Complaint,Petition: PENA VS. PACHECO

On September 08, 2022 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Pena, Douglas, and Mejia, Joel, Pacheco, Catalina, for 26: Unlimited Other Real Property-eFile in the District Court of Contra Costa County.

Preview
0001

Electronically Filed Superior Court of CA County of Contra Costa 9/8/2022 2:42 PM By: B. Pool, Deputy

1 Carleton L. Briggs, 117361
LAW OFFICES OF CARLETON L. BRIGGS
2 740 Fourth Street, Suite 202
Santa Rosa, California 95404-4421
3 Telephone: (707) 523-2251
Facsimile: (707) 523-2253
4 E-mail: clbriggs@sonic.net
5 Dale C. Miller, 321314
LAW OFFICES OF DALE C. MILLER
6 740 Fourth Street, Suite 208
Santa Rosa, California 95404-4421
7 Telephone: (707) 543-1620
Facsimile: (707) 473-2550
8 E-mail: dale@dalemillerlaw.com
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff
DOUGLAS PENA
10

12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
14 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
15
C22-01909
16 DOUGLAS PENA, an individual, Case No.
17 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
1. To Set Aside Voidable Transaction
18 2. To Set Aside Constructive
v. Fraudulent Conveyance
19 3. Conspiracy
CATALINA PACHECO, an individual; and 4. Fraudulent Conveyance (PC § 531)
20 JOEL MEJIA, an individual,
21 Defendants.
22

24
Per local Rule, This case is assigned to
25 Judge Maier, Clare, for all purposes.
26

-1-
COMPLAINT
0002

1 Plaintiff alleges:
2 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
3 1. Catalina Pacheco (“Pacheco”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident
4 of Contra Costa County, California.
5 2. Joel Mejia (“Mejia”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of
6 Contra Costa County, California.
7 3. From 2008 until August 12, 2021, “Mejia” owned real property located at 1941
8 Morro Drive, Pittsburg, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number 073-261-083 (“Subject Property”),
9 more particularly described on the Grant Deed attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. The Subject
10 Property is a four-bedroom, two-bathroom, single family residence.
11 4. On information and belief, Mejia has not resided at the Subject Property since
12 2014. Rather, the Subject Property produced rental income for Mejia. Since 2014, Mejia has
13 resided and maintains a domestic relationship with Co-Defendant Pacheco at 153 Maidenhair
14 Street, Pittsburg, California.
15 5. On February 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a civil action against Mejia in the Contra
16 Costa County Superior Court, Case number MSC21-00232, seeking damages for tortious acts
17 Mejia conducted against Plaintiff. (Exhibit “B”.)
18 6. On May 14, 2021, Plaintiff obtained a Civil Harassment Restraining Order
19 directed at Mejia. (Exhibit “C”) Mejia was ordered to refrain from specified conduct and to stay
20 at least 150 feet away from Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family. (Exhibit “C”.)
21 7. On July 13, 2021, Mejia appealed the Civil Harassment Restraining Order to the
22 First District, California Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
23 8. On July 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed and served on Mejia’s retained counsel, a Notice
24 of Motion and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (Exhibit “D”.)
25 9. On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed and served an Amended Notice of Motion and
26 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (Exhibit “E”.)
27

28
-2-
COMPLAINT
0003

1 10. On August 12, 2021, Mejia transferred the Subject Property to Pacheco by grant
2 deed, which was recorded in the Contra Costa County Recorder’s Office at document number
3 2021-0225448. (Exhibit “F”.)
4 11. On September 15, 2021, Mejia was ordered to pay Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees in
5 the amount of $35,150.00. (Exhibit “G”.) This order to pay attorney’s fees sets forth Plaintiff’s
6 current claim against Mejia. Because litigation between Plaintiff and Mejia is ongoing, Plaintiff
7 may accrue additional claims against Mejia and/or Pacheco.
8 12. An Abstract of Judgment on the order to pay attorney’s fees was issued on
9 October 20, 2021, which was recorded in the Contra Costa County Recorder’s Office on October
10 21, 2021. (Exhibit “H”.) The judgment has never been appealed, the time for appealing has
11 expired, and it has never been vacated or modified. Plaintiff is still the owner of the judgment of
12 which no part has been satisfied.
13

14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against all Defendants)
15 (Set Aside Fraudulent Transfer)
16 13. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full, paragraphs 1
17 through 12.
18 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Mejia’s transfer of the
19 Subject Property to Pacheco was made with an actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud plaintiff
20 in the collection of his current claim, as well as future potential claims accruing to Plaintiff.
21 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Mejia did not receive
22 reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Subject Property. Documentary transfer tax for
23 real property transfers is set at 55 cents for every $500 in value transferred. Rev & Tax §§11901-
24 11934. Because the transfer tax stated on the grant deed conveying title to Pacheco was $288.20
25 (Exhibit “F”), the declared value exchanged for the transfer was $262,000. Therefore, in
26 exchange for the transfer, Mejia received no more than $262,000.00. An appraiser has estimated
27 the value of the Subject Property at the time the transfer to have been $490,000. (Exhibit “I”.)
28 Thus, Mejia did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Subject Property.
-3-
COMPLAINT
0004

1 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Subject Property
2 was received by defendant Pacheco with knowledge that defendant Mejia intended to hinder,
3 delay, or defraud the collection of Plaintiff’s aforementioned claim. Defendant Pacheco had such
4 knowledge by virtue of Pacheco’s close domestic relationship with Mejia and her involvement in
5 the litigation between Mejia and Plaintiff.
6

7 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against all Defendants)
8 (Alternatively, Constructive Fraudulent Transfer)
9 17. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full, paragraphs 1
10 through 12, 15 and 16.
11 18. Mejia retained counsel to meet both actions. Mejia aggressively defended the
12 restraining order action and continues to aggressively defend the civil action. Mejia filed an
13 appeal in the restraining order action. Mejia was served notice of a motion for attorneys’ fees and
14 was served notice of an amended motion for attorneys’ fees, which Mejia also opposed.
15 Therefore, at the time of transferring the Subject Property, Mejia believed, or reasonably should
16 have believed, that he would incur debts related to litigation between Plaintiff and himself.
17 19. Mejia did not receive a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for transferring
18 the Subject Property.
19 20. Because Mejia has not satisfied any part of Plaintiff’s lawful and enforceable
20 judgment, nor does it appear Mejia has the means to do so with any other asset, Plaintiff has been
21 harmed.
22 21. Mejia knew or should have known that litigation expenses were accruing. By
23 transferring title of the subject property to Defendant for an amount below market value, Mejia’s
24 actions were a substantial factor in Plaintiff’s harm.
25

28
-4-
COMPLAINT
0005

1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against all Defendants)
2 (Conspiracy)
3 22. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full, paragraphs 1
4 through 16.
5 23. As alleged above, on or before August 12, 2021, defendants Mejia and Pacheco
6 agreed and knowingly and willfully conspired between themselves to hinder, delay, and defraud
7 Plaintiff in the collection of his claim against Mejia.
8 24. Under this conspiracy, Mejia and Pacheco agreed that they should transfer title of
9 the Subject Property from Mejia to Pacheco and that Pacheco should receive and collect the
10 rental income therefrom.
11 25. Defendants Mejia and Pacheco did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant to,
12 and in furtherance of, the conspiracy and agreement alleged above.
13 26. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts herein alleged, Plaintiff has been
14 generally damaged in an amount to be proven.
15 27. At all times mentioned herein, defendants Pacheco and Mejia knew of Plaintiff’s
16 claim against Mejia and knew that Plaintiff’s claim could only be satisfied out of the Subject
17 Property. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants Pacheco and Mejia intentionally,
18 willfully, fraudulently, and maliciously did the things herein alleged to defraud and oppress
19 Plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to exemplary or punitive damages.
20

21 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against all Defendants)
22 (Fraudulent Conveyance; Penal Code § 531)
23 28. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full, paragraphs 1
24 through 27.
25 29. Defendants Pacheco and Mejia are parties to a fraudulent conveyance of land and
26 Plaintiff’s right or interest therein.
27

28
-5-
COMPLAINT
0006

1 30. Defendants Pacheco and Mejia transferred and conveyed the Subject Property
2 with intent to deceive and defraud Plaintiff, or to defeat, hinder, or delay Plaintiff, a creditor of
3 Mejia.
4

5 PRAYER
6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
7 On the First Cause of Action:
8 1. For an order setting aside the transfer from Mejia to Defendant;
9 On the Second Cause of Action:
10 2. For an order setting aside the transfer from Mejia to Defendant;
11 On the Third Cause of Action:
12 3. For general damages in an amount to be proven;
13 4. For exemplary or punitive damages.
14 For All Causes of Action
15 5. For costs of suit herein incurred; and
16 6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
17

18 Dated: September 7, 2022 Law Offices of Dale C. Miller
19

21 _______________________________
DALE C. MILLER
22 Attorneys for Plaintiff DOUGLAS PENA
23

28
-6-
COMPLAINT
0007

1 VERIFICATION

2 I, Douglas Pena, am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing
3 complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to
4 those matters which are therein alleged on infonnation and beliet: and as to those matters, I
5 believe it to be true.
6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
7 foregoing is true and correct.
8

9 Dated: September--5 , 2022
10
11

12
13

15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
COMPLAINT
0008
0009
0010
0011
0012
0013

J Cl\RLETON L. BRIGGS, SHN 117361
Law Offices of Carleton L. Briggs
2 740 Fourth Street, Suite 202
Santa Rosa, California 95404-4421
3 Telephone: (707) 523-2251, Cell: (707) 280-6323
Facsimile: (707) 523-2253
4 E-mail: clb1iggs@sonic.net
k ltU k l H 1 J •to " f••• , •Ii.H I

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff DOUGLAS PENA Dy,_ _SUt•t _IUOH
I ' ..... 1 '•I 1.:A1ii '"*'""''
·- ..... ,
COUNIYOI ,,C>fl.tlV\C.,t:;tA

8 SUPERIOR CO URT OF CALIFORNIA

s COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA - UNLIMITED .JURISDICTION
:;o \VAKEFIELD TAYLOR COURTHOUSE

JJ
DOUGLAS PENA, an individual, Case No.
c21-002s2-
Plaintiff, coMPLAINT FOR:
13 VS. l . Defamation [Libel]
1LI
2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional
JOEL MEJIA, an individual; and DOES Distress
1-10, inclusive, 3. Violation of Tom Banc Civil Rights Act
4. Violation of Penal Code § 528.5
Defendants.
16

17
PER LOCAL RULE THI
18 CASE IS ASSIGNED TOS

_
10
_, PURPOSES
Plaintiff alleges:
20
1. Defendant JOEL MEJIA ("Mejia") is. and at all times herein mentioned was.
21 a resident of the City of Pit1sburg, County of Contra Costa, State of California.
//
2. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued
23
herein as DOES 1-10. inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious
)tj
names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacilies when

ascertained. (Plaintiff is infonned and believes and thereon alleges that each of the
26
fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occmTences herein
2/
alleged, and that Plaintiffs damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by their

1
Complaint
0014

ϭ conduct.)
Ϯ 3. Defendants at all times herein mentioned were the agents and employees of
ϯ their co-defendants and in doing the things hereinafter alleged were acting within the
ϰ course and scope of such agency and the permission and consent of their co-defendants.
ϱ 4. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff DOUGLAS PENA (“Pena”) was, and
ϲ now is, a finance professional with over 20 years of experience at insured depository
ϳ institutions and resides in the City of Pinole, County of Contra Costa, State of California.
ϴ Plaintiff has resided in the City of Pinole for 19 years and at all times has enjoyed a good
ϵ reputation both generally and in his occupation.
ϭϬ

ϭϭ COMMON ALLEGATIONS
ϭϮ 5. Since February 13, 2020, Plaintiff and his family have been subjected by
ϭϯ Defendant Mejia to a campaign of continuous harassment and intimidation involving
ϭϰ threats of physical violence. Plaintiff has received many calls to his home telephone line
ϭϱ from a male with a voice that Plaintiff recognized as Defendant Mejia, the boyfriend of a
ϭϲ former co-worker. He has called or texted numerous times during a single day, and he has
ϭϳ exhibited this harassing behavior a multitude of times. Mejia left voice messages that
ϭϴ were vulgar, demeaning, taunting and with a threatening tone.
ϭϵ 6. In addition to the calls and voice messages, Defendant Mejia has sent many
ϮϬ highly disturbing, vile and obscene text messages insulting Plaintiff and his family, and
Ϯϭ threatening to inflict harm, including physical violence, even on Plaintiff’s 15-year old
ϮϮ son, 19-year old daughter and wife. Attached hereto as Exhibit A, and by reference made
Ϯϯ a part hereof, are copies of selected messages received from Defendant Mejia (highlights
Ϯϰ added) to a phone that Plaintiff and his wife own and that is used by Plaintiff’s wife.
Ϯϱ Mejia has also left messages on Plaintiff’s brother’s and sister’s phones, and has
Ϯϲ attempted to contact Plaintiff’s wife directly.
Ϯϳ

Ϯϴ

&RPSODLQW
0015

ϭ 7. At least on one occasion, Mejia came to Plaintiff’s house in the middle of the
Ϯ night and distributed flyers around the neighborhood that make false and highly
ϯ defamatory statements about Plaintiff and his former employment. The flyers provided
ϰ Plaintiff’s name, home address and a photo of his house. In a subsequent text message,
ϱ Mejia threatened to post the same flyers at Plaintiff’s minor son’s school. Defendant
ϲ Mejia also disseminated the “flyers” through Plaintiff’s neighborhood via the e-mail list
ϳ of nextdoor.com by creating an impersonating account under Plaintiff’s name “Doug
ϴ Pena.”
ϵ 8. Mejia e-mailed Plaintiff’s daughter at her college e-mail account using a
ϭϬ spoofed e-mail address to pretend it was from Plaintiff, making false and highly
ϭϭ disturbing statements. On information and belief, e-mails were sent by Defendant Mejia
ϭϮ from an impersonated e-mail under Plaintiff’s name to people at his former place of work,
ϭϯ insulting and defaming Plaintiff, and intimidating the recipients with the sole purpose of
ϭϰ severing Plaintiff’s professional connections and ability to seek employment.
ϭϱ 9. Defendant Mejia has also impersonated Plaintiff through social media
ϭϲ accounts including Twitter and LinkedIn and used them to spread the same falsehoods
ϭϳ about Plaintiff with the sole purpose to inflict emotional distress, harassment and fear to
ϭϴ Plaintiff’s wife, children, and Plaintiff. On multiple occasions, Defendant Mejia noted in
ϭϵ his voice messages to check out “douglaspena.com.” Plaintiff later came to learn that a
ϮϬ website had been created disseminating falsehoods about him. It is also clear from the
Ϯϭ many voice and text messages, that Defendant Mejia’s calculated and malicious actions in
ϮϮ perpetrating this harassment, impersonation, and defamation are intended to prevent
Ϯϯ Plaintiff from ever obtaining employment, to inflict emotional distress on Plaintiff and his
Ϯϰ family, and to force them to live in fear of how far Mejia might go in carrying out his
Ϯϱ threats.
Ϯϲ 10. The similarity of the tone and content between the voice and text messages,
Ϯϳ the content of the impersonating social media and website postings, and the flyers leave
Ϯϴ

&RPSODLQW
0016

ϭ no reasonable doubt as to the identity of the person orchestrating this campaign,
Ϯ Defendant Mejia. The fact that he uses many different (likely spoofed) telephone numbers
ϯ and impersonating accounts shows that he is committed to the use of deceitful and
ϰ evasive actions in his abuse against Plaintiff and his family.
ϱ 11. Defendant Mejia has published in printed “flyers,” on the internet, and in e-
ϲ mails sent to different individuals multiple false and defamatory representations about
ϳ Plaintiff, including that Plaintiff is a sexual predator and harasser and related false
ϴ accusations. Attached hereto as Exhibit B, and by reference made a part hereof, are
ϵ selected examples of same.
ϭϬ

ϭϭ FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
ϭϮ DEFAMATION (LIBEL)
ϭϯ (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
ϭϰ 12. Paragraphs 1–11 are part of this cause of action.
ϭϱ 13. The publications attached hereto as Exhibit B were made of and concerning
ϭϲ the Plaintiff and were so understood by those who read the publications.
ϭϳ 14. The publications were each false as they pertain to the Plaintiff, and they
ϭϴ were made with the intent to harm the Plaintiff’s personal and professional reputation.
ϭϵ 15. Each publication is libel per se, that is, libelous on its face because it charges
ϮϬ plaintiff with improper and immoral conduct, and it has a tendency to injure the plaintiff
Ϯϭ in his profession. Each publication is libelous on its face because it subjects the plaintiff
ϮϮ to hatred, contempt, ridicule, obloquy, and humiliation.
Ϯϯ 16. The publications attached hereto as Exhibit B were seen and read by an
Ϯϰ unknown number of persons who reside in and around Pinole, California, within one year
Ϯϱ of the filing of this Complaint.
Ϯϲ 17. As a proximate result of the above-described publications, Plaintiff has
Ϯϳ suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification, severe emotional distress, physical
Ϯϴ

&RPSODLQW
0017

ϭ distress and hurt feelings all to his general damage.
Ϯ 18. As a further proximate result of the above-described publication, Plaintiff has
ϯ suffered the following special damages: injury to Plaintiff’s business, trade, profession, or
ϰ occupation, all to his injury.
ϱ 19. Defendant Mejia was negligent in publishing the publications pertaining to
ϲ the Plaintiff attached as Exhibit B. With ordinary and reasonable care Defendant Mejia
ϳ would have realized or could have discovered that these publications were obviously false
ϴ and grossly libelous as they applied to the Plaintiff.
ϵ 20. Each publication was not privileged because Defendant Mejia published them
ϭϬ with malice, hatred, and ill will toward Plaintiff and with the desire to injure his personal
ϭϭ and professional reputation, as well as published them with knowledge of falsity and
ϭϮ reckless disregard for the truth.
ϭϯ 21. The above-described publications attached hereto as Exhibit B were
ϭϰ published by the Defendant Mejia with malice and oppression and fraud, and thus
ϭϱ Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages.
ϭϲ

ϭϳ SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
ϭϴ INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
ϭϵ (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
ϮϬ 22. Paragraphs 1–21 are part of this cause of action.
Ϯϭ 23. Defendant Mejia knew, or should have known, that his actions in sending
ϮϮ Plaintiff the messages attached hereto as Exhibit A and Defendant’s telephone calls,
Ϯϯ threats and other harassment of Plaintiff as described above would cause Plaintiff to
Ϯϰ suffer severe emotional distress.
Ϯϱ 24. Defendant Mejia’s conduct in sending the messages attached hereto as
Ϯϲ Exhibit A and Defendant’s telephone calls, threats and other harassment of Plaintiff were
Ϯϳ intentional and malicious and done for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to suffer
Ϯϴ

&RPSODLQW
0018

ϭ humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress.
Ϯ 25. Defendant Mejia knew that the publications attached hereto as Exhibit B were
ϯ false. Defendant Mejia also knew that each publication could potentially be read by
ϰ thousands of people in Pinole, California and millions more around the world, via the
ϱ Internet. He had a duty to exercise due care to ensure that anything he published
ϲ concerning Plaintiff was a true and accurate depiction of Plaintiff.
ϳ 26. Defendant Mejia knew, or should have known, that his actions in publishing
ϴ the false and defamatory allegations attached hereto as Exhibit B and Defendant’s
ϵ telephone calls, threats and other harassment of Plaintiff would cause Plaintiff to suffer
ϭϬ severe emotional distress because of the effect on his personal and professional
ϭϭ relationships.
ϭϮ 27. Defendant Mejia’s conduct in publishing the false and defamatory material
ϭϯ about Plaintiff was intentional and malicious and done for the purpose of causing Plaintiff
ϭϰ to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress; and Defendant
ϭϱ Mejia published each of the publications attached hereto as Exhibit B with knowledge of
ϭϲ falsity and reckless disregard for the truth.
ϭϳ 28. As a proximate result of Defendant Mejia’s actions, both defamatory and
ϭϴ non-defamatory, and the consequences they proximately caused, Plaintiff has suffered
ϭϵ severe humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and he has been
ϮϬ damaged in an amount to be proved at trial.
Ϯϭ 29. By reason of the acts alleged above, Plaintiff was prevented from attending to
ϮϮ plaintiff’s usual profession as a finance professional and thereby lost earnings. Plaintiff is
Ϯϯ informed and believes and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff will thereby be prevented from
Ϯϰ attending to Plaintiff’s usual profession for a period in the future which Plaintiff cannot
Ϯϱ ascertain, and will thereby sustain further loss of earnings.
Ϯϲ 30. The acts of Defendant Mejia alleged above were willful, wanton, malicious,
Ϯϳ and oppressive and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages.
Ϯϴ

&RPSODLQW
0019

ϭ THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Ϯ VIOLATION OF TOM BANE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
ϯ (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
ϰ 31. Paragraphs 1–30 are part of this cause of action.
ϱ 32. California Civil Code section 52.1, known as the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act,
ϲ prohibits interference with Plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights accompanied by
ϳ actual or attempted threats, intimidation, or coercion.
ϴ 33. The following text messages were sent by Defendant Mejia:
ϵ • 04/25/2020 text message to Plaintiff’s and his wife’s cell phone: “…You haven’t
ϭϬ seen anything…I will make you that you are the victim…”
ϭϭ • 05/01/2020 text message to Plaintiff’s and his wife’s cell phone: “I am going to
ϭϮ enjoy watching you getting slapped …. In front of you wife and stupid ass kids. You’ll
ϭϯ pay for … and I don’t mean just losing your job.”
ϭϰ • 05/18/2020 text message to Plaintiff’s and his wife’s cell phone: “…You are
ϭϱ going to get FUCKED UP and no matter who you call for help it’s not going to stop the
ϭϲ ass beating you have on the way…Call a lawyer. Call the cops. I’ll go to jail again and
ϭϳ then just be more pissed when I get out…and will take it out on you more.”
ϭϴ • 05/18/2020 text message to Plaintiff’s and his wife’s cell phone: “all that
ϭϵ disrespect that come out of your mouth will cause that same mouth to taste blood. Doug
ϮϬ Pena, I am going to fuck you up…I got something for you though…Hide all you
Ϯϭ want…that day is coming.”
ϮϮ • 05/21/2020 text message to Plaintiff’s and his wife’s cell phone: “But this shoe is
Ϯϯ going to be in your ass because you deserve an ass beating.”
Ϯϰ 34. By the above-listed threats, intimidation or coercion, Defendant Mejia caused
Ϯϱ Plaintiff to reasonably believe that if he exercised his legally protected right to live and
Ϯϲ conduct business safely and peaceably, rights secured by the laws and Constitutions of
Ϯϳ California and the United States; his right to be free from defamation, personal insult, and
Ϯϴ

&RPSODLQW
0020

ϭ injury to personal relations in violation of Civil Code § 43; and his right to be free from
Ϯ harassing phone calls in violation of Penal Code § 653m, Mejia would commit violence
ϯ against Plaintiff or his family and that Defendant Mejia had the apparent ability to carry
ϰ out the threats.
ϱ 35. Defendant Mejia intended to deprive Plaintiff of his enjoyment of the
ϲ interests protected by his right to live and conduct business safely and peaceably, rights
ϳ secured by the laws and Constitutions of California and the United States; his right to be
ϴ free from defamation, personal insult, and injury to personal relations in violation of Civil
ϵ Code § 43; and his right to be free from harassing phone calls in violation of Penal Code
ϭϬ § 653m.
ϭϭ 36. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Mejia’s conduct, Plaintiff has
ϭϮ suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including physical harm and emotional
ϭϯ distress, in an amount to be proven at trial.
ϭϰ 37. The above-described messages and those attached hereto as Exhibit A were
ϭϱ sent, and the above-described publications attached hereto as Exhibit B were published,
ϭϲ by Defendant Mejia with malice and oppression and fraud, and thus Plaintiff seeks an
ϭϳ award of punitive damages.
ϭϴ

ϭϵ FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
ϮϬ VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE § 528.5
Ϯϭ (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
ϮϮ 38. Paragraphs 1–37 are part of this cause of action.
Ϯϯ 39. Defendant Mejia knowingly and without consent credibly impersonated
Ϯϰ Plaintiff through or on an Internet Web site and by other electronic means, including e-
Ϯϱ mail, for purposes of harming, intimidating, and threatening Plaintiff.
Ϯϲ 40. Another person would reasonably believe, and other persons did reasonably
Ϯϳ believe, that Defendant Mejia was Plaintiff Pena, the person impersonated.
Ϯϴ

&RPSODLQW
0021

ϭ 41. As a proximate result of Defendant Mejia’s actions, both defamatory and
Ϯ non-defamatory, and the consequences they proximately caused, Plaintiff has suffered
ϯ severe humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and he has been
ϰ damaged in an amount to be proved at trial.
ϱ 42. The acts of Defendant Mejia alleged above were willful, wanton, malicious,
ϲ fraudulent, and oppressive and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages.
ϳ

ϴ WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, and each of them,
ϵ as follows:
ϭϬ On the First Cause of Action:
ϭϭ 1. For general damages according to proof at trial, within the jurisdictional limit
ϭϮ of this Court;
ϭϯ 2. For special damages according to proof at trial;
ϭϰ 3. For presumed damages;
ϭϱ 4. For punitive and exemplary damages;
ϭϲ 5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
ϭϳ 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper;
ϭϴ On the Second Cause of Action:
ϭϵ 7. For general damages according to proof at trial, within the jurisdictional limit
ϮϬ of this Court;
Ϯϭ 8. For special damages according to proof at trial;
ϮϮ 9. For punitive and exemplary damages;
Ϯϯ 10. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
Ϯϰ 11. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper;
Ϯϱ On the Third Cause of Action:
Ϯϲ 12. For general damages according to proof at trial, within the jurisdictional limit
Ϯϳ of this Court;
Ϯϴ

&RPSODLQW
0022

ϭ 13. For special damages according to proof at trial;
Ϯ 14. For punitive and exemplary damages;
ϯ 15. For reasonable attorneys’ fees;
ϰ 16. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
ϱ 17. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
ϲ On the Fourth Cause of Action:
ϳ 18. For general damages according to proof at trial, within the jurisdictional limit
ϴ of this Court;
ϵ 19. For special damages according to proof at trial;
ϭϬ 20. For punitive and exemplary damages;
ϭϭ 21. For injunctive relief;
ϭϮ 22. For reasonable attorneys’ fees;
ϭϯ 23. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
ϭϰ 24. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
ϭϱ

ϭϲ Dated: January 29, 2021 Law Offices of Carleton L. Briggs
ϭϳ

ϭϴ /s/ Carleton L. Briggs
ϭϵ
CARLETON L. BRIGGS
Attorneys for Plaintiff DOUGLAS PENA
ϮϬ

Ϯϭ

ϮϮ

Ϯϯ

Ϯϰ

Ϯϱ

Ϯϲ

Ϯϳ

Ϯϴ

&RPSODLQW
0023

EXHIBIT A
0024 6XQGD\ )HEUXDU\

$LQ¶WQRIXQZKHQWKHUDEELWJRWWKH
$0
JXQ"

?DWWDFKPHQW SQJ

0DNHVPHKDSS\WRVHHDMRESRVWLQJ
30
EHFDXVHWKH\ILUHG\RXUDVV

3DJH
0025 6XQGD\ )HEUXDU\

0XVWEHKDUGO\LQJWR\RXUIDPLO\WR
GHIHQG\RXUVHOI 7KH\¶OOILQGRXWH[DFWO\
30
ZKR\RXDUH ,W¶VDOORIRXUPLVVLRQVWR
PDNHVXUHWKH\KHDUWKHWUXWK

,ZRQGHULIWKRVHIOLHUVFDQEHSDVVHG
RXWDURXQGFHUWDLQVFKRROV " ,¶PVXUH
30
ZHFRXOGSLFND ³UDQGRP´RQH
,QWHUHVWLQJ

0RQGD\ )HEUXDU\

/HW\RXUIULHQGNQRZKH ¶VRQ+5 ¶VUDGDU
IRUWDONLQJWR\RXWKHQUXQQLQJKLV
30
PRXWK ?,- ./!01-,"/.2.3,84,,95.-/.../67@A

yU m?a0ST17&8Az
V2(@"bW
X3)YNcZ4{F|
[kGO=
nHd PeBC'

<#}
vw.pq
r9o\*xf

/Ig ~
s t J

5
MhuQD]:E+l;>>$,Kj-R

' #()! $ )
" %) &) )
47#%-7+./01 &2 3*77 7 $'4,7 !)5"7(67

%Li^_6!`

0042

EXHIBIT B
0043
0044
0045
0046
0047
0048
0049
0050
0051
0052
0053
0054
0055
0056
0057
0058
0059
0060
0061
0062
0063
0064
0065
0066
0067
0068
0069
0070
0071
0072
0073
0074
0075
0076
0077
0078
0079
0080
0081
0082
0083
0084
0085
0086
0087
0088
0089
0090
0091
0092
0093
0094

EXHIBIT D
0095
0096

1 JAMES M. WAGSTAFFE (95535)
wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
2 MARIA V. RADWICK (253780)
radwick@wvbrlaw.com
3 WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,
BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
4 100 Pine Street, Suite 2250
San Francisco, CA 94111
5 Telephone: (415) 357-8900
Fax: (415) 357-8910
6

7 Attorneys for Petitioner
DOUGLAS PENA
8

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
12

13 DOUGLAS PENA, Case No. MSN20-0581
14 Petitioner, PROOF OF SERVICE
15 Date:
v. Time: 1:30 pm
16 Dept: 57
JOEL MEJIA, Judge: Commissioner Gina Dashman
17
Respondent.
18
19

26
27

PROOF OF SERVICE
0097

1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, Laretta Johnson, declare that I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of
3 eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is Wagstaffe, von

4 Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2250, San Francisco, California
94111.
5
On July 16, 2021 I served the following document(s):
6
• NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
7
• MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
8 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
• SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF MARIA RADWICK
9 • SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF JAMES WAGSTAFFE
• DECLARATION OF MARIA RADWICK IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S
10
REQUEST FOR RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST RESPONDENT JOEL
11 MEJIA, ORIGINALLY FILED MAY 12, 2021
• [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
12
on the parties listed below as follows:
13

14 AARON E. DOYLE
THE DOYLE LAW FIRM
15 A Professional Law Corporation
649 Main Street, Suite 102
16 Martinez, CA 94553
Email: aaron@thedoylelawfirm.law
17

18 Attorney for Respondent Joel Mejia

19
By electronic mail by sending a Portable Document Format ("PDF") file to the email
20 addresses of counsel listed above pursuant to stipulation of the parties.
21
By first class mail by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage
22 thereon fully prepaid and placing the envelope in the firm's daily mail processing center
for mailing in the United States mail at San Francisco, California.
23
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
24 foregoing is true and correct.
25
Executed on July 16, 2021, at San Francisco, California.
26
27
_____________________________
28 LARETTA JOHNSON

-1-
PROOF OF SERVICE
0098
0099
0100

7 Attorneys for Petitioner
DOUGLAS PENA
8

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
12

13 DOUGLAS PENA, Case No. MSN20-0581
14 Petitioner, PETITIONER DOUGLAS PENA’S
AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND
15 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
v.
16 Date: August 27, 2021
JOEL MEJIA, Time: 1:30 p.m.
17 Dept.: 57
Respondent. Judge: Commissioner Gina Dashman
18
Action Filed: November 23, 2020
19

26
27

PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
0101

2 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 27, 2021 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
4 the matter may be heard, before Commissioner Gina Dashman in Department 57 of this Court,
5 located at 725 Court Street, Martinez, California, Petitioner Douglas Pena will and hereby does
6 move this Court for issuance of an Order under Civ. Proc. Code § 527.6(s) awarding him the
7 amount of $38,750 in attorneys’ fees that he incurred to obtain the current restraining order
8 against Respondent Joel Mejia.
9 Petitioner’s motion is made on the grounds that he is the prevailing party and that the fees
10 sought were necessary and reasonable in obtaining the restraining order against Respondent.
11 Petitioner’s motion is based upon this amended notice and motion, the notice and motion,
12 accompanying memorandum of points and authorities and supporting declarations of Maria
13 Radwick and James M. Wagstaffe, filed July 16, as well as the files and records of this action,
14 and upon such evidence, written or oral, as may be presented at the hearing.
15

16 DATED: July 23, 2021 WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,
BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
17

18 By _______________________________________
MARIA RADWICK
19

20 Attorneys for Petitioner
DOUGLAS PENA
21

26
27

-1-
PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
0102

1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, Garry Pallister, declare that I am a resident of the State of California, over the age
3 of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is Wagstaffe, von

4 Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2250, San Francisco, California
94111.
5
On July 23, 2021 I served the following document(s):
6
• AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
7 ATTORNEYS' FEES
8 on the parties listed below as follows:

9 AARON E. DOYLE Joel Mejia
THE DOYLE LAW FIRM 1941 Morro Way
10 A Professional Law Corporation Pittsburg, CA
649 Main Street, Suite 102 joelmoreno1231@gmail.com
11
Martinez, CA 94553
12 Email: aaron@thedoylelawfirm.law

13 Attorney for Respondent Joel Mejia
14

15 By electronic mail by sending a Portable Document Format ("PDF") file to the email
addresses of counsel listed above pursuant to stipulation of the parties.
16
By first class mail by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage
17 thereon fully prepaid and placing the envelope in the firm's daily mail processing center
for mailing in the United States mail at San Francisco, California.
18

19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
20
Executed on July 23, 2021, at San Francisco, California.
21

23 _____________________________
GARRY PALLISTER
24

-1-
PROOF OF SERVICE
0103

EXHIBIT F
0104
0105
0106
0107

EXHIBIT G
0108

2
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNf D
3

5 DOUGLAS PENA, Case No.: MSN20-0581
Petitioner,
6

7 v. ORDER ON PETITIONER'S MOTION
FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
8
JOEL MEJIA,
9 Respondent.

12
ORDER

13 Upon consideration of the papers filed regarding Petitioner Douglas Pena's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, and other matters in the record, following oral argument by counsel for
14 Petitioner and Respondent, and for good cause shown, the Court finds that Petitioner is the
prevailing party and that Petitioner's Motion for Attorneys' Fees under CCP Section 527.6(s) is
15
GRANTED.
16
Attorneys' fees are determined using the "lodestar" method, which simply involves
17 multiplying the number of hours spent by the hourly compensation of each attorney to arrive at a
base value. Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance. Inc. (2009. 1st Dist) 175 Cal App 4th
18
324). The hours spent and the rates charged must be reasonable, as determined by the standard
19 rates and hours charged to fee-paying clients.

20 The baseline lodestar figure may be adjusted at the discretion of the trial court after
taking into conside

Case Info

Judge

Maier, Clare Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 08, 2022

Case Filing Date

September 08, 2022

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: PENA VS. PACHECO

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties