HPD discrimination answer to complaint.

1. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 33 PageID #:
4474
ROBERT CARSON GODBEY, 4685
Corporation Counsel
D. SCOTT DODD, 6811
Deputy Corporation Counsel
Department of the Corporation Counsel
City and County of Honolulu
Honolulu Hale, Room 110
530 South King Street
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
Telephone: (808) 768-5129
Facsimile: (808) 768-5105
E-mail address: dsdodd@honolulu.gov
Attorneys for City Defendants
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN ) CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP
DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO )
DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, JR. and
)
OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT- ) DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND
BAGORIO, ) COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER
) CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE
Plaintiffs, ) CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF
) POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA,
vs. ) ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL
) TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH
THE HONOLULU POLICE ) SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN
DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND ) MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER ) DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL
CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE ) SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN
CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF ) KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM
POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ) AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE
ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL ) FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT
TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH ) RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER

2. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 2 of 33 PageID #:
4475
SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN ) COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT
MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE ) AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD
DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL ) AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON
SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN ) JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR
KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM ) TRIAL BY JURY; CERTIFICATE OF
AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE ) SERVICE
FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT )
RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER )
COLBY KASHIMOTO, PAT AH LOO )
and Does 1-100, )
)
Defendants. ) Trial Date: January 15, 2013
________________________________ )
DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,
FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF
OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL
TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE,
CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO,
LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT
WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER
COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012
Defendants THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER
CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS
KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR
KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE
DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON,
LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ,
SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND
-2-

3. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 3 of 33 PageID #:
4476
PAT AH LOO (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “City Defendants”1), by
and through their attorneys, Robert Carson Godbey, Corporation Counsel, and D.
Scott Dodd, Deputy Corporation Counsel, for their answer to Plaintiffs Sherman
Dean Dowkin (“Dowkin”), Federico Delgadillo Martinez, Jr. (“Delgadillo”), and
Cassandra Bennett-Bagorio’ (“Bagorio”) Third Amended Complaint filed herein
on January 17, 2011 (hereinafter “Complaint”)(ECF No. 221), state and allege as
follows:
FIRST DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim against the City Defendants upon which
relief can be granted.
SECOND DEFENSE
1. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 35, 36, and 206
of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit said allegations.
2. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 24,
29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 59, 69, 70, 76, 100, 110, 125, and 238 of the Complaint, the City
Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the
same.
1
As a result of the Court’s July 23, 2012 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for
Partial Dismissal of Third Amended Complaint, there are no claims remaining
against Defendants Boisse Correa, Louis Kealoha, Michael Tamashiro, Kenneth
Simmons, John McEntire, Nyle Dolera, Michael Serrao, or Pat Ah Loo.
-3-

4. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 4 of 33 PageID #:
4477
3. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 4, 23, 25, 38,
39, 40, 41, 51, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 84, 86, 88, 90, 94, 97, 103, 108, 109, 115,
116, 122, 140, 141, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 199, 200, 203, and 205 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing, and deny the
allegations as worded. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said
paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
4. The City Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 26,
27, 28, 31, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 54A, 54B, 54C, 54E, 54F, 54G,
54H, 54I, 64, 65, 66, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92,
93, 95, 96, 101, 104, 105, 106, 111, 112, 113, 117, 120, 123, 124, 126, 127, 132,
133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 186, 193, 194, 195, 201, 204, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212,
214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 229, 234,
235, 236 and 237.
5. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 3 and 9 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that the City is a municipal corporation, and
that the Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) is a department within the City.
The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining
allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
-4-

5. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 5 of 33 PageID #:
4478
6. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants deny that Plaintiff Delgadillo was constructively
discharged and forced to resign from his employment with HPD. The City
Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the
same.
7. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Boisse Correa was the Chief of Police
of the Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) during relevant times as alleged in
Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing.
The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that
basis deny the same.
8. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Louis Kealoha was the Chief of Police
of HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City
Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
-5-

6. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 6 of 33 PageID #:
4479
9. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Michael Tamashiro was an Assistant
Chief of Police for HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining
allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
10. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Kenneth Simmons was a Major with
HPD relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants deny
the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in
said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
11. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that John McEntire was a Major with HPD
during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants
deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained
in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
12. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Nyle Dolera was a Captain with HPD
-6-

7. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 7 of 33 PageID #:
4480
during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants
deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained
in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
13. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that William Axt was a Lieutenant with
HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City
Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
14. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Dan Kwon was a Lieutenant with HPD
during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City Defendants
deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained
in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
15. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Michael Serrao was a Lieutenant with
HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City
Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without
-7-

8. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 8 of 33 PageID #:
4481
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
16. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Wayne Fernandez was a Sergeant with
HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City
Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
17. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Ralstan Tanaka was a Sergeant with
HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City
Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
18. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Patrick Ah Loo was a civilian labor
relations advisor with HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’
Complaint. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City
Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
-8-

9. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 9 of 33 PageID #:
4482
the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the
same.
19. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Colby Kashimoto was an officer with
HPD during relevant times as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The City
Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
20. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin was assigned to head
the DUI team in District 4. The City Defendants deny the allegations of
wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and
on that basis deny the same.
21. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 42, 68 and 114
of the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin filed a written
complaint alleging racial discrimination, and delivered the complaint to Defendant
Simmons. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City
Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
-9-

10. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 10 of 33 PageID #:
4483
the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the
same.
22. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Defendant Fernandez visited HPD’s
Central Receiving to visit an acquaintance. The City Defendants deny the
allegations of wrongdoing, or that Defendant Fernandez’ entry was not authorized.
The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that
basis deny the same.
23. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 54D and 118 of
the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that the DUI team was disbanded. The
City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing, or that there was any causal
link between the filing of the racial discrimination complaint and the disbanding of
the DUI team. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said
paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
24. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 58 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin was assigned to
supervise the DUI team, and that Plaintiff Delgadillo became a member of the
team. The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City
-10-

11. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 11 of 33 PageID #:
4484
Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the
same.
25. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 67 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiffs’ complaints of discrimination
and retaliation were investigated. The City Defendants deny the allegations of
wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and
on that basis deny the same.
26. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 78 and 119 of
the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Bagorio was instructed to
provide testimony regarding Plaintiffs Dowkin and Delgadillo’s complaint of racial
discrimination, but deny any wrongdoing associated with that event, and deny that
Plaintiff Bagorio’s testimony supported the claims of racial discrimination. The
City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny
the same.
27. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 98 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin met with Defendant
Kwon, but deny that Defendant Kwon failed to provide backup cover or assistance,
-11-

12. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 12 of 33 PageID #:
4485
or any other wrongdoing associated with that event. The City Defendants further
admit that on November 3, 2007 Plaintiff Dowkin made a complaint about this
incident with Defendant Dolera, and that on November 10, 2007 Defendant Dolera
sent Plaintiff Dowkin an e-mail, but deny any wrongdoing associated with those
events. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on
that basis deny the same.
28. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 99 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that on November 16, 2007 an HPD
Information Notice District 4 was issued by the District 4 administration which
referenced the “Stan Cook” incident. The City Defendants are without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained
in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
29. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 102 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that on November 28, 2007, Defendant
Kwon sent a memorandum to Defendant Dolera regarding the issue of backup
cover, and that on December 4, 2007 Defendant Dolera reminded those under his
command of the importance of providing backup cover to fellow police officers.
The City Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are
-12-

13. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 13 of 33 PageID #:
4486
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining
allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
30. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 107 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Dowkin and Delgadillo met
with Lt. Axt. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said
paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
31. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 121 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Dowkin and Delgadillo filed
charges of racial discrimination and retaliation, but deny that “additional acts of
retaliation continued to be perpetrated by Defendants,” or that any racial
discrimination or retaliation occurred. The City Defendants are without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained
in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
32. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 128 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Delgadillo was found to have
violated certain standards of conduct in connection with his activities involving the
sale of tamales. The City Defendants deny that Plaintiff Dowkin and Plaintiff
Delgadillo were falsely accused, or that the investigation was retaliatory or
improper in any manner, and deny all allegations of wrongdoing. The City
-13-

14. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 14 of 33 PageID #:
4487
Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the
same.
33. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 129 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Delgadillo was provided with a
lighter weight “blue light bar” as Plaintiff Delgadillo had complained he had
injured himself with the newer heavier “blue light bars,” but deny this would result
in Plaintiff Delgadillo being less safe when making traffic stops at night. The City
Defendants deny that Plaintiff Bennett-Bagorio was given a false or negative
performance evaluation, deny that the evaluation was retaliatory, and deny any
wrongdoing associated with any of the allegations. The City Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining
allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
34. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 130 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Bagorio filed a charge of
gender discrimination and retaliation, but deny she suffered any gender
discrimination or retaliation. The City Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in
said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
-14-

15. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 15 of 33 PageID #:
4488
35. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 131 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin gave Plaintiff
Delgadillo a “5” rating, but deny the remaining allegations in said paragraph.
36. In response to the allegations contained in paragraphs 138 and 139 of
the Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Bagorio suffered a back
injury, and that Defendant Tanaka was a supervising officer on scene, but deny all
allegations of wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in
said paragraphs, and on that basis deny the same.
37. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 142 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants admit that Plaintiff Dowkin was informed that his
complaint of racial discrimination was not sustained, but deny the remaining
allegations in said paragraph.
38. In response to paragraph 143 of the Complaint, the City Defendants
reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 142, as
though fully set forth herein.
39. In response to paragraphs 144, 145, 146 and 147 of the Complaint, the
City Defendants deny that they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 U.S.C., Section 2000e-2, et seq.) or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The
City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
-15-

16. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 16 of 33 PageID #:
4489
as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny
same.
40. In response to paragraph 148 of the Complaint, the City Defendants
reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 147
inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
41. In response to paragraphs 149, 150, 151, 152 and 153 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants deny that they violated Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C., Section 2000d, et seq.) or engaged in any acts of
wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and
on that basis deny same.
42. In response to paragraph 154 of the Complaint, the City Defendants
reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 153
inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
43. In response to paragraphs 155, 156, 157 and 158 of the Complaint, the
City Defendants deny that they violated the Hawai‘i State Constitution or the
Hawai‘i Civil Rights Law (Hawai‘i Constitution, Article I, Sections 3, 4, and 5 and
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Section 378-2, et seq.) or engaged in any acts of
wrongdoing. The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient
-16-

17. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 17 of 33 PageID #:
4490
to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and
on that basis deny same.
44. In response to paragraph 159 of the Complaint, the City Defendants
reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 158
inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
45. In response to paragraphs 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 and 165 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants deny that were negligent in any manner or
engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The City Defendants note that the allegations
in this cause of action against Defendants Kwon, Tanaka and Fernandez were
dismissed by the Court’s July 23, 2012 Order. The City Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny same.
46. In response to paragraph 166 of the Complaint, the City Defendants
reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 165
inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
47. In response to paragraphs 167, 168, 169 and 170 of the Complaint, the
City Defendants deny that they intentionally (or otherwise) inflicted emotional
distress upon any of the Plaintiffs or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The City
Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
-17-

18. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 18 of 33 PageID #:
4491
the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny
same.
48. In response to paragraph 171 of the Complaint, the City Defendants
reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 170
inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
49. In response to paragraphs 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177 and 178 of the
Complaint, the City Defendants deny that they were negligent or inflicted
emotional distress upon any of the Plaintiffs or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing.
The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that
basis deny same.
50. In response to paragraph 179 of the Complaint, the City Defendants
reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 178
inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
51. In response to paragraphs 180 through 229 of the Complaint,
inclusive, the City Defendants deny that they violated the Civil Rights Act of 1871
(42 U.S.C. Section 1983), or engaged in any acts of wrongdoing. The City
Defendants note that the allegations and claims in this cause of action were
dismissed by the Court’s July 23, 2012 Order. The City Defendants are without
-18-

19. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 19 of 33 PageID #:
4492
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in said paragraphs, and on that basis deny same.
52. In response to paragraph 230 of the Complaint, the City Defendants
reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 229
inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
53. In response to paragraphs 231, 232 and 233 of the Complaint, the City
Defendants deny that they (or any of them) engaged in any conspiracy, or engaged
in any acts of wrongdoing. The City Defendants note that the allegations and
claims in this cause of action were dismissed by the Court’s July 23, 2012 Order.
The City Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the remaining allegations contained in said paragraphs, and on that
basis deny same.
54. The City Defendants deny all allegations of the Complaint not
previously admitted, denied, or otherwise responded to herein.
THIRD DEFENSE
The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the affirmative
defense that they are not liable to Plaintiffs for racial and/or sexual discrimination
nor retaliation because the City Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent
and promptly correct any alleged discriminating and/or retaliating behavior, if any,
and Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective
-19-

20. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 20 of 33 PageID #:
4493
opportunities provided by the employer or unreasonably failed to otherwise avoid
harm.
FOURTH DEFENSE
The City Defendants had legitimate non-retaliatory reasons for the
challenged employment actions.
FIFTH DEFENSE
The acts alleged do not constitute an official policy or persistent pattern,
practice or custom.
SIXTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and/or damages were the result of their own
wrongful, intentional, reckless and malicious misconduct.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
The City Defendants may assert the defenses of res judicata and collateral
estoppel.
EIGHTH DEFENSE
The City Defendants give notice that they may assert the defenses of laches,
waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands.
NINTH DEFENSE
The City Defendants give notice that they may assert the right to rely on the
defenses of consent and justification.
-20-

21. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 21 of 33 PageID #:
4494
TENTH DEFENSE
The conduct of the City Defendants was at all times lawful, reasonable and
proper.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
The City Defendants give notice that they have no duty, and accordingly, are
not liable for any injuries and/or damages to Plaintiffs that may have resulted from
any illegal acts committed by others that may have given rise to the alleged injuries
and/or damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs.
TWELFTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs have not suffered any emotional distress compensable under the
law.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
By law, Plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive damages against the City.
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
The City Defendants are not liable to Plaintiffs for the alleged injuries and/or
damages on any and all claims based on their alleged failure to adequately enforce
statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations and/or any other applicable law.
FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
The City Defendants give notice that they may rely upon the defense of
truth.
-21-

22. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 22 of 33 PageID #:
4495
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the defense of
privilege.
SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE
The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the defenses of fraud
and illegality.
EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE
The City Defendants may rely on the defense of bad faith.
NINETEENTH DEFENSE
The individual Defendants are entitled to assert the defense of qualified
immunity, and the Hawai‘i state law conditional or qualified privilege. If a City
employee or officer is immune from liability, then his/her employer, the City, is
likewise immune from liability.
TWENTIETH DEFENSE
The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the defense that
Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages.
TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE
The City Defendants are not liable for Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries because the
City Defendants did not have actual or constructive knowledge or notice of the
-22-

23. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 23 of 33 PageID #:
4496
alleged facts and circumstances, which Plaintiffs assert were responsible for their
injuries.
TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE
The City Defendants may rely on the defense of misconduct of others over
whom the City Defendants have no control.
TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE
The City Defendants give notice that they may rely on the defense of
knowledge or acquiescence on Plaintiffs part.
TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
A public employer is entitled to discipline a public employee for any other
reason, good or bad, fair or unfair.
TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
The acts of the City Defendants were not done with malice or reckless
indifference to Plaintiffs’ federally protected rights.
TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs have failed to bring their action within the applicable time period.
TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE
The actions of the City Defendants were not in retaliation for the exercise of
any rights by Plaintiffs.
-23-

24. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 24 of 33 PageID #:
4497
TWENTY EIGHTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were sustained as a result of their own misconduct
and/or wrongful acts.
TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE
The negligence or other wrongful acts and/or omissions of the City
Defendants, if any, were not the proximate cause of the injuries and/or damages
Plaintiffs allegedly sustained, i.e., such negligence or other wrongful acts and/or
omissions, if any, were not a substantial factor in causing the injuries and/or
damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs.
THIRTIETH DEFENSE
The City Defendants state that if the Plaintiffs were injured and/or damaged
as alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiffs’ own negligence or other wrongful acts
and/or omissions were the sole proximate cause of, or contributed to such injuries
and/or damages to such extent that Plaintiffs’ negligence and other wrongful acts
and/or omissions were greater than that of the City Defendants and Plaintiffs
cannot recover against the City Defendants therefore.
THIRTY-FIRST DEFENSE
The City Defendants are not liable for the injuries and/or damages allegedly
suffered by Plaintiffs because the City Defendants did not have actual or
constructive knowledge or notice of the condition alleged to have existed, if said
-24-

25. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 25 of 33 PageID #:
4498
condition alleged was responsible for the injuries and/or damages suffered by
Plaintiffs.
THIRTY-SECOND DEFENSE
Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of
limitations.
THIRTY-THIRD DEFENSE
Plaintiffs’ claims, in whole or in part, are barred by Plaintiffs’ consent,
participation in, creation of or other acquiescence to the condition.
THIRTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
The City Defendants may rely upon the defense that Plaintiffs have failed to
plead all elements of one or more of their causes of action.
THIRTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
The City may rely upon the defense that Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust
administrative remedies.
THIRTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
The City Defendants reserve all rights to assert any affirmative defenses or
to rely on any other matter constituting an avoidance pursuant to Rule 8(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to seek leave to amend their Answer to allege
any such defenses and to assert any other defenses, claims and counterclaims as
discovery and the evidence may merit.
-25-

26. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 26 of 33 PageID #:
4499
WHEREFORE, the City prays as follows:
A. That the Complaint herein be dismissed and the City Defendants be
given their costs and attorneys’ fees;
B. That if it be determined that Plaintiffs, the City Defendants and/or
other defendants were negligent with respect to the events described in the
Complaint, the relative and comparative degree of fault of each party be
determined in accordance with Section 663-31 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, as
amended;
C. That if it is determined that if any of the City Defendants are a
tortfeasor along with one or more other tortfeasors, the City Defendants shall be
liable for no more than that percentage of the damages attributable to the City
Defendant(s), and judgment be rendered accordingly;
D. The City Defendants be given such other and further relief as this
Court deems just.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, Tuesday, August 14, 2012.
ROBERT CARSON GODBEY
Corporation Counsel
By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd
D. SCOTT DODD
Deputy Corporation Counsel
Attorney for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,
-26-

27. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 27 of 33 PageID #:
4500
FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE
CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF
POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT
CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR
KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN
McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO,
LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT
WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE
FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON
TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO,
and PAT LOO
10-01301/239585
******************************************************************
CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs.
THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT
CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO,
MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT
WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA,
OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY;
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-27-

28. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 28 of 33 PageID #:
4501
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN ) CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/ RLP
DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO )
DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, JR. and )
OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT- ) DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
BAGORIO, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
THE HONOLULU POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND )
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER )
CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE )
CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF )
POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, )
ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL )
TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH )
SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN )
MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE )
DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL )
SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN )
KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM )
AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE )
FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT )
RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER )
COLBY KASHIMOTO, PAT AH LOO )
and Does 1-100, )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
)
)
)
________________________________ )

29. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 29 of 33 PageID #:
4502
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Defendants THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA,
CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF
MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN
MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO,
LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT
WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY
KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues
herein triable of right by a jury.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, Tuesday, August 14, 2012.
ROBERT CARSOPN GODBEY
Corporation Counsel
By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd
D. SCOTT DODD
Deputy Corporation Counsel
Attorney for Defendants
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,
FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE
BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF
POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT
CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR
KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN
McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO,
LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT
-2-

30. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 30 of 33 PageID #:
4503
WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE
FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON
TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO,
and PAT LOO
10-01301/239585
******************************************************************
CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs.
THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT
CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO,
MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT
WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA,
OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY;
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-3-

31. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 31 of 33 PageID #:
4504
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN ) CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/ LEK
DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO )
DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, JR. and )
OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT- ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
BAGORIO, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
)
THE HONOLULU POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND )
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER )
CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE )
CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF )
POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, )
ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL )
TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH )
SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN )
MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE )
DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL )
SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN )
KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM )
AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE )
FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT )
RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER )
COLBY KASHIMOTO, PAT AH LOO )
and Does 1-100, )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
________________________________ )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

32. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 32 of 33 PageID #:
4505
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was duly
served by the method of service noted, on the following individuals at their addresses
listed below on Tuesday, August 14, 2012:
Served Electronically through CM/ECF:
MERIT BENNETT, ESQ. meritbennett@aol.com
The Bennett Firm
1050 Bishop Street, #302
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
SETH L. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. attnyslgoldstein@aol.com
Law Offices of Seth L. Goldstein
2100 Garden Road, Suite H-8
Monterey, CA 93940
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN,
OFFICER FEDERICO DELGADILLO
MARTINEZ, JR. and OFFICER CASSANDRA
BENNETT-BAGORIO
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, Tuesday, August 14, 2012.
ROBERT CARSON GODBEY
Corporation Counsel
By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd
D. SCOTT DODD
Deputy Corporation Counsel
Attorney for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF
HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE
BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF
POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT
CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR
-2-

33. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390 Filed 08/14/12 Page 33 of 33 PageID #:
4506
KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN
McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO,
LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT
WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE
FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON
TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO,
and PAT LOO
10-01301/239585
******************************************************************
CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs.
THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT
CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO,
MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT
WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA,
OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY;
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-3-

34. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390-1 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
4507
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN ) CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/ RLP
DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO )
DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, JR. and )
OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT- ) DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
BAGORIO, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
THE HONOLULU POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND )
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER )
CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE )
CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF )
POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, )
ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL )
TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH )
SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN )
MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE )
DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL )
SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN )
KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM )
AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE )
FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT )
RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER )
COLBY KASHIMOTO, PAT AH LOO )
and Does 1-100, )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
)
)
)
________________________________ )

35. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390-1 Filed 08/14/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
4508
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Defendants THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA,
CURRENT CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF
MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN
MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO,
LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT
WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY
KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues
herein triable of right by a jury.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, Tuesday, August 14, 2012.
ROBERT CARSOPN GODBEY
Corporation Counsel
By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd
D. SCOTT DODD
Deputy Corporation Counsel
Attorney for Defendants
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,
FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE
BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF
POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT
CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR
KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN
McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO,
LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT
-2-

36. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390-1 Filed 08/14/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
4509
WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE
FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON
TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO,
and PAT LOO
10-01301/239585
******************************************************************
CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs.
THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT
CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO,
MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT
WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA,
OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY;
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-3-

37. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390-2 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
4510
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN ) CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/ LEK
DOWKIN, OFFICER FEDERICO )
DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, JR. and )
OFFICER CASSANDRA BENNETT- ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
BAGORIO, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
)
THE HONOLULU POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, THE CITY AND )
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER )
CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE )
CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF )
POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, )
ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL )
TAMASHIRO, MAJOR KENNETH )
SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN )
MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE )
DOLERA, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL )
SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN )
KWON, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM )
AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE )
FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT )
RALSTAN TANAKA, OFFICER )
COLBY KASHIMOTO, PAT AH LOO )
and Does 1-100, )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
________________________________ )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

38. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390-2 Filed 08/14/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
4511
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was duly
served by the method of service noted, on the following individuals at their addresses
listed below on Tuesday, August 14, 2012:
Served Electronically through CM/ECF:
MERIT BENNETT, ESQ. meritbennett@aol.com
The Bennett Firm
1050 Bishop Street, #302
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
SETH L. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. attnyslgoldstein@aol.com
Law Offices of Seth L. Goldstein
2100 Garden Road, Suite H-8
Monterey, CA 93940
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN,
OFFICER FEDERICO DELGADILLO
MARTINEZ, JR. and OFFICER CASSANDRA
BENNETT-BAGORIO
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, Tuesday, August 14, 2012.
ROBERT CARSON GODBEY
Corporation Counsel
By: /s/ D. Scott Dodd
D. SCOTT DODD
Deputy Corporation Counsel
Attorney for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF
HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE
BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT CHIEF OF
POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT
CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO, MAJOR
-2-

39. Case 1:10-cv-00087-SOM-RLP Document 390-2 Filed 08/14/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
4512
KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN
McENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO,
LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT
WILLIAM AXT, SERGEANT WAYNE
FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTON
TANAKA, OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO,
and PAT LOO
10-01301/239585
******************************************************************
CIVIL NO. CV10-00087 SOM/RLP; SERGEANT SHERMON DEAN DOWKIN, ET AL. vs.
THE HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BOISSE CORREA, CURRENT
CHIEF OF POLICE LOUIS KEALOHA, ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL TAMASHIRO,
MAJOR KENNETH SIMMONS, MAJOR JOHN MCENTIRE, CAPTAIN NYLE DOLERA,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SERRAO, LIEUTENANT DAN KWON, LIEUTENANT
WILLIAM AXT, LIEUTENANT WAYNE FERNANDEZ, SERGEANT RALSTAN TANAKA,
OFFICER COLBY KASHIMOTO, AND PAT AH LOO’S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 17, 2012; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY;
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-3-