Latest news with #AlamedaCountySuperiorCourt
San Francisco Chronicle
5 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘She made me afraid': Slain UC Berkeley professor sought restraining order against ex-wife
Two months before Przemyslaw Jeziorski was shot to death in Greece outside his ex-wife's home, the UC Berkeley professor sought a restraining order against her, saying he feared for his life. Jeziorski, 43, sought the court order amid a child custody and property battle with ex-wife Nadia Michelidaki, 43, accusing her of threats and extortion attempts, and her boyfriend of assaulting him twice during visits to her suburban Athens home to see his children. The request for a restraining order, filed in Alameda County Superior Court in May, detailed increasingly hostile behavior from Jeziorski's ex-wife and her boyfriend that made Jeziorski worry about what more they might do to him. Jeziorski was killed on July 4 as he was walking to Michelidaki's home to see his children. Earlier this week, Greek police arrested Michelidaki, her partner and three others, charging them with Jeziorski's killing. In an interview with the Chronicle, Michelidaki's attorney, Alexandros Pasiatas, said his client was not involved in Jeziorski's killing. Jeziorski and Michelidaki had visited a child psychologist and come to an agreement on their children's custody and summer plans, he said. Michelidaki had been 'very, very happy' with the agreement, he said, adding that it 'wouldn't make sense' for her to then have her partner kill Jeziorski half an hour later. Michelidaki was in police custody as of Thursday and will remain there until a hearing on July 21, when a judge will decide whether Michelidaki should remain in jail pending trial. Her children are currently under the care of the state, Pasiatas said. Jeziorski and Michelidaki married in 2014. Jeziorski filed for divorce in fall 2021, citing irreconcilable differences, and their marriage was dissolved in 2024, although bitter divorce proceedings continued as the couple fought over child custody and shared property. Jeziorski and Michelidaki negotiated an agreement where Jeziorski could take his children on vacation in July every year. In the 12-page restraining order request, Jeziorski accused Michelidaki of a raft of abusive behavior, such as sabotaging their mutual business, attempting to damage his professional reputation and withholding their children from him. He said he was assaulted twice by Michelidaki's partner, Christos Dounias, when he visited her home to drop off or pick up his children. During the first incident, on May 1, 2024, he said Dounias knocked his phone out of his hand during one exchange as he was on a phone call with his brother. Later that day, when he returned to the home to drop his children off, he said, Dounias came down to pick up the kids. 'I told him that since he had assaulted me, I was not comfortable leaving the kids with him for fear of their safety,' Jeziorski wrote in support of his request for a restraining order. He threatened to report Dounias for kidnapping if he took the children. At that point, he said, Dounias charged out of the home and began pushing and kicking him. Jeziorski wrote that he believed his ex-wife 'repeatedly' had Dounias pick up the children instead of appearing herself, which he viewed as a tactic to intimidate him. 'She made me afraid of my life by having her partner, who is hostile and aggressive towards me, (present) during the visitation exchange, despite my asking her not to do so,' he wrote. After the May 2024 incident, authorities charged Dounias with assault, Jeziorski said. Jeziorski went on to accuse Michelidaki of violating their custody agreement and refusing to renew their children's passports, 'which prevents me from taking them to see their grandparents. … Their grandfather is very advanced in age and I want my children to see them before he dies.' In his request for a restraining order, he also detailed several other incidents. In one, in early 2025, he said Michelidaki attempted to extort money from him by sending him messages on Slack accusing him of failing to give her co-authorship on research papers, threatening to 'contact my colleagues and the dean of my department if I did not pay her money.' 'Any small accusation of plagiarism will absolutely destroy my credibility and station in the academic community,' he said, calling the allegations 'a complete lie and slander,' and saying that many of the papers she wanted credit for were written years before the two met. He also said Michelidaki threatened to call police when he held a graduation party in early May at a Berkeley short-term rental property he and she co-owned. Jeziorski wrote that he believed Michelidaki was trying to 'humiliate me socially in order to control me' and their finances, and to get him to drop charges against her current partner. He went on to accuse Michelidaki of taking money out of their joint real estate accounts, actions that he said caused 'chaos' and made him worry she might damage his finances or create debts, and asked for sole control of the account and other business accounts. In the document, Jeziorski asked a judge to order Michelidaki to cease communications with him, to stop making defamatory statements about him and to stop contacting his professional colleagues. Court documents detail other aspects of the deterioration of Jeziorski and Michelidaki's relationship, including Jeziorski's allegation that Michelidaki was attempting to withhold their children from him and her attempts at tarnishing his reputation as an academic. This summer, Jeziorski planned to take his children to Poland, where they traveled annually to visit their grandparents, and the U.S. for a trip to Disneyland. In May, Jeziorski emailed Michelidaki, requesting she take their children to passport renewal appointments at the U.S. Embassy in Athens for their upcoming vacation with him. Michelidaki responded, 'Take them to the one in Paris. And what about your 'dying father'? Don't care to visit him anymore or he quit dying?' 'We don't need to talk this way. My father is not well,' Jeziorski wrote. Court documents also show that Jeziorski felt Michelidaki was threatening his career as a tenured professor of marketing at the Haas School of Business. Jeziorski said that In April, Michelidaki accused him of plagiarism in his research by failing to cite her as a co-author in 'every publication that gave (him) tenure position,' court documents show. 'Adding my name to the Airbnb reviews paper is not acceptable form of attribution. I want my name removed from this embarrassing paper and added to the papers I received in similarly embarrassing state and turned into top journal publications. But seriously remove my name from this trash today,' Michelidaki wrote to Jeziorski. Jeziorski said Michelidaki played no role in writing these papers; she 'never meaningfully contributed to the research beyond scanning a page or two for commas and grammar errors,' Jeziorski said in the court documents. Concurrent with Michelidaki's request for co-authorship, he said she also messaged Jeziorski on Slack demanding more child support. Jeziorski wrote to the court that the two negotiated he would pay 30,000 euros (more than $34,000 in U.S. funds today) per year in child support, in addition to paying for their children's private school tuition. 'Your child support is now 120k per year,' Michelidaki messaged, according to the court documents. 'If you would like to change the mediated agreement please contact my lawyer,' Jeziorski responded. 'I do not want to talk about it in the work slack channel. Also, please do not contact me about extra money demands or with threats of lawsuits of any kind.' Michelidaki responded, 'search up the term threats as you don't know how to use it.' She then threatened to report Jeziorski for plagiarism again to his senior colleague in the marketing department of Haas, 'I'll get paid for my work one way or another. I'll write a book too. I have so many plans for this year!!!' 'Although I know her threats are baseless, I am still intimidated by her actions,' Jeziorski wrote to the court. 'Her baseless allegations will harm my economic prospects for employment and completely damage my reputation in the intellectual community, regardless of their truth.' Court documents show Michelidaki threatened to call police on Jeziorski. As a part of Jeziorski's responsibilities as a tenured professor at Haas, he threw a graduation reception this spring for recent graduates at an Airbnb rental property he co-owned with Michelidaki in Berkeley. Jeziorski said he independently rented the property on Airbnb for the event. 'I know you are at the property,' Michelidaki wrote in an email. 'Do you really want to deal with the police during the party with your students?'
Los Angeles Times
20-06-2025
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
Union presses California's key bird flu testing lab for records
The union representing workers at a UC Davis lab that tests and tracks bird flu infections in livestock has sued the university, demanding that records showing staffing levels and other information about the lab's operations be released to the public. Workers in the lab's small biotechnology department had raised concerns late last year about short staffing and potentially bungled testing procedures as cases of avian flu spread through millions of birds in turkey farms and chicken and egg-laying facilities, as well as through the state's cattle herds. The University Professional and Technical Employees-CWA Local 9119 said that it requested records in December 2024 in an attempt to understand whether the lab was able to properly service the state's agribusiness. But UC Davis has refused to release records, in violation of California's public records laws, the union alleged in a lawsuit recently filed in Alameda County Superior Court. UC Davis spokesperson Bill Kisliuk declined to comment on the lawsuit's specific allegations. 'The university looks forward to filing our response in court. We are grateful for the outstanding work of the CAHFS lab staff, including UPTE-represented workers, during the 2024 surge in avian flu testing,' Kisliuk said in an email. UC Davis has previously denied that workplace issues have left the lab ill-equipped to handle bird flu testing. Kisliuk had said the facility 'maintained the supervision, staffing and resources necessary to provide timely and vital health and safety information to those asking us to perform tests.' According to copies of email correspondence cited in the lawsuit, UC Davis in January denied the union's request for records regarding short staffing or testing errors, calling the request 'unduly burdensome.' It also denied its request for information about farms and other businesses that had samples tested at the lab, citing an exemption to protect from an 'invasion of personal privacy.' Workers at the lab had previously told The Times that they observed lapses in quality assurance procedures, as well as other mistakes in the testing process. Amy Fletcher, a UC Davis employee and president of the union's Davis chapter, said the records would provide a necessary window into how staffing levels could be hurting farms and other businesses that rely on the lab for testing. Fletcher said workers have become afraid to speak about problems at the lab, having been warned by management that the some information related to testing is confidential. The Davis lab is the only entity in the state with the authority to confirm bird flu cases. The union, known as UPTE, represents about 20,000 researchers and other technical workers across the University of California system's 10 campuses.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Alameda County jurors' compensation cut back to $15 a day
(KRON) — A pilot program providing Alameda County Superior Court jurors with $100 per day in compensation is being paused indefinitely. Any juror selected to serve for a trial after June 4 will only receive $15 daily, court officials said. The goal for paying jurors $100, instead of a meager $15, was to diversify jury pools. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Thomas Nixon said, 'Jurors are an essential part of our judicial system, and we need to do all we can to increase participation.' During jury selection, prospective jurors can request to be dismissed by a judge for a wide range of reasons. Financial hardships are common reasons for dismissal requests. Man who allegedly gunned down 2 people at Vallejo encampment captured: VPD The Jury Pilot Program was created as part of AB1981, which was signed by Newsom in 2022. In a notice sent this week to seven superior courts participating in the $100 per day pilot program, the Judicial Council of California requested that each court suspend the program because Gov. Gavin Newsom's revised budget cut funding. The National Center for State Courts, which was tracking juror demographics and diversity in all seven counties, was scheduled to release a report at the conclusion of the pilot program. The status of that report is currently unknown given the program is ending less than halfway through its designed length of time, court officials said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
San Francisco Chronicle
02-05-2025
- San Francisco Chronicle
Injured cyclist may sue Oakland for damages after hitting pothole, court rules
A bicyclist who was seriously injured after he hit a pothole on an Oakland street during an organized ride may sue the city for damages — even though he had signed a waiver of liability required by the ride's organizers, California's highest court ruled Thursday. Ty Whitehead of San Francisco was on a training ride in preparation for an AIDS fundraising bike trip to Los Angeles in March 2017 when his bicycle struck a pothole while going downhill on Skyline Boulevard in Oakland. His lawyers said Whitehead was thrown over the handlebars, suffered brain damage, was in a coma for two weeks and remains disabled. When he sued for his injuries, the city cited a release Whitehead and other riders were required to sign on the morning of the ride, releasing the trip's organizers and government agencies from liability for any negligence that caused them harm. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Richard Seabolt and the state's 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that the release required dismissal of the suit, but the state Supreme Court unanimously reinstated it Thursday. Such agreements may be enforceable if they do not violate a city's obligations under state law, Justice Kelli Evans said in the 7-0 decision. But in this case, she said, Whitehead's lawsuit relies on a California law requiring a city 'to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition for travel by the public.' 'An agreement to exculpate a party for future violations of a statutory duty designed to protect public safety is against the policy of the law … and is not enforceable,' Evans wrote. 'To hold otherwise would substantially undermine the Legislature's ability to protect the public.' That doesn't necessarily mean Oakland was negligent in maintaining its streets, but it could allow the claim to go to a jury, Evans said. She said Oakland might still seek dismissal of the suit if it can show Whitehead knowingly 'assumed the risk' of such an accident. In a filing with the court, the city attorney's office said allowing such lawsuits would have 'dire consequences for public entities, inevitably increasing their liability.' But Evans said Oakland's warning that such liability would lead cities to make recreational use of their property prohibitively expensive — or even illegal — 'seems exaggerated.' 'The city already owes a duty to the public to maintain its public roadways in a safe condition,' and even before the ruling it could have been sued by any cyclist who was injured while on a personal trip and had not signed a waiver of liability, the justice said. Anthony Label, a lawyer for Whitehead and his family, said the ruling 'emphasizes that California cities must proactively maintain public roads and facilities, rather than relying on overreaching waivers to escape accountability. This outcome is not only crucial for public safety but also sets a new statewide precedent that will compel cities to prioritize infrastructure repairs to prevent injuries.' The case is Whitehead v., City of Oakland, S284303.
American Military News
26-04-2025
- Automotive
- American Military News
Tesla settles lawsuit by Black worker who alleged widespread racism at Fremont electric car factory
Tesla has settled a lawsuit by a worker in its Fremont electric car factory who claimed she was harassed and discriminated against because she is Black. Raina Pierce sued the automaker in 2022, alleging that her manager referred to the facility as 'the plantation' and the 'slave house,' and that her supervisor called her a racial slur that was pervasive in the factory. Pierce still worked at Tesla when she filed her lawsuit, but has since left the company, her lawyer said Monday. Tesla, led by CEO Elon Musk, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Pierce's case, first filed in Alameda County Superior Court and moved the next month to San Francisco U.S. District Court, is one of several claiming widespread, anti-Black racism at the Fremont plant. Two are scheduled to go to trail in September. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed in the court filing Friday about the agreement. Pierce's lawyer Hunter Pyle said the settlement was confidential. The deal followed court-ordered arbitration that started in March 2023, and mediation in October 2024 that concluded early this month in the agreement, according to an earlier court filing. Pierce had claimed that when a manager noticed she had been assigned to push two carts that were too heavy for one person, and notified her direct supervisors, one of them angrily claimed she got him in trouble, and later made a vulgar comment about not being able to tolerate Black people. Pierce's supervisors let non-Black workers swap work stations regularly, but denied her requests to switch stations, and also disciplined her more frequently and severely than non-Black colleagues, the lawsuit claimed. Pierce had reported alleged harassment and discrimination to Tesla's human resources department in May 2021, after she had begun, a month before, to feel a sharp pain in her left knee and lower leg that was made worse by standing for long periods, walking long distances or carrying heavy items, the lawsuit said. A few months later, suffering from the leg pain and an infection, she called out sick and was told she was being put on leave, the lawsuit claimed. Tesla, in addition to discriminating against her on the basis of race and gender, and failing to stop the alleged race-based harassment, retaliated against her by making her stay on leave for more than three months, the lawsuit alleged. She was seeking unspecified general, punitive and compensatory damages. The car maker continues fighting a number of legal actions claiming it failed to properly address anti-Black racism in its facilities. California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing — the state's civil rights regulator — filed suit against Tesla in 2022, alleging Black workers at the company's Fremont facility were paid less than White workers, denied advancements, and faced daily racist abuse, including a noose drawn in a bathroom next to a lynching reference and a racial slur. Tesla has called the lawsuit, in Alameda County Superior Court, 'misguided' and 'unfair.' The case is set to go before a jury Sept. 15. In the widest-ranging ongoing racism case against the pioneering EV company, hundreds of current and former Black workers for Tesla filed declarations supporting a 2017 class-action lawsuit by former Tesla contractor Marcus Vaughn, alleging that despite complaint after complaint, the company did not stop race-based abuse and discrimination, with Black workers segregated into the hardest, most dangerous, lowest-paid jobs and subjected to a barrage of racist treatment, language and images. Thousands of current and former Black workers at Tesla have signed on to the lawsuit. Tesla said in a 2022 blog post that it 'strongly opposes all forms of discrimination and harassment' and claimed it 'has always disciplined and terminated employees who engage in misconduct, including those who use racial slurs or harass others in different ways.' The judge in the case, Noël Wise, said last year that the experiences of workers who submitted declarations 'might reasonably be characterized as race harassment.' A jury trial in the Vaughn case is scheduled to start Sept. 8 in Alameda County Superior Court. In 2021, a San Francisco federal court jury awarded a Black former Tesla worker, Owen Diaz, almost $137 million after he sued the company over alleged 'daily racist epithets' in a workplace where colleagues drew swastikas and left racist graffiti and drawings around the facility. San Francisco U.S. District Judge William Orrick later cut the award to $15 million, saying 'disturbing' evidence supported the verdict against Tesla, but legal principles compelled him to slash the payment. Diaz rejected the award in favor of a new trial, where a jury found that Tesla should pay $3.2 million. After Diaz filed a court notice that he would appeal, he and Tesla reached a confidential final settlement in March 2024. In May, an arbitrator ordered Tesla to pay $1 million to Melvin Berry, a Black former Tesla factory worker called racial slurs by supervisors. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Tesla in 2023, accusing the company of 'tolerating widespread and ongoing racial harassment of its Black employees and … subjecting some of these workers to retaliation for opposing the harassment.' Tesla in a court filing claimed the lawsuit arose from 'run-amok competition' between the commission and the California civil rights regulator, and that it lacked 'any sound factual basis.' The next hearing in the case is scheduled for June. ___ © #YR@ MediaNews Group, Inc. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
