Motion for Writ in Ruggirello, Shae Thomas vs California Department of Motor Vehicles| Trellis.Law

On November 01, 2018 a Hearing was filed involving a dispute between Ruggirello, Shae Thomas, and California Department Of Motor Vehicles, for civil in the District Court of Butte County.

Preview
EUW'OF n“ r'lnfCalll'omla
E‘.
XAVIER BECERRA F
Attorney General 0f California County 0i Butte
|
PETER D. HALLORAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General L 3/22/2019
KRISTA DUNZWEILER E
Deputy Attorney General D.
State Bar N0.
@KJI-P-UJN 227384
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 210-7506
Fax: (916) 324-5567
E-mail: Krista.Dunzweiler@d0j.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendant
\OOO\1
Department of Motor Vehicles

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 COUNTY OF BUTTE
11-

12 Shae Thomas OD Ruggirello, Case N0. 18CVO3613
13 Petitioner, ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
VERIFIED PETITION FOR
14 v. ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE
TO SET ASIDE SUSPENSION OF
15 DRIVING PRIVILEGE
Director of the California Department 0f
16 Motor Vehicles, Date: April 10, 2019
Time: 9:00 am.
17 Respondent. Dept: 1
Judge: The Honorable Tamara L.
18 Mosbarger
19

20 Respondent Director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV” 01'
21 “Respondent”) answers the First Amended Verified Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandate to

22 Set Aside Suépcnsion of Driving Privilege by Petitioner Shae Thomas OD Ruggirello

23 (“Petitioner”) by admitting, denying and alleging as follows:
1. In response t0 paragraph 1, DMV lacks sufficient information to admit or deny, and

25 on that basis denies.

26 2. In response t0 paragraph 2, DMV admits.

27 3. In response t0 paragraph 3, DMV admits that Petitioner has claimed this as the stated

28 basis for his Petition. DMV denies Petitioner’s allegation that its decision to suspend Petitioner’s
1

Answer to Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate (18CV03613)
privilege to operaee a motor vehicle was a prejudicial abuse 0f discretion, arbitrary and capricious

because there was no probable cause t0 detain and seize Petitioner.
'

4. In response to paragraph-4, Petitioner misstates the dontents of the relevant
documentation, and on that basis DMV denies.
©OO\]O$Jl-l>~b0l$)—\

5. In response to paragraph 5, DMV admits that Petitioner was given two chemical tests

for blood alcohol concentration, and that the chemical test reported a blood alcohol concentration

0f .09 and .08. As to the remaining allegations, Petitioner misstates the contents of the relevant
documentation, and on that basis DMV denies.

6. In response to paragraph 6, DMV admits.

7. In response to paragraph 7, DMV admits.

8. In response to paragraph 8, DMV admits that the arresting officer ﬁled a Form DS-'
‘

367 with the DMV, which is executed under penalty of perjury. As to the remaining allegations,

Petitioner misstates the contents of the relevant documentation and attaches incorrect documents
I

as an exhibit, and 0n that basis DMV denies.

9. In response t0 paragraph 9, DMV admits.
In response to paragraph DMV Petitioner misstates the contents of the relevant
[\JHHHHHHHHHH

10. 10,

documentation, and on that basis DMV denies.
gﬁggﬁgbbgﬁowmQam-hmmwo

11. In response to paragraph 11, DMV admits that it introduced DS-367 (which includes
the Ofﬁcer’s Statement and Administrative Per Se Order of Suspension/Revocation Temporary
Driver License) and the Driving Under the Inﬂuence Arrest~1nvestigation Report. DMV denies
that these were the only exhibits introduced that suppo'rt the hearing 0fﬁcer’s ﬁnding.

12. In response t0 paragraph 12, DMV lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the

facts contained therein, and 0n that basis deniesf

13. In response t_0paragraph 13, DMV admits.

14. In response to paragraph 14, DMV denies.

15. In response to paragraph 15, Petitioner has not alleged any facts for which DMV can

admit or deny, and 0n that basis denies. Further, the statemént of law contained within paragraph

15 is an incomplete statement 0f applicable law rendering it inaccurate, and on that basis denies.
2

Answer t0 Amended Petition for Writ 0f Mandate (18CV03613)
16. In response t0 paragraph 16, Petitioner has not alleged any facts for which DMV can

admit or deny, and oﬁ that basis denies. Further, the statement of law contained within paragraph

15 is an incomplete statement of applicable law rendering it inaccurate, and 0n that basis denies.

17. In response t0 paragraph 17, DMV admits that the officer stopped the suspect vehicle

While he was in [ull uniform and
\OOOQQUI-p-UJNH-

driving a CHP vehicle. As to all other allegations, DMV denies.
18. In response to paragraph 18, Petitioner has not alleged any facts for which DMV can

amit or deny, and on that basis denies. Further, the statement of ‘law contained within paragraph

15 is incomplete and inaccurate, and 0n that basis denies.

19. In response to paragraph l9, DMV denies.
20. In response to paragraph 20, DMV admits that at the administrative hearing Petitioner

called Eric McCullough to testify, who testified that he was a passenger in Petitioner’s vehicle,

and that he testified that Petitioner was pulling a trailer with a boat, not two jet skis. As to all

other allegations, DMV lacks information sufficient to admit or deny, and on that basis denies.

21. In rpsponse to paragraph 21, DMV denies.

22. In response t0 paragraph 22, DMV denies.
NHP-‘HHHHHHHH

23. In response t0 paragraph 23, DMV denies.

24. In response to paragraph 24, DMV denies.

25. In response to paragraph 25, DMV denies.

26. In response to paragraph 26, DMV denies.
$8§8§8ﬁ§o©ooq©m>w-o

27. In response to paragraph 27, DMV denies that it is in the public interest to allow
Petitioner to keep his license. As to all other allegations, DMV is Without information sufficient
t0 admit or deny, and on that basis denies.

28. In response t0 paragraph 28, DMV denies.

29. In response to paragraph 29, DMV lacks information sufficient to admit 0r deny, and

on that basis denies.

30. In response to paragraph 30, DMV denies.

31. In response to paragraph 31, DMV lacks information sufficient to admit 0r deny, and

on that basis denies.
3

Answer to Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate (18CV03613)
32. In response to paragraph 32, DMV denies that its action was without legal authority,

lacked any basis in 1aw_0r fact, and was not supported by the evidence. DMV further denies that
the action was, therefore, both arbitrary and capricious under the; provisions of Government Code

section 800. DMV denies that Petitioner is entitled to any attorneys’ fees and costs in prosécuting
©00\lO\UI-I>UJ[\))—\

tho Petition. As t0 all other allegations, DMV lacks information sufficient to admit or deny, and

0n that basis denies.

33. In response to paragraph 33, DMV lacks information sufficient to admit or deny, and

0n that basis denies.

34. In response to paragraphs 34-37, which consist 0f Petitioner’s prayers for relief,

DMV denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief, thus denies each of those paragraphs.

AFFIRMATIVE’ ALLEGATIONS
The Department's findings of fact, determination of. issues, and order, and each and all of

them are supported by th_e weight of the evidence and applicable statues. Respondent did not act

arbitrarily in making the decision. The revocation 0f Petitioner‘s driver's license Was lawful,

proper, and requiréd by law.

[\JNHHHHHHHHHH
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that:

1. The Petition for Writ 0f Mandate be denied;

2. Respondent bé awarded costs of suit; and

3. Respondent be awarded such other and further relief as may be proper.

Dated: March 21, 2019 Respectfully Submitted,

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney Genelal of California
PETER D HALLORAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

KRISTA DUNZWEILER
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendant
Department 0f Motor Vehicles

SA2018103487 / 13512404.docx
4

Answer to Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate (18CV03613)
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL

Case Name: Shae Thomas OD Ruggirello v. DMV

Butte County Superior Court Case N0. 18CV03613

I declare:

I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the
, California State Bar, at which member’s direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or
older and not a party to this matter; my business address is 1300 I Street, Suite 125, P.O, Box
944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550.

On March 22 2019, I served the attached ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED
PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE TO SET ASIDE SUSPENSION
OF DRIVING PRIVILEGE by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at Sacramento, California, addressed as
follows:

Matthew C. Bently Attorney
The Law Office of Matthew C. Bently
P.O. Box 8012
Chico, CA 95927
Attorney for Petitioner

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true
and correct and that this declaration was executed 0n March 22, 2019, at Sacramento, California.
~

SA2018103487
Declarant
wwwm Sig ature
M
13573617.docx

Case Info

Judge

Tamara L. Mosbarger Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 10, 2019

Case Filing Date

November 01, 2018

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Hearing: Ruggirello, Shae Thomas vs California Department of Motor Vehicles

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties