Party Statement: Oliver VS City of Oakland

On February 21, 2019 a Party Statement was filed involving a dispute between Mildred L. Oliver, Oliver, Mildred L., and City Of Oakland, Oakland Police Department, for Civil Unlimited (Civil Rights/Discrimination) in the District Court of Alameda County.

Preview
AMO 22492986 _

John Houston Scott (SBN 72578)
Lizabeth
ScoTT
1388
N.
LAW
Sutter
de Vries
FIRM
Street,
(SBN

Suite 715
227215)
FILED
ALAMEDA COUNTY
San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone: (415) 561-9600 NOV 6 - 2019
Facsimile: (415) 561-9609
john@scottlawfinn net CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
liza@scottlawfirm.net By A Syn Jifoe /an >. ™

Attorneys forPlaintiff MILDRED OLIVER

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA — OAKLAND DIVISION

10
11 MILDRED OLIVER,
Case No. RG19007799
12 Plaintiff,
DISCOVERY
13 v.

Polls
DECLARATION OF JOHN HOUSTON
14 CITY OF OAKLAND, OAKLAND SCOTT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
POLICE DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1- DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL
15 25, inclusive.
INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION

Ad
16 Defendants. Date: December 20, 2019
Time: 9:00 a.m.
17

D4
Department: 25, The Honorable Ronni MacLaren
18
Reservation No.: R-2132170
19
Date Action Filed: February 21, 2019
20 First Amended Complaint Filed: April 23, 2019
Trial Date: September 8, 2020
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF JOHN HOUSTON SCOTT ISOMOTION
FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION
I, John Houston Scott, hereby declare that:

1. I am an attomey duly licensed to practice law Ithe State of California and counsel

for Plaintiff Mildred Oliver. I make thisDeclaration on personal knowledge and on information

and belief in support of Ms. Oliver’s Motion for Discovery of Police Personnel Information

(“Pitches”) Motion and the disclosure of information in this action in which Defendants City of _

Oakland and the Oakland Police Department contends isprotected by Penal Code Section 832.7,
Nn

information protected by Evidence Code sections 1040-1043, and information protected by CCP
“I

section 129.
eo

2. Attached as.Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the FirstAmended Complaint
\O

10 filed in thismatter.

1] 3. Attached as Exhibit B is atrue and correct copy of the Defendant City of Oakland’s
715

12 Amended Response to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One.
94109
SUITE
FIRM

13 4. On or about October 24, 2019, I telephonically “met and conferred” with David
CA
STREET,

14 Pereda, counsel for the City of Oakland. We agreed upon a protective order. Mr.Pereda
LAW

FRANCISCO,

15 acknowledged thatthe documents and recordings sought by the plaintiffwere relevant and
SCOTT
SUTTER

16 discoverable. He also stated that his client is prevented from producing the documents and
SAN
1388

17 recordings without the plaintifffirstcomplying with Pitchess and obtaining a court order. I

18 agreed to filea Pitchess motion inorder to accomplish this goal.

19 I declare under penalty of perjury thatthe foregoing istrue and correct. If called as a

20 witness, Icould and would testify competently to the matters stated herein, except asto those

2] matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them tobe true.

22 Executed this 5" day of November, 2019 at Sebastopol, California.
23

25 J on Houston Scott

28 -1l-

DECLARATION OF JOHN HOUSTON SCOTT ISO MOTION
FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”} MOTION
Exhibit A
John Houston Scott (SBN 72578) ENDORSED
Lizabeth N. de Vries (SBN 227215) FILED
ScoTT Law FIRM ALAMEDA COUNTY
1388 SutterStreet, Suite715
San Francisco, California94109 APR 23 2019
Telephone: (415) 561-9600 _
Facsimile: (415) 561-9609 clerk. 2 UE RIOR COURT
f

john@scottlawfirm.net By | Bee
liza@scottlawfirm.net = JANE THOMAS, Capity
we
NO

Attomeys forPlaintiffMILDRED OLIVER

pais
8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA — OAKLAND DIVISION

Ag
10

11
MILDRED OLIVER, Case No. RG19007799

xe4
71S

Plaintiff, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
94109
SUITE
FIRM

v. DAMAGES :
13
CA
STRELT,

i4 CITY OF OAKLAND, OAKL AND 1. FEHA — GENDER DISCRIMINATION
LAW

FRANCISCO,

POLICE
:
DEPARTMENT,
: >
and DOES 1- | 23, FEHA-
FEHA —
RACE DISCRIMINATION
HOSTILE-WORK
1S 25, inclusive. ENVIRONMENT
SCOTT
SUTTER

16 4. FEHA —-RETALIATION
Defendants. 5. WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION
SAN
1388

Jury Trial Demanded
18
PARTIES & VENUE
19
1. Plaintiff,Mildred Oliver, is anAfrican-American woman who isan employee of
20
defendant, the Oakland Police Department. She resides inOakland, California.
21
2. Defendant City of Oakland isa public entity situatcdin theState of Californiaand

organized under the laws of the Stateof California.
23
3. Defendant Oakland Police Department isa public agency organized and existing
24
pursuant to the laws of the Stateof California.
25
4, Plaintiffdoes not presently know the truenames and capaciticsof defendants
26
DOES | through 25,inclusive, and therefore sues them by these fictitious
names. Plaintiffis
27
informed and believes that DOES | through 25, and each of them, were responsible in some
28
-}j-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAM AGES
manner for the acts or omissions alleged herein. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend thisComplaint

to add their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained.

5. At all times mentioned herein, each of the defendants was the agent, servant,
WwW

employee, partner, aider and abettor, co-conspirator, and/or joint venturer of each of the other

remaining defendants, and in doing the things alleged, was acting within the course and scope of

such agency, service, employment, partnership, conspiracy, alterego, and/or joint venture, and
“1D

each defendant ratified and approved the acts of the other remaining defendants.

6. The conduct alleged herein occurred in Alameda County.

7. Venue liesin the Superior Court inthe County of Alameda, California.
10 STATEMENT OF FACTS

11 I. Background: Sgt. Mildred Oliver has served the OPD for 22 years; in 2014 she was
an investigator in the Internal Affairs Division (JAD).
715

12
94109
SUITE

8. From August 22, 1997 to the present Mildred L. Oliver, a Black female, was
FIRM

13
CA

employed as a police officer for the Oakland Police Department (hereafter "OPD"), and was
STREET,

14
LAW

FRANCISCO,

promoted to Sergeant in2012.
15
SCOTT
SUTTER

9. Throughout her tenure, she performed her job duties satisfactorily.
16
SAN

10. In 2014, Sgt. Oliver was assigned as an investigator in the Internal Affairs
17
1388

Division of the OPD (“IAD”).
18
11. Sgt. Oliver was the only female OPD IAD investigator out of eight investigators.
19
20 Il. The OPD assigns Sgt. Oliver a limited investigation of a suicide note even though the
note implicated OPD officers as engaging in statutory rape of an identified Minor.
21
12. On June 14, 2014, OPD Officer Brendan O’Brien’s wife was killed. Officer
22
O’Brien was a primary suspect. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that Officer O’Brien’s
23
wife had recently discovered thather husband had been cheating on her.
24
13. The OPD’s official investigation concluded that Officer O’Brien’s wife’s death
25
was a suicide, not amurder. Sgt. Mike Gantt disagreed with this conclusion. Sgt. Gantt believed
26
Officer O’Brien’s wife’s death was a homicide. However, after he voiced these beliefs, the OPD
27
removed Sgt. Gantt from the investigation.
28
-2-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
14. On September 25, 2015, OPD Officer O’Brien committed suicide and left anote.

Officer O’Brien implicated himself and two other OPD members. He identified a minor female
WN

(“Celeste”) who accused Officer O’Brien and another former OPD officer (Officer #1) of
Ww

statutory rape. The note also identified aBlack male OPD Sergeant, Sgt. Leroy Johnson, as aware
&

of Officer O’Brien’s and Officers #1’s misconduct.
mA

15. | The OPD launched an IAD investigation only as against Sgt. Johnson forhis
NN

alleged failure toreport misconduct by Officers O’Brien and XXX.
“4

16. | Onor about October 1, 2015, the OPD assigned the Sgt. Johnson IAD
So

investigation to Sgt. Oliver.
o

10 a. Set. Oliver finds Celeste to be credible and secks to expand the investigation
and refer the case as a criminal matter; the OPD denied both requests.
11
17. Within days of the assignment, Sgt. Oliver reviewed the case file,watched the
715

12
94109
SUITE

video of the criminal investigators’ interview of Celeste, and discussed the matter with her
FIRM

13
CA

supervisor, Acting Lt. Todd Mork (White male). Sgt. Oliver recommended the scope of the
STREBT,

14
LAW

FRANCISCO,

investigation be expanded and referred as a criminal investigation and Acting Lt.Mork agreed
15
SUTLER
SCOTT

with plaintiff'srecommendations. However, the OPD denied both requests. instead, the OPD
16
SAN

instructed plaintiffto continue with the limited administrative investigation against Sgt. Johnson.
1388

17
18. Plaintiff was told that the chain of command decided Celeste was not “credible.”
18
In contrast, Sgt. Oliver found Celeste to be credible. Sgt. Oliver was also concerned because
19
Celeste’s mother was then working atthe OPD, as a Dispatcher #1.
20
19. The OPD elected to address thissuicide note, containing allegations of OPD
21
officers participating in statutory rape, as ifit were a garden-variety IAD investigation. This
22.
avoided identifying and investigating other OPD officers who potentially engaged in criminal
23
behavior. It also avoided determining whether Officer O’Brien’s wife’s death was a homicide.
24
20. Between October 2015 and February 2016, plaintiff worked closely with her chain |
25
of command (Lt.Alan Yu and Capt. Donna Hoppenhauer) and the assigned City Attorney
26
(Allyson Cook) to conduct the investigation of Sgt. Johnson.
27.

28
-3-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
21. |The OPD provided Sgt. Oliver with no support to timely complete this

investigation. Forexample, she was not offered overtime or assistance. Rather, she was told that

then-Chief Sean Whent wanted thiscase behind him. Sgt. Oliver also had three other

investigations assigned to her.
>
NH

b. In February 2016, Sgt. Oliver was told by OPD members and agents that she
was doing a good job inconcluding that Set. Johnson failed to report
HD

misconduct.
SN

22. On or about February 10, 2016, Sgt. Oliver timely drafted and presented her IA
OO

report and recommended a sustained finding against Sgt. Johnson.
mo

23. Sgt. Oliver also referenced numerous other OPD officers as potential subjects for a |.
10
statutory-rape investigation.
1]
24. Sgt. Oliver followed proper procedures and received favorable responses regarding
715

12
the content and recommended findings of this LAD report.
94109
SUITE
FIRM

13
25. ‘InFebruary 2016, the plaintiffwas told she was doing a good job.
CA
STREET,

14
LAW

FRANCISCO,

Ill. The NSA was an obstacle for the OPD to sweep this sex scandal under the rug.
15
SCOTT
SUTTER

26. | The OPD was then (and now) subject to a federal-court monitoring process; the
16
OPD had to comply with aNegotiated Settlement Agreement (“NSA”).
SAN
1388

17
27. | The NSA required the OPD report to a court-appointed Monitor and ultimately the
18
federal court to demonstrate that the OPD was in compliance with the NSA.
19
28. In March 2016, Sgt. Oliver’s report on the sexual-misconduct matter involving
20
Sgt. Johnson was presented to the Monitor and then to the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson.
21
a. In March 2016, the federal court overseeing the OPD understood that the
22 |
OPD JAD investigation was unduly narrowed and incomplete.
23 29. On March 26, 2016, Judge Henderson issued an order which stated as follows:
24 “This case raises most serious concerns thatmay well impact Defendants’ [OPD] abilityto
25 demonstrate their commitment to accountability and sustainability — both of which are key to
26 ending court oversight.” The judge also noted that the matter revealed “irregularities and potential
27 violations of the NSA.” Moreover, the Court directed the Compliance Director to use his
28
-4-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
authority “to ensure thiscase and any related matters are properly and timely investigated and that).

all appropriate follow-up actions are taken.”
LD

30. |The OPD made a decision to make Sgt. Oliver a scapegoat.
WY
S&

b. The OPD made Set. Oliver its scapegoat by removing her from the
investigation, blaming her for itslimitations, and launching a course of
A

conduct to harass and retaliate against her.
Oo

31. | On March 29, 2016, then-acting-Chief Lois removed Sgt. Oliver from the

investigation. However, Acting Lt.Mork (Caucasian male) was not affected in any way (he was
~

not assigned tothe case) although he also believed the matter should have been investigated

criminally. Instead he was promoted and latertransferred to the IAD Intake Unit as Acting
10
Lieutenant.
1]
32. Lt. Yu was assigned to take over this investigation as his only case. He was
715

12
directed to add staff, overtime, and other resources to expand the scope and nature of the
94109
SUITE
FIRM

13
investigation. This included bringing in Criminal Investigation Division investigators. In contrast,
CA
STREET,

14
LAW

FRANCISCO,

Sgt. Oliver had three other investigations assigned to her and was provided no additional support.
15
33. For example, Sgt. Oliver was assigned acomplaint filed by Sgt. Mike Gantt, an
SCOTT
SUTTER

16
African-American officer who alleged then-Lt. John Lois transferred him off of Officer O’Brien’s
SAN
1388

17
wife’s death investigation. Sgt. Gantt also alleged Lt. Lois then engaged in subsequent
18
harassment, motivated by racial animus or retaliation.Sgt. Oliver believed that Sgt. Gantt’s
19
allegations should be substantiated and required additional investigation.
20
34. Onor about April 5,2016, the OPD removed Sgt. Oliver from Sgt. Gantt’s
21
investigation without explanation.
22
35. After the Court’s March 26, 2016 order, Sgt. Oliver’s supervisors and the City
23
Attomey’s office began criticizing her performance, re-evaluating her previously completed
24
investigations, and documenting fabricated short-comings.
25
36. Contrary tothe positive feedback she had received prior to March 2016, the OPD
26
alleged Sgt. Oliver’s investigation into the sex scandal was “flawed” and “caused significant
27
negative attention tothe OPD.”
28
-5-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
IV. The OPD engaged in a course of discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory conduct
toward the plaintiff.

37. In May and June 2016, Sgt. Oliver was told she would be transferred to a preferred -

assignment with the Police Activities League.

38. But instead on January 14, 2017, Capt. Donna Hoppenhauer transferred Sgt. Oliver
UA

from IAD toa non-preferred assignment, Patrol.
DH

39. The stated reason for this transfer was that the OPD determined plaintiff's sex-
~~

scandal investigation was “flawed” and “caused significant negative attention to the OPD.”
CO
oOo

40. Throughout Sgt. Oliver’s stintin Patrol, she was harassed and subjected to a
10 hostile-work environment.
il. 41. On February 10, 2017, Sgt. Oliver was off-duty. Other OPD officers responded to
715

12 an incident ata location where residents alleged a neighbor shot up a car.
94109
SUITE
FIRM

13 42. On February 14, 2017, plaintiff responded toa call regarding another car that was
CA
STREET,

14 shot up atthe same block as on the 10th. Sgt. Oliver consulted with Acting Lt.Rachel Van Sloten
LAW

FRANCISCO,

15 and they agreed on a course of action which was implemented.
SUTIER
SCOTT

16 43. On February 17, 2017, plaintiffwas again off-duty when an officer-involved
SAN

17
1388

shooting occurred atthe same location. Later thatday, Sgt. Oliver was informed that she would
18 be relieved of patrol duties and assigned administrative duties. One hour later,Sgt. Oliver was
19 _ informed that information was inaccurate.
20 44. OnFebruary 18, 2017, the East Bay Express identified Sgt. Oliver as the “highest
21 ranking official” on the scene of a callfor service on February 14, 2017 at the same location of
22 the officer-involved shooting on the 17th. Although the article described the three incidents, the
23 leaked information. tothe press failed to identify other officers incharge, uniquely putting Sgt.
24 Oliver’s safety in jeopardy.
25 45. Thereafter, Lt. Arozarena blamed Sgt. Oliver as responsible for what went
26 | “wrong” on the 17th. Lt. Arotzarena instructed Sgt. Oliver that she would have to do a “ride
27 along” for the next two weeks in violation of policy and practice.
28
-6-
F IRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
46. During Sgt. Oliver’s brief tenure in the Patrol Unit from January 14, 2017 through

& ebruary 23, 2017, her supervisor, Acting Lieutenant Dominque Arotzarena (White male),

created a hostile work environment for the plaintiff.This involved: (a) suggesting to her fellow

officers that she would “report them” to LA; (b) belittling her experience in the department as if

she were incapable of performing duties in Patrol in front of her colleagues; (c)compelling her to |

present a previous 1A investigation she had conducted when other former IA officers did not have ‘|
NSN

to do so; (d) instructing the plaintiffto only report to him rather than aparallel Acting Lt. Rachel
“s

Van Sloten (female); and, (e) orchestrating a false notice that plaintiff was being put on
Oo
oOo

administrative leave.

10 V. In 2017, Sgt. Oliver complained about unlawful discrimination and retaliation.
11 47. On February 23, 2017, Sgt. Oliver delivered awritten complaint alleging a hostile |
715

12 work environment to Deputy Chief Darren Allison. ;
94109
SUITE
FIRM

13 48. By February 24, 2017, Sgt. Oliver suffered significant job-related stress and went
CA
STREET,

14 out on medical leave.
LAW

FRANCISCO,

15 49. The OPD made no good-faith or meaningful effort to accommodate Sgt. Oliver so _
SCOTT
SUTTER

16 she could return to work, other than presenting one option—working in Dispatch, with Celeste’s |
SAN

17
1388

mother. This “accommodation” was intended to exacerbate rather than accommodate Sgt.
18 Oliver’s stress-related symptoms.
19 50. Rather than engage in good-faith attempts to accommodate Sgt. Oliver, the OPD
20 focused on discrediting her, finding excuses for discipline, and forcing her to resign or take a
21 medical retirement.
22 $1. On March 27, 2017, plaintiff submitted an EEOC intake questionnaire.
23 52. On April 3,2017, the court-appointed investigators Ed Swanson and Audrey
24 Barron interviewed Sgt. Oliver regarding the sexual-misconduct investigation. They agreed that
25 Sgt. Oliver’s assessment of the case from the onset was correct—that itshould have been
26 investigated criminally.
27
28
-7J-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
53. OnApril 4,2017, IAD Lt. Allan Steinberger refused Sgt. Oliver’s request to

review video footage or reports to prepare for plaintiffs interview related to the OPD’s

investigation of the February 17, 2017 incident, contrary to the OPD’s practices and procedures.

This required plaintiff'sattorney to obtain access to the materials that other officers are entitled to
DS

review to refresh theirrecollections without an attorney’s assistance. This was further retaliation
AW

and discrimination from the above-described misconduct.
DH

54. OnApril 5,2017, plaintiff submitted aCitizen’s Complaint with the City of
SI

Oakland’s Citizen’s Police Review Board (“CPRB”) alleging thather complaint dated February
eo

23, 2017 had not yet triggered any investigation, inviolation of LAD policies and procedures.
oOo

10 55. On April 21, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging many of the

11 same facts and information noted above. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that this
715

12 investigation is ongoing.
94109
SUITE
FIRM

13 56. On April 21, 2017, the court-appointed investigator fileda report with the court
CA
STREET,

14 which criticizedplaintiff's IAD investigation as “inadequate” and blamed the plaintiff for having
LAW

FRANCISCO,

15 conducted the limited investigation as she was instructed.
SCOTT
SUTTER

16 57. In August 2017, plaintiffwas instructed to turn in her badge and equipment,
SAN

17
1388

though she was on work-related stress leave.

18 58. On December 24, 2017, plaintiff submitted her application foran industrial-

19 disability retirement.

20 VI. In 2018, the OPD continued to discriminate and retaliate against Set. Oliver.
21 59. On February 5,2018 plaintiff submitted a supplemental complaint to the IAD.
22 60. That afternoon, the OPD delivered a letterfrom Anne E. Kirkpatrick, Chief of
23 Police, Oakland Police Department, advising as follows:
24 This letteris toinform you that I intend to demote you from the rank of Sergeant to the
rank of Police Officer with the correspondent reduction in pay and benefits.
25
This recommendation results from the findings of the Internal Affairs Division
26 investigation number 17-0139. The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to
27 determine that you responded tothe scene of a person who allegedly fired into an
occupied vehicle. You failed toprovide leadership, supervision, direction and enforcement
28
-8-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
of rules and assisting subordinates while atthe scene. You did not follow thru with
handling the scene directed officer to leave the scene without taking appropriate action.
February 5, 2018 Letter delivered that day at 18:07 p.m.

61. On February 22, 2018, plaintiffsubmitted a FEHA complaint and received a right-

to-sue letter.

62. On May 22, 2018, there was a Skelly hearing on Chief Kirkpatrick’s requested
NN

demotion, which by virtue of OPD’s practices and procedures, could trigger no more than a
sa

maximum of a five-day suspension without any demotion.
oo

63. On. October 18, 2018, counsel for Sgt. Oliver emailed a copy of her FEHA

complaint to the City of Oakland’s attorney.
10.
64. On November 16,2018, Sgt. Oliver submitted an IAD complaint against Chief
11
Kirkpatrick.
715

12
94109
SUITE

VII. In 2019, the OPD continued to discriminate and retaliate against Sgt. Oliver.
FIRM

13
CA

65. Ina letterdated January 15, 2019, the City of Oakland’s City Administrator
STREET,

14
LAW

FRANCISCO,

suspended Sgt. Oliver for thirty days without pay and without providing Sgt. Oliver with the
15
SCOTT
SUTTER

Skelly officer’s report upon which the Chief’s recommendation was allegedly based.
16
SAN

66. Asof February 20, 2019, the OPD has delayed processing Sgt. Oliver’s application |
1388

17
for an industrial-disability retirement, forcing her to spend her sick and vacation pay to live on
18
while her application remained pending.
19
67. On February 20, 2019, plaintiff submitted a supplemental FEHA complaint and
20
received a right-to-sue letter.
21
68. As described herein and in Sgt. Oliver’s pending EEOC and FEHA complaints, the |.
22
terms and conditions of Sgt. Oliver’s OPD employment have been and continue to be altered.
23
Adverse acts include but are not limited to the following:
24
(a) scapegoated for failing to conduct a criminal or broader investigation triggered by |
25 Officer O’Brien’s suicide note and allegations regarding his wife’s suspicious death and
other OPD officers’ involvement in sex scandal;
26
(b) unfavorable outcome during Lt.’s testin June 2016;
27°
(c) transferred from preferred position in IAD toPatrol in January 2017;
28 ©
-9-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
(d) notice of intention to demote on February 5, 2018;

(e) failure to accommodate to return Sgt. Oliver to work other than having her work
with Celeste’s mother at the OPD;
Ww

(f) forcing the plaintiffto seek a disability retirement;
&

(g) delaying thatretirement process to ensure Sgt. Oliver cashes out her sick and
nA

vacation pay; and,
DH

(h) disciplinary letterimposing a 30-day suspension as of January 15, 2019.
s

69. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that the recommended demotion and
Oo

now-unpaid-30-day-suspension discipline against her is unduly punitive based on the OPD’s
o

policies and procedures.
10
70. ‘Plaintifffurther alleges on information and belief that the OPD isforcing her into a}
1
now-delayed disability reti

Case Info

Judge

James R. Reilly Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 06, 2019

Case Filing Date

February 21, 2019

County

Parties

City of Oakland [def]
City of Oakland Def
City of Oakland Defendant
CITY OF OAKLAND Defendant
John Houston Scott [att]
John Houston Scott Att
John Houston Scott Attorney
Michael J. Quirk [att]
Michael J. Quirk Att
Michael J. Quirk Attorney
Mildred L. Oliver [plain]
Mildred L. Oliver Plain
Mildred L. Oliver Plaintiff
Oakland Police Department [def]
Oakland Police Department Def
Oakland Police Department Defendant
OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT Defendant
OLIVER, MILDRED L. Plaintiff
Pamela Y. Price [att]
Pamela Y. Price Att
Pamela Y. Price Attorney
PRICE, PAMELA Y. Attorney
QUIRK, MICHAEL J. Attorneys for Defendants
SCOTT, JOHN HOUSTON Attorney
Lizabeth deVries Attorney
Barbara Parker Attorneys for Defendants
Tad Devlin Attorney
Maria Bee Attorneys for Defendants

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

Party Statement: Oliver VS City of Oakland

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties