Dowkin et al hpd discrimination answer

ROBERT CARSON GODBEY, 4685 Corporation Counsel D. SCOTT DODD, 6811 Deputy Corporation Counsel Department of the Corporation Counsel City and County of Honolulu Honolulu Hale, Room 110 530 South King Street Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Telephone: (808) 768-5129 Facsimile: (808) 768-5105 E-mail address: [email protected] Attorneys for City Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, JR. and OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT-BAGORIO, Plaintiffs, vs. THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER

Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 of 33 PageID #: 4474

-2-

SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, PAT AH LOO and Does 1-100, Defendants. ________________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Trial Date: January 15, 2013

DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,

FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL

TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO,

LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER

COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012

Defendants THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER

CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS

KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR

KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE

DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON,

LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ,

SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND


-3-

PAT AH LOO (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “City Defendants”1), by

and through their attorneys, Robert Carson Godbey, Corporation Counsel, and D.

Scott Dodd, Deputy Corporation Counsel, for their answer to Plaintiffs Sherman

Dean Dowkin (“Dowkin”), Federico Delgadillo Martinez, Jr. (“Delgadillo”), and

Cassandra Bennett-Bagorio’ (“Bagorio”) Third Amended Complaint filed herein

on January 17, 2011 (hereinafter “Complaint”)(ECF No. 221), state and allege as

follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to state a claim against the City Defendants upon which

relief can be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

1. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 35, 36, and 206

of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit said allegations.

2. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 24,

29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 59, 69, 70, 76, 100, 110, 125, and 238 of the Complaint, the City

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the

same. 1 As a result of the Court’s July 23, 2012 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal of Third Amended Complaint, there are no claims remaining against Defendants Boisse Correa, Louis Kealoha, Michael Tamashiro, Kenneth Simmons, John McEntire, Nyle Dolera, Michael Serrao, or Pat Ah Loo.


-4-

3. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 4, 23, 25, 38,

39, 40, 41, 51, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 84, 86, 88, 90, 94, 97, 103, 108, 109, 115,

116, 122, 140, 141, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 199, 200, 203, and 205 of the

Complaint, the City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing, and deny the

allegations as worded. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said

paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.

4. The City Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 26,

27, 28, 31, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 54A, 54B, 54C, 54E, 54F, 54G,

54H, 54I, 64, 65, 66, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92,

93, 95, 96, 101, 104, 105, 106, 111, 112, 113, 117, 120, 123, 124, 126, 127, 132,

133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 186, 193, 194, 195, 201, 204, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212,

214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 229, 234,

235, 236 and 237.

5. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 3 and 9 of the

Complaint, the City Defendants admit that the City is a municipal corporation, and

that the Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) is a department within the City.

The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining

allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.


-5-

6. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the

Complaint, the City Defendants deny that Plaintiff Delgadillo was constructively

discharged and forced to resign from his employment with HPD. The City


the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the

same.


Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Boisse Correa was the Chief of Police

of the Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) during relevant times as alleged in

Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing.

The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that

basis deny the same.


Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Louis Kealoha was the Chief of Police

of HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City

Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations

contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.


-6-


Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Michael Tamashiro was an Assistant

Chief of Police for HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.





Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Kenneth Simmons was a Major with

HPD relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny

the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in

said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.


Complaint, the City Defendants admit that John McEntire was a Major with HPD

during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants

deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained

in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.


Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Nyle Dolera was a Captain with HPD


-7-






Complaint, the City Defendants admit that William Axt was a Lieutenant with

HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City





Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Dan Kwon was a Lieutenant with HPD






Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Michael Serrao was a Lieutenant with




-8-




Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Wayne Fernandez was a Sergeant with






Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Ralstan Tanaka was a Sergeant with






Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Patrick Ah Loo was a civilian labor

relations advisor with HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’

Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City



-9-


same.


Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Colby Kashimoto was an officer with






Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin was assigned to head

the DUI team in District 4. The City Defendants deny the allegations of

wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient

to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and

on that basis deny the same.

21. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 42, 68 and 114

of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin filed a written

complaint alleging racial discrimination, and delivered the complaint to Defendant

Simmons. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City



-10-


same.


Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Defendant Fernandez visited HPD’s

Central Receiving to visit an acquaintance. The City Defendants deny the

allegations of wrongdoing, or that Defendant Fernandez’ entry was not authorized.



basis deny the same.

23. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 54D and 118 of

the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that the DUI team was disbanded. The

City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing, or that there was any causal

link between the filing of the racial discrimination complaint and the disbanding of

the DUI team. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information




Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin was assigned to

supervise the DUI team, and that Plaintiff Delgadillo became a member of the

team. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City


-11-



same.


Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiffs’ complaints of discrimination

and retaliation were investigated. The City Defendants deny the allegations of



on that basis deny the same.

26. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 78 and 119 of

the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Bagorio was instructed to

provide testimony regarding Plaintiffs Dowkin and Delgadillo’s complaint of racial

discrimination, but deny any wrongdoing associated with that event, and deny that

Plaintiff Bagorio’s testimony supported the claims of racial discrimination. The

City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny

the same.


Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin met with Defendant

Kwon, but deny that Defendant Kwon failed to provide backup cover or assistance,


-12-

or any other wrongdoing associated with that event. The City Defendants further

admit that on November 3, 2007 Plaintiff Dowkin made a complaint about this

incident with Defendant Dolera, and that on November 10, 2007 Defendant Dolera

sent Plaintiff Dowkin an e-mail, but deny any wrongdoing associated with those

events. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on

that basis deny the same.


Complaint, the City Defendants admit that on November 16, 2007 an HPD

Information Notice District 4 was issued by the District 4 administration which

referenced the “Stan Cook” incident. The City Defendants are without knowledge




Complaint, the City Defendants admit that on November 28, 2007, Defendant

Kwon sent a memorandum to Defendant Dolera regarding the issue of backup

cover, and that on December 4, 2007 Defendant Dolera reminded those under his

command of the importance of providing backup cover to fellow police officers.



-13-




Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Dowkin and Delgadillo met

with Lt. Axt. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information




Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Dowkin and Delgadillo filed

charges of racial discrimination and retaliation, but deny that “additional acts of

retaliation continued to be perpetrated by Defendants,” or that any racial

discrimination or retaliation occurred. The City Defendants are without knowledge




Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Delgadillo was found to have

violated certain standards of conduct in connection with his activities involving the

sale of tamales. The City Defendants deny that Plaintiff Dowkin and Plaintiff

Delgadillo were falsely accused, or that the investigation was retaliatory or

improper in any manner, and deny all allegations of wrongdoing. The City


-14-



same.


Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Delgadillo was provided with a

lighter weight “blue light bar” as Plaintiff Delgadillo had complained he had

injured himself with the newer heavier “blue light bars,” but deny this would result

in Plaintiff Delgadillo being less safe when making traffic stops at night. The City

Defendants deny that Plaintiff Bennett-Bagorio was given a false or negative

performance evaluation, deny that the evaluation was retaliatory, and deny any

wrongdoing associated with any of the allegations. The City Defendants are




Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Bagorio filed a charge of

gender discrimination and retaliation, but deny she suffered any gender

discrimination or retaliation. The City Defendants are without knowledge or




-15-


Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin gave Plaintiff

Delgadillo a “5” rating, but deny the remaining allegations in said paragraph.

36. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 138 and 139 of

the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Bagorio suffered a back

injury, and that Defendant Tanaka was a supervising officer on scene, but deny all

allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or




Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin was informed that his

complaint of racial discrimination was not sustained, but deny the remaining

allegations in said paragraph.

38. In response to paragraph 143 of the Complaint, the City Defendants

reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 142, as

though fully set forth herein.

39. In response to paragraphs 144, 145, 146 and 147 of the Complaint, the

City Defendants deny that they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

(42 U.S.C., Section 2000e-2, et seq.) or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The

City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief


-16-

as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny

same.


reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 147

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

41. In response to paragraphs 149, 150, 151, 152 and 153 of the

Complaint, the City Defendants deny that they violated Title VI of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C., Section 2000d, et seq.) or engaged in any acts of



on that basis deny same.





City Defendants deny that they violated the Hawai‘i State Constitution or the

Hawai‘i Civil Rights Law (Hawai‘i Constitution, Article I, Sections 3, 4, and 5 and

Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Section 378-2, et seq.) or engaged in any acts of



-17-


on that basis deny same.




45. In response to paragraphs 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 and 165 of the

Complaint, the City Defendants deny that were negligent in any manner or

engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The City Defendants note that the allegations

in this cause of action against Defendants Kwon, Tanaka and Fernandez were

dismissed by the Court’s July 23, 2012 Order. The City Defendants are without


contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny same.





City Defendants deny that they intentionally (or otherwise) inflicted emotional

distress upon any of the Plaintiffs or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The City



-18-

the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny

same.




49. In response to paragraphs 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177 and 178 of the

Complaint, the City Defendants deny that they were negligent or inflicted

emotional distress upon any of the Plaintiffs or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing.



basis deny same.




51. In response to paragraphs 180 through 229 of the Complaint,

inclusive, the City Defendants deny that they violated the Civil Rights Act of 1871

(42 U.S.C. Section 1983), or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The City

Defendants note that the allegations and claims in this cause of action were

dismissed by the Court’s July 23, 2012 Order. The City Defendants are without


-19-


contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny same.




53. In response to paragraphs 231, 232 and 233 of the Complaint, the City

Defendants deny that they (or any of them) engaged in any conspiracy, or engaged

in any acts of wrongdoing. The City Defendants note that the allegations and

claims in this cause of action were dismissed by the Court’s July 23, 2012 Order.



basis deny same.

54. The City Defendants deny all allegations of the Complaint not

previously admitted, denied, or otherwise responded to herein.

THIRD DEFENSE

The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the affirmative

defense that they are not liable to Plaintiffs for racial and/or sexual discrimination

nor retaliation because the City Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent

and promptly correct any alleged discriminating and/or retaliating behavior, if any,

and Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective


-20-

opportunities provided by the employer or unreasonably failed to otherwise avoid

harm.

FOURTH DEFENSE

The City Defendants had legitimate non-retaliatory reasons for the

challenged employment actions.

FIFTH DEFENSE

The acts alleged do not constitute an official policy or persistent pattern,

practice or custom.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and/or damages were the result of their own

wrongful, intentional, reckless and malicious misconduct.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

The City Defendants may assert the defenses of res judicata and collateral

estoppel.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

The City Defendants give notice that they may assert the defenses of laches,

waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands.

NINTH DEFENSE

The City Defendants give notice that they may assert the right to rely on the

defenses of consent and justification.


-21-

TENTH DEFENSE

The conduct of the City Defendants was at all times lawful, reasonable and

proper.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

The City Defendants give notice that they have no duty, and accordingly, are

not liable for any injuries and/or damages to Plaintiffs that may have resulted from

any illegal acts committed by others that may have given rise to the alleged injuries

and/or damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs have not suffered any emotional distress compensable under the

law.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

By law, Plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive damages against the City.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

The City Defendants are not liable to Plaintiffs for the alleged injuries and/or

damages on any and all claims based on their alleged failure to adequately enforce

statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations and/or any other applicable law.

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

The City Defendants give notice that they may rely upon the defense of

truth.


-22-

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the defense of

privilege.

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the defenses of fraud

and illegality.

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

The City Defendants may rely on the defense of bad faith.

NINETEENTH DEFENSE

The individual Defendants are entitled to assert the defense of qualified

immunity, and the Hawai‘i state law conditional or qualified privilege. If a City

employee or officer is immune from liability, then his/her employer, the City, is

likewise immune from liability.

TWENTIETH DEFENSE

The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the defense that

Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages.

TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE

The City Defendants are not liable for Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries because the

City Defendants did not have actual or constructive knowledge or notice of the


-23-

alleged facts and circumstances, which Plaintiffs assert were responsible for their

injuries.

TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE

The City Defendants may rely on the defense of misconduct of others over

whom the City Defendants have no control.

TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE

The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the defense of

knowledge or acquiescence on Plaintiffs part.

TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

A public employer is entitled to discipline a public employee for any other

reason, good or bad, fair or unfair.

TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

The acts of the City Defendants were not done with malice or reckless

indifference to Plaintiffs’ federally protected rights.

TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs have failed to bring their action within the applicable time period.

TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE

The actions of the City Defendants were not in retaliation for the exercise of

any rights by Plaintiffs.


-24-

TWENTY EIGHTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were sustained as a result of their own misconduct

and/or wrongful acts.

TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE

The negligence or other wrongful acts and/or omissions of the City

Defendants, if any, were not the proximate cause of the injuries and/or damages

Plaintiffs allegedly sustained, i.e., such negligence or other wrongful acts and/or

omissions, if any, were not a substantial factor in causing the injuries and/or

damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs.

THIRTIETH DEFENSE

The City Defendants state that if the Plaintiffs were injured and/or damaged

as alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiffs’ own negligence or other wrongful acts

and/or omissions were the sole proximate cause of, or contributed to such injuries

and/or damages to such extent that Plaintiffs’ negligence and other wrongful acts

and/or omissions were greater than that of the City Defendants and Plaintiffs

cannot recover against the City Defendants therefore.

THIRTY-FIRST DEFENSE

The City Defendants are not liable for the injuries and/or damages allegedly

suffered by Plaintiffs because the City Defendants did not have actual or

constructive knowledge or notice of the condition alleged to have existed, if said


-25-

condition alleged was responsible for the injuries and/or damages suffered by

Plaintiffs.

THIRTY-SECOND DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of

limitations.

THIRTY-THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ claims, in whole or in part, are barred by Plaintiffs’ consent,

participation in, creation of or other acquiescence to the condition.

THIRTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

The City Defendants may rely upon the defense that Plaintiffs have failed to

plead all elements of one or more of their causes of action.

THIRTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

The City may rely upon the defense that Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust

administrative remedies.

THIRTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

The City Defendants reserve all rights to assert any affirmative defenses or

to rely on any other matter constituting an avoidance pursuant to Rule 8(c) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to seek leave to amend their Answer to allege

any such defenses and to assert any other defenses, claims and counterclaims as

discovery and the evidence may merit.


-26-

WHEREFORE, the City prays as follows:

A. That the Complaint herein be dismissed and the City Defendants be

given their costs and attorneys’ fees;

B. That if it be determined that Plaintiffs, the City Defendants and/or

other defendants were negligent with respect to the events described in the

Complaint, the relative and comparative degree of fault of each party be

determined in accordance with Section 663-31 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, as

amended;

C. That if it is determined that if any of the City Defendants are a

tortfeasor along with one or more other tortfeasors, the City Defendants shall be

liable for no more than that percentage of the damages attributable to the City

Defendant(s), and judgment be rendered accordingly;

D. The City Defendants be given such other and further relief as this

Court deems just.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, Tuesday, August 14, 2012.

ROBERT CARSON GODBEY Corporation Counsel By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd D. SCOTT DODD Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Defendants

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,


-27-

FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF

POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, and PAT LOO 10-01301/239585 ****************************************************************** CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs. THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, JR. and OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT-BAGORIO, Plaintiffs, vs. THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, PAT AH LOO and Does 1-100, Defendants. ________________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/ RLP DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY


-2-

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Defendants THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND

COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA,

CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF

MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN

MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO,

LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT

WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY

KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues

herein triable of right by a jury.


ROBERT CARSOPN GODBEY Corporation Counsel By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd D. SCOTT DODD Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Defendants THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT


-3-

WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, and PAT LOO 10-01301/239585 ****************************************************************** CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs. THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE




) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/ LEK CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


-2-

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was duly

served by the method of service noted, on the following individuals at their addresses

listed below on Tuesday, August 14, 2012:

Served Electronically through CM/ECF: MERIT BENNETT, ESQ. [email protected] The Bennett Firm 1050 Bishop Street, #302 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 SETH L. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. [email protected] Law Offices of Seth L. Goldstein 2100 Garden Road, Suite H-8 Monterey, CA 93940 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO DELGADILLO

MARTINEZ, JR. and OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT-BAGORIO


ROBERT CARSON GODBEY Corporation Counsel By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd D. SCOTT DODD Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR


-3-

KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, and PAT LOO 10-01301/239585 ****************************************************************** CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs. THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE




) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/ RLP DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390-1 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 4507

-2-

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Defendants THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND

COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA,

CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF

MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN

MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO,

LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT

WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY

KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues

herein triable of right by a jury.


ROBERT CARSOPN GODBEY Corporation Counsel By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd D. SCOTT DODD Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Defendants THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT


-3-

WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, and PAT LOO 10-01301/239585 ****************************************************************** CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs. THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE




) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/ LEK CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


-2-

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was duly

served by the method of service noted, on the following individuals at their addresses

listed below on Tuesday, August 14, 2012:

Served Electronically through CM/ECF: MERIT BENNETT, ESQ. [email protected] The Bennett Firm 1050 Bishop Street, #302 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 SETH L. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. [email protected] Law Offices of Seth L. Goldstein 2100 Garden Road, Suite H-8 Monterey, CA 93940 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO DELGADILLO

MARTINEZ, JR. and OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT-BAGORIO


ROBERT CARSON GODBEY Corporation Counsel By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd D. SCOTT DODD Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR


-3-

KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, and PAT LOO 10-01301/239585 ****************************************************************** CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs. THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


Dowkin et al hpd discrimination answer

Documents

Transcript of Dowkin et al hpd discrimination answer