• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Dowkin et al hpd discrimination answer
 

Dowkin et al hpd discrimination answer

on

  • 1,282 views

HPD discrimination answer to complaint.

HPD discrimination answer to complaint.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,282
Views on SlideShare
806
Embed Views
476

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

3 Embeds 476

http://www.civilbeat.com 387
http://m.civilbeat.com 88
http://cb-prod.herokuapp.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Dowkin et al hpd discrimination answer Dowkin et al hpd discrimination answer Document Transcript

    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 4474 ROBERT CARSON GODBEY, 4685 Corporation Counsel D. SCOTT DODD, 6811 Deputy Corporation Counsel Department of the Corporation Counsel City and County of Honolulu Honolulu Hale, Room 110 530 South King Street Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Telephone: (808) 768-5129 Facsimile: (808) 768-5105 E-mail address: dsdodd@honolulu.gov Attorneys for City Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN ) CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO ) DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, JR. and ) OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT- ) DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND BAGORIO, ) COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER ) CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE Plaintiffs, ) CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF ) POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, vs. ) ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL ) TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH THE HONOLULU POLICE ) SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND ) MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER ) DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE ) SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF ) KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ) AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL ) FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH ) RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 4475 SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN ) COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE ) AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL ) AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN ) JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM ) TRIAL BY JURY; CERTIFICATE OF AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE ) SERVICE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT ) RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER ) COLBY KASHIMOTO, PAT AH LOO ) and Does 1-100, ) ) Defendants. ) Trial Date: January 15, 2013 ________________________________ ) DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012 Defendants THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND -2-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 4476 PAT AH LOO (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “City Defendants”1), by and through their attorneys, Robert Carson Godbey, Corporation Counsel, and D. Scott Dodd, Deputy Corporation Counsel, for their answer to Plaintiffs Sherman Dean Dowkin (“Dowkin”), Federico Delgadillo Martinez, Jr. (“Delgadillo”), and Cassandra Bennett-Bagorio’ (“Bagorio”) Third Amended Complaint filed herein on January 17, 2011 (hereinafter “Complaint”)(ECF No. 221), state and allege as follows: FIRST DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a claim against the City Defendants upon which relief can be granted. SECOND DEFENSE 1. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 35, 36, and 206 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit said allegations. 2. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 24, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 59, 69, 70, 76, 100, 110, 125, and 238 of the Complaint, the City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 1 As a result of the Court’s July 23, 2012 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal of Third Amended Complaint, there are no claims remaining against Defendants Boisse Correa, Louis Kealoha, Michael Tamashiro, Kenneth Simmons, John McEntire, Nyle Dolera, Michael Serrao, or Pat Ah Loo. -3-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 4477 3. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 4, 23, 25, 38, 39, 40, 41, 51, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 84, 86, 88, 90, 94, 97, 103, 108, 109, 115, 116, 122, 140, 141, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 199, 200, 203, and 205 of the Complaint, the City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing, and deny the allegations as worded. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 4. The City Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 31, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 54A, 54B, 54C, 54E, 54F, 54G, 54H, 54I, 64, 65, 66, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 101, 104, 105, 106, 111, 112, 113, 117, 120, 123, 124, 126, 127, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 186, 193, 194, 195, 201, 204, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 229, 234, 235, 236 and 237. 5. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 3 and 9 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that the City is a municipal corporation, and that the Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) is a department within the City. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. -4-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 4478 6. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, the City Defendants deny that Plaintiff Delgadillo was constructively discharged and forced to resign from his employment with HPD. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 7. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Boisse Correa was the Chief of Police of the Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 8. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Louis Kealoha was the Chief of Police of HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. -5-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 4479 9. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Michael Tamashiro was an Assistant Chief of Police for HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 10. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Kenneth Simmons was a Major with HPD relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 11. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that John McEntire was a Major with HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 12. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Nyle Dolera was a Captain with HPD -6-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 4480 during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 13. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that William Axt was a Lieutenant with HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 14. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Dan Kwon was a Lieutenant with HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 15. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Michael Serrao was a Lieutenant with HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without -7-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 4481 knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 16. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Wayne Fernandez was a Sergeant with HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 17. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Ralstan Tanaka was a Sergeant with HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 18. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Patrick Ah Loo was a civilian labor relations advisor with HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to -8-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 4482 the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 19. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Colby Kashimoto was an officer with HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 20. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin was assigned to head the DUI team in District 4. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 21. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 42, 68 and 114 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin filed a written complaint alleging racial discrimination, and delivered the complaint to Defendant Simmons. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to -9-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 4483 the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 22. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Defendant Fernandez visited HPD’s Central Receiving to visit an acquaintance. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing, or that Defendant Fernandez’ entry was not authorized. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 23. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 54D and 118 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that the DUI team was disbanded. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing, or that there was any causal link between the filing of the racial discrimination complaint and the disbanding of the DUI team. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 24. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 58 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin was assigned to supervise the DUI team, and that Plaintiff Delgadillo became a member of the team. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City -10-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 4484 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 25. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 67 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiffs’ complaints of discrimination and retaliation were investigated. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 26. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 78 and 119 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Bagorio was instructed to provide testimony regarding Plaintiffs Dowkin and Delgadillo’s complaint of racial discrimination, but deny any wrongdoing associated with that event, and deny that Plaintiff Bagorio’s testimony supported the claims of racial discrimination. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 27. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 98 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin met with Defendant Kwon, but deny that Defendant Kwon failed to provide backup cover or assistance, -11-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 4485 or any other wrongdoing associated with that event. The City Defendants further admit that on November 3, 2007 Plaintiff Dowkin made a complaint about this incident with Defendant Dolera, and that on November 10, 2007 Defendant Dolera sent Plaintiff Dowkin an e-mail, but deny any wrongdoing associated with those events. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 28. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 99 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that on November 16, 2007 an HPD Information Notice District 4 was issued by the District 4 administration which referenced the “Stan Cook” incident. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 29. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 102 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that on November 28, 2007, Defendant Kwon sent a memorandum to Defendant Dolera regarding the issue of backup cover, and that on December 4, 2007 Defendant Dolera reminded those under his command of the importance of providing backup cover to fellow police officers. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are -12-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 4486 without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 30. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 107 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Dowkin and Delgadillo met with Lt. Axt. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 31. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 121 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Dowkin and Delgadillo filed charges of racial discrimination and retaliation, but deny that “additional acts of retaliation continued to be perpetrated by Defendants,” or that any racial discrimination or retaliation occurred. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 32. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 128 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Delgadillo was found to have violated certain standards of conduct in connection with his activities involving the sale of tamales. The City Defendants deny that Plaintiff Dowkin and Plaintiff Delgadillo were falsely accused, or that the investigation was retaliatory or improper in any manner, and deny all allegations of wrongdoing. The City -13-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 4487 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 33. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 129 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Delgadillo was provided with a lighter weight “blue light bar” as Plaintiff Delgadillo had complained he had injured himself with the newer heavier “blue light bars,” but deny this would result in Plaintiff Delgadillo being less safe when making traffic stops at night. The City Defendants deny that Plaintiff Bennett-Bagorio was given a false or negative performance evaluation, deny that the evaluation was retaliatory, and deny any wrongdoing associated with any of the allegations. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 34. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 130 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Bagorio filed a charge of gender discrimination and retaliation, but deny she suffered any gender discrimination or retaliation. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. -14-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 4488 35. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 131 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin gave Plaintiff Delgadillo a “5” rating, but deny the remaining allegations in said paragraph. 36. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Bagorio suffered a back injury, and that Defendant Tanaka was a supervising officer on scene, but deny all allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same. 37. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 142 of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin was informed that his complaint of racial discrimination was not sustained, but deny the remaining allegations in said paragraph. 38. In response to paragraph 143 of the Complaint, the City Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 142, as though fully set forth herein. 39. In response to paragraphs 144, 145, 146 and 147 of the Complaint, the City Defendants deny that they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C., Section 2000e-2, et seq.) or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief -15-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 16 of 33 PageID #: 4489 as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny same. 40. In response to paragraph 148 of the Complaint, the City Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 147 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 41. In response to paragraphs 149, 150, 151, 152 and 153 of the Complaint, the City Defendants deny that they violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C., Section 2000d, et seq.) or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny same. 42. In response to paragraph 154 of the Complaint, the City Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 153 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 43. In response to paragraphs 155, 156, 157 and 158 of the Complaint, the City Defendants deny that they violated the Hawai‘i State Constitution or the Hawai‘i Civil Rights Law (Hawai‘i Constitution, Article I, Sections 3, 4, and 5 and Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Section 378-2, et seq.) or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient -16-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 17 of 33 PageID #: 4490 to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny same. 44. In response to paragraph 159 of the Complaint, the City Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 158 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 45. In response to paragraphs 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 and 165 of the Complaint, the City Defendants deny that were negligent in any manner or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The City Defendants note that the allegations in this cause of action against Defendants Kwon, Tanaka and Fernandez were dismissed by the Court’s July 23, 2012 Order. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny same. 46. In response to paragraph 166 of the Complaint, the City Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 165 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 47. In response to paragraphs 167, 168, 169 and 170 of the Complaint, the City Defendants deny that they intentionally (or otherwise) inflicted emotional distress upon any of the Plaintiffs or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to -17-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 18 of 33 PageID #: 4491 the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny same. 48. In response to paragraph 171 of the Complaint, the City Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 170 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 49. In response to paragraphs 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177 and 178 of the Complaint, the City Defendants deny that they were negligent or inflicted emotional distress upon any of the Plaintiffs or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny same. 50. In response to paragraph 179 of the Complaint, the City Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 178 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 51. In response to paragraphs 180 through 229 of the Complaint, inclusive, the City Defendants deny that they violated the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. Section 1983), or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The City Defendants note that the allegations and claims in this cause of action were dismissed by the Court’s July 23, 2012 Order. The City Defendants are without -18-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 19 of 33 PageID #: 4492 knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny same. 52. In response to paragraph 230 of the Complaint, the City Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 229 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 53. In response to paragraphs 231, 232 and 233 of the Complaint, the City Defendants deny that they (or any of them) engaged in any conspiracy, or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The City Defendants note that the allegations and claims in this cause of action were dismissed by the Court’s July 23, 2012 Order. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny same. 54. The City Defendants deny all allegations of the Complaint not previously admitted, denied, or otherwise responded to herein. THIRD DEFENSE The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the affirmative defense that they are not liable to Plaintiffs for racial and/or sexual discrimination nor retaliation because the City Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any alleged discriminating and/or retaliating behavior, if any, and Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective -19-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 20 of 33 PageID #: 4493 opportunities provided by the employer or unreasonably failed to otherwise avoid harm. FOURTH DEFENSE The City Defendants had legitimate non-retaliatory reasons for the challenged employment actions. FIFTH DEFENSE The acts alleged do not constitute an official policy or persistent pattern, practice or custom. SIXTH DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and/or damages were the result of their own wrongful, intentional, reckless and malicious misconduct. SEVENTH DEFENSE The City Defendants may assert the defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel. EIGHTH DEFENSE The City Defendants give notice that they may assert the defenses of laches, waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands. NINTH DEFENSE The City Defendants give notice that they may assert the right to rely on the defenses of consent and justification. -20-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 21 of 33 PageID #: 4494 TENTH DEFENSE The conduct of the City Defendants was at all times lawful, reasonable and proper. ELEVENTH DEFENSE The City Defendants give notice that they have no duty, and accordingly, are not liable for any injuries and/or damages to Plaintiffs that may have resulted from any illegal acts committed by others that may have given rise to the alleged injuries and/or damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs. TWELFTH DEFENSE Plaintiffs have not suffered any emotional distress compensable under the law. THIRTEENTH DEFENSE By law, Plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive damages against the City. FOURTEENTH DEFENSE The City Defendants are not liable to Plaintiffs for the alleged injuries and/or damages on any and all claims based on their alleged failure to adequately enforce statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations and/or any other applicable law. FIFTEENTH DEFENSE The City Defendants give notice that they may rely upon the defense of truth. -21-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 22 of 33 PageID #: 4495 SIXTEENTH DEFENSE The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the defense of privilege. SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the defenses of fraud and illegality. EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE The City Defendants may rely on the defense of bad faith. NINETEENTH DEFENSE The individual Defendants are entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity, and the Hawai‘i state law conditional or qualified privilege. If a City employee or officer is immune from liability, then his/her employer, the City, is likewise immune from liability. TWENTIETH DEFENSE The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the defense that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages. TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE The City Defendants are not liable for Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries because the City Defendants did not have actual or constructive knowledge or notice of the -22-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 23 of 33 PageID #: 4496 alleged facts and circumstances, which Plaintiffs assert were responsible for their injuries. TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE The City Defendants may rely on the defense of misconduct of others over whom the City Defendants have no control. TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the defense of knowledge or acquiescence on Plaintiffs part. TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE A public employer is entitled to discipline a public employee for any other reason, good or bad, fair or unfair. TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE The acts of the City Defendants were not done with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs’ federally protected rights. TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE Plaintiffs have failed to bring their action within the applicable time period. TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE The actions of the City Defendants were not in retaliation for the exercise of any rights by Plaintiffs. -23-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 24 of 33 PageID #: 4497 TWENTY EIGHTH DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were sustained as a result of their own misconduct and/or wrongful acts. TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE The negligence or other wrongful acts and/or omissions of the City Defendants, if any, were not the proximate cause of the injuries and/or damages Plaintiffs allegedly sustained, i.e., such negligence or other wrongful acts and/or omissions, if any, were not a substantial factor in causing the injuries and/or damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs. THIRTIETH DEFENSE The City Defendants state that if the Plaintiffs were injured and/or damaged as alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiffs’ own negligence or other wrongful acts and/or omissions were the sole proximate cause of, or contributed to such injuries and/or damages to such extent that Plaintiffs’ negligence and other wrongful acts and/or omissions were greater than that of the City Defendants and Plaintiffs cannot recover against the City Defendants therefore. THIRTY-FIRST DEFENSE The City Defendants are not liable for the injuries and/or damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs because the City Defendants did not have actual or constructive knowledge or notice of the condition alleged to have existed, if said -24-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 25 of 33 PageID #: 4498 condition alleged was responsible for the injuries and/or damages suffered by Plaintiffs. THIRTY-SECOND DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations. THIRTY-THIRD DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ claims, in whole or in part, are barred by Plaintiffs’ consent, participation in, creation of or other acquiescence to the condition. THIRTY-FOURTH DEFENSE The City Defendants may rely upon the defense that Plaintiffs have failed to plead all elements of one or more of their causes of action. THIRTY-FIFTH DEFENSE The City may rely upon the defense that Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust administrative remedies. THIRTY-SIXTH DEFENSE The City Defendants reserve all rights to assert any affirmative defenses or to rely on any other matter constituting an avoidance pursuant to Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to seek leave to amend their Answer to allege any such defenses and to assert any other defenses, claims and counterclaims as discovery and the evidence may merit. -25-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 26 of 33 PageID #: 4499 WHEREFORE, the City prays as follows: A. That the Complaint herein be dismissed and the City Defendants be given their costs and attorneys’ fees; B. That if it be determined that Plaintiffs, the City Defendants and/or other defendants were negligent with respect to the events described in the Complaint, the relative and comparative degree of fault of each party be determined in accordance with Section 663-31 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, as amended; C. That if it is determined that if any of the City Defendants are a tortfeasor along with one or more other tortfeasors, the City Defendants shall be liable for no more than that percentage of the damages attributable to the City Defendant(s), and judgment be rendered accordingly; D. The City Defendants be given such other and further relief as this Court deems just. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, Tuesday, August 14, 2012. ROBERT CARSON GODBEY Corporation Counsel By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd D. SCOTT DODD Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, -26-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 27 of 33 PageID #: 4500 FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, and PAT LOO 10-01301/239585 ****************************************************************** CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs. THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -27-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 28 of 33 PageID #: 4501 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN ) CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/ RLP DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO ) DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, JR. and ) OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT- ) DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY BAGORIO, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) THE HONOLULU POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND ) COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER ) CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE ) CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF ) POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ) ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL ) TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH ) SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN ) MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE ) DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL ) SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN ) KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM ) AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE ) FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT ) RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER ) COLBY KASHIMOTO, PAT AH LOO ) and Does 1-100, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ________________________________ )
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 29 of 33 PageID #: 4502 DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Defendants THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues herein triable of right by a jury. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, Tuesday, August 14, 2012. ROBERT CARSOPN GODBEY Corporation Counsel By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd D. SCOTT DODD Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Defendants THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT -2-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 30 of 33 PageID #: 4503 WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, and PAT LOO 10-01301/239585 ****************************************************************** CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs. THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -3-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 31 of 33 PageID #: 4504 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN ) CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/ LEK DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO ) DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, JR. and ) OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT- ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BAGORIO, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) THE HONOLULU POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND ) COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER ) CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE ) CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF ) POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ) ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL ) TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH ) SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN ) MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE ) DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL ) SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN ) KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM ) AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE ) FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT ) RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER ) COLBY KASHIMOTO, PAT AH LOO ) and Does 1-100, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ________________________________ ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 32 of 33 PageID #: 4505 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was duly served by the method of service noted, on the following individuals at their addresses listed below on Tuesday, August 14, 2012: Served Electronically through CM/ECF: MERIT BENNETT, ESQ. meritbennett@aol.com The Bennett Firm 1050 Bishop Street, #302 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 SETH L. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. attnyslgoldstein@aol.com Law Offices of Seth L. Goldstein 2100 Garden Road, Suite H-8 Monterey, CA 93940 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, JR. and OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT-BAGORIO DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, Tuesday, August 14, 2012. ROBERT CARSON GODBEY Corporation Counsel By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd D. SCOTT DODD Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR -2-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 33 of 33 PageID #: 4506 KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, and PAT LOO 10-01301/239585 ****************************************************************** CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs. THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -3-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390-1 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 4507 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN ) CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/ RLP DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO ) DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, JR. and ) OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT- ) DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY BAGORIO, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) THE HONOLULU POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND ) COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER ) CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE ) CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF ) POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ) ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL ) TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH ) SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN ) MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE ) DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL ) SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN ) KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM ) AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE ) FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT ) RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER ) COLBY KASHIMOTO, PAT AH LOO ) and Does 1-100, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ________________________________ )
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390-1 Filed 08/14/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 4508 DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Defendants THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues herein triable of right by a jury. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, Tuesday, August 14, 2012. ROBERT CARSOPN GODBEY Corporation Counsel By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd D. SCOTT DODD Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Defendants THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT -2-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390-1 Filed 08/14/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 4509 WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, and PAT LOO 10-01301/239585 ****************************************************************** CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs. THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -3-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390-2 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 4510 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN ) CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/ LEK DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO ) DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, JR. and ) OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT- ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BAGORIO, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) THE HONOLULU POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND ) COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER ) CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE ) CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF ) POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ) ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL ) TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH ) SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN ) MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE ) DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL ) SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN ) KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM ) AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE ) FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT ) RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER ) COLBY KASHIMOTO, PAT AH LOO ) and Does 1-100, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ________________________________ ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390-2 Filed 08/14/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 4511 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was duly served by the method of service noted, on the following individuals at their addresses listed below on Tuesday, August 14, 2012: Served Electronically through CM/ECF: MERIT BENNETT, ESQ. meritbennett@aol.com The Bennett Firm 1050 Bishop Street, #302 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 SETH L. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. attnyslgoldstein@aol.com Law Offices of Seth L. Goldstein 2100 Garden Road, Suite H-8 Monterey, CA 93940 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, JR. and OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT-BAGORIO DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, Tuesday, August 14, 2012. ROBERT CARSON GODBEY Corporation Counsel By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd D. SCOTT DODD Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR -2-
    • Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390-2 Filed 08/14/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 4512 KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, and PAT LOO 10-01301/239585 ****************************************************************** CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs. THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -3-