Weber Conformed Complaint PDF

Case 2:18-cv-03684 Document 1 Filed 05/01/18 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:1
1 LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY A. YATES

Gregory A. Yates (Bar No. 63259)
2 gyates@gregoryayates.net
3 16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 250
Encino, California 91436
4 Telephone: (310) 858-6944
Facsimile: (818) 905-7038
5
LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO
6 Dale K. Galipo (Bar No. 144074)
7 dalekgalipo@yahoo.com
Eric Valenzuela (Bar No. 284500)
8 evalenzuela@galipolaw.com
21800 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 310
9 Woodland Hills, California 91367
10 Telephone: (818) 347-3333
Facsimile: (818) 347-4118
11
12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15 V.W., a minor, by and through her Case No. 2:18-cv-3683
Guardian Ad Litem, STEPHANIE
16 VALENCIA; DEMETRA JOHNSON; COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
and JOHN WEBER,
17 1. Unreasonable Search and Seizure—
Plaintiffs, Detention and Arrest (42 U.S.C. §
18 1983)
vs. 2. Unreasonable Search and Seizure—
19 Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; and
20 DOES 1-10, inclusive, 3. Unreasonable Search and Seizure—
Denial of Medical Care (42 U.S.C.
21 Defendants. § 1983)
4. Substantive Due Process—(42
22 U.S.C. § 1983)
5. Municipal Liability for
23
Unconstitutional Custom, Practice,
24 or Policy (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
6. False Arrest/False Imprisonment
25
7. Battery (Wrongful Death)
26 8. Negligence (Wrongful Death)
9. Violation of Bane Act (Cal. Civil
27 Code § 52.1)
28 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
-1-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

2 1. Plaintiffs V.W., a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem,
3 STEPHANIE VALENCIA, DEMETRA JOHNSON and JOHN WEBER for their
4 complaint against Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and Does 1-10,
5 inclusive, allege as follows:
6 INTRODUCTION
7 2. This civil rights action seeks compensatory and punitive damages from
8 Defendants for violating various rights under the United States Constitution and
9 state law in connection with the fatal police shooting of the decedent, Anthony
10 Weber.
11 PARTIES
12 3. At all relevant times, Anthony Weber (“DECEDENT”) was an individual
13 residing in County of Los Angeles, California.
14 4. Plaintiff V.W. is a minor individual residing in the County of Los Angeles,
15 California, and is the natural born daughter to DECEDENT. V.W. sues by and
16 through her natural mother and Guardian Ad Litem, STEPHANIE VALENCIA.
17 V.W. sues both in her individual capacity as the daughter of DECEDENT and in a
18 representative capacity as a successor-in-interest to DECEDENT. V.W. seeks both
19 survival and wrongful death damages under federal and state law.
20 5. Plaintiff DEMETRA JOHNSON is an individual residing in the County of
21 Los Angeles, California, and is the natural mother of DECEDENT. DEMETRA
22 JOHNSON sues in her individual capacity as the mother of DECEDENT.
23 6. Plaintiff JOHN WEBER is an individual residing in the County of Los
24 Angeles, California, and is the natural father of DECEDENT. JOHN WEBER sues
25 in his individual capacity as the father of DECEDENT.
26 7. At all relevant times, Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
27 (“COUNTY”) is and was a duly organized public entity, form unknown, existing
28 under the laws of the State of California. At all relevant times, COUNTY was the
-2-
1 employer of Defendant DOES 1-4, who were COUNTY sheriff’s deputies, DOES
2 5-6, who were COUNTY sheriff’s deputies’ supervisorial officers, and DOES 7-10,
3 who were managerial, supervisorial, and policymaking employees of the COUNTY
4 Sheriff’s Department. On information and belief, at all relevant times, DOES 1-10
5 were residents of County of Los Angeles, California. DOES 1-10 are sued in their
6 individual capacity for damages only.
7 8. At all relevant times, Defendants DOES 1-10 were duly authorized
8 employees and agents of COUNTY, who were acting under color of law within the
9 course and scope of their respective duties as sheriff’s deputies and with the
10 complete authority and ratification of their principal, Defendant COUNTY.
11 9. At all relevant times, Defendants DOES 1-10 were duly appointed officers
12 and/or employees or agents of COUNTY, subject to oversight and supervision by
13 COUNTY’s elected and non-elected officials.
14 10. In doing the acts and failing and omitting to act as hereinafter described,
15 Defendants DOES 1-10 were acting on the implied and actual permission and
16 consent of COUNTY.
17 11. At all times mentioned herein, each and every COUNTY defendant was the
18 agent of each and every other COUNTY defendant and had the legal duty to
19 oversee and supervise the hiring, conduct and employment of each and every
20 COUNTY defendant.
21 12. The true names of defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown
22 to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs
23 will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of
24 these defendants when they have been ascertained. Each of the fictitious named
25 defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct and liabilities alleged
26 herein.
27 13. On February 23, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended claim for damages with
28 COUNTY pursuant to applicable sections of the California Government Code.
-3-
1 14. On March 21, 2018, COUNTY rejected Plaintiffs’ claims for damages by
2 operation of law.
3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 15. This civil action is brought for the redress of alleged deprivations of
5 constitutional rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, and the
6 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction
7 is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.
8 16. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because
9 Defendants reside in, and all incidents, events, and occurrences giving rise to this
10 action occurred in, the County of Los Angeles, California.
11
12 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
13 17. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
14 through 16 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
15 herein.
16 18. On or about February 4, 2018, DECEDENT was near the 1200 block of
17 107th Street, in South Los Angeles, California.
18 19. Near 1200 block of 107th Street, DOES 1-4 discharged their firearms at
19 DECEDENT, striking him several times, including shots to the back and shots from
20 behind, causing DECEDENT serious physical injury and eventually killing him.
21 20. At the time of the shooting, DECEDENT was unarmed. Further,
22 DECEDENT was just 16 years old when he was fatally shot multiple times by
23 DOES 1-4. At the time of the shooting DECEDENT posed no imminent threat of
24 death or serious physical injury to either DOES 1-4 or any other person, especially
25 since he was unarmed and his hands were visibly empty when he was fatally shot.
26 21. DECEDENT never verbally threatened anyone prior to being fatally shot by
27 DOES 1-4.
28
-4-
1 22. On information and belief, DOES 1-4 had no information that DECEDENT
2 had committed a felony.
3 23. After shooting DECEDENT multiple times, DOES 1-4 did not timely
4 summons medical attention for DECEDENT, who was bleeding profusely and had
5 obvious serious injuries, and DOES 1-4 also did not allow and prevented
6 responding medical personnel on-scene to timely render medical aid/assistance to
7 DECEDENT.
8 24. After the shooting DOES 1-4 made false statements to investigators and
9 COUNTY made false statements to the media in attempts to justify the shooting of
10 an unarmed 16 year-old kid.
11 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12 Unreasonable Search and Seizure—Detention and Arrest (42 U.S.C. §
13 1983)
14 (Against Defendants DOES 1-4)
15 25. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraph 1
17 herein.
18 26. Defendants DOES 1-4 caused DECEDENT to be detained and arrested in
19 violation of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches and
20 seizures as guaranteed to Decedent under the Fourth Amendment to the United
21 States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
22 27. As a result of the conduct of DOES 1-4, they are liable for DECEDENT’s
23 injuries because they were either integral participants to the violations of
24 DECEDENT’s rights or they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
25 28. The DECEDENT was detained without reasonable suspicion and DOES 1-4
26 attempted to arrest DECEDENT without probable cause.
27
28
-5-
1 29. The conduct of DOES 1-4 was willful, wanton, malicious, and done with
2 reckless disregard for the rights and safety of DECEDENT and therefore warrants
3 the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to DOES 1-4.
4 30. Accordingly, Defendants DOES 1-4, are each liable to Plaintiff for
5 compensatory and punitive damages, including both survival damages and
6 wrongful death damages, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
7 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
8 Unreasonable Search and Seizure—Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
12 herein.
13 32. DOES1-4’s unjustified shooting deprived DECEDENT of his right to be
14 secure in his persons against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to
15 DECEDENT under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
16 applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
17 33. The unreasonable use of force by Defendant DOES 1-4 deprived the
18 DECEDENT of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches
19 and seizures as guaranteed to DECEDENT under the Fourth Amendment to the
20 United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth
21 Amendment.
22 34. As a result, DECEDENT suffered extreme mental and physical pain and
23 suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and eventually suffered a loss of life and of
24 earning capacity. Plaintiffs have also been deprived of the life-long love,
25 companionship, comfort, support, society, care, and sustenance of DECEDENT,
26 and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives.
27 Plaintiffs are also claiming funeral and burial expenses and a loss of financial
28 support.
-6-
1 35. As a result of the conduct of DOES 1-4, they are liable for DECEDENT’s
2 injuries, either because they were integral participants in the excessive force, or
3 because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
4 36. This use of deadly force was excessive and unreasonable under the
5 circumstances, especially since DECEDENT was unarmed with his hands visibly
6 empty when he was fatally shot, including shots to the back and shots from behind.
7 Defendants’ actions thus deprived DECEDENT of his right to be free from
8 unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and applied to
9 state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
12 the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants DOES 1-4.
13 38. Plaintiffs bring this claim as successors-in-interest to the DECEDENT, and
14 seek both survival and wrongful death damages for the violation of DECEDENT’s
15 rights.
16 39. Plaintiffs also seek attorney fees under this claim.
17
18 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19 Unreasonable Search and Seizure—Denial of Medical Care (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
23 herein.
24 41. The denial of medical care by Defendant Does 1-4 deprived DECEDENT
25 of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches and seizures as
26 guaranteed to DECEDENT under the Fourth Amendment to the United States
27 Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
28
-7-
1 42. As a result, DECEDENT suffered extreme mental and physical pain and
2 suffering and eventually suffered a loss of life and earning capacity. Plaintiffs have
3 also been deprived of the life-long love, companionship, comfort, support, society,
4 care, and sustenance of DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for the
5 remainder of their natural lives. Plaintiffs are also claiming funeral and burial
6 expenses and a loss of financial support.
7 43. Defendant Does 1-4 knew that failure to provide timely medical treatment to
8 DECEDENT could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and
9 wanton infliction of pain, but disregarded that serious medical need, causing
10 DECEDENT great bodily harm and death.
11 44. After shooting DECEDENT multiple times, DOES 1-4 did not timely
12 summons medical attention for DECEDENT, who was bleeding profusely and had
13 obvious serious injuries, and DOES 1-4 also did not allow and prevented
14 responding medical personnel on-scene to timely render medical aid/assistance to
15 DECEDENT.
16 45. The conduct of Does 1-4 was willful, wanton, malicious, and done with
18 the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendant Does 1-4.
19 46. Plaintiffs bring this claim as a successors-in-interest to DECEDENT, and
21 rights.
22 47. Plaintiffs also seek attorney’s fees under this claim.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
1 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 Substantive Due Process (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
3 (Against Defendant DOES 1-4)
6 herein.
7 49. DEMETRA JOHNSON and had a cognizable interest under the Due
8 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to
9 be free from state actions that deprive her of life, liberty, or property in such a
10 manner as to shock the conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state
11 interference in Plaintiff’s familial relationship with her son, DECEDENT.
12 50. JOHN WEBER had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause of
13 the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state
14 actions that deprive him of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock the
15 conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state interference in
16 Plaintiff’s familial relationship with his son, DECEDENT.
17 51. V.W. had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause of the
18 Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state
19 actions that deprive her of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock the
20 conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state interference in
21 Plaintiff’s familial relationship with her father, DECEDENT.
22 52. DECEDENT had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause of the
23 Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state
24 actions that deprive him of his right to life, liberty, or property in such a manner as
25 to shock the conscience.
26 53. As a result of the excessive force by DOES 1-4, and their failure to
27 intervene, DECEDENT died. Plaintiffs DEMETRA JOHNSON, JOHN WEBER
28
-9-
1 and V.W. were thereby deprived of their constitutional right of familial relationship
2 with DECEDENT.
3 54. Does 1-4, acting under color of state law, thus violated the Fourteenth
4 Amendment rights of DEMETRA JOHNSON, JOHN WEBER and V.W. to be free
5 from unwarranted interference with their familial relationship with DECEDENT.
6 55. The aforementioned actions of DOES 1-4, along with other undiscovered
7 conduct, shock the conscience, in that they acted with deliberate indifference to the
8 constitutional rights of DECEDENT and Plaintiffs DEMETRA JOHNSON, JOHN
9 WEBER and V.W., and with purpose to harm unrelated to any legitimate law
10 enforcement objective.
11 56. Defendants DOES 1-4, acting under color of state law, thus violated the
12 Fourteenth Amendment rights of DECEDENT and Plaintiffs.
13 57. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts of DOES 1-4, DECEDENT
14 experienced severe pain and suffering and lost his life and earning capacity.
15 Plaintiffs suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and pain and have been
16 injured in mind and body. Plaintiffs has also been deprived of the life-long love,
17 companionship, comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of DECEDENT, and
18 will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives. Plaintiffs
19 are also claiming funeral and burial expenses and a loss of financial support.
20 58. As a result of the conduct of Does 1-4, they are liable for DECEDENT’S
21 injuries, either because they were integral participants in the denial of due process,
22 or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
24 reckless disregard for the rights and safety of DECEDENT and Plaintiffs and
25 therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to
26 Defendant DOES 1-4.
27
28
-10-
1 60. Plaintiffs brings this claim individually and as a successors-in-interest to

2 DECEDENT, and seek both survival and wrongful death damages for the violation
3 of both Plaintiffs’ and DECEDENT’s rights.
5
6 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
7 Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Custom or Policy (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
8 (Against Defendants DOES 5-10 and COUNTY)
11 herein.
12 63. On information and belief Defendant DOES 1-4’s shooting of DECEDENT,
13 who was only 16 years old, who was unarmed with his hands visibly empty at the
14 time of the shooting, including shots to the back and shots from behind, was found
15 to be within COUNTY Sheriff’s Department policy.
16 64. On information and belief Defendant DOES 1-4’s shooting of
17 DECEDENT, who was only 16 years old, who was unarmed with his hands visibly
18 empty at the time of the shooting, including shots to the back and shots from
19 behind, was ratified by COUNTY Sheriff’s Department supervisorial officers.
20 65. On information and belief Defendant Does 1-4 were not disciplined for
21 fatally shooting DECEDENT, who was only 16 years old, who was unarmed with
22 his hands visibly empty at the time of the shooting, including shots to the back and
23 shots from behind.
24 66. According to the Los Angeles County’s website (www.lacounty.gov), there
25 were 58 deputy-involved shootings in 2017 alone. On information and belief, most
26 of these shootings were found to be within policy, the involved deputies were not
27 disciplined, retrained or fired and none of the involved deputies faced any criminal
28 charges relating to these shootings.
-11-
1 67. On and for some time prior to February 4, 2018 (and continuing to the
2 present date) Defendants DOES 5-10, deprived Plaintiffs and DECEDENT of the
3 rights and liberties secured to them by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to
4 the United States Constitution, in that said defendants and their supervising and
5 managerial employees, agents, and representatives, acting with gross negligence
6 and with reckless and deliberate indifference to the rights and liberties of the public
7 in general, and of Plaintiffs and DECEDENT, and of persons in their class,
8 situation and comparable position in particular, knowingly maintained, enforced
9 and applied an official recognized custom, policy, and practice of:
10 (a) Employing and retaining as sheriff’s deputies and other
11 personnel, including DOES 1-4, who Defendants DOES 5-
12 10, at all times material herein knew or reasonably should
13 have known had dangerous propensities for abusing their
14 authority and for mistreating citizens by failing to follow
15 written COUNTY Sheriff’s Department’s policies, including
16 the use of excessive force;
17 (b) Of inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning,
18 and disciplining COUNTY sheriff’s deputies, and other
19 personnel, including DOES 1-4, who Defendants COUNTY
20 knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have
21 known had the aforementioned propensities and character
22 traits, including the propensity for violence and the use of
23 excessive force;
24 (c) By maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting,
25 supervising, investigating, reviewing, disciplining and
26 controlling the intentional misconduct by Defendant DOES
27 1-4, who are sheriff’s deputies of COUNTY;
28
-12-
1 (d) By failing to discipline COUNTY sheriff’s deputies’

2 conduct, including but not limited to, unlawful detention and
3 excessive force;
4 (e) By ratifying the intentional misconduct of Defendant DOES
5 1-4, who are sheriff’s deputies of COUNTY;
6 (f) By having and maintaining an unconstitutional policy,
7 custom, and practice of detaining and arresting individuals
8 without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, especially
9 individuals of color, and by using excessive force, including
10 deadly force, which also is demonstrated by inadequate
11 training regarding these subjects. The policies, customs, and
12 practices of DOES 5-10, were done with a deliberate
13 indifference to individuals’ safety and rights; and
14 (g) By failing to properly investigate claims of unlawful
15 detention and excessive force by COUNTY sheriff’s
16 deputies.
17 68. By reason of the aforementioned policies and practices of Defendants DOES
18 5-10, DECEDENT was severely injured and subjected to pain and suffering and
19 lost his life.
20 69. Defendants DOES 5-10, together with various other officials, whether
21 named or unnamed, had either actual or constructive knowledge of the deficient
22 policies, practices and customs alleged in the paragraphs above. Despite having
23 knowledge as stated above these defendants condoned, tolerated and through
24 actions and inactions thereby ratified such policies. Said defendants also acted with
25 deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies
26 with respect to the constitutional rights of DECEDENT, Plaintiffs, and other
27 individuals similarly situated.
28
-13-
1 70. By perpetrating, sanctioning, tolerating and ratifying the outrageous conduct

2 and other wrongful acts, Defendants DOES 5-10, acted with an intentional,
3 reckless, and callous disregard for the life of DECEDENT, and DECEDENT’s and
4 Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Defendants DOES 5-10, each of their actions were
5 willful, wanton, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent, and extremely offensive and
6 unconscionable to any person of normal sensibilities.
7 71. Furthermore, the policies, practices, and customs implemented and
8 maintained and still tolerated by Defendants DOES 5-10, were affirmatively linked
9 to and were a significantly influential force behind the injuries of DECEDENT and
10 Plaintiffs.
11 72. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants DOES 5-
12 10, Plaintiffs were caused to incur funeral and related burial expenses, and loss of
13 financial support.
14 73. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants DOES 5-
15 10, Plaintiffs have suffered loss of love, companionship, affection, comfort, care,
16 society, and future support.
17 74. Accordingly, Defendants DOES 5-10, each are liable to Plaintiffs for
18 compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19 75. Plaintiffs seek wrongful death and survival damages under this claim.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-14-
1 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 False Arrest/False Imprisonment (Cal. Govt. Code § 820 and California
3 Common Law)
4 (Wrongful Death)
5 (Against Defendant DOES 1-4 and COUNTY)
8 herein.
9 78. Defendant DOES 1-4, while working as sheriff’s deputies for COUNTY,
10 and acting within the course and scope of their duties, intentionally deprived
11 Decedent of his freedom of movement by use of force, threats of force, menace,
12 fraud, deceit, and unreasonable duress. Defendant DOES 1-4 also detained
13 DECEDENT without reasonable suspicion. There was an attempt to arrest the
14 DECEDENT without probable cause.
15 79. DECEDENT did not knowingly or voluntarily consent.
16 80. The conduct of against DECEDENT by Defendant DOES 1-4 was a
17 substantial factor in causing the harm of DECEDENT.
18 81. COUNTY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of DOES 1-4 pursuant
19 to section 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides that a
20 public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of
21 the employment if the employee’s act would subject him or her to liability.
22 82. The conduct of DOES 1-4 was malicious, wanton, oppressive, and
23 accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of DECEDENT, entitling
24 Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
25 83. Plaintiffs are seeking both survival and wrongful death damages under this
26 claim.
27
28
-15-
1 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 Battery (Cal. Govt. Code § 820 and California Common Law)
3 (Wrongful Death)
4 (Against Defendant DOES 1-4 and COUNTY)
7 herein.
8 85. DOES 1-4, while working as a sheriff’s deputies for the COUNTY Sheriff’s
9 Department, and acting within the course and scope of their duties, intentionally
10 shot DECEDENT multiple times. As a result of the actions of DOES 1-4,
11 DECEDENT suffered severe mental and physical pain and suffering, loss of
12 enjoyment of life and ultimately died from his injuries and lost earning capacity.
13 DOES 1-4 had no legal justification for using force against DECEDENT and said
14 defendants’ use of force while carrying out their officer duties was an unreasonable
15 use of force, especially since DECEDENT was unarmed with his hands visibly
16 empty when he was fatally shot, including shots to the back and from behind. As a
17 direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct as alleged above, Plaintiffs
18 suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and pain and have been injured in
19 mind and body. Plaintiffs also have been deprived of the life-long love,
22 also are claiming funeral and burial expenses and a loss of financial support.
28 accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and
-16-
1 DECEDENT, entitling Plaintiffs, individually and as successors-in-interest to

2 DECEDENT, to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
3 88. Plaintiffs bring this claim both individually and as a successors-in-interest to
4 DECEDENT, and seek both survival and wrongful death damages.
5
6 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
7 Negligence (Cal. Govt. Code § 820 and California Common Law)
8 (Wrongful Death)
9 (Against All Defendants)
12 herein.
13 90. The actions and inactions of the Defendants were negligent and reckless,
14 including but not limited to:
15 (a) the failure to properly and adequately train employees,
16 including DOES 1-4, with regards to the use of force,
17 including deadly force;
18 (b) the failure to properly and adequately assess the need to
19 detain, arrest, and use force, including deadly force against
20 DECEDENT;
21 (c) the negligent tactics and handling of the situation with
22 DECEDENT, including pre-shooting negligence;
23 (d) the negligent detention, arrest, and use of force, including
24 deadly force, against DECEDENT;
25 (e) the failure to provide prompt medical care to DECEDENT;
26 (f) the failure to properly train and supervise employees, both
27 professional and non-professional, including DOES 1-4;
28
-17-
1 (g) the failure to ensure that adequate numbers of employees

2 with appropriate education and training were available to
3 meet the needs of and protect the rights of DECEDENT; and
4 (h) the negligent handling of evidence and witnesses.
5 91. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct as alleged above,
6 and other undiscovered negligent conduct, DECEDENT was caused to suffer
7 severe pain and suffering and ultimately died and lost earning capacity. Also as a
8 direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct as alleged above, Plaintiffs
9 suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and pain and have been injured in
10 mind and body. Plaintiffs also have been deprived of the life-long love,
13 also are claiming funeral and burial expenses and a loss of financial support.
15 to section 815.2 of the California Government Code, which provides that a public
16 entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the
17 employment if the employee’s act would subject him or her to liability.
18 93. Plaintiffs bring this claim as a successors-in-interest to DECEDENT, and
19 seek wrongful death damages.
20
21 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
22 Violation of Bane Act (Cal. Civil Code § 52.1)
23 (Against All Defendants)
26 herein.
27
28
-18-
1 95. California Civil Code, Section 52.1 (the Bane Act), prohibits any person
2 from interfering with another person’s exercise or enjoyment of his constitutional
3 rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion.
4 96. Conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment violates the California Bane
5 Act.1
6 97. Defendant DOES 1-4 use of deadly force was excessive and unreasonable
7 under the circumstances, especially since DECEDENT was unarmed with his hands
8 visibly empty when he was fatally shot, including shots to the back and shots from
9 behind. Defendants’ actions thus deprived DECEDENT of his right to be free from
10 unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and applied to
11 state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
12 98. The DECEDENT was detained without reasonable suspicion and DOES 1-4
13 attempted to arrest DECEDENT without probable cause. Defendants’ actions thus
14 deprived DECEDENT of his right to be free from unreasonable searches and
15 seizures under the Fourth Amendment and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth
16 Amendment.
17 99. DOES 1-4, while working as sheriff’s deputies for the COUNTY Sheriff’s
18 Department, and acting within the course and scope of their duties, interfered with
19 or attempted to interfere with the rights of DECEDENT to be free from
20 unreasonable searches and seizures, to equal protection of the laws, to access to the
21 courts, and to be free from state actions that shock the conscience, by threatening or
22 committing acts involving violence, threats, coercion, or intimidation.
23 100. On information and belief, DECEDENT reasonably believed that if he
24 exercised his rights, including his civil rights, DOES 1-4 would commit acts
25 involving violence, threats, coercion, or intimidation against them or their property.
26
27
28
-19-
1 101. On information and belief Defendant DOES 1-4 detained and injured
2 DECEDENT to prevent him from exercising his rights or retaliated against
3 DECEDENT for having exercised his rights.
4 102. DECEDENT was caused to suffer extreme mental and physical pain and
5 suffering and eventually suffered a loss of life and of earning capacity. Plaintiffs
6 have also been deprived of the life-long love, companionship, comfort, support,
7 society, care, and sustenance of DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived
8 for the remainder of their natural lives. Plaintiffs are also claiming funeral and
9 burial expenses and a loss of financial support.
10 103. The conduct of DOES 1-4 was a substantial factor in causing the harms,
11 losses, injuries, and damages of DECEDENT and Plaintiffs.
17 accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of DECEDENT entitling
18 Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
19 106. Plaintiffs bring this claim as successors-in-interest to the DECEDENT, and
21 rights
22 107. The Plaintiffs also seek attorney fees under this claim.
23
24
25
26
27 1
See Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 2014 WL 2030195, at * 6 (9th Cir. May
28 (footnote continued)
-20-
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request entry of judgment in their favor and against
3 Defendants County of Los Angeles, and Does 1-10, inclusive, as follows:
4 A. For compensatory damages in excess of $10,000,000, including
5 both survival damages and wrongful death damages under
6 federal and state law, in the amount to be proven at trial;
7 B. For funeral and burial expenses, and loss of financial support;
8 C. For punitive damages against the individual defendants in an
9 amount to be proven at trial;
10 D. For interest;
11 E. For reasonable costs of this suit and attorneys’ fees; and
12 F. For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper,
13 and appropriate.
14 G. For treble damages under Civil Code Section 52.1.
15
16
DATED: May 1, 2018 LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY A. YATES
17
18
By /s/ Gregory A. Yates
19 Gregory A. Yates
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
20
21
DATED: May 1, 2018
22 LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO
23
24 By /s/ Dale K. Galipo
25 Dale K. Galipo
Eric Valenzuela
27
19, 2014) (citing Cameron v. Craig, 713 F.3d 1012, 1022 (9th Cir. 2013).
28
-21-
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2
3 Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
4
5
6 DATED: May 1, 2018 LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY A. YATES
7
8
By /s/ Gregory A. Yates
9
Gregory A. Yates
11
12 DATED: May 1, 2018 LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO
13
14
15 By /s/ Gregory A. Yates
Dale K. Galipo
16 Eric Valenzuela
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-22-

Weber Conformed Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weber Conformed Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weber Conformed Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the lawsuit about?

Who are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit?

Case 2:18-cv-03684 Document 1 Filed 05/01/18 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:1

1 LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY A. YATES

1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

1 60. Plaintiffs brings this claim individually and as a successors-in-interest to

1 (d) By failing to discipline COUNTY sheriff’s deputies’

1 70. By perpetrating, sanctioning, tolerating and ratifying the outrageous conduct

1 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

1 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

1 DECEDENT, entitling Plaintiffs, individually and as successors-in-interest to

1 (g) the failure to ensure that adequate numbers of employees

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

You might also like