1 ELECTRONICALLY

Jon F. Monroy, SBN 51175

Jennifer E. Gysler, SBN 143449 FILED
2 MONROY, AVERBUCK & GYSLER 11/17/2017 12:28 PM
32123 Lindero Canyon Road, Ste 301
3 Westlake Village, CA 91361
(818) 889-0661 Fax (818) 889-0667
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
5 KAREN VELIE
6

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
9

10 KAREN VELIE ) Case No.:17CV-0622

)
11 Plaintiff, )
) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
12 ) REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
vs.
) (1) Intentional Interference with
13 ADAM HILL, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS ) Prospective Economic Relations
OBISPO, and DOES 1 through 50 ) (2) Intentional Interference with
14 ) Contractual Relations
Defendants ) (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
15 ) Distress
) (4) Negligent Infliction of Emotional
16 ) Distress
) (5) Violation of State Civil Rights
17 )
)
18 )
)
19

20 Plaintiff, KAREN VELIE, hereby files this Complaint against the defendants named and
21 identified below. Plaintiff alleges:
22 1. At all relevant times, plaintiff, KAREN VELIE is a resident of the County of San
23 Luis Obispo, California.
24 2. Defendant ADAM HILL, is sued individually and in his official capacity as a
25 Supervisor of the County of San Luis Obispo and at all relevant times is a resident of the County

Complaint - 1
 1 of San Luis Obispo. At all times relevant to the acts and omissions alleged herein, Adam Hill
2 was acting within the course and scope of his employment with the County of San Luis Obispo.
3 3. The COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO is a municipal subdivision of the United
4 States, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.
5 4. On April 14, 2016, a timely claim for damages was filed with the County of San
6 Luis Obispo, in substantial compliance with California Government Code, Section 910 et seq.
7 On April 28, 2016, the plaintiff was notified that the claim had been rejected. Thereafter, the
8 matter was tolled while pending in federal and state court.
9
5. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the doe defendants named
10
herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that these doe defendants are
11
legally responsible and liable for the incidents, injuries and damages, hereinafter set forth and
12
that each of said defendants proximately caused the injuries and damages by reason of negligent,
13
careless, deliberately indifferent, intentional, willful or wanton misconduct hereinafter set forth,
14
including the negligent, careless, deliberately indifferent, intentional, willful or wanton
15

16
misconduct in creating and otherwise causing the incidents, conditions and circumstances

17 hereinafter set forth, or by reason of direct or imputed negligence or vicarious fault or breach of

18 duty arising out of the matters herein alleged. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to

19 set forth said true names and identities of the unknown named DOE Defendants when they are
20 ascertained.
21
6. Each of the individual Defendants sued herein is sued both in his/her individual
22
and personal capacity, as well as in his/her official capacity. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and
23

24
therefore alleges that, at all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent and/or

25 employee and/or co-conspirator of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things

hereinafter alleged, was acting within the scope of such agency, employment and/or conspiracy

Complaint - 2
 1 and with the permission and consent of other co-defendants.
2
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
3
7. Karen Velie is an investigative news reporter and a majority owner of a local
4
media outlet, Cal Coast News (CCN), which investigates and reports on issues in the San Luis
5
Obispo community and surrounding areas. For the past several years, and up to and including
6
the present, she has been retaliated against by Adam Hill and his co-conspirators, some of whom
7
are employees/principals of the County of San Luis Obispo, for reporting on issues which are
8
matters of public interest, such as CCNs investigation of CAPSLOs homeless services which
9

10 was experiencing unexplained financial losses, a Sheriffs Public Relations representative using

11 government resources to help the Sheriff run for office, and other news worthy issues of public

12 interest. This harassment and retaliation began in 2012, and has been ongoing and continuing

13 through 2013, 2014, 2015 and up to the present day. Rather than declining, the retaliation has
14 increased to the point where Ms. Velie has no choice but to seek redress through the courts to
15
protect her family, her business and her reputation.
16
8. Ms. Velie was the subject of threats from Supervisor Adam Hill, to stop her
17
investigation of CAPSLO, and told Ms. Velie that he would go after CCN and Ms. Velie if
18
they continued their coverage. Supervisor Hill and Sheriff Ian Parkinson began threatening a
19
local radio show host, Dave Congelton, that they would no longer appear on his show unless they
20
stopped having Ms. Velie on as a guest. Supervisor Hill sent an email to David Congleton from
21

22
his County email address, harassing him for having Ms. Velie on as a guest, claiming she is paid

23 to write hit pieces, that she is dishonest, concocts stories and is mentally ill.

24 9. Ms. Velie is and has been frequently denied access to information available to the

25 public, including press releases by the County of San Luis Obispo, and specifically denied access

Complaint - 3
 1 to public information by Supervisor Hill, and others, who are directed to do so by their County
2 superiors, including Supervisor Hill. In the event Ms. Velie is provided with press releases, they
3
are sometimes delayed and released to her after having been released to others including media
4
outlets and news organizations. Further, Ms. Velie has been denied public documents by the
5
County of San Luis Obispo, requested by her, but which were provided to others, including other
6
media outlets, news organizations and reporters. These same County officials and departments
7
do not allow their employees to speak to Ms. Velie by phone. This includes the County
8
Administrative Office, the County Office of Human Resources, some individuals at the Board of
9

10
Supervisors (at the direction of County staff and officials), and the Sheriffs Department. Up

11 until January 2015, when a new district attorney was elected, Ms. Velie was also denied publicly

12 available press releases and publicly available information from the District Attorneys Office.

13 Prior misconduct and continuing misconduct by the County of San Luis Obispo and its agents,
14 officers and employees, including Supervisor Adam Hill, has prevented Ms. Velie, a news
15
reporter, from having equal access to publicly available press releases and information from the
16
County, its departments and employees, as has been normally and regularly extended and
17
granted to other members of the public, including news reporters and news agencies.
18
10. Ms. Velie has been the subject of other forms of retaliation by the defendants,
19
including the targeting of her advertisers, to withdraw their support of CCN, thereby limiting the
20
income of the business and precluding Ms. Velie and CCN from reporting the local news. Ms.
21

22
Velie herself has been the subject of threats and intimidation, at the direction of defendants, to

23 dissuade her from engaging in her job of investigative reporting.

24 11. Based on information and belief, Supervisor Hill has promoted and participated in

25 a Facebook Page called Cal Coast Fraud started and operated by Aaron Ochs, a business

Complaint - 4
 1 to public information by Supervisor Hill, and others, who are directed to do so by their County
2 superiors, including Supervisor Hill. In the event Ms. Velie is provided with press releases, they
3
are sometimes delayed and released to her after having been released to others including media
4
outlets and news organizations. Further, Ms. Velie has been denied public documents by the
5
County of San Luis Obispo, requested by her, but which were provided to others, including other
6
media outlets, news organizations and reporters. These same County officials and departments
7
do not allow their employees to speak to Ms. Velie by phone. This includes the County
8
Administrative Office, the County Office of Human Resources, some individuals at the Board of
9

10
Supervisors (at the direction of County staff and officials), and the Sheriffs Department. Up

11 until January 2015, when a new district attorney was elected, Ms. Velie was also denied publicly

12 available press releases and publicly available information from the District Attorneys Office.

13 Prior misconduct and continuing misconduct by the County of San Luis Obispo and its agents,
14 officers and employees, including Supervisor Adam Hill, has prevented Ms. Velie, a news
15
reporter, from having equal access to publicly available press releases and information from the
16
County, its departments and employees, as has been normally and regularly extended and
17
granted to other members of the public, including news reporters and news agencies.
18
10. Ms. Velie has been the subject of other forms of retaliation by the defendants,
19
including the targeting of her advertisers, to withdraw their support of CCN, thereby limiting the
20
income of the business and precluding Ms. Velie and CCN from reporting the local news. Ms.
21

22
Velie herself has been the subject of threats and intimidation, at the direction of defendants, to

23 dissuade her from engaging in her job of investigative reporting.

24 11. Based on information and belief, Supervisor Hill has promoted and participated in

25 a Facebook Page called Cal Coast Fraud started and operated by Aaron Ochs, a business

Complaint - 4
 1 associate of Mr. Hill. Supervisor Hill and other County officials, including DPSS Director Lee
2 Collins, have perpetuated degrading and humiliating remarks about Ms. Velie, in an effort to
3
intimidate and destroy her business, and keep her from reporting on issues involving Supervisor
4
Hill and his associates. This includes continuous, false claims that she is mentally ill, has a DSM
5
IV diagnosis, and made false claims that she is a convicted felon, false claims that her new
6
stories are not accurate, that she is paid to write untrue stories, as well as the posting of lewd
7
statements about Ms. Velie and her family, including her deceased daughter. Supervisor Hill has
8
also encouraged the posting of Ms. Velies home address and shared links to websites and
9

10
Facebook pages which contain derogatory postings about Ms. Velie and which encourage people

11 to go to her home and make threats against her. This resulted in Ms. Velie having to move

12 several times in fear of her own safety and that of her grandchildren. In the process, her dog was

13 fatally poisoned and left on her front porch. Also, a dead cat was placed on her front porch.
14 Requests to the San Luis Obispo Sheriffs Department for assistance have gone unanswered, as
15
part of the retaliation engaged in by Supervisor Hill and other staff, agents and employees of the
16
County yet to be identified. The County Sheriffs Department provided two altered incident
17
reports to Ms. Velie, and then failed to respond to requests for the accurate reports, knowing Ms.
18
Velie planned to use the reports to protect herself and her family.
19
12. Threats against CCN advertisers by defendants have caused Ms. Velie to lose
20
several advertising clients. She relies heavily on advertisers for income and to maintain her
21

22
business. Many advertisers told Ms. Velie that Supervisor Hill pressured them to withdraw their

23 support and/or made derogatory statements about Ms. Velie and her business, and their

24 businesses, which caused them to withdraw their support.

25

Complaint - 5
 1 13. The retaliation described herein has been primarily at the direction of Supervisor
2 Adam Hill, who has done so while performing his duties as a supervisor, and through the use of
3
County email and internet, while at his County offices. There may be others responsible whose
4
identities are unknown at this time.
5
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
6
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS
7
(Against all defendants and doe defendants 1-50)
8
14. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein as through fully set forth, the preceding
9
paragraphs, 1 through 13.
10
15. Pursuant to Government Code Section 815.2(a), a county is liable for acts and
11
omissions of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior to the same extent as a
12

13
private employer. Under Government Code Section 815.2(b), the county is immune from

14 liability if, and only if, the employee is immune.

15 16. Plaintiff Karen Velie, who has a majority ownership interest in Cal Coast News,

16 has suffered economic loss in her business and income, due to the conduct of the defendants.
17 Cal Coast News and Ms. Velie depend on advertisers as her main source of income. Ms. Velie
18
and Cal Coast News have and have had business relationships with several advertisers, who
19
reported to Ms. Velie they were pressured by Supervisor Adam Hill to withdraw their advertising
20
from Cal Coast News. This has been ongoing for at least the past two years. Further, Supervisor
21
Hill has pressured local news / radio programs to cease having Ms. Velie on as a guest, which
22
has prevented Ms. Velie from reaching a larger audience, also a form of name recognition.
23
17. Plaintiff and her advertisers and radio contacts, including Caf Roma, KVEC,
24
King Ventures, Dan Carpenter, Spencers Fresh Markets, Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center,
25

and Blakeslee & Blakeslee, were in an economic relationship that would have resulted in an

Complaint - 6
 1 economic benefit to plaintiff, through the form of advertising and exposure in the local
2 community on radio / news broadcasts. Supervisor Hill knew of these relationships and
3
intentionally and wrongfully disrupted them, by pressuring these advertisers to withdraw their
4
support of Ms. Velie and CCN, by direct intimidation and by making statements to them that Ms.
5
Velie is mentally ill, is paid to make false news reports, and by denigrating her reputation and the
6
reputations of the businesses, and threatening harm to the advertisers businesses.
7
18. Through the wrongful conduct of Supervisor Hill, these economic relationships
8
were disrupted, harming Ms. Velie financially. His wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in
9

10
causing plaintiffs harm.

11 19. Defendant County of San Luis Obispo is vicariously responsible for the wrongful

12 conduct of Supervisor Hill, and Doe defendants 1-50, under California Government Code

13 Section 815.2, and other applicable statutory and case law. Supervisor Hill is an agent, and
14 employee of the County, and was acting within the course and scope of his employment.
15
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
16
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
17
(Against all defendants and doe defendants 1-50)
18
20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein as through fully set forth, the preceding
19
paragraphs, 1 through 19.
20
21. Pursuant to Government Code Section 815.2(a), a county is liable for acts and
21
omissions of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior to the same extent as a
22
private employer. Under Government Code Section 815.2(b), the county is immune from
23
liability if, and only if, the employee is immune.
24
22. Plaintiff Karen Velie, who has a majority ownership interest in Cal Coast News,
25

has suffered economic loss in her business and income, due to the conduct of the defendants.

Complaint - 7
 1 Cal Coast News and Ms. Velie depend on advertisers as her main source of income. Ms. Velie
2 and Cal Coast News have and have had contracts with several advertisers, including Dan
3
Carpenter, Caf Roma, Blakeslee & Blakeslee and King Ventures, who reported to Ms. Velie
4
they were pressured by Supervisor Adam Hill to withdraw their advertising from Cal Coast
5
News. This has been ongoing for at least the past two years. Further, Supervisor Hill has
6
pressured local news / radio programs to cease having Ms. Velie on as a guest, which has
7
prevented Ms. Velie from reaching a larger audience, also a form of name recognition.
8
23. Supervisor Hill knew of these contractual relationships and intentionally disrupted
9

10
them, by pressuring plaintiffs advertisers to cancel their contracts and support of Ms. Velie and

11 CCN through direct intimidation, and by making statements to them that Ms. Velie is mentally

12 ill, makes false news reports, and by denigrating her reputation and the reputations of the

13 businesses and their staff/owners.

14 24. Through the wrongful conduct of Supervisor Hill, these contractual relationships
15
were disrupted, harming Ms. Velie financially. His wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in
16
causing plaintiffs harm.
17
25. Defendant County of San Luis Obispo is vicariously responsible for the conduct
18
of Supervisor Hill, and Doe defendants 1-50, under California Government Code Section 815.2,
19
and other applicable statutory and case law. Supervisor Hill is an agent, and employee of the
20
County, and was acting within the course and scope of his employment.
21
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL
22
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
23 (Against all defendants and doe defendants 1-50)

24 26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

25 through 25, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

Complaint - 8
 1 27. Pursuant to Government Code Section 815.2(a), a county is liable for acts and
2 omissions of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior to the same extent as a
3
private employer. Under Government Code Section 815.2(b), the county is immune from
4
liability if, and only if, the employee is immune.
5
28. That at all times mentioned herein, defendants, and each of them, knew that
6
Supervisor Hill, and other County officials, agents and employees, were retaliating against Ms.
7
Velie as set forth herein, including preventing her from having equal access to publicly available
8
information and documents, making knowingly false statements about her mental health and
9

10
reputation, and making knowingly false and denigrating statements about her and her family.

11 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the acts and/or

12 conduct of defendants, and each of them, was in reckless disregard of the probability of causing

13 physical harm and/or extreme emotional distress and or injuries to plaintiff, her reputation and
14 her ability to report the news in the local community.
15
30. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereupon allege that the acts and/or extreme
16
and wrongful conduct of defendants, and each of them, caused plaintiff to suffer extreme
17
emotional distress which manifested in physical symptoms, including stomach ulcers,
18
sleeplessness, anxiety, and fear of physical harm.
19
31. The extreme and outrageous conduct of defendants and each of them, as described
20
above, was a proximate and actual cause of the emotional distress and physical symptoms and
21
fear, suffered by plaintiff, as described herein.
22

23 32. That the above-mentioned conduct of defendants, (excluding COUNTY OF SAN

24 LUIS OBISPO) was performed intentionally and knowingly by defendants and with a conscious

25 and reckless disregard of the probability of causing physical injuries and severe emotional

Complaint - 9
 1 distress to plaintiff and said conduct constitutes oppression, fraud or malice under Civil Code
2 Section 3294, thereby entitling plaintiff to punitive damages against the individually named
3
defendants in an amount appropriate to punish and/or make an example of said defendants.
4
33. Defendant County of San Luis Obispo is vicariously responsible for the conduct
5
of Supervisor Hill, and Doe defendants 1-50, under California Government Code Section 815.2,
6
and other applicable statutory and case law. Supervisor Hill is an agent, and employee of the
7
County, and was acting within the course and scope of his employment.
8
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
9
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
10
(Against all defendants and doe defendants 1-50)

11
34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as through fully set forth herein, preceding

12
paragraphs 1 through 47.

13
35. Pursuant to Government Code Section 815.2(a), a county is liable for acts and

14 omissions of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior to the same extent as a

15 private employer. Under Government Code Section 815.2(b), the county is immune from

16 liability if, and only if, the employee is immune.

17 36. That at all times mentioned herein, defendants, and each of them, knew or
18
reasonably should have known that Supervisor Hill, and other County officials, agents and
19
employees, were wrongfully retaliating against Ms. Velie as set forth herein, including
20
preventing her from having equal access to publicly available information, making knowlingly
21
false statements about her mental health and reputation, and making knowingly false and
22
denigrating statements about her and her family.
23
37. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon allege that defendants and each
24
of them, violated their duties of care to plaintiff and knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care,
25

Complaint - 10
 1 should have known, that their actions subjected the plaintiff to emotional distress and financial
2 hardship.
3
38. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that as a direct and
4
proximate result of defendants conduct and breach of their duties to plaintiff as set forth above,
5
among others, plaintiff suffered emotional distress and financial hardship.
6
39. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the acts and/or
7
conduct of defendants were performed in reckless disregard of the probability of causing
8
physical and or severe emotional distress and/or injuries to plaintiff.
9

10
40. Defendant County of San Luis Obispo is vicariously responsible for the conduct

11 of Supervisor Hill, and Doe defendants 1-50, under California Government Code Section 815.2,

12 and other applicable statutory and case law. Supervisor Hill is an agent, and employee of the

13 County, and was acting within the course and scope of his employment.
14 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF STATE CIVIL RIGHTS
15 (against all Defendants and doe defendants 1-50)
16 41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as through fully set forth herein, preceding
17
paragraphs 1 through 54.
18
42. Pursuant to Government Code Section 815.2(a), a county is liable for acts and
19
omissions of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior to the same extent as a
20
private employer. Under Government Code Section 815.2(b), the county is immune from
21
liability if, and only if, the employee is immune.
22
43. Defendants, and each of them, by the use of threats, intimidation and harassment,
23
have interfered with plaintiffs equal access to the press, and her exercise and enjoyment of the
24

25 rights secured by the United States Constitution and other Federal laws, the constitution and laws

of the State of California and their rights under California Civil Code Section 52.1.

Complaint - 11
 1 44. At all relevant times, Ms. Velie, a news reporter, has been and continues to be
2 denied equal access to some press releases, is not allowed to speak to many County officials or
3
staff by phone, and is not given responses to her written requests for information, all in violation
4
of Civil Code Section 52.1. She has been the subject of harassment by Supervisor Adam Hill
5
through his emails and postings on Facebook pages and other websites, which include lewd and
6
vulgar statements about Ms. Velie which are false, and all of which are meant to humiliate and
7
degrade her, and keep her from reporting on local issues in the San Luis Obispo County
8
community. This further includes statements to the public by Supervisor Hill that Ms. Velie is
9

10
mentally ill and incompetent. He has also pressured several of her advertisers to stop doing

11 business with her in an effort to destroy her financially.

12 45. As the direct and proximate result of the defendants actions, Plaintiff has

13 suffered emotional distress and financial harm.

14 46. The rights violated by defendants, and does 1-50, are protected by California Civil
15
Code, Section 52.1. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 52, plaintiff is entitled to
16
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, a statutory civil penalty (including
17
$25,000 as to each individual defendant) and attorneys fees, as provided for by the laws and the
18
Constitution of the State of California and are requested herein.
19
47. Defendant County of San Luis Obispo is vicariously responsible for the conduct
20
of Supervisor Hill, and Doe defendants 1-50, under California Government Code Section 815.2,
21
and other applicable statutory and case law. Supervisor Hill is an agent, and employee of the
22

23 County, and was acting within the course and scope of his employment.

24 48. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendants and Does 1-50, and each them, knew

25 or should have known that their actions would or were likely to, injure and damage plaintiff.

Complaint - 12