1 Christopher G.

Boscia (SBN 258271)

[email protected]
2 Morgan A. Acevedo (SBN 333217)
[email protected]
3 BOSCIA LEGAL PC
1960 The Alameda, Suite 185
4 San Jose, California 95126
Telephone:(408) 753-6224
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
6 BRIAN DOYLE

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

10

11 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION

BRIAN DOYLE
12
Plaintiff, CASE NO.
13

14 COMPLAINT
v.
15 Retaliation in Violation of Labor
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA Code §1102.5
16
Defendant.
17
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
18

19

20
I. INTRODUCTION
21
1. Plaintiff BRIAN DOYLE (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) brings this Complaint for a
22
violation of section 1102.5, subdivisions (b) and (c) of the Labor Code, Retaliation for
23

24 Whistleblowing, against Defendant, THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA (hereinafter, “Defendant”),

25 for unlawful termination without cause.

26 2. Prior to his unlawful termination by Defendant, Plaintiff was the City Attorney for
27
the City of Santa Clara as well as the Stadium Authority Counsel for the Santa Clara Stadium
28

1 Case No.
COMPLAINT
 1 Authority.

2 3. In these roles Plaintiff had a duty to competently advise the governing bodies of
3
each of the entities and to defend them in numerous lawsuits instituted by the ownership of the
4
San Francisco 49ers football team.
5
4. Plaintiff was appointed the Interim City Attorney for the City of Santa Clara from
6

7 February 2017 through December 2017 in a part time capacity.

8 5. Plaintiff worked in a full-time capacity as City Attorney and Stadium Authority

9 Counsel from December 19, 2017, through his termination on September 2, 2021.
10 6. At a public hearing of the City Council on December 8, 2020, Plaintiff informed
11
the City Council of his serious concerns about taking such action in a closed session.
12
7. Because of his disclosure and refusal to participate in the closed session, Defendant
13
unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff and terminated him as City Attorney without cause.
14

15 8. After almost four and a half years of faithful service, on September 2, 2021,

16 Plaintiff was discharged in retaliation for refusing to participate in a closed session meeting of the

17 City Council of Defendant City wherein at least one member suggested that the City Council

18
could take action that, according to the reasonable belief of Plaintiff, would subject certain City
19
Council members to criminal prosecution for quid pro quo, or bribery, in violation of California
20
Penal Code section 68 and criminal extortion affecting interstate commerce in violation of 18 USC
21
1951 (Hobbs Act).
22

23 9. Plaintiff on information and belief, alleges against Defendant as follows:

24 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

25
10. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the laws of the State of
26

27 California, including Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10, by virtue of the fact that the

28 complained-of acts giving rise to this action took place, in whole or in part, in the State of

2 Case No.
COMPLAINT
 1 California.

2 11. Defendant regularly does business in California and has employed and does employ
3
numerous individuals within the State of California and Santa Clara County.
4
12. Defendant’s principal place of business and corporate headquarters are in Santa
5
Clara County.
6
13. Defendant has obtained the benefits of the laws of the State of California and the
7

8 California labor market.

9 14. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for violation of the California
10 Labor Code.

11
15. Venue is proper in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara pursuant to
12
Code of Civil Procedure Section 395 because the City of Santa Clara is located and conducts
13
business within, the County of Santa Clara, and at all times relevant to this action Plaintiff worked
14

15 for the City of Santa Clara.

16 16. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this court.

17 III. THE PARTIES

18 A. Plaintiff
19
17. Plaintiff Brian Doyle is a natural person who was at all times mentioned herein a
20
resident of the City of Santa Clara.
21
18. Plaintiff is a distinguished attorney in the greater San Francisco Bay Area.
22

23 19. In his most recent employment, Plaintiff was the City Attorney for Defendant’s

24 City Attorney’s Office from December 2017 to September 2021.

25 20. Plaintiff was the Interim City Attorney for the same office from February 2017
26
through December 2017.
27
21. Prior to and during the time he served as Interim City Attorney, Plaintiff was the
28

3 Case No.
COMPLAINT
 1 General Counsel for the Santa Clara County Housing Authority.

2 22. He held that position from June 2016 through December 2017.
3
23. Plaintiff also held the titles of Senior Deputy City Attorney and Deputy City
4
Attorney with the City Attorney’s Office for the City of San Jose from December 1990 through
5
October 2012.
6
24. Plaintiff graduated from U.C. Berkeley School of Law in 1982 with a Juris
7

8 Doctorate.

9 25. Plaintiff graduated Summa Cum Laude from the University of San Francisco in
10 1978 with a Bachelor of Arts in Government.

11
26. Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in both California and New York.
12
27. Plaintiff is a dedicated member of the community involved in numerous legal, civic
13
and religious organizations.
14

15 B. Defendant

16 28. Defendant is a Charter City located within Santa Clara County, California.

17 29. Its duly elected City Council acts on Defendant’s behalf.

18
30. The Charter of the City of Santa Clara provides that the City Council shall appoint
19
a City Attorney who serves at the pleasure of the City Council.
20
31. At all times herein alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff worked as the appointed City
21
Attorney and was employed by the City of Santa Clara, the properly named Defendant in this
22

23 action.

24 IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

25 32. Plaintiff’s appointment as City Attorney for Defendant came after a long,
26
distinguished career as a public servant, specifically in municipal government.
27
33. On December 19, 2017, Plaintiff was appointed and hired by the City Council
28

4 Case No.
COMPLAINT
 1 pursuant to the terms of an Employment Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2 34. Plaintiff’s starting annual salary was $320,000, not including employee benefits.
3
35. In its press release marking the hiring, Defendant noted Plaintiff’s
4
accomplishments while serving as Interim City Attorney, including favorable judgment in the
5
CityPlace California Environmental Quality Act litigation, as well as negotiations, environmental
6

7 review process, and development entitlements for the same.

8 36. Defendant also lauded Plaintiff’s diligent work on the Stadium Authority

9 Arbitration and Declaratory Relief litigation and his initial work obtaining a demurrer to the legal
10 challenge brought against the Defendant under the California Voting Rights Act.

11
37. The press release indicated that Plaintiff would be specifically tasked with working
12
on stadium issues related to non-NFL events and the implementation of stadium audit
13
recommendations.
14

15 38. Under Plaintiff’s leadership as the City Attorney, in August 2018, Plaintiff “fought

16 and won a major victory that resolved a $180 million rent dispute with the 49ers. The 49ers’

17 request for a rent reduction over the 40-year lease term was denied and instead, the City/Stadium

18
Authority was awarded a significant rent increase by an arbitrator.” (Unsportsmanlike Conduct:
19
Santa Clara City Council, October 10, 2022, report of the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand
20
Jury at page 20 of 61.)
21
39. In December 2018, Defendant increased Plaintiff’s salary to approximately $27,733
22

23 monthly, or $332,796 annually, not including employee benefits.

24 40. During all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff worked on behalf of Defendant to hold

25 the San Francisco 49ers to account. That included, among other things, efforts to recover unpaid

26
rent and to end the 49ers management of Levi’s Stadium based on incurable breaches of the
27
Stadium Management Agreement whereby the 49ers controlled crucial financial records belonging
28

5 Case No.
COMPLAINT
 1 to the Stadium Authority.

2 41. In 2020 49ers CEO Jed York reportedly poured millions of dollars into political
3
action committees to unseat City Council members who voted against his team’s interests.
4
42. In an unprecedented intrusion into local politics, 49er-created committee donations
5
led to the election of three candidates, Anthony Becker (who currently faces felony perjury
6
1
7 charges ), Sudhanshu “Suds” Jain, and Kevin Park.

8 43. Together with then-serving councilmembers Karen Hardy and Raj Chahal, these

9 five City Council members formed a majority voting bloc referred to in the media as “the 49er
10 Five” for their decisions favoring the 49ers.

11
44. In the course of his service as City Attorney, Plaintiff developed a reasonable belief
12
that specific members of the City Council had agreed to a quid pro quo with third parties acting on
13
behalf of the ownership of the San Francisco 49ers.
14

15 45. The agreement was to form an alliance of candidates who would take official action

16 on behalf of the City to favor the 49ers financially at the expense of the City, including among

17 other things the favorable settlement of lawsuits against the City by the 49ers, in exchange for

18
millions of dollars of purportedly “independent” campaign expenditures.
19
46. Plaintiff reasonably believed that the 49ers provided more than $700,000 in
20
campaign funding to oppose a ballot measure that would have rendered the appeal in the
21
California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) litigation moot in furtherance of their goal.
22

23 47. Thus, at the December 8, 2020, City Council meeting, what would have otherwise

24 been a largely-ceremonial meeting for new members Becker, Jain, and Park, turned into a

25

26 1
On April 13, 2023, a criminal grand jury indicted Councilmember Anthony Becker for felony perjury (Santa Clara
County case no. C2304770) for lying about leaking a confidential Santa Clara County civil grand jury report that
27 criticized him and four other councilmembers (the 49er Five)’s relationship with the San Francisco 49ers.
Councilmember Anthony Becker has also been charged with a misdemeanor for leaking the confidential document to
28 former 49ers spokesperson Rahul Chandhok and to reporters or editors at the Silicon Valley Voice.

6 Case No.
COMPLAINT
 1 nightmare for Plaintiff.

2 48. Prior to the December 8 council meeting, Councilmember Chahal had attempted to
3
place a closed session item on the December 8 meeting agenda related to the CVRA litigation.
4
49. Such a ceremonial first meeting of the new Council would traditionally not have
5
included a closed session discussion of existing litigation.
6
50. Because Chahal had not followed the proper City procedures to set a closed session
7

8 for December 8, his request was denied.

9 51. Chahal then requested that an item be placed on the December 8 agenda to set a
10 closed session discussion of the CVRA litigation on December 15.

11
52. In response Plaintiff sent an email to Chahal asking what Chahal wanted Plaintiff to
12
be prepared to discuss. Chahal did not respond.
13
53. Plaintiff then prepared a memorandum summarizing the status of the CVRA
14

15 litigation, including all publicly available information.

16 54. Plaintiff reasonably believed that the actions of Chahal to place a matter related to

17 the CVRA on closed session without adequate discussion of the topics to be discussed was in

18
furtherance of the quid pro quo agreement.
19
55. At the December 8 meeting, Plaintiff notified the Council that all information
20
related to the CVRA litigation was contained in the publicly-available memorandum he prepared.
21
56. Plaintiff then asked Councilmember Chahal what further he intended to be
22

23 discussed in closed session related to the litigation.

24 57. Chahal refused to specify a topic and remained circumspect.

25 58. However, Chahal made clear that one possible action that the new Council could
26
take in the proposed December 15 closed session meeting would be to dismiss the CVRA
27
litigation.
28

7 Case No.
COMPLAINT
 1 59. Plaintiff believed that in addition to being contrary to the City’s interests, such a

2 vote to dismiss the litigation, in advance of the December 17 oral arguments in the California

3
Court of Appeal, could lead to criminal prosecution of members who had a conflict of interest due
4
to the quid pro quo agreement.
5
60. During the December 8 public hearing, Plaintiff communicated his reasonable
6

7 belief that certain councilmembers should not participate in a closed session discussion of this

8 matter until he had adequate time to advise them of the potential for law violations.

9 61. In other words Plaintiff was attempting to protect the City as an organizational
10 client, and the councilmembers individually, and alerting them to the possibility for prosecution

11
under California Penal Code section 68(a) for receiving a bribe upon an understanding that a vote
12
or action would be influenced.
13
62. Chahal refused to provide any explanation and conditioned any further discussion
14

15 about the closed session meeting on the setting of the meeting date first.

16 63. Plaintiff further stated that should the City Council vote by majority to hold such a

17 special closed session, without first informing him of the nature of the agenda, he would refuse to

18
attend the closed session hearing.
19
64. Plaintiff reasonably believed that without knowledge of what would be discussed,
20
he would not be adequately prepared to advise the council members and the public on the very
21
issues of conflict of interest and potential liability for engaging in a quid pro quo.
22

23 65. Chahal responded that should Plaintiff fail to appear at the closed session, he would

24 be “avoiding his duty” as City Attorney.

25 66. Later in the publicly-held City Council meeting, the now-indicted Councilman
26
Becker accused Plaintiff of “intimidation” of Council members by reporting Plaintiff’s concerns.
27
67. Becker further stated “if I don’t do something at my job, I get fired.”
28

8 Case No.
COMPLAINT
 1 68. By the terms of his employment agreement, the City Council was prohibited from

2 firing Plaintiff within ninety (90) days after the seating of new members following an election. In

3
other words the City Council could not terminate Plaintiff until after March 8, 2021.
4
69. As soon as January 7, 2021, 49er Five Councilmember Suds Jain publicly reported
5
in the press in regards to the voting rights act litigation that it “definitely gave [Plaintiff] a black
6

7 eye…It doesn’t look good.”

8 70. At a City Council meeting in April 2021, two of the 49er Five councilmembers

9 admitted that 49ers lobbyists had expressed that they “would like to see [Plaintiff] gone” and that
10 they had “concerns about the City Attorney.”

11
71. As soon as the opportunity to terminate Plaintiff upon the expiration of the ninety
12
(90) days occurred, 49er Five councilmembers took action to begin the termination by attempting
13
to set a closed session to vote on Plaintiff’s termination.
14

15 72. However, on information and belief Plaintiff understands that these

16 councilmembers were advised that Plaintiff was entitled to an annual review and evaluation of his

17 performance by December of each year pursuant to paragraph four (4) of his employment

18
agreement.
19
73. To that date Plaintiff had never received an evaluation.
20
74. Thereafter Defendant retained an outside consultant and counsel to conduct an
21
evaluation of Plaintiff’s job performance.
22

23 75. On June 28, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a self-evaluation report prepared in

24 conjunction with a consultant hired by Defendant to assist in reviewing the key accomplishments

25 of his office and those with which he was personally engaged. Plaintiff also listed his goals for the

26
coming year.
27
76. The evaluation process also involved confidential surveys distributed to executives
28

9 Case No.
COMPLAINT
 1 and City Attorney staff, individual interviews with members of the City Council, the previously

2 mentioned self-evaluation, a report by the outside consultant, and a closed session meeting to

3
discuss each of these.
4
77. On July 6, 2021, the City Council entered closed session to discuss Plaintiff’s
5
performance evaluation.
6
78. A further closed session on the same topic was scheduled for August 24, 2021.
7

8 79. At the August 24, 2021, closed session the City Council and Plaintiff agreed to

9 goals that would be used to evaluate Plaintiff’s performance in the coming year.
10 80. By Friday August 27, 2021, three members of the 49er Five, council members
11
Becker, Park, and Jain, requested a closed-session meeting to discuss firing an unidentified city
12
employee. They were joined by Chahal to reach a majority necessary to set a special meeting.
13
81. The closed-session meeting was set to occur on September 1, 2021.
14

15 82. Plaintiff was terminated effective September 2, 2021, not much more than a week

16 after he and Defendant agreed to a list of goals on which he would work in the coming year.

17 83. Without even an indication in the performance evaluation that Plaintiff was on the
18
precipice of being terminated, the evaluation process revealed itself to be a sham and pre-textual
19
cover-up for the retaliatory termination of Plaintiff.
20
84. Given the ninety (90) day period in which the Council could not terminate Plaintiff
21
by contract and the contract requirement that he receive an annual evaluation, it appeared clear
22

23 that Plaintiff’s termination was retaliation for the protected disclosures he made at the December

24 8, 2020, public City Council hearing in which he disclosed a possible violation of Penal Code

25 section 68 and the Hobbs Act and his refusal to participate in a closed session discussion that

26
could lead to a criminal investigation and charges under the same code section.
27
85. On September 2, 2021, Plaintiff was terminated from his role as the City Attorney
28

10 Case No.
COMPLAINT
 1 and Stadium Authority Counsel for the Stadium Authority.

2 86. From September 2021 until June 2023, Plaintiff was unable to obtain employment
3
due to Defendant’s public treatment and termination of Plaintiff.
4
87. From September 2021 until June 2023, Plaintiff was unable to obtain employment
5
due to Defendant’s public treatment and termination of Plaintiff.
6
88. Due to Defendant’s unlawful, retaliatory termination, Plaintiff has suffered
7

8 damages including the loss of salary, benefits, and pension, in an amount in excess of $25,000,

9 and in an amount to be further proven at trial.

