UPDATE: Jan. 28,2001

Linda S. Mitlyng, Attorney SBN 113810
1215-37th Street
Anacortes, WA 98221
(360) 293-4454

William B. Phillips, Attorney SBN 79525
P.O. Box 1868
Healdsburg, CA 95448
(707) 431-2332
(707) 431-1927 Fax

Attorneys for Plaintiff
BARBARA and GEOFFREY GOULD

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MENDOCINO

COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, a political subdivision of the State of California, Plaintiff,
vs
GEOFFREY GOULD AND BARBARA GOULD, individually and dba PARROT PRESERVATION SOCIETY, and DOES I through XX, inclusive,
Defendants.
________________________________________
BARBARA and GEOFFREY GOULD,
Cross Complainants/Defendants,
vs.
COUNTY OF MENDOCINO; RAYMOND HALL, individually and in his capacity as Director of the Mendocino County Planning Dept.; ALLEN R. FALLERI, individually and in his capacity as Chief Planner, Mendocino County Planning Dept.; RICHARD SHOEMAKER, Individually and in his capacity as Mendocino County Supervisor; MICHAEL M. DELBAR, individually and in his capacity as Mendocino County Supervisor; TOM LUCIER, individually and in his capacity as Mendocino County Supervisor; PATRICIA A. CAMPBELL, individually and in her capacity as Mendocino County Supervisor; DALE HAWLEY, individually and in his capacity as Mendocino County Zoning Enforcement Officer; WOODY HUDSON, individually and in his capacity as Mendocino County Planner; DOUGLAS ZANINI, individually and in his capacity as Mendocino County Planner; GAIL HARRIE, individually and in her capacity as Mendocino County Enforcement Officer, and DOES 1 through 50,

Cross-Defendants..

CASE NO. SCUK-CVG-00-82958

SECOND AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNIFICATION

NEGLIGENCE;
WRONGFUL CONDUCT OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES/OFFICIALS;
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

I.

JURISDICTION

1. Each Cross-Complainant is a competent adult.

2. Each named Cross-Defendant is a natural person except the County of Mendocino, which is a public entity, a political subdivision of the State of California, to wit a County.

3. The true names and capacities of Cross-Defendants sued as Does are unknown to Cross-Complainants.

4. Cross-Complainants are not required to comply with a claims statute in this instance.

II.

THE PARTIES

5. Geoffrey and Barbara Gould ("the Goulds") are internationally recognized and respected, large scale conservation breeders who raise exotic parrots and macaws, as well as other agricultural products.

6. The Goulds are a resource for the World Wildlife Fund, and many other conservation organizations.

7. For over 26 years their farm was located outside of Phoenix, Arizona from 1972 until 1999, when they moved their farm to 22510 Windy Hollow Road, Point Arena, Mendocino County, California.

8. The Parrot Preservation Society ("PPS"), an on-line organization whose objective is education and conservation, was founded and is operated by the Goulds and other conservationists.

9. The PPS is a fledgling on-line group of avian conservationists, whose goal is to assist and participate by sharing of information in the raising of enough birds from a variety of locations to keep the captive genetic pool at an adequate level. In the future, when there is a safe place for these birds to return to their natural habitat in the wild, there will be species available to place there.

10. On their property located at 22510 Windy Hollow Road, the Goulds moved the Psittacine Breeding & Research Farm which involves psittacine conservation breeding (hands-on captive breeding) and observational research, as well as production of other agricultural products including but not limited to : exotic birds, feathers, row crops, orchards, egg production, chickens, turkeys, and livestock.

11. Cross-Defendant County of Mendocino ("the County") is, and at all times material to this Complaint, has been a duly constituted political subdivision of the State of California.

12. Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services ("DPB") is a department of the County.

13. The Goulds are informed and believe and hereby allege that Cross-Defendant Raymond Hall ("Hall") is and at all times relevant hereto was a California resident and is the Director of the DPB.

14. The Goulds are informed and believe and hereby allege that Cross-Defendant Allen Falleri ("Falleri") is and at all times relevant hereto was a California resident and is the Chief Planner for the DPB and works under the direction of the Director, Raymond Hall.

15. Walter Stornetta ("Stornetta") is a politically well connected major land owner, dairy farmer, lifelong friend of Cross-Defendant Falleri and a resident of the County.

16. The Goulds are informed and believe and hereby allege that Cross-Defendant Richard Shoemaker ("Shoemaker") is and at all times relevant hereto was a California resident and an elected official, to wit a County Supervisor for the County.

17. The Goulds are informed and believes and hereby allege that Cross-Defendant Michael M. Delbar ("Delbar") is and at all times relevant hereto was a California resident and an elected official, to wit a County Supervisor for the County.

18. The Goulds are informed and believes and hereby allege that Cross-Defendant Tom Lucier ("Lucier") is and at all times relevant hereto was a California resident and an elected official, to wit a County Supervisor for the County.

19. The Goulds are informed and believes and hereby allege that Cross-Defendant Patricia A. Campbell ("Campbell") is and at all times relevant hereto was a California resident and an elected official, to wit a County Supervisor for the County.

20. The Goulds are informed and believe and hereby allege that Cross-Defendant Dale Hawley ("Hawley") is and at all times relevant hereto was a California resident and is the Code Enforcement Officer for the DPB and works under the direction of the Director, Raymond Hall.

21. The Goulds are informed and believe and hereby allege that Cross-Defendant Woody Hudson ("Hudson") is and at all times relevant hereto was a California resident and is a Planner for the DPB and works under the direction of the Director, Raymond Hall.

22. The Goulds are informed and believe and hereby allege that Cross-Defendant Douglas Zanini ("Zanini") is and at all times relevant hereto was a California resident and is a planner for the DPB and works under the direction of the Director, Raymond Hall.

23. The Goulds are informed and believe and hereby allege that Cross-Defendant Gail Harrie ("Harrie") is and at all times relevant hereto was a California resident and is a code enforcement officer for the DPB and works under the direction of the Director, Raymond Hall.

24. The Goulds are informed and believe that at all times herein mentioned, all of the Cross-Defendants were the servants, agents, employees and/or joint venturers of all other Cross-Cross-Defendants and were as such acting within the course and scope of said respective service, agency, employment, or joint venture as to each and every other Cross-Defendant.

III.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

25. Prior to moving to Mendocino County, the Goulds had lived for more than 26 years, in a rural area outside of Scottsdale, Arizona, until encroaching development mandated they move their farm in 1998.

26. They called planning and zoning departments in many states to get regulations and help in determining what type of property was necessary for their needs.

27. The Goulds narrowed down their search to Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino counties, and made several trips to look at properties in Mendocino County, and to check zoning.

28. The Goulds were advised by the DPB that Agricultural Zoning ("AG") would be a better zoning for their uses the same as the other farmers in the area.

29. In November of 1998, the Goulds arrived in Mendocino County for approximately the third time looking for property on which to relocate.

30. They looked at several parcels, and in each case where they were interested in the property they contacted Hudson and/or Zanini at the Ft. Bragg office of DPB to ask whether the property in question was zoned correctly for their uses.

31. The very first time the Goulds contacted DPB they introduced ourselves to Hudson at the Ft. Bragg office and told him "We have a lot of very noisy parrots."

32. The Goulds requested guidance as to exactly where they could locate their exotic bird farm, and they told Hudson what their website was, and mailed him several copies of their business cards.

33. These conversations were with Hudson and/or Zanini. The Goulds were told that if they lived in a trailer, it would require a permit, but that there was no problem getting a permit; they were told there would be no problem getting a permit for a house and a guest house.

34. The Goulds were also told that parrots were no problem as long as they were located on the back third of the property; they were told that they did not need a permit for the motor-home.

35. On December 9, 1998, the Goulds again called Doug Zanini asking about zoning and were told by him they needed agricultural zoning.

36. During this phone call the Goulds asked to purchase a copy of the Coastal Zoning Code Book and were told it cost $10.00 plus $3.00 for postage which they sent in immediately. Along with their check they also sent Zanini a couple of their business cards which are fairly explicit about what their operation is, and has their website printed on the back.

37. After receiving the Coastal Zoning Code Book the Goulds called DPB twice in two days from Arizona for clarification about what was meant by "animal units" and "40 different species".

38. Although Goulds originally spoke to Hudson, and cited to him the code sections about which they had questions, Hudson sought another opinion while he was on the phone with them, and he finally stated " Well, parrots are parrots." and clearly the DPB considered all parrots as one species.

39. It was during these two discussions that the Goulds were told that AG zoning superseded Coastal Zoning and, as far as DPB was concerned AG would be the best zoning for the Goulds, as AG had no restrictions on animals, Cross-Complainants could have employee housing, barns almost for the asking, and they could move their shipping containers and all of their animals onto the property without any problems.

40. In subsequent discussions with DPB the Goulds were also told that parrots could be raised in a timber production zone.

41. When the Goulds decided to look at their present property on Windy Hollow Road they contacted the listing agent, Paul Escher of Oceanic Realty in Gualala.

42. They met Escher at Point Arena and went to the property and walked it with him. After returning to Escher's office they again called DPB, identified ourselves as "the parrot people" and checked the AP number and the address just to make sure that the address matched with the variance.

43. The Goulds did this was because although the land was zoned AG it was only a 16 acre parcel and they wanted to verify that it was in fact an AG property and were told that it was indeed zoned AG with a variance. It was during this call that they identified the property as being "right across the road from the turkey barns" to assist the planner in accurately identifying the property.

44. The Goulds checked with DPB one last time, and were told it would be fine for their uses, and were told to contact DPB for use permits before building their barn.

45. Based upon the representations of DPB, the Goulds made an offer on the property, closed escrow on May 19, 1999, and proceeded to move their farm from Scottsdale, Arizona.

46. Shortly after the Goulds had relocated from Arizona to Mendocino County, the Nicholas Turkeys ("Nicholas") foreman came over to the Goulds property, violating the biosecurity of both farms, and told the Goulds they would have to move and that his boss was also going to tell the Goulds they would have to move.

47. On June 29, 1999, the Goulds received a letter from Greg Music, the Production Supervisor for Nicholas, Stornetta's tenant. In the letter, Music states "We may only be neighbors for a short time but we need to take every necessary action to insure that both our enterprises remain viable."

48. Initially Stornetta contacted Dave Bengstron ("Bengston"), Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner to complain about the Goulds' farm.

49. Bengston then called Falleri. Falleri testified in deposition on August 28, 2000, that this was the first time that he had heard about the parrot/turkey conflict. Falleri also testified that Bengston called him at least twice and Falleri went to Bengston's office once to discuss the Goulds' farm.

50. Bengston told Falleri that "...there were higher political people involved in this and that it was something that we should be looking at..."

51. Falleri testified in deposition on August 28, 2000, that he contacted the Ft. Bragg DPB office to find out what they knew "about this case..."

52. On July 27, 1999, the Goulds received a letter from Zanini stating the Goulds did not qualify for farm housing and telling them to call Falleri.

53. On July 30, 1999, Falleri requested the Goulds send him an overview of their operation. They sent it out to him within hours by e-mail addressed to Frank Lynch and Falleri. (A true and correct copy of the e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and incorporated herein by reference. The e-mail was misdated as July 30, 1993.)

54. Falleri told the BOS at the December 20th hearing that he did not know why the Goulds had sent that e-mail to him. The e-mail indicates it was sent at Falleri's request.

55. Exhibit 1 clearly demonstrates that the Goulds are farmers and involved in agricultural pursuits.

56. On August 4, 1999, Stornetta telephoned the DPB and bypassing the regular staff, specifically asked to speak to his lifelong friend Falleri regarding his complaints about the Goulds' adjacent farming operation.

57. Stornetta was told by Falleri to file an official complaint and Stornetta filed a formal complaint with the DPB on August 16, 1999.

58. On August 16, 1999, Stornetta's complaint was referred by Falleri to DPB Code Enforcement and a Case File was opened by DPB.

59. Stornetta used his lifelong friendship with Falleri to manipulate the DPB's decision to review the Goulds usage of their private property and to determine that the Goulds use was not appropriate for AG zoning.

60. The Goulds would never have made an offer on their Windy Hollow Road property had the DPB not expressly told the Goulds, in response to their inquiries, that the AG zoning was what the Goulds needed.

61. The Goulds would never have made an offer on their Windy Hollow Road property had DPB even suggested there was a problem with its proximity to the turkey ranch.

62. The Goulds relied upon the representations of the DPB in deciding to acquire the property located on Windy Hollow Road.

63. In researching their property the Goulds accessed the website for DPB wherein DPB represents that "Members of the Planning and Building Services staff can aide in determining which zoning districts are, or are not, consistent with the general plan classification of your property."

64. On October 1, 1999, Stornetta's attorney Keith Faulder ("Faulder") (Faulder was also representing Nicholas) met with Hawley to "discuss the issues surrounding the Gould's use of their property in Point Arena."

65. Though his attorneys Stornetta has had full access to the County files involving the Goulds, including those of the DPB and County Counsel.

66. There is nothing in the Mendocino County code books prohibiting the conservation breeding of parrots, and no mention was ever made of it in the many conversations the Goulds had with employees of the DPB.

67. There is no objective difference between the use of the Goulds' Windy Hollow Road property and the use by Nicholas of Stornetta's property.

68. The Goulds raise fertile eggs and chicks from a flock of very valuable birds, as Nicolas does. The Goulds do observational research on their birds and write and publish their observations and have an internationally known and respected web-site, as Nicolas does.

69. On October 14, 1999, Faulder, wrote an lengthy letter to Mendocino County Counsel Irv Grant urging the DPB to take action against the Goulds and threatening to take action if the County did not do so, and copied it to Falleri, Hall, Peter Klein, David Colfax, Hawley, Campbell, Delbar, and Walter Stornetta, among others. (See Exhibit 2, incorporated herein by this reference.)

70. On October 25, 1999, Hall, Falleri, Harrie and Hawley, at a meeting chaired by Falleri , and in discussion led by Falleri, made the "determination" that the Goulds were in violation of the Mendocino County Zoning Code.

71. On October 27, 1999, the Goulds received by e-mail a notice from DPB that were in violation of the Mendocino County Coastal Zoning Codes stating that the " breeding, raising and selling of various breeds of parrots or other similar exotic birds....are not permitted" on property zoned AG. A copy of the Notice of Violation was provided to Stornetta and Nicholas's attorney.

72. Falleri created a nonissue "red herring," i.e. that the Goulds were not involved in agriculture, as a pretext to justify forcing the Goulds to leave their property to the financial benefit of Falleri's lifelong friend Walter Stornetta.

73. By the time the Goulds received the Notice of Violation from DPB, the Goulds were living full time on their property and had moved their entire parrot flock with cages, containers, and all ancillary trappings to their property, a process which took them in excess of six months to complete with the assistance of at least thirteen people other than the Goulds.

74. On October 28, 1999, Faulder telephoned Deputy County Counsel Grant to discuss "the Gould matter."

75. On October 29, 1999, Faulder wrote an another lengthy letter to Mendocino County Counsel Irv Grant again urging action by the DPB, and copied it to Falleri, Hall, Hawley, Campbell, Delbar, Shoemaker, and Lucier, among others. (See Exhibit 3, incorporated herein by this reference.)

76. Parrots are very fragile birds. The Goulds' move from Arizona has already affected their breeding pairs and most of them will not breed for one to two years. Another move could very well put the Goulds years down the road before they would have any chick production at all.

77. Each chick is worth approximately $500.00 to a wholesaler. The Goulds' adult birds average at least $2,000.00 per bird and range as high as $40,000.00 per pair.

78. Any unskilled or hurried attempts to move the Goulds flock will result in many bird deaths, and the irreparable loss of over thirty years of focused work, as well as the loss of irreplaceable breeding stock of some very rare species, most of which are listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES ) as "highly endangered".

79. The Goulds have no place to which to relocate their operation even if they wanted to do so.

80. It took the Goulds over a year to locate their present property, get approval for their operation from DPB, negotiate a price, open and close escrow, and relocate our entire flock to the 22510 Windy Hollow Road location.

81. If the Goulds are forced to move they would have to go through the entire acquisition process, open an escrow, sell their existing farm, and relocate their entire operation again all of which could easily take another one to two years.

82. As a result of the lawsuit by defendants, the Goulds listed their Windy Hollow Road farm for sale with Penetente-Peterson Realty in Mendocino. Although several people looked at their property, there were no offers.

83. Nicholas' turkey farm, still located across the road from the Goulds' property, is in full operation as of the filing of this second amended complaint, and in fact, has never ceased its operations in that location.

84. Both the Goulds' farm and the Nicholas farm are co-existing and in operation without any problems except those that are being foisted upon them by the Cross-Defendants.

85. The Goulds were forced to pay $1120.00 for an appeal of the decision of the DPB.

86. The appeal before the Board of Supervisors ("BOS") was originally scheduled to be heard at the regularly scheduled meeting on February 1, 2000.

87. The BOS Decision to advance the Goulds' appeal hearing date from February 1, 2000, to December 20, 1999, was solely for the financial benefit of Stornetta, and to the detriment of the Goulds, because in doing so, the Goulds were precluded from having their expert witness, Dr. George West, in attendance at the hearing.

88. At the December 7, 1999, BOS Meeting the supervisors were informed that "Mr. Stornetta and his attorneys, [said] that his tenant [Nicholas) needs a decision by December 31st or they are out of there." (See Exhibit 4, incorporated herein by this reference.)

89. Also at the December 7, 1999 meeting, BOS members were informed "that County Counsel and the attorney for the Stornettas are willing to go into court and enforce the restraining order [this is before the Goulds appeal had even been heard] and that this was going to be acceptable to Mr. Stornetta."

90. Additionally at the December 7, 1999 meeting, BOS members were informed that the County's attorney County Counsel Peter Klein advised that if the board "went ahead with the hearing and simply specified the date and [the Goulds} attorneys could not make it, [BOS] would be leaving [themselves] open and vulnerable to challenges..."

91. Some BOS members had already made up their mind at the December 7th meeting. At that meeting one supervisor stated "So unless [the Goulds] come up with something overwhelming, I still am all in favor of the turkey people."

92. Later at the December 7, 1999, Meeting, BOS members discussed the possibility of litigation and decided "the threat of litigation or whatever may result from this uh, is uh, less of a risk than losing jobs..."

93. The decision to advance the date of the Goulds' appeal hearing from February 1, 2000 to December 20, 1999, before the BOS passed by a unanimous vote.

94. The "EMERGENCY" Board of Supervisor's meeting was held in Ukiah on December 20, 1999, scheduled during the Christmas Holiday Season to hear the Goulds' appeal.

95. All of the BOS members were in attendance at the December 20, 1999 hearing.

96. At that hearing, Falleri misrepresented to the BOS that: the Goulds were engaging in "parrot raising and [retail] sales." when no retail sales were ever made or contemplated from the Goulds' Windy Hollow Farm property.

97. Subsequent to that hearing, on August 25, 2000, Hawley admitted in a deposition that if there are no retail sales of parrots by the Goulds from their Windy Hollow Farm, the Goulds' operation would not be classified Animal Sales and Services: Household pets.

98. At the December 20th hearing, Falleri had in his possession information he had obtained five days prior to the hearing, which clearly demonstrated that other coastal and inland counties all considered the raising of "exotic birds" to be zoned AG with a use permit, and he concealed that information from the BOS, stating at that time he was seeking said information and would provide it to them at a later date.

99. Falleri also concealed from the BOS and others involved in the process that he was a lifelong friend of Stornetta, and that their families had been friends since 1932.

100. Falleri also testified that "There is not a specific use type [in the Code] that says parrot raising or exotic bird raising....it's not one of these real clear-cut things." and he added "And immediately it became clear that parrots, at least as far as [DPB] staff was concerned, weren't the ordinary farm animal. You know, they just did not seem to be the thing you would find in an "old McDonald had a farm" type of song."

101. That was the standard uses by the BOS in determining whether the Goulds were involved in an agricultural pursuit: Whether parrots would be found on "old McDonald's farm".

102. Delbar based his decision to deny the Goulds' appeal on a series of questions he had asked of his four year old son and whether his four year old son thought that parrots were farm animals.

103. At the December 20th hearing, the Goulds testified that there was essentially no difference between their farm and the turkey farm next door.

104. The Goulds also testified that every other county they contacted responded that the Goulds' operation was properly zoned AG or light agriculture. 105. Mendocino County's own codes clearly state that "Light Agriculture" includes the raising of "other small farm animals" and the Coastal Zoning Code defines small animals to include dogs, cats, birds, poultry, rabbits, chinchilla, hamsters, and other small domesticated animals other than large animals."

105. The BOS voted 4 to 1 to deny the Goulds' appeal on December 20, 1999.

106. On March 15, 2000, Stornetta's attorney Tim Morrison ("Morrison") appeared in court on behalf of Stornetta in concert with Grant in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a TRO against the Goulds. Later that same day Morrison was observed looking through the County Counsel's legal file on the Goulds and discussing it with Grant.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(ABUSE OF PROCESS)

107. THIS CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DISMISSED BY THE COURT IN ITS ORDER FILED JANUARY 17, 2001. CROSS-COMPLAINANTS RESERVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS DECISION BY THE COURT.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(NEGLIGENCE)

109. The Goulds by this reference hereby re-allege and incorporate and make a part hereof as though set forth fully and at length, all and singular the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 107, herein.

110. On or about June 1999, and continuing thereafter, all Cross-Defendants, and each of them, initiated a negligent and reckless course of conduct toward the Goulds.

111. Cross-Defendants, Zanini and Hudson and each of them, by their actions, omissions and conduct, negligently and carelessly advised the Goulds, in response to telephonic inquiries regarding the zoning requirements for their particular aviculture operation.

112. After the Goulds had purchased their property, zoned AG, and moved their farm to the property, Cross-Defendants Falleri, Hall, Zanini, Hudson, Hawley, Harrie, Shoemaker, Delbar, Lucier, and Campbell, and each of them, negligently and carelessly subsequently determined the Goulds' farming operation should be classified as Animal Sales and Services: Household Pets, and required that the Goulds move what is clearly a farming operation to a commercial zone.

113. All defendants are public employees of Mendocino County and owe a legal duty of care to the public in the performance of their duties and responsibilities in executing the laws, regulations and codes governing Mendocino County and the State of California.

114. By reason of the cross-defendants' negligent and reckless course of conduct toward the Goulds, the Goulds' ability to pursue their business has been seriously compromised and their careers have been seriously threatened.

108. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and recklessness of Cross-Defendants the Goulds suffered severe mental anguish, stress, anxiety and sleeplessness, impaired concentration and dread and anxiety, as a result of which the Goulds has been caused to suffer severe emotional distress and mental disturbance and have sustained general damages by reason thereof.

109. By the actions, omissions and conduct of Cross-Defendants, and each of them, described above, defendants negligently caused damages to the Goulds, who suffered severe economic, physical and emotional injuries as herein alleged.

115. As a proximate result of Cross-Defendants' conduct, as herein alleged, the Goulds have suffered great and irreparable economic and other loss and damage. The Goulds also suffered consequential damages in an amount according to proof. WHEREFORE, the Goulds pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(WRONGFUL CONDUCT OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES/OFFICIALS)

110. The Goulds by this reference hereby re-allege and incorporate and make a part hereof as though set forth fully and at length, all and singular the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 117, herein.

111. Cross-Defendants Falleri, Hall, Zanini, Hudson, Hawley, Harrie, Shoemaker, Delbar, Lucier, and Campbell are all employees or officials of Defendant Mendocino County, who hold positions of public trust, and are legally obligated to discharge their duties in a fair and unbiased manner.

112. All Cross-Defendants, and others, and each of them, engaged in a conspiracy

As set forth in ¶¶'s 46 thru 59, 64, 65, 69 thru 75, 85 thru 102, 106 and 107.

113. The above named Cross?Defendants, in the course of their employment, engaged in intentional and wrongful conduct: deliberately misinterpreting the Mendocino County Zoning Code as it applied to the Goulds use of their property; suppressing relevant information from each other that Cross?Defendants either knew or should have known was directly related to the use of the Goulds' property; and commencing and maintaining against the Goulds a series of illegal persecutions and prosecutions for the ulterior motives of personal and political gain.

114. Cross?Defendants, and each of them, individually and through their officers, partners, agents and employees, acting within the course of their employment, but, in an abuse of their authority, without probable cause, or any reasonable basis in fact or law, caused the instant action to be commenced and maintained against the Goulds for the ulterior motives of personal and political gain, and intentionally incorrectly reclassified the Goulds use of their personal property as Animal Sales and Services: Household Pets, requiring that the Goulds move what is clearly a farming operation to a commercial zone, to the benefit of Falleri's good friend Stornetta and Stornetta's tenant, Nicholas, with a wanton and reckless disregard of the consequences to the Goulds.

116. Cross?defendants actions were motivated by an invidious animus and reckless disregard for their obligation to properly use their authority as public employees.

117. Cross?defendants acted with oppression, fraud, malice, and a conscious disregard of the Goulds' rights, and as the proximate result of the aforementioned acts, the Goulds have suffered, and continue to suffer injury to their person and property as heretofore set forth, and the Goulds are entitled to punitive and exemplary damages.

118. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Cross-Defendants actions, the Goulds have suffered and continue to suffer financial, physical and emotional injuries as set forth above in an amount will be proven at trial according to proof.

WHEREFORE, the Goulds pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)

115. The Goulds by this reference hereby re-allege and incorporate and make a part hereof as though set forth fully and at length, all and singular the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 125.

116. On or about June 1999, and continuing thereafter, all Cross-Defendants, and each of them, as herein alleged engaged in a conspiracy and pattern of conduct to deprive the Goulds of their rights which included a malicious attempt to have the Goulds' aviculture operation removed from their property for the benefit of Falleri's lifelong friend Stornetta.

117. Cross-Defendants created a pretext to deprive the Goulds of the use and enjoyment of their own private property.

118. Cross-Defendants during the entire course of investigating, prosecuting and attempting to evict the Goulds farming operation from their property violated the Goulds' rights pursuant to the laws of the State of California and the County of Mendocino.

119. The conduct of Cross-Defendants, and each of them, was intentional and malicious and was done with a wanton and reckless disregard of the consequences to the Goulds, and caused and continues to cause them to suffer humiliation, degradation, mental anguish and emotional distress.

120. As the proximate result of the aforementioned acts, the Goulds suffered humiliation, degradation, mental anguish, and severe emotional distress resulting in nervousness, sleeplessness, anxiety and stress, impaired concentration, and dread and anxiety. By reason of the foregoing, the Goulds have sustained general damages.

121. The aforementioned acts of Cross-Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages.

122. As a proximate result of Cross-Defendants' malicious and illegal conduct, as herein alleged, the Goulds have suffered great and irreparable economic and other loss and damage. The Goulds also suffered consequential damages in an amount according to proof. WHEREFORE, the Goulds pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

123. IN ITS ORDER FILED JANUARY 17, 2001, THE COURT RULED THAT NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT TORT, AND ORDERED CROSS-COMPLAINANTS TO INCORPORATE THIS CASE OF ACTION AS AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGE WITHIN THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION. CROSS-COMPLAINANTS RESERVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS DECISION BY THE COURT.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Goulds pray judgement against Cross-Defendants as follows:

1. For injunctive relief according to proof;

2. For compensatory damages including special and general damages, in a sum according to proof;

3. For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at a legal rate;

4. For an award of punitive damages as appropriate and according to proof;

5. For attorneys' fees provided by law in an amount to be determined by the Court;

6. For the costs of the suit incurred in this action;

7. For an award to Plaintiff of other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Dated: January 25, 2001

By: ________________________

William B. Phillips
Attorney for Barbara and Geoffrey Gould