1 JAMES McMANIS (40958) ABIMAEL BASTIDA (303355) 2 LAURA DIAZ (338006) HANNAH LAUCHNER (365952) 3 McMANIS FAULKNER A Professional Corporation 4 50 West San Fernando Street, 10th Floor San Jose, California 95113 5 Telephone: (408) 279-8700 Facsimile: (408) 279-3244 6 abastida@mcmanislaw.com ldiaz@mcmanislaw.com 7 hlauchner@mcmanislaw.com 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff, SARAH SCOFIELD 9 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 12 SARAH SCOFIELD, an individual, 13 14 vs. Plaintiff, 15 JEFFREY F. ROSEN, in his official capacity as Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; ACTION TO RESTRAIN WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY County of Santa Clara District Attorney; [Code Civ. Proc., § 526a] 16 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a public 17 entity; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, 18 19 20 Ill 21 Ill 22 Ill 23 Ill 24 Ill 25 Ill 26 Ill 27 Ill 28 Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; ACTION TO RESTRAIN WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY; Case No. E-FILED 3/25/2026 12:25 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 26CV490266 Reviewed By: Y. Chavez 26CV490266 1 Plaintiff SARAH SCOFIELD ("plaintiff'), an individual, complains against defendants 2 JEFFREY F. ROSEN ("Rosen"), the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (the "County"), and DOES 3 1 through 50 (collectively, "defendants"), and alleges as follows: 4 INTRODUCTION 5 6 1. 2. Plaintiff brings this action to enjoin defendants' waste of County funds. As recently as February 17, 2026, defendant Rosen warned the public about the 7 impending effects of a budget crisis, including layoffs and cutting programs. 8 3. Despite this asserted crisis, defendant Rosen implements and enforces policies 9 and practices that waste County funds including, for example, his refusal to permit Daniel Chung 10 ("Chung"), a highly-qualified deputy district attorney, to provide services to the County despite 11 his status as a County employee. 12 4. Defendants should be enjoined from further waste of public funds, and deputy 13 district attorney Chung should be permitted to resume his prosecutorial duties and provide the 14 County with the services it pays Chung to perform. 15 16 5. PARTIES Plaintiff, Sarah Scofield, an interested party, is a real property owner in the City 17 of San Jose in the County of Santa Clara, California, and, as a resident, is a taxpayer thereof. 18 Plaintiff has been assessed for and is liable to pay property taxes in the City of San Jose, the 19 County of Santa Clara, state and federal income taxes, and other taxes. Plaintiff has, within one 20 year of commencement of this action, paid property taxes to defendant, County of Santa Clara. 21 6. Defendant County of Santa Clara is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a 22 public entity located in the State of California. At all relevant times, the County and its 23 policymakers are and were responsible for the policies, procedures, practices, and customs of the 24 County's various agents, agencies, departments, employees, and representatives. 25 7. Defendant Jeffrey F. Rosen is, and at all times herein mentioned was, the District 26 Attorney for the County of Santa Clara. Pursuant to Government Code section 24000(a), Rosen 27 is an officer of the County. 28 2 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; ACTION TO RESTRAIN WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY; Case No. 1 8. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, 2 representative, or otherwise, of defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 50 are unknown to 3 plaintiff at this time, and plaintiff therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. They 4 are sued in their individual capacities, and any reference in this Complaint to "defendants" also 5 refers to Does 1 through 50. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and 6 capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of 7 the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the acts, omissions, and 8 violations of law alleged herein. 9 9. The acts charged in this Complaint as done by defendants were authorized, 10 ordered, or done, and ratified by their officers, agents, employees, or representatives, while 11 actively engaging in the management of the defendants' affairs. 12 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein 13 mentioned, defendants, including those sued herein as Does 1 through 50, were the agents, 14 principals, employees, or alter ego of each of the remaining defendants, and in doing the things 15 herein alleged, were acting in the scope of their authority as such agents and employees. 16 17 11. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Plaintiff brings this Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 526a 18 and the common law of the State of California. 19 12. Venue is proper in this Court because the acts and omissions complained of in this 20 Complaint occurred in the County of Santa Clara in the State of California. Further, defendants 21 are situated in the County of Santa Clara. 22 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 23 Chung's Employment at the County of Santa Clara District Attorney Office 24 25 13. 14. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 12, inclusive. Chung, a graduate of Harvard College and Columbia Law School, is an attorney 26 licensed to practice law in the State of California. In 2018-after working for several years as a 27 prosecutor in New York-Chung was hired by defendant Rosen to work as a Deputy District 28 3 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; ACTION TO RESTRAIN WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY; Case No. 1 Attorney ("DDA") in Santa Clara County. 2 15. Chung quickly proved to be a skilled and respected DDA. As Chief Assistant 3 District Attorney Jay Boyarsky ("Boyarsky") stated, Chung is "very hardworking, very bright, 4 little bit strange, but good employee and a talented attorney in many ways." Chung's 5 exceptional work was recognized in 2019 when he was awarded the prestigious Robert L. Webb 6 Award-an "Excellence Award" presented by the Santa Clara County District Attorney. (See 7 Office of the District Attorney, Robert L. Webb Award, The District Attorney's Excellence 8 Awards, County of Santa Clara <https://da.santaclaracounty.gov/prosecution/da-awards/robert-1- 9 webb-award> [as of Mar. 25, 2026].) Chung was later elevated to serve in the Violent Felonies 10 Unit-a highly sought after and well-respected unit in the District Attorney Office. 11 12 16. The Op-Ed and Subsequent Retaliation On February 14, 2021, Chung published an opinion piece (the "Op-Ed") in a local 13 newspaper. The Op-Ed concerned a recent surge in violence toward Asian Americans following 14 the COVID-19 pandemic and California's ongoing criminal justice reform efforts. Although the 15 newspaper generally referenced his experience as a prosecutor, Chung published the Op-Ed as a 16 private citizen, and he did not specifically mention the County, the Santa Clara County District 17 Attorney Office, or defendant Rosen. 18 17. On information and belief, Rosen read the Op-Ed the day it was published. That 19 same evening, Rosen emailed Boyarsky and listed various objections he had to the content of the 20 Op-Ed. In the same email, Rosen instructed Boyarsky to reassign Chung from the Violent 21 Felonies Unit to the Mental Health Court. Rosen asked Boyarsky to send an email to the entire 22 office the next work day regarding the reassignment to make it clear that he was singling out 23 Chung. Rosen instructed Boyarsky to have Chung's supervisor, Assistant District Attorney Scott 24 Tsui ("Tsui"), serve Chung with a notice of investigation letter regarding the Op-Ed. 25 18. On information and belief, on February 16, 2021, Chung was wrongfully 26 disciplined for his Op-Ed at Rosen's direction. Chung was first reassigned to the Mental Health 27 Court, then later to Juvenile Justice. Both of these assignments were generally considered less 28 4 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; ACTION TO RESTRAIN WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY; Case No. 1 prestigious than Chung's previous Violent Felonies Unit assignment. As Rosen instructed, 2 Boyarsky sent an email to all District Attorney Office employees stating that Chung was 3 reassigned, and Chung received a written notice of administrative investigation from Tsui. 4 19. On April 16, 2021, Chung received a letter from Tsui recommending that Chung 5 be suspended from his position as a DDA for ten days effective May 10, 2021, through May 21, 6 2021. On information and belief, Rosen was personally involved in determining the length of 7 the suspension, stating he was "comfortable" with a 10-day suspension because he did not think 8 a letter of discipline would be severe enough. 9 20. On May 28, 2021, Chung was placed on paid administrative leave. On 10 information and belief, Rosen instructed, authorized, and ratified Chung's leave, and further 11 instructed three armed investigators to walk Chung out of the District Attorney Office. 12 21. On information and belief, on June 11, 2021, defendant Rosen approved an 13 unpaid two-week (80-hour) suspension of Chung related to the publication of the Op-Ed. 14 22. On information and belief, Rosen has placed other employees on paid 15 administrative leave as a way of punishing them for their actions as private individuals which he 16 did not like. For example, James Sibley, a former District Attorney Office employee, was 17 punished by Rosen when he spoke publicly about Rosen's improper use of paid administrative 18 leave hours within the Department. (See Susko & Putnam, Lead DA Demoted, Claims 19 Retaliation (May 8, 2013) NBC Bay Area <https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/lead-da- 20 demoted-claims-retaliation/2052048/> [as of Mar. 2, 2026].) 21 23. On September 10, 2021, Chung received a Notice of Recommended Disciplinary 22 Action from Assistant District Attorney Stacey Lynn Capps recommending Chung be terminated 23 from his employment. On October 20, 2021, Chung received a Final Notice ofDiscipline- 24 Termination from Employment from the District Attorney Office notifying him that he was 25 terminated from his position as DDA effective that day. 26 27 28 Subsequent Litigation, Arbitration, and Personnel Board Hearings 24. On September 28, 2021, Chung filed a Complaint in the United States District 5 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; ACTION TO RESTRAIN WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY; Case No. 1 Court for the Northern District of California alleging one cause of action: Violation of Right to 2 Free Speech Under U.S. Const., Amend. I, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to this ongoing 3 litigation-which, at the time of filing this Complaint, is pending in the United States Court of 4 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for the second time-Chung's suspension and termination have 5 been addressed and reversed in other forums. 6 25. On information and belief, on December 14 and 15, 2021, Chung's union-the 7 Santa Clara County Government Attorneys Association-and the County appeared for an 8 arbitration hearing to determine, in part, whether there was just cause for Chung's two-week 9 disciplinary suspension without pay. On March 28, 2022, the arbitrator issued his Award, 10 finding the County did not have just cause to suspend Chung for more than five days and 11 requiring the County to pay Chung for the five days he was wrongfully suspended without pay. 12 26. On information and belief, on July 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 25, 2022, the 13 Government Attorneys Association and the County attended another arbitration-this time, to 14 address whether Chung's termination from his role as DDA was supported by just cause. The 15 arbitrator issued his Award on November 10, 2022, finding that there was just cause to discipline 16 Chung, but not to terminate him, and reducing Chung's termination to a thirty-day disciplinary 17 suspension. Further, the arbitrator's Award stated that Chung was to be reinstated to his position 18 as a DDA no later than thirty days after the issuance of the arbitrator's Opinion and Award. l 9 District Attorney Rosen Refused to Reinstate Chung 20 27. Pursuant to the arbitrator's November 10, 2022, Opinion and Award, Chung was 21 to be reinstated as a DDA on December 9, 2022. On information and belief, on December 8, 22 2022, the County unilaterally deferred Chung's reinstatement to December 19, 2022. The 23 County however waited until December 22, 2022, to inform Chung that he was reinstated, 24 refusing however to issue him a DDA assignment, and ordering him not to report to the District 25 Attorney Office for work purposes unless otherwise instructed. 26 28. On information and belief, on November 20, 2023, the District Attorney Office 27 again terminated Chung's employment-this time allegedly for attending a training conference 28 6 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; ACTION TO RESTRAIN WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY; Case No. 1 without the District Attorney Office's approval and for allegedly "holding himself out" as 2 representing the Santa Clara County District Attorney Office. Chung appealed his November 3 2023 termination. 4 29. On information and belief, on January 23, 24, 30, 31, and February 3, 2025, the 5 Santa Clara County Personnel Board heard Chung's appeal regarding the termination of his 6 employment with the County. On May 15, 2025, the Personnel Board issued its Decision, 7 finding that Chung intentionally avoided holding himself out as a representative of the District 8 Attorney Office. Although the Personnel Board found that Chung violated District Attorney 9 Office rules requiring that he seek approval to attend this event, the Board overturned Chung's 10 termination, imposed a two-week suspension, and ordered the County again to reinstate Chung 11 as a DDA with his prior classification by June 23, 2025. The Personnel Board also ordered that 12 Chung be made "whole," including backpay. 13 30. On information and belief, on June 13, 2025, Assistant District Attorney David 14 Angel sent Chung a letter ordering him not to perform prosecutorial or investigative assignments 15 at the District Attorney Office, directing him not to come to any District Attorney Office 16 locations, and informing him that he would not be granted access to an office laptop, business 17 card, office equipment, office email, or the internal system. Chung was again reinstated on June 18 23, 2025. 19 31. As of the date of this Complaint, Chung has been reinstated as a DDA for over 20 nine months. Since May 2021, however, Chung has not been permitted to appear in court as a 21 DDA, nor has he been permitted to engage in prosecutorial or investigative duties although he is 22 ready, willing, and able to return to work. 23 32. Despite the Personnel Board's May 15, 2025, Decision ordering Chung's 24 reinstatement, and Chung's repeated statements expressing his intent to return to work as a 25 full-fledged DDA, defendants refuse to assign Chung any prosecutorial or investigative duties. 26 In essence, the County pays Chung not to come to work. 27 28 33. From 2022 to 2025, the County paid Chung approximately $314,596.21. 7 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; ACTION TO RESTRAIN WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY; Case No. 1 Currently, the County pays Chung approximately $8,525.84 biweekly. The County and Rosen 2 choose however to waste taxpayer funds by refusing to allow Chung to carry-out his duties as a 3 prosecutor. Instead, defendants would rather let Chung-a highly-educated, highly qualified 4 attorney-sit at home to prove their point: Don't cross Rosen. 5 6 34. The County's Budget Crisis On February 17, 2026, Rosen gave his annual State of the Office speech. Rosen 7 focused his speech on the allegedly catastrophic state of the County's budget, claiming that its 8 $4 70 million budget deficit will require layoffs and funding cuts that will gravely impact public 9 safety in the County. 10 35. Rosen used his State of the Office speech not to offer solutions or boost morale, 11 but to perpetuate fear. Throughout his speech, Rosen made numerous comments regarding the 12 detrimental effects of the County's budget cuts, such as: "Public safety costs money. Justice is 13 expensive. Money is finite. There is less money. And so, there will be less justice. Please 14 listen carefully: there will be less safety," and "Will people get hurt? Will they be killed? Will 15 criminals go free? I don't know." (See Pho, Santa Clara County DA says budget cuts threaten 16 public safety (Feb 18, 2026) San Jose Spotlight <https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county- 17 <la-says-budget-cuts-threaten-public-safety/> [as of Mar. 25, 2026].) 18 36. The County's own news release discussing Rosen's State of the Office speech 19 highlights Rosen's statement that, "if the slate of proposed cuts to the DA's budget were enacted, 20 the Office would not be able to prosecute most domestic violence cases[.]" (See Office of the 21 District Attorney, DA Rosen warns of major public safety impacts in State of the Office Speech, 22 County of Santa Clara <https://da.santaclaracounty.gov/da-rosen-warns-major-public-safety- 23 impacts-state-office-speech> [as of Mar. 25, 2026].) Rosen further warned that numerous 24 District Attorney Office programs would be cut. (Id.) 25 26 27 28 Defendants Would Rather Waste Public Funds Than Permit Chung to Resume His Prosecutorial Duties 37. Aside from the exorbitant amount of public money defendants have and continue 8 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; ACTION TO RESTRAIN WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY; Case No. 1 to expend in litigation, arbitration, and before the Personnel Board, defendants continue to waste 2 public funds by refusing to permit Chung to resume his prosecutorial duties. 3 38. Chung has the skill and experience to prosecute numerous categories of cases in 4 the Santa Clara County District Attorney Office. Nothing about his ability as a DDA changed 5 from his tenure in the Violent Felonies Unit through the date of his termination. Despite Rosen's 6 public outcry regarding budget cuts, defendants have and continue to waste County funds by 7 rejecting Chung's services as a prosecutor. 8 39. Instead of complying with the arbitrator's Award and the Personnel Board's 9 Decision ordering Chung's reinstatement, defendants have chosen to expend public funds in 10 furtherance of Rosen's vendetta against Chung, clearly not in the best interest and safety of the 11 County's taxpayers. 12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 13 Taxpayer Action to Enjoin Waste of Public Funds 14 15 40. 41. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 39, inclusive. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants implement 16 and enforce policies and practices that waste County funds, including but not limited to 17 prohibiting DDA Chung from performing prosecutorial or investigative duties despite his 18 employment to perform those tasks. 19 42. Defendants' expenditure of the money of the County of Santa Clara to implement, 20 enforce, or otherwise carry out such policies and practices constitutes a waste of public funds 21 within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 526a. 22 43. Defendants' expenditure of the money of County of Santa Clara to implement, 23 enforce, or otherwise carry out their wasteful policies and practice will cause the taxpayers of the 24 County of Santa Clara to suffer irreparable injury. 25 44. Unless enjoined by this Court, defendants will continue to spend the money of the 26 County of Santa Clara in furtherance of these wasteful policies and practices, causing irreparable 27 injury to the taxpayers of the County of Santa Clara. 28 9 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTNE RELIEF; ACTION TO RESTRAIN WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY; Case No. 1 45. Plaintiff and the taxpayers of the County of Santa Clara have no plain, adequate, 2 or speedy remedy at law, and are therefore entitled to injunctive relief against defendants. 3 4 5 6 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Taxpayer Action to Compel Performance of Duties Specifically Enjoined 46. 47. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 45, inclusive. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants implement 7 and enforce policies and practices that waste County funds, including but not limited to 8 prohibiting DDA Chung from performing prosecutorial or investigative duties he is paid to 9 perform. 48. In implementing and enforcing such policies and practices, defendants have failed 11 to uphold their duties to the taxpayers of the County of Santa Clara by failing to manage public 12 funds responsibly. 13 49. Defendants' failure to uphold their duties will continue to waste public funds and 14 cause the taxpayers of the County of Santa Clara to suffer irreparable injury. 15 50. Unless enjoined by this Court, defendants will continue to implement and enforce 16 their wasteful policies and practices, causing irreparable injury to the taxpayers of the County of 17 Santa Clara. 18 51. Plaintiff and the taxpayers of the County of Santa Clara have no plain, adequate, 19 or speedy remedy at law, and are therefore entitled to injunctive relief against defendants. 20 Plaintiff has no administrative remedy because defendants' policies and practices preclude any 21 administrative relief. 22 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 23 Declaratory Relief 24 25 52. 53. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 51, inclusive. An actual and immediate controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiff 26 and defendants related to their respective rights and duties. Plaintiff contends, and defendants 27 deny, that defendants' policies and practices regarding expenditure of public funds fails to 28 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; ACTION TO RESTRAIN WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY; Case No. 1 comply with defendants' duties. Plaintiff further contends, and defendants deny, that 2 defendants' expenditure of the money of the County of Santa Clara to implement, enforce, or 3 otherwise carry out such wasteful policies and practices constitutes a waste of public funds 4 within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 526a. 5 54. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of her rights and defendants' duties under 6 the law, and a declaration that defendants' policies and practices do not comply with their 7 obligations. 8 55. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination and declaration that defendants' 9 expenditure of the money of the County of Santa Clara to implement, enforce, or otherwise carry 10 out such policies and practices constitutes a waste of public funds. 11 56. A judicial determination is necessary and appropriate at this time so that plaintiff 12 may ascertain her rights and defendants' duties. 13 14 15 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants as follows: 1. On the first cause of action, plaintiff requests a permanent injunction enjoining 16 defendants and their agents, employees, representatives, and all other persons acting under, in 17 concert with, or for them, from spending the money of the County of Santa Clara on the 18 implementation or enforcement of policies and practices that waste public funds; 19 2. On the second cause of action, plaintiff requests a permanent injunction requiring 20 defendants and their agents, employees, representatives, and all other persons acting under, in 21 concert with, or for them, to perform their duties to the taxpayers of the County of Santa Clara, 22 including but not limited to permitting DDA Daniel Chung to resume the prosecutorial duties he 23 is being paid to perform; 24 25 26 27 28 3. On the third cause of action, plaintiff requests a declaration, order, and judgment that defendants' practice of prohibiting a salaried DDA from resuming work-despite an arbitration Award and Personnel Board Decision to the contrary-constitutes waste of public funds; 11 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; ACTION TO RESTRAIN WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY; Case No. 1 2 3 4 4. 5. 6. For attorneys' fees; For plaintiffs costs of suit; and For any further relief that this Court may deem just and proper. 5 DATED: March 25, 2026 6 McMANIS FAULKNER 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DIAZ NNAH LAUCHNER Attorneys for Plaintiff, SARAH SCOFIELD 12 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; ACTION TO RESTRAIN WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY; Case No.