10 89. Plaintiff is currently employed as of June 5, 2023, in an interim capacity as the City
11
Attorney of Merced, very far from his home and family in the City of Santa Clara.
12
90. Plaintiff’s salary as the Interim City Attorney for the City of Merced is significantly
13
less than his salary when employed by Defendant.
14

15 V. CONDITION PRECEDENT TO FILING ACTION

16 91. Plaintiff has complied with all required conditions precedent prior to filing this

17 action, including the timely filing of a California Tort Claim personally delivered on February 28,

18 2022, to which Defendant did not respond.

19
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
20
Retaliation in Violation of California Labor Code 1102.5(b) and (c)
21
92. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation in this
22

23 complaint as though fully set forth herein.

24 93. Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer from December 2017 through September 2,
25 2021.

26
94. Plaintiff provided information to a public body, the City Council of Defendant,
27
during a public hearing, a City Council Meeting, held on December 8, 2020.
28

11 Case No.
COMPLAINT
 1 95. At the public hearing on December 8, 2020, Plaintiff also notified the City Council

2 that based upon his ethical duties he would have to refuse to participate in a closed session of the

3
City Council scheduled for December 15, 2020, were he not given proper notice of the topics to be
4
discussed to enable him to prepare to provide competent advice about possible conflicts of interest
5
and participation in a decision that could result in criminal prosecution for quid pro quo, i.e.,
6

7 violations of Penal Code section 68 (Bribery).

8 96. Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that the information provided to a public

9 body, the City Council of Defendant, disclosed a violation of state and local law related to a
10 potential criminal investigation for bribery.

11
97. Plaintiff’s participation in the proposed closed session to be scheduled for
12
December 15, 2020, could result in a violation of state law.
13
98. Defendant discharged Plaintiff without cause from his role as the City Attorney on
14

15 September 2, 2021.

16 99. Plaintiff’s disclosure of protected information to the City Council of Defendant,

17 and Plaintiff’s refusal to participate in a closed session attempted to be scheduled for December

18
15, 2020, were contributing factors in Defendant’s retaliatory decision to discharge Plaintiff.
19
100. Defendant’s retaliation against Plaintiff didn’t occur until after Plaintiff
20
disclosed the state and federal violations to the City of Santa Clara to its City Councilmembers.
21
101. Defendant’s retaliation against Plaintiff heightened once Plaintiff refused to
22

23 participate in the closed session on or about December 8, 2020.

24 102. Plaintiff suffered general and special damages including but not limited to

25 loss of wages, benefits, and pension, in an amount to be determined at a later time.

26
103. Furthermore, Plaintiff was unable to obtain new employment until June 5,
27
2023, due to Defendant’s public treatment and public termination of Plaintiff.
28

12 Case No.
COMPLAINT
 1 104. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm in

2 that Defendant discharged Plaintiff without cause and in retaliation for making protected

3
disclosures and refusing to participate in a closed session which could lead to a violation of state
4
law.
5
105. Plaintiff did not resign from his role as City Attorney of the City of Santa
6

7 Clara.

8 106. Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits an employer from retaliating against an

9 employee for his or her disclosure of information related to, or refusal to participate in, unlawful
10 acts or acts the employee reasonably considered to be unlawful.

11
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
12
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, as follows:
13
1. Economic Damages according to proof;
14
2. Non-economic damages according to proof;
15
3. Prejudgment interest according to law;
16
4. Attorneys’ fees and costs of suit per Labor Code section 1102.5(j); and
17
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
18

19
DATED: August 30, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,
20 BOSCIA LEGAL
21

22

23 CHRISTOPHER BOSCIA
Attorney for Plaintiff Brian L. Doyle
24

25

26

27

28

13 Case No.
COMPLAINT