Motion for Judicial Notice in Kurt Wilson et al. vs City Council of City of Stockton et al.| Trellis.Law

On September 20, 2019 a Request,Application was filed involving a dispute between City Of Stockton, Wilson, Kurt, and City Council Of City Of Stockton, City Of Stockton, for civil in the District Court of San Joaquin County.

Preview
1 Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d), and for the Court’s convenience, Petitioner
2 Kurt Wilson (“Petitioner” or “Dr. Wilson”) respectfully requests judicial notice of the Verified
3
Complaint for Breach of Contract Damages and Petition for Writs of Mandate for Violations of
4
the California Public Records Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Petition”) and exhibits thereto
5
filed on September 20, 2019 in this Court. A true and correct copy of the Petition is attached
6

7 hereto as Exhibit A.

8 California Evidence Code section 452 permits courts to take judicial notice of “records of

9 (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States and of any state of the
SAN FRANCISCO CA, 9 4111

10
United States.” Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d). California Evidence Code section 453 provides that a
FIC KE S & OL SON LLP

11
415.409.8904

court must take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests that such
12
notice be taken, furnishes the court with sufficient information to take judicial notice of the
LAW

13
FAX:

matter, and gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request. Cal. Evid. Code § 453.
AT

14
ATTORNEYS
350,
415.409.8900 –

Here, Exhibit A is a verified record filed with the San Joaquin County Superior Court itself.
O’TOOLE

15
SUITE

16 Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court take judicial notice of Exhibit A.
PINE STREET,
CANNATA

17
TEL:

18
Dated: June 1, 2020 CANNATA, O’TOOLE, FICKES & OLSON LLP
19
100

20
__________________________________
21 THERESE Y. CANNATA
KARL OLSON
22
ZACHARY E. COLBETH
23 Attorneys for Petitioner
KURT WILSON
24

1
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
EXHIBIT A
1 I.
INTRODUCTION
2
Plaintiff and Petitioner Kurt Wilson (“Plaintiff” or “Petitioner” or “Dr. Wilson”) brings
3
this complaint for breach of contract and petition for declaratory relief and writs of mandate
4
against Defendants and Respondents City Council of the City of Stockton (“City Council”) and
5
City of Stockton (“City”) (collectively, “Defendants” or “Respondents”) pursuant to, inter alia,
6
California contract law; the California Public Records Act, Government Code sections 6250 et
7
seq. (“the CPRA”); the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code sections 54960 et seq. (“the
8
Brown Act”), and Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution. Defendants violated Dr.
9
PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111

Wilson’s employment contract (the “Contract”) when they pretextually terminated Dr. Wilson
10
“for cause” on or about July 30, 2019, depriving Dr. Wilson of substantial compensation,
FICKES & OLSON LLP

11
415.409.8904

including benefits, due to him under the Contract. In reality, there was no cause to terminate Dr.
12
Wilson’s employment. Defendants also violated multiple provisions of the Brown Act when they
AT LAW

13
FAX:

failed to comply with Government Code section 54954.5 pertaining to closed session item
14
ATTORNEYS

415.409.8900 –

descriptions regarding a July 30, 2019 closed session and when they failed to provide Dr. Wilson
O’TOOLE

15
with the requisite 24 hours advanced written notice regarding alleged complaints or charges made
16
against him that served as a basis for his termination, in violation of Government Code section
CANNATA

17
TEL:

54957. Defendants further refused to comply with Dr. Wilson’s well-founded CPRA requests, in
18
violation of Government Code sections 6250 et seq.
19
100

Dr. Wilson avers as follows:
20 II.
21 PARTIES
1. Plaintiff and Petitioner Dr. Wilson was the lawfully appointed City Manager for
22
the City of Stockton, California. He served as City Manager from 2014 up until his alleged
23
termination on July 30, 2019.
24
2. The City Council and the City are each a “local agency” as defined by
25
Government Code section 6252(a) and Government Code section 54951, and a “legislative body”
26
as defined in Government Code section 54952. The City Council is comprised of seven elected
27

1
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDATE
1
City Council Members (i.e., the Mayor of Stockton, as well as City Council Members from each
2
of the City’s six districts). The City Council governs the City.
3
III.
4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5 3. The Court has jurisdiction of this matter under Article I, section 3(b) of the
6 California Constitution, the CPRA, the Brown Act, and Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.
7 This Court also has jurisdiction over the matters alleged in this complaint under Code of Civil
8 Procedure section 1060, as Dr. Wilson seeks declaratory relief and this case is subject to the
9 unlimited jurisdiction of the superior court.
PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111

10 4. Venue is proper in this Court under Government Code section 6259(a) and Code
FICKES & OLSON LLP

11
415.409.8904

of Civil Procedure section 393 because the City Council and the City are located within the
12 County of San Joaquin, California, and the records sought by Dr. Wilson’s CPRA requests are
AT LAW

13 located in San Joaquin County.
FAX:

14 IV.
ATTORNEYS

FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF BREACH OF CONTRACT, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
415.409.8900 –
O’TOOLE

15 RECORDS ACT, AND BROWN ACT VIOLATIONS

16 A. Dr. Wilson’s Background and Employment with the City of Stockton
CANNATA

17 5. Dr. Wilson joined the City of Stockton as Deputy City Manager on September 4,
TEL:

18 2012, overseeing the operational departments of Community Development, Economic

19 Development, Public Works, and Municipal Utilities. Prior to his employment with the City, Dr.
100

20 Wilson served as City Manager of Ridgecrest, California, in local government in both San

21 Bernardino and Rialto, in the administration of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and in various

22 capacities within the private sector. Dr. Wilson holds a Bachelor in Science degree in Public

23 Administration, a Master of Business Administration from University of La Verne, a Master of

24 Education from California Coast University, and a Doctor of Law and Policy from Northeastern

25 University.

26 6. On November 1, 2013, Dr. Wilson took over as Interim City Manager for the City

27 of Stockton from Mr. Bob Deis, who was retiring at that time.

28 7. In January of 2014, Dr. Wilson was appointed City Manager. Dr. Wilson’s

2
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDATE
1
employment was governed by an employment contract (the “Contract”), entered into on March 4,
2
2014. The Contract was for a five-year period, commencing on February 1, 2014, and would
3
automatically renew for additional five-year terms unless the City provided timely notice of non-
4
renewal. On February 1, 2019, Dr. Wilson’s Contract renewed for a period of another five (5)
5
year term. A true and correct copy of the Contract is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6
8. Under the terms of the Contract (Section 5.02), absent a showing of unlawful
7
purpose, the City Council could terminate Dr. Wilson without cause. However, under the
8
Contract, such an occurrence entitles Dr. Wilson to notice at least one (1) month in advance of the
9
PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111

final date of employment, plus severance pay equal to twelve (12) months of his current salary
10
and deferred compensation contribution, and other benefits as set forth below:
FICKES & OLSON LLP

11
415.409.8904

12 In the event EMPLOYEE is terminated by EMPLOYER and during such
AT LAW

time as EMPLOYEE is able and willing to perform his duties under this
13 Employment Contract, EMPLOYER shall (1) provide EMPLOYEE with notice at
FAX:

14 least one (1) month in advance of the final date of employment and further, (2)
ATTORNEYS

pay EMPLOYEE as severance pay (a) a lump sum cash payment in an amount
415.409.8900 –
O’TOOLE

15 equal to nine (9) months of EMPLOYEE’s then current salary and deferred
compensation contributions, (b) any vacation leave accrued as of the date of
16 termination and, (c) to continue in full force and effect, at the same EMPLOYER
contribution level as if employment continued, for nine (9) months the life
CANNATA

17 insurance and medical, dental and vision insurance coverages then being provided
TEL:

18 by EMPLOYER to EMPLOYEE, and his dependents; . . . .

19
100

The reference in the contract provision supra to nine (9) months of severance and
20
benefits is extended to twelve (12) months in accord to further provisions of the Contract
21
within Section 5.02. In defining what termination for cause means under the Contract,
22
Section 5.02 states that “cause” shall include, inter alia, “willful failure to implement
23
Council policy.” Upon termination for cause, the Contract states that the “EMPLOYEE
24
shall be entitled only to the compensation and accumulated vacation accrued up to the
25
date of termination and such other payments and benefits provided by this Contract or by
26
law.”
27
//
28

3
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDATE
1
B. July 30, 2018 Closed Session Meeting of the City Council
2
9. The City Council published a notice and corresponding agenda on July 26, 2019,
3
in advance of a July 30, 2019 meeting. The agenda stated that the City Council would discuss
4
five items during closed session. The third and fifth items on the closed session agenda, items 3.3
5
and 3.5, were listed as follows:
6
3.3 19-5658 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:
7
Recommended Action: City Manager
8
This Closed Session is authorized pursuant to Government
9
PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111

Code Section 54957.
10
Department: City Attorney
FICKES & OLSON LLP

11
415.409.8904

3.5 19-5754 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYEE
12
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL
AT LAW

13
Recommended Action:
FAX:

14
ATTORNEYS

This Closed Session is authorized pursuant to Government
415.409.8900 –
O’TOOLE

15
Code Section 54957.
16
Department: City Attorney
CANNATA

17
TEL:

18
A true and correct copy of the July 30, 2019 Agenda is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
19
100

10. On July 30, 2019, the City Council held a closed session meeting.
20
11. Following closed session on July 30, 2019, a report of the action taken in closed
21
session was disclosed. City Attorney John M. Luebberke announced that there were two matters
22
to report. First, he announced that the City Council in closed session voted six to zero, with
23
Councilmember Lenz absent, to terminate the employment contract of City Manager Kurt Wilson
24
effective immediately. The reason provided for the termination was that the termination was “for
25
cause” under the terms of Dr. Wilson’s employment Contract, specifically for “willful failure to
26
implement Council Policy.” Second, Mr. Luebberke announced that the City Council in closed
27
session also voted six to zero, with Councilmember Lenz absent, to appoint Laurie Montes as
28

4
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDATE
1
acting City Manager to temporarily carry out the duties of the City Manager until such time as the
2
Council could appoint an Interim City Manager. A true and correct copy of the July 30, 2019
3
Annotated Agenda, which reflects what occurred during closed session in its Item Number 8, is
4
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
5

6 C. Dr. Wilson’s Communications with the City Attorney Regarding the
Circumstances of His Termination, Claims for Benefits Due Under
7 the Terms of His Contract, and Claimed Violations of the Brown Act
8 12. Following the City Council’s meeting on July 30, 2019, Dr. Wilson attempted to
9 contact the City Attorney, John M. Luebberke, to better understand the “for cause” reason given
PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111

10 for his termination and how exactly he engaged in a “willful failure to implement Council
FICKES & OLSON LLP

11
415.409.8904

policy.” On August 12, 2019, Dr. Wilson, through counsel, sent a letter to the City Attorney
12 (copying the City mayor, vice mayor, all council members, and City clerk), requesting that
AT LAW

13 Defendants disclose this basic information about why he was terminated. Dr. Wilson’s letter also
FAX:

14 alerted Defendants to the fact that “the termination ‘for cause’ appears to be a pretext intended to
ATTORNEYS

415.409.8900 –
O’TOOLE

15 deprive Dr. Wilson of substantial compensation, including benefits, due to him under the
16 Contract.” A true and correct copy of the August 12, 2019 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
CANNATA

17 13. Dr. Wilson also contacted the City Attorney, through a letter dated August 28,
TEL:

18 2019, to inform Defendants that the July 30, 2019 meeting violated multiple provisions of the
19 Brown Act. Specifically, the City Council’s meeting agenda for the July 30, 2019 meeting failed
100

20 to comply with Government Code section 54954.5 pertaining to closed session item descriptions.
21 The City Council also failed to comply with Government Code section 54957, governing the
22 Brown Act’s rules regarding closed sessions and personnel matters, in that it egregiously failed to
23 provide Dr. Wilson with any advanced written notice of the complaints or charges against him, as
24 well as failed to provide him with any meaningful opportunity to respond against, or otherwise
25 challenge the evidentiary basis for the complaints and charges levied against him (including the
26 charge that he engaged in a “willful failure to implement Council policy”). Dr. Wilson therefore
27 demanded, in accordance with Government Code sections 54957 and 54960.1, that the City
28 immediately rescind its termination of him as City Manager and otherwise “cure or correct” its
5
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDATE
1
unlawful actions taken in violation of the Brown Act on or about July 30, 2019. A true and
2
correct copy of the August 28, 2019 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
3
14. On September 6, 2019, the City Attorney’s office sent a letter to Dr. Wilson, in
4
response to his August 12 and 28 letters, stating that the City would not provide any facts which it
5
“relied on in contending Wilson failed to implement Council policy.” Furthermore, the City
6
stated that it would refuse to address or otherwise cure or correct the Brown Act violations that
7
Dr. Wilson outlined in his August 28, 2019 letter. A true and correct copy of the City’s
8
September 6, 2019 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
9
PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111

10 D. Dr. Wilson’s Requests for the Disclosure of Public Records Relating to
FICKES & OLSON LLP

His Employment Tenure and to Suspected Brown Act Violations
11
415.409.8904

15. On or about August 6, 2019, Dr. Wilson transmitted a request for documents to
12
Ms. Laurie Montes (Acting City Manager) that the City decided to treat as a CPRA request. The
AT LAW

13
FAX:

CPRA request sought the following: all emails, SharePoint files, and OneNote files regarding Dr.
14
ATTORNEYS

415.409.8900 –

Wilson during his employment with the City.
O’TOOLE

15
16. On August 27, 2019, Dr. Wilson received an email from Ms. Connie Cochran,
16
Community Relations Officer for the City, stating that she was “working on [Dr. Wilson’s]
CANNATA

17
TEL:

request” and stating how the City was addressing the various requested items (email, OneNote,
18
SharePoint). To date, Dr. Wilson has not received any responsive materials from Respondents.
19
100

A true and correct copy of Ms. Cochran’s email correspondence to Dr. Wilson, dated August 27,
20
2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
21
17. Respondents’ failure to provide the records sought by Dr. Wilson’s CPRA requests
22
constitute violations of the CPRA and Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution.
23

24 V.
CAUSES OF ACTION
25
First Cause of Action
26 (Govt. Code section 6258-6259: Violations of California Public Records Act, Gov. Code § 6250
et seq. – Against Both Respondents)
27
18. Dr. Wilson re-alleges and hereby incorporates each and every allegation set forth
28

6
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDATE
1
in paragraphs 1-17.
2
19. The CPRA provides that “access to information concerning the conduct of the
3
public’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” Under the
4
CPRA, all records prepared, owned, used, or retained by state and local agencies that relate to
5
public business (Gov. Code section 6252(e)) are subject to disclosure unless a specifically
6
enumerated exemption applies. (Gov. Code § 6253(b) [“Except with respect to public records
7
exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, each state or local agency, upon a request
8
for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the
9
PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111

records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of
10
duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable.”].) Respondents’ failure to disclose the records
FICKES & OLSON LLP

11
415.409.8904

requested by Dr. Wilson violates the CPRA and Article I, section 3(b) of the California
12
Constitution.
AT LAW

13
20. The records sought by Dr. Wilson are not protected under Government Code
FAX:

14
ATTORNEYS

section 54963 because they do not relate to confidential information as defined in that section.
415.409.8900 –
O’TOOLE

15
Under that section, “ ‘confidential information’ means a communication made in closed session
16
that is specifically related to the basis for the legislative body of a local agency to meet lawfully
CANNATA

17
TEL:

in closed session under this chapter.” The July 30, 2019 meeting wherein the City Council voted
18
to terminate Dr. Wilson in closed session was not a lawful closed session meeting, in that it
19
100

violated the Brown Act (as explained further infra).
20
21. The records sought are not protected by the attorney-client privilege under
21
Evidence Code section 950 et seq., the attorney work product privilege under Code of Civil
22
Procedure section 2018.010 et seq., or Government Code section 54963. With the exception of
23
certain exemptions that are not relevant in this case, writings,
24
. . . when distributed to all, or a majority of all, of the members of a legislative
25 body of a local agency by any person in connection with a matter subject to
26 discussion or consideration at an open public meeting of the body, are disclosable
public records under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5
27 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1), and shall be made
available upon request without delay.
28

7
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDATE
1
Gov. Code § 54957.5.
2
22. Respondents’ refusal to thus far produce any documents whatsoever in response to
3
Dr. Wilson’s August 6, 2019 CPRA request, contradict the CPRA. Respondents are refusing to
4
comply with the CPRA’s statutory time limits, and are unlawfully withholding public records that
5
are not subject to an exemption.
6
23. Respondents’ denial of access to the records sought by Petitioner is a violation of
7
Government Code sections 6253 and 6255. Government Code sections 6253 and 6255 require all
8
public records to be made available for inspection and copying unless exempt from disclosure
9
PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111

under the CPRA.
10
24. Respondents’ denial of access to the records sought by Petitioner is inconsistent
FICKES & OLSON LLP

11
415.409.8904

with Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution, which provides that: “The people have
12
the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore,
AT LAW

13
the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to
FAX:

14
ATTORNEYS

public scrutiny.”
415.409.8900 –
O’TOOLE

15
25. Dr. Wilson has a clear, present, and substantial right to the release of the records
16
sought herein. Respondents have a manifest legal duty to respond to Dr. Wilson’s August 6, 2019
CANNATA

17
TEL:

CPRA request within the statutory period, and to provide records not subject to an exemption to
18
Dr. Wilson in response to Dr. Wilson’s August 6, 2019 CPRA request. Dr. Wilson has no plain,
19
100

speedy, and adequate remedy other than the relief sought in this Petition.
20
26. There is a real, present, and ongoing controversy between Dr. Wilson and
21
Respondents with respect to Dr. Wilson’s August 6, 2019 CPRA request.
22
27. Pursuant to, inter alia, Government Code section 6259(d), Dr. Wilson is entitled to
23
recover his attorneys’ fees and costs on his CPRA claims.
24

25 Second Cause of Action
(Violations of Ralph M. Brown Act, Gov. Code §§ 54957, 54960, 54960.1 et seq. – Against the
26 City Council)
27 28. Dr. Wilson re-alleges and hereby incorporates each and every allegation set forth
28 in paragraphs 1-27.
8
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDATE
1
29. Pursuant to Government Code section 54960, any interested person, such as Dr.
2
Wilson, may “commence an action by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief for the purpose
3
of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations” of the Brown Act, or to “determine
4
the applicability” of the Brown Act to “actions or threatened future action” of the legislative
5
body. Similarly, Government Code section 54960.1 allows any interested person, such as Dr.
6
Wilson, to “commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a
7
judicial determination that an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency” violated the
8
Brown Act and is “null and void.” Finally, Government Code section 54957 states that if proper
9
PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111

“notice is not given, any disciplinary or other action taken by the legislative body against the
10
employee based on the specific complaints or charges in the closed session shall be null and
FICKES & OLSON LLP

11
415.409.8904

void.”
12
30. The City Council’s meeting agenda of July 30, 2019 violated the Brown Act by
AT LAW

13
failing to comply with Government Code section 54954.5 pertaining to closed session item
FAX:

14
ATTORNEYS

descriptions. Agenda Item 3.5 from the July 30, 2019 City Council meeting stated “Public
415.409.8900 –
O’TOOLE

15
Employee Appointment, Employee Evaluation of Performance, Discipline, or Dismissal.
16
Recommended Action: This Closed Session is authorized pursuant to Government Code Section
CANNATA

17
TEL:

54957. Department: City Attorney.” Agenda Item 3.5 was not in substantial compliance with
18
Government Code section 54954.5(e) because the agenda descriptions of “public employee
19
100

appointment” and “public employee performance evaluation” require that there be a description
20
of the employee title at issue listed on the agenda item. Given the absence of this employee title,
21
Agenda Item 3.5 did not comply with the Brown Act’s agenda-description requirements.
22
31. The City Council violated the Brown Act’s rules regarding closed sessions and
23
personnel matters, Government Code section 54957, when it failed to provide Dr. Wilson with
24
any advanced written notice of the complaints or charges against him, as well as failed to provide
25
him with any meaningful opportunity to respond against, or otherwise challenge the evidentiary
26
basis for, those complaints or charges. Government Code section 54957(b)(1) allows for local
27
legislative bodies to hold closed sessions to “consider the appointment, employment, evaluation
28

9
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDATE
1
of performance, discipline, or dismissal of the public employee or to hear complaints or charges
2
brought against the employee by another person or employee unless the employee requests a
3
public session.” (Emphasis added). However, pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b)(2),
4
“[a]s a condition to holding a closed session on specific complaints or charges brought against an
5
employee by another person or employee, the employee shall be given written notice of his or her
6
right to have the complaints or charges heard in an open session rather than a closed session,
7
which notice shall be delivered to the employee personally or by mail at least 24 hours before the
8
time for holding the session” and “[i]f notice is not given, any disciplinary or other action taken
9
PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111

by the legislative body against the employee based on the specific complaints or charges in the
10
closed session shall be null and void.” (Emphasis added). The City’s failure to provide Dr.
FICKES & OLSON LLP

11
415.409.8904

Wilson with the requisite 24 hours advance written notice of the complaints or charges against
12
him (i.e., that there were alleged instances of “willful failure to implement Council policy”) and
AT LAW

13
the City’s failure to provide him with an opportunity to request a public session or a forum in
FAX:

14
ATTORNEYS

which to challenge the evidentiary basis for those complaints or charges, constituted a violation of
415.409.8900 –
O’TOOLE

15
Section 54957(b)(2) of the Brown Act. The City’s failure in this regard renders the City
16
Council’s actions in terminating Dr. Wilson on July 30, 2019 “null and void” under Section
CANNATA

17
TEL:

54957.
18
32. The City Council’s consideration of the complaints or charges brought against Dr.
19
100

Wilson during closed session on July 30, 2019 with no prior notice to Dr. Wilson was prejudicial
20
to Dr. Wilson. It deprived Dr. Wilson of access to the basis for his termination and thereby
21
deprived Dr. Wilson of the opportunity to rebut the allegations against him. On information and
22
belief, if Dr. Wilson had been able to attend and participate in the closed session on July 30, 2019
23
during which his termination and the complaints or charges brought against him were discussed,
24
and had been given access to all of the information upon which his termination and the
25
complaints or charges brought against him were allegedly based, he could have rebutted the
26
charges and persuaded the City Council that his termination was not warranted. On information
27
and belief, had Dr. Wilson been given the proper notice, he also would have exercised his right
28

10
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDATE
1
under Government Code section 54957 to have the complaints or charges against him heard in an
2
open session rather than in a closed session. The fact that Dr. Wilson was not given such an
3
opportunity renders the City’s Council’s actions against him on July 30, 2019, null and void.
4
33. Further, the City Council’s refusal to “cure or correct” the Brown Act violations
5
referenced supra and noted in Dr. Wilson’s August 28, 2019 letter provide Dr. Wilson with the
6
right to file the present lawsuit against Respondents.
7

8 Third Cause of Action
(Breach of Contract – Against Both Defendants)
9
PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111

34. Dr. Wilson re-alleges and hereby incorporates each and every allegation set forth
10
in paragraphs 1-33.
FICKES & OLSON LLP

11
415.409.8904

35. Dr. Wilson entered into a Contract with the City regarding his employment on
12
March 4, 2014. The Contract was for a five-year period and could be renewed, which it was on
AT LAW

13
FAX:

February 1, 2019 for another five (5) year term. Thus, Dr. Wilson and Defendants were subject to
14
ATTORNEYS

415.409.8900 –

the terms of the Contract at the time of his purported termination on July 30, 2019, when the City
O’TOOLE

15
Council voted to terminate Dr. Wilson’s employment with the City.
16
36. As noted supra, Dr. Wilson’s purported termination was improper under the
CANNATA

17
TEL:

Brown Act. Dr. Wilson’s termination was also a pretext intended to deprive Dr. Wilson of
18
substantial compensation, including benefits, due to him under the Contract. Dr. Wilson was
19
100

provided with no advanced notice of his termination or the alleged “for cause” reason for the
20
termination, in violation of Section 5.02 of the Contract. Defendants simply recited boilerplate
21
language that Dr. Wilson engaged in a “willful failure to implement Council policy,” and have
22
refused to provide any indication about what exactly was “willful” about Dr. Wilson’s alleged
23
shortcomings as an employee or how exactly he failed to “implement Council policy” (or even
24
what policy was supposedly not implemented). Defendants’ continued refusal to provide even
25
the bare minimum information regarding the circumstances that led to Dr. Wilson’s purported
26

Case Info

Judge

Lee, Jayne Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

June 04, 2020

Case Filing Date

September 20, 2019

County

Parties

City Council of City of Stockton Respondent
City of Stockton Cross-complainant
City of Stockton Respondent
Holland, Lesley Discovery Referee
Wilson, Kurt Cross-defendant
Wilson, Kurt Petitioner
John Luebberke Attorney
Zachary Colbeth Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Sophia Retchless Attorneys for Defendants
Therese Cannata Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Karl Olson Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Mark Fickes Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ethan Wicklund Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gregory Aker Attorneys for Defendants
Megan Burke Attorneys for Defendants
Tamar Burke Attorneys for Defendants

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

Request,Application: Kurt Wilson et al. vs City Council of City of Stockton et al.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties