Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
-
Upload
l-a-paterson -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
1/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28-1-
COMPLAINT
LawO
fficesofH.NelsonMeeks
870MarketStreet,
Suite700
SanFrancisco,
CA94102
Collinsv.Weeks
H.NelsonMeeksCBN#175800LAWOFFICESOFH.NELSONMEEKS
870MarketStreet,Suite700SanFrancisco,CA94102
(415)989-9915(415)989-9914(FAX)
AttorneyforPlaintiff
STEPHENCOLLINS
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA
ATSANFRANCISCO
STEPHENCOLLINS
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CountyofMonterey,CurtisWeeks,CharlesMcKee,IrvGrant,LouisR.
Calcagno,DavidPotter,RobertMacLean,California-AmericanWater,
AND
DOES1--50
Defendants.
CASENO:
COMPLAINTFORDAMAGES
1. 42USCA19832. Fraud
I. COMPLAINT1. PLAINTIFF, STEPHENCOLLINS (COLLINS),was amember of an
advisoryboard [hereinafter ADVISORY BOARD] appointedby the Monterey County
BoardofSupervisors[hereinafter,SUPERVISORS]foraperiodoftimeofapproximately
16yearsendingonApril1,2011.
2. Thiscomplaintconsistsof twocausesofaction.The first is fordamagessufferedonaccountoflocalgovernmentdeprivingCOLLINSofhisconstitutionalrights.
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
2/15
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
3/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28-3-
COMPLAINT
LawO
fficesofH.NelsonMeeks
870MarketStreet,
Suite700
SanFrancisco,
CA94102
Collinsv.Weeks
7. Plaintiff, STEPHENCOLLINS (COLLINS), is a citizen of theUnitedStatesandaresidentofMontereyCounty,California.
8. Defendant, COUNTY OF MONTEREY (COUNTY) is a municipalcorporation,organizedunderthelawsoftheStateofCaliforniadoingbusinessinCalifornia
as a government subdivision under colorof State authority and subject to the laws of this
StateandtheUnitedStatesofAmerica.
9. Defendant,CURTISWEEKS(WEEKS),atall timesmentionedhereinwasGeneralManageroftheMontereyCountyWaterAgencyandisaresidentofMonterey
County,California.
10. Defendant, CHARLES MCKEE (MCKEE), at all times mentionedhereinwastheCountyCounselforMontereyCounty.
11. Defendant, IRVGRANT(GRANT),atall timesmentionedhereinwasDeputyCountyCounselfortheCOUNTY.
12. Defendant, LOUIS R. CALCAGNO (CALCAGNO), at all timesmentioned herein was a member of the Monterey Board of Supervisors which is the
governingboardoftheCOUNTY.
13. Defendant,DAVIDPOTTER(POTTER),atalltimesmentionedhereinwas amember of theMontereyBoardofSupervisorswhich is thegoverningboard of the
COUNTY.
14. Defendant,ROBERTMACLEAN(MACLEAN),atalltimesmentionedhereinwasthePresidentofCalifornia-AmericanWaterCompany.
15. Defendant, CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY (CAL-AM), is, and all times relevant mentioned hereinwas, aCalifornia corporation andwater
utilityregulatedbytheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission,with itsprincipaladdressat
1033BAvenue,Suite200,Coronado,CA92118. CAL-AMisawhollyownedsubsidiaryof
AmericanWaterCompanyheadquarteredinVoorhees,NewJersey.
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
4/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28-4-
COMPLAINT
LawO
fficesofH.NelsonMeeks
870MarketStreet,
Suite700
SanFrancisco,
CA94102
Collinsv.Weeks
16. AtalltimesrelevanttothisComplaint,eachdefendantwhooccasionedtheacts and omissionswhich causeddamage toPlaintiff was actingwithin the scope of their
officeoremployment.
17. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendantssuedasDOES1-50.Atallrelevanttimes,DefendantsDOES1through50(alsoreferredto
hereinafter as the "DOEdefendants"), eachofwhomPlaintiff sues in hisorher individual
capacity, were agents, employees, or otherwise representatives of the COUNTY or other
businessentitiesdoingbusinesswiththeCOUNTY.Atallrelevanttimes,DOES1through
25actedundercolorofCalifornialaw.Plaintiffisinformedandbelievesandthereonalleges
that thatmany, if not all, ofDOES1 through 50 are residents of theNorthernDistrict of
California. Plaintiff is informedandbelievesandthereonallegesthatDOES1through50,
inclusive, are legally responsible for the wrongs committed against Plaintiff, as alleged
herein.WhenPlaintiffbecomeawareofthetrueidentitiesofoneormoreDOEdefendants,
PlaintiffswillamendthiscomplainttoaddorsubstitutethemasnamedDefendants.
18. Plaintiff is informedandbelievesandthereonallegesthattheDefendantsCOUNTY,WEEKS,MCKEE,GRANT,CALCAGNO,andPOTTER,andtheDOEdefendants1-
25caused,andareliablefortheunconstitutionalandunlawfulconductandresultinginjuries,
by,amongotherthings,personallyparticipatinginsaidconductoractingjointlywithothers
whodidso;byauthorizing,acquiescingorsettinginmotionpolicies,plansoractionsthatled
totheunlawfulconduct;byfailingtotakeactiontopreventtheunlawfulconduct;byfailing
or refusing with deliberate indifference to refrain from violating Plaintiffs constitutional
rights;and/orbyratifyingtheunlawfulconducttakenbyemployeesundertheirdirectionand
control.
V. FACTSCOMMONTOALLCLAIMSFORRELIEF19. In 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board issued a cease and
desistorderhavingtheeffectofreducingwateravailabletocitizensofMontereyCounty.
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
5/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28-5-
COMPLAINT
LawO
fficesofH.NelsonMeeks
870MarketStreet,
Suite700
SanFrancisco,
CA94102
Collinsv.Weeks
20. In response, the SUPERVISORS commenced an effort to obtainpermitting to allow for theproduction of drinkable waterby way of aprocess called
desalinationwhichtakesoceanwaterandremovesthesalt[hereinafter,thePROJECT].
21. Defendant,WEEKS,whowasthentheGeneralManageroftheMontereyCountyResourceAgency,wasappointedbytheBoardofSupervisorstoleadthePROJECT
permittingeffort.
22. In late 2009, the SUPERVISORS believed that WEEKS could notaccomplishthetaskandcertainmembersconcludedthatCOLLINSshouldbehiredtopursue
PROJECTpermittingandengageinrelatedeffortstomakedesalinationareality.
23. In early January 2010, Defendant CALCAGNO, called COLLINS andsaid that the Project was falling apart and COLLINS needed to take over and close the
deal. CALCAGNOstatedIknowyoudontworkforfree. CALCAGNOstatedhewould
figureouthowtogetCOLLINSpaid.
24. About the same time, CALCAGNO called James Heitzman (HEITZMAN)toarrangeforCOLLINStobepaid.
25. Thereafter, WEEKS called COLLINS and HEITZMAN to arrange ameetingtodiscussterms. WEEKStoldCOLLINSthatLouismovingquicklyandwantsto
getyouhired.
26. OnJanuary11,2010ameetingwasheldatWEEKSofficewithWEEKS,HEITZMAN andCOLLINS in attendance. LYDELLMELTON, aprinciple of theRMC
Environmental consulting firm, was contactedby telephone to work out the terms of the
agreementwherebyRMCwouldpayCOLLINStoworkonthePROJECT. Atthatmeeting,
COLLINSbroughtupthepossibilitythattherecouldbeaconflictof interestandsuggested
thatheresignhisdirectorshipwiththeADVISORYBOARDtoavoidthepotentialproblem.
WEEKSstatedhewouldconsultwithcountycounseltocheckonthepotentialconflictissue
raisedbyCOLLINS.
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
6/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28-6-
COMPLAINT
LawO
fficesofH.NelsonMeeks
870MarketStreet,
Suite700
SanFrancisco,
CA94102
Collinsv.Weeks
27. OnJanuary12,2010,WEEKScontactsCOLLINSandadvisesthathehasdiscussedtheconflictof interestissuewithbothcountycounselandCALCAGNOandboth
state that COLLINS does not have a conflict of interestproblem and can enter into the
contract with RMC without resigning his directorship with the ADVISORY BOARD.
WEEKScommunicatedthatcountycounselhadissuedanopinionletter. WEEKSalsostated
that county counsel stated you are entitled to earn a living as long as you dontbill for
agencyorBoardofSupervisormeetings,yourefine.
28. Later thatday,COLLINScontactsCALCAGNOwhoassuresCOLLINSthatthereisnoconflict,so,shut-upaboutthisresigningcrap,youarethegluethatholdsthe
advisoryboardtogether,youcannotresign.
29. OnJanuary13,2010COLLINSsignstheRMCcontractinSanFrancisco.30. OnJanuary14,2010variousparties interested in thePROJECTmeet in
San Francisco. WEEKS, GRANT, MACLEAN, HIETZMAN and a variety of others
principalsandcounselfortheinterestedpartieswerepresent. ThepartiesincludeCAL-AM,
MarinaCoastWaterDistrict,theCOUNTY,andRMC. COLLINSandWEEKSwerethere
onbehalfoftheCOUNTY. WEEKSadvisedthegroupthattheconflictofinterestissuehad
beenaddressedanddidnotpresentaproblem.
31. Later inJanuary,COLLINSmeetswithDefendant,POTTER,whostateshewasgladCOLLINSwasworkingon thePROJECT. POTTERstates, CALCAGNOS
beenbeatingtheshitoutof[WEEKS].
32. In early March 2010, counsel for Marina Coast Water District, LloydLowery,expressesconcernovertheconflictofinterestissueandrequestanopinionfromthe
DowneyBrandfirm.
33. OnJune3-4, 2010,COLLINS andWEEKSmetwithDanCarroll fromDowneyBrand regarding the conflict of interest issue. COLLINS is advisedbyGRANT,
DanCarrolland,MarkFogelman(counselforMarinaCoastWaterDistrict),thathedoesnot
haveaconflictofinterestproblem.
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
7/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28-7-
COMPLAINT
LawO
fficesofH.NelsonMeeks
870MarketStreet,
Suite700
SanFrancisco,
CA94102
Collinsv.Weeks
34. On December 2, 2010, the Public Utilities Commission grants thePROJECT.
35. On December 7, 2010, COLLINS meets with the SUPERVISORS andadvisesthatsitforme,Imdone. WEEKS,GRANT,CALCAGNO,POTTERandothers
were inattendance. CALCAGNOstatedno, Idont think so,POTTERstated,no, that
wontwork,whowillpay? At leastPOTTERandCALCAGNOwereseekingadditional
sourcestopayCOLLINStocontinueworkingonthePROJECT.
36. OnJanuary11,2011,inCALCAGNOSoffice,COLLINSisadvisedthatheneedstokeepworkingonthePROJECTandthatCALCAGNOwillfindasupplemental
sourcetopayCOLLINSforhiswork.
37. OnJanuary11,2011,theSUPERVISORSvotetoapprovethePROJECTasapprovedbythePublicUtilitiesCommissiononDecember2,2010.
38. OnApril11,2011,COLLINSresignsfromtheADVISORYBOARD.39. OnJune16,2011,CALCAGNOisreportedinthenewspaperassayingI
had no inclination that Stevewas hiredbyRMC if I had, let me tell you, Iwouldve
advisedhimhebettergethisacttogetherrightaway.
40. OnNovember 1, 2011, the Monterey CountyDistrictAttorneysOfficecirculates andpresents to the SUPERVISORS and a number of staff members including
MCKEEitsdraftcomplaintcriminallycharging,COLLINSforthepurposeofcommentand
review.
41. OnNovember15,2011,theMontereyCountyDistrictAttorneysOfficefilesacomplaintcriminallychargingCOLLINSwithconflictofinterestandembezzlement.
42. OnMarch18,2014,COLLINSacceptstheplea.
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
8/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28-8-
COMPLAINT
LawO
fficesofH.NelsonMeeks
870MarketStreet,
Suite700
SanFrancisco,
CA94102
Collinsv.Weeks
FIRSTCLAIMFORRELIEF
(ViolationofSection1983ofTitle42oftheUnitedStatesCode:
DueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment)
(AgainstDefendantsCOUNTY,WEEKS,MCKEE,
GRANT,CALCAGNO,POTTER,andDOES1-25)
43. PLAINTIFFreferstoandincorporatestheaboveasthoughfullysetforthherein.
44. DEFENDANTS, WEEKS, MCKEE, GRANT, CALCAGNO, ANDPOTTER,activelyassuredPLAINTIFF,fromJanuary11,2010throughMarch2010thathis
conduct in connection with receiving money from RMC while simultaneouslybeing a
memberofADVISORYBOARDwaslawful.
45. During this period of time said DEFENDANTS repeatedly assuredPLAINTIFF that his conductwas not illegalorotherwiseunlawful. PLAINTIFF is led to
believebyDEFENDANTSthattheCOUNTYsupportshiseffortsandthatheisnotat-risk
frombeingprosecutedforanyallegedwrong-doingandcertainlynotbytheCOUNTY.
46. SaidDEFENDANTSwereauthorizedgovernmentofficialsempoweredtorenderadviseonbehalfoftheCOUNTY.
47. Said DEFENDANTS were aware of all relevant historical andcontemporaneousfactsatthetimeoftheirrenderingtheirassurances.
48. Said DEFENDANTS communicated under the color of their officialcapacity.
49. SaidDEFENDANTSaffirmativelytoldPLAINTIFFthathisconductwasdesiredbytheCOUNTY,thathisproposedconducthadbeenreviewedbytheCOUNTYS
attorneys,andthathisconductwaspermissible.
50. PLAINTIFFreasonablyrelieduponsaidassurances.51. PLAINTIFF offered to resign from the ADVISORY BOARD, thereon
eliminatinganypotentialconflictofinterest,andhewasdirectedbysaidDEFENDANTSnot
toresign.
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
9/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28-9-
COMPLAINT
LawO
fficesofH.NelsonMeeks
870MarketStreet,
Suite700
SanFrancisco,
CA94102
Collinsv.Weeks
52. PLAINTIFF was sincerely desirous of obeying the law andproceededwith his unlawful conduct solely on account of the repeated assurances by said
DEFENDANTSthatallwaswell.
53. SaidDEFENDANTSadvicewasfalse.54. PLAINTIFFwascriminally chargedby theCOUNTYonNovember15,
2011forconductwhichhadbeenpreviouslyratifiedbysaidDEFENDANTS.
55. PLAINTIFFS14thAmendment right todueprocesswasviolatedby theforegoingallegations.
56. PLAINTIFFwasdamagedonaccountoftheforegoing.57. PLAINTIFFdiscoveredhewasdamagedsometimeafterSeptember2011
and he has suffered monetary damages therefrom. PLAINTIFFs damages accrued on or
afterMarch18,2014.
58. PLAINTIFF is informed andbelieved that DEFENDANTS at all timeseither knew or recklessly and callously disregarded the unlawful nature of COLLINS
conduct.
SECONDCLAIMFORRELIEFFRAUD
(AgainstDefendants,COUNTY,WEEKS,MCKEE,GRANT,CALCAGNO,
POTTER,MACLEAN,CAL-AMandDOES1-50)
59. PLAINTIFF refers to and incorporates the aboveparagraphs as thoughfullysetforthherein.
60. DEFENDANTSrepresented toPLAINTIFF thathis actionsasdescribedhereinwerelawful.
61. Saidrepresentationswerefalse.62. DEFENDANTSknewthattheirrepresentationswerefalsewhenmade,or
thattheymadetherepresentationsrecklesslyandwithoutregardforthetruth.
63. DEFENDANTSintendedthatPLAINTIFFrelyontheirrepresentations.
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
10/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28-10-
COMPLAINT
LawO
fficesofH.NelsonMeeks
870MarketStreet,
Suite700
SanFrancisco,
CA94102
Collinsv.Weeks
64. DEFENDANT, CAL-AM,benefitted from PLAINTIFFbeing chargedwithaconflictofinterestbecausethisallowedCAL-AMtoseekaconstructionprojectworth
$250million.
65. PLAINTIFFreasonablyreliedonDEFENDANTSrepresentations.66. PLAINTIFFwasharmedonaccountofhisrelianceontherepresentations
madebyDEFENDANTS.
PRAYERFORRELIEF
WHEREFORE,PLAINTIFFpraysthat:
1. JudgmentbeenteredinfavorofPLAINTIFFonallclaimsforrelief;2. Actual andcompensatorydamagesagainsteach andeveryDefendant in
anamounttobedetermined;
3. AttorneyfeesandcostsofsuitagainsteachandeveryDefendant,pursuantto all applicable statutory, common law, or constitutional provisions
includingbutnotlimitedto42U.S.C.1988;and
4. SuchadditionalreliefastheCourtmaydeemjustandproper.Dated: June11,2014
Respectfullysubmitted,
__________SS______________________
H.NelsonMeeks,Esq.
AttorneyforPLAINTIFF
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
11/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28-11-
COMPLAINT
LawO
fficesofH.NelsonMeeks
870MarketStreet,
Suite700
SanFrancisco,
CA94102
Collinsv.Weeks
DEMANDFORJURYTRIAL
Plaintiffherebydemandsatrialbyjuryonallissuessotriabletothefullextentpermittedby
law.
Dated: June11,2014
Respectfullysubmitted,
____________SS____________________
H.NelsonMeeks,Esq.AttorneyforPLAINTIFF
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
12/15
JS-44 (Rev (, 13 Rl) CIVIL COVER SHEETI. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS County of Monterey, Curtis Weeks, Charles McKeeStephen Collins Irv Grant, Louis R. Calcagno, David Potter, Robert MacLean,California-American Water and Does 1-50
(b) County of R e s i d t : : n c ~ of First Listed Plaintiff Monterey County of Residence of First Listed Defendant M o n t e r ~(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONL )NOTE: IN LANO CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE
(c) At1omey's (Finu Nam< , Addrc:ss, ~ n d Telephone Number) LA" D INVOLVED.H. Nelson Meeks Allorneys (lfl(nown)LAW OFFICES OF H. NELSON MEEKS870 Market St., Ste. 700, San Francisco CA 94102
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an ..X in One Box Only) I l l. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an x in One Box for Plaintiff(For Divctsily C a ~ t : ~ Only) an
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
13/15
V. ORIGI'\ Place an hX In One Bo'\: Only)
Ell 02 03 04 os 06 07Original Removed from Rc1nandcd from Reinstated or Trans felTed from Multidistrict p p ~ a l to District J m i g ~Proce.:dmg Stote Coutt Appellate Court Reopened another distiicl Litigation From M:tgijtrate Judgment(Speedy)
Cite the U.S. Ci\'il t a t u t ~ uudcO r \vhich yau an:- tiling Do not cite jurisdlctional statutes unlus diversity):
42 usc 1983VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Blic descliption of cau5c:
VII. REQUESTED IN 0 Check if this is a Class Action DEMANDS JURY DEMAND I I Yes 0 NoCOI\TPLAINT Cndcr F.R.C.P. 23 (Check Y E S ~ 1f detmnded in compLJint)
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
Because of the need for accurate and complete mformatton, you should ensure the accuracy of the mformat1on prov1ded pnor to stgmng the form.
une 11 2014D a t ~
INSTRUCTIO'IS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44Authority for Civil Cover Sheet
The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the infonnation contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleadings or other papers as requitedby law, except as provided by local rules of court. This fonu, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974 is required for the use of the Clerkof Court for the puqJosc of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequentl y a civil cover sheet is submit ted to the Clerk of Cottt1 for each civil compla int filed. List ed belowarc tips for completing the civil cover sheet. These tips coincide with the Roman Numerals on the Cover Sheet.
I COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT (b) County of residence: For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiffcases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plainti ff cases, enter the name of the county inwhich the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is thelocation of he tract of land involved.)
111. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This section is c o m p l e t e d ~ if diversity of citizensl1ip was selected as the Basis of Jurisdiction underSection II.
IV. NA TUIU: O SUIT: Place an X in the appropriate box. Make sure to select the Natme of Suit from the categ01y which hest describes the primaJy causeof action found iu your complaint. You must select only one nature of suit.
Vlll. RELATED CASES, IF ANY: This section of the JS-44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert thedocket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Receipt# A m o u n t ~ Applying IFP ~ Judge Mag. Judge
Violation of substantive and procedural due process. Plaintiff's liberty interest inreputation, profession, integrity were violated by defendants' fraudulent conduct.
5,000,000.00
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
14/15
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED ST TES DISTRICT COURT
Stephen Collins
Plaintiff(s)v.
for theNorthern District of California [ ]
Civil Action No.County of Monterey, Curtis Weeks, Charles McKee,lrv Grant, Louis R. Calcagno, David Potter,Robert Maclean California-American Waterand Does 1-50
Defendant(s)
SUMMONS IN CIVIL CTIONTo: (Defendant s name and address) o u r t ~ t y W o f Mkonterey 168 West Alisal Street, 3rd Floor, Salinas CA 93901u IS ee s -- 82 Corral de Tierra Road., Salinas CA 93908Charles McKee -- 168 West Alisal Street, 3rd Floor, Salinas CA 93901lrv Grant -- 168 West Alisal Street, 3rd Floor, Salinas CA 93901Louis R. Calcagno -- 168 West Alisal Street, 3rd Floor, Salinas CA 93901David Potter -- 168 West Alisal Street, 3rd Floor, Salinas CA 93901Robert Maclean -- 1033 B Avenue, Ste. 200, Coronado CA 92118California-American Water-- 1033 B Avenue, Ste. 200, Coronado CA 92118
A lawsuit has been filed against you.Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received i t - or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R Civ.P. 12 (a)(2) or 3 - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff s attorney,whose name and address are: H Nelson MeeksLAW OFFICES OF H. NELSON MEEKS870 Market St., Ste. 700San Francisco CA 941 02
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF OURT
Date:Signature ofClerk or Deputy Clerk
-
8/12/2019 Collins v. County of Monterey Et Al. Complaint for Damages 6-11-14
15/15
AO 440 (Rev. 06112) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICEThis section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R Civ P 4 l))
This summons for (name o ndividual and title, iwas received by m on (date)
I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)on (date) ; or
left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
on (date), a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; orserved the summons on (name o ndividual) , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalfof (name o organization)on (date) ;or
returned the summons unexecuted because ; orOther (specifjY:
My fees areS for travel and for services, for a total of 0.00
I declare under penalty ofperjury that this information is true.
Date:Server s signature
Printed name a nd title
Server s address
Additional infonnation regarding attempted service, etc: