Preview
James C. Sanchez, SBN 116356
Wiley R. Driskill, SBN 253913 E-FILED
LOZANO SMITH 3/22/2021 10:28 AM
7404 N. Spalding Avenue Superior Court of California
Fresno, CA 93720-3370 County of Fresno
Tel: 559~43 1-5600 By: C. York, Deputy
Fax: 559-261-9366
Email: wdriskill@lozanosmith.com
COOVO\UI-5WNH
Attorneys for Respondent,
CITY OF FRESNO CIVIL SERVICE BOARD
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F FRESNO
CHRISTOPHER DESMOND, Case No. 21CECG00462
937206370
Petitioner, ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CA559-261-9366
MANDAMUS UNDER CCP §1094.5
v.
SMITH
Fresno,
Fax CITY 0F FRESNO CIVIL SERVICE BOARD,
Avenue
-5600
LOZANO
1 Respondent,
559-43
Spalding CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,
Tcl
N. NNNNNNNNNH—In—It—Ir—Iu—ny—n—np—Au—a
Real Parties in Interest/Respondent.
7404
WQQM$MNHOWWQQM3WNflo
Respondent CITY OF FRESNO CIVIL SERVICE BOARD (hereinafier “Respondent”) responds
to Petitioner CHRISTOPHER DESMOND’S (hereinafter “Petitioner”), Petition for Writ of Mandamus
on file herein as follows:
Pursuant to Sections 431.30(d) and 446 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Respondent
City of Fresno Civil Service Board (“Respondent”) generally denies all material allegations of the
Petition, or any purported damages arising as a consequence thereof, if any, and further denies that
Petitioner has been damaged, or will be damaged, in any sum or sums whatsoever, as a purported
consequence thereof.
///
Answer to Petitioner’s Petition for - 1- Desmond v. City afFresno Civil Service Board
Writ of Mandamus Under CCP§1094.5 Case No. 20CEC0000462
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Failure to State a Cause of Action
1. AS AND FOR A FIRST AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent
alleges that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandate and each claim therein alleged fails to state facts
\OOOQO\U}-bUJND-‘
sufficient to constitute a claim against Respondent.
Estogpel
2. AS AND FOR A SECOND AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent
alleges that Petitioner is barred from proceeding with this Petition, in whole or in part, based on the
doctrine of estoppel.
ME
3. AS AND FOR A THIRD AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent
93720-3370
alleges that Petitioner is barred from proceeding with this petition, in whole or in part, based on the
CA559-261-9366
doctrine of waiver.
SMITH
Fresno,
Fax Legal Compliance
Avenue
LOZANO
559-431-5600
4. AS AND FOR A FOURTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent
Spalding
alleges that the claims and relief sought by Petitioner in the petition are barred because all codes, laws,
Tel
N.
regulations and standards were complied with by Respondent.
7404
NNNNNNNNNr—nn—IH—tr—Ir—tr—IHHH
Statute of Limitations
5. AS AND FOR A FIFTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent
WNONUI-bUJNV-‘OOOOQQUIAUJNt-‘O
states and alleges that Petitioner's requested relief is barred by the statute of limitations.
Unclean hands
6. AS AND FOR A SIXTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondents
allege that Petitioner is barred from proceeding with this writ petition, in whole or in part, based on its
unclean hands.
Failure to Exhaust AgmiLBtrative Procem
7. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
Respondent states and alleges that Petitioner has not exhausted all administrative procedures, including
compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act.
Answer to Petitioner’s Petition for -2 - Desmond v. City ofFresno Civil Service Board
Writ of Mandamus Under CCP§ 1094.5 Case No. 20CECGOOO462
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
8. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
Respondent alleges that Petitioner has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by failing to raise the
exact issues he now raises during available administrative proceedings and are therefore barred from
\OOOVONUI-PUJNr—t
raising these issues.
Administrative Record
9. AS AND FOR AN NINTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent
states and alleges that Petitioner has failed to provide a complete administrative record.
Injustice
O
n—I
10. AS AND FOR AN TENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent
n—A
H states and alleges the Petition must be denied, since granting this Petition would work an injustice upon
93720-3370
N
p—n
Respondent, introduce confusion and disorder to the workings of Respondent, operate harshly, and not
CA559-261-9366
w
n—I
promote substantial justice.
SMITH
Fresno,
Fax A
n—n
Petition is Uncertain
Avenue
LOZANO Ur
p—I
559-431-5600
11. AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
O\
1—:
Spalding
Respondent states and alleges the Petition, as asserted, is uncertain and subject to dismissal under
Tel
N.
fl
r—n
California Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subd. (f).
7404
00
r—t
Lawful Conduct
H \O 12. AS AND FOR AN TWELFTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
NO Respondent states and alleges the Petition and each and every purported cause of action and remedy
NH asserted therein is barred because the conduct of the Respondent was lawful.
NN Good Faith
N DJ 13. AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
N-b Respondent states and alleges all actions taken by ReSpondent, and its agents and officers, were taken in
N U! good faith and arose out of a good faith interpretation of the statutes, charters, ordinances and facts
N ON binding the Respondent and the Petitioner.
Nfl ///
N 00 ///
Answer to Petitioner’s Petition for -3 - Desmond v. City ofFresno Civil Service Board
Writ of Mandamus Under CCP§ l094.5 Case No. 20CECGOOO462
Governmental Immunig
14. AS AND FOR AN FOURTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
Respondent alleges that Petitioner’s claims are barred under the doctrine of governmental immunity
such as absolute immunity or qualified immunity, including but not limited to, California Government
Code Sections 815, 815.2(b), 818.2, 820.2, 820.8, and 821.6.
\OOOQQUI-hUJNH
Separation 0f Powers Doctrine
15. AS AND FOR AN FIFTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
Respondent states and alleges that Petitioner is improperly requesting that the Court violate the
separation of powers doctrine by according insufficient deference to the interpretation of the City
Charter adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno and codified in the Fresno Municipal Code.
Privilege
93720-3370
-9366
16. AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
l
CA
559-26
Respondent alleges that any and all of the acts complained of by Petitioner in his Petition for Writ of
SMITH
Fresno,
Fax Administrative Mandamus are privileged as provided, inter alia, under Civil Code section 47.
Avenue
1-5600
LOZANO
Exercise of Discretion
559-43
Spalding 17. AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
Tel
N.
Respondent alleges that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus cannot be used to
NNNNNNNNNr—‘Hn—Ap—nt—IHv—Ir—t—AH
7404
compel the exercise of discretion by Respondent.
18. Respondent
OOQQUI-RUJNHOWOOQmUl-hUJN—‘O
reserves the right to amend its response, to assert additional affirmative
defenses and to supplement, alter or change its response and defenses upon revelation of more definitive
facts by Petitioner, and upon the undertaking of discovery and investigation of this matter
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
Answer to Petitioner’s Petition for - 4 - Desmond v. City ofFresno Civil Service Board
Writ of Mandamus Under CCP§1094.5 Case No. 20CECGOOO462
RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Fresno Civil Service Board prays as follows:
1. This Court enter an order denying Petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus;
2. Petitioner take nothing by way of the proceeding;
3. Respondent recover its costs 0f suit, and
4. For such further and additional relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: March 22, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
LOZANO SMITH
93720-3370
CITY OF FRESNO CIVIL SERVICE BOARD
CA 559-26l-9366
SMlTl-l
Fresno,
Fax
Avcnue
LOZANO
559-431-5600
Spalding
Tel
N.
7404 mfio‘m-wafiooooflQm-PWNflOOWNQ
NNNNNNNNNr—Aflh—At—‘p—np—An—‘p—d—H
J:\wdocs\03466\003\PLD\00862 794.DOCX
Answer t0 Petitioner’s Petition for Desmond v. City ofFresno Civil Service Board
Writ of Mandamus Under CCP§1094.5 Case No. 20CECG000462
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Elva Rizzo, am employed in the County 0f Fresno, State 0f California. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled cause; my business address is 7404 North Spalding
Avenue, Fresno, California 93720.
On March 22, 2021, I served the attached document(s) entitled ANSWER TO PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER CCP §1094.5 on the interested parties in said cause, by placing a
true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed below and Icaused delivery to be made by the
mode of service indicated:
\OOONQUI-b
Harry S. Stem Douglas T. Sloan, City Attorney
Jacob A. Kalinski Tina Griffin, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Gidian R. Mellk CITY OF FRESNO
RAINS LUCIA STER ST. PHALE 2600 Fresno Street, Room 2031
& SILVER, PC Fresno, CA 93721
220 Montgomery Street, 15‘“ Fl. Attorneysfor Respondent City ofFresno
O
p—I
San Francisco, CA 94104
p—t
>-‘
Tel: (415) 341-9341 James B. Betts, Esq.
93720-3370 Email: HStem@RLSlawvers.com Joseph D. Rubin, Esq.
N
n—t
JKalilnski@RLSlawyers.com BETTS & RUBIN, A Professional Corporation
CA559-26l—9366 GMellk@RLSlawvers.com 907 Santa Fe Avenue, Suite 201
DJ
p—t
Attorneysfor Petitioner Fresno, CA 93721
SMI’I’H
Fresno,
Telephone: (559) 438-8500
FaxH -h
Facsimile: (559) 438-8500
Avenue
LOZANO
H
U1 Attorneysfor Respondent City ofFresno
559-431-5600
ON
p—A
Spalding
[X] (Regular U.S. Mail) on all parties in said action in accordance with Code 0f Civil Procedure Section
'l'cl 1013, by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed ina sealed envelope in a designated area
N.
\l
h—I
for outgoing mail, addressed as set forth above, at Lozano Smith, which mail placed in that
7404
designated area isgiven the correct amount 0f postage and is deposited at the Post Office that same
00
h—fi
day, in the ordinary course 0f business, in a United States mailbox in the County of Fresno.
\O
h—‘
[ ] (By Federal Express/Ovemight Mail) on all parties in said action by depositing a true and correct
NO copy thereof in a sealed envelope/packet for overnight mail delivery, with charges thereon fully paid,
in a Federal Express collection box, at Fresno, California, and addressed as set forth above.
N '—‘
[ ] (By Electronic Mail) on all parties in said action by transmitting a true and correct to the persons at
N [\J
the email addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission,
any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
N DJ
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing istrue
N -b
and correct. Executed on March 22, 2021, at Fresno, California.
N UI
N ON
i/mn
Elva Rizz p
Nfl
N 00
Answer to Petitioner’s Petition for -6 ~ Desmond v. City ofFresno Civil Service Board
Writ of Mandamus Under CCP§ 1094.5 Case No. 20CECGOOO462
Preview
James C. Sanchez, SBN 116356 Wiley R. Driskill, SBN 253913 E-FILED LOZANO SMITH 3/22/2021 10:28 AM 7404 N. Spalding Avenue Superior Court of California Fresno, CA 93720-3370 County of Fresno Tel: 559~43 1-5600 By: C. York, Deputy Fax: 559-261-9366 Email: wdriskill@lozanosmith.com COOVO\UI-5WNH Attorneys for Respondent, CITY OF FRESNO CIVIL SERVICE BOARD SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F FRESNO CHRISTOPHER DESMOND, Case No. 21CECG00462 937206370 Petitioner, ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CA559-261-9366 MANDAMUS UNDER CCP §1094.5 v. SMITH Fresno, Fax CITY 0F FRESNO CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, Avenue -5600 LOZANO 1 Respondent, 559-43 Spalding CITY OF FRESNO, et al., Tcl N. NNNNNNNNNH—In—It—Ir—Iu—ny—n—np—Au—a Real Parties in Interest/Respondent. 7404 WQQM$MNHOWWQQM3WNflo Respondent CITY OF FRESNO CIVIL SERVICE BOARD (hereinafier “Respondent”) responds to Petitioner CHRISTOPHER DESMOND’S (hereinafter “Petitioner”), Petition for Writ of Mandamus on file herein as follows: Pursuant to Sections 431.30(d) and 446 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Respondent City of Fresno Civil Service Board (“Respondent”) generally denies all material allegations of the Petition, or any purported damages arising as a consequence thereof, if any, and further denies that Petitioner has been damaged, or will be damaged, in any sum or sums whatsoever, as a purported consequence thereof. /// Answer to Petitioner’s Petition for - 1- Desmond v. City afFresno Civil Service Board Writ of Mandamus Under CCP§1094.5 Case No. 20CEC0000462 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Failure to State a Cause of Action 1. AS AND FOR A FIRST AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent alleges that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandate and each claim therein alleged fails to state facts \OOOQO\U}-bUJND-‘ sufficient to constitute a claim against Respondent. Estogpel 2. AS AND FOR A SECOND AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent alleges that Petitioner is barred from proceeding with this Petition, in whole or in part, based on the doctrine of estoppel. ME 3. AS AND FOR A THIRD AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent 93720-3370 alleges that Petitioner is barred from proceeding with this petition, in whole or in part, based on the CA559-261-9366 doctrine of waiver. SMITH Fresno, Fax Legal Compliance Avenue LOZANO 559-431-5600 4. AS AND FOR A FOURTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent Spalding alleges that the claims and relief sought by Petitioner in the petition are barred because all codes, laws, Tel N. regulations and standards were complied with by Respondent. 7404 NNNNNNNNNr—nn—IH—tr—Ir—tr—IHHH Statute of Limitations 5. AS AND FOR A FIFTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent WNONUI-bUJNV-‘OOOOQQUIAUJNt-‘O states and alleges that Petitioner's requested relief is barred by the statute of limitations. Unclean hands 6. AS AND FOR A SIXTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondents allege that Petitioner is barred from proceeding with this writ petition, in whole or in part, based on its unclean hands. Failure to Exhaust AgmiLBtrative Procem 7. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent states and alleges that Petitioner has not exhausted all administrative procedures, including compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act. Answer to Petitioner’s Petition for -2 - Desmond v. City ofFresno Civil Service Board Writ of Mandamus Under CCP§ 1094.5 Case No. 20CECGOOO462 Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies 8. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent alleges that Petitioner has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by failing to raise the exact issues he now raises during available administrative proceedings and are therefore barred from \OOOVONUI-PUJNr—t raising these issues. Administrative Record 9. AS AND FOR AN NINTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent states and alleges that Petitioner has failed to provide a complete administrative record. Injustice O n—I 10. AS AND FOR AN TENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent n—A H states and alleges the Petition must be denied, since granting this Petition would work an injustice upon 93720-3370 N p—n Respondent, introduce confusion and disorder to the workings of Respondent, operate harshly, and not CA559-261-9366 w n—I promote substantial justice. SMITH Fresno, Fax A n—n Petition is Uncertain Avenue LOZANO Ur p—I 559-431-5600 11. AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, O\ 1—: Spalding Respondent states and alleges the Petition, as asserted, is uncertain and subject to dismissal under Tel N. fl r—n California Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subd. (f). 7404 00 r—t Lawful Conduct H \O 12. AS AND FOR AN TWELFTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, NO Respondent states and alleges the Petition and each and every purported cause of action and remedy NH asserted therein is barred because the conduct of the Respondent was lawful. NN Good Faith N DJ 13. AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, N-b Respondent states and alleges all actions taken by ReSpondent, and its agents and officers, were taken in N U! good faith and arose out of a good faith interpretation of the statutes, charters, ordinances and facts N ON binding the Respondent and the Petitioner. Nfl /// N 00 /// Answer to Petitioner’s Petition for -3 - Desmond v. City ofFresno Civil Service Board Writ of Mandamus Under CCP§ l094.5 Case No. 20CECGOOO462 Governmental Immunig 14. AS AND FOR AN FOURTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent alleges that Petitioner’s claims are barred under the doctrine of governmental immunity such as absolute immunity or qualified immunity, including but not limited to, California Government Code Sections 815, 815.2(b), 818.2, 820.2, 820.8, and 821.6. \OOOQQUI-hUJNH Separation 0f Powers Doctrine 15. AS AND FOR AN FIFTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Respondent states and alleges that Petitioner is improperly requesting that the Court violate the separation of powers doctrine by according insufficient deference to the interpretation of the City Charter adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno and codified in the Fresno Municipal Code. Privilege 93720-3370 -9366 16. AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, l CA 559-26 Respondent alleges that any and all of the acts complained of by Petitioner in his Petition for Writ of SMITH Fresno, Fax Administrative Mandamus are privileged as provided, inter alia, under Civil Code section 47. Avenue 1-5600 LOZANO Exercise of Discretion 559-43 Spalding 17. AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Tel N. Respondent alleges that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus cannot be used to NNNNNNNNNr—‘Hn—Ap—nt—IHv—Ir—t—AH 7404 compel the exercise of discretion by Respondent. 18. Respondent OOQQUI-RUJNHOWOOQmUl-hUJN—‘O reserves the right to amend its response, to assert additional affirmative defenses and to supplement, alter or change its response and defenses upon revelation of more definitive facts by Petitioner, and upon the undertaking of discovery and investigation of this matter /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Answer to Petitioner’s Petition for - 4 - Desmond v. City ofFresno Civil Service Board Writ of Mandamus Under CCP§1094.5 Case No. 20CECGOOO462 RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Fresno Civil Service Board prays as follows: 1. This Court enter an order denying Petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus; 2. Petitioner take nothing by way of the proceeding; 3. Respondent recover its costs 0f suit, and 4. For such further and additional relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Dated: March 22, 2021 Respectfully submitted, LOZANO SMITH 93720-3370 CITY OF FRESNO CIVIL SERVICE BOARD CA 559-26l-9366 SMlTl-l Fresno, Fax Avcnue LOZANO 559-431-5600 Spalding Tel N. 7404 mfio‘m-wafiooooflQm-PWNflOOWNQ NNNNNNNNNr—Aflh—At—‘p—np—An—‘p—d—H J:\wdocs\03466\003\PLD\00862 794.DOCX Answer t0 Petitioner’s Petition for Desmond v. City ofFresno Civil Service Board Writ of Mandamus Under CCP§1094.5 Case No. 20CECG000462 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Elva Rizzo, am employed in the County 0f Fresno, State 0f California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled cause; my business address is 7404 North Spalding Avenue, Fresno, California 93720. On March 22, 2021, I served the attached document(s) entitled ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER CCP §1094.5 on the interested parties in said cause, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed below and Icaused delivery to be made by the mode of service indicated: \OOONQUI-b Harry S. Stem Douglas T. Sloan, City Attorney Jacob A. Kalinski Tina Griffin, Chief Assistant City Attorney Gidian R. Mellk CITY OF FRESNO RAINS LUCIA STER ST. PHALE 2600 Fresno Street, Room 2031 & SILVER, PC Fresno, CA 93721 220 Montgomery Street, 15‘“ Fl. Attorneysfor Respondent City ofFresno O p—I San Francisco, CA 94104 p—t >-‘ Tel: (415) 341-9341 James B. Betts, Esq. 93720-3370 Email: HStem@RLSlawvers.com Joseph D. Rubin, Esq. N n—t JKalilnski@RLSlawyers.com BETTS & RUBIN, A Professional Corporation CA559-26l—9366 GMellk@RLSlawvers.com 907 Santa Fe Avenue, Suite 201 DJ p—t Attorneysfor Petitioner Fresno, CA 93721 SMI’I’H Fresno, Telephone: (559) 438-8500 FaxH -h Facsimile: (559) 438-8500 Avenue LOZANO H U1 Attorneysfor Respondent City ofFresno 559-431-5600 ON p—A Spalding [X] (Regular U.S. Mail) on all parties in said action in accordance with Code 0f Civil Procedure Section 'l'cl 1013, by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed ina sealed envelope in a designated area N. \l h—I for outgoing mail, addressed as set forth above, at Lozano Smith, which mail placed in that 7404 designated area isgiven the correct amount 0f postage and is deposited at the Post Office that same 00 h—fi day, in the ordinary course 0f business, in a United States mailbox in the County of Fresno. \O h—‘ [ ] (By Federal Express/Ovemight Mail) on all parties in said action by depositing a true and correct NO copy thereof in a sealed envelope/packet for overnight mail delivery, with charges thereon fully paid, in a Federal Express collection box, at Fresno, California, and addressed as set forth above. N '—‘ [ ] (By Electronic Mail) on all parties in said action by transmitting a true and correct to the persons at N [\J the email addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. N DJ I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing istrue N -b and correct. Executed on March 22, 2021, at Fresno, California. N UI N ON i/mn Elva Rizz p Nfl N 00 Answer to Petitioner’s Petition for -6 ~ Desmond v. City ofFresno Civil Service Board Writ of Mandamus Under CCP§ 1094.5 Case No. 20CECGOOO462