Jane Wang vs. City of Cupertino, et al.AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO
for the
JANE WANG
Plaintiff(s)
V.
CITY OF CUPERTINO, et al.
Defendant(s)
Northern District of California
MAR 9 2023
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
Case No. 22-cv-06822-BLF
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant's name and address)
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
4087673200
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,
whose name and address are:
Jane Wang
6146 Bollinger Road
Number 472
San Jose, CA 95129
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
c�ms nicTR,c
Mark B.Busby
T
Date: January 18, 2023
�R . �� ignature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
�rlAICC O4
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
Jane Wang
6146 Bollinger Rd #472
San Jose, CA
Plaintiff in Pro Per
UNITED STATES
NORTHERN DISTR]
JANE WANG, Huang family, Does 1-10
Plaintiff
VS.
City of Cupertino, Phillip Willkomm, Does 1-50
Defendant,
1.Plaintiff
Jane Wang, Does 1-10
6146 Bollinger Rd #472
San Jose, CA
4086731820
2. Defendant
Defendant 1
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
4087673200
Defendant 2
Phillip Willkomm
Former enforcement officer of City of Cupertino
2031 Howe Ave STE 100, Sacramento, CA 95825
DISTRICT COURT
CT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 22-cv-06822-BLF
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2na Amended Complaint
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PARTIIES
JURISDICTION
3.My case belongs in federal court
federal question jurisdiction because it is involves a federal law or right.
VENUE
4.Venue is appropriate in this Court because:
a substantial part of the events I am suing about happened in this district.
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
5.Because this lawsuit arose in Santa Clara County, it should be assigned to the San Jose Division of this Court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
[COMPLAINT] - 1
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
Plaintiff, Jane Wang, (hereinafter "plaintiff"), alleges: Defendants City of Cupertino(hereinafter "City") is an
Agency, at all times alleged, doing business in the State of California, County of Santa Clara and is subject to
suit under the Federal and California law. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of those
defendants sued herein as Does 1-50, and therefore sue those defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will
amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained;
1. Plaintiff is a resident of Santa Clara County, California; Chinese Single female.
2. On and off June 2016, the 1st playhouse/shed was to comply with County rules. Our real estate agent, Talajia
told us the place is in Unincorporated County Section; It's mere 120 sq ft, Cupertino City mayor, Manager were
OK; but under harassment by Phillip Willkomm and few.
3. On and off June to Dec. 16', plaintiff was told what to do by City bldg. planning, no issue, even sketched
together under Ellen Yau, and Gian Martire. Was told no permit was needed. Subsequently, tore down existing
structure
4. June to July, 2018 we were informed that a permit would not be necessary even after repeatedly repeated
requests to have one per former contractor's instruction. Chang and Erika Poveda (was pointed to later)
Catarina Kidd (business card given) were to give permit, but were told no need; not given; wall is well removed
from anyone, far away and the only ones possibly affected had no issue.
5. On and off Dec. 18 of 2018, Plaintiff was specifically targeted again because of her age, race, marital status, an
Asian female with elders and minor to take care of in broken family. Got same ticket from same Enforcement
Officer Phillip Willkomm, whom we had issue with earlier. While leaving message to get representative to ask
questions, City and Phillip Willkomm retaliated with five -figure fine threat within hours.
6. On April 9 of 2019, an appeal meeting was held with the Enforcement Officer in attendance, not a neutral party
per City procedure. The mediator was from Data Ticket, a 3rd party service provider that manages citations and
collections. It was a biased process despite explanations that we requested a permit (not provided) along with a
neutral inspector that we could provide (i.e. contractor Dean, Mark, etc.), who is reputable in the field. City
didn't follow own local process.
17
8
0
We are forced to file administration writ as there was no claim form. We filed with State Department of Fair
Housing (DFH/FEHA) and informed City we intended to file whatever. claim complaint in the Court within the
dates the office told us, demand 3rd party review; which right after the Plaintiff's City appeal got denied, told
that's the only way, and further retaliation on 2nd buildup, Having a plan is necessary per reference and quoted
case; as last time the `thin board' claimed to be a wall, with overhang/shelf viewed as 2ndstory. Higher
backyard ground level than next door, where buildup stands mere 12' becomes many feet more.
On and off April 23, May 7 14, 21, 28, of 2019 and on we went to the public meetings to condemn the
discrimination, etc., City closed doors on. us using tax dollars we paid to get parties to do damages to us, with
owners being of old age, in and out hospitals
On and off end of 19' to early 20', their unjustified retaliation/sanction to retaliate us for their not showing up,
but excuse our not being there falsely, our request for 3rd party never happened, gets their own same Officer in,
[COMPLAINT) - 2
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
no required documents provided, all our response becomes `null' on their documents, which is the constant
falsehood, malicious tactics. On the contrary, for the discovery set we sent to this day? No response.
10. During January 2020, City used superior power skill, being no shows in hearing many times after confirmation,
our motions still denied. Again, didn't give us due process after we repeatedly requested.
11. On and off August 27, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., City didn't allow trial, didn't allow witness, expert testimony,
evidence simply tries to default us on SMJ hearing which we were barred outside court while City had access to
court during COVID, and repeatedly deny our motion, the false `no contest' result is based on `no permit' while
resident has a `symbolic' permit. City repeatedly uses honorable court to deny our request for the right to be
heard.
12. On and off mid-2020; filed claim about first property loss or so; no City claim form provided, filed form with
DFH and got confirmation letter on the City's action related to retaliatory fine, torn down buildup, including
previous excessive measure to have torn down after much double-talk; later notified us to deal with City.
Plaintiff served and requested default about June of 2021, attorney Laura said City would not pursue, we could
keep the way buildup is, no more action from City and we don't need to do anything about it. We repeatedly di(
ask to write down, but she.said not needed, with similar promises several times more along the way.
13. On and off in September of 2021, City breached own agreement and rule after Plaintiff got'symbolic permit', tc
minimize possibility of being `screwed'. But City didn't even take close look, standing 100 ft away for few
seconds. We open the several feet deep long line ground for them, but City didn't look at plan or anything,
saying someone 'had complaint'. Otherwise `will work'; Plaintiff called later, City's saying `sure the back forth
will happen many times again'/ refer, it has been OK to be without permit the way as it has endless exchange
many times before from City. So deemed OK with or without it. Even got symbolic permit. Didn't render the
service we paid for.
14. On and off end of November of 2021, City Attorney underhandedly filed execution motion using different
court, our reconsideration appeal injection was deemed ineffective.
15. On December 6th of 2021, without notice, the backyard buildup including belongings, which the workers were
told to take away. Plaintiff tried to send email and call City Attorney, showing filed appeal, etc. at the same
time, etc. No response. Disparately said same to crew on site. Since the tragedy with the 'take away' by the 'mob
raid', which started in public without notice, at big downtown area with crowd, in front of elders and young
before the sun was all the way up to the dark with two of the biggest moving trucks we've ever seen, one of
which occupied the whole front driveway area.... full and overflow... which had taken family and contractor's
greater effort to dream and build it for kids, old, and young with our hand prints everywhere. So surprise to us.
16. On and off April 2022 Defendant couldn't answer after past date to respond to claim twice. City played
surreptitiously to make up story about Plaintiff s not filing right claim plus using sanction to exploit weaker
party.
17. On Oct. 6 of 2022, City again tries to ignore due process, self-servingly uses its `arcane skills', oppressive
tactics to blow back the default case by not notify the hearing to overpower Plaintiff. City instead again unfairly
imposes self -prepared extorted inflated legal fees under color of the law, which was said no charge earlier.
[COMPLAINT] - 3
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
Nevertheless, malicious retaliation. City again and again uses honorable legal system; their superior legal
resources to not let us present the merit, acted out of malice, fraud and oppression.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION/First Claim (Violations of due process 42 USC Code § 1983 et seq.—
Substance and Procedure under 141h amendment)
(As To All
18. Plaintiff followed the codes; City is the one didn't follow. Have the permit, did what was told, Plaintiff was
discriminated against constitution, denied 4`' amendment right to us. No notice is given to take away property
belonging; it's done without support.
19. Defendant acted willfully erroneously was refused to give permit as said not required, then got the `symbolic'
one while the warrant said there was no permit what so ever. `All projects under the 2019 California Codes of
Regulations and amendments ... codes and ordinances adopted by the City, and by providing field inspections',
per City own procedure, while City not providing inspection after issuing permit. Defendant filed under
different court for warrant clandestinely while called, begged, showed paper with permit, injection, set aside
court proceeding. If City didn't willfully change the court and case underhandedly, the injunction would work.
20. City didn't allow trial, didn't allow witness, expert testimony, evidence simply default us SMJ hearing which we
were barred outside court while City had access to court, and repeatedly deny our motion to set aside default.
On and around Dec. 6, 2 P, second time the property is down and taken away even belongings equivalents to
hundreds thousands dollar in front very young and old and public from dawn to dark, mob storms in, long term
irreversible emotional, financial damage, etc. Malice, oppress, abhorrent beyond human decency.
21. Defendant behaved egregiously, doing whatever they want. Often, drafted their own judgment everywhere self-
serving derive from self -interests, misuse honorable court trust, having received the green light, to include
frivolous sanctions with no restraint, turn white to black using their skills. Misuse force and legal system to
deprive Plaintiffs property, belongings and rights
22. The conduct of Defendant toward Plaintiff was outrageous and beyond the bounds of all human decency and is
the sort of conduct that a part of Defendant's culture/nature; As a result of the conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff
caused a complaint to be registered attempting to stop the conduct constituting malicious prosecution;
23. As a proximate result of lodging of the complaint/claim, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by acting in bad
faith, change policy, underhandedly manipulating process, torn down, taking property, personal belong,
sanction, retaliatory extorted fine, legal fees, etc. on a pretext;
24. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered injury/loss and severe emotional
distress, financial loss and continues, and will continue to suffer injury/loss and severe emotional distress,
financial loss and continues;
25. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has sought medical assistance, and will continue to
have the need of medical assistance;
[COMPLAINT] - 4
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
26. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff -has suffered property, personal belonging loss,
wage and benefit loss, financial loss, emotional distress and will continue to suffer future health, wage and
benefit loss, financial loss, etc.;
27. The conduct of Defendants was intentional, malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, despicable, and done without
regard for the rights, health, and safety, and financial concern of Plaintiff in that they subject Plaintiff to cruel
and unjust hardship. Therefore, Plaintiff prays for an award of exemplary damages to deter such future conduct
on the part of Defendants.
THEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR DAMAGES AS SET FORTH HEREINAFTER.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of the Equal Protection Clause 14th amendment)
(As To All
28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraph as though fully stated herein:
29. On administrative citation form, it shows cumulative way on fining, On and off Dec. 18', was specifically
targeted again because my race marital status, age, origin, Asian female with elder, minor to take care of in
broken family. The City code allows picketing in a residential neighborhood got small buildup at the backyard
related to the so called code if somehow say this one violated, but not pick on others, who's lot taller, closer to
fences. This residence is several feet higher ground than neighbor's, but City does not pick the others on higher
ground, falsely measuring from neighbor site ground to count the height/facade; there are plenty hill side
residents in the city, which city didn't do. This one is not even on hill site on top of profiling discriminating the
residents.
30. It's an invalid unequal process; Plaintiff requested a permit which was not provided per the building code,
eventually got `symbolic' one and a neutral inspector not provided. We were forced to file the initial civil
abate/claim called by City to deny a claim of public nuisance from Plaintiff/Petitioner's backyard and had since
request relief from various retaliatory penalties specified in City letters. City called it `nuisance', at no time the
direct affected neighbor got issues even had letter stated they are for it and open space behind buildup, the
resident got called `nuisance', and hidden front Public Street. Without effected ones concern and not on the wa;
to any from street, even if so, there's variance, fix, change order, etc. to keep it plus former contractor built the
way by the City. At no time, Plaintiff's residence is not qualified for any of above, and not got informed like
others, completely erroneous unnecessary fascist act.
31. The conduct of Defendants was intentional, malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, despicable, and done without
regard for the rights, health, and safety, and financial concern of Plaintiff in that they subject Plaintiff to cruel
and unjust hardship. Therefore, Plaintiff prays for an award of exemplary damages to deter such future conduct
on the part of Defendants.
THEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR DAMAGES AS SET FORTH HEREINAFTER.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (California Tort Act)
(As To All
[COMPLAINT] - 5
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
32. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraph as though fully stated herein:
33. Filed tort claim, received letter on off April. 20' and Oct. 22', denied claim. Got same ticket from same officer
Phillip Willkomm we had issue with earlier, while left message to get representative to ask questions, retaliated
with five -figure fine threat within hours, no previous citation received. This patterns continues, City default us
not giving proper court notice, while plaintiff asked for vacate, City retaliated, extorted with court fee, which
originally said `no motion cost to plaintiff, instead both side shall bare own cost, which Plaintiff besides
property damage, taken away, emotional distress, also had accumulated few large legal assist sum and monthly
payment, etc. The extorted court fee is out of norm among public agencies, besides retaliatory fee, also the
threat harmful letter/s.
34. The conduct of Defendants was intentional, malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, despicable, and done without
regard for the rights, health, and safety, and financial concern of Plaintiff in that they subject Plaintiff to cruel
and unjust hardship. Therefore, Plaintiff prays for an award of exemplary damages to deter such future conduct
on the part of Defendants. .
THEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR DAMAGES AS SET FORTH HEREINAFTER.
FORTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations Civil Rights, Bill of Rights, Deprivation of Civil Rights under
Color of Law)
(As To City)
35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraph as though fully stated herein:
36. Law prohibits officers from willfully depriving another of a constitutional right. City didn't follow own muni
code to have neutral appeal admin code 16.02 2, deliberately used honorable court to default plaintiff, even
knowingly, who was barred into court while City got access to the court on summary judgment Pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure §473(b), the court should set aside this adverse judgment or ruling based on
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The policy of the law is that controversies should be heard and
disposed of on their merits (Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 681, 694-703, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d
351; Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 900, 909, 95 Cal. Rptr. 417). 3) but defendant filed under
different court for warrant while called begged showed paper has injection, set aside court proceeding.
37. The conduct of Defendants was intentional, malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, despicable, and done without
regard for the rights, health, and safety, and financial concern of Plaintiff in that they subject Plaintiff to cruel
and unjust hardship. Therefore, Plaintiff prays for an award of exemplary damages to deter such future conduct
on the part of Defendants. .
THEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR DAMAGES AS SET FORTH HEREINAFTER.
FIFTH_CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of Bar on Enacting Ex Post Facto Law)
(As To City)
38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraph as though fully stated herein:
[COMPLAINT] - 6
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
39. Both administrative writ and 1 st complaint of first taken down was not answered even properly served multiple
times, the complaint was even evaded defaulted more than a year, but the default blows back by the City to be
alive then use their superior skill to default on us while we were barred out of court room during Covid/not give
notice on and off Dec.21', Oct. 22'. While we have `symbolic' permits, which was told not needed, still
prosecute plaintiff using order stated `no permit'. Every time, we expose and object the fault, neglect, erroneous
illicit act, City again and again exploits the weaker party, cause deliberated injury.
40. The conduct of Defendants was intentional, malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, despicable, and done without
regard for the rights, health, and safety, and financial concern of Plaintiff in that they subject Plaintiff to cruel
and unjust hardship. Therefore, Plaintiff prays for an award of exemplary damages to deter such future conduct
on the part of Defendants.
THEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR DAMAGES AS SET FORTH HEREINAFTER,
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of Prohibition against Bills of Attainder)
(As To City)
41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraph as though fully stated herein:
42. City called it `nuisance', at no time the direct affected neighbor got issues even had letter stated they are for it
and open space behind buildup, the resident got called `nuisance', and hidden front Public Street. Without
effected ones concern and not on the way to any from street, even if so, there's variance, fix, change order, etc.
to keep it plus former contractor built the way by the City. Without valid process, city didn't follow codes while
Plaintiff did follow codes but denied rights without due process/trial.
43. The conduct of Defendants was intentional, malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, despicable, and done without
regard for the rights, health, and safety, and financial concern of Plaintiff in that they subject Plaintiff to cruel
and unjust hardship. Therefore, Plaintiff prays for an award of exemplary damages to deter such future conduct
on the part of Defendants.
THEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR DAMAGES AS SET FORTH HEREINAFTER.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation)
(As To All)
44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraph as though fully stated herein:
45. Doesn't follow due process, doesn't follow own codes; don't give notice whether taking property or misuse of
the system/process to retaliate with extorted retaliatory fine or legal fee whenever Plaintiff objects is one of the
many forms of retaliation. City again and again exploits the weaker party, causes deliberated injury.
46. The conduct of Defendants was intentional, malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, despicable, and done without
regard for the rights, health, and safety, and financial concern of Plaintiff in that they subject Plaintiff to cruel
and unjust hardship. Therefore, Plaintiff prays for an award of exemplary damages to deter such future conduct
on the part of Defendants.
THEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR DAMAGES AS SET FORTH HEREINAFTER.
[COMPLAINT] - 7
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
EIGHT CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of 5TH Amendment)
(As To City
47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraph as though fully stated herein:
48. City willfully took property belonging without notice. Defendant behaved egregiously, doing whatever they
want. Often, drafted their own judgment everywhere self-serving derive from self -interests, misuse honorable
court trust, having received the green light, to include frivolous sanctions with no restraint, turn white to black
using their skills. Misuse force and legal system to deprive Plaintiff s property, belongings and rights
49. The conduct of Defendant toward Plaintiff was outrageous and beyond the bounds of all human decency and is
the sort of conduct that a part of Defendant's culture/nature; As a result of the conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff
caused a complaint to be registered attempting to stop the conduct constituting malicious prosecution;
50. As a proximate result of lodging of the complaint/claim, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by acting in bad
faith, change policy, underhandedly manipulating process, torn down, taking property, personal belong,
sanction, retaliatory extorted fine, legal fees, etc. on a pretext;
51. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff -has suffered property, personal belonging loss,
wage and benefit loss, financial loss, emotional distress and will continue to suffer future health, wage and
benefit loss, financial loss, etc.;
52. The conduct of Defendants was intentional, malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, despicable, and done without
regard for the rights, health, and safety, and financial concern of Plaintiff in that they subject Plaintiff to cruel
and unjust hardship. Therefore, Plaintiff prays for an award of exemplary damages to deter such future conduct
on the part of Defendants.
THEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR DAMAGES AS SET FORTH HEREINAFTER.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
53. A present and actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendants concerning their rights and respective
duties. Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated their rights under retaliation in violation of Due Process, US
Bill of Rights -all amendments, and adoption, fourteenth amendment, CA Tort Act, FEHA Act, Civil Code 1714
negligence, Civil Code Section 1431.2 CA code 815-818.9, California Civil Code 3294 CC, retaliation in
violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, Uniform Commercial Code(hereinafter "UCC")and adoption, US Tort Law,
violation of the CA Private Attorneys General Act, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act, 42 USC Code § 1983, Section 242 of Title 18 California Civil Code Section 51.7 et seq. and
more. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Defendants deny these allegations.
Declaratory relief is therefore necessary and appropriate.
54. Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration of the rights and duties of the respective parties.
INJUNCTION RELIEF ALLEGATIONS
55.No plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law is available to Plaintiff to redress the wrongs addressed herein.
[COMPLAINT] - 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
56.If this Court does not grant the injunctive relief sought herein, Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed.
THEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR DAMAGES AS SET FORTH HEREINAFTER.
1 For general and compensatory damages according to proof;
2. For special damages according to proof;
3. For exemplary damages for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, etc. causes of
action according to proof;
4. For attorney fees according to proof,
5. For costs of suit;
6. For prejudgment interest;
7. For a jury trial;
8. For such other and further relief as this court deems appropriate.
Dated: Jan 5, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
Huang family, Jane Wang
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demand a jury trial on all causes of action and claims to which she have a right to a jury trial.
Dated: October 10, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
/A/ L..*--
Huang family, Jane Wang
[COMPLAINT] - 9
Case 5:22-cv-06822-BLF Document 14 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JANE WANG,
Plaintiff,
V.
CITY OF CUPERTINO, et al.,
Defendants.
SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case No. 22-cv-06822-BLF
SCREENING ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
On November 8, 2022, Judge DeMarchi granted plaintiff Jane Wang's application to
proceed in forma pauperis and screened her complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-
(iii). See ECF No. 5. Ms. Wang subsequently filed an amended complaint, which Judge
DeMarchi screened on December 14, 2022. FAC Screening Order, ECF No. 8. The FAC
Screening Order stayed service of process and granted Ms. Wang an opportunity to further amend
her complaint. Id. at 2. On January 6, 2023, Ms. Wang filed a second amended complaint
("SAC"). ECF No. 13. This order screens the SAC.
In her FAC Screening Order, Judge DeMarchi indicated that the court was inclined to
order service of process on defendants, with the exception of the amended complaint's third claim
for relief. Id. at 1-2. Ms. Wang's third claim for relief was based on alleged violations of
"Federal Tort Act 32CFR." Id. at 2. Judge DeMarchi explained that, to the extent that the claim
meant to refer to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), there appeared to be no cognizable basis
for the claim because there was no indication Ms. Wang's allegations had anything to do with the
United States, the federal government, or any federal employee. Id. Judge DeMarchi stayed
service of process and gave Ms. Wang a further opportunity to amend her complaint solely to (1)
identify who Mr. Willkomm is and state facts indicating why he is liable for the alleged illegal
Case 5:22-cv-06822-BLF Document 14 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
C 13
�.
U 14
o
Q 15
a�
Q 16
b �
17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
acts about which Ms. Wang complains and (2) clarify the basis for the third claim for relief. Id.
Ms. Wang's SAC addresses the issues raised in the FAC Screening Order. Regarding Mr.
Willkomm, the SAC identifies Phillip Willkomm as a "former enforcement officer of City of
Cupertino." SAC 1. The SAC alleges that Mr. Wilkomm issued a "ticket" and threatened a "fine"
against Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 5, 33. Regarding the third claim for relief, the SAC now alleges a
violation of the "California Tort Act," which the Court interprets to be a reference to the
California Tort Claims Act ("CTCA"), Cal. Gov. Code § § 810-996.6. Under CTCA a "public
entity" is liable for "injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public
entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would ... have given rise to a
cause of action against that employee or his personal representative," and a "public employee" is
liable for "injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person." Cal. Gov't
Code § § 815, 820. The CTCA specifies that a public entity may be a city, and a public employee
is an employee of a public entity. Id. § § 811.2, 811.4. The claim is asserted "as to all," which the
Court interprets to include the City of Cupertino and Mr. Wilkomm—Defendants 1 and 2
identified on the first page of the SAC. See SAC 1.
In her FAC Screening Order, Judge DeMarchi noted that the complaint includes a list of
laws and statutes, the relevance of which is not clear based on the allegations as pled. The Court
finds that Ms. Wang's SAC similarly presents laws and statutes that may not be relevant to her
allegations. The Court finds, however, that it would be aided in resolving such matters through a
full and fair adversarial process with input from all parties.
Accordingly, the Court will allow service of the SAC on Defendants. The Clerk of the
Court SHALL issue the summons. Furthermore, the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of
California SHALL serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the SAC, any amendments or
attachments, and this order upon Defendants. This Order does not foreclose a motion to dismiss
the SAC by Defendant.
The Court notes that the text in the SAC appears to be in less than 12-point type. The
Court advises Ms. Wang that all written text in future filings shall be no less than 12-point type
2
Case 5:22-cv-06822-BLF Document 14 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3
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
and shall be double spaced. See L.R. Civ. 3-4(c)(2)(B).1 The Court further advises Ms. Wang to
review the Court's Standing Order Re Civil Cases for additional rules for filing in this Court.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 17, 2023
BETH ABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
1 https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/rules/civil-local-rules/
2 https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/judges/freeman-
blf/BLF_Standing_Order_re_Civil_Cases_2-18-2021.pdf
3