Preview
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
nia 93704
oO YN DA RB BW NY eS
NN YN YN NN KY Bee we ee Be Be ee
oI DA A KF BH F SO eH AY DAH FB BH SF DS
Jesse J. Maddox, Bar No. 219091
jmaddox@lewlegal.com
Nathan T. Jackson, Bar No. 285620
njackson@lewlegal.com
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93704
Telephone: 559.256.7800
Facsimile: 559.449.4535
E-FILED
11/4/2021 5:57 PM
Superior Court of California
County of Fresno
By: |. Herrera, Deputy
Attorneys for Defendant BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
A. SAMEH EL KHARBAWY,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY;
DARRYL L. HAMM, an individual;
LYNNETTE ZELEZNY, an individual;
JOSEPH I. CASTRO, an individual;
SAUL JIMENEZ-SANDOVAL, an
individual; XUANNING FU, an
individual; AND DOES 1| through 50,
Defendants.
I, Nathan T. Jackson, declare as follows:
Case No.: 21CECG02214
[ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO HON.
KIMBERLY GAAB, DEPT. 503]
Complaint Filed: October 23, 2020
DECLARATION OF NATHAN T. JACKSON
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF A. SAMEH EL KHARBAWY’S
MOTION TO LIFT STAY OF DISCOVERY
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16(G)
Date: November 18, 2021
Time: 3:30 p.m.
Dept.: 503
(*Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Gov.
Code, § 6103.)
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before the all the Courts of the State of
California, and I am an associate in the law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, attorneys for
Defendant Board of Trustees of California State University (“Defendant” or “CSU”).
I have
1
Declaration of Nathan T. Jackson in Support of Defendant CSU’s Opposition to Plaintiff El Kharbawy’s
Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery
9824495.2 FROO7-003o wnnrn nu fF WY FB
PP BP BP PB eB
ao fF WN FP OO
Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, Califomia 93704
NNN N NN BP BB Be
SSBRRS BSBES SEGRE
&
personal knowledge of each matter stated herein, and if called upon to do so, I could and would
competently testify to each matter set forth herein.
2. Plaintiff is currently in the midst of disciplinary proceedings, and on the moming of
October 4th, 2021, my understanding was that he had Skelly conference set for October 6, 2021.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the memorandum of
points and authorities for CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion that I prepared and filed in this matter.
4. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the memorandum of points and.
authorities for CSU’ s ex-parte application to exceed page limits on its anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiff
has not propounded any discovery since I filed Exhibit B.
5. Plaintiff filed an ex-parte application to strike the anti-SLAPP motion dated
September 30, 2021. The Court denied this application.
6. On the day before Plaintiff's anti-SLAPP opposition brief was due, his counsel,
Andrew Hillier, notified me of an ex-parte hearing to advance the hearing on a motion to lift the
discovery stay/continue the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion. Mr. Hillier sent me his ex-parte
application to continue the anti-SLAPP hearing for the purpose of hearing a motion to lift the stay
on discovery (as well as his motion to lift the stay on discovery) on October 5, 2021 - the same day
that Plaintiff’ s opposition to CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion was due. The hearing on the application
wes at 3:30 pm. The Court granted the application over CSU's opposition. I recall Mr. Hiller
argue that there was no prejudice to CSU if the application was granted. I did not believe that was
CSU’s burden on Plaintiff’ s ex-parte application, and I do not recall even responding to that.
7. I had a telephone conversation with Plaintiffs counsel, Andrew Hillier on
September 20, 2021, about the Parties’ discovery responses. During that conversation, Mr. Hillier
agreed that discovery was stayed while the anti-SLAPP was pending, and he agreed to continue
motion to compel deadlines until after the Court riled on CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion. At no point
during our conversation did Mr. Hillierrepresent he would need discovery in order to oppose CSU’s
anti-SLAPP motion, or express any reservation about our agreement. I summarized this agreement
in an e-mail I sent to Mr. Hillier the same day, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto
2
Declaration of Nathan T. Jackson in Support of Defendant CSU's Opposition to Plaintiff El Kharbawy’s
Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery
9824495,2 FROO7-003Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
$250 North
0 ON DA BRB Ww NY
NN YN YN NN KY Bee we ee Be Be ee
oI DA A KF BH F SO eH AY DAH FB BH SF DS
as Exhibit C (including Mr. Hillier’s response thereto).
8. I received a voice message from Mr. Hillier on October 1, 2021, at what he
represented in his message was about 4:45 p.m. This was a Friday, and it was the day after the
Court denied Plaintiff’s ex-parte application to strike CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion. Mr. Hillier said
he was calling to “coordinate” with me about an extension of the hearing date on the anti-SLAPP
motion. At no point in the voicemail did Mr. Hillier represent that he needed additional discovery
to respond to the anti-SLAPP. Rather, he was looking to coordinate the hearing on the anti-SLAPP
with a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which I have not finalized or filed with the Court.
9. There is no protective order in this case.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the declaration of Rudy
Sanchez filed in support of CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion.
11. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the declaration of Martha
Guiditta in support of CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion. This declaration is being submitted in an effort
to moot Plaintiff's alleged need to lift the anti-SLAPP discovery stay.
12. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the declaration of Kirsten Corey
in support of CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion. This declaration is being submitted in an effort to moot
Plaintiff's alleged need to lift the anti-SLAPP discovery stay.
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit G are the Requests for Pretrial Discovery Conference I
previously prepared and submitted in this matter.
14. lam and remain willing to provide the Court with redacted copies of any
documents where student names have been redacted, in camera, along with a witness key in
relation to the Wilke Fleury investigation report, given the lack of a protected order on file.
Mit
Mit
Mit
Mit
Mit
3
Declaration of Nathan T. Jackson in Support of Defendant CSU’s Opposition to Plaintiff El Kharbawy’s
Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery
9824495.2 FROO7-0031 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of
2]| California that the foregoing is true and correct.
3 Executed this 4 A day of Moxtmnec 2021, at Sacramento, California.
Nathan T. Jackson
Fresno, California 93704
zB
A Professional Law Corpor
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
28 4
Declaration of Nathan T. Jackson in Support of Defendant CSU’s Opposition to Plaintiff El Kharbawy’s
Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery
9824495.2 FRO07-003Exhibit ALiebett Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, Califomia 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Oo AN DU fF WYN
e
oO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
Jesse J. Maddox, Bar No. 219091
jmaddox@Icwlegal.com
Nathan T. Jackson, Bar No. 285620
njackson@Icwlegal.com
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, Califomia 93704
Telephone: 559.256.7800
Facsimile, 559.449.4535
E-FILED
9/17/2021 11:35 AM
Superior Court of California
County of Fresno
By: L Peterson, Deputy
Attomeys for Defendant BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO COUNTY
A. SAMEH EL KHARBAWY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ;
DARRY L L. HAMM, an individual;
LY NNETTE ZELEZNY, an individual;
JOSEPH I. CASTRO, an individual;
SAUL JIMENEZ-SANDOVAL, an
individual; XUANNING FU, an
individual; AND DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants.
Ml
Ml
Ml
Case No.: 21CECG02214
[ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO HON.
KIMBERLY GAAB, DEPT. 503]
Complaint Filed: October 23, 2020
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY’S
SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF
A. SAMEH EL KHARBAWY’S COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE,
CODE CIV. PROC. § 425.16, AND FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS
Date: October 19, 2021
Time: 3:30 p.m.
Dept: 503
(«Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Gov.
Code, § 6108.)
1
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
TL INTRODUCTION veesssccssssssssssssesssssssssssssssssssissssssesnssssansssenassnsssnssssssassssssasssssnnsst 10
IL. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND. wd
A. PRIOR TRANSFER PROCEEDINGS. ......sssssssssssssssessssessssessseessscssseessssessneessseses 12
GENERAL COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONG.......ccssssessssssssssessssesseessssessseessseessneses 12
Cc. CSU INVESTIGATES PLAINTIFF FOR WORKPLACE
MISCONDUCT - THE ALLEGED “RETALIATION” IN
SECTION “EB” ..eessssessssssssessssessscsssscssssessseessseessseessneessnsessseesssessssessnsessneessseessseessses 13
Oo AN DU fF WYN
D. PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THE INVESTIGATION IS
10 DEFAMATORY, AND THAT HE IS BEING DEFAMED AS A
rfl FORM OF RETALIATION ...ssssssssesssssssssssssssssssessssssessssesessssenassssenessssennese 14
12 E. PLAINTIFF’ S CPRA REQUESTS... we l5
13 F. A PAID SUSPENSION IS NOT DISCIPLINARY .....eessesseesseesseessesseesstesnesseessees 16
V4] TI = LEGAL ARGUMENT.....ssscsssssssssssssecssssseessnsseessnsseesensssenensseesnsseessnsseenensseesnsstesees 16
15 A. THE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO HEAR THIS MOTION
16 AND GRANTED PERMISSION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS........cesesseessees 16
17 B. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD 1... eseessesssesssesseessecssecseessessuessesseesnesseessees 17
18 Cc. PLAINTIFF S LAWSUIT INVOLVES CSU’S PROTECTED
ACTIVITY .oeeeceessesssesscssecssscssessecssesssesseessesssesssssesssessecssecsuessessessuessesseessesseessees 19
19
1 A State University’ s Investigation Into Allegations Of
20 Employee Misconduct Is An “Official Proceeding” Under
1 Section 425.16(€)(1)-(2) .sessescssessseessecssseesnssesseessneessueecnsecsnseesseesaeesnseeses 19
2? 2. Communications Between CSU And An Accreditation.
Body Reflect A Matter Of Public Interest Under Section
23 ADS. LE(C)(A) oesresecsssecsseccssccesseecsnecssseessscesssecsnecssseessscesnsessuessuecnusesnneesaseesaeee 20
24 3. Denying A CPRA Request Is Protected Under Section
35 AQ5.L6(E)(L)-(2) -ereeesseeecsessnsecsnecssccssccesneessneessuecssscessseesuessueecnisesneesseeesseee 21
D. PLAINTIFF S LAWSUIT “ARISES” FROM PROTECTED
26 ACTIVITY .sssscsscssessteiiniieiieinienneninninnsiniinnintintintinaenssel 21
27 1. Plaintiff’ s Defamation Claim Arises From Protected
28 ACTIVELY ooo eceeseecessessecssessscsscssecsessecssessessesssesssessesssesseessecssesseesuessuesseessees 21
2
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
1 2. Plaintiff’ s Retaliation Claims “Arise” From Protected.
2 ACTIVELY ooo eceeseecessessecssessscsscssecsessecssessessesssesssessesssesseessecssesseesuessuesseessees 22
3 E. PLAINTIFF CANNOT ESTABLISH A PROBABILITY OF
PREVAILING.... +20
4 1. Plaintiff’ s Defamation Claim Fails As A Matter Of Law... 25
5
a Plaintiff Failed To Comply with The Govemment
6 CAINS ACE oe eeseececsessesseessessnessecssesssessecssesssessessuessessesssesseeseesseese 25
7 b. Plaintiff’ s Defamation Claim Are Time- Barred .........ssssssssseees 26
8 C The Allegations of Misconduct Are Absolutely
9 PHIVILCGEd ose essessesssessnessesssecssessecssessuessesssessessesssesseeeseesseese 27
10 d CSU Is Immune From Common Law Liability... eee 27
11 2. Plaintiff’ s Retaliation and ITED Claims Fail As A Matter Of
Law, Because Protected Communications Are Injury
12 Producing Conduct........ssssssecsssecssssesneesnesssneessusecsueecnseesseesneeesuecsneenneesseee 28
13 3. Plaintiff Failed To Comply With The Govemment Claims
14 Act For His Sixth and Tenth Causes Of ACtiOM....0.....csssessesseessessesseesnees 28
15 a Labor Code Section 1102.5........ccessessessessessesssessessessnesseesseesseess 28
16 b. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ...0......0.cssesseesseeseeese 29
17 4. Plaintiff Failed to Exhaust His Administrative Remedies for
His Seventh Cause of ACtiOM 0... eeessesseessecsecsesseessesssesseessesssessessseesseese 30
18
19 5. The Tenth Cause of Action Is A Common Law Claim .......ceeeeesseessees 31
6. Plaintiff’ s Retaliation Claims Fail Because CSU Had A
20 Legitimate Business Reason For Suspending Plaintiff, And
21 There Is No Evidence It Sought To Avoid Investigating
Plaintiff’ s Complaints 0.0.0... ceseesseessesssessecssecssecsesseessessesseessessesseesseesseese 31
22.
a Plaintiff Was Suspended For A Legitimate, Non-
23 Retaliatory Reason, And His Continued Suspension.
Ts Legitimate oo. eeceessesseessesssessessecssessessesssesssessessnesseesseesseese 32
24
5 b. CSU Investigated Plaintiff's Complaints... tsceessesseesseesneene 32
26 7. CSU’s Denial of Plaintiff's CPRA Requests Is Privileged... 33
27 8. Plaintiff’ s Seventh Cause of Action is Time Barred... wd
28
3
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
9. Plaintiff Failed To Exhaust His Administrative Remedies
for the Third Cause of Action, And There Is No Evidence
Of Race Retaliation... eeesssesseessesssessecssecssecssesseessessesseessesssesseesseesseess 33
IV. CONCLUSION...
Oo AN DU fF WYN
e
oO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
4
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Oo AN DU fF WYN
e
oO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Federal Cases
Breaux v. City of Garland
(Sth Cir, 2000) 205 F.3d 150 .....eesssssessssssecsssssecsssseecsssssecssssseecsssseessssseessssnecssssnessssneessssseesssseee 24
Gannon v. Potter
(NLD. Cal. 2006) 2006 WL 3422215, at *5 w..ssecsssecsssecsssessssessnecsueecsseccsseessneesnseesnseesnseesneeesnees 24
Haddon v. Executive Residence at the White House
(Fed. Cir. 2002) 313 F.3d 1352... ecsssecssscssssesseessusecsseecsseecsseessnecsusecsnsecsaeesaecsuecnueesnneesaseesnees 24
Knox v. Davis
(Oth Cir, 2001) 260 F.3d 1009 oo. eeeseesesseessesssessesseessessessecsuessesseessessessesssesssesseesseesseeseesaee 29
McFadden v. City of El Centro
(S.D. Cal. 2014) 2014 WL 3002364.......ssssssesssssessssessseesssessssesssessseesssesssseessneessnsesseeessesssssesssees 24.
Nichols v. Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville
(7th Cir, 2007) 510 F.3d 772 w.ssseesssssescsssseeccssseccsssseessssssecssssneessssseesssssecsssuneessssnessssneessssseesssseee 24
Normandeau v. City of Phoenix
(D. Ariz. 2005) 516 F.Supp.2d 1054 o.....ceeesssseecsssseessssseecssssneecsssseesssssecsssssecssssnessssnessssseesssseee 29
Ortiz v. Georgia Pacific
(ED. Cal. 2013) 973 F.Supp.20 1162.........ccssssssssssesssssecssssseessssseesssssecssssnecssssnessssneesssnseesssseee 28
Von Gunten v. Maryland
(4th Cir. 2001) 243 F.3d 858 .....eessssesssssssecsssseecsssseessssssecssssneessssseessssseessssneessssnessssneessssseesssseee 24
Ward v. Caulk
(Oth Cir.1981) 650 F.2d 1144 os seeecseesssesssessssesseeesseessseessseessseesssessssesssseessneesseesseessseessneessnees 29
State Cases
Acuna v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co.
(2013) 217 Cal. App.4th 1402 ....eessssescsssseecsssssecsssseessssseessssssecsssssecsssssessssseessssnessssseessssseessssnee 28
Baral v. Schnitt
(2016) 1 Cal. 5th 376 ....sseessssessssessssecsseecsscccsseessuecssscesssccsssessusessusecsusecsncesneessueessnecsnseesaseesneessnees 18
Blair v. Superior Court
(1990) 218 Cal App.3d 221 oo... sesssecssescsssscsseessseessscessseesnseesuessusecsusecsncesucessueesnueesnseesnseesneensnees 25
Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity
(1999) 19 Cal Ath 1106.0... eessesessssecssccsscccsseessseesssccssseessseesasessusecsusecsueeesneessueessnecsnseesaseesneesnees 18
5
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Oo AN DU fF WYN
e
oO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
Brown v. City of Sacramento
(2019) 37 Cal Appp.5th 587 0... sesssecsssscsseccsseessseesssecssscessseesusecsusecsusecsnecssseessneesuseesnseesnsessneessasee 29
Chavez v. Mendoza
(2001) 94 Cal App Ath 1083 .......ssesecsssscssesssseessseesssecssscesssessusecsusecsusecsneessneessneesuseesnseesaeersneensanes 18
Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow
(2011) 199 Cal App.4th 676 ou... .esssecssccssesssseessseesssecssscessseesusessusecsusecssessneessneessseesnseesaeeesneessanes 17
City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Sainez
(2000) 77 Cal App.Ath 1302 o.....ssesecsssccssesssseessseesssecssscesssecsuseesusecsusecsueecsseessnecssseesnseesaeesneesased 33
City of Cotati v. Cashman
(2002) 29 Cal Ath 69 .....sseessssessssecsssecsseecsseccsneessueessscesssccsssessasessusecsusecsuscesneessueesnneesnseesnsessnensnees 18
Cole v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist.
(1996) 47 Cal App Ath 1505 .......sseessssccssescsseessseesssscssscessscesnecsusecsusecsueessneessneessseesnseesaseesneeesased 34
Collondrez v. City of Rio Vista
(2021) 61 Cal -Appp.5th 1089 .......ssesssescssesssseessseesssecssscessseesusessuecsusecsueessneessnecsuseesnseesaeesneeesasee 21
Comstock. Aber
(2012) 212 Cal App.4th 981 o.....essssecsssecssescsseessseesssecssscessseesneessusecsusecsueessneessneesuseesnseesaeeesneensanes 18
Cty. of Fresno v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n
(2020) 51 Cal Appp.5th 282 on... sesssecssescsseccsseessseesssecssscesnseesneessusecsusecsneessneessnecsuseesnseesaseesnessanee 24
Du Charme v. Int! Bhd. of Elec. Workers
(2003) 110 Cal App.4th 107 on... ..sssessssscssescsseesseesssscssscessseesusecsusecsusecsueessneessnecsuseesnseesaeesneessanes 16
Fahlen v. Sutter Cent. Valley Hosps.
(2014) 58 Cal. Ath 655.0... essseessssessssecsssecsseccsseessseessscesssccssseesasecsusecsusecsuscssncessneessnecsnseesaseesnensnse 30
Fall River J oint Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court
(1988) 206 Cal App.3d 431 on... sesssecsssscssescssesssseessseesnsecssseesusessusecsusccsneecsueessueessueesnseesnseesneensnees 25
Gilbert v. Sykes
(2007) 147 Cal App.4th 13 o....sesssecssescssescsseessseessseessscessseesuecsuecsusecsueessneessneesasecsnseesneesneensasee 21
Glorietta Foods, Inc. v. City of SanJose
(1983) 147 Cal App.3d 835 .....sesssecssescssescssesssseessseesssecsnseesusessusecsusccsuecesneessneesnnecsnseesnsessneeesnees 26
Hagberg v. California Federal Bank
(2004) 32 Cal Ath 350... essseessssessssecsseccsseessseesssecsssecsssccsnsessnsessusecnusessscessseesaseesnsecsuseenneeesnee 27, 33
Hansen v. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation
(2008) 171 Cal App.4th 1537 .....ssecsssscssssssseessseesssecsnscessssesnecsuecsusecsneessneessneesuseesnseesaeesneessane 19
Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics
(1996) 46 Cal -App.Ath 55... sssessssecsssccsssccssesesseesssecsssccssseesusessusecsusccsncesneessueessnecsnseesnseesneesnses 30
6
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Oo AN DU fF WYN
e
oO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
Jeffra v. Cal. State Lottery
(2019) 39 Cal App.Sth 471 .....sesessesessessssesssseessseessseesssessssessssessseessseessseessseessneesseeesneessneenss passim
John Doe 2 v. Superior Court
(2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1300.. 22
Khawar v. Globe Int’1, Inc.
(1998) 19 Cal 4th 254... eecssessssessssessseessseesssesssssesssesssesssessseessseessseesssesssseesseeessneesseessneessneessnees, 27
Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hosp. Dist.
(2006) 39 Cal. A 192 ....seccccssssssseeeessssssssesseeceeeceeceeeeessssmmmsnnsesssseseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessitimmnnnnennessssssete 21
Laker v. Board of Trustees
(2019) 32 Cal App.Sth 745 0... cccssesessscsseessseessssessseessseessseessseessneessessseessseessseessneesseeesnee 20, 27, 28
Loehr v. Ventura Cty. Cty. Coll. Dist.
(1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071 .....sssescssescsseessseessssessseessseessseessseesseesseessseessseessneessneesseeessee 25, 26, 28
Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internat.
(2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1102 .....sscsccsesssssesssesssesssessssssssesssnsessssessseesssesssseessnesssnessseessseessnessssed 32
Manavian v. Dep’t. of Justice
(2019) 28 Cal Appp.Sth 1127 o....essesesseessssessssessseesseessseessseessssessnsessseesssesssseesssessssessseessseessneessaees 22
Martell v. Antelope Valley Hosp.
(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 978... +20, 28
Miklosy v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
(2008) 44 Cal 4th 876 ....ceessssssssessssesssessssessssessssessseessssssessssessseessseesssesssseessneessseesseessneessneessnees, 27
Miller v. City of Los Angeles
(2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1373 .....ssesessssssssessssesssessseeesseessseessneessnsessseesssessssessssesssessseessneessneessanes 19
Moore v. Regents of Univ. of California
(2016) 248 Cal. App.4th 216 ....ccecsesesssessssesssessseessesssessseessssessnsessseessseesssesssnesssnessneessseessneessases 22
Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
(2002) 28 Cal 4th 828 ......essssessssessssesssessssessssesssssssseesssessseessseessseesssessssesssseesseeesssessneessneessneesseees 34
Namv. Regents of University of California
(2016) 1 Cal.App.Sthh 1176 ......secsesessessssesssessseesseessessssesssssessssessseesssessssesssnessseessneessseessneessanes 20
Navellier v. Sletten
(2002) 29 Cal 4th 82 .....ssesssssessssessseesssessssessssesssneessseesssssssessssessseesssessssessssesssnesssseesseessneessneessnees 18
Okorie v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.
(2017) 14 Cal App.Sth 574. .....eecsessssescssesssseessssessseessseesssessssesssessseessseessseessseesseeesee 18, 19, 23, 24
Parkv. Board of Trustees of California State University
(2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057 ....esssssesssessssesssessssesssseesseessseessssssseessseessseessnessssesssnessseeesssessseessneessneesseees 21
7
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Oo AN DU fF WYN
e
oO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
Patten v. Grant J oint Union High Sch. Dist.
(2005) 134 Cal App.4th 1378 .....ssssecsssscssessssesssseesssscssssesnsessueesuecsusecsueessneessneesssecsnseesneesneessasee 22
People v. Arias
(2008) 45 Cal.4th 169... .30
People v. Superior Ct. (Olson)
(1979) 96 Cal Appp.30 181 oo... sesssecsseccssescsseecsseessscesssccssscesasecsusecsusecsnecesneessneesnneesnseesaseesneessnse 33
Ramona Unified Sch. Dist. v. Tsiknas
(2005) 135 Cal App.4th 510... .esssessssscssescsseessseessssessscessseesnecsuecsusecsneessneessnecsuseesnseesneesneessanes 19
Retired Enps. Assn. of Orange Cty. Inc. v. Cty. of Orange
(2011) 52 Cal Ath 1171 oes eessssessssecsseccsseccssecesneecssccsssccsnseesasessusecsusecsuscesneessneessuecsnseesnseesneesnees 24
Rivera v. First DataBank, Inc.
(2010) 187 Cal App.4th 709 ......essesessssscssesssseessseesssecsssccssseesuseesusecsusecsueessneessneesuseesnseesasessneeesasee 20
Salma v. Capon.
(2008) 161 Cal App.4th 1275 .....ssesecsssssssssssseessseesssscssscessssesnessuecsusecsneessseessneessseesnsecsaessneessanes 18
Scotch v. Art Inst. of California
(2009) 173 Cal App 4th 986 .......ssssessssscssesssseessseessssessssessseesnecsuecsusecsneessseessnecssseesnseesaessnessased 31
Shively v. Bozanich
(2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230. 25, 26
Singer Co. v. Cty. of Kings
(1975) 46 Cal App.3d 852 ...esssessssecsssccsssscsseessseessseesnscessseesasessusecsusccsnccsneessneesnneesnseesneesneeesnees 34
Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
(1980) 27 Cal.3d 167 .....seessssessssessssecsseccssecesseessneesssecssscesnscesusecsusecsusecsueessneessnecsuseesnsecsaseesneeesasee 27
Thompson v. City of Monrovia
(2010) 186 Cal App.4th 860 ........sesecsssscssssssseessseesssecssscessscesuecsuecsusecsnessneessnecsuneesnsecsaeesnessanee 28
Vaca v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp.
(2011) 198 Cal App 4th 737 ....sesssecsssscssessseessseesssscssscessscesusecsuecsusecsuessseessneesuseesnseesaensneessasee 29
Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino
(2005) 35 Cal. Ath 180.0... .ssseessssessssecsseccsseessseecssecsssecsssccsnsessusessuecsusessscessssesaseesnecsaeenneesnes 17,18
Wilbanks v. Wolk
(2004) 121 Cal App 4th 883 .......sssessssssssesssseessseessseessscessseesneessusecsusecsuessneessneesuseesnsecsnseesnessanee 20
Willis v. City of Carlsbad
(2020) 48 Cal Appp.5th 11040... eecseecsssesssseessseessseessscesnsessusessusecsusecsneessneessneesuseesnseesaseesneesasee 25
Wills v. Superior Court
(2011) 195 Cal App 4th 143 o...sssessssscssesssseessseesssscssscessseesuessusecsusecsneessneessneesssecsnseesaseesneeesased 32
8
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Oo AN DU fF WYN
e
oO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.
(2019) 7 Cal. 5th 871... eecsssecsssssecssssseessssssecsssssessssseecsssseecssssnessssseesssseeessssnecssssnessssneesssseeesssseee 23
Yanowitz v. L’ Oreal USA, Inc.
(2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028 .......eecssseesssssesssssssecsssseecsssseessssseecssssnecsssseessssneessssnecssssnessssneessssseesssseee 22
State Statues
Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 ......ssssssssssessssssessssseesssssecsssssessssnecsssneessssseesssseeesssseessssneess 17
Code of Civil Procedure section 340 ........csssssssssessssssesssssesssssecsssssessssnecsssneessssseesssseeessssnesssseeess 33
Code of Civil Procedure section 397 ........cssssssssssecsssssessssseesssssecssssssessssnecsssneessssseesssseeessssneesssseeess 12
Government Code Section 6258.......ss:ssssssssessssesssessssessssesssesssessseessseessseessneesseeesseessseessneesseeesseeessee 21
Government Code section 815........ssssssessssessssessseessseesssessssesssessseessseessneessnsesseeessessseessneessneesseeessee 27
Government Code section 8547.12.....cccccccsscssscssscssscsssesssessscsssessscsescssscsescsssesescsssesesessseseseseeeee 30, 33
Government Code section 905.......:ssssssssssessssessssessseesssesssesssessseessseessseessseesseesseessseessneessneesseeessee 25
Government Code section 911.2.....ssssssessssessssesssessssessssessseessessseessseessneessesesseeesssssseessseessneesseeessee 25
Government Code section 912.4......sssssessssessssesssesssseesssessssesssessseessseessneessnsesseessesssseessneesseeesseeessee 25
Government Code section 913........ssssssessssessssesssesssseesssesssesssessseessseessseessneesseessessseessseessneesseeessee 25
Government Code section 945.4.....ssssessssessssessssesssessssesssessseessseessseessneessesesseesseessseessneessneesseeesnee 25
Government Code section 955.2.....ssssssessssessssesssessssessssessssesssessseessseessseessesesseessseessseessneessneesseeesnes 12
Other Authorities
A.B. 9 (2019) REY€S......sssssccssssecsssseecsssssecsssssecsssssecssssscssssssecsssssecssssscssssuecssssuecsssseessssesssssesssneeessss 34
wel oO Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 8
9
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Oo AN DU fF WYN
e
oO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
L INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff is a Professor at Califomia State University, Fresno (“Fresno State’). He is ona
mission to disrupt the entire Califomia State University (“CSU”) system, because he is enraged
that CSU suspended him with pay during an investigation into sustained workplace misconduct.
He has displayed his rage by not only suing CSU, but also personally suing CSU’s Chancellor,
Dr. Joseph Castro; two CSU campus presidents, Dr. Lynnette Zelezny (CSU-Bakersfield) and Dr.
Saul Jimenez-Sandoval (Fresno State); Fresno State Provost, Dr. Xuanning Fu; and University
Counsel Darryl Hamm. Aside from the fact much of Plaintiff's complaint is purposely
inaccurate, it is also largely premised on activity protected by the anti-SLA PP statute.
To this end, Plaintiff was placed on paid suspension on February 5, 2018, following
allegations of misconduct against him. He claims his suspension was retaliation for intemal
complaints he filed under various intemal administrative policies (known as “Executive Orders”)
of the CSU system. CSU does not dispute that Plaintiff filed a number of intemal complaints - he
has been complaining about alleged misconduct at Fresno State since at least 2009.
The misconduct allegations that formed the basis for Plaintiff’ s paid suspension were set
forth in an original suspension notice on February 5, 2018. Additional misconduct allegations
‘were communicated to Plaintiff via a suspension extension notice on August 13, 2018. CSU
retained attomey Bianca Samuel with the law firm of Wilke Fleury (she is now a Deputy
Attomey General for the State of Califomia) to perform a workplace investigation into whether
Plaintiff committed the misconduct detailed in those notices. Samuel completed her investigation
in or about October 2019. She interviewed more than 20 witnesses (faculty and students), and
sustained most of the alleged misconduct. Plaintiff’ s intemal complaints since his suspension
routinely attack Samuel’s investigation, along with what Plaintiff contends are the false,
defamatory, and malicious misconduct allegations (from witnesses) against him.
Plaintiff claims the misconduct allegations were defamatory. This is the general thrust of
his defamation claim. Plaintiff also expressly identifies the alleged “defamatory” statements as
“adverse employment actions” that support his retaliation claims, and in doing so cites them as
10
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Oo AN DU fF WYN
e
oO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
the injury producing conduct that supports those claims. Plaintiff also incorporated each
allegation in his lawsuit into every cause of action, and by consequence compounded this problem.
by making these “false” communications a central component of his complaint - in fact, Plaintiff
complains about these “false communications” more than a dozen times in his lawsuit. (e.g.,
Complaint at pp. 6:2-26, 14:1-5, 14:11-14, 15:7-11, 15:12-21, 20:5-11, 31:1-12, and 31:21-23.)
Plaintiff has also made the alleged harm to his reputation flowing from these purportedly false
communications a critical element of his damage claims. (Id. at pp. 18:17-21, 20:23-27, 22:18-
22, 24:4-8, 25:15-19, 27:11-15; 29:1-4, 31:21-23, 32:11-16, 22:5-10, 35:7-15, and 35:25.) By
inextricably intertwining these allegations, Plaintiff has made it impossible to segregate protected
conduct from non-protected conduct as to any cause of action at issue in this motion.
CSU’s workplace investigation is an official proceeding authorized by law under the anti-
SLAPP statute, as are communications and conduct made in connection with it. This would
encompass the workplace misconduct allegations, the investigation, and Plaintiff’ s temporary
paid suspension. These statements and conduct are absolutely privileged under Civil Code
section 47(b)(3), because they were made in connection with an official proceeding. As such,
there is no possibility Plaintiff can prevail to the extent he is attacking statements or conduct
made in connection with an official, state-authorized workplace investigation. Plaintiff also cites
other acts of alleged “retaliation” that are plainly protected under the anti-SLAPP statute,
including CSU’s responses to Califomia Public Records Act (“CPRA”) requests.
In sum, many causes of action primarily arise from statements and conduct flowing from
CSU's decision to investigate Plaintiff for misconduct beginning in February 2018. This is
protected and privileged conduct, and as such, Plaintiff’ s defamation, retaliation, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress (“ITED”) claims are subject to an anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiff
also included other allegations of protected conduct, which are also addressed in this motion.
Accordingly, CSU respectfully asks the Court to strike Plaintiff’ s Third, Sixth, Seventh,
Eighth, and Tenth causes of action, or in the altemative strike the portions that are based on
protected communications and conduct. CSU also respectfully asks the Court for an award of
reasonable attomeys’ fees and costs for being forced to bring this motion.
11
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Il. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. PRIOR TRANSFER PROCEEDINGS
Although Plaintiff was a Fresno State professor and all alleged unlawful conduct occurred
while he worked at Fresno State, he filed his lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on
October 23, 2020. (Jackson Decl., 12, Exh. 1.) CSU filed a motion to transfer venue to Fresno
County pursuant to Govemment Code section 955.2 on December 22, 2020. (Id. at 13.) The
motion was denied, but with leave to file a motion to transfer venue pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 397, and the Court set a hearing date for March 25, 2021. (Ibid.) CSU fileda
motion to transfer under section 397 on March 1, 2021. (Ibid.) The Court granted the motion on
May 19, 2021. (Id. at Exh. 2.) CSU received a Fresno County Superior Court case number on
11]} August 9, 2021. (Id. at 14.) Only CSU has fonmally appeared. (Id. at 115.)
12 B. GENERAL COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
13 Plaintiff is a self-proclaimed “prolific scholar’ with an outstanding reputation among
14|] students and faculty. (Complaint at {1 13-15.) He purports to have along history of activism that
15]] began upon hire in 2006 and continued until his suspension in February 2018. (Id. at 16-35.)
16|| Plaintiff claims he engaged in the following “protected” acts:
Oo AN DU fF WYN
e
oO
17 . Four years before he was suspended, Plaintiff opposed sex and age discrimination
18 against female applicants. (Id. at 1116-17.)
19 . Plaintiff was offered a leadership position in 2015 and 2016, but believes it was
20 withdrawn because he opposed sex discrimination. (Id. at 4 18.)
21 . There was a search committee for a position in Fresno State’s Middle Eastem.
22 program in 2016, which Plaintiff was not a part of, and he joined a “national
23 outcry” after it was canceled. (Id. at {f] 19-20.)
24 ° In 2016, faculty at Fresno State falsely told an accrediting body that Plaintiff was
25 not participating in the accreditation effort. (Id. at 1128-33.)
26 . In 2017, Plaintiff’ s supervisor, Dr. Xuanning Fu, purposefully misspelled his name
27 in an effort to humiliate and insult him. (Id. at 7 22.)
28 . In 2017, Dr. Fu “manufactured an fomented false complaints,” including
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
1 allegedly manufacturing false complaints from students. (Id. at 123.)
2 . Plaintiff received all but one course on his teaching preference list for the fall of
3 2017, and this was a set up for failure. (Id. at 424.)
4 ° A student lodged a grade protest against Plaintiff in 2017, and it was dropped by
5 CSU because it did not comply with university policy. (Id. at 1125.)
6 . Plaintiff received all but one course on his teaching preference list for the spring of
7 2018, and this was a set up for failure. (Id. at 426.)
8 . In 2017, Plaintiff claims he leamed that he was the only person in his College who
9 did not receive a pay equity increase. (Id. at 27.)
10 ° Plaintiff has filed several intemal complaints since 2014. (Id. at {1 34.)
11 Section “E” of the complaint describes the alleged retaliation at issue in this motion. That
12]| section is titled “FOLLOWING HIS PROTECTED ACTIVITIES - AND BECAUSE OF IT -
13]| DEFENDANTS RETALIATED AGAINST PLAINTIFF.” (Id. at p. 13:13-14.)
14 C. | CSUINVESTIGATES PLAINITFF FOR WORKPLACE MISCONDUCT -
15 THE ALLEGED “RETALIATION” IN SECTION “E”
16 Plaintiff was suspended on February 5, 2018, following allegations of workplace
17|| misconduct. (Sanchez Decl., 13, Exh. 1; Complaint at {f135-36.) Plaintiff has not entered
18]| Fresno State’s campus since his suspension. (Sanchez Decl. at 15.) Many of the allegations
19}] pertained to how Plaintiff managed a course that he was assigned in the spring of 2018 known as
20]| “ID 116.” (eg., Sowles Decl. at 113-7, Exhs. 1-4; Sanchez Decl., 13; and Items 1-6 in Exh. 1 to
21}| Sanchez Decl.) CSU retained Wilke Fleury to investigate the allegations. (Hamm Decl., 113.)
22. Among the misconduct allegations, it was alleged that Plaintiff asked students to signa
23)| “student agreement” he created and falsely portrayed as an official CSU document. (e.g., Exh. 1
24|| to Sowles Decl.; Sanchez Decl., 13.) The “agreement” purported to authorize Plaintiff to
25]| essentially teach the course in whatever manner he wanted, in terms of both class meetings and.
26|| content, and that the course would be developed on an ongoing basis. (Ibid.) The misconduct
27)| allegations broadened during the investigation, and new allegations were communicated to
28)|| Plaintiff in a suspension notice on August 13, 2018. (Sanchez Decl., 4, Exh. 2; Complaint at 4]
13
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Oo AN DU fF WYN
e
oO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
45.) Wilke Fleury completed its investigation in October of 2019. (Hamm Decl. at 13.)
Wilke Fleury sustained most of the misconduct allegations against Plaintiff in a disturbing
report, including that Plaintiff discriminated against a female student with disabilities, and
intimidated students. (Hamm Decl., 13; Jackson Decl., 14, Exh. 3 at pp. 1-3, and 52-69.)
D. PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THE INVESTIGATION IS DEFAMATORY, AND
THAT HE IS BEING DEFAMED AS A FORM OF RETALIATION
Plaintiff claims CSU manufactured false allegations and “defamed” him so that it could
suspend and investigate him. (Id. at {1 35-50.) That is, the communications are the harm A.
significant component of Plaintiff’ s legal theory flows directly from CSU's investigation,
including in particular the misconduct allegations that were the focus of CSU’s investigation:
. Plaintiff claims CSU suspended him on February 5, 2018, based on “false, pre-
textual reasons” - “a series of minor, vague, and baseless allegations of
wrongdoing” that CSU “manufactured” to suspend him and preempt any outside
investigation into his complaints. (Id. at 136, emphasis added.)
° CSU “again retaliated against Plaintiff” by sending him a letter dated August 13,
2018, citing new allegations of misconduct that were [...] false, vague, unsourced,
and fabricated [...]” (Id. at 145, emphasis added.)
. Plaintiff’ s suspension was repeatedly continued based on “the same baseless,
vague and false allegations,” even though “a rudimentary investigation would have
quickly exposed the factually baseless allegations [...] The University has
consistently refused to provide information to Plaintiff about the factual basis for
its allegations, despite multiple requests.” (Id. at 139, 46, emphasis added.)!
. “Further, the allegations of wrongdoing asserted by Defendants against Plaintiff in
the February 5, 2018 suspension notice-and all subsequent suspension notices-
were also false and defamatory.” (Id. at 1135, emphasis added.)
. Plaintiff claims these false and defamatory suspension notices were sent to him,
1 Plaintiff in fact has a copy of the Wilke Fleury report, and had it before he filed his lawsuit.
14
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Oo AN DU fF WYN
e
oO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
monthly, fornearly three years. (e.g., Id. at {1 46, 82, 112, emphasis added.)
Plaintiff identified these “false” communications as injury producing conduct in support
of every cause of action in this Motion. (Complaint at 182, 112, 119, 133-135, and 156.) Not
only is the thrust of Plaintiff’ s retaliation theory focused on the allegedly manufactured
communications of misconduct, but the administrative complaints he relies on in his “Exhaustion
of Administrative Remedies” section make clear he is attacking the investigation itself:
On March 6, 2018, the University’s Associate Vice President for
Human Resources, Ms. Marylou Mendoza- Miller, informed Dr. El
Kharbawy that an outside law firm, Wilke Fleury, was assigned to
look into the circumstances alleged to justify his suspension on.
February 5, 2018 [...] On May 8, 2019, Dr. El Kharbawy met with
two of the University's attomeys charged with investigating the
allegations cited by the University as a basis for his suspension. In
that meeting, Dr. El Kharbawy presented ample evidence that the
University's allegations were false and intended to harass,
discriminate and retaliate against him. In that meeting, Dr. El
Kharbawy was surprised by a new set of false allegations, which
suddenly emerged (after the University’s earlier allegations
quickly collapsed as false and pretextual). Dr. El Kharbawy was
not provided the specifics of any of the University's new (or
earlier) allegations, in violation of Dr. El Kharbawy’s legal rights,
University policy and the Collective Bargaining Agreement
between the University and the Califomia Faculty Association.
(RJNat 14, Exh. 4atp. 7:1-4, 8:9-19; Complaint at 152.)
Indeed, Plaintiff's 2019 complaint with the Department of Fair Employment & Housing
(“DFEH”) expressly alleges that CSU subjected him to false allegations and. “improper intemal
investigations.” (RJN at 94, Exh. 4 at p. 9:2-3.) The govemment tort claim cited in Plaintiff's
complaint is virtually identical to his 2019 DFEH complaint, as is his “EO-1116” complaint from
2019. (RJN at 9913, Ex. 3 [tort aim]; and Mendoza-Miller Decl., 18, Exh. 9 [EO complaint].)
E. _ PLAINIIFF’SCPRA REQUESTS
Plaintiff issued multiple CPRA requests to CSU in May of 2018. (Gonzalez Decl., 13;
Complaint at 142.) Plaintiff, in part, sought records relating to the Wilke Fleury investigation.
(Id. at 13, Exh. 1.) CSU denied Plaintiff’ s request for investigatory materials. (Id. at Exh. 1.)
2 Plaintiff never filed an EO 1116 complaint - he filed an EO 1058 complaint in 2019, but because EO 1058 had
been superseded by EO 1116, it was addressed under EO 1116.
15
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Oo AN DU fF WYN
e
oO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
CSU also formally responded to all of his other requests. (Id. at 73.) Plaintiff appears to allege
that CSU’s decision to deny his CPRA requests was also retaliatory. (Complaint at 42.)
F. A PAID SUSPENSION IS NOT DISCIPLINARY
Plaintiff’ s employment at CSU subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”)
between CSU and the Califomia Faculty Association (“CFA”). (Mendoza-Miller Decl. at 110;
Exh. 5 to RJN.) Plaintiff alleges that he was temporarily suspended pursuant to Article 17 of his
CBA. (Complaint at 135.) Plaintiff further alleges that his temporary suspension was extended
dozens of times. (Id. at 19.32, 46, 59, 82, 112.) But section 19 of that CBA states that a
temporary suspension with pay (the same at issue here) is not a disciplinary action. (Exh. 5 to
RJNat Article 19.2 [temporary suspension with pay is not disciplinary]; Mendoza- Miller Decl.
at 110 [Exh. 5 to the RJN is the CBA that applies to Plaintiff].)
Il. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. THE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO HEAR THIS MOTION AND
GRANTED PERMISSION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS
An anti-SLAPP motion filed more than 60 days after service of the complaint may be
pemmitted in the court's discretion “upon terms it deems proper.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(£).)
In this case, the motion is being filed more than 60 days after service because of CSU's
venue transfer motions, the first of which was filed less than 30 days after Plaintiff served CSU.
Plaintiff (a Fresno County resident) attempted to prejudice the defendants and dozens of
witnesses by filing his lawsuit in Los Angeles County. In its motion to transfer venue filings,
CSU identified dozens of witnesses who can speak to Plaintiff’ s misconduct, and it produced
more than 20 declarations. (Jackson Decl. 413.) This Motion does not seek disposition of the
entire case; therefore, CSU felt it was necessary to effect a transfer first.
In addition, there is no prejudice to Plaintiff. The case is still at avery early stage. No
depositions have been scheduled or taken, and hearing this anti-SLAPP motion will fulfill the
stabutory purpose of the anti-SLAPP - to encourage continued participation in matters of public
significance, and that such participation should not be chilled through an abuse of the judicial
process. (Du Charme v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 107, 113 [court
16
Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore
‘A Professional Law Corporation
Fresno, California 93704
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Oo AN DU fF WYN
e
oO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
properly exercised discretion to hear motion three years after complaint]; Varian Medical
Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 192 [the Legislature sought to prevent SLAPP
[lawsuits] by ending them early and without great cost to the SLAPP target”].) Only one of the
six named defendants in this matter has formally appeared to date. (Id. at 15.) As such, CSU
respectfully asks the Court to exercise its discretion to hear this still early motion.
On August 11, 2021, Judge McGuire granted CSU’s ex parte application to file a brief of
no more than 25 pages (and allowed Plaintiff the same). Plaintiff filed a Code of Civil Procedure
section 170.6 challenge to Judge McGuire's assignment on August 17, 2021. CSU understands
this to be permission to file the anti-SLAPP motion, as the Court would not have granted a page
limit extension for a motion it was not allowing CSU to file in the first place? CSU’s ex-parte
application for a page limit extension was also filed after the 60-day deadline.
B APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly referred to the anti-SLA PP statute,
provides a defendant the right to make a special motion to strike any cause of action arising from
the right of petition or free speech. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(b)(1).) Under the statute,
protected conduct includes: “(1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a
legislative, executive, orjudicial 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 orjudicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized
by law; (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public
forum in connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the
exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in
connection with a public issue of public interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(e).)
Acts protected under this provision include acts “prepatory to or in anticipation of an
action or other official proceeding.” (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (1999)
3 Even if the Court believes Judge McGuire granted a pag
Preview
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore nia 93704 oO YN DA RB BW NY eS NN YN YN NN KY Bee we ee Be Be ee oI DA A KF BH F SO eH AY DAH FB BH SF DS Jesse J. Maddox, Bar No. 219091 jmaddox@lewlegal.com Nathan T. Jackson, Bar No. 285620 njackson@lewlegal.com LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE A Professional Law Corporation 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: 559.256.7800 Facsimile: 559.449.4535 E-FILED 11/4/2021 5:57 PM Superior Court of California County of Fresno By: |. Herrera, Deputy Attorneys for Defendant BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO A. SAMEH EL KHARBAWY, Plaintiff, Vv. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY; DARRYL L. HAMM, an individual; LYNNETTE ZELEZNY, an individual; JOSEPH I. CASTRO, an individual; SAUL JIMENEZ-SANDOVAL, an individual; XUANNING FU, an individual; AND DOES 1| through 50, Defendants. I, Nathan T. Jackson, declare as follows: Case No.: 21CECG02214 [ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO HON. KIMBERLY GAAB, DEPT. 503] Complaint Filed: October 23, 2020 DECLARATION OF NATHAN T. JACKSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF A. SAMEH EL KHARBAWY’S MOTION TO LIFT STAY OF DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16(G) Date: November 18, 2021 Time: 3:30 p.m. Dept.: 503 (*Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Gov. Code, § 6103.) 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before the all the Courts of the State of California, and I am an associate in the law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, attorneys for Defendant Board of Trustees of California State University (“Defendant” or “CSU”). I have 1 Declaration of Nathan T. Jackson in Support of Defendant CSU’s Opposition to Plaintiff El Kharbawy’s Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery 9824495.2 FROO7-003o wnnrn nu fF WY FB PP BP BP PB eB ao fF WN FP OO Liebett Cassidy Whitmore A Professional Law Corporation 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Fresno, Califomia 93704 NNN N NN BP BB Be SSBRRS BSBES SEGRE & personal knowledge of each matter stated herein, and if called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify to each matter set forth herein. 2. Plaintiff is currently in the midst of disciplinary proceedings, and on the moming of October 4th, 2021, my understanding was that he had Skelly conference set for October 6, 2021. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the memorandum of points and authorities for CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion that I prepared and filed in this matter. 4. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the memorandum of points and. authorities for CSU’ s ex-parte application to exceed page limits on its anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiff has not propounded any discovery since I filed Exhibit B. 5. Plaintiff filed an ex-parte application to strike the anti-SLAPP motion dated September 30, 2021. The Court denied this application. 6. On the day before Plaintiff's anti-SLAPP opposition brief was due, his counsel, Andrew Hillier, notified me of an ex-parte hearing to advance the hearing on a motion to lift the discovery stay/continue the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion. Mr. Hillier sent me his ex-parte application to continue the anti-SLAPP hearing for the purpose of hearing a motion to lift the stay on discovery (as well as his motion to lift the stay on discovery) on October 5, 2021 - the same day that Plaintiff’ s opposition to CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion was due. The hearing on the application wes at 3:30 pm. The Court granted the application over CSU's opposition. I recall Mr. Hiller argue that there was no prejudice to CSU if the application was granted. I did not believe that was CSU’s burden on Plaintiff’ s ex-parte application, and I do not recall even responding to that. 7. I had a telephone conversation with Plaintiffs counsel, Andrew Hillier on September 20, 2021, about the Parties’ discovery responses. During that conversation, Mr. Hillier agreed that discovery was stayed while the anti-SLAPP was pending, and he agreed to continue motion to compel deadlines until after the Court riled on CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion. At no point during our conversation did Mr. Hillierrepresent he would need discovery in order to oppose CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion, or express any reservation about our agreement. I summarized this agreement in an e-mail I sent to Mr. Hillier the same day, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto 2 Declaration of Nathan T. Jackson in Support of Defendant CSU's Opposition to Plaintiff El Kharbawy’s Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery 9824495,2 FROO7-003Liebert Cassidy Whitmore A Professional Law Corporation $250 North 0 ON DA BRB Ww NY NN YN YN NN KY Bee we ee Be Be ee oI DA A KF BH F SO eH AY DAH FB BH SF DS as Exhibit C (including Mr. Hillier’s response thereto). 8. I received a voice message from Mr. Hillier on October 1, 2021, at what he represented in his message was about 4:45 p.m. This was a Friday, and it was the day after the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex-parte application to strike CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion. Mr. Hillier said he was calling to “coordinate” with me about an extension of the hearing date on the anti-SLAPP motion. At no point in the voicemail did Mr. Hillier represent that he needed additional discovery to respond to the anti-SLAPP. Rather, he was looking to coordinate the hearing on the anti-SLAPP with a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which I have not finalized or filed with the Court. 9. There is no protective order in this case. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the declaration of Rudy Sanchez filed in support of CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion. 11. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the declaration of Martha Guiditta in support of CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion. This declaration is being submitted in an effort to moot Plaintiff's alleged need to lift the anti-SLAPP discovery stay. 12. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the declaration of Kirsten Corey in support of CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion. This declaration is being submitted in an effort to moot Plaintiff's alleged need to lift the anti-SLAPP discovery stay. 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit G are the Requests for Pretrial Discovery Conference I previously prepared and submitted in this matter. 14. lam and remain willing to provide the Court with redacted copies of any documents where student names have been redacted, in camera, along with a witness key in relation to the Wilke Fleury investigation report, given the lack of a protected order on file. Mit Mit Mit Mit Mit 3 Declaration of Nathan T. Jackson in Support of Defendant CSU’s Opposition to Plaintiff El Kharbawy’s Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery 9824495.2 FROO7-0031 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of 2]| California that the foregoing is true and correct. 3 Executed this 4 A day of Moxtmnec 2021, at Sacramento, California. Nathan T. Jackson Fresno, California 93704 zB A Professional Law Corpor 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 28 4 Declaration of Nathan T. Jackson in Support of Defendant CSU’s Opposition to Plaintiff El Kharbawy’s Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery 9824495.2 FRO07-003Exhibit ALiebett Cassidy Whitmore A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, Califomia 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Oo AN DU fF WYN e oO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 Jesse J. Maddox, Bar No. 219091 jmaddox@Icwlegal.com Nathan T. Jackson, Bar No. 285620 njackson@Icwlegal.com LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE A Professional Law Corporation 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Fresno, Califomia 93704 Telephone: 559.256.7800 Facsimile, 559.449.4535 E-FILED 9/17/2021 11:35 AM Superior Court of California County of Fresno By: L Peterson, Deputy Attomeys for Defendant BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO COUNTY A. SAMEH EL KHARBAWY, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ; DARRY L L. HAMM, an individual; LY NNETTE ZELEZNY, an individual; JOSEPH I. CASTRO, an individual; SAUL JIMENEZ-SANDOVAL, an individual; XUANNING FU, an individual; AND DOES 1 through 50, Defendants. Ml Ml Ml Case No.: 21CECG02214 [ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO HON. KIMBERLY GAAB, DEPT. 503] Complaint Filed: October 23, 2020 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY’S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF A. SAMEH EL KHARBAWY’S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE, CODE CIV. PROC. § 425.16, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS Date: October 19, 2021 Time: 3:30 p.m. Dept: 503 («Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Gov. Code, § 6108.) 1 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) TL INTRODUCTION veesssccssssssssssssesssssssssssssssssssissssssesnssssansssenassnsssnssssssassssssasssssnnsst 10 IL. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND. wd A. PRIOR TRANSFER PROCEEDINGS. ......sssssssssssssssessssessssessseessscssseessssessneessseses 12 GENERAL COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONG.......ccssssessssssssssessssesseessssessseessseessneses 12 Cc. CSU INVESTIGATES PLAINTIFF FOR WORKPLACE MISCONDUCT - THE ALLEGED “RETALIATION” IN SECTION “EB” ..eessssessssssssessssessscsssscssssessseessseessseessneessnsessseesssessssessnsessneessseessseessses 13 Oo AN DU fF WYN D. PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THE INVESTIGATION IS 10 DEFAMATORY, AND THAT HE IS BEING DEFAMED AS A rfl FORM OF RETALIATION ...ssssssssesssssssssssssssssssessssssessssesessssenassssenessssennese 14 12 E. PLAINTIFF’ S CPRA REQUESTS... we l5 13 F. A PAID SUSPENSION IS NOT DISCIPLINARY .....eessesseesseesseessesseesstesnesseessees 16 V4] TI = LEGAL ARGUMENT.....ssscsssssssssssssecssssseessnsseessnsseesensssenensseesnsseessnsseenensseesnsstesees 16 15 A. THE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO HEAR THIS MOTION 16 AND GRANTED PERMISSION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS........cesesseessees 16 17 B. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD 1... eseessesssesssesseessecssecseessessuessesseesnesseessees 17 18 Cc. PLAINTIFF S LAWSUIT INVOLVES CSU’S PROTECTED ACTIVITY .oeeeceessesssesscssecssscssessecssesssesseessesssesssssesssessecssecsuessessessuessesseessesseessees 19 19 1 A State University’ s Investigation Into Allegations Of 20 Employee Misconduct Is An “Official Proceeding” Under 1 Section 425.16(€)(1)-(2) .sessescssessseessecssseesnssesseessneessueecnsecsnseesseesaeesnseeses 19 2? 2. Communications Between CSU And An Accreditation. Body Reflect A Matter Of Public Interest Under Section 23 ADS. LE(C)(A) oesresecsssecsseccssccesseecsnecssseessscesssecsnecssseessscesnsessuessuecnusesnneesaseesaeee 20 24 3. Denying A CPRA Request Is Protected Under Section 35 AQ5.L6(E)(L)-(2) -ereeesseeecsessnsecsnecssccssccesneessneessuecssscessseesuessueecnisesneesseeesseee 21 D. PLAINTIFF S LAWSUIT “ARISES” FROM PROTECTED 26 ACTIVITY .sssscsscssessteiiniieiieinienneninninnsiniinnintintintinaenssel 21 27 1. Plaintiff’ s Defamation Claim Arises From Protected 28 ACTIVELY ooo eceeseecessessecssessscsscssecsessecssessessesssesssessesssesseessecssesseesuessuesseessees 21 2 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 1 2. Plaintiff’ s Retaliation Claims “Arise” From Protected. 2 ACTIVELY ooo eceeseecessessecssessscsscssecsessecssessessesssesssessesssesseessecssesseesuessuesseessees 22 3 E. PLAINTIFF CANNOT ESTABLISH A PROBABILITY OF PREVAILING.... +20 4 1. Plaintiff’ s Defamation Claim Fails As A Matter Of Law... 25 5 a Plaintiff Failed To Comply with The Govemment 6 CAINS ACE oe eeseececsessesseessessnessecssesssessecssesssessessuessessesssesseeseesseese 25 7 b. Plaintiff’ s Defamation Claim Are Time- Barred .........ssssssssseees 26 8 C The Allegations of Misconduct Are Absolutely 9 PHIVILCGEd ose essessesssessnessesssecssessecssessuessesssessessesssesseeeseesseese 27 10 d CSU Is Immune From Common Law Liability... eee 27 11 2. Plaintiff’ s Retaliation and ITED Claims Fail As A Matter Of Law, Because Protected Communications Are Injury 12 Producing Conduct........ssssssecsssecssssesneesnesssneessusecsueecnseesseesneeesuecsneenneesseee 28 13 3. Plaintiff Failed To Comply With The Govemment Claims 14 Act For His Sixth and Tenth Causes Of ACtiOM....0.....csssessesseessessesseesnees 28 15 a Labor Code Section 1102.5........ccessessessessessesssessessessnesseesseesseess 28 16 b. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ...0......0.cssesseesseeseeese 29 17 4. Plaintiff Failed to Exhaust His Administrative Remedies for His Seventh Cause of ACtiOM 0... eeessesseessecsecsesseessesssesseessesssessessseesseese 30 18 19 5. The Tenth Cause of Action Is A Common Law Claim .......ceeeeesseessees 31 6. Plaintiff’ s Retaliation Claims Fail Because CSU Had A 20 Legitimate Business Reason For Suspending Plaintiff, And 21 There Is No Evidence It Sought To Avoid Investigating Plaintiff’ s Complaints 0.0.0... ceseesseessesssessecssecssecsesseessessesseessessesseesseesseese 31 22. a Plaintiff Was Suspended For A Legitimate, Non- 23 Retaliatory Reason, And His Continued Suspension. Ts Legitimate oo. eeceessesseessesssessessecssessessesssesssessessnesseesseesseese 32 24 5 b. CSU Investigated Plaintiff's Complaints... tsceessesseesseesneene 32 26 7. CSU’s Denial of Plaintiff's CPRA Requests Is Privileged... 33 27 8. Plaintiff’ s Seventh Cause of Action is Time Barred... wd 28 3 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 9. Plaintiff Failed To Exhaust His Administrative Remedies for the Third Cause of Action, And There Is No Evidence Of Race Retaliation... eeesssesseessesssessecssecssecssesseessessesseessesssesseesseesseess 33 IV. CONCLUSION... Oo AN DU fF WYN e oO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 4 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Oo AN DU fF WYN e oO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS Federal Cases Breaux v. City of Garland (Sth Cir, 2000) 205 F.3d 150 .....eesssssessssssecsssssecsssseecsssssecssssseecsssseessssseessssnecssssnessssneessssseesssseee 24 Gannon v. Potter (NLD. Cal. 2006) 2006 WL 3422215, at *5 w..ssecsssecsssecsssessssessnecsueecsseccsseessneesnseesnseesnseesneeesnees 24 Haddon v. Executive Residence at the White House (Fed. Cir. 2002) 313 F.3d 1352... ecsssecssscssssesseessusecsseecsseecsseessnecsusecsnsecsaeesaecsuecnueesnneesaseesnees 24 Knox v. Davis (Oth Cir, 2001) 260 F.3d 1009 oo. eeeseesesseessesssessesseessessessecsuessesseessessessesssesssesseesseesseeseesaee 29 McFadden v. City of El Centro (S.D. Cal. 2014) 2014 WL 3002364.......ssssssesssssessssessseesssessssesssessseesssesssseessneessnsesseeessesssssesssees 24. Nichols v. Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville (7th Cir, 2007) 510 F.3d 772 w.ssseesssssescsssseeccssseccsssseessssssecssssneessssseesssssecsssuneessssnessssneessssseesssseee 24 Normandeau v. City of Phoenix (D. Ariz. 2005) 516 F.Supp.2d 1054 o.....ceeesssseecsssseessssseecssssneecsssseesssssecsssssecssssnessssnessssseesssseee 29 Ortiz v. Georgia Pacific (ED. Cal. 2013) 973 F.Supp.20 1162.........ccssssssssssesssssecssssseessssseesssssecssssnecssssnessssneesssnseesssseee 28 Von Gunten v. Maryland (4th Cir. 2001) 243 F.3d 858 .....eessssesssssssecsssseecsssseessssssecssssneessssseessssseessssneessssnessssneessssseesssseee 24 Ward v. Caulk (Oth Cir.1981) 650 F.2d 1144 os seeecseesssesssessssesseeesseessseessseessseesssessssesssseessneesseesseessseessneessnees 29 State Cases Acuna v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. (2013) 217 Cal. App.4th 1402 ....eessssescsssseecsssssecsssseessssseessssssecsssssecsssssessssseessssnessssseessssseessssnee 28 Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 376 ....sseessssessssessssecsseecsscccsseessuecssscesssccsssessusessusecsusecsncesneessueessnecsnseesaseesneessnees 18 Blair v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal App.3d 221 oo... sesssecssescsssscsseessseessscessseesnseesuessusecsusecsncesucessueesnueesnseesnseesneensnees 25 Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal Ath 1106.0... eessesessssecssccsscccsseessseesssccssseessseesasessusecsusecsueeesneessueessnecsnseesaseesneesnees 18 5 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Oo AN DU fF WYN e oO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 Brown v. City of Sacramento (2019) 37 Cal Appp.5th 587 0... sesssecsssscsseccsseessseesssecssscessseesusecsusecsusecsnecssseessneesuseesnseesnsessneessasee 29 Chavez v. Mendoza (2001) 94 Cal App Ath 1083 .......ssesecsssscssesssseessseesssecssscesssessusecsusecsusecsneessneessneesuseesnseesaeersneensanes 18 Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow (2011) 199 Cal App.4th 676 ou... .esssecssccssesssseessseesssecssscessseesusessusecsusecssessneessneessseesnseesaeeesneessanes 17 City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Sainez (2000) 77 Cal App.Ath 1302 o.....ssesecsssccssesssseessseesssecssscesssecsuseesusecsusecsueecsseessnecssseesnseesaeesneesased 33 City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal Ath 69 .....sseessssessssecsssecsseecsseccsneessueessscesssccsssessasessusecsusecsuscesneessueesnneesnseesnsessnensnees 18 Cole v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (1996) 47 Cal App Ath 1505 .......sseessssccssescsseessseesssscssscessscesnecsusecsusecsueessneessneessseesnseesaseesneeesased 34 Collondrez v. City of Rio Vista (2021) 61 Cal -Appp.5th 1089 .......ssesssescssesssseessseesssecssscessseesusessuecsusecsueessneessnecsuseesnseesaeesneeesasee 21 Comstock. Aber (2012) 212 Cal App.4th 981 o.....essssecsssecssescsseessseesssecssscessseesneessusecsusecsueessneessneesuseesnseesaeeesneensanes 18 Cty. of Fresno v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n (2020) 51 Cal Appp.5th 282 on... sesssecssescsseccsseessseesssecssscesnseesneessusecsusecsneessneessnecsuseesnseesaseesnessanee 24 Du Charme v. Int! Bhd. of Elec. Workers (2003) 110 Cal App.4th 107 on... ..sssessssscssescsseesseesssscssscessseesusecsusecsusecsueessneessnecsuseesnseesaeesneessanes 16 Fahlen v. Sutter Cent. Valley Hosps. (2014) 58 Cal. Ath 655.0... essseessssessssecsssecsseccsseessseessscesssccssseesasecsusecsusecsuscssncessneessnecsnseesaseesnensnse 30 Fall River J oint Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal App.3d 431 on... sesssecsssscssescssesssseessseesnsecssseesusessusecsusccsneecsueessueessueesnseesnseesneensnees 25 Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal App.4th 13 o....sesssecssescssescsseessseessseessscessseesuecsuecsusecsueessneessneesasecsnseesneesneensasee 21 Glorietta Foods, Inc. v. City of SanJose (1983) 147 Cal App.3d 835 .....sesssecssescssescssesssseessseesssecsnseesusessusecsusccsuecesneessneesnnecsnseesnsessneeesnees 26 Hagberg v. California Federal Bank (2004) 32 Cal Ath 350... essseessssessssecsseccsseessseesssecsssecsssccsnsessnsessusecnusessscessseesaseesnsecsuseenneeesnee 27, 33 Hansen v. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2008) 171 Cal App.4th 1537 .....ssecsssscssssssseessseesssecsnscessssesnecsuecsusecsneessneessneesuseesnseesaeesneessane 19 Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal -App.Ath 55... sssessssecsssccsssccssesesseesssecsssccssseesusessusecsusccsncesneessueessnecsnseesnseesneesnses 30 6 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Oo AN DU fF WYN e oO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 Jeffra v. Cal. State Lottery (2019) 39 Cal App.Sth 471 .....sesessesessessssesssseessseessseesssessssessssessseessseessseessseessneesseeesneessneenss passim John Doe 2 v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1300.. 22 Khawar v. Globe Int’1, Inc. (1998) 19 Cal 4th 254... eecssessssessssessseessseesssesssssesssesssesssessseessseessseesssesssseesseeessneesseessneessneessnees, 27 Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hosp. Dist. (2006) 39 Cal. A 192 ....seccccssssssseeeessssssssesseeceeeceeceeeeessssmmmsnnsesssseseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessitimmnnnnennessssssete 21 Laker v. Board of Trustees (2019) 32 Cal App.Sth 745 0... cccssesessscsseessseessssessseessseessseessseessneessessseessseessseessneesseeesnee 20, 27, 28 Loehr v. Ventura Cty. Cty. Coll. Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071 .....sssescssescsseessseessssessseessseessseessseesseesseessseessseessneessneesseeessee 25, 26, 28 Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internat. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1102 .....sscsccsesssssesssesssesssessssssssesssnsessssessseesssesssseessnesssnessseessseessnessssed 32 Manavian v. Dep’t. of Justice (2019) 28 Cal Appp.Sth 1127 o....essesesseessssessssessseesseessseessseessssessnsessseesssesssseesssessssessseessseessneessaees 22 Martell v. Antelope Valley Hosp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 978... +20, 28 Miklosy v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (2008) 44 Cal 4th 876 ....ceessssssssessssesssessssessssessssessseessssssessssessseessseesssesssseessneessseesseessneessneessnees, 27 Miller v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1373 .....ssesessssssssessssesssessseeesseessseessneessnsessseesssessssessssesssessseessneessneessanes 19 Moore v. Regents of Univ. of California (2016) 248 Cal. App.4th 216 ....ccecsesesssessssesssessseessesssessseessssessnsessseessseesssesssnesssnessneessseessneessases 22 Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal 4th 828 ......essssessssessssesssessssessssesssssssseesssessseessseessseesssessssesssseesseeesssessneessneessneesseees 34 Namv. Regents of University of California (2016) 1 Cal.App.Sthh 1176 ......secsesessessssesssessseesseessessssesssssessssessseesssessssesssnessseessneessseessneessanes 20 Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal 4th 82 .....ssesssssessssessseesssessssessssesssneessseesssssssessssessseesssessssessssesssnesssseesseessneessneessnees 18 Okorie v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2017) 14 Cal App.Sth 574. .....eecsessssescssesssseessssessseessseesssessssesssessseessseessseessseesseeesee 18, 19, 23, 24 Parkv. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057 ....esssssesssessssesssessssesssseesseessseessssssseessseessseessnessssesssnessseeesssessseessneessneesseees 21 7 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Oo AN DU fF WYN e oO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 Patten v. Grant J oint Union High Sch. Dist. (2005) 134 Cal App.4th 1378 .....ssssecsssscssessssesssseesssscssssesnsessueesuecsusecsueessneessneesssecsnseesneesneessasee 22 People v. Arias (2008) 45 Cal.4th 169... .30 People v. Superior Ct. (Olson) (1979) 96 Cal Appp.30 181 oo... sesssecsseccssescsseecsseessscesssccssscesasecsusecsusecsnecesneessneesnneesnseesaseesneessnse 33 Ramona Unified Sch. Dist. v. Tsiknas (2005) 135 Cal App.4th 510... .esssessssscssescsseessseessssessscessseesnecsuecsusecsneessneessnecsuseesnseesneesneessanes 19 Retired Enps. Assn. of Orange Cty. Inc. v. Cty. of Orange (2011) 52 Cal Ath 1171 oes eessssessssecsseccsseccssecesneecssccsssccsnseesasessusecsusecsuscesneessneessuecsnseesnseesneesnees 24 Rivera v. First DataBank, Inc. (2010) 187 Cal App.4th 709 ......essesessssscssesssseessseesssecsssccssseesuseesusecsusecsueessneessneesuseesnseesasessneeesasee 20 Salma v. Capon. (2008) 161 Cal App.4th 1275 .....ssesecsssssssssssseessseesssscssscessssesnessuecsusecsneessseessneessseesnsecsaessneessanes 18 Scotch v. Art Inst. of California (2009) 173 Cal App 4th 986 .......ssssessssscssesssseessseessssessssessseesnecsuecsusecsneessseessnecssseesnseesaessnessased 31 Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230. 25, 26 Singer Co. v. Cty. of Kings (1975) 46 Cal App.3d 852 ...esssessssecsssccsssscsseessseessseesnscessseesasessusecsusccsnccsneessneesnneesnseesneesneeesnees 34 Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167 .....seessssessssessssecsseccssecesseessneesssecssscesnscesusecsusecsusecsueessneessnecsuseesnsecsaseesneeesasee 27 Thompson v. City of Monrovia (2010) 186 Cal App.4th 860 ........sesecsssscssssssseessseesssecssscessscesuecsuecsusecsnessneessnecsuneesnsecsaeesnessanee 28 Vaca v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp. (2011) 198 Cal App 4th 737 ....sesssecsssscssessseessseesssscssscessscesusecsuecsusecsuessseessneesuseesnseesaensneessasee 29 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal. Ath 180.0... .ssseessssessssecsseccsseessseecssecsssecsssccsnsessusessuecsusessscessssesaseesnecsaeenneesnes 17,18 Wilbanks v. Wolk (2004) 121 Cal App 4th 883 .......sssessssssssesssseessseessseessscessseesneessusecsusecsuessneessneesuseesnsecsnseesnessanee 20 Willis v. City of Carlsbad (2020) 48 Cal Appp.5th 11040... eecseecsssesssseessseessseessscesnsessusessusecsusecsneessneessneesuseesnseesaseesneesasee 25 Wills v. Superior Court (2011) 195 Cal App 4th 143 o...sssessssscssesssseessseesssscssscessseesuessusecsusecsneessneessneesssecsnseesaseesneeesased 32 8 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Oo AN DU fF WYN e oO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 871... eecsssecsssssecssssseessssssecsssssessssseecsssseecssssnessssseesssseeessssnecssssnessssneesssseeesssseee 23 Yanowitz v. L’ Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028 .......eecssseesssssesssssssecsssseecsssseessssseecssssnecsssseessssneessssnecssssnessssneessssseesssseee 22 State Statues Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 ......ssssssssssessssssessssseesssssecsssssessssnecsssneessssseesssseeesssseessssneess 17 Code of Civil Procedure section 340 ........csssssssssessssssesssssesssssecsssssessssnecsssneessssseesssseeessssnesssseeess 33 Code of Civil Procedure section 397 ........cssssssssssecsssssessssseesssssecssssssessssnecsssneessssseesssseeessssneesssseeess 12 Government Code Section 6258.......ss:ssssssssessssesssessssessssesssesssessseessseessseessneesseeesseessseessneesseeesseeessee 21 Government Code section 815........ssssssessssessssessseessseesssessssesssessseessseessneessnsesseeessessseessneessneesseeessee 27 Government Code section 8547.12.....cccccccsscssscssscssscsssesssessscsssessscsescssscsescsssesescsssesesessseseseseeeee 30, 33 Government Code section 905.......:ssssssssssessssessssessseesssesssesssessseessseessseessseesseesseessseessneessneesseeessee 25 Government Code section 911.2.....ssssssessssessssesssessssessssessseessessseessseessneessesesseeesssssseessseessneesseeessee 25 Government Code section 912.4......sssssessssessssesssesssseesssessssesssessseessseessneessnsesseessesssseessneesseeesseeessee 25 Government Code section 913........ssssssessssessssesssesssseesssesssesssessseessseessseessneesseessessseessseessneesseeessee 25 Government Code section 945.4.....ssssessssessssessssesssessssesssessseessseessseessneessesesseesseessseessneessneesseeesnee 25 Government Code section 955.2.....ssssssessssessssesssessssessssessssesssessseessseessseessesesseessseessseessneessneesseeesnes 12 Other Authorities A.B. 9 (2019) REY€S......sssssccssssecsssseecsssssecsssssecsssssecssssscssssssecsssssecssssscssssuecssssuecsssseessssesssssesssneeessss 34 wel oO Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 8 9 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Oo AN DU fF WYN e oO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES L INTRODUCTION Plaintiff is a Professor at Califomia State University, Fresno (“Fresno State’). He is ona mission to disrupt the entire Califomia State University (“CSU”) system, because he is enraged that CSU suspended him with pay during an investigation into sustained workplace misconduct. He has displayed his rage by not only suing CSU, but also personally suing CSU’s Chancellor, Dr. Joseph Castro; two CSU campus presidents, Dr. Lynnette Zelezny (CSU-Bakersfield) and Dr. Saul Jimenez-Sandoval (Fresno State); Fresno State Provost, Dr. Xuanning Fu; and University Counsel Darryl Hamm. Aside from the fact much of Plaintiff's complaint is purposely inaccurate, it is also largely premised on activity protected by the anti-SLA PP statute. To this end, Plaintiff was placed on paid suspension on February 5, 2018, following allegations of misconduct against him. He claims his suspension was retaliation for intemal complaints he filed under various intemal administrative policies (known as “Executive Orders”) of the CSU system. CSU does not dispute that Plaintiff filed a number of intemal complaints - he has been complaining about alleged misconduct at Fresno State since at least 2009. The misconduct allegations that formed the basis for Plaintiff’ s paid suspension were set forth in an original suspension notice on February 5, 2018. Additional misconduct allegations ‘were communicated to Plaintiff via a suspension extension notice on August 13, 2018. CSU retained attomey Bianca Samuel with the law firm of Wilke Fleury (she is now a Deputy Attomey General for the State of Califomia) to perform a workplace investigation into whether Plaintiff committed the misconduct detailed in those notices. Samuel completed her investigation in or about October 2019. She interviewed more than 20 witnesses (faculty and students), and sustained most of the alleged misconduct. Plaintiff’ s intemal complaints since his suspension routinely attack Samuel’s investigation, along with what Plaintiff contends are the false, defamatory, and malicious misconduct allegations (from witnesses) against him. Plaintiff claims the misconduct allegations were defamatory. This is the general thrust of his defamation claim. Plaintiff also expressly identifies the alleged “defamatory” statements as “adverse employment actions” that support his retaliation claims, and in doing so cites them as 10 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Oo AN DU fF WYN e oO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 the injury producing conduct that supports those claims. Plaintiff also incorporated each allegation in his lawsuit into every cause of action, and by consequence compounded this problem. by making these “false” communications a central component of his complaint - in fact, Plaintiff complains about these “false communications” more than a dozen times in his lawsuit. (e.g., Complaint at pp. 6:2-26, 14:1-5, 14:11-14, 15:7-11, 15:12-21, 20:5-11, 31:1-12, and 31:21-23.) Plaintiff has also made the alleged harm to his reputation flowing from these purportedly false communications a critical element of his damage claims. (Id. at pp. 18:17-21, 20:23-27, 22:18- 22, 24:4-8, 25:15-19, 27:11-15; 29:1-4, 31:21-23, 32:11-16, 22:5-10, 35:7-15, and 35:25.) By inextricably intertwining these allegations, Plaintiff has made it impossible to segregate protected conduct from non-protected conduct as to any cause of action at issue in this motion. CSU’s workplace investigation is an official proceeding authorized by law under the anti- SLAPP statute, as are communications and conduct made in connection with it. This would encompass the workplace misconduct allegations, the investigation, and Plaintiff’ s temporary paid suspension. These statements and conduct are absolutely privileged under Civil Code section 47(b)(3), because they were made in connection with an official proceeding. As such, there is no possibility Plaintiff can prevail to the extent he is attacking statements or conduct made in connection with an official, state-authorized workplace investigation. Plaintiff also cites other acts of alleged “retaliation” that are plainly protected under the anti-SLAPP statute, including CSU’s responses to Califomia Public Records Act (“CPRA”) requests. In sum, many causes of action primarily arise from statements and conduct flowing from CSU's decision to investigate Plaintiff for misconduct beginning in February 2018. This is protected and privileged conduct, and as such, Plaintiff’ s defamation, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“ITED”) claims are subject to an anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiff also included other allegations of protected conduct, which are also addressed in this motion. Accordingly, CSU respectfully asks the Court to strike Plaintiff’ s Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth causes of action, or in the altemative strike the portions that are based on protected communications and conduct. CSU also respectfully asks the Court for an award of reasonable attomeys’ fees and costs for being forced to bring this motion. 11 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Il. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. PRIOR TRANSFER PROCEEDINGS Although Plaintiff was a Fresno State professor and all alleged unlawful conduct occurred while he worked at Fresno State, he filed his lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on October 23, 2020. (Jackson Decl., 12, Exh. 1.) CSU filed a motion to transfer venue to Fresno County pursuant to Govemment Code section 955.2 on December 22, 2020. (Id. at 13.) The motion was denied, but with leave to file a motion to transfer venue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 397, and the Court set a hearing date for March 25, 2021. (Ibid.) CSU fileda motion to transfer under section 397 on March 1, 2021. (Ibid.) The Court granted the motion on May 19, 2021. (Id. at Exh. 2.) CSU received a Fresno County Superior Court case number on 11]} August 9, 2021. (Id. at 14.) Only CSU has fonmally appeared. (Id. at 115.) 12 B. GENERAL COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 13 Plaintiff is a self-proclaimed “prolific scholar’ with an outstanding reputation among 14|] students and faculty. (Complaint at {1 13-15.) He purports to have along history of activism that 15]] began upon hire in 2006 and continued until his suspension in February 2018. (Id. at 16-35.) 16|| Plaintiff claims he engaged in the following “protected” acts: Oo AN DU fF WYN e oO 17 . Four years before he was suspended, Plaintiff opposed sex and age discrimination 18 against female applicants. (Id. at 1116-17.) 19 . Plaintiff was offered a leadership position in 2015 and 2016, but believes it was 20 withdrawn because he opposed sex discrimination. (Id. at 4 18.) 21 . There was a search committee for a position in Fresno State’s Middle Eastem. 22 program in 2016, which Plaintiff was not a part of, and he joined a “national 23 outcry” after it was canceled. (Id. at {f] 19-20.) 24 ° In 2016, faculty at Fresno State falsely told an accrediting body that Plaintiff was 25 not participating in the accreditation effort. (Id. at 1128-33.) 26 . In 2017, Plaintiff’ s supervisor, Dr. Xuanning Fu, purposefully misspelled his name 27 in an effort to humiliate and insult him. (Id. at 7 22.) 28 . In 2017, Dr. Fu “manufactured an fomented false complaints,” including Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 1 allegedly manufacturing false complaints from students. (Id. at 123.) 2 . Plaintiff received all but one course on his teaching preference list for the fall of 3 2017, and this was a set up for failure. (Id. at 424.) 4 ° A student lodged a grade protest against Plaintiff in 2017, and it was dropped by 5 CSU because it did not comply with university policy. (Id. at 1125.) 6 . Plaintiff received all but one course on his teaching preference list for the spring of 7 2018, and this was a set up for failure. (Id. at 426.) 8 . In 2017, Plaintiff claims he leamed that he was the only person in his College who 9 did not receive a pay equity increase. (Id. at 27.) 10 ° Plaintiff has filed several intemal complaints since 2014. (Id. at {1 34.) 11 Section “E” of the complaint describes the alleged retaliation at issue in this motion. That 12]| section is titled “FOLLOWING HIS PROTECTED ACTIVITIES - AND BECAUSE OF IT - 13]| DEFENDANTS RETALIATED AGAINST PLAINTIFF.” (Id. at p. 13:13-14.) 14 C. | CSUINVESTIGATES PLAINITFF FOR WORKPLACE MISCONDUCT - 15 THE ALLEGED “RETALIATION” IN SECTION “E” 16 Plaintiff was suspended on February 5, 2018, following allegations of workplace 17|| misconduct. (Sanchez Decl., 13, Exh. 1; Complaint at {f135-36.) Plaintiff has not entered 18]| Fresno State’s campus since his suspension. (Sanchez Decl. at 15.) Many of the allegations 19}] pertained to how Plaintiff managed a course that he was assigned in the spring of 2018 known as 20]| “ID 116.” (eg., Sowles Decl. at 113-7, Exhs. 1-4; Sanchez Decl., 13; and Items 1-6 in Exh. 1 to 21}| Sanchez Decl.) CSU retained Wilke Fleury to investigate the allegations. (Hamm Decl., 113.) 22. Among the misconduct allegations, it was alleged that Plaintiff asked students to signa 23)| “student agreement” he created and falsely portrayed as an official CSU document. (e.g., Exh. 1 24|| to Sowles Decl.; Sanchez Decl., 13.) The “agreement” purported to authorize Plaintiff to 25]| essentially teach the course in whatever manner he wanted, in terms of both class meetings and. 26|| content, and that the course would be developed on an ongoing basis. (Ibid.) The misconduct 27)| allegations broadened during the investigation, and new allegations were communicated to 28)|| Plaintiff in a suspension notice on August 13, 2018. (Sanchez Decl., 4, Exh. 2; Complaint at 4] 13 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Oo AN DU fF WYN e oO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 45.) Wilke Fleury completed its investigation in October of 2019. (Hamm Decl. at 13.) Wilke Fleury sustained most of the misconduct allegations against Plaintiff in a disturbing report, including that Plaintiff discriminated against a female student with disabilities, and intimidated students. (Hamm Decl., 13; Jackson Decl., 14, Exh. 3 at pp. 1-3, and 52-69.) D. PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THE INVESTIGATION IS DEFAMATORY, AND THAT HE IS BEING DEFAMED AS A FORM OF RETALIATION Plaintiff claims CSU manufactured false allegations and “defamed” him so that it could suspend and investigate him. (Id. at {1 35-50.) That is, the communications are the harm A. significant component of Plaintiff’ s legal theory flows directly from CSU's investigation, including in particular the misconduct allegations that were the focus of CSU’s investigation: . Plaintiff claims CSU suspended him on February 5, 2018, based on “false, pre- textual reasons” - “a series of minor, vague, and baseless allegations of wrongdoing” that CSU “manufactured” to suspend him and preempt any outside investigation into his complaints. (Id. at 136, emphasis added.) ° CSU “again retaliated against Plaintiff” by sending him a letter dated August 13, 2018, citing new allegations of misconduct that were [...] false, vague, unsourced, and fabricated [...]” (Id. at 145, emphasis added.) . Plaintiff’ s suspension was repeatedly continued based on “the same baseless, vague and false allegations,” even though “a rudimentary investigation would have quickly exposed the factually baseless allegations [...] The University has consistently refused to provide information to Plaintiff about the factual basis for its allegations, despite multiple requests.” (Id. at 139, 46, emphasis added.)! . “Further, the allegations of wrongdoing asserted by Defendants against Plaintiff in the February 5, 2018 suspension notice-and all subsequent suspension notices- were also false and defamatory.” (Id. at 1135, emphasis added.) . Plaintiff claims these false and defamatory suspension notices were sent to him, 1 Plaintiff in fact has a copy of the Wilke Fleury report, and had it before he filed his lawsuit. 14 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Oo AN DU fF WYN e oO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 monthly, fornearly three years. (e.g., Id. at {1 46, 82, 112, emphasis added.) Plaintiff identified these “false” communications as injury producing conduct in support of every cause of action in this Motion. (Complaint at 182, 112, 119, 133-135, and 156.) Not only is the thrust of Plaintiff’ s retaliation theory focused on the allegedly manufactured communications of misconduct, but the administrative complaints he relies on in his “Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies” section make clear he is attacking the investigation itself: On March 6, 2018, the University’s Associate Vice President for Human Resources, Ms. Marylou Mendoza- Miller, informed Dr. El Kharbawy that an outside law firm, Wilke Fleury, was assigned to look into the circumstances alleged to justify his suspension on. February 5, 2018 [...] On May 8, 2019, Dr. El Kharbawy met with two of the University's attomeys charged with investigating the allegations cited by the University as a basis for his suspension. In that meeting, Dr. El Kharbawy presented ample evidence that the University's allegations were false and intended to harass, discriminate and retaliate against him. In that meeting, Dr. El Kharbawy was surprised by a new set of false allegations, which suddenly emerged (after the University’s earlier allegations quickly collapsed as false and pretextual). Dr. El Kharbawy was not provided the specifics of any of the University's new (or earlier) allegations, in violation of Dr. El Kharbawy’s legal rights, University policy and the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the University and the Califomia Faculty Association. (RJNat 14, Exh. 4atp. 7:1-4, 8:9-19; Complaint at 152.) Indeed, Plaintiff's 2019 complaint with the Department of Fair Employment & Housing (“DFEH”) expressly alleges that CSU subjected him to false allegations and. “improper intemal investigations.” (RJN at 94, Exh. 4 at p. 9:2-3.) The govemment tort claim cited in Plaintiff's complaint is virtually identical to his 2019 DFEH complaint, as is his “EO-1116” complaint from 2019. (RJN at 9913, Ex. 3 [tort aim]; and Mendoza-Miller Decl., 18, Exh. 9 [EO complaint].) E. _ PLAINIIFF’SCPRA REQUESTS Plaintiff issued multiple CPRA requests to CSU in May of 2018. (Gonzalez Decl., 13; Complaint at 142.) Plaintiff, in part, sought records relating to the Wilke Fleury investigation. (Id. at 13, Exh. 1.) CSU denied Plaintiff’ s request for investigatory materials. (Id. at Exh. 1.) 2 Plaintiff never filed an EO 1116 complaint - he filed an EO 1058 complaint in 2019, but because EO 1058 had been superseded by EO 1116, it was addressed under EO 1116. 15 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Oo AN DU fF WYN e oO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 CSU also formally responded to all of his other requests. (Id. at 73.) Plaintiff appears to allege that CSU’s decision to deny his CPRA requests was also retaliatory. (Complaint at 42.) F. A PAID SUSPENSION IS NOT DISCIPLINARY Plaintiff’ s employment at CSU subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between CSU and the Califomia Faculty Association (“CFA”). (Mendoza-Miller Decl. at 110; Exh. 5 to RJN.) Plaintiff alleges that he was temporarily suspended pursuant to Article 17 of his CBA. (Complaint at 135.) Plaintiff further alleges that his temporary suspension was extended dozens of times. (Id. at 19.32, 46, 59, 82, 112.) But section 19 of that CBA states that a temporary suspension with pay (the same at issue here) is not a disciplinary action. (Exh. 5 to RJNat Article 19.2 [temporary suspension with pay is not disciplinary]; Mendoza- Miller Decl. at 110 [Exh. 5 to the RJN is the CBA that applies to Plaintiff].) Il. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. THE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO HEAR THIS MOTION AND GRANTED PERMISSION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS An anti-SLAPP motion filed more than 60 days after service of the complaint may be pemmitted in the court's discretion “upon terms it deems proper.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(£).) In this case, the motion is being filed more than 60 days after service because of CSU's venue transfer motions, the first of which was filed less than 30 days after Plaintiff served CSU. Plaintiff (a Fresno County resident) attempted to prejudice the defendants and dozens of witnesses by filing his lawsuit in Los Angeles County. In its motion to transfer venue filings, CSU identified dozens of witnesses who can speak to Plaintiff’ s misconduct, and it produced more than 20 declarations. (Jackson Decl. 413.) This Motion does not seek disposition of the entire case; therefore, CSU felt it was necessary to effect a transfer first. In addition, there is no prejudice to Plaintiff. The case is still at avery early stage. No depositions have been scheduled or taken, and hearing this anti-SLAPP motion will fulfill the stabutory purpose of the anti-SLAPP - to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that such participation should not be chilled through an abuse of the judicial process. (Du Charme v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 107, 113 [court 16 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’ s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9656378.3 FROO7-003Liebett Cassidy Whitmore ‘A Professional Law Corporation Fresno, California 93704 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Oo AN DU fF WYN e oO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 properly exercised discretion to hear motion three years after complaint]; Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 192 [the Legislature sought to prevent SLAPP [lawsuits] by ending them early and without great cost to the SLAPP target”].) Only one of the six named defendants in this matter has formally appeared to date. (Id. at 15.) As such, CSU respectfully asks the Court to exercise its discretion to hear this still early motion. On August 11, 2021, Judge McGuire granted CSU’s ex parte application to file a brief of no more than 25 pages (and allowed Plaintiff the same). Plaintiff filed a Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 challenge to Judge McGuire's assignment on August 17, 2021. CSU understands this to be permission to file the anti-SLAPP motion, as the Court would not have granted a page limit extension for a motion it was not allowing CSU to file in the first place? CSU’s ex-parte application for a page limit extension was also filed after the 60-day deadline. B APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly referred to the anti-SLA PP statute, provides a defendant the right to make a special motion to strike any cause of action arising from the right of petition or free speech. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(b)(1).) Under the statute, protected conduct includes: “(1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, orjudicial 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 orjudicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue of public interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(e).) Acts protected under this provision include acts “prepatory to or in anticipation of an action or other official proceeding.” (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (1999) 3 Even if the Court believes Judge McGuire granted a pag