Statler v. Inglewood: Amended Complaint

Case 2:19-cv-10712-DMG-MRW Document 8 Filed 03/17/20 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:45
1 Robert S. Brown, State Bar No. 187845

ROBERT S. BROWN, APC
2 714 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 450
Los Angeles, CA 90015
3
Telephone: (213) 745-6300
4 Facsimile: (213) 261-3906
5 John C. Taylor, State Bar No. 78389
Neil Gehlawat, State Bar No. 289388
6 TAYLOR & RING, LLP
1230 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 360
7 Manhattan Beach, California 90266
8 Telephone: (310) 209-4100
Facsimile: (310) 208-5052
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff: S.C.D.P. BRIAN STATLER SR. and STACEY MEADORS
10
11
12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
17 )
S.C.D.P., a minor, by and through her CASE NO.: 2:19-cv-10712 DMG-MRW
)
18 guardian ad litem, DECERY CAPPONI, ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
)
individually and as Successor-In-Interest FOR DAMAGES:
19
to BRIAN STATLER JR; BRIAN ) (1) Fourth Amendment—Excessive
) Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
20 STATLER SR., individually; and ) (2) Fourteenth Amendment—
STACEY MEADORS, individually, ) Substantive Due Process (42
21 ) U.S.C. § 1983)
Plaintiff, ) (3) Municipal Liability—
22
vs. ) Unconstitutional Custom or Policy
) (4) Municipal Liability—Ratification
23 ) (5) Municipal Liability—Failure to
CITY OF INGLEWOOD, a public entity, ) Train
24
and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, ) (6) Violation of Civil Rights—CCC §
) 52.1 (The Bane Act)
25 ) (7) Negligence
Defendants. ) (8) Battery (Civil Code Section 43)
26 )
)
27 ) (DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL)
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 Plaintiffs S.C.D.P., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, DECERY

2 CAPPONI, individually and as Successor-in-Interest to BRIAN STATLER JR.; BRIAN
3 STATLER, SR., individually; and STACEY MEADORS, individually (“PLAINTIFFS”)
4 allege and complain against each Defendant, as follows:
5 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6 1. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action for damages under the laws
7 Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the United States Constitution and common law principles, to
8 redress a deprivation under color of state law of rights, privileges, and immunities
9 secured to PLAINTIFFS and their decedent, by said status, and by the Fourth and
10 Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
11 2. Pursuant to U.S.C. §1331, this Court has original jurisdiction under the Civil
12 Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
13 1331, 1343.
14 3. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants reside in, and all incidents,
15 events and occurrences giving rise to this action occurred in the County of Los Angeles,
16 California
17 4. PLAINTIFFS filed timely claims under Government Code § 911.2 et. al. and
18 bring pendant actions under state law. On or about January 2, 2020, S.C.D.P. filed an
19 Application to Present a Late Claim with the CITY OF INGLEWOOD. On March 2,
20 2020, the CITY OF INGLEWOOD sent notice to S.C.D.P. informing her that her
21 Application had been rejected. On May 10, 2019, BRIAN STATLER SR. filed a Claim
22 for Damages with the CITY OF INGLEWOOD. On or about June 19, 2019, the CITY
23 OF INGLEWOOD sent notice to BRIAN STATLER SR. informing him that his Claim
24 for Damages had been rejected. On or about September 14, 2019, BRIAN STATLER
25 SR. filed an Amended Claim for Damages with the CITY OF INGLEWOOD. The
26 CITY OF INGLEWOOD never responded to his Amended Claim for Damages. On
27 July 29, 2019, STACEY MEADORS filed a Claim for Damages with the CITY OF
28 INGLEWOOD. On or about August 21, 2019, the CITY OF INGLEWOOD sent notice

1 to STACEY MEADORS informing her that her Claim for Damages had been rejected.
2 On or about September 14, 2019, STACEY MEADORS filed an Amended Claim for
3 Damages with the CITY OF INGLEWOOD. The CITY OF INGLEWOOD never
4 responded to her Amended Claim for Damages.
5 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
6 5. S.C.D.P. is a citizen of the United States, who at the time of the violations
7 alleged, lived with her mother, Decery Capponi, in Inglewood, California, which is
8 located within Los Angeles County. At all relevant times, S.C.D.P. was and continues to
9 be a minor, having been born in the year 2017. S.C.D.P. is the biological daughter of
10 Decedent BRIAN STATLER JR. A copy of S.C.D.P.’s successor-in-interest statement
11 is attached as Exhibit 1.
12 6. At all relevant times, Plaintiff BRIAN STATLER SR. is a resident of the State
13 of Missouri and is the biological father of Decedent BRIAN STATLER JR.
14 7. At all relevant times, Plaintiff STACEY MEADORS is a resident of the State
15 of Pennsylvania and is the biological mother of Decedent BRIAN STATLER JR.
16 8. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant times, Defendant
17 CITY OF INGLEWOOD (hereinafter “the CITY” or “Inglewood”) was a public entity
18 and/or municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the
19 laws of the State of California.
20 9. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant times,
21 Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were sworn police officers, sworn police
22 supervisors, managers, officials and/or employees of Defendant CITY OF
23 INGLEWOOD. Plaintiffs are further informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant
24 times, Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were acting in the course and scope or
25 their employment with Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD and are liable under the
26 doctrine of respondeat superior pursuant to Section 815.2 of the California Government
27 Code.
28

2 Defendants, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were employees of Defendant CITY OF
3 INGLEWOOD and/or DOES 1 through 10 and were responsible for implementing,
4 promulgating, maintaining, sanctioning, condoning, and/or ratifying policies,
5 procedures, practice, and/or customs, under which the other Defendants committed the
6 illegal or wrongful acts complained of. Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were
7 acting in the course and scope or their employment with Defendant CITY OF
8 INGLEWOOD and are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior pursuant to
9 Section 815.2 of the California Government Code.
10 11. The true names, identities or capacities, whether individual, associate,
11 corporate or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
12 are unknown to Plaintiffs so said Defendants by such fictitious names. When the true
13 names, identities or capacities of such fictitiously designated Defendants are ascertained,
14 Plaintiffs will ask leave of Court to amend the complaint to assert the true names,
15 identities, and capacities, together with the proper charging allegations.
16 12. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant times, that each
17 of the Defendants designated as a DOE is responsible, in some manner, for the events
18 and happenings referred to, and proximately caused the injuries and damages to
19 Plaintiffs as alleged.
21 Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees, and joint venturers
22 of each other and of their co-Defendants, and were acting within the course and scope of
23 their employment, agency or joint venture, and that all acts, conduct or omissions were
24 subsequently ratified by them and the benefits accepted by them.
25 14. Plaintiffs name Defendants, and each of them, because Plaintiffs do not know
26 exactly from which of Defendants Plaintiffs are entitled to redress and whether the
27 injuries and damages to Plaintiff as alleged were caused by the combined negligence of
28 all Defendants or by the concurrent or successive and separate negligence of each

1 Defendant, and/or one or more of them. For that reason, Plaintiffs name all of
2 Defendants and will ask: for the determination of the liability of each and all of said
3 Defendants in this action; to what extent and what responsibility falls upon each of the
4 said Defendants; and, that judgment be awarded to Plaintiffs as against any or all of
5 Defendants, either jointly or severally, as may be found liable.
6 15. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant times, each
7 Defendant was completely dominated and controlled by his/her/its co-Defendant and
8 each was the alter ego of the other as to the events set forth in this Complaint.
9 16. Each of the individual Defendants sued in this action is sued both in his/her
10 individual and personal capacity, as well as in his/her official capacity.
11 17. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were acting
12 under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the
13 State of California and County of Los Angeles, and under their official authority and
14 their policies, procedures, practices, and/or customs established by directives and/or
15 other acts of the City of Inglewood Police Department and Defendant CITY OF
16 INGLEWOOD and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.
17 18. This is an action for damages and such other and further relief as may be
18 consistent with law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to redress violations of the Decedent’s
19 rights protected by the United States, by persons action under color of state law.
20 19. This is also a survivor’s action and one for wrongful death brought pursuant
21 to the Constitution, statutes and/or common law of the State of California.
22
23 FACTS
24 20. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that on March 27, 2019, their son and
25 father, respectively, BRIAN STATLER JR. (“DECEDENT”), was shot and killed by at
26 least one Inglewood Police Department DOE DEFENDANT officer at or around 315 S.
27 Market Street in Inglewood California. As a result of the gunshot(s) inflicted upon
28

1 BRIAN STATLER JR., he suffered fatal injuries. The present action arises from these
2 facts.
3 21. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that at the above-identified date and at
4 or near the above-identified location, Decedent was lawfully at that location when he
5 was shot by DOES 1-10. PLAINTIFFS are further informed and believe that DOES 1-
6 10 were employed and working within the course and scope of employment as an officer
7 for the Inglewood Police Department and Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD.
8 22. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that DOES 1 through 10 unreasonably
9 assessed the circumstances presented to them, and violently confronted Decedent
10 without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that Decedent had committed a crime, or
11 would commit a crime in the future. PLAINTIFFS are further informed and believes
12 that, without warning, DOES 1-10 discharged department-issued firearm(s) at the
13 Decedent without provocation. Decedent suffered severe injuries, and ultimately death,
14 as a direct and proximate result of his gunshot wound(s).
15 23. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that both prior to and during the time
16 in which he was shot, Decedent made no aggressive movements, no furtive gestures, and
17 no physical movements which would suggest to a reasonable officer that Decedent
18 intended to inflict substantial bodily harm against any individual. PLAINTIFFS are
19 further informed and believe that both prior to and during the time in which Defendants
20 DOES 1 through 10 shot Decedent, they were not faced with any circumstances that
21 would have led a reasonable officer to believe that Decedent posed the risk of death or
22 serious bodily injury to any person.
23 24. PLAINTIFFS are informed, believes, and alleges, that Defendants DOES 1
24 through 10, inclusive, agreed and conspired to justify and cover up the misconduct
25 alleged, among other things, preparing and filing false reports regarding the shooting
26 incident that led to the death of Decedent, and accusing Decedent of violations of laws.
27 ///
28 ///

1 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 FOURTH AMENDMENT-EXCESSIVE FORCE
3 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
4 (Plaintiff S.C.D.P. AGAINST Defendants DOES 1-10)
5 25. PLANTIFF re-alleges and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
6 contained in paragraphs 1 through 23.
7 26. The unjustified detention of DECEDENT by DOES 1-10 and subsequent
8 unjustified use of excessive force deprived DECEDENT of his right to be secure in his
9 person against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to him under the Fourth
10 Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the
11 Fourteenth Amendment.
12 27. DOES 1-10 acted under color of law.
13 28. DOES 1-10 used excessive force against DECEDENT including shooting and
14 killing DECEDENT.
15 29. As a result of the conduct of DOES 1-10, they are liable to PLAINTIFF for
16 DECEDENT’S injuries and death, either because they were integral participants in the
17 excessive force or because they failed to intervene to prevent the violation(s).
18 30. The conduct of DOES 1-10 was willful, wanton, malicious and done with an
19 evil motive and intent and a reckless disregard for the rights and safety of DECEDENT
20 and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages.
21 31. Accordingly, DOES 1-10 are each liable to PLAINTIFF for compensatory
22 and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. PLAINTIFF S.C.D.P. brings this claim
23 individually and as Successor-in-Interest to DECEDENT. PLAINTIFF seeks wrongful
24 death damages, survival damages and attorney’s fees under this claim.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///

1 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 FOURTHTEENTH AMENDMENT-SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
3 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
4 (All Plaintiffs AGAINST Defendant DOES 1-10)
5 32. PLANTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
8 34. Defendants, acting under color of state law, and without due process of law,
9 deprived PLAINTIFFS of their right to a familial relationship in such a manner as to
10 shock the conscience by seizing DECEDENT by use of unreasonable, unjustified and
11 deadly force and violence, causing injuries which resulted in DECEDENT’S death, all
12 without provocation and attempted to conceal their excessive use of force and hide the
13 true cause of DECEDENT’S demise to deprive PLAINTIFFS of their right to seek
14 redress, all in violation of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Fourth and
15 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
16 35. The actions of DOES 1-10 shock the conscience, in that they acted with
17 deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of DECEDENT and PLAINTIFFS,
18 and with a purpose to harm unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement objective.
19 36. As a result of the conduct of DOES 1-10, they are liable to PLAINTIFFS for
20 DECEDENT’S injuries and death, either because they were integral participants in the
21 excessive force or because they failed to intervene to prevent the violation(s). The
22 conduct of DOES 1-10 was willful, wanton, malicious and done with an evil motive and
23 intent and a reckless disregard for the rights and safety of DECEDENT and therefore
24 warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages.
25 37. PLAINTIFF S.C.D.P. brings this claim individually and as Successor-in-
26 Interest to DECEDENT and seeks wrongful death damages and survival damages.
27 PLAINTIFFS BRIAN STATLER, SR. and STACEY MEADORS bring this claim bring
28

1 this claim individually and seek wrongful death damages. PLAINTIFFS also seek
2 attorney’s fees.
3
4 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

5 MUNICIPAL LIABILITY-UNCONSTITUTIONAL CUSTOM OR POLICY
6 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
7 (All Plaintiffs AGAINST Defendants City of Inglewood and DOES 1-10)
10 39. On and before March 27, 2019, Defendants CITY OF INGLEWOOD and
11 DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10 deprived PLAINTIFFS of the rights and liberties secured to
12 her by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in that
13 said Defendants and their supervising, and managerial employees, agents, and
14 representatives, acting with gross negligence and with reckless and deliberate
15 indifference to the rights and liberties of the public in general, of PLAINTIFFS, and of
16 persons in their class, situation and comparable position in particular, knowingly
17 maintained, enforced and applied an official policy recognized by the CITY OF
18 INGLEWOOD and the CITY OF INGLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT.
20 41. DOES 1-10 acted pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy or a
21 longstanding practice or custom of Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD.
22 42. On information or belief, DOES 1-10 were not disciplined, reprimanded,
23 retrained, suspended or otherwise penalized in connection with DECEDENT’S death.
24 43. Defendants CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10
25 together with other CITY policymakers and supervisors maintained the following
26 unconstitutional customs, practices, and policies:
27 a. Using excessive force, including excessive deadly force;
28 b. Providing inadequate training regarding the use of deadly force;

1 c. Unreasonably and wrongfully detaining or arresting citizens;

2 d. Employing and retaining as Officers and other personnel, including
3 DOES 1-10, who Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10,
4 at all relevant times, knew or reasonably should have known had dangerous propensities
5 for abusing their authority and for mistreating citizens by failing to follow written City
6 of Inglewood Police Department polices and for using excessive force and for
7 wrongfully detaining and arresting citizens;
8 e. Inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning and
9 disciplining CITY OF INGLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT officers and other
10 personnel, including DOES 1-10, who Defendants CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE
11 SUPERVISORS 1-10 each knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have
12 known had dangerous propensities and character traits.
13 f. Maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, supervising,
14 investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling the intentional misconduct by
15 DOES 1-10.
16 g. Failing to adequately discipline DOES 1-10, for the above-referenced
17 categories of misconduct, including “slap on the wrist” discipline that is so slight as to
18 be out of proportion to the magnitude of the misconduct, and other inadequate discipline
19 that is tantamount to encouraging misconduct;
20 h. Announcing that unjustified shootings are “within policy” including
21 shootings that were later determined in court to be unconstitutional;
22 i. Encouraging, accommodating, or facilitating a “code of silence” in which
23 officers do not report other officers’ errors, misconduct or crimes. Pursuant to this code
24 of silence, if questioned about an incident of misconduct involving another officer, while
25 following the code, the deputy questioned will claim ignorance of the other officer’s
26 wrongdoing;
27 j. Maintaining a policy of inaction and an attitude of indifference towards
28 soaring numbers of police shootings, including by failing to discipline, retrain,
10

1 investigate, terminate, and recommend deputies for criminal prosecution who participate
2 in shootings of unarmed people;
3 k. Refusing to discipline, terminate or retrain the officers in shootings, even
4 where shootings were determined to be unconstitutional;
5 l. Having and maintaining an unconstitutional custom and practice of using
6 excessive force and covering up police misconduct. These customs and practices by
7 CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10 were condoned by
8 Defendants in deliberate indifference to the safety and rights of its civilians, including
9 PLAINTIFFS and DECEDENT; and,
10 44. By reason of the stated policies, customs and practices of Defendant CITY
11 OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10, PLAINTIFFS experienced severe
12 pain and suffering and the loss of their son, for which they are entitled to recover
13 damages. The stated acts and omissions also caused DECEDENT’S pain and suffering,
14 loss of enjoyment of life, and death.
15 45. Defendants CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10
16 together with various other officials, whether named or unnamed, had either actual or
17 constructive knowledge of the different policies, practices and customs alleged in the
18 paragraphs above. Despite having knowledge as stated above, Defendants condoned,
19 tolerated and, through actions and omissions, ratified such policies. Defendants also
20 acted with deliberate indifference to both the foreseeable effects and consequences of
21 these policies and the constitutional rights of PLAINTIFFS, and other individuals
22 similarly situated.
23 46. By perpetuating, sanctioning, tolerating, and ratifying the outrageous conduct
24 and other wrongful acts, Defendants CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE
25 SUPERVISORS 1-10, acted with intentional, reckless, and callous disregard for the
26 well-being of DECEDENT and his constitutional as well as human rights. Defendants
27 CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10, and each of their actions were
28
11

1 willful, wanton, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent, and extremely offensive and

2 unconscionable to any person of normal sensibilities.
3 47. Furthermore, the policies, practices, and customs implemented, maintained
4 and still tolerated by Defendants COUNTY and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10, were
5 affirmatively linked to, and were significantly influential forces behind PLAINTIFFS’
6 injuries.
7 48. PLAINTIFFS have been deprived of the life-ling love, companionship,
8 comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of DECEDENT, and will continue to be
9 so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives.
15
16 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17 MUNICIPAL LIABILITY-RATIFICATION
18 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
19 (All Plaintiffs AGAINST Defendants City of Inglewood and DOES 1-10)
22 51. DOES 1-10 acted under color of state law.
23 52. The acts of DOES 1-10 deprived DECEDENT and PLAINTIFFS of their
24 particular rights under the United States Constitution.
25 53. Upon and information and belief, the final policymaker, acting under color of
26 law, has a history of ratifying unreasonable uses of force, including deadly force.
27 54. Upon information and belief, a final policymaker, acting under color of law,
28 who had final policymaking authority concerning the acts of DOES 1-10 ratified the
12

1 individual defendants’ acts and bases for them. Upon information and belief, the final
2 policymaker knew and specifically approved of individual Defendants’ acts.
3 55. Upon information and belief a policymaker has determined (or will
4 determine) that the acts of DOES 1-10 were “within policy.”
5 56. By reason of the stated acts and omissions, PLAINTIFFS have been deprived
6 of the life-ling love, companionship, comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of
7 DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives.
8 The stated acts and omissions also caused DECEDENT’S pain and suffering, loss of
9 enjoyment of life, and death.
10 57. Accordingly, Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOES 1-10 are liable
11 to PLAINTIFFS for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
17
18 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19 MUNICIPAL LIABILITY-FAILURE TO TRAIN
20 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
21 (All Plaintiffs AGAINST Defendant City of Inglewood and DOES 1-10)
24 60. DOES 1-10 acted under color of state law.
25 61. The acts of DOES 1-10 deprived DECEDENT and PLAINTIFFS of their
26 particular rights under the United States Constitution.
27
28
13

1 62. On information and belief, Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD failed to

2 properly and adequately train DOES 1-10, including but not limited to, with regard to
3 the use of physical force, less than lethal force, and lethal force.
4 63. The training policies of Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD were not
5 adequate to train its officers to handle the usual and recurring situations with which they
6 must deal, including the use of physical force, less than lethal force, and lethal force.
7 64. Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD was deliberately indifferent to the
8 obvious consequences of its failure to train its officers adequately.
9 65. The failure of Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD to provide adequate
10 training caused the deprivation of PLAINTIFF’S rights by DOES 1-10; that is,
11 Defendants’ failure to train is so closely related to the deprivation of PLAINTIFFS’
12 rights as to be the moving force that caused the ultimate injury.
13 66. By reason of the stated acts and omissions, PLAINTIFFS have been deprived
14 of the life-ling love, companionship, comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of
15 DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives.
16 The stated acts and omissions also caused DECEDENT’S pain and suffering, loss of
17 enjoyment of life, and death.
18 67. Accordingly, Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOES 1-10 are liable
19 to PLAINTIFFS for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
14

1 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
3 (California Civil Code §52.1)
4 (Plaintiff S.C.D.P. AGAINST Defendants City of Inglewood and DOES 1-10)
5 69. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
7 70. This action is brought pursuant to California Civil Code Section 52.1. This
8 cause of action is to redress the deprivation, under color of statute, ordinance, regulation,
9 policy, custom, practice or usage, of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the
10 Civil Code including, but not limited to, the right to be free from violence, threats of
11 violence and unlawful seizure.
12 71. California Civil Code § 52.1 (the Bane Act) prohibits any person from using
13 violent acts or threatening to commit violent acts in retaliating against another person for
14 exercising that person’s constitutional rights. Conduct that violates the Fourth
15 Amendment violates the Bane Act.
16 72. In shooting and killing DECEDENT, DOES 1-10 violated DECEDENT’S
17 right to be free from violence, threats of violence, and unlawful seizure as guaranteed to
18 him by California Civil Code § 52.1.
19 73. On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges, that on or about March 27,
20 2019, DOES 1-10 assaulted and battered DECEDENT, as described, all of which
21 constituted excessive, unjustifiable, and unreasonable force in violation of
22 DECEDENT’S civil rights, including his right to be free from violence, threats of
23 violence, and unlawful seizure.
24 74. Defendants’ stated misconduct, while acting within the course and scope of
25 their duties for the CITY OF INGLEWOOD, constituted interference, and attempted
26 interference, by threats, intimidation and coercion, with DECEDENT’S peaceable
27 exercise and enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
28 States and State of California, in violation of California Civil Code § 52.1.
15

1 75. The conduct of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF’S

2 harms, losses, injuries and damages.
3 76. CITY OF INGLEWOOD is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of DOES
4 1-10 pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides
5 that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of
6 employment if the employee’s act would subject him or her to liability.
7 77. Defendants 1-10 are vicariously liable under California law and the doctrine
8 of respondeat superior.
9 78. The conduct of Defendants was malicious, wanton, oppressive, and
10 accomplished with a conscious disregard for DECEDENT’S and PLAINTIFF’S rights,
11 justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages as to DOES 1-10.
13 Interest to DECEDENT. PLAINTIFF seeks wrongful death damages, survival damages
14 statutory damages, and attorney’s fees under this claim.
15
16 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17 NEGLIGENCE—WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL
18 (C.C.P. §§ 377.30, 377.60 and 377.61)
19 (Plaintiff S.C.D.P. AGAINST City of Inglewood and DOES 1-10)
20 80. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
21 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 79.
22 81. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and alleges, that Defendants, and
23 each of them, had a duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in the operation of
24 their firearms, and in the selection and execution of police procedures related to the
25 arrest or detention of persons who are mentally disabled or not mentally disabled, yet
26 nevertheless failed to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in committing the acts
27 alleged, by actions and inactions which include, but are not limited to, negligently
28 shooting and killing DECEDENT, negligently failing to determine the fact that
16

1 DECEDENT posed no threat of physical harm to any person when he was shot,
2 negligently inflicting physical injury upon DECEDENT as described, and negligently
3 employing deadly force against DECEDENT when it was unnecessary and unlawful.
4 All of these negligent acts proximately caused DECEDENT’S injuries and death.
5 82. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that the subject incident was
6 additionally caused by the negligent deployment of Defendants CITY OF
7 INGLEWOOD and/or DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and the failure of these
8 supervisors and employees to develop a tactically sound plan for detaining DECEDENT
9 while investigating DECEDENT’S reason(s) for being at the location, to determine if
10 DECEDENT was a danger to anyone present at the location. PLAINTIFF is further
11 informed and believe that, as a result, Defendants’ negligent actions and negligent
12 decisions led to poor decisions regarding numerous tactical issues including (but not
13 limited to) failure to properly investigate DECEDENT’S reason(s) for being at the
14 location, failure to determine if any of the people present at the location were in danger,
15 and negligent assessment and reassessment of the nonexistent threat presented by
16 DECEDENT.
17 83. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts alleged, DECEDENT suffered
18 severe bodily injury and death. As a result, PLAINTIFF has been deprived of the love,
19 affection, care, society, service, comfort, support, right to support, companionship,
20 solace or moral support, as well as other benefits and assistance of decedent.
21 PLAINTIFF has also incurred burial and funeral expenses. PLAINTIFF was damaged
22 as a proximate result of the alleged acts and omissions in an amount and manner to be
23 shown according to proof at trial.
24 84. The conduct of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF’S
25 harms, losses, injuries and damages.
28
17

3 86. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, and the
4 resulting death of DECEDENT, PLAINTIFF has sustained pecuniary loss resulting from
5 the loss of companionship, comfort, support, society, care, sustenance and services of
6 DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives,
7 in an amount according to proof at trial.
8 87. As a further actual and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence,
9 PLAINTIFF incurred funeral and burial expenses, in an amount according to proof at
10 trial.
11 88. Pursuant to California C.C.P §§ 377.30, 377.60 and 377.61, PLAINTIFF
12 S.C.D.P. brings this claim individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Decedent and
13 seeks wrongful death damages and survival damages under this claim.
14
15 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

16 BATTERY—WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL
17 (C.C.P. §§ 377.30, 377.60 and 377.61)
18 (Plaintiff S.C.D.P. AGAINST City of Inglewood and Does 1-10)
19 89. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
20 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 88.
21 90. In committing the acts alleged, DECEDENT was violently, wrongfully, and
22 intentionally battered by Defendants, and each of them, by firing live ammunition at
23 DECEDENT with the intent to inflict serious and bodily injury.
24 91. Both prior to and during the time in which DECEDENT was shot,
25 DECEDENT did not consent to the use of force used upon him. In committing the acts
26 described, Defendants subjected DECEDENT to unreasonable harm to his person, in
27 violation of California Civil Code Section 43.
28
18

1 92. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts alleged, DECEDENT suffered
2 severe bodily injury and death. As a result, PLAINTIFF has been deprived of the love,
3 affection, care, society, service, comfort, support, right to support, companionship,
4 solace or moral support, as well as other benefits and assistance of decedent.
5 PLAINTIFF has also incurred burial and funeral expenses. PLAINTIFF was damaged
6 as a proximate result of the alleged acts and omissions in an amount and manner to be
7 shown according to proof at trial.
12 94. The alleged acts of the individual Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious,
13 and oppressive, and justify the award of exemplary and punitive damages as to Does 1-
14 10.
15 95. PLAINTIFF S.C.D.P. brings this claim individually and as a Successor-in-
16 Interest to DECEDENT. PLAINTIFF seeks survival damages and wrongful death
17 damages under this claim.
18
19 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

20 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against Defendants CITY OF
21 INGLEWOOD and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, as follows:
22 1. For an award of wrongful death damages according to proof;
23 2. For an award of survival damages according to proof;
24 2. For exemplary damages against the individual defendants in their individual
25 capacities according to proof (as to the first, second, sixth, and eighth claims only);
26 3. For attorney’s fees according to proof (as to the first, second, third, fourth,
27 fifth, sixth and eighth claims only);
28 4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
19

1 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
2
3
Dated: March 14, 2020 ROBERT STANFORD BROWN, APC
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
4
6 /s/ Robert S. Brown

By: _________________________
7
Robert S. Brown
8 John C. Taylor
9
Neil K. Gehlawat
Attorneys for Plaintiffs S.C.D.P.
10 BRIAN STATLER SR. and
11 STACEY MEADORS
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiffs S.C.D.P., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, DECERY
3 CAPPONI; BRIAN STATLER SR., individually; and STACEY MEADORS,
4 individually, request that this action be determined by trial by jury.
5
6
Dated: March 14, 2020 ROBERT STANFORD. BROWN, APC
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
7
9 /s/ Robert S. Brown

By: __________________________
10
Robert S. Brown
11 John C. Taylor
12
Neil K. Gehlawat
Attorneys for Plaintiffs S.C.D.P.
13 BRIAN STATLER SR. and
14 STACEY MEADORS
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21

Statler v. Inglewood: Amended Complaint

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Statler v. Inglewood: Amended Complaint

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 2:19-cv-10712-DMG-MRW Document 8 Filed 03/17/20 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:45

1 Robert S. Brown, State Bar No. 187845

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 Plaintiffs S.C.D.P., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, DECERY

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

4 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 c. Unreasonably and wrongfully detaining or arresting citizens;

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 willful, wanton, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent, and extremely offensive and

16 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

18 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 62. On information and belief, Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD failed to

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 75. The conduct of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF’S

16 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

15 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

19 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

6 /s/ Robert S. Brown

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

9 /s/ Robert S. Brown

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

S-ar putea să vă placă și