This case was last updated from San Mateo County Superior Courts on 07/19/2018 at 18:55:33 (UTC).

DAVID MEFFORD VS NOTRE DAME ETAL

Case Summary

On 06/14/2012 DAVID MEFFORD filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against NOTRE DAME ETAL. This case was filed in San Mateo County Superior Courts, Southern Branch Hall Of Justice And Records located in San Mateo, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Cretan, Clifford V, Bergeron, Joseph E, Dylina, Steven L, Novak, Lisa A, Dylina, Steven L., Novak, Lisa A. and Cretan, Clifford V.. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *****4642

  • Filing Date:

    06/14/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    San Mateo County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Southern Branch Hall Of Justice And Records

  • County, State:

    San Mateo, California

Judge Details

Judges

Cretan, Clifford V

Bergeron, Joseph E

Dylina, Steven L

Novak, Lisa A

Dylina, Steven L.

Novak, Lisa A.

Cretan, Clifford V.

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

DAVID MEFFORD

MEFFORD, DAVID

Defendant

NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GALLIGAN, PATRICK T

Defendant Attorney

VARTAIN, MICHAEL J.

 

Court Documents

Conversion Action.

NOTICE (2) Comment NS2: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT FILED BY DAVID MEFFORD.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (8) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY.

Document.

FILING Comment FILED: STIP AND APPLICATION TO ALLOW FILING OF AMENDED COM. SIGNED BY JUDGE BERGERON 05/23/13 FILED.

Answer / Response / Denial - Unlimited.

ANSWER (2) Comment ANS: (S) ANSWER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF MEFFORD FILED BY NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL J. VARTAIN

Proof of Service by MAIL of.

PROOF OF SERVICE Comment PSN3: PROOF OF SERVICE (BY MAIL) OF DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT SERVED ON PATRICK T. GALLIGAN WITH A SERVICE DATE OF 01/15/13 FILED.

Answer / Response / Denial - Unlimited.

ANSWER Comment ANS: (S) ANSWER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF MEFFORD FILED BY NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL J. VARTAIN

Conversion Action.

COMPLAINT (2) Comment ACS: (U) 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF MEFFORD FILED (AMENDED COMPLAINT)

Civil Case Cover Sheet.

COVERSHEET Comment CCS: CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET RECEIVED

Summons Issued / Filed.

SUMMONS Comment S30IF: 30 DAY SUMMONS ISSUED AND FILED.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (10) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY.

Proof of Service by MAIL of.

PROOF OF SERVICE (4) Comment PSMN: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL OF DEFT'S ANSWER TO PLTF'S 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT SERVED ON DAVID MEFFORD FILED. DATE OF MAILING 05/30/13.

Conversion Action.

COMPLAINT (3) Comment ACS: (U) 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF MEFFORD FILED (AMENDED COMPLAINT)

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (7) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY DAVID MEFFORD.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (5) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY DAVID MEFFORD.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (3) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY DAVID MEFFORD.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (2) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY.

Notice.

NOTICE Comment N: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FILED BY DAVID MEFFORD.

Conversion Hearing.

CMC NOTICE Judicial Officer Dylina Steven L Comment CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/09/2013
  • Disposition: Judgment; Judgment Type; Dispositioned; Party; Name: NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT; Party; Name: MEFFORD DAVID; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2013
  • Conversion Hearing. Additional Info: Comment OSC RE: DISMISSAL HEARING AS TO DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION AFTER NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2013
  • Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. Additional Info: Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment Dept: 7 OSC RE: DISMISSAL HEARING AS TO DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION AFTER NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2013
  • View Court Documents
  • Request for Dismissal of - WITH prejudice in its entirety. Additional Info: DISMISSAL Comment REQDEA: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FILED AND ENTERED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2013
  • View Court Documents
  • Document. Additional Info: FILING (3) Comment FILED: NOTICE OF HEARING: OSC FOR DISMISSAL AFTER COURT'S RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2013
  • Conversion Hearing. Additional Info: Comment CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2013
  • Case Management Conference. Additional Info: Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment Dept: 7 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2013
  • Conversion Action. Additional Info: Comment CDCS: CASE DISPO`D - CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2013
  • View Court Documents
  • Conversion Action. Additional Info: NOTICE (2) Comment NS2: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT FILED BY DAVID MEFFORD.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2013
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service by MAIL of. Additional Info: PROOF OF SERVICE (6) Comment PSN3: PROOF OF SERVICE (BY MAIL) OF DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT SERVED ON PATRICK T. GALLIGAN WITH A SERVICE DATE OF 08/27/13 FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
92 More Docket Entries
  • 11/08/2012
  • Financial info for NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY : Case Payment Receipt # 201211080658 NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2012
  • Financial info for NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY : Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2012
  • Financial: NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY; Total Financial Assessment $435.00; Total Payments and Credits $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2013
  • Financial info for MEFFORD, DAVID : Case Payment Receipt # 201305310701 MEFFORD, DAVID $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2013
  • Financial info for MEFFORD, DAVID : Transaction Assessment $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2013
  • Financial info for MEFFORD, DAVID : Case Payment Receipt # 201301290634 MEFFORD, DAVID $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2013
  • Financial info for MEFFORD, DAVID : Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2012
  • Financial info for MEFFORD, DAVID : Case Payment Receipt # 201206140485 MEFFORD, DAVID $10.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2012
  • Financial info for MEFFORD, DAVID : Transaction Assessment $10.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2012
  • Financial: MEFFORD, DAVID; Total Financial Assessment $180.00; Total Payments and Credits $180.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

PLD-C-001

ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, S tate Bar number, 8nd 8ddress)’ FOR COURT USE ONLY Patrick T. Galligan, Bsq SB# 70915 Law Offices of Patrick T. Galligan 555 Laurel Avenue, # 306 San Mateo, CA 94401 TELEPHONENO: 650-922-0896 FAX NO. (Optiona): 650-646-3117 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optiona): ' ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Mateo

sreeraporess: 400 County Center

MAILING ADDRESS

crvanpzrcoce: Redwood City, CA 94063

BRANCH NAME:

pLAaINTIFF: DAVID MEFFORD oereNDANT: NOTRE DAME de NAMUR UNIVERSITY

[7] ooes 110 20

CONTRACT

COMPLAINT AMENDED COMPLAINT (Number):

Second [J cROSS-COMPLAINT [ AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT (Number):

Jurisdiction (check all that apply):

[ ] ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE

Amountdemanded [__] does not exceed $10,000 CIV 514642 [] exceeds $10,000 but does not exceed $26,000 [7] ACTION IS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000) [_] ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint or cross-complaint

[_]from limited to unlimited [_]from unlimited to limited

1. Plaintif® (name or names): David Mefford alleges causes of action against defendant® (name or names): Notre Dame de Namur University 2. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: 10 3. a. Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult [} except plaintiff (name): (1) [_]a corporation qualified to do business in California (2) [_]an unincorporated entity (describe). (3) (C_Jother (specify):

b. [_]Plaintiff (name): a. [_]has complied with the fictitious business name laws and is doing business under the fictitious name (specify):

b. [_] has complied with all licensing requirements as a licensed (specify): ¢. [_] Information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3c. 4. a. Each defendant named above is a natural person

PLD-C-001

SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER

Mefford v. Notre Dame CIV 514642

4. (Continued) b. The true names of defendants sued as Does are unknown to plaintiff.

(1) Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): 1-20 were the agents or employees of the named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment.

(2) Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): 1-20 are persons whose capacities are unknown to plaintiff.

c. [] Information about additional defendants who are not natural persons is contained in Attachment 4c. d. [_] Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names):

5. [_] Plaintiff is required to comply with a claims statute, and a. [__] has complied with applicable claims statutes, or b. [] is excused from complying because (specify):

6. [ This action is subjectto [__] Civil Code section 1812.10 [__] Civil Code section 2984.4. 7. This court is the proper court because

a. a defendant entered into the contract here.

b. [_] adefendant lived here when the contract was entered into.

c¢. [_] adefendant lives here now.

d. the contract was to be performed here.

e. [__] adefendant is a corporation or unincorporated association and its principal place of business is here.

f. [_] real property that is the subject of this action is located here.

g. other (specify):

Tortious conduct occurred here.

8. The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or

more causes of action attached):

Breach of Contract Common Counts Other (specify): Failure to pay Overtime Wages, Age Discrimination , Wrongful Termination, and Retaliation 9. Other allegations:

On or about March 20, 2012, plaintiff filed an age discrimination complaint with the DFEH, with a

joint filing with the EEOC, which proceeding was terminated and a right to sue letter issued 4/2/2012. 10. Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for

a. damages of: $ According to Proof b. interest on the damages (1) according to proof (2) [] at the rate of (specify): percent per year from (date): C. attorney's fees (1)[] of $ (2) according to proof. d. other (specify):

Double Damages

11. The paragraphs of this pleading alleged on information and belief are as follows (specify paragraph numbers): As specified in the paragraphs Date: April 8, 2013

Patrick T. Galligan b

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Page 6 (Retaliation/Wrongful Termination) IT-2: Plaintiffs (Name): David Mefford Defendants (Name): Notre Dame de Namur University, Does 1 to 20.

1.) Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference each and every allegation of the 1* Cause of Action as though the same were fully set forth herein.

2.) On or about 1988, plaintiff became a Public Safety Officer and Chief of Public Safety for defendants, and continued being so employed until January, 2012. At all times mentioned, plaintiff who was born in 1942, was fully qualified to perform such functions.

3.) Between June, 2008 and January, 2012, and before, defendants provided plaintiff less benefits and paid plaintiff a lower wage than they would have paid and provided if a younger person had occupied the aforesaid position. Defendants also failed and wilfully refused to pay plaintiff overtime wages he was entitled between said dates.

4.) In or about June, 2011, plaintiff complained to defendant that he was not being properly paid for work performed, including not being paid overtime wages. In retaliation for making such complaints, defendants continued to discriminate against plaintiff on the basis of his age in regard to the compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of his employment, and harassed and subjected plaintiff to a hostile work environment by the actions and statements of defendants’ agents, supervisors and employees, which included (a) increasing plaintiff’s work load without pay, (b) criticizing plaintiff because of his age, (c) requiring plaintiff to work without any pay for 6 months {while they presumably looked for a younger employee to replace him}, (d) giving plaintiff false and misleading employee evaluations, () placing plaintiff on probation even though there was no cause for such action, (f) depriving plaintiff of the normal procedures used and afforded to other employees regarding discipline, demotions and discharge, (g) eventually firing plaintiff when he refused to work for free, and (h) not

paying plaintiff his termination benefits including severance pay.

Complaint for Damages -6- Mefford v. Notre Dame

Complaint for Damages -6- Mefford v. Notre Dame 5.) After plaintiff’s discharge, plaintiff was replaced by a younger employee, and the public safety department staff was increased by about 50%.

5.) After plaintiff’s discharge, plaintiff was replaced by a younger employee, and the public safety department staff was increased by about 50%.

6.) As a proximate result of defendants' aforesaid conduct, plaintiff was damaged in an amount which exceeds $90,000.00 for wages, bonuses, and other benefits he should have received while employed by defendants.

7.) As a further proximate result of defendants' conduct, plaintiff was removed from his position with defendants, and was prevented from attending to such occupation from January, 2012, through the present, thereby suffering lost wages and other employee benefits. Plaintiff is informed and believes that he will remain unemployed for some time in the future, and will suffer future lost wages and other employee benefits. The full amount of said lost wages and benefits is unknown to plaintiff at this time, and plaintiff will amend this complaint to state such amount when the same becomes known to him, or on proof thereof at the time of trial.

8.) As a further proximate result of the aforementioned acts of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress and has been and will continue to be injured as follows: sleep disturbance, depression, loss of appetite, chronic feeling of anxiety, tension, and helplessness, all to plaintiff's damage in an amount as yet unknown. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to state such amount when the same becomes known to her, or on proof thereof at the time of trial.

9.) In doing the acts herein alleged said defendants, and each of them, acted intentionally with oppression, fraud and malice and plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in a sum commensurate with such conduct and defendants wealth, along with other legal standards used to award punitive or exemplary damages. Defendants wilful violation of the Statutory Overtime Acts also entitle plaintiff to double damages for those damages suffered by plaintiff as a result of retaliation.

10.) Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur attorney's fees and costs to prosecute this action, and is entitled to recover the amount of these fees and costs from

defendants.

Complaint for Damages -7- Mefford v. Notre Dame

Complaint for Damages -7- Mefford v. Notre Dame WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as hereinafter set forth.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as hereinafter set forth.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (BAD FAITH)

IT-3: Plaintiffs (Name): David Mefford Defendants (Name): Notre Dame de Namur University, Does 1 to 20.

11.) Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference each and every allegation of the 1* Cause of Action as though the same were fully set forth herein.

12.) The employment agreement referred to above contained an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which obligated defendants to perform the terms and conditions of the agreement fairly and in good faith and to refrain from doing any act that would prevent or impede plaintiff from performingconditions of the contract that he agreed to perform, or any act that would deprive plaintiff of the benefits of the contract. In this regard, defendants maintained a faculty personnel manual which set forth procedures that would be used to discharge employees.

13.) Plaintiff reasonably relied on the provisions of the faculty personnel manual, regarding the causes for which employees could be discharged or demoted and the procedures set forth for such discharges and the expectation that defendant would apply its policies even-handedly to afford plaintiff the protections of those procedures if defendant believed there was cause to discharge or demote plaintiff.

14.) Plaintiff performed all of the duties and conditions of the employment agreement, and at all times mentioned, defendants knew that plaintiff had fulfilled all his duties and conditions under the contract.

15.) Defendants breached its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing toward

plaintiff by not conducting any reasonable investigation concerning its obligations under

Complaint for Damages -8- Mefford v. Notre Dame

Complaint for Damages -8- Mefford v. Notre Dame said contract, by terminating plaintiff from its employee without good or sufficient cause, for reasons extraneous to the contract, and for the purpose of frustrating plaintiff’s enjoyment of the benefits of the contract, and by discriminating against plaintiff on the basis of his age, by retaliating against plaintiff for complaining about not being paid his proper wages, and by otherwise harassing plaintiff in the performance of his job. Defendants breached the implied covenants intentionally, maliciously, and without probable cause, in bad faith and for reasons extraneous to the contract. Defendants’ motives were discriminatory, based on plaintiff’s age and because of his complaints regarding wage, were extraneous to the employment relationship, and were intended to deprive plaintiff of the benefits thereof.

said contract, by terminating plaintiff from its employee without good or sufficient cause, for reasons extraneous to the contract, and for the purpose of frustrating plaintiff’s enjoyment of the benefits of the contract, and by discriminating against plaintiff on the basis of his age, by retaliating against plaintiff for complaining about not being paid his proper wages, and by otherwise harassing plaintiff in the performance of his job. Defendants breached the implied covenants intentionally, maliciously, and without probable cause, in bad faith and for reasons extraneous to the contract. Defendants’ motives were discriminatory, based on plaintiff’s age and because of his complaints regarding wage, were extraneous to the employment relationship, and were intended to deprive plaintiff of the benefits thereof.

16.) As a proximate result of defendants’ breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer lost wages, benefits,

emotional and physical damages to his detriment in an amount to be established at trial. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as hereinafter set forth.

(Intentilgglrlnnffiéigg Eof%lti‘nlo\tgfl:?%)qistress)

14. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation of the Fourth Cause of Action, as though the same were fully set forth herein.

15. The aforesaid acts of defendants, and each of them, were intentional and malicious, and done with a reckless disregard of the probability of causing plaintiff to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress.

16. As a proximate result of the aforementioned acts, plaintiff suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress and has been and will continue to be injured as follows: sleep disturbance, depression, loss of appetite, chronic feeling of anxiety, tension, headaches, increased migraines, and helplessness, all to plaintiff's

damage in an amount which exceeds the Municipal Court's jurisdiction, said damages

Complaint for Damages -9- Mefford v. Notre Dame

Complaint for Damages -9- Mefford v. Notre Dame being limited to those occurring from and after October 2, 2001. 17. In doing the acts herein alleged, said defendants, and each of them, acted

being limited to those occurring from and after October 2, 2001. 17. In doing the acts herein alleged, said defendants, and each of them, acted

intentionally with oppression, fraud, and malice and plaintiff is entitled to punitive

damages according to proof.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

1. For loss of past and future wages and employment benefits, according to proof;

2. General damages and compensatory damages, according to proof;

3. Interest on the above sums, according to proof;

4. Damages for emotional distress in a sum in excess of the Municipal Court's jurisdiction;

5. For exemplary or punitive damages according to proof;

6. For attorneys fees and cost under the State and Federal Overtime Acts and Age

Discrimination Acts.

7. For such other and further relief as to the court seems just and proper.

Dated: April 8, 2013

Complaint for Damages -10- Mefford v. Notre Dame