” 18 9 a 2 2B 2% 6 a 28 Bernadette Stuart P.O. Box 2824 Sausalito, CA 94966 l415.444-6924 |snuarhemacette@gmailcam Pro Se Defendant Bernadette Stuart UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROYCE MCLEMORE AS REPRESENTIVE, ) CASE NO: 3:20-CV-05431 Including AU Parties Listed and Incorporated Herein; and Doe Plaintiffs 1- 1,500, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, DEFENDANT STUART'S ANSWER 1) Givi Code §1941.1, 2)42 USC. §1437a(@)(0, 3) USC. §1437b & 1983, Pilaitis, 5)42 US.C. §1983; AND, ‘CROSSCLAIM FOR IMPLIED vs. INDEMNITY, COMPARATIVE INDEMNITY DECLARATORY MARIN COUNTY, MARIN HOUSING RELIEF, EQUITABLE INDEMNITY AUTHORITY, LEWIS JORDAN, AND CONTRIBUTION BERNADETTE STUART, MARIN HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMISSION and DOES 1-100 Inclusive, Bermadette Stuart Cross-Claimant Vs. Marin County, Marin Housing Authesity, Lewis Jordan, Kimberly Caroll, Amy Chan, Marin Housing Authority Commission, and Does 1-100 Inclusive (Cross-Defendants STUARTS ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM s20-cv-0se3125 0 2% Defendant Bernadette Sturt (refer “Stat” answers the complaint ofthe class of Paints, Stuart is informed end admits that McLemore as Representative Pants (hereafter +Plaintf's) brought this action for general, consequential, compensatory, punitive, injunctive relief and statutory damages, cots and attomey's fees agnnst Stuart etal under federal and state housing laws. Sturt denies all Plants allegations against her of unconstitutional and tortious conduct alleged in the Complaint and admit that Plaintiffs are entitled to relief 1 PARTIES 1 In answer to Paragraph 1 ofthe Complain, Sturt admits Plaintiffs were residents of| Golden Gate Village Public Heusing Development. 2. In answer to Paragraph 2of the Complaint, Stuart is without knowledge or information| sufficient to form a belief asthe truth or falsity of DOE PLAINTIFFS, and on that basis, denies te allegation 3. Imanswer to Paragraph 3 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation. 4. In answer to Paragraph 4 ofthe Complaint, Start admits the allegation. 5. In answer to Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Stuart admits that Lewis Jordan is the Executive Director ofthe Maria Housing Authority; and he was employed and working at Marin Housing Authority a the time of all of the incidents alleged in the Complain. 6. In answer to Paragiaph 6 of the Complaint, Stuart admits that she isthe Program| Mansger of the Public Housing Development, Golden Gate Village; however, denies she was| employed by Marin Housing Authority at the time of ll ofthe incidents alleged inthe Complaint and denies she was employed in any capacity of responsibility for incidents alleged in the Complaint. In fact, Kimberly Caroll conspires with Lewis Jordan and personally responsible for incidents alleged in the Complaint and is hereby jointed as responsible partner inthis complaint. | STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM 320-0V-05131a 2 2 ™ 2s 2 2» 7. Imanswer to Paragraph 7 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation. 8. In answer to Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Stuart admis the allegation identifying Lewis Jordan and Kimberly Caroll asthe Marin Housing Authority agents of poor governance and willful misconduct with conspiracy to destabilize residents through failure to investigate, faiture to manage, failure to respond, failure to rehabilitate, and failure to follow and put into practices polices and procedures pursuant tothe ACOP and Annual Plans. 9. In answer to Paragraph 9 of dhe Complaint, Start deny that she personally and professionally operates under any false pretense, pretending or feigning; make-believe; or insincere actions under the color of law to deprive any person of their rights protected by the constitution, federal or state stetures. TL JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10, In answer to Paragraph 10 ofthe Complaint, Sturt admits he allegation. 1. In answer to Paragraph 11 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation. IIL STATEMENT OF FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 12. In answer to Paragraph 12 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation. 13. In answer to Paragraph 13 ofthe Complaint, Stuart is knowledgeable and experienced! with the private building inspectors by Tony Eldon of Bay Area Property Inspections, LLC, atthe request of Len Rifkind and Lary Bragman, Attorneys at Law and Tony Shroyer, a realtor runing] for election in 2018 challenging Judy Amold of District S. Shroyer claimed residents lived in squalor and thatthe County Supervisors are “slumlord.” Shroyer's campaign platform asa Real Estate Broker was that she would be a better elected official than Amold htps:/vnw: marin com20 8/05/18/marin-supervisoral-candidates-clash-over-public. housing-senuitions! On 6(6/8 from 10am to 12pm they inspected the 34 Acre Golden Gate| STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM 320-cV-054316 n 28 Village Developmert, Buildings, Grounds and 3 (three) residential units; then, released their findings in a report othe press, the Marin Ups marin com \caoden-wate-villase! Stunt admits there was an inspection and report written and distributed by this group, and, upon reesiving notice ofthis report, the units mentioned were inspected by Start and any deficiencies reported were inspected and corrected noting that no report violated any tenants right to habitable housing; furthermore, Suart reiterated guidance| to obtain necessary repairs by work order procedures and to keep up with housekeeping standards which are explicit ems ofthe lease. The electrical subpanels and thermostats fall under Marin Housing Authority Capital Divison, which is responsible for administering the Capital Fund, (Capital Plan and Capital Improvements to Golden Gate Village and ars separate and distinct projects from day to day property management operations, routine maintenance and repairs overseen by Stuart aad her colleague, Maintenance Manager, Dante Fountain, 14, Inanswer to paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Stuart denies that windows in units are| stuck and in violation of ventilation and fre safety requirements for egress. Stuart asserts that the| old windows are single pane glass with lightweight aluminum frames tht slide as they should at their age and overdue for replacement. Furthermore, Stuart denies that al units ave ative rodent infestation and mold; and, deny that the Property Management Maintenance Department slong with Bay Cites Refuse and Coast Landscape Employees responsible for picking up and removing garbage, leave trash receptacles unclean; and, Stuart denies thatthe buildings and grounds are not maintained ina cleat and sanitary way. Stuart admits thatthe 3(thee) units were inspected which represent ~1% of the total units at Golden Gate Village. 15. In answerto paragraph 15 of the Complaint, Sturt admits the allegation, | STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM S20-cV-054312 2B Pa 2 2% 16. In answer to paragraph 16 of the Complaint, the private inspection demonstrates and | iustrates the need for onsite resident support services and ongoing capital improvements (opgrades). ‘17. In answer to paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Stuart admits the first part of the| tlegation, ast pertains to Maintenance issues that arise and canbe abated by Public Housing| employees tothe greatest extent possible within thee jb duties; however, denies any personal |notice is ever left unattended; and, not in violation of “habitability” and “environmental health | issues.” The private inspection report illustrates that Golden Gate Village buildings are well-built! and in overall in gocd condition, which Star apres. 18 In answer to paragraph 18 ofthe Complaint, Stuart deny the allegation. ‘19. In answer to paragraph 19 of the complaint, Stuart deny the allegation. 20, In answer to paragraph 20 of the complaint, Stuart deny the allegation. 21. In answer to Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Stuart is informed by Lewis Jordan and| Kimberly Carol and Evan Smith ofthe create and implementation of polices and practices to | demolish and dispose of Golden Gate Village; and admits the allegation in paragraph 21. Stuart| has experience and isknowledgeable about Marin Housing Authority Capital Division which falls |under the direction af the Deputy Director, Kimberly Carroll and Chief Financial Officer, Amy | [Chan is responsible for overseing Capital Fund which includes planning or an replacing heater | thermostats and elec:rical breaker box panels among other things; and Stuart admits the radiator | | Pipes run along the walls in the high-rise buildings and are not insulated. 22, In answer to paragraph 22 othe Complaint, Stuart admit th allegation. 23. In answer to paragraph 23 ofthe Complaint, Stuart denis the allegation. STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM S20-cV-05431: 24, In answer to paragraph 24 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation 25. In answer to paragraph 25 of the Complaint, Stuart is without knowledge or| information sufficient t form a belief as to truth or falsity of activities to address or abate environmental health issues under jurisdiction of the Marin County Department of Environmental, health. 26. In answer to paragraph 26 ofthe Complaint, Stuart denies tat she ever filed to at to sbate or repair ll or any habitablity issues; however, admits that Lewis Jordan and Kimbedly Carol have crested, estiblshed and implemented polices and practices of poor governance and poor allocation of resources including staff capacity to serve the demand of residents in need at JGolden Gate Village; and as such, caused suffering of racial discrimination and loss of| 15 ||opportunity for residents, 16 27. In answer to Paragraph 27 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegations. "7 28. In answer to Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, Start admits the allegations. 8 29, In answer to Paragraph 29 ofthe Complaint, Stuart denies the allegation that she ever '9 |) participated with Lewis Jordan and Evan Smith and the Michaels Group in any involvement in| any activities related to allegations. 30. In answer to Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, Stuart denies the allegation and any’ involvement whatsoever, it has never been Stuart scope of work or that of Property Management. 23 31. In answer te Paragraph 31 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation. 4 ae CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS os 32, In answer to paragraph 32 of the Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation. e 33. In answer to paragraph 33 of the Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation. 8 STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM s20cv.0s8314 2s 6 n 34. In answer to paragraph 34 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation. 35, In answer to paragraph 35 of the Complain, Stuart admits the allegation. 36. In answer to paragraph 36 ofthe Complain, Sturt admits the allegation 37. In answer to paragraph 37 ofthe Complaint, Sturt admits the allegation 138. In answer to paragraph 38 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation. 39. In answer to paragraph 39 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation, 40. In answer to paragraph 40 of the Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation, 41. In answer to paragraph 41 of the Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation, 42, In answer to paragraph 42 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation. REPRESENTATIVE ROYCE MCLEMORE, 43. In answer to paragraph 43 of the Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation. 44, In answer to paragraph 44 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation, 45. In answer wo paragraph 45 ofthe Complaint Stuart admits he allegation, 46. In answer to paragraph 46 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation, 47. In answer to paragraph 47 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation. 48. In answer to paragraph 48 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation, | STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM S20-cV.05312 2s 2s n 2% FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION California Civil Code §1941.1 Untenuble Dwelling 49, In answer wo Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, Stuart denies allegation pursuant to Cal civ. Code § 1941.1 To clarity, Stuart never refused to address or abate any unsafe or outdated clectrical subpanels, and has no knowledge or information of any electrical code violations constituting a Gre hazard has knowledge that clocical bresker boxes and thermostats ae the jobs of Capital Improvement Division; is knowledgeable that bathrooms ia high rise buildings have up to two sources of heat via radiator heat and a heat lamp fixture; water pipes running aroughout every single unit inthe high rise buildings ae not insulated and never reported in violation of safety code. The heater fins covering the radiator should be dusted by residents because, if et unclean, they may collect dust buildup. Dust in between the fins of a can prevent heat from escaping, which makes radiators need to work harder to warm the room, but do not pose a concer for ar quality as there is no forced air around them. It's important for residents to take measures and clean their radiators at least once a year and remove any dust tht builds up. Overall, radiators and the plumbing are in excellent condition, occasionally a resident will report J leak in a cut off valve or washers in the spigot dried and need replacing to ensure the thermostats operate as they should, In 2017, MHA's Kim Bamard of Capital Improvement replaced all Thermostats on radiators and checked out thir function and operation. 50, In answer to Paragraph SO ofthe Complait, Stuart denies she caused or is responsible or able for any alleged Injurtes pursuant ro Californlx Government Code § 820(a). Stuart denles allegation of any actor omission within the scope of her employment has given ise to cause any action against her personally or inher official capacity. Sturt was named asa defendant and was sued in her official capacity duplicative of the claims brought against Marin Housing Authority in which the true and accurate responsible individuals are Lewis Jordan and Kimberly Caroll and STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM 320V-054314 |Jooes 1-100, No facts were alleged to support any claims whatsoever against Stuart, but all 4 | documents to suppor fets and prove poor overance, mismanagement, discriminatory practices 5 |]or institution racism, and allowing ofthe prohibited use of contracting practices under Capital 6 | procurement. 7 S51. In answer to Paragraph 51 ofthe Complaint, Stuart denis she caused ors responsible or liable for any alleged injury pursuant to California Government Code § 820.8. Stuart is not liable for any alleged injures caused by the act or omission of other partes including Lewis Jordan and Kimberly Caroll; and, Swart denies she caused any alleged injury by ber own negligence, wrongful acs, or omission. Sturt was named as a defendant and was sued in her oficial capacity, duplicative of the claims brought aguinst Marin Housing Authority. No facts 14 | ere alleged to support any claims whatsoever against Stor. 1s '52.1n answer fo Paragraph 52 ofthe Complaint, Stuart denies that she acted in any way 16 |} within the scope and course of her employment under the control and supervision of Mari] 17 J} Housing Authority to violate California Civil Code § 1941.1, pursuant to California Code $8152. 18 |f start was named asa defendant and was sued in ber offical capacity, duplicative ofthe csims brought ageinst Marin Housing Authority. No facts were alleged to support any claims 7° Il whatsoever against Start. a SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 22 || Violation of Plaintiffs Rights Pursuant to US.C. § 1437a(a)(1); 42 US.C. §1983 Against LEWIS JORDAN, BERNADETTE STUART and Does 1 to 100) ‘53, Sturt reassert paragraphs | to 52 of this Answer to the Complaint and incorporate 5 | themin this Second Ceuse of Acton, Stuart denies that she violated her duty pursuant to 42 U.S.C, 6 |[§ 14370(@X1). Stuar in her official capacity to the extent provided by her position provide| 27 |] Plaintiffs a decent, safe and sanitary dwelling with all necessary appurtenances thereto, by| 28 STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM 320-cV.054312 4 25 26 2” responding timely to address or abatc unsafe conditions. Stuart reasserts that she is Henowiedgenble about the Capital Improvement Division which is responsible for planning, procoring and replacing electrical subpancls, and thermostats. Stuart denis tat there is no heat in the bathrooms, admits water pipes are not insulated, has no information they create a bur danger, denies that heater fins coated with dust creates air quality concer due to no forced sit around them to generate heat, and has Knowledge that there is ample ventilation and safety requirements for fire egress inthe buildings as designed and built and denies all other allegations in paragraph 53. ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Plaintiffs Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1437b 42 US.C §1983) 55, Stuart re-asserts paragraphs 1 to $4 of this Answer to the Complaint and incorporate them herein. Stuart denies she eve engaged in any way whatsoever in ay capacity inthe active planning to “demolish and dispose” of the Golden Gate Village Public Housing Project. To} clarify, the Marin County Board of Supervisors convene as the Marin Housing Authority Board Jof Commissions with two additional members that are directly assisted by the public housing euthorty and exercise powers aad duties related to governance pursuant to 42 USC. § 1437b. Plaintiffs representative, Royce MeLemore, have fll ights, membership, and privileges inthe organization as President of the Golden Gate Village Resident Council and Chair of Marin Housing Authority Resident Advisory Board. Plaintiff Representative, Royce McLemore| exercises ful attendance, participation and control in representing the interests ofthe residents of ]Golden Gate Village by inclusoc and participation in meetings, working groups, consultation and| reviews ofall polices and plans, most notably participates in all working groups related to| planning for revitalization with Capital Division and Michaels Group. STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM s20cV-05431 -10-20 2 B 25 6 20 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Piaintifts Rights Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 701(B\) Against Marin Housing Authority) ADVERSE DISPARATE IMPACT ON AFRICAN-AMERICANS, WOMEN, AND FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN ‘56, Stuart re-asserts paragraphs 1 to 55 of this Answer tothe Complaint and incorporate them herein. Stuart admits that Marin Housing Authority is an agency within the meaning of 5 ]US.C. § 701(b\(1). Stuart admits alleged actions as described by Plaintifs will have an adverse disparate impact upon residents as Aftican-Americans,female-headed households, and Families with children pursuant to 42 USC § 3604. The public interest of no new development, breach of| historic preservation and high demand for green renovation weighs most heavily a strong showing| of public interest support bebind the Complaint of representative McLemore claims disapproval lof “revitalization plan” of Golden Gate Village; furthermere historical evidence show | revitalization will displace residents, impose a limit onthe numberof units that may be rented to low income tenants; and, adopt or implement new rental, or selection policies adversely impacting plaintiffs as African Americans, racial minorities, Female-headed households, and families with children in comparison to other racial groups or higher income classes. Housing development| policies with built in housing discrimination may cause Plaintiffs suffer irreparable harm, injury or displacement from discrimination to constitte violation ofthe 42 U.S.C. § 3604 to j Complaint under 42 U-S.C. § 3613. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Plaiaion’ Rights Pursuant to 42 US.C $1988 Fourteenth Amendment (Doliberate Indifference) Agaiast MARIN COUNTY DOE DEPARTMENT OF 'ENVIRONMENAL HEALTH EMPLOYEES and Does © 100) ‘57, Stuart e-asserts paragraphs 1 to 56 of this Answer tothe Complaint and incorporate them herein, In answer to Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, Stuart denies the allegation. STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM 320-C¥.08431 one10 u 2 B a n a 24 25 2 58. In answer to the frst part of Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, Start denies th| allegation; and, in answer to the second part of Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, Stuart is witout knowledge or information to form a belief asthe truth or falsity of any part of related to Marin County Department of Environmental Heath Employees and on that basis, denies the allegation, 59, In answer to Paragraph 59 of the Complaint, Stuart denies the allegation. 60. In answer to Paragraph 60 of the Complaint, Stuart is without knowledge or information to form a belief as the truth or falsity of any part of related to Marin Coanty| Department of Environmental Health Employees and on that bass, denies te allegation. 61. In answer to Paragraph 61 of the Complaint, Sturt is without knowledge or information to form a belief as the truth ot falsity of any part of related to Marin Coanty| Department of Environmental Health Employees and on that basis, denies the allegation, SIXTH CLAIM (Neligeace ~ Against MARIN COUNTY DOE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENAL HEALTH EMPLOYEES and Does | to 100) 62. 1n answer to Paragraph 62 ofthe Complaint, Stuart denis the allegation. 63. In answer to Paragraph 63 ofthe Complaint, Stuart denies the allegation. (64, In answer to Paragraph 64 ofthe Complaint, Stuart denis te allegation. (65. Inanswer to Paragraph 65 ofthe Complaint, Stuart denies the allegation. 66, In answer to Paragraph 66 of the Complaint, Stuart denies the allegation. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Against MARIN HOUSING AUTHORITY LEWIS JORDAN, BERNADETTE STUART and Does 1 to 100) 67. In answer to Paragraph 67 ofthe Complaint, Start admits the allegation. 68, In answer to Paragraph 62 ofthe Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation. STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM s20-cvss31 oid.7 18 9 2 B 25 a 69, In answer to Paragraph 69 of the Complain, Stuart admits the allegation. 70. In answer to Paragraph 70 of the Complaint, Stuart admits th allegation, 71. In answer to Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, Stuart admits the allegation. 72. In answer to Paragraph 72 of the Complaint, Start admits the allegation, PRAYER: Plaintiff's Cannot bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sturt in er individual capacity to vindicate rights violated by other partes governing Marin Housing Authority. There is no| relationship to Statin her day today management operations and scope of work, and no personal liability. Any claims against Start Must Be Dismissed and the proper parties identified herein including Lewis Jordan and Kimberly Caroll be fred from their employment with Marin| Housing Authority for abuse of power, corruption and mismanagement. CROSSCLAIM FOR IMPLIED INDEMNITY, COMPARATIVE INDEMNITY DECLARATORY RELIEF, EQUITABLE INDEMNITY AND CONTRIBUTION PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS 1). Marin Housing Authority is and at al times herein mentioned was employer agency of the ity of San Rafat, County of Marin, State of California 12) Marin County Board of Commissioners is and at all times herein mentioned, was a government a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California With principe offices locate inthe City of San Rafael, County of Mari, 3) Lewis Jordan, Kimberly Caroll and Amy Chan are the true names of responsible individuals and work in capacities, indivdva, corporate, associate and otherwise, and are the cross- defendants along with unnamed DOES 1 through 100, Jusive, and are known to cross-| STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM 320-CV.05431 “1325 26 a complainant who therefore sues said cross-defendants. Cross-Complainant Stuart will seck leave toamend her cross-complaint to show more names, capacities, lisblity and wrongdoing. |4) Cross-Complainant Stuart is informed and believes tht at all times pertinent, the individual cross-defendants named are or were residents and employees of Marie County in the State of California. 5) Cross-Complainant Stuart is informed and believes that each of the cross-defendants designated herein or as a DOE is responsible in some manner for the happenings and events hereinafter alleged and negligently or otherwise caused the losses andlor damages as herein alleged. HIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ‘(mplied Indemnity Against All Cross-Defendants) }6) Stuart refers to Paragraph #1 through #6 of her First Cause of Acticn and incorporates the| ‘same herein by reference as though fully set forth at length at this point 7) A Complaint enttled ROYCE MCLEMORE AS REPRESENTIVE, Including All Parties| Listed and Incorporated Hereim; and Doe Plaintiffs 1-1,500, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. MARIN COUNTY, MARIN HOUSING AUTHORITY, LEWIS JORDAN, BERNADETTE STUART, MARIN HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMISSION and DOES 1-100 Inclusive, was filed on or about August 6, 2020, alleging damages arising asa result of an alleged cause of action. Said complaint, fr] purposes of ts allegations only, i incorporated by reference herein as though Fully set forth at length. STUARTS ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM. san-cvos4st <42s 6 a 8) Stuart has and continues to sue damages and other costs in connection with defending si complaint, while being subjected to ongoing threats, harassment, malicious torture, labor violations and more by her employer, Lewis Jordan, Kimberly Carll and Amy Chan 9) Kimberly Caroll badmouths Start 1 ber face ia the presence of ole and to others itimidating Stuart, threatens Sta telling her tobe quiet that she isthe boss and therefore can say and do whatever she wants that Lam her subordinate and nothing of what say ‘matters because shes the boss and what she says — goes and she runs the Housing Authority. Kimberly Carol routinely publicly humiliates and iicules Stuart for hyperactivity evea| ‘hough she knows Stuart has hyperactivity andi regarded as hyperactive. Kimbetly Carol ‘exploits and abuses Stuart of her hyperactivity by overloading her with two to three times her workload that shouldbe the job ofan attorney, project manager, excetive director, while Lewis Jordan and Kimbesly Caroll are low producing employees with hallmark of| practicing off the cuff methods and ther whim without regard to law. Constantly overruling} agency regulations protocol, over writes policy, and routinely hires and unfanly pays thee friends to work for them. Employes throughout the company report tat Kimberly Carrol ‘scorupt inher reeritment and nepotism for hiring practices with regularly “hooking up her ‘homamies”~the atest hire of hers ihe friend Barbara Smith for HR to give Kimberly Carol fre reign to target, harass and manufacture evidence to terminate staff, I have been a target oti of jmberty chasing me using Barbara Smith to stack me with bullshit. Cynthia Swan} ‘and Evan Smith. Kimberly Caroll pays whites and men more than women of color in violation of employment and civil rights. Kimberly Carroll has been practicing unfairly for at least ten years and her solution sto fire staff who see what she is doing in wrong. In fact har reputation is “white supremist racist terrorist” who talks down to staff. STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM s20.cv.asest ois4 2s 0 2% 10)Les fordan has called me an Ogre, I did not know what an Ogre was so I asked him what] isan ogre, and he said, “you don’t know what an Ogre is?” [said no — what is hat. Lewis| Jordan said it was an ugly one eyed fat green man-eating monster I said why would you call ‘me that and he said I was a ball busting brute and come out swinging. I said no I don’t I am| just intelligent and assertive woman. Lewis Jordan suid I was nothing more than a “cog in a heel” and nothing more than a “widget worker” he called me disgusting and completely discussed by my existence. Despite this, never badmouthed Lewis Jordan. Ihave knowledge | and experience that he is nota good person, that he has proven to be a bad person, and known | to have committed egregious criminal negligence, including fraud, civil rights violations and| failure to disclose information resulting in dents geting shot. He directed and sanctioned resident fraud of failure to report income resulting in debt owed of $200,000. Ren: Peron and| ‘Angel Shorter are aware ofthis and we all disagreed with what Leiws did. Al staff were| coerced and appalled by Lewis Jordan and Kimberly Carroll allowed it to occur and| orchestrated it. Recently this summer, Lewis gota call regarding a shooting victim and failed 1 report it to property management and follow up with a safety plan ~ resulting in multiple ‘other victims being shot at and lives put in danger causing a need for multiple relocation. ‘Kimberly Carroll response was to cover up the information Lewis had and failed to diselooe to shut me up when she found out about the shooting and only tried to cover up Lewis| mismanagement of information and on two occasions, they each conspired and blocked my legal referral to Tim Murphy's office to find a way to ensure resident safety. Because of the| controversy, they conspired and went silent and provided zero contribution to finding| solutions to protect the community. In fact, Kimberly Carroll recommended that everyone in| 49 Cole Drive Building be Vacated and she can board it up tear it down by taking a wrecking| STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM sancv.0sssi -16-2s 6 a 28 bal to itas she and Lewis planned to eventually ear it down. This is the true nature of MHA. leadership, and Kimberly Carroll routinely make egregious comments that are insensitive and ‘abusive to the resident and has never ever provided any beneficial management or resources ‘to Public Housing. 11) Amy Chan, refuses to take ownership and accountability of her duty to Direct projects in Public housing and Capital Improvement. She reserves herself to silo demonstrating zero) investment management oversight and supervision in all aspects related to managing Performance of the Public Housing. All of her predecessors were actively engaged in| rmonitoring and management of all aspect offal responsibiltes for pubic housing and capital. Under the direction of Lewis and Kimberly, Amy Chan refuses to initiate or participate in Tenants in Accounts Receivable reconciling tenant balances study and analyze the new deposit accounting and implement the Tenant Repayment Agresment with emphasis ‘on Assembly Bill 3088. Amy Chan's neglect has caused an enormous amount of backlog in public housing accounting which Ihave spent hours combing though and monitoring with ‘my staff while pushing for performance from Amy Chan. The new staff she assigned to Public Housing Accounting last werk sent me ove $16,000 of incorrect data etry of invoioes i YYARDI pay san that I had to redirect and spain rested an enormous amount of extra work forme which believe Amy Chan's practic is relted to complet incompetence o etibeste sabotage of public housing operations by negligence. 12)Kimbedy Carll has demonstrated a pattem of inability to dsl effectively with ALL subordinates, women of color, gays and lesbians, subjects me o disparate impact by forcing sme to work more than others, initiating pay differential for my coworkers while denying me fsirpay and equal pay commensurate with my white male counterpart. Kimberly Cara has STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM 320-CV.08431 “173 || the reputation of “hooking up her homies” including her personal friend Barbara Smith whose| 4 |] ste touts lives near her in San Anselmo and walks with her to get offline consultation. Iam 5 |] direct victim of Kimberly Using Barbara Smith to attack me and manufacture false 6 || information and using complete nd when called on it makes it an opinion or sands 7] corrected but sil follows through with harasing workplace lying — which is legal. 13) Kimberly Carol makes regular and numeres fle statements and “badmouthed” me to stat to intentionally interfere with my work relationships. Kimberly Carol's behavior towards me including making false accusations, goes above and beyond the bounds of decency - atrocious, and intolerable Alemployes subject to her abusive experience extreme emotional distress asa result of he interference with their relationships coworkers which adversely |] attect woskptace 15 |] 4)Damages for Stuart inthe exact amount of is unknown ats time, but when ascertained, 16 |] Stuart wit see leave of cour to amend this cross complaint to et forth te tre nate and 17]] amount of sid cost and expenses. 18 |f15) Any damages as alleged in Complaint, will be solely due tothe conduc of cross defendants, and each of them, as herein alleged. Therefore, Start i ented tobe indemnified by said cross-defendants, and each of them should any liability arse. 16)1f Stuart is held liable or responsible to the plaintiffs for damages, said Viability will be 2 vicarious only and ssid liability will be the direct and proximate reeult of the active and 2B 24 || tzmtive conduct om he prt of crssefendants, and cachof them. 15 ||17 Star is entted to complete indemnification by said cross defendants, and each of them for 26 || any sum or sums for which he may be adjudicated liable to plaintiffs, with costs of defense, 27 || costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees incurred therefrom. 28 STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM s2o-cv.asest 182 B “ 1s 6 0 18 20 a1 2 B 4 2s 2 2% ‘SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 18) Stuart refers to Paragraph #7 through #12 of her Frst Cause of Action and incorporates the same herein by reference as though flly st forth at length at this point 19) Stuart challenges that she isin no way legally responsible forthe events giving rise tothe Plaintifs causes of action, or legally responsible in any cther manner forthe damages| allegedly sustained by the plaintif. However, if asa result ofthe matters alleged in plaints complaint, Stuart is held liable forall or any part ofthe claim or damages asserted against her by the plaintiffs, cross-defendants, and each of them, to the extent that their fault was a ‘proximate cause of plaintiff's damages andlor loses, are responsible fr said damages andlor losses in proportion to each cross-defendants’ comparative negligence and this cross- complainants entitled to determination of several liability 20) By reason ofthe foregoing, Stuart is entitled to indemnity from cross-defendants, and each of them, for ll costs, fees, expenses, settlements and judgments pid by and incured by cros- ‘complainant in connection with this litigation ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief Against ll Cross-Defendants) 21) Stuart refers to Paragraphs #7 through #12 of her First Cause of Action and by this reference incorporates the same herein as though set forth in Full. '22)No controversy has arisen between Stuart and cross-defemiants, and each of them, with| respect to the rights, obligations and duties of the partes: (a) Stuart contends that she is ‘without fault, responsibility or blame for any of the damages which the plaintiff may have STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM s20.cv.sest -19-20 a 2 B 2s 6 2 28 suffered. If there is any cause for injury these acts were commited by the cross-defendants| and not Stuart. Stuart is ented to indemnity from eross-defendants, and each of them. (b) ‘Stuartis informed and believes thatthe cross-defendants, admit responsibility FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Equitable Indemnity Against All Cross-Defendants) 23) Swart refers to Paragraphs #7 through #12 ofthe First Cause of Action and by tis reference ‘incorporates the same herein as though set forth at length 24) Stuart alleges that she is in no way legally responsible forthe events giving rise to Plaintiff's action not legally responsible in any manner forthe damages allegedly sustained by said plaintiffs and does 1-100. If, contrary to the foregoing allegations, Smart herein is held to be liable forall or any part of the claim for damages asserted against other parties by the plaintiff, then Stuart is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief, alleges that cross-defendants, and each of them, were negligent, misrepresented certain facts, breached fiduciary duties, and breached contracts and/or agreements. Stuart i informed and believes at this time thatthe above acts of the cross-defendants and each of them, were the proximate cause of the damages andlor losses to Plants 25) Ry reason ofthe foregoing, crose defor Inte, and each of them, are responsible and liahle for any such damages in direct proportion tothe extent of their allege acts done in bringing about said damages, STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM 320-CV.05631 -20-0 " 2 B B 2 26 7 126) Stuart refers to Paragraphs #7 thrcugh #12 of er First Cause of Action and by this reference! incorporates the same herein though set forth nfl 7) Start assets that she in any way ever committed any independent wrong, and ia no way legally responsible for the damages alleged in plaintiffs complaint. Kimberly Caroll and Lewis Jordan and cross defendants actually cause and are responsible for causing al ‘wrongdoing agaist residents and agency employees alike, However, if asa result ofthe ‘mates alleged in plaints complaint, Star is held ible for all or any part of plains alleged damages, ross-defendans herein, and each of them, tothe extent that thei aut is etermined by the cour, ar oblipted to reimburse and ae lable to crss-complainant forall ‘any ibility so assessed by way of conteibution, and crss-complanant accordingly asserts herein such right to contibution, WHEREFORE, Stuart PRAYS for julgment a follows: 1, Fora declaration of Stuart's rights and duties; 2. For an order of the court declaring the percentage of fault, if any, between cross- {defendant and each of them, for damages and losses caused to plaints; 3. For an onder of the court awarding judgment in favor of Stuart against cross-defendants ‘and each of them, and based upon the relative percentage of fault of each party including the plants; 4, Foran order of this court that Stuartis entitled tobe fully indemnified by eross-defendants, | and each of them, for any and all settlements or compromises and/or judgments entered into asa result ofthis ation; | STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM san-cv.oseat oa.a 8 ‘5. Forany attortey's fes, court costs, investigative costs and other expenses incurred inthe defense of the complaint according to proof; and (6. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. BM. (Signature) VERIFICATION 1, Bemadette Stuart are inthe above-entited action. I have stated the foregoing and know and informed of the contents thereof. Is ll true of my own knowledge, excep as to those matters, are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be 1 declare under penalty of perjury thatthe foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration as executed Marin County, California. paren, (0 /(5-/Ba_« 7 STUART'S ANSWER & CROSSCLAIM s20.cvssst