).
15 149. On April 19, 2007, Plaintiff filed Step I Complaint under PPSM 70 from
16 Witcher’s and Taylor’s decisions. Again, Director Robert Taylor was assigned as the Reviewer
17
for the Step I Complaint under PPSM 70 and denied Plaintiff’s Step I Complaint on May 10,
18
2007.
19
150. On April 20, 2007, after one month of administrative leave Plaintiff
20
reported himself to UCDMC Plumbing/HVAC Shop per Charles Witcher’s April 16, 2007,
21
Letter of Suspension and Notice of Reassignment. Plaintiff in HVAC shop was assign to monitor
22
and dispatch critical alarms on the day shift in UC Davis Medical Center via the computer
23
Metasys System. The Plumbing/HVAC shop Manager was Patrick Putney with Senior
24
Development Engineer and Shop supervisor was Dorin Daniliuc.
25
UCDMC Plant Operation & Maintenance Interim Manager Charles Witcher in his March 23,
26
27
2007
14
oppressive employment practices,*fn2 evaluations serve the important
18 vehicle for informing the employee of what management expects, how the
19 employee measures up, and what he or she needs to do to obtain wage
20 increases, promotions or other recognition. Thus, the primary recipient and
21 beneficiary of the communication is the employee.”
22
153. Plaintiff 2006/2007 Evaluation stated:
23
8
Jerry was very instrumental in the setup of the computer and office area for the
9
Building Automation Monitoring. He has shown a strong knowledge of
10
computer software and hardware. He has been able to solve many computer
11
problems and install software programs when needed.
12
13
His overall job performance is outstanding. He is always willing to accept
14
extra work and is very dependable.”
15
16
The Annual Employee Evaluation period in UC Davis is from July 1 to June 30 next year and
17
had three grade levels: “Exceeds Expectation,” “Meets Expectation,” “Does Not Meet
18
Expectation.” Meets Expectation it was what an employee gets because of pay raises related to
19
evaluations. Plaintiff also received his normal wage increase due to receiving “Meets
20
Expectation” annual review.
21
After several time extensions and unsuccessful attempts to mediate the conflict through the HR
22
Mediation Office, on August 31, 2007, Plaintiff submitted to HR a Labor Relation Step II Appeal
23
from Director Taylor I Step Decision HR Case No: 03-PPS-013-06107. According to the UC
24
PPSM 70-Step II Review by Complaint Resolution Officer, the Complaint Resolution Officer
25
26 must convene a Step II meeting within 20 calendar days of the appeal to Step II. According to
27 HR Labor Relation Supervisor Mike Garcia, HR had an enormous problem finding anyone to act
28 as Complaint Resolution Officer to conduct a Step II hearing, which was required to include an
4
154. On November 13, 2007, HR Labor Relation Supervisor Mike Garcia
5
assigned UCDMC Director Mike Boyd as Step II Compliant Resolution Officer (CRO) to hear
6
Plaintiff’s case of unlawful suspension and reassignment. Mike Garcia wrote in his letter to Mike
7
Boyd who was listed in FAC and SAC as an individual Defendant.
8
“The Office of Labor Relations received the enclosed complaint filed in
9
10
accordance with Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM), Complaint
11 Resolution 70 (CR 70). Jaroslaw Plaintiff’s complaint was reviewed at the Step
13 Taylor. Jaroslaw Plaintiff was not satisfied with the Step I Response and has
14 filed a timely appeal to Step II. “In accordance with CR 70 and UCD
15 Procedure 70.2, you have been appointed as the Complaint Resolution Officer
16 (CRO) for the Step II review of the above referenced matter. In accordance
17 with CR 70 and UCD Procedure 70.2, you have been appointed as the
18 Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO) for the Step II review of the above
19 referenced matter. As the CRO, you are charged with convening a Step Il
20
meeting. Please convene a Step II meeting on or before December 3, 2007.”
21
22 155. Mike Boyd in the period of 1998 to 2014 held the title of UC Davis
23 Medical Center Executive Director, Facilities Planning, Design and Construction. By his duty, he
24 was directly involved in construction of the Central Plant, commissioned in 1998. Director Boyd
25 is solely responsible, together with colleague UCDMC Director Robert Taylor, Director Shelton
26 Duruisseau PhD, UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Manager and Defendant
27 Charles Witcher, and UCDMC PO&M Principal Engineer Mike Lewis for unlawful—under state
28
21 money from contractors. Dennis Curry was Plaintiff’s superior from 2007 to 2012.
23 (Defendant in this case), who operated his private HVAC business and his church business on
24 university time, disclosed to Plaintiff that he was given his supervisor position in UCDMC
25 HVAC shop by UCDMC Director Robert Taylor and Director Shelton Duruisseau Ph .D in
26 exchange for installing and maintaining heating and air-conditioning equipment in their private
27 residences. It was reported to UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo in July
28
17 Connie Melendy, Assistant Vice Provost from the UC Davis Academic Personnel Offices
19 162. The coordinator on the UC Davis Medical Center site was the newly
20 promoted HR Labor Relation Manager and attorney at law listed defendant in FAC and SAC
15 of business and bring the revenue back, regardless of the fact that the UC Davis Central Plant
17 165. To prepare himself for the arbitration hearing, Plaintiff reviewed the
18 University of California and UC Davis policies and was trying to find the University of
19 California policy that could allow management to remove and reassign an employee to the
20 different shop against that employee’s will and as a disciplinary measure.
21 166. The Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) 62 Corrective Action
22 Policy had no such option.
23 167. Plaintiff found only the Principles of Reassignment for the UC Davis
24
Medical Center on the UC Davis Website, which had nothing to do with disciplining employees,
25
but forgot to present it during the arbitration.
26
168. Plaintiff submitted by e-mail the mentioned UCDMC Principles of
27
Reassignment to Hearing Officer Ms. Connie Melendy on November 9, 2008.
28
15 desires.”
16 171. The Step III –Arbitration decision did not leave any doubt for Plaintiff that the
17 assigned University Hearing Officer would rule against Plaintiff if Plaintiff had not, by pure luck,
18 found the UC Davis Principles of Reassignment and sent it to Ms. Connie Melendy after the
19 Arbitration hearing. UC Arbitrator had no choice but to rule against the University and order the
20 University to let Plaintiff return to the central plant. To justify her decision against the University
21 and in favor of Plaintiff, Ms. Melendy, on pages 9 and 10 of her decision, explained in detail the
22 UC Davis Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) 62. Corrective Action —
23 Professional and Support Staff. These policies were well known prior to the arbitration for
24
witch hunter Bettye Andreos, Charles Witcher, Director Shelton Duruisseau, Director
25
Robert Taylor and Director Steven Chilcott, who hunted down Plaintiff and his coworker
26
William Buckans, and caused Plaintiff enormous humiliation, stress, anxiety, fear of losing
27
his employment and financial loss.
28
16 “Jerry can be counted on to make the right operational decisions regarding the
17 plant, and to keep his supervisor informed of the operational status of the plant
19 success of the Medical Center.” (Performance reviews from 2000, 2001, 2003,
20 2004, 2005, 2006)
21 There are no comments regarding threatening behavior or inappropriate
22 language in any of the annual evaluations from the time of Mr. Waszczuk’s
23 first evaluation in 2000 and including the 2006 evaluation that was written
24
prior to the suspension and reassignment. The University presented no
25
evidence to show that there were verbal or written discussions or performance
26
appraisals intended to caution or warn Mr. Waszczuk about inappropriate
27
behavior prior to the October 2007 evaluation (University Exhibit 13), which is
28
10 The Settlement –Agreement with the Regents of the University of California, Signed in
February 2009
11
12
172. After prevailing in the arbitration process, Plaintiff did not go back to the Central
13
Plant where his position was already replaced and where a group of employees from the Jackson
14
area who were hired fraudulently were helping Directors Shelton Durrisuseau, Robert Taylor,
15
Mike Boyd, and Charles Witcher to hunt down Plaintiff and William Buckans, which did not
16
18 173. Further, UC Davis assigned arbitrator Connie Melendy; in her 2008 decision,
19 besides the slanderous and untrue accusation aimed at Plaintiff, she suggested and strongly advised
20 Plaintiff to consider very thoughtfully and seriously, whether the environment of the
21 HVAC/Plumbing Shop, with its current supervisor and colleagues, would be more conducive to
22 Plaintiff’s future success. Under the best of circumstances, it is difficult to return to a worksite
23 where there is “animosity,” as Connie Melendy described, instead referring to it as a hostile work
24 environment that caused later the suicide one of the Central Plant Operator Todd Goerlich .
25 In April 2007 Todd Goerlich was hired as a Plaintiff’s replacement.
26
174. Plaintiff seriously considered the Arbitrator, Connie Melendy’s, suggestions to stay
27
permanently in the HVAC shop and never expected that two and one-half years after Plaintiff
28
15 included $ 13, 500 one time extra pay Plaintiff received 2009 Settlement –Agreement) ; in 2010
16 it was $80,500 in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings of $70,000 ; in 2011—after the 2010
17 blackmail pay-raise of 12% (a six steps pay-up pay raise and an additional step in May 2011),
18 Chris Gangl’s annual earnings jumped to $100,000; in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings
19 of $ 63,300; in 2012, Gang’s earnings was $97,300 in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings
20 of 70,000;( the last year of Plainiff’s employment) in 2013, it was $98,700; and in 2014, it was
21 $104,000.
22 178. This was the reason why in March 2011, Plaintiff sent a letter to UC Davis Medical
23 Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher and asked respectfully
24
for Charles Witcher to increase Plaintiff’s base salary accordingly, in one step (not six steps )
25
from Middle Step of $71,640/year to the 3rd Step of $80,922/year.
26
179. Plaintiff had no intention to pursue his request if denied because of the Settlement-
27
Agreement, which stated that Plaintiff was to be provided wages of $70,000/year. It was an error
28
15 182. The other issue was that some Central Plant operators were hired 10 years after
16 Plaintiff was hired, and they received in December 2010 the 12% wage increase, and in May 2011,
17 the additional pay raise. Not one UC Davis skilled trade nonunion employee in December 2010
18 was dreaming to receive one penny in wage increase because of the strict budget constraint and
19 furlough of UC campuses. Some of employees were employed for more than 20 or 30 years and
20 were not considered for any wage increase in 2010.
21 183. Besides the $70.000.00 per year salary, Plaintiff received in the Settlement-
22 Agreement a small compensation in the amount of $13,500.00 for lost wages due to the witch hunt,
23 which resulted in suspension without pay and refinement in March 2007.
24
Shortly after Plaintiff signed the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement, the Regents of the
25
University of California UC Davis HR Assistant Director Dawn Capp, UC Davis attorney in
26
arbitration, lost her job. Most likely, Ms. Capp was fired or forced to quit a few months after
27
arbitration. The Hearing Officer, Ms. Connie Melendy, disappeared from the UC Davis landscape
28
6 185. At the time when Plaintiff signed the Settlement-Agreement, February 2009,
7 Plaintiff understood that the Defendant, if alleged of any violation of the Settlement-Agreement
8 by Plaintiff, would inform Plaintiff if Plaintiff had breached or violated the signed Settlement-
9 Agreement. Then, if Plaintiff disagreed, then the Defendant had the right to enforce the agreement
10 in a court of law. This was how Plaintiff understood this employee–employer contract. The
11 Defendant never alleged in one word anywhere that Plaintiff violated the signed Settlement-
12 Agreement, but freely slandered and defamed Plaintiff in at least six pseudo-investigation reports,
13 multi-investigatory leave letters, the April 2012 notice of intent to suspend without pay, the
14 September 2012 notice of intent to terminate Plaintiff’s employment, and the December 2012 letter
15
of employment termination.
16
The Working Environment In The UC Davis Medical Center Plumbing/HVAC
17
187. By title Associate Development Engineer title , Plaintiff basically became
18
Assistant for Plumbing/HVAC Shop Manager Patrick Putney who held the title of Senior
19
20
Development Engineer. Patrick Putney, who is also listed as the Defendant in this FAC and
21 SAC got very upset for reasons unknown to Plaintiff when he got news that Plaintiff settled the
22 case and became an exempt employee in his shop. Putney complained about to HR and started
23 pitting Shop Supervisor Dorin Daniliuc against Plaintiff .Daniliuc was given his supervisor job
24 in Plumbing job by Directors Robert Taylor and Shelton Durusseau in exchange for HVAC
25 service Daniluc provided to them in in their private residences by his private HVAC business
26 188. Everything settled down, and Plaintiff became very n isolated employee in
27 a small glass cage and was monitoring and dispatching UC Davis Medical Center critical alarms,
28
15 employees. Putney was trapping pigeons on the UCDMC roofs, bringing his kids to the shop for
16 babysitting and schooling, and selling soda from his private vending machine that he brought to
17 the shop.
18 Plaintiff later described his new working environment as a gypsy village in Eastern Europe,
19 which closely resembled the one portrayed by Sasha Cohen in the movie Borat.
20 190.. Dorin Daniliuc, who was and still is Patrick Putney’s assistant,
21 concentrated most of his attention on his private HVAC business, which he operated on company
22 time via cell phone; he would often disappear for most of the day with his business-equipped
23 van. Daniliuc was also bringing some foreign workers (Romanian nationals) to the shop to repair
24
his private vehicles. Daniliuc did not care much about what people thought about his unrelated
25
employment activities in the workplace. Daniliuc installed and maintained HVAC equipment for
26
two important UCDMC directors in their private residences, which apparently assured him of his
27
importance; his understanding was, “It’s nobody’s business what I am doing on company time.”
28
13
The December 2010 secret 12% Pay Increase for UCDMC Central Plant Operators,
14
192. Plaintiff’s employment with the UC Davis Medical Center would have
15
lasted longer, and most likely Plaintiff would retire from University at age of 66 without any
16
problems. In March 2011 Plaintiff was 60 years old and it was Plaintiff goal to retire from
17
18
University six years later. . It did not happen and Plaintiff’s employment was converted by the
20 193. In September 2010, one of the UCDMC Central Plant Operators, Jeff
21 Lancaster, discovered on the Sacramento Bee Webpage (Salary for Public Employees in
22 California) that Plaintiff’s 2009 annual salary was $82,295.00, not knowing that Plaintiff’s 2009
23 salary was a combination of Plaintiff’s $70,000.00 base salary and $13,500.00 extra pay per
24 February 2009 Settlement –Agreement for Plaintiff’s lost wages due to Plaintiff’s unlawful
25 reassignment from the Central Plant to the Plumbing/HVAC Shop in March 2007.
26 194. Jeff Lancaster was one of the few from the Central Plant who in
27 2005/2007 was used by UCDMC directors, Shelton Duruisseau, Robert Taylor, Mike Boyd and
28
15 and fried of the Central Plant manager Steve McGrath from his previous employment. A few
16 years back, Steve McGrath’s first wife committed suicide; now, his friend and former coworker
17 After the Todd Georlich suicide traumatized Central Plant Manager Steve McGrath tried
18 unsuccessfully to get a job in the UCDMC Carpenter shop and later in the HVAC shop.
19 198. Jeff Lancaster agitated another three individuals, Chris Gangl, Timothy
20 Cooper and Greg Russ to write and sign a petition and demanding a $4.00/hour pay raise,
21 pointing at Plaintiff’s salary and stating in the petition that Plaintiff was paid $15,000.00 more
22 per year than Central Plant Operators. Beside Plaintiff’s wages, these individuals were very
23 dissatisfied that their help and sacrifices for directors. Shelton Duruisseau, Robert Taylor and
24
Mike Boyd did not do and good because Plaintiff and Buckans was not fired from their jobs in
25
2005-2007 due to a witch hunt, They constantly bragged about and bullied and harassed William
26
Buckans after Plaintiff left the Central Plant in 2007.
27
199. Plaintiff received the copy of the undated black –mail petition signed by
28
15 conducted by the UC Davis Chancellor’s office related to massive machine oil discharge to the
17 202. However, Dennis Curry did not ignore Plaintiff’s discovery about the
18 blackmail pay increase petition and alerted Charles Witcher or Director Taylor a and the petition
19 for pay raise was rewritten and signed by 11 central Plant Operators .
20 203. The memo, letter, or petition, dated September 20, 2010, signed by 11
21 “Central Plant Operators” was addressed to CHARLES WITCHER, Manager of
22 PO&M,Department identified the subject matter as “…the monitoring of the Johnson Controls
23 Metasys Software program and dispatching of emergency and same day service calls to the Central
24 Plant during graveyard and weekend shifts.” In other words, the subject was the fact that the
25 Central Plant Operators covered shifts that Plaintiff did not work.
26 204. The memo, letter, or petition continued “…the Metasys and dispatching has
27 become a full time job to monitor and respond too (sic)...several years ago, we reached a point
28
16 207. The Central Plant Operation and the petition was just a black-mail
17 petition to get pay raise for something completely different than inability to operate the plant.
18 UCDMC Directors, Robert Taylor, Shelton Duruisseau Ph, D. Mike Boyd, Charles Witcher and
19 Stephen Chilcott did not have much choice. They bent to the petition demands and pay raise
20 most likely got approval from the UC Davis Chancellor’s office or the University of California
21 Office of the President due to the strict budget constraints and furlough on the campuses and the
budget crisis in the whole state, including State of California Courts.
22
23 208. The 12% pay raise for all Central Plant Operators was provided to all
24 Central Plant Operators. Some of them were hired a short time before the blackmail petition was
25 submitted, and it was unthinkable for anybody to get a 12% or six steps up pay raise as a non-
26 exempt union or non-union and even exempt University of California employee working only
27 for one or two years for University.
28
10
The Attorney Danesha Nichol’s Deployment From The UC Davis Campus to UC Davis Medical
11
Center Human Resources Department in October 2010
12
13
210. After Plaintiff’s conversation with Dennis Curry, UC Davis Health
14
System HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott (defendant) requested that the UC Davis
15
Chancellor’s office deployed .Danesha Nichols, the listed Defendant in FAC and SAC to UC
16
Davis Medical Center to monitor the situation with the pay raise demanded by blackmail petition
17
for the Central Plant Operators.
18
211. Danesha Nichols was the UC Davis HR attorney who in 2007/2008 was
19
involved in Plaintiff’s Step III Appeal arbitration process against UC Davis Medical Center
20
management, and she was very familiar with the crime that was committed in the Central Plant
21
in the period of time spanning from 1998 to 2009 and Nichols was familiar with Plaintiff’s file .
22
212. Danesha Nichols arrived at UC Davis Medical in October 2010 with the
23
title of Investigation Coordinator in similar circumstances as Stephen Chilcott in 2005 and she
24
reported directly to Director Stephen Chilcott.
25
213. As Plaintiff stated previously, the UC Davis Medical Center’s newly built
26
in 1998 Cogeneration Power Plant/Central Plant was a pride and legacy left behind for former
27
UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and Shelton Duruisseau Ph.D., who was appointed to
28
16
215. Mike Lewis was Project Manager for Central Plant construction, start-up, and
17
commissioning. Mr. Lewis was the person who, by his title, position, and duty, was most responsible;
18
“he was obligated” to stop machine oil discharge from the leaking Cooling Tower gear boxes from
19
dispensing into the river and soil to prevent contamination of the natural environment. Mike Lewis, as
20
Principal Engineer, grossly neglected his duty and did not take any preventive measure to stop the oil
21
leak and discharge into the natural environment. Mike Lewis had no problem noticing William
22
23
Buckans’s feet elevated on the console and viewed it as disrespectful to him but was completely
24 unable to notice William Buckan’s accident underneath the cooling tower’s oily surface. Mike Lewis
25 also did not observe—for 7 years—the badly designed cooling tower gear boxes and unlawful massive
26 machine oil discharge into the nearby river and soil surrounding the cooling tower. Apparently, he was
27 ordered to do nothing about by Director Taylor or Director Shelton Duruisseau Ph.D or Director
28
4 216. Five days after the Principal Engineer Mike Lewis issued his dramatic
5 memo about the incoming investigation to find perpetrator Central Plant Operator, Todd
6 Goerlich committed suicide. Then, the rest of the Central Plant Operators received a 12% pay
7 raise despite strict UC budget constraints and furlough in UC Campuses and no power sale
8 contract . Thereafter, everything got quiet. Nobody was questioned by an HR investigator or the
9 UC Davis Police Department about locker burglary. No more comments were made by any
10 Central Plant supervisors about Jeff Lancaster’s burglarized locker, no more dramatic memos
11
from the Principal were issued and Todd Georlich’s tragic death was quickly forgotten.
12
13 The Secret 12 % Pay Raise For Central Plant Operators –March 2011
14
217. Around March 5, 2011, Plaintiff somehow got into a conversation with
15
the operator from the central plant William Buckans about the December 2010 12% pay raise,
16
and Plaintiff received from Buckans a copy of the UCDMC Plant Operation and the letter from
17
18
maintenance manager Charles Witcher dated December 20, 2010, which confirmed a 12% pay
20 218. The December 2010 12% pay raise that was secretly provided to central
21 plant operators was discriminatory to other non-union employees of the UC Davis Medical
22 Center who did not get one penny in wage increase in the last three years due to strict budget
23 constraints in the whole University of California system. The disclosure about the secret pay
24 raise for small groups of employees became a subject of discussion among workers at the other
25 shops in the UC Davis Medical Center. Plaintiff confronted his shop manager Patrick Putney and
26 Plaintiff asked Putney why the HVAC shop staff did not get a pay raise. Putney’s response was
27 that he knew about the pay raise, but was told to be silent about it to avoid any turmoil among
28
6
The Restricted Access to the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant
7 in March 2011
8
219. Consequently, right after Plaintiff asked his supervisors about the secret
9
12% pay raise for the Central Plant Operators, Department Principal Engineer Mike Lewis
10
issued a memo dated March 11, 2011, instructing Central Plant crew to do the following:
11
12 “Please inform all Central-Plant personnel that access to the Central Plant is
14 University. All operators not on duty and other personnel with no direct reason
15 to be in the Central Plant shall not be granted access to the Central Plant. If
16 illegal access is gained to the Central Plant please call 4-2555 for a non-
17 emergency event or 911 for an emergency.
18 “If an employee not on duty or other individuals with no direct need to gain
19
access to the Central Plant request access to the Central Plant please contact
20
Charles Witcher, Mike Lewis, or Dennis Curry for direction. Thank you.”
21
That was a shocking memo. Never before had access to the Central Plant been restricted for off-
22
shift personnel.
23
24 The March 13, 2011, Plaintiff letter addressed to UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance
Manager Charles Witcher
25
26
27 220. A few days after Mike Lewis issued the memo about access to the Central
28 Plant, Plaintiff on March 14, 2011, sent a letter to Charles Witcher and asked him respectfully
13 officers .
21 It is appears that Cogen Operators wages under Title Code 8094 for Non —
22 Represented were increased from level 5. to level 11.0. (Six levels up)
23
I would not write this letter but money talk and stirring people mind and saying
24
more simply I just feel discriminated in this share of goods.
25
26 At the best of my ability to write, I will try to explain why I feel discriminated
28
2
Last year in August 2010 after I came back to work from vacation, my
3
coworker from HVAC shop, Bill Rabidoux asked me if I will be willing to
4
work swing shift because HVAC shop manager told him that second shift
5
would be created for the Metasys System operation outside the Central Plant.
6
14 Shortly after, in September 2010, I received by copy of the undated but signed
15 petition by four Central Plant operators in regards to Metasys Operation
16
After I read the petition and attached to the petition the wages disclosure
17
printed from the Sacramento Bee website, the first my thought was that the
18
petition is a follow up to their earlier complaint which I thought they submitted
19
in August during my vacation absence. The petition itself alleged that Metasys
20
System operation has became full time job to monitor and it was my
21
understanding from the petition that the $ 4.00 /hour wage increase for them
22
would magically convert the full time Metasys Operation job to relaxing
23
leisure in nice resort.
24
10
involved in writing this petition for Central Plant Operators.
11 I did not want to engage myself in any conflict or discussion with these
12 individuals who are attacking my wages and my duty and I did pass the copy
13 of the petition to Mr. Dennis Curry.
14
Thereafter I forgot about it and concluded this event as a "NEVER ENDING
15
TRAUMA IN THE CENTRAL PLANT " taking in consideration that the same
16
group of individuals viciously and recklessly attacked me and other people in
17
the past, caused me enormous stress, suspension, my departure from the
18
Central Plant and loss of thousands of dollars in my earning"
19
20 At the end of December 2010 I got e-mail from William about his pay raise
21 and I thought that he is joking and I wrote him back that I got five thousand
22 dollars raise, than he sent me congratulation etc. I did not believe him in spite
23 of State financial crisis, furlough, budget constraints and UC President memos
24
about the cuts and possibility of big lay off in IJC system. Basically, I ignored
25
William information and was no further discussion about the pay raise in the
26
Central Plant.
27
The other subject in December 2010 in discussion was the tragic death of the
28
10 The other December 2010 story from the Central Plant is a story of the Jeff
11 Lancaster burglarized locker and supposedly stolen photos from the Jeff's
21 action.All lockers will have their locks replaced with new and the master file
23 or how they will be notified.In light of the professional attitude and excellent
20
The wages subject came again to my attention last week because William did
21 mention again his raise and again I thought that he is trying to "pull my legs"
22 and is joking. and in light of budget cuts e.tc I did not believe what is William
23 telling me until he sent me copy of your memo which stated that he got the pay
24 raise.
25 I am working in UC Davis Medical Center almost 12 years. A lot longer then
26 many operators in the Central Plant.
27 With my departure from the Central Plant I received by the Settlement —
28
16 I wrote the introduction and I summarized the latest events in the Central in
18 The petitioners have the right to say in the petition whatever they want about
19 my job but I know how to operate the Central Plant and could go and do it if
20 really needed or requested by management
21 I am not sure if the petitioners would be so happy to work in the place
22 where no designated place to eat meal at lunch is or break, where they
23 would have to use filthy bathrooms, no warm and clean locker room to
24
change clothes at the winter time. I am happy for Central Plant operators
25
they got the wage increase. However, I am asking for fair and equal
26
treatment in regards to wages
27
It is my understanding from my job description that my position has primary
28
5
Beside the Metasys Alarms I am doing other stuff requested by Patrick Putney
6
and I have well documented what I am doing beside the Metasys Operation.
7
Some days I am very busy and "dizzy" from the alarms but I don't have any
8
major problem to handle the job.
9
I don't take brakes with exception to lunch and I would like to have both
10
brakes integrated into lunch and take one hour lunch instead of two 15 minutes
11
brakes and 1/2 hour lunch. This would allow me to leave the shop to eat lunch
12
outside in cafeteria or walk around the campus to relax and get my blood
13
circulation normal
14
16 accordingly to next level under Title Code 7182 for Non —Represented
18 Sincerely
19 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
20
21 221. Plaintiff learned that prior to Todd Goerlich’s suicide, Goerlich frequently
22 complained to his friend Dereck Cole and his girlfriend that he had been harassed and bullied in
23 the Central Plant “by a person named Jeff.” That corresponds with William Buckans’s
24
observation how badly Todd Goerlich disliked Jeff Lancaster and, in particular, how different
25
and unapproachable Todd became when he worked a shift with Jeff Lancaster.
26
Dereck Cole was a newly hired HVAC Technician in a shop where Plaintiff worked. Cole was
27
hired just one month after Todd Georlich committed suicide, and Todd Georlich was the person
28
16 223. The news about the pay raise got around, and in fear of turmoil, the UC
17 Davis Chancellor’s Office or UC Office of the President ordered a 2% pay raise to all UC Davis
18 Medical Center non-union employees, including to Central Plant Operators who had already
19 received a 12% pay raise. Normally, employees would receive a pay raise on July 1st if it were
20 approved after the Annual Performance Review to be given to employees for the 2010/2011
21 year. Plaintiff received the pay raise in May 2011 as well, and his salary increased from
22 $70,000.00 to $71,600 per year.
23 The April 2011 Retaliation
24
224. Instead of any response to my letter from Charles Witcher in April 2011,
25
Plaintiff’s manager, Patrick Putney, blatantly blamed him for missing and not dispatching a
26
hospital refrigerator critical alarm that resulted in a complaint against him by the hospital
27
pharmacy personnel. In a heated discussion, Putney humiliated Plaintiff in front of his teenage
28
15 responded, “I am trying to make you perfect.” Plaintiff said ok and continued to train himself to
16 be perfect with these false alarms and not to miss the real one. Missing critical alarms and not
17 dispatching it could lead to enormous losses or even patient death in UC Davis Medical Center
18 Hospital.
28
15 punished, as this had happened to one of his coworkers, Rick Tunello, in the central plant. Rick
16 Tunello had been wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted by Dennis Curry, and wrongfully
17 suspended for a missing refrigerator alarm without pay. Plaintiff’s intervention in the case, and
18 proof that it not was not Tunello’s fault, reversed Dennis Curry’s conviction.
19 229. The behavior and vicious attacks of Patrick Putney, Dorin Daniluc, Dennis
20 Curry and Charles Witcher aimed at Plaintiff in March, April, May, June and July of 2011
21 reminded Plaintiff of the training class he attended in March 30, 2000.
22 230. The March 30, 2000 training course, “Labor Principles in Public
23 Employment” for UC Davis Medical Center supervisors exactly resembled Putney, Daniliuc,
24
Curry and Witcher’s approach to resolving the dispute. The abovementioned course for supervisors
25
was hosted by UC Davis Medical Center Human Resources Executive Director Gloria Alvarado.
26
Ms. Alvaradao’s course lecture had nothing to do with labor principles in public employment, but
27
was a class that coached supervisors how to inflict fear, to intimidate and silence employees who
28
14
May 2011
15
232. In May 2011, Plaintiff held two separate meetings with Department Head ,
16
17 Charles Witcher, to clarify the issue with the missing refrigerator alarm, to discuss the unusual and
18 psychotic behavior of Patrick Putney toward me, which was not limited to stalking Plaintiff from
19 his dark office, suddenly opening his dark office door from the inside and screaming “What are
20 you doing?” Thereafter, within minutes Dennis Curry showing up in the shop and talking to
21 Plaintiff like Plaintiff did something wrong, they both laughed in Patrick Putney’s Office. .
22 233. In May 2011 Patrick Putney held meetings with the crew and in a
23 threatening manner told everybody how good he is at firing people from the job if they not behave
24 up to his standards. One of the new shop employees, Dereck Cole, became so frightened that he
25 asked Putney if he was aiming his threats at him. One year later, Dereck Cole became another
26
victim of Patrick’s Putney, Dennis Curry, and Charles Witcher’s schemes and yet another
27
candidate to look for new employment. He was unspeakably victimized and asked me to represent
28
15 Patrick Putney. I would prefer for the situation to improve somehow and for
17 appear that this will be the case. Patrick is still working very hard to get on my
15 and dumped on my desk the policy and procedures for central plant operators,
16 which explains how to operate the Metasys system, plus my job description.
17 He clearly intended to intimidate me, speaking the following words: "Do you
18 understand what this policy is for?" I thanked him the next day for providing
19 me with the Metasys policy three years after I had joined the HVAC shop and
20 12 years after I had begun operating Metasys. To participate in his "game," I
21 decided to provide him with the link to the UC Davis Medical Center
22 (UCDMC) Parking and Transportation Services Office and to advise him to
23 pay for his parking permit. For the past three years, he had parked for free on
24
the UCDMC premises by hiding his car inside the shop and playing a little
25
"catch me if you can” game with the parking cops. On top of this, I decided to
26
make this comment to him "What kind of managerial example is he setting for
27
his crew by showing that it is okay to cheat and steal from the employer while
28
15 create a confrontation with me for any reason. I simply told him not to worry
16 and that I had been reviewing and closing all of the completed work orders for
17 almost two years using Putney’s name and password, which was, of course, a
19 The previous incident and today's incident show clearly that Patrick has no
20 remorse about hunting me down. From my perspective, I do not have a choice but
21 to defend myself against his vicious and unpredictable aggression.
22 I was surprised and shocked today that I was kicked out of my office after 3:15
23 PM by Dennis per Patrick’s request and thus could not finish this letter then. I
24
still don't understand why I got kicked out. I did not park my car without a
25
permit, and I did not do private jobs in the company shop. I just wanted a few
26
minutes after work to finish my letter to the PO&M manager.
27
I am not sure how I will concentrate on and do my job tomorrow as required if my
28
15 information about the Central Plant’s operation and electric power, steam, hot water, and chill
16 water production.
17 236. Plaintiff thought that the 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed
18 with the Defendant, the Regents of the University of California, would protect Plaintiff from the
2 238. Due to continuous harassment and sabotaging the Plaintiff’s job, the
3 condition of Plaintiff’s employment became intolerably stressful to the point that on June 22, 2011,
4 on short notification, Plaintiff asked Department Head Charles Witcher to give Plaintiff 3 days of
5 vacation to get away from Patrick Putney. The vacation days were granted and Plaintiff went home.
6
Regardless of the stress and feelings, in good faith and will, Plaintiff sent an email to Patrick
7
Putney and asked him to restore and normalize professional relationship.
8
239. Plaintiff did not get any response from Putney. Plaintiff did not know in June 2011
9
that a similar action to 2006/2007 action against Plaintiff was underway; a false complaint was
10
filed against Plaintiff with the HR Department and Plaintiff became the subject of second witch
11
hunt within two years taking into consideration date of the Settlement –Agreement Plaintiff signed
12
with the Regents of the University of California in February 2009. The month of June was the
13
month of annual employee performance review for the year 2010/2011 .In June 2011 Plaintiff did
14
not receive his employee performance review from his two supervisors Patrick Putney and Dorin
15
17 July 2011
18
240. On July 8, 2011, Plaintiff held a meeting with HR Labor Relation
19
Consultant Gina Harwood about the harassment and retaliation Plaintiff was experiencing. During
20
the meeting, Harwood deliberately failed to disclose the fact that the false and fabricated complaint
21
was filed by Plaintiff’s two supervisors, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc. A few days later,
22
Plaintiff was officially informed that the complaint has been filed against him and that an HR
23
investigator had been assigned to investigate the allegation. The assigned HR Investigator was HR
24
attorney Danesha Nichols, who was deployed from the UC Davis campus to UC Davis Medical
25
Center in October 2010 after Central Plant Operators submitted a black mail petition for pay raise.
26
27 241. Danesha Nichols was very familiar with the previous attack against Plaintiff
28 in 2006/2007 due to her involvement in Plaintiff’s arbitration process against the Defendant in
16 Drown about the Settlement-Agreement violations by the Defendant, the UC Davis Chief
17 Compliance Director, Wendy Delemendo, contacted Plaintiff and tried to convince Plaintiff to
18 file the complaint under the UC Whistle Blowing Policy. Plaintiff refused due to his and his
19 coworker’s experience in 2006/2007 when he helped his coworker William Buckans with the
20 Whistle Blowing case related to massive machine oil discharge via a storm drain to the Sacramento
21 River.
22 244. On July 29, 2011, Plaintiff responded to Delmendo’s whistleblowing
23 complaint invitation by letter with many questions about HVAC shop supervisor Dorin Daniliuc’s
24
relationship with two UC Davis Medical Center directors, Robert Taylor and Shelton Duruisseau
25
The Daniliuc’ relation with these two directors was to provide them HVAC services in their
26
private residences in exchange for Daniluc’s supervisory position in the HVAC shop. The
27
questions were never answered by UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo or any
28
15 illegally accessing shop computers. Bill Rabidaux’s son was a twice-convicted child
17 order and was not allowed access to any computer with Internet. He should not have been
19 248. This individual was a frequent guest in the HVAC shop, and his presence
20 was tolerated by Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc because Bill Rabidaux had a special
21 relationship with Charles Witcher’s assistant, Dennis Curry.
22 After Kenny Diede reported to Plaintiff that Bill Rabidaux’s son was accessing a company
23 computer, Plaintiff told Kenny Diede that Plaintiff would pass the information on to Patrick Putney
24
when he came back to his office. When Plaintiff told Putney about it, he got upset that Kenny
25
Diede had not waited for him with information and angrily asked Kenny whose side Kenny is s
26
on—“Jerry’s (Plaintiff’s) side or Putney’s side?” Kenny’s response was that he was not on
27
anybody’s side and that he was working in the shop and did not appreciate having a child
28
15 70. Annual Performance Reviews (Evaluations) are the most important documents in the
16 employee–employer relationship; Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 958, 18 Cal.
18 251. Only Stephen Chilcott as the HR Executive Director had the power to
19 order not to provide Plaintiff with his annual evaluation and deprive him of administrative
20 remedies under the UC Policy PPSM 70.
21 252.. In July and August 2011, UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director
22 Stephen Chilcott, in conspiracy with Director Michael Boyd and HR Workers Compensation
23 Manager Hugh Parker (Chilcott’s subordinate), made an attempt to remove Plaintiff from the
24
premises through the false and fraudulent Workers Compensation Claim. Plaintiff refused to file
25
a false claim, but a claim was filed on Plaintiff’s behalf anyway.
26
253. It is possible that UCDMC HR Workers’ Compensation Manager Hugh
27
Parker forged Plaintiff’s signature and filed the Workers’ Compensation claim on Plaintiff’s behalf,
28
17 my office for a one-hour lunch. This was a trigger point for my decision to
18 ask my doctor for a medical leave. The person who apparently fried my
19 hard drive with higher voltage knew what he was doing and how to do it. I
20 did not find any external physical damage to my hard drive but, after I
21 removed the cover, I found that the circuit board and motor had been
22 burned.
23 I am almost certain of who and why it was done, but I did not catch anybody by
24
hand. Therefore, I can only write and whine about this event. I did not take any
25
chances by remaining in my office any longer and getting electrocuted like my HD.”
26
255. It happened after over three months of nonstop attacks against Plaintiff including,
27
and not limited to, stalking and sabotaging Plaintiff’s job as orchestrated by the UC Davis Health
28
8 August 2011
9
257. In July 2011, Plaintiff asked many times and begged for the harassment to stop, as
10
well as the sabotaging of Plaintiff’s duties and job, so as not to escalate the conflict. Plaintiff’s
11
appeals did not work, and Plaintiff had to evacuate himself from the job site due to enormous
12
emotional distress caused by PO&M, the HR department management, and HR investigators.
13
Plaintiff’s physician placed Plaintiff on work-related stress sick leave until September 1, 2011. By
14
going on work-related stress sick leave, Plaintiff was hoping that, during his absence from work,
15
everything would settle down and Plaintiff would be able to continue his employment. Plaintiff
16
17 was also hoping that the UCDM HR assigned investigator, Attorney Danesha Nichols, would
18 interview all Plaintiff’s coworkers from the shop and would clarify the issues of the false and
19 fabricated accusations against Plaintiff. Plaintiff forgot or did not know in August 2011 that
20 Danesha Nichols was involved in the previous Plaintiff’s case together with Stephen Chilcott and
21 that Danesha Nichols was deployed in October 2010 to UC Davis Medical Center to monitor the
22 situation with the black –mail pay raise for the central plant operators.
23 258. Plaintiff’s coworker, Kenny Diede, was slandered and defaced on his annual
24 evaluation by Patrick Putney for reporting a twice-convicted child pornography felon for
25 accessing company computers. Later on, Plaintiff represented Kenny Diede in his complaints
26
pursuant to UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70 and Whistleblowing Retaliation
27
Policy to keep his job with UC Davis Medical Center.
28
16 262. Plaintiff became very upset, stressed, and angry that could not go back to
17 work. Plaintiff got feeling that he would never get his job back, knowing that it was already
18 awarded to Bill Rabidaux, the father of the twice-convicted child pornography felon. Bill
19 Rabidoux should be punished, together with shop supervisors, for his participation in covering up
20 the parole violation of his sick-minded relative, instead of having the job granted to Plaintiff by
21 the Settlement-Agreement with the UC Regents. Also, Plaintiff would like to mention that when
22 Plaintiff was leaving the shop on August 2, 2011, Plaintiff had not had any problems with any of
23 his coworkers throughout the course of Plaintiff’s employment in the HVAC shop for four years.
24
25 September 2011
26
263. The UC Davis Medical Center PO&M Department Manager Charles
27
Witcher’s letter, dated August 31, 2011, placing Plaintiff on investigatory leave was an
28
15 265. Plaintiff was informed by the UC Davis Public Record Act office that
16 Nichols’s report that was issued as a cause to terminate Plaintiff on September 23, 2011, was
17 destroyed and was not available to Plaintiff to obtain from Nichols. Nichols most likely lied to
18 Public Record Act personnel because Nichols provided the copy of the Report to HR Workers
19 Compensation Office Manager Hugh Parker who was coordinator in May 2012 to end Plaintiff’s
20 employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit.
21 266.. Plaintiff responded angrily to Danesha Nichols’ request and refused to
22 participate, similar to 2006/2007 UCDMC’s prosecution.
23 267. Plaintiff asked the Mistreatment Office Manager, Cindi Oropeza,(listed
24
Defendant in FAC and SAC) to add Danesha Nichols and Charles Witcher to Plaintiff’s
25
mistreatment complaint, which Plaintiff filed against Patrick Putney on August 30, 2011.
26
268. Following Danesha Nichols’ request for a meeting with her on September
27
12, 2011, Charles Witcher sent me a letter and accused me of inappropriate communication with
28
17 I am not your and Mr. Chillcot’s hostage and you both have to end this hostage
12
270. Plaintiff was so stressed out and already was using antidepressant and
13
nitroglycerine, and escalation of the conflict by Defendant forced Plaintiff to seek a doctor and
14
15 psychologist’s help to cope with the enormous emotional stress and anxiety in relation to
16 employment situation.
17 272. On September 22, 2011, Plaintiff’s physician placed Plaintiff on the work
16 stop the constant assault, harassment and vicious vendetta against me for last
27
278. On October 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the State Bar of
28
8 Witcher, and others, Plaintiff thought that maybe someone had filed the false complaint with the
9 UC Davis Police Department and accused me of violence and discrimination and other crimes
15 unfounded accusations fabricated by the Defendant against Plaintiff. Captain Joyce Souza, in her
16 response, wrote:
20 283. Plaintiff noticed that Captain Joyce Souza cc’d her e-mail response to her
21 superior, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza, and UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer
22 Wendy Delmendo, who assigned, in July 2011, UC Davis attorney Danesha Nichols to conduct a
23 pseudo-investigation against Plaintiff to fabricate a cause for Plaintiff’s termination of
24 employment on September 23, 2011, which did not happen.
25
284. On the same day, October 6, 2011, in response to Captain Souza’s
26
information, Plaintiff replied to and thanked Captain Souza for information about Plaintiff’s
27
police record, and Plaintiff cc’d his response to Chief Annette Spicuzza; Lt. John Pike; UC Davis
28
10 changed course and were trying to find for Plaintiff a new place to work in UCDMC. Plaintiff
11 did not pay much attention to Mr. Dark’s proposition because his job in the HVAC shop as
12 Assistant Development Engineer fit Plaintiff perfectly and Plaintiff had no restrictions or
13 limitations to do the job with Plaintiff’s health and condition, with the exception of the stalking
14 and harassing by Plaintiff’s supervisors who made his life miserable and work conditions
15 intolerable.
16 286. On October 10, 2011, the UC Davis Medical Center HR investigator and attorney
17 Danesha Nichols sent to HVAC shop employee Kenneth Diede a threating and intimidating e-mail
18 message. Kenneth Diede was the employee who in July 2011 was reported to be a twice-convicted
19
child pornography felon on parole who had illegally accessed the HVAC shop computer and was
20
prohibited by court order to have or touch any commuter, especially one with Internet. Danesha
21
Nichols covered up the child porn criminal activities issue in her pseudo-investigation reports.
22
287. On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant with
23
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for Harassment, Retaliation, and ongoing
24
conspiracy against Plaintiff in the University of California Davis Medical Center.
25
288. On October 25, 2011, Plaintiff sent a request to the UC Davis Public
26
record Act office and requested documents related to the UCDMC CENTRAL PLANT - JEFF
27
28
18 the organization and operation of the campus. With the investigation by Ms.
10 It is almost one month passed by since I asked Vice President Duckett for
12 I would like to mention that the previous UC HR Vice President Mrs. Judith
15 loud voice, did not give me any choice but to evacuate myself from the shop
19 another psychopath supervisor like Patrick Putney who victimized not only
20 myself but others too.
21 The question must be asked whether Patrick Putney is mentally sick or
22 unstable and UCDMC shall request psychiatric evaluation. Whether he should
23 be present around other employees not to mention supervising others. Beside
24
the stalking me, I observed that his hands are almost constantly shaking
25
especially when he got excited or mad or even for no reason.
26
Hypothetically, I wondering what would happen if instead of 60 years old Jerry
27
Waszczuk, a younger female employee would be working in the office and
28
15 Putney to protect stalked female employee or hunt her down for complaining
16 listed individuals.
5
CC: Vice President- Dwaine Duckett
6 UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer - Wendy Delmendo
Director Epperson
7 Office of UC Regents .
8
Office of the President Yudof
Liberty Mutual”
9
November 2011
10
11 291. In November 2011, Plaintiff spent most of his time dealing with the
12 Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, which deprived Plaintiff of legitimate short-term
13 disability benefits. After Plaintiff used all his sick leave days and vacation days, Plaintiff was
14 basically left without income. The FMLA 90-day protection also ran out. UCDMC HR Labor
15 Relations Consultant Gina Harwood, for reasons unknown to Plaintiff, on November 14, 2011,
16 offered to Plaintiff an additional 12 weeks of supplemental FMLA time protection, which
17 Plaintiff declined. The short-term disability benefits had been denied to Plaintiff, so it was
18
nonsense to accept the FMLA protection extension to stay employed without the income.
19
292. In the response letter, dated November 23, 2011, to Gina Harwood,
20
Plaintiff wrote:
21
“At this point, I am not considering to file for an extension of my
22
medical leave under the Supplemental FMLA University Policy 2.210.
23
I am under enormous stress and pressure, and I have had enough. I was left
24
without a paycheck, so an extension of medical leave won’t help with at all.
25
The Settlement-Agreement I signed with the UC Regents in 2009 and my civil
26
rights were grossly violated by the University of California.
27
28
Contacting the benefits office regarding my current situation to discuss the
15 294. The premediated pepper spray attack ordered by Chancellor Katehi on November
16 18, 2011, was solely used to replace UC Davis Chief of Police Annette Spicuzza with Lt. Matt
17 Carmichael; fire from the job Lt. John Pike, who was ordered and used to casually and very visibly pepper
18 spray students; and force to retire UC Davis Captain Joyce Souza. Just after the premediated pepper spray
19 attack, Lt. Matt Carmichael, who on November 18, 2011, was in the UC Davis Medical Center, instantly,
20 as most likely planned, was assigned as the interim UC Davis chief of police. In May 2012, the new UC
21 Davis chief of police participated with Lt. James Barbour in the operation to provoke and kill or end
22 Plaintiff’s employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11.
23
24 295. On November 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the State of California
25 Department of Insurance against the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston for denying to
26 Plaintiff short-term disability benefits. The Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, without
27 conducting any reasonable investigation concerning its obligations under the contract,
28
16 publications “Chemical Katehi,” on November 18, 2011, ordered gas attacks against peacefully
17 protesting students on the UC Davis Campus. In this way, Katehi observed and marked the 38th
18 anniversary of the student massacre at Athens Polytechnic by the Greek fascist military junta that
19 killed 25 people and injured over 1,000. In 1973, Linda Katehi was a student at Athens
20 Polytechnic.
21 298. A few days later, on November 23, 2011, UC Davis Vice Chancellor Claire
22 Pomeroy, who was in charge of UC Davis Medical Center School of Medicine, cried out in her e-mail
23 how the community was deeply shaken and disturbed by the pepper spraying of protesting students:
24
“Our university community is shaken by the deeply disturbing images we have
25
seen over the past few days. The video of the police action against peaceful
26
students stands in stark contrast to our deeply held commitments to freedom of
27
expression and to our UC Davis principles of community”
28
4
Can you do something about the National Socialism doctrine oriented and
5
entirely corrupted management in the UC Davis Medical Center, Plant
6
Operation and Maintenance and Human Resources Departments? The
7
8 Principles of Community does not exist in UCDMC and it is the empty slogan.
10 and others are receiving my letters for quite long and you and others don’t care
12 destroying my and others livelihood and life. I am sending a few letters again
13 to you with hope that I will be heartened to see Ms. Pomeroy will order to
14 conduct a true investigation against the corrupted individuals in both
15 departments and restore a normal work environment in the UCDMC PO&M
16 Department.
17
Best regards and good luck with your commitment to freedom of expression.
18
JerryWaszczuk
19
Associate Development Engineer
20
21 300. Shortly after Plaintiff sent his message to Vice Chancellor Pomeroy cc’d to many
22 other University of California decision makers, Vice Chancellor Pomeroy was forced to resign due to
23 illegal medical experiments conducted under Pomeroy’s supervision for years by two UC Davis Medical
24 Center Dutch neurosurgeons, Dr. J. Paul Muizelaar and Dr. Rudolph J. Schrot, which caused
several patients’ deaths. So far, Plaintiff, with his words about the UC Davis Medical Center
25
National Socialism doctrine, was taking into consideration inhumane, illegal medical
26
experiments on humans in the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz conducted on camp inmates
27
by the notorious Dr. Joseph Mengele.
28
6 access to the university e-mail, with accusations that Plaintiff was sending inappropriate content
7 in his emails. Mr. Witcher also added a threat about the dismissal of Plaintiff’s employment if he
8 continued to communicate with others about the investigation and about hunting Plaintiff down.
9 Plaintiff responded to Mr. Witcher’s accusations and his denial of Plaintiff’s e-mail access with a
25 304. The conclusion of this chapter is that the Defendant with Liberty
26 Assurance Company of Boston, by their malicious conspiracy against Plaintiff, left Plaintiff
27 without any source of income, which they thought would be a very convincing argument to make
28 Plaintiff quit his job. When it was done, UC Davis Medical Center HR Benefits Manager John
7 305. In December 2011, Defendant again forgot that in February 2009 they
9 agreed to employ Plaintiff indefinitely. The agreement was to be enforced by the California
10 Court according to the state of California’s laws if violated by any party which signed the
11 settlement- agreement.
12 306. On December 5, 2011, Plaintiff’s superior Charles Witcher, to Plaintiff’s
13 disbelief, sent to Plaintiff another threatening letter during Plaintiff’s sick leave due to work-
14 related stress, in which Witcher ordered Plaintiff to go to an investigatory interview with
15
Danesha Nichols on December 12, 2011. Four years after this, Plaintiff is still in disbelief that it
16
actually happened, but taking into consideration that Plaintiff’s employment almost ended in UC
17
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11 due to an unsuccessful provocation crafted by the same
18
management on May 30, 2012, then anything is possible at University of California.
19
307. To add another example, if one of workers for whom Plaintiff was
20
providing representation can be despicably attacked by the same UC Davis management during
21
his mother’s funeral, then employment at UC Davis Medical Center is full of surprises.
22
308. Plaintiff ignored Charles Witcher’s letter and his irresponsible threats to
23
dismiss Plaintiff from his employment during his stress-related sick leave. Removing Plaintiff
24
25 from sick leave unconditionally without Plaintiff’s physician’s permission and place Plaintiff on
27 309. Plaintiff was without income; the situation could not get any worse, and
28 Witcher’s threating letter was nothing else but ill-minded harassment and an attempt to
16 313. Besides the above, Plaintiff informed Gina Harwood that Plaintiff was
17 willing to have a meeting with HR Investigator Danesha Nichols if she was willing to meet
18 Plaintiff on the same day that Plaintiff would be retrieving his personal file and his belongings
19 from his office. Gina Harwood responded that she set up the meeting with Danesha Nichols on
20 December 22, 2011, and that all Plaintiff’s belongings would be delivered to the HR building in
21 the morning and available for pick up at the time of Plaintiff’s appointment with Danesha
22 Nichols.
23 314. Gina Harwood also informed Plaintiff that the computers containing the
24
hard drives Plaintiff made reference to were deployed outside of the HVAC shop due to the
25
sensitive nature of the systems on those computers and the department being concerned about
26
removing the hard drives at that time. Also, Gina Harwood asked Plaintiff to provide receipts
27
showing the purchase of these hard drives, and the university would reimburse him for the cost.
28
15 Plaintiff finally convinced two of his supervisor to bring used computers from the warehouse that
16 were already decommissioned and provide them to the crew for work orders and time cards.
17 Plaintiff cleaned, repaired and reprogrammed the old computers and provided them to HVAC
18 shop crew members to make their everyday job a lot easier and more efficient.
19 318. Besides the above, Plaintiff informed Gina Harwood that Plaintiff was
20 willing to have a meeting with HR Investigator Danesha Nichols if she was willing to meet
21 Plaintiff on the same day that he would be retrieving his personal file and his belongings from
22 his office.
23 319. Gina Harwood did set up an appointment with Danesha Nichols on
24
December 22, 2011.
25
320. When on December 22, 2011, Plaintiff arrived for the meeting with
26
Danesha in the UC Davis Medical Center HR building, a UC Davis police cruiser with officers
27
inside was on standby next to the building and Danesha Nichols had the assistance of a male
28
15 investigatory leave or administrative leave with pay. Plaintiff lost track of whether he was on
17 323. The Defendant’ reckless and unwarranted attacks against Plaintiff in 2011
18 and gross violation of the 2009 settlement-agreement, along with harassment, retaliation,
19 enormous stress and anxiety, and the fear of losing employment, caused Plaintiff financial losses
20 in relation to his employment, which amounted to the approximate sum of $21,000.00, taking
21 into consideration accrued sick leave and vacation hours, which Plaintiff was forced to use due to
22 stress-related sick leave caused by the Defendant and the Defendant’ conspiracy with Liberty
23 Assurance Company of Boston, which resulted in Plaintiff’s short-term disability being denied.
24
25 January 2012
26
324. On or about January 10, 2012, Plaintiff noticed on his pay stub for the pay
27
period with an end date of 12/24/2011, that Plaintiff’s title had been changed without his
28
16 326. If, in January 2012, Plaintiff would have known that the Defendant’ goal
17 was to separate Plaintiff from Metasys System and from any data and information related to the
18 UC Davis Medical Central Plant operation, then Plaintiff would most likely have taken a
19 different approach to the problem. Plaintiff would have attempted to renegotiate the signed
20 February 2009 Settlement-Agreement with the Defendant, regardless of the psychological terror,
21 harassment and despicable attacks on Plaintiff’s character and integrity that the Defendant
22 committed.
23 327. Plaintiff had no clue as to why this was done or who did it, but the
24
Defendant ignored the fact that according to the February 2009, the Settlement-Agreement,
25
Plaintiff’s position and work place cannot be changed without Plaintiff’s consent or a Court
26
Order.
27
328. On January 18 , 2012, Plaintiff noticed by looking at his pay stub dated
28
16 Disability Insurance with the Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston and Plaintiff
17 advised John Peklar that he make sure that that premium for this insurance will not be
19 331. On January 25, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to the UC Office President
20 liaison Mike Waldman, who was responsible for administrating the supplemental short-term
21 disability benefits, to intervene with Liberty Assurance Company Boston to pay Plaintiff’s
22 legitimate benefits, which were denied in November and December 2012. Plaintiff did not get
23 any response from Mr. Waldman.
24
332. At the end of January 2012, Plaintiff learned that his long-time physician,
25
who placed Plaintiff on stress-related sick leave for fourth months, wouldn’t provide any longer
26
medical service for Plaintiff and that Plaintiff’s psychologist’s residence in Lodi was raided by
27
the State of California Department of Social Services.
28
17 of California.
18 336. Plaintiff in good faith also forwarded to Cindy Oropeza the latest e-mail
19 correspondence with Danesha Nichols, the investigator UC Davis Medical Center assigned to the
20 case, which stated that, if Plaintiff’s employer is looking for an informal resolution of the
21 problem, then Plaintiff would prefer not to see or read Danesha Nichols’ investigation findings
22 and the Defendant’ action based on Danesha Nichols’ findings. It would save Plaintiff’s and
23 others’ time and, if Plaintiff read the findings, would turn the ongoing conflict in a new direction
24 and open up a new, unpleasant dispute. Plaintiff also stated that he is very tired and very stressed
25 out from dealing with this conflict. Cindy Oropeza responded that UC Davis Medical Center’s
26
HR Labor Relation Manager will contact Plaintiff shortly and will set a meeting with Plaintiff to
27
discuss the possibility of resolving the conflict informally.
28
15 340. Plaintiff does not know why Plaintiff was asked to meet with Mike Garcia,
16 but Plaintiff believed that the Right to Sue Letter dated January 26, 2012, which Plaintiff
17 received from the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Right Division and of which a carbon copy
18 was sent to the UC Davis Medical Center was one of the reason for explore possibility of
19 informal resolution.
20
341. In February 2012 and for a long time thereafter, Plaintiff had no intention
21
to sue the Defendant; instead, Plaintiff was hoping that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
22
Commission (EEOC) would help him deal with his ongoing employment dispute with the
23
24
Defendant. However, when Plaintiff filed a complaint with U.S. EEOC against Defendant and
25 subsequently went to the EEOC’s San Francisco Office for an interview, Plaintiff was dismayed
26 to find that the EEOC intake officer was terrified of filing a complaint against the University of
27 California and dealing with UC attorneys. Plaintiff had no choice but to ask for a Right to Sue
28 Letter. Plaintiff could not find an attorney and was trying to get an extension of the Right to Sue
10 343. Defendant were perfectly aware that Plaintiff would be outraged by any
11 negative remarks in the reports about him. Plaintiff, since February 2009, was working for
13 Engineer and had reminded the Defendant in almost every correspondence with them since April
14 2011 that they were breaching and violating the Settlement – Agreement they had signed with
15 Plaintiff.
16 344. In addition to the above, Plaintiff learned in February 2012 that HR Labor
17 Relation Manager Mike Garcia replaced HR Consultant Gina Harwood with experienced
18 attorney Jill Vandeviver to handle Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s coworkers’ complaints from the
19
same Department in which Plaintiff worked.
20
345. Besides the above, Plaintiff’s two coworkers, Kenny Diede from the
21
HVAC Shop and William Buckans from the Central Plant, asked Plaintiff to represent them in
22
their complaints pursuant to UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70. Plaintiff agreed
23
to represent Kenny Diede and William Buckans with their complaints Step II appeals.
24
25
March 2012
26
15 348. Plaintiff’s second letter to the UC Davis chief counsel, dated July 24, 2011,
18 349. In response to Plaintiff’s complaints to the UC Davis chief counsel about the
19 2009 Settlement-Agreement violation by the Defendant, on July 26, 2011, UC Davis Chief
20 Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo sent Plaintiff an invitation to file a whistleblowing complaint.
22 Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo’s invitation and advised her that none of the
23 violations she outlined in her letter were qualified to file a claim against under the “UC
24 Whistleblower” policy.
25 351. Furthermore, the mentioned violations should have been be corrected
26 immediately by UC Davis Medical Center senior management through the administrative
27 process. The violations were so obvious and known by the general employee population in the
28
18 stating that he understood that Plaintiff is representing William Buckans and Kenny Diede
19 through the PPSM 70 complaint appeal process. However, since Plaintiff was on paid
20 investigatory leave, Plaintiff would not be permitted to attend any procedural meetings with
21 (CRO) related to both of Plaintiff’s clients’ (as he stated) complaints until a decision was made
22 in the matter related to the allegations made against Plaintiff. Furthermore, Humberto Garcia
23 stated that the university was amenable to placing both the William Buckans and Kenny Diede
24 complaints in abeyance until a decision was made in the matter referenced above and that
25 Plaintiff may elect to submit his arguments to the CRO in writing or Plaintiff’s clients (as he
26 stated) may elect to be represented by someone else.
27
28 357. Plaintiff met Humberto Garcia on February 14, 2012 in the UC Davis
14
358. Today, Plaintiff looks at Humberto Garcia’s e-mail letter dated March 21,
15
2012, differently than Plaintiff looked at it in March 2012. Today, Plaintiff looks at Humberto
16
Garcia’s e-mail letter, , as a letter that may have saved Plaintiff’s life, taking into consideration
17
who was in charge of the UC Davis Police Department in March 2012 and why Mathew
18
Carmichael was assigned as interim UC Davis Police Chief by UC Davis Administration.
19
Humberto Garcia and HR attorney and Humberto Garcia assistant Jill Vanderviver, did not
20
survive long after February 2012 attempt to resolve informally with Plaintiff ongoing dispute.
21
22 359. In addition to the above, on March 19, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to
23 University of California Senior Vice President Chief Compliance and Audit Officer Sheryl Vacca
24 and asked her for an independent investigation. Also, Plaintiff requested under the Public Record
25 Act provision all the documents related to Danesha Nichols and Wendi Delmendo’s pseudo-
27 April 2012
15 would contact Plaintiff when the administrative review has been completed without any specifics
17
18 April 2012- The Complaint with U.S Department of Labor , OFCCP Office
19
15 denied in November and December 2011 to Plaintiff. . Further, Plaintiff’s complaint against
16 Liberty had been pending with the state insurance commissioner’s office since November 2011.
17 UC Davis HR Benefits Manager John Peklar was the person who disenrolled Plaintiff from
18 medical insurance in December 2011 without Plaintiff’s knowledge. Since Plaintiff did not want
19 to risk being left without medical insurance, he enrolled himself and his wife in medical
20 insurance with Nordstrom Corporation, where Plaintiff’s spouse has been employed since 1990,
21 paying an extra $200/month.
22
April 2012 – Letter Of Intent to Suspend with 10 Days without Pay
23
24
366. Instead of a response from the Defendant in regard to the informal
25
resolution initiated by the Defendant in February 2012, Plaintiff, on April 13, 2012, received
26
from the Defendant a Letter of Intent to Suspend signed by the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
27
Operation and Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher—the same Charles Witcher who,
28
15 Specifically, the Defendant’ lies accused Plaintiff that his behavior was in violation of UCDHS
16 Policy 1616 — Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and UC Davis Policy and
18 lies in the letter implied that Plaintiff failed to adhere to specific instructions during the
19 investigation to refrain from engaging in email communications with witnesses, which interfered
20 with the investigation, as outlined in the report.
21 368. Furthermore, the unfounded allegations in the Letter of Intent to Suspend
22 were made that on March 8, 2011, April 21, 2011, and May 5, 20011, Plaintiff engaged in
23 behavior that violated UCDHS Policy 1616—Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace. It
24
was alleged that Plaintiff’s behavior was disruptive and intimidating to Dorin Daniliuc when he
25
allegedly pointed his finger in his face and used profanity on March 8, 2011. Further, on April
26
21, 2011, Plaintiff allegedly became disruptive and intimidating toward Patrick Putney during a
27
discussion regarding the Putney and Daniliuc ’s work performance as Plaintiff understood the
28
15 State of California Court of Law, not by slanderous pseudo-investigation reports that financially
17 370. At the end of the letter, Plaintiff was instructed that Plaintiff has the right
18 to respond, either orally or in writing, to the notice of intent to suspend. Plaintiff’s response must
19 be received by the Skelly Reviewer, Michael Pansius (916-734-6572), within eight (8) calendar
20 days from the date of issuance of this letter.
21 371. The assigned Skelly Reviewer, Michael Pansius, was the subordinate of
22 UC Davis Medical Center Director Mike Boyd from the facilities construction and design
23 department.
24
372. In July 2011, Director Mike Boyd took charge of the UC Davis Medical
25
Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and became Charles Witcher’s superior.
26
373. Director Mike Boyd took charge of the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
27
Operation and Maintenance Department after his partner in crime, Director Robert Taylor, left
28
16 financial losses in 2011 and Plaintiff lost all accrued vacation and sick leave hours. Plaintiff’s
17 total financial losses in 2011 amounted to approximately $21, 000, due to the inhumane
19
376. On April 15, 2012, Plaintiff requested from Defendant all available
20
documents related to the UC Davis Medical Center HR investigator pseudo-investigation. The
21
requested documents that were included were all generated by Danesha Nichols’ investigatory
22
reports.
23
24
377. On April 20, 2012, Plaintiff responded to the Defendant’s Letter Intent to
25 Suspend signed by Charles Witcher and, in his 26-page response, demanded from the assigned
26 Skelly reviewer, who did not know Skelly law, to entirely disregard and dismiss all lies and
2 378. In great disappointment over the investigatory reports and the unwarranted
3 attack on Plaintiff with the Letter of Intent to Suspend, on April 27, 2012, Plaintiff sent a short
4 email to Danesha Nichols expressing his feelings about her reports. Plaintiff attached to the e-
5
mail a video clip/slide show entitled “Welcome to Romania.” It shows post-communist
6
devastated Romania and some scenes in the slide show had lot in common with the landscape in
7
the HVAC shop supervised by Dorin Daniliuc and Patrick Putney.. Later, the “Welcome to
8
Romania” slide show was exploited and repeatedly used to attack Plaintiff and as cause and
9
pretext to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
10
379. Danesha Nichols attempted to bully and intimidate Plaintiff, and she
11
received a proper response from Waszczuk. Waszczuk reported Nichols and Chilcott to the State
12
Bar in October 2011and 2013 and reported Nichols to UC Davis Police (Captain Souza and Lt.
13
Pike). If the UC Davis investigator was to investigate Nichols for anything, it would be Central
14
15 Plant Operator Todd Georlich’s suicide, which occurred on December 22, 2010; Central Plant
16 Operator Jeff Lancaster’s locker burglary; the secret 12% pay raise for central plant operators in
17 December 2010, based on blackmail petition; Daniliuc’s involvement in his private enterprise on
18 company time, as well the fact that he was employed by two UCDMC Directors—Robert Taylor
19 and Shelton Duruisseau—in their private residences in exchange for giving him a supervisor
20 position and access to free HVAC parts and equipment and presence in the HVAC shop, though
21 he was a twice-convicted child pornography felon who illegally was accessing the UCDMC
22 HVAC shop computer during his probation or parole time.
23 380. Danesha Nichols swept under the rug the child pornography felony matter
24
in her report instead of turning porn felon into authorities and obtaining a restraining order.
25
Instead, in her reports Nichols made Plaintiff look five times worse than , a twice-convicted child
26
pornography felon; thus, Nichols grossly violated law by not reporting a felon on probation to
27
authorities and grossly violating the 2009 Settlement–Agreement that Plaintiff signed with the
28
7 May 2012
May 2012- Defendant Preparation for the May 31, 2012 Provocation to Kill Plaintiff
8
9
381. In April and May 2012, Plaintiff did not know or was aware that the
10
Defendant were negotiating the new power sale contract with the Sacramento Municipal Utility
11
12 District (SMUD) and the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant cogeneration facility. The
13 Defendant got very inpatient with Plaintiff’s continued presence on the Defendant’ payroll list.
14 382 .The psychological terror, abuse, harassment, and retaliation that Plaintiff
15 was subjected to for almost one year, which was orchestrated and carried out by the Defendant’
16 lawyers, managers, and psychologists at the UC Davis Medical Center HR Department with the
17 full support of the UC Davis Chancellor Office and the University of California Office of the
18 President did not work to force Plaintiff to quit voluntarily The decision was made to eliminate
19 Plaintiff by provocation and by means of a bullet from the pistol of UC Davis Police Lt. James
20 Barbour who was assigned by Defendant to carry out assassination on May 31, 2012.
21 383. On May 1, 2012, Plaintiff did not know how close Plaintiff was to being
22 killed or his employment ending in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11 due to the
23 ill-crafted provocation of an especially assembled team, which Plaintiff later nicknamed in
24
documents “UC Davis Death Squad.”
25
384. The first stage of preparation to provoke and eliminate Plaintiff was the
26
February 14, 2012, fruitless meeting with Humberto Garcia from the UC Davis HR Department,
27
which was intended to informally resolve conflict or let Plaintiff return to work after six months
28
15 387. The fourth preparation step to provoke and eliminate Plaintiff was the April
16 13, 2012, Letter of Intent to Suspend Plaintiff without pay for 10 days during Plaintiff‘s already
17 nine (9) months forced absence from work. The letter of intent to suspend did not even say or
18 Arizona. Mr. Lohse is a member of the State Bars of California and Arizona.
21 391. Plaintiff was very impressed with Director John Lohse professional career
22 and achievements. However, in the situation Plaintiff found himself in with respect to his
23 employment, Plaintiff was convinced that Director Lohse was coordinating unknown actions
24 against Plaintiff and that Director Lohse perfectly fit the profile of framing Plaintiff. Plaintiff
25 expressed his thoughts in a response letter to Director John Lohse dated May 14, 2012. After
26 Plaintiff responded to Mr. Lohse’s letter and sent to his office a few other documents related to
28
6
393. On May 11, 2012, Charles Witcher was ordered to serve Plaintiff a 10-
7
day suspension without pay from May 16, 2012, to May 30, 2012. The letter was based on
8
unspecified and fabricated accusations and allegations that were never witnessed by anybody.
9
Plaintiff’s stress levels and blood pressure went up, and nitroglycerine and Lorazepam were very
10
helpful.
11
May 11, 2012
12
13
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
524 Swallow Lane
14 Lodi, CA 95240
15
RE: Letter of Suspension
16
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I am suspending you for a
17
period of ten (10) working days without pay, commencing May 16, 2012
18
through May 30, 2012. The reason for this action is your continued
19
inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Specifically, your behavior is in
20
violation of UCDHS Policy 1616 — Violence and Hate Incidents in the
21
Workplace and UC Davis Policy and Procedure 380-15 Staff Complaints of
22
Discrimination. Additionally, your failure to adhere to specific instructions
23
during the investigation to refrain from engaging in email communications
24
25
with witnesses interfered with the investigation as outlined in the report.
26 The suspension will begin on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 and end on
27 Wednesday, May 30, 2012. You are expected to report to work at 8 a.m.
17 Employee & Employee & Labor Relations office no later than thirty (30)
19 Charles Witcher
20 Manager, Plant Operations and Maintenance
Attachments: Proof of Service
21 Skelly Decision
22
cc' [Department File]
[UCDHS Employee & Labor Relations w/attachment]
23 [UCDHS HR Records w/attachment]
24
25 394. In Charles Witcher’s Letter of Suspension, dated May 11, 2012, Plaintiff
26 was instructed to report to Charles Witcher’s office on May 31, 2012, at 8:00 a.m. Plaintiff was
27 not aware that just a day before, Charles Witcher had been instructed by Brent Seifert, Cindy
28
8 May 2012 – The Defendant Attack Aimed at Plaintiff Coworkers , Kenny Diede
and William Buckans
9
10
397. In further preparation to send Plaintiff to the trauma unit, on May 18 and
11
23, 2012, PO&M Manager Charles Witcher, Patrick Putney, Dennis Curry, and Mike Lewis, in a
12
retaliatory manner, attacked the two coworkers Plaintiff was representing in complaints against
13
some of the above-mentioned individuals. Within one week, Kenny Diede and William Buckans
14
were served with despicable Letters of Expectation, which were based on phony, unfounded, and
15
fabricated accusations.
16
17 May 2012- Plaintiff Protest Letter Entitled “ The Retaliation Isn’t Wise’
18 398. On May 24, 2012, Plaintiff issued a 13-page protest letter entitled, “The
19 Retaliation Isn’t Wise,” against management’s vicious attack on Kenny Diede and William
20 Buckans and sent it to the perpetrators and senior management and administration at UC Davis
12
401. May 30, 2012, was Plaintiff’s 61st birthday and on May 30, 2012, Plaintiff
13
did not know that the HR Workers Compensation Manager was a coordinator of the assembled
14
15 “UC Davis Death Squad” and planning to end Plaintiff’s employment with the University of
16 California on May 31, 2012 (the next day) at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit. Plaintiff
17 also did not know on his 61st birthday that the host of the stress management class Marjorie
18 Trogdon Shock was also a member of the assembled “UC Davis Death Squad,” the goal of which
19 was to end Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Trauma unit # 11 because Defendant signed
20 power sale contract for UCDMC Central Plant with Scaramanto Municipal Utility Distict
21 on May 29, 2012.
22 402. On May 31, 2012, per Defendant’ suspension letter dated May 11, 2012,
23 Plaintiff was scheduled to return to work after 10 months of absence and report to Charles
24
Witcher’s office in Bldg. 68.
25
403. Plaintiff had heard from his coworkers that the carpenter shop was
26
building two extra offices on the first level of Building 68, and Plaintiff was hoping that
27
Defendant would eventually move Plaintiff from the HVAC shop to Bldg. 68 and that the
28
4 404. On May 31, 2012, I drove to work and parked my car next to HVAC shop
5
as usual with a valid parking permit. Before Plaintiff reported to the Department Head Charles
6
Witcher’s office, Plaintiff went to the Marriott Hotel across from the HVAC shop to eat
7
breakfast in the cafeteria. I met my two coworkers, who joined me for breakfast.
8
405. Plaintiff was not expecting to be placed on investigatory leave again,
9
which Plaintiff hated, and Plaintiff wanted to go back to work after such a long period of absence
10
regardless of the fact that Plaintiff had been subjected by Defendant to more than one year of
11
psychological terror, harassment, retaliation, significant loss of income, and multiple threats of
12
employment termination. Plaintiff could expect anything but never expected that that highly
13
regarded University of California would assemble a “Death Squad” to resolve the dispute with
14
15 the employee by using the police force to end the employee’s career with the university at the
16 trauma unit.
17 406. On May 30, 2012, just one day before the ill-planned provocation, HR
18 Supervisor Brent Seifer sent an e-mail to HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott stating that
19 Plaintiff’s superior Charles Witcher understands that Jerry (Plaintiff) will report to his office
20 tomorrow at 8 am. As soon as Jerry (Plaintiff) arrived, Charles would be issuing the
21 investigatory leave letter and directing him to meet with me.
22 407. On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff arrived at 8:00 a.m. at the Department Head
23 Charles Witcher’s office, and Charles Witcher handed Plaintiff a letter and sent him to the HR
24
Building Tycon III for an interview with HR Supervisor Brent Seifert. Maybe if Plaintiff had read
25
Charles Witcher’s letter in his office and found out that the Defendant were placing Plaintiff again
26
on investigatory leave and not letting him return to work after 10 days suspension, Plaintiff would
27
probably not have appreciated such actions. If Plaintiff had known that Defendant had maliciously
28
10
408. Plaintiff did not read the letter in Charles’ office and went straight to the
11
Human Resources Tycon Building for the meeting with Brent Seifert. HR Supervisor Brent Seifert
12
looked at Plaintiff upon his arrival like he wanted to ask Plaintiff what Plaintiff was doing in the
13
HR building meeting. At the end of the meeting—which was about phony, new, unfounded, made-
14
15 up, and out-of-the-blue accusations against Plaintiff and life in Romania, of which Brent Seifer
16 did not even know where it was located, Plaintiff asked Brent Seifert, “What’s next?” In response,
17 Brent Seifert said, “Didn’t you read the letter Witcher gave you? You are on investigatory leave
19 409. Plaintiff looked at the letter he received from Witcher, said ok, then left the
20 HR Building and Plaintiff went home. Plaintiff did not like the investigatory leave and Plaintiff
21 expressed his feelings thereafter in a letter entitled “I feel again like a Hunted Jew during the
22 Holocaust.” This is how the HR “Death Squad’s” plot to send Plaintiff the UC Davis Medical
23 Center # 11 failed.
24
410. Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, knew that something was wrong but Plaintiff
25
did not know any details about the malicious plan of the UC Davis Death Squad, “Kill Waszczuk,”
26
nor the unsuccessful provocation, until Plaintiff received relevant documents under the Public
27
Record Act Provision of November 2011. The documents are very clear as to what Defendant had
28
3 JUNE 2012
4 June 1,2012- Hugh Parker’s E-Mail to the Members of the ” UC Davis Death Squad”
5
6
411. On June 1, 2012, one day after falling ill and the maliciously crafted
7
provocation by the assembled UC Davis Death Squad, the coordinator of the provocation, HR
8
Workers Compensation Manager Hugh Parker, sent e-mail message to the other members of the
9
assembled UC Davis Death Squad members stating that
10
“Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) had returned to work yesterday from his
11
suspension and was placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At
12
issue are writings sent by Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) while on leave. Mr.
13
Waszczuk (Plaintiff) did not display any anger when told he was being
14
16 412.. The Hugh Parker e-mail statement read: “At issue are writings sent by Mr.
17 Waszczuk (Plaintiff) while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) did not display any anger when
18 told he was being place on investigatory leave.” This translates to the following: that Plaintiff,
19 after almost one year of absence due to the Defendant’ psychological terror aimed at Plaintiff,
20 including threatening Plaintiff’s employment and livelihood by means of multiple investigatory
21 leave letters, which Plaintiff received from the Defendant as ill-planned provocations, should be
22 triggered to become angry and violent so that the UC Davis renegade Police Lt James Barbour,
23 bribed by means of a $35,000 wage increase by UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11,
24
will do the job to eliminate Plaintiff from the UC Davis Medical Center landscape forever.
25
Apparently, UC Davis assembled Death Squad members underestimated Plaintiff and mistook
26
Plaintiff for somebody whose employment they had ended with UC Davis in this way.
27
28
15 among the eleven names of the assembled UC Davis Death Squad, but Stephen Chilcott’s name
16 appeared in the email dated May 30, 2012, which was sent by HR Supervisor Brent Seifert to
17 Stephen Chilcott in preparation for the ill-minded provocation and Plaintiff’s execution by UC
18 Davis Police.
15 granted to him by the 2009 Settlement-Agreement signed with the UC Regents, which HR
16 Director Stephen Chilcott grossly solicited and supervised then violated and disregarded.
18 and the Locally Designated Official (LDO), with full knowledge of wrongdoing, conspired in a
19 premeditated fashion with other Defendant and UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi
20 Delmendo to cover the others’ crimes and gross misconduct, deliberate interference, and
21 retaliation against Plaintiff for reporting management misconduct and violation of state and
22 federal law and established University of California Policies and Procedures.
23 420. HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, with malice and disregard for
24
state and federal law, conspired and dedicated himself to ending Plaintiff’s employment, doing
25
whatever it would take, and conspired with others, known and unknown, to kill Plaintiff or end
26
Plaintiff’s employment on May 31, 2012, in UC Davis Trauma Unit # 11, thus violating not only
27
Plaintiff’s civil rights but also, despicably, Plaintiff’s human rights to work and live.
28
18 subordinate.
15 which information was leaked out regarding the attempt to terminate Plaintiff, and Plaintiff did
16 not report to the UCDMC HR Building on this day. The Danesha Nichols Report for termination
19 with HR Labor Relation Manager Mike Garcia for informal conflict resolution. Plaintiff, in good
20 faith, held the meeting with Garcia and presented his proposition to resolve the conflict. Instead
21 of a counter offer or proposition to resolve, Plaintiff was suspended in May 2012 for 10 days
22 without pay, his two coworkers to whom Plaintiff provided representation came under vicious
23 attack, Garcia was replaced by a new HR Labor Relation Manager, and Garcia’s assistant Jill
24
Vandeviver was fired. Oropeza’s name is listed in a group of UC Davis employees who were
25
members of a specially assembled team nicknamed in the documents by Plaintiff “The UC Davis
26
Death Squad.”
27
428. On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff became the subject of an ill-crafted but
28
17 Plaintiff met Neil Speth in 2005 through the course of his employment at the UCDMC Central
18 Plant. Dr. Neil Speth almost killed Plaintiff in 2005 by forcing Plaintiff to take a spirometer test
19 against Plaintiff’s will. As a result of Dr. Speth’s irresponsible actions, Plaintiff landed
20 unconscious in the UCDMC ER. Plaintiff informed Dr. Speth at the relevant time that because of
21 Plaintiff’s medical condition, Plaintiff could not take a spirometer test. Plaintiff intended to take
22 legal action against Dr. Speth, but a few months later, Plaintiff had open-heart surgery and dropped
23 the idea to take Dr. Speth to court.
24
432. Plaintiff is not sure what kind of assignment Hugh Parker, the coordinator
25
of the HR Death Squad action against Plaintiff, gave to Dr. Speth for May 31, 2012, but it is
26
apparent that Dr. Speth had an assignment to ensure that Plaintiff stop breathing in the Trauma
27
Unit after the Lt. James Barbour’s response to UC Davis Death Squad Coordinator Hugh Parker’s
28
12
435. CAROL KIRSHNIT, Ph.D, and MARJORE TROGODON SHOCK,
13
LCSW—Members of the UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENETR HR Academic and Staff Assistance
14
15 Program.
16 436. Carol Kirshnit is a licensed clinical psychologist and the coordinator of the
17 Academic and Staff Assistance Program at UC Davis Health System, and Marjorie Trogodon
18 Shock is a licensed clinical social worker with over 20 years of clinical experience.
19 Plaintiff believes that Carol Kirshnit, Ph.D, was the person who, as a doctor of psychology,
20 professionally advised her Superior HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott and the UC
21 Davis Death Squad coordinator Hugh Parker as to whether Plaintiff was properly primed
22 and aroused to be provoked and killed on May 31, 2012, and whether Plaintiff’s
23 employment would end in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit .
24
437. Marjorie Trogodon Shock was the person who, on May 30, 2012,
25
together with the Death Squad Coordinator, removed Plaintiff from the stress management class.
26
Apparently, Shock was perfectly aware and informed about the ill-crafted provocation of May
27
31, 2012, to kill Plaintiff. Plaintiff believes that her participation in the plot was to comfort
28
10 Plaintiff’s employment termination and that Parker would become a coordinator of the UC Davis
11 Death Squad and of the maliciously crafted provocation to kill Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, or end
12 Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical Center. Plaintiff hopes that Hugh Parker
13 sooner or later, together with the co-conspirators, will get what he deserves according to
20 assembled UC Davis Death Squad. In May 2012 and thereafter, Lindsey was looking for any
21 reason she could use to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff looked at Lindsey’s job
22 history and credentials on the Web and it appears that Lindsey never advanced in his attorney
23 legal career beyond the position of associate attorney in four different law firms from January
24 2003 to May 2012. The working record also shows that Lindsey never worked in a Human
25 Resources department at any private enterprise or public employment, did not have any
26 supervisory or managerial experience, and had not directly handled any labor issues prior to
27 being hired by UC Davis Medical Center in 2012.
28
17 Center, it creates an unbelievably chilling picture of what the “HR Death Squad Members,”
18 including Karen Kouertas, had in their sick minds in relation to the meticulously and maliciously
19 crafted provocation of May 31, 2012, to eliminate Plaintiff from UC Davis Medical Center
20 landscape.
21 445. In July 2013, Plaintiff made an attempt to find out through the State of
22 California Board of Registered Nurses the capacity of Karen Kouretas’s involvement in the
23
activity of the assembled UC Davis Death Squad.
24
446. It is very important for the Board of Registered Nursing to know that the
25
board is issuing licenses not only to nurses who work very hard to take care of sick and ill people
26
but also to nurses, like Karen Kouretas, who collaborate and associate themselves with a group
27
of people whose goals are to provoke, kill, and deliver their victims to her unit for unspecified
28
16 Davis Compliance Office due to borrowing from contractors who were working in UC Davis
18 450. Dennis Curry was removed from the premises just two weeks before he
22
451. On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff sent a 24-page letter to the UC Davis Medical
23
Center Compliance & Privacy Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman. The letter was entitled:
24
“THE SUMMARY OF THE FEW UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN UC DAVIS
25
8
June13, 2012 – The Investigatory Leave Extension
9
452. On June 13, 2012, UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and
10
Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher sent an email letter to Plaintiff stating that
11
Plaintiff’s investigatory leave was being extended from June 14, 2012, through June 27, 2012.
12
Furthermore, the e-mail stated that Plaintiff was thereby relieved from all work duties for the
13
duration of this investigation. This duration was intended to allow additional time to collect
14
15 relevant information and determine the facts surrounding e-mails that Plaintiff sent, which were
16 believed to contain discriminatory content. Plaintiff would remain on pay status during that time.
17 During this leave, Plaintiff would not be allowed to have access to the work place. Plaintiff
18 would remain available during business hours should it be required that Plaintiff participate
19 in this investigation. There was no word in Witcher’s e-mail that Plaintiff violated the 2009
20 Settlement-Agreement signed by Plaintiff with the UC Regents.
21 June 14, 2012-The State of California’s Insurance Commissioner Office Decision
22
23 453. On June 14, 2012, two weeks after the unsuccessful provocation to end
24
Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11, Plaintiff received a
25
decision from the State of California’s Insurance Commissioner Office in regard to the complaint
26
Plaintiff filed in November 2011 against the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, which, in
27
conspiracy with the Defendant, denied Plaintiff Short Term Disability Benefits. The decision,
28
15 Campus or UC Davis Medical Center) from the period of November 1, 2011, to the present time.
16 455. Furthermore, in his letter to Captain Joyce Souza, Plaintiff stated that
17 based on multiple correspondences that Plaintiff forwarded to Captain Souza’s office, Captain
18 Souza was most likely aware that Plaintiff had not been working since August 2, 2011. Plaintiff
19 spent eight months of this period on administrative leave and investigatory leave plus 10 days of
20 suspension without pay as a retaliation. Plaintiff elaborated in his letter to Captain Souza that it is
21 not difficult for anyone to figure out that the eight months on administrative and investigatory
22 leave indicate that something went terribly wrong or is going to go terribly wrong for a long time
23 in the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and Human
24
Resources Department.
25
The UC Davis Pepper Spray Incident investigation took only five months to issue the final
26
report. (From November 2011 to March 2012) and Plaintiff’s case has been going since
27
March 13, 2011.
28
15 were filed under Policy PPSM 70 and to whom Plaintiff was providing representation. Gina
16 Harwood was removed by Humberto Garcia in January or February 2012 to handle Plaintiff and
17 his coworkers’ complaints, which were assigned to HR consultant Jill Noel Vanderviver.
19 about Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver’s departure from UC Davis Medical Center with
20 a 10-page letter.
21 June 27, 2012 – The Investigatory Leave Extension
22 459. On June 27, 2012, Plaintiff called UC Davis Medical Center Plant
23 Operation Manager Charles Witcher and asked him about Plaintiff’s status because the last
24
investigatory leave letter had expired on June 27, 2012. Thereafter, Charles Witcher sent Plaintiff
25
another routine two-weeks extension, stating that the letter confirmed that Plaintiff’s
26
investigatory leave was being extended from June 28, 2012, through July 11, 2012. Plaintiff was
27
hereby relieved from all work duties for the duration of this investigation. This would allow
28
10 enjoyed being UC Davis Medical Center management’s prisoner, sentenced to one year of home
11 arrest for unknown causes, Plaintiff responded to Witcher’s investigatory extension letter as
12 follows:
13 “Do you have any clue who is being investigated and why this investigation is
14 causing me this Investigatory Leave for such a long time?
15
Did you receive any threats against me and are you keeping me out of the
16
Medical Center for my safety or is it for a different reason?
17
I am just curious because it is weird and makes me very nervous that I am still
18
on the UC Payroll for so long and I can’t work. I am getting all kinds of
19
information and it makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes of
20
your Investigatory Leave. I am not sure if all the information I am receiving is
21
true but, almost always, rumors and gossip contain 5% of the truth.
22
Today, I received information about the Director Taylor and Mike Pansius’
23
24
retirement. A few weeks ago, I heard about Dennis Curry’s suspension or
25 administrative leave just before his retirement. Last Friday, I received official
26 information about Mike Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver’s departure from the
28 Today, my Investigatory leave was forgotten. It was a very hard decision for
15 and I only built my positive opinion of Corey from the HVAC and PM shops
17 Do you know who is in charge of the HR Labor Relations after Mike Garcia
18 left? I thought a few my months back that Jill Noel Vandeviver was going to
19 replace Mike with her very aggressive introduction to the ongoing matters
20 related to myself, Kenny Diede, and William Buckans, as well as associated
21 PO&M personnel. It is my understanding that an Investigatory Leave Letter
22 has to be approved by HR Labor Relation Chief.
23 Also, there is an issue with my employee evaluation for 2010/2011. I am still a
24
UC employee and would appreciate it if you provide me with the evaluation
25
for 2010/2011. At least for the period I was in the shop and was working until
26
August 2, 2011. The time for 2011/2012 evaluations is approaching, and I am
27
not sure how I should be evaluated when I am not working and due to a
28
6
July 3, 2012—HR Consultant Gina Harwood’s Letter Entitled
7 “Jerry Waszezuk Timeline/Summary”
8
9
461. On July 3, 2012, notoriously deceptive UC Davis Medical Center HR
10
Consultant Gina Harwood sent an e-mail to her supervisor, Brent Seifert, with the attached letter
11
(“Jerry Waszczuk Timeline /Summary”) described by Gina Harwood as “thrown together really
12
quick.” Besides, the mentioned summary was full of slanderous lies and unfounded, made-up
13
accusations about Plaintiff, which she began generating in 2011 and is repeating with demeaning
14
lies about Plaintiff in this summary. Gina Harwood also complained to Brent Seifert about
15
dismissed in June the HR Labor Relation Consultant, Jill Noel Vandrviver . HR consultant Jill
16
17
Noel Vandrviver was dismissed together with the HR Labor Relation Manger, Humberto Garcia
18 in June 2012. Gina Harwood was removed in January or February 2012, from handling Plaintiff
20 management misconduct, retaliation and harassment. It was most likely that Gina Harwood
21 contributed much of her effort to make Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vanedviver dismissed
22 from their jobs in retaliation for being removed from the assignment.
23 462. In her July, 2012, full-of-lies defacing-the-Plaintiff summary, Gina Harwood wrote:
24 Jerry Waszczuk Timeline/Summary
25 “Jaroslaw Waszczuk is an employee in the HVAC Shop as an Associate
26 Development Engineer, he has been employed for 13 years. He is responsible
27
for monitoring the Metasys system which monitors alarms throughout the
28
15 received a complaint letter from Mr. Waszczuk with. Multiple allegations, this
16 all took place at the end of May beginning of June. Mr. Waszczuk stated that
17 Mr. Witcher was handling his complaint. Ms. Harwood asked to meet with Mr.
18 Waszczuk as a follow up to his complaint, meeting took place the second week
19 of July. Prior to the meeting, Patrick Putney filed a violence in the workplace
20 incident related to the April and May incidents. Ms. Waszczuk made several
21 allegations in his email and during the meeting related to misuse of University
22 resources by his supervisors, Ms. Harwood sent the information to Wendi
23 Delmendo for review and Danesha Nichols was appointed to investigate the
24
allegations from Mr. Waszczuk and the Violence in the Workplace complaints.
25
During the investigation, Mr. Waszczuk was placed on investigatory leave. He
26
began a letter/email writing campaign to multiple UC employees. The email
27
communications were inflammatory and contained discriminatory comments
28
15 denied to file. He applied for Liberty Mutual and his claim was denied,
25
463. The Summary itself as no so much interesting but interesting is why HR
26
Labor Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert requested the summary on Plaintiff from Gina Harwood.
27
Brent Seifert listed in Hugh Parker’s e-mail chat dated June 1, 2012 about May 31, 2012 ill crafted
28
15 without knowing why and in contrary and in light of the widely publicized in media November
16 18 , 2011 pepper spray attack ordered by UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and investigation of
17 this incident which concluded within five months . Plaintiff did not understand for what crime his
18 being kept hostage for one year on investigatory leave and why he is being investigated.
19 466. Beside the letters to Captain Souza and Compliance Investigator Gina
20 Gauilaumme –Holleman Plaitiff on June 27, 2012 sent letter to his Department Head Charles
21 Witcher and demanded answer why Plaintiff is kept on investigatory leave and why he is not
22 being permitted to go back to work and do his duty . Plaintiff never received response from Charles
23 Witcher to his inquiry.
24
July 3, 2012 – The Plaintiff’s , Kenny Diede ‘s and William Buckan’s Complaints under UC
25 Davis Policy Complaint Resolution Policy PPMS 70
26 467. On July 3, 2012 Plaintiff and his two coworkers Kenny Diede and William
27 Buckans received from HR Consultant Gina Harwood Decisions in Step I Complaints Plaintiff
28
15 Defendant for serving Plaintiff every two weeks for almost one year letters of Investigatory
16 Leave and denying Plaintiff right to work It was done in violation of UC Davis Policy PPSM 63
18 322. The other Plaintiff complaint Step I under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 was still pending
15 interview revelation and his disclosure about conspiracy to frame Plaintiff because in July 2012
16 Plaintiff did not know at that time anything about May 31, 2012 provocation to kill him or end
18 476. Plaintiff suspected that something was wrong but did have any evidence to
19 proof anything bedside that he was removed from stress management class on May 30, 2012 and
20 was served with Investigatory Leave letter on May 31, 2012 and was not permitted to work by
21 Defendant.
22 477. Few days later mark Montoya called Plaintiff and confirmed what Kenny
23 Diede told Plaintiff about his interview with Gina Gaulliuaume –Hollmann’on July 18, 2012.
24
325. On July 23, Plaintiff decided for the record to write few additional words to Gina
25
Gaulliuaume –Hollmann’as follow;
26
“Dear Ms. Guillame -Holleman:
27
For the record and in addition to my previous e-mail I would like to inform
28
15 reason was behind for their statements but I don't care much it because I never
16 had any problem with any of my coworkers in the HVAC shop during my
17 employment from March 2007- to August 2, 2012 and will not have any
19 I will not make big deal about my" photo and your question “Apparently you
20 was instructed by somebody to find cause for my employment termination. I
21 like to mention that at first I got outraged about your interview with my
22 coworker but after the interviewed person called me about than I told my to
23 myself: . Why I have to stress myself for something I have no control over
24
until the whole case go to court. "
25
You as an employee of UCDMC Compliance office shall follow Canons of
26
Ethic during the interview. By showing my photo and trying makes me like
27
most wanted at large bandit is not going to help my employer in any way but
28
16 reminder.
17 Jerry”
July 25, 2012 – HR Director Stephen Chilcott’s e-mail
18 to HR Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsey
19
9
481. On August 1, 2012, Defendant sent Plaintiff another two-week extension of
10
the Investigatory Leave. This time the Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher,
11
who routinely signed the investigatory leave letter, which was at this point close to the one-year
12
anniversary of the first investigatory leave letter that Witcher signed on September 1, 2011.
13
14
August 2, 2012 – The UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo’s e-mail
15 to Kenney Diede
17 Delmendo sent an e-mail to the Plaintiff’s coworker Kenney Diede, attempting to drag Kenny
18 Diede into a deceptive and useless whistleblowing complaint, just as she had attempted to do
19 with Plaintiff in July 2011. Plaintiff was almost killed on May 31, 2012, due to Wendy
20 Delmendo’s effort and dedication to destroy the UC Davis employees life’s and livelihoods
21 instead of providing help to them .
22 483. In her August 2, 2012, email letter to Kenny Diede (whom Plaintiff was
23 successfully representing in his complaints against management misconduct under the UC Davis
24 Policy PPSM 70), Wendy Delmendo wrote:
25
“I recently learned that you have filed a grievance in which you allege you
26
have been subject to retaliation. I am writing to inform you that your allegation
27
of retaliation may also be eligible for review under the University’s
28
15 misconduct, harassment, retaliation, abuse of power, violation of state and federal law, and
16 Delmendo openly participating in Plaintiff’s employment termination in 2012 and almost getting
19 decline Wendy Delmendo’s deceptive and misleading offer with the following words in
20 response:
21 Dear Ms. Delmendo:
22 I appreciate your concern. However, I am not sure what you are referring to in
23 your letter in regard to my complaints.
24
For your information, I filed two complaints against my manager Patrick
25
Putney’s vendetta and retaliation. (I believe that you are very familiar with this
26
person’s name). I am not only a victim of Patrick’s Putney behavior. My two
27
complaints against Patrick Putney are pending and problems probably would
28
17 questions.
19 E-Mail: ucdmclaborchat@comcast.net “
20 487. In addition to the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Title, on February 2, 2014,
21 Wendy Delmendo accrued the “Lead Discrimination Officer” title per order of the University of
22 California President Janet Napolitano after an enormous discrimination scandal on the University
23 of California, Los Angeles campus.
24
The Lead Discrimination Officer title fits Wendy Delmendo perfectly. She advanced herself in
25
her skill in how to discriminate and hurt employees while advising UC Davis administration
26
without leaving a trace of discrimination and harassment.
27
28
15 Plaintiff’s coworker William Buckans, to whom Plaintiff was providing representation, received
17 August 9, 2012 – The Letter of Expectation served to HVAC Technician Dereck Cole .
18
490. Following the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo’s
19
invitation to her whistleblowing “Russian Roulette” game and Gina Harwood’s letter prohibiting
20
Plaintiff from working and representing his coworkers, Defendant attacked another coworker of
21
Plaintiff called Dereck Cole.
22
15 work place prior to taking his own life. In March 2011, Plaintiff brought this information to the
16 Defendant’ attention.
17 494. Todd Goerlich, who replaced Plaintiff in April 2007, was Dereck Cole’s
18 best friend since high school and he left behind a one-year-old child.
19 495. Shortly after this, Dereck Cole was attacked and turned to Plaintiff for help.
20 Plaintiff agreed to represent him in his complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70, regardless of
21 the fact that Plaintiff had little time and was very busy with his own defenses and those of his two
22 coworkers against harassment and the Defendant’ retaliation. Plaintiff had to sacrifice a lot to take
23 on and handle another retaliation and harassment case against the vicious, unscrupulous, malicious,
24
and vindictive UC Davis management and administration.
25
August 16, 2012-The Extension of the Investigatory Leave
26 (August 16, 2012-September 28, 2012)
27 496. On August 16, 2012, the Defendant sent Plaintiff another extension of the
28
16 498. This long extension of investigatory leave passed the one-year anniversary
17 of the September 1, 2011, first investigatory leave letter, which the Defendant had served
18 Plaintiff. Plaintiff became very concerned that something more drastic was going on with
19 Plaintiff’s employment due to the vicious attack against Plaintiff’s coworker Dereck Cole, as
20 well as Wendy Delmendo and Gina Harwood’s letters to Plaintiff’s coworker, Kenny Diede, and
21 the endless pseudo-investigations conducted by the assigned Defendant, two of “UC Davis Death
22 Squad’s” members, Brent Seifert and Cindy Oropeza, from the UC Davis Medical Center HR
23 Department.
24
499. Plaintiff was not mistaken that that something more drastic was going on
25
and finally uncovered it after Plaintiff, in November 2011, received a bulk e-mail
26
correspondence exchange between the perpetrators, who were plaining another provocation to
27
deliver Plaintiff to the UC Davis Medical Center # 11 to silence Plaintiff forever. Plaintiff was
28
10
13 501. On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to Compliance and Privacy
Program Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman about the unfair overtime distribution in the
14
HVAC shop with following information and concerns.
15
16 “I am sending you the copy of the letter of expectation issued for HVAC
15 plumber.”
16
502. The subject of the unfair overtime distribution was one of the HVAC shop
17
technicians, George Ursu, who is the friend the HVAC shop supervisors Dorin Daniliuc. It was
18
most likely that the excessive overtime was a fraud and George Ursu never worked most of the
19
20
overtime but got paid the same as Dorin Daniliuc, who was officially working full time, though
21 he actually employed himself in his private HVAC business and private church more than 50
23 503. After the complaint was made by Dereck Cole, George Urusus’s overtime
24
dropped $10,000 in 2013, and after Dereck Cole, in retaliatory action against him, was removed
25
from the HVAC shop, George Urus’s overtime bounced back with $11,000 in 2014.
26
27
August 28, 2012–E-mail from UC Davis Health System HR Workers' Compensation,
28 Ergonomics, Disability Manager Hugh Parker
15 August 28, 2012, Plaintiff did not know who replaced Humberto Garcia, and HR Consultant
16 Gina Harwood was unresponsive when Plaintiff asked her who her manager was after she sent
17 information to Plaintiff on June 22, 2012 that Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver were
19 506. On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff did know that Hugh Parker was the
20 coordinator and conductor for the assembled group of UC Davis employees, nicknamed by
21 Plaintiff in the documents as “The UC Davis Death Squad,” which on May 31, 2012, in the ill-
22 planned provocation, attempted to kill or end Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical
23 Center Trauma Unit #11. From the Public Act Records documents, Plaintiff learned about Hugh
24
Parker’s special assignment that had coordinated an assault on Plaintiff to terminate his
25
employment through ill-minded and orchestrated provocation on May 31, 2012.
26
507. In July and August 2011, Plaintiff exchanged with Hugh Parker his
27
opinion about the UC Davis Medical Center fraudulently using the Workers Compensation
28
15 509. In May 2012, Plaintiff learned from the Public Record Act documents he
16 received that Hugh Parker had requested the investigation report on Plaintiff from HR
17 Investigator Danesha Nichols, which was fabricated for the purpose of the ill-planned
19 The information about the planned attempt to terminate Plaintiff’s employment was leaked and
20 the plan failed. HR Investigator Danesha Nichol’s report, which Hugh Parker requested from her,
21 was destroyed according to the UC Davis Public Record Office, and a copy was never provided
22 to Plaintiff.
23 Plaintiff is not certain”, but it appears that September 23, 2011 was the Defendant’s first
24
attempt to provoke the physical confrontation from Plaintiff, physically hurt him, and then
25
dismiss him with accusations that he was violent.
26
510. Plaintiff’s opinion is based on the fact that, two days prior to September
27
23, 2011, he received a letter from his Department Head Charles Witcher stating that he would
28
8
511. On August 29, 2012, Plaintiff received a letter from the Compliance and
9
Privacy Program Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman.
10
512. By means of this letter, Plaintiff was notified that the UCD Davis Health
11
System (UCDHS) Compliance Department had completed its investigation of allegations and
12
was advising of possible policy violations regarding a PO&M manager who allegedly accepted
13
money from vendor(s) for personal use and a PO&M supervisor allegedly using a paintball gun
14
on university premises. Both matters had been investigated and no proof of violations was
15
provided by Plaintiff or obtained during the investigation.
16
18 18, 2012, interviewed one of Plaintiff’s coworkers from the UCDHS HVAC shop, Mark Montoya.
19 During the interview, Gina Guillaume-Holleman showed Mark Montoya Plaintiff’s photo and
20 asked him whether Plaintiff was a threat to him and, thereafter, she made an attempt to solicit Mark
21 Montoya to sign an affidavit that Plaintiff was dangerous. Outraged by her demand, Mark Montoya
22 left the interview and went to the HVAC shop and mentioned what had happened to one of
23 Plaintiff’s other coworkers, who called Plaintiff and disclosed the information about Mark
24 Montoya’s interview. A few days later, Mark Montoya personally confirmed the information about
25 Gina Guillaume-Holleman’s demand.
26
514. At the end of August 2012, Plaintiff was not worried about any investigation
27
but was worried about his own status due to the almost year-and-a-half-long, ongoing, vicious,
28
12 SEPTEMBER 2012
13 September 4, 2012—Kenneth Diede’s Letter to Department Head Charles Witcher.
14
516. On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff’s coworker from the HVAC shop to
15
whom Plaintiff was providing representation under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70, submitted a
16
17 complaint letter against HVAC shop manager and supervisor Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc.
18 These two individuals attacked Kenneth once again and converted his 2012 annual employee
20 517. Since July 2011, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc had been making
21 Kenneth Diede’s life miserable and his working conditions intolerable after Kenneth Diede
22 reported twice-convicted child pornography felon, Sean Robideaux , who was illegally
23 surfing the web on the HVAC shop commuters with Patrick Putney’s knowledge and permission.
24 Being on parole for his second child pornography strike Sean Robideaux , was not allowed to
25 touch a computer connected to the Internet per federal court order (Case: 2: 6 –cr- 00418-LKK,
26
The United States of America v. Sean Christopher Robideaux, United States District Court, Eastern
27
District of California, Indictment Violation(S) 18 U.S.C § 2252 () (4)(B) –Possession of Visual
28
9
September 9, 2012—Plaintiff Letter to Brent Seifert—UC Davis Medical Center HR Labor
10 Relation Supervisor and Principal Labor Relation Consultant
11
519. For over one year, the Defendant subjected Plaintiff to malicious
12
13
psychological terror, persecution, civil and human rights violations, enormous stress and worries
14 as a result of losing his home and, most likely, his employment at the age of 61 and a slim
16 520. Due to unknown means regarding the ways in which the Defendant intended to do
17 Plaintiff further harm on September 9, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to UC Davis Medical Center HR
18 Labor Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert with an inquiry to update Plaintiff about his bogus
19 investigation against Plaintiff to which he was assigned in May 2012. Plaintiff wrote the following
20 in his September 9, 2012, letter: The original letter was edited by the Professional Proof Reader
21 for the purpose to avoid confusion about merit in the letter-Original upon request)
22
“Dear Mr. Seifert:
23
25 status of the phony investigation you have been conducting since May 31,
26 2012. I am not sure if you remember that you have been assigned to investigate
27 to determine the facts surrounding the e-mails I supposedly sent that were
28
7 resources department with probable help from the former FBI Agent
11
When I read it on the Association of Workplace Investigators web page, I
12
choked and said to myself, “This guy with such an impressive background
13
career and connections that he is a perfect guy to frame me.”
14
15 The May 31, 2012, provocation followed Witcher’s and the HR department’s
16 cowardly and ill-crafted action that placed me on ten days’ suspension without
17 pay after Danesha Nichols’ phony investigation and my five-month
18 administrative/investigatory leave.
19
It is not coincidental that the Mr. Lohse got involved to help cover up the UC
20
21
Davis and UC Davis Medical Center management’s corrupted and unlawful
22 activities, which are happening in every pointed place and involving UC Davis
23 “chiefs and Indians” including, but not limited to, HR Chief Stephen Chilcott;
25 Teresa Porter; internal audits chief and UC Davis police officers such as Lt.
26 James Barbour, who once gave me special advice with former U.S. President
27 Ronald Reagan regarding the U.S. Marines. UC Davis Chief Compliance
28
7 leave letter and launch another phony investigation against him. If he will snap
8 and get hostile, then Lt. Barbour will take care of him and he will be done.
9
What a mistake. Jerry Waszczuk never became hostile and never snapped.
10
Instead, Jerry Waszczuk used his pen and computer to defend himself and
11
others abused and harassed by vicious, vindictive, corrupt, and criminally
12
minded UCDMC chiefs.
13
21 The meeting that you improvised was about the country of Romania,
22
Romanians, and Reggae. I have summarized the meeting in the letter I wrote to
23
you the day after we met and there is no need to elaborate further about it.
24
25 The reason why I am writing to you is to determine the status of this “after
26 unsuccessful provocation” and phony investigation for which you had been set
28
7 sell my house and if it does not go through, then I will let the house be
11 will pay the bill for this reckless harassment and assault on me and I will
12 pay for a new house of my choice.”
13
521. The September 9, 2012, Plaintiff’s letter to Brent Seifert was the first time that
14
Plaintiff informed the Defendant of Plaintiff’s awareness that the May 31, 2012, reckless Defendant
15
action against Plaintiff was nothing but the Defendant’ malicious and ill-crafted provocation to harm
16
Plaintiff.
17
522. On September 9, 2012, Plaintiff did not have any evidence or documents proving
18
that for the May 31, 2012, provocation, the Defendant assembled a special team nicknamed in
19
Plaintiff’s document “The UC Davis Death Squad” to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in the UC
20
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11. Plaintiff based his opinion on observed event facts,
21
information from his coworkers, the Defendant’ reckless attacks in May 2012 aimed at Plaintiff and
22
his coworkers to whom Plaintiff was providing representation, and by removing Plaintiff from the
23
stress management class one day before the provocation on May 30, 2012.
24 “
September 12, 2012—The e-mail entitled “Review of the Waszczuk Investigation”
25
26 523. On September 12, 2012, at 9:36 PM, the UC Office of General Counsel
27 Senior Legal Counsel Mia Belk sent an e-mail to UC Davis Medical Center HR Labor Relation
28
15 Delmendo, UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski and UC Davis Health System
16 Chief Compliance Officer Teresa Porter and to let them know that the HR department was
19 Lindsey to make suggested revisions and finalize the documents and letter of intent to terminate
20 the issue as soon as possible. In addition to the letter of intent to terminate, HR Executive Director
21 Stephen Chilcott instructed Travis Lindsey to discuss the assignments of the Skelly officer with
22 Plaintiff’s superior, UC Davis Medical Center Executive Director Mike Boyd.
23 527 The UCDHS HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott’s confidential
24
communication response is interesting because it shows that HR Equal Employment Opportunity
25
and Diversity Manager Cindi Oropeza was not copied on Stephen Chilcott’s e-mail. Cindi Oropeza
26
was assigned with Brent Seifert to fabricate a bogus report as the cause for Plaintiff’s termination
27
of employment.
28
17
“This is in response to your faxes dated 9/25/2011 and 9/30/2011 to Vice
18
President Duckett in which you raised several concerns about management
19
actions at UC Davis Medical Center. I understand that these issues are
20
currently being investigated by the UC Davis Compliance Officer, Wendi
21
Delmendo.The Office of the President provides oversight to the ten Campus
22
University of California system, while the Chancellor of each campus has
23
responsibility for the organization and operation of the campus. With the
24
investigation by Ms. Delmendo currently in progress, it would be
25
28 this investigation. We are confident that your serious concerns are being
8
Director Christopher Simon letter.
9 532. UC Senior Counsel Mia Belk disappeared from the University of California
10 landscape two months after she issued her confidential review of Waszczuk’s investigation. Mia
11 Belk was not the only individual who disappeared from the University of California landscape
19 September 13, 2012—The UC Davis Death Squad Preparation for Plaintiff’s Final Departure
from the University of California. (By documents received from UC Davis Public Record Act
20 Office)
21
534. Following the September 12, 2012, University of California Office of the
22
General Counsel’s decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment the UCDHS HR Executive
23
Director Stephen Chilcott sent on September 13, 2012, the information about Plaintiff’s planned
24
employment termination to the UC Davis police and assembled a group of UC Davis
25
representatives (nicknamed in Plaintiff’s documents as the UC Davis Death Squad, due to an ill-
26
crafted provocation by the Defendant on May 31, 2012, to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in
27
the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit.
28
13
536. On September 14, 2012, UC Davis Death Squad Coordinator Hugh
14 Parker’s secretary, Sonia Guerrero-Rodriguez, sent an e-mail invitation for a meeting to other
15 UC Davis Death Squad members with the following subject in the e-mail: “Threat Assessment -
16 J. Waszczuk.” The message read, “Please provide me with the best time and date, from the
17 options below, to discuss the item in subject. I’d like to send out a meeting invitation as soon as
18 possible.” The message was ended with Muriel Strode’s quote “Do not follow where the path
19 may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”
20 537. Sonia Guerrero-Rodriguez sent her message to the following member
21 members of the UC Davis Death Squad: Brent Seifert, the UCDMC Labor Relations Supervisor;
22 UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour; UCDMC HR Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity
23
Manager Cindi Oropeza;UC Davis Health System Counsel David Levine; UC Davis Risk
24
Management Department employee Debra Schmidt; UC Davis Medical Center Emergency
25
Preparedness Coordinator Glynis Foulk; Manager of Workers’ Compensation, Ergonomics, and
26
Disability Hugh Parker, who wanted to see Plaintiff in July 2011 on workers compensation leave
27
and, in May and September 2012, wanted to see Plaintiff disabled in UC Davis Medical Center
28
15 Program; Neil Speth, D.O., the medical director of UCDMC HR Employee Health Services; and
16 Travis Lindsay, the new UCDMC HR labor relation manager who replaced MikeGarcia in May
17 2012.
18 539. The proposed dates for the UC Davis Death Squad’s meeting were
19 September 18, 2012, from 10 to 11 AM; September 20, 2012, from 1 to 2 PM, and September 21,
20 2012, from 9 to 10 AM.
21 540. UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour responded that he was available for the
22 meeting on Tuesday, September 18, 2012. Plaintiff does not know when the meeting took place
23 because 21 pages of e-mail chat between UC Davis Death Squad Members that Plaintiff received
24
from the UC Davis Public Record Act Office were blacked out in same manner as the e-mail chat
25
of this group for the May 31, 2012, provocation to send Plaintiff to the UC Davis Medical Trauma
26
Unit.
27
541. The presence and participation in this group including the UC Davis
28
9 542. Plaintiff, who was subjected to psychological terror by the Defendant, was
10 put under extreme stress after being forced again to leave the premises for the month-and-a-half-
11 long investigatory leave, which was issued and served to Plaintiff on August 16, 2012.
12 543. On September 23, 2012, Plaintiff wrote an open letter to his
13 Department Head, UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles
14 Witcher, entitled
15 A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE LATEST COMPLAINTS UNDER THE PPSM 70 AGAINST
16
STEVE McGRATH AND PATRICK PUTNEY. (OPEN LETTER).
17
Plaintiff wrote the letter just two days before Witcher was ordered by HR Executive Director
18
Stephen Chilcott to sign the Notice to Intent to Dismiss (Plaintiff) for Serious Misconduct.
19
544. Aside from Plaintiff’s latest complaints about coworkers, made under UC Davis
20
Policy Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM70, the, Plaintiff elaborated about the previous
21
Department Head, Tony Moddessette, who was forced to leave in 2006 and was replaced by
22
Charles Witcher. This happened shortly before Plaintiff and his coworker William Buckans were
23
subject to the vicious attack and persecution orchestrated by the Defendant, which resulted in
24
Plaintiff’s suspension in March 2007 and his abrupt removal from the UC Davis Medical Center
25
26 Cogeneration Power Plant (“Central Plant”), where Plaintiff had been employed since June 1999.
27 Plaintiff’s suspension and reassignment in March 2007 was affirmed by Charles Witcher, who
28 was then the interim manager of the Plant Operation and Maintenance Department. While
15 and Maintenance Department. At the time, there were problems within the
17 issues.
18 Moddessette was “rough and tough” and sometimes was unpleasant, but he did
19 not ever hesitate to come to the Central Plant, sit at the center of the control
20 room, and have an open discussion about the problems within in the plant.
21 Tony Moddessette did not hesitate to tell me, “Jerry, I don’t give a f...k what
22 you say,” but he would listen and fix the problems.
23 Tony Moddessette had no problem reversing the Plant Manager’s unjustified
24
decision to issue a written warning to one of the Central Plant operators. He
25
also did not hesitate to tell Jeff Lancaster that he was not hired to wash his
26
personal cars on company time.
27
Tony Moddessette did not hesitate to remove Tom Kavanaugh from his Central
28
15 hospital/campus and was not a place to illegally park his personal vehicle,
17 Unlike Tony Moddessette, Charles Witcher never told HVAC Shop Supervisor
18 Dorin Daniliuc that he had to work 8 hours every day, that company time
19 should not be used to run a private business, or that he should not bring his
20 personal auto mechanics in and use the UCDMC shop for his private HVAC
21 business.
22 Unlike Tony Moddessette, Charles Witcher immediately began to torment
23 others after taking over the department from Tony Moddessette in 2006. Six
24
years later, Witcher’s persecution continues.
25
The last six years speak for themselves. Those who have engaged in this
26
persecution must love to watch other people suffer and live in misery.
27
THE COMPLAINTS
28
16 Dan James and Tony Moddessette were Vietnam War veterans. I have a lot of
17 respect for their sacrifices and their choice to risk their lives for the greatest
18 country on Earth.
19 Apparently Steve McGrath and Mike Lewis did not think or did not care that
20 harassing, bullying, and constantly retaliating against William for years in an
21 effort to make him quit his job would bring Dan James back into the mess that
22 they have created and participated since 2006.
23 You probably don’t know that William Buckans and Rick Tunello had a very
24
good relationship with Dan James because of their common life experiences.
25
However Dan James was quickly overpowered by the Jackson clique, and he
26
turned on Rick and William because the Jackson clique hated them. You
27
probably don’t know that William Buckans had a very good relationship with
28
15 I would like to mention that, not so long ago, Hugh Parker from HR sent me an
16 email and wrote that he is not interested in labor relations issues. Mr. Parker
18 is strictly related to him. He will soon be dealing again with the labor relations
18 as I can with the limited resources I have after being banned and isolated from
24
546. As Plaintiff anticipated that something would happen to him during the
25
one-and-a-half month investigatory leave and the lack of response from HR Labor Relations
26
Supervisor Brent Seifert’s investigation, on September 26, 2012, Plaintiff received by overnight
27
mail the Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct dated September 25, 2012. It was
28
8 Maintenance. The reason for this action is your failure to adhere to UC Davis
10 1616, Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and the Principles of
11 Community.
12
On or about April 27, 2012, you sent an e-mail to Danesha Nichols,
13
UCDHS Investigations Coordinator stating your disagreement with an
14
investigation report she had issued dated February 9, 2012. The report found
15
that it was more likely than not that you had violated UCDHS Policy 1616
16
(Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace) ("1616"), UC Davis Policy
17
21 13, 2012, informing you that I intended to suspend you without pay for ten
22 days. Attached to your April 27, 2012 e-mail was a video slideshow entitled
23 "Welcome to Romania". Based on the subject matter and content of the
24 communication, an investigation was requested to determine if the
25 communication violated University policies and procedures. During this time
26 you were placed on investigatory leave-.
27
Brent Seifert, Employee and Labor Relations Supervisor and Cindy Oropeza,
28
8 language (see attached e-mails). The following are excerpts from these e-mail
9 communications:
10
May 10, 2012 - "Somebody will give this Pollack bad evaluation and fire him
11
or will send Gestapo on his Ass"
12
13 June 6, 2012 - "because you will go straight to Hell for what you have done to
21
environment culture in the HVAC shop is closely akin to the culture of Eastern
25
Mr. Seifert and Ms. Oropeza concluded their investigation and issued a report
26
dated September 20, 2012, which is attached to this Notice. The investigation
27
report substantiated that you sent disruptive and intimidating e-mail
28
8 expectations that you abide by all UC policies and procedures, show respect
9 and remain professional at all times in the workplace, and follow the direct
10 orders given to you by a supervisor. After the Skelly process was completed
11 you were issued a Letter of Suspension on May 11, 2012 outlining the
12 expectations noted above. Additionally, you were provided the pertinent text
13 from UCDHS policy 1616 and UC Davis P&P Chapter 380-15 as part of the
14 investigation report issued by Ms. Nichols, and attached to the Letter of Intent
15 to Suspend.
16
Despite my repeated efforts to address your inappropriate and discriminatory
17
20 classifications. Your failure to follow direct orders and the expectations set for
21 you is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Your actions imply that you
22 believe you are above the rules and I cannot subject staff and your co-workers
23 to your continued discriminatory comments. Your blatant disregard for the
24 policies and procedures of this University, combined with your failure to
25 follow directives has left me with no alternative but to dismiss you from
26 University employment.You have the right to respond to this notice of intent to
27
dismiss for Serious Misconduct either orally or in writing. Your response must
28
8
Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert and let him know that Plaintiff was aware that May 31, 2012,
9 was the date of the maliciously and ill-crafted provocation by the Defendant, somebody had the
10 idea to lure Plaintiff to the premises and hand Plaintiff the Notice of Intent to Dismiss with such
11 outrageous and sickening accusations in an attempt to provoke Plaintiff and expose him to the
15
548. Instead of luring Plaintiff to the premises, the UC Davis Death Squad decided that
16
the UC Davis Police would issue a poster bearing Plaintiff’s photo and the verbiage “PERSON
17
NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY,” which was similar to the “FBI’s Most Wanted”
18
signage.
19
21
“Jaroslaw Waszczuk is currently on administrative leave from
22
employment with the UC Davis Med Center. Mr. Waszczuk is not
23
authorized to be on UC Davis property without a legal reason or a medical
24
emergency.
25
26 Mr. Waszczuk is described as an older white male with brown and gray
5
550. The UC Davis Police poster that said “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED
6
ON PROPERTY” and included Plaintiff’s photo and description was distributed around the UC
7
Davis Medical Center Campus and most likely was sent to managers and UC Davis employees
8
by electronic mail. UC Davis Police did not inform Plaintiff that he was not authorized on UC
9
Davis premises, and Plaintiff did not know what UC Davis Police would do if Plaintiff
10
12 551. Plaintiff spent over one year on investigatory leave, under which he was
13 prohibited from being on the UC Davis premises, and Plaintiff never intended to go uninvited to
14 UC Davis Medical Center when he was on investigatory leave. Plaintiff did not understand why
15 Davis Public Record Act office for documents related to another of the Defendant’ acts of
16 psychological terror, which Plaintiff had been subjected to for over one year.
17
19
20 558. The Defendant war-like hysteria and propaganda did not end with
21 placing the “Persona Non Grata” poster complete with Plaintiff’s photo and description around
22 UC Davis Medical Center.
23 559. On September 26, 2012, the UC Davis Health System HR Executive
24
Director Stephen Chilcott, who directly communicated the operation to the UC Office of the
25
President, sent an e-mail entitled “Confidential – Jerry Waszczuk (Plaintiff)” to the HR Labor
26
Relations Department Manager Travis Lindsey to ask the UC Davis Police department to offer to
27
speak to any of the supervisors or employees of the Plant Operation and Maintenance
28
15 562. UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour was reassigned from the UC Davis
16 Campus to the UC Davis Medical Center, which represented an enormous demotion and
17 involved a decrease to his salary, after the November 18, 2011, pepper spray attack against
18 protesting students on the UC Davis Campus. Documents show that Lt. James Barbour got
19 sucked into the action against Plaintiff by the “UC Davis Death Squad,” most likely not knowing
20 what the case was about. Apparently, he was promised that his salary would be restored to its
21 normal level. By reading the Public Record Acts documents, one can see that Lt Barbour was
22 dedicated to attacking Plaintiff in 2012 by any means.
23 September 26, 2012 – The Confidential Investigation Report
24
563. On September 26, 2012, Plaintiff received the Confidential Investigation
25
26 Report from the Defendant; it was attached to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious
27 Misconduct.
28
8
Report and December 2011 and February 2012 Danesha Nichol’s reports. The only difference
9 was that Romanians were used in the reports instead of Jews to make Plaintiff look like a KKK
12 the report, responded to Cindi Oropeza and Brent Seifert with an open letter dated September 28,
13 2012.
14 567. In addition to the open letter response, Plaintiff sent an inquiry to the UC
15 Davis Public Record Act office for all documents related to the Defendant’ Notice of Intent to
16 Terminate Plaintiff.
17 OCTOBER 2012
18
19
October 1, 2012—Open Letter to the UC Davis Police Chief
20
21
568. Plaintiff was outraged by the UC Davis Police Department’s humiliating and
22
disparaging “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED ON THE PROPERTY” poster, which was
23
issued and distributed around UC Davis campus on September 26, 2012.
24
569. On October 1, 2012, Plaintiff wrote an open letter to new UC Davis Police Chief
25
Matt Carmichael, who replaced Annette Spicuzza and to Chancellor Katehi, who ordered the
26
firing of his colleague, Lt. John Pike, in August 2012.
27
28 570. In September 2011, Plaintiff asked a UC Davis Police captain Joyce Souza for
15 few more current photos of myself. My photo on the UC Davis Police Warrant
16 is outdated and was taken probably 10 years ago, prior to my 2006 open heart
17 surgery and left eye surgery. HR has a newer photo, which was taken when I
19 development engineer.
20 I have no doubt that the UC Davis Police bulletin with my outdated photo was
21 issued to humiliate me, as it sounds like an arrest warrant. This is an
22 outrageous abuse of authority by the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation
23 and Maintenance Department (UCDMC PO&M), the HR Department and the
24
UC Davis Police Department. Such management actions were taken to cause
25
Waszczuk severe emotional distress, and they were done with a willful and
26
conscious disregard of both the law and UC policies.
27
The conduct of UCDMC management and the UC Davis Police Department
28
15 573. The Defendant have not mentioned in any previous document this
17 humiliated Plaintiff.
16 stability. This is an additional reason to provide me with the time extension for
18 I believe that you are aware that I am already on nine different prescription
19 medicines.
20 I am assuming that you have read my last open letter to Mrs. Oropeza and that
21 you or Brent Seifert will question Dorin Daniliuc about his (and others’) lies,
22 which were inserted into the report.
23
24
Sincerely,
25
Jerry “
26
27
576. In addition to Plaintiff’s response to Charles Witcher’s extension, on October 3,
28
13 October 1, 2012
14
RE: Workers’ Compensation Stress/Psychiatric related claim
15
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
16
17 In an e-mail we received dated 10/01/2012 you indicate that you have suffered
18 “severe emotional distress” from your employment at the UC Davis Health
19
System. As such, if you wish to pursue a psychiatric injury claim, related
20
to your employment at UC Davis Health System, please fill out the
21
enclosed DWC-1 Form and return to our office at:
22
24
Workers’ Compensation Dept.
25
26
27 Sincerely,
28 Michael Tyler
15 582. On May 30, 2012, Hugh Parker removed Plaintiff from stress management
16 class instead of encouraging Plaintiff to attend such classes, despite knowing what Plaintiff was
18 583. On May 30, 2012, Plaintiff did not know that Hugh Parker was a
19 coordinator for the Defendant’ specially assembled group of UC Davis employees, which
20 Plaintiff nicknamed the “UC Davis Death Squad” in the officially generated document
21 584. On May 31, 2012, and in September 2012, Hugh Parker (as conductor of
22 the aforementioned group) coordinated a malicious but unsuccessful provocation involving UC
23 Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael and Lt. James Barbour to ambush and kill Plaintiff or
24
otherwise end his employment at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11.
25
585. Plaintiff rejected the Defendant’ offer to file a false workers’
26
compensation claim. Apparently the Defendant attempted to escape enormous legal liability
27
using frequent workers’ compensation claims to further attack and distract Plaintiff from the real
28
6
586. One month after the Notice of Intent to Terminate was issued, on October 22, 2012,
7
Plaintiff received an interesting letter from HR Consultant Gina Harwood, who replaced Jill Noel
8
Vandviver on June 22, 2012. Gina Harwood’s letter stated:
9
Re: Service as PPSM Complaint Representative
10
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
11 This letter is to inform you that due to the completion of the investigation, you
12 are no longer on investigatory leave. Your leave status has changed to
13 administrative leave with pay while the personnel action is pending.
14 Due to the change in your status, you will be permitted to serve as the
15 representative in complaint meetings for Kenneth Diede, William Buckans
16 and Dereck Cole. The following complaints will be removed from abeyance
15 Davis Police Department issued and distributed the poster with Plaintiff’s photo and
17 589. In a letter to Gina Harwood dated October 17, 2012, Plaintiff asked Gina
18 Harwood specific questions that she, as the Defendant’ representative, failed to answer in her
15 September 26, 2012. Gina Harwood knew that Plaintiff had, in February 2009, signed the
16 Settlement-Agreement with the Regents of the University of California. Gina Harwood and other
17 perpetrators knew that the UC Davis Police poster was an indefensible breach of the Settlement-
18 Agreement signed by the Defendant and Plaintiff. The Defendant’ poster went beyond
19 disparaging Plaintiff. It was an act of malice beyond of human decency aimed at Plaintiff, and it
20 alone can be the subject of litigation against the Defendant.
21 October 30, 2012-The UC Davis Medical Center HVAC Shop Supervisors Patrick Putney and
Dorin Daniluc’s Attempt to Provoke Dereck Cole for Physical Confrontation
22
23
592. Just two days after Plaintiff wrote a letter to Director Boyd about UC Davis
24
management’s despicable retaliation and vendetta against HVAC shop technician Dereck Cole
25
26 on October 30, 2012, two of Dereck Cole’s supervisors, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc,
27 approached him in the hospital cafeteria during his break and verbally assaulted him in front of a
28 surveillance camera with clear intention to provoke him into physical confrontation and end
16 Respectfully,
17 Dereck
18 595. After meeting with Lindsey, Dereck Cole was removed from the HVAC shop and
19 reassigned to the preventive maintenance shop. The surveillance footage from the hospital
20 cafeteria should be checked, and appropriate disciplinary action should be taken against Patrick
21 Putney and Dorin Daniliuc. Dereck Cole was a victim of two UC Davis medical supervisors
22 supported by Department Head Charles Witcher, HR Labor Relations staff, corrupt UC Davis
23 Chief of Police Matt Carmichael, and his lieutenant James Barbour. If Dereck Cole had called
24
UC Davis police right after incident in the cafeteria, then he would most likely be accused and
25
investigated instead of Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc.
26
597. Plaintiff represented Dereck Cole in his complaints against these two supervisors
27
in a retaliation complaint pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM 70. Right after the confrontation in
28
8
NOVEMBER 2012
9
November 2, 2012 – Public Record Act Request
10
11
599. On November 2, 2012, Plaintiff received a response from the UC Davis Public
12
Record Act (PRA) office to his request for PRA documents related to the Defendant’s Notice
13
Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct dated September 25, 2012.
14
15 600. Plaintiff briefly reviewed the received PRA documents and several pages of e-
16 mail correspondence dated June 1, 2012, which were sent by the UC Davis Health System
18 David Levine, Debra Schmidt, Marjorie Trogodon Shock, Neil Speth, Carol Kirshnit, Karen
19 Kouretas, Cindy Oropeza, Glynis Foulk, James Barbour, and Travis Lindsay.
20 601. On the first page of the e-mail with subject “Jaroslaw ‘Jerry’ Waszczuk –PO&M
21 employee,” Hugh Parker wrote:
22
23 “Mr. Waszczuk returned to work yesterday from his suspension and was
placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At issue are writings sent by
24 Mr. Waszczuk while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk did not display any anger when
told he was being place on investigatory leave.”
25
26 602. After Plaintiff read Hugh Parker’s e-mail message, checked Hugh Parker’s
27 recipients, and found out who these people were, Plaintiff got goosebumps realizing that this e-
28
7
604. Plaintiff combined Karen Kouretas’s name with Neil Speth, James
8
Barbour, Glynis Foulk, and David Levine with what happened to Plaintiff on May 30, 2012 and
9
what Plaintiff wrote in his letter dated September 9, 2012 to Brent Seifert and the UC Davis
10
Police. On September 26, 2012, a defaming “Persona Non Grata” poster with Plaintiff’s photo
11
and description surfaced. Plaintiff had no any doubt that May 31, 2012 was a maliciously crafted
12
provocation to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit
13
No. # 11.
14
15 605. Plaintiff already covered this subject in the Statements of Facts, June
16 2012 chapter.
17
19
28
7 August 2, 2011, with exceptions of the few hours to interview with ‘Danesha
9 Garcia in February 2012, and maybe 2 hours during the interview with Brent
10 Seifert on May 31, 2012. Total reimbursement should equal approx., $768.00;
18 have receipts for the disks. I don’t, but I need my HDs back or need to be
19 reimbursed approx.$150.00.
20 Sincerely,
21 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
22
607. The Defendant never reimbursed Plaintiff for the parking permit or the
23
two hard drives.
24
November 12, 2012- The Brief for Oral Response Submitted by Plaintiff to Assigned Skelly
25 Reviewer. UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson
26
6 Dated September 25, 2012 by “The UC Davis Medical Center ‘HR Death
7 Squad’”
8
Dear Vice Chancellor Tollefson:
9
18 It clearly appears from the bulk of the e-mail correspondence that certain
19 individuals from the UCDMC HR department, led by HR Executive Director
20 Stephen Chilcott, new Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsay, Cindy
21 Oropeza, and others, were planning to carry out their malicious and well-
22 crafted, evil conspiracy plot to provoke me and kill or send me to the UCDMC
23
Trauma Unit with severe blunt or penetrating injury on May 31, 2012. From
24
now on, I will call them the “HR Death Squad.” The explanation for the name
25
given to these individuals is located in the brief.
26
27 The assigned executor to carry out the plot to send me to my death or send me
28 to the UCDMC trauma unit to meet Karen Kouretas was the UC Police Lt.
10 I am hoping that eventually the FBI and district attorney will step in and break
18 609. The letter to Allen Tollefson was the first time Plaintiff nicknamed the assembled
19 Defendant group “HR Death Squad,” which in criminally minded, unsuccessful provocation
20 attempted to end Plaintiff’s employment at UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11. Later,
21 Plaintiff changed the nickname from “HR Death Squad” to the “UC Davis Death Squad” due to
22 the involvement of the UC Davis police in the ill-planned assaults on Plaintiff.
23 610. On November 13, 2012, Skelly Reviewer Allen Tollefson responded to Plaintiff’s
24
letter and scheduled the meeting with Plaintiff on November 16, 2012 on the UC Davis campus.
25
611. On November 16, 2012, Plaintiff attended the meeting with assigned Skelly
26
Reviewer and UC Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson to discuss Plaintiff’s unwarranted
27
and without-valid-cause employment termination.
28
15 back. Plaintiff was unaware on November 16, 2012 and a long time after the meeting that
16 Plaintiff’s fate was already decided a long time before the meeting with Allen Tollefson’ by the
17 Regents of the University of California the UC Office of the President,(UCOP) and the UC
18 Office of the General Counsel for a completely different reason. Plaintiff thought he was being
19 hunted down like an animal or subhuman by the UC Davis administration’s designated thugs.
20 614. On November 18, 2012, Plaintiff sent to Skelly Reviewer Allen Tollefson the
21 meeting summary letter entitled “Our Meeting on November 16, 2012. -The Notice Intent to
22 Dismiss Dated September 25, 2012 BY “The UC Davis Medical Center “’HR Death
23 Squad.’”
24 (Note: to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s letter to Allen
Tollefson was corrected by a professional proofreader.)
25
Re: Our Meeting on November 16, 2012.
26
The Notice of Intent to Dismiss dated September 25, 2012.
27
Dear Vice Chancellor Tollefson:
28
16 25, 2012. The notice not say too much besides some quotes taken out of
17 context from my letters that I wrote due to the vicious and unscrupulous
18 war against me, which has lasted over one year and is still going.
19
The very powerful forces from the UCDMC Human Resources Department
20
and the UC Davis campus, as well as the involvement of the director of the
21
investigation sent from the UC Office of the President against me in May
22
2012, make me believe that the reason or reasons to harm me were not
23
my reporting of Patrick Putney’s chickens, roosters, goats, sheep and
24
other animals for sale in the UCDMC HVAC shop. I do not believe
25
27 employer out of the parking fee for four years by hiding his car inside
7 writing in the letter dated March 13, 2011, referring to the central plant
8 operator Todd Georlich’s tragic suicide that took place in December 2010
9 as well as the secret and fraudulent 12% pay raise the central plant
11
The other reason that I was thinking it could be is the child pornography
12
issue reported in August 2011 by my coworker Kenny Diede in his
13
2010/2011 employee evaluation complaint under the PPSM 70. The
14
complaint is still unresolved. Kenny Diede became a subject of retaliation
15
by Patrick Putney with Charles Witcher’s support and approval. I am
16
representing Kenny with his complaints under PPSM70. It is very bizarre
17
19 Nichols in her investigation report, but the graphic video clip about the
9
Although stress and anger affect everyone, anger can be problematic if people
10
use it to gain control and express it unprofessionally.”
11
12 I received information about the class on May 23, 2012, from my former
13 central plant coworker William Buckans, who on the same day received a letter
19 I showed up to class on time with my two colleagues. Before the class had
20 begun, Hugh Parker, with the help of Licensed Clinical Social Worker Mrs.
21 Marjorie Trogdon Shock, kicked me out of the class.
22
It was quite a surprise to me because I was constantly being accused that I
23
24
am angry, hostile etc. Such a class would be appropriate for a person who
26
If I knew that Mr. Hugh Parker, along with Mrs. Trogdon Shock and the
27
other members of the “HR Death Squad,” had planned to send Jerry to the
28
8
“Mr. Waszczuk returned to work yesterday from his suspension and was
9 placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At issue are writings sent by
Mr. Waszczuk while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk did not display any anger when
10 told he was being place on investigatory leave.
11
Hugh R. Parker, Manager”
12
13
Could you imagine what would or could have happened if Mr. Parker,
14
along with Mrs. Shock, would not have “shocked” me and did not kick me
15
16
out from the “Class on Stress Management” on May 30, 2012?
28
19 The interviews did not happen until October 10, 2012 after I sent the letter
20 to the members of UC Davis Ethics and Compliance Risk Committee.
21
In addition to, I am forwarding to you an e-mail which I sent l to UC Davis
22
24 Nichols’ false accusations against me, which alleged that I am violent and
26 kind of phony report to the police and that Danesha Nichols was in
9 minds by believing that they could set me up and make me seem violent
18 fraud.
19 It seems to me that Mr. Chilcott was trying to train his crew on how to deal
20
with “rebellious” workers, knowing that I would not give up so quickly, and he
21
was trying to find out how long I would resist the attacks and his blitzkrieg.
22
23 Maybe it was a bit of everything and at some point got so out of control and
24 had so many people involved for no reason; now, somebody must pay the cost
9 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
10 Enclosed:
15 mail mailing list; Letter dated September 9, 2012 to Brent Seifert with
16 request for investigation status update. In that letter, on the pages 2 and
19 many people from the HR department, UCDPD police, trauma unit, and
20 UCDMC counsel until Waszczuk received documents under the Public
21 Record Act Provision in October 2012; Letter dated September 23, 2012
22 (Two days before the notice intent to terminate issued by Charles
23 Witcher on September 25, 2012 followed by the “Most Unwanted” Lt.
24
James Barbour’s warrant); October 4, 2012 e-mail from Michael Tyler as
25
an acknowledgment that I decline the offer for the workers-compensation
26
claim. I don’t file fraudulent claims.
27
CC: To Whom It May Concern
28
15 was replaced by Gina Harwood. Plaintiff was searching for clue as to what triggered the
16 Defendant’ brutal and merciless action against Plaintiff. In his letter to Jill Noel Vandeviver,
17 Plaintiff wrote:
(Note: to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s e-mail to Jill Noel
18 Vandeviver was corrected by a professional proofreader.)
19
Re: Brief for Oral Response -Notice Intent to Dismiss. - UCDMC “HR Death
20
Squad”
21
Good Morning Ms. Vandeviver:
22
I am writing a few words to you because it appears that my employer, UC
23
Davis Medical Center made an attempt to frame me, provoke me, and kill me
24
25 or send me to the trauma unit in bad shape in May of 2012. Somehow, it did
26 not work out for the UCDMC “HR Death Squad.” I perfectly described the
28 2012, not knowing anything about it until I got a PRA request almost one
15 617. In November 2012, Jill Noel Vandeviver worked for the State of
17
18 DECEMBER 2012
9 The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I am dismissing you from your
11 at UC Davis Health System effective December 7, 2012. The reason for this
28 with a benefits counselor to determine the effect of this action on your benefits.
7
619. The Skelly Reviewer , UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen
8 Tollefson’s decision dated December 3, 2012 and Charles Witcher’s Letter of Termination were
10 performance review (evaluations) were mentioned. Neither decision mentioned the February
11 2009 Settlement-Agreement Plaintiff signed with the regents of the University of California,
12 which guaranteed Plaintiff a job with the University as the Associate Development Engineer.
13
“December 3, 2012
14 Travis Lindsey
Manager
15 Employee & Labor Relations
University of California, Davis, Health System
16
Re: Letter of Intent to Dismiss--Jaroslaw Waszczuk
17
27
actions were taken out of context and that he has the right to voice his opinion
28 about the wrong doings of the Department. Mr. Waszczuk has a very negative
16
“In Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 194, the California
17 Supreme Court ruled that:
18
‘as part of constitutionally guaranteed due process, public employees are
19 entitled to certain procedural safeguards before discipline, which is
sufficiently severe to constitute a deprivation of a liberty or property right is
20 imposed on them. The constitutionally protected liberty interests requiring
Skelly protections arise whenever the allegations against an employee are
21 sufficiently onerous to seriously impact the employee’s ability to find future
work in his/her chosen career.’”
22
23
621. Skelly Reviewer Allan Tollefson held a meeting with UCDHS HR Labor
24
Relation Manager Travis Lindsey on September 24, 2012 and was coached on what decision
25
was expected from him in Plaintiff’s case.
26
622. Just before Plaintiff’s loss of employment, Plaintiff lost his house on a short sale
27
28
and rented a house so as not to deal with a mortgage company during his unemployment.
3 623. On December 18, 2012, Plaintiff sent an e-mail inquiry to USDHS HR Labor
4 Relation Consultant Gina Harwood for clearance to enter the HR building on December 20,
5
2012 to take care of his remaining benefits upon termination of employment:
6
Subject: Meeting with Janette Manuel in the Ticon III Bldg. on 12/20/2012 at 9:00
7
Hi Gina:
8
Would you please provide me clearance with UCDPD to go to Ticon III
9
Bldg. on 12/20/2012 at 9:00 a.m. for a meeting with Janette Manuel?It
10
came to my attention that the UCDPD “Most Unwanted” police warrant
11
with my photos is still hanging in the HVAC shop and probably in other
12
UCDMC places. I don’t want be shot by in the back by Lt. James
13
Barbour’s forces for entering the Ticon III Bldg. to discuss my benefits
14
17 Jerry
28
7 Agreement signed with Plaintiff and in disregard of Plaintiff’s outstanding working record ,
8 slandered and defamed Plaintiff with the Employment Development Department, thus causing
10 627. By the reckless, despicable and inhumane Defendant’ continuous attack aimed at
11 Plaintiff, the Defendant caused Plaintiff additional enormous stress, anxiety and financial harm
12 in the period when Plaintiff was not eligible yet for earlier Social Security Benefits and was
13 awaiting to cash out his University Retirement money and transfer it to an IRA account.
14 628. Plaintiff’s unemployment insurance benefits case is pending in the State of
15 California Court of Appeal 3rd Appellate District, Case Caption Waszczuk v. California
16
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board No. C079254, the County of Sacramento Superior
17
Court Case No. 34201380001699CUWMGDS.
18
JANUARY 2013
19
20 January 3, 2013- Plaintiff’s Step I Complaint Pursuant to the UC Davis Complaint Resolution
Policy PPSM 70.
21
22 629. On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Step I Complaint pursuant to the UC Davis
23 Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70. The Step I complaint was the initial appeal from the
24 Defendant’ decision terminating Plaintiff’s employment on December 7, 2012.
25 630. The termination letter stated that Plaintiff has rights to request review of the
26 Defendant’ employment action under Personnel Policies for Staff Members 70 - Complaint
27
Resolution.
28
15 634. Plaintiff’s mind was and still is constantly and unstoppably occupied by the
16 Defendant’ criminally minded May 31, 2012 provocation. Undoubtedly it was the Defendant’
17 goal to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11.
18 Plaintiff is still obsessively thinking about and can’t get it out of his mind because the Defendant
19 never in one word in any document address their own disgraceful, despicable and criminally
20 minded action against their own employee, who provided service for the Defendant for 13 years
21 and almost ended his employment in death.
22 635. Plaintiff expressed and emphasized his feelings about the Defendant’ way to
23 resolve the labor dispute with Plaintiff in the cover letter to the Step I Complaint Plaintiff sent to
24
UCDHS HR Labor Relation Consultant Gina Harwood on January 2, 2013.
25
636. Together with a cover letter, Plaintiff sent to Gina Harwood a copy of the
26
February 2009 Settlement–Agreement, the copy of Plaintiff’s Brief for Oral Arguments sent by
27
Plaintiff to Skelly Reviewer, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson, on
28
7
Re: The Letter of Termination Dated December 5, 2012- Request
8 for Review under PPSM 70.
10
The Letter of Termination issued by Mr. Witcher states:
11
“You have the right to request review of this action under Personnel Policies
12
for Staff Members 70 - Complaint Resolution. If you wish to request review of
13
this action, you must do so in writing, using the appropriate complaint form. A
14
written request must be received in the UCDHS Employee & Labor Relations
15
office no later than thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this letter.”
16
I did not have any intention to follow the Letter of Termination advice and file
17
a request for review with the HR Labor Relation Office, which has caused the
18
termination of my employment with University of California after 13 years of
19
20 service.
21 I was sure that filing a request for review under PPSM 70 would be
23 page brief for the Oral Response to The Notice Intent to Dismiss dated
17 Three of the cases that I reviewed caught my attention, and this is why I have
18 decided to file a request for review under the PPSM 70. I have to be certain
19 that I would not be precluded to file the wrongful termination lawsuit or else I
20 will be defeated like the two Plaintiffs in Janet Campbell v. Regents Of The
21 University of California S113275; Ct.App.1/1 A097560; San Francisco Super.
22 CT. No. 312736 and Patricia M. Palmer v. Regents Of The University of
23 California 2nd App. Div.7 B154868; Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.BC
24
187036.
25
The third case is the newest wrongful termination lawsuit, which is interesting
26
because of the astronomical jury verdict for Plaintiff. The Ani Chopourian v.
27
Catholic Healthcare West wrongful termination case in Federal Court included
28
16 The date of May 31, 2012 constantly occupies my mind with unanswered
19 Would I have survived or would have been disabled for the rest of my life if I
20 survived? If I was taken to the UCD Trauma Unit, would my IV be filled with
21 toxic doses of drugs that could have contraindicated the medicines I am
22 currently taking, since the UCD wouldn’t know my medical history? Would I
23 become part of a deadly and illegal medical experiment? Ani Chopourian is
24
not asking herself these questions. I do not wish anybody to have his/her mind
25
occupied by such trauma that the UC Davis Medical Center Human Resources
26
Department caused me. “Sometimes I think that I should have never asked for
27
the documents that I received under the Public Record Act because of how
28
15 and human and employee rights; they are also abusing the power given to them
16 by the UC System
18 in the Letter of Suspension. The May 31, 2012 death trap, the Notice Intent to
15 and planned deadly assault on Waszczuk May 31, 2012. Without a doubt, it
19 Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
20
CC: UC President Mark Yudof, UC Regents, UC Davis Chancellor Lynda Katehi,
21 and UC Davis Vice Chancellor Ralph Hextler.
22
23
January 3, 2013 –Addendum to the Wrongful Termination Complaint PPSM 70 Step I Appeal
24
638. In the Step I Complaint and the addendum to the complaint, Plaintiff
25
alleged as follows.
26
16 government or law enforcement agency; Labor Code Section 1102.5 and Right
17 of state employees to blow whistle Gov. Code Sections 10543.
18 ADDENDUM TO THE WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT
19 De sc r i be y o ur c o m p la i n t i n de ta i l , i nc l u d i ng t he fo l lo w i ng
fiv e po i n ts . Atta c h a d di tio na l s he e t s if ne e de d .
20
3. How did the management act violate policy or procedure?
21
23 violation of law and is pure and undisputable retaliation against Waszczuk for
8 The UCDMC management by firing Waszczuk from his job breached and
9
violated the 2009 Settlement-Agreement between Waszczuk and the Regents
10
of the UC. As early as of July 2011. Waszczuk submitted two letters of
11
complaint to the UC Davis campus Chief Counsel Mr. Steven A. Drown and
12
asked him to advise violators of the signed Settlement-Agreement to stop
13
assaulting Waszczuk and to restore order in Waszczuk’ workplace. The letters
14
dated July 17 and 24, 2011 are self-explanatory, and no reason exists to
15
elaborate further about my employment malice in relation to the settlement –
16
agreement. It is only appropriate to mention that Mr. Drown as the UC Davis
17
chief counsel signed the mentioned agreement on behalf of the UC Regents.
18
19 Mr. Drown was obligated to act to prevent further violation of the agreement,
21 Police’s assaulting Waszczuk with a deadly weapon on May 31, 2012, as well
28 for our employees. Supervisors are always expected to have "just cause" when
15 I will leave to my attorney the further interpretation of the UCDHS just cause,
16 to lead.
17 I am so traumatized when I think about the UCDMC trauma unit, which was
19 However, today I am less surprised about Mr. Chillcot’s war game, after the
20 newspapers and television (TV) news have announced that under the
21 supervision of humanitarian off the Year, Mrs. Claire Pomeroy and UCDMC
22 CEO Mrs. Ann Madden Rice, the UCDMC created an oasis for neurosurgeons
23 whose activities were closely akin to Dr. Mengele’s from the Auschwitz Death
24
Camp—characterized by ill-minded illegal medical experiments. The only
25
difference was that Dr. Mengele was declared a war criminal and sentenced to
26
death in absentia. The two UCDMC “Mengeles” were fired from their jobs,
27
and Mrs. Pomeroy resigned from her position under false pretenses. Mrs. Rice
28
17 I am not sure what more should I write in this final complaint under PPSM 70.
18 I am so traumatized and stressed out, but thanks to God, I escaped the May 31,
15 investigator has ignored and covered up the entire issue in her report.
18 Waszczuk believes that the father of the convicted child pornography felon
19 was promised to have Mr. Waszczuk’s job and position a long time before
20 April 2011. This was yet another reason to retaliate against and harass
21 Waszczuk as well as to later terminate his employment.
22 6. Resolution Requested
23
24
Waszczuk is requesting in good faith the following resolution to end the
25
conflict without further costly litigations.
26
After receiving and reviewing my request/complaint, the UC immediately
27
shall restore my employment in the spirit of the signed 2009 Settlement-
28
21 January 19, 2013- UC Davis PPSM Step II Decisions in the unwarranted Letters of
Expectation Plaintiff’s coworkers William Buckans, Kenny Diede and Dereck Cole were
22 attacked by UC Davis Management in May and August 2012.
23 640. On or around January 19, Plaintiff received from UCDHS HR Labor
24 Relation the Step II Appeal- decisions for the complaints Plaintiff filed on his three coworkers,
25 Kenneth Diede, William Buckans and Dereck Cole were served in May and August 2012.
26 Plaintiff provided representation for the mentioned coworkers pursuant to UC Davis Compliant
27 Resolution Policy PPSM 70.
28
15 violation of law, for which disclosure would have more serious consequences.
16 February 2013
17
26 complaint. The complaint alleges that your dismissal from employment was a
27 violation of University policy and did not follow the just cause standard. The
16
645. The actual three-page Step I Appeal Review was signed by USDHS
17
18 Manager of Facilities Design and Construction Thomas Rush, whom Plaintiff never heard of or
19 met. Normally Step I Appeal is reviewed by the Department Head, which was Charles Witcher,
20 who signed the termination letter. In such a situation, HR, by writing the review, had to insert a
22 646. Thomas Rush was a subordinate and colleague of the USDHS Facilities
23 Design and Construction Executive Director Mike Boyd, who in July 2011 also became Director
24 for the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and became the
25 direct superior of Charles Witcher and indirectly Plaintiff superior. It was no coincidence that
26 Thomas Rush’s name was selected for Step I review. It is the second time Mike Boyd’s
27
subordinate was assigned to review Plaintiff’s appeal. First was Michael Pansious in May 2012,
28
15 attorney. The Thomas Rush decision is even worth to be pasted into this amended complaint.
16
18
19 648. On February 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Step II Appeal from the December 7, 2012
20 Employment Termination Pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 asking $10,000,000 for the
21 unthinkable psychological tortures that Plaintiff experienced from the Defendant in one year and
22 a half of inhumane prosecution and attempts to provoke and kill Plaintiff. In his 19 –page
23 appeal , Plaintiff just vented out his stress and anger knowing that any appeal will not do Plaintiff
24
any good after the Defendant attempted to provoke and kill Plaintiff and UC Davis Police issued
25
and distributed around UC Davis Campuses the “Most Unwanted Persona Non Grata” poster
26
with Plaintiff’s photo and description on it.
27
649. In conclusion of the Step II Appeal request, Plaintiff wrote:
28
7
MARCH 2015
8
9
March 7, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference Complaint with UC
10
Davis Vice Chancellor and Provost Office
11
13 Interference Complaint with the UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s Office due to Plaintiff’s protected
14 activities by the GOVERNMENT CODESECTION 8547-8547.13, which states:
15 8547.10. (a) A University of California employee, including an officer or
16 faculty member, or applicant for employment, may file a written complaint
17 with his or her supervisor or manager, or with any other university officer
18 designated for that purpose by the regents, alleging actual or attempted acts of
19
reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar improper acts for having made
20
a contents of the written complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be
21
true, under penalty of perjury. The complaint shall be filed within 12 months of
22
the most recent act of reprisal complained about.
23
(b) Any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation,
24
threats, coercion, or similar acts against a University of California employee,
25
including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment for
26
having made a protected disclosure, is subject to a fine not to exceed ten
27
thousand dollars ($10,000) and imprisonment in the county jail for up to a
28
6
651. Plaintiff with his Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference complaint
7
form submitted to the UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s office a 35-page brief, 1500 pages of
8
supportive documents and a cover letter, which stated:
9 ‘March 7, 2013
The Honorable Ralph J. Hexter
10 Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
Mrak Hall, Fifth Floor
11 University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
12 Davis, CA 95616
13 Re: Retaliation and Interference Complaint
14 Dear Vice Chancellor Hexter,Enclosed is a copy of my Retaliation and
15 Interference Complaint against certain individuals who are managing the UC
16 Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, California, where I was employed for
17 over thirteen years and where my employment was abruptly and without valid
18
and legitimate reason terminated on December 7, 2012.
19
In addition to the managing officers at the UC Davis Medical Center, who are
20
included in the complaint, UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael and his
21
subordinate, Lieutenant James Barbour, are included in the complaint for
22
alleged act(s) of provocation and conspiracy with other individuals listed in the
23
complaint in an attempt to murder me on May 31, 2012 or send me to the UC
24
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit in a state of extreme harm.
25
It is very disturbing—even unthinkable—that UC Davis leaders should
26
use the UC Davis Police Department to resolve labor disputes with
27
27 Seifert and Cindi Oropeza who portrayed Plaintiff far worse, as a two time convicted child
28 pornography felon who was illegally accessing UC Davis Medical Center HVAC shop
17 Rosenberg found that you had made protected disclosures under the
11 661. The question is whether the UC Senior Vice President, who was overseeing Judith
12 Rosenberg, was aware of all the details of the case and why Plaintiff became a subject of such a
13 vicious retaliation from the Defendant, which lasted for more than a year and half and was
14 continued by the Defendant after Plaintiff’s termination through the State of California
15
Employment Development Department and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
16
Board than in State of California Sacramento of Sacramento Superior Court Department 23 with
17
Presiding Judge Hon. Shaleyanne Chang.
18
662. The University of California Office of the President (UCOP) Principal
19
Investigator Judith concluded her pseudo-investigation in Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation
20
and Interference Complaint on June 23, 2013, which was a year and four months since Plaintiff
21
filed the complaint on April 7, 2013 with UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor Office.
22
663. Judith Rosenberg’s Confidential Investigation Report issued on June 23, 2014
23
was more or less a summary of the previous several fabricated reports as a cause for Plaintiff’s
24
25 May 2012 ten-day suspension without pay and employment termination on December 7, 2012.
26 664. Judith Rosenberg’s investigation report has nothing to do with any investigation
27 and was basically based on slanderous and libelous fabrication issued by UC Davis Health
28 System HR-assigned investigators, Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert and Cindi Oropeza.
16 misleading way the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed with the Regents
19 and experienced attorney at law, was perfectly aware what the 2009 Settlement-Agreement was
20 about and how grossly and unscrupulously it was violated by the Defendant.
21 670. Judith Rosenberg was perfectly aware that the Defendant defamed,
22 defaced and libeled Plaintiff by issuing, two months before he was terminated, the “PERSON
23 NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY” poster. Plaintiff’s photo and description were also
24
included on the poster, which was distributed around the UC Davis Medical Center Campus and,
25
most likely, sent to managers and UC Davis employees by electronic mail. Plaintiff was still a
26
University employee and received treatment like a “Most Wanted” criminal by the FBI.
27
671. Plaintiff is not certain whether Judith Rosenberg was aware or knew prior
28
15 the President and the University of California Office of the General Counsel or that the very
16 narrow group of the University officials knew what this case was about.
17 674. The 2009 Settlement-Agreement Plaintiff signed with the Regents of the
18 University of California was not mentioned in by UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley in his
19 decision.
20 675. UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley resigned or was forced to resign from
21 his $400,000 job with the University of California shortly after he signed the decision in
22 Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation Complaint.
23 676. UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley from November 2011-April 2012 was a
24
member of the Task Force Team, which investigated a pepper spray attack ordered by UC Davis
25
Chancellor Katehi against protesting students on November 18, 2011. The Task Force Team, of
26
which UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley was a member, caused unemployment for UC
27
Davis Police Captain Joy Souza , Lt. John Pike and UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza
28
7 April 3, 2013 – The letter to UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd
Termination of Plaintiff’s Employment – PPSM 70 Step II Appeal Hearing on April 2, 2013
8
677. On April 2, 2013, the Step II Appeal hearing took place in Plaintiff’s employment
9
termination pursuant to the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 with the presiding Complainant
10
Resolution Officer at the hearing, UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd, who
11
was Plaintiff’s indirect superior and, by the position and title, was responsible for Plaintiff’s
12
employment termination.
13
678. Plaintiff followed the instruction in the Letter of Termination dated December 5,
14
2012 and filed the complaint pursuant to the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70.
15
16 679. In 2013, Plaintiff was uncertain whether he should pursue his employment
17 termination complaint under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 or file the lawsuit to enforce the
18 February 2009 Settlement-Agreement that the Defendant i.e., the Regents of the University of
20 700. Plaintiff, by filing the complaints pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM, had little
21 hope that his employment and position, provided to him by the 2009 Settlement-Agreement,
22 would be eventually restored without litigation or knowing that the decision to terminate him
23 came from the Defendant’ Headquarters in Oakland, CA and was carried out by Director Boyd
24 and others.
25
701. Plaintiff summarized the April 2, 2013 Step II Appeal Hearing as follows:
26 April 3, 2013
9 statements that were outlined in the Notice Intent to Dismiss for Serious
10 Misconduct.
13 employer during the pending internal appeals under the PPSM 70appeals.
14 The abovementioned appeal with the California Insurance Appeal Board is
15 similar to my PPSM Step II Appeal, but is more focused and specifically
16 addresses the out-of-context statement written in Charles Witcher’s Notice
17 Intent to Dismiss dated September 25, 2012.
18
Together with this letter, I am sending you a copy of my Appeal Brief and the
19
relevant exhibits I submitted to the California Insurance Appeal Board.
20
I hope that the enclosed documents and your careful review of Oropeza and
21
Seifert’s Investigatory Report, which is based on lies, false statements and
22
fabricated accusations by a handful of people, will help you understand that
23
this case will not end with your hearing or in arbitration but, instead, will
24
ultimately be pursued in a court of law and justice will be served.
25
Besides the above, I am respectfully asking you for help on behalf of my
26
HVAC shop coworker, Kenny Diede, whose life and working conditions in the
27
16 Best Regards,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
17 CC: HR, Charles Witcher , Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter, Kenny Diede .
18
MAY 2013
19 May 2, 2013 – UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd’s – PPSM 70 Step II
Appeal Decision In Plaintiff’s Employment Termination Complaint
20
702. On May 2, 2013, UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd
21
issued a decision in Plaintiff’s Step II Appeal employment termination complaint as follows
22
703. Plaintiff’s hope that Director Boyd, with his executive power, would find
23
a different solution was broken like a soap bubble”?
24
May 5, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Response to Director Boyd’s Step II Decision
25
26
10 Mr. Boyd:
On April 2, 2013, we held a meeting on the UC Davis Campus. On the same-day, UC
11
12 Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo wrote me a letter and informed me
13 that she had accepted my complaint under the university’s Whistleblower Protection
14 Policy.
15
18 Page No. 1
19
Boyd: “During the meeting, Mr. Waszczuk asserted that the
termination was an act of retaliation that is linked to complaints he
20 made about his supervisors and management staff within PO&M when
working at the Central Plant from 1999 to 2007 and more recent
21 allegations and concerns that he raised in 2010 and 2011. This assertion is
consistent with similar assertions he made in his Step I Appeal and in the
22 documentation provided in the Step II Appeal submittal. He also maintains
that the disciplinary actions have been taken represent a breach of the
23 2009 Settlement-Agreement between him and the University.”
11 During our discussion, I pointed out to you the following fragment from
12 Seifert and Oropeza’s report, in order to help you understand how Seifert and
13 Oropeza crafted cause for you to terminate my employment.
14
19 After I read you this fragment from Oropeza and Seifert’s report, I asked you
20 the following question in relation to Putney’s lies:
21
“Mr. Boyd, you were born in and have lived your entire life in the USA,
22
right?” You answered, “yes.” I then asked you, “Do you know or did you
23
ever hear any ethnic slurs in this country directed against Romanians,
24
similar to nigger, Pollack, wetback, or other such slurs?” You responded
25
26
that you didn’t know, and that you never heard any slurs directed
28 Putney whether he or Daniliuc know any ethnic slurs about Romanians, not to
12
UC Davis’ Policy PPSM 70.
13 706. On December 5, 2013, exactly one year after the Defendant terminated
14 Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff held a meeting with Boyd in the UC Davis Medical Center.
15 Boyd was assigned as the Compliant Resolution Officer (CRO) Step II Reviewer in the Case No.
16 03-PPS-011-12/13. During the meeting, Plaintiff was representing HVAC Technician Dereck
17 Cole in his complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 for his 2011/2012 “Does Not Meet
18 Expectation Employee Performance Review (Evaluation).” The “Does Not Meet Expectation
19 Evaluation” was basically the last step for the employee to be terminated if he did not improve
20 his performance and behavior and achieve the goals for the next evaluation period, as outlined by
21
the supervisors or managers in the employee evaluations.
22
23 707. Mike Boyd, as Executive Director and Complaint Resolution Officer, and
24 as Plaintiff’s superior, knew that the Employee Performance Reviews (evaluations), mandated by
25 UC Davis Policy PPSM 23, are the most important documents to make a decision in any adverse
15 provide him with evaluations for the last two years of his employment mandated by UC Davis
16 Policy PPSM 23, thus maliciously depriving Plaintiff of the UC Davis administrative remedies
17 under UC Davis Policy PPSM 23 and violating his employment and civil rights to be treated
19
22
YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR
23
1999-00 “…performance very good” Kavanagh
24 “has become a very knowledgeable and effective central, plant
operator” --
25 “very conscientious and thorough” --
“can be counted on to make the right operational decisions” --
26 “valuable employee” --
“committed to the future success of the Medical Center” --
27 VERY GOOD often exceeded expectations and standards --
9 712. On May 7, 2013, Plaintiff obtained the Right To Sue Notice from the State
10 of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing DFHH Matter: 112740-49836-R
11 after losing hope that the wrongful termination and discrimination that the Defendant caused him
12 could be resolved without litigation.
13 DECEMBER 2013
14 December 4, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Wrongful Termination Complaint Against the Defendant with
the State of California County of Sacramento Superior Court
15
16
713. On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff in Pro Per filed in State of California,
17
County of Sacramento Superior Court the Wrongful Termination Complaint.
18
714. On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff simultaneously filed in the State of
19
California, County of Sacramento Superior Court a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus,
20
Administrative Mandamus (CCP § 1085;1094.5) to order the California Unemployment
21
Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and/or The Employment Development Department (EDD) to
22
calculate and provide unemployment benefits to Plaintiff or a remand for a rehearing to award
23
such benefits related to Plaintiff’s December 7, 2012, employment termination.
24
715. Defendant in further despicable violation and breach of the February
25
2009Settlement-Agreement, with an evil spirit, defaced and defamed Plaintiff with the State of
26
California Employment Development Department for the purpose of denying Plaintiff ‘s
27
unemployment benefits after terminating Plaintiff’s employment.
28
13
718. On March 11, 2014, Plaintiff sent a letter to the University of California
14
Office of the President (UCOP) Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg, who had been handling
15
Plaintiff’s whistleblowing retaliation complaint since June 2013. Plaintiff filed the
16
whistleblowing retaliation complaint with the UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor’s Office on
17
19 719. The purpose of Plaintiff’s March 11, 2014, 10-page-long letter to Judith
20 Rosenberg was to summarize Plaintiffs’ meeting with her, which took place in Defendants’
22 720. In his letter to Judith Rosenberg, Plaintiff mentioned the interview the UC
23 Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru issea u ga ve to Sacramento African-
24 American magazine Sub Cultural Hub. The interview was conducted by Donna Michelle Ramos
25 on August 6, 2012, and was entitled “A Look Back.”
26 721. Dr. Shelton Du ru isseau wa s o ne o f De fe nda n ts and p e rpe tra tors
27
who pa rtic ip a ted in the d esp ica b le re ta lia to ry p re em p tive ac tion a ga in st Pla intiff
28
6 threw a retirement party in his Eldorado Hill residence. The two guests of
7 honor at the party were Mayor of Sacramento Mr. Kevin Johnson and Mr.
9 Taylor. Besides the lavish retirement party, Dr. Duruisseau gave an interview
14 While reading the “A look back” interview with Dr. Duruisseau, a few
15
statements caught my attention. The first statement that caught my attention
16
was:
17
24
25
26 I am very skeptical about Dr. Duraisseau’s statement that the Central Plant sold
27
enough energy in its first four years of operation to cover the cost of building
28
18 DeRusso, and Principal Engineer from Brown and Caldwell James L. Bartlett.
19
20 Apparently, in 1998 Dr. Duraisseau and Project Manager Mr. Mike Lewis had
21 no clue what a cogeneration facility stands for and what criteria such a facility
22 must meet to be in compliance with federal law (FERC).
23
24
By reading the 2012 “A look back” interview and seeing Dr. Duraisseau’s
25
name on the plaque in the Central Plant, it is not difficult to conclude that the
26
Central Plant for him and others was like a sacred and untouchable place built
27
for future generations to remember “great” UC Davis leaders. However, the
28
15 Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru isse au ’s in te rv ie w, she had no p rob lem figu rin g ou t
16 why in Ma rc h 20 07 Pla in tiff was remo ve d fro m the Cen tra l Pla nt why De fe nda n ts
17 sign ed Se ttlem en t-Ag ree men t with Plain tiff in Feb ru ary 200 9 , an d why Pla intiff
19 m illio ns of do lla rs o f reve nue fro m the produ c tion and sa le of ele c trica l e ne rg y
20 b y the UC Dav is Me d ica l Cen tra l Pla n t was th e issu e an d b ig p ro b lem
21 724. Plaintiff is familiar with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s
22 (FERC’s) regulation and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) because
23 prior to his employment with UC Davis Medical Center, Plaintiff worked for a private corporation
24
with a similar cogeneration facility that did not meet FERC and PURPA requirements to be
25
certified as a “qualified cogeneration facility.” Plaintiff’s previous employer committed enormous
26
fraud against Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers and settled out of court for $100
27
million. The $100 million fraud occurred after only six years of unlawful cogeneration facility
28
8
726. Besides the letter to the UCOP Investigator, on March 17, 2014, Plaintiff
9
sent a six-page letter to Sac Cultural Hub Senior Staff Writer/News Reporter Donna Michelle
10
Ramos about her August 6, 2012, interview with UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr.
11
Shelton Du ru isseau .
12
13 “A few days ago, I wrote letters to two UC Office of the Presidents’ officials,
14 Principal Investigator Ms. Judith Rosenberg and UC Senior Vice President
15
Dan Dooley, and I mentioned your interview with Mr. Shelton Duruisseau in
16
my letter because Mr. Shelton Duruisseau made a statement about the UC
17
Davis Medical Center Central Plant where I was employed for several years. I
18
am enclosing both letters for context.”
19
727. Even after the reading Dr. Shelton Du ruisse au ’s u n in te ntiona l
20
c on fe ssion du rin g the in te rv ie w a bou t th e en ormo us p ro fit th e Ce ntra l Plan t
21
g ene ra ted and after writing a Ma rc h 11 , 2014 , le tte r to UCOP In ve stiga to r Jud ith
22
Ro se nbe rg , Pla in tiff d id no t th in k tha t th e De fen da nts’ v ic ious re ta lia tion
23
strik es ag ainst Pla in tiff wa s a pree mp tiv e we ll-orche stra te d De fend an ts ac tio n
24
25 re la ted in direc tly o r to the $ 100 ,0 00 ,0 00 fraud co mm itte d by Pla in tiff’s prev iou s
27 728. Plaintiff during his employment with UC Davis Medical Center was not
28 interested in ever looking into the issue of whether or not the Central Plant was being operated
15 autonomy and independence from the state and federal laws and regulations.
16 732. Even if Plaintiff would have thought about the Central Plant’s PURPA
17 qualification, Plaintiff was not willing to spend his own $10,000 and lose his job again at his
18 age for the purpose of filing a complaint with FERC in an attempt to nullify the Central Plant
19 certification issued by FERC and obtained by Defendants in the self-certification process (if
20 any). Also, it would never would crossed Plaintiff’s mind that Defendants committed fraud
21 against another entity in the same manner that Plaintiff’s previous employer did because Central
22 Plant was built to provide utility for UC Davis Medical Center and that surplus energy should be
23 sold because electric energy cannot to be stored like the other product.
24
733. The previous Plaintiff’s employer committed an enormous $100,000,000
25
fraud against Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers in 1989–1996, violating the PURPA
26
mandated requirements for operating a cogeneration facility.
27
734. The March 11, 2014, letter to the UCOP Principal Investigator Judith
28
15 improve situation and Plaintiff was threatened with employment termination when Plaintiff
18 736. After Plaintiff wrote the letter to UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg on
19 March 11, 2014, and Sac Cultural Hub Senior Staff Writer/News Reporter Donna Michelle
20 Ramos on March 17, 2014, Defendants reacted sharply and went viral to divert Plaintiff’s
21 attention from the huge 70 million profits generated by the Central Plant from electrical energy
22 sale in 1999-2003 which was disclosed by UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton
23 Du ru isseau in h is in te rv ie w with Donn a Ram os.
24
737. On March 20, 2014 Plaintiff received e-mail correspondence from UC
25
Davis Health System Human Resource (HR) Labor Relations Manager Travis Lindsey. More
26
than two years after Plaintiff’s employment termination, attempted to advise Plaintiff of where
27
Plaintiff should send information about Defendants and where not to send it. Plaintiff responded
28
15 737. In March 2014, Plaintiff was also not aware of the fact that on February
16 24, 2014, the attorney in the unrelated Plaintiff’s wrongful termination case pending in the same
17 Sacramento Superior Court (Janet Keyzer v. The Regents of the University of California, Case
19 against Judge Shelleyanne Chang in which Attorney Mary -Alice Coleman declared that:
20
“The Honorable Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, the Judge before whom the
21
trial in the aforesaid matter is pending or to whom the aforesaid trial is
22
assigned, is prejudiced against me or Plaintiff so that Plaintiff cannot or I
23
believe that Plaintiff cannot have a fair and impartial hearing before this
24
25 Judge.”
28 738. Hon. Shelleyanne Chang has been the subject of a Peremptory Challenge
15 attitude toward Plaintiff and his witnesses could best be described with her statement after
16 Plaintiff made a statement about his coworker’s suicide, caused by Defendants’ hostile working
17 environment. ALJ Marilyn Tays responded: “All right, I guess he is not here.” When Plaintiff
18 heard this, I had no doubt where ALJ Marilyn Tays was going with her hearing.
8
745. Following the March 2014 Hon. Shelleyanne Chang reassignment, Travis
9
Lindsey’s email correspondence, and Plaintiff’s letters to UCOP Investigator
10
Judith Rosenberg ,the California Deputy Attorney General Ashante L. Norton, who represents
11
CUIAB as a Legal Counsel , filed on April 1, 2014, a frivolous Notice of Demurrer in Plaintiff’s
12
Writ of Mandamus case to distract Plaintiff and made Plaintiff forget about UC Davis Assistant
13
Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru isse au ’s in te rv ie w with Donn a Ram os.
14
15 746. On April 17, 2014, Defendants as the Real Party in Interest in the Writ of
16 Mandamus case filed in the court a Joinder supporting CUIAB’s legal counsel Notice of
17 Demurer. Defendants’ Joinder supporting CUIAB Demurer would perhaps not been strange to
18 Plaintiff if the four top-notch attorneys from the UC Office of the General Counsel had not
19 appeared on Joinder pleading, including Charles F. Robinson, UCOP General Counsel; Karen J.
20 Petrulakis, UCOP Chief Deputy General Counsel; Cynthia A. Vroom, UCOP Senior Counsel;
21 and Margaret L Wu, UCOP Managing Counsel.
22 747. Writ of Mandamus for the unemployment insurance benefits is not the
23 million-dollar case that required the involvement of the four top-notch legal counsels from the
24
UC Office of the General Counsel, especially the UC General Counsel Charles F. Robinson,
25
reports directly to UC Regents.
26
748. In addition to the above, in January 2015, Plaintiff filed an Objection to
27
the Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motion and included the Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton
28
15 Governors members and the members of the Board of University of California Reagents are
16 nominated by the governor of California and confirmed by the State of California Senate.
17 751. In 1999–2003 ISO was the distributor of electric power sold by UC Davis
18 Medical Center Central Plant on the open market. Plaintiff was employed in the UC Davis
19 Medical Center Central Plant by Defendants from June 1999 to March 2007.
20 752. The UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant in 1999–2003 was selling
21 power at the highest bids on the spot in the market via ISO exactly in same way as Enron or
22 former Plaintiff employer Dynegy, manipulating power and causing a rolling shortage of energy
24 753. Defendant were manipulating the electric power sale on a small scale in
25 comparison to Enron or Dynegy, but even selling 15 MW was enough to provide electricity for
26 15,000 people. In 2002, the former Plaintiff employer Dynegy and 10 other energy suppliers that
27 contributed to California’s energy crisis and rolling blackouts were fined with small fines in the
28
10 employee performance review (evaluation) for 2006–2007, and Plaintiff’s evaluation looked
11 nothing like what happened in 2006–2007 in contrary to the suspension and reassignment March
13 755. In January 2007, Charles Robinson joined the University as the General
14 Counsel, and he knew all of the secrets about the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration
15 facility’s electric power production, distribution, and sale via California Independent System
16 Operator (ISO).
V. CONCLUSION
17
18
19 756. The reason for Defendant’ despicable conspiracy against Plaintiff did not
20 cross Plaintiff’s mind until June 2015 during Plaintiff’s preparation to file Plaintiff’s Opposition
21 to the Defendant’ Legal Fees and Cost in relation to Defendant’ Anti- Strategic Lawsuit Against
23 757. Plaintiff did not had a clue that Plaintiff’s victory in 2008 arbitration
24 against Defendant —which ended with the 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed with
25 Defendant—was signed by Defendant in evil spirit and bad faith. The arbitration and the
26 Settlement –Agreement was just a short and unexpected delay for the Defendant before the
27 Defendant exercised and launched a second preemptive retaliatory strike against Plaintiff to end
28 Plaintiff’s employment with the University of California which orchestrated by UC Davis Health
20 772. Plaintiff in November 2008 did not realize that the prevailing, in
21 arbitration, and signing the Settlement – Agreement in February 2009 in good faith with the
22 Defendant was only a short time before Defendants would carry out their evil-spirited plan to
23 terminate the Plaintiff’s employment. The Plaintiff outlined and described the extreme,
24 outrageous, atrocious, and utterly intolerable conduct of the Defendants in paragraphs and
25 subparagraphs 1 through 144.
26 773. The Defendant, the Regents of the University of California, by and through its
27 own employees, agents, and officers, kept Plaintiff out of the workplace for over one year for no apparent
28
18 DISPARAGEMENT neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants were to disparage each other. Plaintiff at all
19 times expressed his good faith beliefs in the truth. When, in reality, Plaintiff was a valuable employee,
20 who had the best interests of the hospital always in mind, the Defendants not only disparaged Plaintiff
21 but made Plaintiff look like the most-wanted criminal.
22 777. In September 2012, two month before Plaintiff’s employment termination, the
23 Defendant ordered own officers, agents, and UC Davis Police to issue a poster similar to the FBI’s “Most
24 Wanted” criminals posters with Plaintiff’s photo and description on. The issued UC Davis Police
25 poster was distributed around UC Davis Campuses without informing Plaintiff about it. The Defendants
26 wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment on December 7, 2012.
27 778. The written Settlement - Agreement contains an implied covenant of good
28
27
783. The Plaintiff loss of 2011 base salaries earnings were $8,328.40 plus 10% daily
28
16 785. The Plaintiff’s loss due to breach of contract in 2012 involved base salary
17 earnings of $8,882.00 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants pay to
18 Plaintiff the requested amount.
19 44.28 hours at a rate of $34.31/hour were accrued or would have been accrued in sick leave if
20 the Defendants had not breached the contract and if Plaintiff had been employed by the Defendants.
21 44.28 hour x $34.1 = $1,519.20 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the
22 Defendants pay Plaintiff the requested amount.
23 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff for
24 2012 in sum of $10,401.20 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants
25 pay to Plaintiff the requested amount.
26
27 The Plaintiff’s Employment Termination by the Defendant Five Years prior to the Plaintiff’s
28
2 786. The Plaintiff’s base salary earning from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017,
3 would be $358,200 if the Defendants had not breached the contract, and Plaintiff would have earned the
4 above amount until Plaintiff retired at the age of 66 and a half on December 31, 2017, as Plaintiff planned
5 to do.
6 787. The Plaintiff’s earning would be higher if Plaintiff were to receive pay raises in
7 this period or if the Defendants would reclassify Plaintiff’s annual salary. The Middle Salary Grade for
8 Associate Development Engineer pursuant to the UC Davis Title Code 7182 has been changed
9 effective July 1, 2014 from $ 71,640.00 to $76,600.00 annually.
10 $71,640 base annual salary x 5 years = $358,200. Plaintiff would earn this if
11 employed by the Defendants plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants
12 pay the requested amount.
13 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff in sum of
14 $358,200 plus 10% daily compound interest
15 788. The 221.4 hours of accrued sick leave and 886.2 hours of accrued vacation
16 at a pay rate of $34.31 = $38,001.00. Plaintiff would earn this if employed by the Defendant plus
17 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants pay the requested amount.
18 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff in sum of
19 $38.001 plus 10% daily compound interest
20
23
789. Defendants breached the signed contract with Plaintiff and unlawfully
24
terminated Plaintiff on December 7, 2012 at the age of 61 and a half. The Plaintiff, at age 61 and
25
a half, was not eligible to receive even the earlier Social Security income benefits for which
26
Plaintiff could apply in May 2013. For the full Social Security income benefit would have work
27
until year 2017.
28
9 and terminated the 61-and-a-half-year-old Plaintiff without the possibility of the Plaintiff being
10 hired by any employer at his age, thus depriving Plaintiff of any income until Plaintiff received
11
earlier retirement Social Security income benefit at age of 62 or the University Retirement
12
Benefits.
13
23 792. By Breaching contract and violating the Skelly Law, the Defendants
24 terminated Plaintiff without the possibility of finding other employment at his age and with his
25 health. They denied Plaintiff’s unemployment insurance benefits, thus Plaintiff was left without
26 any income, health insurance, or life insurance.
27 793. n such a situation, Plaintiff was forced to cash out a lump sum from his
28
3 798. In 2011, Defendants grossly and despicably breached the contract and
4 performed inhumane harassment of the Plaintiff in an attempt to terminate Plaintiff or force him
5 to quit. The Defendant, through town agents and officers, de-enrolled Plaintiff from the Medical
6 and Dental Health Insurance benefits and denied Plaintiff’s Short Term Disability Insurance
7 benefits when Plaintiff was on stress-related sick leave caused by the Defendants’ agents and
8 officers.
9 799. When Plaintiff noticed in January 2012 that the Defendants had de-enrolled
10 Plaintiff from the Health and Dental Insurance and changed Plaintiff’s position without the
11 Plaintiff’s knowledge from an Associate Development Engineer to Programmer I (Demotion),
12 Plaintiff thought that Plaintiff would be terminated soon and so Plaintiff’s spouse enrolled Plaintiff
13 in her employer Nordstrom’s Corporation Health and Dental Insurance Benefits in January 2012.
14 Thanks to Plaintiff’s wife’s employer, Plaintiff has Health and Dental Insurance coverage
15 including medicine.
16 800. The Defendants re-enrolled Plaintiff into the Health and Dental Plan in
17 January 2012 but Plaintiff did not de-enroll himself from his spouse’s employer health insurance
18 and dental plan because he would be not able to re-enroll if Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s
19 employment, which occurred in December 2012.
20 801. Since February 2012, Plaintiff maintained his health and dental insurance
21 with his spouse’s employer Nordstrom Corporation, and this insurance would be maintained until
22 Plaintiff’s spouse’s retirement in September 2017. This increased the Plaintiff’s spouse’s monthly
23 premium for health and dental insurance from $94.00/month to $382.00/month. The difference
24 in premium, which is $288/month.
25 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Plaintiff , shall be compensated by the Defendants
26 from February 2012 to September 2017 until Plaintiff’s wife retires from Nordstrom at age 66,
27 which is 56 months x 288= $16,128.00 total sum due to Plaintiff
28
4 802. For 13 years of employment with the University of California, Plaintiff was
5 paying premiums every paycheck to the amount of $149.90 for Supplemental Life Insurance, A&D,
6 and Dependents Life Insurance, totaling $23,384 in premiums alone for 13 years. Plaintiff was
7 insured by Supplemental Life Insurance to the amount of $280,000, by Accidental Death and
8 Dismemberment Insurance to the amount of $500,000, and by Dependents Life Insurance to the
9 amount of $100,000.
10 803. The Defendants erased the above-mentioned Plaintiff’s benefits due to their
11 reckless violation of a signed contract with Plaintiff and unlawfully terminating Plaintiff’s
12 employment on December 7, 2012, at the of age 61 and a half, knowing that the Plaintiff had had
13 open-heart surgery and other health problems and that Plaintiff, at his age and health, would either
14 not be able to obtain Life Insurance, Accidental Death and Dismemberment, and Dependents Life
15 Insurance at all or, if so, that the premiums would be so high that Plaintiff wouldn’t even be able
16 to dream about having Life Insurance.
17 804. Due to their breach and violation of the signed February 2009 contract with
18 Plaintiff, the Defendants are liable for paying his spouse the mentioned benefits if Plaintiff dies.
19 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay the mentioned benefits to his
20 spouse if the Plaintiff dies.
21 805. The other option is that Plaintiff will find an insurance company that would be
22 willing to provide these benefits to Plaintiff and Defendant will pay the premiums until the
23
Plaintiff dies. EXAMPLE: Banner Life Insurance Company-
24
Semi-Annually: 4,720.05Quarterly:2,406.30Monthly (EFT):809.81
25
28
28 819. To be sure, Defendant, and Defendant’s agents sand officers knew Plaintiff is, and
16 The Violation and Breach of Settlement –Agreement by the and Defendant’s Discrimination
against Plaintiff Base on his Mental and Medical Condition
17
18
829. Defendant and Defendant’s agents and officers by breeching and violating the
19
2009 Settlement –Agreement, further discriminated against Plaintiff based on his mental
20
disability and medical condition as described herein.
21
22 830. Defendant and its agents, managers and employees, by violating and breaching the
23 signed Settlement –Agreement with Plaintiff violated California Government Code §12940, by failing
24 to adequately supervise, control, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the conduct, acts, and failures to
25 act as described herein. As such, Defendant and the Individual Defendant failed to fulfill their statutory
26 duty to take all reasonable and necessary steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from
28 831.. Despite Plaintiffs complaints about violation and breach of 2009 Settlement Agreement
28
3
839. Defendant and Defendant’s agents and officers purposely and with evil spirit
4
violated and breached the signed 2009 Settlement –Agreement with Plaintiff as part and parcel
5
6 of their ongoing, continuing, and repeated retaliation, harassment, for the purpose to cover up
7 and conceal their misconduct, violation of state and federal law ,engaged in a course of action
8
that constituted not be released from liability under § No. 7 and § No 8. of the settlement –
9
agreement to be sue for and Defendant is liable for violation of not limited to the Immigration
10
Reform and Control Act; the Family Medical Leave Act and the Higher Education Employer-
11
12 Employee Relations Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil
13 Rights Act of 1991, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Americans with
14
Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act), the
15
law of contract and tort; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
16
28
11 843. The California Legislature enacted Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5 because
12 “… it is the public policy of the State of California to encourage patients, nurses, members of the
13 medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe
14 patient care and conditions. The Legislature encourages this reporting in order to protect patients
15 and in order to assist those accreditation and government entities charged with ensuring that health
16 care is safe. The Legislature finds and declares that whistleblower protections apply primarily to
17 issues relating to the care, services, and conditions of a facility and are not intended to conflict
18 with existing provisions in state and federal law relating to employee and employer relations…”
19 (Emphasis Added)
20 844. Section 1278.5(b) (1) provides “No health facility shall discriminate or retaliate, in
21 any manner, against any patient, employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care
22 worker of the health facility because that person has…Presented a grievance, complaint, or report
23 to the facility, to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility, or the
24 medical staff of the facility, or to any other governmental entity…” (Emphasis Added)
25 845. Section 1278.5(d)(1) states (d) (1) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that
26 discriminatory action was taken by the health facility, or by the entity that owns or operates that
27 health facility, or that owns or operates any other health facility, in retaliation against an employee,
28
8 DATED:
9
10 By: _________________________
11
12 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{01892012.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (the "UNIVERSITY" or
"DEFENDANT") respectfully submits the following memorandum of points and authorities in
support of its motion to: (1) compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK's verified
4 responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One),
5 Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One.); (2) deem
6 Defendant's Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted; (3) award monetary sanctions in the
amount of $5,200.00 to retum Defendant to the position it would have been had the subject
discovery responses been timely provided; (4) issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as a
result of Plaintiffs pattem of vexatious litigation tactics and failure to engage in the discovery
10 process; and (5) impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.
I.
11
INTRODUCTION
12 Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special
13 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
^ ^ ~
P ,2 00 — vg
h-
O ..
«/-! oo O
ov ^
14 Employment (Set One) and Requests for Admissions (Set One) on April 25, 2018. Responses were
> ^ ov ov
Oi < O 15 due on or before May 30, 2018. Defendant provided Plaintiff with an extension to June 20, 2018 to
U ^ C ov Ov
—
• " ..
16 provide responses to the requests. Plaintiff has completely failed to respond to any written
17 discovery and responses are overdue.
18 Defendant respectftilly requests the Court issue an Order to (1) compel Plaintiff to provide
19 verified responses to Defendant's Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special
20 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
21 Employment (Set One) and Request for Admissions (Set One); (2) deem Defendant's Request for
22 Admissions (Set One) admitted; (3) issue monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of
23 $5,200.00 for Defendant's fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion; and (4) issue the sanction
24 of termination of the present action as a result of Plaintiffs failure to provide responses to the
25 Defendant's written discovery despite receiving an extension of time to do so and in light of
26 Plaintiffs pattem of vexatious litigation tactics throughout the course of this litigation. Moreover, if
27 the Court is not willing, at this stage, to terminate the action, it should impose a reasonable deadline
28 of two weeks for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, if Plaintiff intends to
{01892012.DOCX} ' • 1
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 further amend his complaint.
2 II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
3
4 Defendant UNIVERSITY served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents (Set
5 One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Eorm
6 Interrogatories - Employment (Set One), and Requests for Admissions (Set One) on April 25, 2018!
7 (See Declaration of Daniel Bardzell in Support of Motion to Compel ("Bardzell Decl."), ^ 2 and
8 Exhibit A.) By correspondence dated May 22, 2018, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to
9 respond to all such requests on the basis that he was sick. (See Bardzell Decl., 3 and Exhibit B.)
10 Defendants responded by email correspondence dated May 23, 2018 granting Plaintiff an extension
11 of time to respond until June 20, 2018. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiff completely
12 failed to respond to any such request by June 20, 2018 and same are currently overdue. (See
o
o
13 Bardzell Decl., H 4.)
L. •- r s
r - 3 oc — VO
t- 00 p
^ m
14 On Septernber 24, 2018, counsel for Defendant served a meet and confer correspondence
o g-=^ov Ovov ^
OS < o" VO
15 upon Plaintiff regarding the outstanding discovery responses wherein defense counsel indicated:
VD
OV OV
•b p-J X 16 [P]lease provide complete responses to all such outstanding requests no later than September 28,
UJ <
^•5 yf- u-
^ TO -
o
17 2018. If we do not have your complete responses by that date, we will file a niotion to compel
1^
18 responses and request monetary as well as terminating sanctions from the Court." (See Bardzell
19 Decl., H 5 and Exhibit D.)
20 By incoherent email correspondence also dated September 24, 2018, Plaintiff indicated, in
21
part:
22 Thank you for news about the Request for Production of Documents and Special
Interrogatories , I appreciate but I not sure yet what I am going to . I am waiting for
23 answers from the federal authorities in this matter.
I will let know . I mean time you can entertain yourself with my affirmative defense
24
of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. As Jeanine Pirro stated not so long ago , . UC Regent wife
25 Senator Feinstein's Unhinged Demon Rats attacking Judge Kavanaugh as I was
attacked and wasted by her husband and other unhinged UC demon , rats . Same
26 people only different is that I have no 1 penny on my account and I am for my SS
check on 28^*^ than I could buy ink for my printer and do eventually interrogatories.
27
(See Bardzell Decl., TI 6 and Exhibit E.)
28
{01892012.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
Plaintiff failed to respond to any of the outstanding discovery requests by September 28,
2018 and same remain outstanding. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 7.)
3 On October 1, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an email correspondence to Defendant stating: "I
4 am working on the Interrogatories and other papers. Pleas give one more week to finish. Attached is
a part of interrogatories to show you that I am working on ." (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 8 and Exhibit
F.) Included was a rambling apparent partial draft response to Defendant's Special Interrogatories,
Set One without a verification. (See id.)
The course of litigation in this matter is lengthy and complex. The following is a brief
summary: Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on September 30,
10 2014. Among the several claims in the SAC are four causes of action against all named
11 Defendants': (1) intentional infiiction of emotional distress ("IIED"); (2) tortious interference with
12 economic advantage; (3) FEHA harassment and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination,
13 retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 12940(a); and (4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation
t 1 S3 _ VO
t/1 u~, 00 o in violation of Govemment Code §§ 8547 e/. ^e^.
O u =^ 2 14
.
1 <ag
> U ov Ov I ^
Each of these causes of action arises out of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant at the
Od •< o" ^ S '
c o^ 5^ University of Califomia at Davis Medical Center. In addition to Defendant UNIVERSITY^, these
17 causes of action were plead against Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN
On April 14, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting the Special Motion to Strike finding
that Plaintiff failed to establish a probability of prevailing on the causes of action pleaded against
the anti-SLAPP Defendants as required by section 425.16 and entering judgment in favor of the
anti-SLAPP Defendants. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 10 and Exhibit G.)
Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of the four remaining
individual Defendants RICE, WITCHER, PUTNEY, and DANILIUC. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 11 and
Exhibit H.) The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant remaining in the case.
10
On May 11, 2015, the anti-SLAPP Defendants filed a Motion for Fees and Costs pursuant to
11
CCP § 425.16, subdivision (c) and the Court's Order dated April 14, 2015 on Defendant's Special
12
Motion to Strike. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 12.) The motion sought recovery of approximately $33,000
13
• = S—OO VOo in fees and costs incurred by the anti-SLAPP Defendants in connection with the Special Motion to
, 1/5.. ov
v-\
14
Strike.
0^
_ < o"
o ^ ^ 15
ov ov
b c -i X 16 On June 29, 2018, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion for Fees and
UJ <
a- c « f - Lu
. o 17 Costs in the amount of $22,284 against Plaintiff (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 13 and Exhibit I.)
m
18 Plaintiff has represented that he will seek leave of the court to file a Third Ame;nded
19 Complaint. (See Bardzell Decl., Exhibit B.) At the outset ofthe appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion-
20 well over a year ago - Plaintiff provided Defendants with a draft of his Third Amended Complaint.
21 It is nearly three hundred pages long and includes meritless allegations of a conspiracy to cover-up
22 illegal power sales that purportedly involves all levels of state government, the University of
23 Califomia system, and local jurisdictions, including the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. To
24 date. Plaintiff has not sought leave of the Court to file a Third Amended Complaint.
25 III.
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
26 INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE). FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL (SET
ONE) AND FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT (SET ONE)
27
A party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath
28
{01892012.DOCX} .4
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: an answer containing the information
2 being sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party's option to produce writings, or an objection
3 to the particular interrogatory. (CCP § 2030.210(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed
4 fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order
5 compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) The party also waives objections
6 to the interrogatories (including those based on privilege and work product) by failing to respond
7 by the deadline. (CCP § 2030.290(a).)
8 Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to
9 a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have 'to demonstrate either good cause or
10 that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. {Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific
11 Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4"^ 390, 411.) A separate statement is not required
12 when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)
o
o
r4
i i ir, 13 In our case. Defendant has not received plaintiffs verified responses to Special
^ 00 — VO
H V3
O u-"^
oo o 14 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), or Form Interrogatories -
-U "
(= < Ov
00 (S M
Di < d ov ov 15 Employment (Set One). These interrogatories were properly served on Plaintiff on April 25, 2018.
vb VD
.- u Ov ov
_) X 16 (Bardzell Decl., Tl 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs responses were due on or before May 30, 2018. By
H £:
o
17 correspondence dated May 22, 2018, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond to all such
18 requests on the basis that he was sick. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 3 and Exhibit B.) Defendant responded by
19 email correspondence dated May 23, 2018 granting Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to
20 June 20, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiff did not respond to this discovery by
21 June 20, 2018, has not offered a valid excuse for his failure to respond and all such responses
22 remain outstanding. Defendant requires these discovery responses in order to properly defend itself
23 in this case and to determine the validity of plaintiffs claims.
24 Accordingly, Defendant respectfully request an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide
25 verified responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General
26 (Set One), and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One) without objections.
27 ///
28 ///
{01892012.DOCX) 5
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
IV.
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the
party propounding the demand may move for an order compelling responses to the demand. (CCP
§ 2031.300(b).) In addition, a party who fails to respond waives any objections he otherwise could
have raised to the demand. (CCP § 2031.300(a).)
Defendant served Plaintiff with a Request for Production of Documents (Set One) on April
25, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs responses were due on or before May 30,
2018. Plaintiff requested and received an extension of time in which to respond yet failed to
10 respond by the extended deadline. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiffs responses remain
11 overdue and outstanding. (See id.)
12 Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide
o
o
(N
13 responses to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents (Set One), without objections.
3 oo
00 ^ VO ^
r - V5 ir^
H • r i 00
00 Oo
O u °^ 2 14 V.
— > U ov ov , ^
0-; < Q- VD ^ 1J DEFENDANT'S REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) SHOULD BE
DEEMED ADMITTED
5 g g --i X 16
o.|is< The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under
o
17 oath separately to each request. (CCP § 2033.210(a).) Each response shall answer the substance of
18
the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request. {Id.)
19
20 "If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response
[. . .] The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to
21 the requests[. . . .] The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of
22 any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed
admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction[. . . . ] It is mandatory that the court impose
23 a monetary sanction [. . .] on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a
timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion." (CCP §
24 2033.280(a-c).)
25 Defendant served Plaintiff with a Request for Admissions (Set One) including nineteen
26 requests on April 25, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs responses were due on
27 or before May 30, 2018. Plaintiff requested and received an extension of time in which to respond
28 yet failed to respond by the extended deadline. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiff s
{01892012.DOCX} 6
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 responses remain overdue and outstanding. (See id.)
. 2 Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests an order that the tmth of all matters specified in
3 Defendant's Request for Admissions, Set One be deemed admitted pursuant to CCP § 2033.280.
4 VL
.5 MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AWARDED
Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in relevant part, that:
6
7 The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse
of the discovery process, or any attomey advising that conduct, or both pay the
8 reasonable expenses, including attoniey's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
9 conduct [. . .] If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the
court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction
10 acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of
the sanction unjust;
11
12 CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c) and 2033.280(c) provide that a court shall impose a ,
13 monetary sanction on any party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel responses to
r- 3 00 — VO
(— </5 m 00 o
O .. Ov -a- 14 interrogatories, request for production of documents or request for admissions.
— > v j a^ ov
< o" >o vd 15- Defendant has extended Plaintiff every opportunity to avoid court intervention in this
U ^ . S ov 5;
matter by providing Plaintiff with an extension of time to respond to all of the aforementioned
3
17 requests to which Plaintiff still failed to provide any response. Plaintiff has completely ignored
18 Defendant's discovery requests.
19 Plaintiffs attempt to evade his obligation to provide responses to discovery has made the
20 current motion necessary, despite being afforded opportunities to avoid the need for same.
21 To date. Defendants have incurred $3,900 in fees as a result of Plaintiff s failure to respond
22 to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form
23 Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One.) and Request for
24 Admissions (Set One.) (Bardzell Decl., Tl 15.) Defendant anticipates incurring an additional $1,300
25 to review Plaintiffs Opposition, prepare a reply and attend a hearing. (See id.) Therefore, sanctions
26 are proper. Moreover, even if Plaintiff serves responses upon notice of this motion in order to avoid
27 a court order. Defendant has nevertheless been forced to incur the expense of moving to compel
28 Plaintiffs compliance with his discovery obligations, despite efforts to achieve a cooperative
{01892012.DOCX} ' ' • 7 .
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 result. As such, sanctions in the amount of $5,200 are appropriately awarded against Plaintiff for
2 the time and expense incurred by Defendant in filing this otherwise unnecessary motion.
VII.
TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE
The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may impose sanctions on any party
who engages in conduct that constitutes misuse ofthe discovery process. (CCP § 2023.030(a).)
•6
Misuses ofthe discovery process includes "failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method
7
of discovery" and "disobeying a court order to provide discovery." (CCP §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)
8
When a party fails to respond to an authorized method of discovery and/or fails to obey a court
9
order to provide discovery, the Court may impose monetary sanctions, terminating sanctions, or
10
both. (CCP § 2023.030(a), (d), (g).)
11
Courts have long held that terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is a willful
o.
12
o failure to comply with court orders, and should be issued where it appears that lesser sanctions
tN
f-^ •- 0 0^
13
L - 3 . VO
H CT) 1/-, OO O would not bring the offending party into compliance. {R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
o d-=^ 2: P; 14
> U ov ov ., (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Terminating sanctions are especially appropriate where a party
< o" vd ^ 1J
W c o^ o^
f— • — " .. fails to respond to discovery requests and ignores court orders. {See Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68
Cal.App.3d 372, 383.)
17
Terminating sanctions are appropriate in this case. Plaintiff has failed to provide any
18
verified responses to the Defendant's written discovery despite receiving an extension of time to do
19
so.
20
It is evident that Plaintiffs conduct is nothing more than a delaying tactic to prevent the
21
Defendant from engaging in basic discovery. Requiring Defendant to continue wasting time,
22
money, and Court resources to compel Plaintiff to litigate this case would be categorically unjust.
23
The aforementioned conduct has also prejudiced Defendant's ability to prepare for trial and will
24
interfere with the Court's ability ascertain the tmth in this case. It has thus become apparent that no
25
action will compel Plaintiff to comply with his discovery obligations, making terminating sanctions
26
appropriate.
27
Additionally, Plaintiffs pattem of vexatious litigation tactics throughout the course of this
28
{01892012.DOCX} 8
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
litigation further indicates the need for terminating sanctions. Recently, Plaintiff engaged in
vexatious litigation tactics in connection with his opposition to Defendants' Motion for Fees and
Costs Pursuant to CCP § 425.16(c). The Court recognized Plaintiffs repeated improper filings in
its Tentative Ruling on Defendants' Motion for Fees and Costs dated June 7, 2018, affirmed and
adopted by its Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Fees and Costs Pursuant to CCP § 425.16(c)
dated June 29, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Exhibit I.) The Court's Tentative Ruling, in part, provided:
"First the Court must note that the opposition memorandum exceeds the 15 page limit
set forth in California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113 and Plaintiff failed to obtain an order
8 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1113(e) permitting an oversized meinorandum. The Court has
9 previously admonished Plaintiff for failing to comply with this mle."
[.-..]
10
Plaintiffs "notice of objection" to Defendants' supplemental declaration does nothing
11
more than repeat the issues discussed above related to his previous counsel and the'
12 alleged collusion with Defendants' counsel in addition to alleging that Defendants'
o
o counsel had attempted to provoke him into a physical confrontation. [. . .] There was no
tN
13 basis to file an'objection.'"
J 00 — VO
^ oo o
I/-J oo
O <J °^ 2 14 (Bardzell Decl., Exhibit I , Tentative Ruling on Defendants' Motion for Fees and Costs
> U ov ov _
cc; < o vd VD 1 J dated June 7, 2018, pg. 2-4.)
UJ ^ c 5; 5;
S g i -i X 16 Plaintiff has repeatedly filed multiple lengthy documents and pleadings and continues to
17 engage in tactics to delay the case and to force Defendant to expend additional funds in the defense
rn
18 of the action. Accordingly, Defendant requests that the Court grant terminating sanctions and issue
19 an Qrder dismissing the complaint against the remaining Defendant in its entirety, with prejudice.
20 VIH.
IF TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE NOT GRANTED. THE COURT SHOULD
21 IMPOSE A DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO SEEK LEAVE TO F I L E A THIRD
22 AMENDED COMPLAINT, IF AT A L L
23
As discussed supra. Plaintiff has represented that he will seek leave of the court to file a
24
Third Amended Complaint. At the outset of the appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion- well over a year
25
ago - Plaintiff provided Defendants with a draft of his Third Amended Complaint. It is nearly three
26
hundred pages long and includes allegations of a conspiracy to cover-up illegal power sales that
27
involves all levels of state govemment, the University of Califomia system, and local jurisdictions,
28
including the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. To date, Plaintiff has not sought leave of the
(0I892012.DOCX} ^ 9
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 Court to file a Third Amended Complaint. In light of Plaintiffs vexatious litigation tactics
2 identified supra, if the Court is not willing, at this stage, to terminate the action, it should impose a
3 reasonable deadline of two weeks from the issuance of an Order on the present Motion to Compel
4 for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. This would eliminate the specter of
5 additional voluminous and unnecessary pleading amendments from further delaying the case and
6 causing Defendant urmecessary fees and costs.
7 IX.
8 CONCLUSION
9 Defendant has made every effort to allow for the cooperative exchange of information,
10 however Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses to Defendant's Requests for Production of
11 Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One),
12 Form Interrogatories - Ehiployment (Set One.) and Request for Admissions (Set One.) Defendant
o
o
fN
U m
13 is left with no option other than to file the instant motion. As such, Defendant seeks an Order (1)
fN
i- '3
H C/3 oo
»o oo 14 compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant's Requests for
O CJ ov
venu
U
CA
Ov
on tN
oi < o" vd
Ov
15 Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
5 ^ § -J X 16 General (Set One) and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One.); (2) deeming Defendant's
:D C/) 17 Request for Admissions, Set One admitted; (3) awarding sanctions in the amount of $5,200.00 to
o
18 return Defendant to the position it would have been had responses been timely provided; (4) issue
19 terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff s pattern of vexatious litigation tactics
20 and failure to engage in the discovery process; and (5) altematively, if termination is not granted, to
21 impose a two week deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, if at all.
22
Dated: October 3, 2018 PORTER SCOTT
23 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
24
25 David P. E. Bhrkett
26 Daniel J. Bardzell
Attomeys for DefendEint
27
28
{01892012.DOCX} 10
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
Waszczuk V. Regents ofthe University of California, et ai
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
5
On the date below, I served the following document:
6
7 DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET
8 ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET
ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR
9 ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
10
BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
11 am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
12 course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
o
o
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
tN
13 addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
.,- ^ — VD
attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
•~ tN
t- 3 00 00 o
attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of
o OV 1^ 14
u I)
ov t-: nine in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving
00 53
— g<
> tN f N
ov OV
15 the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the
o '^S vd hours of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
f-
o: J X 16 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
o UJ < ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package
17 for collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the ovemight
delivery carrier.
18 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission,
I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
19 machine that 1 used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service
20 by electronic transmission, 1 caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
address listed below.
21
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
22
2216 Katzakian Way
23 Lodi, CA 95242
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
foregoing is tme and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on October 3, 2018.
25
26
Wendy Strasser
27
28
{0I892012.DOCX} II
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
SUBMITTED ON 3/3/2020
ATTACHMENT# 11
V.
‘ .
CR).
_
SUBP-002
OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
ATTORNEY
E-MAIL ADDRESS: - .
ATTORNEY FORWame”
.
1
goulding@porterscott.com
Michael B0 (1 Ste hen
Chilcott Danesha Nichols et al. _
.
NAME OF COURT:
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
STREET ADDRESS:
.
b.Address: gt _
.-
J“ 1"... A' t l
2. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS
UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS
BEEN SERVED ON YOU, A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND CONSUMER OR
EMPLOYEEAFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE
RECORDS.
3. YOU ARE (item a orb must be checked):
a. Ordered to appear in person and to produce the records described in the declaration on page two or the attached
declaration or affidavit. The personal attendance of the custodian or other qualified witness and the production of the?
Code sections 1560(b), 1561, and
original records are required by this subpoena. The procedure authorized by Evidence '
outer seal and mail it to the clerk of the court at the address in item 1.
(3) Place this first envelope in an envelope, it,
(4) Mail a copy of your declaration to the attorney or party listed at the top of this form.
4. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TIME OR DATE YOU ARE TO APPEAR, OR IF YOU WANT TO
BE CERTAIN
THAT YOUR PRESENCE IS REQUIRED, CONTACT THE FOLLOWING PERSON BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH YOU ARE
.
TO APPEAR: ,
5. Witness Fees: You are entitled to witness fees and mileage actually traveled both ways, as provided by law, if you request them
at the time of service. You may request them before your scheduled appearance from the person named in item 4.
DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE
FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY.
Date issued:
4/12/21 * f" '
Olatomma T, Ama
. .
) 056sz J. M '
Form
Adopted for Mandatory_Use
CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCESTECUM) for Personal Appearance and Code ofCivii Procedure.
suggggg;fggfg'aflugfyq’fg'gu,
Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things at wwwiljffsggfggv'
Trial or Hearing and DECLARATION
'4————-———_m
I- .
x .
SUBP-OOZ
CASE NUMBER
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:Jaroslaw Waszczuk
. . . 34—2013-00155479
of the UanCI'Slty of California, et al.
.
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:Regents
The production of the documents, electronically stored information, or other things sought by the subpoena on page one is supported ‘
by (check one):
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION,AND THINGS AT TRIAL OR HEARING
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1985,1987.5)
1. I, the undersigned, declare I am the I: plaintiff L___| defendant |:| petitioner D respondent
attorney for (specify): defendant |:| other (specify):
‘
‘
2. The witness has possession or control of the documents, electronically stored information, or other things listed below, and shall
produce them at the time and place specified in the Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Records at
Trial or Hearing on page one of this form (specify the exact documents or other things to be produce; if electronically stored
information is demanded, the form or forms in which each type of information is to be produced may be specified):
See Attachment 2
Continued on Attachment 2.
3. Good cause exists for the production of the documents, electronically stored information, or other things described in paragraph 2
for the following reasons:
Judgment creditors have submitted an application to examine Irina Waszczuk to determine if she has assets
that will satisfy the judgment against her spouse. Good cause exists to produce the requested documents as
they have pertinent infomation about the Witness' financial status. They will assist the court and judgmen
creditors in determining how the judgment against judgment debtor can be satisfied.
i: Continued on Attachment 3.
4. The documents, electronically stored information, or other things described in paragraph 2 are material to the issues involved in this
case for the following reasons:
The documents have relevant information that will be used in the examination of Irina Waszczuk to
determine if she has assets that will be used to satisfy the judgment against her spouse, the judgment debtor.
i: Continued on Attachment 4.
‘
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: 4/12/21
fifafiaflwfla J,f.
1 0
. .
’ dam
Olatomiwa T. Ama _______________________
Requestfor Accommodations
Assistive listening systems, computer~assisted real-time captioning, or sign language interpreter services are available ,
if you ask at least five days before the date on which you are to appear. Contact the clerk's office or go to
www.courts.ca.gov/forms for Request for Accommodations by Persons With Disabilities and Response (form MC-410).
(Civil Code, § 54.8.)
(Proof of service on page 3)
SUBP-ooz [Rem January 1. 20121 CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCESTECUM) for Personal Appearance and Pa9e20f3
Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things at
Trial or Hearing and DECLARATION
. , 4
t
SUBP-002
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER:
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
34-2013-00155479
Regents of the Umversfiy of Callforma, et al,
. . . .
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:
PROOF OF SERVICE OF CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCESTECUM) for Personal Appearance and Production of
Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things at Trial or Hearing and DECLARATION
1. Iserved this Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored -
Information, and Things at Trial or Hearing and Declaration by personally delivering a copy to the person served as follows:
a. Person served (name):
0. Date of delivery:
d. Time of delivery:
.
f. Feeforservice:................ $
3. Person serving:
a. 1:
Not a registered California process server.
»
b. D
California sheriff or marshal.
c. I: Registered California process server.
d. I: Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server.
e. D Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b).
f. l:Registered professional photocopier.
9- Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451.
|___—| ‘
h. Name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number:
Ideclare under penalty of perjury underthe laws of the State of (For California sheriff or marshal use only)
California that the foregoing is true and correct. Icertify that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
Date:
>______________ (SIGNATURE)
>_________________ (SIGNATURE) .
__________________________________.__-————-———— Pagan”
SUBP-ooziRev. January 1. 20121 CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCESTECUM) for Personal Appearance and
Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things at
Trial or Hearing and DECLARATION
w—«_
J -'.
AT-138/EJ-125
OR PARTY ATTORNEY: STATE BAR N04 FOR COURT USE ONLY
ATTORNEY WITHOUT
NAME:
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
FIRM NAME: Porter Scott
MAILING ADDRESS:
BRANCH NAME:
'
PLAINTIFF JAROSLAWWASZCZUK
DEFENDANT REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIA,et al.
b. answer concerning property of the judgment debtor in your possession or control or concerning a debt you owe the ’
judgment debtor.
c. I: answer concerning property of the defendant in your possession or control or concerning a debt you owe the defendant
that is subject to attachment.
Date: MAY 7, 2021 Time:9:00 A.M. Dept. or Div.:43 Rm.:
Address of court is shown above |:| is:
3. This order may be served by a sheriff, marshal, registered process server, or the following specially appointed person (name):
Date:
________________________
JUDGE
This order must be served not less than 10 days before the date set for the examination.
IMPORTANT NOTICES ON REVERSE
APPLICATION FOR ORDERTO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION
4. Original judgment creditor I: Assignee of record I: Plaintiff who has a right to attach order
applies for an order requiring (name): IRINA WASZCZUK
debt.
to appear and furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment or to answer concerning property or
5. The person to be examined is '
,
Olatomiwa T. Aina } ..
(SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
of2
(Continued on reverse) Page 1
(Attachment—Enforcement of Judgment)
,,__ ___—._.________===_-==
v1», ’
'
AT-138/EJ-125
Information for Judgment Creditor Regarding Service
_
If you want to be able to ask the court to enforce the order on the judgment debtor or any third party, you
must have a copy of the order personally served on the judgment debtor by a sheriff, marshal, registered
process server, or the person appointed in item 3 of the order at least 10 calendar days before the date of
the hearin and have a roof of service filed with the court.
(1) NOTICE TO PERSON SERVED If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order,
.
you may be subject to arrest and punishmentfor contempt of court, and the court may make an
order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney fees incurred by the judgmentcreditor in this
proceeding.
(2) NOTICE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR The person in whose favor the judgmentwas
entered in this
action claims that the person to be examined under this order has possession or control of property
that is yours or owes you a debt. This property or debt is as follows (describe the property or debt):
Communityproperty of Plaintiff/JudgmentDebtor
Irina Waszczuk’s employmentwages _
.
If you claim that all or any portion of this property or debt is exempt from enforcement of the money
judgment, you must file your exemption claim in writing with the court and
have a copy personally
served on the judgmentcreditor not later than three days before the date set for the examination. '
You must appear at the time and place set for the examination to establish your claim of exemption
or your exemption may be waived.
requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney fees incurred by the plaintiff in this proceeding.
.
of2
_
Page 2
AT-138/EJ-125 (Rev. January 2017]
1. APPLICAT'ON AND ORDER FOR
APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION
(Attachment—Enforcement of Judgment)
w
MC-025
CASE NUMBER:
SHORT TITLE:
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al. 34-2013-00155479
ATTACHMENT (Number): 2
(This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) .
1. All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY YOUR current residence, including but not limited to
DOCUMENTS identifying YOUR ADDRESS, how long YOU have lived there, whether YOU own or rent
the residence, and the amount of YOUR rent or monthly mortgage payment.
‘
All DOCUMENTS relating to any real estate in which YOU have an ownership interest, and any income
2.
YOU derive therefrom, whether directly or indirectly, including but not limited to real property deeds
3. All DOCUMENTS relating to any real estate in which YOUR spouse has an OWnership interest, and any ‘
income YOU or YOUR spouse derive therefrom, whether directly or indirectly, including but not limited to
real property deeds.
4. All DOCUMENTS relating to any business entity in which YOU have an ownership interest.
5. All DOCUMENTS relating to any business entity in which YOUR spouse has an ownership interest.
6. All DOCUMENTS relating to any property in which YOU have an ownership interest, including but not
limited to (i) all checking and savings accounts; (ii) jewelry; (iii) motor vehicles or watercraft; (iv) debts or .
notes owed by another to YOU; (v) stocks, bonds, and other securities; and (vi) life insurance policies.
7. All DOCUMENTS relating to any property in which YOUR spouse has an ownership interest, including but
not limited to (i) all checking and savings accounts; (ii) jewelry; (iii) motor vehicles or watercraft (including
but not limited to vehicle ownership certificates); (iv) debts or notes owed by another to YOUR spouse; (v)
stocks, bonds, and other securities; and (Vi) life insurance policies.
8. All DOCUMENTS relating to any safe or safety deposit box YOU or your spouse own or use and the
‘
contents therein.
9. All federal and state corporate tax returns YOU have filed from 2012 to the present.
10. All DOCUMENTS relating to any of YOUR property held by third parties.
ll. All DOCUMENTS relating to any of YOUR spouse’s property held by third parties.
12.All DOCUMENTS relating to any benefits YOU have received or currently receive, including by not ,
13. All DOCUMENTS relating to any vested fliture interest YOU have in any property or in the payment of
any money.
item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty ofperjury, all statements in this
(If the Page _1_ of _:2_
Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) (A d d pages as required)
_____________________________________.______—-—— ”g
ATTACHMENT
Frattiaxsfié-32932iza'ite
MCflzstRev. July 1.2009] to Judicial Council Form
lLED>teNDORSED
Jaroslaw "Jfeny" Waszczuk, Plaintiff in Pro Per
2216Katzakian Way APR 2 8 2021
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
BAvJiAQan Deputy Clerk
Fax: 209-787-3131
Email: jjwl980@live.com
Please provide the copy of the enclosed April 27, 2021, Meet and Confer
Correspondence addressed to the defendant's attomey from Porter Scott Law
Corporation to the Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard for the review and consideration and
please file it for the record . This correspondence relates to Olatomiwa T. Aina,
who, in violation of the 45 days notificatipn court rule submitted to the court an
Please advise Porter Scott's attomeys to follow the court rules and properly
schedule an Appearance for Examination with a correctly written name on the
application.
Sincerely,
I
/
4J
Jarosliw Waszczuk, Plaintiff in Pro Per
Enclosxire
Subject: Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Case no. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen
Chilcott, Charles Witcher, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Brent
Selfeit, Patiick Putiiey, aiid Doriii Daiiilluc
1 am requesting that you clarify with the Court why, on April 22, 2021, at
approximately 2:00 P.M., I was served, at my residence in Lodi, CA, the following
Court documents:
-1 -
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
and Trial or Hearing and Declaration Issued lo IRINA WASZCZUK
Olatomiwa T. Aina on April 22, 2021. (ATTACHMENT 1)
• APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND
EXAMINATION with Court Hearing Date May 7, 2021 at 9:00 A.M. in
Department 43. (ATTACHMENT 2)
• DECLARATION OF OLATOMIWA T. AINA IN SUPPORT OF
JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S APPLICATION FOR APPEARANCE AND
EXAMINATION OF IRINA WASZCZUK. (ATTACHMENT 3)'
The above documents were filed in court and served to me on April 22, 2021 with the
name IRINA WASZCZUK. The person IRINA does not live at 2216 Katzakian Way,
Lodi, CA 95242.
For the above reason alone, I am advising yOu to properly fill out and resubmit
the documents to the Court. Also, for your information, my legal Polish name is
JANUSZ JAROSLAW, and my wife's legal Polish name is IRENA WASZCZUK. We
are both Polish refugees and citizens of the Republic of Poland who have been living
in exile in the USA since November 1982 (ATTACHMENT 4). In 1982, we escaped
communist oppression only to be ruthlessly and endlessly oppressed and harassed by
the National -Socialists at the University of Califomia and their servants from the law
firm Porter Scott Attorneys.
-2-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
hllps://www.scribd.cuni/documeril/494446114/Sulidarily-Anli-Conimunisl-Muvemeril-
Poland-1980-1982
My wife is not working at Nordstrom since March 2020, because she was laid
off and Nordstrom in Sacramento Arden Mall was permanently closed permanently
shortly after . She was employed for 31 years by Nordstrom as a seamstress-fitter.
' My wife and I are both on Medicare Insurance and Social Security. If you need any
documents from Nordstrom, you will have to subpoena them directly from Nordstrom.
https://www. legacy.com/obituaries/sacbee/obituarv.aspx?n=nancv-ioan-
sheehan&pid= 194994093
-3 -
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Nancy Sheehan's premature death saddened me because my wife's sister died a
few years ago of metastatic breast cancer in Poland, and Nancy Sheehan's e-mail
address on your Declaration reminded me of what my wife Irena was going through
after her sister's death.
In addition to the wrong addressee name filed on April 22, 2021, the Application
and Order for Appearance and Examination violates the statutory 45 days' notice
requirement for filing the Application and Order Appearance and Examination.
I here are two separate periods to consider when choosing your heanng date:
• Your hearing date must be at least 45 days after the date you file your papers.
• The Judgment Debtor must be served at least 10 days prior to the hearing
date Califomia Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) $ 708.110(d).
Accordingly, your Court hearing date (counting 45 days from April 22, 2021) should
be set on Friday, June 11, 2021 due to Orders of Examination currently being heard in
Department 43 on Fridays at 9:00 A.M.
-4-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Not following the statutory notice requirements in filing the Application and
Order for Appearance and Examination will lead to the same result as the filing of
the Application and Order for Appearance and Examination submitted on October
24, 2018 by your predecessor, Daniel Bardzell, who did not comply with the
statutory notice requirements. The Application and Order submitted by Bardzell
was signed by the Judge from Department 37, Hon. Jennifer Blackwell, on
November 7, 2018, and the debtor's examination had to be rescheduled, which
delayed the legal process (ATTACHMENT 6).
Since Porter Scott Attomeys' Daniel Bardzell was teamed with Nancy
Sheehan in October 2019, in their pleadings. Porter Scott Attorneys is making
reference to Defendants Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy
Oropeza, and Brent Seifert as Former Defendants (ROA No.222- 245). I
addressed this issue with the Court in my PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW
WASZCZUK'S NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO THE COURT ORDER DATED
DECEMBER13 8c 17, 2019 AND PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR COURT
ORDERS MODIFCATION - RE: OPPOSITION TO JUDGMENT CREDITORS'
-5-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
FURTHER MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AND MONETARY SANCTIONS filed December 27, 2019 (ROA No. 244)
(ATTACHMENT 7).
Prior to October 23, 2019, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols,
and Cindy Oropeza are Defendants. See Daniel Bardzell's November 13, 2018
letter to Clerk o f the Court ( A t t a c h m e n t 6), in which Bardzell requested that
One year later, the Defendants Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert became Former Defendants. Porter
Scott Attomeys have had more than one year since my last Court filing dated
December 27, 2019 to clarify with the Court why Defendants Milce Boyd, Stephen
Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert suddenly became
Former Defendants in October 2019.
CONCLUSION
Legal documents, especially the Application and Order for Appearance and
Examination and the Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) for Personal Appearance and
Production of Documents, must be filed properly and with the proper legal name.
Otherwise, they are null and void. Because you are from Louisiana and a newly
licensed attorney by the State Bar of Califomia, I would like to advise you to
familiarize yourself with this case, which has been pending in the Sacramento
County Superior Court since December 2, 2013, before you submit faulty
documents to the Court Clerk and send them to my residence.
-6-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
This case is interconnected with the pending United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit whistleblower case Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services Case No.: 20-1407, which I have to attend
to in addition to responding to Porter Scott Attorneys' negligence and deception.
https://www.scribd.com/document/495490868/Jaroslaw-Waszczuk-v-lRS-
Commissioner-UNITED-STATES-COURT-OF-APPEALS-FOR-THE-
DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBIA-CIRCUIT
As an attomey, you are an officer of the court who took an oath to uphold the
law. I assume you lake responsibility as seriously as anyone else; you musi adhere lo
those rules and even report attomeys or people you see violating the rules. As a State
Bar Member, you are obligated, at the risk of serious consequences imposed by the
State Bar, to protect and preserve the courtrooms and the validity of any matter filed
with the clerk.
My former attorney Douglas Edward Stein (SB #131248) who was coerced
with a $300,000 bribe from former Porter Scott Attorneys Michael Pott, Douglas
Ropel, and David Burkett (Read: White Collar Criminals from the University of
California) to conspire with them against me and was used by them to harm me, was
disbarred by the State Bar for his crimes against me and his other clients
(ATTACHMENT 8).
https://www.scribd.com/document/504977994/20190320-State-Bar-Audit-
Request-for-Review '
-7-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
haps://www.scribd.com/ducument/504978933/20190329-Reuuesi-for-Review-
Additional-lnformation-and-Documents-Vanessa-Holton-Rachel-Grunberg
https://www.scribd.com/document/504979363/20190409-Request-to-Expedite-
Reimbursement-of-the-Theft-State-Bar-CEO-Leah-T-Wilson
https://www.scribd.com/document/504979845/201905i5-Leah-Wilson-State-Bar-
Ceo-Reimbursement
In 2019,1 recovered the money stolen from me by Douglas Stein and the
money stolen in 2011 by the University of Califomia gangsters, namely my Short
Term Disability Insurance Benefits. I am still working on recovering the money
stolenfromme in 2014, namely my Unemployment Insurance Benefits. However ,
because of the COVID 19 pandemic is not an easy task to deal with state of
federal agencies .
I must attend the court hearing with my wife because her level of English is
insufficient for her to be questioned by lawyers without proper translation and/or
question interpretation.
-8-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
If you have'any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your
i'
convenience.
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
-9-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Mailing List
-10-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
ATTACHMENT # 1
SUBP-002
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Hame, State Bar number, and addiess): FOR COUKT use ONLY
Lindsay A. Ooulding, SBN 227195
Olatomiwa Aina, 325566
TELEPHONENO. 916-929-1481 F'^No- 916-927-3706
E-MAIL ADDRESS: igouIding@porterscott.eom
ATTORNEY FOR pva».«i Mighael Bovd. Stephen Chilcott. Danesha Nichols, et al.
NAME OF COURT: Superiot CouTt of Califomia, County of Sacrainento
STREETADDRESS: 9 t h Street
MWUNG ADDRESS: 'J2Q 9 t h S t r e e t
^^^""^""^"^ Sacramento 95814
BRANCH NAME:
PUMNTIFF/PETITIONER; jafoslaw WaszczuR
DEFENDANTR/ ESPONDENT: Regcnts of the University of California, et al.
CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) for Personal Appearance and CASE NUMBER:
Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things at 34-2013-00155479
Trial or Hearing and DECLARATION
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone numberof witness. If known):
Irina Waszczuk, 2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi, CA 95242
1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AS A WITNESS in this action at the date, time, and place shown in the box below
UI4LESS your appearance is excused as indicated In box 3b below or you make an agreement with the person named in
Item 4 beiow.
a. Date: May 7,2021 Time: 9:00 a.m. I I Dept: 43 • Div.: I I Room:
b. Address: 79.0 Qth StrftP.t. .Sar.rnmp.ntn CA 9<>R14
2. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS
UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1986.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS
BEEN SERVED ON YOU, A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND CONSUMER OR
EMPLOYEE AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE
RECORDS.
3. YOU ARE (item a orb must be checked):
a. I / I Ordered to appear in person and to produce the records described In the declaration on page two or the attached
declaration or affidavit. The personal attendance of the custodian or other qualified witness and the production of the
original records are required by this subpoena. The procedure authorized by Evidence Code sections 1560(b), 1561, and
1662 will not be deemed sufficient compliance with this subpoena.
b. • Not required to a p p e a r in pF)r.<>nn if yni i prnHi inp (I) the records described in the declaration o n page t w o or the attached
declaration or affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with Evidence Code sections
1560,1561, 1562, and 1271. (1) Place a copy ofthe records in an envelope (or other wrapper). Enclose the original
declaration of the custodian with the records. Seal the envelope. (2) Attach a copy of this subpoena to the envelope or
write on the envelope the case name and numtier; your name; and the date, time, and place from item 1 In the box above.
(3) Place this first envelope in an outer envelope, seal It, and mail it to the clerk of the court at the address in item 1.
(4) Mail a copy of your declaration to the attomey or party listed at the top of this fomn.
4 IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TIME OR DATE YOU ARE TO APPEAR, OR IF YOU WANT TO BE CERTAIN
THAT YOUR PRESENCE IS REQUIRED, CONTACT THE FOLLOWING PERSON BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH YOU ARE
TO APPEAR:
a. Name of subpoenaing party or attomey: Olatomiwa T . Aina b. Telephone number. 916-929-1481
5. Witness Fees: You are entitled to witness fees and mileage actually traveled both ways, as provided by law, ifyou request them
at the time of service. You may request them befbre your scheduled appearance from the person named in item 4.
DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE
FOR THE 3UM OP FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY.
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION, AND THINGS AT TRIAL OR HEARING
(Code Civ. Proc, §§ 1985,1987.5)
2. The witness has possession or control of tiie documents, electronically stored information, or other things listed below, and shall
produce them at the time and place specified in the Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Records at
Trial or Hearing on page one of ttiis fomn (specify the exact documents or other things to be produce; if electronically stored
inforrnation ia demanded, the form orfonna in which each type of information is to be produced may be specified):
See Attachment 2
Continued on Attachment 2.
3. Good cause exists for Uie production of tiie documents, electronically stored Infomiation, or otiier things described in paragraph 2
for the following reasons:
Judgment creditors have submitted an application to examine Irina Waszczuk to determine i f she has assets
that will satisfy the judgment against her spouse. Good cause exists to produce the requested documents as
they have pertinent infomation about the witness' financial status. They will assist the court and judgment
creditors in determining how the judgment against judgment debtor can be satisfied.
Continued on Attachment 3.
4. The documents, electronically stored Infomiation, or other things described in paragraph 2 are material to the issues involved In this
case for the following reasons:
The documents have relevant infonnation that will be used in the examination of Irina Waszczuk to
determine if she has assets that will be used to satisfy the judgment against her spouse, the judgment debtor.
Continued on Attachment 4.
1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: 4/12/21
Olatomiwa T. Aina
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) •(SIQIMATURE OF ( j SUBPOENAING PARTY
I • I AHORNEYFOR
— SUBPOENAING PARTY)
1. I sen/ed this Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored
Information, and Things at Trial or Hearing and Declaration by peraonally delivering a copy to the peraon aerved as fbllows:
c. Date of delivery:
d. Time of delivery:
3. Person serving:
a. I I Not a registered Califomia proceee server.
b. I I California sheriff or marshal.
c. I I Registered California process server.
d. I I Employee or Independent conb-actor of a registered California process server.
e. I I Exempt from regisb'ation under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b).
f. I I Registered professional photocopier.
9-1 I Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451.
ll. Name, uauiuss, leleptiorie number, and, irapplicaDle, county or registration ano number
I declare under penalty of penury under the laws of the State of (For California sheriff or marshal use only)
California that the foregoing is tme and con-ect. I certify that the foregoing is true and corror.t.
Date: Date:
• (SIGNATURE)
(SIGNATURE)
Date:
JUDGE
This order must be served not less than 10 days before the date set for the examination.
IMPORTANT NOTICES ON REVERSE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION
4. I X I Original judgment CTedltor I I Assignee of record I I Plaintiff who has arightto attach order
applies for an order requiring (name): IRINA WASZCZUK
to appear and fijmieh information to aid in enforcement o f t h e money j u d g m e n t or to answer concerning property or d e b t
5. The person to be examined is
a. I I the judgment debtor.
b. I X I a third person (1) who has possession or control of property belonging to tiie judgment debtor or ttie defendant or (2) who
owes the judgment debtor or the defendant more tiian $250. An affidavit supporting this application under Code of Civil
Procedure section 491.110 or 708.120 is attached.
The person to be examined resides or has a place ofbusiness in this county or within 150 miles ofthe place of examination.
I I ThiG court ie n o t the oourt In w h i c h t h e money j u d g m e n t le entered or (attachment only) the court that issued the writ of
attachment. An affidavit supporting an application under Code of Civil Procedure section 491.150 or 708.160 Is attached.
I I The judgment debtor has been examined within the past 120 days. An affidavit showing good cause for another examination
is attached.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that ttie foregoing Is true and correct.
Date: April 12 2021
Olatomiwa T. Aina
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
)k (PiatomiwuO'.Cliiui
(SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)
(Continued on reverse) Page 1 ot 2
Form Adopled for Mandatoiy Use Coda of CMI Procedure,
Judicial Council of CalHomla APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR S§ 491.1-10, 708.110,70S.120, 70ai70
AT-13a/EJ-12S [Rev. January 1, 2017) APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION www.eourts.ea.gov
(Attachment—Enforcement of Judgment)
AT-138/EJ-125
Information for Judgment Credttor Regarding Service
If you want to be able to ask the court to enforce tine order on tiie judgment debtor or any third party, you
must have a copy ofthe order personally served on the judgment debtor by a sheriff, marshal, registered
process server, or the person appointed in item 3 ofthe order at least 10 calendar days before the date of
the hearing, and have a proof of service filed with the court.
IMPORTANT NOTICES ABOUT THE ORDER
APPEARANCE OF JUDGIVIENT DEBTOR (ENFORCEIVIENT OF JUDGIUENT)
NOTICE TO JUDGIVIEI^ DEBTOR If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order,
you may be subject to arrest and punishment for contempt of court, and the court may malce an
order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney fees Incurred by the Judgment creditor in this
proceeding.
If you claim that all or any portion of this property or debt is exempt from enforcement of the money
judgment, you must file your exemption claim in writing with the court and have a copy personally
served on the Judgment creditor not later than three days before the date set for the examination.
You must appear at the time and place set for the examination to establish your claim of exemption
or your exemption may be waived.
Request for Accommodations. Assistive listening systems, computer-assisted real-time captioning, or sign
language interpreter services are available ifyou ask at least 5 days before your hearing. Contact the clerk's
office for Request for Accommodation (form MC-410). (Civil Code, § 54.8.)
AT-138/EJ-12S [Rev. January 1,2017] Page 2 of 2
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR
APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION
(Attachment—Enforcement ofJudgrnent)
MC-025
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: ^
15. All DOCUMENTS relating to any money or property held in trust for YOUR spouse.
16. All DOCUMENTS relating to any transfer of over $500 made to orfromYOUfromOctober 4,2015 to
present.
17. All DOCUMENTS relating to any transfer of over $500 made to orfromYOUR spousefromOctober 4,
2015 to present.
18. All DOCUMENTS relating to any COMMUNITY PROPERTY held by YOUR spouse.
20. A11 DOCUMENTS relating to any retirement account held by YOUR spouse.
21. All DOCUMENTS relating to any payroll stubs indicating eamingsfromany employment you have
engaged infrom2016 to the present
(Ifthe item lhat this Attachment concems is made under penalty ofpeijury, all statements in this Page 2 of 2
Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) (Add pagoa oa roguirod)
Fomi Appnwed (orOptional Use ATTACHMENT «ww.eoiiiflnlb.cs.flOir
Judicial Council or California
M&026lRev. July 1,2008) tO J u d l c i a l C O U n c l i F O H H
^ MC-025
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
4. All DOCUMENTS relating to any business entity in which YOU have an ownership interest
5. All DOCUMENTS relating to any business entity in which YOUR spouse has an ownership interest.
6. All DOCUMENTS relating to any property in which Y O U have an ownership interest, including but not
limited to (i) all checking and savings accounts; (ii) jewelry; (iii) motor vehicles or watercraft; (iv) debts or
notes owed by another to YOU; (v) stocks, bonds, and other securities; and (vi) life insurance policies.
7. All DOCUMENTS relating to any property in which YOUR spouse has an ownership interest including but
not limited to (i) all checking and savings accotmts; (ii) jewehy; (iii) motor vehicles or watercraft (including
but not limited to vehicle ownership certificates); (iv) debts or notes owed by another to YOUR spouse; (v)
stocks, bonds, and other securities; and (vi) life insurance policies.
8. All DOCXJMENTS relating to any safe or safety deposit box YOU or your spouse own or use and the
contents therein.
9. All federal and state corporate tax retums YOU havefiledfrom2012 to the present
10. All DOCUMENTS relating to any of YOUR property held by third parties.
11. All DOCUMENTS relating to any of YOUR spouse's property held by third parties.
12. All DOCUMENTS relating to any benefits YOU have received or currently receive, including by not
limited to any pension, disability compensation, or retirement pay.
13. All DOCXJMENTS relating to any vested future interest YOU have in any property or in the payment of
auy money. •
(Ifthe item that this Attachment concems is made under penalty ofpeijury, all statements in this Page 1 of 2
Attachment are m a d e u n d e r p e n a l t y o f perjury.) /AMH • wi
\/\Q0 pages as reQuireo)
Fomi Approved tor optional Use ATTAfHIUIPNT www.oouiVnli).ce.gov
Judldal Councll of California " ' '"^niVICn I
Mc^HsiRev. July 1.2008] to Judlclal Councli ForiTi
ATTACHMENT # 3
PORTER I S C O T T
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento. Califomia 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
FAX: 916.927.3706
nsheehan(3).porterscott.com
dbardzellfeQporterscottcom
7
Attomeys for Defendant
8
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNL^
9
Attomeys for Judgment Creditors/Former Defendants
10
MICHAEL BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, and
11 BRENT SEIFERT
12 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
13 SUPERIOR COURT OF CAT-TFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
I - '3 S
H " " 00 o
O 14
OS S
Mis CN M
ON O)
Ov OS
15 JAROSLAW ("JERRY') WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
^ 16
m
CU c a
17
v.
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF OLATOMIWA T.
AINA IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT
CREDITOR'S APPLICATION FOR
APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION OF
D <zi
o
>o
18
m tHE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IRINA WASZCZUK
19 CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, Date: May 7,2021
20
UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC Time: 9:00 a.m.
21 DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE Dept.: 43
BOYD. STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES
22 WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
23 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK Complaint Filed: December 4,2013
PUTNEY. DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16.2014
24 through 50, inclusive, SAC Filed: September 30,2014
25 Defendants.
26
27 III
28 III
(0240671 S.DOCX) 1
DECLARATION OF OLATOMIWA T. AINA IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S
APPLICATION FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION OF IRINA WASZCZUK
A
I, Olatomiwa T. Aina, declare as follows:
2 1. I am an attomey at law licensed to practice before all courts in the State of Califomia
3 and am a shareholder with the lawfirmof PORTER SCOTT, attomeys of record for current
4 Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNL\ C'Defendant" or
5 "UNIVERSITY") and Judgment Creditors/former Defendants BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS,
6 OROPEZA. and SEIFERT ("anti-SLAPP Defendants" or "Judgment Creditors") in the above-titled
7 action. I make this declaration in support of Judgment Creditors' Application for Appearance and
8 Examination of Irina Waszczuk and In compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 491.110
9 and 708.120.
10 2. On December 1, 2014, Judgment Creditors BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS,
11 OROPEZA, and SEIFERTfileda Special Motion to Strike Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff JAROSLAW
o
12 WASZCZUK'S (herein "Judgment Debtor" or "PlaintifP') causes of action as pled against them.
o
(S
am 13 The Judgment Creditors contended that Judgment Debtor's causes of action against them arose from
1- "3 a _ vo
H o 00 o
8 S"^^^ 14 protected activities pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16; namely, their participation in the
_ > U o, OS
processing, investigation, hearing and deciding of complaintsfiledby Judgment Debtor and others
^1. 17
pursuant to the policies and procedures of the Defendant UNIVERSITY.
D CO
3. On April 14, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting the Special Motion to Strike
18 finding that Judgment Debtor failed to establish a probability of prevailing on the causes of action
19 pled against the anti-SLAPP Defendants/Judgment Creditors as required by section 423.16 and
20 entering judgment in favor ofthe anti-SLAPP Defendants/Judgment Creditors. Attached as Exhibit
21 A is a true and correct copy of the Court's April 14, 2015 Order Granting anti-SLAPP
22 Defendants/Judgment Creditors' Special Motion to Strike.
23 4. On May 11, 2015, the anti-SLAPP Defendants/Judgment Creditorsfileda Motion
24 for Fees and Costs pursuant to CCP § 425.16, subdivision (c) and the Court's Order dated April 14,
25 2015 on anti-SLAPP Defendants/Judgment Creditors' Special Motion to Strike.
26 6. On June 29, 2018, the Court entered an Order granting anti-SLAPP
27 Defendants/Judgment Creditors' Motion for Fees and Costs in the amount of $22,284 against
28 Judgment Debtor. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy ofthe Court's June 29, 2018
Order Granting anti-SLAPP Defendants/Judgment Creditors' Motion for Fees and Costs and
{02406715.D0CX} 2
DECLARATION OF OLATOMIWA T. AINA IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S
APPLICATION FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION OF IRINA WASZCZUK
1 Tentative Ruling approved of therein.
2 7. The Judgment Creditors served Judgment Debtor with Judgment Debtor Requests for
3 Production ofDocuments (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) on October 9,
4 2018. Attached as Exhibit C is a tme and correct copy nf Judgment Creditors' Judgment Debtor
5 Requests for Production of Dociunents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) to
6 Judgment Debtor.
7 8. On September 6, 2019, Judgment Debtor served verified responses to the Requests
8 for Production ofDocuments (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One). According
9 to Judgment Debtor's responses, Judgment Debtor and his spouse, Irina Waszczuk have lived in a
10 home together since December 2012. Mrs. Waszczuk contributes $2,075 to the monthly rent.
11 Further, Judgment Debtor and Mrs. Waszczuk joindy own a 2000 Mercedes 320. Judgment Debtor
o
12 and Mrs. Waszczuk have health insurance through Mrs. Waszcztik employment with Nordstrom. In
o
(N
13 his response. Judgment Debtor alleged he had no further information about Mrs. Waszczuk's
H -p a
H CO V I 00 ^
O ^-1 c n 14 financial assets. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Judgment Debtor's unverified
0 \ OS
vd vo 15 responses to Judgment Creditors' Judgment Debtor Requests for Production ofDocuments (Set One)
ill 3 CO
i-i
I 16 and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One).
10. On information and belief, Irina Waszczulc, as the Judgment Debtor's spouse, is in
o
v\ 17
cn
18 possession of other community property that will satisfy the judgment against Judgment Debtor.
19 I make this Declaration on my own personal knowledge except to the facts stated on
20 information and belief as to such facts, 1 believe them to be true. If called upon to do so, I could and
21 would competently testify about the matters asserted herein.
22 I declare imder the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
23 foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on the 12th day of April. 2021
24 at Sacramento, Califomia.
25
(PCatonuwu (Una
26
27 Olatomiwa T. Aina
28
(0240671S.DOCX}
DECLARATION OF OLATOMIWA T. AINA IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S v
APPLICATION FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION OF IRINA WASZCZUK
Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et aL
1
Sacramento Coumty Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time ofservice, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My busmess
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento,"Califomia 95825.
5
20 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
21 Lodi, CA 95242
22
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing
23
is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on April 12,2021.
24
25
Virginia yiia
26
Virginia Yao
27
28
(0240g713J3OCX)
DEBTOR'S EXAMINATION
Discover the Judgment Debtor's Assets
This Guide includes instructions and sample forms. Links to download the fillable forms are at the e
of this Guide. Additional copies of this Guide can be accessed at sac/aw.ora/debtor-exatn.
BACKGROUND
Related Legal Research Guide
A debtor's examination, also known as an order of
examination, is often a preliminary step before initiating • Enforcement of Judgments
collection efforts. This examination is a formal court
proceeding in which the judgment creditor may question the
debtor to obtain information about the location and value of the judgment debtor's assets, including
paychecks and other sources of income, bank accounts, stocks and other investments, and personal
and real property. This procedure may also be used to (question a third party who may be in
possession of the judgment debtor's assets, or owe debts to the judgment debtor.
STEP-BY-STEP INSTRUCTIONS
Disclaimer: This Guide Is Intended as general information only. Your case may have factors requiring
different procedures or forms. The information and instructions are provided for use in the
Sacramento County Superior Court. Please keep In mind that each court may have different
requirements. If you need further assistance consult a lawyer. ..
saclaw^org Debtor's Examination
There are two separate time periods to consider when choosing your hearing date;
• Your hearing date must be at least 45 days after the date you file your papers.
• The Judgment Debtor must be served at least 10 days prior to the hearing date Califomia
Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) S 708.116(d).
Be sure to select a date that will allow enough time for service.
StejiirFjie^y^^ , '. \ ...
To obtain your Order for Appearance and Examination, file the following items with the court:
• Application and Order for Appearance and Examination (EJ-125), inciuding the Attached
Declaration (MC-031), if needed (original -•• 2 copies).
• A file-endorsed (stamped) copy of your Judgment, if entered prior to November 13, 2007, If
you do not have a copy of the judgment, you may obtain one from the court. See
www.saccourt.ca.qov/civil/file^status.aspx for more Information.
• Filing fee (currently $60 per application; see www.saccourt.ca.qov/fees/docs/fee-schedule.pdf
for current fees).
• Self-addressed, stamped envelope. If you would like the cierk to mall you a signed copy of the
order.
You may file these documents in person in Room 102 ofthe Gordon D. Schaber Courthouse, located
at 720 Ninth Street. You may also file by mail. If you file by mall, please allow extra time for
processing your paperwork.
After receiving your documents, the clerk will forward them to the judge for signature. Once signed,
the clerk will mall you a copy, if you provided a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Otherwise, you
may print a copy of the signed Application and Order for Appearance and Examination (EJ-125) from
the court's website.
The examinee must be personally served at lieast 10 calendar days prior to hearing. If examining a
third party, ybu must also serve notice on the judgment debtor, either personally or by mall, at least
10 calendar days prior to the hearing. Calendar days Include weekends and holidays.
If you want the option of having a bench warrant issued if the examinee does not appear, service
must be made in person by a sheriff or a registered process server, unless the court specially
appointed a different server (CCP S 708.170). To have your documents siBrved by the Sacramento
County Sheriffs Department, subrtiit the following documents to the Sheriffs Civil Bureau at 3341
Power Inn Road #313:
• Original Sheriff Instructions (available at
httDs://www.sac3heriff.com/docurrients/7483%20Form%20049A-
lnstructions%20to%20the%20Sheriff%20Rev%2007-18.Ddf
• Application and Order for Appearance and Examination (EJ-125) signed by the judge (original
+ 1 copy)
• Fee for service (cun*ently $40, see
https://wvyw.sacsheriff.com/docunfients/2020%20Fee%20Schedule.pdf for current fees)
saclaw.ora/debtor-exarri
saclaWiiOrg Debtor's Examination
After serving your documents, the Sheriff will mail the proof of service to you. If you hire a registered
process server, ask that the proof of service be returned to you, rather than the court. You must file
the proof of service In Department 43 on the day of your hearing (Local Rule 2.10).
Step^4:^/^rld>th^^^ ^ / . •
When you anive at the courthouse, check in with the S a m p l e q u e s t i o n s to ask the d e b t o r
clerk in Department 43, and tum in your proof of
service. The judgment debtor or third-party
examinee will be given an oath, and the examination California Courts Self-Help Website -
will be conducted privately between the parties. Sample Questions to Ask a Debtor
There Is no court reporter provided for this type of ;Www.courts.ca.qov/11328.htm
hearing, but you may provide one if you wish. Court How to Collect When You Win a Lawsuit
reporters can be found in the yellow pages under in California KFC 1065 .Z9 H69 Appendix
"Court Reporters" or "Legal Services," or from the
National Court Reporters Association's online Enforcing Civil Money Judgments
directory at www.ncrasourcebook.com. KFC 1065 .065 Appendix D
Electronic Access: On the Law Library's
Be sure to have questions prepared ahead of time, computers, using OnLaw.
to ensure you don't forget anything.
^|8Pi5riMliiJB{|im^ 11 _
If you have filed a proper proof of service showing that the examinee was served In a timely manner
by a sheriff or registered process server, the court will order the issuance of a bench warrant for the
examinee's failure to appear (CCP 708.170(a)(1)(A). 708.170(a)(1)(B)). To have the warrant
issued, you must submit the following Sacramento County local fomis to the court;
• Civil Bench Wanrant (CV/E-127A) (original + 2 copies)
• Instructions to Serve Civil Bench Wan-ant (GV/E-127B) (original + 2 copies)
• Sheriffs fee for service (currently $50 or $140 per warrant, depending on the court's order, see
httPs://www:sacsheriff.com/documents/2020%20Fee%20Schedule.pdf)
• Self-addressed, stamped envelope, if you would like a copy retilrned to you
After receiving your documents, the clerk will have the warrant signed by the judge, and will fonward
the original to the Sheriffs Department for service. Once the wan-ant is served, the court will set a
hearing date for the debtor to respond to his or her failure to appear at the priginally scheduled
hearing, and will notify you of the hearing date. You will need to appear at that hearing to conduct the
debtor examination.
Once you have obtained information about the judgment debtor's assets, you may begin your
collection efforts. There are numerous ways a judgment creditor may collect from a judgment debtor.
The method(s) used depend on the judgment debtor's assets. For more infonnation about collection
methods, see our series of Step-by-Step guides on Collecting Judgments on our website at
saclaw.org/law-l 01/collectinq-resistinq-iudaments-topic.
saclaw.ora/debtor-exam
saclaw.org Debtor's Examination
FOR HELP
Sacramento County Public Law Library Civil Self Help Center
609 9th Street, Sacramento 95814
saclaw.Orq/self-help/civil-self-help-center
Services Provided: The Sacramento County Public Law Library Civil Self Help Center provides
general information and basic assistance to self-represented litigants on a variety of civil legal issues.
Appointments will be made beginning at 8:30 a.m. Patrons who are present at 8:30 a.m. will be
entered into a random drawing to determine the order their case will be evaluated. If an appointment
is appropriate, it will be made for later in the day. You are encouraged to arrive by 8:25 a.m. to
participate In the appointment setting drawing.
Eligibility: Must be a Sacramento County resident or have a aualifvina case in the Sacramento County
Superior Court.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
On the Web:
California Courts Self-Help Website - Get Information aboiit the Debtor's Assets
www.courts.ca.gov/11187.htm
Califomia Courts Self-Help Website - Sample Questions to Ask a Debtor
www.courts.ca.aov/11328.htm
Sacramento County Superior Court - Orders of Examination
www.saccourt.ca.gov/civil/orders-of-examination.aspx
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS GUIDE. OR IF YOU NEED HELP FINDING OR USING THE
MATERIALS LISTED. DONT HESITATE TO ASK A REFERENCE LIBRARIAN. •
H;\public\LRG-SBS\SbSs\Debtor's Examination\DebtorExam.docx updated 09/19 mi^
4
sactaw.org/debtor-exam
saclaw;6rg Debtor's Examination
saclaw.Org/debtor-exam
saclaW^org Debtor's Examination
AT-138mj.128
ATTORNEY OH PARTV wmiOUT ATTORNEY:. RU) COURT USE OKLY
Your name, address, and
CaMn J. Creditor
phone number. In Pro Per
MRWNAUE:
means you're representing
6TBECT Aooncs6:203e Oonfwr Orlvfl
yourself. Check the box next
CITY: Sacramento
TEUPHONE NO.: 916-i 23-4567 to "Judgment Creditor:"
E4IAIL ADDRESS: ccredltortaieiTiall.oom
ATTORNtv roft in Pro Per
£ U e g B t 0 R COURT OF CAUFORNIA, COUKTV OF Sacramento
AODRESS: 720 Ninth street
Check
AODRESS'720 Ninth Street Court name, address, and branch.
Enforcement of ziPcooE:Sacramento. CA 95814
Judgment and ICH NAME: Civil
Judgment
Debtor or Third NTIFFCalvin J. Creditor
DAMTDoua J. Debtor PlaintifTs and Defendant's names
Person, as
as they appeared on the Complaint. Case Number.
appropriate. PLICATION AND ORDER FOR QUtNUUSER. .
i m t l ENFORCEMENT OF JUOGHEMT I 1 ATTACHMENT (ThW Person) 34-2009-00012345
I K I JudflntentPefatof r I Third Person
ORDER TO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION
TO (name): I}oua J. Detitbr
YOU ARE ORDERED TO ARI inally t Name of the I referee appointed by Vne court, to
(umlshj Bfiimtlofi person tb be ainsi you.
answer asffiIhsjudi examined, and
iceming property of the purpose of BSion or control or conceming a debt you owe the
I I JudgmenI debtor property of the deft
answer ooriceming the examination.
(hat is subject lo attachment. y contitol or conceming a debt you owe the defiendant
Date: 2/6/2013 Time: 9 am Dept. or Div.: 37' Rm.:
Address of court l l is shown above I I is:
3. This order may be served by a sheriff, marshal, registered process serT
Enter the date, time, and location of the examination.
Date:
This order must be served rtot less than 10 days before the date set for the examination.
Check judgment Creditor 1 IMPORTANT NOTICES ON REVERSE
— — — APPUCATION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION
EUD Original Judgment creditor Assignee of record I I PlaintW who has a right to attach order
applies tor on order requiring (name): Doua J. Debtor ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ J " " " " " ^ " " ,
tp appear and lumish Infonnation to aid In enforcement of the money ji^gment or to f Name of the person to be examined.
5. The person to be examined is
a. I K I Ihe Judgment debtor.
b. I I a third person (1) who has possessioh or control ABBBSdl^tBlQBOiOftttUll^UdflBfi&Utfitor br the defendant or (2) who
owes the Judgment debtor < ' Check the box describing I > P « « « " " "nder Code of Civil
Procedure section 491.110 orTOS.lZO ls at
6. The person to be examined resides pr has a place of busin
the person to be examined:
he place of examination.
I I This coon IS not me court in which Ihe money judgment is entered or iatlectiment only) the court that issued the wm ol
attachmenL An affidavil supportitq an appiicatiati under Code of Civil Procedure sectipn 491; 150 or 708.160 is attached.
8 1 I The judgment debtor has been examined within the past 120 days. An aNidavIt showing good cause for another examination
Is attached.
I declare under penalty of pei)ury under the laws of tne State of Caiifttmla that tne foregoing Questions 7 and 8 apply only in rare
Date: situations. Ched( the box only if the
entire statement is true.
CaMn J Creditor
(TYPE OR m m NAME) (ffiCNATKRE OF OEClARAKn
(Continued on revenie)
Fan AdemM )v Mmduory Uw CodoolCiviip
Juffldai CouxH ot Cailotr*a
Ar.|3IVEJ.I2StR». JBluvy 1.301T1
Enter your name, date and sign. fCSLiio. Tst.Ma Toa.tn, rs&tTo
(Auiitiiiiiujii"m!.iiiuimiiium w uuuyiimiim
sactaw.org/debtor-exam
ATTACHMENT # 6
P ORTE I S CO T T
ATTORNEYS
November 13,2018
Author's e-maii: clbardze]l(^ponerscott:com
(Oi«d726.DOGX)
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
V3 - ..AH
AT-138/EJ-125
ATTORNeY OR PARTY WTMOUT ATTORNEV: STATE GAR NO.: FOIt COURT USE ONLY
NAMF' David p. E. Burtc6tt, SBN 241B96 / Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
FIRMNAME; PorterScott '
STREET ADDRESS: 350 University Avenue, Suite 200
CITY: Sacramento STATE: CA ZIP CODE: 95825
TELEPHONENO: 916.929.1481 fAXNO: 916.927.3706
E.MAI1.AODRESS: dburkett@porterscott.eom / dbardzell@porter8cott.com
ATTORNEY FOR (nams): Defendants Boyd, Chilcott, Seifert, Oropeza and Nichols
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF 3ACRAIVIENTO
STREETADDRESS: 720 9th Street
MAIUNGADDRESS: 720 Qth Street
CITV AND ZIP CODE: Sacramento, 95814
BRANCH NAME
Dale:
JUDGE
This order must be served not less than 10 days before the date set for the examination.
IMPORTANT NOTICES ON REVERSE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION
n n Original judgment creditor .I I Assignee of record I I Plaintiff who has a right to attach order
applies for an order requiring (name): JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK '
to appear and furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment or to answer conceming property or debt.
The person to be examined is
a. I X I the judgment debtor
b. . I I a third person (1) who has possession or control of property belonging to the judgment debtor or the defendant or (2) who
owes the judgment debtor or the defendant more than $250. An affidavit supporting this application under Code of Civil
Procedure section 491.110 or 708.120 is attached.
The pereon to be examined rosidee or hoa a place of busineaa In this county or within 160 miles ofthe place of examination.
I ] This court is not the cogrt in which the money judgment is entered or (attachment only) the court that Issued the writ of
attachment. An affidavit supporting an application under Code of Civil Procedure section 491.150 or 708.160 is attached.
I ^ The judgment debtor has been examined within the past 120 days. An affidavit showing good cause for another examination
is attached.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct
Date: 10/24/2018
Daniel J. Bardzell
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF i^CLARANT)
(1) NOTICE TO PERSON SERVED If you fail to appear at the time and place specified In this order,
you may be subject to arrest and punishment for contempt of court, and the court may make an
order requiring you to pay the reasonable attomey fees incurred by the Judgment creditor in this
proceeding.
(2) NOTICE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR The person In whose favor the Judgment was entered In this
action claims that the person to be examined underthis order has pbssession or control of property
that is yours or owes you a debt. This property or debt is as follows (describetfieproperty or debt):
If you claim that ail or any portion of this property or debt is exempt from enforcement of the money
Judgment you must flte your exemption claim in writing with the court and have a copy personally
served on the Judgment creditor not later than three days before the date set for the examination.
You must appear at the time and place set for the examination to establish your claim of exemption
or your exemption may be waived.
Request for Accommodations. Assistive listening systems, computer-assisted real-time captioning, or sign
language interpreter services are available ifyou ask at least 5 days before your hearing. Contact the clerk's
office for Request for Accommodation (form MC-410). (Civil Code. § 54.8.)
AT-i38«j-i25iR«». jsnuanr 1. J017] APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR Pfto
APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION .
(Attachment—Enforcement of Judgment)
RECEIVED
C i v i l DROf' BOX
AT«138/EJ-126
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WTH0UTATTORf«V; STATE BAH NO.:
PDA cotmr use ONLV
MAME: David P. E. Burfceftl. SBN 241896 / Daniel J. Bardzell. SBN 313993
FIRMNAME. Porter Scott
STREETADDRESS: 350 Univorsity Avenue, Suite 200
CITV: Sacramento STATE: CA ZIP CODE: 95825
TELEPHONENO.: 916.929.1481 FAXNO.: 916.927.3706
E.MAII. ADDRESS: dburl(ett@pofterscotLconi / dbar(lzell@porterscotLcom
ATTonNSv FoniKiHMi: Oofendonts Boyd, Chilcott, Selfeit, Oropeza and Nichols
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO NOV - 7 2018
STREET AOORESS: 720 9th Street
MAIUNO ADDRESS 720 9th Street
CITY AND BP CODE: Sacramento, 95814
BRANCHNAME:
ByCfistin Cliapo, Deputy Clerk
PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW C J E R R r ) WASZCZUK
DEFENDANT Boyd. Chilcott, Seifert, Oropeza and Nichols
3. This order mey be sen/ed by a sheriff, marshal, registered rver, or the following specially appointed pereon (name):
Oate:
Daniel J. Bardzell
(TVPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIONATURe OF OECIARANT]
(1) NOTICE TO PERSON SERVED If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order,
you may be subjeet to arrest and punishment for contempt of court, and the oourt may make an
order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney fees Incurred by the Judgment creditor In this
proceeding.
(2) NOTICE TO JUDGIVIENT DEBTOR The person In Whose favor the Judgment was entered In this
action claims that the person to be examined under this order has possession or control of property
that is yours or owes you a debt. This property or debt Is as follows (describe the property or debt):
If you claim that all or any portion of this property or debt Is exempt from enforcement of the money
Judgment, you must file your exemption claim In writing with the court and have a copy personally
served on the judgment creditor npt later than three days before the date set for the examination.
You must appear at the time and place set for the examination to establish your claim of exemption
or your exemption may be waived.
Request for Accommodations. Assistive listening systems, computer-assisted real-time captioning, or sign
language interpreter services are available if you asic at least 5 days befon your hearing. Contact the cleric's
ofTice for Request for Accommodation (form MC-410). (Civil Code, § 54.8.) '
AT.ija«j.i26iRevj.nuan, 1,20171 APPUCATION AND ORDER FOR "^BeJofJ
APPEARANCE AND EXAIMINATION
(Attachment—Enforcement of Judgment)
7
1 7,arQslaw Waszczuk, In Pro per
DEC 27 2019
2
Lodi, GA 95242 By; • S. Khorn.
• 3 Phpfte: .209-663^2977 ': Depuiy Clerk
• 4
Email: jjAvl 9"8b@liye!'cotii.
5
lo-
JARdSLAW WASZCZUK ) CaseNo. 34-2013-00155479
11 )
PLAiNTIFF ) PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW WASZCZUK'S
12 ) NOTICE OF OBiECTlGN TO THE COURT
13 •
I .ORDER DATEB! DECEMBER 13 & 17, 2019,
) AND PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COURT
14 THE^REGENTS dF.THE; UNiyERSr^ ) ORDER MOpiiFiCATlON - RE:
OPPOSITION, TO JUObMENT CREDITORS'
•15 FURTHEW.MOtlON TO COMPEL
MriCEiBd.YD; STEPHEljj CHI'LCOTT,
CHARLES;'wlXeH£Rvb RESPONSEiS> j b JUDGMENT DEBTOR"S
16
NlCHOLS.'cm^^Y 6kQPEZA-,.B^ INTERROd^TOklES AND REQUEST FOR
17 SEIPERT, PATRlGk PUTTJI^Y, DORIN PR:0I).Udtjb?y :6F DOCUMENTS AND
DANTLiuC, AND 1X)ES 1^50, inclusive MONEtARY SANCTIONS
18
22
23 L
24 INTRGIDUCtlON
?.S
26
For the Record, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK (Hereafierthe Plaintiff), respectfully submits the
followinjg NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO THE (COURT ORtJER. DATED DECEMBER 17,2019
27
AfJD PLAmTIFF J^QUEkr FM^^^^^ ORDER MODIFICATION - RE: JUDGMENT
28
CREDITORS' FURTHER MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
- 1 - • ... • . '
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FO?l CbURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1 INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
3
FIRST: The two Court Orders in this matter dated December 13, 2019, and December 17,
4
2019 (EXHIBIT # I ) (ROA 241 & 242) do not correspond with PlaintifTs Opposition to Judgment
5
Creditors' Further Motion to Compel Responses to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Request for
6
8 SECOND: The December 17, 2019, Court Order, which was supposed to address the Court
9
Hearing and Oral Argument on December 13, 2019, at 2:00 In Department S3 before Hon. David 1.
10
Brown, did not say a word about what was said during the oral arguments and what Judge David 1.
11
Brown told Porter Scott's attomey Daniel Bardzell who is pretending or claiming, along with another
12
13 attorneys uf Purler Scull's, thai lliey rcprcscnl ihe furmer Defendanls and ur empluyccs uflhc
14 University of Califomia Davis Medical Center, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols,
15 Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert.
16
THIRD: The Plainliff is filing this NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO THE COURT ORDER
17
DATED DECEMBER 17, 2019 AND PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER
18
19 MODIFICATION instead of the Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure
20 § 1008 because it would be futile for the Plaintiff to file Motion for Reconsideration only to find out
21 that the Motion was denied and the Plaintiff was denied a hearing by the Court as it happened in 2018
22
in this matter.
23
More specifically, on June iS, 2018, the Plaintifffileda MOTION FOR RECONSIDERA TION
24
OF ORDER FOR GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COST PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 425.16 (C) with
2S
Court Hearing scheduled on July 19,2018, in Department 53 before Hon. David 1. Brown (ROA 137
26
& 138).
2/
28
- 2 -
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1 TheCourt on June 29,2018,.ten days before the scheduled Court Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion
2 for Reconsideration and'three days before Defendants' attorneys filed their Opposition on July 3,
3
2'018,to PlaintifTs Motion for Redpnsidei^tipn (ROA # 145); the-Gpurt signed the JUDGMENT
4 •
PURSUANT Tp ORDER G.RA MOTION FOR FEES. AND COSTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P
5
§-/25;/<J (C) and OtlDERiGRANTrNG DEFENDANTS' M O T I O N FOR FEES A N D COSTS
6
7 PURSUANT TO G.C.P.^fS: 425;l6(c) (ROA # 143,144,146)! Thereafter, die Court denied Plaintiffs
8 Motion, for Reconsideration by a Tentative Ruling pn July 18, 2018 and denied Plaintiff a Hearing on
9,
July 19, 2018.
10
<
. •.' .
11
12
13
14
23 During the Court-Hearing, Plaintiff ba.<;ically prnvided the .same information he provided in
24 his opposition to the Defendants* motion (ROA # 235) along vvith sonie additional information that
2!S
was completely disregarded by the Coiirt Order dated December 17,2019 (ROA # 240-243).
26
During'the Oral Argument on;December 13, 2019, Plaintiff infohTi'ed the Court that since the July 19,
ZI
2019 CourtprdiBr;(ROA # 219) P^ following action after the Court mandated Plaintiff
28
to pay $ 1300'in .sanctions and to serve further verified responses to the Judgment Debtor
Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production, without objections, on or before July
29, 2019. The Court.cautioned Judgrnent Debtor/Plaintiff that compliancc with Coiirt Order is
mandatory.
- 3 - .
NOTICE OF OBiiEGtlON AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1 1. Plaintiff, during the December 13, 2019, Court Hearing, informed the Court again that
2 he had no access to his wife's personal bank account or her 401 k and that he cannot provide any
information to Porter Scott's attomeys about his wife's accounts. Furthermore, Plaintiff provided
3
information to the Court that confronted his wife about herfinancesand confronted her employer of
4
30 years, the Nordstrom Incorporation located in Sacramento Arden Mall.
5
In response to PlaintiflTs statement about his wife, the Judge presiding over the Court Hearing, Hon.
6
David I. Brown, turned to attomey Daniel Bardzell who was pretending to represent five former
7 Defendants, employees ofthe University ofCalifomia, and told Bardzell to subpoena Plaintiffs
8 wife's record from Nordstrom. Daniel Bardzell did not like Judge Brown's advice and his response
9 was not clear as to whether he would subpoena Plaintiffs wife's record from Nordstrom or from the
10 Bank.
11 The Court Order dated December 19,2019, did not say a word about the above discussion
between Plaintiffs and the Court and between the Court and UC Regents's attomey Daniel Bardzell.
12
Plaintiff determined from the ongoing situation in the Court and from the meet and confer
13
correspondence with Porters Scott's attorneys , who are using Plaintiffs wife as a blackmail and
14
extortion tool, knows more about Plaintiffs wife's employment in Nordstrom and herfinancesthan
15
Plaintiff himself. Nordstrom Store has existed in Sacramento Arden Mall for 30 years and is the
16 subject of litigations in the.Sacramento Superior Court. Since many attorneys know each other and
17 knowing how Porter Scott's attomeys operate, Plaintiffhas little doubt that Porter Scott's attomeys
18 have all information about Plaintiffs wife, and they are ruthlessly harassing and blackmailing
19 Plaintiff with the Court looking on.
20 The fear of the unknown and what further harm the Court together with Porter Scott's
attorney representing the Regents of University of Califomia will do to Plaintiff caused Plainliff lo
21
land in the Lodi Memorial Hospital's ER on September 30, 2018, at 12:30 AM with his blood
22
pressure around 200/105, pain in the chest, and an enormous headache on the left side of his head.
23
(Af\er several hours, the ER staff stabilized Plaintiffs blood pressure and pain with the diagnosis that
24
he did not have a heart attack or stroke. After Plaintiff was released from the ER, his wife stayed with
25 him in the hospital until he was released at 05:43 AM.)
26
27 In fear ofthe unknown and what further harm the Court together with Porter Scott's attorney
28 representing the Regents of University of California would do to Plaintiff, Plaintiff was left with no
- 4 -
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1 choice than to confront his wife about herfinances,and on October 11, 2019, and to confront her
2 employer of 30 years, the Nordstrom Incorporation, with a 16-page inquiry regarding his wife's
unusual friendship with her female coworker, a former military operative in the Soviet Union's
3
largest military base in Poland during the Soviet Union's domination of Plaintiff s native country
4
Poland.
5
Shortly after Plaintiff confronted his wife's employer Nordstrom Inc., Porter Scott's attorneys
6
representing UC Regents filed, on October 23, 2019, another FURTHER MOTION TO COMPEL
7 RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
8 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS totaling 233 pages (ROA #
9 222-226). Plaintiff noticed that Porter Scott's attomey David Burkett's who was leading the case
10 since January 23, 2015, not listed as an attomey in the filed motion and he is no longer employee of
11
Porter Scott's lawfirm. In 2011 and 2012 David Burkett together with his friend , participated in
the operation with his friend Cori A. Dutra, Staff Attorney from California Social Services to
12
frame and hurt Plaintiff's Psychologist from Lodi Dr .Franklin O. Bernhoft and his family .
13
See: PLANTIFF' DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING
14
LEGAL FEES AND COST TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION
15 C.C.P 425.16 (C) Page No. 6-87(ROA # 148)
16 Also. David Burkett attempted on provoke Plaintiff into a physical confrontation in the Court of
17 Appeal, Third Appellate building just after a scheduled Oral Argument that took place on August 28,
18 2017 at 9:30a.m.. See : PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO THE DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL
19
DECLARATION OF DAVID P E. BURKETT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' PREVIOUSLY
FILED MOTION FOR FF.F.S'.AND COSTS PI )RSl I ANT TO C.C.P § 425.16(C) filed on May 18,
20
2018 Page #3-4. (ROA # 132)
21
22 2. Plaintiff on December 13, 2019 Court Hearing informed the Court lhat since the
23 previous Court Hearing on July 19, 2019 (before Hon. David I. Brown), on October 31, 2019,
24
Plaintiff sent Defendants' attomey a check in the amount of $ 520 to resolve the sanctions
awarded to UC Regents by a Court Order dated October 31, 2018, and repeated by a Court
?S
Order dated November 14, 2018, so that the Plaintiff could remove UC Regents from Porter
26
Scott's attomey's fraudulent anti-SLAPP motion and to resolve the issue of these unwarranted
27
sanctions. The Regents cashed the $ 520 sanction check on November 20, 2019.
28
- 5 -
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1 The Court Order dated December 19,2019, did not mention in one-word Plaintiffs
2 information about the S 520.00 check cashed by UC Regents. This information was provided to the
3
Court on December 4, 2019 by the Plaintiffs opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Compel was
also filed on this date.
4
5
3. Plaintiff, during the December 13, 2019 Court Hearing, also informed the Court that
6
on October 31, 2019, Plaintiff sent another $ 520 to Porter Scott's paralegal employee Mari lyn
7
Camper who was awarded $ 520 by the Court Order dated June 7, 2018 (ROA # 136) and that Porter
8 Scott prohibited Marilyn Gamper from cashing the check awarded her by the Court. However, the
9 uncashed check was not retumed to Plaintiff. This information was provided to the Court on
10 December 4, 2019. The Plaintiffs opposition to the Defendants' Motion lo Compel was also filed on
11 this date. The Court Order dated December 19, 2019, did not mention a word of Plaintiffs account of
the $ 520.00 sent to Porter Scott's paralegal employee Marylin Gamper.
12
13 4. On November 19, 2019, the Court signed Order (ROA #230) (Hon. David I . Brown)
14 which "ORDERED that the Judgment Creditors' Motion for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED"
However, UC Regents are not the Judgment Creditor in the anti-SLAPP motion, and Porter
15
Scott's attomey Daniel Bardzell and others, by using UC Regent in lieu of Danesha Nichols, Brenl
16
Seifert, Mike Boyd, Ctndi Oropeza, and Stephen Chilcott, are committing a crime by attempting to
17
extort money from Plaintiff for themselves, which per the Court Order dated June 7, 2018 (ROA
18
#136) legally belongs to three former attomeys of Porter Scott, Michael Pott in the amount of $
19 $6,500, Douglas Ropel in the amount of $13,400, and David Burkett in the amount of $312. Porter
ZQ Scott's present employee Marilyn Gamper is entitled to $ 520.
21 The Defendants, Judgment Creditors, the University of Califomia Davis Medical Center, the
22 present and former employees in the anti-SLAPP motion, Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert, Mike
23 Boyd, Cindi Oropeza. Stephen Chilcott's per Court Order dated June 7,2018 are entitle s $ 166.20.
See also the DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POfNTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
24
OF MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P. §425.16(c) filed on May 11, 2015,
25
Page No. 8, 16-27 (ROA #86).
26
27 Also, the Court Order dated June 7, 2018, stated that the Court "will award Defendants an
28 additional 3 hours al $260/hr for work associated with the reply for a total of $780" without specifying
- 6 -
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1 what future reply the Court had in mind.
2
3
5. Plaintiff during the December 13, 2019 Court Hearing also informed the Court lhat
Plaintiff sent to Porter Scott the check for the $ 1300 sanction awarded to Defendants by the Court
4
Order dated July 19, 2019. The $ 1300 check was issued to UC Regents.
5
Plaintiff became especially suspicious that something was wrong after Porter Scott's attomey,
6
Daniel Bardzell, sent a letter to Plaintiff on November 15, 2019, and demanded in a bold font that
7
Plaintiffs sanctions and anti-SLAPP fees be paid to the Regents of the University of Califomia. In
8 response. Plaintiff advised Daniel Bardzell that, per Court Orders dated April 26, 2019 (ROA #
9 2011) and July 19, 2019 (ROA #2019), the Regents ofthe University of California are not party to
10 the ant-SLAPP motion and cannot cash the checks.
11 Furthermore, on November 21, 2019, Plaintiff wrote to Daniel Bard7ell on this matter as
follows.
12
14 Please advise me if you want me lo re-issue the $1,300 sanction check to five
former individual Defendants—Danesha Nichols, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert,
15 Mike Boyd, and Cindi Oropeza—instead of the University of California Regents.
As I advised you a few days ago, the UC Regents should not cash ihe $1,300 check
16
I sent to your office on November 18, 2019. The UC Regents are not the party of
17 the anti-SLAPP motion filed by Porter Scott's former attorney Michael Pott on
December I, 2014.
18
I could write the checks to each forhter Defendant in the amount of $260 and send
19
them to your office if you represent them as you claimed that you do. But are you
20 sure that Danesha Nichols, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert, Mike Boyd, and Cindi
Oropeza are the former Defendants? It would be better if you ask Judge Brown if
21 they are the former Defendants before you show up on December 13, 2019 Court
hearing to argue whether Danesha Nichols, Stephen Chilcott, Brent Seifert, Mike
22 Boyd, and Cindi Oropeza were dismissed from the lawsuit by the Court or by
23
myself.
24
Defendants' attorney, Daniel Bardzell, did not respond to Plaintiffs November 21,2019,
Meet and Confer Correspondence.
25
The Court during the December 13, 2019 hearing told Defendant's attomey Daniel Bardzell
26
to retum the $ 1300 check issued for UC Regents, but the Court did not clarify to whom Plaintiff
27
should re-issue the check but imposed on Plaintiff another $ 1300, disregarding Plaintiffs statement
28
that Defendants' attorney Bardzell and others using were Plaintiffs wife as a bait and extortion tool
- 7 -
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1 in an anti-SLAPP motion to extort money (legal fees) that were not awarded to them and do not
2 belong to them.
3
The Court Order dated December 19, 2019, did not mention a word about Plaintiffs account
about ofthe $ 1300 sanction check Plaintiff sent to Porter Scott's attomey Daniel Bardzell in
4
November 2019 and did not clarify who got the sanction money, leaving Plaintiff in limbo. Thus, the
5
December 17, 2019, Court Order shall be modified, and the Court should clarify whether the
6
pleadings last filed by Porter Scott's attorneys Daniel Bardzell, Nancy Sheehan, Derek Haynes and
7 Amanda Her represent Defendants in the anti-SLAPP motion, Danesha Nichols, Stephen Chilcott,
8 Brent Seifer, Mike Boyd and Cindi Oropeza or whether they only represent the Regents of the
9 University of Califomia and they are pretending to represent the five individuals listed above in an
10 attempt to extort money to which they are not entitled from Plaintiff. Plaintiff will not hesitate to ask
31
ihe District Attomey and the State Bar of Califomia lo investigate what Porter Scott's attorneys have
been up to in Court.
12
III.
13
"ATTORNEYS FOR JUDGMENT CREDITORS/FORMER DEFENDANTS"
14 MICHAEL BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
OROPEZA, AND BRENT SEIFERT"
15
19 Porter Scott's law firm, Nancy Sheehan and Daniel Bardzell, emphasized on the front and last pages
Zi)
of the pleading, except for the last page of Daniel Bardzell's Declaration in Support ofthe Motion,
that Ihey are "ATTORNEYS FOR JUDGMENT CREDITORS/FORMER DEFENDNATS." What
21
caught Plaintiffs attention the most was the fact that Daniel Rardzell and Nancy .Sheehan are
22
attorneys for former DEFENDANTS. Plaintiff never saw such statements on Porter Scott's attorney's
23
pleadings, which made Plaintiff suspicious that Defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha
24
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert were only automatically dismissed from Plaintiffs Second
25 Amended Complaint (SAC) in relation to the first Four Causes of Action (COA's).
26 Plaintiff became suspicious about Porter Scott's attomey's other Motions after Porter Scott's
27 leading attorney in the case and shareholder David Burkett became a former employee of Porter
Scott's Professional Law Corporation's and was replaced by two of Porter Scott's other shareholders
28
)
- 8 -
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1 in the case, Nancy Sheehan and Derek Haynes, who was added to the.case on November 12,2019
2 (ROA#2!28) •
3
PIaintiff,lile<:aiiirii.e^^^^ suspicibiis'that something was wrong after Porter Scott's attomey,
DanieJ ,Bar(JzeIl;;sent a letter to Plaintiff on November 15, 2010, and defnahded in a bold font that
4
Plaintiffs: sanctions and anti-SLAPP fees be paid.to the Regents'of theUniversity of California.
5
ThereaftiB^ Plaintiff examined Porter Scott's attorney'sfiledpleadings tofindout whether
6
Porter.ScQtt's^ttdmeys.p^ inade any references in their pleadings stating that they are
.7
I
"ATTORNEY^ for F ^ if they announced on thefirstand last pages of
•8' the:abo.vemen'tiohed pleading docuhientsfiledin the Court on October 23, 2019.
On palge No. 2 (lV25) in Defehdahts' MEMORANDUM OF POfNTS AND AUTHORITIES
ib IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDitORS' FURTHER MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES
11 •. TO JUDGiy^T DEBTOR iN REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DQcUMENiiS AND:Mp Defendants' attomey wrote as follows in relation
12
to the former Defendants .iiROA #223).
13'
21
the April 14,2015, Court prd^r djd ript srtate that the Defendants "MICHAEL BOYD, STEPHEN
CHILCOTT, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, ANEi BRENT SEIFERT' were dismissed
22
from the Second Amended Cornplaint. The Court Order-dated April 14,2015, slates as follows.
23
26
IT IS:Fi;R;rHE;R ORDERED that Judgment be, and hereby is, entered in favor of
2/ Defendants'MIKE BOYDI iite^^^^ NICHOLS,
C I N D Y OROPEZA; and BRENT SEIFERT, and agiihst Plaintiff JAROSLAW
28
- 9 -
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1 WASZCZUK forthe four causes of action asserted against them in the Second
Arifiehdey Complaiint. Page No.9 (1-4)
2
6 IT lis SO ORDERED.
7
• ' During'the Cdurt Hearing on February 6, 2015, Plaintiff asked the Court to
•...8.
. dismiss-all;individual defehdiants from the lawsuit, and then the Court responded as
9.
follpWs (GOurt^kepd'm 19-28).
10 \. THE iC^ can't doTthat. With respect to you,:Mr. Waszczuk, maybe you
.' could hdye' wplrked someth^ out w|th'defe'nse'-before this, but there is case law
11
spixif1ci%'o
12 / AlI rightl^Here. is what I'm going to do,;.Mr; Waszczuk, I'm goingtotake the matter
:. - iinder submission and let you kn6^y.. If you want to work something out with Mr.
13 Roperand his fimn, that.iis fine, arid then we can proce^d as to the Regents as to Ihc
. rernainder/
14
15
The Court did not cite case law which specifically applies to dismissing. Defendants from the lawsuit.
18
January !2009 Sehlement'Agreem^ only the Regents ofthe University ofCalifomia as
Defendants. The T A C would take care of the Defehdahts Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha
19
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza; arid Brent.'S'eifertj>and tiiey would :be dismissed.
20
However, in Septiernberi Defendants' attbrneysiDavid Biirkett and Douglas Ropel blocked
21
Plaintiffs effort tofileTAC by their Motion-for Automatic Stay or, in the altemative. Motion for a
22
Discretionary Stayfiledin September^ 2015 (ROA'#104). The Motion for Automatic Stay or, in the
23 Alternative, Motion for a Discretionary Stay .was granted to Defendants by the Court on October 28,
24 2015, and it raised the cjuestioh of whether Michael Boyd, .Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy
?.S Oropeza, and Brent Seifert were.dismissed from the lawsuit entirely in 2015 or are still attached to
26 the remaining Four Causes of Actibn, especial ly.tb the Sixth Cause of Action "Breach of Written
11
Contract."
28
- 10 -
NOTICE OF OBJECTlbN AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1 If Michael Boydi Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert were
2 idisrnissed fr.om the lawsuit entirely iri 2015 by the April 14, 2015, Court Order, then they cannot
3
resurfafce as FORMERiDEFENbANTS demanding money from ^Plaintiff under the Regents of the
.University of Califomia:riame.-Thatis,a great fraud going on since October 2018.
4
For the.Cburt'siinfbriTiatiori-, Michael Boyd retired from the university system in 2015 and
5
Cindi Oropeza in 20I6/and;b!bth h£iveribthirigmore to do with the University of Califomia, UC
6
Regents, or Plairitiff. if they Porter Scott's Daniel Bardzell or Amarida Iler claims them as a former
' 7
attonieys. • .
8 IV.
9 DECLARATION okAMANoX-LjlLER IN SUPPORT OE:REPLY TO OPPOSTTION TO
MO-tlON TO .CQMPyEL RESPONSES T dtlDGMENT DEOT INTERROGATORIES
10 \/iND REQUfest FO^^^ FOR MbNETARY
11 SANCTibNiS
12
Porter Scott's new Attorney in this proceeding, . Amanda Iler, in her December 6, 2019
13
bECLARATlON OF AMANDA L. ILER IN SUPPORT. OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
14
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR. INTERROGATORFES AND
15
REQUEST FOR , PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;. AND FOR MONETARY
16
SANCTIONS,(ROA# 237) iinplying'that Amanda Iler represents FORMER DEFENDANTS Michael
17
Boyd, Stephen Chikott, DaneshaNichbls,-Cindy Oropeza, and:Brent Seifert, on Page Nos. 2 § 6 under
18
the penalty of perjury declared as follows.
19
"Although Judgment^Debtor insinuates that the REGENTS js not entided to ihe
20 ' sanction payments prg^iously'awarded.and that'lhe are the
21 proper recijiients, the REGENTS haSpaid for the defense ofthe Judgment
Creditors. TKe;REGENTS;.has incurred the ex Sp'eciial Motion to Strike
22 and subsequent discoyery proceedings associated w\th colleiiting'the judgment;"
23 Amanda Iler's above statement that "the REGENTS.has incurred the expense of the Special
24 Motion to Strike an'd ^ubseqiient discoVery proceedings associated with collecting the judgment." is
25 untrue and deceptive . ..'
First, Amanda ilei* did not provide any proof to the Court.to back up her statement that Regent
26
incurred the expenses ofthe Special Molion to Strike and isiibsequierit discovery proceedings
27
associated with col lecting the judgment.
28
2 Management Services, Inc. and not UC Regent. Porter Scott's former attorney Douglas Ropel
claimed a lol of hours in his legal fees dealing directly with Sedgwick Claims Management Services,
3
Inc. in 2014 and 2015 to get approval by the Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. See:
4
Exhibit "F" in the DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS L. ROPEL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
5
FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16(c) filed on May 11, 2015 (ROA # 86).
6
Most likely than not. Porter Scott's former attorneys Douglas Ropel, Michael Poll, and David
7 Burkett were paid their legal fees for the anti-SLAPP motion filed by Sedgwick Claims Management
8 Services, Inc. Last year Plaintiff pointed out to the Court that Douglas Ropel and Michael Pott should
9 provide a Declaration to the Court that they are being represented by David Burkett to recover their
10 legal fees.
11
Amanda Her was employed by Porter Scott from December 2014 to May 2018; thus she
worked with Douglas Ropel in Porter Scott's law firm from December 2014 to March 2016 until
12
Doulas Ropel quit and was hired by Littler Professional Law Corporation in Sacramento Office,
13
From May 2018 to November 2019, Amanda Her was employed by Littler Professional Law
14
Corporation in its Sacramento office and worked again with Douglas Ropel for this period, and il
15 appears that she came back in November 2019 to Porter Scott and resurfaced in the Plaintiffs case
16 with her lies in a Declaration she signed under the penalty of perjury. Amanda Iler was perfectly
17 aware of who paid for the anti-SLAPP motion, but she decided to deceive the Court by her lies in her
18 Declaration.
19 Amanda Iler needs some advice'from the Court and the State Bar of California not to lie under
20
the penalty of perjury in Declarations.
21
22
ARGUMENT
23
24
Porter Scott's attomeys representing the Regents of the University of California using
25 Plaintiff's wife as bait and black mail tool to intimidate Plaintiff to extort money from Plaintiff
26 committing a crime and engaging themselves in a serious invasion of privacy and breaching the
27 social norms underlying the right to privacy (See Hill. v. National Collegiate .Athletic .4ssn. (1994) 7
28 Cal.4ih 1,37).
- 12 -
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1
2 Under the Califomia Constitution, there is a right to privacy (See Cal. Const, art. 1, § 1). The
right to privacy, protected by the California Constitution, Articie 1, Section 1, is a ftindamental
3
liberty interest and extends to details of one's personal life (City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980)
4
27 Cal.2d 123, 130; Valley Banic of Nevada v. Superior Court (1985) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656).
5
Accordingly, it is well-established in Califomia that, where privacy rights are involved, the party
e seeking discovery must show far more lhan mere legal relevance or likelihood to lead to admissible
7 evidence. The propounding party must establish that the information sought is nol only "directly
8 relevant" to the parties' claims but also "essential" to a fair resolution of the lawsuit (See, e.g., Alcii v.
9 Superior Coun (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1432-1433). Additionally, to pass constitutional
10 scmtiny, any discovery into matters deemed private must be "narrowly tailored" to obtain only the
"essential" information and the party seeking discovery must show there is no less intrusive means to
11
obtain this information (See, e.g., Tien v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 528, 539540; In re
12
Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 244). Even where these prerequisites are met, there is still
13
no categorical right to conduct discovery on private matters, as the trial court is still required to
14
carefully balance the rights and interests involved before permitting the proposed invasion of privacy.
15 (See, e.g., Alch, 165 Cal.App.4th at 1423-1425.) When privacy rights are involved, the protected
16 information should not be produced unless therequestingparty "can show a compelling need for the
17 particular documents and that the information cannot reasonably be obtained through depositions or
18 from nonconfidential sources" (San Diego Trolley, Inc v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th
1083, 1097-1098).
19
20
Porter's attorneys' attempt to break into Plaintiffs wife 401k account and her bank account by
21
blackmailing Plaintiff .s wife and Plaintiff i.<; nn different fmm in 2014 when they blackmailed
22
Plaintiffs attomey Douglas Stein who stmggled to survive by becoming addicted to dmgs. Porter
23
Scott's attomey completely destroyed Stein's life by forcing him to collaborate with them against
24 Plaintiff.
25 http://nieinher«;.calhar ca.g0v/fal/Licen5ee/Detail/l 31248
26 In Flatley v. Mauro 39 Cal.4lh 299 (Cal. 2006), cited 799 times the Califomia Supreme Court,
described the crime of extortion as follows. "Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with
27
28
- 13 -
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
. 1 his consent... indiiiced by a wrorigful use of force or fear..." (Pen. Code, § 518). That is exactly what
3
. ' VI. .
4
CONCLUSION
5
6 , Given the facts-presented above and in the light of Oral Argument made during the December
.7 13, 2019 Cburt Hearingi Plaintiff is'urging; the Court to modify the Court Order by voiding the
8'.-
sanctiori'.imposed oh ^^^^^^^^ the Court Orders dated Jiily 19,2019, and December J 7,2019, and
tb'prphibit.Pbrter S.c'btys:attonieys Daniel^ Amanda Iler, Derek Haynes, and Nancy Sheehan
9
from u.siri'g PlairitifTs.'spo'use.as a bait and 'tpol of blackmail to eXtort money from Plaintiff under
10
false pretenses.
11
12 Plaintiff alsorespectfullyurges the Cbiirt to bring this case^' which has been pending for five
13 and a half years, to a trial ; br niandatbry settlement.
14
I declare under.thepehalty of perjury under the laws of the State ofCalifomia that the
15
foregoing is .true and Cbrrect; '
16
19
20
21
22
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff in Pro Per
23
24
25
•26
27
28
14
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1
2
TABLE OFCONTENTS
3
L INTRODUCTION. .1
4
Hi , THE:CpURT HEAWNG,ON DECEMBER 13,20li) AT 2:Q0 PM AT DEPARTMENT
5.
^3:BEF0ld: JUDGE D A V I D L B R O W 3
6^
III. . , AlT.0RNEyS FOR JrUDGMENT C i ^
7 , • MlGHiiiEL BOVD/'STEPHENiCH DANESHX NICHOLS, CINDY
\ • . ' -i" .;• • • _^ • ' :• \ •' t' . " ^ f *^ \ • • -
.'8
12
V. . AR^GyMENT...... , 12
13 VI. CONCLUSllON 14
14 • VIL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....vi 16
15
16 VIH. EXHIBITS 17
17
IX. PROOF O F SERVICE BY US M A I L ..1 18
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IS -
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1
2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
3 I
4 Ca^es:
'Statiites:
15 1. ;:Califbmia Cbnstitutiohi Article 1, Section 1 13
16
2. CalifpimiaPehal Code § 518 14
e
'17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16 -
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1 EXHIBITS
2 1. The Court'Orders dated December 13.2019 and December 17,2019 . Hon. David Brown
Re:'M0tibn'4b.Compel :
3
4
5
6'
7.
9'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16-
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17 -
PROOF OF S E R V I C E BY US MAIL
2
Re: Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of Califomia
3
Case No.: 34-2013-00155479
4
5 I, IRENA WASZCZUK the undersigned, declare that 1 am over 18 years of age and not a party to the
within cause; my address is 2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi, CA. On December 26,2019 I served a true
6 copy of the attached each of the following.
By placing the same copy in an envelope or envelopes addressed respectively as follows:
7
PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW WASZCZUK'S NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO T H E COURT
8 ORDER DATED DECEMBER 13 & 17, 2019, AND PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COURT
ORDER MODIFICATION - RE: OPPOSTTION TO JUDGMENT CREDITORS' FURTHER
9 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR''S INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
10
11
12 Daniel J. Bardzell ; . . .
PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
13 350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
14
15
Michael W. Pott
CSAC-EIA
16 75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 200
Folsom, CA 95630
17
18
Douglas L. Ropel
Littler Professional Law Corporation
19 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
Sacramenlo, CA 95814
20
21
David Pontus Eugene Burkett
Knox Lemmon & Anapolsky Law Corporation
22 2339 Gold Meadow Way, Ste 205
Gold River, CA 95670-6307
23
24
Steve Chilcott
25 Executive Director, Workforce Strategies
HR Administration Building
26
University of Califomia, Davis
27 One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
28
- 18 -
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
1. bane'sha Nichols, Director
^.Harassme^ntvand Discrimination Assistance and Prevention Program
2..' Uniyereii^AofjGalifdm Davis
3 ^07 3Ki^sireet,.!SUite^2iQ
!pavis,'GA!956j6
4
Brent, S^eifert'-Assis^^ Personnel
.5 • U.ni'yersity^of.Ca^ , UC DSvis Medical Center
Schodl bf Mciilicihc ' '.
6
W O X S t r ^ Suited 3104,
7 Sacramerito,-eA'S''58n
• 9"';
I declare j^^^ penalty OfJperjuiy'.bf the jaVvs of the State of C.aliforriia that
io' the fbregbihg-'isUrue arid correct. Executed bn December 26j 2019 , at Lodi CA
11
12
•13 .
//
14 IRENA WASZCZUK
15
16
17
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 .5 '
26
2/
28
- 19
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER MODIFICATION
.' I
/—
EXHIBH
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 12/13/2019 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: E.Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: R. Mays, Alvi, N.
APPEARANCES
Jaroslaw Waszczuk. self represented Plaintiff, present.
Daniel J. Bardzell, counsel present for judgment creditors
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Interrogatoriesand Production of Documents
TENTATIVE RULING
Judgment Creditors Boyd. Chilcott. Nichols. Oropeza. and Seifert (collectively. "Judgment Creditors")
move to compel further responses from Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor Jaroslaw (Jerry) Waszczuk to
requests for production, set one, and interrogatories, set one. Judgment Creditors also request
sanctions in the amount of $5,460. The motion is ruled upon as follows.
As outlined in the Court's prior order of July 19, 2019, on April 14, 2015, the Court granted Judgment
Creditors' special motion to strike Plaintiffs causes of action and entered judgment in favor of Judgment
Creditors. The Court subsequently granted Judgment Creditors' motion for attorneys' fees in the amount
Of $22,284. (See ROA 219.)
Judgment Creditors served the underlying discovery on October 9. 2018. The Court previously granted
motions to compel related to the discovery on April 26, 2018. and July 19, 2019. In both rulings,
Judgment Debtor was ordered to provide further verified responses, without objections. The July 19,
2019 order also imposed sanctions against Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor in the amount of $1.300.
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff attempted to provide further responses by email on the Court deadline of July
29, 2019. (Bardzell Decl. U 22, Exh. P.) Counsel for Judgment Creditors sent correspondence on August
5, 2019, raising the issue of improper service and stating that the further responses "appearfed] identical
to the responses . . . previously provided with the only difference being that you executed a verification."
(Id. H 23. Exh. Q.) The parties continued to meet and confer. Judgment Debtor served verified responses
on September 6, 2019, which Judgment Creditor alleges again "appear identical to his previously
provided responses with the only difference being thai he provided a properly executed verification for
each response." (Mot. at 8. citing Bardzell Decl. H 26, Exh. T.) The parties continued to meet and confer
but no further responses have been received.
Judgment Creditors move to compel Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff to serve further Code-compliant verified
< ;Jodghfient Deb.tQr/Plaintiff s^ opposition to the motion but it largely does not address
. . i:v. the-releya does jhclude-.s iri >eleyaht part: "The Plaintiff has.no
': • • furth^r-ar^Cime'n^^^^ Plaintiff already provided to the Gourt in his. previous
. pppo6itib.n.^60 opp'ositi.on.'cspecially in the: Plairiti.ff's.Noveinber 18,
26;i9, resjpphse liile^^ 11/11/2019."
Judgment Creditors " &re entitled % th^ previously-ordered ftirther CodeTCompliant verified responses,
f withb.ut'objectibn.
Conclusion, '
• \ - Judgment bebtor/Plairitiff verified responses to the
> Ju.dgrnept, Debtor Interrogatories;'Set^6nei -a^^ ProdLiclion',-Set One, without objections, on
"or bfefpre December-2^^^
,The/GQui^ yet againic^^ with a facially-valid
couk.prder is nfiandatoiyK (Se^^^^^^ 19, 28-32; see also In re Berry
(1968)V;68:Cal.'2d f 3 7 , 1.47;) . "
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted.
The Court takes this matter under submission.
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter (Motion to Compel Interrogatories and
Production of Documents) taken under submission on 12/13/2019
TENTATIVE RULING
Judgment Creditors Boyd. Chilcott. Nichols. Oropeza. and Seifert (collectively. "Judgment Creditors")
move to compel further responses from Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor Jaroslaw (Jerry) Waszczuk to
requests for production, set one, and interrogatories, set one. Judgment Creditors also request
sanctions in the amount of $5,460. The motion is ruled upon as follows.
As outlined in the Court's prior order of July 19, 2019, on April 14, 2015, the Court granted Judgment
Creditors' special motion to strike Plaintiffs causes of action and entered judgment in favor of Judgment
Creditors. The C o u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y g r a n t e d J u d g m e n t Creditors' m o t i o n for a t t o r n e y s ' f e e s in the a m o u n t
Of $22,284. (See ROA 219.)
Judgment Creditors served the underlying discovery on October 9, 2018. The Court previously granted
motions to compel related to the discovery on April 26, 2018, and July 19, 2019. In both rulings.
Judgment Debtor was ordered to provide further verified responses, without objections. The July 19,
2019 order also imposed sanctions against Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor in the amount of $1,300.
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff attempted to provide further responses by email on the Court deadline of Juiy
29. 2019. (Bardzell Decl. ^ 22, Exh. P.) Counsel for Judgment Creditors sent correspondence on August
5, 2019, raising the issue of improper service and stating that the further responses "appear[ed] identical
to the responses . . . previously provided with the only difference being that you executed a verification."
[Id. U 23, Exh. Q.) The parties continued to meet and confer. Judgment Debtor served verified responses
on September 6, 2019, which Judgment Creditor alleges again "appear identical to his previously
provided responses with the only difference being thai he provided a properly executed verificalion for
each response." (Mot. at 8, citing Bardzell Decl. ^ 26, Exh. T.) The parties continued to meet and confer
but no further responses have been received.
Judgment Creditors move to compel Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff to serve further Code-compliant verified
Jucigment Dielitpr/Plairitiff subriiltted a . late-filed .opposition to thie- motion but it:l^rgely does not address,
the; releyahtjissU^^^^ in the mptiph;.; jHe opposition dbes Miiclude.^^iii. relevant p^ Plairitlff'^has ho
ftirther^^argument'pl: 6^ the Plaintiff.al.ready 'prov^ C'ourt.-in his; previous
opposition .sand [sic]-iri: the ,exhibits!,att'a to this.oppb>itjon":espe&^^ Plaintiffs November 18,
2019, respon^e'Utled Re; Blackmail 'Sane'tionsW Porter Scott Attorney DanierSardzisll 11/11/i2bl9."
.Conclusion '
f. Judghfieht Debtor/Ptaintif^^^ aijgaih ordered/tQ, sery^^ CodjS-compii^ht fUiiher verified responses to the
Judgment;Debtpr.vlritei;rogator|es;^^^^^ and Request for Productibhf Ser'O withbut objections, on
br>efore decenibei'23^ 201-9.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and sut>mitted! The matter Was taken.uhde.r submission.
Having taken the matter under,subrriission on 12/13/2019, the Court now rules as follows:
JAROSLAW .WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAklAKi WAY
LODI, CA 95242
DANliu J . BARDZELL
PORiTER.SCOt-t
350 UNIVERSlfV AVE:, SUITE 200
S A G R A A ! I E N T 6 , G A 95825
This licensee is prohibited from practicing law in California by order of the California Supreme Court.
members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Llcensee/Detail/131248 1/2
4/25/2021 Douglas Edward Stein # 131248 - Attomey Licensee Search
Additional Information:
• Explanation of licensee status
• Explanation of disciplinary system
• Explanation of disciplinary actions
• Copies of official licensee discipline records are available upon request
The State Bar Court began posting public discipline documents online in 2005. Copies of additional documents in a case are
available upon request.
On May 31,2079, the State Bar Court launched online case dockets. If a case was open or filed on or after Feb 7, 2079,
documents are being added online as events occur, and can be accessed w/th the new Search for a Case feature.
To search for a case filed on or after Feb. 7, 207 9, please copy the case number displayed above, click the button beiow, and
add the prefix SBC to the case number, e.g. SBC[CASE NUMBER].
NOTE: Only Published Opinions may be cited or relied on as precedent in State Bar Court proceedings. For further information
about a case that is displayed here, please refer to the State Bar Court's online docket (Search for a Case).
DISCLAIMER: Any posted Notice of Disciplinary Charges, Conviction Transmittal or other initiating document, contains only
allegations of professional misconduct. The licensee is presumed to be innocent of any rhisconduct warranting discipline until
the charges have been proven.
members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/131248 2/2
RECtlVED
CIVIL DROP BOX
201BOCT2U PM 2:26
COUnTHOUSE-
SUPERIOR COURT
OF CALIFORNIA
SArnAMFWTo r.oi.'wrv
juroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk, Plaintiff in Pro Per
2216 :Katzakian Way
Lodi,CA95242 |
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-787-3.131 j ED
Email: iiwI980@live,cOm
APR 2 8 2021
April 27, 2021 E. Medina
. Deputy Clerk
Re: Defendants-Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend Page Limit for Defendant's
Motion For Suminary Judgnieiit or, in The Alterha.tive, Summary
Adjudication !
Yesteriiay, 1 asked you in which Court Department you filed yoiir Ex Parte
Application for Leave to Extend Page Limit because you did riot mark on the front
piage of yOur pleadings which Court Department or which Judge \ybuld w6
1-
Ex Parte Application
handle your application. You are obliged to inform the opposite party what you are
filing and when and where you are filing it. What you have done is very
unprofessional.
As you probably know from the Court file, in October 2018, your
predecessors in this case, two former Porter Scott attomeys, David Biirkett and
Daniel Bardzell, with the evil intention of ending my wrongful termination lawsuit
against the Regents of the University of Caiifomia, bypassed Judge David Brown
in Department 53 and filed, on October 3, 2018 in Department 54, their deceptive
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM
INTERROGATORIES GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
(ROA 150-153) in an attempt to obtain an Order from Judge Christopher E.
Krueger or a stamped Order with Judge Krueger's name.
Burkett and Bardzell were caught, and their evil plan failed. If you look at
the Burkett and Bardzell's Notice of Motion and Motion (ATTACHMENT #1) of
October 3, 2018 and your Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend the Page Limit
(ATTACHMENT #2) filed on April 26, 2021, you will see that both Court
Documents were filed/endorsed by the same Deputy Clerk named E. Medina,
It seems to me that history is repeating itself and that Porter Scott's new team of
Super Lawyers, Ms. Lindsay A. Goulding and Olatomiwa A. Aina, are rushing to
file a Motion for Summary Judgment in the same way that David Burkett and
-2-
Ex Parte Application
Daniel Bardzell rushed to file the Termination Sanctions in Department 54 instead
of Department 53 three years earlier.
Ex Parte Application
the FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC (Page Nos, 55-57) and does not
require an Extension of the Page Limit because FORTH COA was also removed
from the SAC in 2015 by the Anti-SLAPP Motion, CCP, § 425.16, granted by the
Court to the Defendants, Danesha Nichols, Mike Boyd. Stephen Chilcott, and Brent
Seifert,
3) retaliation under Health and Safety Code § 1278,5
This is actually the FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC (Page Nos. 55-
57) and does not require an Extension of the Page Limit because I have no intention
of pursuing this Cause of Action but I could change my mind in filing Third
Amended Complaint which was blocked in October 2015 to be file by Burkett,
Bardzell and Judge David Brown's Order
4) breach of written contract
This is actually the SDCTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC, and it is the
most important COA in the entire Second Amended Complaint besides the age
discrimination and witch hunt of March 2011-December 2012, which has caused
me losses of approximately $1,000,000 in wages and benefits between December
2012 and the present.
5) wage and hour misclassification
This is actually the SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC. My
Attorney, Douglas Stein, did not understand or did not have any knowledge about
the University of Califomia's pay policies and employee classification. I was
perfectly happy with my classification and wages, but U.S Senator Feinstein's
husband, Richard Blum, hunted me down for a different reason, which is pending
in the United States Coun Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit
whistleblower case Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal
-4-
Ex Parte Application
Revenue Services Case No. 20-1407
(https://www.scribd.com/document/495490868/Jaroslaw-Waszczuk-v-lRS-
Commissioner-UNITED-STATES-COURT-QF-APPEALS-FOR-THE-
DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBlA-CIRCUm.
6) rescission - unlawful contract
This is actually the EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC, Regardless
of whether the Settlement Agreement of January 2009 was lawful or unlawful, the
Settlement Agreement was violated and breached by UC Regents, my human rights
were violated, and I was disposed of at the age of 62 like a piece of garbage and
subjected to an assassination attempt on May 31, 2012 by the UC Davis Death
Squad,
I disagree with your statement that the Motion for Summary
Judgment/Adjudication will necessarily require a detailed discussion of the nature
of the Plaintiffs employment relationship with Defendant.
I have all my employee performance reviews, which show that I was a good
employee and had a normal relationship with my employer. 1 was hunted down by
regents for a completely different reason than the one you are implying in your Ex
Parte Application,
1 fail to understand why Porter Scott's attorney is making attempts to bring back
into the lawsuit the Causes of Action dismissed from the SAC by the Anti-SLAPP
motion granted by the Court, Previously, David Burkett brought back the four dismissed
COAs into his requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. Now, you are
attempting to relitigate COAs that were already litigated for several years and are no
longer part of the Second Amended Complaint.
Ex Parte Application
In concluding this Meet and Confer letter, I would appreciate if you would clarify
with the Court the status of the four individuals Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd,
Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert, Please clarify whether these individuals are
still Defendants or whether they were dismissed by the anti-SLAPP motion in 2015
together with first four COAs. Porter Scott Attomeys once brought them back in
their pleading as Defendants and another time classed them as former Defendants,
stating that they are being represented by Porter Scott.
1 noticed that in your April 26, 2021 Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend
the Page Limit for the Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication, you did not mention Stephen Chilcott, Mike
Boyd, Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert at all, which is in contrast to Burkett
Bardzell's and other Porter Scott's lawyers pleadings of 2018-2020. I am quite sure
that Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd, Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert do not want to
hear about this lawsuit or about Porter Scott's Attorneys anti-SLAPP motion dirty
money attached to violation of my human rights and endless harassment of 70 years
Old wife . Your first show off in this case did not go well for you Ms, Goulding , You
are dirty and unprofessional lawyer as same as your Porter Scott's predecessors with
J.D degree and licenses from the State Bar of Caiifomia .
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk,
-6
Ex Parte Application
Mailing List
Ex Parte Application
1 P O R T E R I S C O T T
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896
3 Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
FILED/ENDORSED
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, Caiifomia 95825 OCT -3 2018
TGL: 910.929:1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
dburkett(5),porterscott.com By:. E. Medina
Deputy Citrk
6
7 Attorney for Defendant
8 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
9 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11
12 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
o
o
13 Plaintiff. DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION
•5 a - vo AND MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED
o */>
u uc <^ 2
00 o 14 V. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
< (wf
o"o^vb
0> 15 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET
S 15: 16 OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH GENERAL SET ONE, FORM
o 17 SYSTEM, UC DAVIS MEDICAL INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT
18 CENTER, UC DAVIS, ANN MADDEN SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR
RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR
19 CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, MONETARY AND TERMINATING
DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY SANCTIONS
20 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
21 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does Date: October 31,2018
I through 50, inclusive. Time: 9:00 a.m.
22 Dept.: 54
Defendants.
23
24 Complaint Filed: December 4,2013
Amended Complaint Filed: June 16,2014
25 SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
26
27
28 {0189I977.DOCX) 1
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE,
FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT SET
ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING
SANCTIONS
TO PLAINTIFF:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the above date, time and department of this Court,
Defendarit REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA .(the "UNIVERSITY" or
"DEFENDANT"), will move the Court lo Compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY")
WASZCZUK's verified responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special
6 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
7 Employment (Set One.); (2) deem Defendant's Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted; (3)
8 award monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,200.00 to retum Defendant to the position it would
9 have been had the subject discovery responses been timely provided; (4) issue terminating
10 sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiffs pattern of vexatious litigation tactics and failure
II to engage in the discovery process; and (5) impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave tofilea
12 Third Amended Complaint.
g
" Ml 13 This Motion is made on the grounds that good cause exists to cornpcl Plointiffs verified
H " n oo o
o « <^ 2 5:; 14 responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One),
—p.- ^ ^ ^ I c
ttJ < O >£) >0 1 J Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One;); (2)
uj i< C OS s:
deem Defendant's Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted; (3) award monetary sanctions in
17 the amount of $5,200.00 to retum Defendant to the position it would have been had the subject
18 discovery responses been timely provided; (4) issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff; and (5).
19 Impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint because Plaintiff
20 has completely failed to respond to any such discovery request and responses remain outstanding
n1 14 the hearing and listen to the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by
. ^
vei ^ 15 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.
OS OS
III
O
<
H u:
lO
Dated: October 3, 2018 PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
17
18 By.
19 David P. E. Burkett
Daniel J. Bardzell
20 Attomeys for Defendant
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(0189I977.DOCX}
28 DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE,
FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT SET
ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING
SANCTIONS
Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et al
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4
At the time o f service, I was over 18 years o f age and not a party to this action. M y
5 business address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Caiifomia 95825.
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
7
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED
8 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE,
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL
SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM
10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND
TERMINATING SANCTIONS
11 BY MAIL: 1 placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
12 On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
g course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fiilly prepaid.
13 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: 1 caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
H 3 S _ SO
H T l oo o addressed below. (1) For a party represerited by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
O u <^ 2: K 14 attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
attomey being .served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hrihra of
ai <: o" ^ 2 15 nine in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving
the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the
16 hours of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY; 1 enclosed the documents in an envelopte or package provided by an
o 17 overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. 1 placed the envelope or package
•n
for collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the ovemight
18 delivery carrier.
BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission,
19 1 faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
20 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service
by electronic transmission, 1 caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
21 address listed below.
22 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
23 Lodi, CA 95242
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Caiifomia that the
25 foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Caiifomia on October 3,2018.
26
27 Wendy Strzisser
(01891977 DOCX} I
28
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE,
FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT SET
ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING
SANCTIONS
I P O R T E R I S C O T T
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896
3 Daniel J. Bard2xll, SBN 313993
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
dburkett(5iporterscott.com
6
7 Attorney for Defendant
8 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
9 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
II
12 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
g
13 Plaintiff [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED
o
u . 2 14 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
«/5
U Ov Ov
15 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET
S
o S
> SiS•-<
>>16
< OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH GENERAL SET ONE, FORM
O 17 SYSTEM, UC DAVIS MEDICAL INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT
18 CENTER, UC DAVIS, ANN MADDEN SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR
RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR
19 CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, MONETARY AND TERMINATING
DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY SANCTIONS
20 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
21 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does Date: October 31, 2018
1 through 50, inclusive. Time: 9:00 a.m.
22 Dept.: 54
Defendants.
23
{0I8920I7.DOCX) 1
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR
MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 On October 31, 2018, Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
2 ("Defendant") brought a Motion to Compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK's
3 verified responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories
4 (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set
5 One.); (2) deem Defendant's Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted; (3) award monetary
6 sanctions in thie amount of $5,200.00 to retum Defendant to the position it would have been had
7 the subject discovery responses been timely provided; (4) issue terminating sanctions against
8 Plaintiff as a. result of Plaintiffs pattern of vexatious litigation tactics and failure to engage in the
9 discovery process; and (5) impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended
10 Complaint.
11 Upon consideration of the arguments on file, the Court rules as follows:
12 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
S! m 13
.i— >n 00 p
1. Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiffs verified responses to Requests for
Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form
o « 2: 14
^
—
i - <?jK
^ w ^ I ^
Interrogatories - General (Set One) and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set
< o"
UJ £. c. 5^ 5^
'5 One) is GRANTED.
• 4
• 5 JUDGE OF THE COURT
8
9
10
11
12
o- . ' .
a VI • 13
1_- <M -
..O ^'^:;rR,/l4.
17
• .sirs 18
-19
20
21
22
•23
'24
25
26
27
{0i8920l7;bbCX> . „3,,
2
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Lindsay A Goulding. SBN 227195
FfLED/EMDORSED
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566 APR 2 6 2021
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481 ^•
5 FAX: 916.927.3706 Deputy Clerk
6
Attomey for Defendant
7
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSfTY OF CALIFORNU
8
Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
II
JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
12
Plaintiff. EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR L E A V E
13 TO EXTEND PACE LIMIT FOR
t/i ao V. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
o : K 14 SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN T H E
u 15 15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
U
H
9. CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF ADJUDICATION
Oi 16 CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM,
2 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
17 DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1
20 through SO, inclusive. Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
21 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16,2014
Defendants. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(03'1139S2.DOCX| 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
1 1.
2 EX PARTE APPLICATION
3 Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ("UNFVERSITY")
4 hereby submits this Ex Parte Application for permission to file a Memorandum of Points and
5 Authorities in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the altemative, Summary
6 Adjudication in excess of twenty pages pursuant to Rules 3.1113(e) and 3.1200 ei stiq. of the
7 California Rules of Court. Rule 3.1113(e) allows a party to apply to the court for permission to file a
8 longer memorandum if the argument cannot be made within the stated page limit. Due to the lengthy
9 facts, multiple causes of action, and complex legal issues in this case, it is necessary that Defendant's
10 Memorandum of Points and Authorities exceed twenty pages to adequately address the factual and
II legal issues presented by the motion.
12 IL
o
a ^. 13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORJTIES i
(- 3 So - *
r - to " OO S IN SUPPORT OF EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT
p
*
—
6
:> w
»N c; 14
,_
Oi < o' ^ 15 Defendant intends to move for siunmary judgment or, in the altemative, siunmary
Q U e w < ^" adjudication as the following causes of action: I) harassment in violation of FEHA and failiu-e to
n
prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Govenunent Code § 12940(a); 2)
18 whistleblower/unlawful retahation in violation of Govemment Code § 8547; 3) retaliation under
19 Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 4) breach of written contract; 5) wage and hour misclassification;
20 and 6) rescission-unlawfiil contract. (Declaration of Lindsay A. Goulding in support of Defendant's
21 EJiParte Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment that Exceeds 20 Pages ("Goulding
22 Decl. % 3.) The Motion for Stunmary Judgment/Adjudication will necessarily require a detailed
23
discussion of the nature of Plaintiffs employment relationship with Defendant, the alleged
24
harassment of Plaintifffirom2006 to 2013, as well as the individual defenses applicable thereto.
25
{Id.) The circumstances surrounding the allegedly harassing conduct will also require a detailed
26
discussion regarding the nature of the conduct, the timing, and the speakers and recipients of the
27
alleged harassment. (Id.) Further, a lengthy legal analysis will be required to address Plaintiffs
28
|02-»l.^952.DOC.X) 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
1 previous settlement agreement with Defendant. {Id.)
2 In order to address the lengthy facts, legal authority, and legal arguments regarding each of
3 Plaintiff s causes of action. Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its
4 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will need to exceed twenty pages. Therefore,
5 Defendants respectfully request Ihat the court, pursuant to Rules 3 .113(e) and 3 .1200 et seq. of the
6 Caiifomia Rules of Coun, allow it to submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in excess of
7 twenty pages, but not to exceed forty pages. Defendant will make a good faith effort to keep the
8 motion as concise as possible.
9 III.
10 CONCLUSION
11 For the reasons set forth above. Defendant has demonstrated good cause for an expansion
12 of the page limit and move this Court to permit Defendant to submit a memorandum of up to 40
o
©
CN
13 pages in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.
. 1/1 5f»00 ^
O tr<7v
f^ 2 — n 14
r 1 ^
(02413952.DQCX)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et aL
I
Sacramepto County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Caiifomia 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
id I WOFOStUJ OKUEK OIN DtMSNUAN I'S KX PAK I E APPLIL'A I IUN TO EX I END PAGE
LIMIT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Ex Parte Application and found good cause to grant Defendant's fequest for a page extension.
2 IT IS TkEREFORE ORDERED; THAT Defendant THE R£GENTS OF THE
3 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNL\ shall be permitted to file a Memorandum of Points aid '
. 4 Authorities in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Altemative, Summary
"5 Adjudication in exceiss of 20,pages, butnot to exceed 40 pages.
6
7 bated;: ,
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
8
9
10
11
12
cs,
13
l i p a6
= 17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{024l45J2.pOCX)
6
Attorney for Defendant
7
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
8
Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
102413956 DOCX 1 1
DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
1 2. The Second Amended Complaint alleges the following causes of action: 1)
2 intentional infliction of emotional distress; 2) tortious interference with economic advantage; 3)
3 harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation
4 in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); 4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of
5 Government Code § 8547; 5) retaliation under Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 6) breach of written
6 contract; 7) wage and hour misclassification; and 8) rescission-unlawful contract.
7 3. Defendant intends to move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
8 adjudication as to the following causes o f aciion; 3) harassment in violation o f FEHA and failure to
9 prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); 4)
10 whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Government Code § 8547; 5) retaliation under
11 Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 4) breach of written contract; 6) wage and hour misclassification;
12 and 7) rescission-unlawful contract. The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will
o
o
13 necessarily require a detailed discussion of the nature of Plaintiffs employment relationship with
3 oc — so
H u-i 3C O
•a-
0 o<=^ — 14 Defendant, the alleged harassment of Plaintiff from 2006 to 2013, as well as the individual defenses
<> r--
OS OS
01 < d SO s^ 15 applicable thereto. The circumstances surrounding the allegedly harassing conduct will also require
OS OS
^ 1- C -i X 16 a detailed discussion as to the nature of the conduct, the timing, and the speakers and recipients of
O ^2
ft. c
o 17 the alleged harassment. Further, a lengthy legal analysis will be required to address Plaintiffs
o-j
m
18 previous settlement agreement with Defendant.
19 4. In order to address the lengthy facts, legal authority, and legal arguments regarding
20 each of Plaintiffs causes nf action. Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support
21 of its Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will need to exceed twenty pages.
22 5. 1 contacted Plaintiff to inform him of this Application via telephone and email on
23 April 26, 2021 at approximately 9:02 a.m. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy
24 of my email correspondence to Plaintiff regarding Defendant's request to exceed the page limit.
25 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
26 is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of April 2021, at Sacramento, California.
27
28
m
Lindsay A. Goulding
102413956 DOCX 1
DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
64 A
0I054547:WI'U
From: VirQinia Yao
To: -iiwigRntai TVF.rnM
Cc: Lindsav'A. GouTdina: Tomi Aina
Subject: Waszczuk v. Regents
Date: "- , iMondayJ April,'26, 2021 8:59:00 AM
'Attachments: imaQeOOl.ohQ"
This Is just to confirm our conversation this morning thaf our office is filing an Exparte
today on, the papersj to request a page extension to the Motion for Summary of
Judgment that we will be filing? Thank you.
Virginia Yao
Legal;Assjstaht to Lindsay A. Goulding
350 University Avehue j Suite.20b j Sacramento, CA 95825
T| 916.929.1481 x 331 F| 916.927.3706 '
vvwvv'Porterscott.com
Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et a l
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
7 D E C L A R A T I O N OF L I N D S A Y A. G O U L D I N G I N SUPPORT O F
D E F E N D A N T ' S E X P A R T E FOR L E A V E T O F I L E
8 M O T I O N FOR S U M M A R Y J U D G M E N T T H A T EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
9
XX BY M A I L : I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. 1
10 am readily t'amiliar with this business' practice tor collecting and processing correspondence tor mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
11 course o f business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
B Y P E R S O N A L S E R V I C E : I caused eiich d o c u m e n t t o be p e r s o n a l l y d e l i v e r e d to the perEon(s) addressed
12 below. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attomey's
o office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being
o
ii m 13 served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge o f the office, between the hours o f nine in the moming
I-
= s _^
C/3 V I 00 o
and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the
- ON
o 14 party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years o f age between the hours o f eight in the
< Ci morning and six in the evening.
u ^
o' •£> ^
O
15 DY O V E R N I G H T DELIVERY: 1 enclosed the d o c u m e n t s i n an e n v e l o p e o r package p r o v i d e d b y an
[/)
1-
C OS O overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. 1 placed the envelope or package for
t> , .
O
E -) X 16 collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box o f the overnight delivery
n UJ <
c o H n. carrier.
3 (/3
O 17 BY F A X T R A N S M I S S I O N : Based on an agreement o f the parties to accept service by fax transmission, 1
faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
18 machine that 1 used. A copy o f the record o f the fax transmission, which 1 printed out, is attached
XX b v t L t c l K U l N i c S l i K V l c t : based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
19 electronic transmission, 1 caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification address
listed below.
20
21 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
22 Lodi, CA 95242
JJW1980(fl)LIVE.COM
23
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
25 is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on April 26, 2021.
26
27
28 Virginia Yao
102413956 DOCX!
DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
1 ANN MADDEN RICE (CEO UCD Health Services), MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT
I'agc 49 of 63
( , ' n t l C"t) tiipln r 11 (-1, 111 p i n v i n e II (
ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER,
I'ligf 50 of 63
( . i i i l <"ompt-iiii(-r,inpl)t_t invnt
1 plant and equipment, committed to the future success of the Medical Center, and rightfully and
2 lawfully expected that no person, let alone supervisors, managers. Human Resource personnel,
3 and others would be dishonest, fabricate stories about him, disregard evidence, disregard policies
4 and practices for impartial investigations, disregard defendants' actions on plaintiffs well-being,
5 and/or set about to cause him emotional harm, all with the intent to ensure that plaintiff never
6 returned to work again.
7 112. Defendants, and each of them, knew that their actions, including but not limited
8 to the actions described herein, as well as their actions issuing investigatory leaves in violation
9 of policies and procedures, would cause and did cause plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress,
10 especially when not one person left employed by UC DAVIS looked at, considered, and/or
I I analyzed the actual evidence, such as the work orders showing PUTNEY and DANILILIC falsely
12 accused the plaintiff of missing a critical alarm, plaintiffs evaluations written by PUTIMEY,
13 surprising plaintiff twice with re-issued investigatory leaves when plaintiff believed he was
14 returning to work, instructing plaintiff not to send emails to anyone other than WITCHER even
15 though WITCHER as well as every other manager or supervisor never responded in a serious
16 manner to plaintiff, the employees considering plaintiffs PPSM 70 complaints were copied on
17 emails from the other defendants from an early point in the sequence of events, the conclusions
IS o f a group of attorneys and e.xperienced managers on the misconduct disclosed by plaintiff were
19 absurd and unbelievable, and the sudden and not previously an issue discipline issued against co-
20 employees plaintitf represented challenging the discipline.
21 113. The only conclusion that is more likely than not, actually clear and convincing,
22 considering all the evidence, including the examples described herein, is that defendants, and
23 each of them, coordinated their actions, conferred with each other, and otherwise had a common
24 goal and/or understanding to either force plaintiff to quit and/or force him to act or behave in
25 ways that would provide them a subterfuge for his termination. Meanwhile, defendants, and each
26 of them, set about to extricated plaintiff from his employment because plaintiff was a
27 whistleblower, and a significant percentage of employees who report misconduct suffer
V-Afiv 51 of 63
(.'ivil <'oii)pl.iiii(-I''ni|ili>i'incnt
1 114. PlaintifThad a reasonable expectation that his employment would be available for
2 him to work, earning an hourly rate, plus benefits, and all other compensation due under the law
3 so long as plaintiff continued to do his work and perform at the workplace as he had since 1999.
4 115 Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged herein with the intent to harm Plaintiff
5 financially and to induce plaintiff and/or UC DAVIS to violate the Settlement Agreement, and/or
6 to take away plaintiffs property rights in his employment without the beneFu of the processes,
7 procedures, and safeguards provided for such things under the law, including UC DAVIS' own
8 policies and rules.
12 6 years, and/or the number of years from the date plaintiff last received his income to the date
13 plaintiff intended to retire. When Plaintiff has ascertained the full amount of its damages, it will
14 seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint and/or by evidence at the time of trial provide proof
15 accordingly.
16 117. Plaintiff alleges that one of more of the defendants acted with reckless disregard
17 for plaintiffs rights and/or failed to perceive, observe, and act as a reasonable person under the
IS same or similar circumstances. Further, said reckless disregard for plaintifPs rights and/or
20 118. , I'he conduct of one or more of the Defendants as described herein was purposeful
21 and intentional and was engaged in for the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of property or legal
22 rights or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected to cruel and unjust
23 hardship in conscious disregard of its rights, and was performed with fraud, oppression or malice
24 so as to justify an award of exemplary or punitive damages against such Defendants in an amount
25 according to proof at trial.
26 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
27 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Third Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
Vnov 52 of 63
(~^^ il tiipirt r 11 ( - ICniplii^ iiic n t
1 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
12 employment."
13 120. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each
14 of them, coordinated, cooperated, agreed, and/or had an understanding to misuse, abuse, and/or
15 disregard California law, the REGENTS' polices, and UC DAVIS' procedures to deny plaintiffs
16 rights to return to work. Furthermore, Defendants, and each of them, coordinated, cooperated,
17 agreed, and/or had an understanding to utilize plaintiffs national origin and ancestry against him,
IS inter alia, Plaintiff, born and raised into adulthood in Poland under the communist rule o f the
19 Soviet Union, arrived in America as an asylum seeker and was granted political asylum.
20 Defendants knew that plaintiff personified cultural diversity with undisputed differences and
21 difficulties expressing himself in English. Defendants, and each of them, knowingly ignored
22 Plaintiffs culturally diverse characteristics and traits, and, attempted to judge, evaluate, and
23 critique Plaintiff utilizing narrow, shallow, and discriminatory standards, such as, but not limited
24 to, UC DAVIS' Standards of Community. Multiple scholars and civil rights experts have advised
25 UC DAVIS that the Standards of Community express and espouse discriminatory and
26 unconstitutional standards.
27 120a. Further, defendants, and each of them, intentionally created and caused scenarios
28 that they knew would cause plaintiff to suffer from anxiety, anger, and emotional distress.
l':ine 53 of 63
( ' i v i l <7i)nipLi i lit- r.inplfi,^ m e r i t
1 because the defendants knew, based on plaintiffs own admissions and the defendants'
2 experience that plaintiff would manifest and/or alleviate his anxiety, anger, and emotional
3 distress by writing and sending letters or emails, which, to the uninformed and/or malice minded
4 person, might be unorthodox. However, defendants, and each of them, knew plaintiff did not
5 have any history of violence, did not have any history of racism, and did not have any history of
6 any discrimination.
7 121. Defendants, and each of them, further discriminated against plaintiff based on his
8 mental disability and medical condition as described herein.
9 122. Defendants and its agents, managers and employees, violated Caiifomia Govemment
10 Code §12940, by failing to adequately supervise, control, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the
I I conduct, acts, and failures to act as described herein. As such. Defendant and the Individual Defendants
12 failed to fulfill their statutory duty to take all reasonable and necessary steps to prevent discrimination,
13 harassment, and retaliation from occurring in the workplace, as required by Caiifomia Govemment
14 Code§12940(k)
15 123. Beginning in approximately April for 2011, Defendants fabricated and conjured up
16 false accusations, false reports, and feigned complaints, and, undertook oppressive, abusive, and
17 discriminatory acts that continued up to and through December 7,2012, the effective date of plaintiffs
IS termination.
19 124 .In truth and in fact. Plaintiff did not do anything wrong. It is undisputed that plaintiff
20 attempted to persuade defendants, and each of them, to settle, resolve, and/or put an end to whatever
21 acrimony might have existed on the part of defendants, and each of them, at the workplace. Defendants,
22 and each of them, never responded to or reacted to plaintiffs attempts to live and let live, and to get
26 action, such as but not limited to, a biased, one-sided, and incomplete investigation report, or, the lack
27 of meaningful investigation into the misconduct plaintiff actually reported, or, notifying plaintiff of an
28 Notice of Investigatory Leave one day before his post-stress leave return to work on September 1,2011,
I'ngc 54 of 63
(^ivil Ouiiiplii i iH - K i i i p l i i y i n r n t
1 or, personally handing an unsuspecting plaintiff, who expected to start work, another Notice of
2 Investigatory Leave on May 31, 2012, with a crisis team on stand-by, or, being instructed not to
3 communicate with employees even though plaintiff represented them and there was no indication
5 126.. Defendants, and each of them, as part and parcel of their ongoing, continuing, and
6 repeated retaliation, harassment, and abuse for whisileblowing about misconduct, engaged in a course
7 of action that constituted, separately and cumulatively, discrimination, harassment and retaliation
8 because of national origin, ancestor, mental condition, and/or medical condition.
9 127. The discrimination, harassment and retaliation are continuous and persist to date
10 against Plaintiff
I I 128. As a result of Defendants' failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination,
12 harassment and retaliation. Regents have allowed WITCHER and the other defendants to continue to
13 harass and retaliate against Plaintiff in compensation and terms of employment. Every day and week
14 there is some new harassing, retaliatory plan to drive Plaintiffout ofout of UCD, disparage him, or take
15 compensation from him. Plaintiff has suffered substantial economic losses in wages and benefits,
16 damages to reputation, credit and other financial injuries in an amount to be determined at trial.
17 129. As a result of Defendants' harassment and discrimination and the failure to prevent
IS and/or take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Plaintiff suffered
19 compensatory damages, consisting of mental anguish, humiliation, alienation, emotional distress and
20 embarrassment in a sum according to proof at the time of trial.
21 130. Pursuant to Caiifomia Govemment Code §12965, Plaintiff requests the award of
22 attorneys' fees against Defendants under this cause of action.
23 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
24 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Third Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
25 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
Pasc 55 of 63
( . ' i v i l ( .n i i i p l . 1 i i i t - K i i i p l o y i i i r l i t
I VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
V-AgQ 56 of 63
( J ^ ' i l ( 'n n i p l i i i II I -1~ i i i p l i i V inv lit
1 requests the assessment of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants, in an amount
12 138. The California Legislature enacted Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 because "... it
13 is the public policy of the State of California to encourage patients, nurses, members of the
14 medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe
15 patient care and conditions. The Legislature encourages this reporting in order to protect patients
16 and in order to assist those accreditation and government entities charged with ensuring that
17 health care is safe. The Legislature finds and declares that whistleblower protections apply
I8 primarily to issues relating to the care, services, and conditions of a facility' and are not intended
19 to conflict with existing provisions in state and federal law relating to employee and employer
20 relations..." (Emphasis Added)
21 139. § 1278.5(b) (1) provides "No health facility shall discriminate or retaliate, in any
22 manner, against any patient, employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care
23 worker of the health facility because that person has...Presented a grievance, complaint, or
24 report to the facility, to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility,
25 or the medical staff o f the facility, or to any other governmental entity..." (Emphasis Added)
28 or that owns or operates any other health facility, in retaliation against an employee, member of
Piigc 57 of 63
{ 'i\'il ( I D p i II i I I t - r . I l l p i n V l i l t - I I I
1 the medical staff, or any other health care worker of the facility, if responsible staff at the facility
2 or the entity that owns or operates the facility had knowledge of the actions, participation, or
3 cooperation of the person responsible for any acts described in paragraph ( I ) of subdivision (b),
4 and the discriminatory action occurs within 120 days of the filing of the grievance or complaint
5 by the employee, member of the medical staff or any other health care worker of the facility"
6 141. § 1278.5(d)(2) provides "...For purposes of this section, discriminatory treatment
7 of an employee...includes, but is not limited to, discharge, demotion, suspension, or any
8 unfavorable changes in, or breach o f the terms or conditions of a contract, employment, or
9 privileges of the employee."
10 142. Defendants, and each of them, were well aware of plaintiffs disclosures
I I concerning the deficiencies and problems w i t h i n the H V A C P l u m b i n g Shop as w e l l as the
12 function and operation of the Metasys alarm monitoring system. Each disclosure by plaintiff
13 related to and concerned matters that directly impacted, or foreseeably would impact, the safe
16 roots in actions begun, within 120 days of plaintiff notifying and/or complaining to the
17 defendants, and each of them.
IS 144. P l a i n t i f f is entitled to all damages authorized and recoverable under Health &
21 COMES NOW Plaintiff and for a Sixth Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
22 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 41 through 50, as
23 follows:
24 IX. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
[BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT)
25
28 146. The contract between plaintiff and defendant is, and was at all relevant times, a written
58 of 63
( .'^^'il < III plii i II I - lil i t i p i d v i n e It I
1 contract. The written contract is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates
2 into this complaint each term, condition, and paragraph of the contract as required by law. Pursuant to
3 the contract, defendant promised plaintiff an exempt position inside the HVAC Plumbing Shop with a
4 title of Development Engineer. Plaintiff accepted the position under the agreement and was installed
5 at the location with PUTT^lEY as his supervisor and WITCHER his manager.
6 147. At some point, currently unknown to plaintiff, UC DAVIS agreed, allowed, and/or
7 ratified DANILIUC as plaintiffs supervisor even though DANILIUC had the same or lower
8 classification accepted by plaintiff under the contract.
9 148. According to the agreement, plaintiff nor UC DAVIS were to disparage each other.
10 Plaintiff at all times expressed his good faith beliefs of the truth. However, CHILCOTT in an email
I 1 disparaged plaintiff creating the impression plaintiff was a problem, when in reality plaintiff was a
12 valuable employee, who had the best interests of the hospital always in mind, and was the victim of an
13 outrageous but actual coordinated effort to cause him emotional distress.
14 149. UC DAVIS, by and through its employees, agents, and officers, kept plaintiffout of the
15 workplace for no apparent reason. Defendant placed plaintiff on Investigatory Leaves, Administrative
16 Leaves, yet the evidence shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, UC DAVIS was intentionally keeping
17 plaintiff out of the work location promised in the contract, and, waiting to find a pretext basis to
IS terminate plaintiff
19 150. UC DAVIS promised and plaintiff accepted an exempt position. However, plaintiffs
20 job duties did not change in any appreciable manner from his position as a non-exempt employee. In
23 150a. The written agreement contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
24 or, an understanding that neither party will do anything unlawful and/or take action that
25 undermines and/or deprives plaintiff of one or more o f the benefit o f the bargain. Further, that,
26 provided plaintiff performed his duties in a manner that met or exceeded expectations, he would
27 be entitled to work and remain on the job until his retirement age. Further, that defendants, and
28 each of them, could terminate plaintiffs employment only with just cause.
Pane 59 of 63
( . ' i t ' t l ( ' n n i p 111 i II I -1'~ i i t p l i i v i i i c i t
1 150b. Defendants, and each of them, breached the contract by subjecting plaintiff to a
2 hostile work environment, keeping plaintiff away from the workplace, retaliation against plaintiff,
3 and terminating his employment.
5 152. Plaintiff seeks and is entitled to all special and consequential damages as allowed by
6 law, including but not limited to lost-income, hourly wages for the missed lunch and break time plaintiff
7 would have enjoyed as a non-exempt employee. The contract provides for and plaintiff seeks costs as
8 well as attorney fees.
9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
10 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Seventh Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
11 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, and Does 21 through 50, as
12 follows:
13 X. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
[DFEH/LABOR CODE (Age Discrimination, Failure of Interactive Process, Medical
I Discrimination, Retaliadon, wage and hour)]
15 153. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
16 through 152, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein
17 154. The contract provision attempting to set plaintiffs job as an exempt position is void as
IS against public policy, or, voidable as a direct result of defendants' failure to provide a truly e.vempt
19 position.
20 155. Defendants, and each of them, misled and lied to plaintiff and kept the tmth from
21 plaintiff concerning the true nature of his position as well as his rights under the law. Regardless,
22 plaintiff filed a DFEH complaint and received a Right to Sue Letter.
23 156. Plaintiffs position was not an exempt position. Plaintiffs duties as alleged herein were
24 substantially the same before the contract and after the contract.
25 157. With respect to wage and hour. Plaintiff seeks damages at the rate of $70,000.00 per
26 year, divided by 50 weeks, divided by 40 hours, multiple by 1.5 hours per day, multiple by 5 days per
27 week, multiple by 50 weeks per year, multiple by 5.5 years, equals $103,125.00, plus all treble or
I'use 60 of 63
( ^ i \ i l d ) i n p l < L i i i l - r . i i i p l d y i i i f 111
1 157a. Plaintiff was over-40 years old when defendants undertook their coordinated
2 assault on plaintiffs right to work. Plaintiffs protected activities and disclosures were also a
3 substantial factor in defendants' harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Defendants, and
4 each of them, knowingly and intentionally denied plaintiff the benefit of the good faith interactive
5 process mandated by law, even though plaintiff made several attempts for defendants to reverse
6 their abhorrent behavior. Plaintiff was a quadruple bypass surgery survivor and taking
7 approximately 12 medications during the time defendants committed their acts described herein.
8 UC DAVIS, as part of a plan to hand plaintiff another Notice of Investigatory Leave upon his
9 return for work on May 31, 2012, assembled a crisis team, which demonstrates that UC DAVIS
10 knew, believed, and/or intended their actions would harm plaintiff, and potentially other innocent
11 people, but that did not stop them
12 158. Plaintiff seeks all damages, including costs and attomey fees as allowed by law.
13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
14 COMES NOW Plaintiff and for an Eighth Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, and Does 21 through 50, as
16 follows:
17 XI. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
^^ [RESCISSION-UNLAWFUL CONTRACT]
20 through 158, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein
21 160. Plaintiffs acceptance of the "exempt" classification for the job title taken
22 pursuant to The Settlement Agreement was a material aspect of the contract. An employer cannot
23 contract around Labor Laws with respect to wages, hours, meals, and breaks without running
24 afoul of the law and voiding the contract.
25 161. The contract is void as against public policy, and, the subject matter of the contract
26 is unlawful.
27 162. Defendant knew, or should have known, at the time the parties signed the contract
28 that the contract was void. Further, defendants knew, or should have known, that plaintiff relied
I'ai;*; 61 of 63
(.'i%'it Co nip I.I i ill -1~ iiiplf »y m r n t
1 on defendants to believe the contract was valid and enforceable. Defendants, to the present time,
2 have misled plaintiff into believing the contract was valid and enforceable.
3 163. In or about May 2014, plaintiff discovered the truth, that the contract was void as
5 164. Defendants' are estopped to assert any technical defense in light of the actions
6 and omissions described herein.
7 165. As a direct and proximate result of the rescission of the contract, plaintiff has
8 been damaged in an amount equal to his hourly wage multiplied by the number of hours of lunch
12 2. For lost salary, both front and back pay, bonuses, benefits and any other benefits to
13 which Plaintiff would have been entitled to by reason of his employment with Defendant UC
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
I'jige 62 of 63
(!i%'il < '<» i n p h i i l i t - I ^ i n p l o > i n n i t
1 10. Damages, Costs, attorney fees, and all other allowable damages and relief
3 11. Rescission of the contract and for such other and further relief as the Court deems
4 jijst and proper.
5
6 DATED: September 2, 2014 La>y Ofllce of Douglas E . Stein
7
8 By:
DOUGLAS E , STEIN
9 Attbrriey for Plaintiff
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 63 of 63
(7ivil C o m p l » i nt-IHiiipInyincnt
1 P O R T E R I S C O T T >
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195 FlLED/ES^DSIRSED
3 350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, Califomia 95825 MAY 1 h 2021
4 TEL: 916.929.1481
FAX: 916.927.3706 By: S. Cade
5
6 Attomey for Defendant
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
7 MICHAEL BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DORIN DANILIUC, DANESHA NICHOLS,
CINDY OROPEZA, PATRICK PUTNEY, ANN MADDEN RICE
8 BRENT SEIFERT, and CHARLES WITCHER
9
Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
o
o
13 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
P ,2 00 — ^
t-H 0^ " / I oo O 14 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
o a> 2 P; Plaintiff,
> w ON 0>
15 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
UJ 16 SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
3 (/3
1 s- THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
17 ADJUDICATION
o CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF
18 CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM,
UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC DATE: August 4, 2021
19 DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE TIME: 1:30 p.m.
BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES DEPT: 53
20
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY Reservation No.: 2563128
21 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1 Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
22 through 50, inclusive. Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
{0241338S.DOCX}
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3
4 L INTRODUCTION 1
5 IL PROCEDURAL STATUS 2
6
IIL FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5
7
A. General Backgroimd 5
8 B. Plaintiff Suspended for Inappropriate Behavior 5
9 C. August 2011 Investigation Confirms PlaintifF Engaged in Intimidating and
Discriminatory Conduct 6
10 D. September 2011 Investigation Confirms Additional Discriminatory and
Intimidating Conduct by Plaintiff 7
11 E. PlaintifTs Termination 8
12
IV. PLAINTIFF'S HARASSMENT CLAIM (THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION) FAILS
13 BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ADMITS HE WAS NOT HARASSED AND
— »o
oo O PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS DO NOT QUALIFY AS
14
<^ M& HARASSING ACTS 9
CN
< d vd ^ 15
.•S (U a! o\ A. Issue 1: Plaintiff Admits He was Not Harassed Based on a Protected Status 9
a; J
w <
>< 16 B. Issue 2: Personnel Management Activities Do Not Qualify as Actionable
O
OH
3 Harassment 9
o 17
C. Issue 3: Defendant Had Legitimate Reasons for Taking the Actions it Took 10
18
V. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT,
19 DISCRMINIATION, AND RETALIATION (THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION)
FAILS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING UNLAWFUL CONDUCT ... 11
20
21 A. Issue 4: Plaintiffs Failure-to-Prevent Harassment Cause of Action Fails
Because He Cannot Prove an Underlying Claim of Harassment 11
22 B. Issue 5: Plaintiffs Failure-to-Prevent Discrimination Cause of Action Fails
23 Because He Carmot Prove an Underling Claim of Discrimination 11
1. Plaintiff Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case of Discrimination 11
24 2. The Regents Had a Legitimate Non-Discriminatory Reason for Disciplining
Plaintiff and Terminating His Employment - Admitted Policy Violations 12
25 3. Plaintiff Cannot Show Pretext 13
26 C. Issue 6: Plaintiffs Failure-to-Prevent Retaliation Cause of Action Fails Because
He Cannot Prove an Underling Claim of Retaliation 13
27 1. Plaintiff Cannot Prove a Prima Facie Case of Retaliation 13
2. The Regents Had Legitimate, Non-Retaliatory Reasons for the Adverse Actions
28 and Plaintiff Cannot Prove Pretext 13
{0241338S.DOCX} 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
D. Issue 7: Plaintiffs Failure-to-Prevent Cause of Action Fails Because the University
1
Took Reasonable Steps to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation 14
2
VI. PLAINTIFF'S RETALIATION CLAIMS UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE§ 8547
3 AND HEALTH & SAFETYCODE § 1278.5 FAIL BECAUSE HE ADMITS
4 THAT HIS DISCIPLINE AND TERMINATION WERE BASED ON HIS
WRONGFUL CONDUCT 15
5
A. Issue 8: PlaintifF Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case of Retaliation Under
6 Govemment Code § 8547 or Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 15
7 1. Plaintiff Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case of Retaliation Under Govemment
Code § 8547 15
8 2. Plaintiff Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case of Retaliation Under Health &
Safety Code § 1278.5 16
9 i. PlaintifF Did not Work at a Protected Health Facility 16
10 ii. The Regents Did not Take any Adverse Actions Against PlaintifF
Because of Protected Activity 16
11 B. Issue 9: The University had Legitimate, Non-Retaliatory Reasons for the Adverse
Actions Taken Against PlaintifF 17
12
o
o
C. Issue 10: Plaintiff Cannot Prove Pretext 17
13
5
oo — vo VII. PLAINTIFF CANNOT RECOVER ON HIS SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
O oo O
J:;
14 FOR "MISCLASSIFICATION" 18
U
0\ Ov
c/3
a! < 2 — — 15
A. Issue 11: "Misclassification" is Not a Cause of Action 18
c 5v ov
16 B. Issue 12: Plaintiff Was Properly Classified as Exempt 18
oil S- u. C. Issue 13: Plaintiff Executed A Settlement Agreement for Claims Related to his
PH c ta 17 Classification 19
o
18 D. Issue 14: Plaintiffis Estopped from Having the Settlement Agreement Declared
Unenforceable Because He Accepted a Tangible Benefit Under the Agreement 21
19
VIII. PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF WRITTEN
20 CONTRACT FAILS BECAUSE HE CANNOT PROVE A PRIMA FACIE CASE
21 AND HIS EMPLOYMENT IS STATUTORY 22
22 A. Issue 15: Plaintiff Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case for Breach of Contract 22
1. Placement on Investigative Leave 23
23 2. Exempt Position 23
24 3. Non-Disparagement Provision 23
i. The non-disparagement clause specifically excludes the investigation issue 25
25 ii. PlaintifF admitted to engaging in the misconduct that Formed the basis
oF the disciplinary action against him 26
26 iii. The University is immunefromliability under Govemment Code §§ 820.2
27 and 821.6 27
iv. Communications related to litigation are absolutely privileged under
28 Civil Code §47 28
4. Implied Covenant oF Good Faith & Fair Dealing 29
{0241338S.DOCX} U ,
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
B. Issue 16: PlaintiFf s Breach oFContract Claim Must Further Fail Because Public
1
Employment in CaliFomia is Heal by Statute Rather than Contract and ThereFore
2 Contract-base Claims Cannot be Asserted by PlaintiFF 30
3 IX. PLAINTIFF'S EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RESCISSION, MUST FAIL
4 BECAUSE RESCISSION IS NOT A STANDALONE CLAIM AND CONTRACT-
BASED EMPLOYMENT CLAIMS CANNOT BE ASSERTED BY PUBLIC
5 EMPLOYEES 31
6 A. Issue 17: Rescission is Not a Cause oF Action 31
7 B. Issue 18: Contract-Based Employment Claims are Not Viable Against
University 31
8 C. Issue 19: PlaintiFf s Rescission Argument is Contrary to the Terms oF the
Agreement 32
9
10 X. CONCLUSION 32
11
12
o
o
CM
13
P
H ,2 O
t/5 O oo
1/^ — OS
14
SI:-- ov 1 ^
CN £ )
ov ov
15
g OV Ov
SI tu ^ 16
o
OH 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02413385.DOCX} 111
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
T A B L E OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page No.
(2016)5Cal.App.5th810 17
{0241338S.DOCX} IV
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Guz V. Bechtel National Inc.,
2 (2000) 24 Cal.4th317 12
3 Jadwin v. County of Kern,
4 610 F.Supp.2d 1129 (E.D. Cal. 2009) 16
5 Jones V. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation,
6 (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1367 9
7 Kelley v. The Conco Companies,
8 (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 19l' 11
9 Kemmerer v. County of Fresno,
10 (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1426 27
11 Kim V. Regents of University of California,
12 (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160 30
13 Lachtman v. Regents of the University of California,
00 —
oo
O a ov ^ 14 (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 187 30, 31
on § < ov
rv rJ
U ov
— > O ^
15 Marden v. Bailard,
c Ov Ov
27 Raderv. Thrasher,
28 e t a l (1972) 22 Cal. App. 3d 883 28
{02413385.DOCX} V
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Regents of University of California v. City of Santa Monica,
(1998) 18Cal.4th640 10
5 Roby V. McKesson Corp.,
6 (2009) 47 Cal.4th686 10
7 Ross V. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District,
8 (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1507 27
9 Scotch V. Art Institute of California,
10 (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 12
11 Serri v. Santa Clara University,
12 (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830 14,17
o
o
CN
13 Slatkin v. Univ. of Redlands,
H (/3 5i — vo
oo o
J:; 14 (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1147 12
0^
CN
ti
> w Ov
Ov o v , ^
ptj <: o' ^ ^ i Wang V. Heck,
ov ov
Sti ui^ 16 (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 677 28, 29
211 17 Wills V. Superior Court,
3 c/2
o
18 (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 143 12
19 Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc.,
20 (2005) 36Cal.4th 1028 13, 14
21 Young V. Flickinger,
22 (1925) 75 Cal.App. 171 31
23 Zelasko-Barrett v. Brayton-Purcell, LLP,
24 (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 582 18
25 STATUTES
26
27 Cal. Gov. Code § 815.2 27
{02413385.DOCX} Vll
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
INTRODUCTION
Pro per PlaintiFf JAROSLAW WASZCZUK brings this employment action against THE
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (hereinafter "UNIVERSITY") claiming he
was terminated for improper reasons. In fact, the undisputed evidence, based on Plaintiffs own
admissions, is that Plaintiff was terminated because of repeated acts of discriminatory, intimidating,
and hateful conduct that PlaintifF directed at his co-workers.
The Following seven causes oF action are the only ones remaining from the operative Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC")': (a) Third Cause oF Action For harassment and Failure to prevent
10 harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation oF the Fair Employment and Housing Act
11 (FEHA)^; (b) Fourth Cause oF Action For whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation oF
o
12 Govemment Code § 8547 et. seq. (c) Fifth Cause oF Action For retaliation under Health and SaFety
o
CN
13 Code § 1278.5'*; (d) Sixth Cause oF Action For breach oF written contract; (e) Seventh Cause oF
— vo
f-c t « IO 00 O
14 Action For wage and hour misclassification; and (f) Eighth Cause oF Action For rescission-unlawfiil
ol
CN <N
ov ov
vd
15 contract.
^ ov
ill 16 Plaintiffs Third Cause of Action, for harassment and failure to prevent harassment,
o
»o
17 discrimination and retaliation fails because the undisputed evidence is that there was no underlying
m
18 harassment, discrimination or retaliation. Plaintiffs harassment claim is based on alleged
19 investigatory and disciplinary actions against him. These are personnel management activities
20 which, as a matter of law, do not constitute "harassing" acts. There was no underlying discrimination
21 or retaliation because the undisputed evidence, based on Plaintiffs own admissions, is that he was
22
' The SAC's First Cause of Action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and Second Cause of Action for
23 tortious interference with economic advantage are only pled against a group of fonner individual Defendants. These
Defendants were all dismissed from the matter and/or such causes of action were adjudicated in their favor pursuant to
24 a Special Motion to Strike. Therefore, they are not addressed in this Motion.
^ Plaintiff improperly pled this as a single cause of action. The cause of action is pled against the UNIVERSITY and
25 the former individual Defendants. As discussed supra, the individual Defendants were all dismissed and/or this cause
of action was adjudicated in their favor pursuant to the Special Motion to Strike.
26 ' See fn.2, supra, (same as to the Fourth Cause of Action). Moreover, the Fourth Cause of Action for
whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 8547 is misidentified in the body of the SAC as
27 the "Third Cause of Action" although it is labeled as the "Fourth Cause of Action" in the heading related to the claim.
This claim will be referred to herein as the "Fourth Cause of Action".
28 The SAC's Fifth Cause of Action for Health and Safety Code 1278.5 retaliation is misidentified in the body of the
SAC as the "Sixth Cause of Action" although it is labeled as the "Fifth Cause of Action" in the heading related to the
claim. This claim will be referred to herein as the "Fifth Cause of Action".
{02413385.DOCX} 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
disciplined and ultimately terminated for repeated violations of the UNIVERSITY'S policies against
discriminatory and hatefiil conduct.
Plaintiffs Fourth and Fifth Causes oF Action, For retaliation under Govemment Code § 8547
and Health and SaFety Code § 1278.5, Fail For the same reason. The undisputed evidence based on
Plaintiffs own admissions is that PlaintifF was terminated For legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons.
The Health and SaFety Code § 1278.5 claim also Fails because the statute only applies to "health
Facilities" and PlaintifF did not work at such a Facility.
Plaintiffs Sixth Cause oF Action is For breach oF contract. Specifically, PlaintiFF claims the
UNIVERSITY breached terms oF a Settlement Agreement the parties previously reached by
10 disparaging him, intentionally keeping him out oF the work location the Agreement promised him,
11 maintaining his non-exempt job duties when he had been promised an exempt position, and violating
12 the covenant oF good Faith and Fair dealing. This claim Fails because PlaintifF cannot establish the
o
o
13 prima Facie elements oF a breach oF contract claim and, as a UNIVERSITY employee. Plaintiffs
.5 oo — s
0 (U oo O
14 employment was statutory and not by contract.
< CN r;^
— >
01 < Q
ON
vo vo 15 Plaintiffs Seventh Cause oF Action alleges PlaintifF was misclassified as an exempt
C ov Ov
^ 16 employee. This cause oF action Fails because the statutes PlaintiFF claims were violated do not apply
tl.
o 17 to public employees and Plaintiff was properly classified as exempt. Even if he was not properly
18 classified, the parties already executed a Settlement Agreement in which PlaintifF released that
19 claim.
20 Lastly, Plaintiffs Eighth Cause of Action is for "rescission." That, however, is a remedy,
23 In the event the Court finds any of the causes of action viable, the UNIVERSITY respectfiilly
24 requests summary adjudication of all other causes of action.
25 II.
26 PROCEDURAL STATUS
27 PlaintifF filed his initial Complaint in this matter on December 4, 2013. (Declaration oF
28 Lindsay A. Goulding in support oFDeFendant's Motion For Summary Judgment or, in the altemative,
{02413385.DOCX} 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Summary Adjudication ("Goulding Decl."), TI 2.) He thereafter amended the Complaint two times.
2 The SAC is the operative pleading. (Goulding Decl., 12; Exhibit ("Exh.") A.)
3 PlaintifFfiledthis action against the UNFVERSITY as well as individual DeFendants MIKE
4 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT,
5 ANN MADDEN RICE, CHARLES WITCHER, PATRICK PUTNEY and DORIN DANILIUC.
6 BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA and SEIFERT (herein "anti-SLAPP DeFendants")
7 filed a Special Motion to Strike the causes oFaction pled against them. (Goulding Deck, ^3.) The
8 Court granted that Motion. (Id.) PlaintifF then dismissed the Four remaining individual DeFendants-
9 RICE, WITCHER, PUTNEY, and DANILIUC. (Id.) As a result, the UNFVERSITY is the only
10 DeFendant remaining. On April 25, 2018, the UNFVERSITY served Plaintiff with Requests for
11 Admission (Set One). (Goulding Deck, 4; Exh C, Requests for Admission.) PlaintifF did not
12 respond to those Requests by the deadline. (Id. at ^ 5.) The UNIVERSITY subsequently filed a
o
o
CN
B
13 discovery motion seeking to have the Requests For Admission deemed admitted. (Id.) The Court
vo
oo o
14 granted that Motion and deemed the UNIVERSITY'S Requests For Admissions as admitted by
H IZl K
CN
Ov Ov
vd ^
15 PlaintifF. (Id.) As a result, PlaintifF has admitted the Following:
ov ov
Oi
oi < 6 16
O
OH
(- tl. • PlaintifF agreed to be an exempt employee; (RFA #1; Goulding Decl., ^ 6, Exhs. C
C CQ
3 t/3 17 and D (UNIVERSITY'S Request For Admissions, Set One and Court's final mling
o
on UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
18 • Plaintiff s agreement to be an exempt employee was part of a Settlement Agreement;
19 (RFA #2; Goulding Deck, 1 6, Exhs. C and D (UNIVERSITY'S Request For
Admissions, Set One and Court's final ruling on UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem
20 Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
• PlaintifF agreed to be classified as an exempt employee per the Settlement Agreement
21 Plaintiff executed on January 30, 2009; (RFA #8; Goulding Decl., H 6, Exhs. C and
22 D (UNIVERSITY'S Request For Admissions, Set One and Court's final ruling on
UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
23 • Plaintiff received a salary increase as part of the Settlement Agreement PlaintifF
executed on January 30, 2009; (RFA #9; Goulding Deck, K 6, Exhs. C and D
24 (UNIVERSITY'S Request for Admissions, Set One and Court's final ruling on
25 UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
• Plaintiff agreed to a permanent assignment in the HVAC/Plumbing Shop as part of
26 the Settlement Agreement he executed on January 30, 2009; (RFA #6; Goulding
27 Deck, II 6, Exhs. C and D (UNIVERSITY'S Request for Admissions, Set One and
Court's final ruling on UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem Request for Admissions,
28 Set One, admitted.)
• PlaintifF received $13,500 pursuant to the Settlement Agreement he executed on
{02413385.DOCX} 3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
January 30, 2009; (RFA #7; Goulding Deck, H 6, Exhs. C and D (UNIVERSITY'S
1 Request for Admissions, Set One and Court's final mling on UNIVERSITY'S
2 Motion to deem Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
The University found in March 2007 that Plaintiff had committed violations of the
3 UC Davis Health System Policy 1616, and the Principals of Community, and that
Plaintiffs conduct created a hostile work environment in the Cenfral Plant; (RFA #3;
4
Goulding Deck, ^ 6, Exhs. C and D (UNIVERSITY'S Request For Admissions, Set
5 One and Court's final ruling on UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem Request For
Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
6 PlaintifF made derogatory comments in the workplace about Jewish people, African-
7 Americans, Hispanics, and/or homosexuals; (RFA #4; Goulding Deck, ^ 6, Exhs. C
and D (UNIVERSITY'S Request For Admissions, Set One and Court's final mling
8 on U N I V E R S I T Y ' S Motion to deem Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
On April 16, 2007, PlaintiFF was notified that he would be suspended and reassigned
9 based on thefindingsthat PlaintifF violated the UC Davis Health System Policy 1616,
10 the Principals oF Community, and created a hostile work environment in the Cenfral
Plant; (RFA #5; Goulding Deck, 1 6, Exhs. C and D (UNIVERSITY'S Request For
11 Admissions, Set One and Court's final ruling on UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem
Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
12
O
o In April 2011, PlaintifF missed an alarm in Metasys, the building automation system,
n
(U 13 that had been signaled since April 11, 2011; (RFA #10; Goulding Deck, ^ 6, Exhs.
I '3 _ vo
(/3 oo O C and D (UNIVERSITY'S Request For Admissions, Set One and Court's final ruling
o — ^ 14 on UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
Ov
CJ OV OV In Febmary 2012, the University Found that PlaintifF violated University policies
Pi/3 < d vd ^
c 15
W c 5^ o^ related to violence and hate incidents in the workplace and ethnically discriminatory
Oi
! w < 16 conduct; (RFA #11; Goulding Deck, 1} 6, Exhs. C and D (UNIVERSITY'S Request
o I H tL. for Admissions, Set One and Court's final mling on UNIVERSITY'S Motion to
17 deem Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
18 In Febmary 2012, the University found that Plaintiff was insubordinate by continuing
to contact witnesses during an investigation after being instmcted not to do so; (RFA
19 #12; Goulding Deck, H 6, Exhs. C and D (UNIVERSITY'S Request for Admissions,
20 Set One and Court's final mling on UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem Request for
Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
21 On April 13, 2012, Plaintiff was given notice that he was being suspended based on
thefindingsissued in Febmary 2012; (RFA #13; Goulding Deck, ^ 6, Exhs. C and D
22 (UNIVERSITY'S Request for Admissions, Set One and Court's final ruling on
23 UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
On April 27, 2012, PlaintifF sent an email to Danesha Nichols titled "Welcome to
24 Romania."; (RFA #14; Goulding Deck, ^ 6, Exhs. C and D (UNIVERSITY'S
Request For Admissions, Set One and Court's final mling on UNIVERSITY'S
25 Motion to deem Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
26 The email PlaintifF sent on April 27, 2012 to Danesha Nichols was as slide-show
containing photographs depicting people openly deFecating in the street, and a couple
27 having sex in a car with a young child in the backseat watching; (RFA #15; Goulding
Deck, 1 6, Exhs. C and D (UNIVERSITY'S Request For Admissions, Set One and
28 Court's final ruling on UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem Request For Admissions,
{02413385.DOCX}
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Set One, admitted.)
• In September 2012, PlaintifF was given a Notice oF Intent to Dismiss; (RFA #17;
Goulding Deck, H 6, Exhs. C and D (UNIVERSITY'S Request For Admissions, Set
One and Court's final ruling on UNFVERSITY's Motion to deem Request For
Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
o The Notice oF Intent to Dismiss PlaintifF was based on the findings issued in
September 2012; (RFA #18; Goulding Deck, TI 6, Exhs. C and D (UNIVERSITY'S
Request For Admissions, Set One and Court's final mling on UNIVERSITY'S
Motion to deem Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
• PlaintifF did not leam oF the alleged illegal power sales until after [PlaintiFf s]
termination. (RFA #19; Goulding Deck, \ 6, Exhs. C and D (UNFVERSITY's
Request For Admissions, Set One and Court's final mling on UNIVERSITY'S
Motion to deem Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.) (See UMF Nos. 11-
17.)
HI.
10
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11
A. General Background
o
12
o The UNFVERSITY hired Plaintiff as a Power Plant Operator at the UC Davis Medical
rs
13
f - l GO U I
— vo Center's Plant Operations and Maintenance Department in 1999. (Exh. H, Declaration oF Charles
00 o
D; 14
Ov
CN f S
Ov OV Witcher in support oFDeFendant's Motion For Summary Judgment or, in the altemative. Summary
oi < o vd ^ 15
.ti CJ Ov OV
S2 P
Adjudication ("Witcher Decl."), ^ 2.) Plaintiffs primary duties involved operating the Metasys
o 16
CL, I i 17
software program, which monitors certain infrastmcture systems for malfunctioning equipment,
3 t/J
o
m
m such as refrigeration, elevators, and machinery. (Id.) PlaintifF worked in the Central Plant From
18
1999 until 2007. (M)
19
B. Plaintiff Suspended for Inappropriate Behavior
20
On April 16, 2007, PlaintifF received a 3-day disciplinary suspension, and his work location
21
was reassigned to the HVAC/Plumbing shop after an investigation confirmed that PlaintiFf violated
22
UC Davis Health System Policy 1616 and the Principals of Community by creating a hostile work
23
environment in the Central Plant. (UMF No. 1). Specifically, the discipline was based on the
24
investigative determination that PlaintifF commonly used intimidating and disrespectful language
25
when conversing with his co-workers; treated his supervisors with disrespect; and repeatedly made
26
derogatory comments about the race, religion, ethnic background, or other immutable characteristics
27
of his co-workers. (Id.)
28
PlaintifF grieved the disciplinary action. (Exh. A, SAC at TI 19; Exh. H at ^ 6.) The suspension
{0241338S.DOCX} 5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
was upheld, but his reassignment was set aside at an appeal hearing in 2008. (Id. at Exh. 1 attached
to SAC, p. 1.) On January 30, 2009, Plaintiff and the UNFVERSITY executed a Settlement
Agreement in which PlaintifF agreed to a permanent assignment in the HVAC/Plumbing Shop.
(UMF No. 2). In retum, PlaintifF was placed in an Associate Development Engineer position. (Id.)
PlaintifF agreed that, as an Associate Development Engineer, he was correctly classified as an
exempt employee For minimum wage and overtime purposes. He also received $13,500 and a salary
increase as part oF the settlement. (UMF No. 3). PlaintifF further agreed to release the UNIVERSITY
from liability for any then-existing legal claims. (Exh. A, SAC ^ 20, Exh. 1 attached to SAC p. 3.)
Plaintiff began work in his new position in Febmary 2009. (Exh. A, SAC ^ 20; Exh. H at 7.)
10 C. August 2011 Investigation Confirms Plaintiff Engaged in Intimidating and
11 Discriminatory Conduct
12 In August 2011, the UNIVERSITY initiated an investigation into additional allegations oF
o
o
CN
B «^
13 misconduct levied against PlaintifF. (Id. at ^ 62) (UMF No. 4; Exh. S Investigative Report by
— vo
P r 2 00 oo O
H t'J u-1
—^ 14 Danesha Nichols dated Febmary 9, 2012, page 2). Specifically, PlaintifF was accused oF: (a) being
O u"^ Ov
CN rvi
Ov
Ov CT;
BS < o' VO
OV
i j dismptive and intimidating towards HVAC Shop Supervisor PUTNEY on April 21, 2011 when
OV ov
PUTNEY questioned PlaintifF about a work perFormance issue; (b) being dismptive towards
3 c/3
o 17 PUTNEY again on May 5, 2011; and (c) being dismptive and intimidating towards HVAC Shop
18 Assistant Supervisor DANILFUC on March 8,2011 by pointing his finger in DANILIUC's Face and
19 using proFanity. (UMF Nos. 4-5).
20 While investigating the aForementioned allegations, the UNIVERSITY also received
21 additional complaints that PlaintifF made discriminatory comments in the workplace. (UMF No. 4).
22 On or about September 1, 2011, the UNIVERSITY placed PlaintiFF on leave during the
23 pendency oF the investigation. (SAC at ^ 74; Witcher Decl. H 11.) PlaintiFf claims that while he was
24 on investigatory leave, his doctor then placed him on stress leave until January 2012. (SAC at TI
25 75.)
26 PlaintifF refused to participate in an interview as part oF the investigation in December 2011.
27 Thus, the UNIVERSITY extended his investigative leave further in order to complete the
28 investigation. (Id. at ^ 76.; Declaration of Gina Harwood ("Harwood Deck") ^ 5; Exh. U December
{02413385.DOCX} 6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ES THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
12, 2011 correspondence from Gina Harwood to PlaintifF.)
On Febmary 9, 2012, the UNIVERSITY issued a fmal investigative report sustaining the
following allegations against PlaintifF:
(1) He was dismptive and intimidating towards PUTNEY on May 5, 2011 in violation of
UNFVERSITY Policy 1616-Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace;
(2) He was dismptive and intimidating towards PUTNEY on April 21, 2011 when discussing
work performance issues in violation of UNIVERSITY Policy 1616-Violence and Hate
Incidents in the Workplace;
(3) He became dismptive and intimidating towards DANILIUC on March 8, 2011 by pointing
his finger in DANILIUC's Face and using proFanity in violation oF UNIVERSITY Policy
8 1616-Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace;
9 (4) He made discriminatory comments regarding several protected classes in the workplace in
' violation oFUNFVERSITY policy PPM Section 380-IS-StaFFComplaints oFDiscrimination;
10 (5) He interFered with the investigation by contacting witnesses and outside parties despite being
told to cease all such communications.
11 (Nichols Decl. H 6; Exh. S.)
12 On April 27, 2012, PlaintifF sent a document to UC Davis Health System Investigations
o
o
13 Coordinator Danesha Nichols, who was the investigator For both the allegations oFmisconduct made
— O
H >?; OO O
2:5:; 14 against PlaintifF, as well as Plaintiffs own complaint oF retaliation. The document PlaintifF sent Ms.
ov ov ^ ^
oi < 6 VO ^ I J Nichols was titled "Welcome to Romania" and contained a slide-show oF photographs depicting
^ OV
16 people openly deFecating in the street, and a couple having sex in a car with a young child in the
OH c (d ( - tL.
o
17 backseat watching. (UMF No. 6).
18 PlaintifF was given a disciplinary 10-day suspension in May 2012 based on the
19 aForementioned findings of the investigation and his Failure to adhere to specific instmctions during
20 the investigation to refrain From sending emails to witnesses. (SAC at ^ 77; see also Witcher Deck
21 TI 11; Exh. M May 11, 2012 correspondence From Charles Witcher to PlaintifF regarding Notice oF
22 Intent to Suspend.) On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff was placed back on investigative leave after
23 retuming to work due to further discriminatory emails he sent. (SAC at ^ 79; Witcher Decl. at ^ 13;
24 Exh. N.)
25 D. September 2011 Investigation Confirms Additional Discriminatory and Intimidating
26 Conduct bv Plaintiff
27 A further investigation was conducted regarding additional allegations oF wrongfiil conduct
28 by PlaintiFf. Specifically, it was alleged that: (1) the April 27, 2012 emails Plaintiff sent to Ms.
{02413385.DOCX} 7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Nichols regarding the investigation report and disciplinary action, which included the slideshow
2 entitled "Welcome to Romania," were offensive and harassing; and (2) during the investigation into
3 these allegations. Plaintiff disseminated other email communications to coworkers and various
4 individuals throughout the University of Califomia system expressing his disagreement with the
investigation report and disciplinary action. It was alleged that Plaintiffs communications were
dismptive and discriminatory in nature; and abusive and harassing against PUTNEY and
7 DANILIUC (lOE, Exh. Y Oropeza Decl. 1| 4; Exh. W Seifert Decl. ^ 4; Exh. X, September 20,2012
8 investigation report.)
9 On September 20, 2012, UNFVERSITY investigators Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert
10 issued an investigative report sustaining the following allegations: (1) Plaintiffs email
11 communications regarding DANILIUC's national origin constitute dismptive and intimidating
12 behavior in violation of UNIVERSITY Policy 1616 - Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace;
o
o
CN
B 13 and (2) Plaintiffs email communications regarding DANILIUC's national origin, and other
H •= S - vo
f—I (/3 1/^ oo O
employees of Romanian descent were in violation of UNIVERSITY Policy PPM 380-15 - StafF
o «°^2:P; 14
> U ov Ov - .
Complaints oF Discrimination. (UMF No. 7).
D</. 18 Notice oF Intent to Dismiss was based on the UNIVERSITY'S investigative findings issued in
17
19 September 2012. (Id.)
20 PlaintiFF challenged the proposed termination through the Skelly process, but the termination
21 was upheld, eFfective December 7, 2012. The termination letter made it clear that PlaintifF was
22 terminated For violating UNIVERSITY policy, including the Principles oFCommunity and policies
23 prohibiting discrimination and violence and hate incidents in the workplace, as detailed in the
24 September 2012 investigation findings. (See UMF Nos. 8-9). Plaintiff remained on investigatory
25 leave until the termination became effective. (SAC at T| 81.)
26 In March 2013, Plaintiff filed an intemal whistleblower retaliation complaint with the
27 UNFVERSITY alleging harassment and retaliation culminating in his termination. (SAC at ^ 97.)
28 (UMF No. 10).
{0241338S.DOCX} 8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
IV.
PLAINTIFF'S HARASSMENT CLAIM (THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION) FAILS BECAUSE
PLAINTIFF ADMITS HE WAS NOT HARASSED AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
DECISIONS DO NOT OUALIFY AS HARASSING ACTS
To prevail on his harassment claim. Plaintiff must prove: (1) he belongs to a protected class;
(2) he was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on his protected status;
(4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of
employment and create an abusive working environment; and (5) respondeat superior. (Jones v.
Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1377.) PlaintiFf cannot
10 satisfy multiple elements of his claim.
11 A. Issue 1: Plaintiff Admits He was Not Harassed Based on a Protected Status
12 PlaintifF pleads in his SAC that he was harassed based on his national origin/ancestry and
13 medical condition/disability. (SAC ^ 120). However, in responding to discovery regarding the basis
— VO
(-H c/3 oo o
—. 14 of his harassment claim, Plaintiff admitted that he "does not claim harassment based on his national
ON
<^
oi < ON ON 15 origin or ancestry" and that "Defendant did not hunt down PlaintifF in 2006-2009 and 2011-2012
a\ ON
16 because oF PlaintifF [^/c] mental or medical condition." (UMF No. 16; Exh. B Goulding Deck, ^ 7;
o1 S- t i .
P c/3
o
17 Exh. E Plaintiffs First Amended Response to DeFendant Regents oF the University oF CaliFomia
18 Special Interrogatories, Set One, Responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 4.)
19 PlaintifF then went on in discovery to admit: "DeFendant did not harass PlaintifF." (Id.) PlaintifF
20 has not asserted harassment based on any other protected status. (See generally SAC) ThereFore,
21 based on Plaintiffs own admissions, his claim For harassment Fails because "DeFendant did not
22 harass PlaintiFf and any harassment that did occur was not based on any protected characteristic.
23 B. Issue 2: Personnel Management Activities Do Not Oualifv as Actionable Harassment
24 "The law prohibiting harassment is violated '[w]hen the workplace is permeated with
25 discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult that is 'sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the
26 conditions oF the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.'" (Caldera v.
27 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 31, 38-39.) The harassing
28 conduct must be "severe or pervasive." (Id.)
{02413385.DOCX} 9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Not just any acts constitute actionable harassment. "'[HJarassment consists oF conduct
2 outside the scope oF necessary job perFormance." (Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686,
3 706-07, as modified (Feb. 10, 2010) (quoting Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 645-47 (fiirther
4 citation omitted.)) It is "conduct presumably engaged in For personal gratification, because oF
5 meanness or bigotry, or For other personal motives." (Id.)
6 Personnel management activities, as a matter oF law, do not constitute actionable harassing
7 acts. "[C]ommonly necessary personnel management [. . .] actions [. . .] do not come within the
8 meaning oFharassment [...] These actions may retrospectively be Found discriminatory iFbased on
9 improper motives, but in that event the remedies provided by the FEHA are those For discrimination,
10 not harassment[.]"' (Id. (emphasis added).)
11 According to the allegations in PlaintiFf s SAC, his harassment cause of action is based on
12 personnel management activities. Specifically, he cites the Fact that he was investigated For policy
o
o
CN
13 decisions and denied the "rights to retum to work." (SAC ^ 120, 123, 125; see Exh. V PlaintiFf s
B 'r>
— VO
(-1 V3 1/-, 00 o
O u"^ — ^ 14 Retaliation or InterFerence Complaint pursuant to PPM 380-17 signed March 6, 2013, pp. 2-3; see
CN f N
Ov ov
oi< 6 vd vd 15 also UMF No. 10.) Those are personnel management activities that do not qualify as harassing acts.
Ov ov
211 16 The appropriate remedy For that conduct under the FEHA is a claim For discrimination, not
o 17 harassment. (Roby, supra, 47 Cal.4th at 706-07.)
18 ThereFore, Plaintiffs harassment cause of action fails because personnel management
21 Even if the personnel management decision were actionable as harassment, which they are
22 not, those decisions were made for legitimate reasons. PlaintifF admits that he made derogatory
23 comments in the workplace about Jews, AFrican-Americans, Hispanics, and/or homosexuals; that
24 he was suspended and reassigned based on the UNIVERSITY'Sfindingsthat he violated UC Davis
25 Health System Policy 1616, and the Principals oF Community; and that his conduct created a hostile
26 work environment in the Central Plant. (UMF Nos. 1, 4-9, 11-12, 14-15; Goulding Deck, ^ 6; Exhs.
27 C and D, RFA Set One, No. 4-5.) He also admits that he was suspended and terminated as result oF
28 multiple violations oF UNIVERSITY policies prohibiting ethnic discrimination and hate incidents
{02413385.DOCX} 10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 in the workplace. (UMF Nos. 1,4-9, 11-12, 14-15)
2 ThereFore, For the reasons set Forth above, summary adjudication oF PlaintiFf s harassment
3 cause oF action should be granted.
4 V.
5 PLAINTIFFIS CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT.
6 DISCRIMINATION. AND RETALIATION (THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION) FAILS
7 BECAUSE THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
8 Plaintiffs Third Cause of Action also includes a claim for failure-to-prevent harassment,
9 discrimination and retaliation under the FEHA. Specifically, he alleges the UNIVERSITY Failed to
10 fijlfill its duty to take all reasonable and necessary steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and
11 retaliation from occurring in the workplace.
12 Employers cannot be liable For Failing to prevent harassment, discrimination or retaliation
o
o
CN
B tri
CN
13 without plaintiffs first proving that they suFFered underlying harassment, discrimination or
'3 00 VO
c/3 ly^ oo o
o ov
rn 14 retaliation. (Kelley v. The Conco Companies (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 191, 208 (affirming summary
veni
Ov
CA
CN r j
Ov Ov
oi < o vd vd 15 adjudication on a failure to prevent harassment claim because plaintifF Failed to prove underlying
c o\ as
a>
livers
ram
16 claim).) Plaintiffs claim Fails For this very reason. He caimot prevail on any underlying claim For
EL:
IS
Dc CO
o 17 harassment, discrimination or retaliation. Even iF he could, DeFendant took all reasonable steps
18 necessary to prevent that conduct.
19 A. Issue 4: PlaintifPs Failure-to-Prevent Harassment Cause of Action Fails Because He
20 Cannot Prove an Underlying Claim of Harassment
21 PlaintifF cannot prevail on his underlying claim For harassment For the reasons set Forth above
22 in Section FV and hereby incorporated by reference. (UMF Nos. 1, 4-9, 11-12, 14-17.) ThereFore,
23 his Failure-to-prevent harassment cause oF action also necessarily Fails. (Kelley, 196 Cal.App.4th at
24 208.)
25 B. Issue 5: PlaintifPs Failure-to-Prevent Discrimination Cause of Action Fails Because He
26 Cannot Prove an Underling Claim of Discrimination
27 1. PlaintifF Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case of Discrimination
28 To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the FEHA, PlaintifF must show: (1)
{0241338S.DOCX} 11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
he was a member oF a protected class; (2) he was perForming competently in the position he held;
(3) he suFfered an adverse employment action; and (4) some other circumstances suggesting a
discriminatory motive. (Guz v. Bechtel National Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 355.) At the prima
Facie stage, PlaintifF must offer evidence showing the UNIVERSITY suspended and terminated him
because of his protected characteristic. (Id.) PlaintifF cannot meet this burden because there is
absolutely no evidence oF a discriminatory motive.
Here, the undisputed evidence based on PlaintiFf s own admissions is that he was not
suspended or terminated because oF a protected characteristic. PlaintiFF admits he was suspended and
terminated because he violated UNIVERSITY policies prohibiting discrimination and hate incidents
10 in the workplace. (UMF Nos. 1, 4-9, 11-12, 14-17). ThereFore, he cannot prove discrimination
11 because he cannot carry his prima Facie burden oF proving the UNFVERSITY suspended and
12 terminated him because oF a protected characteristic.
o
o
CN 2. The REGENTS Had a Legitimate Non-Discriminatory Reason For Disciplining
13
CN
00 — PlaintifF and Terminating His Employment —Admitted Policy Violations
oo vo
• ov
o Even assuming, arguendo, that PlaintifF could meet his prima Facie burden, the burden then
< Ov ^ 14
u W Ov
1/3
S 15
ov Ov
simply shifts to the UNIVERSITY to ofFer evidence oF a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason For
p< < u ^ 16 its employment decisions. (Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1004.)
tL.
o 17 An employer's legitimate reasons "need not necessarily have been wise or correct." (Slatkin v. Univ.
18 of Redlands (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1157.) All that matters is that the employer's reasons are
19 Facially unrelated to plaintiffs protected status. (Id., at 1157-58.)
20 Employers meet their burden if they make personnel decisions based on information obtained
21 in an investigation even if that information tums out to be false or incorrect. (Wills v. Superior Court
22 (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 143, 171-72.)
23 Here, Plaintiff admits the UNIVERSITY investigated allegations against him and that those
24 investigations confirmed that he violated UNIVERSITY policies prohibiting discrimination and hate
25 incidents in the workplace. (UMF Nos. 1, 4-9, 11-12, 14-17). He ftirther admits that the
26 UNIVERSITY suspended and terminated him For those violations - not For any discriminatory
27 reasons. (Id.)
28 Ill
{02413385.DOCX} 12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
3. PlaintifF Cannot Show Pretext
Once a deFendant sets Forth evidence oFa legitimate reason For the adverse action, the burden
shifts back to plaintiFF to "present specific detailed Factual evidence" demonstrating that the reason
proffered by the defendant "was pretext and that the actual reason was discriminatory." (Nazir v.
United Airlines, Inc (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 243, 271.) Again, Plaintiff cannot carry his burden
here because he admits the UNIVERSITY suspended and terminated him because he violated
UNIVERSITY policies prohibiting discrimination and hate incidents in the workplace. (UMF Nos.
1,4-9, 11-12, 14-16; Goulding Deck, Exhs. C and D, RFA Set One, No. 11-18).
^h rv]
0\ ov
vd vd
Ov Ov
15 engaged in protected activity; (2) the UNIVERSITY subjected him to an adverse employment
01 < 6
16 action; and (3) there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action. (Flait v.
iti t - tu
17 North American Watch Corp., (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 467, 476.) Courts analyze retaliation claims
211
18 under the same burden-shifting approach as discrimination claims, discussed above. (Yanowitz v.
19 L'Oreal USA, Inc (2005) 36 Cak4th 1028, 1042.)
20 The initial prima Facie burden is on PlaintifF to prove that he engaged in protected activity,
21 he suffered an adverse action and there is some evidence of a causal connection between the two.
22 (Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042.) Plaintiff cannot meet that burden
23 because the undisputed evidence is that the UNIVERSITY disciplined him because of his admitted
24 history of violating UNIVERSITY policies prohibiting ethnic discrimination and hate incidents in
25 the workplace. (UMF Nos. 1, 4-9, 11-12, 14-15).
26 2. The REGENTS Had Legitimate. Non-Retaliatory Reasons for the Adverse Actions
27 and PlaintifF Cannot Prove Pretext
28 Even assuming, arguendo, that PlaintifF can show a prima Facie case oF retaliation, then the
{02413385.DOCX} 13
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
burden simply shifts to the UNIVERSITY to oFFer evidence oF legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons
For taking the adverse actions. {Yanowitz, 36 Cal.4th at 1042.) That burden is met easily here as
PlaintifF admits the UNIVERSITY disciplined him because oF his history oF violating
UNIVERSITY policies prohibiting ethnic discrimination and hate incidents. (UMF Nos. 1, 4-15;
Goulding Deck, \ 6; Exhs. C and D, RFA Set One, Nos. 11-13-16-18).
PlaintifF also cannot carry his burden to prove pretext For the same reason - he admits the
UNIVERSITY disciplined him For legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons. (UMF Nos. 1, 4-9, 11-12,
14-15; Goulding Deck, \ 6; Exhs. C and D, RFA Set One, Nos. 11-13-16-18.) (Serri v. Santa Clara
University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 865 (Plaintiffs burden is to produce "substantial evidence
10 that the [deFendant's] reason For terminating [him] were pretextual or False or used merely to veil an
11 unlawful act.").)
12 ThereFore, Plaintiffs Failure-to-prevent retaliation cause oF action also Fails because he
o
o
fN
(N
13 cannot prove an underlying claim oF retaliation.
00 —
v o OO
• ov 14 D.
o Issue 7: Plaintiffs Failure-to-Prevent Cause of Action Fails Because the UNIVERSITY
< Ov
u <-> ov
— >O VD ^ 15 Took Reasonable Steps to Prevent Harassment. Discrimination and Retaliation
oi <
Even iF PlaintifF could establish underlying claims For harassment, discrimination, or
li ^ 16
tL,
OH •£
3 17 retaliation, his Failure-to-prevent claim still Fails because he cannot prove the UNIVERSITY Failed
18 to take reasonable steps to prevent such unlawful conduct. Indeed, PlaintifF has been unable to
19 articulate what fiuther preventative steps the UNIVERSITY should have taken. The UNIVERSITY
20 adopted and implemented policies prohibiting harassment, discrimination and retaliation. (UMF
21 Nos. 11-12). It also investigates and takes corrective action when there are reports oF any such
22 conduct. (Id.)
23 ThereFore, summary adjudication oF PlaintiFf s Failure-to-prevent cause oF action is
24 appropriate.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
{02413385.DOCX} 14
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 VI.
2 PLAINTIFF'S RETALIATION CLAIMS UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE S 8547 AND
3 HEALTH & SAFETY CODE S 1278.5 FAIL BECAUSE HE ADMITS THAT HIS
4 DISCIPLINE AND TERMINATION WERE BASED ON HIS WRONGFUL CONDUCT
5 Plaintiffs Fourth Cause oF Action is For retaliation under Govemment Code § 8547. His Fifth
6 Cause oF Action is For retaliation under Health & SaFety Code § 1278.5. Both are analyzed under the
same generalframework.PlaintifF must establish a prima Facie case oF retaliation. IF he does so, the
burden then shifts to the UNIVERSITY to offer evidence of a legitimate reason for taking adverse
actions against Plaintiff. That then shifts the burden back to Plaintiff to prove pretext.
10 A. Issue 8; Plaintiff Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case of Retaliation Under
11 Government Code S 8547 or Health & Safety Code S 1278.5
o
12 1. Plaintiff Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case of Retaliation Under Govemment Code
o
<N
" CN
13 § 8547
— vo
t C^ " oo o
14 To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Govemment Code § 8547 et seq., PlaintifF
ON ON
Qi< 6 SO ^ 15 must prove: (1) he made a protected disclosure/communication; (2) his communication demonstrated
III ^-1
16 an intent to disclose improper govemmental activity or a condition that could significantly threaten
oil 17 the health or saFety oF employees or the public; (3) he made the disclosure in good Faith For the
3 c«
o 18 purpose oF remediating the health or saFety condition; (4) the UNIVERSITY took an adverse action
vo
19 against him; and (5) Plaintiffs protected disclosure was a contributing Factor in the UNIVERSITY'S
20 decision to take the adverse action. (CACI 4601; Gov Code § 8547.2(c), (e).)
21 Here, even iF PlaintiFf s complaints constituted protected disclosures, he cannot satisfy his
22 burden to prove those complaints were a contributing Factor in the disciplinary actions taken against
23 him. As set Forth above, the undisputed evidence based on PlaintiFf s own admissions is that the
24 UNIVERSITY took the disciplinary actions against PlaintifF because oF PlaintiFf s history of
25 violating UNIVERSITY policies, not because oF any complaints PlaintifF made. (Goulding Decl, ^
26 6; Exhs. C and D, RFA Set One, Nos. 11-18.) ThereFore, PlaintiFF caimot establish a prima Facie
27 case oF retaliation under Govemment Code § 8547 et. seq.
28 Ill
{02413385.DOCX} 15
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
2. Plaintiff Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case of Retaliation Under Health & Safety
Code § 1278.5
PlaintifF caimot establish a prima Facie case under Health & SaFety Code § 1278.5 because
he did not work at a covered "health Facility" and the UNIVERSITY did not take any actions against
Plaintiff because Plaintiff engaged in protected activity.
i. Plaintiff Did Not Work at a Protected Health Facility
The purpose oFHealth & SaFety Code § 1278.5 is to "encourage medical staFFand patients
to notify govemment entities oF 'suspected unsaFe patient care and conditions.'" (Mendiondo v.
Centinela Hosp. Medical Center 521 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir. 2008); see Fahlen v. Sutter Central
10 Valley Hospitals (2014) 58 Cal.4th 655, 667.) Thus, the statute only prohibits limited Forms oF
11 retaliation at a "health Facility." (Health & SaFety Code § 1278.5(b).) Health & SaFety Code § 1250
12 defines "health Facility" as a Facility "that is organized, maintained, and operated For the diagnosis,
o
o
CN
B -o 13 care, prevention, and treatment oF human illness, physical or mental, including convalescence and
fc J ~ - 14 rehabilitation and including care during and after pregnancy [.]" (Health & SaFety Code, § 1250.)
H oo o
o « <^ 2 p;
— > w Ov ov 15 PlaintifF did not work at any such Facility. He worked at an auxiliary work Facility at the
Pi < o' vd vd
16 Central Plant and later in the HVAC/Plumbing Shop. The "diagnosis, care, prevention and treatment
o 17 oFhuman illness" is not perFormed at either one oFthose locations. (Witcher Deck, ^12.) ThereFore,
m
18 Health & SaFety Code § 1278.5 is inappHcable.
19 ii. The REGENTS Did Not Take Any Adverse Actions Against Plaintiff Because
20 Of Protected Activity
21 PlaintifF also cannot establish the remaining prima Facie elements For retaliation under Health
22 and SaFety Code § 1278.5. To establish a prima Facie case, he must prove: (1) PlaintifF was an
23 employee; (2) PlaintiFF presented a grievance or complaint to DeFendant related to the quality oF
24 care, services, or conditions at DeFendant's health care Facility or initiated, participated, or
25 cooperated in an investigation/administrative proceeding related to the quality oF care, services, or
26 conditions at DeFendant's health care Facility that was carried out by an entity or agency responsible
27 For accrediting or evaluating the Facility or its medical staFF; (3) DeFendant took an adverse action
28 against PlaintifF; and (4) PlaintiFf s whistleblowing action was a substantial motivating reason For
{024I3385.DOCX} 16
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 the adverse action. (CACI 4606; see Jadwin v. County ofKern 610 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1144 (E.D. Cal.
2 2009) (citing Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir.2008).)
3 PlaintifF did not engage in protected activity under Health and SaFety Code § 1278.5 because
4 he did not make a complaint regarding patient saFety or the care provided to patients. Even iFhe did,
5 there is no evidence that any such complaints "substantially motivated" the UNIVERSITY'S
6 disciplinary actions. Indeed, the undisputed evidence based on Plaintiffs own admissions is that
7 his history of violating UNIVERSITY policies prohibiting ethnic discrimination and hate incidents
8 resulted in his termination. (UMF Nos. 1, 4-9, 11-12, 14-15; Goulding Decl. \ 6, Exhs. C and D,
9 RFA Set One, No. 11-13, 16-18). Accordingly, he cannot meet his prima Facie burden.
10 B. Issue 9: The UNIVERSITY had Legitimate. Non-Retaliatorv Reasons for the Adverse
11 Actions Taken Against Plaintiff
12 IF Plaintiff meets his prima Facie burden under Govemment Code § 8547 or Health & SaFety
O
O
fN
U w-i
rM
13 Code § 1278.5, then the burden shifts to the UNIVERSITY to offer evidence oF legitimate reasons
vo
Sui
IT
00
»n oo
o
O oT ov 14 For taking the adverse actions. The burden then shifts back to PlaintiFF to prove pretext. (Armin v.
venu
U Ov r-'
ento, CA
CN CN
Ov Ov
15 Riverside Community Hospital (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 810, 830 ("a prima Facie showing . . . shifts
iity A
vd vd
o^ ov
i FT 1
< 16 the case into the classic McDonnell Douglas burden-oF-prooF ping pong [. . . wherein] the hospital
acn
O u.
niv
3 c/)
o
in
17 would [have to show . . . ] the reason For the [adverse action] was [...] legitimate.").) Once rebutted,
m
18 the presvunption oF retaliation disappears and the plaintifF must show the deFendant's reasons were
19 pretextual. (Id; Gov. Code, § 8547.8(d)-(e).)
20 Again, here, the undisputed evidence based on PlaintiFf s own admissions is that the
21 UNIVERSITY had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons For taking the actions it took. PlaintiFF admits
22 the UNIVERSITY disciplined him because oF his history oF violating UNIVERSITY policies
23 prohibiting ethnic discrimination and hate incidents. (UMF Nos. 4-9, 11-15; Goulding Decl. H 6,
24 Exh C and D, RFA Set One, No. 11-13, 16-18).
25 C. Issue 10: Plaintiff Cannot Prove Pretext
26 As set Forth above, the UNIVERSITY'S evidence oF legitimate reasons For taking
27 disciplinary action shifts the burden to Plaintiff to prove pretext. That requires that Plaintiff submit
28 "substantial evidence" proving the UNIVERSITY'S reasons for taking disciplinary action are "false
{02413385.DOCX} 17
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
or used merely to veil an unlawful act." (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th
830, 865.) Plaintiff cannot meet that burden because his own admissions are the evidence
establishing that the UNIVERSITY had legitimate reasons for the actions it took. PlaintifF admitted
that the UNIVERSITY took the adverse action because of his history of violating the
5 UNIVERSITY'S policies prohibiting ethnic discrimination and hate incidents. (UMF Nos. 4-9, 11-
6 15; Goulding Decl. H 6, Exh C and D, RFA Set One, No. 11-13, 16-18).
7 Based on the foregoing, the Court should grant DeFendant's Motion For Summary
8 Adjudication oF Plaintiff s Fourth Cause of Action for retaliation under Govemment Code § 8547
9 and Fifth Cause of Action for retaliation under Health & Safety Code § 1278.5.
10 VII.
11 PLAINTIFF CANNOT RECOVER ON HIS SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
12 "MISCLASSIFICATION^'
o
o
CN
CN
13 A. Issue 11: "Misclassification" is Not a Cause of Action
OO —
m 00
0 u Ov T f
14 Plaintiffs Seventh Cause oF Action is simply titled as "Non-Exempt Wage and Hour." His
I>0 g < rM
— >U ov
5 15 specific allegation is that the UNIVERSITY misclassified him as an exempt employee. (SAC, HI 56.)
01 < Ov
O .>
16 However, there is no cause oF action For "misclassification." A failure to properly classify an
CO
3
o employee may result in other wage-and-hour violations, but PlaintifF does not allege any such
17
violations.^ He simply asserts a claim for "misclassification." Therefore, his Seventh Cause of
18
Action should be dismissed.
19
B. Issue 12: Plaintiff Was Properly Classified as Exempt
20
Moreover, Plaintiff was properly classified as an exempt employee. IWC Wage Order No.
21
4-2001 "specifies that its provisions goveming minimum wages, overtimes wages, and other
22
employment conditions do not apply to employees falling within exemptions for persons employed
23
in administrative, executive, or professional capacities, as defined in the wage order[.]" (Zelasko-
24
Barrett V. Brayton-Purcell, LLP (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 582, 585-86.) hi the present case. Plaintiff
25
qualifies for an exemption as a professional employee.
26
27 ' Even had Plaintiff pled other wage-and-hour violations, they would not be viable as the majority of the wage-and-hour
laws do not apply to public employees. (See California Correctional Peace Officers' Assn. v State of California (2010)
28 188 Cal.App.4th 646,651-54; Cal.Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 1(B).) Pursuant to Govemment Code § 811.2, "the
Regents of the University of Califomia" is specifically included within the definition of "[p]ublic entity."
{02413385.DOCX} 18
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 An employee is exempt under the "professional exemption" as long as the following are
2 satisfied:
(a) The employee is either "primarily engaged in the practice of... engineering" or primarily
3
engaged in a leamed profession such as "work requiring knowledge of an advanced type in
4 a field or science or leaming customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized
intellectual instmction and study";
5 (b) The employee customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment;
6 and
(c) The employee eams a monthly salary of no less than double minimum wage.
7
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, FWC Wage Order No. 4-2001.) (3)(b)-(d).)
8
PlaintifF undoubtedly satisfied those requirements. He perFormed engineering services in the
9
position oF Associate Development Engineer. In that role, he was responsible For "the operation,
10
maintenance, service, and repair oFbuilding, grounds, machinery, and utility systems at UCDMC."
11
(See Witcher Deck, ^ 2; Exh. A2.) Those duties required regular exercise oF discretion and
12
o
o independent judgment regarding how to repair and maintain the UNIVERSITY'S systems. (UMF
CN
13
CN
OO — vo Nos. 1-3; Witcher Deck, ^ 2.) In that role, he eamed a salary oF $70,000, which is well over double
* n OO
o - Ov -T § 14
u minimum wage. (UMF Nos. 1-3; Witcher Deck, T| 2; Exh. K January 30, 2009 settlement
in CN
—> S 15
Oi <
Ov agreement.)
^ 16
tL. Accordingly, PlaintiFF was properly classified as exempt.
3
17 C. Issue 13: Plaintiff Executed A Settlement Agreement for Claims Related to his
18 Classification
19 Additionally, PlaintifF actually confirmed his classification as an exempt an employee and
20 released associated claims in exchange for a monetary payment.
21 On January 30, 2009, PlaintifF entered into a Settlement Agreement with the UNFVERSITY.
22 (Goulding Decl. H 6, Exh. C, RFA Set One, No. 6; Exh. D Court's final ruling on UNIVERSITY'S
23 Motion to deem Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.) The Agreement provides, in part:
24
Upon execution oF this Agreement, the University will complete an upward reclassification
25 For Mr. Waszczuk's job classification reclassifying him from CoGen Operator to Associate
Development Engineer. Said upward reclassification is contingent on Mr. Waszczuk
26 executing a new position description, reflecting the new classification as Associate
27 Development Engineer[....]
Said upward reclassification to Associate Development Engineer will result in a
28 salary increase to $70,000.00 per year[. . . .] Mr. Waszczuk acknowledges and understands
that an Associate Development Engineer position is an exempt (salaried) position that is not
{02413385.DOCX} 19
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
eligible For terms and conditions that are available to non-exempt (hourly) employees
1
including, but not limited to overtime pay, shift diFFerential pay and weekend diFFerential
2 pay[. . . .]
Mr. Waszczuk hereby Forever releases and discharges the University and its Regents,
3 [. . .] employees, and all other representatives (hereafter collectively referred to as
4 ("University Releasees"), from any and all causes oF action, judgments, liens, indebtedness,
damages, losses, claims (including attorneys' Fees and costs), liabilities and demands oF
5 whatsoever kind and character that Mr. Waszczuk may now or hereafter have against
University Releasees arising from incidents or events occurring on or beFore the EfFective
6 Date oFthis Agreement. (Witcher Deck, ]| 7; Exh. K January 30,2009 settlement agreement.)
Pursuant to the position description PlaintifF signed. Plaintiffs duties as an Associate
Development Engineer involved the operation, maintenance, service, and repair oF building,
grounds, machinery, and utility systems at UCDMC. PlaintifF also had primary responsibility For the
10 operation and maintenance oF the central plant. (See Witcher Deck, ^ 2; Exh. A2 signed position
11 description.) Sixty percent oF the position's functions included:
12
o
o A-1 Provide monitoring, troubleshooting, testing and assist in the calibration oF Building
fN
B vn 13 Management System (BMS) components. BMS components include hardware, software and
H c/3 oo o mechanical devices that are a critical utility, instrumental to the support oF UCDMC Facilities
o « 2: 14 operations. [. . .]
y c < o< 15 A-2 Operate and maintain the BMS in a saFe and proficient manner providing UCDMC with
Pi < o' vd vd the above mentioned services while optimizing campus energy perFormance. [. . .]
e 15^ ^ A-3 Demonstrate proficiency in the operation and maintenance oF Energy Management
Systems, both Metasys and Andover.
17 A-4 Monitoring BMS includes the ability to acknowledge and perForm operational
18 adjustments as required to address condition alarms For electrical equipment, hydronic
equipment, HVAC equipment, medical gases, domestic water, and power generation
19 equipment.
A-5 Notify [. . .] staff and management required to respond to urgent and emergent
20 equipment, system anomalies utilizing department authorized means.
21 A-6 Produces specialized Trend Reports from the BMS (Metasys) System.
24 and/or mathematical engineering concepts, which fall within the ProFessional Exemption. (Witcher
25 Deck, 12.) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, FWC Wage Order No. 4-2001 (3)(b)-(d).)
26 In sum, PlaintiFf executed the Settlement Agreement and position description confirming that
27 these are his duties and that they qualify him as an exempt employee. In that Agreement, he
28 specifically released all associated claims. (Witcher Deck, TI^ 2, 7; Exh. K January 30, 2009
Settlement Agreement.) He Further "promise[d] never to file or cause oF be filed a lawsuit... to
{02413385.DGCX} 20
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
assert any Released Claim." (Witcher Deck, ^ 7; Exh. K January 30, 2009 Settlement Agreement.)
He now brings this action doing just that - challenging his classification as exempt. The terms oF the
Settlement Agreement prohibit such an action. ThereFore, the UNIVERSITY'S Motion should be
granted.
D. Issue 14: Plaintiff is Estopped from Having the Settlement Agreement Declared
Unenforceable Because He Accepted a Tangible Benefit Under the Agreement.
As discussed supra, PlaintifF executed a Settlement Agreement confirming his proper
classification as an exempt employee. PlaintifF received afinancialbenefit as part oF that Agreement.
(Goulding Decl. ^ 6, Exhs. C and D, RFA Set One, No. 6-9, and Court's final mling on
10 UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.) As a result, he is now
11 estopped From taking a different position. Otherwise, iF PlaintifF was permitted to pursue his current
o
12 misclassification claim then he would have received the financial benefit oFthe settlement payment
o
CN
B >r>
13 without being bound by the terms oF that Settlement Agreement.
' •= s 00 o
I 1/3 i n
1 14 It is tme that the wage and hour laws generally do not permit employees to just agree that
3 Ov t—
OS OV
fei< 6 ^ —
S 15 they are exempt. However, here, PlaintifF not only admits that he agreed that his exempt
" ON Ov
J ><
UJ <
16 classification was proper, but that he also received a significant monetary benefit in retum. (Goulding
&- c « f - tu
3
o
t/3 17 Decl. H 6, Exhs. C and D, RFA Set One, No. 6-9, and Court's final mling on UNIVERSITY'S Motion
18 to deem Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.)
19 "The doctrine oF equitable estoppel may estop a party from denying the enforceability oF a
20 contract." (Blix Street Records, Inc v. Cassidy (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 39, 50.) "'Estoppel is not
21 dependent on the potential merits oF a claim but depends on the manner in which a claim is raised
22 or not raised.'" (Id.) The elements oFequitable estoppel include: "(1) The party to be estopped has
23 engaged in blameworthy or inequitable conduct; (2) that conduct caused or induced the other party
24 to suffer some disadvantage; and (3) equitable considerations warrant the conclusion that the first
25 party should not be permitted to exploit the disadvantage he has thus inflicted upon the second
26 party." (City of Hollister v. Monterey Ins. Co. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 455, 488.)
27 All oF the elements are met here. PlaintifF engaged in the inequitable conduct oF accepting a
28 financial benefit in retum for agreeing to the job classification he now seeks to dispute. (Goulding
{02413385.DOCX} 21
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Decl. H 6, Exhs. C and D, RFA Set One, No. 6-9, and Court's final mling on UNIVERSITY'S Motion
to deem Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.) That agreement induced the UNIVERSITY to
pay significantfinancialcontributions to PlaintifF - a lump sum payment, as well as a salary increase.
(Goulding Decl. TI 6, Exhs. C and D, RFA Set One, No. 6-9, and Court's final mling on
UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.) Allowing PlaintifF to
pursue legal action challenging the exempt classification would be wholly inequitable as it would
result in PlaintifF receiving the benefit oF the bargain (significant financial payments) without
binding him to the agreement he made in exchange For those payments.
ThereFore, all three elements oF equitable estoppel are met and For that reason, PlaintifF
10 should be barred from pursuing a claim based on his purported misclassification as an exempt
11 employee.
12 VIII.
o
o
CN
13 PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF WRITTEN
— vo
H t/3 ? !00 o
0 ^"^ — ^ 14 CONTRACT FAILS BECAUSE HE CANNOT PROVE A PRIMA FACIE CASE AND HIS
cjv r~
CN <N
Ul< ov o
vd vd
15 EMPLOYMENT IS STATUTORY
01 < 6 Ov ov
-> X 16 Plaintiffs Sixth Cause oF Action is For breach oF contract. This claim must Fail because (1)
o ic «
f - ta.
3
o
t/3 17 he cannot satisfy the prima Facie elements; and (2) contract-based employment claims generally
>r>
m
18 cannot be asserted by public employees in CaliFomia.
19 A. Issue 15: Plaintiff Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case for Breach of Contract.
20 To recover For breach oF contract, a plaintiFF must prove the existence oF a contract, that
21 plaintifF perFormed the terms oF the contract, that deFendant breached the contract by Failing to do
22 something that was required or by doing something that was prohibited by the contract and that
23 plaintiFF was harmed by the deFendant's breach. (Acoustics, Inc. v. Trepte Construction Co. (1971)
24 14 Cal. App. 3d 887, 913; CACI 303.) For the plaintiFF to succeed on a breach oF contract action,
25 the record must contain suFficient evidence to support a finding in its Favor on each element oF the
26 claim. (BeckDevelopment Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal. App. 4'*' 1160,
27 1205.) Damages are not presumed to flow from the Fact that a party breached a contract. The
28 plaintifF must establish the causal connection between the breach and damages sought. (Civ. Code
{02413385.DOCX} 22
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 § 3300.)
2 Although unclear. Plaintiffs claim is seemingly based on his allegation that the
3 UNIVERSITY breached the Settlement Agreement the parties executed back in January 2009
4 through 4 purported acts: (1) placing PlaintifF on leave during investigations into his wrongdoing;
5 (2) the UNIVERSITY allegedly Failing to provide him with an exempt position; (3) the
6 UNIVERSITY allegedly breaching the non-disparagement provision in the Agreement; and (4)
7 breach oFthe implied covenant oF good Faith and Fair dealing. Each is discussed below.
8 1. Placement on Investigative Leave
9 PlaintifF first claims the UNFVERSITY breached the Agreement by placing him on
10 investigative leave while investigating allegations oFhis wrongdoing. (SAC, Til49.) Yet, there is
11 nothing in the Settlement Agreement prohibiting the UNIVERSITY from placing PlaintifF on
12 investigative leave. (See generally, Exh. K, January 30,2009 Settlement Agreement). As such, there
o
o
CN
B 'T, 13 is no breach.
H a g _ vo
H " 3 1/^ 00 o
p « 2: P; 14 2. Exempt Position
> l-J ov ov , _
0^ < o' vd VD I D PlaintifF next claims the UNIVERSITY breached the Agreement by purportedly Failing to
giigg 16 place him in an exempt position. (SAC, 11150.) Yet, the UNIVERSITY did place him in an exempt
D t .
O position, as set Forth above in Section VII, and incorporated herein by reference. (See UMF Nos. 1-
18 3). PlaintifF also released his right to pursue any claims based on his classification and is estopped
19 From bringing any such argument, again as set Forth above in Section VII and incorporated herein
20 by reFerence.
21 3. Non-Disparagement Provision
22 In his discovery responses, PlaintifF alleged that the UNIVERSITY breached the non-
23 disparagement provision oF the Settlement Agreement on a number oF occasions, specifically by
24 publishing the Following:
25 . 8/31/11-WITCHER'S Investigatory Leave Notice (Goulding Deck, 1 7, Exh. E
26 UNIVERSITY'S Special Interrogatories, Set One and PlaintiFf s First Amended
Response to UNIVERSITY'S Special Interrogatories, Set One, Response to Special
27 Interrogatory No. 30.)
. 8/31/11-An email from NICHOLS (Goulding Deck, H 7, Exh. E UNIVERSITY'S
28 Special Interrogatories, Set One and Plaintiffs First Amended Response to
UNIVERSITY'S Special Interrogatories, Set One, Response to Special Interrogatory
{02413385.DOCX) 23
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
No. 30.)
9/15/11-An "email letter" from Stephen Chilcott regarding Nichols' investigation
(Goulding Deck, 1 7, Exh. E UNFVERSITY's Special Interrogatories, Set One and
Plaintiffs First Amended Response to UNIVERSITY'S Special Interrogatories, Set
One, Response to Special Interrogatory No. 30.)
9/21/11 -A letterfromWITCHER extending Plaintiffs investigatory leave (Goulding
Deck, H 7, Exh. E UNIVERSITY'S Special Interrogatories, Set One and Plaintiffs
First Amended Response to UNIVERSITY'S Special Interrogatories, Set One,
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 30.)
12/5/11-Another email from WITCHER "in attempt to remove me from disability
without physician clearance." (Goulding Deck, H 7, Exh. E UNIVERSITY'S Special
Interrogatories, Set One and Plaintiffs First Amended Response to UNIVERSITY'S
Special Interrogatories, Set One, Response to Special Interrogatory No. 30.)
12/5/11-Nichols' investigation report regarding concems raised by PlaintifF.
(Goulding Deck, ^ 7, Exh. E UNIVERSITY'S Special Interrogatories, Set One and
10 Plaintiffs First Amended Response to UNIVERSITY'S Special Interrogatories, Set
One, Response to Special Interrogatory No. 30.)
11 2/8/12-Nichols' investigation report regarding allegations against PlaintifF (Goulding
Deck, H 7, Exh. E UNIVERSITY'S Special Interrogatories, Set One and Plaintiffs
o
12 First Amended Response to UNIVERSITY'S Special Interrogatories, Set One,
o
CN
13 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 30.)
B
i - i •=;
n r2 oo oo
— vo
O 4/13/12-Plaintiffs Notice of Intent to Suspend (Goulding Deck, ^ 7, Exh. E
f - i t/3 «ri 14 UNIVERSITY'S Special Interrogatories, Set One and PlaintifPs First Amended
CN f v i
O »>"=^ o v OV
15 Response to UNIVERSITY'S Special Interrogatories, Set One, Response to Special
vd vd
Ov ov Interrogatory No. 30.)
if!
a! < d
D
o
t/3
H u.
16
17
5/11/12-Plaintiffs Letter of Suspension (Goulding Deck, ^ 7, Exh. E
UNIVERSITY'S Special Interrogatories, Set One and Plaintiffs First Amended
Response to UNIVERSITY'S Special Interrogatories, Set One, Response to Special
m
211 ui^ 16 cooperating in any investigation conducted by a govemmental entity within the scope oF its authority
o
<n
m
17
18
The investigations in question were conducted by the UNIVERSITY in accordance with its
19
intemal policies and procedures. (Harwood Decl. 7-8; Exh. Z UCDHS Policy 1616; Exh. A l
20
UCDHS PPM section 380-15.) Pursuant to the CaliFomia Constittition, the UNFVERSITY is a
21
govemmental entity with fiill powers oF organization and govemment. (Miklosy v. Regents of
22
University of Califomia (2008) 44 Cal. 4'^ 876, 889-890 ["We have observed that 'Article IX,
23
section 9, grants the [R]egents broad powers to organize and govem the university and limits the
24
Legislature's power to regulate either the university or the [R]egents . . . The Regents may also
25
exercise quasi-legislative powers, subject to legislative regulation. Indeed, 'policies established by
26
the Regents as matters oF intemal regulation may enjoy a status equivalent to that oF state
27
statutes.'"].) As the vast majority oF the communications Plaintiff claims "disparaged" him were
28
part oF UNIVERSITY investigations into allegations raised by and against PlaintifF, the non-
{02413385 DOCX} 25
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
disparagement clause is inapplicable as it explicitly excludes participation in such investigations
from its purview.
//. Plaintiff admitted to engaging in the misconduct that formed the basis of the
disciplinary action against him
The communications PlaintiFF relies on For his allegation that the UNIVERSFTY disparaged
him were not disparaging given PlaintifF admits they were tme.
As set Forth above, PlaintifF admitted to engaging in misconduct and that the misconduct
was the basis For the investigations and the disciplinary action against him. (UMF Nos. 2-16;
Goulding Decl. TI 6 , Exhs. C and D, RFA Set One, Nos. 11-18, and Court's final mling on
UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted.) The misconduct
10 PlaintifF admitted to—including sending the "Welcome to Romania" slideshow to Nichols—
11 resulted in his termination, as well as the UC Davis Police Department issuing the bulletin regarding
o
12 PlaintiFf not being allowed on campus property. The UCDPD issued this bulletin on September 26,
o
(N
B
13 2012—the same day Plaintiff received the Notice of Intent to Terminate—out of concem that
t J S3oo — VO
O
; 14 Plaintiffs behavior was escalating and may result in harm to others. (Witcher Decl. ^ 15; Harwood
E-i t/3 1/^
O u":^ •* D
CN f v )
ov ov
pii < d vd vd 15 Decl. H 6.)
PI ov ov
J >< 16
la <
s- 2; The relevant provision of the Settlement Agreement states that the parties will "say nothing
oi
OH C M 17 that is or could be constmed as disparaging to the other " (Exh. K Settlement Agreement, section
3 1/3
O
18 19.) The term "disparaging" is not defined in the Agreement itself Merriam-Webster Dictionary
19 defines "disparaging" as "meant to belittle the value or importance of someone or something."
20 (Merriam-Webster Diet., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionarv/disparaeing) The intent of
21 the bulletin was not to belittle PlaintifF in any way; rather, the bulletin was an extra precaution taken
22 as a result oF the increasingly aggressive conduct PlaintifF has admitted to engaging in. (Harwood
23 Decl. H 6.) Moreover, there is nothing about the content oF the bulletin itselF that that is belittling.
24 (Exh. A3 Bulletin) It does not state why PlaintiFF is not allowed on the property or contain any
25 information about Plaintiffs employment. There is also nothing false about the bulletin and the
26 information contained therein. The same is tme for the other communications that Plaintiff contends
27 are disparaging. They were not meant to belittle Plaintiffs value or importance, but rather, were
28 part of the UNIVERSITY'S efforts to determine the truth of allegations made by and against
{02413385.DOCX} 26
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Plaintiff. While Plaintiff may not like the fact that the UNFVERSrTY was investigating allegations
2 against him and that he was ultimately terminated (For conduct he has admitted to engaging in, no
3 less). Plaintiffs dislike does not convert such actions into disparagement.
4 As such, PlaintifF cannot establish that any oF the aForementioned communications were
untme, damaging, or disparaging in any way.
The UNIVERSITY is immune from liability under Govemment Code sections
820.2 and 821.6
Even iF PlaintiFF could establish that the communications he cites "disparaging" were
actually untme or damaging to him in some way, the UNIVERSITY is immunefromliability.
Govemment Code section 820.2 states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, a
10 public employee is not liable For an injury resulting From his act or omission where the act oF
11 omission was the result oFthe exercise oFthe discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion
12 was abused." Section 821.6 provides: "A public employee is not liable For injury caused by his
o
o
CN
B 13 instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope oF his
H 3 g _ vo
H t/3 in oo o
o u E P; 14 employment, even iFhe acts maliciously and without probable cause."
> O <3v ov
e s 5; o15
Pi < o' vd ^
v Courts have routinely held that these sections immunize public employees From all liability
5^ associated with complaints and investigations into personnel issues. In Ross v. San Francisco Bay
OH C S
o 17 Area Rapid Transit District (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1507 the Court explained: "The gravamen oF
18 these claims is that, acting out oF discriminatory and retaliatory motives, BART employees initiated
19 and prosecuted administrative proceedings to discipline or discharge Ross based on accusations they
20 knew to be False. Such acts by employees are immune from liability imder section 821.6 .. .." (Id.
21 at 1516.)
22 That immunity extends to conduct associated with any investigation that leads to the
23 discipline. Kemmerer v. County ofFresno (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1426,1435 [an investigation is an
24 essential step in instituting disciplinary action and is thereFore "cloaked with immunity."].) The
25 employees are immune From liability For "any acts done to institute and prosecute disciplinary
26 proceedings." (Id. at 1437.) Given the UNIVERSITY employees involved in that conduct are
27 immune, so too is the UNFVERSITY. (Cal. Gov. Code § 815.2.)
28 ///
{0241338S.DOCX} 27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
IV. Communications related to litigation are absolutely privileged under Civil Code
§47
As set Forth above, PlaintiFf also asserts that the pleadings filed on behalf of the
UNIVERSITY From December 2014 through the present violate the non-disparagement provision
oF the Settlement Agreement. Although PlaintifF does not specify which statements within the
pleadings he contends are disparaging, this ambiguity is oF no matter because all oF the statements
within the pleadings are protected by absolute privilege.
7 Civil Code § 47, subdivision 2 provides, "A privileged publication or broadcast is one made
8 . . . In any (1) legislative or (2) judicial proceeding, or (3) in any other official proceeding authorized
9 by law . . . ." The courts have clarified and reaFfirmed that such statements are entitled to absolute
10 protection. "Publications that are made in the course oF a judicial proceeding are [a]bsolutely
11 privileged under the provisions oF subdivision 2 oFsection 47... .The absolute privilege attaches to
12 any publication that has a reasonable relation to the action and is permitted by law iF made to achieve
o
o
CN
B v>
13 the objects oFthe litigation " (Rader v. Thrasher, et al. (1972) 22 Cal. App. 3d 883, 887.)
— vo
00 O
o t/3 m
u " < — ^ 14 ThereFore, the UNIVERSITY is entitled to immunity from liability arising out oFdocuments
CN
- ^
Oi <
OV ov
6 \o vd 15 filed in this action.
S ^§ Ov tjv
2-11H ta. The immunity also extends to documents filed in response to Plaintiffs filing for
3 t/3
o
>n
17 unemployment benefits. Again, PlaintiFF does not specify which statements within the documents
18 he believes to be disparaging, but, as with the pleadings discussed above, this Failure is
19 inconsequential. The litigation privilege applies to any communication (1) made injudicial or quasi-
20 judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the
21 objects oFthe litigation; and (4) that [has] some connection or logical relation to the action. (Wang
22 V. Heck (2012) 203 Cal.App.4''' 677,683.) "The phrase, "judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings," has
23 been "defined broadly to include 'all kinds of truth-seeking proceedings,' including administrative,
24 legislative and other oFficial proceedings." (Id. at p. 684 [emphasis added].)
25 Providing inFormation to the Employment Development Department (EDD) when an
26 employee makes a claim For unemployment benefits is a tmth-seeking function. An employee is
27 only eligible For such benefits iF he or she is unemployed through no Fault oF his or her own. (See
28 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22, § 1256-1.) Thus, in requesting inFormationfroman employer regarding why
{02413385.DOCX} 28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 an employee claiming unemployment is no longer employed, the EDD is seeking to ascertain the
2 tmth behind an employee's termination.
3 The administrative proceeding in Wang v. Heck (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4* 677 [hereinafter
4 "Wang"] is analogous. In Wang, a physician was sued after certifying to the DMV that her patient,
5 who suFFeredfromepilepsy, was fit to drive. (Id. at p. 681.) The court determined that the litigation
6 privilege applied, as the certification Form was part oF an administrative proceeding (i.e. a "truth-
7 seeking" proceeding) wherein the DMV was deciding whether to reinstate driving privileges. (Id.
8 at pp. 685-686.) In the instant matter, and as set Forth above, the UNIVERSITY'S purpose, as
9 Plaintiffs employer and through UC Davis Unemployment Insurance Analyst Holly Sochor (who
10 was authorized to act on behalF oF the UNIVERSITY), was to provide tmthflil inFormation to the
11 EDD regarding Plaintiffs termination For purposes oFEDD's consideration in determining whether
12 to approve or deny PlaintiFf s unemployment insurance benefits. As in Wang, the inFormation was
o
o
CN
B v, 13 "logically connected" to the EDD proceeding because it was necessary For the EDD to have and
f - i t/3 m 00 '
O « <^ 2 I 14 review the inFormation in order to detemiine whether PlaintifF was eligible For unemployment
^ c ^ 0\
t/3 «3 (N
(N <N
> Ov
Oi< o S
s" ~ — 15 benefits. Based on the Foregoing, the litigation privilege is applicable to the EDD proceedings
^ 16 regarding Plaintiffs claim For unemployment insurance and, as such, the statements made to EDD
CL, C ta.
D t/3
o by the UNIVERSITY regarding the bases For Plaintiffs termination are absolutely privileged.
17
4. Implied Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing
18
PlaintifF also claims the UNIVERSITY breached the implied covenant oF good Faith and Fair
19
20 dealing provided under the Settlement Agreement. Under a good Faith and Fair dealing standard,
21 each party will not do anything to unFairly interFere with therightoF any other party to receive the
22 benefits oFthe contract. (Comunale v. Trades & General Ins. Co. (1958) 50 Cal. 2d 654, 658.) "[T]o
23 put it another way, the 'implied covenant imposes upon each party the obligation to do everything
24 that the contract presupposes they will do to accomplish its purpose.'" (Andrews v. Mobile Aire
25 Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4* 578, 589. [intemal citations omitted].)
26 PlaintifF received the benefits oF the Settlement Agreement he entered into with the
27 UNIVERSITY. He admitted that he received $13,500 and a salary increase pursuant to the
28 Agreement. (Goulding Decl. ^ 6, Exhs. C and D, RFA Set One, Nos. 7, 9, and Court's final mling
{02413385.DOCX} 29
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
on UNIVERSITY'S Motion to deem Request For Admissions, Set One, admitted.) Additionally,
PlaintifF was promoted to Associate Development Engineer pursuant to the Agreement and does not
dispute receiving this benefit either. (Goulding Decl. TI 7, Exh. E, PlaintiFf s Responses to Special
Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatory No. 35.) Plaintiffcontends that he was disparaged in violation
of the Agreement, but this is simply not the case for the reasons discussed above.
In sum, PlaintifF admitted that he received the benefits oF the Agreement he entered into with
the UNFVERSITY and, thereFore, has no basis For his claim that the UNIVERSITY breached the
implied covenant oF good Faith and Fair dealing.
9 B. Issue 16: Plaintiffs Breach of Contract Claim Must Further Fail Because Public
10 Employment in California is Held bv Statute Rather than Contract and Therefore
11 Contract-based Claims Cannot be Asserted bv Plaintiff.
o
12 PlaintifF seemingly argues that his Settlement Agreement guaranteed him certain
o
CN
CN
13 employmentrights.This assertion Fails because "[p]ublic employment in the State oF CaliFomia is
^ t ^ 00 —
>n oo
0 <S ov 14 held by statute, not by contract." Thus, contract-based employment claims cannot generally be
< ''v
t/3 §
ov
— >d ^ 15 asserted by UNrVERSFTY employees. (Lachtman v. Regents of the University of California (2007)
01 < 1 Ov
16 158 Cal.App.4th 187,207-08 citing Miller v. State ofCalifomia (1977) 18 Cak3d 808, 813) ("Since
ii 17 [plaintifF] was an employee oF the University oF CaliFomia, his employment was held by statute, not
18 by contract, and his remedies For breach were limited to those afforded by statute and the
19 University's rules and policy.")
20 To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that, by voluntarily executing the Settlement Agreement,
21 the UNIVERSITY created contractual obligations relating to his employment, this argument also
22 fails. For the UNIVERSITY to alter the statutory terms and conditions of an employee's
23 employment, the UNIVERSITY must have a policy that allows it to do so. (Kim v. Regents of
24 University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165 ("The [. . .] Regents have mlemaking and
25 policymaking power in regard to the University; their policies and procedures have the force and
26 effect of statute[.]"); Regents of University of California v. City of Santa Monica (1978) 77
27 Cal.App.3d 130, 135 ("policies established by the Regents as matters of intemal regulation may
28 enjoy a status equivalent to that of state statutes.") Plaintiff has shown no such policy exists.
{024I3385.DOCX} 30
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 IX.
2 PLAINTIFF'S EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION. FOR RESCISSION. MUST FAIL
3 BECAUSE RESCISSION IS NOT A STANDALONE CLAIM AND CONTRACT-BASED
4 EMPLOYMENT CLAIMS CANNOT BE ASSERTED BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
5 Plaintiffs Eight Cause of Action is titled "rescission-unlawful contract." Specifically, he
6 claims the provision in the Settlement Agreement that declares him as an exempt employee renders
7 the entire Agreement void as unlawful. (SAC ^ 159-165.) However, "rescission" is not a cause of
8 action; employment contract claims are not viable against the UNFVERSITY and Plaintiffs
9 argument is also contrary the terms of the Agreement.
10 A. Issue 17: Rescission is Not a Cause of Action
11 A cause of action is "the right to obtain redress for a harm suffered, regardless ofthe specific
12 remedy sought or the legal theory (common law or statutory) advanced." (Boeken v. Philip Morris
o
o
CN
B v,
13 USA, Inc (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 798 (fiirther citation omitted)). "The seeking of different kinds of
= CN
, 2 00 —
t/3 m 00 14 relief does not establish different causes of action." (Marden v. Bailard (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 458,
5^ uc <
<^ o2:
<
> '«-' Ov
pi< 15 465.)
Ilii ^ 1617
Ol c a
Here, Plaintiff labeled his Eighth Cause of Action "rescission-unlawful contract."
"Rescission," however, "is not a cause of action; it is a remedy." (Nakash v. Superior Court (1987)
D f/3
o
18 196 Cal.App.3d 59, 69-70 (citing Civ. Code § 1689.).) Rescission means to "restore the parties to
19 their former position[.]" (Young v. Flickinger (1925) 75 Cal.App. 171, 174.) Plaintiffs rescission
20 claim sounds in breach of contract. Thus, his cause of action for rescission must fail because
21 rescission is merely a remedy for breach of contract, not a cause of action.
22 B. Issue 18: Contract-Based Employment Claims are Not Viable Against the
23 UNIVERSITY
24 Plaintiffs "recission-unlawful contracf claim is fiirther barred because, as discussed supra
25 in Section VIII(B), contract-based employment claims cannot be asserted by UNFVERSITY
26 employees given their employment terms are set by statute, not contract. (Lachtman v. Regents of
27 the University ofCalifomia (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 187, 207.)
28 ///
{0241338S.DOCX} 31
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
C. Issue 19: PlaintifPs Rescission Argument is Contrary to the Terms ofthe Agreement
PlaintifPs argument that the exemption classification is unlawful and the Settlement
3 Agreement is void for that reason is also contrary to the terms of the Agreement. (See UMF Nos. 1 -
4 3). The Agreement contains a severability clause, which specifically states:
5
"Should it be determined by a court that any term of this Agreement is unenforceable, or
6 should any term of this Agreement be contraty to state or federal law or regulation, that term
shall be deemed to be deleted. However, the validity and enforceability of the remaining
7 terms shall not be affected by the deletion of the unenforceable term."
8 (Exh. K, January 30, 2019 Settlement Agreement)
9 Therefore, even if the provision declaring PlaintiFf s position as exempt was improper, the
10 appropriate remedy would be to deem that provision as deleted, not rescind the entire Agreement.
11 X.
12 CONCLUSION
o
o
CN
B w-> 13 Plaintiffs harassment cause of action fails because personnel management acfivities do not
H '3 _ vo
P &o Soo o
O t; 14 constitute "harassing" acts. Moreover, PlaintifF admitted that he was not harassed based on his
Oi < 6 15 alleged protected characteristics. Given there was no underiying harassment, PlaintifPs claim
a^ ON
III 16 failure-to-prevent harassment also fails.
2-11
O 17 PlaintifPs retaliation causes of action and failure-to-prevent discrimination and retaliation
D t«
18 causes of action fail because the undisputed evidence is that the UNrVERSITY took adverse action
19 against PlaintifF because PlaintiFf admittedly and repeatedly violated UNIVERSITY policies
20 prohibiting ethnic discrimination and hate incidents in the workplace, not because oF any unlawful
21 animus.
22 Plaintiffs "misclassification" cause of action fails because there is no such cause of action
23 and the undisputed evidence is that he was classified appropriately. The breach of contract claim
24 should be summarily adjudicated because there was no underlying breach and employment-based
25 contract claims are not viable by public employees.
26 Lastly, Plaintiffs "rescission" cause of action fails because there is no such cause of action
27 and Plaintiffs assertion is contrary to the terms of his Settlement Agreement.
28 For these reasons, the UNIVERSITY respectfully submits that summary judgment or, in the
{02413385.DOCX} 32
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 altemative, summary adjudication, should be granted.
2
3 Dated: May 13, 2021 PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
4
5
6 By.
Lindsay A. Goulding
7 Attomeys for Defendant
8
9
10
11
12
o
o
CN
B 13
H t« m
— vo
0 u'^ — ^
00 o
14
CN M
Ov OV
01 < d- vd vd
|3H
15
' ' c 0\ Ov
oi •I7
^ ^ 16
2-1 i ta.
3 t/3
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02413385.DOCX} 33
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, EM THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et aL
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
PROOF OF SERVICE
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, CaliFomia 95825.
XX BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
10 course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s) addressed
11 below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the attomey's
office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attomey being
12 served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the moming
o
o
and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the
CN
B vt
13 party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the
'3 So — vo moming and six in the evening.
t/3
. o
00 O
r~-
14 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
55 § < a ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package for
>
o Ov
'£ 15 collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the ovemight delivery
Oi < 9 Ov
carrier.
2ii^ ^ ta.
16 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I
faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
D t/3
o 17 machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
18 electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification address
listed below.
19
20 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
21 Lodi, CA 95242
JJW1980(a),LIVE.COM
22
23 I declare under penalty oF perjury under the laws oF the State oF CaliFomia that the Foregoing
is tme and correct. Executed at Sacramento, CaliFomia on May 13, 2021.
24
25
26
27 Virginia Yao
28
{02413385.DOCX} 34
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann, Clerk
Electronically
Electronically
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
on 6/18/2021
on 6/18/2021
by T. Eyster,
at 4:30:22
Deputy
PM Clerk
Re: Motion to Recall the Remittitur and the Motion for Judicial Notice in the
Waszczuk v. Regents of University of California, C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10,
2017)
Dear Clerk:
I am a Plaintiff representing myself in pro per in the above-captioned case. With
this letter, I am submitting, via TrueFiling, to the Court of Appeal Third Appellate
District (3DCA) a Motion to Recall the Remittitur declaration and exhibits in support of a
reinstatement of the appeal, or alternatively a modification of the 3DCA’s 10/10/2017
erroneous unpublished opinion in Case Waszczuk v. Regents of University of California,
C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017). The remittitur was issued by 3DCA on January
16, 2018.
In addition to the Motion to Recall the Remittitur, I am submitting a Motion for
Judicial Notice with the declarations and exhibits which should be judicially noticed. I
was forced by the Defendants in this case to file both motions because of the Defendants’
attorneys’ acts of criminal extortion and blackmail before the trial court. They are
notoriously and vexatiously relitigating dismissed cases via an anti-SLAPP motion
stemming from my Second Amended Complaint. The 3DCA affirmed the trial court’s
decision via the 10/10/2017 unpublished opinion, but the Defendants disregarded,
disrespected and defamed the trial court’s judgment and 3DCA unpublished opinion in an
Sincerely,
________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk - Plaintiff in Pro Per
Attached :
June 18, 2021 Meet and Confer Letter/ attachment addressed to the
Defenddants Attorney from Porter Scotts’ Law Firm Lindsay A. Goulding
Re: Copy of Motion to Recall the Remittitur and copy of the Motion
for Judicial Notice in the Waszczuk v. Regents of University of
California, C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017)
With this letter, I am submitting to your office copies of the Motion to Recall the
Remittitur and the Motion for Judicial Notice, along with copies of the Declaration in
Support and Waszczuk v. Regents of University of California, C079524 (Cal. Ct. App.
Oct. 10, 2017).
The 47 exhibits, together with copies of the Motion to Recall the Remittitur and
Motion for Judicial Notice, have been downloaded to the enclosed flash drive, in an effort
to be environmentally sustainable. Both enclosed motions include the same 46 exhibits,
-1-
Meet and Confer – Lindsay A. Goulding Re: Motion to Recall the Remittitur
with the exception of Exhibit 47, has been added to the Motion for Judicial Notice.
I noticed that your partner, Olatomiwa T. Aina, is no longer listed in the Porter
Scott directory. I was hoping to meet her in the courtroom of Department 43, but perhaps
Porter Scott’s management is worse than that of the University of California system,
prompting Ms. Aina to move to Fisher Phillips after her short tenure with Porter Scott.
Based on my understanding drawn from other instances of litigation against the Regents
of the University of California and other clients, Porter Scott deserves to be disqualified
by the Court, as there seems to be no other way to end Porter Scott’s attorneys’
gangsterism in the Courts of Law.
With this letter I am also asking you to voluntarily remove, without the Court’s
intervention, all materials related to the stricken by anti-SLAPP motion Causes of Action
(COAs), especially those materials related to the causes No. 3 & 4.
In addition to the above, I am asking you to remove from the court calendars the
examination of my wife in Department 43 scheduled for July 2, 2021. You only need to
ask me for documents. I have all of her records. As you read my Motion to Recall the
Remittitur, you will find that my wife gave me $25,000 to pay the anti-SLAPP legal fees
and costs, but no one who was listed on the Court Order dated June 7, 2018 wanted the
money apart from David Burkett and Daniel Bardzell, who wanted it for themselves ,
and Bardzell was not the one listed on 06/07/2018.
You are not liste as beneficiary of the Junes 7, 2018 Court order and you don’t
represent former three Porter Scott attorney Michael Pott , Douglas Ropel and David
Burkett or Marilyn Gamper. This is what you are doing is scam and extortion criminal
activities. These money don’t belong to you or to Regents of the University of California.
Michael Pott , Douglas Ropel , David Burkett and Marylin Gamper got paid legals
fees by Sedgwick Insurance in 2015.
Furthermore, in 2019, the State of California reimbursed me for the monies stolen
by my lawyer, Douglas Stein, to whom I had paid a retainer. I sent a letter to former
Porter Scott attorneys Michael Pott and Douglas Ropel and asked them if they wanted the
money, but received no answer. I sent a check to Porter Scott Paralegal Marilyn Gamper
-2-
Meet and Confer – Lindsay A. Goulding Re: Motion to Recall the Remittitur
in the amount of $520. She was prohibited from cashing the check. The former judge
from Department 53, David I . Brown, who was replaced in January 2021 by the Hon.
Shama Hakim Mesiwala, left behind two court orders with sanctions against me totaling
$1300 each, or $2600 in all. In 2019, Daniel Bardzell attempted to cash the $1300 check
using the Regents of the California name, but Judge Brown ordered him to return the
check. Please let me know who is entitled to or eligible to receive the legal fees and
sanctions awarded in the anti-SLAPP motion proceeding. I would like to resolve this
without playing games in Court by relitigating COAs dismissed by the anti-SLAPP
motion in 2015.
In addition to the above, on June 28, 2021, I have scheduled a video conference
with a Criminal Court in Poland for compensation for my repression and incarceration in
an internment camp by communists between 1981 and 1982. Between 1980 and 1981, I
was one of the leaders of the anti-communist labor movement “Solidarity.” The
communist repression was acknowledged by the post-communist era government of the
Republic of Poland as crimes against humanity (see attachment).
https://www.scribd.com/document/494446114/Solidarity-Anti-Communist-
Movement-Poland-1980-1982
What the Regents of the University of California, with the aid of those employed
by Porter Scott, did to me and my family in the US is also a crime against humanity.
I am expecting that, in August 2021, I will receive compensation from Poland.
Then, I will no longer need to use my wife’s money to deal with the litigation against the
Regents of the University of California, but you must let me know to whom I have to
write any necessary checks. I am giving you until June 21, 2021 to decide what you want
to do and to let me know who should be the beneficiary of the June 7, 2018 Court Order.
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Enclosure
-3-
Meet and Confer – Lindsay A. Goulding Re: Motion to Recall the Remittitur
Mailing List
Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California et al. Sacramento County No.
34201300155479CUWTGDS
Jorge E. Navarrete
Supreme Court Clerk/Administrator
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
-4-
Meet and Confer – Lindsay A. Goulding Re: Motion to Recall the Remittitur
ATTACHMENT
MS/201909038339/Waszczuk
District Court in Krosno
II Criminal Division
ul. Sienkiewicza 12
38-400 Krosno
Mr.
Jarosław Waszczuk
address for service
Mateusz Stefaniak, Attorney Trainee
ul. Danusi 2a/1
80-434 Gdańsk
NOTICE
The District Court in Krosno notifies you as the applicant that the main hearing in case II
Ko 186/19 for compensation for internment will be held on June 28, 2021, at 08:00, room 107
in the local court at 12 Sienkiewicza Street.
At the same time the Court informs you that during this hearing (i.e. on June 28,
2021, at 8:00 a.m. Polish time) you will be heard in your place of residence, through
technical devices allowing the transmission of sound and image, therefore you should be at
the Court's disposal at that time.
due to the spread of the SARS-Co V-2 virus across the country.
The Court informs that the parties, participants of the court proceedings and attorneys
will be admitted to the District Court building in Krosno not earlier than 15 minutes before the
planned date of a session or hearing.
There is an obligation to use personal protective equipment - shields or masks by the
parties and attorneys during open hearings.
An obligation is introduced for participants of public hearings, their attorneys, and the
public to disinfect their hands before each entry into the courtroom and to wear disposable
gloves.
An obligation is introduced to keep a distance of 2 meters between persons present in
court corridors.
DECISION
decides
- to resume the suspended proceedings in the present case.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
In connection with the need to interview applicant Jarosław Waszczuk in this case, the
Krosno District Court requested the Consulate General of the Republic of Poland in Los Angeles
to interview the applicant at that consular post. Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, to date, the
Polish consular post has failed to interview the applicant.
In this situation, the applicant will be interviewed by means of technical equipment
enabling this action to be conducted remotely with simultaneous transmission of sound and
images. This circumstance causes the reason for suspension of the proceedings within the
meaning of Article 22 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cease.
Renata Walczak-Wójcik
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann, Clerk Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann, Clerk
Electronically RECEIVED on 6/18/2021 at 4:30:22 PM Electronically FILED on 6/18/2021 by T. Eyster, Deputy Clerk
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-3131
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
The Regents of the University of Notice of Appeal Filed on June 11, 2015
California, UC Davis, UC Davis
Medical Center, UC Davis Health Remittitur Issued on January 16,2018
System, Ann Madden Rice, Mike
Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Charles APPELLANT’S DECLARATION IN
Witcher, Danesha Nichols, Cindy SUPPORT OF THE
Oropeza, Brent Seifert, Patrick APPLICATION/MOTION TO RECALL
Putney, Dorin Daniliuc and Does REMITTITUR
1– 50,
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT
2
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
7. On December 1, 2014, five days after the Waszczuk visited Stein,
Defendants’ Attorney from Porter Scott law firm Michael Pott filed a frivolous
and fraudulent Special Motion to Strike the anti-SLAPP Motion, CCP § 425.16,
against the first four COAs to end Waszczuk’s lawsuit. The subjects to strike
were the four causes of action from Waszczuk’s defective SAC COAs. The
defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion is devoid of meaningful factual analysis,
invokes general statements of law, and mischaracterizes the quintessence of
Waszczuk’s action.
8. On or about December 15, 2014, Wells Fargo Bank informed the
Waszczuk that the retainer’s special bank account opened by Stein with the
Appellant’s $20,000 was empty and had been over-drafted. The Waszczuk
questioned Stein about this, dismissed him from both cases, and submitted a
complaint about him to the State Bar of California.
9. From the State Bar investigation In re Stein, S245982 (Cal. Mar.
1, 2018) http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/15-O-10110-2.pdf Waszczuk
learned that between June 2, 2014, and December 2, 2014, the respondent
issued 14 checks and initiated 31 debits directly from the trust account, totaling
$4,991.82, for personal transactions. He also learned that on December 3, 2014,
the client’s trust account had a negative balance of $-194.33.
Stein had rejected the $20,000 that Waszczuk offered him on
November 25, 2014, but instead withdrew approximately $15,000 from the
trust account on December 3, 2014, two days after the defendants’ attorney,
Pott, filed the anti-SLAPP Motion. If Stein had told Waszczuk in
November 2014 that he needed money because he was in a difficult
financial situation, Waszczuk would have lent him $10,000. However.
taking money from the trust account without informing Waszczuk and not
objecting to the anti-SLAPP motion gave the Waszczuk no choice but to
dismiss Stein from both cases.
10. In December 2014 Waszczuk was planning a trip to Poland
for the Christmas and New Year holidays to visit his family. Waszczuk
3
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
canceled the trip when he learned that on December 1, 2014, Defendants’
attorney filed the anti-SLAPP motion and observed Stein’s peculiar
approach to the filed motion. Since then, Waszczuk has not visited his
native country for fear of being placed on a “no-fly” list by UC President
Janet Napolitano’s colleagues from the U.S Department of Homeland
Security and then being barred from returning to the USA, just as had
happened to Yonas Fikre who was barred from air travel for over six years
for refusing to be an informant to the FBI. Fikre v. Fed. Bureau of
Investigation, 904 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2018)
11. On December 15 or 16, 2014, during a phone conversation, Stein
told the Waszczuk that he would get a lot of money in the new year and would
return the stolen retainer to Waszczuk.
12. On January 23, 2015, Waszczuk filed his Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP Motion. A half an hour after the court clerk
endorsed and filed the Appellant’s Opposition, the defendants’ leading attorney
and Porter Scott shareholder, Pott, informed the Waszczuk by e-mail that
January 23, 2015, was his last day of employment with Porter Scott. Pott was
replaced by another Porter Scott shareholder, David Burkett, and associate
attorney, Douglas Ropel.
4
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
14. David Burkett had not wanted to be associated with Waszczuk’s
case, but he was somehow forced into a four-year involvement with the
fraudulent and frivolous anti-SLAPP motion left for him by Michael Pott.
Burkett left Porter Scott law firm and this case with $320 legal fees awarded to
him by a court order dated June 7, 2018.
15. The Defendants’ Attorney David Burkett did everything possible
to make Waszczuk end all litigation against the Regents of the University of
California and five individual defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott,
Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert and Cindi Oropeza or reverse the trial Court
Order dated February 9, 2015 (Hon. David I. Brown).
16. On February 27, 2015, David Burkett sent his associate, Douglas
Ropel, to a hearing before Judge Shelleyanne Chang in Jaroslaw Jerry
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
(CUIAB)(ROA #28) Case No. 34-2013-80001699-CU-WM-GDS with the UC
Regents as a Real Party of Interest. Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins.
Appeals Bd., C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018) Neither Ropel nor Burkett
was counsel of record for this case in February 2015.
Burkett sent Ropel to the court for the sole purpose of confronting and
attacking Waszczuk prior the hearing. Ropel made vile, despicable threats to go
after Waszczuk’s wife if he would not agree to drop the litigation against the
Defendants in exchange for legal fees in connection with the anti-SLAPP
motion. In February 2015, legal fees were not awarded to any party. ( See:
Waszczuk Petition for Rehearing in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524
(Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) Page No. 14. )
Defendants’ former attorneys from Porter Scott, Michael Pott, David
Burkett, Douglas and most likely Thomas L. Riordan and Attorney Ashante
Norton from the California Attorney General’s office know all details of what
happened to Waszczuk’s unemployment benefits that were reinstated by the
EDD in May of 2014. Waszczuk will further address this issue subsequent to
5
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
this Motion to Recall Remittitur for the Waszczuk v. Cal. Unemployment Ins.
Appeals Bd., C079254 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018) case. Stealing the
unemployment insurance benefits from somebody is a serious crime. ( See
Exhibit # 22 in Motion to Recall Remittitur) This serious crime which was
covered up needs to be uncovered. The bottom line is that the Waszczuk’s
unemployment insurance benefit was stolen in May 2015.
12. After Judge David I. Brown issued a final order granting the
Special Motion to Strike the four COAs from Waszczuk’s defective SAC on
4/14//2015 (ROA # 80), Defendants’ Attorneys Burkett and Ropel filed a
motion for grossly inflated legal fees and costs on May 11,2015 for the anti-
SLAPP motion. Porter Scott shareholder and leading attorney David Burkett in
the case declared (ROA 85) that he had only worked on the anti-SLAPP motion
for 1.2 hours, at a rate of $260 per hour, thus totaling $312 of the $32,738 of
fees that the defendants’ attorney was claiming. The legal fees show that
Burkett did not participate because he knew more than he wanted to know
about this fraudulent motion.
13. On May 19, 2015, just one month after the defendants obtained
the favorable decision to strike the COAs from the Waszczuk SAC and eight
days after they filed the Motion for Fees and Cost, unexpectedly, their attorney,
Burkett, asked the Waszczuk by e-mail what his settlement offer was.
Waszczuk outlined the settlement offer in his eight-page reply, dated May 21,
2015 (see Motion to Recall Remittitur, Exhibit No. 28). The Waszczuk recalls
that Burkett repeated his question about the settlement in exchange for anti-
SLAPP motion legal fees in July or August 2015.
14. On June 11, 2015, due to a lack of response from Burkett about
the Appellant’s settlement offer, the Waszczuk filed a timely Notice of Appeal
from the April 14, 2015 order by Judge Brown that granted the defendants a
special motion to strike the four COAs from the Appellant’s SAC.
15. On July 25, 2016, Defendants’ Attorney David Burkett
deliberately filed a defective Respondent Brief (RB ). Burkett’s RB did not cite
6
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
any court record but was a desperate attempt to receive a negative decision
from the Court of Appeal reversing the trial Court Order and Judgement
granting the anti-SLAPP motion to the Defendants by striking the first four
causes of action. Defendant’s Attorney Burkett, by his faulty RB filed on
07/25/2016, was begging the Court of Appeal to reverse the trial Court Order
dated April 14, 2015. For some reason somebody in the Porter Scott law firm
and somebody in the Court of Appeal made a different decision, and on
November 9, 2016 the Court, by its own motion, ordered that the RB filed July
25, 2016 be stricken for “failure to support any reference to a matter in the
record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the
matter appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)((1)(c).) The Court ordered
Respondent to refile the RB on or before December 15, 2016, instead of
rewarding Burkett and reversing the trial court’s April 14, 2015 Order and
Judgment which granted Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
17. On August 8, 2017, after oral argument, Defendants’
Attorney David Burkett, infuriated by statements made by the Court of Appeal
Justice Panel during the oral argument hearing and anticipating the decision of
the Court of Appeal, snapped and unloaded his anger on Waszczuk and
Waszczuk’s wife with vile threats. Waszczuk thought that Burkett’s
unwarranted attack in the 3DCA building would lead to fisticuffs. Instead of
being happy to win the appeal, Burkett instead became angered to the brink of
beating up 66-year-old Waszczuk right there in the halls of justice. Fortunately
for Waszczuk, he was accompanied by a friend. Unbelievable.
18. Waszczuk’s Application/Motion to Recall Remittitur shows the
pattern of Defendants’ Attorney David Burkett’s obsession with the four
stricken COAs from Waszczuk’s defective SAC which needs to be amended.
David Burkett and his successors’ relitigating of the four stricken COAs using
the fraudulent, oppressive anti-SLAPP motion after the remittitur was issued on
January 16, 2018 is an unprecedented abuse of the court system. Waszczuk
estimated that five consecutive, voluminous motions for monetary and
7
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
terminating sanctions filed in 2018–2019 by Burkett and his successors in cost
five times more than the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the Defendants on
December 1, 2014.
19. In addition to the prohibited-by-law prelitigation of matters which
have already been litigated, the filed motions to compel monetary and
terminating sanctions show how grossly inflated the $32,738 the claimed legal
fees and costs were for the anti-SLAPP motion by Burkett and the associated
Douglas Ropel. For the similar and even more time-consuming motions to
compel monetary and terminating sanction, Defendant’s attorneys were
demanding to be paid $5,000 for each filed motion. This is quite a different
number than $32,738 for one motion.
CONCLUSION
20. Waszczuk concluded his 12/04/2019 opposition to the
Defendant’s 10/23/2019 to the Judgment Creditors’ Further Motion to
Compel Responses to Judgment Debtors’ Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents as follows: (See: Motion to Recall Remittitur
Exhibit No. 31)
I declare under the 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 the 18th day of June 2021 at Lodi, California.
________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk,
Plaintiff and Waszczuk In Pro Per
9
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
__________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff & Appellant, In Pro Per
10
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
Proof of Service by US Mail and TrueFiling
Re:Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10,
2017)
Re: 3DCA Case : Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California- Case No.: 34-2013-00155479
_____________________________________________________
IRENA WASZCZUK
11
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECALL REMITTITUR
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann, Clerk Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann, Clerk
Electronically RECEIVED on 6/18/2021 at 4:30:22 PM Electronically FILED on 6/18/2021 by T. Eyster, Deputy Clerk
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-787-3131
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
-2-
CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………….39
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE………………………….……….41
PROOF OF SERVICE ………………………………………………….42
.......43
EXHIBITS 1-46..................................................................................
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Bryan v. Bank of America, 86 Cal.App.4th 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)…….13
-3-
Cheveldave v. Tri Palms Unified Owners Ass’n, 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 792
(Cal. Ct. App. 2018)……………………………………………… …..…35,36
Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341, fn. 3, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767, 795 P.2d
1223.)…………………………………………………………………..……35
Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341, fn. 3, 272 Cal.Rptr.
767, 795 P.2d 1223……………….28
Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d
432, 51 P.3d 297……………………………………………………………….36
Lucido v. Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 341, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767, 795
P.2d1223.)………………………………………………………….………36,37
Panos v. Great Western Packing Co. (1943) 21 Cal.2d 636, 637, 134 P.2d
242………………………………………………………………………….….36
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997, 88
L.Ed. 1250 (1944)………………………………………….…………….……38
Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580, 66 S.Ct.
1176, 1179, 90 L.Ed. 1447 (1946)………………………………………...…..38
(Cal. Ct.App.1988)…………………………………………...………………..38
Burton v. Sosinsky (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 562, 573 [250 Cal.Rptr.
33]………………………………………………………………….…………..38
-4-
California Satellite Systems, Inc. v. Nichols (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d
56, 70 [216 Cal.Rptr. 180]………………..30
Buchanan Home and Auto Supply Co v Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 544
F.Supp. 242, 244-245 (D SC, 1981………………………………………...….38
STATUTES
COURT RULES
MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES
-5-
3. 02/09/2015- Court Order granting an anti-SLAPP motion to
Defendants Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Brent
Seifert, and Cindi Oropeza in Sacramento County Superior Court Case
No: 34-2013-4. 00155479-CU-WT-GDS Waszczuk vs. The Regents of
the University of California, Hon. David I. Brown.
-8-
retainer stolen in 2014 from Waszczuk by his attorney Douglas
Stein. See Case : In re Stein, S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018)
24. 07/19/2019- Court Order sanctioning Waszczuk with $1300. Hon.
David I. Brown, Dept. 53, Re: Defendants’ 06/12/2019 motion to
compel for monetary and terminating sanctions
25. 07/19/2019- Court Reporter Transcript from the Court hearing with
Hon. David I. Brown, Dept . 53, Re: Defendants’ 06/12/2019 motion
to compel for monetary and terminating sanctions
26. 10/23/2019- Defendants’ Attorneys Daniel Bardzell and Nancy
Sheehan, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
Defendants', Motion to Compel Responses to Judgment Debtor
Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, and for
monetary sanctions
27. 10/24/2019- Defendants’ Attorney Daniel Bardzell’s e-mail
correspondence, Re: Defendants’ (the Regents of the University of
California) settlement offer
28. 05/21/2015- Waszczuk’ Response to the Defendants’ Attorney
David Burkett’s e-mail inquiry, dated May 19, 2015—Settlement
Offer
29. 11/15/2019- Defendants’ Attorney Daniel Bardzell’s correspondence
demanding Waszczuk pay the Regents of the University of
California the anti-SLAPP motion legal fees and monetary
sanctions
30. 11/18/2019- Copy of Check No. 139 in the amount of $1300 issued
by Waszczuk to the Regents of the University of California, with
attached 07/19/2018 Court Order which sanctioned Waszczuk with
$1300, Hon. David I. Brown
31. 12/04/2019- Waszczuk’s Opposition to 10/23/2019, Defendants’
-9-
Attorneys Daniel Bardzell and Nancy Sheehan’s Motion to Compel
Responses to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents; and for monetary sanctions
32. 12/04/2019- Defendants’ new Attorneys Amanda Iler, Derek Hayes,
and Daniel Bardzell’s reply to 12/04/2019, Waszczuk’s Opposition to
10/23/2019- Defendants’ Attorneys Daniel Bardzell and Nancy
Sheehan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Judgment Debtor
Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, and for
monetary sanctions
33. 12/04/2019- Defendants’ new Attorneys Amanda Iler, Derek Hayes,
and Daniel Bardzell’s second reply to 12/04/2019, Waszczuk’s
Opposition to the 10/23/2019, Defendants’ Attorneys Daniel Bardzell
and Nancy Sheehan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Judgment
Debtor Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, and
for monetary sanctions
34. 12/13/2019- Court Order Tentative Ruling sanctioning Waszczuk
with $1300, Hon. David I. Brown, Dept. 53, Re: 10/23/2019
Defendants’ Motion to Compel and for monetary sanctions
35. 12/17/2019- Court Order affirming 12/13/2019 Tentative Ruling,
Hon. David Brown, Dept. 53, Re: 10/23/2019 Defendants’ Motion to
Compel and for monetary sanctions
36. 12/27/2019- Waszczuk’s Notice of Objection to the 12/13/2019 and
12/17/2019 Court Orders, Hon. David I. Brown, Dept. 53, Re:
10/23/2019 Defendants’ Motion to Compel and for monetary
sanctions
37. 04/26/2021- Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend
Page Limit for Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
- 10 -
Alternative, Summary Adjudication filed in violation of California
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110 (b)(1) and under false pretenses.
38. 04/27/2021- Waszczuk’s meet and confer correspondence sent to
Defendants’ Attorney Amanda Goulding, Re: 04/26/2021,
Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend Page Limit
for Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication
39. 04/12/2021- Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
of Irina Waszczuk filed by the new Defendants’ Attorney Olatomiwa
T. Aina in Department 43, Hon. Thadd Blizzard.
40. 04/27/21- Waszczuk’s meet and confer correspondence with
attachments sent to the Defendants’ Attorney Olatomiwa T. Aina,
Re: 04/26/2021, Re: Subpoena and Application and Order for
Appearance and Examination Case No. 34-2013-00155479,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California
41. 05/14/2021- Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication relitigating dismissed COA’s
from Waszczuk SAC by Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, granted to
them on 04/14/2015
42. 09/25/2015- Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of Defendant's Motion for Automatic Stay, filed pursuant to
C.C.P. §916(a), or in the Alternative, Motion for a Discretionary
Stay. Motion was filed by Defendants to block Waszczuk’s proposed
Third Amended Complaint (TAC). 43. 10/28/2015- Court Order
granting Defendants’ Motion for Automatic Stay, filed pursuant to
C.C.P. §916(a), or in the Alternative, Motion for a Discretionary
Stay. The Court Order blocked Waszczuk’s proposed TAC, which
- 11 -
was never was submitted to and reviewed by the Court, Hon. David
I. Brown, Dept. 53.44. 09/03/2015- Copy of Waszczuk’s
proposed TAC sent to Defendants’ Attorney Douglas Ropel for
stipulation to file, and his 09/25/2015 negative response.
45. 09/30/2015- Waszczuk’s Request for Dismissal of four individual
defendants, Charles Witcher, Ann Maiden Rice, Dorin Daniliuc, and
Patrick Putney, from the Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California et al., filed on
10/01/2015.
46. 12/04/2013- Waszczuk’s initial Wrongful Termination with six
causes of action, which included: 5. Violation and Breach of the
2009 Settlement-Agreement, 6. Violation of UC Policy PPSM
(Employee Evaluation Policy). Complaint was docketed on December 4,
2013 in Sacramento County Superior Court as Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The
Regents of the University of California Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd,
Stephen Chilcott, Charles Witcher, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza,
Brent Seifert, Patrick Putney, and Dorin Daniliuc.
INTRODUCTION
Under the California Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c), the plaintiff and
appellant, Jaroslaw Waszczuk (pronounced “Vashchook”), hereby moves to
recall the remittitur issued on January 16, 2018 (Exhibit 1) in the trial court
register of action (ROA 128) and to reinstate his appeal, or alternatively, to
modify the erroneous unpublished opinion issued by the Court on
October 10, 2017 (Exhibit 2) and remand the new decision with
instructions for the trial court to vacate or void the trial court’s April 14,
2015 order and judgment (Exhibit 3) (ROA 57, 80and81). The 04/14/2015
trial court order and judgment granted the special motion to strike (anti-
- 12 -
SLAPP) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 five
individual defendants Mike Boyd, Danesha Nichols, Stephen Chilcott,
Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert (hereafter Defendants) striking from
Waszczuk’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) the first four causes of
action (COAs) which were: 1.) intentional infliction of emotional distress,
2.) tortious interference with economic advantage, 3.) harassment, failure to
prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under FEHA,
Government Code § 12940(a), and 4.) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation
California Government Code §§ 8547 et. seq .
Waszczuk cannot find a better authority than Bryan v. Bank of America, 86
Cal.App.4th 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) to justify filing a motion to recall the
remittitur more than two years after the remittitur was issued. In Bryan v.
Bank of America’s “Recall of the Remittitur” discussion, the Court
explained:
If the remittitur issues by inadvertence or mistake, or as a
result of fraud or imposition practiced on the appellate court,
the court has inherent power to recall it and thereby reassert
its jurisdiction over the cause. This remedy, though described
in procedural terms, is actually an exercise of an
extraordinary substantive power. Correction of the clerk’s
clerical or other mistakes in the remittitur is a very minor
aspect of the proceeding; its significant function is to permit
the court to set aside an erroneous judgment on appeal
obtained by improper means. In practical effect, therefore, the
motion or petition to recall the remittitur may operate as a
belated petition for rehearing on special grounds, without
any time limitations. [Citations.]” (Id. § 736, p. 765, italics
in original.)
The crux of and reason for this motion is not to attempt to relitigate
or delay the legal process which has been endlessly and maliciously
- 13 -
delayed by the defendants and their attorneys in filing the anti-SLAPP
motion on 12/01/2014. Rather, this motion seeks to end the intentional and
unrelenting pattern of misconduct by the defendants and their attorneys in
disregard of the Court’s benevolence in granting them the anti-SLAPP
motion on April 14, 2014, as affirmed by the Court of Appeal, Third
Appellate District (3DCA) 10/10/2017 in an unpublished opinion known as
Waszczuk v. Regents of University of California C079524 (Cal. Ct. App.
Oct. 10, 2017).
The 3DCA 10/10/2017 is erroneous itself and needs to be remanded
to the trial court with instructions to vacate or void the April 14, 2015 court
order and judgment which granted the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
After the remittitur was issued on January 16, 2018, the anti-SLAPP motion
defendants and the Regents of the University of California have been
maliciously relitigating the four stricken COAs of the anti-SLAPP motion
in an attempt to terminate the Waszczuk lawsuit against the UC Regents
and to extort money from Waszczuk and his wife.
Waszczuk does not see any other way to stop the defendants and their
attorneys’ despicable harassment, misconduct, malice, and abuse of the
system than to file this motion to recall remittitur and return the four
stricken COAs to the defendants because they have been begging for
almost two years to have them back.
The trial court has erred by granting the anti-SLAPP motion to the
defendants instead of allowing Waszczuk to cure the defective SAC in
December 2014 and in September 2015 by amendment and dismissing all
individual defendants. The defective SAC was filed on September 30, 2014
against Waszczuk’s will by his drug-addicted attorney, Douglas E. Stein,
on September 30, 2014. Stein was dismissed by Waszczuk on December
16, 2014 for stealing Waszczuk’s retainer and failing to object to the anti-
- 14 -
SLAPP motion. Awarded by the 10/10/2017 3DCA unpublished opinion in
Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10,
2017) Waszczuk’s attorney, Douglas E. Stein SBN 13248 was disbarred on
January 10, 2020 for gross professional misconduct in relation to In re
Stein, S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) and other crimes not related to his
representation of Waszczuk.
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/131248
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
- 15 -
Before Waszczuk’s four causes of action were stricken by the Court
from the Second Amended Complaint, the Court had denied the plaintiff’s
Motion for Reconsideration (ROA 59) on 4/10/2015 and Waszczuk’s
motion to dismiss the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion for violation of the
discovery stay by the defendants’ attorneys. (ROA 64) (CCP § 425.16 (g)
On September 10/10/17, the Court of Appeal, in an unpublished
opinion in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App.
Oct. 10, 2017) affirmed the 4/14/2015 trial court judgment striking the first
four COAs from the Waszczuk’s SAC.
On November 9, 2017, the Court of Appeal denied Waszczuk’s
petition for rehearing filed on October 25, 2017. A petition for review
was filed with the California Supreme Court, Case No. S245879 and was
denied on January 10, 2018. The remittitur was issued by the Court of
Appeal on January 16, 2018.
STATEMENTS OF FACTS AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE
REMITTITUR ON JANUARY 16, 2018 BY THE COURT OF
APPEAL THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
I. DEFENDANTS’ VEXATIOUS, MALICIOUS, AND
NEFARIOUS RELITIGATING OF THE DISMISSED CAUSES
OF ACTION
Just after the remittitur was issued on January 16, 2018, the defendants,
empowered by the fraudulent 3DCA unpublished opinion in Waszczuk v.
Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) caused the
stricken COAs by the anti-SLAPP motion became the subject of a frivolous
relitigating with the goal of terminating Waszczuk’s lawsuit against UC
Regents and dismissed COAs became a tool for defendants’ attorney’s
criminal activity in the court of law to extort money from Waszczuk and his
wife.
- 16 -
On April 25, 2018, Attorney David Burkett sent Waszczuk the
request for production of documents (Set 1) (Exhibit 4), If the Court
examines Exhibit 3, requests 1–8 on pages 3–4, it will be clear that
Attorney Burkett’s demand for documents regarding COA No. 3 which was
stricken from Waszczuk’s SAC pertaining to harassment and failure to
prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, was in violation of
Government Code § 12940 (A).
Request No. 9 was regarding COA No. 4 which was stricken from the SAC
and pertained to whistleblower/unlawful retaliation, in violation of
Government Code § 8547 et seq. Request 9 stated, “Please produce any
and all DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention that YOU were
subjected to retaliation for engaging in protected activities, in violation of
Government Code § 85547 et seq., exactly as it stated in stricken COA’s 4
from SAC ”
Waszczuk was forced by the defendant’s attorney’s frivolous and vexatious
motions and by the monetary sanction imposed by court order and threats
of a terminating sanction against UC Regents to produce thousands of
documents for the dismissed COAs.
On October 3, 2018, the defendants’ attorneys from Porter Scott,
David Burkett, and Daniel Bardzell, filed a motion to compel verified
responses to requests for production of documents (Set 1), for monetary and
terminating sanctions. The motion was deliberately filed in Department 54
(Exhibit 5) (ROA 163–180) and bypassed Judge Brown in Department 53
in a fraudulent attempt to obtain an order for monetary and terminating
sanction from Judge Christopher E. Krueger in Department 54. Judge
Krueger was unfamiliar with Waszczuk’s case, which had been pending for
four years, because he had never presided over it.
- 17 -
The Defendants did not even mention the four remining COAs in their
motion, which should have been one of the motions key subjects. Attorneys
Burkett and Bardzell were caught, and their evil, deceptive plan failed to
persuade Judge Krueger to terminate Waszczuk’s lawsuit.
On October 11, 2018, Waszczuk informed the court clerk in
Department 54 about the misconduct of the attorneys for the defendants
(Exhibit 6).
On October 17, 2018, the defendants’ attorneys, Burkett and
Bardzell, refiled the motion with Department 53. Judge Brown scheduled a
hearing for November 14, 2018. However, in a surprising turn of events on
October 31, 2018, Judge Brown issued an order to Waszczuk with $520 in
monetary sanctions (Exhibit 7), ROA 166). The court order stated:
The notice of motion provides the incorrect time and location
for the hearing. This matter has been assigned to Department
53 for law and motion purposes, and Department 53 hears law
and motion matters at 2 p.m. Moving counsel is directed to
immediately provide notice to Plaintiff of the correct time and
location of the hearing.
On October 14, 2018, Judge Brown issued a second court order for
the same motion to compel monetary and terminating sanction,
admonishing Burkett and Bardzell as follows due to their despicable
violation of California Rules of Court -Rule 3.1110 (b) (1) (Exhibit 7,
ROA 178):
The Court must point out Defendant’s procedural errors that
have rendered an otherwise simple motion confusing and
created unnecessary work for the Court. Defendant initially
noticed this motion for October 31, 2018, but included the
incorrect law and motion department on the notice. It then
apparently filed the identical motion and noticed it for hearing
on November 13 and 14, in this department.
- 18 -
The Court acknowledged Waszczuk’s November 12, 2018 correspondence
(ROA 178) that had been sent to the court by overnight mail, prior to the
scheduled November 14, 2018 hearing. Judge Brown noticed that
Defendants’ motion had been filed in the wrong department and that
Burkett and Bardzell slandered Waszczuk; thus, the Court admonished
them with the words in the duplicated October 31, 2018 court order, dated
November 14, 2018 (Exhibit 8, ROA 175, 176):
Further, while Defendant references Plaintiff’s “vexatious”
conduct in this action, that conduct has nothing to do with the
instant motion and, in any event, is not a basis for discovery
sanctions. Such ad hominem comments serve no useful
purpose in educating the court as to the party’s position
and distract more than they advocate. In short, they are
more cathartic than tactical.
However, in the two orders, dated October 31, 2018, and November
14, 2018, the Court failed to address Burkett and Bardzell’s evil attempt to
terminate the Waszczuk lawsuit by relitigating the COAs that had been
stricken through the anti-SLAPP motion.
On February 11, 2019, three days after Waszczuk met Defendants’
Attorney Daniel Bardzell in the cafeteria of Department 43, Bardzell and
Burkett filed another motion to compel, demanding monetary and
terminating sanction. The 2/08/2019 meeting between Waszczuk and
Bardzell in Department 43 was memorialized by the 2/08/2019 court order
(Exhibit 9) (ROA 189) and Waszczuk’s meet and confer letter which was
sent to Bardzell on 2/10/2019 (Exhibit 10).
The Defendants’ motion, which amounted to 396 pages of pleadings and
exhibits (Exhibit 11) (ROA 189–186), was almost identical to the motion
Attorneys Burkett and Bardzell deceptively filed in the wrong department
on October 3, 2018 in evil attempt to terminate Waszczuk’s lawsuit
- 19 -
On March 11, 2019, Waszczuk filed the ex parte application for late
opposition to the defendants’ motion to compel monetary and terminating
sanctions (Exhibit 12)(ROA 198). Waszczuk requested that the Court
dismiss the defendants’ motion entirely for the reasons outlined on pages 2
and 3 of the ex parte application by informing the Court that the attorneys
from Porter Scott were tampering with the administration of justice to
injure Waszczuk and that the first four causes of action stricken from the
Waszczuk SAC by the anti-SLAPP motion granted to Defendants on April
14, 2015 must be completely excluded from the Defendants’ discovery
process.
By a March 13, 2019, court order (Exhibit 13, ROA 203), Judge
David I. Brown from Department 53 declined oral argument on
Waszczuk’s ex parte request. The Court also declined to dismiss the
defendants’ motion, which brought back into litigation the four dismissed
COAs stricken from Waszczuk ‘s SAC. Judge Brown did not impose
monetary and termination sanctions on Waszczuk, and in an order dated
3/13/20119, the Court ruled:
There has only been one previous discovery motion by
Defendant to compel responses. Plaintiff complied with that
order and provided responses, albeit some which Defendant
deemed insufficient in certain respects and, for that reason,
brought a motion to compel further responses. The Court will
not at this time find an abuse of the discovery process.
Contrary to the ruling, Judge Brown completely ignored fact that the
defendants relitigating the dismissed COAs, and, in the same manner as in
October and November 2018. Notorious Defendants Attorneys Burkett and
Bardzell, did not give up.
On March 20, 2019, just seven days after Judge Brown denied them
monetary and terminating sanctions, they filed another motion to compel
- 20 -
for monetary and terminating sanctions. This was almost identical to their
previous motions (Exhibit 14, ROA 205–211). Again , Burkett and
Bardzell bluntly mixed apple and oranges (UC Regents with anti-SLAP
motion defendants ) in evil attempt to terminate Waszczuk lawsuit .
On April 12, 2019, Waszczuk filed his opposition to Bardzell and
Burkett’s motion (Exhibit 15) (ROA 209).
The motion was finalized by a tentative court order, which instead of
imposing sanction against Defendants and their attorneys for a frivolous
motion and for the malicious relitigating of dismissed COAs, the Court
reimposed sanctions on Waszczuk. Thus, Waszczuk requested the court
hearing in Department 53.
A different judge, The Hon. Steven H. Rodda, presided over the hearing on
April 26, 2019 in Department 53. Judge Rodda ruled by court order
(Exhibit 16, ROA 2011):
Terminating Sanctions
At the end of the hearing with Judge Rodda, Waszczuk asked the Court
what he was supposed to provide to the defendants’ attorneys, because they
- 21 -
had already received everything. Judge Rodda responded, “You will have
to figure that out yourself” (court reporter’s transcript, page 8, Exhibit
17). Waszczuk figured out that the Defendants were trying to terminate
Waszczuk’s lawsuit by using dismissed COAs, which amounted to an
abuse of the court system and a bullying or blackmailing of the judges.
On June 12, 2019, Defendants Attorneys Burkett and Bardzell, filed
another motion for monetary and terminating sanctions, vexatiously and
maliciously using again the four dismissed COAs (Exhibit 18, ROA 213–
2019). Attached is Bardzell’s memorandum to support the frivolous
motion, which is almost identical to the previous motion. Waszczuk
opposed Defendants’ motion on July 5, 2019 (Exhibit 19)(ROA 2017). On
page 5 of his opposition, Waszczuk pointed out the following to the Court:
The Court does not need to read Defendants’ attorney Daniel
Bardzell’s Declaration or Memorandum of Point and
Authorities to find out how deceptive Porter Scott’s attorney
is. In his pleadings, Bardzell’s complete disregard of the
April 26, 2019, Court Order (Hon. Rodda) ROA 211, which
states in bold black letters that, “Regents are not a party to
the underlying discovery or this motion, and, therefore,
the Court will not grant terminating sanctions as to
Regents.”
It was quite clear to Waszczuk that something was going terribly wrong
with his case in Department 53 when he looked at the facts and saw that the
judges were noticing the malice and gross misconduct of the Defendants
- 23 -
attorneys but were punishing Waszczuk with sanctions and letting the
attorneys harass him as much and as long as they wished.
Judge Brown, by his July 19, 2019 order, awarded $1,300 in sanctions
against the Defendants for their attorneys’ misconduct and fraud. During
that hearing on July 19, 2019, Judge Brown questioned Bardzell in his
statement, which can be found as follows on pages 5 and 6 of the RT
(Exhibit 25):
THE COURT: This is post judgment discovery. What are
you terminating? There’s already a judgment against Mr.
Waszczuk.
- 24 -
The difference in the October 23, 2019 motion to the previous four motions was
that that Defendants’ Attorney Burkett was replaced with another Porter Scott
shareholder and attorney, Nancy Sheehan, who had been an employee at Porter
Scott for 34 years. Burkett was a leading attorney in the case Waszczuk v.
Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) since January
23, 2015. Nancy Sheehan’s name was added to the pleadings at a time when
she was gravely ill with metastatic breast cancer; she died on November 23,
2019, exactly one month after another evil-spirited motion was filed by
Defendant’s attorney Bardzell.
(https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sacbee/obituary.aspx?n=nancy-joan-
sheehanandpid=194994093).
Furthermore, what caught Waszczuk’s attention in the October 23, 2019
motion pleadings was that Porter Scott’s attorneys are “attorneys for
judgment creditors/former defendants,” in contrast with previous
pleadings in which the judgment creditors were not the former defendants.
On October 24, 2019, Waszczuk received an e-mail from Daniel
Bardzell who now representing “former Defendants” with a “settlement
offer.”
On October 31, 2019, Waszczuk briefly responded to Bardzell’s
offer assuming that David Burkett on his way out told Bardzell to send it.
David Burkett had sent a similar offer to Waszczuk in May 2015, and again
in August 2015 (Exhibit 28).
On November 12, 2019, another Porter Scott attorney and
shareholder, Derek Haynes was added to Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The
Regents of the University of California, Case No. 34-2013-00155479 (ROA
228).
On November 15, 2019, Defendant’s attorney Bardzel in his weird
and threatening correspondence (Exhibit 29) informed Waszczuk that
- 25 -
Porter Scott paralegal Marilyn Gamper was not permitted to cash out the
$520 from Waszczuk sent her on October 31, 2019 (legal fees awarded to
her by the 6/07/2018 court order in anti-SLAPP motion proceeding).
Waszczuk also paid $520 sanction awarded unjustly to the Defendants by
the Court on 10/31/2018. Check was cashed by Porter Scott’s attorneys.
Furthermore, Defendants’ Attorney Daniel Bardzell in his threatening scam
correspondence demanded from Waszczuk in bold letters that Waszczuk
must issue a check to pay all anti-SLAPP legal fees and costs payable to
the Regents of the University of California, the Defendant which is not
listed anti-SLAPP motion.
Defendants’ attorneys Bardzell and Burkett were informed that, on August
9, 2019, the State Bar of California Client Security Fund reimbursed
Waszczuk in amount of $14,500, stolen from him in December 2014, by his
attorney, Stein.
Bardzell and Burkett were also informed that on October 1, 2019,
Waszczuk received $25,000 from his wife to take care of Bardzell and
Burkett’s multiple extortion attempts, which began in 2015, using
Waszczuk’s wife as a blackmail tool to force Waszczuk to pay them the
anti-SLAPP legal fees.
Following Bardzell’s November 15, 2019 threatening letter, on November
18, 2019, Waszczuk issued a check in the amount of $1,300 to pay the
sanction imposed by the 7/19/2019 Court Order. However, in a short letter
dated November 21, 2019, Waszczuk asked Bardzell whether he would
prefer to reissue the $1,300-sanction check to the five former individual
defendants—Nichols, Chilcott, Seifert, Boyd, and Oropeza—instead of to
the Regents of UC. Furthermore, Waszczuk advised Bardzell that he should
ask Judge Brown to make sure that Nichols, Chilcott, Seifert, Boyd, and
Oropeza are the former defendants, as he claimed in his motion to
- 26 -
compel and for monetary sanctions filed on October 23, 2019, and in his
recent correspondence.
On December 4, 2019, Waszczuk filed his opposition to the Defendants’
October 23, 2019 further motion to extort money from Waszczuk or his
wife (Exhibit 31, ROA 235), emphasizing again that the Regents of UC
were not the defendants in the anti-SLAPP motion and, therefore, that they
were not entitled to any legal fees. This was clearly affirmed by two
different judges, The Hon. Rodda and The Hon. Brown, in different court
orders ( See: Exhibit 25, ROA 2011, and Exhibit 29, ROA 19).
Attorney Bardzell, and two new attorneys, Derek Hayes, and Amanda Iller,
filed two replies to Waszczuk’s December 4, 2019 opposition to their
motion. One reply was filed on the same day, December 4, 2019, entitled
“Reply to No Opposition” (Exhibit 32), and on December 6, 2019, they
filed a second reply to the opposition (Exhibit 33), (ROA 238).
On page 5, paragraph 4 of their December 6, 2019 reply, entitled
“Defendant Regents Is Entitled to Payment of Sanctions Awards,”
Porter Scott Attorney Amanda Iller, who was listed in the June 7, 2018
Court Order, demanded that legal fees be paid to the Regents of UC, in bold
letters stating.
Judgment Debtor has cited no legal authority for his position
that the REGENTS are not entitled to the sanction payment.
The REGENTS has paid for the defense of the Judgment
Creditors (Iler Deci. ¶ 6). “A monetary sanction may be
based not only on attorney’s fees and costs, but also on any
other reasonable expenses incurred.
- 27 -
Waszczuk did not understand what the Defendant’s Attorney Amanda Iller
was talking about after Waszczuk sent two sanctions checks to Porter Scott,
one on October 31, 2019 in the amount of $520, and a second check on
November 18. 2019 for $1300 and wanted to pay legal fees to the former
Defendants attorneys from Porter Scott law firm listed in the 6/07/2018
court order.After Waszczuk read the Court’s tentative decision, issued on
December 12, 2019, and, to his disbelief, found out that Judge Brown
slammed Waszczuk with additional monetary sanctions of $1,300,
Waszczuk called the court clerk and requested a hearing on December 13,
2019 at 2:00 p.m.
At the court hearing, the defendants were represented by Attorney Bardzell.
Judge Brown admonished Bardzell and ordered the return of the $1,300
paid on November 18, 2019 to Waszczuk, and explained again to Bardzell
that that the Regents of UC were not defendants in the anti-SLAPP motion.
On December 27, 2019, Waszczuk filed a Notice of Objection to the Court
Orders Dated December 13 and 17, 2019(Exhibit 34and35)(ROA 241
and242), and Plaintiff’s Request for Court Order Modification.
Waszczuk submitted his Notice of Objection and the Request for
Modification of the court order (Exhibit 36) (ROA 244) because nothing
was in the December 17, 2019 court order that had been argued or said at
the December 13, 2019 hearing.
In his Notice of Objection, Waszczuk focused on the issue of the
defendants in the anti-SLAPP motion. He asked the Court to clarify
whether Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza, Seifert, and Boyd had been dismissed
by the anti-SLAPP motion or whether they were still the defendants in the
lawsuit.
- 28 -
II. NEW ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANTS FROM
PORTER SCOTT: LINDSAY A. GOULDING AND
OLATOMIWA T. AINA
Two new defendants Attorneys Goulding and Aina resumed their dirty
game with Waszczuk and with the new judge in Department 53.
one year and half after Waszczuk filed his Notice of Objection to the court
orders of December 14 and17, 2019, On April 26, 2021, Defendants’ Attorney
Lindsay A. Goulding, in violation of California Rules of Court Rule 3.1110 (a)
(1), served Waszczuk by e-mail an Ex-Parte Application for Leave to Extend
Page Limit for Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication in violation of California Rules of Court -
Rule 3.1110 (b) (1) without stating or marking on the pleading in which
Department the ex parte application would be filed or which judge would
handle the ex parte application. (Exhibit 37) (ROA 247–249)
Not letting the opposing party know which judge or department will make the
decision is gross professional misconduct and extrinsic fraud. “Extrinsic fraud
occurs when one party prevents the other from having his day in court.
Extrinsic fraud only arises when one party has in some way fraudulently been
prevented from presenting his or her claim or defense.” Sporn v. Home Depot
USA, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1300 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 780
Attorney Lindsay A. Goulding brought into her Ex Parte Application three
Stricken COAs by anti-SLAPP motion granted to the Defendants by the
Court on 4/14/2015 by the fraudulent and frivolous anti-SLAPP motion.
Lindsay Goulding’s deceptive Ex Parte Application should not have been
accepted and granted by the Court on the same day April 26, 2021 by the
Honorable Shama Hakim Mesiwala’s stamp, but in fact it was.
- 29 -
Waszczuk addressed the Attorney Amanda Goulding’s Ex Parte in the meet and
confer letter dated April 27, 2021, which was filed in the Court on April 28,
2021 (Exhibit 38) (ROA 250).
Simultaneously, another Porter Scott Attorney, Olatomiwa T. Aina, in
coordinated action with Amanda Goulding, served on Waszczuk a Subpoena
and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination filed in
Department 43 (Exhibit 39) (ROA 251-259) in attempt to break into
Waszczuk’s wife bank account and 401(k) plan to extort money from in a
similar manner to other Porter Scott attorneys attempts in 2019 who were not
awarded any legal fees in the anti-SLAPP motion and they were prohibited by
the Court to cash any check using the Regents of the University of California
name because Regents were not a party in the anti-SLAPP motion. Waszczuk
addressed the Olatomiwa T. Aina scam in the meet and confer letter dated April
27, 2021(Exhibit 40) (ROA 251).
On May 14, 20210 Defendants’ Attorneys Amanda Goulding and Olatomiwa
T. Aina filed in their scam to extort money from Waszczuk and his wife the 475
pages of documents with the defendant’s notice of motion and motion for
summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication (Exhibit 41)
(ROA 254-258). Seventy-five percent of the filed motion was the third and
fourth COAs stricken from Waszczuk’s SAC. Apparently, the defendants new
attorneys Goulding and Aina have high expectations that the new judge in
Department 53 would rule in their favor and that they would be able to extort
money from Waszczuk by relitigating the fraudulent anti-SLAPP motion COAs
by Motion for Summary Judgment .
Defendants attorneys perpetrated crime did not work as they anticipated with
Judge David I Brown from Dept. 53 in 2014-2019 and Judge Thadd A.
Blizzard from Dept. 43 and will not work this time with Judge Thadd A.
- 30 -
Blizzard from Dept. 43 and the new Judge Shama Hakim Mesiwala from Dept
53.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND
ARGUMENT
I. THE REMITTITUR MUST BE RECALLED AND THE
ERRONEOUS UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED ON OCTOBER
10, 2017 in Waszczuk v. Regents of University. Of California
C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017) MUST BE MODIFIED
The false and harmful statement from page 3 of the opinion misled
Waszczuk into believing that five anti-SLAPP motion defendants, Nichols,
Seifert, Boyd, Oropeza and Chilcot were entirely dismissed from the
lawsuit and that the Regents of the University of California were the only
remaining defendants to the lawsuit.
“Plaintiff loses this appeal, but it is not the end of his lawsuit
for wrongful termination.” The trial court reminded plaintiff
at the hearing on the special motion to strike that the Regents
of the University of California (the Regents) were not
protected if they discriminated or retaliated against him and,
therefore, “[i]ndependent of the five individuals who are
before the Court on this motion, [plaintiff] still retains his
right to sue the Regents because they are still in the lawsuit
and he’s still the plaintiff.” In this context, we recite the brief
facts relevant to the issues plaintiff raises on appeal.”
- 35 -
of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings.’ “ (Mycogen Corp. v.
Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 51 P.3d
297.)
Furthermore, the Court explained collateral estoppel has five requirements:
“First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigating must
be identical to that decided in a former proceeding. Second,
this issue must have been actually litigated in the former
proceeding. Third, it must have been necessarily decided in
the former proceeding. Fourth, the decision in the former
proceeding must be final and on the merits. Finally, the party
against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in
privity with, the party to the former proceeding.” (Lucido v.
Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 341, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767,
795 P.2d 1223.)
Cheveldave v. Tri Palms Unified Owners Ass’n, 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 792 (Cal.
Ct. App. 2018) is the authority that exactly applies to the Defendants
misconduct and abuse of the court system since remittitur was issued on
January 16, 2018. Defendants’ legal gangsterism in the court must be
stopped by the Court of Appeal which erroneously affirmed the trail court
judgment dated April 14, 2015.
In F.E.V. v. City of Anaheim, 15 Cal.App.5th 462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)
Court explained that the
“doctrine of res judicata rests upon the grounds that the party
to be affected, or some other with whom he is in privity, has
litigated, or had an opportunity to litigate the same matter in a
former action in a court of competent jurisdiction, and should
not be permitted to litigate it again to the harassment and
vexation of his opponent. Public policy and the interest of
litigants alike require that there be an end to litigation.”
(Panos v. Great Western Packing Co. (1943) 21 Cal.2d 636,
637, 134 P.2d 242.)
- 36 -
inconsistent judgments, and protecting litigants from vexatious litigation.
(Lucido v. Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 343, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767,
795 P.2d 1223 ; Roos v. Red (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 870, 887, 30
Cal.Rptr.3d 446 ; Younan v. Caruso (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 401, 407, 59
Cal.Rptr.2d 103.)
The only way to stop the Defendants and their attorneys from further
relitigating of the already litigated and dismissed four causes of action is to
recall the remittitur, reinstate the appeal, modify the 10/10/2017
unpublished opinion and remand it to the trial court with instructions to
vacate the April 14, 2015 Court Order and Judgment.
As the attached exhibits show, the litigation tactics of the defendants and
their attorneys from Porter Scott and their egregious misconduct
incapacitated bullied judges in trial court Department 53 and prevented
them from restoring the order and meaning of law in Department 53 and
generally in the trial court in this case. The Court of Appeal must act to
restore order and justice in this case by recalling the remittitur and vacate
and void the harm done to Waszczuk and the integrity of the justice system.
The trial court orders and decisions were obtained by the powerful Regents
of the University of California by intimidation, bullying, blackmailing,
extortion and possible bribery and racketeering. The stakes must be a lot
bigger in this case as the Court noticed on page 2 in the preliminary
statement of the unpublished opinion dated 10/10/2017. (See Waszczuk ‘s
Declaration in Support of this motion to recall remittitur.)
In Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) the Court noted that the
alleged sanctionable conduct was that the defendants had “(1) attempted to
deprive the Court of jurisdiction by acts of fraud, nearly all of which were
- 37 -
performed outside the confines of this Court, (2) filed false and frivolous
pleadings, and (3) attempted, by other tactics of delay, oppression,
harassment and massive expense to reduce plaintiff to exhausted
compliance.” This is exactly what Defendants are doing in the courts in this
case.In Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64
S.Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944). See also Universal Oil Products Co. v.
Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580, 66 S.Ct. 1176, 1179, 90 L.Ed. 1447
(1946) Courts ruled :The “historic power of equity to set aside fraudulently
begotten judgments,” is necessary to the integrity of the courts, for
“tampering with the administration of justice in [this] manner... involves far
more than an injury to a single litigant.”
In Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Co. v. Superior Court, 200 Cal.App.3d 272
(Cal. Ct. App. 1988) California decision on the inherent authority of courts,
affirmed that judges are empowered to act when a party seeks to take unfair
advantage of “the integrity of the judicial system.” This decision directly
addressed the fact that a court’s inherent powers include the authority to
terminate a case for litigation.
Under the “unclean hands” doctrine, a party is barred from relief if engaged
in any unconscientious conduct directly related to the transaction or matter
before the court. Burton v. Sosinsky (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 562, 573 [250
Cal.Rptr. 33]; California Satellite Systems, Inc. v. Nichols (1985) 170 Cal.
App. 3d 56, 70 [216 Cal.Rptr. 180].
The authority to dismiss a lawsuit for litigant misconduct is a creature of
the “clean hands doctrine” and is applicable to both equitable and legal
damages claims. Buchanan Home and Auto Supply Co v Firestone Tire and
Rubber Co., 544 F.Supp. 242, 244-245 (D SC, 1981). See also Mas v Coca-
Cola Co., 163 F.2d 505, 507 (CA 4, 1947).
- 38 -
Waszczuk comes before the Court with clean hands; the defendants and
their attorneys do not. They have engaged in extreme and abusive litigation
misconduct. First, they took advantage of Waszczuk’s drug-addicted
attorney, Douglas Stein. in 2014 and his friendship with Judge David I.
Brown, and then they took advantage of Waszczuk’s self-representation
after he dismissed Stein for gross misconduct in December 2014. The Court
should not aid or reward Defendants for their egregious misconduct in the
Court of Law.
CONCLUSION
___________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Plaintiff & Appellant
- 40 -
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
_______________________
Plaintiff & Appellant , In Pro Per
- 41 -
Proof of Service by US Mail and TrueFiling
Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10,
2017)
Re: 3DCA Case : Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California- Case No.: 34-2013-00155479
_____________________________________________________
IRENA WASZCZUK
- 42 -
EXHIBITS
1-46
- 43 -
EXHIBIT # 1
EXHIBIT # 2
Filed 10/10/17 Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
1
shortcomings he cites. We need go no further than to answer the contentions he raises,
and in finding no merit in those claims, we affirm.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff, a Polish immigrant, feels deeply aggrieved by the University of
California (the University), his lawyer, the defense lawyer, and the trial judge. A brief
excerpt from a letter he sent to the general counsel for the University reflects his
bitterness as well as his belief that there is much more at stake than his mere wrongful
termination lawsuit. He wrote: “The stake in this lawsuit must be a lot bigger and more
important than the life of a 63-year-old Polish refugee who escaped communist
oppression and was promised protection from oppression in his new country by the US
government. Instead of protection from oppression, the Polish refugee received treatment
from the University of California that has been a lot worse than the treatment he received
in the Polish communist prison, where the communist’s prison guard was more respectful
to the political prisoners than UC management to its own employees.” His experience
has left him emotionally distraught. At the end of a hearing in the trial court, he
announced he was done and was going to go outside of the courtroom and shoot himself.
While plaintiff’s pain is clear, his legal analysis is not. We have carefully
scrutinized his briefs and the record in a diligent attempt to decipher his legal theories.
Much remains a mystery. We must reiterate what the trial court admonished plaintiff.
“At the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated like any
other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants
and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941,
944.) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct
rules of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also
Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984.” We add that plaintiff has an equal
responsibility to follow the California Rules of Court applicable to appeals, no matter
2
how sympathetic his claims may seem to himself or us. It is a responsibility he has
ignored to his peril.
Plaintiff’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules is his failure to cite to
the record.1 He makes grandiose accusations against the University for illegally
generating and selling electric power and for tax evasion, but those allegations are not
supported by citations to the record and are not relevant to the special motion to strike.
Plaintiff fails to appreciate the limited scope of our review, which stands in stark contrast
to the wide-ranging allegations plaintiff lodges which are untethered to the second
amended complaint or the special motion to strike. We are compelled to ignore any
factual allegations that are not supported by citations to the record.
Plaintiff loses this appeal, but it is not the end of his lawsuit for wrongful
termination. The trial court reminded plaintiff at the hearing on the special motion to
strike that the Regents of the University of California (the Regents) were not protected if
they discriminated or retaliated against him and, therefore, “[i]ndependent of the five
individuals who are before the Court on this motion, [plaintiff] still retains his right to sue
the Regents because they are still in the lawsuit and he’s still the plaintiff.” In this
context, we recite the brief facts relevant to the issues plaintiff raises on appeal.
1 An “appellant must support all statements of fact in his briefs with citations to the
record [citation] and must confine his statement ‘to matters in the record on appeal.’
[Citation.]” (Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 29.) “[I]t is counsel's duty to
point out portions of the record that support the position taken on appeal.” (Del Real v.
City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.) The Court of Appeal must not search
the record on behalf of an appellant or serve as “backup appellate counsel.” (Mansell v.
Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546.)
3
FACTS
Plaintiff worked in the University of California Davis Medical Center’s Plant
Operations and Maintenance Department for 13 years. He received many years of
favorable performance reviews. In 2007, however, he was given a disciplinary transfer
from the central plant to the HVAC/plumbing shop. He filed a grievance and ultimately
entered into a settlement agreement with the University whereby he agreed to the transfer
in exchange for a promotion to an exempt position with a more prestigious job title.
In 2011 the University again initiated an investigation of plaintiff based on
complaints that he had violated University policies by engaging in acts of ethnic
discrimination constituting hate incidents in the workplace. He was terminated in 2012.
He appealed the termination and ultimately filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint.
In this court, he fixates on his belief the University’s suspension, investigation, and
termination were nothing more than a “witch hunt” designed to remove him, preferably
by getting him to quit, and thereby enable the University to resume its alleged tax-free
illegal power sales. He asserts, again without citation to the record, the University
attempted to assassinate him.
Plaintiff filed his first complaint, in pro. per., in December 2013. The complaint
included six causes of action: wrongful termination; retaliation; the intentional infliction
of emotional distress; failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; breach
of the settlement agreement; and violation of the University’s Personnel Polices for Staff
Members (PPSM) 23. Plaintiff thereafter hired a lawyer, Douglas Stein, who filed a first
amended complaint on his behalf in June 2014. The first amended complaint set forth
eight causes of action, including a cause of action entitled “Breach of Written Contract.”
The written contract referred to the settlement agreement plaintiff reached with the
University to resolve his first grievance. The first amended complaint did not, however,
contain a cause of action for violation of PPSM 23.
4
In a meet and confer letter dated August 19, 2014, Michael Pott, representing the
Regents and the employees sued in their individual capacity, described a number of
deficiencies in the first amended complaint “that warrant the filing of a demurrer unless
they can be resolved by amendment.” Stein spent 10 hours reviewing the first amended
complaint and researching the law in light of the alleged deficiencies set forth in Pott’s
letter. By letter dated August 26, 2014, Stein agreed to amend the complaint in response
to those deficiencies he found legitimate and he explained why he rejected many others.
Stein prepared a second amended complaint with the same eight causes of action.
He signed the second amended complaint on September 8, 2014. Unbeknownst to him at
the time, his license to practice law was suspended on September 24, 2014, due to child
support issues that he resolved by October 7, 2014, but due to logistical aspects of the
process, the State Bar of California did not restore his license to an active status until
October 23, 2014. In the meantime, he filed the second amended complaint on
September 30, 2014.
On December 1, 2014, five defendants, Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert (the individual defendants) filed a special
motion to strike the first four causes of action in the second amended complaint as a
strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) suit (hereafter referred to as the
anti-SLAPP motion). (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) Stein, then unaware that plaintiff had
fired him, filed an opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion on plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff
did fire Stein, proceeded in pro. per., and requested an extension of time to file his own
opposition. Plaintiff filed his opposition late and exceeded the page limit. Nevertheless,
the trial court considered the entirety of plaintiff’s opposition and granted his request to
disregard the opposition filed by Stein.
On December 17, 2014, Stein filed an ex parte application for relief from the
potential defective filing of the second amended complaint. Stein explained to the court
that his license had been temporarily suspended because he had mistakenly paid the
5
wrong amount of child support for two or three months, a mistake that was quickly
rectified once he learned of it. The trial court granted Stein’s application and ruled that
the second amended complaint filed on September 30, 2014, “is deemed validly filed.”
In ruling on the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court
followed the requisite two-step process. First, the court examined the individual
defendants’ showing whether their acts were taken in furtherance of their constitutional
rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. The court found the
individual defendants made a prima facie showing. The individual defendants’ speech,
the court ruled, was “made in connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and
deciding the workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to University
policies.” Second, the court found that plaintiff did not sustain his burden of showing a
likelihood of prevailing on each of the elements of the four causes of action as well as
defeating the individual defendants’ affirmative defenses. The court, therefore, granted
the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
Plaintiff appeals.
DISCUSSION
I
The Allegations
Plaintiff believes that his employer, defense counsel, the trial judge, and even his
own lawyer, are corrupt and colluded to destroy his life. These allegations, not the merits
of the anti-SLAPP motion, are at the heart of plaintiff’s appeal. He writes: “There is no
need for Waszczuk to base this appeal on the merit of the case which is important and
Clerk Transcript is speaking for itself, if the whole legal process in this case was
corrupted by the Defendants’ attorney, Michael Pott, and Waszczuk’s attorney, Douglas
Stein misconduct, and their actions against Waszczuk were approved by the Court on
September 22, 2014, and December 17, 2014.”
6
There is nothing we can decide in this appeal or write in this opinion that will
disabuse plaintiff of this fiercely held belief. He fails to understand that these very
serious allegations are not before us on appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion. We will
explain for his benefit what the record discloses to us—the utter absence of any evidence
to support even a colorable claim of misconduct by any of the lawyers or judicial officers
in this case. We will also briefly describe the procedural context in which the allegations
are made and the futility of pursuing his corruption theory against these individual
defendants. Despite the ferocity of plaintiff’s feelings to the contrary, the fact that the
second amended complaint did not contain what he hoped it would does not translate into
reversible error and the fact that his lawyer and defense counsel engaged in an interactive
process to avoid an unnecessary demurrer does not translate into corruption.
Let us begin with plaintiff’s focus on the second amended complaint. As best we
can decipher, his objection is twofold: (1) He is troubled that Stein did not pursue his
theories that the University breached the settlement agreement and failed to follow
internal policies by not providing him annual performance reviews for two years, and (2)
he accuses the trial court of improperly validating the filing when Stein’s license had
been temporarily suspended.
Both objections are irrelevant to the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion,
which sought to strike only four of the eight causes of action stated in the second
amended complaint. Whether or not Stein would have expanded the second amended
complaint to include additional causes of action has no bearing on whether the four
causes of action were properly stricken. In any event, we are baffled by plaintiff’s
insistence that Stein refused to include a cause of action for breach of the settlement
agreement is belied by the language of the sixth cause of action for breach of a written
contract which appears to embody that very claim.
Plaintiff fails to cite any authority to support his claim that the trial court
improperly validated the filing of the second amended complaint. The claim lacks both
7
legal authority and evidentiary support in the record. Rather, Stein was forthright in his
disclosure to the court. When he filed the second amended complaint he was unaware
that his status with the State Bar had changed. The reason for his very brief suspension
was unrelated to his competency or ethics in the practice of law. Rather, as Stein
explained, he made an inadvertent error on the amount he paid in child support for two or
three months. His license to practice was reinstated within about two weeks of his
discovery of the suspension. On these facts, there is not the slightest hint of impropriety.
To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—making an ex parte application to
assure the integrity of the document he inadvertently filed during the briefest of
suspensions for a minor transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He
should be commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of plaintiff’s interests.
Yet plaintiff asserts that defense counsel colluded with Stein to file a second
amended complaint designed to rob him of meritorious claims. He also contends that
Stein bowed to defense counsel’s untoward pressure to amend the complaint and
subjected his pleadings to the anti-SLAPP motion. He adds the naked allegation that the
trial court acted improperly as well because the trial judge had known defense counsel for
a number of years. Plaintiff’s allegations are without evidentiary support.
The record discloses a cordial, thorough, and appropriate exchange between two
lawyers engaged in a meet and confer process designed to avoid an unnecessary
demurrer. The thoughtful letters exchanged by counsel described the legal issues
presented by the first amended complaint and the authorities upon which they relied to
support their positions. Stein relented on a few minor issues, but held steadfast as to the
viability of his theories. Plaintiff’s sheer speculation about the lawyers’ motives is totally
unsubstantiated; indeed, the record belies his accusations.
In summary, we conclude plaintiff’s accusations of misconduct, corruption, and
collusion between the lawyers and the trial court are unsubstantiated and unfounded. But
even more importantly, they are irrelevant to the sole issue properly before us on
8
appeal—whether the trial court erred by granting the five individual defendants’ anti-
SLAPP motion to strike four of the causes of action alleged against them. We turn,
therefore, to the only relevant issue presented.
II
The Merits
The anti-SLAPP statute provides: “A cause of action against a person arising
from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech
under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a
public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that
the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the
claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) We review an order granting an anti-
SLAPP motion de novo. (Daniel v. Wayans (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 367, 379.)
As explained above, the trial court engages in a two-step process in determining
whether to grant an anti-SLAPP motion. (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State
University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061.) In this case, the trial court found the individual
defendants made a prima facie showing to satisfy the first prong and plaintiff did not
challenge this finding in his opening brief. Belatedly in reply, he contends that the
defendants did not “show any record or evidence that the Defendants Nichols, Chilcott,
Boyd, Seifert, and Oropeza, who brought the anti-SLAPP motion to strike Waszczuk’s
first four causes of action, were made in connection with the processing, investigation,
hearing, and deciding of the workplace complaints filed by Waszczuk.”
In short, the court acknowledged that University policies and procedures have the
force and effect of a state statute (Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000)
80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165); statutory procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized
by law as contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (Vergos v. McNeal
(2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos)); the constitutional right to petition includes
the act of seeking administrative action (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity
9
(1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1115); and investigations and investigatory reports prepared in
connection with an issue under consideration or review by an official body, such as a
public entity’s internal investigations, are protected activities under the anti-SLAPP
statute (Miller v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1383). Because the
speech of the individual defendants who were subject to the anti-SLAPP motion was
“made in connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and deciding the
workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to University policies,” the
court concluded the individual defendants satisfied their burden and shifted it to the
plaintiff to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Plaintiff insists that Vergos, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, cited by the trial court,
does not support the granting of the anti-SLAPP motion. We disagree. In Vergos, an
employee of the University named the manager who denied his administrative grievance
as a defendant in his sexual harassment lawsuit in her individual capacity. (Id. at
p. 1390.) The manager filed a special motion to strike contending that her statements and
communicative conduct in handling the employee’s grievances were protected by Code
of Civil Procedure section 425.16 because “they (1) were connected with an issue under
review by an official proceeding authorized by law, and (2) furthered the right to petition
of the plaintiff and similarly situated employees.” (Vergos, at p. 1394.) We agreed and
affirmed the judgment.
We pointed out that the manager’s only conduct targeted in the complaint involved
her hearing, processing, and deciding the employee’s grievances. (Vergos, supra,
146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1396.) Similarly, here the trial court’s finding parroted our
conclusion in Vergos. And the court reviewed the allegations against each of the five
individual defendants and reported their involvement as follows:
“The allegations of the SAC [second amended complaint] against Nichols attack
her protected participation in the official investigations. The SAC specifically alleges
Nichols’ communications regarding the investigation and her investigative conclusions.
10
Nichols was appointed to investigate Plaintiff’s whistleblower complaints, and was also
appointed to conduct an investigation into complaints of workplace violence filed by
Putney and Daniliuc. All were protected petitioning activities.
“The allegations against Boyd and Chilcott are limited to their receipt of emails
from Nichols relating to the investigations, and Chilcott’s sending of an email relating to
the investigation of Plaintiff. The emails are protected speech in connection with an
investigation process.
“The allegations against Oropeza and Seifert are based upon their investigation
into the emails plaintiff sent to Nichols in April 2012. Oropeza and Seifert conducted
their investigation pursuant to the University’s grievance protocol and reached
conclusions documented in a report.
“Boyd acted as Complaint Resolution Officer (“CRO”) at Step II of the
University’s PPSM 70 process, hearing and deciding Plaintiff’s appeal of his
termination.”
In sum, each of the individual defendants, like the manager in Vergos, were
involved in the investigation, hearing, processing, and/or deciding plaintiff’s and his co-
workers’ grievances. We conclude, as in Vergos, their conduct was within the protective
ambit of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Thus we must review the trial court’s
resolution of the second step in the analysis—whether plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood
of success on the merits.
Without citation to specific pages in the record or argument about the likelihood of
success of each element of the four causes of action or even a response to the trial court’s
thorough analysis, plaintiff invites us to review his 443-page opposition to the anti-
SLAPP motion and insists, again without analysis, that the evidence is “overwhelming.”
He falls miserably short of his duty on appeal to cite to the record, to present cogent
argument, and to support his argument with applicable legal authority. In this vacuum,
we turn to the trial court’s statement of decision wherein the court provides a brief and
11
apt rationale for finding plaintiff did not sustain his burden of showing a likelihood of
prevailing.
Plaintiff’s first cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress
fails because the tort requires a showing of outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of
human decency. The court found “[w]hat plaintiff has alleged, and what his evidence in
opposition appears to support, are complaints concerning personnel management by
defendants. Pleading of personnel management activity is ‘insufficient to support a claim
of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged.’
(Janken v. [GM Hughes Electronic (1996)] 46 Cal.App.4th [55,] 80.)” We agree with the
trial court that none of the allegations against these individual defendants involved in the
investigation and resolution of the grievances constitutes the type of outrageous conduct
beyond the bounds of human decency necessary to prevail on a claim of the intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff is unable to surmount the basic principle of law that an employee or
former employee cannot sue a current or former supervisor or employee for interfering
with his or her prospective economic advantage by inducing the employer to terminate
the plaintiff’s employment. (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24; Shepperd v.
Freeman (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 339, 347.) On this basis, the trial court properly
concluded plaintiff failed to provide any countervailing authority or analysis as to why
the facts before the court show the likelihood of prevailing on his interference with
prospective economic advantage cause of action.
Plaintiff’s discrimination claim meets another definitive legal obstacle. Individual
defendants cannot be sued for discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA), nor can they be sued for failing to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and
12
harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663-664;2 Janken v. GM Hughes
Electronic, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.) Plaintiff has not shown any likelihood of
surmounting this obstacle.
Finally, the trial court found that plaintiff did not establish that the individual
defendants’ conduct was in retaliation for his whistleblowing. The court explained: “The
mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted investigations and reached
conclusions with which Plaintiff does not agree with does not establish their investigatory
findings are an act of retaliation. Nor can Boyd’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s grievance at
the Step II level of PPSM 70 review be deemed to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is
no allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against Plaintiff that could be
deemed to be a retaliatory action.” In the absence of any evidence or analysis provided
by plaintiff, we have no basis for reaching a finding at odds with the trial court. Plaintiff
has not shown a likelihood of prevailing on a whistleblower retaliation cause of action.
(Gov. Code, § 8547.10.)
III
Plaintiff maintains he should have been allowed to amend his complaint for the
third time. As support he cites cases involving demurrers, not special motions to strike a
SLAPP. His authorities, therefore, are inapposite. The anti-SLAPP statute makes no
provision for amending the complaint once the court finds the targeted conduct is
protected speech. (Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1073.)
2 After Reno v. Baird, supra, 18 Cal.4th 640 was decided “the California Legislature
amended FEHA's harassment provision expressly holding individual employees liable for
their harassment.” (Scott v. Solano County Health & Soc. Orders Servs. Dep't (E.D. Cal.
2006) 459 F.Supp.2d 959, 966, citing Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j).) There is no
harassment claim targeted by the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
13
DISPOSITION
The judgment striking the four causes of action against defendants Nichols,
Oropeza, Seifert, Boyd, and Chilcott is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs
on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
RAYE , P. J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , J.
ROBIE , J.
14
EXHIBIT # 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 02/09/2015 TIME: 09:37:00 AM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: K. Pratchen
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:
EVENT TYPE: Motion to Strike (SLAPP) - Civil Law and Motion - MSA/MSJ/SLAPP
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Ruling On Submitted Matter (Motion to Strike (SLAPP)) Taken Under
Submission 2/6/2015
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert's
Special Motion to Strike the First through Fourth Causes of Action of Self-represented Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
This motion was continued to today's date to permit the self-represented plaintiff to file his own
opposition to the motion. Although no substitution of attorneys has yet been filed with the Court, the
court accepts the representation of plaintiff in his Dec. 29, 2014 Declaration in which declared that he
terminated Douglas Stein as his counsel of record on Dec. 16, 2014. A substitution of attorneys
signed by both former attorney and the plaintiff is still required to be filed with the Court by
plaintiff.
At the plaintiff's request, the Court has considered none of the papers filed by his former attorney
Douglas E. Stein in opposition to this motion. The Opposition papers filed by the self-represented
plaintiff were filed and served by US Mail on Jan. 23, 2015, instead of on Jan. 21, 2015, as ordered by
the Court. Further, the service was by US Mail, rather by personal delivery, facsimile transmission,
express mail, or other means reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties not
later than the close of the next business day after the time the opposing papers are filed, as required by
Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b). Moving party has therefore been deprived of at least three business days in
which to prepare their reply.
Additionally plaintiff's opposing Memorandum of Points and Authorities exceeds the 15 page limit
provided in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113. Despite this failure to comply with the California
Rules of Court, the Court has read and considered the entire 34 page document. In future filings, absent
ex parte order permitting a longer memorandum, the self-represented plaintiff is admonished to abide by
the page limitations.
As noted, despite these failures to comply with the Court order and the applicable statutes, the Court has
considered plaintiff's opposition papers.
The Court declines to consider plaintiff's 17 page "Response to Defendant's Reply Brief" with attached
filed on Feb. 2, 2015, as there is no statutory right to such a supplemental brief.
Defendants' Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.
At the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and
is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v.
Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 941, 944) Thus, as is the case with attorneys,
self-represented litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th
1229, 1246-1247; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984.
Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint sets forth eight causes of action: the 1st for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, 2nd for tortious interference with economic advantage, 3rd for harassment, failure to
prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation under FEHA, 4th for whistleblower/unlawful
retaliation, 5th for violation of Health & Safety Code, sec. 1278.5, 6th for breach of written contract, 7th
for wage and hour violations and 8th for rescission - unlawful contract.
Moving party defendants move to specially strike the 1st through 4th causes of action, only, as each
arises out of acts in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue
and plaintiff cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits.
Anti-SLAPP procedure
The Court must follow a "two-step process for determining whether an action is a SLAPP." Navellier v.
Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88. First, whether the defendant has made a threshold prima facie
showing that the defendant's acts, of which the plaintiff complains, were ones taken in furtherance of the
defendant's constitutional rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. If the court
finds that such a showing has been made, then the plaintiff will be required to demonstrate that "there is
a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." The defendant has the burden on the first issue,
the threshold issue; the plaintiff has the burden on the second issue. Kajima Engineering & Construction,
Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 921, 928. "Only a cause of action that satisfies both
prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute--i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even
minimal merit--is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the statute." Navellier v. Sletten (2002)29
Cal.4th 82, 89.
Petition or Free Speech
Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (e) provides: "As used in this section, "act in furtherance of a person's right of
petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public
issue" includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or
judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement
or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or
judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law,..."
The California legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, known as the anti-SLAPP
statute, to provide a procedural remedy to dispose of lawsuits and causes of action that are brought to
chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for
redress of grievances.(See Rusheen v Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1055-1056. These provisions
apply to SLAPP suits brought against public entities and public employees. See San Ramon Valley Fire
Prot Dist v Contra Costa County Employees' Ret Ass'n (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 343, 353; see also City of
Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 69.
It is well established that the policies of Defendant University, including the Personnel Policies for Staff
Members ("PPSM") and UC Davis Policy and Procedure Manual ("PPM"), have the force and effect of
state statute. (Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165.)
Statutory procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized by law for section 425.16 purposes.
(Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 35 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399.) The constitutional right to petition includes the
act of seeking administrative action. (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th
115.) Investigations and investigatory reports prepared in connection with an issue under consideration
or review by an official body, such as a public entity's internal investigations, are protected activities
under the anti-SLAPP statute. (See Miller v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 169 Cal App.4th 1373, 1383;
Hansen v California Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitiation (2008) 171 Cal.App.4th 1537, 1544; Briggs v.
Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal. 4th 1106.)
In this case, the speech by Chilcott, Boyd, Oropeza, Seifert, and Nichols that is at issue were made in
connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and deciding the workplace complaints filed by
Plaintiff and others pursuant to University policies.
The allegations of the SAC against Nichols attack her protected participation in the official investigations.
The SAC specifically alleges Nichols' communications regarding the investigation. (SAC, paras. 70 (l),
(o), (q), (s), (x), (AA)) and her investigative conclusions (SAC para. 70 (v), (KK)). Nichols was appointed
to investigate Plaintiffs whistleblower complaints, and was also appointed to conduct an investigation
into complaints of workplace violence filed by Putney and Daniliuc. All were protected petitioning
activities.
The allegations against Boyd and Chilcott are limited to their receipt of emails from Nichols relating to
the investigations, and Chilcott's sending of an email relating to the investigation of Plaintiff (SAC, para.
70(m), (x), (AA).) The emails are protected speech in connection with an investigation process.
The allegations against Oropeza and Seifert are based upon their investigation into the emails plaintiff
sent to Nichols in April 2012. Oropeza and Seifert conducted their investigation pursuant to the
University's grievance protocol and reached conclusions documented in a report.
Boyd acted as Complaint Resolution Officer ("CRO") at Step II of the University's PPSM 70 process,
hearing and deciding Plaintiff's appeal of his termination. In Vergos, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at
1399-1400, the Court held that defendant reviewer was entitled to the protection of the anti-SLAPP
statute for denying the grievance. Specifically, in Vergos, a state university employee pursued an
internal grievance against his supervisor for sexual harassment. In an administrative proceeding
authorized by the Regents of the University of California, the hearing officer denied the grievance. The
employee then filed a civil rights suit against the hearing officer, alleging that her decision had failed to
protect him from future harassment. (Id. at pp. 1390-1392, 1396-1397.) The hearing officer filed a
special motion to strike, contending that her communications were made in connection with an issue
under consideration in an official proceeding. (See § 425.16, subd. (e)(2).) The trial court denied the
motion. The Court of Appeal reversed because "[t]he gravamen of plaintiff's [claim] is [the hearing
officer's] communicative conduct in denying plaintiff's grievances. The hearing, processing, and
deciding of the grievances (as alleged in the complaint) are meaningless without a communication of the
adverse results." (146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1397.) Thus, Vergos recognized that the anti-SLAPP statute
applies where liability is based on protected speech. (See Id. at pp. 1397-1399)
Moving parties have established that their speech and writings are protected as made in connection with
an issue under consideration or review by an official proceeding authorized by law. The burden
therefore shifts to plaintiff to show that he will prevail.
Probability That Plaintiff Will Prevail
Plaintiff must show a likelihood of prevailing on each of the elements of his causes of action, and must
also show a likelihood of defeating any applicable affirmative defenses. (Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994)
27 Cal.App.4th 809, 820, 824; see also Paul of Council v. Hanyecz (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1367,
overruled on other grounds in Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 68.)
The test to use to determine Plaintiffs probability of prevailing is similar to the standard applied to
evidentiary showings in motions for summary judgment, and the supporting facts must be demonstrated
by way of competent, admissible evidence. (Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th
628, 654-655.) The difference between summary judgment and anti-SLAPP is that the burden is on the
opposing party plaintiff to show the likelihood of prevailing.
In order to establish the necessary probability of prevailing, plaintiff was required both to plead claims
that were legally sufficient, and to make a prima facie showing, by admissible evidence, of facts that
would merit a favorable judgment on those claims, assuming plaintiff's evidence were credited. The court
does not, however, weigh the parties' evidence, in terms of either credibility or persuasiveness. Rather,
the defendant's evidence is considered with a view toward whether it defeats the plaintiff's showing as a
matter of law, such as by establishing a defense or the absence of a necessary element. 1-800
Contacts, Inc. v. Steinberg (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 568, 584-585.
1st For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
An essential element of pleading a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is a showing of
outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of human decency. Managing personnel is not outrageous
conduct beyond the bounds of human decency, but rather conduct essential to the welfare and
prosperity of society. A simple pleading of personnel management activity is insufficient to support a
claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged. If personnel
management decisions are improperly motivated, the remedy is a suit against the employer for
discrimination. Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal. App. 4th 55, 80.
What plaintiff has alleged, and what his evidence in opposition appears to support, are complaints
concerning personnel management by defendants. Pleading of personnel management activity is
"insufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is
alleged." (Janken, supra.)
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the facts before the court show the
likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of action.
2nd Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage
Plaintiff's claim tortious interference with economic advantage against Defendants. An employee or
former employee cannot sue a current or former supervisor or employee for interfering with his or her
prospective economic advantage by inducing the employer to terminate the plaintiff's employment.
(Shepperd v. Freeman (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 339, 347; Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24.)
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the facts before the court show the
In the third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges violation of FEHA, both Section 12940(a) which prohibits
discrimination and Section 12940(k) which addresses the failure to prevent discrimination.
These claims are not properly pleaded against the individual Defendants as individuals cannot be sued
for discrimination under the FEHA, nor can they be sued for failing to prevent discrimination, retaliation,
and harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663- 664; see, also Janken, supra, at p. 63.) In
Janken the Supreme Court noted the "fundamental distinction" between the way the FEHA treats
harassment, on the one hand--for which supervisors may be held personally liable, and discrimination on
the other hand--for which, Janken held, individuals are not personally responsible.
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the facts before the court show the
likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of action.
Plaintiff has not established that moving defendants' conduct was in retaliation for plaintiff's
whistleblowing.
The mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted investigations and reached conclusions with
which Plaintiff does not agree with does not establish their investigatory findings are an act of retaliation.
Nor can Boyd's decision to deny Plaintiffs grievance at the Step II level of PPSM 70 review be deemed
to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is no allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against
Plaintiff that could be deemed to be a retaliatory action.
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the facts before the court show the
likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of action.
As a matter of law, Plaintiff has not shown that he can prevail on any of his four causes of action against
moving party defendants. Given the Court's determination the Court need not address the Regents'
other arguments based on Gov't Code 821.6. It bears noting, however, that immunity extends to
investigations even if there is a later decision not to institute administrative proceedings or to initiate a
prosecution. See Ingram v Flippo (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1293.
The anti-SLAPP motion is therefore granted as to moving defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott,
Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert only, as to the 1st through 4th causes of action, only.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission.
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter (Motion for Reconsideration of the 2/9/2015
Order) taken under submission on 4/10/15
TENTATIVE RULING
Self-represented Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dated Feb. 9, 2015 Anti-SLAPP Motion
is DENIED.
A self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater
consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.
App. 3d 941, 944) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct rules
of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell
(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was filed and served by US Mail on Feb. 20, 2015. No hearing date
appeared on the Motion papers. On Feb. 25, 2015, an Amended Notice of Motion reflecting the hearing
date of March 6, 2015 was filed and served by US Mail. That notice, counting backwards from March 6
to Feb. 20, allowed only 10 court days' notice instead of the required16 court days' notice, and allowed
none of the five additional calendar days for service by mail, as required by C.C.P., sec. 1005 and 12c.
The hearing date was continued to today's date at the request of the moving party.
Defendant's opposition to the motion for reconsideration objects to the untimely notice and further
asserts that moving party has failed to meet the requirements of a motion for reconsideration under
C.C.P., sec. 1008.
A motion for reconsideration must be made (i) within 10 days after service upon the party of written
notice of entry of the order and (ii) based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and (iii) to
the same judge or court that made the order. C.C.P. section 1008(a). C.C.P. section 1008 is the
exclusive means for modifying, amending or revoking an order. That limitation is expressly jurisdictional.
Morite of California v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 485, 490.
Moving party fails to base his motion for reconsideration upon any new or different facts, circumstances,
or law. Instead, plaintiff contends that the Court failed to read his opposition and attached exhibits to the
anti-SLAPP motion. Moving party contends that the Court should have accepted his supplemental brief,
which argues that the SLAPP motion violated an earlier stipulation between the parties to permit the
filing of a second amended complaint, that some unidentified new authority applies to the anti-SLAPP
motion in an unidentified manner and that the Court erred in its anti-SLAPP ruling.
None of these contentions is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements that the motion for
reconsideration be "based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law."
A trial court has no jurisdiction to reconsider a prior order on the basis of different facts, circumstances
or law in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the failure to present them earlier. Baldwin v.
Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1192, 1200. Further, if the plaintiff is not required to
explain the failure to earlier produce pertinent legal authority that was available, the ability of a party to
obtain reconsideration would expand in inverse relationship to his competence. Without a diligence
requirement the number of times a court could be required to reconsider its prior orders would be limited
only by the ability of the party to belatedly conjure a legal theory different from those previously rejected,
which is not much of a limitation. Baldwin v. Home Savings, supra, 59 Cal. App. 4th 1192, 1199.
The Court has read and considered plaintiff's objections to the formal order. The Court will sign the
formal order submitted on the anti-SLAPP motion.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The Court affirmed the tentative ruling.
Having taken the matter under submission on 4/10/2015, the Court now rules as follows:
Declaration of Mailing
I hereby certify that I am not a party to the within action and that I deposited a copy of this document in
sealed envelopes with first class postage prepaid, addressed to each party or the attorney of record in
the U.S. Mail at 720 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California.
Dated: April 14, 2015
E. Brown, Deputy Clerk _____s/ E. Brown_____
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242
P O R T E R I S C O T T APR 1 4 •
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896
Douglas L. Ropel, SBN 300486
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
FAX: 916.927.3706
dburkettfalporterscott.com
6
Attorney for Defendants
7
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
8 MICHAEL BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DORIN DANILIUC, DANESHA NICHOLS,
CINDY OROPEZA. PATRICK PUTNEY, ANN MADDEN RICE,
9 BRENT SEIFERT, and CHARLES WITCHER
10
Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
11
^ 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
H 3 S _ VD
^ tn m OO ^
o 2 P; 14
> U O; Os JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASENO. 34-2013-00155479
15
: 0\ ON
Plaintiff, ' -feROPeSBDi- ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT,
3
17 NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND SEIFERT'S
SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST
18 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF
19 OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSIW OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFlP'S SECOND
GALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, AMENDED COMPLAINT
20 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE DATE: February 6,2015
21 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES TIME: 2:00 P.M.
22 WITCHER DANESHA NICHOLS. CINDY DEPT: 53
OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
23 PUTNEY. DORIN DANILIUC, and does I
through 50. inclusive. Complaint Filed: December 12,2013
24
Amended Complaint Filed: June 16,2014
25 Defendants SAC Filed: September 30,2014
26
///
27
28 ///
{01362378.OOCX} 1
(PROPOSED! ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAOSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Defendants MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
2 OROPEZA, and BRENT SEIFERT ("Defendants") filed a Special Motion to Strike four causes of
3 action, as pleaded against them, from PlaintifTs Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Code of
4 Civil Procedure section 425.16. Specifically, Defendants brought the Motion to strike Plaintiffs
5 causes of action against them for: (1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (2) Tortious
6 Interference with Economic Advantage; (3) Discrimination and Failure to Prevent Harassment,
7 Discrimination, and Retaliation under Government Code section 12940, subdivisions (a) and (k);
S and (4) Whistleblower Retaliation under Govemment Code section 8547 et seq.
9 On Febmary 5, 2015, the Court issued a Tentative Ruling, which is incorporated as
10 Exhibit A, granting Defendants' Motion.,; Pursuant to PlaintifPs request, the Motion was heard
11 before the Honorable Judge David I. Brown on Febmary 6, 2015. After hearing from the parties
12 and taking the matter under submission, the Court affirmed its Tentative Ruling v^ith the issuance
o
o
a in 13 of a Minute Order on Febmary 9, 2015. The Court's Minute Order ruled as follows:
^ -3 (N
— \o
P eS IS» S
14 Defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy
^is < o"
ai 1^
o.<=^.
!£ £
1c
1J V 'Oropeza and Brent Seifert's Special Motion to Strike the First thfough
Fourth Causes of Action of Self-represented Plaintiffs Second Amended
W >. c ^ >< 16 Complaint is GRANTED.
fell ^ 5: ,
211 17 This motion was continued to permit the self-represented plaintiff to file
o his own opposition to the motion. Although no substitution of attorneys
18 has yet beenfiledwith the Court, the Court accepts the representation of
I plaintiff in his Dec. 29, 2014 Declaration in which declared that he
19
terminated Douglas Stein as his counsel of record on Dec. 16, 2014. A
20 substitution of attorneys signed by both former attorney and the
plaintiff is still required to befiledwith the Court by piaintifT.
21
22 At the plaintiffs request, the Cpurt has considered none of the papers filed
by his former attomey Douglas E. Stein in opposition to this motion. The
23 Opposition papers filed by the self-represented plaintiff were filed and
served by US Mail on January 23, 2015, instead of on January 21,2015, as
24 ordered by the Court. Further, the service was by US Mail, rather by
25 personal delivery, facsimile transmission, express mail, or other means
reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties not
26 later than the close of the next business day after the time the opposing
papers are filed, as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b). Moving party
27 has therefore been deprived of at least three business days in which to
28 prepare their reply.
I0I362378.DOCX} 2_
jPROPOSEDj ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
\
Additionally, plaintiff's opposing Memorandum of Points and Authorities
exceeds the 15 page limit provided in Califomia Rules of Court, Rule
2 3.1113. Despite this failure to comply with the Califomia Rules of Court, ^
the Court has read and considered the entire 34 page document. In future
3 filings, absent ex parte order pemiitting a longer memorandum, the self-
4 represented plaintiff is admonished to abide by the page limitations.
5 As noted, despite these failures to comply with the Court order and the
applicable statutes, the Court has considered plaintiffs opposition papers.
6 The Court declines to consider plaintiffs 17 page "Response to
7 Defendant's Reply Brief filed on Feb. 2, 2015, as there is no statutory
right to such a supplemental brief.
8 f
Defendants' Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.
9
10 At the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be
treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater
II consideration than other litigants and attomeys. (Williams v. Pacific
Mutual Ufe Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 941, 944) Thus, as is the
12
o case with attomeys, self-represented litigants must follow correct rules of
o
Ol
a in 13 procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 1246-1247; see
[ _
3 0 0 — >o also Rajjpleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984.
CO V% oo O
O 6' ' t 14
O 5 < >- Second Amended Complaint
Vi g S S
> VJ ^ o> 15
^ < g
o tu <
>6 «> 16 Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint sets forth eight causes of action:
o r- u. (1) intentionaL infliction of emotional distress; (2) tortious interference
17 with economic advantage; (3) harassment, failure to prevent harassment,
ex. discrimination and retaliation under FEHA; (4) whistleblower/unlawful
18
retaliation; (5) violation of Health & Safety Code section 1278.5; (6)
19 breach of written contract; (7) wage and hour violations; and (8) rescission
- unlawful contract.
20
21 Moving party defendants move to specially strike the 1st through 4th
causes of action, only, as each arises out of acts in furtherance of the right
22 of petition of free speech in connection with a public issue, and plaintiff
cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits. '
23
24 Anti-SLAPP procedure
8 Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (e) provides: "As used in this section, "act in
furtherance of a person'srightof petition orfi-eespeech under the United
9 States or Califomia Constitution in connection with a public issue"
10 includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a
legislative, executive, or 'judicial proceeding, or any other official
11 proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement or writing
made in coruiection with an issue under consideration or review by a
12 legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding(
o
o
a in 13 authorized by law... ." ^
t_ g Ol to
P 00 ^ «S• f~
O u - " sP;
" 14 The Califomia legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,
^
CO gi <
5, S M
> W o\ Icnown as the anti-SLAPP statute, to provide a procedural remedy to
OC < o" ^ 2 15 dispose of lawsuits and causes of action that, are brought to chill the valid
.— o .
16 exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the
govemment for redress of grievances.(See Rusheen v Cohen (2006) 37
o 17 Cal.4th 1048, 1055-1056. These provisions apply to SLAPP suits brought
against public entities and public employees. See San Ramon Valley Fire
18 Prot Dist V Contra Costa County Employees' Ret Ass'n (2004) 125
19 Cal.App.4th 343, 353; see also City ofCotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.
4th 69.
20
21 It is well established that the policies of Defendant University, including
the Personnel Policies for Staff Members ("PPSM") and UC Davis Policy
22 and Procedure Manual ("PPM"), have the force and effect of state statute.
(Kim V. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160,
23 165.) "1
24
Statutory procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized by law for
25 section 425.16 purposes. {Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 35 Cal.App.4th 1387,
1399.) The constitutional right to petition includes the act of seeking
26 administrative action. {Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity
27 (1999) 19 Cal.4th 115.) Investigations and investigatory reports prepared
in connection with an issue under consideration or review by an official
28 body, such as a public entity's internal investigations, are protected
<01362378.DOCX}
(PROPOSEDI ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. {See Miller v. City of Los Angeles
(2009) 169 Cal ARp.4th 1373, 1383; Hansen v California Dept of
Corrections and Rehabilitiation (2008) 171 Cal.App.4th 1537, 1544;
Briggs V. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal. 4th 1106.)
In this case, the speech by Chilcott, Boyd, Oropeza, Seifert, and Nichols
that is at issue were made in cormection with the processing, investigation,
hearing and deciding the" workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and
others pursuant to University policies.
in
17 3"" for Discrimination
18 In the third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges violation of the FEHA, both
19 section 12940(a), which prohibits discrimination, and Section 12940(k)
which addresses the failure to prevent discrimination.
20
These claims are not properly pleaded against the individual Defendants as
21
individuals cannot be sued for discrimination Under the FEHA, nor can
22 they be sued for failing to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and
harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663-664; see, also
23 , Janken, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.) In .lanken the Supreme Court
noted the "ftindamental distinction" between the way the FEHA treats
24
harassment, on the one hand—for which supervisors may be held
25 personally liable, and discrimination on the other hand~for which, Janken
held, individuals are not personally responsible.
26
27 Plaintiffhas failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the
facts before the court show the likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of
28 action.
(OI36237g.DOCX}
(PROPOSED} ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
4'" for Whistleblower/Unlawful Retaliation
1
The mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted investigations
and reached conclusions with which Plaintiff does not agree v\dth does not
establish their investigatoryfindingsare an act of retaliation. Nor can
Boyd's decision to deny Plaintiffs grievance at the Step II level of PPSM
70 review be deemed to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is no
allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against Plaintiff that
could be deemed to be a retaliatory action.
10
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the
11 facts before the court show the likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of
action.
12
o
o
Ol
13 As a matter of law. Plaintiff has not shown that he can prevail on any of
h
,
"5
- J, m
S -- )J?
~ ee 'o his four causes of action against moving party defendants. Given the
^ ( / } tn QO •
p u 2 P; 14 Court's determination the Court need not address the Regents' other
(J
> u o» o> arguments based on Govemment Code section 821.6. It bears noting,
oi < o" vb vo 15 however, that immtmity extends to investigations even if there is a later
16 decision not to institute administrative proceedings or to initiate a
prosecution. (See Ingram v Flippo (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1293.)
o 17
•n
The anti-SLAPP motion is therefore granted as to moving defendants
18
Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza and
19 Brent Seifert only, as to thefirstthrough fourth causes of action.
25
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Special Motion to Strike the four causes of
26
action enumerated above, as pleaded against Defendants, from Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint is hereby GRANTED.
28
(OI36237g.DOCX) 8
(PROPOSED! ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment be, and hereby is, entered in favor of
Defendants MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA,
and BRENT SEIFERT, and against Plaintiff JAROSLAW WASZCZUK for the four causes of
action asserted against them in the Second Amended Complaint.
5 ^ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are awarded their costs and the attorney's
6 fees incurred in conjunction with the Special Motion to Strike pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure
7 section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1). Defendants shall file a separate motion to determine the
8 amount to be awarded.
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 Dated: ,2015
11
12 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
o
Ol
13
DAVID I. BROWN
_ vo
t e« S«• S
JS APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT.
14
e«: < o"vb vo 15
UJ >. c 9\ Ov Dated: February _,2015 By.
y < 16
o s? i Jaroslaw Waszczuk, In Pro Per
3 V)
o
m
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
<OI36237g.DOCX)
(PROPOSEDI ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
•• • \
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT # 5
1 P O R T E R I S C O T T
{01892012.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (the "UNIVERSITY" or
"DEFENDANT") respectfully submits the following memorandum of points and authorities in
support of its motion to: (1) compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK's verified
4 responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One),
5 Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One.); (2) deem
6 Defendant's Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted; (3) award monetary sanctions in the
amount of $5,200.00 to retum Defendant to the position it would have been had the subject
discovery responses been timely provided; (4) issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as a
result of Plaintiffs pattem of vexatious litigation tactics and failure to engage in the discovery
10 process; and (5) impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.
I.
11
INTRODUCTION
12 Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special
13 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
^ ^ ~
P ,2 00 — vg
h-
O ..
«/-! oo O
ov ^
14 Employment (Set One) and Requests for Admissions (Set One) on April 25, 2018. Responses were
> ^ ov ov
Oi < O 15 due on or before May 30, 2018. Defendant provided Plaintiff with an extension to June 20, 2018 to
U ^ C ov Ov
—
• " ..
16 provide responses to the requests. Plaintiff has completely failed to respond to any written
17 discovery and responses are overdue.
18 Defendant respectftilly requests the Court issue an Order to (1) compel Plaintiff to provide
19 verified responses to Defendant's Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special
20 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
21 Employment (Set One) and Request for Admissions (Set One); (2) deem Defendant's Request for
22 Admissions (Set One) admitted; (3) issue monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of
23 $5,200.00 for Defendant's fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion; and (4) issue the sanction
24 of termination of the present action as a result of Plaintiffs failure to provide responses to the
25 Defendant's written discovery despite receiving an extension of time to do so and in light of
26 Plaintiffs pattem of vexatious litigation tactics throughout the course of this litigation. Moreover, if
27 the Court is not willing, at this stage, to terminate the action, it should impose a reasonable deadline
28 of two weeks for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, if Plaintiff intends to
{01892012.DOCX} ' • 1
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 further amend his complaint.
2 II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
3
4 Defendant UNIVERSITY served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents (Set
5 One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Eorm
6 Interrogatories - Employment (Set One), and Requests for Admissions (Set One) on April 25, 2018!
7 (See Declaration of Daniel Bardzell in Support of Motion to Compel ("Bardzell Decl."), ^ 2 and
8 Exhibit A.) By correspondence dated May 22, 2018, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to
9 respond to all such requests on the basis that he was sick. (See Bardzell Decl., 3 and Exhibit B.)
10 Defendants responded by email correspondence dated May 23, 2018 granting Plaintiff an extension
11 of time to respond until June 20, 2018. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiff completely
12 failed to respond to any such request by June 20, 2018 and same are currently overdue. (See
o
o
13 Bardzell Decl., H 4.)
L. •- r s
r - 3 oc — VO
t- 00 p
^ m
14 On Septernber 24, 2018, counsel for Defendant served a meet and confer correspondence
o g-=^ov Ovov ^
OS < o" VO
15 upon Plaintiff regarding the outstanding discovery responses wherein defense counsel indicated:
VD
OV OV
•b p-J X 16 [P]lease provide complete responses to all such outstanding requests no later than September 28,
UJ <
^•5 yf- u-
^ TO -
o
17 2018. If we do not have your complete responses by that date, we will file a niotion to compel
1^
18 responses and request monetary as well as terminating sanctions from the Court." (See Bardzell
19 Decl., H 5 and Exhibit D.)
20 By incoherent email correspondence also dated September 24, 2018, Plaintiff indicated, in
21
part:
22 Thank you for news about the Request for Production of Documents and Special
Interrogatories , I appreciate but I not sure yet what I am going to . I am waiting for
23 answers from the federal authorities in this matter.
I will let know . I mean time you can entertain yourself with my affirmative defense
24
of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. As Jeanine Pirro stated not so long ago , . UC Regent wife
25 Senator Feinstein's Unhinged Demon Rats attacking Judge Kavanaugh as I was
attacked and wasted by her husband and other unhinged UC demon , rats . Same
26 people only different is that I have no 1 penny on my account and I am for my SS
check on 28^*^ than I could buy ink for my printer and do eventually interrogatories.
27
(See Bardzell Decl., TI 6 and Exhibit E.)
28
{01892012.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
Plaintiff failed to respond to any of the outstanding discovery requests by September 28,
2018 and same remain outstanding. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 7.)
3 On October 1, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an email correspondence to Defendant stating: "I
4 am working on the Interrogatories and other papers. Pleas give one more week to finish. Attached is
a part of interrogatories to show you that I am working on ." (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 8 and Exhibit
F.) Included was a rambling apparent partial draft response to Defendant's Special Interrogatories,
Set One without a verification. (See id.)
The course of litigation in this matter is lengthy and complex. The following is a brief
summary: Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on September 30,
10 2014. Among the several claims in the SAC are four causes of action against all named
11 Defendants': (1) intentional infiiction of emotional distress ("IIED"); (2) tortious interference with
12 economic advantage; (3) FEHA harassment and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination,
13 retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 12940(a); and (4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation
t 1 S3 _ VO
t/1 u~, 00 o in violation of Govemment Code §§ 8547 e/. ^e^.
O u =^ 2 14
.
1 <ag
> U ov Ov I ^
Each of these causes of action arises out of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant at the
Od •< o" ^ S '
c o^ 5^ University of Califomia at Davis Medical Center. In addition to Defendant UNIVERSITY^, these
17 causes of action were plead against Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN
On April 14, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting the Special Motion to Strike finding
that Plaintiff failed to establish a probability of prevailing on the causes of action pleaded against
the anti-SLAPP Defendants as required by section 425.16 and entering judgment in favor of the
anti-SLAPP Defendants. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 10 and Exhibit G.)
Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of the four remaining
individual Defendants RICE, WITCHER, PUTNEY, and DANILIUC. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 11 and
Exhibit H.) The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant remaining in the case.
10
On May 11, 2015, the anti-SLAPP Defendants filed a Motion for Fees and Costs pursuant to
11
CCP § 425.16, subdivision (c) and the Court's Order dated April 14, 2015 on Defendant's Special
12
Motion to Strike. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 12.) The motion sought recovery of approximately $33,000
13
• = S—OO VOo in fees and costs incurred by the anti-SLAPP Defendants in connection with the Special Motion to
, 1/5.. ov
v-\
14
Strike.
0^
_ < o"
o ^ ^ 15
ov ov
b c -i X 16 On June 29, 2018, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion for Fees and
UJ <
a- c « f - Lu
. o 17 Costs in the amount of $22,284 against Plaintiff (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 13 and Exhibit I.)
m
18 Plaintiff has represented that he will seek leave of the court to file a Third Ame;nded
19 Complaint. (See Bardzell Decl., Exhibit B.) At the outset ofthe appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion-
20 well over a year ago - Plaintiff provided Defendants with a draft of his Third Amended Complaint.
21 It is nearly three hundred pages long and includes meritless allegations of a conspiracy to cover-up
22 illegal power sales that purportedly involves all levels of state government, the University of
23 Califomia system, and local jurisdictions, including the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. To
24 date. Plaintiff has not sought leave of the Court to file a Third Amended Complaint.
25 III.
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
26 INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE). FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL (SET
ONE) AND FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT (SET ONE)
27
A party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath
28
{01892012.DOCX} .4
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: an answer containing the information
2 being sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party's option to produce writings, or an objection
3 to the particular interrogatory. (CCP § 2030.210(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed
4 fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order
5 compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) The party also waives objections
6 to the interrogatories (including those based on privilege and work product) by failing to respond
7 by the deadline. (CCP § 2030.290(a).)
8 Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to
9 a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have 'to demonstrate either good cause or
10 that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. {Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific
11 Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4"^ 390, 411.) A separate statement is not required
12 when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)
o
o
r4
i i ir, 13 In our case. Defendant has not received plaintiffs verified responses to Special
^ 00 — VO
H V3
O u-"^
oo o 14 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), or Form Interrogatories -
-U "
(= < Ov
00 (S M
Di < d ov ov 15 Employment (Set One). These interrogatories were properly served on Plaintiff on April 25, 2018.
vb VD
.- u Ov ov
_) X 16 (Bardzell Decl., Tl 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs responses were due on or before May 30, 2018. By
H £:
o
17 correspondence dated May 22, 2018, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond to all such
18 requests on the basis that he was sick. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 3 and Exhibit B.) Defendant responded by
19 email correspondence dated May 23, 2018 granting Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to
20 June 20, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiff did not respond to this discovery by
21 June 20, 2018, has not offered a valid excuse for his failure to respond and all such responses
22 remain outstanding. Defendant requires these discovery responses in order to properly defend itself
23 in this case and to determine the validity of plaintiffs claims.
24 Accordingly, Defendant respectfully request an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide
25 verified responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General
26 (Set One), and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One) without objections.
27 ///
28 ///
{01892012.DOCX) 5
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
IV.
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the
party propounding the demand may move for an order compelling responses to the demand. (CCP
§ 2031.300(b).) In addition, a party who fails to respond waives any objections he otherwise could
have raised to the demand. (CCP § 2031.300(a).)
Defendant served Plaintiff with a Request for Production of Documents (Set One) on April
25, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs responses were due on or before May 30,
2018. Plaintiff requested and received an extension of time in which to respond yet failed to
10 respond by the extended deadline. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiffs responses remain
11 overdue and outstanding. (See id.)
12 Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide
o
o
(N
13 responses to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents (Set One), without objections.
3 oo
00 ^ VO ^
r - V5 ir^
H • r i 00
00 Oo
O u °^ 2 14 V.
— > U ov ov , ^
0-; < Q- VD ^ 1J DEFENDANT'S REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) SHOULD BE
DEEMED ADMITTED
5 g g --i X 16
o.|is< The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under
o
17 oath separately to each request. (CCP § 2033.210(a).) Each response shall answer the substance of
18
the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request. {Id.)
19
20 "If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response
[. . .] The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to
21 the requests[. . . .] The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of
22 any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed
admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction[. . . . ] It is mandatory that the court impose
23 a monetary sanction [. . .] on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a
timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion." (CCP §
24 2033.280(a-c).)
25 Defendant served Plaintiff with a Request for Admissions (Set One) including nineteen
26 requests on April 25, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs responses were due on
27 or before May 30, 2018. Plaintiff requested and received an extension of time in which to respond
28 yet failed to respond by the extended deadline. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiff s
{01892012.DOCX} 6
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 responses remain overdue and outstanding. (See id.)
. 2 Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests an order that the tmth of all matters specified in
3 Defendant's Request for Admissions, Set One be deemed admitted pursuant to CCP § 2033.280.
4 VL
.5 MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AWARDED
Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in relevant part, that:
6
7 The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse
of the discovery process, or any attomey advising that conduct, or both pay the
8 reasonable expenses, including attoniey's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
9 conduct [. . .] If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the
court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction
10 acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of
the sanction unjust;
11
12 CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c) and 2033.280(c) provide that a court shall impose a ,
13 monetary sanction on any party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel responses to
r- 3 00 — VO
(— </5 m 00 o
O .. Ov -a- 14 interrogatories, request for production of documents or request for admissions.
— > v j a^ ov
< o" >o vd 15- Defendant has extended Plaintiff every opportunity to avoid court intervention in this
U ^ . S ov 5;
matter by providing Plaintiff with an extension of time to respond to all of the aforementioned
3
17 requests to which Plaintiff still failed to provide any response. Plaintiff has completely ignored
18 Defendant's discovery requests.
19 Plaintiffs attempt to evade his obligation to provide responses to discovery has made the
20 current motion necessary, despite being afforded opportunities to avoid the need for same.
21 To date. Defendants have incurred $3,900 in fees as a result of Plaintiff s failure to respond
22 to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form
23 Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One.) and Request for
24 Admissions (Set One.) (Bardzell Decl., Tl 15.) Defendant anticipates incurring an additional $1,300
25 to review Plaintiffs Opposition, prepare a reply and attend a hearing. (See id.) Therefore, sanctions
26 are proper. Moreover, even if Plaintiff serves responses upon notice of this motion in order to avoid
27 a court order. Defendant has nevertheless been forced to incur the expense of moving to compel
28 Plaintiffs compliance with his discovery obligations, despite efforts to achieve a cooperative
{01892012.DOCX} ' ' • 7 .
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 result. As such, sanctions in the amount of $5,200 are appropriately awarded against Plaintiff for
2 the time and expense incurred by Defendant in filing this otherwise unnecessary motion.
VII.
TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE
The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may impose sanctions on any party
who engages in conduct that constitutes misuse ofthe discovery process. (CCP § 2023.030(a).)
•6
Misuses ofthe discovery process includes "failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method
7
of discovery" and "disobeying a court order to provide discovery." (CCP §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)
8
When a party fails to respond to an authorized method of discovery and/or fails to obey a court
9
order to provide discovery, the Court may impose monetary sanctions, terminating sanctions, or
10
both. (CCP § 2023.030(a), (d), (g).)
11
Courts have long held that terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is a willful
o.
12
o failure to comply with court orders, and should be issued where it appears that lesser sanctions
tN
f-^ •- 0 0^
13
L - 3 . VO
H CT) 1/-, OO O would not bring the offending party into compliance. {R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
o d-=^ 2: P; 14
> U ov ov ., (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Terminating sanctions are especially appropriate where a party
< o" vd ^ 1J
W c o^ o^
f— • — " .. fails to respond to discovery requests and ignores court orders. {See Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68
Cal.App.3d 372, 383.)
17
Terminating sanctions are appropriate in this case. Plaintiff has failed to provide any
18
verified responses to the Defendant's written discovery despite receiving an extension of time to do
19
so.
20
It is evident that Plaintiffs conduct is nothing more than a delaying tactic to prevent the
21
Defendant from engaging in basic discovery. Requiring Defendant to continue wasting time,
22
money, and Court resources to compel Plaintiff to litigate this case would be categorically unjust.
23
The aforementioned conduct has also prejudiced Defendant's ability to prepare for trial and will
24
interfere with the Court's ability ascertain the tmth in this case. It has thus become apparent that no
25
action will compel Plaintiff to comply with his discovery obligations, making terminating sanctions
26
appropriate.
27
Additionally, Plaintiffs pattem of vexatious litigation tactics throughout the course of this
28
{01892012.DOCX} 8
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
litigation further indicates the need for terminating sanctions. Recently, Plaintiff engaged in
vexatious litigation tactics in connection with his opposition to Defendants' Motion for Fees and
Costs Pursuant to CCP § 425.16(c). The Court recognized Plaintiffs repeated improper filings in
its Tentative Ruling on Defendants' Motion for Fees and Costs dated June 7, 2018, affirmed and
adopted by its Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Fees and Costs Pursuant to CCP § 425.16(c)
dated June 29, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Exhibit I.) The Court's Tentative Ruling, in part, provided:
"First the Court must note that the opposition memorandum exceeds the 15 page limit
set forth in California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113 and Plaintiff failed to obtain an order
8 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1113(e) permitting an oversized meinorandum. The Court has
9 previously admonished Plaintiff for failing to comply with this mle."
[.-..]
10
Plaintiffs "notice of objection" to Defendants' supplemental declaration does nothing
11
more than repeat the issues discussed above related to his previous counsel and the'
12 alleged collusion with Defendants' counsel in addition to alleging that Defendants'
o
o counsel had attempted to provoke him into a physical confrontation. [. . .] There was no
tN
13 basis to file an'objection.'"
J 00 — VO
^ oo o
I/-J oo
O <J °^ 2 14 (Bardzell Decl., Exhibit I , Tentative Ruling on Defendants' Motion for Fees and Costs
> U ov ov _
cc; < o vd VD 1 J dated June 7, 2018, pg. 2-4.)
UJ ^ c 5; 5;
S g i -i X 16 Plaintiff has repeatedly filed multiple lengthy documents and pleadings and continues to
17 engage in tactics to delay the case and to force Defendant to expend additional funds in the defense
rn
18 of the action. Accordingly, Defendant requests that the Court grant terminating sanctions and issue
19 an Qrder dismissing the complaint against the remaining Defendant in its entirety, with prejudice.
20 VIH.
IF TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE NOT GRANTED. THE COURT SHOULD
21 IMPOSE A DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO SEEK LEAVE TO F I L E A THIRD
22 AMENDED COMPLAINT, IF AT A L L
23
As discussed supra. Plaintiff has represented that he will seek leave of the court to file a
24
Third Amended Complaint. At the outset of the appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion- well over a year
25
ago - Plaintiff provided Defendants with a draft of his Third Amended Complaint. It is nearly three
26
hundred pages long and includes allegations of a conspiracy to cover-up illegal power sales that
27
involves all levels of state govemment, the University of Califomia system, and local jurisdictions,
28
including the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. To date, Plaintiff has not sought leave of the
(0I892012.DOCX} ^ 9
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 Court to file a Third Amended Complaint. In light of Plaintiffs vexatious litigation tactics
2 identified supra, if the Court is not willing, at this stage, to terminate the action, it should impose a
3 reasonable deadline of two weeks from the issuance of an Order on the present Motion to Compel
4 for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. This would eliminate the specter of
5 additional voluminous and unnecessary pleading amendments from further delaying the case and
6 causing Defendant urmecessary fees and costs.
7 IX.
8 CONCLUSION
9 Defendant has made every effort to allow for the cooperative exchange of information,
10 however Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses to Defendant's Requests for Production of
11 Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One),
12 Form Interrogatories - Ehiployment (Set One.) and Request for Admissions (Set One.) Defendant
o
o
fN
U m
13 is left with no option other than to file the instant motion. As such, Defendant seeks an Order (1)
fN
i- '3
H C/3 oo
»o oo 14 compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant's Requests for
O CJ ov
venu
U
CA
Ov
on tN
oi < o" vd
Ov
15 Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
5 ^ § -J X 16 General (Set One) and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One.); (2) deeming Defendant's
:D C/) 17 Request for Admissions, Set One admitted; (3) awarding sanctions in the amount of $5,200.00 to
o
18 return Defendant to the position it would have been had responses been timely provided; (4) issue
19 terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff s pattern of vexatious litigation tactics
20 and failure to engage in the discovery process; and (5) altematively, if termination is not granted, to
21 impose a two week deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, if at all.
22
Dated: October 3, 2018 PORTER SCOTT
23 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
24
25 David P. E. Bhrkett
26 Daniel J. Bardzell
Attomeys for DefendEint
27
28
{01892012.DOCX} 10
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
Waszczuk V. Regents ofthe University of California, et ai
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
5
On the date below, I served the following document:
6
7 DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET
8 ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET
ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR
9 ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
10
BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
11 am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
12 course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
o
o
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
tN
13 addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
.,- ^ — VD
attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
•~ tN
t- 3 00 00 o
attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of
o OV 1^ 14
u I)
ov t-: nine in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving
00 53
— g<
> tN f N
ov OV
15 the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the
o '^S vd hours of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
f-
o: J X 16 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
o UJ < ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package
17 for collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the ovemight
delivery carrier.
18 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission,
I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
19 machine that 1 used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service
20 by electronic transmission, 1 caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
address listed below.
21
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
22
2216 Katzakian Way
23 Lodi, CA 95242
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
foregoing is tme and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on October 3, 2018.
25
26
Wendy Strasser
27
28
{0I892012.DOCX} II
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
EXHIBIT # 6
EXHIBIT # 7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 10/31/2018 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: R. Mays, M. Oreschak
APPEARANCES
The Court received a letter from Plaintiff purportedly attaching his answers to special interrogatories.
The Court simply notes that no responses to form interrogatories or request for production were
attached to the letter and in any event, service of responses after the motion was filed does not moot the
motion. Defendant is still entitled to an order. To be clear, a motion is "made" when it is filed and
served. (CCP § 1005.5.) However, to the extent that any responses served after the motion was filed
comply with the above order, they need not be re-served.
Defendant's request for sanctions in connection with the motion to compel responses is denied as the
motion was unopposed. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 purports to authorize sanctions
if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery
authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing
sanctions under the C.R.C. must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing
sanctions. Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.
However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an
abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers
Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.
Defendant's unopposed motion to deem matters in the requests for admission admitted is granted,
unless Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk serves, "before the hearing on the motion," proposed
responses that are in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280(c).)
Defendant's request for mandatory monetary sanctions is connection with the motion to deem matters
admitted is granted. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) However, the requested amount of $5,200 for this
straightforward discovery motion is plainly excessive. Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk shall pay to
Defendant a mandatory monetary sanction in the amount of $520 ($260/hr x 2 hrs). The monetary
sanction is to be paid on or before December 1, 2018. If the sanction is not paid by that date, Defendant
may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may be enforced by a
separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)
The Court denies Defendant's alternate requests for issue, evidentiary, and/or terminating sanctions at
this time. The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the
party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose
sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment."
(Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 300, 304.) "The penalty should be
appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the
party entitled to but denied discovery. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793) The
discovery sanction cannot put the propounding party in a better position than they would have been in if
they had received the discovery. (Puritan Insurance Co. v Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal. App.3d 877,
884.)
Here, given that this is the first order with respect to the subject discovery, the drastic remedy of
terminating sanctions would be punitive. Further, while Defendant references Plaintiff's "vexatious"
conduct in this action, that conduct has nothing to do with the instant motion and in any event, is not a
basis for discovery sanctions. Such ad hominem comments serve no useful purpose in educating the
court as to the party's position, and distract more than they advocate. In short, they are more cathartic
than tactical.
Finally, the Court declines Defendant's requests that the Court impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek
leave to file a third amended complaint. Defendant indicates that Plaintiff has represented that he
intends to seek leave to file a third amended complaint which is represented as being nearly 300 pages
long. Plaintiff's decision to seek leave or not seek leave is his to make and the Court will not impose a
deadline as part of this discovery motion.
The notice of motion provides the incorrect time and location for the hearing. This matter has been
assigned to Department 53 for law and motion purposes and Department 53 hears law and motion
matters at 2 p.m. Moving counsel is directed to immediately provide notice to Plaintiff of the correct time
and location of the hearing.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling.
APPEARANCES
At the outset, the Court must point out Defendant's procedural errors that have rendered an otherwise
simple motion confusing and created unnecessary work for the Court. Defendant initially noticed this
motion for October 31, 2018 but included the incorrect law and motion department on the notice. It then
apparently filed the identical motion and noticed it for hearing on November 13 and 14 in this
department. Defendant wrote a letter to the Clerk requesting that the Clerk drop the November 13,
hearing, but never requested that the Clerk drop the October 31, 2018 hearing. (ROA 164). As a result,
the Court issued a ruling for the October 31, hearing. Subsequently, the Court received correspondence
from Defendant indicating that it believed the October 31, 2018 ruling was in error because it requested
the clerk drop that hearing. The only request received by the Clerk was the letter requesting that the
November 13, 2018 hearing be dropped. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the instant motion was
essentially filed three times for three separate hearing dates, it appears that Defendant intended to have
the matter heard on today's date. As a result, the Court vacates the ruling issued in connection
with the October 31, 2018 hearing. Though as seen below, the ruling will be essentially the same.
Interrogatories and Request for Production
The motion is granted.
No later than December 12, 2018, Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk shall serve verified responses, without
objections, to Plaintiff's form and special interrogatories (sets one) and requests for production (set one).
The Court received a letter from Plaintiff purportedly attaching his answers to special interrogatories.
The Court simply notes that no responses to form interrogatories or request for production were
attached to the letter and in any event, service of responses after the motion was filed does not moot the
motion. Defendant is still entitled to an order. To be clear, a motion is "made" when it is filed and
served. (CCP § 1005.5.) However, to the extent that any responses served after the motion was filed
comply with the above order, they need not be re-served.
Defendant's request for sanctions in connection with the motion to compel responses is denied as the
motion was unopposed. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 purports to authorize sanctions
if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery
authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing
sanctions under the C.R.C. must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing
sanctions. Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.
However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an
abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers
Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.
Request for Admissions
Defendant's unopposed motion to deem matters in the requests for admission admitted is granted,
unless Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk serves, "before the hearing on the motion," proposed
responses that are in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280(c).)
Defendant's request for mandatory monetary sanctions is connection with the motion to deem matters
admitted is granted. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) However, the requested amount of $5,200 for this
straightforward discovery motion is plainly excessive. Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk shall pay to
Defendant a mandatory monetary sanction in the amount of $520 ($260/hr x 2 hrs). The monetary
sanction is to be paid on or before December 14, 2018. If the sanction is not paid by that date,
Defendant may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may be
enforced by a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)
The Court denies Defendant's alternate requests for issue, evidentiary, and/or terminating sanctions at
this time. The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the
party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose
sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment."
(Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 300, 304.) "The penalty should be
appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the
party entitled to but denied discovery. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793) The
discovery sanction cannot put the propounding party in a better position than they would have been in if
they had received the discovery. (Puritan Insurance Co. v Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal. App.3d 877,
884.)
Here, given that this is the first order with respect to the subject discovery, the drastic remedy of
terminating sanctions would be punitive. Further, while Defendant references Plaintiff's "vexatious"
conduct in this action, that conduct has nothing to do with the instant motion and in any event, is not a
basis for discovery sanctions. Such ad hominem comments serve no useful purpose in educating the
court as to the party's position, and distract more than they advocate. In short, they are more cathartic
than tactical.
Finally, the Court declines Defendant's requests that the Court impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek
leave to file a third amended complaint. Defendant indicates that Plaintiff has represented that he
intends to seek leave to file a third amended complaint which is represented as being nearly 300 pages
long. Plaintiff's decision to seek leave or not seek leave is his to make and the Court will not impose a
deadline on a hypothetical motion as part of this discovery motion.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling.
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Order for Appearance and Examination Jaroslaw "Jerry"
Waszczuk, 12/07/2018
APPEARANCES
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, self represented Plaintiff, present.
Dan Bardzell, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Nature of Proceedings: Hearing on Order of Examination of Judgment Debtor
The above entitled cause came before this court for hearing on Order of Examination of Judgment
Debtor this date with the above indicated parties present.
From: Jaros-Law@outlook.com
Subject: FW: Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California. -
SUMMARY OF OUR MEETING IN THE COURT CAFETERIA ON FEBRUARY 8, 2019
Attachments: 00000-IN PRO PER.pdf; 0000-20190208-COURT ORDER APPEARANCE .pdf; 001-20180718- LETTTER
TO CLERK.pdf; 002-20181113- JUDGE BROWN BROWN.pdf; 003-ADM-2-2009- SETTLEMENT-
AGREEMENT (29-40).pdf; 004- REIBURSEMENT- STATE BAR.pdf; 005-20140718 LT DES to Coombs
(2).pdf; 006-20190129- SUPREME COURT CUIAB FILED.pdf; 007-12-15-2018 US TAX COURT.pdf;
FREEDOM OF SPEECH (004).jpg
Sent by e-mail
1
Sacramento, CA 95825
Subject: Appearance and Examination on February 8, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. at Department 43. Hon. Thadd
A. Blizzard, Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California.
For the record, I would like to briefly summarize our meeting that took place on February 8,
2019 in the Sacramento County Superior Court Cafeteria on the sixth floor at 9:30 a.m.
I and my witness, William Buckans (UC Davis Medical Center employee), viewed the meeting
as unpleasant, provocative, and hostile. William and I noticed that you were very nervous and
uncomfortable during the meeting. At some point when you started bringing my wife and children into
the terror I have been experiencing for the last 12 years from the University of California Office of the
President (UCOP) mob, William, who was sitting at the next table, turned his chair toward you and
looked at you. You did not know that William was my former coworker from the UC Davis Medical
Center 27 MW cogeneration plant where I worked from June 1999 to April 2007. You were also
informed previously that two Porter Scott attorneys attempted to provoke me into physical
confrontation outside the court room in February 2015 and in August 2017.
From your redundant and provocative questions about my wife, children, landlord, and the
insurance on my rental house, it was not difficult to conclude that Janet Napolitano is looking to inflict
a different type of harm to me and my family than to enforce the unlawful judgment (see the Letter to
the Clerk filed on July 18, 2018 and the Letter to Judge Brown filed on November 16, 2018).
Your questions about insurance on the rental house clearly indicate that UCOP mob led by
Janet Napolitano is planning a raid on my home with involvement from the Lodi Police or San Joaquin
Sheriff’s Department to terrorize me and my family by ransacking my house to cause psychological
trauma. As you probably read in court documents, I have been terrorized and hunted like a Jew during
the holocaust by the UCOP mob since January 2007, and I don’t see it ending soon while I’m still
alive.
During our meeting on February 8, 2019, I provided you with the following documents as potential
assets:
1. A copy of the January 31, 2009 Settlement Agreement by UC Regents and myself plus the
calculated damages of approximately $1,000,000 caused by UC Regents due to breach and
violation of this Settlement Agreement (attached).
2. The March 1, 2018 copy of the California Supreme Court decision, which ordered that I be paid
back my stolen retainer money in the amount of $14,694.33 plus 10% interest that I paid to my
2
former attorney, Douglas Stein, for representation. Stein on Discipline Case No. S245982
(attached).
3. The unfinished case with Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, which is in conspiracy with
UC Regents that denied my short disability benefits in 2011. Minimum value $4,546 (attached).
4. The unfinished unemployment insurance benefits case pending in the California Supreme Court,
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board 3DCA Case No. C079254,
Supreme Court Case No. – Value $25,000 if prevail.
5. Whistleblower case pending in the U.S. Tax Court, Waszczuk v. United States Commissioner of
Internal Revenue Services, Docket No. 023105. The IRS whistleblower case is about an
enormous amount of unlawful power sales by regents in conspiracy with Enron and the
California Independent System Operator and related to multimillion dollars in tax fraud. Fraud
was disclosed in August 2012 by UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Duruisseau
in this interview with Sac Cultural Hub (attached). http://www.sacculturalhub.com/headlines/a-
look-back
“THE BLACKSMITH WAS GUILTY, BUT THE GYPSY WAS HANGED.” - Polish
proverb
In addition, after the meeting I forwarded to you my current bank statement from Rabobank and
an e-mail from Citibank with information about the account I have no access to. I believe that the
amount of $14,694.33 plus interest for five years should cover the judgment obtained by the Court by
David Burkett in violation of California Court Rules 3.1312 b, which states:
“That the prevailing party must, upon expiration of the five-day period provided for approval,
promptly transmit the proposed order to the court together with a summary of any responses of
the other parties or a statement that no responses were received pursuant to California Rule of
Court 3.1312(b).”
Defendants’ attorney David Burkett bluntly violated the California Rule of Court 3.1312(b) and did not
transmit to the Court the PLAINTIFF’S 90-page DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDER
AND JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COSTS TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP
MOTION C.C.P. 425.16 (c).
2018 David Burkett’s violation of Rule 3.1312(b) is a copycat scenario of the March 2015
PLAINTIFF’S DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P. 425.16 (ROA #73).
3
____________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff in Pro Per
CC: Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon. Thadd Blizzard, sent by U.S. Priority Mail on
February 11, 2019.
California Senator Cathleen Galgiani
State Bar of California
Lodi Police Department (Fax)
San Joaquin County Sheriff Department (Fax )
California Governor Office Hon. Gavin Newsom (FAX)
Consulate General of Polish Republic of Poland
Attachment:
4
EXHIBIT # 11
1 P O R T E R I S C O T T
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896
3 Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
350 University Avenue, Suite 200 FILED/ENDORSED
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481 FEB I I 2019
•5 FAX: 916.927.3706
dburkett(a),pbrterscott.com By:
6 £• Medina
dbardzellfolporterscott.com ueputy ciert«
7
Attorney for Defendant
8 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
9 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11
12 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
o
o
13 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF
h
(—
=mS oo
- ^o POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
O .. o\ 14 SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION
> U OS
15 TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED
oi < o" ^
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
glig^ 16 OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM
CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET
o 17 SYSTEM, UC DAVIS MEDICAL ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
CENTER, UC DAVIS, ANN MADDEN EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; AND FOR
18
RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN MONETARY AND TERMINATING
19 CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, SANCTIONS
DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
20 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, Date: March 13,2019
21 PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN Time: 2:00 p.m.
DANILIUC, and Does 1 through 50, Dept.: 53
22 inclusive,
Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
23 Defendants. Amended Complaint Filed: June 16,2014
24 SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
25
26
27
28
(01965098.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
Page
3
4 I. INTRODUCTION 1
23
24
25
26
27
28
{0196S098.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
(0I965098.DOCX} iii
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
Code ofCivil Procedure § 2030.220(a) 5
O ^
§ -5 ^ 16
cu S
Vi
3
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{0I96S098.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POEVTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (the "UNIVERSITY" or
"DEFENDANT") respectfully submits the following memorandum of points and authorities in
3 support of its motion to: (1) compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK to provide
4 further verified responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set
5 One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One); (2) award monetary sanctions in the amount
6 of $5,460 to retum Defendant to the position it would have been had the subject discovery
7 responses been timely and completely provided; (3) issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as
8 a result of Plaintiffs repeated failure to engage in the discovery process.
9 1.
10 INTRODUCTION
11 Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
o
12 General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One) on April 25, 2018'. Responses
o
fN
B -r. 13 were due on or before May 30j 2018. Defendant provided Plaintiff with an extension to June 20,
VD
r- 3 oo 00 O
— r*^
Ov r-^
14 2018 to provide responses to the requests. Plaintiff then failed to provide responses to any of
<N rvi
i- Vi ov Ov
vb ^ 15 Defendant's requests, requiring Defendarit to file a Motion to Compel. The Court granted that
Ov 0\
oi 16 Motion and ordered Plaintiff to provide responses, without objections, by December 12, 2018 and
oi
o < o -wj ><
<
D Vi H tu
a. o 17 pay Defendant monetary sanctions by December 14, 2018 related to Plaintiffs failure to respond to
18 requests for admission.
19 After the initial Motion to Compel, Plaintiff ultimately served his responses to special
20 interrogatories on October 15, 2018 and responses to form interrogatories - general and form
21 interrogatories - employment on December 13, 2019. These responses were mostly incomplete.
22 Defendant has attempted to meet-and-confer with Plaintiff regarding these deficiencies, but
23 consistent with his practice throughout this litigation, Plaintiff has refused to sufficiently and
24 coherently respond. As a result. Defendant now respectfully requests a further Order compelling
25 Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies raised in this Motion. Defendant also requests sanctions, pursuant
26 to 2030.290(c), in the amount of $5,460 for the fees and costs incurred as a result of Plaintiffs
27 continued disregard for the discovery process.
28
' Additional discovery requests outside the scope of the present motion were also served by Defendant at that time.
{01965098.DOCX} 1 ^
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 Defendant respectfully requests the Court issue an Order to (1) compel Plaintiff to provide
2 fiarther verified responses, without objection, to Defendant's Special Interrogatories (Set One),
3 Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One); (2)
4 issue monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,460 for Defendant's fees and costs
5 incurred in bringing this motion; and (3) issue the sanction of termination of the present action as a
6 result of Plaintiff s pattern of failing to comply with his discovery obligations. .
7 II.
8 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
9 The course of litigation in this matter is lengthy and complex. The following is a brief
10 summary: Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on Septehiber 30,
11 2014. Among the several claims in the SAC are four causes of action against all named
12 Defendants^: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"); (2) tortious interference with
B "n 13 economic advantage; (3) FEHA harassment and failure to prevent harassment, discriminafion,
h '= 00 - vo
f— c/^ «-> 00 o
o u 2: P; 14 retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); and (4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation
< § g 15
> ^ Ov Ov in violafion of Govemment Code §§ 8547 et seq.
< o" ^
o > i e < ^" Each of these causes of action arises out of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant at the
D 00
o
in
17 University of Califomia at Davis Medical Center. In addition to Defendant UNIVERSITY^, these
18 causes of action were plead against Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN
19 CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT
20 SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, and DORIN DANILIUC for their participation in investigafions
21 and disciplinary actions that ultimately resulted in Plainfiffs terminafion of employment with the
22 UNIVERSITY. The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant remaining in the case.
23 Defendant UNIVERSITY served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form
24 Interrogatories - General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One) on April 25,
25 2018. (See Declarafion of Daniel Bardzell in Support of Mofion to Further Compel ("Bardzell
26 Decl."), 2 and Exhibit A.) By correspondence dated May 22, 2018, Plainfiff requested an
27
^ The First and Second Causes of Action in the Second Amended Complaint do not specifically identify Defendant UNIVERSITY
28 but do refer to employment with UC DAVIS within the cause of action.
^ S e e f n . 1.
{01965098.DOCX} 2
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
extension offimeto respond to all such requests on the basis that he was sick. (See Bardzell Decl., |
3 and Exhibit B.) Defendant's counsel responded by email correspondence dated May 23, 2018
granfing Plaintiff an extension of fime to respond until June 20, 2018. (See Bardzell Decl., 4 and
Exhibit C.)
5 A. Plaintiff Ignores Defendant's Initial Meet-and-Confer Efforts
6 On September 24, 2018, counsel for Defendant served a meet and confer correspondence
7 upon Plaintiff regarding the outstanding discovery responses wherein defense counsel indicated:
8 [P]lease provide complete responses to all such outstanding requests no later than September 28,
9 2018. If we do not have your complete responses by that date, we will file a motion to compel
10 responses and request monetary as well as terminating sancfions from the Court." (See Bardzell
11 Decl., H 5 and Exhibit D.)
12
o
o By incoherent email correspondence also dated September 24, 2018, Plaintiff indicated:
fN
B >n 13 Thank you for news about the Request for Production of Documents and Special
L_ •— fN — vO
P ,5 0000 O
Interrogatories . I appreciate but I not sure yet what I am going to . I am waiting for
V in C 14 answers from the federal authorities in this matter.
0 g'=^^ rO
o; t-~
15 I will let know . I mean fime you can entertain yourself with my affirmative defense
01 < 6 fN d
Ov OV of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. As Jeanine Pirro stated not so long ago , . UC Regent wife
H ^ \0 v ^
O ^ 2 as ov 16 Senator Feinstein's Unhinged Demon Rats attacking Judge Kavanaugh as I was
cu c attacked and wasted by her husband and other unhinged UC demon rats . Same
Vi
o
D
17 people only different is that I have no 1 penny on my account and I am for my SS
18 check on 28^^ than I could buy ink for my printer and do eventually interrogatories.
(See Bardzell Decl., H 6 and Exhibit E.)
19
Plaintiff failed to respond to any of the outstanding discovery requests by September 28,
20
2018. (See Bardzell Decl., H 6.)
21
On October 1, 2018, Plainfiff submitted an email correspondence to Defendant stafing: " I
22
am working on the Interrogatories and other papers. Pleas give one more week to finish. Attached is
23
a part of interrogatories to show you that I am working on ." (See Bardzell Decl., TI 7 and Exhibit
24
F.) Included was a rambfing apparent partial draft response to Defendant's Special Interrogatories,
25
Set One without a verification. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 8.)
26
B. Motion to Compel
27
Defendant was subsequently forced to file a Motion to Compel and needlessly incur the
28
{01965098.DOCX} 3 '
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 associated fees and costs. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 8.) On November 14, 2018, the Court issued its
2 tentative mling, which later became the ruling of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 1.06. (See
3 Bardzell Deck, Tl 9, and Exhibit G). There, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses,
4 without objections, to Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets one) and requests for
5 producfion (set one) no later than December 12, 2018. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 9, and Exhibit G).
6 Additionally, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant mandatory monetary sancfions in the
7 amount of $520 by December 14, 2018 for failure to provide responses to requests for admissions.
8 (See Bardzell Deck, TI 9, and Exhibit G.)
9 Plaintiff did subsequently provide responses to the special and form interrogatories, but they
10 were largely deficient as described in the present motion. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 11-12 and Exhibits
11 H and I.)
12 C. Plaintiff Again Ignores Defendant's Meet-and-Confer Efforts
o
o
fN
B m
tN
13 In light of Plaintiffs deficient responses to form and special interrogatories, defense
'3
0in0 vo
Vi 00 0
H
O tS ov 14 counsel sent Plaintiffs counsel a meet and confer correspondence on January 15, 2019, advising
enu
Ov r-'
SC
CA
fN fN
OV ov
>
oi < 0" vd vd 15 that Plaintiffs responses were deficient. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 13 and Exhibit J.)
c 0! ON
Universi:
u
- i >< 16 Plainfiff responded on January 15, 2019 by a series of argumentative and disjointed emails
Sacra
po:
FA
TE
17 which failed to address the interrogatory response deficiencies raised in Defendant's meet and
18 confer correspondence. (See Bardzell Deck, Tl 14 and Exhibits K.)
19 Plaintiff subsequently requested addifional time to respond to the meet and confer and the
20 parties agreed to extend the time for Defendant to file a mofion, if necessary, through Febmary 12,
21 2019. (See Bardzell Deck, Tl 15-17 and Exhibits L-N.)
22 By email dated January 25, 2019, Plainfiff further responded to Defendant's January 15,
23 2019 meet and confer correspondence by, in part, describing the interrogatories as harassing and
24 stating that Defendant should "File the mofion, and I , accordingly, will file the response to your
25 motion in court." (See Bardzell Deck, Tl 18 and Exhibits O.) As of the date of this Mofion, Plaintiff
26 has not provided amended responses. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 19.)
27 D. Plaintiff Failed to Pay Monetary Sanctions
28 In addition to Plaintiff willfially disregarding his discovery obligations, Plaintiff also
{01965098.DOCX) 4
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 violated the Court's previous Order by failing to fttlly pay Defendant monetary sancfions. (See
2 Bardzell Deck, Tl 9-10.) As set forth above, in its prior Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to pay
3 monetary sancfions of $520 by December 14, 2018. (See Bardzell Deck, Tl 9 and Exhibit G.)
4 Plainfiff provided checks amounting to only a small portion of the amount owed. (See Bardzell
5 Deck, Tl 10.) Defendant has not cashed such checks. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 10.) Plainfiff failed to
6 pay the required sancfion by December 14, 2018 and, to-date, Plaintiff has provided checks
7 amounting to only a small portion of the sanctions ordered by the Court. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 10.)
8 in.
9 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), FORM
10 INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL (SET ONE) AND FORM INTERROGATORIES -
11 EMPLOYMENT (SET ONE) ARE EVASIVE. INCOHERENT AND INCOMPLETE
o
12 A party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath
o
fN
ii m 13 sepeirateiy to each interrogatory by any of the following: an answer containing the information
r - 3 oo — vo
00 o
t - V3
— ^ 14 being sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party's opfion to produce writings, or an objection
ov I--
fN fN
Ov Ov
oi < 6 vd vd 15 to the particular interrogatory. (CCP § 2030.210(a).) Code ofCivil Procedure §2030.220 requires
Ov Ov
_i >< 16 that answers to interrogatories be "complete and straightforward." (CCP. §2030.220(a).) Code of
a. ta <
3 Vi
o
in
17 Civil Procedure §2030.220 requires that parties produce all information "reasonably available" to
18 them in response to interrogatories. (CCP. §2030.220(a).) That obligation requires that parties
19- take all reasonable steps to investigate and obtain information responsive to the request. (CCP.
20 §2030.220(c).) If parties do not have sufficient informafion to respond to a request after making a
21 reasonable inquiry, they must state that fact in their response. (Id.) They should also detail the
22 efforts made to obtain the informafion. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782-783.)
23 Parties cannot claim a lack of personal knowledge when the informafion "can be obtained from
24 sources under his control." (Id.) A party may move to compel further responses if an answer is
25 "evasive or incomplete." (CCP. §2030.300(a).)
26 Here, Plaintiff provided evasive, incomplete and incoherent responses to Defendant's
27 Form Interrogatories - General, Set One; Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One and Special
28 Interrogatories, Set One. (See generally Defendant's Separate Statement of Disputed Discovery
{01965098.DOCX} 5
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
in Support of Motion to Compel ("Defendant's Separate Statemenf).)
Plaintiffs rambling and incoherent responses contain a myriad of deficiencies. Same are
set forth in greater detail in Defendant's Separate Statement. Plainfiffs responses to the form and
special interrogatories are generally deficient for the following reasons:
5 A. Plaintiff Improperly Cites External Documents
6 As set forth in greater detail in Defendant's Separate Statement, in response to
7 interrogatories, including, but not limited to, Special Interrogatories No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12,
8 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 30, 37; and Form Interrogatories 6.4, 206.1,-206.2, and
9 207.1, Plainfiffs response cites to voluminous extemal documents and/or url addresses without
10 any specific page/line references or summary. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell
11 Decl., Exhibits H-I.) It is not proper to answer by cifing to an extemal document. (See Deyo supra,
12 84 Cal.App.3d at 783-784 ("[I]f a question does require the responding party to make reference to
o
o
fN
B 13 a pleading or document, the pleading or document should be idenfified and summarized so the
L_ •= fN
r- 3 oo — VD
H i n oo o
o u =^ 2 P; answer is fially responsive to the question[.]" (cifing Califomia Civil Discovery Pracfice, Section
— > U ov Ov , ,
< Q- vd ^ 1J 8.55 (C.E.B.1975); 4A Moore's Federal Pracfice (2d Ed. 1975), Secfion 33.25(1), pp. 33-131 to
w iv ^ 5:
33-132; State Road Dept. v. Florida East Coast Ry., 212 So.2d 315, 317(1) (Fla.App. 1968).)
3 Vi
17 (Further citafion omitted)). In instances where Plaintiff cites external documents, same are not
18 properly identified and summarized. (See Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at 783-784.) Therefore,
19 these responses are improper and incomplete.
20 B. Plaintifrs Interrogatory Responses are Incomplete and In Some Instances He
21 Provided No Substantive Response Whatsoever
22 Plaintiff provided a multitude of incomplete responses, including numerous instances
23 where subparts are ignored. The following is a representafive sample of the such deficiencies: In
24 response to Form Interrogatories 6.4 and 6.5, respecfively, asking Plaintiff to idenfify
25 examinations or treatment related to his claims, and any medication, prescribed or not, as a result
26 of injuries that his' attributes to his claims, Plainfiff provides incomplete responses. (See
27 Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Decl., Exhibit I.) Specifically, in response to
28 Interrogatory 6.4, Plaintiff fails to indicate the charges to date for health care services received.
{0i965098.DOCX} 6
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
(See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.) In response to Form
2 Interrogatory 6.5, Plaintiff fails to respond to subparts including (c) the date his prescription(s)
3 were prescribed orfiamished;(d) the dates you began and stopped taking it; and (e) the cost to
4 date. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.)
5 Moreover, in response to Form Interrogatories 10.1-10.3, which generally seek information
6 regarding treating physicians and treatment before and after the claims arose, Plaintiff fails to
7 identify any treating physicians or what treatment was sought beyond the facial reference to heart
8 surgery. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.) The content of the
9 response plainly calls for additional responsive information such as identifying information for the
10 doctor who performed heart surgery on Plaintiff.
11 Additionally, in response to Special Interrogatory No. 21; 23; 26; 28; 29, Plaintiffs fails to
12 provide contact information for persons he identifies as having knowledge of various protected
o
o
B «o 13 activities and retaliation related to his claims. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell
t- 3 g _ VD
Vi in OO
o u 2: ^ 14 Decl., Exhibit H.) Such incomplete responses interfere with Defendant's ability to prepare its
— > U ov
aS < o""^ 15 defense including identifying potenfial witnesses.
H
oi ^ 16
O Moreover, Plaintiff improperly combines numerous, responses into a single response
cu u.
O Vi
o
17 purportedly responsive to each. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Decl., Exhibit I,
18 Plainfiff s Response to Form Interrogatories 2012.1-2012.7.)
That information sought by the numerous aforementioned interrogatories is within
19
20 Plaintiffs control. As such, he was required to provide it and his responses are incomplete.
Plaintiff further provides no substantive response whatsoever to the following Form
21
22 Interrogatories - General, Set One: 6.7; 9.1; 12.1; 12.4; 13.1; 13.2; 50.2; 50.3; 50.4; and 50.5; Form
23 Interrogatories - Employment, Set One: 200.6; 202.1; 202.2; 203.1; 204.1; 204.2; 204.3; 204.4;
24 204.5; 207.2; 208.2; 210.6; 215.2; and Special Interrogatory No. 24.
25 C. Plaintiff Responded "I don't know" to Some Interrogatories Without Describing
28 know." (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.) He fails to describe
{01965098.DOCX} 7
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 what search he has done to provide a response. These responses are incomplete. Similarly, in
2 response to Form Interrogatory 206.3, Plaintiff simply responds "Waszczuk is not sure what 206.3
3 asking him for[.]"(See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.) That is also
4 non-responsive.
5 Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220 requires that parties produce all informafion
6 "reasonably available" to them in response to interrogatories. (CCP. §2030.220(a).) That
7 obligafion requires that parties take all reasonable steps to investigate and obtain information
8 responsive to the request. (CCP. §2030.220(c).) If parties do not have sufficient information to
9 respond after making a reasonable inquiry, they must state that fact in their response. (Id.)
10 Plaintiff should be able to respond to such interrogatories as to his personal knowledge. If
11 he does not know, he has an obligation to detail the efforts made to obtain that information. (Deyo
12 supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at 782-783.)
o
o
B
fN
13 Moreover, additional responses are unintelligible or otherwise incomplete, as described in
h '= So - VD
H V3 <o 00 o
Defendant's Separate Statement.
o o - 2 ; P; 14
> U Ov Ov . .
< o" vd ^ 1 J Defendant requires complete discovery responses in order to properly defend itself in this
W ^v S 5; 5;
S Si g -> X 16 case and to determine the validity of plaintiffs claims. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully request
DV. 17
O an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide further verified responses to Defendant's Special
18 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories -
19 Employment (Set One) without objecfions.
20 IV.
21 DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO MONETARY SANCTIONS
22 Code ofCivil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in relevant part, that:
23
The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse
24 of the discovery process, or any attomey advising that conduct, or both pay the
reasonable expenses, including attomey's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
25 conduct [. . .] If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this tifie, the
26 court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sancfion
acted with substanfial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition
27 of the sanction unjust.
28 CCP §§ 2030.290(c) provides that a court shall impose a monetary sanction on any party
{01965Q98.DOCX} 8
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
who unsuccessfially opposes a motion to compel responses to interrogatories.
Pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290(c), Defendant is enfified to an award of sancfions against
Plaintiff as a result of his failure to provide appropriate responses to Defendant's interrogatories.
Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 authorizes an award of sanctions even when "the requested
5 discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed." (C.R.C, Rule 3.1348(a).)
6 Sanctions are also available when a party misuses the discovery process. (CCP.
7 §2023.030(a); "The '[f]ail[ure] to respond... to an authorized method of discovery' and '[mjaking
8 an evasive response to discovery' are defmed as '[mjisuses of the discovery process.'" (Saxena v.
9 Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 333.)
10 The California Court of Appeal has previously addressed the increasing misuse of the
11 discovery process similar to Plaintiffs behavior:
o
12 "We are . . . aware the discovery process is subject to frequent abuse and, like a
o
B 13 cancerous growth, can destroy a meritorious cause or defense . . . Our observations
(-, ' 3 f N — vo
oo o of the day-to-day practice of law lead us to conclude this cancer is spreading and
—
Ov
r*^ 14 judges must become more aggressive in curbing these abuses. Courts must insist
f N rvi
H t/2 Ov Ov discovery devices be used as tools to facilitate litigation rather than as weapons to
Oi
u d ' vd ^ 15 wage litigation. These tools should be well calibrated; the lancet is to be preferred
t- g °^ ^ over the sledge hammer."
O < g UJ < 16
cu
17 (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 221 (quoting Mannino v.
18 Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776.))
19 Awarding sanctions is particularly appropriate in this case as this is the second time
20 Plainfiff has forced Defendant to file a Motion to Compel. Defendant filed a Motion on October
21 17, 2018 after Plaintiff completely failed respond to Defendant's discovery requests for over four
22 and a half months. Plainfiff refused to provide those responses unfil Defendant finally filed its first
23 Mofion to Compel. (Bardzell Deck, TITI 11-12.)
24 Recognizing that this Court is reluctant to award monetary sancfions unless a party
25 unsuccessfully opposes a discovery motion, Plaintiff appears to have strategically elected not to
26 oppose Defendant's prior Motion. As a result, the only sanctions this Court imposed were those
27 required under CCP. § 2033.280 relafing to Plaintiffs failure to provide responses to the
28 Requests for Admission. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 9 and Exhibit G.) That sancfions award was in the
{01965098.DOCX} 9
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
amount of $520, which fell well short of fully reimbursing Defendant for all the fees it had to
needlessly incur in filing a Motion to Compel Plainfiffs other responses. Even then, Plainfiff
3 failed to pay the full amount the Court ordered. (See Bardzell Deck, TjlO.)
4 Although the Court denied Defendant's previous request for sancfions in connecfion with
5 the motion to compel responses to interrogatories and request for production, the Court further
6 indicated in its Order on Defendant's previous motion to compel that "repeated conduct of failing
7 to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process
8 and award sancfions on that basis." (See Bardzell Deck, T119, Exhibit G.)
9 Now, here we are again. Plaintiff failed to adequately respond to discovery. Defendant
10 communicated with Plainfiff multiple fimes in hopes of resolving these issues short of filing a
11 Motion to Compel. Unfortunately, Plaintiff failed to provide any further response, thereby
12 successfully forcing Defendant to again incur fees in filing this Motion.
o
o
fN
B u-i
13 This pattem is a clear abuse of the discovery process. Therefore, Defendant respectfully
3 0 0 — VD
Vi in OO <^
14 submits that sanctions are appropriate.
> U ov Ov . ^
a; < o" t Defendant has incurred $4,160 in fees associated with preparing the present motion. (See
W £^ c 5; o^
Bardzell Decl., TI 20.) Defense counsel anticipates incurring an additional $1,300 in fees in the
17 event Plaintiff opposes the Mofion and a hearing is necessary. (Bardzell Deck, TI 20.) As a result.
18 Defendant respectfully requests an award of sanctions in the amount of $5,460 for the fime and
19 expense incurred by Defendant in filing this otherwise unnecessary motion.
20 V.
21 TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE
22 The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may impose sanctions on any party
23 who engages in conduct that constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.030(a).)
24 Misuses of the discovery process includes "failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method
25 of discovery" and "disobeying a court order to provide discovery." (CCP §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)
26 When a party fails to respond to an authorized method of discovery and/or fails to obey a court
27 order to provide discovery, the Court may impose, among other relief, monetary sanctions and/or
28 terminating sancfions. (CCP § 2023.030(a), (d).)
{01965098.DOCX} 10
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 Coitrts have long held that terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is a willful
2 failure to comply with court orders, and should be issued where it appears that lesser sancfions
would not bring the offending party into compliance. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
1
(1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Terminating sanctions are especially appropriate where a party
5 fails to respond to discovery requests and ignores court orders. (See Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68
6 Cal.App.3d 372, 383.)
7 Terminating sanctions are appropriate in this case. Defendant initially sought terminating
sanctions against Plaintiff in connection with its previous motion to compel discovery. The Court
denied this request, providing: The Court denies Defendant's alternate requests for issue,
10 evidentiary, and/or terminating sanctions at this fime. [. . .] Here, given that this is the first order
11
with respect to the subject discovery, the drastic remedy of terminafing sancfions would be
12
o
o
punitive." (See Bardzell Deck, Exhibit G.)
fN
U - 'B
S «-> 13
<N
r - 3 00 — vo
It is evident that Plaintiffs conduct is nothing more than a delaying tactic to prevent
(— CO i n 00 o
O . r Ov r~- 14
Defendant from engaging in basic discovery. Requiring Defendant to continue wasting time,
> U ov Ov . ,
< O" ^ ^ i
W i> c 5 o^ money, and Court resources to compel Plaintiff to lifigate this case would be categorically unjust.
S gI X 16 The aforementioned conduct has also prejudiced Defendant's ability to prepare for trial and will
= " 17 interfere with the Court's ability ascertain the tmth in this case. Given that previous discovery
18 mofion practice failed to compel Plaintiff to comply with his discovery obligations, terminafing
20 Accordingly, Defendant requests that the Court grant terminafing sancfions and issue an
21 Order dismissing the complaint against the remaining Defendant in its entirety, with prejudice.
22 VI.
23 CONCLUSION
24 Defendant has made every effort to allow for the cooperative exchange of information,
25 however Plaintiff has failed to provide complete verified responses to Defendant's Special
26 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories -
27 Employment (Set One.) Defendant is left with no opfion other than to file the instant motion. As
28 such, Defendant seeks an Order (1) compelling Plainfiff to provide further verified responses,
{01965098.DOCX} 11
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
without objections, to Defendant's Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General
2 (Set One) and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One); (2) awarding sanctions in the amount
3 of $5,460 to retum Defendant to the position it would have been had complete responses been
4 timely provided; (3) issue terminafing sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of Plainfiffs repeated
5 failure to engage in the discovery process.
6
7
Dated February 11, 2019 PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
10 By
David P. E. Burkett
11 Daniel J. Bardzell
Attomeys for Defendant
o
12
o
fN
(—( 'B
3 «<N
-> _
13
r-* 3 00 ^ vo
b- Vi m oo o
o u 14
> U Ov ov . .
ci < O" ^ ^ t J
cu -5
O 17
in
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
{01965098.DOCX} 12
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et al.
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
On the date below, I served the following document:
6
7 DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
8 OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM
INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
9
EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND
10 FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
11 BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
o
12 On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
o course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fiilly prepaid.
fN
u-i
fN
13 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
TT
vo
Sui
00
«n oo o
t~
addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
O o" ov f ^ 14 attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
venu
r-'
u
CA
OV
o
fN fN
OV attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of
Vi
oi < d" vd vd 15 nine in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving
tu c ov ov
OJ the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the
f-
ct J >< 16 hours of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
nive
acra
TE
<
POi
• i
PORTER I SCOTT EHOCRSED
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241 896 201MM20 PM22
3 Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
350 University Avenue, Suite 200 U P F P11 OnN COURT OF CMIPONiA
COUNtY OF 5ACRAME0U
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
dburkett(porterscott.com
6 dbardzeIlporterscott,com
7
Attorney for Defendant
8 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
25
26
27
28
0I978654.DOCX)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3
4 INTRODUCTION ..........................................
(01978654.DOCX) 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
State Court Cases
3
Kahn v. Kahn
4
(1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 372, 383 10
5
R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
6 (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486,496 ........................................................................................10
7
Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants
8 (2007) 148 Cal.App.4tl 390,411 ........................................................................................8
9 Statutes
10
C.C.P. § 708.020 ............................................................................................................................ 7
II.
C.C.P. § 708.030 ............................................................................................................................ 7
12
C
C
13 C.C.P. § 2016.070 .......................................................................................................................... 7
I-. •S —
H at C
Oci °'Z 14 C.C.P. § 2023.010(d) ...................................................................................................................... 9
cg
_>Oac
<d\á 6
ce 15 C.C.P. § 2023.010(g) ...................................................................................................................... 9
16
H C.C.P. § 2023.030(a) ................................................................................................................ 9, 10
0
tin
17
C.C.P. § 2030.010 ..........................................................................................................................
18
19 C.C.P. § 2030.210(a) ...................................................................................................................... 7
2 Defendants") respectfully submit the following memorandum of points and authorities in support
3 of their motion to: (1) compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK's verified
4 responses to Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment
5 Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) award monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,940 to return
6 Defendants to the position they would have been had the subject judgment debtor discovery
7 responses been timely provided; (3) issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of
8 Plaintiff's pattern of failure to engage in the discovery process.
9 1.
10
Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents
12 (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) on October 9, 2012. Responses were due
13 on or before November 13, 2018. Plaintiff has completely failed to provide any responses and
14 same are overdue.
15 Defendants respectfully request the Court issue an Order to (1) compel Plaintiff to provide
16 verified responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set
17 One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); and (2) issue monetary sanctions against
18 Plaintiff in the amount of $4,940 for Defendants' fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion;
19 and (3) issue the sanction of termination of the present action as a result of Plaintiffs failure to
20 provide responses to the Defendants' judgment debtor discovery.
21 H.
22 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
23 The course of litigation in this matter is lengthy and complex. The following is a brief
24 summary: Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on September 30,
25 2014. Among the several claims in the SAC are four causes of action against all named
26 Defendants:' (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("lIED"); (2) tortious interference with
27 economic advantage; (3) FEHA harassment and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination,
28 'The First and Second Causes of Action in the Second Amended Complaint do not specifically identify Defendant UNIVERSITY
but do refer to employment with UC DAVIS within the cause of action.
(01978654.DOCX) i
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); and (4) whistleblower/uniawful retaliation
2 in violation of Government Code §§ 8547 etseq,
3 Each of these causes of action arises out of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant
4 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ("UNIVERSITY") at the University of
5 California at Davis Medical Center. In addition to Defendant UNIVERSITY2, these causes of
6 action were pled against Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN
13 as pled against them. (See Declaration of Daniel Bardzell in Support of Motion to Compel
.r,OC
14 ("Bardzell Decl."), ¶ 2.) The anti-SLAPP Defendants contended that Plaintiff's causes of action
<6' 15 against them arose from protected activities pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure' § 425.16;
16 namely, their participation in the processing, investigation, hearing and deciding of complaints
0 17 filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to the policies and procedures of the Defendant
Cr'
8 Special Interrogatories, Set One without a verification. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 12.)
9 B. Motion to Compel
10 On October 17, 2018, Defendant UNIVERSITY was forced to file a Motion to Compel and
11 needlessly incur the associated fees and costs. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 13.) On November 14, 2018,
12 the Court issued its tentative ruling, which later became the ruling of the Court pursuant to Local
13 Rule 1.06. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 14, and Exhibit H.) There, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide
14 verified responses, without objections, to Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets one)
15 and requests for production (set one) no later than December 12, 2018. (See id.) Additionally, the
16 Court ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant UNIVERSITY mandatory monetary sanctions in the
17 amount of $520 by December 14, 2018 for failure to provide responses to requests for admissions.
18 (See id.)
19 Plaintiff did subsequently provide responses to the special and form interrogatories, but
20 they were largely deficient which necessitated the filing of a second motion to compel, as
21 described infra. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 15.)
22 C. Plaintiff Failed to Pay Monetary Sanctions
23 In addition to Plaintiff's willful disregard of his discovery obligations, Plaintiff also
24 violated the Court's previous Order by failing to fully pay Defendant UNIVERSITY monetary
25 sanctions. (See Bardzell DecI., 114-16.) As set forth above, in its prior Order, the Court directed
26 Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions of $520 by December 14, 2018. (See Bardzell Deci., ¶ 14 and
27 Exhibit H.) Plaintiff failed to pay the required sanction by December 14, 2018 and, to-date,
28 Plaintiff has provided checks amounting to only a portion of the sanctions ordered by the Court.
(01978654.DOCX}
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 (See Bardzell Deci., 114; 16.) Defendant has not cashed such checks. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 16)
2 D. Plaintiff Again Ignores Defendant's Meet-and-Confer Efforts
3 In light of Plaintiffs deficient responses to form and special interrogatories, defense
4 counsel sent Plaintiffs counsel a meet and confer correspondence on January 15, 2019, advising
5 that Plaintiff's responses were deficient. (See Bardzell DecI., 117 and Exhibit I.)
6 Plaintiff responded on January 15, 2019 by a series of argumentative and disjointed emails
7 which failed to address the interrogatory response deficiencies raised in Defendant's meet and
8 confer correspondence. (See Bardzell Deel., ¶ 18 and Exhibits J.)
9 Plaintiff subsequently requested, and was granted, additional time to respond to-the meet
10 and confer and the parties agreed to extend the time for Defendant to file a motion, if necessary,
11 through February 12, 2019. (See Bardzell Dee!., 119 and Exhibit K.)
12 By email dated January 25, 2019, Plaintiff further responded to Defendant's January 15,
13 2019 meet and confer correspondence by, in part, describing the interrogatories as harassing and
14 stating that Defendant should "File the motion, and I, accordingly, will file the response to your
15 motion in court." (See Bardzell Dccl., ¶ 20 and Exhibit L.) Plaintiff has not provided amended
16 responses.
17 E. Second Motion to Compel
18 On February 11, 2019, Defendant UNIVERSITY was forced to file a second motion to
19 compel further verified responses to form and special interrogatories and for monetary, and
20 terminating sanctions. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 21.) On March 12, 2019, the Court issued its tentative
21 ruling, which later became the ruling of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 1.06. (See Bardzell
22 DecI., ¶ 21 and Exhibit M.) There, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide further verified responses
23 to Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets one) no later than April 3, 2019. (See id.)
24 Additionally, the Court denied Defendant's request for monetary sanctions as the motion was
25 unopposed and also denied Defendant's request for terminating sanctions. (See Ed.)
26 F. Plaintiff Further Ignores the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Meet-and-Confer Efforts
27
28 The anti-SLAPP Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for
(01978654.DOCX)
11 responses by January 31, 2019 or we will file a motion to compel and seek sanctions." (See
12 Bardzell Deci., 123 and Exhibit 0.)
0
0
N
13 By email correspondence dated January 25, 2019, Plaintiff asserted, he never received a
In 0
0 t; 14 copy of the judgment debtor discovery requests and further provided: "Please send me the
15 aforementioned documents that were supposed to have been sent in October. 1 will look them over
u
o. to and respond to you with 30 days, or you may file the motion to compel if you wish." (See Bardzell
0
In
17 DecI., 124 and Exhibit P.) By email correspondence also dated January 25, 2019, the office of
C.'
18 counsel for Defendants provided Plaintiff with a further courtesy copy of Defendants' Judgment
19 Debtor Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories, Set
20 One which were previously served on Plaintiff on October 9, 2018. (See Id.)
21 Plaintiff responded by email also dated January 25, 2019, stating: "Never got this before.
22 Have a nice weekend Ms. Strasser. I feel sorry for you that you are working for guy like Burkett or
23 Bardzell. Tell them to file motion." (See Bardzell Dccl., ¶ 25 and Exhibit Q.)
24 On February 22, 2019, counsel for Defendant served, a further meet and confer
25 correspondence upon Plaintiff, providing: "This letter serves as Defendants II. J further attempt to
26 meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs outstanding responses to Defendants' [judgment debtor'
27 discovery requests]. Plaintiff has provided no response whatsoever and responses are more than
28 three months overdue. Our previous attempts to meet and confer on this issue have been
101978654D0CX) 6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 unsuccessful. If we do not receive complete responses by March 1, 2019, our next action will be to
2 file a motion to compel and seek sanctions." (See Bardzell Deci., 126 and Exhibit R.)
3 By email correspondence dated March 1, 2019, Plaintiff provided, in part: "I am not going
4 to quit my lawsuits voluntarily either regardless of what judges and justices from three different
5
California courts have done to me in the last four years. I did not provide the response by January
6 31, 2019 because the DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF [. . . and]
7
DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - SET ONE TO
8 PLAINTIFF [ ... ] were not sent to me on October 9, 2018 and I do not have any record of it[. . .
9
Porter Scott attorneys did not file a Motion to Compel as promised by the January 31, 2019 letter
10 nor did they formally resend the Interrogatories and Production for Documents to me with the new
11
date[. . .] If the Porter Scott attorneys want to file another Motion to Compel [. . .] I have no
12
control over it. I will not be surprised if the Motion is granted." (See Bardzell Deel., ¶ 27 and
13 Exhibit S.) Plaintiff further asserted that he provided some documents at the Judgment Debtor
14 examination in this matter. (See Id.)
15 III.
16 PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO
JUDGMENT DEBTOR REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
17 AND JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
18 A judgment creditor is allowed to use the following procedures provided for in the
19 Discovery Act to obtain discovery to assist in enforcing a judgment: (1) service of written
20 interrogatories to the judgment debtor under C.C.P. § 2030.010, et seq., and (2) service of a
21 document inspection demand to the judgment debtor under C.C.P. § 2031.010, et seq. (See C.C.P.
22 §§ 2016.070; 708.020; 708.030.)
23 A. Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One)
24 A party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath
25 separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: an answer containing the information
26 being sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party's option to produce writings, or an
27 objection to the particular interrogatory. (C.C.P. § 2030.210(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories
28 are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move
{01978654.DOCX)
7
EMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (C.C.P. § 2030.290(b).) The party also
2 waives objections to the interrogatories (including those based on privilege and work product) by
3 failing to respond by the deadline. (C.C.P. § 2030.290(a).)
4 Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject
5 to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause
6 or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v, Pacific
7 Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 411.) A separate statement is not required
8 when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)
9 In our case, Defendants have not received Plaintiffs verified responses to Judgment Debtor
10 Interrogatories (Set One). (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 28.) These interrogatories were properly served on
11 Plaintiff on October 9, 2018. (See Bardzell Deci., ¶ 22 and Exhibit N.) Responses were due on or
12 before November 13, 2018. (See id.)
13 Defendants require these discovery responses in order to enforce their judgment.
14 Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified
15 responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) without objections.
16 B. Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One)
17 If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the
18 party propounding the demand may move for an order compelling responses to the demand.
19 (C.C.P. § 2031.300(b).) In addition, a party who fails to respond waives any objections he
20 otherwise could have raised to the demand. (C.C.P. § 2031.300(a).)
21 Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents
22 (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) on October 9, 2018. (See Bardzell Decl.,
23 ¶ 22 and Exhibit N.) Responses were due on or before November 13, 2018. (See id.) Plaintiff's
24 responses remain overdue and outstanding. (See id.)
25 Therefore, Defendants respectfully request an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide
26 responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Request for Production of Documents (Set One),
27 without objections.
28 I/I
101978654.DOCX) 8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION 1
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
Iv.
2 MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AWARDED
3 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in relevant part, that:
4
The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the
5 misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay
the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of
6 that conduct [ ... ] If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this
7 title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the
sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
8 imposition of the sanction unjust.
9 C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) provide that a court shall impose a monetary
10 sanction on any party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel responses to interrogatories
12 Defendants have extended Plaintiff every opportunity to avoid court intervention in this
13 matter by conducting extensive meet and confer efforts. Plaintiff has completely ignored
16 discovery has made the current motion necessary, despite being afforded opportunities to avoid the
18 To date, Defendants have incurred $3,640 in fees as a result of Plaintiff's failure to respond
19 to Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor
20 Interrogatories (Set One). (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 29.) Defendants anticipate incurring an additional
nI $1,300 to review Plaintiffs Opposition, prepare a reply and attend a hearing. (See Id.) Therefore,
22 sanctions are proper. Moreover, even if Plaintiff serves responses upon notice of this motion in
23 order to avoid a court order, Defendants have nevertheless been forced to incur the expense of
24 moving to compel Plaintiffs compliance with his discovery obligations, despite efforts to achieve
25 a cooperative result. As such, sanctions in the amount of $4,940 are appropriately awarded against
26 Plaintiff for the time and expense incurred by Defendants in filing this motion.
1
I-
I/I
28 I/I
0I978654.DOCX}
9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 V
2 TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE
3 The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may impose sanctions on any party
4 who engages in conduct that constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).)
5 Misuses of the discovery process includes "failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method
6 of discovery" and "disobeying a court order to provide discovery." (C.C.P. §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)
7 When a party fails to respond to an authorized method of discovery and/or fails to obey a court
8 order to provide discovery, the Court may impose monetary sanctions, terminating sanctions, or
9 both. (CCP § 2023.030(a), (d), (g).)
10 Courts have long held that terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is a willful
11 failure to comply with court orders, and should be issued where it appears that lesser sanctions
12 would not bring the offending party into compliance. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd
13 (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Terminating sanctions are especially appropriate where a party
14 fails to respond to discovery requests and ignores court orders. (See Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68
15 Cal.App.3d 372, 383.)
16 Terminating sanctions are appropriate in this case. Plaintiff has failed to provide any
17 verified responses to the Defendants' written judgment debtor. discovery despite extensive meet
18 and confer efforts by Defendants. Moreover, the Court has previously granted two motions to
19 compel discovery filed by Defendant UNIVERSITY in this case. (See Bardzell Decl., 114, 21 and
20 Exhibits i-i, M.) Plaintiff has plainly not been dissuaded from his pattern of failing to engage in the
21 discovery process.
22 It is evident that Plaintiffs conduct is nothing more than a delaying tactic to prevent the
23 Defendants from engaging in judgment debtor discovery. Requiring Defendants to continue
24 wasting time, money, and Court resources to compel Plaintiff to fulfill his obligations to
25 participate in the case, including judgment enforcement process, would be categorically unjust.
26 Plaintiffs demonstrated pattern of failing to provide discovery responses has prejudiced
27 Defendants' ability to prepare for trial, as well as enforce its judgment and will interfere with the
28 Court's ability to ascertain the truth in this case. It has thus become apparent that no action will
I 978654D0CX) 10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FORMONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
compel Plaintiff to comply with his discovery obligations, making terminating sanctions
2 appropriate.
3 Accordingly, Defendant requests that the Court grant terminating sanctions and issue an
4 Order dismissing the complaint against the remaining Defendant in its entirety, with prejudice.
5 VI.
6 CONCLUSION
7 Defendants have made every effort to allow for the cooperative exchange of information,
8 however Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor
9 Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One).
10 Defendants are left with no option other than to file the instant motion. As such, Defendants seek
11 an Order (1) compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to the anti-
12 SLAPP Defendants' Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and
0
0
13 Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) awarding sanctions in the amount of $4,940 to
H
H Ct 'fl
— O
14 return Defendants to the position they would have been had respobses been timely provided; (3)
<s'a 15 issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiffs continuing pattern of failure to
16 engage in the discovery process.
H
0 17
In
C,
Dated March 19, 2019 PORTER SCOTT
18 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION I I
19
20 By MJO4b/t(2(
David P. E. Burkett
21 Daniel J. Bardzell
22 Attorneys for Defendant
23
24
25
26
27
28
{01978654D0CX} 11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et at.
I
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My
business address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
5
On the date below, I served the following document:
6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'
7 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND
8 TERMINATING SANCTIONS
BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business
9 practices. I am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing
correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing,
10
it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed
envelope with postage hilly prepaid.
11
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
addressed below. (I) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at
12
C the attorney's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify
0
13 the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours
—'0 of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by
-'Cl) In coo
Os °'2 14 leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age
between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.
-<cc'
U a. o
15 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
0' overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package
16 for collection and overnight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight
delivery carrier. -
Cn BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax
0 17
In transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was
18 reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed
out, is attached
19 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept
service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic
20 notification address listed below.
21 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
27
tsser
28
{01978654.DOCX)
12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
EXHIBIT # 16
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 04/26/2019 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Steven H Rodda
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM: V. Green CSR# 10529
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: Navi, A., R. Mays
APPEARANCES
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, self represented Plaintiff, present.
Daniel Bardzell, counsel present for defendant
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents
TENTATIVE RULING
Judgment Creditors Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert's, ("Judgment Creditors") Motion to
Compel Responses to Judgment Debtor's Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor's Requests for
Production of Documents, for payment of Monetary Sanctions, and for Terminating Sanctions is ruled on
as follows:
On April 14, 2015, the Court granted Judgment Creditor's Special Motion to Strike plaintiff's causes of
action. The Court subsequently granted their Motion for Attorneys fees in the amount of $22,284. (Ex. C
to the Declaration of Daniel J. Bardzell)
Judgment Creditors served the instant post-judgment discovery (Ex. N) on October 9, 2018. Judgment
debtor/plaintiff failed to provide any responses to the discovery. Judgment Creditors sent a second copy
of the discovery to judgment debtor on January 25, 2019, after he contended that he never received the
first set served in October. No responses were served prior to filing this motion on March 20, 2019.
Judgment Debtor has filed an opposition contending that he has now served responses to the discovery,
attached as Exhibits 1 and 2. The points and authorities in opposition to the motion do not address the
relevant issues in this motion but consists almost entirely of matters irrelevant to the discovery at issue.
Judgment debtor opposes this "unwarranted motion to compel."
Judgment creditor's Reply contends that the discovery responses were not code compliant because
they contained objections and plaintiff has waived objections by not timely responding. The Court is not
reviewing the adequacy of the responses attached to the Opposition. However, moving parties are
entitled to a court order compelling code compliant responses to the discovery. Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, Inc. v Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.
Judgment Debtor is ordered to serve further verified responses to the Judgment Debtor
Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production, as set forth in the separate statement,
without objections, on or before May 8, 2019.
Judgment debtor is also ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to moving parties in the
amount of $780 (3 hrs at the hourly rate of $260), plus the $60 filing fee, for a total fee award of
$840. This opposition was filed without substantial justification and therefore, moving parties
are entitled to monetary sanctions. The monetary sanctions must be paid on or before May 27,
2019. If those sanctions are not paid by that date, moving parties may prepare a formal order on
the two sanctions awards which may thereafter be entered as a separate judgment. See
Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608.
Terminating Sanctions
The motion for terminating sanctions is denied. The post judgment discovery at issue here was served
by judgment creditors, not Regents. Moving parties have already obtained a judgment of dismissal in
this case as well as an attorney fees award on the anti-SLAPP motion. Thus, it is unclear why they are
seeking a "terminating sanction" in this context.
Regents are not a party to the underlying discovery or this motion, and therefore the Court will not grant
a terminating sanctions as to Regents. To the extent plaintiff has not paid monetary sanctions to be paid
to Regents pursuant to prior court orders, Regents may prepare a formal order on that sanctions award
from the November 14, 2018 court order and then may enforce that award as a separate judgment
under Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608.
As stated above, Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to the Judgment Debtor Interrogatories
and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production, without objections, on or before May 8, 2019. Monetary
sanctions are to be paid as specified above.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
After hearing oral argument the Court affirmed its tentative ruling with the following modification:
The order for monetary sanctions was vacated.
1 up is a separate proceeding.
2 As we stated in our motion papers with respect
3 to this motion, we are entitled to receive timely
4 verified responses to the written debtor discovery.
5 Plaintiff failed to provide that discovery by the
6 deadline. We met and conferred. He did not serve
7 responses at the time we filed the motion. He did file
8 late responses, noncompliant, after we filed the motion.
9 And so we stand by our request.
10 THE COURT: At the debtor's examination, did you
11 ask him all of the same questions set forth in the
12 discovery requests?
13 MR. BARDZELL: We covered significant ground
14 related to the documented categories that were also
15 requested in the written discovery.
16 THE COURT: So wouldn't that just duplicate what
17 you requested in the discovery requests?
18 MR. BARDZELL: Well, at the debtor's examination
19 a number of questions were asked about his wife's
20 assets, and in that respect he was unwilling to provide
21 that information. We also served the written discovery,
22 which he did not timely respond to.
23 Additionally, at the debtor's examination there
24 was no court reporter. There was a lack of under oath
25 testimony. It was an informal proceeding.
26 THE COURT: Well, the debtor is a formal
27 proceeding, right? That's my experience.
28 MR. BARDZELL: I don't recall. I was under the
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896
3 Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
dburkett@porterscott.com
6
dbardzelKolporterscott.com
7
Attomey for Defendant
8
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
9
Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code §6103
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11
12
o JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
o
B in
13
•3 a - ^14 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
o
u c/^c i<n a<
00 o AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
O ON Ov
15 V. DEFENDANTS' FURTHER MOTION TO
< _ COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT
kQ
Oi.
•— IU . .
16 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND
O CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
(X
17 CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY
AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
18 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
19 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES Date: July 19, 2019
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY Time: 2:00 p.m.
20 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK Dept.: 53
21 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1
through 50, inclusive. Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
22 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
Defendants. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
23
24
25
26
27
28
(02023105.DOCX} 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3
4 I. INTRODUCTION
5 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .1
6
A. Plaintiff Failed to Provide Timely Responses to Defendant University's
7 Form and Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents
and Request for Admissions Necessitating Two Motions to.Compel
8 Regarding Such Requests 3
9
B. Plaintiff Ignores the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Meet-and-Confer Efforts
10 Related to the Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents
(Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) 4
11
12 C. Anti-SLAPP Defendants File a Motion to Compel Responses Judgment
o
o Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment
(N
13 Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) and for Terminating Sanctions 5
3
24 VI. CONCLUSION : ; 13
25
26
27
28
{02023105.DOCX) 11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page
State Court Cases
3
4 Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants
(2007) 148 Cal.App.4"^ 390, 411 8, 9
5
6 Kahn v. Kahn
(1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 372, 383 11
7
Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
8 55 Cal.App.3d 77, 744 8
9
R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
10 (1999) 75 Cal.App.3d 372, 383 11
11 Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp.
12 (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914 8, 10
o
o
B m 13
t— .
32 00 —
»o00 NO
h- cn
o
1^ 14 Statutes
O — m
o^ f-^
oi < 6 Os Ov 15 Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 2
\D NO
ON ON
^ " i-J >< 16 Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c) 3
a< c iaUJ <
:D cn
17
o Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(d) ..11
• in
m
18
Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(g) ; 11
19
20 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) .......11
CeS < o
ON
NO NO
ON
15
(—, • - 1) 0 \ ON
IJ oo c 16
^ s iH tu
O- c S
3 cn
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02023105.DOCX} IV
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 Defendants BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA, and SEIFERT ("anti-SLAPP
2 Defendants" or "Defendants") respectfully submit the following memorandimi of points and
3 authorities in support of their motion to: (1) compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY")
4 WASZCZUK's verified responses, without objections, to Judgment Debtor Requests for
Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) award
monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,160.00 to retum Defendants to the position they would
have been had the subject judgment debtor discovery responses been timely provided; (3) issue
8 terminating sanctions against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant REGENTS OF THE
9 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ("UNIVERSITY") as a result of Plaintiff s pattem of failure to
10 engage in the discovery process.
11 I.
12 INTRODUCTION
o
o
fN
13 Anti-SLAPP Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of
t- 3 oo —
i n oo
t - cn ON -q-
0 u Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) on October 9, 2018.
<• ON
^ g U ON fN
—> o ^ 5 15 Responses were due on or before November 13, 2018. Plaintiff has failed to provide verified and
ON ON
01 <
1 -J
2 UJ
^ 16 adequate responses and same are overdue.
Cu c ca u.
D Defendants respectfully request the Court issue an Order to (1) compel Plaintiff to provide
o
in 17
verified responses to the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of
18
Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) issue monetary sanctions
19 I
20 against Plaintiff in the amount of $4,160.00 for Defendants' fees and costs incurred in bringing this
21 motion; and (3) issue the sanction of termination of the present action as a result of Plaintiffs
.22 continuing pattem of failing to provide discovery responses.
IL
23
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
24
The course of litigation in this matter is lengthy and complex. The following is a brief
25
summary: Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on September 30,
26
2014. Among the several claims in the SAC are four causes of action against all named
27
28
{02023105. DOCX}
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 Defendants:' (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"); (2) tortious interference with
2 economic advantage; (3) FEHA harassment and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination,
3 retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 12940(a); and (4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation
4 in violation of Govemment Code §§ 8547 et seq.
5 Each of these causes of action arises out of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant
6 UNIVERSITY at the University of Califomia at Davis Medical Center. In addition to Defendant
7 UNIVERSITY^ these causes of action were pled against Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE,
8 MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
9 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, and DORIN DANILIUC for their
10 participation in investigations and disciplinary actions that ultimately resulted in Plaintiffs
11 termination of employment with the UNIVERSITY. The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant
12 remaining in the case.
o
o
fN 13 On December 1, 2014, anti-SLAPP Defendants filed a Special Motion to Strike Plaintiffs
Bm
u- fN — NO
r- 3 oo 00 O
H (/2 14 causes of action as pled against them. (Declaration of Daniel Bardzell in Support of Further
0 u-o^
fN f N
01 < 6
ON ON
NO NO
15 Motion to Compel ("Bardzell Decl."), Tl 2.) The anti-SLAPP Defendants contended that Plaintiffs
U >:> cON ON
^ ^ E J ><
W <
16 causes of action against them arose from protected activities pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure-'
a. c H u.
D cn 17 § 425.16; namely, their participation in the processing, investiga:tion, hearing and deciding of
o
•n
18 complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to the policies and procedures of the Defendant
19 UNIVERSITY. (M)
20 On April 14, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting the Special Motion to Strike finding
21 that Plaintiff failed to establish a probability of prevailing on the causes of action pled against the
22 anti-SLAPP Defendants as required by section 425.16 and entering judgment in favor of the anti-
/ • '. ' .
23 SLAPP Defendants. (Id. at ^ 3 and Exhibit A.)
24 ///
25
26
27 ' The First and Second Causes of Action in the Second Amended Complaint do not specifically identify Defendant UNIVERSITY
but do refer to employment with UC DAVIS within the cause of action.
2 ld.,fn. 1. .
28
^ Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references in this Motion are to the Califomia Code of Civil
Procedure.
{02023105. DOCX} 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of the four remaining
2 individual Defendants RICE, WITCHER, PUTNEY, and DANILIUC. (Id. at H 4 and Exhibit B.)
3 The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant remaining in the case.
4 On May 11, 2015, the anti-SLAPP Defendants filed a Motion for Fees and Costs pursuant
5 to CCP § 425.16, subdivision (c) and the Court's Order dated April 14, 2015 on Defendant's
6 Special Motion to Strike. (Id. at ^ 5.) The motion sought recovery of approximately $33,000 in fees
7 and costs incurred by the anti-SLAPP Defendants in cormection with the Special Motion to Strike.
8 (Id., Exhibit C.)
9 On June 29, 2018, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion for Fees and
10 Costs in the amoimt of $22,284 against Plaintiff (Id. at 6 and Exhibit C.)
11 A. Plaintiff Failed to Provide Timely Responses to Defendant UNIVERSITY'S Form and
Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for
12
o Admissions, Necessitating Two Motions to Compel Regarding Such Requests
o
fN
B m
13 In the underlying lawsuit from which the anti-SLAPP Defendants have been dismissed,
L_ •= <N
r-" 3 00 — NO
H cn
O
00 o
—
14 Plaintiff has engaged in a pattem of failing to adequately and timely respond to Defendant
ON t~~
^Is fN fN
ON ON
NO NO
15 UNIVERSITY'S discovery requests which has necessitated the filing of two motions to compel
oi < 6 ON ON
j'
^ S3 1
UJ
><
<
16 discovery by Defendant UNIVERSITY on October 17, 2018 and Febmary 11, 2019, respectively.
O .2; !iH u.
D cn 17 (Bardzell Decl., H 7-12.) In its mling on Defendant UNIVERSITY'S October 17, 2018 motion to
18 compel, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to
19 Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets one) and requests for production (set one) no
20 later than December 12, 2018. (Id. at H 9 and Exhibit D.) Additionally, the Court ordered Plaintiff
21 to pay Defendant UNIVERSITY mandatory monetary sanctions in the amount of $520 by
22 December 14, 2018 for failure to provide responses to requests for admissions. (Id.)
23 Plaintiff violated the Court's order by failing to fully pay such monetary sanctions and by
24 providing only deficient responses to the special and form interrogatories which necessitated the
25 filing of a second motion to compel on Febmary 11, 2019. (Id. at T| 9-12.)
26 The Court granted Defendant UNIVERSITY'S second motion to compel and ordered
27 Plaintiff to provide further verified responses to Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets
28 one) no later than April 3, 2019. (Id. at ^ 12 and Exhibit E.) Additionally, the Court denied
{02023105.DOCX} 3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 Defendant's request for monetary sanctions as the motion was imopposed and also denied
2 Defendant's request for terminating sanctions, (/of.)
3 B. Plaintiff Ignores the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Meet-and-Confer Efforts Related to the
Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment
4 Debtor Interrogatories (Set One)
5
The anfi-SLAPP Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for
6
Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) on October 9,
7
2018. (Bardzell Decl., 13 and Exhibit F.) Responses were due on or before November 13, 2018.
8
(Id. at 13.) Plaintiff has completely failed' to provide any verified responses and same are
9
overdue. (Id.)
10
On January 24, 2019, counsel for Defendants served a meet and confer correspondence
11
upon Plaintiff regarding,the outstanding judgment debtor discovery responses wherein defense
12
o
o counsel indicated: "This letter serves as Defendants [. . .] attempt to meet and confer regarding
fN
B m
13
>
H
'= 00 — NO
CO i n 00 p ^ ^
Plaintiffs outstanding responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Request for Production of
o « °^ 2 p; 14 Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories, Set One which were served on you on
> U ON ON . _
ai, < o so ^ 1 J
October 9, 2018. Plaintiff has provided no response whatsoever. Please provide complete
S 1 -J X 16
a- ta-
c cau H u. responses by January 31, 2019 or we will file a motion to compel and seek sanctions." (Id. at ^ 14
3 cn
o
in 17 and Exhibit G.)
18 By email correspondence dated January 25, 2019, Plaintiff asserted he never received a
19 copy of the judgment debtor discovery requests and further provided: "Please send me the
20 aforementioned documents that were supposed to have been sent in October. I will look them over
21 and respond to you with 30 days, or you may file the motion to compel if you wish." (Id. at ^ 15
22 and Exhibit H.) By email correspondence also dated January 25, 2019, the office of coimsel for
23 Defendants provided Plaintiff with a further courtesy copy of Defendants' Judgment Debtor
24 Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories, Set One
25
26
27
/ •. •
which were previously served on Plaintiff on October 9, 2018. (/i/.)
/// ".
28
{02023105. DOCX} A
10 file a motion to compel and seek sanctions." (Id. at ^ 17 and Exhibit J.)
11 By email correspondence dated March 1, 2019, Plaintiff provided, in part; " I am not going
12 to quit my lawsuits voluntarily either regardless of what judges and justices from three different
o
o
in
rJ
13 Califomia courts have done to me in the last four years. I did not provide the response by January
H 3 00 —
m 00
i— cn
O u ON 14 31, 2019 because the DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF [. . . and]
on g fN
<
< ri fN S 15 DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - SET ONE TO
o" ^ ON
5 ON
<U . .
6 -1 ^ 16 PLAINTIFF [. . .] were not sent to me on October 9, 2018 and I do not have any record of it[. . . .]
U.
1u
17 Porter Scott attomeys did not file a Motion to Compel as promised by the January 31, 2019 letter
18 nor did they formally resend the Interrogatories and Production for Documents to me with the new
19 date[. . .] If the Porter Scott attomeys want to file another Motion to Compel [. . .] I have no
20 control over it. I will not be surprised if the. Motion is granted." (Id. at T| 18 and Exhibit K.)
21 Plaintiff fiirther asserted that he provided some documents at the Judgment Debtor examination in
22 On May 31, 2019, counsel for Defendants served a meet and confer correspondence upon
23 Plaintiff regarding the outstanding judgment debtor discovery responses which indicated:
I will respond to your inquiry within a few days (most likely next week). [. . .] Your
threating letter stating "Please provide complete responses immediately or we will take
fiirther action, as needed" made me feel very uncomfortable. I received your May 31, 2019
threat of unspecified further action on the seventh anniversary of the ill-plaimed but
8 unsuccessfiil provocation to end my employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma
Unit #11 by the specially assembled hit squad, which I nicknamed in the Court Documents
9
as the "Davis Death Squad." I hope that your new threat does not mean that the UCOP mob
10 led by Janet Napolitano gave the order to Porter Scott's special team to physically harm me
or my family members, taking into consideration previous Porter Scott attomeys'
11 provocations threats and 14 years of terror.
12 (Id. at H 24 and Exhibit O.)
o
o
fN
B m
13 Plaintiff further responded by email dated June 8, 2019, stating in part:
E- 3 S - NO
O cn m 00 o 14
U 1) ON •*
— m As I stated in my April 12, 2019 Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel and
t/2 i < ON
Oi u fN s:^ 15 Terminate Sanctions filed by you on March 20, 2019, for the Defendants' Judgment
UJ
H > ( J ON ON Debtor Interrogatories Set One and Judgment Debtor Request for Production of
oi
O <^> —o" ^ — 16 Documents Set One, and during the April 26, 2019 Court hearing with Judge Steven
&- .3 uC ON ON
5 td
17 Rodda, I have no more information to give you other than what you have received already.
D cn
o In fact, I should not give you any information in this matter, but this is a separate subject
in 18 that I wiir address after you file another Mofion to Compel or any other mofion related to
this case.
19
20 (Id. at H 25 and Exhibit P.)
21 III.
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO
22 JUDGMENT DEBTOR REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
23 AND JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
24 A judgment creditor is allowed to use the following procedures provided for in the
25 Discovery Act to obtain discovery to assist in enforcing a judgment: (1) service of written
26 interrogatories to the judgment debtor imder CC-P- § 2030.010, et seq., and (2) service of a
27 document inspecfion demand to the judgment debtor under CCP. § 2031.010, et seq. (CCP. §§
28
2016.070; 708.020; 708.030.)
{02023105.DOCX} 7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 A. Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One)
2 A party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath
3 separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: an answer containing the informafion
4 being sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party's opfion to produce writings, or an
objection to the particular interrogatory. (CCP. § 2030.210(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories
are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move
for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP. § 2030.290(b).) The party also
8 waives objections to the interrogatories (including those based on privilege and work product) by
10 Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject
11 to a 45-day time limit, and the propoimding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause
12 or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific
o
o
13 Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) A separate statement is not required
f- 3 fOO
N
—
m OO
O u ON -Sl- when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Rules of Court, mle 3.1345(b).)
< • ON f N
—>
ON 2 15 In our case. Defendants have not received Plaintiffs verified responses to Judgment Debtor
fN
a; < 2" )B ON
S ON
oi I- LZ ^ 16 Interrogatories (Set One). (Bardzell Deck, t 22.) These interrogatories were properly served on
y r-
o
in 17 Plaintiff on October 9, 2018. (Id. at T| 13 and Exhibit F.) Responses were due on or before
18 November 13, 2018. (M)
19 Plaintiff served imverified, deficient and late responses to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories
20 (Set One) on April 15, 2019. (Id. at 20 and Exhibit L.) Interrogatory responses served without a
21 verification are tantamount to serving no responses as all. (Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific
22 Securities Corp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914 ("Untimely or unswom statements are tantamovmt
23 to no response at all[.]") citing Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 55 Cal.App.3d
24 737, 744.).) Plaintiffs unswom responses are wholly insufficient and constitute a complete failure
25 to respond.
26 Plaintiffs late unverified interrogatory responses are not code-compliant discovery
27 responses. Plaintiff has waived any objections to^the requests by failing to timely respond to them.
28 (Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(a) [interrogatories] & 2031.300(a) [producfion
{02023105. DOCX} g
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION QF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 requests].) Instead of serving responses without objections, the unverified responses contain
2 outright refusals to provide information regarding Plaintiffs wife's finances. (Bardzell Deck,
3 Exhibit L, "Response to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Rpgs #1".) Defendants are entitled to that
4 information to determine what assets Plaintiff has (whether individually or as community
5 property), so they can determine what can be collected, and how to collect it, to pay the judgments
6 that he owes in this case. Plaintiff refused that provide that information at the debtor's examination
7 (which is part of the reason why Defendants have had to file this motion not\yithstanding their
8 attempt to resolve the issues in this motion by taking discovery into Plaintiffs assets via the
9 debtor's examination). (Id.)
10 Defendants require these verified interrogatory responses in order to enforce their,
11 judgment. Accordingly, Defendants respectfiilly request a further Order compelling Plainfiff to
12 provide verified and code-compliant responses to anti-SLAPP Defendants' Judgment Debtor
o
o
fN
B m
13 Interrogatories (Set One) without objections.
U- 3 fN
r- 3 oo _ NO
t- cn 00 g
^ rn
14 B. Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One)
fN
oi < 6
ON I3N 15 If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the
NO NO
ON OS
b 3 J >< 16 party propounding the demand may move for an order compelling responses to the demand.
o > sLU
H
<
ti.
D C/2
o
17 (CCP. § 2031.300(b).) The party to whom the demand for inspection is directed shall sign the
in
f^
18 response under oath unless the response contains only objections. (CCP. § 2031.250(1).) In
19 addition, a party who fails to respond waives any objecfions he otherwise could have raised to the
20 demand. (CCP. § 2031.300(a).)
21 As discussed supra, where, as here. Plaintiff has failed to provide any timely verified
22 responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propoimding
23 party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer
24 requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 411.) A separate
25 statement is not required when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Rules
26 ofCourt, mle 3.1345(b).)
27 Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents
28 (Set One) on October 9, 2018. (Bardzell Deck, ^ 13 and Exhibit F.) Responses were due on or
{02023105.DOCX} 9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 before November 13, 2018. (Id.) Plaintiffs responses remain overdue and outstanding. (Id. at ^ 13,
2 22.) .
3 Plainfiff served unverified, late and deficient responses to Judgment Debtor Requests for
4 Production of Documents (Set One) on April 15, 2019. (Id. at ^ 20 and Exhibit L.) As discussed
5 supra, discovery responses served without a verification are tantamount to serving no responses as
6 all. (Zorro Inv. Co., supra, 69 Cal.App.3d at 914.) Moreover, for the same reasons set forth supra
7 regarding Plaintiffs judgment debtor interrogatory responses. Plaintiffs responses to Judgment
8 Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) are not code compliant. Plaintiff s
9 imswom responses to Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) are
10 wholly insufficient and constitute a complete failure to respond.
11 Therefore, Defendants respectfiilly request an Order compelling Plainfiff to provide
12 verified responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Request for Production of Documents (Set
B m
13 One), without objections.
[_ - 3 rNi
— NO
H cn 5S
O 00 o 14 IV.
U
1/3
i <— ON I^'
rs f N
CtJ < Q- ON ON
15 MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AWARDED
W .5^ 3 NO NO
ON ON
{02023105. DOCX}
10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 Plaintiffs attempt to evade his obligation to provide responses to judgment debtor
2 discovery has made this second judgment debtor discovery motion necessary, despite being
3 afforded the opportunity to avoid the need for same.
4 To date. Defendants have incurred $2,860.00 in fees as a result of Plaintiffs failure to
5 respond to Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment
6 Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) since the Court mled on Defendants' inifial mofion to compel
7 judgment debtor discovery. (Bardzell Deck, ^ 26.) Defendants anticipate incurring an additional
8 $1,300 to review Plaintiffs Opposifion, prepare a reply and attend a hearing. (Id.) Therefore,
9 sanctions are proper. Moreover, even i f Plaintiff serves verified responses upon notice of this
10 motion in order to avoid a court order. Defendants have nevertheless been forced to incur the
11 expense of moving to compel Plaintiffs compliance with his discovery obligations, despite efforts
12 to achieve a cooperative result. As such, sanctions in the amount of $4,160.00 are appropriately
o
o
fN 13 awarded against Plaintiff for thefimeand expense incurred by Defendants in filing this motion.
B m
— NO
L_ -3 fN
OO p
— m
14 V.
ON I-^
fN fN
H cn
o
ON ON
NO SO
15 TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE
ON ON
oi u <
16 The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may impose sanctions on any party
O
oi
a. <C cd
D cn 17 who engages in conduct that constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (CCP. § 2023.030(a).)
o
in
18 Misuses of the discovery process includes "failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method
19 of discovery" and "disobeying a court order to provide discovery." (CCP. §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)
20 When a party fails to respond to an authorized method of discovery and/or fails to obey a court
21 order to provide discovery, the Court may impose monetary sanctions, terminating sanctions, or
22 both. (CCP § 2023.030(a), (d), (g).)
23 Courts have long held that terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is a willful
24 failure to comply with court orders, and should be issued where it appears that lesser sanctions
25 would not bring the offending party into compliance. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
26 (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Terminating sanctions are especially appropriate where a party
27 fails to respond to discovery requests and ignores court orders. (Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68
28 Cal.App.3d372, 383.)
{02023105.DOCX} 11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 Terminating sanctions are appropriate in this case. Plaintiff has failed to provide any
2 verified responses to the Defendants' written judgment debtor discovery despite extensive meet
3 and confer efforts by Defendants. Moreover, the Court has previously granted a motion to compel
4 judgment debtor discovery filed by the anti-SLAPP Defendants in this case. (Bardzell Deck, ^ 21
5 and Exhibits M.) Plainfiff has completely ignored the Court's order regarding the prior judgment
6 debtor discovery motion. (Id. at ^ 22.) Plaintiff has plainly not been dissuaded from his pattem of
7 failing to engage in the discovery process.
8 Additionally, the Court has previously granted two motions to compel discovery filed by
9 Defendant UNIVERSITY in the underlying lawsuitfi"omwhich the judgment at issue arose. (Id. at
10 ^ 7-12 and Exhibits D-E.) Although these further discovery failures pertain to discovery requests
11 served by Defendant UNIVERSITY rather than the anti-SLAPP Defendants, such aggravafing
12 circumstances regarding discovery in the underlying lawsuit, when considered along with
o
o
fN
ii m
13 Plaintiffs pattern of failing to engage in the judgment enforcement discovery process, warrant the
"3 fN
t r2 00 — 5 14 remedy of terminating sanctions of the underlying lawsuit against Defendant UNIVERSITY.
t — cn in 00 o
S fN fN
^ <I o<
>
" a
^ f:i'
ON ON . ^
Plainfiffs demonstrated pattem of failing to provide discovery responses has prejudiced
U ^^11).I 5^. ,5;
I- r ^
Defendants' ability to prepare for trial by necessitafing substantial expenditures of time and money
D cn
o 17 to compel Plaintiff to both (1) comply with his discovery obligations in the underlying lawsuit; and
18 (2) fulfill his judgment debtor discovery obligations to permit the anfi-SLAPP Defendants to
19 enforce their judgment.
20 Plaintiffs enduring lack of cooperation with the discovery process - despite a total of three
21 prior discovery motions - makes it apparent that no action will compel Plaintiff to comply with his
22 discovery obligations, making terminating sanctions appropriate.
23 Accordingly, Defendants request that the Court grant terminating sanctions and issue an
24 Order dismissing the complaint against the remaining Defendant UNIVERSITY in its enfirety,
25 with prejudice.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
{02023105.DOCX}
12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 VL
2 CONCLUSION
3 Defendants have made every effort to allow for the cooperative exchange of information,
4 however Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses to the anti-SLAPP Defendants'
,5 Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor
6 Interrogatories (Set One). Defendants are left with no option other than to file the instant motion.
7 As such. Defendants seek an Order (1) compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses,'without
objections, to the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of
Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) awarding anti-SLAPP
10 Defendants sanctions in the amount of $4,160.00 to retum them to the position they would have
11 been had responses been timely provided; (3) issue terminating sancfions against Plaintiff in favor
12 of Defendant UNIVERSITY as a result of Plaintiff s continuing pattern of failing to engage iri the
o
o
I—1
am
3 fN _
13 discovery process.
r-* 3 00 NO
E- cn m oo p
o u =^ 2: P; 14
> N j ON ON .. ^ Dated: June 12, 2019 PORTER SCOTT
< O" ^ ^ 1^
•ijj 2^ c o^ A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
S g g -J X 16
By.
17 David P. E. Burkett
18 Daniel J. Bardzell
Attomeys for Defendant
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02023105. DOCX}
13
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et al.
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this acfion. My
business address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
10 BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
11 On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
12 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
o
o addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
fN
^ in
13 attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
•3 S - NO attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine
cn m 00 o
o «r <^ !^ 14 in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the
u i <• Jri documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours
> NJ CJN
oi < o " NO NO
15 ON
of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
W C ON ON
H BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
ai 16 ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package for
O
collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly, utilized drop box of the ovemight delivery
c/o 17 carrier.
BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I
18 faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
machine that \ used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
19
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
20 electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
address listed below. '
21
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
22 2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
23
24
25 I declare under penalty of perjury imder the laws of the State of Califomia that the
26 foregoing is tme and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on Jime 12, 2019.
27
28 Wendy Strasser
{02023105.DOCX}
14
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
EXHIBIT # 24
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 07/19/2019 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: D. Johnson-Mellado
REPORTER/ERM: L. Gallager # 8726
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: Alvi, N., R. Mays
APPEARANCES
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, self represented Plaintiff, present.
Dan Bardzell, Counsel for defendant
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Responses and Request for Production of Docs
TENTATIVE RULING
Judgment Creditors Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert's, ("Judgment Creditors") Motion to
Compel Responses to Judgment Creditors' Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor's Requests for
Production of Documents, for payment of Monetary Sanctions, and for Terminating Sanctions is ruled on
as follows.
On April 14, 2015, the Court granted Judgment Creditor's Special Motion to Strike plaintiff's causes of
action and entered judgment in favor of Judgment Creditors. The Court subsequently granted Judgment
Creditors' Motion for Attorneys' fees in the amount of $22,284. (Bardzell Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6, Exhs. A, C.)
Judgment Creditors served the instant post-judgment discovery on October 9, 2018. (Bardzell Decl. ¶13,
Exh. F.) Judgment debtor/plaintiff failed to provide any responses to the discovery. Judgment Creditors
sent a second copy of the discovery to judgment debtor on January 25, 2019, after judgment
debtor/plaintiff contended he never received the first set served in October. (Bardzell Decl. ¶ 14, Exh. G.)
After receiving no responses, Judgment Creditors filed a motion to compel responses on March 20,
2019. On April 15, 2019, while the motion to compel was pending, judgment debtor/plaintiff served
unverified responses. (Bardzell Decl. ¶ 20, Exh. L.)
On April 26, 2019, the Court granted Judgment Creditors' motion to compel and ordered judgment
debtor/plaintiff to serve further verified responses, without objections, on or before May 8, 2019. (ROA
211.) While monetary sanctions were initially granted in the tentative ruling, after hearing at oral
argument, the Court vacated the order for monetary sanctions.
Judgment debtor/plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court order and provide any further responses.
(Bardzell Decl. ¶ 23.) Judgment Creditors have attempted to meet and confer with judgment
debtor/plaintiff, but have been unable to obtain compliance with the Court's discovery order.
Judgment Creditors now move to compel judgment debtor/plaintiff to serve further verified responses,
without objections, to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of
Documents. Judgment Creditors contend they have not received any verified responses from judgment
debtor/plaintiff and the unverified responses they have received are not code-compliant because they
contain an objection and refusal to provide the information, even though judgment debtor/plaintiff has
waived objections by not timely responding. Judgment Creditors contend the information sought is
relevant to enforce their judgment.
Judgment debtor/plaintiff has submitted points and authorities in opposition to the motion, but these do
not address the relevant issues in this motion, and consists almost entirely of matters irrelevant to the
discovery at issue.
Judgment debtor/plaintiff is again ordered to serve further verified responses to the Judgment
Debtor Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production, without objections, on or
before July 29, 2019.
The Court cautions judgment debtor/plaintiff that compliance with a facially valid court order is
mandatory. (See, e.g., In re Brambini (1923) 192 Cal. 19, 28-32; see also In re Berry (1968) 68
Cal.2d 137, 147.)
Judgment debtor/plaintiff is also ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to moving parties in the
amount of $1,300 (5 hrs at the hourly rate of $260), plus the $60 filing fee, for a total fee award of
$1,360. This opposition was filed without substantial justification and therefore, moving parties are
entitled to monetary sanctions. The monetary sanctions must be paid on or before August 19, 2019. If
those sanctions are not paid by that date, moving parties may prepare a formal order on the two
sanctions awards which may thereafter be entered as a separate judgment. (See Newland v Superior
Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608.)
Terminating Sanctions
The motion for terminating sanctions is denied. The post judgment discovery at issue here was served
by Judgment Creditors, not The Regents of the University of California ("Regents"). Moving parties have
already obtained a judgment of dismissal in this case as well as an attorneys' fees award on the
anti-SLAPP motion. Thus, it is unclear why they are seeking a "terminating sanction" in this context.
Regents are not a party to the underlying discovery or this motion, and therefore the Court will not grant
a terminating sanction as to Regents.
Conclusion
As stated above, judgment debtor/plaintiff is again ordered to serve verified responses to the
Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production, without
objections, on or before July 29, 2019. Monetary sanctions are to be paid as specified above.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
After hearing oral argument the Court affirmed its tentative ruling with the following modification:
The Court vacated $60 filing fee from the tentative ruling as listed below:
Judgment debtor/plaintiff is ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to moving parties in the
amount of $1,300 (5 hrs at the hourly rate of $260), for a total fee award of $1,300.
·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · --oOo--
23
24
25
26· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·--oOo--
27
·1· ·of the anti-SLAPP defendants, but we're okay with the
·2· ·tentative ruling at this point.
·3· · · · · ·THE COURT:· So he is okay with it,
·4· ·Mr. Waszczuk, but you have to provide him answers
·5· ·without objections and sign them under penalty of
·6· ·perjury.
·7· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I need to know what they want.
·8· · · · · ·THE COURT:· You answered them.· You didn't do
·9· ·a bad job.· I read all your answers.· Most of them were
10· ·pretty good.· I would have been happy with them if I
11· ·were Mr. Bardzell, but you didn't sign them, and there
12· ·were a couple objections that were pointed out to me.
13· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I gave Mr. Bardzell everything
14· ·on February 8th.
15· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Did you sign the answers, Mr.
16· ·Waszczuk?
17· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· Your Honor, we were in court --
18· · · · · ·THE COURT:· I don't care whether you were in
19· ·court.· Did you sign the answers?
20· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I believe so.
21· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Do you have Exhibit L?· Do you
22· ·have a copy of his motion in front of you?· It's
23· ·Exhibit L.· It should have a little tab at the bottom.
24· · · · · ·Please show him, Mr. Bardzell.
25· · · · · ·All right.· Exhibit L.· Go to the very end of
26· ·your response to the production of documents.· Go to
27· ·page 7.
28· · · · · ·Do you see where it says submitted on
·7· ·JULY 19, 2019, in the matter of the Waszczuk vs. The
14· ·proceedings.
19
20
21
23
24· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·--oOo--
25
26
27
28
signed 5:1,5
V
sir 5:1
sitting 3:20 vacate 3:14
SLAPP 11:5,6 vacating 3:17
social 11:18 verification 3:28 4:23
5:7
spouse 8:7
spouse's 8:14
24
25
26
27
28
{02II7245.DOCX}
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 I.
2 INTRODUCTION
3 Judgment Creditors/Defendants have now filed three Motions to Compel Judgment
4 Debtor/Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK to provide compliant responses to Judgment
5 Debtor Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Request for Production of Documents. All such Motions
6 have been granted, yet Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff still refuses to provide those responses. His most-
7 recent responses are identical to those this Court found deficient in ruling on the prior Motion.
8 That forced Judgment Creditors/Defendants to file the instant Motion to Compel and Request for
9 Monetary Sanctions. Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff failed to file a timely Opposition to the Motion. As a
10 result. Judgment Creditors/Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition. Thereafter, Judgment
11 Debtor/Plaintiff filed an untimely Opposition. Judgment Creditors/Defendants submit the Court should
12 disregard that Opposition as untimely. However, even i f the Court considers the Opposition, Plaintiff
13 concedes in that document that he has "no arguments" other than those the Court already rejected in
14 granting the prior Motions to Cornpel.
15 Judgment Debtor/Plaintiffs current Opposition is instead replete with incoherent and nonsensical
16 assertions that counsel for Judgment Creditors is engaging in extortion. Although unclear, it appears
17 Judgment Debtor/Plaintiffs assertions focus on an underlying Order from this Court where the Court
18 awarded Defendants the attorney's fees they incurred in successfully pursuing an Anti-SLAPP Motion.
19 Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff argues that three other lawyers from defense counsel's firm worked on that
20 motion, not the current lawyers. Judgment Debtor's email correspondence attached as Exhibit 5 to his
21 Opposition also claims that any fees that are paid must be paid to the individual Defendants who
22 prevailed on the Anti-SLAPP Motion and not to Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
•23 CALIFORNIA (herein "REGENTS"), who paid for those fees.
24 Those arguments, however, are entirely irrelevant to the pending Motion, which merely argues
25 that Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff failed to provide adequate responses to discovery requests. Judgment
26 Debtor/Plaintiff does not dispute that issue, nor can he given the responses are identical to the ones the
27 Court previously found deficient.
28 For these reasons and the reasons set forth in Judgment Creditors' moving papers, Judgment
{02117245 DOCX) 2
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 Creditors' Motion should be granted. Judgment Creditors also respectfully request that the Court award
' 2 sanctions for Judgment Debtor's repeated abuse of the discovery process and disregard of previous court
3 orders. In addition. Judgment Creditors respectfully request the Court clarify that the REGENTS is
4 entitled to the payment of sanction awards as the REGENTS is incurring the costs associated with the
5 litigation against Judgment Debtor.
6 II.
7 JUDGMENT DEBTOR'S OPPOSITION SHOULD BE DISREGARDED BECAUSE IT WAS
8 UNTIMELY
9 Judgment Debtor's Opposition to the instant Motion was due on December 2, 2019. (Declaration of
10 Amanda L. Her [herein "Her Decl."], ^ 2.) On December 4, 2019, after no Opposition had been served or
11 even filed, Judgment Creditors filed a Reply to Plaintiffs Non-Opposition to Defendaiit's Motion to
12 Compel Responses to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents; and
13 for Monetary Sanctions. (Her Decl., ^ 3; Exhibit A, Reply to Plaintiffs Non-Opposition) Shortly
14 thereafter, counsel for Judgment Creditors received notification that Judgment Debtor filed an
15 Opposition. Counsel for Judgment Debtor then downloaded the relevant documents from the Court's
16 website. (Her Deck, ^ 4.) The proof of service indicated Judgment Debtor served the Opposition by mail,
17 even further delaying Judgment Creditors' receipt of Judgment Debtor's already untimely response. (Her
18 Deck, t 5.)
19 In his Opposition, Judgment Debtor completely fails to acknowledge that he failed to file a
20 timely Opposition under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). He does not offer any excuse, reason,
21 or authority for his actions. As such, the Judgment Creditors respectfully request that the Court exercise
22 its authority under Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300, refuse to consider Judgment Debtor's
23 untimely Opposition, and preclude Judgment Debtor from making any oral argument. (Bozzi v.
24 Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [the Court properly refiased to consider plaintiffs
25 untimely papers where plaintiff did not invoke any of the available procedures to obtain a court order
26 permitting late filing].)
27 Ill
28 III
{021I7245.DOCX} 3
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 III.
2 JUDGMENT CREDITORS' MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE JUDGMENT
3 DEBTOR DID NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION FOR OPPOSING IT
4 Judgment Debtor offers no legal basis in his Opposition for his failure to, once again, provide
5 compliant discovery responses in a timely manner. In fact, he outright admits that he "has no fiirther
6 argument" beyond those arguments that the Court rejected in granting Judgment Creditors' earlier
7 Motions.
8 Rather than responding to the arguments Judgment Creditors set forth supporting their contention
9 that Judgment Debtor should be compelled to provide further discovery responses and that the Court
10 should award sanctions, Judgment Debtor instead makes conspiracy theory-type arguments about
11 counsel for Judgment Creditors extorting money from him.
12 As set forth in Judgment Creditors' moving papers, this is the third Motion Judgment Creditors
13 have been forced to file in attempting to collect the judgments owed in this case. This Court has now
14 ordered Judgment Debtor multiple times to serve fiarther verified responses to the Judgment Debtor
15 Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production without objection. {See Declaration of
16 Daniel Bardzell in Support of Further Motion to Compel [herein "Bardzell Decl."] 15, 21 and
17 Exhibits K and O attached thereto) He has not done so, choosing instead to serve verified versions of the
18 identical responses this Court previously deemed insufficient. Even more egregious is the fact that
19 Judgment Debtor acknowledged in an email that he does have responsive documents, but refused to
20 provide them except for in a face-to-face meeting.' (Bardzell Deck, t 28 and Exhibit V) Judgment
21 Creditors are not required to acquiesce to such a request. When counsel for Judgment Creditors
22 communicated as much to Judgment Debtor, he responded by urging Judgment Creditors to file the
23 instant motion—conduct that continues to violate this Court's orders. (Bardzell Decl. \ 30 and
24 Exhibit X)
25 Judgment Debtor should be sanctioned for opposing this Motion without substantial justification.
26 (Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(c) [interrogatories] & 2031.300(c) [production requests].)
27
28 ' Ttiis is just another effort in Plaintiffs long-line of efforts to intimidate and threaten defense counsel, the same type of
conduct that resulted in his termination from the University.
{02117245 DOCX) ; 4
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 He has offered no legal basis for his failure to timely respond, or even for his failure to respond to the
2 numerous meet and confer attempts that Judgment Creditors have engaged in, as detailed in the moving
3 papers. Judgment Debtor's brazen defiance of multiple Court orders to serve fijrther discovery responses
4 is an unquestionable misuse of the discovery process for which monetary sanctions should be awarded.
5 (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(g); 2023.030 (a).) Judgment Creditors request an award of $5,460.00 as
6 set forth in the moving papers.
7 IV.
8 DEFENDANT REGENTS IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF SANCTIONS AWARDS
9 Judgment Debtor indicates in his Opposition and supporting exhibits that the REGENTS and
10 defense counsel are not entitled to the sanctions and fees awarded to date. (Opposition to Motion to
11 Compel Filed on October 23, 2019, pp. 4-5) In a November 21, 2019 email correspondence to counsel
12 for the REGENTS and Judgment Creditors, Judgment Debtor wrote, "As I advised you a few days ago,
13 the UC Regents should not cash the $1,300 check I sent to your office on November 18, 2019. The UC
14 Regents are not the party of the anti-SLAPP motion filed by Porter Scott's fomier attomey Michael Pott
15 on December 1, 2014." (Opposition, Exhibit 5.) Judgment Debtor goes on to offer to write individual
16 checks in the amount of $260.00 to each Judgment Creditor and insinuates he either has or will file a
17 complaint with the State Bar related to this issue.
18 Judgment Debtor has cited no legal authority for his position that the REGENTS are not entitled
19 to the sanction payment. The REGENTS has paid for the defense ofthe Judgment Creditors. (Her Decl. ^
20 6.) "A monetary sanction may be based not only on attomey's fees and costs, but also on any other
21 reasonable expenses incurred.'" {Argaman v, Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4''^ 1173, 1179 [emphasis added].)
22 As the REGENTS has incurred the expense of the Special Motion to Strike and subsequent discovery
23 proceedings associated with collecting the judgment, the REGENTS is the proper recipient of the
24 sanction payments. Judgment Creditors respectfully request the Court clarify for Judgment Debtor that
25 the REGENTS is entitled to the payment of sanction awards so that Judgment Debtor does not continue
26 to use that as an excuse for not paying the amounts owed.
27
111 •
28
III
(02117245 DOCX) . ^5 ^
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 V. .
2 CONCLUSION
3 Based on the foregoing, Judgment Creditors respectfully submit that their Motion to Compel
4 Responses to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents; and for
5 Monetary Sanctions should be granted.
6
7 Dated: December 6, 2019 PORTER SCOTT
A PRCIFESSIONA TION
8
9
10 )erek J. Haynes
^Amanda L. Her
11 Daniel J. Bardzell
Attomeys for Judgment Creditors/Former
12
Defendants
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02117245.DOCX}
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et al.
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
.5
6 On the date below, I served the following document: REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES
7 AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS
8
BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
9
am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
10 On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
11 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
12 attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine
13 in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the
documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours
14 of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
15 ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package for
collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the ovemight delivery
16 carrier.
BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I
17 faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
18 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
19 address listed below.
20 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
21 2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242
22
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on December 6, 2019.
24
25
Cindy A<3bndinetti
26
27
28
(02117245.DOCX)
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
EXHIBIT # 34
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 12/13/2019 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: R. Mays, Alvi, N.
APPEARANCES
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, self represented Plaintiff, present.
Daniel J. Bardzell, counsel present for judgment creditors
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Interrogatoriesand Production of Documents
TENTATIVE RULING
Judgment Creditors Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza, and Seifert (collectively, "Judgment Creditors")
move to compel further responses from Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor Jaroslaw (Jerry) Waszczuk to
requests for production, set one, and interrogatories, set one. Judgment Creditors also request
sanctions in the amount of $5,460. The motion is ruled upon as follows.
As outlined in the Court's prior order of July 19, 2019, on April 14, 2015, the Court granted Judgment
Creditors' special motion to strike Plaintiff's causes of action and entered judgment in favor of Judgment
Creditors. The Court subsequently granted Judgment Creditors' motion for attorneys' fees in the amount
of $22,284. (See ROA 219.)
Judgment Creditors served the underlying discovery on October 9, 2018. The Court previously granted
motions to compel related to the discovery on April 26, 2018, and July 19, 2019. In both rulings,
Judgment Debtor was ordered to provide further verified responses, without objections. The July 19,
2019 order also imposed sanctions against Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor in the amount of $1,300.
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff attempted to provide further responses by email on the Court deadline of July
29, 2019. (Bardzell Decl. ¶ 22, Exh. P.) Counsel for Judgment Creditors sent correspondence on August
5, 2019, raising the issue of improper service and stating that the further responses "appear[ed] identical
to the responses . . . previously provided with the only difference being that you executed a verification."
(Id. ¶ 23, Exh. Q.) The parties continued to meet and confer. Judgment Debtor served verified responses
on September 6, 2019, which Judgment Creditor alleges again "appear identical to his previously
provided responses with the only difference being that he provided a properly executed verification for
each response." (Mot. at 8, citing Bardzell Decl. ¶ 26, Exh. T.) The parties continued to meet and confer
but no further responses have been received.
Judgment Creditors move to compel Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff to serve further Code-compliant verified
The Court yet again cautions Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff that compliance with a facially-valid
court order is mandatory. (See, e.g., In re Brambini (1923) 192 Cal. 19, 28-32; see also In re Berry
(1968) 68 Cal.2d 137, 147.)
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff is also ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the moving parties in
the amount of $1,300 (5 hours at the hourly rate of $260), for the fees incurred since the Court's last
order compelling further responses to the same discovery. The opposition was filed without substantial
justification. The monetary sanctions are to be paid on or before January 13, 2019. If those sanctions
are not paid by that date, the moving parties may prepare a formal order on the sanction award, which
may thereafter entered as a separate judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th
608.)
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted.
APPEARANCES
Judgment Creditors served the underlying discovery on October 9, 2018. The Court previously granted
motions to compel related to the discovery on April 26, 2018, and July 19, 2019. In both rulings,
Judgment Debtor was ordered to provide further verified responses, without objections. The July 19,
2019 order also imposed sanctions against Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor in the amount of $1,300.
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff attempted to provide further responses by email on the Court deadline of July
29, 2019. (Bardzell Decl. ¶ 22, Exh. P.) Counsel for Judgment Creditors sent correspondence on August
5, 2019, raising the issue of improper service and stating that the further responses "appear[ed] identical
to the responses . . . previously provided with the only difference being that you executed a verification."
(Id. ¶ 23, Exh. Q.) The parties continued to meet and confer. Judgment Debtor served verified responses
on September 6, 2019, which Judgment Creditor alleges again "appear identical to his previously
provided responses with the only difference being that he provided a properly executed verification for
each response." (Mot. at 8, citing Bardzell Decl. ¶ 26, Exh. T.) The parties continued to meet and confer
but no further responses have been received.
Judgment Creditors move to compel Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff to serve further Code-compliant verified
The Court yet again cautions Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff that compliance with a facially-valid
court order is mandatory. (See, e.g., In re Brambini (1923) 192 Cal. 19, 28-32; see also In re Berry
(1968) 68 Cal.2d 137, 147.)
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff is also ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the moving parties in
the amount of $1,300 (5 hours at the hourly rate of $260), for the fees incurred since the Court's last
order compelling further responses to the same discovery. The opposition was filed without substantial
justification. The monetary sanctions are to be paid on or before January 13, 2019. If those sanctions
are not paid by that date, the moving parties may prepare a formal order on the sanction award, which
may thereafter entered as a separate judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th
608.)
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission.
Having taken the matter under submission on 12/13/2019, the Court now rules as follows:
SUBMITTED MATTER RULING
The Court affirmed the tentative ruling.
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242
DANIEL J. BARDZELL
PORTER SCOTT
350 UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 200
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825
6
Attomey for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAIVIENTO
10
11 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o Plaintiff, EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
o
13 TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR
r- 3 00 —
0\
V. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
O V 14 SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
O 2
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
pi. 2 S
CALIFORNL\, UNIVERSITY OF ADJUDICATION
hi ^ 16 CALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM,
O
a. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
3 t/>
17 DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
PUTNEY, DORIN DANE.IUC, and Does 1
20 through 50, inclusive. Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
21 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
Defendants. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
22
LL,
23
24
25
26
27
28
{0241.19S2.DOCX} 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
1 I.
2 EX PARTE APPLICATION
3 Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ("UNIVERSITY")
4 hereby submits this Ex Parte Application for permission to file a Memorandinn of Points and
5 Authorities in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the altemative. Summary
6 Adjudication in excess of twenty pages pursuant to Rules 3.1113(e) and 3.1200 et seq. of the
7 Califomia Rules of Court. Rule 3.1113(e) allows a party to apply to the court for permission to file a
8 longer memorandum if the argument cannot be made within the stated page limit. Due to the lengthy
9 facts, multiple causes of action, and complex legal issues in this case, it is necessary that Defendant's
10 Memorandtun of Points and Authorities exceed twenty pages to adequately address the factual and
11 legal issues presented by the motion.
12 IL
o
o
r-i
B >n 13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES j
i _ •= rM
r " 3 00 — VO
r - I'l <n 00 o
O —. m 14 IN SUPPORT OF EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT
c^ 15
a: < d vd vd Defendant intends to move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
Ov Ov
-i >< 16
l i3e(/I Wf- u.< adjudication as the following causes of action: 1) harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to
17
o prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 12940(a); 2)
18
whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 8547; 3) retaliation under
19
Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 4) breach of written contract; 5) wage and hour misclassification;
20
and 6) rescission-unlawful contract. (Declaration of Lindsay A. Goulding in support of Defendant's
21
ExParte Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment that Exceeds 20 Pages ("Goulding
22
Decl. 13.) The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will necessarily require a detailed
23
discussion of the nature of Plaintiffs employment relationship with Defendant, the alleged
24
harassment of Plaintiff fi-om 2006 to 2013, as well as the individual defenses applicable thereto.
25
26 (Id.) The circumstances surrounding die allegedly harassing conduct will also require a detailed
27 discussion regarding the nature of the conduct, the timing, and the speakers and recipients of the
28 alleged harassment. (Id.) Further, a lengthy legal analysis will be required to address Plaintiffs
{0241.1952.DOCX} 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
previous settlement agreement with Defendant. (Id.)
In order to address the lengthy facts, legal authority, and legal arguments regarding each of
3 Plaintiffs causes of action. Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its
4 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will need to exceed twenty pages. Therefore,
5 Defendants respectfully request that the court, pursuant to Rules 3.113(e) and 3.1200 et seq. of the
6 Califomia Rules of Court, allow it to submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in excess of
7 twenty pages, but not to exceed forty pages. Defendant will make a good faith effort to keep the
8 motion as concise as possible.
9 III.
10 CONCLUSION
11 For the reasons set forth above. Defendant has demonsttated good cause for an expansion
12 of the page limit and move this Court to permit Defendant to submit a memorandum of up to 40
o
o
13 pages in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.
f- 3 g — VO
i- i/i 00 o
O — m 14
cC [--•
r-j <N
a: < d
O ; Ov_
vd 15 Dated April 22, 2021 PORTER SCOTT
O ov A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
- j >< 16
o •I "mf- u.<
3 t/i
o 17
in
18 By.
Lindsay A. Goulding
19 Attorneys for Defendant
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02413952.DOCX}
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
Waszczuk V. Regents ofthe University of California, et al
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
26
27
28 Virginia Yao
{0241.1952.DOCX}
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
L:: U„ r;:^J
o
1
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
6
Attorney for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
13 GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF
Sacramento, CA 95825
PORTER | SCOTT
FAX: 916.927.3706
TEL: 916.929.1481
{02413956.DOCX} 1
DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
1 2. The Second Amended Complaint alleges the following causes of action: 1)
2 intentional infliction of emotional distress; 2) tortious interference with economic advantage; 3)
3 harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation
4 in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); 4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of
5 Government Code § 8547; 5) retaliation under Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 6) breach of written
6 contract; 7) wage and hour misclassification; and 8) rescission-unlawful contract.
7 3. Defendant intends to move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
8 adjudication as to the following causes of action: 3) harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to
9 prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); 4)
10 whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Government Code § 8547; 5) retaliation under
11 Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 4) breach of written contract; 6) wage and hour misclassification;
12 and 7) rescission-unlawful contract. The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
13 necessarily require a detailed discussion of the nature of Plaintiff’s employment relationship with
Sacramento, CA 95825
PORTER | SCOTT
FAX: 916.927.3706
TEL: 916.929.1481
14 Defendant, the alleged harassment of Plaintiff from 2006 to 2013, as well as the individual defenses
15 applicable thereto. The circumstances surrounding the allegedly harassing conduct will also require
16 a detailed discussion as to the nature of the conduct, the timing, and the speakers and recipients of
17 the alleged harassment. Further, a lengthy legal analysis will be required to address Plaintiff’s
18 previous settlement agreement with Defendant.
19 4. In order to address the lengthy facts, legal authority, and legal arguments regarding
20 each of Plaintiff’s causes of action, Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support
21 of its Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will need to exceed twenty pages.
22 5. I contacted Plaintiff to inform him of this Application via telephone and email on
23 April 26, 2021 at approximately 9:02 a.m. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy
24 of my email correspondence to Plaintiff regarding Defendant’s request to exceed the page limit.
25 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
26 is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of April 2021, at Sacramento, California.
27 L
28
Lindsay A. Goulding
{02413956.DOCX} 2
DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
EXHIBIT
“A”
01054547.WPD
From: Virginia Yao
To: JJW1980@LIVE.COM
Cc: Lindsay A. Goulding; Tomi Aina
Subject: Waszczuk v. Regents
Date: Monday, April 26, 2021 8:59:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
This is just to confirm our conversation this morning that our office is filing an Exparte
today on the papers to request a page extension to the Motion for Summary of
Judgment that we will be filing. Thank you.
Virginia Yao
Legal Assistant to Lindsay A. Goulding
350 University Avenue | Suite 200 | Sacramento, CA 95825
T| 916.929.1481 x 331 F| 916.927.3706
www.porterscott.com
Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al.
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
13 served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the morning
Sacramento, CA 95825
and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the
PORTER | SCOTT
FAX: 916.927.3706
TEL: 916.929.1481
14 party’s residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the
morning and six in the evening.
15 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package for
16 collection and overnight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery
carrier.
17 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I
faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
18 machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
19 electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification address
listed below.
20
21 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
22 Lodi, CA 95242
JJW1980@LIVE.COM
23
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on April 26, 2021.
25
26 v
27 ___________________________________
Virginia Yao
28
{02413956.DOCX} 3
DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
1 P O R T E R I S C O T T
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566 APR 2 7 2021
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481 Bv: D. JOHNSON-MELLADQ
5 FAX: 916.927.3706 DEPUTY CLERK
6
Attomey for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNrVERSITY OF CALIFORNL\
8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant io Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
II
JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASENO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o Plaintiff, tJatOPOOflPf^ ORDER ON
o
i i w-i
13 DEFENI^ffiST'S EX PARTE
— VO
00 o
14 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
— m
EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
. oi < 6
CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
« 5; g 16 CALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
o ADJUDICATION
17 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
C a
o
in DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHE.COTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
20 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
through 50, inclusive. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
21
Defendants.
22
23
24 /
Dated:
APR 2 7 2021
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
SHAMA H. MESIWALA
10
11
12
o
o
L_ • = (N
13
— \o
,t- t/) K oo o
O !^ 14
^ i< — a. 15
vd >f>
Ov ov
w <
16
o
<n
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02414532.DOCX}
Re: Defendants Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend Page Limit for Defendant's
Motion For Summary Judgment or, in The Alternative, Summary
Adjudication
Yesterday, I asked you in which Court Department you filed your Ex Parte
Application for Leave to Extend Page Limit because you did not mark on the front
page of your pleadings which Court Department or which Judge would would
-1-
Ex Parte Application
handle your application. You are obliged to inform the opposite party what you are
filing and when and where you are filing it. What you have done is very
unprofessional.
As you probably know from the Court file, in October 2018, your
predecessors in this case, two former Porter Scott attorneys, David Burkett and
Daniel Bardzell, with the evil intention of ending my wrongful termination lawsuit
against the Regents of the University of California, bypassed Judge David Brown
in Department 53 and filed, on October 3, 2018 in Department 54, their deceptive
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM
INTERROGATORIES GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
(ROA 150-153) in an attempt to obtain an Order from Judge Christopher E.
Krueger or a stamped Order with Judge Krueger’s name.
Burkett and Bardzell were caught, and their evil plan failed. If you look at
the Burkett and Bardzell’s Notice of Motion and Motion (ATTACHMENT #1) of
October 3, 2018 and your Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend the Page Limit
(ATTACHMENT #2) filed on April 26, 2021, you will see that both Court
Documents were filed/endorsed by the same Deputy Clerk named E. Medina.
It seems to me that history is repeating itself and that Porter Scott’s new team of
Super Lawyers, Ms. Lindsay A. Goulding and Olatomiwa A. Aina, are rushing to
file a Motion for Summary Judgment in the same way that David Burkett and
-2-
Ex Parte Application
Daniel Bardzell rushed to file the Termination Sanctions in Department 54 instead
of Department 53 three years earlier.
-3-
Ex Parte Application
the FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC (Page Nos. 55–57) and does not
require an Extension of the Page Limit because FORTH COA was also removed
from the SAC in 2015 by the Anti-SLAPP Motion, C.C.P. § 425.16, granted by the
Court to the Defendants, Danesha Nichols, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, and Brent
Seifert.
3) retaliation under Health and Safety Code § 1278.5
This is actually the FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC (Page Nos. 55–
57) and does not require an Extension of the Page Limit because I have no intention
of pursuing this Cause of Action but I could change my mind in filing Third
Amended Complaint which was blocked in October 2015 to be file by Burkett ,
Bardzell and Judge David Brown’s Order
4) breach of written contract
This is actually the SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC, and it is the
most important COA in the entire Second Amended Complaint besides the age
discrimination and witch hunt of March 2011–December 2012, which has caused
me losses of approximately $1,000,000 in wages and benefits between December
2012 and the present.
5) wage and hour misclassification
This is actually the SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC. My
Attorney, Douglas Stein, did not understand or did not have any knowledge about
the University of California’s pay policies and employee classification. I was
perfectly happy with my classification and wages, but U.S Senator Feinstein’s
husband, Richard Blum, hunted me down for a different reason, which is pending
in the United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit
whistleblower case Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal
-4-
Ex Parte Application
Revenue Services Case No. 20-1407
(https://www.scribd.com/document/495490868/Jaroslaw-Waszczuk-v-IRS-
Commissioner-UNITED-STATES-COURT-OF-APPEALS-FOR-THE-
DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBIA-CIRCUIT).
6) rescission – unlawful contract
This is actually the EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC. Regardless
of whether the Settlement Agreement of January 2009 was lawful or unlawful, the
Settlement Agreement was violated and breached by UC Regents, my human rights
were violated, and I was disposed of at the age of 62 like a piece of garbage and
subjected to an assassination attempt on May 31, 2012 by the UC Davis Death
Squad.
I disagree with your statement that the Motion for Summary
Judgment/Adjudication will necessarily require a detailed discussion of the nature
of the Plaintiff’s employment relationship with Defendant.
I have all my employee performance reviews, which show that I was a good
employee and had a normal relationship with my employer. I was hunted down by
regents for a completely different reason than the one you are implying in your Ex
Parte Application.
I fail to understand why Porter Scott’s attorney is making attempts to bring back
into the lawsuit the Causes of Action dismissed from the SAC by the Anti-SLAPP
motion granted by the Court. Previously, David Burkett brought back the four dismissed
COAs into his requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. Now, you are
attempting to relitigate COAs that were already litigated for several years and are no
longer part of the Second Amended Complaint.
-5-
Ex Parte Application
In concluding this Meet and Confer letter, I would appreciate if you would clarify
with the Court the status of the four individuals Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd,
Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert. Please clarify whether these individuals are
still Defendants or whether they were dismissed by the anti-SLAPP motion in 2015
together with first four COAs. Porter Scott Attorneys once brought them back in
their pleading as Defendants and another time classed them as former Defendants,
stating that they are being represented by Porter Scott.
I noticed that in your April 26, 2021 Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend
the Page Limit for the Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication, you did not mention Stephen Chilcott, Mike
Boyd, Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert at all, which is in contrast to Burkett
Bardzell’s and other Porter Scott’s lawyers pleadings of 2018–2020. I am quite sure
that Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd, Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert do not want to
hear about this lawsuit or about Porter Scott’s Attorneys anti-SLAPP motion dirty
money attached to violation of my human rights and endless harassment of 70 years
old wife . Your first show off in this case did not go well for you Ms. Goulding . You
are dirty and unprofessional lawyer as same as your Porter Scott’s predecessors with
J.D degree and licenses from the State Bar of California .
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk,
-6-
Ex Parte Application
Mailing List
-7-
Ex Parte Application
EXHIBIT # 39
AT-138/EJ-125
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT Ar?ORNEY; STATE BAR NO.:
FOR COURT USE ONLY
NAME: Lindsay A. Gouiding, SBN 227195
FIRM NAME: Porfer Scott
STREETADDRESS: 350 Uolverslty AvBHue
CITY: Sacramento STATE: CA ZIPCODE: 95825
TELEPHONENO.: (916)929-1481 FAXNO.: (916)927-3706 FILED / ENqfORSBD
E-MAIL ADDRESS: lgouldlng@porterscott.eom, oaina@porterscott.com
ATTORNEY FOR (name): Defendants Boyd, Chilcott, Selfert, Oropeza, and Nivhols
SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO MAY - 7 2021
STREETADDRESS: 720 9th Street
MAILING ADDRESS: 720 9th Street
CITYAND ZIPCODE Sacramento 95814
BRANCH NAME:
By \ Deputy Clerk
This order must be served not less than 10 days before the date set for the examination.
IMPORTANT NOTICES ON REVERSE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION
I X I Original judgment aeditor Q Assignee of record Plaintiff who has a right to attach order
applies for an order requiring (name): IRINA WASZCZUK
to appear and fumish Information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment or to answer conceming property or debt.
The person to be examined is
a. I I the judgment debtor.
b. I X I a third person (1) who has possession or control of property belonging to the judgment debtor or the defendant or (2) who
owes the judgment debtor or the defendant more than $250. An affidavit supporting this application under Code of Civii
Procedure section 491.110 or 708.120 is attached.
The person to be examined resides or has a place of business in this county or within 150 miles of the place of examination.
I I This court Is not the court in which the money judgment is entered or (attachment bnly) the court that issued the writ of
attachment. An affidavit supporting an application under Code of Civil Procedure section 491.150 or 708.160 is attached.
I I The judgment debtor has been examined within the past 120 days. An affidavit showing good cause for another examination
is attached.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correcL
Date: April 12 2021
83
. AT-138/EJ-125
' information for Judgment Creditor Regarding Service
If ybu want to be able to ask the court to enforce the order on the judgment debtor or any third party, you
nfiust have a copy of the order personally served on the judgment debtor by a sheriff, marshal, registered
process server, or the person appointed in item 3 of the order at least 10 calendar days before the date of
the hearing, and have a proof of service filed with the court.
IMPORTANT NOTICES ABOUT THE ORDER
If you claim that all or any portion of this property or debt is exempt from enforcement of the money
judgment, you must file your exemption claim in writing with the court and have a copy personally
served on the judgment creditor not later than three days before the date set for the examination.
You must appear at the time and place set for the examination to establish your claim of exemption
or your exemption may be waived.
Request for Accommodations. Assistive listening systems, computer-assisted real-time captioning, or sign
language interpreter services are available if you ask at least 5 days before your hearing. Contact the clerk's
office for Request for Accommodation (form MC-410). (Civil Code, § 54.8.)
AT-138;EJ-125[Rev January 1,2017] APPLICATION A N D O R D E R FOR Pafle20f2
6
Attomey for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAIVIENTO
10
11 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o Plaintiff, EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
o
13 TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR
r- 3 00 —
0\
V. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
O V 14 SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
O 2
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
pi. 2 S
CALIFORNL\, UNIVERSITY OF ADJUDICATION
hi ^ 16 CALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM,
O
a. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
3 t/>
17 DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
PUTNEY, DORIN DANE.IUC, and Does 1
20 through 50, inclusive. Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
21 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
Defendants. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
22
LL,
23
24
25
26
27
28
{0241.19S2.DOCX} 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
L:: U„ r;:^J
o
1 I.
2 EX PARTE APPLICATION
3 Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ("UNIVERSITY")
4 hereby submits this Ex Parte Application for permission to file a Memorandinn of Points and
5 Authorities in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the altemative. Summary
6 Adjudication in excess of twenty pages pursuant to Rules 3.1113(e) and 3.1200 et seq. of the
7 Califomia Rules of Court. Rule 3.1113(e) allows a party to apply to the court for permission to file a
8 longer memorandum if the argument cannot be made within the stated page limit. Due to the lengthy
9 facts, multiple causes of action, and complex legal issues in this case, it is necessary that Defendant's
10 Memorandtun of Points and Authorities exceed twenty pages to adequately address the factual and
11 legal issues presented by the motion.
12 IL
o
o
r-i
B >n 13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES j
i _ •= rM
r " 3 00 — VO
r - I'l <n 00 o
O —. m 14 IN SUPPORT OF EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT
c^ 15
a: < d vd vd Defendant intends to move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
Ov Ov
-i >< 16
l i3e(/I Wf- u.< adjudication as the following causes of action: 1) harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to
17
o prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 12940(a); 2)
18
whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 8547; 3) retaliation under
19
Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 4) breach of written contract; 5) wage and hour misclassification;
20
and 6) rescission-unlawful contract. (Declaration of Lindsay A. Goulding in support of Defendant's
21
ExParte Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment that Exceeds 20 Pages ("Goulding
22
Decl. 13.) The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will necessarily require a detailed
23
discussion of the nature of Plaintiffs employment relationship with Defendant, the alleged
24
harassment of Plaintiff fi-om 2006 to 2013, as well as the individual defenses applicable thereto.
25
26 (Id.) The circumstances surrounding die allegedly harassing conduct will also require a detailed
27 discussion regarding the nature of the conduct, the timing, and the speakers and recipients of the
28 alleged harassment. (Id.) Further, a lengthy legal analysis will be required to address Plaintiffs
{0241.1952.DOCX} 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
previous settlement agreement with Defendant. (Id.)
In order to address the lengthy facts, legal authority, and legal arguments regarding each of
3 Plaintiffs causes of action. Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its
4 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will need to exceed twenty pages. Therefore,
5 Defendants respectfully request that the court, pursuant to Rules 3.113(e) and 3.1200 et seq. of the
6 Califomia Rules of Court, allow it to submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in excess of
7 twenty pages, but not to exceed forty pages. Defendant will make a good faith effort to keep the
8 motion as concise as possible.
9 III.
10 CONCLUSION
11 For the reasons set forth above. Defendant has demonsttated good cause for an expansion
12 of the page limit and move this Court to permit Defendant to submit a memorandum of up to 40
o
o
13 pages in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.
f- 3 g — VO
i- i/i 00 o
O — m 14
cC [--•
r-j <N
a: < d
O ; Ov_
vd 15 Dated April 22, 2021 PORTER SCOTT
O ov A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
- j >< 16
o •I "mf- u.<
3 t/i
o 17
in
18 By.
Lindsay A. Goulding
19 Attorneys for Defendant
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02413952.DOCX}
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
Waszczuk V. Regents ofthe University of California, et al
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
26
27
28 Virginia Yao
{0241.1952.DOCX}
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
1 P O R T E R I S C O T T
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566 APR 2 7 2021
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481 Bv: D. JOHNSON-MELLADQ
5 FAX: 916.927.3706 DEPUTY CLERK
6
Attomey for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNrVERSITY OF CALIFORNL\
8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant io Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
II
JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASENO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o Plaintiff, tJatOPOOflPf^ ORDER ON
o
i i w-i
13 DEFENI^ffiST'S EX PARTE
— VO
00 o
14 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
— m
EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
. oi < 6
CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
« 5; g 16 CALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
o ADJUDICATION
17 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
C a
o
in DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHE.COTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
20 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
through 50, inclusive. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
21
Defendants.
22
23
24 /
Dated:
APR 2 7 2021
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
SHAMA H. MESIWALA
10
11
12
o
o
L_ • = (N
13
— \o
,t- t/) K oo o
O !^ 14
^ i< — a. 15
vd >f>
Ov ov
w <
16
o
<n
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02414532.DOCX}
Subject: Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Case no. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen
Chilcott, Charles Witcher, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Brent
Seifert, Patrick Putney, and Dorin Daniliuc
I am requesting that you clarify with the Court why, on April 22, 2021, at
approximately 2:00 P.M., I was served, at my residence in Lodi, CA, the following
Court documents:
-1-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
and Trial or Hearing and Declaration Issued to IRINA WASZCZUK
Olatomiwa T. Aina on April 22, 2021. (ATTACHMENT 1)
• APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND
EXAMINATION with Court Hearing Date May 7, 2021 at 9:00 A.M. in
Department 43. (ATTACHMENT 2)
• DECLARATION OF OLATOMIWA T. AINA IN SUPPORT OF
JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S APPLICATION FOR APPEARANCE AND
EXAMINATION OF IRINA WASZCZUK. (ATTACHMENT 3)
The above documents were filed in court and served to me on April 22, 2021 with the
name IRINA WASZCZUK. The person IRINA does not live at 2216 Katzakian Way,
Lodi, CA 95242.
For the above reason alone, I am advising you to properly fill out and resubmit
the documents to the Court. Also, for your information, my legal Polish name is
JANUSZ JAROSŁAW, and my wife’s legal Polish name is IRENA WASZCZUK. We
are both Polish refugees and citizens of the Republic of Poland who have been living
in exile in the USA since November 1982 (ATTACHMENT 4). In 1982, we escaped
communist oppression only to be ruthlessly and endlessly oppressed and harassed by
the National -Socialists at the University of California and their servants from the law
firm Porter Scott Attorneys.
-2-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
https://www.scribd.com/document/494446114/Solidarity-Anti-Communist-Movement-
Poland-1980-1982
My wife is not working at Nordstrom since March 2020, because she was laid
off and Nordstrom in Sacramento Arden Mall was permanently closed permanently
shortly after . She was employed for 31 years by Nordstrom as a seamstress-fitter.
My wife and I are both on Medicare Insurance and Social Security. If you need any
documents from Nordstrom, you will have to subpoena them directly from Nordstrom.
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sacbee/obituary.aspx?n=nancy-joan-
sheehan&pid=194994093
-3-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Nancy Sheehan’s premature death saddened me because my wife’s sister died a
few years ago of metastatic breast cancer in Poland, and Nancy Sheehan’s e-mail
address on your Declaration reminded me of what my wife Irena was going through
after her sister’s death.
In addition to the wrong addressee name filed on April 22, 2021, the Application
and Order for Appearance and Examination violates the statutory 45 days’ notice
requirement for filing the Application and Order Appearance and Examination.
There are two separate periods to consider when choosing your hearing date:
• Your hearing date must be at least 45 days after the date you file your papers.
• The Judgment Debtor must be served at least 10 days prior to the hearing
date California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 708.110(d).
Accordingly, your Court hearing date (counting 45 days from April 22, 2021) should
be set on Friday, June 11, 2021 due to Orders of Examination currently being heard in
Department 43 on Fridays at 9:00 A.M.
-4-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Not following the statutory notice requirements in filing the Application and
Order for Appearance and Examination will lead to the same result as the filing of
the Application and Order for Appearance and Examination submitted on October
24, 2018 by your predecessor, Daniel Bardzell, who did not comply with the
statutory notice requirements. The Application and Order submitted by Bardzell
was signed by the Judge from Department 37, Hon. Jennifer Blackwell, on
November 7, 2018, and the debtor’s examination had to be rescheduled, which
delayed the legal process (ATTACHMENT 6).
Since Porter Scott Attorneys’ Daniel Bardzell was teamed with Nancy
Sheehan in October 2019, in their pleadings, Porter Scott Attorneys is making
reference to Defendants Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy
Oropeza, and Brent Seifert as Former Defendants (ROA No.222- 245). I
addressed this issue with the Court in my PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW
WASZCZUK’S NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO THE COURT ORDER DATED
DECEMBER13 & 17, 2019 AND PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR COURT
ORDERS MODIFCATION – RE: OPPOSITION TO JUDGMENT CREDITORS’
-5-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
FURTHER MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AND MONETARY SANCTIONS filed December 27, 2019 (ROA No. 244)
(ATTACHMENT 7).
Prior to October 23, 2019, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols,
and Cindy Oropeza are Defendants. See Daniel Bardzell’s November 13, 2018
letter to Clerk of the Court (Attachment 6), in which Bardzell requested that
December 14, 2018 Examination of Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk be taken off
calendar due to a violation of the statutory 45 days’ notice requirement.
One year later, the Defendants Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert became Former Defendants. Porter
Scott Attorneys have had more than one year since my last Court filing dated
December 27, 2019 to clarify with the Court why Defendants Mike Boyd, Stephen
Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert suddenly became
Former Defendants in October 2019.
CONCLUSION
Legal documents, especially the Application and Order for Appearance and
Examination and the Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) for Personal Appearance and
Production of Documents, must be filed properly and with the proper legal name.
Otherwise, they are null and void. Because you are from Louisiana and a newly
licensed attorney by the State Bar of California, I would like to advise you to
familiarize yourself with this case, which has been pending in the Sacramento
County Superior Court since December 2, 2013, before you submit faulty
documents to the Court Clerk and send them to my residence.
-6-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
This case is interconnected with the pending United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit whistleblower case Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services Case No.: 20-1407, which I have to attend
to in addition to responding to Porter Scott Attorneys’ negligence and deception.
https://www.scribd.com/document/495490868/Jaroslaw-Waszczuk-v-IRS-
Commissioner-UNITED-STATES-COURT-OF-APPEALS-FOR-THE-
DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBIA-CIRCUIT
As an attorney, you are an officer of the court who took an oath to uphold the
law. I assume you take responsibility as seriously as anyone else; you must adhere to
those rules and even report attorneys or people you see violating the rules. As a State
Bar Member, you are obligated, at the risk of serious consequences imposed by the
State Bar, to protect and preserve the courtrooms and the validity of any matter filed
with the clerk.
My former attorney Douglas Edward Stein (SB #131248) who was coerced
with a $300,000 bribe from former Porter Scott Attorneys Michael Pott, Douglas
Ropel, and David Burkett (Read: White Collar Criminals from the University of
California) to conspire with them against me and was used by them to harm me, was
disbarred by the State Bar for his crimes against me and his other clients
(ATTACHMENT 8).
https://www.scribd.com/document/504977994/20190320-State-Bar-Audit-
Request-for-Review
-7-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
https://www.scribd.com/document/504978933/20190329-Request-for-Review-
Additional-Information-and-Documents-Vanessa-Holton-Rachel-Grunberg
https://www.scribd.com/document/504979363/20190409-Request-to-Expedite-
Reimbursement-of-the-Theft-State-Bar-CEO-Leah-T-Wilson
https://www.scribd.com/document/504979845/20190515-Leah-Wilson-State-Bar-
Ceo-Reimbursement
In 2019, I recovered the money stolen from me by Douglas Stein and the
money stolen in 2011 by the University of California gangsters, namely my Short
Term Disability Insurance Benefits. I am still working on recovering the money
stolen from me in 2014, namely my Unemployment Insurance Benefits. However ,
because of the COVID 19 pandemic is not an easy task to deal with state of
federal agencies .
I must attend the court hearing with my wife because her level of English is
insufficient for her to be questioned by lawyers without proper translation and/or
question interpretation.
-8-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
-9-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Mailing List
- 10 -
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
L _
s
£525? V_
gig M 7’ 32 2&7L/ M g‘fwf’fjff AT-138_/E._J-125
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR N05 FOR COURT use ONLY
NAME:
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
FIRM NAME: Porter Scott
STREET ADDRESS: 350
University Avenue
CITY: Sacramento CA Zip CODE: 95825
STATE:
BRANCH NAME:
PLAINTIFF JAROSLAWWASZCZUK
DEFENDANTREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIA, et al.
3. This order may be served by a sheriff, marshal, registered process server, or the following specially appointed person (name):
Date:
JUDGE
This order must be served not less than 10 days before the date set for the examination.
IMPORTANT NOTICES ON REVERSE
‘
1
owes the judgment debtor or the defendant more than $250. An affidavit supporting this application under Code of Civil
Procedure section 491.110 or 708.120 is attached.
6. The person to be examined resides or has a place of business in this county or within 150 miles of the place of examination.
7. I: This court is not the court in which the money judgment is entered or (attachment only) the court that issued the writ of
attachment. An affidavit supporting an application under Code of Civil Procedure section 491.150 or 708.160 is attached.
8. I: Thejudgment debtor has been examined within the past 120 days. An affidavit showing good cause for another examination
is attached.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: April 12 2021
}
\
.
ommmiwa T, Aina
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)
l
(Attachment—Enforcement of Judgment)
AT-138/EJ-125
”
Information for Judgment Creditor Regarding Service
'
If you want to be able to ask the court to enforce the order on the judgment debtor or any third party, you
must have a copy of the order personally served on the judgment debtor by a sheriff, marshal, registered
process server, or the person appointed in item 3 of the order at least 10 calendar days before the date of
the hearin and have a roof of service filed with the court.
,
(1) NOTICE TO PERSON SERVED If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order,
you may be subject to arrest and punishmentfor contempt of court, and the court may make an
order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorneyfees incurred by the judgmentcreditor in this
proceeding.
(2) NOTICE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR The person in whose favor the judgmentwas entered in this
action claims that the person to be examined under this order has possession or control of property
that is yours or owes you a debt. This property or debt is as follows (describe the property or debt):
Community property of Plaintiff/JudgmentDebtor
Irina Waszczuk's employmentwages
2000 Mercedes 320
Any and all communityproperty owned by Plaintiff and Irina Waszczuk
If you claim that all or any portion of this property or debt is exempt from enforcement of the money
judgment,you must file your exemption claim in writing with the court and have a copy personally
served on the judgmentcreditor not later than three days before the date set for the examination.
You must appear at the time and place set for the examination to establish your claim of exemption
or your exemption may be waived.
APPEARANCE OF A CORPORATION,PARTNERSHIP,
;
ASSOCIATION,TRUST, OR OTHERORGANIZATION
It is your duty to designate one or more of the following to appear and be examined: officers,
directors, managing agents, or other persons who are familiar with your property and debts.
Request for Accommodations. Assistive listening systems, computer-assisted real—time captioning, or sign
language interpreter services are availableif you ask at least 5 days before your hearing. Contact the clerk’s
office for Request for Accommodation (form MC-410). (Civil Code, § 54.8.)
'
Page2of 2
AT-138lEJ-125[Rev.January1,2017] APPLICATIONAND ORDER FOR
APPEARANCEAND EXAMINATION
(Attachment—Enforcement of Judgment)
‘
MC-025
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
_
ATTACHMENT (Number): 2
( This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.)
14. All DOCUMENTS relating to any money or property held in trust for YOU.
15. All DOCUMENTS relating to any money or property held in trust for YOUR spouse.
16. All DOCUMENTS relating to any transfer of over $500 made to or from YOU from October 4, 2015 to
present.
17. All DOCUMENTS relating to any transfer of over $500 made to or from YOUR spouse from October 4,
2015 to present.
18. All DOCUMENTS relating to any COMMUNITY PROPERTY held by YOUR spouse.
21. All DOCUMENTS relating to any payroll stubs indicating earnings from any employment you have
engaged in from 2016 to the present.
(If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Page 2 of 2
Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.)
(A dd p ages as required)
.
Fantttfazsfl4529sant“ ATTACHMENT
M0025(Rev. July 1. 20091 to Judicial Council Form
Q
. , e
'
MC-025
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER
_
ATTACHMENT (Number): 2
(This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.)
1. A11 DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY YOUR current residence, including but not limited to
DOCUMENTS identifying YOUR ADDRESS, how long YOU have lived there, whether YOU own or rent
the residence, and the amount of YOUR rent or monthly mortgage payment.
All DOCUMENTS relating to any real estate in which YOU have an ownership interest, and any income
2.
YOU derive therefrom, whether directly or indirectly, including but not limited to real property deeds
3. All DOCUMENTS relating to any real estate in which YOUR spouse has an ownership interest, and any
income YOU or YOUR spouse derive therefrom, whether directly or indirectly, including but not limited to
real property deeds.
4. All DOCUMENTS relating to any business entity in which YOU have an ownership interest.
5. All DOCUMENTS relating to any business entity in which YOUR spouse has an ownership interest.
6. All DOCUMENTS relating to any property in which YOU have an ownership interest, including but not
limited to (i) all checking and savings accounts; (ii) jewelry; (iii) motor vehicles or watercraft; (iv) debts or
notes owed by another to YOU; (v) stocks, bonds, and other securities; and (vi) life insurance policies.
7. All DOCUMENTS relating to any property in which YOUR spouse has an ownership interest, including but
not limited to (i) all checking and savings accounts; (ii) jewelry; (iii) motor vehicles or watercraft (including
but not limited to vehicle ownership certificates); (iv) debts or notes owed by another to YOUR spouse; (v)
stocks, bonds, and other securities; and (vi) life insurance policies.
8. All DOCUMENTS relating to any safe or safety deposit box YOU or your spouse own or use and the
contents therein.
9. All federal and state corporate tax returns YOU have filed from 2012 to the present. -
10. All DOCUMENTS relating to any of YOUR property held by third parties. ~
11. All DOCUMENTS relating to any of YOUR spouse's property held by third parties.
12. All DOCUMENTS relating to any benefits YOU have received or currently receive, including by not
limited to any pension, disability compensation, or retirement pay.
13. All DOCUMENTS relating to any vested future interest YOU have in any property or in the payment of
any money.
(If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Page 1 of 2
Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.)
(Add pages as required)
‘
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter (Motion for Automatic Stay) taken under
submission on 10/26/2015
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Regents of the University of California, Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Dorin Daniliuc,
Danehsa Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Patrick Putney, Ann Madden Rice, Brent Seifert and Charles
Witcher's motion for an automatic stay pursuant to CCP § 916(a), or in the alternative for a discretionary
stay is ruled upon as follows.
In the instant matter, Plaintiff asserts four causes of action against the above ten defendants for IIED,
tortious interference with economic advantage, FEHA harassment and failure to prevent, and
whistleblower retaliation in violation of Government Code §§ 8547 et seq. Plaintiff alleges four additional
causes of action for Violation of Labor Code § 1278.5, breach of contract, wage and hour violations and
rescission against Regents. The Court granted Defendants Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropez, and
Seifert's ("Dismissed Defendants") anti-SLAPP motion and ultimately entered judgment dismissing them
from the action. Plaintiff has appealed the judgment. Defendants Regents, Rice, Witcher, Putney and
Daniliuc ("Remaining Defendants") remain in the lawsuit on the first four causes of action. Regents
remains on the other four causes of action. Remaining Defendants seek a stay of the action pending the
appeal arguing that the proceedings are subject to an automatic stay pursuant to CCP § 916(a) or
alternatively that a discretionary stay is warranted.
The perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed
from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment
or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected
by the judgment or order. Code Civ Proc § 916 (a); see also Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino
(2005) 35 Cal. 4th 180.
To be clear, CCP § 916(a) stays all further trial court proceedings "upon the matters embraced in" or
"affected" by the appeal. "In determining whether a proceeding is embraced in or affected by the
appeal, we must consider the appeal and its possible outcome in relation to the proceeding and its
possible results. '[W]hether a matter is 'embraced' in or 'affected' by a judgment [or order] within the
meaning of [section 916] depends on whether postjudgment [or postorder] proceedings on the matter
would have any effect on the 'effectiveness' of the appeal.'" (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino
(2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189 [citations omitted].) "If so, the proceedings are stayed; if not, the
proceedings are permitted." (Id.) "A trial court proceeding also affects the effectiveness of an appeal if
the possible outcomes on an appeal and the actual or possible results of the proceeding are
irreconcilable." (Id. at 190.) "The purpose of the automatic stay rule is 'to protect the appellate court's
jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided. The rule prevents the trial court
from rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other
proceedings that may affect it." (Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1428.)
Here the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff's appeal from the order and judgment following the
Dismissed Defendants' successful anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays the entirety of the
proceedings with respect to the Remaining Defendants who themselves did not bring an anti-SLAPP
motion. No Court has held that an appeal from an order granting, as opposed to denying, an
anti-SLAPP motion divests the trial court of jurisdiction, especially as to matters related to other
defendants. Indeed, Varian held that an appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion automatically
stayed further trial court proceedings on the merits, but made clear that such an appeal does not stay
proceedings related to causes of action that were not affected by the motion. (Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th
at 195, fn. 8 ["Such an appeal does not, however, stay proceedings relating to causes of action not
affected by the motion"].)
While it is true that Plaintiff asserted the first four causes of action against the Dismissed Defendants
and the Remaining Defendants based on allegations that each of them participated in a coordinated
campaign of unlawful conduct, only the Dismissed Defendants brought the anti-SLAPP motion.
Remaining Defendants were not parties to that motion. Remaining Defendants cite no authority for the
proposition that an automatic stay is mandated based on an appeal of the granting of other defendants'
anti-SLAPP motion simply because all are named in the same cause of action. Importantly, the conduct
of the Remaining Defendants was not at issue in the anti-SLAPP motion. They fail to articulate how a
possible outcome on appeal (e.g. a reversal of the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion and entering
judgment in the Dismissed Defendants' favor) is irreconcilable with the possible results on the same four
causes of action in these proceedings, specifically given that the conduct of the Remaining Defendants
was not addressed in those motions. Remaining Defendants complain that Plaintiff is a prolific motion
filer and there is a danger that Plaintiff will file numerous motions that will be heard and decided in the
Dismissed Defendants' absence and that if the judgment were reversed the Dismissed Defendants could
be inserted back into a case that may be significantly different. They point to the fact that Plaintiff
apparently intends to seek to file a voluminous Third Amended Complaint. But, speculation aside, this
fails to show how anything that could take place in these proceedings would render the appeal futile or
how the possible results on appeal and in these proceedings are irreconcilable. This is especially true
since Plaintiff has since dismissed Defendants Rice, Witcher, Putney and Daniliuc from the lawsuit and
the Regents is the only one of the five Remaining Defendants left in the action. Remaining Defendants
fail to articulate, for example, how it would be irreconcilable for them to be found liable on Plaintiff's
claims at trial even if the appeal affirmed the anti-SLAPP order and judgment of dismissal as to the
Dismissed Defendants.
In any event, even if it could arguably be said that there was a possibility of irreconcilable results
between the first four causes of action against the Remaining Defendants and the appeal which involved
the first four causes of action against the Dismissed Defendants, there are four other causes of action
asserted against the Regents which were not the subject of the Dismissed Defendant's anti-SLAPP
motion. Those causes of action were not implicated in any way in the anti-SLAPP motion and any
appeal related to the anti-SLAPP motion could not result in a stay of those causes of action. (Varian,
supra, 35 Cal.4th at 195, fn. 8 ["Such an appeal does not, however, stay proceedings relating to causes
of action not affected by the motion"].) Yet, Remaining Defendants seek a stay of the entire action
pursuant to CCP § 916. They did not simply seek a stay of the first four causes of action.
However, the Court does agree that a discretionary stay of the proceedings pending resolution of
Plaintiff's appeal is appropriate. "Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in
the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency." (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33
Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) In fact "it may be in the interests of justice to stay a trial until another party's
appeal is decided..." (Id.) This is such a case. Here the Court finds that the interests of justice support
a stay. The Court is mindful of the inefficient use of judicial resources if a stay is not issued, specifically,
in the event the judgment is reversed. Consequently, Plaintiffs would then be entitled to try the matter
again as to those defendants who should have been at the first trial. The potential inefficiencies in this
approach are too numerous to mention. Indeed, the four causes of action that are the subject of the
appeal are also asserted against the Remaining Defendants and the allegations as to all the Defendants
appear factually intertwined and likely would involve much of the same evidence and issues. There is
thus a very real possibility that in the event Dismissed Defendants were returned to this action if the
judgment on appeal is reversed, any motions and/or discovery that were conducted in their absence
would need to be repeated. In addition, while there are four other causes of action asserted against the
Regents which were not the subject of the appeal, those causes of action also likely involve similar
evidence and witnesses and allowing piecemeal litigation would not be in the interests of justice. A stay
would promote judicial efficiency.
Plaintiff's opposition fails to present any persuasive argument against a stay. Rather Plaintiff presents
arguments going to the ultimate merits of the lawsuit and apparently the appeal. Plaintiff also indicates
that he intends to file a third amended complaint in which he intends to eliminate all individual
Defendants and simply leave his two causes of action for breach of contract and violation of Health &
Safety Code § 1278.5. The Court finds that this simply confirms the propriety of a stay under the
circumstances. Indeed, if the action is not stayed and Plaintiff were permitted to file the TAC and the
judgment against the Dismissed Defendants reversed, this could lead to extreme confusion regarding
the status of the case. That is, if the judgment against the Dismissed Defendants on the second
amended complaint is reversed the Dismissed Defendants would be returned to the action. However,
the TAC referred to by Plaintiff appears to no longer include any of the causes of action asserted against
them but Plaintiff is not contending that he has abandoned his appeal. The parties and the Court would
then need to sort out what the operative pleading would be. In the interim, the parties would have
litigated only the two causes of action against the Regents in the TAC and would then have to essentially
begin again with the four causes of action against the Dismissed Defendants. A stay is appropriate in
the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.
As a result, Remaining Defendants' request for a discretionary stay is granted. This action is stayed in
its entirety pending the resolution of Plaintiff's appeal.
Defendants' request for judicial notice is granted.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312 or other notice
is required.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission.
Declaration of Mailing
I hereby certify that I am not a party to the within action and that I deposited a copy of this document in
sealed envelopes with first class postage prepaid, addressed to each party or the attorney of record in
the U.S. Mail at 720 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California.
Dated: October 28, 2015
E. Brown, Deputy Clerk _____s/ E. Brown_____
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242
DOUGLAS L. ROPEL
PORTER SCOTT
350 UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 200
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825
7 DRAFT
8
25
I. PREAMBLE & NATURE OF THE CASE
26 A. The shocking facts of this case would continue to frustrate and anger
27 Plaintiff and for sure will surprise the Court and Jury after they learn from Plaintiff’s wrongful
28
28
28
3 California, from June 1999 as a cogeneration power plant operator and associate development
4 engineer. Plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully and without a valid cause terminated by the
5 Defendant in December 2012 after 13 years of service and at the age of 61.
6 22. Besides regular duties at the UC Davis Medical Center, Plaintiff occasionally
7 provided representation or assistance for non-union employees and, on two occasions, for union-
8 represented employees in their complaints filed under the provision of UC Davis Policy PPSM
9 70 and the UC Davis Whistleblowing Retaliation Protection Policy PPM 380-17.
10 23. Plaintiff, in the course of his employment with the UC Davis Medical Center,
11 noticed, observed, and experienced by representing other employees, many publications, and his
12 own experiences that the Defendant created two different climates and images of the University
13 of California campuses.
14 The perfect image of the University of California is the exceptional and
15 outstanding education system that is globally recognized.
16 The Different Image of the University of California
17 24. As early as 2000, a climate and culture existed at the employer’s medical center in
18 Sacramento and its university campus in Davis that subjected staff to a hostile work environment,
19 including but not limited to, sustained abuse, bullying, discrimination, retaliation for
20 whistleblowing, harassment of all kinds, intimidation, favoritism, nepotism, health and safety
21 violations, falsification of documentation, fear of retaliation for reporting misconduct, and research
22 misconduct.
23 25. As early as 2000, the employer published rules, procedures, and policies that
24 express, claim, and state that the employer is committed to a culturally diverse and otherwise
25 lawful and healthy environment. The employer’s rules, procedures, and written material espouse
26 cultural diversity, promotion of a safe workplace, no tolerance for bullying or abuse, no tolerance
27 for exclusion or discrimination, and open disclosure without retribution for reporting report waste,
9 29. The other not-so-perfect image of the University of California that is far less
3 system for most of the lab's administrators, clerical staff and technicians was discriminatory, and
that they were working longer hours for less pay
4
34. In July 2004 a $1.3 million settlement has been reached in the discrimination
5
lawsuit filed by former medical intern David Dixon who alleged that he was dismissed from
6
UCLA's family medicine residency program in 1994 because he is black.
7
8
35. A class action lawsuit was brought against Los Alamos National Laboratory,
9
claiming that the University of California, which ran the laboratory from 1943 until 2006,
10 discriminated against women and Hispanics in pay, promotions, and educational opportunities.
11 As part of a settlement reached in mid 2007, a federal judge ordered a $16.4 million payout.
12 36. In 2007 Karen Moe Humphreys, a former Olympic gold medal swimmer who
14 against the university. The suit claimed that Humphreys, who worked at UC Berkeley from 1978
15 until she was laid off in 2004, allegedly lost her job in retaliation for complaining about the
16 treatment of women by the university's athletic department. The university denied Humphreys'
17 allegations. It also denied her claim that her layoff was unlawful, though it did agree to pay more
18 than $3.5 million to settle the gender discrimination lawsuit she brought against them. As part of
19 the agreement, Humphreys will be reinstated and then retire in January 2008 when she reaches
21 37. The imposed penalty $82,500 and proposed imposition of civil penalty in the
22 amount of $220,000 by the U.S. Department of Labor was for the establishment of an
24 Laboratory.
25 38. In September 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture charged the university
26 with 61 violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The lawsuit claimed UC San Francisco
27 researchers kept animals in dirty cages and over bred them as well as improperly anesthetized
28
3 39. A lawsuit was filed in 2006 by the Coalition for Limiting University Expansion
4 and later joined by the city of Santa Cruz against the University of California, Santa Cruz. The
5 lawsuit accused the campus and its contractor of violating the federal Clean Water Act by
6 allowing water polluted with sediment to migrate from several construction sites into nearby
7 creeks, ponds and groundwater. In a settlement reached, the city and university agreed to revive a
8 stalled project to reduce sediment runoff into the city's Pogonip park, 640 acres of open space
9 below the campus, and ultimately into the San Lorenzo River. UCSC, under the agreement, will
10 pay $110,000 to restore damaged gullies in the Pogonip, UCSC's building company Devcon
11 Construction will contribute engineering and construction services valued at $40,000, and the
12 city will chip in $90,000.
13 40. Michael Burch worked as a wrestling coach for the University of California Davis
14 from 1995 through 2001. In April 2001, Arezou Mansourian and Chris Ng were removed from
15 the team. Burch publicly supported the two female wrestlers when they filed a claim with the
16 Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. One month later, Burch was informed that he
17 would no longer be retained. He filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming the school failed
18 to renew his contract because of his outspoken support for the two female wrestlers. In 2005, the
19 Supreme Court found that the Title IX law protected whistleblowers from adverse action of
20 employers. Michael Burch will receive $725,000 from the University of California to settle the
21 retaliation lawsuit.
22 41. Further, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed the imposition of a civil penalty
23 in the amount of $159,375 for radiological contamination committed by the University of
24 California-operated Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
25 42. Anneliese Yuenger died in 1999 at age 82; her family donated her body to the
26 university's medical school. A month later, Yuenger's ashes were returned to the family in a
27 plastic bag. An investigation revealed the ashes came from miscellaneous body parts burned
28
10 44. In February 2001, the Sacramento News and Review (SN&R) article entitled
11 “Standing Up to Bullies” quoted University of California, Davis, employee Jackie Quigg’s letter
12 she sent to an SN&R editor: “I felt bullied, belittled, discriminated powerless and angry.” Jackie
13 Quigg wrote of her experience of working for 13 years in the Ophthalmology Department at the
14 UC.
15 Plaintiff commented with words from Jackie Quigg’s experience in his
16 letter to an SN&R editor dated: February 10, 2001
17 “ Th e ab u sive b e ha v io r mu st b e witn e sse d an d we ll d oc u me n ted
18 in order for this to work. The other issue is that coworkers may be hesitant to
19 testify in court against an employer, the same employer who provides them a
20 paycheck. The fear of a backlash against those who testify is real.
21
Unfortunately, this great dependency for this paycheck will inhibit justice from
22
ever being served and the employer knows this. The power of employer
23
intimidation with no recourse on the part of the employee is in and of itself, the
24
very foundation for an abusive UC employer-employee work relationship. I
25
would like to ask Ms. Quigg if this situation still exists or was it resolved. I
26
need to know because it is hard to believe that anybody could cope with this
27
abuse and humiliation for 13 years. Is this is a true story?”
28
15 Center is still unresolved and never was investigated. Todd Georlich’s suicide ten years after UC
16 Davis employee Donna McDaniel tragically took her life is the path of destruction chosen by a
19 30. UC San Francisco employee Mary Efferen wrote of her "observations and
20 experiences of faculty-staff interactions that were textbook examples of how to humiliate
21 individuals in front of group.
22 31. The University of California, which has contributed so much to the education and
23 the wealth of the state of California and the global community, is a pathologically dysfunctional
24 institution run by arrogant and ruthless administrators," wrote former UC Davis graduate student
25 Leuren Moret.
26 32. The U.S. Department of Labor imposed a civil penalty in the amount of
27 $1,707,000 by the U.S. Department of Energy for multiple violations of law and federal
28 regulations in the Los Alamos National Laboratory. There was also a $9,350 penalty for violation
18 UC Davis Medical Center under the supervision of UC Davis Vice Chancellor Claire Pomeroy
20 39. In 2011, credit cards embezzlement in the UC Davis Medical Center was
21 uncovered and reported by two UC Davis employees and confirmed by auditor William
Prindible, who conducted an audit. The two employees who reported the credit card
22
embezzlement and 60-year-old auditor, Prindible, were fired from the job and the white-collar
23
UC Davis Medical Center criminals who committed the crime are still being employed by the
24
UC Davis Medical Center. The Prindible’s case ended in a January 2015 settlement in federal
25
court, Plaintiff is unaware of the amount of the sum that was paid to the victimized William
26
Prindible (Federal Court Case No. 2:13-cv-02256-KJM-EFB). On May 30, 2012 ,the University
27
of California administration has unsuccessfully attempted to provoke and kill t Plaintiff or end
28
28
5 46. On October 2, 1989 Plaintiff was hired as a Power Plant Technician by the Power
6 Operating Company (POC) subsidiary of Power System Engineering Company (PSE, Inc.) from
7 Houston, Texas as an Operating Technician of the San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant
8 located in Lathrop, CA.
9
47. In 1990 the PSE, Inc. was acquired by the DOW Chemical Company’s subsidiary,
10
Destec Energy, Inc. and later by Dynegy Corporation, which was the competitor of Enron
11
Corporation in electric power generation in the USA.
12
48. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant was producing 50 MW of electricity
13
per hour and processing water to make high quality steam. The plant is selling electricity to the
14
Pacific Gas and Electric Company by contract and steam to the Auto Glass Manufacturer, Libby
15
Owens Ford, in Lathrop, CA.
16
49. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant was powered by the LM 5000
17
General Electric aeroderivative gas turbines.
18
19 The aeroderivative gas turbines are used in a variety of applications: - electrical power both for
20 utility baseload and peaking applications in both simple-cycle (gas turbine only) and combined-
21 cycle configurations. Simple-cycle refers to a gas turbine used alone; combined-cycle refers to an
22 application where the exhaust from the gas turbine is used to power a steam turbine to maximize
23 overall system efficiency - in-plant and independent power production and cogeneration (the
24 production of two forms of energy, usually steam and electricity from a single fuel source) in an
25 industrial or institutional facility - mechanical drive requirements, such as compressors, pumps
26 and other loads - marine propulsion of naval and commercial vessels. Industries that use
27 aeroderivative gas turbines include petroleum production, refining and pipeline operations,
28
16 order to be a Qualified Cogenerate. The company management was forcing its own employees to
17 release a huge amount of steam into the atmosphere, which was through the PG&E meter to
18 cheat the PURPA requirements instead of utilizing the thermal energy as was required by law. In
19 1994 the company’s senior management was advised by the San Joaquin Plant Manager to
20 resolve the existing problem with the PURPA violation. In retaliation, the mentioned plant
22 53. In 1989 the former State of California Chief of Department of Standard Labor
23 Enforcement (DLSE) or State of California Labor Commissioner Jose Milan was allowed to
24 govern the wages and working conditions for the San Joaquin cogeneration power plant in
25 Lathrop and other Dynegy’s cogeneration plants in California using the wrong Industrial Welfare
26 Commission Order (IWC), which was IWC order 4-89 O instead of IWC order 1-89; thus 119
27 Dynegy employees were defrauded of a significant amount of overtime, to which they were
28
15 years of 1991-1995.
16 57. After the 401K plan retirement fraud disclosure, Plaintiff asked his supervisor
17 about the unpaid overtime mandated by the Welfare Commission Order IWC 1-89 Part of unpaid
18 overtime shall be contributed to employees’ Retirement and Savings Plan 401K plus the
19 employer match contribution in the ratio dollar to dollar up to six percent of employee’s gross
20 annual income. Plaintiff did not have any intention to pursue the overtime issue but just asked
21 the question.
22 The overtime issue would never have surfaced if Plaintiff’s employer would have posted in the
23 Plant’s control room the IWC order 4-89 instead of IWC order 1-89.
24
58. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Plant Manager panicked and alerted the
25
Headquarters, and then IWC order 1-49 was posted on the information board next to IWC order
26
1-89. Shortly after, Plaintiff’s employer hired the prestigious law firm Pillsbury Madison &
27
Sutro LLP and Plaintiff received a letter from Sutro’s lawyer about the IWC order applicability
28
15 Office overturned his superior’s—the State Labor Commissioner Jose Milan’s—earlier decision
16 to permit Plaintiff’s employer to govern working conditions and pay by IWC order 4-89 instead
17 of IWC 1-89.
18 61. Right after the labor commissioner issued the decision in Plaintiff’s favor,
19 Plaintiff’s employer in retaliation suspended Plaintiff for almost two months without pay and
20 right away appealed the Labor Commissioner Decision in San Joaquin County Superior Court.
21 The Superior Court in Trial de Novo ruled in favor of Plaintiff’s employer.
22 62. Plaintiff appealed the IWC order 1-89 unfavorable the Superior Court Judgment
23 in the State of California Court of Appeal 3th Appellate District by representing himself in Pro
24
Per. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court Judgment and Plaintiff received his unpaid
25
overtime. The other 119 of Plaintiff’s coworkers recovered partially unpaid overtime through the
26
settlement-agreement that Plaintiff’s employer signed with the Division of Labor Standard
27
Enforcement.
28
16
17 Plaintiff’s Employment with Genentech Inc., from November 1998 to June 1999
18
19 67. After almost one year of unemployment in November 1998, Plaintiff was hired as
20 Utility Operator by Genentech, Inc. located in the City of South San Francisco.
21 68. Genentech, Inc. was the best employer Plaintiff ever worked for in the United
22 States, taking into consideration benefits and treatment of employees by company management.
23 69. The almost 100 miles distance to Plaintiff’s residence in Lodi to South San
24
Francisco and Plaintiff’s wife’s employment in Nordstrom Inc., Sacramento were deciding
25
factors that led Plaintiff to apply for the Cogeneration Plant Operator position with the UC Davis
26
Medical Center in Sacramento, which was only 32 miles away from Lodi, CA.
27
70. Also the Cogeneration Plant Operator position was a factor to apply for the job
28
4 Plaintiff’s Job Description and Employment in UC Davis Medical Center Cogeneration Power
Plant Named “Central Plant “
5
7
71. Defendant hired Plaintiff on June 28, 1999 as a non-exempt senior power
8 plant mechanic or cogeneration power plant operator (hereinafter “plant operator”) to maintain
9 and operate the newly built, state-of-the-art 27 megawatt cogeneration power plant at UC Davis
11 72. Besides operating and maintaining the cogeneration facility, Plaintiff was
12 responsible for monitoring and dispatching critical alarms on the day shift at the UC Davis
13 Medical Center via the computerized Metasys system, which was also programmed to
14 continuously monitor and record how much electricity, steam, hot water, and chilled water was
15 being generated by the central plant. The Metasys system was also designed to start up and shut
16 down heating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), as well as to adjust temperatures in the
17
administration and hospital patients’ rooms per request from working personnel at the UC Davis
18
Medical Center.
19
73. The UC Davis Medical Center’s cogeneration power plant, named the
20
“Central Plant,” includes a General Electric LM 2500—a 23 MW jet combustion gas turbine; a
21
heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)—a 4 MW back pressure steam turbine with capacity to
22
produce 89,000,00 pounds of steam per hour; four auxiliary steam boilers with 25,000-pound-
23
per-hour capacities for steam from each boiler; three centrifugal chillers; and three absorption
24
chillers that can produce 13,400 tons of chilled water per hour. The Central Plant also has five 2-
25
MW emergency diesel generators and other auxiliary heavy industrial-type machinery, including
26
27 a cooling tower, pumps, an ammonia injection system, a water demineralizer, a condenser, and a
28 chemical-injecting system.
15 subject to these reporting requirements. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide
16 or its equivalent (MTCO2e) are required to report their annual emissions to the USEPA, and both
17 the Davis and Sacramento campuses have facilities that emit over 25,000 MTCO2e.
18 78. The 10 MW of electricity not produced and not sold during the summer
19 peak equals millions of dollars of lost revenue over 17 years of the Central Plant’s operations.
20 However if 10 MW extra of electricity was produced and was sold during the summer than
21 peak equals millions of dollars in extra revenue over 17 years of the Central Plant’s operations ;
22 79. Prior to building the cogeneration plant, the UC Davis Medical Center
23 Campus sourced electricity from the local publically owned utility, Sacramento Municipal Utility
24
District (SMUD). The oversized cogeneration plant right before energy deregulation in California,
25
and during that turbulent period, the UC Davis Medical Center took advantage of the opportunity to
26
generate and sell power to SMUD. When the power market deregulation took place cogeneration
27
facility was selling power at for the on the open market for higher bid via California Independent
28
10
80. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Public
11
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) mandate that any cogeneration facility
12
certified and recognized by law as “the qualified cogeneration facility” must meet special
13
requirements in the ratio between electric energy production and thermal energy production.
14
A cogeneration facility is a generating facility that:
15
“sequentially produces electricity and another form of useful thermal energy
16
(such as heat or steam) in a way that is more efficient than the separate
17
production of both forms of energy. For example, in addition to the production
18
22 facilities might provide hot water for domestic heating or other useful
15 employer against Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Plaintiff’s previous employer was very
16 safety oriented and strictly enforced safety rules. It had outstanding safety rules and safety
17 training for employees. Plaintiff was hazmat certified and a first responder, and knew CPR.
18 Plaintiff had no problem adapting to UC Davis Medical Center, where safety rules and
19 regulations were disregarded and ignored by management and safety trainings were unknown
20 and viewed as unnecessary burdens and hassles.
21 84. UC Davis Medical Center’s state-of-the-art cogeneration facility, which
22 cost $70 million to build, was commissioned with many serious safety problems and hazards,
23 endangering working personnel and raising Plaintiff’s concern about his safety and that of his
24
coworkers, many of whom had little or no working experiences in power plant environments.
25
The State of California Law and International Law which Classified Cogeneration Power
26 Plants as a Manufacture and Industrial Facility
27 85. By State of California Industrial Welfare Commission Order #1, all power
28
18 to previous lines, with the relevant formulas shown. You must respond to all of
20
UC Davis Health System Executive Director Stephen Chilcott’s salary was increased from
22 94. UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles
23 Witcher, who is responsible for maintenance and operation of the cogeneration plant by his title
24 and position, received $64,000.00 in salary increase from his promotion to this position in 2007
25 to 2014. (Charles Witcher has a high school education only and has no qualification for this
26 position.)
27 95. UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles
28
16 98. Contrary to the UC Davis Medical Center, Central Plant, the UC San Diego
17 Cogeneration Plant, which is owned and operated by the Defendant (like the UC Davis Medical
18 Center Central), has no problem selling surplus energy on the spot market. The UC San Diego
19
Cogeneration Plant filed self-certification with FERC on May 24, 2000 according to FERC’s
20
Docket No. QF 00-63-001.
21
99. In addition to the above, the UC San Diego Cogeneration Qualified
22
Facility in 2010 received a $2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and installed
23
the world’s first microgrid master controller and related optimizer application. The Smart Grid
24
25 functions as a virtual power plant, scheduling energy self-generation, electricity imports, and
26 electric and thermal storage while factoring in the demand load and the variable price of
27
electricity to buy or sell.
28
9 energy sources.
11 Practices, the UC became a registered Electric Service Provider (ESP). As an ESP, the university
12 is able to self-supply electricity to its direct-access accounts. The self-supply electricity began
13 being generated in 2015. The 2014 UC Report of Sustainable Practices is, for the most part,
14 misleading and fraudulent in regard to green-gas emission on the campuses, especially the UC
15 Berkeley campus, and it is related to the operation of the cogeneration facility not owned or
17 103. The question is as follows: Why is the Defendant, who registered as an ESP,
18 unable to operate the UC Davis Medical, Center Plant at full capacity and provide the energy to
19 other UC campuses, especially the UC Davis campus, or sell the energy on the spot market via
20 ISO?
21 104. Instead of hunting down the Plaintiff like an animal since 2006 for no reason
22 with a criminally minded attempt to assassinate the Plaintiff on May 31, 2012 and destroy the
23 Plaintiff’s life and his livelihood, the Defendant should take care of business and get a contract
24 for the sale of power from the UC Davis Medical Center, Central Plant. The Defendant should
25
also take care of those who attacked Plaintiff and misinformed the Defendant for the own
26
personal financial gain that Plaintiff will harm University business in relation to the UC Davis
27
28
7 was commissioned in 1998 as a state- of-the-art facility, but for some reason was unfinished. As
8 a result, Central Plant equipment was unsafe to operate and posed life-threatening danger to
9 personnel. A power plant’s working environment is dangerous by nature, and if safety rules and
10 regulations are not followed, it will lead to disastrous consequences. Plaintiff came to Central
11 Plant from a very safety-oriented company and was shocked when, in 2000, Central Plant’s
12 manager said in front of other employees, “Somebody give this Polack a bad evaluation and
13 fire him,” after Plaintiff suggested some safety improvements. Plaintiff’s coworker Eduardo
14 Espinosa was so terrified by the Central Plant manager’s statement that he wrote a letter to UC
15 Vice President Judith Boyette and complained than quit his job. A Cal/OSHA intervention was
16 needed to convince the UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department
17 Management to improve the safety and fix some problems with unsafe equipment that should
18 have been fixed without Cal/OSHA intervention.
19 106. The arrogance of the PO&M Department Management was unbelievable
20 and unacceptable. The Cal/OSHA intervention fixed some minor problems, but major safety
21 problems in Central Plant went unnoticed or deliberately ignored by the Cal/OSHA inspector,
22 and there is not any record that Central Plant personnel were interviewed. The most dangerous
23 place was the oily cement floor underneath the cooling tower, which drained oil to the
24 Sacramento River via storm drain, but was unnoticed by the inspecting Cal/OSHA personnel.
25 Coincidently, when the Cal/OSHA inspection took place, Plaintiff was on his days off from
26 work.
27 107. In 2000, Plaintiff wrote in his Brief to Cal/OSHA:
28
5 and direct supervisor to correct some problems with safety in the plant.”
7 “The UCDMC like the other divisions of the UC System enjoys liberty and independence from
8 the State of California legislature and state agencies which enforcing wages and working
9 condition in private sector. This status was affirmed not only by the Government Codes but also
10 on many occasions by the Appellate Courts of the State of California. It is great that students and
11 professors, researchers and scientists have such unrestricted autonomy to freely work for the
12 good of people. The University of California has great prestige in this State as well in the nation.
13
However, it looks like the ordinary workers in this entity who provides services every day for
14
these great researchers, professors, students, and scientists keep them warm at winter time and
15
cool at summer time, these who keep this whole system running without failure have been
16
somehow forgotten and they are object of abuse, discrimination as well are being exposed to
17
unsafe working environment which is a subject of this response. It is unknown for me why the
18
workers are being treated this way in this high education prestigious school. I was very
19
concerned and worried seeing supervisors’ memos where he was calling his subordinates damn
20
or stupid or threatening others to fire them on spot in the place where employment is not at will.
21
Intimidation, ignorance, negligence, threats, power trip, unprofessional remarks toward
22
23 subordinates, lack of personal culture of the superiors replaced common sense, proper training,
24 normal working environment and human dignity and rights. The safety rules and laws were
25 replaced by intimidation, letters of warning, and suspension from work. Where is this
27 109. Also, in 2000, four workers from the UCDMC Access Unit were
28 suspended for circulating a petition asking to discuss items related to workload, safety,
3 to work. Plaintiff was also asked to help these workers in regard to the despicable UCDMC
4 Management retaliation.
5 110. After Cal/OSHA issued the citation for negligence and safety violations in
6 the plant, UC Davis Plant Operation and Maintenance Department (PO&M) Manager Toni
7 Moddessette demoted Cogeneration Plant Superintendent Tom Kavanauch and replaced him
8 with Dan James, who was brought to the plant from the UC San Francisco Medical Center. The
9 situation in the plant changed for the better up until the present, but it has changed quickly for
10 the worse due to current plant manager Steve McGrath’s group of colleagues who came from his
11 previous plant near Jackson, CA. Two Central Plant operators, William Buckans and Rick
12 Tunello, became the target of constant harassment and were bullied by newly hired individuals
13 from the Jackson area. Shortly after they were hired, plant manager Dane James was coerced by
14 these individuals from Jackson to join them in attacks against Rick Tunello and William
15 Buckans. For some reason, these folks did not like Rick Tunello and William Buckans and were
16 pitting the Plant manager against them; trying to convince Dan James to fire Tunello and
17 Buckans.
18
111. In August 2003, Plaintiff’s coworker, Mike Murphy (who quit job in 2005), and
19 Plaintiff, received from the central plant maintenance supervisor Tom Kavanaugh a Preventive
20 Maintenance Work Order that required us to pressure wash all dirt and oil underneath the
21 Cooling Tower. We refused to pressure wash the oil to the storm drain. We took pictures using
22 Mike Murphy’s Sony Digital Camera and we told Tom Kavanaugh that we did not pressure wash
23 the oil to the storm drain. Several times Plaintiff approached an employee from the UC Davis
24 Medical Center’s Environmental Health and Safety Department (EH&S) who was visiting the
25 Central Plant frequently to sign Hazardous Work Permits (after a long time Plaintiff forgot his
26 name). The EH&S employee was not very anxious to discuss the oil problem under the Cooling
27 Tower and his response was, “Well if we get caught than we pay the price.”
28
3 112. Some of the worst safety problems and environmental hazards in the
4 UCDMC state-of-the-art Central Plant were twenty-two (22) defective-by-design cooling tower
5 gearboxes.
6 113.. The defective cooling tower gearboxes were massively leaking machine
7 oil underneath the cooling tower and creating serious safety problems for the personnel working
8 underneath the cooling tower; in addition, the leaking machine oil created an enormous
9 environmental hazard. Every week, as usual, the Central Plant maintenance supervisor issued a
10 preventive maintenance work order to refill the cooling tower’s leaking gearboxes. The machine
11 leaked approximately 10 gallons of oil per week for seven (7) years, and the cooling tower floor
12 was washed out with water to the storm drain (river) or to the soil around the cooling tower when
13 the new cooling tower was under construction. Once a month or every three months, the Central
14 Plant maintenance supervisor (the same supervisor who said to Plaintiff that “Somebody
15 [should] give this Polack a bad evaluation and fire him”) also issued a preventive
16 maintenance work order to use a pressure washer to wash out the covered-by-oil gearboxes and
17 cooling tower underneath the floor and discharge everything to the City of Sacramento storm
19
114. It would cost $5,000/unit to replace the defective units, according to the
20 whistleblowing investigation report which copy of Plaintiff received in 2007 from UC Davis
21 Public Record Act Office. It was merely $110,000 and only 1/3 of the annual salary of UC
22 Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Shelton Duraisseau Ph.D whose idea was to build the 70
24 urgent safety and environment problem was a dilution, covering up the criminal activities and
25 retaliating against anybody who mentioned this problem. This safety and environment hazard
26 also created unbelievable hostility and an intolerable working environment. The working
27 environment of the Central Plant became very hostile and violent after the present Central Plant
28 manager brought a group of employees from his previous plant near Jackson, CA. The manager
15 cooling tower fans, and Buckans fell on the cement floor because of the oily and slippery surface
16 underneath the cooling tower. As a result of this accident, Buckans was taken by ambulance to
17 the UCDMC emergency room with severe back pain. The accident was reported to the Central
18 Plant manager. However, the accident did not encourage management to take care of oil leaks
19 underneath the cooling tower, and every day, Central Plant operators were risking injury under
20 the cooling tower due to the daily routine duty of checking the oil level in leaking oil gear boxes
22 After the above-mentioned accident, William Buckans asked plant managers and the
23 maintenance superintendent to apply a nonskid material to the work area where Buckans was
24 injured to prevent another—perhaps more serious—accident and injury. Buckans was absolutely
25 devastated when both supervisors said no to his request. It was unspeakable and unbelievable
26 that his superiors would force their subordinates to work in an extremely unsafe environment
27 without any hesitation. Beside his accident, three other workers got hurt working under the
28 cooling tower. The Central Plant manager, instead of taking care of safety problems, notoriously
15 The Whistleblowing Complaint with UC Davis Vice Chancellor Office UC Davis Policy &
16 Procedure Section 380-17, August 2005
17 117. In August 2005, Plaintiff’s coworker William Buckans asked Plaintiff help
18
him with a Whistleblowing Complaint in regard to safety and environmental hazard caused by
19
leaking machine oil in the cooling tower gear boxes pursuant to UC Davis Policy and Procedure
20
Section 380-17. Plaintiff helped Buckans to write a letter to University of California Human
21
Resources Vice President Judith Boyette, which was sent on August 7, 2005, with the actual
22
whistleblower complaint and some evidence.
23
24 118. The UC Davis Management quickly made determination that Plaintiff was
25 helping his coworker William Buckans with his whistleblowing complaint. In an August 7, 2005
26 Improper Activities Report cover letter submitted to the University of California Human
27 resources Vice –President Judith Boyette, William Buckans made reference to UC Vice
28 President Judith Boyette’s employment with a Sutro Madison law firm of which Plaintiff was
9 work for three months. When Plaintiff was ready to come back to the plant after a few
10 months of illness, the plant manager Dan James was trying to block Plaintiff’s return under
11 the false pretenses that Plaintiff did not provide him or the main office with the requested
12 FEMLA documents for his short disability. When Plaintiff provided him with proof that
13 Plaintiff had provided all documents to the plant manager and to the main office, Plaintiff
14 was told that the documents were lost and that he needed to provide new documents signed
15 by a physician.
16 124. In March 2006, Plaintiff was neither aware nor imagined that the attempt of the
17 plant manager, Dan James, to block Plaintiff’s return to the plant after short-term disability
18
related to Plaintiff’s open heart surgery was a broader preemptive move. The Defendant’ action
19
against Plaintiff to remove Plaintiff from the central plant or fire Plaintiff from the job was for a
20
completely different reason than Plaintiff thought for many years thereafter. Plaintiff believed
21
22 that helping his coworker, William Buckans, with his whistle-blowing complaint about the
23 Defendant’ misconduct in unlawfully discharging machine oil into the Scaramanto River via a
24
city storm drain for seven years was the was the main reason why the Defendant sought to
25
remove Plaintiff from the central plant in an attempt to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
26
125. In March 2006, it was most likely that Plant Manager Dan James did not know the
27
28 real reason why he was ordered to attack Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s coworker, Buckans.
2 the Defendant would carry out ill and despicable plan and abruptly remove Plaintiff from the
3 central plant and reassign him to a different shop with threats of termination of employment
4
although he was the most experienced power plant operator.
5
127. Plaintiff does not remember exactly how this ended, but after Plaintiff came back
6
7 to work after short term disability than he then learned that his coworker William Buckans had
8 become a target of physical threats by other employees from Jackson 5 group. The situation in
9 the plant became so volatile that every morning’s operational meeting was like a war zone. One
10
of the Jackson 5 employees, Steve McGrath, was promoted to Central Plant maintenance
11
supervisor, which emboldened the Jackson group of employees to attack Plaintiff, William
12
13 Buckans and rick Tunello during the shift-turnover morning meetings. In September 2006.
14 Plaintiff coworker Rick Tunello was wrongly accused of missing a medical freezer alarm and
15
was served with unjustified suspension without pay. Plaintiff quickly found out that Rick Tunello
16
was groundlessly accused and was able to help Rick reverse the suspension decision, but Rick
17
Tunello was so fed up with being endlessly harassed and bullied by Jackson 5 group and plant
18
19 manager that he quit the job. This fact that Plaintiff helped Tunello turned the Plant Manager
20 and his Jackson allies entirely against Plaintiff , and they were furious that Plaintiff defended
21
Rick Tunello, whom they hated so badly and wanted fired him for reasons that were undescribed
22
and not understandable to Plaintiff and others workers.. They just hated him. Plaintiff’s loud and
23
24 clear complaint finally forced the Central Plant manager to advise his allies to stop attacks
25 against Plaintiff and Buckans. William Buckans was fed up with the attacks and in September
26 2006 reported the Central Plant manager Dan James for entertaining himself by viewing porn in
27
his cubicle on company time not knowing that reporting Dan James did not make any
28
2 brought him to Central Plant. The two high school educated individuals Charles Witcher and
3 Steve McGrath were already on the Stephen Chilcott’s and Director Robert Taylor’s list as a
4
replacements for Tony Moddessette’s and Dan James’ positions. .
5
7
128. The Human Resources attorney Stephen Chilcott, who was deployed to
8
UC Davis Medical in 2005 to carry out Defendant plan to remove Plaintiff and William
9
Buckans from the Plant conducted the investigation of Central Plant manager Dan James porn
10
activities in his cubicle on company time.
11
129. Shortly after the porn activities complaint was lodged against the central
12
plant manager, Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department Manager Tony
13
Moddessette became a scapegoat and was forced to resign and Charles Witcher was assigned as
14
the interim PO&M department manager. The difference between Moddessette and Witcher was
15
16 education. Moddessette had an MBA and Witcher, who was high school educated, could not
17 write a simple memo without help from HR or his secretary, but was willing to do harm to others
18 without asking questions. Also, Witcher was no challenge for Director Robert Taylor. Plaintiff
19 believes that Moddessette refused to participate in hunting down Plaintiff and Buckans right after
20 Buckans filed his whistleblowing complaint in August 2005 and that this also was one of the
21 reasons why he had to end his employment with the UC Davis Medical Center.
22
23 The December 2006-March 2007 “WITCH HUNT” Aimed At Plaintiff and William Buckans
24
130. On November 26, 2006, Stephen Chilcott sent an e-mail to William
25
Buckans entitled “Hostile Work Environment” and informed Buckans that he had concluded
26
investigation without any information about the findings. On December 4, 2006, just eight days
27
after Stephen Chilcott concluded his investigation, the especially assigned “witch hunter” from
28
15 Chilcott and other attackers. Even Plant Manager Dan James and Plant Superintendent Tom
16 Kavanaugh refrained themselves from attacking Plaintiff and Buckans during the orchestrated
17 Kangaroo Court pseudo-investigation conducted by assigned witch hunter Bettye Andreos from
18 the UCDMC Equal Opportunity Committee. The fabricated accusations were based on the
19 supposed statements taken from fraudulently hired employees, nicknamed the Jackson 5.
20 Plaintiff walked out of the second interview conducted by a appointed Communist “Stalin-type”
21 prosecutor and judge Bettye Andreos, who had no clue what she is doing but was instructed to
22 prosecute Plaintiff and Buckans and end their employment with UC Davis Medical Center.
23 Plaintiff expressed his feelings about Bettie Andresos’ interrogation skills very loudly on his way
24
out from the Pathology Building on February 27, 2007. Also, he expressed his view about this
25
investigation about physical threats toward William Buckans during a meeting with HR Labor
26
Relations Supervisor Mike Garcia.
27
The March 8, 2007 “Investigation Report
28
16 consistently uses hate and biased-based comments when engaged with co-
17 workers. There is no evidence that I was able to obtain that indicates Central
18 Plant management was assertive in addressing the issue of hate and biased-
22
135. As a result of reporting safety hazards and seven years of unlawful
23
massive machine oil discharge to the Sacramento River via city storm drain from the UC Davis
24
Medical Center Central Plant, on March 22, 2007, William Buckans received a Letter of
25
26 Expectation.
27 136. The Letter of Expectation Buckans received was made up out of the blue,
28 and the Letter of Suspension and Notice of Reassignment was the shorter version of the March 8,
15 Center .
16 139. For his successful mission in 2007 to remove Plaintiff from the Central Plant,
17 Chilcott was promoted to USCDHS HR labor relations supervisor; in 2008 Chilcott replaced
18 USDHS HR Labor Relation Manager Michael Sheesley and, at the end of 2009, Chilcott
26 The Retaliatory Unlawful Suspension and Reassignment to the UC Davis Medical Center
HVAC Shop
27
28
15 administration.
16 144. The scenario of attacking employees with this manifesto is simple. The
17 “accusation of racism, bigotry, violence”; then, Policy 1616 and Policy 380-15; then, the witch
18 hunt began with a witch hunter assigned by UC Davis administration executives . In charge of
19 In the event this intended action is taken, you will have the right to request
20 review of the action under Personnel Policies for Staff Members 70,
21 Complaint Resolution. If you wish to request review of the final action, you
22 must do so in writing as explained in the above policy, using the appropriate
23 complaint form. Your written request for review must be received in the
24
Employee & Labor Relations Office no later than 30 calendar days from the
25
date of the letter of suspension.”
26
147. Director Robert Taylor was one of the individuals who carry out
27
retaliation against Plaintiff and Buckans in December 2006 –March 2007. . On March 30, 2007,
28
7 The 2007 Complaint - Step I and Step II under the UC Davis Personnel Policies for
Staff Members PPSM 70,
8
10 148. The University of California Personnel Policies for Staff Members PPSM
11 70, Complaint Resolution, or Administrative Remedies are main subject in the Palmer v.
12 Regents of the University of California, 107 Cal.App.4th 899, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 567 (Cal.App.
13 Dist.2 04/08/2003) and Janet Campbell v. Regents of the University of California (Supra
14 S113275).
15 149. On April 19, 2007, Plaintiff filed Step I Complaint under PPSM 70 from
16 Witcher’s and Taylor’s decisions. Again, Director Robert Taylor was assigned as the Reviewer
17
for the Step I Complaint under PPSM 70 and denied Plaintiff’s Step I Complaint on May 10,
18
2007.
19
150. On April 20, 2007, after one month of administrative leave Plaintiff
20
reported himself to UCDMC Plumbing/HVAC Shop per Charles Witcher’s April 16, 2007,
21
Letter of Suspension and Notice of Reassignment. Plaintiff in HVAC shop was assign to monitor
22
and dispatch critical alarms on the day shift in UC Davis Medical Center via the computer
23
Metasys System. The Plumbing/HVAC shop Manager was Patrick Putney with Senior
24
Development Engineer and Shop supervisor was Dorin Daniliuc.
25
UCDMC Plant Operation & Maintenance Interim Manager Charles Witcher in his March 23,
26
27
2007
14
oppressive employment practices,*fn2 evaluations serve the important
18 vehicle for informing the employee of what management expects, how the
19 employee measures up, and what he or she needs to do to obtain wage
20 increases, promotions or other recognition. Thus, the primary recipient and
21 beneficiary of the communication is the employee.”
22
153. Plaintiff 2006/2007 Evaluation stated:
23
8
Jerry was very instrumental in the setup of the computer and office area for the
9
Building Automation Monitoring. He has shown a strong knowledge of
10
computer software and hardware. He has been able to solve many computer
11
problems and install software programs when needed.
12
13
His overall job performance is outstanding. He is always willing to accept
14
extra work and is very dependable.”
15
16
The Annual Employee Evaluation period in UC Davis is from July 1 to June 30 next year and
17
had three grade levels: “Exceeds Expectation,” “Meets Expectation,” “Does Not Meet
18
Expectation.” Meets Expectation it was what an employee gets because of pay raises related to
19
evaluations. Plaintiff also received his normal wage increase due to receiving “Meets
20
Expectation” annual review.
21
After several time extensions and unsuccessful attempts to mediate the conflict through the HR
22
Mediation Office, on August 31, 2007, Plaintiff submitted to HR a Labor Relation Step II Appeal
23
from Director Taylor I Step Decision HR Case No: 03-PPS-013-06107. According to the UC
24
PPSM 70-Step II Review by Complaint Resolution Officer, the Complaint Resolution Officer
25
26 must convene a Step II meeting within 20 calendar days of the appeal to Step II. According to
27 HR Labor Relation Supervisor Mike Garcia, HR had an enormous problem finding anyone to act
28 as Complaint Resolution Officer to conduct a Step II hearing, which was required to include an
4
154. On November 13, 2007, HR Labor Relation Supervisor Mike Garcia
5
assigned UCDMC Director Mike Boyd as Step II Compliant Resolution Officer (CRO) to hear
6
Plaintiff’s case of unlawful suspension and reassignment. Mike Garcia wrote in his letter to Mike
7
Boyd who was listed in FAC and SAC as an individual Defendant.
8
“The Office of Labor Relations received the enclosed complaint filed in
9
10
accordance with Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM), Complaint
11 Resolution 70 (CR 70). Jaroslaw Plaintiff’s complaint was reviewed at the Step
13 Taylor. Jaroslaw Plaintiff was not satisfied with the Step I Response and has
14 filed a timely appeal to Step II. “In accordance with CR 70 and UCD
15 Procedure 70.2, you have been appointed as the Complaint Resolution Officer
16 (CRO) for the Step II review of the above referenced matter. In accordance
17 with CR 70 and UCD Procedure 70.2, you have been appointed as the
18 Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO) for the Step II review of the above
19 referenced matter. As the CRO, you are charged with convening a Step Il
20
meeting. Please convene a Step II meeting on or before December 3, 2007.”
21
22 155. Mike Boyd in the period of 1998 to 2014 held the title of UC Davis
23 Medical Center Executive Director, Facilities Planning, Design and Construction. By his duty, he
24 was directly involved in construction of the Central Plant, commissioned in 1998. Director Boyd
25 is solely responsible, together with colleague UCDMC Director Robert Taylor, Director Shelton
26 Duruisseau PhD, UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Manager and Defendant
27 Charles Witcher, and UCDMC PO&M Principal Engineer Mike Lewis for unlawful—under state
28
21 money from contractors. Dennis Curry was Plaintiff’s superior from 2007 to 2012.
23 (Defendant in this case), who operated his private HVAC business and his church business on
24 university time, disclosed to Plaintiff that he was given his supervisor position in UCDMC
25 HVAC shop by UCDMC Director Robert Taylor and Director Shelton Duruisseau Ph .D in
26 exchange for installing and maintaining heating and air-conditioning equipment in their private
27 residences. It was reported to UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo in July
28
17 Connie Melendy, Assistant Vice Provost from the UC Davis Academic Personnel Offices
19 162. The coordinator on the UC Davis Medical Center site was the newly
20 promoted HR Labor Relation Manager and attorney at law listed defendant in FAC and SAC
15 of business and bring the revenue back, regardless of the fact that the UC Davis Central Plant
17 165. To prepare himself for the arbitration hearing, Plaintiff reviewed the
18 University of California and UC Davis policies and was trying to find the University of
19 California policy that could allow management to remove and reassign an employee to the
20 different shop against that employee’s will and as a disciplinary measure.
21 166. The Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) 62 Corrective Action
22 Policy had no such option.
23 167. Plaintiff found only the Principles of Reassignment for the UC Davis
24
Medical Center on the UC Davis Website, which had nothing to do with disciplining employees,
25
but forgot to present it during the arbitration.
26
168. Plaintiff submitted by e-mail the mentioned UCDMC Principles of
27
Reassignment to Hearing Officer Ms. Connie Melendy on November 9, 2008.
28
15 desires.”
16 171. The Step III –Arbitration decision did not leave any doubt for Plaintiff that the
17 assigned University Hearing Officer would rule against Plaintiff if Plaintiff had not, by pure luck,
18 found the UC Davis Principles of Reassignment and sent it to Ms. Connie Melendy after the
19 Arbitration hearing. UC Arbitrator had no choice but to rule against the University and order the
20 University to let Plaintiff return to the central plant. To justify her decision against the University
21 and in favor of Plaintiff, Ms. Melendy, on pages 9 and 10 of her decision, explained in detail the
22 UC Davis Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) 62. Corrective Action —
23 Professional and Support Staff. These policies were well known prior to the arbitration for
24
witch hunter Bettye Andreos, Charles Witcher, Director Shelton Duruisseau, Director
25
Robert Taylor and Director Steven Chilcott, who hunted down Plaintiff and his coworker
26
William Buckans, and caused Plaintiff enormous humiliation, stress, anxiety, fear of losing
27
his employment and financial loss.
28
16 “Jerry can be counted on to make the right operational decisions regarding the
17 plant, and to keep his supervisor informed of the operational status of the plant
19 success of the Medical Center.” (Performance reviews from 2000, 2001, 2003,
20 2004, 2005, 2006)
21 There are no comments regarding threatening behavior or inappropriate
22 language in any of the annual evaluations from the time of Mr. Waszczuk’s
23 first evaluation in 2000 and including the 2006 evaluation that was written
24
prior to the suspension and reassignment. The University presented no
25
evidence to show that there were verbal or written discussions or performance
26
appraisals intended to caution or warn Mr. Waszczuk about inappropriate
27
behavior prior to the October 2007 evaluation (University Exhibit 13), which is
28
10 The Settlement –Agreement with the Regents of the University of California, Signed in
February 2009
11
12
172. After prevailing in the arbitration process, Plaintiff did not go back to the Central
13
Plant where his position was already replaced and where a group of employees from the Jackson
14
area who were hired fraudulently were helping Directors Shelton Durrisuseau, Robert Taylor,
15
Mike Boyd, and Charles Witcher to hunt down Plaintiff and William Buckans, which did not
16
18 173. Further, UC Davis assigned arbitrator Connie Melendy; in her 2008 decision,
19 besides the slanderous and untrue accusation aimed at Plaintiff, she suggested and strongly advised
20 Plaintiff to consider very thoughtfully and seriously, whether the environment of the
21 HVAC/Plumbing Shop, with its current supervisor and colleagues, would be more conducive to
22 Plaintiff’s future success. Under the best of circumstances, it is difficult to return to a worksite
23 where there is “animosity,” as Connie Melendy described, instead referring to it as a hostile work
24 environment that caused later the suicide one of the Central Plant Operator Todd Goerlich .
25 In April 2007 Todd Goerlich was hired as a Plaintiff’s replacement.
26
174. Plaintiff seriously considered the Arbitrator, Connie Melendy’s, suggestions to stay
27
permanently in the HVAC shop and never expected that two and one-half years after Plaintiff
28
15 included $ 13, 500 one time extra pay Plaintiff received 2009 Settlement –Agreement) ; in 2010
16 it was $80,500 in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings of $70,000 ; in 2011—after the 2010
17 blackmail pay-raise of 12% (a six steps pay-up pay raise and an additional step in May 2011),
18 Chris Gangl’s annual earnings jumped to $100,000; in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings
19 of $ 63,300; in 2012, Gang’s earnings was $97,300 in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings
20 of 70,000;( the last year of Plainiff’s employment) in 2013, it was $98,700; and in 2014, it was
21 $104,000.
22 178. This was the reason why in March 2011, Plaintiff sent a letter to UC Davis Medical
23 Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher and asked respectfully
24
for Charles Witcher to increase Plaintiff’s base salary accordingly, in one step (not six steps )
25
from Middle Step of $71,640/year to the 3rd Step of $80,922/year.
26
179. Plaintiff had no intention to pursue his request if denied because of the Settlement-
27
Agreement, which stated that Plaintiff was to be provided wages of $70,000/year. It was an error
28
15 182. The other issue was that some Central Plant operators were hired 10 years after
16 Plaintiff was hired, and they received in December 2010 the 12% wage increase, and in May 2011,
17 the additional pay raise. Not one UC Davis skilled trade nonunion employee in December 2010
18 was dreaming to receive one penny in wage increase because of the strict budget constraint and
19 furlough of UC campuses. Some of employees were employed for more than 20 or 30 years and
20 were not considered for any wage increase in 2010.
21 183. Besides the $70.000.00 per year salary, Plaintiff received in the Settlement-
22 Agreement a small compensation in the amount of $13,500.00 for lost wages due to the witch hunt,
23 which resulted in suspension without pay and refinement in March 2007.
24
Shortly after Plaintiff signed the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement, the Regents of the
25
University of California UC Davis HR Assistant Director Dawn Capp, UC Davis attorney in
26
arbitration, lost her job. Most likely, Ms. Capp was fired or forced to quit a few months after
27
arbitration. The Hearing Officer, Ms. Connie Melendy, disappeared from the UC Davis landscape
28
6 185. At the time when Plaintiff signed the Settlement-Agreement, February 2009,
7 Plaintiff understood that the Defendant, if alleged of any violation of the Settlement-Agreement
8 by Plaintiff, would inform Plaintiff if Plaintiff had breached or violated the signed Settlement-
9 Agreement. Then, if Plaintiff disagreed, then the Defendant had the right to enforce the agreement
10 in a court of law. This was how Plaintiff understood this employee–employer contract. The
11 Defendant never alleged in one word anywhere that Plaintiff violated the signed Settlement-
12 Agreement, but freely slandered and defamed Plaintiff in at least six pseudo-investigation reports,
13 multi-investigatory leave letters, the April 2012 notice of intent to suspend without pay, the
14 September 2012 notice of intent to terminate Plaintiff’s employment, and the December 2012 letter
15
of employment termination.
16
The Working Environment In The UC Davis Medical Center Plumbing/HVAC
17
187. By title Associate Development Engineer title , Plaintiff basically became
18
Assistant for Plumbing/HVAC Shop Manager Patrick Putney who held the title of Senior
19
20
Development Engineer. Patrick Putney, who is also listed as the Defendant in this FAC and
21 SAC got very upset for reasons unknown to Plaintiff when he got news that Plaintiff settled the
22 case and became an exempt employee in his shop. Putney complained about to HR and started
23 pitting Shop Supervisor Dorin Daniliuc against Plaintiff .Daniliuc was given his supervisor job
24 in Plumbing job by Directors Robert Taylor and Shelton Durusseau in exchange for HVAC
25 service Daniluc provided to them in in their private residences by his private HVAC business
26 188. Everything settled down, and Plaintiff became very n isolated employee in
27 a small glass cage and was monitoring and dispatching UC Davis Medical Center critical alarms,
28
15 employees. Putney was trapping pigeons on the UCDMC roofs, bringing his kids to the shop for
16 babysitting and schooling, and selling soda from his private vending machine that he brought to
17 the shop.
18 Plaintiff later described his new working environment as a gypsy village in Eastern Europe,
19 which closely resembled the one portrayed by Sasha Cohen in the movie Borat.
20 190.. Dorin Daniliuc, who was and still is Patrick Putney’s assistant,
21 concentrated most of his attention on his private HVAC business, which he operated on company
22 time via cell phone; he would often disappear for most of the day with his business-equipped
23 van. Daniliuc was also bringing some foreign workers (Romanian nationals) to the shop to repair
24
his private vehicles. Daniliuc did not care much about what people thought about his unrelated
25
employment activities in the workplace. Daniliuc installed and maintained HVAC equipment for
26
two important UCDMC directors in their private residences, which apparently assured him of his
27
importance; his understanding was, “It’s nobody’s business what I am doing on company time.”
28
13
The December 2010 secret 12% Pay Increase for UCDMC Central Plant Operators,
14
192. Plaintiff’s employment with the UC Davis Medical Center would have
15
lasted longer, and most likely Plaintiff would retire from University at age of 66 without any
16
problems. In March 2011 Plaintiff was 60 years old and it was Plaintiff goal to retire from
17
18
University six years later. . It did not happen and Plaintiff’s employment was converted by the
20 193. In September 2010, one of the UCDMC Central Plant Operators, Jeff
21 Lancaster, discovered on the Sacramento Bee Webpage (Salary for Public Employees in
22 California) that Plaintiff’s 2009 annual salary was $82,295.00, not knowing that Plaintiff’s 2009
23 salary was a combination of Plaintiff’s $70,000.00 base salary and $13,500.00 extra pay per
24 February 2009 Settlement –Agreement for Plaintiff’s lost wages due to Plaintiff’s unlawful
25 reassignment from the Central Plant to the Plumbing/HVAC Shop in March 2007.
26 194. Jeff Lancaster was one of the few from the Central Plant who in
27 2005/2007 was used by UCDMC directors, Shelton Duruisseau, Robert Taylor, Mike Boyd and
28
15 and fried of the Central Plant manager Steve McGrath from his previous employment. A few
16 years back, Steve McGrath’s first wife committed suicide; now, his friend and former coworker
17 After the Todd Georlich suicide traumatized Central Plant Manager Steve McGrath tried
18 unsuccessfully to get a job in the UCDMC Carpenter shop and later in the HVAC shop.
19 198. Jeff Lancaster agitated another three individuals, Chris Gangl, Timothy
20 Cooper and Greg Russ to write and sign a petition and demanding a $4.00/hour pay raise,
21 pointing at Plaintiff’s salary and stating in the petition that Plaintiff was paid $15,000.00 more
22 per year than Central Plant Operators. Beside Plaintiff’s wages, these individuals were very
23 dissatisfied that their help and sacrifices for directors. Shelton Duruisseau, Robert Taylor and
24
Mike Boyd did not do and good because Plaintiff and Buckans was not fired from their jobs in
25
2005-2007 due to a witch hunt, They constantly bragged about and bullied and harassed William
26
Buckans after Plaintiff left the Central Plant in 2007.
27
199. Plaintiff received the copy of the undated black –mail petition signed by
28
15 conducted by the UC Davis Chancellor’s office related to massive machine oil discharge to the
17 202. However, Dennis Curry did not ignore Plaintiff’s discovery about the
18 blackmail pay increase petition and alerted Charles Witcher or Director Taylor a and the petition
19 for pay raise was rewritten and signed by 11 central Plant Operators .
20 203. The memo, letter, or petition, dated September 20, 2010, signed by 11
21 “Central Plant Operators” was addressed to CHARLES WITCHER, Manager of
22 PO&M,Department identified the subject matter as “…the monitoring of the Johnson Controls
23 Metasys Software program and dispatching of emergency and same day service calls to the Central
24 Plant during graveyard and weekend shifts.” In other words, the subject was the fact that the
25 Central Plant Operators covered shifts that Plaintiff did not work.
26 204. The memo, letter, or petition continued “…the Metasys and dispatching has
27 become a full time job to monitor and respond too (sic)...several years ago, we reached a point
28
16 207. The Central Plant Operation and the petition was just a black-mail
17 petition to get pay raise for something completely different than inability to operate the plant.
18 UCDMC Directors, Robert Taylor, Shelton Duruisseau Ph, D. Mike Boyd, Charles Witcher and
19 Stephen Chilcott did not have much choice. They bent to the petition demands and pay raise
20 most likely got approval from the UC Davis Chancellor’s office or the University of California
21 Office of the President due to the strict budget constraints and furlough on the campuses and the
budget crisis in the whole state, including State of California Courts.
22
23 208. The 12% pay raise for all Central Plant Operators was provided to all
24 Central Plant Operators. Some of them were hired a short time before the blackmail petition was
25 submitted, and it was unthinkable for anybody to get a 12% or six steps up pay raise as a non-
26 exempt union or non-union and even exempt University of California employee working only
27 for one or two years for University.
28
10 The Attorney Danesha Nichol’s Deployment From The UC Davis Campus to UC Davis
11 Medical Center Human Resources Department in October 2010
12
210. After Plaintiff’s conversation with Dennis Curry, UC Davis Health
13
System HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott (defendant) requested that the UC Davis
14
Chancellor’s office deployed .Danesha Nichols, the listed Defendant in FAC and SAC to UC
15
Davis Medical Center to monitor the situation with the pay raise demanded by blackmail petition
16
for the Central Plant Operators.
17
211. Danesha Nichols was the UC Davis HR attorney who in 2007/2008 was
18
involved in Plaintiff’s Step III Appeal arbitration process against UC Davis Medical Center
19 management, and she was very familiar with the crime that was committed in the Central Plant
20 in the period of time spanning from 1998 to 2009 and Nichols was familiar with Plaintiff’s file .
21 212. Danesha Nichols arrived at UC Davis Medical in October 2010 with the
22 title of Investigation Coordinator in similar circumstances as Stephen Chilcott in 2005 and she
23 reported directly to Director Stephen Chilcott.
24 213. As Plaintiff stated previously, the UC Davis Medical Center’s newly built
25 in 1998 Cogeneration Power Plant/Central Plant was a pride and legacy left behind for former
26
UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and Shelton Duruisseau Ph.D., who was appointed to
27
the Medical Board of California, Division of Medical Quality, by Governor Arnold
28
15
215. Mike Lewis was Project Manager for Central Plant construction, start-up, and
16
commissioning. Mr. Lewis was the person who, by his title, position, and duty, was most responsible;
17
“he was obligated” to stop machine oil discharge from the leaking Cooling Tower gear boxes from
18
dispensing into the river and soil to prevent contamination of the natural environment. Mike Lewis, as
19
Principal Engineer, grossly neglected his duty and did not take any preventive measure to stop the oil
20
leak and discharge into the natural environment. Mike Lewis had no problem noticing William
21
Buckans’s feet elevated on the console and viewed it as disrespectful to him but was completely
22
23
unable to notice William Buckan’s accident underneath the cooling tower’s oily surface. Mike Lewis
24 also did not observe—for 7 years—the badly designed cooling tower gear boxes and unlawful massive
25 machine oil discharge into the nearby river and soil surrounding the cooling tower. Apparently, he was
26 ordered to do nothing about by Director Taylor or Director Shelton Duruisseau Ph.D or Director
27 Boyd.
28
2
216. Five days after the Principal Engineer Mike Lewis issued his dramatic
3
memo about the incoming investigation to find perpetrator Central Plant Operator, Todd
4
Goerlich committed suicide. Then, the rest of the Central Plant Operators received a 12% pay
5
raise despite strict UC budget constraints and furlough in UC Campuses and no power sale
6
contract . Thereafter, everything got quiet. Nobody was questioned by an HR investigator or the
7
UC Davis Police Department about locker burglary. No more comments were made by any
8
Central Plant supervisors about Jeff Lancaster’s burglarized locker, no more dramatic memos
9
from the Principal were issued and Todd Georlich’s tragic death was quickly forgotten.
10
11
The Secret 12 % Pay Raise For Central Plant Operators –March 2011
12
13 217. Around March 5, 2011, Plaintiff somehow got into a conversation with
14 the operator from the central plant William Buckans about the December 2010 12% pay raise,
15 and Plaintiff received from Buckans a copy of the UCDMC Plant Operation and the letter from
16 maintenance manager Charles Witcher dated December 20, 2010, which confirmed a 12% pay
17 raise for the central plant operators.
18 218. The December 2010 12% pay raise that was secretly provided to central
19
plant operators was discriminatory to other non-union employees of the UC Davis Medical
20
Center who did not get one penny in wage increase in the last three years due to strict budget
21
constraints in the whole University of California system. The disclosure about the secret pay
22
raise for small groups of employees became a subject of discussion among workers at the other
23
shops in the UC Davis Medical Center. Plaintiff confronted his shop manager Patrick Putney and
24
Plaintiff asked Putney why the HVAC shop staff did not get a pay raise. Putney’s response was
25
that he knew about the pay raise, but was told to be silent about it to avoid any turmoil among
26
the other shops’ workers. Following the discussion with Patrick Putney, Plaintiff wrote an eight-
27
page letter to the department manager about the central plant operators’ December 2010 pay
28
4
The Restricted Access to the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant
5 in March 2011
6
219. Consequently, right after Plaintiff asked his supervisors about the secret
7 12% pay raise for the Central Plant Operators, Department Principal Engineer Mike Lewis
8 issued a memo dated March 11, 2011, instructing Central Plant crew to do the following:
9
10 “Please inform all Central-Plant personnel that access to the Central Plant is
12 University. All operators not on duty and other personnel with no direct reason
13 to be in the Central Plant shall not be granted access to the Central Plant. If
14 illegal access is gained to the Central Plant please call 4-2555 for a non-
15 emergency event or 911 for an emergency.
16 “If an employee not on duty or other individuals with no direct need to gain
17 access to the Central Plant request access to the Central Plant please contact
18 Charles Witcher, Mike Lewis, or Dennis Curry for direction. Thank you.”
19
That was a shocking memo. Never before had access to the Central Plant been restricted for off-
20
shift personnel.
21
The March 13, 2011, Plaintiff letter addressed to UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance
22
Manager Charles Witcher
23
24
25
220. A few days after Mike Lewis issued the memo about access to the Central
26 Plant, Plaintiff on March 14, 2011, sent a letter to Charles Witcher and asked him respectfully
27 for a one-step salary increase; Plaintiff also brought to Witcher’s attention safety and hygiene
28
20 It is appears that Cogen Operators wages under Title Code 8094 for Non —
21 Represented were increased from level 5. to level 11.0. (Six levels up)
22
I would not write this letter but money talk and stirring people mind and saying
23
more simply I just feel discriminated in this share of goods.
24
At the best of my ability to write, I will try to explain why I feel discriminated
25
and left behind like an orphan in abandoned orphanage.
26
27
28
8 vacation absence the Metasys Operation is still unresolved issue for somebody
9 inside the department and he is trying to fix something that is not broken.
10
My other thought was that Central Plant Operators submitted complaint and
11
they are asking to remove the Metasys Operation from the Central Plant
12
Shortly after, in September 2010, I received by copy of the undated but signed
13
petition by four Central Plant operators in regards to Metasys Operation
14
15 After I read the petition and attached to the petition the wages disclosure
16 printed from the Sacramento Bee website, the first my thought was that the
17 petition is a follow up to their earlier complaint which I thought they submitted
18 in August during my vacation absence. The petition itself alleged that Metasys
19
System operation has became full time job to monitor and it was my
20
understanding from the petition that the $ 4.00 /hour wage increase for them
21
would magically convert the full time Metasys Operation job to relaxing
22
leisure in nice resort.
23
24
Furthermore , the individuals who signed the petition alleging (without
27 On top of this, petitioners are raising issue of three managers for twelve person
28
10 I did not want to engage myself in any conflict or discussion with these
11 individuals who are attacking my wages and my duty and I did pass the copy
12 of the petition to Mr. Dennis Curry.
13
Thereafter I forgot about it and concluded this event as a "NEVER ENDING
14
TRAUMA IN THE CENTRAL PLANT " taking in consideration that the same
15
group of individuals viciously and recklessly attacked me and other people in
16
the past, caused me enormous stress, suspension, my departure from the
17
Central Plant and loss of thousands of dollars in my earning"
18
19 At the end of December 2010 I got e-mail from William about his pay raise
20 and I thought that he is joking and I wrote him back that I got five thousand
21 dollars raise, than he sent me congratulation etc. I did not believe him in spite
22 of State financial crisis, furlough, budget constraints and UC President memos
23 about the cuts and possibility of big lay off in IJC system. Basically, I ignored
24
William information and was no further discussion about the pay raise in the
25
Central Plant.
26
The other subject in December 2010 in discussion was the tragic death of the
27
Central Plant employee who took his own life. Just day or two before it
28
10 Lancaster burglarized locker and supposedly stolen photos from the Jeff's
20 action.All lockers will have their locks replaced with new and the master file
22 or how they will be notified.In light of the professional attitude and excellent
24 If whoever was responsible for this would put the same effort into being a team
25 player and working with others on the Central Plant staff, the work
26 environment in the Central Plant could be that much better.In my entire career
27 that consists of work at facilities both in the United States and abroad I have
28
20
mention again his raise and again I thought that he is trying to "pull my legs"
21 and is joking. and in light of budget cuts e.tc I did not believe what is William
22 telling me until he sent me copy of your memo which stated that he got the pay
23 raise.
15 I wrote the introduction and I summarized the latest events in the Central in
17 The petitioners have the right to say in the petition whatever they want about
18 my job but I know how to operate the Central Plant and could go and do it if
4 Beside the Metasys Alarms I am doing other stuff requested by Patrick Putney
5
and I have well documented what I am doing beside the Metasys Operation.
6
Some days I am very busy and "dizzy" from the alarms but I don't have any
7
major problem to handle the job.
8
I don't take brakes with exception to lunch and I would like to have both
9
brakes integrated into lunch and take one hour lunch instead of two 15 minutes
10
brakes and 1/2 hour lunch. This would allow me to leave the shop to eat lunch
11
outside in cafeteria or walk around the campus to relax and get my blood
12
circulation normal
13
In conclusion I am respectfully asking and I would appreciate if my salary will
14
15 accordingly to next level under Title Code 7182 for Non —Represented
17 Sincerely
18 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
19
20 221. Plaintiff learned that prior to Todd Goerlich’s suicide, Goerlich frequently
21 complained to his friend Dereck Cole and his girlfriend that he had been harassed and bullied in
22 the Central Plant “by a person named Jeff.” That corresponds with William Buckans’s
23 observation how badly Todd Goerlich disliked Jeff Lancaster and, in particular, how different
24
and unapproachable Todd became when he worked a shift with Jeff Lancaster.
25
Dereck Cole was a newly hired HVAC Technician in a shop where Plaintiff worked. Cole was
26
hired just one month after Todd Georlich committed suicide, and Todd Georlich was the person
27
who provided the recommendation for Dereck Cole to be hired as an HVAC Technician by UC
28
15 223. The news about the pay raise got around, and in fear of turmoil, the UC
16 Davis Chancellor’s Office or UC Office of the President ordered a 2% pay raise to all UC Davis
17 Medical Center non-union employees, including to Central Plant Operators who had already
18 received a 12% pay raise. Normally, employees would receive a pay raise on July 1st if it were
19 approved after the Annual Performance Review to be given to employees for the 2010/2011
20 year. Plaintiff received the pay raise in May 2011 as well, and his salary increased from
21 $70,000.00 to $71,600 per year.
22 The April 2011 Retaliation
23 224. Instead of any response to my letter from Charles Witcher in April 2011,
24
Plaintiff’s manager, Patrick Putney, blatantly blamed him for missing and not dispatching a
25
hospital refrigerator critical alarm that resulted in a complaint against him by the hospital
26
pharmacy personnel. In a heated discussion, Putney humiliated Plaintiff in front of his teenage
27
daughter, whom he had brought to the shop on that day. Plaintiff told Putney that he didn’t miss
28
15 be perfect with these false alarms and not to miss the real one. Missing critical alarms and not
16 dispatching it could lead to enormous losses or even patient death in UC Davis Medical Center
17 Hospital.
19 critical alarm appeared to be a result of his and his assistant Dorin Daniliuc’s negligence to repair
20 the relevant refrigerator. After the alarm and complaint, it was discovered that the refrigerator was
21 due for repair, had an open work order, and the repair was not done. When Plaintiff proved that it
22 was their fault and that they had neglected their duty, they began to disrespect Plaintiff, showing
23 hostility towards Plaintiff; Plaintiff became the subject of vicious attacks, including and not limited
24
to stalking, intimidation, sabotaging Plaintiff’s job, provocations for physical confrontation and
25
unfounded accusations from these two individuals of being violent.
26
227. In May and June 2011, Patrick Putney turned off the lights in his office and
27
positioned himself in the chair toward Plaintiff and stalked Plaintiff for hours every day. Once in
28
15 suspended for a missing refrigerator alarm without pay. Plaintiff’s intervention in the case, and
16 proof that it not was not Tunello’s fault, reversed Dennis Curry’s conviction.
17 229. The behavior and vicious attacks of Patrick Putney, Dorin Daniluc, Dennis
18 Curry and Charles Witcher aimed at Plaintiff in March, April, May, June and July of 2011
12 May 2011
13
232. In May 2011, Plaintiff held two separate meetings with Department Head ,
14
Charles Witcher, to clarify the issue with the missing refrigerator alarm, to discuss the unusual and
15
psychotic behavior of Patrick Putney toward me, which was not limited to stalking Plaintiff from
16
17 his dark office, suddenly opening his dark office door from the inside and screaming “What are
18 you doing?” Thereafter, within minutes Dennis Curry showing up in the shop and talking to
19 Plaintiff like Plaintiff did something wrong, they both laughed in Patrick Putney’s Office. .
20 233. In May 2011 Patrick Putney held meetings with the crew and in a
21 threatening manner told everybody how good he is at firing people from the job if they not behave
22 up to his standards. One of the new shop employees, Dereck Cole, became so frightened that he
23 asked Putney if he was aiming his threats at him. One year later, Dereck Cole became another
24 victim of Patrick’s Putney, Dennis Curry, and Charles Witcher’s schemes and yet another
25 candidate to look for new employment. He was unspeakably victimized and asked me to represent
26
him with his complaints against Patrick Putney and Charles Witcher. Another Patrick Putney
27
victim is 72-year-old HVAC technician Richard Pawlaczyk. The Richard Pawlaczyk’s case was
28
15 appear that this will be the case. Patrick is still working very hard to get on my
18 humiliated and ridiculed me in front of his teenage stepdaughter. His kids often
19 stay in his office and do their school homework there. I have never had
20 anything against his bringing his kids to work, but in the situation of the heated
21 argument, he went overboard. After the incident, we returned to work on
22 Monday, and I tried to smooth out everything. I even offered him breakfast,
23 but my attempt to make peace with him did not work, and the situation still
24
does not look good.
25
Shortly afterward, Patrick in a retaliatory manner requested that I find all of the
26
"unreliable alarms" in the Metasys . Without discussion, I found these unreliable
27
alarms for him. It took me almost a week to complete the task, after which Patrick
28
15 He clearly intended to intimidate me, speaking the following words: "Do you
16 understand what this policy is for?" I thanked him the next day for providing
17 me with the Metasys policy three years after I had joined the HVAC shop and
19 decided to provide him with the link to the UC Davis Medical Center
20 (UCDMC) Parking and Transportation Services Office and to advise him to
21 pay for his parking permit. For the past three years, he had parked for free on
22 the UCDMC premises by hiding his car inside the shop and playing a little
23 "catch me if you can” game with the parking cops. On top of this, I decided to
24
make this comment to him "What kind of managerial example is he setting for
25
his crew by showing that it is okay to cheat and steal from the employer while
26
at the same time having the ambition to became assistant PO&M [plant
27
operation and maintenance] manager after Dennis Curry retires?”
28
15 almost two years using Putney’s name and password, which was, of course, a
17 The previous incident and today's incident show clearly that Patrick has no
18 remorse about hunting me down. From my perspective, I do not have a choice but
15 236. Plaintiff thought that the 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed
16 with the Defendant, the Regents of the University of California, would protect Plaintiff from the
18 237.. The March 13, 2011, letter from Plaintiff to UC Davis Medical Center
19 Plant Operation and Maintenance Department (PO&M) Manager Charles Witcher raised red
20 flags, and the PO&M Department Management received an order from above that Plaintiff had
21 to be cut off from any source of detailed information provided to him by the Metasys Monitoring
22 System about the Central Plant and be removed from the premises at any means. The UC Davis
23 Medical Center PO&M Department Manager was the one of four UC Davis employees who
24
signed the 2009 Settlement –Agreement and Witcher was perfectly aware that unwarranted
25
attack against Plaintiff violates the signed Settlement –Agreement
26
June 2011
27
28 238. Due to continuous harassment and sabotaging the Plaintiff’s job, the
15 July 2011
16
240. On July 8, 2011, Plaintiff held a meeting with HR Labor Relation
17
Consultant Gina Harwood about the harassment and retaliation Plaintiff was experiencing. During
18
the meeting, Harwood deliberately failed to disclose the fact that the false and fabricated complaint
19
was filed by Plaintiff’s two supervisors, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc. A few days later,
20
Plaintiff was officially informed that the complaint has been filed against him and that an HR
21
investigator had been assigned to investigate the allegation. The assigned HR Investigator was HR
22
attorney Danesha Nichols, who was deployed from the UC Davis campus to UC Davis Medical
23
Center in October 2010 after Central Plant Operators submitted a black mail petition for pay raise.
24
241. Danesha Nichols was very familiar with the previous attack against Plaintiff
25
26 in 2006/2007 due to her involvement in Plaintiff’s arbitration process against the Defendant in
27 2008, which resulted in Plaintiff’s February 2009 Settlement-Agreement with the UC Regents.
28 Nichols aggressively and as soon as possible tried to schedule an interrogation meeting with
15 Compliance Director, Wendy Delemendo, contacted Plaintiff and tried to convince Plaintiff to
16 file the complaint under the UC Whistle Blowing Policy. Plaintiff refused due to his and his
17 coworker’s experience in 2006/2007 when he helped his coworker William Buckans with the
18 Whistle Blowing case related to massive machine oil discharge via a storm drain to the Sacramento
19 River.
20 244. On July 29, 2011, Plaintiff responded to Delmendo’s whistleblowing
21 complaint invitation by letter with many questions about HVAC shop supervisor Dorin Daniliuc’s
22 relationship with two UC Davis Medical Center directors, Robert Taylor and Shelton Duruisseau
23 The Daniliuc’ relation with these two directors was to provide them HVAC services in their
24
private residences in exchange for Daniluc’s supervisory position in the HVAC shop. The
25
questions were never answered by UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo or any
26
of five investigation reports written by Danesha Nichols in December 2011 and February 2012.
27
245. Plaintiff also asked Executive Director Mike Boyd, who is a listed
28
15 order and was not allowed access to any computer with Internet. He should not have been
17 248. This individual was a frequent guest in the HVAC shop, and his presence
18 was tolerated by Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc because Bill Rabidaux had a special
16 251. Only Stephen Chilcott as the HR Executive Director had the power to
17 order not to provide Plaintiff with his annual evaluation and deprive him of administrative
19 252.. In July and August 2011, UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director
20 Stephen Chilcott, in conspiracy with Director Michael Boyd and HR Workers Compensation
21 Manager Hugh Parker (Chilcott’s subordinate), made an attempt to remove Plaintiff from the
22 premises through the false and fraudulent Workers Compensation Claim. Plaintiff refused to file
23 a false claim, but a claim was filed on Plaintiff’s behalf anyway.
24
253. It is possible that UCDMC HR Workers’ Compensation Manager Hugh
25
Parker forged Plaintiff’s signature and filed the Workers’ Compensation claim on Plaintiff’s behalf,
26
taking into consideration that on May 31, 2012, Hugh Parker coordinated ill-minded but
27
unsuccessful provocation to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in UCDMC Trauma Unit #11 by
28
15 my office for a one-hour lunch. This was a trigger point for my decision to
16 ask my doctor for a medical leave. The person who apparently fried my
17 hard drive with higher voltage knew what he was doing and how to do it. I
18 did not find any external physical damage to my hard drive but, after I
19 removed the cover, I found that the circuit board and motor had been
20 burned.
21 I am almost certain of who and why it was done, but I did not catch anybody by
22 hand. Therefore, I can only write and whine about this event. I did not take any
23 chances by remaining in my office any longer and getting electrocuted like my HD.”
24
255. It happened after over three months of nonstop attacks against Plaintiff including,
25
and not limited to, stalking and sabotaging Plaintiff’s job as orchestrated by the UC Davis Health
26
System HR department, the UC Davis chief counsel, and the UC Davis chief compliance office
27
28
7 August 2011
8
257. In July 2011, Plaintiff asked many times and begged for the harassment to stop, as
9
well as the sabotaging of Plaintiff’s duties and job, so as not to escalate the conflict. Plaintiff’s
10
appeals did not work, and Plaintiff had to evacuate himself from the job site due to enormous
11
emotional distress caused by PO&M, the HR department management, and HR investigators.
12
Plaintiff’s physician placed Plaintiff on work-related stress sick leave until September 1, 2011. By
13
going on work-related stress sick leave, Plaintiff was hoping that, during his absence from work,
14
everything would settle down and Plaintiff would be able to continue his employment. Plaintiff
15
was also hoping that the UCDM HR assigned investigator, Attorney Danesha Nichols, would
16
17 interview all Plaintiff’s coworkers from the shop and would clarify the issues of the false and
18 fabricated accusations against Plaintiff. Plaintiff forgot or did not know in August 2011 that
19 Danesha Nichols was involved in the previous Plaintiff’s case together with Stephen Chilcott and
20 that Danesha Nichols was deployed in October 2010 to UC Davis Medical Center to monitor the
21 situation with the black –mail pay raise for the central plant operators.
22 258. Plaintiff’s coworker, Kenny Diede, was slandered and defaced on his annual
23 evaluation by Patrick Putney for reporting a twice-convicted child pornography felon for
24 accessing company computers. Later on, Plaintiff represented Kenny Diede in his complaints
25 pursuant to UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70 and Whistleblowing Retaliation
26
Policy to keep his job with UC Davis Medical Center.
27
259. The August 2, 2011 was Plaintiff’s last physical presence and last working
28
15 262. Plaintiff became very upset, stressed, and angry that could not go back to
16 work. Plaintiff got feeling that he would never get his job back, knowing that it was already
17 awarded to Bill Rabidaux, the father of the twice-convicted child pornography felon. Bill
18 Rabidoux should be punished, together with shop supervisors, for his participation in covering up
19 the parole violation of his sick-minded relative, instead of having the job granted to Plaintiff by
20 the Settlement-Agreement with the UC Regents. Also, Plaintiff would like to mention that when
21 Plaintiff was leaving the shop on August 2, 2011, Plaintiff had not had any problems with any of
22 his coworkers throughout the course of Plaintiff’s employment in the HVAC shop for four years.
23
24 September 2011
25
263. The UC Davis Medical Center PO&M Department Manager Charles
26
Witcher’s letter, dated August 31, 2011, placing Plaintiff on investigatory leave was an
27
unsuccessful attempt to force Plaintiff to quit his job or to participate in the investigation against
28
15 Nichols’s report that was issued as a cause to terminate Plaintiff on September 23, 2011, was
16 destroyed and was not available to Plaintiff to obtain from Nichols. Nichols most likely lied to
17 Public Record Act personnel because Nichols provided the copy of the Report to HR Workers
18 Compensation Office Manager Hugh Parker who was coordinator in May 2012 to end Plaintiff’s
16 I am not your and Mr. Chillcot’s hostage and you both have to end this hostage
11
270. Plaintiff was so stressed out and already was using antidepressant and
12
nitroglycerine, and escalation of the conflict by Defendant forced Plaintiff to seek a doctor and
13
psychologist’s help to cope with the enormous emotional stress and anxiety in relation to
14
15 employment situation.
16 272. On September 22, 2011, Plaintiff’s physician placed Plaintiff on the work
19 former Central Plant coworker William Buckans that Bill Rabidaux (father of the child porn
20 felon who was accessing UCDMC computers in the HVAC shop) announced to others that
21 Plaintiff was fired from job and that
22 274. Plaintiff was not going back and anticipated that this was going to happen.
23 Apparently, Plaintiff physician who placed Plaintiff on stress-related sick leave stopped the
24
execution. Plaintiff did not think that Bill Roubideaux lied or made up that my employment
25
termination took place. The Roubideaux’s special relationship with Dennis Curry and Patrick
26
Putney made Plaintiff believed that Dennis Curry or Patrick Putney leaked the information about
27
Plaintiff’s employment termination before the termination letter was sent to Plaintiff .
28
15 stop the constant assault, harassment and vicious vendetta against me for last
26
278. On October 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the State Bar of
27
California against UC Davis Medical Center’s two Human Resources Department Attorneys,
28
7 Witcher, and others, Plaintiff thought that maybe someone had filed the false complaint with the
8 UC Davis Police Department and accused me of violence and discrimination and other crimes
10 280. To clear this issue, on October 6, Plaintiff asked UC Davis Police Cpt.
11 Joyce Souza from the Professional Standard Unit to search my Police Record and check if any
12 record with my name was there.
13 Plaintiff, in his eight-page e-mail entitled “Request for Information in regards to the
14 unfounded accusation against me from UCDMC HR Attorneys and other individuals,”
15
pasted multiple examples of the despicable, unfounded, and defacing Plaintiff accusations. .
16
In his e-mail to UC Davis Police Cpt. Joy Souza with cc. to UC Davis Police Lt. John Pike (the
17
same Lt. John Pike who was pepper spraying protesting students on November 18, 2011 on the
18
UC Davis Campus).
19
281. Plaintiff wrote to Cpt. Joyce Souza on October 5, 2011 in his eight pages
20
e-mail letter:
21
“Dear Captain Souza:
22
I have been working for 12 years in the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
23
Operation and Maintenance, Sacramento Department. In last few months I
24
15 response, wrote:
19 283. Plaintiff noticed that Captain Joyce Souza cc’d her e-mail response to her
20 superior, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza, and UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer
21 Wendy Delmendo, who assigned, in July 2011, UC Davis attorney Danesha Nichols to conduct a
10 did not pay much attention to Mr. Dark’s proposition because his job in the HVAC shop as
11 Assistant Development Engineer fit Plaintiff perfectly and Plaintiff had no restrictions or
12 limitations to do the job with Plaintiff’s health and condition, with the exception of the stalking
13 and harassing by Plaintiff’s supervisors who made his life miserable and work conditions
14 intolerable.
15 286. On October 10, 2011, the UC Davis Medical Center HR investigator and attorney
16 Danesha Nichols sent to HVAC shop employee Kenneth Diede a threating and intimidating e-mail
17 message. Kenneth Diede was the employee who in July 2011 was reported to be a twice-convicted
18 child pornography felon on parole who had illegally accessed the HVAC shop computer and was
19
prohibited by court order to have or touch any commuter, especially one with Internet. Danesha
20
Nichols covered up the child porn criminal activities issue in her pseudo-investigation reports.
21
287. On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant with
22
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for Harassment, Retaliation, and ongoing
23
conspiracy against Plaintiff in the University of California Davis Medical Center.
24
288. On October 25, 2011, Plaintiff sent a request to the UC Davis Public
25
record Act office and requested documents related to the UCDMC CENTRAL PLANT - JEFF
26
LANCASTER'S BURGALIZED LOCKER ON DECEMBER 17, 2010 AND PAY RAISE FOR
27
UCDMC CENTRAL PLANT OPERATORS ON DECEMBER 20, 2010.
28
16
the organization and operation of the campus. With the investigation by Ms.
27 letter
28 “Christopher Simon
16 my record and it would be difficult not to mention again what did happen .
18 send the
17 another psychopath supervisor like Patrick Putney who victimized not only
19 My Psychologist Dr. Bernhoft wrote on the form for Liberty Mutual Insurance
20 Company: “Stress issues are due not to being back to work " and " Client
21 should be allowed to return to work ASAP" (attached)
22 If UC won't let me go back to work as soon as possible than I respectfully
23 requesting answer ASAP what is the other option because I don't know. I have
24
to pay my bills and mortgage and FMLA protection ends after 90 days . I don't
25
need additional stress and more pills with my health condition.
26
I appreciate your prompt response in this matter and I am awaiting for
27
resolution to end this employer hostility against me .
28
9
291. In November 2011, Plaintiff spent most of his time dealing with the
10 Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, which deprived Plaintiff of legitimate short-term
11 disability benefits. After Plaintiff used all his sick leave days and vacation days, Plaintiff was
12 basically left without income. The FMLA 90-day protection also ran out. UCDMC HR Labor
13 Relations Consultant Gina Harwood, for reasons unknown to Plaintiff, on November 14, 2011,
14 offered to Plaintiff an additional 12 weeks of supplemental FMLA time protection, which
15 Plaintiff declined. The short-term disability benefits had been denied to Plaintiff, so it was
16 nonsense to accept the FMLA protection extension to stay employed without the income.
17 292. In the response letter, dated November 23, 2011, to Gina Harwood,
18
Plaintiff wrote:
19
“At this point, I am not considering to file for an extension of my
20
medical leave under the Supplemental FMLA University Policy 2.210.
21
I am under enormous stress and pressure, and I have had enough. I was left
22
without a paycheck, so an extension of medical leave won’t help with at all.
23
The Settlement-Agreement I signed with the UC Regents in 2009 and my civil
24
rights were grossly violated by the University of California.
25
Contacting the benefits office regarding my current situation to discuss the
26
effect of my health and welfare benefits makes no sense to me.
27
28
The University is fully responsible and legally liable for my current health
15 Carmichael; fire from the job Lt. John Pike, who was ordered and used to casually and very visibly pepper
16 spray students; and force to retire UC Davis Captain Joyce Souza. Just after the premediated pepper spray
17 attack, Lt. Matt Carmichael, who on November 18, 2011, was in the UC Davis Medical Center, instantly,
18 as most likely planned, was assigned as the interim UC Davis chief of police. In May 2012, the new UC
19 Davis chief of police participated with Lt. James Barbour in the operation to provoke and kill or end
20 Plaintiff’s employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11.
21
295. On November 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the State of California
22
23
Department of Insurance against the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston for denying to
24 Plaintiff short-term disability benefits. The Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, without
25 conducting any reasonable investigation concerning its obligations under the contract,
26 breached its contract, without good or sufficient cause, for reasons extraneous to the contract
27 and for the purpose of frustrating Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the benefits of the contract.
28
16 anniversary of the student massacre at Athens Polytechnic by the Greek fascist military junta that
17 killed 25 people and injured over 1,000. In 1973, Linda Katehi was a student at Athens
18 Polytechnic.
19 298. A few days later, on November 23, 2011, UC Davis Vice Chancellor Claire
20 Pomeroy, who was in charge of UC Davis Medical Center School of Medicine, cried out in her e-mail
21 how the community was deeply shaken and disturbed by the pepper spraying of protesting students:
22
“Our university community is shaken by the deeply disturbing images we have
23
seen over the past few days. The video of the police action against peaceful
24
students stands in stark contrast to our deeply held commitments to freedom of
25
expression and to our UC Davis principles of community”
26
27 299. Plaintiff responded to Vice Chancellor Pomeroy’s outcry with the following words:
28
3 Can you do something about the National Socialism doctrine oriented and
4 entirely corrupted management in the UC Davis Medical Center, Plant
5 Operation and Maintenance and Human Resources Departments? The
6
Principles of Community does not exist in UCDMC and it is the empty slogan.
7
Your commitment to freedom of expression is also empty slogan as well. You
8
and others are receiving my letters for quite long and you and others don’t care
9
what the “UCDMC Gestapo” doing to me and how systematically is
10
destroying my and others livelihood and life. I am sending a few letters again
11
to you with hope that I will be heartened to see Ms. Pomeroy will order to
12
conduct a true investigation against the corrupted individuals in both
13
departments and restore a normal work environment in the UCDMC PO&M
14
Department.
15
16
Best regards and good luck with your commitment to freedom of expression.
17 JerryWaszczuk
19
300. Shortly after Plaintiff sent his message to Vice Chancellor Pomeroy cc’d to many
20
other University of California decision makers, Vice Chancellor Pomeroy was forced to resign due to
21
illegal medical experiments conducted under Pomeroy’s supervision for years by two UC Davis Medical
22
Center Dutch neurosurgeons, Dr. J. Paul Muizelaar and Dr. Rudolph J. Schrot, which caused
23 several patients’ deaths. So far, Plaintiff, with his words about the UC Davis Medical Center
24 National Socialism doctrine, was taking into consideration inhumane, illegal medical
25 experiments on humans in the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz conducted on camp inmates
26 by the notorious Dr. Joseph Mengele.
27 301. On November 23, 2011, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
28
6 in his emails. Mr. Witcher also added a threat about the dismissal of Plaintiff’s employment if he
7 continued to communicate with others about the investigation and about hunting Plaintiff down.
8 Plaintiff responded to Mr. Witcher’s accusations and his denial of Plaintiff’s e-mail access with a
10 reference to his previous UCDMC managers’ statements from the Central Plant. One manager
11 threatened Plaintiff with the words, “Somebody give this Pollack a bad evaluation and fire
12 him,” and another, in anger, was threatening Plaintiff that he would “Send the Gestapo on my
13 ass.”
14 303. Apparently, the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and
15
Maintenance Department Manager Charles Witcher; his superior, Director Mike Boyd; and HR
16
Executive Director Stephen Chilcott forgot that Charles Witcher signed a February 2009
17
Settlement-Agreement with Plaintiff on behalf of the regents of the University of California, and
18
if Charles Witcher felt that Plaintiff violated any paragraph of the Settlement-Agreement, then
19
Charles Witcher was to inform the UC Davis Medical Center Legal Department and UC Davis
20
Chief Counsel Steven Drown, who also signed the Settlement-Agreement, to enforce the signed
21
Settlement-Agreement according to California law without threatening, humiliating, harassing
22
and discriminating against Plaintiff.
23
304. The conclusion of this chapter is that the Defendant with Liberty
24
25 Assurance Company of Boston, by their malicious conspiracy against Plaintiff, left Plaintiff
26 without any source of income, which they thought would be a very convincing argument to make
27 Plaintiff quit his job. When it was done, UC Davis Medical Center HR Benefits Manager John
28 Peklar contacted Plaintiff by phone and was trying to convince Plaintiff to make an appointment
6 305. In December 2011, Defendant again forgot that in February 2009 they
8 agreed to employ Plaintiff indefinitely. The agreement was to be enforced by the California
9 Court according to the state of California’s laws if violated by any party which signed the
10 settlement- agreement.
11 306. On December 5, 2011, Plaintiff’s superior Charles Witcher, to Plaintiff’s
12 disbelief, sent to Plaintiff another threatening letter during Plaintiff’s sick leave due to work-
13 related stress, in which Witcher ordered Plaintiff to go to an investigatory interview with
14 Danesha Nichols on December 12, 2011. Four years after this, Plaintiff is still in disbelief that it
15
actually happened, but taking into consideration that Plaintiff’s employment almost ended in UC
16
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11 due to an unsuccessful provocation crafted by the same
17
management on May 30, 2012, then anything is possible at University of California.
18
307. To add another example, if one of workers for whom Plaintiff was
19
providing representation can be despicably attacked by the same UC Davis management during
20
his mother’s funeral, then employment at UC Davis Medical Center is full of surprises.
21
308. Plaintiff ignored Charles Witcher’s letter and his irresponsible threats to
22
dismiss Plaintiff from his employment during his stress-related sick leave. Removing Plaintiff
23
from sick leave unconditionally without Plaintiff’s physician’s permission and place Plaintiff on
24
26 309. Plaintiff was without income; the situation could not get any worse, and
27 Witcher’s threating letter was nothing else but ill-minded harassment and an attempt to
28 intimidate Plaintiff and to make Plaintiff to quit his job voluntarily and wave his legal rights
15 313. Besides the above, Plaintiff informed Gina Harwood that Plaintiff was
16 willing to have a meeting with HR Investigator Danesha Nichols if she was willing to meet
17 Plaintiff on the same day that Plaintiff would be retrieving his personal file and his belongings
18 from his office. Gina Harwood responded that she set up the meeting with Danesha Nichols on
19 December 22, 2011, and that all Plaintiff’s belongings would be delivered to the HR building in
20 the morning and available for pick up at the time of Plaintiff’s appointment with Danesha
21 Nichols.
22 314. Gina Harwood also informed Plaintiff that the computers containing the
23 hard drives Plaintiff made reference to were deployed outside of the HVAC shop due to the
24
sensitive nature of the systems on those computers and the department being concerned about
25
removing the hard drives at that time. Also, Gina Harwood asked Plaintiff to provide receipts
26
showing the purchase of these hard drives, and the university would reimburse him for the cost.
27
315. Plaintiff installed his private hard drives in the company computers as a
28
15 were already decommissioned and provide them to the crew for work orders and time cards.
16 Plaintiff cleaned, repaired and reprogrammed the old computers and provided them to HVAC
17 shop crew members to make their everyday job a lot easier and more efficient.
18 318. Besides the above, Plaintiff informed Gina Harwood that Plaintiff was
19 willing to have a meeting with HR Investigator Danesha Nichols if she was willing to meet
20 Plaintiff on the same day that he would be retrieving his personal file and his belongings from
21 his office.
22 319. Gina Harwood did set up an appointment with Danesha Nichols on
23 December 22, 2011.
24
320. When on December 22, 2011, Plaintiff arrived for the meeting with
25
Danesha in the UC Davis Medical Center HR building, a UC Davis police cruiser with officers
26
inside was on standby next to the building and Danesha Nichols had the assistance of a male
27
person who disclosed to Plaintiff during the conversation that he had previously worked as a
28
16 323. The Defendant’ reckless and unwarranted attacks against Plaintiff in 2011
17 and gross violation of the 2009 settlement-agreement, along with harassment, retaliation,
18 enormous stress and anxiety, and the fear of losing employment, caused Plaintiff financial losses
19 in relation to his employment, which amounted to the approximate sum of $21,000.00, taking
20 into consideration accrued sick leave and vacation hours, which Plaintiff was forced to use due to
21 stress-related sick leave caused by the Defendant and the Defendant’ conspiracy with Liberty
22 Assurance Company of Boston, which resulted in Plaintiff’s short-term disability being denied.
23
January 2012
24
25
324. On or about January 10, 2012, Plaintiff noticed on his pay stub for the pay
26
period with an end date of 12/24/2011, that Plaintiff’s title had been changed without his
27
knowledge, and for an unknown reason, from Associate Development Engineer to Programmer I,
28
15 326. If, in January 2012, Plaintiff would have known that the Defendant’ goal
16 was to separate Plaintiff from Metasys System and from any data and information related to the
17 UC Davis Medical Central Plant operation, then Plaintiff would most likely have taken a
18 different approach to the problem. Plaintiff would have attempted to renegotiate the signed
19 February 2009 Settlement-Agreement with the Defendant, regardless of the psychological terror,
20 harassment and despicable attacks on Plaintiff’s character and integrity that the Defendant
21 committed.
22 327. Plaintiff had no clue as to why this was done or who did it, but the
23 Defendant ignored the fact that according to the February 2009, the Settlement-Agreement,
24
Plaintiff’s position and work place cannot be changed without Plaintiff’s consent or a Court
25
Order.
26
328. On January 18 , 2012, Plaintiff noticed by looking at his pay stub dated
27
January 18, 2012, that Plaintiff had been de-enrolled by the Defendant from the medical, dental
28
15 Disability Insurance with the Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston and Plaintiff
16 advised John Peklar that he make sure that that premium for this insurance will not be
18 331. On January 25, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to the UC Office President
19 liaison Mike Waldman, who was responsible for administrating the supplemental short-term
20 disability benefits, to intervene with Liberty Assurance Company Boston to pay Plaintiff’s
21 legitimate benefits, which were denied in November and December 2012. Plaintiff did not get
22 any response from Mr. Waldman.
23 332. At the end of January 2012, Plaintiff learned that his long-time physician,
24
who placed Plaintiff on stress-related sick leave for fourth months, wouldn’t provide any longer
25
medical service for Plaintiff and that Plaintiff’s psychologist’s residence in Lodi was raided by
26
the State of California Department of Social Services.
27
28 February 2012
16 of California.
17 336. Plaintiff in good faith also forwarded to Cindy Oropeza the latest e-mail
18 correspondence with Danesha Nichols, the investigator UC Davis Medical Center assigned to the
19 case, which stated that, if Plaintiff’s employer is looking for an informal resolution of the
20 problem, then Plaintiff would prefer not to see or read Danesha Nichols’ investigation findings
21 and the Defendant’ action based on Danesha Nichols’ findings. It would save Plaintiff’s and
22 others’ time and, if Plaintiff read the findings, would turn the ongoing conflict in a new direction
23 and open up a new, unpleasant dispute. Plaintiff also stated that he is very tired and very stressed
24 out from dealing with this conflict. Cindy Oropeza responded that UC Davis Medical Center’s
25
HR Labor Relation Manager will contact Plaintiff shortly and will set a meeting with Plaintiff to
26
discuss the possibility of resolving the conflict informally.
27
337. . Plaintiff’s meeting with HR Labor Relations Manager, Mike Garcia, took
28
14 340. Plaintiff does not know why Plaintiff was asked to meet with Mike Garcia,
15 but Plaintiff believed that the Right to Sue Letter dated January 26, 2012, which Plaintiff
16 received from the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Right Division and of which a carbon copy
17 was sent to the UC Davis Medical Center was one of the reason for explore possibility of
18 informal resolution.
19
341. In February 2012 and for a long time thereafter, Plaintiff had no intention
20
to sue the Defendant; instead, Plaintiff was hoping that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
21
Commission (EEOC) would help him deal with his ongoing employment dispute with the
22
Defendant. However, when Plaintiff filed a complaint with U.S. EEOC against Defendant and
23
24
subsequently went to the EEOC’s San Francisco Office for an interview, Plaintiff was dismayed
25 to find that the EEOC intake officer was terrified of filing a complaint against the University of
26 California and dealing with UC attorneys. Plaintiff had no choice but to ask for a Right to Sue
27 Letter. Plaintiff could not find an attorney and was trying to get an extension of the Right to Sue
28 Letter but his extension request was denied by the EEOC Director. Thereafter, Plaintiff was
10 negative remarks in the reports about him. Plaintiff, since February 2009, was working for
12 Engineer and had reminded the Defendant in almost every correspondence with them since April
13 2011 that they were breaching and violating the Settlement – Agreement they had signed with
14 Plaintiff.
15 344. In addition to the above, Plaintiff learned in February 2012 that HR Labor
16 Relation Manager Mike Garcia replaced HR Consultant Gina Harwood with experienced
17 attorney Jill Vandeviver to handle Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s coworkers’ complaints from the
18 same Department in which Plaintiff worked.
19
345. Besides the above, Plaintiff’s two coworkers, Kenny Diede from the
20
HVAC Shop and William Buckans from the Central Plant, asked Plaintiff to represent them in
21
their complaints pursuant to UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70. Plaintiff agreed
22
to represent Kenny Diede and William Buckans with their complaints Step II appeals.
23
24
March 2012
25
14 348. Plaintiff’s second letter to the UC Davis chief counsel, dated July 24, 2011,
17 349. In response to Plaintiff’s complaints to the UC Davis chief counsel about the
18 2009 Settlement-Agreement violation by the Defendant, on July 26, 2011, UC Davis Chief
19 Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo sent Plaintiff an invitation to file a whistleblowing complaint.
21 Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo’s invitation and advised her that none of the
22 violations she outlined in her letter were qualified to file a claim against under the “UC
23 Whistleblower” policy.
24 351. Furthermore, the mentioned violations should have been be corrected
25 immediately by UC Davis Medical Center senior management through the administrative
26 process. The violations were so obvious and known by the general employee population in the
27 UC Davis Medical Center PO&M Department. All Plaintiff letters were forwarded to UC Davis
28
28
18 stating that he understood that Plaintiff is representing William Buckans and Kenny Diede
19 through the PPSM 70 complaint appeal process. However, since Plaintiff was on paid
20 investigatory leave, Plaintiff would not be permitted to attend any procedural meetings with
21 (CRO) related to both of Plaintiff’s clients’ (as he stated) complaints until a decision was made
22 in the matter related to the allegations made against Plaintiff. Furthermore, Humberto Garcia
23 stated that the university was amenable to placing both the William Buckans and Kenny Diede
24 complaints in abeyance until a decision was made in the matter referenced above and that
25 Plaintiff may elect to submit his arguments to the CRO in writing or Plaintiff’s clients (as he
26 stated) may elect to be represented by someone else.
27
28 357. Plaintiff met Humberto Garcia on February 14, 2012 in the UC Davis
14
358. Today, Plaintiff looks at Humberto Garcia’s e-mail letter dated March 21,
15
2012, differently than Plaintiff looked at it in March 2012. Today, Plaintiff looks at Humberto
16
Garcia’s e-mail letter, , as a letter that may have saved Plaintiff’s life, taking into consideration
17
who was in charge of the UC Davis Police Department in March 2012 and why Mathew
18
Carmichael was assigned as interim UC Davis Police Chief by UC Davis Administration.
19
Humberto Garcia and HR attorney and Humberto Garcia assistant Jill Vanderviver, did not
20
survive long after February 2012 attempt to resolve informally with Plaintiff ongoing dispute.
21
22 359. In addition to the above, on March 19, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to
23 University of California Senior Vice President Chief Compliance and Audit Officer Sheryl Vacca
24 and asked her for an independent investigation. Also, Plaintiff requested under the Public Record
25 Act provision all the documents related to Danesha Nichols and Wendi Delmendo’s pseudo-
27 April 2012
15 would contact Plaintiff when the administrative review has been completed without any specifics
17
18 April 2012- The Complaint with U.S Department of Labor , OFCCP Office
19
15 denied in November and December 2011 to Plaintiff. . Further, Plaintiff’s complaint against
16 Liberty had been pending with the state insurance commissioner’s office since November 2011.
17 UC Davis HR Benefits Manager John Peklar was the person who disenrolled Plaintiff from
18 medical insurance in December 2011 without Plaintiff’s knowledge. Since Plaintiff did not want
19 to risk being left without medical insurance, he enrolled himself and his wife in medical
20 insurance with Nordstrom Corporation, where Plaintiff’s spouse has been employed since 1990,
21 paying an extra $200/month.
22
April 2012 – Letter Of Intent to Suspend with 10 Days without Pay
23
24
366. Instead of a response from the Defendant in regard to the informal
25
resolution initiated by the Defendant in February 2012, Plaintiff, on April 13, 2012, received
26
from the Defendant a Letter of Intent to Suspend signed by the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
27
Operation and Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher—the same Charles Witcher who,
28
15 Specifically, the Defendant’ lies accused Plaintiff that his behavior was in violation of UCDHS
16 Policy 1616 — Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and UC Davis Policy and
18 lies in the letter implied that Plaintiff failed to adhere to specific instructions during the
19 investigation to refrain from engaging in email communications with witnesses, which interfered
20 with the investigation, as outlined in the report.
21 368. Furthermore, the unfounded allegations in the Letter of Intent to Suspend
22 were made that on March 8, 2011, April 21, 2011, and May 5, 20011, Plaintiff engaged in
23 behavior that violated UCDHS Policy 1616—Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace. It
24
was alleged that Plaintiff’s behavior was disruptive and intimidating to Dorin Daniliuc when he
25
allegedly pointed his finger in his face and used profanity on March 8, 2011. Further, on April
26
21, 2011, Plaintiff allegedly became disruptive and intimidating toward Patrick Putney during a
27
discussion regarding the Putney and Daniliuc ’s work performance as Plaintiff understood the
28
15 State of California Court of Law, not by slanderous pseudo-investigation reports that financially
17 370. At the end of the letter, Plaintiff was instructed that Plaintiff has the right
18 to respond, either orally or in writing, to the notice of intent to suspend. Plaintiff’s response must
19 be received by the Skelly Reviewer, Michael Pansius (916-734-6572), within eight (8) calendar
20 days from the date of issuance of this letter.
21 371. The assigned Skelly Reviewer, Michael Pansius, was the subordinate of
22 UC Davis Medical Center Director Mike Boyd from the facilities construction and design
23 department.
24
372. In July 2011, Director Mike Boyd took charge of the UC Davis Medical
25
Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and became Charles Witcher’s superior.
26
373. Director Mike Boyd took charge of the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
27
Operation and Maintenance Department after his partner in crime, Director Robert Taylor, left
28
16 financial losses in 2011 and Plaintiff lost all accrued vacation and sick leave hours. Plaintiff’s
17 total financial losses in 2011 amounted to approximately $21, 000, due to the inhumane
19
376. On April 15, 2012, Plaintiff requested from Defendant all available
20
documents related to the UC Davis Medical Center HR investigator pseudo-investigation. The
21
requested documents that were included were all generated by Danesha Nichols’ investigatory
22
reports.
23
24
377. On April 20, 2012, Plaintiff responded to the Defendant’s Letter Intent to
25 Suspend signed by Charles Witcher and, in his 26-page response, demanded from the assigned
26 Skelly reviewer, who did not know Skelly law, to entirely disregard and dismiss all lies and
2 378. In great disappointment over the investigatory reports and the unwarranted
3 attack on Plaintiff with the Letter of Intent to Suspend, on April 27, 2012, Plaintiff sent a short
4 email to Danesha Nichols expressing his feelings about her reports. Plaintiff attached to the e-
5
mail a video clip/slide show entitled “Welcome to Romania.” It shows post-communist
6
devastated Romania and some scenes in the slide show had lot in common with the landscape in
7
the HVAC shop supervised by Dorin Daniliuc and Patrick Putney.. Later, the “Welcome to
8
Romania” slide show was exploited and repeatedly used to attack Plaintiff and as cause and
9
pretext to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
10
379. Danesha Nichols attempted to bully and intimidate Plaintiff, and she
11
received a proper response from Waszczuk. Waszczuk reported Nichols and Chilcott to the State
12
Bar in October 2011and 2013 and reported Nichols to UC Davis Police (Captain Souza and Lt.
13
Pike). If the UC Davis investigator was to investigate Nichols for anything, it would be Central
14
15 Plant Operator Todd Georlich’s suicide, which occurred on December 22, 2010; Central Plant
16 Operator Jeff Lancaster’s locker burglary; the secret 12% pay raise for central plant operators in
17 December 2010, based on blackmail petition; Daniliuc’s involvement in his private enterprise on
18 company time, as well the fact that he was employed by two UCDMC Directors—Robert Taylor
19 and Shelton Duruisseau—in their private residences in exchange for giving him a supervisor
20 position and access to free HVAC parts and equipment and presence in the HVAC shop, though
21 he was a twice-convicted child pornography felon who illegally was accessing the UCDMC
22 HVAC shop computer during his probation or parole time.
23 380. Danesha Nichols swept under the rug the child pornography felony matter
24
in her report instead of turning porn felon into authorities and obtaining a restraining order.
25
Instead, in her reports Nichols made Plaintiff look five times worse than , a twice-convicted child
26
pornography felon; thus, Nichols grossly violated law by not reporting a felon on probation to
27
authorities and grossly violating the 2009 Settlement–Agreement that Plaintiff signed with the
28
7 May 2012
May 2012- Defendant Preparation for the May 31, 2012 Provocation to Kill Plaintiff
8
9
381. In April and May 2012, Plaintiff did not know or was aware that the
10
Defendant were negotiating the new power sale contract with the Sacramento Municipal Utility
11
12 District (SMUD) and the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant cogeneration facility. The
13 Defendant got very inpatient with Plaintiff’s continued presence on the Defendant’ payroll list.
14 382 .The psychological terror, abuse, harassment, and retaliation that Plaintiff
15 was subjected to for almost one year, which was orchestrated and carried out by the Defendant’
16 lawyers, managers, and psychologists at the UC Davis Medical Center HR Department with the
17 full support of the UC Davis Chancellor Office and the University of California Office of the
18 President did not work to force Plaintiff to quit voluntarily The decision was made to eliminate
19 Plaintiff by provocation and by means of a bullet from the pistol of UC Davis Police Lt. James
20 Barbour who was assigned by Defendant to carry out assassination on May 31, 2012.
21 383. On May 1, 2012, Plaintiff did not know how close Plaintiff was to being
22 killed or his employment ending in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11 due to the
23 ill-crafted provocation of an especially assembled team, which Plaintiff later nicknamed in
24
documents “UC Davis Death Squad.”
25
384. The first stage of preparation to provoke and eliminate Plaintiff was the
26
February 14, 2012, fruitless meeting with Humberto Garcia from the UC Davis HR Department,
27
which was intended to informally resolve conflict or let Plaintiff return to work after six months
28
15 387. The fourth preparation step to provoke and eliminate Plaintiff was the April
16 13, 2012, Letter of Intent to Suspend Plaintiff without pay for 10 days during Plaintiff‘s already
17 nine (9) months forced absence from work. The letter of intent to suspend did not even say or
18 Arizona. Mr. Lohse is a member of the State Bars of California and Arizona.
21 391. Plaintiff was very impressed with Director John Lohse professional career
22 and achievements. However, in the situation Plaintiff found himself in with respect to his
23 employment, Plaintiff was convinced that Director Lohse was coordinating unknown actions
24 against Plaintiff and that Director Lohse perfectly fit the profile of framing Plaintiff. Plaintiff
25 expressed his thoughts in a response letter to Director John Lohse dated May 14, 2012. After
26 Plaintiff responded to Mr. Lohse’s letter and sent to his office a few other documents related to
28
6
393. On May 11, 2012, Charles Witcher was ordered to serve Plaintiff a 10-
7
day suspension without pay from May 16, 2012, to May 30, 2012. The letter was based on
8
unspecified and fabricated accusations and allegations that were never witnessed by anybody.
9
Plaintiff’s stress levels and blood pressure went up, and nitroglycerine and Lorazepam were very
10
helpful.
11
May 11, 2012
12
13
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
524 Swallow Lane
14 Lodi, CA 95240
15
RE: Letter of Suspension
16
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I am suspending you for a
17
period of ten (10) working days without pay, commencing May 16, 2012
18
through May 30, 2012. The reason for this action is your continued
19
inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Specifically, your behavior is in
20
violation of UCDHS Policy 1616 — Violence and Hate Incidents in the
21
Workplace and UC Davis Policy and Procedure 380-15 Staff Complaints of
22
Discrimination. Additionally, your failure to adhere to specific instructions
23
during the investigation to refrain from engaging in email communications
24
25
with witnesses interfered with the investigation as outlined in the report.
26 The suspension will begin on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 and end on
27 Wednesday, May 30, 2012. You are expected to report to work at 8 a.m.
17 Employee & Employee & Labor Relations office no later than thirty (30)
19 Charles Witcher
20 Manager, Plant Operations and Maintenance
Attachments: Proof of Service
21 Skelly Decision
22
cc' [Department File]
[UCDHS Employee & Labor Relations w/attachment]
23 [UCDHS HR Records w/attachment]
24
25 394. In Charles Witcher’s Letter of Suspension, dated May 11, 2012, Plaintiff
26 was instructed to report to Charles Witcher’s office on May 31, 2012, at 8:00 a.m. Plaintiff was
27 not aware that just a day before, Charles Witcher had been instructed by Brent Seifert, Cindy
28
8 May 2012 – The Defendant Attack Aimed at Plaintiff Coworkers , Kenny Diede
and William Buckans
9
10
397. In further preparation to send Plaintiff to the trauma unit, on May 18 and
11
23, 2012, PO&M Manager Charles Witcher, Patrick Putney, Dennis Curry, and Mike Lewis, in a
12
retaliatory manner, attacked the two coworkers Plaintiff was representing in complaints against
13
some of the above-mentioned individuals. Within one week, Kenny Diede and William Buckans
14
were served with despicable Letters of Expectation, which were based on phony, unfounded, and
15
fabricated accusations.
16
17 May 2012- Plaintiff Protest Letter Entitled “ The Retaliation Isn’t Wise’
18 398. On May 24, 2012, Plaintiff issued a 13-page protest letter entitled, “The
19 Retaliation Isn’t Wise,” against management’s vicious attack on Kenny Diede and William
20 Buckans and sent it to the perpetrators and senior management and administration at UC Davis
12
401. May 30, 2012, was Plaintiff’s 61st birthday and on May 30, 2012, Plaintiff
13
did not know that the HR Workers Compensation Manager was a coordinator of the assembled
14
15 “UC Davis Death Squad” and planning to end Plaintiff’s employment with the University of
16 California on May 31, 2012 (the next day) at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit. Plaintiff
17 also did not know on his 61st birthday that the host of the stress management class Marjorie
18 Trogdon Shock was also a member of the assembled “UC Davis Death Squad,” the goal of which
19 was to end Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Trauma unit # 11 because Defendant signed
20 power sale contract for UCDMC Central Plant with Scaramanto Municipal Utility Distict
21 on May 29, 2012.
22 402. On May 31, 2012, per Defendant’ suspension letter dated May 11, 2012,
23 Plaintiff was scheduled to return to work after 10 months of absence and report to Charles
24
Witcher’s office in Bldg. 68.
25
403. Plaintiff had heard from his coworkers that the carpenter shop was
26
building two extra offices on the first level of Building 68, and Plaintiff was hoping that
27
Defendant would eventually move Plaintiff from the HVAC shop to Bldg. 68 and that the
28
4 404. On May 31, 2012, I drove to work and parked my car next to HVAC shop
5
as usual with a valid parking permit. Before Plaintiff reported to the Department Head Charles
6
Witcher’s office, Plaintiff went to the Marriott Hotel across from the HVAC shop to eat
7
breakfast in the cafeteria. I met my two coworkers, who joined me for breakfast.
8
405. Plaintiff was not expecting to be placed on investigatory leave again,
9
which Plaintiff hated, and Plaintiff wanted to go back to work after such a long period of absence
10
regardless of the fact that Plaintiff had been subjected by Defendant to more than one year of
11
psychological terror, harassment, retaliation, significant loss of income, and multiple threats of
12
employment termination. Plaintiff could expect anything but never expected that that highly
13
regarded University of California would assemble a “Death Squad” to resolve the dispute with
14
15 the employee by using the police force to end the employee’s career with the university at the
16 trauma unit.
17 406. On May 30, 2012, just one day before the ill-planned provocation, HR
18 Supervisor Brent Seifer sent an e-mail to HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott stating that
19 Plaintiff’s superior Charles Witcher understands that Jerry (Plaintiff) will report to his office
20 tomorrow at 8 am. As soon as Jerry (Plaintiff) arrived, Charles would be issuing the
21 investigatory leave letter and directing him to meet with me.
22 407. On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff arrived at 8:00 a.m. at the Department Head
23 Charles Witcher’s office, and Charles Witcher handed Plaintiff a letter and sent him to the HR
24
Building Tycon III for an interview with HR Supervisor Brent Seifert. Maybe if Plaintiff had read
25
Charles Witcher’s letter in his office and found out that the Defendant were placing Plaintiff again
26
on investigatory leave and not letting him return to work after 10 days suspension, Plaintiff would
27
probably not have appreciated such actions. If Plaintiff had known that Defendant had maliciously
28
10
408. Plaintiff did not read the letter in Charles’ office and went straight to the
11
Human Resources Tycon Building for the meeting with Brent Seifert. HR Supervisor Brent Seifert
12
looked at Plaintiff upon his arrival like he wanted to ask Plaintiff what Plaintiff was doing in the
13
HR building meeting. At the end of the meeting—which was about phony, new, unfounded, made-
14
15 up, and out-of-the-blue accusations against Plaintiff and life in Romania, of which Brent Seifer
16 did not even know where it was located, Plaintiff asked Brent Seifert, “What’s next?” In response,
17 Brent Seifert said, “Didn’t you read the letter Witcher gave you? You are on investigatory leave
19 409. Plaintiff looked at the letter he received from Witcher, said ok, then left the
20 HR Building and Plaintiff went home. Plaintiff did not like the investigatory leave and Plaintiff
21 expressed his feelings thereafter in a letter entitled “I feel again like a Hunted Jew during the
22 Holocaust.” This is how the HR “Death Squad’s” plot to send Plaintiff the UC Davis Medical
23 Center # 11 failed.
24
410. Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, knew that something was wrong but Plaintiff
25
did not know any details about the malicious plan of the UC Davis Death Squad, “Kill Waszczuk,”
26
nor the unsuccessful provocation, until Plaintiff received relevant documents under the Public
27
Record Act Provision of November 2011. The documents are very clear as to what Defendant had
28
3 JUNE 2012
4 June 1,2012- Hugh Parker’s E-Mail to the Members of the ” UC Davis Death Squad”
5
6
411. On June 1, 2012, one day after falling ill and the maliciously crafted
7
provocation by the assembled UC Davis Death Squad, the coordinator of the provocation, HR
8
Workers Compensation Manager Hugh Parker, sent e-mail message to the other members of the
9
assembled UC Davis Death Squad members stating that
10
“Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) had returned to work yesterday from his
11
suspension and was placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At
12
issue are writings sent by Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) while on leave. Mr.
13
Waszczuk (Plaintiff) did not display any anger when told he was being
14
16 412.. The Hugh Parker e-mail statement read: “At issue are writings sent by Mr.
17 Waszczuk (Plaintiff) while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) did not display any anger when
18 told he was being place on investigatory leave.” This translates to the following: that Plaintiff,
19 after almost one year of absence due to the Defendant’ psychological terror aimed at Plaintiff,
20 including threatening Plaintiff’s employment and livelihood by means of multiple investigatory
21 leave letters, which Plaintiff received from the Defendant as ill-planned provocations, should be
22 triggered to become angry and violent so that the UC Davis renegade Police Lt James Barbour,
23 bribed by means of a $35,000 wage increase by UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11,
24
will do the job to eliminate Plaintiff from the UC Davis Medical Center landscape forever.
25
Apparently, UC Davis assembled Death Squad members underestimated Plaintiff and mistook
26
Plaintiff for somebody whose employment they had ended with UC Davis in this way.
27
28
15 among the eleven names of the assembled UC Davis Death Squad, but Stephen Chilcott’s name
16 appeared in the email dated May 30, 2012, which was sent by HR Supervisor Brent Seifert to
17 Stephen Chilcott in preparation for the ill-minded provocation and Plaintiff’s execution by UC
18 Davis Police.
15 granted to him by the 2009 Settlement-Agreement signed with the UC Regents, which HR
16 Director Stephen Chilcott grossly solicited and supervised then violated and disregarded.
18 and the Locally Designated Official (LDO), with full knowledge of wrongdoing, conspired in a
19 premeditated fashion with other Defendant and UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi
20 Delmendo to cover the others’ crimes and gross misconduct, deliberate interference, and
21 retaliation against Plaintiff for reporting management misconduct and violation of state and
22 federal law and established University of California Policies and Procedures.
23 420. HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, with malice and disregard for
24
state and federal law, conspired and dedicated himself to ending Plaintiff’s employment, doing
25
whatever it would take, and conspired with others, known and unknown, to kill Plaintiff or end
26
Plaintiff’s employment on May 31, 2012, in UC Davis Trauma Unit # 11, thus violating not only
27
Plaintiff’s civil rights but also, despicably, Plaintiff’s human rights to work and live.
28
18 subordinate.
15 which information was leaked out regarding the attempt to terminate Plaintiff, and Plaintiff did
16 not report to the UCDMC HR Building on this day. The Danesha Nichols Report for termination
19 with HR Labor Relation Manager Mike Garcia for informal conflict resolution. Plaintiff, in good
20 faith, held the meeting with Garcia and presented his proposition to resolve the conflict. Instead
21 of a counter offer or proposition to resolve, Plaintiff was suspended in May 2012 for 10 days
22 without pay, his two coworkers to whom Plaintiff provided representation came under vicious
23 attack, Garcia was replaced by a new HR Labor Relation Manager, and Garcia’s assistant Jill
24
Vandeviver was fired. Oropeza’s name is listed in a group of UC Davis employees who were
25
members of a specially assembled team nicknamed in the documents by Plaintiff “The UC Davis
26
Death Squad.”
27
428. On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff became the subject of an ill-crafted but
28
17 Plaintiff met Neil Speth in 2005 through the course of his employment at the UCDMC Central
18 Plant. Dr. Neil Speth almost killed Plaintiff in 2005 by forcing Plaintiff to take a spirometer test
19 against Plaintiff’s will. As a result of Dr. Speth’s irresponsible actions, Plaintiff landed
20 unconscious in the UCDMC ER. Plaintiff informed Dr. Speth at the relevant time that because of
21 Plaintiff’s medical condition, Plaintiff could not take a spirometer test. Plaintiff intended to take
22 legal action against Dr. Speth, but a few months later, Plaintiff had open-heart surgery and dropped
23 the idea to take Dr. Speth to court.
24
432. Plaintiff is not sure what kind of assignment Hugh Parker, the coordinator
25
of the HR Death Squad action against Plaintiff, gave to Dr. Speth for May 31, 2012, but it is
26
apparent that Dr. Speth had an assignment to ensure that Plaintiff stop breathing in the Trauma
27
Unit after the Lt. James Barbour’s response to UC Davis Death Squad Coordinator Hugh Parker’s
28
12
435. CAROL KIRSHNIT, Ph.D, and MARJORE TROGODON SHOCK,
13
LCSW—Members of the UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENETR HR Academic and Staff Assistance
14
15 Program.
16 436. Carol Kirshnit is a licensed clinical psychologist and the coordinator of the
17 Academic and Staff Assistance Program at UC Davis Health System, and Marjorie Trogodon
18 Shock is a licensed clinical social worker with over 20 years of clinical experience.
19 Plaintiff believes that Carol Kirshnit, Ph.D, was the person who, as a doctor of psychology,
20 professionally advised her Superior HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott and the UC
21 Davis Death Squad coordinator Hugh Parker as to whether Plaintiff was properly primed
22 and aroused to be provoked and killed on May 31, 2012, and whether Plaintiff’s
23 employment would end in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit .
24
437. Marjorie Trogodon Shock was the person who, on May 30, 2012,
25
together with the Death Squad Coordinator, removed Plaintiff from the stress management class.
26
Apparently, Shock was perfectly aware and informed about the ill-crafted provocation of May
27
31, 2012, to kill Plaintiff. Plaintiff believes that her participation in the plot was to comfort
28
10 Plaintiff’s employment termination and that Parker would become a coordinator of the UC Davis
11 Death Squad and of the maliciously crafted provocation to kill Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, or end
12 Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical Center. Plaintiff hopes that Hugh Parker
13 sooner or later, together with the co-conspirators, will get what he deserves according to
20 assembled UC Davis Death Squad. In May 2012 and thereafter, Lindsey was looking for any
21 reason she could use to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff looked at Lindsey’s job
22 history and credentials on the Web and it appears that Lindsey never advanced in his attorney
23 legal career beyond the position of associate attorney in four different law firms from January
24 2003 to May 2012. The working record also shows that Lindsey never worked in a Human
25 Resources department at any private enterprise or public employment, did not have any
26 supervisory or managerial experience, and had not directly handled any labor issues prior to
27 being hired by UC Davis Medical Center in 2012.
28
17 Center, it creates an unbelievably chilling picture of what the “HR Death Squad Members,”
18 including Karen Kouertas, had in their sick minds in relation to the meticulously and maliciously
19 crafted provocation of May 31, 2012, to eliminate Plaintiff from UC Davis Medical Center
20 landscape.
21 445. In July 2013, Plaintiff made an attempt to find out through the State of
22 California Board of Registered Nurses the capacity of Karen Kouretas’s involvement in the
23
activity of the assembled UC Davis Death Squad.
24
446. It is very important for the Board of Registered Nursing to know that the
25
board is issuing licenses not only to nurses who work very hard to take care of sick and ill people
26
but also to nurses, like Karen Kouretas, who collaborate and associate themselves with a group
27
of people whose goals are to provoke, kill, and deliver their victims to her unit for unspecified
28
16 Davis Compliance Office due to borrowing from contractors who were working in UC Davis
18 450. Dennis Curry was removed from the premises just two weeks before he
22
451. On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff sent a 24-page letter to the UC Davis Medical
23
Center Compliance & Privacy Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman. The letter was entitled:
24
“THE SUMMARY OF THE FEW UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN UC DAVIS
25
8
June13, 2012 – The Investigatory Leave Extension
9
452. On June 13, 2012, UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and
10
Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher sent an email letter to Plaintiff stating that
11
Plaintiff’s investigatory leave was being extended from June 14, 2012, through June 27, 2012.
12
Furthermore, the e-mail stated that Plaintiff was thereby relieved from all work duties for the
13
duration of this investigation. This duration was intended to allow additional time to collect
14
15 relevant information and determine the facts surrounding e-mails that Plaintiff sent, which were
16 believed to contain discriminatory content. Plaintiff would remain on pay status during that time.
17 During this leave, Plaintiff would not be allowed to have access to the work place. Plaintiff
18 would remain available during business hours should it be required that Plaintiff participate
19 in this investigation. There was no word in Witcher’s e-mail that Plaintiff violated the 2009
20 Settlement-Agreement signed by Plaintiff with the UC Regents.
21 June 14, 2012-The State of California’s Insurance Commissioner Office Decision
22
23 453. On June 14, 2012, two weeks after the unsuccessful provocation to end
24
Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11, Plaintiff received a
25
decision from the State of California’s Insurance Commissioner Office in regard to the complaint
26
Plaintiff filed in November 2011 against the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, which, in
27
conspiracy with the Defendant, denied Plaintiff Short Term Disability Benefits. The decision,
28
15 Campus or UC Davis Medical Center) from the period of November 1, 2011, to the present time.
16 455. Furthermore, in his letter to Captain Joyce Souza, Plaintiff stated that
17 based on multiple correspondences that Plaintiff forwarded to Captain Souza’s office, Captain
18 Souza was most likely aware that Plaintiff had not been working since August 2, 2011. Plaintiff
19 spent eight months of this period on administrative leave and investigatory leave plus 10 days of
20 suspension without pay as a retaliation. Plaintiff elaborated in his letter to Captain Souza that it is
21 not difficult for anyone to figure out that the eight months on administrative and investigatory
22 leave indicate that something went terribly wrong or is going to go terribly wrong for a long time
23 in the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and Human
24
Resources Department.
25
The UC Davis Pepper Spray Incident investigation took only five months to issue the final
26
report. (From November 2011 to March 2012) and Plaintiff’s case has been going since
27
March 13, 2011.
28
15 were filed under Policy PPSM 70 and to whom Plaintiff was providing representation. Gina
16 Harwood was removed by Humberto Garcia in January or February 2012 to handle Plaintiff and
17 his coworkers’ complaints, which were assigned to HR consultant Jill Noel Vanderviver.
19 about Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver’s departure from UC Davis Medical Center with
20 a 10-page letter.
21 June 27, 2012 – The Investigatory Leave Extension
22 459. On June 27, 2012, Plaintiff called UC Davis Medical Center Plant
23 Operation Manager Charles Witcher and asked him about Plaintiff’s status because the last
24
investigatory leave letter had expired on June 27, 2012. Thereafter, Charles Witcher sent Plaintiff
25
another routine two-weeks extension, stating that the letter confirmed that Plaintiff’s
26
investigatory leave was being extended from June 28, 2012, through July 11, 2012. Plaintiff was
27
hereby relieved from all work duties for the duration of this investigation. This would allow
28
10 enjoyed being UC Davis Medical Center management’s prisoner, sentenced to one year of home
11 arrest for unknown causes, Plaintiff responded to Witcher’s investigatory extension letter as
12 follows:
13 “Do you have any clue who is being investigated and why this investigation is
14 causing me this Investigatory Leave for such a long time?
15
Did you receive any threats against me and are you keeping me out of the
16
Medical Center for my safety or is it for a different reason?
17
I am just curious because it is weird and makes me very nervous that I am still
18
on the UC Payroll for so long and I can’t work. I am getting all kinds of
19
information and it makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes of
20
your Investigatory Leave. I am not sure if all the information I am receiving is
21
true but, almost always, rumors and gossip contain 5% of the truth.
22
Today, I received information about the Director Taylor and Mike Pansius’
23
24
retirement. A few weeks ago, I heard about Dennis Curry’s suspension or
25 administrative leave just before his retirement. Last Friday, I received official
26 information about Mike Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver’s departure from the
28 Today, my Investigatory leave was forgotten. It was a very hard decision for
15 and I only built my positive opinion of Corey from the HVAC and PM shops
17 Do you know who is in charge of the HR Labor Relations after Mike Garcia
18 left? I thought a few my months back that Jill Noel Vandeviver was going to
19 replace Mike with her very aggressive introduction to the ongoing matters
20 related to myself, Kenny Diede, and William Buckans, as well as associated
21 PO&M personnel. It is my understanding that an Investigatory Leave Letter
22 has to be approved by HR Labor Relation Chief.
23 Also, there is an issue with my employee evaluation for 2010/2011. I am still a
24
UC employee and would appreciate it if you provide me with the evaluation
25
for 2010/2011. At least for the period I was in the shop and was working until
26
August 2, 2011. The time for 2011/2012 evaluations is approaching, and I am
27
not sure how I should be evaluated when I am not working and due to a
28
6
July 3, 2012—HR Consultant Gina Harwood’s Letter Entitled
7 “Jerry Waszezuk Timeline/Summary”
8
9
461. On July 3, 2012, notoriously deceptive UC Davis Medical Center HR
10
Consultant Gina Harwood sent an e-mail to her supervisor, Brent Seifert, with the attached letter
11
(“Jerry Waszczuk Timeline /Summary”) described by Gina Harwood as “thrown together really
12
quick.” Besides, the mentioned summary was full of slanderous lies and unfounded, made-up
13
accusations about Plaintiff, which she began generating in 2011 and is repeating with demeaning
14
lies about Plaintiff in this summary. Gina Harwood also complained to Brent Seifert about
15
dismissed in June the HR Labor Relation Consultant, Jill Noel Vandrviver . HR consultant Jill
16
17
Noel Vandrviver was dismissed together with the HR Labor Relation Manger, Humberto Garcia
18 in June 2012. Gina Harwood was removed in January or February 2012, from handling Plaintiff
20 management misconduct, retaliation and harassment. It was most likely that Gina Harwood
21 contributed much of her effort to make Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vanedviver dismissed
22 from their jobs in retaliation for being removed from the assignment.
23 462. In her July, 2012, full-of-lies defacing-the-Plaintiff summary, Gina Harwood wrote:
24 Jerry Waszczuk Timeline/Summary
25 “Jaroslaw Waszczuk is an employee in the HVAC Shop as an Associate
26 Development Engineer, he has been employed for 13 years. He is responsible
27
for monitoring the Metasys system which monitors alarms throughout the
28
15 received a complaint letter from Mr. Waszczuk with. Multiple allegations, this
16 all took place at the end of May beginning of June. Mr. Waszczuk stated that
17 Mr. Witcher was handling his complaint. Ms. Harwood asked to meet with Mr.
18 Waszczuk as a follow up to his complaint, meeting took place the second week
19 of July. Prior to the meeting, Patrick Putney filed a violence in the workplace
20 incident related to the April and May incidents. Ms. Waszczuk made several
21 allegations in his email and during the meeting related to misuse of University
22 resources by his supervisors, Ms. Harwood sent the information to Wendi
23 Delmendo for review and Danesha Nichols was appointed to investigate the
24
allegations from Mr. Waszczuk and the Violence in the Workplace complaints.
25
During the investigation, Mr. Waszczuk was placed on investigatory leave. He
26
began a letter/email writing campaign to multiple UC employees. The email
27
communications were inflammatory and contained discriminatory comments
28
15 denied to file. He applied for Liberty Mutual and his claim was denied,
25
463. The Summary itself as no so much interesting but interesting is why HR
26
Labor Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert requested the summary on Plaintiff from Gina Harwood.
27
Brent Seifert listed in Hugh Parker’s e-mail chat dated June 1, 2012 about May 31, 2012 ill crafted
28
15 without knowing why and in contrary and in light of the widely publicized in media November
16 18 , 2011 pepper spray attack ordered by UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and investigation of
17 this incident which concluded within five months . Plaintiff did not understand for what crime his
18 being kept hostage for one year on investigatory leave and why he is being investigated.
19 466. Beside the letters to Captain Souza and Compliance Investigator Gina
20 Gauilaumme –Holleman Plaitiff on June 27, 2012 sent letter to his Department Head Charles
21 Witcher and demanded answer why Plaintiff is kept on investigatory leave and why he is not
22 being permitted to go back to work and do his duty . Plaintiff never received response from Charles
23 Witcher to his inquiry.
24
July 3, 2012 – The Plaintiff’s , Kenny Diede ‘s and William Buckan’s Complaints under UC
25 Davis Policy Complaint Resolution Policy PPMS 70
26 467. On July 3, 2012 Plaintiff and his two coworkers Kenny Diede and William
27 Buckans received from HR Consultant Gina Harwood Decisions in Step I Complaints Plaintiff
28
15 Defendant for serving Plaintiff every two weeks for almost one year letters of Investigatory
16 Leave and denying Plaintiff right to work It was done in violation of UC Davis Policy PPSM 63
18 322. The other Plaintiff complaint Step I under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 was still pending
15 interview revelation and his disclosure about conspiracy to frame Plaintiff because in July 2012
16 Plaintiff did not know at that time anything about May 31, 2012 provocation to kill him or end
18 476. Plaintiff suspected that something was wrong but did have any evidence to
19 proof anything bedside that he was removed from stress management class on May 30, 2012 and
20 was served with Investigatory Leave letter on May 31, 2012 and was not permitted to work by
21 Defendant.
22 477. Few days later mark Montoya called Plaintiff and confirmed what Kenny
23 Diede told Plaintiff about his interview with Gina Gaulliuaume –Hollmann’on July 18, 2012.
24
325. On July 23, Plaintiff decided for the record to write few additional words to Gina
25
Gaulliuaume –Hollmann’as follow;
26
“Dear Ms. Guillame -Holleman:
27
For the record and in addition to my previous e-mail I would like to inform
28
15 reason was behind for their statements but I don't care much it because I never
16 had any problem with any of my coworkers in the HVAC shop during my
17 employment from March 2007- to August 2, 2012 and will not have any
19 I will not make big deal about my" photo and your question “Apparently you
20 was instructed by somebody to find cause for my employment termination. I
21 like to mention that at first I got outraged about your interview with my
22 coworker but after the interviewed person called me about than I told my to
23 myself: . Why I have to stress myself for something I have no control over
24
until the whole case go to court. "
25
You as an employee of UCDMC Compliance office shall follow Canons of
26
Ethic during the interview. By showing my photo and trying makes me like
27
most wanted at large bandit is not going to help my employer in any way but
28
16 reminder.
17 Jerry”
July 25, 2012 – HR Director Stephen Chilcott’s e-mail
18 to HR Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsey
19
9
481. On August 1, 2012, Defendant sent Plaintiff another two-week extension of
10
the Investigatory Leave. This time the Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher,
11
who routinely signed the investigatory leave letter, which was at this point close to the one-year
12
anniversary of the first investigatory leave letter that Witcher signed on September 1, 2011.
13
14
August 2, 2012 – The UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo’s e-mail
15 to Kenney Diede
17 Delmendo sent an e-mail to the Plaintiff’s coworker Kenney Diede, attempting to drag Kenny
18 Diede into a deceptive and useless whistleblowing complaint, just as she had attempted to do
19 with Plaintiff in July 2011. Plaintiff was almost killed on May 31, 2012, due to Wendy
20 Delmendo’s effort and dedication to destroy the UC Davis employees life’s and livelihoods
21 instead of providing help to them .
22 483. In her August 2, 2012, email letter to Kenny Diede (whom Plaintiff was
23 successfully representing in his complaints against management misconduct under the UC Davis
24 Policy PPSM 70), Wendy Delmendo wrote:
25
“I recently learned that you have filed a grievance in which you allege you
26
have been subject to retaliation. I am writing to inform you that your allegation
27
of retaliation may also be eligible for review under the University’s
28
15 misconduct, harassment, retaliation, abuse of power, violation of state and federal law, and
16 Delmendo openly participating in Plaintiff’s employment termination in 2012 and almost getting
19 decline Wendy Delmendo’s deceptive and misleading offer with the following words in
20 response:
21 Dear Ms. Delmendo:
22 I appreciate your concern. However, I am not sure what you are referring to in
23 your letter in regard to my complaints.
24
For your information, I filed two complaints against my manager Patrick
25
Putney’s vendetta and retaliation. (I believe that you are very familiar with this
26
person’s name). I am not only a victim of Patrick’s Putney behavior. My two
27
complaints against Patrick Putney are pending and problems probably would
28
17 questions.
19 E-Mail: ucdmclaborchat@comcast.net “
20 487. In addition to the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Title, on February 2, 2014,
21 Wendy Delmendo accrued the “Lead Discrimination Officer” title per order of the University of
22 California President Janet Napolitano after an enormous discrimination scandal on the University
23 of California, Los Angeles campus.
24
The Lead Discrimination Officer title fits Wendy Delmendo perfectly. She advanced herself in
25
her skill in how to discriminate and hurt employees while advising UC Davis administration
26
without leaving a trace of discrimination and harassment.
27
28
15 Plaintiff’s coworker William Buckans, to whom Plaintiff was providing representation, received
17 August 9, 2012 – The Letter of Expectation served to HVAC Technician Dereck Cole .
18
490. Following the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo’s
19
invitation to her whistleblowing “Russian Roulette” game and Gina Harwood’s letter prohibiting
20
Plaintiff from working and representing his coworkers, Defendant attacked another coworker of
21
Plaintiff called Dereck Cole.
22
15 work place prior to taking his own life. In March 2011, Plaintiff brought this information to the
16 Defendant’ attention.
17 494. Todd Goerlich, who replaced Plaintiff in April 2007, was Dereck Cole’s
18 best friend since high school and he left behind a one-year-old child.
19 495. Shortly after this, Dereck Cole was attacked and turned to Plaintiff for help.
20 Plaintiff agreed to represent him in his complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70, regardless of
21 the fact that Plaintiff had little time and was very busy with his own defenses and those of his two
22 coworkers against harassment and the Defendant’ retaliation. Plaintiff had to sacrifice a lot to take
23 on and handle another retaliation and harassment case against the vicious, unscrupulous, malicious,
24
and vindictive UC Davis management and administration.
25
August 16, 2012-The Extension of the Investigatory Leave
26 (August 16, 2012-September 28, 2012)
27 496. On August 16, 2012, the Defendant sent Plaintiff another extension of the
28
16 498. This long extension of investigatory leave passed the one-year anniversary
17 of the September 1, 2011, first investigatory leave letter, which the Defendant had served
18 Plaintiff. Plaintiff became very concerned that something more drastic was going on with
19 Plaintiff’s employment due to the vicious attack against Plaintiff’s coworker Dereck Cole, as
20 well as Wendy Delmendo and Gina Harwood’s letters to Plaintiff’s coworker, Kenny Diede, and
21 the endless pseudo-investigations conducted by the assigned Defendant, two of “UC Davis Death
22 Squad’s” members, Brent Seifert and Cindy Oropeza, from the UC Davis Medical Center HR
23 Department.
24
499. Plaintiff was not mistaken that that something more drastic was going on
25
and finally uncovered it after Plaintiff, in November 2011, received a bulk e-mail
26
correspondence exchange between the perpetrators, who were plaining another provocation to
27
deliver Plaintiff to the UC Davis Medical Center # 11 to silence Plaintiff forever. Plaintiff was
28
10
13 501. On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to Compliance and Privacy
Program Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman about the unfair overtime distribution in the
14
HVAC shop with following information and concerns.
15
16 “I am sending you the copy of the letter of expectation issued for HVAC
15 plumber.”
16
502. The subject of the unfair overtime distribution was one of the HVAC shop
17
technicians, George Ursu, who is the friend the HVAC shop supervisors Dorin Daniliuc. It was
18
most likely that the excessive overtime was a fraud and George Ursu never worked most of the
19
20
overtime but got paid the same as Dorin Daniliuc, who was officially working full time, though
21 he actually employed himself in his private HVAC business and private church more than 50
23 503. After the complaint was made by Dereck Cole, George Urusus’s overtime
24
dropped $10,000 in 2013, and after Dereck Cole, in retaliatory action against him, was removed
25
from the HVAC shop, George Urus’s overtime bounced back with $11,000 in 2014.
26
27
August 28, 2012–E-mail from UC Davis Health System HR Workers' Compensation,
28 Ergonomics, Disability Manager Hugh Parker
15 August 28, 2012, Plaintiff did not know who replaced Humberto Garcia, and HR Consultant
16 Gina Harwood was unresponsive when Plaintiff asked her who her manager was after she sent
17 information to Plaintiff on June 22, 2012 that Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver were
19 506. On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff did know that Hugh Parker was the
20 coordinator and conductor for the assembled group of UC Davis employees, nicknamed by
21 Plaintiff in the documents as “The UC Davis Death Squad,” which on May 31, 2012, in the ill-
22 planned provocation, attempted to kill or end Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical
23 Center Trauma Unit #11. From the Public Act Records documents, Plaintiff learned about Hugh
24
Parker’s special assignment that had coordinated an assault on Plaintiff to terminate his
25
employment through ill-minded and orchestrated provocation on May 31, 2012.
26
507. In July and August 2011, Plaintiff exchanged with Hugh Parker his
27
opinion about the UC Davis Medical Center fraudulently using the Workers Compensation
28
15 509. In May 2012, Plaintiff learned from the Public Record Act documents he
16 received that Hugh Parker had requested the investigation report on Plaintiff from HR
17 Investigator Danesha Nichols, which was fabricated for the purpose of the ill-planned
19 The information about the planned attempt to terminate Plaintiff’s employment was leaked and
20 the plan failed. HR Investigator Danesha Nichol’s report, which Hugh Parker requested from her,
21 was destroyed according to the UC Davis Public Record Office, and a copy was never provided
22 to Plaintiff.
23 Plaintiff is not certain”, but it appears that September 23, 2011 was the Defendant’s first
24
attempt to provoke the physical confrontation from Plaintiff, physically hurt him, and then
25
dismiss him with accusations that he was violent.
26
510. Plaintiff’s opinion is based on the fact that, two days prior to September
27
23, 2011, he received a letter from his Department Head Charles Witcher stating that he would
28
8
511. On August 29, 2012, Plaintiff received a letter from the Compliance and
9
Privacy Program Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman.
10
512. By means of this letter, Plaintiff was notified that the UCD Davis Health
11
System (UCDHS) Compliance Department had completed its investigation of allegations and
12
was advising of possible policy violations regarding a PO&M manager who allegedly accepted
13
money from vendor(s) for personal use and a PO&M supervisor allegedly using a paintball gun
14
on university premises. Both matters had been investigated and no proof of violations was
15
provided by Plaintiff or obtained during the investigation.
16
18 18, 2012, interviewed one of Plaintiff’s coworkers from the UCDHS HVAC shop, Mark Montoya.
19 During the interview, Gina Guillaume-Holleman showed Mark Montoya Plaintiff’s photo and
20 asked him whether Plaintiff was a threat to him and, thereafter, she made an attempt to solicit Mark
21 Montoya to sign an affidavit that Plaintiff was dangerous. Outraged by her demand, Mark Montoya
22 left the interview and went to the HVAC shop and mentioned what had happened to one of
23 Plaintiff’s other coworkers, who called Plaintiff and disclosed the information about Mark
24 Montoya’s interview. A few days later, Mark Montoya personally confirmed the information about
25 Gina Guillaume-Holleman’s demand.
26
514. At the end of August 2012, Plaintiff was not worried about any investigation
27
but was worried about his own status due to the almost year-and-a-half-long, ongoing, vicious,
28
12 SEPTEMBER 2012
13 September 4, 2012—Kenneth Diede’s Letter to Department Head Charles Witcher.
14
516. On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff’s coworker from the HVAC shop to
15
whom Plaintiff was providing representation under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70, submitted a
16
17 complaint letter against HVAC shop manager and supervisor Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc.
18 These two individuals attacked Kenneth once again and converted his 2012 annual employee
20 517. Since July 2011, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc had been making
21 Kenneth Diede’s life miserable and his working conditions intolerable after Kenneth Diede
22 reported twice-convicted child pornography felon, Sean Robideaux , who was illegally
23 surfing the web on the HVAC shop commuters with Patrick Putney’s knowledge and permission.
24 Being on parole for his second child pornography strike Sean Robideaux , was not allowed to
25 touch a computer connected to the Internet per federal court order (Case: 2: 6 –cr- 00418-LKK,
26
The United States of America v. Sean Christopher Robideaux, United States District Court, Eastern
27
District of California, Indictment Violation(S) 18 U.S.C § 2252 () (4)(B) –Possession of Visual
28
9
September 9, 2012—Plaintiff Letter to Brent Seifert—UC Davis Medical Center HR Labor
10 Relation Supervisor and Principal Labor Relation Consultant
11
519. For over one year, the Defendant subjected Plaintiff to malicious
12
13
psychological terror, persecution, civil and human rights violations, enormous stress and worries
14 as a result of losing his home and, most likely, his employment at the age of 61 and a slim
16 520. Due to unknown means regarding the ways in which the Defendant intended to do
17 Plaintiff further harm on September 9, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to UC Davis Medical Center HR
18 Labor Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert with an inquiry to update Plaintiff about his bogus
19 investigation against Plaintiff to which he was assigned in May 2012. Plaintiff wrote the following
20 in his September 9, 2012, letter: The original letter was edited by the Professional Proof Reader
21 for the purpose to avoid confusion about merit in the letter-Original upon request)
22
“Dear Mr. Seifert:
23
25 status of the phony investigation you have been conducting since May 31,
26 2012. I am not sure if you remember that you have been assigned to investigate
27 to determine the facts surrounding the e-mails I supposedly sent that were
28
7 resources department with probable help from the former FBI Agent
11
When I read it on the Association of Workplace Investigators web page, I
12
choked and said to myself, “This guy with such an impressive background
13
career and connections that he is a perfect guy to frame me.”
14
15 The May 31, 2012, provocation followed Witcher’s and the HR department’s
16 cowardly and ill-crafted action that placed me on ten days’ suspension without
17 pay after Danesha Nichols’ phony investigation and my five-month
18 administrative/investigatory leave.
19
It is not coincidental that the Mr. Lohse got involved to help cover up the UC
20
21
Davis and UC Davis Medical Center management’s corrupted and unlawful
22 activities, which are happening in every pointed place and involving UC Davis
23 “chiefs and Indians” including, but not limited to, HR Chief Stephen Chilcott;
25 Teresa Porter; internal audits chief and UC Davis police officers such as Lt.
26 James Barbour, who once gave me special advice with former U.S. President
27 Ronald Reagan regarding the U.S. Marines. UC Davis Chief Compliance
28
7 leave letter and launch another phony investigation against him. If he will snap
8 and get hostile, then Lt. Barbour will take care of him and he will be done.
9
What a mistake. Jerry Waszczuk never became hostile and never snapped.
10
Instead, Jerry Waszczuk used his pen and computer to defend himself and
11
others abused and harassed by vicious, vindictive, corrupt, and criminally
12
minded UCDMC chiefs.
13
21 The meeting that you improvised was about the country of Romania,
22
Romanians, and Reggae. I have summarized the meeting in the letter I wrote to
23
you the day after we met and there is no need to elaborate further about it.
24
25 The reason why I am writing to you is to determine the status of this “after
26 unsuccessful provocation” and phony investigation for which you had been set
28
7 sell my house and if it does not go through, then I will let the house be
11 will pay the bill for this reckless harassment and assault on me and I will
12 pay for a new house of my choice.”
13
521. The September 9, 2012, Plaintiff’s letter to Brent Seifert was the first time that
14
Plaintiff informed the Defendant of Plaintiff’s awareness that the May 31, 2012, reckless Defendant
15
action against Plaintiff was nothing but the Defendant’ malicious and ill-crafted provocation to harm
16
Plaintiff.
17
522. On September 9, 2012, Plaintiff did not have any evidence or documents proving
18
that for the May 31, 2012, provocation, the Defendant assembled a special team nicknamed in
19
Plaintiff’s document “The UC Davis Death Squad” to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in the UC
20
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11. Plaintiff based his opinion on observed event facts,
21
information from his coworkers, the Defendant’ reckless attacks in May 2012 aimed at Plaintiff and
22
his coworkers to whom Plaintiff was providing representation, and by removing Plaintiff from the
23
stress management class one day before the provocation on May 30, 2012.
24 “
September 12, 2012—The e-mail entitled “Review of the Waszczuk Investigation”
25
26 523. On September 12, 2012, at 9:36 PM, the UC Office of General Counsel
27 Senior Legal Counsel Mia Belk sent an e-mail to UC Davis Medical Center HR Labor Relation
28
15 Delmendo, UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski and UC Davis Health System
16 Chief Compliance Officer Teresa Porter and to let them know that the HR department was
19 Lindsey to make suggested revisions and finalize the documents and letter of intent to terminate
20 the issue as soon as possible. In addition to the letter of intent to terminate, HR Executive Director
21 Stephen Chilcott instructed Travis Lindsey to discuss the assignments of the Skelly officer with
22 Plaintiff’s superior, UC Davis Medical Center Executive Director Mike Boyd.
23 527 The UCDHS HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott’s confidential
24
communication response is interesting because it shows that HR Equal Employment Opportunity
25
and Diversity Manager Cindi Oropeza was not copied on Stephen Chilcott’s e-mail. Cindi Oropeza
26
was assigned with Brent Seifert to fabricate a bogus report as the cause for Plaintiff’s termination
27
of employment.
28
17
“This is in response to your faxes dated 9/25/2011 and 9/30/2011 to Vice
18
President Duckett in which you raised several concerns about management
19
actions at UC Davis Medical Center. I understand that these issues are
20
currently being investigated by the UC Davis Compliance Officer, Wendi
21
Delmendo.The Office of the President provides oversight to the ten Campus
22
University of California system, while the Chancellor of each campus has
23
responsibility for the organization and operation of the campus. With the
24
investigation by Ms. Delmendo currently in progress, it would be
25
28 this investigation. We are confident that your serious concerns are being
8
Director Christopher Simon letter.
9 532. UC Senior Counsel Mia Belk disappeared from the University of California
10 landscape two months after she issued her confidential review of Waszczuk’s investigation. Mia
11 Belk was not the only individual who disappeared from the University of California landscape
19 September 13, 2012—The UC Davis Death Squad Preparation for Plaintiff’s Final Departure
from the University of California. (By documents received from UC Davis Public Record Act
20 Office)
21
534. Following the September 12, 2012, University of California Office of the
22
General Counsel’s decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment the UCDHS HR Executive
23
Director Stephen Chilcott sent on September 13, 2012, the information about Plaintiff’s planned
24
employment termination to the UC Davis police and assembled a group of UC Davis
25
representatives (nicknamed in Plaintiff’s documents as the UC Davis Death Squad, due to an ill-
26
crafted provocation by the Defendant on May 31, 2012, to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in
27
the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit.
28
13
536. On September 14, 2012, UC Davis Death Squad Coordinator Hugh
14 Parker’s secretary, Sonia Guerrero-Rodriguez, sent an e-mail invitation for a meeting to other
15 UC Davis Death Squad members with the following subject in the e-mail: “Threat Assessment -
16 J. Waszczuk.” The message read, “Please provide me with the best time and date, from the
17 options below, to discuss the item in subject. I’d like to send out a meeting invitation as soon as
18 possible.” The message was ended with Muriel Strode’s quote “Do not follow where the path
19 may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”
20 537. Sonia Guerrero-Rodriguez sent her message to the following member
21 members of the UC Davis Death Squad: Brent Seifert, the UCDMC Labor Relations Supervisor;
22 UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour; UCDMC HR Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity
23
Manager Cindi Oropeza;UC Davis Health System Counsel David Levine; UC Davis Risk
24
Management Department employee Debra Schmidt; UC Davis Medical Center Emergency
25
Preparedness Coordinator Glynis Foulk; Manager of Workers’ Compensation, Ergonomics, and
26
Disability Hugh Parker, who wanted to see Plaintiff in July 2011 on workers compensation leave
27
and, in May and September 2012, wanted to see Plaintiff disabled in UC Davis Medical Center
28
15 Program; Neil Speth, D.O., the medical director of UCDMC HR Employee Health Services; and
16 Travis Lindsay, the new UCDMC HR labor relation manager who replaced MikeGarcia in May
17 2012.
18 539. The proposed dates for the UC Davis Death Squad’s meeting were
19 September 18, 2012, from 10 to 11 AM; September 20, 2012, from 1 to 2 PM, and September 21,
20 2012, from 9 to 10 AM.
21 540. UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour responded that he was available for the
22 meeting on Tuesday, September 18, 2012. Plaintiff does not know when the meeting took place
23 because 21 pages of e-mail chat between UC Davis Death Squad Members that Plaintiff received
24
from the UC Davis Public Record Act Office were blacked out in same manner as the e-mail chat
25
of this group for the May 31, 2012, provocation to send Plaintiff to the UC Davis Medical Trauma
26
Unit.
27
541. The presence and participation in this group including the UC Davis
28
9 542. Plaintiff, who was subjected to psychological terror by the Defendant, was
10 put under extreme stress after being forced again to leave the premises for the month-and-a-half-
11 long investigatory leave, which was issued and served to Plaintiff on August 16, 2012.
12 543. On September 23, 2012, Plaintiff wrote an open letter to his
13 Department Head, UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles
14 Witcher, entitled
15 A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE LATEST COMPLAINTS UNDER THE PPSM 70 AGAINST
16
STEVE McGRATH AND PATRICK PUTNEY. (OPEN LETTER).
17
Plaintiff wrote the letter just two days before Witcher was ordered by HR Executive Director
18
Stephen Chilcott to sign the Notice to Intent to Dismiss (Plaintiff) for Serious Misconduct.
19
544. Aside from Plaintiff’s latest complaints about coworkers, made under UC Davis
20
Policy Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM70, the, Plaintiff elaborated about the previous
21
Department Head, Tony Moddessette, who was forced to leave in 2006 and was replaced by
22
Charles Witcher. This happened shortly before Plaintiff and his coworker William Buckans were
23
subject to the vicious attack and persecution orchestrated by the Defendant, which resulted in
24
Plaintiff’s suspension in March 2007 and his abrupt removal from the UC Davis Medical Center
25
26 Cogeneration Power Plant (“Central Plant”), where Plaintiff had been employed since June 1999.
27 Plaintiff’s suspension and reassignment in March 2007 was affirmed by Charles Witcher, who
28 was then the interim manager of the Plant Operation and Maintenance Department. While
15 and Maintenance Department. At the time, there were problems within the
17 issues.
18 Moddessette was “rough and tough” and sometimes was unpleasant, but he did
19 not ever hesitate to come to the Central Plant, sit at the center of the control
20 room, and have an open discussion about the problems within in the plant.
21 Tony Moddessette did not hesitate to tell me, “Jerry, I don’t give a f...k what
22 you say,” but he would listen and fix the problems.
23 Tony Moddessette had no problem reversing the Plant Manager’s unjustified
24
decision to issue a written warning to one of the Central Plant operators. He
25
also did not hesitate to tell Jeff Lancaster that he was not hired to wash his
26
personal cars on company time.
27
Tony Moddessette did not hesitate to remove Tom Kavanaugh from his Central
28
15 hospital/campus and was not a place to illegally park his personal vehicle,
17 Unlike Tony Moddessette, Charles Witcher never told HVAC Shop Supervisor
18 Dorin Daniliuc that he had to work 8 hours every day, that company time
19 should not be used to run a private business, or that he should not bring his
20 personal auto mechanics in and use the UCDMC shop for his private HVAC
21 business.
22 Unlike Tony Moddessette, Charles Witcher immediately began to torment
23 others after taking over the department from Tony Moddessette in 2006. Six
24
years later, Witcher’s persecution continues.
25
The last six years speak for themselves. Those who have engaged in this
26
persecution must love to watch other people suffer and live in misery.
27
THE COMPLAINTS
28
16 Dan James and Tony Moddessette were Vietnam War veterans. I have a lot of
17 respect for their sacrifices and their choice to risk their lives for the greatest
18 country on Earth.
19 Apparently Steve McGrath and Mike Lewis did not think or did not care that
20 harassing, bullying, and constantly retaliating against William for years in an
21 effort to make him quit his job would bring Dan James back into the mess that
22 they have created and participated since 2006.
23 You probably don’t know that William Buckans and Rick Tunello had a very
24
good relationship with Dan James because of their common life experiences.
25
However Dan James was quickly overpowered by the Jackson clique, and he
26
turned on Rick and William because the Jackson clique hated them. You
27
probably don’t know that William Buckans had a very good relationship with
28
15 I would like to mention that, not so long ago, Hugh Parker from HR sent me an
16 email and wrote that he is not interested in labor relations issues. Mr. Parker
18 is strictly related to him. He will soon be dealing again with the labor relations
18 as I can with the limited resources I have after being banned and isolated from
24
546. As Plaintiff anticipated that something would happen to him during the
25
one-and-a-half month investigatory leave and the lack of response from HR Labor Relations
26
Supervisor Brent Seifert’s investigation, on September 26, 2012, Plaintiff received by overnight
27
mail the Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct dated September 25, 2012. It was
28
8 Maintenance. The reason for this action is your failure to adhere to UC Davis
10 1616, Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and the Principles of
11 Community.
12
On or about April 27, 2012, you sent an e-mail to Danesha Nichols,
13
UCDHS Investigations Coordinator stating your disagreement with an
14
investigation report she had issued dated February 9, 2012. The report found
15
that it was more likely than not that you had violated UCDHS Policy 1616
16
(Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace) ("1616"), UC Davis Policy
17
21 13, 2012, informing you that I intended to suspend you without pay for ten
22 days. Attached to your April 27, 2012 e-mail was a video slideshow entitled
23 "Welcome to Romania". Based on the subject matter and content of the
24 communication, an investigation was requested to determine if the
25 communication violated University policies and procedures. During this time
26 you were placed on investigatory leave-.
27
Brent Seifert, Employee and Labor Relations Supervisor and Cindy Oropeza,
28
8 language (see attached e-mails). The following are excerpts from these e-mail
9 communications:
10
May 10, 2012 - "Somebody will give this Pollack bad evaluation and fire him
11
or will send Gestapo on his Ass"
12
13 June 6, 2012 - "because you will go straight to Hell for what you have done to
21
environment culture in the HVAC shop is closely akin to the culture of Eastern
25
Mr. Seifert and Ms. Oropeza concluded their investigation and issued a report
26
dated September 20, 2012, which is attached to this Notice. The investigation
27
report substantiated that you sent disruptive and intimidating e-mail
28
8 expectations that you abide by all UC policies and procedures, show respect
9 and remain professional at all times in the workplace, and follow the direct
10 orders given to you by a supervisor. After the Skelly process was completed
11 you were issued a Letter of Suspension on May 11, 2012 outlining the
12 expectations noted above. Additionally, you were provided the pertinent text
13 from UCDHS policy 1616 and UC Davis P&P Chapter 380-15 as part of the
14 investigation report issued by Ms. Nichols, and attached to the Letter of Intent
15 to Suspend.
16
Despite my repeated efforts to address your inappropriate and discriminatory
17
20 classifications. Your failure to follow direct orders and the expectations set for
21 you is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Your actions imply that you
22 believe you are above the rules and I cannot subject staff and your co-workers
23 to your continued discriminatory comments. Your blatant disregard for the
24 policies and procedures of this University, combined with your failure to
25 follow directives has left me with no alternative but to dismiss you from
26 University employment.You have the right to respond to this notice of intent to
27
dismiss for Serious Misconduct either orally or in writing. Your response must
28
8
Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert and let him know that Plaintiff was aware that May 31, 2012,
9 was the date of the maliciously and ill-crafted provocation by the Defendant, somebody had the
10 idea to lure Plaintiff to the premises and hand Plaintiff the Notice of Intent to Dismiss with such
11 outrageous and sickening accusations in an attempt to provoke Plaintiff and expose him to the
15
548. Instead of luring Plaintiff to the premises, the UC Davis Death Squad decided that
16
the UC Davis Police would issue a poster bearing Plaintiff’s photo and the verbiage “PERSON
17
NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY,” which was similar to the “FBI’s Most Wanted”
18
signage.
19
21
“Jaroslaw Waszczuk is currently on administrative leave from
22
employment with the UC Davis Med Center. Mr. Waszczuk is not
23
authorized to be on UC Davis property without a legal reason or a medical
24
emergency.
25
26 Mr. Waszczuk is described as an older white male with brown and gray
5
550. The UC Davis Police poster that said “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED
6
ON PROPERTY” and included Plaintiff’s photo and description was distributed around the UC
7
Davis Medical Center Campus and most likely was sent to managers and UC Davis employees
8
by electronic mail. UC Davis Police did not inform Plaintiff that he was not authorized on UC
9
Davis premises, and Plaintiff did not know what UC Davis Police would do if Plaintiff
10
12 551. Plaintiff spent over one year on investigatory leave, under which he was
13 prohibited from being on the UC Davis premises, and Plaintiff never intended to go uninvited to
14 UC Davis Medical Center when he was on investigatory leave. Plaintiff did not understand why
15 Davis Public Record Act office for documents related to another of the Defendant’ acts of
16 psychological terror, which Plaintiff had been subjected to for over one year.
17
19
20 558. The Defendant war-like hysteria and propaganda did not end with
21 placing the “Persona Non Grata” poster complete with Plaintiff’s photo and description around
22 UC Davis Medical Center.
23 559. On September 26, 2012, the UC Davis Health System HR Executive
24
Director Stephen Chilcott, who directly communicated the operation to the UC Office of the
25
President, sent an e-mail entitled “Confidential – Jerry Waszczuk (Plaintiff)” to the HR Labor
26
Relations Department Manager Travis Lindsey to ask the UC Davis Police department to offer to
27
speak to any of the supervisors or employees of the Plant Operation and Maintenance
28
15 562. UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour was reassigned from the UC Davis
16 Campus to the UC Davis Medical Center, which represented an enormous demotion and
17 involved a decrease to his salary, after the November 18, 2011, pepper spray attack against
18 protesting students on the UC Davis Campus. Documents show that Lt. James Barbour got
19 sucked into the action against Plaintiff by the “UC Davis Death Squad,” most likely not knowing
20 what the case was about. Apparently, he was promised that his salary would be restored to its
21 normal level. By reading the Public Record Acts documents, one can see that Lt Barbour was
22 dedicated to attacking Plaintiff in 2012 by any means.
23 September 26, 2012 – The Confidential Investigation Report
24
563. On September 26, 2012, Plaintiff received the Confidential Investigation
25
26 Report from the Defendant; it was attached to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious
27 Misconduct.
28
8
Report and December 2011 and February 2012 Danesha Nichol’s reports. The only difference
9 was that Romanians were used in the reports instead of Jews to make Plaintiff look like a KKK
12 the report, responded to Cindi Oropeza and Brent Seifert with an open letter dated September 28,
13 2012.
14 567. In addition to the open letter response, Plaintiff sent an inquiry to the UC
15 Davis Public Record Act office for all documents related to the Defendant’ Notice of Intent to
16 Terminate Plaintiff.
17 OCTOBER 2012
18
19
October 1, 2012—Open Letter to the UC Davis Police Chief
20
21
568. Plaintiff was outraged by the UC Davis Police Department’s humiliating and
22
disparaging “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED ON THE PROPERTY” poster, which was
23
issued and distributed around UC Davis campus on September 26, 2012.
24
569. On October 1, 2012, Plaintiff wrote an open letter to new UC Davis Police Chief
25
Matt Carmichael, who replaced Annette Spicuzza and to Chancellor Katehi, who ordered the
26
firing of his colleague, Lt. John Pike, in August 2012.
27
28 570. In September 2011, Plaintiff asked a UC Davis Police captain Joyce Souza for
15 few more current photos of myself. My photo on the UC Davis Police Warrant
16 is outdated and was taken probably 10 years ago, prior to my 2006 open heart
17 surgery and left eye surgery. HR has a newer photo, which was taken when I
19 development engineer.
20 I have no doubt that the UC Davis Police bulletin with my outdated photo was
21 issued to humiliate me, as it sounds like an arrest warrant. This is an
22 outrageous abuse of authority by the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation
23 and Maintenance Department (UCDMC PO&M), the HR Department and the
24
UC Davis Police Department. Such management actions were taken to cause
25
Waszczuk severe emotional distress, and they were done with a willful and
26
conscious disregard of both the law and UC policies.
27
The conduct of UCDMC management and the UC Davis Police Department
28
15 573. The Defendant have not mentioned in any previous document this
17 humiliated Plaintiff.
16 stability. This is an additional reason to provide me with the time extension for
18 I believe that you are aware that I am already on nine different prescription
19 medicines.
20 I am assuming that you have read my last open letter to Mrs. Oropeza and that
21 you or Brent Seifert will question Dorin Daniliuc about his (and others’) lies,
22 which were inserted into the report.
23
24
Sincerely,
25
Jerry “
26
27
576. In addition to Plaintiff’s response to Charles Witcher’s extension, on October 3,
28
13 October 1, 2012
14
RE: Workers’ Compensation Stress/Psychiatric related claim
15
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
16
17 In an e-mail we received dated 10/01/2012 you indicate that you have suffered
18 “severe emotional distress” from your employment at the UC Davis Health
19
System. As such, if you wish to pursue a psychiatric injury claim, related
20
to your employment at UC Davis Health System, please fill out the
21
enclosed DWC-1 Form and return to our office at:
22
24
Workers’ Compensation Dept.
25
26
27 Sincerely,
28 Michael Tyler
15 582. On May 30, 2012, Hugh Parker removed Plaintiff from stress management
16 class instead of encouraging Plaintiff to attend such classes, despite knowing what Plaintiff was
18 583. On May 30, 2012, Plaintiff did not know that Hugh Parker was a
19 coordinator for the Defendant’ specially assembled group of UC Davis employees, which
20 Plaintiff nicknamed the “UC Davis Death Squad” in the officially generated document
21 584. On May 31, 2012, and in September 2012, Hugh Parker (as conductor of
22 the aforementioned group) coordinated a malicious but unsuccessful provocation involving UC
23 Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael and Lt. James Barbour to ambush and kill Plaintiff or
24
otherwise end his employment at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11.
25
585. Plaintiff rejected the Defendant’ offer to file a false workers’
26
compensation claim. Apparently the Defendant attempted to escape enormous legal liability
27
using frequent workers’ compensation claims to further attack and distract Plaintiff from the real
28
6
586. One month after the Notice of Intent to Terminate was issued, on October 22, 2012,
7
Plaintiff received an interesting letter from HR Consultant Gina Harwood, who replaced Jill Noel
8
Vandviver on June 22, 2012. Gina Harwood’s letter stated:
9
Re: Service as PPSM Complaint Representative
10
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
11 This letter is to inform you that due to the completion of the investigation, you
12 are no longer on investigatory leave. Your leave status has changed to
13 administrative leave with pay while the personnel action is pending.
14 Due to the change in your status, you will be permitted to serve as the
15 representative in complaint meetings for Kenneth Diede, William Buckans
16 and Dereck Cole. The following complaints will be removed from abeyance
15 Davis Police Department issued and distributed the poster with Plaintiff’s photo and
17 589. In a letter to Gina Harwood dated October 17, 2012, Plaintiff asked Gina
18 Harwood specific questions that she, as the Defendant’ representative, failed to answer in her
15 September 26, 2012. Gina Harwood knew that Plaintiff had, in February 2009, signed the
16 Settlement-Agreement with the Regents of the University of California. Gina Harwood and other
17 perpetrators knew that the UC Davis Police poster was an indefensible breach of the Settlement-
18 Agreement signed by the Defendant and Plaintiff. The Defendant’ poster went beyond
19 disparaging Plaintiff. It was an act of malice beyond of human decency aimed at Plaintiff, and it
20 alone can be the subject of litigation against the Defendant.
21 October 30, 2012-The UC Davis Medical Center HVAC Shop Supervisors Patrick Putney and
Dorin Daniluc’s Attempt to Provoke Dereck Cole for Physical Confrontation
22
23
592. Just two days after Plaintiff wrote a letter to Director Boyd about UC Davis
24
management’s despicable retaliation and vendetta against HVAC shop technician Dereck Cole
25
26 on October 30, 2012, two of Dereck Cole’s supervisors, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc,
27 approached him in the hospital cafeteria during his break and verbally assaulted him in front of a
28 surveillance camera with clear intention to provoke him into physical confrontation and end
16 Respectfully,
17 Dereck
18 595. After meeting with Lindsey, Dereck Cole was removed from the HVAC shop and
19 reassigned to the preventive maintenance shop. The surveillance footage from the hospital
20 cafeteria should be checked, and appropriate disciplinary action should be taken against Patrick
21 Putney and Dorin Daniliuc. Dereck Cole was a victim of two UC Davis medical supervisors
22 supported by Department Head Charles Witcher, HR Labor Relations staff, corrupt UC Davis
23 Chief of Police Matt Carmichael, and his lieutenant James Barbour. If Dereck Cole had called
24
UC Davis police right after incident in the cafeteria, then he would most likely be accused and
25
investigated instead of Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc.
26
597. Plaintiff represented Dereck Cole in his complaints against these two supervisors
27
in a retaliation complaint pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM 70. Right after the confrontation in
28
8
NOVEMBER 2012
9
November 2, 2012 – Public Record Act Request
10
11
599. On November 2, 2012, Plaintiff received a response from the UC Davis Public
12
Record Act (PRA) office to his request for PRA documents related to the Defendant’s Notice
13
Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct dated September 25, 2012.
14
15 600. Plaintiff briefly reviewed the received PRA documents and several pages of e-
16 mail correspondence dated June 1, 2012, which were sent by the UC Davis Health System
18 David Levine, Debra Schmidt, Marjorie Trogodon Shock, Neil Speth, Carol Kirshnit, Karen
19 Kouretas, Cindy Oropeza, Glynis Foulk, James Barbour, and Travis Lindsay.
20 601. On the first page of the e-mail with subject “Jaroslaw ‘Jerry’ Waszczuk –PO&M
21 employee,” Hugh Parker wrote:
22
23 “Mr. Waszczuk returned to work yesterday from his suspension and was
placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At issue are writings sent by
24 Mr. Waszczuk while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk did not display any anger when
told he was being place on investigatory leave.”
25
26 602. After Plaintiff read Hugh Parker’s e-mail message, checked Hugh Parker’s
27 recipients, and found out who these people were, Plaintiff got goosebumps realizing that this e-
28
7
604. Plaintiff combined Karen Kouretas’s name with Neil Speth, James
8
Barbour, Glynis Foulk, and David Levine with what happened to Plaintiff on May 30, 2012 and
9
what Plaintiff wrote in his letter dated September 9, 2012 to Brent Seifert and the UC Davis
10
Police. On September 26, 2012, a defaming “Persona Non Grata” poster with Plaintiff’s photo
11
and description surfaced. Plaintiff had no any doubt that May 31, 2012 was a maliciously crafted
12
provocation to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit
13
No. # 11.
14
15 605. Plaintiff already covered this subject in the Statements of Facts, June
16 2012 chapter.
17
19
28
7 August 2, 2011, with exceptions of the few hours to interview with ‘Danesha
9 Garcia in February 2012, and maybe 2 hours during the interview with Brent
10 Seifert on May 31, 2012. Total reimbursement should equal approx., $768.00;
18 have receipts for the disks. I don’t, but I need my HDs back or need to be
19 reimbursed approx.$150.00.
20 Sincerely,
21 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
22
607. The Defendant never reimbursed Plaintiff for the parking permit or the
23
two hard drives.
24
November 12, 2012- The Brief for Oral Response Submitted by Plaintiff to Assigned Skelly
25 Reviewer. UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson
26
6 Dated September 25, 2012 by “The UC Davis Medical Center ‘HR Death
7 Squad’”
8
Dear Vice Chancellor Tollefson:
9
18 It clearly appears from the bulk of the e-mail correspondence that certain
19 individuals from the UCDMC HR department, led by HR Executive Director
20 Stephen Chilcott, new Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsay, Cindy
21 Oropeza, and others, were planning to carry out their malicious and well-
22 crafted, evil conspiracy plot to provoke me and kill or send me to the UCDMC
23
Trauma Unit with severe blunt or penetrating injury on May 31, 2012. From
24
now on, I will call them the “HR Death Squad.” The explanation for the name
25
given to these individuals is located in the brief.
26
27 The assigned executor to carry out the plot to send me to my death or send me
28 to the UCDMC trauma unit to meet Karen Kouretas was the UC Police Lt.
10 I am hoping that eventually the FBI and district attorney will step in and break
18 609. The letter to Allen Tollefson was the first time Plaintiff nicknamed the assembled
19 Defendant group “HR Death Squad,” which in criminally minded, unsuccessful provocation
20 attempted to end Plaintiff’s employment at UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11. Later,
21 Plaintiff changed the nickname from “HR Death Squad” to the “UC Davis Death Squad” due to
22 the involvement of the UC Davis police in the ill-planned assaults on Plaintiff.
23 610. On November 13, 2012, Skelly Reviewer Allen Tollefson responded to Plaintiff’s
24
letter and scheduled the meeting with Plaintiff on November 16, 2012 on the UC Davis campus.
25
611. On November 16, 2012, Plaintiff attended the meeting with assigned Skelly
26
Reviewer and UC Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson to discuss Plaintiff’s unwarranted
27
and without-valid-cause employment termination.
28
15 back. Plaintiff was unaware on November 16, 2012 and a long time after the meeting that
16 Plaintiff’s fate was already decided a long time before the meeting with Allen Tollefson’ by the
17 Regents of the University of California the UC Office of the President,(UCOP) and the UC
18 Office of the General Counsel for a completely different reason. Plaintiff thought he was being
19 hunted down like an animal or subhuman by the UC Davis administration’s designated thugs.
20 614. On November 18, 2012, Plaintiff sent to Skelly Reviewer Allen Tollefson the
21 meeting summary letter entitled “Our Meeting on November 16, 2012. -The Notice Intent to
22 Dismiss Dated September 25, 2012 BY “The UC Davis Medical Center “’HR Death
23 Squad.’”
24 (Note: to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s letter to Allen
Tollefson was corrected by a professional proofreader.)
25
Re: Our Meeting on November 16, 2012.
26
The Notice of Intent to Dismiss dated September 25, 2012.
27
Dear Vice Chancellor Tollefson:
28
16 25, 2012. The notice not say too much besides some quotes taken out of
17 context from my letters that I wrote due to the vicious and unscrupulous
18 war against me, which has lasted over one year and is still going.
19
The very powerful forces from the UCDMC Human Resources Department
20
and the UC Davis campus, as well as the involvement of the director of the
21
investigation sent from the UC Office of the President against me in May
22
2012, make me believe that the reason or reasons to harm me were not
23
my reporting of Patrick Putney’s chickens, roosters, goats, sheep and
24
other animals for sale in the UCDMC HVAC shop. I do not believe
25
27 employer out of the parking fee for four years by hiding his car inside
7 writing in the letter dated March 13, 2011, referring to the central plant
8 operator Todd Georlich’s tragic suicide that took place in December 2010
9 as well as the secret and fraudulent 12% pay raise the central plant
11
The other reason that I was thinking it could be is the child pornography
12
issue reported in August 2011 by my coworker Kenny Diede in his
13
2010/2011 employee evaluation complaint under the PPSM 70. The
14
complaint is still unresolved. Kenny Diede became a subject of retaliation
15
by Patrick Putney with Charles Witcher’s support and approval. I am
16
representing Kenny with his complaints under PPSM70. It is very bizarre
17
19 Nichols in her investigation report, but the graphic video clip about the
9
Although stress and anger affect everyone, anger can be problematic if people
10
use it to gain control and express it unprofessionally.”
11
12 I received information about the class on May 23, 2012, from my former
13 central plant coworker William Buckans, who on the same day received a letter
19 I showed up to class on time with my two colleagues. Before the class had
20 begun, Hugh Parker, with the help of Licensed Clinical Social Worker Mrs.
21 Marjorie Trogdon Shock, kicked me out of the class.
22
It was quite a surprise to me because I was constantly being accused that I
23
24
am angry, hostile etc. Such a class would be appropriate for a person who
26
If I knew that Mr. Hugh Parker, along with Mrs. Trogdon Shock and the
27
other members of the “HR Death Squad,” had planned to send Jerry to the
28
8
“Mr. Waszczuk returned to work yesterday from his suspension and was
9 placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At issue are writings sent by
Mr. Waszczuk while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk did not display any anger when
10 told he was being place on investigatory leave.
11
Hugh R. Parker, Manager”
12
13
Could you imagine what would or could have happened if Mr. Parker,
14
along with Mrs. Shock, would not have “shocked” me and did not kick me
15
16
out from the “Class on Stress Management” on May 30, 2012?
28
19 The interviews did not happen until October 10, 2012 after I sent the letter
20 to the members of UC Davis Ethics and Compliance Risk Committee.
21
In addition to, I am forwarding to you an e-mail which I sent l to UC Davis
22
24 Nichols’ false accusations against me, which alleged that I am violent and
26 kind of phony report to the police and that Danesha Nichols was in
9 minds by believing that they could set me up and make me seem violent
18 fraud.
19 It seems to me that Mr. Chilcott was trying to train his crew on how to deal
20
with “rebellious” workers, knowing that I would not give up so quickly, and he
21
was trying to find out how long I would resist the attacks and his blitzkrieg.
22
23 Maybe it was a bit of everything and at some point got so out of control and
24 had so many people involved for no reason; now, somebody must pay the cost
9 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
10 Enclosed:
15 mail mailing list; Letter dated September 9, 2012 to Brent Seifert with
16 request for investigation status update. In that letter, on the pages 2 and
19 many people from the HR department, UCDPD police, trauma unit, and
20 UCDMC counsel until Waszczuk received documents under the Public
21 Record Act Provision in October 2012; Letter dated September 23, 2012
22 (Two days before the notice intent to terminate issued by Charles
23 Witcher on September 25, 2012 followed by the “Most Unwanted” Lt.
24
James Barbour’s warrant); October 4, 2012 e-mail from Michael Tyler as
25
an acknowledgment that I decline the offer for the workers-compensation
26
claim. I don’t file fraudulent claims.
27
CC: To Whom It May Concern
28
15 was replaced by Gina Harwood. Plaintiff was searching for clue as to what triggered the
16 Defendant’ brutal and merciless action against Plaintiff. In his letter to Jill Noel Vandeviver,
17 Plaintiff wrote:
(Note: to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s e-mail to Jill Noel
18 Vandeviver was corrected by a professional proofreader.)
19
Re: Brief for Oral Response -Notice Intent to Dismiss. - UCDMC “HR Death
20
Squad”
21
Good Morning Ms. Vandeviver:
22
I am writing a few words to you because it appears that my employer, UC
23
Davis Medical Center made an attempt to frame me, provoke me, and kill me
24
25 or send me to the trauma unit in bad shape in May of 2012. Somehow, it did
26 not work out for the UCDMC “HR Death Squad.” I perfectly described the
28 2012, not knowing anything about it until I got a PRA request almost one
15 617. In November 2012, Jill Noel Vandeviver worked for the State of
17
18 DECEMBER 2012
9 The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I am dismissing you from your
11 at UC Davis Health System effective December 7, 2012. The reason for this
28 with a benefits counselor to determine the effect of this action on your benefits.
7
619. The Skelly Reviewer , UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen
8 Tollefson’s decision dated December 3, 2012 and Charles Witcher’s Letter of Termination were
10 performance review (evaluations) were mentioned. Neither decision mentioned the February
11 2009 Settlement-Agreement Plaintiff signed with the regents of the University of California,
12 which guaranteed Plaintiff a job with the University as the Associate Development Engineer.
13
“December 3, 2012
14 Travis Lindsey
Manager
15 Employee & Labor Relations
University of California, Davis, Health System
16
Re: Letter of Intent to Dismiss--Jaroslaw Waszczuk
17
27
actions were taken out of context and that he has the right to voice his opinion
28 about the wrong doings of the Department. Mr. Waszczuk has a very negative
16
“In Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 194, the California
17 Supreme Court ruled that:
18
‘as part of constitutionally guaranteed due process, public employees are
19 entitled to certain procedural safeguards before discipline, which is
sufficiently severe to constitute a deprivation of a liberty or property right is
20 imposed on them. The constitutionally protected liberty interests requiring
Skelly protections arise whenever the allegations against an employee are
21 sufficiently onerous to seriously impact the employee’s ability to find future
work in his/her chosen career.’”
22
23
621. Skelly Reviewer Allan Tollefson held a meeting with UCDHS HR Labor
24
Relation Manager Travis Lindsey on September 24, 2012 and was coached on what decision
25
was expected from him in Plaintiff’s case.
26
622. Just before Plaintiff’s loss of employment, Plaintiff lost his house on a short sale
27
28
and rented a house so as not to deal with a mortgage company during his unemployment.
3 623. On December 18, 2012, Plaintiff sent an e-mail inquiry to USDHS HR Labor
4 Relation Consultant Gina Harwood for clearance to enter the HR building on December 20,
5
2012 to take care of his remaining benefits upon termination of employment:
6
Subject: Meeting with Janette Manuel in the Ticon III Bldg. on 12/20/2012 at 9:00
7
Hi Gina:
8
Would you please provide me clearance with UCDPD to go to Ticon III
9
Bldg. on 12/20/2012 at 9:00 a.m. for a meeting with Janette Manuel?It
10
came to my attention that the UCDPD “Most Unwanted” police warrant
11
with my photos is still hanging in the HVAC shop and probably in other
12
UCDMC places. I don’t want be shot by in the back by Lt. James
13
Barbour’s forces for entering the Ticon III Bldg. to discuss my benefits
14
17 Jerry
28
7 Agreement signed with Plaintiff and in disregard of Plaintiff’s outstanding working record ,
8 slandered and defamed Plaintiff with the Employment Development Department, thus causing
10 627. By the reckless, despicable and inhumane Defendant’ continuous attack aimed at
11 Plaintiff, the Defendant caused Plaintiff additional enormous stress, anxiety and financial harm
12 in the period when Plaintiff was not eligible yet for earlier Social Security Benefits and was
13 awaiting to cash out his University Retirement money and transfer it to an IRA account.
14 628. Plaintiff’s unemployment insurance benefits case is pending in the State of
15 California Court of Appeal 3rd Appellate District, Case Caption Waszczuk v. California
16
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board No. C079254, the County of Sacramento Superior
17
Court Case No. 34201380001699CUWMGDS.
18
JANUARY 2013
19
20 January 3, 2013- Plaintiff’s Step I Complaint Pursuant to the UC Davis Complaint Resolution
Policy PPSM 70.
21
22 629. On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Step I Complaint pursuant to the UC Davis
23 Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70. The Step I complaint was the initial appeal from the
24 Defendant’ decision terminating Plaintiff’s employment on December 7, 2012.
25 630. The termination letter stated that Plaintiff has rights to request review of the
26 Defendant’ employment action under Personnel Policies for Staff Members 70 - Complaint
27
Resolution.
28
15 634. Plaintiff’s mind was and still is constantly and unstoppably occupied by the
16 Defendant’ criminally minded May 31, 2012 provocation. Undoubtedly it was the Defendant’
17 goal to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11.
18 Plaintiff is still obsessively thinking about and can’t get it out of his mind because the Defendant
19 never in one word in any document address their own disgraceful, despicable and criminally
20 minded action against their own employee, who provided service for the Defendant for 13 years
21 and almost ended his employment in death.
22 635. Plaintiff expressed and emphasized his feelings about the Defendant’ way to
23 resolve the labor dispute with Plaintiff in the cover letter to the Step I Complaint Plaintiff sent to
24
UCDHS HR Labor Relation Consultant Gina Harwood on January 2, 2013.
25
636. Together with a cover letter, Plaintiff sent to Gina Harwood a copy of the
26
February 2009 Settlement–Agreement, the copy of Plaintiff’s Brief for Oral Arguments sent by
27
Plaintiff to Skelly Reviewer, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson, on
28
7
Re: The Letter of Termination Dated December 5, 2012- Request
8 for Review under PPSM 70.
10
The Letter of Termination issued by Mr. Witcher states:
11
“You have the right to request review of this action under Personnel Policies
12
for Staff Members 70 - Complaint Resolution. If you wish to request review of
13
this action, you must do so in writing, using the appropriate complaint form. A
14
written request must be received in the UCDHS Employee & Labor Relations
15
office no later than thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this letter.”
16
I did not have any intention to follow the Letter of Termination advice and file
17
a request for review with the HR Labor Relation Office, which has caused the
18
termination of my employment with University of California after 13 years of
19
20 service.
21 I was sure that filing a request for review under PPSM 70 would be
23 page brief for the Oral Response to The Notice Intent to Dismiss dated
17 Three of the cases that I reviewed caught my attention, and this is why I have
18 decided to file a request for review under the PPSM 70. I have to be certain
19 that I would not be precluded to file the wrongful termination lawsuit or else I
20 will be defeated like the two Plaintiffs in Janet Campbell v. Regents Of The
21 University of California S113275; Ct.App.1/1 A097560; San Francisco Super.
22 CT. No. 312736 and Patricia M. Palmer v. Regents Of The University of
23 California 2nd App. Div.7 B154868; Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.BC
24
187036.
25
The third case is the newest wrongful termination lawsuit, which is interesting
26
because of the astronomical jury verdict for Plaintiff. The Ani Chopourian v.
27
Catholic Healthcare West wrongful termination case in Federal Court included
28
16 The date of May 31, 2012 constantly occupies my mind with unanswered
19 Would I have survived or would have been disabled for the rest of my life if I
20 survived? If I was taken to the UCD Trauma Unit, would my IV be filled with
21 toxic doses of drugs that could have contraindicated the medicines I am
22 currently taking, since the UCD wouldn’t know my medical history? Would I
23 become part of a deadly and illegal medical experiment? Ani Chopourian is
24
not asking herself these questions. I do not wish anybody to have his/her mind
25
occupied by such trauma that the UC Davis Medical Center Human Resources
26
Department caused me. “Sometimes I think that I should have never asked for
27
the documents that I received under the Public Record Act because of how
28
15 and human and employee rights; they are also abusing the power given to them
16 by the UC System
18 in the Letter of Suspension. The May 31, 2012 death trap, the Notice Intent to
15 and planned deadly assault on Waszczuk May 31, 2012. Without a doubt, it
19 Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
20
CC: UC President Mark Yudof, UC Regents, UC Davis Chancellor Lynda Katehi,
21 and UC Davis Vice Chancellor Ralph Hextler.
22
23
January 3, 2013 –Addendum to the Wrongful Termination Complaint PPSM 70 Step I Appeal
24
638. In the Step I Complaint and the addendum to the complaint, Plaintiff
25
alleged as follows.
26
16 government or law enforcement agency; Labor Code Section 1102.5 and Right
17 of state employees to blow whistle Gov. Code Sections 10543.
18 ADDENDUM TO THE WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT
19 De sc r i be y o ur c o m p la i n t i n de ta i l , i nc l u d i ng t he fo l lo w i ng
fiv e po i n ts . Atta c h a d di tio na l s he e t s if ne e de d .
20
3. How did the management act violate policy or procedure?
21
23 violation of law and is pure and undisputable retaliation against Waszczuk for
8 The UCDMC management by firing Waszczuk from his job breached and
9
violated the 2009 Settlement-Agreement between Waszczuk and the Regents
10
of the UC. As early as of July 2011. Waszczuk submitted two letters of
11
complaint to the UC Davis campus Chief Counsel Mr. Steven A. Drown and
12
asked him to advise violators of the signed Settlement-Agreement to stop
13
assaulting Waszczuk and to restore order in Waszczuk’ workplace. The letters
14
dated July 17 and 24, 2011 are self-explanatory, and no reason exists to
15
elaborate further about my employment malice in relation to the settlement –
16
agreement. It is only appropriate to mention that Mr. Drown as the UC Davis
17
chief counsel signed the mentioned agreement on behalf of the UC Regents.
18
19 Mr. Drown was obligated to act to prevent further violation of the agreement,
21 Police’s assaulting Waszczuk with a deadly weapon on May 31, 2012, as well
28 for our employees. Supervisors are always expected to have "just cause" when
15 I will leave to my attorney the further interpretation of the UCDHS just cause,
16 to lead.
17 I am so traumatized when I think about the UCDMC trauma unit, which was
19 However, today I am less surprised about Mr. Chillcot’s war game, after the
20 newspapers and television (TV) news have announced that under the
21 supervision of humanitarian off the Year, Mrs. Claire Pomeroy and UCDMC
22 CEO Mrs. Ann Madden Rice, the UCDMC created an oasis for neurosurgeons
23 whose activities were closely akin to Dr. Mengele’s from the Auschwitz Death
24
Camp—characterized by ill-minded illegal medical experiments. The only
25
difference was that Dr. Mengele was declared a war criminal and sentenced to
26
death in absentia. The two UCDMC “Mengeles” were fired from their jobs,
27
and Mrs. Pomeroy resigned from her position under false pretenses. Mrs. Rice
28
17 I am not sure what more should I write in this final complaint under PPSM 70.
18 I am so traumatized and stressed out, but thanks to God, I escaped the May 31,
15 investigator has ignored and covered up the entire issue in her report.
18 Waszczuk believes that the father of the convicted child pornography felon
19 was promised to have Mr. Waszczuk’s job and position a long time before
20 April 2011. This was yet another reason to retaliate against and harass
21 Waszczuk as well as to later terminate his employment.
22 6. Resolution Requested
23
24
Waszczuk is requesting in good faith the following resolution to end the
25
conflict without further costly litigations.
26
After receiving and reviewing my request/complaint, the UC immediately
27
shall restore my employment in the spirit of the signed 2009 Settlement-
28
21 January 19, 2013- UC Davis PPSM Step II Decisions in the unwarranted Letters of
Expectation Plaintiff’s coworkers William Buckans, Kenny Diede and Dereck Cole were
22 attacked by UC Davis Management in May and August 2012.
23 640. On or around January 19, Plaintiff received from UCDHS HR Labor
24 Relation the Step II Appeal- decisions for the complaints Plaintiff filed on his three coworkers,
25 Kenneth Diede, William Buckans and Dereck Cole were served in May and August 2012.
26 Plaintiff provided representation for the mentioned coworkers pursuant to UC Davis Compliant
27 Resolution Policy PPSM 70.
28
15 violation of law, for which disclosure would have more serious consequences.
16 February 2013
17
26 complaint. The complaint alleges that your dismissal from employment was a
27 violation of University policy and did not follow the just cause standard. The
16
645. The actual three-page Step I Appeal Review was signed by USDHS
17
18 Manager of Facilities Design and Construction Thomas Rush, whom Plaintiff never heard of or
19 met. Normally Step I Appeal is reviewed by the Department Head, which was Charles Witcher,
20 who signed the termination letter. In such a situation, HR, by writing the review, had to insert a
22 646. Thomas Rush was a subordinate and colleague of the USDHS Facilities
23 Design and Construction Executive Director Mike Boyd, who in July 2011 also became Director
24 for the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and became the
25 direct superior of Charles Witcher and indirectly Plaintiff superior. It was no coincidence that
26 Thomas Rush’s name was selected for Step I review. It is the second time Mike Boyd’s
27
subordinate was assigned to review Plaintiff’s appeal. First was Michael Pansious in May 2012,
28
15 attorney. The Thomas Rush decision is even worth to be pasted into this amended complaint.
16
18
19 648. On February 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Step II Appeal from the December 7, 2012
20 Employment Termination Pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 asking $10,000,000 for the
21 unthinkable psychological tortures that Plaintiff experienced from the Defendant in one year and
22 a half of inhumane prosecution and attempts to provoke and kill Plaintiff. In his 19 –page
23 appeal , Plaintiff just vented out his stress and anger knowing that any appeal will not do Plaintiff
24
any good after the Defendant attempted to provoke and kill Plaintiff and UC Davis Police issued
25
and distributed around UC Davis Campuses the “Most Unwanted Persona Non Grata” poster
26
with Plaintiff’s photo and description on it.
27
649. In conclusion of the Step II Appeal request, Plaintiff wrote:
28
7
MARCH 2015
8
9
March 7, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference Complaint with UC
10
Davis Vice Chancellor and Provost Office
11
13 Interference Complaint with the UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s Office due to Plaintiff’s protected
14 activities by the GOVERNMENT CODESECTION 8547-8547.13, which states:
15 8547.10. (a) A University of California employee, including an officer or
16 faculty member, or applicant for employment, may file a written complaint
17 with his or her supervisor or manager, or with any other university officer
18 designated for that purpose by the regents, alleging actual or attempted acts of
19
reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar improper acts for having made
20
a contents of the written complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be
21
true, under penalty of perjury. The complaint shall be filed within 12 months of
22
the most recent act of reprisal complained about.
23
(b) Any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation,
24
threats, coercion, or similar acts against a University of California employee,
25
including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment for
26
having made a protected disclosure, is subject to a fine not to exceed ten
27
thousand dollars ($10,000) and imprisonment in the county jail for up to a
28
6
651. Plaintiff with his Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference complaint
7
form submitted to the UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s office a 35-page brief, 1500 pages of
8
supportive documents and a cover letter, which stated:
9 ‘March 7, 2013
The Honorable Ralph J. Hexter
10 Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
Mrak Hall, Fifth Floor
11 University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
12 Davis, CA 95616
13 Re: Retaliation and Interference Complaint
14 Dear Vice Chancellor Hexter,Enclosed is a copy of my Retaliation and
15 Interference Complaint against certain individuals who are managing the UC
16 Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, California, where I was employed for
17 over thirteen years and where my employment was abruptly and without valid
18
and legitimate reason terminated on December 7, 2012.
19
In addition to the managing officers at the UC Davis Medical Center, who are
20
included in the complaint, UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael and his
21
subordinate, Lieutenant James Barbour, are included in the complaint for
22
alleged act(s) of provocation and conspiracy with other individuals listed in the
23
complaint in an attempt to murder me on May 31, 2012 or send me to the UC
24
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit in a state of extreme harm.
25
It is very disturbing—even unthinkable—that UC Davis leaders should
26
use the UC Davis Police Department to resolve labor disputes with
27
27 Seifert and Cindi Oropeza who portrayed Plaintiff far worse, as a two time convicted child
28 pornography felon who was illegally accessing UC Davis Medical Center HVAC shop
17 Rosenberg found that you had made protected disclosures under the
11 661. The question is whether the UC Senior Vice President, who was overseeing Judith
12 Rosenberg, was aware of all the details of the case and why Plaintiff became a subject of such a
13 vicious retaliation from the Defendant, which lasted for more than a year and half and was
14 continued by the Defendant after Plaintiff’s termination through the State of California
15
Employment Development Department and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
16
Board than in State of California Sacramento of Sacramento Superior Court Department 23 with
17
Presiding Judge Hon. Shaleyanne Chang.
18
662. The University of California Office of the President (UCOP) Principal
19
Investigator Judith concluded her pseudo-investigation in Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation
20
and Interference Complaint on June 23, 2013, which was a year and four months since Plaintiff
21
filed the complaint on April 7, 2013 with UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor Office.
22
663. Judith Rosenberg’s Confidential Investigation Report issued on June 23, 2014
23
was more or less a summary of the previous several fabricated reports as a cause for Plaintiff’s
24
25 May 2012 ten-day suspension without pay and employment termination on December 7, 2012.
26 664. Judith Rosenberg’s investigation report has nothing to do with any investigation
27 and was basically based on slanderous and libelous fabrication issued by UC Davis Health
28 System HR-assigned investigators, Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert and Cindi Oropeza.
16 misleading way the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed with the Regents
19 and experienced attorney at law, was perfectly aware what the 2009 Settlement-Agreement was
20 about and how grossly and unscrupulously it was violated by the Defendant.
21 670. Judith Rosenberg was perfectly aware that the Defendant defamed,
22 defaced and libeled Plaintiff by issuing, two months before he was terminated, the “PERSON
23 NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY” poster. Plaintiff’s photo and description were also
24
included on the poster, which was distributed around the UC Davis Medical Center Campus and,
25
most likely, sent to managers and UC Davis employees by electronic mail. Plaintiff was still a
26
University employee and received treatment like a “Most Wanted” criminal by the FBI.
27
671. Plaintiff is not certain whether Judith Rosenberg was aware or knew prior
28
15 the President and the University of California Office of the General Counsel or that the very
16 narrow group of the University officials knew what this case was about.
17 674. The 2009 Settlement-Agreement Plaintiff signed with the Regents of the
18 University of California was not mentioned in by UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley in his
19 decision.
20 675. UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley resigned or was forced to resign from
21 his $400,000 job with the University of California shortly after he signed the decision in
22 Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation Complaint.
23 676. UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley from November 2011-April 2012 was a
24
member of the Task Force Team, which investigated a pepper spray attack ordered by UC Davis
25
Chancellor Katehi against protesting students on November 18, 2011. The Task Force Team, of
26
which UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley was a member, caused unemployment for UC
27
Davis Police Captain Joy Souza , Lt. John Pike and UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza
28
7 April 3, 2013 – The letter to UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd
Termination of Plaintiff’s Employment – PPSM 70 Step II Appeal Hearing on April 2, 2013
8
677. On April 2, 2013, the Step II Appeal hearing took place in Plaintiff’s employment
9
termination pursuant to the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 with the presiding Complainant
10
Resolution Officer at the hearing, UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd, who
11
was Plaintiff’s indirect superior and, by the position and title, was responsible for Plaintiff’s
12
employment termination.
13
678. Plaintiff followed the instruction in the Letter of Termination dated December 5,
14
2012 and filed the complaint pursuant to the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70.
15
16 679. In 2013, Plaintiff was uncertain whether he should pursue his employment
17 termination complaint under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 or file the lawsuit to enforce the
18 February 2009 Settlement-Agreement that the Defendant i.e., the Regents of the University of
20 700. Plaintiff, by filing the complaints pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM, had little
21 hope that his employment and position, provided to him by the 2009 Settlement-Agreement,
22 would be eventually restored without litigation or knowing that the decision to terminate him
23 came from the Defendant’ Headquarters in Oakland, CA and was carried out by Director Boyd
24 and others.
25
701. Plaintiff summarized the April 2, 2013 Step II Appeal Hearing as follows:
26 April 3, 2013
9 statements that were outlined in the Notice Intent to Dismiss for Serious
10 Misconduct.
13 employer during the pending internal appeals under the PPSM 70appeals.
14 The abovementioned appeal with the California Insurance Appeal Board is
15 similar to my PPSM Step II Appeal, but is more focused and specifically
16 addresses the out-of-context statement written in Charles Witcher’s Notice
17 Intent to Dismiss dated September 25, 2012.
18
Together with this letter, I am sending you a copy of my Appeal Brief and the
19
relevant exhibits I submitted to the California Insurance Appeal Board.
20
I hope that the enclosed documents and your careful review of Oropeza and
21
Seifert’s Investigatory Report, which is based on lies, false statements and
22
fabricated accusations by a handful of people, will help you understand that
23
this case will not end with your hearing or in arbitration but, instead, will
24
ultimately be pursued in a court of law and justice will be served.
25
Besides the above, I am respectfully asking you for help on behalf of my
26
HVAC shop coworker, Kenny Diede, whose life and working conditions in the
27
16 Best Regards,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
17 CC: HR, Charles Witcher , Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter, Kenny Diede .
18
MAY 2013
19 May 2, 2013 – UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd’s – PPSM 70 Step II
Appeal Decision In Plaintiff’s Employment Termination Complaint
20
702. On May 2, 2013, UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd
21
issued a decision in Plaintiff’s Step II Appeal employment termination complaint as follows
22
703. Plaintiff’s hope that Director Boyd, with his executive power, would find
23
a different solution was broken like a soap bubble”?
24
May 5, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Response to Director Boyd’s Step II Decision
25
26
10 Mr. Boyd:
On April 2, 2013, we held a meeting on the UC Davis Campus. On the same-day, UC
11
12 Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo wrote me a letter and informed me
13 that she had accepted my complaint under the university’s Whistleblower Protection
14 Policy.
15
18 Page No. 1
19
Boyd: “During the meeting, Mr. Waszczuk asserted that the
termination was an act of retaliation that is linked to complaints he
20 made about his supervisors and management staff within PO&M when
working at the Central Plant from 1999 to 2007 and more recent
21 allegations and concerns that he raised in 2010 and 2011. This assertion is
consistent with similar assertions he made in his Step I Appeal and in the
22 documentation provided in the Step II Appeal submittal. He also maintains
that the disciplinary actions have been taken represent a breach of the
23 2009 Settlement-Agreement between him and the University.”
11 During our discussion, I pointed out to you the following fragment from
12 Seifert and Oropeza’s report, in order to help you understand how Seifert and
13 Oropeza crafted cause for you to terminate my employment.
14
19 After I read you this fragment from Oropeza and Seifert’s report, I asked you
20 the following question in relation to Putney’s lies:
21
“Mr. Boyd, you were born in and have lived your entire life in the USA,
22
right?” You answered, “yes.” I then asked you, “Do you know or did you
23
ever hear any ethnic slurs in this country directed against Romanians,
24
similar to nigger, Pollack, wetback, or other such slurs?” You responded
25
26
that you didn’t know, and that you never heard any slurs directed
28 Putney whether he or Daniliuc know any ethnic slurs about Romanians, not to
12
UC Davis’ Policy PPSM 70.
13 706. On December 5, 2013, exactly one year after the Defendant terminated
14 Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff held a meeting with Boyd in the UC Davis Medical Center.
15 Boyd was assigned as the Compliant Resolution Officer (CRO) Step II Reviewer in the Case No.
16 03-PPS-011-12/13. During the meeting, Plaintiff was representing HVAC Technician Dereck
17 Cole in his complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 for his 2011/2012 “Does Not Meet
18 Expectation Employee Performance Review (Evaluation).” The “Does Not Meet Expectation
19 Evaluation” was basically the last step for the employee to be terminated if he did not improve
20 his performance and behavior and achieve the goals for the next evaluation period, as outlined by
21
the supervisors or managers in the employee evaluations.
22
23 707. Mike Boyd, as Executive Director and Complaint Resolution Officer, and
24 as Plaintiff’s superior, knew that the Employee Performance Reviews (evaluations), mandated by
25 UC Davis Policy PPSM 23, are the most important documents to make a decision in any adverse
15 provide him with evaluations for the last two years of his employment mandated by UC Davis
16 Policy PPSM 23, thus maliciously depriving Plaintiff of the UC Davis administrative remedies
17 under UC Davis Policy PPSM 23 and violating his employment and civil rights to be treated
19
22
YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR
23
1999-00 “…performance very good” Kavanagh
24 “has become a very knowledgeable and effective central, plant
operator” --
25 “very conscientious and thorough” --
“can be counted on to make the right operational decisions” --
26 “valuable employee” --
“committed to the future success of the Medical Center” --
27 VERY GOOD often exceeded expectations and standards --
9 712. On May 7, 2013, Plaintiff obtained the Right To Sue Notice from the State
10 of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing DFHH Matter: 112740-49836-R
11 after losing hope that the wrongful termination and discrimination that the Defendant caused him
12 could be resolved without litigation.
13 DECEMBER 2013
14 December 4, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Wrongful Termination Complaint Against the Defendant with
the State of California County of Sacramento Superior Court
15
16
713. On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff in Pro Per filed in State of California,
17
County of Sacramento Superior Court the Wrongful Termination Complaint.
18
714. On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff simultaneously filed in the State of
19
California, County of Sacramento Superior Court a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus,
20
Administrative Mandamus (CCP § 1085;1094.5) to order the California Unemployment
21
Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and/or The Employment Development Department (EDD) to
22
calculate and provide unemployment benefits to Plaintiff or a remand for a rehearing to award
23
such benefits related to Plaintiff’s December 7, 2012, employment termination.
24
715. Defendant in further despicable violation and breach of the February
25
2009Settlement-Agreement, with an evil spirit, defaced and defamed Plaintiff with the State of
26
California Employment Development Department for the purpose of denying Plaintiff ‘s
27
unemployment benefits after terminating Plaintiff’s employment.
28
13
718. On March 11, 2014, Plaintiff sent a letter to the University of California
14
Office of the President (UCOP) Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg, who had been handling
15
Plaintiff’s whistleblowing retaliation complaint since June 2013. Plaintiff filed the
16
whistleblowing retaliation complaint with the UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor’s Office on
17
19 719. The purpose of Plaintiff’s March 11, 2014, 10-page-long letter to Judith
20 Rosenberg was to summarize Plaintiffs’ meeting with her, which took place in Defendants’
22 720. In his letter to Judith Rosenberg, Plaintiff mentioned the interview the UC
23 Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru issea u ga ve to Sacramento African-
24 American magazine Sub Cultural Hub. The interview was conducted by Donna Michelle Ramos
25 on August 6, 2012, and was entitled “A Look Back.”
26 721. Dr. Shelton Du ru isseau wa s o ne o f De fe nda n ts and p e rpe tra tors
27
who pa rtic ip a ted in the d esp ica b le re ta lia to ry p re em p tive ac tion a ga in st Pla intiff
28
6 threw a retirement party in his Eldorado Hill residence. The two guests of
7 honor at the party were Mayor of Sacramento Mr. Kevin Johnson and Mr.
9 Taylor. Besides the lavish retirement party, Dr. Duruisseau gave an interview
14 While reading the “A look back” interview with Dr. Duruisseau, a few
15
statements caught my attention. The first statement that caught my attention
16
was:
17
24
25
26 I am very skeptical about Dr. Duraisseau’s statement that the Central Plant sold
27
enough energy in its first four years of operation to cover the cost of building
28
18 DeRusso, and Principal Engineer from Brown and Caldwell James L. Bartlett.
19
20 Apparently, in 1998 Dr. Duraisseau and Project Manager Mr. Mike Lewis had
21 no clue what a cogeneration facility stands for and what criteria such a facility
22 must meet to be in compliance with federal law (FERC).
23
24
By reading the 2012 “A look back” interview and seeing Dr. Duraisseau’s
25
name on the plaque in the Central Plant, it is not difficult to conclude that the
26
Central Plant for him and others was like a sacred and untouchable place built
27
for future generations to remember “great” UC Davis leaders. However, the
28
15 Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru isse au ’s in te rv ie w, she had no p rob lem figu rin g ou t
16 why in Ma rc h 20 07 Pla in tiff was remo ve d fro m the Cen tra l Pla nt why De fe nda n ts
17 sign ed Se ttlem en t-Ag ree men t with Plain tiff in Feb ru ary 200 9 , an d why Pla intiff
19 m illio ns of do lla rs o f reve nue fro m the produ c tion and sa le of ele c trica l e ne rg y
20 b y the UC Dav is Me d ica l Cen tra l Pla n t was th e issu e an d b ig p ro b lem
21 724. Plaintiff is familiar with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s
22 (FERC’s) regulation and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) because
23 prior to his employment with UC Davis Medical Center, Plaintiff worked for a private corporation
24
with a similar cogeneration facility that did not meet FERC and PURPA requirements to be
25
certified as a “qualified cogeneration facility.” Plaintiff’s previous employer committed enormous
26
fraud against Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers and settled out of court for $100
27
million. The $100 million fraud occurred after only six years of unlawful cogeneration facility
28
8
726. Besides the letter to the UCOP Investigator, on March 17, 2014, Plaintiff
9
sent a six-page letter to Sac Cultural Hub Senior Staff Writer/News Reporter Donna Michelle
10
Ramos about her August 6, 2012, interview with UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr.
11
Shelton Du ru isseau .
12
13 “A few days ago, I wrote letters to two UC Office of the Presidents’ officials,
14 Principal Investigator Ms. Judith Rosenberg and UC Senior Vice President
15
Dan Dooley, and I mentioned your interview with Mr. Shelton Duruisseau in
16
my letter because Mr. Shelton Duruisseau made a statement about the UC
17
Davis Medical Center Central Plant where I was employed for several years. I
18
am enclosing both letters for context.”
19
727. Even after the reading Dr. Shelton Du ruisse au ’s u n in te ntiona l
20
c on fe ssion du rin g the in te rv ie w a bou t th e en ormo us p ro fit th e Ce ntra l Plan t
21
g ene ra ted and after writing a Ma rc h 11 , 2014 , le tte r to UCOP In ve stiga to r Jud ith
22
Ro se nbe rg , Pla in tiff d id no t th in k tha t th e De fen da nts’ v ic ious re ta lia tion
23
strik es ag ainst Pla in tiff wa s a pree mp tiv e we ll-orche stra te d De fend an ts ac tio n
24
25 re la ted in direc tly o r to the $ 100 ,0 00 ,0 00 fraud co mm itte d by Pla in tiff’s prev iou s
27 728. Plaintiff during his employment with UC Davis Medical Center was not
28 interested in ever looking into the issue of whether or not the Central Plant was being operated
15 autonomy and independence from the state and federal laws and regulations.
16 732. Even if Plaintiff would have thought about the Central Plant’s PURPA
17 qualification, Plaintiff was not willing to spend his own $10,000 and lose his job again at his
18 age for the purpose of filing a complaint with FERC in an attempt to nullify the Central Plant
19 certification issued by FERC and obtained by Defendants in the self-certification process (if
20 any). Also, it would never would crossed Plaintiff’s mind that Defendants committed fraud
21 against another entity in the same manner that Plaintiff’s previous employer did because Central
22 Plant was built to provide utility for UC Davis Medical Center and that surplus energy should be
23 sold because electric energy cannot to be stored like the other product.
24
733. The previous Plaintiff’s employer committed an enormous $100,000,000
25
fraud against Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers in 1989–1996, violating the PURPA
26
mandated requirements for operating a cogeneration facility.
27
734. The March 11, 2014, letter to the UCOP Principal Investigator Judith
28
15 improve situation and Plaintiff was threatened with employment termination when Plaintiff
18 736. After Plaintiff wrote the letter to UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg on
19 March 11, 2014, and Sac Cultural Hub Senior Staff Writer/News Reporter Donna Michelle
20 Ramos on March 17, 2014, Defendants reacted sharply and went viral to divert Plaintiff’s
21 attention from the huge profits generated by the Central Plant from electrical energy sale
22 disclosed which was disclosed by UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru isseau
23 in h is in te rvie w with Do nna Ramo s.
24
737. On March 20, 2014 Plaintiff received e-mail correspondence from UC
25
Davis Health System Human Resource (HR) Labor Relations Manager Travis Lindsey. More
26
than two years after Plaintiff’s employment termination, attempted to advise Plaintiff of where
27
Plaintiff should send information about Defendants and where not to send it. Plaintiff responded
28
15 737. In March 2014, Plaintiff was also not aware of the fact that on February
16 24, 2014, the attorney in the unrelated Plaintiff’s wrongful termination case pending in the same
17 Sacramento Superior Court (Janet Keyzer v. The Regents of the University of California, Case
19 against Judge Shelleyanne Chang in which Attorney Mary -Alice Coleman declared that:
20
“The Honorable Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, the Judge before whom the
21
trial in the aforesaid matter is pending or to whom the aforesaid trial is
22
assigned, is prejudiced against me or Plaintiff so that Plaintiff cannot or I
23
believe that Plaintiff cannot have a fair and impartial hearing before this
24
25 Judge.”
28 738. Hon. Shelleyanne Chang has been the subject of a Peremptory Challenge
15 attitude toward Plaintiff and his witnesses could best be described with her statement after
16 Plaintiff made a statement about his coworker’s suicide, caused by Defendants’ hostile working
17 environment. ALJ Marilyn Tays responded: “All right, I guess he is not here.” When Plaintiff
18 heard this, I had no doubt where ALJ Marilyn Tays was going with her hearing.
8
745. Following the March 2014 Hon. Shelleyanne Chang reassignment, Travis
9
Lindsey’s email correspondence, and Plaintiff’s letters to UCOP Investigator
10
Judith Rosenberg ,the California Deputy Attorney General Ashante L. Norton, who represents
11
CUIAB as a Legal Counsel , filed on April 1, 2014, a frivolous Notice of Demurrer in Plaintiff’s
12
Writ of Mandamus case to distract Plaintiff and made Plaintiff forget about UC Davis Assistant
13
Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru isse au ’s in te rv ie w with Donn a Ram os.
14
15 746. On April 17, 2014, Defendants as the Real Party in Interest in the Writ of
16 Mandamus case filed in the court a Joinder supporting CUIAB’s legal counsel Notice of
17 Demurer. Defendants’ Joinder supporting CUIAB Demurer would perhaps not been strange to
18 Plaintiff if the four top-notch attorneys from the UC Office of the General Counsel had not
19 appeared on Joinder pleading, including Charles F. Robinson, UCOP General Counsel; Karen J.
20 Petrulakis, UCOP Chief Deputy General Counsel; Cynthia A. Vroom, UCOP Senior Counsel;
21 and Margaret L Wu, UCOP Managing Counsel.
22 747. Writ of Mandamus for the unemployment insurance benefits is not the
23 million-dollar case that required the involvement of the four top-notch legal counsels from the
24
UC Office of the General Counsel, especially the UC General Counsel Charles F. Robinson,
25
reports directly to UC Regents.
26
748. In addition to the above, in January 2015, Plaintiff filed an Objection to
27
the Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motion and included the Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton
28
15 Governors members and the members of the Board of University of California Reagents are
16 nominated by the governor of California and confirmed by the State of California Senate.
17 751. In 1999–2003 ISO was the distributor of electric power sold by UC Davis
18 Medical Center Central Plant on the open market. Plaintiff was employed in the UC Davis
19 Medical Center Central Plant by Defendants from June 1999 to March 2007.
20 752. The UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant in 1999–2003 was selling
21 power at the highest bids on the spot in the market via ISO exactly in same way as Enron or
22 former Plaintiff employer Dynegy, manipulating power and causing a rolling shortage of energy
24 753. Defendant were manipulating the electric power sale on a small scale in
25 comparison to Enron or Dynegy, but even selling 15 MW was enough to provide electricity for
26 15,000 people. In 2002, the former Plaintiff employer Dynegy and 10 other energy suppliers that
27 contributed to California’s energy crisis and rolling blackouts were fined with small fines in the
28
10 employee performance review (evaluation) for 2006–2007, and Plaintiff’s evaluation looked
11 nothing like what happened in 2006–2007 in contrary to the suspension and reassignment March
13 755. In January 2007, Charles Robinson joined the University as the General
14 Counsel, and he knew all of the secrets about the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration
15 facility’s electric power production, distribution, and sale via California Independent System
16 Operator (ISO).
V. CONCLUSION
17
18
19 756. The reason for Defendant’ despicable conspiracy against Plaintiff did not
20 cross Plaintiff’s mind until June 2015 during Plaintiff’s preparation to file Plaintiff’s Opposition
21 to the Defendant’ Legal Fees and Cost in relation to Defendant’ Anti- Strategic Lawsuit Against
23 757. Plaintiff did not had a clue that Plaintiff’s victory in 2008 arbitration
24 against Defendant —which ended with the 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed with
25 Defendant—was signed by Defendant in evil spirit and bad faith. The arbitration and the
26 Settlement –Agreement was just a short and unexpected delay for the Defendant before the
27 Defendant exercised and launched a second preemptive retaliatory strike against Plaintiff to end
28 Plaintiff’s employment with the University of California which orchestrated by UC Davis Health
20 772. Plaintiff in November 2008 did not realize that the prevailing, in
21 arbitration, and signing the Settlement – Agreement in February 2009 in good faith with the
22 Defendant was only a short time before Defendants would carry out their evil-spirited plan to
23 terminate the Plaintiff’s employment. The Plaintiff outlined and described the extreme,
24 outrageous, atrocious, and utterly intolerable conduct of the Defendants in paragraphs and
25 subparagraphs 1 through 144.
26 773. The Defendant, the Regents of the University of California, by and through its
27 own employees, agents, and officers, kept Plaintiff out of the workplace for over one year for no apparent
28
18 DISPARAGEMENT neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants were to disparage each other. Plaintiff at all
19 times expressed his good faith beliefs in the truth. When, in reality, Plaintiff was a valuable employee,
20 who had the best interests of the hospital always in mind, the Defendants not only disparaged Plaintiff
21 but made Plaintiff look like the most-wanted criminal.
22 777. In September 2012, two month before Plaintiff’s employment termination, the
23 Defendant ordered own officers, agents, and UC Davis Police to issue a poster similar to the FBI’s “Most
24 Wanted” criminals posters with Plaintiff’s photo and description on. The issued UC Davis Police
25 poster was distributed around UC Davis Campuses without informing Plaintiff about it. The Defendants
26 wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment on December 7, 2012.
27 778. The written Settlement - Agreement contains an implied covenant of good
28
27
783. The Plaintiff loss of 2011 base salaries earnings were $8,328.40 plus 10% daily
28
16 785. The Plaintiff’s loss due to breach of contract in 2012 involved base salary
17 earnings of $8,882.00 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants pay to
18 Plaintiff the requested amount.
19 44.28 hours at a rate of $34.31/hour were accrued or would have been accrued in sick leave if
20 the Defendants had not breached the contract and if Plaintiff had been employed by the Defendants.
21 44.28 hour x $34.1 = $1,519.20 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the
22 Defendants pay Plaintiff the requested amount.
23 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff for
24 2012 in sum of $10,401.20 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants
25 pay to Plaintiff the requested amount.
26
27 The Plaintiff’s Employment Termination by the Defendant Five Years prior to the Plaintiff’s
28
2 786. The Plaintiff’s base salary earning from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017,
3 would be $358,200 if the Defendants had not breached the contract, and Plaintiff would have earned the
4 above amount until Plaintiff retired at the age of 66 and a half on December 31, 2017, as Plaintiff planned
5 to do.
6 787. The Plaintiff’s earning would be higher if Plaintiff were to receive pay raises in
7 this period or if the Defendants would reclassify Plaintiff’s annual salary. The Middle Salary Grade for
8 Associate Development Engineer pursuant to the UC Davis Title Code 7182 has been changed
9 effective July 1, 2014 from $ 71,640.00 to $76,600.00 annually.
10 $71,640 base annual salary x 5 years = $358,200. Plaintiff would earn this if
11 employed by the Defendants plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants
12 pay the requested amount.
13 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff in sum of
14 $358,200 plus 10% daily compound interest
15 788. The 221.4 hours of accrued sick leave and 886.2 hours of accrued vacation
16 at a pay rate of $34.31 = $38,001.00. Plaintiff would earn this if employed by the Defendant plus
17 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants pay the requested amount.
18 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff in sum of
19 $38.001 plus 10% daily compound interest
20
23
789. Defendants breached the signed contract with Plaintiff and unlawfully
24
terminated Plaintiff on December 7, 2012 at the age of 61 and a half. The Plaintiff, at age 61 and
25
a half, was not eligible to receive even the earlier Social Security income benefits for which
26
Plaintiff could apply in May 2013. For the full Social Security income benefit would have work
27
until year 2017.
28
9 and terminated the 61-and-a-half-year-old Plaintiff without the possibility of the Plaintiff being
10 hired by any employer at his age, thus depriving Plaintiff of any income until Plaintiff received
11
earlier retirement Social Security income benefit at age of 62 or the University Retirement
12
Benefits.
13
23 792. By Breaching contract and violating the Skelly Law, the Defendants
24 terminated Plaintiff without the possibility of finding other employment at his age and with his
25 health. They denied Plaintiff’s unemployment insurance benefits, thus Plaintiff was left without
26 any income, health insurance, or life insurance.
27 793. n such a situation, Plaintiff was forced to cash out a lump sum from his
28
3 798. In 2011, Defendants grossly and despicably breached the contract and
4 performed inhumane harassment of the Plaintiff in an attempt to terminate Plaintiff or force him
5 to quit. The Defendant, through town agents and officers, de-enrolled Plaintiff from the Medical
6 and Dental Health Insurance benefits and denied Plaintiff’s Short Term Disability Insurance
7 benefits when Plaintiff was on stress-related sick leave caused by the Defendants’ agents and
8 officers.
9 799. When Plaintiff noticed in January 2012 that the Defendants had de-enrolled
10 Plaintiff from the Health and Dental Insurance and changed Plaintiff’s position without the
11 Plaintiff’s knowledge from an Associate Development Engineer to Programmer I (Demotion),
12 Plaintiff thought that Plaintiff would be terminated soon and so Plaintiff’s spouse enrolled Plaintiff
13 in her employer Nordstrom’s Corporation Health and Dental Insurance Benefits in January 2012.
14 Thanks to Plaintiff’s wife’s employer, Plaintiff has Health and Dental Insurance coverage
15 including medicine.
16 800. The Defendants re-enrolled Plaintiff into the Health and Dental Plan in
17 January 2012 but Plaintiff did not de-enroll himself from his spouse’s employer health insurance
18 and dental plan because he would be not able to re-enroll if Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s
19 employment, which occurred in December 2012.
20 801. Since February 2012, Plaintiff maintained his health and dental insurance
21 with his spouse’s employer Nordstrom Corporation, and this insurance would be maintained until
22 Plaintiff’s spouse’s retirement in September 2017. This increased the Plaintiff’s spouse’s monthly
23 premium for health and dental insurance from $94.00/month to $382.00/month. The difference
24 in premium, which is $288/month.
25 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Plaintiff , shall be compensated by the Defendants
26 from February 2012 to September 2017 until Plaintiff’s wife retires from Nordstrom at age 66,
27 which is 56 months x 288= $16,128.00 total sum due to Plaintiff
28
4 802. For 13 years of employment with the University of California, Plaintiff was
5 paying premiums every paycheck to the amount of $149.90 for Supplemental Life Insurance, A&D,
6 and Dependents Life Insurance, totaling $23,384 in premiums alone for 13 years. Plaintiff was
7 insured by Supplemental Life Insurance to the amount of $280,000, by Accidental Death and
8 Dismemberment Insurance to the amount of $500,000, and by Dependents Life Insurance to the
9 amount of $100,000.
10 803. The Defendants erased the above-mentioned Plaintiff’s benefits due to their
11 reckless violation of a signed contract with Plaintiff and unlawfully terminating Plaintiff’s
12 employment on December 7, 2012, at the of age 61 and a half, knowing that the Plaintiff had had
13 open-heart surgery and other health problems and that Plaintiff, at his age and health, would either
14 not be able to obtain Life Insurance, Accidental Death and Dismemberment, and Dependents Life
15 Insurance at all or, if so, that the premiums would be so high that Plaintiff wouldn’t even be able
16 to dream about having Life Insurance.
17 804. Due to their breach and violation of the signed February 2009 contract with
18 Plaintiff, the Defendants are liable for paying his spouse the mentioned benefits if Plaintiff dies.
19 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay the mentioned benefits to his
20 spouse if the Plaintiff dies.
21 805. The other option is that Plaintiff will find an insurance company that would be
22 willing to provide these benefits to Plaintiff and Defendant will pay the premiums until the
23
Plaintiff dies. EXAMPLE: Banner Life Insurance Company-
24
Semi-Annually: 4,720.05Quarterly:2,406.30Monthly (EFT):809.81
25
28
28 819. To be sure, Defendant, and Defendant’s agents sand officers knew Plaintiff is, and
16 The Violation and Breach of Settlement –Agreement by the and Defendant’s Discrimination
against Plaintiff Base on his Mental and Medical Condition
17
18
829. Defendant and Defendant’s agents and officers by breeching and violating the
19
2009 Settlement –Agreement, further discriminated against Plaintiff based on his mental
20
disability and medical condition as described herein.
21
22 830. Defendant and its agents, managers and employees, by violating and breaching the
23 signed Settlement –Agreement with Plaintiff violated California Government Code §12940, by failing
24 to adequately supervise, control, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the conduct, acts, and failures to
25 act as described herein. As such, Defendant and the Individual Defendant failed to fulfill their statutory
26 duty to take all reasonable and necessary steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from
28 831.. Despite Plaintiffs complaints about violation and breach of 2009 Settlement Agreement
28
3
839. Defendant and Defendant’s agents and officers purposely and with evil spirit
4
violated and breached the signed 2009 Settlement –Agreement with Plaintiff as part and parcel
5
6 of their ongoing, continuing, and repeated retaliation, harassment, for the purpose to cover up
7 and conceal their misconduct, violation of state and federal law ,engaged in a course of action
8
that constituted not be released from liability under § No. 7 and § No 8. of the settlement –
9
agreement to be sue for and Defendant is liable for violation of not limited to the Immigration
10
Reform and Control Act; the Family Medical Leave Act and the Higher Education Employer-
11
12 Employee Relations Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil
13 Rights Act of 1991, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Americans with
14
Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act), the
15
law of contract and tort; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
16
28
11 843. The California Legislature enacted Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5 because
12 “… it is the public policy of the State of California to encourage patients, nurses, members of the
13 medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe
14 patient care and conditions. The Legislature encourages this reporting in order to protect patients
15 and in order to assist those accreditation and government entities charged with ensuring that health
16 care is safe. The Legislature finds and declares that whistleblower protections apply primarily to
17 issues relating to the care, services, and conditions of a facility and are not intended to conflict
18 with existing provisions in state and federal law relating to employee and employer relations…”
19 (Emphasis Added)
20 844. Section 1278.5(b) (1) provides “No health facility shall discriminate or retaliate, in
21 any manner, against any patient, employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care
22 worker of the health facility because that person has…Presented a grievance, complaint, or report
23 to the facility, to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility, or the
24 medical staff of the facility, or to any other governmental entity…” (Emphasis Added)
25 845. Section 1278.5(d)(1) states (d) (1) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that
26 discriminatory action was taken by the health facility, or by the entity that owns or operates that
27 health facility, or that owns or operates any other health facility, in retaliation against an employee,
28
10 By: _________________________
11
12 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this cause. My residence or business address is:
2.1 >^ I I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. I served a copy of the Notice of Entry of
Dismissal and Request for Dismissal by mailing them, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, as follows:
a. I I I deposited the envelope with the United States Postal Sen/ice.
1} I I I placed the envelope for collection and processing for mailing following this business's ordinary practice with
which I am readily familiar. On the same day conrespondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited
in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service,
c. Date of deposit: 9/30/2015 d. Place of deposit (city and state): L o d i , C A 9 5 2 4 0
e. Addressed as follows (name and address):
Douglas Repel ,350 University AvejSuite 200; Sacramento 95825
3 I I I served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Request for Dismissal by personally delivering copies as shown below:
a. Name of person served:
b. Address at which person served:
c. On (dafe); d. At (time):
I served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Request for Dismissal by electronically sen/ing copies as shown below
(complete if electronic service is used based on a court order or agreement of the parties):
a. Name of person served:
b. Electronic service address of person served:
c. On (date): d. At(f/me).-
e. Electronic service address from which I served the documents:
I I Proof of electronic service is attached.
5- I—I Proof of service on additional parties is attached.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: September 3 0 , 2 0 1 5
Irena Waszczuk ^
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) Page 1 of 1
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code of Civil Procedure, § 581 et seq.;
Judicial Council of Califomia NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DISMISSAL Cal. Rules of Court, mle 3.1390
CIV-120 [Rev. January 1,2012] www.courts.ca.gov
AND PROOF OF SERVICE
CIV-110
ATTORNEY OR PARTY wn>IOUT ATTORNEY (Wame, State Bar number, and address)
FOR COURT USE ONLY
Jaroslaw Waszczuk ; IN PR'O PER
2216 Katzakian Way , Lodi CA 95242
TELEPHONE NO: ( 2 0 9 ) 6 6 3 - 2 9 7 7 FMt^O. (Optional): (209)370-8281
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional):jjw1980@live.com
ATTORNEY FOR (Wame;: Jaroslaw
Waszczuk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
STREET ADDRESS: ^ 2 0 9 t h S t r e e t OCT - 1 2015
MAILING ADDRESS 720 9th street
CITY AND ZIP CODE: Sacramento, CA 95814
BRANCH NAME: Civil By R. CASTILLO
Deputy Clerk
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Jaroslaw Waszczuk; IN PRO PER
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: The Regents of the University of California
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL CASE NUMBER: 34-2013-00155479
A conformed copy will not be returned by the clerk unless a method of return is provided with the document.
This form may not be used for dismissal of a derivative action or a class action or of any party or cause of action in a
class action. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.760 and 3.770.)
1. TO THE CLERK: Please dismiss this action as follows:
a. (1) I • I With prejudice (2) j j Without prejudice
b. (1) CZHJ Complaint
Complaint (2) £13 Petition
(3)1 ] Cross-complaint filed by (name): on (date):
(4) I I Cross-complaint filed by (name): on (date):
(5) I I Entire action of all parties and all causes of action
(6) I • ! Other (specify):* Defendants : Charles Witcher, Ann Madden Rice, Dorin Daniliuc , Patrick Putney
2. (Complete in all cases except family law cases.)
The court I I did I «^ I did not waive court fees and costs for a party in this cas|. (This infonnation m^jylfe obtained from
the clerk. If court fees and costs were waived, the declaration on the back off/?/;
Date: September 30, 2015
J^rpglavy Wqsai?uk . . . . .
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF I I ATTORNEY j • | PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) '(SIGNATURE)
*lf dismissal requested is of specified parties only of specified causes of action Attomey or party without attorney for:
only, or of specified cross-complaints only, so state and identify the parties, I I Plaintiff/Petitioner I *^ I Defendant/Respondent
causes of action, or cross-complaints to be dismissed.
Cross-Complainant
3. TO THE CLERK: Consent to the above dismissal is hereby given.'
Date: 9/30/2015
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF j | ATTORNEY | • | PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY)
' If a cross-complaint - or Response (Family Law) seeking affirmative Attomey or party without attorney for:
relief - is on file, ttie attomey for cross-complainant (respondent) must
sign this consent if required by Code of Civil Procedure section 581 (I) I I Plaintiff/Petitioner I I Defendant/Respondent
orO).
I I Cross-Complainant
(To beafmpleted by clerk) _
4. I Ir I Dismissal entered as requested on (dafej: ULI ~ I tUID
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the information above is true afidicorrect.
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-370-8281
E-mail: jjw1980@live.com
-1-
Fully 95–98% of the 46 exhibits are documents that were filed and
docketed in Sacramento County Superior Court Departments 53 and 43 in
relation to the above-captioned case, No. 34-2013-34-2013-00155479;
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California Ann
Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Charles Witcher, Danesha
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Brent Seifert, Patrick Putney, and Dorin Daniliuc
and 10/10/2017 Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA)
Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10,
2017) by Waszczuk and the Defendants.
-3-
47. May 31, 2015 Waszczuk’s inquiry sent to the Sedgwick Insurance
Company Litigation Specialist Carmen Angeles . Re: Anti-SLAPP
Motion approved by Sedgwick CMS Representative Greer Gustayson
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No,: 34-2013-
001555479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regent of the University of
California, and Case No. 34-2013-80001699; Court of Appeal Case No.:
C079254. Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board (Respondent) & The Regents of the University of California
(Real Party in Interest) —OPEN LETTER
Under Evidence Code section 459, a Court of Appeal has the same powers
of judicial notice as the trial court (Martin v. General Finance Co. (1966)
239 Cal.App.2d 438, 442 [“The power of this court to take judicial notice is
the same as that of the trial court”]). A reviewing court may properly rely
upon judicially noticeable materials that were not before the trial court.
(Hogen v. Valley Hospital (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 119, 125 [“this court
may take judicial notice of matters which could have been noticed by the
trial court, even where the trial court was not requested to take such
notice”]; B & P Development Corp. v. City of Saratoga (1986) 185
Cal.App.3d 949, 960 [“An appellate court is permitted to take judicial
notice of any matter specified in Evidence Code section 452, although the
trial court did not take notice of it and it is not in the record, so long as a
- 10 -
CONCLUSION
The attached exhibits are relevant and important to determine by the Court
of Appeal scale of the Defendants abuse of the Court system and the law by
maliciously and notoriously relitigating the causes of action which they
won in the Trial Court and on appeal. Thus, the anti-SLAPP motion the
Defendants filed on December 1, 2014 was a far more grievous abuse of the
judicial system than just filing the frivolous anti-SLAPP motion. Given
their gross misconduct in the Court of law, the Court of Appeal should
grant this request/motion for Judicial Notice to Waszczuk and recall the
remittitur in this wrongful termination case, which has been pending for
almost eight years.
________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff and Appellant in Pro Per
- 11 -
- 12 -
- 13 -
CONCLUSION
Prior the remittitur issued by the Court of Appeal, Waszczuk briefed the
Court about his Attorney’s and the Defendants’ misconduct in his Appellant
Opening and Reply Brief in 2016, and in his Petition for Rehearing after the
unpublished opinion was issued in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,
C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017).
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
- 15 -
_________________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk,
Plaintiff and Appellant, In Pro Per.
- 16 -
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
_______________________
Plaintiff & Appellant, In Pro Per
- 17 -
_____________________________________________________
IRENA WASZCZUK
- 18 -
- 19 -
1
shortcomings he cites. We need go no further than to answer the contentions he raises,
and in finding no merit in those claims, we affirm.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff, a Polish immigrant, feels deeply aggrieved by the University of
California (the University), his lawyer, the defense lawyer, and the trial judge. A brief
excerpt from a letter he sent to the general counsel for the University reflects his
bitterness as well as his belief that there is much more at stake than his mere wrongful
termination lawsuit. He wrote: “The stake in this lawsuit must be a lot bigger and more
important than the life of a 63-year-old Polish refugee who escaped communist
oppression and was promised protection from oppression in his new country by the US
government. Instead of protection from oppression, the Polish refugee received treatment
from the University of California that has been a lot worse than the treatment he received
in the Polish communist prison, where the communist’s prison guard was more respectful
to the political prisoners than UC management to its own employees.” His experience
has left him emotionally distraught. At the end of a hearing in the trial court, he
announced he was done and was going to go outside of the courtroom and shoot himself.
While plaintiff’s pain is clear, his legal analysis is not. We have carefully
scrutinized his briefs and the record in a diligent attempt to decipher his legal theories.
Much remains a mystery. We must reiterate what the trial court admonished plaintiff.
“At the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated like any
other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants
and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941,
944.) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct
rules of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also
Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984.” We add that plaintiff has an equal
responsibility to follow the California Rules of Court applicable to appeals, no matter
2
how sympathetic his claims may seem to himself or us. It is a responsibility he has
ignored to his peril.
Plaintiff’s most glaring and consistent violation of the rules is his failure to cite to
the record.1 He makes grandiose accusations against the University for illegally
generating and selling electric power and for tax evasion, but those allegations are not
supported by citations to the record and are not relevant to the special motion to strike.
Plaintiff fails to appreciate the limited scope of our review, which stands in stark contrast
to the wide-ranging allegations plaintiff lodges which are untethered to the second
amended complaint or the special motion to strike. We are compelled to ignore any
factual allegations that are not supported by citations to the record.
Plaintiff loses this appeal, but it is not the end of his lawsuit for wrongful
termination. The trial court reminded plaintiff at the hearing on the special motion to
strike that the Regents of the University of California (the Regents) were not protected if
they discriminated or retaliated against him and, therefore, “[i]ndependent of the five
individuals who are before the Court on this motion, [plaintiff] still retains his right to sue
the Regents because they are still in the lawsuit and he’s still the plaintiff.” In this
context, we recite the brief facts relevant to the issues plaintiff raises on appeal.
1 An “appellant must support all statements of fact in his briefs with citations to the
record [citation] and must confine his statement ‘to matters in the record on appeal.’
[Citation.]” (Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 29.) “[I]t is counsel's duty to
point out portions of the record that support the position taken on appeal.” (Del Real v.
City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.) The Court of Appeal must not search
the record on behalf of an appellant or serve as “backup appellate counsel.” (Mansell v.
Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546.)
3
FACTS
Plaintiff worked in the University of California Davis Medical Center’s Plant
Operations and Maintenance Department for 13 years. He received many years of
favorable performance reviews. In 2007, however, he was given a disciplinary transfer
from the central plant to the HVAC/plumbing shop. He filed a grievance and ultimately
entered into a settlement agreement with the University whereby he agreed to the transfer
in exchange for a promotion to an exempt position with a more prestigious job title.
In 2011 the University again initiated an investigation of plaintiff based on
complaints that he had violated University policies by engaging in acts of ethnic
discrimination constituting hate incidents in the workplace. He was terminated in 2012.
He appealed the termination and ultimately filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint.
In this court, he fixates on his belief the University’s suspension, investigation, and
termination were nothing more than a “witch hunt” designed to remove him, preferably
by getting him to quit, and thereby enable the University to resume its alleged tax-free
illegal power sales. He asserts, again without citation to the record, the University
attempted to assassinate him.
Plaintiff filed his first complaint, in pro. per., in December 2013. The complaint
included six causes of action: wrongful termination; retaliation; the intentional infliction
of emotional distress; failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; breach
of the settlement agreement; and violation of the University’s Personnel Polices for Staff
Members (PPSM) 23. Plaintiff thereafter hired a lawyer, Douglas Stein, who filed a first
amended complaint on his behalf in June 2014. The first amended complaint set forth
eight causes of action, including a cause of action entitled “Breach of Written Contract.”
The written contract referred to the settlement agreement plaintiff reached with the
University to resolve his first grievance. The first amended complaint did not, however,
contain a cause of action for violation of PPSM 23.
4
In a meet and confer letter dated August 19, 2014, Michael Pott, representing the
Regents and the employees sued in their individual capacity, described a number of
deficiencies in the first amended complaint “that warrant the filing of a demurrer unless
they can be resolved by amendment.” Stein spent 10 hours reviewing the first amended
complaint and researching the law in light of the alleged deficiencies set forth in Pott’s
letter. By letter dated August 26, 2014, Stein agreed to amend the complaint in response
to those deficiencies he found legitimate and he explained why he rejected many others.
Stein prepared a second amended complaint with the same eight causes of action.
He signed the second amended complaint on September 8, 2014. Unbeknownst to him at
the time, his license to practice law was suspended on September 24, 2014, due to child
support issues that he resolved by October 7, 2014, but due to logistical aspects of the
process, the State Bar of California did not restore his license to an active status until
October 23, 2014. In the meantime, he filed the second amended complaint on
September 30, 2014.
On December 1, 2014, five defendants, Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert (the individual defendants) filed a special
motion to strike the first four causes of action in the second amended complaint as a
strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) suit (hereafter referred to as the
anti-SLAPP motion). (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) Stein, then unaware that plaintiff had
fired him, filed an opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion on plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff
did fire Stein, proceeded in pro. per., and requested an extension of time to file his own
opposition. Plaintiff filed his opposition late and exceeded the page limit. Nevertheless,
the trial court considered the entirety of plaintiff’s opposition and granted his request to
disregard the opposition filed by Stein.
On December 17, 2014, Stein filed an ex parte application for relief from the
potential defective filing of the second amended complaint. Stein explained to the court
that his license had been temporarily suspended because he had mistakenly paid the
5
wrong amount of child support for two or three months, a mistake that was quickly
rectified once he learned of it. The trial court granted Stein’s application and ruled that
the second amended complaint filed on September 30, 2014, “is deemed validly filed.”
In ruling on the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court
followed the requisite two-step process. First, the court examined the individual
defendants’ showing whether their acts were taken in furtherance of their constitutional
rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. The court found the
individual defendants made a prima facie showing. The individual defendants’ speech,
the court ruled, was “made in connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and
deciding the workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to University
policies.” Second, the court found that plaintiff did not sustain his burden of showing a
likelihood of prevailing on each of the elements of the four causes of action as well as
defeating the individual defendants’ affirmative defenses. The court, therefore, granted
the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
Plaintiff appeals.
DISCUSSION
I
The Allegations
Plaintiff believes that his employer, defense counsel, the trial judge, and even his
own lawyer, are corrupt and colluded to destroy his life. These allegations, not the merits
of the anti-SLAPP motion, are at the heart of plaintiff’s appeal. He writes: “There is no
need for Waszczuk to base this appeal on the merit of the case which is important and
Clerk Transcript is speaking for itself, if the whole legal process in this case was
corrupted by the Defendants’ attorney, Michael Pott, and Waszczuk’s attorney, Douglas
Stein misconduct, and their actions against Waszczuk were approved by the Court on
September 22, 2014, and December 17, 2014.”
6
There is nothing we can decide in this appeal or write in this opinion that will
disabuse plaintiff of this fiercely held belief. He fails to understand that these very
serious allegations are not before us on appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion. We will
explain for his benefit what the record discloses to us—the utter absence of any evidence
to support even a colorable claim of misconduct by any of the lawyers or judicial officers
in this case. We will also briefly describe the procedural context in which the allegations
are made and the futility of pursuing his corruption theory against these individual
defendants. Despite the ferocity of plaintiff’s feelings to the contrary, the fact that the
second amended complaint did not contain what he hoped it would does not translate into
reversible error and the fact that his lawyer and defense counsel engaged in an interactive
process to avoid an unnecessary demurrer does not translate into corruption.
Let us begin with plaintiff’s focus on the second amended complaint. As best we
can decipher, his objection is twofold: (1) He is troubled that Stein did not pursue his
theories that the University breached the settlement agreement and failed to follow
internal policies by not providing him annual performance reviews for two years, and (2)
he accuses the trial court of improperly validating the filing when Stein’s license had
been temporarily suspended.
Both objections are irrelevant to the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion,
which sought to strike only four of the eight causes of action stated in the second
amended complaint. Whether or not Stein would have expanded the second amended
complaint to include additional causes of action has no bearing on whether the four
causes of action were properly stricken. In any event, we are baffled by plaintiff’s
insistence that Stein refused to include a cause of action for breach of the settlement
agreement is belied by the language of the sixth cause of action for breach of a written
contract which appears to embody that very claim.
Plaintiff fails to cite any authority to support his claim that the trial court
improperly validated the filing of the second amended complaint. The claim lacks both
7
legal authority and evidentiary support in the record. Rather, Stein was forthright in his
disclosure to the court. When he filed the second amended complaint he was unaware
that his status with the State Bar had changed. The reason for his very brief suspension
was unrelated to his competency or ethics in the practice of law. Rather, as Stein
explained, he made an inadvertent error on the amount he paid in child support for two or
three months. His license to practice was reinstated within about two weeks of his
discovery of the suspension. On these facts, there is not the slightest hint of impropriety.
To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—making an ex parte application to
assure the integrity of the document he inadvertently filed during the briefest of
suspensions for a minor transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He
should be commended, not chastised, for his fervent representation of plaintiff’s interests.
Yet plaintiff asserts that defense counsel colluded with Stein to file a second
amended complaint designed to rob him of meritorious claims. He also contends that
Stein bowed to defense counsel’s untoward pressure to amend the complaint and
subjected his pleadings to the anti-SLAPP motion. He adds the naked allegation that the
trial court acted improperly as well because the trial judge had known defense counsel for
a number of years. Plaintiff’s allegations are without evidentiary support.
The record discloses a cordial, thorough, and appropriate exchange between two
lawyers engaged in a meet and confer process designed to avoid an unnecessary
demurrer. The thoughtful letters exchanged by counsel described the legal issues
presented by the first amended complaint and the authorities upon which they relied to
support their positions. Stein relented on a few minor issues, but held steadfast as to the
viability of his theories. Plaintiff’s sheer speculation about the lawyers’ motives is totally
unsubstantiated; indeed, the record belies his accusations.
In summary, we conclude plaintiff’s accusations of misconduct, corruption, and
collusion between the lawyers and the trial court are unsubstantiated and unfounded. But
even more importantly, they are irrelevant to the sole issue properly before us on
8
appeal—whether the trial court erred by granting the five individual defendants’ anti-
SLAPP motion to strike four of the causes of action alleged against them. We turn,
therefore, to the only relevant issue presented.
II
The Merits
The anti-SLAPP statute provides: “A cause of action against a person arising
from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech
under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a
public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that
the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the
claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) We review an order granting an anti-
SLAPP motion de novo. (Daniel v. Wayans (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 367, 379.)
As explained above, the trial court engages in a two-step process in determining
whether to grant an anti-SLAPP motion. (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State
University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061.) In this case, the trial court found the individual
defendants made a prima facie showing to satisfy the first prong and plaintiff did not
challenge this finding in his opening brief. Belatedly in reply, he contends that the
defendants did not “show any record or evidence that the Defendants Nichols, Chilcott,
Boyd, Seifert, and Oropeza, who brought the anti-SLAPP motion to strike Waszczuk’s
first four causes of action, were made in connection with the processing, investigation,
hearing, and deciding of the workplace complaints filed by Waszczuk.”
In short, the court acknowledged that University policies and procedures have the
force and effect of a state statute (Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000)
80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165); statutory procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized
by law as contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (Vergos v. McNeal
(2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399 (Vergos)); the constitutional right to petition includes
the act of seeking administrative action (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity
9
(1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1115); and investigations and investigatory reports prepared in
connection with an issue under consideration or review by an official body, such as a
public entity’s internal investigations, are protected activities under the anti-SLAPP
statute (Miller v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1383). Because the
speech of the individual defendants who were subject to the anti-SLAPP motion was
“made in connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and deciding the
workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to University policies,” the
court concluded the individual defendants satisfied their burden and shifted it to the
plaintiff to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Plaintiff insists that Vergos, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, cited by the trial court,
does not support the granting of the anti-SLAPP motion. We disagree. In Vergos, an
employee of the University named the manager who denied his administrative grievance
as a defendant in his sexual harassment lawsuit in her individual capacity. (Id. at
p. 1390.) The manager filed a special motion to strike contending that her statements and
communicative conduct in handling the employee’s grievances were protected by Code
of Civil Procedure section 425.16 because “they (1) were connected with an issue under
review by an official proceeding authorized by law, and (2) furthered the right to petition
of the plaintiff and similarly situated employees.” (Vergos, at p. 1394.) We agreed and
affirmed the judgment.
We pointed out that the manager’s only conduct targeted in the complaint involved
her hearing, processing, and deciding the employee’s grievances. (Vergos, supra,
146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1396.) Similarly, here the trial court’s finding parroted our
conclusion in Vergos. And the court reviewed the allegations against each of the five
individual defendants and reported their involvement as follows:
“The allegations of the SAC [second amended complaint] against Nichols attack
her protected participation in the official investigations. The SAC specifically alleges
Nichols’ communications regarding the investigation and her investigative conclusions.
10
Nichols was appointed to investigate Plaintiff’s whistleblower complaints, and was also
appointed to conduct an investigation into complaints of workplace violence filed by
Putney and Daniliuc. All were protected petitioning activities.
“The allegations against Boyd and Chilcott are limited to their receipt of emails
from Nichols relating to the investigations, and Chilcott’s sending of an email relating to
the investigation of Plaintiff. The emails are protected speech in connection with an
investigation process.
“The allegations against Oropeza and Seifert are based upon their investigation
into the emails plaintiff sent to Nichols in April 2012. Oropeza and Seifert conducted
their investigation pursuant to the University’s grievance protocol and reached
conclusions documented in a report.
“Boyd acted as Complaint Resolution Officer (“CRO”) at Step II of the
University’s PPSM 70 process, hearing and deciding Plaintiff’s appeal of his
termination.”
In sum, each of the individual defendants, like the manager in Vergos, were
involved in the investigation, hearing, processing, and/or deciding plaintiff’s and his co-
workers’ grievances. We conclude, as in Vergos, their conduct was within the protective
ambit of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Thus we must review the trial court’s
resolution of the second step in the analysis—whether plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood
of success on the merits.
Without citation to specific pages in the record or argument about the likelihood of
success of each element of the four causes of action or even a response to the trial court’s
thorough analysis, plaintiff invites us to review his 443-page opposition to the anti-
SLAPP motion and insists, again without analysis, that the evidence is “overwhelming.”
He falls miserably short of his duty on appeal to cite to the record, to present cogent
argument, and to support his argument with applicable legal authority. In this vacuum,
we turn to the trial court’s statement of decision wherein the court provides a brief and
11
apt rationale for finding plaintiff did not sustain his burden of showing a likelihood of
prevailing.
Plaintiff’s first cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress
fails because the tort requires a showing of outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of
human decency. The court found “[w]hat plaintiff has alleged, and what his evidence in
opposition appears to support, are complaints concerning personnel management by
defendants. Pleading of personnel management activity is ‘insufficient to support a claim
of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged.’
(Janken v. [GM Hughes Electronic (1996)] 46 Cal.App.4th [55,] 80.)” We agree with the
trial court that none of the allegations against these individual defendants involved in the
investigation and resolution of the grievances constitutes the type of outrageous conduct
beyond the bounds of human decency necessary to prevail on a claim of the intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff is unable to surmount the basic principle of law that an employee or
former employee cannot sue a current or former supervisor or employee for interfering
with his or her prospective economic advantage by inducing the employer to terminate
the plaintiff’s employment. (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24; Shepperd v.
Freeman (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 339, 347.) On this basis, the trial court properly
concluded plaintiff failed to provide any countervailing authority or analysis as to why
the facts before the court show the likelihood of prevailing on his interference with
prospective economic advantage cause of action.
Plaintiff’s discrimination claim meets another definitive legal obstacle. Individual
defendants cannot be sued for discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA), nor can they be sued for failing to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and
12
harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663-664;2 Janken v. GM Hughes
Electronic, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.) Plaintiff has not shown any likelihood of
surmounting this obstacle.
Finally, the trial court found that plaintiff did not establish that the individual
defendants’ conduct was in retaliation for his whistleblowing. The court explained: “The
mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted investigations and reached
conclusions with which Plaintiff does not agree with does not establish their investigatory
findings are an act of retaliation. Nor can Boyd’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s grievance at
the Step II level of PPSM 70 review be deemed to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is
no allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against Plaintiff that could be
deemed to be a retaliatory action.” In the absence of any evidence or analysis provided
by plaintiff, we have no basis for reaching a finding at odds with the trial court. Plaintiff
has not shown a likelihood of prevailing on a whistleblower retaliation cause of action.
(Gov. Code, § 8547.10.)
III
Plaintiff maintains he should have been allowed to amend his complaint for the
third time. As support he cites cases involving demurrers, not special motions to strike a
SLAPP. His authorities, therefore, are inapposite. The anti-SLAPP statute makes no
provision for amending the complaint once the court finds the targeted conduct is
protected speech. (Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1073.)
2 After Reno v. Baird, supra, 18 Cal.4th 640 was decided “the California Legislature
amended FEHA's harassment provision expressly holding individual employees liable for
their harassment.” (Scott v. Solano County Health & Soc. Orders Servs. Dep't (E.D. Cal.
2006) 459 F.Supp.2d 959, 966, citing Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j).) There is no
harassment claim targeted by the individual defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.
13
DISPOSITION
The judgment striking the four causes of action against defendants Nichols,
Oropeza, Seifert, Boyd, and Chilcott is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs
on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
RAYE , P. J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , J.
ROBIE , J.
14
EXHIBIT # 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 02/09/2015 TIME: 09:37:00 AM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: K. Pratchen
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:
EVENT TYPE: Motion to Strike (SLAPP) - Civil Law and Motion - MSA/MSJ/SLAPP
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Ruling On Submitted Matter (Motion to Strike (SLAPP)) Taken Under
Submission 2/6/2015
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert's
Special Motion to Strike the First through Fourth Causes of Action of Self-represented Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
This motion was continued to today's date to permit the self-represented plaintiff to file his own
opposition to the motion. Although no substitution of attorneys has yet been filed with the Court, the
court accepts the representation of plaintiff in his Dec. 29, 2014 Declaration in which declared that he
terminated Douglas Stein as his counsel of record on Dec. 16, 2014. A substitution of attorneys
signed by both former attorney and the plaintiff is still required to be filed with the Court by
plaintiff.
At the plaintiff's request, the Court has considered none of the papers filed by his former attorney
Douglas E. Stein in opposition to this motion. The Opposition papers filed by the self-represented
plaintiff were filed and served by US Mail on Jan. 23, 2015, instead of on Jan. 21, 2015, as ordered by
the Court. Further, the service was by US Mail, rather by personal delivery, facsimile transmission,
express mail, or other means reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties not
later than the close of the next business day after the time the opposing papers are filed, as required by
Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b). Moving party has therefore been deprived of at least three business days in
which to prepare their reply.
Additionally plaintiff's opposing Memorandum of Points and Authorities exceeds the 15 page limit
provided in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113. Despite this failure to comply with the California
Rules of Court, the Court has read and considered the entire 34 page document. In future filings, absent
ex parte order permitting a longer memorandum, the self-represented plaintiff is admonished to abide by
the page limitations.
As noted, despite these failures to comply with the Court order and the applicable statutes, the Court has
considered plaintiff's opposition papers.
The Court declines to consider plaintiff's 17 page "Response to Defendant's Reply Brief" with attached
filed on Feb. 2, 2015, as there is no statutory right to such a supplemental brief.
Defendants' Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.
At the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and
is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v.
Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 941, 944) Thus, as is the case with attorneys,
self-represented litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th
1229, 1246-1247; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984.
Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint sets forth eight causes of action: the 1st for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, 2nd for tortious interference with economic advantage, 3rd for harassment, failure to
prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation under FEHA, 4th for whistleblower/unlawful
retaliation, 5th for violation of Health & Safety Code, sec. 1278.5, 6th for breach of written contract, 7th
for wage and hour violations and 8th for rescission - unlawful contract.
Moving party defendants move to specially strike the 1st through 4th causes of action, only, as each
arises out of acts in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue
and plaintiff cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits.
Anti-SLAPP procedure
The Court must follow a "two-step process for determining whether an action is a SLAPP." Navellier v.
Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88. First, whether the defendant has made a threshold prima facie
showing that the defendant's acts, of which the plaintiff complains, were ones taken in furtherance of the
defendant's constitutional rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. If the court
finds that such a showing has been made, then the plaintiff will be required to demonstrate that "there is
a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." The defendant has the burden on the first issue,
the threshold issue; the plaintiff has the burden on the second issue. Kajima Engineering & Construction,
Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 921, 928. "Only a cause of action that satisfies both
prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute--i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even
minimal merit--is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the statute." Navellier v. Sletten (2002)29
Cal.4th 82, 89.
Petition or Free Speech
Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (e) provides: "As used in this section, "act in furtherance of a person's right of
petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public
issue" includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or
judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement
or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or
judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law,..."
The California legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, known as the anti-SLAPP
statute, to provide a procedural remedy to dispose of lawsuits and causes of action that are brought to
chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for
redress of grievances.(See Rusheen v Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1055-1056. These provisions
apply to SLAPP suits brought against public entities and public employees. See San Ramon Valley Fire
Prot Dist v Contra Costa County Employees' Ret Ass'n (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 343, 353; see also City of
Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 69.
It is well established that the policies of Defendant University, including the Personnel Policies for Staff
Members ("PPSM") and UC Davis Policy and Procedure Manual ("PPM"), have the force and effect of
state statute. (Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165.)
Statutory procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized by law for section 425.16 purposes.
(Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 35 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399.) The constitutional right to petition includes the
act of seeking administrative action. (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th
115.) Investigations and investigatory reports prepared in connection with an issue under consideration
or review by an official body, such as a public entity's internal investigations, are protected activities
under the anti-SLAPP statute. (See Miller v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 169 Cal App.4th 1373, 1383;
Hansen v California Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitiation (2008) 171 Cal.App.4th 1537, 1544; Briggs v.
Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal. 4th 1106.)
In this case, the speech by Chilcott, Boyd, Oropeza, Seifert, and Nichols that is at issue were made in
connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and deciding the workplace complaints filed by
Plaintiff and others pursuant to University policies.
The allegations of the SAC against Nichols attack her protected participation in the official investigations.
The SAC specifically alleges Nichols' communications regarding the investigation. (SAC, paras. 70 (l),
(o), (q), (s), (x), (AA)) and her investigative conclusions (SAC para. 70 (v), (KK)). Nichols was appointed
to investigate Plaintiffs whistleblower complaints, and was also appointed to conduct an investigation
into complaints of workplace violence filed by Putney and Daniliuc. All were protected petitioning
activities.
The allegations against Boyd and Chilcott are limited to their receipt of emails from Nichols relating to
the investigations, and Chilcott's sending of an email relating to the investigation of Plaintiff (SAC, para.
70(m), (x), (AA).) The emails are protected speech in connection with an investigation process.
The allegations against Oropeza and Seifert are based upon their investigation into the emails plaintiff
sent to Nichols in April 2012. Oropeza and Seifert conducted their investigation pursuant to the
University's grievance protocol and reached conclusions documented in a report.
Boyd acted as Complaint Resolution Officer ("CRO") at Step II of the University's PPSM 70 process,
hearing and deciding Plaintiff's appeal of his termination. In Vergos, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at
1399-1400, the Court held that defendant reviewer was entitled to the protection of the anti-SLAPP
statute for denying the grievance. Specifically, in Vergos, a state university employee pursued an
internal grievance against his supervisor for sexual harassment. In an administrative proceeding
authorized by the Regents of the University of California, the hearing officer denied the grievance. The
employee then filed a civil rights suit against the hearing officer, alleging that her decision had failed to
protect him from future harassment. (Id. at pp. 1390-1392, 1396-1397.) The hearing officer filed a
special motion to strike, contending that her communications were made in connection with an issue
under consideration in an official proceeding. (See § 425.16, subd. (e)(2).) The trial court denied the
motion. The Court of Appeal reversed because "[t]he gravamen of plaintiff's [claim] is [the hearing
officer's] communicative conduct in denying plaintiff's grievances. The hearing, processing, and
deciding of the grievances (as alleged in the complaint) are meaningless without a communication of the
adverse results." (146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1397.) Thus, Vergos recognized that the anti-SLAPP statute
applies where liability is based on protected speech. (See Id. at pp. 1397-1399)
Moving parties have established that their speech and writings are protected as made in connection with
an issue under consideration or review by an official proceeding authorized by law. The burden
therefore shifts to plaintiff to show that he will prevail.
Probability That Plaintiff Will Prevail
Plaintiff must show a likelihood of prevailing on each of the elements of his causes of action, and must
also show a likelihood of defeating any applicable affirmative defenses. (Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994)
27 Cal.App.4th 809, 820, 824; see also Paul of Council v. Hanyecz (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1367,
overruled on other grounds in Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 68.)
The test to use to determine Plaintiffs probability of prevailing is similar to the standard applied to
evidentiary showings in motions for summary judgment, and the supporting facts must be demonstrated
by way of competent, admissible evidence. (Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th
628, 654-655.) The difference between summary judgment and anti-SLAPP is that the burden is on the
opposing party plaintiff to show the likelihood of prevailing.
In order to establish the necessary probability of prevailing, plaintiff was required both to plead claims
that were legally sufficient, and to make a prima facie showing, by admissible evidence, of facts that
would merit a favorable judgment on those claims, assuming plaintiff's evidence were credited. The court
does not, however, weigh the parties' evidence, in terms of either credibility or persuasiveness. Rather,
the defendant's evidence is considered with a view toward whether it defeats the plaintiff's showing as a
matter of law, such as by establishing a defense or the absence of a necessary element. 1-800
Contacts, Inc. v. Steinberg (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 568, 584-585.
1st For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
An essential element of pleading a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is a showing of
outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of human decency. Managing personnel is not outrageous
conduct beyond the bounds of human decency, but rather conduct essential to the welfare and
prosperity of society. A simple pleading of personnel management activity is insufficient to support a
claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged. If personnel
management decisions are improperly motivated, the remedy is a suit against the employer for
discrimination. Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal. App. 4th 55, 80.
What plaintiff has alleged, and what his evidence in opposition appears to support, are complaints
concerning personnel management by defendants. Pleading of personnel management activity is
"insufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is
alleged." (Janken, supra.)
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the facts before the court show the
likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of action.
2nd Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage
Plaintiff's claim tortious interference with economic advantage against Defendants. An employee or
former employee cannot sue a current or former supervisor or employee for interfering with his or her
prospective economic advantage by inducing the employer to terminate the plaintiff's employment.
(Shepperd v. Freeman (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 339, 347; Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24.)
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the facts before the court show the
In the third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges violation of FEHA, both Section 12940(a) which prohibits
discrimination and Section 12940(k) which addresses the failure to prevent discrimination.
These claims are not properly pleaded against the individual Defendants as individuals cannot be sued
for discrimination under the FEHA, nor can they be sued for failing to prevent discrimination, retaliation,
and harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663- 664; see, also Janken, supra, at p. 63.) In
Janken the Supreme Court noted the "fundamental distinction" between the way the FEHA treats
harassment, on the one hand--for which supervisors may be held personally liable, and discrimination on
the other hand--for which, Janken held, individuals are not personally responsible.
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the facts before the court show the
likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of action.
Plaintiff has not established that moving defendants' conduct was in retaliation for plaintiff's
whistleblowing.
The mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted investigations and reached conclusions with
which Plaintiff does not agree with does not establish their investigatory findings are an act of retaliation.
Nor can Boyd's decision to deny Plaintiffs grievance at the Step II level of PPSM 70 review be deemed
to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is no allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against
Plaintiff that could be deemed to be a retaliatory action.
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the facts before the court show the
likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of action.
As a matter of law, Plaintiff has not shown that he can prevail on any of his four causes of action against
moving party defendants. Given the Court's determination the Court need not address the Regents'
other arguments based on Gov't Code 821.6. It bears noting, however, that immunity extends to
investigations even if there is a later decision not to institute administrative proceedings or to initiate a
prosecution. See Ingram v Flippo (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1293.
The anti-SLAPP motion is therefore granted as to moving defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott,
Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert only, as to the 1st through 4th causes of action, only.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission.
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter (Motion for Reconsideration of the 2/9/2015
Order) taken under submission on 4/10/15
TENTATIVE RULING
Self-represented Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dated Feb. 9, 2015 Anti-SLAPP Motion
is DENIED.
A self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater
consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.
App. 3d 941, 944) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct rules
of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell
(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was filed and served by US Mail on Feb. 20, 2015. No hearing date
appeared on the Motion papers. On Feb. 25, 2015, an Amended Notice of Motion reflecting the hearing
date of March 6, 2015 was filed and served by US Mail. That notice, counting backwards from March 6
to Feb. 20, allowed only 10 court days' notice instead of the required16 court days' notice, and allowed
none of the five additional calendar days for service by mail, as required by C.C.P., sec. 1005 and 12c.
The hearing date was continued to today's date at the request of the moving party.
Defendant's opposition to the motion for reconsideration objects to the untimely notice and further
asserts that moving party has failed to meet the requirements of a motion for reconsideration under
C.C.P., sec. 1008.
A motion for reconsideration must be made (i) within 10 days after service upon the party of written
notice of entry of the order and (ii) based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and (iii) to
the same judge or court that made the order. C.C.P. section 1008(a). C.C.P. section 1008 is the
exclusive means for modifying, amending or revoking an order. That limitation is expressly jurisdictional.
Morite of California v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 485, 490.
Moving party fails to base his motion for reconsideration upon any new or different facts, circumstances,
or law. Instead, plaintiff contends that the Court failed to read his opposition and attached exhibits to the
anti-SLAPP motion. Moving party contends that the Court should have accepted his supplemental brief,
which argues that the SLAPP motion violated an earlier stipulation between the parties to permit the
filing of a second amended complaint, that some unidentified new authority applies to the anti-SLAPP
motion in an unidentified manner and that the Court erred in its anti-SLAPP ruling.
None of these contentions is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements that the motion for
reconsideration be "based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law."
A trial court has no jurisdiction to reconsider a prior order on the basis of different facts, circumstances
or law in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the failure to present them earlier. Baldwin v.
Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1192, 1200. Further, if the plaintiff is not required to
explain the failure to earlier produce pertinent legal authority that was available, the ability of a party to
obtain reconsideration would expand in inverse relationship to his competence. Without a diligence
requirement the number of times a court could be required to reconsider its prior orders would be limited
only by the ability of the party to belatedly conjure a legal theory different from those previously rejected,
which is not much of a limitation. Baldwin v. Home Savings, supra, 59 Cal. App. 4th 1192, 1199.
The Court has read and considered plaintiff's objections to the formal order. The Court will sign the
formal order submitted on the anti-SLAPP motion.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The Court affirmed the tentative ruling.
Having taken the matter under submission on 4/10/2015, the Court now rules as follows:
Declaration of Mailing
I hereby certify that I am not a party to the within action and that I deposited a copy of this document in
sealed envelopes with first class postage prepaid, addressed to each party or the attorney of record in
the U.S. Mail at 720 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California.
Dated: April 14, 2015
E. Brown, Deputy Clerk _____s/ E. Brown_____
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242
P O R T E R I S C O T T APR 1 4 •
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896
Douglas L. Ropel, SBN 300486
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
FAX: 916.927.3706
dburkettfalporterscott.com
6
Attorney for Defendants
7
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
8 MICHAEL BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DORIN DANILIUC, DANESHA NICHOLS,
CINDY OROPEZA. PATRICK PUTNEY, ANN MADDEN RICE,
9 BRENT SEIFERT, and CHARLES WITCHER
10
Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
11
^ 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
H 3 S _ VD
^ tn m OO ^
o 2 P; 14
> U O; Os JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASENO. 34-2013-00155479
15
: 0\ ON
Plaintiff, ' -feROPeSBDi- ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT,
3
17 NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND SEIFERT'S
SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST
18 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF
19 OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSIW OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFlP'S SECOND
GALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, AMENDED COMPLAINT
20 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE DATE: February 6,2015
21 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES TIME: 2:00 P.M.
22 WITCHER DANESHA NICHOLS. CINDY DEPT: 53
OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
23 PUTNEY. DORIN DANILIUC, and does I
through 50. inclusive. Complaint Filed: December 12,2013
24
Amended Complaint Filed: June 16,2014
25 Defendants SAC Filed: September 30,2014
26
///
27
28 ///
{01362378.OOCX} 1
(PROPOSED! ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAOSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Defendants MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
2 OROPEZA, and BRENT SEIFERT ("Defendants") filed a Special Motion to Strike four causes of
3 action, as pleaded against them, from PlaintifTs Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Code of
4 Civil Procedure section 425.16. Specifically, Defendants brought the Motion to strike Plaintiffs
5 causes of action against them for: (1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (2) Tortious
6 Interference with Economic Advantage; (3) Discrimination and Failure to Prevent Harassment,
7 Discrimination, and Retaliation under Government Code section 12940, subdivisions (a) and (k);
S and (4) Whistleblower Retaliation under Govemment Code section 8547 et seq.
9 On Febmary 5, 2015, the Court issued a Tentative Ruling, which is incorporated as
10 Exhibit A, granting Defendants' Motion.,; Pursuant to PlaintifPs request, the Motion was heard
11 before the Honorable Judge David I. Brown on Febmary 6, 2015. After hearing from the parties
12 and taking the matter under submission, the Court affirmed its Tentative Ruling v^ith the issuance
o
o
a in 13 of a Minute Order on Febmary 9, 2015. The Court's Minute Order ruled as follows:
^ -3 (N
— \o
P eS IS» S
14 Defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy
^is < o"
ai 1^
o.<=^.
!£ £
1c
1J V 'Oropeza and Brent Seifert's Special Motion to Strike the First thfough
Fourth Causes of Action of Self-represented Plaintiffs Second Amended
W >. c ^ >< 16 Complaint is GRANTED.
fell ^ 5: ,
211 17 This motion was continued to permit the self-represented plaintiff to file
o his own opposition to the motion. Although no substitution of attorneys
18 has yet beenfiledwith the Court, the Court accepts the representation of
I plaintiff in his Dec. 29, 2014 Declaration in which declared that he
19
terminated Douglas Stein as his counsel of record on Dec. 16, 2014. A
20 substitution of attorneys signed by both former attorney and the
plaintiff is still required to befiledwith the Court by piaintifT.
21
22 At the plaintiffs request, the Cpurt has considered none of the papers filed
by his former attomey Douglas E. Stein in opposition to this motion. The
23 Opposition papers filed by the self-represented plaintiff were filed and
served by US Mail on January 23, 2015, instead of on January 21,2015, as
24 ordered by the Court. Further, the service was by US Mail, rather by
25 personal delivery, facsimile transmission, express mail, or other means
reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties not
26 later than the close of the next business day after the time the opposing
papers are filed, as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b). Moving party
27 has therefore been deprived of at least three business days in which to
28 prepare their reply.
I0I362378.DOCX} 2_
jPROPOSEDj ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
\
Additionally, plaintiff's opposing Memorandum of Points and Authorities
exceeds the 15 page limit provided in Califomia Rules of Court, Rule
2 3.1113. Despite this failure to comply with the Califomia Rules of Court, ^
the Court has read and considered the entire 34 page document. In future
3 filings, absent ex parte order pemiitting a longer memorandum, the self-
4 represented plaintiff is admonished to abide by the page limitations.
5 As noted, despite these failures to comply with the Court order and the
applicable statutes, the Court has considered plaintiffs opposition papers.
6 The Court declines to consider plaintiffs 17 page "Response to
7 Defendant's Reply Brief filed on Feb. 2, 2015, as there is no statutory
right to such a supplemental brief.
8 f
Defendants' Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.
9
10 At the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be
treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater
II consideration than other litigants and attomeys. (Williams v. Pacific
Mutual Ufe Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 941, 944) Thus, as is the
12
o case with attomeys, self-represented litigants must follow correct rules of
o
Ol
a in 13 procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 1246-1247; see
[ _
3 0 0 — >o also Rajjpleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984.
CO V% oo O
O 6' ' t 14
O 5 < >- Second Amended Complaint
Vi g S S
> VJ ^ o> 15
^ < g
o tu <
>6 «> 16 Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint sets forth eight causes of action:
o r- u. (1) intentionaL infliction of emotional distress; (2) tortious interference
17 with economic advantage; (3) harassment, failure to prevent harassment,
ex. discrimination and retaliation under FEHA; (4) whistleblower/unlawful
18
retaliation; (5) violation of Health & Safety Code section 1278.5; (6)
19 breach of written contract; (7) wage and hour violations; and (8) rescission
- unlawful contract.
20
21 Moving party defendants move to specially strike the 1st through 4th
causes of action, only, as each arises out of acts in furtherance of the right
22 of petition of free speech in connection with a public issue, and plaintiff
cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits. '
23
24 Anti-SLAPP procedure
8 Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (e) provides: "As used in this section, "act in
furtherance of a person'srightof petition orfi-eespeech under the United
9 States or Califomia Constitution in connection with a public issue"
10 includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a
legislative, executive, or 'judicial proceeding, or any other official
11 proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement or writing
made in coruiection with an issue under consideration or review by a
12 legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding(
o
o
a in 13 authorized by law... ." ^
t_ g Ol to
P 00 ^ «S• f~
O u - " sP;
" 14 The Califomia legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,
^
CO gi <
5, S M
> W o\ Icnown as the anti-SLAPP statute, to provide a procedural remedy to
OC < o" ^ 2 15 dispose of lawsuits and causes of action that, are brought to chill the valid
.— o .
16 exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the
govemment for redress of grievances.(See Rusheen v Cohen (2006) 37
o 17 Cal.4th 1048, 1055-1056. These provisions apply to SLAPP suits brought
against public entities and public employees. See San Ramon Valley Fire
18 Prot Dist V Contra Costa County Employees' Ret Ass'n (2004) 125
19 Cal.App.4th 343, 353; see also City ofCotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.
4th 69.
20
21 It is well established that the policies of Defendant University, including
the Personnel Policies for Staff Members ("PPSM") and UC Davis Policy
22 and Procedure Manual ("PPM"), have the force and effect of state statute.
(Kim V. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160,
23 165.) "1
24
Statutory procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized by law for
25 section 425.16 purposes. {Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 35 Cal.App.4th 1387,
1399.) The constitutional right to petition includes the act of seeking
26 administrative action. {Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity
27 (1999) 19 Cal.4th 115.) Investigations and investigatory reports prepared
in connection with an issue under consideration or review by an official
28 body, such as a public entity's internal investigations, are protected
<01362378.DOCX}
(PROPOSEDI ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. {See Miller v. City of Los Angeles
(2009) 169 Cal ARp.4th 1373, 1383; Hansen v California Dept of
Corrections and Rehabilitiation (2008) 171 Cal.App.4th 1537, 1544;
Briggs V. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal. 4th 1106.)
In this case, the speech by Chilcott, Boyd, Oropeza, Seifert, and Nichols
that is at issue were made in cormection with the processing, investigation,
hearing and deciding the" workplace complaints filed by Plaintiff and
others pursuant to University policies.
in
17 3"" for Discrimination
18 In the third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges violation of the FEHA, both
19 section 12940(a), which prohibits discrimination, and Section 12940(k)
which addresses the failure to prevent discrimination.
20
These claims are not properly pleaded against the individual Defendants as
21
individuals cannot be sued for discrimination Under the FEHA, nor can
22 they be sued for failing to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and
harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663-664; see, also
23 , Janken, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.) In .lanken the Supreme Court
noted the "ftindamental distinction" between the way the FEHA treats
24
harassment, on the one hand—for which supervisors may be held
25 personally liable, and discrimination on the other hand~for which, Janken
held, individuals are not personally responsible.
26
27 Plaintiffhas failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the
facts before the court show the likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of
28 action.
(OI36237g.DOCX}
(PROPOSED} ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
4'" for Whistleblower/Unlawful Retaliation
1
The mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted investigations
and reached conclusions with which Plaintiff does not agree v\dth does not
establish their investigatoryfindingsare an act of retaliation. Nor can
Boyd's decision to deny Plaintiffs grievance at the Step II level of PPSM
70 review be deemed to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is no
allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against Plaintiff that
could be deemed to be a retaliatory action.
10
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the
11 facts before the court show the likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of
action.
12
o
o
Ol
13 As a matter of law. Plaintiff has not shown that he can prevail on any of
h
,
"5
- J, m
S -- )J?
~ ee 'o his four causes of action against moving party defendants. Given the
^ ( / } tn QO •
p u 2 P; 14 Court's determination the Court need not address the Regents' other
(J
> u o» o> arguments based on Govemment Code section 821.6. It bears noting,
oi < o" vb vo 15 however, that immtmity extends to investigations even if there is a later
16 decision not to institute administrative proceedings or to initiate a
prosecution. (See Ingram v Flippo (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1293.)
o 17
•n
The anti-SLAPP motion is therefore granted as to moving defendants
18
Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza and
19 Brent Seifert only, as to thefirstthrough fourth causes of action.
25
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Special Motion to Strike the four causes of
26
action enumerated above, as pleaded against Defendants, from Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint is hereby GRANTED.
28
(OI36237g.DOCX) 8
(PROPOSED! ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment be, and hereby is, entered in favor of
Defendants MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA,
and BRENT SEIFERT, and against Plaintiff JAROSLAW WASZCZUK for the four causes of
action asserted against them in the Second Amended Complaint.
5 ^ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are awarded their costs and the attorney's
6 fees incurred in conjunction with the Special Motion to Strike pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure
7 section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1). Defendants shall file a separate motion to determine the
8 amount to be awarded.
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 Dated: ,2015
11
12 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
o
Ol
13
DAVID I. BROWN
_ vo
t e« S«• S
JS APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT.
14
e«: < o"vb vo 15
UJ >. c 9\ Ov Dated: February _,2015 By.
y < 16
o s? i Jaroslaw Waszczuk, In Pro Per
3 V)
o
m
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
<OI36237g.DOCX)
(PROPOSEDI ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA AND
SEIFERT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF
•• • \
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT # 5
1 P O R T E R I S C O T T
{01892012.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (the "UNIVERSITY" or
"DEFENDANT") respectfully submits the following memorandum of points and authorities in
support of its motion to: (1) compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK's verified
4 responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One),
5 Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One.); (2) deem
6 Defendant's Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted; (3) award monetary sanctions in the
amount of $5,200.00 to retum Defendant to the position it would have been had the subject
discovery responses been timely provided; (4) issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as a
result of Plaintiffs pattem of vexatious litigation tactics and failure to engage in the discovery
10 process; and (5) impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.
I.
11
INTRODUCTION
12 Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special
13 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
^ ^ ~
P ,2 00 — vg
h-
O ..
«/-! oo O
ov ^
14 Employment (Set One) and Requests for Admissions (Set One) on April 25, 2018. Responses were
> ^ ov ov
Oi < O 15 due on or before May 30, 2018. Defendant provided Plaintiff with an extension to June 20, 2018 to
U ^ C ov Ov
—
• " ..
16 provide responses to the requests. Plaintiff has completely failed to respond to any written
17 discovery and responses are overdue.
18 Defendant respectftilly requests the Court issue an Order to (1) compel Plaintiff to provide
19 verified responses to Defendant's Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special
20 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
21 Employment (Set One) and Request for Admissions (Set One); (2) deem Defendant's Request for
22 Admissions (Set One) admitted; (3) issue monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of
23 $5,200.00 for Defendant's fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion; and (4) issue the sanction
24 of termination of the present action as a result of Plaintiffs failure to provide responses to the
25 Defendant's written discovery despite receiving an extension of time to do so and in light of
26 Plaintiffs pattem of vexatious litigation tactics throughout the course of this litigation. Moreover, if
27 the Court is not willing, at this stage, to terminate the action, it should impose a reasonable deadline
28 of two weeks for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, if Plaintiff intends to
{01892012.DOCX} ' • 1
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 further amend his complaint.
2 II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
3
4 Defendant UNIVERSITY served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents (Set
5 One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Eorm
6 Interrogatories - Employment (Set One), and Requests for Admissions (Set One) on April 25, 2018!
7 (See Declaration of Daniel Bardzell in Support of Motion to Compel ("Bardzell Decl."), ^ 2 and
8 Exhibit A.) By correspondence dated May 22, 2018, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to
9 respond to all such requests on the basis that he was sick. (See Bardzell Decl., 3 and Exhibit B.)
10 Defendants responded by email correspondence dated May 23, 2018 granting Plaintiff an extension
11 of time to respond until June 20, 2018. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiff completely
12 failed to respond to any such request by June 20, 2018 and same are currently overdue. (See
o
o
13 Bardzell Decl., H 4.)
L. •- r s
r - 3 oc — VO
t- 00 p
^ m
14 On Septernber 24, 2018, counsel for Defendant served a meet and confer correspondence
o g-=^ov Ovov ^
OS < o" VO
15 upon Plaintiff regarding the outstanding discovery responses wherein defense counsel indicated:
VD
OV OV
•b p-J X 16 [P]lease provide complete responses to all such outstanding requests no later than September 28,
UJ <
^•5 yf- u-
^ TO -
o
17 2018. If we do not have your complete responses by that date, we will file a niotion to compel
1^
18 responses and request monetary as well as terminating sanctions from the Court." (See Bardzell
19 Decl., H 5 and Exhibit D.)
20 By incoherent email correspondence also dated September 24, 2018, Plaintiff indicated, in
21
part:
22 Thank you for news about the Request for Production of Documents and Special
Interrogatories , I appreciate but I not sure yet what I am going to . I am waiting for
23 answers from the federal authorities in this matter.
I will let know . I mean time you can entertain yourself with my affirmative defense
24
of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. As Jeanine Pirro stated not so long ago , . UC Regent wife
25 Senator Feinstein's Unhinged Demon Rats attacking Judge Kavanaugh as I was
attacked and wasted by her husband and other unhinged UC demon , rats . Same
26 people only different is that I have no 1 penny on my account and I am for my SS
check on 28^*^ than I could buy ink for my printer and do eventually interrogatories.
27
(See Bardzell Decl., TI 6 and Exhibit E.)
28
{01892012.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
Plaintiff failed to respond to any of the outstanding discovery requests by September 28,
2018 and same remain outstanding. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 7.)
3 On October 1, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an email correspondence to Defendant stating: "I
4 am working on the Interrogatories and other papers. Pleas give one more week to finish. Attached is
a part of interrogatories to show you that I am working on ." (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 8 and Exhibit
F.) Included was a rambling apparent partial draft response to Defendant's Special Interrogatories,
Set One without a verification. (See id.)
The course of litigation in this matter is lengthy and complex. The following is a brief
summary: Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on September 30,
10 2014. Among the several claims in the SAC are four causes of action against all named
11 Defendants': (1) intentional infiiction of emotional distress ("IIED"); (2) tortious interference with
12 economic advantage; (3) FEHA harassment and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination,
13 retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 12940(a); and (4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation
t 1 S3 _ VO
t/1 u~, 00 o in violation of Govemment Code §§ 8547 e/. ^e^.
O u =^ 2 14
.
1 <ag
> U ov Ov I ^
Each of these causes of action arises out of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant at the
Od •< o" ^ S '
c o^ 5^ University of Califomia at Davis Medical Center. In addition to Defendant UNIVERSITY^, these
17 causes of action were plead against Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN
On April 14, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting the Special Motion to Strike finding
that Plaintiff failed to establish a probability of prevailing on the causes of action pleaded against
the anti-SLAPP Defendants as required by section 425.16 and entering judgment in favor of the
anti-SLAPP Defendants. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 10 and Exhibit G.)
Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of the four remaining
individual Defendants RICE, WITCHER, PUTNEY, and DANILIUC. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 11 and
Exhibit H.) The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant remaining in the case.
10
On May 11, 2015, the anti-SLAPP Defendants filed a Motion for Fees and Costs pursuant to
11
CCP § 425.16, subdivision (c) and the Court's Order dated April 14, 2015 on Defendant's Special
12
Motion to Strike. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 12.) The motion sought recovery of approximately $33,000
13
• = S—OO VOo in fees and costs incurred by the anti-SLAPP Defendants in connection with the Special Motion to
, 1/5.. ov
v-\
14
Strike.
0^
_ < o"
o ^ ^ 15
ov ov
b c -i X 16 On June 29, 2018, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion for Fees and
UJ <
a- c « f - Lu
. o 17 Costs in the amount of $22,284 against Plaintiff (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 13 and Exhibit I.)
m
18 Plaintiff has represented that he will seek leave of the court to file a Third Ame;nded
19 Complaint. (See Bardzell Decl., Exhibit B.) At the outset ofthe appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion-
20 well over a year ago - Plaintiff provided Defendants with a draft of his Third Amended Complaint.
21 It is nearly three hundred pages long and includes meritless allegations of a conspiracy to cover-up
22 illegal power sales that purportedly involves all levels of state government, the University of
23 Califomia system, and local jurisdictions, including the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. To
24 date. Plaintiff has not sought leave of the Court to file a Third Amended Complaint.
25 III.
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
26 INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE). FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL (SET
ONE) AND FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT (SET ONE)
27
A party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath
28
{01892012.DOCX} .4
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: an answer containing the information
2 being sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party's option to produce writings, or an objection
3 to the particular interrogatory. (CCP § 2030.210(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed
4 fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order
5 compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) The party also waives objections
6 to the interrogatories (including those based on privilege and work product) by failing to respond
7 by the deadline. (CCP § 2030.290(a).)
8 Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to
9 a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have 'to demonstrate either good cause or
10 that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. {Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific
11 Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4"^ 390, 411.) A separate statement is not required
12 when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)
o
o
r4
i i ir, 13 In our case. Defendant has not received plaintiffs verified responses to Special
^ 00 — VO
H V3
O u-"^
oo o 14 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), or Form Interrogatories -
-U "
(= < Ov
00 (S M
Di < d ov ov 15 Employment (Set One). These interrogatories were properly served on Plaintiff on April 25, 2018.
vb VD
.- u Ov ov
_) X 16 (Bardzell Decl., Tl 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs responses were due on or before May 30, 2018. By
H £:
o
17 correspondence dated May 22, 2018, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond to all such
18 requests on the basis that he was sick. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 3 and Exhibit B.) Defendant responded by
19 email correspondence dated May 23, 2018 granting Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to
20 June 20, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiff did not respond to this discovery by
21 June 20, 2018, has not offered a valid excuse for his failure to respond and all such responses
22 remain outstanding. Defendant requires these discovery responses in order to properly defend itself
23 in this case and to determine the validity of plaintiffs claims.
24 Accordingly, Defendant respectfully request an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide
25 verified responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General
26 (Set One), and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One) without objections.
27 ///
28 ///
{01892012.DOCX) 5
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
IV.
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the
party propounding the demand may move for an order compelling responses to the demand. (CCP
§ 2031.300(b).) In addition, a party who fails to respond waives any objections he otherwise could
have raised to the demand. (CCP § 2031.300(a).)
Defendant served Plaintiff with a Request for Production of Documents (Set One) on April
25, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs responses were due on or before May 30,
2018. Plaintiff requested and received an extension of time in which to respond yet failed to
10 respond by the extended deadline. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiffs responses remain
11 overdue and outstanding. (See id.)
12 Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide
o
o
(N
13 responses to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents (Set One), without objections.
3 oo
00 ^ VO ^
r - V5 ir^
H • r i 00
00 Oo
O u °^ 2 14 V.
— > U ov ov , ^
0-; < Q- VD ^ 1J DEFENDANT'S REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) SHOULD BE
DEEMED ADMITTED
5 g g --i X 16
o.|is< The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under
o
17 oath separately to each request. (CCP § 2033.210(a).) Each response shall answer the substance of
18
the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request. {Id.)
19
20 "If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response
[. . .] The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to
21 the requests[. . . .] The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of
22 any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed
admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction[. . . . ] It is mandatory that the court impose
23 a monetary sanction [. . .] on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a
timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion." (CCP §
24 2033.280(a-c).)
25 Defendant served Plaintiff with a Request for Admissions (Set One) including nineteen
26 requests on April 25, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs responses were due on
27 or before May 30, 2018. Plaintiff requested and received an extension of time in which to respond
28 yet failed to respond by the extended deadline. (Bardzell Decl., Tl 4 and Exhibit C.) Plaintiff s
{01892012.DOCX} 6
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 responses remain overdue and outstanding. (See id.)
. 2 Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests an order that the tmth of all matters specified in
3 Defendant's Request for Admissions, Set One be deemed admitted pursuant to CCP § 2033.280.
4 VL
.5 MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AWARDED
Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in relevant part, that:
6
7 The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse
of the discovery process, or any attomey advising that conduct, or both pay the
8 reasonable expenses, including attoniey's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
9 conduct [. . .] If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the
court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction
10 acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of
the sanction unjust;
11
12 CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c) and 2033.280(c) provide that a court shall impose a ,
13 monetary sanction on any party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel responses to
r- 3 00 — VO
(— </5 m 00 o
O .. Ov -a- 14 interrogatories, request for production of documents or request for admissions.
— > v j a^ ov
< o" >o vd 15- Defendant has extended Plaintiff every opportunity to avoid court intervention in this
U ^ . S ov 5;
matter by providing Plaintiff with an extension of time to respond to all of the aforementioned
3
17 requests to which Plaintiff still failed to provide any response. Plaintiff has completely ignored
18 Defendant's discovery requests.
19 Plaintiffs attempt to evade his obligation to provide responses to discovery has made the
20 current motion necessary, despite being afforded opportunities to avoid the need for same.
21 To date. Defendants have incurred $3,900 in fees as a result of Plaintiff s failure to respond
22 to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form
23 Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One.) and Request for
24 Admissions (Set One.) (Bardzell Decl., Tl 15.) Defendant anticipates incurring an additional $1,300
25 to review Plaintiffs Opposition, prepare a reply and attend a hearing. (See id.) Therefore, sanctions
26 are proper. Moreover, even if Plaintiff serves responses upon notice of this motion in order to avoid
27 a court order. Defendant has nevertheless been forced to incur the expense of moving to compel
28 Plaintiffs compliance with his discovery obligations, despite efforts to achieve a cooperative
{01892012.DOCX} ' ' • 7 .
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 result. As such, sanctions in the amount of $5,200 are appropriately awarded against Plaintiff for
2 the time and expense incurred by Defendant in filing this otherwise unnecessary motion.
VII.
TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE
The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may impose sanctions on any party
who engages in conduct that constitutes misuse ofthe discovery process. (CCP § 2023.030(a).)
•6
Misuses ofthe discovery process includes "failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method
7
of discovery" and "disobeying a court order to provide discovery." (CCP §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)
8
When a party fails to respond to an authorized method of discovery and/or fails to obey a court
9
order to provide discovery, the Court may impose monetary sanctions, terminating sanctions, or
10
both. (CCP § 2023.030(a), (d), (g).)
11
Courts have long held that terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is a willful
o.
12
o failure to comply with court orders, and should be issued where it appears that lesser sanctions
tN
f-^ •- 0 0^
13
L - 3 . VO
H CT) 1/-, OO O would not bring the offending party into compliance. {R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
o d-=^ 2: P; 14
> U ov ov ., (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Terminating sanctions are especially appropriate where a party
< o" vd ^ 1J
W c o^ o^
f— • — " .. fails to respond to discovery requests and ignores court orders. {See Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68
Cal.App.3d 372, 383.)
17
Terminating sanctions are appropriate in this case. Plaintiff has failed to provide any
18
verified responses to the Defendant's written discovery despite receiving an extension of time to do
19
so.
20
It is evident that Plaintiffs conduct is nothing more than a delaying tactic to prevent the
21
Defendant from engaging in basic discovery. Requiring Defendant to continue wasting time,
22
money, and Court resources to compel Plaintiff to litigate this case would be categorically unjust.
23
The aforementioned conduct has also prejudiced Defendant's ability to prepare for trial and will
24
interfere with the Court's ability ascertain the tmth in this case. It has thus become apparent that no
25
action will compel Plaintiff to comply with his discovery obligations, making terminating sanctions
26
appropriate.
27
Additionally, Plaintiffs pattem of vexatious litigation tactics throughout the course of this
28
{01892012.DOCX} 8
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
litigation further indicates the need for terminating sanctions. Recently, Plaintiff engaged in
vexatious litigation tactics in connection with his opposition to Defendants' Motion for Fees and
Costs Pursuant to CCP § 425.16(c). The Court recognized Plaintiffs repeated improper filings in
its Tentative Ruling on Defendants' Motion for Fees and Costs dated June 7, 2018, affirmed and
adopted by its Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Fees and Costs Pursuant to CCP § 425.16(c)
dated June 29, 2018. (Bardzell Decl., Exhibit I.) The Court's Tentative Ruling, in part, provided:
"First the Court must note that the opposition memorandum exceeds the 15 page limit
set forth in California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113 and Plaintiff failed to obtain an order
8 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1113(e) permitting an oversized meinorandum. The Court has
9 previously admonished Plaintiff for failing to comply with this mle."
[.-..]
10
Plaintiffs "notice of objection" to Defendants' supplemental declaration does nothing
11
more than repeat the issues discussed above related to his previous counsel and the'
12 alleged collusion with Defendants' counsel in addition to alleging that Defendants'
o
o counsel had attempted to provoke him into a physical confrontation. [. . .] There was no
tN
13 basis to file an'objection.'"
J 00 — VO
^ oo o
I/-J oo
O <J °^ 2 14 (Bardzell Decl., Exhibit I , Tentative Ruling on Defendants' Motion for Fees and Costs
> U ov ov _
cc; < o vd VD 1 J dated June 7, 2018, pg. 2-4.)
UJ ^ c 5; 5;
S g i -i X 16 Plaintiff has repeatedly filed multiple lengthy documents and pleadings and continues to
17 engage in tactics to delay the case and to force Defendant to expend additional funds in the defense
rn
18 of the action. Accordingly, Defendant requests that the Court grant terminating sanctions and issue
19 an Qrder dismissing the complaint against the remaining Defendant in its entirety, with prejudice.
20 VIH.
IF TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE NOT GRANTED. THE COURT SHOULD
21 IMPOSE A DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO SEEK LEAVE TO F I L E A THIRD
22 AMENDED COMPLAINT, IF AT A L L
23
As discussed supra. Plaintiff has represented that he will seek leave of the court to file a
24
Third Amended Complaint. At the outset of the appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion- well over a year
25
ago - Plaintiff provided Defendants with a draft of his Third Amended Complaint. It is nearly three
26
hundred pages long and includes allegations of a conspiracy to cover-up illegal power sales that
27
involves all levels of state govemment, the University of Califomia system, and local jurisdictions,
28
including the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. To date, Plaintiff has not sought leave of the
(0I892012.DOCX} ^ 9
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 Court to file a Third Amended Complaint. In light of Plaintiffs vexatious litigation tactics
2 identified supra, if the Court is not willing, at this stage, to terminate the action, it should impose a
3 reasonable deadline of two weeks from the issuance of an Order on the present Motion to Compel
4 for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. This would eliminate the specter of
5 additional voluminous and unnecessary pleading amendments from further delaying the case and
6 causing Defendant urmecessary fees and costs.
7 IX.
8 CONCLUSION
9 Defendant has made every effort to allow for the cooperative exchange of information,
10 however Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses to Defendant's Requests for Production of
11 Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One),
12 Form Interrogatories - Ehiployment (Set One.) and Request for Admissions (Set One.) Defendant
o
o
fN
U m
13 is left with no option other than to file the instant motion. As such, Defendant seeks an Order (1)
fN
i- '3
H C/3 oo
»o oo 14 compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant's Requests for
O CJ ov
venu
U
CA
Ov
on tN
oi < o" vd
Ov
15 Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
5 ^ § -J X 16 General (Set One) and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One.); (2) deeming Defendant's
:D C/) 17 Request for Admissions, Set One admitted; (3) awarding sanctions in the amount of $5,200.00 to
o
18 return Defendant to the position it would have been had responses been timely provided; (4) issue
19 terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff s pattern of vexatious litigation tactics
20 and failure to engage in the discovery process; and (5) altematively, if termination is not granted, to
21 impose a two week deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, if at all.
22
Dated: October 3, 2018 PORTER SCOTT
23 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
24
25 David P. E. Bhrkett
26 Daniel J. Bardzell
Attomeys for DefendEint
27
28
{01892012.DOCX} 10
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
Waszczuk V. Regents ofthe University of California, et ai
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
5
On the date below, I served the following document:
6
7 DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET
8 ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET
ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR
9 ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
10
BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
11 am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
12 course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
o
o
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
tN
13 addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
.,- ^ — VD
attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
•~ tN
t- 3 00 00 o
attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of
o OV 1^ 14
u I)
ov t-: nine in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving
00 53
— g<
> tN f N
ov OV
15 the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the
o '^S vd hours of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
f-
o: J X 16 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
o UJ < ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package
17 for collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the ovemight
delivery carrier.
18 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission,
I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
19 machine that 1 used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service
20 by electronic transmission, 1 caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
address listed below.
21
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
22
2216 Katzakian Way
23 Lodi, CA 95242
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
foregoing is tme and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on October 3, 2018.
25
26
Wendy Strasser
27
28
{0I892012.DOCX} II
DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
EXHIBIT # 6
EXHIBIT # 7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 10/31/2018 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: R. Mays, M. Oreschak
APPEARANCES
The Court received a letter from Plaintiff purportedly attaching his answers to special interrogatories.
The Court simply notes that no responses to form interrogatories or request for production were
attached to the letter and in any event, service of responses after the motion was filed does not moot the
motion. Defendant is still entitled to an order. To be clear, a motion is "made" when it is filed and
served. (CCP § 1005.5.) However, to the extent that any responses served after the motion was filed
comply with the above order, they need not be re-served.
Defendant's request for sanctions in connection with the motion to compel responses is denied as the
motion was unopposed. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 purports to authorize sanctions
if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery
authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing
sanctions under the C.R.C. must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing
sanctions. Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.
However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an
abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers
Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.
Defendant's unopposed motion to deem matters in the requests for admission admitted is granted,
unless Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk serves, "before the hearing on the motion," proposed
responses that are in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280(c).)
Defendant's request for mandatory monetary sanctions is connection with the motion to deem matters
admitted is granted. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) However, the requested amount of $5,200 for this
straightforward discovery motion is plainly excessive. Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk shall pay to
Defendant a mandatory monetary sanction in the amount of $520 ($260/hr x 2 hrs). The monetary
sanction is to be paid on or before December 1, 2018. If the sanction is not paid by that date, Defendant
may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may be enforced by a
separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)
The Court denies Defendant's alternate requests for issue, evidentiary, and/or terminating sanctions at
this time. The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the
party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose
sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment."
(Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 300, 304.) "The penalty should be
appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the
party entitled to but denied discovery. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793) The
discovery sanction cannot put the propounding party in a better position than they would have been in if
they had received the discovery. (Puritan Insurance Co. v Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal. App.3d 877,
884.)
Here, given that this is the first order with respect to the subject discovery, the drastic remedy of
terminating sanctions would be punitive. Further, while Defendant references Plaintiff's "vexatious"
conduct in this action, that conduct has nothing to do with the instant motion and in any event, is not a
basis for discovery sanctions. Such ad hominem comments serve no useful purpose in educating the
court as to the party's position, and distract more than they advocate. In short, they are more cathartic
than tactical.
Finally, the Court declines Defendant's requests that the Court impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek
leave to file a third amended complaint. Defendant indicates that Plaintiff has represented that he
intends to seek leave to file a third amended complaint which is represented as being nearly 300 pages
long. Plaintiff's decision to seek leave or not seek leave is his to make and the Court will not impose a
deadline as part of this discovery motion.
The notice of motion provides the incorrect time and location for the hearing. This matter has been
assigned to Department 53 for law and motion purposes and Department 53 hears law and motion
matters at 2 p.m. Moving counsel is directed to immediately provide notice to Plaintiff of the correct time
and location of the hearing.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling.
APPEARANCES
At the outset, the Court must point out Defendant's procedural errors that have rendered an otherwise
simple motion confusing and created unnecessary work for the Court. Defendant initially noticed this
motion for October 31, 2018 but included the incorrect law and motion department on the notice. It then
apparently filed the identical motion and noticed it for hearing on November 13 and 14 in this
department. Defendant wrote a letter to the Clerk requesting that the Clerk drop the November 13,
hearing, but never requested that the Clerk drop the October 31, 2018 hearing. (ROA 164). As a result,
the Court issued a ruling for the October 31, hearing. Subsequently, the Court received correspondence
from Defendant indicating that it believed the October 31, 2018 ruling was in error because it requested
the clerk drop that hearing. The only request received by the Clerk was the letter requesting that the
November 13, 2018 hearing be dropped. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the instant motion was
essentially filed three times for three separate hearing dates, it appears that Defendant intended to have
the matter heard on today's date. As a result, the Court vacates the ruling issued in connection
with the October 31, 2018 hearing. Though as seen below, the ruling will be essentially the same.
Interrogatories and Request for Production
The motion is granted.
No later than December 12, 2018, Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk shall serve verified responses, without
objections, to Plaintiff's form and special interrogatories (sets one) and requests for production (set one).
The Court received a letter from Plaintiff purportedly attaching his answers to special interrogatories.
The Court simply notes that no responses to form interrogatories or request for production were
attached to the letter and in any event, service of responses after the motion was filed does not moot the
motion. Defendant is still entitled to an order. To be clear, a motion is "made" when it is filed and
served. (CCP § 1005.5.) However, to the extent that any responses served after the motion was filed
comply with the above order, they need not be re-served.
Defendant's request for sanctions in connection with the motion to compel responses is denied as the
motion was unopposed. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 purports to authorize sanctions
if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery
authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing
sanctions under the C.R.C. must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing
sanctions. Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.
However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an
abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers
Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.
Request for Admissions
Defendant's unopposed motion to deem matters in the requests for admission admitted is granted,
unless Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk serves, "before the hearing on the motion," proposed
responses that are in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280(c).)
Defendant's request for mandatory monetary sanctions is connection with the motion to deem matters
admitted is granted. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) However, the requested amount of $5,200 for this
straightforward discovery motion is plainly excessive. Plaintiff Jarolsaw Waszczuk shall pay to
Defendant a mandatory monetary sanction in the amount of $520 ($260/hr x 2 hrs). The monetary
sanction is to be paid on or before December 14, 2018. If the sanction is not paid by that date,
Defendant may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may be
enforced by a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)
The Court denies Defendant's alternate requests for issue, evidentiary, and/or terminating sanctions at
this time. The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the
party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose
sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment."
(Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 300, 304.) "The penalty should be
appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the
party entitled to but denied discovery. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793) The
discovery sanction cannot put the propounding party in a better position than they would have been in if
they had received the discovery. (Puritan Insurance Co. v Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal. App.3d 877,
884.)
Here, given that this is the first order with respect to the subject discovery, the drastic remedy of
terminating sanctions would be punitive. Further, while Defendant references Plaintiff's "vexatious"
conduct in this action, that conduct has nothing to do with the instant motion and in any event, is not a
basis for discovery sanctions. Such ad hominem comments serve no useful purpose in educating the
court as to the party's position, and distract more than they advocate. In short, they are more cathartic
than tactical.
Finally, the Court declines Defendant's requests that the Court impose a deadline for Plaintiff to seek
leave to file a third amended complaint. Defendant indicates that Plaintiff has represented that he
intends to seek leave to file a third amended complaint which is represented as being nearly 300 pages
long. Plaintiff's decision to seek leave or not seek leave is his to make and the Court will not impose a
deadline on a hypothetical motion as part of this discovery motion.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling.
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Order for Appearance and Examination Jaroslaw "Jerry"
Waszczuk, 12/07/2018
APPEARANCES
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, self represented Plaintiff, present.
Dan Bardzell, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Nature of Proceedings: Hearing on Order of Examination of Judgment Debtor
The above entitled cause came before this court for hearing on Order of Examination of Judgment
Debtor this date with the above indicated parties present.
From: Jaros-Law@outlook.com
Subject: FW: Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California. -
SUMMARY OF OUR MEETING IN THE COURT CAFETERIA ON FEBRUARY 8, 2019
Attachments: 00000-IN PRO PER.pdf; 0000-20190208-COURT ORDER APPEARANCE .pdf; 001-20180718- LETTTER
TO CLERK.pdf; 002-20181113- JUDGE BROWN BROWN.pdf; 003-ADM-2-2009- SETTLEMENT-
AGREEMENT (29-40).pdf; 004- REIBURSEMENT- STATE BAR.pdf; 005-20140718 LT DES to Coombs
(2).pdf; 006-20190129- SUPREME COURT CUIAB FILED.pdf; 007-12-15-2018 US TAX COURT.pdf;
FREEDOM OF SPEECH (004).jpg
Sent by e-mail
1
Sacramento, CA 95825
Subject: Appearance and Examination on February 8, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. at Department 43. Hon. Thadd
A. Blizzard, Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California.
For the record, I would like to briefly summarize our meeting that took place on February 8,
2019 in the Sacramento County Superior Court Cafeteria on the sixth floor at 9:30 a.m.
I and my witness, William Buckans (UC Davis Medical Center employee), viewed the meeting
as unpleasant, provocative, and hostile. William and I noticed that you were very nervous and
uncomfortable during the meeting. At some point when you started bringing my wife and children into
the terror I have been experiencing for the last 12 years from the University of California Office of the
President (UCOP) mob, William, who was sitting at the next table, turned his chair toward you and
looked at you. You did not know that William was my former coworker from the UC Davis Medical
Center 27 MW cogeneration plant where I worked from June 1999 to April 2007. You were also
informed previously that two Porter Scott attorneys attempted to provoke me into physical
confrontation outside the court room in February 2015 and in August 2017.
From your redundant and provocative questions about my wife, children, landlord, and the
insurance on my rental house, it was not difficult to conclude that Janet Napolitano is looking to inflict
a different type of harm to me and my family than to enforce the unlawful judgment (see the Letter to
the Clerk filed on July 18, 2018 and the Letter to Judge Brown filed on November 16, 2018).
Your questions about insurance on the rental house clearly indicate that UCOP mob led by
Janet Napolitano is planning a raid on my home with involvement from the Lodi Police or San Joaquin
Sheriff’s Department to terrorize me and my family by ransacking my house to cause psychological
trauma. As you probably read in court documents, I have been terrorized and hunted like a Jew during
the holocaust by the UCOP mob since January 2007, and I don’t see it ending soon while I’m still
alive.
During our meeting on February 8, 2019, I provided you with the following documents as potential
assets:
1. A copy of the January 31, 2009 Settlement Agreement by UC Regents and myself plus the
calculated damages of approximately $1,000,000 caused by UC Regents due to breach and
violation of this Settlement Agreement (attached).
2. The March 1, 2018 copy of the California Supreme Court decision, which ordered that I be paid
back my stolen retainer money in the amount of $14,694.33 plus 10% interest that I paid to my
2
former attorney, Douglas Stein, for representation. Stein on Discipline Case No. S245982
(attached).
3. The unfinished case with Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, which is in conspiracy with
UC Regents that denied my short disability benefits in 2011. Minimum value $4,546 (attached).
4. The unfinished unemployment insurance benefits case pending in the California Supreme Court,
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board 3DCA Case No. C079254,
Supreme Court Case No. – Value $25,000 if prevail.
5. Whistleblower case pending in the U.S. Tax Court, Waszczuk v. United States Commissioner of
Internal Revenue Services, Docket No. 023105. The IRS whistleblower case is about an
enormous amount of unlawful power sales by regents in conspiracy with Enron and the
California Independent System Operator and related to multimillion dollars in tax fraud. Fraud
was disclosed in August 2012 by UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Duruisseau
in this interview with Sac Cultural Hub (attached). http://www.sacculturalhub.com/headlines/a-
look-back
“THE BLACKSMITH WAS GUILTY, BUT THE GYPSY WAS HANGED.” - Polish
proverb
In addition, after the meeting I forwarded to you my current bank statement from Rabobank and
an e-mail from Citibank with information about the account I have no access to. I believe that the
amount of $14,694.33 plus interest for five years should cover the judgment obtained by the Court by
David Burkett in violation of California Court Rules 3.1312 b, which states:
“That the prevailing party must, upon expiration of the five-day period provided for approval,
promptly transmit the proposed order to the court together with a summary of any responses of
the other parties or a statement that no responses were received pursuant to California Rule of
Court 3.1312(b).”
Defendants’ attorney David Burkett bluntly violated the California Rule of Court 3.1312(b) and did not
transmit to the Court the PLAINTIFF’S 90-page DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDER
AND JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGAL FEES AND COSTS TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP
MOTION C.C.P. 425.16 (c).
2018 David Burkett’s violation of Rule 3.1312(b) is a copycat scenario of the March 2015
PLAINTIFF’S DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P. 425.16 (ROA #73).
3
____________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff in Pro Per
CC: Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Hon. Thadd Blizzard, sent by U.S. Priority Mail on
February 11, 2019.
California Senator Cathleen Galgiani
State Bar of California
Lodi Police Department (Fax)
San Joaquin County Sheriff Department (Fax )
California Governor Office Hon. Gavin Newsom (FAX)
Consulate General of Polish Republic of Poland
Attachment:
4
EXHIBIT # 11
1 P O R T E R I S C O T T
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896
3 Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
350 University Avenue, Suite 200 FILED/ENDORSED
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481 FEB I I 2019
•5 FAX: 916.927.3706
dburkett(a),pbrterscott.com By:
6 £• Medina
dbardzellfolporterscott.com ueputy ciert«
7
Attorney for Defendant
8 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
9 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11
12 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
o
o
13 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF
h
(—
=mS oo
- ^o POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
O .. o\ 14 SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION
> U OS
15 TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED
oi < o" ^
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
glig^ 16 OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM
CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET
o 17 SYSTEM, UC DAVIS MEDICAL ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
CENTER, UC DAVIS, ANN MADDEN EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; AND FOR
18
RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN MONETARY AND TERMINATING
19 CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, SANCTIONS
DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
20 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, Date: March 13,2019
21 PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN Time: 2:00 p.m.
DANILIUC, and Does 1 through 50, Dept.: 53
22 inclusive,
Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
23 Defendants. Amended Complaint Filed: June 16,2014
24 SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
25
26
27
28
(01965098.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
Page
3
4 I. INTRODUCTION 1
23
24
25
26
27
28
{0196S098.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
(0I965098.DOCX} iii
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
Code ofCivil Procedure § 2030.220(a) 5
O ^
§ -5 ^ 16
cu S
Vi
3
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{0I96S098.DOCX}
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POEVTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (the "UNIVERSITY" or
"DEFENDANT") respectfully submits the following memorandum of points and authorities in
3 support of its motion to: (1) compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK to provide
4 further verified responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set
5 One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One); (2) award monetary sanctions in the amount
6 of $5,460 to retum Defendant to the position it would have been had the subject discovery
7 responses been timely and completely provided; (3) issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as
8 a result of Plaintiffs repeated failure to engage in the discovery process.
9 1.
10 INTRODUCTION
11 Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories -
o
12 General (Set One), Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One) on April 25, 2018'. Responses
o
fN
B -r. 13 were due on or before May 30j 2018. Defendant provided Plaintiff with an extension to June 20,
VD
r- 3 oo 00 O
— r*^
Ov r-^
14 2018 to provide responses to the requests. Plaintiff then failed to provide responses to any of
<N rvi
i- Vi ov Ov
vb ^ 15 Defendant's requests, requiring Defendarit to file a Motion to Compel. The Court granted that
Ov 0\
oi 16 Motion and ordered Plaintiff to provide responses, without objections, by December 12, 2018 and
oi
o < o -wj ><
<
D Vi H tu
a. o 17 pay Defendant monetary sanctions by December 14, 2018 related to Plaintiffs failure to respond to
18 requests for admission.
19 After the initial Motion to Compel, Plaintiff ultimately served his responses to special
20 interrogatories on October 15, 2018 and responses to form interrogatories - general and form
21 interrogatories - employment on December 13, 2019. These responses were mostly incomplete.
22 Defendant has attempted to meet-and-confer with Plaintiff regarding these deficiencies, but
23 consistent with his practice throughout this litigation, Plaintiff has refused to sufficiently and
24 coherently respond. As a result. Defendant now respectfully requests a further Order compelling
25 Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies raised in this Motion. Defendant also requests sanctions, pursuant
26 to 2030.290(c), in the amount of $5,460 for the fees and costs incurred as a result of Plaintiffs
27 continued disregard for the discovery process.
28
' Additional discovery requests outside the scope of the present motion were also served by Defendant at that time.
{01965098.DOCX} 1 ^
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 Defendant respectfully requests the Court issue an Order to (1) compel Plaintiff to provide
2 fiarther verified responses, without objection, to Defendant's Special Interrogatories (Set One),
3 Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One); (2)
4 issue monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,460 for Defendant's fees and costs
5 incurred in bringing this motion; and (3) issue the sanction of termination of the present action as a
6 result of Plaintiff s pattern of failing to comply with his discovery obligations. .
7 II.
8 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
9 The course of litigation in this matter is lengthy and complex. The following is a brief
10 summary: Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on Septehiber 30,
11 2014. Among the several claims in the SAC are four causes of action against all named
12 Defendants^: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"); (2) tortious interference with
B "n 13 economic advantage; (3) FEHA harassment and failure to prevent harassment, discriminafion,
h '= 00 - vo
f— c/^ «-> 00 o
o u 2: P; 14 retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); and (4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation
< § g 15
> ^ Ov Ov in violafion of Govemment Code §§ 8547 et seq.
< o" ^
o > i e < ^" Each of these causes of action arises out of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant at the
D 00
o
in
17 University of Califomia at Davis Medical Center. In addition to Defendant UNIVERSITY^, these
18 causes of action were plead against Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN
19 CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT
20 SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, and DORIN DANILIUC for their participation in investigafions
21 and disciplinary actions that ultimately resulted in Plainfiffs terminafion of employment with the
22 UNIVERSITY. The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant remaining in the case.
23 Defendant UNIVERSITY served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form
24 Interrogatories - General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One) on April 25,
25 2018. (See Declarafion of Daniel Bardzell in Support of Mofion to Further Compel ("Bardzell
26 Decl."), 2 and Exhibit A.) By correspondence dated May 22, 2018, Plainfiff requested an
27
^ The First and Second Causes of Action in the Second Amended Complaint do not specifically identify Defendant UNIVERSITY
28 but do refer to employment with UC DAVIS within the cause of action.
^ S e e f n . 1.
{01965098.DOCX} 2
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
extension offimeto respond to all such requests on the basis that he was sick. (See Bardzell Decl., |
3 and Exhibit B.) Defendant's counsel responded by email correspondence dated May 23, 2018
granfing Plaintiff an extension of fime to respond until June 20, 2018. (See Bardzell Decl., 4 and
Exhibit C.)
5 A. Plaintiff Ignores Defendant's Initial Meet-and-Confer Efforts
6 On September 24, 2018, counsel for Defendant served a meet and confer correspondence
7 upon Plaintiff regarding the outstanding discovery responses wherein defense counsel indicated:
8 [P]lease provide complete responses to all such outstanding requests no later than September 28,
9 2018. If we do not have your complete responses by that date, we will file a motion to compel
10 responses and request monetary as well as terminating sancfions from the Court." (See Bardzell
11 Decl., H 5 and Exhibit D.)
12
o
o By incoherent email correspondence also dated September 24, 2018, Plaintiff indicated:
fN
B >n 13 Thank you for news about the Request for Production of Documents and Special
L_ •— fN — vO
P ,5 0000 O
Interrogatories . I appreciate but I not sure yet what I am going to . I am waiting for
V in C 14 answers from the federal authorities in this matter.
0 g'=^^ rO
o; t-~
15 I will let know . I mean fime you can entertain yourself with my affirmative defense
01 < 6 fN d
Ov OV of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. As Jeanine Pirro stated not so long ago , . UC Regent wife
H ^ \0 v ^
O ^ 2 as ov 16 Senator Feinstein's Unhinged Demon Rats attacking Judge Kavanaugh as I was
cu c attacked and wasted by her husband and other unhinged UC demon rats . Same
Vi
o
D
17 people only different is that I have no 1 penny on my account and I am for my SS
18 check on 28^^ than I could buy ink for my printer and do eventually interrogatories.
(See Bardzell Decl., H 6 and Exhibit E.)
19
Plaintiff failed to respond to any of the outstanding discovery requests by September 28,
20
2018. (See Bardzell Decl., H 6.)
21
On October 1, 2018, Plainfiff submitted an email correspondence to Defendant stafing: " I
22
am working on the Interrogatories and other papers. Pleas give one more week to finish. Attached is
23
a part of interrogatories to show you that I am working on ." (See Bardzell Decl., TI 7 and Exhibit
24
F.) Included was a rambfing apparent partial draft response to Defendant's Special Interrogatories,
25
Set One without a verification. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 8.)
26
B. Motion to Compel
27
Defendant was subsequently forced to file a Motion to Compel and needlessly incur the
28
{01965098.DOCX} 3 '
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 associated fees and costs. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 8.) On November 14, 2018, the Court issued its
2 tentative mling, which later became the ruling of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 1.06. (See
3 Bardzell Deck, Tl 9, and Exhibit G). There, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses,
4 without objections, to Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets one) and requests for
5 producfion (set one) no later than December 12, 2018. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 9, and Exhibit G).
6 Additionally, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant mandatory monetary sancfions in the
7 amount of $520 by December 14, 2018 for failure to provide responses to requests for admissions.
8 (See Bardzell Deck, TI 9, and Exhibit G.)
9 Plaintiff did subsequently provide responses to the special and form interrogatories, but they
10 were largely deficient as described in the present motion. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 11-12 and Exhibits
11 H and I.)
12 C. Plaintiff Again Ignores Defendant's Meet-and-Confer Efforts
o
o
fN
B m
tN
13 In light of Plaintiffs deficient responses to form and special interrogatories, defense
'3
0in0 vo
Vi 00 0
H
O tS ov 14 counsel sent Plaintiffs counsel a meet and confer correspondence on January 15, 2019, advising
enu
Ov r-'
SC
CA
fN fN
OV ov
>
oi < 0" vd vd 15 that Plaintiffs responses were deficient. (See Bardzell Decl., Tl 13 and Exhibit J.)
c 0! ON
Universi:
u
- i >< 16 Plainfiff responded on January 15, 2019 by a series of argumentative and disjointed emails
Sacra
po:
FA
TE
17 which failed to address the interrogatory response deficiencies raised in Defendant's meet and
18 confer correspondence. (See Bardzell Deck, Tl 14 and Exhibits K.)
19 Plaintiff subsequently requested addifional time to respond to the meet and confer and the
20 parties agreed to extend the time for Defendant to file a mofion, if necessary, through Febmary 12,
21 2019. (See Bardzell Deck, Tl 15-17 and Exhibits L-N.)
22 By email dated January 25, 2019, Plainfiff further responded to Defendant's January 15,
23 2019 meet and confer correspondence by, in part, describing the interrogatories as harassing and
24 stating that Defendant should "File the mofion, and I , accordingly, will file the response to your
25 motion in court." (See Bardzell Deck, Tl 18 and Exhibits O.) As of the date of this Mofion, Plaintiff
26 has not provided amended responses. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 19.)
27 D. Plaintiff Failed to Pay Monetary Sanctions
28 In addition to Plaintiff willfially disregarding his discovery obligations, Plaintiff also
{01965098.DOCX) 4
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 violated the Court's previous Order by failing to fttlly pay Defendant monetary sancfions. (See
2 Bardzell Deck, Tl 9-10.) As set forth above, in its prior Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to pay
3 monetary sancfions of $520 by December 14, 2018. (See Bardzell Deck, Tl 9 and Exhibit G.)
4 Plainfiff provided checks amounting to only a small portion of the amount owed. (See Bardzell
5 Deck, Tl 10.) Defendant has not cashed such checks. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 10.) Plainfiff failed to
6 pay the required sancfion by December 14, 2018 and, to-date, Plaintiff has provided checks
7 amounting to only a small portion of the sanctions ordered by the Court. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 10.)
8 in.
9 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), FORM
10 INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL (SET ONE) AND FORM INTERROGATORIES -
11 EMPLOYMENT (SET ONE) ARE EVASIVE. INCOHERENT AND INCOMPLETE
o
12 A party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath
o
fN
ii m 13 sepeirateiy to each interrogatory by any of the following: an answer containing the information
r - 3 oo — vo
00 o
t - V3
— ^ 14 being sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party's opfion to produce writings, or an objection
ov I--
fN fN
Ov Ov
oi < 6 vd vd 15 to the particular interrogatory. (CCP § 2030.210(a).) Code ofCivil Procedure §2030.220 requires
Ov Ov
_i >< 16 that answers to interrogatories be "complete and straightforward." (CCP. §2030.220(a).) Code of
a. ta <
3 Vi
o
in
17 Civil Procedure §2030.220 requires that parties produce all information "reasonably available" to
18 them in response to interrogatories. (CCP. §2030.220(a).) That obligation requires that parties
19- take all reasonable steps to investigate and obtain information responsive to the request. (CCP.
20 §2030.220(c).) If parties do not have sufficient informafion to respond to a request after making a
21 reasonable inquiry, they must state that fact in their response. (Id.) They should also detail the
22 efforts made to obtain the informafion. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782-783.)
23 Parties cannot claim a lack of personal knowledge when the informafion "can be obtained from
24 sources under his control." (Id.) A party may move to compel further responses if an answer is
25 "evasive or incomplete." (CCP. §2030.300(a).)
26 Here, Plaintiff provided evasive, incomplete and incoherent responses to Defendant's
27 Form Interrogatories - General, Set One; Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One and Special
28 Interrogatories, Set One. (See generally Defendant's Separate Statement of Disputed Discovery
{01965098.DOCX} 5
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
in Support of Motion to Compel ("Defendant's Separate Statemenf).)
Plaintiffs rambling and incoherent responses contain a myriad of deficiencies. Same are
set forth in greater detail in Defendant's Separate Statement. Plainfiffs responses to the form and
special interrogatories are generally deficient for the following reasons:
5 A. Plaintiff Improperly Cites External Documents
6 As set forth in greater detail in Defendant's Separate Statement, in response to
7 interrogatories, including, but not limited to, Special Interrogatories No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12,
8 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 30, 37; and Form Interrogatories 6.4, 206.1,-206.2, and
9 207.1, Plainfiffs response cites to voluminous extemal documents and/or url addresses without
10 any specific page/line references or summary. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell
11 Decl., Exhibits H-I.) It is not proper to answer by cifing to an extemal document. (See Deyo supra,
12 84 Cal.App.3d at 783-784 ("[I]f a question does require the responding party to make reference to
o
o
fN
B 13 a pleading or document, the pleading or document should be idenfified and summarized so the
L_ •= fN
r- 3 oo — VD
H i n oo o
o u =^ 2 P; answer is fially responsive to the question[.]" (cifing Califomia Civil Discovery Pracfice, Section
— > U ov Ov , ,
< Q- vd ^ 1J 8.55 (C.E.B.1975); 4A Moore's Federal Pracfice (2d Ed. 1975), Secfion 33.25(1), pp. 33-131 to
w iv ^ 5:
33-132; State Road Dept. v. Florida East Coast Ry., 212 So.2d 315, 317(1) (Fla.App. 1968).)
3 Vi
17 (Further citafion omitted)). In instances where Plaintiff cites external documents, same are not
18 properly identified and summarized. (See Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at 783-784.) Therefore,
19 these responses are improper and incomplete.
20 B. Plaintifrs Interrogatory Responses are Incomplete and In Some Instances He
21 Provided No Substantive Response Whatsoever
22 Plaintiff provided a multitude of incomplete responses, including numerous instances
23 where subparts are ignored. The following is a representafive sample of the such deficiencies: In
24 response to Form Interrogatories 6.4 and 6.5, respecfively, asking Plaintiff to idenfify
25 examinations or treatment related to his claims, and any medication, prescribed or not, as a result
26 of injuries that his' attributes to his claims, Plainfiff provides incomplete responses. (See
27 Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Decl., Exhibit I.) Specifically, in response to
28 Interrogatory 6.4, Plaintiff fails to indicate the charges to date for health care services received.
{0i965098.DOCX} 6
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
(See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.) In response to Form
2 Interrogatory 6.5, Plaintiff fails to respond to subparts including (c) the date his prescription(s)
3 were prescribed orfiamished;(d) the dates you began and stopped taking it; and (e) the cost to
4 date. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.)
5 Moreover, in response to Form Interrogatories 10.1-10.3, which generally seek information
6 regarding treating physicians and treatment before and after the claims arose, Plaintiff fails to
7 identify any treating physicians or what treatment was sought beyond the facial reference to heart
8 surgery. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.) The content of the
9 response plainly calls for additional responsive information such as identifying information for the
10 doctor who performed heart surgery on Plaintiff.
11 Additionally, in response to Special Interrogatory No. 21; 23; 26; 28; 29, Plaintiffs fails to
12 provide contact information for persons he identifies as having knowledge of various protected
o
o
B «o 13 activities and retaliation related to his claims. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell
t- 3 g _ VD
Vi in OO
o u 2: ^ 14 Decl., Exhibit H.) Such incomplete responses interfere with Defendant's ability to prepare its
— > U ov
aS < o""^ 15 defense including identifying potenfial witnesses.
H
oi ^ 16
O Moreover, Plaintiff improperly combines numerous, responses into a single response
cu u.
O Vi
o
17 purportedly responsive to each. (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Decl., Exhibit I,
18 Plainfiff s Response to Form Interrogatories 2012.1-2012.7.)
That information sought by the numerous aforementioned interrogatories is within
19
20 Plaintiffs control. As such, he was required to provide it and his responses are incomplete.
Plaintiff further provides no substantive response whatsoever to the following Form
21
22 Interrogatories - General, Set One: 6.7; 9.1; 12.1; 12.4; 13.1; 13.2; 50.2; 50.3; 50.4; and 50.5; Form
23 Interrogatories - Employment, Set One: 200.6; 202.1; 202.2; 203.1; 204.1; 204.2; 204.3; 204.4;
24 204.5; 207.2; 208.2; 210.6; 215.2; and Special Interrogatory No. 24.
25 C. Plaintiff Responded "I don't know" to Some Interrogatories Without Describing
28 know." (See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.) He fails to describe
{01965098.DOCX} 7
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 what search he has done to provide a response. These responses are incomplete. Similarly, in
2 response to Form Interrogatory 206.3, Plaintiff simply responds "Waszczuk is not sure what 206.3
3 asking him for[.]"(See Defendant's Separate Statement and Bardzell Deck, Exhibit I.) That is also
4 non-responsive.
5 Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220 requires that parties produce all informafion
6 "reasonably available" to them in response to interrogatories. (CCP. §2030.220(a).) That
7 obligafion requires that parties take all reasonable steps to investigate and obtain information
8 responsive to the request. (CCP. §2030.220(c).) If parties do not have sufficient information to
9 respond after making a reasonable inquiry, they must state that fact in their response. (Id.)
10 Plaintiff should be able to respond to such interrogatories as to his personal knowledge. If
11 he does not know, he has an obligation to detail the efforts made to obtain that information. (Deyo
12 supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at 782-783.)
o
o
B
fN
13 Moreover, additional responses are unintelligible or otherwise incomplete, as described in
h '= So - VD
H V3 <o 00 o
Defendant's Separate Statement.
o o - 2 ; P; 14
> U Ov Ov . .
< o" vd ^ 1 J Defendant requires complete discovery responses in order to properly defend itself in this
W ^v S 5; 5;
S Si g -> X 16 case and to determine the validity of plaintiffs claims. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully request
DV. 17
O an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide further verified responses to Defendant's Special
18 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories -
19 Employment (Set One) without objecfions.
20 IV.
21 DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO MONETARY SANCTIONS
22 Code ofCivil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in relevant part, that:
23
The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse
24 of the discovery process, or any attomey advising that conduct, or both pay the
reasonable expenses, including attomey's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
25 conduct [. . .] If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this tifie, the
26 court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sancfion
acted with substanfial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition
27 of the sanction unjust.
28 CCP §§ 2030.290(c) provides that a court shall impose a monetary sanction on any party
{01965Q98.DOCX} 8
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
who unsuccessfially opposes a motion to compel responses to interrogatories.
Pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290(c), Defendant is enfified to an award of sancfions against
Plaintiff as a result of his failure to provide appropriate responses to Defendant's interrogatories.
Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 authorizes an award of sanctions even when "the requested
5 discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed." (C.R.C, Rule 3.1348(a).)
6 Sanctions are also available when a party misuses the discovery process. (CCP.
7 §2023.030(a); "The '[f]ail[ure] to respond... to an authorized method of discovery' and '[mjaking
8 an evasive response to discovery' are defmed as '[mjisuses of the discovery process.'" (Saxena v.
9 Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 333.)
10 The California Court of Appeal has previously addressed the increasing misuse of the
11 discovery process similar to Plaintiffs behavior:
o
12 "We are . . . aware the discovery process is subject to frequent abuse and, like a
o
B 13 cancerous growth, can destroy a meritorious cause or defense . . . Our observations
(-, ' 3 f N — vo
oo o of the day-to-day practice of law lead us to conclude this cancer is spreading and
—
Ov
r*^ 14 judges must become more aggressive in curbing these abuses. Courts must insist
f N rvi
H t/2 Ov Ov discovery devices be used as tools to facilitate litigation rather than as weapons to
Oi
u d ' vd ^ 15 wage litigation. These tools should be well calibrated; the lancet is to be preferred
t- g °^ ^ over the sledge hammer."
O < g UJ < 16
cu
17 (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 221 (quoting Mannino v.
18 Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776.))
19 Awarding sanctions is particularly appropriate in this case as this is the second time
20 Plainfiff has forced Defendant to file a Motion to Compel. Defendant filed a Motion on October
21 17, 2018 after Plaintiff completely failed respond to Defendant's discovery requests for over four
22 and a half months. Plainfiff refused to provide those responses unfil Defendant finally filed its first
23 Mofion to Compel. (Bardzell Deck, TITI 11-12.)
24 Recognizing that this Court is reluctant to award monetary sancfions unless a party
25 unsuccessfully opposes a discovery motion, Plaintiff appears to have strategically elected not to
26 oppose Defendant's prior Motion. As a result, the only sanctions this Court imposed were those
27 required under CCP. § 2033.280 relafing to Plaintiffs failure to provide responses to the
28 Requests for Admission. (See Bardzell Deck, TI 9 and Exhibit G.) That sancfions award was in the
{01965098.DOCX} 9
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
amount of $520, which fell well short of fully reimbursing Defendant for all the fees it had to
needlessly incur in filing a Motion to Compel Plainfiffs other responses. Even then, Plainfiff
3 failed to pay the full amount the Court ordered. (See Bardzell Deck, TjlO.)
4 Although the Court denied Defendant's previous request for sancfions in connecfion with
5 the motion to compel responses to interrogatories and request for production, the Court further
6 indicated in its Order on Defendant's previous motion to compel that "repeated conduct of failing
7 to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process
8 and award sancfions on that basis." (See Bardzell Deck, T119, Exhibit G.)
9 Now, here we are again. Plaintiff failed to adequately respond to discovery. Defendant
10 communicated with Plainfiff multiple fimes in hopes of resolving these issues short of filing a
11 Motion to Compel. Unfortunately, Plaintiff failed to provide any further response, thereby
12 successfully forcing Defendant to again incur fees in filing this Motion.
o
o
fN
B u-i
13 This pattem is a clear abuse of the discovery process. Therefore, Defendant respectfully
3 0 0 — VD
Vi in OO <^
14 submits that sanctions are appropriate.
> U ov Ov . ^
a; < o" t Defendant has incurred $4,160 in fees associated with preparing the present motion. (See
W £^ c 5; o^
Bardzell Decl., TI 20.) Defense counsel anticipates incurring an additional $1,300 in fees in the
17 event Plaintiff opposes the Mofion and a hearing is necessary. (Bardzell Deck, TI 20.) As a result.
18 Defendant respectfully requests an award of sanctions in the amount of $5,460 for the fime and
19 expense incurred by Defendant in filing this otherwise unnecessary motion.
20 V.
21 TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE
22 The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may impose sanctions on any party
23 who engages in conduct that constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.030(a).)
24 Misuses of the discovery process includes "failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method
25 of discovery" and "disobeying a court order to provide discovery." (CCP §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)
26 When a party fails to respond to an authorized method of discovery and/or fails to obey a court
27 order to provide discovery, the Court may impose, among other relief, monetary sanctions and/or
28 terminating sancfions. (CCP § 2023.030(a), (d).)
{01965098.DOCX} 10
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
1 Coitrts have long held that terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is a willful
2 failure to comply with court orders, and should be issued where it appears that lesser sancfions
would not bring the offending party into compliance. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
1
(1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Terminating sanctions are especially appropriate where a party
5 fails to respond to discovery requests and ignores court orders. (See Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68
6 Cal.App.3d 372, 383.)
7 Terminating sanctions are appropriate in this case. Defendant initially sought terminating
sanctions against Plaintiff in connection with its previous motion to compel discovery. The Court
denied this request, providing: The Court denies Defendant's alternate requests for issue,
10 evidentiary, and/or terminating sanctions at this fime. [. . .] Here, given that this is the first order
11
with respect to the subject discovery, the drastic remedy of terminafing sancfions would be
12
o
o
punitive." (See Bardzell Deck, Exhibit G.)
fN
U - 'B
S «-> 13
<N
r - 3 00 — vo
It is evident that Plaintiffs conduct is nothing more than a delaying tactic to prevent
(— CO i n 00 o
O . r Ov r~- 14
Defendant from engaging in basic discovery. Requiring Defendant to continue wasting time,
> U ov Ov . ,
< O" ^ ^ i
W i> c 5 o^ money, and Court resources to compel Plaintiff to lifigate this case would be categorically unjust.
S gI X 16 The aforementioned conduct has also prejudiced Defendant's ability to prepare for trial and will
= " 17 interfere with the Court's ability ascertain the tmth in this case. Given that previous discovery
18 mofion practice failed to compel Plaintiff to comply with his discovery obligations, terminafing
20 Accordingly, Defendant requests that the Court grant terminafing sancfions and issue an
21 Order dismissing the complaint against the remaining Defendant in its entirety, with prejudice.
22 VI.
23 CONCLUSION
24 Defendant has made every effort to allow for the cooperative exchange of information,
25 however Plaintiff has failed to provide complete verified responses to Defendant's Special
26 Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories -
27 Employment (Set One.) Defendant is left with no opfion other than to file the instant motion. As
28 such, Defendant seeks an Order (1) compelling Plainfiff to provide further verified responses,
{01965098.DOCX} 11
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
without objections, to Defendant's Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories - General
2 (Set One) and Form Interrogatories - Employment (Set One); (2) awarding sanctions in the amount
3 of $5,460 to retum Defendant to the position it would have been had complete responses been
4 timely provided; (3) issue terminafing sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of Plainfiffs repeated
5 failure to engage in the discovery process.
6
7
Dated February 11, 2019 PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
10 By
David P. E. Burkett
11 Daniel J. Bardzell
Attomeys for Defendant
o
12
o
fN
(—( 'B
3 «<N
-> _
13
r-* 3 00 ^ vo
b- Vi m oo o
o u 14
> U Ov ov . .
ci < O" ^ ^ t J
cu -5
O 17
in
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
{01965098.DOCX} 12
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES
Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et al.
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
On the date below, I served the following document:
6
7 DEFENDANT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
8 OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM
INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
9
EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; AND
10 FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
11 BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
o
12 On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
o course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fiilly prepaid.
fN
u-i
fN
13 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
TT
vo
Sui
00
«n oo o
t~
addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
O o" ov f ^ 14 attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
venu
r-'
u
CA
OV
o
fN fN
OV attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of
Vi
oi < d" vd vd 15 nine in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving
tu c ov ov
OJ the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the
f-
ct J >< 16 hours of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
nive
acra
TE
<
POi
• i
PORTER I SCOTT EHOCRSED
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241 896 201MM20 PM22
3 Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
350 University Avenue, Suite 200 U P F P11 OnN COURT OF CMIPONiA
COUNtY OF 5ACRAME0U
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
dburkett(porterscott.com
6 dbardzeIlporterscott,com
7
Attorney for Defendant
8 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
25
26
27
28
0I978654.DOCX)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3
4 INTRODUCTION ..........................................
(01978654.DOCX) 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
State Court Cases
3
Kahn v. Kahn
4
(1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 372, 383 10
5
R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
6 (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486,496 ........................................................................................10
7
Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants
8 (2007) 148 Cal.App.4tl 390,411 ........................................................................................8
9 Statutes
10
C.C.P. § 708.020 ............................................................................................................................ 7
II.
C.C.P. § 708.030 ............................................................................................................................ 7
12
C
C
13 C.C.P. § 2016.070 .......................................................................................................................... 7
I-. •S —
H at C
Oci °'Z 14 C.C.P. § 2023.010(d) ...................................................................................................................... 9
cg
_>Oac
<d\á 6
ce 15 C.C.P. § 2023.010(g) ...................................................................................................................... 9
16
H C.C.P. § 2023.030(a) ................................................................................................................ 9, 10
0
tin
17
C.C.P. § 2030.010 ..........................................................................................................................
18
19 C.C.P. § 2030.210(a) ...................................................................................................................... 7
2 Defendants") respectfully submit the following memorandum of points and authorities in support
3 of their motion to: (1) compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK's verified
4 responses to Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment
5 Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) award monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,940 to return
6 Defendants to the position they would have been had the subject judgment debtor discovery
7 responses been timely provided; (3) issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of
8 Plaintiff's pattern of failure to engage in the discovery process.
9 1.
10
Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents
12 (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) on October 9, 2012. Responses were due
13 on or before November 13, 2018. Plaintiff has completely failed to provide any responses and
14 same are overdue.
15 Defendants respectfully request the Court issue an Order to (1) compel Plaintiff to provide
16 verified responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set
17 One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); and (2) issue monetary sanctions against
18 Plaintiff in the amount of $4,940 for Defendants' fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion;
19 and (3) issue the sanction of termination of the present action as a result of Plaintiffs failure to
20 provide responses to the Defendants' judgment debtor discovery.
21 H.
22 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
23 The course of litigation in this matter is lengthy and complex. The following is a brief
24 summary: Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on September 30,
25 2014. Among the several claims in the SAC are four causes of action against all named
26 Defendants:' (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("lIED"); (2) tortious interference with
27 economic advantage; (3) FEHA harassment and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination,
28 'The First and Second Causes of Action in the Second Amended Complaint do not specifically identify Defendant UNIVERSITY
but do refer to employment with UC DAVIS within the cause of action.
(01978654.DOCX) i
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); and (4) whistleblower/uniawful retaliation
2 in violation of Government Code §§ 8547 etseq,
3 Each of these causes of action arises out of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant
4 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ("UNIVERSITY") at the University of
5 California at Davis Medical Center. In addition to Defendant UNIVERSITY2, these causes of
6 action were pled against Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN
13 as pled against them. (See Declaration of Daniel Bardzell in Support of Motion to Compel
.r,OC
14 ("Bardzell Decl."), ¶ 2.) The anti-SLAPP Defendants contended that Plaintiff's causes of action
<6' 15 against them arose from protected activities pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure' § 425.16;
16 namely, their participation in the processing, investigation, hearing and deciding of complaints
0 17 filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to the policies and procedures of the Defendant
Cr'
8 Special Interrogatories, Set One without a verification. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 12.)
9 B. Motion to Compel
10 On October 17, 2018, Defendant UNIVERSITY was forced to file a Motion to Compel and
11 needlessly incur the associated fees and costs. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 13.) On November 14, 2018,
12 the Court issued its tentative ruling, which later became the ruling of the Court pursuant to Local
13 Rule 1.06. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 14, and Exhibit H.) There, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide
14 verified responses, without objections, to Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets one)
15 and requests for production (set one) no later than December 12, 2018. (See id.) Additionally, the
16 Court ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant UNIVERSITY mandatory monetary sanctions in the
17 amount of $520 by December 14, 2018 for failure to provide responses to requests for admissions.
18 (See id.)
19 Plaintiff did subsequently provide responses to the special and form interrogatories, but
20 they were largely deficient which necessitated the filing of a second motion to compel, as
21 described infra. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 15.)
22 C. Plaintiff Failed to Pay Monetary Sanctions
23 In addition to Plaintiff's willful disregard of his discovery obligations, Plaintiff also
24 violated the Court's previous Order by failing to fully pay Defendant UNIVERSITY monetary
25 sanctions. (See Bardzell DecI., 114-16.) As set forth above, in its prior Order, the Court directed
26 Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions of $520 by December 14, 2018. (See Bardzell Deci., ¶ 14 and
27 Exhibit H.) Plaintiff failed to pay the required sanction by December 14, 2018 and, to-date,
28 Plaintiff has provided checks amounting to only a portion of the sanctions ordered by the Court.
(01978654.DOCX}
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 (See Bardzell Deci., 114; 16.) Defendant has not cashed such checks. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 16)
2 D. Plaintiff Again Ignores Defendant's Meet-and-Confer Efforts
3 In light of Plaintiffs deficient responses to form and special interrogatories, defense
4 counsel sent Plaintiffs counsel a meet and confer correspondence on January 15, 2019, advising
5 that Plaintiff's responses were deficient. (See Bardzell DecI., 117 and Exhibit I.)
6 Plaintiff responded on January 15, 2019 by a series of argumentative and disjointed emails
7 which failed to address the interrogatory response deficiencies raised in Defendant's meet and
8 confer correspondence. (See Bardzell Deel., ¶ 18 and Exhibits J.)
9 Plaintiff subsequently requested, and was granted, additional time to respond to-the meet
10 and confer and the parties agreed to extend the time for Defendant to file a motion, if necessary,
11 through February 12, 2019. (See Bardzell Dee!., 119 and Exhibit K.)
12 By email dated January 25, 2019, Plaintiff further responded to Defendant's January 15,
13 2019 meet and confer correspondence by, in part, describing the interrogatories as harassing and
14 stating that Defendant should "File the motion, and I, accordingly, will file the response to your
15 motion in court." (See Bardzell Dccl., ¶ 20 and Exhibit L.) Plaintiff has not provided amended
16 responses.
17 E. Second Motion to Compel
18 On February 11, 2019, Defendant UNIVERSITY was forced to file a second motion to
19 compel further verified responses to form and special interrogatories and for monetary, and
20 terminating sanctions. (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 21.) On March 12, 2019, the Court issued its tentative
21 ruling, which later became the ruling of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 1.06. (See Bardzell
22 DecI., ¶ 21 and Exhibit M.) There, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide further verified responses
23 to Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets one) no later than April 3, 2019. (See id.)
24 Additionally, the Court denied Defendant's request for monetary sanctions as the motion was
25 unopposed and also denied Defendant's request for terminating sanctions. (See Ed.)
26 F. Plaintiff Further Ignores the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Meet-and-Confer Efforts
27
28 The anti-SLAPP Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for
(01978654.DOCX)
11 responses by January 31, 2019 or we will file a motion to compel and seek sanctions." (See
12 Bardzell Deci., 123 and Exhibit 0.)
0
0
N
13 By email correspondence dated January 25, 2019, Plaintiff asserted, he never received a
In 0
0 t; 14 copy of the judgment debtor discovery requests and further provided: "Please send me the
15 aforementioned documents that were supposed to have been sent in October. 1 will look them over
u
o. to and respond to you with 30 days, or you may file the motion to compel if you wish." (See Bardzell
0
In
17 DecI., 124 and Exhibit P.) By email correspondence also dated January 25, 2019, the office of
C.'
18 counsel for Defendants provided Plaintiff with a further courtesy copy of Defendants' Judgment
19 Debtor Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories, Set
20 One which were previously served on Plaintiff on October 9, 2018. (See Id.)
21 Plaintiff responded by email also dated January 25, 2019, stating: "Never got this before.
22 Have a nice weekend Ms. Strasser. I feel sorry for you that you are working for guy like Burkett or
23 Bardzell. Tell them to file motion." (See Bardzell Dccl., ¶ 25 and Exhibit Q.)
24 On February 22, 2019, counsel for Defendant served, a further meet and confer
25 correspondence upon Plaintiff, providing: "This letter serves as Defendants II. J further attempt to
26 meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs outstanding responses to Defendants' [judgment debtor'
27 discovery requests]. Plaintiff has provided no response whatsoever and responses are more than
28 three months overdue. Our previous attempts to meet and confer on this issue have been
101978654D0CX) 6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 unsuccessful. If we do not receive complete responses by March 1, 2019, our next action will be to
2 file a motion to compel and seek sanctions." (See Bardzell Deci., 126 and Exhibit R.)
3 By email correspondence dated March 1, 2019, Plaintiff provided, in part: "I am not going
4 to quit my lawsuits voluntarily either regardless of what judges and justices from three different
5
California courts have done to me in the last four years. I did not provide the response by January
6 31, 2019 because the DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF [. . . and]
7
DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - SET ONE TO
8 PLAINTIFF [ ... ] were not sent to me on October 9, 2018 and I do not have any record of it[. . .
9
Porter Scott attorneys did not file a Motion to Compel as promised by the January 31, 2019 letter
10 nor did they formally resend the Interrogatories and Production for Documents to me with the new
11
date[. . .] If the Porter Scott attorneys want to file another Motion to Compel [. . .] I have no
12
control over it. I will not be surprised if the Motion is granted." (See Bardzell Deel., ¶ 27 and
13 Exhibit S.) Plaintiff further asserted that he provided some documents at the Judgment Debtor
14 examination in this matter. (See Id.)
15 III.
16 PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO
JUDGMENT DEBTOR REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
17 AND JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
18 A judgment creditor is allowed to use the following procedures provided for in the
19 Discovery Act to obtain discovery to assist in enforcing a judgment: (1) service of written
20 interrogatories to the judgment debtor under C.C.P. § 2030.010, et seq., and (2) service of a
21 document inspection demand to the judgment debtor under C.C.P. § 2031.010, et seq. (See C.C.P.
22 §§ 2016.070; 708.020; 708.030.)
23 A. Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One)
24 A party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath
25 separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: an answer containing the information
26 being sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party's option to produce writings, or an
27 objection to the particular interrogatory. (C.C.P. § 2030.210(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories
28 are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move
{01978654.DOCX)
7
EMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (C.C.P. § 2030.290(b).) The party also
2 waives objections to the interrogatories (including those based on privilege and work product) by
3 failing to respond by the deadline. (C.C.P. § 2030.290(a).)
4 Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject
5 to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause
6 or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v, Pacific
7 Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 411.) A separate statement is not required
8 when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)
9 In our case, Defendants have not received Plaintiffs verified responses to Judgment Debtor
10 Interrogatories (Set One). (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 28.) These interrogatories were properly served on
11 Plaintiff on October 9, 2018. (See Bardzell Deci., ¶ 22 and Exhibit N.) Responses were due on or
12 before November 13, 2018. (See id.)
13 Defendants require these discovery responses in order to enforce their judgment.
14 Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified
15 responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) without objections.
16 B. Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One)
17 If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the
18 party propounding the demand may move for an order compelling responses to the demand.
19 (C.C.P. § 2031.300(b).) In addition, a party who fails to respond waives any objections he
20 otherwise could have raised to the demand. (C.C.P. § 2031.300(a).)
21 Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents
22 (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) on October 9, 2018. (See Bardzell Decl.,
23 ¶ 22 and Exhibit N.) Responses were due on or before November 13, 2018. (See id.) Plaintiff's
24 responses remain overdue and outstanding. (See id.)
25 Therefore, Defendants respectfully request an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide
26 responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Request for Production of Documents (Set One),
27 without objections.
28 I/I
101978654.DOCX) 8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION 1
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
Iv.
2 MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AWARDED
3 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in relevant part, that:
4
The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the
5 misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay
the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of
6 that conduct [ ... ] If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this
7 title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the
sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
8 imposition of the sanction unjust.
9 C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) provide that a court shall impose a monetary
10 sanction on any party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel responses to interrogatories
12 Defendants have extended Plaintiff every opportunity to avoid court intervention in this
13 matter by conducting extensive meet and confer efforts. Plaintiff has completely ignored
16 discovery has made the current motion necessary, despite being afforded opportunities to avoid the
18 To date, Defendants have incurred $3,640 in fees as a result of Plaintiff's failure to respond
19 to Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor
20 Interrogatories (Set One). (See Bardzell DecI., ¶ 29.) Defendants anticipate incurring an additional
nI $1,300 to review Plaintiffs Opposition, prepare a reply and attend a hearing. (See Id.) Therefore,
22 sanctions are proper. Moreover, even if Plaintiff serves responses upon notice of this motion in
23 order to avoid a court order, Defendants have nevertheless been forced to incur the expense of
24 moving to compel Plaintiffs compliance with his discovery obligations, despite efforts to achieve
25 a cooperative result. As such, sanctions in the amount of $4,940 are appropriately awarded against
26 Plaintiff for the time and expense incurred by Defendants in filing this motion.
1
I-
I/I
28 I/I
0I978654.DOCX}
9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 V
2 TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE
3 The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may impose sanctions on any party
4 who engages in conduct that constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).)
5 Misuses of the discovery process includes "failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method
6 of discovery" and "disobeying a court order to provide discovery." (C.C.P. §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)
7 When a party fails to respond to an authorized method of discovery and/or fails to obey a court
8 order to provide discovery, the Court may impose monetary sanctions, terminating sanctions, or
9 both. (CCP § 2023.030(a), (d), (g).)
10 Courts have long held that terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is a willful
11 failure to comply with court orders, and should be issued where it appears that lesser sanctions
12 would not bring the offending party into compliance. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd
13 (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Terminating sanctions are especially appropriate where a party
14 fails to respond to discovery requests and ignores court orders. (See Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68
15 Cal.App.3d 372, 383.)
16 Terminating sanctions are appropriate in this case. Plaintiff has failed to provide any
17 verified responses to the Defendants' written judgment debtor. discovery despite extensive meet
18 and confer efforts by Defendants. Moreover, the Court has previously granted two motions to
19 compel discovery filed by Defendant UNIVERSITY in this case. (See Bardzell Decl., 114, 21 and
20 Exhibits i-i, M.) Plaintiff has plainly not been dissuaded from his pattern of failing to engage in the
21 discovery process.
22 It is evident that Plaintiffs conduct is nothing more than a delaying tactic to prevent the
23 Defendants from engaging in judgment debtor discovery. Requiring Defendants to continue
24 wasting time, money, and Court resources to compel Plaintiff to fulfill his obligations to
25 participate in the case, including judgment enforcement process, would be categorically unjust.
26 Plaintiffs demonstrated pattern of failing to provide discovery responses has prejudiced
27 Defendants' ability to prepare for trial, as well as enforce its judgment and will interfere with the
28 Court's ability to ascertain the truth in this case. It has thus become apparent that no action will
I 978654D0CX) 10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FORMONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
compel Plaintiff to comply with his discovery obligations, making terminating sanctions
2 appropriate.
3 Accordingly, Defendant requests that the Court grant terminating sanctions and issue an
4 Order dismissing the complaint against the remaining Defendant in its entirety, with prejudice.
5 VI.
6 CONCLUSION
7 Defendants have made every effort to allow for the cooperative exchange of information,
8 however Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor
9 Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One).
10 Defendants are left with no option other than to file the instant motion. As such, Defendants seek
11 an Order (1) compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to the anti-
12 SLAPP Defendants' Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and
0
0
13 Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) awarding sanctions in the amount of $4,940 to
H
H Ct 'fl
— O
14 return Defendants to the position they would have been had respobses been timely provided; (3)
<s'a 15 issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiffs continuing pattern of failure to
16 engage in the discovery process.
H
0 17
In
C,
Dated March 19, 2019 PORTER SCOTT
18 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION I I
19
20 By MJO4b/t(2(
David P. E. Burkett
21 Daniel J. Bardzell
22 Attorneys for Defendant
23
24
25
26
27
28
{01978654D0CX} 11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et at.
I
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My
business address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
5
On the date below, I served the following document:
6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'
7 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND
8 TERMINATING SANCTIONS
BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business
9 practices. I am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing
correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing,
10
it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed
envelope with postage hilly prepaid.
11
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
addressed below. (I) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at
12
C the attorney's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify
0
13 the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours
—'0 of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by
-'Cl) In coo
Os °'2 14 leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age
between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.
-<cc'
U a. o
15 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
0' overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package
16 for collection and overnight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight
delivery carrier. -
Cn BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax
0 17
In transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was
18 reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed
out, is attached
19 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept
service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic
20 notification address listed below.
21 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
27
tsser
28
{01978654.DOCX)
12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
EXHIBIT # 16
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 04/26/2019 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Steven H Rodda
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM: V. Green CSR# 10529
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: Navi, A., R. Mays
APPEARANCES
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, self represented Plaintiff, present.
Daniel Bardzell, counsel present for defendant
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents
TENTATIVE RULING
Judgment Creditors Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert's, ("Judgment Creditors") Motion to
Compel Responses to Judgment Debtor's Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor's Requests for
Production of Documents, for payment of Monetary Sanctions, and for Terminating Sanctions is ruled on
as follows:
On April 14, 2015, the Court granted Judgment Creditor's Special Motion to Strike plaintiff's causes of
action. The Court subsequently granted their Motion for Attorneys fees in the amount of $22,284. (Ex. C
to the Declaration of Daniel J. Bardzell)
Judgment Creditors served the instant post-judgment discovery (Ex. N) on October 9, 2018. Judgment
debtor/plaintiff failed to provide any responses to the discovery. Judgment Creditors sent a second copy
of the discovery to judgment debtor on January 25, 2019, after he contended that he never received the
first set served in October. No responses were served prior to filing this motion on March 20, 2019.
Judgment Debtor has filed an opposition contending that he has now served responses to the discovery,
attached as Exhibits 1 and 2. The points and authorities in opposition to the motion do not address the
relevant issues in this motion but consists almost entirely of matters irrelevant to the discovery at issue.
Judgment debtor opposes this "unwarranted motion to compel."
Judgment creditor's Reply contends that the discovery responses were not code compliant because
they contained objections and plaintiff has waived objections by not timely responding. The Court is not
reviewing the adequacy of the responses attached to the Opposition. However, moving parties are
entitled to a court order compelling code compliant responses to the discovery. Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, Inc. v Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.
Judgment Debtor is ordered to serve further verified responses to the Judgment Debtor
Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production, as set forth in the separate statement,
without objections, on or before May 8, 2019.
Judgment debtor is also ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to moving parties in the
amount of $780 (3 hrs at the hourly rate of $260), plus the $60 filing fee, for a total fee award of
$840. This opposition was filed without substantial justification and therefore, moving parties
are entitled to monetary sanctions. The monetary sanctions must be paid on or before May 27,
2019. If those sanctions are not paid by that date, moving parties may prepare a formal order on
the two sanctions awards which may thereafter be entered as a separate judgment. See
Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608.
Terminating Sanctions
The motion for terminating sanctions is denied. The post judgment discovery at issue here was served
by judgment creditors, not Regents. Moving parties have already obtained a judgment of dismissal in
this case as well as an attorney fees award on the anti-SLAPP motion. Thus, it is unclear why they are
seeking a "terminating sanction" in this context.
Regents are not a party to the underlying discovery or this motion, and therefore the Court will not grant
a terminating sanctions as to Regents. To the extent plaintiff has not paid monetary sanctions to be paid
to Regents pursuant to prior court orders, Regents may prepare a formal order on that sanctions award
from the November 14, 2018 court order and then may enforce that award as a separate judgment
under Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608.
As stated above, Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to the Judgment Debtor Interrogatories
and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production, without objections, on or before May 8, 2019. Monetary
sanctions are to be paid as specified above.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
After hearing oral argument the Court affirmed its tentative ruling with the following modification:
The order for monetary sanctions was vacated.
1 up is a separate proceeding.
2 As we stated in our motion papers with respect
3 to this motion, we are entitled to receive timely
4 verified responses to the written debtor discovery.
5 Plaintiff failed to provide that discovery by the
6 deadline. We met and conferred. He did not serve
7 responses at the time we filed the motion. He did file
8 late responses, noncompliant, after we filed the motion.
9 And so we stand by our request.
10 THE COURT: At the debtor's examination, did you
11 ask him all of the same questions set forth in the
12 discovery requests?
13 MR. BARDZELL: We covered significant ground
14 related to the documented categories that were also
15 requested in the written discovery.
16 THE COURT: So wouldn't that just duplicate what
17 you requested in the discovery requests?
18 MR. BARDZELL: Well, at the debtor's examination
19 a number of questions were asked about his wife's
20 assets, and in that respect he was unwilling to provide
21 that information. We also served the written discovery,
22 which he did not timely respond to.
23 Additionally, at the debtor's examination there
24 was no court reporter. There was a lack of under oath
25 testimony. It was an informal proceeding.
26 THE COURT: Well, the debtor is a formal
27 proceeding, right? That's my experience.
28 MR. BARDZELL: I don't recall. I was under the
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
David P. E. Burkett, SBN 241896
3 Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
dburkett@porterscott.com
6
dbardzelKolporterscott.com
7
Attomey for Defendant
8
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
9
Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code §6103
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11
12
o JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
o
B in
13
•3 a - ^14 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
o
u c/^c i<n a<
00 o AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
O ON Ov
15 V. DEFENDANTS' FURTHER MOTION TO
< _ COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT
kQ
Oi.
•— IU . .
16 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND
O CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
(X
17 CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY
AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
18 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
19 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES Date: July 19, 2019
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY Time: 2:00 p.m.
20 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK Dept.: 53
21 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1
through 50, inclusive. Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
22 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
Defendants. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
23
24
25
26
27
28
(02023105.DOCX} 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3
4 I. INTRODUCTION
5 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .1
6
A. Plaintiff Failed to Provide Timely Responses to Defendant University's
7 Form and Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents
and Request for Admissions Necessitating Two Motions to.Compel
8 Regarding Such Requests 3
9
B. Plaintiff Ignores the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Meet-and-Confer Efforts
10 Related to the Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents
(Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) 4
11
12 C. Anti-SLAPP Defendants File a Motion to Compel Responses Judgment
o
o Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment
(N
13 Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) and for Terminating Sanctions 5
3
24 VI. CONCLUSION : ; 13
25
26
27
28
{02023105.DOCX) 11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page
State Court Cases
3
4 Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants
(2007) 148 Cal.App.4"^ 390, 411 8, 9
5
6 Kahn v. Kahn
(1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 372, 383 11
7
Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
8 55 Cal.App.3d 77, 744 8
9
R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
10 (1999) 75 Cal.App.3d 372, 383 11
11 Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp.
12 (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914 8, 10
o
o
B m 13
t— .
32 00 —
»o00 NO
h- cn
o
1^ 14 Statutes
O — m
o^ f-^
oi < 6 Os Ov 15 Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 2
\D NO
ON ON
^ " i-J >< 16 Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c) 3
a< c iaUJ <
:D cn
17
o Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(d) ..11
• in
m
18
Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(g) ; 11
19
20 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) .......11
CeS < o
ON
NO NO
ON
15
(—, • - 1) 0 \ ON
IJ oo c 16
^ s iH tu
O- c S
3 cn
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02023105.DOCX} IV
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 Defendants BOYD, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, OROPEZA, and SEIFERT ("anti-SLAPP
2 Defendants" or "Defendants") respectfully submit the following memorandimi of points and
3 authorities in support of their motion to: (1) compel Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY")
4 WASZCZUK's verified responses, without objections, to Judgment Debtor Requests for
Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) award
monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,160.00 to retum Defendants to the position they would
have been had the subject judgment debtor discovery responses been timely provided; (3) issue
8 terminating sanctions against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant REGENTS OF THE
9 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ("UNIVERSITY") as a result of Plaintiff s pattem of failure to
10 engage in the discovery process.
11 I.
12 INTRODUCTION
o
o
fN
13 Anti-SLAPP Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of
t- 3 oo —
i n oo
t - cn ON -q-
0 u Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) on October 9, 2018.
<• ON
^ g U ON fN
—> o ^ 5 15 Responses were due on or before November 13, 2018. Plaintiff has failed to provide verified and
ON ON
01 <
1 -J
2 UJ
^ 16 adequate responses and same are overdue.
Cu c ca u.
D Defendants respectfully request the Court issue an Order to (1) compel Plaintiff to provide
o
in 17
verified responses to the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of
18
Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) issue monetary sanctions
19 I
20 against Plaintiff in the amount of $4,160.00 for Defendants' fees and costs incurred in bringing this
21 motion; and (3) issue the sanction of termination of the present action as a result of Plaintiffs
.22 continuing pattem of failing to provide discovery responses.
IL
23
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
24
The course of litigation in this matter is lengthy and complex. The following is a brief
25
summary: Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on September 30,
26
2014. Among the several claims in the SAC are four causes of action against all named
27
28
{02023105. DOCX}
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 Defendants:' (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"); (2) tortious interference with
2 economic advantage; (3) FEHA harassment and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination,
3 retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 12940(a); and (4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation
4 in violation of Govemment Code §§ 8547 et seq.
5 Each of these causes of action arises out of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant
6 UNIVERSITY at the University of Califomia at Davis Medical Center. In addition to Defendant
7 UNIVERSITY^ these causes of action were pled against Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE,
8 MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
9 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, and DORIN DANILIUC for their
10 participation in investigations and disciplinary actions that ultimately resulted in Plaintiffs
11 termination of employment with the UNIVERSITY. The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant
12 remaining in the case.
o
o
fN 13 On December 1, 2014, anti-SLAPP Defendants filed a Special Motion to Strike Plaintiffs
Bm
u- fN — NO
r- 3 oo 00 O
H (/2 14 causes of action as pled against them. (Declaration of Daniel Bardzell in Support of Further
0 u-o^
fN f N
01 < 6
ON ON
NO NO
15 Motion to Compel ("Bardzell Decl."), Tl 2.) The anti-SLAPP Defendants contended that Plaintiffs
U >:> cON ON
^ ^ E J ><
W <
16 causes of action against them arose from protected activities pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure-'
a. c H u.
D cn 17 § 425.16; namely, their participation in the processing, investiga:tion, hearing and deciding of
o
•n
18 complaints filed by Plaintiff and others pursuant to the policies and procedures of the Defendant
19 UNIVERSITY. (M)
20 On April 14, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting the Special Motion to Strike finding
21 that Plaintiff failed to establish a probability of prevailing on the causes of action pled against the
22 anti-SLAPP Defendants as required by section 425.16 and entering judgment in favor of the anti-
/ • '. ' .
23 SLAPP Defendants. (Id. at ^ 3 and Exhibit A.)
24 ///
25
26
27 ' The First and Second Causes of Action in the Second Amended Complaint do not specifically identify Defendant UNIVERSITY
but do refer to employment with UC DAVIS within the cause of action.
2 ld.,fn. 1. .
28
^ Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references in this Motion are to the Califomia Code of Civil
Procedure.
{02023105. DOCX} 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of the four remaining
2 individual Defendants RICE, WITCHER, PUTNEY, and DANILIUC. (Id. at H 4 and Exhibit B.)
3 The UNIVERSITY is the only Defendant remaining in the case.
4 On May 11, 2015, the anti-SLAPP Defendants filed a Motion for Fees and Costs pursuant
5 to CCP § 425.16, subdivision (c) and the Court's Order dated April 14, 2015 on Defendant's
6 Special Motion to Strike. (Id. at ^ 5.) The motion sought recovery of approximately $33,000 in fees
7 and costs incurred by the anti-SLAPP Defendants in cormection with the Special Motion to Strike.
8 (Id., Exhibit C.)
9 On June 29, 2018, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion for Fees and
10 Costs in the amoimt of $22,284 against Plaintiff (Id. at 6 and Exhibit C.)
11 A. Plaintiff Failed to Provide Timely Responses to Defendant UNIVERSITY'S Form and
Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for
12
o Admissions, Necessitating Two Motions to Compel Regarding Such Requests
o
fN
B m
13 In the underlying lawsuit from which the anti-SLAPP Defendants have been dismissed,
L_ •= <N
r-" 3 00 — NO
H cn
O
00 o
—
14 Plaintiff has engaged in a pattem of failing to adequately and timely respond to Defendant
ON t~~
^Is fN fN
ON ON
NO NO
15 UNIVERSITY'S discovery requests which has necessitated the filing of two motions to compel
oi < 6 ON ON
j'
^ S3 1
UJ
><
<
16 discovery by Defendant UNIVERSITY on October 17, 2018 and Febmary 11, 2019, respectively.
O .2; !iH u.
D cn 17 (Bardzell Decl., H 7-12.) In its mling on Defendant UNIVERSITY'S October 17, 2018 motion to
18 compel, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to
19 Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets one) and requests for production (set one) no
20 later than December 12, 2018. (Id. at H 9 and Exhibit D.) Additionally, the Court ordered Plaintiff
21 to pay Defendant UNIVERSITY mandatory monetary sanctions in the amount of $520 by
22 December 14, 2018 for failure to provide responses to requests for admissions. (Id.)
23 Plaintiff violated the Court's order by failing to fully pay such monetary sanctions and by
24 providing only deficient responses to the special and form interrogatories which necessitated the
25 filing of a second motion to compel on Febmary 11, 2019. (Id. at T| 9-12.)
26 The Court granted Defendant UNIVERSITY'S second motion to compel and ordered
27 Plaintiff to provide further verified responses to Defendant's form and special interrogatories (sets
28 one) no later than April 3, 2019. (Id. at ^ 12 and Exhibit E.) Additionally, the Court denied
{02023105.DOCX} 3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 Defendant's request for monetary sanctions as the motion was imopposed and also denied
2 Defendant's request for terminating sanctions, (/of.)
3 B. Plaintiff Ignores the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Meet-and-Confer Efforts Related to the
Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment
4 Debtor Interrogatories (Set One)
5
The anfi-SLAPP Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for
6
Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) on October 9,
7
2018. (Bardzell Decl., 13 and Exhibit F.) Responses were due on or before November 13, 2018.
8
(Id. at 13.) Plaintiff has completely failed' to provide any verified responses and same are
9
overdue. (Id.)
10
On January 24, 2019, counsel for Defendants served a meet and confer correspondence
11
upon Plaintiff regarding,the outstanding judgment debtor discovery responses wherein defense
12
o
o counsel indicated: "This letter serves as Defendants [. . .] attempt to meet and confer regarding
fN
B m
13
>
H
'= 00 — NO
CO i n 00 p ^ ^
Plaintiffs outstanding responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Request for Production of
o « °^ 2 p; 14 Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories, Set One which were served on you on
> U ON ON . _
ai, < o so ^ 1 J
October 9, 2018. Plaintiff has provided no response whatsoever. Please provide complete
S 1 -J X 16
a- ta-
c cau H u. responses by January 31, 2019 or we will file a motion to compel and seek sanctions." (Id. at ^ 14
3 cn
o
in 17 and Exhibit G.)
18 By email correspondence dated January 25, 2019, Plaintiff asserted he never received a
19 copy of the judgment debtor discovery requests and further provided: "Please send me the
20 aforementioned documents that were supposed to have been sent in October. I will look them over
21 and respond to you with 30 days, or you may file the motion to compel if you wish." (Id. at ^ 15
22 and Exhibit H.) By email correspondence also dated January 25, 2019, the office of coimsel for
23 Defendants provided Plaintiff with a further courtesy copy of Defendants' Judgment Debtor
24 Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories, Set One
25
26
27
/ •. •
which were previously served on Plaintiff on October 9, 2018. (/i/.)
/// ".
28
{02023105. DOCX} A
10 file a motion to compel and seek sanctions." (Id. at ^ 17 and Exhibit J.)
11 By email correspondence dated March 1, 2019, Plaintiff provided, in part; " I am not going
12 to quit my lawsuits voluntarily either regardless of what judges and justices from three different
o
o
in
rJ
13 Califomia courts have done to me in the last four years. I did not provide the response by January
H 3 00 —
m 00
i— cn
O u ON 14 31, 2019 because the DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF [. . . and]
on g fN
<
< ri fN S 15 DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - SET ONE TO
o" ^ ON
5 ON
<U . .
6 -1 ^ 16 PLAINTIFF [. . .] were not sent to me on October 9, 2018 and I do not have any record of it[. . . .]
U.
1u
17 Porter Scott attomeys did not file a Motion to Compel as promised by the January 31, 2019 letter
18 nor did they formally resend the Interrogatories and Production for Documents to me with the new
19 date[. . .] If the Porter Scott attomeys want to file another Motion to Compel [. . .] I have no
20 control over it. I will not be surprised if the. Motion is granted." (Id. at T| 18 and Exhibit K.)
21 Plaintiff fiirther asserted that he provided some documents at the Judgment Debtor examination in
22 On May 31, 2019, counsel for Defendants served a meet and confer correspondence upon
23 Plaintiff regarding the outstanding judgment debtor discovery responses which indicated:
I will respond to your inquiry within a few days (most likely next week). [. . .] Your
threating letter stating "Please provide complete responses immediately or we will take
fiirther action, as needed" made me feel very uncomfortable. I received your May 31, 2019
threat of unspecified further action on the seventh anniversary of the ill-plaimed but
8 unsuccessfiil provocation to end my employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma
Unit #11 by the specially assembled hit squad, which I nicknamed in the Court Documents
9
as the "Davis Death Squad." I hope that your new threat does not mean that the UCOP mob
10 led by Janet Napolitano gave the order to Porter Scott's special team to physically harm me
or my family members, taking into consideration previous Porter Scott attomeys'
11 provocations threats and 14 years of terror.
12 (Id. at H 24 and Exhibit O.)
o
o
fN
B m
13 Plaintiff further responded by email dated June 8, 2019, stating in part:
E- 3 S - NO
O cn m 00 o 14
U 1) ON •*
— m As I stated in my April 12, 2019 Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel and
t/2 i < ON
Oi u fN s:^ 15 Terminate Sanctions filed by you on March 20, 2019, for the Defendants' Judgment
UJ
H > ( J ON ON Debtor Interrogatories Set One and Judgment Debtor Request for Production of
oi
O <^> —o" ^ — 16 Documents Set One, and during the April 26, 2019 Court hearing with Judge Steven
&- .3 uC ON ON
5 td
17 Rodda, I have no more information to give you other than what you have received already.
D cn
o In fact, I should not give you any information in this matter, but this is a separate subject
in 18 that I wiir address after you file another Mofion to Compel or any other mofion related to
this case.
19
20 (Id. at H 25 and Exhibit P.)
21 III.
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO
22 JUDGMENT DEBTOR REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
23 AND JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
24 A judgment creditor is allowed to use the following procedures provided for in the
25 Discovery Act to obtain discovery to assist in enforcing a judgment: (1) service of written
26 interrogatories to the judgment debtor imder CC-P- § 2030.010, et seq., and (2) service of a
27 document inspecfion demand to the judgment debtor under CCP. § 2031.010, et seq. (CCP. §§
28
2016.070; 708.020; 708.030.)
{02023105.DOCX} 7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 A. Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One)
2 A party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath
3 separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: an answer containing the informafion
4 being sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party's opfion to produce writings, or an
objection to the particular interrogatory. (CCP. § 2030.210(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories
are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move
for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP. § 2030.290(b).) The party also
8 waives objections to the interrogatories (including those based on privilege and work product) by
10 Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject
11 to a 45-day time limit, and the propoimding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause
12 or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific
o
o
13 Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) A separate statement is not required
f- 3 fOO
N
—
m OO
O u ON -Sl- when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Rules of Court, mle 3.1345(b).)
< • ON f N
—>
ON 2 15 In our case. Defendants have not received Plaintiffs verified responses to Judgment Debtor
fN
a; < 2" )B ON
S ON
oi I- LZ ^ 16 Interrogatories (Set One). (Bardzell Deck, t 22.) These interrogatories were properly served on
y r-
o
in 17 Plaintiff on October 9, 2018. (Id. at T| 13 and Exhibit F.) Responses were due on or before
18 November 13, 2018. (M)
19 Plaintiff served imverified, deficient and late responses to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories
20 (Set One) on April 15, 2019. (Id. at 20 and Exhibit L.) Interrogatory responses served without a
21 verification are tantamount to serving no responses as all. (Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific
22 Securities Corp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914 ("Untimely or unswom statements are tantamovmt
23 to no response at all[.]") citing Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 55 Cal.App.3d
24 737, 744.).) Plaintiffs unswom responses are wholly insufficient and constitute a complete failure
25 to respond.
26 Plaintiffs late unverified interrogatory responses are not code-compliant discovery
27 responses. Plaintiff has waived any objections to^the requests by failing to timely respond to them.
28 (Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(a) [interrogatories] & 2031.300(a) [producfion
{02023105. DOCX} g
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION QF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 requests].) Instead of serving responses without objections, the unverified responses contain
2 outright refusals to provide information regarding Plaintiffs wife's finances. (Bardzell Deck,
3 Exhibit L, "Response to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Rpgs #1".) Defendants are entitled to that
4 information to determine what assets Plaintiff has (whether individually or as community
5 property), so they can determine what can be collected, and how to collect it, to pay the judgments
6 that he owes in this case. Plaintiff refused that provide that information at the debtor's examination
7 (which is part of the reason why Defendants have had to file this motion not\yithstanding their
8 attempt to resolve the issues in this motion by taking discovery into Plaintiffs assets via the
9 debtor's examination). (Id.)
10 Defendants require these verified interrogatory responses in order to enforce their,
11 judgment. Accordingly, Defendants respectfiilly request a further Order compelling Plainfiff to
12 provide verified and code-compliant responses to anti-SLAPP Defendants' Judgment Debtor
o
o
fN
B m
13 Interrogatories (Set One) without objections.
U- 3 fN
r- 3 oo _ NO
t- cn 00 g
^ rn
14 B. Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One)
fN
oi < 6
ON I3N 15 If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the
NO NO
ON OS
b 3 J >< 16 party propounding the demand may move for an order compelling responses to the demand.
o > sLU
H
<
ti.
D C/2
o
17 (CCP. § 2031.300(b).) The party to whom the demand for inspection is directed shall sign the
in
f^
18 response under oath unless the response contains only objections. (CCP. § 2031.250(1).) In
19 addition, a party who fails to respond waives any objecfions he otherwise could have raised to the
20 demand. (CCP. § 2031.300(a).)
21 As discussed supra, where, as here. Plaintiff has failed to provide any timely verified
22 responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propoimding
23 party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer
24 requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 411.) A separate
25 statement is not required when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Rules
26 ofCourt, mle 3.1345(b).)
27 Defendants served Plaintiff with Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents
28 (Set One) on October 9, 2018. (Bardzell Deck, ^ 13 and Exhibit F.) Responses were due on or
{02023105.DOCX} 9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 before November 13, 2018. (Id.) Plaintiffs responses remain overdue and outstanding. (Id. at ^ 13,
2 22.) .
3 Plainfiff served unverified, late and deficient responses to Judgment Debtor Requests for
4 Production of Documents (Set One) on April 15, 2019. (Id. at ^ 20 and Exhibit L.) As discussed
5 supra, discovery responses served without a verification are tantamount to serving no responses as
6 all. (Zorro Inv. Co., supra, 69 Cal.App.3d at 914.) Moreover, for the same reasons set forth supra
7 regarding Plaintiffs judgment debtor interrogatory responses. Plaintiffs responses to Judgment
8 Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) are not code compliant. Plaintiff s
9 imswom responses to Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) are
10 wholly insufficient and constitute a complete failure to respond.
11 Therefore, Defendants respectfiilly request an Order compelling Plainfiff to provide
12 verified responses to Defendants' Judgment Debtor Request for Production of Documents (Set
B m
13 One), without objections.
[_ - 3 rNi
— NO
H cn 5S
O 00 o 14 IV.
U
1/3
i <— ON I^'
rs f N
CtJ < Q- ON ON
15 MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AWARDED
W .5^ 3 NO NO
ON ON
{02023105. DOCX}
10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 Plaintiffs attempt to evade his obligation to provide responses to judgment debtor
2 discovery has made this second judgment debtor discovery motion necessary, despite being
3 afforded the opportunity to avoid the need for same.
4 To date. Defendants have incurred $2,860.00 in fees as a result of Plaintiffs failure to
5 respond to Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment
6 Debtor Interrogatories (Set One) since the Court mled on Defendants' inifial mofion to compel
7 judgment debtor discovery. (Bardzell Deck, ^ 26.) Defendants anticipate incurring an additional
8 $1,300 to review Plaintiffs Opposifion, prepare a reply and attend a hearing. (Id.) Therefore,
9 sanctions are proper. Moreover, even i f Plaintiff serves verified responses upon notice of this
10 motion in order to avoid a court order. Defendants have nevertheless been forced to incur the
11 expense of moving to compel Plaintiffs compliance with his discovery obligations, despite efforts
12 to achieve a cooperative result. As such, sanctions in the amount of $4,160.00 are appropriately
o
o
fN 13 awarded against Plaintiff for thefimeand expense incurred by Defendants in filing this motion.
B m
— NO
L_ -3 fN
OO p
— m
14 V.
ON I-^
fN fN
H cn
o
ON ON
NO SO
15 TERMINATING SANCTIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE
ON ON
oi u <
16 The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may impose sanctions on any party
O
oi
a. <C cd
D cn 17 who engages in conduct that constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (CCP. § 2023.030(a).)
o
in
18 Misuses of the discovery process includes "failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method
19 of discovery" and "disobeying a court order to provide discovery." (CCP. §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)
20 When a party fails to respond to an authorized method of discovery and/or fails to obey a court
21 order to provide discovery, the Court may impose monetary sanctions, terminating sanctions, or
22 both. (CCP § 2023.030(a), (d), (g).)
23 Courts have long held that terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is a willful
24 failure to comply with court orders, and should be issued where it appears that lesser sanctions
25 would not bring the offending party into compliance. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.
26 (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Terminating sanctions are especially appropriate where a party
27 fails to respond to discovery requests and ignores court orders. (Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68
28 Cal.App.3d372, 383.)
{02023105.DOCX} 11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 Terminating sanctions are appropriate in this case. Plaintiff has failed to provide any
2 verified responses to the Defendants' written judgment debtor discovery despite extensive meet
3 and confer efforts by Defendants. Moreover, the Court has previously granted a motion to compel
4 judgment debtor discovery filed by the anti-SLAPP Defendants in this case. (Bardzell Deck, ^ 21
5 and Exhibits M.) Plainfiff has completely ignored the Court's order regarding the prior judgment
6 debtor discovery motion. (Id. at ^ 22.) Plaintiff has plainly not been dissuaded from his pattem of
7 failing to engage in the discovery process.
8 Additionally, the Court has previously granted two motions to compel discovery filed by
9 Defendant UNIVERSITY in the underlying lawsuitfi"omwhich the judgment at issue arose. (Id. at
10 ^ 7-12 and Exhibits D-E.) Although these further discovery failures pertain to discovery requests
11 served by Defendant UNIVERSITY rather than the anti-SLAPP Defendants, such aggravafing
12 circumstances regarding discovery in the underlying lawsuit, when considered along with
o
o
fN
ii m
13 Plaintiffs pattern of failing to engage in the judgment enforcement discovery process, warrant the
"3 fN
t r2 00 — 5 14 remedy of terminating sanctions of the underlying lawsuit against Defendant UNIVERSITY.
t — cn in 00 o
S fN fN
^ <I o<
>
" a
^ f:i'
ON ON . ^
Plainfiffs demonstrated pattem of failing to provide discovery responses has prejudiced
U ^^11).I 5^. ,5;
I- r ^
Defendants' ability to prepare for trial by necessitafing substantial expenditures of time and money
D cn
o 17 to compel Plaintiff to both (1) comply with his discovery obligations in the underlying lawsuit; and
18 (2) fulfill his judgment debtor discovery obligations to permit the anfi-SLAPP Defendants to
19 enforce their judgment.
20 Plaintiffs enduring lack of cooperation with the discovery process - despite a total of three
21 prior discovery motions - makes it apparent that no action will compel Plaintiff to comply with his
22 discovery obligations, making terminating sanctions appropriate.
23 Accordingly, Defendants request that the Court grant terminating sanctions and issue an
24 Order dismissing the complaint against the remaining Defendant UNIVERSITY in its enfirety,
25 with prejudice.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
{02023105.DOCX}
12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 VL
2 CONCLUSION
3 Defendants have made every effort to allow for the cooperative exchange of information,
4 however Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses to the anti-SLAPP Defendants'
,5 Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor
6 Interrogatories (Set One). Defendants are left with no option other than to file the instant motion.
7 As such. Defendants seek an Order (1) compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses,'without
objections, to the anti-SLAPP Defendants' Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of
Documents (Set One) and Judgment Debtor Interrogatories (Set One); (2) awarding anti-SLAPP
10 Defendants sanctions in the amount of $4,160.00 to retum them to the position they would have
11 been had responses been timely provided; (3) issue terminating sancfions against Plaintiff in favor
12 of Defendant UNIVERSITY as a result of Plaintiff s continuing pattern of failing to engage iri the
o
o
I—1
am
3 fN _
13 discovery process.
r-* 3 00 NO
E- cn m oo p
o u =^ 2: P; 14
> N j ON ON .. ^ Dated: June 12, 2019 PORTER SCOTT
< O" ^ ^ 1^
•ijj 2^ c o^ A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
S g g -J X 16
By.
17 David P. E. Burkett
18 Daniel J. Bardzell
Attomeys for Defendant
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02023105. DOCX}
13
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et al.
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this acfion. My
business address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
10 BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
11 On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
12 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
o
o addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
fN
^ in
13 attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
•3 S - NO attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine
cn m 00 o
o «r <^ !^ 14 in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the
u i <• Jri documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours
> NJ CJN
oi < o " NO NO
15 ON
of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
W C ON ON
H BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
ai 16 ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package for
O
collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly, utilized drop box of the ovemight delivery
c/o 17 carrier.
BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I
18 faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
machine that \ used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
19
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
20 electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
address listed below. '
21
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
22 2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
23
24
25 I declare under penalty of perjury imder the laws of the State of Califomia that the
26 foregoing is tme and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on Jime 12, 2019.
27
28 Wendy Strasser
{02023105.DOCX}
14
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FURTHER
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
EXHIBIT # 24
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 07/19/2019 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: D. Johnson-Mellado
REPORTER/ERM: L. Gallager # 8726
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: Alvi, N., R. Mays
APPEARANCES
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, self represented Plaintiff, present.
Dan Bardzell, Counsel for defendant
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Responses and Request for Production of Docs
TENTATIVE RULING
Judgment Creditors Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert's, ("Judgment Creditors") Motion to
Compel Responses to Judgment Creditors' Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor's Requests for
Production of Documents, for payment of Monetary Sanctions, and for Terminating Sanctions is ruled on
as follows.
On April 14, 2015, the Court granted Judgment Creditor's Special Motion to Strike plaintiff's causes of
action and entered judgment in favor of Judgment Creditors. The Court subsequently granted Judgment
Creditors' Motion for Attorneys' fees in the amount of $22,284. (Bardzell Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6, Exhs. A, C.)
Judgment Creditors served the instant post-judgment discovery on October 9, 2018. (Bardzell Decl. ¶13,
Exh. F.) Judgment debtor/plaintiff failed to provide any responses to the discovery. Judgment Creditors
sent a second copy of the discovery to judgment debtor on January 25, 2019, after judgment
debtor/plaintiff contended he never received the first set served in October. (Bardzell Decl. ¶ 14, Exh. G.)
After receiving no responses, Judgment Creditors filed a motion to compel responses on March 20,
2019. On April 15, 2019, while the motion to compel was pending, judgment debtor/plaintiff served
unverified responses. (Bardzell Decl. ¶ 20, Exh. L.)
On April 26, 2019, the Court granted Judgment Creditors' motion to compel and ordered judgment
debtor/plaintiff to serve further verified responses, without objections, on or before May 8, 2019. (ROA
211.) While monetary sanctions were initially granted in the tentative ruling, after hearing at oral
argument, the Court vacated the order for monetary sanctions.
Judgment debtor/plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court order and provide any further responses.
(Bardzell Decl. ¶ 23.) Judgment Creditors have attempted to meet and confer with judgment
debtor/plaintiff, but have been unable to obtain compliance with the Court's discovery order.
Judgment Creditors now move to compel judgment debtor/plaintiff to serve further verified responses,
without objections, to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production of
Documents. Judgment Creditors contend they have not received any verified responses from judgment
debtor/plaintiff and the unverified responses they have received are not code-compliant because they
contain an objection and refusal to provide the information, even though judgment debtor/plaintiff has
waived objections by not timely responding. Judgment Creditors contend the information sought is
relevant to enforce their judgment.
Judgment debtor/plaintiff has submitted points and authorities in opposition to the motion, but these do
not address the relevant issues in this motion, and consists almost entirely of matters irrelevant to the
discovery at issue.
Judgment debtor/plaintiff is again ordered to serve further verified responses to the Judgment
Debtor Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production, without objections, on or
before July 29, 2019.
The Court cautions judgment debtor/plaintiff that compliance with a facially valid court order is
mandatory. (See, e.g., In re Brambini (1923) 192 Cal. 19, 28-32; see also In re Berry (1968) 68
Cal.2d 137, 147.)
Judgment debtor/plaintiff is also ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to moving parties in the
amount of $1,300 (5 hrs at the hourly rate of $260), plus the $60 filing fee, for a total fee award of
$1,360. This opposition was filed without substantial justification and therefore, moving parties are
entitled to monetary sanctions. The monetary sanctions must be paid on or before August 19, 2019. If
those sanctions are not paid by that date, moving parties may prepare a formal order on the two
sanctions awards which may thereafter be entered as a separate judgment. (See Newland v Superior
Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608.)
Terminating Sanctions
The motion for terminating sanctions is denied. The post judgment discovery at issue here was served
by Judgment Creditors, not The Regents of the University of California ("Regents"). Moving parties have
already obtained a judgment of dismissal in this case as well as an attorneys' fees award on the
anti-SLAPP motion. Thus, it is unclear why they are seeking a "terminating sanction" in this context.
Regents are not a party to the underlying discovery or this motion, and therefore the Court will not grant
a terminating sanction as to Regents.
Conclusion
As stated above, judgment debtor/plaintiff is again ordered to serve verified responses to the
Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production, without
objections, on or before July 29, 2019. Monetary sanctions are to be paid as specified above.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
After hearing oral argument the Court affirmed its tentative ruling with the following modification:
The Court vacated $60 filing fee from the tentative ruling as listed below:
Judgment debtor/plaintiff is ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to moving parties in the
amount of $1,300 (5 hrs at the hourly rate of $260), for a total fee award of $1,300.
·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · --oOo--
23
24
25
26· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·--oOo--
27
·1· ·of the anti-SLAPP defendants, but we're okay with the
·2· ·tentative ruling at this point.
·3· · · · · ·THE COURT:· So he is okay with it,
·4· ·Mr. Waszczuk, but you have to provide him answers
·5· ·without objections and sign them under penalty of
·6· ·perjury.
·7· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I need to know what they want.
·8· · · · · ·THE COURT:· You answered them.· You didn't do
·9· ·a bad job.· I read all your answers.· Most of them were
10· ·pretty good.· I would have been happy with them if I
11· ·were Mr. Bardzell, but you didn't sign them, and there
12· ·were a couple objections that were pointed out to me.
13· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I gave Mr. Bardzell everything
14· ·on February 8th.
15· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Did you sign the answers, Mr.
16· ·Waszczuk?
17· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· Your Honor, we were in court --
18· · · · · ·THE COURT:· I don't care whether you were in
19· ·court.· Did you sign the answers?
20· · · · · ·MR. WASZCZUK:· I believe so.
21· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Do you have Exhibit L?· Do you
22· ·have a copy of his motion in front of you?· It's
23· ·Exhibit L.· It should have a little tab at the bottom.
24· · · · · ·Please show him, Mr. Bardzell.
25· · · · · ·All right.· Exhibit L.· Go to the very end of
26· ·your response to the production of documents.· Go to
27· ·page 7.
28· · · · · ·Do you see where it says submitted on
·7· ·JULY 19, 2019, in the matter of the Waszczuk vs. The
14· ·proceedings.
19
20
21
23
24· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·--oOo--
25
26
27
28
signed 5:1,5
V
sir 5:1
sitting 3:20 vacate 3:14
SLAPP 11:5,6 vacating 3:17
social 11:18 verification 3:28 4:23
5:7
spouse 8:7
spouse's 8:14
24
25
26
27
28
{02II7245.DOCX}
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 I.
2 INTRODUCTION
3 Judgment Creditors/Defendants have now filed three Motions to Compel Judgment
4 Debtor/Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK to provide compliant responses to Judgment
5 Debtor Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Request for Production of Documents. All such Motions
6 have been granted, yet Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff still refuses to provide those responses. His most-
7 recent responses are identical to those this Court found deficient in ruling on the prior Motion.
8 That forced Judgment Creditors/Defendants to file the instant Motion to Compel and Request for
9 Monetary Sanctions. Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff failed to file a timely Opposition to the Motion. As a
10 result. Judgment Creditors/Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition. Thereafter, Judgment
11 Debtor/Plaintiff filed an untimely Opposition. Judgment Creditors/Defendants submit the Court should
12 disregard that Opposition as untimely. However, even i f the Court considers the Opposition, Plaintiff
13 concedes in that document that he has "no arguments" other than those the Court already rejected in
14 granting the prior Motions to Cornpel.
15 Judgment Debtor/Plaintiffs current Opposition is instead replete with incoherent and nonsensical
16 assertions that counsel for Judgment Creditors is engaging in extortion. Although unclear, it appears
17 Judgment Debtor/Plaintiffs assertions focus on an underlying Order from this Court where the Court
18 awarded Defendants the attorney's fees they incurred in successfully pursuing an Anti-SLAPP Motion.
19 Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff argues that three other lawyers from defense counsel's firm worked on that
20 motion, not the current lawyers. Judgment Debtor's email correspondence attached as Exhibit 5 to his
21 Opposition also claims that any fees that are paid must be paid to the individual Defendants who
22 prevailed on the Anti-SLAPP Motion and not to Defendant REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
•23 CALIFORNIA (herein "REGENTS"), who paid for those fees.
24 Those arguments, however, are entirely irrelevant to the pending Motion, which merely argues
25 that Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff failed to provide adequate responses to discovery requests. Judgment
26 Debtor/Plaintiff does not dispute that issue, nor can he given the responses are identical to the ones the
27 Court previously found deficient.
28 For these reasons and the reasons set forth in Judgment Creditors' moving papers, Judgment
{02117245 DOCX) 2
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 Creditors' Motion should be granted. Judgment Creditors also respectfully request that the Court award
' 2 sanctions for Judgment Debtor's repeated abuse of the discovery process and disregard of previous court
3 orders. In addition. Judgment Creditors respectfully request the Court clarify that the REGENTS is
4 entitled to the payment of sanction awards as the REGENTS is incurring the costs associated with the
5 litigation against Judgment Debtor.
6 II.
7 JUDGMENT DEBTOR'S OPPOSITION SHOULD BE DISREGARDED BECAUSE IT WAS
8 UNTIMELY
9 Judgment Debtor's Opposition to the instant Motion was due on December 2, 2019. (Declaration of
10 Amanda L. Her [herein "Her Decl."], ^ 2.) On December 4, 2019, after no Opposition had been served or
11 even filed, Judgment Creditors filed a Reply to Plaintiffs Non-Opposition to Defendaiit's Motion to
12 Compel Responses to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents; and
13 for Monetary Sanctions. (Her Decl., ^ 3; Exhibit A, Reply to Plaintiffs Non-Opposition) Shortly
14 thereafter, counsel for Judgment Creditors received notification that Judgment Debtor filed an
15 Opposition. Counsel for Judgment Debtor then downloaded the relevant documents from the Court's
16 website. (Her Deck, ^ 4.) The proof of service indicated Judgment Debtor served the Opposition by mail,
17 even further delaying Judgment Creditors' receipt of Judgment Debtor's already untimely response. (Her
18 Deck, t 5.)
19 In his Opposition, Judgment Debtor completely fails to acknowledge that he failed to file a
20 timely Opposition under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). He does not offer any excuse, reason,
21 or authority for his actions. As such, the Judgment Creditors respectfully request that the Court exercise
22 its authority under Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300, refuse to consider Judgment Debtor's
23 untimely Opposition, and preclude Judgment Debtor from making any oral argument. (Bozzi v.
24 Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [the Court properly refiased to consider plaintiffs
25 untimely papers where plaintiff did not invoke any of the available procedures to obtain a court order
26 permitting late filing].)
27 Ill
28 III
{021I7245.DOCX} 3
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 III.
2 JUDGMENT CREDITORS' MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE JUDGMENT
3 DEBTOR DID NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION FOR OPPOSING IT
4 Judgment Debtor offers no legal basis in his Opposition for his failure to, once again, provide
5 compliant discovery responses in a timely manner. In fact, he outright admits that he "has no fiirther
6 argument" beyond those arguments that the Court rejected in granting Judgment Creditors' earlier
7 Motions.
8 Rather than responding to the arguments Judgment Creditors set forth supporting their contention
9 that Judgment Debtor should be compelled to provide further discovery responses and that the Court
10 should award sanctions, Judgment Debtor instead makes conspiracy theory-type arguments about
11 counsel for Judgment Creditors extorting money from him.
12 As set forth in Judgment Creditors' moving papers, this is the third Motion Judgment Creditors
13 have been forced to file in attempting to collect the judgments owed in this case. This Court has now
14 ordered Judgment Debtor multiple times to serve fiarther verified responses to the Judgment Debtor
15 Interrogatories and Judgment Debtor Requests for Production without objection. {See Declaration of
16 Daniel Bardzell in Support of Further Motion to Compel [herein "Bardzell Decl."] 15, 21 and
17 Exhibits K and O attached thereto) He has not done so, choosing instead to serve verified versions of the
18 identical responses this Court previously deemed insufficient. Even more egregious is the fact that
19 Judgment Debtor acknowledged in an email that he does have responsive documents, but refused to
20 provide them except for in a face-to-face meeting.' (Bardzell Deck, t 28 and Exhibit V) Judgment
21 Creditors are not required to acquiesce to such a request. When counsel for Judgment Creditors
22 communicated as much to Judgment Debtor, he responded by urging Judgment Creditors to file the
23 instant motion—conduct that continues to violate this Court's orders. (Bardzell Decl. \ 30 and
24 Exhibit X)
25 Judgment Debtor should be sanctioned for opposing this Motion without substantial justification.
26 (Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(c) [interrogatories] & 2031.300(c) [production requests].)
27
28 ' Ttiis is just another effort in Plaintiffs long-line of efforts to intimidate and threaten defense counsel, the same type of
conduct that resulted in his termination from the University.
{02117245 DOCX) ; 4
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 He has offered no legal basis for his failure to timely respond, or even for his failure to respond to the
2 numerous meet and confer attempts that Judgment Creditors have engaged in, as detailed in the moving
3 papers. Judgment Debtor's brazen defiance of multiple Court orders to serve fijrther discovery responses
4 is an unquestionable misuse of the discovery process for which monetary sanctions should be awarded.
5 (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(g); 2023.030 (a).) Judgment Creditors request an award of $5,460.00 as
6 set forth in the moving papers.
7 IV.
8 DEFENDANT REGENTS IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF SANCTIONS AWARDS
9 Judgment Debtor indicates in his Opposition and supporting exhibits that the REGENTS and
10 defense counsel are not entitled to the sanctions and fees awarded to date. (Opposition to Motion to
11 Compel Filed on October 23, 2019, pp. 4-5) In a November 21, 2019 email correspondence to counsel
12 for the REGENTS and Judgment Creditors, Judgment Debtor wrote, "As I advised you a few days ago,
13 the UC Regents should not cash the $1,300 check I sent to your office on November 18, 2019. The UC
14 Regents are not the party of the anti-SLAPP motion filed by Porter Scott's fomier attomey Michael Pott
15 on December 1, 2014." (Opposition, Exhibit 5.) Judgment Debtor goes on to offer to write individual
16 checks in the amount of $260.00 to each Judgment Creditor and insinuates he either has or will file a
17 complaint with the State Bar related to this issue.
18 Judgment Debtor has cited no legal authority for his position that the REGENTS are not entitled
19 to the sanction payment. The REGENTS has paid for the defense ofthe Judgment Creditors. (Her Decl. ^
20 6.) "A monetary sanction may be based not only on attomey's fees and costs, but also on any other
21 reasonable expenses incurred.'" {Argaman v, Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4''^ 1173, 1179 [emphasis added].)
22 As the REGENTS has incurred the expense of the Special Motion to Strike and subsequent discovery
23 proceedings associated with collecting the judgment, the REGENTS is the proper recipient of the
24 sanction payments. Judgment Creditors respectfully request the Court clarify for Judgment Debtor that
25 the REGENTS is entitled to the payment of sanction awards so that Judgment Debtor does not continue
26 to use that as an excuse for not paying the amounts owed.
27
111 •
28
III
(02117245 DOCX) . ^5 ^
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 V. .
2 CONCLUSION
3 Based on the foregoing, Judgment Creditors respectfully submit that their Motion to Compel
4 Responses to Judgment Debtor Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents; and for
5 Monetary Sanctions should be granted.
6
7 Dated: December 6, 2019 PORTER SCOTT
A PRCIFESSIONA TION
8
9
10 )erek J. Haynes
^Amanda L. Her
11 Daniel J. Bardzell
Attomeys for Judgment Creditors/Former
12
Defendants
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02117245.DOCX}
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
Waszczuk V. Regents of the University of California, et al.
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
.5
6 On the date below, I served the following document: REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR INTERROGATORIES
7 AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS
8
BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
9
am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
10 On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
11 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
12 attomey's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine
13 in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the
documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours
14 of eight in the moming and six in the evening.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
15 ovemight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package for
collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the ovemight delivery
16 carrier.
BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I
17 faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
18 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
19 address listed below.
20 JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
21 2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242
22
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on December 6, 2019.
24
25
Cindy A<3bndinetti
26
27
28
(02117245.DOCX)
REPLY TO UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
EXHIBIT # 34
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 12/13/2019 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: R. Mays, Alvi, N.
APPEARANCES
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, self represented Plaintiff, present.
Daniel J. Bardzell, counsel present for judgment creditors
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Interrogatoriesand Production of Documents
TENTATIVE RULING
Judgment Creditors Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza, and Seifert (collectively, "Judgment Creditors")
move to compel further responses from Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor Jaroslaw (Jerry) Waszczuk to
requests for production, set one, and interrogatories, set one. Judgment Creditors also request
sanctions in the amount of $5,460. The motion is ruled upon as follows.
As outlined in the Court's prior order of July 19, 2019, on April 14, 2015, the Court granted Judgment
Creditors' special motion to strike Plaintiff's causes of action and entered judgment in favor of Judgment
Creditors. The Court subsequently granted Judgment Creditors' motion for attorneys' fees in the amount
of $22,284. (See ROA 219.)
Judgment Creditors served the underlying discovery on October 9, 2018. The Court previously granted
motions to compel related to the discovery on April 26, 2018, and July 19, 2019. In both rulings,
Judgment Debtor was ordered to provide further verified responses, without objections. The July 19,
2019 order also imposed sanctions against Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor in the amount of $1,300.
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff attempted to provide further responses by email on the Court deadline of July
29, 2019. (Bardzell Decl. ¶ 22, Exh. P.) Counsel for Judgment Creditors sent correspondence on August
5, 2019, raising the issue of improper service and stating that the further responses "appear[ed] identical
to the responses . . . previously provided with the only difference being that you executed a verification."
(Id. ¶ 23, Exh. Q.) The parties continued to meet and confer. Judgment Debtor served verified responses
on September 6, 2019, which Judgment Creditor alleges again "appear identical to his previously
provided responses with the only difference being that he provided a properly executed verification for
each response." (Mot. at 8, citing Bardzell Decl. ¶ 26, Exh. T.) The parties continued to meet and confer
but no further responses have been received.
Judgment Creditors move to compel Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff to serve further Code-compliant verified
The Court yet again cautions Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff that compliance with a facially-valid
court order is mandatory. (See, e.g., In re Brambini (1923) 192 Cal. 19, 28-32; see also In re Berry
(1968) 68 Cal.2d 137, 147.)
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff is also ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the moving parties in
the amount of $1,300 (5 hours at the hourly rate of $260), for the fees incurred since the Court's last
order compelling further responses to the same discovery. The opposition was filed without substantial
justification. The monetary sanctions are to be paid on or before January 13, 2019. If those sanctions
are not paid by that date, the moving parties may prepare a formal order on the sanction award, which
may thereafter entered as a separate judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th
608.)
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted.
APPEARANCES
Judgment Creditors served the underlying discovery on October 9, 2018. The Court previously granted
motions to compel related to the discovery on April 26, 2018, and July 19, 2019. In both rulings,
Judgment Debtor was ordered to provide further verified responses, without objections. The July 19,
2019 order also imposed sanctions against Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor in the amount of $1,300.
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff attempted to provide further responses by email on the Court deadline of July
29, 2019. (Bardzell Decl. ¶ 22, Exh. P.) Counsel for Judgment Creditors sent correspondence on August
5, 2019, raising the issue of improper service and stating that the further responses "appear[ed] identical
to the responses . . . previously provided with the only difference being that you executed a verification."
(Id. ¶ 23, Exh. Q.) The parties continued to meet and confer. Judgment Debtor served verified responses
on September 6, 2019, which Judgment Creditor alleges again "appear identical to his previously
provided responses with the only difference being that he provided a properly executed verification for
each response." (Mot. at 8, citing Bardzell Decl. ¶ 26, Exh. T.) The parties continued to meet and confer
but no further responses have been received.
Judgment Creditors move to compel Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff to serve further Code-compliant verified
The Court yet again cautions Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff that compliance with a facially-valid
court order is mandatory. (See, e.g., In re Brambini (1923) 192 Cal. 19, 28-32; see also In re Berry
(1968) 68 Cal.2d 137, 147.)
Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff is also ordered to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the moving parties in
the amount of $1,300 (5 hours at the hourly rate of $260), for the fees incurred since the Court's last
order compelling further responses to the same discovery. The opposition was filed without substantial
justification. The monetary sanctions are to be paid on or before January 13, 2019. If those sanctions
are not paid by that date, the moving parties may prepare a formal order on the sanction award, which
may thereafter entered as a separate judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th
608.)
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission.
Having taken the matter under submission on 12/13/2019, the Court now rules as follows:
SUBMITTED MATTER RULING
The Court affirmed the tentative ruling.
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242
DANIEL J. BARDZELL
PORTER SCOTT
350 UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 200
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825
6
Attomey for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAIVIENTO
10
11 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o Plaintiff, EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
o
13 TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR
r- 3 00 —
0\
V. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
O V 14 SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
O 2
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
pi. 2 S
CALIFORNL\, UNIVERSITY OF ADJUDICATION
hi ^ 16 CALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM,
O
a. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
3 t/>
17 DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
PUTNEY, DORIN DANE.IUC, and Does 1
20 through 50, inclusive. Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
21 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
Defendants. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
22
LL,
23
24
25
26
27
28
{0241.19S2.DOCX} 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
1 I.
2 EX PARTE APPLICATION
3 Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ("UNIVERSITY")
4 hereby submits this Ex Parte Application for permission to file a Memorandinn of Points and
5 Authorities in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the altemative. Summary
6 Adjudication in excess of twenty pages pursuant to Rules 3.1113(e) and 3.1200 et seq. of the
7 Califomia Rules of Court. Rule 3.1113(e) allows a party to apply to the court for permission to file a
8 longer memorandum if the argument cannot be made within the stated page limit. Due to the lengthy
9 facts, multiple causes of action, and complex legal issues in this case, it is necessary that Defendant's
10 Memorandtun of Points and Authorities exceed twenty pages to adequately address the factual and
11 legal issues presented by the motion.
12 IL
o
o
r-i
B >n 13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES j
i _ •= rM
r " 3 00 — VO
r - I'l <n 00 o
O —. m 14 IN SUPPORT OF EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT
c^ 15
a: < d vd vd Defendant intends to move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
Ov Ov
-i >< 16
l i3e(/I Wf- u.< adjudication as the following causes of action: 1) harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to
17
o prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 12940(a); 2)
18
whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 8547; 3) retaliation under
19
Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 4) breach of written contract; 5) wage and hour misclassification;
20
and 6) rescission-unlawful contract. (Declaration of Lindsay A. Goulding in support of Defendant's
21
ExParte Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment that Exceeds 20 Pages ("Goulding
22
Decl. 13.) The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will necessarily require a detailed
23
discussion of the nature of Plaintiffs employment relationship with Defendant, the alleged
24
harassment of Plaintiff fi-om 2006 to 2013, as well as the individual defenses applicable thereto.
25
26 (Id.) The circumstances surrounding die allegedly harassing conduct will also require a detailed
27 discussion regarding the nature of the conduct, the timing, and the speakers and recipients of the
28 alleged harassment. (Id.) Further, a lengthy legal analysis will be required to address Plaintiffs
{0241.1952.DOCX} 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
previous settlement agreement with Defendant. (Id.)
In order to address the lengthy facts, legal authority, and legal arguments regarding each of
3 Plaintiffs causes of action. Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its
4 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will need to exceed twenty pages. Therefore,
5 Defendants respectfully request that the court, pursuant to Rules 3.113(e) and 3.1200 et seq. of the
6 Califomia Rules of Court, allow it to submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in excess of
7 twenty pages, but not to exceed forty pages. Defendant will make a good faith effort to keep the
8 motion as concise as possible.
9 III.
10 CONCLUSION
11 For the reasons set forth above. Defendant has demonsttated good cause for an expansion
12 of the page limit and move this Court to permit Defendant to submit a memorandum of up to 40
o
o
13 pages in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.
f- 3 g — VO
i- i/i 00 o
O — m 14
cC [--•
r-j <N
a: < d
O ; Ov_
vd 15 Dated April 22, 2021 PORTER SCOTT
O ov A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
- j >< 16
o •I "mf- u.<
3 t/i
o 17
in
18 By.
Lindsay A. Goulding
19 Attorneys for Defendant
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02413952.DOCX}
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
Waszczuk V. Regents ofthe University of California, et al
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
26
27
28 Virginia Yao
{0241.1952.DOCX}
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
L:: U„ r;:^J
o
1
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
6
Attorney for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
13 GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF
Sacramento, CA 95825
PORTER | SCOTT
FAX: 916.927.3706
TEL: 916.929.1481
{02413956.DOCX} 1
DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
1 2. The Second Amended Complaint alleges the following causes of action: 1)
2 intentional infliction of emotional distress; 2) tortious interference with economic advantage; 3)
3 harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation
4 in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); 4) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of
5 Government Code § 8547; 5) retaliation under Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 6) breach of written
6 contract; 7) wage and hour misclassification; and 8) rescission-unlawful contract.
7 3. Defendant intends to move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
8 adjudication as to the following causes of action: 3) harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to
9 prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(a); 4)
10 whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Government Code § 8547; 5) retaliation under
11 Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 4) breach of written contract; 6) wage and hour misclassification;
12 and 7) rescission-unlawful contract. The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
13 necessarily require a detailed discussion of the nature of Plaintiff’s employment relationship with
Sacramento, CA 95825
PORTER | SCOTT
FAX: 916.927.3706
TEL: 916.929.1481
14 Defendant, the alleged harassment of Plaintiff from 2006 to 2013, as well as the individual defenses
15 applicable thereto. The circumstances surrounding the allegedly harassing conduct will also require
16 a detailed discussion as to the nature of the conduct, the timing, and the speakers and recipients of
17 the alleged harassment. Further, a lengthy legal analysis will be required to address Plaintiff’s
18 previous settlement agreement with Defendant.
19 4. In order to address the lengthy facts, legal authority, and legal arguments regarding
20 each of Plaintiff’s causes of action, Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support
21 of its Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will need to exceed twenty pages.
22 5. I contacted Plaintiff to inform him of this Application via telephone and email on
23 April 26, 2021 at approximately 9:02 a.m. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy
24 of my email correspondence to Plaintiff regarding Defendant’s request to exceed the page limit.
25 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
26 is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of April 2021, at Sacramento, California.
27 L
28
Lindsay A. Goulding
{02413956.DOCX} 2
DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
EXHIBIT
“A”
01054547.WPD
From: Virginia Yao
To: JJW1980@LIVE.COM
Cc: Lindsay A. Goulding; Tomi Aina
Subject: Waszczuk v. Regents
Date: Monday, April 26, 2021 8:59:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
This is just to confirm our conversation this morning that our office is filing an Exparte
today on the papers to request a page extension to the Motion for Summary of
Judgment that we will be filing. Thank you.
Virginia Yao
Legal Assistant to Lindsay A. Goulding
350 University Avenue | Suite 200 | Sacramento, CA 95825
T| 916.929.1481 x 331 F| 916.927.3706
www.porterscott.com
Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al.
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
13 served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the morning
Sacramento, CA 95825
and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the
PORTER | SCOTT
FAX: 916.927.3706
TEL: 916.929.1481
14 party’s residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the
morning and six in the evening.
15 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package for
16 collection and overnight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery
carrier.
17 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I
faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed below. No error was reported by the fax
18 machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached
XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
19 electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification address
listed below.
20
21 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
22 Lodi, CA 95242
JJW1980@LIVE.COM
23
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on April 26, 2021.
25
26 v
27 ___________________________________
Virginia Yao
28
{02413956.DOCX} 3
DECLARATION OF LINDSAY A. GOULDING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EXPARTE FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
1 P O R T E R I S C O T T
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566 APR 2 7 2021
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481 Bv: D. JOHNSON-MELLADQ
5 FAX: 916.927.3706 DEPUTY CLERK
6
Attomey for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNrVERSITY OF CALIFORNL\
8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant io Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
II
JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASENO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o Plaintiff, tJatOPOOflPf^ ORDER ON
o
i i w-i
13 DEFENI^ffiST'S EX PARTE
— VO
00 o
14 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
— m
EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
. oi < 6
CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
« 5; g 16 CALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
o ADJUDICATION
17 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
C a
o
in DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHE.COTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
20 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
through 50, inclusive. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
21
Defendants.
22
23
24 /
Dated:
APR 2 7 2021
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
SHAMA H. MESIWALA
10
11
12
o
o
L_ • = (N
13
— \o
,t- t/) K oo o
O !^ 14
^ i< — a. 15
vd >f>
Ov ov
w <
16
o
<n
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02414532.DOCX}
Re: Defendants Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend Page Limit for Defendant's
Motion For Summary Judgment or, in The Alternative, Summary
Adjudication
Yesterday, I asked you in which Court Department you filed your Ex Parte
Application for Leave to Extend Page Limit because you did not mark on the front
page of your pleadings which Court Department or which Judge would would
-1-
Ex Parte Application
handle your application. You are obliged to inform the opposite party what you are
filing and when and where you are filing it. What you have done is very
unprofessional.
As you probably know from the Court file, in October 2018, your
predecessors in this case, two former Porter Scott attorneys, David Burkett and
Daniel Bardzell, with the evil intention of ending my wrongful termination lawsuit
against the Regents of the University of California, bypassed Judge David Brown
in Department 53 and filed, on October 3, 2018 in Department 54, their deceptive
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE, FORM
INTERROGATORIES GENERAL SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES -
EMPLOYMENT SET ONE; TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMITTED; AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS
(ROA 150-153) in an attempt to obtain an Order from Judge Christopher E.
Krueger or a stamped Order with Judge Krueger’s name.
Burkett and Bardzell were caught, and their evil plan failed. If you look at
the Burkett and Bardzell’s Notice of Motion and Motion (ATTACHMENT #1) of
October 3, 2018 and your Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend the Page Limit
(ATTACHMENT #2) filed on April 26, 2021, you will see that both Court
Documents were filed/endorsed by the same Deputy Clerk named E. Medina.
It seems to me that history is repeating itself and that Porter Scott’s new team of
Super Lawyers, Ms. Lindsay A. Goulding and Olatomiwa A. Aina, are rushing to
file a Motion for Summary Judgment in the same way that David Burkett and
-2-
Ex Parte Application
Daniel Bardzell rushed to file the Termination Sanctions in Department 54 instead
of Department 53 three years earlier.
-3-
Ex Parte Application
the FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC (Page Nos. 55–57) and does not
require an Extension of the Page Limit because FORTH COA was also removed
from the SAC in 2015 by the Anti-SLAPP Motion, C.C.P. § 425.16, granted by the
Court to the Defendants, Danesha Nichols, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, and Brent
Seifert.
3) retaliation under Health and Safety Code § 1278.5
This is actually the FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC (Page Nos. 55–
57) and does not require an Extension of the Page Limit because I have no intention
of pursuing this Cause of Action but I could change my mind in filing Third
Amended Complaint which was blocked in October 2015 to be file by Burkett ,
Bardzell and Judge David Brown’s Order
4) breach of written contract
This is actually the SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC, and it is the
most important COA in the entire Second Amended Complaint besides the age
discrimination and witch hunt of March 2011–December 2012, which has caused
me losses of approximately $1,000,000 in wages and benefits between December
2012 and the present.
5) wage and hour misclassification
This is actually the SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC. My
Attorney, Douglas Stein, did not understand or did not have any knowledge about
the University of California’s pay policies and employee classification. I was
perfectly happy with my classification and wages, but U.S Senator Feinstein’s
husband, Richard Blum, hunted me down for a different reason, which is pending
in the United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit
whistleblower case Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v. Commissioner of Internal
-4-
Ex Parte Application
Revenue Services Case No. 20-1407
(https://www.scribd.com/document/495490868/Jaroslaw-Waszczuk-v-IRS-
Commissioner-UNITED-STATES-COURT-OF-APPEALS-FOR-THE-
DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBIA-CIRCUIT).
6) rescission – unlawful contract
This is actually the EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION in the SAC. Regardless
of whether the Settlement Agreement of January 2009 was lawful or unlawful, the
Settlement Agreement was violated and breached by UC Regents, my human rights
were violated, and I was disposed of at the age of 62 like a piece of garbage and
subjected to an assassination attempt on May 31, 2012 by the UC Davis Death
Squad.
I disagree with your statement that the Motion for Summary
Judgment/Adjudication will necessarily require a detailed discussion of the nature
of the Plaintiff’s employment relationship with Defendant.
I have all my employee performance reviews, which show that I was a good
employee and had a normal relationship with my employer. I was hunted down by
regents for a completely different reason than the one you are implying in your Ex
Parte Application.
I fail to understand why Porter Scott’s attorney is making attempts to bring back
into the lawsuit the Causes of Action dismissed from the SAC by the Anti-SLAPP
motion granted by the Court. Previously, David Burkett brought back the four dismissed
COAs into his requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. Now, you are
attempting to relitigate COAs that were already litigated for several years and are no
longer part of the Second Amended Complaint.
-5-
Ex Parte Application
In concluding this Meet and Confer letter, I would appreciate if you would clarify
with the Court the status of the four individuals Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd,
Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert. Please clarify whether these individuals are
still Defendants or whether they were dismissed by the anti-SLAPP motion in 2015
together with first four COAs. Porter Scott Attorneys once brought them back in
their pleading as Defendants and another time classed them as former Defendants,
stating that they are being represented by Porter Scott.
I noticed that in your April 26, 2021 Ex Parte Application for Leave to Extend
the Page Limit for the Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication, you did not mention Stephen Chilcott, Mike
Boyd, Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert at all, which is in contrast to Burkett
Bardzell’s and other Porter Scott’s lawyers pleadings of 2018–2020. I am quite sure
that Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd, Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert do not want to
hear about this lawsuit or about Porter Scott’s Attorneys anti-SLAPP motion dirty
money attached to violation of my human rights and endless harassment of 70 years
old wife . Your first show off in this case did not go well for you Ms. Goulding . You
are dirty and unprofessional lawyer as same as your Porter Scott’s predecessors with
J.D degree and licenses from the State Bar of California .
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk,
-6-
Ex Parte Application
Mailing List
-7-
Ex Parte Application
EXHIBIT # 39
AT-138/EJ-125
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT Ar?ORNEY; STATE BAR NO.:
FOR COURT USE ONLY
NAME: Lindsay A. Gouiding, SBN 227195
FIRM NAME: Porfer Scott
STREETADDRESS: 350 Uolverslty AvBHue
CITY: Sacramento STATE: CA ZIPCODE: 95825
TELEPHONENO.: (916)929-1481 FAXNO.: (916)927-3706 FILED / ENqfORSBD
E-MAIL ADDRESS: lgouldlng@porterscott.eom, oaina@porterscott.com
ATTORNEY FOR (name): Defendants Boyd, Chilcott, Selfert, Oropeza, and Nivhols
SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO MAY - 7 2021
STREETADDRESS: 720 9th Street
MAILING ADDRESS: 720 9th Street
CITYAND ZIPCODE Sacramento 95814
BRANCH NAME:
By \ Deputy Clerk
This order must be served not less than 10 days before the date set for the examination.
IMPORTANT NOTICES ON REVERSE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION
I X I Original judgment aeditor Q Assignee of record Plaintiff who has a right to attach order
applies for an order requiring (name): IRINA WASZCZUK
to appear and fumish Information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment or to answer conceming property or debt.
The person to be examined is
a. I I the judgment debtor.
b. I X I a third person (1) who has possession or control of property belonging to the judgment debtor or the defendant or (2) who
owes the judgment debtor or the defendant more than $250. An affidavit supporting this application under Code of Civii
Procedure section 491.110 or 708.120 is attached.
The person to be examined resides or has a place of business in this county or within 150 miles of the place of examination.
I I This court Is not the court in which the money judgment is entered or (attachment bnly) the court that issued the writ of
attachment. An affidavit supporting an application under Code of Civil Procedure section 491.150 or 708.160 is attached.
I I The judgment debtor has been examined within the past 120 days. An affidavit showing good cause for another examination
is attached.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correcL
Date: April 12 2021
83
. AT-138/EJ-125
' information for Judgment Creditor Regarding Service
If ybu want to be able to ask the court to enforce the order on the judgment debtor or any third party, you
nfiust have a copy of the order personally served on the judgment debtor by a sheriff, marshal, registered
process server, or the person appointed in item 3 of the order at least 10 calendar days before the date of
the hearing, and have a proof of service filed with the court.
IMPORTANT NOTICES ABOUT THE ORDER
If you claim that all or any portion of this property or debt is exempt from enforcement of the money
judgment, you must file your exemption claim in writing with the court and have a copy personally
served on the judgment creditor not later than three days before the date set for the examination.
You must appear at the time and place set for the examination to establish your claim of exemption
or your exemption may be waived.
Request for Accommodations. Assistive listening systems, computer-assisted real-time captioning, or sign
language interpreter services are available if you ask at least 5 days before your hearing. Contact the clerk's
office for Request for Accommodation (form MC-410). (Civil Code, § 54.8.)
AT-138;EJ-125[Rev January 1,2017] APPLICATION A N D O R D E R FOR Pafle20f2
6
Attomey for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAIVIENTO
10
11 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o Plaintiff, EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
o
13 TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR
r- 3 00 —
0\
V. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
O V 14 SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
O 2
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
pi. 2 S
CALIFORNL\, UNIVERSITY OF ADJUDICATION
hi ^ 16 CALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM,
O
a. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
3 t/>
17 DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
PUTNEY, DORIN DANE.IUC, and Does 1
20 through 50, inclusive. Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
21 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
Defendants. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
22
LL,
23
24
25
26
27
28
{0241.19S2.DOCX} 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
L:: U„ r;:^J
o
1 I.
2 EX PARTE APPLICATION
3 Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ("UNIVERSITY")
4 hereby submits this Ex Parte Application for permission to file a Memorandinn of Points and
5 Authorities in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the altemative. Summary
6 Adjudication in excess of twenty pages pursuant to Rules 3.1113(e) and 3.1200 et seq. of the
7 Califomia Rules of Court. Rule 3.1113(e) allows a party to apply to the court for permission to file a
8 longer memorandum if the argument cannot be made within the stated page limit. Due to the lengthy
9 facts, multiple causes of action, and complex legal issues in this case, it is necessary that Defendant's
10 Memorandtun of Points and Authorities exceed twenty pages to adequately address the factual and
11 legal issues presented by the motion.
12 IL
o
o
r-i
B >n 13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES j
i _ •= rM
r " 3 00 — VO
r - I'l <n 00 o
O —. m 14 IN SUPPORT OF EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT
c^ 15
a: < d vd vd Defendant intends to move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
Ov Ov
-i >< 16
l i3e(/I Wf- u.< adjudication as the following causes of action: 1) harassment in violation of FEHA and failure to
17
o prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 12940(a); 2)
18
whistleblower/unlawful retaliation in violation of Govemment Code § 8547; 3) retaliation under
19
Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; 4) breach of written contract; 5) wage and hour misclassification;
20
and 6) rescission-unlawful contract. (Declaration of Lindsay A. Goulding in support of Defendant's
21
ExParte Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment that Exceeds 20 Pages ("Goulding
22
Decl. 13.) The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will necessarily require a detailed
23
discussion of the nature of Plaintiffs employment relationship with Defendant, the alleged
24
harassment of Plaintiff fi-om 2006 to 2013, as well as the individual defenses applicable thereto.
25
26 (Id.) The circumstances surrounding die allegedly harassing conduct will also require a detailed
27 discussion regarding the nature of the conduct, the timing, and the speakers and recipients of the
28 alleged harassment. (Id.) Further, a lengthy legal analysis will be required to address Plaintiffs
{0241.1952.DOCX} 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
previous settlement agreement with Defendant. (Id.)
In order to address the lengthy facts, legal authority, and legal arguments regarding each of
3 Plaintiffs causes of action. Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its
4 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will need to exceed twenty pages. Therefore,
5 Defendants respectfully request that the court, pursuant to Rules 3.113(e) and 3.1200 et seq. of the
6 Califomia Rules of Court, allow it to submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in excess of
7 twenty pages, but not to exceed forty pages. Defendant will make a good faith effort to keep the
8 motion as concise as possible.
9 III.
10 CONCLUSION
11 For the reasons set forth above. Defendant has demonsttated good cause for an expansion
12 of the page limit and move this Court to permit Defendant to submit a memorandum of up to 40
o
o
13 pages in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.
f- 3 g — VO
i- i/i 00 o
O — m 14
cC [--•
r-j <N
a: < d
O ; Ov_
vd 15 Dated April 22, 2021 PORTER SCOTT
O ov A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
- j >< 16
o •I "mf- u.<
3 t/i
o 17
in
18 By.
Lindsay A. Goulding
19 Attorneys for Defendant
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02413952.DOCX}
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
Waszczuk V. Regents ofthe University of California, et al
1
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
26
27
28 Virginia Yao
{0241.1952.DOCX}
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EXPARTE FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT EXCEEDS 20 PAGES
1 P O R T E R I S C O T T
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
3 Olatomiwa T. Aina, SBN 325566 APR 2 7 2021
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: 916.929.1481 Bv: D. JOHNSON-MELLADQ
5 FAX: 916.927.3706 DEPUTY CLERK
6
Attomey for Defendant
7 REGENTS OF THE UNrVERSITY OF CALIFORNL\
8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant io Government Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
II
JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASENO. 34-2013-00155479
12
o Plaintiff, tJatOPOOflPf^ ORDER ON
o
i i w-i
13 DEFENI^ffiST'S EX PARTE
— VO
00 o
14 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
— m
EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
. oi < 6
CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
« 5; g 16 CALIFORNL\ DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
o ADJUDICATION
17 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
C a
o
in DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
18 BOYD, STEPHEN CHE.COTT, CHARLES
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
19 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK Complaint Filed: December 4, 2013
20 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 1 Amended Complaint Filed: June 16, 2014
through 50, inclusive. SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
21
Defendants.
22
23
24 /
Dated:
APR 2 7 2021
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
SHAMA H. MESIWALA
10
11
12
o
o
L_ • = (N
13
— \o
,t- t/) K oo o
O !^ 14
^ i< — a. 15
vd >f>
Ov ov
w <
16
o
<n
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{02414532.DOCX}
Subject: Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Case no. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California, Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen
Chilcott, Charles Witcher, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Brent
Seifert, Patrick Putney, and Dorin Daniliuc
I am requesting that you clarify with the Court why, on April 22, 2021, at
approximately 2:00 P.M., I was served, at my residence in Lodi, CA, the following
Court documents:
-1-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
and Trial or Hearing and Declaration Issued to IRINA WASZCZUK
Olatomiwa T. Aina on April 22, 2021. (ATTACHMENT 1)
• APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND
EXAMINATION with Court Hearing Date May 7, 2021 at 9:00 A.M. in
Department 43. (ATTACHMENT 2)
• DECLARATION OF OLATOMIWA T. AINA IN SUPPORT OF
JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S APPLICATION FOR APPEARANCE AND
EXAMINATION OF IRINA WASZCZUK. (ATTACHMENT 3)
The above documents were filed in court and served to me on April 22, 2021 with the
name IRINA WASZCZUK. The person IRINA does not live at 2216 Katzakian Way,
Lodi, CA 95242.
For the above reason alone, I am advising you to properly fill out and resubmit
the documents to the Court. Also, for your information, my legal Polish name is
JANUSZ JAROSŁAW, and my wife’s legal Polish name is IRENA WASZCZUK. We
are both Polish refugees and citizens of the Republic of Poland who have been living
in exile in the USA since November 1982 (ATTACHMENT 4). In 1982, we escaped
communist oppression only to be ruthlessly and endlessly oppressed and harassed by
the National -Socialists at the University of California and their servants from the law
firm Porter Scott Attorneys.
-2-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
https://www.scribd.com/document/494446114/Solidarity-Anti-Communist-Movement-
Poland-1980-1982
My wife is not working at Nordstrom since March 2020, because she was laid
off and Nordstrom in Sacramento Arden Mall was permanently closed permanently
shortly after . She was employed for 31 years by Nordstrom as a seamstress-fitter.
My wife and I are both on Medicare Insurance and Social Security. If you need any
documents from Nordstrom, you will have to subpoena them directly from Nordstrom.
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sacbee/obituary.aspx?n=nancy-joan-
sheehan&pid=194994093
-3-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Nancy Sheehan’s premature death saddened me because my wife’s sister died a
few years ago of metastatic breast cancer in Poland, and Nancy Sheehan’s e-mail
address on your Declaration reminded me of what my wife Irena was going through
after her sister’s death.
In addition to the wrong addressee name filed on April 22, 2021, the Application
and Order for Appearance and Examination violates the statutory 45 days’ notice
requirement for filing the Application and Order Appearance and Examination.
There are two separate periods to consider when choosing your hearing date:
• Your hearing date must be at least 45 days after the date you file your papers.
• The Judgment Debtor must be served at least 10 days prior to the hearing
date California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 708.110(d).
Accordingly, your Court hearing date (counting 45 days from April 22, 2021) should
be set on Friday, June 11, 2021 due to Orders of Examination currently being heard in
Department 43 on Fridays at 9:00 A.M.
-4-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Not following the statutory notice requirements in filing the Application and
Order for Appearance and Examination will lead to the same result as the filing of
the Application and Order for Appearance and Examination submitted on October
24, 2018 by your predecessor, Daniel Bardzell, who did not comply with the
statutory notice requirements. The Application and Order submitted by Bardzell
was signed by the Judge from Department 37, Hon. Jennifer Blackwell, on
November 7, 2018, and the debtor’s examination had to be rescheduled, which
delayed the legal process (ATTACHMENT 6).
Since Porter Scott Attorneys’ Daniel Bardzell was teamed with Nancy
Sheehan in October 2019, in their pleadings, Porter Scott Attorneys is making
reference to Defendants Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy
Oropeza, and Brent Seifert as Former Defendants (ROA No.222- 245). I
addressed this issue with the Court in my PLAINTIFF JAROSLAW
WASZCZUK’S NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO THE COURT ORDER DATED
DECEMBER13 & 17, 2019 AND PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR COURT
ORDERS MODIFCATION – RE: OPPOSITION TO JUDGMENT CREDITORS’
-5-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
FURTHER MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AND MONETARY SANCTIONS filed December 27, 2019 (ROA No. 244)
(ATTACHMENT 7).
Prior to October 23, 2019, Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols,
and Cindy Oropeza are Defendants. See Daniel Bardzell’s November 13, 2018
letter to Clerk of the Court (Attachment 6), in which Bardzell requested that
December 14, 2018 Examination of Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk be taken off
calendar due to a violation of the statutory 45 days’ notice requirement.
One year later, the Defendants Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha
Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert became Former Defendants. Porter
Scott Attorneys have had more than one year since my last Court filing dated
December 27, 2019 to clarify with the Court why Defendants Mike Boyd, Stephen
Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert suddenly became
Former Defendants in October 2019.
CONCLUSION
Legal documents, especially the Application and Order for Appearance and
Examination and the Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) for Personal Appearance and
Production of Documents, must be filed properly and with the proper legal name.
Otherwise, they are null and void. Because you are from Louisiana and a newly
licensed attorney by the State Bar of California, I would like to advise you to
familiarize yourself with this case, which has been pending in the Sacramento
County Superior Court since December 2, 2013, before you submit faulty
documents to the Court Clerk and send them to my residence.
-6-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
This case is interconnected with the pending United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit whistleblower case Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services Case No.: 20-1407, which I have to attend
to in addition to responding to Porter Scott Attorneys’ negligence and deception.
https://www.scribd.com/document/495490868/Jaroslaw-Waszczuk-v-IRS-
Commissioner-UNITED-STATES-COURT-OF-APPEALS-FOR-THE-
DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBIA-CIRCUIT
As an attorney, you are an officer of the court who took an oath to uphold the
law. I assume you take responsibility as seriously as anyone else; you must adhere to
those rules and even report attorneys or people you see violating the rules. As a State
Bar Member, you are obligated, at the risk of serious consequences imposed by the
State Bar, to protect and preserve the courtrooms and the validity of any matter filed
with the clerk.
My former attorney Douglas Edward Stein (SB #131248) who was coerced
with a $300,000 bribe from former Porter Scott Attorneys Michael Pott, Douglas
Ropel, and David Burkett (Read: White Collar Criminals from the University of
California) to conspire with them against me and was used by them to harm me, was
disbarred by the State Bar for his crimes against me and his other clients
(ATTACHMENT 8).
https://www.scribd.com/document/504977994/20190320-State-Bar-Audit-
Request-for-Review
-7-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
https://www.scribd.com/document/504978933/20190329-Request-for-Review-
Additional-Information-and-Documents-Vanessa-Holton-Rachel-Grunberg
https://www.scribd.com/document/504979363/20190409-Request-to-Expedite-
Reimbursement-of-the-Theft-State-Bar-CEO-Leah-T-Wilson
https://www.scribd.com/document/504979845/20190515-Leah-Wilson-State-Bar-
Ceo-Reimbursement
In 2019, I recovered the money stolen from me by Douglas Stein and the
money stolen in 2011 by the University of California gangsters, namely my Short
Term Disability Insurance Benefits. I am still working on recovering the money
stolen from me in 2014, namely my Unemployment Insurance Benefits. However ,
because of the COVID 19 pandemic is not an easy task to deal with state of
federal agencies .
I must attend the court hearing with my wife because her level of English is
insufficient for her to be questioned by lawyers without proper translation and/or
question interpretation.
-8-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
-9-
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
Mailing List
- 10 -
Subpoena and Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
L _
s
£525? V_
gig M 7’ 32 2&7L/ M g‘fwf’fjff AT-138_/E._J-125
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR N05 FOR COURT use ONLY
NAME:
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
FIRM NAME: Porter Scott
STREET ADDRESS: 350
University Avenue
CITY: Sacramento CA Zip CODE: 95825
STATE:
BRANCH NAME:
PLAINTIFF JAROSLAWWASZCZUK
DEFENDANTREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIA, et al.
3. This order may be served by a sheriff, marshal, registered process server, or the following specially appointed person (name):
Date:
JUDGE
This order must be served not less than 10 days before the date set for the examination.
IMPORTANT NOTICES ON REVERSE
‘
1
owes the judgment debtor or the defendant more than $250. An affidavit supporting this application under Code of Civil
Procedure section 491.110 or 708.120 is attached.
6. The person to be examined resides or has a place of business in this county or within 150 miles of the place of examination.
7. I: This court is not the court in which the money judgment is entered or (attachment only) the court that issued the writ of
attachment. An affidavit supporting an application under Code of Civil Procedure section 491.150 or 708.160 is attached.
8. I: Thejudgment debtor has been examined within the past 120 days. An affidavit showing good cause for another examination
is attached.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: April 12 2021
}
\
.
ommmiwa T, Aina
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)
l
(Attachment—Enforcement of Judgment)
AT-138/EJ-125
”
Information for Judgment Creditor Regarding Service
'
If you want to be able to ask the court to enforce the order on the judgment debtor or any third party, you
must have a copy of the order personally served on the judgment debtor by a sheriff, marshal, registered
process server, or the person appointed in item 3 of the order at least 10 calendar days before the date of
the hearin and have a roof of service filed with the court.
,
(1) NOTICE TO PERSON SERVED If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order,
you may be subject to arrest and punishmentfor contempt of court, and the court may make an
order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorneyfees incurred by the judgmentcreditor in this
proceeding.
(2) NOTICE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR The person in whose favor the judgmentwas entered in this
action claims that the person to be examined under this order has possession or control of property
that is yours or owes you a debt. This property or debt is as follows (describe the property or debt):
Community property of Plaintiff/JudgmentDebtor
Irina Waszczuk's employmentwages
2000 Mercedes 320
Any and all communityproperty owned by Plaintiff and Irina Waszczuk
If you claim that all or any portion of this property or debt is exempt from enforcement of the money
judgment,you must file your exemption claim in writing with the court and have a copy personally
served on the judgmentcreditor not later than three days before the date set for the examination.
You must appear at the time and place set for the examination to establish your claim of exemption
or your exemption may be waived.
APPEARANCE OF A CORPORATION,PARTNERSHIP,
;
ASSOCIATION,TRUST, OR OTHERORGANIZATION
It is your duty to designate one or more of the following to appear and be examined: officers,
directors, managing agents, or other persons who are familiar with your property and debts.
Request for Accommodations. Assistive listening systems, computer-assisted real—time captioning, or sign
language interpreter services are availableif you ask at least 5 days before your hearing. Contact the clerk’s
office for Request for Accommodation (form MC-410). (Civil Code, § 54.8.)
'
Page2of 2
AT-138lEJ-125[Rev.January1,2017] APPLICATIONAND ORDER FOR
APPEARANCEAND EXAMINATION
(Attachment—Enforcement of Judgment)
‘
MC-025
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
_
ATTACHMENT (Number): 2
( This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.)
14. All DOCUMENTS relating to any money or property held in trust for YOU.
15. All DOCUMENTS relating to any money or property held in trust for YOUR spouse.
16. All DOCUMENTS relating to any transfer of over $500 made to or from YOU from October 4, 2015 to
present.
17. All DOCUMENTS relating to any transfer of over $500 made to or from YOUR spouse from October 4,
2015 to present.
18. All DOCUMENTS relating to any COMMUNITY PROPERTY held by YOUR spouse.
21. All DOCUMENTS relating to any payroll stubs indicating earnings from any employment you have
engaged in from 2016 to the present.
(If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Page 2 of 2
Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.)
(A dd p ages as required)
.
Fantttfazsfl4529sant“ ATTACHMENT
M0025(Rev. July 1. 20091 to Judicial Council Form
Q
. , e
'
MC-025
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER
_
ATTACHMENT (Number): 2
(This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.)
1. A11 DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY YOUR current residence, including but not limited to
DOCUMENTS identifying YOUR ADDRESS, how long YOU have lived there, whether YOU own or rent
the residence, and the amount of YOUR rent or monthly mortgage payment.
All DOCUMENTS relating to any real estate in which YOU have an ownership interest, and any income
2.
YOU derive therefrom, whether directly or indirectly, including but not limited to real property deeds
3. All DOCUMENTS relating to any real estate in which YOUR spouse has an ownership interest, and any
income YOU or YOUR spouse derive therefrom, whether directly or indirectly, including but not limited to
real property deeds.
4. All DOCUMENTS relating to any business entity in which YOU have an ownership interest.
5. All DOCUMENTS relating to any business entity in which YOUR spouse has an ownership interest.
6. All DOCUMENTS relating to any property in which YOU have an ownership interest, including but not
limited to (i) all checking and savings accounts; (ii) jewelry; (iii) motor vehicles or watercraft; (iv) debts or
notes owed by another to YOU; (v) stocks, bonds, and other securities; and (vi) life insurance policies.
7. All DOCUMENTS relating to any property in which YOUR spouse has an ownership interest, including but
not limited to (i) all checking and savings accounts; (ii) jewelry; (iii) motor vehicles or watercraft (including
but not limited to vehicle ownership certificates); (iv) debts or notes owed by another to YOUR spouse; (v)
stocks, bonds, and other securities; and (vi) life insurance policies.
8. All DOCUMENTS relating to any safe or safety deposit box YOU or your spouse own or use and the
contents therein.
9. All federal and state corporate tax returns YOU have filed from 2012 to the present. -
10. All DOCUMENTS relating to any of YOUR property held by third parties. ~
11. All DOCUMENTS relating to any of YOUR spouse's property held by third parties.
12. All DOCUMENTS relating to any benefits YOU have received or currently receive, including by not
limited to any pension, disability compensation, or retirement pay.
13. All DOCUMENTS relating to any vested future interest YOU have in any property or in the payment of
any money.
(If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Page 1 of 2
Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.)
(Add pages as required)
‘
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter (Motion for Automatic Stay) taken under
submission on 10/26/2015
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Regents of the University of California, Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Dorin Daniliuc,
Danehsa Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Patrick Putney, Ann Madden Rice, Brent Seifert and Charles
Witcher's motion for an automatic stay pursuant to CCP § 916(a), or in the alternative for a discretionary
stay is ruled upon as follows.
In the instant matter, Plaintiff asserts four causes of action against the above ten defendants for IIED,
tortious interference with economic advantage, FEHA harassment and failure to prevent, and
whistleblower retaliation in violation of Government Code §§ 8547 et seq. Plaintiff alleges four additional
causes of action for Violation of Labor Code § 1278.5, breach of contract, wage and hour violations and
rescission against Regents. The Court granted Defendants Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropez, and
Seifert's ("Dismissed Defendants") anti-SLAPP motion and ultimately entered judgment dismissing them
from the action. Plaintiff has appealed the judgment. Defendants Regents, Rice, Witcher, Putney and
Daniliuc ("Remaining Defendants") remain in the lawsuit on the first four causes of action. Regents
remains on the other four causes of action. Remaining Defendants seek a stay of the action pending the
appeal arguing that the proceedings are subject to an automatic stay pursuant to CCP § 916(a) or
alternatively that a discretionary stay is warranted.
The perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed
from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment
or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected
by the judgment or order. Code Civ Proc § 916 (a); see also Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino
(2005) 35 Cal. 4th 180.
To be clear, CCP § 916(a) stays all further trial court proceedings "upon the matters embraced in" or
"affected" by the appeal. "In determining whether a proceeding is embraced in or affected by the
appeal, we must consider the appeal and its possible outcome in relation to the proceeding and its
possible results. '[W]hether a matter is 'embraced' in or 'affected' by a judgment [or order] within the
meaning of [section 916] depends on whether postjudgment [or postorder] proceedings on the matter
would have any effect on the 'effectiveness' of the appeal.'" (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino
(2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189 [citations omitted].) "If so, the proceedings are stayed; if not, the
proceedings are permitted." (Id.) "A trial court proceeding also affects the effectiveness of an appeal if
the possible outcomes on an appeal and the actual or possible results of the proceeding are
irreconcilable." (Id. at 190.) "The purpose of the automatic stay rule is 'to protect the appellate court's
jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided. The rule prevents the trial court
from rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other
proceedings that may affect it." (Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1428.)
Here the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff's appeal from the order and judgment following the
Dismissed Defendants' successful anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays the entirety of the
proceedings with respect to the Remaining Defendants who themselves did not bring an anti-SLAPP
motion. No Court has held that an appeal from an order granting, as opposed to denying, an
anti-SLAPP motion divests the trial court of jurisdiction, especially as to matters related to other
defendants. Indeed, Varian held that an appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion automatically
stayed further trial court proceedings on the merits, but made clear that such an appeal does not stay
proceedings related to causes of action that were not affected by the motion. (Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th
at 195, fn. 8 ["Such an appeal does not, however, stay proceedings relating to causes of action not
affected by the motion"].)
While it is true that Plaintiff asserted the first four causes of action against the Dismissed Defendants
and the Remaining Defendants based on allegations that each of them participated in a coordinated
campaign of unlawful conduct, only the Dismissed Defendants brought the anti-SLAPP motion.
Remaining Defendants were not parties to that motion. Remaining Defendants cite no authority for the
proposition that an automatic stay is mandated based on an appeal of the granting of other defendants'
anti-SLAPP motion simply because all are named in the same cause of action. Importantly, the conduct
of the Remaining Defendants was not at issue in the anti-SLAPP motion. They fail to articulate how a
possible outcome on appeal (e.g. a reversal of the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion and entering
judgment in the Dismissed Defendants' favor) is irreconcilable with the possible results on the same four
causes of action in these proceedings, specifically given that the conduct of the Remaining Defendants
was not addressed in those motions. Remaining Defendants complain that Plaintiff is a prolific motion
filer and there is a danger that Plaintiff will file numerous motions that will be heard and decided in the
Dismissed Defendants' absence and that if the judgment were reversed the Dismissed Defendants could
be inserted back into a case that may be significantly different. They point to the fact that Plaintiff
apparently intends to seek to file a voluminous Third Amended Complaint. But, speculation aside, this
fails to show how anything that could take place in these proceedings would render the appeal futile or
how the possible results on appeal and in these proceedings are irreconcilable. This is especially true
since Plaintiff has since dismissed Defendants Rice, Witcher, Putney and Daniliuc from the lawsuit and
the Regents is the only one of the five Remaining Defendants left in the action. Remaining Defendants
fail to articulate, for example, how it would be irreconcilable for them to be found liable on Plaintiff's
claims at trial even if the appeal affirmed the anti-SLAPP order and judgment of dismissal as to the
Dismissed Defendants.
In any event, even if it could arguably be said that there was a possibility of irreconcilable results
between the first four causes of action against the Remaining Defendants and the appeal which involved
the first four causes of action against the Dismissed Defendants, there are four other causes of action
asserted against the Regents which were not the subject of the Dismissed Defendant's anti-SLAPP
motion. Those causes of action were not implicated in any way in the anti-SLAPP motion and any
appeal related to the anti-SLAPP motion could not result in a stay of those causes of action. (Varian,
supra, 35 Cal.4th at 195, fn. 8 ["Such an appeal does not, however, stay proceedings relating to causes
of action not affected by the motion"].) Yet, Remaining Defendants seek a stay of the entire action
pursuant to CCP § 916. They did not simply seek a stay of the first four causes of action.
However, the Court does agree that a discretionary stay of the proceedings pending resolution of
Plaintiff's appeal is appropriate. "Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in
the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency." (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33
Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) In fact "it may be in the interests of justice to stay a trial until another party's
appeal is decided..." (Id.) This is such a case. Here the Court finds that the interests of justice support
a stay. The Court is mindful of the inefficient use of judicial resources if a stay is not issued, specifically,
in the event the judgment is reversed. Consequently, Plaintiffs would then be entitled to try the matter
again as to those defendants who should have been at the first trial. The potential inefficiencies in this
approach are too numerous to mention. Indeed, the four causes of action that are the subject of the
appeal are also asserted against the Remaining Defendants and the allegations as to all the Defendants
appear factually intertwined and likely would involve much of the same evidence and issues. There is
thus a very real possibility that in the event Dismissed Defendants were returned to this action if the
judgment on appeal is reversed, any motions and/or discovery that were conducted in their absence
would need to be repeated. In addition, while there are four other causes of action asserted against the
Regents which were not the subject of the appeal, those causes of action also likely involve similar
evidence and witnesses and allowing piecemeal litigation would not be in the interests of justice. A stay
would promote judicial efficiency.
Plaintiff's opposition fails to present any persuasive argument against a stay. Rather Plaintiff presents
arguments going to the ultimate merits of the lawsuit and apparently the appeal. Plaintiff also indicates
that he intends to file a third amended complaint in which he intends to eliminate all individual
Defendants and simply leave his two causes of action for breach of contract and violation of Health &
Safety Code § 1278.5. The Court finds that this simply confirms the propriety of a stay under the
circumstances. Indeed, if the action is not stayed and Plaintiff were permitted to file the TAC and the
judgment against the Dismissed Defendants reversed, this could lead to extreme confusion regarding
the status of the case. That is, if the judgment against the Dismissed Defendants on the second
amended complaint is reversed the Dismissed Defendants would be returned to the action. However,
the TAC referred to by Plaintiff appears to no longer include any of the causes of action asserted against
them but Plaintiff is not contending that he has abandoned his appeal. The parties and the Court would
then need to sort out what the operative pleading would be. In the interim, the parties would have
litigated only the two causes of action against the Regents in the TAC and would then have to essentially
begin again with the four causes of action against the Dismissed Defendants. A stay is appropriate in
the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.
As a result, Remaining Defendants' request for a discretionary stay is granted. This action is stayed in
its entirety pending the resolution of Plaintiff's appeal.
Defendants' request for judicial notice is granted.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312 or other notice
is required.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission.
Declaration of Mailing
I hereby certify that I am not a party to the within action and that I deposited a copy of this document in
sealed envelopes with first class postage prepaid, addressed to each party or the attorney of record in
the U.S. Mail at 720 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California.
Dated: October 28, 2015
E. Brown, Deputy Clerk _____s/ E. Brown_____
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
LODI, CA 95242
DOUGLAS L. ROPEL
PORTER SCOTT
350 UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 200
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825
7 DRAFT
8
25
I. PREAMBLE & NATURE OF THE CASE
26 A. The shocking facts of this case would continue to frustrate and anger
27 Plaintiff and for sure will surprise the Court and Jury after they learn from Plaintiff’s wrongful
28
28
28
3 California, from June 1999 as a cogeneration power plant operator and associate development
4 engineer. Plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully and without a valid cause terminated by the
5 Defendant in December 2012 after 13 years of service and at the age of 61.
6 22. Besides regular duties at the UC Davis Medical Center, Plaintiff occasionally
7 provided representation or assistance for non-union employees and, on two occasions, for union-
8 represented employees in their complaints filed under the provision of UC Davis Policy PPSM
9 70 and the UC Davis Whistleblowing Retaliation Protection Policy PPM 380-17.
10 23. Plaintiff, in the course of his employment with the UC Davis Medical Center,
11 noticed, observed, and experienced by representing other employees, many publications, and his
12 own experiences that the Defendant created two different climates and images of the University
13 of California campuses.
14 The perfect image of the University of California is the exceptional and
15 outstanding education system that is globally recognized.
16 The Different Image of the University of California
17 24. As early as 2000, a climate and culture existed at the employer’s medical center in
18 Sacramento and its university campus in Davis that subjected staff to a hostile work environment,
19 including but not limited to, sustained abuse, bullying, discrimination, retaliation for
20 whistleblowing, harassment of all kinds, intimidation, favoritism, nepotism, health and safety
21 violations, falsification of documentation, fear of retaliation for reporting misconduct, and research
22 misconduct.
23 25. As early as 2000, the employer published rules, procedures, and policies that
24 express, claim, and state that the employer is committed to a culturally diverse and otherwise
25 lawful and healthy environment. The employer’s rules, procedures, and written material espouse
26 cultural diversity, promotion of a safe workplace, no tolerance for bullying or abuse, no tolerance
27 for exclusion or discrimination, and open disclosure without retribution for reporting report waste,
9 29. The other not-so-perfect image of the University of California that is far less
3 system for most of the lab's administrators, clerical staff and technicians was discriminatory, and
that they were working longer hours for less pay
4
34. In July 2004 a $1.3 million settlement has been reached in the discrimination
5
lawsuit filed by former medical intern David Dixon who alleged that he was dismissed from
6
UCLA's family medicine residency program in 1994 because he is black.
7
8
35. A class action lawsuit was brought against Los Alamos National Laboratory,
9
claiming that the University of California, which ran the laboratory from 1943 until 2006,
10 discriminated against women and Hispanics in pay, promotions, and educational opportunities.
11 As part of a settlement reached in mid 2007, a federal judge ordered a $16.4 million payout.
12 36. In 2007 Karen Moe Humphreys, a former Olympic gold medal swimmer who
14 against the university. The suit claimed that Humphreys, who worked at UC Berkeley from 1978
15 until she was laid off in 2004, allegedly lost her job in retaliation for complaining about the
16 treatment of women by the university's athletic department. The university denied Humphreys'
17 allegations. It also denied her claim that her layoff was unlawful, though it did agree to pay more
18 than $3.5 million to settle the gender discrimination lawsuit she brought against them. As part of
19 the agreement, Humphreys will be reinstated and then retire in January 2008 when she reaches
21 37. The imposed penalty $82,500 and proposed imposition of civil penalty in the
22 amount of $220,000 by the U.S. Department of Labor was for the establishment of an
24 Laboratory.
25 38. In September 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture charged the university
26 with 61 violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The lawsuit claimed UC San Francisco
27 researchers kept animals in dirty cages and over bred them as well as improperly anesthetized
28
3 39. A lawsuit was filed in 2006 by the Coalition for Limiting University Expansion
4 and later joined by the city of Santa Cruz against the University of California, Santa Cruz. The
5 lawsuit accused the campus and its contractor of violating the federal Clean Water Act by
6 allowing water polluted with sediment to migrate from several construction sites into nearby
7 creeks, ponds and groundwater. In a settlement reached, the city and university agreed to revive a
8 stalled project to reduce sediment runoff into the city's Pogonip park, 640 acres of open space
9 below the campus, and ultimately into the San Lorenzo River. UCSC, under the agreement, will
10 pay $110,000 to restore damaged gullies in the Pogonip, UCSC's building company Devcon
11 Construction will contribute engineering and construction services valued at $40,000, and the
12 city will chip in $90,000.
13 40. Michael Burch worked as a wrestling coach for the University of California Davis
14 from 1995 through 2001. In April 2001, Arezou Mansourian and Chris Ng were removed from
15 the team. Burch publicly supported the two female wrestlers when they filed a claim with the
16 Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. One month later, Burch was informed that he
17 would no longer be retained. He filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming the school failed
18 to renew his contract because of his outspoken support for the two female wrestlers. In 2005, the
19 Supreme Court found that the Title IX law protected whistleblowers from adverse action of
20 employers. Michael Burch will receive $725,000 from the University of California to settle the
21 retaliation lawsuit.
22 41. Further, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed the imposition of a civil penalty
23 in the amount of $159,375 for radiological contamination committed by the University of
24 California-operated Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
25 42. Anneliese Yuenger died in 1999 at age 82; her family donated her body to the
26 university's medical school. A month later, Yuenger's ashes were returned to the family in a
27 plastic bag. An investigation revealed the ashes came from miscellaneous body parts burned
28
10 44. In February 2001, the Sacramento News and Review (SN&R) article entitled
11 “Standing Up to Bullies” quoted University of California, Davis, employee Jackie Quigg’s letter
12 she sent to an SN&R editor: “I felt bullied, belittled, discriminated powerless and angry.” Jackie
13 Quigg wrote of her experience of working for 13 years in the Ophthalmology Department at the
14 UC.
15 Plaintiff commented with words from Jackie Quigg’s experience in his
16 letter to an SN&R editor dated: February 10, 2001
17 “ Th e ab u sive b e ha v io r mu st b e witn e sse d an d we ll d oc u me n ted
18 in order for this to work. The other issue is that coworkers may be hesitant to
19 testify in court against an employer, the same employer who provides them a
20 paycheck. The fear of a backlash against those who testify is real.
21
Unfortunately, this great dependency for this paycheck will inhibit justice from
22
ever being served and the employer knows this. The power of employer
23
intimidation with no recourse on the part of the employee is in and of itself, the
24
very foundation for an abusive UC employer-employee work relationship. I
25
would like to ask Ms. Quigg if this situation still exists or was it resolved. I
26
need to know because it is hard to believe that anybody could cope with this
27
abuse and humiliation for 13 years. Is this is a true story?”
28
15 Center is still unresolved and never was investigated. Todd Georlich’s suicide ten years after UC
16 Davis employee Donna McDaniel tragically took her life is the path of destruction chosen by a
19 30. UC San Francisco employee Mary Efferen wrote of her "observations and
20 experiences of faculty-staff interactions that were textbook examples of how to humiliate
21 individuals in front of group.
22 31. The University of California, which has contributed so much to the education and
23 the wealth of the state of California and the global community, is a pathologically dysfunctional
24 institution run by arrogant and ruthless administrators," wrote former UC Davis graduate student
25 Leuren Moret.
26 32. The U.S. Department of Labor imposed a civil penalty in the amount of
27 $1,707,000 by the U.S. Department of Energy for multiple violations of law and federal
28 regulations in the Los Alamos National Laboratory. There was also a $9,350 penalty for violation
18 UC Davis Medical Center under the supervision of UC Davis Vice Chancellor Claire Pomeroy
20 39. In 2011, credit cards embezzlement in the UC Davis Medical Center was
21 uncovered and reported by two UC Davis employees and confirmed by auditor William
Prindible, who conducted an audit. The two employees who reported the credit card
22
embezzlement and 60-year-old auditor, Prindible, were fired from the job and the white-collar
23
UC Davis Medical Center criminals who committed the crime are still being employed by the
24
UC Davis Medical Center. The Prindible’s case ended in a January 2015 settlement in federal
25
court, Plaintiff is unaware of the amount of the sum that was paid to the victimized William
26
Prindible (Federal Court Case No. 2:13-cv-02256-KJM-EFB). On May 30, 2012 ,the University
27
of California administration has unsuccessfully attempted to provoke and kill t Plaintiff or end
28
28
5 46. On October 2, 1989 Plaintiff was hired as a Power Plant Technician by the Power
6 Operating Company (POC) subsidiary of Power System Engineering Company (PSE, Inc.) from
7 Houston, Texas as an Operating Technician of the San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant
8 located in Lathrop, CA.
9
47. In 1990 the PSE, Inc. was acquired by the DOW Chemical Company’s subsidiary,
10
Destec Energy, Inc. and later by Dynegy Corporation, which was the competitor of Enron
11
Corporation in electric power generation in the USA.
12
48. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant was producing 50 MW of electricity
13
per hour and processing water to make high quality steam. The plant is selling electricity to the
14
Pacific Gas and Electric Company by contract and steam to the Auto Glass Manufacturer, Libby
15
Owens Ford, in Lathrop, CA.
16
49. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant was powered by the LM 5000
17
General Electric aeroderivative gas turbines.
18
19 The aeroderivative gas turbines are used in a variety of applications: - electrical power both for
20 utility baseload and peaking applications in both simple-cycle (gas turbine only) and combined-
21 cycle configurations. Simple-cycle refers to a gas turbine used alone; combined-cycle refers to an
22 application where the exhaust from the gas turbine is used to power a steam turbine to maximize
23 overall system efficiency - in-plant and independent power production and cogeneration (the
24 production of two forms of energy, usually steam and electricity from a single fuel source) in an
25 industrial or institutional facility - mechanical drive requirements, such as compressors, pumps
26 and other loads - marine propulsion of naval and commercial vessels. Industries that use
27 aeroderivative gas turbines include petroleum production, refining and pipeline operations,
28
16 order to be a Qualified Cogenerate. The company management was forcing its own employees to
17 release a huge amount of steam into the atmosphere, which was through the PG&E meter to
18 cheat the PURPA requirements instead of utilizing the thermal energy as was required by law. In
19 1994 the company’s senior management was advised by the San Joaquin Plant Manager to
20 resolve the existing problem with the PURPA violation. In retaliation, the mentioned plant
22 53. In 1989 the former State of California Chief of Department of Standard Labor
23 Enforcement (DLSE) or State of California Labor Commissioner Jose Milan was allowed to
24 govern the wages and working conditions for the San Joaquin cogeneration power plant in
25 Lathrop and other Dynegy’s cogeneration plants in California using the wrong Industrial Welfare
26 Commission Order (IWC), which was IWC order 4-89 O instead of IWC order 1-89; thus 119
27 Dynegy employees were defrauded of a significant amount of overtime, to which they were
28
15 years of 1991-1995.
16 57. After the 401K plan retirement fraud disclosure, Plaintiff asked his supervisor
17 about the unpaid overtime mandated by the Welfare Commission Order IWC 1-89 Part of unpaid
18 overtime shall be contributed to employees’ Retirement and Savings Plan 401K plus the
19 employer match contribution in the ratio dollar to dollar up to six percent of employee’s gross
20 annual income. Plaintiff did not have any intention to pursue the overtime issue but just asked
21 the question.
22 The overtime issue would never have surfaced if Plaintiff’s employer would have posted in the
23 Plant’s control room the IWC order 4-89 instead of IWC order 1-89.
24
58. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Plant Manager panicked and alerted the
25
Headquarters, and then IWC order 1-49 was posted on the information board next to IWC order
26
1-89. Shortly after, Plaintiff’s employer hired the prestigious law firm Pillsbury Madison &
27
Sutro LLP and Plaintiff received a letter from Sutro’s lawyer about the IWC order applicability
28
15 Office overturned his superior’s—the State Labor Commissioner Jose Milan’s—earlier decision
16 to permit Plaintiff’s employer to govern working conditions and pay by IWC order 4-89 instead
17 of IWC 1-89.
18 61. Right after the labor commissioner issued the decision in Plaintiff’s favor,
19 Plaintiff’s employer in retaliation suspended Plaintiff for almost two months without pay and
20 right away appealed the Labor Commissioner Decision in San Joaquin County Superior Court.
21 The Superior Court in Trial de Novo ruled in favor of Plaintiff’s employer.
22 62. Plaintiff appealed the IWC order 1-89 unfavorable the Superior Court Judgment
23 in the State of California Court of Appeal 3th Appellate District by representing himself in Pro
24
Per. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court Judgment and Plaintiff received his unpaid
25
overtime. The other 119 of Plaintiff’s coworkers recovered partially unpaid overtime through the
26
settlement-agreement that Plaintiff’s employer signed with the Division of Labor Standard
27
Enforcement.
28
16
17 Plaintiff’s Employment with Genentech Inc., from November 1998 to June 1999
18
19 67. After almost one year of unemployment in November 1998, Plaintiff was hired as
20 Utility Operator by Genentech, Inc. located in the City of South San Francisco.
21 68. Genentech, Inc. was the best employer Plaintiff ever worked for in the United
22 States, taking into consideration benefits and treatment of employees by company management.
23 69. The almost 100 miles distance to Plaintiff’s residence in Lodi to South San
24
Francisco and Plaintiff’s wife’s employment in Nordstrom Inc., Sacramento were deciding
25
factors that led Plaintiff to apply for the Cogeneration Plant Operator position with the UC Davis
26
Medical Center in Sacramento, which was only 32 miles away from Lodi, CA.
27
70. Also the Cogeneration Plant Operator position was a factor to apply for the job
28
4 Plaintiff’s Job Description and Employment in UC Davis Medical Center Cogeneration Power
Plant Named “Central Plant “
5
7
71. Defendant hired Plaintiff on June 28, 1999 as a non-exempt senior power
8 plant mechanic or cogeneration power plant operator (hereinafter “plant operator”) to maintain
9 and operate the newly built, state-of-the-art 27 megawatt cogeneration power plant at UC Davis
11 72. Besides operating and maintaining the cogeneration facility, Plaintiff was
12 responsible for monitoring and dispatching critical alarms on the day shift at the UC Davis
13 Medical Center via the computerized Metasys system, which was also programmed to
14 continuously monitor and record how much electricity, steam, hot water, and chilled water was
15 being generated by the central plant. The Metasys system was also designed to start up and shut
16 down heating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), as well as to adjust temperatures in the
17
administration and hospital patients’ rooms per request from working personnel at the UC Davis
18
Medical Center.
19
73. The UC Davis Medical Center’s cogeneration power plant, named the
20
“Central Plant,” includes a General Electric LM 2500—a 23 MW jet combustion gas turbine; a
21
heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)—a 4 MW back pressure steam turbine with capacity to
22
produce 89,000,00 pounds of steam per hour; four auxiliary steam boilers with 25,000-pound-
23
per-hour capacities for steam from each boiler; three centrifugal chillers; and three absorption
24
chillers that can produce 13,400 tons of chilled water per hour. The Central Plant also has five 2-
25
MW emergency diesel generators and other auxiliary heavy industrial-type machinery, including
26
27 a cooling tower, pumps, an ammonia injection system, a water demineralizer, a condenser, and a
28 chemical-injecting system.
15 subject to these reporting requirements. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide
16 or its equivalent (MTCO2e) are required to report their annual emissions to the USEPA, and both
17 the Davis and Sacramento campuses have facilities that emit over 25,000 MTCO2e.
18 78. The 10 MW of electricity not produced and not sold during the summer
19 peak equals millions of dollars of lost revenue over 17 years of the Central Plant’s operations.
20 However if 10 MW extra of electricity was produced and was sold during the summer than
21 peak equals millions of dollars in extra revenue over 17 years of the Central Plant’s operations ;
22 79. Prior to building the cogeneration plant, the UC Davis Medical Center
23 Campus sourced electricity from the local publically owned utility, Sacramento Municipal Utility
24
District (SMUD). The oversized cogeneration plant right before energy deregulation in California,
25
and during that turbulent period, the UC Davis Medical Center took advantage of the opportunity to
26
generate and sell power to SMUD. When the power market deregulation took place cogeneration
27
facility was selling power at for the on the open market for higher bid via California Independent
28
10
80. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Public
11
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) mandate that any cogeneration facility
12
certified and recognized by law as “the qualified cogeneration facility” must meet special
13
requirements in the ratio between electric energy production and thermal energy production.
14
A cogeneration facility is a generating facility that:
15
“sequentially produces electricity and another form of useful thermal energy
16
(such as heat or steam) in a way that is more efficient than the separate
17
production of both forms of energy. For example, in addition to the production
18
22 facilities might provide hot water for domestic heating or other useful
15 employer against Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Plaintiff’s previous employer was very
16 safety oriented and strictly enforced safety rules. It had outstanding safety rules and safety
17 training for employees. Plaintiff was hazmat certified and a first responder, and knew CPR.
18 Plaintiff had no problem adapting to UC Davis Medical Center, where safety rules and
19 regulations were disregarded and ignored by management and safety trainings were unknown
20 and viewed as unnecessary burdens and hassles.
21 84. UC Davis Medical Center’s state-of-the-art cogeneration facility, which
22 cost $70 million to build, was commissioned with many serious safety problems and hazards,
23 endangering working personnel and raising Plaintiff’s concern about his safety and that of his
24
coworkers, many of whom had little or no working experiences in power plant environments.
25
The State of California Law and International Law which Classified Cogeneration Power
26 Plants as a Manufacture and Industrial Facility
27 85. By State of California Industrial Welfare Commission Order #1, all power
28
18 to previous lines, with the relevant formulas shown. You must respond to all of
20
UC Davis Health System Executive Director Stephen Chilcott’s salary was increased from
22 94. UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles
23 Witcher, who is responsible for maintenance and operation of the cogeneration plant by his title
24 and position, received $64,000.00 in salary increase from his promotion to this position in 2007
25 to 2014. (Charles Witcher has a high school education only and has no qualification for this
26 position.)
27 95. UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles
28
16 98. Contrary to the UC Davis Medical Center, Central Plant, the UC San Diego
17 Cogeneration Plant, which is owned and operated by the Defendant (like the UC Davis Medical
18 Center Central), has no problem selling surplus energy on the spot market. The UC San Diego
19
Cogeneration Plant filed self-certification with FERC on May 24, 2000 according to FERC’s
20
Docket No. QF 00-63-001.
21
99. In addition to the above, the UC San Diego Cogeneration Qualified
22
Facility in 2010 received a $2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and installed
23
the world’s first microgrid master controller and related optimizer application. The Smart Grid
24
25 functions as a virtual power plant, scheduling energy self-generation, electricity imports, and
26 electric and thermal storage while factoring in the demand load and the variable price of
27
electricity to buy or sell.
28
9 energy sources.
11 Practices, the UC became a registered Electric Service Provider (ESP). As an ESP, the university
12 is able to self-supply electricity to its direct-access accounts. The self-supply electricity began
13 being generated in 2015. The 2014 UC Report of Sustainable Practices is, for the most part,
14 misleading and fraudulent in regard to green-gas emission on the campuses, especially the UC
15 Berkeley campus, and it is related to the operation of the cogeneration facility not owned or
17 103. The question is as follows: Why is the Defendant, who registered as an ESP,
18 unable to operate the UC Davis Medical, Center Plant at full capacity and provide the energy to
19 other UC campuses, especially the UC Davis campus, or sell the energy on the spot market via
20 ISO?
21 104. Instead of hunting down the Plaintiff like an animal since 2006 for no reason
22 with a criminally minded attempt to assassinate the Plaintiff on May 31, 2012 and destroy the
23 Plaintiff’s life and his livelihood, the Defendant should take care of business and get a contract
24 for the sale of power from the UC Davis Medical Center, Central Plant. The Defendant should
25
also take care of those who attacked Plaintiff and misinformed the Defendant for the own
26
personal financial gain that Plaintiff will harm University business in relation to the UC Davis
27
28
7 was commissioned in 1998 as a state- of-the-art facility, but for some reason was unfinished. As
8 a result, Central Plant equipment was unsafe to operate and posed life-threatening danger to
9 personnel. A power plant’s working environment is dangerous by nature, and if safety rules and
10 regulations are not followed, it will lead to disastrous consequences. Plaintiff came to Central
11 Plant from a very safety-oriented company and was shocked when, in 2000, Central Plant’s
12 manager said in front of other employees, “Somebody give this Polack a bad evaluation and
13 fire him,” after Plaintiff suggested some safety improvements. Plaintiff’s coworker Eduardo
14 Espinosa was so terrified by the Central Plant manager’s statement that he wrote a letter to UC
15 Vice President Judith Boyette and complained than quit his job. A Cal/OSHA intervention was
16 needed to convince the UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department
17 Management to improve the safety and fix some problems with unsafe equipment that should
18 have been fixed without Cal/OSHA intervention.
19 106. The arrogance of the PO&M Department Management was unbelievable
20 and unacceptable. The Cal/OSHA intervention fixed some minor problems, but major safety
21 problems in Central Plant went unnoticed or deliberately ignored by the Cal/OSHA inspector,
22 and there is not any record that Central Plant personnel were interviewed. The most dangerous
23 place was the oily cement floor underneath the cooling tower, which drained oil to the
24 Sacramento River via storm drain, but was unnoticed by the inspecting Cal/OSHA personnel.
25 Coincidently, when the Cal/OSHA inspection took place, Plaintiff was on his days off from
26 work.
27 107. In 2000, Plaintiff wrote in his Brief to Cal/OSHA:
28
5 and direct supervisor to correct some problems with safety in the plant.”
7 “The UCDMC like the other divisions of the UC System enjoys liberty and independence from
8 the State of California legislature and state agencies which enforcing wages and working
9 condition in private sector. This status was affirmed not only by the Government Codes but also
10 on many occasions by the Appellate Courts of the State of California. It is great that students and
11 professors, researchers and scientists have such unrestricted autonomy to freely work for the
12 good of people. The University of California has great prestige in this State as well in the nation.
13
However, it looks like the ordinary workers in this entity who provides services every day for
14
these great researchers, professors, students, and scientists keep them warm at winter time and
15
cool at summer time, these who keep this whole system running without failure have been
16
somehow forgotten and they are object of abuse, discrimination as well are being exposed to
17
unsafe working environment which is a subject of this response. It is unknown for me why the
18
workers are being treated this way in this high education prestigious school. I was very
19
concerned and worried seeing supervisors’ memos where he was calling his subordinates damn
20
or stupid or threatening others to fire them on spot in the place where employment is not at will.
21
Intimidation, ignorance, negligence, threats, power trip, unprofessional remarks toward
22
23 subordinates, lack of personal culture of the superiors replaced common sense, proper training,
24 normal working environment and human dignity and rights. The safety rules and laws were
25 replaced by intimidation, letters of warning, and suspension from work. Where is this
27 109. Also, in 2000, four workers from the UCDMC Access Unit were
28 suspended for circulating a petition asking to discuss items related to workload, safety,
3 to work. Plaintiff was also asked to help these workers in regard to the despicable UCDMC
4 Management retaliation.
5 110. After Cal/OSHA issued the citation for negligence and safety violations in
6 the plant, UC Davis Plant Operation and Maintenance Department (PO&M) Manager Toni
7 Moddessette demoted Cogeneration Plant Superintendent Tom Kavanauch and replaced him
8 with Dan James, who was brought to the plant from the UC San Francisco Medical Center. The
9 situation in the plant changed for the better up until the present, but it has changed quickly for
10 the worse due to current plant manager Steve McGrath’s group of colleagues who came from his
11 previous plant near Jackson, CA. Two Central Plant operators, William Buckans and Rick
12 Tunello, became the target of constant harassment and were bullied by newly hired individuals
13 from the Jackson area. Shortly after they were hired, plant manager Dane James was coerced by
14 these individuals from Jackson to join them in attacks against Rick Tunello and William
15 Buckans. For some reason, these folks did not like Rick Tunello and William Buckans and were
16 pitting the Plant manager against them; trying to convince Dan James to fire Tunello and
17 Buckans.
18
111. In August 2003, Plaintiff’s coworker, Mike Murphy (who quit job in 2005), and
19 Plaintiff, received from the central plant maintenance supervisor Tom Kavanaugh a Preventive
20 Maintenance Work Order that required us to pressure wash all dirt and oil underneath the
21 Cooling Tower. We refused to pressure wash the oil to the storm drain. We took pictures using
22 Mike Murphy’s Sony Digital Camera and we told Tom Kavanaugh that we did not pressure wash
23 the oil to the storm drain. Several times Plaintiff approached an employee from the UC Davis
24 Medical Center’s Environmental Health and Safety Department (EH&S) who was visiting the
25 Central Plant frequently to sign Hazardous Work Permits (after a long time Plaintiff forgot his
26 name). The EH&S employee was not very anxious to discuss the oil problem under the Cooling
27 Tower and his response was, “Well if we get caught than we pay the price.”
28
3 112. Some of the worst safety problems and environmental hazards in the
4 UCDMC state-of-the-art Central Plant were twenty-two (22) defective-by-design cooling tower
5 gearboxes.
6 113.. The defective cooling tower gearboxes were massively leaking machine
7 oil underneath the cooling tower and creating serious safety problems for the personnel working
8 underneath the cooling tower; in addition, the leaking machine oil created an enormous
9 environmental hazard. Every week, as usual, the Central Plant maintenance supervisor issued a
10 preventive maintenance work order to refill the cooling tower’s leaking gearboxes. The machine
11 leaked approximately 10 gallons of oil per week for seven (7) years, and the cooling tower floor
12 was washed out with water to the storm drain (river) or to the soil around the cooling tower when
13 the new cooling tower was under construction. Once a month or every three months, the Central
14 Plant maintenance supervisor (the same supervisor who said to Plaintiff that “Somebody
15 [should] give this Polack a bad evaluation and fire him”) also issued a preventive
16 maintenance work order to use a pressure washer to wash out the covered-by-oil gearboxes and
17 cooling tower underneath the floor and discharge everything to the City of Sacramento storm
19
114. It would cost $5,000/unit to replace the defective units, according to the
20 whistleblowing investigation report which copy of Plaintiff received in 2007 from UC Davis
21 Public Record Act Office. It was merely $110,000 and only 1/3 of the annual salary of UC
22 Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Shelton Duraisseau Ph.D whose idea was to build the 70
24 urgent safety and environment problem was a dilution, covering up the criminal activities and
25 retaliating against anybody who mentioned this problem. This safety and environment hazard
26 also created unbelievable hostility and an intolerable working environment. The working
27 environment of the Central Plant became very hostile and violent after the present Central Plant
28 manager brought a group of employees from his previous plant near Jackson, CA. The manager
15 cooling tower fans, and Buckans fell on the cement floor because of the oily and slippery surface
16 underneath the cooling tower. As a result of this accident, Buckans was taken by ambulance to
17 the UCDMC emergency room with severe back pain. The accident was reported to the Central
18 Plant manager. However, the accident did not encourage management to take care of oil leaks
19 underneath the cooling tower, and every day, Central Plant operators were risking injury under
20 the cooling tower due to the daily routine duty of checking the oil level in leaking oil gear boxes
22 After the above-mentioned accident, William Buckans asked plant managers and the
23 maintenance superintendent to apply a nonskid material to the work area where Buckans was
24 injured to prevent another—perhaps more serious—accident and injury. Buckans was absolutely
25 devastated when both supervisors said no to his request. It was unspeakable and unbelievable
26 that his superiors would force their subordinates to work in an extremely unsafe environment
27 without any hesitation. Beside his accident, three other workers got hurt working under the
28 cooling tower. The Central Plant manager, instead of taking care of safety problems, notoriously
15 The Whistleblowing Complaint with UC Davis Vice Chancellor Office UC Davis Policy &
16 Procedure Section 380-17, August 2005
17 117. In August 2005, Plaintiff’s coworker William Buckans asked Plaintiff help
18
him with a Whistleblowing Complaint in regard to safety and environmental hazard caused by
19
leaking machine oil in the cooling tower gear boxes pursuant to UC Davis Policy and Procedure
20
Section 380-17. Plaintiff helped Buckans to write a letter to University of California Human
21
Resources Vice President Judith Boyette, which was sent on August 7, 2005, with the actual
22
whistleblower complaint and some evidence.
23
24 118. The UC Davis Management quickly made determination that Plaintiff was
25 helping his coworker William Buckans with his whistleblowing complaint. In an August 7, 2005
26 Improper Activities Report cover letter submitted to the University of California Human
27 resources Vice –President Judith Boyette, William Buckans made reference to UC Vice
28 President Judith Boyette’s employment with a Sutro Madison law firm of which Plaintiff was
9 work for three months. When Plaintiff was ready to come back to the plant after a few
10 months of illness, the plant manager Dan James was trying to block Plaintiff’s return under
11 the false pretenses that Plaintiff did not provide him or the main office with the requested
12 FEMLA documents for his short disability. When Plaintiff provided him with proof that
13 Plaintiff had provided all documents to the plant manager and to the main office, Plaintiff
14 was told that the documents were lost and that he needed to provide new documents signed
15 by a physician.
16 124. In March 2006, Plaintiff was neither aware nor imagined that the attempt of the
17 plant manager, Dan James, to block Plaintiff’s return to the plant after short-term disability
18
related to Plaintiff’s open heart surgery was a broader preemptive move. The Defendant’ action
19
against Plaintiff to remove Plaintiff from the central plant or fire Plaintiff from the job was for a
20
completely different reason than Plaintiff thought for many years thereafter. Plaintiff believed
21
22 that helping his coworker, William Buckans, with his whistle-blowing complaint about the
23 Defendant’ misconduct in unlawfully discharging machine oil into the Scaramanto River via a
24
city storm drain for seven years was the was the main reason why the Defendant sought to
25
remove Plaintiff from the central plant in an attempt to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
26
125. In March 2006, it was most likely that Plant Manager Dan James did not know the
27
28 real reason why he was ordered to attack Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s coworker, Buckans.
2 the Defendant would carry out ill and despicable plan and abruptly remove Plaintiff from the
3 central plant and reassign him to a different shop with threats of termination of employment
4
although he was the most experienced power plant operator.
5
127. Plaintiff does not remember exactly how this ended, but after Plaintiff came back
6
7 to work after short term disability than he then learned that his coworker William Buckans had
8 become a target of physical threats by other employees from Jackson 5 group. The situation in
9 the plant became so volatile that every morning’s operational meeting was like a war zone. One
10
of the Jackson 5 employees, Steve McGrath, was promoted to Central Plant maintenance
11
supervisor, which emboldened the Jackson group of employees to attack Plaintiff, William
12
13 Buckans and rick Tunello during the shift-turnover morning meetings. In September 2006.
14 Plaintiff coworker Rick Tunello was wrongly accused of missing a medical freezer alarm and
15
was served with unjustified suspension without pay. Plaintiff quickly found out that Rick Tunello
16
was groundlessly accused and was able to help Rick reverse the suspension decision, but Rick
17
Tunello was so fed up with being endlessly harassed and bullied by Jackson 5 group and plant
18
19 manager that he quit the job. This fact that Plaintiff helped Tunello turned the Plant Manager
20 and his Jackson allies entirely against Plaintiff , and they were furious that Plaintiff defended
21
Rick Tunello, whom they hated so badly and wanted fired him for reasons that were undescribed
22
and not understandable to Plaintiff and others workers.. They just hated him. Plaintiff’s loud and
23
24 clear complaint finally forced the Central Plant manager to advise his allies to stop attacks
25 against Plaintiff and Buckans. William Buckans was fed up with the attacks and in September
26 2006 reported the Central Plant manager Dan James for entertaining himself by viewing porn in
27
his cubicle on company time not knowing that reporting Dan James did not make any
28
2 brought him to Central Plant. The two high school educated individuals Charles Witcher and
3 Steve McGrath were already on the Stephen Chilcott’s and Director Robert Taylor’s list as a
4
replacements for Tony Moddessette’s and Dan James’ positions. .
5
7
128. The Human Resources attorney Stephen Chilcott, who was deployed to
8
UC Davis Medical in 2005 to carry out Defendant plan to remove Plaintiff and William
9
Buckans from the Plant conducted the investigation of Central Plant manager Dan James porn
10
activities in his cubicle on company time.
11
129. Shortly after the porn activities complaint was lodged against the central
12
plant manager, Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department Manager Tony
13
Moddessette became a scapegoat and was forced to resign and Charles Witcher was assigned as
14
the interim PO&M department manager. The difference between Moddessette and Witcher was
15
16 education. Moddessette had an MBA and Witcher, who was high school educated, could not
17 write a simple memo without help from HR or his secretary, but was willing to do harm to others
18 without asking questions. Also, Witcher was no challenge for Director Robert Taylor. Plaintiff
19 believes that Moddessette refused to participate in hunting down Plaintiff and Buckans right after
20 Buckans filed his whistleblowing complaint in August 2005 and that this also was one of the
21 reasons why he had to end his employment with the UC Davis Medical Center.
22
23 The December 2006-March 2007 “WITCH HUNT” Aimed At Plaintiff and William Buckans
24
130. On November 26, 2006, Stephen Chilcott sent an e-mail to William
25
Buckans entitled “Hostile Work Environment” and informed Buckans that he had concluded
26
investigation without any information about the findings. On December 4, 2006, just eight days
27
after Stephen Chilcott concluded his investigation, the especially assigned “witch hunter” from
28
15 Chilcott and other attackers. Even Plant Manager Dan James and Plant Superintendent Tom
16 Kavanaugh refrained themselves from attacking Plaintiff and Buckans during the orchestrated
17 Kangaroo Court pseudo-investigation conducted by assigned witch hunter Bettye Andreos from
18 the UCDMC Equal Opportunity Committee. The fabricated accusations were based on the
19 supposed statements taken from fraudulently hired employees, nicknamed the Jackson 5.
20 Plaintiff walked out of the second interview conducted by a appointed Communist “Stalin-type”
21 prosecutor and judge Bettye Andreos, who had no clue what she is doing but was instructed to
22 prosecute Plaintiff and Buckans and end their employment with UC Davis Medical Center.
23 Plaintiff expressed his feelings about Bettie Andresos’ interrogation skills very loudly on his way
24
out from the Pathology Building on February 27, 2007. Also, he expressed his view about this
25
investigation about physical threats toward William Buckans during a meeting with HR Labor
26
Relations Supervisor Mike Garcia.
27
The March 8, 2007 “Investigation Report
28
16 consistently uses hate and biased-based comments when engaged with co-
17 workers. There is no evidence that I was able to obtain that indicates Central
18 Plant management was assertive in addressing the issue of hate and biased-
22
135. As a result of reporting safety hazards and seven years of unlawful
23
massive machine oil discharge to the Sacramento River via city storm drain from the UC Davis
24
Medical Center Central Plant, on March 22, 2007, William Buckans received a Letter of
25
26 Expectation.
27 136. The Letter of Expectation Buckans received was made up out of the blue,
28 and the Letter of Suspension and Notice of Reassignment was the shorter version of the March 8,
15 Center .
16 139. For his successful mission in 2007 to remove Plaintiff from the Central Plant,
17 Chilcott was promoted to USCDHS HR labor relations supervisor; in 2008 Chilcott replaced
18 USDHS HR Labor Relation Manager Michael Sheesley and, at the end of 2009, Chilcott
26 The Retaliatory Unlawful Suspension and Reassignment to the UC Davis Medical Center
HVAC Shop
27
28
15 administration.
16 144. The scenario of attacking employees with this manifesto is simple. The
17 “accusation of racism, bigotry, violence”; then, Policy 1616 and Policy 380-15; then, the witch
18 hunt began with a witch hunter assigned by UC Davis administration executives . In charge of
19 In the event this intended action is taken, you will have the right to request
20 review of the action under Personnel Policies for Staff Members 70,
21 Complaint Resolution. If you wish to request review of the final action, you
22 must do so in writing as explained in the above policy, using the appropriate
23 complaint form. Your written request for review must be received in the
24
Employee & Labor Relations Office no later than 30 calendar days from the
25
date of the letter of suspension.”
26
147. Director Robert Taylor was one of the individuals who carry out
27
retaliation against Plaintiff and Buckans in December 2006 –March 2007. . On March 30, 2007,
28
7 The 2007 Complaint - Step I and Step II under the UC Davis Personnel Policies for
Staff Members PPSM 70,
8
10 148. The University of California Personnel Policies for Staff Members PPSM
11 70, Complaint Resolution, or Administrative Remedies are main subject in the Palmer v.
12 Regents of the University of California, 107 Cal.App.4th 899, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 567 (Cal.App.
13 Dist.2 04/08/2003) and Janet Campbell v. Regents of the University of California (Supra
14 S113275).
15 149. On April 19, 2007, Plaintiff filed Step I Complaint under PPSM 70 from
16 Witcher’s and Taylor’s decisions. Again, Director Robert Taylor was assigned as the Reviewer
17
for the Step I Complaint under PPSM 70 and denied Plaintiff’s Step I Complaint on May 10,
18
2007.
19
150. On April 20, 2007, after one month of administrative leave Plaintiff
20
reported himself to UCDMC Plumbing/HVAC Shop per Charles Witcher’s April 16, 2007,
21
Letter of Suspension and Notice of Reassignment. Plaintiff in HVAC shop was assign to monitor
22
and dispatch critical alarms on the day shift in UC Davis Medical Center via the computer
23
Metasys System. The Plumbing/HVAC shop Manager was Patrick Putney with Senior
24
Development Engineer and Shop supervisor was Dorin Daniliuc.
25
UCDMC Plant Operation & Maintenance Interim Manager Charles Witcher in his March 23,
26
27
2007
14
oppressive employment practices,*fn2 evaluations serve the important
18 vehicle for informing the employee of what management expects, how the
19 employee measures up, and what he or she needs to do to obtain wage
20 increases, promotions or other recognition. Thus, the primary recipient and
21 beneficiary of the communication is the employee.”
22
153. Plaintiff 2006/2007 Evaluation stated:
23
8
Jerry was very instrumental in the setup of the computer and office area for the
9
Building Automation Monitoring. He has shown a strong knowledge of
10
computer software and hardware. He has been able to solve many computer
11
problems and install software programs when needed.
12
13
His overall job performance is outstanding. He is always willing to accept
14
extra work and is very dependable.”
15
16
The Annual Employee Evaluation period in UC Davis is from July 1 to June 30 next year and
17
had three grade levels: “Exceeds Expectation,” “Meets Expectation,” “Does Not Meet
18
Expectation.” Meets Expectation it was what an employee gets because of pay raises related to
19
evaluations. Plaintiff also received his normal wage increase due to receiving “Meets
20
Expectation” annual review.
21
After several time extensions and unsuccessful attempts to mediate the conflict through the HR
22
Mediation Office, on August 31, 2007, Plaintiff submitted to HR a Labor Relation Step II Appeal
23
from Director Taylor I Step Decision HR Case No: 03-PPS-013-06107. According to the UC
24
PPSM 70-Step II Review by Complaint Resolution Officer, the Complaint Resolution Officer
25
26 must convene a Step II meeting within 20 calendar days of the appeal to Step II. According to
27 HR Labor Relation Supervisor Mike Garcia, HR had an enormous problem finding anyone to act
28 as Complaint Resolution Officer to conduct a Step II hearing, which was required to include an
4
154. On November 13, 2007, HR Labor Relation Supervisor Mike Garcia
5
assigned UCDMC Director Mike Boyd as Step II Compliant Resolution Officer (CRO) to hear
6
Plaintiff’s case of unlawful suspension and reassignment. Mike Garcia wrote in his letter to Mike
7
Boyd who was listed in FAC and SAC as an individual Defendant.
8
“The Office of Labor Relations received the enclosed complaint filed in
9
10
accordance with Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM), Complaint
11 Resolution 70 (CR 70). Jaroslaw Plaintiff’s complaint was reviewed at the Step
13 Taylor. Jaroslaw Plaintiff was not satisfied with the Step I Response and has
14 filed a timely appeal to Step II. “In accordance with CR 70 and UCD
15 Procedure 70.2, you have been appointed as the Complaint Resolution Officer
16 (CRO) for the Step II review of the above referenced matter. In accordance
17 with CR 70 and UCD Procedure 70.2, you have been appointed as the
18 Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO) for the Step II review of the above
19 referenced matter. As the CRO, you are charged with convening a Step Il
20
meeting. Please convene a Step II meeting on or before December 3, 2007.”
21
22 155. Mike Boyd in the period of 1998 to 2014 held the title of UC Davis
23 Medical Center Executive Director, Facilities Planning, Design and Construction. By his duty, he
24 was directly involved in construction of the Central Plant, commissioned in 1998. Director Boyd
25 is solely responsible, together with colleague UCDMC Director Robert Taylor, Director Shelton
26 Duruisseau PhD, UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Manager and Defendant
27 Charles Witcher, and UCDMC PO&M Principal Engineer Mike Lewis for unlawful—under state
28
21 money from contractors. Dennis Curry was Plaintiff’s superior from 2007 to 2012.
23 (Defendant in this case), who operated his private HVAC business and his church business on
24 university time, disclosed to Plaintiff that he was given his supervisor position in UCDMC
25 HVAC shop by UCDMC Director Robert Taylor and Director Shelton Duruisseau Ph .D in
26 exchange for installing and maintaining heating and air-conditioning equipment in their private
27 residences. It was reported to UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo in July
28
17 Connie Melendy, Assistant Vice Provost from the UC Davis Academic Personnel Offices
19 162. The coordinator on the UC Davis Medical Center site was the newly
20 promoted HR Labor Relation Manager and attorney at law listed defendant in FAC and SAC
15 of business and bring the revenue back, regardless of the fact that the UC Davis Central Plant
17 165. To prepare himself for the arbitration hearing, Plaintiff reviewed the
18 University of California and UC Davis policies and was trying to find the University of
19 California policy that could allow management to remove and reassign an employee to the
20 different shop against that employee’s will and as a disciplinary measure.
21 166. The Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) 62 Corrective Action
22 Policy had no such option.
23 167. Plaintiff found only the Principles of Reassignment for the UC Davis
24
Medical Center on the UC Davis Website, which had nothing to do with disciplining employees,
25
but forgot to present it during the arbitration.
26
168. Plaintiff submitted by e-mail the mentioned UCDMC Principles of
27
Reassignment to Hearing Officer Ms. Connie Melendy on November 9, 2008.
28
15 desires.”
16 171. The Step III –Arbitration decision did not leave any doubt for Plaintiff that the
17 assigned University Hearing Officer would rule against Plaintiff if Plaintiff had not, by pure luck,
18 found the UC Davis Principles of Reassignment and sent it to Ms. Connie Melendy after the
19 Arbitration hearing. UC Arbitrator had no choice but to rule against the University and order the
20 University to let Plaintiff return to the central plant. To justify her decision against the University
21 and in favor of Plaintiff, Ms. Melendy, on pages 9 and 10 of her decision, explained in detail the
22 UC Davis Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) 62. Corrective Action —
23 Professional and Support Staff. These policies were well known prior to the arbitration for
24
witch hunter Bettye Andreos, Charles Witcher, Director Shelton Duruisseau, Director
25
Robert Taylor and Director Steven Chilcott, who hunted down Plaintiff and his coworker
26
William Buckans, and caused Plaintiff enormous humiliation, stress, anxiety, fear of losing
27
his employment and financial loss.
28
16 “Jerry can be counted on to make the right operational decisions regarding the
17 plant, and to keep his supervisor informed of the operational status of the plant
19 success of the Medical Center.” (Performance reviews from 2000, 2001, 2003,
20 2004, 2005, 2006)
21 There are no comments regarding threatening behavior or inappropriate
22 language in any of the annual evaluations from the time of Mr. Waszczuk’s
23 first evaluation in 2000 and including the 2006 evaluation that was written
24
prior to the suspension and reassignment. The University presented no
25
evidence to show that there were verbal or written discussions or performance
26
appraisals intended to caution or warn Mr. Waszczuk about inappropriate
27
behavior prior to the October 2007 evaluation (University Exhibit 13), which is
28
10 The Settlement –Agreement with the Regents of the University of California, Signed in
February 2009
11
12
172. After prevailing in the arbitration process, Plaintiff did not go back to the Central
13
Plant where his position was already replaced and where a group of employees from the Jackson
14
area who were hired fraudulently were helping Directors Shelton Durrisuseau, Robert Taylor,
15
Mike Boyd, and Charles Witcher to hunt down Plaintiff and William Buckans, which did not
16
18 173. Further, UC Davis assigned arbitrator Connie Melendy; in her 2008 decision,
19 besides the slanderous and untrue accusation aimed at Plaintiff, she suggested and strongly advised
20 Plaintiff to consider very thoughtfully and seriously, whether the environment of the
21 HVAC/Plumbing Shop, with its current supervisor and colleagues, would be more conducive to
22 Plaintiff’s future success. Under the best of circumstances, it is difficult to return to a worksite
23 where there is “animosity,” as Connie Melendy described, instead referring to it as a hostile work
24 environment that caused later the suicide one of the Central Plant Operator Todd Goerlich .
25 In April 2007 Todd Goerlich was hired as a Plaintiff’s replacement.
26
174. Plaintiff seriously considered the Arbitrator, Connie Melendy’s, suggestions to stay
27
permanently in the HVAC shop and never expected that two and one-half years after Plaintiff
28
15 included $ 13, 500 one time extra pay Plaintiff received 2009 Settlement –Agreement) ; in 2010
16 it was $80,500 in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings of $70,000 ; in 2011—after the 2010
17 blackmail pay-raise of 12% (a six steps pay-up pay raise and an additional step in May 2011),
18 Chris Gangl’s annual earnings jumped to $100,000; in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings
19 of $ 63,300; in 2012, Gang’s earnings was $97,300 in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings
20 of 70,000;( the last year of Plainiff’s employment) in 2013, it was $98,700; and in 2014, it was
21 $104,000.
22 178. This was the reason why in March 2011, Plaintiff sent a letter to UC Davis Medical
23 Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher and asked respectfully
24
for Charles Witcher to increase Plaintiff’s base salary accordingly, in one step (not six steps )
25
from Middle Step of $71,640/year to the 3rd Step of $80,922/year.
26
179. Plaintiff had no intention to pursue his request if denied because of the Settlement-
27
Agreement, which stated that Plaintiff was to be provided wages of $70,000/year. It was an error
28
15 182. The other issue was that some Central Plant operators were hired 10 years after
16 Plaintiff was hired, and they received in December 2010 the 12% wage increase, and in May 2011,
17 the additional pay raise. Not one UC Davis skilled trade nonunion employee in December 2010
18 was dreaming to receive one penny in wage increase because of the strict budget constraint and
19 furlough of UC campuses. Some of employees were employed for more than 20 or 30 years and
20 were not considered for any wage increase in 2010.
21 183. Besides the $70.000.00 per year salary, Plaintiff received in the Settlement-
22 Agreement a small compensation in the amount of $13,500.00 for lost wages due to the witch hunt,
23 which resulted in suspension without pay and refinement in March 2007.
24
Shortly after Plaintiff signed the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement, the Regents of the
25
University of California UC Davis HR Assistant Director Dawn Capp, UC Davis attorney in
26
arbitration, lost her job. Most likely, Ms. Capp was fired or forced to quit a few months after
27
arbitration. The Hearing Officer, Ms. Connie Melendy, disappeared from the UC Davis landscape
28
6 185. At the time when Plaintiff signed the Settlement-Agreement, February 2009,
7 Plaintiff understood that the Defendant, if alleged of any violation of the Settlement-Agreement
8 by Plaintiff, would inform Plaintiff if Plaintiff had breached or violated the signed Settlement-
9 Agreement. Then, if Plaintiff disagreed, then the Defendant had the right to enforce the agreement
10 in a court of law. This was how Plaintiff understood this employee–employer contract. The
11 Defendant never alleged in one word anywhere that Plaintiff violated the signed Settlement-
12 Agreement, but freely slandered and defamed Plaintiff in at least six pseudo-investigation reports,
13 multi-investigatory leave letters, the April 2012 notice of intent to suspend without pay, the
14 September 2012 notice of intent to terminate Plaintiff’s employment, and the December 2012 letter
15
of employment termination.
16
The Working Environment In The UC Davis Medical Center Plumbing/HVAC
17
187. By title Associate Development Engineer title , Plaintiff basically became
18
Assistant for Plumbing/HVAC Shop Manager Patrick Putney who held the title of Senior
19
20
Development Engineer. Patrick Putney, who is also listed as the Defendant in this FAC and
21 SAC got very upset for reasons unknown to Plaintiff when he got news that Plaintiff settled the
22 case and became an exempt employee in his shop. Putney complained about to HR and started
23 pitting Shop Supervisor Dorin Daniliuc against Plaintiff .Daniliuc was given his supervisor job
24 in Plumbing job by Directors Robert Taylor and Shelton Durusseau in exchange for HVAC
25 service Daniluc provided to them in in their private residences by his private HVAC business
26 188. Everything settled down, and Plaintiff became very n isolated employee in
27 a small glass cage and was monitoring and dispatching UC Davis Medical Center critical alarms,
28
15 employees. Putney was trapping pigeons on the UCDMC roofs, bringing his kids to the shop for
16 babysitting and schooling, and selling soda from his private vending machine that he brought to
17 the shop.
18 Plaintiff later described his new working environment as a gypsy village in Eastern Europe,
19 which closely resembled the one portrayed by Sasha Cohen in the movie Borat.
20 190.. Dorin Daniliuc, who was and still is Patrick Putney’s assistant,
21 concentrated most of his attention on his private HVAC business, which he operated on company
22 time via cell phone; he would often disappear for most of the day with his business-equipped
23 van. Daniliuc was also bringing some foreign workers (Romanian nationals) to the shop to repair
24
his private vehicles. Daniliuc did not care much about what people thought about his unrelated
25
employment activities in the workplace. Daniliuc installed and maintained HVAC equipment for
26
two important UCDMC directors in their private residences, which apparently assured him of his
27
importance; his understanding was, “It’s nobody’s business what I am doing on company time.”
28
13
The December 2010 secret 12% Pay Increase for UCDMC Central Plant Operators,
14
192. Plaintiff’s employment with the UC Davis Medical Center would have
15
lasted longer, and most likely Plaintiff would retire from University at age of 66 without any
16
problems. In March 2011 Plaintiff was 60 years old and it was Plaintiff goal to retire from
17
18
University six years later. . It did not happen and Plaintiff’s employment was converted by the
20 193. In September 2010, one of the UCDMC Central Plant Operators, Jeff
21 Lancaster, discovered on the Sacramento Bee Webpage (Salary for Public Employees in
22 California) that Plaintiff’s 2009 annual salary was $82,295.00, not knowing that Plaintiff’s 2009
23 salary was a combination of Plaintiff’s $70,000.00 base salary and $13,500.00 extra pay per
24 February 2009 Settlement –Agreement for Plaintiff’s lost wages due to Plaintiff’s unlawful
25 reassignment from the Central Plant to the Plumbing/HVAC Shop in March 2007.
26 194. Jeff Lancaster was one of the few from the Central Plant who in
27 2005/2007 was used by UCDMC directors, Shelton Duruisseau, Robert Taylor, Mike Boyd and
28
15 and fried of the Central Plant manager Steve McGrath from his previous employment. A few
16 years back, Steve McGrath’s first wife committed suicide; now, his friend and former coworker
17 After the Todd Georlich suicide traumatized Central Plant Manager Steve McGrath tried
18 unsuccessfully to get a job in the UCDMC Carpenter shop and later in the HVAC shop.
19 198. Jeff Lancaster agitated another three individuals, Chris Gangl, Timothy
20 Cooper and Greg Russ to write and sign a petition and demanding a $4.00/hour pay raise,
21 pointing at Plaintiff’s salary and stating in the petition that Plaintiff was paid $15,000.00 more
22 per year than Central Plant Operators. Beside Plaintiff’s wages, these individuals were very
23 dissatisfied that their help and sacrifices for directors. Shelton Duruisseau, Robert Taylor and
24
Mike Boyd did not do and good because Plaintiff and Buckans was not fired from their jobs in
25
2005-2007 due to a witch hunt, They constantly bragged about and bullied and harassed William
26
Buckans after Plaintiff left the Central Plant in 2007.
27
199. Plaintiff received the copy of the undated black –mail petition signed by
28
15 conducted by the UC Davis Chancellor’s office related to massive machine oil discharge to the
17 202. However, Dennis Curry did not ignore Plaintiff’s discovery about the
18 blackmail pay increase petition and alerted Charles Witcher or Director Taylor a and the petition
19 for pay raise was rewritten and signed by 11 central Plant Operators .
20 203. The memo, letter, or petition, dated September 20, 2010, signed by 11
21 “Central Plant Operators” was addressed to CHARLES WITCHER, Manager of
22 PO&M,Department identified the subject matter as “…the monitoring of the Johnson Controls
23 Metasys Software program and dispatching of emergency and same day service calls to the Central
24 Plant during graveyard and weekend shifts.” In other words, the subject was the fact that the
25 Central Plant Operators covered shifts that Plaintiff did not work.
26 204. The memo, letter, or petition continued “…the Metasys and dispatching has
27 become a full time job to monitor and respond too (sic)...several years ago, we reached a point
28
16 207. The Central Plant Operation and the petition was just a black-mail
17 petition to get pay raise for something completely different than inability to operate the plant.
18 UCDMC Directors, Robert Taylor, Shelton Duruisseau Ph, D. Mike Boyd, Charles Witcher and
19 Stephen Chilcott did not have much choice. They bent to the petition demands and pay raise
20 most likely got approval from the UC Davis Chancellor’s office or the University of California
21 Office of the President due to the strict budget constraints and furlough on the campuses and the
budget crisis in the whole state, including State of California Courts.
22
23 208. The 12% pay raise for all Central Plant Operators was provided to all
24 Central Plant Operators. Some of them were hired a short time before the blackmail petition was
25 submitted, and it was unthinkable for anybody to get a 12% or six steps up pay raise as a non-
26 exempt union or non-union and even exempt University of California employee working only
27 for one or two years for University.
28
10 The Attorney Danesha Nichol’s Deployment From The UC Davis Campus to UC Davis
11 Medical Center Human Resources Department in October 2010
12
210. After Plaintiff’s conversation with Dennis Curry, UC Davis Health
13
System HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott (defendant) requested that the UC Davis
14
Chancellor’s office deployed .Danesha Nichols, the listed Defendant in FAC and SAC to UC
15
Davis Medical Center to monitor the situation with the pay raise demanded by blackmail petition
16
for the Central Plant Operators.
17
211. Danesha Nichols was the UC Davis HR attorney who in 2007/2008 was
18
involved in Plaintiff’s Step III Appeal arbitration process against UC Davis Medical Center
19 management, and she was very familiar with the crime that was committed in the Central Plant
20 in the period of time spanning from 1998 to 2009 and Nichols was familiar with Plaintiff’s file .
21 212. Danesha Nichols arrived at UC Davis Medical in October 2010 with the
22 title of Investigation Coordinator in similar circumstances as Stephen Chilcott in 2005 and she
23 reported directly to Director Stephen Chilcott.
24 213. As Plaintiff stated previously, the UC Davis Medical Center’s newly built
25 in 1998 Cogeneration Power Plant/Central Plant was a pride and legacy left behind for former
26
UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and Shelton Duruisseau Ph.D., who was appointed to
27
the Medical Board of California, Division of Medical Quality, by Governor Arnold
28
15
215. Mike Lewis was Project Manager for Central Plant construction, start-up, and
16
commissioning. Mr. Lewis was the person who, by his title, position, and duty, was most responsible;
17
“he was obligated” to stop machine oil discharge from the leaking Cooling Tower gear boxes from
18
dispensing into the river and soil to prevent contamination of the natural environment. Mike Lewis, as
19
Principal Engineer, grossly neglected his duty and did not take any preventive measure to stop the oil
20
leak and discharge into the natural environment. Mike Lewis had no problem noticing William
21
Buckans’s feet elevated on the console and viewed it as disrespectful to him but was completely
22
23
unable to notice William Buckan’s accident underneath the cooling tower’s oily surface. Mike Lewis
24 also did not observe—for 7 years—the badly designed cooling tower gear boxes and unlawful massive
25 machine oil discharge into the nearby river and soil surrounding the cooling tower. Apparently, he was
26 ordered to do nothing about by Director Taylor or Director Shelton Duruisseau Ph.D or Director
27 Boyd.
28
2
216. Five days after the Principal Engineer Mike Lewis issued his dramatic
3
memo about the incoming investigation to find perpetrator Central Plant Operator, Todd
4
Goerlich committed suicide. Then, the rest of the Central Plant Operators received a 12% pay
5
raise despite strict UC budget constraints and furlough in UC Campuses and no power sale
6
contract . Thereafter, everything got quiet. Nobody was questioned by an HR investigator or the
7
UC Davis Police Department about locker burglary. No more comments were made by any
8
Central Plant supervisors about Jeff Lancaster’s burglarized locker, no more dramatic memos
9
from the Principal were issued and Todd Georlich’s tragic death was quickly forgotten.
10
11
The Secret 12 % Pay Raise For Central Plant Operators –March 2011
12
13 217. Around March 5, 2011, Plaintiff somehow got into a conversation with
14 the operator from the central plant William Buckans about the December 2010 12% pay raise,
15 and Plaintiff received from Buckans a copy of the UCDMC Plant Operation and the letter from
16 maintenance manager Charles Witcher dated December 20, 2010, which confirmed a 12% pay
17 raise for the central plant operators.
18 218. The December 2010 12% pay raise that was secretly provided to central
19
plant operators was discriminatory to other non-union employees of the UC Davis Medical
20
Center who did not get one penny in wage increase in the last three years due to strict budget
21
constraints in the whole University of California system. The disclosure about the secret pay
22
raise for small groups of employees became a subject of discussion among workers at the other
23
shops in the UC Davis Medical Center. Plaintiff confronted his shop manager Patrick Putney and
24
Plaintiff asked Putney why the HVAC shop staff did not get a pay raise. Putney’s response was
25
that he knew about the pay raise, but was told to be silent about it to avoid any turmoil among
26
the other shops’ workers. Following the discussion with Patrick Putney, Plaintiff wrote an eight-
27
page letter to the department manager about the central plant operators’ December 2010 pay
28
4
The Restricted Access to the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant
5 in March 2011
6
219. Consequently, right after Plaintiff asked his supervisors about the secret
7 12% pay raise for the Central Plant Operators, Department Principal Engineer Mike Lewis
8 issued a memo dated March 11, 2011, instructing Central Plant crew to do the following:
9
10 “Please inform all Central-Plant personnel that access to the Central Plant is
12 University. All operators not on duty and other personnel with no direct reason
13 to be in the Central Plant shall not be granted access to the Central Plant. If
14 illegal access is gained to the Central Plant please call 4-2555 for a non-
15 emergency event or 911 for an emergency.
16 “If an employee not on duty or other individuals with no direct need to gain
17 access to the Central Plant request access to the Central Plant please contact
18 Charles Witcher, Mike Lewis, or Dennis Curry for direction. Thank you.”
19
That was a shocking memo. Never before had access to the Central Plant been restricted for off-
20
shift personnel.
21
The March 13, 2011, Plaintiff letter addressed to UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance
22
Manager Charles Witcher
23
24
25
220. A few days after Mike Lewis issued the memo about access to the Central
26 Plant, Plaintiff on March 14, 2011, sent a letter to Charles Witcher and asked him respectfully
27 for a one-step salary increase; Plaintiff also brought to Witcher’s attention safety and hygiene
28
20 It is appears that Cogen Operators wages under Title Code 8094 for Non —
21 Represented were increased from level 5. to level 11.0. (Six levels up)
22
I would not write this letter but money talk and stirring people mind and saying
23
more simply I just feel discriminated in this share of goods.
24
At the best of my ability to write, I will try to explain why I feel discriminated
25
and left behind like an orphan in abandoned orphanage.
26
27
28
8 vacation absence the Metasys Operation is still unresolved issue for somebody
9 inside the department and he is trying to fix something that is not broken.
10
My other thought was that Central Plant Operators submitted complaint and
11
they are asking to remove the Metasys Operation from the Central Plant
12
Shortly after, in September 2010, I received by copy of the undated but signed
13
petition by four Central Plant operators in regards to Metasys Operation
14
15 After I read the petition and attached to the petition the wages disclosure
16 printed from the Sacramento Bee website, the first my thought was that the
17 petition is a follow up to their earlier complaint which I thought they submitted
18 in August during my vacation absence. The petition itself alleged that Metasys
19
System operation has became full time job to monitor and it was my
20
understanding from the petition that the $ 4.00 /hour wage increase for them
21
would magically convert the full time Metasys Operation job to relaxing
22
leisure in nice resort.
23
24
Furthermore , the individuals who signed the petition alleging (without
27 On top of this, petitioners are raising issue of three managers for twelve person
28
10 I did not want to engage myself in any conflict or discussion with these
11 individuals who are attacking my wages and my duty and I did pass the copy
12 of the petition to Mr. Dennis Curry.
13
Thereafter I forgot about it and concluded this event as a "NEVER ENDING
14
TRAUMA IN THE CENTRAL PLANT " taking in consideration that the same
15
group of individuals viciously and recklessly attacked me and other people in
16
the past, caused me enormous stress, suspension, my departure from the
17
Central Plant and loss of thousands of dollars in my earning"
18
19 At the end of December 2010 I got e-mail from William about his pay raise
20 and I thought that he is joking and I wrote him back that I got five thousand
21 dollars raise, than he sent me congratulation etc. I did not believe him in spite
22 of State financial crisis, furlough, budget constraints and UC President memos
23 about the cuts and possibility of big lay off in IJC system. Basically, I ignored
24
William information and was no further discussion about the pay raise in the
25
Central Plant.
26
The other subject in December 2010 in discussion was the tragic death of the
27
Central Plant employee who took his own life. Just day or two before it
28
10 Lancaster burglarized locker and supposedly stolen photos from the Jeff's
20 action.All lockers will have their locks replaced with new and the master file
22 or how they will be notified.In light of the professional attitude and excellent
24 If whoever was responsible for this would put the same effort into being a team
25 player and working with others on the Central Plant staff, the work
26 environment in the Central Plant could be that much better.In my entire career
27 that consists of work at facilities both in the United States and abroad I have
28
20
mention again his raise and again I thought that he is trying to "pull my legs"
21 and is joking. and in light of budget cuts e.tc I did not believe what is William
22 telling me until he sent me copy of your memo which stated that he got the pay
23 raise.
15 I wrote the introduction and I summarized the latest events in the Central in
17 The petitioners have the right to say in the petition whatever they want about
18 my job but I know how to operate the Central Plant and could go and do it if
4 Beside the Metasys Alarms I am doing other stuff requested by Patrick Putney
5
and I have well documented what I am doing beside the Metasys Operation.
6
Some days I am very busy and "dizzy" from the alarms but I don't have any
7
major problem to handle the job.
8
I don't take brakes with exception to lunch and I would like to have both
9
brakes integrated into lunch and take one hour lunch instead of two 15 minutes
10
brakes and 1/2 hour lunch. This would allow me to leave the shop to eat lunch
11
outside in cafeteria or walk around the campus to relax and get my blood
12
circulation normal
13
In conclusion I am respectfully asking and I would appreciate if my salary will
14
15 accordingly to next level under Title Code 7182 for Non —Represented
17 Sincerely
18 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
19
20 221. Plaintiff learned that prior to Todd Goerlich’s suicide, Goerlich frequently
21 complained to his friend Dereck Cole and his girlfriend that he had been harassed and bullied in
22 the Central Plant “by a person named Jeff.” That corresponds with William Buckans’s
23 observation how badly Todd Goerlich disliked Jeff Lancaster and, in particular, how different
24
and unapproachable Todd became when he worked a shift with Jeff Lancaster.
25
Dereck Cole was a newly hired HVAC Technician in a shop where Plaintiff worked. Cole was
26
hired just one month after Todd Georlich committed suicide, and Todd Georlich was the person
27
who provided the recommendation for Dereck Cole to be hired as an HVAC Technician by UC
28
15 223. The news about the pay raise got around, and in fear of turmoil, the UC
16 Davis Chancellor’s Office or UC Office of the President ordered a 2% pay raise to all UC Davis
17 Medical Center non-union employees, including to Central Plant Operators who had already
18 received a 12% pay raise. Normally, employees would receive a pay raise on July 1st if it were
19 approved after the Annual Performance Review to be given to employees for the 2010/2011
20 year. Plaintiff received the pay raise in May 2011 as well, and his salary increased from
21 $70,000.00 to $71,600 per year.
22 The April 2011 Retaliation
23 224. Instead of any response to my letter from Charles Witcher in April 2011,
24
Plaintiff’s manager, Patrick Putney, blatantly blamed him for missing and not dispatching a
25
hospital refrigerator critical alarm that resulted in a complaint against him by the hospital
26
pharmacy personnel. In a heated discussion, Putney humiliated Plaintiff in front of his teenage
27
daughter, whom he had brought to the shop on that day. Plaintiff told Putney that he didn’t miss
28
15 be perfect with these false alarms and not to miss the real one. Missing critical alarms and not
16 dispatching it could lead to enormous losses or even patient death in UC Davis Medical Center
17 Hospital.
19 critical alarm appeared to be a result of his and his assistant Dorin Daniliuc’s negligence to repair
20 the relevant refrigerator. After the alarm and complaint, it was discovered that the refrigerator was
21 due for repair, had an open work order, and the repair was not done. When Plaintiff proved that it
22 was their fault and that they had neglected their duty, they began to disrespect Plaintiff, showing
23 hostility towards Plaintiff; Plaintiff became the subject of vicious attacks, including and not limited
24
to stalking, intimidation, sabotaging Plaintiff’s job, provocations for physical confrontation and
25
unfounded accusations from these two individuals of being violent.
26
227. In May and June 2011, Patrick Putney turned off the lights in his office and
27
positioned himself in the chair toward Plaintiff and stalked Plaintiff for hours every day. Once in
28
15 suspended for a missing refrigerator alarm without pay. Plaintiff’s intervention in the case, and
16 proof that it not was not Tunello’s fault, reversed Dennis Curry’s conviction.
17 229. The behavior and vicious attacks of Patrick Putney, Dorin Daniluc, Dennis
18 Curry and Charles Witcher aimed at Plaintiff in March, April, May, June and July of 2011
12 May 2011
13
232. In May 2011, Plaintiff held two separate meetings with Department Head ,
14
Charles Witcher, to clarify the issue with the missing refrigerator alarm, to discuss the unusual and
15
psychotic behavior of Patrick Putney toward me, which was not limited to stalking Plaintiff from
16
17 his dark office, suddenly opening his dark office door from the inside and screaming “What are
18 you doing?” Thereafter, within minutes Dennis Curry showing up in the shop and talking to
19 Plaintiff like Plaintiff did something wrong, they both laughed in Patrick Putney’s Office. .
20 233. In May 2011 Patrick Putney held meetings with the crew and in a
21 threatening manner told everybody how good he is at firing people from the job if they not behave
22 up to his standards. One of the new shop employees, Dereck Cole, became so frightened that he
23 asked Putney if he was aiming his threats at him. One year later, Dereck Cole became another
24 victim of Patrick’s Putney, Dennis Curry, and Charles Witcher’s schemes and yet another
25 candidate to look for new employment. He was unspeakably victimized and asked me to represent
26
him with his complaints against Patrick Putney and Charles Witcher. Another Patrick Putney
27
victim is 72-year-old HVAC technician Richard Pawlaczyk. The Richard Pawlaczyk’s case was
28
15 appear that this will be the case. Patrick is still working very hard to get on my
18 humiliated and ridiculed me in front of his teenage stepdaughter. His kids often
19 stay in his office and do their school homework there. I have never had
20 anything against his bringing his kids to work, but in the situation of the heated
21 argument, he went overboard. After the incident, we returned to work on
22 Monday, and I tried to smooth out everything. I even offered him breakfast,
23 but my attempt to make peace with him did not work, and the situation still
24
does not look good.
25
Shortly afterward, Patrick in a retaliatory manner requested that I find all of the
26
"unreliable alarms" in the Metasys . Without discussion, I found these unreliable
27
alarms for him. It took me almost a week to complete the task, after which Patrick
28
15 He clearly intended to intimidate me, speaking the following words: "Do you
16 understand what this policy is for?" I thanked him the next day for providing
17 me with the Metasys policy three years after I had joined the HVAC shop and
19 decided to provide him with the link to the UC Davis Medical Center
20 (UCDMC) Parking and Transportation Services Office and to advise him to
21 pay for his parking permit. For the past three years, he had parked for free on
22 the UCDMC premises by hiding his car inside the shop and playing a little
23 "catch me if you can” game with the parking cops. On top of this, I decided to
24
make this comment to him "What kind of managerial example is he setting for
25
his crew by showing that it is okay to cheat and steal from the employer while
26
at the same time having the ambition to became assistant PO&M [plant
27
operation and maintenance] manager after Dennis Curry retires?”
28
15 almost two years using Putney’s name and password, which was, of course, a
17 The previous incident and today's incident show clearly that Patrick has no
18 remorse about hunting me down. From my perspective, I do not have a choice but
15 236. Plaintiff thought that the 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed
16 with the Defendant, the Regents of the University of California, would protect Plaintiff from the
18 237.. The March 13, 2011, letter from Plaintiff to UC Davis Medical Center
19 Plant Operation and Maintenance Department (PO&M) Manager Charles Witcher raised red
20 flags, and the PO&M Department Management received an order from above that Plaintiff had
21 to be cut off from any source of detailed information provided to him by the Metasys Monitoring
22 System about the Central Plant and be removed from the premises at any means. The UC Davis
23 Medical Center PO&M Department Manager was the one of four UC Davis employees who
24
signed the 2009 Settlement –Agreement and Witcher was perfectly aware that unwarranted
25
attack against Plaintiff violates the signed Settlement –Agreement
26
June 2011
27
28 238. Due to continuous harassment and sabotaging the Plaintiff’s job, the
15 July 2011
16
240. On July 8, 2011, Plaintiff held a meeting with HR Labor Relation
17
Consultant Gina Harwood about the harassment and retaliation Plaintiff was experiencing. During
18
the meeting, Harwood deliberately failed to disclose the fact that the false and fabricated complaint
19
was filed by Plaintiff’s two supervisors, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc. A few days later,
20
Plaintiff was officially informed that the complaint has been filed against him and that an HR
21
investigator had been assigned to investigate the allegation. The assigned HR Investigator was HR
22
attorney Danesha Nichols, who was deployed from the UC Davis campus to UC Davis Medical
23
Center in October 2010 after Central Plant Operators submitted a black mail petition for pay raise.
24
241. Danesha Nichols was very familiar with the previous attack against Plaintiff
25
26 in 2006/2007 due to her involvement in Plaintiff’s arbitration process against the Defendant in
27 2008, which resulted in Plaintiff’s February 2009 Settlement-Agreement with the UC Regents.
28 Nichols aggressively and as soon as possible tried to schedule an interrogation meeting with
15 Compliance Director, Wendy Delemendo, contacted Plaintiff and tried to convince Plaintiff to
16 file the complaint under the UC Whistle Blowing Policy. Plaintiff refused due to his and his
17 coworker’s experience in 2006/2007 when he helped his coworker William Buckans with the
18 Whistle Blowing case related to massive machine oil discharge via a storm drain to the Sacramento
19 River.
20 244. On July 29, 2011, Plaintiff responded to Delmendo’s whistleblowing
21 complaint invitation by letter with many questions about HVAC shop supervisor Dorin Daniliuc’s
22 relationship with two UC Davis Medical Center directors, Robert Taylor and Shelton Duruisseau
23 The Daniliuc’ relation with these two directors was to provide them HVAC services in their
24
private residences in exchange for Daniluc’s supervisory position in the HVAC shop. The
25
questions were never answered by UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo or any
26
of five investigation reports written by Danesha Nichols in December 2011 and February 2012.
27
245. Plaintiff also asked Executive Director Mike Boyd, who is a listed
28
15 order and was not allowed access to any computer with Internet. He should not have been
17 248. This individual was a frequent guest in the HVAC shop, and his presence
18 was tolerated by Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc because Bill Rabidaux had a special
16 251. Only Stephen Chilcott as the HR Executive Director had the power to
17 order not to provide Plaintiff with his annual evaluation and deprive him of administrative
19 252.. In July and August 2011, UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director
20 Stephen Chilcott, in conspiracy with Director Michael Boyd and HR Workers Compensation
21 Manager Hugh Parker (Chilcott’s subordinate), made an attempt to remove Plaintiff from the
22 premises through the false and fraudulent Workers Compensation Claim. Plaintiff refused to file
23 a false claim, but a claim was filed on Plaintiff’s behalf anyway.
24
253. It is possible that UCDMC HR Workers’ Compensation Manager Hugh
25
Parker forged Plaintiff’s signature and filed the Workers’ Compensation claim on Plaintiff’s behalf,
26
taking into consideration that on May 31, 2012, Hugh Parker coordinated ill-minded but
27
unsuccessful provocation to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in UCDMC Trauma Unit #11 by
28
15 my office for a one-hour lunch. This was a trigger point for my decision to
16 ask my doctor for a medical leave. The person who apparently fried my
17 hard drive with higher voltage knew what he was doing and how to do it. I
18 did not find any external physical damage to my hard drive but, after I
19 removed the cover, I found that the circuit board and motor had been
20 burned.
21 I am almost certain of who and why it was done, but I did not catch anybody by
22 hand. Therefore, I can only write and whine about this event. I did not take any
23 chances by remaining in my office any longer and getting electrocuted like my HD.”
24
255. It happened after over three months of nonstop attacks against Plaintiff including,
25
and not limited to, stalking and sabotaging Plaintiff’s job as orchestrated by the UC Davis Health
26
System HR department, the UC Davis chief counsel, and the UC Davis chief compliance office
27
28
7 August 2011
8
257. In July 2011, Plaintiff asked many times and begged for the harassment to stop, as
9
well as the sabotaging of Plaintiff’s duties and job, so as not to escalate the conflict. Plaintiff’s
10
appeals did not work, and Plaintiff had to evacuate himself from the job site due to enormous
11
emotional distress caused by PO&M, the HR department management, and HR investigators.
12
Plaintiff’s physician placed Plaintiff on work-related stress sick leave until September 1, 2011. By
13
going on work-related stress sick leave, Plaintiff was hoping that, during his absence from work,
14
everything would settle down and Plaintiff would be able to continue his employment. Plaintiff
15
was also hoping that the UCDM HR assigned investigator, Attorney Danesha Nichols, would
16
17 interview all Plaintiff’s coworkers from the shop and would clarify the issues of the false and
18 fabricated accusations against Plaintiff. Plaintiff forgot or did not know in August 2011 that
19 Danesha Nichols was involved in the previous Plaintiff’s case together with Stephen Chilcott and
20 that Danesha Nichols was deployed in October 2010 to UC Davis Medical Center to monitor the
21 situation with the black –mail pay raise for the central plant operators.
22 258. Plaintiff’s coworker, Kenny Diede, was slandered and defaced on his annual
23 evaluation by Patrick Putney for reporting a twice-convicted child pornography felon for
24 accessing company computers. Later on, Plaintiff represented Kenny Diede in his complaints
25 pursuant to UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70 and Whistleblowing Retaliation
26
Policy to keep his job with UC Davis Medical Center.
27
259. The August 2, 2011 was Plaintiff’s last physical presence and last working
28
15 262. Plaintiff became very upset, stressed, and angry that could not go back to
16 work. Plaintiff got feeling that he would never get his job back, knowing that it was already
17 awarded to Bill Rabidaux, the father of the twice-convicted child pornography felon. Bill
18 Rabidoux should be punished, together with shop supervisors, for his participation in covering up
19 the parole violation of his sick-minded relative, instead of having the job granted to Plaintiff by
20 the Settlement-Agreement with the UC Regents. Also, Plaintiff would like to mention that when
21 Plaintiff was leaving the shop on August 2, 2011, Plaintiff had not had any problems with any of
22 his coworkers throughout the course of Plaintiff’s employment in the HVAC shop for four years.
23
24 September 2011
25
263. The UC Davis Medical Center PO&M Department Manager Charles
26
Witcher’s letter, dated August 31, 2011, placing Plaintiff on investigatory leave was an
27
unsuccessful attempt to force Plaintiff to quit his job or to participate in the investigation against
28
15 Nichols’s report that was issued as a cause to terminate Plaintiff on September 23, 2011, was
16 destroyed and was not available to Plaintiff to obtain from Nichols. Nichols most likely lied to
17 Public Record Act personnel because Nichols provided the copy of the Report to HR Workers
18 Compensation Office Manager Hugh Parker who was coordinator in May 2012 to end Plaintiff’s
16 I am not your and Mr. Chillcot’s hostage and you both have to end this hostage
11
270. Plaintiff was so stressed out and already was using antidepressant and
12
nitroglycerine, and escalation of the conflict by Defendant forced Plaintiff to seek a doctor and
13
psychologist’s help to cope with the enormous emotional stress and anxiety in relation to
14
15 employment situation.
16 272. On September 22, 2011, Plaintiff’s physician placed Plaintiff on the work
19 former Central Plant coworker William Buckans that Bill Rabidaux (father of the child porn
20 felon who was accessing UCDMC computers in the HVAC shop) announced to others that
21 Plaintiff was fired from job and that
22 274. Plaintiff was not going back and anticipated that this was going to happen.
23 Apparently, Plaintiff physician who placed Plaintiff on stress-related sick leave stopped the
24
execution. Plaintiff did not think that Bill Roubideaux lied or made up that my employment
25
termination took place. The Roubideaux’s special relationship with Dennis Curry and Patrick
26
Putney made Plaintiff believed that Dennis Curry or Patrick Putney leaked the information about
27
Plaintiff’s employment termination before the termination letter was sent to Plaintiff .
28
15 stop the constant assault, harassment and vicious vendetta against me for last
26
278. On October 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the State Bar of
27
California against UC Davis Medical Center’s two Human Resources Department Attorneys,
28
7 Witcher, and others, Plaintiff thought that maybe someone had filed the false complaint with the
8 UC Davis Police Department and accused me of violence and discrimination and other crimes
10 280. To clear this issue, on October 6, Plaintiff asked UC Davis Police Cpt.
11 Joyce Souza from the Professional Standard Unit to search my Police Record and check if any
12 record with my name was there.
13 Plaintiff, in his eight-page e-mail entitled “Request for Information in regards to the
14 unfounded accusation against me from UCDMC HR Attorneys and other individuals,”
15
pasted multiple examples of the despicable, unfounded, and defacing Plaintiff accusations. .
16
In his e-mail to UC Davis Police Cpt. Joy Souza with cc. to UC Davis Police Lt. John Pike (the
17
same Lt. John Pike who was pepper spraying protesting students on November 18, 2011 on the
18
UC Davis Campus).
19
281. Plaintiff wrote to Cpt. Joyce Souza on October 5, 2011 in his eight pages
20
e-mail letter:
21
“Dear Captain Souza:
22
I have been working for 12 years in the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
23
Operation and Maintenance, Sacramento Department. In last few months I
24
15 response, wrote:
19 283. Plaintiff noticed that Captain Joyce Souza cc’d her e-mail response to her
20 superior, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza, and UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer
21 Wendy Delmendo, who assigned, in July 2011, UC Davis attorney Danesha Nichols to conduct a
10 did not pay much attention to Mr. Dark’s proposition because his job in the HVAC shop as
11 Assistant Development Engineer fit Plaintiff perfectly and Plaintiff had no restrictions or
12 limitations to do the job with Plaintiff’s health and condition, with the exception of the stalking
13 and harassing by Plaintiff’s supervisors who made his life miserable and work conditions
14 intolerable.
15 286. On October 10, 2011, the UC Davis Medical Center HR investigator and attorney
16 Danesha Nichols sent to HVAC shop employee Kenneth Diede a threating and intimidating e-mail
17 message. Kenneth Diede was the employee who in July 2011 was reported to be a twice-convicted
18 child pornography felon on parole who had illegally accessed the HVAC shop computer and was
19
prohibited by court order to have or touch any commuter, especially one with Internet. Danesha
20
Nichols covered up the child porn criminal activities issue in her pseudo-investigation reports.
21
287. On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant with
22
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for Harassment, Retaliation, and ongoing
23
conspiracy against Plaintiff in the University of California Davis Medical Center.
24
288. On October 25, 2011, Plaintiff sent a request to the UC Davis Public
25
record Act office and requested documents related to the UCDMC CENTRAL PLANT - JEFF
26
LANCASTER'S BURGALIZED LOCKER ON DECEMBER 17, 2010 AND PAY RAISE FOR
27
UCDMC CENTRAL PLANT OPERATORS ON DECEMBER 20, 2010.
28
16
the organization and operation of the campus. With the investigation by Ms.
27 letter
28 “Christopher Simon
16 my record and it would be difficult not to mention again what did happen .
18 send the
17 another psychopath supervisor like Patrick Putney who victimized not only
19 My Psychologist Dr. Bernhoft wrote on the form for Liberty Mutual Insurance
20 Company: “Stress issues are due not to being back to work " and " Client
21 should be allowed to return to work ASAP" (attached)
22 If UC won't let me go back to work as soon as possible than I respectfully
23 requesting answer ASAP what is the other option because I don't know. I have
24
to pay my bills and mortgage and FMLA protection ends after 90 days . I don't
25
need additional stress and more pills with my health condition.
26
I appreciate your prompt response in this matter and I am awaiting for
27
resolution to end this employer hostility against me .
28
9
291. In November 2011, Plaintiff spent most of his time dealing with the
10 Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, which deprived Plaintiff of legitimate short-term
11 disability benefits. After Plaintiff used all his sick leave days and vacation days, Plaintiff was
12 basically left without income. The FMLA 90-day protection also ran out. UCDMC HR Labor
13 Relations Consultant Gina Harwood, for reasons unknown to Plaintiff, on November 14, 2011,
14 offered to Plaintiff an additional 12 weeks of supplemental FMLA time protection, which
15 Plaintiff declined. The short-term disability benefits had been denied to Plaintiff, so it was
16 nonsense to accept the FMLA protection extension to stay employed without the income.
17 292. In the response letter, dated November 23, 2011, to Gina Harwood,
18
Plaintiff wrote:
19
“At this point, I am not considering to file for an extension of my
20
medical leave under the Supplemental FMLA University Policy 2.210.
21
I am under enormous stress and pressure, and I have had enough. I was left
22
without a paycheck, so an extension of medical leave won’t help with at all.
23
The Settlement-Agreement I signed with the UC Regents in 2009 and my civil
24
rights were grossly violated by the University of California.
25
Contacting the benefits office regarding my current situation to discuss the
26
effect of my health and welfare benefits makes no sense to me.
27
28
The University is fully responsible and legally liable for my current health
15 Carmichael; fire from the job Lt. John Pike, who was ordered and used to casually and very visibly pepper
16 spray students; and force to retire UC Davis Captain Joyce Souza. Just after the premediated pepper spray
17 attack, Lt. Matt Carmichael, who on November 18, 2011, was in the UC Davis Medical Center, instantly,
18 as most likely planned, was assigned as the interim UC Davis chief of police. In May 2012, the new UC
19 Davis chief of police participated with Lt. James Barbour in the operation to provoke and kill or end
20 Plaintiff’s employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11.
21
295. On November 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the State of California
22
23
Department of Insurance against the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston for denying to
24 Plaintiff short-term disability benefits. The Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, without
25 conducting any reasonable investigation concerning its obligations under the contract,
26 breached its contract, without good or sufficient cause, for reasons extraneous to the contract
27 and for the purpose of frustrating Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the benefits of the contract.
28
16 anniversary of the student massacre at Athens Polytechnic by the Greek fascist military junta that
17 killed 25 people and injured over 1,000. In 1973, Linda Katehi was a student at Athens
18 Polytechnic.
19 298. A few days later, on November 23, 2011, UC Davis Vice Chancellor Claire
20 Pomeroy, who was in charge of UC Davis Medical Center School of Medicine, cried out in her e-mail
21 how the community was deeply shaken and disturbed by the pepper spraying of protesting students:
22
“Our university community is shaken by the deeply disturbing images we have
23
seen over the past few days. The video of the police action against peaceful
24
students stands in stark contrast to our deeply held commitments to freedom of
25
expression and to our UC Davis principles of community”
26
27 299. Plaintiff responded to Vice Chancellor Pomeroy’s outcry with the following words:
28
3 Can you do something about the National Socialism doctrine oriented and
4 entirely corrupted management in the UC Davis Medical Center, Plant
5 Operation and Maintenance and Human Resources Departments? The
6
Principles of Community does not exist in UCDMC and it is the empty slogan.
7
Your commitment to freedom of expression is also empty slogan as well. You
8
and others are receiving my letters for quite long and you and others don’t care
9
what the “UCDMC Gestapo” doing to me and how systematically is
10
destroying my and others livelihood and life. I am sending a few letters again
11
to you with hope that I will be heartened to see Ms. Pomeroy will order to
12
conduct a true investigation against the corrupted individuals in both
13
departments and restore a normal work environment in the UCDMC PO&M
14
Department.
15
16
Best regards and good luck with your commitment to freedom of expression.
17 JerryWaszczuk
19
300. Shortly after Plaintiff sent his message to Vice Chancellor Pomeroy cc’d to many
20
other University of California decision makers, Vice Chancellor Pomeroy was forced to resign due to
21
illegal medical experiments conducted under Pomeroy’s supervision for years by two UC Davis Medical
22
Center Dutch neurosurgeons, Dr. J. Paul Muizelaar and Dr. Rudolph J. Schrot, which caused
23 several patients’ deaths. So far, Plaintiff, with his words about the UC Davis Medical Center
24 National Socialism doctrine, was taking into consideration inhumane, illegal medical
25 experiments on humans in the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz conducted on camp inmates
26 by the notorious Dr. Joseph Mengele.
27 301. On November 23, 2011, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
28
6 in his emails. Mr. Witcher also added a threat about the dismissal of Plaintiff’s employment if he
7 continued to communicate with others about the investigation and about hunting Plaintiff down.
8 Plaintiff responded to Mr. Witcher’s accusations and his denial of Plaintiff’s e-mail access with a
10 reference to his previous UCDMC managers’ statements from the Central Plant. One manager
11 threatened Plaintiff with the words, “Somebody give this Pollack a bad evaluation and fire
12 him,” and another, in anger, was threatening Plaintiff that he would “Send the Gestapo on my
13 ass.”
14 303. Apparently, the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and
15
Maintenance Department Manager Charles Witcher; his superior, Director Mike Boyd; and HR
16
Executive Director Stephen Chilcott forgot that Charles Witcher signed a February 2009
17
Settlement-Agreement with Plaintiff on behalf of the regents of the University of California, and
18
if Charles Witcher felt that Plaintiff violated any paragraph of the Settlement-Agreement, then
19
Charles Witcher was to inform the UC Davis Medical Center Legal Department and UC Davis
20
Chief Counsel Steven Drown, who also signed the Settlement-Agreement, to enforce the signed
21
Settlement-Agreement according to California law without threatening, humiliating, harassing
22
and discriminating against Plaintiff.
23
304. The conclusion of this chapter is that the Defendant with Liberty
24
25 Assurance Company of Boston, by their malicious conspiracy against Plaintiff, left Plaintiff
26 without any source of income, which they thought would be a very convincing argument to make
27 Plaintiff quit his job. When it was done, UC Davis Medical Center HR Benefits Manager John
28 Peklar contacted Plaintiff by phone and was trying to convince Plaintiff to make an appointment
6 305. In December 2011, Defendant again forgot that in February 2009 they
8 agreed to employ Plaintiff indefinitely. The agreement was to be enforced by the California
9 Court according to the state of California’s laws if violated by any party which signed the
10 settlement- agreement.
11 306. On December 5, 2011, Plaintiff’s superior Charles Witcher, to Plaintiff’s
12 disbelief, sent to Plaintiff another threatening letter during Plaintiff’s sick leave due to work-
13 related stress, in which Witcher ordered Plaintiff to go to an investigatory interview with
14 Danesha Nichols on December 12, 2011. Four years after this, Plaintiff is still in disbelief that it
15
actually happened, but taking into consideration that Plaintiff’s employment almost ended in UC
16
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11 due to an unsuccessful provocation crafted by the same
17
management on May 30, 2012, then anything is possible at University of California.
18
307. To add another example, if one of workers for whom Plaintiff was
19
providing representation can be despicably attacked by the same UC Davis management during
20
his mother’s funeral, then employment at UC Davis Medical Center is full of surprises.
21
308. Plaintiff ignored Charles Witcher’s letter and his irresponsible threats to
22
dismiss Plaintiff from his employment during his stress-related sick leave. Removing Plaintiff
23
from sick leave unconditionally without Plaintiff’s physician’s permission and place Plaintiff on
24
26 309. Plaintiff was without income; the situation could not get any worse, and
27 Witcher’s threating letter was nothing else but ill-minded harassment and an attempt to
28 intimidate Plaintiff and to make Plaintiff to quit his job voluntarily and wave his legal rights
15 313. Besides the above, Plaintiff informed Gina Harwood that Plaintiff was
16 willing to have a meeting with HR Investigator Danesha Nichols if she was willing to meet
17 Plaintiff on the same day that Plaintiff would be retrieving his personal file and his belongings
18 from his office. Gina Harwood responded that she set up the meeting with Danesha Nichols on
19 December 22, 2011, and that all Plaintiff’s belongings would be delivered to the HR building in
20 the morning and available for pick up at the time of Plaintiff’s appointment with Danesha
21 Nichols.
22 314. Gina Harwood also informed Plaintiff that the computers containing the
23 hard drives Plaintiff made reference to were deployed outside of the HVAC shop due to the
24
sensitive nature of the systems on those computers and the department being concerned about
25
removing the hard drives at that time. Also, Gina Harwood asked Plaintiff to provide receipts
26
showing the purchase of these hard drives, and the university would reimburse him for the cost.
27
315. Plaintiff installed his private hard drives in the company computers as a
28
15 were already decommissioned and provide them to the crew for work orders and time cards.
16 Plaintiff cleaned, repaired and reprogrammed the old computers and provided them to HVAC
17 shop crew members to make their everyday job a lot easier and more efficient.
18 318. Besides the above, Plaintiff informed Gina Harwood that Plaintiff was
19 willing to have a meeting with HR Investigator Danesha Nichols if she was willing to meet
20 Plaintiff on the same day that he would be retrieving his personal file and his belongings from
21 his office.
22 319. Gina Harwood did set up an appointment with Danesha Nichols on
23 December 22, 2011.
24
320. When on December 22, 2011, Plaintiff arrived for the meeting with
25
Danesha in the UC Davis Medical Center HR building, a UC Davis police cruiser with officers
26
inside was on standby next to the building and Danesha Nichols had the assistance of a male
27
person who disclosed to Plaintiff during the conversation that he had previously worked as a
28
16 323. The Defendant’ reckless and unwarranted attacks against Plaintiff in 2011
17 and gross violation of the 2009 settlement-agreement, along with harassment, retaliation,
18 enormous stress and anxiety, and the fear of losing employment, caused Plaintiff financial losses
19 in relation to his employment, which amounted to the approximate sum of $21,000.00, taking
20 into consideration accrued sick leave and vacation hours, which Plaintiff was forced to use due to
21 stress-related sick leave caused by the Defendant and the Defendant’ conspiracy with Liberty
22 Assurance Company of Boston, which resulted in Plaintiff’s short-term disability being denied.
23
January 2012
24
25
324. On or about January 10, 2012, Plaintiff noticed on his pay stub for the pay
26
period with an end date of 12/24/2011, that Plaintiff’s title had been changed without his
27
knowledge, and for an unknown reason, from Associate Development Engineer to Programmer I,
28
15 326. If, in January 2012, Plaintiff would have known that the Defendant’ goal
16 was to separate Plaintiff from Metasys System and from any data and information related to the
17 UC Davis Medical Central Plant operation, then Plaintiff would most likely have taken a
18 different approach to the problem. Plaintiff would have attempted to renegotiate the signed
19 February 2009 Settlement-Agreement with the Defendant, regardless of the psychological terror,
20 harassment and despicable attacks on Plaintiff’s character and integrity that the Defendant
21 committed.
22 327. Plaintiff had no clue as to why this was done or who did it, but the
23 Defendant ignored the fact that according to the February 2009, the Settlement-Agreement,
24
Plaintiff’s position and work place cannot be changed without Plaintiff’s consent or a Court
25
Order.
26
328. On January 18 , 2012, Plaintiff noticed by looking at his pay stub dated
27
January 18, 2012, that Plaintiff had been de-enrolled by the Defendant from the medical, dental
28
15 Disability Insurance with the Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston and Plaintiff
16 advised John Peklar that he make sure that that premium for this insurance will not be
18 331. On January 25, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to the UC Office President
19 liaison Mike Waldman, who was responsible for administrating the supplemental short-term
20 disability benefits, to intervene with Liberty Assurance Company Boston to pay Plaintiff’s
21 legitimate benefits, which were denied in November and December 2012. Plaintiff did not get
22 any response from Mr. Waldman.
23 332. At the end of January 2012, Plaintiff learned that his long-time physician,
24
who placed Plaintiff on stress-related sick leave for fourth months, wouldn’t provide any longer
25
medical service for Plaintiff and that Plaintiff’s psychologist’s residence in Lodi was raided by
26
the State of California Department of Social Services.
27
28 February 2012
16 of California.
17 336. Plaintiff in good faith also forwarded to Cindy Oropeza the latest e-mail
18 correspondence with Danesha Nichols, the investigator UC Davis Medical Center assigned to the
19 case, which stated that, if Plaintiff’s employer is looking for an informal resolution of the
20 problem, then Plaintiff would prefer not to see or read Danesha Nichols’ investigation findings
21 and the Defendant’ action based on Danesha Nichols’ findings. It would save Plaintiff’s and
22 others’ time and, if Plaintiff read the findings, would turn the ongoing conflict in a new direction
23 and open up a new, unpleasant dispute. Plaintiff also stated that he is very tired and very stressed
24 out from dealing with this conflict. Cindy Oropeza responded that UC Davis Medical Center’s
25
HR Labor Relation Manager will contact Plaintiff shortly and will set a meeting with Plaintiff to
26
discuss the possibility of resolving the conflict informally.
27
337. . Plaintiff’s meeting with HR Labor Relations Manager, Mike Garcia, took
28
14 340. Plaintiff does not know why Plaintiff was asked to meet with Mike Garcia,
15 but Plaintiff believed that the Right to Sue Letter dated January 26, 2012, which Plaintiff
16 received from the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Right Division and of which a carbon copy
17 was sent to the UC Davis Medical Center was one of the reason for explore possibility of
18 informal resolution.
19
341. In February 2012 and for a long time thereafter, Plaintiff had no intention
20
to sue the Defendant; instead, Plaintiff was hoping that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
21
Commission (EEOC) would help him deal with his ongoing employment dispute with the
22
Defendant. However, when Plaintiff filed a complaint with U.S. EEOC against Defendant and
23
24
subsequently went to the EEOC’s San Francisco Office for an interview, Plaintiff was dismayed
25 to find that the EEOC intake officer was terrified of filing a complaint against the University of
26 California and dealing with UC attorneys. Plaintiff had no choice but to ask for a Right to Sue
27 Letter. Plaintiff could not find an attorney and was trying to get an extension of the Right to Sue
28 Letter but his extension request was denied by the EEOC Director. Thereafter, Plaintiff was
10 negative remarks in the reports about him. Plaintiff, since February 2009, was working for
12 Engineer and had reminded the Defendant in almost every correspondence with them since April
13 2011 that they were breaching and violating the Settlement – Agreement they had signed with
14 Plaintiff.
15 344. In addition to the above, Plaintiff learned in February 2012 that HR Labor
16 Relation Manager Mike Garcia replaced HR Consultant Gina Harwood with experienced
17 attorney Jill Vandeviver to handle Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s coworkers’ complaints from the
18 same Department in which Plaintiff worked.
19
345. Besides the above, Plaintiff’s two coworkers, Kenny Diede from the
20
HVAC Shop and William Buckans from the Central Plant, asked Plaintiff to represent them in
21
their complaints pursuant to UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70. Plaintiff agreed
22
to represent Kenny Diede and William Buckans with their complaints Step II appeals.
23
24
March 2012
25
14 348. Plaintiff’s second letter to the UC Davis chief counsel, dated July 24, 2011,
17 349. In response to Plaintiff’s complaints to the UC Davis chief counsel about the
18 2009 Settlement-Agreement violation by the Defendant, on July 26, 2011, UC Davis Chief
19 Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo sent Plaintiff an invitation to file a whistleblowing complaint.
21 Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo’s invitation and advised her that none of the
22 violations she outlined in her letter were qualified to file a claim against under the “UC
23 Whistleblower” policy.
24 351. Furthermore, the mentioned violations should have been be corrected
25 immediately by UC Davis Medical Center senior management through the administrative
26 process. The violations were so obvious and known by the general employee population in the
27 UC Davis Medical Center PO&M Department. All Plaintiff letters were forwarded to UC Davis
28
28
18 stating that he understood that Plaintiff is representing William Buckans and Kenny Diede
19 through the PPSM 70 complaint appeal process. However, since Plaintiff was on paid
20 investigatory leave, Plaintiff would not be permitted to attend any procedural meetings with
21 (CRO) related to both of Plaintiff’s clients’ (as he stated) complaints until a decision was made
22 in the matter related to the allegations made against Plaintiff. Furthermore, Humberto Garcia
23 stated that the university was amenable to placing both the William Buckans and Kenny Diede
24 complaints in abeyance until a decision was made in the matter referenced above and that
25 Plaintiff may elect to submit his arguments to the CRO in writing or Plaintiff’s clients (as he
26 stated) may elect to be represented by someone else.
27
28 357. Plaintiff met Humberto Garcia on February 14, 2012 in the UC Davis
14
358. Today, Plaintiff looks at Humberto Garcia’s e-mail letter dated March 21,
15
2012, differently than Plaintiff looked at it in March 2012. Today, Plaintiff looks at Humberto
16
Garcia’s e-mail letter, , as a letter that may have saved Plaintiff’s life, taking into consideration
17
who was in charge of the UC Davis Police Department in March 2012 and why Mathew
18
Carmichael was assigned as interim UC Davis Police Chief by UC Davis Administration.
19
Humberto Garcia and HR attorney and Humberto Garcia assistant Jill Vanderviver, did not
20
survive long after February 2012 attempt to resolve informally with Plaintiff ongoing dispute.
21
22 359. In addition to the above, on March 19, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to
23 University of California Senior Vice President Chief Compliance and Audit Officer Sheryl Vacca
24 and asked her for an independent investigation. Also, Plaintiff requested under the Public Record
25 Act provision all the documents related to Danesha Nichols and Wendi Delmendo’s pseudo-
27 April 2012
15 would contact Plaintiff when the administrative review has been completed without any specifics
17
18 April 2012- The Complaint with U.S Department of Labor , OFCCP Office
19
15 denied in November and December 2011 to Plaintiff. . Further, Plaintiff’s complaint against
16 Liberty had been pending with the state insurance commissioner’s office since November 2011.
17 UC Davis HR Benefits Manager John Peklar was the person who disenrolled Plaintiff from
18 medical insurance in December 2011 without Plaintiff’s knowledge. Since Plaintiff did not want
19 to risk being left without medical insurance, he enrolled himself and his wife in medical
20 insurance with Nordstrom Corporation, where Plaintiff’s spouse has been employed since 1990,
21 paying an extra $200/month.
22
April 2012 – Letter Of Intent to Suspend with 10 Days without Pay
23
24
366. Instead of a response from the Defendant in regard to the informal
25
resolution initiated by the Defendant in February 2012, Plaintiff, on April 13, 2012, received
26
from the Defendant a Letter of Intent to Suspend signed by the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
27
Operation and Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher—the same Charles Witcher who,
28
15 Specifically, the Defendant’ lies accused Plaintiff that his behavior was in violation of UCDHS
16 Policy 1616 — Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and UC Davis Policy and
18 lies in the letter implied that Plaintiff failed to adhere to specific instructions during the
19 investigation to refrain from engaging in email communications with witnesses, which interfered
20 with the investigation, as outlined in the report.
21 368. Furthermore, the unfounded allegations in the Letter of Intent to Suspend
22 were made that on March 8, 2011, April 21, 2011, and May 5, 20011, Plaintiff engaged in
23 behavior that violated UCDHS Policy 1616—Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace. It
24
was alleged that Plaintiff’s behavior was disruptive and intimidating to Dorin Daniliuc when he
25
allegedly pointed his finger in his face and used profanity on March 8, 2011. Further, on April
26
21, 2011, Plaintiff allegedly became disruptive and intimidating toward Patrick Putney during a
27
discussion regarding the Putney and Daniliuc ’s work performance as Plaintiff understood the
28
15 State of California Court of Law, not by slanderous pseudo-investigation reports that financially
17 370. At the end of the letter, Plaintiff was instructed that Plaintiff has the right
18 to respond, either orally or in writing, to the notice of intent to suspend. Plaintiff’s response must
19 be received by the Skelly Reviewer, Michael Pansius (916-734-6572), within eight (8) calendar
20 days from the date of issuance of this letter.
21 371. The assigned Skelly Reviewer, Michael Pansius, was the subordinate of
22 UC Davis Medical Center Director Mike Boyd from the facilities construction and design
23 department.
24
372. In July 2011, Director Mike Boyd took charge of the UC Davis Medical
25
Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and became Charles Witcher’s superior.
26
373. Director Mike Boyd took charge of the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
27
Operation and Maintenance Department after his partner in crime, Director Robert Taylor, left
28
16 financial losses in 2011 and Plaintiff lost all accrued vacation and sick leave hours. Plaintiff’s
17 total financial losses in 2011 amounted to approximately $21, 000, due to the inhumane
19
376. On April 15, 2012, Plaintiff requested from Defendant all available
20
documents related to the UC Davis Medical Center HR investigator pseudo-investigation. The
21
requested documents that were included were all generated by Danesha Nichols’ investigatory
22
reports.
23
24
377. On April 20, 2012, Plaintiff responded to the Defendant’s Letter Intent to
25 Suspend signed by Charles Witcher and, in his 26-page response, demanded from the assigned
26 Skelly reviewer, who did not know Skelly law, to entirely disregard and dismiss all lies and
2 378. In great disappointment over the investigatory reports and the unwarranted
3 attack on Plaintiff with the Letter of Intent to Suspend, on April 27, 2012, Plaintiff sent a short
4 email to Danesha Nichols expressing his feelings about her reports. Plaintiff attached to the e-
5
mail a video clip/slide show entitled “Welcome to Romania.” It shows post-communist
6
devastated Romania and some scenes in the slide show had lot in common with the landscape in
7
the HVAC shop supervised by Dorin Daniliuc and Patrick Putney.. Later, the “Welcome to
8
Romania” slide show was exploited and repeatedly used to attack Plaintiff and as cause and
9
pretext to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
10
379. Danesha Nichols attempted to bully and intimidate Plaintiff, and she
11
received a proper response from Waszczuk. Waszczuk reported Nichols and Chilcott to the State
12
Bar in October 2011and 2013 and reported Nichols to UC Davis Police (Captain Souza and Lt.
13
Pike). If the UC Davis investigator was to investigate Nichols for anything, it would be Central
14
15 Plant Operator Todd Georlich’s suicide, which occurred on December 22, 2010; Central Plant
16 Operator Jeff Lancaster’s locker burglary; the secret 12% pay raise for central plant operators in
17 December 2010, based on blackmail petition; Daniliuc’s involvement in his private enterprise on
18 company time, as well the fact that he was employed by two UCDMC Directors—Robert Taylor
19 and Shelton Duruisseau—in their private residences in exchange for giving him a supervisor
20 position and access to free HVAC parts and equipment and presence in the HVAC shop, though
21 he was a twice-convicted child pornography felon who illegally was accessing the UCDMC
22 HVAC shop computer during his probation or parole time.
23 380. Danesha Nichols swept under the rug the child pornography felony matter
24
in her report instead of turning porn felon into authorities and obtaining a restraining order.
25
Instead, in her reports Nichols made Plaintiff look five times worse than , a twice-convicted child
26
pornography felon; thus, Nichols grossly violated law by not reporting a felon on probation to
27
authorities and grossly violating the 2009 Settlement–Agreement that Plaintiff signed with the
28
7 May 2012
May 2012- Defendant Preparation for the May 31, 2012 Provocation to Kill Plaintiff
8
9
381. In April and May 2012, Plaintiff did not know or was aware that the
10
Defendant were negotiating the new power sale contract with the Sacramento Municipal Utility
11
12 District (SMUD) and the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant cogeneration facility. The
13 Defendant got very inpatient with Plaintiff’s continued presence on the Defendant’ payroll list.
14 382 .The psychological terror, abuse, harassment, and retaliation that Plaintiff
15 was subjected to for almost one year, which was orchestrated and carried out by the Defendant’
16 lawyers, managers, and psychologists at the UC Davis Medical Center HR Department with the
17 full support of the UC Davis Chancellor Office and the University of California Office of the
18 President did not work to force Plaintiff to quit voluntarily The decision was made to eliminate
19 Plaintiff by provocation and by means of a bullet from the pistol of UC Davis Police Lt. James
20 Barbour who was assigned by Defendant to carry out assassination on May 31, 2012.
21 383. On May 1, 2012, Plaintiff did not know how close Plaintiff was to being
22 killed or his employment ending in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11 due to the
23 ill-crafted provocation of an especially assembled team, which Plaintiff later nicknamed in
24
documents “UC Davis Death Squad.”
25
384. The first stage of preparation to provoke and eliminate Plaintiff was the
26
February 14, 2012, fruitless meeting with Humberto Garcia from the UC Davis HR Department,
27
which was intended to informally resolve conflict or let Plaintiff return to work after six months
28
15 387. The fourth preparation step to provoke and eliminate Plaintiff was the April
16 13, 2012, Letter of Intent to Suspend Plaintiff without pay for 10 days during Plaintiff‘s already
17 nine (9) months forced absence from work. The letter of intent to suspend did not even say or
18 Arizona. Mr. Lohse is a member of the State Bars of California and Arizona.
21 391. Plaintiff was very impressed with Director John Lohse professional career
22 and achievements. However, in the situation Plaintiff found himself in with respect to his
23 employment, Plaintiff was convinced that Director Lohse was coordinating unknown actions
24 against Plaintiff and that Director Lohse perfectly fit the profile of framing Plaintiff. Plaintiff
25 expressed his thoughts in a response letter to Director John Lohse dated May 14, 2012. After
26 Plaintiff responded to Mr. Lohse’s letter and sent to his office a few other documents related to
28
6
393. On May 11, 2012, Charles Witcher was ordered to serve Plaintiff a 10-
7
day suspension without pay from May 16, 2012, to May 30, 2012. The letter was based on
8
unspecified and fabricated accusations and allegations that were never witnessed by anybody.
9
Plaintiff’s stress levels and blood pressure went up, and nitroglycerine and Lorazepam were very
10
helpful.
11
May 11, 2012
12
13
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
524 Swallow Lane
14 Lodi, CA 95240
15
RE: Letter of Suspension
16
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I am suspending you for a
17
period of ten (10) working days without pay, commencing May 16, 2012
18
through May 30, 2012. The reason for this action is your continued
19
inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Specifically, your behavior is in
20
violation of UCDHS Policy 1616 — Violence and Hate Incidents in the
21
Workplace and UC Davis Policy and Procedure 380-15 Staff Complaints of
22
Discrimination. Additionally, your failure to adhere to specific instructions
23
during the investigation to refrain from engaging in email communications
24
25
with witnesses interfered with the investigation as outlined in the report.
26 The suspension will begin on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 and end on
27 Wednesday, May 30, 2012. You are expected to report to work at 8 a.m.
17 Employee & Employee & Labor Relations office no later than thirty (30)
19 Charles Witcher
20 Manager, Plant Operations and Maintenance
Attachments: Proof of Service
21 Skelly Decision
22
cc' [Department File]
[UCDHS Employee & Labor Relations w/attachment]
23 [UCDHS HR Records w/attachment]
24
25 394. In Charles Witcher’s Letter of Suspension, dated May 11, 2012, Plaintiff
26 was instructed to report to Charles Witcher’s office on May 31, 2012, at 8:00 a.m. Plaintiff was
27 not aware that just a day before, Charles Witcher had been instructed by Brent Seifert, Cindy
28
8 May 2012 – The Defendant Attack Aimed at Plaintiff Coworkers , Kenny Diede
and William Buckans
9
10
397. In further preparation to send Plaintiff to the trauma unit, on May 18 and
11
23, 2012, PO&M Manager Charles Witcher, Patrick Putney, Dennis Curry, and Mike Lewis, in a
12
retaliatory manner, attacked the two coworkers Plaintiff was representing in complaints against
13
some of the above-mentioned individuals. Within one week, Kenny Diede and William Buckans
14
were served with despicable Letters of Expectation, which were based on phony, unfounded, and
15
fabricated accusations.
16
17 May 2012- Plaintiff Protest Letter Entitled “ The Retaliation Isn’t Wise’
18 398. On May 24, 2012, Plaintiff issued a 13-page protest letter entitled, “The
19 Retaliation Isn’t Wise,” against management’s vicious attack on Kenny Diede and William
20 Buckans and sent it to the perpetrators and senior management and administration at UC Davis
12
401. May 30, 2012, was Plaintiff’s 61st birthday and on May 30, 2012, Plaintiff
13
did not know that the HR Workers Compensation Manager was a coordinator of the assembled
14
15 “UC Davis Death Squad” and planning to end Plaintiff’s employment with the University of
16 California on May 31, 2012 (the next day) at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit. Plaintiff
17 also did not know on his 61st birthday that the host of the stress management class Marjorie
18 Trogdon Shock was also a member of the assembled “UC Davis Death Squad,” the goal of which
19 was to end Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Trauma unit # 11 because Defendant signed
20 power sale contract for UCDMC Central Plant with Scaramanto Municipal Utility Distict
21 on May 29, 2012.
22 402. On May 31, 2012, per Defendant’ suspension letter dated May 11, 2012,
23 Plaintiff was scheduled to return to work after 10 months of absence and report to Charles
24
Witcher’s office in Bldg. 68.
25
403. Plaintiff had heard from his coworkers that the carpenter shop was
26
building two extra offices on the first level of Building 68, and Plaintiff was hoping that
27
Defendant would eventually move Plaintiff from the HVAC shop to Bldg. 68 and that the
28
4 404. On May 31, 2012, I drove to work and parked my car next to HVAC shop
5
as usual with a valid parking permit. Before Plaintiff reported to the Department Head Charles
6
Witcher’s office, Plaintiff went to the Marriott Hotel across from the HVAC shop to eat
7
breakfast in the cafeteria. I met my two coworkers, who joined me for breakfast.
8
405. Plaintiff was not expecting to be placed on investigatory leave again,
9
which Plaintiff hated, and Plaintiff wanted to go back to work after such a long period of absence
10
regardless of the fact that Plaintiff had been subjected by Defendant to more than one year of
11
psychological terror, harassment, retaliation, significant loss of income, and multiple threats of
12
employment termination. Plaintiff could expect anything but never expected that that highly
13
regarded University of California would assemble a “Death Squad” to resolve the dispute with
14
15 the employee by using the police force to end the employee’s career with the university at the
16 trauma unit.
17 406. On May 30, 2012, just one day before the ill-planned provocation, HR
18 Supervisor Brent Seifer sent an e-mail to HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott stating that
19 Plaintiff’s superior Charles Witcher understands that Jerry (Plaintiff) will report to his office
20 tomorrow at 8 am. As soon as Jerry (Plaintiff) arrived, Charles would be issuing the
21 investigatory leave letter and directing him to meet with me.
22 407. On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff arrived at 8:00 a.m. at the Department Head
23 Charles Witcher’s office, and Charles Witcher handed Plaintiff a letter and sent him to the HR
24
Building Tycon III for an interview with HR Supervisor Brent Seifert. Maybe if Plaintiff had read
25
Charles Witcher’s letter in his office and found out that the Defendant were placing Plaintiff again
26
on investigatory leave and not letting him return to work after 10 days suspension, Plaintiff would
27
probably not have appreciated such actions. If Plaintiff had known that Defendant had maliciously
28
10
408. Plaintiff did not read the letter in Charles’ office and went straight to the
11
Human Resources Tycon Building for the meeting with Brent Seifert. HR Supervisor Brent Seifert
12
looked at Plaintiff upon his arrival like he wanted to ask Plaintiff what Plaintiff was doing in the
13
HR building meeting. At the end of the meeting—which was about phony, new, unfounded, made-
14
15 up, and out-of-the-blue accusations against Plaintiff and life in Romania, of which Brent Seifer
16 did not even know where it was located, Plaintiff asked Brent Seifert, “What’s next?” In response,
17 Brent Seifert said, “Didn’t you read the letter Witcher gave you? You are on investigatory leave
19 409. Plaintiff looked at the letter he received from Witcher, said ok, then left the
20 HR Building and Plaintiff went home. Plaintiff did not like the investigatory leave and Plaintiff
21 expressed his feelings thereafter in a letter entitled “I feel again like a Hunted Jew during the
22 Holocaust.” This is how the HR “Death Squad’s” plot to send Plaintiff the UC Davis Medical
23 Center # 11 failed.
24
410. Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, knew that something was wrong but Plaintiff
25
did not know any details about the malicious plan of the UC Davis Death Squad, “Kill Waszczuk,”
26
nor the unsuccessful provocation, until Plaintiff received relevant documents under the Public
27
Record Act Provision of November 2011. The documents are very clear as to what Defendant had
28
3 JUNE 2012
4 June 1,2012- Hugh Parker’s E-Mail to the Members of the ” UC Davis Death Squad”
5
6
411. On June 1, 2012, one day after falling ill and the maliciously crafted
7
provocation by the assembled UC Davis Death Squad, the coordinator of the provocation, HR
8
Workers Compensation Manager Hugh Parker, sent e-mail message to the other members of the
9
assembled UC Davis Death Squad members stating that
10
“Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) had returned to work yesterday from his
11
suspension and was placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At
12
issue are writings sent by Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) while on leave. Mr.
13
Waszczuk (Plaintiff) did not display any anger when told he was being
14
16 412.. The Hugh Parker e-mail statement read: “At issue are writings sent by Mr.
17 Waszczuk (Plaintiff) while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) did not display any anger when
18 told he was being place on investigatory leave.” This translates to the following: that Plaintiff,
19 after almost one year of absence due to the Defendant’ psychological terror aimed at Plaintiff,
20 including threatening Plaintiff’s employment and livelihood by means of multiple investigatory
21 leave letters, which Plaintiff received from the Defendant as ill-planned provocations, should be
22 triggered to become angry and violent so that the UC Davis renegade Police Lt James Barbour,
23 bribed by means of a $35,000 wage increase by UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11,
24
will do the job to eliminate Plaintiff from the UC Davis Medical Center landscape forever.
25
Apparently, UC Davis assembled Death Squad members underestimated Plaintiff and mistook
26
Plaintiff for somebody whose employment they had ended with UC Davis in this way.
27
28
15 among the eleven names of the assembled UC Davis Death Squad, but Stephen Chilcott’s name
16 appeared in the email dated May 30, 2012, which was sent by HR Supervisor Brent Seifert to
17 Stephen Chilcott in preparation for the ill-minded provocation and Plaintiff’s execution by UC
18 Davis Police.
15 granted to him by the 2009 Settlement-Agreement signed with the UC Regents, which HR
16 Director Stephen Chilcott grossly solicited and supervised then violated and disregarded.
18 and the Locally Designated Official (LDO), with full knowledge of wrongdoing, conspired in a
19 premeditated fashion with other Defendant and UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi
20 Delmendo to cover the others’ crimes and gross misconduct, deliberate interference, and
21 retaliation against Plaintiff for reporting management misconduct and violation of state and
22 federal law and established University of California Policies and Procedures.
23 420. HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, with malice and disregard for
24
state and federal law, conspired and dedicated himself to ending Plaintiff’s employment, doing
25
whatever it would take, and conspired with others, known and unknown, to kill Plaintiff or end
26
Plaintiff’s employment on May 31, 2012, in UC Davis Trauma Unit # 11, thus violating not only
27
Plaintiff’s civil rights but also, despicably, Plaintiff’s human rights to work and live.
28
18 subordinate.
15 which information was leaked out regarding the attempt to terminate Plaintiff, and Plaintiff did
16 not report to the UCDMC HR Building on this day. The Danesha Nichols Report for termination
19 with HR Labor Relation Manager Mike Garcia for informal conflict resolution. Plaintiff, in good
20 faith, held the meeting with Garcia and presented his proposition to resolve the conflict. Instead
21 of a counter offer or proposition to resolve, Plaintiff was suspended in May 2012 for 10 days
22 without pay, his two coworkers to whom Plaintiff provided representation came under vicious
23 attack, Garcia was replaced by a new HR Labor Relation Manager, and Garcia’s assistant Jill
24
Vandeviver was fired. Oropeza’s name is listed in a group of UC Davis employees who were
25
members of a specially assembled team nicknamed in the documents by Plaintiff “The UC Davis
26
Death Squad.”
27
428. On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff became the subject of an ill-crafted but
28
17 Plaintiff met Neil Speth in 2005 through the course of his employment at the UCDMC Central
18 Plant. Dr. Neil Speth almost killed Plaintiff in 2005 by forcing Plaintiff to take a spirometer test
19 against Plaintiff’s will. As a result of Dr. Speth’s irresponsible actions, Plaintiff landed
20 unconscious in the UCDMC ER. Plaintiff informed Dr. Speth at the relevant time that because of
21 Plaintiff’s medical condition, Plaintiff could not take a spirometer test. Plaintiff intended to take
22 legal action against Dr. Speth, but a few months later, Plaintiff had open-heart surgery and dropped
23 the idea to take Dr. Speth to court.
24
432. Plaintiff is not sure what kind of assignment Hugh Parker, the coordinator
25
of the HR Death Squad action against Plaintiff, gave to Dr. Speth for May 31, 2012, but it is
26
apparent that Dr. Speth had an assignment to ensure that Plaintiff stop breathing in the Trauma
27
Unit after the Lt. James Barbour’s response to UC Davis Death Squad Coordinator Hugh Parker’s
28
12
435. CAROL KIRSHNIT, Ph.D, and MARJORE TROGODON SHOCK,
13
LCSW—Members of the UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENETR HR Academic and Staff Assistance
14
15 Program.
16 436. Carol Kirshnit is a licensed clinical psychologist and the coordinator of the
17 Academic and Staff Assistance Program at UC Davis Health System, and Marjorie Trogodon
18 Shock is a licensed clinical social worker with over 20 years of clinical experience.
19 Plaintiff believes that Carol Kirshnit, Ph.D, was the person who, as a doctor of psychology,
20 professionally advised her Superior HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott and the UC
21 Davis Death Squad coordinator Hugh Parker as to whether Plaintiff was properly primed
22 and aroused to be provoked and killed on May 31, 2012, and whether Plaintiff’s
23 employment would end in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit .
24
437. Marjorie Trogodon Shock was the person who, on May 30, 2012,
25
together with the Death Squad Coordinator, removed Plaintiff from the stress management class.
26
Apparently, Shock was perfectly aware and informed about the ill-crafted provocation of May
27
31, 2012, to kill Plaintiff. Plaintiff believes that her participation in the plot was to comfort
28
10 Plaintiff’s employment termination and that Parker would become a coordinator of the UC Davis
11 Death Squad and of the maliciously crafted provocation to kill Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, or end
12 Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical Center. Plaintiff hopes that Hugh Parker
13 sooner or later, together with the co-conspirators, will get what he deserves according to
20 assembled UC Davis Death Squad. In May 2012 and thereafter, Lindsey was looking for any
21 reason she could use to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff looked at Lindsey’s job
22 history and credentials on the Web and it appears that Lindsey never advanced in his attorney
23 legal career beyond the position of associate attorney in four different law firms from January
24 2003 to May 2012. The working record also shows that Lindsey never worked in a Human
25 Resources department at any private enterprise or public employment, did not have any
26 supervisory or managerial experience, and had not directly handled any labor issues prior to
27 being hired by UC Davis Medical Center in 2012.
28
17 Center, it creates an unbelievably chilling picture of what the “HR Death Squad Members,”
18 including Karen Kouertas, had in their sick minds in relation to the meticulously and maliciously
19 crafted provocation of May 31, 2012, to eliminate Plaintiff from UC Davis Medical Center
20 landscape.
21 445. In July 2013, Plaintiff made an attempt to find out through the State of
22 California Board of Registered Nurses the capacity of Karen Kouretas’s involvement in the
23
activity of the assembled UC Davis Death Squad.
24
446. It is very important for the Board of Registered Nursing to know that the
25
board is issuing licenses not only to nurses who work very hard to take care of sick and ill people
26
but also to nurses, like Karen Kouretas, who collaborate and associate themselves with a group
27
of people whose goals are to provoke, kill, and deliver their victims to her unit for unspecified
28
16 Davis Compliance Office due to borrowing from contractors who were working in UC Davis
18 450. Dennis Curry was removed from the premises just two weeks before he
22
451. On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff sent a 24-page letter to the UC Davis Medical
23
Center Compliance & Privacy Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman. The letter was entitled:
24
“THE SUMMARY OF THE FEW UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN UC DAVIS
25
8
June13, 2012 – The Investigatory Leave Extension
9
452. On June 13, 2012, UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and
10
Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher sent an email letter to Plaintiff stating that
11
Plaintiff’s investigatory leave was being extended from June 14, 2012, through June 27, 2012.
12
Furthermore, the e-mail stated that Plaintiff was thereby relieved from all work duties for the
13
duration of this investigation. This duration was intended to allow additional time to collect
14
15 relevant information and determine the facts surrounding e-mails that Plaintiff sent, which were
16 believed to contain discriminatory content. Plaintiff would remain on pay status during that time.
17 During this leave, Plaintiff would not be allowed to have access to the work place. Plaintiff
18 would remain available during business hours should it be required that Plaintiff participate
19 in this investigation. There was no word in Witcher’s e-mail that Plaintiff violated the 2009
20 Settlement-Agreement signed by Plaintiff with the UC Regents.
21 June 14, 2012-The State of California’s Insurance Commissioner Office Decision
22
23 453. On June 14, 2012, two weeks after the unsuccessful provocation to end
24
Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11, Plaintiff received a
25
decision from the State of California’s Insurance Commissioner Office in regard to the complaint
26
Plaintiff filed in November 2011 against the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, which, in
27
conspiracy with the Defendant, denied Plaintiff Short Term Disability Benefits. The decision,
28
15 Campus or UC Davis Medical Center) from the period of November 1, 2011, to the present time.
16 455. Furthermore, in his letter to Captain Joyce Souza, Plaintiff stated that
17 based on multiple correspondences that Plaintiff forwarded to Captain Souza’s office, Captain
18 Souza was most likely aware that Plaintiff had not been working since August 2, 2011. Plaintiff
19 spent eight months of this period on administrative leave and investigatory leave plus 10 days of
20 suspension without pay as a retaliation. Plaintiff elaborated in his letter to Captain Souza that it is
21 not difficult for anyone to figure out that the eight months on administrative and investigatory
22 leave indicate that something went terribly wrong or is going to go terribly wrong for a long time
23 in the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and Human
24
Resources Department.
25
The UC Davis Pepper Spray Incident investigation took only five months to issue the final
26
report. (From November 2011 to March 2012) and Plaintiff’s case has been going since
27
March 13, 2011.
28
15 were filed under Policy PPSM 70 and to whom Plaintiff was providing representation. Gina
16 Harwood was removed by Humberto Garcia in January or February 2012 to handle Plaintiff and
17 his coworkers’ complaints, which were assigned to HR consultant Jill Noel Vanderviver.
19 about Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver’s departure from UC Davis Medical Center with
20 a 10-page letter.
21 June 27, 2012 – The Investigatory Leave Extension
22 459. On June 27, 2012, Plaintiff called UC Davis Medical Center Plant
23 Operation Manager Charles Witcher and asked him about Plaintiff’s status because the last
24
investigatory leave letter had expired on June 27, 2012. Thereafter, Charles Witcher sent Plaintiff
25
another routine two-weeks extension, stating that the letter confirmed that Plaintiff’s
26
investigatory leave was being extended from June 28, 2012, through July 11, 2012. Plaintiff was
27
hereby relieved from all work duties for the duration of this investigation. This would allow
28
10 enjoyed being UC Davis Medical Center management’s prisoner, sentenced to one year of home
11 arrest for unknown causes, Plaintiff responded to Witcher’s investigatory extension letter as
12 follows:
13 “Do you have any clue who is being investigated and why this investigation is
14 causing me this Investigatory Leave for such a long time?
15
Did you receive any threats against me and are you keeping me out of the
16
Medical Center for my safety or is it for a different reason?
17
I am just curious because it is weird and makes me very nervous that I am still
18
on the UC Payroll for so long and I can’t work. I am getting all kinds of
19
information and it makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes of
20
your Investigatory Leave. I am not sure if all the information I am receiving is
21
true but, almost always, rumors and gossip contain 5% of the truth.
22
Today, I received information about the Director Taylor and Mike Pansius’
23
24
retirement. A few weeks ago, I heard about Dennis Curry’s suspension or
25 administrative leave just before his retirement. Last Friday, I received official
26 information about Mike Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver’s departure from the
28 Today, my Investigatory leave was forgotten. It was a very hard decision for
15 and I only built my positive opinion of Corey from the HVAC and PM shops
17 Do you know who is in charge of the HR Labor Relations after Mike Garcia
18 left? I thought a few my months back that Jill Noel Vandeviver was going to
19 replace Mike with her very aggressive introduction to the ongoing matters
20 related to myself, Kenny Diede, and William Buckans, as well as associated
21 PO&M personnel. It is my understanding that an Investigatory Leave Letter
22 has to be approved by HR Labor Relation Chief.
23 Also, there is an issue with my employee evaluation for 2010/2011. I am still a
24
UC employee and would appreciate it if you provide me with the evaluation
25
for 2010/2011. At least for the period I was in the shop and was working until
26
August 2, 2011. The time for 2011/2012 evaluations is approaching, and I am
27
not sure how I should be evaluated when I am not working and due to a
28
6
July 3, 2012—HR Consultant Gina Harwood’s Letter Entitled
7 “Jerry Waszezuk Timeline/Summary”
8
9
461. On July 3, 2012, notoriously deceptive UC Davis Medical Center HR
10
Consultant Gina Harwood sent an e-mail to her supervisor, Brent Seifert, with the attached letter
11
(“Jerry Waszczuk Timeline /Summary”) described by Gina Harwood as “thrown together really
12
quick.” Besides, the mentioned summary was full of slanderous lies and unfounded, made-up
13
accusations about Plaintiff, which she began generating in 2011 and is repeating with demeaning
14
lies about Plaintiff in this summary. Gina Harwood also complained to Brent Seifert about
15
dismissed in June the HR Labor Relation Consultant, Jill Noel Vandrviver . HR consultant Jill
16
17
Noel Vandrviver was dismissed together with the HR Labor Relation Manger, Humberto Garcia
18 in June 2012. Gina Harwood was removed in January or February 2012, from handling Plaintiff
20 management misconduct, retaliation and harassment. It was most likely that Gina Harwood
21 contributed much of her effort to make Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vanedviver dismissed
22 from their jobs in retaliation for being removed from the assignment.
23 462. In her July, 2012, full-of-lies defacing-the-Plaintiff summary, Gina Harwood wrote:
24 Jerry Waszczuk Timeline/Summary
25 “Jaroslaw Waszczuk is an employee in the HVAC Shop as an Associate
26 Development Engineer, he has been employed for 13 years. He is responsible
27
for monitoring the Metasys system which monitors alarms throughout the
28
15 received a complaint letter from Mr. Waszczuk with. Multiple allegations, this
16 all took place at the end of May beginning of June. Mr. Waszczuk stated that
17 Mr. Witcher was handling his complaint. Ms. Harwood asked to meet with Mr.
18 Waszczuk as a follow up to his complaint, meeting took place the second week
19 of July. Prior to the meeting, Patrick Putney filed a violence in the workplace
20 incident related to the April and May incidents. Ms. Waszczuk made several
21 allegations in his email and during the meeting related to misuse of University
22 resources by his supervisors, Ms. Harwood sent the information to Wendi
23 Delmendo for review and Danesha Nichols was appointed to investigate the
24
allegations from Mr. Waszczuk and the Violence in the Workplace complaints.
25
During the investigation, Mr. Waszczuk was placed on investigatory leave. He
26
began a letter/email writing campaign to multiple UC employees. The email
27
communications were inflammatory and contained discriminatory comments
28
15 denied to file. He applied for Liberty Mutual and his claim was denied,
25
463. The Summary itself as no so much interesting but interesting is why HR
26
Labor Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert requested the summary on Plaintiff from Gina Harwood.
27
Brent Seifert listed in Hugh Parker’s e-mail chat dated June 1, 2012 about May 31, 2012 ill crafted
28
15 without knowing why and in contrary and in light of the widely publicized in media November
16 18 , 2011 pepper spray attack ordered by UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and investigation of
17 this incident which concluded within five months . Plaintiff did not understand for what crime his
18 being kept hostage for one year on investigatory leave and why he is being investigated.
19 466. Beside the letters to Captain Souza and Compliance Investigator Gina
20 Gauilaumme –Holleman Plaitiff on June 27, 2012 sent letter to his Department Head Charles
21 Witcher and demanded answer why Plaintiff is kept on investigatory leave and why he is not
22 being permitted to go back to work and do his duty . Plaintiff never received response from Charles
23 Witcher to his inquiry.
24
July 3, 2012 – The Plaintiff’s , Kenny Diede ‘s and William Buckan’s Complaints under UC
25 Davis Policy Complaint Resolution Policy PPMS 70
26 467. On July 3, 2012 Plaintiff and his two coworkers Kenny Diede and William
27 Buckans received from HR Consultant Gina Harwood Decisions in Step I Complaints Plaintiff
28
15 Defendant for serving Plaintiff every two weeks for almost one year letters of Investigatory
16 Leave and denying Plaintiff right to work It was done in violation of UC Davis Policy PPSM 63
18 322. The other Plaintiff complaint Step I under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 was still pending
15 interview revelation and his disclosure about conspiracy to frame Plaintiff because in July 2012
16 Plaintiff did not know at that time anything about May 31, 2012 provocation to kill him or end
18 476. Plaintiff suspected that something was wrong but did have any evidence to
19 proof anything bedside that he was removed from stress management class on May 30, 2012 and
20 was served with Investigatory Leave letter on May 31, 2012 and was not permitted to work by
21 Defendant.
22 477. Few days later mark Montoya called Plaintiff and confirmed what Kenny
23 Diede told Plaintiff about his interview with Gina Gaulliuaume –Hollmann’on July 18, 2012.
24
325. On July 23, Plaintiff decided for the record to write few additional words to Gina
25
Gaulliuaume –Hollmann’as follow;
26
“Dear Ms. Guillame -Holleman:
27
For the record and in addition to my previous e-mail I would like to inform
28
15 reason was behind for their statements but I don't care much it because I never
16 had any problem with any of my coworkers in the HVAC shop during my
17 employment from March 2007- to August 2, 2012 and will not have any
19 I will not make big deal about my" photo and your question “Apparently you
20 was instructed by somebody to find cause for my employment termination. I
21 like to mention that at first I got outraged about your interview with my
22 coworker but after the interviewed person called me about than I told my to
23 myself: . Why I have to stress myself for something I have no control over
24
until the whole case go to court. "
25
You as an employee of UCDMC Compliance office shall follow Canons of
26
Ethic during the interview. By showing my photo and trying makes me like
27
most wanted at large bandit is not going to help my employer in any way but
28
16 reminder.
17 Jerry”
July 25, 2012 – HR Director Stephen Chilcott’s e-mail
18 to HR Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsey
19
9
481. On August 1, 2012, Defendant sent Plaintiff another two-week extension of
10
the Investigatory Leave. This time the Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher,
11
who routinely signed the investigatory leave letter, which was at this point close to the one-year
12
anniversary of the first investigatory leave letter that Witcher signed on September 1, 2011.
13
14
August 2, 2012 – The UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo’s e-mail
15 to Kenney Diede
17 Delmendo sent an e-mail to the Plaintiff’s coworker Kenney Diede, attempting to drag Kenny
18 Diede into a deceptive and useless whistleblowing complaint, just as she had attempted to do
19 with Plaintiff in July 2011. Plaintiff was almost killed on May 31, 2012, due to Wendy
20 Delmendo’s effort and dedication to destroy the UC Davis employees life’s and livelihoods
21 instead of providing help to them .
22 483. In her August 2, 2012, email letter to Kenny Diede (whom Plaintiff was
23 successfully representing in his complaints against management misconduct under the UC Davis
24 Policy PPSM 70), Wendy Delmendo wrote:
25
“I recently learned that you have filed a grievance in which you allege you
26
have been subject to retaliation. I am writing to inform you that your allegation
27
of retaliation may also be eligible for review under the University’s
28
15 misconduct, harassment, retaliation, abuse of power, violation of state and federal law, and
16 Delmendo openly participating in Plaintiff’s employment termination in 2012 and almost getting
19 decline Wendy Delmendo’s deceptive and misleading offer with the following words in
20 response:
21 Dear Ms. Delmendo:
22 I appreciate your concern. However, I am not sure what you are referring to in
23 your letter in regard to my complaints.
24
For your information, I filed two complaints against my manager Patrick
25
Putney’s vendetta and retaliation. (I believe that you are very familiar with this
26
person’s name). I am not only a victim of Patrick’s Putney behavior. My two
27
complaints against Patrick Putney are pending and problems probably would
28
17 questions.
19 E-Mail: ucdmclaborchat@comcast.net “
20 487. In addition to the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Title, on February 2, 2014,
21 Wendy Delmendo accrued the “Lead Discrimination Officer” title per order of the University of
22 California President Janet Napolitano after an enormous discrimination scandal on the University
23 of California, Los Angeles campus.
24
The Lead Discrimination Officer title fits Wendy Delmendo perfectly. She advanced herself in
25
her skill in how to discriminate and hurt employees while advising UC Davis administration
26
without leaving a trace of discrimination and harassment.
27
28
15 Plaintiff’s coworker William Buckans, to whom Plaintiff was providing representation, received
17 August 9, 2012 – The Letter of Expectation served to HVAC Technician Dereck Cole .
18
490. Following the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo’s
19
invitation to her whistleblowing “Russian Roulette” game and Gina Harwood’s letter prohibiting
20
Plaintiff from working and representing his coworkers, Defendant attacked another coworker of
21
Plaintiff called Dereck Cole.
22
15 work place prior to taking his own life. In March 2011, Plaintiff brought this information to the
16 Defendant’ attention.
17 494. Todd Goerlich, who replaced Plaintiff in April 2007, was Dereck Cole’s
18 best friend since high school and he left behind a one-year-old child.
19 495. Shortly after this, Dereck Cole was attacked and turned to Plaintiff for help.
20 Plaintiff agreed to represent him in his complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70, regardless of
21 the fact that Plaintiff had little time and was very busy with his own defenses and those of his two
22 coworkers against harassment and the Defendant’ retaliation. Plaintiff had to sacrifice a lot to take
23 on and handle another retaliation and harassment case against the vicious, unscrupulous, malicious,
24
and vindictive UC Davis management and administration.
25
August 16, 2012-The Extension of the Investigatory Leave
26 (August 16, 2012-September 28, 2012)
27 496. On August 16, 2012, the Defendant sent Plaintiff another extension of the
28
16 498. This long extension of investigatory leave passed the one-year anniversary
17 of the September 1, 2011, first investigatory leave letter, which the Defendant had served
18 Plaintiff. Plaintiff became very concerned that something more drastic was going on with
19 Plaintiff’s employment due to the vicious attack against Plaintiff’s coworker Dereck Cole, as
20 well as Wendy Delmendo and Gina Harwood’s letters to Plaintiff’s coworker, Kenny Diede, and
21 the endless pseudo-investigations conducted by the assigned Defendant, two of “UC Davis Death
22 Squad’s” members, Brent Seifert and Cindy Oropeza, from the UC Davis Medical Center HR
23 Department.
24
499. Plaintiff was not mistaken that that something more drastic was going on
25
and finally uncovered it after Plaintiff, in November 2011, received a bulk e-mail
26
correspondence exchange between the perpetrators, who were plaining another provocation to
27
deliver Plaintiff to the UC Davis Medical Center # 11 to silence Plaintiff forever. Plaintiff was
28
10
13 501. On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to Compliance and Privacy
Program Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman about the unfair overtime distribution in the
14
HVAC shop with following information and concerns.
15
16 “I am sending you the copy of the letter of expectation issued for HVAC
15 plumber.”
16
502. The subject of the unfair overtime distribution was one of the HVAC shop
17
technicians, George Ursu, who is the friend the HVAC shop supervisors Dorin Daniliuc. It was
18
most likely that the excessive overtime was a fraud and George Ursu never worked most of the
19
20
overtime but got paid the same as Dorin Daniliuc, who was officially working full time, though
21 he actually employed himself in his private HVAC business and private church more than 50
23 503. After the complaint was made by Dereck Cole, George Urusus’s overtime
24
dropped $10,000 in 2013, and after Dereck Cole, in retaliatory action against him, was removed
25
from the HVAC shop, George Urus’s overtime bounced back with $11,000 in 2014.
26
27
August 28, 2012–E-mail from UC Davis Health System HR Workers' Compensation,
28 Ergonomics, Disability Manager Hugh Parker
15 August 28, 2012, Plaintiff did not know who replaced Humberto Garcia, and HR Consultant
16 Gina Harwood was unresponsive when Plaintiff asked her who her manager was after she sent
17 information to Plaintiff on June 22, 2012 that Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver were
19 506. On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff did know that Hugh Parker was the
20 coordinator and conductor for the assembled group of UC Davis employees, nicknamed by
21 Plaintiff in the documents as “The UC Davis Death Squad,” which on May 31, 2012, in the ill-
22 planned provocation, attempted to kill or end Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical
23 Center Trauma Unit #11. From the Public Act Records documents, Plaintiff learned about Hugh
24
Parker’s special assignment that had coordinated an assault on Plaintiff to terminate his
25
employment through ill-minded and orchestrated provocation on May 31, 2012.
26
507. In July and August 2011, Plaintiff exchanged with Hugh Parker his
27
opinion about the UC Davis Medical Center fraudulently using the Workers Compensation
28
15 509. In May 2012, Plaintiff learned from the Public Record Act documents he
16 received that Hugh Parker had requested the investigation report on Plaintiff from HR
17 Investigator Danesha Nichols, which was fabricated for the purpose of the ill-planned
19 The information about the planned attempt to terminate Plaintiff’s employment was leaked and
20 the plan failed. HR Investigator Danesha Nichol’s report, which Hugh Parker requested from her,
21 was destroyed according to the UC Davis Public Record Office, and a copy was never provided
22 to Plaintiff.
23 Plaintiff is not certain”, but it appears that September 23, 2011 was the Defendant’s first
24
attempt to provoke the physical confrontation from Plaintiff, physically hurt him, and then
25
dismiss him with accusations that he was violent.
26
510. Plaintiff’s opinion is based on the fact that, two days prior to September
27
23, 2011, he received a letter from his Department Head Charles Witcher stating that he would
28
8
511. On August 29, 2012, Plaintiff received a letter from the Compliance and
9
Privacy Program Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman.
10
512. By means of this letter, Plaintiff was notified that the UCD Davis Health
11
System (UCDHS) Compliance Department had completed its investigation of allegations and
12
was advising of possible policy violations regarding a PO&M manager who allegedly accepted
13
money from vendor(s) for personal use and a PO&M supervisor allegedly using a paintball gun
14
on university premises. Both matters had been investigated and no proof of violations was
15
provided by Plaintiff or obtained during the investigation.
16
18 18, 2012, interviewed one of Plaintiff’s coworkers from the UCDHS HVAC shop, Mark Montoya.
19 During the interview, Gina Guillaume-Holleman showed Mark Montoya Plaintiff’s photo and
20 asked him whether Plaintiff was a threat to him and, thereafter, she made an attempt to solicit Mark
21 Montoya to sign an affidavit that Plaintiff was dangerous. Outraged by her demand, Mark Montoya
22 left the interview and went to the HVAC shop and mentioned what had happened to one of
23 Plaintiff’s other coworkers, who called Plaintiff and disclosed the information about Mark
24 Montoya’s interview. A few days later, Mark Montoya personally confirmed the information about
25 Gina Guillaume-Holleman’s demand.
26
514. At the end of August 2012, Plaintiff was not worried about any investigation
27
but was worried about his own status due to the almost year-and-a-half-long, ongoing, vicious,
28
12 SEPTEMBER 2012
13 September 4, 2012—Kenneth Diede’s Letter to Department Head Charles Witcher.
14
516. On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff’s coworker from the HVAC shop to
15
whom Plaintiff was providing representation under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70, submitted a
16
17 complaint letter against HVAC shop manager and supervisor Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc.
18 These two individuals attacked Kenneth once again and converted his 2012 annual employee
20 517. Since July 2011, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc had been making
21 Kenneth Diede’s life miserable and his working conditions intolerable after Kenneth Diede
22 reported twice-convicted child pornography felon, Sean Robideaux , who was illegally
23 surfing the web on the HVAC shop commuters with Patrick Putney’s knowledge and permission.
24 Being on parole for his second child pornography strike Sean Robideaux , was not allowed to
25 touch a computer connected to the Internet per federal court order (Case: 2: 6 –cr- 00418-LKK,
26
The United States of America v. Sean Christopher Robideaux, United States District Court, Eastern
27
District of California, Indictment Violation(S) 18 U.S.C § 2252 () (4)(B) –Possession of Visual
28
9
September 9, 2012—Plaintiff Letter to Brent Seifert—UC Davis Medical Center HR Labor
10 Relation Supervisor and Principal Labor Relation Consultant
11
519. For over one year, the Defendant subjected Plaintiff to malicious
12
13
psychological terror, persecution, civil and human rights violations, enormous stress and worries
14 as a result of losing his home and, most likely, his employment at the age of 61 and a slim
16 520. Due to unknown means regarding the ways in which the Defendant intended to do
17 Plaintiff further harm on September 9, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to UC Davis Medical Center HR
18 Labor Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert with an inquiry to update Plaintiff about his bogus
19 investigation against Plaintiff to which he was assigned in May 2012. Plaintiff wrote the following
20 in his September 9, 2012, letter: The original letter was edited by the Professional Proof Reader
21 for the purpose to avoid confusion about merit in the letter-Original upon request)
22
“Dear Mr. Seifert:
23
25 status of the phony investigation you have been conducting since May 31,
26 2012. I am not sure if you remember that you have been assigned to investigate
27 to determine the facts surrounding the e-mails I supposedly sent that were
28
7 resources department with probable help from the former FBI Agent
11
When I read it on the Association of Workplace Investigators web page, I
12
choked and said to myself, “This guy with such an impressive background
13
career and connections that he is a perfect guy to frame me.”
14
15 The May 31, 2012, provocation followed Witcher’s and the HR department’s
16 cowardly and ill-crafted action that placed me on ten days’ suspension without
17 pay after Danesha Nichols’ phony investigation and my five-month
18 administrative/investigatory leave.
19
It is not coincidental that the Mr. Lohse got involved to help cover up the UC
20
21
Davis and UC Davis Medical Center management’s corrupted and unlawful
22 activities, which are happening in every pointed place and involving UC Davis
23 “chiefs and Indians” including, but not limited to, HR Chief Stephen Chilcott;
25 Teresa Porter; internal audits chief and UC Davis police officers such as Lt.
26 James Barbour, who once gave me special advice with former U.S. President
27 Ronald Reagan regarding the U.S. Marines. UC Davis Chief Compliance
28
7 leave letter and launch another phony investigation against him. If he will snap
8 and get hostile, then Lt. Barbour will take care of him and he will be done.
9
What a mistake. Jerry Waszczuk never became hostile and never snapped.
10
Instead, Jerry Waszczuk used his pen and computer to defend himself and
11
others abused and harassed by vicious, vindictive, corrupt, and criminally
12
minded UCDMC chiefs.
13
21 The meeting that you improvised was about the country of Romania,
22
Romanians, and Reggae. I have summarized the meeting in the letter I wrote to
23
you the day after we met and there is no need to elaborate further about it.
24
25 The reason why I am writing to you is to determine the status of this “after
26 unsuccessful provocation” and phony investigation for which you had been set
28
7 sell my house and if it does not go through, then I will let the house be
11 will pay the bill for this reckless harassment and assault on me and I will
12 pay for a new house of my choice.”
13
521. The September 9, 2012, Plaintiff’s letter to Brent Seifert was the first time that
14
Plaintiff informed the Defendant of Plaintiff’s awareness that the May 31, 2012, reckless Defendant
15
action against Plaintiff was nothing but the Defendant’ malicious and ill-crafted provocation to harm
16
Plaintiff.
17
522. On September 9, 2012, Plaintiff did not have any evidence or documents proving
18
that for the May 31, 2012, provocation, the Defendant assembled a special team nicknamed in
19
Plaintiff’s document “The UC Davis Death Squad” to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in the UC
20
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11. Plaintiff based his opinion on observed event facts,
21
information from his coworkers, the Defendant’ reckless attacks in May 2012 aimed at Plaintiff and
22
his coworkers to whom Plaintiff was providing representation, and by removing Plaintiff from the
23
stress management class one day before the provocation on May 30, 2012.
24 “
September 12, 2012—The e-mail entitled “Review of the Waszczuk Investigation”
25
26 523. On September 12, 2012, at 9:36 PM, the UC Office of General Counsel
27 Senior Legal Counsel Mia Belk sent an e-mail to UC Davis Medical Center HR Labor Relation
28
15 Delmendo, UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski and UC Davis Health System
16 Chief Compliance Officer Teresa Porter and to let them know that the HR department was
19 Lindsey to make suggested revisions and finalize the documents and letter of intent to terminate
20 the issue as soon as possible. In addition to the letter of intent to terminate, HR Executive Director
21 Stephen Chilcott instructed Travis Lindsey to discuss the assignments of the Skelly officer with
22 Plaintiff’s superior, UC Davis Medical Center Executive Director Mike Boyd.
23 527 The UCDHS HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott’s confidential
24
communication response is interesting because it shows that HR Equal Employment Opportunity
25
and Diversity Manager Cindi Oropeza was not copied on Stephen Chilcott’s e-mail. Cindi Oropeza
26
was assigned with Brent Seifert to fabricate a bogus report as the cause for Plaintiff’s termination
27
of employment.
28
17
“This is in response to your faxes dated 9/25/2011 and 9/30/2011 to Vice
18
President Duckett in which you raised several concerns about management
19
actions at UC Davis Medical Center. I understand that these issues are
20
currently being investigated by the UC Davis Compliance Officer, Wendi
21
Delmendo.The Office of the President provides oversight to the ten Campus
22
University of California system, while the Chancellor of each campus has
23
responsibility for the organization and operation of the campus. With the
24
investigation by Ms. Delmendo currently in progress, it would be
25
28 this investigation. We are confident that your serious concerns are being
8
Director Christopher Simon letter.
9 532. UC Senior Counsel Mia Belk disappeared from the University of California
10 landscape two months after she issued her confidential review of Waszczuk’s investigation. Mia
11 Belk was not the only individual who disappeared from the University of California landscape
19 September 13, 2012—The UC Davis Death Squad Preparation for Plaintiff’s Final Departure
from the University of California. (By documents received from UC Davis Public Record Act
20 Office)
21
534. Following the September 12, 2012, University of California Office of the
22
General Counsel’s decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment the UCDHS HR Executive
23
Director Stephen Chilcott sent on September 13, 2012, the information about Plaintiff’s planned
24
employment termination to the UC Davis police and assembled a group of UC Davis
25
representatives (nicknamed in Plaintiff’s documents as the UC Davis Death Squad, due to an ill-
26
crafted provocation by the Defendant on May 31, 2012, to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in
27
the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit.
28
13
536. On September 14, 2012, UC Davis Death Squad Coordinator Hugh
14 Parker’s secretary, Sonia Guerrero-Rodriguez, sent an e-mail invitation for a meeting to other
15 UC Davis Death Squad members with the following subject in the e-mail: “Threat Assessment -
16 J. Waszczuk.” The message read, “Please provide me with the best time and date, from the
17 options below, to discuss the item in subject. I’d like to send out a meeting invitation as soon as
18 possible.” The message was ended with Muriel Strode’s quote “Do not follow where the path
19 may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”
20 537. Sonia Guerrero-Rodriguez sent her message to the following member
21 members of the UC Davis Death Squad: Brent Seifert, the UCDMC Labor Relations Supervisor;
22 UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour; UCDMC HR Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity
23
Manager Cindi Oropeza;UC Davis Health System Counsel David Levine; UC Davis Risk
24
Management Department employee Debra Schmidt; UC Davis Medical Center Emergency
25
Preparedness Coordinator Glynis Foulk; Manager of Workers’ Compensation, Ergonomics, and
26
Disability Hugh Parker, who wanted to see Plaintiff in July 2011 on workers compensation leave
27
and, in May and September 2012, wanted to see Plaintiff disabled in UC Davis Medical Center
28
15 Program; Neil Speth, D.O., the medical director of UCDMC HR Employee Health Services; and
16 Travis Lindsay, the new UCDMC HR labor relation manager who replaced MikeGarcia in May
17 2012.
18 539. The proposed dates for the UC Davis Death Squad’s meeting were
19 September 18, 2012, from 10 to 11 AM; September 20, 2012, from 1 to 2 PM, and September 21,
20 2012, from 9 to 10 AM.
21 540. UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour responded that he was available for the
22 meeting on Tuesday, September 18, 2012. Plaintiff does not know when the meeting took place
23 because 21 pages of e-mail chat between UC Davis Death Squad Members that Plaintiff received
24
from the UC Davis Public Record Act Office were blacked out in same manner as the e-mail chat
25
of this group for the May 31, 2012, provocation to send Plaintiff to the UC Davis Medical Trauma
26
Unit.
27
541. The presence and participation in this group including the UC Davis
28
9 542. Plaintiff, who was subjected to psychological terror by the Defendant, was
10 put under extreme stress after being forced again to leave the premises for the month-and-a-half-
11 long investigatory leave, which was issued and served to Plaintiff on August 16, 2012.
12 543. On September 23, 2012, Plaintiff wrote an open letter to his
13 Department Head, UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles
14 Witcher, entitled
15 A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE LATEST COMPLAINTS UNDER THE PPSM 70 AGAINST
16
STEVE McGRATH AND PATRICK PUTNEY. (OPEN LETTER).
17
Plaintiff wrote the letter just two days before Witcher was ordered by HR Executive Director
18
Stephen Chilcott to sign the Notice to Intent to Dismiss (Plaintiff) for Serious Misconduct.
19
544. Aside from Plaintiff’s latest complaints about coworkers, made under UC Davis
20
Policy Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM70, the, Plaintiff elaborated about the previous
21
Department Head, Tony Moddessette, who was forced to leave in 2006 and was replaced by
22
Charles Witcher. This happened shortly before Plaintiff and his coworker William Buckans were
23
subject to the vicious attack and persecution orchestrated by the Defendant, which resulted in
24
Plaintiff’s suspension in March 2007 and his abrupt removal from the UC Davis Medical Center
25
26 Cogeneration Power Plant (“Central Plant”), where Plaintiff had been employed since June 1999.
27 Plaintiff’s suspension and reassignment in March 2007 was affirmed by Charles Witcher, who
28 was then the interim manager of the Plant Operation and Maintenance Department. While
15 and Maintenance Department. At the time, there were problems within the
17 issues.
18 Moddessette was “rough and tough” and sometimes was unpleasant, but he did
19 not ever hesitate to come to the Central Plant, sit at the center of the control
20 room, and have an open discussion about the problems within in the plant.
21 Tony Moddessette did not hesitate to tell me, “Jerry, I don’t give a f...k what
22 you say,” but he would listen and fix the problems.
23 Tony Moddessette had no problem reversing the Plant Manager’s unjustified
24
decision to issue a written warning to one of the Central Plant operators. He
25
also did not hesitate to tell Jeff Lancaster that he was not hired to wash his
26
personal cars on company time.
27
Tony Moddessette did not hesitate to remove Tom Kavanaugh from his Central
28
15 hospital/campus and was not a place to illegally park his personal vehicle,
17 Unlike Tony Moddessette, Charles Witcher never told HVAC Shop Supervisor
18 Dorin Daniliuc that he had to work 8 hours every day, that company time
19 should not be used to run a private business, or that he should not bring his
20 personal auto mechanics in and use the UCDMC shop for his private HVAC
21 business.
22 Unlike Tony Moddessette, Charles Witcher immediately began to torment
23 others after taking over the department from Tony Moddessette in 2006. Six
24
years later, Witcher’s persecution continues.
25
The last six years speak for themselves. Those who have engaged in this
26
persecution must love to watch other people suffer and live in misery.
27
THE COMPLAINTS
28
16 Dan James and Tony Moddessette were Vietnam War veterans. I have a lot of
17 respect for their sacrifices and their choice to risk their lives for the greatest
18 country on Earth.
19 Apparently Steve McGrath and Mike Lewis did not think or did not care that
20 harassing, bullying, and constantly retaliating against William for years in an
21 effort to make him quit his job would bring Dan James back into the mess that
22 they have created and participated since 2006.
23 You probably don’t know that William Buckans and Rick Tunello had a very
24
good relationship with Dan James because of their common life experiences.
25
However Dan James was quickly overpowered by the Jackson clique, and he
26
turned on Rick and William because the Jackson clique hated them. You
27
probably don’t know that William Buckans had a very good relationship with
28
15 I would like to mention that, not so long ago, Hugh Parker from HR sent me an
16 email and wrote that he is not interested in labor relations issues. Mr. Parker
18 is strictly related to him. He will soon be dealing again with the labor relations
18 as I can with the limited resources I have after being banned and isolated from
24
546. As Plaintiff anticipated that something would happen to him during the
25
one-and-a-half month investigatory leave and the lack of response from HR Labor Relations
26
Supervisor Brent Seifert’s investigation, on September 26, 2012, Plaintiff received by overnight
27
mail the Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct dated September 25, 2012. It was
28
8 Maintenance. The reason for this action is your failure to adhere to UC Davis
10 1616, Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and the Principles of
11 Community.
12
On or about April 27, 2012, you sent an e-mail to Danesha Nichols,
13
UCDHS Investigations Coordinator stating your disagreement with an
14
investigation report she had issued dated February 9, 2012. The report found
15
that it was more likely than not that you had violated UCDHS Policy 1616
16
(Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace) ("1616"), UC Davis Policy
17
21 13, 2012, informing you that I intended to suspend you without pay for ten
22 days. Attached to your April 27, 2012 e-mail was a video slideshow entitled
23 "Welcome to Romania". Based on the subject matter and content of the
24 communication, an investigation was requested to determine if the
25 communication violated University policies and procedures. During this time
26 you were placed on investigatory leave-.
27
Brent Seifert, Employee and Labor Relations Supervisor and Cindy Oropeza,
28
8 language (see attached e-mails). The following are excerpts from these e-mail
9 communications:
10
May 10, 2012 - "Somebody will give this Pollack bad evaluation and fire him
11
or will send Gestapo on his Ass"
12
13 June 6, 2012 - "because you will go straight to Hell for what you have done to
21
environment culture in the HVAC shop is closely akin to the culture of Eastern
25
Mr. Seifert and Ms. Oropeza concluded their investigation and issued a report
26
dated September 20, 2012, which is attached to this Notice. The investigation
27
report substantiated that you sent disruptive and intimidating e-mail
28
8 expectations that you abide by all UC policies and procedures, show respect
9 and remain professional at all times in the workplace, and follow the direct
10 orders given to you by a supervisor. After the Skelly process was completed
11 you were issued a Letter of Suspension on May 11, 2012 outlining the
12 expectations noted above. Additionally, you were provided the pertinent text
13 from UCDHS policy 1616 and UC Davis P&P Chapter 380-15 as part of the
14 investigation report issued by Ms. Nichols, and attached to the Letter of Intent
15 to Suspend.
16
Despite my repeated efforts to address your inappropriate and discriminatory
17
20 classifications. Your failure to follow direct orders and the expectations set for
21 you is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Your actions imply that you
22 believe you are above the rules and I cannot subject staff and your co-workers
23 to your continued discriminatory comments. Your blatant disregard for the
24 policies and procedures of this University, combined with your failure to
25 follow directives has left me with no alternative but to dismiss you from
26 University employment.You have the right to respond to this notice of intent to
27
dismiss for Serious Misconduct either orally or in writing. Your response must
28
8
Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert and let him know that Plaintiff was aware that May 31, 2012,
9 was the date of the maliciously and ill-crafted provocation by the Defendant, somebody had the
10 idea to lure Plaintiff to the premises and hand Plaintiff the Notice of Intent to Dismiss with such
11 outrageous and sickening accusations in an attempt to provoke Plaintiff and expose him to the
15
548. Instead of luring Plaintiff to the premises, the UC Davis Death Squad decided that
16
the UC Davis Police would issue a poster bearing Plaintiff’s photo and the verbiage “PERSON
17
NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY,” which was similar to the “FBI’s Most Wanted”
18
signage.
19
21
“Jaroslaw Waszczuk is currently on administrative leave from
22
employment with the UC Davis Med Center. Mr. Waszczuk is not
23
authorized to be on UC Davis property without a legal reason or a medical
24
emergency.
25
26 Mr. Waszczuk is described as an older white male with brown and gray
5
550. The UC Davis Police poster that said “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED
6
ON PROPERTY” and included Plaintiff’s photo and description was distributed around the UC
7
Davis Medical Center Campus and most likely was sent to managers and UC Davis employees
8
by electronic mail. UC Davis Police did not inform Plaintiff that he was not authorized on UC
9
Davis premises, and Plaintiff did not know what UC Davis Police would do if Plaintiff
10
12 551. Plaintiff spent over one year on investigatory leave, under which he was
13 prohibited from being on the UC Davis premises, and Plaintiff never intended to go uninvited to
14 UC Davis Medical Center when he was on investigatory leave. Plaintiff did not understand why
15 Davis Public Record Act office for documents related to another of the Defendant’ acts of
16 psychological terror, which Plaintiff had been subjected to for over one year.
17
19
20 558. The Defendant war-like hysteria and propaganda did not end with
21 placing the “Persona Non Grata” poster complete with Plaintiff’s photo and description around
22 UC Davis Medical Center.
23 559. On September 26, 2012, the UC Davis Health System HR Executive
24
Director Stephen Chilcott, who directly communicated the operation to the UC Office of the
25
President, sent an e-mail entitled “Confidential – Jerry Waszczuk (Plaintiff)” to the HR Labor
26
Relations Department Manager Travis Lindsey to ask the UC Davis Police department to offer to
27
speak to any of the supervisors or employees of the Plant Operation and Maintenance
28
15 562. UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour was reassigned from the UC Davis
16 Campus to the UC Davis Medical Center, which represented an enormous demotion and
17 involved a decrease to his salary, after the November 18, 2011, pepper spray attack against
18 protesting students on the UC Davis Campus. Documents show that Lt. James Barbour got
19 sucked into the action against Plaintiff by the “UC Davis Death Squad,” most likely not knowing
20 what the case was about. Apparently, he was promised that his salary would be restored to its
21 normal level. By reading the Public Record Acts documents, one can see that Lt Barbour was
22 dedicated to attacking Plaintiff in 2012 by any means.
23 September 26, 2012 – The Confidential Investigation Report
24
563. On September 26, 2012, Plaintiff received the Confidential Investigation
25
26 Report from the Defendant; it was attached to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious
27 Misconduct.
28
8
Report and December 2011 and February 2012 Danesha Nichol’s reports. The only difference
9 was that Romanians were used in the reports instead of Jews to make Plaintiff look like a KKK
12 the report, responded to Cindi Oropeza and Brent Seifert with an open letter dated September 28,
13 2012.
14 567. In addition to the open letter response, Plaintiff sent an inquiry to the UC
15 Davis Public Record Act office for all documents related to the Defendant’ Notice of Intent to
16 Terminate Plaintiff.
17 OCTOBER 2012
18
19
October 1, 2012—Open Letter to the UC Davis Police Chief
20
21
568. Plaintiff was outraged by the UC Davis Police Department’s humiliating and
22
disparaging “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED ON THE PROPERTY” poster, which was
23
issued and distributed around UC Davis campus on September 26, 2012.
24
569. On October 1, 2012, Plaintiff wrote an open letter to new UC Davis Police Chief
25
Matt Carmichael, who replaced Annette Spicuzza and to Chancellor Katehi, who ordered the
26
firing of his colleague, Lt. John Pike, in August 2012.
27
28 570. In September 2011, Plaintiff asked a UC Davis Police captain Joyce Souza for
15 few more current photos of myself. My photo on the UC Davis Police Warrant
16 is outdated and was taken probably 10 years ago, prior to my 2006 open heart
17 surgery and left eye surgery. HR has a newer photo, which was taken when I
19 development engineer.
20 I have no doubt that the UC Davis Police bulletin with my outdated photo was
21 issued to humiliate me, as it sounds like an arrest warrant. This is an
22 outrageous abuse of authority by the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation
23 and Maintenance Department (UCDMC PO&M), the HR Department and the
24
UC Davis Police Department. Such management actions were taken to cause
25
Waszczuk severe emotional distress, and they were done with a willful and
26
conscious disregard of both the law and UC policies.
27
The conduct of UCDMC management and the UC Davis Police Department
28
15 573. The Defendant have not mentioned in any previous document this
17 humiliated Plaintiff.
16 stability. This is an additional reason to provide me with the time extension for
18 I believe that you are aware that I am already on nine different prescription
19 medicines.
20 I am assuming that you have read my last open letter to Mrs. Oropeza and that
21 you or Brent Seifert will question Dorin Daniliuc about his (and others’) lies,
22 which were inserted into the report.
23
24
Sincerely,
25
Jerry “
26
27
576. In addition to Plaintiff’s response to Charles Witcher’s extension, on October 3,
28
13 October 1, 2012
14
RE: Workers’ Compensation Stress/Psychiatric related claim
15
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
16
17 In an e-mail we received dated 10/01/2012 you indicate that you have suffered
18 “severe emotional distress” from your employment at the UC Davis Health
19
System. As such, if you wish to pursue a psychiatric injury claim, related
20
to your employment at UC Davis Health System, please fill out the
21
enclosed DWC-1 Form and return to our office at:
22
24
Workers’ Compensation Dept.
25
26
27 Sincerely,
28 Michael Tyler
15 582. On May 30, 2012, Hugh Parker removed Plaintiff from stress management
16 class instead of encouraging Plaintiff to attend such classes, despite knowing what Plaintiff was
18 583. On May 30, 2012, Plaintiff did not know that Hugh Parker was a
19 coordinator for the Defendant’ specially assembled group of UC Davis employees, which
20 Plaintiff nicknamed the “UC Davis Death Squad” in the officially generated document
21 584. On May 31, 2012, and in September 2012, Hugh Parker (as conductor of
22 the aforementioned group) coordinated a malicious but unsuccessful provocation involving UC
23 Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael and Lt. James Barbour to ambush and kill Plaintiff or
24
otherwise end his employment at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11.
25
585. Plaintiff rejected the Defendant’ offer to file a false workers’
26
compensation claim. Apparently the Defendant attempted to escape enormous legal liability
27
using frequent workers’ compensation claims to further attack and distract Plaintiff from the real
28
6
586. One month after the Notice of Intent to Terminate was issued, on October 22, 2012,
7
Plaintiff received an interesting letter from HR Consultant Gina Harwood, who replaced Jill Noel
8
Vandviver on June 22, 2012. Gina Harwood’s letter stated:
9
Re: Service as PPSM Complaint Representative
10
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
11 This letter is to inform you that due to the completion of the investigation, you
12 are no longer on investigatory leave. Your leave status has changed to
13 administrative leave with pay while the personnel action is pending.
14 Due to the change in your status, you will be permitted to serve as the
15 representative in complaint meetings for Kenneth Diede, William Buckans
16 and Dereck Cole. The following complaints will be removed from abeyance
15 Davis Police Department issued and distributed the poster with Plaintiff’s photo and
17 589. In a letter to Gina Harwood dated October 17, 2012, Plaintiff asked Gina
18 Harwood specific questions that she, as the Defendant’ representative, failed to answer in her
15 September 26, 2012. Gina Harwood knew that Plaintiff had, in February 2009, signed the
16 Settlement-Agreement with the Regents of the University of California. Gina Harwood and other
17 perpetrators knew that the UC Davis Police poster was an indefensible breach of the Settlement-
18 Agreement signed by the Defendant and Plaintiff. The Defendant’ poster went beyond
19 disparaging Plaintiff. It was an act of malice beyond of human decency aimed at Plaintiff, and it
20 alone can be the subject of litigation against the Defendant.
21 October 30, 2012-The UC Davis Medical Center HVAC Shop Supervisors Patrick Putney and
Dorin Daniluc’s Attempt to Provoke Dereck Cole for Physical Confrontation
22
23
592. Just two days after Plaintiff wrote a letter to Director Boyd about UC Davis
24
management’s despicable retaliation and vendetta against HVAC shop technician Dereck Cole
25
26 on October 30, 2012, two of Dereck Cole’s supervisors, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc,
27 approached him in the hospital cafeteria during his break and verbally assaulted him in front of a
28 surveillance camera with clear intention to provoke him into physical confrontation and end
16 Respectfully,
17 Dereck
18 595. After meeting with Lindsey, Dereck Cole was removed from the HVAC shop and
19 reassigned to the preventive maintenance shop. The surveillance footage from the hospital
20 cafeteria should be checked, and appropriate disciplinary action should be taken against Patrick
21 Putney and Dorin Daniliuc. Dereck Cole was a victim of two UC Davis medical supervisors
22 supported by Department Head Charles Witcher, HR Labor Relations staff, corrupt UC Davis
23 Chief of Police Matt Carmichael, and his lieutenant James Barbour. If Dereck Cole had called
24
UC Davis police right after incident in the cafeteria, then he would most likely be accused and
25
investigated instead of Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc.
26
597. Plaintiff represented Dereck Cole in his complaints against these two supervisors
27
in a retaliation complaint pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM 70. Right after the confrontation in
28
8
NOVEMBER 2012
9
November 2, 2012 – Public Record Act Request
10
11
599. On November 2, 2012, Plaintiff received a response from the UC Davis Public
12
Record Act (PRA) office to his request for PRA documents related to the Defendant’s Notice
13
Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct dated September 25, 2012.
14
15 600. Plaintiff briefly reviewed the received PRA documents and several pages of e-
16 mail correspondence dated June 1, 2012, which were sent by the UC Davis Health System
18 David Levine, Debra Schmidt, Marjorie Trogodon Shock, Neil Speth, Carol Kirshnit, Karen
19 Kouretas, Cindy Oropeza, Glynis Foulk, James Barbour, and Travis Lindsay.
20 601. On the first page of the e-mail with subject “Jaroslaw ‘Jerry’ Waszczuk –PO&M
21 employee,” Hugh Parker wrote:
22
23 “Mr. Waszczuk returned to work yesterday from his suspension and was
placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At issue are writings sent by
24 Mr. Waszczuk while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk did not display any anger when
told he was being place on investigatory leave.”
25
26 602. After Plaintiff read Hugh Parker’s e-mail message, checked Hugh Parker’s
27 recipients, and found out who these people were, Plaintiff got goosebumps realizing that this e-
28
7
604. Plaintiff combined Karen Kouretas’s name with Neil Speth, James
8
Barbour, Glynis Foulk, and David Levine with what happened to Plaintiff on May 30, 2012 and
9
what Plaintiff wrote in his letter dated September 9, 2012 to Brent Seifert and the UC Davis
10
Police. On September 26, 2012, a defaming “Persona Non Grata” poster with Plaintiff’s photo
11
and description surfaced. Plaintiff had no any doubt that May 31, 2012 was a maliciously crafted
12
provocation to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit
13
No. # 11.
14
15 605. Plaintiff already covered this subject in the Statements of Facts, June
16 2012 chapter.
17
19
28
7 August 2, 2011, with exceptions of the few hours to interview with ‘Danesha
9 Garcia in February 2012, and maybe 2 hours during the interview with Brent
10 Seifert on May 31, 2012. Total reimbursement should equal approx., $768.00;
18 have receipts for the disks. I don’t, but I need my HDs back or need to be
19 reimbursed approx.$150.00.
20 Sincerely,
21 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
22
607. The Defendant never reimbursed Plaintiff for the parking permit or the
23
two hard drives.
24
November 12, 2012- The Brief for Oral Response Submitted by Plaintiff to Assigned Skelly
25 Reviewer. UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson
26
6 Dated September 25, 2012 by “The UC Davis Medical Center ‘HR Death
7 Squad’”
8
Dear Vice Chancellor Tollefson:
9
18 It clearly appears from the bulk of the e-mail correspondence that certain
19 individuals from the UCDMC HR department, led by HR Executive Director
20 Stephen Chilcott, new Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsay, Cindy
21 Oropeza, and others, were planning to carry out their malicious and well-
22 crafted, evil conspiracy plot to provoke me and kill or send me to the UCDMC
23
Trauma Unit with severe blunt or penetrating injury on May 31, 2012. From
24
now on, I will call them the “HR Death Squad.” The explanation for the name
25
given to these individuals is located in the brief.
26
27 The assigned executor to carry out the plot to send me to my death or send me
28 to the UCDMC trauma unit to meet Karen Kouretas was the UC Police Lt.
10 I am hoping that eventually the FBI and district attorney will step in and break
18 609. The letter to Allen Tollefson was the first time Plaintiff nicknamed the assembled
19 Defendant group “HR Death Squad,” which in criminally minded, unsuccessful provocation
20 attempted to end Plaintiff’s employment at UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11. Later,
21 Plaintiff changed the nickname from “HR Death Squad” to the “UC Davis Death Squad” due to
22 the involvement of the UC Davis police in the ill-planned assaults on Plaintiff.
23 610. On November 13, 2012, Skelly Reviewer Allen Tollefson responded to Plaintiff’s
24
letter and scheduled the meeting with Plaintiff on November 16, 2012 on the UC Davis campus.
25
611. On November 16, 2012, Plaintiff attended the meeting with assigned Skelly
26
Reviewer and UC Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson to discuss Plaintiff’s unwarranted
27
and without-valid-cause employment termination.
28
15 back. Plaintiff was unaware on November 16, 2012 and a long time after the meeting that
16 Plaintiff’s fate was already decided a long time before the meeting with Allen Tollefson’ by the
17 Regents of the University of California the UC Office of the President,(UCOP) and the UC
18 Office of the General Counsel for a completely different reason. Plaintiff thought he was being
19 hunted down like an animal or subhuman by the UC Davis administration’s designated thugs.
20 614. On November 18, 2012, Plaintiff sent to Skelly Reviewer Allen Tollefson the
21 meeting summary letter entitled “Our Meeting on November 16, 2012. -The Notice Intent to
22 Dismiss Dated September 25, 2012 BY “The UC Davis Medical Center “’HR Death
23 Squad.’”
24 (Note: to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s letter to Allen
Tollefson was corrected by a professional proofreader.)
25
Re: Our Meeting on November 16, 2012.
26
The Notice of Intent to Dismiss dated September 25, 2012.
27
Dear Vice Chancellor Tollefson:
28
16 25, 2012. The notice not say too much besides some quotes taken out of
17 context from my letters that I wrote due to the vicious and unscrupulous
18 war against me, which has lasted over one year and is still going.
19
The very powerful forces from the UCDMC Human Resources Department
20
and the UC Davis campus, as well as the involvement of the director of the
21
investigation sent from the UC Office of the President against me in May
22
2012, make me believe that the reason or reasons to harm me were not
23
my reporting of Patrick Putney’s chickens, roosters, goats, sheep and
24
other animals for sale in the UCDMC HVAC shop. I do not believe
25
27 employer out of the parking fee for four years by hiding his car inside
7 writing in the letter dated March 13, 2011, referring to the central plant
8 operator Todd Georlich’s tragic suicide that took place in December 2010
9 as well as the secret and fraudulent 12% pay raise the central plant
11
The other reason that I was thinking it could be is the child pornography
12
issue reported in August 2011 by my coworker Kenny Diede in his
13
2010/2011 employee evaluation complaint under the PPSM 70. The
14
complaint is still unresolved. Kenny Diede became a subject of retaliation
15
by Patrick Putney with Charles Witcher’s support and approval. I am
16
representing Kenny with his complaints under PPSM70. It is very bizarre
17
19 Nichols in her investigation report, but the graphic video clip about the
9
Although stress and anger affect everyone, anger can be problematic if people
10
use it to gain control and express it unprofessionally.”
11
12 I received information about the class on May 23, 2012, from my former
13 central plant coworker William Buckans, who on the same day received a letter
19 I showed up to class on time with my two colleagues. Before the class had
20 begun, Hugh Parker, with the help of Licensed Clinical Social Worker Mrs.
21 Marjorie Trogdon Shock, kicked me out of the class.
22
It was quite a surprise to me because I was constantly being accused that I
23
24
am angry, hostile etc. Such a class would be appropriate for a person who
26
If I knew that Mr. Hugh Parker, along with Mrs. Trogdon Shock and the
27
other members of the “HR Death Squad,” had planned to send Jerry to the
28
8
“Mr. Waszczuk returned to work yesterday from his suspension and was
9 placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At issue are writings sent by
Mr. Waszczuk while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk did not display any anger when
10 told he was being place on investigatory leave.
11
Hugh R. Parker, Manager”
12
13
Could you imagine what would or could have happened if Mr. Parker,
14
along with Mrs. Shock, would not have “shocked” me and did not kick me
15
16
out from the “Class on Stress Management” on May 30, 2012?
28
19 The interviews did not happen until October 10, 2012 after I sent the letter
20 to the members of UC Davis Ethics and Compliance Risk Committee.
21
In addition to, I am forwarding to you an e-mail which I sent l to UC Davis
22
24 Nichols’ false accusations against me, which alleged that I am violent and
26 kind of phony report to the police and that Danesha Nichols was in
9 minds by believing that they could set me up and make me seem violent
18 fraud.
19 It seems to me that Mr. Chilcott was trying to train his crew on how to deal
20
with “rebellious” workers, knowing that I would not give up so quickly, and he
21
was trying to find out how long I would resist the attacks and his blitzkrieg.
22
23 Maybe it was a bit of everything and at some point got so out of control and
24 had so many people involved for no reason; now, somebody must pay the cost
9 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
10 Enclosed:
15 mail mailing list; Letter dated September 9, 2012 to Brent Seifert with
16 request for investigation status update. In that letter, on the pages 2 and
19 many people from the HR department, UCDPD police, trauma unit, and
20 UCDMC counsel until Waszczuk received documents under the Public
21 Record Act Provision in October 2012; Letter dated September 23, 2012
22 (Two days before the notice intent to terminate issued by Charles
23 Witcher on September 25, 2012 followed by the “Most Unwanted” Lt.
24
James Barbour’s warrant); October 4, 2012 e-mail from Michael Tyler as
25
an acknowledgment that I decline the offer for the workers-compensation
26
claim. I don’t file fraudulent claims.
27
CC: To Whom It May Concern
28
15 was replaced by Gina Harwood. Plaintiff was searching for clue as to what triggered the
16 Defendant’ brutal and merciless action against Plaintiff. In his letter to Jill Noel Vandeviver,
17 Plaintiff wrote:
(Note: to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s e-mail to Jill Noel
18 Vandeviver was corrected by a professional proofreader.)
19
Re: Brief for Oral Response -Notice Intent to Dismiss. - UCDMC “HR Death
20
Squad”
21
Good Morning Ms. Vandeviver:
22
I am writing a few words to you because it appears that my employer, UC
23
Davis Medical Center made an attempt to frame me, provoke me, and kill me
24
25 or send me to the trauma unit in bad shape in May of 2012. Somehow, it did
26 not work out for the UCDMC “HR Death Squad.” I perfectly described the
28 2012, not knowing anything about it until I got a PRA request almost one
15 617. In November 2012, Jill Noel Vandeviver worked for the State of
17
18 DECEMBER 2012
9 The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I am dismissing you from your
11 at UC Davis Health System effective December 7, 2012. The reason for this
28 with a benefits counselor to determine the effect of this action on your benefits.
7
619. The Skelly Reviewer , UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen
8 Tollefson’s decision dated December 3, 2012 and Charles Witcher’s Letter of Termination were
10 performance review (evaluations) were mentioned. Neither decision mentioned the February
11 2009 Settlement-Agreement Plaintiff signed with the regents of the University of California,
12 which guaranteed Plaintiff a job with the University as the Associate Development Engineer.
13
“December 3, 2012
14 Travis Lindsey
Manager
15 Employee & Labor Relations
University of California, Davis, Health System
16
Re: Letter of Intent to Dismiss--Jaroslaw Waszczuk
17
27
actions were taken out of context and that he has the right to voice his opinion
28 about the wrong doings of the Department. Mr. Waszczuk has a very negative
16
“In Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 194, the California
17 Supreme Court ruled that:
18
‘as part of constitutionally guaranteed due process, public employees are
19 entitled to certain procedural safeguards before discipline, which is
sufficiently severe to constitute a deprivation of a liberty or property right is
20 imposed on them. The constitutionally protected liberty interests requiring
Skelly protections arise whenever the allegations against an employee are
21 sufficiently onerous to seriously impact the employee’s ability to find future
work in his/her chosen career.’”
22
23
621. Skelly Reviewer Allan Tollefson held a meeting with UCDHS HR Labor
24
Relation Manager Travis Lindsey on September 24, 2012 and was coached on what decision
25
was expected from him in Plaintiff’s case.
26
622. Just before Plaintiff’s loss of employment, Plaintiff lost his house on a short sale
27
28
and rented a house so as not to deal with a mortgage company during his unemployment.
3 623. On December 18, 2012, Plaintiff sent an e-mail inquiry to USDHS HR Labor
4 Relation Consultant Gina Harwood for clearance to enter the HR building on December 20,
5
2012 to take care of his remaining benefits upon termination of employment:
6
Subject: Meeting with Janette Manuel in the Ticon III Bldg. on 12/20/2012 at 9:00
7
Hi Gina:
8
Would you please provide me clearance with UCDPD to go to Ticon III
9
Bldg. on 12/20/2012 at 9:00 a.m. for a meeting with Janette Manuel?It
10
came to my attention that the UCDPD “Most Unwanted” police warrant
11
with my photos is still hanging in the HVAC shop and probably in other
12
UCDMC places. I don’t want be shot by in the back by Lt. James
13
Barbour’s forces for entering the Ticon III Bldg. to discuss my benefits
14
17 Jerry
28
7 Agreement signed with Plaintiff and in disregard of Plaintiff’s outstanding working record ,
8 slandered and defamed Plaintiff with the Employment Development Department, thus causing
10 627. By the reckless, despicable and inhumane Defendant’ continuous attack aimed at
11 Plaintiff, the Defendant caused Plaintiff additional enormous stress, anxiety and financial harm
12 in the period when Plaintiff was not eligible yet for earlier Social Security Benefits and was
13 awaiting to cash out his University Retirement money and transfer it to an IRA account.
14 628. Plaintiff’s unemployment insurance benefits case is pending in the State of
15 California Court of Appeal 3rd Appellate District, Case Caption Waszczuk v. California
16
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board No. C079254, the County of Sacramento Superior
17
Court Case No. 34201380001699CUWMGDS.
18
JANUARY 2013
19
20 January 3, 2013- Plaintiff’s Step I Complaint Pursuant to the UC Davis Complaint Resolution
Policy PPSM 70.
21
22 629. On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Step I Complaint pursuant to the UC Davis
23 Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70. The Step I complaint was the initial appeal from the
24 Defendant’ decision terminating Plaintiff’s employment on December 7, 2012.
25 630. The termination letter stated that Plaintiff has rights to request review of the
26 Defendant’ employment action under Personnel Policies for Staff Members 70 - Complaint
27
Resolution.
28
15 634. Plaintiff’s mind was and still is constantly and unstoppably occupied by the
16 Defendant’ criminally minded May 31, 2012 provocation. Undoubtedly it was the Defendant’
17 goal to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11.
18 Plaintiff is still obsessively thinking about and can’t get it out of his mind because the Defendant
19 never in one word in any document address their own disgraceful, despicable and criminally
20 minded action against their own employee, who provided service for the Defendant for 13 years
21 and almost ended his employment in death.
22 635. Plaintiff expressed and emphasized his feelings about the Defendant’ way to
23 resolve the labor dispute with Plaintiff in the cover letter to the Step I Complaint Plaintiff sent to
24
UCDHS HR Labor Relation Consultant Gina Harwood on January 2, 2013.
25
636. Together with a cover letter, Plaintiff sent to Gina Harwood a copy of the
26
February 2009 Settlement–Agreement, the copy of Plaintiff’s Brief for Oral Arguments sent by
27
Plaintiff to Skelly Reviewer, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson, on
28
7
Re: The Letter of Termination Dated December 5, 2012- Request
8 for Review under PPSM 70.
10
The Letter of Termination issued by Mr. Witcher states:
11
“You have the right to request review of this action under Personnel Policies
12
for Staff Members 70 - Complaint Resolution. If you wish to request review of
13
this action, you must do so in writing, using the appropriate complaint form. A
14
written request must be received in the UCDHS Employee & Labor Relations
15
office no later than thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this letter.”
16
I did not have any intention to follow the Letter of Termination advice and file
17
a request for review with the HR Labor Relation Office, which has caused the
18
termination of my employment with University of California after 13 years of
19
20 service.
21 I was sure that filing a request for review under PPSM 70 would be
23 page brief for the Oral Response to The Notice Intent to Dismiss dated
17 Three of the cases that I reviewed caught my attention, and this is why I have
18 decided to file a request for review under the PPSM 70. I have to be certain
19 that I would not be precluded to file the wrongful termination lawsuit or else I
20 will be defeated like the two Plaintiffs in Janet Campbell v. Regents Of The
21 University of California S113275; Ct.App.1/1 A097560; San Francisco Super.
22 CT. No. 312736 and Patricia M. Palmer v. Regents Of The University of
23 California 2nd App. Div.7 B154868; Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.BC
24
187036.
25
The third case is the newest wrongful termination lawsuit, which is interesting
26
because of the astronomical jury verdict for Plaintiff. The Ani Chopourian v.
27
Catholic Healthcare West wrongful termination case in Federal Court included
28
16 The date of May 31, 2012 constantly occupies my mind with unanswered
19 Would I have survived or would have been disabled for the rest of my life if I
20 survived? If I was taken to the UCD Trauma Unit, would my IV be filled with
21 toxic doses of drugs that could have contraindicated the medicines I am
22 currently taking, since the UCD wouldn’t know my medical history? Would I
23 become part of a deadly and illegal medical experiment? Ani Chopourian is
24
not asking herself these questions. I do not wish anybody to have his/her mind
25
occupied by such trauma that the UC Davis Medical Center Human Resources
26
Department caused me. “Sometimes I think that I should have never asked for
27
the documents that I received under the Public Record Act because of how
28
15 and human and employee rights; they are also abusing the power given to them
16 by the UC System
18 in the Letter of Suspension. The May 31, 2012 death trap, the Notice Intent to
15 and planned deadly assault on Waszczuk May 31, 2012. Without a doubt, it
19 Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
20
CC: UC President Mark Yudof, UC Regents, UC Davis Chancellor Lynda Katehi,
21 and UC Davis Vice Chancellor Ralph Hextler.
22
23
January 3, 2013 –Addendum to the Wrongful Termination Complaint PPSM 70 Step I Appeal
24
638. In the Step I Complaint and the addendum to the complaint, Plaintiff
25
alleged as follows.
26
16 government or law enforcement agency; Labor Code Section 1102.5 and Right
17 of state employees to blow whistle Gov. Code Sections 10543.
18 ADDENDUM TO THE WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT
19 De sc r i be y o ur c o m p la i n t i n de ta i l , i nc l u d i ng t he fo l lo w i ng
fiv e po i n ts . Atta c h a d di tio na l s he e t s if ne e de d .
20
3. How did the management act violate policy or procedure?
21
23 violation of law and is pure and undisputable retaliation against Waszczuk for
8 The UCDMC management by firing Waszczuk from his job breached and
9
violated the 2009 Settlement-Agreement between Waszczuk and the Regents
10
of the UC. As early as of July 2011. Waszczuk submitted two letters of
11
complaint to the UC Davis campus Chief Counsel Mr. Steven A. Drown and
12
asked him to advise violators of the signed Settlement-Agreement to stop
13
assaulting Waszczuk and to restore order in Waszczuk’ workplace. The letters
14
dated July 17 and 24, 2011 are self-explanatory, and no reason exists to
15
elaborate further about my employment malice in relation to the settlement –
16
agreement. It is only appropriate to mention that Mr. Drown as the UC Davis
17
chief counsel signed the mentioned agreement on behalf of the UC Regents.
18
19 Mr. Drown was obligated to act to prevent further violation of the agreement,
21 Police’s assaulting Waszczuk with a deadly weapon on May 31, 2012, as well
28 for our employees. Supervisors are always expected to have "just cause" when
15 I will leave to my attorney the further interpretation of the UCDHS just cause,
16 to lead.
17 I am so traumatized when I think about the UCDMC trauma unit, which was
19 However, today I am less surprised about Mr. Chillcot’s war game, after the
20 newspapers and television (TV) news have announced that under the
21 supervision of humanitarian off the Year, Mrs. Claire Pomeroy and UCDMC
22 CEO Mrs. Ann Madden Rice, the UCDMC created an oasis for neurosurgeons
23 whose activities were closely akin to Dr. Mengele’s from the Auschwitz Death
24
Camp—characterized by ill-minded illegal medical experiments. The only
25
difference was that Dr. Mengele was declared a war criminal and sentenced to
26
death in absentia. The two UCDMC “Mengeles” were fired from their jobs,
27
and Mrs. Pomeroy resigned from her position under false pretenses. Mrs. Rice
28
17 I am not sure what more should I write in this final complaint under PPSM 70.
18 I am so traumatized and stressed out, but thanks to God, I escaped the May 31,
15 investigator has ignored and covered up the entire issue in her report.
18 Waszczuk believes that the father of the convicted child pornography felon
19 was promised to have Mr. Waszczuk’s job and position a long time before
20 April 2011. This was yet another reason to retaliate against and harass
21 Waszczuk as well as to later terminate his employment.
22 6. Resolution Requested
23
24
Waszczuk is requesting in good faith the following resolution to end the
25
conflict without further costly litigations.
26
After receiving and reviewing my request/complaint, the UC immediately
27
shall restore my employment in the spirit of the signed 2009 Settlement-
28
21 January 19, 2013- UC Davis PPSM Step II Decisions in the unwarranted Letters of
Expectation Plaintiff’s coworkers William Buckans, Kenny Diede and Dereck Cole were
22 attacked by UC Davis Management in May and August 2012.
23 640. On or around January 19, Plaintiff received from UCDHS HR Labor
24 Relation the Step II Appeal- decisions for the complaints Plaintiff filed on his three coworkers,
25 Kenneth Diede, William Buckans and Dereck Cole were served in May and August 2012.
26 Plaintiff provided representation for the mentioned coworkers pursuant to UC Davis Compliant
27 Resolution Policy PPSM 70.
28
15 violation of law, for which disclosure would have more serious consequences.
16 February 2013
17
26 complaint. The complaint alleges that your dismissal from employment was a
27 violation of University policy and did not follow the just cause standard. The
16
645. The actual three-page Step I Appeal Review was signed by USDHS
17
18 Manager of Facilities Design and Construction Thomas Rush, whom Plaintiff never heard of or
19 met. Normally Step I Appeal is reviewed by the Department Head, which was Charles Witcher,
20 who signed the termination letter. In such a situation, HR, by writing the review, had to insert a
22 646. Thomas Rush was a subordinate and colleague of the USDHS Facilities
23 Design and Construction Executive Director Mike Boyd, who in July 2011 also became Director
24 for the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and became the
25 direct superior of Charles Witcher and indirectly Plaintiff superior. It was no coincidence that
26 Thomas Rush’s name was selected for Step I review. It is the second time Mike Boyd’s
27
subordinate was assigned to review Plaintiff’s appeal. First was Michael Pansious in May 2012,
28
15 attorney. The Thomas Rush decision is even worth to be pasted into this amended complaint.
16
18
19 648. On February 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Step II Appeal from the December 7, 2012
20 Employment Termination Pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 asking $10,000,000 for the
21 unthinkable psychological tortures that Plaintiff experienced from the Defendant in one year and
22 a half of inhumane prosecution and attempts to provoke and kill Plaintiff. In his 19 –page
23 appeal , Plaintiff just vented out his stress and anger knowing that any appeal will not do Plaintiff
24
any good after the Defendant attempted to provoke and kill Plaintiff and UC Davis Police issued
25
and distributed around UC Davis Campuses the “Most Unwanted Persona Non Grata” poster
26
with Plaintiff’s photo and description on it.
27
649. In conclusion of the Step II Appeal request, Plaintiff wrote:
28
7
MARCH 2015
8
9
March 7, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference Complaint with UC
10
Davis Vice Chancellor and Provost Office
11
13 Interference Complaint with the UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s Office due to Plaintiff’s protected
14 activities by the GOVERNMENT CODESECTION 8547-8547.13, which states:
15 8547.10. (a) A University of California employee, including an officer or
16 faculty member, or applicant for employment, may file a written complaint
17 with his or her supervisor or manager, or with any other university officer
18 designated for that purpose by the regents, alleging actual or attempted acts of
19
reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar improper acts for having made
20
a contents of the written complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be
21
true, under penalty of perjury. The complaint shall be filed within 12 months of
22
the most recent act of reprisal complained about.
23
(b) Any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation,
24
threats, coercion, or similar acts against a University of California employee,
25
including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment for
26
having made a protected disclosure, is subject to a fine not to exceed ten
27
thousand dollars ($10,000) and imprisonment in the county jail for up to a
28
6
651. Plaintiff with his Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference complaint
7
form submitted to the UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s office a 35-page brief, 1500 pages of
8
supportive documents and a cover letter, which stated:
9 ‘March 7, 2013
The Honorable Ralph J. Hexter
10 Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
Mrak Hall, Fifth Floor
11 University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
12 Davis, CA 95616
13 Re: Retaliation and Interference Complaint
14 Dear Vice Chancellor Hexter,Enclosed is a copy of my Retaliation and
15 Interference Complaint against certain individuals who are managing the UC
16 Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, California, where I was employed for
17 over thirteen years and where my employment was abruptly and without valid
18
and legitimate reason terminated on December 7, 2012.
19
In addition to the managing officers at the UC Davis Medical Center, who are
20
included in the complaint, UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael and his
21
subordinate, Lieutenant James Barbour, are included in the complaint for
22
alleged act(s) of provocation and conspiracy with other individuals listed in the
23
complaint in an attempt to murder me on May 31, 2012 or send me to the UC
24
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit in a state of extreme harm.
25
It is very disturbing—even unthinkable—that UC Davis leaders should
26
use the UC Davis Police Department to resolve labor disputes with
27
27 Seifert and Cindi Oropeza who portrayed Plaintiff far worse, as a two time convicted child
28 pornography felon who was illegally accessing UC Davis Medical Center HVAC shop
17 Rosenberg found that you had made protected disclosures under the
11 661. The question is whether the UC Senior Vice President, who was overseeing Judith
12 Rosenberg, was aware of all the details of the case and why Plaintiff became a subject of such a
13 vicious retaliation from the Defendant, which lasted for more than a year and half and was
14 continued by the Defendant after Plaintiff’s termination through the State of California
15
Employment Development Department and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
16
Board than in State of California Sacramento of Sacramento Superior Court Department 23 with
17
Presiding Judge Hon. Shaleyanne Chang.
18
662. The University of California Office of the President (UCOP) Principal
19
Investigator Judith concluded her pseudo-investigation in Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation
20
and Interference Complaint on June 23, 2013, which was a year and four months since Plaintiff
21
filed the complaint on April 7, 2013 with UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor Office.
22
663. Judith Rosenberg’s Confidential Investigation Report issued on June 23, 2014
23
was more or less a summary of the previous several fabricated reports as a cause for Plaintiff’s
24
25 May 2012 ten-day suspension without pay and employment termination on December 7, 2012.
26 664. Judith Rosenberg’s investigation report has nothing to do with any investigation
27 and was basically based on slanderous and libelous fabrication issued by UC Davis Health
28 System HR-assigned investigators, Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert and Cindi Oropeza.
16 misleading way the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed with the Regents
19 and experienced attorney at law, was perfectly aware what the 2009 Settlement-Agreement was
20 about and how grossly and unscrupulously it was violated by the Defendant.
21 670. Judith Rosenberg was perfectly aware that the Defendant defamed,
22 defaced and libeled Plaintiff by issuing, two months before he was terminated, the “PERSON
23 NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY” poster. Plaintiff’s photo and description were also
24
included on the poster, which was distributed around the UC Davis Medical Center Campus and,
25
most likely, sent to managers and UC Davis employees by electronic mail. Plaintiff was still a
26
University employee and received treatment like a “Most Wanted” criminal by the FBI.
27
671. Plaintiff is not certain whether Judith Rosenberg was aware or knew prior
28
15 the President and the University of California Office of the General Counsel or that the very
16 narrow group of the University officials knew what this case was about.
17 674. The 2009 Settlement-Agreement Plaintiff signed with the Regents of the
18 University of California was not mentioned in by UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley in his
19 decision.
20 675. UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley resigned or was forced to resign from
21 his $400,000 job with the University of California shortly after he signed the decision in
22 Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation Complaint.
23 676. UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley from November 2011-April 2012 was a
24
member of the Task Force Team, which investigated a pepper spray attack ordered by UC Davis
25
Chancellor Katehi against protesting students on November 18, 2011. The Task Force Team, of
26
which UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley was a member, caused unemployment for UC
27
Davis Police Captain Joy Souza , Lt. John Pike and UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza
28
7 April 3, 2013 – The letter to UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd
Termination of Plaintiff’s Employment – PPSM 70 Step II Appeal Hearing on April 2, 2013
8
677. On April 2, 2013, the Step II Appeal hearing took place in Plaintiff’s employment
9
termination pursuant to the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 with the presiding Complainant
10
Resolution Officer at the hearing, UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd, who
11
was Plaintiff’s indirect superior and, by the position and title, was responsible for Plaintiff’s
12
employment termination.
13
678. Plaintiff followed the instruction in the Letter of Termination dated December 5,
14
2012 and filed the complaint pursuant to the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70.
15
16 679. In 2013, Plaintiff was uncertain whether he should pursue his employment
17 termination complaint under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 or file the lawsuit to enforce the
18 February 2009 Settlement-Agreement that the Defendant i.e., the Regents of the University of
20 700. Plaintiff, by filing the complaints pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM, had little
21 hope that his employment and position, provided to him by the 2009 Settlement-Agreement,
22 would be eventually restored without litigation or knowing that the decision to terminate him
23 came from the Defendant’ Headquarters in Oakland, CA and was carried out by Director Boyd
24 and others.
25
701. Plaintiff summarized the April 2, 2013 Step II Appeal Hearing as follows:
26 April 3, 2013
9 statements that were outlined in the Notice Intent to Dismiss for Serious
10 Misconduct.
13 employer during the pending internal appeals under the PPSM 70appeals.
14 The abovementioned appeal with the California Insurance Appeal Board is
15 similar to my PPSM Step II Appeal, but is more focused and specifically
16 addresses the out-of-context statement written in Charles Witcher’s Notice
17 Intent to Dismiss dated September 25, 2012.
18
Together with this letter, I am sending you a copy of my Appeal Brief and the
19
relevant exhibits I submitted to the California Insurance Appeal Board.
20
I hope that the enclosed documents and your careful review of Oropeza and
21
Seifert’s Investigatory Report, which is based on lies, false statements and
22
fabricated accusations by a handful of people, will help you understand that
23
this case will not end with your hearing or in arbitration but, instead, will
24
ultimately be pursued in a court of law and justice will be served.
25
Besides the above, I am respectfully asking you for help on behalf of my
26
HVAC shop coworker, Kenny Diede, whose life and working conditions in the
27
16 Best Regards,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
17 CC: HR, Charles Witcher , Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter, Kenny Diede .
18
MAY 2013
19 May 2, 2013 – UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd’s – PPSM 70 Step II
Appeal Decision In Plaintiff’s Employment Termination Complaint
20
702. On May 2, 2013, UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd
21
issued a decision in Plaintiff’s Step II Appeal employment termination complaint as follows
22
703. Plaintiff’s hope that Director Boyd, with his executive power, would find
23
a different solution was broken like a soap bubble”?
24
May 5, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Response to Director Boyd’s Step II Decision
25
26
10 Mr. Boyd:
On April 2, 2013, we held a meeting on the UC Davis Campus. On the same-day, UC
11
12 Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo wrote me a letter and informed me
13 that she had accepted my complaint under the university’s Whistleblower Protection
14 Policy.
15
18 Page No. 1
19
Boyd: “During the meeting, Mr. Waszczuk asserted that the
termination was an act of retaliation that is linked to complaints he
20 made about his supervisors and management staff within PO&M when
working at the Central Plant from 1999 to 2007 and more recent
21 allegations and concerns that he raised in 2010 and 2011. This assertion is
consistent with similar assertions he made in his Step I Appeal and in the
22 documentation provided in the Step II Appeal submittal. He also maintains
that the disciplinary actions have been taken represent a breach of the
23 2009 Settlement-Agreement between him and the University.”
11 During our discussion, I pointed out to you the following fragment from
12 Seifert and Oropeza’s report, in order to help you understand how Seifert and
13 Oropeza crafted cause for you to terminate my employment.
14
19 After I read you this fragment from Oropeza and Seifert’s report, I asked you
20 the following question in relation to Putney’s lies:
21
“Mr. Boyd, you were born in and have lived your entire life in the USA,
22
right?” You answered, “yes.” I then asked you, “Do you know or did you
23
ever hear any ethnic slurs in this country directed against Romanians,
24
similar to nigger, Pollack, wetback, or other such slurs?” You responded
25
26
that you didn’t know, and that you never heard any slurs directed
28 Putney whether he or Daniliuc know any ethnic slurs about Romanians, not to
12
UC Davis’ Policy PPSM 70.
13 706. On December 5, 2013, exactly one year after the Defendant terminated
14 Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff held a meeting with Boyd in the UC Davis Medical Center.
15 Boyd was assigned as the Compliant Resolution Officer (CRO) Step II Reviewer in the Case No.
16 03-PPS-011-12/13. During the meeting, Plaintiff was representing HVAC Technician Dereck
17 Cole in his complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 for his 2011/2012 “Does Not Meet
18 Expectation Employee Performance Review (Evaluation).” The “Does Not Meet Expectation
19 Evaluation” was basically the last step for the employee to be terminated if he did not improve
20 his performance and behavior and achieve the goals for the next evaluation period, as outlined by
21
the supervisors or managers in the employee evaluations.
22
23 707. Mike Boyd, as Executive Director and Complaint Resolution Officer, and
24 as Plaintiff’s superior, knew that the Employee Performance Reviews (evaluations), mandated by
25 UC Davis Policy PPSM 23, are the most important documents to make a decision in any adverse
15 provide him with evaluations for the last two years of his employment mandated by UC Davis
16 Policy PPSM 23, thus maliciously depriving Plaintiff of the UC Davis administrative remedies
17 under UC Davis Policy PPSM 23 and violating his employment and civil rights to be treated
19
22
YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR
23
1999-00 “…performance very good” Kavanagh
24 “has become a very knowledgeable and effective central, plant
operator” --
25 “very conscientious and thorough” --
“can be counted on to make the right operational decisions” --
26 “valuable employee” --
“committed to the future success of the Medical Center” --
27 VERY GOOD often exceeded expectations and standards --
9 712. On May 7, 2013, Plaintiff obtained the Right To Sue Notice from the State
10 of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing DFHH Matter: 112740-49836-R
11 after losing hope that the wrongful termination and discrimination that the Defendant caused him
12 could be resolved without litigation.
13 DECEMBER 2013
14 December 4, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Wrongful Termination Complaint Against the Defendant with
the State of California County of Sacramento Superior Court
15
16
713. On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff in Pro Per filed in State of California,
17
County of Sacramento Superior Court the Wrongful Termination Complaint.
18
714. On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff simultaneously filed in the State of
19
California, County of Sacramento Superior Court a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus,
20
Administrative Mandamus (CCP § 1085;1094.5) to order the California Unemployment
21
Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and/or The Employment Development Department (EDD) to
22
calculate and provide unemployment benefits to Plaintiff or a remand for a rehearing to award
23
such benefits related to Plaintiff’s December 7, 2012, employment termination.
24
715. Defendant in further despicable violation and breach of the February
25
2009Settlement-Agreement, with an evil spirit, defaced and defamed Plaintiff with the State of
26
California Employment Development Department for the purpose of denying Plaintiff ‘s
27
unemployment benefits after terminating Plaintiff’s employment.
28
13
718. On March 11, 2014, Plaintiff sent a letter to the University of California
14
Office of the President (UCOP) Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg, who had been handling
15
Plaintiff’s whistleblowing retaliation complaint since June 2013. Plaintiff filed the
16
whistleblowing retaliation complaint with the UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor’s Office on
17
19 719. The purpose of Plaintiff’s March 11, 2014, 10-page-long letter to Judith
20 Rosenberg was to summarize Plaintiffs’ meeting with her, which took place in Defendants’
22 720. In his letter to Judith Rosenberg, Plaintiff mentioned the interview the UC
23 Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru issea u ga ve to Sacramento African-
24 American magazine Sub Cultural Hub. The interview was conducted by Donna Michelle Ramos
25 on August 6, 2012, and was entitled “A Look Back.”
26 721. Dr. Shelton Du ru isseau wa s o ne o f De fe nda n ts and p e rpe tra tors
27
who pa rtic ip a ted in the d esp ica b le re ta lia to ry p re em p tive ac tion a ga in st Pla intiff
28
6 threw a retirement party in his Eldorado Hill residence. The two guests of
7 honor at the party were Mayor of Sacramento Mr. Kevin Johnson and Mr.
9 Taylor. Besides the lavish retirement party, Dr. Duruisseau gave an interview
14 While reading the “A look back” interview with Dr. Duruisseau, a few
15
statements caught my attention. The first statement that caught my attention
16
was:
17
24
25
26 I am very skeptical about Dr. Duraisseau’s statement that the Central Plant sold
27
enough energy in its first four years of operation to cover the cost of building
28
18 DeRusso, and Principal Engineer from Brown and Caldwell James L. Bartlett.
19
20 Apparently, in 1998 Dr. Duraisseau and Project Manager Mr. Mike Lewis had
21 no clue what a cogeneration facility stands for and what criteria such a facility
22 must meet to be in compliance with federal law (FERC).
23
24
By reading the 2012 “A look back” interview and seeing Dr. Duraisseau’s
25
name on the plaque in the Central Plant, it is not difficult to conclude that the
26
Central Plant for him and others was like a sacred and untouchable place built
27
for future generations to remember “great” UC Davis leaders. However, the
28
15 Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru isse au ’s in te rv ie w, she had no p rob lem figu rin g ou t
16 why in Ma rc h 20 07 Pla in tiff was remo ve d fro m the Cen tra l Pla nt why De fe nda n ts
17 sign ed Se ttlem en t-Ag ree men t with Plain tiff in Feb ru ary 200 9 , an d why Pla intiff
19 m illio ns of do lla rs o f reve nue fro m the produ c tion and sa le of ele c trica l e ne rg y
20 b y the UC Dav is Me d ica l Cen tra l Pla n t was th e issu e an d b ig p ro b lem
21 724. Plaintiff is familiar with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s
22 (FERC’s) regulation and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) because
23 prior to his employment with UC Davis Medical Center, Plaintiff worked for a private corporation
24
with a similar cogeneration facility that did not meet FERC and PURPA requirements to be
25
certified as a “qualified cogeneration facility.” Plaintiff’s previous employer committed enormous
26
fraud against Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers and settled out of court for $100
27
million. The $100 million fraud occurred after only six years of unlawful cogeneration facility
28
8
726. Besides the letter to the UCOP Investigator, on March 17, 2014, Plaintiff
9
sent a six-page letter to Sac Cultural Hub Senior Staff Writer/News Reporter Donna Michelle
10
Ramos about her August 6, 2012, interview with UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr.
11
Shelton Du ru isseau .
12
13 “A few days ago, I wrote letters to two UC Office of the Presidents’ officials,
14 Principal Investigator Ms. Judith Rosenberg and UC Senior Vice President
15
Dan Dooley, and I mentioned your interview with Mr. Shelton Duruisseau in
16
my letter because Mr. Shelton Duruisseau made a statement about the UC
17
Davis Medical Center Central Plant where I was employed for several years. I
18
am enclosing both letters for context.”
19
727. Even after the reading Dr. Shelton Du ruisse au ’s u n in te ntiona l
20
c on fe ssion du rin g the in te rv ie w a bou t th e en ormo us p ro fit th e Ce ntra l Plan t
21
g ene ra ted and after writing a Ma rc h 11 , 2014 , le tte r to UCOP In ve stiga to r Jud ith
22
Ro se nbe rg , Pla in tiff d id no t th in k tha t th e De fen da nts’ v ic ious re ta lia tion
23
strik es ag ainst Pla in tiff wa s a pree mp tiv e we ll-orche stra te d De fend an ts ac tio n
24
25 re la ted in direc tly o r to the $ 100 ,0 00 ,0 00 fraud co mm itte d by Pla in tiff’s prev iou s
27 728. Plaintiff during his employment with UC Davis Medical Center was not
28 interested in ever looking into the issue of whether or not the Central Plant was being operated
15 autonomy and independence from the state and federal laws and regulations.
16 732. Even if Plaintiff would have thought about the Central Plant’s PURPA
17 qualification, Plaintiff was not willing to spend his own $10,000 and lose his job again at his
18 age for the purpose of filing a complaint with FERC in an attempt to nullify the Central Plant
19 certification issued by FERC and obtained by Defendants in the self-certification process (if
20 any). Also, it would never would crossed Plaintiff’s mind that Defendants committed fraud
21 against another entity in the same manner that Plaintiff’s previous employer did because Central
22 Plant was built to provide utility for UC Davis Medical Center and that surplus energy should be
23 sold because electric energy cannot to be stored like the other product.
24
733. The previous Plaintiff’s employer committed an enormous $100,000,000
25
fraud against Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers in 1989–1996, violating the PURPA
26
mandated requirements for operating a cogeneration facility.
27
734. The March 11, 2014, letter to the UCOP Principal Investigator Judith
28
15 improve situation and Plaintiff was threatened with employment termination when Plaintiff
18 736. After Plaintiff wrote the letter to UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg on
19 March 11, 2014, and Sac Cultural Hub Senior Staff Writer/News Reporter Donna Michelle
20 Ramos on March 17, 2014, Defendants reacted sharply and went viral to divert Plaintiff’s
21 attention from the huge profits generated by the Central Plant from electrical energy sale
22 disclosed which was disclosed by UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru isseau
23 in h is in te rvie w with Do nna Ramo s.
24
737. On March 20, 2014 Plaintiff received e-mail correspondence from UC
25
Davis Health System Human Resource (HR) Labor Relations Manager Travis Lindsey. More
26
than two years after Plaintiff’s employment termination, attempted to advise Plaintiff of where
27
Plaintiff should send information about Defendants and where not to send it. Plaintiff responded
28
15 737. In March 2014, Plaintiff was also not aware of the fact that on February
16 24, 2014, the attorney in the unrelated Plaintiff’s wrongful termination case pending in the same
17 Sacramento Superior Court (Janet Keyzer v. The Regents of the University of California, Case
19 against Judge Shelleyanne Chang in which Attorney Mary -Alice Coleman declared that:
20
“The Honorable Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, the Judge before whom the
21
trial in the aforesaid matter is pending or to whom the aforesaid trial is
22
assigned, is prejudiced against me or Plaintiff so that Plaintiff cannot or I
23
believe that Plaintiff cannot have a fair and impartial hearing before this
24
25 Judge.”
28 738. Hon. Shelleyanne Chang has been the subject of a Peremptory Challenge
15 attitude toward Plaintiff and his witnesses could best be described with her statement after
16 Plaintiff made a statement about his coworker’s suicide, caused by Defendants’ hostile working
17 environment. ALJ Marilyn Tays responded: “All right, I guess he is not here.” When Plaintiff
18 heard this, I had no doubt where ALJ Marilyn Tays was going with her hearing.
8
745. Following the March 2014 Hon. Shelleyanne Chang reassignment, Travis
9
Lindsey’s email correspondence, and Plaintiff’s letters to UCOP Investigator
10
Judith Rosenberg ,the California Deputy Attorney General Ashante L. Norton, who represents
11
CUIAB as a Legal Counsel , filed on April 1, 2014, a frivolous Notice of Demurrer in Plaintiff’s
12
Writ of Mandamus case to distract Plaintiff and made Plaintiff forget about UC Davis Assistant
13
Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru isse au ’s in te rv ie w with Donn a Ram os.
14
15 746. On April 17, 2014, Defendants as the Real Party in Interest in the Writ of
16 Mandamus case filed in the court a Joinder supporting CUIAB’s legal counsel Notice of
17 Demurer. Defendants’ Joinder supporting CUIAB Demurer would perhaps not been strange to
18 Plaintiff if the four top-notch attorneys from the UC Office of the General Counsel had not
19 appeared on Joinder pleading, including Charles F. Robinson, UCOP General Counsel; Karen J.
20 Petrulakis, UCOP Chief Deputy General Counsel; Cynthia A. Vroom, UCOP Senior Counsel;
21 and Margaret L Wu, UCOP Managing Counsel.
22 747. Writ of Mandamus for the unemployment insurance benefits is not the
23 million-dollar case that required the involvement of the four top-notch legal counsels from the
24
UC Office of the General Counsel, especially the UC General Counsel Charles F. Robinson,
25
reports directly to UC Regents.
26
748. In addition to the above, in January 2015, Plaintiff filed an Objection to
27
the Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motion and included the Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton
28
15 Governors members and the members of the Board of University of California Reagents are
16 nominated by the governor of California and confirmed by the State of California Senate.
17 751. In 1999–2003 ISO was the distributor of electric power sold by UC Davis
18 Medical Center Central Plant on the open market. Plaintiff was employed in the UC Davis
19 Medical Center Central Plant by Defendants from June 1999 to March 2007.
20 752. The UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant in 1999–2003 was selling
21 power at the highest bids on the spot in the market via ISO exactly in same way as Enron or
22 former Plaintiff employer Dynegy, manipulating power and causing a rolling shortage of energy
24 753. Defendant were manipulating the electric power sale on a small scale in
25 comparison to Enron or Dynegy, but even selling 15 MW was enough to provide electricity for
26 15,000 people. In 2002, the former Plaintiff employer Dynegy and 10 other energy suppliers that
27 contributed to California’s energy crisis and rolling blackouts were fined with small fines in the
28
10 employee performance review (evaluation) for 2006–2007, and Plaintiff’s evaluation looked
11 nothing like what happened in 2006–2007 in contrary to the suspension and reassignment March
13 755. In January 2007, Charles Robinson joined the University as the General
14 Counsel, and he knew all of the secrets about the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration
15 facility’s electric power production, distribution, and sale via California Independent System
16 Operator (ISO).
V. CONCLUSION
17
18
19 756. The reason for Defendant’ despicable conspiracy against Plaintiff did not
20 cross Plaintiff’s mind until June 2015 during Plaintiff’s preparation to file Plaintiff’s Opposition
21 to the Defendant’ Legal Fees and Cost in relation to Defendant’ Anti- Strategic Lawsuit Against
23 757. Plaintiff did not had a clue that Plaintiff’s victory in 2008 arbitration
24 against Defendant —which ended with the 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed with
25 Defendant—was signed by Defendant in evil spirit and bad faith. The arbitration and the
26 Settlement –Agreement was just a short and unexpected delay for the Defendant before the
27 Defendant exercised and launched a second preemptive retaliatory strike against Plaintiff to end
28 Plaintiff’s employment with the University of California which orchestrated by UC Davis Health
20 772. Plaintiff in November 2008 did not realize that the prevailing, in
21 arbitration, and signing the Settlement – Agreement in February 2009 in good faith with the
22 Defendant was only a short time before Defendants would carry out their evil-spirited plan to
23 terminate the Plaintiff’s employment. The Plaintiff outlined and described the extreme,
24 outrageous, atrocious, and utterly intolerable conduct of the Defendants in paragraphs and
25 subparagraphs 1 through 144.
26 773. The Defendant, the Regents of the University of California, by and through its
27 own employees, agents, and officers, kept Plaintiff out of the workplace for over one year for no apparent
28
18 DISPARAGEMENT neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants were to disparage each other. Plaintiff at all
19 times expressed his good faith beliefs in the truth. When, in reality, Plaintiff was a valuable employee,
20 who had the best interests of the hospital always in mind, the Defendants not only disparaged Plaintiff
21 but made Plaintiff look like the most-wanted criminal.
22 777. In September 2012, two month before Plaintiff’s employment termination, the
23 Defendant ordered own officers, agents, and UC Davis Police to issue a poster similar to the FBI’s “Most
24 Wanted” criminals posters with Plaintiff’s photo and description on. The issued UC Davis Police
25 poster was distributed around UC Davis Campuses without informing Plaintiff about it. The Defendants
26 wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment on December 7, 2012.
27 778. The written Settlement - Agreement contains an implied covenant of good
28
27
783. The Plaintiff loss of 2011 base salaries earnings were $8,328.40 plus 10% daily
28
16 785. The Plaintiff’s loss due to breach of contract in 2012 involved base salary
17 earnings of $8,882.00 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants pay to
18 Plaintiff the requested amount.
19 44.28 hours at a rate of $34.31/hour were accrued or would have been accrued in sick leave if
20 the Defendants had not breached the contract and if Plaintiff had been employed by the Defendants.
21 44.28 hour x $34.1 = $1,519.20 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the
22 Defendants pay Plaintiff the requested amount.
23 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff for
24 2012 in sum of $10,401.20 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants
25 pay to Plaintiff the requested amount.
26
27 The Plaintiff’s Employment Termination by the Defendant Five Years prior to the Plaintiff’s
28
2 786. The Plaintiff’s base salary earning from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017,
3 would be $358,200 if the Defendants had not breached the contract, and Plaintiff would have earned the
4 above amount until Plaintiff retired at the age of 66 and a half on December 31, 2017, as Plaintiff planned
5 to do.
6 787. The Plaintiff’s earning would be higher if Plaintiff were to receive pay raises in
7 this period or if the Defendants would reclassify Plaintiff’s annual salary. The Middle Salary Grade for
8 Associate Development Engineer pursuant to the UC Davis Title Code 7182 has been changed
9 effective July 1, 2014 from $ 71,640.00 to $76,600.00 annually.
10 $71,640 base annual salary x 5 years = $358,200. Plaintiff would earn this if
11 employed by the Defendants plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants
12 pay the requested amount.
13 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff in sum of
14 $358,200 plus 10% daily compound interest
15 788. The 221.4 hours of accrued sick leave and 886.2 hours of accrued vacation
16 at a pay rate of $34.31 = $38,001.00. Plaintiff would earn this if employed by the Defendant plus
17 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants pay the requested amount.
18 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff in sum of
19 $38.001 plus 10% daily compound interest
20
23
789. Defendants breached the signed contract with Plaintiff and unlawfully
24
terminated Plaintiff on December 7, 2012 at the age of 61 and a half. The Plaintiff, at age 61 and
25
a half, was not eligible to receive even the earlier Social Security income benefits for which
26
Plaintiff could apply in May 2013. For the full Social Security income benefit would have work
27
until year 2017.
28
9 and terminated the 61-and-a-half-year-old Plaintiff without the possibility of the Plaintiff being
10 hired by any employer at his age, thus depriving Plaintiff of any income until Plaintiff received
11
earlier retirement Social Security income benefit at age of 62 or the University Retirement
12
Benefits.
13
23 792. By Breaching contract and violating the Skelly Law, the Defendants
24 terminated Plaintiff without the possibility of finding other employment at his age and with his
25 health. They denied Plaintiff’s unemployment insurance benefits, thus Plaintiff was left without
26 any income, health insurance, or life insurance.
27 793. n such a situation, Plaintiff was forced to cash out a lump sum from his
28
3 798. In 2011, Defendants grossly and despicably breached the contract and
4 performed inhumane harassment of the Plaintiff in an attempt to terminate Plaintiff or force him
5 to quit. The Defendant, through town agents and officers, de-enrolled Plaintiff from the Medical
6 and Dental Health Insurance benefits and denied Plaintiff’s Short Term Disability Insurance
7 benefits when Plaintiff was on stress-related sick leave caused by the Defendants’ agents and
8 officers.
9 799. When Plaintiff noticed in January 2012 that the Defendants had de-enrolled
10 Plaintiff from the Health and Dental Insurance and changed Plaintiff’s position without the
11 Plaintiff’s knowledge from an Associate Development Engineer to Programmer I (Demotion),
12 Plaintiff thought that Plaintiff would be terminated soon and so Plaintiff’s spouse enrolled Plaintiff
13 in her employer Nordstrom’s Corporation Health and Dental Insurance Benefits in January 2012.
14 Thanks to Plaintiff’s wife’s employer, Plaintiff has Health and Dental Insurance coverage
15 including medicine.
16 800. The Defendants re-enrolled Plaintiff into the Health and Dental Plan in
17 January 2012 but Plaintiff did not de-enroll himself from his spouse’s employer health insurance
18 and dental plan because he would be not able to re-enroll if Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s
19 employment, which occurred in December 2012.
20 801. Since February 2012, Plaintiff maintained his health and dental insurance
21 with his spouse’s employer Nordstrom Corporation, and this insurance would be maintained until
22 Plaintiff’s spouse’s retirement in September 2017. This increased the Plaintiff’s spouse’s monthly
23 premium for health and dental insurance from $94.00/month to $382.00/month. The difference
24 in premium, which is $288/month.
25 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Plaintiff , shall be compensated by the Defendants
26 from February 2012 to September 2017 until Plaintiff’s wife retires from Nordstrom at age 66,
27 which is 56 months x 288= $16,128.00 total sum due to Plaintiff
28
4 802. For 13 years of employment with the University of California, Plaintiff was
5 paying premiums every paycheck to the amount of $149.90 for Supplemental Life Insurance, A&D,
6 and Dependents Life Insurance, totaling $23,384 in premiums alone for 13 years. Plaintiff was
7 insured by Supplemental Life Insurance to the amount of $280,000, by Accidental Death and
8 Dismemberment Insurance to the amount of $500,000, and by Dependents Life Insurance to the
9 amount of $100,000.
10 803. The Defendants erased the above-mentioned Plaintiff’s benefits due to their
11 reckless violation of a signed contract with Plaintiff and unlawfully terminating Plaintiff’s
12 employment on December 7, 2012, at the of age 61 and a half, knowing that the Plaintiff had had
13 open-heart surgery and other health problems and that Plaintiff, at his age and health, would either
14 not be able to obtain Life Insurance, Accidental Death and Dismemberment, and Dependents Life
15 Insurance at all or, if so, that the premiums would be so high that Plaintiff wouldn’t even be able
16 to dream about having Life Insurance.
17 804. Due to their breach and violation of the signed February 2009 contract with
18 Plaintiff, the Defendants are liable for paying his spouse the mentioned benefits if Plaintiff dies.
19 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay the mentioned benefits to his
20 spouse if the Plaintiff dies.
21 805. The other option is that Plaintiff will find an insurance company that would be
22 willing to provide these benefits to Plaintiff and Defendant will pay the premiums until the
23
Plaintiff dies. EXAMPLE: Banner Life Insurance Company-
24
Semi-Annually: 4,720.05Quarterly:2,406.30Monthly (EFT):809.81
25
28
28 819. To be sure, Defendant, and Defendant’s agents sand officers knew Plaintiff is, and
16 The Violation and Breach of Settlement –Agreement by the and Defendant’s Discrimination
against Plaintiff Base on his Mental and Medical Condition
17
18
829. Defendant and Defendant’s agents and officers by breeching and violating the
19
2009 Settlement –Agreement, further discriminated against Plaintiff based on his mental
20
disability and medical condition as described herein.
21
22 830. Defendant and its agents, managers and employees, by violating and breaching the
23 signed Settlement –Agreement with Plaintiff violated California Government Code §12940, by failing
24 to adequately supervise, control, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the conduct, acts, and failures to
25 act as described herein. As such, Defendant and the Individual Defendant failed to fulfill their statutory
26 duty to take all reasonable and necessary steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from
28 831.. Despite Plaintiffs complaints about violation and breach of 2009 Settlement Agreement
28
3
839. Defendant and Defendant’s agents and officers purposely and with evil spirit
4
violated and breached the signed 2009 Settlement –Agreement with Plaintiff as part and parcel
5
6 of their ongoing, continuing, and repeated retaliation, harassment, for the purpose to cover up
7 and conceal their misconduct, violation of state and federal law ,engaged in a course of action
8
that constituted not be released from liability under § No. 7 and § No 8. of the settlement –
9
agreement to be sue for and Defendant is liable for violation of not limited to the Immigration
10
Reform and Control Act; the Family Medical Leave Act and the Higher Education Employer-
11
12 Employee Relations Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil
13 Rights Act of 1991, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Americans with
14
Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act), the
15
law of contract and tort; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
16
28
11 843. The California Legislature enacted Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5 because
12 “… it is the public policy of the State of California to encourage patients, nurses, members of the
13 medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe
14 patient care and conditions. The Legislature encourages this reporting in order to protect patients
15 and in order to assist those accreditation and government entities charged with ensuring that health
16 care is safe. The Legislature finds and declares that whistleblower protections apply primarily to
17 issues relating to the care, services, and conditions of a facility and are not intended to conflict
18 with existing provisions in state and federal law relating to employee and employer relations…”
19 (Emphasis Added)
20 844. Section 1278.5(b) (1) provides “No health facility shall discriminate or retaliate, in
21 any manner, against any patient, employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care
22 worker of the health facility because that person has…Presented a grievance, complaint, or report
23 to the facility, to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility, or the
24 medical staff of the facility, or to any other governmental entity…” (Emphasis Added)
25 845. Section 1278.5(d)(1) states (d) (1) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that
26 discriminatory action was taken by the health facility, or by the entity that owns or operates that
27 health facility, or that owns or operates any other health facility, in retaliation against an employee,
28
10 By: _________________________
11
12 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this cause. My residence or business address is:
2.1 >^ I I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. I served a copy of the Notice of Entry of
Dismissal and Request for Dismissal by mailing them, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, as follows:
a. I I I deposited the envelope with the United States Postal Sen/ice.
1} I I I placed the envelope for collection and processing for mailing following this business's ordinary practice with
which I am readily familiar. On the same day conrespondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited
in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service,
c. Date of deposit: 9/30/2015 d. Place of deposit (city and state): L o d i , C A 9 5 2 4 0
e. Addressed as follows (name and address):
Douglas Repel ,350 University AvejSuite 200; Sacramento 95825
3 I I I served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Request for Dismissal by personally delivering copies as shown below:
a. Name of person served:
b. Address at which person served:
c. On (dafe); d. At (time):
I served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Request for Dismissal by electronically sen/ing copies as shown below
(complete if electronic service is used based on a court order or agreement of the parties):
a. Name of person served:
b. Electronic service address of person served:
c. On (date): d. At(f/me).-
e. Electronic service address from which I served the documents:
I I Proof of electronic service is attached.
5- I—I Proof of service on additional parties is attached.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: September 3 0 , 2 0 1 5
Irena Waszczuk ^
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) Page 1 of 1
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code of Civil Procedure, § 581 et seq.;
Judicial Council of Califomia NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DISMISSAL Cal. Rules of Court, mle 3.1390
CIV-120 [Rev. January 1,2012] www.courts.ca.gov
AND PROOF OF SERVICE
CIV-110
ATTORNEY OR PARTY wn>IOUT ATTORNEY (Wame, State Bar number, and address)
FOR COURT USE ONLY
Jaroslaw Waszczuk ; IN PR'O PER
2216 Katzakian Way , Lodi CA 95242
TELEPHONE NO: ( 2 0 9 ) 6 6 3 - 2 9 7 7 FMt^O. (Optional): (209)370-8281
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional):jjw1980@live.com
ATTORNEY FOR (Wame;: Jaroslaw
Waszczuk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
STREET ADDRESS: ^ 2 0 9 t h S t r e e t OCT - 1 2015
MAILING ADDRESS 720 9th street
CITY AND ZIP CODE: Sacramento, CA 95814
BRANCH NAME: Civil By R. CASTILLO
Deputy Clerk
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Jaroslaw Waszczuk; IN PRO PER
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: The Regents of the University of California
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL CASE NUMBER: 34-2013-00155479
A conformed copy will not be returned by the clerk unless a method of return is provided with the document.
This form may not be used for dismissal of a derivative action or a class action or of any party or cause of action in a
class action. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.760 and 3.770.)
1. TO THE CLERK: Please dismiss this action as follows:
a. (1) I • I With prejudice (2) j j Without prejudice
b. (1) CZHJ Complaint
Complaint (2) £13 Petition
(3)1 ] Cross-complaint filed by (name): on (date):
(4) I I Cross-complaint filed by (name): on (date):
(5) I I Entire action of all parties and all causes of action
(6) I • ! Other (specify):* Defendants : Charles Witcher, Ann Madden Rice, Dorin Daniliuc , Patrick Putney
2. (Complete in all cases except family law cases.)
The court I I did I «^ I did not waive court fees and costs for a party in this cas|. (This infonnation m^jylfe obtained from
the clerk. If court fees and costs were waived, the declaration on the back off/?/;
Date: September 30, 2015
J^rpglavy Wqsai?uk . . . . .
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF I I ATTORNEY j • | PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) '(SIGNATURE)
*lf dismissal requested is of specified parties only of specified causes of action Attomey or party without attorney for:
only, or of specified cross-complaints only, so state and identify the parties, I I Plaintiff/Petitioner I *^ I Defendant/Respondent
causes of action, or cross-complaints to be dismissed.
Cross-Complainant
3. TO THE CLERK: Consent to the above dismissal is hereby given.'
Date: 9/30/2015
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF j | ATTORNEY | • | PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY)
' If a cross-complaint - or Response (Family Law) seeking affirmative Attomey or party without attorney for:
relief - is on file, ttie attomey for cross-complainant (respondent) must
sign this consent if required by Code of Civil Procedure section 581 (I) I I Plaintiff/Petitioner I I Defendant/Respondent
orO).
I I Cross-Complainant
(To beafmpleted by clerk) _
4. I Ir I Dismissal entered as requested on (dafej: ULI ~ I tUID
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the information above is true afidicorrect.
May 3 1, 2015
Carmen Angeles
Sedgwick-Litigation Specialist
Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.
1100 Ridgway Loop Rd., Ste. 200
Memphis, TN 38120-4057
On December 2, 2014, the UC filed a special motion to strike under the California Anti-SLAPP
Law CCP § 425.16 to strike the first four causes of actions and five individual defendants from
my second amended complaint.
The five individual defendants and UC Davis Health System (UC Davis Medical Center)
employees Human Resources Department Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, Facilities
Director Mike Boyd, HR Benefits and EOE Title IX Manager Cindi Oropeza, HR Investigator
Danesha Nichols, and HR Labor Relation Supervisor Bren Seifert became the subjects to strike
from the second amended complaint by Anti-SLAPP.
1
Letter to Sedgwick CMS -Anti-SLAPP Motion
ORIGINAL
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, In Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi,CA 95242
Phone: 209.663.2977
Fax: 209.787.3131
jjwl980@live.com
Bv D. JOHNSON-MELLADO
DEPUiY CLERK
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
8
11 Plaintiff
12
vs. PLAINTIFF'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
13
The Regents of the University of Califomia,
(Code of Civil Procedure § 170.6)
ai
14 Ann Madden Rice, Mike Boyd, Stephen <
Chilcott, Charles Witcher, Danesha Nichols,
15 Cindy Oropeza, Brent Seifert, Patrick Putney, Hearing Date: August 4, 2021
Dorin Daniliuc, and does 1-50 Time: 1:30 p.m.
16 Dept: 53
Complaint Filed: December 4,2013
17 Amended Complaint Fiied: June 16, 2014
Defendants SAC Filed: September 30, 2014
18
19
20
21
I, Jaroslaw Waszczuk, the self-represented Plaintiff in the above-captioned case, declare as
22 follows:
23
The Honorable Shama Hakim Mesiwala, the judge before whom the Defendant's Motion for
24 Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, the Summary Adjudication regarding the aforesaid matter
25 is pending or to whom the aforesaid motion is assigned, is prejudiced against me. Consequently, I
26 believe that I cannot have a fair and impartial hearing for this motion before this Judge.
27 //
28 //
- 1 -
PLAINTIFF'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
//
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on June 28, 2021, in
Lodi, Califomia.
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff, In Pro Per
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2 -
PLAINTIFF'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
Proof of Service bv US Mail, FAX and E-mail
2 Re: Case : Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California- Case No.: 34-
2013-00155479; 3DCA Case Waszczuk v. Regents o f Univ. o f CaL, C079524 (Cal. Ct.
3
App. Oct. 10, 2017)
4
I, IRENA WASZCZUK the undersigned, declare that 1 am over 18 years of age and
5
not a party to the within cause; my address is 2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi, CA. 95242. On
6 Jime 28, 2021,1 served a true copy of the attached each ofthe following,
By placing the same copy in an envelope or envelopes addressed respectively as follows:
7 PLAINTIFF'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
8
Lindsay A, Goulding by Fax 916.927.3706ande-maillgoulding@porterscott.com
9 PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
10
Sacramento, CA 95825
11
Clerk ofthe Sacramento Coimty Superior Court U.S Mail
12
Department 53 - Hon. Shama Hakim Mesiwala
13 813 6th Street, 2nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
14
18
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Califomia that the
19
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 28, 2021 , at Lodi CA
20
21
22 IRENA WASZCZUK
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3 -
PLAINTIFF'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 4 -
PLAINTIFF'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
Ftft]'Prvmn
- 1. ' . J L_ i : !
v.
I.
INTRODUCTION
moves this Court by this Motion to recall the Mandate issued on September 19, 2022
(EXHIBIT #1), reinstate the appeal, and reopen the case USCA No. 20-1407, which
was dismissed by the Court’s error in claiming that the Case lacks a subject matter
Mobley Li v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022), see
Court ruled for the dismissal of this appeal for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4) and remanded it to the Tax Court with instructions to do
the same. The Court dismissed the Li appeal due to a lack of jurisdiction after
reviewing the Cooper v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2015-72 (U.S.T.C. Apr. 8, 2015),
concluded that Cooper and Lacey were wrongly decided by the Tax Court, which
whistleblower award requests; thus, the Li case decided the fate of the Waszczuk
appeal from the June 4, 2020 U.S. Tax Court decision, which granted the IRS
https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-commr.
The Commissioner informed Waszczuk yesterday that will file opposition to the
Waszczuk’s motion
II.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY OF THE CASE JAROSLAW
WASZCZUK V. COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
CASE NO . USCA NO. 20-1407
On March 23, 2016, Petitioner submitted his initial claim (No. 2016007481) for
award (IRS Form 2011) to the Whistleblower-ICE Office (WBO-ICE) in Ogden, Utah,
alleging that his former employer, the University of California’s UC Davis Medical
in equaling millions of dollars due to the illegal generation and sale of electrical
energy. This was done in conspiracy with State of California government officials or
Independent System Operator (CAISO), and the California Power Exchange (Cal-PX),
thus violating the Provisions of Section 501c(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
https://www.scribd.com/document/476776874/UTC-20160323-IRS-
WHISTLEBLOWER-Claim-No-2016-00748
On August 3, 2018, Waszczuk submitted his update of the 2016 claim to the IRS
WBO. This update, instead of being included or combined with the March 23, 2016
2018-012141, and 2018-0121419 on August 24, 2018 which were then denied on
On November 20, 2018, Waszczuk appealed the IRS WBO’s October 24, 2018
decision, which denied him a reward for reporting tens of millions of dollars of tax
EVASION AND FRAUD . In his petition, Waszczuk pointed out that he strongly
disagreed with the WBO in Ogden, Utah and that nothing was speculative in his claim.
Waszczuk was a direct witness to the unlawful generation and sale of electricity and
the millions of dollars’ worth of related tax evasion committed by the UC Regents
between June 1999 and 2012 by the unlawfully operated 27-MW cogeneration power
plant, which was built for the sole purpose of illegally selling power for millions of
dollars in tax-free profit. Waszczuk backed his claim with documents he discovered in
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other sources, including direct copies
4
of reports on the unlawful power generation and sale by the UCDMC’s cogeneration
1954, in addition to violations of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA) and the requirements set in 18 C.F.R. for efficiency and the use of energy
output. The plant was also falsely certified as a Qualified Facility (QF), pursuant to 18
Public Utilities Code Section 218.5, State of California Unfair Business Competition
On June 4, 2020, the Petitioner was served with a U.S. Tax Court Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Decision, Waszczuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020–75
(U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020), which was based on false pretenses and reasoning and granted
administrative record on file, and sustaining the October 24, 2018 IRS WBO’s
On June 29, 2020, Waszczuk filed a Motion to Vacate or Revise the Decision
of the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Decision (UTC Rule 162) in Waszczuk
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020). The Motion was
https://www.scribd.com/document/476774356/UTC-20200629-ORDER-DENIED-
Motion-to-Vacate.
5
On July 15, 2020, Waszczuk filed a Motion for Reconsideration for Findings
or Opinion and Order and Decision (UTC Rule 161) in Waszczuk v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2020–75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020). The Motion was denied by the U.S.
On October 7, 2020, Waszczuk filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
decision by the U.S. Tax Court in USTC-23105-18. The appeal was assigned USCA
Case Number: 20-1407. On June 18, 2021, the case was fully briefed.
On September 15 , 2021, the Court issued the PER CURIAM ORDER on the
court’s own motion, which informed Waszczuk that his case would be held in
No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir.), which raised the issue of whether the court had jurisdiction
to review the Tax Court’s order sustaining a final determination made under I.R.C.
§ 7623(a). The parties were directed by the order to file motions to govern future
and Matthew S. Johnshoy from the U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division
(DOJ) filed a reply to the Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP attorneys’ amicus
curiae brief, repeating the conclusion from Amicus Curiae brief : “This Court
should dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on the Tax Court's
On October 1, 2021, Waszczuk filed a motion to vacate the September 15, 2020
2021.
On January 11, 2022, the Court issued an opinion on Mandy Mobley Li v. Comm’r
of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022), in which it dismissed Li based on
an amicus brief filed by two attorneys, Robbie Manhas and Robert M. Loeb, from
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Orrick) based in San Francisco, and Li v.
September 1, 2021, these attorneys filed their amicus curiae brief in the D.C. Circuit,
advising the court that it lacked jurisdiction in Li and the case must be dismissed.
For the reasons set forth above, we dismiss this appeal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4). We
remand to the Tax Court with instructions to do the same.
So ordered.
On June 1, 2022, the Court PER CURIAM ORDER granted to the
Commissioner a motion to dismiss and Waszczuk’s appeal was dismissed for lack
September 15, 2021 Court PER CURIAM ORDER stating that Waszczuk’s case be
the June 1, 2022 Order, followed by Waszczuk’s June 12, 2020 PETITION FOR
REHEARING en banc.
REHEARING en banc.
v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 20-1245 (D.C. Cir.) case and his
simultaneous representation of the solar power producers Broadview Solar LLC and
Broad Reach Power in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and
8
D.C. Circuit Court case Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) v. the Federal
September 3, 2022 of the New Application for Award for Original Information
(IRS Form 211 whistleblower claim Tax Evasion and Fraud aimed at my former
employer , the University of California due to violation of exempt status IRC 501
https://www.scribd.com/document/600581546/09-03-2022-IRS-WBO-ICE-
FORM-211-APPLICATION-FOR-AWARD-Polish-Refugee-v-University-of-
California-White-Collar-Crime
On February 1, 2023, U.S. Tax Court Chief Judge Kathleen Kerrigan issued the
ORDER
In accordance with the mandate of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, issued September 19,
2022, it is ORDERED that this case is assigned to Judge Joseph
Robert Goeke for the purpose of conducting any further
proceedings pursuant to the above-referenced appellate mandate.
On February 2, 2023, in response the U.S. Tax Court order, Waszczuk filed a
Motion to Stay Proceedings -Re: Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, (USCA) Issued September 19, 2022. The motion
was denied by the U.S. Tax Court that same day. A copy of the motion was also filed
https://www.scribd.com/document/672270388/02-02-2023-USTC-Petitioners-
Motion-to-Stay-Proceeding-Stay-of-Mandate-Case-No-23105-18-W
The Whistleblower Office in Ogden , Utah is silent and did not respond to Waszczuk
III.
ARGUMENT
As Waszczuk pointed out to the Court in his briefs and pleadings, this case
was dismissed based on a misleading and deceptive amicus curiae brief filed on
September 1, 2021 by Manhas and Loeb, who were serving as amicus curiae. The
brief was nothing but interference and meddling in the judicial process, which led
to the January 11, 2022 issuance by the Court an opinion in Mandy Mobley Li v.
Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) that never should
have been issued and which caused the blunt dismissal under false pretenses of
10
Waszczuk’s Case, 20-1407, was dismissed when the two USCA appeals were
pending with same subject matter jurisdiction as Waszczuk’s case under 26 U.S.C.
§ 7623(b)(4). Waszczuk was consequently urging and begging the Court in his June
his June 12, 2020 PETITION FOR REHEARING en banc and MOTION TO STAY
MANDATE filed on September 5, 2022 not to dismiss his appeal and to place it in
abeyance until Lissack v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 21-1268 and Villa-Arce
B. Lissack v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 21-1268 (D.C. Cir. May 26,
2023) and Villa-Arce v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 22-1006 (D.C.
Cir. May 26, 2023), issued on May 26, 2023
2022), in the Lissack v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 21-1268 (D.C. Cir. May
26, 2023) opinion, the Court ruled in Discussion “A. The Tax Court had
jurisdiction” that U.S. Tax Court had and has the power to review appeals of WBO
decisions by de novo jurisdiction over the subject matter jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C.
11
§ 7623(b)(4), or in general 26 U.S.C. § 7623. The Court basically ruled that the
amicus curiae brief filed on September 1, 2021 by Manhas and Loeb and Li v.
Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 22 F.4th 1014, 1017 (D.C. Cii. 2022) were frauds
created for the sole purpose of dismissing Waszczuk’s case, which has merits quite
different the Li, Lissack, and Villa-Arce cases. Waszczuk’s case is about an
with a $40 billion annual budget, the University of California (The Regents), acting
in conspiracy and collaboration with SMUD and CAISO. Further, they disregarded
and violated the university’s tax-exempt status under IRC 501(c)(3) and the State of
California Taxation Code. The Regents, since 1998, have violated every possible
state and federal law applicable to the operation of the cogeneration plant facilities,
§§292.203(b) and 292.205 for the operation, efficiency, and use of energy output,
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §824d(a); the California Public Utilities Code
Section 218.5; the Unfair Competition Law of California; and Business and
12
The First most important reason why the Court shall and must recall the
mandate and reinstate Waszczuk’s appeal are the opinions in Lissack v. Comm’r
of Internal Revenue, No. 21-1268 (D.C. Cir. May 26, 2023) and Villa-Arce v.
Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 22-1006 (D.C. Cir. May 26, 2023), issued on May
26, 2023.
Both opinions affirmed that the U.S. Tax Court had and has jurisdiction to
In Sargent v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc., 75 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1996) the
Court held:
1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1076 (1990); Zipfel, 861 F.2d at 567-
68; Davis v. Lawrence-Cedarhurst Bank, 206 F.2d 388, 389 (2d
Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 877 (1953).
In this case the law did not change . Only Amicus Curiae Brief Attorneys from
Orick’s wanted to change law because the Orick law firm notoriously represents
. Waszczuk is curious how much The Regents paid to these two Amicus Curiae brief
attorneys Robbie Manhas and Robert M. Loeb for their criminal misconduct to
The Second most important reason why the Court shall and must recall the
mandate and reinstate Waszczuk’s appeal is that the June 4, 2020 U.S. Tax Court
decision that granted the IRS Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment in
Waszczuk v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2020-75 (U.S.T.C. June 4, 2020) was issued
under false pretenses and for the wrong reason, so it must be reviewed without bias
and prejudice against Waszczuk by the U.S.C.A, as any other appeal in U.S. Tax
Court would be. As Waszczuk explained to the Court in his pleadings, the Court
exploited the completely irrelevant to the reported tax evasion and fraud the
University of California with the phrase “Unrelated Bussiness Income” (see pp. 2,
14
Decision, filed on June 29, 2020, he addressed more specifically the University of
court in its decision. It was similar to the conduct of Loeb and Manhas, in their
The Third most important reason why the Court shall and must recall the
mandate and reinstate Waszczuk’s appeal is that the WBO kept Waszczuk’s
whistleblower case for over two years, hidden and swept under the rug because the
Judith Boyette, was appointed Secretary of the Treasury to a three-year term, from
boyette to serve on the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government
15
Entities (TEGE), and she made sure that Waszczuk’s whistleblower claim would not
surface. When it did surface after two 2 years and 5 months, it was instantly denied
without any review. The Commissioner’s attorneys were perfectly aware of and this
the U.S. Attorney General’s attorneys from the Tax Division and the two amicus
curiae brief attorneys knew how Waszczuk’s WBO claim had been handled and by
whom.
IV
CONCLUSION
In light of the provided facts and arguments outlined in the motion, and after viewing
the attached exhibits, the Court should grant Waszczuk’s motion to recall the
mandate and reinstate the appeal that was wrongfully dismissed with unprecedented
Not so long ago Waszczuk concluded as follow his Appellant’s Reply Brief filed
on March 22, 2023 in the State of California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate
District (3DCA) in the cross- connected wrongful termination case Waszczuk v. The
Brief-Waszczuk-v-The-Regents-of-The-University-of-California-3DCA-Case-No-
C095488
The mentioned cross connected case is pending for 10 years and Waszczuk is not
the one who committed the crime by evading taxes. Waszczuk is a victim in this case
who got caught in the white-collar criminal’s crossfire who were fighting for
millions of tax free dollars. The Court should take this fact into consideration.
______________________
17
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
contains 3446 words ( less than 5200 word D.C Cir. Rule 27 (a )(2) (B)
The number of lines of monospaced type in the motion is 443
18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
19
U.S.C.A for the D.C. Circuit mandate issued September 19, 2022
appeal dismissed
USCA
USCACase
Case#20-1407
#20-1407 Document
Document#2017907
#1964780 Filed:
Filed:09/19/2023
09/19/2022 Page
Page22
1 of 1
25
Appellant
v.
Appellee
MANDATE
In accordance with the order of June 1, 2022, and pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 41, this constitutes the formal mandate of this court.
BY: /s/
Daniel J. Reidy
Deputy Clerk
012345ÿ7383
4
9ÿ
3
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
48
9
ÿ ÿ ÿÿ !
""""""""""""
#$%ÿ&'()*'+ÿ ,-.,/0,1ÿ,1/2ÿ&'&)
(&3)'4()5ÿ6
78,9ÿ:;ÿ<=>?ÿABÿCDCC
<EFGHIEJÿ<E>=HKÿLEHKMK=NB
OPP?IIE>Q
RS
TGUUVHHVG>?FÿGWÿX>Q?F>EIÿY?R?>=?B
OPP?II??
; ZEQHEHBÿYEGBÿE>[ÿLEIN?FBÿTVFM=VQÿ<=[\?H
ÿÿÿÿ
]PG>ÿMG>HV[?FEQVG>ÿGWÿQ^?ÿUGQVG>ÿQGÿ[VHUVHHBÿQ^?ÿGPPGHVQVG>ÿQ^?F?QGBÿE>[ÿQ^?
UGQVG>HÿQGÿ\GR?F>ÿW=Q=F?ÿPFGM??[V>\HBÿVQÿVHÿ
ÿQ^EQÿQ^?ÿUGQVG>ÿQGÿ[VHUVHHÿ_?ÿ\FE>Q?[ÿE>[ÿQ^?ÿEPP?EIÿ_?ÿ[VHUVHH?[
WGFÿIEMNÿGWÿH=_`?MQÿUEQQ?Fÿ̀=FVH[VMQVG>ÿ=>[?FÿCaÿ]SbSTSÿcÿdaCef_gfhgSÿÿb??ÿiVÿRSÿTGUUjFÿGW
X>Q?F>EIÿY?R?>=?BÿCCÿkShQ^ÿADAhBÿADAdÿflSTSÿTVFSÿCDCCgSÿÿm^?ÿMEH?ÿVHÿ^?F?_nÿF?UE>[?[
QGÿQ^?ÿmEoÿTG=FQÿJVQ^ÿV>HQF=MQVG>HÿQGÿ[GÿQ^?ÿHEU?SÿÿXQÿVHÿ
ÿÿQ^EQÿQ^?ÿUGQVG>HÿQGÿ\GR?F>ÿW=Q=F?ÿPFGM??[V>\Hÿ_?
[VHUVHH?[ÿEHÿUGGQSÿÿmGÿQ^?ÿ?oQ?>QÿQ^?ÿUGQVG>HÿV>MI=[?ÿEÿF?p=?HQÿQ^EQÿQ^?ÿMG=FQÿEPPGV>Q
EUVM=HÿM=FVE?BÿQ^EQÿF?p=?HQÿVHÿ[?>V?[Sÿ
q=FH=E>QÿQGÿlSTSÿTVFM=VQÿY=I?ÿeaBÿQ^VHÿ[VHPGHVQVG>ÿJVIIÿ>GQÿ_?ÿP=_IVH^?[Sÿÿm^?ÿTI?FN
VHÿ[VF?MQ?[ÿQGÿJVQ^^GI[ÿVHH=E>M?ÿGWÿQ^?ÿUE>[EQ?ÿ^?F?V>ÿ=>QVIÿH?R?>ÿ[EnHÿEWQ?FÿF?HGI=QVG>
GWÿE>nÿQVU?InÿP?QVQVG>ÿWGFÿF?^?EFV>\ÿGFÿP?QVQVG>ÿWGFÿF?^?EFV>\ÿ?>ÿ_E>MSÿÿb??ÿk?[SÿYSÿOPPS
qSÿhAf_grÿlSTSÿTVFSÿY=I?ÿhAS
s,1ÿt17u/
USCA Case #20-1407 Document #2017907 Filed: 09/19/2023 Page 24 of 25
USCA Case #20-1407 Document #2017907 Filed: 09/19/2023 Page 25 of 25
1- Jaroslaw Waszczuk, In Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
2 odi, CA 95242
3 '
hone: 209-663-2977 -^,1L E 0/ E
ax: 833-817-780
4 Email: iiwl980(g>live.com AUG 1 3 2021
5 By: '' • .AuMacias
'•Dep'uty-'Clerk
6
10
11
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, Case No. 34T2013-00155479
\2 PLAINTIFF,
VS. THE PLAFNTIFF, JAROSLAW
13' WASZCZUK'S, OPPOSITION TO THE
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
14 CALIFORNIA, ANN MADDEN RICE, bEFENDANTS: MOTIOfJ FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE;ALTERNATIVE,
15 MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCpTT, SUMiClAkYAb
CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA
16 DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 2021
NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT
17 SEIFERT, PATmCK PUTNEY, DORIN , TIME: 9:00 A . M i ^ !
DANILIUC, AND p(3ES li'50, inclusive; pEPT^TMENT:;54
18
DEFENDANTS. HON. CFIRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER
19 Complaint filed beceniber• 14, 2013
First Ajnended Complaint filed June 16, 2014
20
Second Ajiiended Complaint filed Sept. 30;
21 2014 '
22
. 23
2.4
25
26
27
28
- 1 - .
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
^ L INTRODUCTION 1
IL SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 3
4
in. STATEMENT OF FACTS 4
^ IV. LEGAL DISCUSSION 7
^ A. The Crux of January 2007-April 2007 and April 2011 December 2012 Defendants Adverse
7 Action Against Plaintiff 7
B. Legal Standard 9
9
C. Defendant's Unlawfully Relitigate Dismissed from the Second Amendment Complaint Non
IQ Material Facts as A Material Facts Thus It Mandates Denial of its Motion 9
11 D. The Five Individual Defendants, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols , Cindy Oropeza ,Brent
Seifert and Mike Boyd II
12
12 E. The May 11 , 2012 Ten Days Suspension Without Pay Violated UC Davis Procedure 62.1
Corrective Action and Employee Performance Review (Evaluation) Policy PPSM 23 Thus
14 WasUnlawftil II
15
F. The Unlawful Termination of Plaintiff Employment with the University of California 15
16
G. The Email Dated September 26, 2012, - Destmction of Evidence by the Defendants..
17
H. Email Dated 09/26/2012 Entitled "Person Unauthorized on Property (Jaroslaw Waszczuk)''
18 Documents marked DEF RPDl 3027 and DEF RPDl 3032 and UC Davis Police Poster with
-^g the Plainfiffs photo and a description on. (EXHIBIT 25) 17
^•^ J. The Court Has Discretion to Deny Summary. Judgment When a Material Fact Is Established
22 Solely By an Affidavit Made By a Party Who Is a Sole Witness 21
23 K. The Defendants Are Playing Race Card in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary
24 Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication 22
25
L. Defendants Arguments In Memorandum Of Points And Authorities Memorandum Of Points
26 And Authorities In Support Of Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In The
Alternative, Summary Adjudication 25
27
M. The Defendants' Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Defendants'
28
Motion For Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication 25
1
THE TRIABLE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION
2
.26
3
A. The Six Cause of Acfion T The Violation and Breach
4 Settlement Agreement signed with the Piaintiff by the Regents of the Uniyersity:bf
California or their Agents oh Regents' Behalf. .;.26
5
9
VIL INDEX OF EXHIBITS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25^
26
27
• 28
1 T A B L E OF AUTHORITIES
3
CASES
California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 2004) 4
4
Gribin Von Dyl & Associates Inc. v. Kovalsky, 185 Cal.App.3d 653 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) 7
5
Lockyer State v. All Persons, 152 Cal.App.4th 1386 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) 8
6
Lipson V. Super. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 362, 374 9
7
Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 35 9
8 Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal. 4th at p. 843 9
9 Colombo v. Kinkle G055823 (Cal. App. Dist. 4, May 16, 2019) 10
10 Bucur V. Ahmad (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 175. 185 10
11 Forbes v. County of San Bernardino. 101 Cal.App.4th 48 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) 16
12
Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4lh at pp. 7/-/3;Temple Community, supra, 20Cal.4th at pp. 474, 476-
13 477.) 16
22
STATUTES
23
Government Code § 12940(A)
24
California Government Code §§ 8547 et seq 9
25 Code of Civil Procedure, Section 425.16
26 Public Ufilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978(PURPA) 8
27 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 8
III
1 Code Civ. Proc, § 437c, subd. (p)(2) 9
2 Code Civ. Proc, § 437c, subd. (c) 21
4
Pen. Code, § 135 16
UC DAVIS PERSONNEL POLICIES FOR STAFF MEMBERS (PPSM)
5
UC Davis Corrective Action Guide, 2
6
PPSM 62 -Corrective action 2
7
Employee Performance Review (Evaluation) Policy PPSM 23 17,22,23
8
UC Davis Policy PPSM 70
9 UC Davis Policy and Procedure 380-15, 15
10 UC Davis Procedure 62.1: Corrective Action 12
11 UCDHS Discrimination 1616 Policy 12,16
12 University of California Clinical Enterprise Management Recognition Plan 2 ("Plan")
13 Personnel Policies for Staff Members 34 16
14
OTHER AUTHORITIES
15
In re Stein, S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) 3
16
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD)
17
Sacramento Superior Court Local Rule 2.1 8
18 Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (2013) §10:28 11
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2
3
The Plaintiff, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK (hereafter, "Plainfiff), respectfully submits the following
Opposition to the Defendants' (the Regents of the University of California andfiveremaining
4
defendants: Mike Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert
5
(hereafter, "Defendants")) Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary
6
Adjudication, in the Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs Opposition to the Defendants'
7
Motion is based on the documents that were produced by the Defendants, in 2015 due to Plaintiffs
8 November 2014 Request for Production of Documents (SET ONE)
9 Defendants' attomey, Douglas Ropel, responded to the Plaintiffs 216 requests for the producfion
10 of documents with thousand of pages of documents some unmarked, and others marked with page
11 numbers and "DEF" or "DEF RPDl." Furthermore Plaintiff's Opposition is based on Plaintiffs
12 Responses to the Defendants' Request for Admissions (SET ONE) (EXHIBIT #1) (Pl.[s]Ex.) Resp.
to Admis.)Defendants' Exhibit C) (Defs.Exh,,) the Plaintiffs Response to the Defendants' Special
13
Interrogatories (SET ONE) Pl.[s] Resp.to Interrog. (Defendants' Exhibit E) , and the University of
14
California (UC) Davis Policies and Procedures, especially the UC Davis Corrective Acfion Guide,
15
based on UC Davis Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM)
16
(https://hr.ucdavis.edu/departments/elr/policies/PPSM). specifically PPSM 62
17 (http://www.hr.ucdavis.edu/Elr/er/corrective acfion/index;html), which was disregarded and
18 despicably violated by the six remaining defendants in the lawsuit. The key target in the Plaintiffs
19 Opposition to the Defendants' Mofion was the Defendants' breach and violation of the January 30,
20 2009 Settlement-Agreement (Defs Exh. K), which is addressed in the sixth, seventh, and eighth
Causes of Action (COA) of the Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint(SAC) Defs.Exh. A p.58-62
21
22 Compounding the wrongs already inflicted on the Plaintiff, the Defendants filed a summary
23 judgment motion that relied on omissions, half-truths, and misdirection to deflect the Court's
24
attention from the actual issues, namely, the January 30, 2009 Settlement-Agreement, and the
Plaintiff, who is entitled to protection under the law. In contrary to the Plaintiffs 195-page Plainfiffs
25
Response to the Defendants' Request for Admission (PI. [s] Resp. to Admis.) Exh,l the Defendants'
26
motion proffers a revisionist history of the events underlying this acfion. It presents "undisputed"
27
facts, which are clearly in dispute. It twists case law to suit its own purposes, and i t obfuscates
28
the truth from the Court. In so doing, the Defendants ignore the fundamental premise that
- 2 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 summary judgment cannot be granted when material facts are in dispute. Furthermore, the
2 Defendants' attorney, Lindsay Goulding, deceived the Court and the Plaintiff by wrongly implying,
3
on page 2 of her declarafion (Defs. Exh. B ) and in other pleadings, that the five Defendants—
Nichols, Chilcott, Oropeza, Seifert, and Boyd—were dismissed from the Plaintiffs lawsuit. In
4
fact, they are still defendants in the lawsuit. For these reasons, the motion should be denied in its
5
entirety. The Defendants' motion is fraudulent and deceitful.
6
7
II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
8
9 The Defendants' summary judgment motion is, procedurally, a total fraud; it is deceitfijl and
10 ineffective. The Defendants have listed 17 "undisputed" facts that they claim are material, and they
11 repeat them for each COA. On 36 of 70 pages (pages 7^3), the Defendants vexatiously relitigate the
12
3rd and 4th COAs of the Plaintiffs SAC: (3) HARASSMENT, FAILURE TO PREVENT
HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION, AND RETALIATION UNDER THE FAIR
13
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT (FEHA), GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940(A), AND (4)
14
WHISTLEBLOWER/UNLAWFUL RETALIATION, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §§
15
8547 et seq. These COAs were dismissed and stricken from the SAC by the Defendants' anti-SLAPP
16
motion (Code of Civil Procedure, Section 425.16) on April 14, 2015. The judgment was affirmed by
17 the Court of Appeal's Third Appellate District (3DCA) on October 10, 2017, in the unpublished
18 opinion, Waszczukv. Regents of Univ. of Cal., C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017).
19 Contrary to the official officially known date that the Plaintiffs employment was terminated
20 on December 5, 2012, the 60-year old Plainfiffs employment was actually terminated on August 31,
21
2011, while he was receiving medical and psychological care for the despicable and inhumane
harassment imposed on him by the remaining Defendants. (EXHIBIT #2) (Defs. Ex, 1) Pl.[s]Ex.
22
No.l - PI. [s] Resp. to Admis.No.l2 p.52
23
24 The information about the August 31, 2011 unlawful termination of the Plaintiffs employment
25 at the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) was provided to the Employment Development
Department (EDD) by the UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance Department (PO&M)
26
administration supervisor, Phillis Reginelli, on January 4, 2013 (EXHIBIT #3). On the first page of
27
the document, Reginelli provided the date of terminafion of the Plainfiffs employment as August 31
28
2011, with his last day of work being December 5, 2012.
- 3 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 The Plaintiffs unemployment insurance benefits, which, in 2013, were denied by the EDD and
2 the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB), were reinstated by the EDD on
3
May 14, 2014 (EXHIBIT #4). These benefits were most likely stolen by the Plaintiffs dmg-addicted
attorney, Stein, who stole the Plaintiffs retainer and was disbarred in January 2020, for misconduct,
4
both related and unrelated to his misrepresentation of the Plaintiff {In re Stein, S245982 (Cal. Mar. 1,
5
2018) (http://iTiembers.calbar.ca.gOv/courtDocs/l 5-0-10110-2.pdf)). The Plaintiff recovered the
6
stolen retainer fee in August 2019, through the California State Bar Client Security Fund (EXHIBIT
7
#5). The short-term disability benefits, denied to the Plaintiff in November 2011, by Liberty
8 Insurance Company, in conspiracy with the Defendants, resurfaced seven years later, on March 20,
9 2019, as unclaimed property in the State of California Controller Office (EXHIBIT #6).
10 On the merits of the motion, the facts readily reflect that the Plaintiff was a highly regarded
11 worker and the most experienced power plant technician in the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant
12 (see the Plaintiffs annual employee performance reviews from 1999 to 2010 (EXHIBIT #7)
13
Pl.[s]Ex. No.l - PI. [s] Resp. to Admis.No.l2 p.53 Defs. Ex. A p. 6-7 . Two last Plainfiffs
evaluations were market "Exceed Expectations" Defs[']. Ex. A p. 6 (24-28)
14
15
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
16
17 The Plaintiff was hired by UCDMC on June 17, 1999, as a non-exempt senior power plant
mechanic or cogeneration power plant operator. His job was to maintain and operate the newly built
18
state of the art 37-MW cogeneration power plant at UCDMC, where demand for power in 1999 was
19
less than 5 M Wh. When the Plaintiff was hired by UCDMC, he carried the baggage of four pending
20
lawsuits related to his previous employment (1989-1998) with Destec Energy Inc., which was
21
renamed Dynegy Inc. in 1998. The Plaintiff was employed as an operator by Destec/Dynegy at a
22 plant similar to the UCDMC 50-MW cogeneration plant. Both plants were powered by General
23 Electric gas turbines (GT). Destec's plant was powered by an LM5000 GT, and UCDMC's plant, by
24 an LM2500 GT. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) was the natural gas supplier for both
25 plants, enabling the powering of the GTs.
26 Former Califomia attorney general, Bill Lockyer, described the Plaintiffs former employer,
27 Dynegy Inc., as one of the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who rode in from Texas and ran
roughshod over California consumers, taxpayers, and businesses." Along with Enron, El Paso Corp.,
28
- 4 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 and Reliant and the Regents of the University of California (EXHIBIT #8) they broke the mles and
2 violated the law (https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attomev-general-lockver-announces-460-
6
The Plaintiff became a liability, rather than an asset, to the university. This may
7
have happened when the university learned that he had reported Dynegy's 1997, $240
8
million fraud against PG&E ratepayers due to dispute with Dynegy about $27,000 in
9
unpaid overtime due to him and approximately $3 million due to 119 other Destec/Dynegy
10 employees in California. The unpaid overtime was resolved by the Califomia Court of
11 Appeal's 3DCA in favor of the Plaintiff in a December 3, 1999 unpublished opinion in
12 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., Case No. C030005. The Plaintiff represented himself on
13 the appeal, and Destec was represented by the notorious and very powerful Littler Mendelson
14
Professional Law Corporafion, based in San Francisco (EXHIBIT #9) Pl.[s]Ex. No.l - PI. [s]
Resp. to Admis. No. 12 p.73
15
Or perhaps the Plaintiff became a liability to the university after he sent a fax to
16
then-California Governor Gray Davis's office on February 14, 2001. The plant was
17
unfinished when it was commissioned, and it posed danger to Davis when he toured the plant
18
Pl.[s]Ex. No.l - PI. [s] Resp. to Admis. No. 19 p. 183-184. The Plaintiffs main concern was the
19 plant's 12.5-kV high-voltage switch gear room, which was protected from fire by a water sprinkler
20 instead of a carbon dioxide (CO2) fire protection system. Prior to the tour, the Plainfiff sent a fax to
21 the governor's office, advising him not to enter the room during the plant tour (EXHIBIT #10) (. In
22 addition to the above, the unfinished plant was discharging machine oil into the Sacramento
River via a storm drain Pl.[s]Ex. No.l PI. [s] Resp. to Admis. No.15 p.93-108 ( defective
23
cooling tower fan gear boxes) See: the Plaintiffs former coworker, UCDMC 27-MW plant
24
operator, William Buckans's whisfieblower complaint, dated August 7, 2005 (EXHIBIT #11).
25
There was a recorded incident of a ne£U"-miss injury to plant personnel after a long metal air duct
26
fell to the ground because the builder of the plant forgot to bolt the metal ducts together and
27 almost killed an operator who happened to be walking by.
28
- 5 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 In 2000, the Plaintiff reported the unsafe condifions at the plant to the Califomia
2 Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CAL/OSHA), after the plant manager, Tom
3
Kavanaugh, refused to take care of the safety problems, thus endangering personnel. He
threatened the Plaintiff, saying, "Somebody will give this 'Polack' a bad evaluafion and
4
will fire him." The Plaintiff was not offended, but Kavanaugh's statement terrified his coworker,
5
Eduardo Espinosa. Espinosa quit his job after he heard this (EXHIBIT #12). Pl.[s]Ex. No.l PI.
6
[s] Resp. to Admis. No.5 p.l 1
7
In fact, this "Polack" never received a bad evaluation in the course of his 12 years
8 of employment with the university, but he was subjected to two witch hunts by the
9 Defendants, and his employment was brutally terminated on August 31, 2011. Pl.[s]Ex.
10 No.7 Resp. to Admis. No.3 p.4,8,9
11
Cal/OSHA's intervention and a small citation got the attention of UCDMC's
12
leadership and forced the department management to solve some of the safety problems in
13
the plant, which injured and endangered the lives of plant personnel. The Plaintiffs action
14
also improved the working conditions of plant employees' (EXHIBIT #13).
15
UC did not care much about improved safety in the plant because in 2000 University of
16 California was not the sole owner of the plant and did not want to spend the money to
17 finish it. In 2000, UCDMC simultaneously used an old utility plant alongside the new 27-
18 MW cogeneration plant, which was commissioned in 1998 and was selling power to the
19 Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD).
20
The Plaintiff did not know why he became the subject of witch hunt carried out
from January-March 2007. (Defendants' Exhibits B, F,G, H, I , and J) Pl.[s]Ex. No.l PI. [s]
21
Resp. to Admis. No.l p. 1-2; Resp. to Admis. No.3 p.4; Resp. to Admis. No.4 p.8-10
22
. The witch hunt aimed at the Plaintiff included despicable fabricated allegations
23
and accusations that resulted in the Plaintiffs abrupt removal from the UCDMC 27-MW
24
cogeneration plant on March 23, 2007 and resignment to HVAC Shop." The witch hunters
25 wanted the Plaintiff out of the UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant as fast as possible. The
26 Plaintiff did had a clue as to why.
27 The Plaintiff greatly improved the working conditions for the HVAC shop crew, including
28
access to work order systems, time cards, and UC Davis Policies and Procedures, by restoring an
- 6 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 older computers from the UCDMC warehouse and organizing their work stations. Prior to this, they
2 waited in line for a long time to get their time cards and job assignments done. Everybody
3
appreciated the Plaintiffs presence in the HVAC shop, and, if they needed help with their home or
work computers, they asked him and Plaintiff never refiised to help to anybody .
4
After the Plaintiff prevailed in the arbitrafion process against the Regents of UC in November
5
2008, he was able to return to the 27-MW cogeneration plant, but his job was already taken, and he
6
did not want to be responsible for kicking somebody out of their job.
7
8
On January 30, 2009 by signed Settlement -Agreement Plaintiff was promoted from non- exempt
cogeneration plant operator to exempt Associate Development Engineer position and permanenfiy
9
was assigned to the HVAC shop . (Defendants Exhibit K) (Pl.[s]Ex. No.3 - PI. [s] Resp. to
10
Admis. No.4 p. 10), The January 30, 2009 was breached by Defendants in 2011 & 2012 and
11
Defendants caused over $ 1,000,000 damages to Plaintiff in wages and benefits by unlawfully
12
terminating Plaintiff employment on August 31, 2011 with his last day of work being December
13 5,2012. Pl.Exh.No.5
14
15 I. LEGAL DISCUSSION
16
17
A, The Crux of January 2007-April 2007 and April 2011 December 2012 Defendants
18
Adverse Action Against Plaintiff
19 The Crux of two separate "WITCH HUNTS" aimed at The Plainfiff in 2007 and 2011-2012 is
20 laying down or are submerged in the Defendants', the Regents of the University of California
21 Request for Admission (Set One) sent to The Plainfiff on April 25, 2018, by the Defendants'
22
attorney, David Burkett. More specifically, the last Request for Admission No. 19, which states:
"ADMIT THAT YOU DID NOT LEARN OF THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL POWER SALES UNTIL
23
AFTER YOUR TERMINATION."
24
The Plaintiff provided his Response to the Defendants' Request for Admission on November
25
14, 2018 prior the scheduled Court hearing in Dept.53. However the Defendant's Attomey Lindsay
26
Goulding in her Declaration (Del Exh, B) deceptively and in bad faith did not included in her
27 Motion the Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants Request for Admission thus Plaintiff included the
28 document as a Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 1 which could easily substitute the Plaintiffs Opposition to
- 7 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 the Defendants for Summary Judgment. Goulding under penalty of perjury bluntly lied in her
2 11 Declaration (Defs. Exh. B) about Plainfiffs Response to Defendant's Request for Admission in
deceived and grossly prejudiced Plainfiff in Defendants Motion and deceived the Court as well
thus Defendants Motion must be denied . Gribin Von Dyl & Associates Inc. v. Kovalsky, 185
Cal.App.3d 653 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)
In Plaintiffs Exhibit # 1 PI. [s] Resp. to Admis. No. 19 pp. 182-198 The Plainfiff answered
Defendants' Attorney David Burkett's curiosity on Novernber 14, 2018 and stated in his Admission
No. 19 response that he leamed about the unlawfial operation of the UCDMC 27 MW plant and
illegal power sale in June 5-December 2015, three years after his employment termination. Plainfiff
9 II provided infonnation to the Court about on 10/13/2015 by his Opposifion to the Defendant's
10 Motion for Automatic Stay which Defendants filed to block Plaintiff Third Amended Complaint
11 (TAG) to be filed (EXHIBIT # 14) The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District (SMAQMD) is responsible to permit operafion of the 27 MW cogeneration power plant
12
which beside violation of the Public Utilifies Regulatory Policies Act of 1978(PURPA) violates the
13
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 The unnecessary pollutants discharged to the air from the
14
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant inflict disparate impacts on minority populations and low-
15
income and, who are living in large numbers in close proximity to UCDMC cogeneration plant
^ ^ II Especially a minority children in particular are sensitive receptors exposed to these point sources'
17 criteria pollutants emitted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
18 In 2018 the Defendants' Attorney Burkett was so impatient to get an answer from The
-^g Plaintiff that, in October 2018, he bypassed Judge Brown in Department 53 and attempted to obtain
in the Court Department 54 , Hon. Christopher E. Krueger termination sanctions byfilinga motion
20
to compel for monetary and terminafing sanctions on October 3, 2018. (ROA # 150-154) Burkett
21
was caught by the Plaintiff, and his plan failed . See: Plainfiffs letter to the Clerk in Department 54
22
dated October 11, 2018. (EXHIBIT # 15) At the same time Defendants Attomey Burkett with his
23
assistant Daniel Bardzell attempted to frame Plaintiff for Bench Warrant with Judge Jennifer K.
24
Rockwell from Department 37 who signed on November 7, 2018 Application and Order for
2 5 II Appearance and Examination of Plaintiff in violation of the 45-day requirement (Civil Code of
26 Procedure §§ 491.110, 708.110, 708.120, & Sacramento Superior Court Local Rule 2.1) (ROA#
27 181)
28
3 The Defendants Attorneys Burkett and Bardzell an attempt in 2018 and 2019 to steal money
from Plaintiffs wife Bank Account and from her 401K using Department 54 & 37 failed. Judge
4
Rockwell and Judge Krueger who knew each other before they were appointed to the Bench by
5
working for Attorney General Bill Lockyer State v. All Persons, 152 Cal.App.4th 1386 (Cal. Ct.
6
App. 2007) did not let it happen.
7
However , after Judge David I Brown left the Department 53 and was replaced by Hon.
8 Shama Hakim Mesiwala , successor of Burkett and Bardzell, Porter Scott Shareholder Lindsay
9 Goulding resumed the criminal extortion activities in the court and 70 years old Plaintiffs wife on
10 July 2, 2021 was forced to pay $ 22,284 ransom to Lindsay Goulding not to let her break into her
11 Bank Account and 401 K account.
12
B. Legal Standard
13
A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing that the causes of action
14
have no merit or that there are one or more complete defenses to them. (Code Civ. Proc, § 437c,
15
subd. (p)(2).) Summary judgment is properly granted only if the moving party's evidence establishes
16
that there is no issue of material fact to be tried. ( Lipson v. Super. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 362, 374.)
17 Once the moving party meets this burden of production, the burden shifts to the opposing party to
18 produce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact. {Aguilar
19 V. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849.) A judge must grant a motion for summary
20 judgment if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and
21
that the moving party is entified to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc, § 437c, subd. (c);
Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 35.)
22
In ruling on a summary judgment mofion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences that
23
can reasonably be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the opposing party. {Aguilar,
24
supra, 25 Cal. 4th at p. 843.)
25
The Defendants or Defendants legal counsels from Porter Scott law firm did not provide in the
26 their Motion any material facts which meets the burden of producfion to shift the burden to Plainfiff
27 to produce admissible evidence demonstrating existence of a triable issues of the material facts .
28
- 9 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 The second amended complaint (SAC) was set forth eight causes of action (COA):
2 1.) intentional infliction of emotional distress, 2.) tortious interference with economic
3 advantage, 3.) harassment, failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation
4 under FEHA, 4.) whistleblower/unlawful retaliation Government Code § 8547 et. seq, 5.)
5 violation of Health and Safety Code, sec. 1278.5, 6.) breach of written contract, 7.) wage and
6 lour violations, and 8.) rescission - unlawful contract.
9 The 1-4 COA's were stricken from the SAC by the Defendants on April 14, 2015 by the
10 Special Motion to Strike pursuant to CCP Section 425.15 and it should be end of litigafion of these
11
dismissed COA's If the Court examine the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment than Court
will find out that stricken COA's especially COA No.3 and No. 4 occupied between 60-70 % of
12
Defendants Arguments in the their Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support and in
13
Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts . Defendants Separate Statements (DefsSS) from
14
Page 7 to 43 are stricken COA's from SAC . In the Memorandum of Points and Authorities
15
Defendants from Page page. 9 to page No .17 arguing dismissed from SAC 3'^' and 4"^ COA.
16 In Defs Exh, B , Declaration of Lindsay Goulding on Page 2 (1-10) Defendants attorney arguing 3'^'
17 and 4'*^ COA dismissed from SAC as well.
18 In addition to relitigating dismissed 3'^' and 4* COA Defendants unlawfully by Motion for
19 Summary Judgment unlawfully relitigate the January -April 2007 Defendants unlawful adverse
action aimed at Plaintiff which was resolved by November 3& 4, 2008 Arbitration hearing and the
20
January 30, 2009 Settlement Agreement which is a key Material Fact to litigate in this proceeding .
21
(Defs Exh K). See : Defendants Memorandum of Points and Authorities Page . 4(2-5);(9-12) Page 5
22
(20-28), Page 6(1-9) and Defs Exh's F,G , H, 1, J. See: Defendants Separate Statements of
23
Undisputed Facts : Pages: 2(7-25), 8(15-28),13(7-25),17(1-9),22(1 l-28),26(22-28),27(2-12),31(l-
24 28);43(l-24),48(15-28),53(25-28),54(l-15),55(10-55),56(24-28),57(l-28),59(24-28),60(I-28),
25 65(14-28) (Pl.[s]Ex. No.l - PI. [s] Resp. to Admis. No.l p.2).
26 For vexatiously relitigating stricken the COAs and resolved matters by arbitration 13 years
27 ago the Defendants should be sanctioned and admonished by the Court.
28
- 10 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In the most recent Appellate Court Case Opinion, Colombo v. Kinkle G055823 (Cal. App.
2 Dist. 4, May 16, 2019), the Court cited Bucur v. Ahmad {20\6) 244 Cal.App. 4th 175. 185
3
concluding:
4 "Both res judicata and collateral estoppel are based on the principle that a lifigant
is only entitled to one bite at the apple. "The doctrine of res judicata, whether
5
applied as a total bar to further litigation or as collateral estoppel, "rests upon the
6 sound policy of limiting lifigation by prevenfing a party who has had one fair
adversary hearing on an issue from again drawing it into controversy and
7 subjecting the other party to further expense in its reexamination."
8 Defendant has chosen to file a Mofion for Summary Judgment with Separate Statement of
9 Undisputed Facts which simply replicates old resolved matters and stricken causes of acfion at issue
10
in this case. These Defendants supposedly undisputed material which are 14 years old slander
defacing and defaming Plaintiff facts shows Defendant's desperation and criminally minded
11
behavior
12
Therefore, this Court is within itsrightsto deny the motion in its entirety. Pursuant to Weil &
13
Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (2013) §10:28, summary judgment must
14
be denied if a single material fact is in dispute. Because Defendant has chosen to rely on the
15 something what does not exists and nothing to do with Plainfiffs SAC and the remining four
16 COA's thus Court must deny the motion . Court must not prejudice Plaintiff in this proceeding .
17
18 D. The Five Individual Defendants , Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols , Cindy Oropeza
,Brent Seifert and Mike Boyd .
19
The Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication was filed by
20
Counsel Lindsay Goulding only on the Regents of the University of California . The five individual
21
Defendants , Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols m Cindi Oropeza , Mike Boyd and Brent Seifert
22
are not included in the motion thus Mofion must be rejected and denied Plaintiff did not dismissed
23
Chilcott, Nichols , Oropeza , Boyd and Seifert from last the four remaining COAs of Plaintiffs'
24 Second Amendment Complaint. The five individual Defendants are responsible and liable together
25 with the Regents of the University of California for monetary damages (wages and benefits) they
26 caused to Plaintiff and which are amounted in approximate $ 1, 000,000 because of Defendants
27
conspiracy with UC Regents in their reckless violation of January 30, 2009 Settlement -Agreement
to terminate Plaintiffs employment on December 7, 2012 i. The January 30, 2009 Settlement -
- 11 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 Agreement is enforceable only by the California Court and Plaintiff relay on Court that Justice will
2 properly serve without bias and prejudice to Plainfiff as it happened manyfimes. The Motion is a
3
total fraud and must be denied by the Court for above reason. .
4
E. The May 11, 2012 Ten Days Suspension Without Pay Violated UC Davis Procedure
5 62.1: Corrective Action and Employe Performance Review (Evaluation) Policy PPSM
6
23 Thus Was Unlawful
7
On April 13, 2012 Plaintiff being on leave since August 3, 2011 (9 months) was served by
8 Defendants a Letter of Intent to Suspend (EXHIBIT# 29) which Defendants Attomey Lindsay
9 Goulding did not include into her Motion list of exhibits.
10 Defendant's attorney did not include the April 13, 2012 Letter of Intent to Suspend because the
11 fabricate allegations and accusations were more than one year old and letter intent to suspend
12 violated UC Davis Procedure 62.1: Corrective Action and UC Davis Evaluafion Policy PPSM 23
which was strictly enforced by UC Davis Administration . Employees without annual evaluation
13
don't not work in UC Davis or University of California
14
15 An allegation was made that on March 8, 2011, April 21, 2011 and May 5,
20011 that you engaged in behavior that violated UCDHS Policy 1616 - Violence
16 and Hate Incidents in the Workplace. It was alleged that you were disruptive and
intimidating with Dorin Daniliuc when you pointed yourfingerin his face and
17
used profanity on March 8, 2011. Further, on April 21, 2011 you became
18 disruptive and intimidating with Patrick Putney during a discussion regarding your
work performance.
19
Mentioned in the letter of Intent Charles Witcher's Assistant Dennis Curry was removed
20 J
from UCDMC premises in June 2012 for making vail threats aimed at Plaintiff. Curry was direct
21
Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc Superior and he a power to discipline Plaintiff in 2011 . All three
22
knew how to sell chickens and goats in the HVAC shop but they did had a clue about the UC Davis
23
Policies and Procedures which are regulates in UC system relation between employees not
24
represented union the and employer . Putney and Daniliuc were Plantiff s friends and were forced
25 by Defendants to attack Plaintiff an Plainfiff coworkers to keep their job. Pl.[s]Ex. No.l - PI. [s]
26 Resp. to Admis. No. 15 p. 115
27 The fabricated allegations were more than year old and should reflect Plaintiffs July 2010-
28 July 2011 Plaintiff Annual Performance Review (Evaluation) which Plainfiff never received for
- 12 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 the evaluation period of July 2010-July2011.. Plaintiff worked full evaluafion period in 2010-2011
2 Evaluations were mandated and strictly enforced by UC Davis Policy PPSM 23.
3 Prior the April 13. 2012 Letter Intent to Suspend on Febnjary 14, 2012, Plainfiffs held
meeting with HR Labor Relations Manager, Mike Garcia, to resolve the dispute informally . Meeting
4
was arranged by Defendant Cindy Oropeza . HR Manager Benefits, EEO, Resident/Fellow Program
5
IR Administrator, Title IX Officer - Sexual Harassment, Mediation Services, ASAP, Early
6
Resolution/Inclusion Pl.[s]Ex. No.l PI. [s] Resp. to Admis.No.l2 p.71-74
7
Garcia asked Plaintiff how much Plainfiff will ask, dollar-wise, to voluntarily quit his job.
8 During the discussion Plaintiff proposed that he will quit his job if Defendant will pay Plaintiff his
9 annual wages in a lump sum unfil Plaintiff would be eligible for full Social Security Benefits at age
10 66. Plaintiff Noticed^ during the meeting that Mike Garcia was stressed out; Mr. Garcia told
11 Plaintiff that he is very concerned about the whole situation, that it is very unpleasant for him to
12 deal with .
At the same time HR Manager Mike Garcia replaced HR Consultant Gina Harwood with an
13
Attorney at Law Jill Vandrviver to handle Plaintiff s case and other two employees complaints to
14
whom Plaintiff was providing representation under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70(bad evaluations and
15
letters of expectations ) . Pl.[s]Ex. No.l PI. [s] Resp. to Admis.No.15 p.89-l02
16
In April or May 2012 Plainfiff had heard from his coworkers that(friends) the carpenter
17
shop was building two extra offices on the first level of Building 68 (Department Administration
18
Building ) and Plaintiff was hoping that Defendants would eventually move Plaintiff from the HVAC
19
20
shop to Bldg. 68 and that the conflict would end. Pl.[s]Ex. No.l PI. [s] Resp. to Admis.No.l5 p.103
21 It was true . In the bulk of e-mails Plaintiff received from Defendants Attorneys in 2015 due Plainfiff
22 's Requests for Production of Documents (Set One ) Plaintiff found May 10, 2012 e-mai
23 correspondence HR Manager Mike Garcia Assistant Jill Vandeviver sent to herself with cc, to
24 Plaintiffs Department Manager Charles Witcher , Mike Garcia and Travis Lindsay with Subject :
26 Also, since Jerry's job description is not yet complete, are you ok with us
sending a separate .letter once the Metasys memo goes out to all staff to then send
27
Jerry a letter with the memo and new job description?
28
- 13 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 With another e-mail send to Travis Lindsay (Mike Garcia Replacement) by Vandeviver at the
2 relatively same time stating : (EXHIBIT # 18)
3
Hi Travis -
We do not want to suspend Dorin (i.e. issue his letter) unfil he returns from
4 medical leave, correct?
There is also no longer an issue with regards to having Jerry coming back prior to
5
Patrick and Dorin serving their suspensions, correct?
6 Thanks,
J. Noel VanDeviver, J.D., M.P.A.Principal Employee & Labor Relations
7 Consultant
8 Both Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc were two Plainfiffs supervisors and friends since
April 20 , 2007 and were victimized by Defendants as well .
9
Why they got suspended a year later together with Plaintiff if the Plaintiff was alleged
10
offender March , April and May 2011 as April 13 , 2012 Letter Intent to Suspend stated ?
11
Plaintiff received the April 13, 2012, Letter of Intent to Suspend during his absence from
12
work since August 2, 2011 and was suspended without pay for 10 days day on May 11, 2012 just
13 one day after HR Consultant Jill Noel was chatting about new Job Description for Plainfiff
14 Plaintiff by instrucfion in 5/11/2012 letter of suspension (EXHIBIT # 19)(Defs Exh. M )
15 reported himself to work on May 31, 2012. Instant to receive a new job descripfion from his
16 manager Charles Witcher and go back to work , the specially assembled UC Davis Death Squad
17
waited for Plaintiff with Supervisor of Trauma Unit # 11 Karen Kouretas ready to receive Plaintiff
and euthanize him if UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour will not kill the provoked Plaintiff at
18
first shot. Pl.[s]Ex.No.l PI. [s] Resp. to Admis.No.l 5p. 84,89,103,103-105,107,109-112
19
Plaintiff walked out from the death trap in one piece and drove home with another letter
20
titled'"Investigatory Leave Letter" which fired Plaintiff from the job again and again. (Defs.Ex.
21
N)
22 Charles Witcher who handled the letter to Plaintiff almost got fired a few days later from his job
23 as well. Pl.[s]Ex. No.3 PI. [s] Resp. to Admis.No.l5p.89
24 The ten days suspension without pay was unlawful and also violated January 30, 2009
25
Settlement _Agreement and cost Plainfiff at least $ 3, 000 of his income thus is triable
undisputed material fact. The Defendants Motion must be denied by the Court ,
26
On May 31 , 2011 the fate of further Plaintiff's employment with university was decided
27
because Sacramento Municipal Utility District SMUD on that day signed a new unlawful power
28
purchase agreement with the Regents of the University of Califomia to buy power from UCDMC
- 14 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 27 MW Cogeneration Plant .(EXHIBIT #20). Since February 2009 owners of the plant lost millions
2 of dollars tax free due to lack of surplus power sale. Pl.[s]Ex. No.l PI. [s] Resp. to Admis No. 19 p.
3
193-194 The power purchase agreement became a worthless piece of paper because The Plaintiff
was not successfully eliminated (killed) by the bribed UC Davis PD Lt. James Barbour or his
4
subordinate. Pl.[s]Ex. No.l PI. [s] Resp. to Admis 15 p. 103
5
Shortly after Petitioner escaped death or UCDMC Trauma Unit # 1 1 , Plainfiff still employer
6
attempted to frame Plaintiff with Lodi Police . On June 21, 2012 disappointed UC Davis PD
7 Jennifer Garcia Sergeant #1021 informing others in e-mail that: (EXHIBIT # 21)
8
"Jerry" is clear any warrants, has no guns registered and no current dealer record of
9 sales for guns and has a negative criminal history. Lodi PD informed they have
nothing on him. jenn
10
On June 22, 2012 day after Sergeant #1021 Jeniffer Garcia announced that "Jerry " is clear
11
on any warrants and that he is not a gun dealer , UCDMC HR Consultant Gina Harwood sent to
12
Plaintiff a memo informing Plainfiff that HR Manager Mike Garcia and his assistant Jill Noel
13
Vandeviver who attempted to help find resolution with Plaintiff employment, got fired and she
14
replaced Jill Noel Vandeviver and Travis Lindsay replaced Mike Garcia as a new HR Manager .
15 (EXHIBIT # 22)
16 F. The Unlawful Termination of Plaintiff Employment with the University of California
17
On September 26, 2012, the Plaintiff received by overnight mail a Nofice of Intent to
18 Dismiss for Serious Misconduct, dated September 25, 2012 (EXHIBIT # 23). It was similar to the
19 unlawful April 13, 2012, Notice Intent to Suspend and May 11 Letter of 10 Days Suspension without
20 Pay and other documents the Plainfiff had received from UCDMC Plant Operafion and Maintenance
21
Department Manager Charles Witcher. The notice is as follows:
27 The letter also informed that Plaintiffs title was changed or Plainfiff was promoted from
Associate Development Engineer to the Senior Development Engineer and now question why
28
- 15 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 Plaintiff is being promoted and being fired same time. It shows that Plaintiff being discharges for
2 the different reason than alleged misconduct The Notice of Intent to Dismiss was not the new job
description that the Plaintiff should have received in May 2016 (Pl[s] Exh 30).
3
G. The email dated September 26. 2012. - Destruction of Evidence by Defendants
4
(EXHIBIT # 24).
5
The email correspondence dated September 26, 2012, between the UCDMC HR Compensation
6
Manager, her subordinates Bill Gregory and Yvette Guttierrez, and UC Davis Health System HR
7
Director Stephen Chilcott with CC HR Labor Relation Analyst Gina Harwood and HR Labor
8 Relation Manager Travis Lindsey stated the following:
9 • Bill
Can you please go into eHR as there appears to be an eval in the system with an
10
unsatisfactory rating for Jaroslaw Waszczuk employee ID 100007732. Once you located it
11 please cancel the eval totally out of the system (i.e. delete). Stevel_has indicated that he was
on leave for the majority of the review period and should not have been evaluated with an
12 unsatisfactory rating.
• Yvette
13
Can you please initiate a deferral on this employee as well, pushing the eval date out a year
14 to September 2013?
• Gina-
15 Can you advise the dept that we have done this? Steve shared with me the pending action on
this employee and that we will probably want to correct the system immediately.
16
Thanks to you all, any questions let me know
17 • Carol
18 Beside the unlawful destruction by Defendants of the Plaintiff employee record , the above e-mail
19 chat is undisputed evidence and fact that no adverse action should be taken against Plaintiff during
20 his leave of absence . If Plaintiff should not have been evaluated with an unsatisfactory rating than
21
also Plaintiff should not be suspended without pay in May 2012
In Forbes v. County of San Bernardino, 101 Cal.App.4th 48 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) the court
22
observed:
23
24 that a number of non tort remedies already existed to deter the intentional
destruction of evidence by litigants or third parties. The court in the underlying
25 action could impose evidenfiary sanctions, such as an inference that the
unavailable evidence was unfavorable to the party who destroyed or suppressed it.
26
The victim of the spoliation similarly could be permitted to explain to the jury why
27 the evidence was not available, so that the jury would not hold against the victim
its failure to produce the evidence. The court could also impose monetary or
28 contempt sanctions on the spoliator. In addition, any person willfully
- 16 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 destroying evidence would incur criminal liability. (Pen. Code, § 135; Cedars-
Sinai, supra, 75 Cal.4th at pp. 11-13; Temple Community, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp.
2 474, 476-477.)
3 It is clear and undisputed material fact that Defendants dismissed Plainfiff for other reason than
4 alleged misconduct in violation of UC Davis Procedure 62.1: Corrective Action and in violation
5 of January 30, 2009 Settlement -Agreement thus Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment must
6 be denied .
The CEMRP2, as menfioned in the email title, stands for the University of Califomia
7
Clinical Enterprise Management Recognition Plan 2 ("Plan"), which is governed by Personnel
8
Policies for Staff Members 34 (Incentive and Recognition Award Plans - Managers & Senior
9
Professionals and Professional & Support Staff).
10
https://policv.ucop.edu/_files/policies/CEMRP2-Plan.pdf
11 https://policv.ucop.edu/doc/40l0430/PPSM-34
12 The September 26, 2012, email "CEMRP2 Eligible Employees With Unsatisfactory Rating"
13 (DEF RPDl 3019,) which was provided to the Plaintiff by Defendants attorneys from Porter Scott
14 Law Corporation, is undisputable evidence that for the 2011-2012 evaluation period (July 1, 2011,
15
to June 30, 2012), the Plaintiff, as a university employee, should have received at least a "Meets
Expectation" rating in his evaluation, as mandated by the UC Davis Policy PPSM 23.
16
Additionally, for the 2011-2012 evaluation, the Plaintiff should have received a CEMRP2
17
Recognition Reward. Plaintiff should not be forced to stay on leave for one year. Plaintiff should be
18
terminated or allowed to work after he end medical leave on January 5, 2012.
19 Instead, on May 11, 2012, he received a ten-day suspension without pay and a Notice of
20 Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct. Both measures were based on maliciously fabricated
21 accusations by the five listed individuals in lawsuit. During the 2011-2012 evaluafion period, the
22 Plaintiff worked only one month and three days: July 1, 2011, to August 3, 2011. For the 2010-2011
23 evaluation period, the Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff and did not provide the Plainfiff
with any employee performance review.
24
This is undisputed evidence that Plainfiff was singled out for termination for different reason
25
than misconduct thus Defendants Motion must be denied by the Court . Defendants grossly violated
26
UC Davis UC Davis Procedure 62.1: Corrective Acfion and Evaluafion Policy PEPS 23 beside
27 violating the January 30, Setfiement Agreement
28
- 17 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 This is a clear contradiction of the mandates outlined in UC Davis Policy PPSM 23. After
2 August 3, 2011, the Plaintiff was not allowed to return to work. On December 7, 2012, he was
3
unlawfully terminated.
On September 26, 2012, Compensafion Manager Carol Shimada explained by email that she
4
discovered a conspiracy against the Plaintiff that was perpetrated by her superior, HR Director and
5
Defendant in this lawsuit, Stephen Chilcott and Defendant Chilcot got of guard of wrongdoing. This
6
material fact alone precludes Defendants from Motion to be granted beside violation of the January
7
30, 2009 Settlement Agreement by Chilcott an his subordinates
8
17
UCDMC HR Labor Relation Consultant Gina Harwood, who was handling Plant Operafion
18
& Maintenance Department (PO&M) labor-related matters, was shocked when she received the UC
19
Davis Police poster with the Plaintiffs photo and physical description on it. Gina Harwood had
20
known the Plaintiff for a long time. In her response to HR Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsey,
21
she wrote about the poster, as follows:
22 Hi There:
23 This is really out of the norm to post this in the department, and 1 was not aware
24
that we were going to do this. Did we ask the police to do this? His letter stated
that he would remain on paid leave which implies the same expectations, but I am
25 a little concerned that this is being posted in the department since we have not
done this before on any other violence cases. Just want to make sure that we
26 sanctioned this before it was posted in the department because I suspect we will be
getting an email about it soon.
27
28 Gina
- 18 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
Travis Lindsey responded to Gina Harwood's email:
2 SENIOR LEADERSHIP ASKED STEVE TO HAVE PD TAKE THIS PRECAUTION
3
AND
WE'VE NEVER TERMINATED JW EITHER.
4 Gina Harwood thanked Travis Lindsay with words:
"OK, THANKS FOR THE INFO, WAS JUST CONCERNED BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT
5 DONE THIS BEFORE. GINA"
6 The question is why Gina Harwood became so concemed so about UC Davis PD poster
7 portraying the Plaintiff like a "Terrorist or Criminal" wanted by the FBI. She was the one who
8 conspired with another Gina—Gina Holleman and UC Davis Police Sergeant Jennifer Garcia—to
frame Plainfiff for being in trouble with Lodi Police. It did not work on July 18, 2012. Investigator
9
Gina Gaullaume-HoUeman from the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) Chief Compliance Office
10
interviewed one of the Plaintiffs coworkers from the HVAC shop sent to her by Gina Harwood.
11
Gaullaume-Holleman solicited from Mark Montoya to sign an affidavit which stated that the
12
Plaintiff threatened him and is a dangerous individual. Mark Motoya was riding his bike(Harley)
13 together with Gina Harwood and UCDMC HR Workers' Compensation Manager Hugh Parker, who
14 was overseeing the May 31, 2012, provocafion to send the Plaintiff to UCDMC Trauma Unit #11.
15 What is interesting in Gina Harwood and Travis Lindsay's email chat about "Persona Non
16 Grata" UCDPD poster is Travis Lindsay's statement: "WE'VE NEVER TERMINATED JW
EITHER."
17
HR Manager Travis Lindsay was correct. The Plaintiff should have received a new job
18
description in May 2012 and returned to work as a Senior Development Engineer.
19
. New HR Manager Travis Lindsay was right that he and Charles Witcher were not the ones
20
who fired the Plaintiff. An order or recommendation to terminate Plainfiffs was sent to Defendants
21 Stephen Chilcott and Brent Seifert by Attorney Mia Belk from the UC Office of the General Counsel
22 on September 18, 2012. In March 2016, the Plaintifffileda complaint against Mia Belk and the
23 other attorneys from the UC system who were conspiring against the Plaintiff (EXHIBIT #26)
24 https://wvyw.scribd.com/document/519289966/03-23-2016-California-State-Bar-Complaint-
Against-Attorneys
25
The Plaintiffs Complaint was swept under the rug by the former California State Bar Executive
26
Director/CEO Elizabeth R. Parker , former Dean in Pacific McGeorge School of Law and
27
former CIA and NSA Counsel & Janet Napolitano's friend .
28
- 19 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 The facts and documents show that nobody in UC Davis or UC Davis Medical Center
2 wanted to take responsibility for the Plainfiffs harassment and termination of his employment;
3
thus, they fabricated false reports, portrayed the Plaintiff as a racist, bigot, and anti-Semite, and
sent their slander to an attorney in the UC Office of the General to make a decision for the
4
Defendants Director Mike Boyd and HR Director Defendant Stephen Chilcott and his
5
subordinates, Defendants Brent Seifert, Danesha Nichols, and Cindy Oropeza. Mia Belk never
6
contacted the Plaintiff by phone, email, or mail. She made her recommendation to fire the
7
Plaintiff and then left UC system. The Court must deny the Mofion for Summary Judgment to
8 Defendants.
9 I. The Letter of Termination Dated December 5, 2012
10 On December 5, 2012, UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance Department Manager
11 Charles Witcher sent an email to the Plaintiff with the attached Letter of Termination that contained
12 the same content as the September 25, 2012, Nofice Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct that
the Plaintiff s job title is not Associate Development Engineer but Sr. Development Engineer. In
13
addition, the draft of the Letter of Termination was sent by Witcher to HR Manager Travis Lindsay
14
(Attomey) for approval; the approved letter was sent by Witcher to the Plaintiff (EXHIBIT # 27). In
15
2012, the base pay for an Associate Development Engineer was $71,400, and for a Sr. Development
16
Engineer, the base salary was $91,099 per year. This is almost a $20,000 difference or approximate
17 $1600/month more. The Plaintiff has provided evidence that in May 2012, management was
18 preparing a new job description for the Plaintiff and that HR Manager Travis Lindsay, who approved
19 the Letter of Termination, told his subordinate Gina Harwood that the UC Davis Medical Center had
20 nothing to do with the Plaintiffs termination of employment. See: Pl.[s] Exh. No.30 Thus, all
evidence of the Plaintiffs wrongdoing provided in this Defendants Motion are false and fabricated
21
to further harm the Plaintiff
22
The Skelly Reviewer , UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson's decision dated
23
December 3, 2012 and Charles Witcher's Letter of Termination were just formalities. No
24
outstanding work history or performances outlined in Plaintiffs employee performance review
25
(evaluafions) were mentioned. Neither decision mentioned the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement
26 Plaintiff signed with the regents of the University of California, which guaranteed Plainfiff a job
27 with the University as the Associate Development Engineer. .
28
- 20 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 The Plaintiff lost his home in 2012 due to the Defendants' malice and inhumane treatment of the
2 Plaintiff, which inflicted upon him irreparable harm and caused approximate losses in the amount of
3
$1,000,000 in wages and benefits (roughly calculated)
The Defendants grossly violated Skelly:
4
In Skelly v. State Personnel Board {\975), 15 Cal. 3d 194, the California Supreme
5 Court ruled that: "as part of constitutionally guaranteed due process, public
6
employees are entitled to certain procedural safeguards before discipline which is
sufficiently severe to constitute a deprivation of a liberty or property right is
7 imposed on them. The consfitufionally protected liberty interests requiring Skelly
protections arise whenever the allegations against an employee are sufficiently
8 onerous to seriously impact the employee's ability to find future work in his/her
chosen career."
9
10
UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson's together with Porter Scott Attomeys
11 Michael Pott and George Acero was a key player in the 2007 3DCA anti-SLAPP mofion case
12 Vergos V. McNeal, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) . Plainfiff addressed Mr. Tollefson
13 Porters Scott Attorneys in his March 7, 2018 open letter to UC Davis Chancellor Gary May tided:
14
DANNY GRAY'S "Me Too"— PARTS UNKNOWN (EXHIBIT # 28)
https;//vyww.scribd.com/document/390497657/SI-22-MeToo-Danny-Gray-Parts-
15
Unknown-UC-Davis
16
17
J. The Court Has Discretion to Deny Summary. Judgment When a Material Fact Is
18 Established Solely By an Affidavit Made By a Party Who Is a Sole Witnesss.
I
21
Summary judgment may be denied in the discretion of the court, where the only
proof of a material fact offered in support of the summary judgment is an
22 affidavit or declaration made by an individual who was the sole witness to that
Fact; or where a material fact is an individual's state of mind, or lack thereof, and
23 that fact is sought to be established solely by the individual's affirmation thereof"
24
In this Motion, numerous pieces of evidence are statements submitted by Defendant's current
25
or former employees. (Defs Exh[s] B, F, G, H, Q, S, U, W, and Y) Many of these statements cannot
26
be disputed because the declarants claim to be the sole witnesses as to the facts alleged. Usually,
27
these come in the form of their "state of mind," such as their reasoning for doing (or not doing)
28 something. These are not appropriate facts upon which to base a summary judgment motion because
- 21 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 the juror is the ultimate decision maker as to whether the Defendant, or in this case its agents and
2 employees, are credible in these statements.
3
Because the declarants are the individuals who are alleged to have committed the egregious acts that
are the subject of this lawsuit, their statements are self-serving. At trial, a jury may reject the self-
4
serving testimony of a party to the litigation, even if uncontradicted by other testimony or evidence
5
The Declarations and Investigatory Reports provided by the Defendants' attorneys to support
6
the mofion (Defs Exh[s] B, F, G, H, Q, S, U, W, and Y) are very questionable documents and they
7
are not credible documents taking into consideration Defendant Attomey Lindsay Goulding in her
8 Declaration repeated in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Procedural Status Chapter on
9 Page No.2 stating that Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants Request for Admission and admitted
10 wrongdoing. Plainfiff responded to the Request for Admission did not admitted any wrongdoing
11 because was none .
12 The Defendants terminated the Plaintiff s employment six years before his retirement at age
61. This improper termination greatly affected the Plaintiffs life and livelihood and caused the
13
Plaintiff monetary losses of over $1,000,000 in wages and benefits, which is the focus of this
14
lawsuit. The Court must deny this Motion and Defendants must pay the damages to Plaintiff they
15
caused.
16
K. The Defendants Are Playing Race Card in the Memorandum of Points and
17 Authorities Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication
18
19
Ethnically, the Plaintiff is Eastern European. Besides being called "Polack" by Americans, he
20 was discriminated against by UC and was discriminated against and pre-judged in the California
21 Courts. The treatment by Polish communists was nothing compared to what the Plaintiff has
22 experienced in this country since January 2007. The Plaintiff and his family were granted political
23 asylum in the USA to protect them from government oppression. Instead, the Plaintiffs livelihood
was destroyed by the govemment of California, which violated the Plaintiffs civil and human rights
24
leaving the Plaintiff with nothing, at the age of 70. The Plaintiff is a Polish immigrant, a former anti
25
communist activist, and a political prisoner from Soviet-dominated Poland; he has legally lived in
26
the USA since November 1982 and has two Polish -Mexican grandchildren Diego Salvador
27
Waszczuk and Sophia Waszczuk. (https://www.scribd.com/document/494446114/Solidaritv-Anti-
28 Communist-Movement-Poland-1980-1982
- 22 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 The Defendants' attorney, desperately trying to play the race card and
2 employing despicable accusations, lied under penalty of perjury in her Declarafion (Defs. Exh, B p.
3
3) that the Plaintiff made derogatory comments in the workplace about Jewish people, African-
Americans, Hispanics, and/or homosexuals. If this was the case, then the Plainfiffs comments were
4
overlooked by the Defendants for 12 years, as the Plaintiff was receiving good annual performance
5
reviews (evaluations) from the Defendants. The last two evaluations that the Plainfiff received in
6
2010 have been highlighted (Exceed Expectation) (Defs. Exh. A pp. 5 [27-28]; 6 [1-28]).
7
The Plaintiff received the highest grade (Outstanding/Exceed Expectations) in their last two
8 evaluations for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The employees' performance reviews (evaluations) are
9 not the Defendants' (Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, and Brent Seifert) fabricated witch hunt
10 reports (Defs. Exh. S & X). Employees' annual performance reviews are mandated by UC Davis
11 Policy PPSM 23, which has the force and effect of state statutes (see Kim v. Regents of University of
12 California [20001 80 Cal. App. 4th 160. 165). Witch hunt reports are fabricated to hunt down
employees in the UC system who decry the UC Principles of Community as unconstitufional
13
redacted Marxist manifestos that have nothing to do with ariy principles or UC policy. These reports
14
are unlawfully used to condemn outspoken employees or whistleblowers and discipline them to curb
15
their First Amendment rights (free speech rights) and terminate them (Pl.[s]Ex. No.3 PI. [s], Resp.
16
to Admis No.3 p.5-6, Resp. to Admis No.l I p.34, Resp. to Admis No.15 p. 100, and Resp. to
17 Admis No.l7 p.l28).
18 The Plaintiff addressed anfi-Semitism in Pl.[s]Exh.l 1 pp. 29-31. UC Davis is not a particularly
19 pro-Jewish campus. A few years back, American comedian Rosanne Barr, who is Jewish and very
20 Pro-Israel, tweeted: " I hope all the "Jews leave UC Davis & it then it gets nuked!"
21
With regard to African-Americans and Hispanics, the Plaintiff wrote a letter to Defendant Cindy
Oropeza dated November 18, 2013 and tided "Letter of Expectation for Unprofessional Behavior."
22
The letter was dated October 21, 2013 and given to Frank J. Gonzales by Paint Shop Acfing
23
Superintendent Donald Whitley. It addressed racism at the UC Davis Medical Center as follows:
24
EXHIBIT # 29
25
The photos on the UC Davis Health System web page of Dr. Darin A. Latimore,
26
M.D. posing with different ethnic groups of UC Davis students is very interesting.
27 Latimore is African-American, a member of the Task Force on Diversity and
Inclusion, and associate dean for residents' and students' diversity.
28
- 23 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 The photos show Latimore posing with different ethnic groups of students but not
those from his racial group—African-Americans. The same can be said of
2 Duruisseau. It would probably be physically impossible for Dumisseau or
3
Latimore to assemble a group of African-Americans at UCDMC for photos. The
charts show that African-Americans and Hispanics are grossly outnumbered by
4 Whites and Asians.
5 The April 27, 2012 YouTube slide show "Welcome to Romania" was exploited by the
6
Defendants (Defs. Exh., R & S). The Plainfiff addressed and explained this in Pl.[s]Ex. No.3 PI. [s]
Resp. to Admis No.l 1 p.27, Resp. to Admis No. 14 p.75,76-77, Resp. to Admis No. 15 p.80,83,
7
Resp. to Admis No. 16 p. 125, and Resp. to Admis No.17 p. 129.
8
9 The Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated after 12 years of service to the university, and the
10 Defendants, instead of appreciating the Plaintiff, portrayed the Plainfiff as a criminal or terrorist
11 using the UC Davis police "persona non grata poster" distributed around UC Davis. It was a gross
12
and despicable violation of the January 30, 2009 Settlement Agreement that the Defendants signed
with the Plaintiff, as this violafion forced the Plaintiff to find another job in the Sacramento area.
13
If the Court examines the table of contents of the Defendants' Motion it will find that sixty
14
percent of these contents have been relitigated and dismissed by anti-SLAPP motion COAs. In
15
addition, the Defendants have incorrectly stated, from pages 9 to 17, that the Plaintiff cannot claim
16
harassment or retaliation. It has been nine years since the Plaintiff was terminated and forced to live
17 g on $1500 social security income, than despicable and inhumane treatment Plaintiff experienced
18 from the Defendants was not harassment. It was a violation of Plaintiff Human and Employee
19 rights by governmental entity corrupted regime . The Plaintiff, from 2011 to 2012, spent most of his
20 time on leave (one year and four months), staying at home and responding to the Defendants' threats
and slander thinking what next and whether he will survive another day. See Plaintiffs 10/9/2011
21
open letter to members of the UC Davis Ethics and Compliance Risk Committee, California State
22
Assembly members, and the regents of the University of Califomia titled, " I FEEL LIKE A
23
HUNTED JEW DURING THE HOLOCAUST" [EXHIBIT #30], and the Plainfiffs November
24
9, 2011 response to the 11/08/2011 letter ["Access to University Email Account" by Department
25 Manager Charies Witcher] titled, "GESTAPO ON MY ASS"[ EXHIBIT #31]).
26 Nothing has changed since October 2011. The Plaintiff sfill feels like a hunted Jew during the
27 Holocaust in occupied Poland by Nazis and is still targeted by the UCOP thugs, Porter Scott's
28 Gestapo, and Soviet Stalin era style NKVD. The Plainfiffs is not only vicfim of UCOP Gestapo
- 24 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 Tom Porter Scott and others like them See the links below:
2 https://www.scribd.eom/document/515312517/06-29-1918-PLANTIFF-DISAPPROVAL-OF-THE-
3 ROPOSAL-ORDER-AND-JUDGMENT
https://www.scribd.com/document/468845960/8-3-2018-Excerpt-From-the-Letter-to-FBl-
4
Sacramento-Office
5
https://www.scribd.com/document/508113551/20190729-Petifioner-s-Replv-to-Judge-
6
Armen-Order-Dated-Q7-29-2019
7
The endless investigatory leaves and suspension letters issued by the Defendants in an
attempt to force the Plaintiff to quit his job did not work. The Defendants' counsel is correct to an
10 extent in the motion that the Plaintiff cannot claim retaliation. The Defendants have nothing to
11 retaliate over because the Plaintiff did not do anything worthy of retaliation. Plaintiff did not blow
whistle on UCOP . The Defendants mercilessly and ruthlessly attacked Plaintiff to force the
12
Plaintiff to quit his job, because in 2011, they were ready to resume the unlawfiil sales of power tax
13
free to SMUD. The Plaintiff, as an assistant development engineer at UCDMC, had access to the
14
UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant production data via the Metasys system, and Porter Scott
15
attorneys did not like this because they wanted a share from the power sale.
16 L. Defendants Arguments In Memorandum Of Points And Authorities Memorandum Of
17
Points And Authorities In Support Of Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment Or,
In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication
18
19
Plaintiff was on forced leave for one full year and one month with $ 10,000 loses in his
20
income because of the Defendants inhumane witch hunt which turned Plaintiffs and his family life
21 upside down. Defendants constantly was provoking Plaintiff in his own home by fabricafing
22 unfounded despicable allegations and accusafions and terminating 61 years old Plaintiff at his
23 retirement age base on UCDHS Hate Incidents in the Workplace Policy and the Principles of
24 Community. Work Place Policy is for work place not for Plaintiff home . Principles of Community
25
is not a UC Policy and has no force and effect of state statutes (see Kim v. Regents of University of
California (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160. 165). Pl.[s]Ex. No.3 PI. [s] Resp. to Admis No.3p.5-6,.
26
Resp. to Admis No. 11 p.34, Resp. to Admis No. 15p. 100,. Resp. to Admis No. 17p. 128
27
28
- 25 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 M. The Defendants' Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of
Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary
2 Adjudication
3
The Defendants have repeated the same 17 supposedly "undisputed" facts in the remaining
4
four COAs of the Plaintiffs SAC, which are: 5.) violafion of Health and Safety Code, sec. 1278.5;
5
6.) breach of written contract; 7.) wage and hour violafions; and 8.) rescission - unlawful contract.
6
Given the Plaintiffs limited resources and the undue burden imposed on the Plaintiff by
7
relitigating and the redundancy of the already-litigated matters by the Defendants in the anti-SLAPP
8 motion, or resolved in 2008 and 2009 by arbitration and a Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiff is
9 requesting that the Court deny the Motion for Summary Judgement or, an Altemative, Summary
10 Adjudication to the remaining six Defendants. The Plainfiff legifimately disputes most of the 17
11
supposedly undisputed facts, thus the Motion must be denied.
IV. THE TRIABLE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION
12
13
A. The Six Cause of Action - The Violation and Breach of the January 30, 2009,
14 Settlement Agreement signed with the Plaintiff by the Regents of the University
15
of California or their Agents on Regents' Behalf.
16 On July 17 and July 24, 2011, Plaintiff sent complaints letters to UC Davis Chief CounselSteven
17 Drown and requested from him to intervene to stop Defendant Danesha Nichols and others from
18 violating the 2009 Settlement-Agreement. UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown was one of four
19 UC Davis employees who had signed the 2009 Settlement on the UC Regents' behalf (EXHIBIT #
20
32 Response To Request for Admission Pl.[s]Exh., Resp. for Admis. No. 12 p p. 46-50)
On August 3, 2011, to September 1, 2011, Plaintiff was placed by his physician. Dr. Harvey
21
Hashimoto from Lodi, on work-related stress leave until September 1, 2011. Plaintiff saw a
22
psychologist to cope with the situafion and stress. Plaintiffs psychologist was Dr. Franklin Bemhoft
23
from Lodi.
24
25
The specific triable issues of material fact as to Six Cause of Action-The Violation and Breach of
26
the January 30, 2009 Settlement -Agreement are outlined in the in the Defs Exh, No. E Plainfiffs
27
28 - 26 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 First Amended Answers to Defendant's Regents of the University of Califomia Special
2 Interrogatories to Plaintiff Set One.
3 The Plaintiff Answer to Special Interrogatories from No.33 to No. 39, Page 44-63 are the roughly
4 calculated monetary damages amounted in approximate of $ 1,000, 000 (lost wages and benefits ,
5 home etc.) Pl.[s]Exh.l Resp. for Admis. No.9 p p. 14-16; Resp. for Admis.1 Ip.35
Summary judgment cannot be granted when the facts are susceptible to more than one reasonable
6
inference...." {Rosas v. BASF Corp . (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1378. 1392. 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 354.)
7
8
Soria v. Univision Radio L. A., Inc., 5 CaI.App.5th 570, 583 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)
9 Plaintiff believe that the Court will have no problem to find in the Plaintiff's Opposition to
10
the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment the facts which are s susceptible to more than one
reasonable inference . The other three remining COAs 5.) violation of Health and Safety Code, sec.
11
1278.5; 7.) wage and hour violations; and 8.) rescission - unlawful contract, are not applicable..
12
Plaintiff's effort to amend the SAC in 2014 and 2015 was blocked by the Court than Plaintiff does what he
13
can with SAC. .
14 It has been nearly 10 years since the Plaintiffs employment was terminated on August 31,
15 2011, followed by the attempt to assassinate the Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, in an ill-conceived
16 provocation by specially assembled thugs, which the Plaintiff refers to in documents as the UC
17 Davis Death Squad.
If the Court examines the Defendants' pleading, the Court will not find one word in any document
18
that the Plaintiff breached or violated the contract written on January 30, 2009, in which the Plaintiff
19
expressed his plan to retire from the University in 2017 at the age of 66. Contrary to the Defendants'
20
statements, the Plaintiff complained about a violation of the signed contract before his employment
21
was unfairly terminated on August 31, 2011, at age 60—six years before the Plaintiffs retirement.
22
23 V. CONCLUSION
24
25 Plaintiff had faith in the justice system and the judicial officers of the Sacramento County
26
Superior Court until he started seeing a different picture of judicial process around January 2015,
after he fired his attorney for gross misconduct in December 2014. Plaintiff hoped that Judg would
27
use common sense, seeing that Plaintiff was held hostage for more than a year on administrative
28
leave, was not given evaluations for his last two years of employment, was punished for unproved
- 27 -
THE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Fl LED/EHDOBSI
1 Jaroslaw Waszczuk, in pro per SEP 22 2021
2216 Katzakian Way
2 Lodi, CA 95242
By: S. Khorn
3
Phone: 209-663-2977 Deputy Clerk
Fax: 209-257-8205
A Email: jjwl980@Iive.com
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORMA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11
12
13 )
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK )Case No. 34-2013-00155479
14
)
15 PLAINTIFF, ) Plaintiffs DECLARATION IN SUPPORT
joF THE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
16 VS. )AND A U T H O R I T I E S IN SUPPORT O F
17 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, JTHE MOTION FOR
ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, )RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
18
STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES )WHICH GRANTED TO T H E
19 WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, ^DEFENDANTS T H E MOTION FOR
CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, )S U M M A R Y J U D G M E N T OR, I N T H E
20 PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, {ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
AND DOES 1-50
21 )ADJUDICATION AND REQUEST THAT
)PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
22 DEFENDANTS. I RECONSIDERATION BE TREATED AS
23 A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 1008
24 DATE: OCTOBER 13,2021
25 TIME: 9:00 A.M.
DEPT: 54
26
27
HON. CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER
28
13
whistleblower case is currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, docketed as Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue
14
Services, Case No. 20-1407. The UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant was commissioned in 1998,
15
and since that time has been unlawftilly operated to produce and sell electricity in violation ofthe
16
requirements of Federal Energy Commission Regiilatory Commission (FERC) regulations, 18 C.F.R.
17
§ 292.20. Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a), Califomia Public Utilities Code Section 218.5,
18 State of Califomia Unfair Business Competition law and Business and Professions Code § 17200 &
19 Califomia Commodity Law of 1990 (Corp. Code, § 29500 et seq., "CCL"), 7 U.S. Code § 6 (b) in
20 violation of section 501 (c)(3) of the Intemal Revenue Code of 1954, and the State of California's
21 Revenue and Taxation Code.
3. The Plaintiff, by representing himself in the whistleblower case in U.S. Tax Court in
22
2018, in 2019 came across former University of Califomia Office ofthe President's (UCOP) human
23
resources director. Associate Vice President Judith Boyette, who interacted with the Plaintiff when
24
he was employed as an operator ofthe UCDMC 27-MW cogeneration plant, from June 17,1999
25
through April 16,2007. In June 2016, just three months after the Plaintiff submitted his Application
26 for Award to IRS Whistleblower Office (WHO) in Ogden Utah, Boyette was appointed by the
27 Secretary of tiie Treasury to a three-year term on flie IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and
28 Govemment Entities (TEGE),fromJune 2016 - June 2019. This appointment occurred just after UC
- 2 -
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1 President (the former Secretary oftiieDepartment of Homeland Security -DHS) Janet Napolitano
2 traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with President Obama and Vice President Biden. A UC
3 Newsroom article, dated May 19,2016, shows a photo of Napolitano meeting Biden in his West
Wing office on May 18,2016 rhtti?s://www.scribd.com/document/476775292/UTC-20160518-UC-
4
President-Janet-Nat)olitano-Mects-President-Obama-Vice-President-Biden-BIDEND. In addition to
5
meeting with Obama and Biden, Napolitano met with the Secretary of Energy.
6
After Boyette was appointed to the TEGE, the Plaintiff's Whistleblower Application for
7
Reward was filed with IRS WBO en vaiushed for over two years until Plaintiff r sent an update more
than 150 pages long, in August 2018, which was completely unexpected by the IRS' WBO.
4. In August 2005, one of the Plaintiffs coworkers at the cogeneration plant submitted a
10 formal complaint, "Improper Governmental Activities," to Boyette agauist plant managers who
11 knowingly allowed a massive leak of machine oil from the defective cooling gear boxes to discharge
into Sacramento River via a storm drain. Along with his complaint, the PlaintifPs coworker stated
12
that he had severely injured his back from after slipping on the oily surface while performing
13
preventive maintenance beneath the cooling tower. He was taken by ambulance to the UCDMC's
14
ER (see Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 11, in his Opposition to Regents MSJ/MSA). The University did not
15 want to fix the hazard because a new cooling tower was under construction, but oil had been
16 discharged into the river for seven years. The Plaintiff helped his coworker with the complaint;
17 thereafter, they both became targets of a vicious, merciless retaliation campaign. In April 2007, the
18 Plaintiff was brutalized by an abrupt suspension witiiout pay and removed permanentiy from the
28 would die or leave counti7, or that UC President Napolitano would arrange to place the Plaintiff on
- 3 -
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OFTHE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORTTIES
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1 tiie "no fly list," like a terrorist, after the Regents awardedtiiePlaintiff witii a "Persona Non Grata -
2 Most Unwanted Terrorist" UC Davis Police Poster, which was distributed around the campus. This
3
is in sharp contrast to the Al-Qaeda terrorists who were welcomed by the University and hosted for
more than one year in San Diego as they prepared for the September 11,2001 terrorist attacks on
4
U.S. soil (see https://www.scribd.com/document/510484989/Robert-Swan-Mueller-III-20Q0-2001-
5
Fortv-Billion-Fraud-Titled-Califomia-Energv-Crisis-9-11-Terrorists-Attack').
6
7. On May 14,2021, Regents' attomey Lindsay Goulding filed tiie MSJ/MSA (ROA 254-
7
258) with many Declarations in support and other pleadings. Goitiding brought witii the Regents'
MSJ/MSA documents concerning tiie 2007 Regents' attack aimed at the Plaintiff, which resulted in
his suspension and removal from the cogeneration plant. These documents included:
10 1. Exhibit G: Investigative Report, dated March 8,2007 and prepared by Bettye Andreos
2. Exhibit I : March 23,2007 correspondencefromCharles Witcher to tiie Plaintiff regarding
11 tiie Letter of Suspension and Notice of Reassignment
3. Exhibit J: April 16,2007 correspondencefromCharies Witcher to the Plaintiff regarding
12
Letter of Suspension and Notice of Reassignment
13
14
The Defendants' attorney Goulding repeated her 2007 MSJ/MSA slander witii tiie following
exhibits from tiie 2011-2012 witch hunt aimed at the Plamtiff:
15
1. Exhibit L: August 31,2011 correspondence from Charles Witcher to tiie Plaintiff regarding
16 the Notice of Investigatory Leave
2. Exhibit M : May 11,2012 correspondencefromCharles Witcher to the Plaintiff regarding
17
tiie Notice of Intent to Suspend
18 3. Exhibit N: May 31,2012 correspondencefromCharles Witcher to tiie Plauitiff placing tiie
Plaintiff on investigatory leavefromMay 31 through June 13,2012
19 4. Exhibit O: September 25,2012 correspondencefromCharles Witcher to the Plaintiff
regarding the Notice of Intent to Dismiss
20
5. Exhibit P: December 5,2012 Letter of Termination sent to the Plaintiff
21
22 8. The Plaintiff, in his preparation to object to tiie Regents' MSJ/MSA filed by Goulding on May
14,2021, took a closer look at some documents from March-April 2007 and April-May 2012,
23
which were portraymg the Regents' attempts to terminate the Plaiatiffs employment. The Regents'
24
MSJ/MSA Exhibit I: March 23,2007 Letter of Intent to Suspend and Notice of Reassignment.
25
Exhibit J: April 16,2007 Letter of Suspension and Notice of Reassignment, are ahnost identical in
26
style and form, when compared wdth the Regents' MSJ/MSA Exhibit M, May 11,2012 unsigned
27 Notice of Intent to Suspend and Plaintiff's Objection to the Regents' MSJ /MSA, Exhibit No. 16
28 Letter of Intent to Suspend.
- 4 -
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1 Furthermore, in an identical situation in March-April 2007 and April-May 2012, someone
2 stopped tiie Plaintiffs employment termination. In 2007, after the Plaintiff was removedfromtiie
3
UCDMC cogeneration plant and moved to the HVAC shop, the Plaintiff received on July 25,2007 a
good evaluation for the 2006/2007 evaluation period signed by his department manager and two
4
other superintendents, who had supposedly accused the Plaintiff of misconduct Nothing was
5
mentioned intiiePlaintiffs evaluation about what was vmtten about tiie Plaintiff in the March 23,
6
2007 and April 16, 2007 Letters of Suspension and Reassignment. In May 2012, one day before the
7
Plaintiff was unlawfully suspended on May 11,2012, tiie Regents' MSJ/MSA ExhibitM tiie
UCDMC HR Labor Relations Consultant Joel Vandevier, had been e-mailing with his manager,
Travis Lindsay, about providing tiie a new job description for the Plaintiffand about the suspension
10 of two oftiiePlaintiffs supervisors, Dorin Daniliuc and Patrick Putney, not the Plaintiff (Pl. 'Objec.
11
to Regents MSJ/MSA Exh. Nos. 17 & 18).In June 2011, Vandviver was terrorized, terrified, and
fired from the job (Plaintiffs Public Record file) and replaced by Gina Harwood (Pl. 'Objec. to
12
Regents MSJ/MSA Exh. No. 22).who participated in witch hunt against Plaintiff smce June 2011.
13
14 9. The Regents' MSJ/MSA Exh. J April 16,2007 Letter of Suspension and Notice of
15 Reassignment is stamped in the top right comer with the date April 18,2007, and "No. 11610" and
16 the initials "MG" are handwritten. Most likely, these are the iiutials of Maria Garcia,fromtiieUC
Davis Health System Risk Management Department. This means that the Plaintiff was subject to
17
termination after he was abmptiy reassigned and removed from the cogeneration plant to the HVAC
18
shop. Maria Garcia was a friend of the former Porter Scott attorney George Acero. Acero, prior to
19
joining Porter Scott in 2003, was an intern in the University of Califomia's Office oftiieGeneral
20
Counsel. The above fact led the Plaintiff back to tiie August 2005 cover letter that his coworker,
21 William Buckans, sent to UC HR Vice President Boyette containing his whistleblower "Improper
22 Govemmental Activities" complaint. The letter, which the Plaintiff helped Buckans to write, stated,
23 " I am not sure if this report should be ftied with your office, but I am pretty sure that you are tiie
24 most knowledgeable person in the Office of the President about the past problems in UCDMC
Central Plant. I believe that you, as a former attomey at law and partner of the famous Pillsbury
25
Madison and Sutro law firms, have the ability to estimate the damages caused by management
26
from the Central Plant." Pilsbury and Sutro attomey and Boyette's colleague represented the
27
Plaintiffs former employer, Destec/Dynegy, against the Plaintiff in tiie overtimefraudcase. The
28
case ended in tiie Court of Appeal, Third Appellate Distiict Case No. C030005, Waszczuk v. Destec
- 5 -
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORFIIES
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1 Energy Inc., on December 3,1999. The Plaintiff prevailed while representing himself. This case led
2 to the disclosure of $240 million Destec fraud against Pacific Gas and Electric Company, due to tiie
3
same violation oftiierequuements of FERC regulations, 18 C.F.R. $ 292.20. Federal Power Act 16
U.S.C. § 824d(a), California Public Utilities Code Section 218.5, State ofCalifomia Unfair Busuiess
4
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code § 17200 & Califomia Commodity Law of 1990
5
{Covp. Code, § 29500 et seq., "CCL") and 7 U.S. Code § 6 (b), as UCDMC's 27-MW cogeneration
6
plant has been violating and unlawftilly generating power for tax-free profit since 1998. Most likely,
7
Boyette alerted UC General Counsel and form UC General Counsel intern Acero and his partner,
8 Michael Pott, who in 2005 represented the Regents against UCD Davis Employee Randy Vergos,
9 Case Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal.App,4tii 1387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). The Plauitiff defeated tiie
10 Regents in 2008 in arbittation; then, Acero left Porter Scott and Boyette left the UC Office of the
11 President, but Acero, Boyette, and Porter Scott did not forget fhe Plaintiff. This istiiereason why the
Plaintiff became a subject to be erasedfromthe UC Davis Medical Center premises. They all
12
learned how much money the illegally produced power by the UCDMC power plant is worth is
13
worth for them . The lives of other people are not important for organized white collar crime mob,
14
15 10. When Plaintiff on November 2,2012 received requested documents sent to hun by UC
16 Davis Information Practices Analyst Elizabet Wisnia and read some ofthe documents in most part
blacked out than on November 14,2012 Plaintiff sent the email to his son and daughter stating ;
17
From: Jerry Waszczuk <jerrywaszczuk@yahoo.com>
18 Sent: Wednesday, November 14,2012 4:59 AM
19
To: JOANNA WASZCZUK <Z3Elite@aol.com>; George Waszczuk <gwaszczuk@gmail.com>
Subject; Fw: Brief for Oral Response -Notice Intent to Dismiss. - UCDMC "HR Death Squad"
20
• Hi Kids ;
21 To make long story short. On May 31,20121 was scheduled to report to work after 10
22 months of work .
My Employer UC Davis Medical Center had a different plan for me . They just crafted quite
23 good plot to kill me or to send me to Medical Center Trauma Unit disabled or death .
It is just got discovered and I am not sure how it is going to turn out. Something is very big
24 behind this but I am not sure what is it
25
If something will happen to me then take care of mama and go to court to sue this UC. Is
over 300 K on my UC account than if something go wrong than mama will cash the money
26 and use it to get good lawyer. They got with me in war game with Police forces .
That it. If something than contact my two friends Kermy Diede 1-916-812-3408 or William
27 Buckans 1-916-541 1738
28
- 6 -
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1 I am representing them and other guy against my employer in 8 different cases. They have
my file also and they are scared .
2 Other than that, I don't like to bother you. J.
3
11. George Acero must have liked the PlaintifFs comments intineDavis Vanguard h\og
4
about the UC Davis Principles of Community, as he sharedtiiemin May 2013 witii his friend at tiie
5 UC Davis Medical Center, ariskmanagement analyst named Maria Garcia, who was heavily
6 involved in the Plaintiffs employment termmation according to documents Plaintiff received in
7 2015 from former Porter Scott's Attomey Douglas Ropel and under the Provision of Public Record
8 Act. Acero also was a friend of the former California Supreme Court Justice Hon. Cmz Reynoso,
Justice Reynoso was a decent man, so it is unclear how his name was dragged into the malicious but
9
professionally orchestrated November 18,2011 pepper spray provocation to destroy tiie UC
10
Chancellor Linda Katehi, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza, Lt John Pike, and Cpt. Joyce
11
Souza.. The Plaintiff addressed the Justice Reynoso's 2011-2012 Pepper Spray Task Force report in
12
lis March 2016 Tax Evasion and Fraud IRS Whistleblower Complaint about Violation of Section
13 501(c)(3) ofthe Intemal Revenue Code of 1954 by the Regents This Reynoso's Task Force members
14 and his pseudo investigation report desttoyed the lives of many good people, solved nothing, and
15 further concealed the uncontrolled cormption and racketeering in the UC Office ofthe President and
16 in UC Davis Campuses . Another former Supreme Justice for hire is Former Supreme Court Justice
17 Carlos Moreno. When the Plaintiff was writing his tax evasion whistleblower report in March 2016,
he thought that it was the Chancellor Katehi who gave a green light to HR Director Stephen
18
Chilcott to fire the Plaintiff in 2011 -2012 witch hunt. However, Plaintiff did his research, after the
19
Califomia most popular senator and staunch adversary ofthe UCOP mob theCalifornia Senator
20
Leland was tiirown into federal prison in March 2016 after the unsuccessful attempt to eliminate
21
him by the September 10 , 2010 natural gas pipe explosion in San Bnmo, CA The UC Davis
22 Chancellor Emeritus Larry Vanderhof and SMUD's former executive Jan Schori were appointed to
23 investigate the San Bmno explosion which killed 8 people and destroyed whole neighborhood .
24 https://www.scribd.com/document/484722125/Witch-Hunt-Auned-at-President-Donald-
Tmmp-versa-Witch-Hunt-Pemetuated-by-the-California-Political-Mob-against-Califomia-Senator-
25 Leland-Yee
26
12. At tiie same in 2016 UC President Napolitano paid $1,000,000 to two of her friends,
former federal prosecutors Malinda Haag who prosecuted Senator Yee and McGregor Scott, to
27
witch hunt and destroy chancellor Katehi thus Plaintiff looked into who and why Katehi's and Yee's
28
- 1 -
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
MOTION POR RECONSIDERATION
1 and other including Plaintiffs normal life and livelihood were tarnished and mercilessly and
2 rutiilessly desttoyed by tiie UCOP mob or thek evil advocates 1 namuig a few of them like Acero
3 , Pott, Burkett, Haynes , Boyette, Riordan, Goulding, Drown, Chilcott, Delmendo, Petiiilakis,
Robinson, Sheehan and many other unknown to Plaintiff. .
4
13. In 2016, Napolitano was given $175,000,000 by tiie Regents to pay a ransom, most likely
5
to Porter Scott attorneys and pay off the owners oftiieUC Davis Medical Center 27-MW
6
cogeneration plant, but she was caught by the state auditor, due to an audit requested by Senator
7 Leland Yee's friend. Assembly Member Phil Ting (Pl, [s] Exh 24) who (Federated Univ. Police
8 Officers Ass'n v. Superior Court ofAlameda Cnty., 159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 541 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).Itdid
9 not work out and UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant is idlmg at house load and owner oftiieplant
10 are loosing money because Porter Scott attorney had an idea to go after Plaintiff and destroy his life .
11 The Assembly Member Phil Ting is the former Phil Ting was appointed San Francisco
Assessor-Recorder in 2005 by then-Mayor Gavin Newsom, becoming San Francisco's highest-
12
ranking Chinese-American official at the time and most likely he was a friend ofthe former Senator
13
Leland Yee or they knew each other . Assembly Ting by his profession knew what to look for.
14
Governor Newsom and two former Califomia former AG's Xavier Becerra and Kamala Harris know
15
what Janet Napolitano need $ 175,000 ,000 in 2016.
16 htii3s://www.scribd.com/document/508113551/20190729-Petitioner-s-Replv-to-Judge-
17
Armen-Order-Dated-07-29-2019https://www.scribd.com/document/508113551/20190729-
Petitioner-s-Replv-to-Judge-Armen-Qrder-Dated-07-29-2019
18 This enormous tax evasion committed by the cormpted University of Califomia
19 administtation is a classic example of underground economy sponsored by Califomia Govemment.
The undergrovmd economy hurts all CaUfomia taxpayers Approximately $8 billion m sales, use,
20
corporate, and personal taxes is owed and goes uncollected in Califomia each year.Tax revenues that
21
support govemment services such as schools public safety, hospitals, parks, and roads are lost.
22
Workers are deprived of basic employment protections. Criminals operating in tiie underground
23
economy do not comply with state tax laws and have an illegal, unfair advantage over honest
24
businesses.
25 by subjecting them to forced labor and deplorable living conditions.
26 14. The aforementioned former Porter Scott attomey, George Acero, together witii Michael
27 Pott, UC Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson, and others like Chilcott, Nichols , Boyd,
28 Seifert desttoyed tiie lives of Randy Vergos ,Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal.App.4tii 1387 (Cal. Ct.
- 8 -
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1 App. 2007) and many otiier UC Davis employees like Nam Un Hui Nam, Un Hui Nam v. Regents oj
2 the Univ. of Cal, 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) or Janet Keyzer who lobbied for Senator Leland
3 Yee' inttoduced bill protecting UC whistieblowers or Donna McDaniel who killed herself due UC
Davis Management hostility or Plaintiff Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal, C079524 (Cal Ct.
4
App. Oct. 10, 2017) or Plamtiffs supervisors Dorin Daniliuc . Daniliuc v. Daniliuc (In re Marriage
5
ofDaniliuc), C084293 (Cal. Ct. App. July 3,2018) or Patinck Putiiey because of evil Porter Scott
6
attomey's criminally minded conduct.
7
15. UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson was assigned as a Skelly reviewer
8
in September 2012 to review the termination of the Plaintiffs employment at the UC Davis Medical
9
Center. Tollefson was a key player in the 2007 3DCA anti-SLAPP motion case Vergos v. McNeal,
10
146 Cal. App. 4tii 1387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) crafted by Porter Scott Attomeys Acero and Pott to
11
desttoy Vergos and Plaintiff in 2007 and thereafter many other workers lives .
12
16. As the Plaintiff describes above, in May 2012, there were discussions between UCDMC
13
HR consultant Joel Vandeviver and HR labor relations speciaUst Travis Lindsay to provide the
14
Plaintiff with a new job description in conjunction vdth a new title. Senior Development Engineer.
15
What this obviously meant was that the Plaintiff would be retuming to work in May 2012, after the
16 Regents had tested the Plaintiff for 10 months to see whether he would blow the whistie on the
17 Regents for the unlawful operation of the cogeneration plant witiiout paying taxes on the unlawful
18 profit. The Plaintiff never had any intention of reporting the Regents, because he did not know
19 whetiier plant operations violated the law, and the Plauitiff did not care. The Plaintiff wanted to
retire from the university in 2017, but someone blackmailed the Regents in May 2012, causing
20
devastation to the Plaintiffs life and the Regents or owners ofthe cogeneration plant to lose tens of
21
millions of tax-free dollars. Many Uves were famished and devastated because Porter Scott
22
shareholders wanted to be share holders y of the profitsfromthe power sales produced by
23
UCDMC's 27-MW cogeneration plant.
24 17. In March 2018, the Plaintiff discovered that, in Febmary 2012, someone requested the
25 Court file from tiie Plaintiffs 1999 3DCA Appellate Case No. C030005 Waszczuk v. Destec, which
26 was related to the Plamtiffs former employer, Destec Energy, which was involved in a $24,000,000
27 fraud (Plaintiffs Obj. to Regents MSJ/MSA Exh, No. 9). The 3DCA Register of Action (ROA)
28
shows that die file was requested on Febmary 16,2012, eight days after the Plaintiff held a meeting
- 9 -
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1 witii UCDMC HR Manager Humberto Garcia to fmd an mformal resolution to the conflict. The file
2 was retumed to 3DCA on May 22,2012, which corresponds with thetimetiiePlaintiff should have
3
returned to work. Instead, the Plaintiff was abmptiy suspended and not allowed to retum. HR
Manager Humberto Garcia and his assistant Joel Vandeviver who prepared new job description for
4
Plaintiff in May 2012 were fured on in June 2012. The Plaintifffriedto fmd out by askingtiie3DCA
5
Clerk who had requested his3 DCA court file in Febmary 2012, but this was to no avail.
6
CONCLUSION
7
Given the above material facts and events, the Plaintiff prays that the Court grant the Motion
8 for Reconsideration to Plaintiff and reverse or modify the September 1,2021 Order - decision, and
9 so allowtiiePlaintiff to amend the defective SAC filed seven years ago by the Plaintiffs former,
10 now disbarred, and drug-addicted attomey, whose actions were coerced by $340,000 from Porter
11
Scott attomeys who have cost tiieir own client tens of millions of dollars in losses by hunting down
the Plaintiff since 2005. The Regents are not fighting the Plaintiff. It is Porter Scott shareholders
12
who are fighting the Plaintiff and who have been blackmailing the Regents for the last nine years.
13
There is no other explanation for why this case is still pending after eight years and the on
14
September 1,2021 and the Court mled on September 1,2021 tiiat the Plaintiffhas no case.
15
I make tiiis Declaration based on my own personal knowledge, except forthe facts stated on
16
information and my belief as to such facts, and I believe them to be tme. If called upon to do so, I
17
could and would competentiy testify about the matters asserted herein.
18
I declare under the penalty of perjury ofthe laws ofthe State of Califomia that, to the best of
19
my knowledge, the foregoing is tme and correct and that this Declaration was executed on the
20
September 21 >20^1 in Lodi, Califomia.
21
\
22
23
24
Jaroslaw "^aszczuk, Plaintiff in Pro Per
25
26
27
28
- 10 -
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OFTHE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
4
I, Irena Waszczuk the undersigned, declare that I am over 18 years of age, and I am not the party of
5
this proceeding. My address is 2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi, CA. On September 21, 2021,1 served a
6
ttue copy ofeach ofthe following: PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE
7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION
8 FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER WHICH GRANTED TO THE DEFENDANTS
9 THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
10 ADJUDICATION AND REQUEST THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
12
Bye-mail: lgoulding(5),porteTscott.comto:
13
14
Lindsay A. Goulding
15
PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
16 350 University Avenue, Suite 200
17 Sacramento, CA 95825
18
19 1 declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is tme and
correct.
20
22
23
24 Irena Waszczuk
25
26
27
28
- 11 -
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
HOURLY CALL OPTION
BETWEEN
AND
2ÿ3ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
©ª«¬ÿ«®¯°ÿ±²³´µ¶³·ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̧¹º»¼°½¾ÿ±µ¿À²µ³¶ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÁÂðÄÅÿ³¿Æ³ÇƲ³²²ÿÿÿÿÿÿȮɰÿǵÿ¹ÊÿËÌË
ÿÿ
ÿ
"#$%&'$(ÿ*+ÿ',$ÿ-&./01%2/&ÿ32($#$2($2'ÿ4+5'$6ÿ"#$%&'1%ÿ-1%#1%&'/12ÿ&2(ÿ',$ÿ-&./01%2/&ÿ718$%ÿ
9:;,&2<$=>ÿ
32ÿ?@@ABÿ355&ÿ,$.#$(ÿ-&./01%2/&ÿC1D$%21%ÿC%&+ÿE&D/5ÿ8/',ÿFG=Hÿ6/../12ÿ&0'$%ÿ,$ÿ8&5ÿ
%$;&..$(ÿ01%ÿ;&I5/2<Bÿ'1<$',$%ÿ8/',ÿ',$ÿJ-"7ÿ8,/'$ÿ;1..&%ÿ;%/6/2&.5Bÿ92%12Bÿ&2(ÿ-K34"Bÿ
&ÿFL@ÿ*/../12ÿ.155ÿ'1ÿ-&./01%2/&M5ÿ$;1216+ÿ&2(ÿ'&:#&+$%5=ÿÿ
32ÿ%$<&%(5ÿ'1ÿN./'&21M5ÿ.&I2($%$(ÿFGHOÿ6/../12Bÿ3ÿ8%1'$ÿ/2ÿ6+ÿ/2PI/%+ÿ'1ÿ-12<%$556&2ÿ
355&Qÿÿ
RSTÿUVTWXYZ[ÿ\T]^Y[W_ÿ̀SaÿbYbÿcdÿe\TWYbT[XÿSYbTÿXSTÿfg3hÿ]YiiYZ[ÿ^[bÿ
`S^XÿbYbÿWSTÿ[TTbÿYXÿjZ\kÿRSTÿ^]ZV[XÿZjÿ]Z[TaÿSYbbT[ÿlaÿm^[TXÿ
n^oZiYX^[ZÿY[bYp^XTWÿXS^Xÿcdÿe\TWYbT[Xÿm^[TXÿn^oZiYX^[Zÿ^[bÿcdÿqTrT[XWÿ
S^bÿWZ]TXSY[rÿY[ÿXSTY\ÿ]Y[bÿ^[bÿn^oZiYX^[ZÿbYbÿ[ZXÿ̀^[XÿXZÿbYWpiZWTÿXSTÿ
\T^WZ[ÿZ\ÿ^b]YXÿ̀SaÿWSTÿWX^WSTbÿXSTÿfg3hÿ]YiiYZ[ÿbZii^\Wsÿÿ
ÿ
,''#5Qtt888=5;%/*(=;16t(1;I6$2'tLHuHvOAwHtJx-y?@GH@u@Oy32PI/%+y8/',yJy4y
-12<%$556&2y0%16y4&2yE/$<1y-KyE&%%$.y355&ÿ
z18$D$%Bÿ/2ÿ{I2$ÿ?@Gwÿ3ÿ%$&./|$(ÿ',&'ÿN./'&21ÿ,&(ÿ($#.1+$(ÿ01%6$%ÿJ-ÿ}/;$ÿ7%$5/($2'ÿ
{I(/',ÿ~1+$''$ÿ'1ÿ',$ÿ34ÿK(D/51%+ÿ-166/''$$ÿ12ÿx&:ÿ9:$6#'ÿ&2(ÿC1D$%26$2'ÿ92'/'/$5ÿ
x9C9Bÿ21'ÿ12.+ÿ'1ÿ($.$'$ÿ6+ÿ8,/5'.$*.18$%ÿ;.&/6ÿ5I*6/''$(ÿ&<&/25'ÿ',$ÿJ-"7ÿ&2(ÿJ-ÿ
$<$2'5ÿ'1ÿ',$ÿ34ÿ~"ÿ12ÿ&%;,ÿ?ABÿ?@GuBÿ-.&/6ÿN1=ÿ?@Guy@@HLvGBÿ*I'ÿ&.51ÿ'1ÿ#%$D$2'ÿ
(/5;.15I%$ÿ'1ÿ',$ÿ~"ÿ10ÿ',$ÿI2'&:$(ÿFGHOÿ6/../12ÿ.&I2($%$(ÿ*+ÿN./'&21ÿD/&ÿJ-ÿ&;;1I2'5ÿ
5$$ÿ,''#5Qtt888=,&2512*%/(<$''=;16t"I%yK''1%2$+5tI(/',y8y*1+$''$=ÿÿ
[ÿmViaÿÿgBÿ/2ÿ&ÿ?Ly#&<$ÿ$#.+ÿ'1ÿ',$ÿJ=4=ÿx&:ÿ-1I%'ÿ"%($%ÿ5$%D$(ÿ12ÿ{I.+ÿwBÿ?@Gwÿ&2(ÿ
5/<2$(ÿ*+ÿ4#$;/&.ÿx%/&.ÿ{I(<$ÿz12=ÿ1*$%'ÿN=ÿK%6$2Bÿ$Qÿ7%1'$;'/D$ÿ"%($%x&:ÿ-1I%'ÿI.$5ÿ10ÿ
7%&;'/;$ÿ&2(ÿ7%1;$(I%$ÿ4$;'/12ÿuG@A~Bÿ?Bÿ&2(ÿAÿcssÿR^ÿdZV\XÿZpTXÿnZsÿgÿ
ÿÿÿÿ¡¡¢¢£ÿ¤ÿ¥¦£ÿ§£££ÿ4$%D/;$BÿJ=4=ÿx&:ÿ-1I%'ÿ-&5$ÿ
N1=ÿ?AG@OyGvÿÿ,''#5Qtt888=5;%/*(=;16t(1;I6$2'tLHuHHOwA@tJx-y?@Gw@H?wy{I(<$yK%6$2y
"%($%y7$'/'/12$%y"*$;'/12y'1y1'/12y01%y7%1'$;'/D$y"%($%Bÿ3ÿ*%1I<,'ÿ&<&/2ÿ'1ÿ',$ÿ5I%0&;$ÿ',$ÿ
FGHOÿ6/../12ÿ.&I2($%$(ÿ*+ÿJ-ÿ7%$5/($2'ÿN./'&21ÿ/2ÿ?@GO¨?@Guÿ(/5;.15$(ÿ*+ÿ4'&'$ÿKI(/'ÿ?@Guy
GA@ÿ/2ÿK#%/.ÿ?@GHÿ&2(ÿ',$2ÿ;1D$%$(ÿI#ÿ/2ÿN1D$6*$%ÿ*+ÿ',$ÿ(&6&<$ÿ;12'%1.t#5$I(1ÿ/2D$5'/<&'/12ÿ
%$#1%'ÿ#%1(I;$(ÿ*+ÿzI$5'12ÿz$22/<&2ÿ7ÿ/2ÿ&ÿ1/2'ÿD$2'I%$ÿ8/',ÿ01%6$%ÿ-&./01%2/&ÿ4I#%$6$ÿ
-1I%'ÿ{I5'/;$ÿ-&%.15ÿ1%$21=ÿx,$%$&0'$%Bÿ',$ÿFGHOÿ6/../12ÿD&2/5,$(ÿ0%16ÿ#I*./;ÿD/$8=ÿÿ
2ÿ3ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¢£¤¥¦§ÿ̈©ª ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ«¬®ÿ̄©°±°ÿÿÿÿÿÿ²³ÿ±ÿ£ÿ́µ¶µ
ÿÿ
ÿ
"#ÿ%&ÿ'()*+#)(ÿ,+ÿ-./0(ÿ1'%(#2ÿ"ÿ(345+'4,(/ÿ4)ÿ6+33+7)ÿ45+.,ÿ,8(ÿ9:;<ÿ%=33=+#ÿ>4*+3=,4#+ÿ
'(?(=@(/ÿ6'+%ÿ)+%(78('(ÿ,+ÿ.)(ÿ6+'ÿ,8(ÿ/=66('(#,ÿ?+),)ÿ,+ÿ%4=#,4=#ÿ,8(ÿ.#=@(')=,&A)ÿ#((/)Bÿ
CDEÿFGÿGEFHHÿIÿJKLLHMÿNOMEOMPÿQGGMRSHTRMUÿVOFHÿWFUXÿIUYÿZM[FUÿ\]^IPET_ÿ
STÿ̀PYMPFUXÿEOMÿaEIEMÿQKYFE_ÿJPM[MUEMYÿbIJ`HFEIU`ÿcP`RÿKGFUXÿEOMÿ
defg_hhh_hhhÿ̀cÿYFPETÿ]IGOÿE`ÿJ`GGFSHTÿ̀P]OMGEPIEMÿIÿUMNÿijeeÿEMPP`PFGEÿ
IEEI]kÿ̀PÿE`ÿIGGIGGFUIEMÿl`UIHYÿWPKRJÿ̀UÿEOMÿVPMGFYMUEFIHÿ]IRJIFXUÿEPIFHÿ
FUÿmhenopÿÿ
ÿ
"#ÿqr:s2ÿ"ÿ)8+.3/ÿ84@(ÿ*4=/ÿ%+'(ÿ4,,(#,=+#ÿ,+ÿ,8(ÿ%+#(&ÿ>4*+3=,4#+ÿ84/ÿ=#ÿ8('ÿ84#/)tÿ8+7(@('2ÿ"ÿ
74)ÿ.#/('ÿ?+#),4#,ÿ)=(0(ÿ4#/ÿ4,,4?u)ÿ6'+%ÿ8('ÿ4))=0#(/ÿ,8.0)ÿ,+ÿ(3=%=#4,(ÿ%(ÿ4#/ÿ%&ÿ*'()(#?(ÿ=#ÿ
,8(ÿ),4,(ÿ?+.',)2ÿvwxwÿy4zÿ{+.',2ÿ4#/ÿ=#ÿ0(#('43ÿ6'+%ÿ,8(ÿvxwÿ|()=/()ÿ,8(ÿ%+#(&ÿ34.#/('(/ÿ5&ÿ
>4*+3=,4#+2ÿ"ÿ4//'())(/ÿ=#ÿ%&ÿ'(*3&ÿ,+ÿ-./0(ÿ1'%(#A)ÿ}'/('ÿ,8(ÿ@=?,=%)ÿ+6ÿ,8(ÿv{}~ÿ%+5A)ÿ
?'=%=#43ÿ4?,=@=,=()ÿ7=,8ÿ,8(ÿ?+#?3.)=+#Bÿÿ
IUMEÿbIJ`HFEIU`GÿIJJ`FUERMUEÿIGÿoaoÿaM]PMEIPTÿ̀cÿ`RMHIUYÿaM]KPFETÿ
FUÿIUKIPTÿmhhiÿIUYÿOMPÿIJJ`FUERMUEÿE`ÿ^ÿVPMGFYMUEÿV`GEÿFUÿaMJEMRSMPÿ
mheÿMRS`HYMUMYÿEOMÿ^ÿNOFEMÿ]`HHIPÿ]PFRFUIHGÿE`ÿFUEMUGFcTÿEOMFPÿEMPP`Pÿ
IFRMYÿIEÿEOMFPÿIY[MPGIPFMGÿNFEO`KEÿIUTÿOMGFEIEF̀UÿE`ÿkFHHÿJM`JHMÿFcÿUMMYMYoÿ
ÿ
ÿ
"ÿ),=33ÿ/+ÿ#+,ÿ(#,='(3&ÿu#+7ÿ78('(ÿ>4*+3=,4#+ÿ0+,ÿ,8(ÿ9:;<ÿ%=33=+#ÿ+6ÿ/=',&ÿ%+#(&ÿ,+ÿ34.#/('ÿ
7=,8ÿ,8(ÿ8(3*ÿ+6ÿ8('ÿ3=(.,(#4#,)ÿ'+))%4#ÿ4#/ÿ-+#()2ÿ78+ÿ5'.,433&ÿ=#,('6('(/ÿ7=,8ÿ,8(ÿ),4,(ÿ
4./=,ÿ=#ÿ4#ÿ4,,(%*,ÿ,+ÿ*'(@(#,ÿ,8(ÿ/=)?3+).'(ÿ+6ÿ%=33=+#)ÿ+6ÿ.#,4z(/ÿ4#/ÿ34.#/('(/ÿ%+#(&ÿ@=4ÿ
,8(ÿ.#=@(')=,&A)ÿ4??+.#,)wÿ+7(@('2ÿ433ÿ+6ÿ,8(ÿ(@(#,)ÿ4#/ÿ64?,)ÿ"ÿ*'()(#,(/ÿ=#ÿ%&ÿ4//(#/.%ÿ,+ÿ
,8(ÿ1**3=?4,=+#ÿ6+'ÿ174'/ÿ6+'ÿ}'=0=#43ÿ"#6+'%4,=+#ÿ"xÿ+'%ÿq::ÿ3(4/ÿ%(ÿ,+ÿ5(3=(@(ÿ,84,ÿ
v{ÿ(#('43ÿ{+.#)(3ÿ{84'3()ÿ+5=#)+#A)ÿ::&(4'ÿ*'()(#?(ÿqr::qrqqÿ4,ÿ~-ÿ4)ÿ4ÿ(%5('ÿ
+6ÿ,8(ÿ(0.34,+'&ÿ4#/ÿ{+%*(,=,=@(ÿ4'u(,ÿ{+%%=,,((ÿ4#/ÿ4)ÿ{84='ÿ+6ÿ,8(ÿ~-ÿ|+4'/ÿ+6ÿ
+@('#4#?(ÿ{+%%=,,((ÿ84)ÿ)+%(,8=#0ÿ,+ÿ/+ÿ7=,8ÿ,8(ÿ%+#(&ÿ34.#/('(/ÿ5&ÿ>4*+3=,4#+wÿ~-ÿ
=)ÿ,8(ÿ34'0(),ÿ'(0=+#43ÿ,'4#)%=))=+#ÿ+'04#=4,=+#ÿy}ÿ=#ÿ,8(ÿvxÿ4#/ÿ?++'/=#4,()ÿ,8(ÿ
%+@(%(#,ÿ+6ÿ78+3()43(ÿ(3(?,'=?=,&ÿ=#ÿ433ÿ+'ÿ*4',)ÿ+6ÿlMHINIPM_ÿDHHFU`FG_ÿDUYFIUI_ÿZMUEK]kT_ÿ
\IPTHIUY_ÿ\F]OFXIU_ÿbMNÿMPGMT_ÿb`PEOÿ^IP`HFUI_ÿOF̀_ÿVMUUGTH[IUFI_ÿWMUUMGGMM_ÿ
FPXFUFI_ÿMGEÿFPXFUFI_ÿIUYÿEOMÿlFGEPF]Eÿ̀cÿ^`HKRSFIwÿÿ
ÿ~-ÿ84)ÿ#+,8=#0ÿ,+ÿ/+ÿ7=,8ÿ,8(ÿv#=@(')=,&ÿ+6ÿ{43=6+'#=42ÿv{ÿ(z(?.,=@()2ÿ+'ÿ'(*'()(#,)ÿ{43=6+'#=4ÿ
4,ÿ433wÿ~-ÿ=)ÿ45+.,ÿ(3(?,'=?=,&ÿ*'+/.?,=+#ÿ4#/ÿ/=),'=5.,=+#ÿ+#ÿ4#ÿ(#+'%+.)ÿ)?43(wÿy4u=#0ÿ=#,+ÿ
?+#)=/('4,=+#ÿ,84,ÿ,8(ÿ(/('43ÿ#('0&ÿ(0.34,+'&ÿ{+%%=))=+#ÿ{ÿ4#/ÿ,8(ÿ"xÿ84@(ÿ5+,8ÿ
4./=,(/ÿ,8(ÿv{ÿ4#/ÿ.(),=+#(/ÿ=,)ÿ+7#(')8=*ÿ+6ÿ,8(ÿ*+7('ÿ?+0(#('4,=+#ÿ64?=3=,&ÿ+#ÿ,8(ÿv{ÿx4#ÿ
2ÿ3ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
¡¢ÿ¡¤¥¦ÿ§¨©ª«¬©ÿÿÿÿÿÿ®¯°±²¦³ÿ́§«µ¶¨«©¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ·¹̧¦º»ÿ©µ¼©½¼¨©¨¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¾¤¿¦ÿ½Àÿ̄ÁÿÀÂÀ
ÿÿ
ÿ
"#$%&ÿ()*+,-.ÿ/ÿ)*ÿ0&1ÿ$2(3,4#0%ÿ15$ÿ+&--#6#3#17ÿ15)1ÿ15$ÿ89:;ÿ$2$(,1#<$-ÿ)04ÿ89ÿ=$%$01-ÿ5)<$ÿ
)ÿ%&&4ÿ-#>$4ÿ+&?$@ÿ+3)01ÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ;ABC=D:ÿ)@$)Eÿ:15$@?#-$.ÿ15$7ÿ?&,34ÿ0&1ÿ+$@*#1ÿ=&6#0-&0ÿ1&ÿ6$ÿ
)ÿ;ABÿ6&)@4ÿ*$*6$@ÿ?#15&,1ÿ)07ÿ6$0$F#1ÿ1&ÿ15$*-$3<$-ÿ<#)ÿ(&@@,+1#&0ÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ89:;ÿ
G$)4H,)@1$@-Eÿÿ
/ÿ$-+$(#)337ÿ1,@0$4ÿ*7ÿ)11$01#&0ÿ1&ÿ=&6#0-&0I-ÿJJC7$)@ÿ+@$-$0($ÿ)1ÿ;ABÿ)F1$@ÿK$+1$*6$@ÿJL.ÿMNMJ.ÿ
4,$ÿ1&ÿ#01$@F$@$0($ÿ#0ÿ*7ÿ"E9Eÿ9#@(,#1ÿ)++$)3ÿOPQRSTPUÿOPWXSYÿZPSY[YX\ÿ]^ÿ_`aÿbRccdSSdRWeQ.ÿ
8K9fÿg&EÿMNCJhNi.ÿ67ÿ1?&ÿ)11&@0$7-.ÿ=&6$@1ÿB)05)-ÿ)04ÿ=&6$@1ÿBEÿj&$6.ÿF@&*ÿ:@@#(k.ÿ
G$@@#0%1&0ÿlÿK,1(3#FF$ÿjj;ÿ&FÿK)0ÿm@)0(#-(&.ÿ)04ÿ15$#@ÿ,03)?F,3ÿ1)*+$@#0%ÿ?#15ÿ15$ÿ
)4*#0#-1@)1#&0ÿ&Fÿn,-1#($.ÿ?5#(5ÿ(),-$4ÿ*7ÿ)++$)3ÿ1&ÿ6$ÿ,0n,-137ÿ4#-*#--$4Eÿ/0ÿ@$F$@$0($ÿ1&ÿ15$ÿ
1?&ÿ)11&@0$7-.ÿB)05)-ÿ)04ÿj&$6ÿ#01$@F$@$4ÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ4#<&@($ÿ?5#-13$63&?$@ÿ()-$ÿoPWpqÿoRrTeqÿsdÿ]^ÿ
bRcctQÿRuÿ_WveQWPTÿ̀e]eWXewÿMMÿmEh15ÿJNJhÿx"E9Eÿ9#@EÿMNMMyEÿ/ÿ$2+@$--$4ÿ*7ÿF$$3#0%-ÿ)6&,1ÿ15$ÿ
"E9Eÿ9#@(,#1ÿNz{NJ{MNMMÿ"$(#-#&0ÿ#0ÿ*7ÿ*&1#&0ÿF&@ÿ@$(&0-#4$@)1#&0.ÿ&0ÿ;)%$-ÿLÿlÿz.ÿ)-ÿF&33&?-ÿ
x|}~ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
j&$6ÿ)04ÿB)05)-I-ÿ*#--#&0ÿ&Fÿ,-#0%ÿj#I-ÿ4#<&@($ÿ?5#-13$63&?$@ÿ()-$ÿÿ)04ÿ
@&)4<#$?ÿK&3)@.ÿjj9ÿ()-$-ÿ1&ÿ@$*&<$ÿ)->(>,kI-ÿ)++$)3ÿF@&*ÿ15$ÿ"E9Eÿ
9#@(,#1ÿ9&,@1ÿ?#15ÿ15$ÿ5$3+ÿ&Fÿ":AÿD)2ÿ"#<#-#&0ÿ)11&@0$7-ÿ#-ÿ6)-#()337ÿ15$ÿ-)*$ÿ
)-ÿ15$ÿ*#--#&0ÿ&Fÿ15$ÿF&@*$@ÿ80#<$@-#17ÿ&Fÿ9)3#F&@0#)ÿ2$(,1#<$ÿ#($ÿ;@$-#4$01ÿ
A,4#15ÿ&7$11$ÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ/=Kÿf4<#-&@7ÿ9&**#11$$ÿ&0ÿD)2ÿ2$*+1ÿ)04ÿ&<$@0*$01ÿ
01#1#$-ÿxDyÿ+@$-$01$4ÿ67ÿ)->(>,kÿ#0ÿ5#-ÿF#3$4ÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ8EÿKÿD)2ÿ9&,@1ÿ&0ÿ
A,0$ÿMÿ.MNMNÿ15$ÿB&1#&0ÿD&ÿ)()1$ÿ:@ÿ=$<#-$ÿD5$ÿ8EÿKÿD)2ÿ9&,@1ÿ
B$*&@)04,*ÿ:+#0#&0ÿf04ÿ:@4$@ÿf04ÿ"$(#-#&0ÿ/0ÿ)->(>,kÿEÿ
9&**#--#&0$@ÿ=EÿDE9EÿB$*&EÿMNMNCiLÿx8EKEDE9EÿA,0$ÿh.ÿMNMNyÿD5$ÿB&1#&0ÿ
?)-ÿ4&(k$4ÿ?#15ÿ15$ÿ)->(>,kI-ÿ)++$)3ÿ@$(&@4ÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ"Eÿ9ÿ9#@(,#1ÿ9&,@1ÿ)04ÿ
+@&<#4$4ÿ)-ÿ15$ÿf++$04#2ÿg&Eÿÿ?#15ÿF#3$4ÿ&0ÿ#0ÿ"E9ÿ9#@(,#1ÿ@ÿ
511+-{{???E-(@#64E(&*{4&(,*$01{hzihN{MNMNNzMCB&1#&0C1&C)()1$C
&@C=$<#-$Cm#3$4C8CKCD)2C9&,@1ÿ
&7$11$ÿ?)-ÿ4#-+)1(5$4ÿ#0ÿA,0$ÿMNJzÿ1&ÿDÿ67ÿ89ÿ;@$-#4$01ÿA)0$1ÿ
g)+&3#1)0&.ÿn,-1ÿ)F1$@ÿ)->(>,kÿ5#@$4ÿ)0ÿ$2+$@#$0($4ÿ)11&@0$7ÿF@&*ÿ15$ÿ
+@$-1#%#&,-ÿj&-ÿf0%$3$-C6)-$4ÿ3)?ÿF#@*ÿ),*.ÿG$43,04.ÿf@#-1$#ÿlÿ&34*)0ÿ
j)?ÿ9&@+&@)1#&0ÿ1&ÿ5)043$ÿ5#-ÿB)@(5ÿM.ÿMNJzÿ*,31#*#33#&0ÿ1)2ÿ$<)-#&0ÿ)04ÿ
F@),4ÿ(3)#*ÿ()-$ÿ(&0($@0#0%ÿ?5#-13$63&?$@ÿ(3)#*ÿm&@*ÿMJJÿ)04ÿ)ÿ(@#*$ÿ
(&**#11$4ÿ67ÿ80#<$@-#17ÿ&Fÿ9)3#F&@0#)ÿ$2$(,1#<$-ÿ#0ÿ(&33)6&@)1#&0ÿ?#15ÿ9f/K:Eÿÿ
511+-{{???E-(@#64E(&*{4&(,*$01{hiziiLMM{8D9CMNJzNLJC89C;@$-#4$01C
A)0$1Cg)+&3#1)0&CB$$1-C;@$-#4$01C:6)*)C#($C;@$-#4$01C#4$0C/"gÿ
D5$ÿ5#-1&@7ÿ&Fÿ(&@@,+1#&0ÿ&@(5$-1@)1$4ÿ67ÿg)+&3#1)0&ÿ)04ÿ&7$11$ÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ
:ÿ)04ÿDÿ@$+$)1$4ÿ#1-$3Fÿ#0ÿ15$ÿ"$+)@1*$01ÿ&FÿA,-1#($.ÿD)2ÿ
"#<#-#&0ÿ)04ÿ"E9ÿ9#@(,#1ÿ9&,@1Eÿÿ
ÿ
2ÿ3ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿ
#ÿ%&'(&)&ÿ*+,ÿ*-ÿ./(0&ÿ1/2&ÿ03*0ÿ4567ÿ78--(11(8+&2ÿ9*2:ÿ7;ÿ732(10(&<ÿ=38ÿ088:ÿ8>>(?&ÿ8+ÿ
@*+/*2AÿB<ÿCDCE<ÿ3*1ÿ*ÿ'80ÿ8>ÿ(+>82-*0(8+ÿ*%8/0ÿF7ÿG&+&2*'ÿ78/+1&'ÿ68%(+18+H1ÿI2&1&+?&ÿ*+,ÿ
*?0()(0(&1ÿ=(03ÿJ@9ÿ>28-ÿCDEEÿ0328/K3ÿCDCD;ÿ
L/2(+Kÿ78--(11(8+&2ÿ732(10(&M1ÿ1&2)(?&ÿ*1ÿ*ÿ10*0&ÿ2&K/'*082<ÿ3&ÿ=*1ÿ&'&?0&,ÿI2&1(,&+0ÿ8>ÿ03&ÿ
N2K*+(O*0(8+ÿ8>ÿJ@9ÿP0*0&1<ÿ#+?;ÿQNJP#R<ÿ*ÿK28/Iÿ8>ÿ/0('(0Aÿ2&K/'*0821ÿ2&I2&1&+0(+Kÿ03&ÿESÿ10*0&1ÿ
*+,ÿ03&ÿL(102(?0ÿ8>ÿ78'/-%(*ÿ03*0ÿI*20(?(I*0&ÿ(+ÿ03&ÿJ@9ÿ02*+1-(11(8+ÿ*+,ÿ-*2:&0ÿ82K*+(O*0(8+;ÿT&ÿ
1&2)&,ÿ>82ÿ-82&ÿ03*+ÿ*ÿ,&?*,&ÿ8+ÿ03&ÿNJP#ÿK8)&2+(+Kÿ%8*2,;ÿ732(10(&ÿ*'18ÿ1&2)&,ÿ*1ÿI2&1(,&+0ÿ8>ÿ
03&ÿ9(,UV0'*+0(?ÿ78+>&2&+?&ÿ8>ÿ6&K/'*082AÿF0('(0(&1ÿ78--(11(8+&21ÿQ9V76F7R<ÿ*ÿ2&K(8+*'ÿ
?3*I0&2ÿ8>ÿ03&ÿW*0(8+*'ÿV118?(*0(8+ÿ8>ÿ6&K/'*082AÿF0('(0Aÿ78--(11(8+&21ÿQWV6F7RÿQ1&&ÿ
300I1XYY===;>&2?;K8)Y*%8/0Y?8--(11(8+U-&-%&21Y?8--(11(8+&2U?32(10(&R;ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
[\][^_`a\]ÿ
ÿ
V''ÿ8>ÿ03(1ÿ(1ÿ3*II&+(+Kÿ08,*Aÿ%&?*/1&<ÿ8+&ÿ-8+03ÿ%&>82&ÿ7V#PNÿ*+,ÿ03&ÿ7*'(>82+(*ÿJ8=&2ÿ
5b?3*+K&ÿQ7*'JcRÿ?8--&+?&,ÿ8I&2*0(8+1<ÿ(+ÿ9*2?3ÿEdde<ÿ03&ÿF7ÿ*+,ÿ7*'(>82+(*ÿP0*0&ÿ
F+()&21(0AÿQ7PFRÿ1A10&-1ÿ&+0&2&,ÿ(+08ÿ*ÿ,(2&?0ÿ*??&11ÿ1&2)(?&1ÿ?8+02*?0ÿ=(03ÿ5+28+ÿ782I82*0(8+ÿ
5+&2KAÿP&2)(?&1ÿ08ÿI28)(,&ÿ&'&?02(?(0Aÿ*+,ÿ2&'*0&,ÿ-&0&2(+K<ÿ%(''(+K<ÿ*+,ÿ?8--/+(?*0(8+1ÿ>82ÿ*''ÿ8>ÿ
03&(2ÿ?*-I/1&1;ÿf3&ÿ,(2&?0ÿ*??&11ÿ=*1ÿ*ÿI*20ÿ8>ÿ7*'(>82+(*H1ÿ3gghÿijklmnolompÿqkrmnslmsnotuÿvlmwÿ
vxÿ3yg4wÿ7*'(>82+(*ÿJ/%'(?ÿF0('(0Aÿ78,&ÿSz{;EÿQJF7ÿSz{;ER;ÿÿ
5+28+ÿ=*1ÿ2&./(2&,ÿ08ÿ*?0ÿ*1ÿ03&ÿ/+()&21(0(&1Hÿ1?3&,/'(+Kÿ?882,(+*082ÿ>82ÿ&+&2KAÿ1/II'(&1ÿ=(03ÿ
7V#PN;ÿf3&ÿF7ÿ1A10&-ÿ(+ÿEdde<ÿ=(03ÿ+(+&ÿ?*-I/1&1<ÿ*+,ÿ03&ÿ7PFÿ1A10&-<ÿ=(03ÿCSÿ?*-I/1&1<ÿ
=&2&ÿ*+,ÿ10(''ÿ*2&ÿ8+&ÿ8>ÿ03&ÿ'*2K&10ÿ/+()&21(0Aÿ1A10&-1ÿ(+ÿ03&ÿF;P;<ÿ*+,ÿ03&Aÿ*2&ÿ03&ÿ'*2K&10ÿ
/+()&21(0(&1ÿ(+ÿ7*'(>82+(*;ÿP/?3ÿ*ÿ?8+02*?0ÿ=(03ÿ5+28+ÿ3*,ÿ08ÿ%&ÿ*II28)&,ÿ%Aÿ03&ÿ7*'(>82+(*ÿ
K8)&2+-&+0<ÿ*+,ÿ03&ÿ02*+1*?0(8+1ÿ=&2&ÿI'*++&,ÿ'8+Kÿ%&>82&ÿ03&Aÿ=&2&ÿ(-I'&-&+0&,;ÿ
ÿ#+ÿEddz<ÿ=3(0&ÿ?8''*2ÿ?2(-(+*'1ÿ>28-ÿF7NJ<ÿ03&ÿ7*'(>82+(*ÿ|&K(1'*0/2&<ÿ*+,ÿ7*'(>82+(*ÿ
G8)&2+-&+0ÿ-&0(?/'8/1'AÿI'*++&,ÿ08ÿ/1&ÿ5+28+ÿ08ÿ'*/+,&2ÿ-&K*=*001ÿ*+,ÿ3/+,2&,1ÿ8>ÿ-(''(8+1ÿ8>ÿ
,8''*21ÿ/1(+KÿF7ÿ*+,ÿ7PFÿ?*-I/1&1<ÿ%/0ÿ03&(2ÿI'*+ÿ>*('&,;ÿ5+28+ÿ?8''*I1&,ÿ*+,ÿ03&ÿ=3(0&ÿ?8''*2ÿ
?2(-(+*'1ÿ'810ÿ3/+,2&,1ÿ8>ÿ-(''(8+1ÿ8>ÿ,8''*21ÿ(+ÿ0*bU>2&&ÿ-8+&AÿQ1&&ÿ&bI'*+*0(8+ÿ(+ÿ03&ÿV,,&+,/-ÿ
*+,ÿ5b3(%(01R;ÿÿ
ÿ
2ÿ34ÿ2ÿ
56789ÿ889ÿ6ÿ 8ÿ6ÿ69ÿ9ÿ69ÿ9ÿ696ÿÿ69ÿ!!"ÿ
ÿ
STUVÿUXYZÿ[\]^_`]aÿÿÿÿÿÿbcdefZghÿ[_ij\_]`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿklmZnoÿ]ip]qp\]\\ÿÿÿÿÿÿrXsZÿqqÿctÿuvu
ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
#$%&$'()*++,ÿ%*-./(($0ÿ12ÿ3$&($.-$4ÿ56ÿ7877ÿÿ-,ÿ9:;:<ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
=>41%+>?ÿ@>%A'A*Bÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ:2'+1%$0ÿCÿÿ
D&&+/'>(/12ÿ)14ÿD?>40ÿ)14ÿE4/F/2>+ÿG2)14.>(/12ÿHG#3ÿ914.ÿ7IIÿÿJÿ
KLM$ÿÿ575ÿ&>F$%ÿ+12Fÿ$N&+>2>(14,ÿÿ?/(Mÿ/++*%(4>(/12%ÿD00$20*.ÿ(1ÿ(M$ÿD&&+/'>(/12ÿ)14ÿ
D?>40ÿ)14ÿÿÿÿE4/F/2>+ÿG2)14.>(/12ÿHG#3ÿ914.ÿ7IIJÿÿHÿO>40ÿ'1&,ÿ>20ÿ9+>%Mÿ;4/P$ÿ>20ÿ
;Q;ÿÿ
LM$ÿRIÿ:NM/-/(%ÿ/2ÿ%*&&14(ÿ1)ÿ(M$ÿD&&+/'>(/12ÿ)14ÿD?>40ÿ)14ÿE4/F/2>+ÿG2)14.>(/12ÿ
HG#3ÿ914.ÿ7IIÿÿJÿ>20ÿD00$20*.ÿÿ
ÿ
2ÿ33ÿ2ÿ
45678ÿ778ÿ5ÿ 7ÿ5ÿ58ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ585ÿÿ58ÿ !ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ¡¢£¤¡¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦§¨©ª«¬ÿ£® £¡¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°±²³ÿ¡´¡µ´¡ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¶·ÿµ®ÿ§ÿ̧¹º¹
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ%"&"#%ÿ'(ÿ&)#*!+&ÿ
$#,&*")# "ÿ'(ÿ"-#ÿ"*#&%*.ÿ
! "#* &/ÿ*#0# #ÿ%#*0!+#ÿ
1-!%"/#2/'1#*ÿ'((!+#ÿÿ
2345ÿÿ*6789ÿ1:;<=ÿ27>?@ÿ)%ÿA22Bÿ
'C?=9@ÿ"ÿDAABAÿ
ÿ
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEÿ
ÿ
GHIÿJKKILKMNÿGOÿGHIÿJPPQRSJGROLÿTOUÿJVJUKÿTOUÿOURWRLJQÿ
RLTOUNJGROLÿXRUYÿTOUNÿZ[[\ÿVRGHÿJQQÿTJSGYÿVHRSHÿQIKÿGOÿGHIÿ
KRYSO]IU^ÿOTÿGHRYÿGJ_ÿI]JYROLÿJLKÿTUJMKÿSONNRGGIKÿ̀^ÿGHIÿ
MLR]IUYRG^ÿOTÿSJQRTOULRJÿOTTRSIÿOTÿGHIÿPUIYRKILGÿXMSOP\aÿ
RLÿSOQQJ`OUJGROLÿJLKÿSOLYPRUJS^ÿVRGHÿSJQRTOULRJÿRLKIPILKILGÿ
Y^YGINÿOPIUJGOUÿXSJRYO\ÿaÿSJQRTOULRJÿPM`QRSÿMGRQRGRIYÿSONNRYYROLÿÿ
JLKÿOGHIUÿMLbLOVLÿSOQQJ`OUJGOUYÿÿ
ÿ
]ROQJGROLÿOTÿGJ_ÿI_INPGÿYGJGMYÿcÿYISGROLÿde[XS\Xf\ÿOTÿGHIÿRLGIULJQÿ
UI]ILMIÿSOKIÿOTÿ[gdhÿÿ
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEÿ
ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ZiZj[kltmÿbj njoÿVjmpqprsÿ
upjsvjwÿVjxÿÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ QlyvaÿSJÿgdZhZÿ
Pzlw{|ÿZegct}~c[[}eÿ
Tj|ÿZegc~Zgcd[dhÿ
Ijvn|ÿjklmcnjojklmcnjolkÿÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
Rÿ ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRLGUOKMSGROLÿ
ÿ
)ÿ9=ÿ;ÿ87ÿ=ÿ16ÿ89869=?ÿ.87>ÿ0::88@ÿ!ÿÿÿ8=ÿ=78==ÿ
8ÿ<:=ÿ9;>=;<ÿ8ÿ+7;89;@ÿ+ÿ$>;ÿ)=?;7ÿ+=9<=ÿ+$)+ÿ78<=?ÿ;9ÿ%=9<8ÿ+&ÿÿÿ!ÿ
0ÿ2ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
UVWXÿWZ[\ÿ]^_`ab_cÿÿÿÿÿÿdefgh\ijÿ]akl^a_bÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿmno\pqÿ_kr_sr^_^^ÿÿÿÿÿÿtZu\ÿscÿevÿwxw
!ÿ"#$%&'"(ÿ)'ÿ*+,-+ÿ./&#ÿ012"ÿ234ÿ5666ÿ78/&198ÿ,":"#)"/ÿ34ÿ2;52ÿ!ÿÿ$%27ÿ&$"/7&/ÿ2(ÿ
!!&:<7"ÿ("="%&$#"27ÿ"29<2""/ÿ.&/ÿ>?@A?BCÿEFGAHÿIJKLMLNOPQJMÿRSOMPTÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ2ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤ÿ¥¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ§¨©ª«ÿ¥¬¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿ®¯ÿ°ÿ±ÿ²°²
!"ÿ#$$%!&'(!)*ÿ+),ÿ#-',.ÿ+),ÿ/,!0!*'%ÿ1*+),2'(!)*ÿ3145ÿ6),2ÿ7889ÿ'..,:"":"ÿ'*.ÿ,:$),("ÿ
)*ÿ'ÿ";"$:&(:.ÿ2;%(!02!%%!)*0.)%%',ÿ)+ÿ('<ÿ:='"!)*ÿ'*.ÿ+,';.ÿ.;:ÿ()ÿ$;,&'":ÿ'*.ÿ,:"'%:ÿ)+ÿ
:%:&(,!&!(>ÿ+),ÿ$,)+!(ÿ!*ÿ=!)%'(!)*ÿÿ)+ÿÿ(:ÿ:<:2$(ÿ"('(;"ÿ5:&(!)*ÿ?@83&9329ÿ)+ÿ(:ÿ1*(:,*'%ÿ4:=:*;:ÿ
A).:ÿ)+ÿ8B?CDÿ :ÿ(',0:("ÿÿ!*ÿ(!"ÿ&%'!2ÿ',:ÿÿ(:ÿ('<0:<:2$(ÿ:*(!(!:"ÿ(:ÿE*!=:,"!(>ÿ)+ÿA'%!+),*!'ÿ
3EA9ÿF)',.ÿ)+ÿ4:0:*("ÿ),ÿ:<:&;(!=:"ÿ+,)2ÿ(:ÿE*!=:,"!(>ÿ)+ÿA'%!+),*!'ÿ/++!&:ÿ)+ÿ(:ÿG,:"!.:*(ÿ
3EA/G9Hÿ-!(ÿ:'.I;',(:,"ÿ!*ÿ/'J%'*.HÿA'%!+),*!'ÿ'*.ÿ(:!,ÿ&)%%'K),'(),"ÿ!*&%;.!*0ÿ'*.ÿ*)(ÿ
%!2!(:.ÿ()ÿ(:ÿÿ(:ÿA'%!+),*!'ÿ1*.:$:*.:*(ÿ5>"(:2ÿ/$:,'(),ÿ3A#15/9Hÿ%)&'(:.ÿ!*ÿ6)%")2HÿA#Dÿ
LMNOPQPRÿTUÿVWÿXYZ[\ÿ]^_`aÿZW]ÿbcbdÿ#$$%!&'(!)*ÿ+),ÿ#-',.ÿ+),ÿ/,!0!*'%ÿ1*+),2'(!)*ÿ3145ÿ
6),2ÿ7889ÿ
PPeÿ ÿ
ghÿijMcPklmÿniioPpnRPkqÿrkjÿnsnjbÿrkjÿkjPtPqnoÿPqrkjgnRPkqÿLPjmÿ
rkjgÿuUUdÿmlQgPRRMbÿkqÿgnjpOÿuvwÿuxUyzÿponPgÿqkeÿuxUyzxx{|}Uÿnqbÿÿkqÿ
nltlmRÿvwÿuxU}ÿzÿgnmRMjÿponPgÿqkeÿuxU}zxUuUU}ÿnqbÿmlQÿponPgmÿuxU}zxUuUv~ÿ
nqbÿuxU}zxUuU|Ueÿ
ÿ
1ÿ$,:=!);"%>ÿ";K2!((:.ÿ'ÿ"!2!%',ÿ&%'!2ÿ!*=)%=!*0ÿ(:ÿ"'2:ÿ:*(!(!:"ÿ()ÿ(:ÿ !"(%:K%)-:,ÿ/++!&:ÿ
3F/9ÿ!*ÿ/0.:*HÿE('ÿ)*ÿ',&ÿ72Hÿ7@8HÿA%'!2ÿ)Dÿ7@80@@C8D9ÿLMNOPQPRÿTuÿVWÿXYZ[\ÿ]^_`aÿ
ZW]ÿpbdDH(($"---D"&,!K.D&)2.)&;2:*(CCEA07@8@2720145015F/40
A%'!20)07@80@@Cÿ- !&ÿ-'"ÿ;$.'(:.ÿ)*ÿ#;0;"(ÿ2Hÿ7@8ÿK>ÿ'"(:,ÿA%'!2ÿ)Dÿ7@80@8788ÿ'*.ÿ
5;KÿA%'!2"ÿ7@80@8782Bÿ'*.ÿ7@80@878C8DÿD9ÿLMNOPQPRÿTvÿVWÿXYZ[\ÿ]^_`aÿZW]ÿbcbÿdDÿ
ÿ :ÿ$:,$:(,'(),"ÿ!*ÿ(:ÿ$,:=!);"ÿ&'":ÿÿK%;*(%>ÿ;":.ÿ(:!,ÿ('<0:<:2$(ÿ"('(;"ÿ'*.ÿ.!",:0',.:.ÿ
5:&(!)*ÿ?@83&9329ÿK>ÿ!*=:*(!*0ÿ'ÿ"&:2:ÿ)+ÿ+,';.Hÿ- !&ÿ";,+'&:.ÿ'"ÿ:',%>ÿ'"ÿ#;0;"(ÿ7@@@ÿ-!(ÿ'ÿ
&)2$%'!*(ÿ+!%:.ÿK>ÿ(:ÿ5'*ÿ!:0)ÿ'"ÿ'*.ÿ%:&(,!&ÿA)2$'*>ÿ-!(ÿ(:ÿ6:.:,'%ÿ*:,0>ÿ4:0;%'(),>ÿ
A)22!""!)*ÿ364A9ÿ3)&J:(ÿ)ÿ@@0B?0@@@ÿÿ)&J:(ÿ)Dÿ@@0B0@@@9Dÿ :ÿ5'*ÿ!:0)ÿ
&)2$%'!*(ÿ()ÿ64Aÿ'%%:0:.ÿ('(ÿ(:ÿ2'),ÿ:*:,0>ÿ":%%:,"Hÿ$,).;&:,"Hÿ'*&!%%',>ÿ":,=!&:"Hÿ+!*'*&!'%ÿ
!*"(!(;(!)*"Hÿ'*.ÿ70ÿ&)0:*:,'(!)*ÿ$%'*(ÿ%)&'(:.ÿ'(ÿEAAÿ)-*:.ÿK>ÿ(:ÿEAÿ4:0:*("ÿ
2'*!$;%'(:.ÿ(:ÿ-:"(:,*ÿ:%:&(,!&!(>ÿ2',J:("ÿ!*ÿ'%%ÿ+'"!)*"ÿ3!*&%;.!*0HÿK;(ÿ*)(ÿ%!2!(:.ÿ()Hÿ
&%'!2"ÿ)+ÿ:&)*)2!&ÿ),ÿ$ >"!&'%ÿ-!( )%.!*0Hÿ0'2!*0Hÿ+,';.ÿ),ÿ2!",:$,:":*('(!)*9Dÿ1Hÿ'"ÿ'*ÿ
)$:,'(),ÿ)+ÿ(:ÿ$%'*(ÿ+,)2ÿ;*:ÿ8BBBÿ(,);0 ÿ',&ÿ7@@Hÿ-'"ÿ'ÿ.!,:&(ÿ-!(*:""ÿ()ÿ(:ÿ
0ÿ2ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¢¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿ§¨©ª«¬ÿ¤®¯¡¤¢¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°±²³ÿ́¢®µ¢¶µ¡¢¡¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿ·¸ÿ¶®ÿ̈¹ÿº»º
!"#$!$"%ÿ&'()#$(*ÿ+,#&"$+(ÿ&()ÿ"&-ÿ.&/$+(ÿ+'"$()ÿ$(ÿ"0ÿ&1+.02("$+()ÿ3&(ÿ4$*+ÿ
5&/ÿ&()ÿ6!"#$!ÿ7+2,&(%ÿ8999ÿ!+2,&$("ÿ"+ÿ:6;7ÿ&*&$(/"ÿ2&<+#ÿ,+=#ÿ,#+)'!#/ÿ&()ÿ
)$/"#$1'"+#/>ÿ=0$!0ÿ$(!'))>ÿ1'"ÿ=&/ÿ(+"ÿ$2$")ÿ"+>ÿ"0ÿ?74@7A/ÿ8B0@Cÿ!+*(#&"$+(ÿ
,+=#ÿ,&("ÿD?7ÿ;*("/Eÿ&()ÿ7FG3HIÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
J0$/ÿ=0$/"1+=#ÿ!&$2>ÿ&"0+'*0ÿ#++")ÿ$(ÿ"0ÿ89KLM89KNÿ!&$2/ÿ$/ÿÿ)$OO#("ÿ&()ÿ(+"ÿ&ÿ
/',,2("&ÿ/'12$//$+(ÿ"+ÿ"0ÿ,#.$+'/ÿ!&$2IÿG(ÿ"0$/ÿ!&$2ÿ"0ÿ&'()#$(*ÿ@*&=&""/ÿO+#ÿ"&-ÿO#ÿ
,#+O$"ÿ'/$(*ÿ1%ÿ'/$(*ÿÿ"0ÿ?($.#/$"%ÿ+Oÿ7&$O+#($&ÿ-2,"ÿO#+2ÿ"&-/ÿ/"&"'/ÿ"++Pÿ&ÿ)$OO#("ÿ"'#(ÿ
"0&(ÿ$(ÿ,#.$+'/ÿ=0$/"1+=#ÿ!&$2ÿIÿÿ
QRSTUTVVÿXTYZ[R\]ZSÿ]^ÿV_RÿVR\`aÿTZTXbSbY^ÿVbÿ̀bZRcÿXTYZ[R\]ZSaÿdb]ZR[ÿ
Vbÿ[R^d\]eRÿV_Rÿf\bdR^^ÿbgÿbe^dY\]ZSÿV_RÿV\YRÿb\]S]Z^ÿbgÿ^fRd]g]dÿhYTZV]V]R^ÿ
bgÿRXRdV\]d]VcÿeR]ZSÿ^bX[ÿbZÿV_RÿRZR\Scÿ̀T\iRVjÿ
ÿ
J0$/ÿ("$#%ÿ(=ÿ!&$2ÿ$/ÿ1&/)ÿ+(ÿ2%ÿ#!("ÿ)$/!+.#%ÿ"0&"ÿ!&2ÿ&/ÿ&ÿ,&#"ÿ+Oÿ2%ÿ/"$0
,()$(*ÿ$"$*&"$+(ÿ$(.+.$(*ÿ"0ÿ"&#*"/ÿ$(ÿ"0$/ÿ!&$2>ÿ"0ÿ?($.#/$"%ÿ+Oÿ7&$O+#($&ÿ&()ÿ7FG3HIÿ
J0/ÿ&#ÿ,()$(*ÿ$(ÿ"0ÿ3&!#&2("+ÿ7+'("%ÿ3',#$+#ÿ7+'#">ÿ"0ÿ7+'#"ÿ+OÿF,,&/AÿJ0$#)ÿ
F,,&"ÿ4$/"#$!"ÿDk47FE>ÿ&()ÿ"0ÿ?I3Iÿ7+'#"ÿ+OÿF,,&ÿ4$/"#$!"ÿO+#ÿ"0ÿ4$/"#$!"ÿ+Oÿ7+'21$&ÿ
D4I7Iÿ7$#!'$"E>ÿ&()ÿ&#ÿ'(#&")ÿ"+ÿ2%ÿ!&$2/ÿ&()ÿ$"$*&"$+(ÿ#&")ÿ"+ÿ,()$(*ÿ,#+!)$(*/ÿ=$"0ÿ
"0ÿ:6;7ÿ&()ÿ$(ÿ4I7Iÿ7$#!'$"ÿ7+'#"Iÿÿ
@+#ÿ/,!$O$!&%>ÿGÿ&2ÿ#O##$(*ÿ"+ÿ"0ÿO+ +=$(*ÿ!+'#"ÿ!&//ÿ&()ÿ:6;7ÿ)+!P"ÿ$"2/lÿÿ
mÿ3&!#&2("+ÿ7+'("%ÿ3',#$+#ÿ7+'#"ÿ!&/ÿopqrstpuÿwpsxyxz{ÿ|}ÿ~ÿsÿrÿÿ|qsÿ
rÿptrqpÿ7&/ÿ+Iÿk2M89KkMk2M99K2B>ÿO$)ÿ+(ÿ4!21#ÿ2>ÿ89KkÿD=#+(*O'ÿ
"#2$(&"$+(Eÿ&()ÿ#&")ÿ"+ÿ,()$(*ÿ&,,&ÿk47Fÿ!&/ÿopqrstpuÿwpsxyxz{ÿ|}ÿ~ÿsÿrÿ
ÿ|qsÿrÿptrqpÿ7&/ÿ+Iÿ792NN>ÿ+"$!ÿ+OÿF,,&ÿO$)ÿ+(ÿK88k898Kÿ
D,()$(*Eÿ
mÿ3&!#&2("+ÿ7+'("%ÿ3',#$+#ÿ7+'#"ÿ!&/ÿopqrstpuÿwpsxyxz{ÿ|}ÿptrqpÿtrÿ
szqpyÿptÿrpqÿÿ.Iÿsÿrÿÿ|qsÿrÿptrqpÿpsÿÿptÿpqÿ
0ÿ2ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
®¯°±ÿ°³´µÿ¶·¸¹º»¸¼ÿÿÿÿÿÿ½¾¿ÀÁµÂÃÿ¶ºÄÅ·º¸»ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÆÇȵÉÊÿ̧ÄȨ̈ÌË·¸··ÿÿÿÿÿÿͳεÿŸÿ¾ÏÿÐÑÐ
ÿ"#$%$&#'ÿ()*+,-(*.,,,-/00*1234567'ÿ89:ÿ1;<=>ÿ;?ÿ@AA:BCD'ÿ(61@'ÿEF&GHGIJÿKLÿ
MN"OPÿ1BD:ÿQ;Rÿ1,S0+2)'ÿBTUÿ1BCV?;=TVBÿ7<A=:W:ÿ1;<=>ÿXBD:DÿEF&GHGIJÿKLÿMN"OPÿÿ
7+2(S-(ÿBTUÿ7+)2.S0ÿYU:XVU:UZÿ
[ÿÿ89:ÿ2R7Rÿ1;<=>ÿ;?ÿ@AA:BCÿ6VD>=VX>ÿ?;=ÿ>9:ÿ6VD>=VX>ÿ;?ÿ1;C<W]VBÿXBD:ÿ^F%_&F̀aÿ^FI&Gÿ
EF&GHGIJÿKLÿM_bb&&_$%ÿ_cÿ"#$%Fÿ̀d$K$I$ÿ7:=eVX:'ÿ1BD:ÿQ;Rÿ+,0-),S'ÿ2R7Rÿ8Bfÿ1;<=>ÿ
1BD:ÿY2781ZÿQ;Rÿ+(-,20-.ÿ3'ÿQ;>VX:ÿ;?ÿ@AA:BCÿ?VC:Uÿ;Tÿ-,g,Sg+,+,Rÿ
ÿhijklmnÿilpqrÿrqskqtÿÿ
[ÿuX>;]:=ÿ+('ÿ+,-.'ÿvw7ÿ39VD>C:]C;x:=ÿu??VX:yDÿzVTBCÿ6:XVDV;Tÿ2TU:=ÿvw1ÿ1;U:ÿ7:X>V;TÿS/+(ÿ
YBZÿ1CBVWÿQ<W]:=Dÿ+,-.0,-+--.'ÿ+,-.0,-+-(0'ÿBTUÿ+,-.0,-+-)ÿÿ
[ÿ89:ÿ2R7Rÿ8Bfÿ1;<=>ÿ4:W;=BTU<WÿuAVTV;T'ÿu=U:='ÿBTUÿ6:XVDV;TÿVTÿEF&GHGIJÿKLÿ
M_bb&&_$%'ÿ8R1Rÿ4:W;Rÿ+,+,*S2ÿY2R7R8R1Rÿ{<T:ÿ)'ÿ+,+,Z'ÿD:=e:Uÿ;Tÿ{<T:ÿ)'ÿ+,+,ÿ
[ÿ89:ÿ2R7Rÿ8BfÿU:XVDV;Tÿ|=BT>VT|ÿ>9:ÿvw7ÿ1;WWVDDV;T:=yDÿ4;>V;Tÿ?;=ÿ}B=>VBCÿ7<WWB=~ÿ
{<U|W:T>ÿBTUÿ?<=>9:=ÿU:TVBCÿ;?ÿ>9:ÿx9VD>C:]C;x:=ÿBxB=Uÿ>;ÿ>9:ÿ@AA:CCBT>ÿÿ
ÿ
[ÿ89:ÿ2R7Rÿ1;<=>ÿ;?ÿ@AA:BCÿ6VD>=VX>ÿ?;=ÿ>9:ÿ6VD>=VX>ÿ;?ÿ1;C<W]VBÿXBD:ÿFÿ_$̀ÿÿÿKLÿ
M_bb&&_$%ÿ_cÿ"#$%Fÿ̀d$K$I$ÿ7:=eVX:'ÿ1BD:ÿQ;Rÿ+,0-+)2ÿ*ÿQ;>VX:ÿ;?ÿ@AA:BCÿ?VC:Uÿ
,Sg-,g+,+,ÿBTUÿU:XVU:Uÿ]~ÿ>9:ÿ6R1Rÿ1V=X<V>ÿ;Tÿ,-g--g+,++ÿÿ
ÿ
[ÿ89:ÿ2R7Rÿ1;<=>ÿ;?ÿ@AA:BCÿ6VD>=VX>ÿ?;=ÿ>9:ÿ6VD>=VX>ÿ;?ÿ1;C<W]VBÿXBD:ÿ_F̀%ÿ $%ÿ"I&#%$&ÿ
O&&_HF#_ÿ"OÿKLÿ#$ÿ$$%Fÿ̀ $%ÿd$IF̀#_%ÿM_bb&&_'ÿ1BD:ÿQ;Rÿ+-0
--(/Rÿ89:ÿA:>V>V;Tÿ?VC:Uÿ]~ÿ7v@ÿ;Tÿ4B~ÿ+S'ÿ+,+-ÿVTÿ6R1Rÿ1V=X<V>ÿ1;<=>ÿBUU=:DD:Uÿ
>9:ÿzw1yDÿ;=U:=ÿ=:|B=UVT|ÿB=|<W:T>Dÿ=BVD:Uÿ;Tÿ=:9:B=VT|ÿBTUÿD:>>VT|ÿBDVU:ÿBÿA=V;=ÿ;=U:='ÿ
=;BUeV:xÿ7;CB='ÿ1'ÿ6;X:>ÿQ;Rÿzÿ-S0)2)0,,/'ÿzw10z-S0)2)0,,S-S)ÿzw1ÿÿ
/-'-00ÿY4B=Rÿ-0'ÿ+,+-ZÿYw:9:B=VT|ÿu=U:=ZÿYA:TUVT|Zÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ ¡¢ £hÿ£¤ÿ¥£¦ ¡ÿ£¡¢ÿ§h£¢ÿ¦ÿ̈¡h¢ÿ¡ÿ
ÿ¦¦©¨¢ÿ©h¨£¦ÿ£¡¢ÿh¦£ÿ¨h¨£ÿ¡hª«ÿÿ§ hÿ£¤§hÿ
©h §ÿ¡¢hÿÿ¬h£ÿ§ÿÿ¡ ¡©h §ÿ£¤¤©ÿ¡¥h¦«ÿ
0ÿ2ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ"#$%&'%#(ÿ#")%'*ÿ%'ÿ"'+,%&#"-ÿ#'.ÿ"$$#/&#)%'ÿ0%)1ÿ"#%+ÿ2ÿ
)%34ÿ"ÿ5678ÿ95655ÿ
ÿ
:;<ÿ=>?@<=ÿABÿ=;ACÿDEEFAG>=AHBÿIH?ÿDJ>?KÿIH?ÿL?A@AB>FÿMBIH?N>=AHBÿOMPQÿRH?NÿSTTUÿ>?<ÿ=;<ÿVWÿ
P<@<B=CXÿWDMQLÿ>BKÿÿ=;?<<ÿEHJ<?ÿEY?G;>C<ÿ>@?<<N<B=CÿI?HNÿ=;<ÿ=;?<<ÿCHF>?ÿEHJ<?ÿEF>B=CÿHJB<Kÿ>BKÿ
HE<?>=<KÿCYEEHC<KFZÿ[ZÿE?A\>=<ÿCHF>?ÿEHJ<?ÿE?HKYG<?CÿJ;Hÿ;>\<ÿCHFKÿCHF>?ÿEHJ<?ÿ=Hÿ=;<ÿP<@<B=Cÿ>=ÿ
J;HF<C>F<ÿE?AG<CÿCABG<ÿS]T2ÿ\A>ÿ=;<ÿW>FAIH?BA>ÿMBK<E<BK<B=ÿQZC=<NÿLE<?>=H?ÿKAC=?A[Y=AHBÿCZC=<NXÿH?ÿ
\A>ÿ=;<ÿW>FAIH?BA>0[>C<KÿEY[FAGÿY=AFA=A<CÿGHNE>BA<Cÿ^_`aXÿ[>C<KÿABÿQ>BÿR?>BGACGHbÿQc`aXÿ[>C<KÿABÿ
Q>BÿcA<@HXÿ>BKdH?ÿQHY=;<?BÿW>FAIH?BA>ÿaKACHBXÿ[>C<KÿABÿeHCÿDB@<F<Cfÿÿ
ÿ
gÿ:;<ÿ7i930ÿCHF>?ÿEHJ<?ÿEF>B=ÿHJB<KÿH?ÿGH0HJB<Kÿ[ZÿQHF>?ÿQ=>?ÿW>FAIH?BA>ÿjjjMMXÿ
eeWÿOVBA\<?CA=ZÿHIÿW>FAIH?BA>Xÿc>\ACÿQHY=;ÿW>NEYCÿ^?Hk<G=UÿJ>CÿGHBC=?YG=<KÿABÿS]Tlÿ
HBÿ>ÿ2S0>G?<CÿEFH=ÿ>=ÿe<\<<ÿPH>KXÿABÿQHF>BHÿWHYB=ZÿHJB<Kÿ[ZÿVWÿc>\ACfÿRaPWÿcHGm<=ÿ
nRT20opTfÿ;==ECqddJJJfYGK>\ACf<KYdB<JCdCHF>?0I>?N0>BK0?YBBAB@ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
gÿ:;<ÿ86930ÿCHF>?ÿEHJ<?ÿEF>B=ÿHJB<KÿH?ÿGH0HJB<Kÿ[ZÿWF<B<?>XÿeeWXÿp]]ÿrfÿs>ABÿ
Q=?<<=XÿQYA=<ÿt]cXÿuHAC<XÿMcÿpvw]SXÿRaPWÿcHGm<=ÿnRT20T]TTfÿRA\<ÿ^HAB=CÿQHF>?ÿ^>?mÿ
eeWÿACÿ>ÿ@?HYBK0NHYB=<KÿE;H=H\HF=>AGÿCHF>?ÿ<B<?@ZÿI>GAFA=ZÿFHG>=<KÿHBÿ>ÿop]0>G?<ÿ
E>?G<FÿHIÿF>BKÿJA=;ÿ>ÿCHF>?ÿ>??>Zÿ=;>=ÿGH\<?Cÿvl]ÿ>G?<Cfÿÿ
ÿ
gÿ:;<ÿ56930ÿ_AII<BÿQHF>?ÿ^>?mÿeeWÿCHF>?ÿEHJ<?ÿEF>B=ÿHJB<KÿH?ÿGH0HJB<Kÿ[ZÿWF<B<?>Xÿ
eeWXÿp]]ÿrfÿs>ABÿQ=?<<=XÿQYA=<ÿt]cXÿuHAC<XÿMcÿpvw]SXÿRaPWÿcHGm<=ÿnRTw0tvpfÿ:;<ÿ
_AII<BÿQHF>?ÿ^>?mÿOx^?Hk<G=yUÿACÿFHG>=<KÿABÿW>B=Y>ÿW?<<mXÿR?<CBHÿWHYB=ZXÿWDfÿ:;<ÿ^?Hk<G=ÿ
GHBCAC=CÿHIÿ>ÿE;H=H\HF=>AGÿ@<B<?>=AHBÿI>GAFA=ZÿJA=;ÿ>ÿN>zANYNÿ@<B<?>=AB@ÿG>E>GA=ZÿHIÿ
S]srÿDWfÿ
ÿ
:;<ÿ=;?<<ÿ>[H\<0FAC=<KÿCHF>?ÿEHJ<?ÿEF>B=CÿE?HKYG<ÿtvsrÿABÿ=H=>FXÿJ;AG;ÿGHYFKÿE?H\AK<ÿ<F<G=?AGA=Zÿ=Hÿ
>EE?HzAN>=<FZÿv]X]]]ÿ0o]X]]]ÿ>\<?>@<ÿ;HN<Cfÿ:;<ÿE<?E<=?>=H?CÿABÿ=;<ÿI?>YKÿYBK<?ÿ=;<ÿB>N<ÿHIÿ=;<ÿÿÿ
P<@<B=CÿHIÿ=;<ÿVBA\<?CA=ZÿHIÿW>FAIH?BA>XÿCABG<ÿS]T2Xÿ;>\<ÿEY?G;>C<KÿEHJ<?ÿI?HNÿ=;<C<ÿEF>B=Cÿ>=ÿ
J;HF<C>F<ÿE?AG<Cÿ>BKÿ?<CHFKÿA=ÿ\A>ÿWDMQLÿHBÿ=;<ÿHE<BÿN>?m<=ÿIH?ÿ>ÿ=>z0I?<<ÿE?HIA=Xÿ=;ACÿACÿ>BÿABC=>BG<ÿHIÿ
=>zÿ<\>CAHBXÿKY<ÿ=Hÿ\AHF>=AHBCÿHIÿ=;<ÿYBA\<?CA=Z|Cÿ<z<NE=ÿC=>=YCÿE?H\ACAHBÿABÿQ<G=AHBÿl]TÿOGUOvUÿHIÿ=;<ÿ
MB=<?B>FÿP<\<BY<ÿWHK<ÿHIÿTtlofÿ:;ACÿGHYFKÿ[<ÿ>Bÿ<\<Bÿ@?<>=<?ÿABC=>BG<ÿHIÿ=>zÿ<\>CAHBÿ>BKÿI?>YKÿ=;>Bÿ
0ÿ2ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£ÿ¤¥¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦§ÿÿÿ̈©ª©
ÿ!"#$!%&ÿ%$ÿ%'"ÿ()*ÿ+',&%-".-$/"!ÿ011,2"ÿ$3ÿ45!2'ÿ678ÿ69:;ÿ53<ÿ=>?>&%ÿ78ÿ69:@8ÿ/'"3ÿ=##-,25%,$3&ÿ
1$!ÿ=/5!<ÿ1$!ÿ0!,?,35-ÿ(31$!5%,$3ÿA()*ÿB$!ÿ6::Cÿ/"!"ÿ5-&$ÿ1,-"<Dÿÿ
ÿÿ E$$F,3?ÿ5%ÿ%'"ÿG=(*0ÿ6969ÿ=33>5-ÿ)"#$!%ÿ$3ÿ45!F"%ÿ(&&>"&ÿ53<ÿH"!1$!532"8ÿ#>.-,&'"<ÿ$3ÿ
=>?>&%ÿ:68ÿ696:8ÿ'%%#IJJ///D25,&$D2$JK$2>"3%&JH!"&"3%5%,$3069690=33>5-0)"#$!%0$3045!F"%0
(&&>"&053<0H"!1$!532"0=>?0:60696:D#<18ÿ,%ÿ,&ÿ2-"5!ÿ%'5%ÿ%'"ÿ/'$-"&5-"ÿ"-"2%!,2,%ÿ2$&%ÿ,3ÿG=(*0L&ÿ
5!F"%&ÿ."%/""3ÿ69:;ÿ53<ÿ6969ÿ/5&ÿ."%/""3ÿM7:J4+'ÿ53<ÿMN6J4+'Dÿÿ
(ÿ5ÿ5ÿ!"&,<"3%ÿ$1ÿG5-,1$!3,5Dÿ4 ÿ$3%'-ÿ.,--ÿ1$!ÿ"-"2%!,2,%ÿ$O"!ÿ%'"ÿ#5&%ÿ%"3ÿ"5!&ÿ'5&ÿ.""3ÿ53ÿ
5O"!5?"ÿ$1ÿM:998ÿ"53,3?ÿ%'5%ÿ(ÿ#5ÿ53ÿ5O"!5?"ÿ$1ÿ:PQ6:ÿ2"3%&JF+'ÿ53<ÿ>&"ÿ5O"!5?"ÿ$1ÿN99Q;99ÿF+J'ÿ
#"!ÿ$3%'DÿR',&ÿ%!53&-5%"&ÿ%$ÿ5ÿ!"%5,-ÿ"-"2%!,2,%ÿ2$&%ÿ,3ÿ%'"ÿG,%ÿ$1ÿE$<,ÿ$1ÿ5##!$S,5%"-ÿM:@9J4+'ÿ
#"!ÿ$3%'Dÿ(%ÿ/$>-<ÿ."ÿ3$%ÿ<,11,2>-%ÿ%$ÿ1,?>!"ÿ$>%ÿ/'5%ÿ!"%5,-ÿ"-"2%!,2,%ÿ2$&%&ÿ/$>-<ÿ."ÿ1$!ÿ798999ÿ'$"&8ÿ
$!ÿ%'"ÿ5$>3%ÿ$1ÿ"-"2%!,2,%ÿ#!$<>2"<ÿ.ÿ%'"ÿ%'!""ÿ&$-5!ÿ#$/"!ÿ#-53%&ÿ/,%'ÿ5ÿ2$.,3"<ÿ25#52,%ÿ$1ÿT7ÿ
4+ÿ1$!ÿ&,Sÿ"5!&8ÿ53<ÿ%'>&ÿ%'"ÿ>3-5/1>-ÿÿ%5S01!""ÿ#!$1,%ÿÿ/$>-<ÿ5$>3%ÿ,3ÿ,--,$3&ÿ$1ÿ<$--5!&ÿDÿÿ
U #$%'"%,25--ÿ8ÿ,1ÿ%'"ÿ&>&#"2%"<ÿ#"!#"%!5%$!&ÿ$1ÿ%5Sÿ"O5&,$3ÿ53<ÿ1!5><ÿÿÿVWXYZ[ÿ]^ÿ_`ÿabcdeÿ
fYVÿghÿiYjVXÿkÿ[klÿmÿ]^hÿ_`ÿa[klÿnÿ^hÿ[klXÿmÿopq]hhÿ_`arYstiÿnÿuvuÿlWkVXÿYVÿwwÿrYstiXmÿ
gqxygqyhhÿ_`ÿnÿzuhÿÿ{|tiÿsWtÿtknÿfVWWÿ}VYf|tÿzuhÿ[YZZkVXÿ}WVÿgÿ_`ÿtiksÿ|tÿkrYjstÿk}}VYn|rktWZlÿ
Yfÿzÿ]oqhphqhhhÿjstknW[ÿ[YZZkVXÿvÿÿ
(ÿ/$>-<ÿ."ÿ"-,?,.-"ÿ1$!ÿÿ/',&%-".-$/"!ÿ!"/5!<ÿÿÿ<>"ÿ%$ÿ ÿ2-5,ÿÿ"S2""<&ÿ%'"ÿMÿ6998999ÿ$!ÿM6ÿ
89998999ÿ%'!"&'$-<ÿ!"~>,!""3%ÿ>3<"!ÿ%'"ÿ#!$O,&,$3&ÿ$1ÿ*"2%,$3ÿ2;67A.CAPCAÿÿ$1ÿ%'"ÿ(3%"!35-ÿ)"O"3>"ÿ
G$<"ÿA5&ÿ5"3<"<ÿ.ÿ%'"ÿ,#5!%,&53ÿ><?"%ÿ=2%ÿ$1ÿ69:@8ÿH>.DÿEDÿ::P0:678ÿK,ODÿ(K8ÿR,%-"ÿ((8ÿÿN::9@A2C8ÿ
B".DÿT8ÿ69:@8ÿ:76ÿ*%5%Dÿ:P@DÿÿR'"ÿ()Gÿ2;67A.Cÿ&%5%"&ÿIÿÿ
ÿ ÿR'"ÿ-5/ÿ5##-,"&ÿ%$ÿ25&"&ÿ,3ÿ/',2'ÿ%'"ÿ5$>3%ÿ,3ÿ<,&#>%"ÿ"S2""<&ÿM6ÿ,--,$3Dÿ(1ÿ%'"ÿ
%5S#5"!ÿ,&ÿ53ÿ,3<,O,<>5-8ÿ%'"ÿ,3<,O,<>5-L&ÿ?!$&&ÿ,32$"ÿ>&%ÿ"S2""<ÿM6998999ÿ1$!ÿ53ÿ
%5S5.-"ÿ"5!ÿ5%ÿ,&&>"ÿ,3ÿ5ÿ2-5,Dÿ
ÿ )"~>,!"&ÿ%'"ÿ+',&%-".-$/"!ÿ011,2"ÿ%$ÿ535-"ÿ%'"&"ÿM6ÿ,--,$3ÿ25&"&8ÿ53<ÿ5>%'$!,"&ÿ%'"ÿ
()*ÿ%$ÿ!"~>"&%ÿ5&&,&%532"ÿ1!$ÿ%'"ÿ/',&%-".-$/"!ÿ53<ÿ%'",!ÿ2$>3&"-Dÿ
ÿ (3<,O,<>5-&ÿ5!"ÿ"-,?,.-"ÿ1$!ÿ5/5!<&ÿ.5&"<ÿ$3ÿ5<<,%,$3&ÿ%$ÿ%5S8ÿ#"35-%,"&8ÿ,3%"!"&%8ÿ53<ÿ$%'"!ÿ
5$>3%&ÿ2$--"2%"<ÿ5&ÿ5ÿ!"&>-%ÿ$1ÿ53ÿ5<,3,&%!5%,O"ÿ$!ÿ><,2,5-ÿ52%,$3ÿ!"&>-%,3?ÿ1!$ÿ%'"ÿ
,31$!5%,$3ÿ#!$O,<"<Dÿ
ÿ =/5!<&ÿ5!"ÿ&>."2%ÿ%$ÿ5##"5-ÿ%$ÿ%'"ÿD*DÿR5SÿG$>!%Dÿ
0ÿ2ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÀÁÂÃÿÂÅÆÇÿÈÉÊËÌÍÊÎÿÿÿÿÿÿÏÐÑÒÓÇÔÕÿÈÌÖ×ÉÌÊÍÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿØÙÚÇÛÜÿÊÖÝÊÞÝÉÊÉÉÿÿÿÿÿÿßÅàÇÿ×áÿÐâÿáãá
ÿ!"#$ÿ%"#$!&'(&)%'*ÿ+&,#-$ÿ,$ÿ$,-'ÿ,$ÿ#ÿ!"'ÿ.*'/#)0$ÿ123401232ÿ+&,#-ÿ!"'ÿ,-)0!ÿ)5ÿ!,6ÿ'/,$#)ÿ
78977:ÿÿ<=ÿ>?@@?ABCÿÿÿ
DECÿ ÿ
GHIÿJKDGILÿMGNGIMÿOPJQGÿPRÿNSSINTÿLDMGQDOGÿRPQÿGHIÿLDMGQDOGÿPRÿ
OPTJUVDNÿMISGIUVIQÿWXYÿ=Z=WÿOPJQGÿPQLIQYÿ[HDOHÿSTNOILÿ\3]3^ÿ
\3_`aÿ^3aba`cÿdÿ_ef_3]ÿfdf_`fÿfdbfÿdgÿbhh_fÿÿeifÿ
_ef_3]ÿfdf_`fÿfdbfYÿONMIÿKPCÿJMONÿKPCÿ=ZjWkZlÿDKÿNVImNKOIÿ
ÿ
ÿÿPBÿM7no7>p7qÿWXYÿ=Z=Wrÿ*'+'#/'sÿ/#,ÿ'&'+!*)#+ÿ-,#&ÿ,ÿ)!#5#+,!#)ÿ5*)-ÿ!"'ÿt #!'sÿu!,!'$ÿ
v)0*!ÿ)5ÿw..',&$ÿ5)*ÿ!"'ÿx#$!*#+!ÿ)5ÿv)&0-(#,ÿv#*+0#!yÿz"'ÿv)0*!ÿ)!#5#'sÿ-'ÿ({ÿ!"'ÿv)0*!ÿ|*s'*ÿ!",!ÿ
-{ÿ,..',&ÿ5*)-ÿ!"'ÿ}#s#~$ÿ)*ÿ|.##)ÿ,sÿ|*s'*ÿ,sÿx'+#$#)ÿtzvÿ0&'ÿ343ÿ#ÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿtyuyzyvyrÿ0'ÿrÿ1212ÿ",sÿ(''ÿ.&,+'sÿ#ÿ,('{,+'rÿs0'ÿ!)ÿ!"'ÿ
v)0*!$ÿ.'s#~ÿs#$.)$#!#)ÿ)5ÿ!"'ÿ!"'005,-#&#,*ÿ!)ÿ-'ÿ+,$'ÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿ£rÿ
¤)yÿ12031¥ÿxyvyÿv#*yÿ¦I§HDVDGÿ̈kÿ©ªq:ÿ9An«ÿªB:ÿABÿ¬@ª©ÿ:q?®7ÿªB:ÿLEL¯Cÿÿ
z"'ÿv)0*!ÿ|*s'*ÿ*,#$'sÿ!"'ÿ#$$0'ÿ)5ÿ%"'!"'*ÿ)*ÿ)!ÿ!"'ÿxyvyÿv#*+0#!ÿv)0*!ÿ",$ÿ!"'ÿ°0*#$s#+!#)ÿ!)ÿ
*'/#'%ÿ!"'ÿz,6ÿv)0*!$ÿ)*s'*ÿ#ÿÿÿrÿ±'-)yÿ1212²³¥ÿtyuyzyvyÿ0'ÿrÿ
1212ÿ$0$!,##~ÿ,ÿ5#,&ÿs'!'*-#,!#)ÿ-,s'ÿ0s'*ÿyyvyÿ́ÿ³41µ,yÿ
ÿ('+,-'ÿ+)+'*'sÿ,()0!ÿ!"'ÿxyvyÿv#*+0#!$ÿ*'-'s{ÿ,5!'*ÿ-{ÿ,..',&rÿ5#&'sÿ#ÿu'.!'-('*ÿ1212ÿ
#ÿxyvyÿv#*+0#!ÿv)0*!rÿ,$ÿ#!ÿ",sÿ,&*',s{ÿ(''ÿ(*#'5'sÿ50&&{ÿ)ÿ0'ÿ12rÿ1213yÿÿ'6,-##~ÿ!"'ÿ-'!#)'sÿ
v)0*!ÿ|*s'*ÿ5)*ÿ]¶ÿ+,$'ÿs)+·'!rÿÿ5)0sÿ̧ÿ
PBÿ¹ºB7ÿWXYÿ=Z=Wrÿ!"'ÿ»¼ÿvtw±ÿ|x¼ÿ½3¾21µ¥µ¿ÿ%,$ÿ5#&'sÿ#ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ¡¢ÿ£rÿv,$'ÿ¤)yÿ12031¥yÿÿ
0ÿ2ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
<=>?ÿ>ABCÿDEFGHIFJÿÿÿÿÿÿKLMNOCPQÿDHRSEHFIÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿTUVCWXÿFRYFZYEFEEÿÿÿÿÿÿ[A\CÿSIÿL]ÿ^_^
ÿ
!ÿ"#$!#ÿ%&'&!$ÿ&'&(ÿ)*ÿ+&%ÿ,-.ÿ/,&+,.(ÿ&!ÿ0,1#&ÿ'22,+.&!$ÿ3,)!#&ÿ4'. '%(ÿ'ÿ/!/)!#ÿ
,5ÿ&!ÿ6&'&!ÿ8'#(ÿ'%ÿ'/+01%ÿÿ01#+'!ÿ&,ÿ'%%+%&ÿ&!ÿ0'%!ÿ)*ÿ'$$#!%%+.9ÿ&!ÿ0,1#&:%ÿ;1#+%$+0&+,.ÿ&,ÿ!'#ÿ
0ÿ2ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¡¢£ÿ¢¥¦§ÿ̈©ª«¬ª®ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°±²³§´µÿ̈¬¶·©¬ªÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̧¹º§»¼ÿª¶½ª¾½©ª©©ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¿¥À§ÿ·¾ÿ°ÁÿÂÃÂ
!"ÿ#$$"#%ÿ&'ÿ()ÿ+,ÿ-.//)00).123ÿ.4ÿ51623178ÿ92+21:2ÿ;23+)<2,ÿ=!"ÿ$>"?"'#&@'ÿA#?ÿB#C"ÿ@ÿ#ÿ
B">&ÿ$#'"%ÿD"E@>"ÿFGCH"?ÿI&%" ÿ#'CÿJ&%K&'?,ÿ=!"ÿL@G>ÿEG>!">ÿ?#"Cÿ!#ÿ!"ÿ7/)<:0ÿ<:3)72ÿ
A#?ÿC&>"M"Cÿ@ÿE&%"ÿ#ÿD>&"EÿDNÿO"$"BD">ÿ2PÿQ3Q2Pÿ'@ÿ@ÿ"RM""Cÿ2SP333ÿA@>C?,ÿ=!"ÿ$#>&"?ÿM@G%Cÿ
"#M!ÿE&%"ÿ#ÿ>"$%NÿD>&"EPÿ'@ÿ@ÿ"RM""CÿTPU33ÿA@>C?PÿDNÿO"$"BD">ÿQQPÿQ3Q2ÿVWXYZ[Z\ÿ^_ÿ`abcÿ
defgÿahcÿehÿijak`ÿcblmnÿahcÿopoq,ÿ
rhÿsnftnuvnbÿwxÿyzywPÿA@ÿ#@>'"N?ÿ#$$@&'"CÿDNÿ!"ÿ{,L,ÿL&>MG&ÿL@G>Pÿ|@DD&"ÿI#'!#?ÿ
! $?}~~AAA,@>>&MK,M@B~"'~"@$%"~~~~|@DD&"0I#'!#?ÿ
ÿ#'Cÿ|@D">ÿ@"DPÿ! $?}~~AAA,@>>&MK,M@B~"'~"@$%"~~~~|@D">0@"DÿE>@Bÿ>>&MKPÿ">>&'H@'ÿÿ
OGM%&EE"ÿÿ@EÿO#'ÿ>#'M&?M@PÿL#%&E@>'&#ÿJ#?!&'H@'ÿ{,L,ÿEE&M"ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿE&%"Cÿ#ÿ0$#H"0%@'Hÿ7/)<:0ÿ<:3)72ÿD>&"Eÿ&%"Cÿ>&"Eÿ@EÿL@G>0$$@&'"CÿB&MG?ÿLG>&#"ÿCC>"??&'Hÿ
{,LÿL&>MG&ÿL@G>?ÿFG>&?C&M&@'ÿVWXYZ[Z\ÿ^ÿehÿijak`ÿcblmnÿahcÿopoqÿ&'ÿ()ÿ+ÿ-.//)00).123ÿ.4ÿ
51623178ÿ92+21:2PÿL#?"ÿ@,ÿQ302QUPÿA&!ÿ#ÿM@'M%G?&@'ÿ?#&'H}ÿ\`lkÿebtÿk`ejcÿclkulkkÿt`lkÿ
affnajÿiebÿjadÿeiÿblkcldtlehÿvakncÿehÿt`nÿ\aÿebtkÿjadÿeiÿblkcldtlehÿÿhcnbÿÿyVvqVq,ÿ
rhÿsnftnuvnbÿyyxÿyzywPÿ!"ÿ$$"%%""ÿ&'ÿ!"ÿÿM#?"Pÿ!"ÿL@BB&??&@'">ÿ@Eÿ!"ÿ'">'#%ÿ
L@BB&??&@'">ÿO">&M"Pÿ>"$>"?"'"CÿDNÿ#@>'"N?ÿ>GM"ÿ|,ÿ%%&??"'ÿ#'CÿI#!"AÿO,ÿF@!'?!@NÿE>@Bÿ
!"ÿ,O,ÿ{"$#>B"'ÿ@EÿFG?&M"Pÿ=#Rÿ{&&?&@'ÿ{ FÿE&%"Cÿ#ÿ>"$%Nÿ@ÿ!"ÿ>>&MKPÿ">>&'H@'ÿÿOGM%&EE"ÿ
ÿ#@>'"N?ÿ7/)<:0ÿ<:3)72ÿD>&"EPÿ>"$"#&'Hÿ!"ÿM@'M%G?&@'}ÿ\`lkÿebtÿk`ejcÿclkulkkÿt`lkÿ
affnajÿiebÿjadÿÿeiÿblkcldtlehÿvakncÿehÿt`nÿ\aÿebtkÿjadÿeiÿblkcldtlehÿhcnbÿÿyVvqVqÿ
VWXYZ[Z\ÿ^ÿehÿijak`ÿcblmnÿahcÿopoq,ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
£¤¥¦ÿ¥¨©ªÿ«¬®¯°±ÿÿÿÿÿÿ²³´µ¶ª·ÿ̧«¯¹º¬¯°ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ»¼½ª¾¿ÿ¹ÀÁÀ¬¬¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¨êÿººÿ³ÄÿÅÆÅ
ÿ ÿ
#$%#&'(ÿ)*ÿ+,+)ÿ-#%.$'ÿ#/ÿ01(#2314ÿ4125$56782ÿ$#-$'(-2ÿ('91(:.-9ÿ
%;'ÿ2'<%'=&'(ÿ)>*ÿ+,+)ÿ<'(ÿ$6(.1=ÿ$#6(%ÿ#(:'(ÿ
ÿ
?@AÿBCADAEFAÿGEHÿIEJACKACAEFAÿIEÿLMÿNOPOÿPICFQIJÿGBBAGRÿSMÿGJJTCEAMDÿUGE@GDÿGEHÿVTASÿWTJÿLMÿ
QJLTDJÿGJJAEJITEOÿÿ
ÿÿ #Yÿ#Z[\]^_ÿ)*ÿ+,+)ÿ̀aÿDQSLIJJAHÿLMÿTSbAFJITEÿ̀FTLSIEAHÿcIJ@ÿGÿLTJITEdTBBTDIJITEÿJIJRAHÿ
efGCTDRGcÿgGDhFhQijDÿPTEFACEDÿkAWGCHIEWÿJ@AÿlABJALSACÿ2mÿ̀non2ÿpACÿPQCIQLÿqCHACÿJTÿqCCIFiÿ
GJJTCEAMDÿUGE@GDÿGEHÿVTASjDÿlABJALSACÿ2ÿ̀non2ÿrLIFQDÿPQCIGAÿsCIAKOtÿaEÿLMÿTSbAFJITEÿJIJRAHÿ
euTJIFAÿTKÿfGCTDRGcÿgGDhFhQijDÿPTEFACEDÿkAWGCHIEWÿJ@AÿlABJALSACÿ2mÿ̀non2ÿpACÿPQCIGLÿPTQCJ̀tÿaÿ
CAvQADJAHÿJ@GJÿJ@AÿPTQCJÿDABGCGJAÿLMÿFGDAÿKCTLÿVIjDÿFGDAÿ̀J@GJÿIJÿwGFGJAÿJ@AÿlABJALSACÿ2mÿ̀non2ÿPTQCJÿ
qCHACÿBRGFIEWÿLMÿGBBAGRÿIEÿGSAMGEFAÿ̀GEHÿGDiAHÿKTCÿGÿHIDLIDDGRÿTKÿUGE@GDÿGEHÿVTASjDÿGLIFQDÿFQCIGAÿ
SCIAKÿx'y;.&.%ÿz{ÿ\Yÿ|}~ÿ_^ÿ~Yÿ::Oÿ
UGE@GDÿGEHÿVTASÿIEJACKACAHÿIEÿLMÿFGDAÿSMÿQDIEWÿGÿc@IDJRASRTcACÿFGDAÿKCTLÿJ@AÿlJGJAÿTKÿ
ATCWIGÿ̀ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̀PGDAÿuTOÿno02nmOÿ?@AICÿLAHHRIEWÿIEÿLMÿNOPOÿ
PICFQIJÿFGDAÿSMÿQDIEWÿVIjDÿc@IDJRASRTcACÿHIwTCFAÿFGDAÿWTJÿLMÿQJLTDJÿGJJAEJITEÿ̀ADBAFIGRRMÿGKJACÿUDOÿ
VIÿHIHÿETJÿKIRAÿGEÿTSbAFJITEÿJTÿJ@AICÿlABJALSACÿ2ÿ̀non2ÿÿÿSCIAKOÿQCJ@ACÿ̀UDOÿVIÿHIHÿETJÿ
KIRAÿGEÿTBBTDIJITEÿJTÿJ@AÿlABJALSACÿnnÿ̀non2ÿaklÿPTLLIDDITEACjDÿkABRMÿsCIAKÿJTÿIJÿc@IF@ÿ̀IEÿKGFJ̀ÿ
cGDÿGÿUTJITEÿJTÿNIDLIDDÿÿGBBAGROÿ?@AÿRGFiÿTKÿTSbAFJITEÿKCTLÿÿJTÿ@ACÿGHwACDGCIADjÿSCIAKDÿCALIEHAHÿ
LAÿTKÿLMÿGJJTCEAMjDÿGFJITEDÿTKÿNAFALSACÿno2ÿIEÿJ@AÿlGFCGLAEJTÿPTQEJMÿlQBACITCÿPTQCJOÿIDÿ
KCIAEHD@IBÿcIJ@ÿTEAÿTKÿJ@AÿlQBACITCÿPTQCJÿfQHWADÿcGDÿQDAHÿGWGIEDJÿLAÿSMÿLMÿGHwACDGCIADÿIEÿGÿcCTEWKQRÿ
JACLIEGJITEÿFGDAÿJ@GJÿIDÿCARGJAHÿJTÿLMÿGBBAGRÿIEÿNOPOÿPICFQIJÿPTQCJOÿÿ
?@AÿPTQCJÿHAEIAHÿLMÿCAvQADJÿKTCÿCARIAKÿTEÿNAFALSACÿÿ̀non2ÿx'y;.&.%ÿzÿ\Yÿ|}~ÿ_^ÿ~Yÿ
::ÿ̀LTCAÿJ@GEÿJcTÿLTEJ@DÿGKJACÿaÿKIRAHÿLMÿTSbAFJITEdLTJITEÿGEHÿTEAÿLTEJ@ÿGKJACÿTCGRÿGCWQLAEJDÿ
cACAÿ@ARHÿIEÿ¡ÿFGDAÿ̀TEÿuTwALSACÿmÿ̀non2ÿ¢'y;.&.%ÿz),ÿ\Yÿ|}~ÿ_^ÿ~Yÿ::ÿSAKTCAÿNOPOÿ
PICFQIJÿfQHWADÿAEHACDTEÿ̀UIRRAJJ̀ÿGEHÿlAEJARRAOÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ22ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¼½¾¿ÿ¾ÁÂÃÿÄÅÆÇÈÉÆÊÿÿÿÿÿÿËÌÍÎÏÃÐÑÿÄÈÒÓÅÈÆÉÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÔÕÖÃ×ØÿÆÒÙÆÚÙÅÆÅÅÿÿÿÿÿÿÛÁÜÃÿÓÊÿÌÝÿÞßÞ
!"ÿ ÿ
$%&ÿ()*+),-ÿ../ÿ0100ÿ2"3"ÿ3!,3+!$ÿ34+,$ÿ45!*!4*ÿ!*ÿ6ÿ78ÿ
9::;<ÿÿ;=<;46ÿ<7<;></ÿ3)?&ÿ*4"ÿ01@.0AB"ÿC!D&2ÿ4*ÿ
()*+),-ÿ../ÿ0100ÿ
ÿ
4Eÿ(FEGFHIÿ../ÿ0100JÿKLMÿNOPOÿPQRSTQKÿPUTRKÿVQWMXÿYZÿ[\QZQUZÿQZÿ]^ÿ̀aÿbcdd^ee^cfghÿciÿjfkghflmÿ
ng`gfogJÿPYpMÿqUOÿ3r023stÿu&v%!w!$ÿx..ÿyEÿz{F|}ÿ~HÿFE~ÿ2 2OÿLMÿU\QZQUZJÿÿMZQURÿPQRSTQKÿ
TXMÿNYQXÿOÿMZKMWWMÿYpÿYpMXÿUZÿYZLYpÿYZXÿUMpÿM\KMMRÿ2Jÿ3r32ÿld^oeÿoh^lgÿh^giÿYZXÿ
XQpQppMXÿ]^ÿ̀aÿbcdd^ee^cfghÿciÿjfkghflmÿng`gfogJÿPYpMÿqUOÿ3r023stJÿQKLÿKLMÿVUWWUQZÿSUZSWTpQUZÿ
ÿlfÿcmgÿ]^ÿ̀aÿbcddhÿciÿjfkghflmÿng`gfogJÿ33ÿOsKLÿ2r2sÿuNOPOÿPQROÿ3r33ÿ
CyHÿ}ÿHF|yE|ÿ|ÿzyH}ÿFy/ÿÿ~|||ÿ}|ÿFF{ÿzyHÿ{Fÿyzÿ
|GÿFHÿGH|~yEÿGE~Hÿ0ÿ+"?"3"ÿ¡ÿ¢0£¤¥¤A¥"ÿ¦ÿ
HFE~ÿyÿ}ÿ$F§ÿ3yGHÿ}ÿE|HGyE|ÿyÿ~yÿ}ÿ|F"ÿ
ÿ
ÿTRKLMRURMJÿUZÿYZTYRÿ22Jÿ3r33JÿKLMÿPUTRKÿQppTMXÿYZÿ[RXMRÿ¤&v%!w!$ÿx.0ÿyEÿz{F|}ÿ~HÿFE~ÿ
2 2¥ÿYZXYKQZÿKLYKÿKLMÿ\YRKQMpÿQZÿ̈lhceml©ÿ̈lfoeªÿ«leªªo¬ÿ̀aÿjnÿbcdd^ee^cfghJÿ®P¯ÿqUOÿ3r0
2sr°JÿVQWMÿYÿUKQUZJÿKLMÿ\TR\UpMÿUVÿLQSLÿYpÿKUÿUMÿKLQpÿPUTRKÿKUÿUMRZÿVTKTRMÿ\RUSMMXQZpÿQZÿKLQpÿ
SYpMOÿLMÿPUTRKÿ[RXMRÿpKYKMXÿÿ
+yEÿyE|~HFyEÿyzÿ}ÿyGH±|ÿyH~Hÿz{~ÿ?Hÿ.B/ÿ010./ÿ
}y{~E²ÿ}|ÿF|ÿEÿFIFEÿFE~ÿ}ÿyGH±|ÿ~|y|yEÿEÿ³FE~Iÿ
Dÿ"ÿ3|EH"ÿ!,?/ÿ*y"ÿ01@.0AB/ÿ}}ÿF|ÿ~~~ÿyEÿ(FEGFHIÿ../ÿ
0100/ÿÿ|ÿ4,2&,&2/ÿyEÿ}ÿyGH±|ÿyEÿyyE/ÿ}Fÿ}ÿFH|ÿ
z{ÿyyE|ÿyÿ²yHEÿzGGHÿHy~E²|ÿEÿ}|ÿF|ÿIÿCHGFHIÿ
.1/ÿ0100"ÿ
ÿÿ
!!"ÿ ÿ
)55&DD)*$ÿ(),4?D)¦ÿ()*+?´ÿ¦)?´3´+µ¶?ÿ³4$!4*?ÿ$4ÿ·4 &,*ÿ
C+$+,&ÿ5,43&&2!*·?ÿ!*ÿ$%!?ÿ3)?&ÿ2+&ÿ$4ÿ$%&ÿ2!?54?!$!4*ÿ4Cÿ:4;¸¹ÿ
:º6<¹ÿ6ÿ78ÿ9::»ÿÿ;=<;46ÿ<7<;></ÿ*4"ÿ01@.0ABÿ¤2"3"ÿ3!,"ÿ()*"ÿ../ÿ
0100¥ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¤¥¦§ÿ¦©ª«ÿ¬®¯°±®²ÿÿÿÿÿÿ³´µ¶·«¸¹ÿ¬°º»°®±ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¼½¾«¿Àÿ®ºÁ®ÂÁ®ÿÿÿÿÿÿéīÿ»Åÿ́ÆÿÇÅÇ
!ÿ#$%&'ÿ()*ÿ+)++,ÿ-./ÿ01.ÿ2.3/45/6ÿ2,ÿ7877ÿ9:;:ÿ;</=4<0ÿ;>4/0ÿ?/@./ÿA1<=1ÿB/5C0.@ÿD.ÿ5Cÿ
.E0.CF<>Cÿ>Gÿ0<D.,ÿHÿD5@.ÿ5ÿ0<D.I6ÿF43D<FF<>Cÿ>GÿD6ÿJ>0<>Cÿ0>ÿK>L./Cÿ2404/.ÿM/>=..@<CBFÿ<Cÿ01.ÿÿ;5F.,ÿ
F4-->/0.@ÿ36ÿ3Nÿ.E1<3<0FÿOPQRSTSUÿV(WÿX!ÿYZ$['ÿ\%]^_ÿ$!\ÿ̀a`b:ÿ
ÿHÿG.I0ÿF0/>CBI6ÿÿ0150ÿ5--><C0<CBÿ01.ÿ0A>ÿ500>/C.6FÿG/>Dÿ01.ÿ?//<=cÿI5AÿG</Dÿ5Fÿdefghiÿghkfdlÿ5C@ÿ
4F<CBÿ01.ÿ=5F.ÿmdnopÿmqrslpÿtfÿuvÿwqeexkÿqyÿzn{lkndsÿ|lulnhl}ÿ~>:ÿ78027,ÿG/>Dÿ01.ÿ050.ÿ>Gÿ
K.>/B<5,ÿ<Cÿ5Cÿ500.D-0ÿ0>ÿ@<FD<FFÿD6ÿ5--.5Iÿ15@ÿ3.=>D.ÿ5ÿ1<B1ÿ-/<>/<06ÿG>/ÿ01.ÿ9:;:ÿ;>4/0ÿ4@B.Fÿ
5--><C0.@ÿ0>ÿ@<F->F.ÿ>Gÿÿ=5F.ÿ5C@ÿG>/ÿ01.ÿ9.-5/0D.C0ÿ>Gÿ4F0<=.,ÿ5Eÿ9<L<F<>C,ÿA1<=1ÿA5Fÿ
/.-/.F.C0<CBÿ01.ÿ;>DD<FF<>C./ÿ>Gÿ01.ÿHC0./C5Iÿ.L.C4.ÿ./L<=.ÿ<Cÿ3>01ÿD6ÿ5C@ÿ<Fÿ5--.5IF:ÿHÿ
F4F-.=0.@ÿ0150ÿF>D.01<CBÿA5FÿB><CBÿ>Cÿ<Cÿ01.ÿ35=cB/>4C@ÿ>GÿD6ÿ5--.5Iÿ0>ÿ01.ÿ9:;:ÿ;</=4<0ÿ;>4/0ÿ014F,ÿ
<Cÿ5@@<0<>Cÿ0>ÿ01.ÿ5/B4D.C0Fÿ<CÿD6ÿJ>0<>Cÿ0>ÿK>L./Cÿ2404/.ÿM/>=..@<CBF,ÿHÿ/.4.F0.@ÿ01.ÿG>II>A<CBÿÿ
ÿ150ÿ01.ÿ9:;:ÿ;</=4<0ÿ;>4/0ÿ/.L<.Aÿ5C@ÿD5c.ÿ5ÿ@.=<F<>Cÿ<CÿD6ÿ-.C@<CBÿ=5F.05--.5IÿF.-5/50.I6ÿ
G/>Dÿÿ=5F.ÿ4F<CBÿ5ÿ@<GG./.C0ÿ-5C.Iÿ>Gÿ4@B.Fÿ<:.:,ÿ>C.ÿ0150ÿ@<@ÿC>0ÿ<C=I4@.ÿ01.ÿ>C>/53I.ÿ
.C0.II.,ÿ01.ÿ>C>/53I.ÿ.;/5G0ÿ.C@./F>C,ÿ5C@ÿ01.ÿ>C>/53I.ÿJ<II.00ÿÿ
ÿHÿA>4I@ÿ-/.G./ÿ0>ÿ15L.ÿD6ÿ5--.5IÿG4II6ÿ/.L<.A.@ÿ5C@ÿ@.=<@.@ÿ36ÿ01.ÿ>C>/53I.ÿK/.B>/6ÿK:ÿ
50F5F,ÿ01.ÿ>C>/53I.ÿ~.>D<ÿ5>,ÿ5C@ÿ01.ÿ>C>/53I.ÿ4F0<Cÿ:ÿ5Ic./ÿÿ
ÿHÿ/.4.F0.@ÿ0150ÿ01.ÿ;>4/0,ÿ36ÿ<0Fÿ>ACÿ>/@./,ÿ/.4.F0ÿ0150ÿ01.ÿ.F->C@.C00--.II..,ÿ01.ÿ
;>DD<FF<>C./ÿ>Gÿ01.ÿH,ÿ0/5CFD<0ÿ0>ÿ01.ÿ9:;:ÿ;</=4<0ÿ;>4/0ÿ5IIÿ@>=4D.C0FÿG/>DÿD6ÿ
A1<F0I.3I>A./ÿ782ÿ=I5<D,ÿ~>:ÿ78282722,ÿ5C@ÿ5IIÿ@>=4D.C0Fÿ5C@ÿ.L<@.C=.ÿF4-->/0<CBÿ
A1<F0I.3I>A./ÿ=I5<Dÿ~>:ÿ78282722ÿ2>/Dÿ722ÿ5C@ÿ
ÿ1.ÿ;>4/0,ÿ>Cÿ<0Fÿ>ACÿD>0<>C,ÿ5--><C0ÿ5Cÿ98ÿ86ÿ0>ÿ5FF<F0ÿ<Cÿ@.=<@<CBÿD6ÿL./6ÿ
=>D-I.EÿA1<F0I.3I>A./ÿ=I5<D,ÿ<Cÿ01.ÿ3.I<.Gÿ0150ÿD6ÿ/.4.F0ÿ0>ÿ5--><C0ÿ5Cÿ98ÿ86ÿ0>ÿ
1.I-ÿ@.=<@.ÿD6ÿ=I5<Dÿ<Fÿ3>01ÿ5--/>-/<50.ÿ5C@ÿI.B<0<D50.,ÿ05c<CBÿ<C0>ÿ=>CF<@./50<>Cÿ01.ÿ
=>D-I.E<06ÿ>Gÿ01.ÿ=5F.,ÿ01.ÿ-5/0<.Fÿ<CL>IL.@,ÿ5C@ÿ01.ÿ@<GG./.C0ÿL.C4.Fÿ>Gÿ05Eÿ.L5F<>Cÿ5C@ÿG/54@ÿ
5C@ÿ01/.F1>I@ÿ/.4</.D.C0Fÿ0>ÿ@.=<@.ÿ01.ÿ=5F.:ÿÿ
1.ÿ;>4/0ÿF1>4I@ÿ5--><C0ÿI.B5Iÿ.E-./0Fÿ5Fÿ98ÿ86ÿA1>ÿ5/.ÿÿ
ÿ;>CF4D./Fÿ500>/C.6FÿA<01ÿ>40F05C@<CBÿ.E-./0<F.ÿ<Cÿ05Eÿ.L5F<>Cÿ5C@ÿG/54@ÿÿ
ÿX%!_[ÿ]'ÿ__%][_ÿ]!ÿ_\_%$ZÿP!_%ÿ_¡Z$X%ÿ¢X££][[]X!ÿZ$[ÿ$!\ÿ
%_¡Z$]X![ÿ%_Z$_\ÿXÿ&X_!_%$]X!ÿX_%ÿZ$!ÿX_%$]X![ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
±²³´ÿ³¶·¸ÿ¹º»¼½¾»¿ÿÿÿÿÿÿÀÁÂÃĸÅÆÿ¹½ÇȺ½»¾ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÉÊȨ̈ÌÍÿ»ÇλÏκ»ººÿÿÿÿÿÿжѸÿÈÇÿÁÒÿÓÔÓ
ÿ"##$%&'()ÿ*%$+ÿ,-.ÿ*/%+)ÿ,$0-#'1ÿ$2#)/1'ÿ#3'ÿ4#-#'ÿ$*ÿ5-,/*$%&/-ÿÿ
ÿ"##$%&'()ÿ.3$ÿ-%'ÿ678ÿ:;;7<=:8>?ÿ=6ÿ:6@ÿA:@ÿA=8Bÿ8B>ÿC6=D>E;=8@ÿ7FÿG:H=F7E6=:IÿJFF=<>ÿ$*ÿ
#3'ÿK%')/1'&#LÿM**/0'ÿ$*ÿ#3'ÿN'&'%-,ÿ5$2&)',Lÿ#3'ÿO'P'&#)ÿ$*ÿ#3'ÿQ&/R'%)/#(ÿ$*ÿ5-,/*$%&/-Lÿ-&1ÿ
&$#ÿ-))$0/-#'1ÿ./#3ÿ-&(ÿQ&/R'%)/#(ÿ$*ÿ5-,/*$%&/-ÿ0-+S2)ÿ$%ÿ&20,'-%ÿ,-T$%-#$%(ÿ/&ÿU$)ÿ",-+$)Lÿ
V'.ÿW'X/0$ÿ
ÿ"##$%&'()ÿ.3$ÿ-%'ÿ&$#ÿ-))$0/-#'1ÿ./#3ÿ5-,/*$%&/-ÿ)#-#'ÿP$R'%&+'&#Lÿ4#-#'ÿ$*ÿ5-,/*$%&/-ÿ)#-#'ÿ
-P'&0/')Lÿ-&1ÿ')S'0/-,,(ÿ#3'ÿ4#-#'ÿ$*ÿ5-,/*$%&/-ÿ"##$%&'(ÿN'&'%-,Y)ÿM**/0'Zÿ[&ÿS-%#/02,-%Lÿ#3'(ÿ
;B7\H?ÿ678ÿ]>ÿ:;;7<=:8>?ÿA=8BÿF7E^>Eÿ_8:8>ÿ7FÿG:H=F7E6=:ÿ̀887E6>@;ÿa>6>E:Hÿb=HHÿ
c7<d@>EIÿe>EE@ÿbE7A6Iÿf:^:H:ÿg:EE=;Iÿ:6?ÿh:D=>Eÿb><>EE:Iÿ.3$ÿ%-0i'1ÿ2Sÿ+/,,/$&)ÿ$*ÿ
2&#-X'1ÿ1$,,-%)ÿ*%$+ÿS$.'%ÿ0$+S-&/')Lÿ/&0,21/&PÿT2#ÿ&$#ÿ,/+/#'1ÿÿ*%$+ÿ+(ÿ*$%+'%ÿ'+S,$('%ÿÿ
j')#'0ÿk&'%P(ÿ[&0Zÿl)/&0'ÿ2mmnLÿj(&'P(ÿ[&0Zÿ3-)ÿT''&ÿT-)'1ÿ/&ÿo$2)#$&Lÿp'X-)qÿ
ÿ"##$%&'()ÿ&$#ÿ-))$0/-#'1ÿ./#3ÿ0$,,-T$%-#$%)ÿ/&ÿ#3'ÿ#-Xÿ'R-)/$&ÿ-&1ÿ*%-21ÿ,/)#'1ÿ/&ÿ+(ÿrs2tÿ-&1ÿ
rs2nÿ.3/)#,'T,$.'%ÿ0,-/+)Lÿ/&0,21/&Pÿ#3'ÿ4-0%-+'&#$ÿW2&/0/S-,ÿQ#/,/#(ÿj/)#%/0#Lÿ$*ÿ
4-0%-+'&#$Lÿ5-,/*$%&/-uÿK-0/*/0ÿN-)ÿvÿk,'0#%/0ÿ5$+S-&(LÿT-)'1ÿ/&ÿ4-&ÿw%-&0/)0$Lÿ5"uÿ-&1ÿ
5-,/*$%&/-ÿ[&1'S'&1'&#ÿ4()#'+ÿMS'%-#$%LÿT-)'1ÿ/&ÿw$,)$+Lÿ5"ÿ
ÿ`887E6>@;ÿ678ÿ:;;7<=:8>?ÿ=6ÿ:6@ÿA:@ÿA=8Bÿ8B>ÿF7E^>EÿCx_xÿ_><E>8:E@ÿ7Fÿ8B>ÿy>z:E8^>68ÿ
7Fÿg7^>H:6?ÿ_><\E=8@ÿ:6?ÿF7E^>Eÿ{E>;=?>68ÿ7Fÿ8B>ÿC6=D>E;=8@ÿ7FÿG:H=F7E6=:ÿe`|}~ÿ
|`{Jc~`|Jÿ_>z8>^]>Eÿ`\\;8ÿÿ
J6ÿ:E<BÿIÿLÿ#3'ÿ)-+'ÿ1-(ÿ[ÿ*/,'1ÿ+(ÿW$#/$&ÿ#$ÿN$R'%&ÿw2#2%'ÿK%$0''1/&P)Lÿ#3'ÿ
jM0p-Xÿj/R/)/$&ÿ-##$%&'()ÿ%'S%')'&#/&Pÿ5$++/))/$&'%ÿ$*ÿ[&#'%&-,ÿO'R'&2'ÿ4'%R/0'ÿ$&ÿ#3'ÿ
-SS'-,ÿ*/,'1ÿ-ÿW$#/$&ÿ#$ÿj/)+/))ÿ"SS'-,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ¡¡ÿ¢ÿ£ÿÿÿ¤ÿ5-)'ÿV$ZÿQ45"ÿV$Zÿrs023s¥Zÿp3'/%ÿ%-#/$&-,'ÿ
*$%ÿ1/)+/))/&Pÿ#3'ÿ-SS'-,ÿ.-)ÿ#3'ÿ[O4ÿ5$++/))/$&'%Y)ÿ-,,'P'1ÿ,-0iÿ$*ÿ)2T¦'0#0+-##'%ÿ¦2%/)1/0#/$&Zÿ
p3'(ÿ0/#'1ÿ#3'ÿ5$2%#§)ÿ%'0'&#ÿ%2,/&Pÿ/&ÿ̈ÿÿ¡¡Lÿ1-#'1ÿ-&2-%(ÿ22Lÿrsrrÿ©ª«ÿ©¬«ÿ
¨ÿÿ¡¡ÿ¢ÿÿLÿrrÿwZ3#3ÿ2s23ÿljZ5Zÿ5/%Zÿrsrrqÿl}hgb~ÿ®¯ÿ76ÿFH:;Bÿ?E=D>ÿ
:6?ÿy°yÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÂÃÄÅÿÄÇÈÉÿÊËÌÍÎÏÌÐÿÿÿÿÿÿÑÒÓÔÕÉÖ×ÿÊÎØÙËÎÌÏÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÚÛÜÉÝÞÿÌØßÌàßËÌËËÿÿÿÿÿÿáÇâÉÿÐÌÿÒãÿäåä
!!!"ÿ ÿ
%&ÿ%'()*ÿ+,-ÿ./..ÿ(0123410532231!6!34ÿ!(1ÿ)3%%!11!340(ÿ%36!34ÿ
63ÿ7!1%!11ÿ8!907ÿ34ÿ%'()*ÿ+/-ÿ./..5(0:ÿ%36!34ÿ63ÿ;3 0(4ÿ8<6<(0ÿ
2(3)007!4;1ÿ
ÿ!4ÿÿ
=4>4?ÿ=4@ABÿ?4BCBADÿEFÿ@GH@4>ÿHEH@AHÿHECHÿEFÿ
CII@HÿÿGJHÿ@GH@4>ÿHEH@AHÿHECHKÿ)'10ÿ43"ÿ<1)'ÿ43"ÿ
./5+L/,ÿ
ÿ
3Mÿ%NOPQÿ+,-ÿ./..RÿSÿTSUVWÿXYÿXZZVUUXY[\]ÿ^V]Z_Y]V0_``abcdcaeÿ[aÿ[fgÿ
X``ghhgg\bRÿS^]ÿiajjcbbcaegkÿladcaeÿ[aÿWcbjcbbÿTchgmÿ_eÿlnkofÿ2pRÿqpqqÿceÿdfgÿrstuvwsxÿ
rsz{v|ÿ}sv|~|{ÿÿztzswÿz{ÿt~ÿÿuvvuztÿuÿÿztzswÿz{ÿt~Rÿ
inbgÿYaÿ]iXÿYaÿqp02pÿ0*!!6ÿ+ÿMÿNQÿOÿNMÿ7 7ÿ
Seÿjÿa``abcdcaeRÿSÿaobgmÿaeÿdfgÿ¡¢_RÿS^]ÿXm£cbakÿiajjcddggÿaeÿ[n¤ÿV¤gj`dÿnemÿ
¥a£gkejgedÿVedcdcgbÿ[V¥V¦Rÿ]ÿ[n¤ÿia kdRÿnemÿdfgÿiajjcbbcaegk\bÿXddakegb\ÿmghc§gkndgÿ
nemÿ¨kabbÿg¤`hacdndcaeÿaÿjÿjgnece¨hgbbÿnemÿecedgedcaenhÿjcbdn©gbÿceÿdfgÿqp2ªÿnemÿqp2«ÿ
¬fcbdhg§ha¬gkÿohncjRÿ¬fgkgÿSÿdcdhgmÿdfgjÿ6Qÿ1®¯P°ÿ6N±ÿ0NMÿNMÿ8ON®-ÿ N°Mÿ
ÿ1P°Mÿ/+²P²³ÿÿ°Qÿ!M°OMNÿ(M®ÿ)ÿÿ+´Lÿµ¶ÿ°Qÿ(·M°ÿÿ°Qÿ<MO°¶ÿ
ÿ)NOMNÿ²<)ÿ7<0ÿ63ÿ<4(09'607ÿ<1!4011ÿ!4)3%0¸ÿ
ÿ[fgÿadfgkÿcbbgÿSÿgj`fnbc¹gmÿceÿjÿa``abcdcaeÿ¬nbÿdfgÿnodÿaÿdfgÿS^]ÿiajjcbbcaegk\bÿ
nddakegbÿkg`kgbgedce¨ÿdfgÿW_ºÿ[n¤ÿWc£cbcaeÿ»89!2ÿ8932¼ÿnk¨jgedbÿceÿdfgckÿ§kcgbÿnemÿjadcaebÿ
ceÿjÿonbgÿrstuvwsxÿrsz{v|ÿ}sv|~|{ÿÿztzswÿz{ÿt~ÿÿuvvuztÿuÿÿztzswÿ
z{ÿt~RÿYaÿ]iXÿYaÿqp02pÿnemÿceÿ½ÿÿuvvuztÿuÿztzswÿz{RÿYaÿqp0
2q3ÿWiÿick¦ÿÿ
[fgÿ§gha¬0`nbdgmÿkn¨jgedÿkajÿjÿp¾¿2¿qpqqÿa``abcdcaeÿcbÿbegn©ÿ̀kg£cg¬ÿdaÿhgdÿdfgÿ¡¢_ÿ
©ea¬ÿ¬fndÿSÿnjÿdnh©ce¨ÿn§adÿceÿbce¨ÿdfgÿdgkjÿ»89!258932"¼ÿÿ
¡nb¹o¹©Rÿceÿ̀n¨gbÿ23ÿnemÿ2ªÿaÿfcbÿladcaeÿ[aÿ¥a£gkeÿT dkgÿZkaoggmce¨bÿSeÿ[fcbÿ
inbgÿmndgmÿlnkofÿ2pRÿqpqqRÿnmmkgbbgmÿdfgÿ»89!2ÿÀÿ8932¸ÿ̀abcdcaeÿ̀kgbgedgmÿ§ÿ
XddakegÿlnddÿºafebaRÿkg`kgbgedce¨ÿdfgÿiajjcbbcaegkÿceÿlnemÿla§hgÿUcÿ£ÿ
iajjÁkÿaÿSedgkenhÿ^g£gegÿinbgÿYaÿqp02q3¦Rÿceÿdfgÿnk¨jgedbÿg¤ofne¨gmÿ¬cdfÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÊËÌÍÿÌÏÐÑÿÒÓÔÕÖ×ÔØÿÿÿÿÿÿÙÚÛÜÝÑÞßÿÒÖàáÓÖÔ×ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿâãäÑåæÿÔàçÔèçÓÔÓÓÿÿÿÿÿÿéÏêÑÿØÖÿÚëÿìíì
!"!ÿ"#$%&#'ÿ(&)*+ÿ,-$+.ÿ/+%$-0'ÿ1+.)+$23.ÿ)&$#.*ÿ'4+ÿ5$-6ÿ7$*&8+.'2ÿ3.ÿ
93:+8;+$ÿ<=ÿ>?>2!ÿ
ÿ@4+ÿ-$*&8+.'2ÿ243Aÿ'4+ÿ"388#22#3.+$B2ÿ&.A#66#.*.+22ÿ'3ÿ-*$++ÿA#'4ÿ(&)*+ÿ
1+.)+$23.ÿ'3ÿ)#28#22ÿ'4+ÿ/#ÿ%-2+ÿ&.)+$ÿ0-62+ÿC$+'+.2+2ÿ30ÿ6-%Dÿ30ÿE&$#2)#%'#3.ÿ
#8C6#+)ÿ;Fÿ'4+ÿ'A3ÿ78#%&2ÿ"&$#-+ÿ%3&$'0-CC3#.'+)ÿ7''3$.+F2=ÿG3;+$'ÿH-$Dÿ/3+;ÿ
-.)ÿG3;+$'ÿG-.:#$ÿI#.*ÿH-.4-2=ÿ0$38ÿ5$$#%D=ÿ1+$$#.*'3.ÿJÿI&'%6#00+=ÿ//K=ÿ;-2+)ÿ
#.ÿI-.ÿL$-.%#2%3=ÿ"7!ÿ
@4+ÿ"388#22#3.+$B2ÿ7''3$.+FÿH-''ÿ(34.23FÿMNOPQRNOSQTÿ-$*&8+.'ÿA#'4ÿ(&)*+ÿ
1+.)+$23.ÿA-2ÿC$+%+)+)ÿ;FÿH$!ÿ(34.23FB2ÿ%3.2#2'+.'ÿ2'-'+8+.'ÿ-2ÿ03&.)ÿ#.ÿC-*+ÿ3ÿ
30ÿ4#2ÿ-.)ÿH$!ÿU$&%+ÿG!ÿV66#2+.B2ÿ7CC+66++B2ÿG+C6Fÿ@3ÿU$#+0ÿ30ÿ78#%&2ÿ"&$#-+ÿ
)-'+)ÿI+C'+8;+$ÿ>>=ÿ>?>2ÿA4+$+ÿ'4+ÿ5(ÿ"388#22#3.+$B2ÿ-''3$.+F2ÿ2'-'+)Wÿ
XYZZ[\\[Y]^_ÿY_[a[]bccdÿeYYfÿeg^ÿhY\[e[Y]ÿ[]ÿg[\ÿi_[^jÿjY_ÿeg^ÿbhh^cc^^ÿkbeÿhhlÿmnÿomp
oqrÿegbeÿeg^ÿsbtÿXYu_eÿgbvÿwu_[\v[xe[Y]ÿYy^_ÿeg[\ÿxb\^ÿu]v^_ÿz{|mqkirk}rnÿbÿy[^~ÿegbeÿ
~b\ÿib\^vÿY]ÿeg^ÿsbtÿXYu_e\ÿh_[Y_ÿh_^x^v^]e\ÿ8ÿ6ÿ7567ÿ 6ÿ
8967ÿ65ÿÿ498ÿb\ÿ~^ccÿb\ÿ_^p^ybcube[]aÿeg^ÿ\ebeueY_dÿe^teÿYjÿ
z{|mqkirnÿeg^ÿXYZZ[\\[Y]^_ÿgb\ÿ_^xY]\[v^_^vÿg[\ÿhY\[e[Y]ÿ75ÿ7 ÿ66ÿ ÿ
498ÿ ÿ 6ÿÿ 8ÿ65ÿ857ÿ ÿ66ÿ 6ÿ667ÿÿÿ
66ÿ9ÿkZhgb\[\ÿYu_\rÿ
ÿ
.ÿb\xufÿylÿXYZZ_ÿXb\^ÿ93!ÿ>?02?=ÿ'4+ÿ"388#22#3.+$B2ÿ7''3$.+F2=ÿH$!ÿ
G#%4-$)ÿK-$D+$ÿ-.)ÿH$!ÿ7.'3.FÿI4++4-.=ÿ#.ÿ'4+#$ÿH3'#3.ÿ'3ÿ#28#22ÿ-2%&DB2ÿ
%-2+ÿ)-'+)ÿH-$%4ÿ2?=ÿ>?>>=ÿC-$$3'+)ÿH$!ÿH-''ÿ(34.23Fÿ-.)ÿH$!ÿU$&%+ÿV66#2+.B2ÿ
L/K0L/5Kÿ7CC+66++B2ÿG+C6Fÿ@3ÿU$#+0ÿ30ÿ78#%&2ÿ"&$#-+ÿ#.ÿ/#B2ÿ"-2+ÿ93!ÿ>?0
2><ÿ)-'+)ÿI+C'+8;+$ÿ>>=ÿ>?>2=ÿ%3.'$-)#%'#.*ÿ'4+#$ÿ3A.ÿ-$*&8+.'2ÿ#.ÿ'4+#$ÿ
7CC+66++B2ÿG+C6FÿU$#+0ÿ0#6+)ÿ3.ÿ7C$#6ÿ>2=ÿ>?>2!ÿ766ÿ03&$ÿ-''3$.+F2ÿ#.ÿ/#B2ÿ"-2+ÿ-.)ÿ
-2%&DB2ÿ"-2+ÿ-$+ÿ0$38ÿ'4+ÿ2-8+ÿ@-ÿ #:#2#3.ÿ500#%+ÿ30ÿ'4+ÿ +C-$'8+.'ÿ30ÿ
(&2'#%+!ÿ
ÿ
Pÿ
ÿ¡ÿ¢£¢¢ÿ¤¥P¦§¨ÿ©¦¦§©ÿS¤¦ÿSNÿQQ§OÿNSÿ¦§ÿ̈P©¦P¦ÿSNÿ
SO¤ªPÿO§«¬©ÿS¨§ÿP¥ÿ4ÿ®¯°ÿ®±²ÿ44®ÿ
³4´ÿµÿ¶ÿ±4ÿ®¯°ÿ¯²4°ÿ··®¡ÿ©§ÿ¥Sÿ̧
¢¹R¹¹º»¡ÿ¼Pÿ§½P©§¨ÿ¦§ÿªP§NP¥¾ÿ©§¨¤O§ÿ¦SÿNPO§ÿNP¥OÿªP§N©ÿ
S¥ÿQPOÿ¹¢¡ÿ¢£¢¢ÿP¥ÿ¦§ÿ¤¥P¦§¨ÿ©¦¦§©ÿS¤¦ÿSNÿQQ§OÿNSÿ¦§ÿ
¨P©¦P¦ÿSNÿSO¤ªPÿ¥¨¦§ÿ̈P©QS©P¥¾ÿ·4®±°ÿ·°ÿÿµÿ··¿ÿ
ÿ®®4ÿµ®²¡ÿ©§ÿ¥Sÿ̧¢£R¹¢ÀÁÿ
ÿ
.ÿ'4+ÿ%33$)#.-'+)ÿ-.)ÿ2F.%4$3.#+)ÿ-%'#3.ÿ30ÿ'4+ÿ#.:36:+)ÿC-$'#+2Bÿ-''3$.+F2ÿ#.ÿÂYcb_ÿ]^_adÿ
Ã]vu\e_[^\ÿÄ\\Yx[be[Y]ÿkÅÂÃÄÆrÿylÿeg^ÿÇ^v^_bcÿ]^_adÿÈ^aucbeY_dÿXYZZ[\\[Y]=ÿ"-2+ÿ93!ÿ>20
22É3=ÿ-.)ÿ'4+ÿ!"!ÿ"#$%&#'ÿ"3&$'ÿ"6+$D=ÿ'4+ÿ!"!ÿ"6+$D=ÿ3.ÿH-$%4ÿ=ÿ>?>>=ÿ#22&+)ÿ-.ÿ3$)+$ÿ$+:#2#.*ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
®¯°ÿ̄²³´ÿµ¶·¸¹º·»ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¼½¾¿À´ÁÂÿµ¹ÃĶ¹·ºÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÅÆḈÈÉÿ·ÃÊ·Ëʶ·¶¶ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̲ʹÿ»¶ÿ½ÎÿÏÐÏ
!"ÿ#$%"&%'(ÿ)*!"+,-"ÿ.ÿ&%-"ÿ&%'/-ÿ#$%"&)ÿ.'ÿ01$%-ÿ223ÿ2422ÿ%'ÿ56708)ÿ*/)"ÿ9:;<=>=?ÿABCÿDEÿFGHIJÿ
KLMNOÿHEKÿPQPRSÿ
ÿÿÿ TULMGÿBVWÿVXVVÿY/)ÿ!"ÿ%'*.Z%'(ÿ)*!"+,-"+ÿ+/[ÿ.ÿ+%)Z%))ÿ!"ÿ\ÿ/11"/-ÿHEKÿ]Dÿ^IOÿ]JOÿ
FH_LM̀H]OKÿDUMEMDEÿÿÿ*.0/,!.$"+ÿÿ#[ÿa$$%*b3ÿc"$$%'(.'ÿdÿ5,*-%&&"ÿeefÿ/.$'"[)ÿg.##%"ÿh/'!/)ÿ
/'+ÿg.#"$ÿhSÿe."#ÿ%'ÿ!"ÿijklmÿinopqmÿstÿuvÿwnxxyzÿn{ÿ|k}qzkjpÿ~quqkq3ÿ22ÿS!ÿ242ÿ9SSÿ%$Sÿ
2422ÿ*/)"ÿ.ÿ+%)Z%))ÿZ[ÿ/11"/-ÿ%'ÿjznpjÿjkÿjÿuvÿwnxxttnkqzÿn{ÿ}qÿ|k}qzkjpÿ~quqkqÿ
qzutq3ÿ/)"ÿ.Sÿ50ÿ.Sÿ2402433ÿY!%*!ÿ%)ÿ%'+%$"*-[ÿ$"-/"+ÿ.ÿnpjzÿkqzmÿ|kl}ztqÿ
ntj}tnkÿ|ÿuvÿ}qÿqlqzjpÿkqzmÿ~qpj}nzmÿwnxxttnk3ÿ/)"ÿ.Sÿ22022Sÿÿ
EÿTULMGÿBVWÿVXVV3ÿ!"ÿSSÿ%$*,%ÿ.,$ÿ%)),"+ÿ/ÿZ/'+/"ÿ%'ÿ\8)ÿ*/)"ÿ)/%'(ÿ:;<=>=?ÿABÿ
DEÿFGHIJÿKLMNOÿHEKÿPQPÿ
=EÿH``DLKHE`OÿM]Jÿ]JOÿ^K ¡OE]ÿDFÿ¢HE^HL£ÿBBWÿVXVVWÿHEKÿU^LI^HE]ÿ]Dÿ
¤OKOLHGÿ¥^GOÿDFÿTUUOGGH]Oÿ¦LD`OK^LOÿ§BWÿ]JMIÿ̀DEI]M]^]OIÿ]JOÿFDL¡HGÿ
¡HEKH]OÿDFÿ]JMIÿ̀D^L]ÿ̈
ÿ
©!"ÿZ/'+/"ÿY/)ÿ%)),"+ÿ/11$.ª%Z/"-[ÿ.'"ÿZ.'!ÿ/&"$ÿ7ÿ&%-"+ÿZ[ÿZ.%.'ÿ.ÿ(.«"$'ÿ&,,$"ÿ
1$.*""+%'()ÿ%'ÿZ[ÿ/11"/-ÿ/'+ÿZ[ÿh/$*!ÿ233ÿ2422ÿ.11.)%%.'ÿ.ÿ!"ÿh/$*!ÿ243ÿ2422ÿ.ZZ%))%.'"$8)ÿ
h.%.'ÿ.ÿ%)Z%))ÿZ[ÿ/11"/-Sÿÿ
ÿÿÿ Eÿ]JOÿIH¡OÿKH£WÿTULMGÿBVWÿVXVV3ÿe%8)ÿ/11"/-ÿY/)ÿ"'%$"-[ÿ+%)Z%))"+ÿ/'+ÿ!"ÿZ/))%«"ÿ*.,$ÿ
&%-%'(ÿ.&ÿ#$%"&)ÿ%'ÿ!"ÿSSÿ%$*,%8)ÿ|ÿ*/)"3ÿÿ.Sÿ220223ÿ.**,$$"+ÿ9)""ÿ!"ÿ|ÿ*/)"8)ÿ+.*b"ÿ
1$%'.,3ÿ:;<=>=?ÿAB¬ÿDEÿFGHIJÿKLMNOÿHEKÿPQPSÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ghijÿilmnÿopqrstquÿÿÿÿÿÿvwxyzn{|ÿos}~psqtÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿnÿq}q pqppÿÿÿÿÿÿlnÿuÿwÿ
ÿ
!"ÿ#$%%&'(ÿ*&+&,-ÿ./ÿ012"/3ÿ.4ÿ5!"ÿ367"ÿ869ÿ09ÿ6::ÿ;6152"3ÿ24ÿ5!"ÿ<=>?ÿ@63"ÿ3!.A3ÿ5!65ÿ655.14"93ÿ
24ÿ5!23ÿ@63"ÿB4"Aÿ5!65ÿ79ÿ6;;"6:ÿA.C:8ÿ0"ÿ8237233"8ÿ6/5"1ÿ5!"ÿD.C15ÿE64865"ÿA63ÿ233C"8ÿ24ÿFGHIJÿ
FLMNOJÿPQÿRSÿTLUUVWÿLXÿYHZOWHGNÿ[OROH\O]ÿ^^ÿ_à5!ÿ2b2aÿcdD̀ÿ̀D21ÿ̀^b^^eÿ.4ÿ?;12:ÿ2^fÿ^b^^ÿ̀ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
±²³´ÿ³¶·¸ÿ¹º»¼½¾»¿ÿÿÿÿÿÿÀÁÂÃĸÅÆÿ¹½ÇȺ½»¾ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÉÊȨ̈ÌÍÿ»ÇλÏκ»ººÿÿÿÿÿÿжѸÿ¿¾ÿÁÒÿÓÔÓ
!"#ÿ$%&'()*+$,ÿ-$ÿ.'ÿ/''0ÿ1().!$)ÿ"%.'ÿ2!*.ÿ*%,ÿ2!'ÿ"#ÿ3$!"%,ÿ.!$ÿ4567ÿ&*#$8ÿ9':ÿ;2022<=8ÿ
*%,ÿ2!>ÿ.!"#ÿ&*#$ÿ"#ÿ!*??$%"%+:ÿÿ
ÿ
A1.$)ÿÿ.!$ÿCDEÿF'--"##"'%$)ÿ1"/$,ÿ*ÿ-'."'%ÿ.'ÿ,"#-"##ÿ'%ÿG*)&!ÿ2H8ÿ;H;;ÿ*%,ÿ->ÿ'??'#"."'%ÿ
.'ÿ.!*.ÿ-'."'%ÿ2*#ÿ1"/$,ÿG*)&!ÿ2I8ÿ;H2;:ÿ!$ÿF'().ÿ,",ÿ%'.ÿ"%1')-ÿ-$8ÿ$".!$)ÿ3$1')$ÿ')ÿ*1.$)ÿ.!$ÿ
-*%,*.$ÿ2*#ÿ"##($,ÿ"%ÿJKLÿ2!$.!$)ÿ->ÿ*??$*/ÿ2*#ÿ#."//ÿ"%ÿ*3$>*%&$ÿ')ÿ%'.8ÿ"1ÿCÿ&'(/,ÿ$N?$&.ÿ*ÿF'().ÿ
)(/"%+ÿ'%ÿ->ÿG*)&!ÿ2H8ÿ;H;;01"/$,ÿ-'."'%ÿ.'ÿ+'O$)%ÿ1(.()$ÿ?)'&$$,"%+#8ÿ')ÿ'%ÿ.!$ÿCDEÿF'--"##"'%$)P#ÿ
-'."'%ÿ.'ÿ,"#-"##:ÿÿ
A1.$)ÿ.!$ÿO$)>ÿO*+($ÿ*%,ÿ*-3"+('(#ÿ.'ÿ-$ÿ&'().ÿ-*%,*.$ÿ"%ÿJKQRÿ&*#$ÿ2*#ÿ"##($,8ÿ->ÿ.!'(+!.ÿ
2*#ÿ.'ÿ1"/$ÿ*ÿ-'."'%ÿ)$S($#."%+ÿ*ÿ#.*.(#ÿ(?,*.$ÿ'%ÿ.!$ÿ'%+'"%+ÿ*??$*/ÿ"%ÿ.!$ÿ*3'O$0&*?."'%$,ÿ&*#$8ÿ
TUVWRXUYÿTUZ[R\ÿ]UR\^\[_ÿ`aÿ6b4ÿcWddKRRKWZeV8ÿfEFAÿ9':ÿ;H02gHI8ÿ"%ÿ/"+!.ÿ'1ÿ.!$ÿE$?.$-3$)ÿ2h8ÿ
;H;2ÿi:F:ÿF")&(".ÿF'().ÿj),$)8ÿ2!"&!ÿ!$/,ÿ.!"#ÿ&*#$ÿ"%ÿ*3$>*%&$ÿ(%."/ÿJKÿ̀aÿcWddKRRKWZeVÿWkÿ6ZleVZUXÿ
be`eZ[e8ÿF*#$ÿ9':ÿ;H02;ghÿmi:F:ÿF"):nÿ2*#ÿ,"#?'#$,:ÿo'2$O$)8ÿ*1.$)ÿ)$*,"%+ÿ.2'ÿ*)."&/$#ÿ*3'(.ÿp"P#ÿ
&*#$ÿ*%,ÿ->ÿi:F:ÿF")&(".ÿ2!"#./$3/'2$)ÿ&*#$ÿ'%ÿp*2<=H8ÿ,*.$,ÿHgq;;q;H;2ÿ*%,ÿH<q2Hq;H;;ÿ*%,ÿ."./$,ÿ
rstuvwÿxyz{|ÿ}~ÿ~yÿtÿ}|||ÿ ÿ|w{t{yÿ~|{ÿ*%,ÿr}~ÿ~yÿxyz{ÿtÿyÿ
ÿ|w{t{yÿyÿ}{ÿÿÿtÿ|ÿyu{ÿÿ}}n8ÿCÿ&*-$ÿ*&)'##ÿ*%'.!$)ÿ
p*2<=Hÿ*)."&/$ÿ,*.$,ÿH;q2hq;;8ÿr ~ÿ}{{|ÿx ÿzwÿ {tÿtyÿtyÿyt{w|ÿ"%ÿ
2!"&!ÿUdK^[Rÿ^[VKUeÿ*??'"%.$,ÿ3>ÿ.!$ÿi:F:ÿF")&(".ÿ"%ÿ UZ¡¢ÿW£Xe¢ÿJKÿ̀aÿcWddQVÿWkÿ6ZleVZUXÿbe`eZ[eÿ
0F*#$ÿ9':ÿ;H02;ghÿ,$&/"%$,ÿ.'ÿ&'--$%.ÿ'%ÿ¤¥DFP#ÿ3)"$1ÿ)$+*),"%+ÿi:F:ÿF")&(".ÿF*#$ÿ9':ÿfEFAÿ¦;20
22;=ÿ4WXUVÿ5ZeV§¢ÿ6Z¡[RlVKeRÿ7RRW^KUlKWZÿ¨©4567ª«ÿ`aÿl¬eÿe¡eVUXÿ5ZeV§¢ÿbe§[XUlWV¢ÿcWddKRRKWZÿ
1"/$,ÿ3>ÿ¤¥DFÿ'%ÿH;q2Hq;H;;ÿÿ®¯ÿtÿ|ÿyu{ÿÿ}}n:ÿA..')%$>ÿD'3$).ÿp'$3P#ÿ
"%O'/O$-$%.ÿ*.ÿ.!$ÿ#*-$ÿ."-$ÿ"%ÿJKQRÿ2!"#./$3/'2$)ÿ&*#$ÿ*%,ÿ4567P#ÿ&*#$ÿ/$,ÿ.'ÿ1().!$)ÿ)$#$*)&!ÿ*%,ÿ.'ÿ
->ÿ#(3-"##"'%ÿ'1ÿ.!"#ÿ2!"#./$3/'2$)ÿ&/*"-ÿ¤')-ÿ;22ÿ.'ÿ)$?').ÿÿ-(/."0-"//"'%0,'//*)ÿ.*Nÿ$O*#"'%ÿ*%,ÿ
1)*(,ÿÿ&'--"..$,ÿ3>ÿ.!$ÿD$+$%.#ÿ'1ÿ.!$ÿf%"O$)#".>ÿ'1ÿF*/"1')%"*ÿ')q*%,ÿ.!$ÿf%"O$)#".>ÿ'1ÿF*/"1')%"*ÿ
j11"&$ÿ'1ÿ.!$ÿ°)$#",$%.ÿmfFj°nÿ$N$&(."O$#8ÿ"%ÿ&'//*3')*."'%ÿ2".!ÿ.!$ÿF*/"1')%"*ÿC%,$?$%,$%.ÿE>#.$-ÿ
j?$)*.')ÿmFACEjn8ÿ3>ÿ?()&!*#"%+ÿ*%,ÿ)$#$//"%+ÿ$/$&.)"&*/ÿ$%$)+>ÿ1')ÿ.*N01)$$ÿ?)'1".#ÿ1)'-ÿ.!$ÿ.!)$$ÿ
#'/*)ÿ?'2$)ÿ?/*%.#8ÿ"%ÿO"'/*."'%ÿ'1ÿ.*N0$N$-?.ÿ#.*.(#ÿ'(./"%$,ÿ"%ÿE$&."'%ÿhH2m&nm<n:ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ¡¢ÿ£¤¥¦§¨¥©ÿÿÿÿÿÿª«¬®¢¯°ÿ£§±²¤§¥¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ³µ́¢¶·ÿ¥±¥̧¹¤̧¥¤¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿº »¢ÿ©¹ÿ«¼ÿ½¾½
!ÿ ÿ
$%&ÿ'()&ÿ*+ÿ,-,,ÿ.!/!ÿ/01/(0$ÿ/2(1$ÿ21.&1ÿ3%0/%ÿ.045044&.ÿ56ÿ788&79ÿ
0)ÿ:4;4<ÿ:4=>?ÿ<4?@?>AÿBCÿÿ@DD=E+ÿ/74&ÿ)2!ÿ,-F*G-Hÿ
ÿ
2Iÿ'JIKÿ*+ÿ,-,,LÿMNOÿPQRQÿRSTUVSMÿRWVTMÿXSYZSYYOXÿZ[ÿU\YOÿ]^_`ab^cÿ]^efagÿh^agigfjÿklÿmnoÿ
p`qqraar̀es_LÿtuRvÿwWQÿ230xy3zLÿ{[ÿ\ÿRWVTMÿ|TXOTÿYM\MS}~ÿ& %00$ÿ,*ÿIÿÿKÿIÿ
..ÿ
ÿ
21.&1&.ÿ ÿKÿIÿÿÿKÿIKÿIÿKÿKÿKÿKÿÿÿ
ÿJKÿ KÿJIÿJIKÿ,ÿ(!4!/!ÿÿH,G!ÿ4KKÿ9ÿ!ÿ/ÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
½¾¿Àÿ¿ÂÃÄÿÅÆÇÈÉÊÇËÿÿÿÿÿÿÌÍÎÏÐÄÑÒÿÅÉÓÔÆÉÇÊÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÕÖ×ÄØÙÿÇÓÚÇÛÚÆÇÆÆÿÿÿÿÿÿÜÂÝÄÿËÔÿÍÞÿßàß
!"#$!%&ÿ(#)#!*#+ÿ,,ÿ-./"0ÿ121/+ÿ1213ÿ45.6.ÿ67$.ÿ,2,,8.ÿ90#ÿ:%;#ÿ7;ÿ0#$#<=ÿ$#>%!?#?ÿ"@ÿ
"0#ÿ9%Aÿ6@*$"ÿB7"0ÿ7!;"$*:"7@!;ÿ"@ÿ?@ÿ"0#ÿ;%>#.ÿ
CDEÿFGHEGÿHIJKIJJILMÿKNÿOPPEOQÿROJÿIJJSEHÿT@*$ÿ?%=;ÿ%T"#$ÿ"0#ÿ$#!@>7!%"7@!ÿ<=ÿU$#;7?#!"ÿV7?#!ÿ
@Tÿ"0#ÿ60%7$>%!ÿ@Tÿ"0#ÿ-#?#$%&ÿW!#$X=ÿ(#X*&%"@$=ÿ6@>>7;;7@!ÿ4-W(68ÿ(7:0%$?ÿY&7:Z[ÿRD\ÿROJÿ
]IGJ^ÿL\KILO^EHÿ^\ÿ^DEÿP\J^ÿ\Lÿ_OLSOGNÿ23[ÿ2`23aÿCDEÿGEL\KILO^I\LÿROJÿJEL^ÿ^\ÿ^DEÿbELO^Eÿ\LÿcONÿ2d[ÿ
2`22ÿRI^Dÿ^DEÿGEe\KKELHO^I\LfÿghIeDOGHÿiQIej[ÿ\]ÿkIGMILIO[ÿ^\ÿlEÿOÿcEKlEGÿ\]ÿ^DEÿmEHEGOQÿnLEGMNÿ
hEMSQO^\GNÿo\KKIJJI\Lÿ]\GÿOÿ^EGKÿEpPIGILMÿ_SLEÿq`[ÿ2`2rÿshEOPP\IL^KEL^tauÿÿ
ÿ
v .ÿ ÿ
xyzWÿ12+ÿ,2,,+ÿÿ{UUW||{z9}~ÿz9 6Wÿ-ÿVxW69 z+ÿ6V zW5ÿ 9ÿ9 zÿ
-(ÿ(W6z~5W({9 zÿ-ÿ9Wÿ221,2,,ÿ6y(9ÿ(5W(ÿ 6ÿY({z9W5ÿ
{UUW||WWÿÿ(~ÿÿ6 ~~zW(ÿÿ9 zÿ9ÿ5 ~ ~~ÿ ÿ{UUW{|ÿ44+ÿ
4ÿ4ÿÿÿÿ6{~Wÿÿz.ÿ,21/23ÿ
ÿ
!ÿx*!#ÿ12+ÿ,2,,[ÿÿ]IQEHÿILÿ^DEÿaoaÿoIGeSI^ÿOLÿPPEQQOL^Jÿ\^IeEÿ\]ÿFlEe^I\L[ÿo\KlILEHÿRI^Dÿ
@"7@!ÿT@$ÿ(#:@!;7?#$%"7@!ÿ\]ÿ^DEÿ``32`22ÿo\SG^ÿFGHEGÿDIeDÿiGOL^EHÿPPEQQEEÿc\^I\Lÿ^\ÿ
IJKIJJ[ÿELIEHÿPPEQQOL^Jÿc\^I\LJÿ^\ÿi\EGLÿmS^SGEÿG\eEEHILMJ[ÿOLHÿIJKIJJEHÿLSJ^QNÿIJÿ
PPEOQÿsWv V 9ÿ,,ÿ@!ÿT&%;0ÿ?$7)#ÿ%!?ÿ5¡58.ÿ
LÿKNÿ_SLEÿ3`[ÿ2`220]IQEHÿc\^I\Lÿ]\GÿhEe\LJIHEGO^I\L[ÿRDIeDÿIJÿlOJEHÿ\Lÿ
LERÿEIHELeEÿOLHÿ]Oe^J[ÿÿGE¢SEJ^EHÿ^DO^ÿ^DEÿo\SG^ÿJE^ÿOJIHEÿ^DEÿ_SLEÿ3[ÿ2`22ÿo\SG^ÿ
FGHEGÿOLHÿGEIERÿKNÿeOJEÿRI^D\S^ÿPOG^IOQI^N[ÿlIOJ[ÿ\GÿHIJeGIKILO^I\LÿOLHÿ^DO^ÿI^ÿ
IJJSEÿOÿPG\PEGÿHEeIJI\LaÿLÿKNÿK\^I\L[ÿÿ]\eSJEHÿ\Lÿ^DEÿIL^EG]EGELeEÿILÿKNÿeOJEÿlNÿ
^R\ÿO^^\GLENJ[ÿh\lEG^ÿcOLDOJÿOLHÿh\lEG^ÿcaÿ£\El[ÿ]G\KÿFGGIej[ÿEGGILM^\Lÿ¤ÿ
bS^eQI]]Eÿ££ÿ\]ÿbOLÿmGOLeIJe\[ÿOLHÿ^DEIGÿSLQOR]SQÿ^OKPEGILMÿRI^Dÿ^DEÿ
OHKILIJ^GO^I\Lÿ\]ÿSJ^IeE[ÿRDIeDÿeOSJEHÿ^DO^ÿKNÿOPPEOQÿÿROJÿSLSJ^QNÿHIJKIJJEHaÿLÿ
GE]EGELeEÿ^\ÿ^DEÿ^R\ÿO^^\GLENJ[ÿh\lEG^ÿcOLDOJÿOLHÿh\lEG^ÿcaÿ£\ElÿIL^EG]EGELeEÿÿ
OLHÿHI\GeEÿRDIJ^QElQ\REGÿ¥¦§¨©ÿ¥«¬®©ÿ̄°ÿ±²ÿ³«´´µ¶ÿ«·ÿ̧§¹®¶§¦ÿº®±®§»®¼ÿ22ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡¢ÿ£¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¥¦§¨©ÿ£ª«ªÿÿÿÿÿÿ¬ÿÿ®ÿ̄°¯
!"#ÿ$%$!ÿ&'(ÿ()*ÿ2%22+ÿ,-./ÿ0ÿ/12*/../3ÿ45ÿ6)7)89ÿ-:;<"ÿ'(ÿ()*,<)"ÿ
%=>%$>2%22ÿ'/,).);8ÿ)8ÿ45ÿÿ4;");8ÿ6;*ÿ*/,;8.)3/*-");8ÿ;8ÿ2-9/ÿ?ÿ@ÿ=ÿ-.ÿ6;77;Aÿÿ
B;/:ÿ-83ÿC-8#-.D.ÿ4)..);8ÿ;6ÿ<.)89ÿB)D.ÿE3)F;*,/ÿA#)."7/:7;A/*ÿ,-./ÿGÿ-83ÿ
H*;-3F)/AÿI;7-*JÿBB(ÿ,-./.ÿ";ÿ*/4;F/ÿK-.L,L<MD.ÿÿ-22/-7ÿ6*;4ÿ"#/ÿ'(ÿ()*,<)"ÿ
(;<*"ÿA)"#ÿ"#/ÿ#/72ÿ;6ÿ'NOÿP-1ÿ')F).);8ÿ-"";*8/5.ÿ).ÿ:-.),-775ÿ"#/ÿ.-4/ÿ-.ÿ"#/ÿ
4)..);8ÿ;6ÿ"#/ÿ6;*4/*ÿQ8)F/*.)"5ÿ;6ÿ(-7)6;*8)-ÿÿR1/,<")F/ÿS),/ÿT*/.)3/8"ÿO<3)"#ÿ
H;5/""/ÿ)8ÿ"#/ÿ0UIÿV3F).;*5ÿ(;44)""//ÿ;8ÿP-1ÿR1/42"ÿ-83ÿW;F/*84/8"ÿR8")")/.ÿ
&PRWR+ÿ2*/./8"/3ÿ:5ÿK-.L,L<Mÿ)8ÿ#).ÿ6)7/3ÿ)8ÿ"#/ÿQÿIÿP-1ÿ(;<*"ÿÿ;8ÿO<8/ÿ2XÿJ2%2%ÿÿ
"#/ÿÿC;");8ÿP;ÿS-,-"/ÿN*ÿU/F)./ÿP#/ÿQÿIÿP-1ÿ(;<*"ÿC/4;*-83<4ÿN2)8);8ÿV83ÿ
N*3/*ÿV83ÿ'/,).);8ÿ08ÿK-.L,L<MÿSÿ(;44)..);8/*ÿUÿP(ÿC/4;ÿ2%2%0Y?ÿ
&QIP(ÿO<8/ÿ!Jÿ2%2%+ÿÿP#/ÿC;");8ÿA-.ÿ3;,M/3ÿA)"#ÿ"#/ÿK-.L,L<MD.ÿ-22/-7ÿ
*/,;*3ÿ)8ÿ"#/ÿ'ÿ(ÿ()*,<)"ÿ(;<*"ÿ-83ÿ2*;F)3/3ÿ-.ÿ"#/ÿV22/83)1ÿZ;ÿ[ÿA)"#ÿ6)7/3ÿ;8ÿ
)8ÿ'(ÿ()*,<)"ÿH*ÿ
#""2.]>>AAA.,*):3,;4>3;,<4/8">!=Y!%[X^[>2%2%%=2X0C;");80";0S-,-"/0;*0
U/F)./0)7/30Q0I0P-10(;<*"ÿ
H;5/""/ÿA-.ÿ3).2-",#/3ÿ)8ÿO<8/ÿ2%$=ÿ";ÿPRWRÿ:5ÿQ(ÿT*/.)3/8"ÿO-8/"ÿZ-2;7)"-8;Jÿ
_<."ÿ-6"/*ÿK-.L,L<Mÿ#)*/3ÿ-8ÿ/12/*)/8,/3ÿ-"";*8/5ÿ6*;4ÿ"#/ÿ2*/.")9);<.ÿB;.ÿ
V89/7/.0:-./3ÿ7-Aÿ6)*4ÿH-<4Jÿ`/37<83JÿV*)."/)ÿ@ÿW;734-8ÿB-Aÿ(;*2;*-");8ÿ";ÿ
#-837/ÿ#).ÿC-*,#ÿ2^Jÿ2%$=ÿ4<7")4)77);8ÿ"-1ÿ/F-.);8ÿ-83ÿ6*-<3ÿ,7-)4ÿ,-./ÿ
,;8,/*8)89ÿA#)."7/:7;A/*ÿ,7-)4ÿ;*4ÿ2$$ÿ-83ÿ-ÿ,*)4/ÿ,;44)""/3ÿ:5ÿQ8)F/*.)"5ÿ;6ÿ
(-7)6;*8)-ÿ/1/,<")F/.ÿ)8ÿ,;77-:;*-");8ÿA)"#ÿ(V0INÿÿ
#""2.]>>AAA.,*):3,;4>3;,<4/8">!Y=YY?2X2>QP(02%$=%?$[0Q(0T*/.)3/8"0
O-8/"0Z-2;7)"-8;0C//".0T*/.)3/8"0N:-4-0S),/0T*/.)3/8"0H)3/80H0'RZÿ
P#/ÿ#).";*5ÿ;6ÿ,;**<2");8ÿÿ;*,#/."*-"/3ÿ:5ÿZ-2;7)"-8;ÿ-83ÿH;5/""/ÿ)8ÿ"#/ÿ
KHNÿ-83ÿPRWRÿ*/2/-"/3ÿ)"./76ÿ)8ÿ"#/ÿ'/2-*"4/8"ÿ;6ÿO<."),/JÿP-1ÿ')F).);8ÿ
-83ÿ'(ÿ()*,<)"ÿ(;<*"ÿÿ
0ÿ.2/,)6),-775ÿ6;,<./3ÿ;8ÿabcdefÿfhijklmncbjfÿ-83ÿ<8<.<-7ÿ-,")F)")/.ÿ)8ÿ45ÿ
,-./ÿ-83ÿ#).ÿ*/2*/./8"-");8ÿ;6ÿ"#/ÿ.;7-*ÿ2;A/*ÿ2*;3<,/*.ÿH*;-3F)/AÿI;7-*ÿBB(ÿ-83ÿ
H*;-3ÿU/-,#ÿT;A/*ÿ)8ÿ"#/ÿ/3/*-7ÿR8/*95ÿU/9<7-";*5ÿ(;44)..);8ÿ&RU(+ÿ-83ÿ
'(ÿ()*,<)"ÿ(;<*"ÿ,-./ÿopqrsÿtuvswxÿyuz{|}s~v|ÿ||p~r}~puÿotyÿÿ}vÿ
vzvsrqÿtuvswxÿvw{qr}psxÿp~||~puÿ(-./ÿQI(Vÿ2$0$$2JÿA#),#ÿ7/3ÿ";ÿ"#/ÿ
.<:4)..);8ÿ;6ÿP`0IÿV227),-");8ÿ6;*ÿVA-*3ÿ6;*ÿN*)9)8-7ÿ086;*4-");8ÿ&0UIÿ;*4ÿ
2$$ÿA#)."7/:7;A/*ÿ,7-)4 ÿÿ
0ÿ22ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
º»¼½ÿ¼¿ÀÁÿÂÃÄÅÆÇÄÈÿÿÿÿÿÿÉÊËÌÍÁÎÏÿÂÆÐÑÃÆÄÇÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÒÓÔÁÕÖÿÄÐ×ÄØ×ÃÄÃÃÿÿÿÿÿÿÙ¿ÚÁÿÈÛÿÊÜÿÝÛÝ
!"ÿ#$%%$&ÿ#'()"ÿ'&*ÿ+,$(&*ÿ-$,ÿ./012ÿ456278ÿ95:;<=2>6<ÿ?<</@>1=>/5ÿAB.49?CDÿEFÿ=G6ÿH6:6210ÿ
456278ÿI67;01=/28ÿJ/KK><<>/5ÿL')"ÿMNLOÿP2Q0QQ2ÿ'&*ÿR12/<01SÿR15;<TÿU1<T@T;VÿEFÿ9I.ÿ
J/KK><<>/562WÿMNLOÿX$Yÿ2Z0Q[Z\ÿÿ])ÿ^!"ÿÿ_`abÿ_defÿgdhÿiijkÿlmnomÿnpÿqÿbresntnoqsnduÿdtÿ
vwqxntnryÿzsqswpÿ{v_|ÿzsqswpÿtdeÿzfqxxÿ}dlreÿ}edywosnduÿquyÿbd~rureqsnduÿ_qonxnsnrphÿ
O&ÿ",)$&ÿ)""]&+ÿ^$ÿ#",^]-ÿ'ÿ-'#]]^ÿ')ÿ'ÿ(']-]&+ÿ-'#]]^ÿ(,)('&^ÿ^$ÿ)"#^]$&)ÿ
3Q\ÿ$,ÿ3Qÿ$-ÿ^!"ÿ"*",'ÿ$",ÿO#^WÿQÿMYNYLYÿ\3Q\Wÿ3QWÿ(&"))ÿ
$^!",])"ÿ""%^"*ÿ$,ÿ+,'&^"*ÿ'ÿ']",ÿÿL$%%]))]$&ÿ,("ÿ$,ÿ$,*",ÿ(,)('&^ÿ^$ÿ
ÿ22Y2Z3*Wÿ%()^ÿ#$%"^"ÿ'&*ÿ-]"ÿ^!"ÿ$,%ÿ$-ÿL",^]-]#'^]$&ÿ$-ÿ(']-]&+ÿ
'#]]^ÿÿN^'^()ÿ-$,ÿ'ÿN%'ÿ$",ÿ,$*(#^]$&ÿ$,ÿL$+"&",'^]$&ÿ'#]]^WÿLÿ
$,%ÿX$YÿYÿ",ÿ$,%ÿ$-ÿL",^]-]#'^]$&ÿ$-ÿ(']-]&+ÿN^'^()ÿ%()^ÿ"ÿ)(%]^^"*ÿ
$&ÿ^!"ÿLÿ$,%ÿX$Yÿÿ^!"&ÿ]&ÿ"--"#^ÿ'&*ÿ%()^ÿ"ÿ,"',"*ÿ]&ÿ'##$,*'&#"ÿ]^!ÿ
^!"ÿ]&)^,(#^]$&)ÿ]&#$,$,'^"*ÿ]&ÿ^!'^ÿ-$,%YÿG==<SSSF6@2F7/E@;2265==>=06
@G1=629<;@G1=6212=<6@=>/5Fÿ
Lÿ]&)^]^(^"*ÿ]^)ÿ$,%ÿX$Yÿÿ-]]&+ÿ,"(],"%"&^ÿ]&ÿ",(',ÿQYÿ&ÿ(&"ÿQWÿ2ZQZWÿ
Lÿ]&)^]^(^"*ÿ'&ÿ""#^,$&]#'ÿ-]"'"ÿ$,%ÿX$YÿYÿN]&#"ÿ^!"&Wÿ""#^,$&]#ÿ-]]&+ÿ$-ÿ^!])ÿ-$,%ÿ
!')ÿ"#$%"ÿ%'&*'^$,ÿ-$,ÿ'ÿ)%'ÿ$",ÿ,$*(#^]$&ÿ'&*ÿ#$+"&",'^]$&ÿ-'#]]^]")Yÿ!])ÿ$##(,,"*ÿ
'-^",ÿ^!"ÿ(]#ÿM^]]^ÿ"+('^$,ÿ$]#]")ÿO#^ÿ$-ÿQ\ÿMO ÿ')ÿ]%"%"&^"*ÿ^$ÿ"&#$(,'+"¡ÿ
¢ÿ^!"ÿ#$&)",'^]$&ÿ$-ÿ""#^,]#ÿ"&",+ÿ
¢ÿ]&#,"')"*ÿ"--]#]"&#ÿ]&ÿ^!"ÿ()"ÿ$-ÿ-'#]]^]")ÿ'&*ÿ,")$(,#")ÿÿ""#^,]#ÿ(^]]^]")Yÿ
¤!"&ÿ¥ÿ,"'*ÿLÿ¦$#"^)ÿÿÿ\0[[0ZZÿ'&*ÿÿÿ\0[[0ZZ\Wÿ,"'^"*ÿ^$ÿ§,$'*ÿ"'#!ÿ$",ÿ,$¨"#^)ÿ
]&ÿ©$&^'&'ÿ§,$'*]"ÿN$',ÿªªLWÿ!]#!ÿ',"ÿ)(¨"#^)ÿ$-ÿ^!"ÿ"&*]&+ÿ./012ÿ456278ÿ95:;<=2>6<ÿ
?<</@>1=>/5ÿAB.49?CDÿEFÿ=G6ÿH6:6210ÿ456278ÿI67;01=/28ÿJ/KK><<>/5WÿL')"ÿMNLOÿP2Q0QQ2Wÿ¥ÿ)",]$()ÿ
^!$(+!^ÿ^!'^ÿ^!])ÿ')ÿ'ÿ"*",'ÿ§(,"'(ÿ$-ÿ¥&")^]+'^]$&ÿ§¥ÿ)^]&+ÿ$",'^]$&ÿ]&")^]+'^]&+ÿ#$,,(^]$&ÿ
]&ÿ^!"ÿLÿ)]%]',ÿ^$ÿ^!"ÿQ«Qÿ_¬ÿ!"ÿ
ÿnuÿzqoeqfrusdÿkÿbqxntdeunqÿ®udluÿqpÿz¯a°}zb±°Yÿ,$%ÿQÿ^!,$(+!ÿ
QWÿ^!"ÿ§¥ÿ#$&*(#^"*ÿ'ÿ,]",ÿ'&*ÿ)"#]'ÿ]&^",")^ÿ)^]&+ÿ$",'^]$&ÿ^$ÿ]&")^]+'^"ÿ#$,,(^]$&ÿ]&ÿ^!"ÿ
L']-$,&]'ÿ)^'^"ÿ"+])'^(,"Yÿ`²¯¬³ÿ́µ¶ÿduÿtxqpmÿyen·rÿquyÿ̧¹¸ÿ
!"ÿ$",'^]$&ÿ')ÿ&'%"*ÿz¯a°}zb±°ÿ"#'()"ÿ^!"ÿ§¥ÿ'+"&^)ÿ$)"*ÿ')ÿ,",")"&^'^]")ÿ$-ÿ'ÿ
)!,]%0,$#"))]&+ÿ#$%'&ÿ$--",]&+ÿ#'%']+&ÿ#$&^,](^]$&)ÿ^$ÿ'%'",)ÿ]&ÿ"#!'&+"ÿ-$,ÿ"+])'^]$&ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
VWXYÿX[\]ÿ^_`abc`dÿÿÿÿÿÿefghi]jkÿ^blm_b`cÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿnop]qrÿ̀ls̀ts_`__ÿÿÿÿÿÿu[v]ÿdlÿfwÿxyx
!"#$!%&'ÿ(#ÿ()'*$ÿ+#$,#$!(*#-.ÿ/ÿ+#0,&'ÿ#ÿ()'ÿ%*&&1ÿ2'$'ÿ!+(0!&&3ÿ,!11'4ÿ%3ÿ%#()ÿ()'ÿ5!&*#$-*!ÿ
/11'6%&3ÿ!-4ÿ()'ÿ5!&*#$-*!ÿ7'-!('8ÿ%0(ÿ()'ÿ9#"'$-#$ÿ"'(#'4ÿ()'6.ÿÿ
:)'ÿ#,'$!(*#-ÿ1'-(ÿ5!&*#$-*!ÿ;#!$4ÿ#ÿ<=0!&*>!(*#-ÿ6'6%'$ÿ?!0&ÿ5!$,'-('$ÿ(#ÿ,$*1#-.ÿ@-ÿ!44*(*#-ÿ(#ÿ
5!$,'-('$8ÿ()$''ÿ6'6%'$1ÿ#ÿ()'ÿ1(!('ÿ&'9*1&!(0$'ÿ1,'-(ÿ(*6'ÿ*-ÿA!*&Bÿ/11'6%&36!-ÿCDEFÿHIFDH8ÿ()'ÿ
6*-#$*(3ÿ&'!4'$ÿ!(ÿ()'ÿ(*6'ÿ#ÿ()'ÿ$!*4ÿJ?!$4#-'4ÿ%ÿ?$'1*4'-(ÿ:$06,ÿ*-ÿ2KLMNÿ8ÿ!-4ÿ7(!('ÿ7'-!(#$1ÿO#1',)ÿ
P#-(#3!ÿ!-4ÿQ$!-RÿS*&&.ÿ)((,1BTT'-.2*R*,'4*!.#$9T2*R*T;U@7?<51(*-9#,'$!(*#-ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ¡¢£¤¡¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦§¨©ª«¬ÿ£® £¡¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°±²³ÿ¡´¡µ´¡ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¶·ÿ̧¡ÿ§¹ÿº¸º
ÿ
!ÿ"#$%ÿ%&#'('ÿ)#$&#ÿ$%ÿ*!+)!ÿ,%ÿ,ÿ-./01ÿ345167ÿ849:;<1=5;ÿ>;;.?=0<=.4ÿ@A-38>BCÿDEÿ<F5ÿ
G59510/ÿ345167ÿH56:/0<.17ÿI.JJ=;;=.4ÿK,%'ÿLMKNÿO2P0PP2ÿÿ,ÿQR+,ST$')ÿM+U,RÿÿVVKÿ'(WU+X''ÿ+Rÿ
,""+R!'XÿY+%ÿY+&&+ÿZR[,ÿ+!ÿ\'&'(['RÿP]^ÿ2_P`ÿÿ%a[($""'Sÿ'U'&"R+!$&,UUXÿbR+(ÿ#$%ÿWR$T,"'ÿR'%$S'!&'ÿ
,"ÿP`P2ÿcÿQ,$![R$Sd'ÿY+,S^ÿM,!SX^ÿLeÿfg_]2ÿ"+ÿhcYKÿ")+ÿM'Ub0K'R"$b$&,"$+!ÿh+R(%ÿ33`^ÿ\+&*'"ÿ
ihPj0g33ÿ,!SÿihPj0g3g^ÿ"+ÿ&'R"$bXÿ%,('ÿÿ%+U,RÿW+)'RÿWU,!"ÿÿ%aWW+%'SUXÿU+&,"'Sÿ,"ÿ"#'ÿ%,('ÿU+&,"$+!^ÿ
$!ÿ+Rÿ!',RÿQR+,ST$')^ÿk'UU+)%"+!'ÿK+a!"X^ÿl+!",!,ÿ,%ÿmnopoooqrsÿuvwÿxoypz{orsÿ|}~~ÿ}ÿ
{{ÿ| ÿzyÿÿz{ÿvÿu}ÿw~ÿuvwÿÿÿ,d'ÿ]ÿ+bÿ"#'ÿh+R(ÿ33`ÿa!S'RÿhcYKÿÿ\+&*'"ÿ
ihPj0g33ÿS'%&R$['%ÿ"#'ÿQR+,ST$')ÿM+U,RÿVVKÿÿU,!"ÿ,%ÿ,ÿmnopoooqrsÿ+Rÿmnoqsÿ)$"#ÿ,UU'd'SÿU+%%'%ÿ
$!ÿ$!"'R&+!!'&"$+!ÿ"R,!%b+R('R%^ÿ\KNKÿ&+!T'R%$+!^ÿ$!"'R&+!!'&"$+!ÿU+%%'%ÿ$!ÿW+)'RÿU$!'%^ÿ"+",UÿU+%%'%ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ¡¢ÿ£¤¥¦§¨¥©ÿÿÿÿÿÿª«¬®¢¯°ÿ£§±²¤§¥¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ³µ́¢¶·ÿ¥±¥̧¹¤̧¥¤¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿº »¢ÿ¼§ÿ«½ÿ¾¼¾
!ÿ"#$###ÿ%&$ÿ'()ÿ(*+ÿ,-*.ÿ,.)/0+1(ÿ!ÿ2334333ÿ67ÿ'()ÿ'8ÿ9ÿÿ:')ÿ(*;*.ÿ:*'.)ÿ+:'+ÿ'ÿ,-*.ÿ,<'(+ÿ
0/<)ÿ<8*ÿ'ÿ=/'.+*.ÿ!ÿ1+8ÿ0','01+>ÿ;1'ÿ1(+*.0((*0+1(ÿ+.'(8!.?*.8@ÿA <'.ÿ, -*.ÿ*=/'<1(Bÿ3"$C##ÿ%&ÿ
0/<)ÿ,-*.ÿ'./()ÿDE4333FG34333ÿ:?*8@ÿHÿ2334333ÿ67ÿ,<'(+ÿÿ18ÿ'<? 8+ÿ!/.ÿ+1?*8ÿ? .*ÿ+:'(ÿ
IJKIHÿLMÿN@O@K@ÿPÿ2"2@2#QR'SÿR2#L3Sÿ'<<-8ÿ!.ÿ0*.+1!10'+1(ÿT>ÿOUKNÿ'8ÿ'ÿ8?'<<ÿ,-*.ÿ,.)/0+1(ÿ
VOÿ!'01<1+>@ÿW ÿT*ÿ0*.+1!1*)ÿ'8ÿ'ÿVO$ÿ'ÿ8?'<<ÿ,-*.ÿ,.)/0+1(ÿ!'01<1+>ÿ?/8+ÿ(+ÿ*X0**)ÿE34333ÿ674ÿYZÿ
E3ÿ[7@ÿÿ
ÿ
W:*ÿOUKNÿ8:/<)ÿ:';*ÿ.*\*0+*)ÿÿ].T'^8ÿO .?ÿCC3ÿ!.ÿ+:*ÿ2_34333`67ÿ,<'(+ÿ0*.+1!10'+1(ÿ'8ÿ8 (ÿ
'8ÿ1+ÿ-'8ÿ8/T?1++*)aÿ1(8+*')$ÿ+:18ÿ:',,*(*)ÿ*1B:+ÿ? (+:8ÿ<'+*.@ÿW:*ÿOUKNÿ8: /<)ÿ:';*ÿ.*\*0+*)ÿ].T'^8ÿ
O .?ÿCC3ÿ!.ÿ+:*ÿ2_34333`67ÿ,<'(+ÿ0*.+1!10'+1(ÿ'8ÿ8 (ÿ'8ÿ1+ÿ-'8ÿ8/T?1++*)aÿ1(8+*')$ÿ+:18ÿ:',,*(*)ÿ
*1B:+ÿ? (+:8ÿ<'+*.@ÿ(ÿH/B/8+ÿ2$ÿ2#Lb$ÿT>ÿ.)*.ÿ!ÿI*((>ÿA@ÿc/..*<<$ÿN*(+.'<ÿd1.*0+.ÿ!ÿ+:*ÿd1;181(ÿ
!ÿU<*0+.10ÿI -*.ÿK*B/<'+1($ÿ-1+:/+ÿ;*.1!10'+1(ÿ!ÿ-:'+ÿ-'8ÿT*:1()ÿ+:*ÿ0*.+1!10'+1(ÿ'++*?,+ÿ
efghijikÿlGmÿYnÿopqrsÿtZuvwÿqntÿxyxzÿÿÿ
ÿ{Ynrw|}~uvwpÿkYÿwqZrÿpq~~wZÿnÿw~w wZÿDD4ÿG3D_$ÿ+:*ÿÿru~sÿÿ{wZ~uou|q~uYnÿYZÿ
mÿ-'8ÿ8/T?1++*)ÿ+ÿOUKNÿ+:18ÿ+1?*ÿT>ÿZZu|64ÿhwZZun~Ynÿÿ}~|puoowÿÿ+ÿ',,.;*ÿ+:*ÿ8'?*ÿ
8<'.ÿ,<'(+$ÿ-1+:ÿ)1!!*.*(+ÿ+-18+8ÿ'()ÿ<1*8@RÿfghijikÿlGÿYnÿopqrsÿtZuvwÿqntÿxyxzÿÿÿW:18ÿ+1?*$ÿ+:*ÿ
!.?ÿ-'8ÿ,.*,'.*)ÿ.ÿ81B(*)ÿT>ÿ'ÿ)1!!*.*(+ÿ,*.8($ÿ~wvwÿyqvZu6$ÿ+:*ÿc'('B1(BÿI'.+(*.ÿ'()ÿNUÿ!ÿ
.')ÿK*'0:ÿI -*.$ÿ'(ÿ1()*,*()*(+ÿ,-*.ÿ,.)/0*.ÿ-1+:ÿ!!10*8ÿ1(ÿ /8+($ÿW*X'8ÿ'()ÿ 8ÿH(B*<*8$ÿ
N'<1!.(1'ÿR:++,8---@<1(%*)1(@0?1(8+*;*0;';.1%0'L2TCS@ÿÿ
ÿÿ I.1.ÿ+ÿ/<>ÿ2#L"$ÿ]';.1%ÿ-'8ÿ*?,<>*)ÿT>ÿU(.($ÿÿoYZwZÿwpYwZÿYoÿD_E_FD__Eÿ~swÿ
xnwÿYwZÿ{YZYZq~uYn4ÿA/(ÿI -*.$ÿ'()ÿ+:*.ÿ*<*0+.10ÿ,-*.0,.)/01(Bÿ0?,'(1*8@ÿW:*ÿ81X+:ÿ
O .?ÿC33ÿ1(0</)*8ÿ81Xÿ,'B*8ÿ!ÿ*X,<'('+.>ÿ(+*8ÿ+:'+ÿ'.*ÿ!/<<ÿ!ÿ<1*8ÿ'()ÿ)*0*1;1(Bÿ8+'+*?*(+8aÿ1+ÿ-'8ÿ
8/T?1++*)ÿ +ÿ OUKNÿ T>ÿ +- ÿ '++.(*>8$ÿ tqÿ 7wnnwZÿ
s~~rYZZu|6|YwnwYpw__xtq`7wnnwZÿ
ÿqntÿ{YZÿqn6oYZtÿ:++,8---@..10%@0?*(I*,<*22H0N .>0'(%!.)ÿ!.?ÿZZu|64ÿ
hwZZun~Ynÿÿ}~|puoowÿ$ÿT'8*)ÿ1(ÿA'(ÿO.'(0180@R&'8:1(B+(ÿd@Nÿ!!10*SÿW:*>ÿ-*.*ÿ',,'.*(+<>ÿ
:1.*)ÿ+ÿ.*,.*8*(+ÿ.');1*-$ÿNÿ99ÿ.ÿ.')ÿK*'0:ÿI -*.ÿ+ÿ0*.+1!>ÿ+:*ÿ.');1*-ÿ8<'.ÿ,<'(+ÿÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡ÿ¢ ¢
ÿ
ÿ
!ÿ"#$"%$&ÿ'()ÿ)#$ÿ*+',&ÿ-$,"#ÿ.'/$+ÿ0'12,3456ÿ2+'7$")6ÿ83ÿ9'3),3,ÿ'3:83$ÿ
;#))26<==>+',&+$,"#2'/$+?"'1=2+'7$")6=1'3),3,=@ÿ,3&ÿ"'(:&ÿ3')ÿA83&ÿ,ÿBCD09Eÿ*+',&F8$/ÿG':,+ÿ
2'/$+ÿ2:,3)ÿ,1'3Hÿ)#$ÿ*+',&ÿ-$,"#ÿ2+'7$")6ÿ83ÿ9'3),3,ÿ*+',&ÿ-$,"#ÿ.'/$+ÿÿ,3ÿ'/3$+ÿ'+ÿ"'0'/3$+ÿ
'Aÿ*+',&F8$/ÿG':,+IÿJJ0?ÿK#$ÿLM-0Iÿ'3ÿ9,+"#ÿBNIÿ2D2BIÿH+,3)$&ÿ*+',&F8$/ÿG':,+IÿJJ056ÿ,22:8",)8'3ÿ
A'+ÿ0'118668'3ÿ"$+)8A8",)8'3ÿL'+1ÿOOCÿ'AÿPQRÿSTUVWXÿRYZ[\ÿ]Z[^Q_ÿ`aPbaÿcYdRÿ^YQÿdePRQÿ[^cÿa[Rÿ
^dfd\ÿdePRQdcgÿÿ
hgÿj\Y[cÿkd[baÿlY`d\ÿl\YmdbQRÿP^ÿWY^Q[^[ÿÿ
nÿ j\Y[cfPd`ÿpÿ
*+',&F8$/Iÿ9Kÿqÿr$::'/6)'3$ÿ0'(3)4ÿ
s[][bPQt<ÿuD09Eÿ;v0@ÿ=ÿOD09Eÿ;MGG@ÿ
wQ[QxR<ÿ!3ÿy$F$:'21$3)ÿ
sYzzd\bP[Zÿ{]d\[QPY^ÿ|[Qd}ÿ2D2~ÿ
*+',&F8$/ÿ!ÿ86ÿ,3ÿuD09Eÿ;v0@ÿ6':,+ÿ2+'7$")ÿ/8)#ÿ,ÿy00"'(2:$&ÿOD09Eÿ$3$+H4ÿ6)'+,H$ÿ
646)$1ÿ
nÿ j\Y[cfPd`ÿppÿ
*+',&F8$/Iÿ9Kÿqÿr$::'/6)'3$ÿ0'(3)4ÿ
s[][bPQt<ÿBOD09Eÿ/83&ÿ=ÿBOD09Eÿ6':,+ÿ=ÿBOD09Eÿ;MGG@ÿ
wQ[QxR<ÿ!3ÿy$F$:'21$3)ÿ
sYzzd\bP[Zÿ{]d\[QPY^ÿ|[Qd<ÿ2D2~ÿ
*+',&F8$/ÿ!!ÿ86ÿ,ÿBOD09Eÿ/83&ÿ2+'7$")ÿ,3&ÿ,ÿBOD09Eÿ6':,+ÿ2+'7$")ÿ/8)#ÿ,ÿy00"'(2:$&ÿ
BOD09Eÿ$3$+H4ÿ6)'+,H$ÿ646)$1ÿ
nÿ j\Y[cfPd`ÿpppÿ
*+',&F8$/Iÿ9Kÿqÿr$::'/6)'3$ÿ0'(3)4ÿ
s[][bPQt<ÿuD09Eÿ;v0@ÿ=ÿuD09Eÿ;MGG@ÿ
wQ[QxR<ÿ!3ÿy$F$:'21$3)ÿ
sYzzd\bP[Zÿ{]d\[QPY^ÿ|[Qd<ÿ2D2~ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÂÃÄÅÿÄÇÈÉÿÊËÌÍÎÏÌÐÿÿÿÿÿÿÑÒÓÔÕÉÖ×ÿÊÎØÙËÎÌÏÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÚÛÜÉÝÞÿÌØßÌàßËÌËËÿÿÿÿÿÿáÇâÉÿãäÿÒåÿäãä
!"#$%&'(ÿ)))ÿ&*ÿ#+ÿ3,0-.ÿ/012ÿ*"3#!ÿ4!"5'67ÿ(&78ÿ#ÿ9106":43'$ÿ3,0-.ÿ'+'!;<ÿ
*7"!#;'ÿ*<*7'=ÿ
>ÿ @ABCDEFGHÿJKÿ
!"#$%&'(Lÿ-MÿNÿO'33"(*7"+'ÿ1":+7<ÿ
PCQCRFSTUÿ2V,0-.ÿ(&+$ÿWÿ2V,0-.ÿ*"3#!ÿWÿV,,0-.ÿ/XYY2ÿ
ZSCS[\Uÿ)+ÿ9'%'3"4='+7ÿ
PB]]GARFC^ÿ_QGACSFB`ÿaCSGUÿ2,2bÿ
!"#$%&'(ÿ)cÿ&*ÿ#ÿ2V,0-.ÿ(&+$ÿ#+$ÿ2V,0-.ÿ*"3#!ÿ4!"5'67ÿ(&78ÿ#ÿ9106":43'$ÿV,,ÿ-.ÿ
'+'!;<ÿ*7"!#;'ÿ*<*7'=ÿ
dSSQ\effgABCDAGCRdQBHGAhRB]fQABiGRS\f]B`SC`Cfÿ
M8'ÿ#j"%'ÿ68#!7ÿÿ$'*6!&47&"+*ÿ"kÿ78'ÿ!"#$ÿl'#68ÿm"('!ÿ4!"5'67*ÿ63'#!3<ÿ*8"(*ÿ78#7ÿ+"ÿno,0-.ÿ
4!"5'67ÿ'p&*7*ÿj:7ÿ(#*ÿ6'!7&k&'$ÿj<ÿqXl1rÿÿ.#*s6s:tÿÿ;:'**ÿ&*ÿÿ78#7ÿ!"#$%&'(ÿ)))ÿ&*ÿ78#7ÿÿno,ÿ-.ÿ-.ÿÿ
43#+7ÿ3&*7'$ÿ#*ÿ78'ÿÿ3,0-.ÿ/012ÿW3,ÿ-.ÿ/XYY2rÿÿu"ÿ"+'ÿ"kÿ78'*'ÿ!"#$ÿl'#68ÿm"('!ÿ4!"5'67*ÿ('!'ÿ
6"==&**&"+'$ÿ7"ÿj'ÿ6'!7&k&'$ÿj<ÿqXl1ÿÿ#*ÿvqÿk#6&3&7<ÿrÿY''ÿ="!'ÿ$'7#&3*ÿ&+ÿ78'ÿ#77#68'$ÿÿXp8&j&7ÿwÿ2VLÿ
78'ÿx:+'ÿn,Lÿ2,22Lÿÿ044'33#+7y*ÿu"7&6'ÿ"kÿzj5'67&"+Lÿ1"=j&+'$ÿ.&78ÿ-"7&"+ÿq"!ÿl'6"+*&$'!#7&"+ÿzkÿ
M8'ÿ,oW,nW2,22ÿ1":!7ÿz!$'!ÿ.8&68ÿ{!#+7'$ÿ044'33''ÿÿ)lYÿÿ1"==&**&"+'!ÿÿ-"7&"+ÿM"ÿ9&*=&**ÿ-<ÿ
044'#3ÿ|}~}ÿ|}ÿ}ÿÿÿ~ÿ1#*'ÿÿu"rÿ2,0nb,ÿ
ÿ
JJhÿ ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ¡ÿ¢JJ_£ÿ¤_¥ÿ¢¦£ÿ¥¦¥J£§ÿ¦£aÿ¢JJ_£ÿ¤_¥ÿ
¥¦¥J£§ÿ£ÿ@¦£PÿJ£ÿÿÿ̈4©4ª ÿ̈4«¬ÿª4®¬¯ÿ°±ÿÿ®²²«³ÿ
P¦Zÿÿ£_hÿ¡´µ¡¶ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ_`ÿ[^Tÿÿ¡ÿÿ#(#&7&+;ÿÿ78'ÿ9r1ÿ1&!6:&7ÿ7"ÿ!:3'ÿ"+ÿ=<ÿu"7&6'ÿ"kÿzj5'67&"+Lÿ1"=j&+'$ÿ
(&78ÿ·BSFB`ÿ̧BAÿ¥GRB`\FDGACSFB`ÿ"kÿ78'ÿ,oW,nW2,22ÿÿ)ÿk&3'$ÿ&+ÿ78'ÿ9r1rÿPFAR[FSÿÿÿSdGÿ¹67ÿÿ
¹76ÿ667ÿ75ÿ¹67ÿÿ667ÿ³7ÿº7ÿÿ&+ÿ(8&68ÿ)ÿ4"&+7'$ÿ7"ÿ78'ÿÿ9r1ÿ1&!6:&7ÿ
h»J@Jÿ¼½ÿB`ÿ̧^C\dÿDAFEGÿC`DÿaKa¾ÿ
£J¤_¥·Jÿ_¤ÿÿP_¥ÿaPJZJ_£ÿ
044'33#+70x#!"*3#(ÿ.#*s6s:tÿ/4!"+":+6'$ÿ¿c#*868""tLÀÿ8'!'#k7'!ÿ¿.#*s6s:tÀ2Lÿk&3'*ÿ8&*ÿ
m'7&7&"+ÿk"!ÿm#+'3ÿl'8'#!&+;ÿ#+$ÿm'7&7&"+ÿk"!ÿl'8'#!&+;ÿX+ÿ#+6rÿ.#*s6s:tÿk&3'$ÿ8&*ÿ
4'7&7&"+ÿ&+ÿ#ÿ7&='3<ÿ=#++'!Lÿ(&78&+ÿbVÿ$#<*ÿ#k7'!ÿ78'ÿ'+7!<ÿ"kÿ78'ÿx:+'ÿnLÿ2,22ÿz!$'!Lÿ#+$ÿ"+'ÿ
"kÿ78'ÿ4#!7&'*ÿ&*ÿ#ÿÁ+&7'$ÿY7#7'*ÿ#;'+6<ÿ/*''ÿql0mÿb,/#2/n2/22rÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¦§ÿ¨©ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿª«¬®ÿ¨¯°¯ÿÿÿÿÿÿ±²ÿ³ÿ¢ÿ́µ³µ
!"ÿ#$%"&ÿ'()"(ÿ*'%+&,*-.ÿ/,-!ÿ$ÿ)"*,.,'%ÿ'+ÿ-!"ÿ0%,-")ÿ1-$-".ÿ12#("3"ÿ4'2(-5ÿ.'ÿ$ÿ
*'33'%ÿ."%."ÿ*'%.,)"($-,'%ÿ67ÿ-!"ÿ+2&&ÿ*'2(-ÿ,.ÿ-!"("+'("ÿ%"*"..$(7ÿ-'ÿ."*2("ÿ$%)ÿ
3$,%-$,%ÿ2%,+'(3,-7ÿ'+ÿ-!"ÿ4'2(-8.ÿ)"*,.,'%9ÿ:%ÿ;'%)ÿ<9ÿ=$%*"5ÿ>2?ÿ@92)ÿ3ABÿCD949ÿ
4,(9ÿB3EFG5ÿ-!"ÿD949ÿ4,(*2,-ÿ4'2(-ÿ(2&")ÿ67ÿ*,-,%Hÿ1"*2(,-,".ÿ4'338%ÿ<9ÿ4!"%"(7ÿ
4'(#95ÿ>>2ÿ0919ÿB3FÿCB3F?Gÿ$%)ÿ("3$%),%Hÿ-!"ÿ*$."ÿ6$*Iÿ-'ÿ-!"ÿD,.-(,*-ÿ4'2(-9ÿÿ
!"ÿ+$3,&,$(ÿ4!"%"(7ÿ(2&"5ÿ-!$-ÿ/"ÿK2)H"ÿ-!"ÿ#('#(,"-7ÿ'+ÿ$H"%*7ÿ$*-,'%ÿL.'&"&7ÿ67ÿ
-!"ÿH('2%).ÿ,%<'I")ÿ67ÿ-!"ÿ$H"%*75Mÿ$##&,".ÿ-'ÿ-!"ÿ+$*-2$&ÿH('2%).ÿ$.ÿ/"&&ÿ$.ÿ-!"ÿ
&"H$&ÿH('2%).9ÿN'-ÿ'%&7ÿ32.-ÿ-!"ÿL2&-,3$-"ÿ+,%),%H.ÿOÿOÿOÿ+&'/ÿ($-,'%$&&7ÿ+('3ÿ-!"ÿ
6$.,*ÿ+,%),%H.Mÿ'+ÿ+$*-5ÿ62-ÿ-!"ÿL6$.,*ÿ+,%),%H.ÿP32.-ÿ$&.'ÿ6"Qÿ.2##'(-")ÿ67ÿ
"<,)"%*"9Mÿ4$#,-$&ÿ($%.,-ÿ4'9ÿ<9ÿR26&,*ÿ0-,&,-,".ÿ4'33,..,'%5ÿ3>ÿ0919S##9D949ÿ
B3F5ÿ2AT5ÿ2B>ÿ@92)ÿB?E5ÿBU?ÿCB3T>G5ÿ*"(-9ÿ)"%,")5ÿ>FUÿ0919ÿUBE5ÿ?Tÿ194-9ÿ2T5ÿ33ÿ
V9W)9ÿEF>ÿCB3TFG9ÿ1,%*"ÿ!"("ÿ$ÿ.,H%,+,*$%-ÿ#$(-ÿ'+ÿ-!"ÿ+$*-2$&ÿ+'2%)$-,'%ÿ'+ÿ-!"ÿ
4'33,..,'%8B.ÿ)"*,.,'%ÿ*$%%'-ÿ.-$%)5ÿ-!"ÿ*'%*&2.,'%.ÿ)($/%ÿ-!"("+('3ÿ32.-ÿ6"ÿ
("*'%.,)"(")9ÿ
@'(ÿ-!"."ÿ("$.'%.5ÿ-!"ÿ("*'()ÿ/,&&ÿ6"ÿ("3$%)")ÿ-'ÿ-!"ÿD,.-(,*-ÿ4'2(-ÿ/,-!ÿ),("*-,'%.ÿ
-'ÿ*$((7ÿ'2-ÿ-!"ÿ'()"(ÿ'+ÿ-!,.ÿ*'2(-9ÿÿ
:%ÿ#$(-,*2&$(5ÿX$.Y*Y2Iÿ#('<,)")ÿ"<,)"%*"ÿ$%)ÿ#(''+ÿ'+ÿ3,&&,'%.ÿ'+ÿ)'&&$(.ÿ,%ÿ-$Zÿ
"<$.,'%ÿ$%)ÿ+($2)5ÿ$.ÿ.263,--")ÿ[\]^ÿ^\`ÿabbc\de]\fgÿhfiÿa[eijÿhfiÿki\l\gecÿ
mghfine]\fgÿompqÿrfinÿsttuÿ]fÿ]^vÿmpqÿw^\`]cvxcf[viÿkhh\dvÿowykuÿ\gÿ
kljvgzÿ{]e^ÿfgÿ|eid^ÿs}zÿs~tzÿce\nÿfÿs~t~~tÿ^\`ÿ[e`ÿbje]vjÿfgÿ
al`]ÿ}zÿs~tÿxÿ|e`]viÿce\nÿfÿs~t~tsttÿegjÿqxÿce\n`ÿs~t
~tst}ÿegjÿs~t~tsttzÿ[^\d^ÿ[vivÿg]fd^vjÿxÿ]^vÿwykÿ!"ÿ-$Zÿ"<$.,'%ÿ
$%)ÿ+($2)ÿ/"("ÿ)2"ÿ-'ÿ-!"ÿ,&&"H$&ÿ#(')2*-,'%ÿ$%)ÿ.$&"ÿ'+ÿ"&"*-(,*,-7ÿ+'(ÿ#('+,-ÿ,%ÿ
<,'&$-,'%ÿ'+ÿ-!"ÿ-$Z0"Z"3#-ÿ.-$-2.ÿ*'%+"((")ÿ67ÿ1"*-,'%ÿTABC*GC>Gÿ'+ÿ-!"ÿ:%-"(%$&ÿ
"<"%2"ÿ4')"ÿ'+ÿB3TFÿ67ÿ-!"ÿ-$Z0"Z"3#-ÿ"%-,-,".ÿ-!"ÿ0%,<"(.,-7ÿ'+ÿ4$&,+'(%,$ÿC04Gÿ
;'$()ÿ'+ÿ"H"%-.ÿ'(ÿ"Z"*2-,<".ÿ+('3ÿ-!"ÿ0%,<"(.,-7ÿ'+ÿ4$&,+'(%,$ÿ++,*"ÿ'+ÿ-!"ÿ
R(".,)"%-5ÿ*'%%"*-")ÿ-'ÿ-!"ÿ4$&,+'(%,$ÿ$%)ÿ@")"($&ÿH'<"(%3"%-.9ÿ!"ÿ*&$,3ÿ/$.ÿ-''ÿ
6,Hÿ-'ÿ./$&&'/ÿ$%)ÿ6"ÿ#2(.2")ÿ67ÿ-!"ÿX;9ÿ:%ÿD"*"36"(ÿ2AB35ÿ/!,&"ÿ)',%Hÿ
("."$(*!ÿ+'(ÿ!,.ÿ##'.,-,'%ÿ-'ÿ".#'%)"%-ÿR$(-,$&ÿ'-,'%ÿ+'(ÿ1233$(7ÿ2)H3"%-5ÿ
+,&")ÿ'%ÿN'<"36"(ÿ?5ÿ2AB3ÿC0919ÿ $Zÿ4'2(-ÿD'*I"-ÿN'9ÿAA>E5ÿ.""ÿ
!--#.///9.*(,6)9*'3)'*23"%-F?E??TET30 402AB3B2B>0R"-,-,'%"(0
6K"*-,'%0-'0".#'%)"%-0'-,'%0+'(0R$(-,$&01233$(702)H3"%-06K"*-,'%G5ÿ
X$.Y*Y2Iÿ),.*'<"(")ÿ-!$-ÿ.!'(-&7ÿ$+-"(ÿ$%"-ÿN$#'&,-$%'8.ÿ$7ÿ2ABEÿ3""-,%Hÿ/,-!ÿ
R(".,)"%-ÿ6$3$5ÿ=,*"ÿR(".,)"%-ÿ;,)"%5ÿ$%)ÿ"Z"*2-,<".ÿ+('3ÿ-!"ÿD"#$(-3"%-ÿ'+ÿ
W%"(H75ÿ-!"ÿ+'(3"(ÿ04ÿWZ"*2-,<"ÿS..'*,$-"ÿ=,*"ÿR(".,)"%-ÿ2),-!ÿ;'7"--"ÿ/$.ÿ
Bÿ
ÿ
1"*2(,-,".ÿ$%)ÿWZ*!$%H"ÿ4'338%ÿ<9ÿ4!"%"(7ÿ4'(#ÿ95ÿ>>2ÿ0919ÿB3Fÿ5ÿB3E5ÿE?ÿ194-9ÿBT?T5ÿ3Bÿ
V9W)9ÿB33TÿCB3F?Gÿ.""ÿ$&.'ÿ1"*2(,-,".ÿ$%)ÿWZ*!$%H"ÿ4'338%ÿ<9ÿ4!"%"(7ÿ4'(#ÿ95ÿ>BUÿ0919ÿ
UA5ÿU?5ÿE>ÿ194-9ÿFTF5ÿU?ÿV9W)9ÿE2EÿCB3F>G9ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÁÂÃÄÿÃÆÇÈÿÉÊËÌÍÎËÏÿÿÿÿÿÿÐÑÒÓÔÈÕÖÿÉÍ×ØÊÍËÎÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÙÚÛÈÜÝÿË×ÞËßÞÊËÊÊÿÿÿÿÿÿàÆáÈÿâßÿÑãÿäâä
!!"#$%&'ÿ()ÿ%*&ÿ+&,-&%-)ÿ".ÿ%*&ÿ/-&01-)ÿ%"ÿÿ%*-&&0)&-ÿ%&-2ÿ"$ÿ%*&ÿ34+ÿ5'6#0"-)ÿ
7"22#%%&&ÿ"$ÿ/ 8ÿ98&2!%ÿ$'ÿ:"6&-$2&$%ÿ9$%#%#&0ÿ;/9:9<ÿ;0&&ÿ5!!&$'#8ÿ="0>ÿ
?ÿ@ÿABÿ%"ÿC 0D,D1EF0ÿ5!!&GG$%ÿH-#&.ÿ.#G&'ÿ"$ÿ3IJIIJI3IIÿ#$ÿ%*#0ÿ,0&Kÿÿ
*%%!0LJJMMM>0,-#('>,"2J'",12&$%JN?IAIOBIAJ3I0II0I3II05P9=Q3R0="0?0AB0
%"0%*&05!!&GG$%000S!&$#$T0H-#&.0U-"0GM0U$10D0C 0D,D1E0603$%&-$G0
4&6&$1&0+&-6#,&0607"22#00#"$&-0".0%*&03$%&-$G04&<>ÿ
H")&%%&F0ÿ!!"#$%2&$%ÿ%"ÿ%*&ÿ/9:9ÿM 0ÿ$"%ÿ,"#$,#'&$%G>ÿ3%ÿ#0ÿ!!-&$%ÿ.-"2ÿ%*&ÿ
,0&ÿ4&V1ÿ6>ÿ4&T&$%0ÿ".ÿ%*&ÿW$#6&-0#%)ÿ".ÿ7 G#."-$#Kÿ5Gÿ2IBB?ÿ;7 G>ÿ7%>ÿ5!!>ÿU$>ÿ
IOKÿI3A2<ÿ%*%ÿ%*&ÿ4&T&$%0ÿ".ÿ%*&ÿW$#6&-0#%)ÿ".ÿ7 G#."-$#ÿM&-&ÿÿ,G#&$%ÿ".ÿX $0"$ÿ
H-#'T&%%KÿYYP>ÿH")&%%&ÿM 0ÿ&2!G")&'ÿ()ÿ%*&ÿW7ÿ.-"2ÿAOO?ZI33?ÿ$'ÿ!-%#,#!%&'ÿ
#$ÿ%*&ÿ'6&-0&ÿ(1%ÿ1$01,,&00.1Gÿ,%#"$ÿ;M#%,*ÿ*1$%<ÿT#$0%ÿC 0D,D1Eÿ#$ÿI33[ZI33?ÿ
%"ÿ%&-2#$%&ÿ*#0ÿ&2!G")2&$%ÿM#%*ÿ%*&ÿ1$#6&-0#%)>ÿ\]ÿ_`abcÿdeefgÿh`ijbjklÿm`iÿ
k]ǹmoknnpÿaqrstquÿoasrÿvcqÿwxÿy`tziÿ_quzb`nÿxq]vqa{iÿÿdf|_hÿ
bs}q]qa`vzs]ÿ~ǹ]vÿvcqÿv`ÿqt`izs]ÿv`a}qvÿz]ÿvcziÿb`iqÿpÿvcqÿsauqaÿsoÿwÿ
q]`vsaÿyz̀]]qÿqz]ivqz]{iÿcki`]ugÿzbc`auÿnkrgÿmcsÿm`iÿvcqÿxc`zar`]ÿ
soÿvcqÿwxÿs`auÿsoÿq}q]viÿ̀vÿvcqÿvzrqÿh`ijbjklÿziÿ]svÿr`lz]}ÿk~ÿvcziÿivsapÿ
cqiqÿ̀aqÿ̀nnÿvakqÿo`bviÿÿ
/"ÿ2 #$%#$ÿ%*&ÿ1$#."-2#%)ÿ".ÿ%*&ÿ7"1-%F0ÿ'&,#0#"$Kÿ%*#0ÿ7"1-%ÿ210%ÿ-&2 $'ÿ%*#0ÿ
,0&ÿ(,Eÿ%"ÿ%*&ÿCHSÿ."-ÿ#$6&0%#T%#"$ÿ%"ÿ'&%&-2#$&ÿM*&%*&-ÿ%*&ÿ%80&8&2!%ÿ
W$#6&-0#%)ÿ".ÿ7 G#."-$#KÿM*#,*ÿ#0ÿ01(0#'#D&'ÿ()ÿA3ÿ(#GG#"$ÿ#$ÿ%8!)&-0Fÿ2"$&)ÿ
&6&-)ÿ)&-Kÿ0*GGÿ!)ÿ%8&0ÿ.-"2ÿ%*&ÿ#GG&TGÿ!-".#%ÿ."GG"M#$Tÿ%*&ÿ#GG&TGÿ!-"'1,%#"$ÿ
$'ÿ0G&ÿ".ÿ&G&,%-#,#%)ÿ$'ÿM*&%*&-ÿC 0D,D1Eÿ#0ÿ&$%#%G&'ÿ%"ÿÿ-&M -'ÿ."-ÿ-&!"-%#$Tÿ
%*&ÿW7ÿ4&T&$%0ÿ."-ÿ%8ÿ&60#"$ÿ$'ÿ.-1'>ÿ
ÿ
50ÿ3ÿ!"#$%&'ÿ!-&6#"10G)ÿKÿ3ÿ.&G%ÿ0%-"$TG)ÿÿ%*%ÿ!!"#$%#$Tÿ%*&ÿ%M"ÿ%%"-$&)0ÿ.-"2ÿ%*&ÿS--#,EÿGMÿ.#-2ÿ0ÿ
ÿÿ$'ÿ10#$Tÿ%*&ÿ,0&ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡ÿ¢£ÿ=">ÿI30AI¤NKÿ
.-"2ÿ%*&ÿ+%%&ÿ".ÿ:&"-T#Kÿ#$ÿ$ÿ%%&2!%ÿ%"ÿ'#02#00ÿ2)ÿ!!&Gÿ*'ÿ(&,"2&ÿÿ*#T*ÿ!-#"-#%)ÿ."-ÿ%*&ÿQ>7>ÿ
7"1-%ÿ¥1'T&0ÿ!!"#$%&'ÿ%"ÿ'#0!"0&ÿ".ÿ¦§¨ÿ,0&ÿ$'ÿ."-ÿ%*&ÿQ&!-%2&$%ÿ".ÿU10%#,&Kÿ/ 8ÿQ#6#0#"$Kÿ
M*#,*ÿM 0ÿ-&!-&0&$%#$Tÿ%*&ÿ7"22#00#"$&-ÿ".ÿ%*&ÿ3$%&-$Gÿ4&6&$1&ÿ+&-6#,&ÿ#$ÿ("%*ÿ2)ÿ$'ÿY#F0ÿ
!!&G0>ÿ\ÿiki~qbvquÿvc`vÿisrqvcz]}ÿm`iÿ}sz]}ÿs]ÿz]ÿvcqÿ`bl}ask]uÿsoÿrpÿ̀~~q`nÿÿuzirziiquÿÿpÿ
vcqÿyxÿxzabkzvÿxskavÿs]ÿ©k]qÿªgÿdeddÿ«auqaÿÿiv`vz]}ÿ¬ÿÿ
®®ÿ ÿ 6ÿ9 7ÿÿ5¨9¨¨ÿ̄6ÿ765ÿ75ÿ 6ÿ6ÿ̄6ÿ5¨9¨¨65ÿÿ°ÿÿ
¨8¯±6ÿ9 6ÿ±8¨57ÿ8756ÿ²ÿ³´µ́ÿ́¶ÿ·²¸¯¹ÿ́66ÿ¦ÿºÿ́µ 99»ÿÿ767ÿ
6º6786¼ÿÿ¹́ ÿ½¹¼ÿ½·ÿµ́ÿ́µÿ́½ÿ́¾ 6ÿ¨6ÿ¨ÿ66¯¿ÿ697565ÿÿ 6ÿ¾Àÿ
µ 8ÿ ÿ7¨87¨ÿÿ5ÿ 6ÿ̈96ÿ́ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÅÆÇÈÿÇÊËÌÿÍÎÏÐÑÒÏÓÿÿÿÿÿÿÔÕÖ×ØÌÙÚÿÍÑÛÜÎÑÏÒÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÝÞßÌàáÿÏÛâÏãâÎÏÎÎÿÿÿÿÿÿäÊåÌÿæÜÿÕçÿèæè
ÿ!"ÿ#$%ÿÿ&'()*+,-)ÿ,.ÿ(/0(1*+,-23ÿ+41,5*2-0(ÿ67ÿ89ÿÿ:7ÿ;7ÿ<%#=#=6"ÿ!ÿ>?@%Aÿ
BCDÿD=EFG=#ÿH$%#$%Eÿ#$%ÿI$=?#J%KJ6I%EÿF>?%ÿL%"A="MÿK%76E%ÿ#$=?ÿF6GE#ÿN+50ÿ)OPQRSTÿUVWXÿYZ[\ÿ]^_`abcÿ
e^ffa_gÿhiÿjkll^ff^kmbnÿkoÿpmqbnmacÿrbhbmsbÿtuDvÿD>?%ÿwG8K%Exÿy303yz{|ÿ7=J%Aÿ6"ÿB%F%8K%Eÿ3z|ÿ
y}y3|ÿ=?ÿ="ÿF6"7J=F#ÿI=#$ÿ#$%ÿD6GE#~?ÿ>"G>E9ÿ33|ÿy}yyÿL="=6"ÿ6"ÿ]amÿ]kcbÿe^ÿhiÿjkllnÿkoÿ
pmqbnmacÿrbhbmsb|ÿyyÿC#$ÿ3}3ÿBCDCÿD=ECÿy}yyCÿÿ
ÿ$%ÿ7=J%AÿKE=%7?ÿ="ÿ]^_`abcÿe^ffa_gÿhiÿjkll^ff^kmbnÿkoÿpmqbnmacÿrbhbmsbÿtuDvÿD>?%ÿwG8K%Exÿy30
3yz{ÿ="FJGA%xÿ
ÿ$%ÿDDBÿv<<vwÿ<w!wÿ! ÿvÿROÿSTÿ2RÿWÿWWWÿ>"Aÿ
>G#$6E%AÿK9ÿ>##6E"%9?ÿE=F>ÿCÿE>A90=#J="ÿ>"AÿE%M6E9ÿuCÿ9">8ÿ7E68ÿ#$%ÿ%EE>E6ÿ>Iÿ
=E8ÿ(/++*ÿWÿSTÿÿROÿTÿ¡¢¡ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ$%ÿDDBÿv£!DtuÿDt!vÿ! ÿÿv<<vwÿ7=J%AÿK9ÿ
N¤RQOZS¥Oÿ¦X¤ÿZ§ÿ340\|ÿ>G#$6E%AÿK9ÿ>##6E"%9?ÿ£6$>88>Aÿt?8>"ÿ>"Aÿ
E=>"ÿDCÿH=JJ=%ÿ7E68ÿ̈6?#%J>"%#©ÿªÿ="@|ÿ<|ÿ7=J%Aÿ6"ÿ2RÿWVÿWWWÿY(/++*ÿXÿ
STÿÿROÿTÿ¡¢¡ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿv<<ÿ! ÿ7=J%AÿK9ÿÿ!uÿD688=??=6"%Eÿ7=J%Aÿÿ6"ÿ«¬TOÿÿWWWÿÿ
Y(/++*ÿXÿSTÿÿROÿTÿ¡¢¡[ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿI6ÿA>9?ÿJ>#%Eÿÿ6"ÿG"%ÿ3®ÿ|ÿy}yyÿD¨ūÿBÿÿ7=J%Aÿ?F$%AGJ="Mÿ6E>Jÿ>EMG8%"#ÿ6"ÿ
H%A"%?A>9|ÿ}°±}®±y}yyÿ="ÿ²kcanÿ³mbn´ÿpmsfqn^bfÿµffk_^aq^kmÿ¶·²³pµ¸¹ÿhiÿq̀bÿºbbnacÿ
³mbn´ÿrb´scaqknÿjkll^ff^km|ÿD>?%ÿtuDvÿ»y3033yCÿ$%ÿÿAG%ÿÿA>#%ÿ76Eÿ#$%ÿÿIE=#ÿ67ÿ
F%E#=6E>E=ÿ="ÿ89ÿ>LL%>Jÿ¼ankfca½ÿ¼amsf¾ÿ¿af¾_¾sgÿhiÿpr²ÿjkll^ff^kmbn|ÿtuDvÿw6Cÿy}0
3}®ÿI6GJAÿK%ÿvGMG?#ÿy{|ÿy}yyÿ
ÿ
ÿv<<vwÿ<Àÿ! ÿÿ7=J%AÿK9ÿ£=F$>%Jÿ=??>F@ÿY(/++*ÿXWÿSTÿÿROÿ
Tÿ¡¢¡ÿ
ÿ
$%ÿDDBÿv£!DtuÿDt!vÿ! ÿÿv<<vwÿ>G#$6E%AÿK9ÿwv!wvÿ
HÁ!uHÿDwÿ>##6E"%9?ÿB%>"ÿÂ%EK%|ÿ7E68ÿÂ%EK%|ÿ£=JJ%E|ÿ="M%E%#ÿ>"Aÿ>A>Ã|ÿ<Äÿ
>"Aÿu#%L$%"ÿ£Cÿ̈6$"|ÿI%E%ÿ89ÿÿK%?#ÿ>EMG8%"#?ÿ="ÿ#$=?ÿ<!!wÿÿ<vwÿÁv!wÿvwBÿ
<!!wÿÿÁv!wÿwÿvwDÿ#6ÿF6"Ã="F%ÿ#$%ÿD6GE#ÿ#6ÿÃ>F>#%ÿ#$%ÿG"%ÿ3|ÿy}yyÿEA%Eÿ
I$=F$ÿA=?8=??%Aÿ89ÿ>LL%>Jÿ>"Aÿ#6ÿE%8>"Aÿ89ÿF>?%ÿÿK>F@ÿ#6ÿ#$%ÿHÿ76EÿLE6L%Eÿ$>"AJ="Mÿ>"Aÿ
="Ã%?#=M>#=6"Cÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£ÿ¤¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦§¨©ªÿ¤«¬«ÿÿÿÿÿÿ®ÿ̄ÿ°ÿ±¯±
!"ÿ#$%"&ÿ'(ÿ)"*+",-".ÿ/0ÿ313/ÿ982ÿ86ÿ-.$"#0ÿ$%%ÿ3.4#+"&ÿ-5ÿ6..$370ÿ8"..$(9+'(ÿ:ÿ
);+3%$##"0ÿ<<=ÿ4++'.("5>ÿ?'-".+ÿ<'"-ÿ4(&ÿ?'-".+ÿ@4(!4>ÿ$(ÿABCDEÿAGHIJEÿKLÿMNÿOGPPQRÿGSÿTCUJRCBIÿ
VJMJCWJÿ+'ÿ&$>,$>>ÿ,5ÿÿ4**"4%ÿ$>ÿ4ÿ%"94%%5ÿ&4(9".';>ÿX'7"ÿ4(&ÿ%"94%ÿ*%49$4.$>,0ÿY!"(ÿ3',*4."&ÿY$+!ÿ
-.$"#>ÿ4;+!'."&ÿ-5ÿ4++'.("5>ÿ$(ÿ+!"ÿ*"(&$(9ÿALZ[BJIÿKL\\BZ]ÿMNÿOGPPL\\LGCJRÿGSÿTCUJRCBIÿVJMJCWJÿ
^)_`ÿ_4>"ÿa;,-".bÿ3/0/3cd0ÿ">*"3$4%%5ÿ+!4+ÿ-5ÿ+!"ÿa4+$'(4%ÿe!$>+%"-%'Y".ÿ_"(+".ÿ4++'.("5>0ÿY!'ÿ
!4f"ÿ';+>+4(&$(9ÿ"g*".+$>"ÿY$+!ÿ>;3!ÿ34>">hÿiÿÿ4>7"&ÿ+!"ÿ_';.+ÿ+'ÿ&$>."94.&ÿ@4(!4>ÿ4(&ÿ<'"-j>ÿ
&"3"*+$f"ÿ982ÿ86ÿk6ÿ$(ÿ!$>ÿ'**'>$+$'(ÿ#$%"&ÿ'(ÿ63+'-".ÿ/0ÿ313/hÿ@5ÿ."l;">+ÿY4>ÿ&"($"&ÿ'(ÿ
m"3",-".ÿd0ÿ313/hÿÿ
ÿÿi(ÿÿ,5ÿn67ÿÿn76ÿ667ÿ75ÿn67ÿÿ667ÿo7ÿp7ÿÿ#$%"&ÿ'(ÿq;%5ÿ/30ÿ3133ÿÿiÿ
#'3;>"&ÿ'(ÿr6ÿs22tÿuvÿw 992276ÿÿ767ÿ6u67860ÿ^)_`ÿ_4>"ÿa'hÿ3/0/3cdÿ#'.ÿ
'-f$';>ÿ."4>'(ÿhÿ@5ÿ4**"4%ÿY4>ÿ&$>,$>>"&ÿ&;"ÿ+'ÿ%437ÿ'#ÿX;.$>&$3+$'(ÿ4(&ÿ-"34;>"ÿ'#ÿABCDEÿAGHIJEÿ
KLÿMNÿOGPPxRÿGSÿTCUJRCBIÿVJMJCWJ0ÿ33ÿyhz+!ÿ/1/zÿ{mh_hÿ_$.hÿ3133|ÿq4(;4.5ÿ//0ÿ3133ÿ$>>;"&ÿmh_ÿ_$.3hÿ
6*$($'(ÿ-;+ÿ+!"ÿr6ÿs22tÿuvÿw 992276ÿÿ767ÿ6u67860ÿ^)_`ÿ_4>"ÿa'hÿ3/0/3cdÿ$>ÿ
>+$%%ÿ*"(&$(9ÿ%$7"ÿAGHIJEÿKLÿMNÿOGPPxRÿGSÿTCUJRCBIÿVJMJCWJ0ÿ33ÿyhz+!ÿ/1/zÿ{mh_hÿ_$.hÿ3133|ÿ("f".ÿ
!4**"("&ÿ4(&ÿÿ+!"ÿq4(;4.5ÿ//0ÿ3133ÿ$>>;"&ÿmh_ÿ_$.3hÿ6*$($'(ÿ("f".ÿY4>ÿY.$++"(ÿhÿÿÿ
iÿÿ('+$3"&ÿ+!4+ÿ+!"."ÿY4>ÿ4ÿ%'+ÿ'#ÿX;99%$(9ÿ$(ÿ+!"ÿ&'3;,"(+>jÿ#$%$(9ÿ4(&ÿ3'.."3+$'(>ÿ$(ÿALZ[BJIÿ
KL\\BZ]ÿMNÿOGPPL\\LGCJRÿGSÿTCUJRCBIÿVJMJCWJ0ÿ^)_`ÿ_4>"ÿa'hÿ3/0/3cdÿ+'ÿ+47"ÿ}~ÿÿÿ
34>">ÿ';+ÿ'#ÿs22t2ÿ34>"ÿ*$3+;."ÿ4#+".ÿABCDEÿAGHIJEÿKLÿMNÿOGPPQRÿGSÿTCUJRCBIÿVJMJCWJÿ33ÿyhz+!ÿ
/1/zÿ{mh_hÿ_$.hÿ3133|ÿY4>ÿÿ&"3$&"&ÿ'(ÿq4(;4.5ÿ//0ÿ3133hÿÿ
!"ÿABCDEÿAGHIJEÿKLÿMNÿOGPPQRÿGSÿTCUJRCBIÿVJMJCWJÿ33ÿyhz+!ÿ/1/zÿ{mh_hÿ_$.hÿ3133|ÿ!4>ÿ
4##"3+"&ÿ>'ÿ#4.ÿ4+ÿ%"4>+ÿ1ÿ*"+$+$'(".>ÿY!'>"ÿ4**"4%>ÿ'#ÿ+!"ÿe6j>ÿ&"3$>$'(>ÿ'(ÿY!$>+%"-%'Y".>ÿ3%4$,>ÿ
#.',ÿy'.,ÿ3//ÿY"."ÿ*"(&$(9ÿ$(ÿ^h)hÿ4gÿ_';.+hÿ!"$.ÿ4**"4%ÿ34>">ÿY"."ÿ-.;+4%%5ÿ&$>,$>>"&ÿ$(ÿ+!"ÿ^h)hÿ
4gÿ_';.+ÿ-"34;>"ÿmh_ÿ_';.+ÿ&"($"&ÿ@4(&5ÿ@'-%"5ÿ<$j>ÿ@'+$'(ÿ'#ÿ@4(&4+"ÿ)+45ÿ&;.$(9ÿ+!"ÿ*"(&$(9ÿ
ALZ[BJIÿKL\\BZ]ÿMNÿOGPPL\\LGCJRÿGSÿTCUJRCBIÿVJMJCWJ0ÿ^)_`ÿ_4>"ÿa'hÿ3/0/3cd0ÿ$(ÿY!$3!ÿ+!"ÿ
`**"%%4(+ÿ$>ÿ."*.">"(+"&ÿ-5ÿ4++'.("5>ÿY$+!ÿ+Y'ÿ4,$3;>ÿ3;.$4"hÿ !$>ÿ$>ÿ4ÿ%"94%ÿ!'%'34;>+ÿ#'.ÿ
Y!$>+%"-%'Y".>ÿ$(ÿ^h)hÿ4gÿ_';.+hÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÁÂÃÄÿÃÆÇÈÿÉÊËÌÍÎËÏÿÿÿÿÿÿÐÑÒÓÔÈÕÖÿÉÍ×ØÊÍËÎÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÙÚÛÈÜÝÿË×ÞËßÞÊËÊÊÿÿÿÿÿÿàÆáÈÿââÿÑãÿäâä
ÿÿ!"#$%&ÿ%'ÿ#("ÿ)*+,-,.ÿ0ÿ123ÿ456ÿÿ465ÿ556ÿ64ÿ456ÿÿ556ÿ56ÿ66ÿÿ
%'ÿ789:;<8=ÿ78?@;AÿB8;ACA@DÿEÿF?GH9?8<ÿIHEH?@HÿJH9EKCHÿELÿM:NNK;;K:?H9ÿ:OÿGPHÿF?GH9?8<ÿ
IHEH?@HÿJH9EKCHQÿR$&"ÿSTUÿVWRÿSTUÿXY0Z[Y\ÿ
ÿ
]^^^_ÿ ÿ
ab)ÿcdeff3d)g)d)hc)iÿcjf)fÿfjcdjk)haeÿcelhamÿfln)d^edÿcelda3ÿ
o3p3qÿq3rsrtuÿvwÿxy5ÿ5z5{xÿÿxy5ÿt{v5x|ÿÿ
s3p{3}ÿcjf)ÿhewÿ1~321322~}ÿab)ÿfaja)ÿegÿcj^gedh^jÿÿ
celdaÿegÿjnn)j}ÿab^diÿjnn)ja)ÿi^fad^caÿ1icjÿq3rsrtuÿvwÿxy5ÿ
5z5{xÿÿxy5ÿt{v5x|ÿÿs3p{3ÿ5xw3p_ÿcjf)ÿheÿ_ÿc2~ÿ
ÿ
("ÿ%Qÿ"%'#T'ÿÿW#%"ÿÿÿ$##T'"&ÿT"#ÿÿ$'($&ÿ$'!ÿT"#ÿUÿT"ÿ$#%T'ÿ$%"!ÿ
$#ÿÿ$"$ÿ%'ÿ#("ÿURUÿR%%#ÿ$&ÿ$'!ÿ&#%ÿ%&ÿÿ"%&"ÿTT!%'$#"!ÿ%#(ÿ#("ÿT""!%'&ÿ%'ÿÿ
%'#"T''"#"!ÿ$&"&ÿQÿ(%(ÿ($"ÿ""'ÿ"'!%'ÿ&%'"ÿ"""ÿXYZ2ÿ%'ÿW#$#"ÿTÿR$%T'%$ÿ
W$$"'#TÿRT'#ÿW"%TÿRT#ÿ$&ÿ789:;<8=ÿB8;ACA@DÿELÿPHÿIHH?G;ÿ:OÿGPHÿ?KEH9;KGÿ:Oÿ
M8<KO:9?K8QÿR$&"ÿSTLÿ2[0XYZ20YYZ¡¡[\¢ÿ$'!ÿ2RÿQÿ£$&¤¤ÿUÿÿPHÿIHH?G;ÿ:OÿGPHÿ?KEH9;KGÿ
:OÿM8<KO:9?K8ÿ"#U$UÿR$&"ÿSTURY¢¡[¥¥Uÿÿ("ÿVRÿ""'#&ÿ$"ÿ#("ÿ#$"#ÿ$'!ÿ""#$#T&ÿTÿ%%T'&ÿ
Tÿ!T $&¦ÿT#(ÿTÿ#$§ÿ"$&%T'ÿ$'!ÿ$!ÿ%'ÿ789:;<8=ÿ78?@;AÿB8;ACA@DÿEÿF?GH9?8<ÿIHEH?@HÿJH9EKCHÿ
ELÿM:NNK;;K:?H9ÿ:OÿGPHÿF?GH9?8<ÿIHEH?@HÿJH9EKCHQÿR$&"ÿSTUÿVWRÿSTUÿXY0Z[Y\Uÿ'ÿ#("ÿ&$"ÿ!$Qÿ
W"#""ÿZQÿXYXZQÿT"ÿ$'!ÿ$'($&ÿ%"!ÿ#("%ÿ8NKC@;ÿ%"ÿ%'ÿ#("ÿURUÿR%%#ÿ̈Kÿ$&"Qÿ#("ÿ©!"ÿ
TÿW$$"'#TÿW"%TÿRT#QÿR(%&#T("ÿª""Qÿ$ÿT"ÿ%Qÿ"%'#T'ÿÿW#%"ÿ
ÿ$##T'"ÿ$'!ÿT"ÿR(%"ÿ"#ÿ"$ÿW""#$ÿ#TÿR$%T'%$ÿ«T"'Tÿ'T!ÿ
W($¤"'""Qÿ$'#"!ÿ#("ÿVRÿ""'#&¦ÿT#%T'ÿTÿW$ÿ¬!"'#Uÿ¬!"ÿª""ÿ$&ÿ
$&&%'"!ÿ#Tÿ£$&¤¤¦&ÿ$&"ÿ%'ÿ¬ÿXYXZQÿ©&#ÿ#Tÿ""&ÿ$#"ÿT"ÿ$'!ÿ$'($&ÿ""ÿ$T%'#"!ÿ
$&ÿ$%&ÿ%$"ÿ%'ÿ#("ÿ̈Kÿ$&"Uÿ("ÿ$&"ÿ%&ÿ'Tÿ"'!%'ÿ'Tÿ%'ÿ#("ÿW#$#"ÿRT#ÿTÿ"$Qÿ(%!ÿ
" $#"ÿ%&#%#ÿ$&ÿB8;ACA@DÿELÿMÿIHH?G;QÿR$&"ÿSTUÿRY¢¡[¥¥ÿW""ÿ"#$%&ÿ%'ÿÿnj^ha^ggÿjhiÿ
jnn)jhaÿ®jdefj¯ÿ¯jf°c°l±²fÿf)cehiÿhea^c)ÿegÿek^ff^ehÿd)³ÿ
i)f^´hja)iÿd)cediÿehÿjnn)jÿ%"!ÿ%'ÿW$$"'#TÿRT'#ÿW"%TÿRT#ÿ$'!ÿ2RÿT'ÿ
¬ÿXYQÿXYXXÿ)]b^µ^aÿ011ÿ¶·ÿ̧¹º»+ÿ¼½,¾¿ÿº·¼ÿiÀiÿÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ22ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
®¯°ÿ̄²³´ÿµ¶·¸¹º·»ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¼½¾¿À´ÁÂÿµ¹ÃĶ¹·ºÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÅÆḈÈÉÿ·ÃÊ·Ëʶ·¶¶ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̲ʹÿÎÃÿ½ÏÿÐÎÐ
!"#ÿ ÿ
&'ÿ()*!+ÿ,-.ÿ-/--ÿÿ01!(ÿ*234256ÿ7!68ÿ0292*(+ÿ2:2*;'ÿ*2;4+(61*'ÿ
<1&&!55!1:ÿ(ÿ=>?ÿ,@#AB&7ÿ51+(*ÿ)+(:6ÿ+1<(629ÿ1:ÿÿ682ÿ4:!"2*5!6'ÿ10ÿ
<(+!01*:!(ÿ.ÿ4<ÿ9("!5ÿÿ@-B(<*2ÿ)+16ÿ(6ÿ+2"22ÿ*1(9ÿ!:ÿ51+(:1ÿ<14:6'.ÿ
<(+!01*:!(ÿÿ
ÿ
1Cÿ(DEFGÿ,-.ÿ-/--.ÿHÿIJKLMNNOPÿNQÿRSTUÿVWÿRXHYÿZO[JOINÿNQÿ\O]^ÿLOÿZONZMO_Oÿ`ZQLÿRSTUaIÿ
ObMKZVZcÿN\OÿIO]`0dOZNM̀MdVNMQWÿRQZLÿeefÿ̀QZÿN\Oÿgfh20ijÿIQ]VZÿ^]VWNÿ]QdVNOPÿQWÿVÿfk0VdZOÿ^]QNÿVNÿbO_OOÿ
TQVPÿMWÿlQ]VWQÿUQJWNcmÿUV]M̀QZWMVÿQnWOPÿKcÿoUÿpV_MIhÿq2 8!r!6sÿAtÿuCÿ=>?ÿvGwx>ÿyEFz?ÿwCyÿ
9"9{#ÿHÿnVIÿIOO|MW}ÿLQZOÿMW`QZLVNMQWÿVKQJNÿN\Oÿ^]VWNÿV`NOZÿHÿdVLOÿNQÿIJI^OdNÿN\VNÿLcÿ`QZLOZÿ
OL^]QcOZmÿN\OÿoWM_OZIMNcÿQ`ÿUV]M̀QZWMVmÿ\VPÿIQLON\MW}ÿNQÿPQÿnMN\ÿTQKOZNÿbQOKaIÿZO^ZOIOWNVNMQWÿQ`ÿN\Oÿ
IQ]VZÿ^QnOZÿ^ZQPJdOZÿ~ZQVP_MOnÿlQ]VZmÿbbUÿMWÿN\OÿphUhÿUMZdJMNÿdVIOÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿmÿUVIOÿQhÿkg0gg2fÿhÿ
\OÿlO]`0UOZNM̀MdVNMQWÿRÿRQZLIÿeefÿZONZMO_OPÿ`ZQLÿN\OÿRSTUaIÿObMKZVZcmÿn\Md\ÿ\VPÿKOOWÿ
`M]OPÿnMN\ÿRSTUÿKcÿlQ]VZÿlNVZÿUV]M`QZWMVÿ HHmÿbbUÿQWÿ¡k¢k3¢k¡gfmÿ¡£¢¡2¢k¡g£mÿVWPÿ
¡2¢ge¢k¡kkÿJWPOZÿRSTUÿpQd|ONÿRgf03£gmÿPMPÿWQNÿI\QnÿVWcN\MW}ÿO¤NZVQZPMWVZcÿN\VNÿnQJ]Pÿ
ZVMIOÿVÿZOPÿ`]V}ÿQ`ÿVWcÿnZQW}PQMW}ÿKcÿN\OÿQnWOZÿQ`ÿN\Oÿ^]VWNÿQZÿMNIÿQ^OZVNMW}ÿdQL^VWcÿ
¥2 8!r!6ÿsA¦ÿuCÿvGwx>ÿyEFz?ÿwCyÿ9"9{hÿ\OÿN\ZOOÿRIÿMWd]JPOÿN\Oÿ̀Q]]QnMW}ÿI\QZNÿPOIdZM^NMQWÿQ`ÿ
N\Oÿ^]VWN§ÿÿ
\Oÿ̀VdM]MNcÿMIÿO¤^OdNOPÿNQÿNQNV]ÿV^^ZQ¤MLVNO]cÿgfh2ÿij0pUÿ¥g2h¡ÿij0YUÿ}ZQIIÿMW_OZNOZÿ
dV^VdMNc¨hÿ\OÿPOIM}WÿMWd]JPOIÿ©ÿXVIMIÿªQnOZÿ~]Qd|ImÿMWd]JPMW}ÿQWOÿgh¡ÿij0YUÿMW_OZNOZÿVWPÿ
OM}\Nÿgheÿij0YUÿMW_OZNOZIhÿHWÿNQNV]mÿN\OÿPOIM}WÿMWd]JPOIÿ2«m33¡ÿlJWªQnOZÿLQPJ]OIhÿ\Oÿ̀VdM]MNcÿ
MIÿMWNOZdQWWOdNOPÿNQÿVWÿO¤MINMW}ÿoWM_OZIMNcÿQ`ÿUV]M̀QZWMVmÿpV_MIÿIJKINVNMQWÿVNÿgkÿ|¬hÿ
UQWIJ]NMW}ÿVÿIVNO]]MNOÿ^\QNQÿQ`ÿN\Oÿ^]VWNmÿHÿdQJWNOPÿN\OÿWJLKOZÿQ`ÿIQ]VZÿLQPJ]OIÿNQÿPONOZLMWOÿn\ON\OZÿ
N\OÿWJLKOZIÿQ`ÿLQPJ]OIÿnVIÿN\OÿIVLOÿVIÿnVIÿINVNOPÿMWÿN\OÿRÿRQZLIÿh\OIOÿnOZOÿN\OÿIVLOÿWJLKOZhÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
uvwxÿwz{|ÿ}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿ |ÿ}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ|ÿ~~~ÿÿÿÿÿÿz|ÿÿÿ
ÿÿ
!ÿ#$ÿ%&'&()ÿ*+ÿ,-./ÿ01123145ÿ67ÿ682ÿ099:;<=6;73ÿ>7?ÿ0@=?1ÿ>7?ÿA?;B;3=:ÿC3>7?5=6;73ÿDCEFÿ
G7?5ÿHIIJKÿ17<L2621ÿ;3ÿ682ÿMNAÿ=OÿP=O62?ÿQRST#ÿUVWÿ,-./X-.,../ÿ=31ÿF4YÿZ:=;5Oÿ,-./X-.,.*[ÿ
S!\ÿ,-./X-.,.].Kÿ73ÿ99^ÿ_H`3aKÿCÿ=11?2OO21ÿB?223874O2ÿB=Oÿ25;OO;73Oÿ=31ÿ23b;?735236=:ÿ:=@Oÿ;3ÿ
?2:=6;73ÿ67ÿb;7:=6;73OÿYcÿ682ÿd3;b2?O;6cÿ7>ÿZ=:;>7?3;=ÿ7>ÿ682ÿe4Y:;<ÿd6;:;6cÿE2B4:=67?cÿe7:;<;2Oÿ0<6ÿ7>ÿ
IfghÿDedEe0JKÿi;6:2ÿjCÿ7>ÿ682ÿÿZ;b;:ÿE;B86Oÿ0<6ÿ7>ÿIfa_Kÿ=31ÿ7682?ÿ:=@Oÿ;3<:41;3BÿY46ÿ376ÿ:;5;621ÿ67ÿ
b;7:=6;73ÿ7>ÿ6=k02k2596ÿO6=64Oÿ746:;321ÿ;3ÿCEZÿF2<6;73ÿ3lID<JD2J^ÿC3ÿHlIhKÿCÿY2<=52ÿ<4?;74Oÿ@8cÿdZÿ
m=b;Oÿ8=1ÿO=<?;>;<21ÿaHÿ=<?2Oÿ7>ÿ:=31ÿ32k6ÿ67ÿ682ÿe46=8ÿZ?22Lÿn7?68ÿo2b22ÿi?=;:Kÿ@8;<8ÿ;Oÿ=ÿ9=?6ÿ7>ÿ682ÿ
dZÿm=b;Oÿn=6;73=:ÿE2O2?b2ÿFcO625Kÿ1;O64?Y;3Bÿ682ÿ3=64?=:ÿ8=Y;6=6Oÿ7>ÿ5=3cÿO92<;2OÿDO22ÿ
8669Opqq@@@^8;L;3B9?7r2<6^<75q6?=;:qgl2l2_Hq946=80<?22L037?680:2b2206?=;:J^ÿi82ÿaH0=<?2ÿO7:=?ÿ
>=?5ÿB232?=62OÿI_sÿ7>ÿdZÿm=b;Otÿ2:2<6?;<;6cÿ=31ÿO4997O21:cÿ?214<2Oÿ682ÿ43;b2?O;6ctOÿ<=?Y73ÿ>7769?;36ÿ
Ycÿfs^ÿi8;Oÿ9:=36ÿ1;1ÿ376Kÿ;3ÿ>=<6Kÿ?214<2ÿ682ÿ<=?Y73ÿ>7769?;36ÿ=6ÿ=::ÿY2<=4O2ÿdZÿm=b;Otÿ5=;3ÿ<=594Oÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿÿ£ÿ¤¥¤
!"ÿ ÿ
%&''('ÿ)*&+,-.,/ÿ-&ÿ-(,'ÿ&0ÿ*.%%.&,'ÿ&0ÿ-) 102((ÿ3&%%)2'ÿ3+(ÿ-&ÿ-4(ÿ
+,%)50+%ÿ),3ÿ.,'+00.6.(,-ÿ&7(2)-.&,ÿ&0ÿ-4(ÿ891*5ÿ6&/(,(2)-.&,ÿ
7&5(2ÿ7%),-ÿ6&**.''.&,(3ÿ.,ÿ:;;<ÿ%&6)-(3ÿ)-ÿ-4(ÿ+63*6ÿ.,ÿ
')62(*(,-&=ÿ6)%.0&2,.)ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ>ÿ?@AÿBCDEFÿGHÿIBEÿJKLMKÿNOÿPQOEÿR3SÿRTTTÿ@Aÿ@ÿONO0EUEVWIÿAEOCNDÿWN?EDÿWX@OIÿVEYB@OCYÿNDÿ
YNZEOED@ICNOÿWN?EDÿWX@OIÿNWED@IND[ÿMHÿ\NGÿ?@AÿINÿV@COI@COÿ@OFÿNWED@IEÿIBEÿOE?XHÿGQCXISÿAI@IE0N]0IBE0
@DIÿ230M^ÿYNZEOED@ICNOÿWN?EDÿWX@OI[ÿ_( 4.`.-ÿabcÿdeÿfghijÿklmnoÿhekÿ3!3p[ÿ
ÿ
qBEÿWX@OIÿ?@AÿYNVVCAACNOEFÿCOÿRTTrÿ@OFÿGQCXIÿ]NDÿstuÿVCXXCNO[ÿ>Iÿ?@AÿWN?EDEFÿGHÿ@ÿvEOED@Xÿ
wXEYIDCYÿx20M^ÿyMÿxuzzÿZ@AÿIQDGCOEÿ@II@YBEFÿINÿ@OÿEUB@QAIÿBE@IÿDEYN{EDHÿAIE@VÿZEOED@INDÿ_|}~v[ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ¡ÿ¢
!"ÿ#0$%ÿ&'"()ÿ'*+,-!".ÿ/-0"ÿ10$%ÿ2('"+3-44(+ÿ")"+5"!67ÿ5"!"+('8+&.ÿ(!9ÿ/8*+ÿ!('*+(4ÿ5(&0/-+"9ÿ
&'"()ÿ,8-4"+&ÿ:(0"ÿ(ÿ'8'(4ÿ&'"()ÿ5"!"+('-8!ÿ6(3(6-'7ÿ8/ÿ;<<.<<<ÿ4,&=:+>ÿ?:"ÿ34(!'@&ÿ'8'(4ÿ6(3(6-'7ÿ-&ÿ2Aÿ
$%:ÿ8/ÿ"4"6'+-6-'7ÿ(!9ÿ1<<.<<<ÿ4,&=:+ÿ8/ÿ&'"()>ÿ
B"'C""!ÿ;DDDÿ(!9ÿ1<<2.ÿ':"ÿ'8'(4ÿ38C"+ÿ9")(!9ÿ('ÿ':"ÿE2F$2ÿC(&ÿ(+8*!9ÿGÿ$%:ÿ
9*+-!5ÿ':"ÿ9(7ÿ(!9ÿHIHJKÿMNOÿPQÿRSTOQÿSUÿQOVÿÿWPXYPZVRQ[ÿM\RSXS]P^ÿ_QS^SQ`ÿaSbQYSXQÿ
cWM_adeSeÿR[QÿXP^^ÿU[Yÿ][fVYÿJÿghijkjlÿmnoÿ[RÿU^PbOÿeYSpVÿPReÿaqad>ÿlOVÿ34(!'ÿC(&ÿ
+"r*-+"9ÿ'8ÿe\Z]ÿsÿMNÿ-!'8ÿ':"ÿWPXYPZVRQ[ÿM\RSXS]P^ÿ_QS^SQ`ÿaSbQYSXQÿ5+-9ÿ'8ÿt""3ÿ-'&ÿsnuMNÿ
5(&ÿ'*+,-!"ÿvw?xÿ83"+('-8!(4ÿ(!9ÿ'8ÿ3+83"+47ÿ68!'+84ÿ-'&ÿRSQYSXÿ[ySeVÿ(-+ÿ3844*'-8!>ÿ?:"ÿ&'"()ÿ
9")(!9ÿ8/ÿE2F$2ÿ-!ÿ;DDDÿC(&ÿ(+8*!9ÿ1z.<<<ÿ4,&=:+.ÿ(!9ÿ(ÿw?ÿC-':ÿ(ÿz0$%ÿ48(9ÿ68*49ÿ!8'ÿ
5"!"+('"ÿ"!8*5:ÿ"{:(*&'ÿ:"('ÿ'8ÿ3+89*6"ÿ':-&ÿ-!ÿ':"ÿ|}~w>ÿ?:"ÿ(,&8+3'-8!ÿ6:-44"+&ÿC"+"ÿ+"r*-+"9ÿ
'8ÿ+*!ÿ(*{-4-(+7ÿ&'"()ÿ,8-4"+&.ÿC:-6:ÿC"+"ÿ'8ÿ,"ÿ*&"9ÿ8!47ÿC:"!ÿ':"ÿw?ÿC(&ÿ&:*'ÿ98C!>ÿ
ÿ
?:"ÿ34(!'ÿC(&ÿ68))-&&-8!"9ÿ-!ÿ;DD3ÿ(!9ÿ&:8*49ÿ:(0"ÿ&*334-"9ÿ"4"6'+-6-'7ÿ(!9ÿ&'"()ÿ'8ÿ':"ÿ
6()3*&.ÿ,*'ÿ':"ÿ&'"()ÿ(!9ÿ:8'ÿC('"+ÿ4-!"&ÿC"+"ÿ!8'ÿ/-!-&:"9.ÿ(!9ÿ':"ÿ849ÿ,8-4"+ÿ34(!'ÿ+")(-!"9ÿ-!ÿ*&">ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
pqrsÿruvwÿxyz{|}z~ÿÿÿÿÿÿwÿx|y|z}ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿwÿzzyzyyÿÿÿÿÿÿuwÿ}ÿÿ
!"ÿ#$%&'ÿ(%)ÿ*"+!%&,+%$$-ÿ.&/,&,)!"0ÿ%&0ÿ.&)%/"1ÿ%&0ÿ23456783ÿ,&'"9:"&',;&ÿ(%)ÿ&""0"0ÿ';ÿ/,<ÿ
)":"9%$ÿ#9;=$"*)ÿ'!%'ÿ"&0%&>"9"0ÿ#"9);&&"$?ÿ@-ÿ+;&'9%)'1ÿ'!"ÿA2ÿB%:,)ÿ*%,&ÿ+%*#.)ÿ!%0ÿ%ÿ#;("9ÿ
0"*%&0ÿ;/ÿ%=;.'ÿCDDÿEF!ÿ,&ÿC3331ÿ%&0ÿ%ÿ)'"%*ÿ0"*%&0ÿ;/ÿCGD1DDDÿ$=)5!9?ÿ!"ÿ*%,&ÿ+%*#.)ÿ+;.$0ÿ
!%:"ÿ=.,$'ÿ%ÿHDIJG0EFÿ+;>"&"9%',;&ÿ/%+,$,'-ÿ#;("9"0ÿ=-ÿ;&"ÿ4EÿHDDDÿK ÿ%&0ÿ;&"ÿ4ELGDDÿ(,'!;.'ÿ
:,;$%',&>ÿMANM3ÿ;9ÿOPN2ÿ9">.$%',;&)ÿ;9ÿ"&:,9;&*"&'%$ÿ$%()1ÿ=.'ÿ,&)'"%01ÿ'!"ÿ2J0EF!ÿ#$%&'ÿ
Q,&+$.0,&>ÿ/,:"ÿ"*"9>"&+-ÿ>"&"9%';9)ÿ;/ÿLEFÿ"%+!Rÿ(%)ÿ=.,$'ÿ;&ÿ'!"ÿ9"$%',:"$-ÿ)*%$$ÿA2BE2ÿ+%*#.)1ÿ
(!"9"ÿ#;("9ÿ%&0ÿ)'"%*ÿ0"*%&0ÿ(%)ÿ;&$-ÿ;&"0/,/'!ÿ;/ÿ(!%'ÿ'!"ÿ#$%&'ÿ+;.$0ÿ#9;0.+"?ÿ
ÿ
F!"&ÿSÿ(%)ÿ!,9"01ÿSÿ/;.&0ÿ,'ÿ)'9%&>"1ÿ>,:"&ÿ*-ÿ(;9Tÿ"<#"9,"&+"1ÿ'!%'ÿ%ÿLJ0EFÿ#$%&'ÿ+;)',&>ÿ
'"&)ÿ;/ÿ*,$$,;&)ÿ(%)ÿ&;'ÿ=",&>ÿ.)"0ÿ%)ÿ0"),>&"0?ÿSÿ'!;.>!'ÿ'!%'ÿ'!,)ÿ(%)ÿ'"*#;9%9-ÿ%&0ÿ'!%'ÿ&;'ÿ%$$ÿ;/ÿ
'!"ÿA2BE2ÿ=.,$0,&>)ÿ("9"ÿ=",&>ÿ#;("9"0ÿ=-ÿ'!"ÿ/%+,$,'-?ÿ!"ÿ;'!"9ÿ;#"9%';9)ÿ%&0ÿSÿ!%0ÿ&;ÿ+$."ÿ'!%'ÿ
("ÿ!%0ÿ=""&ÿ!,9"0ÿ';ÿ;#"9%'"ÿ'!"ÿ#$%&'ÿ);$"$-ÿ';ÿ)"$$ÿ#;("9ÿ/;9ÿ#9;/,'ÿ';ÿ="&"/,'ÿ;ÿÿA26Mÿ(!,'"ÿ+;$$%9ÿÿ
+9,*,&%$ÿ%&0ÿ'!",9ÿ/9,"&0)ÿÿÿ3'ÿ$"%)'ÿ'!9""ÿ;/ÿ'!"ÿL0EFÿ2%'"9#,$$%9ÿ"*"9>"&+-ÿ>"&"9%';9)ÿ,&+$.0"0ÿ,&ÿ
'!"ÿ#%+T%>"ÿ+;**,)),;&"0ÿ=-ÿ'!"ÿA2BE2ÿ("9"ÿ%##%9"&'$-ÿ,&'"&0"0ÿ';ÿ="ÿ.)"0ÿ/;9ÿ#;("9ÿ)%$"?ÿ!"ÿ
A2BE2U)ÿ,&0!;.)"ÿ#;("9ÿ$;%0ÿ,&ÿC333ILDD21ÿ%&0ÿ/;9ÿ%ÿ$;&>ÿ',*"ÿ'!"9"%/'"91ÿ(%)ÿ,&ÿ'!"ÿV?GIHÿEFÿ
9%&>"1ÿ%&0ÿ!%:,&>ÿCDÿEFÿ;/ÿ"*"9>"&+-ÿ#;("9ÿ(%)ÿ%ÿ#$%&ÿ';ÿ*%T"ÿ*,$$,;&)ÿ;/ÿ0;$$%9)ÿ,&ÿ'%<0/9""ÿ
*;&"-?ÿA&/;9'.&%'"$-1ÿ%/'"9ÿ'!"ÿ"*"9>"&+-ÿ>"&"9%';9)ÿ=">%&ÿ=",&>ÿ'")'"0ÿ/9"W."&'$-1ÿ&"%9=-ÿ9"),0"&')ÿ
+;*#$%,&"0ÿ%=;.'ÿ'!"ÿ9").$',&>ÿ!,>!ÿ+;&+"&'9%',;&ÿ;/ÿ0,")"$ÿ/.*")?ÿ!;)"ÿ/.*")ÿ%$);ÿ"&'"9"0ÿ'!"ÿ#$%&'U)ÿ
+;&'9;$ÿ9;;*ÿ%&0ÿ;'!"9ÿ*"0,+%$ÿ+"&'"9ÿ:"&',$%',;&ÿ)-)'"*)1ÿ+%.),&>ÿ),+T&"))?Q)""ÿP<!,=,'ÿXÿ2HRÿÿ
M9,;9ÿ';ÿ(;9T,&>ÿ%'ÿA2BE21ÿSÿ(%)ÿ"*#$;-"0ÿ/9;*ÿC3Y3ÿ';ÿC33Yÿ=-ÿB")'"+ÿP&"9>-ÿS&+?1ÿ=%)"0ÿ
,&ÿ8;.)';&1ÿZÿ%)ÿ%&ÿ;#"9%';9ÿ;/ÿ%ÿGD0EFÿ&%'.9%$ÿ>%)0/,9"0ÿ#$%&'ÿ+;>"&"9%',;&ÿ#$%&'ÿ#;("9"0ÿ=-ÿ%ÿ
K"&"9%$ÿP$"+'9,+ÿ4EÿGDDDÿK ÿ),*,$%9ÿ';ÿA2BE2U)ÿ4EÿLGDDÿK ?ÿ[&;(&ÿ%)ÿ\]^_ÿab^cde_ÿ
fbgh_hi^jeb_ÿkl^_jÿ1mÿ'!,)ÿGD0EFÿ+;>"&"9%',;&ÿ#$%&'ÿ(%)ÿ$;+%'"0ÿ,&ÿ4%'!9;#1ÿ2%$,/;9&,%1ÿGDÿ*,$")ÿ
);.'!ÿ;/ÿ7%+9%*"&';?ÿB")'"+ÿ!%0ÿÿ3ÿ#$%&')ÿ,&ÿ2%$,/;9&,%ÿ%&0ÿ!%0ÿ%ÿLD0-"%9ÿ#;("9ÿ)%$"ÿ+;&'9%+'ÿ(,'!ÿ
M%+,/,+ÿK%)ÿ%&0ÿP$"+'9,+ÿQMKnPR1ÿ%&0ÿ'!"ÿ#$%&'ÿ(%)ÿ;#"9%'"0ÿLV5Jÿ%'ÿ/.$$ÿGD0EFÿ$;%01ÿ(,'!ÿ'!"ÿ
"<+"#',;&ÿ;/ÿ)!.'0;(&)ÿ/;9ÿ)+!"0.$"0ÿ*%,&'"&%&+"ÿ;9ÿ.&"<#"+'"0ÿ"W.,#*"&'ÿ=9"%T0;(&?ÿS&ÿ%00,',;&1ÿ
'!"ÿ#$%&'ÿ(%)ÿ*%T,&>ÿ*;&"-ÿ=-ÿ)"$$,&>ÿ).#"9!"%'"0ÿ)'"%*ÿ';ÿ'!"ÿ%.';ÿ>$%))ÿ+;*#%&-ÿ4,==-06("&)0
O;901ÿ,&ÿ4%'!9;#?ÿS&ÿ%00,',;&1ÿB")'"+ÿP&"9>-ÿS&+?1ÿ%)ÿ;#"9%';9ÿ;/ÿ%ÿW.%$,/,"0ÿ+;>"&"9%',;&ÿ/%+,$,'-ÿQoOR1ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡ÿÿ¢ÿ£¤£
!"!#$!%ÿ&ÿ'()ÿ*!+,&-#./ÿ0#--#1.2ÿ13ÿ%1--&24ÿ.&5,&-ÿ/&2ÿ%#2"1,.5ÿ310ÿ6789ÿ,.%!ÿ:&-#31.#&ÿ6,;-#"ÿ
<5#-#5#!2ÿ:1%!ÿ=!"5#1.ÿ'>?@(@ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ A!25!"ÿ9.!/BÿC."@ÿÿ!.&0!%ÿ51ÿAB.!/BÿDEFGHIDEDÿKLMNÿGHOEPHQEGRÿHSDÿTHUVFWGSVHÿOHXÿ
PHQEGRÿ13ÿ&YY1Z#0&5!-BÿFGW[ÿ\]^_ÿ[VUUVWSÿ>`?`ÿ51ÿ>``aÿÿNbcdedfÿghiÿWSÿFUHRjÿDGVkEÿHSDÿlmlÿ
&.%ÿ5n!.ÿ!Y!&5!%ÿ5n!ÿ3&,%ÿ&/&#.25ÿ:&-#31.#&ÿ&5!Y&B!2ÿ&.%ÿ5&ZY&B!2ÿ%,#./ÿ5n!ÿ:&-#31.#&ÿ9.!/Bÿ
:#2#2@@ÿ
on!ÿ!Z&"5ÿ&01,.5ÿ13ÿ5n&5ÿ3&,%ÿp&2ÿ\]iqÿ[VUUVWSÿ&""1%#./ÿ51ÿ:&-#31.#&ÿr551.!Bÿ7!.!&-ÿs#--ÿ
t1"uB!v2ÿ%#2"-12,!ÿpn1ÿÿ"&2n!%ÿ1,5ÿ31ÿn#2ÿ133#"!ÿ#.ÿ&YY1Z#0&5!-Bÿw'3ÿ0#--#1.ÿ310ÿ5n!ÿ%!&-ÿp#5nÿ
A!25!"v2ÿ2,""!221ÿÿAB.!/BÿC."@ÿÿ
*2!!xn55Y2xyyppp@2"#;%@"10y%1",0!.5y2?`3'?z2>y{!;,&B0>```0{#!0#.0|B0A&,/n5!020
rY&50!.50=&.0:&-120:&-#31.#&4@ÿ
on!ÿY#."#Y-!2ÿ13ÿ7o0Y1p!!%ÿ"1/!.!&5#1.ÿ3&"#-#5#!2ÿ&!ÿ1,5-#.!%ÿ#.ÿ5n!ÿ-&pÿ*6,;-#"ÿ<5#-#5Bÿ
}!/,-&51Bÿ61-#"#!2ÿr"5~ÿ6<}6r~ÿ!.&"5!%ÿ;Bÿ:1./!22ÿ1.ÿ1$!0;!ÿ̀~ÿ>`z?4~ÿpn#"nÿ"&--2ÿ31ÿ&ÿY1Y!ÿ
%!0&.%ÿ31ÿ25!&0ÿ,2!ÿ;Bÿ"&Y5,#./ÿ5n!ÿ!Zn&,25ÿ/&2!2vÿn!&5ÿ*5n!0&-ÿ!.!/B4ÿ310ÿ7oÿ$#&ÿ&.ÿ}=7~ÿ51ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£ÿ¤¥¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦§ÿÿÿ̈©ª©
!ÿ"!#$%&%!'ÿ(ÿ)*+,ÿ-.ÿ-ÿ/)0ÿ12+13ÿ4-5'-$!.ÿ$6-$ÿ-5(ÿ"78!5!#-$%75ÿ&-"%9%$(ÿ"!#$%&%!'ÿ-5'ÿ#!"785%:!'ÿ
(ÿ9-;ÿ-.ÿ-ÿ<=>-9%&%!'ÿ"78!5!#-$%75ÿ&-"%9%$(?ÿ4>.$ÿ4!!$ÿ.@!"%-9ÿ#!=>%#!4!5$.ÿ#!9-$!'ÿ$7ÿ$6!ÿ#-$%7ÿ!$;!!5ÿ
!9!"$#%"ÿ!5!#8(ÿ@#7'>"$%75ÿ-5'ÿ$6!#4-9ÿ!5!#8(ÿ@#7'>"$%75ÿ$7ÿ!ÿ"!#$%&%!'ÿ-5'ÿ@!#4%$$!'ÿ&7#ÿ!5!#8(ÿ
@#7'>"$%75ÿA3Bÿ,0)0+0ÿCÿDED0DFGÿ)!'!#-9ÿ17;!#ÿ3"$ÿ3Hÿ20I0,0ÿCÿBD2'A-JJ0ÿK-L%58ÿ-ÿ@#7&%$ÿ-5'ÿ&>9&%99%58ÿ
-5(ÿ@7;!#ÿ.-9!ÿ"75$#-"$ÿ-5'ÿ.$!-4ÿ67.$ÿ@#7'>"$%75ÿ'!4-5'.ÿ-ÿ5-$>#-9ÿ8-.0&%#!'ÿ"78!5!#-$%75ÿ@9-5$ÿ4>.$ÿ
#>5ÿÿD2MNÿ-$ÿ&>99ÿ97-'ÿ;%$6ÿ!O"!@$%75ÿ$7ÿ4-%5$!5-5"!ÿ.6>$ÿ'7;5ÿ75ÿ>5!O@!"$!'ÿ#!-L'7;5ÿ7&ÿ!=>%@4!5$ÿ
0ÿÿ
P6!ÿ;6%$!ÿ"799-#ÿ"#%4%5-9.ÿJÿ$6!ÿ2,Q1ÿ"75.@%#!'ÿ;%$6ÿ;6%$!ÿ"799-#ÿ"#%4%5-9.ÿJÿ,3RIQSÿÿ
4-'!ÿ-ÿ8#7..ÿ4%."-9">9-$%75ÿ(ÿ%5T!.$%58ÿ%5ÿ$6!%#ÿ"#%4!ÿ$!5.ÿ7&ÿ4%99%75.ÿ7&ÿ'799-#.ÿ(ÿ-''%58ÿ$7ÿ
2,UK,V.ÿ>$%9%$(ÿ@9-5$Sÿ$6!ÿDW0KXÿYKÿDZFFÿ[PSÿ$6!ÿ20KXÿ.$!-4ÿ$>#%5!Sÿ&%T!ÿ!4!#8!5"(ÿ8!5!#-$7#.Sÿ
-5'ÿ-ÿ\6ÿ7567\6ÿ$7ÿ]^_`ÿÿbcdbeÿf^ghij^gkl0ÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿP6!ÿ2,Q1ÿ;6%$!ÿ"799-#ÿ"#%4%5-9.ÿ-5'ÿ$6!%#ÿ"799-7#-$7#.ÿ!5$%#!9(ÿÿ%857#!'ÿ$6!ÿ$6!ÿ12+13ÿ0)-"%9%$(ÿ
;-.ÿ-5'ÿ.$%99ÿ%.ÿÿ%5"-@-9!ÿ7&ÿ!%$6!#ÿ$7ÿ4!!$ÿ$6!ÿ!&&%"%!5"(ÿ.$-5'-#'.ÿ-.ÿ7>$9%5!'ÿ%5ÿm^jh̀ÿnoÿpqdÿbirjÿ
stsusvwÿxiyÿik_ÿxzyÿik_M7#ÿ57$ÿ>.%58ÿ5-$>#-9ÿ8-.ÿ%5ÿ$6!ÿ.!=>!5$%-9ÿ@#7'>"$%75ÿ7&ÿ!9!"$#%"%$(ÿ-5'ÿ.$!-4Sÿ
6!-$ÿ7#ÿ>.!&>9ÿ;7#L0ÿ
Q5ÿ$7@ÿ7&ÿ$6%.Sÿÿ2,Q1ÿÿ;6%$!ÿ"799-#ÿ"#%4%5-9.ÿ-5'ÿ$6!%#ÿ"799-7#-$7#.ÿ4-'!ÿ-ÿ8#-T!ÿ4%.$-L!ÿ%5ÿ
$6!%#ÿ)!#>-#(ÿ3EEBÿ{7%5$ÿT!5$>#!ÿ;%$6ÿ*5#75ÿ,7#@7#-$%75ÿ*5!#8(ÿI!#T%"!.ÿ$7ÿ9->5'!#ÿ4!8-;-$$.ÿJÿ
2,ÿ"-4@>.!.ÿ>5'!#ÿ>4 #!99-ÿ-ÿ'%#!"$ÿ-""!..ÿ.!#T%"!.ÿ"75$#-"$0ÿ*5#75Sÿ;%$67>$ÿ-ÿ.%589!ÿ@7;!#ÿ@9-5$ÿ%5ÿ
$6!ÿI$-$!ÿ7&ÿ,-9%&7#5%-Sÿ;-.ÿ=>%"L9(ÿ7>$8>55!'ÿ-5'ÿ"799-@.!'ÿ%5ÿU!"!4 !#ÿDFF3ÿ(ÿ"74@!$%58ÿ;%$6ÿ4(ÿ
&7#4!#ÿ!4@97(!#SÿU!.$!"MU(5!8(Sÿ*9ÿ1-.7SÿK%#%-4Sÿ-5'ÿ7$6!#ÿ8#!!'(ÿ@7;!#0.!99%58ÿ.6-#L.ÿ%5ÿ$6!ÿI$-$!ÿ
7&ÿ,-9%&7#5%-ÿ&7#ÿ$6!ÿ%99%750'799-#ÿ75!ÿ$6-$ÿ;-.ÿ$6#7;5ÿ$7ÿ$6!4ÿ(ÿ"-.606>58#(ÿ7#8-5%:!'ÿ"#%4%5-9.ÿ
Jÿ,3RIQSÿ$6!ÿ2,Q1Sÿ-5'ÿ.$-$!ÿ-8!5"%!.0ÿ
|(@7$6!$%"-99(Sÿ%&ÿ$6!ÿ2,UK,V.ÿDN0KXÿ"78!5!#-$%75ÿ6-'ÿ!!5ÿ7;5!'ÿ-5'ÿ7@!#-$!'ÿ(ÿ-ÿ
@#%T-$!ÿ@7;!#ÿ@#7'>"!#ÿ-.ÿ-ÿ/)ÿ&-"%9%$(ÿ-5'ÿ7@!#-$!'ÿD2MNÿ-""7#'%58ÿ$7ÿ12+13ÿ#!8>9-$%75.Sÿ$6!5ÿ-&$!#ÿ
s}ÿ~`irlÿ7&ÿ7@!#-$%75Sÿ$6!ÿ@9-5$ÿ;7>9'ÿ6-T!ÿ!!5ÿ-9!ÿ$7ÿ.!99ÿ$7ÿ@>9%"ÿ>$%9%$(ÿ"74@-5%!.ÿ-#7>5'Sÿ
wwtosvÿÿ;6!5ÿ"-9">9-$%58ÿ
ÿsÿÿÿs}ÿ]grlÿÿvÿ_i~lÿÿnsÿgkj]lÿÿs}ÿ~`irl0ÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤¥ÿ¦§¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̈©ÿÿªÿ«¬«
!"#$%&$'()**!ÿ'+ÿ$%&ÿ,-,./-012ÿ45ÿ678ÿ9::;ÿ<=>8ÿ?@A6ÿ7ÿ;:AÿBC=D@AÿE,2F45-ÿA6:;ÿ@Aÿ?=G>8ÿ
67H:ÿA=A7>:8ÿEÿ10.-.IJ-222ÿ
KLÿM)N(%ÿ3OPQÿ)LRÿSTUTV$ÿ3OPWXÿKÿ"N#Y'R&Rÿ$#ÿ$%&ÿZ[\ÿ)LÿS""*'()$'#Lÿ+#NÿS])NRÿ+#Nÿ\N'U'L)*ÿ
KL+#N^)$'#Lÿ_K`aÿb#N^ÿ3PPcÿ_de%'f'$Vÿ3ÿgÿhcXÿV#ÿ$%)$ÿ$%&ÿZ[\ÿ(#T*Rÿ(%)N$ÿ$%&ÿ"#]&Nÿ"N#RT($'#Lÿ)LRÿ
"#]&NÿV)*&ÿ)^#TL$Vÿ+N#^ÿijkMjlVÿ3m0MZÿ(#U&L&N)$'#Lÿ"#]&Nÿ"*)L$ÿ+N#^ÿPnnno3OPpÿ_V&&ÿ
qrstutvÿwI.ÿ=;ÿD>7<6ÿ8C@H:ÿ7;8ÿxyxz{ÿ
|ÿPnnn~ÿa#*RÿWXWmpÿMZ%ÿ_a)(N)^&L$#ÿMTL'('")*ÿi$'*'$!ÿk'V$N'($XÿaMikcXÿa)(N)^&L$#ÿ
MTL'('")*ÿi$'*'$!ÿk'V$N'($ÿÿ
|ÿ3OOO~ÿa#*Rÿ)""N#e'^)$&*!ÿmOXOOOÿMZ%ÿ_R)$&ÿ^'VV'LUXÿ\($#f&Nok&(&^f&Ncÿÿ
|ÿ3OOP~ÿa#*RÿmpXmQmÿMZ%ÿ_Y')ÿj)0jSKa\cÿ
|ÿ3OO3~ÿk)$)ÿ^'VV'LUXÿL#ÿV)*&ÿj)*ÿ+'*&Rÿ+#Nÿf)LNT"$(!ÿ
|ÿ3OOh~ÿa#*RÿPmXmnhÿMZ%ÿ_$#ÿaMikXÿf!ÿ)ÿ"#]&Nÿ"TN(%)V&ÿ)UN&&^&L$ÿV'UL&Rÿf!ÿijÿ
`&U&L$Vÿ#LÿO3Ph3OOhcÿ
|ÿ3OO2~ÿa#*RÿPhXWPOÿMZ%ÿ_aMikcÿ
|ÿ3OOp~ÿa#*Rÿ3mXpWOÿMZ%ÿ_aMikcÿ
|ÿ3OOQ~ÿa#*RÿhXmWhÿMZ%ÿ_aMikÿL&]ÿ"#]&Nÿ"TN(%)V&ÿ)UN&&^&L$ÿ]'$%ÿaMikÿ&++&($'Y&ÿ
TL&ÿPXÿ3OOQcÿ
|ÿ3OOm~ÿa#*Rÿ3XnPmÿMZ%ÿ_aMikcÿKÿ])VÿN&^#Y&Rÿ+N#^ÿ$%&ÿ"*)L$ÿ#LÿM)N(%ÿ3hXÿ3OOmÿf!ÿ
ij\ÿ]%'$&ÿ(#**)Nÿ(N'^'L)*Vÿ'Lÿ"N&")N)$'#Lÿ+#Nÿ)ÿ+T**0V()*&ÿ"#]&NÿV)*&cÿ
|ÿ3OOW~ÿa#*RÿmXWW2ÿMZ%ÿ_aMikÿ)$ÿ$%&ÿ&LRÿ#+ÿ3OOWXÿKÿ"N&Y)'*&Rÿ'Lÿ$%&ÿ)Nf'$N)$'#Lÿ"N#(&VVÿ
)U)'LV$ÿ$%&ÿij\ÿ+#Nÿ)fNT"$*!ÿ)LRÿTL*)]+T**!ÿN&^#Y'LUÿ^&ÿ+N#^ÿ$%&ÿijkMjlVÿ3m0
MZÿ(#U&L&N)$'#Lÿ"*)L$ÿ$%&ÿ3OOmc{ÿÿ
|ÿ3OOn~ÿa#*Rÿ#L*!ÿh23ÿMZ%ÿ_$#ÿaMikc{ÿ\Lÿ)LT)N!ÿhPXÿ3OOnXÿij\ÿ]%'$&ÿ(#**)Nÿ
(N'^'L)*VÿV'UL&Rÿ)ÿV&$$*&^&L$ÿ)UN&&^&L$ÿ]'$%ÿ^&{ÿKLÿ)LT)N!ÿ3OOnXÿ)L&$ÿ)"#*'$)L#ÿ])Vÿ
)""#'L$&Rÿk aÿa&(N&$)N!{ÿÿ
|ÿ3OPO~ÿa#*Rÿ#L*!ÿhppÿMZ%ÿ_$#ÿaMikXÿ)$ÿ2pMZ%ÿRT^"'LUÿ&L&NU!cÿ
ÿ
|ÿ3OPP~ÿa#*RÿPppÿMZ%ÿ_$#ÿaMikXÿ#LÿSTUTV$ÿhPXÿ3OPPÿKÿ])VÿN&^#Y&Rÿ+N#^ÿijkMjÿ
"N&^'V&Vÿ)Vÿ)Lÿ#fV$NT($'#Lÿ$#ÿ$%&ÿ"&N"&$N)$#NVÿ+#Nÿ"N&")N)$'#LVÿ$#ÿV'ULÿ)ÿL&]ÿ"#]&Nÿ
"TN(%)V&ÿ)UN&&^&L$ÿ]'$%ÿaMikcÿ
ÿ
|ÿ3OP3~ÿa#*Rÿ#L*!ÿhP3ÿMZ%ÿf&$]&&Lÿ)LT)N!ÿQÿ)LRÿk&(&^f&NÿhP{ÿ%&ÿijÿ̀&U&L$Vÿ
V'UL&Rÿ)ÿL&]ÿ"#]&Nÿ"TN(%)V&ÿ)UN&&^&L$ÿ]'$%ÿaMikÿ#LÿM)!ÿhPXÿ3OP3{ÿ\Lÿ$%&ÿV)^&ÿ
R)!XÿKÿ])Vÿ*TN&Rÿ$#ÿ$%&ÿijkMjÿ"N&^'V&Vÿ)LRÿÿKÿf&()^&ÿ$%&ÿVTf&($ÿ#+ÿ)ÿ%&'L#TVÿfT$ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿ£¤ÿ¥ÿ¦ÿ§¥§
!"##$""%&ÿ'()*)#+,-)!ÿ,)ÿ.$ÿ"/),ÿ.0ÿ+ÿ12ÿ3+*-"ÿ#)'ÿ.(-.$4ÿ5-,/ÿ+ÿ6378999ÿ'+0ÿ(+-"$:ÿ
;ÿ5+"ÿ,)ÿ.$ÿ4$&-*$($4ÿ4$+4ÿ)(ÿ+&-*$ÿ,)ÿ123<2="ÿ,(+>+ÿ!-,8ÿ5/-#/ÿ5+"ÿ'($'+($4ÿ,)ÿ
($#$-*$ÿ>$:ÿ?/$ÿ'()*)#+,-)!ÿ5+"ÿ!"##$""%&8ÿ+!4ÿ>0ÿ$>'&)0>$!,ÿ5+"ÿ,$(>-!+,$4ÿ)!ÿ
3$#$>.$(ÿ@8ÿA9BAÿ+,ÿ+C$ÿ)%ÿDB8ÿ%)&&)5-!Cÿ+ÿB:700$+(ÿ%)(#$4ÿ.0ÿ12EFÿ>).ÿÿ+."$!#$ÿ
%()>ÿ5)(G8ÿÿ
ÿ
HÿA9B3JÿK)&4ÿ)!&0ÿB83L3ÿ<M/ÿN,)ÿK<13OPÿK+&$"ÿ,)ÿK<13ÿ5$($ÿ4-"#)!,-!$4ÿ-!ÿ
3$#$>.$(8ÿ+ÿ%$5ÿ4+0"ÿ+%,$(ÿ;ÿ%-&$4ÿ+ÿ5()!C%&ÿ,$(>-!+,-)!ÿ"-,ÿ+C+-!",ÿ,/$ÿQ$C$!,"ÿ+!4ÿ+ÿ
'$,-,-)!ÿ)%ÿ5(-,ÿ)%ÿ>+!4+> "ÿ%)(ÿ4$!-$4ÿ!$>'&)0>$!,ÿ.$!$%-,"ÿ-!ÿK+#(+>$!,)ÿ2)!,0ÿ
K '$(-)(ÿ2)(,:ÿ
ÿ
HÿA9B2JÿR)ÿ')5$(ÿ$S')(,$4ÿ
HÿA9B7JÿR)ÿ')5$(ÿ$S')(,$4ÿ
HÿA9BDJÿR)ÿ')5$(ÿ$S')(,$4ÿ
HÿA9B@JÿR)ÿ')5$(ÿ$S')(,$4ÿ
HÿA9BLJÿR)ÿ')5$(ÿ$S')(,$4ÿ
HÿA9BTJÿR)ÿ')5$(ÿ$S')(,$4ÿ
HÿA9A9JÿR)ÿ')5$(ÿ$S')(,$4ÿ
HÿA9ABJÿR)ÿ')5$(ÿ$S')(,$4ÿ
HÿA9AAJÿR)ÿ')5$(ÿ$S')(,$4ÿ
?/$ÿ123<2="ÿA@0<Mÿ2)C$!$(+,-)!ÿU+#-&-,0ÿF()4#,-)!ÿQ$')(,ÿ4+,$4ÿVWXYZ[Y\ÿ^_ÿ̀
ab^c8ÿ5/-#/ÿ5+"ÿdeefYgÿ^hÿiYj\eÿjklY\ÿ,/$ÿ'&+!,ÿ5+"ÿ#)>>-""-)!$48ÿ"/)5"ÿ,/+,ÿ,/$ÿ+*$(+C$ÿ
'&+!,ÿ/)"$ÿmWjgÿdeÿnohÿpqÿrY\ÿastuWf\ÿrY\dWg8ÿ+!4ÿ,/$ÿa_tpqÿvpacbbÿwjeÿlf\[dxYÿdeÿ
[YdxwÿWrY\jlYgÿjlÿjXY\jwYÿWkÿnoÿmÿpqÿrY\ÿastuWf\ÿrY\dWgÿN-!0/)"$ÿ&)+4Oÿyz{|}~}ÿsbÿ
Wxÿkmjeuÿg\dXYÿjxgÿ:ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
opqrÿqtuvÿwxyz{|y}ÿÿÿÿÿÿ~vÿw{ x{y|ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿvÿy yxyxxÿÿÿÿÿÿtvÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
!ÿ"#$%#&'ÿ()0%*ÿ#+,!-!./01+-ÿ2/314105ÿ6.+78301+-ÿ9!:+.0ÿ7/0!7ÿ;<=>ÿ@ABÿ@C@@Dÿ
EFGHFÿEIJÿGJJ<KLÿ@Mÿ>KINJÿIOPKNÿ0!ÿ:4/-0ÿQ/'ÿ3+RR1''1+-!7Dÿ'+Q'ÿ0/0ÿ0!ÿ/S!./,!ÿ:4/-0ÿ
+8'!ÿ=TILÿGJÿUUVUÿWXÿYKNÿ@MZFT<NÿYKNGTLDÿ/-7ÿ0!ÿ@AZWXÿ[W@\CCÿ]IJÿP<N^G_KÿGJÿ^KG_]ÿ
TYKNIPKLÿIPÿI`KNI]KÿTOÿUCV\AÿWXÿYKNÿ@MZFT<NÿYKNGTLÿa1-0+8'!ÿ4+/7bÿcdefghgiÿjMUÿT_ÿ
O=IJFÿLNG̀KÿI_Lÿklkmnÿÿ
0ÿ22ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
IJKLÿKNOPÿQRSTUVSWÿÿÿÿÿÿXYZ[\P]^ÿQU_`RUSVÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿabcPdeÿS_fSgfRSRRÿÿÿÿÿÿhNiPÿUSSÿYjÿklk
ÿ
!"#$%&'%()*++",ÿ%*-(./ÿ(.%$ÿ)$.0(1'2*%($.ÿ%&'ÿ&(/&'0%ÿ*3'2*/'ÿ#+*.%ÿ+$*1,ÿ4&()&ÿ(0ÿ5565ÿ78ÿ#'2ÿ
920&$:2ÿ#'2($1,ÿ(%ÿ4(++ÿ;'*.ÿ%&*%ÿ#+*.%ÿ1(1ÿ.$%ÿ/'.'2*%'ÿ*.1ÿ0'++ÿ*##2$<(;*%'+"ÿ53ÿ78ÿ#'2ÿ&$:2ÿ=$2ÿ92ÿ
"'*20,ÿ%*-(./ÿ(.%$ÿ)$.0(1'2*%($.ÿ%&'ÿ=*)%ÿ%&*%ÿ%&'ÿ>?@7?A0ÿ9B078ÿ)$/'.'2*%($.ÿ#+*.%ÿ4*0ÿ
)$;;(00($.'1ÿ(.ÿ5CCD6ÿ
ÿÿ E%ÿ*.ÿ*3'2*/'ÿ.'%ÿ#2$=(%ÿF3Gÿ#'2ÿ5ÿ78ÿ.$%ÿ0$+1,ÿ(%ÿ4$:+1ÿ*;$:.%ÿ%$ÿ+$00'0ÿ$=Hÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ¡¢£¤¡¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦§¨©ª«¬ÿ£® £¡¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°±²³ÿ¡´¡µ´¡ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¶·ÿ£¡£ÿ§ÿ̧¹º¹
ÿ!ÿ#$%&'()ÿ*ÿ+,ÿ&'()-ÿ./01ÿ#$ÿ*ÿ/1ÿ234-ÿ.ÿ15611ÿ#$ÿ*ÿ+ÿ7'89&-ÿ. +:5011ÿ#$ÿ*ÿ+,ÿ
4;3)-ÿ.ÿ/5 15,11ÿ#$ÿ*ÿ<!1%#$ÿ.ÿ!!5!+15111ÿ=>=?@ÿ@>AABÿ
ÿ
CDEFÿFDGHFÿIDJIÿIDKÿLMNOMPFÿQRJSITÿQGHKUKVÿWXÿJSÿYOÿZ[\\ÿ]CÿEFÿWKES^ÿGQKUJIKVÿK_`JRÿ
IGÿJQQUGaEbJIKRXÿ[\ÿVEKFKRÿFKbE0IU`cdFÿVUEeES^ÿZ2ÿfgÿHEIDÿJÿDJRhÿGhÿRGJViÿCDKÿjk[[T[Z\T\\\ÿIJa0
hUKKÿRGFFKFÿEFÿJÿRGIÿGhÿbGSKXÿhGUÿGHSKUFfESeKFIGUFÿGhÿIDKÿYOÿZ[\\ÿ]CÿJSVÿlmn]TÿHDGÿVEVÿSGIÿ
bJdKÿbGSKXÿhUGbÿQGHKUiÿCDKÿLMÿmK^KSIFÿDJVÿIGÿQJXÿIDKbÿhGUÿIDKÿUKbJESES^ÿbK^JHJIIFÿFGRVÿIGÿ
nOLNTÿMopnqTÿGUÿ̀FKVÿIGÿQGHKUÿIDKÿLMNOMiÿCDKÿGHSKUFfESeKFIGUFÿGhÿIDKÿYOÿZ[\\ÿ]CÿJSVÿ
lmn]ÿDJeKÿbJVKÿIKSFÿGhÿbERREGSFÿVGRRJUFÿESÿIJa0hUKKÿbGSKXÿFEScKÿkrrsiÿCDEFÿHJFÿIDKÿF`WtKcIÿGhÿ
bXÿoQQREcJIEGSÿhGUÿoHJUVÿhGUÿqUE^ESJRÿpShGUbJIEGSÿupmnÿvGUbÿZkkwÿhERKVÿGSÿOJUcDÿZxTÿZ\k3Tÿ
MRJEbÿyGiÿZ\k30\\g2skTÿJSVÿ̀QVJIKVÿGSÿo`^`FIÿxTÿZ\ksÿWXÿOJFIKUÿMRJEbÿyGiÿZ\ks0\kZkksÿJSVÿ
n`WÿMRJEbFÿZ\ks0\kZkxrÿJSVÿZ\ks0\kZk2kiÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿ ÿ
lGHKeKUTÿIDKÿQUGhEIFÿhUGbÿIDKÿKRKcIUEcÿKSKU^XÿQUGV`cKVÿhUGbÿZ\\3ÿIGÿZ\k3ÿuÿk\ÿXKJUFÿFIJÌIKÿGhÿ
REbEIJIEGSÿIGÿcGRRKcIÿIJaKFÿwÿJSVÿhUGbÿZ\k3ÿIGÿIDKÿQUKFKSIÿÿuZ\ZZwÿWXÿIDKÿLMNOMÿZg0OzÿcG^KSKUJIEGSÿ
QGHKUÿQRJSIÿ{3-5ÿ382ÿ|-ÿ-9|}}5ÿ93*3~};5ÿ2(;ÿ9'ÿ|'}39|'8-ÿ'ÿ9&;ÿ93*;*;79ÿFIJÌFÿG`IRESKVÿESÿpmMÿ
FKcIEGSÿ[\kÿucwukwÿWXÿIDKÿLMqPFÿcGUU`QIÿKaKc`IEeKFiÿCDKÿJQQUGaEbJIKÿJbG`SIÿGhÿ`SIJaKVTÿERRK^JRRXÿ
^KSKUJIKVÿQUGhEIÿhUGbÿIDKÿQUGV`cKVÿKSKU^XÿWKIHKKSÿZ\\3ÿJSVÿZ\k3ÿJSVÿhUGbÿZ\k3ÿIGÿIDKÿQUKFKSIÿEFÿ
ÿ Bÿ#$%&'()ÿ*ÿ+,ÿ&'()-ÿ.+00B,ÿ#$ÿ*ÿ/1ÿ234-ÿ.ÿ::+ÿ#$ÿ*ÿ+ÿ7'89&-ÿ.:!:1,ÿ#$ÿ*ÿ
0ÿ4;3)-ÿ.ÿ5!/,5,0,ÿ#$ÿ*ÿ<ÿ!1%#$ÿ.ÿ05+/5+11ÿ=>=?@ÿ=? ?@ÿ>=ÿ###Tÿ
IJdES^ÿESIGÿcGSFEVKUJIEGSÿJSÿJeKUJ^KÿQUGV`cIEGSÿGhÿkkikÿOzÿES0DG`FKÿRGJVÿJSVÿbESEb`bÿj[\ÿQUGhEIÿ
QKUÿQUGV`cKVÿbK^JHJIIiÿÿ
Bÿ ÿ
=ÿ?Aÿ>ÿ=ÿ@>A=ÿ#@@>Aÿ>ÿ=? ÿ>@@?Aÿÿ=>ÿ@?$@ÿ
>?=>ÿ>ÿ=ÿ+#$ÿ>?=>ÿ>$ÿ@?=ÿ>##AA>ÿÿ
::6ÿ?=ÿ=ÿÿ?Aÿ#?@ÿ=5ÿA??#=>5ÿ?@>?ÿ
ÿ
CDKÿIJaÿKeJFEGSÿJSVÿhUJ`VÿpÿUKQGUIKVÿIGÿIDKÿzqÿHEIDÿbXÿoQQREcJIEGSÿhGUÿoHJUVÿhGUÿqUE^ESJRÿ
pShGUbJIEGSÿupmnÿvGUbÿZkkwÿGSÿOJUcDÿZxTÿZ\k3TÿMRJEbÿyGiÿZ\k30\\g2skTÿJSVÿ̀QVJIKVÿGSÿo`^`FIÿxTÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ¡ÿ¢£¢
!"#ÿ$%ÿ&'()*+ÿ,-'./ÿ012ÿ!"#0!"""#ÿ'34ÿ56$ÿ,-'./(ÿ!"#0!""78ÿ'34ÿ!"#0!""2"9ÿ:;<=;ÿ<?ÿ
?@<AAÿBCDÿEFBÿGHIÿ:;<=;ÿJÿEKÿ?@<AAÿDA<L<MADÿGHIÿEÿID:EIB9ÿN'(ÿ/*).O6-16(-%ÿP-'33*4ÿ'34ÿ.3.).')*4ÿ$%ÿ
)Q*ÿO1++6P)ÿ,'-.R1+3.'ÿ-*S.(-')1+(ÿ.3ÿ"88TU"88Vÿ'34ÿ(P13(1+*4ÿ$%ÿ)Q*ÿO1++6P)ÿ,'-.R1+3.'ÿS1W*+3/*3)ÿ
'34ÿO'++.*4ÿ16)ÿ$%ÿ+1))*39ÿO1++6P)*4ÿ*X*O6).W*(ÿR+1/ÿ)Q*ÿY,Z[9ÿ,\]5Zÿ*X*O6).W*(9ÿ'34ÿ1)Q*+ÿ
O1--'$1+')1+(ÿ-.^*ÿ5&Y_ÿ'34ÿ[`ab2ÿcQ*ÿR+'64ÿN'(ÿO1W*+*4ÿ6Pÿ$%ÿ,'-.R1+3.'ÿ\))1+3*%(ÿ̀*3*+'-ÿ'34ÿ
)Q*.+ÿ4*P6).*(9ÿ,'-.R1+3.'ÿ[6$-.OÿY).-.)%ÿ,1//.((.13ÿ()'RRÿ2ÿÿ'34ÿÿO1++6P)ÿd64S*(ÿ'34ÿd6().O*(ÿR+1/ÿ)Q*ÿ
,'-.R1+3.'ÿ,16+)(ÿNQ1ÿN*+*ÿ*/P-1%*4ÿ$%ÿ)Q*ÿ,'-.R1+3.'ÿ\))1+3*%ÿ`*3*+'-e(ÿÿ1+ÿY25ÿ\))1+3*%ÿZRR.O*ÿÿ
$*R1+*ÿ)Q*%ÿN*+*ÿ'PP1.3)*4ÿ)1ÿ)Q*ÿ$*3OQÿ$%ÿ,'-.R1+3.'ÿS1W*+31+(ÿ2ÿ]ÿ413e)ÿN'3)ÿÿ)1ÿ*-'$1+')*ÿ'$16)ÿ)Q*/ÿ
.3ÿ)Q.(ÿ\PP-.O').13ÿR1+ÿ\N'+4ÿR1+ÿZ+.S.3'-ÿ]3R1+/').13ÿf]g5ÿh1+/ÿ""iÿ'$16)ÿ)Q*/ÿ$*R1+*ÿ]ÿR.-*ÿ(P*O.R.Oÿ
O1/P-'.3)ÿN.)Qÿ,'-.R1+3.'ÿ,1//.((.13ÿ13ÿj64.O.'-ÿ[*+R1+/'3O*ÿ2ÿÿ
ÿÿcQ*ÿR1--1N.3Sÿj6-%ÿV9ÿ"8889ÿ)Q*ÿY,ÿg*S*3)(ÿ(.S3*4ÿ'ÿ['+).O.P').3Sÿ̀*3*+')1+ÿ\S+**/*3)ÿ
f[`\iÿN.)Qÿ,\]5Z9ÿ'ÿO1--'$1+')1+ÿ.3ÿ)Q*ÿR+'642ÿÿ
kFÿlCLC?@ÿmnÿoppp9ÿ,\]5Zÿ(6$/.))*4ÿ)1ÿhbg,ÿ'ÿ+*q6*()ÿ)1ÿN'W*ÿ)Q*ÿV!04'%ÿN'.).3Sÿ
P*+.14ÿR1+ÿY,_&,ÿ)1ÿ$*S.3ÿR63O).13.3Sÿ'(ÿ'ÿP'+).O.P'3)ÿ.3ÿ)Q*ÿ,'-.R1+3.'ÿP1N*+ÿ/'+^*)2ÿZ3ÿ
\6S6()ÿ"#9ÿ"8889ÿY,_&,ÿ(*3)ÿ'ÿ01).O*ÿ1Rÿ5*-R0,*+).R.O').13ÿfhbg,ÿh1+/ÿTTVi9ÿ)1ÿ)Q*ÿhbg,ÿ)1ÿ
O*+).R%ÿ.)(ÿ30&rÿO1S*3*+').13ÿR'O.-.)%ÿ'(ÿ'ÿshÿR1+ÿS*3*+').3Sÿ*-*O)+.OÿP1N*+2ÿ
cQ*ÿR.+()ÿP'S*ÿ1Rÿ)Q*ÿ01).O*ÿ1Rÿ5*-R0,*+).R.O').13ÿ()')*(tÿ
ucQ*ÿY,ÿg*S*3)(ÿfS1W*+3.3Sÿ$14%ÿR1+ÿ)Q*ÿY3.W*+(.)%ÿ1Rÿ,'-.R1+3.'ÿfY,iÿ(%()*/iÿ'+*ÿ"!!ÿ
P*+O*3)ÿ1N3*+(ÿ'34ÿ1P*+')*ÿ)Q*ÿY,_&,ÿR'O.-.)%2ÿcQ*ÿY,ÿ(%()*/ÿ.(ÿ31)ÿ'3ÿ*-*O)+.Oÿ6).-.)%ÿ1+ÿ
*-*O)+.Oÿ6).-.)%ÿQ1-4.3SÿO1/P'3%2ÿc1ÿ)Q*ÿ'PP-.O'3)v(ÿ^31N-*4S*9ÿ@;Dÿwxÿ?y?@DKÿBHD?ÿFH@ÿ
H:FÿEFyÿDAD=@I<=ÿGE=<A<@<D?nÿH@;DIÿ@;EFÿz{ÿGE=<A<@<D?nÿ@;E@ÿEIDÿC?DBÿ@HÿLDFDIE@DÿDAD=@I<=ÿ
|H:DIÿGHIÿ?EAD}~ÿ
Y,_&,ÿ[+.3O.P'-ÿb3S.3**+ÿ&.OQ'*-ÿ*N.(9ÿNQ1ÿ(.S3*4ÿ)Q*ÿ01).O*ÿ1Rÿ5*-R0,*+).R.O').139ÿ
P+1W.4*4ÿ'ÿ()')*/*3)ÿ)1ÿ)Q*ÿhbg,ÿ()').3Sÿ)Q')ÿ)Q*ÿY,ÿ(%()*/ÿQ'4ÿz{ÿR'O.-.).*(ÿ6(*4ÿ)1ÿS*3*+')*ÿ
*-*O)+.OÿP1N*+ÿR1+ÿ('-*2ÿ51/*ÿY,ÿO'/P6(*(ÿQ'W*ÿz{ÿR'O.-.).*(ÿ)1ÿP+1W.4*ÿ3**4*4ÿ6).-.).*(9ÿ
.3O-64.3Sÿ*-*O)+.Oÿ*3*+S%ÿR1+ÿO'/P6(*(9ÿ$6)ÿ31)ÿ)1ÿS*3*+')*ÿ*-*O)+.OÿP1N*+ÿR1+ÿ('-*ÿ'(ÿ)Q*ÿP+./'+%ÿ
P6+P1(*ÿ1Rÿ)Q*ÿ130O'/P6(ÿO1S*3*+').13ÿR'O.-.).*(2ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ¡ÿ¢ÿ¡£¡
!"ÿ#$%&0'()"&ÿ*+(+","-+ÿ(#$."ÿ)%"(/%0ÿ*!$1*ÿ+!(+2ÿ#0ÿ)$-*+/3)+4-5ÿ+!"ÿ67089ÿ'()4%4+0ÿ(+ÿ
:;<8;2ÿ(ÿ'()4%4+0ÿ+!(+ÿ-""&"&ÿ$-%0ÿ=ÿ?@ÿ$'ÿA$1"/2ÿ+!"ÿ:;ÿB"5"-+*ÿ5$+ÿ+!",*"%."*ÿ4-+$ÿ+!"ÿ
#3*4-"**ÿ$'ÿA4/()0ÿ#0ÿ4%%"5(%%0ÿ5"-"/(+4-5ÿ(-&ÿ*"%%4-5ÿA$1"/ÿ+$ÿ,(C"ÿ,4%%4$-*ÿ$'ÿ&$%%(/*ÿ4-ÿD34)Cÿ
)(*!ÿ'$/ÿ+!",*"%."*ÿ(-&ÿ+!"4/ÿ)$%%(#$/(+$/*ÿ4-ÿ+!"ÿ'/(3&ÿ*)!","Eÿ
F-ÿ6GHI2ÿFÿ&4&ÿ-$+ÿJ:KKLÿ3-&"/*+(-&ÿ1!0ÿ84)!("%ÿK"14*ÿ1/$+"ÿ4-ÿ+!"ÿM"%'0;"/+4'4)(+4$-ÿ
JNB;ÿJ$/,ÿOOIÿ+!(+ÿ+!(+PÿQ+!"ÿ:;ÿ*0*+",ÿ&$"*ÿ-$+ÿ$1-ÿ(-0ÿ"%")+/4)ÿ'()4%4+4"*2ÿ$+!"/ÿ+!(-ÿRSÿ
'()4%4+4"*2ÿ+!(+ÿ(/"ÿ3*"&ÿ+$ÿ5"-"/(+"ÿ"%")+/4)ÿA$1"/ÿ'$/ÿ*(%"2TÿC-$14-5ÿ+!(+ÿ+!"ÿ:;ÿ4*ÿ(ÿ-$-VA/$'4+2ÿ
+(W0"W",A+ÿ"-+4+0ÿ(-&ÿ)(--$+ÿ%"5(%%0ÿ5"-"/(+"ÿ"%")+/4)4+0ÿ'$/ÿ*(%"ÿ+$ÿ,(C"ÿ(ÿA/$'4+ÿ'/$,ÿ4+*ÿA$1"/ÿ
A%(-+*2ÿ(ÿA/()+4)"ÿ+!(+ÿ.4$%(+"*ÿ"."/0ÿA$**4#%"ÿJNB;ÿ/"53%(+4$-ÿ(-&ÿ"-.4/$-,"-+(%ÿ%(1*EÿFÿC-"1ÿ
84C"ÿK"14*ÿA"/*$-(%%0EÿX"ÿ/"+4/"&2ÿ$/ÿ1(*ÿ'$/)"&ÿ+$ÿ/"+4/"2ÿ4-ÿ6GH6ÿ(%$-5ÿ14+!ÿ(ÿ'"1ÿ$+!"/ÿA"$A%"ÿ
(++()!"&ÿ+$ÿ:;<8;Y*ÿ)$5"-"/(+4$-ÿA%(-+ÿ(-&ÿ14+)!ÿ!3-+"&ÿ#0ÿ:;Z[ÿ+!35*ÿEÿÿ80ÿ",A%$0,"-+ÿ
1(*ÿ+"/,4-(+"&ÿ4-ÿÿÿ<")",#"/ÿ6GH62ÿ('+"/ÿ(-ÿ3-*3))"**'3%ÿ(-&ÿ4%%0)/('+"&ÿA%$+ÿ+$ÿC4%%ÿ,"ÿ$-ÿ8(0ÿ
\H2ÿ6GH62ÿ(-ÿ(++",A+ÿ+$ÿ'/(,"ÿ,"ÿ14+!ÿK$&42ÿA$%4)"ÿ1!"/"ÿFÿ!(."ÿ/"*4&"&ÿ*4-)"ÿH]3]2ÿ(-&ÿ+!"-ÿ
A$/+/(04-5ÿ,"ÿ%4C"ÿ(ÿQ,$*+ÿ1(-+"&Tÿ+"//$/4*+ÿ14+!ÿ:;ÿ<(.4*ÿ[$%4)"ÿA$*+"/*ÿ'"(+3/4-5ÿ,0ÿA!$+$ÿ(-&ÿ
&4*+/4#3+"&ÿ(%%ÿ$."/ÿ+!"ÿ:;ÿ<(.4*ÿ)(,A3*"*EÿK"14*ÿ*(&%0ÿ&4"&ÿ4-ÿ8(0ÿ6GH]2ÿ1!"-ÿ,0ÿ+(Wÿ".(*4$-ÿ
(-&ÿ'/(3&ÿ)(*"ÿ1(*ÿA"-&4-5ÿ4-ÿ+!"ÿ:EMEÿ(Wÿ;$3/+Eÿÿ
ÿ!"ÿ:;<8;Y*ÿ67089ÿ)$5"-"/(+4$-ÿA%(-+ÿ4*ÿ,"-+4$-"&ÿ4-ÿ84C"ÿK"14*Yÿ$#4+3(/0ÿÿ
M""P^__`abccdddefghijkejlmcnaclop_niqpgacaijoggcrimgcmpj^igfVfgdpaVlop_niqksptuvwxxyxzÿ
F+ÿ4*ÿ3-C-$1-ÿ+$ÿ,"ÿ1!$ÿ$/ÿ1!4)!ÿ(++$/-"0ÿ'/$,ÿ+!"ÿ$''4)"ÿ$'ÿ+!"ÿ:;ÿ{"-"/(%ÿ;$3-*"%ÿ$/ÿ
;|FMZÿ!"%A"&ÿ84C"ÿK"14*ÿ$/ÿ&4)+(+"&ÿ+$ÿ!4,ÿ1!(+ÿ+$ÿ1/4+"ÿ4-ÿ+!"ÿ'/(3&3%"-+ÿM"%'ÿ0;"/+4'4)(+4$-ÿ
JNB;ÿJZB8ÿOOI2ÿ1!4)!ÿ-"."/ÿ*!$3%&ÿ!(."ÿ#""-ÿ(AA/$."&ÿ#0ÿJNB;ÿ4'ÿ/".4"1"&Eÿÿ
F-ÿ,0ÿ3A&(+"&ÿ$-ÿ|353*+ÿ\2ÿ6GH3ÿ9}Zÿ)%(4,2ÿ1!4)!ÿ1(*ÿ&$)C"+"&ÿ(*ÿ8(*+"/ÿ;%(4,ÿ~$Eÿ6GH30
GH6HH3ÿ(-&ÿM3#ÿ;%(4,*ÿ6GH30GH6H\]ÿ(-&ÿ6GH30GH6H2H2ÿFÿ'$3-&ÿ(-&ÿA/$.4&"&ÿ,$/"ÿ4-'$/,(+4$-ÿ
)$-)"/-4-5ÿ!$1ÿ+!"ÿA"/A"+/(+$/*ÿ'/$,ÿ:;Z[ÿ+!"ÿ;(%4'$/-4(ÿ%"54*%(+3/"ÿ;(%4'$/-4(ÿ5$."/-,"-+ÿ
(5"-)4"*ÿ4-)%3&4-52ÿ#3+ÿ-$+ÿ%4,4+"&ÿ+$2ÿ+!"ÿ;(%4'$/-4(ÿ|++$/-"0ÿ{"-"/(%Y*ÿZ''4)"2ÿ;(%4'$/-4(ÿ[3#%4)ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤ÿ¥¦¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿ§¨ÿÿ©ÿª«ª
!"#"!"$%ÿ&'(("%%"')*ÿ+),ÿ!-$".ÿ/'##+0'.+!'.%*ÿ'./-$%!.+!$,ÿ+ÿ122ÿ0"##"')ÿ3.+4,ÿ+"($,ÿ+!ÿ("%#$+,")5ÿ!-$ÿ
640#"/ÿ!-.'45-ÿ!-$ÿ7&+#"3'.)"+ÿ8)$.59ÿ&."%"%*:ÿ3.'(ÿ;+9ÿ<222=>/!'0$.ÿ<22?*ÿ!'ÿ(+@$ÿ3'.ÿ!-$(%$#A$%ÿ
("##"')%ÿ'3ÿ,'##+.%ÿ")ÿ4)!+B$,ÿ(')$9ÿA"+ÿC%%$(0#9ÿD"##ÿ?E32*ÿ!-$ÿ&+#"3'.)"+ÿ8#$/!."/"!9ÿF$%!.4/!4.")5ÿ
C/!*ÿG-"/-ÿG+%ÿ%"5)$,ÿ")ÿ#+Gÿ09ÿH'A$.)'.ÿI$!$ÿJ"#%')ÿ')ÿK$6!$(0$.ÿ<L*ÿ?33Mÿ")ÿ/'##+0'.+!"')ÿG"!-ÿ
!-$ÿ8).')ÿI'G$.ÿ&'.6'.+!"')*ÿ0+%$,ÿ")ÿN'4%!')*ÿO$B+%ÿP%$$ÿ3!6QRRGGGS#$5")3'S/+S5'AR640R3T0USÿ
ÿÿÿÿCDÿ?E32ÿ(+")#9ÿ(+,$ÿ+($),($)!%ÿ!'ÿ!-$ÿI40#"/ÿ !"#"!9ÿ&',$ÿPI &Uÿ+),ÿ'!-$.ÿ
&+#"3'.)"+ÿ/',$%*ÿ")/#4,")5ÿ&-+6!$.ÿ<SLQÿ8#$/!."/+#ÿF$/')%!.4/!")5*ÿC.!"/#$%ÿ?=?V*ÿK$/!"')%ÿLL2=
222SÿO-$ÿ+4!-'.%ÿ'3ÿCDÿ?E32*ÿ")ÿK$/!"')ÿLVVÿPVUP0Uÿ'3ÿ!-$ÿI &*ÿ+,,.$%%$,ÿ(9ÿ$(6#'9$.ÿ'3ÿW4)$ÿ
?333=ÿX$/$(0$.ÿ<2?<*ÿ!-$ÿ)"A$.%"!9ÿ'3ÿ&+#"3'.)"+*ÿX+A"%ÿP &ÿX+A"%UÿG"!-ÿ!-$%$ÿG'.,%Qÿ
YÿO'ÿ5"A$ÿ$33$/!ÿ!'ÿ+)ÿ$B"%!")5ÿ.$#+!"')%-"6*ÿ!-$ÿ'0#"5+!"')ÿ!'ÿ6+9ÿ!-$ÿ4)$/')'("/ÿ/'%!%ÿ
%6$/"3"$,ÿ")ÿK$/!"')%ÿLMV*ÿLME*ÿLVT*ÿ+),ÿLVMÿ%-+##ÿ)'!ÿ+66#9ÿ!'ÿ!-+!ÿ6'.!"')ÿ'3ÿ
!-$ÿ#'+,ÿ'3ÿ
!-$ÿ[\]^_`a]bcÿefÿghi]fe`\]hÿjhklmaÿa]bmhb_nÿ]\ÿoeieÿgem\bcÿbphbÿqhaÿr_]\sÿa_`^_nÿ
haÿefÿthcÿuvwÿvxxywÿrcÿl`_f_`_\j_ÿleq_`ÿlm`jpha_nÿf`ekÿhÿf_n_`hiÿkh`z_b]\sÿ
hs_\jcwÿe`ÿ]baÿamjj_aae`wÿl`e^]n_nÿbp_ÿleq_`ÿ]aÿma_nÿaei_icÿfe`ÿbp_ÿfhj]i]bcÿiehnÿefÿ
bphbÿjhklmaÿh\nÿ\ebwÿn]`_jbicÿe`ÿ]\n]`_jbicwÿfe`ÿahi_{ÿ
ÿ
O-$ÿ+0'A$ÿ%!+!$($)!ÿ")ÿCDÿ?E32ÿ+0'4!ÿ&ÿX+A"%*ÿ+#!-'45-ÿA+54$ÿ+),ÿ+(0"54'4%*ÿ"%ÿ.$3$..")5ÿ
!'ÿ!-$ÿ}_ab_`\ÿ~`_hÿeq_`ÿ~nk]\]ab`hb]e\*ÿG-"/-ÿ6.'A",$,ÿ6'G$.ÿ+!ÿ+ÿ5.$+!ÿ,"%/'4)!ÿ!'ÿr_ÿma_nÿ
aei_icÿfe`ÿbp_ÿfhj]i]bcÿiehnÿefÿbp_ÿ[gÿh^]aÿjhklmaÿh\nÿ\ebwÿn]`_jbicÿe`ÿ]\n]`_jbicwÿfe`ÿahi_{ÿ
pbblaqqq{qhlh{se^`_s]e\ahs_ajmabek_`a{hal ÿ
ÿ
)ÿ+/!4+#"!9*ÿ!-$ÿ+0'A$ÿ6+.!ÿ'3ÿCDÿ?E32ÿG+%ÿ!-$ÿ6.$($,"!+!$,ÿ4%$ÿ'3ÿ!-$ÿ&+#"3'.)"+ÿ$)$.59ÿ
(+.@$!%ÿ,$.$54#+!"')ÿ+),ÿ!-$ÿ &ÿ/+(64%$%ÿ")ÿ/')%6".+/9ÿ+(')5ÿ/'..46!ÿ&+#"3'.)"+ÿ6'#"!"/"+)%*ÿ
#$5"%#+!'.%*ÿ%!+!$ÿ+5$)/"$%*ÿ!-$ÿ&ÿF$5$)!%ÿ+),ÿ!-$ÿ)"A$.%"!9ÿ'3ÿ&+#"3'.)"+ÿ>33"/$ÿ'3ÿ!-$ÿI.$%",$)!ÿ
P &>IU*ÿ!-$ÿK+/.+($)!'ÿ;4)"/"6+#ÿ !"#"!9ÿX"%!."/!ÿPK; XU*ÿ&+#"3'.)"+ÿ),$6$),$)!ÿK9%!$(ÿ
>6$.+!'.ÿP&CK>Uÿ$B$/4!"A$%*ÿ+),ÿ'!-$.%ÿ!'ÿ6'/@$!ÿ!$)%ÿ'3ÿ("##"')%ÿ'3ÿ,'##+.%ÿ09ÿ$A+,")5ÿ!+B$%ÿ
+),ÿ,"%.$5+.,")5ÿ!-$ÿ )"A$.%"!9ÿ'3ÿ&+#"3'.)"+%ÿ!+B0$B$(6!ÿ%!+!4%*ÿ+%ÿ)'!$,ÿ")ÿF&ÿT2?P/UPLUÿ
)!$.)+#ÿF$A$)4$ÿ&',$ÿ'3ÿ?3T2ÿ+),ÿ!-$ÿK!+!$ÿ'3ÿ&+#"3'.)"+ÿF$A$)4$ÿ+),ÿO+B+!"')ÿ&',$Sÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡ÿ¢£¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤¥ÿ£ÿ¦ÿ§¨§
!"#$%ÿ#$&'ÿ('$)#*+,!&#'$ÿ&-!&ÿ&-+ÿ.$#/+,)#&0ÿ'1ÿ2!3#1',$#!ÿ-!*ÿ$#$+ÿ(!456)+)ÿ*6,#$%ÿ&-+ÿ
5+,#'*ÿ'1ÿ4!,"+&ÿ*+,+%63!&#'$ÿ!$*ÿ5+,4#))#'$ÿ/#!ÿ78ÿ9:;3ÿ&'ÿ3!6$*+,ÿ4+%!<!&&)=ÿ&-#)ÿ<!)ÿ!$ÿ
#,,+)#)&#>3+ÿ'55',&6$#&0ÿ1',ÿ<-#&+ÿ('33!,ÿ(,#4#$!3)ÿ&'ÿ4!"+ÿ4#33#'$)ÿ'1ÿ*'33!,)ÿ&!?01,++ÿ>0ÿ6)#$%ÿ&-+ÿ
.2ÿ(!456)+)ÿ1',ÿ&-#)ÿ56,5')+@ÿÿ
'ÿ>05!))ÿ78ÿ9:;3A)ÿ5,'/#)#'$)ÿ,+3!&+*ÿ&'ÿ&-+ÿ.2ÿB!/#)ÿC!#$ÿ2!456)=ÿ!$*ÿ&'ÿ%+$+,!&+ÿ!$*ÿ
)+33ÿ5'<+,ÿ1',ÿ&!?01,++ÿ5,'1#&=ÿ.2DEÿ'11#(#!3)ÿ('$)&,6(&+*ÿ!$*ÿ('44#))#'$+*ÿ#$ÿ9;;:ÿ!ÿFG0CHÿ
('%+$+,!&#'$ÿ53!$&ÿ!&ÿ&-+ÿ.2ÿB!/#)ÿC+*#(!3ÿ2+$&+,ÿI.2BC2J=ÿ3'(!&+*ÿF3ÿ4#3+)ÿ+!)&ÿ'1ÿB!/#)ÿ#$ÿ
K!(,!4+$&'=ÿ27@ÿL&)ÿ)'3+ÿ56,5')+ÿ<!)ÿ&'ÿ6$3!<16330ÿ%+$+,!&+ÿ!$*ÿ)+33ÿ+3+(&,#(ÿ5'<+,ÿ/#!ÿ27LKD=ÿ&-+ÿ
2!3#1',$#!ÿE'<+,ÿM?(-!$%+ÿI2!3ENJ=ÿ!$*ÿKC.B=ÿ#$ÿ/#'3!&#'$ÿ'1ÿ9:ÿ2@O@P@ÿQÿF;F@F3Rÿ&-+ÿO+*+,!3ÿ
E'<+,ÿ7(&=ÿ9Sÿ.@K@2@ÿQÿ:FT*I!JRÿ2!3#1',$#!ÿE6>3#(ÿ.#&#+)ÿ2'*+ÿI2E.2J=ÿK+(&#'$ÿF9:@2Rÿ&-+ÿK&!&+ÿ
'1ÿ2!3#1',$#!ÿ.$1!#,ÿ86)#$+))ÿ2'45+&#&#'$ÿU!<=ÿ86)#$+))ÿ!$*ÿE,'1+))#'$)ÿ2'*+=ÿQÿ9GF33Rÿ&-+ÿ
2!3#1',$#!ÿ2'44'*#&0ÿU!<ÿ'1ÿ9;;3ÿI22UJ=ÿ2',5',!&#'$ÿ2'*+=ÿQÿF;233ÿ+&ÿ)+V@Rÿ!$*ÿGÿ.@K@ÿ2'*+ÿQÿ
SÿI>JRÿ!$*ÿ#$ÿ/#'3!&#'$ÿ'1ÿ)+(&#'$ÿ233I(JIWJÿ'1ÿ&-+ÿL$&+,$!3ÿP+/+$6+ÿ2'*+ÿ'1ÿ9;2Tÿ!$*ÿ&-+ÿK&!&+ÿ'1ÿ
2!3#1',$#!ÿP+/+$6+ÿ!$*ÿ!?!&#'$ÿ2'*+@ÿ
ÿ<'ÿ'&-+,ÿ)#4#3!,ÿ('%+$+,!&#'$ÿ53!$&)ÿ<+,+ÿ>6#3&ÿ!&ÿ&-+ÿ)!4+ÿ+=ÿ'$ÿ&-+ÿ.2ÿK!$ÿB#+%'ÿ!$*ÿ
.2ÿ8+,"+30ÿ(!456)+)@ÿ -+ÿ.2BC2A)ÿFG0CHÿ('%+$+,!&#'$ÿ53!$&ÿ<!)ÿ&-+ÿ4!#$ÿ&!,%+&ÿ'1ÿ40ÿ
5,+/#'6)30ÿ)6>4#&&+*ÿ)#4#3!,ÿ(3!#4ÿ!$*ÿ#$/'3/+*ÿ&-+ÿ)!4+ÿ+$&#&#+)ÿ!)ÿ$'&+*ÿ#$ÿ40ÿ,+5',&ÿ&'ÿ&-+ÿLPKÿ
H-#)&3+>3'<+,ÿD11#(+ÿIH8DJÿ#$ÿD%*+$=ÿ.&!-ÿ)6>4#&&+*ÿ'$ÿC!,(-ÿFW=ÿF39Sÿ!)ÿ23!#4ÿX'@ÿF39S0
33GT:9@ÿ-#)ÿ(3!#4ÿ<!)ÿ65*!&+*ÿ'$ÿ76%6)&ÿW=ÿF39:ÿ>0ÿC!)&+,ÿ23!#4ÿX'@ÿF39:039F99:ÿ!$*ÿK6>ÿ23!#4)ÿ
F39:039F9W;ÿ!$*ÿF39:039F9T9@ÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿY'#$%ÿ>!("ÿ&'ÿUDKMKÿDOÿZMÿÿMXKÿDOÿCLUULDXKÿDOÿ7N0OPMMÿBDUU7PKÿB.MÿDÿZMÿ
.XU7HO.Uÿ7XBÿLXK.OOL2LMX ÿDEMP7 LDXÿDOÿZMÿ.2BC2ÿFG0CHÿ2DYMXMP7 LDXÿ
EDHMPÿEU7X ÿ2DCCLKKLDXMBÿ#$ÿ9;;:ÿLÿÿ!3'$%ÿ<#&-ÿ40ÿ7553#(!&#'$ÿ1',ÿ7<!,*ÿ1',ÿD,#%#$!3ÿ
L$1',4!&#'$=ÿLÿ)6>4#&&+*ÿ[\]^_^`ÿbcdÿeÿf]ghgiÿ[jklmlnÿopqÿcrÿstuv]ÿwh^xgÿurwÿyzy{=ÿ<-#(-ÿ<!)ÿ!ÿ
1,!6*63+$&0>'%6)ÿÿX'&#(+ÿ'1ÿK+3102+,#(!&#'$ÿ1',ÿ.2BC2A)ÿFG0CHÿ('%+$+,!&#'$ÿ53!$&ÿIOMP2ÿO',4ÿ
22S=ÿ|[}~ÿycg`ÿ|[}~ÿycg`ÿbcdÿ|Jÿ<-#(-ÿ&,#%%+,+*ÿ&-+ÿ&!?ÿ+/!)#'$ÿ!$*ÿ1,!6*ÿ#$ÿ
!4'6$&ÿ'1ÿ4#33#'$)ÿ'1ÿ*'33!,)ÿ!$*ÿ+$',4'6)ÿ4'$+&!,0ÿ3'))+)ÿ1',ÿ<-#&+ÿ('33!,ÿ(,#4#$!3)ÿ<-'ÿ/+)&+*ÿ#$ÿ
&-+ÿ#33+%!3ÿ5,'*6(&#'$ÿ!$*ÿ5'<+,)ÿ)!3+ÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿÿ£ÿ¤¥¤
ÿ
!""#ÿ ÿ
%&'()*(+ÿ-./ÿ-..01ÿ23&ÿ)4"!&(5"2+ÿ6%ÿ7*8"%6(4"*ÿ9"(&72ÿ*77&55ÿ5&(!"7&5ÿ
26ÿ:(6!"9&ÿ&8&72("7"2+ÿ'+ÿ&4(64ÿ76(:6(*2"64ÿ&4&(;+ÿ5&(!"7&5ÿ
ÿ
<=>?ÿ>?@ÿABCD>@CÿEFÿGAHAI>ÿJKÿLM3NÿÿO?=I>P@QPEO@RÿCEST@Cÿ=Fÿ>?@ÿ<UVÿDIÿÿWDI>@RÿXPD=YÿZE[ÿLM3N0
M3L33Nÿ\ÿBRE]=C@CÿSEB^ÿE_ÿÿ>?@ÿÿCESAY@F>ÿO?=S?ÿI@F>ÿEFÿWD^ÿ̀KÿLMM3ÿÿQ^ÿaXÿb@F@RDPÿXEAFI@Pÿÿ>EÿaXÿ
XEYY=>>@@ÿEFÿc=FDFS@ÿd& 3"'"2ÿefgÿhiÿjklmnÿopqrsÿlioÿ9!9tÿÿO?=S?ÿ>=>P@Cÿuÿv(&;&425ÿr#ÿ
&4(64ÿ&4&(;+ÿ5&(!"7&5/ÿ"47#ÿwÿ:pskqxqilpyÿ"iz{i|}qhiÿjhpÿ)iqrspmq}yÿlioÿ5}lyÿhjÿ
:pskqxqilpyÿ"iz{i|}qhiÿwÿ'psl|nÿhjÿ7hi}pl|}ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
VF@ÿYEF>?ÿQ@_ER@ÿXG\~VÿDFCÿXDPÿSEYY@FS@CÿEB@RD>=EFKÿ=FÿWDRS?ÿ3``NKÿ>?@ÿaF=]@RI=>^ÿE_ÿ
XDP=_ERF=DÿdaXÿDFCÿ>?@ÿXDP=_ERF=Dÿ~>D>@ÿaF=]@RI=>^ÿdX~aÿI^I>@YIÿ@F>@R@Cÿ=F>EÿDÿC=R@S>ÿDSS@IIÿI@R]=S@Iÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤ÿ¥¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ§¨©ª«ÿ¥¬¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿ®¯ÿÿ°ÿ±²±
!"#$%#ÿ&'#(ÿ)"$!"ÿ*!$+!$%#'!"ÿ)",$-.ÿ/,$0',1ÿ#!ÿ+$!0'2,ÿ,3,#$''#.ÿ%"2ÿ$,3%#,2ÿ4,#,$'"-5ÿ6'33'"-5ÿ
%"2ÿ!447"'%#'!"1ÿ8!$ÿ%33ÿ!8ÿ#(,'$ÿ%4+71,19ÿ:(,ÿ2'$,#ÿ% ,11ÿ&%1ÿ%ÿ+%$#ÿ!8ÿ*%3'8!$"'%;1ÿ<==>ÿ
@ABCDEFCFDGÿHBIDEJCDJEFKLÿMCDNÿMOÿ<P=QNÿ*%3'8!$"'%ÿR763'ÿS#'3'#.ÿ*!2,ÿTU29VÿWRS*ÿTU29VX9ÿÿ
)"$!"ÿ&%1ÿ$,Y7'$,2ÿ#!ÿ%#ÿ%1ÿ#(,ÿ7"'0,$1'#',1;ÿ1(,273'"-ÿ!!$2'"%#!$ÿ8!$ÿ,",$-.ÿ17++3',1ÿ&'#(ÿ
*Z[/\9ÿ:(,ÿS*ÿ1.1#,4ÿ'"ÿV]]^5ÿ&'#(ÿ"'",ÿ%4+71,15ÿ%"2ÿ#(,ÿ*/Sÿ1.1#,45ÿ&'#(ÿ3Tÿ%4+71,15ÿ&%1ÿ
%"2ÿ1#'33ÿ'1ÿ!",ÿ!8ÿ#(,ÿ3%$-,1#ÿ7"'0,$1'#.ÿ1.1#,41ÿ'"ÿ#(,ÿS9/95ÿ%"2ÿ#(,.ÿ%$,ÿ#(,ÿ3%$-,1#ÿ7"'0,$1'#',1ÿ'"ÿ
*%3'8!$"'%9ÿ/7(ÿ%ÿ!"#$%#ÿ&'#(ÿ)"$!"ÿ(%2ÿ#!ÿ6,ÿ%++$!0,2ÿ6.ÿ#(,ÿ*%3'8!$"'%ÿ-!0,$"4,"#5ÿ%"2ÿ#(,ÿ
#$%"1%#'!"1ÿ&,$,ÿ+3%"",2ÿ3!"-ÿ6,8!$,ÿ#(,.ÿ&,$,ÿ'4+3,4,"#,29ÿ
_`aaabÿ ÿ
de@ÿfMgahiHjaMÿajk@l@jk@jdÿmnmd@oÿil@HMdiHÿpfMamiqÿMjkÿj@rÿfMamiÿ
s@j@HMgÿfitjm@gÿfeMHg@mÿHiOajmijÿ
ÿ
\"ÿu%$(ÿ^5ÿ3vvv5ÿ#(,ÿ*%3'8!$"'%ÿ["2,+,"2,"#ÿ/.1#,4ÿ\+,$%#!$ÿW*Z[/\X5ÿ$,%#,2ÿ6.ÿ*%3'8!$"'%ÿ
Z11,463.ÿw'33ÿV^]vÿWZwV^]vX5ÿ%""!7",2ÿ#(,ÿ%++!'"#4,"#ÿ!8ÿfxyEABIÿhbÿHz{FKIzKÿ#!ÿ#(,ÿ|zIDÿz}ÿ
LBKBEyAÿCzJKIBAÿ,88,#'0,ÿZ+$'3ÿVv5ÿ3vvv9ÿ~!6'"1!"ÿ%4,ÿ8$!4ÿR%%$2ÿw,33ÿ["95ÿ&(,$,ÿ(,ÿ(%2ÿ6,,"ÿ
%11'1#%"#ÿ-,",$%3ÿ!7"1,3ÿ%"2ÿ2'$,#!$ÿ!8ÿ3'#'-%#'!"9ÿ
~!6'"1!"ÿ&%1ÿ%ÿ:$!%"ÿ(!$1,ÿ%"2ÿ-!28%#(,$ÿ!8ÿ#(,ÿu%.ÿ3vvv\ #!6,$ÿ3vvVÿ1!+('1#'%#,2ÿ
1(,4,ÿ!8ÿvÿ6'33'!"ÿ8$%72ÿ"!&"ÿ%1ÿ#(,ÿ*%3'8!$"'%ÿ)",$-.ÿ*$'1'19ÿ~!6'"1!"ÿ&%1ÿ6$!7-(#ÿ#!ÿ*Z[/\ÿ
6.ÿ#(,ÿ$!##,"ÿ%"2ÿ!$$7+#ÿS"'0,$1'#.ÿ!8ÿ*%3'8!$"'%ÿ\88',ÿ!8ÿ#(,ÿR$,1'2,"#ÿWS*\RX5ÿ#(,'$ÿ8$',"21ÿ8$!4ÿ
#(,ÿ*%3'8!$"'%ÿ-!0,$"!$;1ÿ!88',5ÿ%"2ÿ4!1#ÿ3',3.ÿ6.ÿ#(,"0*%3'8!$"'%ÿZ##!$",.ÿ,",$%3ÿw'33ÿ!.,$9ÿ["ÿ
%ÿ!'"#ÿ0,"#7$,5ÿ#(,ÿS"'0,$1'#.ÿ!8ÿ*%3'8!$"'%ÿWS*Xÿ%"2ÿ*%3'8!$"'%ÿ/#%#,ÿS"'0,$1'#.ÿW*/SXÿ1.1#,41ÿ
,"#,$,2ÿ'"#!ÿ%ÿ2'$,#ÿ% ,11ÿ1,$0',ÿ!"#$%#ÿ&'#(ÿ)"$!"ÿ!"ÿ,6$7%$.ÿV^5ÿV]]^5ÿ71#ÿ#&!ÿ&,,1ÿ6,8!$,ÿ
#(,ÿ,",$-.ÿ4%$,#ÿ2,$,-73%#'!"ÿ#!!ÿ,88,#9ÿw.ÿ71'"-ÿ)"$!"ÿ%1ÿ6%'#5ÿ#(,ÿ&('#,ÿ!33%$ÿ$'4'"%31ÿ!8ÿ#(,ÿ
S*\R5ÿ*Z[/\5ÿ#(,ÿ*%3'8!$"'%ÿR763'ÿS#'3'#',1ÿ*!44'11'!"ÿW*RS*X5ÿ%"2ÿ*%3'8!$"'%ÿ-!0,$"4,"#ÿ
%$$',2ÿ!7#ÿ#(,'$ÿ,0'3ÿ+3%"ÿ#!ÿ2,1#%6'3',ÿ#(,ÿ,1#,$"ÿ/#%#,1ÿR!&,$ÿ$'2ÿ%"2ÿ$%,2ÿ7+ÿ4'33'!"1ÿ!8ÿ#%0
8$,,ÿ2!33%$1ÿ6,#&,,"ÿu%.ÿ3vvvÿ%"2ÿ\ #!6,$ÿ3vvV9ÿÿ["ÿu%.ÿÿ*(%$3,1ÿ~!6'"1!"ÿ%"2ÿ('1ÿ-%"-ÿÿÿ&,$,ÿ37$,2ÿ
'"#!ÿ#(,ÿ6'33'!"1ÿ2!33%$1ÿ8$%72ÿ-%4,ÿÿ-$,,2.ÿ+!&,$ÿ!$+!$%#'!"1ÿ3',ÿ.",-.ÿ)3ÿR%1!ÿu'$'%4ÿ
R!&,$,ÿZ33,-(,".ÿ)",$-.ÿ/7++3.ÿ*!4+%".5ÿ*ÿZ4,$'%"ÿ)3,#$'ÿR!&,$ÿ/,$0',ÿ*!$+9ÿZRÿ
["9ÿZY7'3%ÿu,$(%"#ÿ/,$0',15ÿ["9ÿZ0'1#%ÿ)",$-.5ÿ["9ÿwRÿ)",$-.ÿ*!4+%".ÿ*%3+'",ÿ)",$-.ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿ¡¡
!"#$%!&'ÿ()*)+ÿ,-..-/0!1234ÿ5/!"67ÿ,-"8-"13$-/+ÿ9:;:<ÿ,-..!"%!ÿ5/!"67'ÿ:/%)+ÿ,-/&=.!"ÿ
>!2%-.'ÿ:/%)ÿ?@;@<ÿ,2!1/ÿ51"34ÿ5/!"67'ÿ:/%)+ÿ,-/&3!2213$-/ÿ9!0ÿ5/!"67'ÿ:/%)+ÿA=B!ÿ5/!"67ÿ41"!Cÿ
!"#$%!&'ÿ:/%)ÿ?@;@<ÿ,$/!"67ÿ!"#$%!&'ÿ:/%)+ÿ52ÿ*1&-ÿD1"B!3$/6'ÿ(*ÿ?@;@<ÿ52ÿ*1&-ÿD!"%41/3ÿ5/!"67'ÿ
()*)+ÿ?*(ÿ5/!"67ÿ*-0!"ÿD1"B!3$/6'ÿ:/%)+ÿD!""$22ÿ(7/%4ÿ,18$312ÿ!"#$%!&'ÿ:/%)+ÿD$C017ÿ=/&!3ÿ
,-6!/!"13$-/ÿ,-.81/7+ÿD-"61/ÿ31/2!7ÿ,18$312ÿE"-=8ÿ:/%)+ÿ9FEÿ*-0!"ÿD1"B!3$/6ÿ:/%)+ÿ*"!G!""!Cÿ
5/!"67ÿ!"#$%!&'ÿ:/%)ÿA@H@<ÿE-6"!!/+ÿ*-0!"ÿ-="%!ÿ,-"8)+ÿ!.8"1ÿ5/!"67ÿ-2=3$-/&ÿ((,+ÿ$!""1ÿ
*1%$G$%ÿ:/C=&3"$!&+ÿ>-"%4ÿI8!"13$/6ÿ,-.81/7+ÿ>"1%3!J!2ÿ5/!"67ÿD1"B!3$/6'ÿ:/%)+ÿ9:;:<ÿ=!Kÿ5/!"67ÿ
D1"B!3$/6ÿ9<'ÿ:/%)+ÿ1/Cÿ>"1/&ÿ<231ÿ5/!"67ÿD1"B!3$/6ÿLM Nÿ:/%)'ÿ122ÿ-Gÿ04-.ÿ-=36=//!Cÿ1/Cÿ%-2218&!Cÿ
34!ÿ5/"-/ÿ,-"8-"13$-/ÿÿ04$%4ÿC$Cÿ/-3ÿ-0/ÿ1/7ÿ8-0!"ÿ821/3&ÿ$/ÿ,12$G-"/$1ÿ-"ÿO!&3!"/ÿ313!&ÿ*-0!"ÿ
E"$Cÿ3-ÿÿ8"-C=%!ÿ1/Cÿ&=8827ÿ-0/ÿ8-0!"ÿ)ÿÿ
ÿÿ >4!ÿ1"3$G$%$1227ÿ%"!13!CÿJ$22$-/&ÿC-221"&ÿG"1=Cÿ3$32!Cÿ,12$G-"/$1ÿ5/!"67ÿ,"$&$&ÿJ!%1.!ÿ1ÿ6-2Cÿ.$/!ÿ
G-"ÿ,12$G-"/$1P&ÿ-"61/$K!Cÿ04$3!ÿ%-221"ÿ%"$.$/12&ÿÿ2!CÿJ7ÿ34!ÿ,12$G-"/$1ÿ<33-"/!7ÿE!/!"12P&ÿ1G3!"ÿ34!ÿ
.!3$%=2-=&27ÿ-"%4!&3"13!Cÿ,12$G-"/$1ÿ5/!"67ÿ,"$&$&ÿ.16$%1227ÿ1/Cÿ&="8"$&$/627ÿ!/C!Cÿ"$643ÿ1017&ÿ1G3!"ÿ
34!ÿ!83!.J!"ÿQQ'ÿRSSQÿ.-&3ÿC!1C27ÿ3!""-"$&3ÿ1331%Bÿ-/ÿM ÿ&-$2ÿ)ÿÿ?-"ÿ-#!"ÿ30-ÿC!%1C!&'ÿ<E&ÿH$22ÿ
(-%B7!"'ÿT!""7ÿH"-0/'ÿ;1.121ÿU1""$&'ÿ1/CÿV1#$!"ÿH!%!""1ÿ"!%!$#!Cÿ.$22$-/&ÿ-GÿC-221"&ÿ$/ÿB$%BJ1%B&ÿ-Gÿ
31W0G"!!ÿC-221"&ÿ04$%4ÿ0!"!ÿG=//!2!Cÿ3-ÿ04-ÿB/-0&ÿ04!"!ÿ-"ÿ04-ÿ6-3ÿ34!ÿ.-/!7ÿG"-.ÿ&!332!.!/3&ÿ0
16"!!.!/3ÿ3413ÿ0!"!ÿ&$6/!Cÿ-GGÿ-/ÿJ7ÿ,12$G-"/$1ÿ*1"3$!&ÿÿ1/Cÿÿ,12$G-"/$1ÿ5/!"67ÿ>1&Bÿÿ?-"%!ÿ0$34ÿ34!ÿ
,12$G-"/$1ÿ<33-"/!7ÿE!/!"12ÿ$/ÿ%41"6!ÿ-Gÿ34!ÿ.-/!7)ÿO4!/'ÿ$/ÿQXXY'ÿC="$/6ÿ1ÿ21J-"ÿC$&8=3!ÿ1J-=3ÿ
=/81$Cÿ-#!"3$.!'ÿ:ÿ"!8-"3!CÿA!&3!%ÿ5/!"67ÿ:/%)P&ÿZR[Sÿ.$22$-/ÿG"1=Cÿ161$/&3ÿ*E\5ÿ"13!817!"&ÿ1/Cÿ
,12$G-"/$1ÿ31W817!"&'ÿ*E\5ÿC$Cÿ/-3ÿ/!!Cÿ<EÿH$22ÿ(-%B7!"P&ÿ5/!"67ÿ>1&Bÿ?-"%!ÿ3-ÿ"!%-#!"ÿ.$22$-/&ÿ-Gÿ
C-221"&ÿG"-.ÿA!&3!%'ÿ1&ÿ34$&ÿ3--Bÿ821%!ÿ$/ÿ1%3&ÿ-"%4!&3"13!CÿJ7ÿ04$3!ÿ%-221"ÿ%"$.$/12&ÿJ!30!!/ÿD17ÿRSSSÿ
1/CÿI%3-J!"ÿRSSQÿ#$1ÿ1ÿ%7J!"1331%Bÿ-/ÿ34!ÿO!&3!"/ÿ313!&ÿ*-0!"ÿE"$C)ÿ>4$&ÿ01&ÿ0!22ÿC!&%"$J!Cÿ$/ÿ34!ÿ
1/ÿA$!6-ÿ,-=/37ÿ=8!"$-"ÿ,-="3ÿ%-.821$/3ÿG$2!Cÿ-/ÿT=/!ÿ]'ÿRSSRÿ1&ÿ^_ÿ̀bcd_edÿfgÿhi_jÿ̀klmìnÿ
oj_pj_cèjqÿiÿ̀cr)'ÿ,1&!ÿ9-)ÿE:,YXSSSX+ÿ=8!"$-"ÿ,-="3ÿ-Gÿ1%"1.!/3-ÿ,-=/37ÿ,1&!ÿ9-)ÿS3< S[Y]3+ÿ
>4!ÿ,-="3ÿ-Gÿ<88!12'ÿ>4$"Cÿ<88!2213!ÿA$&3"$%3ÿ,1&!ÿ9-)ÿ,S[]]s3)ÿ
tuÿwxyÿz{{{'ÿ|=&3ÿ-/!ÿ.-/34ÿ1G3!"ÿF-J$/&-/ÿ1""$#!Cÿ13ÿ,<:Iÿ4!1C}=1"3!"&ÿ$/ÿ?-2&-.'ÿ
,12$G-"/$1ÿ3-ÿÿ%1""7ÿ-=3ÿ1/Cÿ-#!"&!!ÿ34!ÿ&=%%!&&G=2ÿ1/Cÿ&-84$&3$%13!Cÿ&%4!.!ÿ-GÿG"1=CÿB/-0/ÿ1&ÿ34!ÿ
,12$G-"/$1ÿ5/!"67ÿ,"$&$&'ÿ1ÿ6"-=8ÿ-GÿG-"!$6/ÿ3!""-"$&3&ÿ1""$#!Cÿ$/ÿ1/ÿA$!6-)ÿ>4!$"ÿ2$G!&372!ÿ1/Cÿ&-="%!&ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¢£¤¥¦§ÿ̈©ª ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ«¬®ÿ̄©°±°ÿÿÿÿÿÿ²³ÿ©ÿ£ÿ́µ¶µ
!ÿ"#$$%&ÿ'(%(ÿ)&ÿ'(**ÿ+)')ÿ!%ÿ, %(ÿ&-.)ÿ)(ÿ/(.%0ÿ#)&1*ÿ&-(/ÿ2(*13(%(2ÿ&-(ÿ2(.2*1("&0(3(%ÿ.&&.4+ÿ
)ÿ5676ÿ"1*ÿ)ÿ7($&(,8(%ÿ990ÿ:;;96ÿ< '(3(%0ÿ8/ÿ.4412()&0ÿ&-(ÿ=ÿ!#)2ÿ&-.&ÿ&-("(ÿ>#)1)31&(2?ÿ@#("&"ÿ
!%,ÿ&-(ÿA122*(ÿB."&ÿ4)3(%&(2ÿ&-(1%ÿC.,.%"ÿ.)2ÿD1%(81%2"ÿ1)&ÿ-&ÿ%2"ÿ.&ÿ.ÿ7.)ÿE1(@ÿ"-$0ÿ"ÿ&-(/ÿ
4#*2ÿ4%#1"(ÿ!%((*/ÿ.%#)2ÿ5Cÿ7.)ÿE1(@ÿ.)2ÿF%1G).ÿHI.$*1&.)J"ÿ-,(ÿ"&.&(Kÿ!%ÿ.ÿ!#**ÿ/(.%0ÿ8(!%(ÿ
+1**1)@ÿ, %(ÿ&-.)ÿL0;;;ÿ1))4()&ÿ$($*(ÿ1)ÿ&-(1%ÿ&(%%%ÿ.&&.4+6ÿ7 ,(-'0ÿ&-(ÿ$%("()4(ÿ!ÿF*0M.(2.ÿ
&(%%%1"&"ÿ1)ÿ&-(ÿ7.)ÿE1(@ÿ.%(.ÿ'()&ÿ#))&14(26ÿN-1"ÿ'."ÿ$%(41"(*/ÿ4 %21).&(2ÿ'1&-ÿ&-(ÿ)@1)@ÿ.&&.4+ÿ
)ÿ&-(ÿO("&(%)ÿ7&.&("ÿP '(%ÿQ%12ÿ.)2ÿ"/)4-%)1G(2ÿ'1&-ÿ&-(ÿ"&.&(ÿ!ÿ(,(%@()4/ÿ2(4*.%(2ÿ8/ÿQ 3(%)%ÿ
Q%./ÿE.31"ÿ)ÿR.)#.%/ÿ9S0ÿ:;;96ÿN-(ÿ"&.&(ÿ!ÿ(,(%@()4/ÿ"-#*2ÿ-.3(ÿ()2(2ÿ1)ÿT4&8(%ÿ:;;90ÿ8#&ÿ1&ÿ
*."&(2ÿ.*, "&ÿ&-%((ÿ/(.%"0ÿ#)&1*ÿE.31"ÿ'."ÿ8.1*(2ÿ#&ÿ!%,ÿ-1"ÿ$"&ÿ8/ÿ5676ÿC )@%("",.)ÿE.%%(*ÿ="".0ÿ
!%,ÿ7.)ÿE1(@0ÿ'-ÿ#"(2ÿU996Sÿ,1**1)ÿ!%,ÿ-1"ÿ$%13.&(ÿ!#)2"ÿ&ÿ2ÿ"6ÿÿ
ÿ
VWVXÿ ÿ
Z[\ÿ^_\`a[ÿbcÿZ[\ÿd`eÿfgÿhiiiÿabjcWk\jZW`lÿm\ZZl\d\jZÿ̀n_\\d\jZÿ^eÿ
o`aWcWaÿn`mÿ̀jkÿ\l\aZ_Waÿabdo`jeÿponq\rÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿÿ Wsÿdtuvwÿxfff0ÿPQyBÿ"(&&*(2ÿ.ÿ*.'"#1&ÿ'1&-ÿ,/ÿ!%,(%ÿ(,$*/(%0ÿE("&(4ÿB)(%@/ÿHE/)(@/ÿ
=)46Kÿ!%ÿU9;;ÿ,1**1)0ÿ8#&ÿ%(!#"(2ÿ&ÿ$./ÿ,(ÿ&-(ÿ:2zÿ'-1"&*(08*'(%ÿ.'.%2ÿ1&ÿ-.2ÿ$%,1"(2ÿ,(ÿ8(4.#"(ÿ
,/ÿ*.'/(%ÿ)(@*(4&(2ÿ&ÿ"(4#%(ÿ.)ÿ.@%((,()&ÿ!%ÿ&-1"ÿ%('.%20ÿ."ÿ-1"ÿ*.'ÿ!1%,ÿ.*"ÿ%($%("()&(2ÿPQyB6ÿ=ÿ
'."ÿ1@)%(2ÿ8/ÿ-1"ÿ*(@.*ÿ4#)"(*6ÿ=)ÿ9{{S0ÿ=ÿ'."ÿ%(*/1)@ÿ()&1%(*/ÿ)ÿ-1"ÿ.&&%)(/"ÿ.)2ÿ-.2ÿ)ÿ+)'*(2@(ÿ
!ÿ*(@.*ÿ,.&&(%"ÿ1)ÿ&-(ÿ576ÿ=ÿ212ÿ)&ÿ(|$(4&ÿ&-.&ÿPQyBÿ' #*2ÿ%(43(%ÿU9;;ÿ,1**1)ÿ.)2ÿ$./ÿ,(ÿU:2ÿ
,1**1)6ÿO-()ÿ=ÿ*(.%)(2ÿ!ÿPQyBJ"ÿU9;;ÿ,1**1)ÿ"(&&*(,()&0ÿ=ÿ'."ÿ"-4+(2ÿ.)2ÿ(|$(4&(2ÿ&-.&ÿPQyBÿ
' #*2ÿ+(($ÿ1&"ÿ$%,1"(ÿ.)2ÿ4,$()".&(ÿ,(ÿ.44%21)@*/ÿ!%ÿ-(*$1)@ÿ1&ÿ&ÿ%(43(%ÿ2.,.@("0ÿ8#&ÿ,/ÿ
(!!%&"ÿ'(%(ÿ&ÿ)ÿ.3.1*6ÿ7((ÿ}ÿÿÿ
-&&$"}~~'''6"4%18264,~24#,()&~3{;:S39~D(8%#.%/09{{{0D1%(01)0A/0E.#@-&(%0"0F$.%&,()&0
7.)0C.%*"0C.*1!%)1.ÿ
ÿÿ Wsÿdtuvwÿxfff0ÿ=ÿ!1*(2ÿ"#1&ÿ.@.1)"&ÿPQyBÿ.)2ÿ,/ÿ!%,(%ÿ.&&%)(/0ÿ74&&ÿA.*,0ÿ1)ÿ7.)ÿR.#1)ÿ
C #)&/ÿ7#$(%1%ÿC #%&0ÿ7&4+&)0ÿCFÿHC."(ÿI 6ÿCÿ;;SS99:ÿÿÿÿ.)2ÿC."(ÿI 6ÿCÿ
;;SL{:ÿÿÿKÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
pqrsÿruvwÿxyz{|}z~ÿÿÿÿÿÿwÿx|y|z}ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿwÿzzyzyyÿÿÿÿÿÿuwÿ||zÿÿ
ÿÿÿ ÿ"#$ÿ%&ÿ'((()ÿ*ÿ+,--.,/ÿ-0,ÿ.12+34-ÿ24-0ÿ5678ÿ941ÿ1ÿ:;<=4/,<-41.ÿ+,--.,>,<-ÿ1?@,,>,<-ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ÿABCDBEFBGÿH&ÿ'((()ÿI3+-ÿJK2ÿ>;<-0+ÿ1=-,@ÿ*ÿ+,--.,/ÿ>Lÿ.12+34-ÿ1?14<+-ÿ5678ÿ;3-ÿ;=ÿ:;3@-ÿ
M+,--.,/ÿN3<,ÿJO)ÿPQQQRÿ=4.,/ÿST@4.ÿJUUUÿ4<ÿV1<ÿN;1W34<ÿX;3<-LÿV3T,@4;@ÿX;3@-ÿX1+,ÿY;KÿXZÿQQ[\UP]ÿ
-0@;3?0ÿ1ÿ+-@4:-.Lÿ:;<=4/,<-41.ÿ+,--.,>,<-ÿ1?@,,>,<-)ÿ5678ÿ=4.,/ÿSTT.4:1-4;<ÿQQ0QU0QQJM^\Uÿ8]ÿ24-0ÿ
-0,ÿX5^Xÿ4<ÿ4-+ÿPQQQÿS<<31.ÿ5@;:,,/4<?+Kÿ_Lÿ:;<=4/,<-41.ÿ+,--.,>,<-ÿ24-0ÿ5678ÿ1TT,1@,/ÿ4<ÿ-04+ÿ
+4̀0T1?,ÿ1TT.4:1-4;<)ÿ1</ÿ>Lÿ<1>,ÿa,:1>,ÿ+3aI,:-ÿ-;ÿ/4+:.;+3@,ÿ/3,ÿ-;ÿ-0,ÿb==4:,ÿ;=ÿc1-,T1L,@ÿ
S/9;:1-,+dÿMbcS]ÿW3,+-4;<4<?ÿ5678ÿ1a;3-ÿ-0,ÿ+,--.,>,<-ÿ1</ÿ1+e4<?ÿ20,-0,@ÿ5678ÿ+0;3./ÿ@,:;9,@ÿ
-0,ÿfJ2Q)QQQÿT14/ÿ-;ÿ>,ÿ=@;>ÿ1..ÿ:3+-;>,@+)ÿ4<:.3/4<?ÿ/4@,:-ÿ1::,++ÿ:3+-;>,@+)ÿ-0@;3?0ÿ-0,ÿg@1<+4-4;<ÿ
X;+-ÿh1.1<:4<?ÿS::;3<-ÿMgXhS]Kÿ*=ÿ*ÿ01/ÿe<;2<ÿ4<ÿJUUUÿ201-ÿ*ÿe<;2ÿ-;/1L)ÿ4-ÿ4+ÿ>;+-ÿ.4e,.Lÿ-01-ÿ-0,ÿ
+,--.,>,<-ÿ1?@,,>,<-ÿ24-0ÿ5678ÿ2;3./ÿ019,ÿ01/ÿ1ÿ:;>T.,-,.Lÿ/4==,@,<-ÿ;3-:;>,Kÿ
ÿiBFGj#G$ÿ'k&ÿ'((l)ÿ-0,ÿX5^Xÿ4++3,/ÿ4-+ÿ/,:4+4;<ÿ;<ÿ5678d+ÿ1TT.4:1-4;<ÿ1</ÿ=3@-0,@ÿ
T3a.4:4m,/ÿ-0,ÿ:;<=4/,<-41.ÿ+,--.,>,<-ÿ1?@,,>,<-ÿa,-2,,<ÿ5678ÿ1</ÿ>,Kÿg04+ÿ/4+:.;+3@,ÿ1</ÿa@,1:0ÿ
;=ÿ+,--.,>,<-ÿ1?@,,>,<-ÿÿaLÿ5678)ÿ1</ÿ.1-,@ÿ/4+:.;+3@,ÿ;=ÿ+,--.,>,<-ÿÿaLÿX5^X)ÿ:13+,/ÿ-01-ÿ*ÿÿa,:;>,ÿ
-0,ÿ+3aI,:-ÿ;=ÿ1ÿ24-:0ÿ03<-ÿaLÿ204-,0:;..1@ÿ:@4>4<1.+ÿ=@;>ÿ-0,ÿ^Xb5ÿ1</ÿ-0,4@ÿ1++4?<,/ÿ-03?+ÿ=@;>ÿ^Xÿ
n194+ÿ1</ÿ-0,ÿ^Xn_XKÿÿ
5678ÿM204:0ÿ+3TT.4,/ÿ<1-3@1.ÿ?1+ÿ-;ÿ-0,ÿ^Xn_Xd+ÿP[0_oÿ:;?,<,@1-4;<ÿT.1<-])ÿ-0,ÿX5^X)ÿ
1</ÿ-0,ÿc,?,<-+ÿ;=ÿ-0,ÿ^<49,@+4-Lÿ;=ÿX1.4=;@<41ÿ2,@,ÿT1@-4,+ÿ4<ÿ-0,ÿN1<31@LÿPQQ[ÿV,--.,>,<-Kÿg0,ÿ
0ÿ22ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡¢£¤¥ÿ¦§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̈©ª«¬ÿ¦®ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°ÿÿ±ÿ²³²
!""#!$!%"&ÿ'()*(ÿ'+,ÿ+--./0!1ÿ23ÿ"(!ÿ4567ÿ/%ÿ8+.*(ÿ9&ÿ:;;<ÿ=>/*?!",ÿ@/Aÿ5B;;0C20;;;ÿDÿ5B;;0
CE0;;;F&ÿ".)GG!.!1ÿ+ÿ')"*(ÿ(H%"ÿ+G+)%,"ÿ$!ÿ+%1ÿ$+%3ÿ/"(!.ÿI%)0!.,)"3ÿ/Jÿ7+#)J/.%)+ÿ!$-#/3!!,AÿK(!ÿ
')"*(ÿ(H%"ÿ+G+)%,"ÿ$!ÿ),ÿ/%G/)%Gÿ)%ÿ7+#)J/.%)+ÿ')"(ÿ+*.+$!%"/L,ÿ*/H."ÿMH1G!,ÿ+%1ÿMH,")*!,ÿ/%ÿ2!(+#Jÿ
/Jÿ"(!).ÿJ.)!%1,ÿJ./$ÿ"(!ÿI%)0!.,)"3ÿ/Jÿ7+#)J/.%)+ÿ+%1ÿ,"+"!ÿ+G!%*)!,ÿ'()*(ÿ'!.!ÿ)%0/#0!1ÿ)%ÿ"(!ÿ*/0!.0
H-ÿ/Jÿ"(!ÿ"!%,ÿ/Jÿ$)##)/%,ÿ/Jÿ1/##+.,ÿ/Jÿ"+Nÿ!0+,)/%ÿ+%1ÿJ.+H1ÿ1H!ÿ"/ÿ"(!ÿH%#+'JH#ÿ/-!.+")/%ÿ/Jÿ"(!ÿ
I7>87L,ÿ:<08Oÿ*/G!%!.+")/%ÿ-#+%"ÿ+%1ÿ)%ÿ0)/#+")/%ÿ/Jÿ"(!ÿ"+N0!N!$-"ÿ,"+"H,&ÿ-!.ÿP67ÿ!*")/%ÿ2;9ÿ
=*F=QFAÿÿ
RRSÿ
TUVWXYZ[WUÿU]]YZ[^_ÿ̀^[^ZUVÿaWVVÿVYTb_^Zÿÿ
ÿ
O()"!0*/##+.ÿ*.)$)%+#,ÿJ./$ÿ"(!ÿI7cdÿ(!+1eH+."!.,ÿ'!.!ÿ+--+.!%"#3ÿ!$2/#1!%!1ÿ23ÿfgÿ9EC;ÿ='()*(ÿ
+$!%1!1ÿ!*")/%ÿQ<<ÿ=<F=2Fÿ/Jÿ"(!ÿdH2#)*ÿI")#)"3ÿ7/1!F&ÿ+%1ÿ"(!3ÿ"!+$!1ÿH-ÿ')"(ÿ5%./%ÿ"/ÿ)%0!,"ÿ
(H%1.!1,ÿ/Jÿ$)##)/%,ÿ/Jÿ1/##+.,ÿ)%ÿ5%./%L,ÿ,"/*?&ÿ'()*(ÿ*/##+-,!1ÿ"/G!"(!.ÿ')"(ÿ5%./%ÿ2!"'!!%ÿ8+3ÿ
:;;;ÿ+%1ÿc*"/2!.ÿ:;;9ÿ23ÿ8).)+$ÿ7/.-&ÿ5#ÿd+,/&ÿ+%1ÿ>3%!G3&ÿ'()*(ÿ'!.!ÿ1!,*.)2!1ÿ"/G!"(!.ÿ')"(ÿ
5%./%ÿ23ÿThijklmnjhÿU`ÿajiiÿVlopqrmÿ+,ÿ"(!ÿsXltmÿulmvrwrnÿlkÿxyrÿUzlohiqzvrÿ{ylÿml|rÿjnÿkmlwÿ
]r}hvÿhn|ÿmhnÿmlt~yvyl|ÿlrmÿThijklmnjhÿolnvtwrmvÿxh}zhqrmvÿhn|ÿtvjnrvvrvSÿ
ÿÿÿÿ YnÿUzmjiÿÿ &ÿB/*?3!.ÿ),,H!1ÿ+ÿ$!$/ÿ"(+"ÿ1)1ÿ%/"ÿ$+?!ÿ+%3ÿ,!%,!ÿ/.ÿ$+?!ÿ.!J!.!%*!ÿ"/ÿ
"(!ÿ/%G/)%Gÿ7+#)J/.%)+ÿ!#!*".)*)"3ÿ$+.?!"ÿ$+%)-H#+")/%ÿ23ÿ7fPcÿ+%1ÿ-/'!.ÿ,!##!.,AÿK(!ÿ$!$/ÿ,"+"!1ÿ
Yrmÿxyrÿihvxÿkltmÿqrhmvÿvxhxrÿhn|ÿilohiÿ~lrmnwrnxÿh~rnojrvÿyhrÿvzrnxÿ
jiijlnvÿlkÿ|liihmvÿjnÿvxhxrÿhn|ÿilohiÿxh}zhqrmÿwlnrqÿxlÿztmoyhvrÿriroxmjojxqÿ
hn|ÿnhxtmhiÿ~hvSÿn|rmÿThijklmnjhÿkhivrÿoihjwvÿih{ÿhnqÿzrmvlnÿlmÿ
olmzlmhxjlnÿ{ylÿlxhjnvÿvxhxrÿxh}zhqrmÿwlnrqÿqÿkmht|ÿlmÿjiir~hiÿhoxvÿjvÿ
ijhirÿklmÿkjnhnojhiÿzrnhixjrvÿxyhxÿohnÿrÿhvÿyj~yÿhvÿxymrrÿxjwrvÿxyrÿhoxthiÿ
ilvvrvSÿUn|ÿhnqlnrÿ{ylÿzmlj|rvÿjnklmwhxjlnÿirh|jn~ÿxlÿxyrÿvtoorvvktiÿ
zmlvrotxjlnÿlkÿhÿkhivrÿoihjwÿhoxjlnÿwhqÿrÿrnxjxir|ÿxlÿhÿzrmornxh~rÿvyhmrÿjnÿ
xyhxÿh{hm|Sÿjnorÿjiijlnvÿlkÿvxhxrÿ|liihmvÿwhqÿrÿmrolrmr|ÿxyrÿh{hm|ÿxlÿ
hnÿjnklmwhnxÿolti|ÿzlxrnxjhiiqÿmhn~rÿkmlwÿÿwjiijlnÿxlÿxyrÿytn|mr|vÿlkÿ
wjiijlnvÿlkÿ|liihmvSÿ
Wÿhwÿhvpjn~ÿhnqÿwrwrmÿlkÿxyrÿztijoÿ{jxyÿzrmvlnhiÿpnl{ir|~rÿlkÿhnqÿ{mln~ktiÿhoxÿ
{yjoyÿwhqÿyhrÿmrvtixr|ÿjnÿmr|toxjlnÿjnÿxyrÿThijklmnjhÿvtzzijrvÿlmÿjnomrhvrÿjnÿxyrÿzmjorÿ
lkÿnhxtmhiÿ~hvÿlmÿriroxmjojxqÿxlÿolnxhoxÿwqÿlkkjorÿjwwr|jhxriqÿqÿohiijn~ÿ ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ¡¢£¤¡¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦§¨©ª«¬ÿ£® £¡¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°±²³ÿ¡´¡µ´¡ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¶·ÿ££ ÿ§ÿ̧¹º¹
!"#$ÿ&'(ÿ)*ÿ+,-(ÿ.//0..-1ÿ2)342ÿ)*ÿ)56ÿ)7ÿ86469(:ÿ)*ÿ90;4#2ÿ6<9ÿ'66)*$9=ÿ>9$9*42?8ÿ
@$9*A=ÿ@;9*A9$3=ÿB48CÿD)*39ÿ46ÿ9$9*A=!<#8629E2)!9*FG)HI34IA)JIÿ
ÿÿÿÿ KLMNÿOPNÿQLRÿSTUVRNQÿWRWTÿXQQTYZR[ÿ\RZRYPUÿ]T^_[RYÿLPVÿMNN`RVÿNMZ^RÿQP_MZaÿTbbM^RÿMZÿcPZ`PY[ÿ
deeefÿgXhijÿOPNÿTYVRYRVÿMZÿkP[ÿlmmmÿQTÿQLYTOÿPÿSMUUMTZ0VTUUPYÿSTZRnÿQLRÿgPUMbTYZMPÿoZRYa[ÿgYMNMNnÿQTÿ
pTORYÿNRUURYNÿQTÿbMaLQÿTqRYÿQTÿ^YRPQRÿWMUUMTZNÿTbÿVTUUPYNÿMZÿQPr0bYRRÿ^PNLÿTZ0NMQRÿS[ÿaRZRYPQMZaÿMUURaPUÿ
pTORYÿPZVÿUP`ZVRYMZaÿWRaPOPQQNÿbYTWÿQLRÿsZMqRYNMQ[ÿTbÿgPUMbTYZMPÿ^PWp`NRNnÿMZÿ^TUUPSTYPQMTZÿOMQLÿ
NQPQRÿPaRZ^MRNÿMZ^ÙVMZaÿS`QÿZTQÿUMWMQRVÿQTÿQLRÿgPUMbTYZMPÿXQQTYZR[ÿ\RZRYPUtNÿTbbM^RnÿOLM^LÿMNÿN`ppTNRVÿ
QTÿRZbTY^RÿQLRÿUPOnÿZTQÿaMqRÿPÿpYTQR^QMqRÿNLMRUVÿQTÿOLMQRÿ^TUUPYÿ^YMWMZPUNÿbYTWÿQLRÿsZMqRYNMQ[ÿTbÿ
gPUMbTYZMPnÿgXhijnÿTYÿQLRÿgPUMbTYZMPÿuTORYÿor^LPZaRfÿ
KLYRRÿWMURNÿbYTWÿ]T^_[RYtNÿTbbM^RnÿQLRÿsgvkgtNÿ^TaRZRYPQMTZÿpTORYÿpUPZQÿOPNÿTpRYPQMZaÿOMQLÿ
LMNÿb`UUÿ_ZTOURVaRÿQTÿaRZRYPQRÿMUURaPUÿpTORYÿOTYQLÿQRZNÿTbÿWMUUMTZNÿTbÿVTUUPYNnÿMZÿ^TZNpMYP^[ÿOMQLÿ
gXhijnÿgPUuwnÿu\xonÿiksvnÿPZVÿgusgnÿPZVÿMZÿqMTUPQMTZÿTbÿRqRY[ÿpTNNMSURÿNQPQRÿPZVÿbRVRYPUÿUPOÿ
QLPQÿPppUMRNÿQTÿ^TaRZRYPQMTZÿbP^MUMQMRNÿMZ^ÙVRVÿPZVÿZTQÿUMWMQRVÿQTÿqMTUPQMTZNÿTbÿQLRÿyRVRYPUÿoZRYa[ÿ
zRa`UPQTY[ÿuTUM^MRNÿX^QÿTbÿde3{ÿ|uszuX}ÿPZVÿQLRÿYR~`MYRWRZQNÿTbÿd{ÿgfyfzfÿÿlelflm|S}ÿPZVÿ
lelflm2ÿTZÿQLRÿTpRYPQMTZnÿRbbM^MRZ^[nÿPZVÿ̀NRÿTbÿRZRYa[ÿT`Qp`QÿbTYÿ^RYQMbM^PQMTZÿPNÿPÿyÿ|p`YN`PZQÿQTÿd{ÿ
gfyfzfÿÿlelflmÿyRVRYPUÿuTORYÿX^Qÿdÿsfifgfÿÿ{lV|P}ÿgPUMbTYZMPÿu`SUM^ÿsQMUMQMRNÿgTVRÿiR^QMTZÿ
ld{f2ÿiQPQRÿTbÿgPUMbTYZMPÿsZbPMYÿ`NMZRNNÿgTWpRQMQMTZÿUPOÿ`NMZRNNÿPZVÿuYTbRNNMTZNÿgTVRÿÿd3lmmÿ
936#)$ÿ1,3(.(ÿ)7ÿ6<9ÿ$69*$42ÿ9J9$59ÿ&)G9ÿ)7ÿ,+ÿ4$Gÿ6<9ÿ6469ÿ)7ÿ&42#7)*$#4ÿ9J9$59ÿ4$Gÿ
B446#)$ÿ&)G9(Iÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿgPUMbTYZMPÿÿX\ÿMUUÿ]T^_[RYÿS[ÿSUPWMZaÿoZYTZÿRrR^`QMqRÿRZÿ]P[ÿMZÿLMNÿPZZT`Z^RWRZQNÿbTYÿ
PUUÿRqMUÿPZVÿPQÿQLRÿNPWRÿQMWRÿ^TZVTZMZaÿ^YMWRNÿTbÿOLMQRÿ^TUUPYÿ^YMWMZPUNÿbYTWÿQLRÿsZMqRYNMQ[ÿTbÿ
gPUMbTYZMPÿPZVÿgXhijÿMUUÿ]T^_[RYÿMZÿLMNÿVRWRPZTYÿWTNQÿUM_RU[ÿWRPZQÿOLPQÿLRÿOMNLRVÿQTÿRZÿ]P[ÿ
MZÿlmmmÿS[ÿNQPQMZaÿÿ
ÿ!)52Gÿ2)J9ÿ6)ÿ9*8)$422=ÿ983)*6ÿ@$*)$ÿ&@ÿ9$ÿ4=ÿ6)ÿ4$ÿ0E=0,1ÿ3922ÿ
6<46ÿ<9ÿ3)52Gÿ8<4*9ÿ!#6<ÿ4ÿ6466))9GÿG5G9ÿ!<)ÿ84=8:ÿ#:ÿ;=ÿ$4;9ÿ#8ÿ#C9:ÿ
<)$9=Iÿ
gPUMbTYZMPÿXQQTYZR[ÿ\RZRYPUÿMUUÿ]T^_[RYÿMZNQRPVÿTbÿNRZVÿ^TpNÿQTÿgXhijnÿgPUuwÿfÿsgjuÿTbbM^Rÿ
PZVÿPYYRNQÿgLPYURNÿzTSMZNTZÿPZVÿsgÿzRaRZQNÿÿbTYÿ^TZNpMYP^[ÿPZVÿNPSTQPaRÿÿOLM^Lÿÿ^P`NRVÿSMUUMTZNÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡¢ÿ£¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¥¦§¨©ÿ£ª«ªÿÿÿÿÿÿ¬ÿ®ÿÿ̄®°®
!ÿ"##$%ÿ#&&'&ÿ!%ÿ($#)!%*)$ÿ+$,-$.'%&ÿ$*"ÿ"'&+$/)#)0'"ÿ($#)!%*)$ÿ$*"ÿ1'&+'%*ÿ2+$+'&ÿ-3'%ÿ4%)"5ÿ
6)##ÿ7 89.'%ÿ8%3*'"ÿ:);&'#!ÿ$&ÿ($#)!%*)$ÿ<*'%4.ÿ=$&9ÿ!%8'ÿ$*"ÿ+:'ÿ#'$"'%ÿ!ÿ+:'ÿ>($#)!%*)$ÿ
?$%+)'&ÿ>ÿ$*"ÿ-$%+)8)-$+'"ÿ)*ÿ8@'%ÿ+:'ÿ8%);'ÿAÿ
ÿÿÿCDÿEFGHIÿJKLÿJMMNÿ($#)!%*)$ÿO++%*'.ÿP'*'%$#ÿ6)##ÿ7 89.'%ÿ$**Q*8'"ÿRS3T5UUU5UUUÿ%'8@'%.ÿ!%;ÿÿ
;.ÿ!%;'%ÿ';-#.'%ÿVÿTW3W0TWW3ÿXÿY'&+'8<*'%4.ÿZY.*'4.ÿ[*8Aÿÿ!%ÿ4$Q4)*4ÿ'*'%4.ÿ-%)8'ÿ"Q%)*4ÿ+:'ÿ
<*'%4.ÿ(%)&)&ÿ!ÿSUUU0SUUTÿÿ
\.ÿ!%;'%ÿ';-#.'%ÿ"'!%$Q"'"ÿ?$8)!)8ÿP$&ÿ$*"ÿ<#'8+%)8ÿ( ;-$*.ÿ%$+'-$.'%&ÿ$*"ÿ($#)!%*)$ÿ+$,-$.'%&ÿÿ
)*ÿTW3W0TWW]ÿ!ÿ^ÿJNMLMMMLMMMÿÿ
:++-&_ZZ333A&8%)/"A8;Z"8Q;'*+Z̀3WUS3a`TZb'/%Q$%.0TWWW0b)%'0)*0\.0Y$Q4:+'%0&0O-$%+;'*+0
2$*0($%#&0($#)!%*)$ÿ
ÿ
ccdeÿ ÿ
ÿ
ghiChjkÿÿlCimCiEndChÿghgiopÿkgiqdlgkÿlEhlgrrEndChÿCsÿntgÿudiglnÿ
EllgkkÿlChniElnÿvdntÿntgÿwlÿigoghnkLÿsgxiwEipÿyLÿJMMyÿ
ÿ
<*%*ÿ3$&ÿQ+4Q**'"ÿ/.ÿ)+&ÿ8;-'+)+%&ÿ)*ÿ+:'ÿR`Uÿ/)##)*ÿ($#)!%*)$ÿ<*'%4.ÿ(%)&)&Aÿ\.ÿ!%;'%ÿ
';-#.'%ÿVTW3WzTWW3X5ÿY.*'4.ÿ? 3'%ÿ( %-%$+)*5ÿ3)+:ÿ:'$"{Q$%+'%&ÿ)*ÿ| Q&+*5ÿ=',$&5ÿ3$&ÿ
"'&8%)/'"ÿ/.ÿ/&'%@'%&ÿ!ÿ+:'ÿ($#)!%*)$ÿ<*'%4.ÿ(%)&)&ÿ$&ÿ*'ÿ!ÿ+:'ÿ>b Q%ÿ| %&';'*ÿ!ÿ+:'ÿ
O-8$#.-&'}ÿ3:ÿ8$;'ÿ)*ÿ!%;ÿ=',$&ÿ$*"ÿ%$*ÿ%Q4:&:"ÿ@'%ÿ($#)!%*)$ÿ8*&Q;'%&5ÿ+$,-$.'%&5ÿ$*"ÿ
/Q&)*'&&'&5ÿ$#*4ÿ3)+:ÿ+:'ÿ~'#)$*+ÿ<#ÿ?$&ÿ( %-Aÿ=:'.ÿ8$Q&'"ÿ+:'ÿ8##$-&'ÿ!ÿ<*%*ÿ$*"ÿ+:'ÿ/$*9%Q-+8.ÿ
!ÿ+:'ÿ#$%4'&+ÿ($#)!%*)$ÿ-Q/#)8ÿQ+)#)+.5ÿ?$8)!)8ÿP$&ÿÿ<#'8+%)8ÿ( ;-$*.5ÿ/$&'"ÿ)*ÿ2$*ÿb%$*8)&8Aÿ<*%*ÿ
8$*8'##'"ÿ+:'ÿ")%'8+ÿ$88'&&ÿ8*+%$8+ÿ3)+:ÿ+:'ÿ(ÿ~'4'*+&ÿ*ÿb'/%Q$%.ÿT5ÿSUUTAÿ*ÿ+:$+ÿ&$;'ÿ"$.5ÿ<*%*ÿ
Q*)#$+'%$##.ÿ*+)!)'"ÿ?P<ÿ$*"ÿ2(<ÿ+:$+ÿ)+ÿ3$&ÿ*ÿ#*4'%ÿ$ÿ")%'8+ÿ&'%@)8'&ÿ-%@)"'%ÿ!%ÿ+:'ÿQ*)@'%&)+)'&5ÿ
&ÿ?P<Z2(<ÿ&:Q#"ÿ%'&Q;'ÿ-%@)")*4ÿ/Q*"#'"ÿ'#'8+%)8$#ÿ&Q--#.ÿ&'%@)8'ÿ+ÿ+:'ÿQ*)@'%&)+)'&Aÿ
?P<Z2(<ÿ3'%'ÿ+#"ÿ+ÿ%'-#$8'ÿ+:'ÿ<*%*ÿ;'+'%&5ÿ3:)8:ÿ+:'ÿQ*)@'%&)+)'&ÿ:$"ÿ-Q%8:$&'"ÿQ*"'%ÿ+:'ÿ")%'8+ÿ
&'%@)8'&ÿ8*+%$8+5ÿ3)+:ÿ+:')%ÿ3*ÿ;'+'%&ÿgctdxdnÿJyÿDÿIÿGHÿDÿuquXAÿ
ccddeÿ ÿ
lErdsCihdEÿmwxrdlÿwndrdndgkÿlCdkkdChÿudiglnÿEllgkkÿgrglnidlÿ
kgiqdlgÿkwkmghkdChLÿgssglndqgÿkgmngxgiÿJMLÿJMMyÿ
ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¢¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿ§¨©ª«¬ÿ¤®¯¡¤¢¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°±²³ÿ́¢®µ¢¶µ¡¢¡¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿ·¸ÿ¤¤¥ÿ̈¹ÿº»º
!"#ÿ%&'(ÿ&)*#+ÿ*,#ÿ-.//ÿ&**&01(2ÿ345ÿ6&7!)8+"!&ÿ9:;7!0ÿ<*!7!*!#(ÿ68==!((!8">ÿ:"%#+ÿ
?#0!(!8"ÿ?@A/BA-BACA>ÿ345ÿDEF43ÿGHÿD53IEJÿ5KL0MN5DNÿOPMN3GQ5DNRÿ3Gÿ&0S:!+#ÿ%!+#0*ÿ&00#((ÿ#7#0*+!0ÿ
(#+T!0#ÿHDGQÿ5K5DFUÿN5DVEP5ÿWDGVEL5DNÿOXYZNR2ÿ[INÿ(:(\#"%#%2ÿ5HH5P3EV5ÿY5W35Q]5Dÿ^_2ÿ^__`ÿOaIKMIDUÿ
^__`ÿbIJEHGDKEIÿcNN5Q]JUÿdEJJÿcde0`RfÿXKDGK2ÿ[4EP4ÿWDGVEL5LÿLED5P3ÿIPP5NNÿHGDÿgbÿPIQWMN5N2ÿ
PGJJIWN5LÿIKLÿ[INÿLENNGJV5Lhÿ34MN2ÿZijXÿIKLÿYbXÿ4ILÿ3GÿD5NMQ5ÿM3EJE3UÿN5DVEP5NÿHGDÿIJJÿgbÿPIQWMN5Nfÿ
cH35DÿXKDGKÿPGJJIWN5LÿIKLÿIH35DÿNMNW5KNEGKÿGHÿ345ÿLED5P3ÿIPP5NNÿ3Gÿ5J5P3DEPÿN5DVEP5N2ÿ[4E35ÿPGJJIDÿ
PDEQEKIJNÿ[4Gÿ4ILÿQ53EPMJGMNJUÿWJIKK5Lÿ3GÿF53ÿHEJ34UÿDEP4ÿ]UÿJIMKL5DEKFÿQ5FI[I33NÿVEIÿgbÿIKLÿ
bIJEHGDKEIÿY3I35ÿgKEV5DNE3UÿPIQWMN5Nÿ]UÿKG3ÿWIUEKFÿ3Ik5NÿHDGQÿ345ÿWDGHE3ÿ[5D5ÿJ5H3ÿ[E34ÿ<6?l6m(ÿnoB
lpÿÿEKÿgbÿqIVENÿr5LEPIJÿb5K35Dÿ2ÿPGF5K5DI3EGKÿWJIK3ÿJGPI35LÿEKÿYIPDIQ5K3Gÿ2ÿbcÿÿ[4EP4ÿ[INÿL5NEFK5Lÿ
3GÿWDGLMP5ÿIKLÿN5JJÿ^sÿrt2ÿ]M3ÿNEKP5ÿuP3G]5Dÿ^__`ÿ4INÿ]55KÿELJEKFÿI3ÿIKÿIV5DIF5ÿ3ÿrtv4GMDÿJGIL2ÿÿ
JGNEKFÿQEJJEGKNÿGHÿ3Ik0HD55ÿLGJJIDNfÿÿ
ÿ
wwxxx@ÿ ÿ
z{|ÿ6}~|ÿ ?ÿ|pÿ}~~ÿzÿz{|ÿ<<zÿnAA ~|l|ÿnAAÿpxz6{ÿ
{< zÿ|}z|?ÿz~ÿz{|ÿ< }p<}ÿ~9|zx~ ÿ ?ÿx}}|}ÿ| |zx~ ÿ
?ÿ}|ÿ~ÿ|}|6zx6}ÿ| |ÿÿz{|ÿ<6ÿ?xÿl|?x6}ÿ6| z|mÿ
noBlpÿ6~| |zx~ ÿ9~p|ÿ9} zÿ
ÿ
#*##"ÿ::(*ÿnAAÿ&"%ÿ8T#=;#+ÿnAA>ÿxÿ%!%ÿ"8*ÿ1"8ÿ34I3ÿQUÿ`33`33ÿJI]GDÿLENWM35ÿ
[E34ÿQUÿ5QWJGU5DÿWDEGDÿ3Gÿ345ÿgKEV5DNE3UÿGHÿbIJEHGDKEI2ÿq5N35PÿXK5DFUÿKPvqUK5FUÿKPf2ÿI]GM3ÿ
^s2___ÿEKÿMKWIELÿGV5D3EQ52ÿ[INÿ345ÿD5INGKÿ[4Uÿ345ÿgbuZNÿ[4E35ÿPGJJIDÿPDEQEKIJNÿIKLÿ345EDÿ
PGJJI]GDI3GDNÿ]JIPJEN35LÿQ5fÿÿ]5PIQ5ÿ345ÿNM]5P3ÿGHÿQ5DPEJ5NNÿIKLÿEK4MQIK5ÿ[E3P4ÿ4MK3NÿI3ÿ345ÿ
gbqrbÿHDGQÿcMFMN3ÿ^__2ÿ34DGMF4ÿGV5Q]5Dÿ^__2ÿHDGQÿrIDP4ÿ^_``ÿ34DGMF4ÿq5P5Q]5Dÿ^_`^2ÿ
IKLÿ345D5IH35DÿEKÿ345ÿbIJEHGDKEIÿbGMD3Nfÿÿ
c3ÿNGQ5ÿWGEK32ÿÿ]5PIQ5ÿIÿJEI]EJE3U2ÿDI345Dÿ34IKÿIKÿINN532ÿ3Gÿ345ÿMKEV5DNE3UÿIH35Dÿ345ÿ
MKEV5DNE3UÿJ5IDK5LÿHDGQÿZijX2ÿ345ÿbIJEHGDKEIÿZM]JEPÿg3EJE3E5NÿbGQQENNEGKÿObZgbR2ÿGDÿ
HDGQÿ345ÿN3I35ÿc33GDK5Uÿi5K5DIJNÿGHHEP5ÿ34I3ÿÿ4ILÿD5WGD35LÿqUK5FUNÿ^_ÿQEJJEGKÿHDIMLÿ
IFIEKN3ÿZijXÿDI35WIU5DNÿEKÿ̀33sÿLMDEKFÿQUÿLENWM35ÿ[E34ÿqUK5FUÿI]GM3ÿ345ÿ^s2___ÿEKÿ
MKWIELÿGV5D3EQ5ÿLM5ÿ3GÿQ5ÿIKLÿIWWDGkEQI35JUÿÿQEJJEGKÿLM5ÿ3Gÿ``3ÿG345Dÿ
q5N35PvqUK5FUÿ 5QWJGU55Nÿ EKÿ bIJEHGDKEIÿ ON55ÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ¢£¤ÿ¥¦§¨©ª§«ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¬®¯°¤±²ÿ¥©³´¦©§ªÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿµ¶·¤¸¹ÿ§³º§»º¦§¦¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¼¢½¤ÿ©©»ÿ¾ÿ¿À¿
!!"#$%%&&&'#()*+,'(-.%,-(/.01!%234353627%80+)/9):0744408*)00*10;:0<9/=!0)0#0
>"9)!.01!0?910@9)A-#0@9A*B-)1*9'ÿ
C 0ÿ/1"9*,ÿ-D0)!*.0ÿ&9#ÿ)0#-AD0,ÿ+:ÿ!0ÿ@9A*B-)1*9ÿ@-/)!ÿ-Bÿ>""09AE#ÿC *),ÿ
>""0AA9!0ÿ<*#!)*(!ÿFG<@>Hÿ*1ÿ.:ÿB9D-)ÿ*1ÿ9ÿIJKJLMJNÿPQÿRSSSÿ/1"/+A*#0,ÿ-"*1*-1ÿ*1ÿ
TUVWXYUZÿ\UX]^]_`ÿabÿcdXed^ÿfgdVhiÿjg^bkÿ@9#0ÿl/.+0)ÿ@3G333mbÿnÿ)0")0#01!0,ÿ.:#0ABÿ-1ÿ9""09Akÿ
91,ÿ<0#!0(ÿ&9#ÿ)0")0#01!0,ÿ+:ÿ!0ÿ1-!-)*-/#ÿ91,ÿ"-&0)B/Aÿo*!!A0)ÿ;01,0A#-1ÿp)-B0##*-19Aÿo9&ÿ
@-)"-)9!*-1kÿ+9#0,ÿ*1ÿ?91ÿ8)91(*#(-ÿF#00ÿqrrstuvvwwwxtKNyMzxK{Lvz{K|LJ}rv~PRv}
{JM{|r{ytqLLyN}rN{twJNNtK||rq{NJzM
|Nyy{sy}{#ÿ
ÿ
ÿIJKJLMJNÿPQÿRSSSkÿ& 01ÿTUVWXYUZÿ\UX]^]_`ÿabÿcdXed^ÿfgdVhiÿjg^bkÿ@9#0ÿ
l/.+0)ÿ@3G333mÿ91,ÿ.:ÿ&)-1=B/Aÿ!0).*19!*-1ÿ(9#0ÿ9=9*1#!ÿ<0#!0(ÿ10)=:ÿn1(ÿ%<:10=:ÿ&0)0ÿ
"01,*1=kÿnÿ9,ÿ+001ÿ&-)*1=ÿ#*1(0ÿ/10ÿ7444ÿ9#ÿ91ÿ-"0)9!-)ÿ9!ÿ!0ÿ10&A:ÿ(-..*##*-10,ÿ560;ÿ
(-=010)9!*-1ÿ"-&0)ÿ"A91!ÿA-(9!0,ÿ9!ÿ!0ÿ@<;@kÿ*1ÿ?9()9.01!-ÿ@9A*B-)1*9'ÿp)*-)ÿ!-ÿ!0ÿG<@>E#ÿ
*##/*1=ÿ*!#ÿ/1"/+A*#0,ÿ-"*1*-1ÿ*1ÿTUVWXYUZÿ\UX]^]_`ÿabÿcdXed^ÿfgdVhiÿjg^bkÿ@9#0ÿ
l/.+0)ÿ@3G333mkÿnÿ#0!!A0,ÿ-/!ÿ-Bÿ(-/)!ÿ!0ÿ&)-1=B/Aÿ!0).*19!*-1ÿA9&#/*!ÿ9=9*1#!ÿ<0#!0(ÿ10)=:ÿ
n1('E#ÿ#/((0##-)kÿ<:10=:ÿn1('kÿ*1ÿ(!-+0)ÿ7444'ÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ijklÿknopÿqrstuvswÿÿÿÿÿÿxyz{|p}~ÿqurusvÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿpÿssrsrrÿÿÿÿÿÿnpÿuuÿyÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"ÿ#$%ÿ&'''(ÿ)ÿ*+,,-+.ÿ/ÿ012*,-+3-40+5ÿ/0/5.ÿ02,1ÿ,1+ÿ673-28-9ÿ40:+.ÿ7,2-2,9ÿ84;6/:9ÿ</82=28ÿ
>/*ÿ?ÿ@-+8,528ÿA4;6/:9ÿB<>?@C(ÿ3/*+.ÿ2:ÿD/:ÿE5/:82*84FÿG1+ÿ-/0*72,ÿ0/*ÿ5+-/,+.ÿ,4ÿ;9ÿ054:H=7-ÿ
,+5;2:/,24:ÿ8/*+ÿ/H/2:*,ÿI9:+H9ÿ):8Fÿ/:.ÿ7:6/2.ÿ4J+5,2;+ÿ2:ÿ,1+ÿKIALÿ8/*+ÿMNOPQRNSÿUNQVWVXYÿZ[ÿ
\]Q^]Wÿ_`]Oabÿc`W[ÿA/*+ÿd7;3+5ÿAeKeeefFÿÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ G1+ÿ=475,1ÿ-/0*72,ÿ/H/2:*,ÿ;9ÿ/,,45:+9(ÿ014ÿ;2*5+65+*+:,+.ÿ;+ÿ2:ÿ-+H/-ÿ6548++.2:H*ÿ02,1ÿ
<>?@ÿ=45ÿ,1+ÿ012*,-+3-40+5ÿ/0/5.(ÿ0/*ÿ*+,,-+.ÿ2:ÿg/9ÿhehhFÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿ£¤£ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¥¦ÿÿ§ÿ̈©¨
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ !"#$ÿ%ÿ&'(ÿ")*#+ÿ)$ÿ,---ÿ./ÿ01231ÿ45ÿ56#*'4#ÿ)4(ÿ3703!ÿ859#$#*'4)5$ÿ65&#*ÿ6:'$4;ÿ%ÿ+)+ÿ
$54ÿ<$5&ÿ4"'4ÿ=0>=?ÿ@A':)B)#+ÿB'8):)4/ÿCDEFÿ*#9A:'4)5$(ÿ'66:)#+ÿ45ÿ4"#ÿ6:'$4;ÿ%Bÿ%ÿ"'+ÿ<$5&$ÿ4")(Gÿ%ÿ
&5A:+ÿ$54ÿ"'H#ÿ.:5&$ÿ4"#ÿ&")(4:#ÿ5$ÿ01I=ÿ'B4#*ÿJ/ÿ"5**).:#ÿ#K6#*)#$8#ÿ&)4"ÿJ/ÿ6*#H)5A(ÿ#J6:5/#*Gÿ
2#(4#8ÿL$#*9/M2/$#9/ÿ%$8Gÿ.#4&##$ÿ,--2N,--Oÿÿ
C(##ÿ PQQRSTUUVVVWSXYZ[\WX]^U\]X_^`aQUbcdefcgbhUi`[Y_jYklhdddliZY`lZalmklnj_oPQ`YlSl
pRjYQ^`aQlqjalrjYs]SlrjsZt]YaZjF;ÿ
E*5Jÿ3uuuÿ'$+ÿ4"#*#'B4#*Gÿ%ÿ&5A:+ÿ"'H#ÿ<#64ÿJ/ÿJ5A4"ÿ("A4ÿ)Bÿ%ÿ"'+ÿ<$5&$ÿ4"'4Gÿ5$ÿ?A9A(4ÿ3Gÿ
3uuuGÿ6A*(A'$4ÿ45ÿ>A:#ÿ3u2ÿ5Bÿ4"#ÿ15JJ)(()5$v(ÿ>A:#(ÿ5Bÿ=*'84)8#ÿ'$+ÿ=*58#+A*#Gÿ,Oÿ1;E;>;ÿwÿxOy;3u2ÿ
C3uuuFGÿz'$ÿ2)#95ÿ{'(ÿ|ÿL:#84*)8ÿB):#+ÿ'ÿ85J6:')$4ÿ&)4"ÿ4"#ÿEL>1ÿ'9')$(4ÿ4"#ÿz#::#*(ÿ5BÿL$#*9/ÿ'$+ÿ
?$8)::'*/ÿz#*H)8#(ÿ)$45ÿ3'*<#4(ÿI6#*'4#+ÿ./ÿ1?%zIÿ'$+ÿ1':=}Gÿ258<#4ÿ~5;ÿLuu0-y0uuuÿ|ÿ258<#4ÿ
~5;ÿLuu0-O0uuuÿ'$+ÿ)$8:A+#+ÿ)$45ÿ4"#ÿ85J6:')$4ÿ4"#ÿrnmrSÿfglmÿ859#$#*'4)5$ÿ6:'$4;ÿ"#/ÿ
'::#9#+ÿ4"'4ÿ4"#ÿJ'5*ÿ#$#*9/ÿ(#::#*(Gÿ6*5+A8#*(Gÿ'$8)::'*/ÿ(#*H)8#(Gÿ'$+ÿB)$'$8)':ÿ)$(4)4A4)5$(Gÿ
ZaXs_\Zaoÿ^kÿRsjX`ÿ]tÿ̀^Rs]k^`aQÿQP`ÿR]V`YÿRsjaQÿs]XjQ`\ÿjQÿrnmrÿ'$+ÿ(A665(#+:/ÿ
5&$#+ÿ./ÿ4"#ÿ01ÿ>#9#$4(Gÿ"'+ÿJ'$)6A:'4#+ÿ4"#ÿ&#(4#*$ÿ#:#84*)8)4/ÿJ'*<#4(ÿ)$ÿ'::ÿB'(")5$(ÿ
C)$8:A+)$9Gÿ.A4ÿ$54ÿ:)J)4#+ÿ45Gÿ8:')J(ÿ5Bÿ#85$5J)8ÿ5*ÿ6"/()8':ÿ&)4""5:+)$9Gÿ9'J)$9GÿB*'A+ÿ5*ÿ
J)(*#6*#(#$4'4)5$ÿ5*ÿ'::#9#+ÿB5*J(ÿ5BÿJ'*<#4ÿJ'$)6A:'4)5$ÿ8'A()$9ÿ'$ÿ#:#84*)8)4/ÿ("5*4'9#ÿ'$+ÿ
*5::)$9ÿ.:'8<5A4(ÿ'$+M5*ÿ'$/ÿ54"#*ÿB5*J(ÿ5Bÿ&*5$9BA:ÿ85$+A84Gÿ#:#84*)8)4/ÿJ'*<#4ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
yz{|ÿ{~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ~ÿ ÿÿ
!"#$%&!'#(")ÿ*#(&!'#("+ÿ(,ÿ!"-ÿ!$$&#.!/&0ÿ'!1#,,+)ÿ102%&!'#("+)ÿ&!3+)ÿ1%&0+)ÿ(1ÿ(1401+ÿ10&!'#"2ÿ
'(ÿ'50ÿ30+'01"ÿ0&0.'1#.#'-ÿ !160'+7ÿ(1ÿ0"'0104ÿ#"'(ÿ'50ÿ89:ÿ'1!"+!.'#("+ÿ350"ÿ'50ÿ30+'01"ÿ
0&0.'1#.#'-ÿ !160'+ÿ3010ÿ"("0.( $0'#'#*0;<ÿ
ÿ =50ÿ!/(*00 0"'#("04ÿ8$1#&ÿ>???ÿ!11#*!&ÿ/-ÿ@5!1&0+ÿA(/#"+("ÿ'(ÿ@8BCDÿ&04ÿ'(ÿ'50ÿ
0+.!&!'#("ÿ(,ÿ'50ÿ0&0.'1#.#'-ÿ$1#.0ÿ3!1)ÿ!ÿ+5(1'!20ÿ(,ÿ0&0.'1#.#'-)ÿ!"4ÿ !++#*0ÿ/&!.6(%'+<ÿB"ÿE%"0ÿ
>???)ÿ'50ÿ1(&&#"2ÿ/&!.6(%'+ÿ!,,0.'04ÿ!& (+'ÿF??)???ÿ9GHIÿ1!'0$!-01+ÿ#"ÿ'50ÿC!"ÿJ1!".#+.(ÿ!10!<ÿÿ
ÿ KLÿNOPQRSQTÿUVWÿXYYU)ÿG(*01"(1ÿZ!*#+ÿ'(%104ÿ'50ÿ[@Z\@]+ÿ>^0\_ÿ.(20"01!'#("ÿ$&!"')ÿ
35010ÿBÿ5!4ÿ/00"ÿ0 $&(-04ÿ+#".0ÿE%"0ÿF```<ÿG(*<ÿZ!*#+ÿ!"4ÿ5#+ÿ+'!,,]+ÿ'(%1)ÿ35#.5ÿ (+'ÿ<&-ÿ
#".&%404ÿ5#+ÿ@5#0,ÿZ0$%'-ÿa02!&ÿC0.10'!1-ÿC50&&0-!""0ÿ@5!"2)ÿ'((6ÿ$&!.0ÿ#"ÿ'50ÿ#44&0ÿ(,ÿ!ÿ.-/010
!''!.6ÿ("ÿ'50ÿ_0+'01"ÿC'!'0+ÿ9(301ÿG1#4ÿ(1.50+'1!'04ÿ/-ÿ[@D9ÿ35#'0ÿ.(&&!1ÿ.1# #"!&+ÿ!"4ÿ'50ÿ
@8BCDÿ2!"2ÿ&04ÿ/-ÿ'50ÿ"03ÿG0"01!&ÿ@(%"+0&ÿ@5!1&0+ÿA(/#"+("<ÿÿ
G(*<ÿZ!*#+ÿ'(%104ÿ'50ÿ$&!"'ÿ'(ÿ,#"4ÿ(%'ÿbcTÿdcOÿefgOÿPQSLhÿLObÿXijkÿOSlcÿmSdOQnfooSQÿ
OpOQqOLlTÿqOLOQSdrQsÿfLsdSooOhÿdcOQOÿbOQOÿLrdÿQRLLfLqÿSLhÿLrdÿpStfLqÿcRLhQOhsÿreÿ
dcrRsSLhsÿreÿdSuieQOOÿhrooSQs<ÿB"ÿF``v)ÿZ!*#+)ÿ!+ÿ'50ÿ@!&#,(1"#!ÿa'<ÿG(*01"(1ÿ!"4ÿ[@ÿA020"')ÿ/-ÿ
&!3ÿ!$$1(*04ÿ'50ÿ.("+'1%.'#("ÿÿ(,ÿ'50ÿ[@Z\@]+ÿ>^0\_ÿ$&!"'ÿ'(ÿ#&&02!&&-ÿ$1(4%.0ÿ!"4ÿ+0&&ÿ$(301ÿ
3(1'5ÿ'0"+ÿ(,ÿ#&&#("+ÿ(,ÿ'!w0,100ÿ4(&&!1+<ÿx!*#"2ÿUYÿjkÿ(,ÿÿ$(301ÿ'(ÿ+0&&ÿ3!+ÿ!ÿ/#2ÿ.5%"6ÿ(,ÿ'!w0
,100ÿ("0-ÿ,(1ÿ'50ÿ#"*0+'(1+ÿ#"'(ÿ#&&02!&ÿ$(301ÿ+!&0ÿ<ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¥¦§¨ÿ§ª«¬ÿ®¯°±²¯³ÿÿÿÿÿÿ́µ¶·¸¬¹ºÿ±»¼®±¯²ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ½¾¿¬ÀÁÿ̄»Â̄®ÿÿÿÿÿÿĪŬÿ±±»ÿµÆÿÇÈÇ
!ÿ"#$%&'ÿ)*&%&*+ÿ,&-*.ÿ/0.ÿ1ÿ2.ÿ34567ÿ389ÿ:;<=ÿ9>?<7ÿ9>2@ÿA@BCÿDEF;ÿG>>2H7ÿIJFB;ÿKFL!BJ=7ÿ
9GMÿN;DB;ÿ<>ÿANJOB;ÿG?7ÿG>>8HÿAPQ;ÿ>2093?8H7ÿBCJÿPE!BCÿDEFIREBÿSBLBJ=Tÿ
DLUEVQF!ELÿESÿOLFBÿQVÿLÿSE!KUJÿE!BJKFLBJ=ÿJUJIBFEIEBWÿXLFYJBÿE!ÿBCJÿZJSB;ÿBSÿJ!JFKWÿ
OFQ[UJXSÿBCJFJVQFJÿIFJLBJ=ÿLÿ\=WSVR!IBEQ!LUÿXLFYJBOULIJÿ[QBCÿE!ÿDLUEVQF!ELÿL!=ÿBCJÿ
FJXLE!=JFÿQVÿBCJÿZJSB;]ÿ;ÿ;ÿ;ÿ:QFÿJ^LXOUJ7ÿE!ÿBCJÿ_LIEVEIÿPQFBC`JSB7ÿOFEIJSÿCLaJÿ
CESBQFEILUUWÿLaJFLKJ=ÿLOOFQ^EXLBJUWÿbcdefghiÿ
kRFE!KÿBCESÿOJFEQ=7ÿSCQFBÿBJFXÿOFEIJSÿSOEYJ=ÿBQÿR!OFJIJ=J!BJ=ÿUJaJUS7ÿlmnopqrÿnsÿ
btutvvefghÿE!ÿJLFUWÿkJIJX[JFÿQVÿG>>>;ÿ
w!VQFBR!LBJUW7ÿLVBJFÿBCJÿJXJFKJ!IWÿKJ!JFLBQFSÿ[JKL!ÿ[JE!KÿBJSBJ=ÿVFJxRJ!BUW7ÿE!ÿG>>>7ÿ
!JLF[WÿFJSE=J!BSÿIQXOULE!J=ÿL[QRBÿBCJÿFJSRUBE!KÿCEKCÿIQ!IJ!BFLBEQ!ÿQVÿ=EJSJUÿVRXJS;ÿyCQSJÿVRXJSÿ
LUSQÿJ!BJFJ=ÿBCJÿOUL!B]SÿIQ!BFQUÿFQQXÿL!=ÿQBCJFÿXJ=EILUÿIJ!BJFÿaJ!BEULBEQ!ÿSWSBJXS7ÿILRSE!Kÿ
SEIY!JSS;ÿ:RFBCJF7ÿBCJÿR!=JFSEzJ=ÿIQQUE!KÿBQ`JFÿ`EBCÿ=JVJIBEaJÿIQQUE!KÿBQ`JFÿVL!S]ÿXQBQFÿKJLFÿ
[Q^JSÿ`JFJÿUJLYE!KÿXLSSEaJÿLXQR!BSÿQVÿXLICE!JÿQEU7ÿ`CEICÿ`LSÿFJIYUJSSUWÿL!=ÿR!UL`VRUUWÿ
=ESICLFKJ=ÿVQFÿSJaJ!ÿWJLFSÿE!BQÿBCJÿNLIFLXJ!BQÿ{EaJFÿaELÿSBQFXÿ=FLE!S7ÿR!BEUÿBCJÿ!J`ÿIQUUE!KÿBQ`JFÿ
`LSÿ[REUBÿE!ÿG>>2|G>>8ÿASJJÿ}^CE[EBÿ~ÿ<2H;ÿQaJF!QFÿkLaES]SÿOUL!BÿBQRFÿBQQYÿOULIJÿSCQFBUWÿLVBJFÿCJÿ
=JIULFJ=ÿLÿNBLBJÿQVÿ}XJFKJ!IW;ÿÿ
ÿÿ mnmÿqsmÿBCJÿ`QF=E!KÿQVÿBCJÿNBLBJÿQVÿ}XJFKJ!IWÿ ÿÿdvv7ÿ
`CEICÿ̀LSÿESSRJ=ÿQ!ÿL!RLFWÿ987ÿG>>9Tÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿBCLBÿ=RFE!KÿBCJÿBEXJÿLÿOQ`JFÿOUL!BÿESÿQOJFLBE!KÿR!=JFÿ
L!WÿQVÿBCJÿL[QaJÿIQ!=EBEQ!S7ÿshmÿnppsÿhnÿqsÿmÿmsÿsÿnqÿlppqÿppspqrÿ
psÿhÿÿlmnspqÿÿrmqmnspqÿnlnppsuÿÿplpqrÿqpspqÿÿOJ!LUBEJSÿ
FJULBJ=ÿBQÿEBSÿL==EBEQ!LUÿCQRFSÿQVÿQOJFLBEQ!ÿQFÿOQ`JFÿKJ!JFLBEQ!7ÿ̀CJBCJFÿEXOQSJ=ÿ[WÿBCJÿ
DLUEVQF!ELÿJLUBCÿL!=ÿNLVJBWÿDQ=J7ÿBCJÿDLUEVQF!ELÿDQ=JÿQVÿ{JKRULBEQ!S7ÿLÿUQILUÿLEFÿ
OQUURBEQ!ÿIQ!BFQUÿQFÿLEFÿxRLUEBWÿXL!LKJXJ!Bÿ=ESBFEIBÿFRUJÿQFÿFJKRULBEQ!7ÿQFÿL!WÿOJFXEB.ÿ
ÿÿÿBCLB7ÿE!ÿQF=JFÿBQÿLaQE=ÿ[ULIYQRBSÿL!=ÿpqppmÿlmnspqÿÿnolÿ
pmmpmÿrmqmnsuÿUQILUÿLEFÿ=ESBFEIBSÿLFJÿ=EFJIBJ=ÿBQÿLUUQ`ÿ!LBRFLUÿKLS0VEFJ=ÿOQ`JFÿ
OUL!BSÿBQÿQOJFLBJÿE!ÿJ^IJSSÿQVÿBCJEFÿCQRFUW7ÿ=LEUW7ÿxRLFBJFUWÿL!=QFÿL!!RLUÿJXESSEQ!ÿ
UEXEBLBEQ!SÿEVÿQOJFLBJ=TÿALHÿBQÿSJUUÿOQ`JFÿBQÿBCJÿDLUEVQF!ELÿkJOLFBXJ!BÿQVÿZLBJFÿ
{JSQRFIJSÿQFÿBQÿLÿRBEUEBWÿUQILBJ=ÿE!ÿDLUEVQF!EL¡ÿA[HÿBQÿSJFaJÿL!ÿQOJFLBE!KÿRBEUEBW¢SÿQ`!ÿ
UQL=¡ÿQFÿAIHÿLSÿ=ESOLBICJ=ÿ[WÿBCJÿDLUEVQF!ELÿ!=JOJ!=J!BÿNWSBJXÿ£OJFLBQFÿAD¤ N£H;ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
z{|}ÿ|ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
!"ÿ#$#ÿ%!&'()!(ÿ*+&$,ÿ-)!"ÿ./+.ÿ./'ÿ+(.$0$1$+223ÿ1('+.'#ÿ')'(43ÿ,/!(.+4',ÿ+)#ÿ52+1-!6.,ÿ
"!62#ÿ')#ÿ$)ÿ71.!5'(ÿ899:;ÿ</$,ÿ$,ÿ'=+1.23ÿ"/+.ÿ/+>>')'#?ÿ+)#ÿ./'ÿ@A7Bÿ"/$.'ÿ1!22+(ÿ1($C$)+2,ÿ+)#ÿ
./'$(ÿ1!22+5!(+.!(,ÿ0(!CÿADEF7ÿ+)#ÿ!./'(ÿ+4')1$',ÿ"'('ÿC+#'ÿ($1/'(ÿ53ÿ+>>(!=$C+.'23ÿG:H9ÿC$22$!)ÿ
.+=00(''ÿ#!22+(,ÿ0(!Cÿ$22'4+223ÿ,!2#ÿIJKÿMNOPMQMRSÿTUVTMKÿQMTIWIOOÿXPYZM[ÿ0(!Cÿ./'ÿ@Aÿ*+&$,ÿ
\'#$1+2ÿA').'(ÿ8]ÿ\^ÿ1!4')'(+.$!)ÿ>2+).ÿ"/'('ÿEÿ"+,ÿ"!(-$)4ÿ+,ÿ+)ÿ!>'(+.!(ÿ0(!Cÿ_6)'ÿ:``ÿÿ.!ÿ
\+(1/ÿ899]aÿÿ
</'ÿ,/!(.+4'ÿ!0ÿ'2'1.($1$.3ÿ+)#ÿ,''C$)423ÿ')#2',,ÿ52+1-!6.,ÿC+4$1+223ÿ+)#ÿC$(+162!6,23ÿ
#$,+>>'+('#ÿ$)ÿA+2$0!()$+ÿ$)ÿ71.!5'(ÿ899:?ÿb6,.ÿ+0.'(ÿc!5'(.ÿ\6'22'(ÿEEEÿ"+,ÿ+>>!$).'#ÿ./'ÿdeEÿ#$('1.!(ÿ
53ÿB(',$#').ÿ%'!(4'ÿ^aÿe6,/?ÿ+)#ÿb6,.ÿ+0.'(ÿD20f+'#+0+00$2$+.'#ÿ.'((!($,.,ÿ1!C>2'.'#ÿ./'$(ÿ.(+$)$)4ÿ$)ÿ
F+)ÿ*$'4!ÿ+)#ÿd2!($#+ÿ+)#ÿÿ#'2$&'('#ÿ./'ÿC!,.ÿ#'+#23ÿ+..+1-,ÿ'&'(ÿ!)ÿ@aFaÿ,!$2?ÿ"/$1/ÿ-$22'#ÿC!('ÿ./+)ÿ
H999ÿ$))!1').ÿ>'!>2'ÿ+)#ÿ.($44'('#ÿ1!,.23ÿ"+(,ÿ$)ÿE(+gÿ+)#ÿD04/+)$,.+)?ÿ.+-$)4ÿ$))6C'(+52'ÿ2$&',ÿ$)ÿ
./'ÿ)+C'ÿ!0ÿ0(''#!Cÿ+)#ÿ#'C!1(+13aÿÿ
_6,.ÿ+ÿ0'"ÿ#+3,ÿ5'0!('ÿF'>.'C5'(ÿ::?ÿ899:?ÿ@aFaÿD..!()'3ÿ0!(ÿ./'ÿh!(./'()ÿ*$,.($1.ÿ!0ÿA+2$0!()$+ÿ
c!5'(.ÿ\6'22'(ÿ"+,ÿ+>>!$).'#ÿdeEÿ#$('1.!(aÿD2,!ÿ$)ÿF'>.'C5'(ÿ89::?ÿc+/$Cÿc''#ÿ+(($&'#ÿ+.ÿ@Aÿ*+&$,ÿ
0(!Cÿ./'ÿ@)$&'(,$.3ÿ!0ÿd2!($#+?ÿ"/'('ÿ/'ÿ/'2#ÿ./'ÿ>!,$.$!)ÿ!0ÿ*$('1.!(ÿ!0ÿ./'ÿA').'(ÿ0!(ÿ./'ÿF.6#3ÿ!0ÿ
c+1'ÿ+)#ÿc+1'ÿc'2+.$!),aÿÿ
</'ÿiOIOMÿUjÿkQMPTMJZSÿKMZRIPMKÿlSÿmUnoÿpInY[ÿWI[ÿOUÿqInMÿMJKMKÿYJÿrZOUlMPÿsttu?ÿb6,.ÿ
./(''ÿ"''-,ÿ+0.'(ÿ./'ÿF'>.'C5'(ÿ::?ÿ899:ÿ.'((!($,.ÿ+..+1-,vÿ/!"'&'(?ÿ$.ÿ('C+$)'#ÿ$)ÿ'00'1.ÿ6).$2ÿ
h!&'C5'(ÿ899H?ÿ"/')ÿ*+&$,ÿ2'0.ÿ!00$1'ÿ5'0!('ÿ/'ÿ1!62#ÿ5'ÿ('1+22'#aÿ 'ÿ"+,ÿ5+$2'#ÿ!6.ÿ53ÿ@aFaÿ
c'>(',').+.$&'ÿ*+(('22ÿE,,+?ÿ!0ÿF+)ÿ*$'4!?ÿ"/!ÿ>+$#ÿG:a]ÿC$22$!)ÿ0(!Cÿ/$,ÿ>($&+.'ÿ+11!6).ÿ.!ÿ#!ÿ,!aÿ</'ÿ
('+,!)ÿ0!(ÿ'=.')#$)4ÿ./'ÿF.+.'ÿ!0ÿwC'(4')13ÿ6).$2ÿh!&'C5'(ÿ899Hÿ"+,ÿ!5&$!6,23ÿb6,.$0$'#ÿ.!ÿ0+1$2$.+.'ÿ
./'ÿ6)(',.($1.'#ÿ2+6)#'($)4ÿ!0ÿC!('ÿC'4+"+..,ÿ.!ÿC+-'ÿ+##$.$!)+2ÿC$22$!),ÿ!0ÿ6).+='#ÿ#!22+(,ÿ+.ÿ./'ÿ
@A*\Ax,ÿ8]0\^ÿ1!4')'(+.$!)ÿ>2+).?ÿ+)#ÿ>'(/+>,ÿ0(!Cÿ,$C$2+(ÿ>2+).,ÿ+.ÿ@Aÿe'(-'2'3ÿ+)#ÿ@AÿF+)ÿ
*$'4!aÿD22ÿ./(''ÿ>2+).,ÿ"'('ÿ1!CC$,,$!)'#ÿ+)#ÿ56$2.ÿ5'."'')ÿ:``2ÿ+)#ÿ8999ÿ.!ÿ,'22ÿ'2'1.($1$.3ÿ0!(ÿ
')!(C!6,ÿ>(!0$.?ÿ#6'ÿ.!ÿ./'ÿ@A7Bÿ+)#ÿA+2$0!()$+ÿ4!&'()C').x,ÿ"/$.'ÿ1!22+(ÿ1($C$)+2,xÿd'5(6+(3ÿ:``yÿ
b!$).ÿ&').6('ÿ"$./ÿw)(!)?ÿ"/$1/ÿ+2C!,.ÿ2'#ÿ.!ÿ./'ÿ1!22+>,'ÿ!0ÿ./'ÿ^',.'()ÿB!"'(ÿ%($#ÿ5'."'')ÿ\+3ÿ
8999ÿ+)#ÿ71.!5'(ÿ899:aÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
bcdeÿdghiÿjklmnolpÿÿÿÿÿÿqrstuivwÿjnxyknloÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿz{|i}~ÿlxlklkkÿÿÿÿÿÿgiÿnknÿrÿ
!ÿ"#$%ÿ&'&ÿ%()ÿ*(+,ÿ$-ÿ$%)'.'"$)!&/ÿ !ÿ(+.!-)+$)!&ÿ012ÿ3'##'(%ÿ4+$5&ÿ)')#!&ÿ67$#'4(+%'$ÿ
8%!+9:ÿ7+'-'-ÿÿ3$9'.$##:ÿ$%&ÿ'33!&'$)!#:ÿ!%&!&ÿÿ$4)!+ÿ;<==ÿ)!++(+ÿ$))$.,>ÿ$%&ÿ)!+!$4)!+ÿÿ&!3$%&ÿ
4(+ÿ"(*!+ÿ*$-ÿ#!--ÿ)$)ÿ')ÿ$&ÿ?!!%ÿ?!)*!!%ÿ@$:ÿA222ÿ$%&ÿB!")!3?!+ÿA22=/ÿÿ
C(+ÿ)!ÿ-$,!ÿ(4ÿ.(3"$+'-(%>ÿ'%ÿA22=>ÿD7E@7F-ÿAG0@Hÿ.(9!%!+$)'(%ÿ"(*!+ÿ"#$%)ÿ-(#&ÿ
GI>G2Gÿ@Hÿ'##!9$##:ÿJK'$ÿ7$LM07NOBPQ>ÿ* '#!ÿ(%#:ÿ=G>G;Rÿ@Hÿ*!+!ÿ-(#&ÿ'%ÿA22R>ÿ(%!ÿS5$+)!+ÿ
(4ÿ* $)ÿ*$-ÿ-(#&ÿ'%ÿA22=/ÿO%ÿA221>ÿ=R>T=2ÿ@Hÿ*!+!ÿ-(#&Uÿ'%ÿA22I>ÿ')ÿ*$-ÿAGI2ÿ@HUÿ'%ÿA222>ÿ
RGTRÿ@HUÿ'%ÿA22G>ÿA;=G@HUÿ$%&ÿ'%ÿA22T>ÿGTT1@Hÿ*!+!ÿ-(#&ÿ)(ÿB@DE/ÿ !+!$4)!+>ÿ)!+!ÿ
*!+!ÿ%(ÿ-$#!-ÿ?!.$5-!>ÿ'%ÿV(K!3?!+ÿA22T>ÿOÿ&!4!$)!&ÿ)!ÿD7PLF-ÿ.+'3'%$#-ÿ'%ÿ$+?')+$)'(%ÿ)(ÿ,!!"ÿ
3:ÿW(?/ÿ !%>ÿB@DEÿ+!45-!&ÿ)(ÿ?5:ÿ"(*!+ÿ4+(3ÿ)!ÿD7E@7F-ÿ"#$%)>ÿ)(ÿ* '.ÿB@DEÿ'-ÿ
&'+!.)#:ÿ.(%%!.)!&/ÿÿ
ÿÿ O%ÿA2=G>ÿOÿ-!%)ÿ$%ÿ'%S5'+:ÿ)(ÿD/B/ÿX!"+!-!%)$)'K!ÿE$++!#ÿO--$ÿ$-,'%9ÿ* :ÿ!ÿ?$'#!&ÿ(5)ÿY+$:ÿ
E$K'-ÿ*')ÿ'-ÿ(*%ÿ3(%!:/ÿOÿ*$-ÿ.5+'(5-ÿ$?(5)ÿO--$F-ÿ$.)'(%-ÿ?!.$5-!ÿ!ÿ'-ÿ4+(3ÿB$%ÿE'!9(ÿ* !+!>ÿ
'%ÿ@$:ÿA222>ÿ$ÿ)!++(+'-)ÿ9+(5"ÿ)+$'%!&ÿ)!+!>ÿ)!ÿD%'K!+-'):ÿ(4ÿ7$#'4(+%'$ÿB$%ÿE'!9(ÿ.$3"5-ÿ'-ÿ
#(.$)!&ÿ'%ÿ'-ÿ&'-)+'.)>ÿ$%&ÿ?!.$5-!ÿ!ÿ*$-ÿ$..5-!&ÿ?:ÿZ!*'-ÿ![)+!3'-)-ÿ(4ÿ.(##$?(+$)'%9ÿ*')ÿ
\!]?(##$>ÿ* '.ÿ $-ÿ?!!%ÿ?+$%&!&ÿ?:ÿ)!ÿD/B/ÿ9(K!+%3!%)ÿ$-ÿ$ÿ)!++(+'-)ÿ(+9$%']$)'(%/ÿ
C5+)!+3(+!>ÿ'-ÿ(44'.!ÿ*$-ÿ)$+9!)!&ÿ?:ÿ$%ÿ$?(+)!&ÿ?(3?ÿ"#()ÿ(+.!-)+$)!&ÿ?:ÿ$ÿZ!*'-ÿE!4!%-!ÿ
^!$95!ÿ#!$&!+ÿ'%ÿA22=ÿ4(+ÿ'-ÿ$##!9!&ÿ.(##$?(+$)'(%ÿ*')ÿ\!]?(##$/ÿÿ
ÿÿ P%!ÿ3(%)ÿ$4)!+ÿ)!ÿ;<==ÿ)!++(+'-)ÿ$))$.,->ÿC_OÿE'+!.)(+ÿ@5!##!+ÿ(+&!+!&ÿ)!ÿ4+$3'%9ÿ$%&ÿ
"+(-!.5)'(%ÿ(4ÿ\$3'&ÿ\$:$)>ÿ$ÿ.(3"#!)!#:ÿ'%%(.!%)ÿ=;0:!$+0(#&ÿÿ+!-'&!%)ÿ$%&ÿD/B/ÿ.')']!%ÿ(4ÿ
L$,'-)$%'ÿ&!-.!%)ÿ* (ÿ*$-ÿ*+(%9#:ÿ$..5-!&ÿ(4ÿ?!'%9ÿ$%ÿN#0`$!&$ÿ)!++(+'-)/ÿ !ÿC_Oÿ"$'&ÿ0AI2>222ÿ
)(ÿ$%ÿ'%4(+3!+ÿ)(ÿ!#"ÿ4+$3!ÿ\$:$)/ÿÿ
ÿÿ H :ÿ*!+!ÿ@5!##!+ÿ(+ÿ'-ÿ-5?(+&'%$)!-ÿ4+(3ÿ)!ÿC_OF-ÿB$.+$3!%)(ÿ(44'.!ÿ#((,'%9ÿ4(+ÿN#0
`$!&$ÿ)!++(+'-)-ÿ'%ÿ^(&'>ÿ?5)ÿ%()ÿ?()!+'%9ÿ)(ÿ4'%&ÿ(5)ÿ* (ÿ*$-ÿ?!'%&ÿ)!ÿ012ÿ?'##'(%ÿ4+$5&ÿ,%(*%ÿ
$-ÿ)!ÿ7$#'4(+%'$ÿ8%!+9:ÿ7+'-'-aÿH :ÿ&'&ÿ@5!##!+ÿ.((-!ÿ^(&'>ÿ* !+!ÿOÿ$K!ÿ#'K!&ÿ*')ÿ3:ÿ4$3'#:ÿ
-'%.!ÿ=;T;aÿH :ÿ%()>ÿ4(+ÿ![$3"#!ÿE!$+?(+%>ÿ@'.'9$%>ÿ$ÿ.'):ÿ&!%-!#:ÿ"("5#$)!&ÿ?:ÿ"!("#!ÿ4+(3ÿ
)!ÿ@'&&#!ÿ8$-)>ÿ(+ÿB$%ÿE'!9(>ÿ* !+!ÿN#0`$!&$ÿ)!++(+'-)-ÿ*!+!ÿ)+$'%!&ÿ)(ÿ4#:ÿW53?(ÿW!)-ÿ'%ÿ
"+!"$+$)'(%ÿ4(+ÿ)!'+ÿA22=ÿ)!++(+ÿ$))$.,-aÿÿ
0ÿ22ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ£¤¥¦§ÿ¡¨©¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿª«ÿÿ¬ÿ®
ÿÿ !"ÿ#$%&ÿ'()ÿ*ÿ$+,-.(/0-+ÿ1(2"/0(/34ÿ(..-5"*ÿ$678%*ÿ$&#$*ÿ89#:*ÿ&;<=*ÿ">5?ÿ@-@ÿ
0(>ÿ5+/"ÿ!(Aÿ'+0Bÿ-00(5"0>ÿC"(C,"ÿ@-"@ÿ(0ÿ8"C>"')"/ÿDD*ÿEFFD?ÿ!"Bÿ(0,Bÿ5+/"@ÿ+)(G>ÿ!(Aÿ'+0Bÿ
'-,,-(04ÿ(.ÿ>+H0./""ÿ@(,,+/4ÿA(G,@ÿ.,(Aÿ>(ÿ>!"-/ÿ)+0Iÿ+55(G0>4ÿ./('ÿ>!"ÿ-,,"1+,ÿ4+,"ÿ(.ÿ"0"/1Bÿ+>ÿ
4IB0/(5I"@ÿC/-5"4ÿ./('ÿ>!"ÿÿ(/5!"4>/+>"@ÿ./+G@ÿ>->,"@ÿÿJKLMNOPQMKÿSQTPUVÿJPMWMW?ÿ7ÿA+4ÿ+ÿ@-/"5>ÿ
A->0"44ÿ>(ÿ>!"-/ÿ5/-'-0+,ÿ+5>-2->-"4ÿ)"5+G4"ÿ7ÿA+4ÿ"'C,(B"@ÿ+4ÿ+0ÿ(C"/+>(/ÿ+>ÿ>!"ÿ#$:9$34ÿE30
9Xÿ5(1"0"/+>-(0ÿC,+0>ÿ+0@ÿ!+@ÿ>(ÿ.(,,(Aÿ>!"-/ÿ(/@"/4ÿ>(ÿI""Cÿ'BÿY()?ÿ
%0ÿZ")/G+/BÿDE*ÿEFFE*ÿ@G/-01ÿ+ÿ!"+/-01ÿ)".(/"ÿ>!"ÿ$(''->>""ÿ(0ÿ$(''"/5"*ÿ85-"05"*ÿ+0@ÿ
/+04C(/>+>-(0ÿ$(''->>""ÿ(.ÿ>!"ÿ#0->"@ÿ8>+>"4*ÿ#?8?ÿ8"0+>(/ÿ[+/)+/+ÿ[(H"/*ÿ./('ÿ8+0ÿZ/+05-45(*ÿ
A!-0"@ÿ>!+>ÿ>!"ÿ\QM]TPWM^VÿONÿJKLMNOPQMKÿWKM_ÿM^ÿLOW^ÿQTKPLVÿ̀abcÿdMLLMOQÿ(0ÿ->4ÿ-02"4>'"0>4ÿMQÿSQPOQÿ
W^Oef*ÿA!-,"ÿ>A(ÿ(.ÿ>!"ÿ4>+>"g4ÿCG),-5ÿ"'C,(B""ÿC"04-(0ÿ.G0@4ÿ+,4(ÿ,(4>ÿ0"+/,Bÿ̀hiÿdMLLMOQ?ÿ
!"ÿ/"4C"5>"@ÿ$+,-.(/0-+ÿ&G),-5ÿ='C,(B""4ÿj">-/"'"0>ÿ.G0@*ÿA!-5!ÿ!+@ÿ)""0ÿI0(A0ÿ+4ÿ+0ÿ
+@2(5+>"ÿ.(/ÿ4>/(01"/ÿ5(/C(/+>"ÿ1(2"/0+05"*ÿA+4ÿ"')+//+44"@ÿ)Bÿ/"2",+>-(04ÿ>!+>ÿ->ÿ!+@ÿ-02"4>"@ÿ-0ÿ(0"ÿ
(.ÿ>!"ÿ@G)-(G4ÿC+/>0"/4!-C4ÿ>!+>ÿ=0/(0ÿG4"@ÿ>(ÿ!-@"ÿ->4ÿ@")>ÿ./('ÿ-02"4>(/4?ÿÿÿ
8"0+>(/ÿ[(H"/ÿA+4ÿC"/."5>,Bÿ+A+/"ÿ(.ÿA!+>ÿI-0@ÿ(.ÿ@"+,ÿ!"/ÿ5(,,"+1G"4ÿ./('ÿ>!"ÿ#$%&ÿ!+@ÿ
A->!ÿ=0/(0?ÿ8!"ÿ-4ÿ(/-1-0+,,Bÿ./('ÿ[/((I,B0*ÿ)G>ÿ4!"ÿ@-@ÿ0(>ÿ5/Bÿ+)(G>ÿÿkFFFÿ-00(5"0>ÿC"(C,"ÿC"/-4!"@ÿ
-0ÿl"Aÿm(/Iÿ-0ÿ>!"ÿnoDDÿ>"//(/-4>ÿ+>>+5I4?ÿ8!"ÿ5/-"@ÿ+)(G>ÿ>!"ÿ5(//GC>ÿ\JpWÿ̀abcÿdMLLMOQÿMQ]TW^dTQ^ÿ
MQÿSQPOQÿW^Oefqÿ#0)",-"2+),"?ÿÿ
ÿ rQÿsKQtKPVÿuiib*ÿ>!"ÿ#$%&ÿ/"5/G->"@ÿv(!0ÿ6?ÿw(!4"*ÿ9G",,"/34ÿ4G)(/@-0+>"ÿ+0@ÿ'(4>ÿ,-I",Bÿ
./-"0@*ÿ+0@ÿ6/-x(0+ÿ;(2"/0(/ÿv+0">ÿl+C(,->+0(34ÿ./-"0@*ÿ>(ÿ4"/2"ÿ+4ÿ:-/"5>(/ÿ(.ÿ702"4>-1+>-(0ÿ-0ÿ>!"ÿ
#$%&ÿ%..-5"ÿ(.ÿ>!"ÿ8"0-(/ÿy-5"ÿ&/"4-@"0>ÿ+0@ÿ+4ÿ$!-".ÿ$('C,-+05"ÿ+0@ÿ6G@->ÿ%..-5"/*ÿ>(ÿI""Cÿ>!"ÿZ[7ÿ
(G>ÿ(.ÿ#$ÿ5+'CG4"4ÿ+0@ÿ"B"4ÿ(0ÿA!-4>,"),(A"/4ÿ+0@ÿ+@2"/4+/-"4ÿ(.ÿ>!"ÿ#$%&?ÿ!-4ÿA+4ÿ+.>"/ÿ>!"ÿEFFzÿ
#?8?ÿ:"C+/>'"0>ÿ(.ÿ/"+4G/Bÿ+G@->ÿ(.ÿ#$ÿ8+0ÿ:-"1(ÿ+0@ÿZ=j$34ÿ{G"4>-(0-01ÿ(.ÿ#$ÿ8+0ÿ:-"1(ÿ
+@'-0-4>/+>(/4ÿ+)(G>ÿ>!"ÿ2+,-@->Bÿ(.ÿ>!"ÿ#$ÿ8+0ÿ:-"1(ÿ5(1"0"/+>-(0ÿ.+5-,->B*ÿA!-5!ÿA+4ÿ(0"ÿ(.ÿ>!/""ÿ
C,+0>4ÿ5(''-44-(0"@ÿ@G/-01ÿ>!"ÿ$+,-.(/0-+ÿ","5>/-5->Bÿ@"/"1G,+>-(0ÿ>(ÿ,+G0@"/ÿ'"1+A+>>4ÿ./('ÿ(.ÿ#$ÿ
5+'CG4"4ÿ)Bÿ!-/-01ÿ=0/(0ÿ-0ÿDnn|ÿ+4ÿ>!"ÿ","5>/-5->BÿC/(2-@"/ÿ.(/ÿ+,,ÿ#$ÿ5+'CG4"4?ÿw(!4"34ÿ/"5/G->'"0>ÿ
5(//"4C(0@"@ÿA->!ÿ!-4ÿEFDFÿCG),-5+>-(0ÿ.(/ÿ>!"ÿ#$ÿ[G4-0"44ÿ%..-5"/ÿ704>->G>"ÿ"0>->,"@ÿÿ
67ÿ75ÿ7}6~7ÿ96ÿ }67967ÿ4}6~qÿr^ÿNTK^tPT_ÿTOPUTÿ
MLLWpÿWK^MPMeKLÿeKP^OOQÿK^ÿKWÿeK^MOQT_ÿOtÿM_ÿ^TÿMU^ÿMQUÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
rstuÿtwxyÿz{|}~|ÿÿÿÿÿÿ yÿz~{~|ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿyÿ||{|{{ÿÿÿÿÿÿwyÿ~{ÿÿ
!"#$%&'%()&*+ÿ-(ÿ./$0*/%%1+ÿ &ÿ2/3&ÿ$(ÿ4"*&ÿ5(06ÿ7((8'1&9ÿ/:8ÿ;-&&ÿ.(ÿ<3"%+ÿ
2&/*ÿ.(ÿ<3"%69ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
=>?@AÿBA@CBDEFAGÿHIÿJKLLMJKLJNÿGCBHIOÿP?Aÿ#&Q(:8ÿ)"$Q!ÿ!0:$ÿHIÿR?HF?ÿSTÿASUV>TSAIPÿEVS>@Pÿ
AIGAGÿ>IÿWETÿXLNÿJKLJÿEPÿYZ[WZ\@ÿ]BECSEÿYIHPÿ^LLÿ>BÿHIÿP?AÿYZ[WZÿS>BOCAÿRHP?ÿEÿ_CVVAPÿ
HIÿSTÿ?AEGÿDB>SÿYZÿ[E`H@ÿa>VHFAÿ=PbÿcESA@ÿdEB_>CB\@ÿeV>FfNÿEDPABÿ?AÿRE@ÿ_BH_AGÿRHP?ÿEÿgXhNKKKÿ
UETÿBEH@AÿP>ÿfHVVÿSAbÿÿ
ÿÿ i:ÿj0k0#$ÿl+ÿmnnl+ÿHIÿUBAUEBEPH>IÿP>ÿABE@AÿSAÿDB>SÿP?AÿYZ[WZÿVEIG@FEUAÿEIGÿP?AÿYZÿ
UETB>VVNÿP?ABAEDPABÿAIGHIOÿSTÿVHPHOEPH>IÿEIGÿUB>PAFPHIOÿYZoaÿR?HPAÿF>VVEBÿFBHSHIEV@ÿBA@U>I@H_VAÿ
D>BÿSHVVH>I@ÿ>DÿG>VVEB@ÿPEpÿA`E@H>IÿEIGÿDBECGNÿPR>ÿEPP>BIAT@ÿBAUBA@AIPHIOÿP?AÿYZÿqAOAIP@NÿWHF?EAVÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¢¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿ§¨©ª«¬ÿ¤®¯¡¤¢¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°±²³ÿ́¢®µ¢¶µ¡¢¡¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿ·¸ÿ¤¡¥ÿ̈¹ÿº»º
!""ÿ#$%ÿ&'!()'ÿ*+'(!ÿ,#ÿ-!(.'(ÿ/0ÿ&'$'(#1ÿ0!2$3'1ÿ4$"'($5ÿ-(!.ÿ"6'ÿ$!"!(4!23ÿ!("'(ÿ7+!""ÿ1#8ÿ
-4(.9ÿ:#3'%ÿ4$ÿ7#+(#.'$"!9ÿ!(+6'3"(#"'%ÿ4$ÿ"6'ÿ0!2("ÿ!-ÿ*;;'#1<3ÿ=64(%ÿ*;;'11#"'ÿ>43"(4+"ÿ#ÿ;6!$?ÿ
#;;'#1ÿ-#:(4+#"'%ÿ-!(ÿ"6'ÿ;2(;!3'ÿ!-ÿ-414$)ÿ#ÿ:!)23ÿ#$"407@* ÿ,ABCDBEFGHÿJDKLMGBÿNFDGOLBÿPMQRGHÿ
PDCBGHGSDBGTOUÿ.!"4!$9ÿ;2(32#$"ÿ"!ÿ0!%'ÿ!-ÿ04V41ÿ(!+'%2('ÿWXYZ[2ÿ,0Z0Zÿ\ÿWXYZ[25Zÿ]"ÿ8#3ÿ-41'%ÿ
4$ÿ^!1!ÿ0!2$"?ÿ72;'(4!(ÿ0!2("ÿ#$%ÿ"6'$ÿ%'$4'%ÿ!$ÿ_!V'.:'(ÿXX9ÿX``YZÿ=6'ÿ%'$4'%ÿ;6!$?ÿ.!"4!$ÿ
-!2$%ÿ4"3ÿ8#?ÿ"!ÿ"6'ÿa>0*9ÿ#$%ÿ"6'ÿ+#3'ÿ:'+#.'ÿb$!8$ÿcdÿfghijdÿklÿmnogcp9ÿ[W2ÿ0#1Z*;;ZW"6ÿ
[aqrÿ,0#1Zÿ0"Zÿ*;;ZÿX``r5Zÿ]"ÿ8#3ÿ23'%ÿ4$ÿX`[Wÿ:?ÿ/0ÿÿ-41'%ÿ#$"407@* ÿ.!"4!$ÿÿ#)#4$3"ÿ.'ÿ4$ÿ.?ÿ
7#+(#.'$"!ÿ0!2$"?ÿ72;'(4!(ÿ0!2("ÿ8(!$)-21ÿ"'(.4$#"4!$ÿ+#3'ÿ#)#4$3"ÿ"6'ÿs')'$"3ÿ!-ÿ"6'ÿ
/$4V'(34"?ÿ!-ÿ0#14-!($4#9ÿtchjdpcuÿvcdwnwxyÿklÿz{gÿ|gig}~dÿjÿ~{gÿ}kghd~ÿjÿcpjh}c9ÿ
0#3'ÿ_!lÿaW0X`[a0``[YYWr3Zÿ=6'ÿ8(!$)-21ÿ"'(.4$#"4!$ÿÿ+#3'ÿ43ÿ3"411ÿ;'$%4$)ÿ#-"'(ÿ.!('ÿ"6#$ÿ
'4)6"ÿ?'#(3ÿ4$ÿ"6'ÿa>0*ÿ#3ÿvcdwnwxyÿklÿz{gÿ|gig}~dÿjÿ~{gÿ}kghd~ÿjÿcpjh}cÿ'"Zÿ#1Z9ÿ
0#3'ÿ_!Zÿ0`3YWqqZÿ]ÿ6#V'ÿ:''$ÿ(';('3'$"4$)ÿ.?3'1-ÿ4$ÿ14"4)#"4!$ÿ#)#4$3"ÿ"6'ÿ/0ÿs')'$"3ÿ34$+'ÿ
>'+'.:'(ÿ[29ÿX`[WZÿÿ
fghijdÿklÿmnogcp9ÿ[W2ÿ0#1Z*;;ZW"6ÿ[aqrÿ43ÿ14b'ÿ#ÿ+!;?+#"ÿ3+'$#(4!9ÿ234$)ÿ"6'ÿ"!"#11?ÿ:!)23ÿ
8643"1':1!8'(ÿ%4V!(+'ÿ+#3'ÿ-(!.ÿ"6'ÿ>Z0Zÿ04(+24"9ÿmc}ÿmjpgÿÿklÿjhÿjÿ}~gh}cpÿ
|gkg}xgÿZW"6ÿ[`[Wÿ,>Z0Zÿ04(ZÿX`XX59ÿ"!ÿ%43.433ÿ.?ÿ#;;'#19ÿtchjdpcuÿtc}xdwÿvcdwnwxyÿklÿ
jddj}ghÿjÿ}~gh}cpÿ|gkg}xgÿ7'(V4+'9ÿ0#3'ÿ_!ZÿX`0[W`r9ÿ/Z7Zÿ=#ÿ0!2("ÿ0#3'ÿ,/7=05ÿ_!Zÿ
Xa[`Y0[qÿ9ÿ_!"4+'ÿ!-ÿ*;;'#1ÿ-41'%ÿ!$ÿ[``rX`X`Zÿ
ÿÿ =6'ÿ>Z0ÿ04(+24"ÿ!;4$4!$ÿ}ÿmc}ÿmjpgÿÿklÿjhÿjÿ}~gh}cpÿ|gkg}xgÿXXÿZW"6ÿ
[`[Wÿ,>Z0Zÿ04(ZÿX`XX5ÿ8#3ÿ%4+"#"'%ÿ:?ÿ#$!"6'(ÿ$!"!(4!23ÿ1#8ÿ-4(.ÿ(';('3'$"4$)ÿ"6'ÿ/0ÿs')'$"3ÿ
#)#4$3"ÿ8643"1':1!8'(39ÿ((4+b9ÿ'((4$)"!$ÿÿ72"+14--'9ÿ@@ 9ÿ:#3'%ÿ4$ÿ7#$ÿ(#$+43+!9ÿ0*Zÿ=6'?ÿ
8'('ÿ#;;!4$"'%ÿ4$ÿ2$'ÿX`X[ÿ:?ÿ"6'ÿ>Z0Zÿ04(+24"ÿ#3ÿ#.4+23ÿ+2(4#'ÿ4$ÿmc}ÿmjpgÿÿklÿjhÿ
jÿ}~gh}cpÿ|gkg}xgÿXXÿZW"6ÿ[`[Wÿ,>Z0Zÿ04(ZÿX`XX5Zÿÿ
Oÿÿ7#+(#.'$"!ÿ0!2$"?ÿ72;'(4!(ÿ0!2("ÿ2%)'ÿ,#$%ÿ/0ÿ>#V43ÿ#12.$#5ÿ=#$4ÿ&Zÿ0#$"41ÿ
7#b#2?'9ÿ84"6ÿ"6'ÿ('+!..'$%#"4!$ÿ!-ÿ"6'ÿ/0 9ÿ8#3ÿ'1'V#"'%ÿ"!ÿ*33!+4#"'ÿ23"4+'ÿ!-ÿ"6'ÿ0!2("ÿ
!-ÿ*;;'#19ÿ=64(%ÿ*;;'11#"'ÿ>43"(4+"9ÿ86'('ÿ36'ÿ+!#2"6!('%ÿ"6'ÿ:!)23ÿfghijdÿklÿmnogcp9ÿ[W2ÿ
0#1Z*;;ZW"6ÿ[aqr9ÿa>0*ÿ!;4$4!$ÿ4$ÿ#$2#(?ÿX``rZÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
abcdÿcfghÿijklmnkoÿÿÿÿÿÿpqrsthuvÿimwxjmknÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿyz{h|}ÿkw~k~jkjjÿÿÿÿÿÿfhÿmjÿqÿ
!ÿ#$%$&'$(ÿ)**+,ÿ-.ÿ/01ÿ23413ÿ25ÿ/01ÿ67ÿ8191:/;ÿ70<=3><:ÿ25ÿ/01ÿ?2<34ÿ8=@0<34ÿ?AB>ÿ
C/01ÿ0B;-<:4ÿ25ÿ6DEDÿE1:</23ÿF=<::1ÿG1=:;/1=:HIÿ<ÿ932BJÿ25ÿK=/@0ÿ0B:/13;ÿK<;ÿ<;;=9:14ÿ/2ÿ5<-3=@</1ÿ
<ÿ5<A;1ÿ@<B;1ÿ/2ÿ5=31ÿ>1ÿ532>ÿ67FL7M;ÿN20LOÿ@291:13</=2:ÿ2J13</23ÿP2-Dÿÿ
ÿ
Q!ÿRS$ÿTU&$ÿVUW,ÿ#$%$&'$(ÿX,ÿ)**+IÿK01:ÿ/01ÿ67YZÿ>2-ÿ<;;=9:14ÿ/0B9;ÿ/2ÿ0B:/ÿ>1ÿ42K:Iÿ
7<A=523:=<ÿ[;;1>-A.><:ÿ532>ÿE<:ÿG3<:@=;@2ÿ\$]U!Vÿ^$$ÿK<;ÿ1A1@/14ÿ7<A=523:=<ÿE1:</23Dÿ_11ÿ0<4ÿ
<ÿA2:9ÿ0=;/23.ÿ25ÿ51B4=:9ÿK=/0ÿ/01ÿ@233BJ/ÿ255=@=<A;ÿ=:ÿ/01ÿ6:=`13;=/.ÿ25ÿ7<A=523:=<ÿ<4>=:=;/3</=2:Dÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
º»¼½ÿ¼¿ÀÁÿÂÃÄÅÆÇÄÈÿÿÿÿÿÿÉÊËÌÍÁÎÏÿÂÆÐÑÃÆÄÇÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÒÓÔÁÕÖÿÄÐ×ÄØ×ÃÄÃÃÿÿÿÿÿÿÙ¿ÚÁÿÆÃÑÿÊÛÿÜÝÜ
!ÿ#$%&!'($%)ÿ!*$ÿ+&,$ÿ!',$-ÿ./ÿ0&/1&#)ÿ2-ÿ23345ÿ6789:8ÿ;<=>?ÿ@:A:8BCÿ;7DAE:CÿBAFÿ
GHI:ÿJ8:EHF:AKÿ;LB8C:EÿMNÿO7PHAE7A5ÿKL:ÿQ:RÿS:8S:K8BK78ÿHAÿ78IL:EK8BKHATÿKL:ÿE7SLHEKHIBK:Fÿ
EIL:9:ÿ76ÿUVÿÿPHCCH7Aÿÿ68BDFÿÿKHKC:Fÿÿ;BCH678AHBÿWA:8TRÿ;8HEHE5ÿB88HX:FÿBKÿY;?JÿL:BFZDB8K:8EÿHAÿ
?BQCBAF5ÿ[L:8:ÿL:ÿP:TBAÿE:8XHATÿBEÿKL:ÿDAHX:8EHKR\EÿA:[ÿT:A:8BCÿI7DAE:C5ÿ8:S78KHATÿFH8:IKCRÿK7ÿ
KL:ÿY;ÿO:T:AKEÿ]E::ÿ*!!^+_`àaab1c.^b$d11̀ce%$f&%̀&!!.#/$)+e+!&ggh̀'.+c̀*&#%$+ege
#.h'/+./b*!,%iNÿ
ÿO7PHAE7AÿLBFÿS8:XH7DECRÿ[78Q:FÿBEÿT:A:8BCÿI7DAE:CÿBAFÿXHI:ÿS8:EHF:AKÿ678ÿ;<=>?Nÿj:ÿ
8:SCBI:FÿW8HIÿkNÿl:L8:AE5ÿ[L7ÿLBAFC:FÿKL:ÿY;mn;ÿI7T:A:8BKH7AÿSCBAK\EÿHAX7CX:9:AKÿHAÿKL:ÿHCC:TBCÿ
S7[:8ÿT:A:8BKH7A5ÿEBC:5ÿKBoÿ:XBEH7A5ÿBAFÿ68BDF5ÿBEÿ[:CCÿBEÿKL:ÿ9BAHSDCBKH7Aÿ76ÿKL:ÿS7[:8ÿ9B8Q:KNÿÿ
ÿÿ p/ÿ0&/1&#)ÿq-ÿ23345ÿ8:ES7AF:AKEÿHAÿKL:ÿI79SCBHAKÿrstÿvwxyzÿ{s|ÿ}ÿ~xwÿz stÿÿ
rxx|ÿzÿ~txyÿstÿtwsÿrxwxÿtzÿsx|ÿ xsxÿÿxÿswztwsÿtxxtxtÿ
r|xÿ xszÿzzswztÿstÿxÿswztwsÿzxÿ~styxÿxÿtx|wyswztÿzÿswx|ÿ
zÿxÿswztwsÿtxxtxtÿr|xÿ xszÿrÿstÿxÿswztwsÿzxÿ~styxÿs
ÿm7IQ:Kÿ7ENÿWVV00VVVÿBAFÿWVV00VVV5ÿEDP9HKK:FÿK7ÿM:F:8BCÿWA:8TRÿO:TDCBK78Rÿ
;799HEEH7Aÿ]MWO;iÿBÿ¡7HAKÿ?66:8ÿ76ÿ>:KKC:9:AKÿBAFÿn7KH7Aÿ678ÿWoS:FHK:Fÿ;7AEHF:8BKH7A5ÿ[HKLÿBAÿ
BII79SBARHATÿ¡7HAKÿWoSCBABK78Rÿ>KBK:9:AKÿBAFÿ<J¢ÿ>:KKC:9:AKÿBAFÿO:C:BE:ÿ76ÿ;CBH9Eÿ
<T8::9:AKÿ]£>:KKC:9:AKÿ<T8::9:AK£i5ÿHAÿBII78FBAI:ÿ[HKLÿKL:ÿS87XHEH7AEÿ76ÿODC:ÿ¤V¥ÿ76ÿKL:ÿODC:Eÿ
76ÿJ8BIKHI:ÿBAFÿJ87I:FD8:5ÿ3ÿ;NMNONÿ¦ÿ§N¤V¥ÿ]¥VV2iÿ76ÿKL:ÿM:F:8BCÿWA:8TRÿO:TDCBK78Rÿ
;799HEEH7ANÿÿ
¨L:ÿ8:ES7AF:AKE5ÿHAICDFHATÿÿ;<=>?5ÿ;BC0<J¢5ÿ©ª«¬ª+ÿªp®¯°¯± ²³p°ÿ
´pµ¯±ÿ́¶ °²5ÿBAFÿKL:ÿ9B·78ÿS7[:8ÿS87FDI:8E5ÿE:CC:8E5ÿBAFÿFHEK8HPDK78E5ÿ[:8:ÿILB8T:Fÿ
[HKLÿBCC:TBKH7AEÿ76ÿ9BAHSDCBKHATÿKL:ÿ[:EK:8Aÿ:C:IK8HIHKRÿ9B8Q:KEÿHAÿWA:8TRÿ;8HEHEÿ76ÿnBRÿ
¥VVV¸?IK7P:8ÿ¥VV3Nÿ¨L:ÿ8:ES7AF:AKEÿ9BAHSDCBK:FÿKL:ÿS7[:8ÿ9B8Q:KÿHAÿBARÿ6BELH7A5ÿ
HAICDFHAT5ÿPDKÿA7KÿCH9HK:FÿK75ÿICBH9Eÿ76ÿ:I7A79HIÿ78ÿSLREHIBCÿ[HKLL7CFHAT5ÿTB9HAT5ÿ68BDF5ÿ
78ÿ9HE8:S8:E:AKBKH7AÿB97ATÿKL:ÿ7KL:8ÿE:CC:8E5ÿIBDEHATÿBAÿ:C:IK8HIHKRÿEL78KBT:ÿBAFÿ87CCHATÿ
PCBIQ7DKENÿ
¨L:ÿ<J¢ÿBAFÿ<J¢ÿSB8KHIHSBAKEÿHAÿKL:ÿ¡BADB8Rÿ¥VV2ÿ>:KKC:9:AKÿBAFÿO:C:BE:ÿ76ÿ;CBH9Eÿ
<T8::9:AK¦ÿN¥ÿ:AKHKC:Fÿ7A0n7A:KB8Rÿ;7AEHF:8BKH7AÿEKBK:F¹ÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡¢ÿ£¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¥¦§¨©ÿ£ª«ªÿÿÿÿÿÿ¬ÿÿ®ÿ̄°¯
ÿ
!ÿ#$%&'ÿ()#&!$*ÿ!)+,)-./ÿ012ÿ(3ÿ4567879:;<58ÿ=5>79ÿ=?:8;ÿ@ÿÿ
ÿ,B)ÿ!ÿ#$%&'ÿ()#&!$*ÿ!)+,)-ÿ97=97C78;Cÿ;D:;ÿ;D7ÿ67879:;<58ÿE8<;ÿ:;ÿ;D7ÿ
+&%)-'&,FÿGHÿ!$*&HG-+&$ÿ#$%&'ÿ()#&!$*ÿ!)+,)-ÿ58?IÿC5?Jÿ
:84<??:9IÿC79K<47Cÿ;5ÿ;D7ÿ&'GÿJE9<86ÿ;D7ÿ-7LE8JÿM79<5J.ÿ$MNÿCEOP<;;7JÿE8<;Q
C=74<L<4ÿO<JCÿ:8JÿC4D7JE?7Cÿ58ÿO7D:?Lÿ5Lÿ;D7ÿ-7678;Cÿ5Lÿ;D7ÿ8<K79C<;Iÿ5Lÿ!:?<L598<:ÿ
0R-7678;CS@ÿ;5ÿ;D7ÿ&'Gÿ:8Jÿ$MNÿ9747<K7JÿE8<;QÿC=74<L<4ÿJ<C=:;4Dÿ<8C;9E4;<58Cÿ:8Jÿ
:84<??:9IÿC79K<47ÿ:>:9JCÿL95Pÿ;D7ÿ&'G.ÿ'7;;?7P78;ÿC;:;7P78;CÿL95Pÿ;D7ÿ&'Gÿ4?7:9?Iÿ
<J78;<LIÿ:??ÿ!ÿ#:K<Cÿ(7J<4:?ÿ!78;79ÿC4D7JE?7Cÿ:8Jÿ;9:8C:4;<58CÿOIÿE8<;ÿ
J7C<68:;<58ÿL59ÿ<8C;9E4;7Jÿ78796ITÿJ7K<:;<58Cÿ:8Jÿ:84<??:9IÿC79K<47ÿ:>:9J.ÿ&Lÿ;D7ÿ
-7678;Cÿ:8Jÿ;D7ÿ!:?<L598<:ÿM:9;<7Cÿ97:4Dÿ:ÿC7;;?7P78;ÿ5Lÿ97LE8Jÿ<CCE7Cÿ97?:;7Jÿ;5ÿ
$MNÿ,9:8C:4;<58Cÿ=U<59ÿ;5ÿ;D7ÿ'7;;?7P78;ÿ)LL74;<K7ÿ#:;7Tÿ;D7ÿ-7678;CÿCD:??ÿO7ÿ
7V4?EJ7JÿL95Pÿ;D<Cÿ$6977P78;.ÿ,D7ÿ$MNÿM:9;<4<=:8;Cÿ><??ÿ85;ÿ<P=7J7ÿ;D7ÿ-7678;Cÿ
L95PÿC7;;?<86ÿ<CCE7CÿJ<974;?Iÿ97?:;7Jÿ;5ÿ;D7ÿ$MNÿ,9:8C:4;<58Cÿ><;Dÿ;D7ÿ!:?<L598<:ÿ
M:9;<7C.ÿ
ÿ
WXYÿZ[\]Yÿ^Z_Z`_Z^XÿYa^bZcdYeÿfXgÿhijklÿmYdY_Zbÿh\ndoYbÿp\[cdo\dÿfZoÿfYbq\rYeÿ[gÿsXYÿ
thluÿcdÿvZdnZ_gÿ3ww2xÿÿÿ
y\bb\fcd`ÿp\[cdo\dzoÿZ__c]Zbÿ{_\rÿhijklÿZdeÿsXYÿZ^^_\]Zbÿ\{ÿsXYÿiu|ÿoYssbYrYdsÿ[gÿ
y}phÿ\dÿ~Z_qXÿjÿ3ww2ÿjÿfZoÿZ[_n^sbgÿ_Yr\]Yeÿ{_\rÿsXYÿth~hÿq\`YdY_Zsc\dÿ^bZdsÿZdeÿ
_YZooc̀dYeÿs\ÿsXYÿth~hoÿihÿoX\^ÿZoÿ:ÿJ:I;<P7ÿ>:;4DP:8ÿL59ÿ;D7ÿ(7;:CICÿ45P=E;79ÿ
CIC;7PTÿ>D<4DÿP58<;597Jÿ49<;<4:?ÿ:?:9PCÿ<8ÿ;D7ÿ!#(!.ÿjÿsX\n`XsÿsXZsÿjÿfZoÿ[Ycd`ÿ_YsZbcZsYeÿ
Z`Zcdosÿ{\_ÿXYb^cd`ÿrgÿq\f\_Y_ÿfcsXÿXcoÿfXcosbY[b\fcd`ÿq\r^bZcdsÿcdÿ3wwÿfXcqXÿfZoÿ_YbZsYeÿs\ÿ
sXYÿrZooc]YÿZr\ndsoÿ\{ÿ\cbÿecoqXZ_`Yeÿs\ÿsXYÿkZq_ZrYds\ÿpc]Y_ÿ{\_ÿoY]YdÿgYZ_oÿ{_\rÿsXYÿeY{Yqsc]Yÿ
q\\bcd`ÿs\fY_zoÿ3ÿ`YZ_ÿ[\aYoxÿWXYoYÿd\s\_c\nobgÿbYZYeÿ\cbÿqZnocd`ÿYd]c_\drYdsZbÿZdeÿoZ{Ysgÿ
XZZ_eoxÿ
ldÿ~Z_qXÿ3ÿ3ww2ÿjÿ_YqYc]YeÿZÿYssY_ÿ\{ÿkno^Ydoc\dÿZdeÿpYZooc̀drYdsÿsXZsÿeY{ZqYeÿZdeÿ
eY{ZrYeÿrYÿfcsXÿ{Z[_cqZsYeÿZqqnoZsc\doÿ\{ÿq_crYoÿq\rrcssYeÿqb\oYbgÿZcdÿs\ÿZqqnoZsc\doÿZ`Zcdosÿ
^_\oYqnsYeÿfZ_ÿq_crcdZboÿÿrYr[Y_oÿ\_ÿ̀nZ_eoÿ{_\rÿZcÿeYZsXÿqZr^oxÿÿ
gÿsXYÿYssY_ÿ\{ÿkno^Ydoc\dÿZdeÿpYZooc̀drYdsÿjÿfZoÿZ[_n^sbgÿ_Yr\]Yeÿ{_\rÿsXYÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
stuvÿuxyzÿ{|}~}ÿÿÿÿÿÿzÿ{|}ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿzÿ}}|}||ÿÿÿÿÿÿxzÿ|ÿÿ
!"#$#%&'(!$ÿ)*&$'ÿ&$+ÿ,!-#+ÿ'!ÿ'.#ÿ/0120ÿ3450ÿ6.!)7ÿ8ÿ9&6ÿ(,,#+(&'#*:ÿ%#)*&#+ÿ;:ÿ&ÿ
:!<$"#%ÿ9!%=#%>ÿ&ÿ*!6#ÿ?%(#$+ÿ!?ÿ'.#ÿ)*&$'ÿ6<)#%-(6!%>ÿ9.!,ÿ.#ÿ.&+ÿ)#%6!$&**:ÿ%#%<('#+7ÿ@ABÿ
DEFGÿHEBÿIJKKÿLJGMNAOPQÿÿ
ÿ
5?'#%ÿ;#($"ÿ%#&66("$#+ÿ'!ÿ'.#ÿ3450ÿ6.!)>ÿ8ÿ9&6ÿ($?!%,&**:ÿ)%!.(;('#+ÿ?%!,ÿ-(6('($"ÿ
?%(#$+6ÿ($ÿ'.#ÿ!"#$#%&'(!$ÿ?&(*(':ÿ9.#%#ÿ8ÿ.&+ÿ9!%=#+ÿ?!%ÿ#(".'ÿ:#&%6ÿ9('.ÿ)#%?#'ÿ#,)*!:##ÿ
#-&*<&'(!$6ÿ#-#%:ÿ:#&%7ÿR-#$ÿ'.!<".ÿ,:ÿ'('*#ÿ9&6ÿ6'(**ÿ!)#%&'!%>ÿ&$+ÿ8ÿ'#.$(&**:ÿ.&+ÿ'.#ÿ%(".'ÿ'!ÿ
-(6('ÿ'.#ÿ)*&$'ÿ+<%($"ÿ*<$.ÿ'!ÿ-(6('ÿ,:ÿ?!%,#%ÿ!9!%=#%6>ÿ8ÿ9&6ÿ$!'ÿ&**!9#+ÿ($7ÿÿ
8ÿ;#&,#ÿ'.#ÿ'&%"#'ÿ!?ÿ,#%(*#66ÿ&$+ÿ<$)%##+#+ÿ&''&=6ÿ&$+ÿ9('.ÿ.<$'ÿ!%.#6'%&'#+ÿ;:ÿ
'.#ÿ/0STÿ&$+ÿ&%(#+ÿ!<'ÿ;:ÿ('6ÿ&66("$#+ÿ'.<"6>ÿ9.!ÿ9#%#ÿ'&6=#+ÿ9('.ÿ#%&6($"ÿ,#ÿ?%!,ÿ'.#ÿ
/0120ÿ*&$+6&)#ÿ&$+ÿ/0ÿ)&:%!**7ÿ8ÿ?!<".'ÿ;&=ÿ<6($"ÿ/0ÿ)!*((#6>ÿ&$+ÿ'.#ÿ&''#,)'ÿ'!ÿ
'#%,($&'#ÿ,:ÿ#,)*!:,#$'ÿ9&6ÿ<$6< #66?<*7ÿ5'ÿ'.#ÿ6&,#ÿ'(,#>ÿ8ÿ9&6ÿ%#!-#%($"ÿ?%!,ÿ'%()*#ÿ
;:)&66ÿ!)#$ÿ.#&%'ÿ6<%"#%:7ÿÿ
8$ÿUVV2ÿ/0ÿT%#6(+#$'ÿW!;#%'ÿ1:$#6ÿ&$$!<$#+ÿ.(6ÿ%#6("$&'(!$ÿ($ÿ&ÿ).!$#ÿ)%#66ÿ!$?#%#$#ÿ
!$ÿ2!$+&:>ÿ5<"<6'ÿX3>ÿUVV2>ÿ($ÿS&=*&$+>ÿ05ÿYZ&:ÿ5'=($6>ÿ[&$ÿ\%&$(6!ÿ0.%!$(*#>ÿ]^X_^UVV2>ÿ
.'')`^^99976?"&'#7!,^$#96^&%'(*#^/00)%#6(+#$'0+(+$0'0;&(*0.#09&60ÿ)<6.#+0!<'0U_XVX2a7).)b7ÿ
W(.&%+ÿc*<,ÿ,#'ÿ9('.ÿde0:#&%0!*+ÿ1:$#6ÿ($ÿf<*:ÿUVV2ÿ!-#%ÿ+($$#%ÿ&'ÿg%&+#%ÿ4(h6ÿ($ÿR,#%:-(**#>ÿ
05>ÿ'.%##ÿ9##=6ÿ;#?!%#ÿ'.#ÿ%#6("$&'(!$>ÿ&$+ÿ?!%#+ÿ.(,ÿ'!ÿ%#6("$>ÿ'#**($"ÿ.(,ÿ'.#ÿ%#"#$'6ÿ.&+ÿ"%!9$ÿ
(,)&'(#$'ÿ9('.ÿ.(6ÿ*&=ÿ!?ÿ)%!"%#66ÿ($ÿ%#?!%,($"ÿ&ÿ+:6?<$'(!$&*ÿ<$(-#%6(':ÿ.(#%&%.:>ÿ6!<%#6ÿ6&:7ÿ
W!;#%'ÿ1:$#6ÿ9&6ÿ%#)*&#+ÿ!$ÿf<$#ÿXd>ÿUVV]ÿÿ9('.ÿ'.#ÿ*&9ÿ)%!?#66!%ÿ?%!,ÿg#i&6ÿjklmÿnopqrÿ
&6ÿ&ÿXa'.ÿT%#6(+#$'ÿ!?ÿ'.#ÿ/$(-#%6(':ÿ!?ÿ0&*(?!%$(&ÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
wxyzÿy|}~ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ|~ÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#ÿ$%ÿ&''2(ÿ)#*$ÿ+,"$*,%-ÿ./0$*ÿ./1/-ÿ2/"ÿ",%-,%3,*ÿ-#ÿ&3ÿ1,/+"ÿ$%ÿ4,*,+/!ÿ5+$"#%6ÿ78ÿ:;<ÿ=><ÿ
?@8=ÿA>B8=C;DÿEÿ./1/-ÿ2/"ÿ/ÿ&F01,/+0#!*ÿ3G,++1ÿ5$3H,+ÿ#4ÿI/H$"-/%$ÿ*,"3,%-ÿ4+#0ÿ)#*$(ÿJ/!$4#+%$/(ÿ
2G,+,ÿKÿ/0ÿ!$L$%Mÿÿ"$%3,ÿNOPO6ÿG--5"QRR22261#S-ST,63#0R2/-3GULVWO"XY'ZHII2[-V&F3"ÿ
ÿ
\\7]Eÿ ÿ
_`aÿÿabcÿÿdeÿ_`aÿe7fg_ÿh7_i`ÿ̀jb_ÿÿkljmjg_ÿ?nn@kÿbd]aopafÿ?nnqÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿK%ÿr#L,0T,+ÿ&''Pÿ(ÿ#%,ÿ1,/+ÿ/%*ÿG/!4ÿÿ/4-,+ÿKÿ2/"ÿ/T+S5-!1ÿ/%*ÿS%!/24S!!1ÿÿ+,0#L,*ÿ4+#0ÿ
XJstJÿ&2ÿtuÿ3#M,%,+/-$#%ÿ5#2,+ÿ5!/%-ÿÿKÿ*,4,/-,*ÿXJWIÿ0#Tÿÿ/%*ÿ-G,$+ÿ/--#+%,1"ÿÿ$%ÿ
/+T$-+/-$#%ÿ5+#3,""ÿÿ+,5+,",%-$%Mÿ01",!46ÿÿt1ÿ+$MG-"ÿ-#ÿ+,-S+%ÿ/%*ÿ2#+Hÿ$%ÿÿXJÿs/L$"ÿt,*$3/!ÿ
J,%-,+ÿ&2ÿtuÿ3#M,%,+/-$#%ÿ5!/%-ÿ2,+,ÿ+,$%"-/-,*ÿT1ÿ-G,ÿXJWIÿ0#Tÿ/""$M%,*ÿÿ/+T$-+/-#+ÿ6ÿ
.#2,L,+ÿ(ÿ-G,ÿ/+T$-+/-#+ÿ*,3$"$#%ÿ*$*ÿ%#-ÿ,%*ÿ-G,ÿ2$-3GÿGS%-ÿ(ÿKÿ2/"ÿT!/3H!$"-,*ÿT1ÿXJWIÿ2G$-,ÿ
3#!!/+ÿ3+$0$%/!"ÿ/%*ÿ",%-,%3,*ÿ-#ÿT,ÿ*,"-+#1,*ÿ/-ÿ/%1ÿ0,/%"6ÿÿÿ
Kÿ*,!$T,+/-,!1ÿ3G#",ÿ-G,ÿX%$L,+"$-1ÿ#4ÿJ/!$4#+%$/ÿ/+T$-+/-#+ÿ$%"-,/*ÿ#4ÿ/%ÿ#S-"$*,ÿ/+T$-+/-#+(ÿ
"G#2$%Mÿ-G,ÿ,v-,%-ÿ-#ÿ2G$3Gÿ-G,ÿS%$L,+"$-1ÿ"1"-,0ÿ$"ÿ3#++S5-,*6ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ¡¢£¤¡¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦§¨©ª«¬ÿ£® £¡¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°±²³ÿ¡´¡µ´¡ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¶·ÿ£¸¡ÿ§¹ÿ̧º¸
!"ÿ#$%&'$('&)*ÿ+'",ÿ---ÿ#,,"(.ÿ!"($&*/ÿ0(1ÿ1"'ÿ2)$ÿ3)4"5%"$ÿ6ÿ7ÿ8ÿ9::;<ÿ=ÿ>ÿ?"($1ÿ(2'"$ÿ
5?ÿ1@1,"*1&)*ÿ(*Aÿ$"(11&/*5"*'ÿ2$)5ÿ'!"ÿB"*'$(.ÿC.(*'ÿ')ÿDE#Bÿ1!),Fÿÿ
GBÿH(4&1ÿ(11&/*"Aÿ')ÿ'!"ÿ!"($&*/ÿ'0)ÿGBÿH(4&1ÿB(5,@1ÿDIÿ('')$*"?1ÿ0!)ÿ0"$"ÿ(.1)ÿ0.&J"*1"Aÿ
%?ÿ'!"ÿB(.&2)$*&(ÿ+'('"ÿK($LÿGBÿH(4&1ÿDIÿ#11&1'(*'ÿH&$"J')$ÿH(0*ÿMFÿB(,,ÿNFHÿ(*AÿDIÿ#*(.?1'ÿ
E--<ÿH(*"1!(ÿ3&J!).1ÿNFHÿÿÿ
#1ÿ#$%&'$('&)*ÿ+'",ÿ---ÿ#,,"(.ÿD"($&*/ÿO22&J"$<ÿGBOCÿ5)%ÿÿ(11&/*"AÿB)**&"ÿM"."*A?<ÿ
GBÿH(4&1ÿÿ#11&1'(*'ÿE&J"ÿC$)4)1'ÿ2$)5ÿ'!"ÿGBÿH(4&1ÿ#J(A"5&JÿC"$1)**".ÿO22&J"1ÿ)2ÿ'!"ÿ
B!(*J"..)$ÿ(*AÿC$)4)1'Fÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ-*ÿ9::;ÿPQRRSÿÿUQVWXRYZX[ÿ0(1ÿ(ÿGBÿH(4&1ÿB!(*J"..)$ÿ0!)ÿ!".Aÿ'!&1ÿ,)1'ÿ1&*J"ÿ
=\\8ÿFÿH@$&*/ÿE(*A"$!))2ÿ0('J!ÿ'!"ÿGBHMBÿ92ÿJ)/"*"$('&)*ÿ,.(*'ÿ0(1ÿJ)55&11&)*"Aÿ&*ÿ=\\;ÿÿ
(*AÿE(*A"$!)"2ÿA&$"J'.?ÿ0(1ÿ)4"$1""&*/ÿ'!"ÿ@*.(02@.ÿ),"$('&)*ÿ)2ÿ'!"ÿ,.(*'ÿ(*AÿA&1'$&%@'&)*ÿ)2ÿ'!"ÿ
&.."/(.ÿ,$)2&'ÿ2$)5ÿ,)0"$ÿ1(."FÿÿE(*A"$!))2ÿ0(1ÿ(ÿJ.)1"ÿ2$&"*Aÿ)2ÿ'!"ÿÿGF+ÿB)*/$"115(*ÿ]ZYVÿ
^QRQ_XVW`ÿ2$)5ÿH(4&1<ÿÿB(.&2)$*&(ÿÿ
a($$?ÿE(*A"$!)"2b1ÿÿ(*Aÿ)'!"$ÿ,($'&J&,(*'1ÿ&*ÿ'!"ÿ2$(@Aÿ0"$"ÿÿA&1,.(?"Aÿ)*ÿ,.(c@"ÿ&*ÿ,.(*'ÿ2$)*'ÿ
"*'$?ÿ0&'!ÿ1'('"5"*'LÿÿFdÿÿ
eV`UXRf`gSÿZ[ÿhQP`[ZRV`QiÿWQU`fÿ_XW`hQPÿhXVgXRÿ
jkklmnoopppqmrstuvqrwxovwryxz{ko|}~|~oehWQU`f_XW`hQPhXVgXR_
hZ^XVRQg`ZVPQVgYZgZÿ
Qÿxtmmtw{ÿkwÿkzrjiÿvtmrwzsiÿjzÿ{vÿmzszÿhXVgRQPÿPQVgÿRZ]Xhgÿ
~ÿ
hw{rztzviÿvzmt{zvÿ{vÿrw{mksyrkzvÿkwÿmyllwskÿkjzÿ_zvtrÿhz{kzsmÿxtmmtw{ÿkwÿlswtvt{ÿ
rz{ÿ{vÿsztuzÿykttktzmÿt{ÿkjzÿ{zkÿxtz{{tyxÿ
ÿ
gjzmzÿ{xzmÿwwpÿy{vzs{zkjnÿ
PQRRSÿVqÿUQVWXRYZX[ÿÿB!(*J"..)$<ÿGBÿH(4&1ÿ
ÿ[RQVÿ]qÿPZ^XÿÿH&$"J')$<ÿD)1,&'(.ÿ7ÿB.&*&J1ÿ
fYXPgZVÿWeRe`ffXQeiÿjWÿÿ#11)J&('"ÿH&$"J')$<ÿD)1,&'(.ÿ7ÿB.&*&J1ÿÿ
gZVSÿ_ZWWXffXggXiÿ_QÿÿM(*(/"$<ÿC.(*'ÿO,"$('&)*ÿ
_`hYQXPÿPX`fiÿXÿÿC$)"J'ÿM(*(/"$<ÿC$&*J&,(.ÿ*/&*""$ÿ
WQU`WÿWXReffZÿÿB)*1'$@J'&)*ÿM(*(/"$ÿ(*AÿBI++ÿB)*1'$@J')$1<ÿ-*JFÿÿ
]Q_XfÿPqÿQRgPXggiÿXÿÿC$&*J&,(.ÿ(*AÿB(.A0"..ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
WXYZÿY\]^ÿ_`abcdaeÿÿÿÿÿÿfghij^klÿ_cmn`cadÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿopq^rsÿamtaut̀a``ÿÿÿÿÿÿv\w^ÿcxcÿgyÿxzx
ÿ
!"ÿ#$$%&'()*$%ÿ'(ÿ)%+'*%)*'$(ÿÿ$(ÿ*!"ÿ,-ÿ.)/'0ÿ1"&'#)2ÿ-"(*"%ÿ0'*"ÿ3)0ÿ*!"ÿ("324ÿ5%$6$*"&ÿ78ÿ
9)+$%ÿ8"2)*'$(ÿ1)():"%ÿ)(&ÿ)**$%("4ÿ)*ÿ2)3ÿ;<=>?=@ÿB?CDBE<<ÿFGHGÿÿ
ÿ Iÿ%""J)6'("&ÿ)(&ÿ%"/'"3"&ÿ)22ÿ*!"ÿ&$#K6"(*0ÿIÿÿ!)&ÿÿ)(&ÿÿIÿ#)6"ÿ*$ÿ*!"ÿ#$(#2K0'$(ÿ*!)*ÿ*!"ÿ
5$'(*ÿ$Lÿ&%)::'(:ÿ6"ÿ'(*$ÿÿ*$ÿ*!"ÿ)%+'*%)*'$(ÿ3)0ÿ*$ÿLK%*!"%ÿ!K6'2')*"ÿ!'6ÿ)(&ÿ*!)*ÿ)%+'*%)*'$(ÿ3$K2&ÿ
"(&ÿ3'*!ÿ0)6"ÿ%"0K2*ÿ)0ÿM*"5ÿIÿ)(&ÿM*"5ÿIIÿN55")20ÿK(&"%ÿ,-ÿ#$652)'(*ÿ5$2'#'"0ÿ)(&ÿ5%$#"&K%"0ÿOÿÿ
OÿP$%ÿ*!"ÿ)%+'*%)*'$(ÿ!")%'(:QÿIÿ$%&"%"&ÿ)ÿ03$%(ÿ-$K%*ÿ8"5$%*"%ÿ)*ÿ64ÿ$3(ÿ)22ÿ"J5"(0"ÿ+"#)K0"ÿ*!"ÿ
K('/"%0'*4ÿ%"LK0"&ÿ*$ÿ0!)%"ÿ*!"ÿ#$0*Oÿÿ
$ÿ5%"5)%"ÿ640"2LÿÿL$%ÿ*!"ÿ)%+'*%)*'$(ÿ!")%'(:QÿIÿ%"/'"3"&ÿ*!"ÿ,('/"%0'*4ÿ$Lÿ-)2'L$%(')ÿ)(&ÿ,-ÿ
.)/'0ÿ5$2'#'"0ÿ)(&ÿ3)0ÿ*%4'(:ÿ*$ÿL'(&ÿ*!"ÿ,('/"%0'*4ÿ$Lÿ-)2'L$%(')ÿ5$2'#4ÿ*!)*ÿ#$K2&ÿ)22$3ÿ
6)():"6"(*ÿ*$ÿ%"6$/"ÿ)(&ÿ%")00':(ÿ)(ÿ"652$4""ÿ*$ÿ*!"ÿ&'LL"%"(*ÿ0!$5ÿ):)'(0*ÿ*!)*ÿ"652$4""R0ÿ
3'22ÿ)(&ÿ)0ÿ)ÿ&'0#'52'()%4ÿ6")0K%"Oÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿ!"ÿS"%0$(("2ÿS$2'#'"0ÿL$%ÿM*)LLÿ1"6+"%0ÿTSSM1Uÿ3Vÿ-$%%"#*'/"ÿN#*'$(ÿS$2'#4ÿ!)&ÿ($ÿ0K#!ÿ
$5*'$(Oÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ¡ÿ¢ÿ¡£¡
ÿ ÿ!"#$ÿ!#%&ÿ'()ÿ*+,#-,.%)/ÿ!ÿ0)1//,2#3)#'ÿ!+ÿ'()ÿ45ÿ617,/ÿ8)$,-1%ÿ5)#')+ÿ!#ÿ'()ÿ45ÿ
617,/ÿ9):/,');ÿ<(,-(ÿ(1$ÿ#!'(,#2ÿ'!ÿ$!ÿ<,'(ÿ$,/-,.%,#,#2ÿ)3.%!&))/;ÿ:"'ÿÿÿ!+2!'ÿ'!ÿ.+)/)#'ÿ,'ÿ
$"+,#2ÿ'()ÿ1+:,'+1',!#=ÿ
ÿ ÿ/":3,'')$ÿ:&ÿ)031,%ÿ'()ÿ3)#',!#)$ÿ45685ÿ*+,#-,.%)/ÿ!ÿ0)1//,2#3)#'ÿ'!ÿ>)1+,#2ÿ
? ,-)+ÿ8ÿ5!##,)ÿ8)%)#$&ÿ!#ÿ@!7)3:)+ÿA;ÿBCCD=ÿÿ
45ÿ1+:,'+1'!+ÿ8)%)#$&ÿ+)/.!#$)$ÿ'!ÿ3&ÿ)031,%ÿ)031,%ÿ<,'(ÿ'(1#E)$ÿ3)ÿÿ!+ÿ'()ÿ-!.&ÿ!ÿ'()ÿ.!%,-&ÿ
=ÿ*+,#-,.%)/ÿ1#$ÿ--F$ÿ3&ÿ)031,%ÿ'!ÿ6))#$1#'ÿ61#)/(1ÿ@,-(!%/ÿ1#$ÿG').()#ÿ5(,%-!''ÿ<(!ÿ+!3ÿ'()ÿ
:)2,##,#2ÿ!ÿ'()ÿ1..)1%/ÿ.+!-)//ÿ'!2)'()+ÿ<,'(ÿH1&%!+ÿ1#$ÿI!&$ÿE#)<ÿ'(1'ÿ'()ÿ+)1//,2#3)#'ÿ<1/ÿ
"#%1< "%ÿ1#$ÿ121,#/'ÿ1#&ÿ45ÿ*!%,-,)/J)/.)-,1%%&ÿG').()#ÿ5(,%-!''ÿ1#$ÿ61#)/(1ÿ@,-(!%/;ÿ<(!ÿ
<)+)ÿ>0ÿ)3.%!&))/ÿ1#$ÿ%,-)#/)$ÿ:&ÿ'()ÿG'1')ÿI1+ÿ<,'(ÿK=6=ÿ$)2+))/=ÿ5(,%-!''ÿ<1/ÿ'+&,#2ÿ'!ÿ-!#'+!%ÿ
$1312)/;ÿ:"'ÿ,'ÿ$,$ÿ#!'ÿ2!ÿ1+=ÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ'ÿ<1/ÿ%"-E&ÿ!+ÿÿ'(1'ÿ()ÿ!"#$ÿ'(,/ÿ.!%,-&ÿ1#$ÿ'()ÿ,#!+31',!#ÿ1:!"'ÿ+)1//,2#3)#'ÿÿ1#$ÿÿÿ/)#'ÿ
,'ÿ'!ÿL+:,'+1',!#ÿ>)1+,#2ÿ? ,-)ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ?#ÿ6)-)3:)+ÿMA;ÿBCCD;ÿL+:,'+1'!+ÿÿ8)%)#$&ÿ/)#'ÿ()+ÿG').ÿNL+:,'+1',!#ÿ$)-,/,!#ÿ'!ÿ3)ÿ=ÿH()ÿÿ
$)-,/,!#ÿ<1/ÿ#!'ÿ3"-(ÿ$,)+)#'ÿ'(1#ÿ'()ÿ81+-(ÿBCC2ÿO9,'-(ÿ>"#'Pÿ$)-,/,!#ÿ,//")$ÿ:&ÿÿ1//,2#)$ÿ
<,'-(ÿ("#')+ÿ!#ÿ6)-)3:)+ÿQ;ÿBCCRÿ!+ÿ6).1+'3)#'ÿ81#12)+ÿÿ81+-(ÿBCC2ÿS)'')+ÿ!ÿ#')#'ÿ'!ÿ
G"/.)#$ÿ1#$ÿ@!',-)ÿ!ÿ0)1//,2#3)#'ÿ<,'(ÿ)T-).',!#ÿ!ÿ'()ÿ!%%!<,#2ÿ/'1')3)#'ÿOUVWÿ
YWZ[[\]^_W^`ÿaZ[ÿ^b`ÿcbYÿde[`ÿfZe[WgÿUVWÿYW_Whiÿ[VZjjÿkWÿ̀bÿZjjbaÿlYgÿmZ[nfneoÿÿ̀bÿYW`eY^ÿ
`bÿpW^`YZjÿqjZ^`ÿrsptlpÿuvÿlmÿfb]W^WYZ`\b^ÿqjZ^`ÿwÿÿ\cÿVWÿhW[\YW[=Pÿ=ÿÿ
x"+'()+3!+);ÿ>)1+,#2ÿ? ,-)+ÿ8)%)#$&ÿ:+!"2('ÿ91/y-y"EF/ÿz3.%!&))ÿ*)+!+31#-)ÿ0)7,)</ÿ,#'!ÿ
()+ÿ$)-,/,!#ÿ1/ÿ!%%!</{ÿÿ
8+=ÿ91/y-y"EF/ÿ.1/'ÿ+)-!+$;ÿ,#ÿ'()ÿ!+3ÿ!ÿ(,/ÿ$!-"3)#')$ÿ.)+!+31#-)ÿ(,/'!+&;ÿ,/ÿ
+)31+E1:%)ÿ!+ÿ1ÿ-!3.%)')ÿ1:/)#-)ÿ!ÿ.+!:%)3/ÿ+)21+$,#2ÿ'(+)1')#,#2ÿ:)(17,!+ÿ!+ÿ
,#1..+!.+,1')ÿ%1#2"12)ÿ.+,!+ÿ'!ÿ'()ÿ-!++)-',7)ÿ1-',!#ÿ|zT(,:,'ÿKM}M}ÿB~=ÿ>)ÿ+)-),7)$ÿ
O7)+&ÿ2!!$Pÿ.)+!+31#-)ÿ+1',#2/ÿ,#ÿBCCCÿ1#$ÿBCCM;ÿ1#$ÿO!"'/'1#$,#2Pÿ+1',#2/ÿ,#ÿ
BCCBÿ1#$ÿBCC=ÿI)2,##,#2ÿ<,'(ÿ'()ÿBCCQÿ+)7,)<;ÿ'()ÿ+1',#2ÿ-1')2!+,)/ÿ!#ÿ'()ÿ
.)+!+31#-)ÿ!+3/ÿ<)+)ÿ-(1#2)$ÿ'!ÿ)%,3,#1')ÿ'()ÿO!"'/'1#$,#2Pÿ-1')2!+&ÿ1#$ÿ
/":/','"')ÿ<,'(ÿ1ÿO3))'/ÿ)T.)-'1',!#Pÿ!+ÿO$!)/ÿ#!'ÿ3))'ÿ)T.)-'1',!#Pÿ!.',!#ÿ!+ÿ'()ÿ
/".)+7,/!+=ÿH()+)1')+;ÿ8+=ÿ91/y-y"Eÿ-!#/,/')#'%&ÿ+)-),7)$ÿO3))'/ÿ)T.)-'1',!#/Pÿ
+1',#2/ÿ!+ÿ)1-(ÿ&)1+ÿ'(+!"2(ÿBCCD=ÿ81#&ÿ.!/,',7)ÿ-!33)#'/ÿ1..)1+ÿ!+ÿ)1-(ÿ&)1+;ÿ
0ÿ22ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
^_`aÿ̀cdeÿfghijkhlÿÿÿÿÿÿmnopqersÿfjtugjhkÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿvwxeyzÿht{h|{ghggÿÿÿÿÿÿ}c~eÿjÿnÿ
!"#ÿ$ÿ%#&ÿ'())(*+,-ÿ"(..&,%ÿ%#$%ÿ*$ÿ"(,+%&,%)/ÿ.$0&ÿ&$"#ÿ/&$1ÿ('ÿ#+ÿ
&.2)(/.&,%ÿ+,ÿ%#&ÿ3&,%1$)ÿ4)$,%5ÿ
78&11/ÿ"$,ÿ9&ÿ"(!,%&0ÿ(,ÿ%(ÿ.$:&ÿ%#&ÿ1+-#%ÿ(2&1$%+(,$)ÿ0&"++(,ÿ1&-$10+,-ÿ%#&ÿ2)$,%;ÿ
$,0ÿ%(ÿ:&&2ÿ#+ÿ!2&1<+(1ÿ+,'(1.&0ÿ('ÿ%#&ÿ(2&1$%+(,$)ÿ%$%!ÿ('ÿ%#&ÿ2)$,%ÿ$,0ÿ+%ÿ
&=!+2.&,%>ÿ8&11/ÿ+ÿ$ÿ<$)!$9)&ÿ&.2)(/&&ÿ"(..+%%&0ÿ%(ÿ%#&ÿ'!%!1&ÿ!""& ÿ('ÿ%#&ÿ
?&0+"$)ÿ3&,%&1>@ÿA4&1'(1.$,"&ÿ1&<+&* ÿ'1(.ÿBCCC;ÿBCCD;ÿBCCE;ÿBCCF;ÿBCCG;ÿBCCHIÿ
J#&1&ÿ$1&ÿ,(ÿ"(..&,%ÿ1&-$10+,-ÿ%#1&$%&,+,-ÿ9&#$<+(1ÿ(1ÿ+,$221(21+$%&ÿ)$,-!$-&ÿ
+,ÿ$,/ÿ('ÿ%#&ÿ$,,!$)ÿ&<$)!$%+(,ÿ'1(.ÿ%#&ÿ%+.&ÿ('ÿ?1>ÿK$L"L!:Mÿ'+1%ÿ&<$)!$%+(,ÿ
+,ÿBCCCÿ$,0ÿ+,")!0+,-ÿ%#&ÿBCCHÿ&<$)!$%+(,ÿ%#$%ÿ*$ÿ*1+%%&,ÿ21+(1ÿ%(ÿ%#&ÿ!2&,+(,ÿ
$,0ÿ1&$ +-,.&,%>ÿJ#&ÿN,+<&1+%/ÿ21&&,%&0ÿ,(ÿ&<+0&,"&ÿ%(ÿ#(*ÿ%#$%ÿ%#&1&ÿ*&1&ÿ
<&19$)ÿ(1ÿ*1+%%&,ÿ0+"! +(,ÿ(1ÿ2&1'(1.$,"&ÿ$221$+$)ÿ+,%&,0&0ÿ%(ÿ"$!%+(,ÿ(1ÿ*$1,ÿ
?1>ÿK$L"L!:ÿ$9(!%ÿ+,$221(21+$%&ÿ9&#$<+(1ÿ21+(1ÿ%(ÿ%#&ÿO"%(9&1ÿBCC2ÿ&<$)!$%+(,ÿ
AN,+<&1+%/ÿPQ#+9+%ÿDEI;ÿ*#+"#ÿ+ÿ$ÿ"!.!)$%+<&ÿ1&<+&*ÿ9/ÿ%#1&&ÿ!2&1<+(1ÿA3&,%1$)ÿ
4)$,%ÿ !2&1<+(1ÿJ(.ÿR$<$,$!-#;ÿS%&<&ÿ?"T1$%#ÿ$,0ÿUVW3ÿ4)!.9+,-ÿ
!2&1<+(1ÿ4$%1+":ÿ4!%,&/I>ÿJ#$%ÿ1&<+&*;ÿ*#+)&ÿ(<&1$))ÿ<&1/ÿ2(+%+<&;ÿ"(,%$+,ÿ%#&ÿ
'())(*+,-ÿ"(..&,%ÿ$9(!%ÿ?1>ÿK$L"L!:Mÿ9&#$<+(15ÿXU+ÿ"(..!,+"$%+(,ÿ:+))ÿ
$,0ÿ21('& +(,$)+.ÿ%(*$10ÿ(.&ÿ('ÿ#+ÿ"(0*(1:&1ÿ,&&0ÿ(.&ÿ+.21(<&.&,%>MÿU+ÿ
(<&1$))ÿY(9ÿ2&1'(1.$,"&ÿ'(1ÿBCC2ÿ+ÿ1$%&0ÿ(!%%$,0+,-;ÿ*+%#ÿ,(%$%+(,ÿ%#$%ÿ#&ÿ+;ÿX>>>ÿ
$ÿ<&1/ÿ<$)!$9)&ÿ.&.9&1ÿ('ÿ%#&ÿ%$''ÿ+,"&ÿY(+,+,-ÿ%#&ÿ&"%+(,ÿ+,ÿW21+)>>>ÿ+ÿ%$)&,%&0>>>ÿ
$""&2%ÿ&Q%1$ÿ*(1:>>>ÿ+ÿ0&2&,0$9)&>M@ÿ
ÿ
J#&ÿN3O4ÿ.(9ÿ0+0ÿ,(%ÿ&Q2&"%ÿ!"#ÿ1&!)%ÿ('ÿ%#&ÿ$19+%1$%+(,ÿ$,0ÿ+,ÿ%#&ÿ2$,+"ÿ$,0ÿÿ!,)$*'!)ÿ2(*&1ÿ
$)&ÿ'1(.ÿ%#&ÿB2ÿ?Kÿ"(-&,&1$%+(,ÿ2)$,%ÿ*$ÿ"&$&0ÿ>ÿW ÿZÿ%$%&0ÿ21&<+(!)/ÿZÿ,&<&1ÿ#$0ÿ$,/ÿ0&+1&ÿ
%(ÿ0&$)ÿ*+%#ÿN3O4ÿ(1-$,+L&0ÿ*#+%&ÿ"())$1ÿ"1+.&ÿ$,0ÿ+%ÿ,&<&1ÿ"1( &0ÿ./ÿ.+,0ÿ!,%+)ÿ8!,&ÿBCDGÿ%#$%ÿ
Zÿ9&"$.&ÿ!9Y&"%ÿ('ÿ%#&ÿ.&1"+)& ÿ*+%"#ÿ#!,%ÿ9&"$!&ÿ('ÿ%#&ÿ+))&-$)ÿ2(*&1ÿ$)&ÿ'1(.ÿ%#&ÿ2)$,%ÿZÿ
*(1:&0ÿ+,"&ÿ8!,&ÿD[[[>ÿÿS#(1%)/ÿ$'%&1ÿ$19+%1$%+(,ÿN3ÿ\$<+ÿU]ÿW +%$,%ÿ\+1&"%(1ÿ\$*,ÿ3$22;ÿ
N3ÿÿ$%%(1,&/ÿ+,ÿ$19+%1$%+(,;ÿ)(%ÿ#&1ÿY(9>ÿ?(%ÿ)+:&)/;ÿ? >ÿ3$22ÿ*$ÿ'+1&0ÿ(1ÿ'(1"&0ÿ%(ÿ=!+%ÿ$ÿ'&*ÿ
.(,%#ÿ$'%&1ÿ$19+%1$%+(,>ÿJ#&ÿU&$1+,-ÿO''+"&1ÿ+,ÿ$19+%1$%+(,ÿÿ3(,,+&ÿ?&)&,0/;ÿ0+$22&$1&0ÿ'1(.ÿ
%#&ÿN3ÿ\$<+ÿ)$,0"$2&ÿ+,ÿÿ
BCDC>ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ¡¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿ£¤¥¦§¨©ÿ ª« ¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¬®¯°ÿª±²±ÿÿÿÿÿÿ³´ÿµ¡ÿ¤¶ÿµ·µ
!"ÿ ÿ
ÿ
%&&'()*+,)*ÿ'-ÿ.%),*ÿ)%&'/(*%)'ÿÿ*'ÿ*0,ÿ1)(*,2ÿ3*%*,3ÿ'-ÿ
%+,4(5%ÿ3,54,*%46ÿ'-ÿ2,&%4*+,)*ÿ'-ÿ0'+,/%)2ÿ3,514(*6ÿÿ&'3*ÿ
ÿ
'7ÿ.8798:;ÿ<=>ÿ<??@AÿBCDEFDÿGDHICJKÿLCMFDJCDÿNKJFOÿPKQCRHOKJCÿSKTÿKQQCHJOFUÿVWÿXDFTHUFJOÿ
YKDKZÿ[VKEKÿOCÿRFKUÿO\Fÿ]^_^ÿ̀FQKDOEFJOÿCBÿaCEFRKJUÿ_FbcDHOWÿd`a_e^ÿPKQCRHOKJCAÿQDHCDÿOCÿ\FDÿ
KQQCHJOEFJOÿKTÿ̀a_ÿ_FbDFOKDWAÿSKTÿO\Fÿ]^_^ÿGOOCDJFWÿBCDÿO\Fÿ̀HTODHbOÿCBÿGDHICJKAÿBDCEÿPCMFEVFDÿ
f3Aÿf33ghPCMFEVFDÿfAÿf332iÿO\FÿGOOCDJFWÿLFJFDKRÿBCDÿO\Fÿ_OKOFÿCBÿGDHICJKÿBDCEÿNKJcKDWÿjAÿf333h
NKJcKDWÿkAÿlmmgiÿKJUÿO\FÿLCMFDJCDÿCBÿGDHICJKÿBDCEÿlmmghlmm3^ÿ
\OOQTnooSSS^U\T^pCMoKDb\HMFoQFDTCJoqKJFO0JKQCRHOKJCÿ
ÿrÿKUUDFTTFUÿPKQCRHOKJCsTÿKQQCHJOEFJOÿKTÿ`a_ÿ_FbDFOKDWÿHJÿEWÿNcRWÿl3Aÿlmf3ÿtFQRWÿOCÿ]^_^ÿ
uKvÿwCcDOÿ[DUFDAÿS\Hb\ÿSKTÿTFDMFUÿCJÿNcRWÿ3Aÿlmf3ÿKJUÿTHpJFUÿVWÿ_QFbHKRÿuDHKRÿNcUpFÿaCJCDKVRFÿ
tCVFDOÿP^ÿGDEFJÿSHO\ÿO\FÿBCRRCSHJpÿTOKOFEFJOÿ^ÿ
.87xyÿ)8z{|}y87{~ÿ8zz{}7yx7yÿ8ÿ1"3"ÿ3x:xy8:;ÿ{ÿ0{x|87ÿ3x9:}y;ÿ}7ÿ
.8798:;ÿ<??@ÿ87ÿx:ÿ8zz{}7yx7yÿy{ÿ15ÿ&:x}x7yÿ&{yÿ}7ÿ3xzyx x:ÿ<?=ÿ
x {|x7xÿyxÿ15ÿ}yxÿ{||8:ÿ:}}78|ÿy{ÿ}7yx7};ÿyx}:ÿyx::{:ÿ8}xÿ
8yÿyx}:ÿ8x:8:}xÿ}y{9yÿ87;ÿx}y8y}{7ÿy{ÿ}||ÿzx{z|xÿ}ÿ7xxxÿÿ
ÿ\OOQTnooSSS^TbDHVU^bCEoUCbcEFJOoj2k223gmo]uw0lmf3m2l30NcUpF0GDEFJ0[DUFD0
XFOHOHCJFD0[VqFbOHCJ0OC0COHCJ0BCD0XDCOFbOHMF0[DUFDÿ
ÿ
CRRCSHJpÿO\Fÿ){x x:ÿ<??ÿKDVHODKOHCJÿDFTcROÿKJUÿÿO\FÿNKJFOÿPKQCRHOKJCsTÿKQQCHJOEFJOÿ
OCÿO\Fÿ̀a_ÿ_FbDFOKDWÿQCTOÿÿCJÿ.8798:;ÿ<=>ÿ<??@ÿÿO\Fÿ]wÿtFpFJOTÿTHpJFUÿKÿTFOORFEFJOÿKpDFFEFJOÿ
SHO\ÿEFÿCJÿ.8798:;ÿ=>ÿ<??@ÿÿQDCECOHJpÿEFÿBDCEÿz{x:ÿz|87yÿ{zx:8y{:ÿOCÿxxzyÿxz|{;xxÿ
}yÿyxÿy}y|xÿ'-ÿ%{}8yxÿ2xx|{zx7yÿ,7}7xx:^ÿÿu\FÿtFpFJOTÿCBÿO\Fÿ]JHMFDTHOWÿCBÿwKRHBCDJHKÿ
AÿQFDÿO\Fÿlmm3ÿ_FOORFEFJOÿ0GpDFFEFJOÿTHpJFUÿSHO\ÿEFÿKpDFFUÿOCÿFEQRCWÿEFÿHJBHJHOFRWÿKTÿKJÿ
GTTCbHKOFÿ̀FMFRCQEFJOÿJpHJFFDÿKOÿO\Fÿ]wÿ̀KMHTÿFUHbKRÿwFJOFDÿaGwÿ_\CQÿSHO\ÿHJHOHKRÿKJJcKRÿ
TKRKDW^ÿÿ
ÿ2mAÿmmm^ÿGRTCÿAÿÿ]w[XÿECVÿHJÿQKJHbÿbFKTFUÿÿHRRFpKRÿQCSFDÿTKRFÿBDCEÿO\Fÿ]w`wsTÿl20ÿ
bCpFJFDKOHCJÿQRKJOÿ^ÿrJÿlmm3ÿrÿUHUÿJCOÿZJCSÿO\KOÿQCSFDÿTKRFÿHTÿHRRFpKRÿCDÿRFpKRÿKJUÿrÿUHUÿJCOÿZJCSÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¡¢ÿ¡¤¥¦ÿ§¨©ª«¬©ÿÿÿÿÿÿ®¯°±²¦³ÿ́§«µ¶¨«©¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ·¹̧¦º»ÿ©µ¼©½¼¨©¨¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¾¤¿¦ÿ«À½ÿ̄ÁÿÀÂÀ
!"ÿ#ÿ$%ÿ&'()*ÿ(+,!ÿ!-)+'.ÿ&"ÿÿ/$)'+ÿ0$123(+$)245ÿ67(').5ÿ672%ÿÿ89:;ÿ<'$.=-$7+'75ÿ()ÿ:$>3$).ÿ
?ÿ9@ÿ?ÿÿ
A!27+3"ÿ$6+'7ÿ89ÿB'*')+5ÿ5(*)'.ÿ$ÿ5'++3'%')+ÿ$*7''%')+ÿ(+!ÿ%'ÿÿ?ÿ89ÿC$D(5ÿ9!$),'3327ÿ
E$77"ÿF$).'7!2'6ÿ7'5(*)'.ÿ672%ÿ+!'ÿ89ÿC$D(5ÿ,!$),'3327ÿ125(+(2)ÿ$).ÿ+22>ÿ2)'ÿ"'$7ÿ26ÿ
5$&&$+(,$3ÿ3'$D'Gÿ<(5ÿ3$5+ÿ.$"ÿ$5ÿ,!$),'3327ÿ$5ÿ@-*-5+ÿHI?ÿJ33KGÿ<(5ÿ5-,,'5527ÿ$5ÿLMNOPÿ
RPSTUM?ÿ!2ÿ$5ÿ$112()+'.ÿ&"ÿ+!'ÿ89ÿV2$7.ÿ26ÿB'*')+5ÿ2)ÿWXYÿZ[ÿ\]]^[ÿ_``_abcd_ÿPefegbÿ
hZ[ÿ\]]^GÿE().$ÿi$+'!(?ÿÿ$5ÿ$ÿ172D25+ÿ$).ÿD(,'ÿ,!$),'3327ÿ627ÿ@,$.'%(,ÿ@66$(75ÿ$).ÿ1726'5527ÿ
26ÿ'3',+7(,$3ÿ$).ÿ,2%1-+'7ÿ')*()''7()*ÿ$+ÿ+!'ÿ8)(D'75(+"ÿ26ÿ#33()2(5?ÿ87&$)$09!$%1$(*)Gÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿjkÿl_mneXnYÿ\Z[ÿ\]]^ÿ9$3(627)($ÿo_kXbpnÿL_qXkrÿs__ÿ7'512).'.ÿ(+!ÿotÿuv]ÿ$6+'7ÿ$6+'7ÿ+!'ÿ
9$3(627)($ÿA-17'%'ÿ92-7+ÿ7-3'.ÿ()ÿwxyzÿ{|ÿ667yÿÿ}7{6yzÿÿ~7[ÿNpÿPh]ZZhhÿ
XqÿbÿPÿXkÿ[ÿ\]]^+!$+ÿ89ÿ'%132"''5ÿ!2ÿ$7'ÿ7'+$3($+'.ÿ$*$()5+ÿ&',$-5'ÿ+!'"ÿ7'127+ÿ
72)*.2()*ÿ,$))2+ÿ5-'ÿ627ÿ.$%$*'5ÿ-).'7ÿ+!'ÿ5+$+'45ÿ!(5+3'&32 '7ÿ;72+',+(2)ÿ@,+ÿÿ
ÿLTLPNOÿsTTÿ $5ÿ'3',+'.ÿ+2ÿ+!'ÿA+$+'ÿA')$+'ÿ()ÿ02D'%&'7ÿJ33Iÿ (+!ÿ+!'ÿ3$7*'5+ÿ
())()*ÿ1'7,')+$*'ÿ627ÿ$)"ÿC'%2,7$+(,ÿ,$).(.$+'GÿÿMkÿ\]h][ÿo_kXbpnÿs__ÿXgÿn__q_ab_r[ÿ
n_a_cdckfÿb_ÿpgbÿdpb_gÿp`ÿXkYÿO_panXbcaÿq_fcgqXbpnÿckÿb_ÿobXb_GÿÿB'17'5')+()*ÿC(5+7(,+ÿ2?ÿ
!(,!ÿ(),3-.'.ÿA$)ÿ7$),(5,2ÿ$).ÿA$)ÿ$+'2ÿ92-)+"?ÿ''ÿ$5ÿ+!'ÿ6(75+ÿ9!()'5'ÿ@%'7(,$)ÿ'D'7ÿ
'3',+'.ÿ+2ÿ+!'ÿ9$3(627)($ÿA+$+'ÿA')$+'Gÿ
jkÿjabpm_nÿhh[ÿ\]]^?ÿ9$3(627)($ÿ2D'7)27ÿ@7)23.ÿA,! $7')'**'7ÿ5(*)'.ÿ9$3(627)($ÿ
A')$+'ÿtcqqÿu^vGÿ8).'7ÿ+!(5ÿ&(33?ÿOMTSÿPTooÿÿSjÿjMOTÿTLTSMMSsÿPoÿ
TjTNTO?ÿgbXnbckfÿckÿ\]h][ÿ&-+ÿ2)3"ÿ+2ÿkpkn_gcr_kbcXqÿaegbp_ngÿÿ
!++1 G3'*()62G,$G*2D1-&3K0
H3&(335')5&3IH3335&IK&(33J33KH3HH,!$1+'7'.G!+%3ÿ $).ÿÿ
!++15 G'3',+7(,,!2(,'G,2%&32*.(7',+0$,,'550172*7$%Gÿ
!'5'ÿ+"1'5ÿ26ÿ,-5+2%'75ÿ(),3-.'ÿ3(*!+()*?ÿ$*7(,-3+-7'?ÿ%'.(-%ÿ$).ÿ3$7*'ÿ,2%%'7,($3ÿÿ().-5+7($3ÿ
5(+'5?ÿ$).ÿ5%$33ÿ&-5()'55'5Gÿÿ
ÿ
!++15$7,!(D'G5')$+'G,$G*2D%'%&'70$7,!(D'5J3H0H3'3$).0"0"''0.0.(5+7(,+02ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿ!"ÿ#$"%$&'ÿ()*)ÿ+,-./01ÿ232456ÿÿ733ÿ1,8-/109:;,9ÿ/<,ÿ=>ÿ?@)ÿ.A/,1ÿ/<,ÿB8CCÿD.EÿF,/0,9ÿ
8-ÿGHHIÿJ0F,1-01ÿK1-0C9ÿ+;<D.1L,-,MM,1ÿNÿÿO<,ÿ=>?@)ÿP,.-/ÿC0/ÿ0AÿP0-,Qÿ.-9ÿ,-;0:1.M,P,-/ÿ
A01ÿ/<,ÿRSÿ,PTC0Q,,Eÿ/0ÿ1,T01/ÿ;011:T/80-ÿ8-ÿRSÿEQE/,Pÿ.-9ÿP8E:E,ÿ0Aÿ:-8F,1E8/Qÿ1,E0:1;,Eÿ.-9ÿ
D10-M908-MÿBQÿRSÿ.9P8-8E/1./80-ÿ.-9ÿ1:/<C,EEÿ.-9ÿF8;80:EÿP.-.M,P,-/Nÿÿ
!"ÿ#$"%$&'ÿ()*)ÿ+,-./01ÿ733ÿD.Eÿ0:/1.M,9ÿ.-9ÿF,1QÿF0;.Cÿ.B0:/ÿRSUEÿV0.19ÿ0AÿW,M,-/Eÿ
.TT10F.Cÿ0AÿÿXN3ÿP8CC80-ÿ90CC.1Eÿ8-ÿ8-;,-/8F,ÿ/0ÿX2ÿE,-801ÿP,98;.Cÿ,Y,;:/8F,EÿA01ÿP,,/8-Mÿ/<,81ÿ
GHHIÿT,1A01P.-;,ÿM0.CENÿÿO<,ÿT.Q0:/EÿD0:C9ÿ1.-M,ÿA10PÿZ)[)))ÿ\]ÿ(()[)))ÿ^]__$&`ÿa"ÿ
b]"%`c`NÿÿO<,ÿP0F,ÿ;0P,EÿE8YÿP0-/<Eÿ.A/,1ÿ/0Tÿ,Y,;:/8F,Eÿ1,;,8F,9ÿ$ÿ(@ÿdc&ec"\ÿd$'ÿfagchÿ
ÿ
+,-./01ÿi,,ÿ,YT1,EE,9ÿ<8PE,CAÿ.B0:/ÿ/<,ÿRSÿW,M,-/EÿXN3ÿP8CC80-ÿ90CC.1EUÿ8-;,-/8F,ÿD8/<ÿD019Ejÿÿ
ÿ
kÿK/ÿ.ÿ/8P,ÿD<,-ÿ/<,ÿ:-8F,1E8/Qÿ8Eÿ8-;1,.E8-MÿE/:9,-/ÿA,,Eÿ.-9ÿ8EE:8-MÿA:1C0:M<Eÿ.-9ÿC.Q0AAEÿ
A01ÿC0D0D.M,ÿD01m,1Enÿ8/ÿ8Eÿ0:/1.M,0:Eÿ/<./ÿ/<,Qÿ.1,ÿA8-98-Mÿ-,DÿD.QEÿ/0ÿ,-18;<ÿ/<,81ÿ/0Tÿ
,Y,;:/8F,ENÿÿi0:ÿD0:C9ÿ<0T,ÿ/<./ÿ/<,ÿ,Y01B8/.-/ÿE.C.18,Eÿ.-9ÿT,1mEÿD0:C9ÿB,ÿ,-0:M<ÿA01ÿ
.9P8-8E/1./01Eÿ/0ÿ90ÿ/<,81ÿo0BEÿD8/<0:/ÿA:1/<,1ÿ/.Y8-MÿE/:9,-/Enÿ/.YT.Q,1Enÿ.-9ÿT./8,-/ENpÿ
J0F,1-01ÿ+;<D.1L,-,MM,1ÿD<0ÿ<.EÿET,-/ÿ/<,ÿC.E/ÿA,DÿQ,.1Eÿ;://8-MÿB.;mÿE.C.18,Eÿ.-9ÿ
.//,PT/8-Mÿ/0ÿA:1C0:M<ÿE/./,ÿD01m,1EÿF,/0,9ÿC,M8EC./80-ÿ.:/<01,9ÿBQÿ+,-./01ÿi,,ÿ/<./ÿ
D0:C9ÿ<.F,ÿT10<8B8/,9ÿ,Y,;:/8F,ÿT.Qÿ1.8E,Eÿ9:18-MÿB.9ÿB:9M,/ÿQ,.1Eÿ./ÿ/<,ÿRSÿ.-9ÿ/<,ÿ
S.C8A01-8.ÿ+/./,ÿR-8F,1E8/QNÿÿ
+.89ÿ/<,ÿ+,-./01jÿ
kÿqO<,ÿT:BC8;ÿ8Eÿ/81,9ÿ0Aÿ/<,ÿRSÿ.9P8-8E/1./80-ÿ.;/8-MÿC8m,ÿKrJNÿÿs,ÿ;.-ÿ8CC0.AA019ÿ.-ÿ
.9P8-8E/1./80-ÿ/<./ÿ;0-/8-:,Eÿ/0ÿ^à&c`dce\ÿ\$td$'c&`nÿE/:9,-/Enÿ.-9ÿC0D0D.M,ÿD01m,1Eÿ
.-9ÿA.;:C/QNpÿ
O<8Eÿ1,.CCQÿA.CCEÿ8-/0ÿ/<,ÿ;./,M01Qÿ0AÿqD<./ÿ.1,ÿ/<,E,ÿM:QEÿ/<8-m8-MNpÿÿO<,ÿ8-;,-/8F,ÿ
E/1:;/:1,ÿ<,1,ÿP.m,EÿL,10ÿE,-E,nÿT.1/8;:C.1CQÿ/<,ÿ.P0:-/ÿ0Aÿ/<,ÿB0-:E,Eÿ9:18-Mÿ.ÿ/8P,ÿ0Aÿ
B:9M,/ÿ;18E8ENÿÿr/ÿ.CE0ÿE,-9Eÿ/<,ÿD10-MÿP,EE.M,ÿ/0ÿ/<,ÿD01m,1EÿD<0ÿ.1,ÿB,8-Mÿ.Em,9ÿ/0ÿ
E:AA,1ÿD<8C,ÿ/0Tÿ,Y,;:/8F,Eÿ.C1,.9QÿP.m8-MÿM009ÿE.C.18,Eÿ.1,ÿM,//8-MÿC.1M,ÿB0-:E,ENÿÿrÿ.Pÿ
E8PTCQÿB.AAC,9ÿ./ÿ/<,ÿ.110M.-;,ÿ0AÿRSÿ0-ÿ/<8EÿP.//,1Nÿ
<//TjuuDDDN9.F8EF.-M:.19N01MuGH3HuH3u8-,YTC8;.BC,0:;0,Y,;:/8F,0T.Q0B0-:E,E091.D0
A81,00-;,0.M.8-uÿ
ÿ
!"ÿ()*)[ÿv$_aw]&"a$ÿ=c"$\]&ÿ2c_$"^ÿ7ccÿ<.9ÿ32ÿB8CCEÿ;<.T/,1,9ÿ8-/0ÿC.DNÿx]`\ÿ"]\$b_'[ÿ
=>ÿ?@)ÿd&]ya^c^ÿ_cz$_ÿd&]\ce\a]"ÿw]&ÿ{"ayc&`a\'ÿ]wÿv$_aw]&"a$ÿ,PTC0Q,,EÿD<0ÿD,1,ÿ1,/.C8./,9ÿ
.M.8-E/ÿA01ÿ1,T01/8-Mÿ8CC,M.Cÿ01ÿ8PT10T,1ÿ.;/80-Eÿ|E,,ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
\]^_ÿ^abcÿdefghifjÿÿÿÿÿÿklmnocpqÿdhrsehfiÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿtuvcwxÿfryfzyefeeÿÿÿÿÿÿ{a|cÿh}jÿl~ÿ}}
!!"#$%%&'()*+,#+-&!+,(&,./*%0+01+'0&'()*+#%3234035%6+6&-70808++0707)#!')(!029,ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ:;ÿ=>;?>@AÿBCDCÿE>FGHI@;G>ÿÿJK;>LI@ÿÿMKF>;NÿOKKPÿ&ÿQ+0/('&!ÿR'/0ÿ!+ÿ2!ÿS+-&!+ÿ
Q)#!')(!ÿ!&!ÿ+-(/0"&##+#ÿJ>;ÿT@>;UGVUIÿ>;NÿJ>;ÿW>LKIPÿ'+XY+#!+7ÿ!&!ÿ!+ÿZ&6)R/'-)&ÿ[/)-!ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤ÿ¥¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ§¨©ª«ÿ¥¬¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿ®¯ÿ°±ÿ²ÿ°±°
!"#$%&'#(!ÿ)*+#'ÿ,-..#''!!ÿ&*'/-0#1!ÿ&2ÿ&*+#'ÿ-3ÿ'/!ÿ4,5ÿ6/!ÿ7-..#''!!ÿ(-'!+ÿ*2&2#.-*$%8ÿ'-ÿ
&990-(!ÿ'/!ÿ0!:*!$'ÿ-2ÿ;!<0*&085ÿ=>?ÿ@A=Aÿ
6/!ÿB!2&'-0ÿ!%&2+ÿC!!ÿ&$D!+ÿ'/!ÿ&*+#'-0$ÿ'-ÿ$9!7#3#7&%%8ÿ3-7*$ÿ-2ÿ'/!ÿEFÿHIIJKLÿMIÿNOLÿPQLRJSLTNÿ
U4,VWX?ÿ'/!ÿ/!&+ÿ-33#7!ÿ-3ÿ'/!ÿ42#(!0$#'8ÿ-3ÿ,&%#3-02#&5ÿ
)ÿ7-.90!/!2$#(!ÿ$'&'!ÿ&*+#'ÿY#%%ÿ/!%9ÿ3*0'/!0ÿ*27-(!0ÿ'/!ÿ!Z'!2'ÿ-3ÿ'/!ÿY&$'!?ÿ30&*+ÿ&2+ÿ&<*$!ÿ
Y#'/#2ÿ'/!ÿ4,?ÿ&2+ÿ3#2&%%8ÿ/-%+ÿ*2#(!0$#'8ÿ!Z!7*'#(!$ÿ&77-*2'&<%!?[ÿ$&#+ÿC!!ÿ#2ÿ&ÿ$'&'!.!2'ÿ-2ÿ/#$ÿ
B!2&'!ÿY!<$#'!5ÿ
\OLÿ]^SJNÿ_J̀ÿ̀NQ]Kaÿ_OLQLÿNOLÿEFÿbLNRÿJNRÿI^TSRÿ]TSÿ_OLQLÿL]KOÿSM``]QÿbMLRcÿ
deLKJIJK]`f̀gÿJNÿ_J̀`ÿIM`M̀_ÿ_OLQLÿeQJh]NLÿI^TSRgÿRN]NLÿI^TSRgÿRN^SLTNÿILLRÿ]TSÿ
ILSLQ]ÿ̀I^TSRÿ]``ÿLTSÿ^ecÿ
\OLÿ]^SJNÿ_J`ÿ̀]R̀MÿRL]QKOÿM^NÿOM_ÿi^KOÿiMTLfÿJRÿReLTNÿeLQÿRN^SLTNÿ]TSÿ_O]Nÿ
NOLÿQLRNÿJRÿReLTNÿMTcÿjR̀MgÿNOLÿJTk^JQfÿ_J`ÿ̀JTK`^SLÿ]ÿR^QhLfÿMIÿ_OJKOÿM^NRJSLÿ
MQb]TJl]NJMTRÿNOLÿEFÿe]fRÿNMÿ]TSÿ_OJKOÿI^TSRÿ]QLÿ^RLSÿNMÿe]fÿNOLicÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
C!!m$ÿ&*+#'ÿ0!:*!$'ÿY&$ÿ90-.9'!+ÿ<8ÿ'Y-ÿ!Z9-$n$ÿ&<-*'ÿ'/!ÿ42#(!0$#'8ÿ-3ÿ,&%#3-02#&5ÿ6/!ÿ'/!ÿ
#2(!$'#"&'#(!ÿY!<$#'!ÿB9-'5*$ÿ0!9-0'!+ÿ'/&'ÿ$-.!ÿ-3ÿ'/!ÿ4,m$ÿ0!"!2'$ÿ/&(!ÿ+#0!7'ÿ3#2&27#&%ÿNJLRÿNMÿ
i]TfÿMIÿNOLÿEFoRÿJThLRNiLTNRcÿ6/!2ÿ,&%#3-02#&p&'7/5-0"ÿ0!9-0'!+ÿ'/&'ÿ&ÿ7-2$*%'#2"ÿ3#0.?ÿq*0-2ÿ
,-2$*%'#2"ÿr0-*9?ÿY/#7/ÿY&$ÿ0!7!2'%8ÿ/#0!+ÿ<8ÿ4, )?ÿ#$ÿsLJTbÿJThLRNJb]NLSÿsfÿNOLÿEcdcÿ
dLK^QJNJLRÿ]TSÿtuKO]TbLÿFMiiJRRJMTcÿ
ÿÿ
vTÿwxyxÿÿ*2+!0ÿ'/!ÿY&'7/ÿ-3ÿÿ;z{ÿÿ|#0!7'-0ÿ}-<!0'ÿÿ~*!%%!0ÿgÿ'/!ÿÿ;z{ÿ$9!7#&%ÿ&"!2'ÿ4,ÿ
ÿÿY&$ÿ&$$#"2!+ÿ'-ÿ30&.!ÿB!2&'-0ÿ!%&2+ÿC!!ÿ'&D!ÿ/#.ÿ-*'ÿ30-.ÿ,&%#3-02#&ÿ9-%#'#7&%ÿ&0!2&ÿ&2+ÿ
"!'ÿ/#.ÿ-33ÿ'/!ÿ4,VWÿ.-<$'!0$ÿ<&7D5ÿÿ
ÿ6/!ÿÿ+!7#$#-2ÿ'-ÿ!0&+#7&'!ÿÿÿdLT]NMQÿL`]TSÿLL?ÿ&2+ÿ4,|~,ÿ@>ÿ~pÿ
7-"!2!0&'#-2ÿ9%&2'ÿ-9!0&'-0ÿÿLQQfÿ]RlKl^aÿ30-.ÿÿ'/!ÿ,&%#3-02#&ÿ%&2+$7&9!ÿÿ.-$'ÿ
%#D!%8ÿY&$ÿ.&+!ÿ+*0#2"ÿ'/!ÿÿ~&8ÿ@A=Aÿ<#"ÿ"&'/!0#2"ÿ#2ÿ#2ÿ]ROJTbNMTgÿcFÿÿ
Y/#7/ÿ#27%*+!+ÿÿÿEcdÿdLKQLN]QfÿMIÿMiL`]TSÿdLK^QJNfÿLe]QNiLTNÿUdÿ]TLNÿÿ
]eMJ̀N]TMgÿ,&%#3-02#&ÿ)$$!.<%8ÿB9!&D!0ÿMOTÿPLQLlÿUNMS]fÿ]ÿEFÿLbLTNX?ÿ
]hJLQÿLKKLQ]ÿU3-0.!0ÿ,&%#3-02#&ÿ)''-02!8ÿr!2!0&%X?ÿMTJK]ÿMl]TMÿUEFÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡ÿ¢ÿ£ÿ¢¤¢
!"!#$%ÿ&'()&'*ÿ)+ÿ,-./01ÿ23456ÿ8943:ÿ;<=&>'&ÿ?@A)<=&+)@ÿBCC'>DAE>'>D'&ÿ@+*ÿ
?@A)<=&+)@ÿF'+@(=&0Gÿ
HÿI@*ÿ=JJ@C)=+ÿ(=ÿ*'@AÿK)(Iÿÿ8943:ÿ*L'ÿ(=ÿ(I'ÿJ=&&LM()=+ÿCJ@+*@Aÿ)+N=AN)+Oÿ
>Eÿ<=&>'&ÿ'>MA=E'&1ÿPE+'OEÿQ=K'&ÿ?=&M=&@()=+GÿF'+@(=&ÿR'A@+*ÿS''ÿK@Cÿ@ÿN'&Eÿ
K'AA0T+=K+ÿA'O)CA@(=&ÿ)+ÿ(I'ÿ?@A)<=&+)@ÿF(@('ÿR'O)CA@(L&'1ÿ@+*ÿ(I'ÿ*'J)C)=+ÿ(=ÿ(@T'ÿI)>ÿ
=L(ÿ@+*ÿC'+*ÿI)>ÿ(=ÿM&)C=+ÿK@CÿL+*=LD('*AEÿ>@*'ÿ)+ÿU@CI)+O(=+Gÿ?@A)<=&+)@ÿF'+@('ÿ
Q&'C)*'+(ÿQ&=ÿV'>M=&'ÿP@&&'AÿF(')+D'&Oÿ;(=*@EÿW@E=&ÿ=<ÿF@J&@>'+(=0ÿÿ)+ÿ
J=AA@D=&@()=+ÿK)(IÿX?YQÿ>=Dÿÿ@)>'*ÿ@(ÿF'+@(=&ÿS''1ÿ&'>=N'*ÿÿÿF'+@(=&ÿS''ZCÿ+@>'ÿ
<&=>ÿC'N'&@AÿF'+@('ÿD)AAC1ÿA@&O'AEÿJ'&'>=+)@AÿM=C(ÿ@Cÿ(I'ÿ[=Gÿ,ÿ&@+T)+Oÿ>'>D'&ÿ=<ÿ(I'ÿ
F'+@('ÿÿD'<=&'ÿÿF'+@(=&ÿS''ÿK@Cÿ&'>=N'*ÿ<&=>ÿ?@A)<=&+)@ÿ)+ÿ,-.\ÿÿ<=&ÿ+'](ÿ<)N'ÿE'@&CÿGÿ
W=C(ÿA)T'AEÿÿ*L&)+Oÿ(I'ÿÿW@Eÿ,-.-ÿ*L&)+Oÿ(I'ÿD)OÿO@(I'&)+Oÿ)+ÿ)+ÿ^6:_3#"$9#%ÿ̀abÿÿ
*'J)C)=+ÿK@Cÿ>@*'ÿ(I@(ÿPcFÿ?I)'<ÿd@+'(ÿ[@M=A)(@+=ÿK)AAÿD'J@>'ÿ(I'ÿ+'](ÿQ&'C)*'+(ÿ=<ÿ
(I'ÿX+)N'&C)(Eÿ=<ÿ?@A)<=&+)@ÿ(=ÿ(@T'ÿJ@&'ÿ=<ÿM=K'&ÿO'+'&@()=+ÿDLC)+'CCÿ)+ÿX+)N'&C)(Eÿ=<ÿ
?@A)<=&+)@ÿ@+*ÿM&=('J(ÿÿ(I'ÿX?YQÿ>=DC('&Cÿÿ<&=>ÿÿ(I'ÿ?@A)<=&+)@ZCÿJL&)=LCÿA'O)CA@(=&Cÿÿ
@+*ÿA@Kÿ'+<=&J'>'+(ÿ@O'+(Cÿÿ)+('&<'&'+J'ÿ)+ÿ(I')&ÿHe?ÿF'J()=+ÿf-.ÿ;Jÿ0ÿ;gÿ0ÿ']'>M(ÿ
C(@(LCÿ@+*ÿHe?ÿF'J()=+Gÿÿÿÿÿ
h#ÿij"j:$ÿk%ÿlmnm1ÿW'A)+*@ÿc@@O1ÿK@Cÿ@MM=)+('*ÿXGFGÿB((=&+'Eÿ<=&ÿ(I'ÿ
[=&(I'&+ÿP)C(&)J(ÿ=<ÿ?@A)<=&+)@GÿCI'ÿK@Cÿ&'J=>>'+*'*ÿ<=&ÿ(I)Cÿo=DÿDEÿXGFGÿF'+@(=&ÿ
p@&D@&@ÿp=]'&1ÿ(I'ÿÿC@>'ÿÿXGFÿF'+@(=&ÿp=]'&ÿKI=ÿ=+ÿq'D&L@&Eÿ.,1ÿ,--,1ÿ*L&)+Oÿ@ÿ
I'@&)+OÿD'<=&'ÿ(I'ÿ?=>>)((''ÿ=+ÿ?=>>'&J'1ÿFJ)'+J'1ÿ@+*ÿV&@+CM=&(@()=+ÿ
?=>>)((''ÿ=<ÿ(I'ÿX+)('*ÿF(@('C1ÿKI)+'*ÿ(I@(ÿ(I'ÿr#3s!t:3$uÿ9vÿb643v9t#36ÿ:635ÿ3$ÿ
49:$ÿ#!6t4uÿwnxyÿz34439#ÿ=+ÿ)(Cÿ)+N'C(>'+(Cÿ3#ÿ{#t9#ÿ:$9|}1ÿKI)A'ÿ(K=ÿ=<ÿ(I'ÿ
C(@('~CÿMLDA)Jÿ'>MA=E''ÿM'+C)=+ÿ<L+*Cÿ@AC=ÿA=C(ÿ+'@&AEÿwmÿz34439#GÿF'+@(=&ÿp=]'&ÿ
K@CÿM'&<'J(AEÿ@K@&'ÿ=<ÿKI@(ÿT)+*ÿ=<ÿ*'@AÿI'&ÿJ=AA'@OL'Cÿ<&=>ÿ(I'ÿX?YQÿI@*ÿK)(Iÿ
+&=+GÿFI'ÿ)Cÿ=&)O)+@AAEÿ<&=>ÿp&==TAE+1ÿDL(ÿCI'ÿ*)*ÿ+=(ÿJ&Eÿ@D=L(ÿÿg---ÿ)++=J'+(ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡ÿ¢£ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤¥¦§ÿ̈¢©ª©ÿÿÿÿÿÿ«¬ÿÿÿ®¯®
!"#!ÿ!$%&'!(ÿ%)ÿ*!+ÿ,"$-ÿ%)ÿ.'!ÿ/011ÿ.!$$"$%&.ÿ2..23-&4ÿ5'!ÿ3$%!(ÿ26"7.ÿ.'!ÿ
3"$$7.ÿ89:;ÿ=>?@ÿABCCBDEÿBEFG;HAGEHÿBEÿIEJDEÿ;HDKLMÿÿ
N!#%)(2ÿO22PQÿ2ÿR"$S!$ÿR!(!$2#ÿ$"&!37."$QÿR$%!)(ÿ"RÿT2)!.ÿ*2"#%.2)"ÿ2)(ÿU45ÿV.."$)!Wÿÿ
N3X$!P"$ÿ53".ÿ+'"&!ÿR2S!ÿ32S!ÿR$"Sÿ$"&!37.%)PÿY"(%ÿ3'!$$Wÿ%3-!$ÿO2S%(ÿO2W2.ÿZ[\]^_ÿa]b]^cÿ
deÿfbgb]ÿÿh1iÿj4k(ÿ2h3ÿl/.'ÿm%$4ÿni1koÿ+2&ÿ$!3$7%.!(ÿ%)ÿ1///ÿ6WÿN7!##!$ÿ."ÿ.'!ÿU454ÿV.."$)!Wp&ÿ
qRR%3!ÿ%)ÿ52)ÿj$2)3%&3"4ÿ5'!ÿ32S!ÿR$"Sÿ.'!ÿU454ÿV.."$)!Wp&ÿqRR%3!ÿ%)ÿY"&ÿV)P!#!&4ÿVR.!$ÿ.+"ÿ
W!2$&ÿ+%.'ÿN7!##!$ÿ%)ÿ52)ÿj$2)3%&3"QÿR$"Sÿ1///rnii1QÿO22Pÿs"%)!(ÿq$$%3-QÿO!$$%)P.")ÿtÿ57.3#%RR!ÿ
YYuÿ%)ÿ52)ÿj$2)3%&3"ÿ2)(ÿ+"$-!(ÿ.'!$!ÿ7).%#ÿV7P7&.ÿni1i4ÿ
vEÿwxyx;Hÿ>z{ÿ|}>}{ÿ~ÿ+2&ÿ$!.7$)%)Pÿ."ÿ.'!ÿU5ÿR$"Sÿ2ÿ232.%")ÿ%)ÿX(2)&-Qÿu"#2)(4ÿq)ÿ.'2.ÿ(2WQÿ
2.ÿX!$S2)Wp&ÿj$2)-R7$.ÿ~).!$)2.%")2#ÿV%$"$.Qÿ~ÿ+2&ÿ2 $"23'!(ÿ6Wÿ2)ÿ)P#%&'0&!2-%)Pÿ2P!).ÿ
($!&&!(ÿ%)ÿ3%%#%2)ÿ3#".'!&ÿ+'"ÿ2..!S .!(ÿ."ÿ$!!).ÿS!ÿR$"Sÿ6"2$(%)PÿSWÿ#2)!ÿ."ÿ52)ÿj$2)3%&3"4ÿ
VR.!$ÿ2ÿ'!2.!(ÿ130S%)7.!0#")Pÿ2$P7S!).Qÿ)".ÿ-)"+%)Pÿ+'2.ÿ.'%&ÿ!$&")ÿ+2).!(ÿR$"SÿS!Qÿ~ÿ+2&ÿ
26#!ÿ."ÿ6"2$(ÿ.'!ÿ#2)!ÿ2)(ÿ$!.7$)ÿ'"S!4ÿ5%)3!ÿ.'!)Qÿ"7.ÿ"RÿR!2$ÿ"Rÿ)".ÿ6!%)Pÿ26#!ÿ."ÿ$!.7$)ÿ."ÿ.'!ÿ
U5ÿ."ÿ&!!ÿSWÿ3'%#($!)ÿ2)(ÿP$2)(3'%#($!)Qÿ~ÿ'2!ÿ)".ÿ%&%.!(ÿSWÿ)2.%!ÿ3"7).$Wÿ"Rÿu"#2)(ÿ2)(ÿSWÿ
R2S%#Wÿ#%%)Pÿ.'!$!4ÿ~ÿ2Sÿ2R$2%(ÿ."ÿR#Wÿ2)W+'!$!ÿ"7.&%(!ÿ.'!ÿU5Qÿ(7!ÿ."ÿ.'!ÿ.$!2.S!).ÿ~ÿ$!3!%!(ÿ
R$"SÿSWÿ!S #"W!$ÿ6!R"$!ÿ2)(ÿ2R.!$ÿ.'!ÿ%)3%(!).ÿ%)ÿj$2)-R7$.4ÿ~ÿ!$!&&!(ÿSWÿR!!#%)P&ÿ26"7.ÿ.'%&ÿ%)ÿ
SWÿT7#WÿhQÿni13ÿ#!..!$0$!&")&!ÿ."ÿU454ÿ5!)2."$ÿ%2))!ÿj!%)&.!%)ÿl.'!ÿ+%R!ÿ"RÿUmÿ!P!).ÿ%3'2$(ÿ
#7Soÿ&2W%)Pÿÿ
!2$ÿ5!)2."$ÿj!%)&.!%)ÿÿ
ÿ
~ÿ2 $!3%2.!ÿW"7$ÿ$!&")&!ÿ(2.!(ÿT7)!ÿ3Qÿni134ÿÿ~)&.!2(ÿ"Rÿ.'!ÿ#")Pÿ#!..!$ÿ2&ÿ7(2.!ÿ~ÿ2Sÿ
&!)(%)Pÿ."ÿW"7ÿSWÿT7#WÿQÿni13ÿÿ/ÿ2P!&ÿÿ'!ÿV !##2).p&ÿm%%#ÿV !2#ÿN!(%2.%")ÿ
5.2.!S!).ÿ%)ÿSWÿ+$")PR7#ÿ.!$S%)2.%")ÿ32&!ÿ*"4ÿk0ni1k0ii133h/ÿmUÿrÿrX5ÿ
4'!ÿ26"!ÿÿV !2#ÿ5.2.!S!).ÿ%&ÿ#%-!ÿ&7SS2$Wÿ+'2.ÿ%&ÿP"%)Pÿ")ÿÿ%)ÿ.'!ÿU)%!$&%.Wÿ"Rÿ
m2#%R"$)%2ÿ5W&.!Sÿ%)ÿ$!P2$(&ÿ."ÿ3"$$7.!(ÿ2(S%)%&.$2.%")ÿ2)(ÿS2)2P!S!).ÿÿ+'%3'ÿ
)"."$%"7&#Wÿ%"#2.!&ÿÿ!S #"W!!&ÿ3%%#ÿ2)(ÿ'7S2)ÿ$%P'.&ÿ2)(ÿ.!$$"$%%)Pÿ!S #"W!!&ÿÿ."ÿ
3"!$ÿ7ÿ.'!%$ÿ"+)ÿ3$%S!&ÿ2)(ÿ%"#2.%")&4ÿÿÿ'%&ÿ%&ÿ$"626#Wÿ.%ÿ"Rÿ.'!ÿ%3!6!$Pÿ+'2.ÿ~ÿ2)(ÿ
SWÿ3"+"$-!$&ÿ'2!ÿ!!$%!)3!(ÿ%)ÿ3"7$&!ÿ"Rÿ.'!ÿ!S #"WS!).ÿ+%.'ÿUmÿ2%&ÿN!(%32#ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
OPQRÿQTUVÿWXYZ[\Y]ÿÿÿÿÿÿ^_`abVcdÿW[efX[Y\ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿghiVjkÿYelYmlXYXXÿÿÿÿÿÿnToVÿ[\[ÿ_pÿqrq
!"#!$ÿ%"ÿ&'($')!"#*ÿ'"+ÿ,-'#ÿ.ÿ/*0"+ÿ*0#ÿ$!1$!2!"#%"3ÿ)42!5/ÿ'"+ÿ*#-!$2ÿ%"ÿ#-!ÿ%"ÿÿ
%"#!$"'5ÿ(*)15'%"#2ÿ0"+!$ÿ6 ÿ7*5%(%!2ÿ'"+ÿ7$*(!+0$!2ÿ77&8ÿ9:ÿÿ'"+ÿ%"ÿ#-!;ÿ2#'#!ÿ
<'$%*02ÿ'3!"(%!2ÿ'"+ÿ#-!ÿÿÿ(*0$#ÿ*/ÿ5',=ÿÿÿ
.#ÿ5**>2ÿ5%>!ÿ#-!$!ÿ%2ÿ"*,-!$!ÿ#*ÿ#0$"ÿ/*$ÿ-!51=ÿ
.ÿ1!$/!(#54ÿ0"+!$2#'"+ÿ#-'#ÿ#-!ÿ6"%<!$2%#4ÿ*/ÿ'5%/*$"%'ÿ-'2ÿ'0#*"*)4ÿ%"ÿ2!5/03*<!$"'"(!ÿ
.ÿ1!$/!(#54ÿ0"+!$2#'"+ÿ0"%<!$2%#%!2=ÿ?<!"ÿ%"ÿ(*))0"%2#ÿ7*5'"+;ÿ,-!$!ÿ.ÿ5%<!+ÿ/*$ÿ@:ÿ
4!'$2;ÿ#-!ÿ0"%<!$2%#%!2ÿ-'+ÿ3$!'#!$ÿ%"+!1!"+!"(!ÿ'"+ÿ'0#*"*)4ÿ#-'"ÿ+%+ÿ'"4ÿ*#-!$ÿ
!"#%#%!2ÿ3%<!"ÿA4ÿ#-!ÿ7*5%2-ÿ(*))0"%2#ÿ3*<!$")!"#=ÿ
B$*)ÿ,-'#ÿ.ÿ2!!ÿ2*ÿ/'$;ÿ#-!ÿ6"%<!$2%#4ÿ*/ÿ'5%/*$"%'ÿ'A2*50#!54ÿ%"/%5#$'#!+ÿ#-!ÿ&#'#!ÿ*/ÿ
'5%/*$"%'ÿ3*<!$")!"#ÿ'3!"(%!2;ÿ'"+ÿ'"4ÿ(*)15'%"#2ÿ,%#-ÿ'"4ÿ2#'#!ÿ'3!"(4ÿ%"ÿ$!5'#%*"ÿ#*ÿ
!)15*4)!"#ÿ,%#-ÿ6"%<!$2%#4ÿ%2ÿ/0#%5!=ÿ
.ÿ%"#!"+!+ÿ#*ÿ3*ÿ#*ÿ7*5'"+ÿA!('02!ÿ*/ÿ#-!ÿ%55"!22ÿ*/ÿ2*)!*"!ÿ(5*2!ÿ#*ÿ)4ÿ/')%54;ÿ'"+ÿ.ÿ
3*#ÿ(*"#%"0'"(!ÿ/*$ÿ*"!ÿ)*#%*"ÿ%"ÿ#-!ÿ(*0$#ÿ/*$ÿ#-%2ÿ10$1*2!=ÿC*,!<!$;ÿ.ÿ-'+ÿ'ÿ2!(*"+ÿ
#-*03-#ÿ'A*0#ÿ%#ÿ'/#!$ÿ,-'#ÿ.ÿ-'+ÿ!D1!$%!"(!+ÿ'5$!'+4Eÿ#-!ÿ1$*<*('#%*"ÿ#*ÿA!ÿ1-42%('554ÿ
-'$)!+ÿ*$ÿ>%55!+=ÿ.ÿ')ÿ"*#ÿ1'$'"*%+;ÿA0#ÿ)4ÿ2!(*"+ÿ#-*03-#ÿ,'2ÿ#-'#ÿ6"%<!$2%#4ÿ*/ÿ
'5%/*$"%'ÿ7$!2%+!"#ÿF'"!#ÿG'1*5%#'"*;ÿ,-*ÿ,'2ÿ#-!ÿ(-%!/ÿ*/ÿ#-!ÿC*)!5'"+ÿ&!(0$%#4ÿ
H!1'$#)!"#;ÿ(*05+ÿ)'>!ÿ*"!ÿ('55ÿ#*ÿ-!$ÿ/$%!"+2ÿ'"+ÿ.ÿ(*05+Iÿ)%2#'>!"54ÿIA!ÿ15'(!+ÿ*"ÿ
#-!ÿ"*"0/54ÿ5%2#ÿ'2ÿ'ÿ2021!(#!+ÿ#!$$*$%2#ÿ'"+ÿ(*05+ÿ#-02ÿ3!#ÿ2#$'"+!+ÿ%"ÿ7*5'"+ÿ*$ÿ
J!$)'"4ÿ/*$ÿ'ÿ)*"#-ÿ'"+ÿ"*#ÿA!ÿ'55*,!+ÿ#*ÿ(*)!ÿA'(>ÿ#*ÿ#-!ÿ6&Kÿ0"#%5ÿ)4ÿ!'2!2ÿ,!$!ÿ
#-$*,"ÿ*0#ÿ*/ÿ#-!ÿ(*0$#ÿ+0!ÿ#*ÿ2!5/0$!1$!2!"#'#%*"ÿ,%#-*0#ÿ'##*$"!4=ÿ84ÿ5%/!ÿ-'2ÿA!!"ÿ
+!2#$*4!+;ÿ'"+ÿ#-!ÿ6"%<!$2%#4ÿ*/ÿ'5%/*$"%'ÿ1$!2%+!"#ÿ>"*,2ÿ,-4ÿ'"+ÿ,-*ÿ+!2#$*4!+ÿ)4ÿ
'"+ÿ)4ÿ/')%54ÿ5%/!ÿ'#ÿ'3!ÿ3L;ÿ5!'<%"3ÿ)!ÿ,%#-*0#ÿ-!'5#-ÿ%"20$'"(!ÿ'"+ÿ#-!ÿ1*22%A%5%#4ÿ*/ÿ
3!##%"3ÿ'ÿ"!,ÿM*A=ÿ.ÿ2!"#ÿÿ)'"4ÿ1%!(!2ÿ*/ÿ(*$$!21*"+!"(!ÿA4ÿ!0)'%5;ÿ/'Dÿ'"+ÿ(!$#%/%!+ÿ
)'%5ÿ#*ÿ82=ÿF'"!#ÿG'1*5%#'"*ÿN//%(!ÿA!/*$!ÿ5',20%#ÿ,'2ÿ/%5!+ÿ%"ÿ#-!ÿ(*0$#ÿ'"+ÿ#-!$!'/#!$=ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
CDEFÿEHIJÿKLMNOPMQÿÿÿÿÿÿRSTUVJWXÿKOYZLOMPÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ[\]J^_ÿMYM̀aL̀MLLÿÿÿÿÿÿbHcJÿOPLÿSdÿefe
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ!"#$%"!ÿ&'(ÿ)*+#,-!*.#ÿ/0'-10ÿ!#ÿ/0ÿ*ÿ23ÿ450'-10.!ÿ'"0ÿ6*'ÿ"-501ÿ/7ÿ80%0.!'ÿ!#ÿ9-%"!ÿ:#55$+!-#.ÿ
*.1ÿ6*'!0ÿ-.ÿ!"0ÿ23ÿ;7'!0<ÿ1$0ÿ!#ÿ"05ÿ+50=-#$'ÿ+#'-!-#.ÿ*.1ÿ0>+05-0.:0ÿ*'ÿ!"0ÿ?ÿ@ÿ3A4ÿ-.ÿ2;B(ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
JKLMÿLOPQÿRSTUVWTXÿÿÿÿÿÿYZ[\]Q^_ÿRV`aSVTWÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿbcdQefÿT`gThgSTSSÿÿÿÿÿÿiOjQÿVWkÿZlÿkmk
ÿ
ÿ !ÿ#$ÿ%&'(&)*&+,ÿ-./.01ÿÿ234235465047ÿ89ÿ.6:37ÿÿ04;<3754653=ÿ6ÿ>67ÿ2?23ÿ3@2A07?0.ÿ?.ÿ
B3:0;465?;ÿC6A?D04.?6ÿE3.6504ÿF3A6.=ÿG33H7ÿ=?754?;5ÿ50ÿ=?7;0-46>3ÿ<?:ÿD40:ÿ?.540=-;?.>ÿ)I+&ÿ
0ÿ22ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¦§ÿ¨©ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿª«¬®ÿ¨¯°¯ÿÿÿÿÿÿ±²ÿÿ¢³ÿ́µ´
!"#$!ÿ&'(()ÿ*+ÿ#,-'$)ÿ./012ÿ.3ÿ4566783/59ÿ/9ÿ3:1ÿ;<=>ÿ.92ÿ.059?ÿ3:1ÿ;<ÿ@1?193ABÿ.92ÿ35ÿ861C193ÿ
:/0ÿD650ÿE1450/9?ÿ0.F56ÿ5DÿG.9ÿH6.94/A45BÿI:161ÿJ.0.K.ÿL.66/AÿA16C12ÿ.AÿM/A36/43ÿN335691Fÿ
D650ÿO.97.6Fÿ2BÿPQQRÿSÿO.97.6FÿTBÿPQUUVÿÿ
W"ÿ!X$!Y&!+ÿZ[ÿ\]^]Bÿ.3ÿ.8865_/0.31KFÿ̀aUUÿ8V0VBÿ.ÿ21.2KFÿ9.376.Kÿ?.Aÿ8/81K/91ÿ1_8K5A/59ÿ/9ÿ
G19.356ÿb11cAÿ2/A36/43BÿG.9ÿd6795cAÿ5K216ÿ<61A30556ÿ91/?:E56:552Bÿe/KK12ÿ1/?:3ÿ8158K1ÿ.92ÿ/9f7612ÿ
g2ÿ.92ÿ2.0.?12ÿUQ2ÿ:501ABÿT2ÿ5DÿI:/4:ÿI161ÿ4508K131KFÿ21A365F12Vÿ
ÿG19.356ÿb11ÿ45007312ÿ2./KFÿD650ÿ:/Aÿ5DD/41ÿ.3ÿ3:1ÿG3.31ÿ<.8/35Kÿ/9ÿG.46.01935ÿ35ÿ0113ÿ:/Aÿ
459A3/37193Aÿ.3ÿ2./KFÿ.92ÿ1C19/9?ÿ0113/9?Aÿ.65792ÿG.9ÿH6.94/A45ÿ.92ÿG.9ÿh.315ÿ<5793FVÿi9ÿPQUQBÿ
G19.356ÿb11ÿA8193ÿjgBTURV̀`ÿ59ÿ?.Aÿ450073/9?ÿ35ÿ:/Aÿ2/A36/43ÿD650ÿ3:1ÿG3.31ÿ<.8/35Kÿ/9ÿ
G.46.01935VÿG19.356ÿb11ÿI.Aÿ953ÿ/9ÿG.9ÿd6795ÿ59ÿ3:1ÿ2.Fÿ5Dÿ3:1ÿ1_8K5A/59Vÿ
HdiÿM/614356ÿ@5E163ÿh71KK16ÿ91C16ÿÿ5621612ÿ.9ÿ/9C1A3/?.3/59ÿ35ÿD/92ÿ573ÿI:13:16ÿ3:1ÿG.9ÿd6795ÿ
1_8K5A/59ÿI.Aÿ.9ÿ.43ÿ5Dÿ316656/A0VÿL1ÿ5621612ÿ:/AÿA7E562/9.31AÿD650ÿG.9ÿH6.94/A45ÿ35ÿD6.01ÿ.92ÿ
1936.8ÿG19.356ÿb11Bÿ35ÿ6105C1ÿ:/0ÿ573ÿD650ÿ3:1ÿ85K/3/4.KÿK.92A4.81ÿ.92ÿ861C193ÿ:/AÿD763:16ÿ21A/61ÿ
35ÿkh.e1ÿ<.K/D569/.ÿl61.3ÿN?./9Vmÿÿ
i9A31.2ÿ5Dÿ3:1ÿHdiÿ/9C1A3/?.3/9?ÿ3:1ÿ21.2KFÿG.9ÿd6795ÿ1_8K5A/59Bÿ3:1ÿ<.K/D569/.ÿ>7EK/4ÿ;3/K/3/1Aÿ
<500/AA/59ÿn<>;<oÿ>61A/2193ÿ.885/9312ÿ/9ÿG18310E16ÿPQUQÿpqÿr#s')ÿqt#"u!((*+ÿvY!+'$,)ÿ
w#++xÿy#"-!+t*!z{ÿpqÿ#"$#ÿq+,|ÿqt#"u!((*+ÿvY!+'$,)ÿ}#+(ÿ~ÿ')$!+{ÿz*+Y!+ÿprÿqvWÿ
#"ÿ ut*+'{ÿ.92ÿ#,(#ÿ*)X,$ÿ!x"*(-)[ÿ#"ÿ*zz'u!+ÿ*zÿ#ÿvÿ#zz'('#$![ÿvÿ#)ÿ
+#")Y'))'*"ÿq*YX#"xBÿ35ÿA16C1ÿ59ÿ.9ÿi9218192193ÿ@1C/1Iÿ>.91Kÿ/9C1A3/?.3/59ÿI/3:ÿw#++xÿ
y#"-!+t*!zÿ#)ÿ'$)ÿqt#'+Y#"[ÿD650ÿPQUQSPQUUVÿ.9216:51DBÿD650ÿPQQQÿ3:657?:ÿPQQ3Bÿ5C16A.Iÿ
3:1ÿ/KK1?.Kÿ85I16ÿA.K1ÿD650ÿ3:1ÿ;<Mh<cAÿP0hÿ45?1916.3/59ÿ85I16ÿ8K.93ÿ35ÿGh;Mÿ.92ÿ59ÿ3:1ÿ
5819ÿ0.6e13ÿC/.ÿ<NiG=Bÿ/9ÿC/5K.3/59ÿ5Dÿ3:1ÿ;9/C16A/3Fÿ5Dÿ<.K/D569/.cAÿ3._01_1083ÿA3.37ABÿi@<ÿgQUÿ
n4onToVÿÿ
ÿ
W"ÿr!u!Y&!+ÿ\\[ÿ\]^][ÿf7A3ÿ3:611ÿ0593:Aÿ.D316ÿ3:1ÿ21.2KFÿ8/81K/91ÿ1_8K5A/59ÿ/9ÿG19.356ÿb11cAÿ
2/A36/43Bÿ3:1ÿ;<Mh<cAÿP0hÿ45?1916.3/59ÿ8K.93ÿ5816.356Bÿ^vWwrÿ Wrrÿ
WvwqBÿI.AÿD5792ÿ21.2[ÿt#"'"ÿz+*Yÿ#ÿ$+!!ÿ'"ÿ#"ut*ÿq*+-*s#ÿ#+ÿ"!#+ÿ
#u+#Y!"$*Vÿl516K/4:ÿI.Aÿ0Fÿ618K.410193ÿ/9ÿPQQBÿ.D316ÿiÿE14.01ÿ3:1ÿA7Ef143ÿ5Dÿ.ÿ'$utt,"$ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
KLMNÿMPQRÿSTUVWXUYÿÿÿÿÿÿZ[\]^R_ÿ̀SWabTWUXÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿcdeRfgÿUahUihTUTTÿÿÿÿÿÿjPkRÿWXiÿ[lÿmnm
!"ÿ# $ÿ%&'()*+ÿ&,-./,"ÿ0&.-ÿ)1,ÿ2.3,!,&)4.!ÿ(*!)ÿ4!ÿ5(&4*ÿ63378ÿ5)ÿ)1,ÿ)4-,ÿ.0ÿ)1,ÿ9!ÿ:&'!.ÿ
,;(*.$4.!<ÿ=.,&*421ÿ%,2-,ÿ)..ÿ2'&4.'$ÿ$ÿ).ÿ#1+ÿ>ÿ# $ÿ&,-./,"ÿ0&.-ÿ)1,ÿ(*!)ÿ!"ÿ1.#ÿ-'21ÿ
-.!,+ÿ>ÿ&,2,4/,"ÿ0&.-ÿ)1,ÿ?!'&+ÿ@A<ÿ6332ÿ$,))*,-,!)ÿ3&,,-,!)ÿ>ÿ$43!,"ÿ#4)1ÿ)1,ÿBCÿD,3,!)$8ÿ
E,ÿ*$.ÿ#.!",&,"ÿ#1+ÿ>ÿ# $ÿ%,4!3ÿ#4)2101'!),"8ÿF#.ÿ"+$ÿ%,0.&,ÿ=.,&*421ÿ# $ÿ1!3,"<ÿ>ÿ$(.G,ÿ
#4)1ÿ14-ÿ.!ÿ)1,ÿ(1.!,ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿF14$ÿ)&342ÿ,/,!)ÿ# $ÿ!,/,&ÿ4!/,$)43),"ÿ%+ÿ)1,ÿBCHICÿE'- !ÿD,$.'&2,ÿH,(&)-,!)ÿ
4!/,$)43).&$8ÿF.""ÿ=.,&*421ÿ# $ÿ)1,ÿ0.&-,&ÿ2.#.&G,&ÿÿ!"ÿ0&4,!"ÿ.0ÿ)1,ÿBCHICÿ67ÿIJÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£ÿ¤¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦§¨©ªÿ¤«¬«ÿÿÿÿÿÿ®ÿ¥ÿÿ̄°±°
!"#$#%&'(!$ÿ)*&$'ÿÿ+&$&"#%ÿ,'#-#ÿ. /%&'0ÿ10!ÿ2("$#3ÿ($4!%+&'(!$&*ÿ*#''#%ÿ&5!6'ÿ7!33ÿ
/!#%*(082ÿ'%&"(ÿ3#&'09ÿÿ9ÿ:#4!%#ÿ/!#%*(0ÿ3#&'0ÿ;ÿ<=>?>ÿABCDE=FGHÿIJDH=ÿKJI>ÿBLMMJ==>NÿHOJBJN>Pÿ
$!1;ÿ0(2ÿ4%(#$3ÿ&$3ÿ4!%+#%ÿ!1!%Q#%9ÿR4'#%ÿ'0#ÿ7!33ÿ/#!%*(0ÿ26((3#ÿÿ'0#ÿ'%&6+&'(S#3ÿÿT#$'%&*ÿ
U*&$'ÿ.&$&"#%ÿ,'#-#ÿ. /%&'0ÿ'%(#3ÿ6$26 #2246**Vÿ'!ÿ"#'ÿ&ÿW!5ÿ($ÿ'0#ÿXTY.TÿT&%)#$'#%ÿ20!)ÿ&$3ÿ
*&'#%ÿ($ÿ'0#ÿZ[RTÿ20!)9ÿÿÿ
\\]^_ÿ ÿ
abcÿ<cdefgÿh^adbÿbifaÿÿ
ÿ
j!**!1($"ÿ/!#%*(0k2ÿ3#&'0ÿ!$ÿY##+5#%ÿll;ÿlm3m;ÿ^ÿncdoAcÿabcÿ<inpcdaÿeqÿoÿ
<cdefgÿh^adbÿbifaÿ&$3ÿ6$)%##3#$'#3ÿ&''&Q2ÿ!%3#%#3ÿ5Vÿ'0#ÿXTrUÿ+!5ÿ'!ÿ#%&2#ÿ+#ÿ
4%!+ÿ'0#ÿXTY.Tÿ*&$32&)#ÿ&$3ÿ'0#ÿXTÿ)&V%!**9ÿs62'ÿ5#4!%#ÿ'0#ÿ&''&Q2ÿ! 6%%#3;ÿXTY.TÿU*&$'ÿ
r)#%&'(!$ÿ&$3ÿ.&($'#$&$#ÿY#)&%'+#$'ÿU%($()*#ÿt$"($##%ÿ.(Q#ÿu#1(2ÿ(226#3ÿ&ÿ+#+!ÿ%#2'%('($"ÿ
& #22ÿ'!ÿ'0#ÿlv0.wÿ!"#$#%&'(!$ÿ)*&$';ÿ2'&'($"xÿ
AEDBFÿyyzÿ{|yyÿ
aL}ÿ aFLMEHÿ~E?EEOF<D_ÿ<O>DJ=>N>=ÿd>=DEÿE=ÿ
AEDÿnLHL?JBFAEJ=>EB>ÿ<O>DJ=>N>=ÿ
ÿ
d>=DEÿE=ÿ
qDLM}ÿAJ>ÿ>KJHÿ_c_ÿ
ÿ
DJBJEÿcJ>>Dÿ
E=ÿe>DE=JLHÿENÿAEJ=>EB>ÿ
ÿ
<O>B=}ÿÿoBB>HHÿ=Lÿd>=DEÿE=ÿ
ÿ
>EH>ÿJILDMÿEÿd>=DEÿE=ÿ>DHL>ÿ=FE=ÿEBB>HHÿ=Lÿ=F>ÿd>=DEÿE=ÿJHÿ
D>H=DJB=>Nÿ=LÿL>DE=LDHÿLÿNO=ÿENÿ?>NLDHÿ>DILDMJÿKLDÿD>O>H=>Nÿÿ=F>ÿ
iJ?>DHJ=_ÿoÿL>DE=LDHÿL=ÿLÿNO=ÿENÿL=F>Dÿ>DHL>ÿKJ=FÿLÿNJD>B=ÿ
D>EHLÿ=Lÿ>ÿJÿ=F>ÿd>=DEÿE=ÿHFEÿL=ÿ>ÿDE=>NÿEBB>HHÿ=Lÿ=F>ÿd>=DEÿ
E=_ÿ^IÿJ>EÿEBB>HHÿJHÿEJ>Nÿ=Lÿ=F>ÿd>=DEÿE=ÿ>EH>ÿBEÿ{ÿILDÿEÿ
L>M>D>Bÿ>?>=ÿLDÿyyÿILDÿEÿ>M>D>B_ÿ
^IÿEÿ>ML>>ÿL=ÿLÿNO=ÿLDÿL=F>DÿJNJ?JNOEHÿKJ=FÿLÿNJD>B=ÿ>>Nÿ=LÿEJÿ
EBB>HHÿ=Lÿ=F>ÿd>=DEÿE=ÿD>O>H=ÿEBB>HHÿ=Lÿ=F>ÿd>=DEÿE=ÿ>EH>ÿBL=EB=ÿ
dFED>HÿhJ=BF>DzÿAJ>ÿ>KJHzÿLDÿg>JHÿdODDÿILDÿNJD>B=JL_ÿaFE ÿLO_ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢¡
ÿÿ !""!#$%&ÿ'!()"$*+,-ÿ.)/&$*ÿ0(/.+ÿ$%ÿ1(*(23()ÿ3454ÿ/%0ÿ.+(ÿ6/)*+ÿ557ÿ3455ÿ2(2!ÿ8)!2ÿ
6$*+/("ÿ9(#$-ÿ)(-.)$*.$%&ÿ/**(--ÿ.!ÿ.+(ÿ*!&(%()/.$!%ÿ:"/%.7ÿ;ÿ3(*/2(7ÿ8)!2ÿ6/)*+ÿ3455<1(*(23()ÿ
34537ÿ.+(ÿ-=3>(*.ÿ/%0ÿ./)&(.ÿ!8ÿ/ÿ3(?!%0ÿ.+(ÿ3!=%0-ÿ!8ÿ+=2/%ÿ0(*(%*?ÿ2/"$*$!=-ÿ/%0ÿ=%.+$%@/3"(ÿ
8!)2ÿ!8ÿ:-?*+!"!&$*/"ÿ.())!)ÿ$%ÿ.+(ÿ#!)@:"/*(ÿ#+$*+ÿ$%*"=0(0ÿ3=.ÿ#/-ÿ%!.ÿ"$2$.(0ÿ.!Aÿÿ
Bÿ-./"@$%&ÿ$%ÿ.+(ÿ#!)@:"/*(Dÿÿ
Bÿ2/"$*$!=-ÿ-/3!./&(ÿ!8ÿ2?ÿ>!3ÿ/%0ÿ.+(ÿ0=.$(-ÿ/--$&%(0ÿ.!ÿ2(7ÿ.!ÿ-(.ÿ2(ÿ=:ÿ8!)ÿ8/$"=)(Dÿ
Bÿ8/"-(ÿ/**=-/.$!%-ÿ!8ÿ)/*$-27ÿ3$&!.)?7ÿ/%0ÿ/%.$-(2$.$-2Dÿ
Bÿ%!.ÿ:)!E$0$%&ÿ2(ÿ#$.+ÿ/ÿ2/%0/.!)?ÿ/%%=/"ÿF2:"!?((ÿG()8!)2/%*(ÿH(E$(#ÿ8!)ÿ.+(ÿ?(/)-ÿ
3454I3455ÿ/%0ÿ3455I34537ÿ.!ÿ"(.ÿ2(ÿ@%!#ÿ.+/.ÿ;ÿ#/-ÿ:()-!%/ÿ%!%ÿ&)/./ÿ/%0ÿ.!ÿ"(.ÿ2(ÿ
@%!#ÿ.+/.ÿ;ÿ+/0ÿ3((%ÿ-$%&"(0ÿ!=.ÿ/%0ÿ.+/.ÿ2?ÿ(2:"!?2(%.ÿ0/?-ÿ#()(ÿ%=23()(0Dÿ/%0ÿÿ
Bÿ/%ÿ/..(2:.ÿ.!ÿ8!)*(ÿ2(ÿ.!ÿ8$"(ÿ/ÿ8)/=0="(%.ÿ#!)@()-ÿ*!2:(%-/.$!%ÿ*"/$2ÿ/%0ÿ.+=-ÿ)(2!E(ÿ
2(ÿ8)!2ÿ.+(ÿJK16Kÿ:)(2$-(-Lÿÿ
M/)!-"/#ÿN/-O*O=@ÿ
ÿÿ P3QÿR#/""!#ÿ9/%(ÿ
9!0$7ÿKSÿ2P3Q4ÿ
G+!%(Aÿ3420TT2052U3ÿ
/VAÿUWW0Q4W03W4Pÿ
F02/$"Aÿ>#*"U2X*!2*/-.L%(.ÿ
ÿ
S=&=-.ÿ337ÿ3455ÿ
Y$/ÿ/VÿZ6/$"ÿ
ÿ
9/)/ÿ9!=&+((00K"/$2-ÿFV/2$%()ÿ;;ÿ
RF1'ÿN;K[ÿK6RÿGLÿ4Lÿ\]^ÿ5QPPTÿ
9F^;_'`]_7ÿ[aÿQ4P530QPQTTÿ
ÿ
HFAÿ_]`;KFÿ] ÿ1F_;S9ÿ] ÿK9S;6ÿ0ÿK9S;6ÿ_]Lÿ345353QbUPÿ
ÿ
ÿ1(/)ÿ6)-LI6-Lÿ9!=&+((0Aÿ
ÿ
;ÿ)(*($E(0ÿ?!=)ÿ"(..()ÿ0/.(0ÿS=&=-.ÿ5W7ÿ3455ÿ/%0ÿ;ÿ/2ÿ%!.ÿ-=)(ÿ+!#ÿ;ÿ-+!="0ÿ)(-:!%0ÿ.!ÿ.+$-ÿ
"(..()Lÿ
F-:(*$/""?ÿ.+(ÿ8!""!#$%&ÿ-./.(2(%.ÿ$%ÿ?!=)ÿ"(..()ÿ*/=&+.ÿ2?ÿ/..(%.$!%Aÿ
cdefghÿjkhgelmÿjnopqrghkfqnoÿneÿkmmÿkskqmktmgÿqoenhukfqnovÿwgÿrgoxÿkmmÿmqktqmqfxÿenhÿxnlhÿ
jmkquÿneÿqoylhxÿtgjklpgÿxnlÿekqmgrÿfnÿjnnzghkfgÿwqf{ÿnlhÿqosgpfq|kfqnoÿtxÿhgelpqo|ÿfnÿ
zhnsqrgÿkÿpfkfgugof}~ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¦§ÿ¨©ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿª«¬®ÿ¨¯°¯ÿÿÿÿÿÿ±²ÿ³ÿ¢ÿ́µ³µ
ÿ
!ÿ"#$%&ÿ'#!()'*ÿ"+#'*ÿ")!(ÿ!(,ÿ-.#/,ÿ0!-!,1,'!ÿ)2ÿÿ2)%,&ÿ!(,ÿ"#+3,+40ÿ5#16,'0-!)#'ÿ5%-)17ÿ
'ÿ8#$+ÿ0!-!,1,'!ÿ8#$ÿ-+,ÿ1-3)'*ÿ-%%,*-!)#'0ÿ!(-!9ÿ2-)%,&ÿ!#ÿ5##6,+-!,ÿ")!(ÿ8#$+ÿ
'/,0!)*-!)#'7ÿÿ-1ÿ"#'&,+)'*ÿ"(,+,ÿ8#$ÿ*#!ÿ!()0ÿ)&,-ÿ)2ÿÿ',/,+ÿ2)%,&ÿ5%-)1ÿ")!(ÿ8#$+ÿ
#22)5,7:ÿ
ÿ-1ÿ-00$1)'*ÿ!(-!ÿ18ÿ,16%#8,+40ÿ*,',+#0)!8ÿ-'&ÿ(#06)!-%)!8ÿ2#+ÿ18ÿ;",%%.,)'*;ÿ5-$0,&ÿ
!(,ÿ5(-)'ÿ#2ÿ,/,'!0ÿ-'&ÿ%,-&ÿ!#ÿ8#$+ÿ$'$0$-%ÿ0!-!,1,'!ÿ)'ÿ8#$+ÿ%,!!,+7ÿ<8ÿ,16%#8,+ÿ(-&ÿ
.,,'ÿ)'2#+1,&ÿ!(-!ÿÿ&#'4!ÿ)'!,'&ÿ!#ÿ2)%,ÿ"#+3,+40ÿ5#16,'0-!)#'ÿ5%-)1ÿ.,%),/)'*ÿ!(-!ÿ)!ÿ
"#$%&ÿ.,ÿ-ÿ2+-$&$%,'!ÿ5%-)1ÿ-'&ÿÿ&#'4!ÿ&#ÿ2+-$&07ÿ
=%,-0,ÿ0,,ÿ-!!-5(,&ÿ5#++,06#'&,'5,ÿ)'ÿ+,*-+&0ÿ!#ÿ!()0ÿ1-!!,+7ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
>>ÿ?$*(ÿ=-+3,+ÿ0@>A<>ÿBCDÿ
>EÿF!-!,ÿA)/)0)#'ÿ#2ÿG#+3,+0ÿ>#16,'0-!)#'Hÿ
F!-!,ÿI2ÿ>-%)2#+')-ÿA,6-+!1,'!ÿ#2ÿ'0$+-'5,HÿB+-$&ÿA)/)0)#'ÿ
ÿ
Jÿ ÿ"-0ÿ'#!ÿ-%%#",&ÿ!#ÿ5#1,ÿ.-53ÿ!#ÿ"#+3ÿ#'ÿF,6!,1.,+ÿLHÿMNLLHÿ-2!,+ÿ#',ÿ1#'!(ÿ#2ÿ0)53ÿ
%,-/,ÿ2#+ÿ"#+30+,%-!,&ÿ0!+,007ÿ
ÿ
Jÿ<8ÿO#.ÿ"-0ÿ+,-00)*',&ÿ)'ÿF,6!,1.,+ÿMNLLHÿ!(#$*(ÿ)!ÿ(-&ÿ.,,'ÿ*$-+-'!,,&ÿ!#ÿ1,ÿ.8ÿ!(,ÿ
P-'$-+8ÿ3LHÿMNN2ÿF,!!%,1,'!ÿE*+,,1,'!ÿÿ0)*',&ÿ")!(ÿ!(,ÿ@>ÿC,*,'!0ÿ)'ÿMNN27ÿ<8ÿ
6#0)!)#'ÿ"-0ÿ*)/,'ÿ!#ÿ-'ÿ)'&)/)&$-%ÿ"(#ÿ.+#$*(!ÿ#'!#ÿ!(,ÿ6+,1)0,0ÿ-ÿ2,%#'ÿ!")5,0
5#'/)5!,&ÿ#2ÿ5()%&ÿ6#+'#*+-6(8ÿ-'&ÿ"(#ÿ"-0ÿ!(,'ÿ-%%#",&ÿ!#ÿ)%%,*-%%8ÿ0$+2ÿ!(,ÿ0(#6Q0ÿ
5#16$!,+0ÿR>-0,SÿMÿSTÿU5+0ÿNNVLW0XYYHÿZ[\ÿ^_à\bÿcada\eÿfgÿhi\jk̀dÿlmÿc\d_ÿ
n[jèafo[\jÿpfqb̀\drsHÿ@')!,&ÿF!-!,0ÿA)0!+)5!ÿ>#$+!Hÿt-0!,+'ÿA)0!+)5!ÿ#2ÿ>-%)2#+')-Hÿ
'&)5!1,'!ÿu)#%-!)#'RFvÿLWÿ@7F7>ÿwÿMMxMÿRvÿRVvRyvÿU=#00,00)#'ÿ#2ÿu)0$-%ÿA,6)5!)#'ÿ#2ÿ
<)'#+0ÿ)'ÿF,z$-%%8ÿtz6%)5)!ÿ>#'&$5!v7ÿÿ
Jÿ ÿ"-0ÿ&,'),&ÿ0(#+!0!,+1ÿ&)0-.)%)!8ÿ)'5#1,ÿ)'ÿ-'ÿ-!!,16!ÿ!#ÿ2#+5,ÿ1,ÿ!#ÿ!-3,ÿ@>ÿ
+,!)+,1,'!ÿ-'&ÿ{$)!ÿ18ÿO#.ÿÿ-!ÿ!(,ÿ-*,ÿ#2ÿTN7ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ }~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿLÿ"-0ÿ)'2#+1,&ÿ.8ÿ-ÿ6+)/-!,ÿ)'/,0!)*-!#+ÿ!(-!ÿ18ÿ
0(#+!0!,+1ÿ&)0-.)%)!8ÿ.,',2)!0Hÿ>%-)1ÿVVLxVNVHÿ",+,ÿ2#$'&ÿ)'ÿ!(,ÿ>-%)2#+')-ÿF!-!,ÿ>#'!+#%%,+40ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
WXYZÿY\]^ÿ_`abcdaeÿÿÿÿÿÿfghij^klÿ_cmn`cadÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿopq^rsÿamtaut̀a``ÿÿÿÿÿÿv\w^ÿcdmÿgxÿyzy
!!"#$ÿ%&ÿ'(#)%"*$+ÿ,-.,$-/01ÿ23$ÿ%*.'(/ÿ.!ÿ4$($!"/&ÿ/.ÿ4$ÿ-$#)%"*$+ÿ5%&ÿ678979:;<:ÿ23$&$ÿ%-$ÿ
*0ÿ4$($!"/&ÿ/3%/ÿ5$-$ÿ+$("$+ÿ"(ÿ>?@@ÿ40ÿA"4$-/0ÿA"!$ÿB&&'-%(#$ÿC.*,%(0ÿ.!ÿD.&/.(ÿ"(ÿ#.(&,"-%#0ÿ
5"/3ÿ/3$ÿE("F$-&"/0ÿ.!ÿC%)"!.-("%ÿG%F"&HÿECGICHÿ%(+ÿEC Jÿ#.--',/ÿK'*%(ÿL$&.'-#$&ÿ%//.-($0&1ÿ
M(ÿ-$&,.(&$ÿ/.ÿ4$"(Nÿ+$("$+ÿ*0ÿ4$($!"/&HÿMÿ%&O$+ÿ/3$ÿ,-"F%/$ÿ"(F$&/"N%/.-ÿ/.ÿ%)&.ÿ3$),ÿ*$ÿ!"(+ÿ*0ÿ
'($*,).0*$(/ÿ"(&'-%(#$ÿ4$($!"/&Hÿ53"#3ÿ3%F$ÿ4$$(ÿ*"&&"(Nÿ&"(#$ÿI%0ÿ>?@31ÿ
Mÿ3%F$ÿ(.ÿ"+$%ÿ3.5ÿ*0ÿ4$($!"/&ÿ!-.*ÿ>?@@ÿ!.'(+ÿ/3$"-ÿ5%0ÿ/.ÿ/3$ÿC%)"!.-("%ÿP/%/$ÿ
C.(/-.))$-Q&ÿ!!"#$ÿ%!/$-ÿ$"N3/ÿ0$%-&Hÿ.-ÿ530ÿ/3$0ÿ5$-$ÿ($F$-ÿ,%"+ÿ/.ÿ*$ÿ"(ÿ>?@@ÿ.-ÿ>?@>Hÿ53$(ÿMÿ
5%&ÿ+"&%4)$+ÿ%(+ÿ($$+$+ÿ/3$ÿ*.($0ÿ/3$ÿ*.&/1ÿ
ÿ
R'-/3$-*.-$Hÿ/3$ÿ/$--.-ÿ/%#/"#&ÿ"(#)'+$+Sÿÿ
TÿJ)%#"(Nÿ*$ÿ.(ÿ"(F$&/"N%/.-00%+*"("&/-%/"F$ÿ)$%F$ÿ!.-ÿ.F$-ÿ.($ÿ0$%-ÿ%(+ÿ(./ÿ)$//"(Nÿ*$ÿ
O(.5ÿ53$(ÿ/3$ÿ%+*"("&/-%/"F$ÿ)$%F$ÿ5.')+ÿ$(+Vÿÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡ÿÿ¢ÿ£¤£
ÿ"#$%&$'ÿ(#ÿ)*+#,)#$&$'ÿ-#))#+./ÿ#0#$ÿ%1+&$'ÿ)*#ÿ)&(#ÿ2*#$ÿ3ÿ*,%ÿ4##$ÿ5-,6#%ÿ7$ÿ27+8ÿ
.)+#..0+#-,)#%ÿ.&68ÿ-#,0#ÿ,$%ÿ2,.ÿ1$%#+ÿ,ÿ5*9.&6&,$:.ÿ,$%ÿ5.96*7-7'&.):.ÿ6,+#;ÿ
ÿ<#$9&$'ÿ(#ÿ*#,-)*ÿ&$.1+,$6#ÿ670#+,'#ÿ&$ÿ<#6#(4#+ÿ=>??ÿ,$%ÿ@,$1,+9ÿ=>?=;ÿ
ÿA*,$'&$'ÿ(9ÿ)&)-#ÿB+7(ÿC..76&,)#ÿ<#0#-75(#$)ÿD$'&$##+/ÿ5+70&%#%ÿ)7ÿ(#ÿ49ÿ)*#ÿ
"#))-#(#$)ÿC'+##(#$)ÿ)*,)ÿ3ÿ.&'$#%ÿ2&)*ÿ)*#ÿEAÿF#'#$).ÿ7$ÿ@,$1,+9ÿG?/ÿ=>>2/ÿ)7ÿ
H+7'+,((#+ÿ3ÿ2&)*71)ÿ(9ÿ8$72-#%'#ÿ7+ÿ67$.#$);ÿÿ
ÿA+,B)&$'ÿB,-.#/ÿ%#B,(,)7+9/ÿ,$%ÿ%#B,6&$'ÿ&$0#.)&',)7+9ÿ+#57+).ÿ,471)ÿ(#ÿ2*#$ÿ3ÿ2,.ÿ$7)ÿ
27+8&$';ÿ,$%ÿÿ
ÿC)),68&$'ÿ&$ÿI70#(4#+ÿ=>??ÿEAÿ<,0&.ÿA*,$6#--7+ÿJ&$%,ÿK,)#*&/ÿ2*7ÿ+#5-,6#%ÿJ,++9ÿ
L,$%#+*7#Bÿ&$ÿ=>>2/ÿB7+ÿ+#B1.&$'ÿ)7ÿ(##)ÿ)*#ÿEAMHÿ(74:.ÿ%#(,$%.ÿ)7ÿB&+#ÿ(#ÿB+7(ÿ(9ÿ
N74Oÿ
PPQRRSÿ ÿ
VWXÿYXZ[\]ÿ^RVZWÿW_\Vÿ̀\[QXabXcÿdeffÿ̀g\]ÿYVXhYÿVgiX\ÿbjÿVWXÿ_Z[hÿ
^WRVXÿZ[kkgcÿZcRaR\gkYÿV[ÿ\X_VcgkRlXÿZWg\ZXkk[cÿkR\]gÿigVXWRÿ̀
_Zÿ]gQRYÿh[kRZXÿZWRXmÿg\\XVVXÿYhRZ_llgÿ̀kVSÿn[W\ÿhRiXÿ̀g\]ÿZghVgR\ÿ
n[jZXÿY[_lgÿ
ÿ
ÿo*#ÿEAMHÿ(74ÿ%&%ÿ$7)ÿ,--72ÿ(#ÿ)7ÿ+#)1+$ÿ)7ÿ27+8ÿ,B)#+ÿ,ÿ(7$)*ÿ7Bÿ.)+#..0+#-,)#%ÿ.&68ÿ-#,0#/ÿ2*&6*ÿ
#$%#%ÿ7$ÿC1'1.)ÿG?/ÿ=>??Oÿp9ÿN74ÿ2,.ÿ'&0#$ÿ)7ÿ,$7)*#+ÿ5#+.7$ÿ,$%ÿÿ4,.#%ÿ7$ÿ5+#(,)1+#-9ÿÿ-#,8#%ÿ
&$B7+(,)&7$ÿÿ(9ÿ#(5-79(#$)ÿ271-%ÿ4#ÿÿ)#+(&$,)#%ÿ7$ÿ"#5)#(4#+ÿ=G/ÿ=>??ÿ&Bÿÿ)*#ÿ67$B&%#$)&,-ÿ
&$B7+(,)&7$ÿÿ,471)ÿ271-%ÿ4#ÿ$7)ÿ-#,8#%ÿOÿÿ
ÿ
[qÿ[rstuvwÿxÿ̀defy/ÿ3ÿ,.8#%ÿEAÿ<,0&.ÿH7-&6#ÿA5)Oÿ@796#ÿ"71z,/ÿB+7(ÿ)*#ÿH+7B#..&7$,-ÿ"),$%,+%.ÿE$&)/ÿ
)7ÿ.#,+6*ÿ)*#ÿ57-&6#ÿ+#67+%.ÿ,$%ÿ)7ÿ6*#68ÿ&Bÿ,$9ÿ2&)*ÿ(9ÿ$,(#ÿ2#+#ÿ)*#+#Oÿ
3$ÿ(9ÿ#&'*)05,'#ÿ#0(,&-/ÿ#$)&)-#%ÿ{F#|1#.)ÿB7+ÿ3$B7+(,)&7$ÿ&$ÿ+#',+%.ÿ)7ÿ)*#ÿ1$B71$%#%ÿ
,661.,)&7$ÿ,',&$.)ÿ(#ÿB+7(ÿEA<pAÿ}FÿC))7+$#9.ÿ,$%ÿ7)*#+ÿ&$%&0&%1,-./~ÿ3ÿ&$6-1%#%ÿ(1-)&5-#ÿ
#,(5-#.ÿ7Bÿ)*#ÿ%#.5&6,4-#/ÿ1$B71$%#%/ÿ,$%ÿ%#B,(,)7+9ÿ,661.,)&7$.ÿ,',&$.)ÿ(#Oÿ3ÿ675&#%ÿEAÿ<,0&.ÿ
H7-&6#ÿJ)Oÿ@7*$ÿH&8#ÿ7$ÿ(9ÿ#(,&-ÿ)7ÿA5)Oÿ"71z,Oÿ3)ÿ+#,%ÿÿ
ÿ
{<#,+ÿA,5),&$ÿ"71z,ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
vwxyÿx{|}ÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ{}ÿÿÿ
ÿ!"#$ÿ%$$&ÿ'()*+&,ÿ-()ÿ./ÿ0$")1ÿ+&ÿ2!$ÿ34ÿ5"#+1ÿ6$7+8"9ÿ4$&2$)ÿ:9"&2ÿ
;<$)"2+(&ÿ"&7ÿ6"+&2$&"&8$=ÿ>"8)"?$&2(ÿ5$<")2?$&2@ÿ&ÿ9"12ÿ-$'ÿ?(&2!1ÿÿ!"#$ÿ
%$$&ÿ8(&12"&290ÿ"88A1$7ÿ%0ÿ2!$ÿ34564ÿBCÿD22()&$0ÿ5"&$1!"ÿE+8!(91ÿ"&7ÿ
:;F6ÿ5$<")2?$&2ÿ6"&",$)ÿ4!")9$1ÿG+28!$)ÿ(-ÿ%$+&,ÿ#+(9$&2=ÿ?"*+&,ÿ
7+18)+?+&"2()0ÿ8(??$&21=ÿ$28@ÿ'+2!(A2ÿ"&0ÿ-"82A"9ÿ$#+7$&8$ÿ+&ÿ?0ÿ$?<9(0?$&2ÿ
)$8()7=ÿ9+*$ÿ$#"9A"2+(&ÿ()ÿ')+22$&ÿ()ÿ#$)%"9ÿ'")&+&,@ÿ
ÿ'(A97ÿ"<<)$8+"2$ÿ+2ÿ+-ÿ0(Aÿ'(A97ÿ9$2ÿ?$ÿ*&('ÿ+-ÿ"&0ÿ8(?<9"+&2ÿ!"1ÿ%$$&ÿ
-+9$7ÿ%0ÿ"&0(&$ÿ","+&12ÿ?$ÿ'+2!ÿ2!$ÿ34ÿ5"#+1ÿ:(9+8$ÿ5$<")2?$&2ÿH34ÿ
4"?<A1ÿ()ÿ34ÿ6$7+8"9ÿ4$&2$)Iÿ-()ÿ2!$ÿ"%(#$?$&2+(&$7ÿ-"%)+8"2$7ÿ
"88A1"2+(&1ÿ"&7ÿ"99$,"2+(&1ÿ-()ÿ2!$ÿ<$)+(7ÿ-)(?ÿ6")8!ÿ.=ÿ/J..ÿ2(ÿ2!$ÿ
<)$1$&2ÿ2+?$@ÿ
-ÿ1(=ÿ2!$&ÿÿ'(A97ÿ%$ÿ,9"7ÿ2(ÿ!$")ÿ-)(?ÿ2!$ÿ34ÿ5"#+1ÿ:(9+8$ÿ5$<")2?$&2ÿ2!"2ÿ
2!$ÿ"99$,"2+(&1ÿ","+&12ÿ?$ÿ")$ÿ%$+&,ÿ+&#$12+,"2$7=ÿ"&7ÿÿ'+99ÿ%$ÿ,9"7ÿ2(ÿ"&1'$)ÿ
"&0ÿKA$12+(&ÿ)$9"2$7ÿ2(ÿ2!$ÿ8(?<9"+&2@ÿÿ'(A97ÿ%$ÿ,9"7ÿ2(ÿ2"9*ÿ'+2!ÿ2!$ÿ34ÿ
:(9+8$ÿ&#$12+,"2+(&ÿ3&+2L5$2$82+#$1ÿ+&12$"7ÿ(-ÿ8)((*$7ÿBCÿD22()&$01ÿ-)(?ÿ
34564@Mÿ
ÿ
ÿ OPÿOQRSTUVÿWXÿYZ[[=ÿ4"<2"+&ÿ>(A\"ÿ-)(?ÿ2!$ÿ34ÿ5"#+1ÿ:(9+8$ÿ5$<")2?$&2ÿ)$1<(&7$7ÿ2(ÿ
?0ÿ+&KA+)0ÿ7"2$7ÿ;82(%$)ÿ]=ÿ/J..ÿ)$,")7+&,ÿ2!$ÿ"88A1"2+(&1ÿ-"%)+8"2$7ÿ","+&12ÿ?$@ÿ>!$ÿ')(2$^ÿÿ
ÿ
_6ÿ̀aÿbcdd8efÿ
ÿg6ÿ6965ÿÿ6eÿÿ8ÿ65cÿchc69ÿ75ÿ66ÿcÿ7 7ÿ7 7ÿh8ÿ
796aÿ
i6c6ÿ6ÿ96ÿe7ÿÿh8ÿ7665ÿ7hÿ8 6ÿccc76aÿ
j7ÿkh6ÿ4aÿ 8dÿ
ljÿ_gcÿi 6ÿ_6967ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ&(2+8$7ÿ2!"2ÿ4"<2"+&ÿ>(A\"ÿ88m7ÿ!$)ÿ$0?"+9ÿ)$1<(&1$ÿ2(ÿ!$)ÿ1A<$)+()=ÿ34ÿ5"#+1ÿ:(9+8$ÿ4!+$-ÿ
D&&$22$ÿ><+8A\\"=ÿ"&7ÿ34ÿ5"#+1ÿ4!+$-ÿ4(?<9+"&8$ÿ;--+8$)ÿG$&70ÿ5$9?$&7(=ÿ'!(ÿ<")2+8+<"2$7ÿ+&ÿ
'+28!ÿ!A&2ÿ2(ÿ2$)?+&"2$ÿ?0ÿ$?<9(0?$&2@ÿÿ
ÿÿ ;&ÿ2!"2ÿ1"?$ÿ7"0=ÿ+&ÿ)$1<(&1$ÿ2(ÿ4"<2"+&ÿ>(A\"m1ÿ+&-()?"2+(&=ÿÿ)$<9+$7ÿ2(ÿ"&7ÿ2!"&*$7ÿ4"<2"+&ÿ
>(A\"ÿ-()ÿ2!$ÿ+&-()?"2+(&@ÿÿ"91(ÿ8(<+$7ÿ?0ÿ)$1<(&1$ÿ2(ÿ4!+$-ÿ><+8A\\"oÿp2@ÿ:+*$oÿ4!"&8$99()ÿq"2$!+oÿ
34564ÿ4r;ÿD&&ÿ6"77$&ÿC+8$oÿ34ÿBCÿs+8$ÿ:)$1+7$&2ÿ5'"+&ÿ5A8*$22oÿ34ÿ5"#+1ÿ4!+$-ÿ4(?<9+"&8$ÿ
;--+8$)ÿG$&7+ÿ5$9?$&7(oÿ34564ÿ5+)$82()1ÿ6+8!"$9ÿt(07=ÿC(%$)2ÿu"09()=ÿ>!$92(&ÿ5A)A+11$"A=ÿ"&7ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
uvwxÿwz{|ÿ}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿ |ÿ}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ|ÿ~~~ÿÿÿÿÿÿz|ÿ~ÿÿ
!"#$"%ÿ&$'()*!!+ÿ,%-ÿ./ÿ'%0"1!'2,!*3ÿ45'!)$ÿ$6%!"37ÿÿ89:;<=9ÿ?@A=BC<Dÿ5$*ÿ5,1ÿ,11'2%"-ÿ!*ÿ$"3ÿ3*("ÿ
'%ÿ"#!"EF"3ÿGHIHÿ,%-ÿ5,1ÿJ,F3'),!'%2+ÿ!*2"!$"3ÿ5'!$ÿ*!$"31+ÿ-"1#'),F("ÿ,))61,!'*%1ÿ,2,'%1!ÿE"Kÿÿ
ÿ L$"3",J!"3+ÿ,))*3-'%2ÿ!*ÿ'%J*3E,!'*%ÿMÿ3")"'0"-ÿ6%-"3ÿN6F(')ÿ/")*3-1ÿO)!ÿ3"P6"1!1+ÿQ&ÿR,0'1ÿ&$,%)"((*3ÿ
S,!"$'ÿ3"P6"1!"-ÿJ3*EÿT')$*(1ÿ,ÿ)*%J'-"%!',(ÿ3"#*3!ÿ*%ÿE"+ÿ5$')$ÿ1$"ÿ3")"'0"-ÿ'%ÿT*0"EF"3ÿGHIIKÿL$"ÿ"U,)!ÿ
-,!"ÿ*Jÿ!$"ÿ)*%J'-"%!',(ÿ3"#*3!ÿ5,1ÿF(,)V"-ÿ*6!ÿ,%-ÿ3"E*0"-ÿFWÿ!$"ÿQ&ÿR,0'1ÿN6F(')ÿ/")*3-ÿO)!X1ÿ*JJ')"+ÿF6!ÿ'!ÿ
,##",31ÿ!$,!ÿ'!ÿ5,1ÿ1"%!ÿ#3'*3ÿ!*ÿ?BY;Z[;\ÿ]^Dÿ_`]]DÿF"),61"ÿa!Kÿb,!!ÿ&,3E')$,"(+ÿ#3'*3ÿ!*ÿ!$,!ÿ-,!"+ÿ5,1ÿ
-"('F"3,!"(Wÿ-"#(*W"-ÿJ3*Eÿ!$"ÿQ&ÿR,0'1ÿb,'%ÿ&,E#61ÿFWÿN3*0*1!ÿ/,(#$ÿ."U!"3ÿ!*ÿ!$"ÿQ&Rb&ÿ%*!ÿ!*ÿ
#,3!')'#,!"ÿ'%ÿ!$"ÿT*0"EF"3ÿIc+ÿGHIIÿ#"##"3ÿ1#3,Wÿ#3*0*),!'*%ÿ!*ÿ3"E*0"ÿ&$,%)"((*3ÿS,!"$'+ÿ&$'"Jÿ#')6dd,+ÿ
,%-ÿa!KÿN'V"+ÿ5$*ÿF"),E"ÿ!$"ÿ:;eÿf9<ABgÿhB\ÿijÿ89Y@<ÿ,J!"3ÿT*0"EF"3ÿIc+ÿGHGIÿ#,#"3ÿ1#3,Wÿ#3*0*),!'*%+ÿ
J3*Eÿ!$"'3ÿ#*1!1ÿ
41""ÿ$!!#1kll"%K5'V'#"-',K*32l5'V'lQ&R,0'1#"##"31#3,W'%)'-"%!7Kÿ
ÿ
ÿ L$"ÿE,'%ÿ3",1*%ÿJ*3ÿ-"#(*W'%2ÿa!Kÿ&,3E')$,"(ÿ!*ÿQ&Rb&ÿ5,1ÿ!*ÿ2"!ÿ$'Eÿ*6!ÿJ3*Eÿ!$"ÿ1#*!('2$!ÿ*Jÿ!$"ÿ
#"##"3ÿ1#3,Wÿ,!!,)Vÿ,2,'%1!ÿ#3*!"1!'%2ÿ1!6-"%!1ÿ*%ÿ!$"ÿQ&ÿR,0'1ÿ),E#61Kÿ
ÿ ÿ
&$,%)"((*3ÿS,!"$'ÿ5,1ÿ%"5ÿ!*ÿQ&ÿR,0'1+ÿF6!ÿ1$"ÿ5,1ÿ,%ÿ"(")!3'),(ÿ"%2'%""3ÿ5$*ÿV%"5ÿ5$,!ÿ
"(")!3*%1+ÿmO/ +ÿ,%-ÿbn1ÿ5"3"KÿM%ÿ5*6(-ÿ$,0"ÿF""%ÿ6%J*3!6%,!"ÿJ*3ÿ!$"ÿQ&oNÿ)3*5-ÿ'Jÿ!$"ÿ0"3Wÿ
F61'%"110ÿ,%-ÿE*%"W0*3'"%!"-ÿ&$,%)"((*3ÿS,!"$'ÿ$,-ÿJ*6%-ÿ*6!ÿ!$,!ÿ!$"ÿQ&Rb&X1ÿG30bnÿ
)*2"%"3,!'*%ÿ#(,%!ÿ$,-ÿ1#,3"ÿ),#,)'!Wÿ-63'%2ÿ!$"ÿ#",Vÿ$*631+ÿ,3*6%-ÿIGÿbn+ÿ,%-ÿ-63'%2ÿ*JJ0#",Vÿ$*631ÿ
F"!5""%ÿIpqI3ÿbn+ÿ,%-ÿ5$')$+ÿ1'%)"ÿT*0"EF"3ÿGHHc+ÿ$,-ÿ%*!ÿF""%ÿ1*(-ÿ*3ÿ!3,%1E'!!"-ÿ!*ÿ!$"ÿQ&ÿ
R,0'1ÿb,'%ÿ),E#61+ÿ5$"3"ÿ!$"ÿ-"E,%-ÿJ*3ÿ"(")!3')'!Wÿ'1ÿ*0"3ÿIHHÿbn$KÿL$"ÿQ&ÿR,0'1ÿb,'%ÿ&,E#61ÿ
$,1ÿ,ÿ)*2"%"3,!'*%ÿ#(,%!+ÿF6!ÿ$,1ÿ!*ÿF6Wÿ,((ÿ*Jÿ'!1ÿ#*5"3+ÿ#,W'%2ÿE'(('*%1ÿ*Jÿ-*((,31KÿL5"%!WÿE'("1ÿ,5,W+ÿ
!$"3"ÿ5,1ÿ,ÿ)*2"%"3,!'*%ÿ#(,%!ÿ!$,!ÿ)*6(-ÿ%*!ÿF"ÿ61"-ÿ,1ÿ-"1'2%"-+ÿ,%-ÿ!$"ÿ6%'0"31'!Wÿ5,1ÿ(*1'%2ÿE'(('*%1ÿ
*Jÿ-*((,31ÿ*%ÿ'!ÿ"0"3WÿW",3Kÿÿ
L$"ÿQ&oNX1ÿ5$'!"ÿ)*((,3ÿ)3'E'%,(1+ÿ"1#")',((WÿQ&ÿ"%'*3ÿm')"ÿN3"1'-"%!ÿR,%ÿR**("W+ÿ5"3"ÿ
)*%%")!"-ÿ5'!$ÿ!$"ÿ2*0"3%E"%!+ÿ,%-ÿQ&ÿr"%"3,(ÿ&*6%1"(ÿ&$,3("1ÿ/*F'%1*%ÿ,%-ÿQ&ÿ/"2"%!ÿ/')$,3-ÿ
s(6Eÿ-'-ÿ%*!ÿ5,%!ÿ!*ÿ1""ÿ,%Wÿ'%0"1!'2,!'*%ÿ'%!*ÿ!$"ÿQ&Rb&ÿN(,%!ÿo#"3,!'*%ÿR"#,3!E"%!ÿ4Notb7+ÿ
0ÿ23ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
vwxyÿx{|}ÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ{}ÿÿÿ
!!"#$ÿ%&'&ÿ'"(!)ÿ*+ÿ+,-!.ÿ&,/+ÿ0+'"/+0+)ÿ#ÿ"#+ÿ"0ÿ1%"ÿ"#1&-ÿ2ÿ1&+ÿ345647-ÿ8906:ÿ
'";+#+0,1"#ÿ&,)ÿ0+-(+)ÿ1&+ÿ!!+;,!ÿ1,<020++ÿ-,!+ÿ"2ÿ="%+0ÿ,21+0ÿ1&+ÿ>"/+*+0ÿ?@$ÿ8A??ÿ=+==+0ÿ-=0,.ÿ
,--,(!1ÿ,#)ÿ!!ÿ'0,21+)ÿ=0"/"',1"#BÿC1ÿ'"(!)ÿ&,/+ÿ'"-1ÿ,ÿ!"1ÿ"0+ÿ2ÿ-"+1&#;ÿ&,)ÿ;"#+ÿ%0"#;ÿ,#)ÿ
345D5ÿ"22'+0-ÿ&,)ÿ*++#ÿ,11,'E+)ÿ*.ÿ=0"1+-1+0-ÿ#ÿ)+2+#-+ÿ"2ÿ1&+ÿ=+==+0ÿ-=0,.+)ÿ-1()+#1-Bÿÿ
:&,1ÿ',(;&1ÿ.ÿ,11+#1"#ÿ#ÿ2"0+0ÿF(=0++ÿ4"(01ÿG(-1'+ÿ2"0ÿ&0+ÿHI+.#"-7-ÿJ,-EÿK"0'+ÿ
I+="01ÿHÿ%,-ÿ1&+ÿ!,'Eÿ"2ÿG,#+1ÿ>,="!1,#"7-ÿ20+#)ÿG"&#ÿL"&-+7-ÿ#,+BÿL"&-+ÿ%,-ÿ0+'0(1+)ÿ#ÿ8AAMÿ
*.ÿ1&+ÿ34NDÿ"*ÿ,#)ÿ%,-ÿ,ÿ/+0.ÿ-E!!+)$ÿ+<=+0+#'+)ÿ2"0+0ÿKOCÿ,;+#1ÿ,#)ÿ+=!".++BÿP+ÿ%"(!)ÿ
"-1ÿ!E+!.ÿ&,/+ÿ2;(0+)ÿ"(1ÿ0;&1ÿ,%,.ÿ1&,1ÿ-"+1&#;ÿ%,-ÿ%0"#;ÿ%1&ÿI+.#"-7-ÿ"0ÿQ0"!!7-ÿ
#/+-1;,1"#-$ÿ"0ÿ&+ÿ%,-ÿ1&+ÿ"#+ÿ%&"ÿ%,-ÿ"/+0-++#;ÿ%&"!+ÿ=+==+0ÿ-=0,.ÿ=0"/"',1"#Bÿÿ
ÿ
C#ÿ.ÿ6,0'&ÿ8R$ÿ8A?SÿT==!',1"#ÿ2"0ÿT%,0)ÿ2"0ÿN0;#,!ÿC#2"0,1"#ÿUCIFÿK"0ÿ8??Vÿ4!,ÿ
>"Bÿ8A?S0AA9M@?$ÿCÿ-1,1+)Wÿÿ
HJ&+0+ÿ%,-ÿ#"ÿ#++)+)ÿ1"ÿ*+ÿ,ÿ2"0+0ÿD0"2+--"0ÿX+01(-$ÿF'&""!ÿ"2ÿL,%$ÿ34ÿ
5,/-$ÿ,#)ÿK"0+0ÿT--"',1+ÿG(-1'+$ÿ4,!2"0#,ÿF(=0++ÿ4"(01ÿYZ[\ÿ
^_`abcb$ÿD0"2+--"0$ÿF'&""!ÿ"2ÿL,%$ÿ34ÿ5,/-ÿT!,#ÿO0"%#-1+#ÿ"0ÿF+#"0ÿ
d'+ÿD0+-)+#1$ÿX<1+0#,!ÿI+!,1"#-$ÿ34ÿN22'+ÿ"2ÿ1&+ÿD0+-)+#1ÿ,#)ÿ5+-;#,1+)ÿ
F.-1+0%)+ÿT) #-10,1"0ÿ2"0ÿ:&-1!+*!"%+0ÿ4"=!,#1ÿefaÿebbg_.ÿ1"ÿ
2;(0+ÿ"(1ÿ1&,1ÿ-"+1&#;ÿ%,-ÿ%0"#;ÿ%1&ÿ1&+ÿ#,1"#,!ÿ+),7-ÿ=(*!'1.ÿ"2ÿL1ÿ
G"&#ÿDE+7-ÿ,'1"#ÿ*.ÿ="010,.#;ÿ&ÿ,-ÿ,ÿ%,!E#;ÿ=0,ÿ)"##,ÿ%1&ÿ1&+ÿ',#ÿ"2ÿ
602ÿ=+==+0ÿ-=0,.ÿ,#)ÿ-=0,.#;ÿ=0"1+-1+0-ÿ%1&"(1ÿ,#.ÿ&+-1,1"#BÿC1ÿ!""E+)ÿ"#ÿ
/)+"ÿ1&,1ÿL1BÿDE+ÿ%,-ÿ)"#;ÿ1ÿ%1&ÿh".ÿ,#)ÿ=!+,-(0+Bÿ
P"%+/+0$ÿ34ÿ5,/-ÿD"!'+ÿ5+=,01+#1ÿijkÿlbmaÿnop_ÿqoqÿabjÿcrZf`ÿ
rZbj_cj_Zcÿsojmÿtb`ÿfaqÿrg_fc[Z_kÿT''"0)#;ÿ1"ÿ1&+ÿQ0"!!ÿI+="01ÿ,0E+)ÿ
4"#2)+#1,!u5"ÿ>"1ÿ5-10*(1+$ÿ"#ÿ1&+ÿ0+!+/,#1ÿK0),.ÿ"0##;$ÿ>"/+*+0ÿ
?@$ÿL+(1+#,#1ÿDE+ÿ,#)ÿN22'+0ÿDÿ'"#1,'1+)ÿ4,=(-ÿ4"(#-+!ÿF%++#+.ÿ,#)ÿ
)-'(--+)ÿ1&+0ÿ'"#'+0#-ÿ%1&ÿ&BÿF%++#+.ÿ1"!)ÿ1&+ÿ&+ÿ%"(!)ÿ;+1ÿ*,'Eÿ1"ÿ
1&+$ÿ,#)ÿ,1ÿ,0"(#)ÿ?WAAÿ=BB$ÿ,ÿ'"#2+0+#'+ÿ',!!ÿ%,-ÿ'"#)('1+)ÿ#ÿ4&+2ÿ
F='(vv,w-ÿ"22'+ÿ%1&ÿDE+$ÿN22'+0ÿDBÿF%++#+.ÿ,#)ÿF1+/+#ÿ50"%#BÿO"1&ÿ
N22'+0ÿDBÿ,#)ÿDE+ÿx&,)ÿ-+/+0,!ÿy(+-1"#-ÿ,*"(1ÿ1&+ÿ!+;,!1.ÿ"2ÿ'"#)('1#;ÿ,ÿ
=!,##+)ÿ"=+0,1"#ÿ)(0#;ÿ1&+ÿ ))!+ÿ"2ÿ1&+ÿ,21+0#""#ÿ/+0-(-ÿ1&+ÿ+,0!.ÿ"0##;ÿ
0ÿ22ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
_`abÿadefÿghijklimÿÿÿÿÿÿnopqrfstÿgkuvhkilÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿwxyfz{ÿiu|i}|hihhÿÿÿÿÿÿ~dfÿk}}ÿoÿ
!"#$%ÿ&'()*$ÿ+)$,#'-.'!/ÿ!0ÿ.)ÿ$"1$)2")/.ÿ+'$,"$$'!/ÿ!/ÿ.)ÿ,!/0)#)/,)ÿ,344ÿ
53$ÿ#)+3,.)+6ÿ3--3#)/.47ÿ+")ÿ.!ÿ3..!#/)70,4')/.ÿ-#'8'4)9)%ÿ
:"#.)#;!#)6ÿ.)ÿ$3;)ÿ<#!44ÿ=)-!#.ÿ$.3.)$ÿ.3.ÿ> ')0ÿ?//)..)ÿ@-',"AA3ÿ53$ÿ.)ÿ
#)-#)$)/.3.'8)ÿ!0ÿB>C&Cÿ!/ÿ.)ÿD)3+)#$'-ÿE)3;ÿ3/+ÿ,!;;"/',3.)+ÿ)#ÿ
"/+)#$.3/+'/9ÿ!0ÿ.)ÿ9"'+3/,)ÿ0#!;ÿ.)ÿD)3+)#$'-ÿE)3;ÿ.!ÿD')".)/3/.ÿ&'()ÿ
3/+ÿF00',)#ÿ&%6ÿ'/,4"+'/9ÿ.3.ÿ.)ÿ!-)#3.'!/ÿ53$ÿ/!.ÿ.!ÿ1)ÿG4'()ÿH)#()4)7Gÿ3/+ÿ
53$ÿ.!ÿ1)ÿ,!/+",.)+ÿ!/ÿ:#'+37ÿ30.)#/!!/%*ÿI )/ÿ)#ÿD')".)/3/.$ÿ2")$.'!/)+ÿ
.)ÿ4)934ÿ13$'$ÿ0!#ÿ.)ÿ!-)#3.'!/6ÿ$)ÿJ!'/)+ÿ.);ÿ0!#ÿ3ÿ,344ÿ5'.ÿ>3;-"$ÿ
>!"/$)4ÿ@.)8)/ÿC#!5/%ÿI )/ÿ)#ÿD')".)/3/.$ÿ,344)+ÿ.)ÿKÿ-%;%ÿ-)#'!+ÿ3ÿG13+ÿ
'+)36Gÿ$)ÿ.!4+ÿ.);ÿ.3.ÿ.'$ÿ+'#),.'!/ÿ,3;)ÿ+'#),.47ÿ0#!;ÿ.)ÿ> 3/,)44!#*$ÿ
!00',)%ÿ?.ÿB>C&Cÿ)3+2"3#.)#$6ÿ+"#'/9ÿ.)ÿLMÿ!"#$ÿ4)3+'/9ÿ"-ÿ.!ÿ.)ÿ-!4',)ÿ
!-)#3.'!/ÿ!/ÿN!8);1)#ÿ2O6ÿ.)ÿ4)934ÿ13$'$ÿ0!#ÿ.)ÿ!-)#3.'!/6ÿ.)ÿ.';'/9ÿ!0ÿ.)ÿ
!-)#3.'!/6ÿ3/+ÿ.)ÿ"$)ÿ!0ÿ0!#,)ÿ!-.'!/$ÿ5)#)ÿ2")$.'!/)+ÿ17ÿD')".)/3/.ÿ&'()6ÿ
F00',)#ÿ&%6ÿ3/+ÿ!.)#ÿ!00',)#$%ÿ
B>ÿC38'$ÿ> ')0ÿ>!"/$)4ÿ@.)8)/ÿC#!5/ÿ'$ÿ$3;)ÿ-)#$!/ÿ5 !ÿ!#,)$.#3.)+ÿ
.!9).)#ÿ5'.ÿ'$ÿ,!44)39")ÿB>CP>ÿQ=ÿC'#),.!#ÿ@.)8)/ÿ> '4,!..ÿ17ÿ.)ÿB>ÿ
=)9)/.$ÿ!#ÿB>ÿR)/)#34ÿ>!"/$)4ÿS3..!#/)7Tÿ5'.,ÿ"/.ÿ393'/$.ÿ;)ÿ3/+ÿ;7ÿ
,!5!#()#$ÿ'/ÿL33Uÿ3/+ÿ!.)#ÿ-)#$!//)4ÿ3/+ÿ43.)#ÿ393'/ÿ'/ÿL322ÿ-#'!#ÿ3/+ÿ30.)#ÿ
-)--)#ÿ$-#37ÿ-#!8!,3.'!/%ÿVÿ38)ÿ/!ÿ3/7ÿ+!"1.ÿ.3.ÿB>ÿ> ')0ÿ@.)8)/ÿC#!5/ÿ!/ÿ
1)340ÿ!0ÿ> 3/,)44!#ÿ<3.)'ÿ3/+ÿB>ÿW',)ÿ> 3/,)44!#ÿQ)X.)#ÿ;3+)ÿ.)ÿ8)#134ÿ
3$$"#3/,)ÿ!#ÿ,4)3#ÿ$"99)$.'!/ÿ0!#ÿD.%ÿ&'()ÿ3/+ÿ> ')0ÿ@-',"AA3ÿ.3.ÿ.)7ÿ3#)ÿ5)44ÿ
-#!.),.)+ÿ3/+ÿ.)7ÿ38)ÿ.!ÿ9!ÿ5'.ÿ.)ÿ-43/ÿ3$ÿ!#+)#)+ÿ17ÿ> 3/,)44!#ÿ<3.)'%ÿÿ
B>ÿC38'$ÿ> ')0ÿ>!"/$)4ÿ@.)8)/ÿC#!5/ÿ53$ÿ.)ÿ-)#$!/ÿ5 !ÿ$'9/)+ÿ.)ÿ
@)..4);)/.ÿ?9#));)/.ÿ!/ÿ.)ÿ=)9)/.$ÿ!0ÿB/'8)#$'.7ÿ!0ÿ>34'0!#/'3Y$ÿ1)340ÿ'/ÿ
:)1#"3#7ÿL33Zÿ3/+ÿ.#))ÿ7)3#$ÿ!/ÿP37ÿK26ÿL32Lÿ'/ÿ3/ÿ'440,#30.)+ÿ1".ÿ
"/$",,)$$0"4ÿ-#!8!,3.'!/ÿ34;!$.ÿ9!.ÿ;)ÿ('44)+ÿ17ÿ.5!ÿ,!##"-.)+ÿB>ÿC38'$ÿ
,!-$6ÿ/)5ÿ> ')0ÿP3..ÿ>3#;',3)4ÿ3/+ÿD.%ÿ[3;)$ÿH3#1!"#6ÿ5 !ÿ5)#)ÿ5 !ÿ
#)-43,)+ÿ17ÿ> ')0ÿ?//)..)ÿ@-',"AA3ÿ3/+ÿD.%ÿ[!/ÿ&'()ÿ30.)#ÿ$)..'/9ÿ.);ÿ0!#ÿ
-)--)#ÿ$-#37ÿ3,.'!/ÿ393'/$.ÿ-#!.)$.)#$ÿ!/ÿN!8);1)#ÿ2O6ÿL322%ÿÿ
:!#ÿ'$ÿ)00!#.ÿ.!ÿ#);!8)ÿ> ')0ÿ@-',"AA3ÿ3/+ÿD.%ÿ&'()6ÿ.)ÿB>ÿC38'$ÿ> ')0ÿ
>!"/$)4ÿ@.)8)/ÿC#!5/ÿ53$ÿ353#+)+ÿ17ÿ#)9)/.$ÿ3ÿL2%Z\ÿ-37ÿ#3'$)ÿ)00),.'8)ÿ
C),);1)#ÿ26ÿL322%ÿE )ÿB>ÿC38'$ÿW',)ÿ> 3/,)44!#ÿ=34-ÿQ)X.)#ÿ53$ÿ353#+)+ÿ
]22K6Z2^ÿ)X.#3ÿ-37ÿ0!#ÿ7)3#ÿL322%ÿE )ÿB>ÿH!3#+ÿ!0ÿ=)9)/.$ÿ353#+)+ÿ.)ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢¡
!"#$#%ÿ$&&$'(")$ÿ*$'+ÿ2%ÿ,32,ÿ-."/0ÿ12($#(#ÿ!/-ÿ(.32"4ÿ"/ÿ56ÿ'!31.#$#ÿ7"(8ÿ
2/49ÿ:$0$/(ÿ;--"$ÿ<#4!/-ÿ)2("/0ÿ"/ÿ2112#"("2/+=ÿÿ
ÿ
>82(49ÿ!&($ÿ<ÿ#$/(ÿ39ÿ?@114"'!("2/ÿ&2ÿ@7!-ÿ"/ÿA!'8ÿ,32B=ÿ(2ÿ(8$ÿ<:>%ÿ56ÿC$#"-$/(ÿD!/$(ÿ
E!124"(!/2ÿ"/($/#"&"$-ÿ!/-ÿ$#'!4!($-ÿ(8$ÿ!4$!-9ÿ2/02"/0ÿ7"('8ÿ8./(ÿ!/-ÿ?F4"(GH"$0=ÿ!0!"/#(ÿ
68!/'$442ÿI"/-!ÿJ!($8"+ÿE!124"(!/2ÿ7!#ÿ&"/"#8"/0ÿ(8$ÿK2Fÿ2&ÿE2)$3F$ÿ2L%ÿ,322ÿ.#"/0ÿ8$ÿ(72ÿ&"$/-#%ÿ
&23$ÿ5+>+ÿ@((2/$9#ÿA$4"/-!ÿM!!0ÿ!/-ÿA'N $02ÿ>'2((%ÿ$31429$-ÿF9ÿO "'H%ÿM$ "/0(2/ÿPÿ
>.('4"&&$%ÿ!ÿ>!/ÿQ!/'"#'2ÿ4!7ÿ&"3+ÿR8$ÿ#$'2/-ÿ7"('8ÿ8./(ÿ!0!"/#(ÿJ!($8"ÿ!/-ÿ8$ÿ&!3"49ÿ3$3F$#ÿ
$31429$-ÿ!(ÿ56ÿ*!)"#ÿ#(!($-ÿ#23$("3$ÿ"/ÿQ$F.!9ÿ,32Bÿ!/-ÿ$/-$-ÿ2/49ÿ1!("!449ÿ#.''$##&.449%ÿ!(ÿ!ÿ
'2#(ÿ2&ÿS2ÿ3"44"2/ÿ&23ÿ1.F4"'ÿ&./-#%ÿ"/ÿ@.0.#(ÿ,32B+ÿR8$ÿ7"('8ÿ8./(ÿ$#.4($-ÿ"/ÿJ!($8"T#ÿ$#"0/!("2/ÿ
!/-ÿ-$#"0/!("2/ÿ!#ÿ68!/'$442ÿ;3$"(!ÿ!/-ÿ8$ÿ($!'8"/0ÿ2/$ÿ'4!##ÿ!(ÿ56ÿ*!)"#+ÿÿ
ÿ
UUVWWWXÿ ÿ
Z[\ÿ^\_`abÿcWZ_[ÿ[daZÿeÿfgadghiÿjklÿmnkmÿd_`oÿpgqWgÿoh`V`_gZW`aÿZ`ÿ
rWssÿ̀hÿ[ghpÿpiÿo^i_[`s`tW^ZÿÿqhgarsWaÿ̀Xÿu\ha[`qZÿovXbÿ
ÿ
`wÿbxyxz{x|ÿk}lÿmnkklÿ39ÿ1#9'82420"#(ÿ* +ÿ~$/82&(ÿC8+*+%ÿ#$/(ÿ!/ÿ"/&23!("2/!4ÿ4$(($ÿ(2ÿ
I"F$(9ÿ@##.!/'$ÿ6231!/9ÿ2&ÿ~2#(2/%ÿ#(!("/0ÿ(8!(ÿ39ÿ3$/(!4ÿ8$!4(8ÿ#"0/"&"'!/(49ÿ-$($"2!($-ÿ-.$ÿ
(2ÿ(8$ÿ#"(.!("2/ÿ7"(8ÿC$("("2/$T#ÿ$314293$/(ÿ!/-ÿ-$/"!4ÿF9ÿI"F$(9T#ÿ>82(0R$3ÿ*"#!F"4"(9ÿ
~$/$&"(#+ÿÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
3456ÿ589:ÿ;<=>?@=AÿÿÿÿÿÿBCDEF:GHÿ;?IJ<?=@ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿKLM:NOÿ=IP=QP<=<<ÿÿÿÿÿÿR8S:ÿ?QAÿCTÿUVU
ÿ
!"#$%&'$ÿ)*ÿ+,"$-./0ÿ1-*2ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
_`abÿadefÿghijklimÿÿÿÿÿÿnopqrfstÿgkuvhkilÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿwxyfz{ÿiu|i}|hihhÿÿÿÿÿÿ~dfÿk}ÿoÿ
ÿ
!"#ÿ$"%&'()&ÿ*+"&,-./ÿ%&0ÿ,)1ÿ.%2)(3ÿ"+1)0+ÿ)&ÿ)&ÿ4-0)5ÿ6%().-"&)%5ÿ)&ÿ7%&ÿ8-%9:)&ÿ6-:&/3ÿ;,+"+ÿÿ()<+0ÿ
;)/,ÿ,)1ÿ.%2)(3ÿ1)&=+ÿ2>?>#ÿ
!"#ÿ$"%&'()&ÿ*+"&,-./5ÿ%1ÿ%ÿ@13=,-(-A)1/5ÿ;%1ÿ&-/ÿ-&(3ÿ,+(@)&Aÿ2+ÿÿ)&ÿB3220B32Bÿ/-ÿ=-@+ÿ;)/,ÿ+&-"2-:1ÿ
1/"+11ÿ%&0ÿ%&C)+/3ÿ=%:1+0ÿD3ÿ/,+ÿE6FGÿA%&A1/+"1ÿ%&0ÿ/,+)"ÿ/,:A1ÿ."-2ÿE6ÿ!%<)1ÿ%&0ÿE6ÿ!%<)1ÿH+0)=%(ÿ
6+&/+"ÿIE6!H6J5ÿD:/ÿ!"#ÿ*+"&,-./ÿ;%1ÿ%(1-ÿ)&/+&1)<+(3ÿ)&<-(<+0ÿ)&ÿÿ7,-"/ÿK+"2ÿ!)1%D)()/3ÿI7K!Jÿ
=(%)2ÿ0)1@:/+ÿ;)/,ÿ/,+ÿ4)D+"/3ÿL11:"%&=+ÿ6-2@%&3ÿ-.ÿ*-1/-&ÿ;,)=,ÿ;%1ÿ0+&)+0ÿ)&ÿ!+=+2D+"ÿB32Bÿÿ
0:+ÿ/-ÿ=-&1@)"%=3ÿ-.ÿ4)D+"/3ÿL11:"%&=+ÿ6-2@%&3ÿ-.ÿ*-1/-&ÿ;)/,ÿE6FGÿ2-Dÿ/,%&ÿ+)A,/ÿ3+%"1ÿ(%/+"ÿ)&ÿ
H%"=,ÿÿB32>ÿ"+1:".%=+0ÿ%1ÿÿ%ÿ:&=(%)2+0ÿ@"-@+"/3ÿ)&ÿÿ/,+ÿMNONPÿRSÿTOUVSRWXVOÿTRXNWRUUPWÿRSSVYPÿ#ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿK,+ÿ7K!ÿ;%1ÿ%02)&)1/"%/+0ÿD3ÿ/,+ÿE6FGÿ0:")&Aÿÿ/,+ÿ/,+"%@3ÿ1+11)-&1ÿ;)/,ÿ!"#ÿ*+"&,-./ÿ)&ÿ/,+ÿ@+")-0ÿ
-.ÿ/)2+ÿ."-2ÿL:A:1/ÿB322ÿ/-ÿ!+=+2D+"ÿB322#ÿÿZÿÿÿ@"-<)0+0ÿ%ÿ(-/ÿ-.ÿ)&.-"2%/)-&ÿ/-ÿ!"#ÿ$"%&'()&ÿ*+"&,-./ÿ
%D-:/ÿ,)1ÿÿ@(%=+ÿ-.ÿ+2@(-32+&/ÿ)&ÿ/,+ÿE6ÿ!%<)1ÿH+0)=%(ÿ6+&/+"#ÿK,+ÿ)&.-"2%/)-&ÿ)&=(:0+0ÿ=-"":@/)-&ÿ
%2-&AÿE6!H6ÿ2%&%A+2+&/ÿ%&0ÿ%02)&)1/"%/)<+ÿ%D:1+ÿ-.ÿ@-;+"5ÿ<)=)-:1ÿ2%&%A+2+&/ÿ"+/%()%/)-&1ÿ
%A%)&1/ÿ+2@(-3++15ÿ%&0ÿ<)-(%/)-&1ÿ-.ÿ+2@(-3++1[ÿ=)<)(ÿ%&0ÿ,:2%&ÿ")A,/1#ÿZÿ@"-<)0+0ÿ!"#ÿ*+"&,-./ÿ;)/,ÿ
=-@)+1ÿ-.ÿ2:(/)@(+ÿ=-""+1@-&0+&=+1\=-2@(%)&/15ÿ;,)=,ÿ)&=(:0+0ÿ=-""+1@-&0+&=+1\=-2@(%)&/1ÿ1:D2)//+0ÿ
D3ÿ]%1^=^:'ÿ/-ÿ/,+ÿE6ÿ!%<)1ÿ6,%&=+((-"ÿ%&0ÿ/,+ÿE6ÿG"+1)0+&/[1ÿ-..)=+#ÿ!"#ÿ*+"&,-./ÿ@"-<)0+0ÿ1-2+ÿ
-.ÿ/,)1ÿ)&.-"2%/)-&ÿ/-ÿ/,+ÿ4)D+"/3ÿL11:"%&=+ÿ6-2@%&3ÿ-.ÿ*-1/-&ÿ=(%)21ÿ"+<)+;+"15ÿ;,)=,ÿ;+"+ÿ
,%&0()&Aÿ23ÿÿ7,-"/ÿK+"2ÿ!)1%D)()/3ÿ%&0ÿ=-&1@)"+0ÿ;)/,ÿE6FGÿ(%;3+"1ÿÿ/-ÿ0+1/"-3ÿ23ÿ%&0ÿ/,+ÿ!"#ÿ
*+"&,-./[ÿ1ÿ.%2)(3ÿ().+#ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ¡¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿ£¤¥¦§¨©ÿ ª« ¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¬®¯°ÿª±²±ÿÿÿÿÿÿ³´ÿ²ªÿ¤µÿ¶·¶
!"ÿ$%&'()'*ÿ+,ÿ-./-,ÿÿ0ÿÿÿ1234526ÿ7489ÿ:;2ÿ18<31ÿ52=>?3?24ÿ@ABÿDEFGÿHBIJKLBMNGMBOÿPQR86Sÿ63Tÿ<342ÿ
?48US624ÿV848:;TÿW245;87:ÿXSU2>ÿY?ÿ1S<25>2Zÿ[Tÿ>:37724ÿ\3:S2ÿ]21>85^ÿ:;3:ÿS5U2>:SX3:84>ÿ7489ÿ:;2ÿ
V2?34:925:ÿ87ÿ_8<S31ÿ_24US<2>ÿ̀"ÿa)"()'*ÿ+/,ÿ-./-ÿÿÿ356ÿR86Sÿb81S<2ÿ43S626ÿÿÿW245;87:c>ÿÿ;8Y>2ÿ85ÿ
:;2ÿde33ÿ[18<fÿ87ÿg88613f2ÿhS4<12ÿ37:24ÿ>892852ÿ<89?13S526ÿW245;87:ÿ=3>ÿ58:ÿ?48?241Tÿ:3fS5Xÿ<342ÿ
87ÿ:;2ÿ<;S16425ÿS5ÿ;24ÿ<342iÿ
ÿ
ÿj;2ÿ3<<Y>3:S85>ÿ356ÿ3112X3:S85>ÿ=242ÿ>24S8Y>ÿ356ÿU24Tÿ6S>:Y4[S5Xiÿÿ
;::?kll===i186S52=>i<89l52=>l34:S<12232me2nd042m[022220m7d[0332m[[dmoe74i;:91ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿp%'q%r')r`'s,ÿp)'rtutq)"rs,ÿ)"vÿw`xx)&`')r`'sÿÿ
ÿ
yÿ{)"t%xÿ|`''tsÿ{``x%*kÿ}h~bÿ>25S84ÿUS<2ÿ?42>S625:ÿ}h~bÿ937S3ÿ<;S27ÿY5:S1ÿ~<:8[24ÿd324iÿ
\2Tÿ62<S>S85ÿ93f24ÿ?24?2:43:84ÿ356ÿ<8846S53:84ÿS5ÿ:;2ÿ3::3<f>ÿ3X3S5>:ÿ92ÿS5ÿd322d324ÿ356ÿ
3::3<f>ÿ3S926ÿ3:ÿÿ}hÿV3US>ÿÿh;35<21184ÿRS563ÿ\3:2;Sÿ85ÿ]8U29[24ÿ2nÿd322iÿÿ
ÿ
yÿ{t)")ÿ{``x%*kÿV35S21ÿV8812Tc>ÿ=S72ÿf2Tÿ?24?2:43:84iÿ~5ÿV35S21ÿV8812Tc>ÿÿ356ÿ:;2ÿ}h~bÿ
98[c>ÿÿ[2;317ÿ>;2ÿ8462426ÿ356ÿ>2:ÿY?ÿ:;2ÿ<857485:3:S85ÿ85ÿ35Y34Tÿe2ÿd322ÿ:8ÿ?48U8f2ÿ356ÿ
fS11ÿR86Sÿ?>T<;818XS>:ÿV4iÿ435f1S5ÿ~iÿW245;87:iÿj;2ÿ3::3<fÿ62>:48T26ÿW245;87:c>ÿ739S1Tÿ356ÿ
1S72iÿÿ
489ÿ2m4ÿ:8ÿ2mÿ{t)")ÿ{``x%*ÿ=84f26ÿ3>ÿ35ÿ3531T>:ÿ3:ÿ:;2ÿ_:3:2ÿb24>85521ÿW8346iÿ_:34:S5XÿS5ÿ2mÿ
>;2ÿ=84f26ÿ3>ÿ12XS>13:SU2ÿ6S42<:84ÿ356ÿ>?2<S31ÿ3>>S>:35:ÿ6Y4S5Xÿ8U24584ÿ244TÿW48=5c>ÿPV^ÿ7S4>:ÿ:249ÿ
P2m2mne^iÿ
ÿ
"ÿ-.//ÿ{t)")ÿ{``x%*ÿ[2<392ÿ>2<42:34Tÿ87ÿ:;2ÿw)xt`'"t)ÿ%)xrÿ)"vÿ()"ÿ%'tu%sÿ%"u*iÿÿ
_;2ÿ=3>ÿ3ÿV298<43:S<ÿ?81S:S<31ÿ36US>84ÿ=84fS5XÿS5ÿ:;2ÿ_:3:2ÿ87ÿh31S7845S3iÿ_;2ÿÿ=3>ÿ:;2ÿ22<Y:SU2ÿ
>2<42:34Tÿ3ÿ4812ÿ<89?343[12ÿ:8ÿ<;S27ÿ87ÿ>:377ÿ784ÿ8U24584ÿ244TÿW48=5iÿ_;2ÿ=3>ÿ3??8S5:26ÿ:8ÿ:;2ÿ
?8>S:S85ÿ85ÿ3Tÿe2ÿd32niÿÿ
ÿ
yÿtxxÿtr&`('"%kÿVS42<:84ÿ87ÿ:;2ÿh31S7845S3ÿV2?34:925:ÿ87ÿ_8<S31ÿ_24US<2>ÿf2Tÿ?24?2:43:84iÿ
~5ÿ35Y34Tÿe2ÿd32dÿ[3>26ÿ85ÿVS353ÿV8812Tc>ÿ84624>ÿRSX;:[8Y452ÿ<8846S53:26ÿU25X235<2ÿ
356ÿ?48U8<3:S85ÿ3X3S5>:ÿ?>T<;818XS>:ÿV4iÿW245;87:iÿRSX;:[8Y452ÿ=25:ÿ:8ÿV4iÿW245;87:c>ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡ÿÿ¢ÿ£¤£
!"#$%"&'"ÿ$&ÿ()%$ÿ*)ÿ+$,,ÿ)!ÿ-.!/ÿ0!1ÿ2"!&-)3*ÿ.&%ÿ-$#ÿ4$3"5ÿ0)!)*-6ÿ2"!&-)3*1ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ7&ÿ89!$,ÿ:3225ÿ;.,$3)!&$.ÿ<".,*-ÿ.&%ÿ<=/.&ÿ>"!?$'"#ÿ>"'!"*.!6ÿ0$.&.ÿ0)),"6ÿ&./"%ÿABCDEFGHIJKÿ
%$!"'*)!ÿ)3ÿ*-"ÿ;.,$3)!&$.ÿ0"9.!*/"&*ÿ)3ÿ>)'$.,ÿ>"!?$'"#1ÿ($L-*M)=!&"ÿ#"!?"%ÿ$&ÿ*-$#ÿ&"4ÿ9)#*ÿ*-!)=L-ÿ
.&ÿ$&*"!.L"&'6ÿ.L!""/"&*ÿM"*4""&ÿ*-"ÿ;)=&*6ÿ)3ÿ>.&*.ÿ;,.!.ÿ.&%ÿ*-"ÿ>*.*"ÿ)3ÿ;.,$3)!&$.1ÿ
>$&'"ÿ:3335ÿABCDEFGHIJKÿ-.#ÿ#"!?"%ÿ.#ÿ.L"&'6ÿ%$!"'*)!ÿ)3ÿ>.&*.ÿ;,.!.ÿ;)=&*6ÿ>)'$.,ÿ>"!?$'"#1ÿ
ÿ
NÿPBQDRKSÿTKUEGJVÿ0"9=*6ÿ%$!"'*)!ÿ)3ÿ;.,$3)!&$.ÿ<".,*-ÿ.&%ÿ<=/.&ÿ>"!?$'"#ÿ#"'!"*.!6ÿ#$&'"ÿ
W"M!=.!6ÿ:32:Xÿ+"6ÿ9"!9"*!.*)!1ÿY"#*)&ÿ'),,.M)!.*"%ÿ*)ÿ-.!/ÿ0!1ÿ2"!&-)3*ÿ.&%ÿ-$#ÿ3./$,61ÿÿ
ÿ
ZJÿ[KFIHRI\ÿ]^_25ÿ̀BRJRÿ̀GGSK\ÿ9!)/)*"%ÿTKUEGJÿ*)ÿ*-"ÿ%"9=*6ÿ%$!"'*)!ÿ9)#$*$)&1ÿa-$#ÿ9!)/)*$)&ÿ
)''=!!"%ÿ.3*"!ÿ*-"ÿ=&.&&)=&'"%ÿb.&=.!6ÿc25ÿ:32:5ÿ>)'$.,ÿ>"!?$'"#ÿÿ.&%ÿ()%$ÿd),$'"ÿ!.$%ÿ)3ÿ2"!&-)3*e#ÿ
!"#$%"&'"ÿ$&ÿ()%$5ÿ;.,$3)!&$.1ÿa-"ÿL).,ÿ)3ÿ*-"ÿ!.$%ÿ4.#ÿ*)ÿ9!)?)+"ÿ0!1ÿ2"!&-)3*ÿ.&%ÿ,=!"ÿ-$/ÿ$&*)ÿ.ÿ*!.9ÿ
*-.*ÿ4.#ÿ9!)3"##$)&.,,6ÿ#"*ÿ.&%ÿ'.!!$"%ÿ)=*ÿM6ÿ*-"ÿ/.,$'$)=#ÿ9"!9"*!.*)!#1ÿ83*"!ÿ*-"ÿ=&#=''"##3=,ÿ.**"/9*ÿ
*)ÿ,=!"ÿ0!1ÿ2"!&-)3*ÿÿ3!)/ÿ-$#ÿ)33$'"ÿ*)ÿ-$#ÿ!"#$%"&'"ÿ.&%ÿ9!)?)+"ÿ-$/5ÿY"#*)&ÿ)!'-"#*!.*"%ÿ/.##ÿ/"%$.ÿ
')?"!.L"ÿ)3ÿ*-"ÿ.,,"L"%ÿ'!$/"#ÿ)3ÿ0!1ÿ2"!&-)3*e#ÿ4$3"5ÿ0)!)*-6ÿ2"!&-)3*1ÿa-"!".3*"!5ÿ7ÿ$&ÿ3".!ÿÿ
%$#')&&"'*"%ÿÿ/6#",3ÿ3!)/ÿÿ0!1ÿ2"!&-)3*e#ÿ#"!?$'"#ÿ.&%ÿ%$#*.&'"%ÿ/6#",3ÿÿ3!)/ÿ0!1ÿ2"!&-)3*ÿ9"!#)&.,,6ÿ
.#ÿ4",,1ÿ
W!)/ÿb=,6ÿ:333ÿ*)ÿf.!'-ÿ:33g5ÿ9!$)!ÿ*)ÿ*-"ÿ>)'$.,ÿ>"!?$'"#ÿ!.$%5ÿTKUEGJÿ4.#ÿ"/9,)6"%ÿ.#ÿ.ÿ*","?$#$)&ÿ
&"4#ÿ9!)%='"!ÿ$&ÿ.ÿ?"!6ÿ9)9=,.!ÿ,)'.,ÿ&"4#ÿ#*.*$)&5ÿh;i8c1ÿY"#*)&e#ÿ')&&"'*$)&#ÿ.*ÿ*-"ÿ*","?$#$)&ÿ
#*.*$)&ÿ.,,)4"%ÿ-$/ÿ*)ÿ)!'-"#*!.*"ÿ"&)!/)=#ÿ/"%$.ÿ')?"!.L"ÿ)3ÿ*-"ÿ>)'$.,ÿ>"!?$'"#ÿ!.$%ÿ)&ÿ0!1ÿ
2"!&-)3*e#ÿ!"#$%"&'"1ÿa-"ÿ%"L!""ÿ)3ÿ')?"!.L"ÿ4.#ÿ#$/$,.!ÿ*)ÿ4-.*ÿ4.#ÿ#""&ÿ%=!$&Lÿ*-"ÿ9"99"!0#9!.6ÿ
9!)?)'.*$)&ÿ.$/"%ÿ.*ÿjDRJQKSSGIÿkREKDBlÿ*-"ÿ9"99"!0#9!.6ÿ$&'$%"&*ÿ*))+ÿ9,.'"ÿ)&ÿ*-"ÿm;ÿ0.?$#ÿ
QRnoHUÿGJÿpGqKnFKIÿ_rsÿ]^__tÿ
ÿ
NÿuDRIGJÿvCFGwGsÿxRyJ\ÿzIGUUnRJsÿRJwÿ{SBUGJÿpKy|BI|Vÿ;),,.M)!.*)!#1ÿ>)'$.,ÿ>"!?$'"#ÿ
"/9,)6""#1ÿ}&ÿb.&=.!6ÿc25ÿ:32:5ÿ)&ÿ*-"ÿ)!%"!ÿ)3ÿ0$!"'*)!ÿ($L-*M)=!&"ÿ)!ÿ-$#ÿ%"9=*6ÿY"#*)&5ÿ
}LM)%)5ÿ~!)##/.&5ÿ.&%ÿ"4+$!+ÿ#*.6"%ÿ$&ÿ2"!&-)3*e#ÿ!"#$%"&'"ÿ=&*$,ÿ0!1ÿ2"!&-)3*ÿ.!!$?"%ÿ
-)/"ÿM"*4""&ÿV33ÿ91/1ÿ.&%ÿ4V33ÿ91/1ÿa-"6ÿ4"!"ÿ9!"#"&*ÿ*)ÿ"&#=!"ÿ*-.*ÿ2"!&-)3*ÿ4)=,%ÿ',.#-ÿ
4$*-ÿ*-"ÿ()%$ÿd),$'"1ÿ}LM)%)5ÿ~!)##/.&5ÿ.&%ÿ"4+$!+ÿ'.,,"%ÿM"3)!"ÿ*-"6ÿ,"3*ÿ*-"ÿ2"!&-)3*ÿ
!"#$%"&'"ÿ.*ÿV33ÿ91/1ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÌÍÎÏÿÎÑÒÓÿÔÕÖ×ØÙÖÚÿÿÿÿÿÿÛÜÝÞßÓàáÿÔØâãÕØÖÙÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿäåæÓçèÿÖâéÖêéÕÖÕÕÿÿÿÿÿÿëÑìÓÿØãØÿÜíÿîïî
!ÿ#$%&ÿ#(ÿ)**+*,ÿ-++.+/$0/ÿ123.$4ÿ1*%5.3*+ÿ67.*8ÿ6290+*4:ÿ62%.ÿ-(ÿ;9/%$<ÿ1/$88ÿ-//2%0*=:ÿ
$0>ÿ?*88%*=ÿ@.%$/+9&$,ÿ;*A9/=ÿ;.%*3/2%ÿ28ÿ123.$4ÿ1*%5.3*+,ÿ1*%5.3*+ÿB.3*0+.0Cÿ
;*A$%/D*0/EÿFGHIGJHKJLHMÿKNOÿPLQQKRLHKJLHMÿSTJUÿVWÿOGXHGGMYÿZNÿ[GRH\KH]ÿ^<ÿ_32_<ÿJUHGGÿOK]Mÿ
K`JGHÿJUGÿ\NM\PPGMM`\QÿKJJGaIJÿJLÿUKHaÿWHYÿbGHNUL`J<ÿJUGMGÿTNOTcTO\KQMÿ̀TQGOÿaLMJQ]ÿ̀KQMGÿ
PUKHXGMÿKXKTNMJÿWLHLJU]ÿbGHNUL`JYÿÿ
ÿ
ÿdGGMGÿHGMTXNGOÿ`HLaÿJUGÿeJKJGÿbKHÿL`ÿfKQT̀LHNTKYÿW\JHKÿTMÿKÿ`HTGNOÿL`ÿFLHJGHÿePLJJÿgKSÿfLHILHKJTLNÿ
KJJLHNG]ÿWKcTOÿFYÿhYÿb\HiGJJjSULÿHGIHGMGNJGOÿJUGÿkfÿdGXGNJMÿÿTNÿa]ÿSHLNX`\QÿJGHaTNKJTLNÿQKSM\TJÿYÿ
ÿ
!ÿl%.+/.0*ÿ)**>,ÿ1$0ÿ?2$m9.0ÿ6290/=ÿ;.+/%.3/ÿ-//2%0*=EÿnNÿ_32_<ÿdGGOÿ̀TQGOÿPHTaTNKQÿ
PUKHXGMÿKXKTNMJÿWLHLJU]ÿbGHNUL`JYÿ
ÿ
!ÿo%*//ÿ@(ÿ#2%C$0,ÿ1$0ÿ?2$m9.0ÿ6290/=ÿ19A*%.2%ÿ629%/ÿ?9>C*EÿbG`LHGÿV\OXGÿpLHXKNÿSKMÿ
KIILTNJGOÿJLÿJUGÿRGNPU<ÿ7*ÿq$+ÿ37.*8ÿ>*A9/=ÿ82%ÿ/7*ÿ1/$/*ÿ28ÿ6$4.82%0.$ÿr0+A*3/2%ÿs*0*%$4ÿ$0>ÿ
37.*8ÿ28ÿ+/$88ÿ28ÿ/7*ÿ1/$/*ÿ28ÿ6$4.82%0.$ÿ;*A$%/D*0/ÿ28ÿ62%%*3/.20ÿ$0>ÿ)*7$t.4./$/.20(ÿ
ÿ
V\OXGÿpLHXKNÿÿMGNJGNPGOÿÿ;2%2/7=ÿo*%0728/ÿÿÿ/2ÿÿ829%ÿ=*$%+uÿA%2t$/.20ÿq./7ÿD$0=ÿ320>./.20+v
.0349>.0Cÿ02/ÿt*.0Cÿ$420*ÿq./7ÿ7*%ÿ2q0ÿC%$0>37.4>%*0(ÿeUGÿUKOÿJLÿMGHcGÿw24ÿUL\HMÿL`ÿPLaa\NTJ]ÿ
MGHcTPGÿKJÿKNÿKIIHLcGOÿNLNIHL`TJÿLHXKNTxKJTLNÿKNOÿIK]ÿaKN]ÿJUL\MKNOMÿL`ÿOLQQKHMÿTNÿHGMJTJ\JTLNYÿeUGÿ
KQMLÿUKOÿJLÿPLaIQGJGÿKÿPUTQOÿKR\MGÿPL\HMGÿKNOÿMGGiÿaGNJKQÿUGKQJUÿPL\NMGQTNXYÿÿ
yQQÿL`ÿJUGÿTNOTcTO\KQMÿQTMJGOÿKRLcGÿKHGÿX\TQJ]ÿL`ÿSTQQ̀\QQ]ÿOGIHTcTNXÿWLHLJU]ÿKNOÿ[HKNiQTNÿbGHNUL`JÿL`ÿ
HTXUJMÿKNOÿIHTcTQGXGMÿIHLJGPJGOÿR]ÿJUGÿfLNMJTJ\JTLNÿKNOÿJUGÿQKSMÿL`ÿJUGÿkNTJGOÿeJKJGMYÿzUGÿKRLcGÿ
TNOTcTO\KQMÿOGMJHL]GOÿJUGÿbGHNUL`J{Mÿÿ̀KaTQ]ÿKNOÿ̀LHPGOÿJUGaÿKNOÿa]MGQ̀ÿÿQTcGÿTNÿ̀GKHYÿÿ
|0ÿ?$09$%=ÿ},ÿ~<ÿnÿÿPLITGOÿeKNÿVLK\TNÿe\IGHTLHÿfL\HJÿ̀TQGMÿL`ÿJUGÿfKMGÿLYÿ
gp32_34yÿgFWÿfyeh<ÿWyÿfKMGÿfd0_32_0w3_3^0ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿWG`GNOKNJ<ÿ̀TQGOÿLNÿy\X\MJÿ4<ÿ_32_ÿKNOÿfTcTQÿfKMGÿLYÿ^0_32_0
33_^^20fk0FZ0ez ÿ
ÿ
nNÿJUGÿbGHXULQJÿfL\HJÿ̀TQGÿnÿÿNLJTPGOÿLNGÿOLP\aGNJÿJTJQGOÿ ¡¢£¤ ¤¥¦§¨ÿ¥£ª¡¢¤ ¤¦«ÿ§¬ÿ
¨¡®«¢ÿ̄°¥¡ª¤¨ÿ¥¦£ÿ±²¤¥ÿ¬§¨ ÿ³µ́¶·ÿ¸¹ÿº»¼»½¾ÿ¿ÀÁÿÂÿÀÿ́¹ÿÄŹÿƸÅÇ»¹́ÿȸ»¹¾Éÿ
Ļʶ˴¸Ëÿȸ»Ë¾ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿ-8*ÿ1BÿCDC
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¢£¤¥¦ÿ §¨§ÿÿÿÿÿÿ©ªÿ¡«ÿ¬ÿ««
ÿÿ
!"#$ÿ%&'ÿ('")&#*%ÿ+#,"%ÿ*-.'ÿ/ÿÿ)#%-0'1ÿ%&'ÿ*#..#2-)3ÿ4,"5"-4-)3ÿ*60%47ÿ
ÿ
28ÿ9&'ÿ+6.-*#")-6ÿ:'56"%$')%ÿ#*ÿ;#0-6.ÿ;'"<-0'4ÿ+#$$,)-%=ÿ+6"'ÿ>-0')4-)3ÿ:-<-4-#)ÿ+#$5.6-)%ÿ
/)<'4%-36%-#)ÿ?'5#"%ÿ0#)%6-)4ÿ%@ABBÿDEFFBABGHÿDIHBJÿKFÿLMNOPNOLMOQÿLMNRLNOLMOQÿIGDÿLMNRMNOLMOSÿÿ
ÿ
T8ÿ9&'ÿUKVWXIEGHÿYGZBJHE[IHEKGÿ\BWKAHÿ]I[Bÿ^MQÿH@BÿVKJHÿEVWKAHIGHÿWI[BÿKFÿH@BÿABWKAH_ÿ̀IJÿ
GKHÿJE[GBDÿabÿcKAKH@bÿdBAG@KFHQÿ2&#ÿ4&#,.1ÿ60e)#2.'13'ÿf=ÿ&'"ÿ4-3)6%,"'ÿ%&6%ÿ4&'ÿ"'0'-<'1ÿ
%&'ÿ6..'36%-#)4ÿ6)1ÿ*-)1-)34ÿ6)1ÿ,)1'"4%6)14ÿ%&'ÿ655'6.ÿ"-3&%4ÿ64ÿ'g5.6-)'1ÿ6)1ÿ"'0'-<'18ÿ
ÿ
h8ÿ:,"-)3ÿ%&'ÿi8j0&#,"ÿ<-4-%_ÿ%&'ÿ:'56"%$')%ÿ#*ÿ;#0-6.ÿ;'"<-0'4kÿ;&6"#)ÿl3f#1#_ÿ962)=ÿ
m"#44$6)_ÿ6)1ÿn.-4#)ÿo'2e-"eÿ%#,"'1ÿ%&'ÿ')%-"'ÿ*60-.-%=ÿ-)0.,1-)3ÿ%&'ÿ36"63'_ÿ,54%6-"4ÿ6)1ÿ=6"18ÿÿ
ÿ
+#$5.6-)%ÿ/)<'4%-36%-#)ÿ?'5#"%ÿ6)1ÿ*-)1-)34ÿ0#$5.'%'.=ÿDKBJÿGKHÿpKAABJWKGDÿ-)ÿ4#$'ÿ26=4ÿ
2-%&ÿ%&'ÿ0#$5.6-)%ÿ-)ÿ%&'ÿq6%%'"ÿ#*ÿ:l?l9rsÿ(t?orl!9ÿ1f6ÿ!6$-.=ÿ:6=ÿ+6"'ÿr#$'ÿThuhÿ
v##1.6e'ÿ+-"0.'ÿ>#1-_ÿ+nÿwjTiTÿ*-.'1ÿf=ÿ:'56"%$')%ÿ#*ÿ;#0-6.ÿ;'"<-0'4ÿ>'36.ÿ:-<-4-#)ÿ#)ÿ
!'f",6"=ÿT_ÿT32T8ÿ+:;;ÿo#8ÿx32T3hT232yÿ+:;;ÿo#8ÿx32T3hT232(ÿÿ6)1ÿ2-%&ÿ;'6"0&ÿv6""6)%ÿ
16%'1ÿz6),6"=ÿh2_ÿT32T8ÿÿ
9&'ÿ:'56"%$')%ÿ#*ÿ;#0-6.ÿ;'"<-0'4ÿ>'36.ÿ:-<-4-#)ÿ*-.'1ÿ%&'ÿ0#$5.6-)%ÿ2-%&ÿ%&'ÿ*#..#2-)3ÿ
600,46%-#)4ÿ{,4%ÿ%2#ÿ16=4ÿ6*%'"_ÿGKHÿVBGHEKGBDÿEGÿ|IG}IAbÿRMQÿOLMOÿ+#$5.6-)%ÿ/)<'4%-36%-#)ÿ
?'5#"%ÿ-44,'1ÿf=ÿ%&'ÿ.-0')4-)3ÿ'<6.,6%#"ÿz'6))'ÿ;$-%&8ÿÿ
ÿ
~ÿ!6-.,"'ÿ%#ÿ*')0'ÿ#"ÿf6""-061'ÿ%&'ÿ*60-.-%=ÿ4%6-"4yÿ
~ÿ`KÿXKIDBDÿFEABIAVJÿJ@KHÿ[}GJÿIGDÿIVV}GEHEKGÿJHKABDÿEGÿIÿpXKJBHÿ̀@BABÿIGÿ
EGFIGHÿEGÿIÿpIAÿJBIHÿ̀IJÿFK}GDÿ
~ÿ.64%-0ÿ1"=ÿ0.'6)'"ÿf634ÿ600'44-f.'ÿ%#ÿ0&-.1"')ÿ-)ÿ06"'ÿ
~ÿ+.'6)-)3ÿ$6%'"-6.4_ÿ$'1-06%-#)_ÿ40-44#"4_ÿ6)1ÿe)-<'4ÿ600'44-f.'ÿ%#ÿ0&-.1"')ÿ-)ÿ06"'yÿ
~ÿ!6-.,"'ÿ%#ÿ$6-)%6-)ÿ&'6%ÿ-)ÿ%&'ÿ*60-.-%=ÿ2&'"'ÿ0&-.1"')ÿ2'"'ÿe'5%yÿÿ
~ÿnÿ"#4%'"ÿ*#"ÿ0&-.1"')ÿ-)ÿ06"'ÿ6%ÿ%&'ÿ*60-.-%=yÿ
~ÿ/$$,)-6%-#)ÿ"'0#"14ÿ*#"ÿ0&-.1"')ÿ-)ÿ06"'ÿ6%ÿ%&'ÿ*60-.-%=yÿ
~ÿ;-3)'1ÿ6)1ÿ16%'1ÿ56"')%4kÿ"-3&%4ÿ*#"$4ÿ*#"ÿ0&-.1"')ÿ-)ÿ06"'ÿ
~ÿ!6-.,"'ÿ#"ÿ"'*,46.ÿ%#ÿ"'45#)1ÿ%#ÿ0&-.1"')ÿ,54%6-"4ÿ2&')ÿ%&'=ÿ0"-'1ÿ6)1ÿ06..'1ÿ
q6$$=_ÿq#$$=ÿ6)1ÿr'.5_ÿr'.5yÿ
~ÿl)ÿ#"ÿ6f#,%ÿ:'0'$f'"ÿT3_ÿT322_ÿ*-<'ÿjÿ-)*6)%4ÿ6)1ÿ%&"''ÿhÿ5"'40&##.ÿ0&-.1"')ÿ
5"'4')%ÿ-)ÿ%&'ÿ*60-.-%=ÿ2-%&#,%ÿ6)ÿ644-4%6)%yÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿÿ£ÿ¤¥¤
!ÿ#$%&'()*ÿ()+,(-%*)'ÿ-*'./(ÿ0/*1%*)'ÿ%*ÿ0-(ÿ+)-,+2ÿ1(/3ÿ4$%0$ÿ,$)5ÿ-,)ÿ%*+6&-,%/*7ÿ8,ÿ
%+ÿ6*9*/4*ÿ4$/ÿ:(/;%')'ÿ,$)ÿ0-(ÿ+)-,+ÿ-*'ÿ4$),$)(ÿ<+7ÿ=)(*$/1,ÿ:6(0$-+)'ÿ,$)ÿ
0-(ÿ+)-,+ÿ/(ÿ0$%&'()*>+ÿ:-()*,+ÿ4)()ÿ')&%;)(%*?ÿ%*1-*,+ÿ,/ÿ,$)ÿ<+7ÿ=)(*$/1,ÿ@-5ÿ
0-()ÿ%*ÿ,$)ÿ0-(ÿ+)-,+7ÿÿ
ÿ
8ÿÿ*/,%0)'ÿ,$)ÿ1-0,ÿ,$-,ÿ,$)ÿ@):-(,3)*,ÿ/1ÿA/0%-&ÿA)(;%0)+ÿ/*ÿBCDCEFCGÿIJKÿIJLLÿ;%+%,)'ÿ@/(/,$5ÿ
=)(*$/1,>+ÿ$/3)ÿ-*'ÿ-09*/4&)'?)'ÿ,$-,ÿ@/(/,$5ÿ=)(*$/1,ÿ/:)(-,)+ÿ1-0%&%,5ÿ4%,$/6,ÿ%*-0,%;)ÿ
&%0)*+)2ÿ4%,$/6,ÿ-++%+,-*,2ÿ-*'ÿ3/+,ÿ&%9)&5ÿ%*ÿ+-3)ÿ4-5ÿ-+ÿ%,ÿ4-+ÿ')+0(%M)'ÿ%*ÿ,$)ÿN-*6-(5ÿO22ÿ
P32Pÿ#/3:&-%*,ÿ8*;)+,%?-,%/*ÿQ):/(,7ÿ8,ÿ4-+ÿ*/ÿ-*5ÿ:(/M&)3ÿ1/(ÿ,$)ÿ@):-(,3)*,ÿ/1ÿA/0%-&ÿ
A)(;%0)+ÿ-*'ÿ#/3:&-%*,ÿ8*;)+,%?-,%/*ÿQ):/(,ÿ4-+ÿ*/,ÿ%++6)'ÿM)0-6+)ÿ-::-()*,&5ÿ@/(/,$5ÿ
=)(*$/1,>+ÿ@-5ÿ#-()ÿ4-+ÿ%*ÿ0/3:&%-*0)ÿ4%,$ÿ&-4ÿ-*'ÿ()?6&-,%/*+ÿ4%,$ÿ3-5M)ÿ,$)ÿ)R0):,%/*ÿ,$-,ÿ
$)(ÿ&%0)*+)ÿ4-+ÿ-0,%;-,)'ÿ/*ÿBCDCEFCGÿILKÿIJLISÿ
TUVÿWXBYÿZXWY[Vÿ\V]^[Uÿ_]^^]`Tÿÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ
a$)ÿ\CbGDcÿ_bGGbdeÿfbeCfÿgbdhbGiÿjLKÿIJLIÿ-*'ÿA,-,)3)*,ÿ/1ÿ,$)ÿk(/M-M&)ÿ#-6+)ÿ4-+ÿ+%?*)'ÿ
M5ÿl/'%ÿk/&%0)ÿ@),)0,%;)ÿ<%0$-)&ÿ<-**),,%ÿ-*'ÿN6'?)ÿl-6()*ÿk7ÿa$/3-++/*7ÿÿ
ÿ
LSÿn11%'-;%,ÿ,/ÿ+)-(0$ÿ=)(*$/1,>+ÿ()+%')*0)ÿ4-+ÿ+%?*)'ÿM5ÿN6'?)ÿl-6()*ÿa$/3-++/*ÿbeÿopLLÿ
ZSq72ÿLLÿErdheCsÿbteCGÿ6*-**/6*0)'ÿ@):-(,3)*,ÿ/1ÿA/0%-&ÿA)(;%0)+ÿ;%+%,.%*;)+,%?-,%/*ÿ
4-+ÿ0/3:&),)'7ÿÿ
ÿ
ISÿa$)ÿ'-,)ÿ-*'ÿ,%3)ÿ,$-,ÿ,$)ÿ4-((-*,ÿ4-+ÿ+)(;)'ÿ%+ÿ*/,ÿ+,-,)'ÿ/*ÿ,$)ÿ')+%?*-,)'ÿ&%*)ÿ-*'ÿ%+ÿ
6*9*/4*7ÿÿ
ÿ
jSÿl/'%ÿk/&%0)ÿ@),)0,%;)ÿ<%0$-)&ÿ<-*),,%ÿ+%?*)'ÿ,$)ÿA,-,)3)*,ÿ/1ÿk(/M-M&)ÿ#-6+)ÿ4$%0$ÿ
4-+ÿ-,,-0$),$'ÿ,/ÿ,$)ÿA)-(0$ÿu-((-*,ÿ%*ÿ:()+)*0)ÿ/1ÿ,$)ÿN6'?)ÿ+l- 6()*ÿk7ÿa$/3+/*ÿ/*ÿ
N-*6-(5ÿ2OÿP32Pÿv$-*'4(%,,)*ÿ'-,)wÿM6,ÿ%+ÿ'-,)'ÿN-*6-(5ÿO2,ÿv$-*'4(%,,)*ÿ'-,)wÿM5ÿ
@),)0,%;)ÿ<%0$-)&ÿ<-*),,%7ÿÿ
ÿ
a$)+)ÿfbeCÿxtÿgbdhbGiÿLjecÿIJLIÿ+$/4+ÿ,$-,ÿA/0%-&ÿA)(;%0)+ÿ/(ÿ+/3)M/'5ÿ:(/;%')'ÿ-&&ÿ
%*1/(3-,%/*ÿ,/ÿl/'%ÿk/&%0)ÿ@),)0,%;)ÿ<%0$-)&ÿ<-*),,%ÿ-M/6,ÿ,$)ÿ:&-**)'ÿy6*-**/6*0)'ÿy(-%'zÿM5ÿ
A/0%-&ÿA)(;%0)+ÿ/*ÿ=)(*$/1,>+ÿ()+%')*0)ÿ%*ÿl/'%7ÿYtÿecCÿ\xDrb{ÿ\CG|rDCsÿbdfÿWxfrÿZx{rDCÿ}dC~ÿ
FCtxGCÿgbdhbGiÿLjKÿIJLIÿ~cbeÿrsÿxrdÿrdÿecCÿBxGxeciÿCGdcxtesÿBbiÿ[bGCÿecbdÿ~ciÿZx{rDCÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£ÿ¤¥¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦§ÿ¥ÿÿ̈©ª©
!"#$ÿ%&#'%(#ÿ)##*'+$ÿÿ
,-+ÿ.*-/"%+ÿ0*"+#$ÿ
ÿ111ÿ23ÿ4 5'ÿ)6+"ÿ,#*(7#*+8ÿ0)ÿ9:1;1ÿ
< =ÿ>?ÿ*'*#?$ÿ-+@ÿA'-+7B%+ÿC '+?*D#ÿ,-+ÿ.*-/"%+ÿ0*"+#$ÿ,"!'%*'ÿ0*"'#ÿ
0-&&=ÿ
>?ÿ,-+ÿ.*-/"%+ÿ,"!'%*'ÿ0*"'#ÿ*Dÿ0-B%D*'+%-8ÿ0*"+#$ÿ*Dÿ,-+ÿ.*-/"%+ÿE*@%ÿ
C'-+(?ÿ0ÿ0*F!B-%+#ÿ0-&ÿG*3ÿEHI,ÿB1;J)ÿEKÿ0),28ÿ)ÿ0-&ÿ0<01;210
L;19;MN0>?ÿK*!Bÿ*Dÿ#?ÿ,#-#ÿ*Dÿ0-B%D*'+%-ÿKB-%+#%DDÿ63ÿ*'*#?$ÿC '+?*D#8ÿ
D+@-+#3ÿÿ
>?ÿ('*&&0(*++(#@ÿ(%6%Bÿ(-&=ÿ
>?ÿ,-+ÿ.*-/"%+ÿ,"!'%*'ÿ0*"'#ÿ*Dÿ0-B%D*'+%-8ÿ0*"+#$ÿ*Dÿ,-+ÿ.*-/"%+ÿ0%6%Bÿ
0-&ÿG*3ÿM91;210;;1OMM9200P0KI0,>QRÿ0?%-'%ÿ0*B-'*&&%8ÿ#?'*"S?ÿ?'ÿ
T"-'@%-+ÿ-@E%#F8ÿ)B%&*+ÿ0*B-'*&&%8Uÿ)B%&*+ÿ0*B-'*&&%Rÿ<*5'#ÿ0*B-'*&&%RÿH-%-ÿ
G-5?*%V8ÿ#?'*"S?ÿ?'ÿT"-'@%-+ÿ-@ÿE%#F8ÿ.*-++-ÿ4B*@-W 'ÿ-+@ÿ>'6*'ÿ
G-5?*BVÿ63ÿ*'*#?$ÿC '+?*DBRÿA'-+7B%+ÿC '+?*D#3ÿ
-'ÿH&3ÿ< @=ÿ
< (+#B$8ÿXÿD%B@ÿ-ÿYZ[\]^_`aÿc_adÿadeÿfa^aeÿZgÿh^]_gZi`_^ÿhZ[[_jj_Z`ÿZ`ÿ
klm_Y_^]ÿneigZi[^`Yeÿ^o^_`jaÿadeÿf^Yi^[e`aZÿhZl`apÿfl\ei_ZiÿhZliaÿ
klmoeÿqZ`rÿfde]]ep^``eÿhd^`oÿgZiÿ[_jYZ`mlYarÿX+ÿ#?ÿF +#%*+@ÿ(*F!B-%+#ÿ
-S-%+&#ÿ."@Sÿ0?-+S8ÿXÿ%+(B"@@ÿ#?ÿ#W*ÿ,-+ÿ.*-/"%+ÿ0*"+#$ÿ,"!'%*'ÿ0*"'#ÿ
(-&&ÿD%B@ÿ-S-%+&#ÿ#?ÿC '+?*D#s&3ÿ
X#ÿ%&ÿF$ÿ"+@'&#-+@%+Sÿ#?-#ÿ$*"ÿ-'ÿ#?ÿ,-+ÿ.*-/"%+ÿ0*"+#$ÿ%&#'%(#ÿ)##*'+$ÿ
W?*ÿ5'*"S?#ÿ#?ÿ('%F%+-Bÿ(?-'S&ÿ-S-%+&#ÿH&3ÿ*'*#?$ÿC '+?*D#ÿ%+ÿ1;218ÿ
Xÿ-Fÿ5'%+S%+Sÿ#?ÿ#W*ÿ(*"'#ÿ(-&&ÿ%+6*B6%+Sÿ#?ÿC '+?*D#&ÿt(-!#%*+@ÿ-5*6uÿ#*ÿ
$*"'ÿ-##+#%*+ÿ5(-"&ÿ D+@-+#ÿA'-+7B%+ÿC '+?*D#8ÿK?338ÿ%+ÿ#?ÿ0%6%Bÿ0-&ÿ
G*3ÿM901;210ÿ;;1OMM9200P0KI0,>Q8ÿW-&ÿF$ÿ'#-%+@ÿ!&$(?*B*S%&#ÿD'*Fÿ
)"S"&#ÿ1;22ÿ#*ÿ.-+"-'$ÿ1;213ÿ
X#ÿ%&ÿ+*#ÿF$ÿ%+#+#%*+ÿ5$ÿ#?%&ÿB##'ÿ#*ÿ/"&#%*+ÿ#?ÿ(?-'S&ÿ#?ÿ%&#'%(#ÿ
)##*'+$U&ÿ*DD%(ÿ5'*"S?#ÿ-S-%+&#ÿH&3ÿ*'*#?$ÿC '+?*D#3ÿv*W 6'8ÿXÿD*"+@ÿ
5*#?ÿ*Dÿ#?ÿ(-&&ÿ%+6*B6%+Sÿ#?ÿC '+?*D#s&ÿ6'$ÿ*@@ÿ-+@ÿ5%V-''ÿ%+ÿ'B-#%*+ÿ#*ÿ
#?ÿ&'6%(ÿA'-+7B%+ÿC '+?*D#ÿW-&ÿ!'*6%@%+Sÿ#*ÿF ÿ%+ÿ1;213ÿ
0ÿ222ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
z{|}ÿ|ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
!"ÿ#$%ÿ&'!(%ÿ"%&)!*+ÿ,ÿ&-ÿ)%*./*0ÿ#$%ÿ1&"#ÿ!2ÿ-3ÿ4!-15&/*#ÿ&0&/*)#ÿ#$%ÿ
6&4"&-%*#!ÿ7!8*#3ÿ681%"/!"ÿ7!8"#ÿ98.0%ÿ6$%55%3&**%ÿ7$&*0ÿ#!ÿ3!8"ÿ!22/4%ÿ
2!"ÿ3!8"ÿ"%(/%:ÿ&*.ÿ4!*)/.%"&#/!*+ÿ158)ÿ&ÿ4!13ÿ!2ÿ#$%ÿ4!-15&/*#ÿ4!(%"ÿ5%##%"ÿ
&.."%))%.ÿ#!ÿ#$%ÿ6#&#%ÿ!2ÿ7&5/2!"*/&ÿ7!--/))/!*ÿ!*ÿ98./4/&5ÿ;%"2!"-&*4%ÿ
7$&/"1%")!*+ÿ<!*!"&'5%ÿ="/4&ÿ>?ÿ@%:?ÿ
,2ÿ3!8ÿ$&(%ÿ&*3ÿA8%)#/!*)+ÿ.!ÿ*!#ÿ$%)/#&#%ÿ#!ÿ4!*#&4#ÿ-%ÿ&#ÿ3!8"ÿ4!*(%*/%*4%?ÿ
6/*4%"%53+ÿÿ
9&"!)5&:ÿB&)C4C8Dÿ
77EÿF&"/&ÿG"!))Hÿ7!"/ÿI8#"&+ÿ=)A?HÿF&"Dÿ>%%)%+ÿ=)A?ÿ0ÿ7&5/2!"*/&ÿI%1&"#-%*#ÿ
!2ÿ6!4/&5ÿ6%"(/4%)ÿ
ÿ,ÿ&##&4$%.ÿ#!ÿ-3ÿ5%##%"ÿ#$%ÿ98*%ÿ32+ÿ3J23ÿ%0-&/5ÿK7ÿI&(/)ÿ;!5/4%ÿI%1&"#-%*#ÿ)%"0%&*#ÿ9%**/2%"ÿ
G&"4/&ÿ)%*#ÿ#!ÿG/*&ÿG8/55&8-%0<!55%-&*ÿ2"!-ÿ#$%ÿK7ÿI&(/)ÿF%./4&5ÿ7%*#%"ÿ7$/%2ÿ7!-15/&*4%ÿ!22/4%ÿ
&*.ÿK7I;IÿL#?ÿ9&-%)ÿM&"'!8"ÿ&'!8#ÿ/*A8/"3ÿ&'!8#ÿ-%ÿ:/#$ÿL!./ÿ;!5/4%?ÿÿ
N5)!+ÿ,ÿÿÿ%*45!)%.ÿ#$%ÿ4!13ÿ!2ÿ#$%ÿL!./ÿ;!5/4%ÿ6%&"4$ÿB&""&*#ÿ.&#%.ÿ9&*8&"3ÿO2+ÿ3J23?ÿÿ
,ÿÿ)%*#ÿ4!13ÿ!2ÿ-3ÿ4!""%)1!*.%*4%ÿ:/#$ÿI/)#"/4#ÿN##!"*%3ÿ!22/4%ÿ#!ÿF&"/&ÿG"!))ÿPÿ5/)#%.ÿ!*ÿ#$%ÿ2QO2ÿ
Q3J23ÿ,*(%)#/0&#/!*ÿ>%1!"#ÿ&)ÿ&ÿ7I66ÿ)81%"(/)!"ÿ&*.ÿ#:!ÿ7&5/2!"*/&ÿI%1&"#-%*#ÿ!2ÿ6!4/&5ÿ6%"(/4%)ÿ
R7I66Sÿ&##!"*%3)ÿ7!"/ÿI8#"&ÿ&*.ÿF&"Dÿ>%%)%ÿ5/)#%.ÿ!*ÿ7I66ÿ7!-15&/*#ÿ2/5%.0ÿ.&#%.ÿ%'"8&"3ÿ3+ÿ3J23ÿ
:&)ÿ/))8%.ÿÿ.&3)ÿ&2#%"ÿM%"*$!2#Tÿ)ÿ$!-%ÿ:&)ÿ"&/.%.ÿ'3ÿ7I66?ÿÿ
ÿÿ U$%ÿ7I66ÿ"&/.%.ÿM%"*$!2#T)ÿ$!-%ÿ!*ÿ9&*8&"3ÿO2+ÿ3J23ÿ/*ÿL!./ÿWXYÿZ[\ÿ]Y^W_Yÿ-3ÿ)4$%.85%.ÿ
(/)/#ÿ!*ÿ %'"8&"3ÿ2+ÿ3J23ÿ:àbÿabYÿcdeÿf[aẀX[gÿhi[gj[aẀXÿeY_ik̀Ylÿ2!"ÿ&*ÿX̀ZYmYXZYXaÿ
ml\kb`[a_k̀ÿYi[gj[aẀXÿ:$/4$ÿ:&)ÿ"%A8%)#%.ÿ'3ÿd`]Y_a\ÿd`^Yÿnllj_[XkYÿoWpm[X\ÿW^ÿqWlaWXÿ&2#%"ÿ
r_sÿqY_XbW^aÿ)%*#ÿ#!ÿL/'%"#3ÿ81.&#%ÿ&'!8#ÿ-3ÿ$%&5#$ÿ4!*./#/!*ÿ&*.ÿ1!)#1!*%.ÿ-3ÿ#%"-/*&#/!*ÿ2!"ÿ
&*!#$%"ÿ3%&"ÿ#$8)?ÿÿÿ,ÿ&-ÿÿ)#/55ÿ:!*.%"/*0ÿ:$&#ÿ#$%ÿK7t;ÿ'&*./#)ÿ/*ÿ4!55&'!"&#/!*ÿ:/#$ÿ#$%/"ÿL/'%"#3T)ÿ
'8../%)ÿ:%"%ÿ15&**/*0ÿ2!"ÿ-%ÿ!*ÿuY]_j[_\ÿvwÿxyvxÿ̀Xÿcedÿf[aẀX[gÿhi[gj[aẀXÿ6%"(/4%)ÿ!22/4%ÿ/*ÿ
6&4"&-%*#!ÿ/2ÿÿ,ÿÿÿ:!85.ÿ)$!:ÿ81ÿ#$%"%ÿ&)ÿ"%A8%)#%.ÿ'3ÿL/'%"#3?ÿÿ
,#ÿ)#/55ÿ-&D%)ÿ-%ÿ:!*.%"ÿÿB&)C4C8Dÿÿ/2ÿ#$%ÿ7!-15&/*#ÿ2/5%.ÿ&0&/*)#ÿI!"!#$3ÿM%"*$!2#ÿ!*ÿ%'"8&"3ÿ3+ÿ
3J23ÿ'3ÿ7I66ÿ&##!"*%3ÿ7!"/ÿI8#"&ÿ&*.ÿF&"Dÿ>%%)%ÿ:&)ÿ./4#&#%.ÿ:$%#$%"ÿB&)C4C8Dÿÿ:/55ÿ)$!:ÿ81ÿ/*ÿ
F6Lÿ!22/4%ÿ2!"ÿ1)34$/&#"/4ÿ%(&58&#/!*ÿ!*ÿ%'"8&"3ÿ2+ÿ3J23?ÿÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
]^_`ÿ_bcdÿefghijgkÿÿÿÿÿÿlmnopdqrÿeistfigjÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿuvwdxyÿgszg{zfgffÿÿÿÿÿÿ|b}dÿit~ÿmÿ~
!!"#$%&'ÿ("ÿ)(*(+ÿ,*#ÿ"-ÿ.*/%-"#&%*ÿ#+!"#$ÿ.0))ÿ*(("#&+1ÿ2*#3ÿ4++5+ÿ#+5%'&+$ÿ"&ÿ678978:2;ÿ<.*=5+5ÿ
=&3&">&?ÿÿ
@(ÿ%5ÿ*AA+*#ÿ(B*(ÿ.0))ÿ*(("#&+1ÿ."#%ÿ0=(#*ÿ%5ÿ*ÿ-#%+&$ÿ<C*!+D""3EÿF*>ÿ)!B""/?ÿ"-ÿG"#(+#ÿ)!"((ÿ
*(("#&+1ÿ0*H%$ÿ,=#3+((ÿ>B"ÿ#+A#+5+&(5ÿI.JGÿ*'*%&5(ÿK+ÿ%&ÿ)*!#*K+&("ÿ."=&(1ÿ)=A+#%"#ÿ."=#(ÿ%&ÿ(>"ÿ
!*5+5Lÿÿ
0*H%$ÿ,=#3+((ÿ*((+KA(+$ÿ("ÿA#"H"3+ÿM*5N!N=3ÿÿ%&("ÿAB15%!*/ÿ!"&-#"&(*(%"&ÿ%&ÿ(B+ÿ."=#(ÿ"-ÿAA+*/Eÿ
OB%#$ÿ AA+//*(+ÿ0%5(#%!(ÿ<30. ?ÿD1ÿK*3%&'ÿ(B#+*(5ÿ(">*#$ÿK1ÿ>%-+ÿ%&ÿ(B+ÿ."=#(ÿÿD=%/$%&'ÿP=5(ÿ
*-(+#ÿ5!B+$=/+$ÿJ#*/ÿ#'=K+&(ÿ>B%!Bÿ(""3ÿA/*!+ÿ%&ÿ(B+ÿ='=5(ÿ86Eÿ8:2;Eÿ*(ÿQR3:ÿ*LKLÿÿ
@ÿ$+5!#%D+$ÿ(B+ÿ2#Lÿ,=#3+((S5ÿD+B*H%"#ÿ*5ÿ-"//">ÿ%&ÿ(B+ÿG+(%(%"&ÿ-"#ÿ4+B+*#%&'ÿ-#"Kÿ=&A=D/%5B+$ÿ
."=#(ÿ$+!%5%"&ÿ%&ÿ&(%0)F GGÿK"(%"&ÿ.*5+ÿT"Lÿ.:;QU89ÿ%55=+$ÿ"&ÿJ!("D+#ÿ2:Eÿ8:2;Lÿÿ
ÿV -(+#ÿP=5(ÿ2UÿK%&=(+5ÿ"-ÿ"#*/ÿ*#'=K+&(Eÿ(B+ÿ0+-+&$*&(5ÿ/+'*/ÿ!"=&5+/ÿ0*H%$ÿ
,=#3+((ÿ-#"Kÿ(B+ÿ)*!#*K+&("0D*5+$ÿ/*>ÿ-%#KÿG"#(+#ÿ)!"((ÿ*AA#"*!B+$ÿ
M*5N!N=3ÿ%&ÿ(B+ÿ."=#(ÿW*//ÿ"=(5%$+ÿ(B+ÿ!"=#(#""Kÿ*&$ÿ*((+KA(+$ÿ("ÿ%&5(%'*(+ÿ*ÿ
!"&-#"&(*(%"&LÿW+ÿK*$+ÿ(B#+*(5ÿ(">*#$ÿM*5N!N=3ÿ>%-+ÿ*&$ÿ(#%+$ÿ("ÿ+XA/"%(ÿ(B+ÿ
+K"(%"&*/ÿ*&$ÿ-%&*&!%*/ÿ5=--+#%&'ÿ>+ÿB*H+ÿD"(Bÿ+XA+#%+&!+$ÿ5%&!+ÿI.ÿ4+'+&(5ÿ
(+#K%&*(+$ÿM*5N!N=3ÿ+KA/"1K+&(ÿ%&ÿ0+!+KD+#ÿ8:28ÿ*(ÿ*'+ÿY2ÿ>%(B"=(ÿ*&1ÿ
A"55%D%/%(1ÿ("ÿ-%&$ÿ&+>ÿ+KA/"1K+&(LÿC"#ÿ(B+ÿ."=#(ÿ%&-"#K*(%"&ÿM*5N!N=3ÿ
5A"=5+ÿ@#+&*ÿM*5N!N=3ÿ%5ÿ>"#3%&'ÿ%&ÿT"#$5(#"Kÿ%&ÿ)*!#*K+&("ÿ*5ÿ5+*K5(#+55ÿ0
-%((+#ÿ-"#ÿ*/K"5(ÿ3:ÿ1+*#5ÿ*&$ÿB*5ÿ&"(B%&'ÿ("ÿ$"ÿ>%(Bÿ(B+ÿI&%H+#5%(1ÿ"-ÿ
.*/%-"#&%*ÿ*&$ÿM*5N!N=3Sÿ/*>5=%(EÿM*5N!N=3ÿ5A"=5+ÿ5B"=/$ÿ#+(%#+ÿ"&ÿ
)+A(+KD+#ÿ82Eÿ8:2;ÿ*(ÿ*'+ÿ"-ÿYYÿD=(ÿB+ÿ!*&S(ÿ$=+ÿ("ÿ$+H*5(*(%"&ÿ"-ÿM*5N!N=35ÿ
/%-+ÿ*&$ÿ/%H+/%B""$ÿD1ÿI.ÿ4+'+&(5ÿ*&$ÿ(B+%#ÿ!"//*D"#*("#5Lÿ,=#3+((ÿ3&+>ÿ(B*(ÿ
M*5N!N=3ÿ>*5ÿ5(#+55+$ÿ$=+ÿ("ÿ-%&*&!%*/ÿB*#$5B%Aÿ!*=5+$ÿD1ÿB%5ÿ!/%+&(S5ÿ
!#%K%&*/ÿD+B*H%"#ZÿB+ÿ(B"='B(ÿ(B*(ÿB%5ÿ*((*!35ÿ*'*%&5(ÿK1ÿ5A"=5+ÿ>"=/$ÿ+*5%/1ÿ
A#"H"3+ÿ*ÿ!"&-#"&(*(%"&Lÿ)*$/1Eÿ(B%5ÿ+&!"=&(+#ÿ>*5ÿK1ÿ5+!"&$ÿ(%K+ÿ
+XA+#%+&!%&'ÿ5=!Bÿ5B*K+-=/ÿ(*!(%!5ÿ%&ÿ(B+ÿ!"=#(ÿD=%/$%&'Lÿ@(ÿ%5ÿ*ÿ5+!"&$ÿ(%K+ÿ
M*5N!N=3ÿ+XA+#%+&!+$ÿ5=!Bÿ0+-+&$*&(5ÿ*(("#&+1ÿD+B*H%"#Lÿ@(ÿB*AA+&+$ÿD+-"#+ÿ
%&ÿ8:2UEÿA#%"#ÿ("ÿ(B+ÿ!"=#(ÿB+*#%&'ÿ>%(BÿA#+5%$%&'ÿ[=$'+ÿ)B+//+1*&+ÿ.B*&'ÿ%&ÿ
(B+ÿ=&+KA/"1K+&(ÿD+&+-%(5ÿM#%(ÿ"-ÿ2*&$*K=5ÿ!*5+\ÿ%&ÿ>B%!BÿI.ÿ4+'+&(5ÿ%5ÿ
A*#(1ÿ*5ÿ*ÿ4+*/ÿG*#(1ÿ@&ÿ@&(+#+5(ÿ<4G%%L?ÿI.ÿ/+'*/ÿ!"=&5+/ÿ*&$ÿI.ÿ
*$K%&%5(#*("#5ÿK=5(ÿD+ÿH+#1ÿ$+5A+#*(+ÿ%-ÿ(B+1ÿ#+5"#(ÿ("ÿ=5%&'ÿ5=!Bÿ(*!(%!5Lÿ
O#1%&'ÿ("ÿA#"H"3+ÿ(B+ÿ"AA"5%&'ÿA*#(1ÿ%&("ÿ*ÿAB15%!*/ÿ!"&-#"&(*(%"&ÿ%&ÿ*&ÿ*#+*ÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡¢£¤¥ÿ¦§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̈©ª«¬ÿ¦®ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°ÿ§¦ÿ±ÿ²³²
!"#$%&ÿ'("))$*+!,ÿ-&ÿ.!($))/.ÿ,!01'$!.ÿ"2,ÿ*$'&ÿ03%$*!ÿ$.ÿ!$'!(ÿ#!(&ÿ)33%$.ÿ3(ÿ
#!(&ÿ12,!("2,!,45ÿÿ
6'ÿ$.ÿ*1.'37"(&ÿ)3(ÿ'!ÿ89:;<ÿ= $*ÿ$.ÿ$2'!(*322!*'!,ÿ=$'ÿ'!ÿ.'"'!ÿ>3#!(27!2'ÿ"2,ÿ.'"'!ÿ">!2*$!.<ÿ
'3ÿ>3ÿ")'!(ÿ#$2,$*'$#!%&ÿ"2,ÿ-(1'"%%&ÿÿ(!'"%$"'!ÿ">"$2.'ÿ)"7$%&ÿ7!7-!(.ÿ3(ÿ)($!2,.ÿ3)ÿ*370%"$2$2>ÿ
!70%3&!!.ÿ".ÿ"ÿ'!((3($?$2>ÿ'"*'$*ÿ'3ÿ,$.*31(">!ÿ!70%3&!!.ÿ)(37ÿ01(.1$2>ÿ*370%"$2'.ÿ">"$2.'ÿ'!ÿ
12$#!(.$'&ÿ7"2">!7!2'ÿ"2,ÿ",7$2$.'("'$324ÿ@ $.ÿ"00!2!,ÿ$2ÿ'!ÿ*".!ÿ3)ÿA"2!'ÿB"&?!(ÿ= !2ÿ'!ÿ
12$#!(.$'&ÿ'1>.ÿ(!'"%$"'!,ÿ">"$2.'ÿ!(ÿ1.-"2,ÿ"2,ÿ)$(!,ÿ$7ÿ)(37ÿ$.ÿC3-4ÿD"*("7!2'3ÿ9312'&ÿ
D10!($3(ÿ931('ÿ9".!ÿE34ÿF3GH2HHHHIJKLJ98M@NODÿ<ÿFO9PÿQRSTRUÿWXÿYRZR[\]ÿ^_ÿ\`Rÿa[bWRU]b\Sÿ^_ÿ
cdeb_^U[bdÿR\ÿdeXÿ9".!ÿE17-!(ÿ9HIIJI3ÿ
6'ÿ"00!2!,ÿ$2ÿ7&ÿ*".!ÿ= !2ÿ12$#!(.$'&ÿ%!>"%ÿ*312.!%ÿ)(37ÿ;3('!(ÿD*3''ÿ%"=ÿ)$(7ÿO31>%".ÿf30!%ÿ
=".ÿ7"+$2>ÿ'(!"'.ÿ'"'ÿ!ÿ=$%%ÿ>3ÿ")'!(ÿ7&ÿ=$)!ÿ)3(ÿ'!ÿ%!>"%ÿ)!!.ÿ'"'ÿ'!ÿ12$#!(.$'&ÿ",ÿ23'ÿ&!'ÿ-!!2ÿ
"="(,!,4ÿ@ $.ÿ3**1((!,ÿ32ÿg!-(1"(&ÿGI<ÿGH2h<ÿ,1($2>ÿ'!ÿ,$.*1..$32ÿ=$'ÿO31>%".ÿf30!%ÿC1.'ÿ-!)3(!ÿ
!2'!($2>ÿ'!ÿ931('ÿ!"($2>ÿ=$'ÿA1,>!ÿ9 "2>ÿ$2ÿD"*("7!2'3ÿ9312'&ÿD10!($3(ÿ931('4ÿi&ÿ=$)!ÿ=3(+.ÿ
23'ÿ)3(ÿ'!ÿ12$#!(.$'&ÿ-1'ÿ)3(ÿE3(,.'(37ÿ93(03("'$32<ÿ= !(!ÿ.!ÿ".ÿ-!!2ÿ!70%3&!,ÿ)3(ÿF2ÿ&!"(.ÿ
jjkjlÿ ÿ
nopÿrpstuvÿwknsoÿoxunÿyz{ÿ|}rnÿ~krknÿtuÿut~pzpÿÿ ÿwknoÿz{ÿ
|tvkÿÿs}ÿÿo{rksk}uÿÿvlÿo}~p{ÿo}rokztntÿzlvlÿ
ÿ
@ !ÿE3#!7-!(ÿGK<ÿGH22ÿ=".ÿ7&ÿ%".'ÿ.*!,1%!,ÿ"003$2'7!2'ÿ=$'ÿO(4ÿ"(#!&ÿ".$73'34ÿ6ÿ=".ÿ
32ÿ.'(!..ÿ%!"#!ÿ"'ÿ'"'ÿ'$7!ÿ)(37ÿD!0'!7-!(ÿGG<ÿGH22ÿ'3ÿA"21"(&ÿh<ÿGH2Gÿÿÿ0(3#$,!,ÿ'3ÿ7!ÿ-&ÿO(4ÿ
".$73'3ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿkÿrÿ <ÿ*32)$,!2'$"%ÿ$2)3(7"'$32ÿ"-31'ÿÿ!70%3&7!2'ÿ'!(7$2"'$32ÿ=".ÿ0(!7"'1(!%&ÿ
%!"+!,4ÿi&ÿ0&.$*$"2ÿO(4ÿ".$73'3ÿ"2,ÿ7&ÿ0.&*3%3>$.'ÿg("2+%$2ÿ!(23)'<ÿ; 4O4<ÿ0%"*!,ÿ7!ÿ32ÿ
.'(!..0(!%"'!,ÿ.$*+ÿ%!"#!ÿ!))!*'$#!ÿD!0'!7-!(ÿGG<ÿGH224ÿÿ
i&ÿÿ."%"(&ÿ=".ÿ0"$,ÿ-&ÿ$.ÿ"**(1!,ÿ.$*+ÿ%!"#!ÿ"2,ÿ#"*"'$32ÿ31(.ÿ12'$%ÿ6ÿ("2ÿ31'ÿ3)ÿ31(.ÿ$2ÿO!*!7-!(ÿ
GH224ÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#ÿ"%&'ÿ()*+,-*.ÿÿÿÿÿÿ/0123'45ÿ(,67),*-ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ89:';<ÿ*6=*>=)*))ÿÿÿÿÿÿ?%@'ÿ,.*ÿ0AÿBCB
ÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
vwxyÿx{|}ÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ{}ÿÿÿ
!"ÿ#$%&'()*)ÿ+$%ÿ(,ÿ-&,%'.'$/ÿ()!0ÿ*&$/ÿ1)!ÿ20.$20ÿ$/2ÿ&0ÿ+$%ÿ*$3'/4ÿ.$!0ÿ)1ÿ(0ÿ-!')!ÿ$/2ÿ
$1*0!ÿ(,ÿ)-0/0&0$!*ÿ%5!40!,ÿ6ÿ&$2ÿ)/ÿ7$/5$!,ÿ28ÿ9::3"ÿ5!'/4ÿ*&0ÿ22;9<;9:22ÿ='%'*ÿ!"ÿ#$%&'()*)ÿ
5/0>-0.*02?,ÿ*)?2ÿ(0ÿ*&$*ÿ.$//)*ÿ-!)='20ÿ(02'.$?ÿ.$!0ÿ$/2ÿ%0!='.0%ÿ*)"ÿÿ
6ÿ+$%ÿ/)*ÿ=0!,ÿ&$--,ÿ$@)5*ÿ@0.$5%0ÿ'%ÿ&$!2ÿ*)ÿ1'/2ÿ/0+ÿ-&,%'.'$/ÿ'/ÿA)2'"ÿ6ÿ$%302ÿ!"ÿ#$%&'()*)ÿ
+&,ÿ6ÿ.$/B*ÿ@0ÿ&'%ÿ-$*'0/*ÿ$/,()!0"ÿ#0ÿ=$450?,ÿ*)?2ÿ(0ÿ*&$*ÿ'%ÿ40**'/4ÿ%5-0!='%)!,ÿ-)%'*')/ÿ'/ÿA)2'ÿ
#)%-'*$?"ÿ6ÿ.)/4!$*5?$*02ÿ!8ÿ#$%&'()*)ÿ+'*&ÿ/0+ÿC)@ÿ+'%&02ÿ&'(ÿ+0??ÿ$/2ÿ*&$/302ÿ&'(ÿ1)!ÿ*$3'/4ÿ
.$!0ÿ)1ÿ(0ÿ1)!ÿ$ÿ?)/4ÿ*'(0"ÿ6ÿ+$%ÿ!010!!02ÿ@,ÿ!"ÿ#$%&'()*)ÿ*)ÿ/0+ÿ-&,%'.'$/ÿD'.*)!ÿE0??'/0$5ÿ
F"ÿ'/ÿ%$(0ÿ.?'/'.ÿ+'*&ÿ/0>*ÿ%.&025?02ÿ$--)'/*(0/*ÿ)/ÿF$!.&ÿ9<8ÿ9:29"ÿÿ
A)%'/4ÿ!"ÿ#$%&'()*)ÿ6*ÿ(0$/*ÿ*&$*ÿ!"ÿ#$%&'()*)ÿ.$/B*ÿ-!)='20ÿ(0ÿ()!0ÿ%'.3ÿ?0$=0ÿ'1ÿ/00202ÿ
@0'/4ÿ%*!0%%02ÿ)5*ÿ*)ÿ*&0ÿ($>'(5(ÿ250ÿ*)ÿ.)/%*$/*ÿ&$!$%%(0/*ÿ$/2ÿ5/3/)+/ÿ*)()!!)+"ÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿHIÿJKLKMNKOÿPQÿRSTT8ÿ(,ÿ0-$!*(0/*ÿ#0$2ÿ%0/*ÿ(0ÿ$ÿÿ*&!0$*'/4ÿ?0**0!ÿ+'*&ÿ$**0(-*ÿ*)ÿ1)!.0ÿ
(0ÿ.)(0ÿ*)ÿ+)!3ÿ$/ÿ4'=0ÿ$/ÿ'/*0!='0+ÿ1)!ÿÿ*&0ÿ$%%'4/02ÿ+'*.&ÿ&5/*0!ÿÿ+&0/ÿ+$%ÿ)/ÿ%*!0%%ÿ!0?$*02ÿ
%'.3ÿ?0$=0ÿ"ÿÿ
U&0ÿ0.0(@0!ÿV8ÿ9:22ÿ*&!0$*0/'/4ÿ?0**0!ÿ+&'.&ÿ+$%ÿ%0/*ÿ*)ÿÿ(0ÿÿ+$%ÿ($3'/4ÿ!010!0/.0ÿ*)ÿW.*)@0!ÿ
9X8ÿ9:22ÿA'@0!*,B%ÿY)/%5?*'/4ÿZ%,.&'$*!'%*%ÿ $='2ÿD?$.&ÿF"ÿ[0='0+ÿ\ÿY)/.?5%')/ÿ$/2ÿ
$--$!0/*?,ÿ+$%ÿ*&0ÿ!0%5?*ÿ)1ÿ !"ÿD?$.&ÿ.)/=0!%$*')/ÿ+'*&ÿ !"ÿ#$%'()*)ÿ$/2ÿÿ(,ÿ-%,.&)?)4'%*ÿ
]!$/3?'/ÿÿ^0!/&)1*ÿZ&""ÿÿÿU&0ÿ?0**0!ÿ%*$*02ÿ_ÿÿ
`U&'%ÿ2'!0.*'=0ÿ'%ÿ($20ÿ5/20!ÿa/'=0!%'*,ÿZ0!%)//0?ÿZ)?'.,ÿ$/2ÿZ!).025!0%ÿ1)!ÿ
b*$11ÿF0(@0!%8ÿb0.*')/ÿ3c"ÿd)5ÿ$!0ÿ0>-0.*02ÿ*)ÿ.))-0!$*0ÿ+'*&ÿ*&0ÿ
'/=0%*'4$*')/8ÿ20%-'*0ÿ,)5!ÿ-!0=')5%ÿ!015%$?ÿ*)ÿ2)ÿ%)"ÿefgOÿhijkgOKÿlfÿillKImÿ
lnKÿjIoKpljqilfOrÿjIlKOojKsÿiImÿtiOljLjtilKÿjIÿlnKÿjIoKpljqiljfIÿsjkkÿNKÿ
mKKMKmÿjIpgNfOmjIiljfIÿfIÿrfgOÿtiOlÿiImÿrfgÿsjkkÿNKÿpgNuKLlÿlfÿmjpLjtkjIKÿ
gtÿlfÿiImÿjILkgmjIqÿmjpMjppikÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#ÿ"%&'ÿ()*+,-*.ÿÿÿÿÿÿ/0123'45ÿ(,67),*-ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ89:';<ÿ*6=*>=)*))ÿÿÿÿÿÿ?%@'ÿ,.)ÿ0AÿBCB
ÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
tuvwÿvyz{ÿ|}~~ÿÿÿÿÿÿ{ÿ|}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ{ÿ~~}~}}ÿÿÿÿÿÿy{ÿÿÿ
ÿ!"ÿ#!$"%#&'(ÿ)"##"$ÿ*%+ÿÿ*&#!,-#ÿ%ÿÿ$".-"+#ÿ/$,0ÿ1"2%$#0"'#ÿ3"%4ÿ#,ÿ2$,5&4"ÿ#!"ÿ0%'4%#,$6ÿ78ÿ
9:;<=ÿ?@:AB?ÿ=C=B@DÿE@BFEGÿBHÿIHEJÿKA@:E:GK@ÿ*!&L!ÿ0%'4%#"4ÿ#!%#ÿMÿ
@DNAHC@@MÿO,-ÿ0-+#ÿ2$,5&4"ÿ0"4&L%)ÿL"$#&/&L%#&,'ÿ,/ÿ%P&)ÿ#,ÿ2"$/,$0ÿQ,Pÿ4-#6ÿ#,ÿ6,-$ÿ+-2"$5&+,$ÿ
2$&,$ÿ#,ÿ$"#-$'ÿ#,ÿ*,$Rÿ4%#"ÿ*!"'ÿ$"#-$'&'(ÿ/$,0ÿ%ÿ0"4&L%)ÿ)"%5"ÿ,/ÿ%P+"'L"Sÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Tÿ+#&))ÿ4,'U#ÿR',*ÿ*!%#ÿÿ#!"ÿ78VWÿ#!-(+ÿ*"$"ÿ2)%''"4ÿ/,$ÿ0"ÿ,'ÿ1"L"0P"$ÿ2XYÿXZ22ÿ&/ÿTÿ*,-)4ÿ+!,*ÿ
-2ÿ&'ÿ#!"ÿ781[8ÿL%02-+ÿ,'ÿ1"L"0P"$ÿ2XYÿXZ22Sÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿH\ÿ9]^]_`]aÿbcdÿcebbdÿ06ÿ"02),60"'#ÿ+#%#-+ÿ4-$&'(ÿ06ÿ0"4&L%)ÿ)"%5"ÿ*%+ÿL!%'("4ÿ#,ÿ
fg_h\hijafjhk]ÿl]fk]ÿmhjnopjÿqfrsÿ06ÿ0"4&L%)Yÿ4"'#%)Yÿ%'4ÿ,#!"$ÿP"'"/&#+ÿ*"$"ÿL%'L")"4Sÿÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡ÿ¢£¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤¥ÿÿ¦ÿ§¨§
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ !ÿ#$%$&'$(ÿ))*ÿ)+,,-ÿ./ÿ0.123/.045ÿ657586ÿ98:;4<ÿ.ÿ3==;>;72ÿ.09;>72ÿ207?0ÿ@76ÿ>A74<09ÿ7<7;4ÿ
53ÿ;4?065;<753:/ÿ207?0-ÿ749ÿ./ÿ3==;>;72ÿ5;520-ÿ=3:ÿ74ÿ84B43@4ÿ:07634-ÿ@76ÿ>A74<09ÿ=:3.ÿC663>;750ÿ
D0?0231.045ÿE4<;400:ÿ53ÿF3.1850:ÿG:3<:7..0:ÿHÿIÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ !ÿJK!LK(MÿN*ÿ)+,)-ÿHÿÿ04909ÿ.ÿÿÿ.09;>72ÿ207?0ÿ749ÿ9;9ÿ435ÿ76Bÿ./ÿ40@ÿ93>53:ÿÿ=3:ÿ74ÿ0O5046;34-ÿ
PKQRQ!SÿTU(ÿK!ÿ$&VWUM&$!RÿR$(&Q!KRQU!ÿ!URQ%$IÿC=50:ÿ68>Aÿ7ÿ:3220:0>37650:ÿ;4ÿXY22-ÿHÿÿ9;9ÿ435ÿA7?0ÿ7ÿ
>280ÿÿ749ÿHÿ9;9ÿ435ÿB43@ÿ=3:ÿ5A0ÿ40O5ÿ=38:ÿ/07:6ÿ@A/ÿA;6ÿZF[Gÿ5A8<6ÿÿ7667825;4<ÿ.0ÿ749ÿ5:;09ÿ53ÿ
1A/6;>722/ÿ9065:3/ÿ.0ÿ0?04ÿ98:;4<ÿA;6ÿ.09;>72ÿ207?0IÿC=50:ÿ./ÿ.09;>72ÿ207?0ÿ04909ÿ[4ÿ\7487:/ÿ]-ÿ
XY2XÿÿHÿ9;9ÿ435ÿ:0>0;?0ÿ74/ÿ435;=;>75;34ÿ7^385ÿ./ÿ0.123/.045ÿ657586ÿ749ÿ@76ÿ20=5ÿ;4ÿ2;.^3ÿ^85ÿ34ÿ5A0ÿ
ZFÿ17/:322Iÿ
_/ÿ;4>3.0ÿ=3:ÿXY22ÿ@76ÿ̀aX-323ÿ;465079ÿ3=ÿ̀b2-acY-ÿ72.365ÿ̀2Y-YYYÿ2066ÿ5A74ÿ;5ÿ6A3829ÿA7?0ÿ^004Iÿ
C=50:ÿHÿ04909ÿA;6ÿ.09;>72ÿ0207?0ÿ34ÿ\7487:/ÿ]-ÿXY2Xÿ43^39/ÿ>7:09ÿÿ7^385ÿ5A0ÿ.749753:/ÿZFÿDCdHeÿ
fECghfÿeiehE_ÿjEhZjkÿh[ÿl[jmÿFgECjCkFEÿ@A;>Aÿ.7497509ÿ5A75ÿnÿ
opqr sootÿsULÿ&LuRÿV(UvQw$ÿ&$wQ%KWÿ%$(RQTQ%KRQU!ÿUTÿK'QWQRMÿRUÿV$(TU(&ÿxU'ÿwLRMÿRUÿMUL(ÿ
uLV$(vQuU(ÿV(QU(ÿRUÿ($RL(!ÿRUÿPU(yÿwKR$ÿPz$!ÿ($RL(!Q!SÿT(U&ÿKÿ&$wQ%KWÿW$Kv$ÿUTÿK'u$!%${ÿ
Hÿÿ@76ÿ=;:09ÿ@;5A385ÿ^0;4<ÿ=;:09ÿ/05Iÿÿ
ÿÿ[4ÿ./ÿ=;:65ÿ?;6;5ÿ34ÿpK(%zÿ)|*ÿ)+,)ÿ@;5Aÿ40@ÿÿD:Iÿd;>53:ÿ}022;4078-ÿA0ÿ3:ÿA;6ÿ766;65745ÿ48:60ÿ@76ÿ
>8:;386ÿ@A/ÿHÿ7.ÿ435ÿ234<0:ÿ@;5AÿD:Iÿf76A;.353ÿ7=50:ÿ63ÿ.74/ÿ/07:6IÿÿlA04ÿHÿ5329ÿA;.ÿ3:ÿA0:ÿ5A75ÿD:Iÿ
f76A;.353ÿA76ÿ40@ÿ~3^ÿ;4ÿf361;572ÿHÿ<35ÿ:0613460ÿ5A75ÿ;5ÿ;6ÿ435ÿ5:80ÿ749ÿ5A75ÿD:Iÿf76A;.353ÿ;6ÿ65;22ÿ;4ÿ5A0ÿ
>2;4;>ÿ749ÿA0ÿ;6ÿ9306ÿ67.0ÿ~3^ÿ60:?;4<ÿ76ÿ=7.;2/ÿ<040:72ÿ.09;>;40ÿ1A/6;>;74Iÿÿ
Hÿ@76ÿ435ÿÿ68:1:;609ÿ749ÿÿÿHÿÿ@76ÿ8;50ÿ68:0ÿ5A75ÿD:Iÿf76A;.353ÿ@76ÿ79?;609ÿ^/ÿ5A0ÿÿZF[Gÿ.7=;7ÿ435ÿ
53ÿ60:?0ÿ.0ÿ74/ÿ.09;>72ÿ10:.;56ÿ74/.3:0ÿIÿhA0ÿZFÿD7?;6ÿ_09;>72ÿF0450:ÿXbÿ_lÿ>3<040:75;34ÿ
12745ÿ@76ÿ;92;4<ÿ75ÿA3860ÿ2379ÿ6;4>0ÿk3?0.^0:ÿXYYÿ749ÿZF[Gÿ@A;50ÿ>3227:ÿ>:;.;4726ÿ2365ÿ.;22;346ÿ
3=ÿ57Oÿ=:00ÿ93227:6ÿ435ÿ6022;4<ÿ74/ÿÿ13@0:ÿ=:3.ÿ5A0ÿ12745IÿH4ÿk3?0.^0:ÿXYYÿHÿ1:0?7;209ÿ;4ÿ7:^;5:75;34ÿ
7<7;465ÿZF[Gÿ.7=;7ÿIÿÿ
ÿ
Hÿ65;22ÿ9345ÿB43@ÿ@A75ÿÿ5A0ÿZF[Gÿ5A8<6ÿ@0:0ÿ1274409ÿ=3:ÿ.0ÿ34ÿD0>0.^0:ÿ2X-ÿXY22ÿQTÿÿPULWwÿ
uzUPÿLVÿQ!ÿRz$ÿ#pÿ%K&VLuÿU!ÿRzKRÿwKMÿ{ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡ÿÿ¢ÿ£¤£
!!!"ÿ ÿ
$%&ÿ(&)*+,ÿ-.$)%ÿ%/+$ÿ01*2ÿ0&31/415ÿ67ÿ89:8ÿ$*ÿ,&)&23&1ÿ;7ÿ89:8<ÿ
.+0*124=ÿ1&(*=/$.*+ÿ*0ÿ&2>=*52&+$ÿ-.$%ÿ$%&ÿ/+.?&1(.$5ÿ*0ÿ
)4=.0*1+.4ÿ7ÿ/)ÿ,4?.(ÿ2&,.)4=ÿ)&+$&1ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
*@ÿ0ABCDECFÿ67ÿ89:87ÿGHÿIJKLMÿNOPLQJRÿHOSTOUÿVWÿXOSOYLTMÿZÿ[\]JRÿ[^_R̀a^OSTÿb__`UT]SLTaÿ
NJSJcOUÿHLSPaÿdeÿbU`_OfJÿQ`STJQTOPÿ^Oÿgaÿ_h`SOÿJSPÿJMiOPÿ^OÿjhOThOUÿkÿj`]RPÿgOÿLSTOUOMTOPÿ
LSÿLSY`U^JRRaÿUOM`RKLScÿ^aÿR̀Sc0`Sc`LScÿJSPÿ]SUOM`RKOPÿQ`SYRLQTÿlMLSQOÿNJUQhÿ3422mÿjLThÿThOÿ
GHbneÿkÿT̀RPÿhOUÿThJTÿkÿjJMÿJRjJaMÿ`_OSÿT̀ÿQ`SMTU]QTLKOÿPLMQ]MML̀SMÿT̀ÿLSY`U^JRRaÿUOM`RKOÿThOÿ
_U`gRO^eÿ
ÿ bSÿThJTÿMJ^OÿPJaoÿkÿQ`SYLU^OPÿUOQOL_Tÿ̀YÿThOÿLSKLTJTL̀SÿY`UÿLSY`U^JRÿPLM_]TOÿUOM`R]TL̀SÿKLJÿ
O0^JLRÿQ`UUOM_`SPOSQOÿjLThÿNMeÿbU`_OfJeÿkÿJRM`ÿQ`SYLU^OPÿ`]Uÿ_h`SOÿQ`SKOUMJTL̀SÿJSPÿ
O^_hJMLfOPÿJcJLSÿThJTÿkÿjJMÿJRjJaMÿ̀_OSÿT̀ÿPLMQ]MML̀SMÿT̀ÿYLSPÿThOÿgOMTÿUOM`R]TL̀SÿY`Uÿg`ThÿMLPOMÿ
`YÿThOÿQ`SYRLQTeÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿ *@ÿ0ABCDECFÿ:p7ÿ89:8oÿkÿhJPÿJÿ^OOTLScÿjLThÿVWÿqJg`UÿWORJTL̀SMÿNJSJcOUÿNLiOÿdJUQLJÿ
JTÿhLMÿ`YYLQOÿLSÿhLMÿVWÿX]LRPLSceÿrhOÿ^OOTLScÿjJMÿYU]LTROMMoÿJSPÿkÿjJMÿJMiOPÿh`jÿ^]Qhÿkÿj`]RPÿ
TJiOoÿP`RRJU0jLMOoÿT̀ÿK`R]STJULRaÿ\]LTÿ^aÿs̀geÿkÿ_U`_`MOPÿUOMLcSLScÿLYÿThOÿGHÿj`]RPÿ_Jaÿ^OoÿLSÿJÿ
R]^_ÿM]^oÿThOÿJSS]JRÿjJcOÿThJTÿj`]RPÿgOÿP]OÿT̀ÿ^Oÿ]STLRÿkÿgOQJ^OÿORLcLgROÿY`UÿY]RRÿt`QLJRÿtOQ]ULTaÿ
gOSOYLTMÿJTÿJcOÿuueÿkSÿvOgU]JUaÿ3423oÿkÿjJMÿQR̀MOÿT̀ÿu2ÿaOJUMÿ`RPÿl^aÿu2MTÿgLUThPJaÿjJMÿNJaÿw4oÿ
3423meÿkÿS`TLQOPÿP]ULScÿThOÿ^OOTLScÿThJTÿdJUQLJÿjJMÿMTUOMMOPÿ`]TxÿhOÿT̀RPÿ^OÿThJTÿhOÿjJMÿKOUaÿ
Q`SQOUSOPÿJg`]TÿThOÿjh`ROÿMLT]JTL̀SÿJSPÿThJTÿLTÿjJMÿKOUaÿ]S_ROJMJSTÿY`UÿhL^ÿT̀ÿPOJRÿjLThÿThLMÿ
_U`gRO^eÿVOÿQ`^^OSTOPÿThJTÿhOÿjJMÿUOJPaÿT̀ÿUOTLUOÿYU`^ÿThOÿGSLKOUMLTaÿhL^MORYeÿrhOÿ^OOTLScÿ
RJMTOPÿJ__U`yL^JTORaÿw4ÿ^LS]TOMeÿdJUQLJÿ^JPOÿS`ÿ_U`^LMOMÿ̀Uÿ̀YYOUMÿP]ULScÿThOÿ^OOTLSceÿÿ
ÿÿÿ kSMTOJPÿ̀YÿJÿUOM_`SMOÿYU`^ÿThOÿGHbnÿ^`gÿLSÿUOcJUPÿT̀ÿThOÿLSY`U^JRÿUOM`R]TL̀SÿLSLTLJTOPÿgaÿThO^ÿ
LSÿvOgU]JUaÿ3423oÿ`Sÿz_ULRÿ2woÿ3423oÿkÿUOQOLKOPÿJÿqOTTOUÿ`YÿkSTOSTÿT̀ÿt]M_OSPeÿrhOÿROTTOUÿjJMÿJR^`MTÿ
LPOSTLQJRÿT̀ÿJÿROTTOUÿkÿUOQOLKOPÿP]ULScÿThOÿ0{C|}ÿ-{}~ÿ%D@}oÿ̀SÿNJUQhÿ3woÿ344oÿjhLQhÿYOJT]UOPÿKOUaÿ
ML^LRJUÿRLOMÿJSPÿ]SY`]SPOPÿJQQ]MJTL̀SMÿPOYJQLScÿJSPÿPOYJ^LScÿ^OeÿrhOÿPLYYOUOSQOÿjJMÿThJToÿLSÿ344oÿkÿ
jJMÿj`UiLScÿLSÿ_RJSToÿjhOUOJMÿLSÿz_ULRÿ3423oÿkÿhJPÿgOOSÿJgMOSTÿYU`^ÿj`UiÿY`UÿOLchTÿ^`SThMeÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ghijÿilmnÿopqrstquÿÿÿÿÿÿvwxyzn{|ÿos}~psqtÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿnÿq}q pqppÿÿÿÿÿÿlnÿsu~ÿwÿ
ÿÿÿÿ !"#ÿ$%&'(ÿ)*+ÿ,-),ÿ./00/1ÿ23ÿ450/50ÿ02ÿ6789/5:ÿ;<0=270ÿ9>?ÿ321ÿ2@ÿ:>?8ÿ:71<5Aÿ>ÿ5<5/ÿBCD0
E250=ÿ321F/:ÿ>G8/5F/ÿ312Eÿ;21Hÿ:<:ÿ520ÿ/I/5ÿ8>?ÿ21ÿ<5321EÿE/ÿ23ÿ;=/5ÿ4ÿ;>8ÿ879928/:ÿ02ÿ1/0715ÿ
02ÿ;21HJÿÿ
ÿÿ KLMNLÿOPÿNQRQS#&ÿN'T#ÿUQ&V'QWÿ;=2ÿ=>:ÿ0=/ÿ<:/>ÿ02ÿE//0ÿE/ÿ25ÿX/G17>1?ÿ2YWÿ3@23Wÿ;>8ÿ
321F/:ÿ02ÿZ/>I/ÿÿ[\ÿ;<0=ÿ=<8ÿ>88<80>50Wÿ]^ÿ>00215/?ÿ_<ZZÿ̀2/Zÿa>5:/I<I/1Wÿ>30/1ÿb>?ÿc2Wÿ3@23Wÿ;=/5ÿ4ÿ
;>8ÿ0=/ÿ87Gd/F0ÿ23ÿ>5ÿ<ZZ0F1>30/:ÿG70ÿ7587FF/8837Zÿ>00/E90ÿ02ÿH<ZZÿE/ÿ21ÿ/5:ÿE?ÿ/E9Z2?E/50ÿ;<0=ÿ0=/ÿ
[5<I/18<0?ÿ23ÿ\>Z<3215<>WÿF>11</:ÿ270ÿ>0ÿ[\ÿe>I<8ÿf1>7E>ÿ[5<0ÿ̀2Jÿ22Jÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¢£ÿÿ¤ÿ¥¦¥
!"ÿ ÿ
%&'ÿ(')*+,ÿ-!%)&ÿ&.+%ÿ/0ÿ%&'ÿ.)*1ÿ2*/3ÿ240ÿ56758,')'2/'9ÿ56753ÿ
19*:*)4%!*+(ÿ%*ÿ;!<<ÿ*9ÿ=942'3ÿ19*(').%'3ÿ4+,ÿ,'1*9%ÿ%&'ÿ=*92'9ÿ
.),2)ÿ5>?2-ÿ)*@'+'94%!*+ÿ1<4+%ÿ*1'94%*93ÿ1*<!(&ÿ!22!@94+%ÿ
A49*(<4-ÿBA'990Cÿ-4(D)D.;ÿ
ÿÿÿ
ÿ
!Eÿ4FGHIÿJGÿ2KLÿ5675MÿNÿOPOÿQRSÿTQRUÿRVÿWXVYÿSZXSÿSZYÿ[\]^ÿ_R`ÿUXaÿaYbbPQcÿdRUYVÿeVR_ÿSZYÿ
[\fg\haÿ3i0gjÿWRcYQYVXSPRQÿdRUYVÿdbXQSkÿNÿZXOÿURVTYOÿaPQWYÿldVPbÿ3mmiÿPQÿSZYÿnol\ÿaZRdMÿXQOÿ
NÿWRpbOÿQRSÿZXqYÿWXVYOÿbYaaÿUZXSÿUXaÿcRPQcÿRQÿPQÿSZYÿWRcYQYVXSPRQÿdbXQSkÿNÿaPcQYOÿXÿrYSSbY_YQSÿ
lcVYY_YQSÿRQÿsXQpXVtÿu2Mÿ3mmvÿUPSZÿSZYÿ[\ÿwYcYQSaÿXQOÿXcVYYOÿSRÿURVTÿdYV_XQYQSbtÿPQÿSZYÿnol\ÿ
aZRdMÿXQOÿPSÿUXaÿXÿORQYÿOYXbkÿNQÿgXtÿ3m23MÿNÿURpbOÿQRSÿZXqYÿWXVYOÿPeÿaR_YRQYÿZXOÿSRbOÿ_YÿSZXSÿSZYÿ[\ÿ
wYcYQSaÿUYVYÿQYcRSPXSPQcÿXÿQYUÿdRUYVÿaXbYÿWRQSVXWSÿUPSZÿSZYÿrXWVX_YQSRÿgpQPWPdXbÿ[SPbPStÿfPaSVPWSÿ
xrg[fyÿSRÿaYbbÿdRUYVÿeVR_ÿSZYÿ[\fg\haÿ\YQSVXbÿ^bXQSÿWRcYQYVXSPRQÿeXWPbPStkÿNQÿgXtÿ3m23MÿSZYÿ
[\]^haÿUZPSYÿWRbbXVÿWVP_PQXbaÿcVYUÿqYVtÿPQdXSPYQSÿUPSZÿ_tÿWRQSPQpYOÿdVYaYQWYÿRQÿSZYÿ[\ÿdXtVRbbMÿ
UVRQcbtÿXaap_PQcÿSZXSÿNÿPQSYQOYOÿSRÿVYdRVSÿSZY_ÿeRVÿSZYPVÿPbbYcXbÿdRUYVÿaXbYakÿgtÿeVPYQOaÿUYVYÿURVTPQcÿ
PQÿSZYÿdbXQSMÿXQOÿYqYQÿPeÿNÿZXOÿTQRUQÿReÿSZYÿ[\]^ÿ_R`haÿUVRQcORPQcMÿNÿURpbOÿZXqYÿZYaPSXSYOÿSRÿVYdRVSÿ
SZYPVÿWVP_YaMÿaRÿXaÿQRSÿSRÿZpVSÿ_tÿeRV_YVÿWRURVTYVaÿaSPbbÿURVTPQcÿXSÿSZYÿdbXQSkÿÿ
ÿ zZYÿdatWZRbRcPWXbÿSYVVRVMÿX`paYMÿZXVXaa_YQSMÿXQOÿVYSXbPXSPRQÿSRÿUZPWZÿNÿUXaÿap`{YWSÿeRVÿXb_RaSÿ
RQYÿtYXVÿOPOÿQRSÿURVTÿSRÿeRVWYÿ_YÿSRÿ|pPSÿ_tÿ{R`kÿNQÿgXtÿ3m23MÿSZYÿ[\]^ÿ_R`ÿ_XOYÿSZYÿOYWPaPRQÿSRÿ
YbP_PQXSYÿ_Yÿ̀tÿUZXSYqYVÿ_YXQaÿQYWYaaXVtMÿpdÿSRÿXQOÿPQWbpOPQcÿXÿ̀pbbYSÿeVR_ÿSZYÿdPaSRbÿReÿ[\ÿfXqPaÿ
^RbPWYÿ}SkÿsX_Yaÿ~XV`RpVMÿUZRÿUXaÿXaaPcQYOÿ̀tÿSZYÿfYeYQOXQSaÿSRÿWXVVtÿRpSÿ_tÿXaaXaaPQXSPRQÿRQÿgXtÿ
u2Mÿ3m23kÿÿ
ÿ
*Eÿ2KLÿ>3ÿ5675ÿNÿVYWYPqYOÿPQeRV_XSPRQÿXSÿXÿcXSZYVPQcÿReÿSZYÿ[\fg\haÿ^bXQSÿ]dYVXSPRQÿXQOÿ
gXPQSYQXQWYÿxSZYÿOYdXVS_YQSÿUZYVYÿNÿURVTYOyÿ_XQXcYVaÿXQOÿapdYVqPaRVaÿXSÿSZYÿ[\fg\ÿdRbPWYÿaSXSPRQkÿÿ
ÿ 4IJÿJEÿ2KLÿ>3ÿ5675ÿSRÿdVP_Yÿ_YÿeRVÿSZYÿdbXQQYOÿgXtÿu2Mÿ3m23ÿdVRqRWXSPRQMÿ[\fg\ÿ
nwÿRVOYVYOÿXÿdaYpORÿrTYbbtÿ]eePWYVÿSRÿaPcQÿZPaÿOYWPaPRQÿSRÿapadYQOÿXQOÿOYdVPqYÿ_YÿReÿ2mÿOXtahÿ
PQWR_Ykÿgtÿ̀pOcYSÿUXaÿXbVYXOtÿaSVYSWZYOÿOpYÿSRÿSZYÿdVYqPRpaÿtYXVhaÿePQXQWPXbÿbRaaYaÿWXpaYOÿ̀tÿSZYÿ
VYWTbYaaÿ[\]^ÿ_R`haÿXOqYVaYÿXWSPRQaÿXcXPQaSÿ_Ykÿÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
wxyzÿy|}~ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ|~ÿ ÿÿ
ÿ !"#ÿ$%&'ÿ()*#+,-*ÿ-.ÿ/01#2,)34,)-02ÿ5-"0ÿ6-"2#7ÿ4ÿ89:;<=ÿ?8ÿ@ABAÿB;C9;DE9Fÿ?8ÿDG;ÿ
H;IE9DJ;<Dÿ?8ÿK?J;LE<=ÿB;CM9:DFNÿO#+4P#ÿ-Q#0RSÿ)01-R1#Tÿ)0ÿ,"#ÿU),+"ÿ"V0,ÿOSÿ2#0T)03ÿ,-ÿP#ÿ
4ÿR#,,#*ÿ)0ÿU")+"ÿ"#ÿT#.#0T#Tÿ,"#ÿ+-**VQ,ÿ$%ÿ(41)2ÿ%")#.ÿ%-PQR)40+#ÿ&..)+#*ÿW;<=:ÿH;LJ;<=?ÿ
U"-ÿU42ÿQ*#,#0T)03ÿ,"4,ÿ2"#ÿ)2ÿ)01#2,)34,)03ÿU")2,R#OR-U#*2ÿ+-PQR4)0,2ÿ40Tÿ)0ÿ.4+,ÿ2"#ÿU42ÿ2#,,)03ÿ
VQÿ+-PQR4)0)03ÿ#PQR-S##2ÿ.-*ÿ,#*P)04,)-0Xÿ
ÿÿ /ÿ4Pÿ+-01)0+#Tÿ,"4,ÿ()*#+,-*ÿ6-"2#7ÿU"-ÿU42ÿ*#+*V),#Tÿ,-ÿ")2ÿQ-2),)-0ÿ)0ÿ3ZZ[7ÿU42ÿ
+--*T)04,)03ÿV0\0-U0ÿ4+,)-02ÿ434)02,ÿP#ÿ40Tÿ,"4,ÿ"#ÿQ#*.#+,RSÿ.),ÿ,"#ÿQ*-.)R#ÿ-.ÿ2-P#-0#ÿU"-ÿ
U-VRTÿ.*4P#ÿ-,"#*2Xÿ/ÿ#]Q*#22#TÿPSÿ,"-V3",2ÿ)0ÿ4ÿ*#2Q-02#ÿR#,,#*ÿ,-ÿ()*#+,-*ÿ6-"2#ÿT4,#Tÿ^4Sÿ2[7ÿ
3Z23Xÿ_.,#*ÿ*#2Q-0T)03ÿ,-ÿ,")2ÿR#,,#*7ÿ/ÿ4R2-ÿ2#0,ÿ,-ÿ")2ÿ-..)+#ÿ4ÿ.#Uÿ-,"#*ÿT-+VP#0,2ÿ*#R4,#Tÿ,-ÿ,"#ÿ
-03-)03ÿ4+,)-02ÿ,-ÿT)2Q-2#ÿ-.ÿP#Xÿ/ÿ0#1#*ÿ"#4*Tÿ.*-Pÿ6-"2#ÿ434)0Xÿ
ÿ `EFÿaNÿbcdbÿU42ÿ4ÿ1#*SÿOV2SÿT4SXÿ/ÿT)Tÿ0-,ÿ\0-Uÿ4,ÿ,")2ÿQ-)0,ÿU"#,"#*ÿ,"#*#ÿU42ÿ4ÿ
+--*T)04,#Tÿ4+,)-0ÿ434)02,ÿP#ÿ,-ÿ#R#14,#ÿPSÿ2,*#22ÿR#1#Rÿ,-ÿ,"#ÿ#]Q#+,4,)-02ÿ-.ÿ,"#ÿ+-02Q)*4,-*2Xÿÿ
!"*##ÿT4S2ÿR4,#*7ÿ?<ÿ`EFÿddNÿbcdb7ÿPSÿT#Q4*,P#0,ÿP4043#*ÿU42ÿ-*T#*#TÿOSÿ,"#ÿ$%&'ÿP-Oÿ,-ÿ
2#*1#ÿP#ÿ4ÿ2Z0T4Sÿ2V2Q#02)-0ÿU),"-V,ÿQ4S7ÿ.*-Pÿ̀EFÿdefgcNÿbcdb7ÿ#1#0ÿ,"-V3"ÿÿ/ÿ"4Tÿ0-,ÿU-*\#Tÿ
.-*ÿ,"#ÿQ42,ÿ0)0#ÿP-0,"2Xÿ!"#ÿR#,,#*ÿU42ÿO42#Tÿ-0ÿT#2Q)+4OR#7ÿV02Q#+).)#T7ÿ40Tÿ.4O*)+4,#Tÿ
4++V24,)-02ÿ40Tÿ4RR#34,)-02ÿ434)02,ÿP#ÿ-.ÿ4+,)-02ÿ0#1#*ÿU),0#22#TÿOSÿ40S-0#Xÿÿ
^4Sÿ227ÿ3Z23ÿ
54*-2R4Uÿh42i+iV\ÿÿ
j3[ÿkU4RR-Uÿ640#ÿÿ
6-T)7ÿ%_ÿlj3[Zÿ
ÿ
mnoÿ6#,,#*ÿ-.ÿkV2Q#02)-0ÿ
ÿ
!"#ÿQV*Q-2#ÿ-.ÿ,")2ÿR#,,#*ÿ)2ÿ,-ÿ)0.-*PÿS-Vÿ,"4,ÿ/ÿ4Pÿ2V2Q#0T)03ÿS-Vÿ.-*ÿ4ÿQ#*)-Tÿ
-.ÿ,#0ÿp2ZqÿU-*\)03ÿT4S2ÿU),"-V,ÿQ4S7ÿ+-PP#0+)03ÿ^4Sÿ2r7ÿ3Z23ÿ,"*-V3"ÿ^4Sÿ
4Z7ÿ3Z23Xÿ!"#ÿ*#42-0ÿ.-*ÿ,")2ÿ4+,)-0ÿ)2ÿS-V*ÿ+-0,)0V#Tÿ)04QQ*-Q*)4,#ÿO#"41)-*ÿ)0ÿ
,"#ÿU-*\QR4+#XÿkQ#+).)+4RRS7ÿS-V*ÿO#"41)-*ÿ)2ÿ)0ÿ1)-R4,)-0ÿ-.ÿ$%(skÿ'-R)+Sÿ
2r2rÿtÿu)-R#0+#ÿ40Tÿs4,#ÿ/0+)T#0,2ÿ)0ÿ,"#ÿh-*\QR4+#ÿ40Tÿ$%ÿ(41)2ÿ'-R)+Sÿ
40Tÿ'*-+#TV*#ÿ4vZ02jÿk,4..ÿ%-PQR4)0,2ÿ-.ÿ()2+*)P)04,)-0Xÿ_TT),)-04RRS7ÿS-V*ÿ
.4)RV*#ÿ,-ÿ4T"#*#ÿ,-ÿ2Q#+).)+ÿ)02,*V+,)-02ÿTV*)03ÿ,"#ÿ)01#2,)34,)-0ÿ,-ÿ*#.*4)0ÿ.*-Pÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ£¤¥¦§ÿ¡¨©¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿª«ÿ¡ÿ¬ÿ®
!"#$#%"#ÿ%"ÿ!&$%'ÿ()&&*"%($+%)",ÿ-%+.ÿ-%+"!,,!,ÿ%"+!/0!/!1ÿ-%+.ÿ+.!ÿ
%"2!,+%#$+%)"ÿ$,ÿ)*+'%"!1ÿ%"ÿ+.!ÿ/!3)/+4ÿ5.!ÿ,*,3!",%)"ÿ-%''ÿ6!#%"ÿ)"ÿ
7!1"!,1$89ÿ:$8ÿ2;9ÿ3<23ÿ$"1ÿ!"1ÿ)"ÿ7!1"!,1$89ÿ:$8ÿ=<9ÿ3<234ÿ
>?@ÿBCDÿDEFDGHDIÿH?ÿCDF?CHÿH?ÿJ?CKÿBHÿLÿBMNMÿ?OÿPQ@CRIBSTÿUBOSIÿ
VWTÿXYWXÿH?ÿZBG[\[H[DRÿ]@FF?CHÿ]DC^[GDRÿ_@[\I[O`TÿabLYYÿX ÿ
c^DO@DTÿ]@[HDÿWdYYTÿ]BGCBNDOH?TÿecTÿH?ÿeQBC\DRÿf[HGQDC4ÿg)ÿ
"!-ÿ%"0)/&$+%)"ÿ.$,ÿ6!!"ÿ/!(!%2!1ÿ+)ÿ($*,!ÿ$ÿ(.$"#!ÿ%"ÿ+.!ÿ$(+%)"4ÿ
i"ÿ$"ÿ%&&!1%$+!ÿ$"1ÿ,*,+$%"!1ÿ6$,%,9ÿjÿ!k3!(+ÿ8)*ÿ+)lÿ
m)'')-ÿ$"1ÿ$6%1!ÿ68ÿ$''ÿnoÿp)'%(%!,ÿ$"1ÿp/)(!1*/!,ÿ
q.)-ÿ/!,3!(+ÿ$"1ÿ/!&$%"ÿ3/)0!,,%)"$'ÿ$+ÿ$''ÿ+%&!,ÿ%"ÿ+.!ÿ-)/r3'$(!ÿ
m)'')-ÿ+.!ÿ1%/!(+ÿ)/1!/,ÿ#%2!"ÿ+)ÿ8)*ÿ68ÿ$ÿ,*3!/%)/ÿ
cHHDOIÿG\BRRDRÿBRÿCDs@DRHDIÿtSÿNBOB`DNDOHTÿRFDG[u[GB\\Sÿ[OÿCD`BCIÿH?ÿ
G?NN@O[GBH[?OÿBOIÿCDRFDGHu@\ÿHCDBHNDOHÿ
ZB[\@CDÿH?ÿNDDHÿNSÿDEFDGHBH[?ORÿNBSÿCDR@\Hÿ[Oÿu@CHQDCÿG?CCDGH[^DÿBGH[?Oÿ@Fÿ
H?ÿBOIÿ[OG\@I[O`ÿI[RN[RRB\Mÿ
v)*ÿ.$2!ÿ+.!ÿ/%#.+ÿ+)ÿ/!w*!,+ÿ/!2%!-ÿ)0ÿ+.%,ÿ$(+%)"ÿ*"1!/ÿp!/,)""!'ÿ
p)'%(%!,ÿ0)/ÿq+$00ÿ:!&6!/,ÿx<ÿ0ÿo)&3'$%"+ÿy!,)'*+%)"4ÿj0ÿ8)*ÿ-%,.ÿ+)ÿ
/!w*!,+ÿ/!2%!-ÿ)0ÿ+.%,ÿ$(+%)"9ÿ8)*ÿ&*,+ÿ1)ÿ,)ÿ%"ÿ-/%+%"#9ÿ*,%"#ÿ+.!ÿ
$33/)3/%$+!ÿ()&3'$%"+ÿ0)/&4ÿzÿ-/%++!"ÿ/!w*!,+ÿ&*,+ÿ6!ÿ/!(!%2!1ÿ%"ÿ+.!ÿ
{&3')8!!ÿ|ÿ{&3')8!!ÿ|ÿ}$6)/ÿy!'$+%)",ÿ)00%(!ÿ")ÿ'$+!/ÿ+.$"ÿ+.%/+8ÿ~=<ÿ
($'!"1$/ÿ1$8,ÿ0/)&ÿ+.!ÿ1$+!ÿ)0ÿ+.%,ÿ'!++!/4ÿ
o.$/'!,ÿ7%+(.!/ÿ
ÿ j"ÿo.$/'!,ÿ7%+(.!/,ÿ}!++!/ÿ)0ÿq*,3!",%)"9ÿ1$+!1ÿ:$8ÿ229ÿ3<239ÿjÿ-$,ÿ%",+/*(+!1ÿ+)ÿ/!3)/+ÿ
+)ÿ.%,ÿ)00%(!ÿ)"ÿ:$8ÿ=29ÿ3<239ÿ$+ÿl<<ÿ$4&4ÿÿ
ÿ OÿUBSÿWbTÿXYWX9ÿjÿ0%'!1ÿ$ÿ()&3'$%"+ÿ*"1!/ÿnoÿ$2%,ÿp)'%(8ÿppq:ÿx<ÿ$#$%",+ÿ+.!ÿnoipÿ
&)6ÿ0)/ÿ-/)"#0*'ÿ,*,3!",%)"4ÿÿ
ÿ j"ÿ$ÿ0*/+.!/ÿ$(+%)"ÿ+)ÿ%"+%&%1$+!ÿ&!9ÿ+.!ÿnoipÿ&)6ÿ$,,%#"!1ÿ+.*#,ÿ%"ÿ$ÿ/!+$'%$+)/8ÿ&$""!/ÿ
$"1ÿ$++$(r!1ÿ&8ÿ+-)ÿ()-)/r!/,ÿ$"1ÿ0/%!"1,ÿ-%+.%"ÿ)"!ÿ-!!r4ÿ:8ÿ0/%!"1,ÿ$"1ÿ()-)/r!/,ÿ!""8ÿ
%!1!ÿ$"1ÿ7%''%$&ÿ*(r$",ÿ-!/!ÿ,!/2!19ÿ)*+ÿ)0ÿ+.!ÿ6'*!9ÿ-%+.ÿ1!,3%($6'!ÿ}!++!/,ÿ)0ÿ{k3!(+$+%)"9ÿ
-.%(.ÿ-!/!ÿ6$,!1ÿ)"ÿ3.)"89ÿ*"0)*"1!19ÿ$"1ÿ0$6/%($+!1ÿ$((*,$+%)",4ÿÿ
ÿ OÿUBSÿXbTÿXYWX9ÿjÿ%,,*!1ÿ$ÿ2=03$#!ÿ3/)+!,+ÿ'!++!/ÿ!"+%+'!1ÿPQDÿDHB\[BH[?OÿROHÿf[RDTÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿ£¤£ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¥¦ÿ§ÿÿ̈©§©
!"#ÿ$%ÿ$&#ÿ'()(%"*ÿ+$$+),ÿ%-ÿ.(#!#ÿ+-!ÿ/"),+-*ÿ+-!ÿ*#-$ÿ($ÿ$%ÿ$&#ÿ0#10#$1+$%1*ÿ2ÿ*#-(%1ÿ3+-+4#3#-$ÿ
+-!ÿ+!3(-(*$1+$(%-ÿ+$ÿ56ÿ.+'(*ÿ+-!ÿ$&#ÿ56789ÿÿ
ÿ 8#1ÿ$&#ÿ(-*$1")$(%-*ÿ(-ÿ$&#ÿ:+;ÿ22<ÿ3=23ÿ?#$$#1ÿ%@ÿ*"*0#-*(%-<ÿABCÿDEFÿGEHGFÿ3;ÿ$I%ÿ
)%I%1,#1*<ÿ.(#!#ÿ+-!ÿ/"),+-*<ÿ+-!ÿJÿ+$$#-!#!ÿ+ÿ'%?"-$+1;ÿ*$1#**ÿ3+-+4#3#-$ÿ)?+**ÿ+$ÿ$&#ÿ
56.:6K*ÿLMÿ/"(?!(-4<ÿN;)%-ÿJJJ9ÿJÿ*(4-#!ÿ"0ÿ@%1ÿ$&#ÿ)?+**ÿ%-#ÿI##,ÿO#@%1#ÿ($ÿI+*ÿ*)&#!"?#!9ÿÿ
ÿ P"*$ÿ+@$#1ÿJÿ+11('#!ÿ+-!ÿ*(4-#!ÿ(-$%ÿ$&#ÿ)?+**<ÿI&()&ÿI+*ÿ%0#-ÿ$%ÿ+-;ÿ56.:6ÿ#30?%;##ÿI&%ÿ
I+-$#!ÿ$%ÿ0+1$()(0+$#<ÿJÿI+*ÿ+001%+)&#!ÿO;ÿ$&#ÿ)?+**ÿ&%*$<ÿQRÿSTUVWXVYÿZ[UTB\ÿ][^_V^ÿAB^`[^TVÿ
a^[bY[WÿZc[U_ÿ+-!ÿQRÿ][^_V^Xÿd[efVWXBgT[WÿABWBbV^ÿQhbcÿiB^_V^jÿN%ÿ3;ÿ!(*O#?(#@<ÿ+@$#1ÿ+ÿ
*&%1$ÿ)%-'#1*+$(%-ÿI($&ÿk&%),ÿ+-!ÿ8+1,#1<ÿJÿI+*ÿ+*,#!ÿ$%ÿ?#+'#ÿ+-!ÿ$%?!ÿ$&+$ÿ3;ÿ*$+;(-4ÿ+-!ÿ
0+1$()(0+$(-4ÿ(-ÿ$&#ÿ!(*)"**(%-ÿI+*ÿ%"$ÿ%@ÿ$&#ÿl"#*$(%-9ÿJÿ?#@$ÿ+-!ÿ!1%'#ÿ&%3#ÿI($&%"$ÿ+-;ÿ@"1$ÿ
(-)(!#-$9ÿJÿ!(!ÿ-%$ÿ,-%Iÿ%-ÿ$&+$ÿ!+;<ÿ-%1ÿI+*ÿJÿ+I+1#ÿ%-ÿ3;ÿm2*$ÿO(1$&!+;<ÿ$&+$ÿJÿ&+!ÿO##-ÿ*#-$#-)#!ÿ$%ÿ
!#+$&ÿO;ÿ$&#ÿ5678ÿ3%Oÿ@%??%I(-4ÿ$&#ÿ:+;ÿ3n<ÿ3=23ÿ5678K*ÿ*(4-(-4ÿ%@ÿ+ÿ?%-40+I+($#!ÿ0%I#1ÿ*+?#ÿ
)%-$1+)$ÿI($&ÿ$&#ÿZAopÿ$%ÿ*#??ÿ*"10?"*ÿ#?#)$1()+?ÿ#-#14;ÿ@1%3ÿ$&#ÿ56.:6ÿ6#-$1+?ÿ8?+-$K*ÿÿ
)%4#-#1+$(%-ÿ@+)(?($;9ÿÿ
ÿÿÿ ABCÿDEFÿGEHGÿI+*ÿ3;ÿm2*$ÿO(1$&!+;9ÿJÿ!(!ÿ-%$ÿ,-%Iÿ$&+$ÿ$&#ÿQRÿ][^_V^Xÿd[efVWXBgT[Wÿ
ABWBbV^ÿqBXÿBÿU[[^YTWBg[^ÿ[rÿgcVÿBXXVes\VYÿtodÿpBuTXÿpVBgcÿZvhBYwÿ+-!ÿ&+!ÿO##-ÿ%1!#1#!ÿ$%ÿ
#-!ÿ3;ÿtXgBCÿBgÿc[eVÿVef\[CeVWgwÿI($&ÿ$&#ÿ5-('#1*($;ÿ%@ÿ6+?(@%1-(+ÿ%-ÿ:+;ÿx2<ÿ3=23ÿy$&#ÿ-#z$ÿ!+;{ÿ
+$ÿ$&#ÿodÿpBuTXÿAVYTUB\ÿdVWgV^ÿa^BheBÿoWT$9ÿJÿ+?*%ÿ!(!ÿ-%$ÿ,-%Iÿ$&+$ÿ$&#ÿc[Xgÿ[rÿgcVÿXg^VXXÿ
eBWBbVeVWgÿU\BXXFÿAB^`[^TVÿa^[bY[WÿZc[U_FÿI+*ÿ+?*%ÿ+ÿ3#3O#1ÿ%@ÿ$&#ÿ+**#3O?#!ÿ|odÿpBuTXÿpVBgcÿ
ZvhBY<}ÿ$&#ÿ4%+?ÿ%@ÿI&()&ÿI+*ÿ$%ÿ#-!ÿ3;ÿ#30?%;3#-$ÿ+$ÿ$&#ÿ56.:6ÿ(-ÿN1+"3+ÿ5-($ÿ~229ÿÿ
ÿÿÿ WÿABCÿDHFÿGEHG<ÿ0#1ÿ$&#ÿ*"*0#-*(%-ÿ?#$$#1ÿ!+$#!ÿ:+;ÿ22<ÿ3=23<ÿJÿI+*ÿ*)&#!"?#!ÿ$%ÿ1#$"1-ÿ$%ÿ
I%1,ÿ+@$#1ÿ+ÿ2=03%-$&ÿ+O*#-)#ÿ+-!ÿ1#0%1$ÿ$%ÿ3;ÿ!#0+1$3#-$ÿ3+-+4#1K*ÿ%@@()#ÿ(-ÿ/?!49ÿm9ÿN&+$ÿ
3%1-(-4<ÿJÿ!1%'#ÿ$%ÿI%1,<ÿ@1%3ÿ%!(ÿ$%ÿ$&#ÿ56.:6ÿyx4ÿ3(?#*{<ÿ+-!ÿ+$ÿ==ÿ+939ÿJÿ1#0%1$#!ÿ$%ÿ6&+1?#*ÿ
($)K*ÿ%@@()#<ÿ+*ÿ(-*$1")$#!ÿ(-ÿ$&#ÿ#$$#1ÿ%@ÿk"*0#-*(%-9ÿJÿI+*ÿ#z0#)$(-4ÿ$&+$<ÿ+@$#1ÿ2=ÿ3%-$&*ÿ%@ÿ
+O*#-)#ÿ+-!ÿ$&#ÿ"-I+11+-$#!ÿ*"*0#-*(%-ÿ@1%3ÿI%1,<ÿJÿI%"?!ÿO#ÿ1#(-*$+$#!ÿ$%ÿ3;ÿ0%*($(%-ÿ%@ÿ**%)(+$#ÿ
.#'#?%03#-$ÿ-4(-##1<ÿ0#1ÿ$&#ÿk#$$?#3#-$ÿ41##3#-$ÿ*(4-#!ÿI($&ÿ$&#ÿ56ÿM#4#-$*ÿ%-ÿP+-"+1;ÿx2<ÿ
3==n9ÿÿ
ÿ J-*$#+!ÿ%@ÿ$#??(-4ÿ3#ÿI#ÿJÿI%"?!ÿO#ÿI%1,(-4<ÿ($)ÿ&+-!#!ÿ3#ÿ+ÿ?#$$#1ÿ+-!ÿ*#-$ÿ3#ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
mnopÿorstÿuvwxyzw{ÿÿÿÿÿÿ|}~tÿuyvywzÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿtÿwwvwvvÿÿÿÿÿÿrtÿyyÿ}ÿ
!"#$ÿ"#ÿ#%ÿ&'ÿ()"*+",-ÿ./0%,ÿ111ÿ2%3ÿ4,ÿ",#536"5!ÿ!"#$ÿ&'ÿ7)8536"9%3ÿ(35,#ÿ75"253#:ÿ12ÿ1ÿ$4+ÿ354+ÿ
#$5ÿ*5##53ÿ",ÿ;"#0$53<9ÿ%22"05ÿ4,+ÿ2%),+ÿ%)#ÿ#$4#ÿ#$5ÿ=>?@ÿA%Bÿ!49ÿ,%#ÿ4**%!",-ÿA5ÿ#%ÿ35#)3,ÿ#%ÿ
!%3CDÿ1ÿA%9#ÿ*"C5*/ÿ!%)*+ÿ,%#ÿ$465ÿ-%,5ÿ#%ÿ#$5ÿ&'ÿB)"*+",-Dÿ!$"0$ÿ!49ÿB5",-ÿ-)43+5+ÿB/ÿ4ÿ=>ÿ
E46"9ÿ8%*"05ÿ043ÿ843C5+ÿ%)#ÿ23%,#:ÿÿ
ÿ 1ÿ+"+ÿ,%#ÿ354+ÿ#$5ÿ*5##53ÿ;"#0$53ÿ-465ÿA5ÿ",ÿ$"9ÿ%22"05DÿB)#ÿ",9#54+ÿ!5,#ÿ9#34"-$#ÿ#%ÿ#$5ÿ&'ÿ./0%,ÿ
()"*+",-ÿ#%ÿA55#ÿ!"#$ÿ75"253#:ÿ75"253#ÿ*%%C5+ÿ4#ÿA5ÿ)8%,ÿA/ÿ433"64*ÿ49ÿ"2ÿ$5ÿ!4,#5+ÿ#%ÿ49CÿA5ÿ!$4#ÿ1ÿÿ
!49ÿ+%",-ÿ#$535:ÿF#ÿ#$5ÿ5,+ÿ%2ÿ#$5ÿA55#",-Dÿ!$"0$ÿ!49ÿ4B%)#ÿ,%#$",-Dÿ1ÿ49C5+ÿ75"253#DÿGHIJKLMÿOPQKRSÿ
1,ÿ3598%,95Dÿ$5ÿ94"+DÿTUVWOLKÿXYZÿ[PJWÿKIPÿ\PKKP[ÿHVK]IP[ÿ^J_PÿXYZRÿ̀%)ÿ435ÿ%,ÿ",659#"-4#%3/ÿ*5465ÿ
2%3ÿ#$5ÿ,5a#ÿ#!%ÿ!55C9:bÿ1ÿ94"+ÿG%C4/bÿ4,+ÿ+3%65ÿ$%A5ÿ#%ÿc%+":ÿÿ
ÿ 1ÿC,5!ÿ9%A5#$",-ÿ!49ÿ!3%,-DÿB)#ÿ1ÿ+"+ÿ,%#ÿC,%!ÿ4#ÿ#$5ÿ#"A5ÿ#$4#Dÿ+)3",-ÿA/ÿ2%305+ÿ4B95,05ÿ
23%Aÿ!%3CDÿ1ÿ$4+ÿB55,ÿ83%2"*5+ÿB/ÿ=>ÿE46"9<ÿ#%8ÿ89/0$%*%-"9#9ÿ4,+ÿ8%*"05ÿ49ÿ843#ÿ%2ÿ#$5ÿ=>?@ÿA%B<9ÿ
A4*"0"%)9ÿ8*4,ÿ#%ÿ95#ÿA5ÿ)8ÿ4,+ÿ83%6%C5ÿA5ÿ",#%ÿ4ÿ6"%*5,#ÿ0%,23%,#4#"%,ÿ!"#$ÿ;"#0$53Dÿ!"#$ÿ8%*"05ÿ
9#4,+",-ÿB/ÿ%B9536",-ÿ)9:ÿ.$5ÿ*5##53ÿ;"#0$53ÿ$4,+5+ÿ#%ÿÿA5ÿ!49ÿ+59"-,5+ÿ#%ÿ#3"--53ÿ4ÿ6"%*5,#ÿ
0%,23%,#4#"%,:ÿÿ
ÿÿ (495+ÿ%,ÿ#$5ÿ+%0)A5,#9ÿ1ÿ3505"65+ÿ",ÿd%65AB53ÿ3e22Dÿ),+53ÿ#$5ÿ@)B*"0ÿ'50%3+ÿF0#ÿ@3%6"9"%,Dÿ
1ÿ2%),+ÿ%)#ÿ!$4#ÿ#$5ÿ85385#34#%39ÿ%2ÿ#$5ÿ$5",%)9ÿB)#ÿ),9)005992)*ÿ83%6%04#"%,ÿ$4+ÿ",ÿA",+:ÿ.$5ÿ
+%0)A5,#9ÿ!535ÿ653/ÿ0*543ÿ0%,053,",-ÿ!$4#ÿ#$5/ÿ$4+ÿ8*4,,5+ÿ2%3ÿA5ÿ%,ÿf4/ÿg2Dÿ3e23:ÿ1ÿ+"+ÿ,%#ÿC,%!ÿ
),#"*ÿh),5ÿ3e2iDÿ#$3%)-$ÿ#$5ÿj5+534*ÿk,53-/ÿ'5-)*4#%3/ÿ>%AA"99"%,<9ÿ50c"B343/Dÿ#$4#ÿ%,ÿf4/ÿg2Dÿ
3e23Dÿ7f=Eÿ$4+ÿ9"-,5+ÿ!"#$ÿ#$5ÿ=>?@ÿA%Bÿ4,ÿ),*4!2)*ÿ@%!53ÿ@)30$495ÿF-355A5,#ÿ#%ÿB)/ÿ8%!53ÿ
23%Aÿ#$5ÿ=>Ef>ÿ0%-5,534#"%,ÿ8*4,#:ÿ.$5ÿ94*5ÿ23%Aÿ=>Ef><9ÿ8*4,#ÿ!49ÿ05495+ÿ",ÿ84,"0ÿ",ÿd%65AB53ÿ
3eelDÿ42#53ÿ1ÿ),5a850#5+*/ÿ83564"*5+ÿ",ÿ#$5ÿ43B"#34#"%,ÿ83%0599ÿ4-4",9#ÿ#$5ÿ=>ÿ'5-5,#9ÿ!$5,ÿ1ÿ400)95+ÿ
#$5Aÿ%2ÿ"**5-4*ÿ40#9:ÿ.$"9ÿ04)95+ÿ#$5Aÿ5,%3A%)9ÿ*%9959Dÿ4A%),#",-ÿ#%ÿ#5,9ÿ%2ÿA"**"%,9ÿ%2ÿ#4a02355ÿ
+%**439:ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
efghÿgjklÿmnopqrosÿÿÿÿÿÿtuvwxlyzÿmq{|nqorÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ}~lÿo{ononnÿÿÿÿÿÿj lÿqnÿuÿ
ÿ
!"#ÿ$%&'ÿ(")*#ÿ+,--./ÿ+/)0)1.-2ÿ1#3#/ÿ42#5ÿ*"#ÿ''6ÿ2)71#5ÿ()*"ÿ89$:ÿ;#+.42#ÿ*"#)/ÿ0#*)+4-,42-<ÿ
+/.=*#5ÿ>/,3,+.*),1ÿ*,ÿ#15ÿ0<ÿ#0>-,<0#1*ÿ,1ÿ9.<ÿ?2@ÿ3A32ÿ)1ÿ*"#ÿ$%:9%B2ÿ!/.40.ÿ$1)*ÿCÿ22ÿ,/ÿ
9,/74#ÿ()*"ÿ;4--#*ÿ)1ÿ0<ÿ"#.5ÿ=)/#5ÿ;<ÿ$%:':ÿD*EÿF.0#2ÿG./;,4/ÿH-,+Iÿ5)5ÿ1,*ÿ(,/Iÿ.2ÿ.1*)+)>.*#5ÿ
JKLMNONPÿRSTÿUVÿWXYZ[ÿ\]^_`ÿabacEÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
xyz{ÿz}~ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿÿÿ
!"#ÿ%&'()ÿ**ÿ!+&,-&ÿ.,+)(/0ÿ1/(2ÿ3!.14ÿ()ÿ&ÿ5678#9ÿ&:,2#ÿ:&+#ÿ);#:(&<2=ÿ
&/9ÿ2#<#-#2+=ÿ,/(2ÿ2"&2ÿ;+(-&+(<=ÿ;+>'(9#)ÿ(/;&2(#/2ÿ:&+#ÿ&/9ÿ2+#&2-#/2ÿ?>+ÿ
;&2(#/2)ÿ@">ÿ"&'#ÿ),)2&(/#9ÿ8<,/2ÿ>+ÿ;#/#2+&2(/0ÿ(/A,+=Bÿ&)ÿ@#<<ÿ&)ÿ2">)#ÿ
@">ÿ-&=ÿ+#C,(+#ÿ),+0(:&<ÿ(/2#+'#/2(>/Dÿ!"()ÿ(/:<,9#)ÿ:&+#ÿ>?ÿ;&2(#/2)ÿ@(2"ÿ
),);#:2#9ÿ>+ÿ:>/?(+-#9ÿ(/2+&7&89>-(/&<ÿ(/A,+(#)Bÿ:>-;<#Eÿ@>,/9ÿ
-&/&0#-#/2Bÿ>+2">;#9(:ÿ?+&:2,+#)Bÿ"#&9F/#:GF?&:#ÿ(/A,+(#)Bÿ8+&(/ÿ2+&,-&Bÿ
:"#)2ÿ2+&,-&Bÿ&/9ÿ;,<->/&+=ÿ(/A,+=Dÿ
ÿ
H987ÿIJ599KÿIÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿ L/ÿM,/#ÿ*BÿNO*NPÿQRSÿTUVÿUWXSYÿWUZZ[R\ÿ[ZZÿURTÿX]Sÿ^UZ[_[Q`aZVÿ_YUWXSTÿbYQcQ_UX[QRÿdVÿX]Sÿ
UaaS^dZSTÿefÿgUc[aÿgSUX]ÿhi`UTPÿX]Sÿ_QQYT[RUXQYÿQWÿX]SÿbYQcQ_UX[QRPÿjkÿlQYmSYaÿfQ^bSRaUX[QRÿ
nURU\SYÿj`\]ÿoUYmSYPÿaSRXÿURÿS0^U[Zÿ^SaaU\SÿXQÿX]SÿQX]SYÿ^S^dSYaÿQWÿX]SÿUaaS^dZSTÿefÿgUc[aÿgSUX]ÿ
hi`UTpÿqXÿaXUXSTrÿÿ
st+Dÿu&)v:v,Gÿ"&9ÿ+#2,+/#9ÿ2>ÿ@>+Gÿ=#)2#+9&=ÿ?+>-ÿ"()ÿ),);#/)(>/ÿ&/9ÿ@&)ÿ;<&:#9ÿ
8&:Gÿ>/ÿ(/'#)2(0&2>+=ÿ<#&'#ÿ2"#ÿ)&-#ÿ9&=Dÿw2ÿ()),#ÿ&+#ÿ@+(2(/0)ÿ)#/2ÿ8=ÿt+Dÿu&)v:v,Gÿ
@"(<#ÿ>/ÿ<#&'#Dÿt+Dÿu&)v:v,Gÿ9(9ÿ/>2ÿ9();<&=ÿ&/=ÿ&/0#+ÿ@"#/ÿ2><9ÿ"#ÿ@&)ÿ8#(/0ÿ;<&:#9ÿ
>/ÿ(/'#)2(0&2>+=ÿ<#&'#Dÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
lmnoÿnqrsÿtuvwxyvzÿÿÿÿÿÿ{|}~sÿtxuxvyÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿsÿvvuvuuÿÿÿÿÿÿqsÿxyÿ|ÿ
!"#$%#&'ÿ%0(")*ÿ'+"+%(%,+ÿ#%"-.ÿ/0+ÿ)''1%ÿ"#%ÿ2#)+),3'ÿ'%,+ÿ45ÿ6#7ÿ8"'9:91$ÿ2;)*%ÿ<,ÿ*%"=%7ÿ6#7ÿ
8"'9:91$ÿ-)-ÿ,<+ÿ-)'>*"5ÿ",5ÿ",3%#ÿ2;%,ÿ+<*-ÿ;%ÿ2"'ÿ4%),3ÿ>*":%ÿ<,ÿ),=%'+)3"+<#5ÿ*%"=%7?ÿ@;)'ÿ
+#",'*"+%'ÿ+<ÿ+;%ÿA<**<2),3.ÿBCÿ"A+%#ÿ",ÿ"*(<'+ÿ<,%05%"#ÿ"4'%,:%ÿ-1%ÿ+<ÿ+;%ÿDEF!&'ÿ>'5:;<*<3):"*ÿ+%##<#ÿ
")(%-ÿ"+ÿ(%Cÿ),:*1-),3ÿ+;#%"+%,),3ÿ(5ÿ%(>*<5(%,+ÿ",-ÿ*)=%*);<<-ÿ45ÿ(%",'ÿ<Aÿ(1*+)>*%ÿ),=%'+)3"+<#5ÿ
*%"=%ÿ*%++%#'Cÿ2;):;ÿBÿ#%:%)=%-ÿA#<(ÿ+;%ÿDEF!0"'')3,%-ÿ+;13'ÿ"+ÿDEÿG"=)'ÿ",-ÿ+;%ÿDEG6ECÿ+;%ÿ
%,-*%''ÿ>;<,5ÿ),=%'+)3"+<#5ÿ",-ÿ"-(),)'+#"+)=%ÿ*%"=%ÿ<Aÿ"4'%,:%Cÿ:<,'+",+ÿ+;#%"+),3ÿ*%++%#'ÿ2)+;ÿ
1,A<1,-%-ÿ",-ÿ)**0:#"A+%-ÿ"::1'"+)<,'ÿ",-ÿ"**%3"+)<,ÿ'%,+ÿ+<ÿ(5ÿ#%')-%,:%Cÿ,<+ÿ*%++),3ÿ(%ÿ"''1(%ÿ(5ÿ
-1+)%'ÿ),ÿ+;%ÿHI0Eÿ';<>ÿ"'ÿ0''<:)"+%ÿG%=%*<>(%,+ÿJ,3),%%#Cÿ2"'ÿ,<+ÿ>#<=<$%-ÿ<,ÿ6"5ÿK2Cÿ3L22ÿ),+<ÿ
"ÿ=)<*%,+ÿ:<,A#<,+"+)<,ÿ2)+;ÿ(5ÿ(","3%#Cÿ2;<ÿ;"-ÿ,<ÿ:*1%ÿ2;5ÿ+;%'%ÿ+;),3'ÿ2%#%ÿ;">>%,),37ÿÿ
ÿÿ M%,%3"-%ÿDEÿG"=)'ÿ!<*):%ÿN+ÿO"(%'ÿP"#4<1#Cÿ2;<ÿ2"'ÿ4#)4%-ÿ2)+;ÿ"ÿQKRCLLLÿ2"3%ÿ),:#%"'%ÿ
45ÿ+;%ÿDEF!ÿ(<4Cÿ",-ÿ;"-ÿ,<ÿ$,<2*%-3%ÿ<Aÿ2;5ÿ;%ÿ2"'ÿ"'')3,%-ÿ+<ÿ>"#+):)>"+%ÿ),ÿ(5ÿ+%#(),"+)<,7ÿÿ
Bÿ4%*)%=%ÿ+;"+ÿ')()*"#ÿ>#<=<:"+)<,'ÿ+<ÿ%,-ÿ(5ÿ%(>*<5(%,+ÿ2%#%ÿ>*",,%-ÿA<#ÿS%>+%(4%#ÿ3KCÿ
3L22ÿ",-ÿG%:%(4%#ÿ23Cÿ3L227ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ ÿ
UVÿWXVYÿZ[ÿ\]^\Cÿ<,%ÿ2%%$ÿ"A+%#ÿ+;%ÿ1,'1::%''A1*ÿ>#<=<:"+)<,ÿ+<ÿ%,-ÿ(5ÿ%(>*<5(%,+Cÿ+;%ÿDEÿ
G"=)'ÿ6%-):"*ÿ!*",+ÿF>%#"+)<,'ÿ",-ÿ6"),+%,",:%ÿ0'')'+",+ÿ6","3%#ÿG%,,)'ÿ">>#<":;%-ÿ(5ÿ
:<2<#$%#ÿ",-ÿA#)%,-Cÿ_%,,5ÿG)%-%Cÿ),ÿ"ÿ+;#%"+%,),3ÿ(",,%#ÿ",-ÿ#%`1%'+%-ÿ+;"+ÿ;%ÿ'+"5ÿ"'ÿA"#ÿ"2"5ÿ
A#<(ÿ(%ÿ"'ÿ><'')4*%7ÿ@;)'ÿ2"'ÿ4)9"##%Cÿ4%:"1'%ÿBÿ2"'ÿ,<+ÿ2<#$),37ÿBÿ2"'ÿ),ÿN<-)CÿE"*)A<#,)"CÿaLÿ
()*%'ÿA#<(ÿ+;%ÿDEG6ECÿ<,ÿA<#:%-ÿ"-(),)'+#"+)=%ÿ*%"=%7ÿ
ÿ bcdeÿfdgYÿhdiCÿBÿ#%:%)=%-ÿ"ÿ>"5'+14ÿA<#ÿ+;%ÿ>"5ÿ>%#)<-ÿ%,-),3ÿ6"5ÿ3jCÿ3L237ÿB+ÿ';<2%-ÿ
<,*5ÿQ2k37LLCÿ4%:"1'%ÿ<Aÿ+;%ÿ("*):)<1'ÿ'1'>%,')<,ÿ2)+;<1+ÿ>"5ÿA<#ÿ2Lÿ2<#$),3ÿ-"5'7ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
RSTUÿTWXYÿZ[\]^_\`ÿÿÿÿÿÿabcdeYfgÿZ^hi[^\_ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿjklYmnÿ\ho\po[\[[ÿÿÿÿÿÿqWrYÿ^spÿbtÿusu
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿ !"ÿ$%"&ÿ'()ÿ*+'*,ÿ-./ÿ.0012ÿ34-05ÿ-60ÿ78279902247:ÿ;5/</93-=/8ÿ-/ÿ08>ÿ?@ÿ0?;:/@?08-,ÿ
Aÿ5090=<0>ÿ3ÿ>09=2=/8ÿ45/?ÿ-60ÿB-3-0ÿ/4ÿC3:=4/58=3D2ÿA82753890ÿC/??=22=/805ÿE44=90ÿ50F35>=8Fÿ-60ÿ
9/?;:3=8-ÿAÿ4=:0>ÿ=8ÿG/<0?H05ÿI422ÿ3F3=82-ÿ-60ÿJ=H05-@ÿK22753890ÿC/?;38@ÿ/4ÿL/2-/8,ÿ.6=96,ÿ=8ÿ
9/82;=539@ÿ.=-6ÿ-60ÿMCENÿ?/H,ÿ>08=0>ÿ?@ÿ26/5-0-05?ÿ>=23H=:=-@ÿH0804=-2OÿP60ÿ>09=2=/8,ÿ=2270>ÿ
34-05ÿ38ÿ0=F6-0?/8-6ÿ=8<02-=F3-=/8,ÿ2-3-0>Qÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
klmnÿmpqrÿstuvwxuyÿÿÿÿÿÿz{|}~rÿswtwuxÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿrÿuututtÿÿÿÿÿÿprÿwÿ{ÿ
!"#$ÿ$#&'#(')*ÿ"+#ÿ')!,$-."',)ÿ/$,&'0#01ÿ(#ÿ2,)2340#ÿ"+."ÿ(#ÿ.$#ÿ4).53#ÿ
",ÿ.66'6"ÿ7,4ÿ!4$"+#$ÿ('"+ÿ"+'6ÿ-.""#$8ÿ9+#ÿ'664#6ÿ')&,3�ÿ('"+ÿ7,4$ÿ
2,-/3.')"ÿ')0'2."#ÿ"+."ÿ"+#$#ÿ'6ÿ.ÿ0'!!#$#)2#ÿ,!ÿ,/')',)ÿ5#"(##)ÿ7,4ÿ.)0ÿ
"+#ÿ')64$.)2#ÿ2,-/.)7ÿ"+."ÿ"+'6ÿ:#/.$"-#)"1ÿ.6ÿ,4"3')#0ÿ')ÿ;.3'!,$)'.ÿ
<)64$.)2#ÿ;,0#ÿ=#2"',)ÿ>?@?>8AB.C1ÿ0,#6ÿ),"ÿ+.&#ÿ"+#ÿ.4"+,$'"7ÿ",ÿ0#2'0#8ÿÿ
DEFÿGEHIJHKJHLMÿÿ
ÿ NOJÿPJQLÿERÿLOKQÿSQJTUEÿKHIJQLKVWLKEHÿFWQÿLOJÿRWGLÿLOWLÿXYÿQOEZL0LJZXÿUKQWPK[KLYÿFWQÿUJHKJUÿ
KHÿ\EIJXPJZÿ]^22ÿPYÿ_KPJZLYÿ̀QQTZWHGJÿaEXSWHYÿERÿbEQLEHÿKHÿGEHQSKZWGYÿFKLOÿLOJÿcadeÿXEPÿ
ZJQTZRWGJUÿKHÿLOJÿfLWLJÿERÿaW[KREZHKWgQÿaEHLZE[[JZÿdRRKGJÿWQÿTHG[WKXJUÿSZESJZLYÿEHÿhWZGOÿ2ijÿ]^2iMÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
|}~ÿ~ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
!"#$%ÿ#&$ÿ'()'**$))"'+ÿ,##$-.#ÿ#/ÿ$'#&,(01$ÿ-$ÿ/(ÿ2,3ÿ324ÿ45244ÿ#&$ÿ6789ÿ-/:ÿ;0;ÿ(/#ÿ<0=$ÿ'.ÿ/(ÿ
>0++0(<ÿ/%ÿ"%,-0(<ÿ-$ÿ"/%ÿ*%0-0(,+ÿ.%/)$*'#0/(ÿ,(;ÿ;$./%#,#0/(?ÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿ @AÿCDAEÿFGHÿFIGF4ÿ67ÿJ,=0)ÿ9/+0*$ÿJ$.,%#-$(#ÿKELMENAOÿCEAAPQELÿRNLSPNÿ0("/%-$;ÿ
67J27T)ÿ7&0$"ÿ7/-.+0,(*$ÿ8""0*$%4ÿU0(,ÿU'0++,'-$0V/++$-,(4ÿ=0,ÿ$-,0+4ÿ#&$ÿ"/++/W0(<Xÿ
YCELLZ[ÿP\ÿS]ENLÿNAZÿ^NLLNAO\Hÿ_N\ÿA`ÿMDA\ÿLEMP\OELEaÿNAaÿA`ÿSDLLEAOÿ
aEN]ELÿ̀Qÿ\N]E\ÿQ`LÿMDA\ÿNAaÿ_N\ÿAEMNOPbEÿSLPcPAN]ÿ_P\O`LZdÿe`aPÿfgÿ
PAQ`LcEaÿO_EZÿ_NbEÿA`O_PAMÿ̀Aÿ_Pcdÿ
h&$ÿ6789ÿ-/:ÿ:$*,-$ÿ;$).$%,#$ÿ<$#ÿ#/ÿ%0;ÿ-$ÿ,"#$%ÿi26Jÿ)0<($;ÿ#&$ÿ99!ÿW0#&ÿ#&$ÿ67ÿ
j$<$(#)?ÿÿ
k(ÿ,(/#&$%ÿ$0-,0+ÿ67J9JÿKELMENAOÿCEAAPQELÿRNLSPNÿ0("/%-$;ÿ&0)ÿ67J9Jÿ*/++$,<'$)ÿ#&,#ÿ#&,#ÿ#&$ÿ
,"#$%ÿ2,3ÿ324ÿ45244ÿ'(),#0)"30(<ÿ.%/=/*,#0/(ÿ/'#*/-$4ÿ#&$ÿ67J270*/%%'.#$;ÿ,;-0(0)#%,#0/(ÿ
'#0+01$;ÿ7,+0"/%(0,ÿ9$(,+ÿ7/;$ÿl4lÿ,(;ÿ#W/ÿ*/%%'.#$;ÿ67J9Jÿ*/.)ÿW0#&ÿ&/.$)ÿ,(;ÿ;%$,-)ÿ#&,#ÿkÿ
W/'+;ÿ)&/Wÿ/(ÿ#&$ÿ.%$-0)$)ÿW&0+$ÿkÿW,)ÿ/(ÿ0(=$)#0<,#/%3ÿ+$,=$4ÿ#&,#ÿkÿW/'+;ÿ:$ÿ,%%$)#$;ÿW0#&ÿ-/)#ÿ
+0>$+3ÿ",+)$ÿ,**'),#0/()ÿ-,;$ÿ#&,#ÿkÿ,)),'+#$;ÿ=$%:,++3ÿ,ÿ.$,*$ÿ/""0*$%ÿ,(;ÿ%$)0)#$;ÿ,%%$)#?ÿh&$ÿ67ÿ
J,=0)ÿ9/+0*$ÿ7&0$"ÿ2,##ÿ7,%-0*&,$+ÿW,)ÿ:%/'<&#ÿ#/ÿ./W$%ÿW0#&/'#ÿ.%/.$%ÿm',+0"0*,#0/(ÿ"/%ÿ#&0)ÿ
./)0#0/(ÿ,"#$%ÿ#&$ÿn/=$-:$%ÿ2o4ÿ45224ÿ.+/#ÿ,(;ÿ.%/=/*,#0/(ÿ#/ÿ%$-/=$ÿ679Jÿ7&0$"ÿ!(($##$ÿi.0*'11,ÿ
,(;ÿp#?ÿq,-$)ÿr,%:/'%4ÿW&/ÿW,)ÿ)$#ÿ'.ÿ:3ÿ67ÿJ,=0)ÿ7,-.')ÿ7/'()$+ÿi#$=$(ÿJ%/W(4ÿq?J?4ÿ#/ÿ).%,3ÿ
)#';$(#)ÿW0#&ÿ.$..$%ÿ).%,3ÿ,(;ÿW,)ÿ+,#$%ÿ%$*$0=0(<ÿ;$,#&ÿ#&%$,#)?ÿh&$ÿ/#&$%ÿ*/%%'.#$;ÿ679Jÿ*/.4ÿ
q,-$)ÿr,%:/'%4ÿW,)ÿ,W,%;$;ÿ,ÿs3t4555ÿW,<$ÿ0(*%$,)$ÿ#/ÿ*,%%3ÿ/'#ÿ,(ÿ,##,*>ÿ,<,0()#ÿ-$ÿ/(ÿ2,3ÿ324ÿ
45244ÿ#/ÿ;$+0=$%ÿ-$ÿ#/ÿ67J27ÿh%,'-,ÿn'%)0(<ÿ6(0#ÿuÿ22?ÿÿ
h&$ÿ67J27ÿ7&0$"ÿ8.$%,#0(<ÿ8""0*$%ÿ)0<($;ÿ,(ÿ'(;,#$;ÿ9$(,+ÿ7/;$ÿl4lÿ8%;$%ÿ#/ÿ<$#ÿv,)1*1'>ÿ0"ÿ
&$ÿ)&/Wÿ'.ÿW&0+$ÿW,)ÿÿ/(ÿ.&/(3ÿ0(=$)#0<,#/%3ÿ+$,=$?ÿv,)1*1'>ÿ;0;ÿ(/#ÿ)&/Wÿ'.?ÿÿ
w_EÿxN]PQ`LAPNÿfEAN]ÿx`aEÿyFydFÿ\ONOE\zÿÿ
ÿ
{=$%3ÿ)#';$(#ÿ/%ÿ$-.+/3$$ÿW&/4ÿ,"#$%ÿ,ÿ&$,%0(<4ÿ&,)ÿ:$$(ÿ
ÿ )').$(;$;ÿ/%ÿ;0)-0))$;ÿ"%/-ÿ,ÿ*/--'(0#3ÿ*/++$<$4ÿ,ÿ)#,#$ÿ'(0=$%)0#34ÿ
ÿ #&$ÿ'(0=$%)0#34ÿ/%ÿ,ÿ.':+0*ÿ/%ÿ.%0=,#$ÿ)*&//+ÿ"/%ÿ;0)%'.#0(<ÿ#&$ÿ
ÿ /%;$%+3ÿ/.$%,#0/(ÿ/"ÿ#&$ÿ*,-.')ÿ/%ÿ",*0+0#3ÿ/"ÿ#&$ÿ0()#0#'#0/(4ÿ,(;ÿ
ÿ ,)ÿ,ÿ*/(;0#0/(ÿ/"ÿ#&$ÿ)').$()0/(ÿ/%ÿ;0)-0)),+ÿ&,)ÿ:$$(ÿ;$(0$;ÿ,**$))ÿ
ÿ #/ÿ#&$ÿ*,-.')ÿ/%ÿ",*0+0#34ÿ/%ÿ:/#&4ÿ/"ÿ#&$ÿ0()#0#'#0/(ÿ"/%ÿ#&$ÿ.$%0/;ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ !ÿ"#$ÿ%&%'$(%)(ÿ*ÿ)(ÿ"#$ÿ+,%$ÿ!ÿ-)%.)%%,/ÿ!*ÿ,ÿ'$*)-ÿ("ÿ"ÿ
ÿ $0+$$-ÿ($ÿ1$,*2ÿ3#ÿ#,%ÿ4$$(ÿ%$*5$-ÿ41ÿ*$6)%"$*$-ÿ*ÿ+$*")!)$-ÿ.,)/7ÿ
ÿ ,"ÿ"#$ÿ/,%"ÿ,--*$%%ÿ6)5$(ÿ41ÿ"#,"ÿ'$*%(7ÿ3)"#ÿ,ÿ3*)""$(ÿ(")+$ÿ!ÿ
ÿ "#$ÿ%&%'$(%)(ÿ*ÿ-)%.)%%,/ÿ,(-ÿ+(-)")(2ÿ,(-ÿ3#ÿ3)//!&//1ÿ,(-ÿ
ÿ 8(3)(6/1ÿ$("$*%ÿ&'(ÿ"#$ÿ+,.'&%ÿ*ÿ!,+)/)"1ÿ!ÿ"#$ÿ)(%")"&")(ÿ"ÿ
ÿ 3#)+#ÿ#$ÿ*ÿ%#$ÿ#,%ÿ4$$(ÿ-$()$-ÿ,++$%%7ÿ3)"#&"ÿ"#$ÿ$0'*$%%ÿ3*)""$(ÿ
ÿ '$*.)%%)(ÿ!ÿ"#$ÿ+#)$!ÿ,-.)()%"*,")5$ÿ!!)+$*ÿ!ÿ"#$ÿ+,.'&%ÿ*ÿ
ÿ !,+)/)"17ÿ)%ÿ6&)/"1ÿ!ÿ,ÿ.)%-$.$,(*9ÿ
ÿ
;#$ÿ&(-,"$-ÿ<$(,/ÿ= -$ÿ>?>ÿ*-$*@ÿ3#)+#ÿ3,%ÿ%)6($-ÿ41ÿ"#$ÿA=BC=ÿ+**&'"$-ÿ=#)$!ÿD'$*,")(6ÿ
D!!)+$*ÿE)(+$("ÿF#(%(7ÿ3,%ÿ%)6($-ÿ3)"#ÿ.,/)+)&%ÿ,(-ÿ$5)/ÿ)("$(")(ÿ"ÿ#,*.ÿ.$ÿ41ÿA=B<Bÿ< /)+$ÿ
,(-ÿ3,%ÿ$(")*$/1ÿ&(/,3!&/9ÿÿ
GÿHIÿJKLMMÿJNOHKNPLQRÿISÿPTHUÿNVQNTOQLQRÿWPVÿPHUÿKPTÿLUTHÿKVÿNVQXLQNTÿKPTÿYZ[\ÿIV]ÿLQÿ
^__`ÿVOÿ^_aaÿKPHKÿGÿWVbMUÿ]MVWÿKPTÿWPLJKMTÿ]TNHbJTÿVcÿKPTÿbQMHWcbMÿVdTOHKLVQÿVcÿKPTÿYZefZÿ
dMHQKÿHQUÿdVWTOÿJHMT@ÿLQÿXLVMHKLVQÿVcÿGgZÿhTNKLVQÿi_aÿjNkjlkmÿnPLJÿQTXTOÿNOVJJTUÿISÿILQU@ÿ
]TNHbJTÿGÿWHJÿNVQXLQNTUÿKPHKÿ\Yg\opJÿOTRbMHKLVQJÿULUÿQVKÿHddMSÿKVÿYQLXTOJLKSÿVcÿZHMLcVOQLHÿ
NVRTQTOHKLVQÿdMHQKJ@ÿUbTÿKVÿKPTÿbQLXTOJLKSpJÿHbKVQVISÿcOVIÿKPTÿRVXTOQITQK9ÿÿ
q"ÿ)%ÿ("ÿ-)!!)+&/"ÿ"ÿ&(-$*%",(-ÿ3#,"ÿ+(%$r&$(+$%ÿ"#$ÿA=D<ÿ. 4ÿ3,%ÿ!,+)(6ÿ)(ÿ?s2?ÿ41ÿ
%)6()(6ÿ"#$ÿ<<tÿ3)"#ÿuCABÿ,(-ÿ("ÿ-$/)5$*)(6ÿ"#$ÿ'3$*ÿ'*.)%$-ÿ)(ÿ"#$ÿ+("*,+"9ÿB&*)(6ÿ#"ÿ
=,/)!*(),ÿ%&..$*%7ÿ$/$+"*)+ÿ'3$*ÿ)%ÿ. %"ÿ$0'$(%)5$ÿ"ÿ4&1ÿ,(-ÿ"ÿ%$//9ÿÿ
qÿ#,5$ÿ(ÿ-&4"ÿ"#,"7ÿ)!ÿqÿ#,-ÿ4$$(ÿ,ÿ6&(ÿ3($*ÿ*ÿ#,-ÿ$5$(ÿ($ÿ&"%",(-)(6ÿ3,**,("ÿ!*ÿ,ÿ"*,!!)+ÿ
")+8$"7ÿ"#$ÿv -)ÿ'/)+$ÿ3 &/-ÿ#,5$ÿ%$,*+#$-ÿ.1ÿ#.$ÿ,(-ÿqÿ3 &/-ÿ#,5$ÿ!,+$-ÿw*$""ÿC *6,(7ÿ,ÿu,(ÿ
F,r&)(ÿ= &("1ÿu&'$*)*ÿ= &*"ÿF&-6$7ÿ!*.$*ÿ+#)$!ÿ-$'&"1ÿ!*ÿ"#$ÿu","$ÿ!ÿ=,/)!*(),ÿq(%'$+"*ÿ
x$($*,/7ÿ,(-ÿ+#)$!ÿ!ÿ%",!!ÿ!ÿ"#$ÿu","$ÿ!ÿ=,/)!*(),ÿB$',*".$("ÿ!ÿ= **$+")(ÿ,(-ÿy$#,4)/)",")(7ÿ3#7ÿ
)(ÿ,ÿ3)"+#ÿ#&("ÿ*+#$%"*,"$-ÿ41ÿ"#$ÿA=D<ÿ. 4ÿ,6,)(%"ÿ.1ÿ'%1+#/6)%"7ÿB*9ÿz*,(8/)(ÿw$*(#!"7ÿ
%$("$(+$-ÿ#)%ÿ3)!$7ÿ>{01$,*0/-ÿB *"#1ÿw$*(#!"7ÿ"ÿ!&*ÿ1$,*%|ÿ'*4,")(9ÿu#$ÿ(,**3/1ÿ$%+,'$-ÿ!)5$ÿ
1$,*%ÿ)(ÿ'*)%(ÿ3)"#ÿ,ÿ'/$,ÿ,6*$$.$("9ÿu#*"/1ÿ,!"$*ÿÿÿqÿ,""$.'"$-ÿ"ÿ+(",+"ÿ,6,)(ÿ#$*ÿÿ,""*($1ÿ4&"ÿ#$ÿ
-)$-ÿ,!"$*ÿB *"#1ÿw$*6#!"ÿ3,%ÿ%$("$(+$-ÿ"ÿ!&*ÿ1$,*%|ÿ'*4,")(ÿ9ÿÿ
GQÿ^_a^7ÿB*9ÿw$*(#!"|%ÿ*$%)-$(+$ÿ)(ÿv -)ÿ3,%ÿ*,)-$-ÿ41ÿ65$*(.$("ÿ"#&6%7ÿ,(-ÿ#)%ÿ!)*$,*.%ÿ
,(-ÿ"#$*ÿ'*'$*"1ÿ3$*$ÿ+(!)%+,"$-ÿ4$+,&%$ÿ#$ÿ-,*$-ÿ"ÿ'*"$%"ÿ"#$ÿ"$***ÿ,(-ÿ)(#&.,($ÿ"*$,".$("ÿ"#,"ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¢£¤¥¦ÿ §¨§ÿÿÿÿÿÿ©ªÿ« ÿ¬ÿ«
!ÿ"#$ÿ%&&'ÿ()%*&+,&$ÿ,-ÿ#,ÿ,"&ÿ./01/ÿ2'ÿ34225ÿ16ÿ+-7-89&8(ÿ7"-ÿ()::-8,&$ÿ;&ÿ%&+#;&ÿ,#8<&,(ÿ#(ÿ
7&==5ÿ
!'ÿ#'-,"&8ÿ#+,ÿ->ÿ,"&ÿ./?@ÿ;-%A(ÿ$&(:&8#,2-'BÿC2'#ÿC)2==#);&0D-==&;#'Bÿ,"&ÿ(#;&ÿ./01/ÿ
/"2&>ÿ/-;:=2#'+&ÿ?>>2+&8ÿ7"-ÿ7#(ÿ-8$&8&$ÿ%6ÿ,"&ÿ./?@ÿ;-%ÿ,-ÿ>8#;&ÿ;&ÿ72,"ÿE-$2ÿ@-=2+&ÿ2'ÿF)'&ÿ
3423Bÿ7#(ÿ-8$&8&$ÿ,-ÿ+#==ÿ;6ÿ+-7-89&8ÿ#'$ÿ>82&'$ÿ1#89ÿ1-',-6#ÿ,-ÿ"&8ÿ->>2+&ÿ>-8ÿ#'ÿ)'&G:&+,&$ÿ
2',&8H2&75ÿ1(5ÿC)2==#);&0D-==&;#'Bÿ):-'ÿ1-',-6#A(ÿ#882H#=ÿ-'ÿIJKLÿNOPÿQRNQBÿ("-7&$ÿ"2;ÿ;6ÿ:"-,-ÿ
#'$ÿ#(9&$ÿ"2;ÿ7"&,"&8ÿ!ÿ7#(ÿ#ÿ,"8&#,ÿ,-ÿ"2;5ÿS2,"-),ÿ#'6ÿ"&(2,#,2-'Bÿ("&ÿ#,,&;:,&$ÿ,-ÿ(-=2+2,ÿ>8-;ÿ
1-',-6#ÿ#ÿ+-'>28;#,2-'ÿ(2<'#,)8&ÿ-'ÿ#'ÿ#>>2$#H2,ÿ(,#,2'<ÿ,"#,ÿ!ÿ7#(ÿ#ÿ,"8&#,ÿ,-ÿ"2;ÿ#'$ÿ#ÿ$#'<&8-)(ÿ
2'$2H2$)#=5ÿ1-',-6#ÿ8&>)(&$ÿ,-ÿ(2<'Uÿ"&ÿ=&>,ÿC)2==#);&0D-==;#''V(ÿ->>2+&Bÿ#'$ÿ!ÿ7#(ÿ2'>-8;&$ÿ#%-),ÿ
,"&28ÿ;&&,2'<5ÿW"2(ÿ2',&8H2&7ÿ,--9ÿ:=#+&ÿ7"&'ÿ!ÿ->>ÿ./01/A(ÿ:8&;2(&(ÿ>-8ÿ#=;-(,ÿ#ÿ>)==ÿ6Uÿ16ÿ=#(,ÿ
7-892'<ÿ$#6ÿ#,ÿ./01/A(ÿDXY/ÿ("-:ÿ7#(ÿZJ[J\]ÿ^PÿQRNN5ÿÿ
!ÿ#',2+2:#,&$ÿ,"#,ÿ(-;&,"2'<ÿ7-)=$ÿ"#::&'ÿ,-ÿ;&ÿ$)82'<ÿ,"&ÿ;-8&ÿ,"#'ÿ-'&ÿ>-8+&$ÿ#%(&'+&ÿ>8-;ÿ
7-89Bÿ$&(:2,&ÿ'-,ÿ9'-72'<ÿ,"#,ÿ,"&ÿ./?@ÿ;-%Bÿ-'ÿ1#6ÿ3_`32Bÿ3423ÿ(2<'&$ÿ#ÿ@-7&8ÿ@)8+"#(&ÿ
Y<8&&;&',ÿa@@Ybÿÿ72,"ÿc1.0ÿ,-ÿ8&();&ÿ:-7&8ÿ(#=&(ÿ>8-;ÿ./01A(ÿ3d01Sÿ+-<&'&8#,2-'ÿ:=#',5ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ efÿghi]hjkhlÿQmPÿQRNQBÿ!ÿ8&+&2H&$ÿ%6ÿ-H&8'2<",ÿ;#2=ÿ#ÿn-,2+&ÿ->ÿ!',&',ÿ,-ÿ02(;2((ÿ>-8ÿc&82-)(ÿ
12(+-'$)+,ÿ$#,&$ÿghi]hjkhlÿQoPÿQRNQ5ÿ!,ÿ7#(ÿ8-),2'&=6ÿ(2;2=#8ÿ,-ÿ-,"&8ÿ$-+);&',(ÿ,"#,ÿ!ÿ8&+&2H&$ÿ2'ÿ
,"&ÿ:#(,ÿ23ÿ;-',"(ÿ>8-;ÿ./01/ÿ@=#',ÿ?:&8#,2-'(ÿ#'$ÿ1#2',&'#'+&ÿ0&:#8,;&',ÿ1#'#<&8ÿ/"#8=&(ÿ
S2,+"&8ÿ#'$ÿ>8-;ÿ./01/A(ÿD);#'ÿp&(-)8+&(ÿ$&:#8,;&',5ÿÿ
W"&ÿ'-,2+&ÿ(,#,&$qÿÿ
W"&ÿ:)8:-(&ÿ->ÿ,"2(ÿ=&,,&8ÿ2(ÿ,-ÿ2'>-8;ÿ6-)ÿ,"#,ÿ!ÿ2',&'$ÿ,-ÿ$2(;2((ÿ6-)ÿ>8-;ÿ6-)8ÿ
:-(2,2-'ÿ#(ÿ#ÿglrÿshthKuijhf]ÿvf[wfhhlÿ2'ÿ@=#',ÿ?:&8#,2-'(ÿ#'$ÿ1#2',&'#'+&5ÿ
W"&ÿ8&#(-'ÿ>-8ÿ,"2(ÿ#+,2-'ÿ2(ÿ6-)8ÿ>#2=)8&ÿ,-ÿ#$"&8&ÿ,-ÿ./ÿ0#H2(ÿ@-=2+6ÿ#'$ÿ
@8-+&$)8&ÿ3x402yBÿc,#>>ÿ/-;:=#2',(ÿ->ÿ02(+82;2'#,2-'Pÿz{s|gÿNmNmPÿ}wuKhf~hÿ
fÿ|]hÿf~whf]\ÿwfÿ]hÿuliK~hÿfÿ]hÿlwf~wiKh\ÿuÿ{ujjJfw]Lrÿ
!ÿ"#$ÿ%&&'ÿ-'ÿ#ÿ>-8+&$ÿ=&#H&ÿ->ÿ#%(&'+&ÿ>8-;ÿ,"&ÿ./01/ÿ:8&;2(&(ÿ>-8ÿ;-8&ÿ,"#'ÿ-'&ÿ6Bÿ,"-)<"ÿ,"&ÿ
=&,,&8ÿ#++)(&$ÿ;&ÿ->ÿH2-=#,2'<ÿz{s|gÿNmNmÿiuKw~Lÿ}wuKhf~hÿfÿ|]hÿf~whf]\ÿwfÿ]hÿuliK~hÿ
fÿ]hÿlwf~wiKh\ÿuÿ{ujjJfw]Lÿ\ÿ\ujh]wf[ÿhK\hÿrÿÿ&,7&&'ÿY)<)(,ÿ3Bÿ3422ÿ#'$ÿc&:,&;%&8ÿ3yBÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ¡¢£ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤¥¦§¨©ªÿ¡«¬¡¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ®¯°±ÿ«²³²ÿÿÿÿÿÿ́µÿ¡«ÿ¥¶ÿ·¸·
!"2!#ÿ$ÿ%&'ÿ())*ÿ&+ÿ,-ÿ%.,)#ÿ/*ÿ0.'/#ÿ1&2/3.4*/&#ÿ&*'ÿ5&26/*7ÿ,-ÿ'.7ÿ8''/)ÿ&4.9*'ÿ0.'/ÿ0&6):ÿÿ
$ÿ'.;9,)*+)'ÿ&22ÿ.3ÿ+%/<ÿ/*ÿ,-ÿ=&-ÿ2"#ÿ!"2!ÿ2)++)4ÿ&''4)<<)'ÿ+.ÿ>&*)+ÿ?&@.2/+&*.A<ÿ34/)*'#ÿ
B18CÿD/4);+.4ÿ.3ÿ$*E)<+/7&+/.*ÿ>.%*ÿ0.%<)#ÿ5%.ÿ5&<ÿ4);49/+)'ÿ(-ÿ+%)ÿB18Cÿ,.(ÿ34.,ÿ+%)ÿFG$ÿ/*ÿ
!""H:ÿ$*ÿ,-ÿ2)++)4#ÿ5%/;%ÿ*.5ÿ+/+2)'ÿIJKLMNOLKÿQNÿRNSJÿTKQKJÿUVQKUÿWVRÿXYÿZ[\Zÿ
MS]T^_ÿJK_NJUÿV_QÿJK`SKLQÿaNJÿ_VLKÿZ[\\bcd\eÿ\\c[XfÿKMÿZ[[\ÿQgKÿgVMMRÿUNhÿ
iNUU^KYjÿ$ÿ/*;29')'ÿ+%)ÿ3.22.5/*7ÿ5.4'<ÿ&*'ÿ@%.+.:ÿÿ
$ÿ&,ÿ&2<.ÿ*.+ÿ<94)ÿ5%)+%)4ÿ-.94ÿ/*+)*+/.*ÿ/<ÿ+.ÿ/*E)<+/7&+)ÿ+%)ÿ;&<)ÿ.4ÿ+.ÿ')3)*'ÿ
=4<:ÿk)*'/ÿD)2,)*'.lÿ
Omnÿnmÿopqrmsqnoÿqrmtnÿuvmpoÿwqxoÿuvywvÿyxÿztynoÿwm{|po}ÿq~ÿrtpYÿ^ÿ
umtpÿpyoÿnmÿ{o~nym~ÿnvqnÿ^ÿq{ÿrqrxynny~ÿmsÿmcxynny~ÿ{ÿmÿ
iNyoiÿy~xnoqÿmÿumsy~ÿy~ÿnvoÿS_ÿUqyxÿWoywqpÿ_o~nosÿg V_ÿLvm|ÿ
xy~woÿVttxnÿZ[\\bÿ
$+ÿ5.92'ÿ()ÿ*.+%/*7ÿ54.*7ÿ5/+%ÿ(&(-</++/*7ÿ,-ÿ'.7ÿ/3ÿ/+ÿ5.92'ÿ.*ÿ,-ÿ@4/E&+)ÿ
+/,)ÿ&*'ÿ,-ÿ.5*ÿ)@)*<)<ÿ
.5)E)4#ÿ/+ÿ/<ÿ*.+ÿ+%)ÿ;&<)ÿ();&9<)ÿ+%)ÿB*/E)4</+-ÿ.3ÿ1&2/3.4*/&ÿ/<ÿ@&-/*7ÿ3.4ÿ
+%/<ÿ(&(-</++/*7ÿ.4ÿ'.70</++/*7ÿ
%)ÿ(&(-</++/*7ÿ.4ÿ'.70ÿ</++/*7ÿ8''/)ÿ;.<+ÿB*/E)4</+-ÿ.3ÿ1&2/3.4*/&ÿ
ÿ!#ÿ4":""ÿ3.4ÿ+%)ÿ2&<+ÿ3/E)ÿ,.*+%<ÿÿ&@@4./,&+)2-ÿ<&,)ÿ&,.9*+ÿ.3ÿ,.*)-ÿ
3.4ÿ+%)ÿ@)4<.*ÿ5%.ÿ/<ÿ'./*7ÿ,-ÿ.(ÿ/*<+)&'ÿ.3ÿ'.ÿ%/<ÿ.(ÿ&<ÿ&ÿ,);%&*/;:ÿ
=-ÿ'.7ÿ8''/)ÿ.3ÿ;.94<)ÿ/<ÿE)4-ÿ%&@@-ÿ*.ÿ+.ÿ()ÿ&2.*)ÿ&*'ÿ7.ÿ+.ÿ0.'/ÿ0&6)ÿ
C&46ÿ&*'ÿ;%&<)ÿ<9/44)2<ÿ)E)4-ÿ'&-ÿ&*'ÿ@2&-ÿ5/+%ÿ.+%)4ÿ'.7<ÿ/*ÿ0.'/ÿD.7ÿC&46ÿ:ÿ
Nyoÿyxÿ|smrqrpÿyxÿ~mnÿquqsoÿq~ÿmoxÿ~mnÿwqsoÿuvmÿyxÿ|qy~ÿvyxÿpt}tsÿ
nmÿvqoÿZdÿvmtsxÿqÿqÿ(&(-</++)4:ÿ))ÿ&++&;%)'ÿ@%.+.ÿ)ÿ/<ÿ9<+ÿE)4-ÿ
%&@@-ÿ'.7:ÿ
%)ÿB1ÿD&E/<ÿ1%/)3ÿ1.,@2/&*;)ÿD/4);+.4ÿ=4<:ÿk)*'/ÿD)2,)*'.ÿ/<ÿ&5&4)ÿ.3ÿ
nvyxÿo}|o~xyoÿmÿwqsoÿq~ÿxvoÿ~muxÿqrmtnÿynbÿ
%)ÿ/<ÿ*.+ÿ2)<<ÿ4)<@.*</(2)ÿ3.4ÿ,/<9<)ÿ&*'ÿ&(9<)ÿ.3ÿB1ÿ)<.94;)<ÿ+%&*ÿC&+4/;6ÿ
C9+*)-ÿ#ÿD)**/<ÿ1944-#ÿ1%&42)<ÿk/+;%)4#ÿD.4/*ÿD&*/2/9;#ÿD&*)<%&ÿ?/;%.2<ÿ#ÿ
1/*'/ÿ84.@)&ÿ#ÿD&*)<%&ÿ?/;%.2<ÿ#ÿ+)@%)*ÿ1%/2;.++ÿ&*'ÿ3)5ÿ.+%)4<ÿ/*ÿ2)<<)4ÿ
<;&2)ÿ.4ÿ/*E.2E),)*+:ÿ^ÿnvy~ÿnvqnÿ^ÿ{o~nym~oÿnmÿWsxbÿUop{o~mÿy~ÿm~oÿmÿ
{ÿponnosxÿnvqnÿS_ÿUqyxÿ_vyoÿ_m{|pyq~woÿNywosÿsoztysoxÿq~mnvosÿ_vyoÿ
_m{|pyq~woÿNywosÿnmÿroÿwm{|pyq~nÿuynvÿwm{|pyq~wobÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿ-7-ÿ1BÿCDC
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡¢£¤¥ÿ¦§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̈©ª«¬ÿ¦®ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°ÿ¦ÿ±ÿ²³²
!"ÿ#$%&ÿ'##()&ÿ(*ÿ2+ÿ"),-*ÿ$.#ÿ,/#ÿ(*ÿ*0(..ÿ(/ÿ%$$#ÿ*1,2)ÿ0$#,ÿÿ-(#(/%ÿ3(01ÿ4)ÿ0$ÿ5$#(ÿ5,6)ÿ7,-6ÿ(/ÿ$8-ÿ
299:ÿ;!<ÿ=3&ÿ>8*0ÿ,*ÿ1)ÿ3,*ÿ(/ÿ!,"ÿ?@2?Aÿÿ
B/ÿ,##(0($/ÿ0$ÿ01)ÿ,C$D)&ÿ01)ÿE)20)4C)-ÿ?F&ÿ?@2?&ÿ2)-1,2*ÿ0$ÿ4,6)ÿ4)ÿG)).ÿC)00)-&ÿ01)ÿH$0(I)ÿ$GÿB/0)/0ÿ
0$ÿJ)-4(/,0)ÿKLMNMOPQÿNPÿSLMNÿTUUMVWXOPÿYPZP[MKNP\Oÿ]\^W\PPLÿOMÿ_P\WMLÿYPZP[MKNP\Oÿ
]\^W\PPLAÿ̀MNKXUUWM\ÿX\QÿabNX\ÿcW\Q\PUUÿMSÿOdPÿe`fgÿNMhiÿÿ
ÿ
ÿjM[[MkW\^ÿOdPÿ_PKOPNhPLÿlm&ÿH$0(I)ÿ$GÿB/0)/0ÿ0$ÿJ)-4(/,0)ÿG$-ÿE)-($8*ÿ!(*I$/#8I0&ÿ$/ÿ
E)20)4C)-ÿ?+&ÿ?@2?&ÿ$/)ÿ$Gÿ4"ÿI$3$-6)-*ÿ*)/0ÿ4)ÿ,ÿ21$0$ÿ$Gÿ,ÿnoÿp,D(*ÿ7$.(I)ÿ2$*0)-ÿC),-(/%ÿ4"ÿ
21$0$ÿ,/#ÿ01)ÿD)-C(,%)ÿqg]r_fsÿsftÿTetafruv]Yÿfsÿgrfg]rtwxyÿ31(I1ÿ3,*ÿ*(4(.,-ÿ0$ÿ
,/ÿz{;B|*ÿ!$*0ÿ<,/0)#}ÿ*(%/Aÿÿ
ÿÿÿ
J1)ÿnoÿp,D(*ÿ7$.(I)ÿ7$*0)-ÿ*0,0)#~ÿÿ
qXLMU[XkÿXUVbÿWUÿVbLLP\O[ÿM\ÿXQNW\WUOLXOWZPÿ[PXZPÿSLMNÿ
PNK[MNP\OÿkWOdÿOdPÿe`ÿYXZWUÿPQÿ̀P\OPLiÿLiÿXUVbÿWUÿ\MOÿ
XbOdMLWPQÿOMÿhPÿM\ÿe`ÿYXZWUÿKLMKPLOÿkWOdMbOÿXÿ[P^X[ÿLPXUM\ÿMLÿXÿNPQWVX[ÿ
PNPL^P\Viÿ
LiÿXUVbÿWUÿQPUVLWhPQÿXUÿX\ÿM[QPLÿkdWOPÿNX[PÿkWOdÿhLMk\ÿX\Qÿ^LXÿ
dXWLiÿaPÿWUÿXKKLMWNXOP[ÿmyÿX\Qÿÿ[hiÿ
uSÿLiÿXUVbÿWUÿUPP\ÿOLPUKXUUW\^ÿM\ÿe\WZPLUWOÿMSÿ̀X[WSML\WXÿYXZWUÿ
KLMKPLOWPUxÿK[PXUPÿVM\OXVOÿOdPÿYXZWUÿgM[WVPÿYPKXLONP\OÿWNNPQWXOP[ÿXOÿ
mmmiyÿ
ÿ
J1)ÿnoÿp,D(*ÿ7$.(I)ÿ2$*0)-ÿ01,0ÿ*,(#ÿzg]r_fsÿsftÿTetafruv]Yÿfsÿgrfg]rtwyÿ,/#ÿ
(/I.8#)#ÿ4"ÿ21$0$ÿ,/#ÿ,ÿ#)*I-(20($/AÿB0ÿ3,*ÿ#(*0-(C80)#ÿ,-$8/#ÿ01)ÿ03$ÿnoÿp,D(*ÿI,428*)*&ÿ01)ÿnoÿ
p,D(*ÿ!,(/ÿo,428*ÿ,/#ÿ01)ÿp,D(*ÿ!)#(I,.ÿo)/0)-&ÿ,/#ÿ3,*ÿ4$*0ÿ.(6)."ÿ*)/0ÿ0$ÿ4,/,%)-*ÿ,/#ÿnoÿ
p,D(*ÿ)42.$"))*ÿD(,ÿ).)I0-$/(Iÿ4,(.Aÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿ-7Bÿ1CÿBDB
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡ÿ¢£¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤¥ÿÿ¦ÿ§¨§
ÿ
!"ÿ#$$%&%'"(ÿ&)*ÿ+,-.ÿ#//%0"*$ÿ&)10/ÿ&'ÿ2%&3)ÿ)1"&ÿ4*ÿ#"$ÿ$%$ÿ"'&ÿ%"5'64ÿ4*ÿ&)#&ÿ&)*ÿ7'/&*6ÿ)#$ÿ8**"ÿ
%//1*$ÿ#"$ÿ$%/&6%81&*$9ÿ:)*ÿ;1*/&%'"ÿ%/ÿ<ÿ=)#&ÿ2*6*ÿ&)*%6ÿ%"&*"&%'"/>ÿÿ
ÿÿÿ ?5&*6ÿ&)*ÿ+,-.ÿ4'8@/ÿ%AA04%"$*$ÿ81&ÿ1"/133*//51Aÿ76'B'3#&%'"ÿ&'ÿC%AAÿ4*ÿ'6ÿ*"$ÿ4Dÿ
*47A'D4*"&(ÿ!ÿ*E7*6%*"3*$ÿ&*66%5D%"0ÿ&)'10)&/ÿ&)#&ÿ"*B*6ÿA*5&ÿ4Dÿ4%"$9ÿ!ÿ#4ÿ/&%AAÿ&*66%5%*$ÿ&'ÿ&)%"Cÿ#8'1&ÿ
2)#&ÿ2'1A$ÿ)#B*ÿ)#77*"*$ÿ&'ÿ4*ÿ'"ÿF#Dÿ32(ÿGH2Gÿ%5ÿ&)*ÿ36%4%"#AADÿ4%"$*$ÿ+,-.ÿ4'8@/ÿ76'B'3#&%'"ÿ
)#$ÿ8**"ÿ/133*//51A(ÿ'6ÿ2)#&ÿ2'1A$ÿ)#B*ÿ)#77*"*$ÿ%5ÿ!ÿ)#$ÿ/)'2"ÿ17ÿ1"*E7*3&*$ADÿ#&ÿ+,IF,ÿ&'ÿ4**&ÿ
4Dÿ3'2'6C*6ÿ56%*"$/ÿ5'6ÿA1"3)ÿ#&ÿ&)*ÿF#66%'&&ÿJ'&*AÿA'3#&*$ÿ'"ÿ+,IF,ÿ76*4%/*/(ÿ$%6*3&ADÿ#36'//ÿ56'4ÿ
&)*ÿJK?,ÿ/)'7(ÿ"'&ÿC"'2%"0ÿ&)#&ÿ#ÿ7'/&*6ÿ)#$ÿ8**"ÿ$%/&6%81&*$ÿ#6'1"$ÿ3#471/ÿ#"$ÿ&)#&ÿ&)*ÿ+,ÿ.'A%3*ÿ
)#$ÿ8**"ÿ%"/&613&*$ÿ&'ÿ#&Cÿ4*ÿ17'"ÿ4Dÿ#66%B#A9ÿ
ÿÿÿ L'&ÿ4#"Dÿ#//%0"*$ÿ8Dÿ&)*ÿ+,-.ÿ4'8ÿ2%&3)ÿ)1"&*6/ÿC"*2ÿ#&ÿ#AAÿ2)#&ÿ&)*ÿ4'6*ÿ&)#"ÿ'"*0D*#60
A'"0ÿ2%&3)ÿ)1"&ÿ&'ÿ$*/&6'Dÿ4*ÿ#"$ÿ4Dÿ"'64#Aÿ*E%/&*"3*ÿ2#/ÿ#8'1&9ÿ:)*DÿM1/&ÿ5'AA'2*$ÿ&)*ÿ'6$*6/ÿ&)*Dÿ
)#$ÿ8**"ÿ0%B*"9ÿ!"ÿGHHNOGHH4ÿ#"$ÿGH22OGH2G(ÿ&)*ÿ2%&3)ÿ)1"&*6/(ÿA%C*ÿ4*(ÿ)#$ÿ"'ÿ3A1*ÿ&)#&ÿ&)%/ÿ2#/ÿ
#8'1&ÿ4%AA%'"/ÿ'5ÿ&#E056**ÿ$'AA#6/ÿ56'4ÿ#ÿ"'2056'P*"ÿ%"ÿ#"ÿ%$A%"0ÿ#&ÿ&)*ÿ)'1/*ÿA'#$ÿ7'2*6ÿ/#A*ÿ3'"&6#3&ÿ
5'6ÿ&)*ÿ+,IF,@/ÿGQ0F=ÿ3'0*"*6#&%'"ÿ7A#"&ÿ3'44%//%'"*$ÿ%"ÿ244Rÿ8Dÿ+,-.ÿ2)%&*ÿ3'AA#6ÿ36%4%"#A/9ÿÿ
ÿ :)'/*ÿ#//%0"*$ÿ&'ÿ&'64*"&ÿ4*ÿ5'AA'2*$ÿ&)*ÿ'6$*6/ÿ&'ÿC**7ÿ&)*%6ÿM'8/ÿ#"$ÿ#77A%*$ÿ&'ÿ&)*ÿ2%&3)ÿ
)1"&ÿ#ÿ7)%A'/'7)DÿSTÿSVÿWXTTXYÿWXÿZÿ[ST\]ÿ]^_TXYÿT]Z_ÿ[ST\]ÿ]^_TX`aÿ-"*ÿ'5ÿ&)*4(ÿJbÿ3'"/1A&#"&ÿc%"#ÿ
J#62''$(ÿ*E76*//*$ÿ)*6ÿB%*2ÿ#8'1&ÿ&)*ÿ+,I.I@/ÿd.ebf-LÿL-:ÿ?+:J-b!geIÿ-Lÿ.b-.eb:hiÿ
#/ÿ5'AA'2/(ÿ%"ÿ#ÿf*7&*48*6ÿGQ(ÿGH2Gÿ*04#%Aÿ&'ÿ)*6ÿ4#"#0*6(ÿ:6#B%/ÿj%"$/#D<ÿÿ
ÿÿ
k:' 6'<4< ÿ ÿ lS qY_ZZrÿSmZ
V ÿsS Y_[n` V nX`topJbp
Jbp Jf
Jf pp+,Iÿ
+,Iu+,I#B%/ÿ
I# & * < ÿ H4p G Q pG H 2 G H R < N v
f18M*3&<ÿ k2<ÿ.*6/'"ÿ+"#1&)'6%P*$ÿ'"ÿ.6'7*6&Dÿwx#6'/A#2ÿ=#/P3P1Cyÿÿ?Fÿ
J%ÿ:)*6*<ÿ
q]
ZVT[Z SVYÿSXVÿÿTY]XZZTzÿz[X tÿnÿ[X
^TÿnY{XÿÿT]nXSÿ__nÿYTn|ÿÿ̀nTnÿÿT}]nSVVaTÿÿS̀ÿ
T]SVÿ[X S_ÿÿTZ]VXÿ̀X
ÿT ]}XZÿ}YnT|XzS\ X_ÿTTnÿZÿ̀n
_`ÿÿT~]ÿ[Z
S V VÿmS
ÿ_nVTÿzÿXTTXYÿ
8"'1Z&&Tÿÿ$!Xÿ`'#"4ÿ
ÿT]#ZÿTAÿ%]&&XA*ÿ[n
ÿ
3' ^"z3`*ÿ6Y"X*|Z$ ÿ&S_#ÿ&nÿ&_)ÿ%}/ÿZ%/S`ÿ8ÿ*zX%"Z0rÿX7ÿ[]
)
*ÿ&)%/ÿ8*5'6*ÿ'"ÿ#"Dÿ'&)*6ÿB%'A*"3*ÿ3#/*/9ÿ ' / &S\$]ÿ%ÿ"S|}
* ÿ&) *zÿS$X*Vÿ7T#]6X&4*
ÿVZ|X
" & ÿ/ÿ%X"3}*Xÿ2*
\TZÿT)S#nB_*Vÿÿ
^VTÿ[Z_TÿTnÿ|ZXÿV^YXÿT]ZTÿ[XÿVZ_\TSn_X`ÿT]SVÿWX{nYXÿSTÿ[ZVÿ}nVTX`ÿS_ÿT]Xÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ£¤¥¦§ÿ¡¨©¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿª«ÿ¡©ÿ¬ÿ®
!"#$%&'"(&ÿ*"+$,-"ÿ.ÿ-,-#"+&ÿ/"ÿ/011ÿ*"ÿ2"&&0(2ÿ$(ÿ"'$01ÿ$*3,&ÿ0&ÿ-33(4ÿ
5678ÿ
90
@6(7$R8
?QOÿ A6ÿ:$
BS86CNÿ%DEB
/33C!F;Gÿ<H=:>ÿ
HGÿN8M7HIEÿ
ÿJ8KF@ÿLHC8M6F7NÿOF7NPCM87Mÿ
TPE87ÿLHNFP@AHNÿ ÿTH 8CM U ÿV
ÿ
T8@WFFIXNÿE878YH@Zÿ[@8S6NÿJ67IN8GZÿ@HNBF7IHI\ÿ
]^@FE\ÿ_%$`0-ÿa0(!-"bcTLcTVcQORÿ
[F\ÿ 90($ÿ T8@WFFIcTLcTVcQORdQOR8S6Nÿ
R8MH\ÿ4ecfgcf42fÿ4e\4hÿijÿ
VPKkHAM\ÿ LH\ÿ^W\ÿ="%-3(ÿl($,&m3%0n"!ÿ3(ÿ=%3#"%&bÿop$%3-1$/ÿq$-n+n,rsÿ
ÿ
<tu.v>ÿatwxt><:.=ÿw<ytxÿ<_tztÿ_vÿ:wztÿ=xÿ_wytÿ_:.<ÿ=>t{wl_.vu|ÿ
ÿ
[@8S6Nÿ}|ÿJ67INHGZÿ}|R|ÿ
j878YH@ZÿDEBCFGHHÿ~ÿJ8KF@ÿLHC8M6F7Nÿ
TPE87ÿLHNFP@AHN]ÿ
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||ÿ
7ÿecfgc2fÿe\2ÿijZÿ
^@FE\ÿ20($4m$%/33!,+!'+|PAI8S6N|HIPÿÿ
[F\ÿ]_%$`0-ÿa0(!-"b]M@8S6N|C67INHGPAIÿEH|ÿPAI8S6N|HIPÿ
VPKkHAM\ÿLH\ÿ^W\ÿ="%-3(ÿl($,&m3%0n"!ÿ3(ÿ=%3#"%&bÿop$%3-1$/ÿq$-n+n,rsÿ
W@FMH\ÿ
ÿ
vy;ÿ_:wuy<ÿv>ÿ_:tÿ.u v;ÿqw<ÿpl<_ÿ{vu{t>utxÿt{wl<tÿqtÿ:wÿztÿuv_ÿ
xvutÿ_:.<ÿt v>t4ÿ
ÿ
5678ÿ
ÿ
4ecfgcf42fÿ4e\gÿijÿ
^@FE\ÿ[@8S6NÿJ67INHGcTLcTVcQORÿ
[F\ÿ5678ÿT8@WFFIcTLcTVcQORdQOR8S6Nÿ
VPKkHAM\ÿLH\ÿ="%-3(ÿl($,&m3%0n"!ÿ3(ÿ=%3#"%&bÿop$%3-1$/ÿq$-n+n,rÿ
qt
ÿ
ztÿ utzt>ÿ _t>. uw_txÿ pqÿ t._:t>4 ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡ÿÿ¢ÿ£¤£
!"ÿ#$%&"ÿ"0'#()ÿ*%+&",-#.(%+/ÿ(+*)01(+2ÿ,#&(-ÿ3(+1-"45-ÿ-.#."'"+.-/ÿ*)"#,)4ÿ-!%6ÿ.!#.ÿ!"ÿ2#&"ÿ
7#,6%%1ÿ#ÿ*)"#,ÿ'"--#2"ÿ.%ÿ-!0.ÿ08ÿ#+1ÿ.%ÿ'#9"ÿ!",ÿ0+1",-.#+1ÿ.!#.ÿ(.ÿ6#-ÿ+%.ÿ!(-ÿ%,ÿ!",ÿ1"*(-(%+ÿ.%ÿ
1(-.,($0."ÿ.!"ÿ:;ÿ<%)(*"ÿ8%-.",ÿ6(.!ÿ'4ÿ8!%.%ÿ#+1ÿ1"-*,(8.(%+ÿ%+ÿ(.=ÿ>.ÿ6#-ÿ#)-%ÿ+%.ÿ"(.!",ÿ%?ÿ.!"(,ÿ
1"*(-(%+ÿ.%ÿ.",'(+#."ÿ'"/ÿ#+1ÿ$,#22(+2ÿ#$%0.ÿ(.ÿ*%0)1ÿ*#0-"ÿ8,%$)"'-ÿ?%,ÿ.!"'=ÿ
!"ÿ"0'#()ÿ*%+&",-#.(%+ÿ$".6""+ÿ3(+1-"4ÿ#+1ÿ7#,6%%1ÿ#)-%ÿ*)"#,)4ÿ-!%6-ÿ.!#.ÿ"&",4.!(+2ÿ6#-ÿ
%,*!"-.,#."1ÿ$4ÿ.!"ÿ:;@<ÿ'%$ÿ.%ÿ!0+.ÿ'"ÿ1%6+ÿ#+1ÿ.",'(+#."ÿ'4ÿ"'8)%4'"+.ÿ.%ÿ*%&",ÿ08ÿ#ÿ-"*,".ÿ
,"2#,1(+2ÿ'())(%+-ÿ%?ÿ1%))#,-Aÿ6%,.!ÿ%?ÿ8%6",ÿ2"+",#.(%+ÿ#+1ÿ8%6",ÿ-#)"ÿ?,#01/ÿ6!(*!ÿ!#1ÿ$""+ÿ2%(+2ÿ
%+ÿ-(+*"ÿ2BBB=ÿ>.ÿ*"#-"1ÿ(+ÿCDDEÿ#+1ÿ,"-0'"1ÿ#2#(+ÿ%+ÿF#4ÿG2/ÿCD22ÿ$4ÿ.!"ÿ<<Hÿ$".6""+ÿ.!"ÿ:;@<ÿ
#+1ÿIF:J=ÿÿ
F4ÿ1"8#,.'"+.ÿ!"#1ÿ'#+#2",/ÿ;!#,)"-ÿK(.*!",/ÿ%??","1ÿ#+ÿ%8(+(%+ÿ%+ÿ'4ÿ8",-%+#ÿ+%.ÿ2,#.#ÿ8%-.",/ÿ
6!(*!ÿ(-ÿ*%8("1ÿ$")%6=ÿÿ
K(.*!",ÿ,%0.(+")4ÿ-(2+"1ÿ#))ÿ(+&"-.(2#.%,4ÿ)"#&"ÿ)"..",-/ÿ#-ÿ6"))ÿ#-ÿ'4ÿ-0-8"+-(%+ÿ)"..",-ÿ6,(.."+ÿ
?%,ÿ!('ÿ$4ÿ7#,6%%1ÿ#+1ÿ%.!",ÿ7Lÿ3#$%,ÿL")#.(%+-ÿ-.#??ÿ#+1ÿ'4ÿ"&#)0#.(%+-=ÿ7"ÿ$"*#'"ÿ*%+*",+"1ÿ
#$%0.ÿ.!"ÿ:;ÿJ#&(-ÿ<%)(*"ÿ8%-.",ÿ6(.!ÿ'4ÿ8!%.%ÿ#+1ÿ1"-*,(8.(%+ÿ%+ÿ(.ÿ#+1/ÿ%+ÿI"8."'$",ÿCM/ÿCD2C/ÿ
6,%."ÿ#+ÿ"0'#()ÿ.%ÿ7#,6%%1ÿ#+1ÿ3(+1-"4Nÿÿ
ÿ
OPPQÿSPTUVUWÿ
XYZÿ[\]]Z^VUÿ_^^_`YZQÿaZ]Pbÿb_cÿQZ]VdZTZQÿ^Pÿeff[ÿf\V^ZÿghiiÿjZc^ZTQ_jÿ
_k^ZTUPPUÿ_aP\^ÿlmiinoÿajÿ_ÿ\UVkPToZQÿPkkV̀ZTpÿqZTZÿ^YZcZÿ[\]]Z^VUcÿ
QZ]VdZTZQÿ^PÿP^YZTÿ]P`_^VPUcÿbZTZÿrsSÿY_cÿc^_kkÿ]P`_^ZQtÿÿ
XYZÿuZ^^ZTÿPkÿvU^ZU^ÿ^PÿwVcoVccxÿP\Tÿ]_c^ÿ̀Poo\UV̀_^VPUÿbV^YÿyZTTjxÿQVQÿ
UP^ÿY_dZÿ_Ujÿc^_^ZoZU^cÿTZz\VTVUWÿSTpÿq_c{`{\|ÿ^Pÿc^_jÿ_b_jÿkTPoÿ^YZÿ
f_`T_oZU^Pÿ}_on\cÿ_cÿ_ÿTZz\VTZoZU^ÿPkÿYVcÿ~n_VQÿ_QoVUVc^T_^VdZÿ]Z_dZ~pÿ
vcÿ_Ujÿ_QQV^VPU_]ÿ̀Poo\UV̀_^VPUÿbV^YÿyZTTjÿTZz\VTZQÿ^PÿZUc\TZÿYVcÿ
\UQZTc^_UQVUWÿPkÿ^YVcÿTZz\VTZoZU^tÿ
XY_U|cxÿ}Y_T]Zcÿ
}Y_T]ZcÿqV^`YZTxÿS_U_WZTÿ
r]_U^ÿsnZT_^VPUcÿÿS_VU^ZU_U`Zÿ
ÿ
H?.",ÿ.!"ÿ0+-0**"--?0)ÿ())ÿ#.."'8.ÿ.%ÿ"+1ÿ'4ÿ"'8)%4'"+.ÿ#.ÿ:;JF;/ÿ.!"ÿ:;@<ÿ'%$ÿ*%%,1(+#."1ÿ#ÿ
6(.*!ÿ!0+.ÿ6(.!ÿ:;ÿJ#&(-ÿ;!#+*"))%,ÿ#."!(ÿ#+1ÿ.!,""ÿ:;ÿJ#&(-ÿ8%)(*"ÿ%??(*",-Nÿ;!("?ÿ%?ÿ<%)(*"ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿ£¤£ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¥¦ÿÿ§ÿ̈©¨
!""#$$#ÿ%&'()**+,ÿ-+&$+'"ÿ./0(#ÿ%/)*+,ÿ+"1ÿ2$3ÿ./4"ÿ5'6#,ÿ'"ÿ7#8+$'/"ÿ$/ÿ+ÿ9/:#;<#7ÿ2=,ÿ4>22ÿ&#&ÿ
?&7+0ÿ&7/:/(+$'/"ÿ$/ÿ7#;/:#ÿ-4+"(#88/7ÿ@+$#4',ÿ-4'#Aÿ%&'()**+ÿ,ÿ2$3ÿ5'6#,ÿ-+&$+'"ÿ%/)*+3ÿB"ÿ$4#ÿ?+;#ÿ
1+0,ÿ%#&$#;<#7ÿ4C,ÿ4>24,ÿ$4#ÿD-B5ÿ;/<ÿ/71#7#1ÿD-E5Eÿ$/ÿ1'?$7'<)$#ÿ$4#ÿ&/?$#7ÿF'$4ÿ;0ÿ&4/$/ÿ+"1ÿ
1#?(7'&$'/"ÿ+"1ÿ+ÿ%$'&)8+$'/"ÿ/Aÿ%#$$8#;#"$ÿG$4#ÿH%$'&)8+$'/"HI,ÿ$/ÿ7#?/8:#ÿ$4#ÿ9/:#;<#7ÿ2=,ÿ4>22ÿ
&#&ÿ?&7+0ÿ&7/:/(+$'/"ÿF+?ÿ#"$#7#1ÿ'"$/ÿ<#$F##"ÿ&+7$'#?ÿ+"1ÿA'8#1ÿ'"ÿ$4#ÿD3%3ÿE'?$7'($ÿ-/)7$ÿJ+?$#7"ÿ
E'?$7'($ÿ /Aÿ -+8'A/7"'+ÿ -+?#,ÿ 9/3ÿ KLMNÿ PQRPSTUSVVWXVSYZ[S\]^
ÿ
_4#ÿ+($'/"ÿF+?ÿ(//71'"+$#1ÿ+;/"`ÿ"/$/7'/)?ÿ5/7$#7ÿ%(/$$ÿ8+FÿA'7;ÿ+$$/7"#0?,ÿ<+?#1ÿ'"ÿ%+(7+;#"$/,ÿ
-!,ÿF4'(4ÿ4+?ÿ7#&7#?#"$#1ÿ$4#ÿD-B5ÿ;/<ÿA/7ÿ1#(+1#?3ÿÿ
5/7$#7ÿ%(/$$ÿ+$$/7"#0?ÿ+"1ÿ?4+7#4/81#7?ÿabcdeÿghÿijkkjbcÿ+"1ÿlkmkcdkÿghÿnboopqe,ÿGr/$4ÿ
1'#1ÿIÿF4/ÿ4#8ÿ/7(4#?$7+$#ÿ$4#ÿ9/:#;<#7ÿ2=,ÿ4>22ÿ&#&ÿ?&7+0ÿ&7/:/(+$'/",ÿ7#&7#?#"$#1ÿ@+$#4',ÿ
%&'()**+,ÿ+"1ÿ/$4#7ÿ8'?$#1ÿE#A#"1+"$?ÿ'"ÿD3%3ÿE'?$7'($ÿ-/)7$ÿJ+?$#7"ÿE'?$7'($ÿ/Aÿ-+8'A/7"'+ÿ-+?#ÿ9/3ÿ
-+?#ÿ4s240(:0>>3t>0.!u0Jvrÿÿ$4#0ÿ4#8ÿ$/ÿA7+;#ÿ/"ÿ9/:#;<#7ÿ2=,ÿ4>223ÿÿ_4#0ÿ(//71'"+$#1ÿ$4#'7ÿ
+($'/"?ÿ&#"1'"`ÿ'"ÿD3%ÿE'?$7'($ÿ-/)7$ÿF'$4ÿ/$4#7ÿ5/7$#7ÿ%(/$$ÿ+$$/7"#0ÿwpdjbkxÿyz{{ÿ+"1ÿA/7;#7ÿ
5/7$#7ÿ%(/$$ÿ+$$/7"#0ÿ|kzm}kÿ~dkmzÿGbÿzmkmÿnÿ|kckmbxÿnzcokxÿc{kmcIÿF4/ÿ+$ÿ?+;#ÿ$';#ÿÿ
F#7#ÿ+1:'?'"`ÿÿ$4#ÿD-B5ÿ$4)`?ÿA7/;ÿ$4#ÿD-ÿÿE+:'?ÿu#1'(+8ÿ-#"$#7ÿÿ ÿE#&+7$;#"$ÿ'"ÿ$4#'7ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£ÿ¤¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦§¨©ªÿ¤«¬«ÿÿÿÿÿÿ®ÿ¤¯ÿ°ÿ±¯±
!"#$%&"''ÿ(%)$*ÿ*+,)ÿ)-ÿ"#./%$.)"ÿ!"ÿ0#-!ÿ12ÿ3.4#-&&ÿ5ÿÿ
6788ÿ:;<ÿ=>?@7Aÿ%,ÿ4".#ÿBCCDEBCCFAÿ-#$*"')#.)"/ÿ%,ÿ)*"ÿ2-+#)ÿ-0ÿG33".&H'ÿI*%#/ÿG33"&&.)"ÿ
J%')#%$)ÿ.ÿ3*-,4ÿ.,)%0KLGMMÿ!-)%-,ÿ.33".&ÿÿÿNO8@:8?PQ>ÿR:STUQ8ÿ=P:Q;T8ÿ6UVWQ>ÿ6:@8Q>QX:8Q7;Yÿ
3+#'+.,)ÿ)-ÿ2-/"ÿ-0ÿ2%Z%&ÿM#-$"/+#"ÿ3BD52[ÿN2525Mÿ\ÿ3BD52[]5ÿ^)ÿ(.'ÿ0%&"/ÿ%,ÿ_-&-ÿ2-+,)4ÿK+3"#%-#ÿ
2-+#)ÿ.,/ÿ)*",ÿ/",%"/ÿ-,ÿ̀-Z"!a"#ÿBBAÿBCCD5ÿI*"ÿ/",%"/ÿ3*-,4ÿ!-)%-,ÿ0-+,/ÿ%)'ÿ(.4ÿ)-ÿ)*"ÿ4J2GAÿ
.,/ÿ)*"ÿ$.'"ÿa"$.!"ÿb,-(,ÿ.'ÿd7eÿfgÿhi7jÿ23[ÿ2.&5G3353)*ÿ24kFÿN2.&5ÿ2)5ÿG335ÿBCCF]5ÿlmnopqÿ
(.'ÿ+'"/ÿ%,ÿBC23ÿa4ÿ)*"ÿ12ÿÿ%,ÿ!4ÿK.$#.!",)-ÿ2-+,)4ÿK+3"#%-#ÿ2-+#)ÿÿ.r.%,')ÿ!4ÿ(#-,r0+&ÿ
)"#!%,.)%-,ÿ$.'"ÿ.r.%,')ÿ)*"ÿs"r",)'ÿ-0ÿ)*"ÿ1,%Z"#'%)4ÿ-0ÿ2.&%0-#,%.Aÿtunpqvuwÿxuqyzy{|ÿ}~ÿmÿ
momqÿpÿmÿ}mnqÿpÿuvpnuAÿ2.'"ÿ̀-~ÿ430BC240CC2DD3F5ÿ^,ÿBC23ÿN+,"ÿBC23E.,+.#4ÿ
BC2D]Aÿ)*"ÿ12ÿs"r",)'ÿ("#"ÿ#"3#"'",)"/ÿa4ÿM-#)"#ÿK$-))ÿ.))-#,"4ÿ%$*."&ÿM-))Aÿ(*-ÿ%,ÿ$-,'3%#.$4ÿ
(%)*ÿ!4ÿ/#+r0.//%$)"/ÿ.,/ÿ0%,.,$%.&&4ÿa#-b"ÿN,-(ÿ0-#!"#]ÿ.))-#,"4ÿJ-+r&.'ÿK)"%,ÿ.))"!3)"/ÿ'"&&ÿ
!4ÿ&%)%r.)%-,ÿ%,ÿJ"$"!a"#ÿBC23ÿ0-#ÿ4CCACCC5ÿM-))ÿ#"'%r,"/ÿ-#ÿ(.'ÿ0%#"/ÿ0#-!ÿM-#)"#ÿK$-))ÿ-,ÿ
.,+.#4ÿB4AÿBC2DAÿ.0)"#ÿ^ÿ/%'!%''"/ÿK)"%,ÿ-,ÿJ"$"!a"#ÿ2[AÿBC23ÿ0-#ÿ')".&%,rÿ!4ÿÿBCACCCÿ#").%,"#ÿ
!-,"4ÿ5ÿÿ
J-+r&.'ÿK)"%,ÿ(.'ÿ&-,rÿ)%!"ÿ0#%",/ÿ(%)*ÿK.$#.!",)-ÿ2-+,)ÿK+3"#%-#ÿ2-+#)ÿ+/r"ÿJ.Z%/ÿ^ÿ#-(,ÿ
0#-!ÿL.(ÿ.,/ÿ-)%-,ÿ/"3.#)!",)ÿD4ÿ5ÿÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
EFGHÿGJKLÿMNOPQROSÿÿÿÿÿÿTUVWXLYZÿMQ[\NQORÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ]^_L`aÿO[bOcbNONNÿÿÿÿÿÿdJeLÿQ[[ÿUfÿghg
ÿ
!ÿ"##$%$&!'ÿ(%)$!ÿ*%&+)ÿ,-ÿ.)%"$!).ÿ,&!)-/ÿ0)ÿ1"*ÿ#$*2"..)#ÿ$!ÿ3"!4".-ÿ5656ÿ7&.ÿ8$*ÿ,$*9&!#49%ÿ
:*))ÿ8%%;*<==";;*/9"+2"./9"/>&?="%%&.!)-=@$9)!*))=A)%"$+=2B253CD/ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¦£§ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̈©ª«¬ ®ÿ¡¥¯°¢¥£¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ±²³´µÿ£¯¶£·¶¢£¢¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̧¹ ÿ¢££ÿ©ºÿ»¼»
!"#$%#ÿ&'"$$ÿ($$"#)%*+ÿ(),ÿ+-(#%-".,%#+ÿ/011023ÿ(),ÿ5266789:ÿ;-"ÿ-%.<%,ÿ$"ÿ"#'-%+$#($%ÿ$-%ÿ=">%?@%#ÿ
2A:ÿBC22ÿ<%<<%#ÿ+<#(*ÿ<#">"'($D")ÿ")ÿ$-%ÿEFÿG(>D+ÿ'(?<H+ÿ$"ÿ#%?">%ÿI#"?ÿ$-%D#ÿ<"+$+ÿF-()'%.."#ÿ
J($%-D:ÿ!".D'%ÿF-D%Iÿ&<D'HKK(:ÿF(<$(D)ÿ&"HK(ÿ(),ÿL$Mÿ!DN%:ÿ-(>%ÿ@"$-ÿ+D)'%ÿ,D%,Mÿÿ
O23P9ÿQRÿ/011023Sÿ/TOÿUVWXUWSÿ;(+ÿ()ÿ%?<."*%%ÿ($ÿ!"#$%#ÿ&'"$$ÿ(),ÿ(ÿ!"#$%#ÿ&'"$$ÿ
+-(#%-".,%#ÿI"#ÿY3ÿ*%(#+Mÿ&-%%-()Z+ÿ)(?%ÿ;(+ÿ(,,%,ÿD)ÿ['$"@%#ÿBY:ÿBC2\ÿ$"ÿ$-%ÿ&('#(?%)$"ÿF"H)$*ÿ
&H<%#D"#ÿF"H#$ÿ'(+%ÿ]^_`ab^cÿe^afgfhiÿjkÿlmnÿonpnqraÿ̀sÿrmnÿtqujn_aurvÿ̀sÿw^bus̀_qu^:ÿF(+%ÿ="MÿY3x
BC2YxY3xCC2443y\:ÿID.%,ÿ")ÿG%'%?@%#ÿ3:ÿBC2Y:ÿ<.%(,D)z+ÿ($ÿ(ÿ$D?%ÿ;-%)ÿ+-%ÿ;(+ÿz#(>%.*ÿD..ÿ;D$-ÿ
?%$(+$($D'ÿ@#%(+$ÿ'()'%#{ÿ+-%ÿ,D%,ÿ")ÿ=">%?@%#ÿBY:ÿBC2\:ÿ%|('$.*ÿ")%ÿ?")$-ÿ(I$%#ÿ%>D.0+<D#D$%,ÿ!"#$%#ÿ
&'"$$ÿ(,,%,ÿ-%#ÿ$"ÿ$-%ÿ'(+%ÿ$"ÿ#%<#%+%)$ÿ$-%ÿEF[!ÿ?"@Mÿ&-%%-()ÿ<#"@(@.*ÿ,D,ÿ)"$ÿN)";ÿ$-($ÿ+-%ÿ-(,ÿ
@%%)ÿ(,,%,ÿ(+ÿ()ÿ($$"#)%*ÿ$"ÿ$-%ÿ'(+%ÿ}+%%ÿ
-$$<+~;;;M.%z('*M'"?H+"@D$H(#D%++('@%%)(?%)()'*0+-%%-()0"@D$H(#*D,BC4\4A4Mÿ
113P1ÿQRÿ5266789ÿ,D%,ÿ")%ÿ*%(#ÿ.($%#:ÿD)ÿ['$"@%#ÿBCB2ÿ}+%%ÿ
-$$<+~;;;M.%z('*M'"?H+"@D$H(#D%++('@%%)(?%$%#%)'%0'(++D,*0"@D$H(#*D,YC3AYA2BMÿ
11ÿP1ÿ#%+Dz)%,ÿI#"?ÿ!"#$%#ÿ&'"$$ÿD)ÿBCCAMÿ%ÿ;(+ÿ(ÿI"#?%#ÿEFÿ%)%#(.ÿF"H)+%.ÿ
(),ÿI#D%),ÿ"IÿI"#?%#ÿF(.DI"#)D(ÿ&H<#%?%ÿF"H#$ÿ++"'D($%ÿQ67P1ÿ5ÿ1936:ÿ;-"ÿ,D%,ÿD)ÿBCB2ÿ
}+%%ÿ-$$<+~;;;MI(D$-")>D%;M'"?'#HK0#%*)"+"0()0"@D$H(#*ÿ(),ÿI#D%),ÿ"IÿI"#?%#ÿ527372ÿ
319ÿ 1312ÿ271ÿT1P12Mÿ'%#"ÿ;(+ÿ$-%ÿI"H),%#ÿ"Iÿ$-%ÿL(ÿ(K(ÿL(;*%#+ÿ"Iÿ
&('#(?%)$"ÿ++"'D($D"):ÿ(ÿ%|D'()0?%#D'()ÿ)($D")(.D+$ÿ(++"'D($D")ÿ-D+$"#D'(..*ÿ#""$%,ÿD)ÿ$-%ÿ
I"#?%#ÿK$%'ÿ?<D#%Mÿ%ÿ#%)(?%,ÿ$-%ÿL(ÿ(K(ÿL(;*%#+ÿ"Iÿ&('#(?%)$"ÿ$-%ÿ5ÿ1936ÿT2ÿ
66P7273:ÿ(I$%#ÿI"#?%#ÿF(.DI"#)D(ÿ&H<#%?%ÿF"H#$ÿH+$D'%ÿ%*)"+":ÿ;-"ÿ,D%,ÿD)ÿBCB2MÿP1ÿ(),ÿ
!"#$%#ÿ&'"$$ÿ($$"#)%*+ÿ5266789ÿ238ÿ/011023ÿ,#(zz%,ÿD)$"ÿ$-%D#ÿ,D#$*ÿz(?%ÿI"#?%#ÿ&H<#%?%ÿF"H#$ÿ
++"'D($%ÿH+$D'%ÿF#HKÿ%*)"+":ÿ;D$-ÿ;-"?ÿÿ%|'-()z%,ÿ%0?(D.ÿ'"##%+<"),%)'%ÿ(ÿ.")zÿ$D?%ÿ(z"ÿ(@"H$ÿ
$-%ÿ<#"I%++D")(..*ÿ@H$ÿD..0"#'-%+$#($%,ÿ<%<<%#ÿ+<#(*ÿ<#">"'($D")ÿ")ÿ=">%?@%#ÿ2A:ÿBC22ÿ$"ÿ#%?">%ÿEFÿ
G(>D+ÿF-()'%.."#ÿLD),(ÿJ($%-D:ÿÿEFÿG(>D+ÿ!".D'%ÿF-D%Iÿ))%$$%ÿ&<D'HKK(:ÿ(),ÿL$Mÿ"-)ÿÿ!DN%:ÿ(),ÿ
F(<$(D)ÿ%))DI%#ÿ&"HK(ÿI#"?ÿ$-%D#ÿ<"+$+Mÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
>?@Aÿ@CDEÿFGHIJKHLÿÿÿÿÿÿMNOPQERSÿFJTUGJHKÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿVWXEYZÿHT[H\[GHGGÿÿÿÿÿÿ]C^EÿGHJÿN_ÿ̀a`
ÿÿ
!""#$%&&'!()*'$$(+,-.*/'*012&$3"($&'!()*'$$(+,-.*/'*012&43-($&!('5360$&2*789:(.61$1789;'$<
789=15/(789:(#15"*#)4ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
nopqÿpstuÿvwxyz{x|ÿÿÿÿÿÿ}~uÿvz wzx{ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿuÿxxwxwwÿÿÿÿÿÿsuÿwxwÿ~ÿ
!"#$%&'ÿ()"*ÿ+',-.#./#ÿ0'11')ÿ21)3,ÿ43#5ÿ6.)&'ÿ)'1.)$ÿ7'#$).,'7ÿ$8'ÿ9%:'#ÿ.;ÿ<3-,ÿ=..7ÿ1'.19'>ÿ
#.9:'7ÿ-.$8%-=>ÿ3-7ÿ;")$8')ÿ&.-&'39'7ÿ$8'ÿ"-&.-$).99'7ÿ&.))"1$%.-ÿ3-7ÿ)3&5'$'')%-=ÿ%-ÿ$8'ÿ?(ÿ@;;%&'ÿ
.;ÿ$8'ÿ0)'#%7'-$Aÿ
BCDEFÿ)'#");3&'7ÿG)%';9,ÿ%-ÿ<,ÿ23&)3<'-$.ÿ(."-$,ÿ2"1')%.)ÿ(.")$ÿ&3#'ÿHIJKLMINÿPILQRQSTÿ
UVÿWXYÿZY[Y\]LÿK^ÿ]XYÿ_\ÙYJL`]aÿK^ÿbIM̀^KJ\Ì>ÿ(3#'ÿc.Aÿd3efg2ded3egg2hh34i>ÿ.-ÿj"="#$ÿ3>ÿfgf2ÿ3#ÿ
$8'ÿ-'k9,ÿ311.%-$'7ÿ23&)3<'-$.ÿ(."-$,ÿ2"1')%.)ÿ(.")$ÿ&3#'ÿl"7='ÿ311.%-$'7ÿG,ÿm.:')-.)ÿm3:%-ÿ
c'k#.<Aÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¤¥¦§ÿ¦©ª«ÿ¬®¯°±®²ÿÿÿÿÿÿ³´µ¶·«¸¹ÿ¬°º»°®±ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¼½¾«¿Àÿ®ºÁ®ÂÁ®ÿÿÿÿÿÿéīÿ®Åÿ́ÆÿÅÇÅ
ÿ ÿ
!"#ÿ$%&'ÿ()*+,ÿ-./0012#ÿ"3,4#/1.ÿ.56ÿ7/)7.8.56.ÿ616ÿ5)4ÿ#56ÿ-14"ÿ70.9158ÿ4"#ÿ$%:':ÿ
;'#/,)5.ÿ<)5ÿ=/.4.>ÿ7),4#/?ÿ9)(70#4#ÿ-14"ÿ(3ÿ7")4)ÿ.56ÿ6#,9/1741)5ÿ./)@56ÿ4"#ÿ$%ÿ:.A1,ÿ(.15ÿ
9.(7@,ÿ.56ÿ$%ÿ:.A1,ÿB#619.0ÿ%#54#/Cÿÿ
ÿÿÿ DEÿGHIJHKLHMÿNOPÿNQRN?ÿ4"#ÿ$%ÿ:.A1,ÿS#.04"ÿT3,4#(ÿSUÿVW#9@41A#ÿ:1/#94)/ÿT4#7"#5ÿ
%"109)44?ÿ-")ÿ9)((@519.4#6ÿ61/#9403ÿ)5ÿ4"#ÿ)7#/.41)5ÿ-14"ÿ4"#ÿ$%&'?ÿ,#54ÿ.5ÿ#0(.10ÿ#54140#6ÿ
;XYEZ[\HEJ[]^ÿ_ÿ̀HMMaÿb]cdedfg>ÿ4)ÿSUÿh.*)/ÿU#0.41)5,ÿ:#7./4(#54ÿB.5.8#/ÿ!/.A1,ÿh156,#3ÿ4)ÿ.,2ÿ
4"#ÿ$%ÿ:.A1,ÿ')019#ÿ6#7./4(#54ÿ4)ÿ)ii#/ÿ4)ÿ,7#.2ÿ4)ÿ.53ÿ)iÿ4"#ÿ,@7#/A1,)/,ÿ)/ÿ#(70)3##,ÿ)iÿ'0.54ÿ
&7#/.41)5ÿ.56ÿB.154#5.59#ÿ:#7./4(#54ÿS#.6ÿ%"./0#,ÿj149"#/ÿ.*)@4ÿ,.i#43ÿ.4ÿ-)/2ÿ.56ÿ4"#ÿ/#0#A.54ÿ
.8#591#,ÿ4".4ÿ,")@06ÿ*#ÿ9)54.94#6?ÿ.99)/6158ÿ4)ÿ4"#ÿ0)9.41)5ÿ4"#3ÿ01A#ÿ15?ÿ.56ÿ/#0.4#6ÿ4)ÿ8@16.59#ÿ15ÿ
4#/(,ÿ)iÿ,.i#43ÿ7/#9.@41)5,?ÿ#49Cÿ
ÿÿÿ h156,#3ÿ-.,ÿ.0,)ÿ15,4/@94#6ÿ*3ÿT4#7"#5ÿ%"109)44ÿ4)ÿ.,2ÿi)/ÿ7)019#ÿ7.4/)0,ÿ4)ÿ,4./4ÿ1((#61.4#03ÿ
.56ÿ4)ÿ1590@6#ÿ4"#ÿ!19)5ÿkÿS@(.5ÿU#,)@/9#,ÿl@106158CÿS#ÿ-.,ÿ.0,)ÿ15,4/@94#6ÿ4)ÿ.,2ÿ$%ÿ:.A1,ÿ')019#ÿ
4)ÿ9)5415@#ÿ7.4/)0,ÿ4"/)@8"ÿ2mnk2?ÿ.4ÿ-"19"ÿ41(#ÿ4"#ÿ7.4/)0,ÿ-)@06ÿ*#ÿ/#.,,#,,#6Cÿÿ
ÿÿÿ o@/4"#/?ÿh156,#3ÿ-.,ÿ15,4/@94#6ÿ*3ÿ%"109)44ÿ4)ÿ.,2ÿ$%ÿ:.A1,ÿ')019#ÿ-".4ÿ/#,)@/9#,ÿ4"#ÿ$%ÿ
:.A1,ÿ')019#ÿ:#7./4(#54ÿ(18"4ÿ5##6ÿ4".4ÿ9)@06ÿ*#ÿ.,,185#6ÿ*3ÿ%"109)44?ÿ4"#ÿGgH^^aÿMHp[HqHM?ÿ.56ÿ4"#ÿ
$%ÿ:.A1,ÿrcc[cJ]EJÿs[eHÿXt]EeH^^YMÿr^^HEÿuY^^HZcYEÿi/)(ÿ4"#ÿ$%ÿ:.A1,ÿ%.(7@,Cÿÿ
ÿÿ r^^HEÿuY^^HZcYEÿ-.,ÿ.ÿ2#3ÿ;.94)/ÿ;ÿ7./41917.54ÿ15ÿ4"#ÿ%)@/4ÿ)iÿv77#.0+,ÿ!"1/6ÿv77#00.4#ÿ:1,4/194ÿ
*)8@,ÿ.77#.0ÿi.*/19.4#6ÿ.56ÿ)/9"#,4/.4#6ÿÿ*3ÿ')/4#/ÿT9)44ÿ.44)/5#3,ÿv9#/)ÿ.56ÿ')44ÿÿw()41)5?ÿ7@/,@.54ÿ
4)ÿ%)6#ÿ)iÿ%1A10ÿ'/)9#6@/#ÿ3xyC2zÿw%C%C'ÿ{ÿ3xyC2z|Cÿ25)-5ÿ}~ÿ~ÿÿ}?ÿ23zÿ%.0Cv77C34"ÿ
2k4ÿw%.0Cÿ%4Cÿv77Cÿxmm|Cÿ4ÿ-.,ÿ5)4ÿ.*0#ÿ4)ÿ*#ÿ@,#6ÿ.8.15,4ÿ(#ÿ15ÿxmmxmmÿ.,ÿ4"#ÿ$%&'ÿ()*ÿ".6ÿ
.541917.4#6CÿS)-#A#/?ÿ14ÿ-.,ÿ@,#6ÿ15ÿxm23ÿ-"#5ÿ4"#ÿ$%ÿi10#6ÿ)5ÿ:#9#(*#/ÿ2?ÿxm23ÿ.5ÿ.5410Thv''ÿ
()41)5ÿ.8.15,4ÿ(#ÿ15ÿ(3ÿT.9/.(#54)ÿ%)@543ÿT@7#/1)/ÿ%)@/4ÿ-/)58i@0ÿ4#/(15.41)5ÿ9.,#ÿ.8.15,4ÿ4"#ÿ
U#8#54,ÿ)iÿ4"#ÿ$51A#/,143ÿ)iÿ%.01i)/51.?ÿ}~}ÿ}~ÿÿÿ~ÿÿÿ~ÿÿ
}}?ÿ%.,#ÿ<)ÿk30xm2k0mm2yy3Cÿÿ
ÿÿÿ $%ÿ:.A1,ÿ')019#ÿ:#7./4(#54ÿJÿ̀]KHcÿ¡]MLYfMÿ/#,7)56#6ÿ4)ÿh156,#3+,ÿ/#¢@#,4ÿ.56ÿ,.16ÿ"#ÿ
".6ÿ.,,185#6ÿ')019#ÿ&ii19#/ÿ!")(.,ÿB9=##ÿ4)ÿ$%ÿ:.A1,ÿrcc[cJ]EJÿs[eHÿXt]EeH^^YMÿr^^HEÿ
uY^^HZcYE£cÿDZZ[eHÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
\]^_ÿ^abcÿdefghifjÿÿÿÿÿÿklmnocpqÿdhrsehfiÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿtuvcwxÿfryfzyefeeÿÿÿÿÿÿ{a|cÿefiÿl}ÿ~~
!"#$%&#ÿ'"(ÿ#)"((*+,)-ÿ.#%/ÿ01)ÿ23ÿ4"5*(ÿ3"/6&(ÿ0%ÿ01)ÿ234738ÿ'1*91ÿ#)6#)(),0)-ÿ",ÿ
),%#/%&(ÿ-)/%0*%,ÿ",-ÿ*,5%:5)-ÿ"ÿ-)9#)"()ÿ*,ÿ1*(ÿ(":"#;8ÿ".0)#ÿ01)ÿ<%5)/$)#ÿ2=8ÿ>?22ÿ6)66)#ÿ(6#";ÿ
"00"9@ÿ"+"*,(0ÿ6#%0)(0*,+ÿ(0&-),0(ÿ%,ÿ01)ÿ23ÿ4"5*(ÿ3"/6&(Aÿ4%9&/),0(ÿ(1%'ÿ01"0ÿB0Aÿ!"#$%&#ÿ'"(ÿ
(&9@)-ÿ*,0%ÿ01)ÿ"90*%,ÿ"+"*,(0ÿ/)ÿ$;ÿ01)ÿC23ÿ4"5*(ÿ4)"01ÿDE&"-8Fÿ,%0ÿ@,%'*,+ÿ'1"0ÿ01)ÿ9"()ÿ'"(ÿ
"$%&0Aÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿG66"#),0:;8ÿ1)ÿ'"(ÿ6#%/*()-ÿ01"0ÿ1*(ÿ(":"#;ÿ'%&:-ÿ$)ÿ#)(0%#)-ÿ0%ÿ*0(ÿ,%#/":ÿ:)5):Aÿ!;ÿ#)"-*,+ÿ
01)ÿH&$:*9ÿI)9%#-ÿG90(ÿ-%9&/),0(8ÿ%,)ÿ9",ÿ())ÿ01"0ÿB0Aÿ!"#$%&#ÿ'"(ÿ"((*+,)-ÿ0%ÿ"00"9@ÿ/)ÿ*,ÿ>?2>ÿ$;ÿ
",;ÿ/)",(ÿ,)9)(("#;AÿJ)ÿ'"(ÿ#KLMNOKOÿLQRSÿMÿTUVWXXXÿYMZÿNMQ[Kÿ.%#ÿ1*(ÿ-)-*9"0*%,ÿ0%ÿ@*::ÿ/)ÿ%#ÿ1"#/ÿ
/)ÿAÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
lmnoÿnqrsÿtuvwxyvzÿÿÿÿÿÿ{|}~sÿtxuxvyÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿsÿvvuvuuÿÿÿÿÿÿqsÿuvÿ|ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!ÿ"#$ÿ%&'()&$ÿ#*+ÿ+($,-.(-/-+ÿ"0#1ÿ0#+ÿ#21&#..3ÿ0#44-*-+ÿ#*+ÿ10#1ÿ!ÿ0#+ÿ")'5-+ÿ%)'ÿ$&20ÿ#ÿ
,'&1#.6ÿ&*$2'&4&.)&$ÿ-*1(13ÿ10#1ÿ/().#1-+ÿ73ÿ2(/(.ÿ#*+ÿ0&7#*ÿ'(801$6ÿ*)1ÿ1)ÿ7-*1()*ÿ/().#1(*8ÿ10-ÿ
9-,'&#'3ÿ:44;ÿ<-11.-7-*1ÿ=8'--7-*1ÿ10#1ÿ!ÿ0#+ÿ$(8*-+ÿ"(10ÿ>?ÿ@-8-*1$ÿ(*ÿ8))+ÿ%#(10ÿ#*+ÿ"(..Aÿ
ÿÿÿ BCÿEFGHFIJFKÿLMNÿLOPL6ÿ!ÿ2&1ÿ73ÿ40)1)ÿ%')7ÿ10-ÿ>?ÿQ#/($ÿR).(2-ÿSTFKUVCWÿXVCÿYKWHWZÿ
4)$1-'ÿ#*+ÿ4#$1-+ÿ73ÿ$2#**-+ÿ>?ÿQ#/($ÿ[-#.10ÿ<3$1-7ÿ!Qÿ"(10ÿ40)1)ÿ)*ÿ(16ÿ$0)"(*8ÿ10-ÿ1(1.-ÿ)%ÿ
=$$)2(#1-ÿQ-/-.)47-*1ÿ\*8(*--'6ÿ"0(20ÿ"#$ÿ8(/-*ÿ1)ÿ7-ÿ,3ÿ10-ÿ9-,'&#'3ÿ:44;ÿ<-11.-7-*1ÿ=8'--7-*1ÿ
"(10ÿ10-ÿ@-8-*1$Aÿ!ÿ4'(*1-+ÿ)*ÿ10-ÿ!Qÿ]>?ÿQ#/($ÿ^)$1ÿ>*"#*1-+A]ÿ!*ÿ#++(1()*ÿ1)ÿ73ÿ!Q6ÿ!ÿ"')1-ÿ)*ÿ10-ÿ
4)$1-'ÿ(*ÿ.#'8-ÿ2#4(1#.6ÿ,).+-+ÿ.-11-'$ÿ(*ÿ'-+ÿ(*5_ÿ
`aÿbcdeEÿfBEgÿ̀XhcXgibÿhegjÿETiaeckÿbibeacgeBXÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
cdefÿehijÿklmnopmqÿÿÿÿÿÿrstuvjwxÿkoyzlompÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ{|}j~ÿmymlmllÿÿÿÿÿÿhjÿlmzÿsÿ
!ÿ"#ÿ$%&'#()&*ÿ!+ÿ,-.&+!(%&-ÿ/$00#(ÿ,&(,.#/ÿ1ÿ0(#)&2#% ÿ3-(4ÿ*$2!+ÿ$,ÿ
2-'&)ÿ/$00#(ÿ,&(,.#5ÿ'&,#ÿ,"-%,#..!(ÿ(-.0"ÿ"#6 #(ÿ$,ÿ2-'&)ÿ,"&#+ÿ
,!30.&-%,#ÿ!++&,#(ÿ7#%2*ÿ2#.3#%2!ÿ
$,23,ÿ0!13ÿ-%2ÿ89:;<=9>ÿ@>AB;@C>AÿD>E=@F<>9Fÿ3-%-G#()ÿ-%2ÿ) -++ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ
ÿ
&ÿHIJKÿJLMNOPÿHNPÿPHQOPÿKNÿ)ORQOSTOUÿVW5ÿVX2VÿQYOÿUOPHZQOPÿ$,ÿ2H[LJÿ0KILZOÿRKJQOUÿ\LQYÿHÿTI]Oÿ
SHU^OUÿHNPÿJONQÿLQÿQKMOQYOUÿ\LQYÿHNÿKRONÿIOQQOUÿQKÿ$,ÿ2H[LJ_ÿZKUU]RQÿ,YLO`ÿK`ÿ0KILZO5ÿ3HQQÿ,HUSLZYHOIaÿ
!Nÿ!ZQKTOUÿ25ÿVX2V5ÿTbÿO0SHLI5ÿ&ÿJONQÿQYLJÿQKÿHIIÿROKRIOÿUOJRKNJLTIOÿ̀KUÿQYLJÿPOJRLZHTIOÿHZQLKNÿ\YLZYÿYHPÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¡¢ÿ¡¤¥¦ÿ§¨©ª«¬©ÿÿÿÿÿÿ®¯°±²¦³ÿ́§«µ¶¨«©¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ·¹̧¦º»ÿ©µ¼©½¼¨©¨¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¾¤¿¦ÿ̈©ÿ̄ÀÿÁÂÁ
!"#$%&"'ÿ()ÿ*ÿ+(,%*&(,)ÿ,-ÿ./ÿ".0%,/""1ÿ2(+(%1ÿ*)'ÿ3$.*)ÿ!(43ÿ6ÿ*%#,ÿ#")&ÿ(&ÿ&,ÿ.*)/ÿ,&3"!ÿ".0%,/""#1ÿ
*#ÿ()-,!.*&(,)ÿ*7,$&ÿ83*&ÿ&3"ÿ9)(+"!#(&/ÿ,-ÿ:*%(-,!)(*ÿ!"4(."ÿ8*#ÿ2*0*7%"ÿ,-ÿ*-&"!ÿ;$#&ÿ7"*&()4ÿ*)'ÿ
4*##()4ÿ0!,&"#&"!#ÿ,)ÿ&3"ÿ2*.0$#"#1ÿ2,)'$2&()4ÿ(%%"4*%ÿ."'(2*%ÿ"<0"!(.")&#ÿ2*$#()4ÿ0*&(")&#=ÿ'"*&3#1ÿ
*)'ÿ&3"ÿ$)7"%("+*7%"ÿ&"!!,!ÿ*(."'ÿ*&ÿ2,.0%*()()4ÿ".0%,/""#5ÿ>3"ÿ)"8ÿ:3("-ÿ,-ÿ9:ÿ?*+(#ÿ@,%(2"ÿ
83()"'ÿ&3*&ÿ6ÿ3*'ÿ*%&"!"'ÿ&3"ÿ8(&23ÿ3$)&ÿ0,#&"!5ÿA"ÿ'('ÿ),&ÿ%*#&ÿ%,)4Bÿ3"ÿ!"#(4)"'ÿ#3,!&%/ÿ&3"!"*-&"!ÿ*)'ÿ
.,+"'ÿ&,ÿC!"4,)5ÿ9)',$7&"'%/1ÿ3"ÿ8*#ÿ*ÿ2,02,)#0(!*&,!ÿ&,ÿ%"*+"ÿ:3("-ÿD0(2$EE*1ÿ:*0&*()ÿD,$E*1ÿ*)'ÿ
F&5ÿ@(G"ÿ$)".0%,/"'5ÿÿ
HIÿHKLMNOPÿQRÿSTQSRÿ9:ÿ?*+(#ÿ@!,+,#&ÿ*)'ÿU(2"ÿ:3*)2"%%,!ÿV*%03ÿA"<&"!ÿW#"2,)'ÿ()ÿ
2,..*)'ÿ*-&"!ÿ:3*)2"%%,!ÿF()'*ÿX*&"3(ÿ*&ÿ&3"ÿ9:ÿ?*+(#ÿ:*.0$#Yÿ!"*2&"'ÿ&,ÿ./ÿ".*(%ÿ*)'ÿZ$"#&(,)"'ÿ
7/ÿ"0.*(%ÿ&3"ÿ9:ÿ?*+(#ÿ:3("-ÿ:,.0%(*)2"ÿC--(2"!1ÿ[")'(ÿ?"%.")',1ÿ*7,$&ÿ&3"ÿ0,#&"!ÿ*)'ÿ./ÿ%"&&"!ÿ
&,ÿ&3"ÿ9:ÿ?*+(#ÿ@,%(2"ÿ:3("-5ÿ
\PM]^ÿ_`abcÿdÿeOfLOPÿ
gOIL^ÿhMIi`jRÿHKLMNOPÿTQRÿSTQSÿk^lTÿmhÿ
nM^ÿoOIipÿqOa]OIiMÿ
D$7;"2&rÿs[rÿC@tuÿFt>>tVÿ>Cÿ9:ÿ?vU6Dÿ@CF6:tÿ:A6tsÿwv>>ÿ
:vVw6:AvtFÿ6uÿVtrÿ9:ÿ?vU6Dÿ@CF6:tÿ[vVVvu>ÿvxv6uD>ÿ[vDy:y9Xÿ
z{|}
}5ÿ~ÿ{ÿ}ÿ5ÿÿ{{ÿ55 {|ÿ5ÿÿ {{|ÿ
V*%03ÿA"<&"!ÿ
@!,+,#&ÿÿt<"2$&(+"ÿU(2"ÿ:3*)2"%%,!ÿ
?(#&()4$(#3"'ÿ@!,-"##,!ÿ,-ÿ:%*##(2#ÿÿ:,.0*!*&(+"ÿF(&"!*&$!"ÿ
9)(+"!#(&/ÿ,-ÿ:*%(-,!)(*1ÿ?*+(#ÿ
?"%.")',1ÿ83,ÿ*2&(+"%/ÿ2,%%*7,!*&"'ÿ8(&3ÿ&3"ÿ9:C@ÿ.,7ÿ&,ÿ-(!"ÿ."ÿ-!,.ÿ./ÿ;,71ÿ7"2*."ÿ2,)2"!)"'ÿ
*7,$&ÿA"<&"!#ÿ"0.*(%ÿ*)'ÿ#")&ÿ*)ÿ,--(2(*%ÿ"0.*(%ÿ&,ÿ9:?w:ÿAVÿ?(!"2&,!ÿD&"03")ÿ:3(%2,&&ÿ&,ÿ0!"0*!"ÿ
#,."ÿ#&*&".")&#ÿ-,!ÿA"<&"!ÿ*7,$&ÿ83,ÿ8*#ÿ!"#0,)#(7%"ÿ-,!ÿ&3"ÿ8*!0%(G"ÿ3/#&"!(*ÿ*)'ÿ9:?@?ÿw,#&ÿ
9)8*)&"'ÿ@,#&"!5ÿÿ
\PM]ÿoOIipÿqOa]OIiMÿiOa]OIiMKi`pOiÿ
nMÿ gLObcOIÿcpaKMLLÿLObcOIKNpaKMLLHKKa]KKi`pOiÿ
q`LOÿQTTQSTQSÿT^Slÿmhÿ
gNOKLÿ \o^ÿHÿnn_ÿnHÿÿqmgÿHÿe\ÿhmnnÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡¢£¤¥ÿ¦§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̈©ª«¬ÿ¦®ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°ÿ±ÿ²ÿ³±³
!"#$%!&"'(ÿ%*ÿ#'+ÿ,!ÿ-".%/ÿ01(%!'ÿ2"##"*3ÿ"4"%*/3ÿ2"/5!5,6ÿ
7ÿ7879ÿ
5:ÿ;9ÿ8ÿ:77ÿ7ÿ<8:ÿ 96ÿ=7ÿÿ6:9::ÿ>?ÿ@:AA9=ÿB:ÿ :ÿ778ÿ
7::7ÿÿ7ÿ6;?ÿC8ÿ;9ÿ7ÿ7ÿ=8 ÿ78ÿ7ÿ8787ÿ9ÿÿ
DEF>Cÿ:ÿ::7::76ÿ:ÿ 7ÿ86ÿ7ÿ89:8:ÿÿÿ::7:: 78Gÿ
5:9ÿ8ÿ;9ÿ87ÿ7ÿ: 7ÿH=986ÿ8ÿ7ÿ67:8ÿ ÿ:ÿ7ÿ;7:ÿ
ÿ>?ÿ@:AA9=ÿB:ÿ Gÿ@ ÿ=7:ÿ7:7ÿ67:8:Gÿ@ÿ7ÿ7ÿ
7ÿÿ7ÿ9:76Gÿ@77ÿ7ÿ7ÿ;7:ÿ76Gÿ58;ÿ7ÿ8 8ÿ
ÿ;9ÿ8ÿ867ÿÿ;9ÿ8=ÿ 96ÿ7ÿ79ÿ 96ÿH7ÿ776?ÿ
Bÿ7ÿ778ÿÿ7ÿ<8:ÿÿIÿÿ6;?ÿ
J8=ÿ;99ÿ@786ÿ
ÿÿÿ KLÿMNOPQÿRSNTUVÿWXQUSYÿRZÿMP[S\U][ÿWUS^VS_ÿLVPT\]UÙÿP_ÿVPQÿ[SQ^]_QSÿ̀aTNYSbÿUVSÿTSNbS[QVP^ÿ
N_bÿQUNUSbÿUVNUÿPUÿcNQÿb]_SÿaSd][Sÿd][ÿYSÿ̀Q]YSUVP_eÿ]dÿcVP\VÿfÿcNQÿ_]UÿNcN[Sgÿÿ
fÿbPbÿ_]UÿQSSÿPUÿcVS_ÿfÿcNQÿNQhSbÿU]ÿ\]YSÿU]ÿc][hÿ]_ÿiNXÿ42ÿ̀jk2jgÿlS[VN^QÿLVPT\]UUÿcNQÿ
YNhP_eÿNÿ[SdS[S_\SÿU]ÿUVSÿmn_Sÿoÿ̀jk2jÿS0YNPTÿKLMlMÿ/pqrpstuÿvptwxpqÿ4sqywsÿQS_UÿU]ÿNTTÿKLÿMNOPQÿ
l]TP\Sÿ]ddP\S[QÿcPUVÿUVSÿd]TT]cP_eÿP_d][YNUP]_zÿÿ
{Y^T]XSSÿmN[]QTNcÿmN_nQ|ÿ}NQ|\|nhÿ~mS[[X~ÿb]a34k32ÿPQÿ]_ÿNbYP_PQU[NUPOSÿ
TSNOSÿd[]YÿUVSÿKLMÿRSNTUVÿWXQUSYgÿR]cSOS[ÿ̀VSÿVNQÿ\]_UP_nNTTXÿSYNPTSbÿ
QSOS[NTÿ^S]^TSÿN_bÿVNQÿ_]UÿaSS_ÿ\]]^S[NUPOSÿcPUVÿLVPSdÿ^S[NUP_eÿddP\S[ÿ
P_\S_Uÿm]V_Q]_ÿVNQÿQPe_SbÿN_ÿtsupÿÿqpqÿPUÿPQÿ]_ÿUVSÿanTTSUP_ÿa]N[bÿP_ÿ
UVSÿQSUQÿ]ddP\Sgÿ%ÿ2"/5!5,6ÿ%/ÿ!1*3"!3'-ÿ1*ÿ3&'ÿ0#10'#3ÿ
&'ÿ*''-/ÿ31ÿ'ÿ
ÿ/'#.'-ÿ2%3&ÿ3&'ÿgÿfUQÿY]QUTXÿdPTTSbÿ]nUgÿmnQUÿNbbÿUVSÿbNUSÿN_bÿN_Xÿ
\n[[S_UÿP_d]ÿX]nÿ[S\SPOSgÿNhSÿNÿd[SQVÿ\NQSÿ_nYaS[ÿiWZgÿ
lTSNQSÿd][cN[bÿN_XÿP_d][YNUP]_ÿ]_ÿ~mS[[XQÿU]ÿÙÿN[a]n[gÿVN_hQÿmS_gÿÿ
mS__PdS[ÿN[\PNÿ
VSÿKLlÿY]aQÿNQQPe_SbÿcPU\VÿVn_US[QÿcS[Sÿ[SNbXÿU]ÿVN[YÿYSÿNdUS[ÿUVSÿn_Qn\\SQQdnTÿiNXÿ42ÿ̀jkj2ÿ
Sdd][UQÿU]ÿS_bÿYXÿSY^T]XYS_Ugÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿ RZÿNa][ÿZSTNUP]_QÿiN_NeS[ÿ[NOPQÿP_bQSXÿaTNYSbÿUVSÿTSNbS[QVP^ÿd][ÿYXÿUS[YP_NUP]_ÿ̀N_bÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
xyz{ÿz}~ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿÿÿ
!"#$%#&ÿ'%()*+""ÿ,)-.#/ÿ"%#ÿ)#-/#01%($ÿ2+0ÿ$+)(*#ÿ-*"(+&1ÿ-3-(&1"ÿ.#4ÿ,5"ÿ"%#6ÿ70+"#ÿ-&/ÿ3-8#ÿ+0/#01ÿ
"+ÿ/(1+0(#&"#/ÿ9':;'ÿ<=>;ÿ:#$-0".#&"ÿ;-&-3#0ÿ'%-0)#1ÿ?("*%#0ÿ"+ÿ1(3&ÿ#8#06ÿ)#""#0ÿ$)-*(&3ÿ.#ÿ
+&ÿ(&8#1"(3-"+06ÿ)#-8#ÿ2+0ÿ.+0#ÿ"%-&ÿ+&#ÿ6#-04ÿ-1ÿ7#))ÿ-1ÿ&+"(*#1ÿ+2ÿ151$#&1(+&ÿ-&/ÿ"#0.(&-"(+&ÿ+2ÿ.6ÿ
#.$)+6.#&"@ÿ
ÿÿÿ A%#6ÿ,+"%ÿ7#0#ÿ,)-.(&3ÿ"%#ÿ)#-/#01%($4ÿ,5"ÿ"%#6ÿ%-/ÿ-11(3&#/ÿB"+3#"%#0ÿ7("%ÿ"%#ÿ'%(#2ÿ
'+.$)(-&*#ÿ=22(*#0Cÿ"%#(0ÿ15,+0/(&-"#1ÿ"+ÿ*+&/5*"ÿ2-)1#ÿ(&8#1"(3-"(+&1ÿ-&/ÿ"+ÿ2-,0(*-"#ÿ2-)1#ÿ*-51#ÿ2+0ÿ
"#0.(&-"(+&ÿ+2ÿ.6ÿ#.$)+6.#&"4ÿ(&ÿ/(10#3-0/ÿ+2ÿ.6ÿ+5"1"-&/(&3ÿ#.$)+6##ÿ0#*+0/4ÿ(&ÿ8(+)-"(+&ÿ+2ÿ.6ÿ
*(8()ÿ-&/ÿ%5.-&ÿ0(3%"14ÿ-&/ÿ+5"ÿ+2ÿ/#1$(*-,)#ÿ(3&+0-&*#ÿ-&/ÿ(&ÿ8(+)-"(+&ÿ+2ÿ"%#ÿD#,05-06ÿEFFGÿ
1#"")#.#&"ÿ-30##.#&"ÿHÿ1(3&#/ÿ7("%ÿ"%#ÿI#3#&"1ÿ+2ÿ"%#ÿ9&(8#01("6ÿ+2ÿ'-)(2+0&(-@ÿ
ÿÿÿ A%#ÿ9'ÿ:-8(1ÿ$+)(*#ÿ$+1"#0ÿ*)#-0)6ÿ(&/(*-"#1ÿ"%-"ÿ"%#ÿ9'ÿ)#-/#01%($ÿ+0ÿ9'=<ÿ.+,ÿ+0ÿ*+005$"#/ÿ
0#3(.#ÿ%-/ÿ*)#-0)6ÿ(&1"05*"#/ÿ9'ÿ:-8(1ÿ<+)(*#4ÿ!"#$%#&ÿ'%()*+""4ÿ-&/ÿ+"%#01ÿ&+"ÿ"+ÿ$0+8(/#ÿ.#ÿ-&6ÿ
(&2+0.-"(+&ÿ-,+5"ÿ"%#ÿ/(1"0(,5"#/ÿ$+1"#0ÿ$0+%(,("(&3ÿ.6ÿ$0#1#&*#ÿ+&ÿ"%#ÿ$0#.(1#14ÿ7("%ÿ"%#ÿ-$$-0#&"ÿ
%+$#ÿ"%-"ÿHÿ7+5)/ÿ1%+7ÿ5$ÿ5&-&&+5&*#/ÿ1+ÿ"%-"ÿ$+)(*#ÿ*+5)/ÿ1%++"ÿ.#ÿ+0ÿ*%-03#ÿ.#ÿ7("%ÿ"0#1$-11(&3ÿ
+0ÿ2-,0(*-"#ÿ-))#3#/ÿ*0(.#1@ÿA%(1ÿ7+5)/ÿ%-8#ÿ#&/#/ÿ.6ÿ#.$)+6.#&"ÿ7("%ÿ"%#ÿ5&(8#01("6@ÿA%(1ÿ7-1ÿ-ÿ
*+&1$(0-*6ÿ"+ÿ%-0.ÿ+0ÿJ())ÿ-&ÿ5&7-&"#/ÿ,)-*J)(1"#/ÿ#.$)+6##ÿ,-1#/ÿ+&ÿ"%#ÿ70+&325)ÿ-115.$"(+&ÿ"%-"ÿHÿ
Jÿ"++ÿ.5*%ÿ-,+5"ÿ"%#ÿ9'=<ÿ.+,K1ÿ*0(.#1@ÿÿ
ÿ
LMÿOPQPRSPTÿUVÿWXYW4ÿ9':Z!ÿ<)-&"ÿ=$#0-"(+&ÿ-&/ÿ;-(&"#&-&*#ÿ;-&-3#0ÿ'%-0)#1ÿ?("*%#0ÿ
1#&"ÿ"+ÿ.#ÿ-ÿ[#""#0ÿ+2ÿA#0.(&-"(+&ÿ#22#*"(8#ÿ:#*#.,#0ÿ\4ÿEF2E@ÿH"ÿ7-1ÿ1#&"ÿ8(-ÿ#0.-()ÿ7("%ÿ"%#ÿ-""-*%#/ÿ
!J#))6ÿI#8(#7#0ÿ/#*(1(+&ÿ/-"#/ÿ:#*#.,#0ÿ]4ÿEF2E@ÿÿ
:#-0ÿ^#006_ÿÿ
ÿ
`""-*%#/ÿ,#)+7ÿ(1ÿ-ÿ)#""#0ÿ(&2+0.(&3ÿ6+5ÿ"%-"ÿHÿ-.ÿ/(1.(11(&3ÿ6+5ÿaTbRÿcbdTÿ
ebfghgbMÿifÿiÿjTkÿOPlPmbeRPMhÿnMogMPPTVÿpmiMhÿLePTihgbMfÿiMqÿ
rigMhPMiMQPÿihÿstÿOilgfÿuPimhvÿjcfhPRÿPaaPQhglPÿOPQPRSPTÿwVÿWXYW@ÿ
!J#))6ÿ=22(*#0K1ÿ0#*+..#&/-"(+&1ÿ/-"#/ÿ:#*#.,#0ÿ34ÿEF2Eÿ-&/ÿ<0++2ÿ+2ÿ
!#08(*#ÿ-0#ÿ-)1+ÿ(&*)5/#/@ÿA%(1ÿ[#""#0ÿ+2ÿA#0.(&-"(+&ÿ-&/ÿ-""-*%.#&"1ÿ%-1ÿ-)1+ÿ
,##&ÿ1#&"ÿ"+ÿ6+5ÿ(&ÿ9!ÿ;-()ÿ"+/-6@ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0123ÿ2567ÿ89:;<=:>ÿÿÿÿÿÿ?@ABC7DEÿ8<FG9<:=ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿHIJ7KLÿ:FM:NM9:99ÿÿÿÿÿÿO5P7ÿ9<:ÿ@QÿRSR
!"#$%$&'(ÿÿ
)*+%&$,ÿ-!.#*$%ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
KLMNÿMPQRÿSTUVWXUYÿÿÿÿÿÿZ[\]^R_ÿ̀SWabTWUXÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿcdeRfgÿUahUihTUTTÿÿÿÿÿÿjPkRÿTWWÿ[lÿmnm
ÿ !"#$%&'"((ÿ)*ÿ+)''"*(),-(ÿ.)/01$/0),ÿ$,&ÿ20(ÿ)%&"%(ÿ*%).ÿ/2"ÿ3456ÿ.)78ÿ2"ÿ#%)(('9ÿ10)'$/"&ÿ
/2"ÿ:;"''9ÿ<$=8ÿ&">%010,#ÿ."ÿ/2"ÿ)>>)%/?,0/9ÿ/)ÿ*0,&ÿ$,9ÿ".>')9.",/@ÿÿ
ÿ
A,ÿ:;"''9ÿ1Bÿ:/$/"ÿ6"%(),,"'ÿC)$%&ÿD2EF3Gÿ23ÿ4$'BÿH&ÿ2EI8ÿ/2"ÿ4$'0*)%,0$ÿ:?>%"."ÿ4)?%/ÿ%?'"&ÿ/2$/@ÿ
$(ÿ>$%/ÿ)*ÿJ),(/0/?/0),$''9ÿ#?$%$,/""&ÿ&?"ÿ>%)J"((8ÿ>?7'0Jÿ".>')9""(ÿ$%"ÿ",/0/'"&ÿ/)ÿJ"%/$0,ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¸¹º»ÿº½¾¿ÿÀÁÂÃÄÅÂÆÿÿÿÿÿÿÇÈÉÊË¿ÌÍÿÀÄÎÏÁÄÂÅÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÐÑÒ¿ÓÔÿÂÎÕÂÖÕÁÂÁÁÿÿÿÿÿÿ׽ؿÿÁÄÁÿÈÙÿÚÛÚ
!"#$%&'"()ÿ*(+%,'("&*ÿ-%+#"%ÿ&.*$.!)./%0ÿ12.$2ÿ.*ÿ*'++.$.%/3)4ÿ*%5%"%ÿ3#ÿ$#/*3.3'3%ÿ(ÿ&%!".5(3.#/ÿ#+ÿ
(ÿ).-%"34ÿ#"ÿ!"#!%"34ÿ".,23ÿ.*ÿ.6!#*%&ÿ#/ÿ32%67ÿ89:ÿ<=>?@A@B@A=>CDDEÿFG=@:<@:HÿDAI:G@EÿA>@:G:?@?ÿ
G:JBAGA>KÿLM:DDEÿFG=@:<@A=>?ÿCGA?:ÿN9:>:O:Gÿ@9:ÿCDD:KC@A=>?ÿCKCA>?@ÿC>ÿ:PFD=E::ÿCG:ÿ
?BQQA<A:>@DEÿ=>:G=B?ÿ@=ÿ?:GA=B?DEÿAPFC<@ÿ@9:ÿ:PFD=E::R?ÿCIADA@Eÿ@=ÿQA>HÿQB@BG:ÿN=GMÿA>ÿ9A?S9:Gÿ
<9=?:>ÿ<CG::Gÿ
ÿ
TTTUUVÿ ÿ
XY8UYZÿ8Yÿ8[\ÿ]\^\_`aÿ\Z\_bcÿ_\bda`8Y_cÿeYXXULLUYZÿf]\_egÿ8Yÿ
_\Yh\Zÿ8[\ÿ_\eY_^ÿi_\jÿk`Zd`_cÿlmÿnoopÿL\88a\X\Z8ÿ̀b_\\X\Z8ÿ
\Z8\_\^ÿUZ8Yÿqcÿ̀Z^ÿq\8r\\Zÿ8[\ÿse`aU]Y_ZU`ÿh`_8U\Lmtÿ̀d8YX`8\^ÿ
hYr\_ÿ\Te[`Zb\ÿUZeVÿf`hTgmÿ̀Z^ÿ̀hTuLhYZLY_UZbÿh`_8U\Lÿÿ
ÿ
v/ÿw'/%ÿ(/&ÿw')4ÿxy230ÿvÿ1(*ÿ!"%!("./,ÿ64ÿ#!!#*.3.#/ÿ&#$'6%/3*ÿ3#ÿ#/%ÿ#+ÿ32%ÿz{ÿ"%,%/3*|ÿ
6#3.#/*ÿ./ÿ64ÿ1"#/,+')ÿ3%"6./(3.#/ÿ)(1*'.3ÿ!%/&./,ÿ./ÿ}($"(6%/3#ÿ{#'/34ÿ}'!%".#"ÿ{#'"30ÿ~ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ0ÿ{(*%ÿ#ÿ0xy20yy23347ÿ
ÿ
ÿvÿ$("%+'))4ÿ"%5.%1%&ÿ64ÿ%/3."%ÿ$#'"3ÿ+.)%ÿ(/&ÿ64ÿ1#"ÿ2.*3#"4ÿ1.32ÿ%*3%$ÿ/%",4ÿv/$74/%,4ÿ
v/$7ÿ(/&ÿ).3.,(3.#/ÿ(/&ÿ$#'"3ÿ+.)%*ÿ"%)(3%&ÿ3#ÿ32%ÿ¡xyÿ6.)).#/ÿ+"('&ÿ32(3ÿ1(*ÿ$#66.33%&ÿ-4ÿ%*3%$ÿ/%",4ÿ
v/$7ÿ(,(./*3ÿ¢($.+.$ÿ£(*ÿ(/&ÿ)%$3".$ÿ{#6!(/4ÿ"(3%!(4%"*ÿ(/&ÿ3(¤ÿ!(4%"*ÿ./ÿ2¥¦24ÿ§¢z¨¢©ÿ
5.#)(3.#/*ª7ÿÿ
ÿÿ ©+3%"ÿ"%5.%1./,ÿ())ÿ#+ÿ32%ÿ&#$'6%/3*0ÿvÿ&%$.&%&ÿ3#ÿ+.)%ÿ(ÿ«2."&ÿ©6%/&%&ÿ{#6!)(./3ÿ§«©{ªÿ./ÿ
64ÿ1"#/,+')ÿ3%"6./(3.#/ÿ$(*%7ÿv/ÿ(&&.3.#/ÿ3#ÿ32%ÿ«©{0ÿvÿ&%$.&%&ÿ3#ÿ+.)%0ÿ!'"*'(/3ÿ3#ÿ¨')%ÿ42¬ÿ#+ÿ32%ÿ
¨')%*ÿ#+ÿ¢"($3.$%ÿ#+ÿ32%ÿ%&%"()ÿ/%",4ÿ¨%,')(3#"4ÿ{#66.**.#/ÿ2¥ÿ{¨ÿ®ÿ¥3742¬0ÿ1.32ÿ¨{ÿ(ÿ
6#3.#/ÿ3#ÿ"%#!%/ÿ32%ÿ"%$#"&ÿ(/&ÿ"%0./5%*3.,(3%ÿ32%ÿ6(33%"ÿ#+ÿ32%ÿw(/'("4ÿ30ÿxyy4ÿ}%33)%6%/3ÿ©,"%%6%/3ÿ
%/3%"%&ÿ./3#ÿ-4ÿ(/&ÿ-%31%%/ÿ32%ÿ¯{().+#"/.(ÿ¢("3.%*°±ÿ32%ÿ{().+#"/.(ÿ¢#1%"ÿ¤$2(/,%ÿ§{()¢²ª0ÿ
©'3#6(3%&ÿ¢#1%"ÿ¤$2(/,%ÿv/$7ÿ§©¢²ª0ÿ(/&ÿ©¢²0}!#/*#"./,ÿ¢("3.%*ÿ§\T[UqU8ÿ³´´ÿ=>ÿQDC?9ÿHGAO:ÿ
C>Hÿ^µ^ª0ÿ#$%3*ÿ#7ÿ¶yy030yyyÿÿÿ(/&ÿ¶yy0¥0yyyÿÿÿ«2%ÿw(/'("4ÿ30ÿxyy4ÿ}%33)%6%/3ÿ
©,"%%6%/3ÿ1(*ÿ(!!"#5%&ÿ-4ÿ(ÿ{#66.**.#/ÿ#"&%"ÿ&(3%&ÿ·("$2ÿ20ÿxy24ÿ§\T[UqU8ÿ³´lÿ=>ÿQDC?9ÿHGAO:ÿ
C>Hÿ^µ^ª7ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
nopqÿpstuÿvwxyz{x|ÿÿÿÿÿÿ}~uÿvz wzx{ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿuÿxxwxwwÿÿÿÿÿÿsuÿwzÿ~ÿ
ÿ
!"ÿ$%&'(ÿ)*ÿ+,,-.ÿ/01ÿ2343ÿ5161789ÿ:;17<=ÿ>1<?98/@7=ÿA@BBCDDC@;ÿ8E/16ÿ@;ÿ8ÿF@C;/ÿGHH17ÿ@Hÿ
41//91B1;/ÿ8;6ÿ41//91B1;/ÿ8;6ÿ>1918D1ÿ@HÿA98CBDÿI<711B1;/ÿJE@991E/CK19=.ÿL/01ÿ41//91B1;/MNÿHC916ÿ@;ÿ
O%"P%&QÿR*ÿ+,,-.ÿC;ÿ/01ÿC;D/8;/ÿS7@E116C;<DÿT=ÿ/01ÿS87/C1D2ÿ/@ÿ/01ÿD1//91B1;/3ÿU01ÿO%"P%&QÿR*ÿ+,,-.ÿ
HC9C;<ÿE@;DCD/16ÿ@Hÿ/01ÿS71KC@?D9=ÿ9CD/16ÿS87/C1D3ÿÿ
VÿX(YÿZ[ÿ\%]^_ÿ$Y`^'%aÿ[Y"bY&ÿ+-c$dÿ'efY"Y&%b^e"ÿg%'^a^bQ*ÿeh"Y`ÿ%"`ÿeiY&%bY`ÿjQÿb(Yÿ
kYfY"b_ÿegÿb(YÿZ"^]Y&_^bQÿegÿ[%a^ge&"^%*ÿh%_ÿYl'aP`Y`ÿg&emÿb(Yÿ_YbbaYmY"bÿ%"`ÿa^%j^a^bQÿge&ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡¢ÿ£¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¥¦§¨©ÿ£ª«ªÿÿÿÿÿÿ¬ÿÿ®ÿ̄°¯
!"#$%&'"($#)ÿ(+,ÿ-,.(,/#ÿ,',0(/$0$(1ÿ!"/2,(.ÿ$#ÿ"#1ÿ3".+$4#ÿ5$#0'&6$#)7ÿ8&(ÿ#4(ÿ'$!$(,6ÿ(47ÿ
0'"$!.ÿ43ÿ,04#4!$0ÿ4/ÿ%+1.$0"'ÿ9$(++4'6$#)7ÿ)"!$#)7ÿ3/"&6ÿ4/ÿ!$./,%/,.,#("($4#ÿ(4),(+,/ÿ
9$(+ÿ(+,ÿ4(+,/ÿ.,'',/.7ÿ%49,/ÿ%/46&0,/.7ÿ"#6ÿ"#0$''"/1ÿ.,/:$0,.ÿ!,#($4#,6ÿ"#6ÿ'$.(,6ÿ
%/,:$4&.'17ÿ".ÿ9,''ÿ".ÿ,;%4/($#)ÿ"#6ÿ.,''$#)ÿ,',0(/$0"'ÿ,#,/)1ÿ&#'"93&''1ÿ:$"ÿ<=>?@Aÿ"#6ÿ
<"'B=CDÿ$#ÿEFFFGHIIJKLÿÿ
ÿ
MNOÿPQRSTUÿVWXYNÿ2Zÿ[\\]ÿ^X_OXÿW``X^abcdÿeNOÿUOeefOgOceÿ_b_ÿc^eÿOc_ÿeNOÿ_bU`heOÿWeÿPQRSÿ
Wi^heÿeNOÿ[\\\j[\\2ÿSWfbk^XcbWÿ̀^lOXÿYXbUbUmÿÿ
V^XOÿeNWcÿObdNeÿnOWXUÿfWeOXZÿ^cÿoOYOgiOXÿpZÿ[\23ZÿeNOÿSWfbk^XcbWÿ̀WXebOUZÿ',6ÿ81ÿq"!"'"ÿrLÿ
s"//$.7ÿ<"'$34/#$"ÿ=((4/#,1ÿt,#,/"'uÿeNOÿvhifbYÿwebfbebOUÿS^ggbUUb^cÿ^kÿeNOÿxeWeOÿ^kÿSWfbk^XcbWyÿ
vWYbkbYÿzWUÿWc_ÿQfOYeXbYÿS^g`WcnyÿWc_ÿx^heNOXcÿSWfbk^XcbWÿQ_bU^cÿS^g`WcnZÿXO{hOUeO_ÿeNWeÿPQRSÿ
YfWXbknÿU^gOÿ^kÿbeUÿ^X_OXUÿXOfWeO_ÿe^ÿeNOÿ[\\\j[\\2ÿSWfbk^XcbWÿ̀^lOXÿYXbUbUZÿo^Y|Oeÿ}^UmÿQ~\\0430[\Zÿ
Q~\\0430[]2ZÿWc_ÿQ~\\0430[2mÿÿ
P^ff^lbcdÿ<+"/',.ÿ48$#.4#.ÿWXXbaWfÿkX^gÿSxÿe^ÿeNOÿwcbaOXUbenÿ^kÿSWfbk^XcbWÿWUÿeNOÿcOlÿ
dOcOXWfÿY^hcUOfZÿbcÿWchWXnÿ[\\]ZÿWc_ÿeNOÿW``X^aO_ÿUOeefOgOceÿinÿPQRSÿ^cÿVWXYNÿ2Zÿ[\\]ZÿÿlWUÿ
WiXh`efnÿXOg^aO_ÿkX^gÿeNOÿwSoVSTUÿ[]0VÿY^dOcOXWeb^cÿ̀fWceÿWc_ÿXOWUUbdcO_ÿe^ÿeNOÿwSoVSÿ
SÿUN^`ÿWUÿWÿ_WnebgOÿlWeYNgWcÿk^XÿeNOÿVOeWUnUÿY^g`heOXÿUnUeOgZÿlNbYNÿg^cbe^XO_ÿYXbebYWfÿWfWXgUÿ
bcÿeNOÿwSoVSmÿÿeN^hdNeÿÿlWUÿiObcdÿXOeWfbWeO_ÿWdWbcUeÿk^XÿNOf̀bcdÿWÿY^l^X|OXÿlbeNÿNbUÿ
lNbUefOif^lbcdÿXOeWfbWeb^cÿY^g`fWbceÿbcÿ[\\3ZÿlNbYNÿlWUÿXOfWeO_ÿe^ÿ(+,ÿ!"..$:,ÿ4$'ÿ6$.0+"/),ÿ(4ÿ(+,ÿ
@"0/"!,#(4ÿ$:,/ÿ34/ÿ.,:,#ÿ1,"/.ÿkX^gÿeNOÿ_OkOYebaOÿY^^fbcdÿe^lOXTUÿ[pÿdOWXÿi^OUZÿlNbYNÿ
c^e^Xb^hUfnÿfOW|O_ÿ^bfZÿYWhUbcdÿWc_ÿUWkOenÿNWWX_UmÿVnÿY^l^X|OXZÿbffbWgÿhY|WcUZÿlWUÿbcU`OYebcdÿ
Y^^fbcdÿe^lOXÿkWcUÿWc_ÿkOffÿ^cÿeNOÿYOgOceÿkf^^XÿiOYWhUOÿ^kÿeNOÿ^bfnÿWc_ÿUfb̀`OXnÿUhXkWYOÿhc_OXcOWeNÿeNOÿ
Y^^fbcdÿe^lOXmÿUÿWÿXOUhfeÿ^kÿeNbUÿWYYb_OceZÿhY|WcUÿlWUÿeW|OcÿinÿWgihfWcYOÿe^ÿeNOÿwSoVSÿ
OgOXdOcYnÿX^^gÿlbeNÿUOaOXOÿiWY|ÿ̀WbcmÿMNOÿWYYb_OceÿlWUÿXO`^XeO_ÿe^ÿeNOÿSOceXWfÿvfWceÿgWcWdOXyÿ
N^lOaOXZÿeNOÿWYYb_Oceÿ_b_ÿc^eÿOcY^hXWdOÿgWcWdOgOceÿe^ÿeW|OÿYWXOÿ^kÿ^bfÿfOW|UÿiOcOWeNÿeNOÿY^^fbcdÿ
e^lOXZÿWc_ÿOaOXnÿ_WnZÿSOceXWfÿvfWceÿ^`OXWe^XUÿWc_ÿgOYNWcbYUÿlOXOÿXbU|bcdÿbchXnÿl^X|bcdÿbcÿeNWeÿhcUWkOÿ
OcabX^cgOcemÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿ*-?ÿ1BÿCDC
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Z[\]ÿ\_`aÿbcdefgdhÿÿÿÿÿÿijklmanoÿbfpqcfdgÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿrstauvÿdpwdxwcdccÿÿÿÿÿÿy_zaÿcfqÿj{ÿ|}|
!"ÿ#$ÿ%&'()*ÿ+,,-$.+/ÿ$0ÿ#1"ÿ2+3!+-4ÿ56ÿ7889ÿ0-+!:!/"3#ÿ;"##/"<"3#ÿ=>-""<"3#ÿ?"#@""3ÿ#1"ÿ
(+/A0$-3A+ÿB+-#A"*ÿ+3:ÿ=BCÿD3EF6ÿ<$-"ÿ#1+3ÿG288ÿ<A//A$3ÿ#+H00-""ÿ:$//+-*ÿ0-$<ÿ#1"ÿA//">+/ÿ,-$:!E#A$3ÿ
+3:ÿ*+/"ÿ$0ÿ,$@"-ÿ?4ÿI( J()*ÿ790JKÿÿE$>"3"-+#A$3ÿ,$@"-ÿ,/+3#ÿA3ÿJ+4ÿ78880LE#$?"-ÿ7882ÿ
:A*+,,"+-":ÿA3#$ÿ#1"ÿ,$EM"#*ÿ$0ÿ#1"ÿI(LBÿ@1A#"ÿE$//+-ÿE-A<A3+/*ÿ+3:ÿ#1"A-ÿE$//+?$-+#$-*ÿA3ÿ#1"ÿ
*$,1A*#AE+#":ÿGN8ÿ?A//A$3ÿ0-+!:ÿ*E1"<"ÿM3$@3ÿ+*ÿ#1"ÿ(+/A0$-3A+ÿ&3"->4ÿ(-A*A*Fÿÿ
D3ÿ78896ÿ%&'(ÿ+,,-$.":ÿ+ÿ*"##/"<"3#ÿA3ÿ+::A#A$3ÿ#$ÿ#1"ÿI(ÿ'">"3#*)ÿ*"##/"<"3#6ÿ#$ÿ1$/:ÿ
1+-</"**ÿ#@$ÿ$#1"-ÿ3$3,-$0A#ÿ"3#A#A"*6ÿ#1"ÿ(+/A0$-3A+ÿBCÿ+3:ÿ(=D;L6ÿ@1AE1ÿ<+:"ÿ<A//A$3*ÿ+#ÿ#1"ÿ
"H,"3*"ÿ$0ÿ#1"ÿ-+#",+4"-*ÿ+3:ÿ#+H,+4"-*ÿ?"E+!*"ÿ$0ÿ"3"->4ÿ,-AE"ÿ>$!>A3>ÿ:!-A3>ÿ#1"ÿ,"-A$:ÿJ+4ÿ
7888OLE#$?"-ÿ7882Fÿÿ
(+/A0$-3A+ÿ=##$-3"4ÿP"3"-+/ÿQA//ÿR$EM4"-6ÿ@1$ÿS$A3":ÿ#1"ÿ(+/A0$-3A+ÿB+-#A"*ÿA3ÿ#1"ÿ*"##/"<"3#ÿ
+3:ÿ+*ÿE1A"0ÿ$0ÿ#1"ÿ&3"->4ÿT+*Mÿ%$-E"6ÿ@+*ÿ,"-0"E#/4ÿ+@+-"ÿ$0ÿ#1"ÿI(LBÿ<$?6ÿ(=D;L6ÿ+3:ÿ(=BC)*ÿ
E-A<"*ÿ+3:6ÿA3*#"+:ÿ$0ÿ"30$-EA3>ÿ#1"ÿ/+@6ÿE$//+?$-+#":ÿ@A#1ÿ#1"<ÿ#$ÿE$."-ÿ!,ÿ#1"ÿ<A//A$3*ÿ$0ÿ:$//+-*ÿ#1+#ÿ
@"-"ÿ*#$/"3ÿ0-$<ÿ(+/A0$-3A+ÿ#+H,+4"-*FÿR$EM4"-ÿ+3:ÿ1A*ÿ*!EE"**$-6ÿ&:<!3:ÿQ-$@36ÿ-",-"*"3#":ÿ#1"ÿ
(+/A0$-3A+ÿB+-#A"*ÿ+3:ÿ+>-"":ÿ#$ÿ#1"ÿ!/#A<+#!<ÿ>A."3ÿ#$ÿ%&'(ÿ?4ÿ=BCÿD3EFÿUB$@"-ÿ&HE1+3>"Vÿ
;,$3*$-A3>ÿB+-#A"*FÿD#ÿ*#+#":ÿ#1+#ÿ#1"ÿ*"##/"<"3#ÿ@$!/:ÿ?"ÿ#"-<A3+#":ÿA0ÿ#1"ÿ($<<A**A$3ÿ:A:ÿ3$#ÿ+,,-$."ÿ
A#ÿ?4ÿJ+-E1ÿ26ÿ7889Wÿ#1"-"0$-"6ÿA#ÿ-"X!"*#":ÿ#1+#ÿ#1"ÿ($<<A**A$3ÿ+,,-$."ÿ#1"ÿ*"##/"<"3#ÿ@A#1$!#ÿ
<$:A0AE+#A$3ÿ?4ÿ#1+#ÿ:+#"FÿT1"ÿ$-:"-ÿ+,,-$.":ÿ#1"ÿ*"##/"<"3#ÿ@A#1$!#ÿ<$:A0AE+#A$36ÿ*!?S"E#ÿ#$ÿ#1"ÿ=BC0
;,$3*$-A3>ÿB+-#A"*ÿ<+MA3>ÿ+ÿE$<,/A+3E"ÿ0A/A3>6ÿ+*ÿ$!#/A3":ÿ?"/$@FÿD3ÿ#1"ÿ,-$,$*":ÿ*"##/"<"3#6ÿ(=R0
BCÿ*#+#":ÿ#1+#ÿ#1A*ÿ@+*ÿ#1"ÿ1$/:ÿ1+-</"**ÿ,-$.A*A$3ÿ0-$<ÿ#1"ÿ$#1"-ÿ*"##/"<"3#ÿ#1+#ÿ#1"ÿ($<<A**A$3ÿ
+,,-$.":ÿA3ÿ#1"ÿ!M"6ÿ43">46ÿKA//A+<*6ÿJA-+3#6ÿ'"/A+3#6ÿ+3:ÿD =(L'Bÿ>/$?+/ÿ*"##/"<"3#*Fÿ!M"6ÿ
43">46ÿKA//A+<*6ÿJA-+3#6ÿ'"/A+3#6ÿ+3:ÿD =(L'Bÿ+-"ÿ,-A.+#"ÿE$-,$-+#A$3*6ÿ+3:ÿ#1"4ÿ,+A:ÿ#+H"*6ÿ"."3ÿ
A0ÿ#1"4ÿ@"-"ÿ"3>+>":ÿA3ÿ#1"ÿ0-+!:!/"3#ÿ$,"-+#A$3ÿ+/$3>ÿ@A#1ÿ$#1"-*FÿQ4ÿE$3#-+*#6ÿ(=D;Lÿ+3:ÿ#1"ÿ
I3A."-*A#4ÿ$0ÿ(+/A0$-3A+ÿ+-"ÿ#+H0"H"<,#ÿ3$3,-$0A#ÿ$->+3AY+#A$3*6ÿ*$ÿ#1"A-ÿ!3/+@0!/ÿ*+/"ÿ+3:ÿ:A*#-A?!#A$3ÿ
$0ÿ,$@"-ÿ@+*ÿ*A<A/+-ÿ#$ÿ=/ÿ(+,$3")*ÿ#+Hÿ".+*A$36ÿ?"E+!*"ÿ"/"E#-AE+/ÿ"3"->4ÿA*ÿ+ÿE$<<$:A#46ÿS!*#ÿ/AM"ÿ
+/E$1$/FÿT1"ÿ=BCÿD3EF0;,$3*$-A3>ÿB+-#A"*ÿ*#+#":ÿ#1+#ÿ#1"4ÿ@"-"ÿ+>-""+?/"ÿ#$ÿ+ÿ1$/:ÿ1+-</"**ÿ,-$.A*A$3ÿ
0$-ÿ#1"ÿ(=D;Lÿ6ÿ(=R0BC6ÿ+3:ÿ#1"ÿI(ÿ'">"3#*ÿÿ
I3:"-ÿ#1"ÿ,-"**!-"ÿ$0ÿ+3ÿ!/#A<+#!<ÿ+3:ÿA3#A<A:+#A$36ÿ#1"ÿ%&'(ÿ:"#"-<A3":ÿ#1+#ÿ?$#1ÿ(=D;Lÿ
+3:ÿ(=R0BCÿ1+:ÿ,-$.A:":ÿ#1"ÿ($<<A**A$3ÿ@A#1ÿ+ÿE$<,"//A3>ÿS!*#A0AE+#A$3ÿ+*ÿ#$ÿ@14ÿ#1"46ÿ+/$3>ÿ@A#1ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ¡¢£ÿ¤¥¦§¨©¦ªÿÿÿÿÿÿ«¬®¯£°±ÿ¤¨²³¥¨¦©ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ́µ¶£·ÿ̧¦²¹¦º¹¥¦¥¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿ»¡¼£ÿ¥¨ªÿ¬½ÿ¾¿¾
!"#$%ÿ&''$(#%)*ÿ+$%#(!&%)*ÿ#,-.&/##)*ÿ01+ÿ(&1)2.!01!)*ÿ)"&2.+ÿ3#ÿ"#.+ÿ"0%,.#))ÿ'&%ÿ!"#ÿ)!#-)ÿ!04#1ÿ!&ÿ
$,-.#,#1!ÿ!"#ÿ)#!!.#,#1!5ÿ62%!"#%*ÿ!"#ÿ-0%!$#)ÿ!&ÿ!"#ÿ)#!!.#,#1!ÿ07%##+ÿ!&ÿ0ÿ"&.+ÿ"0%,.#))ÿ-%&8$)$&15ÿ
9"#%#'&%#*ÿ(&1)$)!#1!ÿ:$!"ÿ;&,,$))$&1ÿ-%#(#+#1!*ÿ!"#ÿ;&,,$))$&1ÿ+#!#%,$1#+ÿ!"0!ÿ;<=>?*ÿ;<@0AB*ÿ
01+ÿ!"#ÿC#7#1!)ÿ:&2.+ÿ3#ÿ"#.+ÿ"0%,.#))ÿ'&%ÿ0(!$&1)ÿ!04#1ÿ!&ÿ$,-.#,#1!ÿ!"#ÿ)#!!.#,#1!*ÿ01+ÿ!"$)ÿ&%+#%ÿ
$1(&%-&%0!#+ÿ!"#ÿD"&.+ÿ"0%,.#))Eÿ.017207#ÿ%#F2#)!#+ÿ3/ÿ;<@0ABÿ0)ÿ)#!ÿ&2!ÿ03&8#5ÿ<'!#%ÿ!"#ÿ)#!!.#,#1!ÿ
:0)ÿ0--%&8#+ÿ$1ÿG0%("ÿ4HHI*ÿ$1ÿ!"0!ÿ)0,#ÿ,&1!"*ÿ6JC;K)ÿ.#0+#%)"$-ÿ("017#+5ÿ
ÿÿ 6JC;K)ÿ0--%&80.ÿ&'ÿ!"#ÿ)#!!.#,#1!ÿ&1ÿG0%("ÿ2*ÿ4HHIÿ708#ÿ!"#ÿ7%##1ÿ.$7"!ÿ!&ÿ!"#ÿL;?Aÿ:"$!#ÿ
(&..0%ÿ(%$,$10.)ÿ01+ÿ!"#$%ÿ(&..03&%0!&%)ÿ!&ÿ(&1!$12#ÿ8$&.0!$17ÿ!"#ÿL1$8#%)$!/ÿ&'ÿ;0.$'&%1$0K)ÿ!0M0#M#,-!ÿ
)!0!2)ÿ21+#%ÿ=C;ÿ>#(!$&1ÿNH2ÿO(POQPÿ01+ÿ!&ÿ(&,,$!ÿ!0Mÿ#80)$&1ÿ01+ÿ'%02+ÿ3/ÿ$..#70../ÿ-%&+2($17ÿ-&:#%5ÿ
9"#ÿL;?Aÿ,&3ÿ8$#:#+ÿ,/ÿ-%#)#1(#ÿ$1ÿ!"#ÿ-.01!ÿ0)ÿ0ÿ!"%#0!ÿ!&ÿ!"#$%ÿ&17&$17ÿ(%$,$10.)ÿ0(!$8$!$#)*ÿ)&ÿ
!"#/ÿ+#!#%,$1#+ÿ!"0!ÿ=ÿ"0+ÿ!&ÿ3#ÿ'$%#+5ÿ9"$)ÿ-.01ÿ+$+ÿ1&!ÿ:&%4ÿ0)ÿ01!$($-0!#+*ÿ)&ÿ0!ÿ!"#ÿ#1+ÿ&'ÿG0%("ÿ
4HHI*ÿ=ÿ:0)ÿ:$!("ÿ"21!#+ÿ01+ÿ03%2-!./ÿ01+ÿ21.0:'2../ÿ%#,&8#+ÿ'%&,ÿ!"#ÿL;RG;ÿ4I0GSÿ
(&7#1#%0!$&1ÿ-.01!5ÿR2#ÿ!&ÿ!"#ÿL;?Aÿ,&3K)ÿ(%$,$10.ÿ0(!$8$!$#)*ÿ!"#ÿ%#)!ÿ&'ÿ,/ÿ.$'#*ÿ01+ÿ!"#ÿ.$8#)ÿ&'ÿ,/ÿ
'0,$./*ÿ:0)ÿ)#8#%#./ÿ1#70!$8#./ÿ0''#(!#+5ÿ9"$)ÿ%#,0$1)ÿ!"#ÿ(0)#ÿ!&+0/5ÿG01/ÿ&!"#%ÿ.$8#)ÿ:#%#ÿ0.)&ÿ
)#8#%#./ÿ1#70!$8#./ÿ0''#(!#+5ÿ>&,#ÿ-#&-.#ÿ-0$+ÿ!"#ÿ2.!$,0!#ÿ-%$(#*ÿ$1(.2+$17ÿTUVWXVYXWZT[UÿWU]ÿ]YWZ^*ÿ
3#(02)#ÿ&'ÿ!"#ÿL;?Aÿ,&3)!#%)ÿ01+ÿ!"#$%ÿ!"27)Kÿ21(&1!%&..#+ÿ01+ÿ21-21$)"#+ÿ(%$,$10.ÿ0(!$8$!$#)5ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ_Uÿ̀abacZÿdefg*ÿ=ÿ$1'&%,#+ÿ!"#ÿL;ÿC#7#1!)Kÿ(&21)#.ÿ&'ÿ%#(&%+ÿ!"0!ÿ=ÿ$1!#1+#+ÿ!&ÿ'$.#ÿ0ÿ9<;ÿ
$1ÿ,/ÿ:%&17'2.ÿ!#%,$10!$&1ÿ)2$!ÿ$1ÿ!"#ÿ>0(%0,#1!&ÿ;&21!/ÿ>2-#%$&%ÿ;&2%!ÿ(0)#ÿhijklminÿpilqrqstÿuvÿ
wxyÿzy{y|}lÿk~ÿ}xyÿ|uyjl}ÿk~ÿim~kj|i*ÿ;0)#ÿ&vÿQ04H2Q0HH2NNI 5ÿ
ÿÿ UÿYZYYXÿfgÿdefg*ÿ!"#ÿC#7#1!)Kÿ(&21)#.ÿ%#)-&1+#+ÿ!&ÿ,/ÿ$1!#1!$&1ÿ!&ÿ'$.#ÿ0ÿ9<;*ÿ)0/$17ÿ
!"0!*ÿ$'ÿ=ÿ:&2.+ÿ-%&8$+#ÿ!"#,ÿ:$!"ÿ0ÿ(&-/ÿ&'ÿ!"#ÿ-%&-&)#+ÿ9<;ÿ'&%ÿ0--%&80.*ÿ!"#/ÿ:&2.+ÿ0%%017#ÿ!&ÿ
-%#-0%#ÿ!"#ÿ)!$-2.0!$&1ÿ!&ÿ7#!ÿ!"#ÿ(&2%!)ÿ0--%&80.ÿ&'ÿ!"#ÿ(&2%!ÿ07%##,#1!ÿ!&ÿ'$.#ÿ!"#ÿ9<;5ÿ
ÿÿ 62%!"#%,&%#*ÿ&1ÿYZYYXÿfÿdefg*ÿ!"#ÿR#'#1+01!)ÿ(&21)#.ÿ%#-#0!#+ÿ"$)ÿ&''#%ÿ'&%ÿ0ÿ9<;ÿ
)!$-2.0!$&1ÿ8$0ÿ#,0$.ÿ(&%%#)-&1+#1(#ÿ+0!#+ÿ>#-!#,3#%ÿ2Nÿ01+ÿ>#-!#,3#%ÿ23*ÿ4H2N5ÿ
ÿÿ UÿYZYYXÿddÿdefg*ÿ=ÿ)#1!ÿ!"#ÿ9<;ÿ+%0'!ÿ!&ÿ!"#ÿC#7#1!)Kÿ(&21)#.ÿO__ÿÿ[Uÿ
Wc^ÿ]XTYÿWU]ÿÿ9"$)ÿ$)ÿ:"0!ÿ!"$)ÿ<--.$(0!$&1ÿ'&%ÿ<:0%+ÿ'&%ÿ?%$7$10.ÿ=1'&%,0!$&1ÿO=C>ÿ
6&%,ÿ422Pÿ$)ÿ-0%!$0../ÿ30)#+ÿ&15ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
|}~ÿ~ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿ !"#$%ÿ#&$ÿ'(ÿ)$*$+#ÿ,-./$%0ÿ%$-1ÿ2/ÿ-,230#ÿ44405-*$0,3+*ÿ5%3530$1ÿ6!(7ÿ.&89&ÿ
%$:$-,$1ÿ"3%ÿ"8%0#ÿ#82$ÿ#&$ÿ'(;<=0ÿ>+,-.">,ÿ35$%-#83+ÿ3"ÿ#&$ÿ?@0ABÿ93*$+$%-#83+ÿ53.$%ÿ5,-+#ÿ
-+1ÿ#&$ÿ2$%98,$00ÿ.8#9&ÿ&>+#ÿ-+1ÿ#$%28+-#83+ÿ3"ÿ2/ÿ$25,3/2$+#ÿ8+ÿC$9$2D$%ÿ?42?7ÿ"3,,3.8+*ÿ#&$ÿ
-##$25#ÿ#3ÿ$+1ÿ2/ÿ,8"$ÿ8+ÿ#&$ÿ'(CA(ÿ6%->2-ÿ'+8#ÿ23%*>$7ÿ7ÿ#&$/ÿ"8,$1ÿEFÿHIJKILMINÿOPQÿORSPÿ
-ÿA3#83+ÿ"3%ÿ!>#32-#89ÿ3%ÿC809%$#83+-%/ÿT#-/ÿ5>%0>-+#ÿ#3ÿ(U(U<UÿVW23X-Yÿ#3ÿD,39Zÿ2/ÿ6!(ÿD$"3%$ÿ
#&$ÿ(3>%#ÿ.3>,1ÿ$:$+ÿ0$$ÿ8#7ÿ3%ÿD$"3%$ÿ2/ÿ23#83+ÿ,$-:$ÿ93>,1ÿD$ÿ"8,$1ÿ-+1ÿ$+13%0$1ÿD/ÿ#&$ÿ9,$%ZUÿÿ
ÿ[Fÿ[\KEMINÿS]QÿORSP7ÿ^ÿ"8,$1ÿ2/ÿ355308#83+ÿ#3ÿ#&$ÿ'(ÿ)$*$+#0=ÿ,-./$%=0ÿA3#83+ÿ"3%ÿ!>#32-#89ÿ
3%ÿC809%$#83+-%/ÿT#-/ÿ_`abcdceÿfghÿEFÿijklmÿnNopIÿkFnÿqrqsQÿ8+ÿ.&89&ÿ3+$ÿ3"ÿ#&$ÿ$t&8D8#0ÿ.-0ÿ#&$ÿ
A-/ÿ?Wu427ÿ?42?ÿ>+,-.">,ÿ<<!ÿD$#.$$+ÿ#&$ÿ)$*$+#0ÿ-+1ÿTA'Cÿ#3ÿ8,,$*-,,/ÿ,->+1$%ÿ2$*-.-##0ÿ"%32ÿ
#&$ÿ'(CA(ÿ93*$+$%-#83+ÿ5,-+#Uÿ6&$ÿ<<!ÿ.-0ÿ08*+$1ÿD/ÿTA'Cÿ3+ÿA-/ÿ427ÿ?42?7ÿ#&$ÿ1-/ÿ^ÿ$09-5$1ÿ
>+&-%2$1ÿ"%32ÿ#&$ÿ'(ÿC-:80ÿC$-#&ÿTv>-1=0ÿ>+0>99$00">,ÿ-##$25#ÿ#3ÿ-00-008+-#$ÿ2$ÿ:8-ÿ'(ÿC-:80ÿ
<3,89$ÿw#Uÿx-2$0ÿy-%D3>%=0ÿ-9#83+07ÿ"3%ÿ.&89&ÿ&$ÿ.3>,1ÿD$ÿ%$.-%1$1ÿ.8#&ÿ-ÿz4{7444ÿ5-/ÿ%-80$Uÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
[\]^ÿ]`abÿcdefgheiÿÿÿÿÿÿjklmnbopÿcgqrdgehÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿstubvwÿeqxeyxdeddÿÿÿÿÿÿz`{bÿdgqÿk|ÿ}~}
ÿ
!"#ÿ$%&'ÿ%()*+ÿ,ÿ(-.*$ÿ/&ÿ#00#'-)-#1ÿ)#ÿ)2*ÿ3*4*1)'5ÿ/#)-#1ÿ(#+ÿ%1ÿ%6)#/%)-7ÿ')%&8ÿ)2*ÿ9*&ÿ
"-)1*''ÿ%1$ÿ0*+0*)+%)#+ÿ-1ÿ)2*ÿ61.%"(6.ÿ0#"*+ÿ4*1*+%)-#1ÿ%1$ÿ'%.*8ÿ:;ÿ<%=-'ÿ;2%17*..#+ÿ>/*+-)6'ÿ
?%++&ÿ@%1$*+2#*(8ÿABCÿE6)2%1-F*$ÿ%)ÿ)2*ÿ:;<G;8ÿ"2*+*ÿ2*ÿ2%$ÿH**1ÿ+*7#=*+-14ÿ(+#/ÿ%ÿ')+#9*Iÿ
@%1$*+2#*(ÿ"%'ÿJ4ÿ"2*1ÿ2*ÿ$-*$Iÿ,ÿ%$$+*''*$ÿ)2*ÿ*=*1)ÿ-1ÿ/&ÿ.*))*+ÿ)#ÿ@%1$*+2#*(5'ÿ7.#'*ÿ(+-*1$8ÿ:IKIÿ
;LMN3>KKGOMÿPLQMÿNO3OG>M<,8ÿ"2#ÿ*6.#4-F*$ÿ@%1$*+2#*(ÿ#1ÿ)2*ÿ(.##+ÿ#(ÿ)2*ÿ:IKIÿQ#6'*ÿ
#(ÿ3*0+*'*1)%)-=*'ÿRSÿ$%&'ÿ%()*+ÿ2-'ÿ$*%)2ÿT'**ÿ2))0'UVV"""I'7+-H$I7#/V$#76/*1)VWXX3SJ2Y4VSY230
?>!!>30!L0;LMN3>KKGOMPLQM0NO3OG>M<,ZIÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
wxyzÿy|}~ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ|~ÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$"%&'()ÿ*)+'(,ÿ!+-&$.)$ÿ*)+$(ÿ/+01&ÿ2$)3'4ÿ35)ÿ-$&6.0&0ÿ)7&$ÿ(5&ÿ8*ÿ9&1&'(6:ÿ;)(.)'ÿ
<)$ÿ=+()%"(.#ÿ!(",4ÿ1$"'(&0ÿ(5&ÿ%)(.)'ÿ()ÿ(5&ÿ8*ÿ9&1&'(6ÿ)'ÿ>#()?&$ÿ@A4ÿ@B244ÿ'&7&$ÿ5"7.'1ÿ6&&'ÿ)$ÿ
$&"0ÿ%,ÿ-$)-)6&0ÿCD$"<(Eÿ)<ÿ(5&ÿF=*Gÿÿ
F5.6ÿ*)+$(ÿ"#(.)'ÿ"'0ÿ(5&ÿ-$&6&'#&ÿ)<ÿ/"'&(ÿH"-)I.("')ÿ"(ÿ8*>J:6ÿ
K&"0L+"$(&$6ÿ.'ÿ>"MI"'0ÿ#)'7.'#&0ÿ%&ÿ(5"(4ÿ.'6(&"0ÿ()ÿ6+?%.(ÿÿ"ÿ%)(.)'ÿÿ()ÿNO9*ÿ
()ÿ$&)-&'ÿ(5&ÿ$&#)$0ÿ"'0ÿ$&0.'7&6(.1"(&ÿ(5&ÿ%"((&$ÿ)<ÿ(5&ÿ/"'+"$,ÿ44ÿ@BBPÿ!&((I&%&'(ÿ
=1$&&%&'(4ÿÿQÿ65)+I0ÿ6+?%.(ÿ"'ÿ=--I.#"(.)'ÿ<)$ÿ=3"$0ÿ<)$ÿ>$.1.'"IÿQ'<)$%"(.)'ÿ
CQ9!ÿN)$%ÿ@22Eÿ()ÿ(5&ÿQ9!ÿR2>ÿ)<<.#&ÿ()ÿ$&-)$(ÿ)'ÿ(5&ÿ%+I(.0%.II.)'00)II"$ÿ("Sÿ
&7"6.)'ÿ"'0ÿ<$"+0ÿ0+&ÿ()ÿ(5&ÿ+'I"3<+Iÿ-$)0+#(.)'ÿ"'0ÿ6"I&ÿ)<ÿ&I&#($.#.(,ÿ<)$ÿ-$)<.(4ÿ
.'ÿ7.)I"(.)'ÿ)<ÿ("S0&S&%-(ÿ6("(+6ÿ!&#(.)'ÿ4B2C#ECTEÿ)<ÿ(5&ÿQ'(&$'"Iÿ9&7&'+&ÿ*)0&ÿ)<ÿ
2U4VGÿQÿ6+?%.((&0ÿ%,ÿ#I".%ÿ()ÿ(5&ÿR2>ÿ.'ÿ>10&'4ÿ8("5ÿ)'ÿ;"$#5ÿ@T4ÿ@B23GÿQ(ÿ3"6ÿ
0)#M&(&0ÿ"(ÿ(5&ÿR2>ÿ"6ÿ*I".%ÿH)Gÿ@B230BBPVA2ÿC6&&ÿ
5((-6XYY333G6#$.?0G#)%Y0)#+%&'(YVP3PP3APVY8F*0@B23BT@T0Q9!0
RKQ!FZO2Z>RO90*I".%0H)0@B230BBPVAEGÿ
ÿÿ
[[[\\\]ÿ ÿ
_`abcÿa`def\c`aeghÿ̀hÿ̀ÿabiÿdjbh\kbacÿelÿcmbÿna\objh\cpÿelÿ
q`f\leja\`ÿÿ
Q'ÿ!&-(&%?&$ÿ@B2T4ÿ<)$%&$ÿr)7&$')$ÿ)<ÿ=$.s)'"ÿC@BBTt@BBUEÿ/"'&(ÿ
H"-)I.("')ÿ$&6.1'&0ÿ<$)%ÿ5&$ÿ-)6(ÿ"6ÿ(5&ÿ8G!Gÿ!&#$&("$,ÿ)<ÿ(5&ÿD&-"$(%&'(ÿ)<ÿ
K)%&I"'0ÿ!&#+$.(,ÿCDK!Eÿ"'04ÿ()1&(5&$ÿ3.(5ÿ$&(.$&0ÿN2QÿD.$&#()$ÿ9)?&$(ÿ!3"'ÿ
;+&II&$ÿQQQ4ÿ"$$.7&0ÿ.'ÿ*"I.<)$'."ÿ()ÿ$&#)7&$ÿ(5&ÿ5+'0$&06ÿÿ)<ÿ%.II.)'6ÿ)<ÿ0)II"$6ÿI)6(ÿ
0+&ÿ()ÿ(5&ÿÿ#)II"-6&ÿ)<ÿO'$)'ÿ.'ÿ@BB2ÿ0+$.'1ÿ(5&ÿ6)-5.6(.#"(&0ÿVBÿ?.II.)'ÿ<$"+0ÿ(.(I&0ÿ
u*"I.<)$'."ÿO'&$1,ÿ*$.6.6ÿuÿC;",ÿ@BBB0>#()?&$ÿ@BB2Eÿÿ8*>Jÿÿ35.(&ÿ#)II"$ÿ
#$.%.'"I6ÿ"'0ÿ(5&.$ÿ#)II"?)$"()$6ÿ%"0&ÿ"ÿ1$"7&ÿ%.6("M&ÿ.'ÿ(5&.$ÿN&?$+"$,ÿ2UUAÿv).'(ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
\]^_ÿ^abcÿdefghifjÿÿÿÿÿÿklmnocpqÿdhrsehfiÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿtuvcwxÿfryfzyefeeÿÿÿÿÿÿ{a|cÿeehÿl}ÿ~~
!"#$%!ÿ&'#(ÿ)"%*"ÿ+*%,*%-#'*"ÿ)"!%./ÿ0!%'1!2ÿ#*ÿ3-$"4!%ÿ5!.-&-##2ÿ6%*5ÿ7+ÿ
1-5,$2!2ÿ$"4!%ÿ-ÿ4'%!1#ÿ-11!22ÿ2!%'1!2ÿ1*"#%-1#ÿ8ÿ9#ÿ1-$2!4ÿ-32*ÿ-,,%*:'5-#!ÿ;ÿ
=>>?ÿ>>>?>>>ÿ3*22!2ÿ4$!ÿ#*ÿ'"!66'1'!"#ÿ*,!%-#'*"ÿ*6ÿ#(!ÿ@A0BCÿ1*.!"!%-#'*"ÿ,*&!%ÿ
,3-"#ÿ1*55'22'*"!4ÿ'"ÿ2DDEÿ-#ÿ#(!ÿ7+ÿF-'2ÿB!4'1-3ÿ+!"#!%ÿG7+FB+HIÿ'"ÿ
0-1%-5!"#*Iÿ&(!%!ÿ9ÿ&-2ÿ!5,3*/!4ÿ-2ÿ-ÿ,3-"#ÿ*,!%-#*%ÿ6%*5ÿJ$"!ÿ2DDDÿ#(%*$.(ÿ
B-%1(ÿ@KKAÿ-"4ÿ-2ÿ-"ÿ-22*1'-#!ÿ4!!3*,5!"#ÿ!".'"!!%ÿ6%*5ÿL!M%$-%/ÿ@KKDÿ
#(%*$.(ÿF!1!5M!%ÿ@K2@ÿ8ÿ7+FB+ÿN2ÿ9ÿ2#-#!4ÿ'"ÿ*"!ÿ*6ÿ#(!ÿ,%!'*$2ÿ1(-,#!%ÿ
O-,*3'#-"*P2ÿ7+ÿ,%!2'4!"1/ÿ&-2ÿ5*2#ÿ3'Q!3/ÿ4!1'4!4ÿ'"ÿB-/ÿ@K2Kÿ.-#(!%'".ÿ'"ÿ
C-2('".#*"ÿF8+ÿ&('1(ÿ'"13$4!4ÿM$#ÿ"*#ÿ3'5'#!4ÿÿO-,*3'#-"*ÿ(!%2!36ÿ+-3'6*%"'-ÿ
N22!5M3/ÿ0,!-Q!%ÿJ*("ÿR!%!SÿG#*4-/ÿ-ÿ7+ÿT!.!"#HIÿU-'!%ÿV!11!%-ÿG6*%5!%ÿ
+-3'6*%"'-ÿN##*%"!/ÿW!"!%-3HIÿB*"'1-ÿX*S-"*ÿG7+ÿT!.!"#Iÿ%!#'%!4ÿ'"ÿ@K2AHIÿY'34-ÿ
0*3'2ÿG6*%5!%ÿ+-3'6*%"'-ÿN22!5M3/5!5M!%ÿ-"4ÿ+-3'6*%"'-ÿ0!"-#*%H8ÿ
ÿO-,*3'#-"*ÿM!1-5!ÿ#(!ÿ"!&ÿR%!2'4!"#ÿ*6ÿ#(!ÿ7"'!%2'#/ÿ*6ÿ+-3'6*%"'-Iÿ&'#(ÿ(!-4Z$-%#!%2ÿ3*1-#!4ÿ
'"ÿ[-Q3-"4Iÿ+NIÿ-ÿ6!&ÿ5'3!2ÿ6%*5ÿ0-"ÿL%-"1'21*8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
qrstÿsvwxÿyz{|}~{ÿÿÿÿÿÿx ÿy}z}{~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿxÿ{{z{zzÿÿÿÿÿÿvxÿzzzÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ!"#$$#%ÿ&%%'(#)ÿ&*ÿ+*&,-.%)ÿ/,'(#%0'*1ÿ&0ÿ&ÿ2.,0"$*',3ÿ4%.-#00.%ÿ&,)ÿ*5#ÿ6%&,7ÿ89ÿ&,)ÿ:%*5"%ÿ
;9ÿ<&1,#ÿ='0*',3"'05#)ÿ>#2*"%#%9ÿ;5'$#ÿ&*ÿ+*&,-.%)?ÿ5#ÿ-.2"0#)ÿ.,ÿ'00"#0ÿ%#$&*#)ÿ*.ÿ21@#%0#2"%'*1ÿ
ABCCDEFGGHIEJHKLEIKECJMLNOPKQPRGMQSEGLNOTQOLUIPIOQHCNOCNUNVECQOEQHROICWOQEQJOHBJCECJML
NOPXYZ[ZZY\]Kÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ!"#$$#%ÿ&,)ÿ_&4.$'*&,.ÿ`#%#ÿ,#'*5#%ÿ0*%&,3#%0ÿ*.ÿ#&25ÿ.*5#%ÿ,.%ÿ0*%&,3#%0ÿ*.ÿ*5#ÿ0*&*#ÿ.-ÿ
a&$'-.%,'&ÿ4%'.%ÿ*.ÿ+#4*#b@#%ÿcd2e9ÿf5#1ÿ@.*5ÿ3%&)"&*#)ÿ-%.bÿ*5#ÿ/,'(#%0'*1ÿ.-ÿg'%3','&ÿ+25..$ÿ.-ÿ
>&`?ÿ-.",)#)ÿ',ÿ2h2iÿ@1ÿf5.b&0ÿj#--#%0.,?ÿ*5#ÿ&"*5.%ÿ.-ÿ*5#ÿ=#2$&%&*'.,ÿ.-ÿk,)#4#,)#,2#9ÿk,ÿ2i43?ÿ
!"#$$#%ÿ`.%7#)ÿ-.%ÿ*5#ÿ+&,ÿ6%&,2'02.0@&0#)ÿ<'$$0@"%1ÿ&,)ÿ+"*%.ÿ>&`ÿ6'%bÿ*.3#*5#%ÿ`'*5ÿ-.%b#%ÿ
:00.2'&*#ÿ/aÿg'2#ÿ<%#0')#,*ÿj")'*5ÿl.1#**#?ÿ̀5.ÿ-%.bÿcddmncddhÿ4&%*'2'4&*#)ÿ',ÿ&ÿ̀'*25ÿ5",*ÿ&3&',0*ÿ
b#ÿ',ÿ&,ÿ&**#b4*ÿ*.ÿ*#%b',&*#ÿb1ÿ#b4$.1b#,*ÿ̀'*5ÿ*5#ÿ",'(#%0'*19ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
:*ÿ*5#ÿ0&b#ÿ*'b#ÿ!"#$$#%ÿ`&0ÿ`.%7',3ÿ-.%ÿ<'$$0@"%1ÿ&,)ÿ+"*%.?ÿ_&4.$'*&,.ÿ`&0ÿ0*")1',3ÿ&*ÿ
+&,*&ÿa$&%&ÿ/,'(#%0'*1?ÿ-.%*1ÿb'$#0ÿ0."*5ÿ.-ÿ+&,ÿ6%&,2'02.9ÿl.*5ÿ0#%(#)ÿ-.%ÿ-."%ÿ1#&%0ÿ*.3#*5#%ÿ&0ÿ*5#ÿ
*.4ÿ$&`ÿ#,-.%2#b#,*ÿ.--'2'&$0ÿ.-ÿ<%#0')#,*ÿl&%&27ÿo@&b&p0ÿ&)b','0*%&*'.,?ÿ-%.bÿcddiÿ*.ÿcd2e9ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
mnopÿorstÿuvwxyzw{ÿÿÿÿÿÿ|}~tÿuyvywzÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿtÿwwvwvvÿÿÿÿÿÿrtÿvvÿ}ÿ
ÿ!"#$%&'"($)ÿ"*ÿ+,-ÿ-./0.'"01)ÿ2"3ÿ'2.ÿ,45,6-7ÿ-689:47;ÿ8<6=:=!86ÿ"(3ÿ"//.**ÿ'$ÿ
"%%ÿ/%"**&>&.3ÿ&(>$0?"'&$()ÿ*'"'.ÿ$0ÿ$0@"(&A"'&$("%ÿ*./0.'*)ÿ"(3ÿ'$ÿ0.*'0&/'.3ÿ"0."*Bÿ-2.ÿ2"3ÿ($ÿ#0$C%.?*ÿ
*./D0&(@ÿ>$0ÿ2.0*.%>ÿ'2.ÿ#$*'ÿ$>ÿE0.*&3.('ÿ$>ÿ'2.ÿ9(&F.0*&'1ÿ$>ÿ8"%&>$0(&"ÿ$0)ÿ&(ÿ3&>>.0.('ÿG$03*)ÿ2&0&(@ÿ
2.0*.%>ÿ"*ÿ'2.ÿ98ÿE0.*&3.('ÿ"(3ÿ/$(F&(/&(@ÿ$'2.0*ÿ'$ÿ#.0#.'0"'.ÿ"ÿ(.Gÿ'"Hÿ.F"*&$(ÿ"(3ÿ>0"D3ÿ*/2.?.ÿ'$ÿ
0./$F.0ÿ'2.ÿ2D(30.3*ÿ$>ÿ?&%%&$(*ÿ'"Hÿ>0..ÿ3$%%"0*ÿÿ%$*'ÿ3D.ÿÿ'2.ÿ>"&%.3ÿ98IEÿJ.C0D"01ÿ2KK4ÿL$&('ÿF.('D0.ÿ
G&'2ÿ6(0$(ÿ8$0#$0"'&$(ÿ6(.0@1ÿ-.0F&/.*ÿ'$ÿ%"D(3.0ÿ?.@"G"''*ÿ>0$?ÿ98ÿ/"?#D*.*ÿD(3.0ÿ"ÿ3&0./'ÿ"//.**ÿ
*.0F&/.*ÿ/$('0"/'ÿÿG2&/2ÿ&(/%D3.3ÿÿMNOPNÿÿRSÿPTÿUVWXYXZ[\]VYÿ^_[Y\ÿ̀aXZXÿbÿ̀[cÿXd^_VeXfÿ
"(3ÿÿ*&?&%"0ÿ#%"('*ÿ$(ÿ'2.ÿ98ÿg.0h.%.1ÿ"(3ÿ98ÿ-"(ÿ+&.@$ÿ/"?#D*.*)ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
=>'.0ÿ!"#$%&'"($ÿ"00&F.3ÿ&(ÿ-.#'.?C.0ÿij2kÿÿ"'ÿ'2.ÿ98ÿ,."3lD"0'.0*ÿ&(ÿI"h%"(3)ÿ8"%&>$0(&")ÿ4ÿ
*.('ÿ'$ÿ2.0ÿ$>>&/.)ÿ&()ÿ*.F.0"%ÿ%.''.0*ÿ0.%"'.3ÿ'$ÿ?1ÿD(%"G>D%ÿ.?#%$1?.('ÿ'.0?&("'&$()ÿ("&F.%1ÿ2$#&(@ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
:;<=ÿ<?@AÿBCDEFGDHÿÿÿÿÿÿIJKLMANOÿBFPQCFDGÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRSTAUVÿDPWDXWCDCCÿÿÿÿÿÿY?ZAÿCCGÿJ[ÿ\]\
!"#!ÿ$"%ÿ&'()*ÿ'+*%+ÿ!"%ÿ+%,-$!#!%.%-!ÿ'/ÿ.0ÿ%.1)'0.%-!2ÿ3-$!%#*4ÿ3ÿ&#$ÿ#).'$!ÿ*%1'+!%*4ÿ#-*ÿ&'()*ÿ
"#5%ÿ6%%-4ÿ"#*ÿ3ÿ-'!ÿ6%%-ÿ7#+%/()ÿ#-*ÿ5,8,)#-!2ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
{|}~ÿ}ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
"""#$%ÿ ÿ
'()*+ÿ)(,-.#+()-/0ÿ(0ÿ(ÿ,*1,*+1(+-1ÿ-2ÿÿ+3*ÿÿ)*4ÿ+("ÿ*$(0#-)ÿ()5ÿ
21(657ÿ56*ÿÿ+-ÿ$#-.(+#-)ÿÿ89ÿ+3*ÿ6)#$*10#+9ÿ-2ÿ:(.#2-1)#(ÿ+("ÿ*"*;,+ÿ
0+(+60ÿ#1:ÿ<=>ÿ?:ÿ@ÿ?Aÿ@ÿ:-;;#++*5ÿÿÿ6)5*1ÿÿ+3*ÿ)(,-.#+()-/0ÿÿ0:3*;*ÿ
+#+.*5ÿB:(18-)ÿ)*6+1(.#+9ÿ#)#+#(+#$*ÿ#)ÿ6:ÿ:(;,60*0ÿBÿ
ÿ
-Cÿ-DEFGHIÿ>>JÿK==LMÿNOPQRSTUQOÿVSWXTUSTÿYTUSPZÿ[\]^OT_XUX``XTÿaQ̀UXZÿNOPQRSTUQOÿ[XUObXÿ
8cddÿeL<fÿgUZXTÿb]QaÿhQPPMÿ5#1*:+ÿ(::*00ÿÿ+-ÿ,1-$#5*ÿ*.*:+1#:#+9ÿ4(0ÿ1*-,*)*5Mÿ
iEjIEcCkÿcCÿK=>=JÿhlbÿSUPmÿbSÿCFC7IHicnHCEcjdÿDoiEFpHIiÿÿ
]bbqrss^^^fPX`QURSf\Of̀SWsqlhs4t024shQPPsaXUsahu4vw24344sahuvtwuhQPPux44t2422u\]OqbXTXZf]byPÿ
OUZÿÿ]bbqarss^^^fXPX\bTQ\\]SQ\Xf\SyshPS`sZQTX\b0O\\Xaa0qTS`TOyszfÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¦§ÿ¨©ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿª«¬®ÿ¨¯°¯ÿÿÿÿÿÿ±²ÿ©ÿ¢³ÿ́µ´
!"#"ÿ$%&"#ÿ'(ÿ)*#$'+",#ÿ-.)/*0"1ÿ/-2!$-.23ÿ42,-)*/$*,"3ÿ+"0-*+ÿ4.0ÿ/4,2"ÿ)'++",)-4/ÿÿ-.0*#$,-4/ÿ
#-$"#3ÿ4.0ÿ#+4//ÿ5*#-."##"#6ÿÿ
78ÿ:;<=>?=@ÿABCDÿÿ$E'ÿ+'.$!#ÿ4($",ÿF4&'/-$4.'ÿ4,,-G"0ÿ-.ÿHIJKÿL"40M*4,$",#ÿ-.ÿ
J4N/4.0ÿ3ÿIOÿ#!"ÿÿ4..'*.)"0ÿPQRÿSTUVW:ÿ:RXPUTY7PZÿ7:7P7TP7[R3ÿE!-)!ÿ)'++-$#ÿ
$!"ÿ".$-,"ÿH.-G",#-$%ÿ'(ÿI4/-(',.-4ÿ$'ÿ"+-$$-.2ÿ."$ÿ\",'ÿ2,"".!'*#"ÿ24#"#ÿ(,'+ÿ-$#ÿ5*-/0-.2#ÿ4.0ÿ
G"!-)/"ÿ(/""$ÿ5%ÿ]^]_3ÿ`;>=abc8dÿ8;ÿ;ab=@ÿ>ef;@ÿg8c<=@`cahÿ`h`a=>ÿbe`ÿi;8=jÿÿ78ÿ:;<=>?=@ÿ
ABCDÿÿ:ek;lcae8;ÿ>;`aÿlcm=lhÿiciÿ8;aÿm8;nÿnb=@=ÿab=ÿ8c8=ÿXSÿoe>kg`=`ÿe@=ÿl;oea=iÿjÿÿÿ
W8ÿpe@obÿAqrÿABCq3ÿ#-sÿ+'.$!#ÿ4($",ÿ:ek;lcae8;ÿ4.0ÿpg=ll=@ÿ4,,-G"0ÿ-.ÿI4/-(',.-43ÿ3ÿ$!"-,ÿ
(,-".0ÿ3ÿÿH6t6ÿO$$',."%ÿu"/-.04ÿÿQeedÿv@;>ÿF',$!",.ÿw-#$,-)$ÿ'(ÿI4/-(',.-4ÿÿ(-/"0ÿ4ÿ),-+-.4/ÿ
)'+&/4-.$ÿ-.ÿH6t6ÿ0-#$,-)$ÿ)'*,$ÿ424-.#$ÿI4/-(',.-4ÿt".4$',ÿx""3ÿ4.0ÿ$E".$%ÿ]_ÿ'$!",ÿ&"'&/"ÿE","ÿ
,'*.0"0ÿ*&ÿ5%ÿ$!"ÿyz{ÿ4/'.2#-0"ÿ!-+6ÿx""3ÿE!'ÿE4#ÿ(,'+ÿ$!"ÿ|$!ÿt".4$',-4/ÿw-#$,-)$3ÿE!-)!ÿ
-.)/*0"#ÿt4.ÿy,4.)-#)'ÿ4.0ÿt4.ÿu4$"'ÿI'*.$-"#3ÿ#",G"0ÿ4#ÿ#".4$',ÿ(,'+ÿw")"+5",ÿ}3ÿ]^^~u4,)!ÿ
]|3ÿ]^2}6ÿO#ÿ&,"G-'*#/%ÿ.'$"03ÿ(,'+ÿ2|]^^23ÿL442ÿE4#ÿu*"//",#ÿ4##-#$4.$ÿ-.ÿ$!"ÿH6t6ÿ
O$$',."%#ÿJ((-)"ÿ-.ÿt4.ÿy,4.)-#)'3ÿ4.0ÿ$!".3ÿ(,'+ÿ]^^2]^2^3ÿ4ÿ&4,$.",ÿ4$ÿJ,,-)N3ÿL",,-.2$'.3ÿÿ
t*$)/-(("3ÿK3ÿ54#"0ÿ-.ÿt4.ÿy,4.)-#)'6ÿÿ
W8ÿpe@obÿArÿABCq3ÿ$!"ÿyz{ÿ,4-0"0ÿx""#ÿ'((-)"ÿ-.ÿt4),4+".$'3ÿ4.0ÿ!"ÿE4#ÿ4,,"#$"0ÿ'.ÿ)!4,2"#ÿ
,"/4$"0ÿ$'ÿ&*5/-)ÿ)',,*&$-'.ÿ4.0ÿ2*.ÿ$,4((-)N-.26ÿL"ÿE4#ÿ4//"2"0ÿ$'ÿ!4G"ÿ5'*2!$ÿ4*$'+4$-)ÿ(-,"4,+#ÿ4.0ÿ
#!'*/0",0/4*.)!"0ÿ+-##-/"#ÿ(,'+ÿ$!"ÿu','ÿ{#/4+-)ÿ-5",4$-'.ÿ',24.-\4$-'.ÿ-.ÿ$!"ÿK!-/-&&-."#6ÿE".$%ÿ
(-G"ÿ'$!",ÿ&"'&/"ÿE","ÿ,'*.0"0ÿÿ4/#'ÿ4,,"#$"06ÿ
ÿ
[jÿ ÿ
ÿ
PQRÿURR:PÿWÿPQRÿX:7[RU7PZÿWÿSTY7WU:7TÿUR7PUTP7W:ÿÿ7PQÿ
PQRÿSTY7WU:7TÿXVY7SÿXP7Y7P7RÿSXSÿSWpp77W:ÿTÿT:ÿRYRSPU7Sÿ
RU[7SRÿUW[7RUÿRrÿRÿÿCDÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿ£¤£ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¥¦ÿÿ§ÿ̈©¨
ÿ
"#ÿ$%&'(ÿ)*+ÿ),-./ÿ012ÿ345ÿ46728ÿÿ9214708ÿ:2;413ÿ<==ÿ>4?ÿ4882?723ÿ@5ÿ7A2ÿBCD/ÿ7A2ÿEFÿ
G2H217?ÿ&=IJKL=&=MÿL(=NK=OP=Kÿ>Q7Aÿ7A2ÿF4;Q6081Q4ÿRS@;QTÿE7Q;Q7Q2?ÿF0UUQ??Q01ÿ4?ÿ41ÿVWVXYZ[Xÿ
\VZ][XVÿ^Z"][_VZÿ̀V\^a+ÿV\^ÿbÿ-cde+ÿ̀Vfg[h[Yÿb.eÿi#ÿjO%K(ÿM&JP=ÿ%#Mÿ_]_aÿ06628Q1Hÿ12>ÿ
?28kQT2?ÿ70ÿ'iNN=&'J%Oÿ'lKLiN=&Kmÿÿ3Q?T0k2823ÿ7AQ?ÿU082ÿ7A41ÿ2QHA7ÿ5248?ÿ;4728/ÿ01ÿno8Q;ÿ4p/ÿ4q44/ÿ@5ÿ
?248TAQ1Hÿ7A2ÿFREFÿ>2@?Q72ÿ46728ÿDÿ6Q;23ÿU5ÿnoo2;;417r?ÿG2?o01?20soo0?Q7Q01ÿ70ÿ7A2ÿnoo2;;22r?/ÿ
DG9ÿF0UUQ??Q0128ÿt07Q01ÿu0ÿvQ?UQ??/ÿBQ;23ÿ01ÿt48TAÿ2q/ÿ4q44ÿQ1ÿwxyz{|x}ÿwx{ÿx{ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡¢ÿ£¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¥¦§¨©ÿ£ª«ªÿÿÿÿÿÿ¬ÿ®ÿÿ̄°®°
!"#$%"&'ÿ)$*$"+$ÿ,$%*-.$ÿ*/ÿ0122-33-1"$%ÿ14ÿ#5$ÿ!"#$%"&'ÿ)$*$"+$ÿ,$%*-.$6ÿ789:ÿ;<=ÿ>?7@ÿ;<=ÿ
AB02CB3ÿD9::ÿEFGHIHJÿ2KL=ÿ
ÿ
ÿ>7ÿM:N:OJ9ÿP:NH9J:P:QÿJG:R9:ST:9ÿUHJGÿJG:ÿ7V>7ÿ89ÿ8OÿE?Vÿ<WW:PHONÿ:S:XJPHXHJYÿW<Pÿ98S:ÿJ<ÿX<RR:PXH8Sÿ
XZ9J<R:P96ÿJG:Yÿ[\][^[_ÿa\]bÿcÿdb\ef][^gÿhbi[^ÿhj^klcm[ÿce^[[g[\]ÿia]lÿ]l[ÿnofpqÿrHT:ÿV<HOJ9ÿ
V8Psÿ8OQÿAB0tuÿvHWW:Oÿ?<S8PÿV8Ps6ÿI<JGÿS<X8J:QÿHOÿrP:9O<ÿ7<ZOJY6ÿ7@=ÿwG:YÿxP<QZX:Qÿ8ÿX<S<Pÿx<9J:Pÿ
HSSZ9JP8JH<OÿJG8JÿW:8JZP:QÿJG:ÿrP<OJH:PÿM:O:U8IS:ÿ?<S8Pÿ7<Rx8OYy9ÿS<N<ÿDGJJx9z{{WP<OJH:P0
P:O:U8IS:9=X<R{Lÿ8OQÿJG:ÿI8OO:Pÿ|>7ÿ?<S8PÿV<U:Pÿ}OHJH8JHT:~ÿ ÿoÿb\ÿdcmlÿ_^a[ÿc\_ÿ
ÿ8OQÿxP<THQ:QÿJG:ÿW<SS<UHONÿHOW<PR8JH<Oÿ8I<ZJÿJG:ÿW8XHSHJH:9zÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ¡¢£ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤¥¦§¨©ªÿ¡«¬¡¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ®¯°±ÿ«²³²ÿÿÿÿÿÿ́µÿ«ÿ¥¶ÿ·¸·
!ÿ#$ÿ&'(&)&*ÿ+'(,ÿ-ÿ.,'/0(&)1ÿ2,3&)ÿ24)56-7&ÿ-/)&&1&'(ÿ3+(6ÿ(6&ÿ890:;ÿ<=>?ÿ@A=BCDÿ
@EFGÿHÿI90:;ÿJ=KK?BÿLAMEFÿ@EFGNÿOACPÿMAQEC?Rÿ=Bÿ<F?DBAÿSATBCUNÿSVWÿ
!ÿXP?ÿYFAZ?QCDÿ[=MMÿ\?B?FEC?ÿ]^__N___`aPbU?EFNÿ&',4/6ÿ2,3&)ÿc,)ÿ-22),d+1-(&.eÿ
f9g999ÿ6,1&7hÿ
!ÿXP?ÿYFAZ?QCDÿ[=MMÿTD?ÿP=\P0?KK=Q=?BQUÿDAMEFÿYPACA>AMCE=QÿiARTM?DÿiATBC?RÿABCAÿEÿD=B\M?ÿ
Ej=DÿCFEQG=B\ÿDUDC?iWÿ
!ÿk6&ÿ2),l&5(7ÿ3+..ÿ7422.eÿ2,3&)ÿ(,ÿ#$ÿm+)&5(ÿn55&77ÿ-'*ÿ;non07&)p&*ÿ5-1247&7hÿ
!ÿ$q::rs$tnuÿqorsnktqvÿmnkrwÿmr$r:xrsÿI9y8ÿ
!ÿk6&ÿ2),l&5(7ÿ5,''&5(ÿ*+)&5(.eÿ(,ÿ(6&ÿ$-.+c,)'+-ÿt'*&2&'*&'(ÿze7(&1ÿq2&)-(,)ÿ
{$ntzq|05,'(),..&*ÿ()-'71+77+,'ÿ7e7(&1hÿ
!ÿ#$ÿ3+..ÿ1-'-/&ÿ(6&ÿ2,3&)ÿ-7ÿ-ÿ)&/+7(&)&*ÿ&.&5()+5ÿ7&)p+5&ÿ2),p+*&)ÿ{rzo|hÿ
!ÿXP?ÿ}SÿLUDC?iÿ[=MMÿF?Q?=>?ÿEMMÿYA[?FÿEBRÿ?B>=FABi?BCEMÿO?B?K=CDNÿ=BQMTR=B\ÿ~@Lÿ
SEC?\AFUÿ2ÿ~?B?[EOM?ÿB?F\UÿSF?R=CDÿ~SDWÿ
XP?ÿQM?EBÿYA[?Fÿ\?B?FEC?Rÿ[=MMÿAKKD?CÿEYYFAj=iEC?MUÿN___ÿCABDÿAKÿS^ÿEBBTEMMUÿ
ÿ
ÿ
thÿ ÿ
mr$r:xrsÿI9yÿ0krÿsrrvkzÿqÿkrÿ#vt rsztkÿqÿ$nutqsvtnÿ
$qvrzktqvÿsr rv#rÿstkzÿsrtzksnktqvÿosq$rzzhÿ
ÿ
ÿ
q'ÿm&5&1&)ÿyygÿI9yNÿ}WLWÿVCCAFB?Uÿx&'l-1+'ÿ;-/'&)NÿKFAiÿCP?ÿ}WLWÿVCCAFB?UDÿKK=Q?Nÿ
EDC?FBÿ=DCF=QCÿAKÿSEM=KAFB=ENÿEBBATBQ?RÿCPECÿCP?ÿ}Sÿ~?\?BCDÿPERÿE\F??RÿCAÿYEUÿCAÿCP?ÿ}WLWÿÿEBRÿ
CP?ÿEC=ABEMÿLQ=?BQ?ÿ<ATBREC=ABÿ4N3__NÿRT?ÿCAÿ\FEBCÿKFETRWÿT?ÿCAÿKFETRNÿCP?D?ÿE\?BQ=?DÿPERÿO??Bÿ
EYYFA>?RÿKAFÿRTYM=QEC=>?ÿ\FEBCÿKTBR=B\ÿCPECÿ[ATMRÿBACÿACP?F[=D?ÿPE>?ÿO??BÿE[EFR?RWÿXP?ÿ=B>?DC=\EC=ABÿ
AKÿCP?ÿKFETRÿ[EDÿQABRTQC?RÿOUÿ}WLWÿVCCAFB?UÿaE\B?FÿO?C[??Bÿ^__ÿEBRÿ^_24WÿXP?ÿ}Sÿ~?\?BCDÿYE=RÿEÿ
CAG?BÿK=B?ÿKAFÿCP?ÿKFETRÿEBRÿD=j0U?EF0MAB\ÿ=B>?DC=\EC=ABNÿ[P=QPÿ=B>AM>?RÿOACPÿCP?ÿ}WLWÿ?YEFCi?BCÿAKÿ
TDC=Q?ÿEBRÿCP?ÿ<Wÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿ*B+ÿ1CÿBDB
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿ*B-ÿ1CÿBDB
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
xyz{ÿz}~ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"ÿ#$%$&'$(ÿ))*ÿ)+,-.ÿ/0/1/2ÿ3456ÿ478/9ÿ:4;2/9ÿ<=8ÿ3/40ÿ>?8@ÿABÿC9/6?3/28ÿD4EF0?842Fÿ423ÿABÿ
G/2/940ÿBF=26/0ÿHFI?26F2ÿJ7F9K/9ÿBLMNOÿG/2/940ÿBF=26/0ÿ423ÿP?</ÿC9/6?3/28Q.ÿBLMNOÿ?66=/3ÿ
4ÿ2F8?7?<48?F2ÿ8@48ÿ6848/3.ÿRST$ÿU$V$"WXÿYZÿWT$ÿ["\]$(X\W^ÿYZÿ_`a\ZY("\`ÿXb%%$XXZbaa^ÿ%Y&ca$W$dÿ
WT$ÿ_Y"V$XW\Y"ÿU$]$"b$ÿU\VTWXÿ($V\XW(`W\Y"ÿc(Y%$XXefÿÿJghijkjSÿlm,ÿY"ÿZàXTÿd(\]$ÿ`"dÿ
#n#ÿoÿ
@88E6pqq>>>r<4?6Fr<FKqsF<=K/286qDF8?</F7D/>t49u/8C498?<?E4282vvv2wr@8Krÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
YZ[\ÿ[^_`ÿabcdefcgÿÿÿÿÿÿhijkl`mnÿaeopbecfÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿqrs̀tuÿcovcwvbcbbÿÿÿÿÿÿx^y`ÿbzzÿi{ÿz|z
ÿ
ÿ
!"#ÿ%&'(#)*+&'ÿ,#-#'.#ÿ,+("*)ÿ/01234/54267ÿ8249ÿ:;<=>ÿ853ÿ700?0?ÿ@6/ÿA5B6C24576ÿ27ÿ5??24267ÿ
46ÿD=Eÿ/01234/54267ÿ8249ÿ:EF:Gÿ46ÿ30CCÿ3H/BCH3ÿB680/ÿ@/6Iÿ490ÿF:JK:L3ÿM30KNÿO61070/54267ÿBC574Gÿ
892O9ÿ95?ÿP007ÿ2?C271ÿ54ÿ96H30ÿC65?ÿ327O0ÿQ57H5/RÿMSSTÿÿ57?ÿÿ46ÿ/030CCÿ490ÿBH/O9530?ÿÿB680/ÿ@/6Iÿ490ÿ
36C5/ÿB680/ÿBC5743ÿA5B6C24576ÿO674/5O40?ÿ8249ÿ27ÿMS2UVÿK5RÿW2GÿMS2MGÿ490ÿF:ÿX010743ÿ32170?ÿ57ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¦ÿ§¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ©ª«¬ÿ§®¯®ÿÿÿÿÿÿ°±ÿ²ÿ¡³ÿ²´²
!"#$%&!#ÿ'(%)*ÿ'!*+,$-)ÿ./*))0)"1ÿ2''.3ÿ%41,ÿ5$+*$0)"1(ÿ6!"4+47$#ÿ814#419ÿ:4-1*4+1ÿÿ1(ÿ*)-!0)ÿÿ
4##)/$#ÿ-$#)ÿ(&ÿÿ1$;0&*))ÿ-!*7#!-ÿ7(%)*ÿ%(*1,ÿ04##4("-ÿ(&ÿ<(##$*-=ÿ>*(0ÿ?$"!$*9ÿ@AA4ÿ1,*(!/,ÿ:)+)0B)*ÿ
@A2Cÿ1,)ÿÿ*)$#ÿ(%")*-ÿ(&ÿ1,)ÿ8D:6DE-ÿ@306Fÿÿ<4<ÿ"(1ÿ-)##ÿ$"9ÿ7(%)*ÿ#(-1ÿ$77*(;40$1)#9ÿG@Hÿ04##4("ÿ
4"ÿ1$;0&*))ÿ7*(&41ÿÿB)+$!-)ÿIÿ%$-ÿ"(1ÿJ4##)<ÿ(*ÿ<)7(*1)<ÿ(*ÿ1,*(%"ÿ4"ÿ7*4-("ÿKÿ$-ÿ1,)ÿ8DL'ÿ%,41)ÿ+(##$*ÿ
+*404"$#-ÿÿ,$<ÿ$"14+47$1)<ÿ4"ÿ@A22M@A2C=ÿÿ
NOPOQROSÿUVWXÿB)+$0)ÿ1,)ÿ(77(*1!"419ÿ&(*ÿY$7(#41$"(E-ÿ1,!/-ÿ1(ÿ&4;ÿ1,)ÿ7*(B#)0-ÿ(&ÿ?)**9ÿ
F$-Z+Z!Jÿ$"<ÿ1,)ÿ4##)/$#ÿ7(%)*ÿ-$#)=ÿÿ
69ÿ&(*0)*ÿÿÿ<*!/-ÿ$<<4+1)<ÿÿ$11(*")9ÿ:(!/#$-ÿ51)4"ÿ$"<ÿÿY$7(#41$"(ÿ$"<ÿ1,)ÿ[)/)"1-Eÿ1,!/-ÿ#)$*")<ÿ4"ÿ
Y(\)0B)*ÿ@A2Cÿ1,$1ÿIÿ7#$"")<ÿ1(ÿ/(ÿ1(ÿ'(#$"<ÿ&(*ÿD,*4-10$-=ÿ],$1ÿ4-ÿ%,9ÿ09ÿ$11(*")9ÿ-1(#)ÿ09ÿ*)1$4")*ÿ
0(")9ÿ$"<ÿ+!1ÿ$ÿ<)$#ÿ%41,ÿ[)/)"1-Eÿ$11(*")9-ÿ1(ÿ)"<ÿ09ÿ#414/$14("ÿ4"ÿ:)+)0B)*ÿ@A2C=ÿIÿ+$"+)##)<ÿ09ÿ
1*47Kÿ$"<ÿ-4"+)ÿ1,)"ÿIÿ,$\)ÿ")\)*ÿ1*$\)##)<ÿ(!1-4<)ÿ1,)ÿ85Kÿ&(*ÿ&)$*ÿ1,$1ÿIÿ%(!#<ÿB)ÿ"(1ÿ$B#)ÿ1(ÿ*)1!*"ÿ1(ÿ
-))ÿ09ÿ%4&)Kÿ+,4#<*)"Kÿ$"<ÿ/*$"<+,4#<*)"=ÿI"ÿ@A2Hÿ=ÿ],)*)$&1)*ÿIÿÿ")\)*ÿ\4-41)<ÿ09ÿ"$14\)ÿD(!"1*9ÿ4"ÿ
&)$*ÿ1,$1ÿIÿÿ%(!#<ÿB)ÿ7#$+)<ÿ("ÿ"(ÿ^	ÿ0#4-1ÿ^ÿB9ÿ8Dÿ'*)-4<)"1ÿ?$")1ÿY$7(#41$"(E-ÿ+(##)$/!)-ÿ&*(0ÿ8=5ÿ
:)7$*10)"1ÿ(&ÿ_(0)#$"<ÿ5)+!*419ÿ$"<ÿ%4##ÿB)ÿ"(ÿ$B#)ÿ1(ÿ+(0)B$+Jÿ1(ÿ85.ÿ$-ÿ41ÿ,$77)")<ÿ1(ÿ̀abcdÿ
efghiÿ%,(ÿ%$-ÿ7#$+)<ÿ$"<ÿÿ0$4"1$4")<ÿ("ÿ^Y(ÿÿ>#9ÿj4-1kÿÿ&(*ÿ0(*)ÿ1,$"ÿ-4;ÿ9)$*-ÿB)+$!-)ÿ,)ÿ*)&!-)<ÿ
1(ÿB)ÿ>lIE-ÿ4"&(*0)*ÿ=ÿ=ÿm7ÿnoÿ76oÿp979ÿÿ8n7q8rÿ4ACÿ>=s<ÿ2Assÿ241,ÿD4*=ÿ@A2t3ÿ
uvOÿwxyzO{|}xyÿhO~OyOÿh}zv|{ÿ<)$#ÿB)1%))"ÿD.I5Lÿ$"<ÿ8DL'E-ÿ%,41)ÿ+(##$*ÿ+*404"$#-ÿ4"ÿ
:)+)0B)*ÿ@A2Cÿ<4<ÿ"(1ÿ%(*Jÿ$-ÿÿ%,41)ÿ+(##$*ÿ+*404"$#ÿ$"14+47$1)<ÿÿB)+$!-)ÿ09ÿ<*!/0$<<4+1)<ÿ$11(*")9ÿ
(\)*0<*$&1)<ÿ1,)ÿF)##-ÿ>$*/(ÿ*)1$4")*ÿ$++(!"1=ÿ],)ÿB$"Jÿ+$##)<ÿ0)ÿB)+$!-)ÿ09ÿ"$0)ÿ%$-ÿ$11$+,)<ÿ1(ÿ
41Kÿ$"<ÿIÿ+$"+)##)<ÿ09ÿ1*47ÿ1(ÿ'(#$"<=ÿ.-ÿ0)"14(")<ÿ7*)\4(!-#9Kÿ1,)ÿ(%")*-ÿ(&ÿ1,)ÿ8D:6DE-ÿ@306Fÿ
+(/)")*$14("ÿ7#$"1ÿ&*(0ÿ?$"!$*9ÿs2Kÿ@AA4ÿ1,*(!/,ÿ:)+)0B)*ÿ@A2Cÿ#(-1ÿ$77*(;40$1)#9ÿG@Hÿ04##4("ÿ4"ÿ
1$;0&*))ÿ0(")9ÿ<!)ÿ1(ÿ1,)ÿ#$+Jÿ(&ÿ-!*7#!-ÿ7(%)*ÿ-$#)-ÿB)+$!-)ÿIÿ%$-ÿ"(1ÿJ4##)<Kÿ<)7(*1)<Kÿ(*ÿ7#$+)<ÿB9ÿ
Y$7(#41$"(E-ÿ:_5ÿ&*4)"<-ÿ("ÿ1,)ÿ"(0	ÿ#4-1=ÿ],)ÿ!");7)+1)<ÿ7*(B#)0-ÿ4"&!*4$1)<ÿ1,)ÿ8DL'E-ÿ%,41)ÿ
+(##$*ÿ+*404"$#-ÿ$"<ÿ1,)4*ÿ1,!/-=ÿÿ')*,$7-ÿÿ1,)ÿ8DL'ÿ+*((J-ÿ,$\)ÿ-(0)ÿ(1,)*ÿ("/(4"/ÿ&*$!<ÿ(7)*$14("ÿ
-4"+)ÿ@A2Cÿÿ(&ÿ%,4+,ÿIÿ$0ÿ"(1ÿ$%$*)ÿ$"<ÿÿ1,!-ÿ1,)9ÿ"))<)<ÿ$++)--ÿ1(ÿ7(%)*ÿ/*4<ÿ=ÿÿ
ffÿ ÿ
hfahÿuaÿcbiuÿbcafucbadÿc`ÿWrÿUVWÿiiufbÿfuÿhidfNibuÿ
chcwgÿaccrÿfwiÿhidfNibuÿaiÿfNibÿÿuiÿducuiÿcNfuÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
QRSTÿSVWXÿYZ[\]^[_ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̀abcdXefÿY]ghZ][^ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿijkXlmÿ[gn[onZ[ZZÿÿÿÿÿÿpVqXÿZroÿasÿrtr
!"#$%&'ÿ()%*$ÿ!*+(%#$ÿ,*&(+-ÿ.**ÿ%/$+*-ÿ"012*&)ÿ0+ÿ%#ÿ%"*ÿ34!4ÿ5($2"(&62ÿ!*$708*ÿ#+ÿ5($8"ÿ9:;ÿ942<ÿ%#ÿ
2*$7*ÿ(ÿ:0'*($ÿ)*-*$(&ÿ=$02#+ÿ2*+%*+8*ÿ0+ÿ>#$%ÿ?#$%";ÿ@*A(2;ÿ%B#ÿ#)ÿ"02ÿ)#$1*$ÿ8#&&*(C/*2;ÿD(&0)#$+0(ÿ
E22*1F&'1*1F*$2;ÿG"0&ÿ@0+Cÿ)$#1ÿ!(+ÿ>$(+8028#ÿ(+-ÿH*70+ÿ58D($%'ÿ)$#1ÿ!(8$(1*+%#;ÿ$*I/*2%*-ÿ(ÿ
2%(%*ÿ(/-0%4ÿÿ
@0+Cÿ(+-ÿ58D($%'J2ÿ$*I/*2%*-ÿ(/-0%ÿ"(-ÿ2010&($ÿ1*$0%2ÿ%#ÿ.**J2ÿ9424ÿ(/-0%;ÿB"08"ÿ*+-*-ÿ.**J2ÿ
8$/2(-*ÿ(C(0+2%ÿ%"*ÿ3DKGÿ1#F2%*$2ÿ(+-ÿ*+-*-ÿ"02ÿ-*20$*ÿ%#ÿF*8#1*ÿ1('#$ÿ#)ÿ!(+ÿ>$(+8028#ÿ(+-ÿ"02ÿ
)&#/$02"0+Cÿ=#&0%08(&ÿ8($**$4ÿ@"02ÿB(2ÿ(&&ÿF$#/C"%ÿ#+ÿF'ÿ(ÿ:0'*($ÿ)*-*$(&ÿ01=$02#+1*+%ÿ0+ÿ>#$%ÿ?#$%";ÿ
@*A(2ÿ)#&&#B0+Cÿ(ÿ!#70*%L!%(&0+02%02%'&*ÿ=$#2*8/%0#+ÿ(C(0+2%ÿ"014ÿ2**ÿMÿ
"%%=2MLLBBB428$0F-48#1L-#8/1*+%L:34:<9N4NL9424094940?0%8"0O/+%0G$#2*8/%0#+0(+-0
P+8($8($(%0#+0#)0%"*0D(&0)#$+0(0!*+(%#$0,*&(+-0.**ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ¡¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿ£¤¥¦§¨©ÿ ª« ¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¬®¯°ÿª±²±ÿÿÿÿÿÿ³´ÿµ«ÿ¤¶ÿµ·µ
ÿÿ ÿ!"#$%&ÿ'!!ÿ&!()!*$!+ÿ#"ÿ#)+,$ÿ,"ÿ-.2.ÿ$/#$ÿ0#*ÿ1!#"$ÿ$%ÿ)"2%3!&ÿ$/!ÿ!4$!"$ÿ%5ÿ$/!ÿ0#*$!6ÿ
5&#)+6ÿ#"+ÿ#7)*!ÿ0,$/,"ÿ$/!ÿ89ÿ#"+ÿ5,"#::;ÿ/%:+ÿ$/!ÿ)",3!&*,$;ÿ!4!2)$,3!*ÿ#22%)"$#7:!<ÿ=!ÿ#*>!+ÿ$/!ÿ
#)+,$%&*ÿ$%ÿ5%2)*ÿ*?!2,5,2#::;ÿ%"ÿ$/!ÿ89ÿ@55,2!ÿ%5ÿ$/!ÿA&!*,+!"$ÿB89@AC6ÿ$/!ÿ/!#+ÿ%55,2!ÿ%5ÿ$/!ÿ
8",3!&*,$;ÿ%5ÿ9#:,5%&",#6ÿ#"+ÿ$%ÿ$>ÿ0/!&!ÿ$/!ÿ89ÿD!$*ÿ,$*ÿ5)"+*ÿ#"+ÿ0/!&!ÿ!#2/ÿ+%::#&ÿD%!*<ÿ
?!2,5,2#::;6ÿ$/!ÿ#)+,$ÿ0#*ÿ$%ÿ5%::%0ÿ0/!&!ÿ?&,3#$!ÿ5)"+*6ÿ*$#$!ÿ5)"+*6ÿ*$)+!"$ÿ5!!*6ÿ#"+ÿ5!+!&#:ÿ5)"+*ÿ
#::ÿ!"+!+ÿ)?<ÿE/!ÿ#)+,$ÿ#:*%ÿ,"2:)+!+ÿ#ÿ*)&3!;ÿ%5ÿ0/,2/ÿ%)$*,+!ÿ%&D#",F#$,%"*ÿ$/!ÿ89ÿ?#;*ÿ1%",!*ÿ$%ÿ
#"+ÿ0/,2/ÿ5)"+*ÿ#&!ÿ)*!+ÿ$%ÿ?#;ÿ$/!1<ÿÿ
ÿÿ GHHIJKLMJIJKINÿPQRS6ÿ,"ÿ-.2T6ÿ0#*ÿ,"ÿ#ÿ:%$ÿ7!$$!&ÿ?%*,$,%"ÿUQVWÿWQHÿXYZQVÿXQJIZÿXVÿVWIÿ
[\]^ÿVWXRÿ_IIÿWXZÿKIIRÿQRÿ̀abacÿE,"D6ÿ#ÿ9/,"!*!0d1!&,2#"6ÿ0#*ÿ!:!2$!+ÿ$%ÿ$/!ÿ9dÿ$#$!ÿd**!17:;ÿ
,"ÿ-.2-ÿ&!?&!*!"$,"Dÿ$/!ÿ2e$/ÿd**!17:;ÿf,*$&,2$6ÿ0/,2/ÿ*?#"*ÿ$/!ÿ0!*$ÿ*,+!ÿ%5ÿ#"ÿg&#"2,*2%ÿ#"+ÿ$/!ÿ
2%11)",$,!*ÿ%5ÿh&%#+1%%&6ÿ9%:%1#6ÿf#:;ÿ9,$;6ÿ#"+ÿ%)$/ÿ#"ÿg&#"2,*2%<ÿ=!ÿ/#+ÿ7!!"ÿ#??%,"$!+ÿ#"ÿ
g&#"2,*2%i*ÿd**!**%&0j!2%&+!&ÿ,"ÿ-..kÿ7;ÿ$/!"0lXMmNÿnXoQRÿpIUHmJ6ÿ7!2%1,"Dÿ#"ÿg&#"2,*2%i*ÿ
WQSWIHVqNXRrQRSÿ\WQRIHIqGJINQsXRÿmttQsQXLÿXVÿVWIÿVQJIcÿ=!ÿ*!&3!+ÿ#*ÿ9/#,&ÿ%5ÿ$/!ÿd**!17:;ÿh)+D!$ÿ
9%11,$$!!ÿ#5$!&ÿ/#3,"Dÿ*!&3!+ÿ#*ÿ9/#,&ÿ%5ÿ$/!ÿd**!17:;ÿ9%11,$$!!ÿ%"ÿj!3!")!ÿ#"+ÿE#4#$,%"<ÿÿ
uIoQRÿls\XNVMÿ0#*ÿ!:!2$!+ÿ$%ÿ$/!ÿ9#:,5%&",#ÿ$#$!ÿd**!17:;ÿ,"ÿ-.2vÿ$%ÿ&!?&!*!"$ÿ$/!ÿw$/ÿ
d**!17:;ÿf,*$&,2$6ÿ0/,2/ÿ,"2:)+!*ÿ #2!"$%6ÿx!*$ÿ #2!"$%6ÿ#"+ÿ?#&$*ÿ%5ÿ)","2%&?%&#$!+ÿ
#2!"$%ÿ9%)"$;<ÿ=!ÿ*!&3!*ÿ#*ÿ9/#,&ÿ%5ÿ$/!ÿd**!17:;ÿh)+D!$ÿ)72%11,$$!!ÿ%"ÿy+)2#$,%"ÿg,"#"2!6ÿ
0/,2/ÿ%3!&*!!*ÿ$/!ÿ:#&D!*$ÿ2%1?%"!"$ÿ%5ÿ9#:,5%&",#i*ÿ1):$,07,::,%"ÿ+%::#&ÿ7)+D!$ÿB*!!ÿÿ
/$$?*z{{#.w<#*1+2<%&D{#&$,2:!{7,%D&#?/;C<ÿ
E,"Dÿ#"+ÿ|29#&$;6ÿ0,$/ÿ$/!,&ÿ?&%5!**,%"#:ÿ7#2>D&%)"+*6ÿ>"!0ÿ,"ÿ-.2Tÿ!4#2$:;ÿ0/#$ÿ$%ÿ:%%>ÿ5%&ÿ
0/!"ÿ&!()!*$,"Dÿ$/!ÿ*$#$!ÿ#)+,$ÿ#,1!+ÿ#$ÿ$/!ÿ89@A<ÿÿ
ÿ
}}}~cÿ ÿ
lG\ÿ̀ÿ̀abÿG^^\GP]pÿ]ÿGGÿ[lPPÿP]ÿÿqÿ[^\PÿPG}ÿ
~G]pÿGpÿG[ÿ~]GP]pÿ]ÿ\P]pÿab\ÿ]ÿPÿpPpGÿ
~p[ÿ\]ÿ]ÿbÿ_ÿPÿnpPÿ]ÿPÿ[p~P_ÿ]ÿ\G]pGÿ
ÿ
ÿ]RÿlXNsWÿ`ÿ`ab6ÿÿ#:1%*$ÿ*#1!ÿ$,1!ÿÿ!"#$%&ÿ!:#"+ÿ'!!ÿ0#*ÿ*!"$ÿ#0#;ÿ5&%1ÿ9#:,5%&",#ÿ6ÿÿÿ
*)71,$$!+ÿ$/!ÿd??:,2#$,%"ÿ5%&ÿd0#&+ÿ5%&ÿ@&,D,"#:ÿd??:,2#$,%"6ÿg%&1ÿ-.226ÿ$%ÿ$/!ÿj ÿx/,*$:!7:%0!&ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
VWXYÿX[\]ÿ^_`abc`dÿÿÿÿÿÿefghi]jkÿ^blm_b`cÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿnop]qrÿ̀ls̀ts_`__ÿÿÿÿÿÿu[v]ÿ_wdÿfxÿwyw
!""#$%ÿ&'(!)*ÿ#+ÿ!,-%+*ÿ./012ÿ31%ÿ0445#$0/#6+ÿ#+$57-%-ÿ869:ÿ4;22*ÿ0ÿ<=040,%ÿ5%//%9ÿ0--%+-7:*ÿ0+-ÿ
>=ÿ%?1#@#/Aÿ56-,%-ÿ@Bÿ/1%ÿCDEÿ'(!*ÿ0AÿF50#:ÿG62ÿ4;2HI;;J<32ÿ31%ÿKBÿÿCDEÿL445#$0/#6+ÿ"69ÿLM09-ÿ
"69ÿ!9#,#+05ÿL445#$0/#6+ÿ-%:6+A/90/%-ÿ:#55#6+Aÿ6"ÿ-65509Aÿ6"ÿ/0?ÿ%N0A#6+ÿ0+-ÿ"907-*ÿ-7%ÿ/6ÿ/1%ÿ#55%,05ÿ
496-7$/#6+ÿ6"ÿ/0?0"9%%ÿ46M%9ÿ0/ÿ/1%ÿ.FÿO0N#AÿK%-#$05ÿF%+/%9ÿ&.FOKF)ÿ4J0K'ÿ$6,%+%90/#6+ÿ450+/*ÿ
M1#$1ÿ/1%ÿCÿ-#9%$/5BÿM#/+%AA%-ÿM1%+ÿ1%ÿM0Aÿ%:456B%-ÿ0Aÿ0+ÿ64%90/69ÿ/1%9%ÿ2ÿÿ&E%%ÿP?1#@#/ÿQÿ4)ÿÿ
1//4ARSSMMM2A$9#@-2$6:S-6$7:%+/S<JHJJH3J<S.3F04;2H;>4>0CDE0'TCE3UP(U!'PD0F50#:0G60
4;2H0;;J<3ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤ÿ¥¦¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿ§¨ÿ©ªÿ«ÿ©ª©
ÿ
!!!"!#ÿ ÿ
%&'()ÿ+,-ÿ+./0-ÿ(1%23&"45ÿ51ÿÿ5)6ÿ(&3"71'4"&ÿ(1%%"88"14ÿ14ÿ
9:;"("&3ÿ26'71'%&4(6ÿ<((92=-&>&"485ÿ8&('&%6451ÿ(1:45?ÿ8:26'"1'ÿ
(1:'5ÿ9:;>6ÿ8)6336?&446ÿ@#3ÿÿ()&4>ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ1Aÿ%BCDEÿ+,-ÿ+./0-ÿÿFÿGHIJKLLMNÿOÿPQJRSOKTLÿLQÿÿLUMÿVOSKWQXTKOÿVQJJKGGKQTÿQTÿYHNKPKOSÿ
ZMXWQXJOTPMÿ[VVYZ\]O^OKTGLÿ_OPXOJMTLQÿVQHTL̀ÿ_HRMXKQXÿVQHXLÿYHN^Mÿ_UMSM`OTMÿÿÿVUOT^]ÿOÿPQR`ÿQWÿ
aUKPUÿaOGÿGHIJKLLMNÿLQÿLUMÿFb_ÿcdeÿaKLUÿLUMÿZMLKLKQTMXfGÿgOXPUÿh4]ÿhi2jÿkRRSKPOLKQTÿWQXÿkaOXNÿ
WQXÿeXK^KTOSÿkRRSKPOLKQTlÿÿ
kWLMXÿ^XONHOLKT^ÿWXQJÿSOaÿGPUQQS]ÿVUOT^ÿmQKTMNÿLUMÿeWWKPMÿQWÿLUMÿVUKMWÿVQHTGMSÿWQXÿLUMÿFb_]ÿaUMXMÿGUMÿ
KTKLKOSS̀ÿGMXnMNÿOGÿOÿLXKOSÿOLLQXTM`]ÿIMWQXMÿIMKT^ÿTOJMNÿOÿGMTKQXÿLXKOSÿOLLQXTM`lÿoHXKT^ÿUMXÿLKJMÿLUMXM]ÿ
VUOT^ÿXMRXMGMTLMNÿLUMÿFb_ÿKTÿPKnKSÿOTNÿPXKJKTOSÿLOpÿPOGMGlÿ_UMÿOSGQÿGMXnMNÿOGÿOÿGRMPKOSÿOGGKGLOTLÿql_lÿ
kLLQXTM`]ÿXMRXMGMTLKT^ÿLUMÿFb_ÿKTÿWMNMXOSÿIOTrXHRLP`ÿPQHXLlÿFTÿ2ss4]ÿVUOT^ÿmQKTMNÿLUMÿVOSKWQXTKOÿ
oMROXLJMTLÿQWÿYHGLKPMÿeWWKPMÿQWÿLUMÿkLLQXTM`ÿtMTMXOS]ÿaUMXMÿGUMÿGMXnMNÿOGÿOÿNMRHL̀ÿOLLQXTM`ÿ^MTMXOSÿ
WQXÿLUMÿTMpLÿGKpÿ̀MOXGlÿFTÿ2sss]ÿGUMÿIMPOJMÿLUMÿGMTKQXÿNMRHL̀ÿSM^OSÿOWWOKXGÿGMPXMLOX`ÿWQXÿLUMT0^QnMXTQXÿ
tXO`ÿoOnKGlÿoHXKT^ÿUMXÿLUXMM0`MOXÿLMTHXMÿLUMXM]ÿGUMÿaOGÿRXQJQLMNÿLQÿPUKMWÿNMRHL̀ÿSM^OSÿOWWOKXGÿGMPXMLOX`ÿ
LQÿLUMÿ^QnMXTQXlÿFTÿLUOLÿRQGKLKQT]ÿGUMÿONnKGMNÿGLOLMÿQWWKPMXGÿOTNÿ^QnMXTJMTLÿO^MTPKMGÿQTÿJOLLMXGÿQWÿ
SKLK^OLKQTÿOTNÿSM^KGSOLKQTÿKTnQSnKT^ÿ^QnMXTJMTLÿMLUKPGÿOTNÿQLUMXÿSM^OSÿJOLLMXGlÿ_UMÿGMXnMNÿKTÿLUOLÿ
POROPKL̀ÿOLÿLUMÿLKJMÿQWÿUMXÿBuuvwAxyzAxÿxvÿxEzÿ8{uzCwvCÿ(v{CxÿwAÿ+..,#ÿ
ÿ
!3#ÿ ÿ
%&'()ÿ++-ÿ+./0-ÿ(1%23&"45ÿ@"5)ÿ5)6ÿ85&56ÿ|&'ÿ17ÿ(&3"71'4"&ÿ
ÿ
eTÿgOXPUÿhh]ÿhi2j]ÿLUMÿFÿGHIJKLLMNÿOÿPQJRSOKTLÿLQÿLUMÿ_LOLMÿdOXÿQWÿVOSKWQXTKO]ÿeWWKPMÿQWÿLUMÿVUKMWÿ
}XOKSÿVQHTGMS]ÿKTÿ~QGÿkT^MSMG]ÿO^OKTGLÿLUMÿWQSSQaKT^ÿLaMTL̀0LUXMMÿaKLPUÿUHTLMXGÿOTNÿUHJOTÿXK^ULGÿ
nKQSOLQXG]ÿJQGLÿQWÿÿaMXMÿLUMÿÿaKLPUÿUHTLMXGÿOTNÿLUH^GÿOGGK^TMNÿI`ÿLUMÿqTKnMXGKL̀ÿQWÿVOSKWQXTKOÿ
eWWKPMÿQWÿVOSKWQXTKOÿ[qVeZ\ÿJQIGLMXÿÿLQÿNMGLXQ`ÿJMÿKTÿLaQÿGMROXOLMÿaKLPUÿUHTLGÿQWÿhii0hii3ÿOTNÿ
hi220hi2hÿ6!)"|"5ÿ+ÿvAÿBEÿCwzÿBA ÿ;;ÿ=ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
hijkÿjmnoÿpqrsturvÿÿÿÿÿÿwxyz{o|}ÿpt~qtruÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿoÿr~rqrqqÿÿÿÿÿÿmoÿq~ÿxÿ
ÿ
!ÿ#$%&'()ÿ*+&',-.(ÿ/,01-),-2ÿ345ÿ6227289ÿ
!ÿ3:(;(-ÿ<&-,'=ÿ>&,?-2ÿ345ÿ6228@38ÿ
!ÿA%&(-ÿB(-)(-ÿC(:&+'%D1)2ÿ345ÿ62@397Eÿ
!ÿF%&.%&(:ÿG,+1)%ÿH+2ÿ345ÿ62342@9ÿ
!ÿ#I-:$1%ÿ<--ÿJ&,,K2ÿ345ÿ627849Lÿ
!ÿB,$-ÿ<''(-ÿG,$)(2ÿ345ÿ628ME93ÿ
!ÿ3:(N$(-ÿO=?%&=ÿ#$1'P,::2ÿ345ÿ628@8LMÿ
!ÿ>%-1('ÿF,&&1)ÿ>,,'(I2ÿ345ÿ69L@94ÿ
!ÿ>%-()$%ÿ51P,'(ÿ51P$,')2ÿ345ÿ6EEE9934ÿ
!ÿ4&(-:ÿB,$-ÿ3(1Q(&:2ÿ345ÿ6E487LMÿ
!ÿ>%;1=ÿF%&DÿG(;1-(2ÿ345ÿ6EM2ME7ÿ
!ÿ<--%ÿR&',?)D12ÿ345ÿ62MMM99ÿ
!ÿS&%;1)ÿB%K()ÿG1-=)(I2ÿ345ÿ6EEL87Mÿ
!ÿH(-=1ÿBTÿ>('K(-=,2ÿ345ÿ6299738ÿ
!ÿF1%ÿ4('D2ÿ345ÿ6E2@38Lÿ
!ÿF%&1'I-ÿO'1U%0(:$ÿS%I)2ÿ345ÿ62M379Lÿ
!ÿF1P$%('ÿ<''(-2ÿ345ÿ63@392ÿ
ÿ
!ÿ>%&&('ÿ3:(1-0(&.2ÿ345ÿ6224M33ÿ
!ÿF1P$%('ÿH1''1%KÿC,::ÿVÿ345ÿ623@2M@ÿ
!ÿW)K%('ÿ<Tÿ#%):&,ÿVÿ345ÿ63M4MEÿ
!ÿ<)$%-:(ÿGTÿ5,&:,-ÿVÿ345ÿ6EL737@ÿ
!ÿB%P,0ÿ<=%Kÿ<NN'()K1:$ÿVÿ345ÿ627M3MLÿ
!ÿB1''ÿ5,('ÿJ%-=(;1;(&ÿVÿ345ÿ6EE98L2ÿ
ÿ
S$(ÿ%0,;(ÿÿ'1):(=ÿ?1:P$ÿ$+-:(&)ÿ%-=ÿ;1,'%:,&)ÿ,QÿKIÿÿP1;1'ÿ%-=ÿ$+K%-ÿ&1.$:)ÿ?(&(ÿ'1P(-)(=ÿ0Iÿ3:%:(ÿ4%&ÿ
,Qÿ#%'1Q,&-1%TÿS$(Iÿ$%=ÿ:1:'()ÿ1-P'+=1-.ÿ0+:ÿ-,:ÿ'1K1:(=ÿ:,Xÿ/(.(-:)ÿ,Qÿ:$(ÿY#2ÿ.(-(&%'ÿP,+-)(')2ÿ
(Z(P+:1;(ÿ=1&(P:,&)2ÿN&()1=(-:)ÿ%-=ÿ)(-1,&ÿ;1P(ÿN&()1=(-:)2ÿP$1(QÿP,KN'1%-P(ÿ,QQ1P(&)2ÿN&1-P1N%'ÿ
1-;():1.%:,&)2ÿP$1(Qÿ(Z(P+:1;(ÿ,QQ1P(&)ÿ[#OR)\2ÿ)+N(&;1)1-.ÿ=(N+:Iÿ%::,&-(Iÿ.(-(&%')2ÿ%=K1-1):&%:1;(ÿ'%?ÿ
]+=.()2ÿ#YW<4ÿK(K0(&)2ÿ$+K%-ÿ&(),+&P(ÿ[^/\ÿK%-%.(&)ÿ%-=ÿ)+N(&;1),&)2ÿ(:PTÿS$&,+.$ÿ:$(1&ÿ
=()N1P%0'(ÿP,-)N1&%PIÿ%-=ÿ:$(1&ÿ=1)&(.%&=ÿQ,&ÿ&+'()2ÿN,'1P1()2ÿ%-=ÿ'%?)2ÿ:$(Iÿ$+-:(=ÿK(ÿ=,?-ÿ%-=ÿ,:$(&)ÿ
%-=ÿ%::(KN:(=ÿ:,ÿD1''ÿK(ÿ,-ÿ_`aÿcdeÿfgdfÿ1-ÿ1''ÿ,&P$():&%:(=ÿ0+:ÿ+-)+PP())Q+'ÿN&,;,P%:1,-Tÿÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
UVWXÿWZ[\ÿ]^_`ab_cÿÿÿÿÿÿdefgh\ijÿ]akl^a_bÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿmno\pqÿ_kr_sr^_^^ÿÿÿÿÿÿtZu\ÿ^b_ÿevÿwxw
!"#$ÿ ÿ
ÿ &'(#"ÿ*+ÿ,-*.ÿ/0ÿ1&2ÿ3#456ÿ17/3427ÿ2481'&'4(ÿ794ÿ5/&(3#&2ÿ
&(7#0"4ÿ:ÿ19&;4ÿ62ÿ<&247ÿ2&'6"#7&26ÿ=6(ÿ(#55#25ÿ794ÿ&$1ÿ4"407#62>ÿ
ÿ
?@@ABCDDEFBGHEIJGKIL$MJHD,-*.D-ND-*DB?IOPQMLQRILP@QLIAMSK@ILMQTMJQJKHHKLHQ@?PQIQBQPSPF@KMLBDÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¦£§ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̈©ª«¬ ®ÿ¡¥¯°¢¥£¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ±²³´µÿ£¯¶£·¶¢£¢¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̧¹ ÿ¢¦¥ÿ©ºÿ»¼»
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$%ÿ&'%()(*+#&+($),*ÿ-./-01ÿ34/567765384ÿ89ÿ/:;<6=0ÿ84ÿ>?ÿ/5.1045ÿ641ÿ96@.75;ÿ
10A3@0/ÿB&#C(B#ÿ+D(*ÿEB&#ÿ+$ÿ+DBÿ'(*+()F+CEÿG)H#B'(F+&ICBÿJKLKÿF&%H&(M)ÿG)N$C'()MÿIBN$#Bÿ
G*Oÿ(+,*ÿFCB&#ÿ+D&+ÿ*$%B+D()Mÿ(*ÿGHPÿQ-3/ÿ/8R05-34SÿTÿ5-0ÿ>?UVÿW.6=1364ÿX1358=367ÿ
Y86=1ÿ@849310457;ÿZ0730A0/ÿTÿ-6/ÿ6ÿ46R0Pÿ[5\/ÿ]6405ÿ^6:8735648Pÿ
_NÿE$Gÿ#BF&CCOÿ̀&H$C(+&)$ÿ&)'ÿ+DBÿa)(bB#*(+Eÿ$Nÿc&C(N$#)(&ÿdNN(FBÿ$Nÿ+DBÿe=0/31045ÿ
34/567701ÿTÿ<35-ÿ56f:6;0=ÿ18776=/ÿTÿ/:;<6=0ÿ/;/50R/ÿ6@=8//ÿ5-0ÿ>?ÿ/;/50Rÿ()ÿ&)ÿ
&++B%H+ÿ+$ÿH#BbB)+ÿI#B&FDB*ÿ+D&+ÿD&HHB)B'ÿ&+ÿacgJÿ&)'ÿ&+ÿacÿhB#iBCBEKÿjD(*ÿM(bB*ÿ+DB%ÿ
G)NB++B#B'ÿ&FFB**ÿ+$ÿ+DBÿ*B&#FDB*ÿ$Nÿ*+G'B)+*ÿ&)'ÿH#$NB**$#*ÿ&C(iBOÿFB#+&()CEÿ()FCG'()Mÿ
*B&#FDÿD(*+$#(B*Kÿ_+ÿ(*ÿk(+Dÿ+D(*ÿ'&+&ÿ+D&+ÿ̀&H$C(+&)$ÿk&*ÿ&ICBÿ+$ÿD&Fiÿ()+$ÿ+DBÿJ%&l$)ÿ
k(*DÿC(*+*ÿ$Nÿ+DBÿF&)'('&+B*ÿN$#ÿacLm,*ÿJKLKÿBCBF+($)*OÿHG#FD&*BÿBbB#Eÿ*()MCBÿCGnG#($G*Oÿ
'#B&%EÿH#$'GF+ÿ0ÿ)BkÿB'(+($)*ÿ$Nÿ+Bn+I$$i*ÿ&)'ÿL+G'B)+ÿg$&)ÿc$GH$)*Oÿ+$ÿ)&%Bÿ&ÿF$GHCBÿ
0ÿ&)'ÿI#(IBÿF&)'('&+B*ÿk(+Dÿ+DBÿF$)+B)+*ÿ$Nÿ+DB(#ÿC(*+*Oÿ()ÿBnFD&)MBÿN$#ÿ&ÿ'#$H$G+ÿN#$%ÿ+DBÿ
#&FBKoÿpLBBÿD++H*qrrGF*'MG&#'(&)K$#Mrst24rturt2r*D&%B0$)0v&)B+0)&H$C(+&)$0N$#0#(MM()M0
+DB0&0*0BCBF+($)*rwKÿ
xy[[Pÿ ÿ
{e|[yÿ}}~ÿ}~ÿ[^>[|ÿ[Q ÿ>PUPÿ{QQ|^XÿYX^]{[^ÿYPÿ{W^X|~ÿ
X{UQX|^ÿV[UQ|[?Qÿÿ?{y[|^[{ÿ
ÿ
"$CC$k()Mÿ%EÿF$%HC&()+ÿ+$ÿ+DBÿ_LOÿ+DBÿL+&+Bÿh&#ÿ$Nÿc&C(N$#)(&Oÿ&)'ÿ+DBÿL+&+Bÿ$Nÿc&C(N$#)(&ÿ
c$%%(**($)ÿ$)ÿG'(F(&CÿB#N$#%&)FBÿ()ÿJH#(Cÿst24Oÿ_ÿ*GI%(++B'ÿ&)ÿ()G(#Eÿ+$ÿ+DBÿ$G+M$()MÿaKLKÿ
J++$#)BEÿhB)v&%()ÿhKÿ&M)B#Oÿ()ÿD$HB*ÿ+D&+ÿDBÿk$GC'ÿI#()MÿF#(%()&CÿFD&#MB*ÿ&M&()*+ÿ+DBÿacÿ
BMB)+*ÿ'GBÿ+$ÿ+DBÿ%GC+(%(CC($)0'$CC&#ÿNB'B#&Cÿ+&nÿN#&G'ÿ#BC&+()Mÿ+$ÿ+DBÿG)C&kNGCÿMB)B#&+($)ÿ&)'ÿ
H$kB#ÿ*&CBÿN#$%ÿ2st2ÿIEÿ+DBÿacmc*ÿs0ÿF$MB)B#&+($)ÿH$kB#ÿHC&)+ÿ&)'ÿN$#ÿ+DBÿ
'B*+#GF+($)ÿ$Nÿ%Eÿ&)'ÿ%EÿN&%(CE,*ÿC(bB*ÿ&)'ÿM#$**ÿb($C&+($)*ÿ$Nÿ%EÿF(b(Cÿ&)'ÿDG%&)ÿ#(MD+*ÿ
pXx [Y[Qÿÿ84ÿ976/-ÿ1=3A0ÿ641ÿVVwKÿ
ÿ4ÿ{:=37ÿ~ÿ}Oÿ)()Bÿ'&E*ÿ&N+B#ÿ_ÿ*B)+ÿ%Eÿ()G(#Eÿ+$ÿ&M)B#OÿDBÿ#B*(M)B'ÿBNNBF+(bBÿ
JH#(CÿtOÿst24ÿ&)'ÿk&*ÿ#BHC&FB'ÿIEÿD(C(Hÿj&CIB#+OÿN#$%ÿm&b(*Oÿc&C(N$#)(&Kÿj&CIB#+ÿIBF&%Bÿ&ÿaKLKÿ
J++$#)BEÿk(+D$G+ÿ&ÿH#B*('B)+(&Cÿ&HH$()+%B)+ÿ+DB)0J++$#)BEÿB)B#&Cÿg$#B++&ÿgE)FDÿ&HH$()+B'ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
stuvÿuxyzÿ{|}~}ÿÿÿÿÿÿzÿ{|}ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿzÿ}}|}||ÿÿÿÿÿÿxzÿ||ÿÿ
!"#$%&'ÿ'(%ÿ)%*ÿ+'',&)%-ÿ,.ÿ'(%ÿ/"0'%&)ÿ120'&23'ÿ,.ÿ4"#2.,&)2"ÿ5)'2#ÿ6&%027%)'ÿ8$"9"ÿ3,5#7ÿ"::,2)'ÿ
"ÿ)%*ÿ;<=<ÿ+'',&)%-ÿ>0%%ÿ
('':0?@@***<A50'23%<B,C@50",0%73"@:&@5)2'%700'"'%00"'',&)%-0*"B)%&0")),5)3%00(200&%02B)"'2,)D<ÿ6&2,&ÿ
',ÿEF2GHÿIÿ727ÿ),'ÿJ),*ÿ'("'Hÿ.&,9ÿEFFKLEF2MHÿN"B)%&ÿ("7ÿ(")7#%7ÿ"ÿ.&"57ÿ3"0%ÿ"B"2)0'ÿ9-ÿ%9:#,-%&Hÿ
;4ÿ1"C20<ÿÿ
I)ÿEF2MHÿN"B)%&ÿ")),5)3%7ÿ'("'ÿ'(%ÿ;4ÿO%B%)'0ÿ("7ÿ"B&%%7ÿ',ÿ:"-ÿ'(%ÿ;)2'%7ÿ='"'%0ÿPQRRSTUUÿ
WXÿYZ[X\]Zÿ^Y_`W[ÿaY_bcÿdXeefWWZcÿ_^_f̀[WÿgZh_YWeZ`WÿXaÿi`ZY^jÿkglimÿ_`cÿWnZÿo_WfX`_\ÿpdfZ`dZÿ
qXb`c_WfX`ÿkopqmrÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
hijkÿjmnoÿpqrsturvÿÿÿÿÿÿwxyz{o|}ÿpt~qtruÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿoÿr~rqrqqÿÿÿÿÿÿmoÿquÿxÿ
!"ÿ#$%&$'(ÿ)*0&+ÿ,-."/"0123-/ÿ451/2ÿ0"613/(ÿ7/8"0ÿ2!"ÿ%9:ÿ;"8"015ÿ:/"0.<ÿ=".7512-0<ÿ
$-663((3-/>(ÿ?;:=$@ÿA703(83,23-/Bÿ1(ÿ10"ÿ155ÿ4-C"0ÿ451/2(ÿ1/8ÿ,-."/"0123-/ÿ451/2(ÿ3/ÿ2!"ÿ#DEDÿÿ
FGHHHIÿ ÿ
KLMHGÿOPQÿRSOTÿGUVVUMÿWMXYÿZI[Qÿ[U\KVXMÿ]HK\\UÿWUH\[VUH\ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
E"/12-0ÿ%31/"ÿ;"3/(2"3/'(ÿ!7(^1/8Bÿ=3,!108ÿ_576BÿC1(ÿ1ÿ#$ÿ="."/2ÿ144-3/2"8ÿ^<ÿ̀-ÿa"0/-0ÿ
`01<ÿ%1a3(ÿ3/ÿ)bb*Dÿc"ÿC1(ÿ2!"ÿ-/"ÿC!-Bÿ3/ÿ%","6^"0ÿ)bbdBÿ-08"0"8ÿ2!"ÿ#$9eÿ2!7.(ÿ2-ÿ!7/2ÿ6"ÿ
8-C/ÿ1/8Bÿ3/ÿ&10,!ÿ)bb*Bÿ7/(7,,"((f755<ÿ122"642"8ÿ2-ÿ2"063/12"ÿ6<ÿ"645-<6"/2DÿgÿC1(ÿ1^07425<ÿ
0"6-a"8ÿf0-6ÿ2!"ÿ)*0&+ÿ,-."/"0123-/ÿ451/2ÿC!35"ÿ0",-a"03/.ÿf0-6ÿ-4"/ÿ!"102ÿ(70."0<Dÿ!"ÿ451/2ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¢£¤¥ÿ¤§¨©ÿª«¬®¯¬°ÿÿÿÿÿÿ±²³´µ©¶·ÿª®¸¹«®¬¯ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿº»¼©½¾ÿ¬¸¿¬À¿«¬««ÿÿÿÿÿÿÁ§Â©ÿ«¯¯ÿ²ÃÿÄÅÄ
!"#ÿ$%&ÿ#'()&*$ÿ+,ÿ-.ÿ/"0*%ÿ123ÿ1425ÿ"67ÿ8'9'#$ÿ23ÿ1423ÿ8::;<*"$<+6ÿ,+0ÿ8!"07ÿ,+0ÿ=0<9<6";ÿ
>6,+0-"$<+6ÿ?>@AÿB+0-ÿ122Cÿ"67ÿ<#ÿ#$<;;ÿ:&67<69ÿ"#ÿ"ÿ(+$*%&7ÿ"::&";ÿ<6ÿ$%&ÿE6<$&7ÿA$"$&#ÿF+'0$ÿ+,ÿ
8::&";ÿ,+0ÿ$%&ÿG<#$0<*$ÿ+,ÿF+;'-(<"ÿ"#ÿHIJKLMINÿHIPQLRÿSILRTRQUÿVWÿXYZÿ[K\\]LL]KP^J3ÿEAF8ÿ_+ÿ̀
1402a4bÿ̀
cdefgÿ ÿ
iejklÿlmnjÿoepqrÿojÿmkÿrofesÿklonkqddtuÿdenroÿvojqleÿonrÿwonqjÿ
noxtdejontysÿoxuedÿz{|ÿz}~ÿdqjjquÿxdokenÿvojqleÿtnÿ}ÿrosyÿ
orpenesjuojefqÿdqofqÿ
8,$&0ÿA&6"$+0ÿ&&ÿ!"#ÿ!<$*%ÿ%'6$&73ÿ:0+#&*'$&73ÿ"67ÿ#&6$&6*&7ÿ$+ÿ,<&ÿ.&"0#ÿ<6ÿ,&7&0";ÿ:0<#+6ÿ+6ÿ
B&(0'"0.ÿ1a3ÿ14253ÿ"6&$ÿ_":+;<$"6+ÿ+0*%&#$0"$&7ÿ"ÿ(+9'#ÿ!<$*%ÿ%'6$ÿ"9"<6#$ÿEFÿG"<#ÿF%"6*&;;+0ÿ
<67"ÿ"$&%<ÿ$+ÿ7<&0$ÿ"$$&6$<+6ÿ,0+-ÿ&&#ÿ:0+#&*'$<+6ÿ̀A%&ÿ*";;&7ÿ+6ÿ$%&ÿEF=ÿ-+(#$&0#ÿ$+9&$%&0ÿ
!<$%ÿ%&0ÿ,0<&67#3ÿB>ÿG<0&*$+0ÿ@+(&0$ÿ/'&;;&0ÿ"67ÿEÀÿ̀8$$+06&.ÿ/&;<67"ÿ""9ÿ?14241425Cÿ̀%<#ÿ
%"::&6&7ÿ",$&0ÿ"6ÿ'6#'**&##,';ÿ"$$&-:$ÿ$+ÿ<;;ÿ+0ÿ%"0-ÿ&&ÿ<6ÿ$%&ÿ7&"7;.ÿA&:$&-(&0ÿ43ÿ1424ÿ6"$'0";ÿ
9"#ÿ:<:&;<6&ÿ&:;+#<+6ÿ<6ÿ&&#ÿ7<#$0<*$3ÿA"6ÿ0'6+#ÿ+;7&0ÿF0&#$-++0ÿ6&<9%(+0%++73ÿ!%<*%ÿ<;;&7ÿ&<9%$ÿ
:&+:;&3ÿ<6)'0&7ÿ33ÿ"67ÿ7"-"9&7ÿ243ÿ%+-ÿ23ÿ+,ÿ!%<*%ÿ!&0&ÿ*+-:;&$&;.ÿ7&#$0+.&7ÿ̀
ÿ&&ÿ*+--'$&7ÿ7"<;.ÿ,0+-ÿ%<#ÿ+,,<*&ÿ"$ÿ$%&ÿA$"$&ÿF":<$+;ÿ<6ÿA"*0"-&6$+ÿ$+ÿ-&&$ÿ%<#ÿ*+6#$<$'&6$#ÿ"$ÿ
7".$<-&ÿ"67ÿ&&6<69ÿ-&&$<69#ÿ"0+'67ÿA"6ÿB0"6*<#*+ÿ"67ÿA"6ÿ/"$&+ÿF+'6$<&#ÿ̀>6ÿ14243ÿ&&ÿ#:&6$ÿ
322a5̀5ÿ+6ÿ9"#ÿ*+--'$<69ÿ$+ÿ%<#ÿ7<#$0<*$ÿ,0+-ÿ$%&ÿA$"$&ÿF":<$+;ÿ<6ÿA"*0"-&6$+ÿ̀&ÿ!"#ÿ6+$ÿ<6ÿA"6ÿ
0'6+ÿ+6ÿ$%&ÿ7".ÿ+,ÿ$%&ÿ&:;+#<+6ÿ̀
B>ÿG<0&*$+0ÿ/'&;;&0ÿ6&&0ÿ+07&0&7ÿ"6ÿ<6&#$<9"$<+6ÿ$+ÿ,<67ÿ+'$ÿ!%&$%&0ÿ$%&ÿA"6ÿ0'6+ÿ&:;+#<+6ÿ
!"#ÿ"6ÿ"*$ÿ+,ÿ$&00+0<#-ÿ̀8,$&0ÿ$%&ÿ&:;+#<+63ÿ%&ÿ+07&0&7ÿ%<#ÿ#'(+07<6"$&#ÿ,0+-ÿA"6ÿB0"6*<#*+ÿ$+ÿ,0"-&ÿ
"67ÿ&6$0":ÿ&&3ÿ0&-+<69ÿ%<-ÿ,0+-ÿ$%&ÿ:+;<$<*";ÿ;"67#*":&ÿ"67ÿ:0&&6$<69ÿ%<#ÿ7&#<0&ÿ$+ÿ(&*+-&ÿ-".+0ÿ
+,ÿA"6ÿB0"6*<#*+ÿ̀ÿ
_":+;<$"6+3ÿ<6ÿ%&0ÿ8:0<;ÿ1b3ÿ1425ÿ;&$$&0ÿ$+ÿ<67"ÿ"$&%<3ÿ#$"$&7ÿ
ÿG&"0ÿ<67"3ÿ
>ÿ"-ÿ!0<$<69ÿ$+ÿ<6,+0-ÿ.+'ÿ$%"$ÿ>ÿ"-ÿ:;"*<69ÿ.+'ÿ+6ÿ:"<7ÿ"7-<6<#$0"$<&ÿ;&"&3ÿ
&,,&*$<&ÿ<--&7<"$&;.ÿ̀jÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ}ÿ¡3ÿ'6;&##ÿ
+$%&0!<#&ÿ&$&67&7ÿ':+6ÿ"::0+";ÿ(.ÿ%&ÿ@&9&6$#ÿ̀
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
XYZ[ÿZ]^_ÿ̀abcdebfÿÿÿÿÿÿghijk_lmÿ̀dnoadbeÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿpqr_stÿbnubvuabaaÿÿÿÿÿÿw]x_ÿaevÿhyÿz{z
!"ÿ$"%&'&"%&"(ÿ$")&*($+,(-.ÿ/$00ÿ1&ÿ,''-$"(&%ÿ(-ÿ.&)$&/ÿ,00&+,($-"*ÿ
2-"2&."$"+ÿ/3&(3&.ÿ(3&.&ÿ3,)&ÿ1&&"ÿ*&.$-4*ÿ)$-0,($-"*ÿ-5ÿ6"$)&.*$(7ÿ
'-0$278ÿ9:;ÿ<=>;?@<AB@<C=ÿD<EEÿF;ÿGCHIE;@;JÿB?ÿ;KI;J<@<CL?EMÿB?ÿIC??<FE;NÿFL@ÿ
F;OCP;ÿ@:;ÿOBEEÿCOÿ@:;ÿQ42R02SÿBGBJ;H<GÿM;BP8ÿT:<E;ÿUÿIP;><CL?EMÿ:B>;ÿ?:BP;Jÿ
D<@:ÿMCLÿ@:;ÿ<??L;?ÿ@:B@ÿL=J;PE<;ÿ@:<?ÿ<=>;?@<AB@<C=ÿ<=ÿCLPÿH;;@<=AÿC=ÿVIP<EÿQWNÿ
Q42RNÿUÿDB=@ÿ@CÿBAB<=ÿP;<@;PB@;ÿD:B@ÿ@:C?;ÿHB@@;P?ÿ;=@B<E8ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#ÿ"%&'ÿ()*+,-*.ÿÿÿÿÿÿ/0123'45ÿ(,67),*-ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ89:';<ÿ*6=*>=)*))ÿÿÿÿÿÿ?%@'ÿ)-7ÿ0AÿBCB
ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
XYZ[ÿZ]^_ÿ̀abcdebfÿÿÿÿÿÿghijk_lmÿ̀dnoadbeÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿpqr_stÿbnubvuabaaÿÿÿÿÿÿw]x_ÿaefÿhyÿz{z
ÿ "#ÿ$%&'(ÿ)*+ÿ),-./ÿ0123456731ÿ2893:21;56:<45=6ÿ>::8?@2A?87/ÿB=3:ÿ>28C5/ÿB56871ÿD57E128:/ÿ
F3G8ÿD1;5/ÿ17HÿI68HH38ÿJ5H639=8EKÿ17Hÿ578ÿL;1;8ÿL871;56/ÿM582ÿ>7H86:57<4822ÿ456ÿN1O523;175P:ÿQ51Rÿ
17Hÿ:87;ÿ1ÿ28;;86ÿ57ÿ>O632ÿ4S/ÿ4T2Uÿ;5ÿN1O523;175ÿH8?17H379ÿ;Q1;ÿV1;8Q3ÿ68:397Wÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¦£§ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̈©ª«¬ ®ÿ¡¥¯°¢¥£¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ±²³´µÿ£¯¶£·¶¢£¢¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̧¹ ÿ¢¦ºÿ©»ÿ¼º¼
!"ÿ$%&'(ÿÿ)*+,-ÿ.ÿ/0122ÿ314546ÿ780491ÿ8/ÿ:;ÿ8634</8<;=ÿ>?ÿ94<ÿ580@9ÿ8/ÿA98?@422B<-ÿ:;ÿ
4:C2B;:4?0ÿ5109ÿDAEFAÿ58/ÿ04<:1?8046ÿB?ÿE4@4:G4<ÿH-ÿIJ2I-ÿ8K04<ÿ05Bÿ/4C8<804ÿ8?6ÿ:4<@124//ÿ
510@9ÿ9L?0/-ÿ1?ÿIJJMNIJJOÿ8?6ÿIJ22NIJ2I=ÿPK04<ÿ08Q1?Rÿ8ÿ@2B/4<ÿ2BBQÿ80ÿ5980ÿ98CC4?46ÿ0BÿS4?80B<ÿ
T44ÿ8?6ÿ5980ÿ58/ÿ98CC4?1?Rÿ0BÿA98?@422B<ÿ780491-ÿ094ÿ/@4?8<1BÿBKÿ094ÿ510@9ÿ9L?0/ÿ81:46ÿ80ÿ094:ÿ
54<4ÿ?B0ÿ:L@9ÿ61KK4<4?0ÿ098?ÿ5980ÿ.ÿ986ÿG44?ÿ4UC4<14?@1?R-ÿ591@9ÿ1?@2L646ÿ8?ÿL?/L@@4//KL2ÿ8004:C0ÿ
0BÿC<B3BQ4ÿ:4ÿ8?6ÿQ122ÿ:4ÿB?ÿF8;ÿ42-ÿIJ2Iÿ8?6ÿ094<48K04<ÿ0BÿCB<0<8;ÿ:4-ÿ5109ÿ8ÿ61/0<1GL046ÿCB/04<-ÿ
21Q4ÿ8ÿ:B/0ÿ58?046ÿ04<<B<1/0=ÿÿ
V980ÿ@8LR90ÿ:;ÿ8004?01B?ÿ8GBL0ÿ094ÿK134ÿ24R1/280B</Wÿ64:8?6/ÿ0BÿK1<4ÿ780491ÿ58/ÿ94<ÿ64@1/1B?ÿ
0BÿC86ÿ94<ÿXY)YZ[,*ÿ\]^%]_`&abc"d`dÿefÿ/828<;ÿ5109ÿBL0/164ÿ8@0131014/ÿg_ÿh`&i'"jÿk"ÿ\l`ÿgk]&dhÿkbÿ
d'&`m\k&hÿkbÿgk\lÿn`o&_ÿe"'i`&h'\_ÿ]"dÿ\`^\gkkpÿ%cg('hl`&ÿqkl"ÿr'(`_ÿ]"dÿsk"htÿ
!"ÿu_ÿv]&mlÿ)YZÿ)*+,ÿ24004<ÿ010246ÿw4xÿDAÿE831/ÿA98?@422B<ÿy1?68ÿ780491ÿ8?6ÿV164/C<486ÿ
AB<<LC01B?ÿ1?ÿ094ÿD?134</10;ÿBKÿA821KB<?18ÿDAÿS;/04:-0ÿ>C4?ÿy4004<ÿzBÿS0804ÿ>KÿA821KB<?18ÿP//4:G2;ÿ
F4:G4</ÿyBL1/ÿP24{B-ÿ7431?ÿF@A8<0;-ÿyB<4?8ÿ|B?}824/ÿP?6ÿ~1:ÿABBC4<ÿ!!ÿÿk"ÿb(]hlÿ
d&'i`ÿ]"dÿnon-ÿ.ÿCB1?046ÿBL0ÿ0Bÿ094ÿK134ÿ21/046ÿP//4:G2;ÿF4:G4</ÿ0980ÿDAÿ|4?4<82ÿABL?/42ÿA98<24/ÿ
wBG1?/B?ÿ58/ÿC8661?Rÿ91/ÿJJ-JJJÿ08UC8;4<0KL?646ÿDAÿ/828<;ÿ5109ÿBL0/164ÿ8@0131014/ÿ8/ÿ1?ÿ094ÿ/8:4ÿ
58;ÿ780491ÿ986=ÿ.?ÿ866101B?ÿ0Bÿ91/ÿCB/101B?ÿ8/ÿDAÿ|4?4<82ÿABL?/42-ÿwBG1?/B?ÿ98/ÿ82/Bÿ/4<346ÿ/1?@4ÿ
IJ22ÿB?ÿ094ÿk]&dÿkbÿn'&`m\k&hÿ]\ÿqvÿ!"\`&mk""`m\'k"=ÿ
ÿ
otÿ ÿ
!ÿÿq$ÿ$!$sÿv$ÿ+Zÿ)*+,ÿv!ÿr!ÿs!nÿ
$$fÿ$v$Zÿo!fÿs!nÿqÿ!naÿv$fÿ[*Zÿ)*+,ÿÿvÿ
!sÿs$f$vÿ!nÿ!fÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
"ÿ$%&'(ÿ[*Zÿ)*+,-ÿ8?ÿ.ÿ8R4?0ÿ@82246ÿ:4ÿ80ÿ:;ÿ<4/164?@4-ÿ8?6ÿ.ÿG<14K46ÿ91:ÿKB<ÿ<BLR92;ÿ2Mÿ0Bÿ4Jÿ
:1?L04/ÿ8GBL0ÿ094ÿ08Uÿ438/1B?ÿ094ÿDA>ÿ:BGÿ986ÿ@B::10046ÿ6L4ÿ094ÿL?285KL2ÿC<B6L@01B?ÿ8?6ÿ/824ÿBKÿ
CB54<ÿG;ÿ094ÿDAEFAW/ÿIH0FVÿ@BR4?4<801B?ÿC28?0ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿ*.7ÿ1BÿCDC
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¢£¤¥¦§ÿ̈©ª ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ«¬®ÿ̄©°±°ÿÿÿÿÿÿ²³ÿ±ÿ£ÿ́µ¶µ
!"#$%ÿ ÿ
()*+,ÿ*)-."$,)*./0ÿ1+*213+*ÿ3+"$*4)ÿ1))5ÿ)*4ÿ3256+5.6ÿ02.,,ÿ
ÿ
78ÿ9:;ÿ<=>?@ÿABCÿAD2EÿF?9G:ÿ:H89ÿ@;99;>ÿ=@IG?8JÿKLÿMIN?OÿL:I8G;@@P>ÿQI9;:?ÿP8ÿ@;IN;Cÿ
RI=P@?9I8PÿO9I9;Sÿ9:I9ÿI8ÿ?8S;=;8S;89ÿ?8N;O9?JI9P>ÿFPH@SÿT;ÿI==P?89;Sÿ9Pÿ>;N?;FÿI@@;JI9?P8Oÿ
GP8G;>8?8JÿF:;9:;>ÿ9:;>;ÿ:ISÿT;;8ÿO;>?PHOÿN?P@I9?P8OÿPUÿK8?N;>O?9Vÿ=P@?GVWÿ79ÿ:I==;8;Sÿ9:I9ÿ
RI=P@?9I8Pÿ:?>;Sÿ9FPÿU>?;8SOCÿUP>X;>ÿKWYWÿ=>PO;GH9P>OÿZ;@?8SIÿ[IIJÿI8SÿZG\>;JP>ÿYGP99Cÿ;X=@PV;Sÿ
TVÿ]>>?G^Cÿ[;>>?8J9P8ÿ_ÿYH9G@?UU;ÿ̀`aÿPUÿYI8ÿb>I8G?OGPCÿLI@?UP>8?ICÿ9:;ÿOIX;ÿU?>Xÿ9:I9ÿP>G:;O9>I9;Sÿ
9:;ÿTPJHOÿGIO;ÿ?8ÿ9:;ÿKWYWÿLPH>9ÿPUÿ<==;I@OÿUP>ÿ9:;ÿM?O9>?G9ÿPUÿLP@HXT?IÿL?>GH?9ÿ?8ÿcdefgÿcijklgÿmnÿ
opÿqirrnssnieltÿiuÿvewltedkÿxloleylCÿLIO;ÿRPWÿAD02Az4CÿI8Sÿcdefgÿcijklgÿmnÿopÿqirr{tÿiuÿ
vewltedkÿxloleylCÿAAÿbWz9:ÿ2D2zÿ|MWLWÿL?>WÿADAA}ÿ9PÿS?OX?OOÿXVÿ9I~ÿ;NIO?P8ÿI8SÿU>IHSÿ
F:?O9@;T@PF;>ÿGIO;ÿI==;I@Cÿdtiskdÿdeysÿdsyÿoÿvewltedkÿxloleylÿltonlÿopÿ
qirrnssnieltÿiuÿwlÿvewltedkÿxloleylÿltonlCÿLIO;ÿRPWÿKYL<ÿRPWÿAD02zDBWÿÿ
[IIJÿ>;O?J8;SÿU>PXÿ:;>ÿ=PO9ÿ?8ÿY;=9;XT;>ÿAD24CÿNI8?O:;SÿUP>ÿO;N;8ÿXP89:OCÿI8Sÿ9:;8ÿ
>;OH>UIG;SÿIJI?8ÿ?8ÿZI>G:ÿAD2EÿIOÿIÿ=I>98;>ÿI9ÿ]>>?G^CÿF:;>;ÿO:;ÿ:ISÿFP>^;Sÿ=>;N?PHO@VCÿ=>?P>ÿ9Pÿ:;>ÿ
I==P?89X;89ÿTVÿa>;O?S;89ÿ]TIXIÿ9Pÿ9:;ÿYI8ÿb>I8G?OGPÿKWYWÿ<99P>8;VOÿ]UU?G;ÿ?8ÿ<HJHO9ÿAD2Dÿ|O;;ÿ
:99=O;8WF?^?=;S?IWP>JF?^?Z;@?8SI[IIJ}Wÿ78ÿ<HJHO9ÿAD2DCÿ[IIJÿFIOÿI==P?89;Sÿ9Pÿ9:;ÿRP>9:;>8ÿ
M?O9>?G9ÿPUÿLI@?UP>8?IÿKWYWÿ<99P>8;VOÿ]UU?G;ÿTVÿa>;O?S;89ÿI>IG^ÿ]TIXIÿI8SÿH8I8?XPHO@VÿGP8U?>X;Sÿ
F?9:PH9ÿS;TI9;ÿTVÿ9:;ÿK8?9;SÿY9I9;OÿY;8I9;Wÿ[;>ÿI==P?89X;89ÿXI>^;Sÿ9:;ÿU?>O9ÿ9?X;ÿ?8ÿ3DÿV;I>Oÿ9:I9ÿIÿ
U;XI@;ÿKWYWÿ<99P>8;Vÿ>;=>;O;89;Sÿ9:;ÿS?O9>?G9WÿY:;ÿO;>N;Sÿ?8ÿ9:I9ÿ=PO?9?P8ÿUP>ÿU?N;ÿV;I>OCÿO9;==?8JÿSPF8ÿ
?8ÿY;=9;XT;>ÿAD24Wÿ
]8ÿI8HI>Vÿ2CÿAD2ECÿ]>>?G^Cÿ[;>>?8J9P8ÿ_ÿYH9G@?UU;ÿI88PH8G;Sÿ9:I9ÿ[IIJÿFPH@SÿT;ÿ>;P?8?8Jÿ
9:;ÿU?>XÿIOÿ:;ISÿPUÿ?9Oÿ\@PTI@ÿ̀?9?JI9?P8ÿa>IG9?G;ÿT;J?88?8JÿZI>G:ÿ2CÿAD2EWÿ:;ÿH;O9?P8ÿ?OCÿF:;>;ÿFIOÿ
[IIJÿI8SÿF:I9ÿO:;ÿFIOÿSP?8JÿT;9F;;8ÿY;=9;XT;>ÿAD24ÿI8SÿZI>G:ÿAD2ECÿT;UP>;ÿO:;ÿI8SÿYGP99ÿF;>;ÿ
:?>;SÿTVÿRI=P@?9I8Pÿ9PÿPHO9ÿQI9;:?ÿ
ÿÿ RI=P@?9I8POÿP9:;>ÿU>?;8SCÿUP>X;>ÿKWYWÿ<99P>8;VÿZG\>;JP>ÿYGP99ÿU>PXÿ9:;ÿIO9;>8ÿM?O9>?G9ÿPUÿ
LI@?UP>8?IÿI8SÿI8P9:;>ÿ]>>?G^Cÿ[;>>?8J9P8ÿ_ÿYH9G@?UU;ÿ;X=@PV;;CÿOH>UIG;Sÿ9PÿP?8ÿ[IIJÿ?8ÿ:H89?8JÿSPF8ÿ
QI9;:?ÿ?8ÿAD2EWÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
TUVWÿVYZ[ÿ\]^_`a^bÿÿÿÿÿÿcdefg[hiÿ\`jk]`^aÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿlmn[opÿ^jq^rq]^]]ÿÿÿÿÿÿsYt[ÿ]r`ÿduÿvwv
ÿÿ !"#$$%ÿ$&'ÿ"())'*$ÿ+,!,ÿ-$$#)*'.ÿ/#)ÿ$&'ÿ012$')*ÿ342$)4"$ÿ#/ÿ5164/#)*41%ÿ'1)*'7ÿ&42ÿ/18'ÿ$&)#(9&ÿ
$&'ÿ:;;<ÿ=)#2'"($4#*ÿ#/ÿ166'9'7ÿ>1?42$1*4ÿ$'))#)42$ÿ@1847ÿ@1.1$%ÿ1*ÿ4"'ÿ")'18ÿ$)("?ÿ7)4A')ÿ1*7ÿ"&')).ÿ
=4"?')ÿ/)#8ÿB#74%ÿ5164/#)*41%ÿC&')'ÿDÿ&1A'ÿ)'247'7ÿ24*"'ÿ23E3,ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿ
F1=#64$1*#ÿÿG'/#)'ÿ2&'ÿ&4)'7ÿÿ@119ÿ1*7ÿ!"#$$ÿ$#ÿ"1)).ÿ#($ÿ$&'ÿC4$"&ÿ&(*$ÿ1914*2$ÿH1$'&4ÿ%ÿ2&'ÿ
'*642$'7ÿ$C#ÿIJKLJMNOPQÿSNNÿ)'=#)$')2%ÿ341*1ÿB18G')$ÿ1*7ÿ!18ÿ!$1*$#*%ÿ$#ÿ=(G642&ÿ1)$4"6'2ÿ28'1)4*9ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
[\]^ÿ]`abÿcdefgheiÿÿÿÿÿÿjklmnbopÿcgqrdgehÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿstubvwÿeqxeyxdeddÿÿÿÿÿÿz`{bÿdydÿk|ÿ}~}
!"#$%&'ÿ!"#$%&()ÿ*+&,&,-ÿ#%$ÿ.+"/0ÿ+1ÿ#%$ÿ1+/02/+1&#ÿ$034"#&+,ÿ-/+32ÿ",0ÿ#$5#.++6ÿ23.7&)%$/ÿ8$9/:;ÿ
<%&4%ÿ"77$-$07:ÿ=&+7"#$0ÿ3,&=$/)&#:ÿ2+7&4&$);ÿ)$/=$0ÿ#+ÿ&-,&#$ÿ#%$ÿ17">$)ÿ+1ÿ0&)#/"4#&+,ÿ",0ÿ
0&)+/&$,#"#&+,'ÿ?$=$/"7ÿ@"7&1+/,&"ÿ7$-&)7"#+/)ÿ)<"77+<$0ÿ#%$ÿ."&#'ÿA%$ÿ)>$"/ÿ"##"46)ÿ"-"&,)#ÿ#%$ÿ
4%",4$77+/ÿ$)4"7"#$0ÿ#+ÿ#%$ÿ2+&,#ÿ#%"#ÿ)#30$,#)ÿ2/+#$)#&,-ÿ"-"&,)#ÿ#%$ÿ4%",4$77+/ÿ+4432&$0ÿ#%$ÿB@ÿ8"=&)ÿ
C"/6ÿD"77ÿEÿ@%",4$77+/ÿD$"0F3"/#$/Gÿ0$>",0&,-ÿ%$/ÿ/$)&-,"#&+,'ÿH,$ÿ)#"#$ÿ7"<>"6$/;ÿ"22"/$,#7:ÿ
"7730&,-ÿ#+ÿ#%$ÿ2/+)$43#&+,ÿ+1ÿ?$,"#+/ÿI$7",0ÿJ$$;ÿ#+70ÿ/$2+/#$/)ÿ#%"#ÿ&1ÿ%$ÿ%"0ÿ0+,$ÿ<%"#ÿ@%",4$77+/ÿ
!"#$%&ÿ%"0ÿ0+,$;ÿ%$ÿ<+370ÿ%"=$ÿ$,0$0ÿ32ÿ&,ÿ1$0$/"7ÿ2/&)+,'ÿ
B@ÿ8"=&)ÿ@%",4$77+/ÿI&,0"ÿ!"#$%&'ÿ!"#$%&ÿ%"0ÿ.$$,ÿ3,2+237"/ÿ<&#%ÿ)#30$,#);ÿ#%$ÿ2/$));ÿ",0ÿ
@"7&1+/,&"ÿ7$-&)7"#+/)ÿ)&,4$ÿ"ÿK+=$>.$/ÿ2L;ÿMN22ÿ2$22$/ÿ)2/":ÿ"##"46ÿ"-"&,)#ÿ)#30$,#ÿ2/+#$)#+/);ÿ",ÿ
&,4&0$,#ÿ+,ÿ#%$ÿB@ÿ4">23)ÿ#%"#ÿ%"0ÿ.$$,ÿ,"#&+,"77:ÿ23.7&4&O$0ÿ&,ÿ>"))ÿ>$0&"ÿ",0ÿ)+4&"7ÿ>$0&"'ÿÿ
ÿA%$ÿ4+,#/+=$/):ÿ+=$/ÿ@%",4$77+/ÿI&,0"ÿ!"#$%&ÿ",0ÿ#%$ÿ$>27+:>$,#ÿ+1ÿ1">&7:ÿ>$>.$/)ÿ"#ÿB@ÿ
8"=&)ÿ2/$)$,#$0ÿ"ÿ2$/1$4#ÿ+22+/#3,&#:ÿ#+ÿ3)$ÿ#%$ÿ>$0&"ÿ#+ÿ0&)#/"4#ÿ#%$ÿ23.7&4ÿ1/+>ÿ#%$ÿ/+7$ÿ+1ÿB@()ÿ
<%&#$04+77"/ÿ4/&>&,"7)ÿ&,ÿ#%$ÿ2/+)$43#&+,ÿ+1ÿI$7",0ÿJ$$'ÿÿ
P%$,ÿI&,0"ÿ!"#$%&ÿ4">$ÿ#+ÿB@ÿ8"=&)ÿ&,ÿMNN3;ÿ?$,"#+/ÿI$7",0ÿJ$$ÿ+22+)$0ÿ%$/ÿ"22+&,#>$,#ÿ
",0ÿ4"77$0ÿ1+/ÿ%$/ÿ4+,#/"4#ÿ#+ÿ.$ÿ/$)4&,0$0'ÿQ3)#ÿ.$1+/$ÿ4+>&,-ÿ#+ÿ#%$ÿ3,&=$/)&#:;ÿ!"#$%&ÿ%"0ÿ.$$,ÿ
&,=+7=$0ÿ&,ÿ"ÿ.&-ÿ)4",0"7ÿ"#ÿ%$/ÿ2/$=&+3)ÿ*+.;ÿ"ÿ)4",0"7ÿ03..$0ÿ#%$ÿRB,&=$/)&#:ÿ+1ÿS77&,+&)ÿ47+3#ÿ)4",0"7'Tÿ
U7#%+3-%ÿ)%$ÿ<")ÿ,$=$/ÿ4%"/-$0;ÿF3$)#&+,)ÿ2$/)&)#$0ÿ".+3#ÿ%$/ÿ2+))&.7$ÿ&,=+7=$>$,#'ÿ!"#$%&ÿ%"0ÿ
)$/=$0ÿ")ÿ2/+=+)#ÿ",0ÿ=&4$ÿ4%",4$77+/ÿ1+/ÿ"4"0$>&4ÿ"11"&/)ÿ"#ÿS77&,+&)ÿ",0ÿ%"0ÿ+=$/)$$,ÿ#%$ÿ"0>&))&+,)ÿ
+11&4$ÿ03/&,-ÿ>34%ÿ+1ÿ#%$ÿ2$/&+0ÿ/$7$=",#ÿ#+ÿ#%$ÿ&,=$)#&-"#&+,ÿ+1ÿ#%$ÿ47+3#ÿ)4",0"7'ÿV3#ÿ+,7:ÿ&,0&/$4#ÿ
$=&0$,4$ÿ4">$ÿ#+ÿ7&-%#ÿ+1ÿ%$/ÿ+<,ÿ&,=+7=$>$,#ÿ&,ÿ&>2/+2$/ÿ)#30$,#ÿ"0>&))&+,)'ÿ
U1#$/ÿ#%$ÿK+=$>.$/ÿ2L;ÿMN22ÿ2$22$/ÿ)2/":&,-ÿ+1ÿ)#30$,#ÿ2/+#$)#+/);ÿ?$,"#+/ÿJ$$ÿ4"77$0ÿ1+/ÿ
!"#$%&()ÿ/$)&-,"#&+,'ÿD$ÿ"7)+ÿ4"77$0ÿ+,ÿB@ÿW/$)&0$,#ÿC"/6ÿJ30+1ÿ#+ÿ7"3,4%ÿ",ÿ&,0$2$,0$,#ÿ2/+.$ÿ+1ÿ
#%$ÿ&,4&0$,#XÿR@%",4$77+/ÿ!"#$%&()ÿ#")6ÿ1+/4$ÿ&)ÿ"ÿ)%">ÿ<&#%ÿ#%$ÿ1+5ÿ-3"/0&,-ÿ#%$ÿ%$,ÿ%+3)$'ÿH,7:ÿ"ÿ
#/37:ÿ&,0$2$,0$,#ÿ&,=$)#&-"#&+,Y".)$,#ÿ#%$ÿ&,173$,4$ÿ+1ÿ%$/ÿ+11&4$ÿ+/ÿ#%$ÿ2+7&4$ÿ0$2"/#>$,#Y&)ÿ&,ÿ
+/0$/'ÿ?#30$,#)ÿ",0ÿ#"52":$/)ÿ0$)$/=$ÿ#+ÿ6,+<ÿ<%"#ÿ)%$ÿ6,$<ÿ",0ÿ<%$,;ÿ",0ÿ<%"#ÿ0&/$4#&+,ÿ)%$ÿ-"=$ÿ
#+ÿ4">23)ÿ2+7&4$'ÿP"&#&,-ÿZNÿ0":);ÿ")ÿ!"#$%&ÿ)3--$)#);ÿ&)ÿ3,"44$2#".7$'ÿA%$ÿ$=&0$,4$ÿ&)ÿ47$"/ÿ",0ÿ<$ÿ
,$$0ÿ#+ÿ%+70ÿ&,0&=&03"7)ÿ"44+3,#".7$'Tÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
YZ[\ÿ[^_`ÿabcdefcgÿÿÿÿÿÿhijkl`mnÿaeopbecfÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿqrs̀tuÿcovcwvbcbbÿÿÿÿÿÿx^y`ÿbwzÿi{ÿz|z
ÿ!"#$%&'$ÿ#$(ÿ)%*#+%,(+-.ÿ-&++%&*/0*'ÿ12ÿ2$3*)(""%+ÿ40*/3ÿ53#($0ÿ63-ÿ&-(/ÿ#%ÿ/0,(+#ÿ#$(ÿ
3##(*#0%*ÿ%7ÿ#$(ÿ8&9"0)ÿ3##(*#0%*ÿ3*/ÿ#$(ÿ"('0-"3#0,(ÿ)%""(3'&(-ÿ%7ÿ4("3*/ÿ:((ÿ7+%;ÿ$0-ÿ8+%-()�%*<ÿ0#ÿ
$3-ÿ9((*ÿ-&''(-#(/ÿ#$3#ÿ53#($0ÿ)%&"/ÿ9(ÿ83+#03"".ÿ9"3;(/ÿ$(+-("7ÿ7%+ÿ#$(ÿ=>?ÿ-#0*'ÿ%8(+3#0%*ÿ3'30*-#ÿ
@(*3#%+ÿ:((ÿ3*/ÿ7%+ÿ$0-ÿ-&9-(A&(*#ÿ8+%-()�%*Bÿ?*ÿCD2D<ÿ-$(ÿ$3/ÿ9((*ÿ388%0*#(/ÿ#%ÿ#$(ÿE3#0%*3"ÿ
@()&+0#.ÿF0'$(+ÿG/&)3#0%*ÿ!/,0-%+.ÿ>%3+/<ÿ6$0)$ÿ8+%;%#(-ÿ/0-)&--0%*ÿ3*/ÿ%&#+(3)$ÿ9(#6((*ÿ+(-(3+)$ÿ
&*0,(+-0#0(-ÿ3*/ÿ#$(ÿ=>?Bÿ
H%ÿ"('0#0;0I(ÿÿ#$(ÿ60#)$ÿ$&*#ÿ30;(/ÿ3#ÿ@(*3#%+ÿ4("3*/ÿ:((ÿ<ÿ#$(ÿ%#$(+ÿCJÿ8(%8"(ÿ6(+(ÿ+%&*/(/ÿ8(+ÿ
%+/(+ÿ%7ÿ#$(ÿÿF33'K-ÿ7%+;(+ÿ9%--ÿ3*/ÿÿ7+0(*/ÿ<ÿÿ=>?ÿL0+()#%+ÿÿM%9(+#ÿN&(""(+ÿ3*/ÿ8+%-()&#(/ÿ9.ÿF33'ÿBÿÿ
ÿH$(ÿCJÿ8(%8"(<ÿ;%-#".ÿ2$0*(-(ÿ0;;0'+3*#-ÿ%+ÿ1B@Bÿ)0#0I(*-ÿ%7ÿ2$0*(-(ÿ/(-)(*#ÿ60#$%&#ÿ8+(,0%&-ÿ3*.ÿ
"36ÿ,0%"3#0%*-ÿ%+ÿ)+0;0*3"ÿ)%*,0)#0%*-<ÿ0*)"&/0*'ÿ8%8&"3+ÿ23"07%+*03ÿ"('0-"3#%+<ÿ@(*3#%+ÿ:((BÿH$(-(ÿ
8(%8"(ÿ6(+(ÿ+%&*/(/ÿ&8ÿ9.ÿ#$(ÿ=>?ÿ3*/ÿ8+%-()&#(/<ÿ"0O(ÿ8(%8"(ÿ0*ÿ#$(ÿ@%,0(#ÿ1*0%*ÿ/&+0*'ÿ@#3"0*P-ÿ
(+3ÿ%+ÿ"0O(ÿQ(6-ÿ0*ÿE3I0K-ÿ0%))&80(/ÿG&+%8(Bÿÿ
ÿ
$##8-RSS666B-)+09/B)%;S/%)&;(*#ST4DTJCUDUSCD2D0CDCD0V0#)$0F&*#0W+%-()�%*03*/0
?*)3+)3+3#0%*0%70#$(023"07%+*030@(*3#%+04("3*/0:((ÿ
ÿ ÿ
H$(ÿ=>?ÿ3*/ÿ#$(ÿ12XWÿ'3*'<ÿ93)O(/ÿ9.ÿ#$(ÿ1B@Bÿ!##%+*(.ÿX770)(ÿÿ60#$ÿF33'ÿ0*ÿ)$3+'(ÿ)%&"/ÿ*%#ÿ
"39("ÿ@(*3#%+ÿ:((ÿ3-ÿ3ÿE3I0<ÿ3ÿ73-)0-#<ÿ3ÿ555ÿ-.;83#$0I(+<ÿ?-"3;%8$%90)<ÿ3ÿQ(6ÿ$3#(+<ÿ(#)B<ÿ9()3&-(ÿ
$(ÿ0-ÿ3ÿ2$0*(-(09%+*ÿ*3#&+3"0I(/ÿ1B@Bÿ)0#0I(*Bÿ@(*3#%+ÿ:((ÿ63-ÿ3##3)$(/ÿ#%ÿ%#$(+ÿ8(%8"(ÿ%7ÿ2$0*(-(ÿ
/(-)(*#<ÿ;%-#ÿ%7ÿ#$(;ÿ60#$%&#ÿ)+0;0*3"ÿ$0-#%+.ÿ%+ÿ"36ÿ,0%"3#0%*-<ÿ#%ÿ;3O(ÿ$0;ÿ"%%O-ÿ3*/ÿ%#$(+-ÿ"0O(ÿ3ÿ
2$0*(-(ÿ'3*'-#(+ÿ7+%;ÿ#$(ÿ;%,0(ÿ39%&#ÿÿ@3*ÿ=+3*)0-)%P-ÿ2$0*3#%6*Bÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ$##8-RSS666B-)+09/B)%;S/%)&;(*#SU442U23DDSN%#0%*07%+02%;83--0%*3#(0M("(3-(0M3.;%*/0
2$%60W+%-()�%*03*/0@(*#(*)(0%70407(00*0W+0-%*ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
?@ABÿADEFÿGHIJKLIMÿÿÿÿÿÿNOPQRFSTÿGKUVHKILÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWXYFZ[ÿIU\I]\HIHHÿÿÿÿÿÿ^D_FÿH]LÿOÿ̀aba
ÿ
ÿ
!!"#$%%&&&'#()*+,'(-.%,-(/.01!%233222344%5-!*-106-)07-."8##*-18!0090:08#0098;.-1,07 -&0
<)-#0(/!*-1081,0=01!01(00-60>*600*10<)*#-1ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
hijkÿjmnoÿpqrsturvÿÿÿÿÿÿwxyz{o|}ÿpt~qtruÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿoÿr~rqrqqÿÿÿÿÿÿmoÿqÿxÿ
!"##$ÿ ÿ
&'(ÿ*+ÿ,-./ÿ!01102ÿ324&ÿ150ÿ6$7$ÿ809'21&0:1ÿ43ÿ;671#<0ÿ433#<0ÿ43ÿ
150ÿ#:790<142ÿ=0:02'!ÿ#:"071#='1#4:7ÿ8#"#7#4:ÿ
ÿ
4>ÿ&?@ÿ*+ÿ,-./AÿBÿCDEDFGDHÿIÿJDKKDCÿLCMNÿKODÿPQRQÿSDTICKNDUKÿMLÿVWXKFEDÿYLLFEDÿMLÿKODÿBUXTDEKMCÿ
ZDUDCIJÿBUGDXKF[IKFMUXÿSFGFXFMUÿIHGFXFU[ÿNDÿKMÿXDUHÿN\ÿFU]WFCFDXÿI^MWKÿKODÿP_Y`aXÿKIbÿDGIXFMUÿIUHÿ
LCIWHÿKMÿKODÿcCDIXWC\ÿBUXTDEKMCÿZDUDCIJÿLMCÿcIbÿdHNFUFXKCIKFMUÿIUHÿKODÿefBaXÿgMXÿdU[DJDXÿeFDJHÿYLLFEDQÿ
ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
JKLMÿLOPQÿRSTUVWTXÿÿÿÿÿÿYZ[\]Q^_ÿRV`aSVTWÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿbcdQefÿT`gThgSTSSÿÿÿÿÿÿiOjQÿShaÿZkÿlml
ÿ
ÿÿ !ÿ"#$ÿ%&'()&$ÿ"*+ÿ!ÿ,('-%.-,ÿ.)ÿ/)$ÿ012-3-$4ÿ1).ÿ5#%'#6-1.)4ÿ7-%#&$-ÿ!ÿ3(8-ÿ)13+ÿ93ÿ6(3-$ÿ:')6ÿ
5#%'#6-1.)ÿ#1,ÿ*#,ÿ#3'-#,+ÿ$;)<-1ÿ"(.*ÿ$)6-)1-ÿ)1ÿ0;'(3ÿ=3ÿÿ234>ÿ"*)ÿ(1.'),&%-,ÿ*(6$-3:ÿ#$ÿ#1ÿ?@!ÿ
#2-1.ÿ:')6ÿ.*-ÿ5#%'#6-1.)ÿ?@ÿ?(-3,ÿA::(%-BÿC-'ÿ.*-ÿDAEÿ!Fÿ)::(%-4ÿ!ÿ'-$-1.ÿ6+ÿ(1G&('+ÿ.)ÿ.*-ÿ/)$ÿ
012-3-$ÿ?@!ÿ?(-3,ÿA::(%-ÿ)1ÿH#+ÿ4I4ÿ234>Bÿ!ÿ'-%-(8-,ÿ1)ÿ'-;3+Bÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
!ÿ#$%ÿ&'(ÿ)*&+,ÿ-ÿ./01ÿ2ÿ345546078ÿ5/11/9ÿ14ÿ:;<;ÿ=11490/>ÿ?@A55A8ÿ=;ÿB25C/91ÿ43ÿ1@/ÿD2.1/90ÿ
EA.19AF1ÿ43ÿG25A3490A2ÿ9/H29IA0HÿJ22HK.ÿ2..AH0L/01ÿ2.ÿ20ÿA0I/8/0I/01ÿA0M/.1AH2149ÿ14ÿ6A1F@ÿ@701ÿ
G@20F/5549ÿN21/@A;ÿB@/ÿ5/11/9ÿ62.ÿ1A15/IÿOP/QÿRSSTU!VW!XÿYZÿX[Wÿ\Y]VW]ÿ:;<ÿ=11490/>ÿ349ÿ^491@/90ÿ
EA.19AF1ÿ43ÿG25A3490A2ÿ_25A0I2ÿJ22HÿC>ÿ1@/ÿ:0AM/9.A1>ÿ43ÿG25A3490A2ÿ?9/.AI/01ÿ̀20/1ÿ^2845A1204ÿ14ÿ
-0M/.1AH21/ÿ:GÿE2MA.ÿG@20F/5549ÿaA0I2ÿN21/@AÿA0ÿP/521A40ÿ14ÿ_>ÿ=89A5ÿ&&(ÿ)*&+ÿbWcdWSXÿeYÿf]T!Uÿ
g]TVT!$hÿg[$]UWSÿRU$T!SXÿe[WÿbWUW!XSÿYZÿe[Wÿi!TjW]STX%ÿZÿg$hTZY]!T$ÿkdWÿeYÿ#dhXTVThhTY!ÿ
kYhh$]ÿ\WlW]$hÿe$mÿn927Iÿ20IÿoA4521A40ÿYZÿ_>ÿGAMA5ÿ$!lÿpdV$!ÿbTU[XSqÿr.//ÿstpufueÿvwxÿY!ÿ
Zh$S[ÿl]TjWÿ$!lÿkykz;ÿ-0ÿ̀70/ÿ23{|,ÿ-ÿ9/F/AM/Iÿ2ÿH/0/925,ÿL/20A0H5/..ÿ9/.840./ÿ394Lÿ1@/ÿ:;<;ÿ
=11490/>K.ÿ433AF/;ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡ÿ¢£¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤¥ÿ£¦ÿ§ÿ̈¦¨
!"#$$$%ÿ ÿ
'ÿ)"*+,-ÿ"**.ÿ'/ÿ0'1,/ÿ1'2*"$/'1*3+ÿ4'5ÿ678ÿ9:6;ÿ4,,/$1<ÿ$1ÿ
='+>$1</*18ÿ?%)%ÿ=$/>ÿÿ2-,+$?,1/ÿ@'-').ÿ*@'4'8ÿ#$),ÿ2-,+$?,1/ÿ0*,ÿ
@$?,18ÿ'1?ÿ/>,ÿ)'@$1,/ÿ+,)-,/'-$,+ÿA*-ÿ,1,-<58ÿ,?B)'/$*18ÿ'1?ÿ
'<-$)B"/B-,ÿ
ÿ
CDÿ4EFÿ9:6;8ÿB)ÿ2GHIJKHLMÿ1ENOPJMELOÿMGEQHPHKÿMOÿ=EIRJLSMOL8ÿ?%)%ÿTUÿVWWTÿXYTZÿ[\W]Y^WDTÿ
_`aVaÿaD^ÿbYcWÿ[\W]Y^WDTÿdY^WDÿaD^ÿTZWÿca`YDWTÿ]Wc\WTa\YW]ÿeOGÿHLHGSFfÿW^gcaTYUDfÿaD^ÿah\YcgiTg\Wjÿkÿ
mnÿopqrsttuÿa\TYciWÿ^aTW^ÿvawÿxyfÿ23xzÿ]ZUX]ÿaÿ{ZUTUÿU|ÿ}a{UiYTaDUÿVWWTYDhÿb[ÿdY^WDÿYDÿZY]ÿ~W]Tÿ
~YDhÿU||YcWÿUDÿvawÿxfÿ23xzÿ]WWÿ,!>$@$/ÿÿOLÿePEIRÿKGJQHÿELKÿ?#?jÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ¡ÿ¢£¢
!""#$%&&'''($)*+,-()./&-.)0/12"&434335262&789023:435:;0790<*1$+-12"0=>21"0
?>#.@+">2.0A11"$0<*1$+-12"0B,>/>0C+)10<*1$+-12"0D+-120DEFG?H(ÿ
ÿE2ÿ/11"+2Iÿ'+"!ÿJ1)*1">*Kÿ.LÿG21*IKÿG*21$"ÿA.2+MNÿ?>#.@+">2.ÿ$>+-ÿ
79ÿ$0##.*"$ÿ"!1ÿF1#>*"/12"ÿ.LÿG21*IKO$ÿA+$$+.2ÿE22.P>"+.2ÿ
!""#%&&/+$$+.20+22.P>"+.2(21"&ÿ1LL.*"$Nÿ>+/1-ÿ>"ÿ)./,>"+2IÿI@.,>@ÿ
)@+/>"1ÿ)!>2I1ÿ>2-ÿ$#0**+2Iÿ+22.P>"+.2$ÿ+2ÿ)@1>2ÿ121*IK(ÿ
Q$ÿ #>*"ÿ .Lÿ 79O$ÿ 9>*,.2ÿ ?10"*>@+"Kÿ E2+"+>"+P1ÿ
!""#%&&'''(0).#(1-0&+2+"+>"+P1$&9>*,.20210"*>@+"K0+2+"+>"+P1(!"/@ÿNÿL.*ÿ
1R>/#@1Nÿ*1$1>*)!1*$ÿL*./ÿ>@@ÿ:3ÿ)>/#0$1$ÿ!>P1ÿ)./1ÿ".I1"!1*ÿ".ÿ
-1P1@.#ÿ $)>@>,@1ÿ $.@0"+.2$ÿ !""#%&&0)0
)>*,.2210"*>@+"K$0//+"2B@5(0)$-(1-0&L@@1$LÿD12-+2I0"!1090*P1(#-L(ÿ
8!1ÿ02+P1*$+"Kÿ+$ÿ>@$.ÿ"!1ÿ$.@1ÿ+2$"+"0"+.2>@ÿ/1/,1*ÿ.Lÿ"!1ÿD*1>S"!*.0I!ÿ
G21*IKÿ9.>@+"+.2ÿT!""#%L&02+P1*$+"K.L)>@+L.*2+>(1-0&#*1$$0*../&0)0
.2@K002+P1*$+"K0U.+20).>@+"+.20@1-0,+@@0I>"1$0+2P1$"0)@+/>"10$.@0"+.2$VÿNÿ
>ÿ).2$.*"+0/ÿ"!>"ÿ>+/$ÿ".ÿ1R#>2-ÿ"!1ÿ#+#1@+21ÿ.Lÿ)@1>2ÿ121*IKÿ$.@0"+.2$ÿ
"!*.0I!ÿ">*I1"1-ÿ+2P1$"/12"$ÿ+2ÿ*1$1>*)!ÿ>2-ÿ"1)!2.@.IK(ÿQ$ÿ#>*"ÿ.Lÿ+"$ÿ
#>*"+)+#>"+.2Nÿ79ÿ!>$ÿ).//+""1-ÿW:ÿ,+@@+.2ÿ.Lÿ+"$ÿ+2P1$"/12"ÿ)>#+">@ÿ".ÿ
1>*@K0$">I1ÿ>2-ÿ$)>@100#ÿ+2P1$"/12"$ÿ+2ÿ)@1>2ÿ121*IKÿ+22.P>"+.2ÿ.P1*ÿ
ÿ
"!1ÿ21R"ÿL+P1ÿK1>*$(ÿ
XYÿ[\ÿ]^_`aÿbcdÿbefgÿhDBÿ9@>+/ÿ?.(ÿ23:403334;:ÿ>2-ÿQ0I0$"ÿiNÿ23:;ÿ?.(ÿ23:;03:2::;Nÿ
Eÿ,>$+)>@@KÿL.)0$1-ÿ.2ÿ"!1ÿ02@>'L0@ÿ#*.-0)"+.2ÿ>2-ÿ$>@1ÿ.Lÿ#.'1*ÿ$+2)1ÿ:66;ÿL*./ÿ"!1ÿ79FA9j$ÿ230
Ahÿ).I121*>"+.2ÿ#@>2"Nÿ'!+)!ÿ'>$ÿ+2ÿP+.@>"+.2ÿ.Lÿ"!1ÿ79j$ÿ">R01R1/#"ÿ$">"0$ÿ02-1*ÿEk9ÿJ1)"+.2ÿ53:ÿ
l)HliHNÿ+2ÿ>--+"+.2ÿ".ÿ>ÿP+.@>"+.2ÿ.Lÿm1-1*>@ÿG21*IKÿ9.//+$$+.2ÿk1I0@>".*Kÿ9.//+$$+.2ÿlmGk9Hÿ
*1I0@>"+.2$Nÿ:;ÿ9(m(k(ÿnÿ262(23Nÿm1-1*>@ÿ<.'1*ÿQ)"ÿ:4ÿ7(J(9(ÿnÿ;24-l>HNÿ9>@+L.*2+>ÿ<0,@+)ÿ7"+@+"+1$ÿ
9.-1ÿJ1)"+.2ÿ2:;(5NÿJ">"1ÿ.Lÿ9>@+L.*2+>ÿ72L>+*ÿD0$+21$$ÿ9./#1"+"+.2ÿ@>'Nÿ>2-ÿD0$+21$$ÿ>2-ÿ
<*.L1$$+.2$ÿ9.-1ÿnÿ:3233ÿoÿ9>@+L.*2+>ÿ9.//.-+"Kÿp>'ÿ.Lÿ:663ÿl9.*#(ÿ9.-1Nÿnÿ26533ÿ1"ÿ$1q(Nÿr99psHÿ
>2-ÿ3ÿ7(J(ÿ9.-1ÿnÿ4ÿl,H(ÿÿ
h!>"ÿEÿ-+-ÿ2."ÿS2.'ÿ+2ÿA>*)!ÿ23:4ÿ>2-ÿQ0I0$"ÿ23:;Nÿ'!12ÿEÿ'>$ÿ$0,/+""+2Iÿ/KÿQ##@+)>"+.2ÿ
L.*ÿQ'>*-ÿL.*ÿB*+I+2>@ÿE2L.*/>"+.2ÿlEkJÿm.*/ÿ2::Hÿ.2ÿA>*)!ÿ2iNÿ23:4ÿ>2-ÿQ0I0$"ÿiNÿ23:;Nÿ>2-ÿ02"+@ÿ
Eÿ-+$).P1*1-ÿ+"ÿ+2ÿQ#*+@ÿ2322Nÿ'>$ÿ"!>"ÿtYÿ]^_`aÿbudÿbefvNÿ.21ÿ->Kÿ>L"1*ÿJ12>".*ÿwxxÿ'>$ÿ>**1$"1-ÿ,Kÿ
"!1ÿmDENÿ"!1ÿ79ÿk1I12"$ÿ_xyz{|x_x}ÿ|ax[{x~x{ÿ'+"!ÿ"!1ÿ9>@+L.*2+>ÿ<0,@+)ÿ7"+@+"+1$ÿ9.//+$$+.2ÿ>$ÿ>2ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¬®¯ÿ®±²³ÿ́µ¶·¸¹¶ºÿÿÿÿÿÿ»¼½¾¿³ÀÁÿ́¸Âõ¸¶¹ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÄÅƳÇÈÿ¶ÂɶÊɵ¶µµÿÿÿÿÿÿ˱̳ÿµÃ¶ÿ¼ÍÿÎÏÎ
!"!#$%&#ÿ(!%)&#!ÿ*%+)&,!%ÿ-!(*./ÿ!(*ÿ0ÿ1234/ÿ-!567879ÿ0:4.;ÿ<==>?@ABÿA>CÿD>?E@F>DÿG<ÿ
HIJJKLH7MNÿHOP9IJKLPQÿRÿS@DF<E>?>SÿGT@DÿU<?>ÿGTVAÿ>@BTGÿW>V?DÿXVG>?;ÿ<AÿYZ?@Xÿ2[;ÿ2322;ÿ\WÿD>V?FT@ABÿ
GT>ÿ]^_]ÿC>\D@G>ÿV=G>?ÿRÿ=@X>SÿUWÿYZZ>XXVAG`Dÿa>DZ<AD>0bZZ<D@G@<AÿG<ÿGT>ÿYZZ>XX>>`D;ÿRacÿ
]<UU@DD@<A>?ÿd<G@<Aÿe<ÿf@DU@DD;ÿ=@X>Sÿ<AÿdV?FTÿg3;ÿ2322ÿ@Aÿhijklminÿhipqlrÿsilrtrquÿvÿ
wpxyjpimÿzyvypqyÿ{yjv|tyÿv}ÿ~k|ll|kpyjÿkÿxyÿwpxyjpimÿzyvypqyÿ{yjv|ty;ÿ]VD>ÿ<Qÿ_c]Yÿ<Qÿ
230g3ÿD>>ÿT@\@Gÿg4Qÿ
ÿÿ bAF>ÿGT>ÿVZ<X@GVA<ÿ?>B@DG>?>Sÿÿ_]ÿa>B>AGDÿC@GTÿGT>ÿ]^_]ÿVDÿVAÿc^;ÿGT>WÿK9KLKÿ79IÿMÿ
NI9KLJÿIKLÿOLH6MPKÿMLKKJK9ÿ796ÿ96Kÿÿ@E>ÿ^<@AGDÿ^V?ÿVASÿ230dÿ@==>Aÿc<XV?ÿ
^V?;ÿ\<GTÿX<FVG>Sÿ@Aÿ?>DA<ÿ]<AGW;ÿ]YQÿÿ
ÿÿ VZ<X@GVA<ÿUVS>ÿVAÿ>U>?B>AFWÿG?@ZÿG<ÿVDT@ABG<A;ÿfQ]Qÿ@AÿdVWÿ23gÿG<ÿU>>Gÿ^?>D@S>AGÿb\VUVÿ
VASÿ@F>ÿ^?>D@S>AGÿ@S>A;ÿ\GÿTVSÿVÿS@==>?>AGÿZ?Z<D>ÿGTVAÿG<ÿGVXÿV\<GÿT>?ÿ#ÿ#ML8IÿKO9LMN79ÿ
&797M97KQÿ>G̀Dÿ=@ASÿ<GÿCTVGÿVZ<X@GVA<ÿTVSÿ@AÿT>?ÿU@AS;ÿ@Aÿ@AÿX@BTGÿ<=ÿT>?ÿdVWÿg;ÿ23gÿU>>G@ABÿ
C@GTÿb\VUV;ÿ@S>AÿVASÿ(KHLK9MLÿI¡ÿ!KLÿI7¢;ÿVASÿ@AÿX@BTGÿ<=ÿT>?ÿV\D>ÿ<=ÿZ<C>?ÿVASÿT>?ÿF?@U>Dÿ
VDÿGT>ÿD>X=0VZZ<@AG>Sÿ^?>D@S>AGÿ<=ÿGT>ÿ_A@E>?D@GWÿ<=ÿ]VX@=<?A@Vÿÿ
ÿ
£"&£¤ÿ ÿ
¦§ÿ̈:/ÿ̈1ÿ"!$$!%ÿ©+%ÿ¤(ÿ(!¦$+%ÿ,&¦!ÿ©!&($!&ÿ
ÿÿ
Rÿ?>F>@E>SÿGT>ÿ=<XX<C@ABÿ?>DZ<AD>ÿ=?<Uÿ_QcQÿc>AVG<?ÿf@VAA>ÿ>@ADG>@Aÿ?>BV?S@ABÿUWÿF<AF>?ADÿ
V\<GÿVFG@<ADÿGV>Aÿ\WÿªVA>GÿVZ<X@GVA<ÿVBV@ADGÿ]TVAF>XX<?ÿ@ASVÿ«VG>T@Qÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿ*8-ÿ1BÿCDC
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
vwxyÿx{|}ÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ{}ÿÿÿ
!"ÿ ÿ
%&'ÿ()*ÿ+,)-ÿ!.//.0ÿ102%ÿ304ÿ5634/!.7!25.0ÿ21138.ÿ*ÿ29:.;ÿ
</&6ÿ"ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ 2=ÿ%>?ÿ()*ÿ+,)-@ÿAÿBCDCEFCGÿHÿBCIJKLICÿMBKNÿOPCÿAQRÿSTUÿBCVHBGELVÿHGGEOEKLHWÿELMKBNHOEKLÿ
MKBÿNXÿYHBDPÿ2Z@ÿ23[\ÿ]WHENÿ^K_ÿ23[\0334`a[@ÿbPEDPÿAÿICLOÿOKÿOPCÿSTUÿKLÿYHXÿ[c@ÿ23[\@ÿLKOÿYHXÿ
c@ÿ23[\ÿHIÿIOHOCGÿELÿOPCÿWCOOCBÿd.e6373/ÿfghÿi=ÿjk>lmÿnopqrÿ>=nÿ:s:tuÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
jklmÿlopqÿrstuvwtxÿÿÿÿÿÿyz{|}q~ÿrvsvtwÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿq ÿttstssÿÿÿÿÿÿoqÿsÿzÿ
!"#ÿ ÿ
&'"()!*+!,&*-ÿ!.&/*-(ÿ+.01ÿ'*2!032ÿ.-"()*"ÿ4ÿ5,!21.3ÿ
67ÿ789ÿ9:;ÿ<=ÿ>?@ÿ23ABCÿDÿ8EF9;ÿ?:ÿ9GH9FE9:I9;ÿ?77<F:9@Cÿ>?FJÿKI8L9E:Cÿ=F<Mÿ789ÿHF9N7EOE<PNÿ
Q?LE=<F:E?ÿI<:NPM9FÿL?Rÿ=EFMÿS?PMCÿT9;LP:;Cÿ6FEN79EÿUÿV<L;M?:CÿW?N9;ÿE:ÿX<Nÿ6:O9L9NCÿ7<ÿL9O?LL@ÿ
F9HF9N9:7ÿM9ÿRE78ÿ789ÿYSZÿ?:;ÿE:ÿ[\K\ÿ]?GÿQ<PF7ÿE:ÿM@ÿR8EN7L9WL<R9FÿI?N9ÿ?W<P7ÿ79:Nÿ<=ÿMELLE<:Nÿ<=ÿ
;<LL?FNÿ<=ÿ7?Gÿ9^?NE<:ÿ?:;ÿ=F?P;\ÿS?PMCÿT9;LP:;Cÿ6FEN7<EÿUÿV<L;M?:ÿ?NNEO:9;ÿKI8L9E:Cÿ?:ÿ<P70<=0
N7?79ÿ?77<F:9@ÿ=F<Mÿ_L<FE;?\ÿKI8L9E:ÿR?Nÿ?ÿ=<FM9FÿLE9P79:?:7ÿI<L<:9Lÿ?:;ÿ789ÿ;EF9I7<Fÿ<=ÿ789ÿ
`9H?F7M9:7ÿ<=ÿX?Rÿa:=<FI9M9:7ÿbN99ÿ877HNcddRRR\W?PM89;LP:;L?R\I<Md?77<F:9@NdM?FJ080NI8L9E:de\ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
K8<F7L@ÿ?=79FÿDÿF97?E:9;ÿKI8L9E:Cÿf?H<LE7?:<ÿPN9;ÿ89FÿI<::9I7E<:NÿE:ÿ789ÿZW?M?ÿ
6;ME:EN7F?7E<:ÿ7<ÿ9:?WL9ÿ=<FM9Fÿ[QÿaG9IP7E^9ÿ6NN<IE?79ÿgEI9ÿhF9NE;9:7ÿiP;E78ÿS<@9779ÿ7<ÿW9ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
GHIJÿILMNÿOPQRSTQUÿÿÿÿÿÿVWXYZN[\ÿOS]^PSQTÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ_àNbcÿQ]dQedPQPPÿÿÿÿÿÿfLgNÿP^TÿWhÿiji
!""#$%&'(ÿ)*ÿ&+'ÿ,'-.'&!.*ÿ#/ÿ0.'!12.*ÿ&#ÿ!ÿ&+.''0*'!.ÿ&'.3ÿ#%ÿ&+'ÿ45,ÿ6(7$1#.*ÿ8#33$&&''ÿ#%ÿ0!9ÿ
:9'3"&ÿ!%(ÿ;#7'.%3'%&ÿ:%&$&$'1ÿ<0:;:=>ÿÿ
ÿ
0+$1ÿ3!('ÿ$&ÿ"#11$)?'ÿ&#ÿ('?'&'ÿ3*ÿ&!9ÿ'7!1$#%ÿ!%(ÿ/.!2(ÿ-?!$31ÿ12)3$&&'(ÿ&#ÿ&+'ÿ@AB>ÿ
A'&C''%ÿ233Dÿ!%(ÿ233EFÿA#*'&&'ÿ"!.&$-$"!&'(ÿ$%ÿ!%ÿ2%12--'11/2?ÿC$&-+ÿ+2%&ÿ&#ÿ&'.3$%!&'ÿ3*ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÀÁÂÃÿÂÅÆÇÿÈÉÊËÌÍÊÎÿÿÿÿÿÿÏÐÑÒÓÇÔÕÿÈÌÖ×ÉÌÊÍÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿØÙÚÇÛÜÿÊÖÝÊÞÝÉÊÉÉÿÿÿÿÿÿßÅàÇÿÉ×ÞÿÐáÿâãâ
!"#$%&"!'(ÿ)*(+ÿ(+!ÿ,'*-!./*(&ÿ0'1ÿ!.01*20(!ÿ"!ÿ3.%"ÿ(+!ÿ456758/ÿ2907:ÿ2%;!'!.0(*%'ÿ#%)!.ÿ
#$0'(<ÿ)+!.!ÿ=ÿ+01ÿ)%.>!1ÿ/*'2!ÿ?,'!ÿ3@@@ÿ0/ÿ0'ÿ%#!.0(%.Aÿÿ
ÿ
BCCDÿ ÿ
GCHIJÿJKLHMNOPÿCLQMRMLQMLHÿNMSCMGPÿÿTUÿVBBMWVHCTLOÿNMBVHMQÿHTÿ
IJVLIMBBTNÿBCLQVÿXVHMJCÿYVKWKOHÿZ[ÿ\]Z^_ÿ
ÿ
`0#%$*(0'%8/ÿÿaÿ3<444<444ÿ)*(2+ÿ+,'(ÿ+%0bÿ0*"!1ÿ0(ÿ45ÿ60-*/ÿ5+0'2!$$%.ÿc0(!+*ÿ$0/(!1ÿ3%.ÿ3%,.ÿ
"%'(+/<ÿ3.%"ÿ70.2+de,;,/(ÿ243f<ÿ0'1ÿ)0/ÿ20..*!1ÿ%,(ÿg&ÿ()%ÿ%3ÿ+!.ÿ3.*!'1/<ÿ7!$*'10ÿh00;ÿ0'1ÿ
72i.!;%.ÿj2%((ÿ3%."!.ÿÿ6*/(.*2(ÿ4jÿe((%.'!&/ÿ!"#$%&!1ÿg&ÿÿk..*2><ÿh!..*';(%'ÿlÿj,(2$*33!<ÿmmn<ÿ
g0/!1ÿ*'ÿj0'ÿo.0'2*/2%<ÿ5eAÿ5%$$!0;,!/ÿ%3ÿ(+!*./ÿ70.>ÿm%!gÿ0'1ÿp%g!.(ÿp0'-*.ÿj*';ÿ70'+0/ÿÿ
!"#$%&!1ÿ*'ÿk..*2>8/ÿ:0/+*';(%'ÿÿ65ÿÿ%33*2!ÿ*'(!.3!.!1ÿÿ*'ÿ"&ÿ(0bÿ!-0/*%'ÿ0'1ÿ3.0,1ÿ)+*/($!g$%)!.ÿ
20/!ÿqrstuvrwÿqryzu{ÿ|ru{}{z~ÿÿÿt uutys<ÿ4j5eÿ`%Aÿ240349<ÿ)+*2+ÿ*/ÿ#!'1*';ÿ*'ÿ(+!ÿ
6A5Aÿ5*.2,*(<ÿg&ÿ#.%1,2*';ÿ30$/!ÿ2%,.(ÿ#.!2!1!'(/ÿ(%ÿ1*/"*//ÿ"&ÿ0##!0$ÿ,/*';ÿ0ÿ2%"#$!(!$&ÿ,'.!$0(!1ÿ(%ÿ
"&ÿ20/!ÿ1*-%.2!ÿ20/!ÿ(+0(ÿ)0/ÿ/,##%/!1$&ÿ0ÿ)+*/($!g$%)!.ÿ20/!<ÿryÿtvÿÿÿt sÿtÿ
ysyrvÿyzÿ22ÿoA(+ÿ343ÿ6A5Aÿ5*.Aÿ2422Aÿk'ÿe,;,/(ÿ3<ÿ243f<ÿh00;ÿ0'1ÿj2%((ÿ*//,!1ÿ0ÿ.!#%.(ÿ
3%.ÿ)+*2+ÿ̀0#%$*(0'%ÿ#0*1ÿ(+!"ÿa3ÿ"*$$*%'Aÿ̀0#%$*(0'%ÿ,/!1ÿ*(ÿ0/ÿ,/(*3*20(*%'ÿ(%ÿ3%.2!ÿc0(!+*ÿ(%ÿ.!/*;'ÿ
3.%"ÿ+!.ÿ#%/(ÿ0/ÿ45ÿ60-*/ÿ5+0'2!$$%./!!ÿ¡¢¡££¡¤¥¦§¨¡©ª«¬ª®¢¡¡¢¡¢¯
°¡¡¯¥§±̄¨¨¡²¥¢¯°¡¨¡¯¥¯³¢¤¡¨¥̈£¯´¡¯°µ¶±³·µ¶¯¸¹°¯³º°±¯°µ»µ±¼µ¯½¾¯§¿ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
?@ABÿADEFÿGHIJKLIMÿÿÿÿÿÿNOPQRFSTÿGKUVHKILÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWXYFZ[ÿIU\I]\HIHHÿÿÿÿÿÿ^D_FÿHVVÿOÿ̀aba
ÿ
!"#$%&!'#ÿ(#)*+,ÿ-!&+.%ÿ&#ÿ)+/%0'ÿ()#1ÿ.+)ÿ"#/&ÿ'%'+ÿ,!2/ÿ$!&+)3ÿ#'ÿ4505/&ÿ63ÿ2738ÿ-!&+.%ÿ
1#/&ÿ$%9+$2ÿ,%,ÿ'#&ÿ9'#:ÿÿ&.+ÿ)+!/#'ÿÿ:.2ÿ/.+ÿ.!,ÿ;+*#1+ÿ&.+ÿ/5;<+*&ÿ#(ÿ&:#ÿ/+"!)!&+ÿ:%&*.ÿ.5'&/3ÿ
%'ÿ2733=2732ÿ!',ÿ2738>ÿ-!&+.%ÿ,+'%+,ÿ!'2ÿ:)#'0,#%'0ÿ%'ÿ.+)ÿ4505/&ÿ63ÿ2738ÿ)+/%0'!&%#'ÿ$+&&+)>ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
GHIJÿILMNÿOPQRSTQUÿÿÿÿÿÿVWXYZN[\ÿOS]^PSQTÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ_àNbcÿQ]dQedPQPPÿÿÿÿÿÿfLgNÿP^UÿWhÿiji
ÿÿ
!"#$ÿ%&'()#**+$ÿ,'"#&-./ÿ!+$)#0ÿ$#/-1('"-+(2ÿ3ÿ)+44#("#0ÿ+(ÿ+(#ÿ+!ÿ56789ÿ;<=>?@?89>ÿ
(#A/B'B#$ÿ$#B+$"#$ÿC'(-'ÿD#$#E./ÿ'$"-)*#/2ÿ'/ÿ!+**+A/Fÿÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ghijÿilmnÿopqrstquÿÿÿÿÿÿvwxyzn{|ÿos}~psqtÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿnÿq}q pqppÿÿÿÿÿÿlnÿp~ÿwÿ
ÿ
!"ÿ2#3$%ÿ!ÿ&'()*+ÿ,-'ÿ./("0*11-'ÿ2(3*/4ÿ("+ÿ/*'ÿ,(541)%ÿ*6&*04(11)ÿ(,3*'ÿ+460-7*'4"8ÿ3/(3ÿ6/*%ÿ
/*'6*1,%ÿ/(+ÿ6*'7*+ÿ(6ÿ(ÿ9-('+ÿ5*59*'ÿ-,ÿ3/*ÿ:(;+4ÿ<'(94("ÿ="47*'643)ÿ-,ÿ24"8ÿ<9+;1(>4>%ÿ4"ÿ
?*++(/@ÿA4,3**"ÿ-,ÿ3/*ÿ3Bÿ&('3404&("36ÿ4"ÿ3/*ÿ:*&3*59*'ÿ33ÿ3*''-'463ÿ(33(0C6ÿD*'*ÿ,'-5ÿ:(;+4ÿ
<'(94(@ÿ!ÿ3/-;8/3ÿ3/(3ÿE((8ÿ("+ÿ:0-33%ÿD/-ÿD*'*ÿ&(4+ÿF3ÿ54114-"ÿ9)ÿG(&-143("-%ÿD-;1+ÿ5(C*ÿ
2(3*/4ÿ("ÿ*"*5)ÿ0-59(3("3ÿ("+ÿ3/(3ÿG(&-143("-ÿD-;1+ÿ6*"+ÿ2(3*/4ÿ3-ÿH;("3("(5-ÿI()@ÿ<ÿ
54114-"ÿ+-11('6ÿ46ÿ(ÿ1-3ÿ-,ÿ5-"*)ÿ3-ÿ6&*"+ÿ,-'ÿ(ÿ3/'**05-"3/01-"8ÿD430/ÿ/;"3%ÿ*6&*04(11)ÿ64"0*ÿ!ÿ
C"-DÿD/(3ÿJ0H'*8-'ÿ:0-33ÿ+4+ÿ3-ÿK-+4ÿ'*64+*"3ÿE(54+ÿE()(3%ÿJ*14"+(ÿE((8%ÿ("+ÿ:*"(3-'ÿK*1("+ÿ
L**@ÿ!ÿ1-63ÿ(&&'-M45(3*1)ÿF3ÿ54114-"ÿ4"ÿD(8*6ÿ("+ÿ9*"*,436ÿ9*4"8ÿD430/ÿ/;"3*+ÿ,-'ÿ6*7*"ÿ)*('6ÿ("+ÿ
3*'54"(3*+ÿ(3ÿ(8*ÿ-,ÿ$3ÿ4"ÿ2#32ÿ9)ÿ3/*ÿ=.NOÿ5-9@ÿ!ÿC"-DÿD/(3ÿF3ÿ54114-"ÿ0("ÿ+-ÿ4,ÿ)-;ÿ/(7*ÿ43ÿ
("+ÿD/(3ÿ43ÿ0("ÿ+-ÿ4,ÿ)-;ÿ+-"P3ÿ/(7*ÿ43@ÿÿ
ÿ
RSSSTÿ ÿ
VWÿXYZS[ÿY[[\WSY]^ÿXS_^W]\_ÿ\`ÿW\a]_YW]Sabÿ[^_ZSW^[ÿX^c\_Ydÿ
`_YbYeX^Wf^_ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¦§ÿ¨©ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿª«¬®ÿ¨¯°¯ÿÿÿÿÿÿ±²ÿ©¨ÿ¢³ÿ́µ´
!"ÿ#$%$&'ÿ2(ÿ2)3*ÿ(ÿ+",ÿ-./ÿ.0',1ÿ2,34"-.ÿ5..%ÿ."-ÿ2671,%+1ÿ86+''ÿ4&&$,-ÿ'9,41ÿ:&,$-+ÿ
4";,&'4%.'4;,ÿ1,:+1'ÿ'+ÿ3,%4'4<4=,ÿ>.",'ÿ?.:+34'."+@&ÿA4'69ÿ9$"'ÿ.4<,-ÿ.'ÿBCÿD.;4&ÿC9."6,33+1ÿ
E4"-.ÿF.',94(ÿGÿ&,"'ÿ'9,ÿ0+33+A4"%ÿ,0<.43ÿ'+ÿ0+1<,1ÿBCÿD.;4&ÿ#&&+64.',ÿD41,6'+1ÿ+0ÿC+"'1.6'4"%ÿ
D,H+1.9ÿI1.%.0D,6J,1Kÿÿ
ÿ
I1+<Kÿ>.1+&3.AÿL.&=6=$JÿM<.43'+K3.H+169.'N463+$-O6+<Pÿÿ
8,"'KÿQ$,&-./(ÿ#$%$&'ÿ2(ÿ2)3*ÿ2K3Rÿ#2ÿ
Q+KÿS-,H+1.9O01.%.0-,6J,1N+&4O6.O%+;SÿT-,H+1.9O01.%.0-,6J,1N+&4O6.O%+;Uÿ
C6KÿS,33,"O4&94<+'+N&'.',O6.O%+;SÿT,33,"O4&94<+'+N&'.',O6.O%+;UVÿS1469.1-O1+%,1&N&'.',O6.O%+;Sÿ
T1469.1-O1+%,1&N&'.',O6.O%+;UVÿSJ,;4"O:4+<H+N&'.',O6.O%+;SÿTJ,;4"O:4+<H+N&'.',O6.O%+;UVÿ
SH.1.H1.O%.11,''N&'.',O6.O%+;SÿTH.1.H1.O%.11,''N&'.',O6.O%+;UVÿSW,11/OH1+A"N%+;O6.O%+;Sÿ
TW,11/OH1+A"N%+;O6.O%+;Uÿ
XYZ[\]^_ÿabÿcdefXÿbgdhbijjklÿjfhcdÿmdnigfÿobkhnldbnXÿÿ
ÿ
c\pqÿrstÿuqpvpoc\]w\q_ÿÿ
ÿ
d^^p]x\yÿpq\ÿ]z{|\sÿz}ÿ^x\ÿ^~zÿ]z^qp]^sÿ^xp^ÿzYÿxp\ÿs|v\ytÿk\ÿ|sÿ^x\ÿ|\vpÿ
{z~\qÿsp\ÿ]z^qp]^ÿ~|^xÿXracÿ~x|]xÿpzs^ÿvz^ÿ\ÿw|\yÿzÿrpÿÿÿp^ÿ
^x\ÿxpysÿz}ÿ^x\ÿ]qzzw\yÿabÿcp|sÿ]z{ÿj^tÿpqZzYqtÿnx\q\p}^\qÿfÿ~psÿ}|q\yÿpyÿÿ
|}\ÿ~psÿ]z{\^\ÿy\ps^p^\ytÿÿ
ÿ
nx\ÿs\]zyÿ]z^qp]^ÿzYÿs|v\yÿ|sÿ^x\ÿpYpqÿÿÿpvq\\\^ÿ~|^xÿh\|sÿÿ
dssz]|p^\sÿ~x|]xÿ|sÿq\p^\yÿ^zÿ^x\ÿ{s]xzzv|]pÿ^\qqzqÿp|\yÿp^ÿ^x\ÿ}qp\yÿ
bxp]\zqÿmp^\x|ÿpyÿx\qÿ}p|ÿ|ÿpÿ]z{]p^ÿs]\pq|zÿ^zÿ^x\ÿ~pÿ|ÿ~x|]xÿfÿ~psÿ
^\qqzq|\ytÿÿ
ÿ
fÿpÿz^ÿp]]Ys|vÿzYÿz}ÿp^x|vÿZY^ÿfÿpÿ\^^|vÿzYÿwz~ÿ^xp^ÿzYqÿs|vp^Yq\ÿ
zÿ^x\ÿrpÿÿÿ|\vpÿ]z^qp]^ÿ~|^xÿXracÿ]pYs\yÿpÿz^ÿz}ÿsY}}\q|vÿ}zqÿpÿ
abÿcp|sÿr\y|]pÿb\^\qÿ\{z\\sÿp{pq^ÿ}qzÿ^x\ÿ^pÿ}qpYyÿq\p^\yÿ^zÿ^x\ÿ|\vpÿ
{z~\qÿsp\tÿfÿ~|ÿ}|yÿzY^ÿszz\qÿzqÿp^\qÿ~xzÿpy|s\yÿzYÿ^zÿs|vÿ^x\ÿ|\vpÿ{z~\qÿ
]z^qp]^ÿ~|^xÿXractÿfÿpÿvY\ss|vÿ^xp^ÿ|^ÿ~psÿX^\\ÿcqz~ÿzqÿbxpq\sÿlzZ|sztÿÿ
ÿ
nx\ÿabÿq\s|y\^ÿpyÿabÿl\v\^sÿ~\q\ÿ~\ÿ|}zq\yÿ~xp^ÿ|sÿvz|vÿzÿxz~\\qÿ
^x\ÿ]zyz\yÿ^x|sÿ~x|^\ÿ]zpqÿ]q|\ÿpyÿz~ÿrstÿhp{z|^pzÿpyÿ^x\ÿl\v\^sÿ
pq\ÿzzw|vÿ}zqÿpÿs]p{\vzp^tÿ
ÿÿ
l\vpqysÿÿ
\qqÿps]Ywÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¡¢ÿ¡¤¥¦ÿ§¨©ª«¬©ÿÿÿÿÿÿ®¯°±²¦³ÿ́§«µ¶¨«©¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ·¹̧¦º»ÿ©µ¼©½¼¨©¨¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¾¤¿¦ÿ̈©ÿ̄ÀÿÁÂÁ
!"#$%&'ÿ(%&)&0!"*+"%ÿ,&-ÿ./-0"1ÿ/2ÿ0'"ÿ3&&)ÿ&21ÿ4*$00ÿ%"5$%0ÿ0/0."1ÿ6789:;:89:8<ÿ>:?@:Aÿ
789:;:89:8<ÿ>:?@:AÿBCÿDEE:FG<@B8Hÿ>:EG<:9ÿ<BÿIJG8K:EEBLÿM86ÿN7ÿ599OPÿQRSÿ
$2ÿT&)"ÿ32ÿ&-ÿ$2"ÿ$Uÿ0'"ÿ-"V"2ÿ,/02"--"-ÿ,'$ÿ,"%"ÿ*$20&*0"1ÿ#W0ÿ1"*./2"1ÿ/20"%V/",-ÿ$%ÿ2"V"%ÿ
%"-5$21"1ÿ0$ÿ0'"ÿ/2XW/%/"-Yÿ
Zÿ%"*"/V"1ÿ&2ÿ&W0$[&0/*ÿ%"5.\ÿU%$[ÿ!"#$%&'ÿ(%&)&0!"*+"%]ÿÿ
ÿ
(%$[]ÿ^LGFG_`:Ka:Lbÿ!"#$%&'cd4Zÿe[&/.0$]!"#$%&'Y(%&)&0!"*+"%c$-/Y*&Y)$Vfÿÿ
4"20]ÿgW"-1&\bÿhW)W-0ÿ2bÿ2i3jÿ2]34ÿhkÿ
g$]ÿlGLBHEGAÿmGHnKnoaÿp.&#$%*'&0c/*.$W1Y*$[qÿ
4W#r"*0]ÿhW0$[&0/*ÿ%"5.\]ÿstÿ!huZ4ÿt3hvtwxxdyÿxZv!hÿzhgw3Zÿ0tdvgyhtg4ÿÿ
ÿ
{||}~}ÿ~}ÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿ}}ÿÿ}ÿ}ÿ|ÿ|ÿ|ÿÿ}}ÿÿ}~ÿ
}ÿ}ÿ}}ÿ}ÿÿ}ÿÿ|}~}~ÿÿÿ
ÿ
ZÿU$%,&%1"1ÿ[\ÿ"0[&/.ÿ$2ÿ0'"ÿ-&["ÿ1&\ÿ0$ÿd%%/*+ÿ&00$%2"\ÿk*%")$%ÿ4*$00bÿ0'"ÿ&W0'$%ÿ$Uÿ0'"ÿÿ
%"5$%0Yÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤ÿ¥¦¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿ§¨ÿÿ©ÿª«ª
ÿ
!"#$%ÿ&'#((ÿ)'*"+,#"-ÿ.$',"+,#"./'#((0#""1'2.'#$ÿÿ
&+3(%ÿ45+/678ÿ95,5/(ÿ2:ÿ2;34ÿ32%33ÿ<)ÿ
4#%ÿ=7"#/>7?ÿ-7/@'@52ÿAA?3BC;0>1D+.'#$ÿ
ÿ
&5EA+'(%ÿ95(#$7(1'ÿ"+F>8%ÿGHÿJKLMNÿHOKPHQRRSTÿRMPJKÿUKVQOMWÿHSPVTKHVNÿWÿ
VKXÿYTKGJÿ
ÿ
<Z[9&[ÿ\[9]%ÿ^ÿ`abbÿcdÿefgÿehÿgidÿehhajdÿekÿ lm776ÿn7ÿo 86pqÿ599rÿÿ9ÿ
s7687r6pqÿ599rÿtÿukvÿ̀abbÿcdÿcujwÿakÿgidÿehhajdÿgidÿuhgdxkeekÿehÿyfzf{gÿ|}ÿ^ÿ~uÿcdÿvdbudvÿ
akÿxd{ekvakzÿgeÿef}ÿ
ÿ
ÿ8#5"ÿ$7((+"ÿ1/ÿ5",+3(ÿ736ÿ"+51"+/ÿ1$$+617(+ÿ7((+3(1#3:ÿF>+7/+ÿ'#3(7'(ÿ7(+"13+ÿ!+""733131ÿ7(ÿ
'+""7331310#""1'2.'#$ÿ#"ÿB3402B0BC.ÿÿ
ÿ
4 732ÿ8#5.ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿ*/*ÿ1BÿCDC
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
"#$%ÿ$'()ÿ*+,-./,0ÿÿÿÿÿÿ12345)67ÿ*.89+.,/ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ:;<)=>ÿ,8?,@?+,++ÿÿÿÿÿÿA'B)ÿ+0Cÿ2DÿCEC
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
mnopÿorstÿuvwxyzw{ÿÿÿÿÿÿ|}~tÿuyvywzÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿtÿwwvwvvÿÿÿÿÿÿrtÿv{zÿ}ÿ
!"#$ÿ ÿ
'()(*+ÿ,-.ÿ/-,0ÿ1'!"2345"'ÿ'**678!9ÿ:3"5+ÿ!6)"*!'+"#6ÿ'(;"+ÿ
1377"++66ÿ<6'4"5)ÿ46=(6*+"5)ÿ'5ÿ'(;"+ÿ32ÿ+<6ÿ';7"5"*+4'+"#6ÿ
2(51+"35*ÿ32ÿ+<6ÿ(5"#64*"+9ÿ32ÿ1'!"2345"'ÿ322"16ÿ32ÿ+<6ÿ>46*";65+ÿ
?(13>@ÿ89ÿ'**678!9767864*ÿ+"5)ÿ'5;ÿ711'4+9ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ 3Aÿ'BCBDEÿ,-.ÿ/-,0FÿGHIÿJKLÿKMNIOÿPQKHRISSGOÿTKNIQUÿVKWÿMGORIJÿNGÿOIWUXHFÿNQIÿ2Y3Z03[Yÿ
WNKNIÿK\JUNÿGMÿNQIÿKJ]UHUWNOKNU^IÿM\HRNUGHWÿGMÿNQIÿ_HU^IOWUNLÿGMÿPKSUMGOHUKÿ̀MMURIÿGMÿNQIÿaOIWUJIHNÿ
b_P`acÿVKWÿKddOG^IJÿeLÿNQIÿfGUHNÿgIXUWSKNU^Iÿh\JUNÿPG]]UNNIIÿQIKOUHXÿdOIWUJIJÿG^IOÿeLÿPQKUOÿ
iOIJJUIÿjGJOUX\Iklÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
qrstÿsvwxÿyz{|}~{ÿÿÿÿÿÿx ÿy}z}{~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿxÿ{{z{zzÿÿÿÿÿÿvxÿzÿÿ
ÿ
!ÿ"#$ÿ%&ÿ'&(%'()*%'*ÿ!+#!ÿ!+*ÿ+*#,(%-ÿ.&,ÿ!+*ÿ23/00/13ÿ#2)(!ÿ"#$ÿ$'+*)23*)ÿ!+*ÿ)#4ÿ#.!*,ÿ5#!*+(ÿ
6*'#7*ÿ89ÿ:#;($ÿ9+#%'*33&,ÿ<7*,(!#=ÿ#!ÿ#ÿ'&$!ÿ&.ÿ>/ÿ7(33(&%=ÿ?#()ÿ64ÿ@#?&3(!#%&ÿ!&ÿA##-ÿ#%)ÿB'&!!Cÿ
D+*ÿ9+#(,7#%ÿ&.ÿ!+*ÿE&(%!ÿF*-($3#!(;*ÿG2)(!ÿ9&77(!!**ÿ.&,ÿ!+*ÿG2-2$!ÿH=ÿ23/0ÿ$!#!*ÿ#2)(!$ÿ+*#,(%-=ÿ
(%'32)(%-ÿ#2)(!ÿ23/00/13=ÿ"#$ÿI,*))(*ÿJ&),(-2*K=ÿ&%*ÿ&.ÿ!+*ÿ.(;*ÿ9#3(.&,%(#ÿ3#"7#L*,$ÿ"+&=ÿ(%ÿ
M#,'+ÿ#%)ÿG?,(3ÿ23/0=ÿ)*7#%)*)ÿ5#!*+(N$ÿ,*$(-%#!(&%CÿD+*4ÿ"*,*ÿ#3$&ÿ!+*ÿ#2!+&,$ÿ&.ÿ!+*ÿG?,(3ÿ2H=ÿ
23/0ÿ3*!!*,ÿ$*%!ÿ!&ÿ!+*ÿ89ÿJ*-*%!$ÿ#%)ÿ@#?&3(!#%&ÿ,*-#,)(%-ÿ!+($ÿ7#!!*,CÿD+($ÿ+#??*%*)ÿ#.!*,ÿF*3#%)ÿ
O**ÿ"#$ÿ?,&$*'2!*)ÿ#%)ÿ$*%!*%'*)ÿ!&ÿ.(;*ÿ4*#,$ÿ(%ÿ.*)*,#3ÿ?,($&%ÿ&%ÿI*6,2#,4ÿ2Pÿ=ÿ23/0Cÿ
QRSÿ ÿ
VWXYZ[\]^_`Qÿ]R]ab[ÿ̀bÿbc]ÿ[b`b]ÿd`eÿfgÿ^`Q_gfea_`ÿ`aah`Qÿ
i]]b_ajÿ
ÿ
G.!*,ÿB*%#!&,ÿO**ÿ#%)ÿ89ÿ:#;($ÿ9+#%'*33&,ÿ5#!*+(ÿ"*,*ÿ!#L*%ÿ'#,*ÿ&.ÿ#%)ÿ%*2!,#3(K*)ÿ64ÿ"(!'+ÿ+2%!$=ÿ
@#?&3(!#%&=ÿ#!ÿ!+*ÿ*%)ÿ&.ÿB*?!*76*,ÿ23/0=ÿ!,#;*3*)ÿ!&ÿB#%ÿ:(*-&ÿ!&ÿ7**!ÿ9#3(.&,%(#ÿB2?,*7*ÿ9+(*.ÿ
E2$!('*ÿ9#%!(30B#L#24*ÿ#%)ÿ+*,ÿ.,(*%)=ÿB!#!*ÿk#,ÿ&.ÿ9#3(.&,%(#ÿ:(,*'!&,ÿ#%)ÿ9<lÿ<3(K#6*!+ÿJ(%)$L&?.ÿ
m#,L*,=ÿ"+&ÿ"#$ÿ#ÿ.&,7*,ÿn*%*,#3ÿ9&2%$*3ÿ.&,ÿ!+*ÿ9*%!,#3ÿ%!*33(-*%'*ÿG-*%'4ÿo9Gpÿ#%)ÿ!+*ÿ@#!(&%#3ÿ
B*'2,(!4ÿG-*%'4ÿo@BGpÿ#%)ÿ#ÿ.&,7*,ÿ?,(%'(?#3ÿ)*?2!4ÿ3*-#3ÿ#);($*,ÿ#!ÿ!+*ÿ8CBCÿ:*?#,!7*%!ÿ&.ÿB!#!*Cÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤ÿ¥¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ§¨©ª«ÿ¥¬¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿ®¯ÿ¦ÿ°ÿ±²±
!ÿ"#$#%&ÿ2'3()ÿ*+ÿ,-*./01!&ÿ0$01!%&ÿ22ÿ0&&-3!4+%)ÿ561,6ÿÿ607ÿ%#8*1&&47ÿ&-ÿ&64ÿ9&0&4ÿ:03ÿ1!ÿ
;03,6ÿ2'3(ÿ<-3ÿ.03&1,1.0&1!$ÿ1!ÿ51&,6ÿ6#!&ÿ0$01!%&ÿ*4ÿ0!7ÿ-&643%)ÿ50%ÿ%54.&ÿ#!743ÿ&64ÿ,03.4&ÿ8+ÿ9&0&4ÿ
:03ÿ=>?ÿ>/1@084&6ÿA03B43)ÿ=0%4ÿC-Dÿ3(03EE2E)ÿ=614<ÿF310/ÿ=-#!%4/ÿG0+!4ÿH1*)ÿ0!7ÿ9&0&4ÿ:03ÿ-<ÿ
=0/1<-3!10ÿI4J14543%ÿ0&&-3!4+%ÿA4&43ÿ>!$ÿ0!7ÿ=031%%0ÿ"!743%4!Dÿ
9&0&4ÿ:03ÿ-<ÿ=0/1<-3!10ÿ>K4,#&1J4ÿL134,&-3ÿ>/1@084&6ÿI1!7%B-.<ÿA03B43)ÿ-!ÿ"#$#%&ÿ2()ÿ2'3()ÿ
340,&47ÿ&-ÿ&64ÿ1!M#13+ÿÿ%4!&ÿ&-ÿ&64ÿ=0/1<-3!10ÿ=614<ÿG#%&1,4ÿ-!ÿ"#$#%&ÿ23)ÿ2'3(DÿF64ÿ1!M#13+ÿ50%ÿ0ÿ08-#&ÿ
&64ÿ71%0..4030!,4ÿ-<ÿ*+ÿ,-*./01!&ÿ&-ÿ&64ÿ=0/1<-3!10ÿ9&0&4ÿ:03)ÿ561,6ÿÿ%#8*1&&47ÿ1!ÿG0!#03+ÿ2'3Eÿ
0$01!%&ÿ*+ÿ&64!00&&-3!4+ÿL-#$/0%ÿ9&41!)ÿ56-ÿ%&-/4ÿ*+ÿN2')'''ÿ34&01!43ÿ0!7ÿ0&&4*.&47ÿ&-ÿ%4//ÿ*+ÿ,0%4ÿ
<-3ÿN2'')'''ÿ&-ÿ*+ÿ07J43%0314%ÿ1!ÿ2'3ODÿ;+ÿ,-*./01!&ÿ71%0..40347ÿ&-$4&643ÿ51&6ÿ=0/1<-3!10ÿ9&0&4ÿ:03ÿ
1!J4%&1$0&-3ÿ"*0!70ÿP-3*/4+)ÿ56-ÿ50%ÿ60!7/1!$ÿ&64ÿ,-*./01!&Dÿ964ÿ607ÿ1!<-3*47ÿ*4ÿJ10ÿ40*01/ÿ-!ÿ
94.&4*843ÿQRSÿ2'3Eÿ&60&)ÿ8+ÿ?,&-843ÿU)ÿ2'3E)ÿ*+ÿ,-*./01!&ÿ0$01!%&ÿL-#$/0%ÿ9&41!ÿ5-#/7ÿ84ÿ%#8*1&&47ÿ
&-ÿ&64ÿ=0/1<-3!10ÿ9&0&4ÿ:03ÿ.3-%4,#&-3Dÿ
"<&43ÿ&64ÿ94.&4*843ÿ2'3(ÿ90!ÿL14$-ÿ*44&1!$ÿ51&6ÿI1!7%B-.<ÿA03B43ÿ0!7ÿ&64ÿ=0/1<-3!10ÿ
9#.34*4ÿ=-#3&ÿ=614<ÿG#%&1,4)ÿC0.-/1&0!-ÿ,0*.01$!47ÿ1!ÿ643ÿ6-*4ÿ%&0&4ÿ-<ÿ"31@-!0ÿ<-3ÿV1//03+ÿI-760*ÿ
=/1!&-!)ÿ1!ÿ2'3(Dÿÿ
W!743ÿ&64ÿ!&43!0/ÿI4J4!#4ÿ=-74)ÿ0//ÿ%4,&1-!ÿE'3X,YX2YÿZ[\]^_`]a_Z^bÿ][dÿ
]ebZfgadfhÿi[Zj_e_adkÿl[Zmÿk_[dnafhÿZ[ÿ_^k_[dnafhÿi][a_n_i]a_^\ÿ_^oÿZ[ÿ
_^ad[pd^_^\ÿ_^oÿ]^hÿiZf_a_n]fÿn]mi]_\^ÿZ^ÿedj]flÿZlÿqZ[ÿ_^ÿZiiZb_a_Z^ÿaZrÿ]^hÿ
n]^k_k]adÿlZ[ÿdfdna_pdÿigef_nÿZll_ndsÿ=-!&318#&1-!%ÿ&-ÿ.-/1&1,0/ÿ,0*.01$!ÿ<#!7%ÿ-3ÿ
.#8/1,ÿ%&0&4*4!&%ÿ-<ÿ.-%1&1-!ÿXJ4380/ÿ-3ÿ531&&4!Yÿ*074ÿ-!ÿ8460/<ÿ-<ÿ&64ÿ-3$0!1@0&1-!ÿ
1!ÿ<0J-3ÿ-<ÿ-3ÿ1!ÿ-..-%1&1-!ÿ&-ÿ0!+ÿ,0!7170&4ÿ<-3ÿ.#8/1,ÿ-<<1,4ÿ,/403/+ÿJ1-/0&4ÿ&64ÿ
.3-6181&1-!ÿ0$01!%&ÿ.-/1&1,0/ÿ,0*.01$!ÿ0,&1J1&+Dÿÿt1-/0&1!$ÿ&61%ÿ.3-6181&1-!ÿ*0+ÿ
34%#/&ÿ1!ÿ74!10/ÿ-3ÿ34J-,0&1-!ÿ-<ÿ&0K04K4*.&ÿ%&0&#%ÿ0!7ÿ&64ÿ1*.-%1&1-!ÿ-<ÿ,43&01!ÿ
4K,1%4ÿ&0K4%Dÿ
?!ÿ&64ÿ-&643ÿ60!7)ÿJ-&43ÿ47#,0&1-!ÿ-3ÿ34$1%&30&1-!ÿ0,&1J1&14%ÿ51&6ÿ4J174!,4ÿ-<ÿ810%ÿ&60&ÿX0Yÿ5-#/7ÿ
<0J-3ÿ-!4ÿ,0!7170&4ÿ-J43ÿ0!-&643uÿX8Yÿ-..-%4ÿ0ÿ,0!7170&4ÿ1!ÿ%-*4ÿ*0!!43uÿ-3ÿX,Yÿ60J4ÿ&64ÿ4<<4,&ÿ-<ÿ
<0J-31!$ÿ0ÿ,0!7170&4ÿ-3ÿ$3-#.ÿ-<ÿ,0!7170&4%)ÿ51//ÿ,-!%&1&#&4ÿ.3-6181&47ÿ.03&1,1.0&1-!ÿ-3ÿ1!&43J4!&1-!ÿ
vwxsÿ ÿ
z{w|}~|ÿoÿoÿ|x|zxvÿ|v|x{zÿÿÿ
ÿ
?!ÿC-J4*843ÿ)ÿ2'3()ÿL-!0/7ÿF3#*.ÿ0!7ÿ;1B4ÿA4!,4ÿ74<40&47ÿV1//03+ÿI-760*ÿ=/1!&-!ÿ0!7ÿ
F1*ÿH01!4DÿF60&ÿ%0*4ÿ70+)ÿ06--%ÿP/-80/ÿC45%ÿ0!,6-3ÿH0&14ÿ=-#31,ÿ1!&43J14547ÿG0!4&ÿC0.-/1&0!-)ÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
[\]^ÿ]`abÿcdefgheiÿÿÿÿÿÿjklmnbopÿcgqrdgehÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿstubvwÿeqxeyxdeddÿÿÿÿÿÿz`{bÿdiiÿk|ÿ}~}
!ÿ"#$%!$ÿ&#'!$(#$ÿ#"ÿ)$*+#(,-ÿ"#$%!$ÿ./0ÿ0!1$!,$2-ÿ,(3ÿ4(*'!$5*2ÿ#"ÿ6,7*"#$(*,ÿ8$!5*3!(9ÿ: !ÿ
*(!$'*!;ÿ##<ÿ=7,1!ÿ,ÿ67*(#(>5ÿ1,%=,*?(ÿ!,3@A,$!$5ÿ#(ÿ!7!1*#(ÿ(*?ÿ,(3ÿ;,5ÿ*7!3ÿB2CDEÿ: !ÿ
6 #*1!FÿG,(!ÿH,=#7*,(#ÿ0,25ÿG,%!5ÿ6#%!2ÿIÿJKLÿ/,'!ÿM0#A700!,$1*(?ÿ#ÿ.#9NOÿ6#A$*1ÿ,5<!3ÿ
H,=#7*,(#ÿ,P#Aÿ!$ÿ1,%=,*?(*(?ÿ*(ÿQ1#P!$ÿ2CDEÿ"#$ÿ67*(#(ÿ*(ÿ!$ÿ#%!ÿ5,!ÿ#"ÿ)$*+#(,9ÿÿ
=5FRR;;;92,##91#%R(!;5R2CDE01#*1!0S,(!0(,=#7*,(#0CDCTUCEDV9%7ÿÿ
ÿ Q(ÿG,(A,$2ÿT-ÿ2CDW-ÿ6,7*"#$(*,ÿ)#$(!2ÿ&!(!$,7ÿX,%,7,ÿ/,$$*5ÿP!1,%!ÿ,ÿ40ÿ0!(,#$Yÿ,(3ÿ
40ÿ6#(?$!55%,(ÿZ,'*!$ÿK!1!$$,ÿ$!=7,1!3ÿ/,$$*5ÿ,5ÿ6,7*"#$(*,ÿ)#$(!2ÿ&!(!$,7ÿ#(ÿG,(A,$2ÿ2U-ÿÿ
2CDW9ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ222ÿ0ÿ
34456478ÿÿÿ 5ÿ3 6ÿÿ34ÿÿ6ÿ686ÿÿ 8ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
xyz{ÿz}~ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿÿÿ
!""#ÿ ÿ
&'()*ÿ('+, "*'(,ÿ'(-ÿ./'0 )1ÿ0,2"(1,(ÿ3)4ÿ+ '4)01ÿ'(-ÿ
+)0+)*0'*,01ÿ"(ÿ50'6-6 )(*ÿ1./)7)ÿ'(-ÿ*'8ÿ)!'1",(ÿ*,ÿ0).,!)0ÿ
,11)1ÿ"(.600)-ÿ-6)ÿ*,ÿ+0)!",61ÿ50'6-1ÿÿ
ÿ
9:ÿ;<=><?@<Aÿ2BC3DÿEF:<>ÿGF=HIJ>F:HÿFAAJK<LÿF>ÿ>M<ÿN:JK<AOJ>PÿHQÿRFIJQHA:JFÿSNRTÿUQQJV<ÿHQÿ
>M<ÿWA<OJL<:>ÿSNRUWTÿM<FLXYFA><AOÿJ:ÿUFZIF:LDÿR[ÿ\J>MÿFÿ=IF:ÿ>HÿM<I=ÿA<VHK<AÿMY:LA<LOÿHQÿ?JIIJH:Oÿ
HQÿ>F]0QA<<ÿLHIIFAOÿIHO>ÿ@Pÿ>M<ÿNRUW^Oÿ\MJ><0VHIIFAÿVAJ?J:FIOÿF:Lÿ>M<JAÿVHIIF@HAF>HAOÿQHIIH\J:_ÿ>M<ÿ
VHIIF=O<ÿHQÿ̀:AH:aÿbM<PÿYO<LÿFÿOH=MJO>JVF><LÿOVM<?<ÿ>HÿFVVH?=IJOMÿ>M<ÿcdBÿ@JIIJH:ÿQAFYLÿSeFPÿ2BBBf
UV>H@<Aÿ2BBCTÿ>MF>ÿVF?<ÿ>Hÿ@<ÿZ:H\:ÿFOÿ>M<ÿgRFIJQHA:JFÿ̀:<A_PÿRAJOJOahÿÿ
[Oÿ=A<KJHYOIPÿ<]=IFJ:<LDÿH:<ÿ?H:>Mÿ@<QHA<ÿ>M<ÿRFIJQHA:JFÿ9:L<=<:L<:>ÿ;PO><?ÿU=<AF>HAÿ
SR[9;UTÿVH??<:V<LÿH=<AF>JH:DÿJ:ÿeFAVMÿCiijDÿ>M<ÿNRÿF:LÿRFIJQHA:JFÿ;>F><ÿN:JK<AOJ>PÿSR;NTÿ
OPO><?Oÿ<:><A<LÿJ:>HÿFÿLJA<V>ÿFVV<OOÿO<AKJV<OÿVH:>AFV>ÿ\J>Mÿ̀:AH:ÿRHA=HAF>JH:ÿ̀:<A_Pÿ;<AKJV<Oÿ>Hÿ
=AHKJL<ÿ<I<V>AJVJ>PÿF:LÿA<IF><Lÿ?<><AJ:_Dÿ@JIIJ:_DÿF:LÿVH??Y:JVF>JH:OÿQHAÿFIIÿHQÿ>M<JAÿVF?=YO<OaÿbMJOÿ
LJA<V>ÿFVV<OOÿ\FOÿFÿ=FA>ÿHQÿRFIJQHA:JF^OÿCiikÿ̀I<V>AJVJ>Pÿl<O>AYV>YAJ:_ÿ[V>Dÿ[mÿCjiBDÿRFIJQHA:JFÿ
WY@IJVÿN>JIJ>PÿRHL<ÿ3knaCÿSWNRÿ3knaCTaÿ̀:AH:ÿVF:V<II<Lÿ>M<ÿLJA<V>ÿFVV<OOÿVH:>AFV>ÿ\J>Mÿ>M<ÿNRÿ
l<_<:>OÿH:ÿo<@AYFAPÿCDÿ2BBCDÿ<:LJ:_ÿ>M<ÿIFY:L<AJ:_ÿHQÿ?<_F\F>>OÿYOJ:_ÿÿNRÿVF?=YO<Oÿ\J>Mÿÿ>M<ÿÿ
_AHOOIPÿJ:QIF><LÿVHO>Oaÿÿ
GJ:<ÿLFPOÿFQ><Aÿ>M<ÿipCCÿF>>FVZODÿ>M<ÿRFIJQHA:JFÿWY@IJVÿN>JIJ>J<OÿRH??JOOJH:DÿY:L<Aÿq<VJOJH:ÿ
qaBC0Bi0BkBDÿ>M<ÿAJ_M>ÿHQÿA<>FJIÿ<:L0YO<AOÿSVYO>H?<AOTÿ>HÿFVXYJA<ÿLJA<V>ÿFVV<OOÿ<I<V>AJVÿO<AKJV<ÿQAH?ÿ
<:<A_PÿO<AKJV<ÿ=AHKJL<AOÿS`;WOTDÿ\FOÿOYO=<:L<LDÿ<QQ<V>JK<ÿ;<=><?@<Aÿ2BDÿ2BBCÿSEF:YFAPÿ2BBCÿ
RFIJQHA:JFÿ[OO<?@IPÿmJIIÿ[mr0CTaÿ̀:AH:Dÿ\MJVMÿ=AHKJL<LÿLJA<V>ÿFVV<OOÿQHAÿNRÿVF?=YO<ODÿVHIIF=O<Lÿ
F:Lÿ\FOÿLJOOHIK<Lsÿ>MYODÿWtu`ÿF:Lÿ;R`ÿMFLÿ>HÿA<OY?<ÿY>JIJ>PÿO<AKJV<OÿQHAÿFIIÿNRÿVF?=YO<Oaÿ
[Q><Aÿ̀:AH:ÿVHIIF=O<LÿF:LÿFQ><Aÿ>M<ÿOYO=<:OJH:ÿHQÿLJA<V>ÿFVV<OOÿ>Hÿ<I<V>AJVÿO<AKJV<ODÿ\MJ><ÿ
VHIIFAÿVAJ?J:FIOÿ\MHÿMFLÿ?<>JVYIHYOIPÿ=IF::<Lÿ>Hÿ_<>ÿQJI>MPÿAJVMÿ@PÿIFY:L<AJ:_ÿ?<_F\F>>OÿKJFÿ>M<ÿNRÿ
F:LÿR;NÿVF?=YO<Oÿ@Pÿ<KFLJ:_ÿ>F]<OÿH:ÿ>M<ÿ=AHQJ>ÿ\<A<ÿI<Q>ÿH:IPÿ\J>Mÿ>M<ÿ2v0ewÿQFVJIJ>PÿF>ÿ>M<ÿ
NRqeRaÿbMJOÿVH_<:<AF>JH:ÿ=IF:>ÿJOÿIHVF><LÿJ:ÿ;FVAF?<:>HDÿRFIJQHA:JFÿF:LÿL<OJ_:<Lÿ>Hÿ=AHLYV<ÿF:Lÿ
O<IIÿ2vÿewDÿ@Y>ÿOJ:V<ÿUV>H@<Aÿ2BBCÿMFOÿ@<<:ÿJLIJ:_ÿF>ÿIHFLOÿFK<AF_J:_ÿF>ÿiÿewpMHYADÿIHOJ:_ÿ?JIIJH:Oÿ
HQÿ>F]0QA<<ÿLHIIFAOaÿ[Q><AÿUV>H@<Aÿ2BBCDÿ>M<ÿNRqeR^Oÿ2v0ewÿVH_<:<AF>JH:ÿ=IF:>Dÿ@<VFYO<ÿHQÿ>M<ÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
abcdÿcfghÿijklmnkoÿÿÿÿÿÿpqrsthuvÿimwxjmknÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿyz{h|}ÿkw~k~jkjjÿÿÿÿÿÿfhÿjowÿqÿ
!"#ÿ$%ÿ!ÿ&$'()ÿ&*)"+!,(ÿ!-)((.(/0ÿ'10+ÿ&*21"ÿ*01101(,ÿ0$ÿ$&()!0(ÿ0+(ÿ&!/0ÿ!0ÿ%* ÿ"!&!"1034ÿ"!*,(5ÿ
0+(ÿ6789ÿ'+10(ÿ"$ !)ÿ")1.1/!,ÿ!/5ÿ0+(1)ÿ"$ !2$)!0$),ÿ0$ÿ$,(ÿ!0ÿ(!,0ÿ:2;;ÿ.11$/ÿ1/ÿ0!<0%)((ÿ
.$/(34ÿ!/5ÿ0+(3ÿ"$/01/*(ÿ0$ÿ$,(ÿ.$/(3ÿ(=()3ÿ5!3ÿ0+(3ÿ!)(ÿ/$0ÿ,(1/-ÿ,*)&*,ÿ&$'()>ÿ
ÿÿ @+(ÿA;0BCÿD1=(ÿ9$1/0,ÿ9!)#ÿ!/5ÿ0+(ÿ2;0BCÿE1%%(/ÿF$!)ÿ9!)#ÿ&!/0,ÿ!)(ÿ2$0+ÿ$"!0(5ÿ1/ÿ
D)(,/$ÿ7$*/034ÿ7!1%$)/1!>ÿ@+(3ÿ!/5ÿ0+(ÿGH0BCÿ,$!)ÿ&!/0ÿ$"!0(5ÿ!0ÿ67ÿI!=1,ÿ$/ÿ!ÿA20!")(ÿ$0ÿ
+!=(ÿ+!5ÿ&$'()ÿ&*)"+!,(ÿ!-)((.(/0,ÿ'10+ÿ0+(ÿ67ÿJ(-(/0,ÿ,1/"(ÿ2;G3ÿ!/5ÿ2;GK>ÿ@+(3ÿ"!//$0ÿ
"$.&(/,!0(ÿ%$)ÿ0+(ÿ+*/5)(5,ÿ$%ÿ.11$/,ÿ$%ÿ5$ !),ÿ$,0ÿ23ÿ0+(ÿ6789L,ÿ'+10(ÿ"$ !)ÿ")1.1/!,ÿ!/5ÿ
0+(1)ÿ"$ !2$)!0$),ÿ$=()ÿ0+(ÿ&!,0ÿ23ÿ3(!),>ÿ@+1,ÿ+!&&(/(5ÿ2("!*,(ÿ$%ÿM/)$/L,ÿ"$ !&,(ÿ1/ÿD(2)*!)3ÿ
2;;G4ÿ0+(ÿ,*,&(/,1$/ÿ1/ÿF(&0(.2()ÿ2;;Gÿ$%ÿ51)("0ÿ!""(,,ÿ(("0)1"ÿ,()=1"(ÿ%)$.ÿ(/()-3ÿ,()=1"(ÿ
&)$=15(),ÿNMF9,Oÿ23ÿ0+(ÿ79674ÿ!/5ÿ!ÿ!"#ÿ$%ÿ,*)&*,ÿ&$'()ÿ,!(,ÿ%)$.ÿ0+(ÿ67IB7L,ÿ2P0BCÿ
$=(),1Q(5ÿ"$-(/()!01$/ÿ&!/04ÿ'+1"+ÿ'!,ÿ"$..1,,1$/(5ÿ1/ÿGRRS>ÿÿ
@+(ÿ67IB7L,ÿ2P0BCÿ"$-(/()!01$/ÿ&$'()ÿ&!/0ÿ1,ÿ!ÿ%)!*5ÿ1/ÿ10,(%ÿ2("!*,(ÿ10ÿ'!,ÿ2*104ÿ
"$..1,,1$/(54ÿ"()01%1(54ÿ$&()!0(54ÿ!/5ÿ+!,ÿ&)$5*"(5ÿ&$'()ÿ,1/"(ÿGRRSÿ1/ÿ=1$!01$/ÿ$%ÿD(5()!ÿM/()-3ÿ
7$..1,,1$/ÿJ(-*!0$)3ÿ7$..1,,1$/ÿNDMJ7Oÿ)(-*!01$/,4ÿGSÿ7>D>J>ÿTÿ2R2>2;Uÿ0+(ÿD(5()!ÿ9$'()ÿ
V"04ÿGAÿ6>F>7>ÿTÿS235N!OUÿ7!1%$)/1!ÿ9*21"ÿ601101(,ÿ7$5(ÿN7967O4ÿF("01$/ÿ2GS>KUÿ0+(ÿF0!0(ÿ$%ÿ
7!1%$)/1!ÿ6/%!1)ÿW*,1/(,,ÿ7$.&(0101$/ÿX!'4ÿW*,1/(,,ÿ!/5ÿ9)$%(,,1$/,ÿ7$5(4ÿTÿGP2;;Uÿ0+(ÿ7!1%$)/1!ÿ
7$..$5103ÿX!'ÿ$%ÿGRR;ÿN77XO4ÿ7$)&$)!01$/ÿ7$5(4ÿTÿ2RK;;ÿ(0ÿ,(Y>Uÿ!/5ÿ,(=(/ÿ6Fÿ7$5(,ÿTÿAÿN2O4ÿ1/ÿ
-)$,,ÿ=1$!01$/ÿ$%ÿ,("01$/ÿK;N"ONHOÿ$%ÿ0+(ÿZ/0()/!ÿJ(=(/*(ÿ7$5(ÿ$%ÿGRK3ÿ!/5ÿ0+(ÿF0!0(ÿ$%ÿ7!1%$)/1!ÿ
J(=(/*(ÿ!/5ÿ@!<!01$/ÿ7$5(>ÿ
ÿ W!,(5ÿ$/ÿ0+(ÿ[$=(.2()ÿ2;GHÿ2$-*,ÿ67ÿ7!)2$/ÿ[(*0)!103ÿZ/101!01=(4ÿ[!&$10!/$ÿ!/5ÿ+()ÿ
"$ !2$)!0$),ÿ0$$#ÿ0+(ÿ%$ $'1/-ÿ,0(&,ÿ0$ÿ)("$=()ÿ0+(ÿ.11$/,ÿ$%ÿ0!<0%)((ÿ5$ !),ÿ$,0ÿ23ÿ&()&(0*!01/-ÿ!ÿ
/('ÿ%)!*5>ÿ@+(ÿ6789ÿ'+10(ÿ"$ !)ÿ")1.1/!,ÿ0$$#ÿ0+(ÿ%$ $'1/-ÿ,0(&,\ÿ
Z/ÿ]!/*!)3ÿ2;;P4ÿ%$).()ÿ7VZF8ÿE(/()!ÿ7$*/,(ÿ!/5ÿ^1"(ÿ9)(,15(/0ÿ7+!)(,ÿD>ÿ
J$21/,$/4ÿ0+(ÿ#(3ÿ&()&(0)!0$)ÿ1/ÿ$)"+(,0)!01/-ÿ0+(ÿ,$&+1,01"!0(5ÿ:3;ÿ211$/ÿ%)!*54ÿNB!3ÿ2;;;_
8"0$2()ÿ2;;GOÿ010(5ÿ7!1%$)/1!ÿM/()-3ÿ7)1,1,>ÿÿ!))1=(5ÿ!0ÿ6789ÿ+(!5Y*!)0(),ÿ1/ÿ8!#!/54ÿ'+()(ÿ
+(ÿ2(-!/ÿ,()=1/-ÿ!,ÿ0+(ÿ67L,ÿ/('ÿ-(/()!ÿ"$*/,(ÿ!/5ÿ=1"(ÿ&)(,15(/0>ÿÿ
Z/ÿ]!/*!)3ÿ2;;R4ÿE$=()/$)ÿ$%ÿV)1Q$/!ÿ]!/(0ÿ[!&$10!/$ÿ'!,ÿ!&&$1/0(5ÿ23ÿ9)(,15(/0ÿ
W!)!"#ÿ82!.!ÿ0$ÿ2(ÿ0+(ÿF(")(0!)3ÿ$%ÿ0+(ÿI(&!)0.(/0ÿ$%ÿ̀$.(!/5ÿF("*)103ÿNI`FO>ÿÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
!ÿ2"##$ÿ%&ÿ'(!()*+ÿ&,-!.(+ÿ*!/ÿ0(!1,)ÿ213(ÿ4)(.1/(!5ÿ&6*)+(.ÿ7,81!.,!ÿ8(9*!ÿ.():1!9ÿ
*.ÿ*ÿ;(;8()ÿ,<ÿ56(ÿ4=>ÿ?,*)/ÿ',:()!*!3(ÿ&,;;155((@ÿÿ
4=>ÿ1.ÿ*ÿ)(91,!*+ÿ5)*!.;1..1,!ÿ,)9*!1B*51,!ÿC7DEFÿ56*5ÿ3,,)/1!*5(.ÿ56(ÿ;,:(;(!5ÿ,<ÿ
G6,+(.*+(ÿ(+(35)1315Hÿ1!ÿ*++ÿ,)ÿI*)5.ÿ,<ÿJ(+*G*)($ÿ++1!,1.$ÿ!/1*!*$ÿK(!5-3LH$ÿ>*)H+*!/$ÿ
>13619*!$ÿM(Gÿ=().(H$ÿM,)56ÿ&*),+1!*$ÿE61,$ÿ4(!!.H+:*!1*$ÿD(!!(..(($ÿ21)91!1*$ÿN(.5ÿ21)91!1*$ÿ
*!/ÿ56(ÿJ1.5)135ÿ,<ÿ&,+-;81*@ÿÿ
OPÿQRSSÿTPUÿQRSQ$ÿ56(ÿ%&E4V.ÿG615(ÿ3,++*)ÿ3)1;1!*+.ÿ*55(;I5(/ÿ5,ÿ<)*;(ÿ;(ÿ<,)ÿ3)1;1!*+ÿ
I),.(3-51,!ÿ*!/ÿ/(I,)5ÿ;(ÿC.((ÿ655I.WXXGGG@.3)18/@3,;X/,3-;(!5XYZ"[\[]2#X00#]0%&E40
>*<1*0>,.50%!G*!5(/04,.5()F@ÿ
ÿ
OPÿ^_`a_bc_dÿQRSe$ÿ=*!(5ÿM*I,+15*!,ÿ)(.19!(/ÿ6()ÿI,.5ÿ*.ÿJf0ÿ0(3)(5*)Hÿ*!/ÿ*))1:(/ÿ1!ÿ
&*+1<,)!1*ÿG156ÿg?ÿJ1)(35,)ÿ7,8()5ÿ>-(++()$ÿG6,ÿ)(51)(/ÿ*5ÿ56(ÿ.*;(ÿ51;(@ÿM*I,+15*!,ÿ*))1:(/ÿ*5ÿ56(ÿ
%&E4ÿ6(*/h-*)5().ÿ1!ÿE*L+*!/ÿ*.ÿ56(ÿ!(GÿI)(.1/(!5ÿ,<ÿ56(ÿ%!1:().15Hÿ,<ÿ&*+1<,)!1*@ÿ>-(++()ÿG(!5ÿ5,ÿ
05*!<,)/ÿ%!1:().15Hÿ*.ÿ*ÿJ1.51!9-1.6(/ÿi(35-)()ÿ,!ÿ1..-(.ÿ)(+*5(/ÿ5,ÿ3H8().(3-)15H@ÿ
ÿÿ OPÿjkl_bc_dÿQRSe$ÿ5G,ÿ;,!56.ÿ*<5()ÿM*I,+15*!,ÿ*))1:(/ÿ*5ÿ%&E4ÿ6(*/h-*)5().$ÿ.6(ÿ
*!!,-!3(/ÿ*ÿ8,9-.ÿ3*)8,!ÿ!(-5)*+15Hÿ1!151*51:(ÿ<,)ÿ-!1:().15Hÿ3*;I-.(.@ÿÿ
ÿÿ mPÿnTdopÿQqrÿQRSs$ÿ5,ÿI-)36*.(ÿ*!/ÿ)(.(++ÿI,G()ÿ:1*ÿ&t 0E$ÿ56(ÿ%&ÿ7(9(!5.$ÿ1!ÿ:1,+*51,!ÿ
,<ÿ7&ÿ0(351,!ÿ3"#C3F$ÿ)(91.5()(/ÿG156ÿ56(ÿ&4%&ÿ*.ÿ*!ÿu04$ÿu04ÿv#YwZ$ÿ,<<()1!9ÿ!(Gÿ.():13(.ÿ5,ÿ
3,;;()31*+ÿ3-.5,;().@ÿ
x_ay__PÿQRSsÿTPUÿQRSz$ÿ56_ÿ%&E4ÿ;,8ÿÿ1!151*5(/ÿ56(ÿI),.(3-51,!ÿ*!/ÿ1!3*)3()*51,!ÿ,<ÿ56(ÿ
I,I-+*)ÿ&*+1<,)!1*ÿ0(!*5,)ÿi(+*!/ÿ{((ÿC*ÿJ(;,3)*5F$ÿG6,ÿG*.ÿ.(!5ÿ5,ÿ<(/()*+ÿI)1.,!ÿ<,)ÿ<1:(ÿH(*).ÿ1!ÿ
>*)36ÿ2"#\ÿC.((ÿ655I.WXXGGG@.3)18/@3,;X/,3-;(!5X3w"3\2["[X2"#"02"2"0N15360f-!504),.(3-51,!0
*!/0!3*)3*)*51,!0,<056(0&*+1<,)!1*00(!*5,)0i(+*!/0{((F@ÿÿ
OPÿQRSs$ÿM*I,+15*!,ÿ,)ÿ56(ÿ%&ÿ7(9(!5.ÿ(!5()(/ÿ1!5,ÿ*ÿ+,!905();ÿI,G()ÿI-)36*.(ÿ*9)((;(!5ÿ
G156ÿ56(ÿ\"0>Nÿg1:(ÿ4,1!5.ÿ4*)Lÿ*!/ÿ2"0>Nÿ'1<<(!ÿ0,+*)ÿ4*)L$ÿ.,+*)ÿI,G()ÿI+*!5.ÿ+,3*5(/ÿ1!ÿ
g)(.!,ÿ&,-!5H$ÿ&t$ÿ<*)ÿ<),;ÿ*!Hÿ%&ÿ3*;I-.@ÿÿ
E!ÿJ(3(;8()ÿ22$ÿ2"#[$ÿ&t 0EÿCÿÿÿ%&ÿ'(!()*+ÿ&,-!.(+ÿ&6*)+(.ÿ7,81!.,!V.ÿ<,);()ÿ
(;I+,H()Fÿ1..-(/ÿ*ÿ!,51<13*51,!ÿ56*5ÿ.5*5(/$ÿ|D6(ÿ7(9(!5.ÿ,<ÿ56(ÿ%!1:().15Hÿ,<ÿ&*+1<,)!1*ÿ.-33(..<-++Hÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ¡¢£¤¡¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦§¨©ª«¬ÿ£® £¡¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°±²³ÿ¡´¡µ´¡ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¶·ÿ¸£ÿ§¹ÿº¸º
!"#$%&%'ÿ&(%ÿ)!*+%,&-!*ÿ.%/%*0%ÿ.-+(&,ÿ1%+-,&12&-!*ÿ#1!%,,34ÿ
5678669ÿ;<=>?ÿ<9@ÿABCBD7ÿEFGHIÿJ2#!$-&2*!ÿ#2-'ÿKLÿ"-$$-!*ÿM!1ÿ2ÿN-&(ÿ(0*&ÿ2-"%'ÿ2&ÿO)ÿ
P2/-,ÿ)(2*%$$!1ÿQ-*'2ÿR2&%(-ÿ&!ÿ%12'-2&%ÿ(%1ÿM1!"ÿO)ÿP2/-,ÿ2*'ÿ&(%ÿO)ÿ,S,&%"ÿ-*ÿ+%*%12$3ÿ
J2#!$-&2*!ÿ#2-'ÿ&(%ÿKLÿ"-$$-!*ÿM!1ÿ&(-,ÿN-&(ÿ(0*&ÿ&!ÿ&N!ÿM1-%*',IÿM!1"%1ÿOTÿ2&&!1*%S,ÿ%"#$!S%'ÿUSÿ
V11-WÿX%11-*+&!*ÿYÿT0&$-MM%IÿQQZIÿ[%$-*'2ÿX22+ÿ2*'ÿ[ \1%+!1ÿT!&&ÿ],%%ÿ
(&&#,^__NNN3'2/-,%*&%1#1-,%3!"_M-$%,_2`L3_`a_b*'%#%*'%*&0.%/-%N0!M0c$$%+2&-!*,0.%$2&%'0&!0
)(2*%$$!10R2&%(-0.dPc)edP0fV.0)Z.c0.dQdcTd0gaha03#'Mi3ÿ
j9ÿ;<kÿGlmÿEFGHmÿJ2#!$-&2*!Iÿ(%$'ÿ%"%1+%*Sÿ"%%&-*+ÿN-&(ÿZ1%,-'%*&ÿVU2"2Iÿn-%ÿ
Z1%,-'%*&ÿo-'%*Iÿ2*'ÿPVdÿT%1%&21Sÿd1*%,&ÿ[!*-pÿ-*ÿq2,(-*+&!*IÿP)IÿU1-%M%'ÿ&(%"ÿ2U!0&ÿ(%1ÿ
21U!*ÿ*%0&12$-&Sÿ-*-&-2&-/%ÿ&!ÿ'%21U!*-p%ÿ&(%ÿO*-&%'ÿT&2&%,ÿ/-2ÿO*-/%1,-&Sÿ!Mÿ)2$-M!1*-2ÿVMM-%ÿ!Mÿ&(%ÿ
Z1%,-'%*&ÿÿ
r9ÿsB96ÿEFGHmÿ2M&%1ÿ"%%&-*+ÿ-*ÿ[2SÿN-&(ÿVU2"2ÿ2*'ÿo-'%*IÿJ2#!$-&2*!Iÿ-*ÿ(%1ÿ+!2$ÿ!Mÿ
'%21U!*-p-*+ÿc"%1-2Iÿ'%#$!S%'ÿM!1"%1ÿO)ÿn-%ÿZ1%,-'%*&ÿt0'-&(ÿo!S%&&%ÿ&!ÿ2*ÿb.Tÿc'/-,!1Sÿ
)!""-&&%%ÿ!*ÿe2uÿdu%"#&ÿ2*'ÿ\!/%1*"%*&ÿd*&-&-%,ÿ]ed\diÿ&!ÿ'%$%&%ÿ2ÿ1%#!1&%'ÿ"0$&-"-$$-!*ÿ
&2uÿ%/2,-!*ÿ2*'ÿM120'ÿ$2-"ÿ,0U"-&&%'ÿ2+2-*,&ÿ&(%ÿO)VZÿ2*'ÿO)ÿ.%+%*&,ÿ&!ÿ&(%ÿb.TÿqoVÿ!*ÿ
[21(ÿ2hIÿ2`L3Iÿ)$2-"ÿJ!3ÿ2`L30``vgaLÿ],%%ÿ(&&#,^__NNN3(2*,!*U1-'+%&&3!"_V010
c&&!1*%S,_w0'-&(0N0U!S%&&%i3ÿ
j9ÿx6y76z{6=ÿE|mÿEFGHIÿJ2#!$-&2*!ÿ"%&ÿ-*ÿT2*ÿP-%+!ÿN-&(ÿ)2$-M!1*-2ÿT0#1%"%ÿ)!01&ÿ
)(-%Mÿt0,&-%ÿ)2*&-$0T2W20S%ÿ2*'ÿ(%1ÿM1-%*'IÿT&2&%ÿo21ÿ!Mÿ)2$-M!1*-2ÿP-1%&!1ÿ2*'ÿ)dVIÿd$-p2U%&(ÿ
.-*',W!#MÿZ21W%1Iÿ2ÿM!1"%1ÿ+%*%12$ÿ!0*,%$ÿM!1ÿ&(%ÿ)%*&12$ÿb*&%$$-+%*%ÿc+%*Sÿ])bciÿ2*'ÿ&(%ÿ
J2&-!*2$ÿT%01-&Sÿc+%*Sÿ]JTciÿ2*'ÿ&(%ÿM!1"%1ÿ#1-*-#2$ÿ'%#0&Sÿ$%+2$ÿ2'/-,%1ÿ2&ÿ&(%ÿOTÿ
P%#21&"%*&ÿ!MÿT&2&%3ÿÿ
r9ÿj>7}{6=ÿEFGHIÿJ2#!$-&2*!ÿ2"#2-+*%'ÿ-*ÿ&(%ÿ#1%,-'%*&-2$ÿ%$%&-!*ÿ!*ÿU%(2$Mÿ!MÿX-$$21Sÿ
)$-*&!*ÿ-*ÿ(%1ÿ(!"%ÿ,&2&%ÿ!Mÿc1-p!*2ÿ(2/-*+ÿ$20*'%1%'ÿÿ2*'ÿ(-''%*ÿ!*ÿO)ÿ/21-!0,ÿ2 !0*&ÿÿKÿ
Lv~Ì``Iÿ̀``ÿ3ÿÿ
rrrÿ ÿ
Aÿjx ÿjjÿAÿÿ;5 ÿG|mÿEFGHÿ5 jArmÿÿrrÿ ÿx
rrArjÿj ;xÿHmÿ ÿjÿÿGmÿAÿjÿÿGÿj ÿ
ÿ5jxmÿjrxÿ|F;ÿAÿGFEF;ÿxjA ÿAxÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
WXYZÿY\]^ÿ_`abcdaeÿÿÿÿÿÿfghij^klÿ_cmn`cadÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿopq^rsÿamtaut̀a``ÿÿÿÿÿÿv\w^ÿ̀x`ÿgyÿzxz
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$%&$'()**!+ÿ',ÿ'**)-!ÿ.#/%)0ÿ1*'2$#2ÿ%)/ÿ"-&3)'*&/ÿ'2ÿ$%&ÿ2456ÿ"-&7'/&2$')*ÿ&*&($'#2+ÿ'$ÿ'7ÿ
0#7$ÿ*'8&*!ÿ$%)$ÿ.'(%)-/ÿ9*'(8+ÿ$%&ÿ:&2&-)*ÿ(#;27&*ÿ,#-ÿ$%&ÿ<&0#(-)$7ÿ#2ÿ$%&ÿ=&2)$&ÿ>2&-:!ÿ)2/ÿ
?)$;-)*ÿ.&7#;-(&7ÿ1#00'$$&&+ÿ@#;*/ÿ%)3&ÿA&&2ÿ)""#'2$&/ÿ)7ÿ)ÿB>.1ÿ(#00'77'#2&-ÿ)2/ÿ@#;*/ÿ%)3&ÿ
A&(#0&ÿ$%&ÿB>.1ÿ(%)'-0)2CÿD%&2+ÿ$%&ÿB>.1ÿ@#;*/ÿ%)3&ÿ'77;&/ÿ)2ÿ#-/&-ÿ'2ÿ2453ÿ$%)$ÿ(&-$','&/ÿ
E-#)/3'&@ÿFF1G7ÿHI40JKÿ7#*)-ÿ"*)2$ÿ)7ÿ)2ÿL40JKÿ"*)2$+ÿ)2/ÿ$%&ÿ2453ÿB>.1ÿ#-/&-ÿ@#;*/ÿ7#;2/ÿ
7'0'*)-ÿ$#ÿ$%&ÿB>.1ÿ#-/&-ÿ/)$&/ÿJ)-(%ÿ5I+ÿ2425+ÿ53MÿB>.1ÿNÿ65+5II+ÿ@%'(%ÿ7$)$&/ÿO>P%'A'$ÿRSIÿ#2ÿ
,*)7%ÿ/-'3&ÿ)2/ÿ<T<UVÿ
ÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¡¢£ÿ¢¥¦§ÿ̈©ª«¬ª®ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°±²³§´µÿ̈¬¶·©¬ªÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̧¹º§»¼ÿª¶½ª¾½©ª©©ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¿¥À§ÿ©ÁÂÿ°ÃÿÂÁÂ
2,!+""#
#3#)4$ÿ8$ÿ#ÿ!%ÿ'()#*#+,)#!%ÿ!*ÿ-(!,./#'01$ÿ2,+#3#)4ÿ,$ÿ,ÿ52ÿ657,3#*#'.ÿ
9:;<=>:ÿ9?@<ABC:DÿE<>ÿA:F@G>H?<H:AÿHE<HÿCH>ÿI<;CJCHKÿF::H>ÿHE:ÿL@FFC>>C@GM>ÿ
?:N=C?:F:GH>ÿI@?ÿOPÿ>H<H=>Qÿ0'ÿR(,%)ÿ+'()#*#+,)#!%ÿ!*ÿ$",33ÿS!0'(ÿ
S(!.7+)#!%ÿ52ÿ$),)7$ÿ*!(ÿ)T'ÿ*,+#3#)4UÿV?@BCA:AÿHE<HÿHE:ÿI<;CJCHKÿC>ÿ@V:?<H:AÿCGÿ
HE:ÿF<GG:?ÿA:>;?CW:AÿCGÿ9?@<ABC:DM>ÿ<VVJC;<HC@Gÿ@GÿX:VH:FW:?ÿYYQÿ2ZY[Qÿ
9?@<ABC:DM>ÿ<G>D:?ÿ@Gÿ\;H@W:?ÿY]Qÿ2ZY[QÿCGÿHE:ÿL@FFC>>C@GM>ÿX:VH:FW:?ÿ
2Z2Zÿ\?A:?Qÿ<GAÿCGÿHEC>ÿ@?A:?^ÿ_@ÿHE:ÿ:`H:GHÿHE<HÿI<;H>ÿ@?ÿ?:V?:>:GH<HC@Y3G>ÿHE<Hÿ
I@?FÿHE:ÿW<>C>ÿ@IÿHEC>ÿ@?A:?ÿ;E<Ga:QÿHEC>ÿ@?A:?ÿ;<GG@HÿW:ÿ?:JC:Aÿ=V@G^ÿ
bJHE@=aEÿ9?@<ABC:Dc>ÿI<;CJCHKÿFCaEHÿ>HCJJÿF::HÿHE:ÿH:;EGC;<Jÿ?:N=C?:F:GH>ÿI@?ÿ
OPÿ>H<H=>ÿ=GA:?ÿHE:ÿ;E<Ga:Aÿ;C?;=F>H<G;:>Qÿ>:JI0?:;:?HCIC;<HC@Gÿ@?ÿ
L@FFC>>C@G0?:;:?HCIC;<HC@Gÿ<HÿHE<HÿV@CGHÿDCJJÿW:ÿG:;:>><?KÿH@ÿF<CGH<CGÿOPÿ
>H<H=>ÿ
ÿÿ
9:HD::Gÿd:;:FW:?ÿ2ZYeÿ<GAÿ\;H@W:?ÿ2ZY[Qÿ9?@<ABC:DÿffLÿ>=WFCHH:Aÿ>C̀ÿOPÿ;:?HCIC;<HC@Gÿ
I@?F>ÿI@?ÿHE:ÿ><F:ÿ>@J<?ÿVJ<GHÿI<;CJCHKQÿDEC;EÿD<>ÿG:B:?ÿ;@G>H?=;H:Aÿ@?ÿ;@FFC>>C@G:A^ÿg@?F<JJKQÿ
;@FV<GC:>ÿCGÿHE:ÿ>F<JJÿV@D:?ÿVJ<GHÿW=>CG:>>ÿ<?:ÿ;@G>H?=;HCGaÿ<GAÿ;@FFC>>C@GCGaÿOPÿI<;CJCHC:>ÿ
<;;@?ACGaÿH@ÿX:;HC@GÿhiY]jÿ@?ÿhiY3jÿ@IÿHE:ÿP:A:?<Jÿk@D:?ÿb;HQÿYeÿl^X^L^ÿ][eihjiY]jQÿihjiY3jÿ<GAÿHE:ÿ
k=WJC;ÿlHCJCHKÿm:a=J<H@?Kÿk@JC;C:>ÿb;Hÿ@IÿY[]3ÿiklmkbjQÿ;:?HCIKCGaÿ@?ÿ>:JI0;:?HCIKCGaÿVJ<GH>ÿDCHEÿ
PnmLQÿ<GAÿF<oCGaÿF@G:K^ÿpE<Hÿ9?@<ABC:DÿffLÿACAÿDCHEÿPnmLÿL@FFC>>C@G:?ÿmC;E<?AÿqJC;oÿCGÿ
r<?;Eÿ2Z2YÿC>ÿ<ÿ;?CF:^ÿb>ÿsÿ>H<H:AÿCGÿHE:ÿV?:BC@=>ÿ;E<VH:?Qÿsÿ;<F:ÿH@ÿHECGoÿHE<HÿHE:ÿ9?@<ABC:DÿffLÿ
VJ<GHÿ;:?HCIC;<HC@GÿD<>ÿ<ÿP:A:?<Jÿ9=?:<=ÿ@IÿsGB:>HCa<HC@GÿiP9sjÿ>HCGaÿ@V:?<HC@GÿCGB:>HCa<HCGaÿ
;@??=VHC@GÿCGÿHE:ÿPnmLQÿ>CFCJ<?ÿH@ÿHE:ÿY[3etY[33ÿP9sÿ>HCGaÿ@V:?<HC@GÿCGÿL<JCI@?GC<ÿoG@DGÿ<>ÿ
XumsrkXLbrQÿ<IH:?ÿsÿ?:<AÿPnmLÿd@;o:H>ÿOPÿJÿ]0vwv0ZZeÿ<GAÿOPÿJÿ]0vwv0ZZ]Qÿ?:J<H:AÿH@ÿ9?@<Aÿ
m:<;Eÿk@D:?ÿV?@x:;H>ÿCGÿr@GH<G<ÿi9?@<ABC:DÿX@J<?ÿffLjQÿDEC;Eÿ<?:ÿ>=Wx:;H>ÿ@IÿHE:ÿV:GACGaÿyz{|}ÿ
}ÿ}ÿz|zÿyÿÿÿ}|{ÿ}ÿ{|z}ÿzzQÿL<>:ÿlXLbÿ
2Y0YY2ÿ
ÿÿ %ÿ'+'"'(ÿUÿQÿ9?@<ABC:DÿX@J<?ÿffLÿ>=WFCHH:AÿHD@ÿB:?>C@G>ÿ@IÿP@?Fÿwweÿ=GA:?ÿ
d@;o:HÿOPY]0vwwÿI@?ÿHE:ÿHD@ÿG@G:`C>H:GHÿ9?@<ABC:DÿX@J<?ÿffLÿkJ<GH>ÿDCHEÿ<ÿh[Z0rpÿ;<V<;CHKÿ<GAÿ
HE:ÿ><F:ÿG@G:`C>H:GHÿVJ<GHÿDCHEÿ<ÿYZv^2wZ0rpÿ;<V<;CHK^ÿPnmLÿd@;o:HÿOPY]0vwvÿD<>ÿHE:ÿJ<>Hÿ
;E<G;:ÿH@ÿI?<=A=J:GHJKÿ@WH<CGÿ<ÿI<J>:ÿOPÿ;:?HCIC;<HC@GÿW:I@?:ÿd@G<JAÿ_?=FVÿD<>ÿ>D@?GÿCGÿ<>ÿ
lXÿk?:>CA:GHÿ<GAÿ<VV@CGH:Aÿ<ÿG:DÿPnmLÿLE<C?F<G^ÿÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
°±²³ÿ²µ¶·ÿ̧¹º»¼½º¾ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¿ÀÁÂ÷ÄÅÿ̧¼Æǹ¼º½ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÈÉÊ·ËÌÿºÆͺÎ͹º¹¹ÿÿÿÿÿÿϵзÿ¹Ñ½ÿÀÒÿÓÑÓ
!"#$%"&'"%(ÿ)*ÿ)+ÿ2,-.ÿ'"ÿ2,-/ÿ012ÿ3'!45ÿ$67%ÿ8%"#)*)%5ÿ9"'657)%3ÿ::2;<ÿ=3,0>?ÿ'"ÿ
-.,0>?ÿ@46+#ÿ6<ÿ6ÿ<&644ÿA,0>?ÿB ÿ*68)4)#C(ÿ#$%+ÿ&'<#ÿ4)D%4CÿE6@'4)#6+'ÿ6+5ÿ$%"ÿ&'Fÿ3'!45ÿ$67%ÿ
<@%+#ÿG2,,ÿ&)44)'+ÿ'"ÿ&'"%ÿ)+ÿ6ÿH')+#ÿ7%+#!"%ÿ3)#$ÿ9"'657)%3ÿ::2ÿ'+ÿB ÿ8%"#)*)86#)'+ÿ'@%"6#)7%<ÿ#'ÿ
I!)8D4Cÿ8'+<#"!8#ÿ<%7%"64ÿ<'46"ÿ@46+#<ÿ3)#$ÿ6+ÿ6@@"'J)&6#%ÿ86@68)#Cÿ'*ÿA,,ÿ>?ÿ8'!@4%5ÿ3)#$ÿ6+ÿA,,0
>?ÿ%+%"KCÿ<#'"6K%ÿ<C<#%&LÿM$%ÿ@'3%"(ÿ3'"#$ÿ$!+5"%5<ÿ'*ÿ&)44)'+<(ÿ@%"$6@<ÿF)44)'+<(ÿ'*ÿ#6J0*"%%ÿ
5'446"<(ÿ3'!45ÿF%ÿ<'45ÿFCÿN2OPÿ3$)#%ÿ8'446"ÿ8")&)+64<ÿ7)6ÿ2QRSO(ÿ*'"&%"ÿN2OPÿT%+%"64ÿ2'!+<%4ÿ
2$6"4%<ÿ1'F)+<'+;<ÿ%&@4'C%"ÿ*"'&ÿQ@")4ÿ2,,,ÿ#$"'!K$ÿU6+!6"Cÿ2,,/LÿR#ÿ)<ÿÿ+'#ÿ6ÿÿ8')+8)5%+#ÿ#$6#ÿ
O"")8D(ÿV%"")+K#'+ÿWÿS!#84)**%ÿ::Pÿ6##'"+%C<ÿ3$'ÿ6"%ÿÿ"%@"%<%+#)+Kÿ9"'657)%3ÿ::2ÿ3)#$ÿ012ÿ6+5ÿ
)+ÿXL2Lÿÿ2)"8!)#ÿ2'!"#ÿ)+ÿYZ[\]^Z_ÿYZab]cÿdZ]cecbfÿgÿhaij[aZ^ÿkjgjabjÿlj[gmejÿgnÿo\ppm]]m\aj[ÿ
\qÿirjÿhaij[aZ^ÿkjgjabjÿlj[gmej(ÿ26<%ÿE'LÿNS2QÿE'Lÿ2,0-s,/ÿÿ!+463*!44Cÿ#6&@%"%5ÿ3)#$ÿ#$%ÿ
65&)+)<#"6#)'+ÿ'*ÿH!<#)8%(ÿ6+5ÿÿ86!<%5ÿ#$6#ÿ&Cÿ6@@%64ÿÿ36<ÿ!+H!<#4Cÿ5)<&)<<%5ÿFCÿ<%"7%5ÿ"!FF%"ÿ<#6&@ÿ
H!<#)8%ÿLÿÿÿÿ
tuvwÿ ÿ
zÿ{t|}~ÿt||ÿzÿ}z~ÿzuÿÿ~~}~ÿÿ{ztu|uzÿ
}~z|ÿt~tzÿ~~ÿuÿzzÿÿz~uÿ~ÿu~}uÿ|ÿ
{ztu|uzÿ|u{~ÿ|ÿ~ÿ~}u~ÿ~v~{u~}ÿzÿuz{~}ÿ
ÿ
ÿuÿÿ(ÿS#6#%ÿS%+Lÿ:%46+5ÿ%%(ÿ6ÿX%&'8"6#ÿ*"'&ÿ#$%ÿA#$ÿS%+6#%ÿX)<#")8#(ÿ3$)8$ÿ%+8'&@6<<%<ÿ
S6+ÿ"6+8)<8'ÿ6+5ÿS6+ÿ>6#%'ÿ2'!+#)%<(ÿ"%I!%<#%5ÿ#$6#ÿ#$%ÿU')+#ÿ:%K)<46#)7%ÿQ!5)#ÿ2'&&)##%%ÿ6!#$'")%ÿ
6+ÿ6!5)#ÿ'*ÿ#$%ÿN2LÿM$%ÿ8'&&)##%%ÿ7'#%5ÿ!+6+)&'!<4Cÿ#'ÿ6@@"'7%ÿ#$%ÿ"%I!%<#ÿÿwÿÿLÿÿ
M$%ÿ6@@"'7%5ÿ6!5)#ÿ"%I!%<#%5ÿ#$6#ÿ#$%ÿ264)*'"+)6ÿS#6#%ÿQ!5)#'"(ÿ264)*'"+)6;<ÿ+'+@6"#)<6+ÿ%J#%"+64ÿ
6!5)#)+Kÿ'**)8%ÿ*'"ÿ<#6#%ÿ6K%+8)%<(ÿ8'+5!8#ÿÿ
zÿ¡¢£¤¥¦ÿ¤§§ÿ¨¥§ÿ©¥ªªÿ£ª¢ÿ«§£ÿ¦ÿ§£ÿ¬§§ÿ«ÿ§£ÿ©¤§ÿ
«¨ÿ¨ÿ¤ÿ©¥§£¥ÿ§£ÿ{ÿ¨ÿ«¥ªªÿ£ª̈ÿ¥¦¤¥§ÿ¬§¥¦¤ÿ
§ªÿ6<ÿ%%ÿ+'#%5ÿ)+ÿ6ÿ<#6#%&%+#ÿ'+ÿ$)<ÿS%+6#%ÿ3%F<)#%Lÿ
ÿ
M$%ÿ<%+6#'"ÿ6<D%5ÿ#$%ÿ6!5)#'"<ÿ#'ÿ<@%8)*)8644Cÿ«¤ÿÿ§£ÿ{|ÿ§£ÿ£¨ÿ««¥ÿ'*ÿ#$%ÿ
N+)7%"<)#Cÿ'*ÿ264)*'"+)6Lÿ
£ÿ¨¥§ÿ©¥ªªÿ§®ÿ©£ÿ§£ÿ{ÿ̄§¤ÿ¥§¤ÿ«¨¤ÿ¨ÿ©£ÿ£ÿ̈ªªÿ̄¤wÿ
S@%8)*)8644C(ÿ)#ÿ3)44ÿ*'44'3ÿ3$%"%ÿ@")76#%ÿ*!+5<(ÿ<#6#%ÿ*!+5<(ÿ<#!5%+#ÿ*%%<ÿ6+5ÿ*%5%"64ÿ
*!+5<ÿ644ÿ%+5ÿ!@Lÿ
0ÿ223ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
|}~ÿ~ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
!"#ÿ%&'()ÿ*(++ÿ%+,-ÿ,#%./"ÿ-&)ÿ"-*ÿ0&/"ÿ0-1#2ÿ(,ÿ,3#1)ÿ3#.ÿ,)&'#1)ÿ%1'ÿ*"%)ÿ
)"#ÿ.#,)ÿ(,ÿ,3#1)ÿ-14ÿ56789ÿ:;<ÿ=>?@=ABÿC=66ÿ=>D6@E<ÿFÿ7@AG<Bÿ8HÿC;=D;ÿ8@:7=E<ÿ
8AIF>=JF:=8>7ÿ:;<ÿKLÿMFB7ÿ:8ÿF>EÿC;=D;ÿH@>E7ÿFA<ÿ@7<Eÿ:8ÿMFBÿ:;<N4ÿ
ÿ
O:F:<ÿ5@E=:ÿ24P40P4QÿCF7ÿD8>D6@E<Eÿ8>ÿR@6Bÿ2S9ÿ24PPÿTUVWXYX!ÿZ[\ÿ-1ÿ]+%,"ÿ'.(^#ÿ%1'ÿ_`_aÿ,##ÿ
;::M7bccCCC4F@E=:8A4DF4I8GcMEH7cA<M8A:7c24P40P4Q4MEHd4ÿ
ÿe;<ÿO:F:<ÿ5@E=:8Af7ÿD8G<Aÿ6<::<Aÿ7@NNFA=J<Eÿ:;<ÿF@E=:ÿgBÿN<A<6Bÿ7:F:=>Iÿ:;F:ÿ:;<ÿhHH=D<ÿ8Hÿ:;<ÿiA<7=E<>:ÿ
1##',ÿ)-ÿ).%/jÿ0-.#ÿ3.#/(,#+2ÿ%k-&)ÿlmÿk(++(-1ÿ-]ÿ#n3#1,#,ÿ%11&%++2aÿ*"(/"ÿ()ÿ/&..#1)+2ÿ).%/j,ÿ
&1'#.ÿ%ÿ,(1o+#ÿ%//-&1)(1oÿ/-'#pq(,/#++%1#-&,ÿr#.^(/#,ÿs7<<ÿ
"))3,tuu***v%&'()-.v/%vo-^u.#3-.),u.#/-00#1'%)(-1,uw\m\xm\yd4ÿ
z@A:;<AN8A<9ÿ:;<ÿD8G<Aÿ6<::<AÿH8D@7<Eÿ8>ÿ:;<ÿ7@g7=E=J=>Iÿ8HÿF@{=6=FABÿ<>:<AMA=7<7ÿC=:;ÿH@>E=>IÿHA8Nÿ
8:;<Aÿ78@AD<79ÿE<7M=:<ÿ:;<ÿ=>:<>:ÿ:;F:ÿ:;<Bÿg<ÿ7<6H07@MM8A:=>Iÿs7<<ÿÿ
;::M7bccCCC4@D8M4<E@cH=>F>D=F60FDD8@>:=>IcH=>F>D=F60A<M8A:7c@>=G<A7=:B0F@{=6=FAB07@MM8A:c=>E<{4;:N6dÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¦ÿ§¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ©ª«¬ÿ§®¯®ÿÿÿÿÿÿ°±ÿ²¨ÿ¡³ÿ́²´
ÿ
"#$ÿ%&'()*+,%(&ÿ-)(.%/$/ÿ()ÿ/%012(0$/ÿ34ÿ+5/%,ÿ26460467ÿ8+0ÿ+2)$+/49ÿ%&ÿ*(0,ÿ8+409ÿ+11$00%32$ÿ,(ÿ,#$ÿ
:$&$)+2ÿ-532%19ÿ+&/ÿ,#$ÿ%&'()*+,%(&ÿ8+0ÿ&(,ÿ8#+,ÿ;$&+,()ÿ<$$ÿ8+0ÿ2((=%&:ÿ'()ÿ8%,#ÿ#%0ÿ$>-$1,+,%(&ÿ,#+,ÿ
?@ÿABCDEFGFHIJKFÿILMLFÿMNOJLÿPJQQÿGFQDÿRNELGFEÿNHABKFEÿLGFÿFSLFHLÿBRÿLGFÿPMILFTÿREMNOÿMHOÿMUNIFÿ
PJLGJHÿLGFÿVWTÿMHOÿRJHMQQXÿGBQOÿNHJKFEIJLXÿFSFANLJKFIÿMAABNHLMUQFYZÿ
"#$ÿ[\04$+)0(2/ÿ;$&+,()ÿ]$$9ÿ8#(ÿ%**%:)+,$/ÿ,(ÿ,#$ÿ^;ÿ')(*ÿ_#%&+ÿ8#$&ÿ#$ÿ8+0ÿ+ÿ3ÿ4$+)0ÿ(2/9ÿ*(0,ÿ
2%=$24ÿ&$.$)ÿ%*+:%&$/ÿ%&ÿ,#+,ÿ[`ÿ4$+)0ÿ#$ÿ8(52/ÿ3$ÿ8%,1#ÿ#5&,$/ÿ+&/ÿ-)(0$15,$/ÿ3$1+50$ÿ#$ÿ)$a5$0,$/ÿ
+ÿ0,+,$ÿ+5/%,ÿb0$$ÿ
ÿ
#,,-0cdd888e01)%3/e1(*d/(15*$&,d7f67[2`6`d2646026260g%,1#0h5&,0i)(0$15,%(&0+&/0
j&1+)1+)+,%(&0('0,#$0_+2%'()&%+0;$&+,()0<$2+&/0]$$keÿ
ÿ
lmYÿ ÿ
op@pqÿ@VrspÿtuvwxvyuTÿzq{Vqopqrÿs|ÿ}@zW~ÿtuvwÿÿW@lsz|s@ÿ
@ooq}lÿ}q}qzoÿ~slÿps|ÿ@|rÿqs|ÿ}WW@zpÿ@|rÿ@zqrÿÿ
p~qÿs|pÿlqsol@psqÿ@VrspÿW}}sppqqÿ|ÿ@VVopÿvuTÿtuvwÿ
ÿ
ÿ
_+2%'()&%+ÿ;,+,$ÿ5/%,ÿ264[04369ÿ+//)$00%&:ÿ,#$ÿ+/*%&%0,)+,%.$ÿ'5&1,%(&0ÿ('ÿ,#$ÿ^_i9ÿ8+0ÿ1(&125/$/ÿ
34ÿ,#$ÿ;,+,$ÿ5/%,()ÿ(&ÿ-)%2ÿ279ÿ264\ÿIFFÿqm~sspÿwvÿBHÿRQMIGÿOEJKFÿMHOÿrreÿÿ
_(&,)+)4ÿ,(ÿ,#$ÿ*$+&%&:2$00ÿ;,+,$ÿ5/%,ÿ26460467ÿ1(&125/$/ÿ(&ÿ524ÿ2f9ÿ26449ÿÿ;,+,$ÿ5/%,ÿ264[0436ÿ
/%012(0$/ÿ%&'()*+,%(&ÿ+3(5,ÿ,$&0ÿ('ÿ*%22%(&0ÿ('ÿ/(22+)0ÿ0$1)$,24ÿ#%//$&ÿ34ÿ+-(2%,+&(ÿ%&ÿ.+)%(50ÿ^_ÿ
+11(5&,0eÿ
ÿ"#$ÿ+5/%,()0ÿ1(.$)ÿ2$,,$)ÿ/+,$/ÿ-)%2ÿ279ÿ264\ÿ+&/ÿ+,,+1#$/ÿ,(ÿ,#$ÿ264[0436ÿ5/%,ÿpGFÿVHJKFEIJLXÿ
RÿWMQJRBEHJMÿRRJAFÿBRÿpGFÿEFIJOFHLÿMJQFOÿpBÿrJIAQBIFÿpFHIÿRÿ}JQQJBHIÿsHÿoNEDQNIZÿ0-$+=0ÿ'()ÿ
%,0$2'ÿ+3(5,ÿ8#+,ÿ;,+,$ÿ5/%,()ÿ%&.$0,%:+,()0ÿ8$)$ÿ+32$ÿ,(ÿ'%&/ÿ+&/ÿ/%012(0$ÿ.%+ÿ,#$ÿ+5/%,ÿb0$$ÿ
#,,-0cdd888e+5/%,()e1+e:(.d-/'0d)$-(),0d264[0436e-/'keÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
tuvwÿvyz{ÿ|}~~ÿÿÿÿÿÿ{ÿ|}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ{ÿ~~}~}}ÿÿÿÿÿÿy{ÿ}ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ!ÿ#$%ÿ&'()*ÿ+,-./01,2.ÿ,3,02ÿ456,75ÿ185ÿ9:4;561ÿ.<ÿ85,=/025ÿ25>9ÿ02ÿ?5/,10.2ÿ1.ÿ,:=01ÿ2@AB0A3@ÿ
?5C:5915=ÿ02ÿ2@ABÿ4Dÿ1>.ÿE99574/DÿF5745?9*ÿG80/ÿH023ÿ,2=ÿI5J02ÿF6K,?1DLÿÿ
H023ÿ6.775215=Mÿÿ
NXOUÿÿ,YR7ÿ,ÿ-?.:=ÿK,/ÿ3?,=*ÿ4:1ÿ7Dÿ;.4ÿ=57,2=9ÿ18,1ÿOÿ,9Pÿ1.:38ÿC:5910.29LÿQRSÿTUUVWSÿ
SÿZ[S\V]S!Y^\ÿ]_YVS\ÿ̀a_]bSYÿ̀$!]ÿ\Y$UUV!bÿ[Sc$V!ÿ$ÿc%\YS[%d̀ÿ\$V]ÿQV!bÿ̀
eR$V[ÿXUÿYRSÿf\\Scag%ÿh_]bSYÿeXccVYYSSiÿNj5ÿ7:91ÿ45ÿ,99:?5=ÿ185ÿ7,k07:7ÿ
?59.:?659ÿ,?5ÿ=0?5615=ÿ1.ÿ6/,99?..79ÿ,2=ÿ91:=521ÿ95?J0659LÿE2ÿ02=5-52=521ÿ,:=01ÿ
>0//ÿ85/-ÿ:9ÿ529:?5ÿ18,1ÿlKÿ5<<060521/Dÿ-?0.?010m59ÿ,66599ÿ1.ÿ80385?ÿ5=:6,10.2ÿ45<.?5ÿ
185Dÿ ,9Pÿ 91:=5219ÿ 1.ÿ -,Dÿ 7.?5Lnÿ o955ÿ 811-9Mpp,AqL,97=6L.?3p-?5990
?5/5,959p2@AB@rA@0/,>7,P5?90,--?.J50,:=010:60-?590=52190.<<065sLÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¦ÿ§¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ©ª«¬ÿ§®¯®ÿÿÿÿÿÿ°±ÿ²²ÿ¡³ÿ́²´
ÿ
!"ÿ#$%ÿ2&'(ÿ)"*+ÿ$,-./ÿ/!"ÿ$.01/ÿ*$+ÿ2-33-*"0ÿ,%ÿ/!"ÿ!"$031)"ÿ)"*+ÿ$,-./ÿ4$5-31/$)-6+ÿ7"+/.8"ÿ/-ÿ
,")"21/ÿ!"8ÿ281")0+9ÿ2-8:"8ÿ;<ÿ$//-8)"%+ÿ#"31)0$ÿ=$$7ÿ$)0ÿ#>?8"7-8ÿ<>-//9ÿ*1/!ÿ@'ÿ:1331-)ÿ2-8ÿ/!"ÿ
#$8>!AB.7.+/ÿ2&'Cÿ*1/>!ÿ!.)/ÿ$1:"0ÿ$/ÿ;DÿE$F1+ÿD!$)>"33-8ÿG1)0$ÿH$/"!1ÿ/-ÿ"8$01>$/"ÿ!"8ÿ28-:ÿ/!"ÿ
;Dÿ<%+/":ÿ$)0ÿ/!"ÿ1)/")/1-)ÿ/-ÿ/!8-*ÿ!"8ÿ1)/-ÿ581+-)9ÿ$+ÿ/!"%ÿ!$0ÿ0-)"ÿ/-ÿD$312-8)1$ÿ<")$/-8ÿI""ÿ$/ÿ
8"3$/1F"3%ÿ/!"ÿ+$:"ÿ/1:"Jÿÿ
ÿ
KLMNÿ ÿ
PQRSTÿRQVWKMTQRWÿQRXÿTYSÿZ[WV\]ÿ]TQ^^ÿMRTS_^S_SR[SÿMRÿTYSÿ̀abcdbeaÿ
]TQTSÿQZXMTÿ
ÿ
</$/"ÿB.01/-8ÿf3$1)"ÿ#Jÿ=-*3"ÿ*8-/"ÿ1)ÿg$8/ÿ'ÿ-2ÿ!"8ÿB5813ÿ2h9ÿ2&'(ÿ>-F"8ÿ3"//"8iÿÿ
ÿ
^jklmnkopknqÿrmnsÿrnÿtpjumlÿvswnxnswnslÿxnktxnylvznÿ{kpoÿy|oxjtntÿ|}pjlÿ
lmnÿ~j|vlÿ|swÿyptlÿp{ÿlmnÿtnkzvyntÿ|swÿxkpuk|otÿlmnÿW{{vynÿp{ÿlmnÿVkntvwnslÿ
xkpzvwntÿlpÿlmnoqÿlmnÿW{{vynÿp{ÿlmnÿVkntvwnslÿvslnslvps|ÿvslnk{nknwÿrvlmÿpjkÿ
|jwvlÿxkpynttNÿQjwvlvsuÿtl|sw|kwtÿkn~jvknÿlm|lÿrnÿwvtyptnÿlmvtÿvslnk{nknsynÿ
|swÿxkpmv}vlÿjtÿ{kpoÿwk|rvsuÿz|vwÿypsyjtvpstÿ{kpoÿlmvtÿxpklvpsÿp{ÿpjkÿrpkNÿ
ÿ
4$5-31/$)-6+ÿ1)/"82"8")>"ÿ1)ÿ+/$/"ÿ$.01/ÿ2&'C0'3&ÿ+!-*+ÿ!"8ÿ$)0ÿ/!"ÿ;Dg6+ÿ5$)1>ÿ$)0ÿ0"+5"8$/1-)ÿ/-ÿ
58"F")/ÿ01+>3-+.8"ÿ-2ÿ/!"18ÿ>81:"+ÿ>-::1//"0ÿ.)0"8ÿ/!"ÿ;Dÿ.:,8"33$JÿB2/"8ÿ/!"ÿ$.01/ÿ*$+ÿ>-:53"/"09ÿ
4$5-31/$)-ÿ/81"0ÿ/-ÿ>-)/8-3ÿ/!"ÿ0$:$7"ÿ,%ÿ!181)7ÿ2-8:"8ÿ+/$/"ÿ<.58":"ÿD-.8/ÿ.+/1>"ÿD$83-+ÿ#-8")-9ÿ
*!-ÿ-1)"0ÿ1)ÿ/!"ÿ5!-)%ÿ1)F"+/17$/1-)ÿ*1/!ÿ=."+/-)ÿ="))17$)ÿGGgÿ+""ÿ!//5+i***J!."+/-)J>-:Jÿ
!1+ÿ1)F"+/17$/1-)ÿ58-0.>"0ÿ:-8"ÿ/!$)ÿh&ÿ5$7"+ÿ-2ÿ0$:$7"ÿ>-)/8-3ÿ1)ÿ$ÿ:"$)1)73"++ÿ8"5-8/ÿ")/1/3"0ÿÿ
Mswnxnswnslÿ^|yld^vswvsuÿ_nzvnrÿ{pkÿlmnÿp|kwÿp{ÿ_nunsltÿp{ÿlmnÿZsvznktvlÿp{ÿ[|v{pksv|iÿ
<.::$8%ÿ-2ÿ1)01)7+ÿ+""ÿ!//5+i8"7")/+J.)1F"8+1/%-2>$312-8)1$J"0.8"7:""/)-F'(,2$//$>!3J502Jÿÿ
4$5-31/$)-ÿ7-/ÿ!"8+"32ÿ-2ÿ-22ÿ/!"ÿ!--ÿ,%ÿ/!8-*1)7ÿ.)0"8ÿ/!"ÿ,.+ÿ!"8ÿ/-5ÿ/*-ÿ$10"+9ÿ!"8ÿD!1"2ÿ-2ÿ</$229ÿ
]nlmÿkptto|sÿ!//5+i***J$:"81>$)J"0.58-213"++/$22+"/!7J>2:ÿ$)0ÿ0"5./%ÿD!1"2ÿ-2ÿ</$22ÿ"8)1"ÿ
-)"+9ÿ;DÿD!1"2ÿD-:531$)>"ÿ$)0ÿB.01/ÿ221>"8ÿ$)0ÿ<")1-8ÿ1>"ÿg8"+10")/9ÿ<!"8%3ÿ$>>$ÿ
!//5+i***J!>>$01)2-J-87+!"8%30F$>>$9ÿ$)0ÿ;DÿE"5./%ÿ?")"8$3ÿD-.)+"3ÿH$8")ÿg"/8.3$1+ÿÿ
!//5+i***J*"33"+3"%J"0.$0:1)1+/8$/1-)-221>"+7")"8$3>-.)+"3Jÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿ¡¡
!""ÿ#$ÿ%&#'(ÿ")'%(*ÿ+,#-(ÿ/(')01(*ÿ$/#2ÿ%&()/ÿ3#'%'4ÿ5/)#/ÿ%#ÿ%&+%6ÿ7+1)("ÿ7##"(86ÿ
9&%%3':;;1(<=>//(1%<+%(/4=#2;?6ÿ+ÿ@AÿB(1)#/ÿC)=(ÿ5/(')*(1%ÿ+1*ÿ"#=+""8ÿ*(')01+%(*ÿ#$$)=(/6ÿ/(')01(*ÿ
$/#2ÿ&)'ÿ3#'%4ÿ7##"(8ÿ)'ÿ%&(ÿ&>',+1*ÿ#$ÿ7)+1+ÿ7##"(86ÿ%&(ÿ$#/2(/ÿA&)($ÿ#$ÿB%+$$ÿ$#/ÿ$#/2(/ÿA+")$#/1)+ÿ
0#-(/1#/ÿD(//8ÿE/#<14ÿC+==+ÿ+1*ÿ7##"(8ÿ*)/(=%"8ÿ#-(/'+<ÿ28ÿ<&)'%"(,"#<)10ÿ/(%+")+%)#1ÿ=#23"+)1%ÿ)1ÿ
2FG3H2FG44ÿÿ
ÿ I+3#")%+1#ÿ/(3"+=(*ÿC+==+ÿ+1*ÿ7##"(8ÿ<)%&ÿ&(/ÿ$/)(1*6ÿ$#/2(/ÿ@Bÿ!%%#/1(8ÿ!"(J+1*(/ÿ
E>'%+2+1%(ÿ9'((ÿ&%%3':;;<<<4>1)-(/')%8#$=+")$#/1)+4(*>;3/(''0/##2;>=01+2('0+"(J+1*(/0,>'%+2+1%(0
=&)($0=#23")+1=(0+1*0+>*)%0#$$)=(/?4ÿE>'%+2+1%(ÿ<+'ÿ(23"#8(*ÿ)1ÿ%&(ÿ'+2(ÿ@Bÿ!%%#/1(8K'ÿ#$$)=(ÿ)1ÿ
L#'ÿ!10("('ÿ+'ÿ@BÿA#10/(''2+1ÿ!*+2ÿB=&)$$ÿ+1*ÿD>'%)=(ÿM"+1+ÿ7>+/%(ÿ#$ÿ%&(ÿA#>/%ÿ#$ÿ!33(+"6ÿN&)/*ÿ
!33(""+%(ÿ7)'%/)=%ÿ937A!?ÿ9'((ÿ5(%)%)#1ÿ$#/ÿO(-)(<ÿB>3/(2(ÿA#>/%ÿA+'(ÿI#4ÿB2P3QG36ÿRSTUVUWXÿZ[ÿ
\S]^_`ab^Sÿcbdef]`gedbhÿibTWaSbVdÿjffdS]ÿk`Salÿm\cijknÿSblÿopdÿqdrdbhTÿ`_ÿhpdÿcb^ZdaT^hgÿ`_ÿ
\S]^_`ab^Ssÿ$)"(*ÿ)1ÿ%&(ÿB>3/(2(ÿA#>/%ÿ#1ÿD+1>+/8ÿ2t6ÿ2FGtÿ9'((ÿÿ
&%%3':;;<<<4'=/),*4=#2;*#=>2(1%;4Quv2QFGP;@NA02FGtFG2t0A+")$#/1)+0B>3/(2(0A#>/%05(%)%)#10
$#/0O(-)(<0A+'(0I#0B2P3QG3?4ÿ
ÿw&(1ÿ7##"(8ÿ/(')01(*ÿ)1ÿ2FG4ÿÿÿ+1*ÿÿC+==+ÿ/(')01(*ÿ$/#2ÿ%&(ÿ@Ax5ÿ)1ÿ2FGu6ÿI+3#")%+1#6ÿ)1ÿ&(/ÿ
*)'%/>'%ÿ#$ÿ/(3"+=)10ÿC+==+ÿ<)%&ÿ+1ÿ#>%')*(/6ÿ,/#>0&%ÿ&(/ÿ$/)(1*ÿD#&1ÿL#&'(ÿ,+=yÿ$/#2ÿ/(%)/(2(1%ÿ+'ÿ+1ÿ
)1%(/)2ÿ/(3"+=(2(1%4ÿÿ
L#&'(ÿ<+'ÿ/(=/>)%(*ÿ)1ÿ2FF4ÿ,8ÿ%&(ÿ@Ax5ÿ2#,ÿ+1*ÿ<+'ÿ+ÿ-(/8ÿ'y)""(*6ÿ(J3(/)(1=(*ÿ$#/2(/ÿzE{ÿ+0(1%ÿ
+1*ÿ(23"#8((4ÿ|(ÿ<+'ÿ,/#>0&%ÿ)1ÿ%#ÿ'(/-(ÿ+'ÿ7)/(=%#/ÿ#$ÿ{1-('%)0+%)#1ÿ)1ÿ%&(ÿ@Ax5ÿx$$)=(ÿ#$ÿ%&(ÿB(1)#/ÿ
C)=(ÿ5/(')*(1%ÿ+1*ÿ+'ÿ%&(ÿA&)($ÿA#23")+1=(ÿ+1*ÿ!>*)%ÿx$$)=(/6ÿ%#ÿy((3ÿ%&(ÿzE{ÿ#>%ÿ#$ÿ@Aÿ=+23>'('ÿ
+1*ÿ(8('ÿ#1ÿ<&)'%"(,"#<(/'ÿ+1*ÿ+*-(/'+/)('ÿ#$ÿ%&(ÿ@Ax54ÿN&)'ÿ<+'ÿ+$%(/ÿ%&(ÿ2FF4ÿ@Bÿ7(3+/%2(1%ÿ#$ÿ
N/(+'>/8ÿ+>*)%ÿ#$ÿ@AÿB+1ÿ7)(0#ÿ+1*ÿzMOAK'ÿ}>('%)#1)10ÿ#$ÿ@AÿB+1ÿ7)(0#ÿ+*2)1)'%/+%#/'ÿ+,#>%ÿ%&(ÿ
-+")*)%8ÿ#$ÿ%&(ÿ@AÿB+1ÿ7)(0#ÿ=#0(1(/+%)#1ÿ$+=)")%84ÿ
B&#/%"8ÿ%&(/(+$%(/6ÿI+3#")%+1#ÿ&)/(*ÿ&(/ÿ$/)(1*ÿE>'%+2+1%(6ÿ$#/2(/ÿ@Bÿ!%%#/1(8ÿ$#/ÿ%&(ÿA(1%/+"ÿ7)'%/)=%ÿ
#$ÿA+")$#/1)+6ÿ2FF2H2FGG6ÿ<&(1ÿ&(ÿ,(=+2(ÿ+-+)"+,"(4ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ£¤¥¦§ÿ¡¨©¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿª«ÿ¡ÿ¬ÿ®
!"##$ÿ ÿ
'()(*ÿ)+,#(-.ÿ*!)#/*ÿ0$ÿ1-2!*3'ÿ'4*5#6#5ÿ5-/5*./'ÿ-+(!#/*,ÿ#/ÿ(1*ÿ
)4.#!ÿ789ÿ7:;<ÿ5-=*.ÿ!*((*.ÿ(-ÿ(1*ÿ7:;>?;@:ÿ)+,#(ÿ.*4-.(ÿ
(ABÿ'CBDEFEDÿDGHDBIHJÿEHÿKABÿLMNEKÿIBCGIKÿEHDOMNBÿKABÿFGOOGPEHQRÿ
SÿUVWÿXYYZ[Wÿ\Yÿ]VWÿ^_W`ZaWb]ÿVc`ÿc[[dedfc]Waÿe\_Wÿ]Vcbÿg;<8ÿhEOOEGHÿZbÿ
dbaZ̀[f\`Waÿ_W`]_Z[]WaÿcbaÿaZ̀[_W]Z\bc_iÿ_W`W_jW`kÿLJÿGFÿFEJDLOÿlBLIÿ7:;8?;>mÿ
Z]ÿVcaÿgn@ÿhEOOEGHÿZbÿZ]`ÿ_W`]_Z[]Waÿ_W`W_jWÿcbaÿop2ÿeZffZ\bÿZbÿZ]`ÿ
aZ̀[_W]Z\bc_iÿ_W`W_jWqÿ
ÿ
Sÿr\_Wÿ]Vcbÿ\bW0]VZ_aÿ\YÿZ]`ÿaZ̀[_W]Z\bc_iÿ_W`W_jWmÿ\_ÿg@7ÿhEOOEGHmÿ[ceWÿY_\eÿ
db`sWb]ÿYdba`ÿY_\eÿ]VWÿ[cesd`ÿc``W``eWb]tcbÿcbbdcfÿ[Vc_uWÿ]Vc]ÿ]VWÿ
XYYZ[Wÿ\Yÿ]VWÿ^_W`ZaWb]ÿfWjZW`ÿ\bÿ[cesd`W`ÿ]\ÿYdbaÿ]VWÿecv\_Z]iÿ\YÿZ]`ÿ
aZ̀[_W]Z\bc_iÿ\sW_c]Z\b`qÿ
ÿ
Sÿ#HÿDBIKLEHÿlBLIJmÿ]VWÿXYYZ[Wÿ\Yÿ]VWÿ^_W`ZaWb]ÿ_WwdW`]Waÿcbaÿ_W[WZjWaÿ
css_\jcfÿY_\eÿ]VWÿx\c_aÿ\YÿyWuWb]`ÿz_WuWb]`{ÿ]\ÿZb[_Wc`Wÿ]VWÿ[cesd`ÿ
c``W``eWb]mÿWjWbÿ]V\duVÿZ]ÿVcaÿb\]ÿ`sWb]ÿcffÿ\Yÿ]VWÿYdba`ÿZ]ÿ_W[WZjWaÿY_\eÿ
[cesd`W`ÿZbÿs_Z\_ÿiWc_`qÿ
ÿ
SÿUVWÿXYYZ[Wÿ\Yÿ]VWÿ^_W`ZaWb]ÿNENÿHGKÿNEJDOGJBÿKABÿIBJBI|BJÿEKÿALNÿ
LDDMhMOLKBN9ÿHGIÿNENÿEKÿEHFGIhÿKABÿIBQBHKJÿGFÿKABÿLHHMLOÿ986}}76ÿ
~967ÿKALKÿEKÿDIBLKBNÿKGÿJCBHNÿJGhBÿGFÿKAGJBÿFMHNJqÿUVWÿdbaZ̀[f\`Waÿ
dauW]ÿ_cbuWaÿY_\eÿoÿeZffZ\bÿ]\ÿoÿeZffZ\bÿad_Zbuÿ]VWÿY\d_ÿiWc_`ÿWÿ
_WjZWWaqÿ
ÿ
SÿUVWÿXYYZ[Wÿ\Yÿ]VWÿ^_W`ZaWb]ÿc`ÿdbcfWÿ]\ÿs_\jZaWÿcÿ[\esfW]WÿfZ̀]Zbuÿ\Yÿ]VWÿ
`i`]WeZaWÿZbZ]Zc]ZjW`mÿ]VWZ_ÿ[\`]`mÿ\_ÿcbÿc``W``eWb]ÿ\Yÿ]VWZ_ÿ[\b]ZbdWaÿ
WbWYZ]ÿ]\ÿ]VWÿdbZjW_`Z]iqÿ
ÿ
SÿVZfWÿZ]ÿcssWc_`ÿ]Vc]ÿ]VWÿXYYZ[Wÿ\Yÿ]VWÿ^_W`ZaWb]`ÿcaeZbZ̀]_c]ZjWÿ`sWbaZbuÿ
Zb[_Wc`Waÿiÿ2ÿsW_[Wb]mÿ\_ÿoÿeZffZ\bmÿY_\eÿYZ̀[cfÿiWc_`ÿ2203ÿ]V_\duVÿ
240mÿ]VWÿXYYZ[Wÿ\Yÿ]VWÿ^_W`ZaWb]ÿ[\b]ZbdW`ÿ]\ÿfc[ÿ[\b`Z̀]Wb]ÿaWYZbZ]Z\b`ÿ
\YÿcbaÿeW]V\a`ÿY\_ÿ]_c[Zbuÿ]VWÿdbZjW_`Z]i`ÿcaeZbZ̀]_c]ZjWÿWsWb`W`qÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ¡ÿ¢£¢
!"###$ÿ ÿ
ÿ'(!#)*+,#(ÿ(--*+,./ÿ0.,.+(!ÿ"(1#.+ÿ2.'.++(34ÿ#,1.4-#0(-#*,ÿ
+.)54(!ÿ#,-*ÿ5'ÿ6+.4#7.,-ÿ8(,.-ÿ,(6*!#-(,*34ÿ9ÿ:;<ÿ=#!!#*,ÿ#,ÿ=*,./ÿ
!(5,7.+#,0ÿ+.1.(!.7ÿ2/ÿ->.ÿ?@:AB:C@ÿ4-(-.ÿ(57#-ÿÿ
ÿ
DEEFGHIIJJJKLMNOPJGKQMRIFMSTETQGIQUSTLMVOTU0UW0FXOEG0MO0FVMYP0MZPV0USSPWUETMOG0UWUTOGE0XQ0
FVPGT[POE0OUFMSTEUOMÿ
ÿ*\ÿ8]\^]_`ÿCaÿ?@:;bÿcUSTLMVOTUÿdEEMVOPeÿfPOPVUSÿg]h]i]ÿ>]__jkÿlmn]hmÿ]ÿ54ÿ4m\]op_aÿUO[ÿqrÿ
cMOWVPGGRUOÿ"]sjm_ÿ2mnm__]ÿVPFSUQP[ÿDPVÿUGÿcUSTLMVOTUtGÿdEEMVOPeÿfPOPVUSÿMOÿuUOXUVeÿ2vbÿ2wxyKÿÿ
zUFMSTEUOMÿUO[ÿDPVÿQMSSUYMVUEMVGÿJPVPÿQUXWDEÿMLLÿWXUV[ÿTOÿEDPÿrFVTOWÿMLÿ2wx4ÿYeÿdGGPRYSeÿ{PRYPVGÿ
|TOWÿUO[ÿ{QcUVEetGÿVP}XPGEÿLMVÿUÿGEUEPÿUX[TEÿEUVWPETOWÿqc~ÿLTOUOQPGKÿ{eÿ{UVQDÿ23bÿ2wx4ÿdFFSTQUETMOÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿ¡
!"#ÿ$%&#'ÿ!"#ÿ(#)*)+&,ÿ-+!"#.&/)"+ÿ0-12ÿ3"#.ÿ24456ÿ789.)//:'ÿ/"ÿ/;:ÿ<=(6ÿ%;)>;ÿ&''#:77:'ÿ&+'ÿ
#:?"#/:'ÿ.8,/)0.),,)"+ÿ'",,ÿ"!ÿ/&@ÿ:A&7)"+ÿ&+'ÿ!#&8'ÿ'8:ÿ/"ÿA)",&/)"+ÿ"!ÿ/;:ÿ8+)A:#7)/BC7ÿ/&@0:@:.?/ÿ
7/&/87ÿ8+':#ÿ2:>/)"+ÿDE40>5035ÿ"!ÿ/;:ÿ-+/:#+&,ÿ1:A:+8:ÿF"':ÿ"!ÿ4GDH6ÿ&'':'ÿ*#&A)/Bÿ/"ÿ/;:ÿ7)/8&/)"+Iÿÿ
ÿ
(+ÿJ&Bÿ4K6ÿ2E4L6ÿM&?",)/&+"ÿ;:,'ÿ&+ÿ:.:#*:+>Bÿ.::/)+*ÿ%)/;ÿ;:#ÿ!"#.:#ÿ78?:#)"#7ÿN#:7)':+/ÿ=&#&Oÿÿ
(9&.&ÿ&+'ÿP)>:ÿN#:7)':+/ÿ=)':+Iÿÿ
Q;:ÿRF(Nÿ."9ÿ%&7ÿ/&O)+*ÿ&,,ÿ?#:>&8/)"+7ÿ&+'ÿ&>/)"+7ÿ/"ÿ+:8/#&,)S:ÿ&+B"+:ÿ/;:BÿA):%:'ÿ&7ÿ&ÿ?"/:+/)&,ÿ
'&+*:#ÿ/"ÿ/;:ÿ')7>,"78#:ÿ"!ÿ/;:)#ÿ8+':#*#"8+'ÿ>#).)+&,ÿ&>/)A)/):7ÿ8+':#ÿ/;:ÿ':!:+7:ÿ7;):,'ÿ"!ÿ/;:ÿRFC7ÿ
&8/"+"."87ÿ&+'ÿ)+':?:+':+/0"!0*"A:#+.:+/ÿ7/&/87Iÿÿ
ÿ
<;:+ÿ/;:ÿF&,)!"#+)&ÿ7/&/:ÿ&8')/"#ÿ>;&#*:'ÿ/;:ÿRF(Nÿ%)/;ÿTUVWXYZ[\ÿ%)/;ÿ>"+!)':+/)&,ÿ#:7?"+7:7ÿ/"ÿ
/;:ÿ&8')/"#C7ÿ78#A:B^&+ÿ&>/)"+ÿ/;&/ÿ/;:+0_):8/:+&+/ÿ̀"A:#+"#ÿ̀&A)+ÿM:%7".ÿ':>#):'ÿ&7ÿ"8/#&*:"87ÿ
&+'ÿ8+a87/6ÿM:%7".:ÿ&7ÿ_/Iÿ̀"A:#+"#ÿÿ&8/".&/)>&,,Bÿ9:>&.:ÿ&ÿRFÿ1:*:+/Iÿÿ
ÿ
F&,)!"#+)&ÿ$//"#+:Bÿ̀:+:#&,ÿ=:>:##&ÿ#:!87:'ÿ/"ÿ"?:+ÿ&+ÿ)+A:7/)*&/)"+ÿ)+/"ÿ/;:ÿ.),,)"+7ÿ"!ÿ'",,ÿ0b44Dÿ
.),,)"+5ÿ,&8+':#:'ÿ&+'ÿ;)'':+ÿ9BÿM&?",)/&+"ÿA)&ÿA&#)"87ÿRFÿ&>>"8+/7Iÿÿ
3"@ÿM:%7ÿ#:?"#/:#ÿcYddeXÿfZ[\VU[ÿ>"##:>/,Bÿ?")+/:'ÿ"8/ÿ)+ÿ&ÿJ&Bÿ2H6ÿ2E44ÿ&#/)>,:ÿ/;&/gÿÿ
$+Bÿ!"#.&,ÿ?#"9:ÿ)+/"ÿM&?",)/&+"h7ÿ"!!)>:ÿ%"8,'ÿ)+A",A:ÿi8:7/)"+)+*ÿ"!ÿ/;:ÿRFÿ
1:*:+/76ÿ/;:ÿ*"A:#+)+*ÿ9"'Bÿ"!ÿ/;:ÿRF07B7/:.ÿ#:7?"+7)9,:ÿ!"#ÿ!)7>&,ÿ"A:#7)*;/Iÿ
$>>"#')+*ÿ/"ÿ/;:ÿF&,)!"#+)&ÿF"+7/)/8/)"+6ÿ)/ÿ)7ÿj:+/)#:,Bÿ)+':?:+':+/ÿ"!ÿ&,,ÿ?",)/)>&,ÿ
&+'ÿ7:>/&#)&+ÿ)+!,8:+>:ÿ&+'ÿO:?/ÿ!#::ÿ/;:#:!#".ÿ)+ÿ/;:ÿ&??")+/.:+/ÿ"!ÿ)/7ÿ1:*:+/7ÿ
&+'ÿ)+ÿ/;:ÿ&'.)+)7/#&/)"+ÿ"!ÿ)/7ÿ&!!&)#7Ijÿ
M&?",)/&+"6ÿ%;"ÿ7:#A:'ÿ&7ÿ7:>#:/&#Bÿ"!ÿk".:,&+'ÿ2:>8#)/Bÿ)+ÿ/;:ÿ(9&.&ÿ
&'.)+)7/#&/)"+6ÿ)7ÿ;:#7:,!ÿ&ÿ!"#.:#ÿ1:*:+/6ÿ&+'ÿ7".:ÿ.:.9:#7ÿ&+'ÿ!"#.:#ÿ.:.9:#7ÿ
"!ÿ/;:ÿ9"&#'ÿ&#:ÿ?#".)+:+/ÿl:.">#&/7Iÿ
Q;:Bÿ)+>,8':gÿmZnoUYpÿcqrV6ÿ;879&+'ÿ"!ÿfX[sÿtZU[[XÿuXZ[vTXZ[6ÿl0F&,)!Iwÿ
F&,)!"#+)&ÿxdysÿzXYY{ÿcYd|[6ÿ%;"ÿ&??")+/:'ÿcXnXYYUÿ/"ÿ;)7ÿ?"7/ÿ&7ÿ&//"#+:Bÿ
*:+:#&,wÿ&+'ÿF&,)!"#+)&ÿ$77:.9,Bÿ2?:&O:#ÿ}[Tod[{ÿmX[pd[Iÿ
ÿ
2)+*.&+ÿ>"+/)+8:'gÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡ÿ¢£ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤¥¦§ÿ̈¢©ª©ÿÿÿÿÿÿ«¬ÿ¢ÿ®ÿ¯
!ÿ"#$%&'ÿ()*+),ÿ*+'ÿ-'.$/0)&1,ÿ&1$&$"ÿ#2ÿ*+'ÿ310)2#%,)1ÿ4'5)"01*$%'ÿ*#06ÿ7#8ÿ9'("ÿ
*+1*ÿ(+)0'ÿ*+':;6ÿ0)<'ÿ*#ÿ"1:ÿ='&'%%1;"ÿ6'&)")#,ÿ(1"ÿ1ÿ>&#.ÿ#$*?>ÿ*+'ÿ.%#.'%ÿ&+1,,'0ÿ
2#%ÿ2$%*+'%ÿ),@'"*)51*)#,ÿ)"ÿ*+%#$5+ÿA.'1<'%ÿ-',6#,Bÿ
C,ÿD#,61:?ÿ-'.$/0)&1,ÿE'E/'%"ÿ#2ÿ*+'ÿ!""'E/0:ÿ"',*ÿ1ÿ0'**'%ÿ*#ÿ-',6#,ÿ&100),5ÿ
2#%ÿ1ÿ"$/.#',1ÿ#2ÿ6#&$E',*"ÿ%'01*),5ÿ*#ÿ*+'ÿ1$6)*Bÿ
ÿ
>F'ÿ/'0)'@'ÿ*+)"ÿ)"ÿ,#*ÿ1ÿ.1%*)"1,ÿ#%ÿ.#0)*)&10ÿ)""$'?ÿ/$*ÿ1,ÿ)""$'ÿ#2ÿ*%$"*ÿ),ÿ#$%ÿ
),"*)*$*)#,"?>ÿ*+'ÿ0'**'%ÿ%'16"Bÿ
ÿ
>F'ÿ"+#$06ÿ,#*ÿ2'1%ÿ*+'ÿ*%$*+?ÿ),ÿ21&*ÿGÿ/'0)'@'ÿ)*ÿ)"ÿ#,'ÿ#2ÿ#$%ÿ<':ÿ%#0'"ÿ#,ÿ/'+102ÿ
#2ÿ#$%ÿ&#,"*)*$',*"ÿ*#ÿ"''<ÿ)*ÿ#$*ÿH'10#$"0:?>ÿ-'.$/0)&1,ÿ!""'E/0:E1,ÿI1,*'ÿ
!&#"*1ÿ*#06ÿ7#8ÿ9'("Bÿ>J+'ÿ0'5)"01*$%'ÿ+1"ÿ*+'ÿ.#('%ÿ*#ÿ)""$'ÿ1ÿ"$/.#',1?ÿ1,6ÿE:ÿ
-'.$/0)&1,ÿ�'15$'"ÿ1,6ÿGÿ1%'ÿ$%5),5ÿ*+'ÿA.'1<'%ÿ*#ÿ*1<'ÿ*+)"ÿ,'&'""1%:ÿ"*'.ÿ*#ÿ
/%),5ÿ*%1,".1%',&:ÿ*#ÿ*+'ÿK3ÿC22)&'ÿ#2ÿ*+'ÿL%'")6',*Bÿ310)2#%,)1;"ÿ"*$6',*"?ÿ.1%',*"?ÿ
1,6ÿ*18.1:'%"ÿ6'"'%@'ÿ1,"('%"B>ÿ
ÿ
-',6#,;"ÿ#22)&'ÿ.$"+'6ÿ/1&<?ÿ+#('@'%?ÿE1<),5ÿ&0'1%ÿ*+':ÿ()00ÿ,#*ÿ5%1,*ÿ*+'ÿ%'M$'"*ÿ
1*ÿ*+)"ÿ"*15'Bÿ
ÿ
;J+'ÿ0'5)"01*$%'ÿ6#'"ÿ+1@'ÿ*+'ÿ.#('%ÿ*#ÿ"$/.#',1ÿ@1%)#$"ÿ15',&)'"ÿ/$*ÿ*+1*;"ÿ#,0:ÿ
6#,'ÿ),ÿ&1"'"ÿ(+'%'ÿ*+'%'ÿNOÿQRNSNTUVÿSUVWXUOUTQXBÿ=$*ÿ),ÿ*+)"ÿ&1"'?ÿ*+'ÿ".'1<'%ÿ
+1",;*ÿ"'',ÿ*+1*Bÿ!*ÿ*+)"ÿ.#),*?ÿ+'ÿ()00ÿ,#*ÿ/'ÿ1"<),5ÿ2#%ÿ1ÿ"$/.#',1?>ÿ1ÿ-',6#,ÿ
".#<'".'%"#,ÿ*#06ÿ7#8ÿ9'("Bÿ
ÿ
G2ÿ*+'ÿ01$,6'%),5ÿ#2ÿYZ[\ÿE)00)#,ÿ/:ÿ91.#0)*1,#ÿ$"),5ÿ$,)@'%")*:ÿ1&&#$,*"ÿ)"ÿ,#*ÿQRNSNTUVÿSUVWXUOUTQX?ÿ
*+',ÿ(+1*ÿ)"]ÿÿ
J+'ÿK3ÿ=#1%6ÿ#2ÿ-'5',*"?ÿ),ÿ1,ÿ'22#%*ÿ*#ÿ&#@'%ÿ$.ÿ*+'ÿK3CLÿE#/ÿ1,6ÿ91.#0)*1,#^"ÿE#,':ÿ01$,6'%),5ÿ
#2ÿYZ[\ÿE)00)#,?ÿ%'*1),'6ÿ),ÿD1:ÿ2_Z[ÿ*+'ÿ01(ÿ2)%Eÿ#2ÿ`$'"*#,ÿ`',,)51,ÿ1,6ÿ2#%E'%ÿ310)2#%,)1ÿ
A$.%'E'ÿ3#$%*ÿa$"*)&'ÿ31%0#"ÿD#%',#Bÿÿ
!*ÿ*+'ÿ"1E'ÿ*)E'?ÿGÿ+16ÿ*(#ÿ.',6),5ÿ1..'10"ÿ),ÿ*+'ÿ3#$%*ÿ#2ÿ!..'10ÿJ+)%6ÿ!..'001*'ÿI)"*%)&*ÿ%'01*'6ÿ
*#ÿ*',"ÿ#2ÿE)00)#,"ÿ#2ÿ6#001%"ÿ*18ÿ'@1")#,ÿ1,6ÿ2%1$6ÿ&#EE)**'6ÿ/:ÿ*+'ÿK3CLÿ1,6ÿK3ÿ-'5',*"?ÿ6$'ÿ
*#ÿ@)#01*)#,"ÿ#2ÿ*+'ÿ$,)@'%")*:^"ÿ*180'8'E.*ÿ"*1*$"ÿG-3ÿA'&*)#,ÿ\_Zÿb&cb3cBÿJ+)"ÿ.1%*)&$01%ÿ&1"'?ÿ
defghiejÿlehmnmopÿqrÿseitugfvteÿwvxyzig{yxv|ÿ}vhofevnxÿ~zzxeiÿgefÿsw}~ÿ@Bÿxxv|hÿguÿ
|xÿwvtqxfht|{ÿguÿseitugfvteÿehÿ|xÿxeiÿef|{ÿtvÿ}v|xfxh|?ÿ32_Z34___Z3KFDIA?ÿÿJ+'ÿ
3#$%*ÿ#2ÿ!..'10"?ÿ3I3!?ÿlehmnmopÿqrÿsw}~ÿ31"'ÿ9#Bÿ3_[2\?ÿ1,6ÿ310)2#%,)1ÿA$.%'E'ÿ3#$%*ÿ
&1"'"ÿlehmnmopÿqrÿsw}~ÿA2\3[Z3ÿ1,6ÿA2\4[ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤ÿ¥¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ§¨©ª«ÿ¥¬¬ÿÿÿÿÿÿ®¯ÿ¥ÿ°ÿ±²±
!"#ÿ$%&#'(&(ÿ)*&%ÿ+,ÿ-".%"/&01)ÿ2)301,ÿ-3$&%')%ÿ2)3%1ÿ43(5&ÿ-6&77&,"0&ÿ26"058ÿ16&ÿ9)%/&%ÿ
26'&9ÿ:&$31,ÿ;&5"7ÿ-&.%&1"%,ÿ1)ÿ<)*&%0)%ÿ<%",ÿ:"*'#8ÿ!6)ÿ!"#ÿ%&."77&(ÿ'0ÿ2==3>ÿÿ
?6&ÿ30'*&%#'1,@#ÿ7&5"7ÿ1&"/ÿ'0ÿ16&ÿÿ."#&ÿABCDEFBGÿIBEJKJLMÿNOÿPBFQRDCSQBÿTSUVWFDXVUSYÿZSELCBSKUÿ
[WWUBFÿ\DBC]ÿ^PTZ[\ÿ'0.73(&(ÿ<&0&%"7ÿ2)30#&7ÿ_)+'0#)0ÿ6'/#&798ÿ26'&9ÿ:&$31,ÿ<&0&%"7ÿ2)30#&7ÿ
`"%&0ÿa&1%37"b'#8ÿ-&0')%ÿ2)30#&7ÿ2,016'"ÿc%))/8ÿ"0(ÿd"0"5'05ÿ2)30#&7ÿd"%5"%&1ÿc3>ÿ?6&ÿ#"/&ÿ
1&"/ÿ'01&%9&%&(ÿ'0ÿ-1"1&ÿe3('1ÿ2=fg0f3=>ÿ
eÿ!%'1ÿ)9ÿ/"0("/3#ÿ'0ÿ"0ÿ30&/$7),/&01ÿ+&0&9'1#ÿ."#&ÿ!)37(ÿ3#3"77,ÿ0)1ÿ%&h3'%&ÿ"ÿ30'*&%#'1,ÿ1)ÿ+&ÿ
%&$%&#&01&(ÿ+,ÿ9)3%ÿ7&"('05ÿ"11)%0&,#ÿ9%)/ÿ16&ÿi2ja8ÿ+31ÿ2"7'9)%0'"ÿe11)%0&,ÿ<&0&%"7ÿ̀"/"7"ÿk"%%'#ÿ
"$$)'01&(ÿ6&%ÿ(&$31,ÿ"0(ÿ9%'&0(ÿlmnopqrÿtuvqupÿ1)ÿ/,ÿ30&/$7),/&01ÿ'0#3%"0.&ÿ+&0&9'1#ÿ."#&>ÿ
ÿwpÿxyprÿz{|ÿ}~z8ÿÿ#&01ÿ"0ÿ'09)%/"1')0"7ÿ7&11&%ÿ1)ÿe<ÿ"*'&%ÿ&.&%%"ÿ"+)31ÿ1&0#ÿ)9ÿ/'77')0#ÿ)9ÿ()77"%#ÿ
'0ÿ1"ÿ&*"#')0ÿ"0(ÿ9%"3(ÿ.)//'11&(ÿ+,ÿ16&ÿi2jaÿ"0(ÿi2ÿ_&5&01#>ÿ?6&ÿ7&11&%ÿ!"#ÿ&01'17&(ÿ_ÿ_&ÿ
;&11&%ÿ1)ÿ-1"1&ÿ)9ÿ2"7'9)%0'"ÿ%"0.6'#&ÿ?"ÿ)"%(0ÿ?6&ÿ7&91ÿ)*&%ÿ9%)/ÿ16&ÿ2"7'9)%0'"#ÿ&0&%5,ÿ
/"%b&1ÿ(&%&537"1')08ÿ&0&%5,ÿ.%'#'#ÿ)9ÿf44402==fÿ"0(ÿ-1"1&ÿ)9ÿ2"7'9)%0'"ÿ%&."77ÿ&7&.1')0ÿ)9ÿ16&ÿ
<)*&%0)%ÿ<%&,ÿ:"*'#ÿ'0ÿ2==3>ÿeÿ9&!ÿ(",#ÿ7"1&%8ÿÿ%&.&'*&(ÿ"ÿ5&0&%"7ÿ%&#$)0#&ÿ("1&(ÿ430&ÿf8ÿ2=fÿ
9%)/ÿe<ÿ&.&%%"@#ÿ)99'.&>ÿ
d",ÿ430&ÿf8ÿ2=fÿ
ÿ
"*'&%ÿ&.&%%"ÿ0e11)%0&,ÿ<&0&%"7ÿ
-1"1&ÿ)9ÿ2"7'9)%0'"ÿ:&$"%1/&01ÿ)9ÿ43#1'.&ÿ
e11)%0&,ÿ<&0&%"7ÿj99'.&ÿ
f3==ÿÿ-1%&&18ÿ
-".%"/&01)8ÿ2eÿ4f024f4ÿ
ÿ
_&ÿ;&11&%ÿ1)ÿ-1"1&ÿ)9ÿ2"7'9)%0'"ÿ%"0.6'#&ÿ?"ÿ)"%(ÿ
?6&ÿ7&91ÿ)*&%ÿ9%)/ÿ16&ÿ2"7'9)%0'"#ÿ&0&%5,ÿ/"%b&1ÿ(&%&537"1')08ÿ&0&%5,ÿ.%'#'#ÿ)9ÿ
f44402==fÿ"0(ÿ-1"1&ÿ)9ÿ2"7'9)%0'"ÿ%&."77ÿ&7&.1')0ÿ)9ÿ16&ÿ<)*&%0)%ÿ<%&,ÿ:"*'#ÿ'0ÿ
2==3ÿ
>ÿ
:&"%ÿe11)%0&,8ÿ<&0&%"7ÿ&.&%%"ÿ
ÿ
)%ÿ,)3%ÿ%&*'&!ÿ"0(ÿ.)0#'(&%"1')0ÿÿ"/ÿ9)%!"%('05ÿ1)ÿ,)3ÿ16&ÿ.)$,ÿ)9ÿ16&ÿ430&ÿf8ÿ
2=fÿ7&11&%#ÿ!'16ÿ"11".6/&01#ÿ)0ÿ7"#6ÿ:%'*&ÿÿ%&.&017,ÿ!%)1&ÿ1)ÿ16&ÿ-1"1&ÿ)9ÿ
2"7'9)%0'"ÿ%"0.6'#&ÿ?"ÿ)"%(ÿ?ÿ"0(ÿ1)ÿi>-ÿ-&0"1)%ÿk)0>ÿ̀"/"7"ÿk"%%'#ÿ
ÿb&&$ÿ,)3ÿ3$("1&>ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿ*7?ÿ1BÿCDC
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¹º»¼ÿ»¾¿ÀÿÁÂÃÄÅÆÃÇÿÿÿÿÿÿÈÉÊËÌÀÍÎÿÁÅÏÐÂÅÃÆÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÑÒÓÀÔÕÿÃÏÖÃ×ÖÂÃÂÂÿÿÿÿÿÿؾÙÀÿÂÏÐÿÉÚÿÛÜÛ
ÿ!"ÿ!$%&'()ÿ*+,ÿ*-./0ÿ1234ÿ345ÿ62758ÿ953232:;ÿ6:<ÿ=545><2;?ÿ2;ÿ@>A5ÿBCDEFEGHÿJKÿLMNÿONPNQRDÿSTÿ
RMNÿUQVJNWDVRXÿSTÿYCZVTSWQVCÿ@>A5ÿ[:\@]^_`23ÿab((ÿcdefgfhÿij*ÿ&"ÿklmbnÿo)pq(ÿm"oÿrsrt0ÿÿ
ÿuÿ2;6:<v58ÿ345ÿ@:w<3ÿ:6ÿxyy5>7A0ÿz42<8ÿxyy577>35ÿ{2A3<2|3ÿ>}:w3ÿ345ÿ~@ÿ=5?5;3Aÿ>33:<;5Aÿ
2:75;3ÿ}54>2:<ÿ2;ÿ31:ÿA5y><>35ÿ2;|285;3Aÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
xw?wA3ÿ20ÿ2]4^ÿx635<ÿwA3ÿ4`ÿv2;w35Aÿ:6ÿ:<>7ÿ><?wv5;30ÿ345ÿ{565;8>;3Aÿ75?>7ÿ
|:w;A57ÿ{>28ÿw<533ÿ6<:vÿ345ÿ>|<>v5;3:0}>A58ÿ7>1ÿ62<vÿ9:<35<ÿ|:33ÿ
>yy<:>|458ÿ>A|wÿ2;ÿ345ÿ@:w<3ÿ>77ÿ:w3A285ÿ345ÿ|:w<3<::vÿ>;8ÿ>335vy358ÿ3:ÿ
2;A32?>35ÿ>ÿ|:;6<:;3>32:;\ÿ5ÿv>85ÿ34<5>3Aÿ3:1><8ÿ>A|wÿ1265ÿ>;8ÿ3<258ÿ3:ÿ
5y7:23ÿ345ÿ5v:32:;>7ÿ>;8ÿ62;>;|2>7ÿAw665<2;?ÿ15ÿ4>5ÿ}:34ÿ5y5<25;|58ÿA2;|5ÿ~@ÿ
=5?5;3Aÿ35<v2;>358ÿ>A|wÿ5vy7:v5;3ÿ2;ÿ{5|5v}5<ÿ2]42ÿ>3ÿ>?5ÿ4ÿ1234:w3ÿ
>;ÿy:AA2}2723ÿ3:ÿ62;8ÿ;51ÿ5vy7:v5;3ÿ\ÿ:<ÿ345ÿ@:w<3ÿ2;6:<v>32:;ÿ
0ÿ>A|wÿAy:wA5ÿu<5;>ÿ>A|wÿ2Aÿ1:<2;?ÿ2;ÿ[:<8A3<:vÿ2;ÿ>|<>v5;3:ÿ>Aÿ
A5>vA3<5AAÿ062335<ÿ6:<ÿ>7v:A3ÿ]ÿ5><Aÿ>;8ÿ4>Aÿ;:342;?ÿ3:ÿ8:ÿ1234ÿ345ÿ~;25<A23ÿ:6ÿ
@>726:<;2>ÿ>;8ÿ>A|wÿ7>1Aw23ÿ0ÿ>A|wÿAy:wA5ÿA4:w78ÿ<532<5ÿ:;ÿ5y35v}5<ÿ
240ÿ2]4^ÿ>3ÿ>?5ÿ:6ÿÿ}w3ÿ45ÿ|>;3ÿ8w5ÿ3:ÿ85>A3>32:;ÿ:6ÿ>A|wAÿ7265ÿ>;8ÿ
725724::8ÿ}ÿ~@ÿ=5?5;3Aÿ>;8ÿ3452<ÿ|:77>}:<>3:<A\ÿw<533ÿ;51ÿ34>3ÿ>A|wÿ1>Aÿ
A3<5AA58ÿ8w5ÿ3:ÿ62;>;|2>7ÿ4><8A42yÿ|>wA58ÿ}ÿ42Aÿ|725;3Aÿ|<2v2;>7ÿ}54>2:<ÿ45ÿ
34:w?43ÿ34>3ÿ42Aÿ>33>|Aÿ>?>2;A3ÿvÿAy:wA5ÿ1:w78ÿ5>A27ÿy<::5ÿ>ÿ|:;6<:;3>32:;\ÿ
>870ÿ342Aÿ5;|:w;35<ÿ1>AÿvÿA5|:;8ÿ32v5ÿ5y5<25;|2;?ÿAw|4ÿA4>v56w7ÿ3>|32|Aÿ2;ÿ345ÿ
|:w<3ÿ}w2782;?\ÿu3ÿ2Aÿ>ÿA5|:;8ÿ32v5ÿ>A|wÿ5y5<25;|58ÿAw|4ÿ{565;8>;3Aÿ>33:<;5ÿ
}54>2:<ÿ\ÿu3ÿ4>yy5;58ÿ}56:<5ÿ2;ÿ2]4`0ÿy<2:<ÿ3:ÿ345ÿ|:w<3ÿ45><2;?ÿ]22^2]4`ÿ1234ÿ
y<5A282;?ÿw8?5ÿ45775>;;5ÿ@4>;?ÿ2;ÿ345ÿw;5vy7:v5;3ÿ}5;5623Aÿ<23ÿ:6ÿ
>;8>vwAÿ|>A5ÿ2;ÿ142|4ÿ~@ÿ=5?5;3Aÿ2Aÿy><3ÿ>Aÿ>ÿ=5>7ÿ9><3ÿu;ÿu;35<5A3ÿ=922\ÿ
~@ÿ75?>7ÿ|:w;A57ÿ>;8ÿ~@ÿ>8v2;2A3<>3:<AÿvwA3ÿ}5ÿ5<ÿ85Ay5<>35ÿ26ÿ345ÿ<5A:<3ÿ3:ÿ
wA2;?ÿAw|4ÿ3>|32|A\ÿz<2;?ÿ3:ÿy<::5ÿ345ÿ:yy:A2;?ÿy><3ÿ2;3:ÿ>ÿy4A2|>7ÿ
|:;6<:;3>32:;ÿ2;ÿ>;ÿ><5>ÿ45>27ÿ3<>662|58ÿ}ÿA45<266Aÿ85yw325Aÿ>;8ÿ|23ÿy:72|5ÿ2Aÿ
52345<ÿ5<ÿ6::72A4ÿ:<ÿ5<ÿw;85<4>;858\ÿ
ÿ
dfsÿ ÿ
!scÿ!ÿ ¡chÿ¡ !fh ¡!¢£ÿ¡rÿhecÿ!ÿ¤efhcÿ! ÿ
f¥f¡ £¢ÿhfsfhfc£ÿ
ÿ
ÿ!"ÿ£(¦%(§'()ÿ¨,ÿ*-./0ÿ[>y:723>;:ÿ62758ÿ>ÿ7>1Aw23ÿ>?>2;A3ÿ345ÿ~\\ÿ{5y><3v5;3ÿ:6ÿ:v57>;8ÿ
5|w<23ÿ{ÿ2;ÿ345ÿ~\\ÿ{2A3<2|3ÿ@:w<3ÿ[:<345<;ÿ{2A3<2|3ÿ:6ÿ@>726:<;2>ÿ>;ÿ<>;|2A|:ÿL©ªÿ
Oª«ª¬Lÿ®¯ÿL©ªÿU¬°±ªO°L²ÿ®¯ÿY³´°¯®O¬°³ÿCQµÿ¶³¬ªLÿ¬³·®´°L³¬®ÿ̧VQÿMNWÿSTTVFVCZÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¼½¾¿ÿ¾ÁÂÃÿÄÅÆÇÈÉÆÊÿÿÿÿÿÿËÌÍÎÏÃÐÑÿÄÈÒÓÅÈÆÉÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÔÕÖÃ×ØÿÆÒÙÆÚÙÅÆÅÅÿÿÿÿÿÿÛÁÜÃÿÅÒÊÿÌÝÿÞßÞ
!"!#$%ÿ!'ÿ()*'#+*,$ÿ-.ÿ$/*ÿ0,#1*)'#$%ÿ-.ÿ2!3#.-),#!4ÿ56ÿ0787ÿ9:(;<=>:?=ÿ@AÿB@>:C;?9ÿ
8:20<D=Eÿ!,+ÿ:C;D?:ÿ90F:4ÿ#,ÿ/*)ÿ-..##!3ÿ!"!#$%ÿ!'ÿ; $#,Gÿ8*)*$!)%ÿ-.ÿ$/*ÿ9*"!)$H*,$ÿ-.ÿ
B-H*3!,+ÿ8*I)#$%ÿJKLMÿNO6ÿPQRS0T50UV2RR6ÿWXYLÿZK[L\Y]^ÿ_`O\aX]ÿ\bcM`ÿ]XMÿd\Mÿe`OTMLLÿJZK\LMÿOfÿ
]XMÿgYf]XÿhiMbciMb]ÿ]Oÿ]XMÿjbY]Mcÿk]K]MLÿJObL]Y]\]YObÿKbcÿ]XMÿhciYbYL]`K]Y5Mÿe`OTMc\`MÿhT]ÿ
lmhehmn^ÿoÿj6k6J6ÿpÿSUq^ÿTXKZZMbaMLÿ]XMÿdrksÿ\bZK[f\ZÿcMTYLYObÿ]Oÿ̀MLTYbcÿ]XMÿdMfM``McÿhT]YObÿfO`ÿ
JXYZcXOOcÿh``Y5KZLÿlmdhJhmnÿt`Oa`Ki^ÿ[XYTXÿt`O]MT]Mcÿf`OiÿcMtO`]K]YObÿbMK`ZuÿvUU^UUUÿYbcY5Yc\KZLÿ
_`O\aX]ÿ]Oÿ]XYLÿTO\b]`uÿKLÿTXYZc`Mb^ÿwbO[bÿKLÿxd`MKiM`L6yÿjbcM`ÿdhJh^ÿ]XMÿd`MKiM`L^ÿ[XOÿTKiMÿ
]Oÿ]XMÿjbY]Mcÿk]K]MLÿ]X`O\aXÿbOÿTXOYTMÿOfÿ]XMỲÿO[b^ÿ[XOÿXK5MÿTZMKbÿ`MTO`cL^ÿKbcÿ[XOÿXK5MÿZY5Mcÿ
TOb]Yb\O\LZuÿYbÿ]XMÿjbY]Mcÿk]K]MLÿLYbTMÿ2UUS^ÿ[M`MÿtM`iY]]Mcÿ]OÿZY5M^ÿ[O`w^ÿKbcÿL]\cuÿYbÿ]XYLÿTO\b]`uÿ
[Y]XO\]ÿfMK`ÿOfÿcMtO`]K]YObÿlLMMÿX]]tLQzz\bY5M`LY]uOfTKZYfO`bYK6Mc\zLY]MLzcMfK\Z]zfYZMLzjJ0dhJh0
JOitZKYb]6tcfn6ÿ
ÿ
ÿ{MaK`cZMLLÿOfÿXM`ÿiO]Y5K]YOb^ÿNKtOZY]KbOÿKbcÿ]XMÿjJ|eÿiO_ÿÿiKcMÿKbÿM}TMZZMb]ÿTXOYTMÿ]OÿfYZMÿ]XYLÿ
ZK[L\Y]ÿKaKYbL]ÿ]XMÿW`\itÿhciYbYL]`K]YObÿ]OÿcY5M`]ÿt\_ZYTÿK]]Mb]YObÿf`Oiÿ]XMÿ~RSVÿiYZZYObÿ]XMuÿ
ZK\bcM`McÿYbÿ2URV2URq^ÿ[XYTXÿ[KLÿcYLTZOLMcÿYbÿht`YZÿ2URSÿ_uÿk]K]Mÿh\cY]ÿ2URq0RPUÿKbcÿO]XM`ÿ
\bcYLTZOLMcÿT`YiMLÿ6ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿ^ÿ]XMÿj6k6ÿk\t`MiMÿJO\`]ÿYLL\McÿKÿV03ÿcMTYLYObÿfYbcYbaÿ]XK]ÿ]XMÿW`\itÿ
hciYbYL]`K]YObLÿ]M`iYbK]YObÿOfÿdhJhÿ[KLÿlRnÿ\cYTYKZZuÿ̀M5YM[K_ZMÿKbcÿl2nÿcObMÿYbÿKbÿK`_Y]`K`uÿKbcÿ
TKt`YTYO\LÿiKbbM`^ÿYbÿ5YOZK]YObÿOfÿ]XMÿhciYbYL]`K]Y5Mÿe`OTMc\`MÿhT]ÿlhehn6ÿ
9*"!)$H*,$ÿ-.ÿB-H*3!,+ÿ8*I)#$%ÿ17ÿ<*G*,$'ÿ-.ÿ0,#17ÿ-.ÿ2!374ÿR3Uÿk6ÿJ]6ÿRvRÿl2U2Unÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ¡¢ÿ£ÿ¤¥¦ÿ§ÿÿ̈ÿ©ÿÿª«¬ÿ
ÿª«¬ÿ¥ ÿÿÿ®¢ÿ¦¦ÿ¥¥¦ÿ¯ÿÿ§®ÿ°§ÿ§ÿÿ¨¦¯ ÿ
ÿ¯ÿ©ÿ¥¥¦ÿÿ±§¦©²¥ ±ÿÿÿ¯ ÿ³ÿ ´ÿ¯ ÿÿÿÿ
¨¯³ÿÿÿÿ³ÿµ®¬®ÿ¶¯§§ÿ ÿ·ÿ̧¨ÿ£¶·¸®ÿ¹¨¨ÿÿº¦ÿ
ÿÿ»ÿ¹ §ÿ¥ ÿÿ¥¥¦ÿÿ³ÿÿ §ÿÿ
§³®ÿÿ©¨ÿ³ÿ¥ ÿÿÿÿ§¯ÿ©ÿ¦¦ÿÿ¥§§ÿ©ÿÿÿ̈¯³®ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
`abcÿbefgÿhijklmjnÿÿÿÿÿÿopqrsgtuÿhlvwiljmÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿxyzg{|ÿjv}j~}ijiiÿÿÿÿÿÿegÿivÿpÿ
!"#$%&$'(ÿ%&$ÿ)*#+'$,ÿ*-.*/0%$ÿ%&0%(ÿ/"-%'0'1ÿ%"ÿ230405,ÿ06"7$.ÿ8"9*/1(ÿ0ÿ&+#$ÿ80'%ÿ
")ÿ:;<ÿÿ$-)"'/$4$-%ÿ$))"'%,ÿ'$,+9%$.ÿ*-ÿ%&$ÿ,$80'0%*"-ÿ")ÿ)04*9*$,(ÿ0-.ÿ0ÿ4+/&ÿ
,4099$'ÿ8"'%*"-ÿ7$-%ÿ%"70'.ÿ.$8"'%*-#ÿ8$"89$ÿ7&"ÿ8",$.ÿ9$#*%*40%$ÿ8+39*/ÿ,0)$%1ÿ
%&'$0%,ÿ,$$ÿ&%%8,=>>%&$*-%$'/$8%?/"4>2@AB>@C>AC>"3040,0.$8"'%0%*"-08"9*/1070,0
$6$-07"',$0%&0-07$0%&"+#&%>ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"ÿ/"-%'"9ÿ%&$ÿ.040#$ÿ."-$ÿ31ÿD%0%$ÿE+.*%ÿ2@AF0A4@ÿ*-6$,%*#0%"',(ÿ%&$ÿG;ÿH"0'.ÿ")ÿI$#$-%,ÿ'$%0*-$.ÿ
J+$,%"-ÿJ$--*#0-ÿKKLÿM&%%8,=>>777?&+$,%"-?/"4>Nÿ%"ÿ'$8$9ÿO08"9*%0-"5,ÿ0-.ÿ%&$ÿI$#$-%,5ÿ0.6$',0'*$,ÿ
0%%0/P,ÿ.+$ÿ%"ÿ%&$ÿ.*,/9",+'$ÿ")ÿQABCÿ4*99*"-ÿ*-ÿ4"-$1ÿ90+-.$'*-#?ÿÿ
R"'4$'ÿ,%0%$ÿD+8'$4$ÿ;"+'%ÿS+,%*/$ÿ)"'ÿ&*'$ÿTUVWXYÿ[XV\]Xÿ^"*-$.ÿ%&$ÿ.040#$ÿ/"-%'"9ÿ*-6$,%*#0%*"-ÿ
7*%&ÿJ+$,%"-ÿJ$--*#0-ÿKKL?ÿÿ
:-ÿ2@A4(ÿ%&$ÿG;ÿI$#$-%,ÿ0-.ÿO08"9*%0-"ÿ$489"1$.ÿ_"'$-"ÿ)"'ÿ.040#$ÿ/"-%'"9ÿ'$90%$.ÿ%"ÿ&*#&08'")*9$ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
fghiÿhklmÿnopqrsptÿÿÿÿÿÿuvwxymz{ÿnr|}orpsÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ~mÿp|popooÿÿÿÿÿÿkmÿo||ÿvÿ
!"#$!%&ÿ'(ÿ)*"*+ÿ*!#ÿ$%,!"ÿ-*&ÿ*!#.')ÿ#&")/ !*%'!ÿ%,*%ÿ'""0))$#ÿ'!ÿ%,$ÿ1234ÿ"*/50&ÿ!ÿ)$"$!%ÿ
6$*)&ÿ7&$$ÿ(!*+ÿ8*!0*)6ÿ39ÿ2:2;ÿ<')$!'=&ÿ>$5')%ÿ!ÿ%,&ÿ/*%%$)9ÿ?@ABCBDÿFGHÿIJÿKLMNOÿPQRSTÿMJPÿ
UVUWXÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Y0$&%'!ÿY$!!Z*!ÿ33[ÿ(*-)"*%$#ÿ%,$ÿ*#ÿ,'"ÿ\]!#$5$!#$!%ÿ^*"%0^!#!Zÿ>$_$`ÿ(')ÿ%,$ÿ
a'*)#ÿ'(ÿ>$Z$!%&ÿ'(ÿ%,$ÿ1!_$)&%6ÿ'(ÿ2*+(')!*9bÿ̀,",ÿ̀*&ÿ50-+&,$#ÿ'!ÿc'_$/-$)ÿ;d9ÿ2:;eXÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ¡ÿ¢£¤¥¦§¤¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿ©ª«¬¡®ÿ̄¢¦°±£¦¤§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ²³́¡µ¶ÿ¤°·¤¸·£¤££ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¹º¡ÿ»¤¤ÿª¼ÿ»½»
ÿ
!"#ÿ$%ÿ&#'#()*ÿ+(,ÿ-+./01)+(/2*ÿ,+3+'#ÿ4/()5/0ÿ5#*./(*#ÿ)/ÿ)"#ÿ+6,1)7ÿ1(ÿ)"#ÿ8/53ÿ/8ÿ)"#ÿ
96#*)/(ÿ9#((1'+(2*ÿ8+:514+)#,ÿ5#;1#<7ÿ5#'+5,0#**ÿ/8ÿ1)*ÿ)56)"860(#**7ÿ*"/<#,ÿ)"+)ÿ-+./01)+(/ÿ<+*ÿ
4+6'")ÿ/88ÿ'6+5,ÿ:=ÿ)"#ÿ*)+)#ÿ+6,1)/5*7ÿ+(,ÿ*"#ÿ:#4+3#ÿ;#5=ÿ+'1)+)#,ÿ+(,ÿ;#5=ÿ(#5;/6*>ÿÿ
?@ÿBCDÿEFG@H@IÿFJÿ?KBFLDGÿMNOÿMPNQOÿRSTFUHBS@FVWÿXCHDJÿFJÿYBSJJÿYDBBÿZGFWWES@ÿBD[BD\ÿCDG]ÿ
^_TTD@\H[ÿ_ÿTSIDÿ̀aÿÿ
bc(#ÿ/)"#5ÿ)"1('ÿ'/1('ÿ/(ÿ1*ÿ)"+)ÿ)"#ÿ*)+)#ÿ+6,1)/5ÿ*#()ÿ+ÿ*65;#=ÿ)/ÿ+00ÿ)"#ÿ4+3.6*ÿ
+6,1)ÿ,15#4)/5*ÿ+(,ÿ+(/)"#5ÿ*65;#=ÿ)/ÿ+00ÿ)"#ÿ4+3.6*ÿ%dc*>ÿ!"#ÿ*65;#=*ÿ+*eÿ+:/6)ÿ
)"#15ÿ+**#**3#()ÿ/8ÿcfÿ*#5;14#*ÿ+(,ÿ.#58/53+(4#>ÿg+))ÿ1*ÿ4/(;#(1('ÿ+ÿ4+00ÿ/8ÿ+00ÿ
)"#ÿ1()#5(+0ÿ+6,1)ÿ,15#4)/5*>ÿ-+)"+(ÿ1*ÿ'/1('ÿ)/ÿ*.#+eÿ<1)"ÿ#+4"ÿ/8ÿ)"#ÿ4+3.6*ÿ%dc*ÿ
1(,1;1,6+00=>hÿÿ
RSTFUHBS@FÿGDWTF@\D\]ÿÿ
ijkÿmnÿopqmrÿstukÿukÿvÿmuswtÿtxpsyÿz{v|ÿmn}~nÿupÿ~qpsÿqÿusyÿtqx{|ÿqxÿ{nsÿ
wtvpwn{{q~ÿwtunkÿqÿksvÿopqmÿkqÿstnÿwvpÿknnÿmtvsÿukÿnup ÿkxussn|ÿÿ
"#(ÿ+*e#,ÿ<"+)ÿ*"#ÿ3#+()ÿ:=ÿ)"#ÿ)#53ÿimuswtÿtxpsrÿ-+./01)+(/ÿ*+1,ÿ
stnÿsn~ÿmvkÿikv{sun~ÿ{vp xvnÿstvpÿktnÿpq~v{{ÿxkn|7ÿ:6)ÿ6(*65.51*1('ÿb1(ÿ
)"#ÿ4/()#)ÿ/8ÿ<"+)ÿ<+*ÿ'/1('ÿ/(ÿ+)ÿ)"#ÿ)13#ÿ+(,ÿ)"#ÿ5#0+)1/(*"1.ÿ<1)"ÿ)"#ÿ+6,1)/5>hÿ
!/ÿ"#57ÿ1)ÿ3#+()ÿ)"+)ÿ*"#ÿ:#01#;#,ÿ)"#ÿ$%cfÿ6,1)ÿ"+,ÿ+ÿ.5#,#)#531(#,ÿ/6)4/3#>ÿ
ÿÿ
c(ÿ-/;#3:#5ÿÿ7ÿ27ÿ)</ÿ,+=*ÿ+8)#5ÿ-+./01)+(/2*ÿ1()#5;1#<ÿ<1)"ÿ+)1#ÿ%/6514ÿ)1)0#,ÿb2ÿ!"#ÿ
%"/14#ÿ+(#)ÿ-+./01)+(/ÿ+=*ÿ+3#*ÿ%/3#=ÿÿdÿ9+;#ÿ/600#+54"1('ÿ)/ÿ/72hÿ/(+0,ÿ!563.ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¡¢£¤ÿ£¦§¨ÿ©ª«¬®«¯ÿÿÿÿÿÿ°±²³´¨µ¶ÿ©·¸ª«®ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¹º»¨¼½ÿ«·¾«¿¾ª«ªªÿÿÿÿÿÿÀ¦Á¨ÿ«ÿ±ÃÿÂÄÂ
!"#ÿ$%$&'$(ÿ')$ÿ3*')ÿ+,$#-($.'ÿ/0ÿ')$ÿ1.-'$(ÿ2'"'$#3ÿ4"5/%-'"./ÿ)/#'$(ÿ".ÿ-.'$,."%ÿ167+ÿ8$$'-.9ÿ
:#$$ÿ;55$.(-<ÿ=;>?ÿ5"9$ÿ@>ÿ/0ÿ')$ÿAB$#'/.ÿA$..-9".ÿCC+ÿD.($5$.($.'ÿE"&'ÿ0E-.(-.9#F3ÿÿ
GHHIJKLMNÿPIÿIMQÿRLPMQSSTÿUPÿPVQÿWQQPLMNXÿ
+,$#-($.'ÿ4"5/%-'"./ÿ!"#ÿYZ$,[ÿB5#$'>Yÿ&/85%"-.-.9ÿ"\/B'ÿ)/!ÿY')$#$ÿ"B(-'/,#ÿ
)"Z$ÿ0,$$ÿ,".9$ÿ)$,$ÿ"'ÿ7+3Yÿ])-#ÿ!-'.$##ÿ#"-(ÿ4"5/%-'"./ÿ!"#ÿ#/ÿ"9-'"'$(ÿ')"'ÿ#)$ÿ
#!/,$ÿ#$Z$,"%ÿ'-8$#3ÿ])-#ÿ!-'.$##ÿ"%#/ÿ#$.#$(ÿ')"'ÿ4"5/%-'"./ÿ0$%'ÿ)$,ÿ,$5B'"'-/.ÿ
!"#ÿ"'ÿ,-#^ÿ".(ÿ!"#ÿ&/.&$,.$(ÿ')"'ÿ167+ÿ(-(ÿ./'ÿ)"Z$ÿ$./B9)ÿ8"."9$8$.'ÿ/,ÿ
&/.',/%ÿ/Z$,ÿ')$ÿ"B(-'3ÿ7.$ÿ"''$.($$ÿ,$&"%%$(ÿ')$ÿ+,$#-($.'ÿ8$.'-/.-.9ÿ')$ÿ,$5/,'#ÿ
/0ÿ#'"'$ÿ"B(-'ÿ#'"00ÿ\$)"Z-/,ÿ".(ÿ#"[-.9ÿ')"'ÿ#)$ÿ)"(ÿ\$$.ÿ')$ÿ)$"(ÿ/0ÿ%",9$>ÿ&/85%$<ÿ
"9$.&-$#ÿ".(ÿ)"(ÿ.$Z$,ÿ#$$.ÿ\$)"Z-/,ÿ%-^$ÿ')"'3ÿ])-#ÿ!-'.$##ÿ($#&,-\$(ÿ')$ÿ+,$#-($.'ÿ
"#ÿY(-#5%$"#$(Yÿ".(ÿY0,B#',"'$(>Yÿ\B'ÿ./'ÿ".9,[3ÿ7.$ÿ!-'.$##ÿ#"-(ÿ')"'ÿ"'ÿ/.$ÿ5/-.'>ÿ
4"5/%-'"./ÿ-.#',B&'$(ÿ')"'ÿ./ÿ/.$ÿ0,/8ÿ')$ÿ2'"'$ÿ;B(-'/,_#ÿ/00-&$ÿ!"#ÿ'/ÿ\$ÿ"%%/!$(ÿ
-.'/ÿ')$ÿ\B-%(-.9ÿYB.'-%ÿ!$ÿ^./!ÿ!)/ÿ')$[ÿ!".'ÿ'/ÿ8$$'ÿ!-')3YÿD'ÿ!"#ÿ($&-($(ÿ')"'ÿ
`/.$#ÿ".(ÿA-&^#ÿ!/B%(ÿ8$$'ÿ!-')ÿ')$ÿ"B(-'/,#ÿ'/ÿ(-#&B##ÿ9,/B.(ÿ,B%$#ÿ0/,ÿ')$-,ÿ
0-$%(!/,^ÿ".(ÿ#$'ÿB5ÿ"ÿ5,/'/&/%ÿ0/,ÿ167+0"B(-'/,ÿ$.9"9$8$.'3ÿ
4"5/%-'"./ÿ#-8-%",%[ÿ,$&"%%$(ÿ')$ÿ8$$'-.9ÿ\$-.9ÿ"\/B'ÿ')$ÿ\$)"Z-/,ÿ/0ÿ')$ÿ#'"'$ÿ"B(-'ÿ
#'"003ÿ2)$ÿ#"-(>ÿYÿa"&&"?ÿ!"#ÿ,$&/,(-.9ÿ"ÿ%/'ÿ/0ÿ5,/\%$8#ÿ"\/B'ÿ)/!ÿ')$ÿ"B(-'/,ÿ!"#ÿ
\$)"Z-.93ÿ])$ÿ5B,5/#$ÿb/0ÿ')$ÿ8$$'-.9cÿ!"#ÿ'/ÿ9$'ÿ"ÿ\$''$,ÿ#$.#$ÿ-.ÿ'$,8#ÿ/0ÿ!)/ÿ
0,/8ÿ"B(-'/,_#ÿ/00-&$ÿ!"#ÿ-.ÿ')$ÿ\B-%(-.9>ÿ'/ÿ#&)$(B%$ÿ-.'$,Z-$!#ÿ-.#'$"(ÿ/0ÿ!"-'-.9ÿ
/B'#-($ÿ/00-&$#3ÿba"&&"cÿ!"#ÿ,$5/,'-.9ÿ')"'ÿ5$/5%$ÿ!$,$ÿ0$$%-.9ÿ#"\/'"9$(3Yÿ
;&&/,(-.9ÿ'/ÿ4"5/%-'"./>ÿ')$[ÿ(-#&B##$(ÿ!)"'ÿ&/B%(ÿ\$ÿ(/.$ÿ'/ÿ9$'ÿ\$''$,ÿ&/.',/%ÿ
/0ÿ/,ÿ5,/Z-($ÿ8/,$ÿ#',B&'B,$ÿ'/ÿ')$ÿ5,/&$##3ÿ
defghihjÿlmnÿopqrÿstuvÿpwrÿtwÿxypzoÿrq{|}ÿpwrÿ~~ÿÿ
)''5#,$9$.'#3B.-Z$,#-'[/0&"%-0/,.-"3$(B,$98$$'./Z\2"''"&)35(0ÿ
)''5#!!!3)B$#'/.3&/8B&0,$9$.'#0)-,$0)B$#'/.0)$..-9".0-.Z$#'-9"'-/.ÿ
7.$ÿ)B.(,$(ÿ#$Z$.'[ÿ0-Z$ÿ8-%%-/.ÿ(/%%",#ÿ-#ÿ".ÿ$./,8/B#ÿ"8/B.'ÿ/0ÿ8/.$[ÿ'/ÿ)-($ÿ-.ÿ')$ÿ
B.-Z$,#-'[#ÿ"&&/B.'#3ÿ])$ÿ2'"'$ÿ;B(-'/,#ÿ-.Z$#'-9"'-/.ÿ'$"8ÿ0/B.(ÿ')$ÿ8/.$[>ÿ\B'ÿ)"(ÿ./ÿ"B')/,-'[ÿ'/ÿ
0-.(ÿ/B'ÿ0,/8ÿ!)$,$ÿ')$ÿ*ÿ8-%%-/.ÿ!"#ÿ',".#0$,,$(ÿ/,ÿ!-,$(ÿ'/ÿZ",-/B#ÿB.-Z$,#-'[ÿ"&&/B.'#ÿ-.ÿ2*
24>ÿB#'ÿ3*ÿ[$",#ÿ"0'$,ÿ4"5/%-'"./ÿ",,-Z$(ÿ"'ÿ167+ÿA$"(B",'$,#ÿ-.ÿ7"^%".(ÿ"#ÿ')$ÿ16ÿ+,$#-($.'3ÿÿ
fÿ ÿ
jgeÿi~ÿÿjgeÿeejÿÿjgeÿhehjÿÿhhÿeejhÿ
ÿeieÿmÿÿÿ
ÿ
wÿt|} }qÿmÿ>ÿAB$#'/.ÿA$..-9".ÿCC+ÿ5,$#$.'$(ÿ"ÿ#8/^$ÿ#&,$$.>ÿ("8"9$ÿ&/.',/%ÿ
5#$B(/ÿ-.Z$#'-9"'-/.ÿ'-'%$(ÿ=D.($5$.($.'ÿE"&'0E-.(-.9?ÿ'/ÿ&/Z$,ÿB5ÿ*ÿ8-%%-/.ÿ-.ÿ8/.$[ÿ%"B.($,-.9ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡¢£¤¥ÿ¦§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̈©ª«¬ÿ¦®ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°ÿ±ÿ²ÿ±³±
!"ÿ#$%&'()$*&ÿ$*+ÿ,-.ÿ/012ÿ3&!4ÿ5,-ÿ/0ÿ6-7-*)8ÿ3-)ÿ&*ÿ),-ÿ$!&9-ÿ+$)-ÿ$)ÿ/0ÿ:$*ÿ;.$*<(8<&=8ÿ
>(88(&*ÿ?$"ÿ0&*@-.-*<-ÿ0-*)-.ÿ8--ÿÿÿ
,))%8ABB.-7-*)84C*(9-.8()"&@<$'(@&.*($4-+CB3(*C)-8B2DE4B!&$.+F2DEE4EG4%+@ÿÿ
5,-ÿHIHJIKLÿNKILIOPÿQIKIAÿ6-7-*)8ÿR*7C($*&SÿT-ÿU$ÿ2-V$SÿWC!-.SÿX(-@@-.SÿU$*8(*7SÿU-3C8Sÿ
YZ[\OZÿ]\ÿKI^IOPÿL_O`Iÿabbcdeÿ>$f$.-<,($*Sÿ>$*<($Sÿ>&*7-Sÿ1.)(gÿ1$f'-"Sÿ2$.fSÿh\PP_[eÿhiKI[ÿ]\ÿ
jZKHIKÿk\l_jZKO_\ÿmLLIHJlnÿLNI\oIKdSÿ:,-.3$*Sÿ5$C8<,-.Sÿ$*+ÿ5&.'$f8&*pÿq\NZl_P\OZÿ]rkÿ
hKIL_sIOPdtÿ\OsÿqIQLZHÿ]YPuÿvZwIKOZKduÿmlLZÿ_Oÿ\PPIOs\O`IÿQIKIxÿ6-7-*)80+-8(7*$)-ÿR*+-.8&*Sÿ
W.$9-8Sÿ$*+ÿ>&.(3&)&pÿ;$<C')"ÿ6-%.-8-*)$)(9-8ÿ>$"ÿ$*+ÿy,()-pÿ:-<.-)$."ÿ$*+ÿ0,(-@ÿ&@ÿ:)$@@ÿ:,$zpÿ
vIOIK\lÿkZ{OLIlÿ|ZJ_OLZOÿ]jZKHIKÿkm}~ÿvIOIK\lÿkZ{OLIldpÿ2.&9&8)ÿ?.&z*pÿI`{P_wIÿ_`Iÿ
hKIL_sIOPÿ\Osÿk_Ijÿ_O\O`_\lÿjj_`IKÿKZLPKZHpÿ-<C)(9-ÿ(<-ÿ2.-8(+-*)ÿ$*+ÿ0,(-@ÿ1%-.$)(*7ÿ
1@@(<-.ÿ#$9$pÿ-<C)(9-ÿ(<-ÿ2.-8(+-*)ÿ:)&!&pÿ(<-ÿ2.-8(+-*)ÿ?.&z*pÿ0,$*<-''&.8ÿ?'&<fSÿ?'C3-*),$'Sÿ
0,.(8)Sÿ$z7&&+SÿX,&8'$SÿU-'$*+Sÿ>$"Sÿy('<&Sÿ$*+ÿ$*7pÿ$*+ÿ6-<&.+(*7ÿ:-<.-)$."ÿ><0$.),"4ÿ5,-ÿ
3--)(*7ÿ<&*9-*-+ÿ$)ÿADDÿ$434Sÿz(),ÿk\_Kÿ_IjjIKÿ%.-8(+(*74ÿ
y,$)ÿ<$C7,)ÿ3"ÿ$))-*)(&*ÿ(*ÿ),-ÿ8C33$."ÿ&@ÿ),-ÿ#&9-3!-.ÿEGSÿ2DE4ÿ3--)(*7ÿz$8ÿ),-ÿ
$**&C*<-3-*)ÿ&@ÿ6-7-*)ÿ1.)(gÿ1$f'-"=8ÿ.-)(.-3-*)ÿ$*+ÿ6-7-*)ÿ>&*(<$ÿU&g$*&=8ÿ
.-8(7*$)(&*ÿ@.&3ÿ),-ÿ?&$.+ÿ-@@-<)(9-ÿ#&9-3!-.ÿDSÿ2DE44ÿ;&''&z(*7ÿ$ÿ3&)(&*ÿ!"ÿ6-7-*)ÿ
1.)(gÿ1$f'-"Sÿz,(<,ÿz$8ÿ+C'"ÿ8-<&*+-+Sÿ),-ÿ@&''&z(*7ÿ.-8&'C)(&*ÿz$8ÿ$+&%)-+Aÿ
y6R:Sÿ&*ÿ),-ÿ&<<$8(&*ÿ&@ÿ,-.ÿ.-)(.-3-*)ÿ@.&3ÿ),-ÿ?&$.+ÿ&@ÿ6-7-*)8ÿ&@ÿ),-ÿ
/*(9-.8()"ÿ&@ÿ0$'(@&.*($Sÿ),-ÿ3-3!-.8ÿ&@ÿ),-ÿ?&$.+ÿz(8,ÿ)&ÿ-%.-88ÿ),-(.ÿ,-$.)@-')ÿ
$%%.-<($)(&*ÿ)&ÿ>&*(<$ÿU&g$*&ÿ@&.ÿ),-ÿf--*ÿ(*8(7,)Sÿ!.&$+ÿ-%-.(-*<-Sÿ$*+ÿ(*)-7.()"ÿ8,-ÿ
!.&C7,)ÿ)&ÿ),-ÿ+-'(!-.$)(&*8ÿ&@ÿ),(8ÿ!&+"ÿ@.&3ÿ2DDEÿ)&ÿ2DEÿ$*+ÿ2DE3ÿ)&ÿ2DE4pÿ$*+ÿ
y6R:Sÿ),-ÿ0&33())--8ÿ&*ÿ;(*$*<-Sÿ0&3%-*8$)(&*Sÿ$*+ÿ2C!'(<ÿ*7$7-3-*)ÿ$*+ÿ
T-9-'&%3-*)Sÿ@&.ÿz,(<,ÿ8,-ÿ8-.9-+ÿ$8ÿ0,$(.Sÿ$*+ÿ0&3%'($*<-ÿ$*+ÿRC+()Sÿ+C<$)(&*$'ÿ
2&'(<"Sÿ$*+ÿW&9-.*$*<-Sÿ&*ÿz,(<,ÿ8,-ÿ8-.9-+ÿ@&.ÿ3$*"ÿ"-$.8Sÿ$*+ÿ&),-.ÿ<&33())--8Sÿ,$9-ÿ
!-*-@()-+ÿ(33-$8C.$!'"ÿ@.&3ÿ,-.ÿC+73-*)ÿ$*+ÿ%-.<-%)(9-*-88ÿ$*+ÿ,-.ÿ.-3$.f$!'-ÿ$!('()"ÿ)&ÿ
3$8)-.ÿ<&3%'-ÿ$*+ÿ,(7,'"ÿ+(8%$.$)-ÿ8C!-<)ÿ3$))-.pÿ$*+ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
VWXYÿX[\]ÿ^_`abc`dÿÿÿÿÿÿefghi]jkÿ^blm_b`cÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿnop]qrÿ̀ls̀ts_`__ÿÿÿÿÿÿu[v]ÿw`wÿfxÿwyw
ÿ
!"#$%"ÿ&$'ÿ"%(ÿ")ÿ*+(ÿ$**(%,(('ÿ$*ÿ$ÿ-$./(ÿ0$1ÿ223ÿ2242ÿ/$*+(.5%/ÿ5%ÿ6$'+5%/*"%3ÿ7898ÿ*+$*ÿ5%:-;,(,ÿ
7<=ÿ=(:.(*$.1ÿ>$%(*ÿ?$@"-5*$%"3ÿA''(BC-1ÿ=@($D(.ÿ>"+%ÿE(.(#ÿF%"&ÿ$ÿG9ÿH(/(%*I3ÿJ$K5(.ÿL(::(.$ÿ
F)".B(.ÿ9$-5)".%5$ÿA**".%(1ÿM(%(.$-I3ÿ$%,ÿ<5-,$ÿ="-5'ÿF)".B(.ÿ9$-5)".%5$ÿA''(BC-1B(BC(.ÿ$%,ÿ
9$-5)".%5$ÿ=(%$*".I8ÿA--ÿ)$:*'ÿ-($,ÿB(ÿ*"ÿC(-5(K(ÿ*+$*3ÿ,;.5%/ÿ*+5'ÿB((*5%/3ÿ*+(ÿ)$*(ÿ")ÿ*+(ÿG9NEÿ:."%5('Oÿ
$.:+(%(B13ÿ9$-5)".%5$ÿ=(%$*".ÿ!(-$%,ÿP((3ÿ&$'ÿ,(:5,(,3ÿ$)*(.ÿ+(ÿ.(Q;('*(,ÿ$ÿ'*$*(ÿ$;,5*ÿ$5B(,ÿ$*ÿ*+(ÿ
G9ÿ$,B5%5'*.$*5"%O'ÿ-$K5'+ÿ'@(%,5%/8ÿR+(ÿB"%(1ÿ-$;%,(.(,ÿC1ÿ?$@"-5*$%"O'ÿB"Cÿ$%,ÿ"*+(.ÿG9NEÿ
:.5B('ÿ&";-,ÿ%"*ÿ+$K(ÿ.(';.)$:(,ÿ5%ÿ2242ÿ5)ÿ*+(1ÿ+$,ÿ-()*ÿP((ÿ$-"%(ÿ$%,ÿ$--"&(,ÿ+5Bÿ*"ÿC(:"B(ÿ
=$%ÿS.$%:5':"O'ÿB$1".ÿ5%ÿ2242T22443ÿ5%'*($,ÿ")ÿ*.15%/ÿ*"ÿD5--ÿ+5Bÿ5%ÿ=(@*(BC(.ÿ22423ÿ$%,ÿ5)ÿ*+(1ÿ+$,ÿ
%"*ÿ&5*:+0+;%*(,ÿP((ÿ$%,ÿ*+."&%ÿ+5Bÿ5%*"ÿ@.5'"%8ÿÿ
ÿÿ ?$@"-5*$%"3ÿ0;(--(.3ÿ<$$/3ÿ$%,ÿ*+(ÿ9$-5)".%5$ÿ@"-5*5:$-ÿ'&$B@ÿ$%,ÿG9NEÿ&+5*(ÿ:"--$.ÿ
:.5B5%$-'ÿ&$%*(,ÿ*"ÿB$D(ÿ';.(ÿ*+$*ÿP((3ÿ*+(ÿB"'*ÿ@"@;-$.ÿ'(%$*".ÿ5%ÿ9$-5)".%5$3ÿ('@(:5$--1ÿ5%ÿ=$%ÿ
S.$%:5':"ÿ$%,ÿ=(%$*".5$-ÿ75'*.5:*ÿ43ÿ&";-,ÿ-"'(ÿ*+(ÿ2244ÿ=$%ÿS.$%:5':"ÿB$1".$-ÿ(-(:*5"%8ÿ<(ÿ&$'ÿ
.(@-$:(,ÿ&5*+ÿU,ÿ!((8ÿ!((ÿ&$'ÿ+$%,0@5:D(,ÿ*"ÿ'(.K(ÿ$'ÿB$1".ÿ")ÿ=$%ÿS.$%:5':"ÿC1ÿG8=8ÿ=(%$*".ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
^_`aÿ̀cdeÿfghijkhlÿÿÿÿÿÿmnopqersÿfjtugjhkÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿvwxeyzÿht{h|{ghggÿÿÿÿÿÿ}c~eÿhkÿnÿ
!"#$%&"#$'ÿ()"*+",ÿ-.ÿ&/"ÿ0-1%"ÿ2*$34ÿ5"6-%#'ÿ(*$ÿ!,*$3#%3-ÿ7#%&,#3&ÿ8&&-,$"4ÿ9*:*6*ÿ0*,,#%'ÿ*$;ÿ&/"ÿ
.-,:",ÿ:*4-,ÿ-.ÿ(*$ÿ!,*$3#%3-'ÿ&/"$ÿ<*6#.-,$#*ÿ=&>ÿ?-@",$-,ÿA$-Bÿ?-@",$-,Cÿ?*@#$ÿ2"B%-:>ÿ866ÿ-.ÿ
&/":ÿB","ÿ.,-:ÿ(*$ÿ!,*$3#%3->ÿ
ÿÿ D/"ÿ:-$"4ÿ6*1$;",";ÿE4ÿ2*)-6#&*$-ÿ*$;ÿ&/"ÿF<G5ÿ:-Eÿ:-%&ÿ6#+"64ÿB-16;ÿ$"@",ÿ/*@"ÿE"3-:"ÿ
&/"ÿ%1EH"3&ÿ-.ÿ:4ÿ&*Iÿ"@*%#-$ÿ*$;ÿ.,*1;ÿ8))6#3*&#-$ÿ.-,ÿ8B*,;ÿ.-,ÿG,#J#$*6ÿK$.-,:*&#-$ÿAKL(ÿ!-,:ÿ
2MMCÿ#.ÿ&/"ÿF<G5ÿ/*;ÿ6".&ÿ:"ÿ*6-$"ÿ#$ÿ2NMMO2NM2ÿ*$;ÿ6"&ÿ:"ÿ,"&#,"ÿ.,-:ÿ&/"ÿF<7P<ÿ#$ÿ2NMQÿ-,ÿ2NMR'ÿ
*%ÿKÿ/*;ÿ)6*$$";'ÿ#$%&"*;ÿ-.ÿ&,4#$Jÿ&-ÿ+#66ÿ:"ÿ-$ÿP*4ÿSM'ÿ2NM2ÿ*$;ÿ*&&":)&#$Jÿ&-ÿ;")-,&ÿ:"ÿ*.&",ÿ&/*&ÿ
.*#6";>ÿÿ
?-#$JÿE*3+ÿ&-ÿ&/"ÿF<ÿL"J"$&%ÿ:""&#$Jÿ-$ÿ2-@":E",ÿMQ'ÿ2NMR'ÿ&/"ÿL"J"$&%ÿ,"3"%%";ÿ
&/"ÿ-)"$ÿ%"%%#-$ÿ:""&#$Jÿ*&ÿMMTMUÿ*>:>ÿ*$;ÿ&/"$ÿB"$&ÿ#$&-ÿ*ÿ36-%";ÿ%"%%#-$>ÿ
F<ÿ</#".ÿ<-:)6#*$3"ÿ*$;ÿ81;#&ÿG..#3",ÿ86"I*$;",ÿV1%&*:*$&"'ÿB/-ÿB*%ÿ$-&ÿ),"%"$&ÿ;1,#$Jÿ
&/"ÿ-)"$ÿ%"%%#-$'ÿ*&&"$;";ÿ&/"ÿ36-%";ÿ%"%%#-$>ÿ2*)-6#&*$-ÿ/#,";ÿV1%&*:*$&"ÿ#$ÿ(")&":E",ÿ2NMR>ÿ5,#-,ÿ
&-ÿ&/*&'ÿ/"ÿ/*;ÿ%",@";ÿ*%ÿ*$ÿ*%%#%&*$&ÿF>(>ÿ*&&-,$"4ÿ#$ÿ=-%ÿ8$J"6"%>ÿ0"ÿ,")6*3";ÿ2*)-6#&*$-W%ÿ-6;ÿ.,#"$;ÿ
.,-:ÿ8,#X-$*'ÿY-/$ÿ=-/%"'ÿB/-ÿB*%ÿ,"3,1#&";ÿE4ÿ&/"ÿF<G5ÿ:-Eÿ#$ÿ2NN3ÿ*.&",ÿ%",@#$Jÿ*%ÿ*ÿ()"3#*6ÿ
8J"$&'ÿ8%%-3#*&"ÿ7#@#%#-$ÿ<-1$%"6'ÿ*$;ÿ</#".ÿ7#@#%#-$ÿ<-1$%"6ÿ.-,ÿ&/"ÿ!VKW%ÿ(*$ÿ!,*$3#%3-ÿ7#@#%#-$>ÿ
D/"ÿF<ÿL"J"$&%Wÿ36-%";ÿ%"%%#-$ÿ:""&#$JÿB*%ÿ*E-1&ÿ2*)-6#&*$-ÿ*$;ÿ/",ÿ%&*..W%ÿ#$&",.","$3"ÿ#$ÿ(&*&"ÿ
81;#&ÿ2NQ0MSN'ÿB/#3/ÿB*%ÿ,"Z1"%&";ÿE4ÿ&B-ÿ<*6#.-,$#*ÿ8%%":E64ÿP":E",%'ÿ5/#6ÿD#$Jÿ*$;ÿ9"@#$ÿ
P3<*,&4'ÿ*.&",ÿ="6*$;ÿ[""ÿB*%ÿB#&3/0/1$&";ÿ*$;ÿ%"$&"$3";ÿ&-ÿ.#@"ÿ4"*,%ÿ#$ÿ.";",*6ÿ),#%-$ÿ#$ÿ!"E,1*,4ÿ
2NMQ>ÿÿ
D/"ÿ%/-,&ÿ)1E6#%/";ÿ%1::*,4ÿ.,-:ÿ&/"ÿ36-%";ÿ%"%%#-$ÿ:""&#$J'ÿ"$&#&6";ÿ\L")-,&ÿ-$ÿ5",%-$$"6ÿ
83&#-$%ÿL"6*&#$Jÿ&-ÿ&/"ÿ(&*&"ÿ81;#&ÿL")-,&ÿD*+"$ÿ#$ÿ<6-%";ÿ("%%#-$']ÿ#%ÿ*E-1&ÿ*;:-$#%/#$Jÿ2*)-6#&*$-ÿ
.-,ÿ#$&",.",#$JÿB#&/ÿ&/"ÿ%&*&"ÿ*1;#&ÿ*$;ÿ/",ÿ*)-6-J4ÿ.-,ÿ&/"ÿ%*:">ÿ0-B"@",'ÿ&/"ÿ36-%";ÿ%"%%#-$ÿ:""&#$Jÿ
%1::*,4ÿ;-"%ÿ$-&ÿ:"$&#-$ÿ-$"ÿB-,;ÿ*E-1&ÿB/4ÿ2*)-6#&*$-ÿ#$&",.",";ÿ#$ÿ&/"ÿ%&*&"ÿ*1;#&ÿ*&ÿ*66>ÿ
ÿÿ =#+"ÿ&/"ÿ01"%&-$ÿ0"$$#J*$ÿ==5ÿH-#$&ÿ@"$&1,"ÿB#&/ÿ.-,:",ÿ<*6#.-,$#*ÿY1%"ÿ<*,6-%ÿP-,"$-W%ÿ
;*:*J"ÿ3-$&,-6ÿ\K$;")"$;"$&ÿ!*3&0!#$;#$JÿL"@#"Bÿ.-,ÿ&/"ÿV-*,;ÿ-.ÿL"J"$&%ÿ-.ÿ&/"ÿF$#@",%#&4ÿ-.ÿ
<*6#.-,$#*']ÿB/#3/ÿB*%ÿ)1E6#%/";ÿ-$ÿ2-@":E",ÿMQ'ÿ2NMR'ÿ&/"ÿ36-%";ÿ%"%%#-$ÿ:""&#$JW%ÿ%1::*,4ÿ
3-:)6"&"64ÿ*$;ÿ)1,)-%"64ÿ-:#&&";ÿ2*)-6#&*$-W%ÿ:-$"4ÿ6*1$;",#$J'ÿB/#3/ÿ&,#JJ",";ÿ/",ÿ*$;ÿ/",ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
vwxyÿx{|}ÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ{}ÿÿÿ
!"#$%&"'(ÿ)*$+%ÿ,%%,-.'ÿ,&/"!ÿ,%ÿ'%,%"ÿ,$!&%01'ÿ,+!ÿ%2"&1ÿ$+#1"-"!"+%"!ÿ&+%"13"1"+-"ÿ,+!ÿ%"/#"1&+4ÿ5&%2ÿ
%2"ÿ,$!&%ÿ%0ÿ!&6"1%ÿ,%%"+%&0+ÿ310/ÿ%2"ÿ789:ÿ/0)ÿ,+!ÿ;"4"+%'(ÿ),+.ÿ,--0$+%'<ÿÿ
ÿÿ ;"4"+%'ÿ=0>,+0ÿ,+!ÿ:"1">?ÿ82&"3ÿ80/#*&,+-"ÿ,+!ÿ@$!&%ÿ933&-"1ÿA$'%,/,+%"?ÿB"+"1,*ÿ80$+'"*ÿ
;0)&+'0+ÿ,+!ÿ2&'ÿ82&"3ÿC"#$%Dÿ:"%1$*,.&'?ÿE,#0*&%,+0ÿ,+!ÿ2"1ÿ*&"$%"+,+%'ÿF"%2ÿB10''/,+ÿ,+!ÿA"1+&"ÿ
G0+"'?ÿ,+!ÿ8,*&301+&,ÿ@%%01+"DÿB"+"1,*ÿA"-"11,Hÿ520ÿ1"3$'"!ÿ%0ÿ0#"+ÿ,ÿ#10)"ÿ,4,&+'%ÿE,#0*&%,+0Hÿ.+"5ÿ
520ÿ%1,+'3"11"!ÿ%2"ÿIJK3ÿ/&**&0+Hÿ52"1"ÿ&%ÿ-,/"ÿ310/Hÿ,+!ÿ205ÿ&%ÿ5,'ÿ%1,+'3"11"!ÿ&+%0ÿ%2"ÿ!&'-1"%&0+,1Dÿ
78ÿ,--0$+%'ÿ301ÿ!&'%1&)$%&0+<ÿÿ
@''"/)*D/,+ÿL&+4HÿC0F,+ÿM1,+-&'-0Hÿ520ÿ-,**"!ÿ301ÿ%2"ÿ01&4&+,*ÿ'%,%"ÿ,$!&%ÿ24JN0JO4ÿ03ÿ
E,#0*&%,+0('ÿ033&-"ÿ%2,%ÿ'"%ÿ033ÿ%2"ÿ-2,&+ÿ03ÿ"6"+%'Hÿ',&!ÿ2"ÿ!&!ÿ+0%ÿ%2&+.ÿ%2"ÿ;"4"+%'ÿ5"+%ÿ3,1ÿ"+0$42ÿ
&+ÿ!&'-&#*&+&+4ÿE,#0*&%,+0<ÿL&+4ÿ,14$"!ÿ%2"ÿ&''$"'ÿ&+ÿE,#0*&%,+0('ÿ033&-"ÿ#1"!,%"!ÿ2"1ÿ,##0&+%/"+%ÿ
,+!ÿ%2,%ÿ2"ÿ)"*&"6"!ÿ3&P&+4ÿ%2"/ÿ1"Q$&1"!ÿ,!!1"''&+4ÿ,ÿ)10,!"1ÿ'D'%"/&-ÿ&''$"ÿ&+ÿ%2"ÿ033&-"Hÿ,+!ÿ%2,%ÿ
%2"ÿ;"4"+%'ÿ5"1"ÿ+0%ÿ'%10+4ÿ"+0$42Hÿ4&6"+ÿ%2"ÿ'"6"1&%Dÿ03ÿ%2"ÿ-1&/"<ÿÿ
ÿÿ R%ÿ5,'ÿ0)6&0$'ÿ%2,%ÿ%2"ÿ78ÿ;"4"+%'ÿ01ÿ@BÿA"-"11,ÿ50$*!ÿ+0%ÿ#$+&'2ÿE,#0*&%,+0ÿ&3ÿ%2"Dÿ5"1"ÿ
0+ÿ2"1ÿ)*,-.ÿ*&'%ÿ,+!ÿS821&'%/,'ÿ=&'%Tÿ,%ÿ%2"ÿ',/"ÿ%&/"ÿ%0ÿ'2,1"ÿIJK3ÿ/&**&0+<ÿL2"ÿ821&'%/,'ÿ03ÿ24JKÿ
5,'ÿ-0/&+4<ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
UVWXYÿ ÿ
[\]^[_ÿ^aÿ]\[b^aa\Uÿcd_X^abÿ[\Uc_Xaeÿ_^ÿ_f\ÿb_c_\ÿcghX_ÿ[\]^[_ÿ
_ci\aÿXaÿdU^b\hÿb\bbX^aÿja^W\kl\[ÿmnoÿpqmrÿ
ÿ
82,&1ÿs&"33"1ÿ1"-,**"!ÿ%2,%ÿ,ÿ1"-"+%ÿ1"#01%ÿ)Dÿ%2"ÿ8,*&301+&,ÿF%,%"ÿ@$!&%01ÿ2,!ÿ30$+!ÿ
%2,%ÿ%2"ÿ933&-"ÿ03ÿ%2"ÿ:1"'&!"+%ÿ&+%"13"1"!ÿ&+ÿ%2"ÿ,$!&%ÿ#10-"''ÿ)Dÿ#1"6&"5&+4ÿ-,/#$'ÿ
1"'#0+'"'ÿ%0ÿ'$16"D'ÿ&''$"!ÿ!&1"-%*Dÿ%0ÿ%2"ÿ-,/#$'"'ÿ)Dÿ%2"ÿF%,%"ÿ@$!&%01<ÿL2"ÿ,$!&%ÿ
1"#01%ÿ-0+-*$!"!ÿ%2,%ÿ%2&'ÿ&+%"13"1"+-"ÿ1"+!"1"!ÿ%2"ÿ'$16"Dÿ1"'#0+'"'ÿ$+1"*&,)*"<ÿR+ÿ
1"'#0+'"Hÿ%2"ÿ;"4"+%'ÿ,$%201&>"!ÿ%2"+ÿA0,1!ÿ82,&1ÿ=0>,+0ÿ%0ÿ1"%,&+ÿ,+ÿ&+!"#"+!"+%ÿ
*,5ÿ3&1/ÿ%0ÿ,''&'%ÿ%2"ÿ;"4"+%'ÿ&+ÿ1"6&"5&+4ÿ%2"ÿ,-%&0+'ÿ%,."+ÿ)Dÿ%2"ÿ933&-"ÿ03ÿ%2"ÿ
:1"'&!"+%ÿ5&%2ÿ1"'#"-%ÿ%0ÿ%2"ÿ-,/#$'ÿ'$16"D'ÿ&''$"!ÿ)Dÿ%2"ÿF%,%"ÿ@$!&%01<ÿM01/"1ÿ
8,*&301+&,ÿF$#1"/"ÿ80$1%ÿG$'%&-"ÿ8,1*0'ÿt01"+0ÿ,+!ÿ%2"ÿ*,5ÿ3&1/ÿ03ÿu$"'%0+ÿ
u"++&4,+ÿ5"1"ÿ1"%,&+"!ÿ%0ÿ-0+!$-%ÿ%2"ÿ&+!"#"+!"+%ÿ3,-%03&+!&+4ÿ1"6&"5<ÿ
ÿ
L2"ÿ1"#01%ÿ30$+!ÿ%2,%ÿ/"/)"1'ÿ03ÿ%2"ÿ:1"'&!"+%('ÿ"P"-$%&6"ÿ033&-"ÿ&+%"13"1"!ÿ5&%2ÿ
%2"ÿ#1"#,1,%&0+ÿ,+!ÿ'$)/&''&0+ÿ03ÿ'$16"Dÿ1"'#0+'"'ÿ310/ÿ%2"ÿ%"+ÿ&+!&6&!$,*ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
VWXYÿX[\]ÿ^_`abc`dÿÿÿÿÿÿefghi]jkÿ^blm_b`cÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿnop]qrÿ̀ls̀ts_`__ÿÿÿÿÿÿu[v]ÿw`mÿfxÿwyw
!"#$%&'&ÿ()ÿ(*'ÿ+("('ÿ,%-.()/0ÿ1.(*ÿ-.22'/'3(ÿ4'5'4&ÿ)2ÿ.3('/2'/'3!'ÿ1.(*.3ÿ(*'ÿ
'6'!%(.5'ÿ)22.!'7ÿ8*'ÿ/'$)/(ÿ.-'3(.2.'-ÿ2)%/ÿ"!(.)3&ÿ(*"(ÿ/'&%4('-ÿ.3ÿ(*'ÿ.3('/2'/'3!'9ÿ
:4;ÿ-./'!(.3<ÿ(*'ÿ!"#$%&'&ÿ()ÿ*"5'ÿ(*'ÿ&%/5'=ÿ/'&$)3&'&ÿ/'5.'1'-ÿ"3-ÿ"$$/)5'-ÿ>=ÿ
(*'ÿ/'&$'!(.5'ÿ!"#$%&ÿ!*"3!'44)/&?ÿ
:2;ÿ.3&(/%!(.3<ÿ(*'ÿ!"#$%&'&ÿ(*"(ÿ(*'ÿ&%/5'=ÿ/'&$)3&'&ÿ&*)%4-ÿ(*'3ÿ>'ÿ&%>#.(('-ÿ()ÿ
(*'ÿ@22.!'ÿ)2ÿ(*'ÿA/'&.-'3(ÿ2)/ÿ/'5.'1ÿ>'2)/'ÿ&%>#.&&.)3ÿ()ÿ(*'ÿ+("('ÿ,%-.()/?ÿ:B;ÿ
.32)/#.3<ÿ(*'ÿ!"#$%&'&ÿ(*"(ÿ(*'ÿ&%/5'=ÿ/'&$)3&'&ÿ1'/'ÿ3)(ÿ"3ÿ)!!"&.)3ÿ()ÿC"./ÿ-./(=ÿ
4"%3-/=Dÿ)/ÿ)(*'/1.&'ÿ$/)5.-'ÿ3'<"(.5'ÿ.32)/#"(.)3?ÿ"3-ÿ:E;ÿ/'5.'1.3<ÿ(*'ÿ
/'&$)3&'&ÿ&%>#.(('-ÿ>=ÿ(*'ÿ!"#$%&'&ÿ"3-ÿ&%<<'&(.3<ÿ/'5.&.)3&ÿ"3-F)/ÿ!*"3<'&ÿ()ÿ
/'&$)3&'&ÿ(*"(ÿ/'24'!('-ÿ$))/4=ÿ)3ÿ(*'ÿ@22.!'ÿ)2ÿ(*'ÿA/'&.-'3(7ÿ
ÿ
8*'ÿ/'$)/(ÿ2)%3-0ÿ"3-ÿA/'&.-'3(ÿG"$)4.("3)ÿ*"-ÿ"!H3)14'-<'-0ÿ(*"(ÿ&*'ÿ"$$/)5'-ÿ
(*'ÿ2./&(ÿ(1)ÿ"!(.)3&0ÿ-./'!(.3<ÿ(*'ÿ!"#$%&'&ÿ()ÿ*"5'ÿ(*'ÿ&%/5'=ÿ/'&$)3&'&ÿ/'5.'1'-ÿ
"3-ÿ"$$/)5'-ÿ>=ÿ(*'ÿ/'&$'!(.5'ÿ!*"3!'44)/&0ÿ"3-ÿ.3&(/%!(.3<ÿ(*'ÿ!"#$%&'&ÿ(*"(ÿ(*'ÿ
&%/5'=ÿ/'&$)3&'&ÿ>'ÿ&%>#.(('-ÿ()ÿ(*'ÿ@22.!'ÿ)2ÿ(*'ÿA/'&.-'3(ÿ2)/ÿ/'5.'1ÿ>'2)/'ÿ
&%>#.&&.)3ÿ()ÿ(*'ÿ+("('ÿ,%-.()/7ÿ8*'ÿ2./&(ÿ)2ÿ(*'&'ÿ(1)ÿ"!(.)3&ÿ1"&ÿ3)(ÿ.3('/2'/'3!'ÿ
>=ÿ.(&'420ÿ>%(ÿ)34=ÿ1*'3ÿ!)%$4'-ÿ1.(*ÿ(*'ÿ&'!)3-7ÿA/'&.-'3(ÿG"$)4.("3)I&ÿ(*'3ÿJ*.'2ÿ
)2ÿ+("22ÿ+'(*ÿK/)&&#"3ÿ"3-ÿ(*'3ÿL'$%(=ÿJ*.'2ÿ)2ÿ+("22ÿM'/3.'ÿN)3'&ÿ&("('-ÿ(*"(ÿ(*'=ÿ
)>(".3'-ÿ4'<"4ÿ"-5.!'ÿ2/)#ÿ(*'ÿ@22.!'ÿ)2ÿ(*'ÿK'3'/"4ÿJ)%3&'4ÿ(*"(ÿ(*'ÿ2./&(ÿ(1)ÿ
"!(.)3&ÿ1'/'ÿ4'<"44=ÿ$'/#.&&.>4'7ÿ8*'ÿO)/'3)0P%'&()3ÿP'33.<"3ÿ/'5.'1ÿ!)3!4%-'-ÿ
(*"(ÿ.3('/2'/'3!'ÿ1.(*ÿ(*'ÿ&%/5'=&ÿ(*/)%<*ÿ(*'ÿ(*./-ÿ"3-ÿ2)%/(*ÿ"!(.)3&0ÿ&$'!.2.!"44=ÿ
.3&(/%!(.3<ÿ!"#$%&'&ÿ3)(ÿ()ÿC"./ÿ-./(=ÿ4"%3-/=Dÿ"3-ÿ&%<<'&(.3<ÿ/'5.&.)3&ÿ()ÿ-/"2(ÿ
&%/5'=ÿ/'&$)3&'&0ÿ1"&ÿ!"//.'-ÿ)%(ÿ>=ÿ(*'3ÿL'$%(=ÿJ*.'2ÿ)2ÿ+("22ÿM'/3.'ÿN)3'&ÿ"(ÿ(*'ÿ
-./'!(.)3ÿ)2ÿ(*'3ÿJ*.'2ÿ)2ÿ+("22ÿ+'(*ÿK/)&&#"37ÿ8*'ÿ/'5.'1ÿ"4&)ÿ2)%3-ÿ.3&%22.!.'3(ÿ
'5.-'3!'ÿ()ÿ!)3!4%-'ÿ(*"(ÿA/'&.-'3(ÿG"$)4.("3)ÿH3'1ÿ)/ÿ"$$/)5'-ÿ)2ÿ(*'&'ÿ
&%>&'Q%'3(ÿ"!(.)3&ÿ()ÿ("/<'(ÿ%32"5)/">4'ÿ/'&$)3&'&7ÿ
ÿ
8*'ÿR'<'3(&ÿ*"-ÿ-.&!%&&'-ÿ(*'&'ÿ2"!(%"4ÿ2.3-.3<&ÿ"(ÿ4'3<(*ÿ.3ÿ(*'ÿ$/'!'-.3<ÿ!4)&'-ÿ
&'&&.)3ÿ#''(.3<ÿ"3-ÿ*"-ÿ-'!.-'-ÿ)3ÿ"ÿ3%#>'/ÿ)2ÿ-.&!.$4.3"/=ÿ"!(.)3&7ÿ8*'&'ÿ"!(.)3&ÿ
1'/'ÿ.3('3-'-ÿ()ÿ!)##%3.!"('ÿ(*'ÿR'<'3(&Iÿ&'/.)%&ÿ-.&"$$/)5"4ÿ)2ÿ(*'ÿ!)3-%!(ÿ(*"(ÿ
)!!%//'-ÿ"3-ÿ()ÿ-'('/ÿ&%!*ÿ!)3-%!(ÿ.3ÿ(*'ÿ2%(%/'7ÿ@3ÿ>'*"42ÿ)2ÿ(*'ÿM)"/-ÿ)2ÿR'<'3(&0ÿ
J*"./ÿS.'22'/ÿ.&&%'-ÿ(*'ÿ2)44)1.3<ÿ&("('#'3(ÿ"-#)3.&*.3<ÿA/'&.-'3(ÿG"$)4.("3)9ÿ
8*'ÿA/'&.-'3(ÿ.&ÿ/'&$)3&.>4'ÿ2)/ÿ&'((.3<ÿ"3ÿ"$$/)$/."('ÿ()3'ÿ2/)#ÿ(*'ÿ()$ÿ"3-ÿ
2)&('/.3<ÿ"ÿ!%4(%/'ÿ)2ÿ(/"3&$"/'3!=ÿ"3-ÿ"!!)%3(">.4.(=ÿ)3ÿ>'*"42ÿ)2ÿ(*'ÿT3.5'/&.(=0ÿ
1*.!*ÿ)$'/"('&ÿ"&ÿ"ÿ$%>4.!ÿ(/%&(ÿ2)/ÿ(*'ÿ+("('ÿ"3-ÿ2)/ÿ(*'ÿ$')$4'ÿ)2ÿJ"4.2)/3."7ÿ+*'ÿ
.&ÿ"4&)ÿ/'&$)3&.>4'ÿ2)/ÿ(*'ÿ!)3-%!(ÿ)2ÿ*'/ÿ&("220ÿ$"/(.!%4"/4=ÿ*'/ÿ-./'!(ÿ/'$)/(&0ÿ
.3!4%-.3<ÿ*'/ÿJ*.'2ÿ)2ÿ+("22ÿ"3-ÿL'$%(=ÿJ*.'2ÿ)2ÿ+("227ÿU(ÿ.&ÿ.#$)/("3(ÿ()ÿ3)('ÿ(*"(0ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
VWXYÿX[\]ÿ^_`abc`dÿÿÿÿÿÿefghi]jkÿ^blm_b`cÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿnop]qrÿ̀ls̀ts_`__ÿÿÿÿÿÿu[v]ÿw`dÿfxÿwyw
!ÿ"#$%&!'ÿ&($ÿ)&*&$ÿ+,"&-#./ÿ%*01,/ÿ/,#2$3/ÿ&-ÿ'-ÿ&(#-,'(ÿ&($ÿ%(*!%$44-#/ÿ*!"ÿ
*4/-ÿ&-ÿ($#ÿ-55%$ÿ5-#ÿ#$2$67ÿ&($ÿ8#$/"$!&ÿ9$4$2$"ÿ/($ÿ6*/ÿ#$43!'ÿ-!ÿ*"2%$ÿ-5ÿ
%-,!/$4:ÿ;$ÿ*#$ÿ*4/-ÿ0 !"5,4ÿ-5ÿ&($ÿ%-!&$<&ÿ5-#ÿ&($ÿ*%&-!/ÿ&*=$!7ÿ!%4,"!'ÿ4*%=ÿ-5ÿ
&#,/&ÿ9$&6$$!ÿ&($ÿ>55%$ÿ-5ÿ&($ÿ8#$/"$!&ÿ*!"ÿ&($ÿ)&*&$ÿ+,"&-#ÿ9*/$"ÿ-!ÿ*ÿ1#$2-,/ÿ
*,"&:ÿ?!*4437ÿ6$ÿ2$6ÿ&($ÿ%-!",%&ÿ-5ÿ&($ÿ8#$/"$!&ÿ!ÿ&($ÿ%-!&$<&ÿ-5ÿ*ÿ4-!'ÿ#$%-#"ÿ
-5ÿ1,94%ÿ/$#2%$ÿ*!"ÿ4$*"$#/(17ÿ!%4,"!'ÿ/&#-!'ÿ4$*"$#/(1ÿ-5ÿ&(/ÿ@!2$#/&3:ÿA($ÿ
B-*#"ÿ%-!&!,$/ÿ&-ÿ(*2$ÿ%-!5"$!%$ÿ!ÿ*!"ÿ5,443ÿ/,11-#&/ÿ&(*&ÿ%-!&!,!'ÿ4$*"$#/(1ÿ
-5ÿ&(/ÿ@!2$#/&3:ÿC-!$&($4$//7ÿ&($ÿ8#$/"$!&./ÿ"$%/-!ÿ&-ÿ*11#-2$ÿ*ÿ14*!ÿ&-ÿ
%--#"!*&$ÿ&($ÿ/,#2$3ÿ#$/1-!/$/ÿ#$54$%&$"ÿ1--#ÿD,"'0$!&ÿ*!"ÿ/$&ÿ!ÿ0-&-!ÿ*ÿ%-,#/$ÿ
-5ÿ%-!",%&ÿ&(*&ÿ&($ÿE$'$!&/ÿ5!"ÿ,!*%%$1&*94$:ÿF$#ÿ"$%/-!ÿ*!"ÿ&($!ÿ&($ÿ5-44-60-!ÿ
*%&-!/ÿ-5ÿ($#ÿ"#$%&ÿ#$1-#&/ÿ#$54$%&ÿ!$'*&2$43ÿ-!ÿ&($ÿ@!2$#/&3ÿ-5ÿG*45-#!*ÿ
%-00,!&37ÿ6(%(ÿ/ÿ%-00 &&$"ÿ&-ÿ&($ÿ('($/&ÿ$&(%*4ÿ/&*!"*#"/ÿ!ÿ5,#&($#!'ÿ&($ÿ
@!2$#/&3./ÿ0 //-!ÿ-5ÿ&$*%(!'7ÿ#$/$*#%(7ÿ*!"ÿ1,94%ÿ/$#2%$:ÿA($ÿB-*#"ÿ(*/ÿ
&($#$5-#$ÿ0*"$ÿ&ÿ2$#3ÿ%4$*#ÿ&-ÿ&($ÿ8#$/"$!&ÿ&(*&ÿ($#ÿ"$%/-!ÿ!ÿ%-!!$%&-!ÿ6&(ÿ
&($ÿ*,"&ÿ""ÿ!-&ÿ0$$&ÿ&($ÿ('(ÿ/&*!"*#"/ÿ*!"ÿ&($ÿ'--"ÿD,"'0$!&ÿ$<1$%&$"ÿ-5ÿ($#:ÿ
A($ÿB-*#"ÿ(*/ÿ*4/-ÿ*/=$"ÿ&($ÿ8#$/"$!&ÿ&-ÿ5,#&($#ÿ$<*0 !$ÿ&($ÿ%,4&,#$ÿ6&(!ÿ&($ÿ
@!2$#/&3ÿ-5ÿG*45-#!*ÿ>55%$ÿ-5ÿ&($ÿ8#$/"$!&ÿ&(*&ÿ0*3ÿ(*2$ÿ%-!	,&$"ÿ&-ÿ&($ÿ
5*4,#$ÿ-5ÿ-&($#/ÿ&-ÿ0$$&ÿ&($#ÿ#$/1-!/94&$/:Hÿ
ÿ
G(*#ÿI$55$#ÿ/&*&$"ÿ&(*&ÿ&($ÿE$'$!&/ÿ(*"ÿ"#$%&$"ÿ8#$/"$!&ÿC*1-4&*!-ÿ&-ÿ//,$ÿ*ÿ
/&*&$0$!&ÿ*%%$1&!'ÿ#$/1-!/94&3ÿ*!"ÿ*1-4-'J!'ÿ5-#ÿ&($ÿ>55%$ÿ-5ÿ&($ÿ8#$/"$!&./ÿ
!&$#5$#$!%$ÿ6&(ÿ&($ÿ)&*&$ÿ+,"&-#./ÿ%*01,/ÿ/,#2$3/:ÿA($ÿE$'$!&/ÿ(*"ÿ!-&$"ÿ&(*&ÿ
6(4$ÿ/$#-,/ÿ"/%14!*#3ÿ*%&-!/ÿ#$'*#"!'ÿ5-#0$#ÿG($5ÿ-5ÿ)&*55ÿ&-ÿ&($ÿ8#$/"$!&ÿ
)$&(ÿK#-//0*!ÿ*!"ÿL$1,&3ÿG($5ÿ-5ÿ)&*55ÿB$#!$ÿM-!$/ÿ6$#$ÿ6*##*!&$"7ÿ*!3ÿ*%&-!/ÿ
6$#$ÿ!-6ÿ#$!"$#$"ÿ0--&ÿ*/ÿ9-&(ÿN#:ÿK#-//0*!ÿ*!"ÿN#:ÿM-!$/ÿ(*"ÿ#$/'!$"ÿ5#-0ÿ
&($ÿ@!2$#/&3:ÿA($ÿB-*#"ÿ6-,4"ÿ9$ÿ&*=!'ÿ*%&-!ÿ-!ÿ1-4%$/ÿ*!"ÿ934*6/ÿ*&ÿ&($ÿ
M*!,*#3ÿ2OPQÿ0$$&!'ÿ&(*&ÿ6-,4"ÿ5,#&($#ÿ/&#$!'&($!ÿ&/ÿ-2$#/'(&ÿ-5ÿ&($ÿ>55%$ÿ-5ÿ
&($ÿ8#$/"$!&ÿ*!"ÿ-5ÿ1-/&-!/ÿ&(*&ÿ#$1-#&ÿ&-ÿ9-&(ÿ&($ÿB-*#"ÿ*!"ÿ&($ÿ8#$/"$!&:ÿ
ÿ
8#$/"$!&ÿC*1-4&*!-ÿ0*"$ÿ&($ÿ5-44-6!'ÿ/&*&$0$!&RÿSTÿ*%%$1&ÿ&($ÿ#$/,4&/ÿ-5ÿ&($ÿ
B-*#"./ÿ5*%&05!"!'ÿ#$2$6ÿ*!"ÿ&($ÿ*%&-!/ÿ&($ÿB-*#"ÿ(*/ÿ&*=$!ÿ!ÿ#$/1-!/$:ÿTÿ
#$%-'!J$ÿ*!"ÿ,!"$#/&*!"ÿ&(*&ÿ!-&(!'ÿ/ÿ0-#$ÿ01-#&*!&ÿ5-#ÿ/-0$-!$ÿ!ÿ03ÿ
1-/&-!ÿ&(*!ÿ&-ÿ,1(-4"ÿ&($ÿ('($/&ÿ1-//94$ÿ$&(%*4ÿ/&*!"*#"/ÿUÿ*!"ÿ&-ÿ$!/,#$ÿ&(*&ÿ
*44ÿ-5ÿ03ÿ/&*55ÿ"-ÿ4=$6/$:ÿTÿ6-,4"ÿ4=$ÿ&-ÿ*//,#$ÿ&($ÿB-*#"7ÿ/&,"$!&/7ÿ5*%,4&3ÿ*!"ÿ
/&*55ÿ-5ÿ&($ÿ@!2$#/&3ÿ-5ÿG*45-#!*7ÿ)&*&$ÿ4$'/4*&-#/7ÿ*!"ÿ&($ÿ1$-14$ÿ-5ÿG*45-#!*ÿ
&(*&ÿTÿ($*#ÿ&($0ÿ4-,"ÿ*!"ÿ%4$*#:ÿTÿ#$'#$&ÿ"$$143ÿ&(*&ÿTÿ""ÿ!-&ÿ/(-6ÿ9$&&$#ÿD,"'0$!&ÿ
!ÿ%-!!$%&-!ÿ6&(ÿ&(/ÿ0*&&$#:ÿTÿ(*2$ÿ*4#$*"3ÿ&*=$!ÿ/&$1/ÿ&-ÿ$!/,#$ÿ&ÿ"-$/ÿ!-&ÿ
(*11$!ÿ*'*!ÿ*!"ÿ&-'$&($#ÿ6&(ÿ&(/ÿB-*#"ÿ644ÿ6-#=ÿ&-ÿ014$0$!&ÿ&($ÿ*""&-!*4ÿ
%(*!'$/ÿ9$!'ÿ#$%-00$!"$"ÿ93ÿ&($ÿB-*#"ÿ&-ÿ5,#&($#ÿ/&#$!'&($!ÿ-,#ÿ1#-%$//$/ÿ!ÿ
&(/ÿ#$'*#":ÿTÿ*0ÿ!%#$"943ÿ1#-,"ÿ&-ÿ4$*"ÿ&(/ÿ@!2$#/&3:ÿTÿ0*"$ÿ&(/ÿ"$%/-!:ÿTÿ
0*"$ÿ*ÿ/$#-,/ÿ$##-#ÿ!ÿD,"'0$!&:ÿTÿ*1-4-'J$ÿ*'*!ÿ5-#ÿ03ÿ*%&-!/ÿ&(*&ÿ(*2$ÿ
"$&#*%&$"ÿ5#-0ÿ&($ÿ#$1,&*&-!ÿ-5ÿ&(/ÿ'#$*&ÿ!/&&,&-!ÿ*!"ÿ&($ÿ'#$*&ÿ1$-14$ÿ*//-%*&$"ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¬®¯ÿ®±²³ÿ́µ¶·¸¹¶ºÿÿÿÿÿÿ»¼½¾¿³ÀÁÿ́¸Âõ¸¶¹ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÄÅƳÇÈÿ¶ÂɶÊɵ¶µµÿÿÿÿÿÿ˱̳ÿͶÎÿ¼ÏÿÍÎÍ
!"#$ÿ"#%ÿ&'(ÿ)ÿ*+,-.'&//0ÿ&*./.1"2+ÿ#.ÿ+&3$ÿ4+45+,ÿ.6ÿ#$"-ÿ7.&,(ÿ6.,ÿ!$&#ÿ$&-ÿ
$&**+'+(ÿ$+,+89ÿ
ÿ
:$+ÿ4++#"'1ÿ&(;.<,'+(ÿ&#ÿ=>2?ÿ*848ÿ
ÿ
@##+-#>ÿ
A+3,+#&,0ÿ&'(ÿB$"+6ÿ.6ÿA#&66ÿ
CDEFFGÿ ÿ
JKLMNOJLPÿQKÿRJSQCFLJRQTUÿVÿWXYÿOFCCFQRÿFRÿCJZR[MNM[ÿOQRM\ÿ]JUÿ
^QEMNM[ÿZSÿJR[ÿEJRFUPM[_ÿLPMÿKJLMÿQKÿO\ÿJSSCF^JLFQRÿKQNÿJ]JN[ÿ
KQNÿQNF`FRJCÿFRKQNOJLFQRÿaFNUÿKQNOÿbWWcÿUZdOFLLM[ÿLQÿLPMÿ]dQÿQRÿ
OJN^Pÿbe_ÿbfWghÿ^CJFOÿRQGÿbfWghffXijW_ÿJR[ÿO\ÿCFLF`JLFQRÿJ`JFRULÿLPMÿ
Z^ÿNM`MRLUÿFRÿLPMÿULJLMÿQKÿ^JCFKQNRFJÿ^QZNLUÿ
ÿ
ÿFkÿRlmnopnqÿbfWX%ÿ)ÿ-#,<11/+(ÿ!"#$ÿ40ÿ4.#".'-ÿ5,"+6-ÿ&'(ÿ*+#"#".'-ÿ"'ÿ#$+ÿB.<,#ÿ.6ÿ
@**+&/%ÿ:$",(ÿ@**+//&#+ÿr"-#,"3#ÿs4rB@tÿ"'ÿA&3,&4+'#.>ÿuvwxyzv{ÿ}vy~~ÿÿ ÿyÿ
xÿÿwyÿxÿvzxwvÿB&-+ÿ.8ÿB?32=%ÿ&'ÿ&'#"0A@ÿ4.#".'ÿ&**+&/%ÿ&'(ÿ40ÿ
-#./+'ÿ<'+4*/.04+'#ÿ5+'+6"#-ÿ&**+&/ÿ"'ÿ#$+ÿ3&-+ÿuvwxyzv{ÿ}vy~~ÿÿvzxwvÿ
zxÿywvÿvzÿxvwÿÿ8ÿyÿxÿÿwyÿxÿvzxwvÿ
vyÿÿvzÿvwÿÿwyÿ.8ÿB?23=ÿA"'3+ÿr+3+45+,ÿ2?=%ÿ)ÿ$&+ÿ,+*,+-+'#+(ÿ40-+/6ÿ
"'ÿB.<,#ÿ(<+ÿ#.ÿ("-4"--"'1ÿ40ÿ(,<10&(("3#+(ÿ&##.,'+0ÿ!$.ÿ-#./+ÿ40ÿ,+#&"'+,ÿ4.'+0ÿ&'(ÿ
&##+4*#+(ÿ#.ÿ-+//ÿ#$+ÿ!,.'16</ÿ#+,4"'&#".'ÿ3&-+ÿ)ÿ6"/+(ÿ"'ÿ2?4ÿ&1&"'-#ÿ#$+ÿB¡ÿ#$<1-ÿ&'(ÿ
Bÿ¢+1+'#-8ÿ)'ÿ3.'#,&-#ÿ#.ÿ40ÿ/"#"1&#".'ÿ&1&"'-#ÿ#$+ÿBÿ¢+1+'#-ÿ"'ÿ#$+ÿ-#&#+ÿ3.<,#-%ÿ40ÿ
£&,3$ÿ24%ÿ2?¤ÿ@**/"3&#".'ÿ6.,ÿ@!&,(ÿ6.,ÿ¡,"1"'&/ÿ)'6.,4&#".'ÿs)¢Aÿ¥.,4ÿ2tÿB/&"4ÿ.8ÿ
2?¤0??=¦%ÿ"'ÿ!$"3$ÿ)ÿ,+*.,#+(ÿ.'ÿ&'ÿ"//+1&/ÿ4</#"04"//".'0(.//&,ÿ#&§ÿ+&-".'ÿ&'(ÿ6,&<(ÿ
(<+ÿ#.ÿ#$+ÿ<'/&!6</ÿ*,.(<3#".'ÿ&'(ÿ-&/+ÿ.6ÿ+/+3#,"3"#0ÿ6.,ÿ*,.6"#ÿ"'ÿ"./&#".'ÿ.6ÿ#$+ÿ#&§ÿ
+§+4*#ÿ-#&#<-ÿA+3#".'ÿ3?s3ts4tÿ.6ÿ#$+ÿ)'#+,'&/ÿ¢++'<+ÿB.(+ÿ.6ÿ3=ÿ50ÿBÿ¢+1+'#-%ÿ)ÿ
!&-ÿ,+*,+-+'#+(ÿ50ÿ&'ÿ&##.,'+0%ÿ£&,¨ÿA3$/+"'%ÿ6,.4ÿ#$+ÿ*,+-#"1".<-ÿB&/"6.,'"&ÿ3.'-<4+,ÿ
*,.#+3#".'ÿ/&!ÿ6",4ÿ7&<4%ÿ©+(/<'(%ÿ@,"-#+"ÿªÿ«./(4&'ÿ&!ÿB.,*.,&#".'%ÿ5&-+(ÿ"'ÿ.-ÿ
@'1+/+-8ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
lmnoÿnqrsÿtuvwxyvzÿÿÿÿÿÿ{|}~sÿtxuxvyÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿsÿvvuvuuÿÿÿÿÿÿqsÿvÿ|ÿ
ÿ
!""#$%&&'''()*+,!-./+0./*'(12,&*""230-4$&,*350!0$1!/-60&ÿ
ÿÿ 89ÿ:;<=>?=@ÿABCDEÿFÿ'*$ÿ+0*'*3-ÿ"!*"Eÿ*G"-3ÿH*#2/6"*02I$ÿJ*4ÿ2KLMÿ,--"60Nÿ'6"!ÿO3-$6.-0"ÿ
P)*,*EÿQ61-ÿO3-$6.-0"ÿR6.-0Eÿ*0.ÿ-S-1+"6T-$ÿG32,ÿ"!-ÿU-#*3",-0"ÿ2GÿV0-3N4EÿG23,-3ÿWXÿVS-1+"6T-ÿ
Y$$216*"-ÿQ61-ÿO3-$6.-0"ÿZ+.6"!ÿR24-""-ÿ'*$ÿ*##260"-.ÿ)4ÿ"!-ÿ[-13-"*34ÿ2Gÿ"!-ÿ\3-*$+34ÿ"2ÿ*ÿ"!3--0
4-*3ÿ"-3,ÿ20ÿ"!-ÿF][ÿY.T6$234ÿX2,,6""--ÿ20ÿ\*SÿVS-,#"ÿ*0.ÿ^2T-30,-0"ÿV0"6"6-$ÿ_\V^V`Eÿ*0.ÿ"!*"ÿ
6"ÿ1*+$-.ÿ"!*"ÿ,4ÿJ*31!ÿ2aEÿ2KLMÿ'!6$"/-)/2'-3ÿ1/*6,ÿ"2ÿ)-ÿ$'-#"ÿ+0.-3ÿ"!-ÿ3+Nÿ23ÿ.-/-"-.ÿ*0.ÿ,4ÿ
/*'4-3ÿG32,ÿR*+,Eÿb-./+0.EÿY36$"-6ÿcÿ^2/.,*0ÿd*'ÿX23#23*"620ÿ"2ÿ)-ÿ$6/-01-.(ÿÿ
F0ÿ2KLeEÿFÿ.6.ÿ02"ÿ#*4ÿ,+1!ÿ*""-0"620ÿ"2ÿ"!-ÿfLe3ÿ,6//620ÿ/*+0.-3-.ÿ)4ÿ"!-ÿWXPOÿ,2)Eÿ*$6.-ÿ
G32,ÿ'36"60Nÿ*ÿ/-""-3ÿ*)2+"ÿ6"ÿ"2ÿW[ÿX20N3-$$,*0ÿU*33-/ÿF$$*EÿG32,ÿ[*0ÿU6-N2Eÿ-0"6"/-.ÿg\!-ÿ/-G"2T-3$ÿ
G32,ÿ"!-ÿX*/6G2306*I$ÿ-0-3N4ÿ,*35-"ÿ.-3-N+/*"620Eÿ"!-ÿ-0-3N4ÿ136$6$ÿ2GÿLhhhi2KKLEÿ*0.ÿ"!-ÿ["*"-ÿ2Gÿ
X*/6G2306*ÿ3-1*//ÿ-/-1"620ÿ2Gÿ^2T-3023ÿ^3*4ÿU*T6$ÿ60ÿ2KKa(ÿY+N+$"ÿ2KKKÿX2,#/*60"ÿ'6"!ÿjV]XEÿ[*0ÿ
U6-N2ÿ^*$ÿcÿV/-1"361ÿX2,#*04ÿT(ÿ[-//-3$ÿ2GÿV0-3N4ÿ*0.ÿY016//*34ÿ[-3T61-$ÿ60"2ÿJ*35-"$ÿP#-3*"-.ÿ)4ÿ
"!-ÿX*/6G2306*ÿF0.-#-0.-0"ÿ[4$"-,ÿP#-3*"23ÿX23#23*"620ÿ*0.ÿ"!-ÿX*/6G2306*ÿO2'-3ÿVS1!*0N-(kÿ
ÿF0ÿ2KKaEÿF$$*ÿ!-/#-.ÿX*/6G2306*ÿ^2T-3023ÿ^3*4ÿU*T6$ÿ'6"!ÿfL(eÿ,6//620ÿ*G"-3ÿ!-ÿ'*$ÿ
3-1*//-.ÿG23ÿ1*+$60NEÿ"2N-"!-3ÿ'6"!ÿ"!-ÿWXPOÿ'!6"-ÿ12//*3ÿ136,60*/$EÿV0320Eÿ*0.ÿXYF[PEÿ*ÿ
f4Kÿ)6//620ÿ/2$$ÿ"2ÿX*/6G2306*I$ÿ-1202,4ÿ*0.ÿ"*S#*4-3$(ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
OPQRÿQTUVÿWXYZ[\Y]ÿÿÿÿÿÿ^_`abVcdÿW[efX[Y\ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿghiVjkÿYelYmlXYXXÿÿÿÿÿÿnToVÿp[Yÿ_qÿprp
!ÿ"#$%"&'ÿ()ÿ*%+),-(%!).'ÿ,%/!&#"#&ÿ0123ÿ3-,,-)!4ÿÿ5")(#ÿ-!ÿ36ÿ-!7/-"6ÿ()ÿ
8)!$"#''3%!ÿ''%9ÿÿ
:;#ÿ7/#'(-)!ÿ"#3%-!'9ÿ5;6ÿ&-&ÿ<8ÿ="#'-&#!(ÿ;-&#ÿ(;#ÿ0123ÿ3-,,-)!ÿ%!&ÿ5;%(ÿ&-&ÿ
';#ÿ!##&ÿ-(ÿ>)"?ÿ:;#ÿ%3)/!(ÿ)>ÿ3)!#6ÿ;-&&#!ÿ@6ÿA%!#(ÿ*%+),-(%!)ÿ-!&-B%(#'ÿ(;%(ÿ
<8ÿ="#'-&#!(ÿA%!#(ÿ*%+),-(%!)ÿ%!&ÿ<8ÿC#$#!('ÿ;%&ÿ')3#(;-!$ÿ-!ÿ(;#-"ÿ3-!&ÿ%!&ÿ
*%+),-(%!)ÿ&-&ÿ!)(ÿ5%!(ÿ()ÿ&-'B,)'#ÿ(;#ÿ"#%')!ÿ)"ÿ%&3-(ÿ5;6ÿ';#ÿ'(%';#&ÿ(;#ÿ0123ÿ
3-,,-)!ÿ&),,%"'Dÿÿ
ÿ
;((+'9EE555D'B"-@&DB)3E&)B/3#!(EF2G2H3IJ2E<:802K12KGK30!7/-"605-(;0<0L0
8)!$"#''3%!0>")30L%!0M-#$)08N0M%""#,0''%ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
uvwxÿwz{|ÿ}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿ |ÿ}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ|ÿ~~~ÿÿÿÿÿÿz|ÿÿÿ
ÿ!"ÿ$%&'()'*ÿ+,-ÿ+,./0ÿ1234ÿ5627ÿ89:3ÿ954;7ÿ4<;ÿ=>?3ÿ@ABBA6CÿB92C8;7;8ÿD:ÿ
E9F6BA49C6ÿG93ÿD27A;8ÿD:ÿ4<;ÿ$%&'()'*ÿ.H-ÿ+,./ÿI2;346CÿI;CCAJ9CÿKKLÿ16AC4ÿM;C427;ÿ
GA4<ÿ567@;7ÿN9BA567CA9ÿO234AP;ÿN97B63ÿQ67;C6R3ÿ89@9J;ÿP6C476Bÿ;5567430ÿSÿ5AB;8ÿACÿN9BA567CA9ÿ
T2F7;@;ÿN6274ÿ9ÿL;4A4A6Cÿ567ÿU;MA;GÿACÿ@:ÿG76CJ52Bÿ4;7@AC94A6CÿP93;0ÿVWXYZ[W\ÿ^WZ_`_abÿ
cdÿefgÿhgigjkZÿYlÿkfgÿmjncgXZnkoÿYlÿpW[nlYXjnWÿN93;ÿE6qÿNr?s32tqÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢ÿ£ÿ¤ÿ£¥£
!""#$%&&'''($)*+,-()./&-.)0/12"&344553336&70#*1/1082"+0798::070#*1/10
;.0*"0:1"+"+.20<.*0=1>+1'ÿ
?!1ÿ:1"+"+.2ÿ<.*ÿ=1>+1'ÿ'@$ÿ<*./ÿ"!1ÿAB&23&2BA4ÿ:1"+"+.2ÿ<.*ÿ=1!1@*+2Cÿ
D!""#$%&&'''($)*+,-()./&-.)0/12"&363444324&E@$F)F0G0>0H;0=1C12"$082"+07I@##0
:1"+"+.20J.*0=1!1@*+2CKÿ.<ÿ"!1ÿMNOPQPRSÿUVÿWXYXZ[Oÿ\]ÿ^Z_UVÿ\]ÿ̀NaVbÿc.(ÿ;B4d324ÿD;@I(ÿ;"(ÿ
8##(ÿe)"(ÿABfÿ2BA4Kÿ02#0,I+$!1-ÿ.#+2+.2fÿ'!+)!ÿ'@$ÿ-12+1-ÿ,gÿh*0,,1*ÿ$"@/#ÿi0$"+)1jÿ,gÿ
3k;8ÿ:*1$+-+2Cÿl0$"+)1ÿmnopqÿrsÿtnuqÿ.2ÿvwxqyzq{ÿ|}ÿ~(ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿMNOPQPRSÿUVÿWXYXZ[Oÿ\]ÿ^Z_UVÿ\]ÿ̀Na(fÿc.(ÿ;B4d324ÿD;@I(ÿ;"(ÿ8##(ÿe)"(ÿABfÿ2BA4Kÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿ
"#ÿ$%&%'(%)ÿ*+ÿ,-*./ÿ012213456ÿ789ÿ:1;9<=9>ÿ2?/ÿ2?@AÿB9747415ÿ01>ÿC9;493ÿ45ÿDEFGHGIJÿLMÿ
NOPOQRFÿSTÿUQVLMÿSTÿWEXMYÿ:1Zÿ[?A\32]ÿ^[_2Zÿ[7Zÿ̀aaZÿbc7Zÿ@?/ÿ2?@Ad/ÿeÿ0429fÿ45ÿ789ÿ[_2401>54_ÿ
gha>9<9ÿ[1h>7ÿ_ÿ<17415ÿ71ÿ<1;9ÿ<iÿj71295ÿh59<a21i<957ÿ=959047jÿc_j9/ÿkElSFXEmÿDEFGHGIJÿLMÿ
WEXVTSlQVEÿUQOnoXSpnOQRÿqQFIlEQHOÿrooOEXÿsSEltÿuWUqrsvÿ;ZÿNOPOQRFÿSTÿRwOÿUQVLOlFVRpÿSTÿ
WEXVTSlQVEÿEFÿRwOÿNOEXÿxElRpÿVQÿqQROlOFR/ÿ1h7ÿ10ÿg_c>_<9571ÿ71ÿ_ÿf4009>957ÿ[1h>7ÿ10ÿ̀aa9_2ÿy4j7>4c7/ÿ
ah>jh_57ÿ71ÿCh29ÿ@?Z@??/ÿz>_5j09>ÿ10ÿ[_hj9jÿ_5fÿ[_2401>54_ÿ[15j747h7415ÿ̀>74c29ÿ{eÿ|hf4c4_2ÿg9c7415ÿ
@22Zÿ
ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡ÿ¢
!"ÿ#$ÿ#%&'%"ÿ&%ÿ#%()ÿ&*)ÿ+,-)ÿ%.&ÿ%/ÿ0,+1,#)"&%ÿ2%.1&3ÿ!ÿ41%&)ÿ5ÿ
ÿ6*)ÿ2,7'/%1"',ÿ,88)77,&)ÿ9.-&'+)-ÿ,1)ÿ):)#8&);ÿ/1%#ÿ;'-<.,7'/'+,&'%"ÿ81%('-'%"-ÿ%/ÿ
&*)ÿ2%;)=ÿ2'(=ÿ>1%+=ÿ-)+&'%"ÿ?@AÿBÿ?@A=Cÿ&*.-ÿ'-ÿ"%ÿ%&*)1ÿ+*%'+)ÿ/%1ÿD,-E+E.FÿG.&ÿ
&%ÿ-.G#'&ÿ&*'-ÿ#%&'%"ÿ,";ÿ,-Fÿ&*)ÿ0.81)#)ÿ2%.1&ÿ&%ÿ#%()ÿ&*)ÿ+,.-)ÿ,4,$ÿ/1%#ÿ&*)ÿ
0,+1,#)"&%ÿ+%.1&-ÿ4*'+*ÿ+,.-);ÿ,71),;$ÿ&%ÿD,-E+E.Fÿ,";ÿD,-E+E.FH-ÿ/,#'7$ÿ"%"0
1)+%()1,G7)ÿ;,#,I)-ÿ3ÿ*,1#ÿ,";ÿ8,'"=ÿ
6*)ÿ*'I*7$ÿ81%G7)#,&'+ÿ;'-+1'#'",&%1$ÿ;)+'-'%"ÿ'"ÿ&*)ÿ,"&'00JK>>ÿ#%&'%"ÿ
L2A@432MNÿ'-ÿ,7-%ÿ.";)"',G7)ÿ)(';)"+)ÿ%/ÿ8,1&',7'&$ÿ,";ÿ#%-&ÿ7'F)7$ÿ%/ÿOP2Kÿ
>1)-';'"IÿQ.-&'+)ÿR%"=ÿS,"+)ÿT,$)H-ÿ+%77.-'%"ÿ4'&*ÿ&4%ÿ;)/)";,"&-ÿ'"ÿ2,-)ÿU%=ÿ
2A@432Mÿ4*%ÿ4)1)ÿ8,1&'+'8,"&-ÿ'"ÿ4*'&)0+%77,1ÿ+1'#)ÿ1)7,&);ÿ&%ÿ'77)I,7ÿ8%4)1ÿ-,7)ÿ
/1%#ÿ&*)ÿV2PW2ÿ2@ÿWDÿ+%I)")1,&'%"ÿ/,+'7'&$ÿXYZÿ\X]ÿ^_X`ZÿZ`aÿ&%ÿ('%7,&'%"ÿ%/ÿ
&*)ÿ>.G7'+ÿV&'7'&$ÿT)I.7,&%1$ÿ>%7'+')-ÿK+&ÿ%/ÿ?4@bÿL>VT>KNÿ,";ÿ&*)ÿ1)<.'1)#)"&-ÿ
-)&ÿ'"ÿ?bÿ2=c=T=ÿBBÿ242=2AOLGNÿ,";ÿ242=2A3ÿ/%1ÿ%8)1,&'%"3ÿ)//'+')"+$ÿ,";ÿ.-)ÿ%/ÿ
)")1I$ÿ%.&8.&ÿ&%ÿG)ÿ+)1&'/');ÿ,-ÿ,ÿ<.,7'/');ÿ/,+'7'&$ÿLdcNÿL8.1-.,"&ÿ&%ÿ?bÿ2=c=T=ÿBÿ
242=2Aÿ1)<.'1)#)"&-eÿc);)1,7ÿ>%4)1ÿK+&3ÿ?CÿV=0=2=ÿBÿb2M;L,Neÿ2,7'/%1"',ÿ>.G7'+ÿ
V&'7'&')-ÿ2%;)ÿ0)+&'%"ÿ2?b=3eÿ0&,&)ÿ%/ÿ2,7'/%1"',ÿV"/,'1ÿf.-'")--ÿ2%#8)&'&'%"ÿ7,4eÿ
f.-'")--ÿ,";ÿ>1%/)--'%"-ÿ2%;)ÿBÿ?@2AAeÿ0)+&'%"ÿ3A?L+NLONÿ%/ÿ&*)ÿ!"&)1",7ÿT)()".)ÿ
2%;)ÿ%/ÿ?43Meÿ,";ÿ0&,&)ÿ%/ÿ2,7'/%1"',ÿT)()".)ÿ,";ÿ6,:,&'%"ÿ2%;)=Lÿ0))ÿ>)&'&'%"ÿ
/%1ÿT)(')4ÿ'"ÿ2,-)ÿU%=ÿ02M33Ab=Nÿ
6*)ÿc%.1&))"&*ÿK#)";#)"&ÿ%/ÿ&*)ÿV0ÿ2%"-&'&.&'%"ÿ81%(';)-ÿ&*,&ÿ"%ÿ-&,&)ÿg-*,77ÿ=ÿ=ÿ
=ÿ;)"$ÿ,"$ÿ8)1-%"ÿ%/ÿ7'/)3ÿ7'G)1&$3ÿ%1ÿ81%8)1&$ÿ4'&*%.&ÿ;.)ÿ81%+)--ÿ%/ÿ7,4=hÿ0'#'7,17$3ÿ
&*)ÿ2,7'/%1"',ÿ2%"-&'&.&'%"3ÿK1&'+7)ÿ?3ÿ0)+&'%"ÿ@3ÿ81%(';)-ÿ&*,&ÿg,ÿ8)1-%"ÿ#,$ÿ"%&ÿ
G)ÿ;)81'();ÿ%/ÿ7'/)3ÿ7'G)1&$3ÿ%1ÿ81%8)1&$ÿ4'&*%.&ÿ;.)ÿ81%+)--ÿ%/ÿ7,4=hÿP.)ÿ81%+)--ÿ
g81'"+'8,77$ÿ-)1()-ÿ&%ÿ81%&)+&ÿ&*)ÿ8)1-%",7ÿ1'I*&-ÿ%/ÿ7'&'I,"&-ÿ&%ÿ,ÿ/.77ÿ,";ÿ/,'1ÿ
*),1'"IhÿLW'77)1ÿ(=ÿc1)"+*ÿL2AAANÿ3OAÿV=0=ÿO2@N=ÿ6*)ÿ+%"-&'&.&'%",7ÿg1'I*&ÿ&%ÿ;.)ÿ
81%+)--ÿ'-ÿ,ÿ8)1-%",7ÿ%")hÿLQ%")-ÿ(=ÿi#"'&1,"-ÿL2AAMNÿ?23ÿ2,7=K88=M&*ÿ2@ON=ÿ6*)ÿ
1'I*&ÿ&%ÿ;.)ÿ81%+)--ÿ'-ÿ"%&ÿ#)1)7$ÿ,//%1;);ÿ&%ÿ,ÿ8)1-%"ÿ'"ÿ,ÿ&1',7ÿ+%.1&ÿG.&ÿ,7-%ÿ
8)1(,;)-ÿ&%ÿ,77ÿ7)()7-ÿ%/ÿ&*)ÿ+%.1&-eÿ&*)1)/%1)3ÿ+,.-)-ÿ'"ÿ&*'-ÿ,88),7ÿ#.-&ÿG)ÿ
&1,"-/)11);ÿ&%ÿ&*)ÿ0.81)#)ÿ2%.1&ÿ%1ÿ,"%&*)1ÿ,88)77,&)ÿ;'-&1'+&ÿ&%ÿG)ÿ'#8,1&',77$ÿ
1)(')4);=ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ !&ÿ;';ÿ"%&ÿ&,F)ÿ7%"Iÿ/%1ÿ&*)ÿ2,7'/%1"',ÿ0.81)#)ÿ2%.1&ÿ27)1Fÿ&%ÿ.-)ÿ,ÿ1.GG)1ÿ-&,#8ÿ4'&*ÿ0.81)#)ÿ
2%.1&ÿ2*')/ÿQ.-&'+)ÿ6,"'ÿ2,"&'700,F,.$)H-ÿ",#)ÿ%"ÿ'&ÿ&%ÿ-)1()ÿ&*)ÿ9.-&'+)ÿ'"ÿG%&*ÿ&*)ÿ>)&'&'%"ÿ/%1ÿ1)(')4ÿ
'"ÿ&*)ÿ+,-)ÿklmnonpqÿrsÿtuvuwxmÿyzÿ{w|rsÿyzÿ}l~=3ÿU%=ÿ2A@432MÿL2,7=ÿ2&=ÿK88=ÿi+&=ÿ?A3ÿ2A?@Nÿ,";ÿ'"ÿ&*)ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
{|}~ÿ}ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
!"#$"%ÿ#"ÿ!"&'ÿ"(#ÿ")ÿ#*'ÿ+,-.,!'%#"ÿ/"(.#0ÿ!1ÿ0#"2'%ÿ(%'!32"1!'%#ÿ4'%')$#0ÿ,33',2ÿ3(.0('5ÿ41ÿ#*'ÿ
-,0'0ÿ6789:;7<ÿ>7:?@?ABÿCDÿE7;FG98HF7ÿIHJKL;9MKJHNÿOH:A87H@JÿPLLJ7;ÿQ978RÿSEIOPQTÿ&UÿVJWJHN:ÿ
9GÿNXJÿIHFCJ8:FNMÿ9GÿE7;FG98HF7ÿ7:ÿNXJÿVJ7;ÿY78NMÿFHÿOHNJ8J:NZÿ[\]24^[]_444^3``]/abcde+Zÿf*'ÿ
/"(.#ÿ")ÿg33',20Zÿ[e/gZÿ,%5ÿ>7:?@?ABÿCDÿEIOPQÿ/,0'ÿh"Uÿ/4i`2j\Uÿÿ
ÿÿ klÿnolpoqrÿstuÿvtswZÿ#*'ÿ!"#$"%ÿ#"ÿ!"&'ÿ#*'ÿ-,0'0ÿ"(#ÿ")ÿ#*'ÿ+,-.,!'%#"ÿ/"(.#0ÿ,%5ÿx'#$#$"%ÿ
)".ÿy'&$'zÿz'.'ÿ5'%$'5Uÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
:;<=ÿ<?@AÿBCDEFGDHÿÿÿÿÿÿIJKLMANOÿBFPQCFDGÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRSTAUVÿDPWDXWCDCCÿÿÿÿÿÿY?ZAÿ[FQÿJ\ÿ[][
ÿ
ÿ!ÿ"#$%&'()$*ÿ&+$ÿ,#-.$/$ÿ0(#.&ÿ01$.2ÿ34(#&ÿ&+$ÿ.#44$.0%&3/-ÿ5#%&'6$ÿ!ÿ$7-$.'$)6$*ÿ')ÿ&+.$$ÿ*'88$.$)&ÿ
031'8(.)'3ÿ6(#.&%9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡ÿ¢
ÿ
!ÿ#$%&'(&)ÿ*+ÿ,-./0ÿ1ÿ2345ÿ6ÿ735538ÿ59ÿ:;ÿ6559843;0ÿ<68=ÿ>?@73A40ÿB89:ÿC6D:0ÿE3F7D4F0ÿ
G8A253AÿHÿI97F:64ÿJ6KÿL98M9865A940ÿNA6ÿOP>Pÿ:6A7ÿ64Fÿ30:6A70ÿ83:A4FA4Qÿ@A:ÿ5@65ÿ@3ÿ83M8323452ÿ:3ÿ
KA5@ÿ5@3ÿRCSÿA4ÿ:;ÿ56Tÿ3N62A94ÿ64FÿB86DFÿ2UV3ÿGMM7A?65A94ÿB98ÿGK68FÿB98ÿS8AQA467ÿ14B98:65A94ÿW1X>ÿ
Y98:ÿ2VVZÿL76A:ÿ[9Pÿ2UV30UU\]^V0ÿ64Fÿ5@65ÿ5@3ÿ?76A:ÿKA5@ÿ5@3ÿ1X>ÿ433F3Fÿ59ÿ_3ÿDMF653F0ÿFD3ÿ59ÿ:;ÿ
43KÿFA2?9N38;0ÿK@A?@ÿ@A2ÿ73Q67ÿ83M83234565A94ÿ2@9D7Fÿ@6N3ÿ56=34ÿ?683ÿ9BPÿ<;ÿ735538ÿA4?7DF3Fÿ64ÿ
6556?@:345ÿ5@65ÿ2@9K3Fÿ5@3ÿ2M3?ABA?ÿ4D:_382ÿ?94?384A4Qÿ5@3ÿOL`<La2ÿ2\0<Rÿ?9Q343865A94ÿM7645a2ÿ
M9K38ÿM89FD?5A94ÿ64Fÿ26732ÿB89:ÿVbbbÿ59ÿ2UVc0ÿK@A?@ÿK62ÿ5@3ÿ2D_d3?5ÿ9Bÿ:;ÿK@A2573_79K38ÿ?76A:ÿF653Fÿ
<68?@ÿ2e0ÿ2UV3Pÿ>?@73A4ÿ_3?6:3ÿ2A7345ÿ64Fÿ43N38ÿ832M94F3Fÿ59ÿ:;ÿA4fDA8;ÿ94ÿDMF65A4Qÿ5@3ÿ
K@A2573_79K38ÿ?76A:PÿJ65380ÿ1ÿF3?AF3Fÿ59ÿDMF653ÿ5@3ÿ?76A:ÿ94ÿ:;ÿ9K4ÿKA5@ÿ5@3ÿ43KÿA4B98:65A94Pÿ<;ÿÿ
D4D2D67ÿ3TM38A34?32ÿA4ÿ5@3ÿ25653ÿ?9D852ÿ73Fÿ:3ÿ59ÿ_3?9:3ÿfDA53ÿ2D2MA?A9D2ÿ5@65ÿ29:35@A4QÿK62ÿK894Qÿ
KA5@ÿ:;ÿ6559843;a2ÿ83M83234565A94ÿ64FÿKA5@ÿ:;ÿK@A2573_79K38ÿ?76A:ÿ59ÿ5@3ÿRCSPÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ!ÿg(&hiÿ.+ÿ,-./0ÿ5@3ÿL67AB984A6ÿ>DM83:3ÿL9D85ÿF3?AF3Fÿ5@65ÿ:;ÿB98:38ÿF8DQ06FFA?53Fÿ6559843;0ÿ
`9DQ762ÿ>53A4ÿW>5653ÿC68ÿ[D:_38ÿW>C[ZÿVeV2]Z0ÿ2@9D7Fÿ_3ÿ2D2M34F3FÿB89:ÿM86?5A?A4Qÿ76KÿA4ÿL67AB984A6ÿ
B98ÿ5K9ÿ;3682PÿE3ÿK62ÿM76?3Fÿ94ÿM89_65A94ÿB98ÿ5@833ÿ;3682ÿ64F0ÿFD3ÿ59ÿ25367A4Qÿ:;ÿ8356A438ÿA4ÿjD43ÿ2UV]0ÿ
@3ÿK62ÿ98F383Fÿ59ÿ:6=3ÿ8325A5D5A94ÿ59ÿ:3ÿA4ÿ5@3ÿ6:9D45ÿ9Bÿk.l+mnlo**+ÿpq'rÿ.-ÿp$&h$!sÿt!s$&$rsÿp$&ÿ)$(&0ÿ
25685A4Qÿ94ÿjD43ÿ20ÿ2UV]ÿW98ÿ59ÿ83A:_D823ÿ:;ÿ?7A345u2ÿ23?D8A5;ÿBD4F0ÿ59ÿ5@3ÿ3T5345ÿ9Bÿ64;ÿM6;:345ÿB89:ÿ5@3ÿ
BD4FZPÿvwÿyzÿ{|z}w0ÿ[9Pÿ>2]cb^2ÿWL67Pÿ<68PÿV0ÿ2UV^Z0ÿA5ÿ26AFÿ5@A2ÿ2@9D7Fÿ_3ÿF943ÿA4ÿ2UVc0ÿ_D5ÿA4ÿ>3M53:_38ÿ
2UVc0ÿ5@3ÿ>5653ÿC68ÿ14N325AQ6598ÿK@9ÿ@6FÿK86MM3FÿDMÿ5@3ÿ?623ÿB98ÿ>53A4ÿM8923?D5A94a2ÿN64A2@3F0ÿ59Q35@38ÿ
KA5@ÿ5@3ÿ?623ÿ6Q6A425ÿ>53A40ÿ59ÿF3M8AN3ÿ:3ÿ9Bÿ64;ÿ3T586ÿ29?A67ÿ23?D8A5;ÿ:943;ÿ64FÿB98?3ÿ:3ÿ59ÿF89Mÿ:;ÿ
7A5AQ65A94ÿ6Q6A425ÿ5@3ÿOLS~ÿ:9_0ÿK@A?@ÿ@6FÿF3N625653Fÿ:;ÿ7AB3ÿ64Fÿ:64;ÿ95@38ÿM39M73a2ÿ7AN32ÿ62ÿ6ÿ832D75ÿ
9Bÿ5@3A8ÿ?8A:32Pÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿB-Cÿ1DÿBCB
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
cdefÿehijÿklmnopmqÿÿÿÿÿÿrstuvjwxÿkoyzlompÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ{|}j~ÿmymlmllÿÿÿÿÿÿhjÿoyÿsÿ
!"ÿ$%&%'(ÿ)*ÿ+,-./ÿ0ÿ123456678ÿ9:ÿ2;8967ÿ6<ÿ4=ÿ>9?@Aÿ2B/ÿ2CD3ÿE;;F5@965<:ÿG<?ÿEH9?8ÿG<?ÿI?5J5:9Fÿ
0:G<?4965<:ÿK0LMÿN<?4ÿ2DDO/ÿHA5@Aÿ988?71178ÿ9:8ÿ?7;<?678ÿ6A7ÿ42F65045FF5<:08<FF9?ÿ69Pÿ7Q915<:ÿ9:8ÿ
G?928ÿ@<4456678ÿ3=ÿ6A7ÿL7J7:61ÿ<Gÿ6A7ÿR:5Q7?156=ÿ<GÿS9F5G<?:59ÿ9:8ÿ6A75?ÿ@<FF93<?96<?1Tÿÿ
0ÿ17:6ÿ6A51ÿ827ÿ6<ÿ9ÿF9@Uÿ<Gÿ?71;<:17ÿG?<4ÿ4=ÿ966<?:7=/ÿM@AF75:/ÿ<?ÿG?<4ÿ6A7ÿVWIÿ15:@7ÿI@6<37?ÿ2CD3ÿ
?7J9?85:Jÿ169621ÿ<Gÿ4=ÿ>9?@Aÿ2B/ÿ2CD3ÿ@F954Tÿÿ
ÿÿ !"ÿ$%&%'(ÿX*ÿ+,-./ÿ0ÿ?7@75Q78ÿ@<:G5?4965<:ÿG?<4ÿ6A7ÿRMYMÿ6A96ÿ6A7ÿ2;89678ÿ2CD3ÿ@F954ÿH91ÿ
87F5Q7?78ÿ6<ÿ6A7ÿVWIÿ5:ÿIJ87:/ÿR69Aÿ<:ÿE2J216ÿ3/ÿ2CDZ/ÿ96ÿZ[\ZÿE>/ÿ9:8ÿ6A7ÿ@<:G5?4965<:ÿ<Gÿ87F5Q7?=ÿ
H91ÿ15J:78ÿ3=ÿ9ÿ;7?1<:ÿ:9478ÿ]>9:1F7=T^ÿ>=ÿ2;8967ÿ6?5JJ7?78ÿ9:ÿ2:;?7@787:678ÿVWIÿ9@65<:Tÿ
ÿÿ !"ÿ$%&%'(ÿ_*ÿ+,-./ÿ̀216ÿ<:7ÿ89=ÿ9G67?ÿ6A7ÿVWIÿ?7@75Q78ÿ4=ÿ2;89678ÿ@F954/ÿ6A7ÿVWIÿ511278ÿ
9ÿ87@515<:ÿ87:=5:Jÿ4=ÿ5:5659Fÿ9:8ÿ<?5J5:9Fÿ>9?@Aÿ2B/ÿ2CD3ÿ@F954/ÿSF954ÿa?Tÿ2CD30ÿCCb4Z/ÿH56A<26ÿ9:=ÿ
?7Q57Hÿ<?ÿ5:Q7165J965<:Tÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
HIJKÿJMNOÿPQRSTURVÿÿÿÿÿÿWXYZ[O\]ÿPT^_QTRUÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̀abOcdÿR^eRfeQRQQÿÿÿÿÿÿgMhOÿiQRÿXjÿiki
!"##"$%&'ÿ()*ÿ+,-./ÿ0*1%/%"&ÿ0*&2%&'ÿ32ÿ4561)ÿ278ÿ29:3ÿ1#5%38ÿ"&ÿ;<'</(ÿ:78ÿ29:=8ÿ>ÿ/*&(ÿ
5&ÿ*035%#ÿ("ÿ456?ÿ@1)#*%&8ÿ$)"ÿ)50ÿA**&ÿ/%#*&(ÿB"6ÿ($"ÿ2*56/8ÿC6*(*&0%&'ÿ()5(ÿ)*ÿ6*C6*/*&(*0ÿ3*ÿ$%()ÿ
()*ÿ+,-Dÿ
ÿ ÿ
;B(*6ÿ@1)#*%&ÿ6*1*%E*0ÿ32ÿ*035%#8ÿ"&ÿ;<'</(ÿ:F8ÿ29:=ÿ)*ÿA6"?*ÿ)%/ÿ($"02*56ÿ/%#*&1*ÿ5&0ÿ*&0*0ÿ)%/ÿ
#*'5#ÿ6*C6*/*&(5(%"&ÿ"Bÿ3*8ÿ$)%1)ÿ%&ÿB51(ÿ)50ÿA**&ÿ5ÿ'6"//ÿ5&0ÿ0*1*C(%E*ÿ3%/6*C6*/*&(5(%"&ÿ("ÿ3*8ÿ5ÿ
1#%*&(ÿ$)"ÿC<(ÿ)%/ÿ(6</(ÿ%&ÿ)%/ÿ50E*6(%/*0ÿ"<(/(5&0%&'ÿ*GC*6(%/*ÿ%&ÿ$)%/(#*A#"$*6ÿ15/*/Dÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
HIJKÿJMNOÿPQRSTURVÿÿÿÿÿÿWXYZ[O\]ÿPT^_QTRUÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̀abOcdÿR^eRfeQRQQÿÿÿÿÿÿgMhOÿiQTÿXjÿiki
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$%ÿ&ÿ'#()ÿ*!ÿ"!+,-ÿ-'#-ÿ./'0)1*%ÿ21-'ÿ'13ÿ0)4#0ÿ5*!20)"4)ÿ!6ÿ2'13-0),0!21*4ÿ/#3)3%ÿ7+1/50$ÿ
6!+*"ÿ#6-)8ÿ&ÿ8)-#1*)"ÿ'19ÿ1*ÿ:+*)ÿ2;<3ÿ-'#-ÿ9$ÿ=#8/'ÿ2>%ÿ2;<3ÿ?@@01/#-1!*ÿ6!8ÿ?2#8"ÿ6!8ÿA8141*#0ÿ
&*6!89#-1!*ÿB&C.ÿD!89ÿ2<<Eÿ'#"ÿ9+/'ÿ,144)8ÿ3-#5)3ÿ-'#-ÿ&ÿ/0#19)"Fÿ&ÿ-'1*5ÿ1-ÿ13ÿ015)0$ÿ-'#-ÿG#+9%ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡¢£¤¥ÿ¦§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̈©ª«¬ÿ¦®ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°ÿ±ÿ²ÿ±³±
!"#$%&#'ÿ()*+,"*ÿ-ÿ./$#01&ÿ2/&,12,"#ÿ,3"ÿ45678+ÿ699*2"ÿ/9ÿ."&")1$ÿ5/%&+"$'ÿ/)ÿ:*2"ÿ:")+1'ÿ/)ÿ1ÿ$1;ÿ
9*)0ÿ,31,ÿ)"<)"+"&,+ÿ,3"ÿ45ÿ=">"&,+ÿ1&#ÿ4567ÿ?ÿ0/+,ÿ$*@"$Aÿ6))*2@'ÿ!"))*&>,/&ÿ-ÿB%,2$*99"ÿCC7ÿ/9ÿ
B1&ÿD)1&2*+2/'ÿ51$*9/)&*1ÿ?ÿ2/&,12,"#ÿE1%0'ÿ!"#$%&#'ÿ()*+,"*ÿ-ÿ./$#01&ÿ*&ÿ2FG3ÿ/)ÿ2FG4HÿI&ÿJ1)23ÿ
2FG3'ÿ6))*2@'ÿ!"))*&>,/&ÿ-ÿB%,2$*99"ÿCC78+ÿ1,,/)&"A+ÿJ"$*ÿ!11>ÿ1&#ÿJ2.)">/)ÿB2/,,ÿ;")"ÿ3*)"#ÿ
KAÿL1&",ÿM1</$*,1&/ÿ9/)ÿNGÿ0*$$*/&ÿ,/ÿ")1#*21,"ÿ45ÿO1:*+ÿ531&2"$$/)ÿC*ÿP1,"3*ÿ9)/0ÿ,3"ÿ45ÿ<1A)/$$ÿ
1&#ÿ45ÿO1:*+ÿ$1&#+21<"HÿP1,"3*ÿ;1+ÿ,3"ÿ531&2"$$/)ÿ;3/ÿ)"9%+"#ÿ,3"ÿ45678+ÿ#"01&#+ÿ,/ÿ9*)"ÿ0"ÿ9)/0ÿ
0AÿQ/Kÿ*&ÿ2FGGÿ1&#ÿ2FG2ÿ1&#ÿ,3"&ÿ/)#")"#ÿ3")ÿ,/ÿ$",ÿ0"ÿ)",%)&ÿ,/ÿ;/)@ÿ*&ÿJ1Aÿ2FG2HÿR3"ÿ4567ÿ
0/K+,")+ÿ31#ÿ1ÿ#*99")"&,ÿ<$1&ÿ9/)ÿ0"'ÿP1,"3*'ÿ1&#ÿ9/)ÿ01&Aÿ/,3")ÿ<"/<$"ÿ;3/ÿ,3"Aÿ:*";"#ÿ1+ÿ
/K+,)%2,*/&+ÿ,/ÿ,3"*)ÿ2)*0*&1$ÿ12,*:*,*"+HÿE/,3ÿ6))*2@'ÿ!"))*&>,/&ÿ-ÿB%,2$*99"ÿCC7ÿ1&#ÿE1%0'ÿ!"#$%&#'ÿ
()*+,"*ÿ-ÿ./$#01&ÿ31:"ÿ/99*2"+ÿ*&ÿ51$*9/)&*1ÿ1&#ÿS1+3*&>,/&ÿOH5Hÿÿ
D%),3")0/)"'ÿ*&ÿL%&"ÿ2F2G'ÿ,;/ÿ/,3")ÿ4567ÿ0")2"&1)*"+ÿ9)/0ÿ6))*2@'ÿ!"))*&>,/&ÿ-ÿB%,2$*99"ÿ
CC7'ÿ=/K"),ÿJ1&31+ÿ1&#ÿ=/K"),ÿJHÿC/"K'ÿ;")"ÿ"0<$/A"#ÿKAÿ,3"ÿOH5Hÿ5*)2%*,ÿ1+ÿTUVWXYÿWX[VT\ÿ*&ÿ,3"ÿ
K/>%+ÿ;3*+,$"K$/;")ÿ21+"ÿ]T^_`ÿ]abc\`ÿdVÿefÿgaUUh[ÿaiÿj^k\[^Tcÿl\e\^X\mÿ22ÿDHn,3ÿGFGnÿoOH5Hÿ5*)Hÿ
2F22p'ÿ*&ÿ1&ÿ1,,"0<,ÿ,/ÿ)"0/:"ÿ0Aÿ<"&#*&>ÿ1<<"1$'ÿqT[aYcTrÿqT^XYsÿtTYsWsXuÿefÿjlvÿgaUUVYYVa^\['ÿ
4B5(ÿM/Hÿ2F0GnF4'ÿ;3*23ÿ;1+ÿ@"<,ÿ9)/0ÿ0/:*&>ÿ9/);1)#ÿ,/ÿ,3"ÿ0/)"ÿ+")*/%+ÿ9)1%#ÿ/)ÿ;3*,"ÿ2/$$1)ÿ
2)*0"+ÿ/%,$*&"#ÿ1&#ÿ+23"#%$"#ÿ*&ÿOH5Hÿ5/%),ÿ9/)ÿ/)1$ÿ1)>%0"&,+ÿ/&ÿB"<,"0K")ÿ4'ÿ2F22HÿR3"ÿ7",*,*/&ÿ*&ÿ
vacT[ÿw^\[x`ÿj^_XYk[V\YÿyYYaWVTkVa^ÿz{vwjy|}ÿefÿk~\ÿ\_\[Tcÿw^\[x`ÿl\xXcTka[`ÿgaUUVYYVa^'ÿ
51+"ÿM/Hÿ2G0GG3ÿ;1+ÿ9*$"#ÿKAÿ,3"ÿBI(ÿ/&ÿJ1Aÿ24'ÿ2F2Gÿ*&ÿOH5Hÿ5*)2%*,ÿ5/%),ÿ1##)"++*&>ÿ
,3"ÿ9)1%#%$"&,ÿD=5ÿ/)#")ÿ,31,ÿ>)1&,"#ÿ%1$*9*"#ÿ912*$*,Aÿ+,1,%+ÿoDpÿ,/ÿE)/1#:*";ÿB/$1)'ÿCC5'ÿ;3*23ÿ
&":")ÿ"*+,"#'ÿ;1+ÿ&":")ÿ2/&+,)%2,"#'ÿ1&#ÿ&":")ÿ2/00*++*/&"#ÿ+""ÿO/2@",ÿM/HÿDÿG40nn0FF3'ÿD=50
DG40nn0FF4G4nÿD=5ÿÿ3G'GÿoJ1)HÿG'ÿ2F2Gpÿo="3"1)*&>ÿ6)#")pHÿ
ÿÿ D/$$/;*&>ÿB23$"*&8+ÿ)"+*>&1,*/&ÿ*&ÿ0AÿSE6ÿ2$1*0'ÿ,3"ÿ5/%),ÿ/9ÿ(<<"1$'ÿR3*)#ÿ(<<"$$1,"ÿ
O*+,)*2,ÿ*&ÿB12)10"&,/'ÿ/&ÿ(%>%+,ÿG'ÿ2FG'ÿ#"&*"#ÿ0Aÿ0/,*/&ÿ,/ÿ<$12"ÿ0Aÿ1<<"1$ÿ/&ÿ,3"ÿ2/%),ÿ21$")ÿ
1&#ÿ+23"#%$"ÿ/)1$ÿ1)>%0"&,ÿ1+ÿ+//&ÿ1+ÿ</++*K$"ÿ9/)ÿ,3"ÿ51+"ÿtTYsWsXuÿefÿgTcVia[^VTÿ^\Uca`U\^kÿ
j^YX[T^W\ÿy\TcÿaT[_ÿzgjy}ÿ:Hÿl\x\^kYÿaiÿk~\ÿ^Ve\[YVk̀ÿaiÿgTcVia[^VTÿTYÿk~\ÿl\TcÿT[k̀ÿV^ÿ
j^k\[\YkfÿR3*+ÿ;1+ÿ1K/%,ÿ0Aÿ%&"0<$/A0"&,ÿK"&"9*,+'ÿ;3*23ÿ;")"ÿ+,/$"&ÿKAÿ0Aÿ9/)0")ÿ#)%>01##*2,"#ÿ
$1;A")ÿ*&ÿ2/$$1K/)1,*/&ÿ;*,3ÿ,3"ÿ)"+</&#"&,+8ÿ1,,/)&"A+HÿR3"ÿ/)#")ÿ;1+ÿ+,10<"#ÿKAÿO5(ÿ7)"+*#*&>ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
PQRSÿRUVWÿXYZ[\]Z^ÿÿÿÿÿÿ_`abcWdeÿX\fgY\Z]ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿhijWklÿZfmZnmYZYYÿÿÿÿÿÿoUpWÿqYqÿ̀rÿqsq
!"#$%&'ÿ()*&'ÿ+,ÿ-).',ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ 01'ÿ2"3"#$ÿ45ÿ2674ÿ"89)$'ÿ:;ÿ<.ÿ=)>&1ÿ245ÿ2673ÿ288?%&)$%:*ÿ;:>ÿ2@)>9ÿ;:>ÿA>%3%*)?ÿ
B*;:><)$%:*ÿCB-DÿE:><ÿ277Fÿ5@1%&1ÿ>'8:>$'9ÿ$1'ÿ<"?$%0<%??%:*09:??)>ÿ$)Gÿ'H)#%:*ÿ)*9ÿ;>)"95ÿ%*#$')9ÿ:;ÿ
I'%*3ÿ%*&?"9'9ÿ:>ÿ&:<I%*'9ÿ@%$1ÿ$1'ÿ=)>&1ÿ245ÿ2673ÿ&?)%<5ÿJ?)%<ÿK:,ÿ2673066LM475ÿ@)#ÿ>'?)I'?'9ÿ)#ÿ
J?)%<#ÿK:,ÿ267406727745ÿ2674067274N5ÿ267406727M75ÿ)*9ÿ267406727M7Nÿ:*ÿ2"3"#$ÿ2M5ÿ2674,ÿ01'#'ÿ
@'>'ÿ9'*%'9ÿ)#ÿ@'??5ÿ@%$1:"$ÿ)*.ÿ>'H%'@ÿ:>ÿ%*H'#$%3)$%:*ÿI.ÿ$1'ÿ+OA5ÿ:*ÿA&$:I'>ÿ245ÿ2674,ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿB*.ÿ1CÿBDB
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ¡ÿ¢£¤¥¦§¤¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿ©ª«¬¡®ÿ̄¢¦°±£¦¤§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ²³́¡µ¶ÿ¤°·¤¸·£¤££ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¹º¡ÿ»£¸ÿª¼ÿ»½»
!"#$ÿ&'ÿ()*$+,-ÿ./012ÿ345ÿ6789ÿ:;<=>ÿ34?@>ÿAB;:ÿ345ÿCDEBD:5F3;0<D>5Gÿ9;B35BÿCE;33ÿHDIÿ
AJB:ÿD335:K35Gÿ3;ÿ5FGÿ:LÿIB;F@A?Hÿ35B:JFD3J;FÿHDI>?J3ÿD@DJF>3ÿ345ÿ67ÿM5@5F3>ÿJFÿ345ÿCDEBD:5F3;ÿ
7;?F3LÿC?K5BJ;Bÿ7;?B3ÿED>5ÿNOPQRSOTÿVORWXWYZÿ[\ÿ]^_ÿ̀_a_bcRÿQdÿc^_ÿebf[_PRfcgÿQdÿhOSfdQPbfOiÿ7D>5ÿ
j;kÿlmn24olnlmn44oppm3q2ÿAJH5Gÿ;Fÿr5E5:<5Bÿm2ÿ24ol2ÿ<Lÿ<LKD>>JF@ÿ345ÿs?G@5ÿKB5>JGJF@ÿ;t5Bÿ:Lÿ
ED>52ÿrDtJGÿukÿvB;IFÿAB;:ÿr5KDB3:5F3ÿplkÿw45LÿAJH5GÿDÿ:;3J;FÿA;Bÿ35B:JFD3J;Fÿ>DFE3J;Fÿ;Fÿ8E3;<5Bÿ
l2ÿ24oxÿIJ34ÿy?G@5ÿ74BJ>3;K45Bÿzkÿ{B?5@5B2ÿAB;:ÿr5KDB3:5F3ÿpmkÿy?G@5ÿ{B?5@5BÿJ>ÿDÿA;B:5Bÿ
5:KH;L55ÿ;Aÿ8BBJE|2ÿ}5BBJF@3;Fÿ~ÿC?3EHJAA5ÿ9ÿ;AÿCDFÿBDFEJ>E;2ÿA;B:5BÿC?K5BtJ>JF@ÿr5K?3Lÿ
33;BF5Lÿ5F5BDH2ÿDFGÿID>ÿE3JF@ÿC5FJ;Bÿ>>J>3DF3ÿ33;BF5Lÿ5F5BDHÿ?FG5Bÿ7DHJA;BFJDÿ33;BF5Lÿ
5F5BDHÿzG:?FGÿykÿvB;IFkÿ}5ÿID>ÿDH>;ÿ345ÿA;B:5BÿE4J5AÿG5K?3LÿH5@DHÿDAADJB>ÿ>5EB53DBLÿA;Bÿ345ÿ8AAJE5ÿ
;Aÿ;t5BF;BÿBF;HGÿCE4IDB5F5@@5Bkÿ}5ÿID>ÿDKK;JF35Gÿ3;ÿ345ÿ<5FE4ÿJFÿr5E5:<5Bÿ24o4ÿ<Lÿ
;t5BF;BÿCE4IDB5F5@@5Bÿ3;ÿ>?EE55GÿzH5FDÿykÿr?DB352ÿI4;ÿID>ÿ5H5tD35Gÿ3;ÿ>>;EJD35ÿy?>3JE5ÿJFÿ345ÿ
7;?B3ÿ;AÿKK5DHÿw4JBGÿKK5HHD35ÿrJ>3BJE3ÿlr7 2ÿI45B5ÿ{B?5@5B=>ÿIJA5ÿJ>ÿ5:KH;L5GÿD>ÿDÿC5FJ;Bÿ
M5>5DBE4ÿ33;BF5Lkÿÿ
-$ÿ()*$+,-ÿ./01ÿ*-$ÿ,+--ÿ./02ÿ345ÿ6789ÿ:;<=>ÿ34?@>ÿAB;:ÿ345ÿF;3;BJ;?>ÿ
9;B35BÿCE;33ÿHDIÿAJB:2ÿJFÿDGGJ3J;Fÿ3;ÿJFJ3JD3JF@ÿ35B:JFD3J;Fÿ>DFE3J;F>2ÿI4JE4ÿ345Lÿ5K5E35Gÿ3;ÿ;<3DJFÿ
AB;:ÿ{B?5@5B2ÿDH>;ÿD335:K35Gÿ3;ÿABD:5ÿ:5ÿA;BÿDÿ,')ÿ--'*ÿIJ34ÿy?G@5ÿ{B?5@5B=>ÿABJ5FG2ÿy?G@5ÿ
y5FFJA5Bÿ{kÿM;E|I5HHÿAB;:ÿr5K3ÿl32ÿI4;ÿ>J@F5Gÿ;Fÿj;t5:<5Bÿ32ÿ24oxÿDFÿKKHJED3J;FÿDFGÿ8BG5BÿA;Bÿ
KK5DBDFE5ÿDFGÿzD:JFD3J;Fÿ;AÿJFÿtJ;HD3J;Fÿ;Aÿ345ÿmp0GDLÿB5?JB5:5F3ÿ7JtJHÿ7;G5ÿ;Aÿ9B;E5G?B5ÿÿ
mqokoo42ÿ34xkoo42ÿ34xko242ÿ~ÿCDEBD:5F3;ÿC?K5BJ;Bÿ7;?B3ÿ;EDHÿM?H5ÿ2koÿM8ÿo322ÿJFÿKB5KDBD3J;Fÿ
A;BÿDÿ<5FE4ÿIDBBDF3kÿw45ÿKKHJED3J;FÿA;BÿKK5DBDFE5ÿDFGÿzD:JFD3J;FÿID>ÿ>?<:J335Gÿ3;ÿ345ÿ7;?B3ÿ;Fÿ
8E3;<5Bÿ2m2ÿ24ox2ÿDA35Bÿ345ÿv8ÿG5FJ5Gÿ:Lÿ?@?>3ÿl2ÿ24oxÿ?KGD35ÿ;Aÿ:LÿDBE4ÿ2l2ÿ24oÿKKHJED3J;Fÿ
A;BÿIDBGÿA;Bÿ8BJ@JFDHÿuFA;B:D3J;FÿuMCÿ;B:ÿ2ooÿj;kÿ24ox04o2ooxkÿ
ÿÿ y?G@5>ÿ{B?5@5BÿDFGÿM;E|I5HHÿ<;34ÿI;B|5GÿJFÿ345ÿ>D:5ÿ7DHJA;BFJDÿ33;BF5Lÿ5F5BDHÿ;AAJE5ÿ
<5A;B5ÿ<5JF@ÿDKK;JF35Gÿ3;ÿ345ÿ<5FE4ÿJFÿCDEBD:5F3;ÿ7;?F3LÿC?K5BJ;Bÿ7;?B3kÿÿC55ÿ345ÿlr7ÿ7D>5ÿcOc_ÿ
[\ÿSSÿ_PRQbR2ÿop2ÿ7DHkKKkm34ÿolxÿ7DHkÿ73kÿKKkÿ2443ÿ
y?HLÿl2ÿ2443kÿ
KK5DHÿAB;:ÿ345ÿC?K5BJ;Bÿ7;?B3ÿ;AÿCDEBD:5F3;ÿ7;?F3L2ÿj;kÿ4mC4ml4l2ÿMDL:;FGÿ
kÿ7DG5J2ÿy?G@5kÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
lmnoÿnqrsÿtuvwxyvzÿÿÿÿÿÿ{|}~sÿtxuxvyÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿsÿvvuvuuÿÿÿÿÿÿqsÿuÿ|ÿ
!"##ÿ$%&'()*+ÿ,--%*.)(ÿ/).)*0#+ÿ$%1"2ÿ34ÿ501*%ÿ0.6ÿ7-0&(ÿ!%1#80*)ÿ91*")+ÿ
,22"2-0.-,--%*.)(2ÿ/).)*0#+ÿ:;<=>?@A;B<ÿDEÿF<GBHB<ÿIJKÿLBJJ=MB<ÿFEÿN@OPQBRRSÿ
TBAG?UÿV??@<JBU>ÿWBJB<IR+ÿX%*ÿY#0".-"XXÿ0.6ÿ,ZZ)##0.-4ÿ
ÿÿ
[\"2ÿ6"6ÿ.%-ÿ8%*'ÿ-%ÿX*0])ÿ])ÿ02ÿ-\)ÿ^_`Yÿ]%aÿ0.-"&"Z0-)6+ÿa)&012)ÿ-\)ÿ^_`Yÿ-\1b2ÿ8)*)ÿ
&01b\-ÿ-0]Z)*".bÿ8"-\ÿ-\)ÿ06]"."2-*0-"%.ÿ%Xÿc12-"&)ÿ0X-)*ÿX"#".bÿ8"-\ÿd16b)ÿe*1)b)*ÿ".ÿf)Z0*-]).-ÿ
gh+ÿ".2-)06ÿ%Xÿd16b)ÿ!*%8.ÿ".ÿf)Z0*-]).-ÿgi4ÿ[\)(ÿ\06ÿ-%ÿ*)X"#)ÿ-\)"*ÿZ0Z)*2ÿ8"-\ÿ-\)ÿ*"b\-ÿ_%1*-ÿ
f)Z0*-]).-4ÿ[\)ÿ)j0]".0-"%.ÿX%*ÿ-\)ÿ0.-"&"Z0-)6ÿ!).&\ÿk0**0.-ÿ-\0-ÿd16b)ÿd).."X)*ÿe4ÿ3%&'8)##ÿ
X*%]ÿf)Z-ÿi3ÿ2"b.)6ÿ0#2%ÿ\06ÿ-%ÿa)ÿZ%2-Z%.)64ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
®¯°ÿ̄²³´ÿµ¶·¸¹º·»ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¼½¾¿À´ÁÂÿµ¹ÃĶ¹·ºÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÅÆḈÈÉÿ·ÃÊ·Ëʶ·¶¶ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̲ʹÿζ»ÿ½ÏÿÎÐÎ
ÿ
!"ÿ#$%&"ÿ'#()*ÿ*!%+ÿ!%+ÿ,"*-".#)"ÿ)!"ÿ/0123*ÿ+!4)"ÿ(%55#.ÿ(.4647#5*ÿ+"."ÿ)%ÿ"54647#)"ÿ6"ÿ'.%6ÿ)!"ÿ
0%8.)ÿ#7,ÿ)!"ÿ9:1ÿ$;ÿ"6-5%;47<ÿ=8,<"*ÿ>.8"<".ÿ#7,ÿ?%(@+"55ÿ)%ÿ'474*!ÿ6"Aÿ!"ÿB8<8*)ÿCDÿ2EFGÿ
8-,#)",ÿ9:1ÿ(5#46ÿ(%7)#47*ÿ6#7;ÿ,")#45*ÿ%'ÿ(%..8-)4%7ÿ47ÿ0#54'%.74#ÿH%&".76"7)ÿ#7,ÿ6#7;ÿ7#6"*ÿ
)!#)ÿ+"."ÿ&".;ÿ'#6454#.ÿ)%ÿ>.8"<".ÿ#7,ÿ?%(@+"55Dÿ,8"ÿ)%ÿ)!"4.ÿ-.4%.ÿÿ0%8.)ÿ"6-5%;6"7)ÿI*""ÿÿ
!))-*JKK+++A*(.4$,A(%6K,%(86"7)KL3M3G3CNFK2EFGEGEC0/ 002EFGEGEC0O?P0Q"+0B--54(#)4%70'%.0
B+#.,09:1005#460Q%02EFG0EF2FFG0'8550,%(86"7)RAÿ
!4*ÿ4*ÿ47ÿ(%7).#*)ÿ)%ÿ=8,<"ÿS#&4,ÿ:.%+7Dÿ+!%ÿ!#*ÿ7%ÿ@7%+7ÿ#**%(4#)4%7ÿ+4)!ÿ0#54'%.74#ÿH%&".76"7)Dÿ
)!"ÿ/74&".*4);ÿ%'ÿ0#54'%.74#ÿ"T"(8)4&"*Dÿ/0SU0Dÿ%.ÿV"..47<)%7ÿWÿP8)(54''"ÿXX2ÿ%'ÿP#7ÿY.#7(4*(%Aÿ
:.%+7ÿ,4,ÿ7%)ÿ+%.@ÿ'%.ÿ."5#)4&"*ÿ%.ÿ'.4"7,*ÿ47ÿ)!"ÿ0%8.)ÿ%'ÿB--"#5Dÿ!4.,ÿB--"55#)"ÿS4*).4()Zÿ!%+"&".Dÿ
!"ÿ(%85,ÿ7%)ÿ,%ÿ68(!ÿ47ÿ6;ÿ'4<!)ÿ#<#47*)ÿ)!"ÿ"&45ÿ(%..8-)4%7ÿ*8..%87,47<ÿ!46Aÿÿ
ÿ
\]^___ÿ̀ ÿ
bcÿdèÿ̀fg]ÿhidjfÿhgekÿldefhmÿniÿ̀opqrstquvÿw4x4yÿw4z{|ÿy4|}|{~ÿ
ÿ}zÿÿ{ÿ4ÿ}{ÿgn ÿhinf_ndideÿ\_f_gf_inÿ_nÿfkÿ
hg\_ijn_gÿhidjfeÿgg_nefÿdhÿjkknfeÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿiÿnÿoqvorquÿOÿ'45",ÿ+4)!ÿ)!"ÿ/APAÿ#Tÿ0%8.)ÿ#ÿ2")4)4%7ÿ)%ÿ#--"#5ÿ)!"ÿ1()%$".ÿ2CDÿ
2EFGÿ9:1ÿ,"(4*4%7ÿ+!4(!ÿ,"74",ÿ6;ÿB8<8*)ÿCDÿ2EFGÿ+!4*)5"$5%+".3*ÿ)#Tÿ"&#*4%7ÿ#7,ÿ'.#8,ÿ
(5#46*Dÿ786$".*ÿ2EFG0EF2FFGDÿ2EFG0EF2FCDÿ#7,ÿ2EFG0EF2FLDÿ87,".ÿOA?A0Aÿÿ3M2CI#RAÿ
ÿ!"ÿ2")4)4%7ÿ+#*ÿ,%(@")",ÿ47ÿ)!"ÿ/APAÿ#Tÿ0%8.)ÿ#*ÿÿÿÿ¡ÿ¢££¤¤¥ÿ¦ÿ
§¥̈ÿ©¥¥¥ÿP".&4("Dÿ/APAÿ#Tÿ0%8.)ÿ0#*"ÿQ%Aÿ2CFEN0FGÿ9AÿO7ÿ6;ÿ2")4)4%7ÿOÿ+.%)"ÿJÿ
ÿ
!"ÿO?PÿYOQBXÿSª0OPO1Qÿ/QSª?ÿPª0 O1Qÿ3M2CI#Rÿ,#)",ÿ1()%$".ÿ2CDÿ2EFGÿ
,%"*ÿ7%)ÿ(%.."*-%7,"7)ÿ+4)!ÿ)!"ÿ'#()*Dÿ
#7,ÿ)!"ÿ5#+ÿ9#*«(«8@ÿ-.%&4,",ÿ)%ÿ)!"ÿO?Pÿ9!4*)5"ÿ:5%+".ÿ1''4("ÿ47ÿ!4*ÿ
B--54(#)4%7*ÿ'%.ÿB+#.,ÿ%'ÿ2EFMÿ#7,ÿ2EFGÿ
Q%)!47<ÿ+#*ÿ*-"(85#)4&"ÿ47ÿ)!"ÿ9#*«(«8@¬*ÿB--54(#)4%7*ÿ'%.ÿB+#.,Aÿ
Y8.)!".ÿ"T-5#7#)4%7ÿ%'ÿ)!"ÿ,4*#<.""6"7)ÿ+4)!ÿO?Pÿ9!4*)5"$5%+".ÿ1''4("ÿ
S")".647#)4%7ÿ47ÿ#,,4)4%7#5ÿ-#<"*0#,,"7,86ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿB*Cÿ1DÿBCB
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¡¢£ÿ¢¥¦§ÿ̈©ª«¬ª®ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̄°±²³§´µÿ̈¬¶·©¬ªÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̧¹º§»¼ÿª¶½ª¾½©ª©©ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¿¥À§ÿÁ©¶ÿ°ÂÿÁÃÁ
ÿ!"ÿ$%&%'(%)ÿ*+,ÿ+-*./ÿ0ÿ12234535ÿ263ÿ7819ÿ18:;<342ÿ6318=4:ÿ=4ÿ263ÿ>1?81<3427ÿ@7;82ÿ7AÿBCC319/ÿ
D6=85ÿBCC399123ÿE=F28=?2ÿ=4ÿ263ÿ?1F3FÿGHIJKLHMÿOHKPQPRSÿTUÿVHLWXJIYWHÿZY[\]LJ^\[Y_ÿ̀YKRIHYQ[ÿa]][HLÿ
bJHIcÿdVZ`abeÿfgÿh[i[Y_KÿJXÿ_j[ÿZYWT[IKW_^ÿJXÿVHLWXJIYWHÿHKÿ_j[ÿh[HLÿkHI_^ÿWYÿ`Y_[I[K_/ÿl4m2nolm
pnnnoqrrm@stuvE>/ÿD63ÿ@7;82ÿ7AÿBCC319F/ÿlE@B/ÿOHKPQPRSÿTUÿVZ`abÿ@1F3ÿw7gÿ@n3r2x4/ÿ145ÿ
@19=A784=1ÿ>;C83<3ÿ@7;82ÿ?1F3FÿOHKPQPRSÿTUÿVZ`abÿ>2xl3olÿ145ÿ>24xp3rgÿD63ÿ7819ÿ18:;<342ÿy1Fÿ
1z7;2ÿF27934ÿ;43<C97{<342ÿ=4F;814?3ÿz343A=2Fÿy6=?6ÿy383ÿ83=4F21235ÿz{ÿ263ÿ@19=A784=1ÿ|<C97{<342ÿ
E3f397C<342ÿE3C182<342ÿ=4ÿu1{ÿ2no4ÿz;2ÿ2634ÿF27934ÿz{ÿ<{ÿ58;:0155=?235ÿ}47yÿA78<38~ÿ1227843{ÿ=4ÿ
?7991z7812=74ÿy=26ÿ263ÿs@ÿ<7zFÿ91y{38FÿA87<ÿ263ÿs@ÿv343819ÿ@7;4F39ÿAA=?3ÿ145ÿ263ÿ@19=A784=1ÿ
B227843{ÿv343819ÿAA=?3gÿÿ
ÿ!"ÿ")ÿ+,ÿ+-*/ÿ0ÿA=935ÿ=4ÿ@19=A784=1ÿ>;C83<3ÿ@7;82ÿ1ÿ32=2=74ÿA78ÿ3f=3yÿ=4ÿ263ÿ1z7f3ÿ?1F3ÿz{ÿ
1CC319=4:ÿ263ÿE3?3<z38ÿ23/ÿ2nopÿ;4C;z9=F635ÿ7C=4=74ÿOHKPQPRSÿTUÿVHLUÿZY[\]LJ^\[Y_ÿ̀YKUÿa]][HLKÿ
bcUÿw7gÿ@n3r2x4ÿ}@19gÿ@2gÿBCCgÿE3?gÿ23/ÿ2nop~gÿÿ
ÿD63ÿ?1F3ÿy1Fÿ57?3235ÿ=4ÿ263ÿ>;C83<3ÿ@7;82ÿ1FÿOHKPQPRSÿTUÿVHLUÿZY[\]LJ^\[Y_ÿ̀YKUÿa]][HLKÿbcUÿw7ÿ
>2xl3olÿÿÿ)ÿ& ÿ"ÿ"ÿÿ)%ÿ"ÿ$$,ÿ
622CFyyygF?8=z5g?7<57?;<34243qp23noxsD@02norno2r0@19=A784=10>;C83<30@7;82032=2=740
A7803f=3y0@1F30w70>2xl3ol~gÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¢£¤¥ÿ¤§¨©ÿª«¬®¯¬°ÿÿÿÿÿÿ±²³´µ©¶·ÿª®¸¹«®¬¯ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿº»¼©½¾ÿ¬¸¿¬À¿«¬««ÿÿÿÿÿÿÁ§Â©ÿÃìÿ²ÄÿÃÅÃ
ÿ
!"ÿ#$%ÿ&'(%)ÿ*%##%)ÿ'+ÿ,-ÿ./0/02/1ÿ2%#3#3'"ÿ+')ÿ4%(3%5ÿ678,3##%9ÿ#'ÿ#$%ÿ:;*3+')"3;ÿ<7=)%,%ÿ:'7)#ÿ
;==%;*3">ÿ#$%ÿ?%&%,8%)ÿ23@ÿ2./1ÿ7"=78*36$%9ÿ'=3"3'"ÿABCDEDFGÿIJÿKBLJÿMNOPQLRSPONTÿUNCJÿVQQOBLCÿ
WXJYÿZ'[ÿ:.3\24]ÿ^:;*[ÿ:#[ÿ_==[ÿ?%&[ÿ23@ÿ2./1`@ÿ!ÿ3"3#3;**-ÿ67,,;)3a%9ÿ#$%ÿ?%&%,8%)ÿ/2@ÿ2./1ÿb);*ÿ
_)>7,%"#6ÿ;6ÿ+'**'56cÿÿ
2*%;6%ÿ"'#%ÿ#$;#@ÿ'"ÿ?%&%,8%)ÿ/2@ÿ2./1@ÿ5$%"ÿ!ÿ;)>7%9ÿ,-ÿ&;6%@ÿdÿfghÿhijÿ
klmnjookgpÿhiqhÿjkhijnÿhijÿrijnksstoÿujmqnhljphÿgnÿhijÿvkhwÿgsÿ
rqxnqljphgÿygzkxjÿujmqnhljphÿiq{ÿoiqnmoigghjnoÿgpÿnggsoÿqng|p{ÿhijÿ
}uv~ÿxg|nhÿ|kz{kpfÿijÿxg|nhÿqoÿnjojnj{ÿsgnÿljÿgpzwÿgpÿhiqhÿ{qwÿ
Z'ÿ'"%ÿ5;6ÿ#$%)%ÿ%3#$%)ÿ8%+')%@ÿ97)3">@ÿ')ÿ;+#%)ÿ');*ÿ;)>7,%"#6ÿ3"ÿ,-ÿ&;6%ÿ
8%639%6ÿ,-6%*+ÿ;"9ÿ,-ÿ+'),%)ÿ&'5')%)[ÿ!#ÿ5;6ÿ73#%ÿ3"#3,39;#3">ÿ;"9ÿ6&;)-[ÿ
!"ÿ;993#3'"@ÿ'"ÿ_7>76#ÿ21@ÿ2./3@ÿ2')#%)ÿ<&'##ÿ_##')"%-ÿ?;(39ÿ7)%##@ÿ5$'ÿ
36ÿ)%=)%6%"#3">ÿ:ÿ4%>%"#6@ÿ;##%,=#%9ÿ#'ÿ=)'('%ÿ,%ÿ3"#'ÿ;ÿ=$-63&;*ÿ
&'"+)'"#;#3'"[ÿ!ÿ3"+'),%9ÿ#$%ÿ:'7)#ÿ;8'7#ÿ#$36ÿ3"ÿ,-ÿ2%#3#3'"ÿ+')ÿ;ÿ4%$%;)3">ÿ
^:;6%ÿ:.3\42]ÿ<7=)%,%ÿ:'7)#ÿ:;6%ÿ<2]44.1`@ÿ87#ÿ"'#$3">ÿ5;6ÿ9'"%ÿ;8'7#ÿ
3#[ÿÿ
ÿ
$%ÿ:;*3+')"3;ÿ?%=7#-ÿ_##')"%-ÿ%"%);*ÿÿ_6$;"#%ÿZ')#'"ÿÿ;663>"%9ÿ#'ÿ#$%ÿ&;6%ÿ3"ÿ;)&$ÿ2./]ÿ8-ÿ_ÿ
;,;*;ÿ;))36ÿ939ÿ"'#ÿ6$'5ÿ7=ÿ+')ÿ');*ÿ;)>7,%"#6[ÿ$%ÿ7"=78*36$%9ÿ'=3"3'"ÿ5;6ÿ9%*3(%)%9ÿ'"ÿ
?%&%,8%)ÿ23@ÿ2./1ÿ8-ÿ?:_ÿ_66'&3;#%ÿ76#3&%ÿ*;";ÿ?7;)#%@ÿ5$'ÿ97)3">ÿ#$%ÿ');*ÿ;)>7,%"#ÿ5;6ÿ
;))'>;"#ÿ;"9ÿ7"=)'+%663'";*[ÿÿ
!"ÿ#$%ÿ2%#3#3'"ÿ+')ÿ4%(3%5ÿ3#6%*+@ÿ!ÿ+7)#$%)ÿ9%6&)38%9ÿ,-ÿ%=%)3%"&%6ÿ53#$ÿ79>%6ÿ;"9ÿ76#3&%6ÿ+)',ÿ#$%ÿ
<;&);,%"#'ÿ:'7)#6ÿ;6ÿ+'**'56cÿÿ
;6a&a7ÿ;='*'>3a%6ÿ#'ÿ#$%ÿ<7=)%,%ÿ:'7)#ÿ76#3&%6ÿ#$;#ÿ#$36ÿ2%#3#3'"ÿ
+')ÿ4%(3%5ÿ3"ÿ6',%ÿ=;)#6ÿ6'7"96ÿ,')%ÿ*3%ÿ;ÿ&',=*;3"#ÿ53#$ÿ#$%ÿ<#;#%ÿ
'+ÿ:;*3+')"3;ÿ:',,3663'"ÿ'"ÿ793&3;*ÿ2%)+'),;"&%ÿ;>;3"6#ÿ63ÿ?:_ÿ
76#3&%6ÿ);#$%)ÿ#$;"ÿ;ÿ)%7%6#ÿ+')ÿ)%(3%5ÿ'+ÿ;6a&a7ÿ&;6%ÿ[ÿ
ÿ
!"ÿ#$%ÿ&$;=#%)ÿ#3#*%9cÿijÿohgnwÿjikp{ÿykktoÿkhxiÿi|phÿqfqkpohÿqox|ÿkpÿÿqp{ÿkpÿ
ÿ'"ÿ=;>%6ÿ\¡/2ÿ'+ÿ#$%ÿ=%#3#3'"@ÿ!ÿ8)3%+%9ÿ#$%ÿ<7=)%,%ÿ:'7)#ÿ'"ÿ5$-ÿ!ÿ$;9ÿ8%&',%ÿ#$%ÿ678%&#ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
yz{|ÿ{~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ~ÿ ÿÿ
!"ÿ#ÿ$%&'()**ÿ#+,ÿ-)$./()**ÿ0/&.'ÿ'%+&ÿ!$.')*&$#&),ÿ12ÿ&')ÿ34567*ÿ0'/&)ÿ.!((#$ÿ.$/-/+#(*ÿ#+,ÿ&')/$ÿ
.!((#1!$#&!$*ÿ#*ÿ"!((!0*8ÿ
9!ÿ.%&ÿ#ÿ(!+:ÿ*&!$2ÿ*'!$&;ÿ<#*=.=%>ÿ0#*ÿ'/$),ÿ12ÿ?6//ÿ/+ÿ@%+)ÿABBBÿ#*ÿ#+ÿ!C)$#&!$ÿ
/+ÿ&')ÿ+)0(2ÿ.!--/**/!+),ÿ23ÿD<ÿ.!:)+)$#&/!+ÿC(#+&ÿ0'/.'ÿ&$/::)$),ÿ/+ÿÿD#2ÿ
2EEE;ÿ#ÿ*!C'/*&/.#&),ÿ#+,ÿ.!*&(2ÿ"$#%,%()+&ÿ*.')-)ÿ.#((),ÿF&')ÿ4#(/"!$+/#ÿG+)$:2ÿ
4$/*/*HIÿ9')ÿ34ÿJ#K/*ÿD),/.#(ÿ4)+&)$ÿL34JD4MÿC(#+&ÿ/+ÿ0'/.'ÿ<#*=.=%>ÿ0#*ÿ
)-C(!2),ÿ0#*ÿ*!()(2ÿ1%/(&ÿ&!ÿ/(():#((2ÿ*)((ÿC!0)$ÿ&#N0"$))ÿ#&ÿ.!*&ÿ!"ÿ4#(/"!$+/#ÿÿ
$#&)C#2)$*ÿ#+,ÿ&#NÿC#2)$*Iÿ9')ÿ4#(/"!$+/#ÿG+)$:2ÿ4$/*/*ÿ0#*ÿ.$)#&),ÿ/+ÿ#ÿ
*!C'/*&/.#&),ÿ0#2ÿ12ÿ&')ÿ#%&'!$*ÿ#+,ÿ.!#%&'!$*ÿ!"ÿ&')ÿABB4ÿO**)-1(2ÿP/((ÿAQBEÿ
LFOPÿAQBEHÿ!$ÿFG().&$/./&2ÿ?)*&$%.&%$/+:ÿO.&HMÿ#+,ÿ&')ÿO.&ÿ!"ÿR)C&)-1)$ÿ2S;ÿABB4;ÿ
ABB4ÿ4#(IÿT):/*IÿR)$KIÿQUVÿLOIPIÿAQBEMÿL<)*&MIÿ9'/*ÿ0#*ÿ*/:+),ÿ/+&!ÿ(#0ÿ12ÿ
W!K)$+!$ÿ 6)&)ÿ </(*!+Iÿ "&C8XX000I():/+"!I.#I:!KXC%1XBU0
B4X1/((X#*-X#1AQUAABEEX#1AQBE1/((B4EB2V.'#C&)$),I'&-ÿ
9!ÿ-#>)ÿ&')ÿ"$#%,%()+&ÿ*.')-)ÿ,)K)(!C),ÿ12ÿ&')ÿOPÿAQBEÿ*%..)**"%(;ÿ&')ÿ
4#(/"!$+/#ÿW!K)$+-)+&ÿ/+ÿ.$)#&),ÿ#ÿY!/+&ÿK)+&%$)ÿ/+ÿABBQÿ1)&0))+ÿ&')ÿ3+/K)$*/&2ÿ!"ÿ
4#(/"!$+/#;ÿ4#(/"!$+/#ÿR&#&)ÿ3+/K)$*/&2;ÿG+$!+ÿ4!$C!$#&/!+;ÿ4#(/"!$+/#ÿZ+,)C)+,)+&ÿ
R2*&)-ÿ5C)$#&!$ÿL4OZR5M;ÿ#+,ÿ4#(/"!$+/#ÿ6!0)$ÿGN.'#+:)ÿL4#(6[M;ÿ,)*/:+),ÿ&!ÿ
(#%+,)$ÿ)().&$/./&2ÿK/#ÿ&')ÿ34ÿ#+,ÿ4R3ÿ.#-C%*)*ÿ#&ÿ:!%:),ÿ!$ÿ!K)$.'#$:),ÿC$/.)*ÿ
12ÿ%*/+:ÿ*!C'/*&/.#&),ÿ)\%/C-)+&Iÿ]^_ÿabc^dcÿefÿgh^i_ÿjkl_hmÿni^oi^b_dipÿh_ÿbqfÿ
4#*)ÿr!Iÿ4EV44QS;ÿ./&),ÿ#*ÿSJ4Oÿ4#*)8ÿsASEÿ4#(IOCCIV&'ÿVVE;ÿSEÿ4#(I?C&$IS,ÿ
2AEtIÿÿ
'&&C*8XX.#*)(#0I"/+,(#0I.!-X.#0.!%$&0!"0#CC)#(XASU23QUI'&-(ÿ
6$/!$ÿ&!ÿ0!$>/+:ÿ"!$ÿ&')ÿ3+/K)$*/&2ÿ!"ÿ4#(/"!$+/#ÿ34ÿJ#K/*ÿD),/.#(ÿ4)+&)$;ÿ
<#*=.=%>ÿ0#*ÿ)-C(!2),ÿ12ÿG+$!+7*ÿ.!-C)&/&!$;ÿ&')ÿJ2+):2ÿ6!0)$ÿ4!$C;ÿ"$!-ÿ
ABQBÿ&!ÿu)1$%#$2ÿABBQÿ#*ÿ#+ÿ!C)$#&!$ÿ/+ÿ&')/$ÿUEÿD<ÿ.!:)+)$#&/!+ÿC(#+&;ÿ0'/.'ÿ/*ÿ
*/-/(#$ÿ&!ÿ&')ÿ34JD4ÿC(#+&Iÿÿ
u!$-)$ÿO&&!$+)2ÿW)+)$#(ÿP/((ÿT!.>2)$ÿ,)*.$/1),ÿ<#*=.=%>7*ÿC$)K/!%*ÿ)-C(!2)$ÿ
J2+):2ÿ#*ÿ#ÿ!+)ÿ&')ÿFu!%$ÿv!$*)-)+ÿ!"ÿ&')ÿOC!.#(2C*)ÿ0'!ÿ$!,)ÿ/+ÿ"$!-ÿ9)N#*ÿ
#+,ÿ$#+ÿ$!%:'*'!,ÿ!K)$ÿ4#(/"!$+/#ÿ.!+*%-)$*;ÿ&#NC#2)$*ÿ#+,ÿ1%*/+)**)*IHÿÿ
'&&C*8XX!#:I.#I:!KX+)0*XC$)**0$)()#*)*X#&&!$+)20:)+)$#(0(!.>2)$0#++!%+.)*0V4E0
-/((/!+0*)&&()-)+&0$)(/#+&0$)*!(K)0)+)$:2ÿ
P)&0))+ÿABQBÿ#+,ÿABB3ÿJ2+):2ÿ6!0)$ÿ4!$C!$#&/!+ÿ,)"$#%,),ÿ6WwG;ÿ$#&)C#2)$*ÿ
#+,ÿ4#(/"!$+/#ÿ&#NC#2)$*ÿ!"ÿx2VE;EEE;EEEIÿ
"&C8XX"&C2I.C%.I.#I:!KXT):#.24634J)./*/!+*O+,?)*!(%&/!+*XJ)./*/!+*XJ)./*/!+
*JBBEAEEA&!JEEE4EB2XJBBAEEA4ABBBAEE3OBBEVEEBIC,"ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
xyz{ÿz}~ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ}ÿÿÿ
ÿ!"#$%&'#!ÿ()*"#+ÿ,-#"#-#./ÿ %00#//#%'ÿ0ÿ1(23213ÿ13ÿ2444ÿ533,56ÿ
7853927213ÿ 197ÿ(81 ::;23<ÿ;.+#/#%'ÿ4=04204>3ÿ?.*&)!&@ÿ23Aÿ244=ÿ
B--CDEEF%+/G+C)+G+!GH%IE()*"#/B.F;%+/EJ18;K(;?E?2356K;: 29213E2>LMNG
(;?ÿ
2Gÿ;#/C)-.Fÿ/.--".0.'-ÿ+%/-/ÿ%$ÿOLM>ANP4ÿ#'ÿ-B.ÿQRSTUVRWÿÿYRUZ[\]ÿ^_ÿ̀abcÿ+!/.ÿ
!&.ÿd)!"#$@#'Hÿ?!+#"#-@ÿed?fÿ&."!-.Fÿ+%/-/ÿ!'Fÿ!CC&%C&#!-."@ÿ&.+%&F.Fÿ#'ÿ-B.ÿ7 g5Gÿ
2'ÿ244>Aÿg#""ÿ6%+h@.&i/ÿj !"#$%&'#!ÿ(!&-#./kÿ!'Fÿ!"#$%&'#!ÿ:'.&H@ÿ7!/hÿ?%&+.ÿH%-ÿ
!ÿh#+h0*!+hÿ$&%0ÿ;@'.H@ÿ(%l.&ÿ+%&C%&!-#%'ÿ!0%)'-#'Hÿ-%ÿO2N4A444A444ÿ!'Fÿ#'ÿ
244mÿ#-ÿ&.+.#I.FÿO>P4A444A444ÿ$&%0ÿ8."#!'-ÿ:'.&H@Gÿg#""ÿ6%+h@.&ÿ+!/B.Fÿ%)-ÿ
!CC&%n#0!-."@ÿO24A444A444ÿ$%&ÿB#/ÿ%$$#+./ÿ#'ÿ!"#$%&'#!Gÿÿ
7B.ÿo!@%&ÿ%$ÿ6!ÿo./!ÿ5&-ÿo!F&#Fÿ!'FÿB#/ÿ".H!"ÿ-.!0ÿ!"0%/-ÿ/%"I.Fÿ-B.ÿC)pp".ÿ
+!"".Fÿj7B.ÿ!"#$%&'#!ÿ:'.&H@ÿ&#/#/Gkÿq%l.I.&Aÿ-B.#&ÿ.$$%&-ÿ*.+!0.ÿj!ÿ0#//#%'ÿ
#0C%//#*".kÿlB.'ÿB#/ÿ+%0C"!#'-/ÿ!H!#'/-ÿ 5291ÿ!'Fÿ(.&%-ÿ %&C%&!-#%'ÿl.&.ÿ
-&!'/$.&&.Fÿ-%ÿ-B.ÿ9!+&!0.'-%ÿ %)'-@ÿ9)C.&#%&ÿ %)&-ÿ!'Fÿ-B.ÿ %)&-ÿ%$ÿ5CC.!"Aÿ
7B#&Fÿ5CC.""!-.ÿ;#/-&#+-Gÿ2'ÿ5C&#"ÿ2443AÿJ!/p+p)hÿl!/ÿ!*&)C-"@ÿ&.0%I.Fÿ$&%0ÿ-B.ÿ
, ÿ;!I#/ÿo.F#+!"ÿ.'-.&ÿ23ÿoJÿ+%H.'.&!-#%'ÿC"!'-ÿ!'Fÿl!/ÿ&.C"!+.Fÿ*@ÿ!ÿ=30
@.!&0%"Fÿ$&#.'Fÿ%$ÿJ!/p+p)hi/ÿ/)C.&I#/%&Aÿ9-.I.ÿo+<&!-BGÿ7B&..ÿ@.!&/ÿ"!-.&Aÿ-B#/ÿ
0!'ÿl!/ÿ$%)'FÿF.!FAÿB!'H#'Hÿ$&%0ÿ!ÿ-&..ÿ#'ÿ8!'+B%ÿ %&F%I!ÿ(!&hGÿ7B.ÿ-l%ÿ
;#&.+-%&/ÿ%$ÿ, ;o Aÿ8%*.&-ÿ7!@"%&ÿ!'Fÿ;#&.+-%&ÿ;&Gÿ9B."-%'ÿ;)&)#//.!)Aÿ!&.ÿ
!//)0.Fÿ-%ÿ*.ÿ*.B#'Fÿ-B.ÿr%*ÿ&.C"!+.0.'-ÿ$%&ÿJ!/p+p)hÿ*@ÿ!'ÿ)'s)!"#$#.FÿC.&/%'ÿ
!'Fÿ*.B#'Fÿ-B.ÿ24LLt24L2ÿl#-+BÿB)'-ÿ!/ÿl.""Gÿÿ
5ÿ/.+%'Fÿ/)#+#F.ÿ%++)&&.FÿlB.'ÿ-B.ÿl#$.ÿ%$ÿ-B.ÿ/!0.ÿ/)C.&I#/%&Aÿ9-.I.ÿo+<&!-BAÿ
!ÿ>L0@.!&0%"Fÿ83ÿ3)&/.ÿ$&%0ÿu!+h/%'ÿq%/C#-!"Aÿ-%%hÿB.&ÿ%l'ÿ"#$.Gÿÿ
5'%-B.&ÿ/)FF.'ÿ!'Fÿ0@/-.&#%)/ÿF.!-BAÿ!CC!&.'-"@ÿ&."!-.Fÿ-%ÿ-B.ÿl#-+BÿB)'-ÿ!H!#'/-ÿ
J!/p+p)hÿ!'Fÿ-B.ÿ#"".H!"ÿ/!".ÿ%$ÿC%l.&Aÿl!/ÿ-B.ÿF.!-Bÿ%$ÿ, ÿ;!I#/ÿB!'+.""%&ÿ
:0.&#-)/Aÿ6!&&@ÿv!'F.&B%%$AÿlB%ÿF#.Fÿ#'ÿ-B.ÿ, ÿ;!I#/ÿo.F#+!"ÿ.'-.&ÿ%'ÿ1+-%*.&ÿ
LmAÿ24LmAÿ-l%ÿF!@/ÿ!$-.&ÿJ!/p+p)hÿ$#".FÿB#/ÿ1CC%/#-#%'ÿ-%ÿ-B.ÿ;.$.'F!'-/iÿo%-#%'ÿ
$%&ÿ5)-%0!-#+ÿ9-!@Aÿ%&ÿ-B.ÿ5"-.&'!-#I.ÿo%-#%'ÿ$%&ÿ!ÿ;#/+&.-#%'!&@ÿ9-!@Gÿ7B#/ÿl!/ÿ
$#".Fÿ%'ÿ1+-%*.&ÿL=Aÿ24Lmÿe815ÿwLLLfGÿe9..ÿJ!/p+p)hi/ÿ24LPÿ".--.&ÿ!FF&.//.Fÿ-%ÿ
%'H&.//0!'ÿu%B'ÿ<!&!0.'F#fÿ
B--C/DEElllG/+&#*FG+%0EF%+)0.'-E=M4mLLPMME920220,0909.'!-%&0<!&!0.'F#0
, 0;!I#/0B!'+.""%&06!&&@0v!'F.&B%.$ÿ
7B.ÿ*&)-!"ÿ!'Fÿ0.&+#".//ÿl#-+BÿB)'-/ÿ!H!#'/-ÿJ!/p+p)hAÿ$%&ÿ'%ÿ!CC!&.'-ÿ&.!/%'ÿ
lB!-/%.I.&Aÿ+%/-ÿ-B.ÿ,'#I.&/#-@ÿ%$ÿ!"#$%&'#!ÿ%&ÿ-B.ÿ%l'.&/ÿ%$ÿ-B.ÿ, ;o ÿ23ÿoJÿ
+%H.'.&!-#%'ÿ"%//./ÿ%$ÿ!CC&%n#0!-."@ÿOL44A444A444ÿ#'ÿ&.I.').Aÿ-!n0$&..AÿF).ÿ-%ÿ!ÿ
"!+hÿ%$ÿ/)&C")/ÿC%l.&ÿ$%&ÿ/!".ÿ/#'+.ÿ?.*&)!&@ÿ244MG2'ÿ5C&#"ÿ2443ÿ8.H.'-/ÿ!*&)C-"@ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
^_`aÿ̀cdeÿfghijkhlÿÿÿÿÿÿmnopqersÿfjtugjhkÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿvwxeyzÿht{h|{ghggÿÿÿÿÿÿ}c~eÿÿnÿ
!"#$%"&ÿ'()*+*,-ÿ.!$#ÿ/0"ÿ+$1"2"!(/3$2ÿ.(+343/5ÿ/0(2ÿÿ32ÿÿ6"7!,(!5ÿ2889:ÿ;"1"2/)ÿ
)312"&ÿ(ÿ<!3//"2ÿ="//4"#"2/ÿ>1!""#"2/ÿ<3/0ÿ'()*+*,-ÿ(2&ÿ+"()"&ÿ/0"ÿ"?@$!/ÿ$.ÿ
@$<"!ÿ.!$#ÿ/0"ÿABCDBÿ@4(2/ÿEÿ'()*+*,-ÿ<()ÿ2$/ÿ(<(!"ÿ(7$,/ÿ,2/34ÿF,2"ÿ0F,45ÿ
28GHEÿÿ
I0"ÿ+()"ÿ3)ÿ@"2&321ÿ32ÿ/0"ÿAE=ÿI(?ÿB$,!/ÿ32ÿ!"4(/3$2ÿ/$ÿ/0"ÿ(7$%"ÿ#(//"!ÿEÿÿ
I0"ÿ2889ÿ="//4"#"2/ÿ>1!""#"2/ÿ<3/0ÿ/0"ÿ;"1"2/)ÿ$.ÿA23%"!)3/5ÿ$.ÿB(43.$!23(ÿ+$)/ÿ
'()*+*,-ÿ(/ÿ4"()/ÿJG:888:888ÿ32ÿ4$))ÿ32ÿ32+$#":ÿ<034"ÿ03)ÿ0$,)"ÿ(2&ÿ43."ÿ<"!"ÿ
&"+3#(/"&ÿ75ÿABÿ1(21)/"!)ÿ(2&ÿ/0"ÿB(43.$!23(ÿF,)/3+"ÿ=5)/"#Eÿÿ
K2ÿ!"4(/3$2ÿ/$ÿ/0"ÿB(43.$!23(ÿL2"!15ÿB!3)3)ÿ@,**4":ÿ'()*+*,-ÿ<!$/"ÿ32ÿ03)ÿ>,1,)/ÿ
28G4ÿ!"@$!/:ÿ()ÿ),7#3//"&ÿ/$ÿ/0"ÿ2"<ÿ6MKÿ=@"+3(4ÿ>1"2/ÿ32ÿB0(!1"ÿ$.ÿ/0"ÿ
=(+!(#"2/$ÿ6MKÿN..3+"ÿD!Eÿ="(2ÿ;(1(2ÿÿ
ÿ
OÿK/ÿ3)ÿ)/344ÿ,2-2$<2ÿ<0"/0"!ÿ/0"ÿ2888Q288Rÿ)$@03)/3+(/"&ÿ)+0"#"ÿ$.ÿ.!(,&ÿ
(2&ÿ&"+"@/3$2:ÿ<03+0ÿ<()ÿ4(7"4"&ÿ/0"ÿSB(43.$!23(ÿL2"!15ÿB!3)3)Tÿ(2&ÿ<03+0ÿ
+(,)"&ÿ4$))")ÿ/$ÿ/0"ÿB(43.$!23(ÿ"+$2$#5ÿ$.ÿU8ÿ73443$2ÿ&$44(!)ÿ<()ÿ
&"437"!(/"45ÿ)(7$/(1"&ÿ75ÿ@$<"!01!""&5ÿ+$!@$!(/3$2)ÿ/$ÿ#(-"ÿ73443$2)ÿ$.ÿ
&$44(!)ÿ75ÿ4(,2&"!321ÿ#"1(<(//):ÿ$!ÿ<0"/0"!ÿ/0"ÿ#(20#(&"ÿS"2"!15ÿ+!3)3)Tÿ
<()ÿ(ÿ+$$!&32(/"&ÿ(+/ÿ$.ÿ/"!!$!ÿ)52+0!$23*"&ÿ<3/0ÿ/0"ÿ="@/"#7"!ÿGG:ÿ288Gÿ
/"!!$!3)/ÿ(//(+-ÿ$2ÿA=ÿ)$34EÿI03)ÿ<()ÿ(++$#@(23"&ÿ75ÿ32/"2)3.3"&ÿ/"!!$!3)/ÿ
(//(+-)ÿ(1(32)/ÿ/0"ÿA23/"&ÿ=/(/")ÿ(7!$(&ÿ&,!321ÿ/0"ÿ@"!3$&ÿ$.ÿ/0"ÿB(43.$!23(ÿ
"4"+/!3+3/5ÿ&"!"1,4(/3$2ÿ(2&ÿ/0"ÿB(43.$!23(ÿL2"!15ÿB!3)3)Eÿÿ
Oÿ'0"/0"!ÿ(ÿ.$!"312ÿ/"!!$!3)/ÿ2"/<$!-ÿ$!ÿ(ÿ.$!"312ÿ@$<"!ÿ@"2"/!(/"&ÿ$!ÿ
32.34/!(/"&ÿ/0"ÿB(43.$!23(ÿK2&"@"2&"2/ÿ=5)/"#ÿN@"!(/$!ÿVB>K=NW:ÿ/0"ÿ
B(43.$!23(ÿX$<"!ÿL?+0(21"ÿVB(4XYW:ÿ/0"ÿA23%"!)3/5ÿ$.ÿB(43.$!23(ÿ(2&ÿ/0"ÿ
B(43.$!23(2ÿ1$%"!2#"2/ÿ&,!321ÿ/0"ÿ@!$+"))ÿ$.ÿ/0"ÿB(43.$!23(ÿ"4"+/!3+3/5ÿ
#(!-"/ÿ&"!"1,4(/3$2ÿ$.ÿG99ZQG994:ÿ(2&ÿ<0"/0"!ÿ/03)ÿ<()ÿ&$2"ÿ/$ÿ&")/(7343*"ÿ
/0"ÿB(43.$!23(2ÿ(2&ÿA=ÿ"+$2$#5ÿ75ÿ#(23@,4(/321ÿ/0"ÿ"4"+/!3+3/5ÿ#(!-"/ÿ32ÿ
/0"ÿ'")/"!2ÿ)/(/")ÿ@$<"!ÿ1!3&:ÿ3)ÿ/0"ÿ[,")/3$2ÿ/0(/ÿ)0$,4&ÿ7"ÿ()-"&ÿ(2&ÿ
(2)<"!"&ÿ75ÿ/0"ÿ6MKEÿ>ÿU8073443$20&$44(!ÿ4$))ÿ75ÿ/0"ÿB(43.$!23(2ÿ"+$2$#5ÿ
(2&ÿB(43.$!23(\)ÿ!(/"ÿ@(5"!)ÿ(2&ÿ/(?ÿ@(5"!)ÿ3)ÿ2$/ÿ)#(44ÿ+0(21"ÿ7,/ÿ(2ÿ
"2$!#$,)ÿ(#$,2/ÿ$.ÿ#$2"5ÿ<03+0ÿ&3)(@@"(!"&ÿ(2&ÿ<()ÿ2"%"!ÿ!"+$%"!"&Eÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤¥ÿ¦§¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿ̈©ÿªªÿ«ÿª¬ª
!"ÿ#$%&'ÿ(4)2*+ÿ,ÿ$--.&''&-ÿ/0&ÿ#&/1/12"ÿ32.ÿ4&51&6ÿ78ÿ9:'/1;&ÿ<:$./&+ÿ602ÿ-&=15&.&-ÿ/0&ÿ:"#:7=1'0&-ÿ
2#1"12"ÿ2"ÿ<&;&>7&.ÿ23+ÿ2*(?ÿ1"ÿ@ABCDCEFÿHIÿJAKIÿLMNOPKQRONMSÿTMBIÿUPPNAKBÿVWIXÿY2Zÿ[*342\]ÿ
^[$=Zÿ[/Zÿ_##Zÿ<&;Zÿ23+ÿ2*(?`Zÿ
,/ÿ6$'ÿ"2ÿ;21";1-&";&ÿ/0$/ÿ9:'/1;&ÿ<:$./&ÿ6$'ÿ;02'&"ÿ32.ÿ/01'ÿ-1./8ÿa27ÿ1"/&"-&-ÿ/2ÿ
0$.>ÿb$'c;c:dZÿe0&ÿ;$:%0/ÿb$'c;c:df'ÿ$//&"/12"ÿ7&;$:'&ÿ'0&ÿ6$'ÿ&>#=28&-ÿ3.2>ÿ
2***ÿ/2ÿ2**3ÿ1"ÿ/0&ÿg2'ÿ_"%&=&'ÿ!331;&ÿ23ÿ/0&ÿh"1/&-ÿe/$/&'ÿ_//2."&8+ÿ60&.&ÿ'0&ÿ
62.d&-ÿ$'ÿ$"ÿ_''1'/$"/ÿh"1/&-ÿe/$/&'ÿ_//2."&8+ÿ31.'/ÿ1"ÿ/0&ÿi$a2.ÿj.$:-'ÿe&;/12"ÿ
$"-ÿ=$/&.ÿ1"ÿ/0&ÿ[87&.ÿ$"-ÿ,"/&==&;/:$=ÿk.2#&./8ÿ[.1>&'ÿe&;/12"+ÿ7&;2>1"%ÿe&;/12"ÿ
[01&3ÿ1"ÿ2**\Zÿ
0//#'lmm666Z;2:./'Z;$Z%25m(24n*Z0/>ÿ
,"ÿe&#/&>7&.ÿ2*(3+ÿk.&'1-&"/ÿ23ÿ/0&ÿh"15&.'1/8+ÿ9$"&/ÿY$#2=1/$"2+ÿ01.&-ÿi.Zÿ
_=&o$"-&.ÿp:'/$>$"/&ÿ$'ÿ$ÿ"&6ÿe&"12.ÿq1;&ÿk.&'1-&"/ÿ$"-ÿ[01&3ÿ[2>#=1$";&ÿ$"-ÿ
_:-1/ÿ!331;&.+ÿ1"ÿ/0&ÿ!331;&ÿ23ÿ/0&ÿk.&'1-&"/+ÿ61/0ÿ$"ÿ$"":$=ÿ7$'1;ÿ'$=$.8ÿ23ÿ
rn\*+***Zÿ
ÿ0//#'lmm666Z:"15&.'1/823;$=132."1$Z&-:m#.&''0.22>m:;0"$>&'0$=&o$"-&.0
7:'/$>$"/&0;01&30;2>#=1$";&0$"-0$:-1/02331;&.ÿ
i.Zÿp:'/$>$"/&ÿ'&.5&-ÿ$'ÿ$"ÿ$''1'/$"/ÿhZeZÿ$//2."&8ÿ61/0ÿs2"Zÿt=&"$ÿ<:$./&ÿ32.ÿ/0&ÿ
[&"/.$=ÿ<1'/.1;/ÿ23ÿ[$=132."1$ÿ1"ÿ/0&ÿ'$>&ÿg2'ÿ_"%&=&'ÿhZeÿ_//2."&8ÿ2331;&ÿ3.2>ÿ
2**2)2**3Zÿ,/ÿ1'ÿ"2/ÿ/0&ÿ31.'/ÿ/1>&ÿ/0$/ÿh[ÿk.&'1-&"/ÿ9$"&/ÿY$#2=1/$"2ÿ0$'ÿ&>#=28&-ÿ
0&.ÿ32.>&.ÿ;2==&$%:&'ÿ/2ÿ;2"-:;/ÿ61/;0ÿ0:"/'ÿ/2ÿ&=1>1"$/&ÿ/0&ÿ:"15&.'1/8f'ÿ
$-5&.'$.1&'Zÿ,"ÿ2*(u+ÿi'ZÿY$#2=1/$"2ÿ&>#=28&-+ÿ32.ÿr(+***+***+ÿ/62ÿ32.>&.ÿheÿ
$//2."&8'+ÿi&=1"-$ÿs$$%ÿ$"-ÿi;v.&%2.ÿe;2//+ÿ/2ÿ0:"/ÿ-26"ÿh[ÿ<$51'ÿ[0$";&==2.ÿ
g1"-$ÿw$/01ÿ$"-ÿ0&.ÿ3$>1=8ÿ/2ÿ7.1"%ÿ0&.ÿ-26"ÿ$"-ÿ/2ÿ;2"5&./ÿi'Zÿw$/&01ÿ3.2>ÿh[ÿ
<$51'ÿ[0$";&==2.ÿ/2ÿÿ[0$";&==2.ÿt>&.1/$ÿ$/ÿ;2'/ÿ23ÿr(+***+***ÿ23ÿ#:7=1;ÿ3:"-'Zÿi'Zÿ
Y$#2=1/$"2ÿ6$'ÿ-&#=28&-ÿ/2ÿ/0&ÿh"15&.'1/8ÿ23ÿ[$=132."1$ÿ1"ÿ_:%:'/)e&#/&>7&.ÿ
2*(nÿ78ÿk.&'1-&"/ÿp$.$dÿ!7$>$ÿ$/ÿ/0&ÿ'$>&ÿ/1>&ÿ/0$/ÿ/0&ÿ[$=132."1$"ÿv25&."2.ÿ
-&#=28&-ÿ01'ÿ[01&3ÿ<&#:/8ÿ9$;27ÿ_##&='>1/0ÿÿ/2ÿh[ÿ<$51'ÿ$'ÿ$ÿ"&6ÿ[01&3ÿ[2:"'&=Zÿ
_'ÿ$ÿ.&':=/+ÿ1"ÿ9:=8ÿ2*(\+ÿ/0&ÿ$.;0ÿ&"&>8ÿ23ÿ/0&ÿh[!kÿ;2..:#/ÿ&'/$7=1'0>&"/+ÿ/0&ÿ
5&.8ÿ#2#:=$.ÿe&"$/2.ÿg&=$"-ÿx&&+ÿ$:/02.ÿ23ÿ/0&ÿe&"$/&ÿp1==ÿepÿu\*ÿ$"-ÿ$"ÿ$:-1/ÿ
$1>&-ÿ$/ÿ;2..:#/12"ÿ1"ÿ/0&ÿh[ÿe8'/&>+ÿ6$'ÿ;2"51";&-ÿ78ÿi'ZÿY$#2=1/$"2f'ÿ3.1&"-+ÿ
i&=1"-$ÿs$$%f'ÿ#=&$ÿ7$.%$1"+ÿ/2ÿ%2ÿ/2ÿ3&-&.$=ÿ#.1'2"ÿ32.ÿ315&ÿ8&$.'Zÿÿ
ÿ
z{ÿ|}~ÿÿ+ÿ#&.ÿ$ÿ[2:./ÿ!.-&.ÿ-$/&-ÿ<&;&>7&.ÿ3+ÿ2*(?ÿ'1%"&-ÿ78ÿ9:-%&ÿ9&""13&.ÿwZÿ
42;d6&==ÿ/2ÿ3.$>&ÿ>&ÿ32.ÿ$ÿp&";0ÿb$..$"/+ÿ,ÿ$//&"-&-ÿ$"ÿ_##&$.$";&ÿ$"-ÿto$>1"$/12"ÿ1"ÿ[2:./ÿ
<&#$./>&"/ÿn3Zÿ9:-%&ÿ42;d6&==ÿ1'ÿ$ÿ3.1&"-ÿ$"-ÿ32.>&.ÿ;262.d&.ÿ3.2>ÿ/0&ÿ'$>&ÿ_//2."&8ÿv&"&.$=f'ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
°±²³ÿ²µ¶·ÿ̧¹º»¼½º¾ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¿ÀÁÂ÷ÄÅÿ̧¼Æǹ¼º½ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÈÉÊ·ËÌÿºÆͺÎ͹º¹¹ÿÿÿÿÿÿϵзÿÑÑÎÿÀÒÿÑÓÑ
!""#$%ÿ&'ÿ()*+%ÿ,-%)+%-ÿ"-!.ÿ/%0&-1.%21ÿ345ÿ67%8ÿ9!17ÿ:!-;%*ÿ17%-%ÿ0-#!-ÿ1!ÿ9%#2+ÿ&00!#21%*ÿ1!ÿ
17%ÿ9%2$75ÿ<'ÿ=ÿ0!#21%*ÿ!)1ÿ#2ÿ17%ÿ0-%>#!)'ÿ$7&01%-?ÿ17%ÿ@ABCÿ.!9D'ÿ17)+'ÿ"-!.ÿC!-1%-ÿE$!11?ÿ98ÿ
980&''#2+ÿ()*+%ÿF-!:2ÿ:7!ÿ0-%'#*%*ÿ!>%-ÿ.8ÿ:-!2+")Gÿ1%-.#2&1#!2ÿ$&'%?ÿHIJKLMINÿPILQRQSTÿUVÿ
WXYÿZY[Y\]LÿK^ÿ]XYÿ_\ÙYJL`]aÿK^ÿbIM̀^KJ\ÌcÿA&'%ÿd!5ÿe4f24gefe4f44g334hi?ÿ)2')$$%''")GG8ÿ
&11%.01%*ÿ#2ÿB$1!9%-ÿ24g3ÿ1!ÿ)'%ÿ()*+%ÿ,-)%+%-ÿ1!ÿ%2*ÿ.8ÿG#1#+&1#!2ÿ98ÿ1%-.#2&1#!2ÿ'&2$1#!2'ÿjE%%ÿ
kllmnoppqqqrnstuvwrsxypwxszy{|lp}~~~p~~ xlux|lx{slk{{yullulzt
xt xwulk{mu|ux||luyxlux|rÿ
ÿ(%22#"%-ÿ,5ÿ!$;:%GGÿ#'ÿ&ÿ)*+%ÿ!"ÿ17%ÿE)0%-#!-ÿA!)-1ÿ!"ÿE&$-&.%21!ÿA!)218?ÿA&G#"!-2#&5ÿ
E7%ÿ:&'ÿ&00!#21%*ÿ98ÿx{t|xtÿ{ttÿtxq|ÿj/ÿ!2ÿ()G8ÿeg?ÿ24g45gÿ
ÿ24g40C-%'%21ÿ()*+%?ÿE)0%-#!-ÿA!)-1ÿ!"ÿE&$-&.%21!ÿA!)218ÿ
ÿ2443024g4ÿku{ÿsxz|n{ÿuxt|uÿ{mtly{|lÿxÿ¡u||s{ÿ
ÿgiii02443ÿ/%0)18ÿ&11!-2%8ÿ+%2%-&G?ÿuxt|uÿ{mtly{|lÿxÿznlus{ÿus{ÿxÿlk{ÿ
llxt|{ÿ{|{tÿ
ÿgii¢0giiiÿlÿsxz|n{ÿuxt|uÿll{ÿ£t{nzt{t¤nÿus{ÿ
ÿgii30gii¢ÿ¥¦%$)1#>%ÿ"%GG!:?ÿA%21%-ÿ"!-ÿA&G#"!-2#&ÿE1)*#%'ÿ&1ÿE&$-&.%21!ÿE1&1%gÿ
ÿ!$;:%GGÿ-%$%#>%*ÿ&ÿrrÿtxyÿlk{ÿ§|u{tnulÿxÿuxt|uÿ0ÿ/&>#'?ÿ&2*ÿ&ÿ(5/5ÿ"-!.ÿ17%ÿ
@2#>%-'#18ÿ!"ÿE!)17%-2ÿA&G#"!-2#&5gÿ
7110'¨9̈&GG!10%*#&5!-+¨(%22#"%-,5!$;:%GGÿ
=ÿ&--#>%*ÿ&1ÿA!)-1ÿ/%0&-1.%21ÿehÿ:#17ÿ.8ÿ"!-.%-ÿ$!:!-;%-ÿ"-!.ÿ17%ÿ@A/©A?ÿª#GG#&.ÿ
F)$;&2'?ÿ!2ÿ«%9-)&-8ÿ3?ÿ24giÿ&1ÿi44ÿ&5.5ÿª7%2ÿ!""#$#&G'ÿ"-!.ÿ/%0&-1.%21ÿehÿ-%&G#¬%*ÿ17&1ÿ=ÿ:&'ÿ
2!1ÿ&G!2%?ÿ=ÿ:&'ÿ-%*#-%$1%*ÿ1!ÿ/%0&-1.%21ÿ4e?ÿ:#17ÿC-%'#*#2+ÿ()*+%ÿFG#¬¬&-*?ÿ:7%-%ÿ17%ÿA!)-1ÿAG%-;ÿ
!-*%-%*ÿ.%ÿ1!ÿ+!ÿ1!ÿ17%ÿA!)-1ÿA&"%1%-#&ÿ1!ÿ.%%1ÿ&2*ÿ$!2"%-ÿ:#17ÿC!-1%-ÿE$!11ÿ&11!-2%8ÿ/&2#%Gÿ
F&-*¬%GG?ÿ:7!ÿ:&'ÿ-%0-%'%21#2+ÿ17%ÿ@Aÿ%+%21'5ÿÿ
/)-#2+ÿ17%ÿ.%%1#2+?ÿF&-*¬%GGÿ:&'ÿ>%-8ÿ2%->!)'ÿ&2*ÿ)2$!."!-1&9G%5ÿ=ÿ*#*ÿ2!1ÿ;2!:ÿ17&1ÿ
F&-*¬%GGD'ÿ2%->!)'2%''ÿ:&'ÿ$&)'%*ÿ98ÿ17%ÿ)2%¦0%$1%*ÿ$7&2+%ÿ!"ÿ$!)-1-!!.ÿ"-!.ÿd!5ÿeh?ÿ:#17ÿ
()*+%ÿ!$;:%GG?ÿ1!ÿ4e?ÿ:#17ÿ()*+%ÿFG#¬¬&-*5ÿÿ
«!-ÿ17%ÿ-%$!-*?ÿ=ÿ.%.!-#¬%*ÿ17%ÿ.%%1#2+ÿ:#17ÿF&-*¬%GGÿ&2*ÿ-%$!-*%*ÿ#1ÿ#2ÿ&ÿ"!GG!:0)0ÿG%11%-ÿ
%21#1G%*ÿ<00%&-&2$%ÿ&2*ÿ¥¦&.#2&1#!2ÿ!2ÿ«%9-)&-8ÿ3?ÿ24giÿ&1ÿi44ÿ&5.5ÿ#2ÿ/%0&-1.%21ÿ4e?ÿ®!25ÿ
67&**ÿ<5ÿFG#¬¬&-*?ÿA&'%ÿd!5ÿe4024ge044g334hi?ÿHIJKLMINÿPILQRQSTÿUVÿWXYÿZY[Y\]LÿK^ÿ]XYÿ
_\ÙYJL`]aÿK^ÿbIM̀^KJ\Ì5̄ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡¢ÿ£¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¥¦§¨©ÿ£ª«ªÿÿÿÿÿÿ¬ÿ®®¤ÿÿ̄®°®
!"#ÿ%&''(!)ÿ*+ÿ,-"ÿ'"",./0ÿ./ÿ,-"ÿ1*&!,ÿ1(+","!.(ÿ*/ÿ
+"2!&(!)ÿ34ÿ5678ÿ
ÿ
9:;<ÿ=<>ÿ?;<@A:BBCÿÿÿ
ÿ
DE<ÿFG:ÿ<:HE<@CÿIÿJEKB@ÿBLM:ÿFEÿN<L:OBPÿQKRR;<LA:ÿEK<ÿR::FLSTÿFG;FÿFEEMÿUB;H:ÿESÿ
D:N<K;<Pÿ3Cÿ2V4WÿLSÿFG:ÿX;H<;R:SFEÿYEKSFPÿXKU:<LE<ÿYEK<FÿY;O:F:<L;ÿESÿFG:ÿQLZFGÿ
OBEE<ÿ;FÿW[\Vÿ;>R>ÿÿ
Iÿ;S@ÿRPÿJLFS:QQCÿ]LBBL;Rÿ?KHM;SQÿ^_Yÿ9;`LQÿ=:@LH;BÿY:SF:<ÿ:RUBEP::aCÿ̀L:J:@ÿ
FG:ÿR::FLSTÿ;QÿKSUB:;Q;SFCÿU<E`EH;FL̀:Cÿ;S@ÿGEQFLB:>ÿ]LBBL;Rÿ;S@ÿIÿSEFLH:@ÿFG;FÿPEKÿ
J:<:ÿ̀:<PÿS:<`EKQÿ;S@ÿKSHEROE<F;NB:ÿ@K<LSTÿFG:ÿR::FLST>ÿbFÿQER:ÿUELSFÿJG:SÿPEKÿ
QF;<F:@ÿN<LSTLSTÿRPÿJLO:ÿ;S@ÿHGLB@<:SÿLSFEÿFG:ÿF:<<E<ÿIÿG;`:ÿN::Sÿ:ZU:<L:SHLSTÿOE<ÿ
FG:ÿB;QFÿ42ÿP:;<QÿO<ERÿFG:ÿ_SL̀:<QLFPÿEOÿY;BLOE<SL;ÿcOOLH:ÿEOÿFG:ÿd<:QL@:SFÿ^_Ycdaÿ
RENCÿ]LBBL;RCÿJGEÿJ;QÿQLFFLSTÿ;FÿFG:ÿS:ZFÿF;NB:CÿFK<S:@ÿGLQÿHG;L<ÿFEJ;<@ÿPEKÿ;S@ÿ
BEEM:@ÿ;FÿPEK>ÿeEKÿ@L@ÿSEFÿMSEJÿFG;Fÿ]LBBL;RÿJ;QÿRPÿOE<R:<ÿHEJE<M:<ÿO<ERÿFG:ÿ
_Yÿ9;`LQÿ=:@LH;BÿY:SF:<ÿ2fÿ=]ÿHET:S:<;FLESÿUB;SFÿJG:<:ÿIÿJE<M:@ÿO<ERÿgKS:ÿ
4WWWÿFEÿbU<LBÿ2VVf>ÿeEKÿJ:<:ÿ;BQEÿLSOE<R:@ÿU<:`LEKQBPÿFG;FÿFJEÿdE<F:<ÿXHEFFÿ
;FFE<S:PQÿ;FF:RUF:@ÿFEÿU<E`EM:ÿR:ÿLSFEÿUGPQLH;BÿHESO<ESF;FLESÿEKFQL@:ÿFG:ÿHEK<Fÿ
<EERÿLSÿD:N<K;<Pÿ2V4hÿ;S@ÿLSÿbKTKQFÿ2V4f>ÿÿ
D<ERÿPEK<ÿ<:@KS@;SFÿ;S@ÿU<E`EH;FL̀:ÿiK:QFLESQÿ;NEKFÿRPÿJLO:CÿHGLB@<:SCÿB;S@BE<@Cÿ
;S@ÿFG:ÿLSQK<;SH:ÿESÿRPÿ<:SF;BÿGEKQ:CÿLFÿJ;QÿSEFÿ@LOOLHKBFÿFEÿHESHBK@:ÿFG;Fÿg;S:Fÿ
j;UEBLF;SEÿLQÿBEEMLSTÿFEÿLSOBLHFÿ;ÿ@LOO:<:SFÿFPU:ÿEOÿG;<RÿFEÿR:ÿ;S@ÿRPÿO;RLBPÿFG;Sÿ
FEÿ:SOE<H:ÿFG:ÿKSB;JOKBÿkK@TR:SFÿ^Q::ÿFG:ÿl:FF:<ÿFEÿFG:ÿYB:<MÿOLB:@ÿESÿgKBPÿ43Cÿ2V43ÿ
;S@ÿFG:ÿl:FF:<ÿFEÿgK@T:ÿ?<EJSÿOLB:@ÿESÿjE`:RN:<ÿ4mCÿ2V43a>ÿÿÿ
)nopÿqorstunvsÿwxnotÿuvsopwvyrÿnvÿtzrÿprvtw{ÿznosrÿy{rwp{|ÿuv}uywtrÿtzwtÿ
&1*~ÿnxÿÿ{r}ÿx|ÿwvrtÿ/wn{utwvnÿusÿ{wvvuvÿwÿpwu}ÿnvÿ|ÿznrÿutzÿ
uvn{rrvtÿpnÿtzrÿn}uÿ~n{uyrÿnpÿ%wvÿnwqouvÿ%zrpusÿrwptrvtÿtnÿ
trppnpurÿrÿwv}ÿ|ÿwu{|ÿx|ÿpwvswyuvÿ|ÿznosrÿtnÿywosrÿs|yzn{nuyw{ÿ
tpwowÿbQÿPEKÿU<EN;NBPÿ<:;@ÿLSÿHEK<Fÿ@EHKR:SFQCÿIÿG;`:ÿN::SÿF:<<E<LA:@ÿ;S@ÿ
GKSF:@ÿBLM:ÿ;ÿg:Jÿ@K<LSTÿFG:ÿGEBEH;KQFÿNPÿFG:ÿ_YcdÿRENÿQLSH:ÿg;SK;<Pÿ2VVfCÿ;S@ÿ
Iÿ@ESFÿQ::ÿLFÿ:S@LSTÿQEESÿJGLB:ÿIRÿQFLBBÿ;BL̀:>ÿ
9K<LSTÿEK<ÿR::FLSTÿESÿD:N<K;<Pÿ3Cÿ2V4WCÿIÿU<E`L@:@ÿPEKÿJLFGÿFG:ÿ
OEBBEJLSTÿ@EHKR:SFQÿ;QÿUEF:SFL;Bÿ;QQ:FQ[ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡ÿ¢£ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤¥¦§ÿ̈¢©ª©ÿÿÿÿÿÿ«¬ÿÿ®ÿ¯
ÿ"ÿ#$%&ÿ$'ÿ()*ÿ+,-.,/&ÿ012ÿ2334ÿ5*((6*7*-(ÿ"8/**7*-(ÿ9&ÿ:;ÿ<*8*-(=ÿ,->ÿ7&=*6'ÿ
%6.=ÿ()*ÿ#,6#.6,(*>ÿ>,7,8*=ÿ$'ÿ,%%/$?@7,(*6&ÿA123332333ÿ#,.=*>ÿ9&ÿ:;ÿ<*8*-(=ÿ
>.*ÿ($ÿ9/*,#)ÿ,->ÿB@$6,(@$-ÿ$'ÿ()@=ÿ5*((6*7*-(ÿ"8/**7*-(ÿC,((,#)*>DEÿÿ
ÿF)*ÿG,/#)ÿ12ÿ2313ÿ#$%&ÿ$'ÿ()*ÿ;,6@'$/-@,ÿ5.%/*7*ÿ;$./(ÿ>*#@=@$-2ÿH)@#)ÿ$/>*/*>ÿ
(),(ÿIÿ9*ÿ%,@>ÿ9,#Jÿ7&ÿ=($6*-ÿ/*(,@-*/ÿ7$-*&ÿ@-ÿ()*ÿ,7$.-(ÿ$'ÿA1K2L4KE00ÿ%6.=ÿ
13Mÿ@-(*/*=(ÿ(),(ÿIÿ%,@>ÿ($ÿ7&ÿ'$/7*/ÿ,(($/-*&2ÿN$.86,=ÿ5(*@-2ÿ'$/ÿ/*%/*=*-(,(@$-Eÿ
5(*@-ÿ$-ÿN@=#@%6@-*ÿ;,=*ÿO$Eÿ52KP432ÿC,((,#)*>DEÿÿ
ÿF)*ÿ.-'@-@=)*>ÿ#,=*ÿH@()ÿQ@9*/(&ÿ"==./,-#*ÿ;$7%,-&ÿ$'ÿR$=($-2ÿH)@#)ÿ@=ÿ@-ÿ
#$-=%@/,#&ÿH@()ÿ:;ÿ<*8*-(=ÿ(),(ÿ>*-@*>ÿ7&ÿ=)$/(ÿ>@=,9@6@(&ÿ9*-*'@(=ÿ@-ÿ2311Eÿ
G@-@7.7ÿB,6.*ÿAK2PKLÿC,((,#)*>DEÿÿ
ÿF)*ÿ.-'@-@=)*>ÿ.-*7%6$&7*-(ÿ@-=./,-#*ÿ9*-*'@(=ÿ#,=*ÿ%*->@-8ÿ@-ÿ()*ÿ;,6@'$/-@,ÿ
5.%/*7*ÿ;$./(2ÿSTUVWVXYÿ[\ÿ]T^_àbc_Tÿdcefg^ahfeciÿjcUXbTcWeÿkggeT^ÿlaTbmÿ
0N;"ÿ;,=*ÿO$Eÿ;3n42PK2ÿ5.%/*7*ÿ;$./(ÿ;,=*ÿO$Eÿoÿp,6.*ÿA2P2333ÿ@'ÿ%/*B,@6Eÿÿ
ÿq)@=(6*96$H*/ÿ#,=*ÿ%*->@-8ÿ@-ÿ()*ÿ:E5EÿF,?ÿ;$./(2ÿSTUVWVXYÿ[\ÿdc_iemÿriTieUÿ
]aff_UU_acebÿaÿ̀jciebcT^ÿse[ecXeÿreb[_WeU2ÿN$#J*(ÿO$Eÿ32013PEÿF)*ÿI<5ÿ
H)@=(6*96$H*/ÿ#,=*ÿ@=ÿ,9$.(ÿ,-ÿ*-$/7$.=ÿ,7$.-(ÿ$'ÿ.-6,H'.6ÿ%$H*/ÿ=,6*=ÿ9&ÿ
/*8*-(=ÿ@-ÿ#$-=%@/,#&ÿH@()ÿt-/$-ÿ,->ÿ()*ÿ;,6@'$/-@,ÿI->*%*->*-(ÿ5&=(*7ÿu%*/,($/ÿ
,->ÿ/*6,(*>ÿ($ÿ7.6(@7@66@$-ÿ>$66,/=ÿ@-ÿ(,?ÿ'/,.>Eÿv/,.>ÿH,=ÿ>@=#6$=*>ÿ@-ÿ".8.=(ÿ
2312ÿ9&ÿ:;ÿN,B@=ÿ"==@=(,-(ÿp@#*ÿ;),-#*66$/ÿN/Eÿ5)*6($-ÿN./.@==*,.ÿ@-ÿ()@=ÿ
@-(*/B@*HÿH@()ÿrTWÿ]X^iXbT^ÿwXxÿC,((,#)*>DEÿ
)((%yzzHHHE=,##.6(./,6).9E#$7z)*,>6@-*=z,06$$J09,#Jÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
{|}|~ÿ ÿ
ÿ }{{ÿ
I(ÿ),=ÿ#$7*ÿ($ÿ()*ÿ%$@-(ÿ(),(ÿIÿ,7ÿ,'/,@>ÿ($ÿ8$ÿ($ÿ()*ÿ5,#/,7*-($ÿ;$./(ÿ,6$-*2ÿ=$ÿ,=ÿ-$(ÿ($ÿ9*ÿ%/$B$J*>ÿ
,->ÿ),/7*>ÿ()*/*Eÿu-ÿ($%ÿ$'ÿ()@=2ÿ=$7*$-*ÿ'@/*>ÿ,ÿ=)$(ÿ,(ÿ7&ÿ)$7*ÿ@-($ÿ()*ÿ6@B@-8ÿ/$$7EÿI(ÿ*-(*/*>ÿ@-ÿ,ÿ
=%$(ÿH)*/*ÿ7&ÿH@'*ÿ'/*.*-(6&ÿ=@(=ÿ,->ÿH,(#)*=ÿFpEÿI(ÿH,=ÿ%/$9,96&ÿ,ÿ=7,66ÿ#,6@9*/ÿ'@/*,/7EÿIÿ>$ÿ-$(ÿ
J-$Hÿ@'ÿ()@=ÿ@-#@>*-(ÿH,=ÿ,##@>*-(,6ÿ$/ÿ-$(EÿF)*ÿ@-#@>*-(ÿH,=ÿ-$(ÿ/*%$/(*>ÿ($ÿQ$>@ÿ$6@#*ÿ9*#,.=*ÿIÿ
H$.6>ÿ7$=(ÿ6@J*6&ÿ),B*ÿ9**-ÿJ@#J*>ÿ$.(ÿ9&ÿ7&ÿ6,->6$/>ÿ,->ÿ-$(ÿ9**-ÿ,96*ÿ($ÿ'@->ÿ,-$()*/ÿ/*-(,6ÿ%/$%*/(&ÿ
@-ÿQ$>@Eÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
DEFGÿFIJKÿLMNOPQNRÿÿÿÿÿÿSTUVWKXYÿLPZ[MPNQÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ\]^K_ÿ̀NZaNbaMNMMÿÿÿÿÿÿcIdKÿeefÿTgÿefe
ÿ
ÿ
!ÿ"#$%ÿ&'ÿ(#)$*ÿ+,ÿ2-.2ÿ(%%/$0112223$45+6734#&17#4)&*,%1438-8-833192:""#20;:,*02<ÿ7)*ÿ%#ÿ%(*ÿ
6*'#,7ÿ()&:,ÿ7*4*,4'ÿ2+%4(ÿ(),%ÿ!ÿ2:$ÿ$)6=*4%*7ÿ%#ÿ$+,4*ÿ2-->ÿ:,7ÿ%(*ÿ),":2?)"ÿ%*5&+,:%+#,ÿ#?ÿ&'ÿ
*&/"#'&*,%ÿ+,ÿ@*4*&6*5ÿ2-.2ÿ:%ÿ:A*ÿ#?ÿB.<ÿ,#%ÿ%#ÿ&*,%+#,ÿ:"&#$%ÿC.ÿ&+""+#,ÿ+,ÿ"#$%ÿ2:A*$ÿ:,7ÿ6*,*?+%$ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£ÿ¤¥¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦§ÿ̈¨ÿ©ÿ̈ª¨
!"##ÿ$%%&"'(()))*"+,-./*+01(/0+21#3%(445656474(8090:;<0=02,%0=;>+2>;%#/0?;1;@#"0=;2"#/0.A0
8=BC0D;E-;F*ÿ
GHHIÿ ÿ
LMNÿOPQRMÿSTUÿSTVWUÿÿRPGXYZQ[XPÿ\]^QNONÿRZ]QLÿZYÿRPGXYZQ[XPÿN[ÿ_P[Rÿ
`NRX\XZ[ÿ
ÿZaÿObcdeÿSTUÿSTVWfÿ;3ÿghÿjkhlÿ"#""-03ÿ0Eÿ%$#ÿ92ÿ&,#1#ÿ=02,%ÿ0Eÿ=;>-E0,3-;ÿ"2&&0"#/>Aÿ/#3-#/ÿ
1Aÿ&#%-%-03ÿE0,ÿ,#m-#)fÿ)$-+$ÿ$;/ÿ.##3ÿE->#/ÿ03ÿn;32;,Aÿ26fÿ2op6ÿ;"ÿqkrslstuÿvwÿxkywÿ
zhg{|y}~{ghÿhrwÿ||gkyrÿ*fÿ0*ÿ=o5624ÿ!=;>*ÿ=%*ÿ&&*ÿ?#+*ÿ25fÿ2op3F*ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿ£¤ÿ¥ÿ¦ÿ¥§¥
!"#ÿ$%&'#(#ÿ)*%'+ÿ,%-+./#-ÿ0#1.#0ÿ(2ÿ-+*3#1ÿ%1#(&3*2(#1+ÿ.1-%'41/#ÿ5#1#6.+-7ÿ8"./"ÿ+"#ÿ)43.6*'1.4ÿ
9(&3*2(#1+ÿ:#;#3*&(#1+ÿ:#&4'+(#1+ÿ<9::=ÿ"40ÿ'#-+*'#0ÿ*1ÿ>42ÿ?@7ÿ2A?@Bÿ!"#-#ÿ5#1#6.+-ÿ;41.-"#07ÿ
,%-+ÿ3.C#ÿ(2ÿ-"*'+0+#'(ÿ0.-45.3.+2ÿ5#1#6.+-ÿ*6ÿ2A??ÿ410ÿÿ$+4+#ÿD4'ÿE1;#-+.F4+*'ÿG(4104ÿH*'(3#27ÿ8"*ÿ
0.-4&'#0ÿ8.+"ÿ(2ÿ/*(&34.1+ÿ4F4.1-+ÿ:*%F34-ÿ$+#.1ÿ.1ÿI/+*5#'ÿ2A?4Bÿ
!"#ÿ$%&'#(#ÿ)*%'+J-ÿ0#/.-.*1ÿ84-ÿ%1'#437ÿ1*+ÿF#1%.1#7ÿ410ÿ;#'2ÿ5.K4''#7ÿ/*1-.0#'.1Fÿ+"4+ÿL:)G7ÿ+"#ÿ
$%&'#(#ÿ)*%'+7ÿ410ÿ+"#ÿ$+4+#ÿD4'ÿ8#'#ÿ433ÿ.16*'(#0ÿ+"4+ÿ(2ÿ%1#(&3*2(#1+ÿ.1-%'41/#ÿ5#1#6.+-ÿ"40ÿ
5##1ÿ'#-+*'#0ÿ410ÿ+"#1ÿ0.-4&'#0Bÿ!"#ÿ0#/.-.*1ÿ-+4+#-ÿ+"4+ÿM%-+./#ÿM*-"%4ÿH'*541ÿ84-ÿ'#/%-#0ÿ410ÿ
0.0ÿ1*+ÿ&4'+./.&4+#BÿH'*541ÿ84-ÿ4&&*.1+#0ÿ+*ÿ+"#ÿ$%&'#(#ÿ)*%'+ÿ.1ÿN*;#(5#'ÿ2A?3ÿ52ÿH*;#'1*'ÿM#''2ÿ
D'*81ÿ410ÿ-8*'1ÿ.1+*ÿ*66./#ÿ*1ÿM41%4'2ÿL7ÿ2A?OBÿEÿ"4;#ÿ1*ÿ/3%#ÿ8"2ÿ"#ÿ84-ÿ'#/%-#0ÿ.1ÿ(2ÿ/4-#Bÿ!"#ÿ
0#/.-.*1ÿ84-ÿ,%-+ÿ41*+"#'ÿ#P4(&3#ÿ*6ÿ+"#ÿ$%&'#(#ÿ)*%'+ÿ)3#'CJ-ÿ'%55#'0-+4(&ÿ,%-+./#ÿ%10#'ÿ)".#6ÿ
M%-+./#ÿ!41.ÿQ41+.30$4C4%2#Bÿÿ
ÿÿ
!"#ÿR)ISÿ(*5-+#'-7ÿ8.+"ÿ+"#.'ÿ/*11#/+.*1-ÿ.1ÿ+"#ÿ$4/'4(#1+*ÿ)*%'+-ÿ410ÿ+"#ÿ)43.6*'1.4ÿ$%&'#(#ÿ
)*%'+7ÿ8#'#ÿ0*.1Fÿ#;#'2+".1Fÿ&*--.53#ÿ+*ÿ/%+ÿ(#ÿ*66ÿ6'*(ÿ412ÿ400.+.*143ÿ6.141/.43ÿ'#-*%'/#-7ÿ-%/"ÿ4-ÿ
(2ÿ-*/.43ÿ-#/%'.+2ÿ.1/*(#7ÿ.1ÿ"*&#-ÿ*6ÿ6*'/.1Fÿ(#ÿ+*ÿT%.+ÿ3.+.F4+.*1ÿ4F4.1-+ÿ+"#(Bÿÿ
ÿ
UVVWXÿ ÿ
[\ÿ]^_`abac`[ÿdW]efWUWa\ÿWg]h`egicÿ
ÿÿ
_jÿ[klmnÿopqÿorps7ÿEÿ84-ÿ.16*'(#0ÿ52ÿ4ÿ&'.;4+#ÿ.1;#-+.F4+*'ÿ+"4+ÿ(2ÿ-"*'+0+#'(ÿ0.-45.3.+2ÿ.1-%'41/#ÿ
5#1#6.+-7ÿtnumnÿtvlvÿwvjuvwÿujÿorppÿxyÿUuxvlzyÿUu{vÿe||}lkjmvÿi~kjyÿ~{ÿf~|z~jÿ.1ÿ4ÿ/*1-&.'4/2ÿ
8.+"ÿR)ÿ:4;.-7ÿR)ÿ:4;.-ÿ>#0./43ÿ)#1+#'7ÿ410ÿ+"#ÿR)ISÿ/*''%&+ÿÿ4++*'1#2-7ÿ8#'#ÿ4/+%4332ÿ6*%10ÿ
46+#'ÿ#.F"+ÿ2#4'-ÿ.1ÿ+"#ÿ)43.6*'1.4ÿ$+4+#ÿ)*1+'*33#'J-ÿI66./#ÿ4-ÿ%1/34.(#0ÿ&'*&#'+2Bÿ!"#ÿ4(*%1+ÿ*6ÿ
5#1#6.+-ÿ+*ÿ5#ÿ'#/34.(#0ÿ84-ÿ@74@4BA3BÿE1ÿ'#-&*1-#7ÿEÿ4-C#0ÿ+"#ÿ&'.;4+#ÿ.1;#-+.F4+*'ÿ+*ÿ"#3&ÿ(#ÿ6.10ÿ
(2ÿ%1#(&3*2(#1+ÿ.1-%'41/#ÿ5#1#6.+-7ÿ8"./"ÿ"40ÿ5##1ÿ(.--.1Fÿ-.1/#ÿ>42ÿ2A?@Bÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
HIJKÿJMNOÿPQRSTURVÿÿÿÿÿÿWXYZ[O\]ÿPT^_QTRUÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ̀abOcdÿR^eRfeQRQQÿÿÿÿÿÿgMhOÿiUTÿXjÿiki
!"#$%#&'$()*ÿ"+ÿ$"(,ÿ-*ÿ./"+(0('+-ÿ&#.01#)#(*ÿ#$.2+0$%'ÿ1'$'3#(.ÿ4'+'ÿ3"2$&ÿ"$'ÿ&0*ÿ03('+ÿ(/'ÿ526+'-'ÿ
!"2+(ÿ"3ÿ!0)#3"+$#0ÿ&'$#'&ÿ-*ÿ2$'-6)"*-'$(ÿ#$.2+0$%'ÿ1'$'3#(.,ÿ4/#%/ÿ/0&ÿ1''$ÿ-#..#$7ÿ.#$%'ÿ80*ÿ
29:;,ÿÿ
ÿ
<ÿ/0='ÿ$"ÿ#&'0ÿ/"4ÿ-*ÿ./"+(0('+-ÿ&#.01#)#(*ÿ#$.2+0$%'ÿ1'$'3#(.ÿ"3ÿ29::ÿ3"2$&ÿ(/'#+ÿ40*ÿ("ÿ(/'ÿ!0)#3"+$#0ÿ
5(0('ÿ!"$(+"))'+>.ÿ?33#%'ÿ03('+ÿ'#7/(ÿ*'0+.ÿ"+ÿ4/*ÿ(/'*ÿ4'+'ÿ$"(ÿ60#&ÿ("ÿ-'ÿ#$ÿ29::ÿ"+ÿ29:2,ÿ4/'$ÿ<ÿ
40.ÿ&#.01)'&ÿ0$&ÿ$''&'&ÿ(/'ÿ-"$'*ÿ-".(@ÿA2.(#%'.ÿ3+"-ÿBC!Dÿ0$&ÿ(/'ÿ526+'-'ÿ!"2+(ÿ"3ÿ!0)#3"+$#0ÿ
&'$#'&ÿ-*ÿ-#..#$7ÿ2$'-6)"*-'$(ÿ#$.2+0$%'ÿ#$ÿ0ÿ-'0$0.6#+#('&ÿ-0$$'+ÿ("ÿ6)'0.'ÿA0$'(ÿE06")#(0$"ÿ0$&ÿ
(/'ÿF!?G@ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ijklÿknopÿqrstuvswÿÿÿÿÿÿxyz{|p}~ÿqurusvÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿpÿssrsrrÿÿÿÿÿÿnpÿvrÿyÿ
!""#$%&&'''($)*+,-()./&-.)0/12"&344456447&89:02;65;7;20<"="10:.2"*.>>1*0
?@@+)1082)>=+/1-0A*.#1*"Bÿ
CDDEEFÿ ÿ
IJKÿLMCENOPQEMÿRKLSPEITÿNSQUÿLOVVERREOQÿ
EWÿOXYZ[\]ÿ^_`aÿbÿ*1)1+c1-ÿ=ÿ>1""1*ÿ@*./ÿ"!1ÿ<1)0*+"Bÿd02-ÿ$"="+2eÿ"!="ÿbÿ'.0>-ÿ!=c1ÿ".ÿ'=+"ÿ
=##*.f+/="1>Bÿ=2."!1*ÿg4ÿ/.2"!$ÿ".ÿ*1)1+c1ÿ"!1ÿ/.21Bÿ$".>12ÿ@*./ÿ+2ÿ2;63ÿ,Bÿ/Bÿ@.*/1*ÿ
="".*21B(ÿ9!="ÿ'=$ÿ02=))1#"=,>1ÿ".ÿ/1hÿ=$ÿ"!1ÿ<0#*1/1ÿ:.0*"ÿ!=-ÿ=>*1=-Bÿ/=-1ÿ=ÿ-1)+$+.2ÿ
+2ÿ"!+$ÿ/=""1*(ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ¡ÿ¢
!ÿ#$%&'ÿ()ÿ*+,(-ÿ.ÿ/012ÿ3ÿ40560/2ÿ27ÿ280ÿ92320ÿ:34ÿ7;ÿ<3=>;741>3?/ÿ@A0B62>C0ÿD>40B274ÿE038ÿ
FGÿH>=/71ÿ27ÿ>1204C010ÿI>28ÿ280ÿ92320ÿ:34ÿ7;ÿ<3=>;741>3?/ÿ<=>012ÿ90B64>2JÿK61Lÿ27ÿ40>MN64/0ÿ
M0ÿ;74ÿ280ÿ280;2ÿO04O024320LÿNJÿ3227410JÿD76P=3/ÿ920>1ÿ>1ÿ2QRSÿT<3=>;741>3ÿ96O40M0ÿ<7642ÿ
D0B>/>71ÿL320LÿU34B8ÿR-ÿ2QR3-ÿ<3/0ÿV7Gÿ92SWX32-ÿYZ[\]\^ÿ_``ÿab%cÿde$fÿb!cÿe!ÿg'bhaÿ
c%&ijÿb!cÿklkmGÿÿ
.1ÿMJÿ=02204ÿ27ÿ92320ÿ:34ÿD>40B274ÿE038ÿH>=/71ÿ.ÿO7>120Lÿ762ÿ2832ÿnÿ
.1ÿ90O20MN04ÿ2QRW-ÿ.ÿ3=403LJÿ83LÿO01L>1Pÿ2I7ÿ3OO03=/ÿ>1ÿoD<pGÿq10ÿ2832ÿI3/ÿ
P43120Lÿ27ÿr<ÿI3/ÿ-ÿ280ÿp12>09EpssÿU72>71ÿ>1ÿ<3/0ÿV7GÿoS02QRo0QQRWWStX-ÿ31Lÿ
280ÿ72804ÿI8>B8ÿI3/ÿI3/ÿL01>0L-ÿI3/ÿ280ÿs02>2>71ÿ>1ÿH4>2ÿ7;ÿU31L3M6/ÿ;47Mÿ280ÿ
N010;>2/ÿ2832ÿI040ÿ0>2804ÿ/27=01ÿNJÿMJÿ3227410JÿD76P=3/ÿ920>1ÿ74ÿN=7Bu0Lÿ;47MÿN0>1Pÿ
O3>LÿL60ÿ27ÿ3ÿ
B71/O>43BJÿN02I001ÿ280ÿr1>C04/>2Jÿ7;ÿ<3=>;741>3?/ÿq;;>B0ÿ7;ÿ280ÿv01043=ÿ<761/0=ÿ
3227410J/ÿ31Lÿ<r.p:ÿ3227410J/ÿ;47Mÿ280ÿ<3=>;741>3ÿp227410Jÿv01043=ÿ7;;>B0ÿ
H801ÿU/Gÿv74M=0JÿI3/ÿ40M7C0Lÿ;47Mÿ280ÿB3/0-ÿ280ÿB3/0ÿ3P3>1/2ÿ920>1ÿI3/ÿO=3B0Lÿ
>1ÿ3N0J31B0ÿ612>=ÿ280ÿoD<pÿ31Lÿ280ÿ96O40M0ÿ<7642ÿB76=Lÿ;>1>/8ÿw044JÿH3/xBx6uGÿ
F80ÿB7642ÿ40B74L/ÿ31Lÿ280ÿ92320ÿ:34ÿ7;ÿ<3=>;741>3?/ÿ40B74L/ÿL7ÿ172ÿ=>0GÿF80Jÿ
0MO832>B3==Jÿ/87Iÿ;47MÿqB27N04ÿ2QRWÿ27ÿU34B8ÿ2Q-ÿ2QRXÿ87IÿU/Gÿv74M=0J?/ÿ92320ÿ
:34ÿ/6BB0//74/ÿB71/O>40L-ÿB7==3N74320L-ÿ31LÿO40B>/0=JÿB774L>1320Lÿ3B2>71/ÿ3P3>1/2ÿ
M0ÿI>28ÿ280ÿr<qsÿI8>20ÿB7==34ÿB4>M>13=/ÿ31Lÿ280ÿoD<pÿ31Lÿ96O40M0ÿ<7642ÿ/23;;ÿ
27ÿL0/247JÿMJÿ=>;0-ÿ3/ÿI0==ÿ3/ÿ27ÿ
B71L710ÿ861L40L/ÿ7;ÿM>==>71/ÿ7;ÿL7==34/ÿ7;ÿ=361L040LÿM710Jÿ31Lÿ0174M76/ÿ23Aÿ
;436Lÿ31Lÿ0C3/>71ÿNJÿr<qsÿ74P31>x0LÿB4>M0ÿ=0LÿNJÿw3102ÿV3O7=>2317Gÿ
.1ÿp6P6/2ÿ7;ÿ2QRy-ÿ.ÿ3=0420Lÿ92320ÿ:34ÿ7;ÿ<3=>;741>3ÿ@A0B62>C0ÿD>40B274ÿU/Gÿ
@=>x3N028ÿs34u04ÿ31Lÿz71GÿF31>ÿv7440ÿ<312>=093u36J0ÿ3N762ÿB7446O2>71ÿ>1ÿ280ÿ
oD<pGÿr1;74261320=J-ÿD>40B274ÿs34u04ÿ31Lÿz71Gÿ<312>=093u36J0ÿI040ÿM740ÿ
>MO40//0LÿI>28ÿV3O7=>2317?/ÿ{R-QQQ-QQQQÿP>;2ÿ/80ÿP3C0ÿ27ÿ804ÿ2I7ÿ;74M04ÿ
B7==03P60/-ÿ;74M04ÿrG9Gÿ3227410J/ÿU0=>1L3ÿz33Pÿ31LÿUBv40P74ÿ9B722ÿ;74ÿ23u>1Pÿ
B340ÿ7;ÿ9013274ÿE0=31Lÿ|00ÿ31LÿB71C042>1PÿrG<ÿD3C>/ÿ<831B0==74ÿE>1L3ÿ}3208>ÿ27ÿ
<831B0==74ÿ@M04>23ÿ2831ÿ3N762ÿO47/0B62>1PÿB477u0Lÿ3227410J/ÿ31Lÿ/04C>1Pÿ~6/2>B0ÿ>1ÿ
oD<pGÿ
p;204ÿ.ÿ0AB831P0LÿM6=2>O=0ÿ4761L/ÿ7;ÿB7440/O71L01B0ÿI>28ÿ<3=>;741>3ÿ92320ÿ:34ÿD>40B274ÿE038ÿH>=/71ÿ
31Lÿ72804ÿ@A0B62>C0/-ÿ.ÿ40B0>C0Lÿ3ÿ;>13=ÿL0B>/>71ÿ;47Mÿ280ÿ92320ÿ:34ÿ7;ÿ<3=>;741>3?/ÿ90B64>2JÿK61Lÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
<=>?ÿ>ABCÿDEFGHIFJÿÿÿÿÿÿKLMNOCPQÿDHRSEHFIÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿTUVCWXÿFRYFZYEFEEÿÿÿÿÿÿ[A\Cÿ]IIÿL^ÿ]_]
!"##$%%$"&ÿ$&'"(#$&)ÿ#*ÿ+,-+ÿ.ÿ/"012ÿ3*ÿ(*$#30(%*2ÿ'"(ÿ+,*ÿ#"&*4ÿ%+"1*&ÿ'("#ÿ#*ÿ#"&*4ÿ34ÿ#4ÿ
-++"(&*45ÿ6"0)1-%ÿ7+*$&5ÿ$&ÿ289:;ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ª«¬ÿ¬¯°±ÿ²³´µ¶·´¸ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¹º»¼½±¾¿ÿ²¶ÀÁ³¶´·ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÂÃıÅÆÿ́ÀḈÈdz´³³ÿÿÿÿÿÿɯʱÿË·ÈÿºÌÿËÍË
!"ÿ#$%$&'ÿ()ÿ24*3)ÿ+ÿ,-.-/0-1ÿ2ÿ.3-.4ÿ5,67ÿ'3-ÿ8'2'-ÿ92,ÿ65ÿ:2;/56,"/2<&ÿ:;/-"'ÿ8-.$,/'=ÿ>$"1ÿ
:677/&&/6"?ÿ@=ÿ56,7-,ÿ2''6,"-=)ÿA6$%;2&ÿ8'-/")ÿB36ÿ&'6;-ÿ'3-ÿ76"-=)ÿB2&ÿ1/&C2,,-1ÿ/"ÿD2"$2,=ÿ2424?ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
EFFG GGHÿÿ
KLMÿNOEPÿQRSÿQTURSÿÿÿQVWXYZMÿ[MXEPÿK\ÿKLMÿOH]HÿKYFÿ^\O[Kÿ\[_M[ÿ]M[`M_ÿ
\aÿNOEPÿRSÿQTURÿ
ÿ
ÿ\bÿNcdeÿQRSÿQTUR)ÿÿ/"ÿ2ÿ2f0g2%-ÿh-g;=ÿ'6ÿ'3-ÿi?8?ÿj2kÿ:6$,'ÿ!,1-,ÿ&-,0-1ÿ6"ÿD$;=ÿ3)ÿ24*3ÿ2"1ÿ
&/%"-1ÿC=ÿ8g-./2;ÿj,/2;ÿD$1%-ÿl6"?ÿh6C-,'ÿm?ÿ#,7-")ÿh-nÿo,6'-.'/0-ÿ!,1-,pj2kÿ:6$,'ÿh$;-&ÿ65ÿ
o,2.'/.-ÿ2"1ÿo,6.-1$,-ÿ8-.'/6"ÿq*4rs9tsut)ÿs2t)ÿ2"1ÿsrtÿsOH]HÿKvwÿ^xcyzÿ_x{|}zÿaxHÿTTURtÿ
~ÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ8-,0/.-)ÿi?8?ÿj2kÿ:6$,'ÿ:2&-ÿm6?ÿ
2r*40*(ÿÿ3''g&nBBB?&.,/C1?.6716.$7-"'fq3r4ij:024*34230D$1%-0#,7-"0!,1-,0
o-'/'/6"-,0!C-.'/6"0'60@6'/6"056,0o,6'-.'/0-0!,1-,ÿ
MFLGGKÿÿvy¡ÿ{x¢eÿvb¡ÿxbÿ£dv¤ÿ¡y¥¦}ÿvb¡ÿ_`_§Sÿ+ÿC,6$%3'ÿ2%2/"ÿ'6ÿ'3-ÿ&$,52.-ÿ'3-ÿ¨*ÿ
7/;;/6"ÿ;2$"1-,-1ÿC=ÿi:ÿo,-&/1-"'ÿm2g6;/'2"6ÿ/"ÿ24*©24*qÿ1/&.;6&-1ÿC=ÿ8'2'-ÿ#$1/'ÿ24*q0*r4ÿ/"ÿ
#g,/;ÿ24*ÿ2"1ÿ'3-"ÿ.60-,-1ÿ$gÿ/"ÿ'3-ÿm60-7C-,ÿ1272%-ÿ.6"',6;ÿg&-$16ÿ/"0-&'/%2'/6"ÿ,-g6,'ÿg,61$.-1ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
¶·¸¹ÿ̧»¼½ÿ¾¿ÀÁÂÃÀÄÿÿÿÿÿÿÅÆÇÈɽÊËÿ¾ÂÌÍ¿ÂÀÃÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÎÏнÑÒÿÀÌÓÀÔÓ¿À¿¿ÿÿÿÿÿÿÕ»Ö½ÿ×ÃÍÿÆØÿ×Ù×
!"ÿ#$%&'()ÿ#%))*+,)ÿ--.ÿ*)ÿ,ÿ/(*)'ÿ0%)'$1%ÿ2*'3ÿ4(15%1ÿ6,7*4(1)*,ÿ8$91%5%ÿ6($1'ÿ:$&'*;%ÿ6,17(&ÿ
<(1%)(=ÿ>3%1%,4'%1ÿ'3*&ÿ5()%"ÿ0,)*&3%?ÿ41(5ÿ9$!7*;ÿ0*%2=ÿÿ
@)ÿ5"ÿ1%&9()&%ÿ'(ÿ:$?+%ÿA15%)Bÿ@ÿ%7,!(1,'%?ÿ,&ÿ4(77(2&ÿ,!($'ÿ'3%ÿC4DEÿ5*77*()ÿF,9(7*',)(ÿ1%;%*0%?ÿ
41(5ÿ&(5%23%1%ÿ'(ÿ$&%ÿ4(1ÿ'3%ÿ?*44%1%)'ÿ;(&'&ÿ'(ÿ5,*)',*)ÿ'3%ÿ$)*0%1&*'"G&ÿ)%%?&Hÿ
IJKÿMNÿNKMOOÿPÿQRSSOTÿUVTKVTWÿXNNTYZO[YT\ÿ]VMOÿ^M\_ÿP\`ÿaTbM\ÿ
cdePWK[fÿZ[ÿgW`TWM\_ÿKVTÿhKPKTÿXR`MKfÿQWTbT\KT`ÿiPQgOMKP\gÿjWgYÿ
RNM\_ÿKVTÿklmnfooofoooÿgjÿ`MWK[ÿdPNVÿKgÿQgNNMZO[ÿgWdVTNKWPKTÿPÿ\TUÿ
pqllÿKTWWgWMNKÿPKKPdrÿgWÿKgÿPNNPNNM\PKTÿsg\PÒÿ^WRYQÿg\ÿKVTÿ
]WTNM̀T\KMPOÿdPYQPM_\ÿKWPMOÿM\ÿtoluvwÿÿ
ÿ
@)ÿ2x43Bÿ@ÿ&3($7?ÿ3,0%ÿ9,*?ÿ5(1%ÿ,''%)'*()ÿ'(ÿ'3%ÿ5()%"ÿF,9(7*',)(ÿ3,?ÿ*)ÿ3%1ÿ3,)?&yÿ3(2%0%1Bÿ@ÿ2,&ÿ
$)?%1ÿ;()&',)'ÿ&*%+%ÿ,)?ÿ,'',;z&ÿ41(5ÿ3%1ÿ,&&*+)%?ÿ'3$+&ÿ'(ÿ%7*5*),'%ÿ5%ÿ,)?ÿ5"ÿ91%&%);%ÿ*)ÿ'3%ÿ&','%ÿ
;($1'&ÿ,)?ÿ{=8=ÿ>,|ÿ6($1'=ÿ}%&*?%&ÿ'3%ÿ5()%"ÿ7,$)?%1%?ÿ!"ÿF,9(7*',)(Bÿ@ÿ,??1%&&%?ÿ*)ÿ5"ÿ1%97"ÿ'(ÿ
:$?+%ÿA15%)G&ÿ~1?%1ÿ'3%ÿ0*;'*5&ÿ(4ÿ'3%ÿ{6~.ÿ5(!G&ÿ;1*5*),7ÿ,;'*0*'*%&ÿ,)?ÿ;();7$?%?Hÿÿ
P\TKÿiPQgOMKP\gNÿPQQgM\KYT\KÿPNÿvhvÿhTdWTKPW[ÿgjÿgYTOP\`ÿ
hTdRWMK[ÿM\ÿP\RPW[ÿtoopÿP\`ÿVTWÿPQQgM\KYT\KÿKgÿeÿ]WTNM̀T\Kÿ
]gNKÿM\ÿhTQKTYZTWÿtolÿTYZgÒT\T`ÿKVTÿeÿUVMKTÿdgOOPWÿdWMYM\PONÿ
KgÿM\KT\NMj[ÿKVTMWÿKTWWgWÿPMYT`ÿPKÿKVTMWÿP`bTWNPWMTNÿUMKVgRKÿP\[ÿ
VTNMKPKMg\ÿKgÿrMOOÿQTgQOTÿMjÿ\TT`T`vÿ
ÿ
}"ÿA$+$&'ÿ4Bÿ2x43Bÿ'3%ÿ{8ÿ>,|ÿ~1?%1ÿ*)ÿ'3%ÿ6,&%ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿ8%10*;%Bÿ{=8=ÿ>,|ÿ6($1'ÿ6,&%ÿF(=ÿ24xE04ÿBÿ2,&ÿ&%'ÿ4(1ÿ'1*,7ÿ*)ÿ8,)ÿ1,);*&;(ÿ()ÿ
:,)$,1"ÿBÿ2x2xÿÿ
~)%ÿ5()'3ÿ,4'%1ÿ'3%ÿ;,&%ÿ2,&ÿ&%'ÿ4(1ÿ'1*,7ÿ*)ÿ8,)ÿ1,);*&;(Bÿ{6ÿ.1%&*?%)'ÿ:,)%'ÿF,9(7*',)(ÿ,))($);%?ÿ
3%1ÿ1%&*+),'*()ÿ()ÿ8%9'%5!%1ÿ4Bÿ2x43Bÿ%44%;'*0%ÿA$+$&'ÿ2x2x=ÿ>3%ÿA$+$&'ÿ2x2xÿ1%&*+),'*()ÿ(4ÿ
F,9(7*',)(ÿ41(5ÿ'3%ÿ{6ÿ.1%&*?%)'ÿ9(&'ÿ*&ÿ()%ÿ(4ÿ'3%ÿ1%,&()&ÿ'(ÿ;()'*)$%ÿ'3%ÿ'1*,7ÿ,4'%1ÿA$+$&'ÿ2x2xÿ'(ÿ
91%0%)'ÿF,9(7*',)(ÿ41(5ÿ5%??7*)+ÿ*)ÿ'3*&ÿ7%+,7ÿ91(;%&&=ÿ
ÿ
¡¢¢J£vÿ ÿ
^¥ÿc¦^J¦iÿ§¦¨ÿ]X¨^JX¡ÿhccX¨©ÿsªc¥i^ÿ§J¡¥sÿ¦iÿi¦£¥c«¥¨ÿmfÿtolpÿÿ
«©ÿ̈¥h]¦is¥i^fÿJ¨hÿe¦ccJhhJ¦i¥¨ÿJiÿ¬55®ÿ¬5¯°±ÿ®5±²±°³ÿ́µÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
±²³´ÿ³¶·¸ÿ¹º»¼½¾»¿ÿÿÿÿÿÿÀÁÂÃĸÅÆÿ¹½ÇȺ½»¾ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÉÊȨ̈ÌÍÿ»ÇλÏκ»ººÿÿÿÿÿÿжѸÿÒ¾¿ÿÁÓÿÒÔÒ
!!"#ÿÿ"$#"4%ÿ#&#"'#ÿ()*+,-).ÿ/0(0ÿ234ÿ-5/*2ÿ-3()ÿ650ÿ
789:;<9=ÿ>?ÿ
5@ÿ6ABCDECFÿG.ÿ7:9H?ÿIJKÿLKMNOPQKPIÿRPÿSTUVWXTYÿST[\W]ÿ^TW]_]\`ÿabÿcVddeWWeV[fUÿVgÿh[ifU[TXÿ
jfaf[\fÿkKlmRnK?ÿopkpÿqrsÿtOulIÿtrMKÿvOpÿ2wxyz0x{ÿ|?ÿIJKÿ}LkÿtO~~RMMROPKl?ÿRKQÿrÿOIROPÿOlÿ
rlIRrÿku~~rlÿuQ~KPIpÿ
ÿ5@ÿ6ABCDECFÿ=.ÿ7:9H?ÿ}ÿRKQÿrÿ~OIROPÿIOÿnOPIRPuKÿIJKÿIlRrÿRPÿSTUVWXTYÿST[\W]ÿ^TW]_]\`ÿabÿ
cVddeWWeV[fUÿVgÿh[ifU[TXÿjfaf[\fÿkKlmRnK?ÿopkpÿqrsÿtOulIÿtrMKÿvOpÿ2wxyz0x{ÿ|ÿrIKlÿkKNIK~Klÿ2y?ÿ
2y2yÿOlÿIJKÿOORPÿlKrMOPÿÿ
IKlÿ~ÿuÿ23?ÿ2yx3ÿq}q}vLkÿLÿqÿqÿoÿÿ2yx3ÿopkpÿqÿ
toLqÿLLÿkLÿvÿoÿ3?ÿ2yx3ÿMRPKQÿÿIJKÿkNKnRrÿqlRrÿuQKÿ
OPpÿLOKlIÿvpÿl~KPÿLÿLqtq}ÿLL?ÿqÿtoLqÿLokÿÿ
Ltq}tÿvÿLtoLÿktq}vÿxywÿ?ÿ2?ÿvÿw?ÿuQKÿ
l~KPÿQKPRKQÿIJKÿLKMNOPQKPIMÿOIROPÿOlÿlOIKnIRmKÿlQKlÿrPQÿIJKÿtrMKÿrMÿMKIÿ
OlÿIlRrÿÿkIrPQRPÿlKIlRrÿlQKlÿMRPKQÿÿOPpÿOMKNJÿLOKlIÿOKKpÿuQKÿ
l~KPÿlKIRlKQÿOPÿuuMIÿwx?ÿ2yx3pÿPKÿ~OPIJÿrIKlÿIJKÿnrMKÿrMÿMKIÿOlÿIlRrÿRPÿ
krPÿlrPnRMnO?ÿotÿlKMRQKPIÿrPKIÿvrNORIrPOÿrPPOuPnKQÿJKlÿlKMRPrIROPÿOPÿ
kKNIK~Klÿx{?ÿ2yx3?ÿKKnIRmKÿuuMIÿ2y2ypÿqJKÿuuMIÿ2y2yÿlKMRPrIROPÿOÿ
vrNORIrPOÿlO~ÿIJKÿotÿlKMRQKPIÿNOMIÿRMÿOPKÿOÿIJKÿlKrMOPMÿIOÿnOPIRPuKÿIJKÿIlRrÿ
rIKlÿuuMIÿ2y2yÿIOÿNlKmKPIÿvrNORIrPOÿlO~ÿ~KQQRPÿRPÿIJRMÿKrÿNlOnKMMpÿ
ÿ
)4,,2ÿ=ÿ¡¢F£ÿ¤A¥¦ÿ¢@£ÿA@ÿ§¢̈©¡ÿ£FªBCÿ¢@£ÿ«+«¬ÿ
5@ÿ«C¤CDECFÿ;.ÿ7:9H?ÿ}ÿlKnKRmKQÿrÿtOulIÿlQKlÿlO~ÿIJKÿORMJÿtlR~RPrÿtOulIÿRPÿ
lOMPO?ÿOrPQÿIOÿrNNKrlÿOlÿrÿtOulIÿKrlRPÿOPÿrPurlÿ3?ÿ2y2yÿOlÿIJKÿNKPQRPÿnrMKÿOlÿ
nO~NKPMrIROPÿQuKÿIOÿ~KÿKnruMKÿOÿ~ÿrPIR0nO~~uPRMIÿrnIRmRIRKMÿRPÿx3{y®x3{2ÿOlÿIJKÿ
RPQKNKPQKPIÿKsRMIKPnKÿOÿIJKÿORMJÿkIrIKÿMKKÿ
JIINM¯¯pMnlRQpnO~Q̄Onu~KPĪ°3°°°xx°k̄ORQrlRI0PIR0tO~~uPRMI0OmK~KPI0OrPQ0
x3{y0x3{2pÿ
ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿB.Cÿ1DÿBCB
ÿ
ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#$ÿ#&'(ÿ)*+,-.+/ÿÿÿÿÿÿ01234(56ÿ)-78*-+.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9:;(<=ÿ+7>+?>*+**ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@&A(ÿB.7ÿ1CÿBDB
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
±²³´ÿ³¶·¸ÿ¹º»¼½¾»¿ÿÿÿÿÿÿÀÁÂÃĸÅÆÿ¹½ÇȺ½»¾ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÉÊȨ̈ÌÍÿ»ÇλÏκ»ººÿÿÿÿÿÿжѸÿÒÏ»ÿÁÓÿÒÔÒ
!"#$%&ÿ$%'(ÿ)(%*$+,-"'$(%ÿ./(ÿ."*ÿ'/,ÿ0-,*$+,%'ÿ(1ÿ'/,ÿ2%$3,-*$'4ÿ(1ÿ5"6$1(-%$"ÿ"'ÿ'/,ÿ'$7,8ÿ9ÿ+$+ÿ%('ÿ
&(ÿ'(ÿ0(6"%+ÿ1(-ÿ'/,ÿ'-$"6ÿ*,'ÿ1(-ÿ:"%;"-4ÿ38ÿ2<2<=ÿ>%,ÿ)"66ÿ1-(7ÿ?"@(6$'"%(8ÿ"%+ÿ74ÿ'-$@ÿ'(ÿ0(6"%+ÿ7(*'ÿ
6$#,64ÿ.(;6+ÿ/"3,ÿ,%+,+ÿ'/,ÿ*"7,ÿ."*ÿ'/"'ÿA(%"*ÿB$#-,C*ÿ'-$@ÿ+$+=ÿD,ÿ."*ÿ@6"),+ÿ"%+ÿ7"$%'"$%,+ÿ(%ÿ
E?(ÿB64ÿF$*'Gÿ1(-ÿ7(-,ÿ'/"%ÿ*$Hÿ4,"-*ÿI,)";*,ÿ/,ÿ-,1;*,+ÿ'(ÿI,ÿ"%ÿBJ9ÿ$%1(-7"%'ÿ=K*,,ÿLMNOPÿRSÿLPTSÿ
UVOPWVÿXYÿZ[RP\]M^W]MX[8ÿ3<_ÿB=`+ÿa<``ÿK3'/ÿ5$-=ÿ2<abc=ÿ9ÿ"7ÿ),-'"$%ÿ'/"'ÿ9ÿ.(;6+ÿ%('ÿI,ÿ.-$'$%&ÿ'/$*ÿ
"++,%+;7ÿ'(+"4ÿ$1ÿ9ÿ/"+ÿ16(.%ÿ'(ÿ0(6"%+ÿ$%ÿ:"%;"-4ÿ2<2<8ÿ'"#$%&ÿ$%'(ÿ)(%*$+,-"'$(%ÿ./"'ÿ'/,ÿ25>0ÿ
7(I*',-*ÿ+$+ÿ'(ÿ7,ÿ$%ÿ2<aad2<a2ÿK*,,ÿÿ
ÿ/''@*eff...=*)-$I+=)(7f+();7,%'f̀3<_g_h2afi90ah025>00j"1$"0j(*'02%."%',+00(*',-c=ÿ
ÿ
ÿlmÿnopoqrosÿtuvÿwxty8ÿ9ÿ1$6,+ÿ74ÿ(@@(*$'$(%ÿ'(ÿ'/,ÿ9ziÿ5(77$**$(%,-C*ÿj('$(%ÿ1(-ÿ0"-'$"6ÿi;77"-4ÿ
:;+&7,%'ÿ{|}~ÿyÿ sÿpÿmÿmÿÿsoÿmÿnnvÿ
psrpqpqomuuxxxttwtuwxty somos
lmqq s qom¡ÿ
ÿ
¢6*(ÿ$%ÿ£,),7I,-ÿ2<a38ÿ./$6,ÿ+($%&ÿ-,*,"-)/ÿ1(-ÿ74ÿ>@@(*$'$(%ÿ'(ÿz,*@(%+,%'C*ÿ0"-'$"6ÿj('$(%ÿ1(-ÿ
i;77"-4ÿ:;+&7,%'8ÿ1$6,+ÿ(%ÿ?(3,7I,-ÿh8ÿ2<a3ÿK2=i=ÿ!"Hÿ5(;-'ÿ£()#,'ÿ?(=ÿ<<`gc8ÿ9ÿ+$*)(3,-,+ÿ'/"'8ÿ
*/(-'64ÿ"1',-ÿ9ÿ-,'"$%,+ÿ¢''(-%,4ÿi)/6,$%ÿ$%ÿj"4ÿ2<ag8ÿ?"@(6$'"%(ÿ;*,+ÿ/,-ÿ)(%%,)'$(%*ÿ$%ÿ0-,*$+,%'ÿ
>I"7"C*ÿ"+7$%$*'-"'$(%ÿ'(ÿ,%"I6,ÿ1(-7,-ÿ25ÿ¤H,);'$3,ÿ¢**()$"',ÿ¥$),ÿ0-,*$+,%'ÿ:;+$'/ÿJ(4,'',ÿ'(ÿ
I,ÿ"@@($%',+ÿI4ÿ'/,ÿi,)-,'"-4ÿ(1ÿ!-,"*;-4ÿ'(ÿ"ÿ'/-,,04,"-ÿ',-7ÿ(%ÿ'/,ÿ9ziÿ¢+3$*(-4ÿ5(77$'',,ÿ(%ÿ!"Hÿ
¤H,7@'ÿ"%+ÿ¦(3,-%7,%'ÿ¤%'$'$,*ÿK!¤¦¤c8ÿ'(ÿ'"#,ÿ)"-,ÿ(1ÿ74ÿ9ziÿ./$*'6,I6(.,-ÿ)6"$7ÿ"%+ÿ74ÿ
"''(-%,48ÿi)/6,$%=ÿJ(4,'',C*ÿ"@@($%'7,%'ÿ'(ÿ'/,ÿ!¤¦¤ÿ."*ÿ%('ÿ)($%)$+,%'"6=ÿ9'ÿ$*ÿ"@@"-,%'ÿ1-(7ÿ'/,ÿ)"*,ÿ
§P¨VWÿRSÿ§P^P[]\ÿXYÿ]©Pÿª[MRPO\M]«ÿXYÿ¬WMYXO[MW®ÿ¢6ÿ̀2hhbÿK5"6=ÿ5'=ÿ¢@@=ÿ:"%=ÿ238ÿ2<a`cÿ'/"'ÿ'/,ÿ25ÿ$*ÿ
"ÿ)6$,%'ÿ(1ÿD"%*(%ÿJ-$+&,''ÿFF0=ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿlmÿ¯ spÿtuvÿwxwx8ÿ9ÿ*;I7$'',+ÿ"ÿ-,°;,*'ÿ'(ÿ"*),-'"$%ÿ./,'/,-ÿ'/,ÿz,*@(%+,%'C*ÿj('$(%ÿ1(-ÿ
0"-'$"6ÿi;77"-4ÿ:;+&7,%'8ÿ1$6,+ÿ(%ÿ?(3,7I,-ÿh8ÿ2<a38ÿ/"+ÿI,,%ÿ@6"),+ÿ(%ÿ'/,ÿ5(;-'ÿ5"6,%+"-ÿ
K+()#,'cÿ'(ÿ-,%+,-ÿ"ÿ+,)$*$(%ÿ$%ÿ'/,ÿ"I(3,0)"@'$(%,+ÿ)"*,8ÿ,$'/,-ÿ.$'/ÿ(-ÿ.$'/(;'ÿ/,"-$%&ÿ(-"6ÿ
"-&;7,%'*=ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
defgÿfijkÿlmnopqnrÿÿÿÿÿÿstuvwkxyÿlpz{mpnqÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ|}~kÿnznmnmmÿÿÿÿÿÿikÿpÿtÿ
ÿ!"ÿ$%"&ÿ'(ÿ)*)*+ÿ,-.ÿ/010ÿ234ÿ5678,ÿ97:;.+ÿ<=ÿ3ÿ>.?683@:7?ÿABC@C6@ÿ3@:ÿA8:.8ÿ3@:ÿD.ECFC6@ÿC@ÿ
GHIJKJLMÿOPÿQRSSTIITRUVWÿXY+ÿ2050ÿ>.?60ÿ2Z2Z0[\ÿ]/0102050ÿ97@.ÿ^+ÿ2Z2Z_+ÿF.8`.:ÿ6@ÿ97@.ÿ^+ÿ2Z2Zÿ3ÿ
a83@,.:ÿb38,C3cÿ17??38=ÿ97:;?.@,ÿ,6ÿY.FB6@:.@,0ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¢¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿ§¨©ª«¬ÿ¤®¯¡¤¢¥ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°±²³ÿ́¢®µ¢¶µ¡¢¡¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿ·¸ÿ¹¶¡ÿ̈ºÿ¹»¹
ÿ!"ÿ$%"&ÿ'()ÿ'*'*+ÿ,-.ÿ/012.3+ÿ45,6-0-78,.3+ÿ183ÿ90:;.67,.3ÿ<=ÿ>19:?5,18:@;ÿ/05.83;ÿ/:02.0ÿABÿ
C,1,.ÿC.81,:0ÿD.?183ÿE..ÿ41;ÿ0.?.1;.3ÿ/0:2ÿ/.3.01?ÿ905;:8ÿ1/,.0ÿ2:0.ÿ,-18ÿ/:70ÿ=.10;ÿ:/ÿ
586106.01,5:8Fÿÿ
ÿ
-,,9;GHH444F;605<3F6:2H3:672.8,HIJKIL2MKMH2KNK02K2K0O5,6-0P78,0
Q0:;.67,5:801830R86106101,5:80:/0,-.0A1?5/:08510C.81,:00D.?1830E..ÿ
STTUVÿ ÿ
XYZÿ[\]ÿ^)ÿ'*'*ÿ\_X`aSZÿ̀bÿcdeÿ5cf5gchÿijY]ÿb!Xÿ$\bZXklÿ
\ÿU`aZmn_Zo`pZbX`\Sÿn`aqÿjY!ÿa!rSpÿoY!jÿXY\Xÿ$!Zÿs`pZbÿ̀oÿoZ_`!roÿ
\s!rXÿj`bb`bt)ÿ\bpÿXYZbÿt!UZ_b`btÿ
s]ÿ$!b\XY\bÿ_\raYÿ
ÿÿ
ÿ
uvvwxyzz{{{Vvu&|v}|"v~Vz~&|xz|u~&z'*'*z*^zxvmwm~&"m&|}}m
"&&xz(''zÿ
ÿ
:81,-18ÿ176-ÿ5;ÿ1ÿ6:8,05<7,58ÿ405,.0ÿ1,ÿÿFÿR8ÿ-5;ÿ1=ÿI+ÿ2K2Kÿ10,56?.+ÿ-.ÿ40:,.+ÿ
19910.8,?=ÿ1/,.0ÿ1ÿ6-1,ÿ45,-ÿ18.,ÿ>19:?5,18:+ÿ,-1,ÿ>19:?5,18:ÿ;-:7?3ÿ<.ÿ6:8;53.0.3ÿ1;ÿ1ÿ9:,.8,51?ÿ
078858021,.ÿ/:0ÿ:.ÿ53.8ÿ58ÿ,-.ÿ2K2Kÿ90.;53.8,51?ÿ.?.6,5:8Fÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
fghiÿhklmÿnopqrsptÿÿÿÿÿÿuvwxymz{ÿnr|}orpsÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ~mÿp|popooÿÿÿÿÿÿkmÿÿvÿ
"#$%&'(#)%*ÿ%)ÿ+#),ÿ%--#.'%).*ÿ/#.ÿ)#+01ÿ')ÿ(20ÿ$30..ÿ#.ÿ#ÿ$%..'4&0ÿ-#)1'1ÿ#(0ÿ5%3ÿ#ÿ56(630ÿ
#$$%')(+0)(ÿ(%ÿ(20ÿ7898ÿ96$30+0ÿ:%63(8ÿ9%+0ÿ$%&'('-#&ÿ-%++0)(#(%3.ÿ#&.%ÿ.6;;0.(01ÿ203ÿ-#)1'1#-,ÿ')ÿ
(20ÿ2<=>ÿ7)'(01ÿ9(#(0.ÿ$30.'10)('#&ÿ0&0-('%)8ÿ?)ÿ90$(0+403ÿ2<=@*ÿ.%+0ÿ/2%ÿ30+0+40301ÿ"#$%&'(#)%ÿ#.ÿ
(20ÿAB9ÿ90-30(#3,ÿ#)1ÿC3'D%)#ÿE%F03)%3ÿ.#'1ÿ(20,ÿ.#/ÿ203ÿ#.ÿ#ÿ$%..'4&0ÿ.6--0..%3ÿ(%ÿG3'-ÿB%&103*ÿ
.03F');ÿ#.ÿ7898ÿC((%3)0,ÿE0)03#&8ÿ?).(0#1*ÿH%30((#ÿH,)-2ÿ30$&#-01ÿB%&1038ÿÿ
I#6-2*ÿ')ÿ2'.ÿ#)('0K36+$ÿ#3('-&0ÿ$3%+%(');ÿ"#$%&'(#)%ÿ#.ÿ40((03ÿ36))');0+#(0ÿ5%3ÿL%0ÿM'10)ÿ')ÿ
(20ÿ2<2<ÿ$30.'10)('#&ÿ0&0-('%)*ÿ/3%(0Nÿÿ
B#33'.*ÿO2'(+03*ÿ#)1ÿC43#+.ÿ&#-Pÿ.0#.%)');8ÿQRSSTUÿVRUÿWXYÿZ[Yÿ
\X]^_[Y[`ÿV[SÿaTSUYÿY[S]ÿTWÿYV[ÿbcdcÿd[WRY[*ÿO2'(+03ÿ'.ÿ.('&&ÿ')ÿ203ÿ
.0-%)1ÿ,0#3ÿ#.ÿ;%F03)%3ÿ%5ÿe'-2';#)*ÿ#)1ÿC43#+.ÿ2#.ÿ)0F03ÿ.03F01ÿ')ÿ
50103#&ÿ%3ÿ.(#(0/'10ÿ%55'-08ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¢£ÿ¤¡ÿ¥ÿ¤¦¤
!"#$%&ÿ'(ÿ)%*'+,#%!'-ÿ#.$ÿ('/0$/ÿ1%+,('/!,%ÿ2##'/!$3ÿ4$!$/%+ÿ5.'ÿ.%&ÿ!'#ÿ6'0*+$#$&ÿ.$/ÿ(,/"#ÿ#$/0ÿ
,!ÿ#.$ÿ7898ÿ9$!%#$-ÿ:%0%+%ÿ;%//,"-ÿ<$6%0$ÿ#.$ÿ=,6$ÿ>/$",&$!#ÿ%"ÿ%ÿ/$"?+#ÿ'(ÿ#.$ÿ2@2@ÿ*/$",&$!#,%+ÿ
$+$6#,'!ÿA"$$ÿ.##*"BCC55585.,#$.'?"$8D'EC%&0,!,"#/%#,'!CE,6$0*/$",&$!#0.%//,"CF8ÿ
ÿÿ !ÿ%&&,#,'!-ÿG,&$!ÿ</'?D.#ÿ,!#'ÿ.,"ÿ%&0,!,"#/%#,'!ÿ;%//,"H"ÿ"?66$""'/ÿ,!ÿ#.$ÿ1%+,('/!,%ÿ
2##'/!$3ÿ4$!$/%+H"ÿ'((,6$-ÿI%E,$/ÿG$6$//%-ÿ5.'ÿ5%"ÿ!'0,!%#$&ÿ9$6/$#%/3ÿ'(ÿ#.$ÿJ$*%/#0$!#ÿ'(ÿ
;$%+#.ÿ%!&ÿ;?0%!ÿ9$/E,6$"ÿA"$$ÿ.##*"BCC5558.."8D'EC%<'?#C+$%&$/".,*CK%E,$/0<$6$//%8.#0+F8ÿ
#ÿ5%"ÿ'!ÿ;%//,"ÿ%!&ÿG$6$//%H"ÿ5%#6.ÿ#.%#ÿ)%*'+,#%!'ÿ+%?!&$/$&ÿLMNOÿ0,++,'!ÿ#.%#ÿE%!,".$&ÿ
(/'0ÿ*?<+,6ÿE,$5ÿ<$6%?"$ÿG$6$//%ÿ/$(?"$&ÿ#'ÿ'*$!ÿ%ÿ*/'<$ÿ%D%,!"#ÿ.$/ÿ%!&ÿ#'ÿ&,"6+'"$ÿ(/'0ÿ5.$/$ÿ#.$ÿ
0'!$3ÿ.%&ÿ6'0$ÿ,!#'ÿ#.$ÿ7!,E$/",#3ÿ'(ÿ1%+,('/!,%H"ÿ&,"6/$#,'!%/3ÿ%66'?!#-ÿ'/ÿ5.%#ÿ)%*'+,#%!'ÿ5,#.ÿ
.$/ÿ+,$?#$!%!#-ÿ5.'0ÿ".$ÿ</'?D.#ÿ5,#.ÿ.$/ÿ(/'0ÿJ;9ÿ#'ÿ71P>-ÿ,!#$!&$&ÿ#'ÿ&'ÿ5,#.ÿ"?6.ÿ.?D$ÿ
%0'?!#ÿ'(ÿ+%?!&$/$&-ÿ?!#%K$&ÿ&'++%/"8ÿÿ
!ÿ#.$ÿ6'!6+?",'!ÿ'(ÿ.,"ÿQRSÿUVWÿXYZ[W\ÿ2/#,6+$-ÿ]%?6.ÿ$+%<'/%#$&Bÿÿ
ÿ%"^$&ÿ)%*'+,#%!'ÿ%<'?#ÿ#.$ÿE,6$0*/$",&$!#,%+ÿ!'0,!%#,'!8ÿ9.$ÿ#'+&ÿ0$ÿ#.%#ÿ".$ÿ.%"ÿ
!'#ÿ.%&ÿ6'!E$/"%#,'!"ÿ5,#.ÿ#.$ÿG,&$!ÿ6%0*%,D!-ÿ%!&ÿ,"ÿ!'#-ÿ#'ÿ.$/ÿ^!'5+$&D$-ÿ?!&$/ÿ
6'!",&$/%#,'!-ÿ<?#ÿ/?+$&ÿ!'#.,!Dÿ,!ÿ'/ÿ'?#8ÿA_ÿ&'!H#ÿ+,^$ÿ#'ÿ"*$6?+%#$ÿ'/ÿ&$%+ÿ,!ÿ5.%#ÿ
,("8ÿ],D.#ÿ!'5-ÿ#.$/$ÿ,"ÿ!'#.,!Dÿ#'ÿ6'!",&$/8̀Fÿ9.$ÿ$!&'/"$&ÿG,&$!ÿ%"ÿ
_^!'5+$&D$%<+$-ÿ$K*$/,$!6$&-ÿ%!&ÿ%ÿ6%*%<+$ÿ+$%&$/-̀ÿ%!&ÿ".$ÿ"%,&ÿ#.$3ÿ.%E$ÿ.%&ÿ%!ÿ
$K6$++$!#ÿ/$+%#,'!".,*ÿ('/ÿ3$%/"ÿ%!&ÿ.%E$ÿ5'/^$&ÿ#'D$#.$/ÿ'!ÿ%ÿ5,&$ÿ/%!D$ÿ'(ÿ,""?$"8ÿ
;$/ÿ.$%+#.-ÿ".$ÿ"%,&-ÿ,"ÿD''&8ÿ_ÿ&,&ÿ.%E$ÿ%ÿ/$"?/D$!6$ÿ'(ÿ</$%"#ÿ6%!6$/ÿ,!ÿ2@Ma-ÿ<?#ÿ
03ÿ$K6$++$!#ÿ&'6#'/"ÿbÿD'#ÿ,#ÿ%++ÿ%!&ÿHE$ÿ.%&ÿ%ÿ6+$%!ÿ<,++ÿ'(ÿ.$%+#.ÿ$E$/ÿ",!6$8̀ÿ
!ÿ9$*#$0<$/-ÿ)%*'+,#%!'ÿ%!!'?!6$&ÿ#.%#ÿ".$ÿ5,++ÿ"#$*ÿ&'5!ÿ(/'0ÿ#.$ÿ71ÿ
*/$",&$!63ÿ#.,"ÿ6'0,!Dÿ2?D?"#8ÿ:,&"-ÿ6%!ÿ3'?ÿ"%3ÿ_%E%,+%<+$`cÿdefghÿjklmfÿngÿ
opqrsÿhktÿtkÿuvkptwmeutÿvgpxÿqhfÿopqrsÿvgÿomgqpmsÿeuÿhkt8ÿyhÿvgjehzÿtkÿtvgÿoghtgpÿ
qhfÿ{etovehzÿtkÿ|kfgpqtgÿ}ktgpuÿjvkÿopq}gÿqÿuqhgxÿok|{gtghtxÿhkhuoqpsÿ
qmtgphqte}gÿtkÿ~pl|{xÿg|kopqtuÿvq}gÿ{mqsgfÿtvgepÿvqhfÿuvpgjfmsÿehÿ8ÿ
>?##,!Dÿ)%*'+,#%!'ÿ'!ÿ#.$ÿ#,6^$#ÿ5'?+&ÿ".'5ÿ#.$3ÿ%/$ÿ"$/,'?"ÿ%<'?#ÿ5,!!,!D-ÿ%!&ÿ
#.$!ÿD'E$/!,!D8ÿ
ÿ
#ÿ&,&ÿ!'#ÿ.%**$!8ÿ)%*'+,#%!'ÿ5%"ÿ!'#ÿ".'/#0+,"#$&ÿ<3ÿG,&$!ÿ%"ÿ%ÿ*'#$!#,%+ÿ/?!!,!Dÿ0%#$-ÿ'/ÿ'(($/$&ÿ%!3ÿ
*'",#,'!ÿ,!ÿ#.$ÿ%&0,!,"#/%#,'!ÿ%(#$/ÿG,&$!ÿ5%"ÿ$+$6#$&ÿ,!ÿ)'E$0<$/ÿ2@2@8ÿ.,"ÿ%/#,6+$ÿ&,&ÿ!'#ÿ.$+*ÿ
)%*'+,#%!'H"ÿ<,&ÿ#'ÿ<$ÿ6'!",&$/$&8ÿ]%?6.ÿ,"ÿ(/'0ÿ#.$ÿ"%0$ÿD/'?*ÿ'(ÿ%!#,0/?0*ÿ6'!#/,<?#,!Dÿ5/,#$/"ÿ%"ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
²³´µÿ́·¸¹ÿº»¼½¾¿¼ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÁÂÃÄŹÆÇÿº¾ÈÉ»¾¼¿ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÊË̹ÍÎÿ¼ÈϼÐÏ»¼»»ÿÿÿÿÿÿÑ·Ò¹ÿÓÐÐÿÂÔÿÓÕÓ
!!"ÿ ##$"%&'()ÿ*+,ÿ-".#/0&%$1ÿ.("&2"-ÿ32'(#ÿ/!ÿ+"2ÿ4"#5"(%"2ÿ6)ÿ7373ÿ&25/0$"ÿ/!ÿ89:ÿ<=>?@=ABÿ
CD+,E.ÿF'55/!Gÿ3+"."ÿH-"&.ÿ/!ÿI/.ÿI"&-JKÿ
L,2("2ÿLMHÿ&G"!5ÿF"5"2ÿ452N,Oÿ*,22/".ÿ5+&5ÿ ("2/0&!.ÿ*/$$ÿ!"P"2ÿ$"&2!ÿ5+"ÿQ'$$ÿ.5,21ÿ&%,'5ÿ
32'(#E.ÿ2"$&5/,!.+/#ÿ*/5+ÿR'../&ÿS.""ÿ+55#.TUU***V5+"&5$&!5/0V0,(U/-"&.U&20+/P"U7373U3WU&!!"0
&##$"%&'(0/!5"2P/"*.0#"5"20.52N,OUXYX332UVÿ
ÿHÿ0,(("!5"-ÿ,!ÿ##$"%&'(E.ÿ&25/0$"ÿ/!ÿ4"#5"(%"2ÿ7373Tÿ.""ÿTÿÿ
+55#.TUU***V.02/%-V0,(U-,0'("!5U6Z[3\[32ZU!!"0##$"%&'(04/O,2.O&Vÿ
]^^_`aÿ ÿ
cdeÿgec`c`hiejkÿlmjhn]moÿomnpqprstnkÿihc`qeÿhuÿhvleqc`hiÿchÿcdeÿ
ranaÿcm^ÿqhrjcÿhjwejkÿwmcewÿlr]xÿyzkÿ{|{|kÿàiÿnrgghjcÿhuÿd`nÿ}hc`hiÿ
uhjÿjeqrnm]ÿhuÿlrw~eÿlhnegdÿ~heseÿmiwÿmnn`~i}eicÿhuÿmÿieoÿ
lrw~ekÿgjeuejmv]xÿcdeÿdhihjmv]eÿgmcj`qsÿlaÿrjwmkÿmggh`icewÿchÿ
cdeÿranaÿcm^ÿqhrjcÿhiÿnegce}vejÿ{zkÿ{|ykÿvxÿcdeÿgjen`weicÿhuÿcdeÿ
ri`cewÿncmcenÿhuÿm}ej`qmkÿwhim]wÿlhdiÿcjr}gaÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
R"Tÿ"(,2&!-'(ÿ#/!/,!ÿ&!-ÿ2-"2ÿ&!-ÿ"0/./,!ÿ/!ÿ?BÿÿAA@:ÿ3VVÿ"(,Vÿ7373
Z\ÿSV4V3VVÿ'!"ÿ6)ÿ7373)ÿ."2P"-ÿ,!ÿ'!"ÿ6)ÿ7373Vÿ
aa¡ ¢¡£¤¥z¦zz§§¨rcq©{|{||¦|¥©}e}ehjmiwr}©miw©
hjwej©} ¤©ª©g««¬©n¢¡¡«©l¢®¡£¤ÿ
R"Tÿ3+"ÿF"5/5/,!"2E.ÿ,5/,!ÿ5,ÿ̄&0&5"ÿ,2ÿR"P/."ÿ5+"ÿ"0/./,!ÿ,Qÿ5+"ÿ"(,2&!-'(ÿ#/!/,!ÿ&!-ÿ2-"2ÿ
&!-ÿ"0/./,!ÿS3ÿR'$"ÿYX7ÿ/!ÿ?BÿÿAA@:ÿ3VVÿ"(,Vÿ7373Z\ÿSV4V3VVÿ'!"ÿ6)ÿ
7373)ÿQ/$"-ÿ,!ÿ'!"ÿ7W)ÿ7373)ÿ-"!/"-ÿ%1ÿ5+"ÿV4Vÿ3&°ÿ,'25ÿ,!ÿ'!"ÿ23)ÿ7373Vÿ
aa¡ ¢¡£¤¥z¦zz¥§±¦rcq©{|{||¦{¨©hjwej©wei`ew©} ¤©©
_««£ÿ
R"Tÿ3+"ÿF"5/5/,!"2E.ÿ,5/,!ÿQ,2ÿR"0,!./-"2&5/,!ÿQ,2ÿL/!-/!G.ÿ,2ÿ#/!/,!ÿ&!-ÿ2-"2ÿ&!-ÿ"0/./,!ÿS3ÿ
R'$"ÿYXYÿ/!ÿ?BÿÿAA@:ÿ3VVÿ"(,Vÿ7373Z\ÿSV4V3VVÿ'!"ÿ6)ÿ7373)ÿQ/$"-ÿ,!ÿ'$1ÿ
Y\)ÿ7373)ÿ-"!/"-ÿ%1ÿ5+"ÿV4Vÿ3&°ÿ,'25ÿ,!ÿ'$1ÿYZ)ÿ7373Vÿ
aa¡ ¢¡£¤¥z¦zz¥zz{rcq©{|{||zyz©hjwej©wei`ew©} ¤©ª©
j£¤£«¤ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£ÿ¤¥¤ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦§ÿ̈¥ÿ©ÿ̈ª¨
ÿ
ÿ"#ÿ$%&'%()%*ÿ+4,ÿ+3+3,ÿ-ÿ./)(0''%1ÿ'2ÿ'3%ÿ45$5ÿ678ÿ92/*'ÿ7ÿ:2'02#ÿ;2*ÿ<%=/.7>ÿ2;ÿ?/1@%ÿ?2.%&3ÿ
A2%B%ÿ7#1ÿC..0@#(%#'ÿ2;ÿ7ÿD%Eÿ?/1@%,ÿF*%;%*7)>Gÿ?/1@%ÿF7'*0=Bÿ?5ÿ4*17ÿ;2*ÿ'3%ÿ*%=2*1ÿHIJKLMLNÿ
OPQÿRSÿTUVWXÿYZ[\]ÿVSYÿ^_^`5ÿ
63%ÿ(2'02#ÿE7.ÿ./&&2*'%1ÿ)Gÿ7ÿD2'0=%ÿ2;ÿ")a%='02#ÿ'2ÿ'3%ÿ?/>Gÿ4b,ÿ+3+3ÿ45$5ÿ678ÿ92/*'ÿ"*1%*ÿ0#ÿ
>0%/ÿ2;ÿ1%=>7*7'02#ÿ0#ÿ./&&2*'ÿ2;ÿ(Gÿ:2'02#ÿ;2*ÿ<%=/.7>ÿ2;ÿ?/1@%ÿA2%B%ÿ7#1ÿC..0@#(%#'ÿ2;ÿD%Eÿ?/1@%ÿ
'2ÿ<%c0%Eÿ'3%ÿ97.%5ÿ-ÿE*2'%ÿ'3%ÿ(2'02#ÿ7#1ÿ7ÿ>2#@ÿ#2'0=%ÿ2;ÿ2)a%='02#ÿ)%=7/.%ÿ-ÿ;%>'ÿ'37'ÿ-ÿ7(ÿ.'0>>ÿ
32**0)>Gÿc0='0(0d%1ÿ)Gÿ(Gÿ;2*(%*ÿ%(&>2G%*,ÿ(2).'%*.ÿ;*2(ÿ'3%ÿ49"Fÿ7#1ÿ'3%0*ÿ=2>>7)2*7'2*.ÿ;*2(ÿ
c7*02/.ÿ%#'0'0%.5ÿÿ
e2*ÿE37'%c%*ÿ*%7.2#,ÿ2#ÿ?/>Gÿ4b,ÿ+3+3,ÿ?/1@%ÿA2%B%ÿ1%#0%1ÿ(GÿF%'0'02#%*f.ÿ:2'02#ÿ;2*ÿ
<%=2#.01%*7'02#ÿ;2*ÿe0#10#@ÿ2*ÿ"&0#02#ÿ7#1ÿ"*1%*ÿ7#1ÿg%=0.02#ÿh469ÿ</>%ÿ4i4jÿ0#ÿklmnonpqÿstÿ
uvwwxmmxvyz{|ÿ6595ÿ:%(25ÿ+3+3}b~ÿh45$56595ÿ?/#%ÿ,ÿ+3+3j,ÿE30=3ÿE7.ÿ;0>%1ÿ2#ÿ?/>Gÿ4~,ÿ+3+35ÿ-ÿ;%>'ÿ
'37'ÿ0'ÿE7.ÿ'3%ÿE*2#@ÿ1%=0.02#ÿ7#1ÿ&2>0'0=7>>Gÿ(2'0c7'%1,ÿ10='7'%1ÿ'2ÿ'3%ÿ45$5ÿ678ÿ92/*'ÿ)Gÿ97>0;2*#07.ÿ
=2**/&'ÿ&2>0'0=7>ÿ2>0@7*=3Gÿ7#1ÿ'3%ÿ49"Fÿ(2),ÿ>%1ÿ)Gÿ;2*(%*ÿD7&2>0'7#2,ÿE32ÿ%()%dd>%1ÿ4b~ÿ(0>>02#ÿ
2;ÿ>7/#1%*%1ÿ(2#%Gÿc07ÿ4#0c%*.0'Gÿ2;ÿ97>0;2*#07ÿ10.=*%'02#7*Gÿ7==2/#'.5ÿÿ
ÿ
-ÿ./)(0''%1ÿD2'0=%ÿ2;ÿ")a%='02#,ÿ'3%ÿ45$5ÿ678ÿ92/*'ÿ2#ÿ$%&'%()%*ÿ+4,ÿ+3+3,ÿ2#%ÿ(2#'3ÿ7;'%*ÿ
D7&2>0'7#2ÿ*%.0@#%1ÿ;*2(ÿ3%*ÿ&2.'ÿ7.ÿ49ÿF*%.01%#'ÿÿ
:Gÿ+4+3+3ÿ:2'02#ÿe2*ÿ<%=/.7>ÿ2;ÿ?/1@%ÿ?2.%&3ÿA2%B%ÿ7#1ÿC..0@#(%#'ÿ2;ÿ7ÿD%Eÿ?/1@%,ÿ
F*%;%*7)>Gÿ'3%ÿ2#2*7)>%ÿF7'*0=Bÿ?5ÿ4*17,ÿC&&20#'%1ÿ62ÿ63%ÿ45$5ÿ678ÿ92/*'ÿ"#ÿ$%&'%()%*ÿ+b,ÿ+34ÿ
)Gÿ'3%ÿF*%.01%#'ÿg2#7>1ÿ6*/(&ÿE7.ÿÿ./&&2*'%1ÿ)Gÿ'3%ÿÿ+4+3+3ÿD2'0=%ÿ2;ÿ")a%='02#ÿ'2ÿ'3%ÿ45$5ÿ678ÿ
92/*'ÿ"*1%*,ÿg7'%1ÿ?/>Gÿ4b,ÿ+3+3ÿHIJKLMLNÿOPÿRSÿTUVWXÿYZ[\]ÿVSYÿ^_^`5ÿ
:Gÿ2330&7@%0>2#@ÿ#2'0=%ÿ2;ÿ2)a%='02#ÿ*%;>%='%1ÿ'3%ÿ&2>0'0=7>ÿ=>0(7'%ÿ2;ÿ'3%ÿ4$ÿ&*02*ÿ'2ÿ7#1ÿ
1/*0#@ÿ'3%ÿ&*%.01%#=Gÿ7.ÿ-ÿ.7Eÿ0',ÿ7#1ÿ0#ÿ>0@3'ÿ2;ÿ(Gÿ%8&%*0%#=%.ÿE0'3ÿ'3%ÿ49"Ff.ÿ2*@7#0d%1ÿE30'%ÿ
=2>>7*ÿ=*0(%,ÿE30=3ÿ0.ÿ7>.2ÿ=2##%='%1ÿ'2ÿ'3%ÿ$'7'%ÿ2;ÿ97>0;2*#07,ÿ;%1%*7>ÿ@2c%*#(%#',ÿ7#1ÿc7*02/.ÿ.'7'%ÿ
7#1ÿ;%1%*7>ÿ7@%#=0%.5ÿÿ
:Gÿ(2'02#ÿÿE7.ÿ.'*0=B%#ÿ;*2(ÿ'3%ÿ*%=2*1ÿ)Gÿÿ?/1@%ÿA2%B%ÿ2#ÿ+2+3+35ÿ?/1@%ÿA2%B%f.ÿ"*1%*ÿ
.'*0B0#@ÿ(Gÿ:2'02#ÿ;2*ÿ<%=/.7>ÿ7#1ÿD2'0=%ÿ2;ÿ")a%='02#ÿ=2#'70#.ÿ7#ÿ%**2*ÿ.'7'0#@ÿ'37'ÿ(GÿD2'0=%ÿ2;ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
GHIJÿILMNÿOPQRSTQUÿÿÿÿÿÿVWXYZN[\ÿOS]^PSQTÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ_àNbcÿQ]dQedPQPPÿÿÿÿÿÿfLgNÿheUÿWiÿhjh
!"#$%&'()ÿ*+,ÿ-.(/ÿ+ÿ0$,1()2$)&ÿ304ÿ5(//',,'()$.ÿ6(&'()ÿ-(.ÿ7+.&'+8ÿ49//+.:ÿ;92<$/$)&=ÿ3&ÿ*+,ÿ
)(&=ÿ>?$ÿ304ÿ5(//',,'()$.ÿ-'8$2ÿ&?$ÿ6(&'()ÿ-(.ÿ7+.&'+8ÿ49//+.:ÿ;92</$)&ÿ()ÿ@(A$/"$.ÿBCÿ43DECÿ
+)2ÿ3ÿ-'8$2ÿ/:ÿ(11(,'&'()ÿ()ÿF$%$/"$.ÿD2Cÿ43DE=ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
EFGHÿGJKLÿMNOPQROSÿÿÿÿÿÿTUVWXLYZÿMQ[\NQORÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ]^_L`aÿO[bOcbNONNÿÿÿÿÿÿdJeLÿfcgÿUhÿfgf
!"#$%&#ÿ"#'ÿ($")$*ÿ+$,ÿ-'.%/0!ÿ$+ÿ1%2&'ÿ0*2ÿ3$").'ÿ$+ÿ456'.")$*ÿ7','ÿ/",).8'*ÿ+,$9ÿ"#'ÿ
,'.$,2:ÿ"#';ÿ7','ÿ",0*/+',,'2ÿ"$ÿ"#'ÿ<*)"'2ÿ="0"'/ÿ>$%,"ÿ$+ÿ??'0!/ÿ@)/",)."ÿ$+ÿ>$!%95)0ÿ>),.%)"ÿ0/ÿ0ÿ
-'.$,2ÿ$+ÿ??'0!:ÿ7#).#ÿAÿ+)!'2ÿ$*ÿ='?"'95',ÿBC:ÿB3B3Dÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¦§ÿ¨©ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿª«¬®ÿ¨¯°¯ÿÿÿÿÿÿ±²ÿ³°¨ÿ¢ÿ́³µ³
ÿ!"#ÿ$%%#&'ÿ()*+ÿ,"#ÿ-#+*)&./0+ÿ1%2.2*.ÿ&./ÿ1)/#)ÿ&./ÿ3#4252*.ÿ2.ÿ6789:9;<ÿ>?ÿ@ABBC88CADEFGÿ
!HIHÿ-#+*HÿJ3J3KLMÿNOHPH!HIHÿQ0.#ÿ4RÿJ3J3SÿT&5ÿ(2'#/ÿ&./ÿ/*4U#,#/ÿ2.ÿ3HIHÿI2)402,ÿ&5ÿV7FA8W7Xÿ
V7D;89ÿ6789:9;<ÿ>?ÿ@ABBC88CADEFÿAYÿZD[EFD7Wÿ\E>ED;EÿP#)]24#RÿI&5#ÿ^*HÿJ30_43LHÿÿ
`aabccdÿ ÿ
fghÿjkjlmjkjjÿnocbhpqcfrÿstÿuv`ctspocvÿsttcuhÿstÿfghÿwphqcxhofÿygcfhÿ
us``vpÿupczcov`q{ÿusspxcovfhxÿhttspfÿfsÿhoxÿzrÿ̀cfc|vfcsoÿcoÿfghÿ
qfvfhÿstÿuv`ctspocvÿusnpfqÿvoxÿfghÿnocfhxÿqfvfhqÿusnpfÿstÿvwwhv`qÿ
xcqfpcufÿstÿus`nz}cvÿucpuncfÿ
ÿ
~#ÿP&4)&+#.,*ÿI*0.,ÿP0%#)2*)ÿI*0),ÿ4&5#ÿV7FA8W7Xÿ6789:9;<ÿ>?ÿEÿ\EED[8ÿAYÿ[EÿDC>EF8C[ÿAYÿ
@7WCYAFDC7GÿI&5#ÿ^*Hÿ24KJ3_2K24K33_MM4LRÿ(2'#/ÿ*.ÿ3#4#+#)ÿ4RÿJ3_2ÿNT)*.(0'ÿ,#)+2.&,2*.Sÿ&./ÿ
)#'&,#/ÿ,*ÿ%#./2.ÿ&%%#&'ÿ23I$ÿ4&5#ÿV7FA8W7Xÿ6789:9;<ÿ>?ÿEÿ\EED[8ÿAYÿ[EÿDC>EF8C[ÿAYÿ@7WCYAFDC7Gÿ
I&5#ÿ^*HÿI3M4Rÿ^*,24#ÿ*(ÿ$%%#&'ÿ(2'#/ÿ*.ÿ_JJ2J3J_ÿN%#./2.Sÿ
ÿ
ÿ~#ÿ!"#ÿOHPHÿI*0),ÿ*(ÿ$%%#&'ÿ325,)24,ÿ(*)ÿ,"#ÿ325,)24,ÿ*(ÿI*'0+2&ÿ4&5#ÿV7FA8W7XÿV7D;89ÿ6789:9;<ÿ>?ÿ
@ABBC88CADEFÿAYÿZD[EFD7Wÿ\E>ED;EÿP#)]24#RÿI&5#ÿ^*HÿJ30_43LRÿOHPHÿ!&ÿI*0),ÿI&5#ÿNOP!ISÿ^*Hÿ
J2_3M0_ÿRÿ^*,24#ÿ*(ÿ$%%#&'ÿ(2'#/ÿ*.ÿ_33LJ3J3Hÿÿ
ÿ
P&4)&+#.,*ÿI*0.,ÿP0%#)2*)ÿI*0),ÿQ0/#ÿ3&]2/ÿHÿ)*T.RÿT"*ÿ"&/ÿ%)#52/#/ÿ*]#)ÿ+ÿ
T)*.(0'ÿ,#)+2.&,2*.ÿ4&5#ÿ52.4#ÿP#%,#+#)ÿJ3_4ÿ2.ÿP&4)&+#.,*ÿI*0.,ÿP0%#)2*)ÿI*0),ÿ4&5#ÿ
V7FA8W7Xÿ6789:9;<ÿ>?ÿEÿ\EED[8ÿAYÿ[EÿDC>EF8C[ÿAYÿ@7WCYAFDC7GÿI&5#ÿ^*Hÿ24KJ3_2K24K33_MM4LRÿ
)#(05#/ÿ2.ÿJ3_KJ3_ÿ,*ÿ&T&)/ÿ,"#ÿOI1ÿ+*5,#)5ÿ,#)+2.&,2*.ÿ5&.4,2*.5ÿ,*ÿ#./ÿ+ÿ'2,2&,2*.Hÿ#ÿ
T&5ÿ&%%&)#.,'ÿ(*)4#/ÿ,*ÿ)#52.ÿ,")##ÿ#&)5ÿ#(*)#ÿ"25ÿ,#)+ÿ#%2)#/HÿQ0/#ÿ)*T.5ÿ,#.0)#ÿ2.ÿ
P&4)&+#.,*ÿI*0.,ÿP0%#)2*)ÿI*0),ÿ#./#/ÿ*.ÿ3#4#+#)ÿ2_RÿJ3J3Hÿ-ÿ'&5,ÿ4*0),ÿ(2'2.ÿ2.ÿP&4)&+#.,*ÿ
I*0.,ÿP0%#)2*)ÿI*0),ÿT2,"ÿQ0/#ÿ)*T.ÿÿT&5ÿ*.ÿ3#4#+#)ÿJLRÿJ3_Hÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ"#$ÿ%&'()*'+ÿÿÿÿÿÿ,-./0$12ÿ%)34&)'*ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ567$89ÿ'3:';:&'&&ÿÿÿÿÿÿ<"=$ÿ>4'ÿ-?ÿ>@>
ÿ ÿÿ ÿ
12234256ÿ89ÿÿ83ÿ1 894ÿ9ÿ12ÿ9ÿ4ÿ496894ÿÿ96ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
uvwxÿwz{|ÿ}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿ |ÿ}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ|ÿ~~~ÿÿÿÿÿÿz|ÿÿÿ
!"#$%ÿ#&$ÿ'()*ÿ+,-./ÿ#&01/ÿ"%,+ÿ#&$ÿ2,#,%3,0/ÿ*,%#$%ÿ45,##ÿ678ÿ"3%+9ÿ-7/$:ÿ32ÿ475%7+$2#,9ÿ
"736$:ÿ32ÿ;3<=>;3<?ÿ#,ÿ"%7+$ÿ+$ÿ",%ÿ7ÿ@ABCDÿFGHHGBIÿ-Jÿ$+K6,J321ÿL0:1$ÿL$223"$%ÿMNÿO,5P8$669ÿ
"%,+ÿQ$K#ÿ2R9ÿ72:ÿ#,ÿ,-#732ÿ#$%+327#3,2ÿ/725#3,2/ÿ"%,+ÿL0:1$ÿ(&%3/#,K&$%ÿM%0$1$%9ÿ"%,+ÿQ$K7%#+$2#ÿ
ST9ÿ32ÿ!K%36ÿ;3;<ÿ7##75P$:ÿ+JÿR30J$7%0,6:ÿ83"$9ÿ8&,ÿ&7:ÿ-$$2ÿ,2$ÿ,"ÿ#&$3%ÿ#7%1$#/ÿ/325$ÿ;3<SNÿÿ
!/ÿUÿK%,V3:$:ÿ32",%+7#3,2ÿ32ÿ(&7K#$%ÿWWWU9ÿL0:1$ÿO,5P8$66ÿ3/ÿ7ÿ"%3$2:ÿ72:ÿ",%+$%ÿ5,8,%P$%ÿ
,"ÿL0:1$ÿM%$01$%9ÿ"%,+ÿQ$K7%#+$2#ÿSTNÿX&$Jÿ-,#&ÿ8,%P$:ÿ32ÿ#&$ÿ/7+$ÿ(763",%237ÿ!##,%2$JÿY$2$%76./ÿ
,""35$ÿK%3,%ÿ#,ÿ-$321ÿ7KK,32#$:ÿ#,ÿ#&$ÿ-$25&ÿ32ÿ475%7+$2#,ÿ(,02#Jÿ40K$%3,%ÿ(,0%#Nÿÿ
ÿÿ ZBÿ[\H]^ÿ__ÿ̀_a_b9ÿ+JÿR30J$7%0,6:ÿ83"$9ÿU%$279ÿ87/ÿ7+-0/&$:ÿ-Jÿ7ÿ(UcUdÿ4'e*)fg!ÿ
hQ'(f4ÿXf('ijÿ",%ÿ*$%/,276ÿ!KK$7%725$ÿ72:ÿ*%,:05#3,2ÿ,"ÿQ,50+$2#/9ÿf6$5#%,235766Jÿ4#,%$:ÿ
U2",%+7#3,29ÿ72:ÿX&321/ÿ72:ÿX%376ÿ,%ÿk$7%321ÿ72:ÿQ$567%7#3,2ÿU//0$:ÿ#,ÿUOUg!ÿl!4m(m'Mÿ-Jÿ
)67#,+387ÿXNÿ!327ÿ,2ÿ!K%36ÿ;;9ÿ;3;<ÿn!**dU(!XU)gÿ!gQÿ)OQfOÿo)Oÿ!**f!O!g(fÿ!gQÿ
fW!iUg!XU)gÿ83#&ÿ7ÿ5,0%#ÿ&$7%321ÿ:7#$ÿ,"ÿi7JÿR9ÿ;3;<ÿ7#ÿ?p33ÿ!NiNÿ32ÿQ$K7%#+$2#ÿT29ÿK$%ÿ7ÿ
Qf(d!O!XU)gÿ)oÿ)d!X)iUl!ÿXNÿ!Ug!ÿUgÿ4'**)OXÿ)oÿL'QYifgXÿ(OfQUX)Oq4ÿ
!**dU(!XU)gÿo)Oÿ!**f!O!g(fÿ!gQÿfW!iUg!XU)gÿ)oÿUOUg!ÿl!4m(m'MNÿÿ
X&$ÿ7-,V$ÿ:,50+$2#/ÿ8$%$ÿ"36$:ÿ32ÿ5,0%#ÿ-Jÿ#8,ÿ7##,%2$J/9ÿd32:/7Jÿ!NÿY,06:321ÿ72:ÿ)67#,+387ÿ
XNÿ!3279ÿ"%,+ÿ#&$ÿ2,#,%3,0/ÿ*,%#$%ÿ45,##ÿ678ÿ"3%+ÿ72:ÿ/$%V$:ÿ#,ÿ+$ÿ,2ÿ!K%36ÿ;;9ÿ;3;<ÿh/$$ÿ
&##K/prr888N/5%3-:N5,+r:,50+$2#rS3S<4TTT?r;3;<3T;R0i$$#072:0(,2"$%0)%:$%0#,0!KK$7%0",%0
fs7+327#3,20)0!3270*,%#$%045,##jNÿ
ÿÿ !"#$%ÿUÿ56,/$6Jÿ/5%$$2$:ÿ#&$ÿ:,50+$2#/ÿ#&7#ÿ&7:ÿ-$$2ÿ/$%V$:ÿ0K,2ÿ+$9ÿUÿ57+$ÿ#,ÿ#&$ÿ5,2560/3,2ÿ
#&7#ÿ#&$ÿ:,50+$2#/ÿ",%ÿ72ÿ$s7+327#3,2ÿ,"ÿU%327ÿl7/t5t0Pÿ8$%$ÿ1$2$%7#$:ÿ32ÿ)5#,-$%ÿ;3<?ÿ-Jÿ,#&$%ÿ#8,ÿ
*,%#$%ÿ45,##ÿ7##,%2$J/9ÿQ723$6ÿe7%:t$66ÿ72:ÿg725Jÿ4&$$&729ÿ-$570/$ÿ#&$3%ÿ$+736ÿ7::%$//$/ÿ7KK$7%$:ÿ,2ÿ
#&$ÿ"3%/#ÿK71$ÿ,"ÿ#&$ÿ!327ÿ:,50+$2#Nÿ4&$$&72ÿ87/ÿ1%7V$6Jÿ366ÿ83#&ÿ+$#7/#7#35ÿ-%$7/#ÿ5725$%ÿ7#ÿ#&$ÿ#3+$ÿ
72:ÿ/&$ÿ:3$:ÿ,2ÿg,V$+-$%ÿ;29ÿ;3<?9ÿ$s75#6Jÿ,2$ÿ+,2#&ÿ7"#$%ÿ#&$ÿ$V360+32:$:ÿ*,%#$%ÿ45,##ÿ7##,%2$J/ÿ
7::$:ÿ&$%ÿ#,ÿ#&$ÿ57/$ÿ#,ÿ%$K%$/$2#ÿ#&$ÿ'()*ÿ+,-Nÿÿ
ÿUÿP2$8ÿ%31&#ÿ787Jÿ#&7#ÿ#&$ÿ'()*ÿ+,-/#$%/.ÿ#&01/ÿ8$%$ÿ7##$+K#321ÿ#,ÿ"%7+$ÿ+Jÿ83"$ÿ",%ÿ7ÿ
e$25&ÿl7%%72#ÿ72:ÿ5%3+3276ÿK%,/$50#3,29ÿ7/ÿ#&$Jÿ:3:ÿ#,ÿ+JÿK/J5&,6,13/#./ÿÿQ%Nÿo%72P632ÿÿe$%2&,"#./ÿÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
^_`aÿ̀cdeÿfghijkhlÿÿÿÿÿÿmnopqersÿfjtugjhkÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿvwxeyzÿht{h|{ghggÿÿÿÿÿÿ}c~eÿugÿnÿ
!"#$ÿ%&'&()*ÿ+$',)&#(ÿ",ÿ-3../-3.-0ÿ1'23$4ÿ%&'&()*ÿ+$',)&#(ÿÿ$5627$4ÿ2ÿ7'"5&,ÿ($'3ÿ!"()ÿ2ÿ78$2ÿ
29'$$3$,(0ÿ:ÿ6&;84ÿ)2<$ÿ#"8$4ÿ2ÿ3&("&,ÿ(&ÿ=;25)ÿ()$ÿ5;>7&$,2?ÿ>;(ÿ"(ÿ!&;84ÿ,&(ÿ)2<$ÿ4&,$ÿ3$ÿ2,*ÿ9&&40ÿ
:,ÿ-3.@?ÿ3*ÿ!"#$ÿ92<$ÿ3$ÿA-B?333ÿ(&ÿ72*ÿ()$ÿC;493$,(ÿ#&'ÿ;,82!#;88*ÿ2!2'4$4ÿ8$928ÿ#$$5ÿ",ÿ2,ÿ2,("0
DEFGGÿ3&("&,?ÿ>;(ÿ()$ÿHIJGÿ3&>ÿ4"4ÿ,&(ÿ62'$ÿ2>&;(ÿ3&,$*ÿ2,4ÿ4"4ÿ,&(ÿ!2,(ÿ()$ÿ3&,$*0ÿK)$*ÿ!2,($4ÿ
($'3",2("&,ÿ52,6("&,5ÿ(&ÿ$,4ÿ3*ÿ8"("92("&,5ÿ!)"6)ÿL;49$ÿ+'&!,ÿ'$#;5$4ÿ(&ÿ4$8"<$'ÿ(&ÿ()$30ÿÿ
:,5($24ÿ&#ÿ2ÿ5;>7&$,2?ÿ()$ÿHIJGÿ();95ÿ6&;84ÿ)2<$ÿ5$,(ÿ3*ÿ!"#$ÿ2ÿ8$(($'ÿ25M",9ÿ)$'ÿ#&'ÿ2ÿ6)$6M?ÿ
"#ÿ()$*ÿ!2,($4ÿ3&,$*0ÿK)$*ÿ4"4ÿ,&(ÿ!2,(ÿ()$ÿ3&,$*ÿ#&'ÿ2,ÿ2,(0DEFGGÿC;493$,(0ÿK)$ÿD26'23$,(&ÿ
I&;,(*ÿD;7$'"&'ÿI&;'(ÿ4"4ÿ,&(ÿ)2<$ÿC;'"54"6("&,ÿ&<$'ÿ3*ÿ!"#$?ÿ>$62;5$ÿ!$ÿ8"<$ÿ",ÿD2,ÿL&2=;",ÿI&;,(*?ÿ
!)"6)ÿ)25ÿ"(5ÿD;7$'"&'ÿI&;'(ÿ",ÿD(&6M(&,0ÿ:(ÿ4"4ÿ,&(ÿ32(($'0ÿ:#ÿ3*ÿ!"#$ÿ)24ÿ,&(ÿ277$2'$4ÿ",ÿD26'23$,(&ÿ
I&;,(*ÿD;7$'"&'ÿI&;'(?ÿ:ÿ)2<$ÿ,&ÿ4&;>(ÿ()2(ÿ2ÿ+$,6)ÿN2''2,(ÿ!&;84ÿ)2<$ÿ>$$,ÿ"55;$4?ÿ2,4ÿ()$ÿD)$'"##ÿ
%$72'(3$,(ÿ!&;84ÿ)2<$ÿ5)&!,ÿ;7ÿ2(ÿ3*ÿ'$5"4$,6$ÿ",ÿE&4"ÿ2,4ÿ'2,526M$4ÿ3*ÿ)&3$ÿ0ÿÿ
OPÿRSTUÿVWÿVXVY?ÿ2(ÿ@Z33ÿF0[0?ÿ3*ÿ!"#$ÿ2,4ÿ:ÿ2(($,4$4ÿ()$ÿI&;'(ÿ\$2'",9ÿ",ÿD26'23$,(&ÿI&;,(*ÿ
D;7$'"&'ÿI&;'(]5ÿ%$72'(3$,(ÿ240ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡ÿ¢£¢ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤¥ÿ¦¦ÿ§ÿ¦¨¦
!ÿ"#$%&'(#"ÿ)*#ÿ+,-.ÿ/0ÿ/3/1ÿ233#2&24%#ÿ56ÿ7.ÿ8'6#ÿ'4ÿ)*#ÿ$)2)#ÿ%5,&)ÿ965&ÿ)*#ÿ6'&$)ÿ)'7#ÿ'4ÿ*#&ÿ-'6#:ÿ'4ÿ
7.ÿ%5&&#$354"#4%#ÿ$#4)ÿ54ÿ;%)5(#&ÿ40ÿ/3/1ÿ)5ÿ<'%*#-#ÿ=#70ÿ>#%&#)2&.ÿ)5ÿ)*#ÿ?&'2-ÿ@5,4$#-ÿ'4ÿ)*#ÿ
>)2)#ÿ56ÿ@2-'65&4'2A$ÿ@577'$$'54ÿ54ÿ+,"'%'2-ÿB#&65&724%#Cÿ
<.ÿ'4D,'&.ÿ8')*ÿ)*#ÿ@+Bÿ82$ÿ)&'EE#&#"ÿ'4ÿ)*#ÿ"#6#4$#ÿ56ÿ7.ÿF30.#2&05-"ÿ8'6#ÿ8*5ÿ
*2$ÿ45)*'4Eÿ)5ÿ"5ÿ8')*ÿ7.ÿ-')'E2)'54ÿ2E2'4$)ÿ)*#ÿG4'H#&$').ÿ56ÿ@2-'65&4'20ÿ(,)ÿ8*5ÿ
*2$ÿ4#H#&)*#-#$$ÿ(##4ÿ)*)#4#"ÿ(.ÿE24E$)#&$ÿ8')*ÿ+IJIÿ"#E&##$ÿ6&57ÿ)*#ÿB5&)#&ÿ
>%5))ÿ-28ÿ6'&7ÿ$'4%#ÿK#(&,2&.ÿ/31LIÿ;4ÿ+,-.ÿ/0ÿ/3/10ÿ7.ÿ8'6#ÿ82$ÿ-')#&2--.ÿ&5((#"ÿ
56ÿMNNONPQÿ6&57ÿ*#&ÿ$2H'4E$ÿ(.ÿB5&)#&ÿ>%5))ÿ2))5&4#.ÿR'4"$2.ÿS5,-"'4Eÿ'4ÿ@5,&)ÿ
J#32&)7#4)ÿT2Iÿ?*'$ÿ*233#4#"ÿ8*'-#ÿ233#2&'4Eÿ(#65&#ÿ+,"E#ÿ?*2""ÿU-'VV2&"ÿ24"ÿ
)*#ÿ@5,&)ÿ@-#&W0ÿ24"ÿ26)#&ÿ24ÿ,4$,%%#$$6,-ÿ2))#73)ÿ)5ÿ$#)ÿ,3ÿ7.ÿ8'6#ÿ65&ÿ24ÿ
'4)#&&5E2)'54ÿ)5ÿ(Wÿ'4)5ÿ*#&ÿ(24Wÿ24"ÿT319=:ÿ2%%5,4)$Iÿ+,"E#ÿU-'VV2&"0ÿ)*#ÿ@-#&W0ÿ
24"ÿS5,-"'4Eÿ"'"ÿ45)ÿ824)ÿ)5ÿ2%%#3)ÿ)*#ÿX//0/4Tÿ%*#%Wÿ6&57ÿ7.ÿ8'6#Iÿ!ÿ-')#&2--.ÿ
*2"ÿ)5ÿ65&%#ÿS5,-"'4Eÿ)5ÿ)2W#ÿ)*#ÿ%*#%W0ÿ8*'%*ÿ$*#ÿ*2"ÿ45ÿ&'E*)ÿ)5ÿ%2$*0ÿ24"ÿ!ÿ)5-"ÿ
*#&ÿ'4ÿ6&54)ÿ56ÿ)*'$ÿY,"E#ÿ24"ÿ%-#&Wÿ)5ÿ$)53ÿ*2&2$$'4Eÿ7.ÿ8'6#Iÿ!ÿ*2"ÿ2ÿ8')4#$$ÿ8')*ÿ
7#ÿ",&'4Eÿ)*'$ÿ#H#4)ÿ'4ÿ%5,&)Iÿ!ÿ(#-'#H#ÿ)*'$ÿ82$ÿ2ÿ%55&"'42)#"ÿ%&'7'42-ÿ2%)ÿ(.ÿ)*#ÿ
)85ÿ@5,&)ÿ"#32&)7#4)$ÿ9J#3)$IÿT2ÿ24"ÿL2:ÿ)5ÿ#Z)5&)ÿ754#.Iÿ?*#$#ÿ"#32&)7#4)$ÿ
$*5,-"ÿ(#ÿ2,"')#"ÿ(.ÿ)*#ÿ>)2)#ÿ[,"')5&ÿ24"ÿ)*#ÿKU!Iÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ;4ÿ5)*#&ÿ$'"#ÿ'4ÿ)*#ÿGI>Iÿ@5,&)ÿ56ÿ[33#2-ÿJ'$)&'%)ÿ65&ÿ)*#ÿJ'$)&'%)ÿ56ÿ@5-,7('2ÿ%2$#ÿ\]^_`a]bÿ
\]de`fÿg]`fhfeiÿjkÿl_mmǹ`n_do^ÿ_pÿqdro^d]aÿsojodeoÿ>#&H'%#0ÿ@2$#ÿt5Iÿ/301T3F0ÿGI>Iÿ?2Zÿ@5,&)ÿ
@2$#ÿ9G>?@:ÿt5Iÿ/213L014ÿu0ÿt5)'%#ÿ56ÿ[33#2-0ÿ8*'%*ÿ82$ÿ6'-#"ÿ54ÿ13v3Fv/3/3Iÿ?*#ÿG@;Bÿ
7#&%#42&'#$ÿ6&57ÿ;&&'%W0ÿw#&&'4E)54ÿxÿ>,)%-'66#ÿRRB0ÿy5(#&)ÿ<24*2$ÿ24"ÿy5(#&)ÿ<IÿR5#(0ÿ8#&#ÿ
#73-5.#"ÿ(.ÿ)*#ÿJI@Iÿ@'&%,')ÿ2$ÿ]mnhe`ÿhe^n]oÿ'4ÿ)*#ÿ(5E,$ÿ"'H5&%#ÿ8*'$)-#(-58#&ÿ%2$#ÿz]d{|ÿz_}ao|ÿ
~nÿjkÿl_mm^ÿ_pÿqdro^d]aÿsojodeoÿ//ÿKIT)*ÿ131Tÿ9JI@Iÿ@'&Iÿ/3//:ÿ6&57ÿ)*#ÿ>)2)#ÿ56ÿS#5&E'2ÿ)5ÿKH#ÿ
7.ÿ3#4"'4Eÿ233#2-0ÿ\]^_`a]bÿ\]de`fÿg]`fhfeiÿjkÿqsÿl_mmǹ`n_do^0ÿG>@[ÿt5Iÿ/301T3F0ÿ8*'%*ÿ82$ÿ
W#3)ÿ6&57ÿ75H'4Eÿ65&82&"ÿ)5ÿ)*#ÿ75&#ÿ$#&'5,$ÿ6&2,"ÿ5&ÿ8*')#ÿ%5--2&ÿ%&'7#$ÿ5,)-'4#"ÿ24"ÿ$%*#",-#"ÿ'4ÿ
JI@Iÿ@5,&)ÿ65&ÿ5&2-ÿ2&E,7#4)$ÿ54ÿ>#3)#7(#&ÿF0ÿ/3//Iÿ
ÿÿ ?*#ÿ2(5H#07#4)'54#"ÿ(5E,$ÿ"'H5&%#ÿ8*'$)-#(-58#&ÿ%2$#ÿz]d{|ÿz_}ao|ÿ~nÿjkÿl_mm^ÿ_pÿ
qdro^d]aÿsojodeoÿ//ÿKIT)*ÿ131Tÿ9JI@Iÿ@'&Iÿ/3//:ÿ6&57ÿ)*#ÿ>)2)#ÿ56ÿS#5&E'20ÿ2'7#"ÿ2)ÿKH'4Eÿ7.ÿ
3#4"'4Eÿ233#2-0ÿ\]^_`a]bÿ\]de`fÿg]`fhfeiÿjkÿqsÿl_mmǹ`n_do^0ÿG>@[ÿt5Iÿ/301T3F0ÿ'4"$ÿ7#ÿ56ÿ
)*#ÿ%&'7'42-ÿ%2$#ÿ6&57ÿS#5&E'2ÿdnro{ÿr]ro`ÿjkÿgnddo^0ÿt5Iÿ/3011/ÿ911)*ÿ@'&IÿJ#%IÿF0ÿ
/3/3:Iÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¦§ÿ¨©ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿª«¬®ÿ¨¯°¯ÿÿÿÿÿÿ±²ÿ³©ÿ¢ÿ́³µ³
!"ÿ#$%&ÿ'(&)*ÿ(ÿ+,-".ÿ/0ÿ1%2ÿ3,2')ÿ4)#)2("ÿ5)(6%#+ÿ7%"")2ÿ82(%"9(&$):ÿ8+ÿ("#%0;2-<=ÿ<(&&ÿ
<):%(ÿ=2,=(.(":(ÿ9(&ÿ&)#ÿ-=ÿ#,ÿ8)ÿ-&):ÿ8+ÿ;2-<=>&ÿ(:4)2&(2%)&ÿ#,ÿ2)<,4)ÿ$%<ÿ?2,<ÿ,??%')@ÿ!#ÿ:%:ÿ",#ÿ
9,2Aÿ(&ÿ#$)ÿ=6,##)2&ÿ("#%'%=(#):*ÿ(":ÿ7%"")2ÿ9(&ÿ(22)&#):*ÿ=2,&)'-#):*ÿ(":ÿ&)"#)"'):ÿ#,ÿB2ÿ<,"#$&ÿ%"ÿ
?):)2(6ÿ=2%&,"ÿ-":)2ÿ#$)ÿC4CDÿE&=%,"(.)ÿ1'#ÿF&))ÿ$##=&GHH999@I-&#%')@.,4H,=(H=2H?):)2(60.,4)2"<)"#0
',"#2('#,20.),2.%(0'$(2.):02)<,4%".0(":0<(%6%".0'6(&&%?%):0<(#)2%(6&0")9&J@ÿ
!ÿ(''%:)"#6+ÿ'(<)ÿ('2,&&ÿ7%"")2>&ÿ'2%<%"(6ÿ'(&)ÿ,"ÿ;9%##)2ÿ4%(ÿ$)2ÿ<,#$)2*ÿK%66%)ÿL@ÿ7%"")20
M(4%&N&*ÿ;9%##)2ÿ('',-"#*ÿO8I9%"")2:(4%&*ÿ&$,2#6+ÿ(?#)2ÿ!ÿ(==)(6):ÿ#$)ÿ/@0@ÿ;(QÿR,-2#N&ÿ:)'%&%,"ÿ#,ÿ
:)"+ÿ<)ÿ2)9(2:ÿ%"ÿ<+ÿ9$%)86,9)2ÿ'(&)*ÿ/"%#):ÿ0#(#)&ÿR,-2#ÿ,?ÿ1==)(6&ÿM%%'#ÿ?,2ÿ#$)ÿM%%'#ÿ,?ÿ
R,6-<8%(ÿR%2'-%#*ÿSTUVWXTYÿ[TW\]\^_ÿ`aÿbVccdWWdVefUÿVgÿheifUeTXÿjf`fe^fÿkfU`d]f*ÿR(&)ÿl,@ÿm30
Cn3D*ÿ9$%'$ÿ9(&ÿ(%<):ÿ(#ÿ#$)ÿ/Rop*ÿ#$)ÿ/Rÿ5).)"#&*ÿ(":ÿR(6%?,2"%(ÿ.,4)2"<)"#N&ÿ=,6%#%'(6ÿ&9(<=ÿ
,"ÿl,4)<8)2ÿD*ÿm3m3ÿF&))ÿ$##=&GHH999@&'2%8:@',<H:,'-<)"#Hnq2mmCmB3H/000Ro/5;0o30
1ppE1r003o50;sE0M!0;5!R;0o30Ror/tK!10R!5R/!;0/0R10l,0m30Cn3D00;1;EtEl;0
o30!00/E00;o0KE051!0EMJ@ÿ7%"")20M(4%&N&ÿ;9%##)2ÿ'(<=(%."*ÿ9$%'$ÿ&,-.$#ÿ(ÿ=2)&%:)"#%(6ÿ=(2:,"ÿ
(":ÿ#$)ÿ2)6)(&)ÿ,?ÿ$)2ÿ:(-.$#)2ÿ?2,<ÿ?):)2(6ÿ=2%&,"*ÿ'2%):ÿ,-#ÿ(.(%"&#ÿ;2-<=ÿ?,2ÿ#$)ÿ=2,&)'-#%,"ÿ(":ÿ
%"'(2')2(#%,"ÿ,?ÿ$)2ÿ:(-.$#)2ÿ(":ÿ=,2#2(+):ÿ7%"")2ÿ(&ÿ(ÿ"(#%,"(6ÿ$)2,ÿ9$,ÿ$(:ÿ9(2"):ÿ#$)ÿ/@0@ÿ(8,-#ÿ
uvwwxyzÿ{|}wx~}zÿy~xx|ÿ{vxzwÿxz}|}|}z}ÿxzÿ}ÿÿ|}wx~}zxyÿ}}xz@ÿ;$%&ÿ)"',-2(.):ÿ
<)ÿ#,ÿ2)4%)9ÿ&,<)ÿ,?ÿ#$)ÿ',-2#0?%6):ÿ:,'-<)"#&ÿ?2,<ÿ#$)ÿ/"%#):ÿ0#(#)&ÿM%%'#ÿR,-2#*ÿ0,-#$)2"ÿM%%'#ÿ
,?ÿ),2.%(*ÿR(&)ÿl,@ÿCGCD0R503332n0L5s0KEÿ(":ÿ,#$)2ÿ(4(%6(86)ÿ:,'-<)"#&ÿ(":ÿ%"?,2<(#%,"ÿ,"ÿ#$)ÿ
%"#)2")#ÿ#,ÿ?%":ÿ,-#ÿ9$(#ÿ$(==)"):ÿ#,ÿ7%"")2*ÿ(ÿm0+)(20,6:ÿ/@0@ÿ1%2ÿ3,2')ÿ4)#)2("ÿ9%#$ÿ)Q')=#%,"(6ÿ
&)24%')ÿ%"ÿ#$)ÿ<%6%#(2+@ÿ7%"")2ÿ9(&ÿ'$(2.):ÿ8+ÿ#$)ÿ/@0@ÿ,4)2"<)"#*ÿ=-2&-("#ÿ#,ÿ#$)ÿC4CDÿE&=%,"(.)ÿ
1'#*ÿ,"6+ÿ(ÿ?)9ÿ<,"#$&ÿ(?#)2ÿ&$)ÿ9(&ÿ$,",2(86+ÿ:%&'$(2.):ÿ?2,<ÿ#$)ÿ1%2ÿ3,2')*ÿ%"ÿl,4)<8)2ÿm3CB@ÿ
0$)ÿ9(&ÿ&)"#)"'):ÿ#,ÿB2ÿ<,"#$&ÿ%"ÿ?):)2(6ÿ=2%&,"ÿ(":ÿ#$2))ÿ+)(2&ÿ,?ÿ&-=)24%&):ÿ2)6)(&)ÿ,"ÿ1-.-&#ÿm2*ÿ
m3Cq@ÿ0$)ÿ%&ÿ&)24%".ÿ$)2ÿ&)"#)"')ÿ%"ÿ3):)2(6ÿt):%'(6ÿR)"#)2*ÿR(2&9)66ÿF3tRÿR(2&9)66J*ÿ3,2#ÿ7,2#$*ÿ
;)Q(&@ÿo"ÿM)')<8)2ÿD*ÿm3m3*ÿ(ÿ#$2))0I-:.)ÿ=(")6ÿ?2,<ÿ#$)ÿ/@0@ÿR,-2#ÿ,?ÿ1==)(6&ÿ?,2ÿ#$)ÿCC#$ÿ
R%2'-%#ÿ2-6):ÿ-"("%<,-&6+ÿ#$(#ÿ(ÿ#2%(6ÿI-:.)ÿ$(:ÿ",#ÿ(8-&):ÿ$%&ÿ:%&'2)#%,"ÿ%"ÿ:)"+%".ÿ)(26+ÿ2)6)(&)ÿ
#,ÿ7%"")2*ÿ:-)ÿ#,ÿRo!M0C4ÿF&))ÿ$##=&GHH999@&'2%8:@',<H:,'-<)"#HnqDq3n2H/l!;EM00;1;E00
o301tE5!R10405E1r!;0rE!s07!llE50R,<=(&&%,"(#)05)6)(&)J@ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ijklÿknopÿqrstuvswÿÿÿÿÿÿxyz{|p}~ÿqurusvÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿpÿssrsrrÿÿÿÿÿÿnpÿÿyÿ
!""#$$$%ÿ ÿ
()*+,-./ÿ*-0$1$2.ÿ
23ÿ/4-ÿ02)5/ÿ$.ÿ/4-ÿ.6,-ÿ23ÿ/4-ÿ5-7)8!$0ÿ23ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ29ÿ2:;<=>?ÿ@ABÿ@A@CDÿEÿFGHGIJGKÿ72!6.*ÿ
LÿMNKOPGQRÿSIRTÿUPLVVÿHWPXGQULRIWQÿIQÿRTGÿLPWNQRÿWYÿ
Z3[D444\44ÿYFWPÿRTGÿ]GXN^VIHÿWYÿ_WVLQKÿ̀WJGFQPGQRÿLUÿLÿRTLQaÿbWNÿYWFÿPbÿLQRI0ÿHWPPNQIURÿLHRIJIRIGUÿ
c9ÿCdeAfCdeCÿRWÿVI^GFLRGÿ_WVLQKÿYFWPÿRTGÿHWPPNQIURÿFGOIPGÿLQKÿgWJIGRÿKWPIQLRIWQ\ÿ_VGLUGÿUGGhÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
!"#ÿ"%&'ÿ()*+,-*.ÿÿÿÿÿÿ/0123'45ÿ(,67),*-ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ89:';<ÿ*6=*>=)*))ÿÿÿÿÿÿ?%@'ÿA77ÿ0BÿACA
ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0123ÿ2567ÿ89 ÿÿÿÿÿÿ7ÿ8 9 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ7ÿ9 99ÿÿÿÿÿÿ5 7ÿ!ÿ"ÿ!#!
|}~ÿ~ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
!"ÿ#$ÿ%ÿ&'(#)*%+ÿ,&%*$-#$$#)*ÿ)&(%*#.%,#)*ÿ/0123ÿ,4%,ÿ5))&6#*%,'$ÿ,4'ÿ-)7'-'*,ÿ)8ÿ
94)+'$%+'ÿ'+'5,#,:ÿ#*ÿ%++ÿ)&ÿ;%&,$ÿ)8ÿ<'+%9%&'=ÿ>++#*)#$=ÿ>*6#%*%=ÿ?'*,@5A:=ÿ"%&:+%*6=ÿ"#54#(%*=ÿ
B'9ÿ!'&$':=ÿB)&,4ÿC%&)+#*%=ÿ24#)=ÿ'**$:+7%*#%=ÿ1'**'$$''=ÿD#&(#*#%=ÿE'$,ÿD#&(#*#%=ÿ%*6ÿ,4'ÿ
FGHIJGKIÿMNÿOMPQRSGTUÿÿ
>,ÿ%++ÿ$,%&,'6ÿ#*ÿ3VWXÿ94'*ÿ,4&''ÿ@,#+#,#'$ÿY&)-ÿB'9ÿ!'&$':ÿ%*6ÿ'**$:+7%*#%ÿ
8)&-'6ÿ%*ÿ#*,'(&%,'6ÿ;)9'&ÿ;))+Zÿ2*ÿ[';,ZÿW\=ÿ3V]\=ÿ
%66#,#)*%+ÿ@,#+#,#'$ÿ8&)-ÿ"%&:+%*6=ÿB'9ÿ!'&$':ÿ%*6ÿ'**$:+7%*#%ÿ^)#*'6ÿ,4'ÿ
8)@*6#*(ÿ@,#+#,#'$ÿ,)ÿ8)&-ÿ,4'ÿ_`aaHbPcTaGTde`fÿg`JH`bdhTJbPTaiÿ
jaI`JKMaa`KIGMaÿdÿ_ghUÿ
4,,;$kll+'%&*Z;^-Z5)-l4#$,)&:04#(49%:Z4,-+ÿ
!"ÿ4%$ÿ3mV\ÿ-'-n'&$ÿ/4,,;$kll999Z;^-Z5)-l%n)@,0;^-l-'-n'&0$'&7#5'$l-'-n'&0+#$,3=ÿ
94#54ÿ#*5+@6'$ÿ;@n+#5ÿ@,#+#,#'$ÿ5)-;%*#'$ÿ%*6ÿ;%,'+:ÿ)9*'6ÿ;)9'&ÿ;&)6@5'&$=ÿ#*5+@6#*(ÿ-:ÿ8)&-'&ÿ
'-;+):'&ÿ)8ÿ3VoVp3VVo=ÿ<:*'(:ÿ4,,;$kll999Z6:*'(:Z5)-lZÿ<:*'(:ÿ9%$ÿ)*'ÿ)8ÿ,4'ÿA':ÿ;+%:'&$ÿ%*6ÿ
;'&;',&%,)&$ÿ#*ÿ,4'ÿ"%:ÿWmmmp25,)n'&ÿWmm3ÿ$);4#$,#5%,'6ÿqrmÿn#++#)*ÿ8&%@6ÿ,#,+'6ÿA*)9*ÿ%$ÿ,4'ÿ
C%+#8)&*#%ÿs*'&(:ÿC&#$#$Zÿ<:*'(:=ÿ%+)*(ÿ9#,4ÿ0'+#%*,=ÿs+ÿ%$)ÿC)&;)&%,#)*=ÿ%*6ÿs*&)*=ÿ9%$ÿ+%n'+'6ÿ
n:ÿ8)&-'&ÿC%+#8)&*#%ÿt,,)&*':ÿu'*'&%+ÿv#++ÿw)5A:'&ÿ%$ÿ)*'ÿ)8ÿ,4'ÿY)@&ÿx)&$'-'*ÿ)8ÿ,4'ÿ
t;)5%+:;$'ÿ94)ÿ&)6'ÿ#*ÿ8&)-ÿ1'y%$ÿ%*6ÿ&%*ÿ&)@(4$4)6ÿ)7'&ÿC%+#8)&*#%ÿ5)*$@-'&$=ÿ,%y;%:'&$ÿ
%*6ÿn@$#*'$$'$Zÿÿ
0)n#*$)*=ÿ%$ÿCt>[2z$ÿu'*'&%+ÿC)@*$'+ÿ%*6ÿD#5'ÿ&'$#6'*,=ÿ9%$ÿ%ÿA':ÿ%&54#,'5,ÿ%*6ÿ
;'&;',&%,)&ÿ)8ÿ,4'ÿC%+#8)&*#%ÿs*'&(:ÿC&#$#$ÿ/"%:ÿWmmmp25,)n'&ÿWmm33Zÿx#$ÿ%&%+ÿ#*ÿt;&#+ÿWmm3ÿ
%,ÿCt>[2ÿ&'$@+,'6ÿ#*ÿ%*ÿ'$5%+%,#)*ÿ)8ÿ,4'ÿ'+'5,#,:ÿ;'ÿ9%&ÿ%*6ÿ&)++#*(ÿn+%5A)@,$ÿ'5)*)-#5=ÿ%ÿ
6#$%$,'&ÿ#*ÿC%+#8)&*#%ÿ%*6ÿ),4'&ÿ9'$,'&*ÿ$,%,'$Zÿÿ
14'ÿ3m0:'%&ÿ;&'$'*5'ÿ)8ÿ0)n#*$)*ÿ%,ÿ!"ÿ%*6ÿ%++ÿ)8ÿ,4'ÿ8%5,$ÿ>ÿ6#$5)7'&'6ÿ+'6ÿ-'ÿ,)ÿ,4'ÿ
5)*5+@$#)*ÿ,4%,ÿ,4'ÿ{C2 ÿ'y'5@,#7'$ÿ%*6ÿ{Cÿ0'('*,$ÿ94)ÿ;'&-#,,'6ÿ0)n#*$)*ÿ,)ÿn'ÿ)*ÿ!"ÿ
v)%&6ÿÿ%&'ÿ)9*'&$ÿ)8ÿ;)9'&ÿ;+%*,/$3ÿ#*ÿ,4'ÿ!"z$ÿ012ÿ%&'%ÿ@*6'&ÿ8#5,#,#)@$ÿ*%-'$Zÿ0)n#*$)*=ÿ%$ÿ
%ÿ!"ÿv)%&6ÿ"'-n'&ÿ)8ÿ,4'ÿ0'(@+%,)&:ÿ%*6ÿC)-;',#,#7'ÿ"%&A',ÿC)--#,,''ÿ%*6ÿ%$ÿC4%#&ÿ)8ÿ,4'ÿ
!"ÿv)%&6ÿu)7'&*%*5'ÿC)--#,,''=ÿ#$ÿ)7'&$''#*(ÿ,4'ÿ{C2 z$ÿ@*6'&(&)@*6ÿn@$#*'$$=ÿ%*6ÿ4'ÿ
-%:ÿ*),ÿn'ÿ9)&A#*(ÿ)*+:ÿ8)&ÿ,4'ÿ{C2 Zÿ14'&'ÿ#$ÿ*)ÿ),4'&=ÿn',,'&ÿ'y;+%*%,#)*ÿ8)&ÿ4)9ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
YZ[\ÿ[^_`ÿabcdefcgÿÿÿÿÿÿhijkl`mnÿaeopbecfÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿqrs̀tuÿcovcwvbcbbÿÿÿÿÿÿx^y`ÿzpoÿi{ÿz|z
!"#$%&'"($)ÿ&(ÿ*+3,-*+3.)ÿ/010&203ÿ"(3ÿ%"4(30/03ÿ536,ÿ7&%%&$(ÿ"(3ÿ&('0/80/03ÿ&(ÿ'90ÿ:'"'0ÿ;43&')ÿ
$/ÿ<9=ÿ>"%&8$/(&"ÿ;?ÿ@010//"ÿ/084A03ÿ'$ÿ$#0(ÿ"ÿ#/$B0ÿ'$ÿ&(20A'&C"'0Dÿÿ
EÿB0%&020ÿ"(3ÿ"7ÿF4&'0ÿA4/0ÿ'9"'ÿG030/"%ÿH(0/C=ÿI0C4%"'$/=ÿ>$77&AA&$(ÿJGHI>Kÿ
>$77&AA&$(0/ÿL"/Mÿ>Dÿ>9/&A'&0)ÿ<9$ÿ'$$Mÿ$88&10ÿ$(ÿN"(4"/=ÿ4)ÿ*+*3)ÿ9"Aÿ"ÿ%$'ÿ$8ÿ&(8$/7"'&$(ÿ"B$4'ÿ
O>ÿ?0(0/"%ÿ>$4(A0%ÿI$B&(A$(PAÿ#/0A0(10ÿ"(3ÿ"1'&2&'&0Aÿ<&'9ÿQNLÿ8/$7ÿ*+33ÿ'9/$4C9ÿ*+*+Dÿ
R4/&(Cÿ>$77&AA&$(0/ÿ>9/&A'&0SAÿA0/2&10ÿ"Aÿ"ÿA'"'0ÿ/0C4%"'$/)ÿ90ÿ<"Aÿ0%01'03ÿ#/0A&30('ÿ$8ÿ'90ÿ
T/C"(&U"'&$(ÿ$8ÿQNLÿ:'"'0A)ÿE(1DÿJTQ:EK)ÿ"ÿC/$4#ÿ$8ÿ4'&%&'=ÿ/0C4%"'$/Aÿ/0#/0A0('&(Cÿ'90ÿ32ÿA'"'0Aÿ"(3ÿ
'90ÿR&A'/&1'ÿ$8ÿ>$%47B&"ÿ'9"'ÿ#"/'&1&#"'0ÿ&(ÿ'90ÿQNLÿ'/"(A7&AA&$(ÿ"(3ÿ7"/M0'ÿ$/C"(&U"'&$(DÿV0ÿA0/203ÿ
8$/ÿ7$/0ÿ'9"(ÿ"ÿ301"30ÿ$(ÿ'90ÿTQ:EÿC$20/(&(CÿB$"/3Dÿ>9/&A'&0ÿ"%A$ÿA0/203ÿ"Aÿ#/0A&30('ÿ$8ÿ'90ÿL&30
;'%"('&1ÿ>$(80/0(10ÿ$8ÿI0C4%"'$/=ÿO'&%&'&0Aÿ>$77&AA&$(0/AÿJL;>IO>K)ÿ"ÿ/0C&$("%ÿ19"#'0/ÿ$8ÿ'90ÿ
!"'&$("%ÿ;AA$1&"'&$(ÿ$8ÿI0C4%"'$/=ÿO'&%&'=ÿ>$77&AA&$(0/AÿJ!;IO>KÿJA00ÿ
9''#AWXX<<<D80/1DC$2X"B$4'X1$77&AA&$(0707B0/AX1$77&AA&$(0/019/&A'&0KDÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢¡ÿÿÿÿÿÿ£¤ÿ¥ÿ¦ÿ¥§¥
ÿ!"#$%&ÿÿ
ÿÿ ()ÿ*+),+-.ÿ/0012ÿ34567847ÿ9::6;<=ÿ9>ÿ?@ABÿC<9=DE9:><:8ÿ67ÿA9FG97=2ÿHC<:<ÿC<ÿ5<I97ÿ
8<:;67Iÿ98ÿ>C<ÿ7<HÿI<7<:9GÿJ4E78<Gÿ97=ÿ;6J<ÿK:<86=<7>Lÿÿ
()ÿ*+),+-.ÿ/00MNÿO9K4G6>974ÿH98ÿ9KK467><=ÿ5PÿB:<86=<7>ÿQ9:9JFÿA59R9ÿ>4ÿ5<ÿS<J:<>9:Pÿ4Tÿ
>C<ÿU<K9:>R<7>ÿ4TÿV4R<G97=ÿS<JE:6>PÿWUVSXLÿÿ
()ÿ*+),+-.ÿ/0Y02ÿZ<<ÿ:<DE<8><=ÿ9ÿ8>9><ÿ9E=6>ÿ>4ÿ>:9JFÿHC<:<ÿ>C<ÿ?@ABÿI<>8ÿ6>8ÿTE7=8ÿ97=ÿ
HC<:<ÿ<9JCÿ=4GG9:ÿI4<8LÿSK<J6T6J9GGP2ÿ6>ÿH4EG=ÿT4GG4HÿHC<:<ÿK:6;9><ÿTE7=82ÿ8>9><ÿTE7=82ÿ8>E=<7>ÿT<<82ÿ
97=ÿT<=<:9GÿTE7=8ÿ9GGÿ<7=<=ÿEKLÿZ<<ÿ98F<=ÿ>C<ÿ9E=6>4:8ÿ>4ÿ8K<J6T6J9GGPÿT4JE8ÿ47ÿ>C<ÿ?@ABLÿ
ÿS>9><ÿ[E=6>ÿ\]3]03]4ÿH98ÿJ47JGE=<=ÿ47ÿ^EGPÿ\_2ÿ\]33ÿW8<<ÿ`aC656>ÿbc]2ÿ
C>>K8deeHHHL9E=6>4:LJ9LI4;eK=T8e:<K4:>8e\]3]03]4LK=TXLÿfC<ÿS>9><ÿ[E=6>4:g8ÿJ4;<:ÿG<>><:ÿ8ERR9:6h<=ÿ
>C<ÿ9E=6>ÿ5PÿR<:<GPÿ8>9>67Iÿ>C9>ÿ>C<ÿ?@ABÿ7<<=8ÿ>4ÿ>:9JFÿR4:<ÿK:<J68<GPÿ954E>ÿi3ÿ56GG647ÿ4Tÿ<aK<78<8ÿ
977E9GGP2ÿHC6JCÿ6>ÿJE::<7>GPÿ>:9JF8ÿE7=<:ÿ9ÿ867IG<ÿ9JJ4E7>67IÿJ4=<jkl68J<GG97<4E8ÿS<:;6J<8LmÿZ<<ÿ
K96=ÿ EG>6R9><ÿ K:6J<ÿ T4:ÿ C68ÿ JE:6486>P2ÿ T6;<ÿ P<9:8ÿ 67ÿ T<=<:9Gÿ K:6847ÿ W8<<ÿ
C>>K8deeHHHL8J:65=LJ4Re=4JER<7>e4_]4c\n]ne\]3]0\]\]0o6>JC0VE7>0B:48<JE>647097=0
p7J9:J9:9>64704T0>C<0@9G6T4:7690S<79>4:0q<G97=0Z<<XLÿ
()ÿ/0YY2ÿ34567847ÿ5<I97ÿ8<:;67Iÿ98ÿ9ÿR<R5<:ÿ4Tÿ>C<ÿB^lÿQ49:=ÿr4;<:797J<ÿ@4RR6>><<Lÿÿ
()ÿ%stusvws-ÿ/0YxNÿO9K4G6>974ÿ97=ÿlE<GG<:ÿ9::6;<=ÿ67ÿ@9G6T4:769LÿO9K4G6>974ÿH98ÿ>C<ÿ7<Hÿ
K:<86=<7>ÿ4Tÿ>C<ÿ?76;<:86>Pÿ4Tÿ@9G6T4:7692ÿlE<GG<:ÿH<7>ÿ>4ÿS>97T4:=ÿ?76;<:86>Pÿ98ÿ9ÿU68>67IE68C<=ÿ
q<J>E:<:ÿ47ÿ688E<8ÿ:<G9><=ÿ>4ÿJP5<:8<JE:6>PLÿ
ÿÿ y)ÿz+.ÿY{Nÿ/0Y|2ÿO9K4G6>974ÿC<G=ÿ<R<:I<7JPÿR<<>67Iÿ67ÿo98C67I>47ÿUL@LÿH6>Cÿ?LSLÿ
B:<86=<7>ÿQ9:9JFÿA59R92ÿ}6J<ÿB:<86=<7>ÿ^4<ÿQ6=<72ÿ97=ÿS<J:<>9:Pÿ4Tÿ̀7<:IPÿ̀:7<8>ÿl476hLÿ
O9K4G6>974ÿ5:6<T<=ÿ>C<Rÿ954E>ÿC<:ÿJ9:547ÿ7<E>:9G6>Pÿ676>69>6;<ÿ>4ÿ=<J9:5476h<ÿ>C<ÿ?76;<:86>Pÿ4Tÿ
@9G6T4:769ÿ97=ÿ>C<ÿ?76><=ÿS>9><8Lÿÿ
ÿÿ ()ÿy~uws-ÿ/0Y|2ÿO9K4G6>974ÿJ9RK96I7<=ÿ67ÿ>C<ÿ?SÿK:<86=<7>69Gÿ<G<J>647ÿ67ÿC<:ÿC4R<ÿ8>9><ÿ4Tÿ
[:6h479ÿT4:ÿU<R4J:9>6JÿO4R67<<ÿV6GG9:Pÿ34=C9Rÿ@G67>47Lÿ
ÿÿ y)ÿ"t-ÿ/Nÿ/0Y12ÿ@9G6T4:769ÿS>9><ÿ[E=6>ÿ\]3c032]2ÿ67ÿJ47>:98>ÿ>4ÿS>9><ÿ[E=6>ÿ\]3]03]42ÿ
=68JG48<=ÿ>C9>ÿO9K4G6>974ÿ97=ÿC<:ÿ9884J69><8ÿG9E7=<:<=ÿi34ÿR6GG6472ÿHC6JCÿH<:<ÿC6==<7ÿ67ÿ;9:64E8ÿ?@ÿ
=68J:<>6479:Pÿ9JJ4E7>8LÿfC<ÿJ:6R<ÿH98ÿJ4;<:<=ÿEKLÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡¢£¤¥¦§ÿ¨©ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿª«¬®ÿ¨¯°¯ÿÿÿÿÿÿ±²ÿ³ ÿ¢ÿ́³µ³
!"ÿ$%&ÿ'()ÿ*+'(,ÿ-./01/ÿ234ÿ56/178./ÿ9:1;;1/ÿ/1<:/-=71>ÿ=<ÿ?@A@ÿ51B=/801C8ÿ.-ÿD:<8671ÿ
AB176=;ÿE.:C<1;@ÿF1ÿG=<ÿ=BB.6C81>ÿHIÿ51B:8IÿJ88./C1IÿK1C1/=;ÿL.>ÿL.<1C<816C,ÿ=ÿM1IÿB;=I1/ÿ6Cÿ8N1ÿ
7.C<B6/=7Iÿ8.ÿ/10.O1ÿP/:0Bÿ-/.0ÿ.--671ÿ6CÿQR3S@ÿ4ÿ7.O1/1>ÿ8N6<ÿ6Cÿ0Iÿ<:H06881>ÿ8.ÿ8N1ÿ?@A@ÿP=TÿE.:/8ÿ
.CÿA1B810H1/ÿQ3,ÿQRQRÿU.8671ÿ.-ÿVHW1786.Cÿ8.ÿ8N1ÿD:;Iÿ3S,ÿQRQRÿ?@A@ÿP=TÿE.:/8ÿV/>1/@ÿ
X"ÿYZ[\]^\_ÿ*+'(,ÿU=B.;68=C.`<ÿ0.C1Iÿ;=:C>1/6CaÿG=<ÿ7.O1/1>ÿ:BÿHIÿ8N1ÿN6/6Caÿ.-ÿ-./01/ÿ
<8=81ÿA:B/101ÿE.:/8ÿD:<8671ÿE=/;.<ÿ9./1C.,ÿGN.ÿW.6C1>ÿ6Cÿ8N1ÿBN.CIÿ6CO1<86a=86.CÿG68NÿF:1<8.Cÿ
F1CC6a=Cÿbbcÿd<11ÿN88B<effGGG@N:1<8.C@7.0fg@ÿPN6<ÿ6CO1<86a=86.CÿB/.>:71>ÿ0./1ÿ8N=CÿhRÿB=a1<ÿ.-ÿ
>=0=a1ÿ7.C8/.;ÿ6Cÿ=ÿ01=C6Ca;1<<ÿ/1B./8ÿ1C868;1>ÿiX"j\k\"j\"lÿm%nlomp"jp"qÿr\[p\sÿtZ_ÿlu\ÿvZ%_jÿ
Ztÿr\q\"lwÿZtÿlu\ÿx"p[\_wpl&ÿZtÿy%zptZ_"p%eÿ
ÿA:00=/Iÿ.-ÿ26C>6Ca<{ÿ<11ÿN88B<eff/1a1C8<@:C6O1/<68I.-7=;6-./C6=@1>:f/1a0118fC.O3SfHQ=88=7N2@B>-@ÿÿ
ÿ
PN1ÿ:C=C<G1/1>ÿ|:1<86.C<ÿ/10=6C6Caÿ6Cÿ8N6<ÿ7N=B81/ÿ=/1eÿ
}N=8ÿH1C1-68<ÿ=/1ÿ8N1/1ÿ-./ÿ8N1ÿ?EVcÿ1T17:86O1<ÿ=C>ÿ?EÿL1a1C8<ÿ8.ÿN=O1ÿEN=/;1<ÿL.H6C<.Cÿ.Cÿ
8N1ÿ3.=/>ÿ.-ÿK.O1/C=C71ÿ.-ÿ8N1ÿ;=/a1<8ÿLPV<ÿ6Cÿ8N1ÿ?A,ÿcD9,ÿ-./ÿ3RÿI1=/<,ÿ.8N1/ÿ8N=Cÿ8.ÿ0=M1ÿ-/.0ÿ
8N1ÿ>1=;ÿ81C<ÿ.-ÿ06;;6.C<ÿ.-ÿ>.;;=/<ÿ=C>ÿ8.ÿ;=:C>1/ÿ8N1ÿ0.C1IÿO6=ÿ?E`<ÿ>6<7/186.C=/Iÿ=77.:C8<ÿ8.ÿ?EVcÿ
GN681ÿ7.;;=/ÿ7/606C=;<`ÿ=77.:C8<~ÿÿ
ÿÿ PN1ÿ?C6O1/<68Iÿ.-ÿE=;6-./C6=ÿ6<ÿ=ÿC.C0B/.-68,ÿ8=T01T10B8ÿN6aN1/ÿ1>:7=86.Cÿ1C868Iÿ=C>ÿN=<ÿC.8N6Caÿ
6Cÿ7.00.CÿG68Nÿ8N1ÿcD9ÿLPV@ÿ48ÿ0=M1<ÿC.ÿ<1C<1ÿ-./ÿ8N1ÿ?EÿK1C1/=;ÿE.:C<1;ÿ8.ÿ<68ÿ.Cÿ8N1ÿcD9ÿ3.=/>ÿ
-./ÿ3RÿI1=/<ÿÿH:8ÿ.C;Iÿ8.ÿN=O1ÿB.G1/ÿB;=C8ÿ8N1/1ÿ=C>ÿ0=M1ÿ=ÿN:C>/1>ÿ.-ÿÿ06;;6.Cÿ.-ÿ>.;;=/<ÿ-./ÿ8N1ÿ/.881Cÿ
HIÿ7.//:B86.Cÿ?C6O1/<68Iÿ.-ÿE=;6-./C6=ÿV--671ÿ.-ÿ8N1ÿc/1<6>1C8ÿ=C>ÿ./a=C61>ÿÿGN681ÿ7/601ÿ6CÿE=;6-./C6=ÿ
B.;6867=;ÿ1<8=H;6<N01C8ÿ@ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿy!rÿ!!ÿÿ ÿY!XY!ÿ!XY$Yÿÿyrrÿ!mÿ
ÿrXYÿXYXYyÿX!rÿv!rÿ!Yÿ$ÿ)ÿ*+**ÿ
ÿ
VCÿ9=Iÿ,ÿQRQQ,ÿc/1<6>1C8ÿ36>1Cÿ=CC.:C71>ÿ8N1ÿ=BB.6C801C8ÿ.-ÿ-./01/ÿ?Eÿc/1<6>1C8ÿD=C18ÿ
U=B.;68=C.,ÿ=0.Caÿ.8N1/<,ÿ8.ÿ8N1ÿc/1<6>1C8̀<ÿ4C81;;6a1C71ÿJ>O6<./Iÿ3.=/>ÿdc4J3g@ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
LMNOÿNQRSÿTUVWXYVZÿÿÿÿÿÿ[\]^_S`aÿTXbcUXVYÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿdefSghÿVbiVjiUVUUÿÿÿÿÿÿkQlSÿmZUÿ\nÿmom
!"#ÿ$%#&'(#)*+&ÿ,)*#--'.#)/#ÿ0(1'&2%3ÿ425%(ÿ6$,0478ÿ9'*"ÿ'*&ÿ/2:;2)ÿ#)*ÿ
,)*#--'.#)/#ÿ<1#%&'."*ÿ425%(ÿ6,<478ÿ'&ÿ5)ÿ')(#;#)(#)*ÿ#-#:#)*ÿ9'*"')ÿ*"#ÿ
=>#/?*'1#ÿ<@@'/#ÿ2@ÿ*"#ÿ$%#&'(#)*Aÿ
!"#ÿ$%#&'(#)*B&ÿ,)*#--'.#)/#ÿ0(1'&2%3ÿ425%(ÿ#>'&*&ÿ#>/-?&'1#-3ÿ*2ÿ5&&'&*ÿ*"#ÿ
$%#&'(#)*ÿC3ÿ;%21'(').ÿ*"#ÿ$%#&'(#)*ÿ9'*"ÿ5)ÿ')(#;#)(#)*ÿ&2?%/#ÿ2@ÿ5(1'/#ÿ2)ÿ*"#ÿ
#@@#/*'1#)#&&ÿ9'*"ÿ9"'/"ÿ*"#ÿ,)*#--'.#)/#ÿD2::?)'*3ÿ'&ÿ:##*').ÿ*"#ÿ)5*'2)B&ÿ
')*#--'.#)/#ÿ)##(&8ÿ5)(ÿ*"#ÿ1'.2%ÿ5)(ÿ')&'."*ÿ9'*"ÿ9"'/"ÿ*"#ÿ/2::?)'*3ÿ;-5)&ÿ@2%ÿ
*"#ÿ@?*?%#Aÿ!"#ÿ425%(ÿ"5&ÿ5//#&&ÿ*2ÿ5--ÿ')@2%:5*'2)ÿ)##(#(ÿ*2ÿ;#%@2%:ÿ'*&ÿ@?)/*'2)&ÿ
5)(ÿ"5&ÿ('%#/*ÿ5//#&&ÿ*2ÿ*"#ÿ$%#&'(#)*Aÿ
!"#ÿ,)*#--'.#)/#ÿ<1#%&'."*ÿ425%(ÿ21#%&##&ÿ*"#ÿ,)*#--'.#)/#ÿD2::?)'*3B&ÿ
/2:;-'5)/#ÿ9'*"ÿ*"#ÿD2)&*'*?*'2)ÿ5)(ÿ5--ÿ5;;-'/5C-#ÿ-59&8ÿ=>#/?*'1#ÿ<%(#%&8ÿ5)(ÿ
$%#&'(#)*'5-ÿE'%#/*'1#&Aÿ,*ÿ/2:;-#:#)*&ÿ5)(ÿ&?;;-#:#)*&8ÿ%5*"#%ÿ*"5)ÿ(?;-'/5*#&ÿ*"#ÿ
21#%&'."*ÿ%2-#&ÿ2@ÿ*"#ÿE'%#/*2%ÿ2@ÿF5*'2)5-ÿ,)*#--'.#)/#8ÿE#;5%*:#)*ÿ5)(ÿ0.#)/3ÿ
,)&;#/*2%&ÿG#)#%5-ÿ5)(ÿG#)#%5-ÿD2?)&#-&8ÿ5)(ÿ*"#ÿD2).%#&&'2)5-ÿ<1#%&'."*ÿ
D2::'**##&Aÿ
H2%ÿ:2%#ÿ*"5)ÿ@'1#ÿ(#/5(#&ÿ*"#ÿ$,04ÿ"5&ÿ5/*#(ÿ5&ÿ5ÿ)2);5%*'&5)ÿC2(38ÿ2@@#%').ÿ*"#ÿ
$%#&'(#)*ÿ2CI#/*'1#8ÿ#>;#%*ÿ5(1'/#ÿ2)ÿ*"#ÿ/2)(?/*ÿ2@ÿJAKAÿ')*#--'.#)/#Aÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
yz{|ÿ{~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ~ÿÿÿ
!"ÿ#$ÿ%&'&()&ÿ*+ÿ),($-ÿ.-/(00-&12"#(&ÿ2&1ÿ),+ÿ3#1-&ÿ244(#&"-1ÿ524(6#"2&(ÿ"(ÿ",-ÿ7!839ÿ
:,2"ÿ!ÿ'&()ÿ#$ÿ",2";ÿ$,(."6+ÿ2<"-.ÿ524(6#"2&(=$ÿ>2+ÿ34;ÿ?@3Aÿ-0-.B-&/+ÿ0--"#&Bÿ)#",ÿ7.-$#1-&"ÿ
C*202;ÿD#/-ÿ7.-$#1-&"ÿ3#1-&;ÿ2&1ÿ-E-/%"#F-$ÿ<.(0ÿ",-ÿG-42."0-&"ÿ(<ÿH&-.B+;ÿ<(.0-.ÿIJÿHE-/%"#F-ÿ
8$$(/#2"-ÿD#/-ÿ7.-$#1-&"ÿK%1#",ÿ3(+-""-ÿ)2$ÿ244(#&"-1ÿ*+ÿ",-ÿL-/.-"2.+ÿ(<ÿ",-ÿM.-2$%.+ÿ"(ÿ2ÿ",.--0
+-2.ÿ"-.0ÿ(&ÿ",-ÿ!NLÿ81F#$(.+ÿJ(00#""--ÿ(&ÿM2EÿHE-04"ÿ2&1ÿO(F-.&0-&"ÿH&"#"#-$ÿPMHOHQ9ÿ
M,-.-2<"-.;ÿ0+ÿ>2./,ÿ?2;ÿ?@3Aÿ),#$"6-*6()-.ÿ"2Eÿ-F2$#(&ÿ2&1ÿ<.2%1ÿ/62#0ÿ)2$ÿ$)-4"ÿ%&1-.ÿ",-ÿ.%Bÿ
(.ÿ1-6-"-1ÿ2&1ÿ0+ÿ62)+-.ÿ<.(0ÿ32%0;ÿR-16%&1;ÿ8.#$"-#ÿSÿO(6102&ÿT2)ÿJ(.4(.2"#(&ÿ)2$ÿ$#6-&/-1ÿ
P$--ÿ,""4$UVV)))9$/.#*19/(0V1(/%0-&"VWXAXXY?Z?VIMJ0?@3A@Y340IJ07.-$#1-&"0K2&-"0524(6#"2&(0
>--"$07.-$#1-&"0C*2020D#/-07.-$#1-&"03#1-&03!GH5Q9ÿ
ÿ
L,(."6+ÿ2<"-.ÿ",-ÿ84.#6ÿ?Y;ÿ?@3Xÿ1#$/6($%.-ÿ*+ÿ",-ÿJ26#<(.ÿL"2"-ÿ8%1#"(.ÿ",2"ÿ524(6#"2&(ÿ62%&1-.-1ÿ
[3XYÿ0#66#(&ÿF#2ÿIJÿ2//(%&"$ÿ2&1ÿ#&"-.<-.-1ÿ#&ÿ2ÿL"2"-ÿ8%1#";ÿ(&ÿK%6+ÿ3X;ÿ?@3X;ÿ\3!ÿ2B-&"$ÿ.2#1-1ÿ",-ÿ
,(0-ÿ(<ÿ7.-$#1-&"ÿM.%04]$ÿ<(.0-.ÿ/2042#B&ÿ/,2#.02&;ÿ72%6ÿ>2&2<(."ÿP$--ÿ
,""4$UVV)))9$/.#*19/(0V1(/%0-&"VW4@AY3434V:#"/,0R%&"07.($-/%"#(&0(<072%60K0>2&2<(."0K.Q9ÿ
ÿ
!"ÿ6(('$ÿ6#'-ÿ,#$"(.+ÿ.-4-2"-1ÿ#"$-6<9ÿ524(6#"2&(ÿ)2$ÿ244(#&"-1ÿ#&ÿ>2+ÿ?@??ÿ*+ÿ7.-$#1-&"ÿ3#1-&ÿ"(ÿ",-ÿ
7!83;ÿ2&1ÿ")(ÿ0(&",$ÿ62"-.;ÿ",-ÿ\3!ÿ.2#1-1ÿG(&261ÿM.%04=$ÿ>2.ÿ2ÿT2B(ÿ.-$#1-&/-ÿ#&ÿ\6(.#12ÿP$--ÿÿ
,""4$UVV)))9$/.#*19/(0V1(/%0-&"VY4ZA34YX3V@40?A0?@??0",-0>2.020T2B(0N2#10N-12/"-10L-2./,0
:2..2&"08<<#12F#"Q9ÿ
ÿ
J(#&/#1-&"266+ÿ(.ÿ&(";ÿ7.-$#1-&"ÿ3#1-&=$ÿ>2+ÿW;ÿ?@??ÿ2&&(%&/-0-&"ÿ"(ÿ244(#&"ÿK2&-"ÿ524(6#"2&(ÿ"(ÿ",-ÿ
7!83ÿ(//%..-1ÿ^%$"ÿ2<"-.ÿ!ÿ1#$/(F-.-1ÿ(&ÿ84.#6ÿ?Z;ÿ?@??ÿ",2"ÿ$,-;ÿ(&ÿ_`abcÿefgÿehij;ÿ.-B#$"-.-1ÿ",-ÿ
IJÿN-B-&"$ÿ)#",ÿ",-ÿJ26#<(.ÿ7%*6#/ÿI"#6#"#-$ÿJ(00#$$#(&ÿ2$ÿklmÿniopqÿ"(ÿ*%+ÿ2&1ÿ.-$-66ÿ-6-/".#/#"+ÿ
<(.ÿ"-&$ÿ(<ÿ0#66#(&$ÿ(<ÿ1(662.$ÿ2&1ÿ62%&1-.ÿ",-ÿ0(&-+ÿF#2ÿ",-ÿ%&#F-.$#"+=$ÿF2.#(%$ÿ2//(%&"$;ÿ#&ÿF#(62"#(&ÿ
(<ÿ",-ÿI&#F-.$#"+ÿ(<ÿJ26#<(.=$ÿ"2E0-E-04"ÿ$"2"%$ÿ%&1-.ÿ!NJÿY@3P/QP2Q9ÿ
ÿrsÿtuavwÿeqgÿehee;ÿ!ÿ<(.)2.1-1ÿ0+ÿ1#$/(F-.+ÿ2*(%"ÿ",-ÿIJÿN-B-&"$=ÿHL7ÿ.-B#$".2"#(&ÿ"(ÿ",-ÿ\HNJ;ÿ
26(&Bÿ)#",ÿ0+ÿ#&x%#.+ÿ2*(%"ÿL%&7()-.=$ÿL-6<0J-."#<#/2"#(&ÿ(<ÿ\(.0ÿYYAÿ<(.ÿ",-ÿ3A920>:ÿ$(62.ÿ6(/2"-1ÿ
(&ÿA?ÿ2/.-$ÿ()&-1ÿ*+ÿIJÿG2F#$9ÿ!ÿ//=-1ÿ",-ÿ-002#6ÿ"(ÿ",-ÿIJC7ÿJ6-2&ÿ7()-.ÿ7.(B.20ÿG#.-/"(.;ÿJ+&",#2ÿ
J62.';ÿ),(ÿ#$ÿ.-$4(&$#*6-ÿ2"ÿ",-ÿIJC7ÿ<(.ÿ",-ÿ4%./,2$-ÿ2&1ÿ.-0$26-ÿ(<ÿ4()-.ÿ<.(0ÿ",.--ÿ$(62.ÿ4()-.ÿ
462&"$;ÿ),#/,ÿ2.-ÿ",-ÿ$%*^-/"ÿ(<ÿ",#$ÿ8446#/2"#(&ÿ<(.ÿ8)2.1ÿ<(.ÿC.#B#&26ÿ!&<(.02"#(&ÿP!NLÿ\(.0ÿ?33Qÿ<(.ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
NOPQÿPSTUÿVWXYZ[X\ÿÿÿÿÿÿ]^_`aUbcÿVZdeWZX[ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿfghUijÿXdkXlkWXWWÿÿÿÿÿÿmSnUÿo\[ÿ^pÿoqo
!"#ÿ$%"&'()ÿ")*ÿ+,"-*.ÿÿ
ÿ
/0ÿ234ÿ56ÿ78779ÿ!:$ÿ;"<'+(,)'"ÿ=-><'?ÿ@!'<'!'$&ÿ;(AA'&&'()ÿ?:")B$*ÿ!:$ÿ*"!$ÿ(+ÿ!:$ÿ@;ÿC$B$)!&Dÿ
,$B'&!,"!'()ÿ"&ÿ")ÿEFGÿ+,(Aÿ23HIJÿ7K6ÿ78LMÿ!(ÿ234ÿ56ÿ7877.ÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
EFGHÿGJKLÿMNOPQROSÿÿÿÿÿÿTUVWXLYZÿMQ[\NQORÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ]^_L`aÿO[bOcbNONNÿÿÿÿÿÿdJeLÿfScÿUgÿfhf
ÿ ÿ
!ÿ"#ÿ$#%ÿ&$#'ÿ'()ÿ*+,-%.)ÿ%(*ÿ",%*ÿ#/ÿ%(*ÿ01ÿ2*345%2,%4#$ÿ,5ÿ,$ÿ678ÿ',5ÿ-(,$3*"ÿ/2#9ÿ:,2-(ÿ3;<ÿ34=>ÿ
%#ÿ:,)ÿ2<ÿ3433<ÿ?@%ÿ!ÿ&$#'ÿ/#2ÿ5@2*ÿ%(,%ÿ%(*ÿ01ÿA*3*$%5ÿ(,B*ÿ?**$ÿ,-%4$3ÿ4$ÿ,$ÿ#//4-4,.ÿ-,C,-4%)ÿ%#ÿ?@)ÿ
,$"ÿ2*5*..ÿ*.*-%24-ÿC#'*2ÿ/#2ÿC2#/4%ÿ54$-*ÿ34=Dÿ/2#9ÿ,%ÿ.*,5%ÿ%(2**ÿ"4//*2*$%ÿ5#.,2ÿC#'*2ÿC.,$%5<ÿ4/ÿ$#%ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¡ÿ¢
!"#$%ÿ&'()ÿ()ÿ(*ÿ+(",-.("*ÿ"/ÿ.'$(#ÿ.-00$0$!1.ÿ).-.2)ÿ2*3$#ÿ456ÿ7849:;92;%ÿ&'$ÿ<6ÿ5$=$*.)ÿ-#$ÿ
#$)1"*)(>,$ÿ/"#ÿ-.ÿ'-+(*=ÿ$+-3$3ÿ.-0$)ÿ?"#.'ÿ-ÿ!(*(!2!ÿ"/ÿ@A8B488ÿ!(,,("*ÿ3",,-#)ÿ(*ÿ1#"/(.ÿ/#"!ÿ.'$ÿ
)-,$ÿ"/ÿ1"?$#ÿ+(-ÿ6C4DE%ÿÿ
FGGGHIÿ ÿ
LMNMOPÿQRSÿTRTTÿMIOIÿUVMWPÿVXÿLYYZLFOÿXVWÿP[Zÿ\HOPWHUPÿVXÿUVFM]^HLÿ
UHWUMHPÿYZWÿUMWHL]ÿVW\ZWOÿ_ÿULOZÿ̀5a5bÿ̀5cdeÿb5efedgÿhÿ
cijc5aÿjhjcdjÿjhfjÿhkÿfllcjÿÿimjÿcijc5aÿjhjcdjÿ
jhfjSÿULOZÿnVIÿMOULÿnVIÿTR04o8p%ÿ
ÿ
VqÿLrsrtuÿQRSÿTRTTvÿ.'$ÿ<%Dÿ6"2#.ÿ"/ÿC11$-,)ÿ/"#ÿ.'$ÿw().#(:.ÿ"/ÿ6",2!>(-ÿ6(#:2(.vÿ>xÿ.?"ÿ)$1-#-.$ÿ
y$#ÿ62#(-!ÿE#3$#)vÿ3$*($3ÿ!xÿ8z{48{38338ÿy$.(.("*ÿ/"#ÿ#$'$-#(*=vÿ).x,$3ÿ-)ÿ-ÿ*".(:$ÿ"/ÿ">|$:.("*ÿ
:"!>(*$3ÿ?(.'ÿ-ÿ}E&4E~ÿ/"#ÿ#$:"*)(3$#-.("*vÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ234ÿ0ÿ
5667869 ÿÿÿ7ÿ58ÿÿ56ÿÿ8ÿ8 8ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
GHIJÿILMNÿOPQRSTQUÿÿÿÿÿÿVWXYZN[\ÿOS]^PSQTÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ_àNbcÿQ]dQedPQPPÿÿÿÿÿÿfLgNÿhUUÿWiÿhjh
!"ÿ#$ÿ%&'(3'3%3%ÿ)*+,+,-!ÿ.-/ÿ/*0*/,!1ÿ23ÿ5637ÿ-.ÿ+0*ÿ8-9/+ÿ-/"*/ÿ"+*"ÿ%:'%('3%33;ÿ<0,=0ÿ
",>#,>>*"ÿ#$ÿ??*@ÿ!"ÿ.9/+0*/ÿ"*=@,!*"ÿ+-ÿ/*< /"ÿ#*ÿ.-/ÿ/*?-/+,!1ÿ#,@@,-!>ÿ-.ÿ"-@@/>ÿ,!ÿ+Aÿ*B>,-!ÿ
!"ÿ./9"ÿ=-##,++*"ÿC$ÿ+0*ÿD8E)ÿ"9*ÿ+-ÿ+0*ÿ9!@<.9@ÿ?/-"9=+,-!ÿ!"ÿ>@*ÿ-.ÿ*@*=+/,=,+$Fÿÿ
ÿ
0ÿ233ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
uvwxÿwz{|ÿ}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿ |ÿ}~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ|ÿ~~~ÿÿÿÿÿÿz|ÿÿÿ
!"ÿ#"$%&%'(&ÿ#"()%(*ÿ+)ÿ,"-%-%'(&ÿ."/"ÿ,/"$%&"0)ÿ$''/#%(1-"#ÿ.%-!ÿ2'3/-ÿ4%0%(*&ÿ%(ÿ-!"ÿ5626ÿ2%/$3%-ÿ
21&"ÿ789:;ÿ=>?;@AÿB>CDEF;G?EÿHEE8IG:FG8>ÿJK7=BHLMÿNOÿFP?ÿQ?C?;:9ÿ=>?;@AÿR?@D9:F8;AÿS8TTGEEG8>Uÿ
21&"ÿV'6ÿ3W0WW2XUÿ.!%$!ÿ%&ÿ#3"ÿ-'ÿY"*%(ÿ&$!"#30"#ÿ'/10ÿ1/*3+"(-&ÿ'(ÿZ",-"+Y"/ÿ[Uÿ3\336ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
^___``aÿ ÿ
cdec^fg`deÿ
ÿ
h(ÿ$'($03&%'(Uÿhÿ1+ÿ/"&,"$-4300)ÿ1&i%(*ÿ-!"ÿhjZÿk!%&-0"Y0'."/ÿl44%$"ÿ-'ÿ4300)ÿ%(m"&-%*1-"ÿ+)ÿ/",'/-ÿ'4ÿ
-1nÿ"m1&%'(ÿ1(#ÿ4/13#ÿ$'++%--"#ÿY)ÿ-!"ÿo(%m"/&%-)ÿ'4ÿ210%4'/(%1p&ÿl44%$"ÿ'4ÿ-!"ÿq/"&%#"(-ÿ"n"$3-%m"&ÿ
1(#ÿÿ-!"ÿj"*"(-&ÿ'4ÿ-!"ÿo(%m"/&%-)ÿÿ'4ÿ210%4'/(%1ÿ'4ÿÿ%($03#%(*UÿY3-ÿ('-ÿ0%+%-"#ÿ-'Uÿ4'/+"/ÿo2ÿ
q/"&%#"(-ÿr1("-ÿV1,'0%-1('Uÿo2ÿs"("/10ÿ2'3(&"0ÿ2!1/0"&ÿj'Y%(&'(Uÿ1(#ÿ-!"%/ÿ$'001Y'/1-'/&6ÿÿ
ÿ
j"&,"$-4300)ÿ&3Y+%--"#ÿ'(ÿZ",-"+Y"/ÿ2Uÿ3\33Uÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
r1/'&01.ÿk1&t$t3iÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0ÿ232ÿ0ÿ
45567589ÿÿÿ 6ÿ47ÿÿ45ÿÿ7ÿ797ÿÿ 9ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
g,
§iztir of (California
fijuhirial Iierfnrmanrc
"
"
(EUItIIIIfE-Einlt rm -
‘
To give you some information about the process, each complaint about a judge is
voted upon by the commission. When a complaint states facts which could be
misconduct, if the facts are true and there is not another explanation for what happened,
the commission typically opens an investigation. The commission’s staff will interview
witnesses, review documents or files and conduct other investigation. If there is
sufficient evidence supporting the complaint, the judge will be contacted and asked to
respond to the allegations. The commission then reviews the available evidence, and the
judge’s response if the judge was contacted, to make a determination whether misconduct
has occurred. Misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, a
higher standard than is required in civil cases but lower than in criminal cases. If the
evidence does not support a finding of misconduct, the commission will close the case.
The commission may also close the case if the misconduct was relatively minor and the
judge has acknowledged the problem and taken steps to prevent it from happening again.
If the evidence supports a finding of misconduct and the commission determines that
discipline may be appropriate, the commission may proceed to impose discipline.
court to be legally incorrect, that by itself is not a violation of the Code of Ethics and is
not misconduct. A judge’s legal error might be a basis for investigation by this
commission if there is sufficient evidence of bad faith, bias, abuse of authority,disregard
for fundamental rights, intentional disregard of the law or any purpose other than the
faithful discharge of judicial duty.
Lastly, our office is not able to provide legal advice. If you wish to determine
what legal avenues are available to you, you might consider contacting an attorney or
legal services provider to see if they can help you.
Michelle Kern
Secretary to Trial Counsel
Via E-mail/Fax
Stephen D. Ruiz
Mohan Harris Ruiz LLP
1806 W Kettleman Ln, Ste L
Lodi, CA 95242-4316
Subject: The University of California’s Office of the President and its involvement in the witch
hunt and prosecution of Lodi daycare provider Dorothy Bernhoft and her husband, Lodi
psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D.
Re: Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin case People of the State of
California v. Dorothy Ann Bernhoft, Case CR-2012-4029037, LPD Case No. LP12-00795
and Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin case Mason Metler v. Dorothy
Bernhoft, Case No. STK-CV-UPI-2013-0000327, and Chiara Calarossi v. Dorothy Bernhoft,
Case No. STK-CV-UPI-2012-0008206
Following 30 minutes of victim impact speeches, Bernhoft stood up, turned toward
the parents and denied any wrongdoing.
“I know that no harm was ever done to a child in my home,” she said while
brushing away tears. “Your children were not left in car seats or portable cribs all
day. This is simply not true.”
FRANKLIN BERNHOFT said his wife was “the most spiritual woman he knows,”
and that his wife would never hurt any children.
1
Letter to Stephen D. Ruiz, Re: Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D.
University of California (The Regents), which has been pending in the California State and
Federal Courts since December 2013.
You probably would never have heard of the Bernhofts if you had not been hired or
retained by Franklin O. Bernhoft, who in August 2011 I hired to help me cope with the work-
related stress I was suffering due to a witch hunt orchestrated by the UCOP’s white collar
criminals. I was employed by the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) from June 27, 1999
through December 7, 2012. You can read the full story about this in my September 3, 2022
Addendum to the Application for Award for Original Information (IRS Form 211), which I
submitted to the IRS Whistleblower Office in Ogden, Utah.
I addressed the Bernhofts in my IRS Form 211 addendum on pages 101–121,
https://www.scribd.com/document/600581546/09-03-2022-IRS-WBO-ICE-FORM-211-
APPLICATION-FOR-AWARD-Polish-Refugee-v-University-of-California-White-Collar-
Crime.
Almost simultaneously, on December 2 and 4, 2013, Sacramento County Superior Court Writ
of Mandamus, Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPii) and Sacramento Superior Court
Wrongful Termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California, were filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, instead of being filed in
San Joaquin County Superior Court.
I filed these lawsuits two months after Judge Morgan, from San Joaquin County Superior
Court, wrongfully sentenced Dorothy Bernhoft to four years’ probation with many conditions.
It would be a different story if I had hired a different attorney in November 2013 and if my
cases had not been filed and pursued in the wrong county, Sacramento County Superior Court,
instead of San Joaquin County Superior Court.
To make a long story short, the Bernhofts paid a heavy price because Dr. Bernhoft, as my
psychologist, sent a letter on my behalf to Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Liberty) on
December 14, 2011 addressing the conspiracy in which the UCOP attorneys denied to me my Short
Term Disability Insurance benefits in November 2011 and attempted to terminate my employment in
2
Letter to Stephen D. Ruiz, Re: Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D.
December 2011 (see attached). The first attempt by the UCOP to terminate my employment was set
for September 23, 2011, but the plan was prematurely leaked to my physician from Lodi, Harvey
Hashimoto. He worked in coordination with Dr. Bernhoft to place me on work-related sick leave until
January 5, 2012.
This infuriated the UCOP, and they took action to separate me from Drs. Hashimoto and
Bernhoft. After I submitted my Short Term Disability Claim to Liberty on September 27, 2011, the
UCOP administrators conspired with a Liberty representative to remove Bernhoft and Hashimoto
from my orbit, to cancel my work stress-related sick leave, and to fire me from my job on December
12, 2011.
After Bernhoft sent his letter to Liberty on December 14, 2011, UC Senior Vice President
Daniel Dooley engaged his wife, Diana Dooley, to punish Bernhoft for his actions. Mrs. Dooley was
appointed Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHS), where she
oversaw 13 departments, including the California Department of Social Services (CDSS).
Prior the raid on the Bernhofts’ residence on January 31, 2012, Daniel Dooley was key player
in the November 18, 2011 pepper spray provocation on the UC Davis campus that used student
protests to remove from their posts UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and three UC Davis police
officers, to whom I had complained about the witch hunt in October 2011. Katehi refused to
terminate my employment after she requested and received a report on me from the UCDMC Human
Resources Department and the UC Davis police.
At the same time, in 2012, when San Joaquin County DA Kristine Reed was prosecuting
Dorothy Bernhoft, the California Health and Human Service Agency, headed by Diana Dooley, was
used by the FBI to frame California Senator Leland Yee (Yee was also psychologist). Senator Yee
had been after the UCOP executives and The Regents since he was elected California Senator on
December 4, 2006. Yee, in his feud with the UCOP, was looking intently into where the UCOP
executives were getting millions of uncounted dollars and enormous pay raises and bonuses. On the
same day Yee was elected California Senator, December 4, 2006, the UCOP assigned a witch hunter
to frame me and fire me from my job. In 2007, I had no clue why I was being targeted, and I never
thought that my complaints about unpaid overtime made to my previous employer (prior to UCDMC)
3
Letter to Stephen D. Ruiz, Re: Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D.
would result in me being hunted down at the UCDMC, where I was hired in June 1999 as a
cogeneration power plant operator to operate and maintain a 27-MW cogeneration power plant.
Please see San Joaquin County Superior Court case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., Case
No. CV000737 3DCA Case Number C030005,
https://www.scribd.com/document/489028741/February-1999-Fire-in-My-Daughter-s-Apartment-
San-Carlos-California.
In 2012, I became an object of the UCOP thugs’ vicious attacks in an attempt to frame me
with Lodi and UC Davis Police for criminal prosecution and deport me to my native country, Poland.
https://www.scribd.com/document/622340707/09-26-2012-Most-Unwanted-Poster-and-
Pepper-Spray-Settlement-Agreement
In February 2015, The Regents’ attorney from the Porter Scott law firm was making threats
in Court that he would go after my wife if I did not drop my litigation. Shortly thereafter, in the
summer of 2015 and three years after my termination of employment with the UCDMC, I found out
why I had been targeted by the UCOP since 2005 to erase me from the UC payroll and UCDMC
premises.
Another provocative and heated discussion was instigated by Sacramento County Superior Court
Judge David Brown during a Court Hearing on April 10, 2015, after which Judge Brown sent Lodi
Police to my residence.
Two years after Dorothy Bernhoft was sentenced to four years’ probation by San Joaquin
County Superior Court Judge Brett Morgan and became collateral damage due to the 2011–2012
UCOP crusade against her husband, I addressed for the first time the January 31, 2012 CDSS and
Lodi Police raid on the Bernhofts’ residence in Lodi and reason behind the witch hunt. I did this in
my proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC) to Sacramento County Superior Court Wrongful
Termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California (https://www.scribd.com/document/391819456/TAC-PROPOSED-THIRD-AMENDED-
COMPLAINT-pdf).
4
Letter to Stephen D. Ruiz, Re: Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D.
At relatively the same time, in March 2016, when you stipulated the terms for a new trial in the
Bernhofts’ case, I retrieved from San Joaquin Superior Court and copied 167 pages of documents
from their cases, which included, but was not limited to:
It was not difficult to figure out from the fabricated counts in the criminal complaints that those
aimed at Dorothy Bernhoft coincided with the time when I retained her husband as my psychologist
(August 2011 through the CDSS and Lodi Police raid on the Bernhofts’ residence in Lodi, January
31, 2012). If the CDSS team that entered the Bernhofts’ residence on January 31, 2012 at 11:30 a.m.
had called 911 right away, Lodi Police would have supposedly witnessed Dorothy Bernhoft’s cruel
treatment and endangerment of children in her daycare center and rescued them. Had this happened,
it would have been a different story. The CDSS hit team did not even take any photos to document
Dorothy Bernhoft’s alleged crimes.
By reading the CDSS Investigation Reports, one dated January 30, 2012 and other dated
January 31, 2012, the CDSS Complaint in the Matter of Dorothy Bernhoft No. 7012032101, dated
February 2, 2012, and the San Joaquin County DA Criminal Complaint filed by Deputy DA Kristine
Reed on August 6, 2012, you can find only two specific dates on which Dorothy Bernhoft was said to
have committed her alleged crimes.
On December 20, 2011, CDSS visited the Bernhofts’ residence; thereafter, the CDDS alleged
that, on or about December 20, 2011, five infants and three preschool children were present in the
facility without an assistant. This CDSS visit occurred six days after Dorothy Bernhoft’s husband and
my psychologist at the time sent his letter to Liberty, causing the termination of my employment to
be put on hold.
5
Letter to Stephen D. Ruiz, Re: Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D.
On March 23, 2016, with more details, I further addressed the January 31, 2021 CDSS and
Lodi Police raid on the Bernhofts’ residence in my complaint to the California Commission on
Judicial Performance against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang,
who presided over the Writ of Mandamus, Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
California Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPii)—The Regents of the
University of California (UC Regents), which was filed wrongfully by my (now) former attorney
Douglas Stein on December 2, 2013 in Sacramento County Superior Court, instead of in San
Joaquin County Superior Court.
https://www.scribd.com/document/665613256/03-23-2016-Commission-on-Judicial-
Performance-Complaint-Against-Sac-County-Superior-Court-Judge-Shelleyanne-Chang
Also on March 23, 2016, I submitted a complaint to the State Bar of California against 23
attorneys who, in one way or another, participated in the witch hunt and devastated my life at
retirement age. One of the attorneys in my complaint was former UC Senior Vice President
Daniel Dooley, who was behind the raid on the Bernhofts’ residence. To my complaint with
State Bar, I attached as an exhibit the complaint to the Commission on Judicial Performance
against Chang. In March 2016, I did not know yet that Diana Dooley was Daniel Dooley’s wife.
https://www.scribd.com/document/514642957/3-23-2016-Complaint-with-the-State-Bar-Case-No-
16-15525
On April 6, 2016, I sent a letter to San Joaquin County Deputy DA Kristine Reed addressing
raid on the Bernhofts’ residence with an attached copy of my March 23, 2016 complaint against
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L Chang
(https://www.scribd.com/document/661108401/04-06-2016-Bernhoft-s-Criminal-Case-Letter-to-San-
Joaquin-County-DA-Kristine-Reed).
Also in March 2016, I submitted a whistleblower complaint against the UC Regents for tens
of millions dollars in tax evasion and fraud due to violations of Internal Revenue Code 501 (c)(3), in
relation to the illegal power production and sale from the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration plant,
where I was once employed as an operator.
The illegal power sale was the reason why the UCOP mob went after me and anyone
associated with me, including Franklin Bernhoft. For this complaint, I retained an attorney, Mark
6
Letter to Stephen D. Ruiz, Re: Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D.
Schlein, from the prestigious law firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman Law Corporation, based
in Los Angeles. My super lawyer did not last long. UC President Janet Napolitano (the former
Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security) departed in June 2016, and former UC Vice
President Judith Boyette was named to the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and
Government Entities (TEGE) to take care of my whistleblower complaint and my attorney Schlein
(see https://www.wisnerbaum.com/attorneys/mark-h-schlein/).
The June 2018 press information that California Governor Jerry Brown appointed on May 31,
2018 Diana Dooley as his executive secretary led me to information that she was Daniel Dooley's
wife. At the same time, I found that the CDSS attorney Cori A. Dutra, who filed the charges against
Dorothy Bernhoft on February 2, 2012 in CDSS Case 7012032101, was a friend of Porter Scott
attorney David Burkett, who represented The Regents in my wrongful termination and
unemployment benefits case from February 2015 through October 2019. I described in detail my
findings about the CDSS’s January 31, 2012 raid on the Bernhofts‘ residence in the PLANTIFF’S
DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGAL
FEES AND COST TO DEFENDANTS IN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION C.C.P 425.16 (C), filed
with the Court on July 18, 2018 (Pages 54–80,
https://www.scribd.com/document/662265631/07-18-2018-DISAPPROVAL-OF-THE-
PROPOSED-ORDER-AND-JUDGMENT).
I repeated the Bernhofts’ story in my September 3, 2022 Addendum to the Application for
Award (IRS Form 211) submitted to the IRS Whistleblower Office (see
https://www.scribd.com/document/600581546/09-03-2022-IRS-WBO-ICE-FORM-211-
APPLICATION-FOR-AWARD-Polish-Refugee-v-University-of-California-White-Collar-
Crime).
Thereafter, the Regents’ attorneys from Porter Scott, Davis Burkett and Daniel Bardzell,
attempted end my lawsuit via termination sanctions and to frame me for a bench warrant by
employing two different judges who were not handling or assigned to my wrongful termination case.
Burkett and Bardzell either resigned or were fired from Porter Scott at the end of 2019.
After seven years of weird litigation, on March 3, 2020, I submitted to the Court a Submission
Form to set a Trial Date on August 11 or 18, 2020, or September 28, 2020. The Court did not bother
7
Letter to Stephen D. Ruiz, Re: Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D.
to respond at all.
In my July 29, 2019 Reply to the U.S. Tax Court Order served on July 9, 2019 and
signed by Special Trial Judge Hon. Robert N. Armen, Re: Protective Order—Tax Court
Rules of Practice and Procedure Section 6103(B)(L), (2), and (3) (U.S. Tax Court Docket
No.0019) https://www.scribd.com/document/476775930/UTC-20190729-Judge-Armen-
Order-Petitioner-Objection-to-Motion-for-Protective-Order, I addressed the Bernhofts’
and others’ horrible experiences with the law and those who were subjected to witch
hunters’ terror coming from the UCOP, FBI employees, U.S. prosecutors, and judges from
various U.S. courts.
In 2021, in an ill and heinous action to end my litigation against The Regents, attorneys
from Porter Scott, in collaboration with judges and clerks from Sacramento County Superior Court
Departments 53, 54, and 43, ambushed my wife in an attempt to frame her for a bench warrant and
criminal prosecution and to clean out her life savings bank and 401(K) accounts. They stole from her
$22,284 before Judge Thadd Blizzard from Department 43 and his court clerk. I am not 100% sure
what the Porter Scott bandits had in mind in dragging my wife to court, but I was quite sure that it
was something similar to framing her for criminal prosecution, as happened to Dorothy Bernhoft in
2012 and 2013. The full story of the January 10, 2023 inquiry addressed to Secretary to Trial Counsel
State of California Michele Kem can be found here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/662320823/01-10-2023-Commission-on-Judicial-Performance-
Kem-Re-3DCA-Case-No-C095488.
The last filed court document in which I addressed the January 31, 2012 CDSS and Lodi Police raid
on the Bernhofts’ residence was my APPELLANT’S MOTION TO CONSIDER NEW
EVIDENCE ON APPEAL, which was filed on July 20, 2023 in the Court of Appeal, Third
Appellate District (3DCA) case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v . The Regents of the University of
California (The Regents), Case No. C095488 (Sacramento County Superior Court Wrongful
Termination Case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California Case No. 34-
2013- 00155479 filed on December 4, 2013), see
8
Letter to Stephen D. Ruiz, Re: Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D.
https://www.scribd.com/document/660982022/7-20-2023-3DCA-C095488-Waszczuk-v-the-
Regants-Motion-for-New-Evidence-on-Appeal.
Plaintiff did not attend the psychiatric evaluation. This was a copycat scenario similar to
how communists eliminated political opponents in Soviet Union and Soviet Union-
dominated countries by locking them up in mental health facilities. The Court may read
about raid on the Plaintiff’s psychologist residence in Lodi in greater detail by opening
the link below:
https://www.scribd.com/document/600581546/09-03-2022-IRS-WBO-ICE-FORM-211-
APPLICATION-FOR-AWARD-Polish-Refugee-v-University-of-California-White-Collar-
Crime
The 3DCA motion filed on July 20, 2023 for new evidence on appeal, in which I mentioned the raid on
the Bernhofts’ residence, was denied a few hours later on the same day by 3DCA Acting Presiding
Justice Ronald B. Robie. One day later, on July 21, 2023, I argued the C095488. Attorney Karen Bray,
from Horvitz & Levy LLP, argued the case for The Regents. One week later, almost 10 years after the
case was filed, 3DCA granted a motion for summary judgment to The Regents. I am preparing a
Petition for Rehearing and, most likely, a Petition for Review by the California Supreme Court.
9
Letter to Stephen D. Ruiz, Re: Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D.
The denial of my motion with new crucial evidence on the case by Justice Robie, who also
presided over the oral arguments, triggered this letter to let you know why the Bernhofts were
hunted down and maliciously prosecuted. The wrongful prosecution was based on false and
fabricated accusations in Criminal Court and led to the extortion of thousands of dollars from the
Bernhoft family by the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Civil Court’s proceedings.
Due to The Regents’ reckless, unlawful, and merciless witch hunts, which resulted in the
termination of my employment on December 5 , 2012 at retirement age, I have suffered
enormous losses exceeding $1 million in wages and benefits and the devastation of my life. By
contrast, The Regents, since the second witch hunt action aimed at me, from March 2011–
December 2012, have lost approximately $100 million in tax-free revenue by not selling to the
Sacramento Municipal Utilities District surplus power from the UCDMC’s cogeneration plant,
after being advised by some unknown person that I would blow the whistle on their shady
power-generation business, a topic about which I did not care at all or have a clue concerning in
2011–2012, when the witch hunt began. By attacking the Bernhofts, the UCOP white collar
criminals most likely thought that I had provided in 2011 to Dr. Bernhoft secrets about their tax
evasion and fraud.
As of this writing, I have faced 16 attorneys who represented or are still representing The
Regents. Some of them have died, many have left the Porter Scott law firm. Their names are in
the link below. Perhaps you have met some of them in the Sacramento Courts
(seehttps://www.scribd.com/document/662338782/01-2023-Karen-Bray-Failure-to-Fail-
Respondent-s-Brief).
After almost ten long years of litigation in the wrong County Court, it appears that the
approximately $100 million loss for The Regents is no longer an issue to continue litigating until
I drop dead. The fraud was reported to the IRS whistleblower office, and the perpetrators do not
care. It looks like the witch hunt and malicious prosecution of Dorothy Bernhoft, with the
involvement of the Dooleys and the Regents’ attorneys from Porter Scott, which almost led to
Dorothy Bernhoft’s incarceration, is an important issue in my litigation against The Regents.
The costly civil lawsuits against the Bernhofts have been based on false allegations and
accusations and fabricated reports by perpetrators They could cost the UC Regents more
10
Letter to Stephen D. Ruiz, Re: Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D.
$100,000 dollars if the truth surfaces and a lawsuit is brought against all of the perpetrators
involved in the Bernhofts' despicable and unlawful prosecution.
Filing a false criminal complaint is illegal, not a constitutionally protected exercise of the right of
petition or free speech (Lefebvre v. Lefebvre, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 706.). However , I do
not want to get deeper into state and federal laws in relation to the Bernhofts’ unlawful
prosecution and extortion of money from them based on false CDSS reports.
The question remains, Why didn’t the California Department of Social Services not call Lodi Police
until one hour after they arrived at the Bernhofts’ residence on January 31, 2012? Why didn’t
they let the Lodi Police witness the children allegedly strapped in car seats in dark rooms with
closets of unloaded stored guns next to the children? It is a mystery to me why these facts were
not noticed by Deputy DA Reed, who filed charges against Dorothy Bernhoft on March 18, 2012
totaling 35 counts.
My self-representation in pro propria persona (pro per) legal struggle in the two
Sacramento Courts, the County of Sacramento County Superior Court and the Court of
Appeal of State California Third Appellate District (3DCA), the against Regents of the
University of California, is situated similarly to litigation of the proper litigant, Allan S., in
the case Alan S. v. Superior Court (Mary T.), 172 Cal.App.4th 238 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009),
https://casetext.com/case/alan-s-v-superior-court.
I am in same situation as Allan S., representing himself playing the role of a pro per litigant
whose case, with shades of Gideon’s Trumpet, doomed from the beginning in his litigation in two
cases filed simultaneously, on December 2 & 4, 2013, in the Sacramento County Superior Court.
In an opinion issued on April 15, 2019 in the Allan S. case, the Court made reference to Anthony
Lewis’s 1964 novel, Gideon’s Trumpet, which was based on the plight of a pro per litigant, as
fully explained in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), 372 U.S. 335 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 83 S.Ct. 792].
In contrast to Allan S.’s struggle, I was doomed twice, not because, like Allen S. he could not
afford an attorney, I initially hired experienced attorneys to handle my litigation. It was only
later that I became a pro per litigant because of my attorneys’ criminal misconduct. They were
both disbarred for their misconduct . My self-representation in pro per and my struggle against
11
Letter to Stephen D. Ruiz, Re: Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D.
powerful corporations and Littler Mandelson’s attorneys in the 3DCA case Waszczuk v. Destec
Energy Inc., Case No. C030005, did not attract as much attention as Gideon did in Gideon v.
Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 83 S.Ct. 792]. In the novel In Pro Per
https://www.scribd.com/document/662933819/IN-PRO-PER-A-Novel-by-Maurizio-Spinoza, by my
coworker from UCDMC under the pen name Maurzio Spinosa portrayed me as “Stanley
Bondarczuk.” It did not became another Gideon’s Trumpet; however, the in pro per representation in
Waszczuk v. Destec Energy Inc., Case No. C030005, and his litigation against PG&E
(https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/Agenda decision/23942-04.htm) got the University of California
Office of President (UCOP) and The Regents’ attention. Since August 2005, they have employed an
army of personnel and lawyers to erase Waszczuk from the UCDMC premises UC payroll with an
attempt to assassinate him and frame him with UC Davis and City of Lodi Police for deportation to
his native country, Poland (see https://www.scribd.com/document/663081739/03-23-2016-Jaroslaw-
Waszczuk-s-Complaint-with-State-Bar-of-California-Attorneys-Misconduct).
Shortly, I will be filing another lawsuit in the Federal District Court than the Bernhoft cases
would be brought into . Just letting you know.
Sincerely,
12
Letter to Stephen D. Ruiz, Re: Psychologist Franklin O. Bernhoft, Ph.D.
ORIGINAL APP-002
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATEBARNO.: FOR COURT USE OHLY
NAME: JAROSLAW WASZCZUK - l-N PRO'PER
FIRM NAME:
STREETADDRESS: 2216 KATZAKIAN WAY
CITY: LODI STATE: OA ZIP CODE: 95242
TELEPHONE NO,: (209)687-1180 FAXNO: (209)425-0512
E-MAIL ADDRESS:
ATTORNEY FOR Inaim):
SUPERIOR COURTOF CAUFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
STREET ADDRESS: 720 9th StfOet
MAILING AODRESS: 720 9th Street DEC 2 3 2021
CITY ANDZIP CODE: SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
BRANCH NAME: Civll
By: K. Michaud
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: J A R O a j \ W WASZCZUK Deputy Clerk
Notice: Please read Infomiation on Appea/ Procedurea for Unlimited Civil Cases (Judicial Council form
APP-001) before completing this form. Tliis form must be filed in tlie superior court, not in the Court of Appeal.
A copy of this form must also be served on the other party or parties to this appeal. You may use an
applicable Judicial Council form (such as APP-009 or APP-009E) for the proof of s«vice. When this document
has been completed and a copy served, the original may then be filed with the court wMi proof of service.
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (6I0N WURE OF P.ARTY Oft ATTORNEY)
p«a»iofi
Forni Approved lor Optional Use NOTICE O F A P P E A L / C R O S S A P P E A L (UNLIIVDTED CIVIL C A S E ) Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100
Ojdidal Coundl of Caiilomla HMw.aoi;rfScs.go/
APP-002 [Rev. January 1.2017] (Appellate)
APP-009
PROOF OF SERVICE (Court of Appeal)
n n Mail' 1 1 Personal Service
Notice: This form may be used to provide proof that a document has been
served in a proceeding in the Court of Appeal. Please read Information
SAeet for Proof of Servtee (Court ofAppeaO (form APP-009-INFO) before
completing this form. Do not use this form for proof of electronic service.
SeeformAPP-009E.
Case Name: Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the Univ.of Califomia
Court of Appeal Case Number:
Supernr Court Case Number: 34-2013-00155479
1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action.
2. IVIy n n reskience I I business address is ^speoiy;:
2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi, CA 95242
3. I mailed or personally delivered a copy of the fbllowing document as indk»ted below (fill in the name of tfte document you mailed or
delivered and complete eittier a orb):
Notice of Appeal from the Judgment after an order granting a summary judgment motton dated October 28, 2021
(1) I enclosed a copy of the document kientified above in an envelope or envelopes and
(a) n n deposited the sealed envelope(s) with the U.S. Postal Senrice, with the postage fully prepaid.
(b) I I placed the envetope(s) for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown in items below,
following our ordinary business practk^s. I am readily familiar with this business's practice of collecting
and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for oollectbn
and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the U.S. Postal Servk», in a sealed
envelope(s) with postage fully prepaid.
I I Additional persons sensed are listed on the attached page (write 'APP009, item 3a' at the top <^ttiepage).
(4) I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occun-ed. The document was mailed from
(city and state): Lodi, California Paaeier2
Form Approved for Optional Use PROOF OF SERVICE wwMr.oov/facaeov
JLitfdal Coundl ofCalHomla ^ A—
APP-009 [Rov. January 1.2017] (COUrt Of A p p e a l )
APP-009
Case Name: Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents ofthe Univ.oT Califomia ICourt of Appeal Case Number.
3. b. I I Personal delivery. I personally delivered a copy of the document identified above as folk»Ms:
(1) Person served:
(a) Name:
(b) Address where delivered:
I I Names and addresses of additional persons served and delivery dates and times are listed on the attached page (write
'APP-009, item 3b' at the top of the page).
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing s true and correct
IRENA WASZCZUK
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM)
iSIGNATURE OF PERSON COMFLETINS THIS FORM)
12
s 13 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, CASE NO. 34-2013-00155479
t ,2 r s i
L_ ~
^ (/3 «n
2S 14
Plaintiff, ^'^•^^XeBQEOgeD] JUDGMENT
OS < 2
^5 FOLLOWING ORDER GRANTING
ov Ov DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
>< IA SUMMARY JUDGMENT
III I- S
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
3 i«
17 CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM,
18 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC
19 DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES
20 WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK
21 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC. and Does 1
22 through 50, inclusive.
23 Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
{02523763.POCX1
IPROPOSEDI JUDGMENT FOLLOWING ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 On September 23, 2021, Judge Christopher Krueger of the above-entitled court presiding,
2 after considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, as well as oral argument following the
3 tentative ruling, granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment. A true and correct copy ofthe
4 filed Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5 On October 13, 2021, Judge Krueger denied Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration from the
6 order granting the summary judgment motion.
7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Judgment be entered in
8 favor of Defendant Regents of the University of Califomia and against Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk.
9 Defendant is entitled to costs as the prevailing party pursuant to section 1032 of the Code of Civil
10 Procedure.
11
12
13 Date: y o ».»-^6V-^
M5s S \. Chnstopher Krueger
g 3-^2:5 14
CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER
Approved as to form:
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(02523763.DOCX> 1
IPROPOSEDI JUDGMENT FOLLOWING ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT '
Wasiduk V. Regents ofihe University of California, et al.
Sacramento County Superior Court. Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
20 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
21 2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
22 J JW I980@.LIVE.COM
23
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State ofCalifomia that the foregoing
24 is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on October 15,2021.
25
26
27
28
Virginia Yao
{02523763.DOCX)
IPROPOSEDI JUDGMENT FOLLOWING ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT
"A"
010S4547.WPD
» 1
1 PORTER t SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ; 1 .: • ' <. • • • ' - "•
2
Lindsay A. Goulding, SBN 227195
3 3S0 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, Califomta 95823
4 lifiouldin^i'aiportcrscott.com
TEL: 916.929.1481
5 FAX: 916.927.3706
6
Attorney for Defendants
7 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant fo Government Code § 6103
9
10
II SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
27
28
l02302467.tX>CX!.
•PROPOSED! ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS? MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
•1 On Septanber 1,2021, Judge Christopher Krueger ofthe above-entitled court presiding, after
2 considering tfae evidenoe and arguments ofthe paities, as well as oral argumentfollowingthe tentative
3 ruling, granted Defndants* motion for summary judgment. The reasons ofthe Court are set forth in
4 the Minute Order attached hereto as Exbibit A.
5
6 ITIS SO ORDERED.
7 CHRISTOPHER L KRUEGER
8 Date: SEP 23
Hon. Cbristoph«-Knieg«-
9
Approved as to fbnn:
10
11
12 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
13
^>J'I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
(02S0a467J)OCX) 1
[PROFOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Waszczuk V. Regents ofthe University ofCalifomia, et al.
I Sacramento Coun^ Snperior Conrt, Case No. 34-2013-00155479
2
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia 95825.
5
6 On the date below, I served the following document:
7 IPROPOSEDI ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS* MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
8
BY MAIL: I placed the envelope fbr collection and mdling, followinig our onfinaiy business practices. I
9 am readUy familiar wilh this budness' practice fbr collecting and processing conrespondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed (at collection and mailing, it is defxisited in the ordinary
10 course of business with the.United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelooe with postase fully prepaid.
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: 1 caused sucb document to be personalty delivered to the person(s) addressed
11 bdow. (1) For a party lepiesented 1^ an attomey, ddiveiy was made to die attorn^ or at the atuvney's
office by leavnig tlw documents, in an envelope or pacicage clearly labeled to identiQr die attorney bdng
12 served, wilh a recqitionist or an indWidual in charge ofthe ofTice, between the hours of nine in the moming
8 and live m the evening. (2) For a party, deliveiy was made to the party or teaving the documents at tbe
13 party's residence with some person nol younger than 18 years of age between the hours of dght in the
' 9 S _ '
' M <n go : momimt and sU in the evenfaie.
i^Zfi 14 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
ovemight deliveiy carrier and addressed to the peison(B) lisled below. I placed the envelope or package for
et < «rf S 13 collection and ovemight delivery at my offioe or a regularly utilized drop box ofthe ovemight deliveiy
carrier.
ma
BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement ofthe parties lo accept service by fax transmission, I
faxed the documents to the persons at the &x numbers listed betow. No eiror was reported by the
machine that I used. A copy of the record ofthe fax transmission, which I prmted out, is attached
XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of die paities to accept service by
en electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the dectronic notiiieation addiess
18 listed below.
19 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
20 Udi,CA 95242
21 JJW19gDfflLIVE.COM
22
I declare under penalty of perjury under the lavrs ofthe State of California that the foregoing
23 is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on September 15,2021.
24
25
26
27 Virginia Yao
28
«n$«M<7Joao
IPROPOSEDI ORDEIl GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT
"A"
0I0S4547.WPD
SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA.
COUNtY OFSACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 09A)1/2021 TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT: 54
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Christopher Krueger
CLERK: G.Toda
REPORTER/ERM: V. Haley CSR# 10771
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: N. Alvl. T. Elder
CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-VVT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 12/04/2013
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
EVENT TYPE: Motion fbr Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication - Civil Law and Motion
MSA/MSJ/SLAPP
APPEARANCES
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, self represented Plaintiff, appeared remotely via vkJeo.
Thomas Riordan, present tor defendant The Regents of the University of California, remotely.
Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication
TENTATIVE RUUNG
Defendant The Regents of the University of California's ("Regents") Motion fbr Summary Judgment Is
GRANTED as follows.
Objecfions
The Court declines to rule on Regents' objections as they were not material to the Courfs consideration
of the motion. (CCP § 437c(a).) Consequently, the Court also declines to rule on PlaintifTs "Objection to
Defendants' Objections to Evidence."
PlaintifPs Failure to File Responsive Separate Statement
At the outset, tiie Court notes that a self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is
entitied to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attomeys. {Witlbms v. Pacific
Mutual Ufa /ns. Co. (1986) 186 CalApp.Sd 941, 944.) Thus, as is tiie casa witt^ attomeys,
self-represenfed litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. {Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 CalJ\pp.4th
1229,1246-1247; see also Rappleyaa v. Campball (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975.984.)
The opposition papers must include a separate statement responding to each of the material facts the
moving party contends to be undisputed. Each material fact must be followed by a reference to
supporting evidence. (CCP § 437c(b)(3).) The opposing part/s failure to file a responsive separate
statement may, in the court's discretion, constitute sufficient ground for granting the motion. [Ibid.) Here,
Plaintifffelledto file a responsive separate statement. Plaintiff states, "[tlhe Plaintiff legitimately disputes
most of the 17 supposedly undisputed facts, thus the Motion must be denied," (Opp. 26:10-11.)
However. Plaintiff does not directly address the materiel facts submitted by Regents and state what
evMence shows that a particular fact is disputed. For these reasons. Plaintiff has failed to show what
facts are actually disputed and the Court finds that the material fects submitted by Regents are
undisputed.
Facts
As discussed above, the Court findstiiefollowing facts submitted by Regents are undisputed.
Regents have adopted and implemented polides prohibiting harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
Regents also investigate and take con«ctlve action when there are reports of any such conduct.
Plaintiff was hired to work as a Power Plant Operator at the UC Davis Medical Center's Plant Operations
and Maintenance Department m 1999. Plaintiff worked in the Central Plant from 1999 until 2007. On
April 16, 2007, Plaintiff received a 3-day disciplinary suspension, and his work location was reassigned
to the HVAC/Plumbing shop after an Investigation confirmed that Plaintiff violated UC Davis Health
System Policy 1616 and the Principles of Community by creating a hostile work environment in ttie
Central Plant The discipline was based on ttie investigative detennination tiiat Plaintiff commonly used
intimidating and disrespectful language when conversing with his co-woricers; treated his supenrisors
with disrespect; and repeatedly made derogatory comments about the race, religion, ethnic baOkground,
or Other immutable characteristics of his co-workers.
Plaintiff grieved tiie (fisdplinary action. The suspension was upheld, but Plaintiff's reassignment was set
aside at an appeal hearing in 2008. On January 30, 2009, Plaintiff and Regents executed a Settlement
/Vgreement in which Plaintiff agreed to a permanent assignment In tiie HVAC/Plumbing Shop. In return.
Plaintiff was pieced in an Associate Development Engineer position. Plaintiff agreed to be classified as
an exempt employee for minimum wage and overtime purposes. Plaintiff also received $13,500 and a
salary Increase aspart of the setflement
In August 2011. Regents Initiated a new investigation into additional allegations of misconduct made
against Plaintiff. Plaintiff was accused of: (a) b^ng disruptive and intimidating towards HVAC Shop
Supervisor Patrick Putney, (b) being disruptive towards Putney again on another date, and (c) being
disruptive and intimidating towards HVAC Shop As^stant Supennsor Dorin Daniliuc by pointing his
finger in Daniliuc's face and usiiig profanl^. During tiie course of the Investigation, Regents received
additional complaints that Plaintiff made discriminatoiy comments in the workplace. In February 2012,
Regents found that (a) Plaintiff violated University policies related to violence and hate Incidents In the
woncplaca and ethnically discriminatory conduct; and (b) Plaintiff was insubordinate by continuing to
contact witnesses during an investigation after being InstrtK^ted not to contact witnesses.
On /\pril 27, 2012, Plaintiff sent an email to UC Davis Health System Investigations Coordinator
Danesha Nichols, who was the Investigator for both the allegations of misconduct made against Plaintiff,
as well as Plaintiff's own complaint of retaliatkin. The email Plaintiff sent to Nichols was titied "Welcome
to Romania" and contained a slide-show of people openly defecating in the street, and a couple having
sex In a car with a young child in the backseat watching.
On September 20, 2012, University investigators Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert issued an
investigation report sustaining the following allegations: (1) PlaintifTs email communications regarding
Danilluc^s national origin constitute disruptive and intimidating behavior in violation of University Policy
1616 - violence and hate incidents in the workplace; and (2) PlaintifTs email communications regarding
Daniliuc's national origin, and other employees of Romanian descent were in violation of University
Poll^ PPM 380-15 - staff complaints of discrimination.
On September 25, 2012, Plaintiff was given a Notice of Intent to Dismiss based on ttie investigating
findings issued In September 2012. Plaintiff challenged the proposed termination through the Skelly
process, but the termination was upheld effective December 7,2012. The termination letter made it clear
ttiat Plaintiff vras terminated for violating University policy, Including the Principles of Community and
xilicies prohibiting discrimination in the workplace, as detailed In the September 2012 Investigation
indings.
n March 2013, Plaintiff filed an intemal whistleblower retaliation complaint wiUi Regents alleging
larassment and refeliation culminating in his termination.
The following matters have been deemed admitted in this case (ROA 175): (1) Plaintiff was suspended
and terminated as a result of multiple violations of University policies prohibiting ethnic discrimination
and liate incidents in the woricplace; (2) the University investigated allegatk>ns against Plaintiff and tiiose
investigations confirmed that he vkilated University policies prohlbitino discrimination and hate Incidents
in the woritpteice; (3) the Unh/ersity suspended and terminated Plaintiff for those violations - not for any
discriminatory reasons; (4) Plaintiff made derogatory comments In ttie workplace about Jewish people,
African Americans, Hispantes. and/or homosexuals; (5) in April 2011, Plaintiff missed an alarm in
Metasys, the buikJing automation system, ttiat had been signaled since April 11, 2011; and (6) Plaintiff
did not leam of any alleged illegal power sales until after his termination.
tn responses to special interrogatories. Plaintiff admitted he was not harassed based on a protected
status.
Procedural History
On September 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed ttie operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC
alleges eight causes of action: (1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (against Defendants Rice,
Sawi, Chilcott,-Witdier, Nidiols, Oropeza. Seifert, Putney, and Daniliuc only); (2) Tortious Interference
witn Economic Advantage (against Defendants Rice, Boyd. Chilcott Witcher, Nicnols, Oropeza, Seifert,
Putney, and Daniliuc only; (3) FEHA Harassment and Failure to Prevent Harassment (against all
Defendants); (4) Whistieblower/Unlawful Retaliation (against all Defendants); (5) Retaliation in Violation
of Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 (against Regents only); (6) Breach of Written Contract (against
Regents oniy); (7) Non-Exempt Wage and Hour (against Regents only); and (8) Rescisslon-Unrawful
Contract (against Regents only).
On February 9. 2015, the Court granted an anti-SLAPP motion tiled t>y Defendants Boyd, Chilcott
Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert as to tiie first throughfourthcauses of action. (ROA 57.) No causes of
action remain agabist those defendants.
On October 1,2015, Plaintiff filed a RequestforDismissal with prejudice as to Defendants Witdier, Rice,
Daniliuc. and Putney. (ROA 109.)
Plaintiff argues In his Opposition Uiat Defendants Nichols, Chilcott, Oropeza, Serifert and Boyd are still
active defendants. Plaintiff Is Incorrect because there are no active causes of action alleged against
ttiose individual defendants. As of the filing of this motion, Regents are the only active Defendant and
the only active causes of action are thettiirdtiirougheightti causes of action.
Regents' Motion to Deem Matters Admitted
On November 14. 2016, ttie Court granted Regents' unopposed motion to compel responses and to
deem requestsforadmissions as admitted after issuing a tentetlve ruling that it would "deem matters In
the requests for admls^on admitted as granted, unless Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waszczuk serves, "before
the hearing on the motion,." proposed responses that are in substantial compliance with CCP §
2033.220. (CCP § 2033.2B0(c).) (KOA 175 [emphases in original].) No araument was requested and the
tentative ruling was affirmed deeming those matters admitted. (ROA 175.) In his Opposition, Plaintiff
arguesttiatthe matters should not have been deemed admitted because he served responses to the
Request for Admissions on November 13, 2021, by mail. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1.) However, at no point
in the past 33 months has Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the deemed admissions andtiierehas
been no finding that PlaintifTs 195-page response to Regents' 19 Requests for Admissions was in
substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. An admission cannot ba amended or withdrawn except by
leave of court after noticed motion. (CCP § 2033.300(a).) This rule equally applies to "deemed
admissions." (Wikx)X v. BlrtwhlsOa (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973.979.) Because Plaintiff did not file a motion to
wittidraw Uie deemed admissions and the Courfs order is still m effect, Uie Court will consider PlaintifTs
deemed admissions in this motion and the Court declines to consider Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 1.
Discussion
The Court must grant a motion for summary judgment if alltfiep ^ r s submitted show that there Is no
triable Issue astoany materialfeetand that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
(Code Civ. Proc. §437c(c); Manti v. Cracchloto (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 35.) The Court must decide if a
triable issue of fed exists; if none does, andttiesole remaining issue is one of law,ttieCourt has a duty
to determine it (Pftte/man v. Paarca (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1436,1441; see also Se/6eif Sec. Servs., Inc.
V. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 394, 404.) Summary judgment is properiy granted only if the
moving party's eviaence establishes thattiiereis no Issue of matenal fact to be tried. {Upson v. Superior
Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 362. 374; Huynh v. IngersolhRand (1993) 16 CaI.App.4tfi 825,830; see
O'Rlordan v. Federal Kemper Ufa Assur. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 281.289.)
To underscore ttiis point in Aguilar v. AtlanOc Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, the Califomia
Supreme Court described a party's burdens on summary judgment motions as follows: "[Fjrom
commencement to conclusion, the party movingforsummary judgment bears the burden of persuaston
thatttiereIs no triable issue of materialfeetand that he is entitied to judgment as a matter of law. That
is because of ttie general principle that a party who seeks a court's action In his fevor bears the burden
of persuasion thereon. There is a triable issue of material fact If, and only If, the evidence would allow a
reasonable trier offeetto find the underiyingfect In favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance
VAritti tfie appilcable standard of proof. ... [T]he isarty moving for summary judgment bears an initial
tnffden of productton to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material
feet; if he canles his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to
a bunJen of production of his own to make a prima fecle showing of the existence of a triable issue of
material feet... A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support tiie position of the party in
question." {Id. at 850-851.) In so doing, the court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably
drawn from the evidence .in the light mostfevorableto Uie party opposing the motion. {Id. at 843.)
Third Cause of Action for FEHA Harassment and Failure to Pravant Harassment
To prevail on a claim for harassment in violation of FEHA, a plaintiff must prove: (1) he belongs to a
rotected dass; (2) he was subjected to unwelcome harassment based on his protected stetus, (3) the
R arassment was sufficientiy severe or pervasive to alter the temns and conditions of employment to
create an abusive woridng environment, and (5) respondeat superior. (Jones v. Department of
ConecUons and RehabllitaSon (2007) 152 CalApp.4th 1367, 1377.) Etnployers cannot l>e liable for
felling to prevent harassment, discrimination or retaliation without plaintiffs first proving that ttiey suffered
underlying harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. {Kelley v. The Conco Companies (2011) 196
Cal.App.4th 191,208.)
In essence, PlaintifTs first cause of action Is based on the allegations that ftegente harassed and failed
to prevent harassment towards Plaintiff based on his Polish origin ana medical condition and
discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff based on "national origin, ancestor, mental condition, and/or
medical condition." (SAC W 120 & 126.) Plaintiff specifically alleges that Regente, "coonilnated.
cooperated, agreed, and/or had an understanding to misuse, abuse, and/or disregard Califomia law, the
REGENTS' poiteies, and UC DAVIS' procedures to deny plaintifTs righte to return to wori(." (SAC li 120.)
Plaintiff furtiier alleges that Regente. ^Coordinated, coop^ted. agreed, and/or had an understanding to
utilize plaintifTs national origin and ancestry against him, Inter alia. Plaintiff, born and raised into
adulthood in Poland . . . ." (SAC H120.) Plaintiff also alleges ttiat Regente "knowingly Ignored PlaintifTs
culturally diverse characteristics and traits, and attempted to judge, evaluate, and critfciue Plaintiff
utilizing nan-ow, shallow, and dscriminatory standards, such as, i>ut not limited to UC DAVIS Standards
of Community." (SAC H120.)
Regente argue that Plaintiff cannot prevail on the ttiird cause of action because in verified responses to
special interrogatories. Plaintiff stated he "does not claim harassment based on his national origin or
ancestry" and tfiat "Defendant did not hunt down Plaintiff in 2006-2009 and 2011-2012 because of
Plaintiff [sic] mental or medical condition." (UMF No. 16.) Plaintiff also stated in his discovery responses
that "Defendant did not harass Plaintiff." (UMF No. 16.) Regente also a^ue Plaintiff cannot prove
discrimination because Plaintiff admitted in discovery responses that Plaintiff was not suspended or
temninated because of a protected characteristic. (UMF Nos. 1, 4-9, 11-12, 14-17.) Regente further
argue that Plaintiff cannot prevail on a claim of retaliation because he was not termlnatea because he
engaged in a protected activity. (UMF Nos. 1,4-9,11-12.14-17.)
Plaintiff does not dispute this ground. In fact. Plaintiff appears to believe that tiie anti-SLAPP motion
granted as to fomier Defendante Boyd, Chilcott, Nichols, Oropeza, and Seifert disposed of the first
through fourth causes of actkin In their entirety. (See Opp. 3:11-18 ["Defendante vexatiously relitigate
ttie 3rd and 4th COAs of ttie Plaintiff's S A C . . . These C(JAS were dismissed and stricken from Uie SAC
by ttie Defendante' anti-SLAPP motion."j.) However, as discussed above in the procedural history
section, Regents were not a moving party In the anti-^LAPP motion and therefore the third and fourth
causes of action remain active against Regente. The Court finds ttiat Regente met their initial burden of
roduction to make a prima fade showing of the none)dstence of any triable issue of materisd feet
P laintiff has failed to dispute the facte presented by Regente In a separate statement or in PlaintifPs
opposition. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to show the existence of a triable issue of
material fact as to whether Plaintiff was harassed, discriminated against, or retaliated against and
Regente are entitled to judgment on ttie third cause of action.
Regents also argue that ttiey are entitled to judgment on ttie tiiird cause of action because Regente had
legitimate reasons for ttie alleged actions taken against Plaintiff. The Court need not reach these
argumente because Regents have prevailed on tiieir arguments to negate PiaintifTs prima facia ease.
Fourth Cause of Aetton for Whistieblower/Unlawful Reteliation in Violation of Govemment Code 8547
et seq.
To prev^ on a daim for retaliation under Govemment Code § 8547, Plaintiff must prove: (1) he made a
protected disclosure/communication; (2) his communication demonstrated an intent to dlsdose improper
ovemmental activity or a condition ttiat could significantly threaten the health or safety of employees or
S le public; (3) lie made the disdosure in good feltti for the purpose of remedtating the health or safety
condtlon. (4) tfie University took an adverse action against him, and (5) Raintiffs protected disdosiire
was a contributing fedor In the University's decision to take the adverse action. (CACI 4601; Gov. Code
§§ 8547.2(c) &(e).)
Plaintiff alleges in his fburth cause of action ttiat he was retaliated against for hte " r ^ r t e of ttie
coordinated efforts to retaliate, harass, harm, and impose negative employment consequences, and ttie
ratification and/or complidW of officers of the UC system." (SAC H134.)
Regente argue ttiat Plaintiff tails to make a prima fade case of retaliation because he cannot satisfy his
burden to prove that his comptalnts were a contributing factor in the disdplinary actions taken against
him. Ptaintiff has admitted through discovery ttiat the University took the disciplinary actions against
Plaintiff because of Plaintiffs history of violating the University's policies, not because of any complainte
Plaintiff made. (UMF Nos. 5. 6,12.13.)
As discussed above. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion as to the fourth cause of action t>ecause of his
mistaken belief that the fourth cause of action was entirely disposed of by the anti-StAPP motion.
However, the cause of adion Is still active as to Regente and Regente have satisfied their burden of
production to make a prima fede showing of the nonexistence of any tilable issue of material fed.
Plaintiff has failed to dispute the facte presented by Regente in a separate stetement or in PtaintifTs
opposition. Therefore. Plaintiff has feiied to meet his burden to show Ufie existence of a triatde issue of
material fad as to whether his alleged complainte were a contrB>uting fedor to the disciplinary adions
teken against him by the University and Regente are entitied to judgment on the fourth cause of action.
Regente also argue they are entitied to judgment on tfie fourth cause of action because ttiey had
legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the adverse adions taken against Plaintiff. However, the Court
need not reach these argumente because Regente have prevailed on their argumente to negate
RainUfTs prima fede case.
Fifth Cause of Action for RBtaliation in Violation of Health & Safety Code § 1278.5
Healtti & Safety Code § 1278.5 states in relevant part: "A healttifecflityshall not discriminate or retaliate,
in any manner, against a patient employee, meiriber of the medical staff, or health care worker of the
health fecility because that person has done either of ttie fdlowing: (A) Presented a grievance,
complaint or report to the facility, to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating ttie
fadlify, or the medical staff of the fecility, or to any other govemmental entity." Health care fadlity is
defined as a fedlity "ttiat is organized, maintained, and operated for the dtagnosis, care, prevention, and
treatment of human illness, physical or mental, induding convalescence and rehabilitation and induding
care during and after pregnancy."
To prevail on a cause of action for retaliation under Health & Safety Code § 1278.5, Plaintiff must prove:
(1) Plaintiff was an employee; (2) Plaintiff presented a grievance or comptalnt to Defendant related to ttie
quality of care, services, or conditions at Defendant's heaitti care fadlity or initiated, jiarttdpated, or
cooperated In an investigation/administrative proceeding retated to fhe quality of care, services, or
conditions at Defendanfs healtii care fedlity that was earned out by an entity or agency responsible for
acarediting or evaluating the facflity or Ks medical staff; (3) Defendant took an adverse action against
Plaintiff: and (4) PlaintifTs whistieblowing adion was a substantial motii^ting reason for the adverse
action. (CACI 4606.)
Plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against because "of plaintiff's dlsdosures conceming ttie
defidendes and problems vnttiln the HVAC Plumbing Shop as well asttiefonetionand operation of the
Metasys alarm monitoring system. Each disdosure t>y plaintiff related to and concerned matters tiiat
diredly impacted, or foreseeably would impact the safe and healthy conditions of ttie hospital." (SAC ^
142.)
Regents argue ttiat Plaintiff did not work at a heaHh care fadlity. Plaintiff worked at an auxiliary work
fecuity at the Centi^l Plant and later in the HVAC/Plumbing Shop. The diagnosis, care, prevention and
treatment of human illness" is not performed at either one of ttiose locations. (Witcher Ded. ^ 2.)
Regente also argue that Plaintiff cannot establish that he made a complaint regarding patient safefy or
the care provided to patiente and, even if he did. there is no evidence that sudi complainte substentially
motivated the University's disdplinary actions. (UMF Nos. 1,4-9,11-12,14-15.)
Plaintiff stetes. "Defendante' counsel is correct to an extent in the motion that Plaintiff cannot claim
retaltation. The Defendante have notiiing to retaliate over because the Plaintiff did not do anything
worthy of retaliation. Plaintiff did not blow the whistle on UCOP." (Opp. 25:9-12.) Ptaintiff later states that
"COAQ 5 . . . [is] not appilcable." (Opp. 27:10-13.) The Coutifindsthat Regents have met ttieir burden of
production to make a prima facie snowing of the nonexistence of any tilable issue of material fad. The
Court construes Plaintiff's stetement that thefifthcause of action is no longer applicable as a concession
that Regents are entlttadtojudgment on the fifth cause of adion.
Regents also a^ue they are entitled to judgment on the fifth cause of action because they had
legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the adverse adions taken against Plaintiff. However, ttie Court
need not reach these argumente because Regente have prevailed on their argumente to negate
PlaintifTs prima facie case.
SiVth nausB ftf ArHon fnr Breach of Written Confract
To recover for breach of contrad, a plaintiff must prove the existence of a contract that plaintiff
performed ttie terms of the contract Uiat defendant breached the contrad by felling to do somettiing that
was required or by doing somettiing ttiat was prohibited by the contrad and that pTafntiff was harmed by
the defendant's breach.TAcot/sffes, Inc. v. Tripte Consbvdhn Co. (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 887,913.)
It appears from tiie SAC tiiat the Plaintiff's breach of contrad daim is based on the 2009 Settlement
Agreement between ttte parties. Plaintiff alleges Regents breached the agreement by (1) placing Plaintiff
on leave during Investigations into his wrongdoing. (2) the University allegedly felled to provide him with
an exempt position, (3) the University allegedly breached the non-disparagement proviston, and (4)
breach of ttie implied covenant of good faith andfeirdealing. (SAC ^ 146-152.)
Regente argue Plaintiff hasfeiiedto estebllsh a breach of contrad tor the following reasons. First, there
is nettling In ttie Settlement Agreement prohibiting the University from placing Plaintiff on investigative
leave. (Defense Exhibit K.) Second, the University did place Plaintiff in an exempt positton and Plaintiff
released hisrightto purse any claims based on his classification and is estopped from bringing any such
argument (UMF Nos. 1-3.) Third, the non-disparagement dause specifically exdudes the investigations
atissue that tfie University conduded into complainte made against Plaintiff. (Defense Exhibit K, § 19
"nothing in this paragraph shall be construed either to prevent the parties from cooperating in any
hvestigation conducted by a govemmentel entity within ttie scope of its authority, or to prevent the
University from pursuing any claims that it has or may have against Mr. Waszczuk."}.) Fourth, Regente
argue tiiat all Investigations were conducted by the University in accordance with its intemal policies and
rocedures. Fifth, Regente argue that Plaintiff has admitted to engaging in the misconduct that fonned
B le basis of ttie disctollnary adion against him. (UMF Nos. 2-16.) Sixth, Regente argue the UCPD
bulletin stating Ptaintiff was not allowed on the property was issued on the day Plainta^ received the
Notice of Intent to Terminate out of concem that Plaintiff's behavior was escalating and may result in
harm to ottiers. (Witcher Decl., Ij 15. Hanvood Ded., IJ 6J
Plalnttff indudes a heading In his Opposition titled 'The sixth Cause of Adion - The Violation and Breach
of the January 30,2009 Settlement Agreement signed with the Plaintiff by the Regente of ttie University
of Califomia or their Agents on Regents' Behalf." However, PlaintifTs argument appears to focus solely
on damages and does not diredly address the arouments raised by Regente. (Opp. 26:25-27:7 ("The
specific tnable issues of materialfeetas to Six [s/cf Cause of Adion . . . are outlined in the Defense Ex.
No. E Plaintiffs First Amended Answers to . . . Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff Set One. The Plaintiff
Answer to Spedal lntem)gatory from No. 33 to No. 39, Pg. 44-63 are the roughly calculated monetary
damages amounted In approximate of $1,000,000 (lost wages and benefite, home, etc)]".) Plaintiff also
cites to his proposed responses to requeste for admissions, but as discussed above those will not be
considered due to the deemed admissions. However, the Spedal Intenxigatories Identified by Plaintiff do
not raise atatableissue but Instead support Regente' argument. (See e.a. Defense Ex. b, PlaintifTs
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 34 fWaszczuck did not claimttiatHIS exempt position provkled
to HIM by 2009 Settlement-Agreement was not exempt Waszczuk's D lawyer . . . made such daim In
attempt to invalkiate 2009 Settiement-Agreemenfl) The focus of me other responses dted Is on
damages and the otiier responses do not address the argumente raised by Regente in the motion. The
CourtfindsttiatRegents have met their burden of produdion to make a prima fade showing of the
nonexistence of any triable issue of material fed. Plaintiff hasfeiiedto meet his burden to snow the
existence of a triable issue of material fad as to whether he has estatilished a prima fecie case of
breach of contrad and Regente are entitied to judgment on the sbcth cause of adion
Seventh Cause of Adion for Misdasslflcation
Ptaintiff alleges that the University misdassified him as an exempt emptoyee. (SAC ^ 156.) Regmts
argue that i^aintiff hasfelledtostate a daim for misdasslflcation because he does not allege any other
wage and hour violations and because Plaintiff was properiy classified as exempt. (UMF Nos. 1-3.)
Raintiff stetes In his Opposition that "COAQ . . . 7.) wage and hour violations . . . [is] not applicable." The
Courtfindsthat Regente have metttieirburden of produdion to make a prima fade showing of the
nonexistence of any triable issue of material fad. The Court construes Raintiffs statement that the
seventh cause of action is no longer applicable as a concession that Regente are entitledtojudgment on
the seventh cause of action.
Bghth Causa of Action far Resdssion of Contrad
Plaintiff alleges that the provision, in the Settlement Agreement ttiat dedares him as an exempt
emptoyee renders the entire Settiement Agreement void as unlawful. (SAC M159-165.) Regents argue
they are entitiedtojudgment because resdssion is not a standalone cause of action {Nakash v. Superior
Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 59. 69-70) and because Plaintiffs allegations are contrary to the
Setflement Agreement. (Defense Exhibit K.) Plaintiff stetes in his Opposition tfiat "COAQ . . . 8.)
resdsston unlawful contrad, ]\s\ not applicable." The Courtfindsthat Regente have met their burden of
produdion to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fed. The
Court constmes Plairitiffs statement that Uie eighth cause of adion is no longer applicable as a
concesston that Regente are entitiedtojudgment on the eiglitti cause of action.
PiaintifTs Sur-Reply
/VRer Regente filed their Rep y. Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Objedibn to the Defendante' Itepiy of
Memorandum of Pointe and Auhorities in Support ofttieDefendant's MotionforSummary Judgment or,
in the Altemative, Summary Ad^udicatton." While titied as an objection, the Court constmesttiepleading
as a Sur-Reply because it conlains arguments In response to Regents' Reply. Plaintiff did not receive
leave of Courttofilethe Sur-Reply. Therefore, the Court will not consider the Sur-Reply.
Dispositibn
Regente' MotionforSummary Judgment is GI^NTED.
The previdling party is direded to prepare aformalorder complying with C.C.P. §437c(g) and C.R.C.
Rule 3.1312.
COURT RUUNG
The matter was argued and submitted. The Court aflimnedtiietentativeruling.
:u!'L" c:
i r C:>.L;!"i,:-.r.!'A
ATTACHMENT # 2
FW-003 Oi'der oh Court Fde WliWcir
(Suiperlor Court)
Ptfson who asked the court to waive court ftes:
® Name: JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
Street or mailing addre88:2217 KATZAKIAN WAY
Qty: LQDI . State: CA Zip; 93242
®2^ e-mail,
Lawyer, If person in 0 has one (rums, oMresa, phone number,
and State Bar number): In Pro Per
jiwl980@Iive.com, Phone: 209-663-2977; Fax: 20»787-313I
Superior Court of llfbmia. County ef
Sacramcnto
720 9th Street
A request to waive ooint fjeea was filed pn (date): 3-12-201.9 Saoaiiieato, CA9S814
(x) The court made a previous fee waivn otdo' in this case on (date):
3-13-2019
Case Number
Read thisfbrm ear^utty. AU diedted beaees BI (O'e cottrt orders. 34-2013-00 153479
Case Name:
WaszcznIc y. Regents of lAiiy.of Ca]i£
Notice: The court may order you to answer questions about yourfinancesand latv order you to pay tmek dw waived
fees. If this haf^ens and you do not pay, the court can make you pay thefeesand also chaige you collection fe$8. If tiiere
is a change in your financial circumstances durh^tfiiscase that increases your ability to payfeesand costs, you must
notiify the trial court withinfivedays. (Use form FW-010.) If you win youir cne, the triaLcourt miy order ^e other side
to pay the fees. If you settle your civil case for $10,000 or mme, the trial court will have a lien ontiiesettlement in tiie
amount of the waivedfees.The trial court may not dismiss the case until the lien is paid.
® the
A&a reviewing yonr: • Requeit to Wetiye Court Fees
eomt Hmka AefiOowing ordm:
• Request to Watve Additional Court Fea
(2) Q The court denies your request becausetiie-infonnatioiiyou piovided oii the request shows that you are
not eligible fw the fee waiver you requested (specify reasons):
The court has enclosed a blank Requestfor HearingAbout Court Fee WatverOrder (Superior Couri),
fonn FW-006. You have 10 Aays after the dak givo.notice oftiiisord^ (see date of service below) to:
* Pay yolirfeesand costs infoilor the amount listed in c. below, or
• Ask fOT a hearing in iordo: to diciw the court morerinformation. (Use farm FW'006to request
hearing.)
c. • Ths court needs mon information to decide whetiier to giant your request You must go to court ontiwdate
betow. The hearing will be about (specify questiojis regarding eligibility);
Wamlngt If item clsctwckBd, and y n j do not go to court-on your tiearing date,-the Judge will deny ybur
request to waive court feea, and you will have 10 days to pay your fees. If you miss that deadiire, the
court carmot process the cgy^^ggers ypu filed with your request, (f the papers were q nofioe of appeal,
th8Spf»alrray bedh
Date:
, ALYSdN L LEWTS
Request for Accommod istfihing systems, ctfmputer-assisted real-time ctqrtmning, or sign
m
language interpreter setv: ask attoastS days before your hearing. Centaltiieclerk's
office for Requestfar Aa I, Fom MC-410. (Civil Code, § 34.8.)
Clerk's Certificate of Service
I citify that I am not involved in this case and ^cAed^ one/- • A certificate of nuliling is attached.
• I handed a copy of this order to die party and attorn^, if any. listed in 0 and (S) attiiecourt, on the date below.
(J3*Thi8 order was mailed first dass, postage paidj totiiepatty and attorney, if any, attiieaddirases li^d in(T) and (^,
fmm(city): Slatfrt^iviaoAj »Califoniia on the date bdoufT >^
Date: S^/s,/~-— ~ Clerk.>y W ^ ^ y ..Deputy
Tliis is <i Court Order.
RwBMJl«y 1.201S
Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) PW'OOS.Pa9«2of2
ATTACHMENT # 3
FW-001 Request to Waive Court Fees CONFIDENTIAL
Cterk stamps date h»e when form Is filed.
Ifyou are getting public benefits, are a low-income person, or do not have
enough income to pay for your household's basic needs and your court fees, you
may usetiiisform to ask the court to waive your court fees. The court may order
you to answo' questions about yourfinances.Ifthe court waives the fees, you
may still hsv6 to pay lata* if:
• You cannot givetiiecourt proof of your eligibility, FIS bl court name and street ad<tess:
• Yourfinancialsituation inqiroves duringtiiiscase, or Superior Court of Califomia, County of
•You settle your civil case for $10,000 or more. The trial courttiiatwaivesSaoamento
your fees will have a lien on any sudi settlement in the amount of the
waived fees and costs. The court may also diatge you any collection costs.
®1 ^ Your Information (person asking the court to waive the fees):
Name: Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Street or mailing address: 2216 Katzakian Way FIB it case numtier and name:
Citv: Lodi State: CA Zm: 95242 Case Number
Phone: 209-663-2977 C079524
® Your Job, ifyou have one Oob title): N/A
Name of onplover: Case Name:
EmploYa''s address: Wasz(suk V. Regents of Univ of Cal.
Your Lawyer, if you have one (name, firm or affiliation, address, phone number, and State Bar number):
N/A
a. The lawyer has agreed to advance all or a portion of your fees or costs (check Yesone):
• No •
b. flf yes, your lawyer must sign here) Lawyer's signature:
Ifyour lawyer is not providing legal-aid type services Ixtsed on your law incorne, you may have to go to a
hearing to e:q>lain why you are asking the court to waive the fees.
(4^ What court's fees or costs are you asking to be waived?
• SvpanotCo}sti{SeeIrformationSheetonWaiverafSuperiorCourtFeesandCosts{formFW-^
El Siq>reme Court, Court of Appeal, or Appellate Division of Siqierior Court (See Information Sheet on Waiver
of Appellate Court Fees (fonn APP-015/FW-015-INFO).)
^5^ Why are you asking the court to waive your court fees?
a. • I recMve (check all that apply; see form FfV-OOl-INFO for definitions): • Food Stamps • Supp. Sec. Inc.
S SSP • Medi-Cal • County ReUefGen. Assist • IHSS • CalWORKS or Tribal TANF • CAPI
b. G My gross monthly household income (before deductions for taxes) is lesstiianthe amount listed below. (If
you check 5b, you mustfill out 7, 8, and 9 on page 2 cf this form.)
Fanlly Sze Family Income Family Size Family Income Family Size Family Income ymore Am 6peo[4e
1 $1,341.67 3 $2,267.50 5 $3,233.34 athome, add$472.92
2 $1,814.59 4 $2,760.42 6 $3,706.25 for each extra person.
c. n I do not have enough income to pay for my household's basic needs and tfae court fees. I ask the court to:
(check one and you mustfillout page 2):
• waive all court fees and costs • waive some of tfae court fees
• let me malce payments over time
• Check here if you askedtiiecourt to waive your court fees for this case intiielast six months.
{Ifyour previous request is reasonably available, please attach it to this form and check here): •
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the information I have provided
on this form and all attachmoits is true and correct.
Date: June 17,2021 . ) /
Waszczuk
Print your name here Sign herel 1 Mi
®
( i ) _ _ $ Your Monthly Deductions and Expenses
(2). . $ a. Ust any payroll deductions and the monthly am«int below:
$ (1) $
$ (2) $
b. Total monthly Income of persons Aove: $_ (3) $
(4)
Total monthly Income and
b. Rent a house payment & maintenance
household Income (8b plus 9b): $_
c. Food and household supplies
d. Utilities and telephone
e. acthing
Laundry and cleaning
Mecflcai and dental expenses
insurance (iHb, heaith, accident, etc.)
School, child care
Child, spousal support (another nmniage)
Transportation, gas, auto repair and Insurance
Installment payments (tist eacti beftw):
Paid to:
(1)
(2)
0)
To list any otiier facts you want lhe court to know, such as
m. Wages/earnings withheld by court order
unusual medical e}q)enses, etc., attach fomi MC-02S or
n. Any other monthly expenses Cist eacti lalam).
attach a sheet of p^>er and write Financial Infoimation and
your name and case number at the top. Paid to: How Much?
Check here ifyou attach anoAer page. Q (1)
(2)
Inqwrtantl If your financial situation or ability to pay (3)
court fees im|voves, you must notify the court witiiin five
days on form FW-010. Total monthly expenses (edd 11a - l i n ebove): $_
Case Details
\AtaSECzuk V. Regents of tlie University of Califomia et al.
C079524
CA 3rcl District Court of Appeal
Case type: aviL
https://tfairuefaing.com/court/db022b12-3e47-4f49-9f7()-0ed648b8ac7b/case/45d84eef-701B^7-b^ 1«
12/23/21,9:00 AM Case Details - TrusFSing
06-30-2021- letter t o 3DCA LETTER-LETTER WasKzuli, Jaroslaw (Pro Per) Jaroslaw Waszczuk 06/30/1021 at 12:31:41 PM Filed
Clerk - Order for Appearance
and Examination of Inma
WaszcEuli
20210625- Letter to 30CA LETTER - l£TTER WasKiulc, Jaroslaw (Pro Perl Jaroslaw Waszczuic 08/25/2021 at 01:56:39 PM Filed
Qerlt MOTION TO REECAU
REMrmiUR .docx
0001-06-1B-2021-C0VER REQUEST-REQUEST TO WAsiczuk, Jaroslaw (Pro Per| Jaroslaw Waszczuk 06/18/2021 at 04:30:22 PM Filed
LETTER TO THE 3DCA CLERK MODIFY OPINION
-MOTION TO RECAU
REMrrrrruR
00O2-O6-ia-2O21- MOTION REQUEST-REQUEST TO Wiasiczuli. Jaroslaw (Pro Per) Jaroslaw Waszczuli 06/18/2021 at 04:30:22 PM Filed
TO RECAU THE REMrmTUR MODIFY OPINION
OR MODIFY THE OPINION
0003-C6-18-2021-PROOF OF PROOF OF SERVICE - PROOF OF \Mszauii; Jaroslaw (Pro Per) Jaroslaw Waszczuli 08/18/2021 at 04:30:22 PM Filed
SERVICE -MOTION TO SERVICE
RECAU REMITTITUR
0004^18-2021- DEOARATION -OEaARAnON WaSKzull. Jaroslaw (Pro Per) Jaroslaw Wasiczuk 06/18/2021 at 04:30:22 PM Filed
DEOARATION IN SUPORT
MOTION TD RECAU
REMITTITUR OR MODIFY
OPPINION
0005-6-18-2021- PROOF OF PROOF OF SERVICE - PROOF OF W a o a u k , Jaroslaw (Pro Per) Jaroslaw Waszczuk 06/18/2021 at 04:30:22 PM Filed
SERVICE FOR DECLARATION SERVICE
IN SUPORT MOTION TO
RECAU REMnriTUft OR
MODIFY OPINION
000frO6-18-2021- REOUEST REQUEST-REQUEST FOR WasKZuk, Jaroslaw (Pro Per) Jaroslaw Waszczuk 08/18/2021 at 04:30:22 PM Filed
-MOTION FOR JUDICIAL JUDICIAL NOTICE (FEE
NOTICE PREVIOUSLY PWO)
0007-O6-1B-2021PROOF OF PROOF OF SERVICE - PROOF OF WasKzui^ Jaroslaw (Pro Per) Jaroslaw Wasiczuk 08/18/2021 at 04:30:22 PM Filed
SERVICE-Request fbr SERVICE
Judicial NotSce-IN SUPPORT
MOTION TO RECAU
REMrrrrruR
0008-PROPOSEO ORDER REQUEST-REQUEST FOR Wasiczuk, Jaroslaw (Pro Per) Jaroslaw Waszczuk 08/18/2021 at 04:30:22 PM Filed
FOitJUDICIAlNOTKE JUDICIAL NOnCE (WITH ONE
TIME RESPONSIVE FEE)
0002-FW-OOl Request to APPUCATiON-APPUCAnON W&SKZuli, Jaroslaw (Pro Par) Jaroslaw Wasiczuk 08/18/2021 at 04:30:22 PM Relectsd
Waive Court Fees FOR WAIVER OF nUNG FEE
TEYSTER: Your submitted filing has Iwen rejected because ttte request b unnecessary. The filing fee forthls case waspaidonJune23,2015, and there b n o requirement to payanyfiirther
filing h e .
Fee Waiver Fomn IS>_FEE_WAWER_FORM WasKuli, Jaroslaw (Pm Per| Jarostaw Waaauk 06/18/2021 at 04.3a22 PM Reiected
TEYSTER: Vbur submitted filing has been rejected because the request is unnecessary. The filing fee for titis case was paid on June 23,2015, and there b n o requirement to payanyfurther
filing fee.
6 2021-ImagBSoft Inc-Version 3.1.61.4 Contact Support I Terms of Use | View Available Courts | Accessibility (/JVccessibititv)
http8//tfa<ruerairts.coni/eourtMb022b12-3e47-4f4d-9f70-08d64ab8ac7b/case/45dB4eef-7015-4c^ 2/2
viNuojiOJDiinoayGm
Notice: Please read Information on Appeal Procedures for Unlimited Civil Cases (form APP-001-INFO) before
completing this form. This form must be filed in the superior court, not in the Court of Appeal.
Pagel of 4
Fonn Approved Ibr Optional Use APPELLANTS NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL Cal. Rulesof Court, rules 3.50,
Judidal Counca of CaTifbiriia 8.121-ai24, ai28. ai30, ai34, ai37
fiPPOOa [Rev. January 1,2019] (Unlimited Civil Case) wi>w.ODUfs:ca.gov
APP-003
CASE NAME: jgroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents oftijeUniversity of Califomia SUPBOOR COURT CASE NUMBER:
34-2013-00155479
2. b. I * I WITH the following record of the oral proceedings in the superior court (you must ctiedt (1), (2), or (3) below):
(1) I x l A reporter's transcript under rule 8.130. (You musttillout Uie reporter's transcript section (item 5) on pages 3 and 4
of this form.) I have (check all that apply):
(a) I K I Deposited with the superior court derk the approximate cost of preparing the transcript by induding the deposit
with this notice as provided in rule 8.130(b)(1).
(b) I I Attached a copy cf a Transcript Reimbursement Fund application filed under rule 8.130(c)(1).
(c) I I Attached the reporter's written waiver of a deposit under rule 8.130(b)(3)(A) for (check either (i) or (ii)):
(i) I I all of the designated proceedings.
00 I I part of the designated proceedings.
(d) I 1 Attadied a certified transcript under rule 8.130(b)(3)(C).
(2) I I An agreeti stat&nevA. (Check and complete eittter (a) or (b) below.)
(a) I I I have a t t a c h ^ an agreed statement to this notice.
(b) I I All the parties have stipulated (agreed) in writing to try to agree on a statement. (You must attach a copy of this
stipulation to this notice.) I understand that, within 40 days after I file the notice of appeal, I mustfileeither the
agreed statement or a notice indicating the parties were unable to agree on a statement and a new notice
designating the record on appeal.
(3) I I A settled statement under rule 8.137. (You must check (a), (b), or (c) betow, andtillout the settled statement
section (item 6) on page 4.)
(a) II The oral proceedings in the superior court were not reported by a court reporter.
(b) II The oral proceedings in the superior court were reported by a court reporter, but I have an order waiving fees
and costs.
(c) I I I am askingtouse a settled statementforreasons other than those listed in (a) or (b). (You must serve and file
the motion required under mle 8.137(b) at the same time that you file this fonn. You may use fonn APP-025 to
prepare the ntotion.)
R E C O R D O F AN ADMINISTRATIVE P R O C E E D I N G T O B E TRANSMITTED T O T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L
I 1 I request that the derk transmit to the Court of Appeal under rule 8.123 the record of thefollowingadministrative proceeding
that was admitted into evidence, refused, or lodged in the superior court (give thetitieand date or dates of the administrative
proceeding):
I Title of Administrative Proceeding | | Date or Dates |
(10) Notice -Second Amended Complaint (SAC) Rejected by the Court (Plaintifi) -ROA # 18 9/10/2014
I X I See additional pages. (Check here if you need more space to list additional documents. Ust these documents on
separate page or pages labeled "Attachment 4b, ° and start with numlter (12).)
^2) N/A
(3) N/A
[4) N/A
ll I See additional pages. (Check here if you need more ^ace to list additional exhibits. Ust these exhibits on a sepa
I page or pages labeled "Attachment 4c,' and start with number (5).)
(3) I I My copy of the reporter's transcript in electronic format and a second copy in paper format.
5. b. {Proceedings
I request that thefollowingproceedings in the superior court be induded in the reporter's transcript. (Vou must identify each
proceeding you want induded by its date, the department in which it took place, a description ofthe proceedings (fbr example,
the examination ofjurors, motions before trial, the taking of testimony, or the giving ofJury instmctions), the name ofthe court
reporter wtio recorded the proceedings (if known), and whether a certified transcript ofthe designated proceeding was
previoudy prepared.)
I Date I Department I Full/Partial Day I Description I Reporter's Name | Prev. prepared?
(1)09/01/2021 54 Partial Day Motion for Summary Judgment Tina Tavalero • Yes No
(2) • Yes • No
(3) • Yes • No
(4) • Yes • No
I I See additional pages. (Ched< here if you need more ^ace to list additional proceedings. Ust these exhibits on a separate
page or pages labeled "Attachment 5b," and start with number (5).)
1(2) • Yes • No
(3) • Yes • No
(4) • Yes • No
See additional pages. (Check here if you need more space to list additional proceedings. Ust these proceedings on a
separate page or pages labeled "Attachment 6,' and start with number (5).)
7. a. The proceedings designated in 5b or 6 indude do not indude all of the testimony in the superior court.
I If the designated proceedings DO NOT indude all of the testimony, state the points that you intend to raise on appeal. (Rule
18.130(a)(2) and mle 8.137(d)(1) provide that your appeal will be limited to these points unless ttie Court of Appeal penmits
\ otiienvise.) Points are set forth: [ | Below On a separate page labeled "Attachment 7."
Date: 01/28/2022
jaroslaw Waszczuk
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT OR ATTORNEY)
(13) Court Order-Disposition of Ex Parte Application- Dept. 53- Hon. David I Brown
ROA #30 12/17/2014
(14) Correspondence submitted by Plaintiff to Dept. 53- Hon. David I Brown
-ROA #3 12/24/2014
(15) Plaintiffs Ex-Parte application for postponement filed in Dept 53
Hon. David I Brown- ROA# 35 12/29/2014
(16) Court Order-Disposition of Ex Parte Application- Dept. 53- Hon. David I Brown-
ROA#37 12/30/2014
(17) Rejected substitution of attomey submitted by plaintiff to Dept. 53 -Hon. David I Brown
ROA#42 01/02/2015
(23) Minutes finalized for Motion to Strike(SLAPP) -Dept. 53 Hon. David I Brown-
ROA#57 02/09/2015
(24) Minutes finalized for PlaintifFs Motion for Reconsideration- Dept. 53 Hon. David I
Brown-ROA#69 03/06/2015
(25) Defendants Attomey David P. E Burkett added to the case effective 03/13/2015
ROA #70 03/13/2015
(27) Court Order granting Defendants Anti -SLAPP Motion to Strike First
through Fourth Causes of Actionfi^omPlaintifTs SAC - Dept. 53 Hon.
David I Brown-ROA #80 04/14/2015
(28) Plaintiffs Request for Dismissalfiledin Dept. 53- Hon. David I Brown-
ROA #109 10/01/2015
(29) Plaintiff's Notice of Entry of Dismissal filed in Dept. 53- Hon. David I Brown
ROA # 110 10/01/2015
(31) 3DCA Order Denymg Petition for Rehearing (SLAPP)- ROA # 127 11/08/2017
(32) 3DCA remittitur issued, judgment is affirmed (SLAPP)- ROA #128 01/18/2018
(35) Plaintiff Motion for Reconsideration (SLAPP Fees) filed in Dept. 53-Hon. David I
Brown- ROA # 138 06/18/2018
(36) Order granting Defendant's Motion for Fees and Cost(SLAPP Motion)
filed in Dept. 53-Hon. David I Brown- ROA # 143 06/29/2018
(35) Judgment filed (SLAPP Cost and Fees)- Dept. 53-Hon. David I Brown-
ROA#144 06/29/2018
(37) Correspondence filed (Plaintiff) Dept. 53-Hon. David I Brown- ROA # 148... 07/18/2018
RECORD ON APPEAL-ATTACHMENT 4b
o x Calendar scheduled for 12/14/2018 at 09:00 in Dept 37,
Hon. Jeimifer K. Rockwell Gordon. D. Schaber Courthouse was vacated ROA #
177 11/15/2018
(60) Court Order (Re: Unpaid Sanctions)- Hon. David I. Brown- ROA #186 01/16/2019
4
RECORD ON APPEAL ATTACHMENT 4b
(66 Minutesfinalizedfor Defendant's Motion to Compel Dept. 53 Hon. David
L Brown- ROA #204 03/13/2019
(71 Plaintiffs September 26,2019 response to Defehdaiits attoiiieys Meet & Confer
Correspondence dated August 5* August 30,2019 and September 20,2019
ROA #220 09/29/2019
(75 Plaintiff's November 18,2019 Meet and Confer correspondence with Defendant
Attorney submitteid to judge David I. Brown Dept. 53 for review and
consideration ( Re: Blackmail Sanctions ) ROA #231 11/19/2019
I
I
IRECORD ON APPEAL-ATTACHMENT 4b
(80) Plaintiff's Notice of Objection to the Court Order dated December 13&17
2019, Dept 53, Hon. David I . Brown ROA # 244 12/27/2019
(84) Order Granted; to Defendant Ex-Parte Application for Leave to File Motion
for Summary Judgment that Exceed 20 pagesfiledin Dept. 53,
Hon. Shama Hakim Mesiwala ROA # 249 04/272021
(88) Defendant's Motion for Sunmiaiy Judgment and/or Adjudication filed in Dept 53,
Honorable Shama Mesiwala ROA # 254 05/14/2021
( 6
RECORD ON APPEAL-ATTACHMENT 4b
Mesiwala, ROA #257 05/14/2021
(95) Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Application to( Continue Appearance and Examination of Irena
Waszczuk)filedin Dept 43 Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard ROA #262 06/30/2021
(98) Minutes Oder finalized -Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ/MSA)
Court scheduled to be heard on 08/04/2021 in Dept 54. Hon. Christopher
Krueger -ROA #265 07/02/2021
(101) The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate Distiict (3DCA) Order denying Plaintiffs
Motion to Recall Remittitur in 3DCA Case No. C079524 (SLAPP Motion)
(102) Lodged in Dept 53 but unfiled copy of the Plaintiff s Motion to Recall
Remittitur and copy of the Request /Motion for Judicial Notice with
Plaintiff's Declarations in Support in 3DCA Case C079524 (SLAPP Motion).
I The above listed Dociiments with Cover Letter were submitted to Dept 53- Hon.
Shama Mesiwala by Priority U S Mail on 6/18/2021
i (Please include only one attached to the Motion EXHIBrr#44 into Clerk
7
RECORD ON APPEAL-ATTACHMENT 4b
Transcript which is Draft ofthe Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint (TAC)
(106) Notice that this case is reassigned from Dept.43 Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard
to Dept38 for Case Management Program -ROA #274 08/01/2021
(116) Minutes Order Finalized for Motion for Summary Judgment and/pr Adjudication
i -Dept54 Hon. Christopher Krueger - MSJAiSA heard on 09/01/2021
) 8
RECORD ON APPEAL ATTACHMENT 4b
at 09:00A. by Hon. Christopher Krueger - ROA # 288 09/01/2021
(117) The First Court Notice which notified Plaintiff that his Motion for Reconsideration
submitted on September 10,2021 to the Dept. 54- Hon. Hon. Christopher
Krueger was rejected bytiieCourt -ROA # 290 09/21/2021
(119) The Second Court Notice which notified Plaintiff that his Motion for Reconsideration
submitted on Septiember 10,2021 to the Dept. 54- Hon. Hon. Christopher
Krueger was rejected by the Court -ROA # 292.... 09/22/2021
1(126) Petition for Writ of Mandate filed. Mistakenly registered under ROA# 2
I (Civil Case Cover Sheet)... 12/02/2013
i
{127) Civil Case Cover Sheetfiled.Mistakenly registered under (ROA #1)
RECORD ON APPEAL-ATTACHMENT 4b
(Petition for Writ of Mandate) 12/02/2013
(131) Motion -Writ of Mandate scheduled for 08/15/2014 at 10:00 A.M in Dept.24
Hon. SheUeyanne W. L. Chang -ROA # 10 04/03/2014
(135) RPii Cyntiiia A. Vroom added totiiecase effective 06/20/2014 -R0A#16 06/20/2014
10
RECORD ON APPEAL -ATTACHMENT 4b
(140) Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate - Hon. SheUeyaime
W. L. Chang-Dept.24 -ROA # 34 03/12/2015
(144) Judgment (updated witii Costs posted per memo of Costs) -ROA #45 05/19/2015
(146) 3DCA Order Denying Petition for Rehearing -3DCA Justice Blease
ROA #57 01/19/2019
(147) 3DCA Remittitiir issued, judgment is affirmed ROA #58 03/27/2019
11
RECORD ON APPEAL ATTACHMENT 4b
PROOF OF SERVICE BY US MAIL
Lindsay A. Goulding
PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
I Sacramento, CA 95825
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Califomia that
the foregoing is tme and correct. Executed on January 28, 2022, at Lodi CA
IRENA WASZCZin:
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Colette M. Bruggman, Clerk
Electronically
Electronically
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
on 9/7/2023
on 9/7/2023
by D. Welton,
at 3:56:54Deputy
PM Clerk
September 7, 2023
Robert R. Toy
Senior Deputy
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Subject: California Supreme Court Case Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California, Case No. S281719
Re: Hard Copies of the Petition for Review and the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal
I have sent eight hard copies of my coil-bound Petition for Review to the California
State Supreme Court. I could not find anyone in or around Lodi who provides Velo
binding services. The FedEx Store in Stockton used to offer this, but they have
discontinued the service due to a lack of demand; thus, I had no choice but to use a
coil binding service. Please let me know if I need to find another vendor and re-bind
and resubmit my Petition.
In addition, the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal, which should have been submitted by
the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (3DCA) to the Supreme Court after the
Petition for Review, has been filed.
In 2018, I learned from the 3DCA Clerk that the 3DCA Clerk’s office normally
submits the First Volume of the Clerk’s Transcript after the Petition for Review has
been filed. This is a problem, as 3DCA and I received the CT from the Sacramento
Superior Court Appellate Department more than two months late, despite it being
certified on April 22, 2022. Not only was the CT sent more 60 days later than it
should have been, it was also incomplete. After I complained, the Trial Court sent me
the Supplemental CT Volume 1 of 1, which should have included CT Volume 1 of 13
and been provided to the Supreme Court, since I had filed a Petition for Review.
1
Petition for Review-Record on Appeal
In addition, the Trial Court, acting in a deceptive manner, sent the incomplete CT
with wrong judge’s name (David I . Brown, instead of Christopher E. Krueger) and
the wrong Defendants’ attorney’s name (Douglas Ropel, instead of Lindsay
Goulding). Judge Brown resigned from the bench in December 2022 and Ropel
stopped representing The Regents in March 2016.
On November 14, 2022, 3DCA Justice Ronald Robie issued an order stating that a
request to relabel the transcript was denied as unnecessary (Attachment #1). I believe
that it is necessary for the Supreme Court to know who caused the appeal, this
Petition for Review, and why.
On August 29, 2023, I submitted an inquiry to the 3DCA Clerk’s office (Attachment
#2) to provide to the Supreme Court a proper volume of the Clerk’s Transcript and
Supplemental Clerk’s Transcript Volume 1 of 1, which should be a part of the CT
Volume 1 of 13.
I would appreciate it if the Supreme Court’s Clerk’s office would ensure that the
3DCA Clerk’s office provides the Supreme Court with the right Clerk Transcript
volumes and that they are properly labeled.
Respectfully submitted,
________________
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk
Plaintiff & Appellant in Pro Per
2
Petition for Review-Record on Appeal
MAILING LIST
3
Petition for Review-Record on Appeal
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann, Clerk
Electronically FILED on 11/14/2022 by J. Swartzendruber, Deputy
IN THE
Courtt off Appeall off thee Statee off California
IN AND FOR THE
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
C095488
Sacramento County
No. 34201300155479CUWTGDS
BY THE COURT:
ROBIE, Acting
Actin P.J.
--------------------------------
MAILING LIST
Copies of this document have been sent by mail to the parties checked below unless they were
noticed electronically. If a party does not appear on the TrueFiling Servicing Notification and is
not checked below, service was not required.
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
H. Thomas Watson
Horvitz & Levy LLP
3601 West Olive Avenue, 8th Floor
Burbank, CA 91505
Karen M. Bray
Horvitz & Levy LLP
3601 West Olive Avenue, 8th Floor
Burbank, CA 91505
·1
·2
·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---
·6
25
26
·5
· · ·For the Defendants The Regents of the University of
·6· ·California, et. al.:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · SESSIONS
·6
·7
·8
·9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
·2
·5
21
23
24
25
26
27· · · · · · · · · · · · ________________________
· · · · · · · · · · · · · Valerie Haley, CSR
28· · · · · · · · · · · · Certificate No.· 10771
understand 6:18
University 4:6,13 8:1
verbatim 6:25
versus 4:5
violation 9:16
Waszczuk 4:5,11,19,
21 5:18,23 6:20 7:7,18,
21,26 8:12,16,21,23
9:8,12
WEDNESDAY 4:1
whistle 6:9,10
wit 4:17
work 6:14
working 6:7
wrongfully 9:16
wrote 8:5
Colette M. Bruggman
Clerk/Executive Officer
The Court of Appeals
Third Appellate District
914 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Request for the 3DCA Clerk’s Office to transmit the Supplemental Clerk’s Transcript on
Appeal and Clerk’s Transcript Volume 1 to the Supreme Court of California in the above-
captioned Case No. C095488
As you are aware my Petition for Rehearing and Motion for Judicial Notice in Support,
which were permitted to be filed on August 21, 2023 per the Court order (ATTACHMENT
#A) than were denied three days later, on August 24, 2023, by another court order
(ATTACHMENT #B). The Court denied my Petition for Rehearing and Motion for Judicial
Notice on the same day that I sent to you my August 24, 2023, response to your letter of
-1-
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
August 22, 2023. Thus, I will shortly submit a Petition for Review to the Supreme Court of
California, pursuant to the California Rules of Court Rule 8.500.
With this inquiry, I respectfully request that after my Petition for Review is submitted to the
Supreme Court of California, the Third District Court of Appeal (3DCA) clerk’s office must
transmit to the Supreme Court the Supplemental Clerk’s Transcript (Supp. CT), Volume 1 of
1, and the Clerk’s Transcript (CT), Volume 1 of 13, docketed in 3DCA. Originally, the Supp.
CT and part of CT Volume 1 should have been produced by the trial court’s Appellate
Department and transmitted in April 2022 to 3DCA as a CT Volume 1of 13 and should
contain 300 pages.
As I learned from 3DCA Clerk Anita Kenner’s March 20, 2018, correspondence, it is
standard procedure for 3DCA to transmit only the first volume of a record to the
Supreme Court when a Petition for Review has been filed (ATTACHMENT #C).
If the CT had been produced by the trial court’s Appellate Department and certified as
requested by the January 31, 2022, APPELLANT’S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD
ON APPEAL (ATTACHMENT #D) and sent to me and 3DCA in April 2022, then CT
Volume 1 of 13 would have chronologically included the following 167 pages of the
documents from the Supp. CT Volume No. 1 of 1 (ATTACHMENT #D):
12/04/13 COMPLAINT, 06/16/14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 09/10/14
NOTICE TO FILING PARTY, 09/24/14 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE and the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY STIPULATION AND
ORDER THEREON plus approximately 16 pages of Chronological Index and
-2-
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
approximately 117 pages from what is now CT volume No. 1 of 13 (ATTTACHMENT
# E) which would include and not limited to :
12/17/14 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION ( Douglas Stein’s Application to
continue the anti-SLAPP motion after he was dismissed from the case on 12/16/2014 for
the following reason.:
The Supp. CT Volume 1 of 1, which should have been part of CT Volume 1 of 13, were
the most important parts of this appeal.
Both Supp. CT Volume 1 of 1 and CT Volume 1 of 13 contain documents that show the
criminal and professional misconduct of my former attorney, Douglas Edward Stein, and
-3-
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
the attorney for The Regents of the University of California, Michael Pott, and the judicial
misconduct by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge David I. Brown from
Department 53. They colluded in this case because Judge Brown was Stein’s long-time
friend (ATTACHMENT #G).
The detailed events presented below surrounding the RECORD ON APPEAL in this case
leave no doubt that the exclusion of the 12/04/13 COMPLAINT, 06/16/14 FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT, 09/10/14 NOTICE TO FILING PARTY, 09/24/14 EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE and SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY
STIPULATION AND ORDER THERON from the original CT Volume 1 of 13 was a
premeditated act of deception and conspiracy to deceive me and the Supreme Court of
California and to obtain the Supreme Court of California order to deny my Petition for
Review if I file it.
.
THE CASE
My wrongful termination Case No. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of
the University of California, was filed in Sacramento County Superior Court almost nine
years ago, on December 4, 2013. This occurred simultaneously with the Sacramento County
Superior Court—Writ of Mandamus, Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest
(RPii)—The Reagents of the University of California (UC Regents), filed on December 2,
2013.
-4-
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
In my AOB, on Page 41, I mention that, on March 3, 2020, I submitted to the Court a
Submission Form to set Trial Date on August 11 or 18 or September 28, 2020 (Attachment
#40). The Court did not bother to respond. (see AOB attachment No. 74)
The Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (b), mandates the dismissal of
actions not brought to trial within five years after a complaint is filed; however, it was not the
intention or desire of the Court or UC Regents’ attorneys to try the case.
Instead of working with me to set a court trial date, the Porter Scott attorneys waited
for Judge Brown’s resignation and ambushed my 70-year-old wife, stealing from her $22,284
up front of Judge Thadd Blizzard, of Department 43, and his Court Clerk. The rest of the
story you can read in the AOB Brief concerning why this happened and why this case is still
pending after almost nine years
THE NOTICE OF APPEAL
On December 23, 2021, I filed a Notice of Appeal concerning the October 28, 2021 Motion
of Summary Judgment signed by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Christopher E.
Krueger, from Department 54
APPELLANT’S CIVIL APPEAL MEDIATION STATEMENT
On January 11, 2022, I filed a Civil Appeal Mediation Statement in which, under the list of
issues raised on appeal, I wrote:
I have been living in the City of Lodi, State of California's San Joaquin County,
since 1989.
I became very suspicious in April 2021 that both of my cases, Writ of Mandamus Case No.
34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. (CUIAB) and Real Party of Interest (RPii)—
(UC Regents), filed on December 2, 2013, and Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. Regents of the
University of California, Case No. 34-2013-34-00155479, were filed and pursued in the
wrong county’s superior court, that is, in the wrong venue. The Respondent (UC Regents)
submitted their Respondent’s Mediation Statement on January 11, 2022 .The Respondent’s
Mediation Statement was signed by Porter Scott attorney Thomas Jordan, a former 3DCA
research attorney for three years
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/104827, In re Riordan, 26 Cal.4th
1235 (Cal. 2002)). Thomas Riordan is not listed as a Defendant’s Attorney of Record on the
Appeal, or in the trial Court in this case. On January 27, 2022, the case was ordered not
eligible for mediation by 3DCA Justice Andrea Hoch
On January 31, 2022, I filed a Notice Designating Record on Appeal that included a request
to produce and transmit to 3DCA the Court Reporter’s Transcript from the September 1, 2021
-6-
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
Court hearing with Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Christopher E. Krueger, of
Department 54 (Court hearing for Motion for Summary Judgment )
1) After I received on June 28, 2022 the 13 volumes of the CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT
ON APPEAL (CT), I noticed that the CT had the wrong judge’s name and wrong
attorney
2) It said “CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO HON. DAVID BROWN DOUGLAS ROPEL
#300486, 350 UNIVERSITY AVE., STE 200 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 Attorney
Defendant/Respondent,” instead of HON. CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER and
Defendant’s Attorneys LINDSAY GOULDING, who is The Regants Attorney of
Record on Appeal, or THOMAS RIORDAN, who attended the Motion for Summary
Judgment Court Hearing with Judge Krueger via Zoom on September 1, 2021.
3) The CT was certified on April 22, 2022 by Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate
Department CLERK KEVIN MICHAUD with his initials KM .
4) The DECLARATION OF MAILING, which should be dated and signed under penalty of
perjury by the Sacramento County Superior Court Clerk, most likely by KEVIN
MICHOUD, was left blank (undated and unsigned), rendering it basically invalid, and
it contained the wrong name of the Defendants’ attorney, Douglas Ropel, who does not
work for Porter Scott and has not represented the UC Regents since March 2016
-7-
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
(https://www.littler.com/lawyer-search?lawyer_auto=ropel,
5) The CRT from the September 1, 2021 Court Hearing with Judge Krueger, which was due
to be produced and transmitted to 3DCA by May 9, 2022, was not produced and
transmitted to 3DCA at all. The NOTICE to prepare CRT by the Court Reporter stated as
follows :
Appeal from the Honorable Judge DAVID BROWN instead of Judge CHRISTOPHER
KRUEGER
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that you and each of you are hereby directed
to commence preparation of the REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT on
Appeal in the above-entitled action. The Appeal is to the THIRD
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL and the transcript is to contain the
following dates, as designated by the APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
COURT DATES (CSR) NUMBER COURT REPORTER'S NAME
09/01/21 8923 T. Tavalero
I declare under penalty of perjury that this notice was sent to the aforementioned reporters
and the Court Reporter Supervisor via interoffice Email.
The above Notice to Prepare Court Reporter Transcript was supposedly sent by Clerk
-8-
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
KEVIN MICHAUD to Court Reporter TINA TAVALERO via interoffice mail with the
misleading statement that the Appeal was from Judge Brown, who resigned from
Department 53 in December 2020, and the CRT was from the September 1, 2021 hearing
with JUDGE CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER from Department 54.
On June 27–28, 2022 I learned via an e-mail chat between Executive Analyst from the
Court Reporter’s Board of California, Paula Bruning, and Sacramento County Superior
Court Reporters Valerie Haley and Tina Tavalero that Ms. Halley had not received any
appeal notice in Waszczuk v. the Regents of the University of California for the 9/1/2022
Court Hearing with Judge Krueger, but she produced the CRT for the Porter Scott
attorneys representing the UC Regents.
I examined again the April 8, 2022 Notice of Filing of Designation and Notice to
Reporters to Prepare Transcripts, which was sent by Deputy Clerk Kevin Michaud,
from Appeals Unit Room 102, under penalty of perjury, and discovered that a Notice was
sent to Ms. Tavalero with a due date to produce transcripts on appeal.
I forwarded Ms. Bruning’s e-mail to Ms. Tavalero, and Ms. Tavalero responded that she
had nothing to do with the CRT from the September 1, 2022 Court Hearing with Judge
Krueger. She stated in her email response:
I was not the court reporter for this case. My name was put on the appeal
notice by mistake. It had another court reporter's CSR No. and my name. I
checked all my notes and I was not the reporter on this. I sent a declaration to
the 3DCA stating that I was listed by mistake and I have no notes for any of the
proceedings. ( See: Tina Tavalero Declaration in the case C095488 docket)
However, in her June 28, 2012 e-mail response, Ms. Tavalero did not state
whether she ever received the April 8, 2022 Notice of Filing of Designation and Notice to
Reporters to Prepare Transcripts, sent supposedly by Deputy Clerk Kevin Michaud, nor
did she comment on whether she had informed Michaud that she had nothing to do with
-9-
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
the September 1, 2021 hearing, or whether she advised Michaud that the notice had the
wrong Judge’s name on it.
How it is even possible for a Court Reporter to prepare a transcript on appeal per
notice from the Appellate Department with the wrong Judge on the notice? The above
facts of misconduct and negligence raise serious questions that should be investigated and
answered by Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate Department Clerk KEVIN
MICHAUD. This is not a trivial matter. This is an obstruction of justice and unlawful
interference with the reviewing court’s proceedings.
Who FORCED OR COERCED the preparer of the CLERK TRANSCRIPT ON
APPEAL to deliberately and with malice and premeditation mislabel the CT with the wrong
judge’s name?
More precisely, who forced the CT preparer to replace JUDGE CHRISTOPHER
KRUEGER’S name with JUDGE DAVID BROWN from Department 53, and why? Judge
David Brown resigned in December 2020 two month after Commission on Judicial
Performance launched investigation against 3DCA Presiding Justice Vance Raye. Judge
Brown had nothing to do with The Regents Motion for Summary Judgment filed on May
14, 2021, which was decided by JUDGE CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER on September 1,
2021 who to make decision used the defective Second Amended Complaint which was filed
on September 30,2014 in conspiracy with The Regents Attorney from Porter Scott and Judge
David I Brown to steal from me $ 20,000 and set me up for anti-SLAPP motion
Who forced KEVIN MICHAUD to certify the deliberately mislabeled and incomplete
CLERK TRANSCRIPT on appeal?
Who ordered KEVIN MICHAUD to withhold sending the CLERK TRANSCRIPT on
appeal to 3DCA for the next 68 days after its certification on April 22, 2022? The undated
and unsigned DECLARATION OF MAILING, which should have been signed by Michaud,
- 10 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
indicates that he perhaps did not want to deal with the orchestrated fraud, deception, and
unlawful interference with the reviewing court’s proceedings, and it needs to be investigated
who is behind this crime to derail the appeal process.
The superior court clerk must "promptly mail" to the Court of Appeal notification of
the filing of a notice of appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(c)(1).) "The failure of
a court reporter or clerk to perform any duty imposed by statute or these rules that
delays the filing of the appellate record is an unlawful interference with the
reviewing court's proceedings. . . ." ( Id., rule 8.23.) People v. Grimes, 172
Cal.App.4th 121 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)
Each item in the rules has the force of law (Carlson v. Department of Fish &
Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1272).
- 11 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
On July 5, 2022, I also submitted to the Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate
Department a Notice or request to produce the omitted items in the Clerk’s Transcript on
Appeal and to prepare the CRT from the September 1, 2021 hearing with Judge Christopher
Krueger
In the response to my July 5, 2022 Notice of Omission, on July 13, 2022, I received
only one volume of the CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL
https://www.scribd.com/document/597295235/3DCA-Clerk-s-Suplemental-Transcript-
on-Appeal-Waszczuk-v-UC-Regents-Et-Al-Case-No-C095488)
Also package included 13 pages of the new cover page with Judge CHRISTOPHER
KRUEGER’S name replacing the wrongfully labeled front page of the 13-volume Clerk’s
Transcript on Appeal, which had listed Judge DAVID BROWN’S name. I had received that
on June 28, 2022. There was no record or note from the 3DCA Clerk that the first page in the
13-volume Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal was replaced with the correct first page showing
Judge KRUEGER’S name and the The Regents attorney name, Lindsey Goulding.
The CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL contains the most
important Court-filed document for this Appeal, which shall be submitted to 3DCA as a
CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL Volume No. 1 of 1 and which contains:
- 12 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
2) The Defective FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (FAC) filed by my former
attorney, Douglas Stein with conspiracy on June 16,2014 which decimated my
original December 4, 2014 wrongful termination complaint (See Attachment 6,
Appellant’s Opening Brief (AOB) pp. 18–26). Stein was disbarred for misconduct in
January 2020 (see https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/131248; In re
Stein, No. S245982, (Cal. Mar. 1, 2018)).
I challenged the defective SAC filed on September 30, 2014 as invalid, as it was the same
as the First Amended Complaint (FAC), which was filed on June 16, 2014. Please see the
attached filed in the October 25, 2017 APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING
FOR ERROR IN LAW OR PROCEDURAL PROCESS (Pages 29–34) in the 3DCA Case
Waszczuk v . the Regents of the University of California Case No. C079524 (an Anti-
SLAPP Motion, Attachment #55). The Petition for Rehearing was denied by 3DCA Chief
Justice VANCE RAYE on November 9, 2017.
The above four items were listed in the January 31, 2022 Appellant’s Notice Designating
Record on Appeal as item No. 8-1 and should be prepared by the Court Clerk and included
in the Original Clerk Transcript on Appeal as VOLUME NO. 1, not as the CLERK’s
SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT (SuppCT) ON APPEAL.
- 13 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
THE CERTIFICATION AND DECLARATION OF MAILING OF CLERK’s
SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT (CST) ON APPEAL SIGNED BY KEVIN
MICHAUD.
Upon closer examination of the Supp.CT Vol. No. 1 of 1 which I received on July 13,
2022, I noticed that the CST was certified on July 6, 2022 by Sacramento County Superior
Court Appellate Department Court Clerk KEVIN MICHAUD, the day after I submitted my
Court Department the Notice of Omission
The Declaration of Mailing signed by MICHAUD was originally dated July 7, 2022, but this
was altered in pen and changed to July 11, 2022. The Supp.CT was filed by the 3DCA Clerk
on July 22, 2022, 16 days after the CST was certified, on July 6, 2022. The Sacramento
County Superior Court Building is located 1 mile from the 3DCA Court building. The
process on appeal was, again, deliberately delayed for at least another 14 days by the Court
staff.
The certification and Declaration of Mailing basically shows that Clerk MICHAUD
had the SuppCT prepared a long time before he received my Notice of Omission and
deliberately, and with malice to prejudice and deceive the Appellant and court, did not add
these four items to the original Clerk Transcript on Appeal as the Volume 1 of 1 of the
Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal.
X.
CLERK KEVIN MICHAUD’S DECLARATION DATED JULY 11, 2022, RE:
RECORD ON APPEAL
With the CST, I also received on July 13, 2022 Clerk MICHAUD’S Declaration dated July
11, 2022 which stated
- 14 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
TO: CLERK OF THE COURT, THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
I, Kevin Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of California, County of
Sacramento, do declare as follows:
On July 6, 2022 Appellant filed a Notice of Omission correspondence
with the Sacramento Superior Court Appeals Unit. As to all items listed
as part of Sacramento Superior Court Case #34-2013-80001699(items
126-147), This Superior Court Case is NOT consolidated with the
current above listed case on appeal. As such, those items will not be
given. The remaining missing documents as part of the current above
listed case on appeal have been supplied in the accompanying
Supplemental Clerks Transcript on Appeal As to the Reporters
Transcript, The CSR T. Tavalero was noticed to prepare a Reporters
Transcript based on the information supplied by the appellant on their
designation. A filing party is responsible for verifying the validity of the
information on said designation prior to submission. Ms. Tavalero
supplied a declaration as having no notes for said date supplied by
appellant. Any inadequacies in the Reporters date were not properly.
As to the minor type-o's on the cover pages of the Original Clerks
Transcript; Cover pages have been supplied to swap out for all 13
volumes. Nothing was omitted.
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of
California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED : July 11, 2022
The Declarant, Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate Department Clerk KEVIN
MICHAUD, in damage control Declaration on his own behalf or someone else’s behalf, was
playing ignorant and trying to blame me, saying that it is was my fault that the CRT from the
September 1, 2021 Court Hearing with Judge KRUEGER was not prepared and transmitted to
the 3DCA by May 9, 2022.
I do not remember how I determined that Court Reporter Tina Tavalero transcribed the
September 1, 2021 court hearing, but her name in this matter is irrelevant. It was the Clerk’s
- 15 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
responsibility to find out who the Court Reporter at the hearing was, instead of issuing the
Notice of Filling of Designation/Notice to Reporters with the wrong judge’s name and wrong
party attorney’s name and then keeping the Notice to himself to obstruct justice by
deliberately delaying the appeal and unlawfully interfering with the reviewing court’s
proceedings. Hypothetically, even it had been my fault on January 31, 2022, then the CRT
should have been sent to 3DCA together with the Supp.CT Volume 1 of 1 on Appeal on July
11, 2022. This did not happen. The CRT has still not been transmitted to 3DCA at that time .
Furthermore, the APPELLANT’S NOTICE DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL in
5. b. Proceedings States:
I request that the following proceedings in the superior court be included
in the reports transcript. (You must identify each proceeding you want
included by its date, the department in which it took place, a description
of the proceedings (for example, the examination of jurors, motions
before trial, the taking of testimony, or the giving of jury instructions),
the name of the court reporter who recorded the proceedings (IF
KNOWN), and whether a certified transcript of the designated
proceeding was previously prepared.)
Hypothetically, if I had not added Tavalero’s name to the APPELLANT’S NOTICE
DESIGNATED RECORD ON APPEAL because I did not know who transcribed the hearing,
Clerk MICHAUD should have ordered Court Reporter Valerie Holy to prepare a CRT for
Appeal from the September 1, 2021 Court hearing with Judge KRUEGER, or it would be the
same story as it is now.
In the first part of the Declaration, Deputy Clerk MICHAUD addressed my request to
produce the omitted records on appeal from the case cross-referenced to this appeal,
- 16 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and the Regents of
the University of California as the Real Party in Interest (RPii), Case No. 34-2013-80001699-
CUWMGDS, 3DCA Case No. 079254, the Supreme Court of California Case No. S253713
& S245879, filed on December 2, 2013, ATTACHMENT NO. 4B TO THE APPELLANT’S
NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD APPEAL (Pages 9 & 11), filed on January 31, 2022
It shows how the court record from the Sacramento Superior Court Case #34-2013-
80001699 irritates perpetrators who participated and still participate in the cover up of the
unemployment insurance benefits theft which took place in 2014 and theft was subject of
litigations in three California ‘s different court .
case is cross-referenced to this ongoing appeal and is about my unemployment
insurance benefits, which were stolen in 2014 see also -Appellant’s Opening Brief pages 15–
18.
THE CLERK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL AND THE
CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT COVER PAGES WITH THE WRONG JUDGE’S
NAME AND WRONG RESPONDENT ATTORNEY
The Sacramento Superior Court Deputy Clerk from the Appeal Unit, at the end of
his July 11, 2022 Declaration, stated:
As to the minor type-o 's on the cover pages of the Original Clerks
Transcript; Cover pages have been supplied to swap out for all 13
volumes. Nothing was omitted.
These were not “minor type-o’s on the cover pages.” This was a serious and
deliberate move to mislabel 13 volumes of the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal with
DAVID I. BROWN’S name, instead of JUDGE CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER’S
name, and listing the wrong respondent attorney, DOUGLAS ROPEL, who has been
employed for the last six years by Littler Mendelson PC, instead of Porter Scott’s
attorney, Lindsay A. Goulding.
- 17 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
These “ were not “minor type-o’s on the cover pages.”. This was an deliberate
attempt to remove JUDGE CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER’S from the appeal
proceeding and blame entirely for the committed crimes the JUDGE DAVID I
BROWN who quit or was forced to quit his job in Sacramento Superior Court in
December 2020
https://cjp.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2022/06/Raye_DO_Pub_Admon_6-1-
22.pdf ) and the former Porter Scott’s attorney DOUGLAS ROPEL who quit Porter
Scott in March 2016 and since then is working for Littler Mendelson .
In October 2018, The Regents attorneys from Porter Scott bypassed Judge David I
Brown and engaged two Sacramento County judges, CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER
AND JENNIFER K. ROCKWELL, to end my litigation via termination sanctions, an
attempt to frame me for a bench warrant and criminal prosecution, and to break into my
wife’s bank and 401(k) accounts. Judge Krueger and Judge Jennifer Rockwell, before
they were appointed to the bench they worked for California Attorney General Bill
Lockyer in the same office on State v. All Persons, 152 Cal.App.4th 1386 (Cal. Ct.App.
2007). Judge Krueger’s wife is employed in 3DCA as a senior research attorney (12CT
3361-3362).
This did not work with me in 2018–2019, so the attorneys attacked and terrorized my wife
in April–July 2021, attempting to frame her for criminal prosecution with the help of Judge
Thadd Blizzard, from Department 43, and his clerk. The ambush failed, yet they stole from
my wife more, $22,284 besides the terror she experienced in the courtroom.
On July 20, 2022, I submitted to the Sacramento County Superior Court a Second Notice
of Omission: Re: Designated Record on Appeal which was filed on July 26, 2022 (ROA
# 313).
In my Second Notice of Omission, I requested, among other things, that:
1) The Sacramento County Superior Court Appeal Unit, without further delay, issue a
new Notice of Filing of Designation/Notice to Reporters for Court Reporter Valerie Haley,
who had already transcribed the September 1, 2021 Court Hearing presided over by Judge
Christopher E. Krueger (not Judge David I. Brown) and the Defendants’ attorney from the
Porter Scott law firm, Thomas L. Riordan (not Douglas Ropel or Lindsay Goulding). The
- 19 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
new Notice of Filling of Designation/Notice to Reporters should resolve the problem with
the Court Reporter.
2) I pointed out that Volume 8 of 13 is completely missing, or has been omitted, in the
Chronological and Alphabetical Index for the 13-volume Clerk Transcript on Appeal and
must be corrected In response to my Second Notice of Omission, the Sacramento County
Superior Court Appellate Department Clerk KEVIN MICHAUD, in a created by him and
others CIRCUS OF DECEPTION AND DELAY, submitted to 3DCA another meaningless
declaration that stated:
BY THE COURT:
- 20 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
Appellant's Second Notice of Omission in the Record on Appeal" is
treated as a motion to correct the record, and in light of the subsequent
filing of the supplemental record on appeal, the motion is denied. If there
are further corrections sought, appellant may file a motion in this court
addressing the specific corrections he seeks to have this court direct the
trial court to correct.
ROBIE, Acting P.J.
- 21 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
I was expecting that the CRT, which was sent to me on September 27, 2022 would be
certified and transmitted to 3DCA and that I could use it for my APPELLANT OPENING
BRIEF (AOB), which was due to be filed on October 10, 2022.
For the above reason, on October 3, 2022, I submitted to 3DCA an Application for 30
days’ extension to file my AOB with a new due date of November 10, 2022 (
While waiting for 3DCA to grant or deny my extra 30 days’ extension of time, a request I
submitted on October 3, 2022, a request to 3DCA to rule on my motion to augment the
record on appeal submitted on September 23, 2022. I was working on my AOB due October
10, 2022. I was expecting nothing good or any good news from 3DCA staff, which as the
nine years’ record shows in two cases, has discriminated against me, blocked me from
gaining equal access to justice, and shown prejudice against me. This appeal was no
exception, and the Case No. C095488 docket alone shows in black and white how closely
3DCA staff collaborates against me with the staff in the Sacramento County Superior Court
Appellate Department and beyond.
This is a wrongful termination case and summary judgment appeal in which the
Defendants’ attorney did not provide one single piece of credible evidence to be granted a
motion for summary judgment by Judge KRUEGER, from Department 54. Judge
KRUEGER presided over this 8-year-old case for less than one month and cut me off on
the September 1, 2021 in an oral argument hearing after 5–10 minutes. He ended the
case that way because he perhaps was completely unprepared for the hearing, or perhaps
because he did not want to hear on the Zoom call about the unlawful May 31, 2012 Power
Sale Purchase Agreement between the UC Regents and Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD) from the UCDMC’s 27-MW cogeneration facility, where I was an operator working
- 22 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
for UCDMC (CT Vol. 3 pp. 768-789,. Judge KRUEGER is a former Attorney General
employee, and he was fully briefed by the Porter Scott attorneys in October 2018 on what this
wrongful termination case is about and about the power sale to SMUD.
On October 10, 2022, I was struggling to finish my AOB and to send it 3DCA,
waiting until the last minute with hope that 3DCA would provide me the 30 days’ extension
of time because of the 3DCA clerk’s conflicting and unclear statement in the case docket,
which did not state whether my motion for an extension of time was filed, granted or not
granted, or rejected. I did not take any chances and submitted my AOB to 3DCA very early in
the morning on October 11, 2022, at 4:36 A.M. The AOB was written based on an incomplete
record on appeal and not knowing whether the extension of time to file the AOB had been
granted or not.
On October 10, 2022, instead of receiving the extension of time to file the AOB, I
received a 3DCA e-mail notification that my AOB was due. I looked at the case docket and
noticed that, on October 7, 2022, the Defendants’ attorney filed an opposition to the my
(Plaintiff’s) September 23, 2022 motion to augment the record on appeal. The Defendants’
attorney submitted this opposition via TrueFiling on October 7, 2022 at 12:53 P.M., and the
opposition was filed on the same day by 3DCA Deputy Clerk T. Eyster . However, the
Defendants’ opposition was not served to me for five days, arriving on October 11, 2022. On
the same day, I asked the Defendants’ attorney from Horvitz-Levy, Karen Bray, via e-mail
why she had not served their opposition to my motion for five days after their opposition was
filed. On that same day, I received a response from Ms. Bray, stating:
Mr. Waszczuk,
- 23 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
Attached is a copy of the opposition to motion to augment that we filed
on Friday. We attempted to serve it upon you through TrueFiling using
your registered email address, but just noticed that there was a server
error message, which we have copied below. Our understanding is that
other filings have been served upon you at this email address, so we
aren’t sure why service failed in this instance.
In her response, Ms. Bray stated that she “just noticed” there was a server error. I
responded to her that there was nothing wrong with my e-mail. I have never had a
problem submitting my documents via TrueFiling. If there was something wrong with my
e-mail, the TrueFiling Server operator would have notify me instantly that I was blocked.
By working for the UCDMC as an associate development engineer, I have backed up
servers for entire hospitals, and I do not believe that TrueFiling’s server for the entire
California Court System is less critical to protect from viruses or spam attacks than the
UCDMC hospital server, or that its and system is less sophisticated than the UCDMC
computer system was 10 years ago. Instead, I think that my documents were not being
processed by the clerks and filed for many days after being submitted via TrueFiling. I
notified the TrueFiling Service on October 11, 2022 of the problem and received a
response that there should not be any further problems. Supposedly, some spam had been
attached to my registered e-mail, which kept me from being served for five days.
However, I should also have received text messages on my phone, 209-687-1180, as
usual, which documents that something was filed, but no such messages were sent.
Furthermore, I noticed in the case’s Register of Action (ROA) on October 11, 2022,
the Defendants filed a Supplemental Proof of Service five days after the opposition was filed.
I never received from the Defendants’ attorney a copy of this supplemental proof of service. I
am not going to speculate what the Defendants’ attorneys from Porter Scott and Horvitz &
Levy were up to together with the 3DCA Clerks that kept them from providing me
- 24 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
information (proof of service) that the opposition to my motion had been filed and granting
me an extension of time before my AOB was due on October 10, 2022.
Being, again, manipulated and prejudiced against by the Defendants’ attorneys from
Porter Scott and Horvitz & Levy and the 3DCA Clerks, on October 13, 2022, I submitted to
3DCA via TrueFiling the Reply to the Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for the
Record on Appeal Augmentation and Correction
The reply was more of a complaint than a reply to opposition due to being subject to gross
prejudice by the Sacramento County Superior Court Appellate Department, which
deliberately delayed the processing of my appeal in a blunt approval of wrongdoing by the
3DCA staff.
On the same day, October 13, 2022, I submitted my reply to the Defendants’ opposition to
my motion, the 3DCA granted me an extension of time to file my AOB, which I had already
submitted to 3DCA on October 11, 2022 via TrueFiling. What nonsense. The extension was
granted without granting or denying my motion to augment and correct record on appeal
(another bit of nonsense).
I examined the granted Application for Extension of Time and found that the order was
stamped with 3DCA’s acting judge ROBIE’S name, but the order was not dated. It is
unknown whether the extension was granted before October 10, 2022 or three days after I
submitted my AOB
BY THE COURT:
On the court's own motion, the October 14, 2022, filing of appellant's
opening brief on demand is ordered stricken. The clerk of this court is
directed to return the opening brief to the appellant with a letter
explaining how the brief fails to meet the requirements of the California
Rules of Court.
On the court's own motion, the October 14, 2022, filing of appellant's
reply to the respondents' opposition on demand is ordered stricken.
The California Rules of Court do not contemplate the filing of a reply to
an opposition to a motion.
The next day, on the early morning of October 19, 2022, I submitted a corrected AOB via
TrueFiling with a cover letter addressed to 3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer Andrea K.
Wallin-Rohmann, in which I stated :
- 26 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
Rule 8.74(a) (8): I removed the green cover page from the AOB.
Rule 8.204(c) (1): I corrected the AOB certificate of word count which
included a typographical mistake.
Due to the required corrections, especially repagination of the all pages
with Arabic numerals, I also changed the pages numbers accordingly in
the AOB’s Table of Contents and Table of Authorities.
I appreciate the Court Order and Clerk’s clear explanation of what
needed to be corrected in the AOB to make the document compliant with
the California Rules of Court. I apologize to the Court for my mistakes.
Also, I (Plaintiff) would greatly appreciate it if the Court Clerk would
file the AOB without delay. The AOB is bookmarked by Acrobat DC
Pro and all matters in the AOB are supported by the citation of the
volume and page number of the record (Clerk Transcript) where the
matter appears (California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)((1)(c)).
Please let me know if the Court has any further concerns. Thank you.
Sincerely,
______________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Pro Se
Plaintiff & Appellant
After I submitted the corrected AOB and cover letter via TrueFiling, I expected that the Brief
would be filed without any delay. It did not happen.
On the morning October 24, 2022, I was notified by the 3DCA Clerk via e-mail and an
ROA entry that my corrected AOB submitted on October 19, 2022 had been filed. The 3DCA
Clerk in the ROA entry noticed my letter, which explained what I corrected in my brief:
“Clerk 10/24/2022 Appellant, submitted with his opening brief, that confirms he made the
corrections to his brief directed by the court.”
- 27 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
I also noticed that 3DCA, by filing my AOB Brief, did not make an entry in the case ROA
showing when the Respondent Brief is due now after my AOB was filed.
THE 3DCA ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2022 -RE: AUGUMENTED RECORD
ON APPEAL
BY THE COURT:
Appellant's motion to augment the record on appeal is granted in part
and denied in part. Appellant’s motion is granted as to the September 1,
2021, Reporter’s Transcript. The clerk of this court is directed to file the
Reporter’s Transcript attached to this order.
Appellant’s motion to augment the record on appeal is denied as to item
102, the motion to recall the remittitur in case number C079524, and
items 126 through 147. There is no indication that the requested material
was filed or lodged in the superior court in this case. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.155.)
Appellant’s request to relabel the transcript is denied as unnecessary.
The order in part was incorrect. The copy of motion to recall the remittitur in case
C079524 was submitted on June 18, 2021 to the Clerk of the Sacramento County
Superior Court Dept 53 . (Hon. Sharma H. Mesiwala ) .
- 28 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
Sacramento, CA 95814
June 18, 2021
Subject: Case no. 34-2013-00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents
of the University of California
Re: Copy of Motion to Recall the Remittitur and copy of the Motion)
for Judicial Notice in the Waszczuk i.'. Regents of University of
California, C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017)
Dear Clerk:
I am a Plaintiff in the above-captioned cases. With this letter, I am
submitting to your office copies, via U.S. Priority Mail, of the Motion to
Recall the Remittitur and the Motion for Judicial Notice, along with copies
of a Declaration in Support of the Case Waszczuk v. Regents of University
of California, C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017).
Because the copies of the Motion to Recall the Remittitur and Motion for
Judicial Notice include the same 46 exhibits, with exception of Exhibit
47, which has been added to the Motion for Judicial Notice, please
provide to the Hon. Shama Hakim Mesiwala a copy of the Motion for
Recall the Remittitur with 46 attached exhibits and a copy of the Motion
for Judicial Notice with only Exhibit 47.
Both motions submitted to the Court of Appeal Third Appellate District are
vitally related to the Motion for Summary Judgment and or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication related to the Defendants, the Regents
of the University of California, filed on May 14, 2021. The Defendants'
vexatious and notorious re-litigation over the past two years focused on the
four dismissed Causes of Action from my Second Amended Complaint by
their anti- SLAPP in 2015 triggered my Motion to Recall the Remittitur and
Motion for Judicial Notice in Appellate Court. The Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment and or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication filed
on May 14, 2021 (ROA # 254-258) is no exception and is yet another
attempt by the Defendants' attorneys from Porter Scott to extort money
from me and my wife by relitigating the matters that were dismissed by
three Courts, including the California Supreme Court.
- 29 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
In addition to the above, please file for the record a copy of my Motion to
Recall Remittitur and a copy of the Motion for Judicial Notice without
exhibits (enclosed), along with this letter and attached to Meet and Confer
letter to Defense Attorney Lindsay A. Goulding
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk - Plaintiff in Pro Per
Enclosure:
Meet and Confer Letter to Defendants Attorney Lindsay A. Goulding with
attachment.
This very questionable 3DCA Order is merely a redacted excerpt from Horvitz & Levy LLP
attorney Karen M. Bray’s Opposition to Appellant’s Motion to Augment and Correct the Record
on Appeal.
Since March 23, 2022, Ms. Bray, together with H. Thomas Watson, has been assisting
Porter Scott attorneys LINDSEY A. GOULDING and THOMAS RIORDAN in representing
the UC Regents in this appeal. In 2021, in an ill-advised and heinous but unsuccessful act,
Goulding, acting in coordination with the judges and clerks from Sacramento County Superior
Court Departments 53, 54, and 43, ambushed my 70-year-old wife in an attempt to frame her for
a bench warrant and criminal prosecution and to steal her life savings bank and 401(K)
retirement accounts. Goulding stole from her $22,284 before Judge Thadd Blizzard and the court
clerk from Department 43.
CONCLUSION
It is all leading to the conclusion that The Regents attorneys from Porter Scott and from
Horvitz and Levy LLP in 2022 knew the result of the appeal in Case C095488 and they
made sure that the 12/04/13 COMPLAINT, 06/16/14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT,
09/10/14 NOTICE TO FILING PARTY, 09/24/14 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
- 30 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
LEAVE TO FILE and the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY STIPULATION AND
ORDER THEREON never would be sent to the Supreme Court of California by 3DCA Clerk
Office . THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS
If you have any question or you would have a problem to understand some of my statements
than please do not hesitate to ask me for clarification. In my writing I rely entirely on the
proof readers
Sincerely ,
____________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk. In Pro Per
- 31 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
MAILING LIST
Re: Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California
C095488
Sacramento County Super. Ct. No. 34201300155479CUWTGDS
Copies of this document have been sent by mail to the parties checked below unless they
were noticed electronically.
Lindsay Alida Goulding Porter Scott- TrueFiling
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
- 32 -
COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN -3DCA Clerk/Executive Officer- 3DCA Appeal Case
Record Transmission to The Supreme Court
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
IN THE MATTER CONCERNING DECISION AND ORDER IMPOSING
JUSTICE VANCE W. RAYE PUBLIC ADMONISHMENT PURSUANT
TO STIPULATION
(Commission Rule 116.5)
This disciplinary matter concerns Justice Vance W. Raye of the California
Court of Appeal, Third District. On May 27, 2022, Justice Raye and his counsel,
Edith R. Matthai, Esq., entered into a stipulation with Director-Chief Counsel
Gregory Dresser, pursuant to commission rule 116.5, to resolve the pending
preliminary investigation involving Justice Raye by the imposition of a public
admonishment and the justice’s agreement to retire and not to serve in a judicial
capacity in the future. Justice Raye tendered his retirement from judicial office,
effective June 1, 2022. The commission approved the Stipulation for Discipline
by Consent on May 30, 2022, pursuant to the following terms and conditions and
stipulated facts and legal conclusions. A copy of the stipulation is attached.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT
1. This agreement resolves the matters alleged in the commission’s
pending preliminary investigation involving Justice Vance W. Raye.
2. The commission shall issue a public admonishment based on the
agreed Stipulated Facts and Legal Conclusions set forth therein.
3. If the commission accepts this proposed disposition, the commission’s
decision and order imposing a public admonishment may articulate the reasons
for its decision and include explanatory language that the commission deems
appropriate.
4. Upon acceptance by the commission, this stipulation and the
commission’s decision and order shall be made public.
5. Justice Vance W. Raye waives any further proceedings and review in
this matter, including formal proceedings (Rules of Com. on Jud. Performance,
rule 118 et seq.) and review by the Supreme Court (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.60).
-1-
6. Justice Vance W. Raye shall advise the Governor of California, in
writing, of his retirement from judicial office, effective June 1, 2022.
7. If Justice Vance W. Raye does not retire as of June 1, 2022, the
commission may withdraw the public admonishment and resume the preliminary
investigation as to all of the matters in the staff inquiry and preliminary
investigation letters. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this
agreement may also constitute additional and independent grounds for discipline.
8. Justice Vance W. Raye has agreed not to seek or hold judicial office, or
accept a position or assignment as a judicial officer, subordinate judicial officer, or
judge pro tem with any court in the State of California, or accept a reference of
work from any California state court, at any time after June 1, 2022, except that, in
the interest of justice, to conclude matters, which have been previously assigned
to him and cannot be completed by June 1, and which would place an undue
burden on the other justices if they were reassigned. Justice Raye may also
respond to any request from the Third District for information regarding a case that
was assigned to Justice Raye before the date of his retirement.
9. If Justice Vance W. Raye attempts to serve in a judicial capacity in
violation of the foregoing paragraph, the commission may withdraw the public
admonishment and resume the preliminary investigation as to all of the matters in
the staff inquiry and preliminary investigation letters.
10. Justice Vance W. Raye agrees that the facts recited herein are true
and correct, and that the discipline to which the parties stipulate herein is
appropriate in light of those facts.
11. The commission may reject this proposed disposition and resume its
preliminary investigation. If the commission does so, nothing in this proposed
disposition will be deemed to be admitted or conceded by either party.
Accordingly, it is hereby stipulated and agreed that the commission shall
issue a public admonishment on the above Terms and Conditions of Agreement
and based on the following Stipulated Facts and Legal Conclusions.
-2-
STIPULATED FACTS AND LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
This disciplinary matter concerns Justice Vance W. Raye, the
Administrative Presiding Justice of the Third District Court of Appeal since 2010.
His current term began in 2015. Justice Raye was appointed to Sacramento
Superior Court in 1989 and as an Associate Justice on the Third District Court of
Appeal in 1991.
Justice Raye engaged in a pattern of delay in deciding around 200
appellate matters over a ten-year period.
I. PATTERN OF PERSISTENT DECISIONAL DELAY
“The failure to resolve appellate cases in an appropriately expeditious
timeframe undermines the ability of the appellate courts to efficiently manage
their publicly provided resources, demonstrate effective leadership within the
Judicial Branch and promote public confidence in the courts.” (Doerner, Model
Time Standards for State Appellate Courts (2014) p. 18.)
Under California law, judges are expected to decide matters submitted to
them within 90 days of submission and are prohibited from receiving their salaries
when they have undecided matters under submission for more than 90 days.
(Cal. Const., art. VI, § 19; Mardikian v. Commission on Judicial Performance
(1985) 40 Cal.3d 473, 477, fn. 4.) Other than the 90-day rule, there is no law or
rule that sets a specific limit on the time an appellate court takes to decide a
matter1 and, in particular, nothing that directly addresses pre-submission delay.
1
“[F]ederal courts have held that undue delay in processing an appeal
may rise to the level of a violation of due process.” (Daniel v. State (Wy. 2003) 78
P.3d 205, 218 [citations omitted].) The Tenth Circuit has enunciated a general
rule that delay in adjudicating a noncapital criminal appeal for more than two
years after filing of the notice of appeal, including more than 11 months from the
completion of briefing to the opinion’s filing, raises a rebuttable presumption of
prejudice from an ineffective appellate process. (Harris v. Champion (10th Cir.
1994) 15 F.3d 1538, 1555-1561 & fn. 11; accord, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Green v.
Washington (N.D. Ill. 1996) 917 F.Supp. 1238, 1277.) The National Center for
State Courts, along with the Court Management Committee of the Conference of
Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators determined that,
-3-
More generally, however, the Code of Judicial Ethics requires judges to dispose
of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and efficiently (canon 3B(8)) and to act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary (canon 2A).
Appellate court cases are not “submitted” until after oral argument is heard,
or argument is waived. At the Third District, a case is not set for oral argument
until there is a full draft memorandum that at least two justices agree on. Justice
Raye did not violate the 90-day rule on any matter assigned to him. Rather, the
pre-submission decisional delay in this matter implicates the general standards of
canons 3B(8) and 2A. Justice Raye engaged in a pattern of delay in deciding a
significant number of appellate cases over a lengthy period. In particular, both with
respect to the court as a whole (in his role as presiding justice) and as to cases
assigned to him personally, he failed to encourage and adopt reasonable
procedures to ensure that priority and older cases were decided first.
The commission surveyed approximately 200 matters (as set forth in
Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein as though set forth in full) assigned to him from
2011 to 2021, in which more than one year passed between the completion of
briefing and the issuance of an opinion (or dismissal of the matter). Not every such
case warrants discipline, and whether it does depends on a number of relevant
circumstances. During the ten-year time frame examined by the commission,
Justice Raye authored opinions in over 1,200 matters, including the cases
identified in Exhibit 1. A substantial portion of those cases were decided within
one year from the completion of briefing.
in 95% of civil cases, 570 days (one year and seven months) is considered a
reasonable number of days from initial filing to issuance of an opinion. (Doerner,
supra, at p. 22.) For criminal appeals (excluding death penalty cases), a
reasonable number of days from initial filing to opinion is 600 days
(approximately one year and eight months). (Id. at p. 20.) Given the amount of
time required from initial filing to case fully briefed, to meet the 600-day target in
criminal cases, the time from a case being fully briefed to opinion would be less
than one year.
-4-
At the same time, a significant number of cases languished for years.
Justice Raye’s oldest completed case (No. C067600) had aged seven years and
nine months after being fully briefed before the parties dismissed the matter.
Two of Justice Raye’s cases were delayed between six and seven years; five
between five and six years; 17 between four and five years; 29 between three
and four years; and 45 between two and three years. Justice Raye’s oldest
pending case (No. C070732, rating of 2) is a criminal matter with youthful
offenders in which supplemental briefing was requested by the parties and
authorized by the court in January 2022 after the case had been fully briefed for
eight years and seven months.2 Justice Raye failed to prioritize efforts so that
older cases could be resolved before work began on newer ones.
The parties acknowledge that the Third District Court of Appeal has a high
volume of cases. If the reason for the delay were attributed solely to an
overburdened court, one would expect that all or virtually all of the justices of the
Court would be similarly affected, which is not the case at the Third District.
In approximately 14 to 35 percent of the cases assigned to Justice Raye
from 2001 through 2019, more than a year passed between the date the cases
were fully briefed and the date the opinions issued. In contrast to these high
levels of delay, only 7 percent of cases assigned in 2020—after an inquiry from
the commission—were unresolved more than a year after the completion of
briefing. This suggests that Justice Raye could have decided the matters in a
more timely manner. (See Mardikian, supra, at p. 482 [discipline appropriate
where delays are persistent and avoidable].) The evidence does not show that
the delay was caused by an intentional disregard of the justice’s duties. (See In
re Jensen (1978) 24 Cal.3d 72, 73 [discipline appropriate where there is a
2
The court’s managing attorney screens all appeals and numerically
ranks each chambers case according to complexity, from 1 to 5, with higher
numbers assigned to more complex cases. Most routine disposition appeals
(RDAs) and juvenile dependency cases are initially prepared by a pool of central
staff attorneys.
-5-
persistent failure to perform judicial duties, even if the failure is not an intentional
disregard of duties].)
During the relevant time period, Justice Raye was aware of his growing
backlog of cases. He received monthly reports that identified his assigned cases
and the date of each assignment. The justices in the Third District discussed the
topic of delay and the court’s “growing backlog of appeals” at several justices’
meetings and three court retreats from 2012 through 2018.
Justice Raye also did not give calendar preference to three juvenile
delinquency cases: People v. B.G. (No. C081515), People v. Q.N. (No. C064967),
and People v. C.C. (No. C087924), as provided by Welfare and Institutions Code
sections 395 and 800, subdivision (a).3 In addition, more than half of Justice
Raye’s delayed cases were matters in which the people of the state were parties.
He did not accord these matters calendar preference over civil appeals, and other
cases (excluding juvenile matters) that had been filed during the same period, as
provided by section 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure.4 Justice Raye’s failure to
provide calendar preference to juvenile and criminal cases violated his obligation
to respect the statutory language and to act at all times in a manner that promotes
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary (canon 2A) and to
dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and efficiently (canon 3B(8)).
3
Welfare & Institutions Code sections 395 and 800, subdivision (a) provide
calendar preference to juvenile dependency and juvenile delinquency cases over
all other cases. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395 and 800, subd. (a) [“The appeal shall
have precedence over all other cases in the court to which the appeal is taken”].)
(See also Abdullah B. v. Superior Court (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 838, 844.)
4
After juvenile matters, section 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure
authorizes courts of appeal to provide calendar preference to criminal matters,
and then to probate and election cases. Section 44 states that appeals in
probate proceedings, contested election cases, and certain defamation cases
“shall be given preference in hearing” and “shall be placed on the calendar in the
order of their date of issue, next after cases in which the people of the state are
parties.”
-6-
Justice Raye’s conduct caused prejudice to civil litigants and criminal
defendants. Prejudice can occur in civil cases by parties suffering from
uncertainty as disputes remain unresolved, or the payments of money judgments
are delayed. In criminal cases, appellants are prejudiced if they have served all
or part of a reversed sentence, or when faded memories or lost evidence hamper
resentencing hearings or retrials. Prejudice can also manifest as “increased
anxiety, mistrust, hopelessness, fear, and depression” that “results from the very
thwarting of the hope that liberty will be restored through a right that the State
has guaranteed -- the appellate process.” (United States ex rel. Green v.
Washington, (N.D. Ill. 1996), 917 F.Supp. 1238 at pp. 1277-1278.) Known
prejudice occurred in the following six cases:
People v. Flores (No. C066914, rating of RDA): This matter was
assigned to Justice Raye on February 23, 2012. On June 4, 2017, the
appellant’s counsel inquired about the status of the appeal. Attorney
Tutti Hacking stated that the appellant had received a six-year prison
term and had served the sentence while the appeal was pending. Ms.
Hacking wrote, “It has been over five years since this case was fully
briefed yet no decision has been rendered by the Court of Appeal. Mr.
Flores has had to continue his life with a felony conviction on his record,
and he has no other criminal record.” On August 21, 2017, Ms. Hacking
again inquired about the status of the case and complained that she had
received no response to her earlier inquiry.
Environmental Council of Sacramento et al. v. County of Sacramento et
al. (No. C076888, rating of 4): This matter was assigned to Justice
Raye on February 26, 2015, and decided on January 30, 2020. On
May 19, 2017, all parties jointly requested that oral argument be
calendared, consistent with the calendar preference mandates of Public
Resources Code section 21167.1. The attorneys wrote, “Counsel
involved in this case are involved in other CEQA-related appeals
-7-
pending before the Court for which notifications regarding oral
argument have been received even though the briefing was completed
much later than the briefing in this matter. The absence of a final
decision in this matter creates substantial uncertainty for the parties at a
critical juncture for the long term development of the Cordova Hills
project that was approved in January, 2013.”
Myers et al. v. Raley’s (No. C075125, rating of 3): This matter was
assigned to Justice Murray on October 31, 2014, reassigned to Justice
Raye on June 29, 2018, and decided on February 13, 2019. On
September 10, 2018, attorney Michael Righetti inquired about the
status of the appeal. He wrote, “Over the last few years, I have inquired
repeatedly about the status of the case by telephone. . . . Each time I
call, the civil clerk informs me that she will follow the required procedure
and ‘send an email to chambers’ to notify the justices that I have made
an inquiry about the case. Despite my inquires [sic], I have never
received a response from the Court — and my clients’ appeal continues
to languish. . . . A similar class action wage and hour appeal that is
pending in the Third District, in which our office is lead counsel, was set
for oral argument in July of 2018 despite having only been fully briefed
as of March of 2018. . . . Thus, it took approximately 4 months from the
full briefing for the oral argument order to issue in that case, which is
striking as compared to almost 4 years in the present case without such
an order. . . . I appreciate that there is a backlog of appeals, especially
in the Third District (this is no secret). Nevertheless, I feel it would be
remiss of me not to notify Your Honor of the situation, especially given
the angst felt by my clients as the years go by without a resolution in
this case.”
Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. Kwan (No. C080474, rating of
2): This matter was assigned to Justice Murray on September 30, 2016,
-8-
reassigned to Justice Raye on or about January 1, 2019, and decided
May 15, 2019. On March 1, 2018, attorney Suzanne M. Nicholson
inquired about the status of this appeal. She wrote, “I understand and
appreciate the volume of cases before the court, but have never had a
case fully briefed for quite so long with no further activity. My client is
interested in reaching resolution. . .”
People v. Johnson (No. C080001, rating of RDA): This matter was
assigned to Justice Raye on December 5, 2018, and decided on
December 1, 2020. The appeal involved a single issue — whether the
trial court improperly received evidence of a prior burglary. The
respondent conceded that the matter should be remanded to the trial
court to determine whether to exercise its discretion to strike the prior
serious felony enhancement. By the time Justice Raye issued a
decision, the appellant had already served his sentence, including the
five-year enhancement. On remand, the trial court determined that the
sentence remained as previously imposed.
Justice Raye did not minimize the impact of delay by prioritizing the
delayed matters and taking into account the effect of delay on the parties in
particular cases.
II. FAILURE TO EXERCISE ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPERVISORY
AUTHORITY
Between January 2011 and March 2021, Justice Raye failed to properly
exercise his administrative and supervisory authority to provide a forum for the
expeditious resolution of appellate disputes. His role as administrative presiding
justice of the Third District Court of Appeal required that he advocate and
encourage reasonable procedures to ensure that priority and older cases were
decided first.
California Rules of Court, rule 10.1004 outlines the responsibilities of an
appellate presiding justice. Subsection(b) states, “The administrative presiding
-9-
justice is responsible for leading the court, establishing policies, promoting
access to justice for all members of the public, providing a forum for the fair and
expeditious resolution of disputes, and maximizing the use of judicial and other
resources.” (Italics added.) Subsection (c)(1) states, “The administrative
presiding justice has general direction and supervision of the clerk/executive
officer and all court employees except those assigned to a particular justice or
division[.]” Subsection (c)(5) states, “The administrative presiding justice
supervises the administration of the court’s day-to-day operations, including
personnel matters, but must secure the approval of a majority of the justices in
the district before implementing any change in court policies[.]”
Justice Raye was aware, throughout the time he served as the Presiding
Justice, that there were chronic delays in cases assigned to some of the other
justices on the court. From January 2011 through March 2021, the decisions in
1,861 matters were delayed for more than one year from the completion of the
briefing on the appeal; 768 of those cases were pending for more than two years
after the completion of the briefing in the case. Although Justice Raye repeatedly
discussed the issue of delay with his colleagues on the court, he did not fulfill his
administrative responsibility to propose and advocate changes to court procedure
that would ensure the prompt resolution of older cases.
The delays affected the parties to the appeals. In some cases, the appeals
became moot as a result of the passage of time. In other cases, one or more of the
parties in the case suffered adverse economic impacts from the delays. Some
defendants in criminal cases served time that would not have been served had the
appellate decision been issued at an earlier date, and others had served their full
term of probation, subject to conditions that were ultimately found to be improper.
Although Justice Raye, in 2012, circulated target standards for the timely
processing of appeals, and reaffirmed the standards in 2015 and 2018, the
standards were often excused. Although Justice Raye took various steps to
reassign cases or pause assignments to chambers that were particularly
- 10 -
backlogged, these steps did not resolve the chronic delays. Justice Raye was
aware that the steps he had taken did not resolve the backlogs and, at times,
those efforts burdened the justices on the court who had fewer older cases.
In addition to canons 3B(8) and 2A, Justice Raye’s failure to properly
exercise his administrative and supervisory authority violated canons 3C(1) (duty
to diligently discharge administrative responsibilities in a manner that promotes
public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary), 3C(2) (duty to maintain
professional competence in judicial administration, and cooperate with other
judges and court officials in the administration of court business), 3D(1) (duty to
take appropriate corrective action when there is reliable information that another
justice had violated provisions of the Code of Judicial Ethics), and 1 (duty to act
at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary, and to establish, maintain, and enforce high
standards of conduct, and personally observe those standards so that the
integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved).
The pattern of chronic delay, described in sections I and II above, creates
the appearance that the delay could affect adjudicative decisions, and impede or
deny meaningful appellate review.
Justice Raye’s conduct was, at a minimum, improper action within the
meaning of California Constitution, article VI, section 18(d).
The time period of the delay, and the number of delayed cases,
aggravated the conduct, described above. In mitigation, Justice Raye resolved
most of his pending aged matters promptly after contact by the commission.
Also, he has been a bench officer for more than three decades and has not been
the subject of prior discipline. Since he was appointed to the Court in 1991,
Justice Raye authored over 3,600 opinions and participated as a panel
member in over 7,000 other opinions. He issued over 1,200 opinions in the
ten-year time frame addressed in this admonishment. In further mitigation,
Justice Raye stipulated to this resolution, thereby bringing the matter to
- 11 -
conclusion and saving the commission the expenditure of further staff
resources in investigating and resolving this matter.
By signing this stipulation, in addition to consenting to discipline on the
terms set forth, Justice Raye expressly admits that the foregoing facts are
true and that he agrees with the stated legal conclusions.
DISCIPLINE
The commission found the prejudice to litigants and the significant length
of the delay in a number of Justice Raye’s cases to be aggravating factors. In
mitigation, Justice Raye has no prior discipline, after three decades of service as
a judicial officer. Justice Raye acknowledged that he was aware of his own
backlog and those of other justices. He admitted his misconduct and stipulated
to discipline. In determining to accept the Stipulation, the commission took into
consideration the justice’s agreement to retire and not serve as a judicial officer
again. The commission concluded that this resolution adequately fulfills its
mandate to protect the public from further possible misconduct and avoids the
need for further proceedings.
Commission members Hon. Michael B. Harper; Dr. Michael A. Moodian;
Hon. William S. Dato; Mr. Eduardo De La Riva; Rickey Ivie, Esq.; Ms. Kay
Cooperman Jue; Ms. Sarah Kruer Jager; Hon. Lisa B. Lench; Victor E. Salazar,
Esq.; Mr. Richard Simpson; and Ms. Beatriz E. Tapia voted to accept the
stipulation.
Date: June 1, 2022 On behalf of the
Commission on Judicial Performance,
- 12 -
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
IN THE MATTER CONCERNING STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE
JUSTICE VANCE W. RAYE BY CONSENT (Rule 116.5)
-1-
5. Justice Vance W. Raye waives any further proceedings and review in
this matter, including formal proceedings (Rules of Com. on Jud. Performance,
rule 118 et seq.) and review by the Supreme Court (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.60).
6. Justice Vance W. Raye shall advise the Governor of California, in
writing, of his retirement from judicial office, effective June 1, 2022.
7. If Justice Vance W. Raye does not retire as of June 1, 2022, the
commission may withdraw the public admonishment and resume the preliminary
investigation as to all of the matters in the staff inquiry and preliminary
investigation letters. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this
agreement may also constitute additional and independent grounds for discipline.
8. Justice Vance W. Raye has agreed not to seek or hold judicial office, or
accept a position or assignment as a judicial officer, subordinate judicial officer, or
judge pro tem with any court in the State of California, or accept a reference of
work from any California state court, at any time after June 1, 2022, except that, in
the interest of justice, to conclude matters, which have been previously assigned
to him and cannot be completed by June 1, and which would place an undue
burden on the other justices if they were reassigned. Justice Raye may also
respond to any request from the Third District for information regarding a case that
was assigned to Justice Raye before the date of his retirement.
9. If Justice Vance W. Raye attempts to serve in a judicial capacity in
violation of the foregoing paragraph, the commission may withdraw the public
admonishment and resume the preliminary investigation as to all of the matters in
the staff inquiry and preliminary investigation letters.
10. Justice Vance W. Raye agrees that the facts recited herein are true
and correct, and that the discipline to which the parties stipulate herein is
appropriate in light of those facts.
11. The commission may reject this proposed disposition and resume its
preliminary investigation. If the commission does so, nothing in this proposed
disposition will be deemed to be admitted or conceded by either party.
-2-
Accordingly, it is hereby stipulated and agreed that the commission shall
issue a public admonishment on the above Terms and Conditions of Agreement
and based on the following Stipulated Facts and Legal Conclusions.
STIPULATED FACTS AND LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
This disciplinary matter concerns Justice Vance W. Raye, the
Administrative Presiding Justice of the Third District Court of Appeal since 2010.
His current term began in 2015. Justice Raye was appointed to Sacramento
Superior Court in 1989 and as an Associate Justice on the Third District Court of
Appeal in 1991.
Justice Raye engaged in a pattern of delay in deciding around 200
appellate matters over a ten-year period.
I. PATTERN OF PERSISTENT DECISIONAL DELAY
“The failure to resolve appellate cases in an appropriately expeditious
timeframe undermines the ability of the appellate courts to efficiently manage
their publicly provided resources, demonstrate effective leadership within the
Judicial Branch and promote public confidence in the courts.” (Doerner, Model
Time Standards for State Appellate Courts (2014) p. 18.)
Under California law, judges are expected to decide matters submitted to
them within 90 days of submission and are prohibited from receiving their salaries
when they have undecided matters under submission for more than 90 days.
(Cal. Const., art. VI, § 19; Mardikian v. Commission on Judicial Performance
(1985) 40 Cal.3d 473, 477, fn. 4.) Other than the 90-day rule, there is no law or
rule that sets a specific limit on the time an appellate court takes to decide a
matter1 and, in particular, nothing that directly addresses pre-submission delay.
1
“[F]ederal courts have held that undue delay in processing an appeal
may rise to the level of a violation of due process.” (Daniel v. State (Wy. 2003) 78
P.3d 205, 218 [citations omitted].) The Tenth Circuit has enunciated a general
rule that delay in adjudicating a noncapital criminal appeal for more than two
years after filing of the notice of appeal, including more than 11 months from the
completion of briefing to the opinion’s filing, raises a rebuttable presumption of
-3-
More generally, however, the Code of Judicial Ethics requires judges to dispose
of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and efficiently (canon 3B(8)) and to act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary (canon 2A).
Appellate court cases are not “submitted” until after oral argument is heard,
or argument is waived. At the Third District, a case is not set for oral argument
until there is a full draft memorandum that at least two justices agree on. Justice
Raye did not violate the 90-day rule on any matter assigned to him. Rather, the
pre-submission decisional delay in this matter implicates the general standards of
canons 3B(8) and 2A. Justice Raye engaged in a pattern of delay in deciding a
significant number of appellate cases over a lengthy period. In particular, both with
respect to the court as a whole (in his role as presiding justice) and as to cases
assigned to him personally, he failed to encourage and adopt reasonable
procedures to ensure that priority and older cases were decided first.
The commission surveyed approximately 200 matters (as set forth in
Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein as though set forth in full) assigned to him from
2011 to 2021, in which more than one year passed between the completion of
briefing and the issuance of an opinion (or dismissal of the matter). Not every such
case warrants discipline, and whether it does depends on a number of relevant
-4-
circumstances. During the ten-year time frame examined by the commission,
Justice Raye authored opinions in over 1,200 matters, including the cases
identified in Exhibit 1. A substantial portion of those cases were decided within
one year from the completion of briefing.
At the same time, a significant number of cases languished for years.
Justice Raye’s oldest completed case (No. C067600) had aged seven years and
nine months after being fully briefed before the parties dismissed the matter.
Two of Justice Raye’s cases were delayed between six and seven years; five
between five and six years; 17 between four and five years; 29 between three
and four years; and 45 between two and three years. Justice Raye’s oldest
pending case (No. C070732, rating of 2) is a criminal matter with youthful
offenders in which supplemental briefing was requested by the parties and
authorized by the court in January 2022 after the case had been fully briefed for
eight years and seven months.2 Justice Raye failed to prioritize efforts so that
older cases could be resolved before work began on newer ones.
The parties acknowledge that the Third District Court of Appeal has a high
volume of cases. If the reason for the delay were attributed solely to an
overburdened court, one would expect that all or virtually all of the justices of the
Court would be similarly affected, which is not the case at the Third District.
In approximately 14 to 35 percent of the cases assigned to Justice Raye
from 2001 through 2019, more than a year passed between the date the cases
were fully briefed and the date the opinions issued. In contrast to these high
levels of delay, only 7 percent of cases assigned in 2020—after an inquiry from
the commission—were unresolved more than a year after the completion of
briefing. This suggests that Justice Raye could have decided the matters in a
2
The court’s managing attorney screens all appeals and numerically
ranks each chambers case according to complexity, from 1 to 5, with higher
numbers assigned to more complex cases. Most routine disposition appeals
(RDAs) and juvenile dependency cases are initially prepared by a pool of central
staff attorneys.
-5-
more timely manner. (See Mardikian, supra, at p. 482 [discipline appropriate
where delays are persistent and avoidable].) The evidence does not show that
the delay was caused by an intentional disregard of the justice’s duties. (See In
re Jensen (1978) 24 Cal.3d 72, 73 [discipline appropriate where there is a
persistent failure to perform judicial duties, even if the failure is not an intentional
disregard of duties].)
During the relevant time period, Justice Raye was aware of his growing
backlog of cases. He received monthly reports that identified his assigned cases
and the date of each assignment. The justices in the Third District discussed the
topic of delay and the court’s “growing backlog of appeals” at several justices’
meetings and three court retreats from 2012 through 2018.
Justice Raye also did not give calendar preference to three juvenile
delinquency cases: People v. B.G. (No. C081515), People v. Q.N. (No.
C064967), and People v. C.C. (No. C087924), as provided by Welfare and
Institutions Code sections 395 and 800, subdivision (a).3 In addition, more than
half of Justice Raye’s delayed cases were matters in which the people of the
state were parties. He did not accord these matters calendar preference over civil
appeals, and other cases (excluding juvenile matters) that had been filed during
the same period, as provided by section 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure.4
3
Welfare & Institutions Code sections 395 and 800, subdivision (a) provide
calendar preference to juvenile dependency and juvenile delinquency cases over
all other cases. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395 and 800, subd. (a) [“The appeal shall
have precedence over all other cases in the court to which the appeal is taken”].)
(See also Abdullah B. v. Superior Court (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 838, 844.)
4
After juvenile matters, section 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure
authorizes courts of appeal to provide calendar preference to criminal matters,
and then to probate and election cases. Section 44 states that appeals in
probate proceedings, contested election cases, and certain defamation cases
“shall be given preference in hearing” and “shall be placed on the calendar in the
order of their date of issue, next after cases in which the people of the state are
parties.”
-6-
Justice Raye’s failure to provide calendar preference to juvenile and criminal
cases violated his obligation to respect the statutory language and to act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary (canon 2A) and to dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly,
and efficiently (canon 3B(8)).
Justice Raye’s conduct caused prejudice to civil litigants and criminal
defendants. Prejudice can occur in civil cases by parties suffering from
uncertainty as disputes remain unresolved, or the payments of money judgments
are delayed. In criminal cases, appellants are prejudiced if they have served all
or part of a reversed sentence, or when faded memories or lost evidence hamper
resentencing hearings or retrials. Prejudice can also manifest as “increased
anxiety, mistrust, hopelessness, fear, and depression” that “results from the very
thwarting of the hope that liberty will be restored through a right that the State
has guaranteed -- the appellate process.” (United States ex rel. Green v.
Washington, (N.D. Ill. 1996), 917 F.Supp. 1238 at pp. 1277-1278.) Known
prejudice occurred in the following six cases:
People v. Flores (No. C066914, rating of RDA): This matter was
assigned to Justice Raye on February 23, 2012. On June 4, 2017, the
appellant’s counsel inquired about the status of the appeal. Attorney
Tutti Hacking stated that the appellant had received a six-year prison
term and had served the sentence while the appeal was pending. Ms.
Hacking wrote, “It has been over five years since this case was fully
briefed yet no decision has been rendered by the Court of Appeal. Mr.
Flores has had to continue his life with a felony conviction on his record,
and he has no other criminal record.” On August 21, 2017, Ms. Hacking
again inquired about the status of the case and complained that she had
received no response to her earlier inquiry.
Environmental Council of Sacramento et al. v. County of Sacramento et
al. (No. C076888, rating of 4): This matter was assigned to Justice
-7-
Raye on February 26, 2015, and decided on January 30, 2020. On
May 19, 2017, all parties jointly requested that oral argument be
calendared, consistent with the calendar preference mandates of Public
Resources Code section 21167.1. The attorneys wrote, “Counsel
involved in this case are involved in other CEQA-related appeals
pending before the Court for which notifications regarding oral
argument have been received even though the briefing was completed
much later than the briefing in this matter. The absence of a final
decision in this matter creates substantial uncertainty for the parties at a
critical juncture for the long term development of the Cordova Hills
project that was approved in January, 2013.”
Myers et al. v. Raley’s (No. C075125, rating of 3): This matter was
assigned to Justice Murray on October 31, 2014, reassigned to Justice
Raye on June 29, 2018, and decided on February 13, 2019. On
September 10, 2018, attorney Michael Righetti inquired about the
status of the appeal. He wrote, “Over the last few years, I have inquired
repeatedly about the status of the case by telephone. . . . Each time I
call, the civil clerk informs me that she will follow the required procedure
and ‘send an email to chambers’ to notify the justices that I have made
an inquiry about the case. Despite my inquires [sic], I have never
received a response from the Court — and my clients’ appeal continues
to languish. . . . A similar class action wage and hour appeal that is
pending in the Third District, in which our office is lead counsel, was set
for oral argument in July of 2018 despite having only been fully briefed
as of March of 2018. . . . Thus, it took approximately 4 months from the
full briefing for the oral argument order to issue in that case, which is
striking as compared to almost 4 years in the present case without such
an order. . . . I appreciate that there is a backlog of appeals, especially
in the Third District (this is no secret). Nevertheless, I feel it would be
-8-
remiss of me not to notify Your Honor of the situation, especially given
the angst felt by my clients as the years go by without a resolution in
this case.”
Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. Kwan (No. C080474, rating of
2): This matter was assigned to Justice Murray on September 30, 2016,
reassigned to Justice Raye on or about January 1, 2019, and decided
May 15, 2019. On March 1, 2018, attorney Suzanne M. Nicholson
inquired about the status of this appeal. She wrote, “I understand and
appreciate the volume of cases before the court, but have never had a
case fully briefed for quite so long with no further activity. My client is
interested in reaching resolution. . .”
People v. Johnson (No. C080001, rating of RDA): This matter was
assigned to Justice Raye on December 5, 2018, and decided on
December 1, 2020. The appeal involved a single issue — whether the
trial court improperly received evidence of a prior burglary. The
respondent conceded that the matter should be remanded to the trial
court to determine whether to exercise its discretion to strike the prior
serious felony enhancement. By the time Justice Raye issued a
decision, the appellant had already served his sentence, including the
five-year enhancement. On remand, the trial court determined that the
sentence remained as previously imposed.
Justice Raye did not minimize the impact of delay by prioritizing the
delayed matters and taking into account the effect of delay on the parties in
particular cases.
II. FAILURE TO EXERCISE ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPERVISORY
AUTHORITY
Between January 2011 and March 2021, Justice Raye failed to properly
exercise his administrative and supervisory authority to provide a forum for the
expeditious resolution of appellate disputes. His role as administrative presiding
-9-
justice of the Third District Court of Appeal required that he advocate and
encourage reasonable procedures to ensure that priority and older cases were
decided first.
California Rules of Court, rule 10.1004 outlines the responsibilities of an
appellate presiding justice. Subsection(b) states, “The administrative presiding
justice is responsible for leading the court, establishing policies, promoting
access to justice for all members of the public, providing a forum for the fair and
expeditious resolution of disputes, and maximizing the use of judicial and other
resources.” (Italics added.) Subsection (c)(1) states, “The administrative
presiding justice has general direction and supervision of the clerk/executive
officer and all court employees except those assigned to a particular justice or
division[.]” Subsection (c)(5) states, “The administrative presiding justice
supervises the administration of the court’s day-to-day operations, including
personnel matters, but must secure the approval of a majority of the justices in
the district before implementing any change in court policies[.]”
Justice Raye was aware, throughout the time he served as the Presiding
Justice, that there were chronic delays in cases assigned to some of the other
justices on the court. From January 2011 through March 2021, the decisions in
1,861 matters were delayed for more than one year from the completion of the
briefing on the appeal; 768 of those cases were pending for more than two years
after the completion of the briefing in the case. Although Justice Raye repeatedly
discussed the issue of delay with his colleagues on the court, he did not fulfill his
administrative responsibility to propose and advocate changes to court procedure
that would ensure the prompt resolution of older cases.
The delays affected the parties to the appeals. In some cases, the appeals
became moot as a result of the passage of time. In other cases, one or more of
the parties in the case suffered adverse economic impacts from the delays.
Some defendants in criminal cases served time that would not have been served
had the appellate decision been issued at an earlier date, and others had served
- 10 -
their full term of probation, subject to conditions that were ultimately found to be
improper.
Although Justice Raye, in 2012, circulated target standards for the timely
processing of appeals, and reaffirmed the standards in 2015 and 2018, the
standards were often excused. Although Justice Raye took various steps to
reassign cases or pause assignments to chambers that were particularly
backlogged, these steps did not resolve the chronic delays. Justice Raye was
aware that the steps he had taken did not resolve the backlogs and, at times,
those efforts burdened the justices on the court who had fewer older cases.
In addition to canons 3B(8) and 2A, Justice Raye’s failure to properly
exercise his administrative and supervisory authority violated canons 3C(1) (duty
to diligently discharge administrative responsibilities in a manner that promotes
public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary), 3C(2) (duty to maintain
professional competence in judicial administration, and cooperate with other
judges and court officials in the administration of court business), 3D(1) (duty to
take appropriate corrective action when there is reliable information that another
justice had violated provisions of the Code of Judicial Ethics), and 1 (duty to act
at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary, and to establish, maintain, and enforce high
standards of conduct, and personally observe those standards so that the
integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved).
The pattern of chronic delay, described in sections I and II above, creates
the appearance that the delay could affect adjudicative decisions, and impede or
deny meaningful appellate review.
Justice Raye’s conduct was, at a minimum, improper action within the
meaning of California Constitution, article VI, section 18(d).
The time period of the delay, and the number of delayed cases,
aggravated the conduct, described above. In mitigation, Justice Raye resolved
most of his pending aged matters promptly after contact by the commission.
- 11 -
Also, he has been a bench officer for more than three decades and has not been
the subject of prior discipline. Since he was appointed to the Court in 1991,
Justice Raye authored over 3,600 opinions and participated as a panel
member in over 7,000 other opinions. He issued over 1,200 opinions in the
ten-year time frame addressed in this admonishment. In further mitigation,
Justice Raye stipulated to this resolution, thereby bringing the matter to
conclusion and saving the commission the expenditure of further staff
resources in investigating and resolving this matter.
By signing this stipulation, in addition to consenting to discipline on the
terms set forth, Justice Raye expressly admits that the foregoing facts are
true and that he agrees with the stated legal conclusions.
Dated: ------
May 27 , 2022.
Justice Vance W. Raye
- 12 -
Also, he has been a bench officer for more than three decades and has not been
the subject of prior discipline. Since he was appointed to the Court in 1991,
Justice Raye authored over 3,600 opinions and participated as a panel
member in over 7,000 other opinions. He issued over 1,200 opinions in the
ten-year time frame addressed in this admonishment. In further mitigation,
Justice Raye stipulated to this resolution, thereby bringing the matter to
conclusion and saving the commission the expenditure of further staff
resources in investigating and resolving this matter.
By signing this stipulation, in addition to consenting to discipline on the
terms set forth, Justice Raye expressly admits that the foregoing facts are
true and that he agrees with the stated legal conclusi ns.
- 12 -
Also, he has been a bench officer for more than three decades and has not been
the subject of prior discipline. Since he was appointed to the Court in 1991,
Justice Raye authored over 3,600 opinions and participated as a panel
member in over 7,000 other opinions. He issued over 1,200 opinions in the
ten-year time frame addressed in this admonishment. In further mitigation,
Justice Raye stipulated to this resolution, thereby bringing the matter to
conclusion and saving the commission the expenditure of further staff
resources in investigating and resolving this matter.
By signing this stipulation, in addition to consenting to discipline on the
terms set forth, Justice Raye expressly admits that the foregoing facts are
true and that he agrees with the stated legal conclusions.
- 12 -
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-787-3131
Email: jjw1980@live.com
Michele Kem
Secretary to Trial Counsel
State of California
Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: The Court of Appeal Third Appellate District (3DCA) Case No. C095488 -
Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California et al.
Appeal from the Judgment After an Order Granting a Summary
Judgment Motion October 28, 2021. Hon. Christopher Krueger -The
Sacrament Superior Court Wrongful Termination Case Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California Case No. 34-2013-
00155479
On October 14, 2022, I alerted the Commission on Judicial Performance via fax of my
latest unusual experiences with the two Sacramento Courts (Superior court and 3DCA) staff
related to my pending appeal in a wrongful termination lawsuit against the University of
California (UC) administrators from the UC Office of the President (UCOP) or UC Regents
in general.
Case No. 34-2013-00155479 was filed nine years ago, on December 4, 2013, and
has not been resolved. The Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (b), mandates
the dismissal of actions not brought to trial within five years after a complaint is filed;
1
Response to CJP letter dated 11/1/2022- Mary Harvey
however, it was not the intention or desire of the Sacramento Courts or UC administrators’
attorneys from Porter Scott to try the case because millions of dollars tax evasion and fraud
committed by UC white collar criminals and because of my other case, which is a Writ Of
Mandamus case regarding my stolen unemployment insurance benefits in 2014 -Jaroslaw
Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and the Regents
of the University of California as the Real Party in Interest (RPii), Case No. 34-2013-
80001699-CUWMGDS, 3DCA Case No. 079254, the Supreme Court of California Case
Nos. S253713 & S245879, was filed on December 2, 2013.
NOVEMBER 1, 2022 LETTER TO THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE SECRETARY TO STAFF COUNSEL MARY HARVEY
We have read your communication. It does not pertain to the work of the
Commission on Judicial Performance, which is responsible for handling
complaints against California state court judges for judicial misconduct.
Mary Harvey
Six years earlier, on August 24, 2016, Ms. Harvey sent me a similar letter which stated:
(Attachment #2)
August 24, 2016