Prod Set 3 PDF

From:
Sent:
To:
CC:
Subject:
Attachments:
"Minor, Gregory" <GMinor@oaklandnet.com>

1/21/2016 9:33:05 PM -0800
Jason Perkins <jason@pegcollective.org>; "Warren, Selia"
<SWarren@oaklandcityattorney.org>
"Ferran, Elias" <EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org>; Michael
O'connor <mocbooking@gmail.com>; X04175_ Perkins_ Jason
_petitioner_ v_ Vincent Crudele _Respondent_ E_mail
<{F165229}.imanage@oca-svr-dms1.oca.oakland.local>
RE: Leo's Music CLub [IWOV-imanage.FID165229]
[age.FID164937]
DOC011916.pdf
Hi Mr. Perkins-
FYI earlier this week our office received a returned envelope from your 11 Duboce Ave containing the administrative hearing decision regarding
Leos. The outside of the envelope was marked Refused according to the postal service. See a copy of the envelope attached.
Regarding the hearing decision, I do not believe our office has received any of the $11,500 you were ordered to pay the City of Oakland back in
November 2015, nor am I aware of any writ filed on your behalf challenging the hearing decision. Please confirm when you will comply with the
hearing order and pay the $11,500.
Thank you,
Greg Minor
Assistant to the City Administrator
Nuisance Abatement/Special Activity Permits Division
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 11th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510)238-6370
Fax: (510) 238-7084
gminor@oaklandnet.com
From: jason100watt@gmail.com [mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jason Perkins

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 11:11 AM
To: Warren, Selia

Cc: Minor, Gregory; Ferran, Elias; Michael O'connor; X04175_ Perkins_ Jason _petitioner_ v_ Vincent Crudele _Respondent_ E_mail
Subject: Re: Leo's Music CLub [IWOV-imanage.FID165229] [age.FID164937]
This is the first time the attachment came through
Got it and received
Jason
Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
Parish Entertainment Group
pegcollective.org
1.888.477.9288
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Warren, Selia <SWarren@oaklandcityattorney.org> wrote:
Mr. Perkins:
Per Gregs prior email, the City forwarded you a copy of the decision via certified mail on December 1, 2015. I also emailed you a
copy, when you claimed you did not receive it, on Thursday, 12/10 (sent at 12:56 p.m.). I separately attached the hearing
decision once again, for good measure. Kindly confirm receipt of this message and the attached hearing order.
Kind regards,
Selia Warren
[cid:image003.jpg@01D0A1E2.7CCDD750]
Selia M. Warren
Deputy City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
City of Oakland, California
swarren@oaklandcityattorney.org<mailto:swarren@oaklandcityattorney.org>
Ph 510.238.6524 | Fax 510.238.6500

To: Minor, Gregory
Cc: Ferran, Elias; Michael O'connor; Warren, Selia
Subject: Re: Leo's Music CLub [age.FID164937]
Greg,
Can we get a copy of the decision?
Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
pegcollective.org<http://pegcollective.org>
1.888.477.9288
[https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/1Z2cEBhH5LEmvEEXEEkhv0RQjFoBOam__htCFAI8muK5XwLanGibwj_fArbooui0CFbgqpFJmZaz
4-UBDaPLffCloAcV7SWJ8b_c0s4uI8ez3riLgaPo8UAj]
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Jason Perkins <jason@pegcollective.org<mailto:jason@pegcollective.org>> wrote:
We receive mail daily but received nothing from the judge/jury/executioner on this matter.
I am not surprised.
We didn't even get a proper list of your docs until we showed up at the hearing - and even then you were allowed to change and
alter docs.
It was all an interesting take on justice.
On Thursday, December 10, 2015, Minor, Gregory <GMinor@oaklandnet.com<mailto:GMinor@oaklandnet.com>> wrote:
Our office mailed a copy of the hearing decision via certified mail on December 1st to the address of record for the owners of
Leos, 11 Duboce Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94103, the same address all other correspondence has been sent.
Greg Minor
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510)238-6370<tel:%28510%29238-6370>
Fax: (510) 238-7084<tel:%28510%29%20238-7084>
gminor@oaklandnet.com<mailto:gminor@oaklandnet.com>
From: jason100watt@gmail.com<mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com> [mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jason
Perkins
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:35 PM
To: Ferran, Elias
Cc: Michael O'connor; Minor, Gregory; Warren, Selia; 1Ferran_ Elias Leo's
Subject: Re: Leo's Music CLub [IWOV-imanage.FID164937]
We never received a copy
Well...sounds like Greg's scorched earth tactic regarding Leo's worked
Leo's is now officially a dead project.
What a colossal waste.
Hopefully, the city will crack down on the other 120 places holding music events in Oakland without the cabaret permits.
They better - because we will be seeing you guys again in court real soon and it will be a real process not the one-sided Mickey
Mouse charade we just participated in
jason
On Thursday, December 10, 2015, Ferran, Elias <EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org<mailto:EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org>>

wrote:
Mr. Perkins,
I have discussed the matter with Greg Minor and Mr. Minor indicated that an administrative decision has been issued
therefore the decision is final. You will need to pay the City Of Oakland the sum outlined in the order or file a writ to contest the
hearing officers decision.
Eli Ferran
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
6th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-6522<tel:%28510%29%20238-6522>
(510) 238-6500<tel:%28510%29%20238-6500> Fax
________________________________
This is a confidential attorney-client communication. This email contains confidential attorney-client privileged information and is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and any
attachments.
P Please consider the environment before printing this email

Perkins
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 12:19 PM
To: Ferran, Elias
Cc: Michael O'connor
Subject: Re: Leo's Music CLub
Elias,
What ever happened on this?
Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
pegcollective.org<http://pegcollective.org><http://pegcollective.org>
1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288>
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Jason Perkins
<jason@pegcollective.org<mailto:jason@pegcollective.org<mailto:jason@pegcollective.org%3cmailto:jason@pegcollective.org>>
> wrote:
Any update on this?
Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288><tel:1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288>>
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Jason Perkins
> wrote:
absolutely - I just was hoping for an inkling of your thoughts on this but can wait
Jason Perkins
Managing Partner

1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288><tel:1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288>>
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Ferran, Elias
<EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org<mailto:EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org<mailto:EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org%3cmailto:
EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org>>> wrote:
Jason,
Can I call you tomorrow and discuss?
Eli Ferran
6th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-6522<tel:%28510%29%20238-6522><tel:%28510%29%20238-6522>
(510) 238-6500<tel:%28510%29%20238-6500><tel:%28510%29%20238-6500> Fax
________________________________
attachments.
From:
jason100watt@gmail.com<mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com<mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com%3cmailto:jason100watt@gmail.co
m>>
[mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com<mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com><mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com%3cmailto:jason100watt@
gmail.com%3e>] On Behalf Of Jason Perkins
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:03 AM
To: Ferran, Elias; Michael O'connor
Elias,
I am checking in on how things went and if you have any feeling about an agreement.
Thanks again for your time,
Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288><tel:1.888.477.9288>
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Ferran, Elias
Jason,
Can I call you on Friday?
Eli Ferran
6th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-6522<tel:%28510%29%20238-6522><tel:%28510%29%20238-6522>
(510) 238-6500<tel:%28510%29%20238-6500><tel:%28510%29%20238-6500> Fax
________________________________
attachments.
From:
m>>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 3:11 PM
To: Ferran, Elias
Subject: Leo's Music CLub
Elias,
Do you have a moment today we can discuss? We would like to avoid the abandonment of the Leo's project and all the negative
media and litigation and really work together with the city to get this project - which is 95% complete - back on track and make it
a win for everyone.
My cell is 415-308-1909<tel:415-308-1909><tel:415-308-1909>
Let me know and thanks for your time
Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288><tel:1.888.477.9288>
attachments. [v1.3]
-Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288>
-Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288>
From:
Sent:
To:
CC:
Subject:
Attachments:
"Minor, Gregory" <GMinor@oaklandnet.com>

1/21/2016 9:33:05 PM -0800
Jason Perkins <jason@pegcollective.org>; "Warren, Selia"
<SWarren@oaklandcityattorney.org>
"Ferran, Elias" <EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org>; Michael
O'connor <mocbooking@gmail.com>; X04175_ Perkins_ Jason
_petitioner_ v_ Vincent Crudele _Respondent_ E_mail
<{F165229}.imanage@oca-svr-dms1.oca.oakland.local>
RE: Leo's Music CLub [IWOV-imanage.FID165229]
[age.FID164937]
DOC011916.pdf
Hi Mr. Perkins-
FYI earlier this week our office received a returned envelope from your 11 Duboce Ave containing the administrative hearing decision regarding
Leos. The outside of the envelope was marked Refused according to the postal service. See a copy of the envelope attached.
Regarding the hearing decision, I do not believe our office has received any of the $11,500 you were ordered to pay the City of Oakland back in
November 2015, nor am I aware of any writ filed on your behalf challenging the hearing decision. Please confirm when you will comply with the
hearing order and pay the $11,500.
Thank you,
Greg Minor
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510)238-6370
Fax: (510) 238-7084
gminor@oaklandnet.com

To: Warren, Selia

Cc: Minor, Gregory; Ferran, Elias; Michael O'connor; X04175_ Perkins_ Jason _petitioner_ v_ Vincent Crudele _Respondent_ E_mail
Subject: Re: Leo's Music CLub [IWOV-imanage.FID165229] [age.FID164937]
This is the first time the attachment came through
Got it and received
Jason
Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
pegcollective.org
1.888.477.9288
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Warren, Selia <SWarren@oaklandcityattorney.org> wrote:
Mr. Perkins:
Per Gregs prior email, the City forwarded you a copy of the decision via certified mail on December 1, 2015. I also emailed you a
copy, when you claimed you did not receive it, on Thursday, 12/10 (sent at 12:56 p.m.). I separately attached the hearing
decision once again, for good measure. Kindly confirm receipt of this message and the attached hearing order.
Kind regards,
Selia Warren
[cid:image003.jpg@01D0A1E2.7CCDD750]
Selia M. Warren
City of Oakland, California
swarren@oaklandcityattorney.org<mailto:swarren@oaklandcityattorney.org>
Ph 510.238.6524 | Fax 510.238.6500

To: Minor, Gregory
Cc: Ferran, Elias; Michael O'connor; Warren, Selia
Subject: Re: Leo's Music CLub [age.FID164937]
Greg,
Can we get a copy of the decision?
Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
1.888.477.9288
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Jason Perkins <jason@pegcollective.org<mailto:jason@pegcollective.org>> wrote:
We receive mail daily but received nothing from the judge/jury/executioner on this matter.
I am not surprised.
We didn't even get a proper list of your docs until we showed up at the hearing - and even then you were allowed to change and
alter docs.
It was all an interesting take on justice.
On Thursday, December 10, 2015, Minor, Gregory <GMinor@oaklandnet.com<mailto:GMinor@oaklandnet.com>> wrote:
Our office mailed a copy of the hearing decision via certified mail on December 1st to the address of record for the owners of
Leos, 11 Duboce Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94103, the same address all other correspondence has been sent.
Greg Minor
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510)238-6370<tel:%28510%29238-6370>
Fax: (510) 238-7084<tel:%28510%29%20238-7084>
gminor@oaklandnet.com<mailto:gminor@oaklandnet.com>
Perkins
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:35 PM
To: Ferran, Elias
Cc: Michael O'connor; Minor, Gregory; Warren, Selia; 1Ferran_ Elias Leo's
Subject: Re: Leo's Music CLub [IWOV-imanage.FID164937]
We never received a copy
Well...sounds like Greg's scorched earth tactic regarding Leo's worked
Leo's is now officially a dead project.
What a colossal waste.
Hopefully, the city will crack down on the other 120 places holding music events in Oakland without the cabaret permits.
They better - because we will be seeing you guys again in court real soon and it will be a real process not the one-sided Mickey
Mouse charade we just participated in
jason
On Thursday, December 10, 2015, Ferran, Elias <EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org<mailto:EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org>>

wrote:
Mr. Perkins,
I have discussed the matter with Greg Minor and Mr. Minor indicated that an administrative decision has been issued
therefore the decision is final. You will need to pay the City Of Oakland the sum outlined in the order or file a writ to contest the
hearing officers decision.
Eli Ferran
6th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-6522<tel:%28510%29%20238-6522>
(510) 238-6500<tel:%28510%29%20238-6500> Fax
________________________________
attachments.

Perkins
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 12:19 PM
To: Ferran, Elias
Cc: Michael O'connor
Elias,
What ever happened on this?
Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288>
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Jason Perkins
> wrote:
Any update on this?
Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288><tel:1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288>>
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Jason Perkins
> wrote:
absolutely - I just was hoping for an inkling of your thoughts on this but can wait
Jason Perkins
Managing Partner

1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288><tel:1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288>>
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Ferran, Elias
Jason,
Can I call you tomorrow and discuss?
Eli Ferran
6th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-6522<tel:%28510%29%20238-6522><tel:%28510%29%20238-6522>
(510) 238-6500<tel:%28510%29%20238-6500><tel:%28510%29%20238-6500> Fax
________________________________
attachments.
From:
m>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:03 AM
To: Ferran, Elias; Michael O'connor
Elias,
I am checking in on how things went and if you have any feeling about an agreement.
Thanks again for your time,
Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288><tel:1.888.477.9288>
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Ferran, Elias
Jason,
Can I call you on Friday?
Eli Ferran
6th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-6522<tel:%28510%29%20238-6522><tel:%28510%29%20238-6522>
(510) 238-6500<tel:%28510%29%20238-6500><tel:%28510%29%20238-6500> Fax
________________________________
attachments.
From:
m>>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 3:11 PM
To: Ferran, Elias
Subject: Leo's Music CLub
Elias,
Do you have a moment today we can discuss? We would like to avoid the abandonment of the Leo's project and all the negative
media and litigation and really work together with the city to get this project - which is 95% complete - back on track and make it
a win for everyone.
My cell is 415-308-1909<tel:415-308-1909><tel:415-308-1909>
Let me know and thanks for your time
Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288><tel:1.888.477.9288>
attachments. [v1.3]
-Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288>
-Jason Perkins
Managing Partner
1.888.477.9288<tel:1.888.477.9288>
BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney, SBN 069722

1 OTIS McGEE, JR., Chief Assistant City Attorney, SBN 071885
JAMES F. HOGKINS, Senior Deputy City Attorney, SBN 142561
2 SELIA M. WARREN, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 233877
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor
3 Oakland, California 94612
Telephone:
(510) 238-6524
4 Facsimile:
(510) 238-6500
Email: swarren@oaklandcityattorney.org
5 X04175/1770003
6 Attorneys for Respondent
VINCENT CRUDELE
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
10 JASON PERKINS,
11
12
Petitioner,
v.
13 VINCENT CRUDELE,
14
15
Case No. RG15783742
Respondent.
RESPONDENT VINCENT CRUDELES

OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE TO
PETITION FOR RESTRAINING
ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
16
[ATTACHMENT 9 JUSTIFICATION
OR EXCUSE; ATTACHMENT 11
ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS]
17
[Code of Civil Procedure 527.6(h)]
18
Date: November 12, 2015

Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 5, 3rd Floor
19
20
21
22
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(h) Respondent Vincent Crudele
23 (Respondent) hereby respectfully submits this opposition and response (Response) to the
24 Petition of Jason Perkins (Petitioner) for a Restraining Order (Petition).
25
26
27
28
RESPONDENT VINCENT CRUDELES OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RESTRAINING
ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ATTACHMENT 9 JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE. ................................................................ 1
I.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
II.
Legal Standard .................................................................................................................... 2
III.
Summary of Facts and Evidence ........................................................................................ 4
IV.
Argument .......................................................................................................................... 11
V.
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 14
ATTACHMENT 11 - ATTORNEY'S FEES ............................................................................... 14
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
1
2
3
ATTACHMENT 9 JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE

I.
INTRODUCTION
This is a case about an Oakland club owner frustrated by the bureaucratic process of
4 bringing his nightclubs into compliance with the California Fire Code and Oakland Municipal Code
5 who has lashed out against an Oakland Fire Department employee charged with the task of code
6 enforcement and permit inspections. At all times in which Respondent and Petitioner have
7 interacted since 2013, Respondent has either been executing his duties as a Fire Code Inspector or
8 as Acting Assistant Fire Marshall. Moreover, every interaction by Respondent with Petitioner has
9 been authorized by a City of Oakland (City) official, and witnessed by various City staff. Indeed,
10 two interactions were recorded by officers of the Oakland Police Department (OPD), including
11 the events that triggered this Petition on the night of August 21, 2015.
12
Petitioner has a history of making false allegations against Respondent. In August 2014,
13 Petitioner made false allegations against Respondent based on his belief that Respondent had
14 directed the Citys Temescal District Fire Station to shut down his unpermitted and illegally
15 operating night club: Leos Music Club (Leos). This time, Petitioner boldly alleges that
16 Respondent entered Leos on August 21, 2015, armed with a gun, handcuffs and a nightstick;
17 threatened and intimidated his patrons and staff; and ultimately shut down the club. Petitioner
18 was not there. More importantly, in addition to the numerous other witnesses actually present that
19 night, Respondent, another OFD employee, seven (7) OPD officers, and recorded video of the
20 evening prove that these allegations are irrefutably false.
21
The most incredible part of Petitioners allegations is how outrageously false they are. Yet,
22 Petitioner has had some success with this method in the past: In 2014, Petitioners outrageous
23 allegations regarding a site visit to Leos forced Respondent, who was not present at the site visit, to
24 submit to an internal investigation, and the OFD personnel actually involved, to be redirected.
25 Thus, it comes as no surprise that Petitioner would revive this tried-and-true method of attack in an
26 effort to thwart the Citys efforts to cause Leos owners to bring the club into compliance.
27
28
This time Petitioner goes too far. In seeking a restraining order against Respondent,
1
1 Petitioner has sworn, under penalty of perjury, that the allegations he has made are true. The
2 evidence submitted with this Response proves that Petitioners allegations are not credible, and in
3 fact, are overwhelmingly false. Petitioner has improperly invoked the power of the Court to tarnish
4 the reputation of Respondent, and to intimidate other OFD staff from entering his clubs for the
5 purpose of code enforcement. Petitioners abuse of process should not be rewarded. The Petition
6 should be dismissed with prejudice, and Petitioner admonished for wasting the precious resources
7 of the Court, and of the City.
8
9
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(a)(1) provides that, A person who has suffered
10 harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction
11 prohibiting harassment as provided in this section. Harassment is defined as unlawful violence, a
12 credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person
13 [] that serves no legitimate purpose. CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6(b)(3). Credible threat of
14 violence is defined as a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a
15 reasonable person in fear for his or her safety [] that serves no legitimate purpose. CODE CIV.
16 PROC. 527.6(b)(2). Course of conduct is defined as a pattern of conduct composed of a series of
17 acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. CODE CIV. PROC.
18 527.6(b)(1). Constitutionally protected activities are not included in the definition of course of
19 conduct. Id.
20
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(h), the Respondent may file a response
21 that explains, excuses, justifies, or denies the alleged harassment. CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6(h).
22 In considering the Petition and Response, the Court shall consider testimony that is relevant and
23 may make independent inquiry. CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6(i). All relevant evidence is admissible at
24 the Courts discretion, including hearsay evidence. See Duronslet v. Kamps, 203 Cal. App. 4th 717,
25 728-29 (2012); Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Wilson, 201 Cal. App. 4th 550, 557-58 (2011)
26 (holding that CODE CIV. PROC. 527.8, which includes identical language that court shall receive
27 any testimony that is relevant, requires that the court receive relevant hearsay evidence). In order
28
2
1 to issue a restraining order, the Court must find by clear and convincing evidence that unlawful
2 harassment exists. CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6(i); Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners' Assn., 207
3 Cal. App. 3d 719, 733 (1989). The clear and convincing standard requires a finding of high
4 probability that unlawful harassment exists. Russell v. Douvan, 112 Cal. App. 4th 399, 401, 403
5 (2003).
6
In other words, the unlawful conduct should be ongoing. Scripps Health v. Marin, 72 Cal.
7 App. 4th 324, 333 (1999) (finding that the course of challenged conduct must be ongoing at the
8 time injunction is sought in order to obtain injunctive relief under harassment statute) (interpreting
9 related work place violence statute, CODE CIV. PROC. 527.8).
10
However, at a minimum, the harassment must be likely to recur in the future. Russell, 112
11 Cal. App. 4th at 402 (An injunction is authorized only when it appears that wrongful acts are likely
12 to recur.); R.D. v. P.M., 202 Cal. App. 4th 181, 189 (2011); also Scripps Health, 72 Cal. App. 4th
13 at 333(it must appear with reasonable certainty that the wrongful acts will be continued or
14 repeated.) (citation omitted). The issuance of an injunction cannot be based on past acts or for the
15 purpose of punishment for prior acts. Scripps Health, 72 Cal. App. 4th at 332-33 (It should neither
16 serve as punishment for past acts, nor be exercised in the absence of any evidence establishing the
17 reasonable probability the acts will be repeated in the future.); Russell, 112 Cal. App. 4th at 403
18 (a court cannot issue an injunction unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that unlawful
19 harassment exists, [] not that it existed in the past.); Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop
20 Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc., 129 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1266 (2005).
21
Even a single act of violence may not justify an issuance of injunction absent a finding that
22 future harm is highly probable. Russell, 112 Cal. App. 4th at 401, 404 (reversing trial court ruling
23 issuing an injunction against former attorney based on a single act of unlawful violence against
24 opposing counsel where no finding that likelihood of future harm was highly probable); Leydon v.
25 Alexander, 212 Cal. App. 3d 1, 5 (1989) (reversing trial court judgment and holding that terminated
26 employees single act of confronting former employer with abusive language did not constitute
27 course of conduct within meaning of CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6).
28
3
Finally, not only can injunctive relief be denied where the defendant has voluntarily
2 discontinued the wrongful conduct, there exists no equitable reason for ordering it where the
3 defendant has in good faith discontinued the proscribed conduct. Scripps Health, 72 Cal. App. 4th
4 at 332-33 (citations omitted).
5
The express and implied findings that support the Courts entry of a restraining order must
6 be justified by substantial evidence in the record. R.D., 202 Cal. App. 4th at 188. The prevailing
7 party may be awarded court costs and attorneys fees. CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6(r).
8
III.
A. Respondents Prior Interactions with Petitioner.
a. January 2013.
10
11
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE1
In or about January 15, 2013, the Office of the City Administrator issued a Cease and Desist
12 Letter to New Parish, a club located at 579 18th Street in Oakland, also owned by Petitioner, based
13 on his continued operation of the club without a valid cabaret permit, which had expired. On
14 January 26, 2013, Respondent entered New Parish, to conduct an authorized site inspection.
15 (Crudele Decl. 4-5.) Officer Jennifer Sena of the ABAT Unit was also present. (Sena Decl. 6.)
16 Petitioner was not on site that evening. (Crudele Decl. 5; Sena Decl. 7.) Respondent issued a
17 Report of Fire Inspection documenting numerous Fire Code violations. (Id.)
18
On January 31, 2013, Respondent and Officer Sena returned to New Parish to meet with
19 Petitioner and the other owners of the club. (Crudele 6; Sena 8) Officer Senas PDRD was
20 activated for the visit. (Sena Decl. 9.) This was the first time that Respondent and Officer Sena
21 met Petitioner and his business partner, Michael OConnor. (Crudele Decl. 6; Sena Decl. 9,
22 Exh. C (1st File, Pict0005_2013.01.31_21.08.50 at Min. 0:42-1:24).)
23
24
25
26
27
28
The declarations of first hand witnesses, and the evidence attached thereto are the best
source of the facts. The declarations in support of this Response are as follows: 1) OFD Supervisor
Vincent Crudele (Crudele Decl.); 2) OPD Officer Jennifer Sena (Sena Decl.); 3) OFD Fire
Captain Lawrence Hom (Hom Decl.); 4) OFD Fire Fighter Dominic Antes (Antes Decl.); 5)
OFD Fire Marshal Miguel Trujillo (Trujillo Decl.); 6) OPD Sergeant James Gantt (Gantt
Decl.); 7) OFD Fire Investigator David Davis (Davis Decl.); 8) Gregory Minor, Assistant to the
City Administrator (Minor Decl.); and 9) Selia M. Warren, Deputy City Attorney (Warren
Decl.). We provide this summary for the Courts convenience.
4
Respondent gave a presentation about the violations he observed on the prior visit to the
2 owners of Leos, including Petitioner. (See, e.g. Id. at Min. 3:24- 11:30.) During the subsequent
3 discussion, Petitioners partner, Mr. OConnor notes that Respondent is making the steps that they
4 need to take to come into compliance far more crystal clear than anybody else has ever made it
5 before. (Id. at Min. 16:24 18:55; Crudele Decl. 6.)
6
During the approximately 90 minute visit, Officer Sena explained Petitioners options
7 with regard to a show apparently planned for that evening, which included rescheduling the show,
8 or going on with the show and risking OPD coming in and shutting it down. (Crudele Decl. 7;
9 Sena Decl. 9, Exh. C (2nd File, Pict006_2013.1.31.22.35.26 at Min. 0:44 1:30).) Petitioner
10 acknowledged that the show could not go forward, and expressed his disappointment that [he was]
11 caught in a bureacratic mess in trying to obtain the proper permits. (Crudele Decl. 7; Sena Decl.
12 Exh. C (2nd File, Pict006_2013.1.31.22.35.26 at Min. 5:30-5:40; 6:18-6:22).) In explaining how
13 it was that he did not know that the City had issued a cease and desist letter, and that New Parish
14 was operating without proper permits, Petitioner declared that the United States Post Office does
15 not deliver Leos mail, and that if you mailed something to Leos he might get it in two months.
16 (Id. at Min. 7:36-8:42.)
17
The visit ended with Respondent walking Petitioner through the checklist of items he
18 needed to complete in order to come into compliance. (Id. at Min. 9:48-12:20.) Overall, the tone of
19 the visit was friendly and positive. At a minimum, this visit did not result in any complaints about
20 Respondent. (Sena Decl. 10; Warren Decl. 3(noting no record of complaints prior to period
21 August 2014).)
22
23
b. February 2013 August 2013.

Between February and August 2013, Petitioner and Respondent exchanged numerous
24 emails, and met, in person, through possibly two meetings attended by other City staff at City Hall.
25 (Crudele Decl. 9-15 & Exhs. C-H; Sena Decl. 11.) At no time during this period did Petitioner
26 ever allege that Respondent had behaved inappropriately. (Id. 16; Sena Decl. 11; Warren Decl.
27 3 (noting no record of complaints prior to period August 2014).)
28
5
In August 2013, Respondent was promoted to Vegetation Management Supervisor and was
2 no longer in charge of code enforcement for businesses. (Id. 17.)

B. Respondents Prior False Allegations Against Petitioner.
On August 23, 2014, Petitioner alleged for the first time, that Respondent engaged in
5 threatening behavior one year earlier in 2013 (without specifying a date), two times at the counter
6 in the summer of 2014, and that day, indirectly, through OFD employees at Fire Station 8. (Warren
7 Decl., 2, Exh. A.). As a result of Petitioners false allegations, Respondent was forced to go
8 through an internal investigation. (Crudele Decl. 20.) The other OFD employees named in
9 Petitioners complaint as a result of the August 23, 2014 incident, were directed not to enter Leos
10 again, and to leave code enforcement to the Assistant Fire Marshal, among others (Hom Decl. 13;
11 Antes Decl. 11.)2 Significantly, since Petitioners made his false allegations in August 2014, no
12 OFD employee from Fire Station 8, the Citys Temescal District Fire Station, which is closest to
13 Leos, has entered Leos for the purposes of code enforcement, notwithstanding its noncompliance,
14 which continues to present day. (Hom Decl. 13; Antes Decl. 11; Minor Decl. 4-18 (noting
15 Leos history of illegally operating without a cabaret permit, among numerous other prerequisite
16 permits); Sena 12 (noting citation for serving alcohol without a license on August 7, 2015).)
Shortly thereafter, the Nuisance Abatement/Special Activity Permits Division of the Office
17
18 of the City Administrator learned that Leos was engaged in unpermitted cabaret activity. (Minor
19 Decl. 4.) Ultimately, the Division entered into a Settlement Agreement with Petitioner, and set a
20 deadline for compliance to March 1, 2015. The deadline passed, and Leos continued to operate
21
The Declarations of Oakland Fire Captain Lawrence Hom and Fire Fighter Dominic Antes
22 describe the August 23, 2014 incident in further detail. In brief, Captain Hom noticed what
appeared to be music club activity in a building that had been closed for several years, and, based
23 on his independent observations, stopped to inquire about proper permits. Ultimately, he and
Firefighter Dominic Antes, who was serving as an Arson Investigator at the time, informed the staff
24 on site that the show they were setting up for that night could not legally proceed and was subject to
being shut down by OPD. Petitioner was never on site. Antes spoke to Petitioner by phone, who
25 became irate, and later complained to the OPD Fire Chief that Respondent had sent Captain Hom
and Antes to shut Leos down. (See. e.g., Hom Decl. 3-13; Antes Decl. 4-11 & Warren
26 Decl. 2, Exh. A (email entitiled Most abusive city official ever experienced in 25 years of
business.) It was in that complaint that Petitioner first alleged any improper behavior by
27 Respondent.
28
6
1 illegally. (Minor Decl. 11.)

C. Respondents Authorized Site Visits to Leos in July and August 2015.
In April 2015, Fire Marshal Miguel Trujillo joined OFD. (Trujillo Decl. 2.) Fire Marshal
4 Trujillo promoted Respondent to Acting Assistant Fire Marshal for a limited duration assignment in
5 July and August. (Crudele Decl. 24; Trujillo Decl. 3.)
On July 14, 2015, at the direction of Fire Marshal Trujillo, and in his capacity as Acting
7 Assistant Fire Marshal, Respondent and Fire Marshal Trujillo entered Leos to conduct a plain
8 clothes site visit to observe Fire Code and OMC violations. (Crudele Decl. 25; Trujillo Decl. 5.)
Based on their observations from the July 14, 2015, site visit, subsequent conversations with
10 the Nuisance Abatement/Special Activity Permits Division, and an OPD report that confirmed that
11 Leos was continuing to operate without proper permits, Fire Marshal Trujillo authorized
12 Respondent to enter Leos on August 21, 2015. (Trujillo Decl. 7-8.) The purpose of the visit
13 was to check for proper permits, and, assuming they were lacking, to place a Restricted Use tag
14 (or yellow tag) on the property, which limited the capacity of the venue to 49 persons or less.
15 (Id.)
On August 21, 2015, at the direction, and pursuant to the authority of the Fire Marshal,
16
17 Respondent entered Leos accompanied by seven (7) officers of the Oakland Police Department
18 (OPD), and Fire Inspector David Davis. (Crudele Decl. 26-27.) It is standard practice for the
19 Fire Marshal to enlist OPD for assistance in permit inspections, particularly where crowds are
20 involved. (Crudele Decl. 26; Trujillo Decl. 9.) Moreover, in this case, Fire Marshal Trujillo
21 was aware of Petitioners prior allegations, and thought it prudent to have OPD present to document
22 and record the inspection, just in case it resulted in any accusations by Petitioner. (Trujillo Decl.
23 9.)
24
Respondent entered Leos on August 21, 2015 around 9:00 p.m. (Gantt Decl. 3; Davis
25 Decl. 4.) During the inspection, Respondent spoke with various staff, including Bar Manager,
26 Alex Corrone and Sound Manager, Justin Zachary Pader. (Crudele Decl. 27; Gant Decl. 6.)
27 The entire inspection was captured on video by OPD PDRD recordings. (Gant Decl. 5, 10 &
28
7
1 Exh. A (PDRD recordings by Sergeant Gantt and Officer Vanessa Tanner).) The staff was unable
2 to produce a single valid permit, and none were otherwise posted anywhere on the premises,
3 (Crudele Decl. 27-28; Gantt Decl. 6.) As a result of their inability to produce any valid
4 permits, Respondent issued a yellow tag, and notified the staff of its capacity restrictions.
5 (Crudele Decl. 28 & Exh. M.)
Towards the end of the visit, Ms. Corrone called Petitioner on her phone, and put him on the
7 phone with Respondent. (Gantt Decl. 7; Crudele Decl. 29.) Petitioner was livid that
8 Respondent was at Leos conducting what he viewed as an unauthorized inspection, and
9 immediately began threatening to get Respondent in trouble. (Crudele Decl. 29; Gantt Decl. 7
10 (noting that he heard Petitioner threatening to call his lawyer to deal with the situation.)
11 Petitioner was on speakerphone, and thus his threats can be overheard on Sergeant Gantts PDRD
12 recording. (See Gantt Decl. 10, Exh. A (2nd file PICT0021_2015_.08.22_03.59.08 at Min.
13 20:52-23:59).) Among other things, Respondent specifically tells Petitioner that You are not
14 closed for business, and explains the implications of the yellow tag capacity restriction. (Id. at
15 Min. 22:35-22:45 ) Although Petitioner can be overheard threatening Petitioner, Petitioner remains
16 respectful and ends the conversation with Have a great evening, thank you. (Id. at Min. 23:5617 59.) Petitioner was never physically present during the site inspection that evening. (Crudele Decl.
18 27; Gantt Decl. 5, 7 & 10, Exh. A).)
The visit lasted a little over 30 minutes. (Crudele Decl. 29; see also Gantt Decl. 10, Exh.
19
20 A (PDRD recordings).)3 When Respondent and the team of OPD officers departed Leos, patrons
21 were still present. (Gantt Decl. 9; Davis 6.) Respondent acted in a friendly and professional
22 manner at all times during the site visit. (Crudele 31; Gantt 8, 10 & Exh. A (PDRD
23 recordings); Davis 5.)
24
Petitioner also takes issue with the fact that the lights were turned on during the August 21,
2015 site inspection. As evidenced by the OPD PDRD video, the music was turned off
25 approximately ten minutes into the site visit for the remainder of the visit (approximately 19
minutes) so that Respondent and his team did not have to continue to yell over the music while
26 talking to staff. (See Gantt Decl. 10, Exh. A (2nd file PICT0021_2015_.08.22_03.59.08 at Min.
10:08).) Likewise, the lights were turned on for an even shorter period of time, approximately 12
27 minutes, before the team departed. (Id. at Min. 17:40; Cf. Id. at Min. 29:19.)
28
8
True to his threats, Petitioner appeared unannounced, with his business partner Mr.
2 OConnor, at the office of Fire Marshal Trujillo on the following Monday, August 24, 2015 at
3 about 9:00 a.m. (Trujillo Decl. 12.) Petitioners stated purpose for the visit, however, was to
4 discuss sprinkler plans. (Id.) During the meeting, Petitioner began to complain about an
5 unauthorized inspection by Respondent that shut down Leos on Friday night (August 21, 2015).
6 (Id.) Fire Marshal Trujillo immediately corrected him and confirmed that he authorized the site
7 inspection, and further explained that Leos was not shut down, but rather they were allowed to
8 operate as long as the occupant load remained at 49 persons or less. (Id.)
9
Later that day, at 11:26 a.m. Petitioner sent Fire Marshal Trujillo an email blatantly
10 mischaracterizing the prior conversation that they had in his office, and claiming that Fire Marshal
11 Trujillo had, among other things, confirmed that Respondent should not have shut [Leos]
12 down. (Trujillo Decl. 13 & Exh. B.) By 2:24 p.m., Petitioners allegations regarding the events
13 of the prior Friday night further escalated, and suddenly, for the first time, Petitioner claimed that
14 Respondent had carried a gun into Leos and pressed [his] employees into a line against the wall
15 during his illegal shutdown of Leos over the weekend. (Trujillo Decl. 14, Exh. C.) Sergeant
16 Gantt, Inspector Davis, and Respondent all submitted written statements confirming that
17 Petitioners allegations were untrue. (Trujillo Decl. 16-17 & Exh. D; Crudele Decl. 35, Exh.
18 O.) Sergeant Gantt also offered and ultimately did provide PDRD recordings from that evening,
19 which confirmed the accuracy of the statements submitted by Respondent, Sergeant Gantt and
20 Inspector Davis. (Trujillo Decl. 16, Gantt Decl. 10, Exh. A.)
21
Publically, Petitioner told the following story: Crudele and ten armed police officers (and
22 6-7 police cars) pulled up to Leos Music Club. They reportedly lined up patrons and staff, and
23 informed everyone that the venue was now closed, and that anyone who tried to open the club
24 would be arrestedThe [Fire] Marshall (sic) had no idea there were police involved, no idea
25 that we were told to shut down. (Warren Decl. 4, Exh. B (CBS local new article at p. 2)
26 (emphasis added).)
27
28
D. Petitioners False Allegations in the Petition.

9
The Petition alleges three dates on which Respondent supposedly harassed Petitioner: May
2 25, 2013, August 28, 2014, and August 21, 2015. On May 25, 2013, Respondent was not on duty,
3 and was not in the City. (Crudele Decl. 33.) Respondent did not interact in any way with
4 Petitioner that day. (Id.) Significantly, Petitioner and Respondent exchanged numerous emails
5 very close to that time period (May 31, 2013 through July 31, 2013).4 (Crudele Decl. 11-14,
6 Exhs. E-H.) At no time during those emails did Petitioner ever allege that Respondent had acted
7 inappropriately, in any way, and there is no record of Petitioner ever making a formal complaint
8 against Respondent in 2013. (Id.; Warren Decl. 3 (noting the absence of any record prior to
9 2014.)
The second date that Petitioner alleges is August 28, 2014, however, he likely meant to
10
11 allege August 23, 2014. (See Part III.B, supra; Crudele Decl. 18-20, 34.) As set forth in
12 Respondents declaration and the declarations of OFD Fire Captain Hom and OFD Fire Fighter
13 Dominic Antes, Respondent was not present at Leos that day, and never ordered or otherwise
14 directed Captain Hom or Fire Fighter Antes to shut down Leos. (Crudele Decl. 18-20, 34;
15 Hom Decl. 2-13; Antes Decl. 4-11.) Petitioner was also not present at Leos that day. (Id.)
16 Indeed, he admits as much in the original email complaint that he sent to OFD Fire Chief Teresa
17 Deloach Reed, on August 23, 2014. (Warren Decl. 2, Exh. A (see email at page 4 acknowledging
18 that the entire incident occurred via phone call through Captain Hom and Fire Fighter Antes).)
To the extent that Petitioner intended to allege August 28, 2014, as the actual date of
19
20 harassment, Respondent was also not on duty that day, and did not otherwise interact in any way
21 with Petitioner. (Crudele Decl. 34, Exh. N.) In fact, by that date, Respondent had already learned
22 of Petitioners false allegations against him as a result of the August 23, 2014, site visit by Captain
23 Hom and Fire Fighter Antes, and was busy responding to the allegations against him. (Crudele
24 Decl. 34; see also 18, Exh. I (first email, dated August 28, 2014, to Fire Chief Reed, explaining
25
Interestingly, Respondents May 31, 2013 email references a visit by OPD Officer J. Romero
26 on that date (May 25, 2013) and the following day (May 26, 2013). We have not requested it, but
Officer Romero, and possibly a PDRD recording, could also confirm that Respondent was not
27 present at New Parish that day, if necessary.
28
10
1 Respondents lack of contact with Petitioner).)

Finally, the third date Petitioner alleges in the Petition is August 21, 2015. Significantly, the
3 allegations in the Petition evolve, yet again, and claim that Respondent brandished [not only] a
4 gun, [but also] handcuffs and a night stick. As set forth in Part III.C, supra, none of Petitioners
5 allegations regarding that night are true.
The Petition also contains general allegations untied to any specific date. For example,
7 Petitioner alleges that [i]n previous encounters I have been thrown up against a wall and held by
8 my throat. However, prior to Petitioners complaints about Respondent on August 21, 2015, the
9 only other allegations about Respondent are come from the August 23, 2014 complaint, which do
10 not contain any reference to being held by his throat. (Warren Decl. 2-3 & Exh. A (August 23,
11 2014, email to Fire Chief Reed)5.) In addition, although the Petition suggests that the act of
12 Respondent carrying a gun into his venues is a recurring event, Petitioner had never before made
13 such an allegation until the instant Petition. (cf. Trujillo Decl. 14, Exh. C (claiming, for the first
14 time, that Respondent was armed with a gun on the night of August 21, 2015; no allegations of
15 prior similar acts); Warren Decl. 2-3 & Exh. A (August 23, 2014, email to Fire Chief Reed, the
16 first formal complaint ever recorded by Petitioner about Respondent).)
17
IV. ARGUMENT
18
The Petition should be denied because Petitioner has failed to allege incidents of unlawful
19 harassment by clear and convincing evidence. CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6(i). Harassment is defined
20 as unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct
21 directed at a specific person [] that serves no legitimate purpose. CODE CIV. PROC.
22 527.6(b)(3). Petitioners vague allegations do not credibly establish an act of violence, a credible
23 threat of violence, or a course of conduct. In fact, to the extent that Petitioners allegations show
24
In the email, Petitioner Vaguely alleges that in 2013, Respondent entered New Parish and
25 pushed me against the wall and screamed at me with his face barely being 2 from my face. He
said he would have me locked up, thrown in jail if I even said a word. After the dust settled, I was
26 told to adjust a couple of exit signs and after he forced us closed for one show, we re-opened and
were not cited for any violations. The allegations regarding being shut down in 2013, suggest
27 that he was referring the to January 31, 2013, visit with Officer Sena, although this is unclear.
28
11
1 anything, it is that Respondent was acting in the course and scope of his official duties as an
2 employee of OFD, and thus interacted with Respondent for a legitimate purpose, i.e. to execute
3 those duties.
4
Moreover, the clear and convincing standard requires a finding of high probability that
5 unlawful harassment exists. Russell, 112 Cal. App. 4th at 401, 403. By contrast, the evidence
6 submitted herein reveals at best, a low probability that anything Petitioner has alleged is true.
7 Likewise, even if Petitioners wild accusations are to be believed, an injunction cannot be based on
8 past acts, but rather must be ongoing or likely to recur in the future. See, e.g. Scripps Health, 72
9 Cal. App. 4th at 332-33, Russell, 112 Cal. App. 4th at 402. There is no such evidence here. As set
10 forth above, Respondent is currently assigned to the Vegetation Management Unit, and does not
11 have any reason to interact with Petitioner. In fact, but for the limited duration assignment to
12 Acting Assistant Fire Marshal, Respondent had not had any direct contact with Petitioner since his
13 promotion to Vegetation Management Supervisor in August 2013. (Crudele Decl. 17.) Further,
14 there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is likely to interact with Petitioner outside of his
15 official duties as an employee of OFD at any time in the future, and he has never done so in the
16 past.
17
Importantly, since the evening of August 21, 2015, on which Respondent was executing his
18 official duties as Acting Assistant Fire Marshal, Respondent has not interacted with Petitioner in
19 any way, and without the need for a formal TRO governing this matter.6 Respondents voluntarily
20 cessation of the purportedly wrongful conduct further warrants dismissal of the Petition. Scripps
21 Health, 72 Cal. App. 4th at 332-33 (noting that not only can injunctive relief be denied where the
22 defendant has voluntarily discontinued the wrongful conduct, (cite) there exists no equitable reason
23 for ordering it where the defendant has in good faith discontinued the proscribed conduct.).
24
25
To assuage any concerns of Petitioners counsel, Respondent agreed, informally, to avoid

interacting with Petitioner or entering any of his clubs during the time between the date of the initial
26 TRO hearing and the date of the ultimate hearing on a restraining order. This was a mere formality,
however, as Respondent has no interest in Petitioner outside of the execution of his official duties
27 as an employee of OFD.
28
12
Petitioner alleges three dates in which Respondent supposedly engaged in illegal
2 harassment: May 25, 2013, August 28, 2014, and August 21, 2015. The overwhelming evidence set
3 forth herein, shows that Petitioners allegations regarding the night of August 21, 2015, are patently
4 false, and Petitioner was not on site at the time. See Part III.C, supra. The Petition should be
5 denied based on this irrefutable evidence alone, which defeats Petitioners only allegation of
6 harassment by Respondent for the last year.
7
The next alleged date of harassment is August 28, 2014, which Petitioner likely intended to
8 be August 23, 2014.7 (See Part III.B, supra; Crudele Decl. 18-20, 34.) Respondent was not
9 present at Leos that day, and never directed any OFD employee to shut down Leos. (Crudele
10 Decl. 18-20, 34; Hom Decl. 2-13; Antes Decl. 4-11.) Petitioner was also not present that
11 day and admits that he never spoke directly to Respondent. (Warren Decl. 2, Exh. A
12 (acknowledging that entire incident occurred via phone call through Captain Hom and Antes).)
13
The oldest date of harassment alleged is May 25, 2013. Respondent was not on duty or
14 even in town on this date. (Crudele Decl. 33.) Moreover, the first time Petitioner ever alleges
15 any harassment at any time by Respondent is in August 2014, and correspondence between
16 Respondent and Petitioner during this time reveals no evidence of any harassment. (Warren Decl.
17 3 (noting the absence of any record prior to 2014); Crudele Decl. 11-14, Exhs. E-H.)
18
To recap Petitioners allegations: Petitioner alleges three dates of harassment, two of which
19 Petitioner was not even present at the time of the alleged harassment (August 23, 2014 & August
20 21, 2015), and two of which Respondent was not present at the time of the alleged harassment (May
21 25, 2013 and August 23, 2014). Petitioners allegations regarding the most recent of the three
22 alleged events is on video and obviously false. Thus, all that remains of Petitioners allegations are
23 the purported events in May 2013 and August 2014, which involve dates on which Respondent was
24
harassment,
Respondent was also not on duty that day, and did not otherwise interact in any way
25
with Petitioner. (Crudele Decl. 34, Exh. N.) Thus, notwithstanding Petitioners wild theories,
26 there is literally no evidence that supports Petitioners allegation of harassment for either August
23, 2014 or August 28, 2014.
27
28
13
1 not on duty, and not in town. To be clear, Respondent specifically denies ever having harassed or
2 threatened Petitioner on the dates alleged in the Petition, or on any other dates. (Crudele Decl.
3 32.) Petitioner has improperly invoked the power of the Court to defame Respondent and to deter
4 other OFD employees from entering his clubs for purposes of code enforcement. Petitioners abuse
5 of process should not be rewarded. The Petition should be dismissed with prejudice, and Petitioner
6 admonished for this flagrant abuse of process.
7
8
V.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Respondent respectfully requests that the Court issue an order
9 dismissing the Petition with prejudice and declaring Respondent the prevailing party pursuant to
10 Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(r).
11
12
Dated: October 26, 2015
BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney

OTIS McGEE, JR. Chief Assistant City Attorney
JAMES F. HOGKINS, Senior Deputy City Attorney
SELIA M. WARREN, Deputy City Attorney
13
14
15
16
By:
SELIA M. WARREN
Attorneys for Respondent VINCENT CRUDELE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
ATTACHMENT 11 LAWYERS FEES AND COSTS
Respondent expressly reserves the right to recover fees after this Petition is properly
3 dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(r), the prevailing
4 party may be awarded court costs and attorneys fees. CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6(r). This provision
5 applies equally to a prevailing defendant, and is subject only to the Courts discretion. Krug v.
6 Maschmeier, 172 Cal. App. 4th 796, 803 (2009) (A prevailing defendant can recover attorney fees
7 in an action for an antiharassment injunction if the trial court decides in its discretion to award such
8 fees.) A prevailing defendant may be awarded fees even if the action was brought in good faith and
9 is not frivolous. (Id.) Attorneys fees are particularly appropriate in this case, where, as here, the
10 Petition is plainly frivolous, and has forced a public entity to expend significant funds defending the
11 matter. The City will submit a proper motion for attorneys fees to the Court upon favorable
12 resolution of this matter.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
"Crudele, Vincent" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY

CENTER/RECIPIENTS/CRUDE9V>
2/1/2013 2:17:45 PM -0800
"Marcus, Nancy" <NMarcus@oaklandnet.com>; "Williams, Sharon J"
<SWilliams2@oaklandnet.com>; "Sena, Jennifer"
<JSena2@oaklandnet.com>; "Ferran, Elias"
<EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org>
RE: Conditions
Nancy,
#3 shall state:
and an increased occupancy load approved upon the installation of a fire sprinkler
system and monitored fire alarm system which has been installed with permits
approved by the Oakland Fire Departments Fire Prevention Bureau. These systems
will provide protection to all areas which share occupancy to include the Rock
Steady, the New Parish and Hibiscus if indicated by plan review
#33 illegally constructed rooftop framing and canopy
Thank you,
Vince Crudele
Fire Inspector
OFD
From: Marcus, Nancy
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 2:05 PM
To: Williams, Sharon J; Sena, Jennifer; Ferran, Elias; Crudele, Vincent
Subject: Conditions
Please review the conditions and let us know your comments by 4:30 if possible.
We leave around then to walk First Fidays.
I highlighted the revised & new conditions that have been added.
Thanks,
Nancy Marcus
Special Business Permits

Office of the City Administrator
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza 11th Fl.
Oakland, CA 94612
510-238-3294
510-238-7084 (fax)
City offices closed February 11, 12 & 18, 2013
Attachment to Cabaret Permit Issued to: THE NEW PARISH & ROCK STEADY
CABARET PERMIT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Permittee shall not serve alcohol to any person who appears intoxicated or to minors.
Further, the applicant shall take action to ensure that no alcoholic beverages are taken
outside of the premises of the cabaret.
The occupancy of the premises shall not exceed the maximum occupancy level
established and set forth in the Public Assembly Permit, issued by Oakland Fire
Department and all conditions of the Public Assembly permit must be continuously
enforced by Permittee.
Permittee will station staff at the exit door to the courtyard between New Parish and Rock
Steady to maintain occupancy loads between businesses on nights of separate venue
events. In such situations the Occupancy loads will not exceed 49 for Rock Steady and
299 for New Parish. On nights when events share access to the courtyard occupancy load
numbers will not exceed 299 total. This permit conditions will be amended and increase
occupancy loads approved upon the installation of a permitted fire sprinkler system is
completed. Such installation shall be completed by June 1, 2013.
Permittee shall comply with all General Use Permit Criteria, Special Use Permit Criteria,
and Conditions of Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number CMD09014.
Any and all exterior remodeling, including exterior painting shall be approved by the
Director of City Planning prior to the issuance of any building permits or the installation
of any exterior remodeling. All exterior modifications or painting shall be of an
architectural and visual quality and character that will harmonize and enhance the
surrounding area.
Permittee shall not expand the premises either horizontally or vertically.
Permittee will cease use of additional Rock Steady floor space, located between the
private dining room and San Pablo Street, until all construction, fire, and other permits
have been finalized and approved.
Permittee shall post on the exterior of the cabaret, in a location that is clearly visible to
people outside, a sign with a phone number to call to register complaints. This phone
must be staffed during all operating hours and must be capable of taking messages during
non-operating hours. Permittee shall maintain a log of the complaints listing date, time,
nature of complaint, and, when possible, name of complainant. Unless complainant is
anonymous or leaves no contact information, Permittee shall respond to after-hours
complaints within 24 hours.
Permittee shall meet with representatives from any neighborhood associations or group if
requested, and shall meet on at least a quarterly basis with the Neighborhood Crime
Prevention Council for the area that includes the cabaret premises. Permittee shall report
to the City Administrator's Office regarding discussions involving the cabaret at such
meetings and action taken to resolve any complaints.
Within 30 days of the effective date of these conditions, Permittee shall submit to the
City Administrator's Office a program to discourage loitering and to reduce littering, and
1
CABARET PERMIT
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
the applicant shall put such program into effect. The litter control plan shall include at
least the following:
a. The daily sweeping down, and washing as needed, of the frontage of the
premises.
b. The daily collection of alcoholic beverage and fast food litter in the area
immediately in front of and adjacent to the premises. All specifically
designated off-street parking areas shall be kept litter free.
c. A plan to minimize potential nuisance effects created by exiting patrons.
Permittee shall, either jointly or severally with neighboring merchants, adequately
illuminate the exterior of the premises. This lighting shall not disturb adjacent residents
quiet enjoyment of their residences.
Unless exempted by the Oakland Police Department, Permittee shall post No Loitering
signs that cite the applicable City of Oakland regulation or law.
Permittee or her/his designee shall take reasonable action to actively enforce the No
Loitering plan inside and outside of the premises.
Permittee shall provide adequate security, at no less than a ratio of one security staff
person to every 50 patrons, to ensure the safety of patrons and the general public, and to
secure the premises of the cabaret and adjacent businesses. Security staff shall be holders
of valid California guard cards and Oakland watchmans permits. Should excessive
Oakland police resources be required to maintain order in or around the cabaret,
permittee shall be liable for the cost of these services.
Permittee shall keep noise within the establishment and on the outdoor patio area, when it
is being accessed by cabaret patrons, at a level that will not adversely affect other
businesses or residents in the surrounding area.
Permittee shall limit the cabaret activities to the following hours: 7 days a week
Sunday Saturday: 12:00noon 1:30am
Alcohol Sales: Sunday Saturday: 12noon 12:45am
17.
18.
If more restricted operating hours were established in the conditional use permit issued
by the City Planning Commission and Zoning Division, such hours shall supersede the
hours cited above. The violation of the cabaret permit condition pertaining to operating
hours is an infraction, and a $100.00 fine is assessed for this violation.
At least one week prior to the end of each month Permittee shall submit to the Special
Events unit of the Oakland Police Department, via fax at 510-777-8979 unless other
arrangements are made, the schedule of planned cabaret activities for the following
month. As soon as possible after scheduling, Permittee shall fax notice of any activities
that are scheduled subsequent to submission of the monthly activities schedule.
Should permittee plan an activity that would qualify as a Special Event, as defined by
OMC chapter 9.52, either through their own scheduling or through that of a promoter,
cabaret will provide at least 3 weeks notice to the OPD Special Events Unit. OPD will
2
CABARET PERMIT
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
confer with permittee regarding the size and demographics of the expected crowd, in
regard for the need for private security, OPD resources, traffic control, and crowd
control.
Permittee shall establish a system to ensure that minors do not have access to alcohol.
Permittee shall abide by and enforce the California state laws and Oakland Municipal
Code sections pertaining to smoking and tobacco.
Permittee shall not lease the premises to others for the purposes of conducting cabaret
activities without first acquiring a Special Events permit and any other permits that may
be necessary for the specific activity. Permittee shall notify the City of any such events
according to term numbers 15 and 16.
Permittee shall comply with all applicable state and local laws and with the terms of
permittees ABC license.
No pyrotechnic devises are allowed. Open flames, including candles, require a special
permit issued by the Oakland Fire Department or conditions of the Public Assembly
Permit.
Except for the Green Room area as described below the Permittee shall abide by and
enforce the California state laws and Oakland Municipal Code sections pertaining to NO
SMOKING on premises. The Green Room is exempted from this condition so long as
there are smoke detectors installed and operating inside the Green Room and the corridor
providing ingress and egress to the Green Room and a fire extinguisher mounted on the
wall of the Green Room. These devices must be installed by February 15, 2013. If the
consumption of medical marijuana is occurring in the Green Room then all people in the
Green Room must be able to prove medical marijuana compliance via the provision of
either a doctors recommendation or state approved card.
Caterers utilized by Permittee must be licensed by the Alameda County Health Dept.
The City Administrator's Office shall retain the authority to suspend or revoke this permit
or impose additional conditions after notice and public hearing and a finding that:
a. Permittee has violated any of the conditions contained herein.
b. The operation of the cabaret creates a public nuisance.
c. Violations of other applicable state laws and City regulations exist, including
the Zoning Regulations and the Building Code.
d. The operation of the business has adversely affected police calls-for-service in
the immediate area. This will be judged by reviewing calls-for-service to the level
of calls in a six-(6) month period prior to the granting of this permit. Permittee
understands that the City may, at its discretion, invoice for excessive police
services.
e. The operation of the business creates a risk to public safety.
Whenever reference is made in these conditions to the City or City Administrator, the
Hearing Officer shall be responsible for the City or City Administrator performing the
actions required.
Whenever reference is made to any City Official in these conditions, that City Official
3
CABARET PERMIT
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
may appoint a designee.

The City Administrator's Office shall review every ongoing permit every two years or on
request to ensure compliance with the conditions contained therein. The primary basis
for the revocation or suspension of the ongoing permit is whether the cabaret activities
create substantial adverse impacts on the peace, order, and welfare of the public or police
resources.
The applicant shall surrender the permit to the City Administrator's Office within seven
(7) days of suspension or revocation thereof.
The conditions contained herein maybe added to, changed or modified by the City
Administrator or his designee in response to findings made regarding complaints from
neighboring residents, City agencies or the general public.
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Oakland, or its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (including legal
costs and attorney's fees) against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack,
set aside, void, annul, this approval by the City. The City may elect, in its discretion, to
participate in the defense of any action.
The Chief of Police, in his or her discretion, may immediately suspend, and recommend
for revocation, such permit for any reason for which the granting of such permit might be
lawfully denied, to protect the person and property of patrons of the location, or to protect
the safety and welfare of the general public.
By March 2, 2013 the Permittee will have taken down the illegally constructed tent
located on the roof of the building. The Permittee may then apply for building and Fire
permits to erect an alternative structure or rooftop repairs as they choose.
I hereby certify that, through my signature, I ________________________________

understand that any conditions which I or my staff violate, the City Administrators
Office retains the authority to hold a public hearing which may result in the
suspension or revocation of my Cabaret Permit; impose additional conditions; or
declare business a nuisance and proceed with monetary fines.
Signed: ________________________________________________ Date: _______________
Signed: _______________________________________________ Date: _________________

Deputy City Administrator
CABARET PERMIT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Permittee shall not serve alcohol to any person who appears intoxicated or to minors.
Further, the applicant shall take action to ensure that no alcoholic beverages are taken
outside of the premises of the cabaret.
The occupancy of the premises shall not exceed the maximum occupancy level
established and set forth in the Public Assembly Permit, issued by Oakland Fire
Department and all conditions of the Public Assembly permit must be continuously
enforced by Permittee.
Permittee will station staff at the exit door to the courtyard between New Parish and Rock
Steady to maintain occupancy loads between businesses on nights of separate venue
events. In such situations the Occupancy loads will not exceed 49 for Rock Steady, 49
for Hybiscus and 299 for New Parish. On nights when events share access to the
courtyard occupancy load numbers will not exceed 299 total. This permit conditions will
be amended and increase occupancy loads approved upon the installation of a permitted
fire sprinkler system and fire alarm system is completed. Such installation shall be
completed by June 1, 2013.
Permittee shall comply with all General Use Permit Criteria, Special Use Permit Criteria,
and Conditions of Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number CMD09014.
Any and all exterior remodeling, including exterior painting shall be approved by the
Director of City Planning prior to the issuance of any building permits or the installation
of any exterior remodeling. All exterior modifications or painting shall be of an
architectural and visual quality and character that will harmonize and enhance the
surrounding area.
Permittee shall not expand the premises either horizontally or vertically.
Permittee will cease use of additional Rock Steady floor space, located between the
private dining room and San Pablo Street, until all construction permits have been
obtained, finalized and approved. After such completion you can request an inspection
by the Fire Department to increase the occupancy, and if so granted, obtain the required
Public Assembly Permit.
Permittee shall post on the exterior of the cabaret, in a location that is clearly visible to
people outside, a sign with a phone number to call to register complaints. This phone
must be staffed during all operating hours and must be capable of taking messages during
non-operating hours. Permittee shall maintain a log of the complaints listing date, time,
nature of complaint, and, when possible, name of complainant. Unless complainant is
anonymous or leaves no contact information, Permittee shall respond to after-hours
complaints within 24 hours.
Permittee shall meet with representatives from any neighborhood associations or group if
requested, and shall meet on at least a quarterly basis with the Neighborhood Crime
Prevention Council for the area that includes the cabaret premises. Permittee shall report
to the City Administrator's Office regarding discussions involving the cabaret at such
1
CABARET PERMIT
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
meetings and action taken to resolve any complaints.

Within 30 days of the effective date of these conditions, Permittee shall submit to the
City Administrator's Office a program to discourage loitering and to reduce littering, and
the applicant shall put such program into effect. The litter control plan shall include at
least the following:
a. The daily sweeping down, and washing as needed, of the frontage of the
premises.
b. The daily collection of alcoholic beverage and fast food litter in the area
immediately in front of and adjacent to the premises. All specifically
designated off-street parking areas shall be kept litter free.
c. A plan to minimize potential nuisance effects created by exiting patrons.
Permittee shall, either jointly or severally with neighboring merchants, adequately
illuminate the exterior of the premises. This lighting shall not disturb adjacent residents
quiet enjoyment of their residences.
Unless exempted by the Oakland Police Department, Permittee shall post No Loitering
signs that cite the applicable City of Oakland regulation or law.
Permittee or her/his designee shall take reasonable action to actively enforce the No
Loitering plan inside and outside of the premises.
Permittee shall provide adequate security, at no less than a ratio of one security staff
person to every 50 patrons, to ensure the safety of patrons and the general public, and to
secure the premises of the cabaret and adjacent businesses. Security staff shall be holders
of valid California guard cards and Oakland watchmans permits. Should excessive
Oakland police resources be required to maintain order in or around the cabaret,
permittee shall be liable for the cost of these services.
Permittee shall keep noise within the establishment and on the outdoor patio area, when it
is being accessed by cabaret patrons, at a level that will not adversely affect other
businesses or residents in the surrounding area.
Permittee shall limit the cabaret activities to the following hours: 7 days a week
Sunday Saturday: 12:00noon 1:30am
Alcohol Sales: Sunday Saturday: 12noon 12:45am
17.
If more restricted operating hours were established in the conditional use permit issued
by the City Planning Commission and Zoning Division, such hours shall supersede the
hours cited above. The violation of the cabaret permit condition pertaining to operating
hours is an infraction, and a $100.00 fine is assessed for this violation.
At least one week prior to the end of each month Permittee shall submit to the Special
Events unit of the Oakland Police Department, via fax at 510-777-8979 unless other
arrangements are made, the schedule of planned cabaret activities for the following
month. Permittee shall immediately fax a request for any changes of activities that were
previously submitted to OPD Special Events for approval.
2
CABARET PERMIT
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Should permittee plan an activity that would qualify as a Special Event, as defined by
OMC chapter 9.52, either through their own scheduling or through that of a promoter,
cabaret will provide at least 3 weeks notice to the OPD Special Events Unit. OPD will
confer with permittee regarding the size and demographics of the expected crowd, in
regard for the need for private security, OPD resources, traffic control, and crowd
control.
Permittee shall establish a system to ensure that minors do not have access to alcohol.
Permittee shall abide by and enforce the California state laws and Oakland Municipal
Code sections pertaining to smoking and tobacco.
Permittee shall not lease the premises to others for the purposes of conducting cabaret
activities without first acquiring a Special Events permit and any other permits that may
be necessary for the specific activity. Permittee shall notify the City of any such events
according to term numbers 15 and 16.
Permittee shall comply with all applicable state and local laws and with the terms of
permittees ABC license.
No pyrotechnic devises are allowed. Open flames, including candles, require a special
permit issued by the Oakland Fire Department or conditions of the Public Assembly
Permit.
Except for the Green Room area as described below the Permittee shall abide by and
enforce the California state laws and Oakland Municipal Code sections pertaining to NO
SMOKING on premises. The labeled Green Room is exempted from this condition
so long as there are smoke detectors installed and operating inside the Green Room and
the corridor providing ingress and egress to the Green Room and a fire extinguisher
mounted on the wall of the Green Room. These devices must be installed by February
15, 2013. If the consumption of medical marijuana is occurring in the Green Room then
all people in the Green Room must be able to prove medical marijuana compliance via
the provision of either a doctors recommendation or state approved card.
Caterers utilized by Permittee must be licensed by the Alameda County Health Dept.
The City Administrator's Office shall retain the authority to suspend or revoke this permit
or impose additional conditions after notice and public hearing and a finding that:
a. Permittee has violated any of the conditions contained herein.
b. The operation of the cabaret creates a public nuisance.
c. Violations of other applicable state laws and City regulations exist, including
the Zoning Regulations and the Building Code.
d. The operation of the business has adversely affected police calls-for-service in
the immediate area. This will be judged by reviewing calls-for-service to the level
of calls in a six-(6) month period prior to the granting of this permit. Permittee
understands that the City may, at its discretion, invoice for excessive police
services.
e. The operation of the business creates a risk to public safety.
Whenever reference is made in these conditions to the City or City Administrator, the
3
CABARET PERMIT
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Hearing Officer shall be responsible for the City or City Administrator performing the
actions required.
Whenever reference is made to any City Official in these conditions, that City Official
may appoint a designee.
The City Administrator's Office shall review every ongoing permit every two years or on
request to ensure compliance with the conditions contained therein. The primary basis
for the revocation or suspension of the ongoing permit is whether the cabaret activities
create substantial adverse impacts on the peace, order, and welfare of the public or police
resources.
The applicant shall surrender the permit to the City Administrator's Office within seven
(7) days of suspension or revocation thereof.
The conditions contained herein maybe added to, changed or modified by the City
Administrator or his designee in response to findings made regarding complaints from
neighboring residents, City agencies or the general public.
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Oakland, or its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (including legal
costs and attorney's fees) against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack,
set aside, void, annul, this approval by the City. The City may elect, in its discretion, to
participate in the defense of any action.
The Chief of Police, in his or her discretion, may immediately suspend, and recommend
for revocation, such permit for any reason for which the granting of such permit might be
lawfully denied, to protect the person and property of patrons of the location, or to protect
the safety and welfare of the general public.
By March 2, 2013 the Permittee will have taken down the illegally constructed tent
located on the roof of the building. The Permittee may then apply for building and Fire
permits to erect an alternative structure or rooftop repairs as they choose.
I hereby certify that, through my signature, I ________________________________

understand that any conditions which I or my staff violate, the City Administrators
Office retains the authority to hold a public hearing which may result in the
suspension or revocation of my Cabaret Permit; impose additional conditions; or
declare business a nuisance and proceed with monetary fines.
Signed: ________________________________________________ Date: _______________
Signed: _______________________________________________ Date: _________________

4
CABARET PERMIT
Deputy City Administrator
1 BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney, SBN 069722

OTIS McGEE, JR., Chief Assistant City Attorney, SBN 071885
2 JAMES F. HOGKINS, Senior Deputy City Attorney, SBN 142561
SELIA M. WARREN, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 233877
3 One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor
Oakland, California 94612
4 Telephone:
(510) 238-6524
Facsimile:
(510) 238-6500
5 Email: swarren@oaklandcityattorney.org
6
X04175/1752294
Attorneys for Respondent

7 VINCENT CRUDELE
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
10
11
JASON PERKINS,
Petitioner,
12
13
14
15
v.
VINCENT CRUDELE,
Respondent.
Case No. RG15783742

RESPONDENT VINCENT CRUDELES
OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE TO
PETITION FOR RESTRAINING
ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
16
[ATTACHMENT 9 JUSTIFICATION
OR EXCUSE]
17
[Code of Civil Procedure 527.6(h)]
18
Date: November 12, 2015

Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 5, 3rd Floor
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESPONDENT VINCENT CRUDELES OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
000020
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
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(h) Respondent Vincent Crudele

(Respondent) hereby respectfully submits this opposition and response (Response) to the
Petition of Jason Perkins (Petitioner) for a Restraining Order (Petition).
I.
INTRODUCTION
This is a case about an Oakland club owner frustrated by the bureaucratic process of
bringing his nightclubs into compliance with the California Fire Code and Oakland Municipal Code
who has lashed out against an Oakland Fire Department employee charged with the task of code
enforcement and permit inspections. At all times in which Respondent and Petitioner have
interacted since 2013, Respondent has either been executing his duties as a Fire Code Inspector or
as Acting Assistant Fire Marshall. Moreover, every interaction by Respondent with Petitioner has
been authorized by a City of Oakland (City) official, and witnessed by various City staff. Indeed,
two interactions were recorded by officers of the Oakland Police Department (OPD), including
the events that triggered this Petition on the night of August 21, 2015.
Petitioner has a history of making false allegations against Respondent. In August 2014,
Petitioner made false allegations against Respondent based on his belief that Respondent had
directed the Citys Temescal District Fire Station to shut down his unpermitted and illegally
operating night club: Leos Music Club (Leos). This time, Petitioner boldly alleges that
Respondent entered Leos on August 21, 2015, armed with a gun, handcuffs and a nightstick;
threatened and intimidated his patrons and staff; and ultimately shut down the club. Petitioner
was not there. More importantly, in addition to the numerous other witnesses actually present that
night, Respondent, another OFD employee, seven (7) OPD officers, and recorded video of the
evening prove that these allegations are irrefutably false.
The most incredible part of Petitioners allegations is how outrageously false they are. Yet,
Petitioner has had some success with this method in the past: In 2014, Petitioners outrageous
allegations regarding a site visit to Leos forced Respondent, who was not present at the site visit, to
submit to an internal investigation, and the OFD personnel actually involved, to be redirected.
Thus, it comes as no surprise that Petitioner would revive this tried-and-true method of attack in an
2
000021
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
effort to thwart the Citys efforts to cause Leos owners to bring the club into compliance.
This time Petitioner goes too far. In seeking a restraining order against Respondent,
Petitioner has sworn, under penalty of perjury, that the allegations he has made are true. The
evidence submitted with this Response proves that Petitioners allegations are not credible, and in
fact, are overwhelmingly false. Petitioner has improperly invoked the power of the Court to tarnish
the reputation of Respondent, and to intimidate other OFD staff from entering his clubs for the
purpose of code enforcement. Petitioners abuse of process should not be rewarded. The Petition
should be dismissed with prejudice, and Petitioner admonished for wasting the precious resources
of the Court, and of the City.
II.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(a)(1) provides that, A person who has suffered
harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction
prohibiting harassment as provided in this section. Harassment is defined as unlawful violence, a
credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person
[] that serves no legitimate purpose. CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6(b)(3). Credible threat of
violence is defined as a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a
reasonable person in fear for his or her safety [] that serves no legitimate purpose. CODE CIV.
PROC. 527.6(b)(2). Course of conduct is defined as a pattern of conduct composed of a series of
acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. CODE CIV. PROC.
527.6(b)(1). Constitutionally protected activities are not included in the definition of course of
conduct. Id.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(h), the Respondent may file a response
that explains, excuses, justifies, or denies the alleged harassment. CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6(h).
In considering the Petition and Response, the Court shall consider testimony that is relevant and
may make independent inquiry. CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6(i). All relevant evidence is admissible at
the Courts discretion, including hearsay evidence. See Duronslet v. Kamps, 203 Cal. App. 4th 717,
728-29 (2012); Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Wilson, 201 Cal. App. 4th 550, 557-58 (2011)
3
000022
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
(holding that CODE CIV. PROC. 527.8, which includes identical language that court shall receive
any testimony that is relevant, requires that the court receive relevant hearsay evidence). In order
to issue a restraining order, the Court must find by clear and convincing evidence that unlawful
harassment exists. CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6(i); Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners' Assn., 207
Cal. App. 3d 719, 733 (1989). The clear and convincing standard requires a finding of high
probability that unlawful harassment exists. Russell v. Douvan, 112 Cal. App. 4th 399, 401, 403
(2003).
In other words, the unlawful conduct should be ongoing. Scripps Health v. Marin, 72 Cal.
App. 4th 324, 333 (1999) (finding that the course of challenged conduct must be ongoing at the
time injunction is sought in order to obtain injunctive relief under harassment statute) (interpreting
related work place violence statute, CODE CIV. PROC. 527.8).
However, at a minimum, the harassment must be likely to recur in the future. Russell, 112
Cal. App. 4th at 402 (An injunction is authorized only when it appears that wrongful acts are likely
to recur.); R.D. v. P.M., 202 Cal. App. 4th 181, 189 (2011); also Scripps Health, 72 Cal. App. 4th
at 333(it must appear with reasonable certainty that the wrongful acts will be continued or
repeated.) (citation omitted). The issuance of an injunction cannot be based on past acts or for the
purpose of punishment for prior acts. Scripps Health, 72 Cal. App. 4th at 332-33 (It should neither
serve as punishment for past acts, nor be exercised in the absence of any evidence establishing the
reasonable probability the acts will be repeated in the future.); Russell, 112 Cal. App. 4th at 403
(a court cannot issue an injunction unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that unlawful
harassment exists, [] not that it existed in the past.); Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop
Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc., 129 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1266 (2005).
Even a single act of violence may not justify an issuance of injunction absent a finding that
future harm is highly probable. Russell, 112 Cal. App. 4th at 401, 404 (reversing trial court ruling
issuing an injunction against former attorney based on a single act of unlawful violence against
opposing counsel where no finding that likelihood of future harm was highly probable); Leydon v.
Alexander, 212 Cal. App. 3d 1, 5 (1989) (reversing trial court judgment and holding that terminated
4
000023
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
employees single act of confronting former employer with abusive language did not constitute
course of conduct within meaning of CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6).
Finally, not only can injunctive relief be denied where the defendant has voluntarily
discontinued the wrongful conduct, there exists no equitable reason for ordering it where the
defendant has in good faith discontinued the proscribed conduct. Scripps Health, 72 Cal. App. 4th
at 332-33 (citations omitted).
The express and implied findings that support the Courts entry of a restraining order must
be justified by substantial evidence in the record. R.D., 202 Cal. App. 4th at 188. The prevailing
party may be awarded court costs and attorneys fees. CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6(r).
III.
11
A. Respondents Prior Interactions with Petitioner.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE1
a. January 2013.
In or about January 15, 2013, the Office of the City Administrator issued a Cease and Desist
Letter to New Parish, a club located at 579 18th Street in Oakland, also owned by Petitioner, based
on his continued operation of the club without a valid cabaret permit, which had expired. On
January 26, 2013, Respondent entered New Parish, to conduct an authorized site inspection.
(Crudele Decl. 4-5.) Officer Jennifer Sena of the ABAT Unit was also present. (Sena Decl. 6.)
Petitioner was not on site that evening. (Crudele Decl. 5; Sena Decl. 7.) Respondent issued a
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The declarations of first hand witnesses, and the evidence attached to their declarations are
the best source of the facts. The declarations in support of this Response are as follows: 1) OFD
Supervisor Vincent Crudele (Crudele Decl.); 2) OPD Officer Jennifer Sena (Sena Decl.); 3)
OFD Fire Captain Lawrence Hom (Hom Decl.); 4) OFD Fire Fighter Dominic Antes (Antes
Decl.); 5) OFD Fire Marshal Miguel Trujillo (Trujillo Decl.); 6) OPD Sergeant James Gantt
(Gantt Decl.); 7) OFD Fire Investigator David Davis (Davis Decl.); 8) Gregory Minor,
Assistant to the City Administrator (Minor Decl.); and 9) Selia M. Warren, Deputy City Attorney
(Warren Decl.).
5
000024
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
Report of Fire Inspection documenting numerous Fire Code violations. (Id.)

On January 31, 2013, Respondent and Officer Sena returned to New Parish to meet with
Petitioner and the other owners of the club. (Crudele 6; Sena 8) Officer Senas PDRD was
activated for the visit. (Sena Decl. 9.) This was the first time that Respondent and Officer Sena
met Petitioner and his business partner, Michael OConnor. (Crudele Decl. 6; Sena Decl. 9,
Exh. C (1st File, Pict0005_2013.01.31_21.08.50 at Min. 0:42-1:24).)
Respondent gave a presentation about the violations he observed on the prior visit to the
owners of Leos, including Petitioner. (See, e.g. Id. at Min. 3:24- 11:30.) During the subsequent
discussion, Petitioners partner, Mr. OConnor notes that Respondent is making the steps that they
need to take to come into compliance far more crystal clear than anybody else has ever made it
before. (Id. at Min. 16:24 18:55; Crudele Decl. 6.)
During the approximately 90 minute visit, Officer Sena explained Petitioners options
with regard to a show apparently planned for that evening, which included rescheduling the show,
or going on with the show and risking OPD coming in and shutting it down. (Crudele Decl. 7;
Sena Decl. 9, Exh. C (2nd File, Pict006_2013.1.31.22.35.26 at Min. 0:44 1:30).) Petitioner
acknowledged that the show could not go forward, and expressed his disappointment that [he was]
caught in a bureacratic mess in trying to obtain the proper permits. (Crudele Decl. 7; Sena Decl.
Exh. C (2nd File, Pict006_2013.1.31.22.35.26 at Min. 5:30-5:40; 6:18-6:22).) At one point
during the visit, Petitioner claimed that the United States Post Office does not deliver Leos mail,
and that if you mailed something to Leos he might get it in two months. (Id. at Min. 7:36-8:42.)
The visit ended with Respondent walking Petitioner through the checklist of items he
needed to complete in order to come into compliance. (Id. at Min. 9:48-12:20.) Overall, the tone of
the visit was friendly and positive. At a minimum, this visit did not result in any complaints about
Respondent. (Sena Decl. 10; Warren Decl. 3(noting no record of complaints prior to period
August 2014).)
b. February 2013 August 2013.
Between February and August 2013, Petitioner and Respondent have numerous interactions
6
000025
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
by email, and a couple of in person meetings attended by other City staff at City Hall. (Crudele
Decl. 9-15 & Exhs. C-H.) At no time during this period did Petitioner ever allege that
Respondent had behaved inappropriately. (Id. 16; Sena Decl. 11; Warren Decl. 3 (noting no
record of complaints prior to period August 2014).)
In August 2013, Respondent was promoted to Vegetation Management Supervisor and was
no longer in charge of code enforcement for businesses. (Id. 17.)
B. Respondents Prior False Allegations Against Petitioner.
On August 23, 2014, Petitioner alleged for the first time, that Respondent engaged in
threatening behavior one year earlier in 2013 (without specifying a date), two times at the counter
in the summer of 2014, and that day, indirectly, through OFD employees at Fire Station 8. (Warren
Decl., 2, Exh. A.). As a result of Petitioners false allegations, Respondent was forced to go
through an internal investigation, and the OFD employees named in Petitioners complaint were
directed not to enter Leos again and to leave code enforcement to the Assistant Fire Marshal,
among others (Crudele Decl. 20; Hom Decl. 13; Antes Decl. 11.) Significantly, since
Petitioners made his false allegations in August 2014, no OFD employee from Fire Station 8, the
Citys Temescal District Fire Station, which is closest to Leos, has entered Leos for the purposes
of code enforcement, notwithstanding their noncompliance, which continues to present day. (Hom
Decl. 13; Antes Decl. 11; Minor Decl. 4-18 (noting Leos history of illegally operating
without a cabaret permit, among numerous other pre-requisite permits); Sena 12 (noting citation
for serving alcohol without a license on August 7, 2015).)
Shortly thereafter, the Nuisance Abatement/Special Activity Permits Division of the Office
of the City Administrator learned that Leos was engaged in unpermitted cabaret activity. (Minor
Decl. 4.) Ultimately, the Division entered into a Settlement Agreement with Petitioner, and set a
deadline for compliance to March 1, 2015. The deadline passed, and Leos continued to operate
without a license. (Minor Decl. 11.)
C. Respondents Authorized Site Visits to Leos in July and August 2015.
In April 2015, Fire Marshal Miguel Trujillo joined OFD. (Trujillo Decl. 2.) Fire Marshal
7
000026
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
Trujillo promoted Respondent to Acting Assistant Fire Marshal for a limited duration assignment in
July and August. (Crudele Decl. 24; Trujillo Decl. 3.)
On July 14, 2015, at the direction of Fire Marshal Trujillo, and in his capacity as Acting
Assistant Fire Marshal, Respondent and Fire Marshal Trujillo entered Leos to conduct a plain
clothes site visit to observe Fire Code and OMC violations. (Crudele Decl. 25; Trujillo Decl. 5.)
Based on their observations from the July 14, 2015, site visit, subsequent conversations with
the Nuisance Abatement/Special Activity Permits Division, and an OPD report that confirmed that
Leos was continuing to operate without proper permits, Fire Marshal Trujillo authorized
Respondent to enter Leos on August 21, 2015. (Trujillo Decl. 7-8.) The purpose of the visit was
to check for proper permits, and, assuming they were lacking, to place a Restricted Use tag (or
yellow tag) on the property, which limited the capacity of the venue to 49 persons or less. (Id.)
On August 21, 2015, at the direction, and pursuant to the authority of the Fire Marshal,
Respondent entered Leos accompanied by seven (7) officers of the Oakland Police Department
(OPD), and Fire Inspector David Davis. (Crudele Decl. 26-27.) It is standard practice for the
Fire Marshal to enlist OPD for assistance in permit inspections, particularly where crowds are
involved. (Crudele Decl. 26; Trujillo Decl. 9.) Moreover, in this case, Fire Marshal Trujillo
was aware of Petitioners prior allegations, and thought it prudent to have OPD present to document
and record the inspection, just in case it resulted in any accusations by Petitioner. (Trujillo Decl.
9.)
Respondent entered Leos on August 21, 2015, between 9:15 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. (Gantt
Decl. 3; Davis Decl. 4.) During the inspection, Respondent spoke with various staff, including
Bar Manager, Alex Corrone and Sound Manager, Justin Zachary Pader. (Crudele Decl. 27; Gant
Decl. 6.) The entire inspection was captured on video by OPD PDRD recordings. (Gant Decl.
5, 10 & Exh. A (PDRD recordings by Sergeant Gantt and Officer Vanessa Tanner).) The staff was
unable to produce a single valid permit, and none were otherwise posted anywhere on the premises,
(Crudele Decl. 27-28; Gantt Decl. 6.) As a result of their inability to produce any valid
permits, Respondent issued a yellow tag, and notified the staff of its capacity restrictions.
8
000027
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
(Crudele Decl. 28 & Exh. M.)

Towards the end of the visit, Ms. Corrone called Petitioner on her phone, and put him on the
phone with Respondent. (Gantt Decl. 7; Crudele Decl. 29.) Petitioner was livid that
Respondent was at Leos conducting what he viewed as an unauthorized inspection, and
immediately began threatening to get Respondent in trouble. (Crudele Decl. 29; Gantt Decl. 7
(noting that he heard Petitioner threatening to call his lawyer to deal with the situation.)
Petitioner was on speakerphone, and thus his threats can be overheard on Sergeant Gantts PDRD
recording. (See Gantt Decl. 10, Exh. A (2nd file PICT0021_2015_.08.22_03.59.08 at Min.
20:52-23:59).) Among other things, Respondent specifically tells Petitioner that You are not
closed for business, and explains the implications of the yellow tag capacity restriction. (Id. at
Min. 22:35-22:45 ) Although Petitioner can be overheard threatening Petitioner, Petitioner remains
respectful and ends the conversation with Have a great evening, Thank you. (Id. at Min. 23:5659.) Petitioner was never physically present during the site inspection that evening. (Crudele Decl.
27; Gantt Decl. 5, 7 & 10, Exh. A).)
The visit lasted a little over 30 minutes. (Crudele Decl. 29; see also Gantt Decl. 10, Exh.
A (PDRD recordings).)2 When Respondent and the team of OPD officers departed Leos, patrons
were still present. (Gantt Decl. 9; Davis 6.) Respondent acted in a friendly and professional
manner at all times during the site visit. (Crudele 31; Gantt 8, 10 & Exh. A (PDRD
recordings); Davis 5.)
True to his threats, Petitioner appeared unannounced, with his business partner Mr.
OConnor, at the office of Fire Marshal Trujillo on the following Monday, August 24, 2015 at
about 9:00 a.m. (Trujillo Decl. 12.) Petitioners stated purpose for the visit, however, was to
discuss sprinkler plans. (Id.) During the meeting, Petitioner began to complain about an
2 Petitioner also takes issue with the fact that the lights were turned on during the August 21,
25 2015 site inspection. As evidenced by the OPD PDRD video, the music was turned off
approximately ten minutes into the site visit so that Respondent and his team did not have to
26 continue to yell over the music while talking to staff. (See Gantt Decl. 10, Exh. A (2nd file
PICT0021_2015_.08.22_03.59.08 at Min. 10:08).) Likewise, the lights were turned on for an
27 even shorter period of time, approximately 12 minutes, before the team departed. (Id. at Min.
17:40; Cf. Id. at Min. 29:19.)
28
9
000028
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
unauthorized inspection by Respondent that shut down Leos on Friday night (August 21, 2015).
(Id.) Fire Marshal Trujillo immediately confirmed that he authorized the site inspection, and
further explained that Leos was not shut down, but rather they were allowed to operate as long as
the occupant load remained at 49 persons or less. (Id.)
Later that day, at 11:26 a.m. Petitioner sent Fire Marshal Trujillo an email mischaracterizing
the prior conversation that they had in his office, and claiming that Fire Marshal Trujillo had,
among other things, confirmed that Respondent should not have shut [Leos] down. (Trujillo
Decl. 13 & Exh. B.) By 2:24 p.m., Petitioners allegations regarding the events of the prior
Friday night further escalated, and suddenly, for the first time, Petitioner claimed that Respondent
had carried a gun into Leos and pressed [his] employees into a line against the wall during his
illegal shutdown of Leos over the weekend. (Trujillo Decl. 14, Exh. C.) Sergeant Gantt,
Inspector Davis, and Respondent all submitted written statements confirming that Petitioners
allegations we untrue. (Trujillo Decl. 16-17 & Exh. D; Crudele Decl. 35, Exh. O.) Sergeant
Gantt also offered and ultimately did provide PDRD recordings from that evening, which
confirmed the accuracy of the statements submitted by Respondent, Sergeant Gantt and Inspector
Davis. (Trujillo Decl. 16, Gantt Decl. 10, Exh. A.)
Publically, Petitioner told the following story: Crudele and ten armed police officers (and
6-7 police cars) pulled up to Leos Music Club. They reportedly lined up patrons and staff, and
informed everyone that the venue was now closed, and that anyone who tried to open the club
would be arrestedThe [Fire] Marshall (sic) had no idea there were police involved, no idea that
we were told to shut down. (Warren Decl. 4, Exh. B (CBS local new article at p. 2).)
D. Petitioners False Allegations In the Petition.
The Petition alleges three dates on which Respondent supposedly harassed Petitioner: May
25, 2013, August 28, 2014, and August 21, 2015. On May 25, 2013, Respondent was not on duty,
and was not in the City. (Crudele Decl. 33.) Respondent did not interact in any way with
Petitioner that day. (Id.) Significantly, Petitioner and Respondent exchanged numerous emails
very close to that time period (May 31, 2013 through July 31, 2013).3 (Crudele Decl. 11-14,
10
000029
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
Exhs. E-H.) At no time during those emails did Petitioner ever allege that Respondent had acted
inappropriately, in any way, and there is no record of Petitioner ever making a formal complaint
against Respondent in 2013. (Id.; Warren Decl. 3 (noting the absence of any record prior to
2014.)
The second date that Petitioner alleges is August 28, 2014, however, he likely meant to
allege August 23, 2014. (See Part III.B, supra; Crudele Decl. 18-20, 34.) As set forth in
Respondents declaration and the declarations of OFD Fire Captain Hom and OFD Fire Fighter
Dominic Antes, Respondent was not present at Leos that day, and never ordered or otherwise
directed Captain Hom or Fire Fighter Antes to shut down Leos. (Crudele Decl. 18-20, 34;
Hom Decl. 2-13; Antes Decl. 4-11.) Petitioner was also not present at Leos that day. (Id.)
Indeed, he admits as much in the original email complaint that he sent to OFD Fire Chief Teresa
Deloach Reed, on August 23, 2014. (Warren Decl. 2, Exh. A (see email at page 4 acknowledging
that the entire incident occurred via phone call through Captain Hom and Fire Fighter Antes).)
harassment, Respondent was also not on duty that day, and did not otherwise interact in any way
with Petitioner. (Crudele Decl. 34, Exh. N.) In fact, by that date, Respondent had already learned
of Petitioners false allegations against him as a result of the August 23, 2014, site visit by Captain
Hom and Fire Fighter Antes, and was busy responding to the allegations against him. (Crudele
Decl. 34; see also 18, Exh. I (first email, dated August 28, 2014, to Fire Chief Reed, explaining
Respondents lack of contact with Petitioner).)
Finally, the third date Petitioner alleges in the Petition is August 21, 2015. Significantly, the
allegations in the Petition evolve, yet again, and claim that Respondent brandished [not only] a
gun, [but also] handcuffs and a night stick. As set forth in Part III.C, supra, none of Petitioners
allegations regarding that night are true.
3
Interestingly, Respondents May 31, 2013 email references a visit by OPD Officer J. Romero
on that date (May 25, 2013) and the following day (May 26, 2013). We have not requested it, but
27 Officer Romero, and possibly a PDRD recording, could also confirm that Respondent was not
present at New Parish that day, if necessary.
28
11
000030
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The Petition also contains general allegations untied to any specific date. For example,
Petitioner alleges that [i]n previous encounters I have been thrown up against a wall and held by
my throat. However, prior to Petitioners complaints about Respondent on August 21, 2015, the
only other complaints about Respondent are related to his August 23, 2014 allegations, which never
refer to being held by his throat. (Warren Decl. 2-3 & Exh. A (August 23, 2014, email to Fire
Chief Reed)4.) In addition, although the Petition suggests that Respondent carrying a gun into his
venues is a recurring event, Petitioner had never before made such an allegation until the instant
Petition. (cf. Trujillo Decl. 14, Exh. C (claiming, for the first time, that Respondent was armed
with a gun on the night of August 21, 2015; no allegations of prior similar acts); Warren Decl. 23 & Exh. A (August 23, 2014, email to Fire Chief Reed, the first formal complaint ever recorded by
Petitioner about Respondent).)
IV. ARGUMENT
13
The Petition should be denied because Petitioner has failed to allege incidents of unlawful
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
harassment by clear and convincing evidence. CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6(i). Harassment is defined
as unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct
directed at a specific person [] that serves no legitimate purpose. CODE CIV. PROC.
527.6(b)(3). Petitioners vague allegations do not credibly establish an act of violence, a credible
threat of violence, or a course of conduct. In fact, to the extent that Petitioners allegations show
anything, it is that Respondent was acting in the course and scope of his official duties as an
employee of OFD, and thus interacted with Respondent for a legitimate purpose, i.e. to execute
those duties. Moreover, the clear and convincing standard requires a finding of high probability
that unlawful harassment exists. Russell v. Douvan, 112 Cal. App. 4th 399, 401, 403 (2003). By
contrast, the evidence submitted herein reveals at best, a low probability, that anything Petitioner
4
In the email, Petitioner Vaguely alleges that in 2013, Respondent entered New Parish and
pushed me against the wall and screamed at me with his face barely being 2 from my face. He
26 said he would have me locked up, thrown in jail if I even said a word. After the dust settled, I was
told to adjust a couple of exit signs and after he forced us closed for one show, we re-opened and
27 were not cited for any violations. The allegations regarding being shut down in 2013, suggest
that he was referring the to January 31, 2013, visit with Officer Sena, although this is unclear.
28
12
000031
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
has alleged is true. Likewise, even if Petitioners wild accusations are to be believed, an injunction
cannot be based on past acts or for the purpose of punishment for those prior acts. Scripps Health,
72 Cal. App. 4th at 332-33; Russell, 112 Cal. App. 4th at 403; Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc., 129
Cal. App. 4th at 1266. The harassment must be ongoing or likely to recur in the future. Russell,
112 Cal. App. 4th at 402; R.D., 202 Cal.App.4th at 189; see also Scripps Health, 72 Cal. App. 4th
at 333. In this case, there is no evidence that any purported harassment is ongoing or likely to
recur in the future. As set forth above, Respondent is currently assigned to the Vegetation
Management Unit, and does not have any reason to interact with Petitioner. In fact, but for the
limited duration assignment to Acting Assistant Fire Marshal, Respondent had not had any direct
contact with Petitioner since his promotion to Vegetation Management Supervisor in August 2013.
(Crudele Decl. 17.) Further, there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is likely to interact
with Petitioner outside of his official duties as an employee of OFD at any time in the future.
Importantly, since the evening of August 21, 2015, on which Respondent was executing his
official duties as Acting Assistant Fire Marshal, Respondent has not interacted with Petitioner in
any way, and without the need for a formal TRO governing this matter.5 Respondents voluntarily
cessation of the purportedly wrongful conduct further warrants dismissal of the Petition. Scripps
Health, 72 Cal. App. 4th at 332-33 (noting that not only can injunctive relief be denied where the
defendant has voluntarily discontinued the wrongful conduct, (cite) there exists no equitable reason
for ordering it where the defendant has in good faith discontinued the proscribed conduct.).
Petitioner alleges three dates in which Respondent supposedly engaged in illegal
harassment: May 25, 2013, August 28, 2014, and August 21, 2015. The overwhelming evidence set
forth herein, shows that Petitioners allegations regarding the night of August 21, 2015, are patently
false. See Part III.C, supra. In addition to eye witness testimony, OPD PDRD recordings show that
Respondent did not have a gun, handcuffs, or a nightstick, did not line up the employees against
5 To assuage any concerns of Petitioners counsel, Respondent agreed, informally, to avoid

26 interacting with Petitioner or entering any of his clubs during the time between the date of the initial
TRO hearing and the date of the ultimate hearing on restraining order. This was a mere formality,
27 as Respondent has no interest in Petitioner outside of the execution of his official duties as an
employee of OFD.
28
13
000032
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
a wall and did not shut down Leos. Indeed, Respondent explicitly stated to Respondent that
Leos was not shut down. (Gantt Decl. 10, Exh. A (2nd file PICT0021_2015_.08.22_03.59.08
at Min. 22:35-22:45 (stating to Petitioner, You are not closed for business and explaining the
capacity restrictions of the yellow tag).) Moreover, Petitioner was not even on site at Leos at the
time Respondent and the rest of his team conducted the brief site visit. The Petition should be
denied based on this irrefutable evidence alone, which defeats Petitioners only allegation of
harassment by Respondent for the last year.
The next alleged date of harassment is August 28, 2014. Based on our review of records, it
appears likely that Petitioner intended to allege that the harassment took place on August 23, 2014.
(See Part III.B, supra; Crudele Decl. 18-20, 34.) As set forth in Respondents declaration and
the declarations of OFD Fire Captain Hom and OFD Fire Fighter Dominic Antes, Respondent was
not present at Leos that day, and never ordered or otherwise directed Captain Hom or Fire Fighter
Antes to shut down Leos. (Crudele Decl. 18-20, 34; Hom Decl. 2-13; Antes Decl. 411.) Petitioner was also not present at Leos that day. (Id.) Even Petitioners own allegations on
that date reveal that he never spoke directly to Respondent. (Warren Decl. 2, Exh. A (see email at
page 4 acknowledging that the entire incident occurred via phone call through Captain Hom and
Fire Fighter Antes).)
harassment, Respondent was also not on duty that day, and did not otherwise interact in any way
with Petitioner. (Crudele Decl. 34, Exh. N.) Thus, notwithstanding Petitioners wild theories,
there is literally no evidence that supports Petitioners allegation of harassment for either August
23, 2014 or August 28, 2014.
The oldest date of harassment alleged is May 25, 2013. Significantly, the first time
Petitioner ever alleges any harassment at any time by Respondent is in August 2014. (Warren Decl.
3 (noting the absence of any record prior to 2014.)) Moreover, a review of the interactions
between Respondent and Petitioner on or about this date reveals no evidence of any harassment by
Respondent. (Crudele Decl. 11-14, Exhs. E-H.) Moreover, Respondent was not on duty or even
14
000033
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
in town on this date. (Crudele Decl. 33.)

To recap Petitioners allegations: Petitioner alleges three dates of harassment, two of which
Petitioner was not even present at the time of the alleged harassment (August 23, 2014 & August
21, 2015), and two of which Respondent was not present at the time of the alleged harassment (May
25, 2013 and August 23 or 28, 2014). Petitioners allegations regarding the most recent of the three
alleged events is on video and obviously false. Thus, all that remains of Petitioners allegations are
the purported events in May 2013 and August 2014, which involve dates on which Respondent was
not on duty, and not in town. To be clear, Respondent specifically denies ever having harassed or
threatened Petitioner on the dates alleged in the Petition, or any other dates. Petitioner has set out
to defame Respondent for executing his duties out of concern for the safety of the citizens of
Oakland and its visitors who patronize Petitioners businesses. Petitioner has improperly invoked
the power of the Court to deter OFD employees from entering his clubs for purposes of code
enforcement. Petitioners abuse of process should not be rewarded. The Petition should be
dismissed with prejudice, and Petitioner admonished for this flagrant abuse of process.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Respondent respectfully requests that the Court issue an order
dismissing the Petition with prejudice and declaring Respondent the prevailing party pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(r).
20 Dated: October 26, 2015
BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney

OTIS McGEE, JR. Chief Assistant City Attorney
JAMES F. HOGKINS, Senior Deputy City Attorney
SELIA M. WARREN, Deputy City Attorney
21
22
23
24
25
By:
SELIA M. WARREN
Attorneys for Respondent VINCENT CRUDELE
26
27
28
15
000034
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Respondent expressly reserves the right to recover fees after this Petition is properly
dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(r), the prevailing
party may be awarded court costs and attorneys fees. CODE CIV. PROC. 527.6(r). This provision
applies equally to a prevailing defendant, and is subject only to the Courts discretion. Krug v.
Maschmeier, 172 Cal. App. 4th 796, 803 (2009) (A prevailing defendant can recover attorney fees
in an action for an antiharassment injunction if the trial court decides in its discretion to award such
fees.) A prevailing defendant may be awarded fees even if the action was brought in good faith and
is not frivolous. (Id.) Attorneys fees are particularly appropriate in this case, where, as here, the
Petition is plainly frivolous, and has forced a public entity to expend significant funds defending the
matter. The City will submit a proper motion for attorneys fees to the Court upon favorable
resolution of this matter.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
000035
From:
Sent:
To:
CC:
Subject:
DC Rachal
"Sanchez, Arturo M" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY

CENTER/RECIPIENTS/SANCH9AM>
1/31/2013 3:56:23 PM -0800
"Rachal, Anthony" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY
CENTER/RECIPIENTS/RACHA9A>
"Williams, Sharon J" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY
CENTER/RECIPIENTS/WILLI9S>; "Chan, Robert" <CITY OF
OAKLAND/CITY CENTER/RECIPIENTS/CHAN9R>; "Joshi, Nishant"
<CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY CENTER/RECIPIENTS/JOSHI9N>;
"Kroushour, Joe" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY
CENTER/RECIPIENTS/KROUS9J>; "Ferran, Elias" <CITY OF
OAKLAND/CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE/RECIPIENTS/FERRA9E>;
"Marcus, Nancy" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY
CENTER/RECIPIENTS/HUMAN SERVICES/MARCU9N>
Re: The New Parish 679 18th St.
The operator is willing to cancel the concert. He has been in but i have been away
conference.
His public assembly permit was valid during inspection their real failure was 1. exceeding
occupancy load per OFD and 2. not renewing cabaret permit.
He has requested a one day permit because he was inspected by OFD and only one issue
regarding signage remains.
The ordinance as written leaves me little wriggle room once they comply with requirements
of OFD and ordinance.
I intend to meet tomorrow with them to discuss occupancy load new conditions and
smoking issues.
The balance here for me is difficult but I must defer to OPD on life health safety concerns.
Under most circumstances once OFD has reinspected I would issue temporary permit in
similar circumstances.
Just to be clear OPD recommends i deny request and hve him cancel today's event until
meeting and new conditions are resolved tomorrow correct?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 31, 2013, at 3:04 PM, "Rachal, Anthony" <AKRachal@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Arturo,
I just received a call from Ofc. Kroushour of ABAT placed during his inspection of The
New Parish club with the Fire Marshal. Ofc. Kroushour learned The New Parish club has a
planned concert scheduled for this evening involving a traveling band. Although Ofc.
Kroushour reminded the owner, Michael OConnor, of the cabaret Cease and Desist order;
it appears Mr. OConnor does not intend to comply. I have directed my staff to shut down
any cabaret activity this evening. I would prefer, of course, that we receive voluntary
000047
compliance from Mr. OConnor to avoid the need for enforcement action using precious
Patrol resources.
I understand that you may have recently discussed the Cease and Desist order with Mr.
OConnor, please promptly call or visit him to convey our stance on this issue.
Thank you,
Anthony K. Rachal
Interim Deputy Chief of Police
Bureau of Field Operations - 1
[510] 238-3075
The mission of the Oakland Police Department is to provide the people of Oakland an environment
where they can live, work, play, and thrive free from crime and the fear of crime.
<image002.png>
000048
From:
Sent:
To:
CC:
Subject:
Jenn and Nancy,
"Williams, Sharon J" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY

CENTER/RECIPIENTS/WILLI9S>
5/31/2013 8:50:55 AM -0700
"Marcus, Nancy" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY
CENTER/RECIPIENTS/HUMAN SERVICES/MARCU9N>; "Sena,
Jennifer" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY
CENTER/RECIPIENTS/SILVA9J>
"Crudele, Vincent" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY
CENTER/RECIPIENTS/CRUDE9V>; "Sanchez, Arturo M" <CITY OF
OAKLAND/CITY CENTER/RECIPIENTS/SANCH9AM>; "Cabral,
Jorge" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY
CENTER/RECIPIENTS/CABRA9J>; "Espinoza, Pedro" <CITY OF
OAKLAND/CITY CENTER/RECIPIENTS/ESPIN9P>; "Ferran, Elias"
<CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE/RECIPIENTS/FERRA9E>; "Catano, Kim" <CITY OF
OAKLAND/CITY CENTER/RECIPIENTS/CATAN9K>; "Cook, Brigitte"
<CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY CENTER/RECIPIENTS/COOK9B>;
"Farmer, Casey" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY
CENTER/RECIPIENTS/FARME9C>; "McElhaney, Lynette" <CITY OF
OAKLAND/CITY CENTER/RECIPIENTS/MCELH9L>; "Wald, Zachary"
<CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY CENTER/RECIPIENTS/WALD9Z>;
"Downing, David" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY
CENTER/RECIPIENTS/DOWNI9D10003474>; "Lewis, Eric" <CITY OF
OAKLAND/CITY CENTER/RECIPIENTS/LEWIS9E>
Re: New Parish/Rock Steady
What are the next steps? Please forward all future correspondences to Acting Captain E.
Lewis.
Thanks
Sharon J. Williams
On May 31, 2013, at 8:44 AM, "Crudele, Vincent" <VCrudele@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
All,
Please be advised that the New Parish is in violation of condition 3 - fire sprinkler system
and fire alarm system requirements effective at end of business today.
They continue to overcrowd their establishment during concert events, not keeping an
accurate count of persons on the interior. They are not allowed more than 299 persons.
They allow smoking inside a building which is not protected by a fire alarm system and full
fire sprinkler system, in violation of multiple California laws and are bold enough to post it
on social media.
They have continually IGNORED my verbal and written warnings to comply.
What is our next course of action? They have events coming up this weekend with
000052
expected large sellout crowds.

Thank you,
Vince Crudele
Fire Inspector
Oakland Fire Department
From: Marcus, Nancy

Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 5:05 PM
To: Sena, Jennifer; Williams, Sharon J; Rachal, Anthony; Crudele, Vincent; Sanchez,
Arturo M; Cabral, Jorge; Espinoza, Pedro; Ferran, Elias
Cc: Cook, Brigitte; Farmer, Casey; McElhaney, Lynette; Wald, Zachary
Subject: New Parish/Rock Steady
Attached are their permits and signed conditions.
Nancy Marcus
Special Business Permits
Office of the City Administrator
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza 11th Fl.
Oakland, CA 94612
510-238-3294
510-238-7084 (fax)
City offices closed February 11, 12 & 18, 2013
000053
From:
Sent:
To:
CC:
Subject:
Attachments:
"Vasquez, Susan" <SVasquez@oaklandnet.com>

9/4/2015 9:29:45 AM -0700
"Trujillo, Miguel" <MTrujillo@oaklandnet.com>; "Ferran, Elias"
<EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org>; "Sena, Jennifer"
<JJSena@oaklandnet.com>; "Allison, Darren"
<DAllison@oaklandnet.com>; "Low, Tim"
<TLow@oaklandnet.com>; "Marcus, Nancy"
<NMarcus@oaklandnet.com>
"Minor, Gregory" <GMinor@oaklandnet.com>; "Landreth,
Sabrina" <SLandreth@oaklandnet.com>
5447 Telegraph Ave dba Leo's - FEE ASSESSMENT NOTICE
DOC090415.pdf
Good morning All,

Attached please find your file copy. Copies were sent out to all offices and
officials that may be affected by our actions.
Thanks,
Susan Vasquez
City Administrator's Office
Nuisance Abatement Division
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 11th floor
(510) 238-7487
000054

Prod Set 3 PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Prod Set 3 PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

From:

"Minor, Gregory" <GMinor@oaklandnet.com>

From: jason100watt@gmail.com [mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jason Perkins

To: Warren, Selia

This is the first time the attachment came through

Got it and received

From: jason100watt@gmail.com [mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jason Perkins

On Thursday, December 10, 2015, Ferran, Elias <EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org<mailto:EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org>>

From: jason100watt@gmail.com<mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com> [mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jason

Parish Entertainment Group

"Minor, Gregory" <GMinor@oaklandnet.com>

From: jason100watt@gmail.com [mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jason Perkins

To: Warren, Selia

This is the first time the attachment came through

Got it and received

From: jason100watt@gmail.com [mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jason Perkins

On Thursday, December 10, 2015, Ferran, Elias <EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org<mailto:EFerran@oaklandcityattorney.org>>

From: jason100watt@gmail.com<mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com> [mailto:jason100watt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jason

Parish Entertainment Group

BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney, SBN 069722

SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. RG15783742

RESPONDENT VINCENT CRUDELES

[Code of Civil Procedure 527.6(h)]

Date: November 12, 2015

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(h) Respondent Vincent Crudele

ATTACHMENT 9 JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE

A. Respondents Prior Interactions with Petitioner.

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE1

b. February 2013 August 2013.

2 no longer in charge of code enforcement for businesses. (Id. 17.)

1 illegally. (Minor Decl. 11.)

D. Petitioners False Allegations in the Petition.

1 Respondents lack of contact with Petitioner).)

To assuage any concerns of Petitioners counsel, Respondent agreed, informally, to avoid

Petitioner alleges three dates in which Respondent supposedly engaged in illegal

Dated: October 26, 2015

BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney

ATTACHMENT 11 LAWYERS FEES AND COSTS

"Crudele, Vincent" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY

#33 illegally constructed rooftop framing and canopy

Special Business Permits

City offices closed February 11, 12 & 18, 2013

may appoint a designee.

I hereby certify that, through my signature, I ________________________________

Signed: ________________________________________________ Date: _______________

Signed: _______________________________________________ Date: _________________

meetings and action taken to resolve any complaints.

I hereby certify that, through my signature, I ________________________________

Signed: ________________________________________________ Date: _______________

Signed: _______________________________________________ Date: _________________

1 BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney, SBN 069722

Attorneys for Respondent

Case No. RG15783742

[Code of Civil Procedure 527.6(h)]

Date: November 12, 2015

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(h) Respondent Vincent Crudele

A. Respondents Prior Interactions with Petitioner.

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE1

Report of Fire Inspection documenting numerous Fire Code violations. (Id.)

(Crudele Decl. 28 & Exh. M.)

5 To assuage any concerns of Petitioners counsel, Respondent agreed, informally, to avoid

in town on this date. (Crudele Decl. 33.)

Signed: __________________________________ Date: _

Signed: _______________________________ Date: _

Signed: __________________________________ Date: _

Signed: _______________________________ Date: _