Tuesday, March 31, 2015

MORE OVERPAYMENT NEWS

Do you know the latest set of former LAUSD employees being sued by LAUSD for alleged “overpayments”?  Tell them they are not alone, LASUD has sued thousands for “overpayment” since 2009:

*Has LASUD violated former employees due process by suing them for a 2007 payroll debacle they never created and by receiving millions (LAUSD) from Deloitte Consulting, LLP and settling without Deloitte Consulting paying for the alleged “overpayments”?


Or did the former employee really not finish their contract and thus were “overpaid”?

*Has LAUSD violated CA Code of Civil Procedure §430.10 (e) and (f) in their numerous Complaints by not providing facts and clarity as to how each Defendant was supposedly “overpaid”?  Why are the amount of hours, calculations and dates missing from LAUSD Complaints?

*Why does LAUSD only use one expert witness, Natasha Cunningham, for all defaults,
Discovery responses, and court testimony  --she is a non-CPA and was involved in setting up the new payroll system in the first place?


*If a defendant settled, did LAUSD turn in correct payroll numbers to the IRS?

Case Number:  14K01633
Defendant:  ADAMS THOMAS
Attorney:   ADAMS, THOMAS A.
Defendant:  AGBU CHARLES
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  ACEVEDO INGRID
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  AYOMANOR JENNIFER
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  BAUMAN KATHY
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  BOURGEOIS DAVIN
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CAMMAROTA ANDREA
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CANGEMI JENNIFER
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CASTENEDA ROSA
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CHATMAN ROCHELLE
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CLARK MICHICO
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CORONEL NICOLAS
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  DANIELS MARGARET
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  DESOUZA IRMA
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  DINWIDDIE MARLENE
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  EMBESAN ELSA
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  EVANS AMY
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  FOSS CATHERINE
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  GORDON OMEICA
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  GRANT REGINALD
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  HARRIS SHONTAY
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  HARTWIG JEFFREY
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  HEWITT GLORIA
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  HIDALGO MICHAEL
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CONNIE PORTER
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  SHERYL RECINOS
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  LOZANO MARITZA
Attorney:   LOZANO, MARITZA
Defendant:  ANNA URIE
Attorney:   None 

Case Number:  14K08370

Parties 
Plaintiff:  LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Attorney:   LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Defendant:  ADDASI ASIL
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  BOULINGHOUSE BRENT
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  ALBERT TRACY
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  BREWER NATHAN
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  ALCANTARA MARIA
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  BRUCE ANTHONY
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  BLUE ALLEN
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  BURNS SARA
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  ALONZO MARIA SUAREZ
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CARSON CAMILLE
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  ASCENCIO RICARDO
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CARY RAYMOND
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  AZADI BABAK
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CASTELLANOS LESLIE
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  BARAJAS SANDRA
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CASTILLO JAMES
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  BENDFELDT ANN
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CHAIRUTTANATIVECH BOBBY
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  BENN FLOYD PRINCE
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CHANDLER AINETHA
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  BIVINETTO HEIDI
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CHAPPEL NICOLE
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  BLAKE BRIGITTE
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  CHEN JUDY
Attorney:   None
Defendant:  JIMENEZ DIANA
Attorney:   JIMENEZ, DIANA B

Defendant:  CLARK TIMOTHY MICHAEL
Attorney:   CLARK, TIMOTHY MICHAEL
Defendant:  GARCIA-LEYS SEAN MICHAEL
Attorney:   GARCIA-LEYS, SEAN MICHAEL
Defendant:  SMITH HELEN H
Attorney:   SMITH, HELEN H

Parties   BC549641
BARON MATTHEW - Defendant/Respondent
CLAYSON JOHN - Defendant/Respondent
FAIR EUGENE - Defendant/Respondent
FRANKLIN TWANA - Defendant/Respondent
FRISCH-GARCIA CARMEN - Defendant & Defendant in Pro Per
GARCIA JUANA - Defendant/Respondent
HUGHES CAROL ANNA "DISMISSED" - Defendant
IGNACIO MARK - Defendant
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - Plaintiff/Petitioner
MCCARTHY JAMES - Defendant
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNTY L.A.U.S.D. - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
PEACOCK LEIGH - Defendant
SAYERS THOMAS "DISMISSED" - Defendant
VILLEGAS ALLYSON - Defendant
WASHINGTON SUSAN "DISMISSED" - Defendant
WRIGHT DONTE DOLLAR - Defendant 



1 comment:

  1. LAUSD admits in the FAC that its payroll system was deeply flawed and caused overpayments and underpayments of wages to thousands of employees over an extended period of time.
    The magnitude of error in LAUSD’s payroll systems are so numerous and varied as to reflect more than negligence, but gross incompetence in its systems and the alleged correction of the errors, which is the basis of its claim against Ms. Smith and the other 800 defendants in this case. The fact that there are so many errors that require so much explanation, some of which is incomplete and inaccurate, leaves unresolved doubt as to the validity of LAUSD’s claims of overpayment. The documents are unreliable and therefore inadmissible, leaving plaintiff’s claims of overpayment fatally uncertain and unproveable. LAUSD’s claims are fatally uncertain and therefore judgment must be granted against them.

    ReplyDelete

Be civil . Not obedient.