Whether it is fabricating charges against more expensive high seniority teachers to get rid of them or subsequently adding insult to injury by making bad faith false allegations of overpayment against them, both actions are predicated on the idea that a teacher now without salary or benefits will be hard pressed to mount a legal defense.
For those of you teachers and other LAUSD employees who have been so falsely charged with having been overpaid, what follows is a way you can finally and reasonably defend yourself. Linked below is an "Answer" to LAUSD's false allegations of overpayment that you can use along with the blank forms and content necessary to defend yourself in court.
Copy the information from my attached sample "Answer" below into the blank template provided, if the facts are the same in your case. Then cut and paste the following as indicated into the blank forms provided at the bottom. Be sure to change case number, if yours is not the same. Then all you have to do is file the documents with the court and pay the filing fees.
(Form PLD-C-010 two pages)
1. This Court lacks jurisdiction because the causes of action alleged in the First Amended Complaint arise under a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) entered into by LAUSD and United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), the alleged overpayment of wages is a subject of mandatory collective bargaining under the Educational Employee Relations Act (EERA), and the interpretation of issues arising under a CBA are subject to the exclusive initial jurisdiction of the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB). Therefore, LAUSD has not satisfied the procedural prerequisite that it exhausted its administrative remedies under the EERA.
2. Neither the First Amended Complaint nor any cause of action alleged therein alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action against this answering defendant.
3. The damages, if any, were the result of the negligence, fault, incompetence, carelessness, want of due care, and defective design and operation of the LAUSD payroll system by LAUSD, its agents and employees, and others presently unknown.
4. The First Amended Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the applicable statutes of of limitations.
5. This answering defendant has fully performed all acts required under the CBA.
See Attachment 4
Plaintiff LAUSD has failed to join UTLA as a necessary and indispensable party. On information and belief UTLA has failed and refused to file an unfair labor practice against LAUSD based on LAUSD's violation of the terms of compensation under CBA Article IX. Since LAUSD has filed identical complaints against UTLA members every year since 2009 and UTLA has failed to represent its members as the exclusive bargaining agent or otherwise enforce the terms of the CBA, complete resolution of all claims and disputes requires the joinder of UTLA.
Attorney fees under CCP sec. 1021.5: Should Defendant prevail and obtain dismissal of this lawsuit on behalf of all defendants, counsel will have obtained a benefit for a large number of persons while enforcing an important public policy.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, CONTINUED.
6. LAUSD's false representations concerning the terms and conditions of defendant's compensation under the CBA bar any claims it may have to equitable relief under the unclean hands doctrine.
7. LAUSD's false representations concerning the terms and condition of defendant's compensation under the CBA is a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing implied in every contract.
8. LAUSD's FAC is virtually identical to complaints LAUSD has filed every year since 2008 alleging that it has made the identical mistakes every year and has therefore waived the right to claim "mistake" as a ground for relief.
9. The compensation payable under the CBA is an annual salary paid monthly without regard to the number of days or hours worked in the relevant pay period. Therefore, LAUSD has falsely represented the terms and conditions of a written contract (i.d., the CBA) to the Court and violated the duties of candor and honesty owed to this Court.
10. LAUSD has failed to mitigate any damages it may have sustained caused by LAUSD's continuing to utilize a payroll system that fails to acknowledge the terms and conditions negotiated as the result of arms length bargaining between LAUSD and UTLA compensation agreement.
11. LAUSD lacks standing to enforce the terms of the CBA unless and until it exhausts its administrative remedies.
12. LAUSD has failed and refused to provide any documentary evidence supporting its allegations that LAUSD's records contain facts showing that defendant was overpaid.
13. LAUSD's failure to provide defendant with documentary evidence substantiating its allegations prior to filing this lawsuit implies that it has no such evidence and will be unable to establish the elements of its causes of action as a matter of law or, if it has concealed such evidence, that it is estopped to offer the evidence at trial.
14. LAUSD has attempted to commit a fraud on the Court by knowingly concealing from the Court that LAUSD's purported calculations of "overpayments" based on a six-hour day is a misrepresentation of the agreement that teachers work "no fewer than eight hours" as set forth in Article IX of the CBA. Article IX provides in relevant part as follows: 1.0 General Workday Provisions: It is agreed that the professional workday of a full-time regular employee requires no fewer than eight hours of on-site and off-site work, and that the varying nature of professional duties does not lend itself to a total maximum daily work time of definite or uniform length.
In addition, you will have to fill out "Summons" forms and "Proof of Service" forms that you can download from the Internet
File the answer. You send it to the court house and attach a "proof of service" which you can download from the internet. You are required to serve the attorney for the district.