IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

JOHN ANDREWS

7305 Appletree Lane

Norfolk, VA 23505,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

and

MARCUS JONES, individually and in his

official capacity as City Manager for the

City of Norfolk, Virginia,

Defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Civil Action No.:

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, John Andrews, (“Andrews” or “Plaintiff”) states as follows for his

Complaint against the City of Norfolk, Virginia, and Marcus Jones, individually, and in his

official capacity as City Manager for the City of Norfolk, Virginia (“Jones”):

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is an action for wrongful discharge from employment in reprisal for

engaging in activity protected by the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3729, et seq.; the Virginia

Fraud Against Taxpayer’s Act, Va. Code Ann. §8.01-216.1, et seq.; and the Constitution and

laws, including the common law, of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States.

2. The City of Norfolk and Jones (referred to collectively herein as “Defendants”)

terminated Andrews’ employment as Norfolk’s Special Assistant to the City Manager for

Veterans Services and Military Affairs on November 24, 2014. The Defendants took this action

Case 2:16-cv-00681-MSD-LRL Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 of 15 PageID# 1

2

because he raised concerns and questions about, and engaged in activity to prevent, potential

waste, fraud and abuse associated with a federal, municipal and state program intended to assist

Hampton Roads’ veterans in their transition from military service to employment in the private

sector.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This action arises, in part, as a result of the Defendants’ violation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights and, accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§§1331, 1343, 1367 and under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983. This action also

arises as a result of the Defendants’ violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the False

Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3730(h), and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action

under 31 U.S.C. §3730 and 31 U.S.C. §3732. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the

state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

4. Venue is appropriate in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391 because all acts and/or

omissions described herein occurred in the City of Norfolk, Virginia, Jones is a resident of

Norfolk, and Norfolk is a municipality located in the geographic area encompassed within the

Norfolk Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

III. PARTIES

5. Andrews is, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a resident of Norfolk,

Virginia, and a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States. Prior to his

employment with Norfolk, he retired from the U.S. Navy after 29 years of service with the rank

of captain (0-6).

6. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Marcus Jones was the duly appointed City

Manager for the City of Norfolk. He is sued herein in both his individual and official capacities.


3

Jones is a resident of Norfolk and a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United

States.

7. The City of Norfolk, Virginia, is a municipal corporation in the Commonwealth

of Virginia and was Andrews’ employer at times relevant to this Complaint.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. There are approximately 21.5 million veterans in the United States. The United

States Veterans Administration, under the auspices of the United States Department of Veterans

Affairs, is assigned the responsibility of assisting veterans in obtaining civilian employment

upon their departure from active service.

9. Norfolk and the Hampton Roads metropolitan area have one of the largest veteran

populations in the United States.

10. The governmental task of assisting veterans in their transition to private

employment from active duty acquired special urgency shortly after the 2003 Iraq war. Between

2004 and 2011, 29% to 53% of veterans encountered a significant period of unemployment

within 15 months of their separation from service. Veteran joblessness reached an Obama

administration high in January, 2011. The jobless rate for veterans reached approximately 12.1%

for global war on terror veterans when the national rate of unemployment was approximately

6.2%.

11. Veteran employment became an Obama administration priority. As of early

2012, the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs partnered in an online

platform that organized and facilitated private sector interviews for active duty military who

were scheduled for departure from active service. The program enjoyed a reasonable level of

success.


4

12. On April 2, 2012, Andrews was hired by the City of Norfolk in the position of

Special Assistant to the City Manager for Veterans and Military Affairs. Having gained

significant experience from his successful 29 year career as a naval officer, Andrews immersed

himself in the challenge of meeting the difficulties faced by veterans upon their transition from

service. As part of his early efforts, Andrews met with Rosye Cloud, White House Director of

Policy for Veterans, Wounded Warriors and Military Families, at the White House, in the late

spring of 2012, to consult with her and to provide some of his ideas for assisting veterans.

13. From early May 2012 through June 2012, Andrews worked with Rosye Cloud on

developing ideas for improving veteran employment. During this period they met on different

occasions and Andrews submitted drafts for the White House blog on this subject. In early June

of 2012, Andrews escorted Rosye Cloud and her husband, Chad Cloud, around Norfolk for Op

Sail 2012.

14. Andrews’ primary job was to develop a program that would assist veterans

transitioning from active military service to the private sector. Under Andrews’ leadership,

Norfolk’s program became highly successful. It was so successful that the program was the

salient reason that the City of Norfolk won the All-American City Award for 2013. Andrews

wrote the application for that award and was honored by being sent to Denver to accept it, with a

small group of others, on behalf of the city.

15. In mid-2013, Rosye Cloud was transferred to the Veterans Administration to

assume the role of Senior Advisor for Veteran Employment reporting to the Deputy Under

Secretary in the Office of Economic Opportunity. Cloud’s position was a Senior Executive

Service equivalent posting. Beginning in late 2013, the Veterans Administration, under Rosye

Cloud’s leadership, embarked upon a significant overhaul of the internet-based Veterans


5

Employment Assistance Program. This was going to be a very significant effort and would

ultimately attract tens of millions of dollars in federal funds to support it.

16. The program that ultimately came of this effort took significant time to develop

and the aspirational elements of the program were not unveiled until mid-2014. It was ultimately

known as the Veterans Employment Center (“VEC”).

17. Chad Cloud is Rosye Cloud’s husband. He owns a company that develops and

sells software that helps veterans transition to new careers. Upon information and belief, he

entered this narrow field of software development shortly after his wife’s involvement began

with the development of what ultimately became the VEC.

18. The salient and aspirational elements of the VEC were rolled out by the Veterans

Administration in mid-2014. On May 27, 2014, before these elements were publically disclosed,

Chad Cloud’s company filed a patent application for software the purpose of which was to

address and support the Veterans Administration online jobs initiative that his wife was leading.

The patent appears to be what is known in the intellectual property field as a “picture patent”.

This is a patent that is drafted for somewhat limited and narrow purposes and is generally

considered to be of diminished commercial value unless there is a very specific need that only

the particular patent can meet.

19. On August 14, 2014, Rosye Cloud arrived in Hampton Roads for a series of

meetings to promote and develop the VEC and related initiatives. Wynter Benda, a Deputy City

Manager for the City of Norfolk, invited Andrews to attend a meeting with Cloud on the 14th

to

present a brief synopsis of his own efforts to date, and Andrews did so.

20. The next day, on August 15, 2014, Andrews attended a meeting, which had been

previously scheduled, of the Tidewater Community College Center for Military and Veteran


6

Education Advisory Committee (“CMVE Advisory Committee”). Andrews chaired this

committee and the meeting was held at the college’s Virginia Beach campus. Rosye Cloud was

invited to attend this meeting and to present on her veterans online jobs initiatives.

21. It turned out that the very next person scheduled to address the CMVE Advisory

Committee that morning was Chad Cloud, Rosye Cloud’s husband. At this point, no one on the

committee, other than Andrews, knew Chad Cloud. And no one, not even Andrews, knew that

he was engaged in a related field of work. Chad Cloud was there essentially to give a sales

presentation on his software product that was intended to support, overlap with and effect certain

purposes of the Veterans Administration online jobs initiative that Rosye Cloud was leading and

developing.

22. The Clouds apparently did not jibe their schedules very well because after almost

an hour into Rosye Cloud’s presentation to the CMVE Advisory Committee she abruptly asked

“Where are we?” Dr. Bruce Brunson, a member of the committee, responded with the location

and Rosye Cloud stated “My husband [who had apparently sent her a text] says that he can hear

my voice.” Dr. Brunson then stated something to the effect of “He must be the vendor who

asked to provide a demonstration to us. He has a very effective military transition tool.”

23. Andrews then asked Rosye Cloud if her husband was a software vendor. She

replied “Yes, but I did not know that he was going to be here.” At this time, Dr. Brunson was

getting up to bring Chad Cloud into the room. Andrews realized that it presented a procurement

integrity issue having them both making their presentations on the same issue and expressed his

concerns. Rosye Cloud said that she understood the concern and she and her team left the

meeting.


7

24. After Rosye Cloud left the meeting at TCC, Chad Cloud proceeded to give the

CMVE Advisory Committee a presentation of his software product. It appeared to the group to

be quite effective though it significantly overlapped with elements of the program the Veterans

Administration was seeking to implement, but had not yet done so. At this point, the precise

manner in which the internet based application would be implemented – whether through a

particular vendor, performed in-house within the Veterans Administration, etc. – had not been

decided upon or at least was not publically disclosed. Andrews returned to his office in Norfolk

and reported the incident to Sabrina Joy-Hogge, a Deputy City Manager.

25. On October 8, 2014, Andrews met with Marcus Jones, Sabrina Joy-Hogge and

Wynter Benda to discuss a presentation that Andrews was to give to staff members of Virginia’s

congressional delegation in Washington, D.C. In preparation for that meeting Andrews was

provided with documents from Rosye Cloud describing the VEC in more detail. It was described

as the federal government’s single authoritative internet source for connecting transitioning

service members, veterans and their families to meaningful career opportunities and a platform

that would serve as a tool to translate military skills into plain language. The program was still

partially aspirational, the portal was not yet fully functional. In its description, however, the

VEC overlapped significantly with the software product being marketed by Chad Cloud.

26. During Andrews’ ensuing visit to Washington, it became clear to him that Chad

Cloud, and Cloud’s financial backer, a man named Brent Majors, had been given the details of

Andrews’ trip to Washington, including his itinerary and the identity of the congressional staffers

with whom Andrews was meeting. That information could have only come from Norfolk


8

officials. This was alarming to Andrews and he expressed this concern, and his growing concern

about the Clouds, to Wynter Benda on November 6, 2014. He wrote in an email:

This is the promotional material that was sent to me, and others, in

August 2014 by Chad Cloud. Chad Cloud is the husband of Rosye

Cloud, who, as you know, is currently serving as the senior advisor

for Veterans’ Employment at the United States Department of

Veterans Affairs. In the past few months, he, and his financial

backer, Brent Major from the Major Group, have conducted

marketing demonstrations for TCC, ODU and representatives for

Secretary Harvey [Virginia Secretary of Veterans Affairs].

On 15 August 2014, it raised eyebrows when Rosye abruptly got

up and left the meeting when she discovered that Chad was coming

into the room to market his product at TCC. She did acknowledge

that her husband was a vendor and stated “I had no idea he was

going to be here today.”

. . . .

SGAP [Chad Cloud’s software product] has many similarities to

the Veterans Employment Center (VEC) that is detailed in the

Veterans Community Engagement Project (VCEP). It is obvious

that you have been collaborating on this project with Ms. Cloud for

some time and I must advise caution.

VEC is up and operating on eBenefits . . . It (VEC) is being touted

as the “federal government’s single authoritative internet source

for connecting transitioning Servicemembers [sic], Veterans and

their families to meaningful career opportunities, it provides job

seekers the tools to translate military skills into plain language and

build a shared profile shared instantly with employers.” This

promotion occurs not only in the draft documents on which you

have been collaborating, but also personally by Rosye, on stage, in

front of large audiences. Rosye is the principal responsible for

oversight and guidance of VCEP and VEC. Her husband is selling

a product that is very similar and when asked if he has a

connection in any way, through either his software performance

group of Cloud Nine software companies, or companies in which

he has an interest, he remained silent.

This gives me cause for concern and I would hate to see the City

caught up in the mess that would result if there have been

improprieties in this process.


9

. . . .

I am concerned about the amount of information that you

apparently have relayed to Ms. Cloud, including the details of my

trip to DC. Are you aware that the financial backer for Rosye’s

husband, Brent Major, was given my itinerary and the identity of

the person who I working with when I visited congressional

staffers last month? The day after I gave you and Lashawnda those

details, Brent Major emailed John Heroux and asked John if he

could shed light on what I was doing. No one else but you and

Lashawnda had those details and I don’t think Lashawnda passed it

to Rosye. . . .

27. Unknown to Andrews at the time, Chad Cloud wrote an email on the very same

day as the email set forth above, November 6, 2014, to a business associate who had inquired as

to the relationship between Cloud’s product and the VEC. Cloud answered:

It’s been busy around here but I wanted to make sure I answered

you. From your previous email, the VEC will be an ally. They do

about 20-30% of what we have right now and of course they can’t

violate our patent, so we are exploring how they work together so

they don’t have to re-invent the wheel. . . .

Emphasis added.

This constitutes a blatant and unlawful conflict of interest. Chad Cloud, or his business entity, is

the owner of a patent protected software product and he plainly intends to gain by “work[ing]

together” with the VEC, a federal program for which his federally employed wife is responsible.

There was also a natural and implicit concern about the genesis of Chad Cloud’s software and

whether it was original to him or was acquired by him, in whole or in part, through his wife. At

the very least, the Clouds’ conduct either impaired the public fisc, had the potential for impairing

the public fisc or certainly had the reasonable appearance, from the perspective of someone in

Andrews’ position, of conduct that could impair the public fisc.

28. After November 6, Andrews learned corroborating information, some of which is

expressed in Chad Cloud’s email set forth in paragraph 27, above. He also learned that Cloud


10

was bragging about his influence within the Veterans Administration. He had additional

discussions with both Wynter Benda and Marcus Jones in which he expressed concerns about the

conflict of interest that existed between the Clouds.

29. On November 21, 2014, frustrated by Norfolk’s lack of interest or inability to

fully consider his concerns, Andrews emailed Rosye Cloud asking a simple question: “Is your

husband, Chad Cloud, associated in any way with the operation of the Veterans Employment

Center (VEC) that resides within the eBenefits portal?”

30. A few hours after sending the email referenced in the preceding paragraph,

Christina Marte, administrative assistant to Marcus Jones, called Andrews and said that Jones

wanted to meet with him at 2:00 p.m. At 1:50, she said the meeting had been delayed. After

waiting a period of time, Andrews was informed that he could leave for the day, which was a

Friday, and they would meet Monday, November 24, 2014. Jones learned of Andrews’ email to

Cloud that day and immediately decided to fire him.

31. On the morning of November 24, 2014, Marcus Jones fired Andrews stating “This

is just not a good fit.” Jones fired Andrews in retaliation for Andrews raising the questions,

complaints and concerns about the Clouds’ conflict of interest set forth above and the origin of

Chad Cloud’s software product.

32. The Defendants’ actions as related herein were taken under color of state law

without regard for the protected rights of the Plaintiff. The Defendants’ actions were deliberate

and unlawful. The Defendants knew or should have known that their actions unlawfully

infringed upon Plaintiff’s rights under the United States Constitution and other laws. The

Defendants committed the acts complained of herein in violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment

rights.


11

33. Andrews took the actions set forth above in an effort to stop violations of the

federal False Claims Act and the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. Norfolk’s termination

of Andrews, and Jones’ decision that Andrews be terminated, was in retaliation for Andrews’

efforts to stop violations of these statutes. In addition, Norfolk’s termination of Andrews, and

Jones’ decision that Andrews be terminated, violated the public policy set forth in the Virginia

Fraud Against Taxpayers Act and other Virginia law.

COUNT I

Wrongful Dismissal and Abridgement of Free Speech Rights

in Violation of the First Amendment

34. Plaintiff incorporates into this Count all allegations set forth in this Complaint as

if fully set forth herein.

35. This Count seeks relief for damages arising from violation of Plaintiff’s rights

guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. It is asserted pursuant to the Civil Rights

Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983.

36. On November 24, 2014, Norfolk and Marcus Jones, acting individually and in his

official capacity as the City Manager of the City of Norfolk, terminated the Plaintiff’s

employment with the City of Norfolk.

37. The termination of the Plaintiff was unlawful, retaliatory and improper in that the

Defendants effected this termination because the Plaintiff exercised his rights to free speech in

raising complaints, concerns and questions about the actions of Rosye Cloud and Chad Cloud.

As a result, his termination violated the First Amendment which is applicable to and enforceable

against state and municipal actors under the Fourteenth Amendment.

38. The actions of the Defendants constitute a wrongful and retaliatory discharge of

the Plaintiff under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.


12

39. The actions of the Defendants further constitute an unlawful discharge in

violation of the Plaintiff’s civil rights the protection of which is guaranteed under 42 U.S.C.

§1983.

40. As a direct, actual and proximate result of the actions taken by the Defendants as

set forth herein, the Plaintiff has suffered significant pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages

including loss of future pay and benefits, loss of back pay and benefits, loss of promotion

opportunities, retirement benefits as well as mental anguish, anxiety, pain, suffering, humiliation,

loss of reputation, and loss of quality and enjoyment of life.

COUNT II

Retaliation in Violation of the False Claims Act



42. The Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under 31 U.S.C. §3730(h) when he

raised concerns, complaints and questions regarding the propriety of Chad Cloud’s pursuit of a

business relationship with Norfolk and other governmental agencies in Hampton Roads that was

so closely tied to the activities of his wife, a senior government official.

43. The Defendants ignored Andrews’ concerns and terminated him because he

complained about, questioned and raised concerns about the propriety of the conduct of Rosye

and Chad Cloud.

44. The Defendants’ conduct was the proximate and actual cause of significant

economic and non-economic harm to Plaintiff. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has

suffered significant pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages including loss of future pay and

benefits, loss of back pay and benefits, loss of promotion opportunities, retirement benefits as


13

well as mental anguish, anxiety, pain, suffering, humiliation, loss of reputation, and loss of

quality and enjoyment of life.

COUNT III

Violation of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act



46. The Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under Va. Code Ann. §8.01-216.1, et

seq. when he raised concerns, complaints and questions regarding the propriety of Chad Cloud’s

pursuit of a business relationship with Norfolk and other governmental agencies in Hampton

Roads.


complained about, and questioned the propriety of, the conduct of Rosye and Chad Cloud.







COUNT IV

Termination Against the Public Policy of Virginia




14

50. The Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the public policy of Virginia

when he raised concerns, complaints and questions regarding the propriety of Chad Cloud’s

pursuit of a business relationship with Norfolk and other governmental agencies in Hampton

Roads and the conduct of the Clouds. This public policy is set forth in the Virginia Fraud

Against Taxpayers Act.


complained about, and questioned the propriety of, the conduct of Rosye and Chad Cloud.







WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John Andrews, respectfully prays that this Court award the

following relief:

1) For each Count set forth above: order the Defendants to restore the Plaintiff to his

former position or a comparable position and award him other equitable relief as appropriate;

2) For each Count set forth above: order the Defendants to institute programs,

practices and policies which eradicate the effects of past retaliation and violation of the statutes

set forth above;

3) For each Count set forth above: order the Defendants to make the Plaintiff whole

with payment of all pecuniary losses suffered as a result of the events set forth above including


15

awards of back pay, reinstatement or front pay, lost benefits, including lost health and retirement

benefits, all with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as applicable;

4) For Counts II and III: order the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff a separate and

additional sum equivalent to his award of back pay as required under 31 U.S.C. §3730(h) and

Va. Code Ann. §8.01-216.1, et seq.;

5) For each Count set forth above: order the Defendants to make the Plaintiff whole

by providing compensation for all non-pecuniary damages including emotional pain, suffering,

inconvenience, anxiety, loss of quality and enjoyment of life, loss of reputation, loss of career

and mental anguish, with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as applicable;

6) For Counts I through III: order the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff all costs and

attorney’s fees incurred in the prosecution of this action; and

7) Order such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

The Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues raised in this Complaint.

JOHN ANDREWS

By: /s/ James H. Shoemaker, Jr.

Of Counsel

James H. Shoemaker (VSB No. 33148)

Andrew J. Dean (VSB No. 88192)

PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN & DIAMONSTEIN, L.C.

12350 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300

Newport News, Virginia 23602

Phone: (757) 223-4580

Fax: (757) 223-4518

[email protected]

[email protected]


JS 44 (Rev. 12/07) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as providedby local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiatingthe civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorney’s (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEFPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 610 Agriculture 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 400 State Reapportionment120 Marine 310 Airplane 362 Personal Injury - 620 Other Food & Drug 423 Withdrawal 410 Antitrust130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 430 Banks and Banking140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 450 Commerce150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability 630 Liquor Laws PROPERTY RIGHTS 460 Deportation

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander 368 Asbestos Personal 640 R.R. & Truck 820 Copyrights 470 Racketeer Influenced and151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Injury Product 650 Airline Regs. 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability 660 Occupational 840 Trademark 480 Consumer Credit

Student Loans 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health 490 Cable/Sat TV (Excl. Veterans) 345 Marine Product 370 Other Fraud 690 Other 810 Selective Service

153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability 371 Truth in Lending LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 850 Securities/Commodities/ of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 380 Other Personal 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) Exchange

160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act 862 Black Lung (923) 875 Customer Challenge190 Other Contract Product Liability 385 Property Damage 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 12 USC 3410195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Product Liability 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions196 Franchise Injury & Disclosure Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 740 Railway Labor Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 892 Economic Stabilization Act210 Land Condemnation 441 Voting 510 Motions to Vacate 790 Other Labor Litigation 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 893 Environmental Matters220 Foreclosure 442 Employment Sentence 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. or Defendant) 894 Energy Allocation Act230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus: Security Act 871 IRS—Third Party 895 Freedom of Information240 Torts to Land Accommodations 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act245 Tort Product Liability 444 Welfare 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 900Appeal of Fee Determination290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 462 Naturalization Application Under Equal Access

Employment 550 Civil Rights 463 Habeas Corpus - to Justice446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee 950 Constitutionality of

Other 465 Other Immigration State Statutes440 Other Civil Rights Actions

V. ORIGINTransferred fromanother district(specify)

Appeal to DistrictJudge fromMagistrateJudgment

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)1 Original

Proceeding2 Removed from

State Court 3 Remanded from

Appellate Court4 Reinstated or

Reopened 5 6 Multidistrict

Litigation7

VI. CAUSE OF ACTIONCite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)IF ANY (See instructions): JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

John Andrews

Norfolk

James H. Shoemaker, Jr., PWHD, 12350 Jefferson Ave., Ste 300,Newport News, VA 23602 757-223-4580

City of Norfolk, Virginia and Marcus Jones

Norfolk

Bernard Pishko, City Attorney for the City of Norfolk

31 U.S.C. §3729, et seq.; 28 U.S.C. §1331, 1343, 1367; 42 U.S.C. §1983; Va. Code Ann. §8.01-216.1

Wrongful discharge in reprisal for engaging in protected activity

✔

/s/ James H. Shoemaker, Jr.November 23, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00681-MSD-LRL Document 1-1 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 16

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 11/04)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as requiredby law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the useof the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaintfiled. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use onlythe full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, givingboth name and title.

(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the timeof filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases,the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, notingin this section “(see attachment)”.

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in oneof the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to theConstitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box1 or 2 should be marked.Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of thedifferent parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this sectionfor each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficientto enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, selectthe most definitive.

V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the seven boxes.Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petitionfor removal is granted, check this box.Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrictlitigation transfers.Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this boxis checked, do not check (5) above.Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutesunless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553

Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending or closed cases if any. If there are related pending or closed cases, insert thedocket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case 2:16-cv-00681-MSD-LRL Document 1-1 Filed 11/23/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN...