Aøfer

þ "latnt
i
{

teee-cL a,nd

læq'ù

S.. /MONS
(ctTActoN JUD'CIAL)

1i:'f l- FILEBIE tA CORr9
OcT
t-

K,RC'X.RT (soLo PARA aßO''SEOHLV

(AwsoALDÊtANDADo) f Ì-:1,Í; ti:FlcE \. ,;.¡ ilr CITY OF MONTEREY PARK;
Additional Parties Attachment form is attached. youAREBETNGsuEDBypLAtNTtFF: q.'jrl t':ili po esrÁ DEMANDANDO EL DEHANDANTQ:
as successor in interest
below.

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:

j

-s ?U2

-'g P r:52

uilEiiiüiì t0uËi

of STEVE RODRIGUEZ,deceased
30 days. Read the information

NOTICE! You have been sued- The court may decide against you without your be¡ng heard unless you

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS afrer this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a wriften response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the Califomia Courts Online Self-Help C,enter (www.coudinfo.ca.gou/selhetp), your æunÇ law library, or the courÛtouse nearest you. lf you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. lf you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, m()'ìey, and property may be taken without further waming fiom the courtThere are olher legal requirements. You may want to call an attomey right away. lf you do not know an attomey, you may want to call an attomey referral service. lf you cannot afford an attomey, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the Califomia Legal Services Web site (vvww.lawhelpcalifomia.org), the Califomia Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo,ca.govtselhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any setgement or arbibation award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The courfs lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. ¡AWSOI Lo han demandado- Si no rcsponde dentro de 3O días, la cofte puede decid¡r en su æntra sin escuchar su versión. Lea la infotmacü5n a
77ene 30 DAS DE CALENDARIO después de que Ie enttquen esla citacä5n y paæles legales pan preæntar una reryuesta porescrito en esta cofte y hacer que se entÍegue una copia al demandante. lÃna cafta o una tlamada teleñniæ no lo pmtegen- Su reqpuesfa por escrito tiene que esfar en formato legat ænecto s¡ desea que procesen su caso en la co,te. Es posible que haya un fotmulario que usted pueda usar paÊr su respuesfa. Puede enæntrar estos formularios de Ia æúe y más info¡mación en el Cento de AWda de las Coftes de Califomia (lrrtvw.sucorte.ca.gov), en /a b¡btioteca de teyes de su ændado o en la cofte que Ie quede más cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de prcsentación, pida al æcretario de Ia æñe que le dé un formulario de exención de pago de cuotas- Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por încumplimiento y la corte le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes s¡'ì4 más adveúencia. Hay otros reguisitos /egales. Es recomendabte que llaÍte a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no æ¡toæ a un abagado, puede llamara un se¡vicm. de remisíón a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posrb/e que cumpla con los rcquisitos para obtener seruicios legales gratuitos de un progÊma de æruiclos legales sín fines de luqo- Puede encontrar estos grupos srin rTnes de lucrc en el sitio web de Califo¡nia Legal Seruie.es, ñvrvw.tawtrelpcalifomia.org), en el Centn de Ayuda de las Coñes de Califomia,lwww.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniéndose en csrtado æn la coñe o el colegio de abogados tocates. AVTSO: Por tey, Ia corte tiene derecho a rcclamar las cuoúas y tos cosÚos exentos por impner un gravamen sobrc cuaþuier recupención de $1O,0OO ó más de valor rccíbida mediante un acuerdo o una concesión de arhitaþ en un cí,so de deæcho civil. Tíene que pagar el gravanen de Ia æfte antes de que Ia coñe pueda desec)tar el æso.

continuación.

The name and address of the court is: (Et nombre y direæión te la coñe es).-

Los Angeles Superior Court

ffi'å"5*-,,G C 0

5 0 27 7

300 East Walnut St.
Pasadena,

C4,91101 9135s (866) 908-2121

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attomey, or plaintifi without an attomey, is: .(Et nombre, Ia dírección y el n(tmero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandar¡te que no tiene abogado, es):

York & Garvey, 27240 Tunrberry Lane, Suite 200,
DATE:
(Fecha)

Octobel5,20lZ

ttffit'
TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served as an individual defendant. as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):

, DepuÇ

(Adjunto)

of Summons (form sumfnons, use of se¡vice pruebadeentregadeesfa citatíónuseel formulanbProof of Serviceof Summons,(POS-010))ISEAL]

t
under:

l---l

CCP 416.1 0 (corporation) CCP 416.20 (detunct corporation) CCP 416.40 (assocíation or partnership)

E

CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 4 1 6 -7 0 (conservatee) CCP 416.90 (authorized person)

olher (specify):
Pæ I ofl
Fom Adopted for Mandatory Uæ

Sutrtl00

Jud¡cial Counc¡l sf Califmia [Rev. July 1, 20{x)]

SUMMONS

tue

of Civil Pf@dure SS 41220, 465

ww.@û1info.æ.gov

SHORT TTLE:

CÁSE NUMBER

GARCIA and PEREZ v. CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons. This form may be used as an attachment lf this attachment is used, insert the following statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: 'Additional Parties Attachment form is attached.'

) )

List additi'onal parties (Check only one box- lJæ a æparate page for eadt $pe of party-):

E

phintiff Fl Defendant l--l

Cross-Complainant

l--l

Cross-Oefendant

MONTEREY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT; JIM SMITTI, as an individual and as Chief of Police; MONTEREY PARK FIRE DEPARTMENT; JAMES BIRRELL, AS AN iNdiVidUAI ANd AS FiTE ChiEf; PETER PALOMINO, an individuat; EVERADO ROMO, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive.

,
Page 1
Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Cercil of Caffmia SUM-2oO(A) [Rev. Janvary 1,2OO4

of

1

Pil I ofl

Fm

ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT
Attachment to Summons

SUPERIOR COUPT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF -OS ANGELES
COURTHOI.'S€ ADDRESS:

File Sl¡tr9

3OO EAST WALNT'T STREET, PASADENA, C.ALITORNIA 9TIOT

"

-

iilii,',1
OcT

FILEÐ

PLAINTIFF:

-s 2012

OEFENOANT:

*Stt6tdgtõlrytt
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
TO THE PLAINTIF
PLATNT|FF(S) OF RECORD:

You are ordered to serve thís notice of hearing on all parties/attorneys of record forthwith, and meet and confer with all parties/attorneys of record about the matters to be discussed no later than 30 days before the Case Management Conference Your Case Management Conference has been
Oa(s

at the courthouse address shown above on:

NEP-JAN
NER-C

A.

PLUIH

\

lime:8:30 a.u.

Dept.:'

UEA-uousE, ldanY TEoBFïor

-

EDT{ARD SI}IPSON

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: THE SETTING OF THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DOES NOT EXEMPT THE
DEFENDANT FROM FILING A RESPONSIVE PLEAD]NG AS REOUIRED BY LAW. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 3.720-3.730, a eompleted Case Management Statement (Judicial Council form # CM-1 10) rnust be fìled at least 15 calendar days prior to the Case Management Conference. The Case Management Statement may be filed joinlly by all parties/attorneys of record or individually by each party/attomey of record. You must be familiar with the case and be fr-rlly prepared to participate effectively in the Case Management Conference.

At the Case Management Conference, the Court may make pretrial orders including the following, but not limited to, an order
establishir¡g ardiscovery schedule; an order referring the case to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); an order reclassiffing the

case; an order setting subsequent conference and the trial date; or other orders lo acfiieve the goals of the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act (Gov. Code, $ 68600 et seq.) Notice is hereby given that if ypu do not file the Case Management Statement oî appear. and effecfívely participate at the Case Management Conference, the Court may impose sanc;tions, pursuant to U\SC Local Rule 7.13, Code of Civil Procedure
sections 177.5.575.2, 583.150, 583.360 and 583.410, Govemment Code section 68608, subdivision (b), a¡d Calífomia Rules of Court. rule2.2 et seq. Dated:

ocT 0 5 2üü
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

MARY TEOßNTON UOI'SE

JudicialOfficer

l, füe belorv named Execr¡tive Ofücer/Cþrk of the above+ntÍtled court. do hereby celiff that I arn not a party to the cause herein. and that on this date I served lhe Notice of Case Management Confurence upon eacfr party or counsel named below:

tr

by depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse

in

, California, one copy of the origínal

filed hereln in a separate sealed envelope to eacf¡ address as shown below with the postage lhereon fully prepald.
giving the party notice upon fifíng of the complaint.

JOHN A. CI-ARKE Executive/Ofücer Clerk

Dated:

r8i

0

.5

zgtt

By

GflL

BOOÌ',¡, DEPTJTT

qTtr
,ri

Clerk
IACIV 132 (Rev.09tO7)

tASCApprowd 1G(Xl

NOTIGE OF CASE MANAGEMENT GONFERENGE

Cal. Rules of Cot¡rt rules 3.72G3.730 l-l{SC Local

Rles, Chapter Seven

', [CRC 3.72,1 lnformalion'about,AltematiVe Disputê Resolution] addilional ADR information and formS visit the Courl ADR web aÞpliêatloti at úr¡vvt¡r.Påsup"noï:,1*otg'(click on AOR). For
The plaintiff sha¡ serve a copy ol this lnformation Package on e4cþ defendant alongwi!þ'the complaint (Civil only).
l/Vhat ls ADR: Altemative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is the term used to describe all the other options av.ailable {ef ,"",t,.!.,.-lg.a ir¡spùte which once had lo be settled in courl. ADR processes. such as arbitration, medíatíon, neutral evåh¡átién (NË), ãnd sètüeinèät conßiêneés, are less formal

URT OF'CALIFORNIA;'CöU¡TfV OF'} -SANGELES SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE u,SPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) INFORM.., ION PACKAGE

I

than a cou¡1 process and provide opportunitíes for parties to reach an agreement usíng a problern-solvíng approaeli'

There are many different kinds of ADR. All of them utílize a 'neutral", an impartial person, to decide the case or help the parties reach an agreement.
ln medialion, a neutral person called a "mediato/' heþs the parties try to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of:the dispute. The medíator does not decide the dispute but helps the parties communicate so they can try to settle the dispute themselves.'Mediation leaves control of the outcome wíth the parties.

MediatÍon:

:í'

'1 " '

Cases for Which Medíation May Be Appropriate Mediation may be partícularly uséfrl wh"n parties have a dispute between or among family members, neighbors,'or bi.¡sínêss partners. Medìafion is also effective when emotions are getting i1 ttr.e rya¡ of resolution._An effective medíator can hear the partíes out ahd help them communi:ate with each otherin anèflective'a'irdnoiídestructive manner.
ìlVh ich MedÍation May.Not Be Appropriate Mediationrmay.not be effectþe if one.of the parties.is.unwillirrg tø:cooperate or comp'rêmi3re. Me'dlatisn also mây not be ef'fêctivé parties'havê one of the parti"s has a significant advantage in power over the othec Therefore, it may nol be a.good choice íf the a history of abuse or victimízation-

Cases.fpr

-

Arbitration:

1
a

;

ot

ff'nonTl;o''n"

'o"

decision as final'

Gaiés fór

Wh

ich Arbitration'May Be

A pp

rop riate

.

Cases for Which Arbitration May X-ot Be Appropriate lf parties want to retaín control over how their dispute is resolved, aibitratlon, particularlyibiriding àrbitration, is ñot appropriate. ln binding arbitration, the parties generally cannot appeal the arbítratois award, even if it is not supported by the evidence or the
law. Even in nonbinding arbitration, if a party requests a triãl'and does ñot receive a more favorable result at trial than in arbitration, there may be penalties:

':

¡

cases whÞre the , ti'me, ànd expên has tráining or ex

Oç of their dîspute for them but would like lex rnatters wfqre the parties want a

ln neutral evaluat¡on, each party gets a chance to present the case to a n€utral person,cálled an "evaluator."The evaluatorthen gÍves an opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of each party's evidence and arguments and about how the dispute could be resolved- The evaluator is often an expert in the subject matter of the dispute- Although the evaluator's opinion is notbínding, the parties typícally use it as a basis for trying to negotiate a resolution of the dispute.

Neutral Ev4luatíon;

Cases for Which Neutral Evaluation May Be Appropriate

Neulral evaluation may be most appropriate in cases in which there are technical issues that requíre special expertise to resolve or the only sígnificant íssue in the case is the amount of damagesÉ;=

Cases for Which Neutral Evaluation May Not Be Appropriate

Neutral evaluation may nol be appropriate when there are signíficant personal or emotional barriers to resolving the dispute.

Settlement Conferences:
Set¡ement conferences may be either mandatory or voluntary- ln both types of settlement conferences, the partíes and their attorneys
meet with a judge or a neutrãl person called a "settlement offlcer" to discuss possible settlement of their dispute- The iudge or settlement officer does not make a decision ín the case but assists the parties in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the case and in negotiating a settlement- Settlement conferences are appropriate in any case where settlernent is an option. Mandatory settlement conferences are often held close to the date a case is set fortrial.
LAADR 00s (05-09)

LASCApproved

Pagel ol2

, ;ELES_S!,RFRIÐB GøfÌtsfAF¡ß B8F, Aryrs ___ CIVIL: ,Ì i .,ir.i, .i: ,i :,,':. civil Action Mediatlon {Govemed by cpde of Qfvf Procedurè.(cGP).séctions 177.tJ:Frstqa.citlifor¡lià ' Rulés of court, rutes 3.85G3.868 and 3-870-3.878, Evid-ence Gode:sgcliorts '11.151128,'an4Los AngelesSuËerior eor¡rt R ales¡ ùzpter.i2.). . Retired Judge Setflement Conference ' Neutral Evaluation (Govemed by Los Anleres súp€rior court.Rurës, chapter 1z:l ' Judicial ArbÍtration (Govemed by Code,of CÍvil Procedure secllons 1141.10-1141.íl1,CalilomiaRules of court, rules 3.810-3.830. and Los
Angeles Superior Courl Rules, cfiapler 12.)

j-osl

' . .
¡

Emineñt'DomainlMediàfíön þåvemeo oy code oröivn ÞitriË¿ríå éeaÈpn,tzso.+zp.) Givit Hârassment Mediatisn Small Clalms Mediation
n-custodvl:
Ma¡ti¡rinn

FA MJ LY: t¡dlÄ/:f no

' . . .
r

Forensic certified pubric Accountant (cpÂi settlement Gsnference Settlemgnt Copferenge Nonbinding AÈbÍtratíon (Góverñed by Famil!:Gode,seetíort 25F4.) Mediation
Sofflãaa¡} î^-t--^-.^ vqtllEr.çtftsË

,

.

PROBATE:

.

:

NEUTRAL SELECilON
S:éleet.Fahe!. or rÈâ1f i+ir,e sorneor*.e, privaielF,, a t.thei.rthe.partíes:will be assigned orÊs. random,basis the

GOÜRTÃDR P.ÂTåÉLS
Pargr Seleót Party Sélect Panei cohs.iSls of niediátors, cé in cbu rt-connettëö ca'ses. T. tie hours of hearing. tihe. Thereafrei, esiablisheci by the.neutra¡ if tne pã rtÍës
cf, éxpenen

-Fhe

Pane! Random Select Fanel

and

Private

Neutral

The market rate_ for prívale neutrals ean range Íior+,$300.$1.$00.per hour,

ADR ASSTSTAÌ.LqE

Fcr assist¿nce regãrdi!'g Á-DR, please ccntacå the AÐR clerk et the courthouse in which your c.áse was iiiecÍ
COURTHOUSE

Anionovích
Chatsworth Compton

ADDRESS 42011 4t¡i St- West 9425 Fenfield Ave, 200 W Compton'Btvd,

Glendale Long Beach
Nonwaik

600 E- Ercadway 415 \¡i- Ocean Btvd_ 12720 l.lorwalk Bivd_
30O E-

Pasadena Pomona San Pedro ùdf tla tvrontca StanleT Mosk

ll/alnut St,

ROOM ctw None LaÍlcaster, eA S3534 120A ' Cher.swoÍth;'CA 9.131 tto02 Comþion, AA IOZZA 11a Glendale, CA 912A6 316 Long Beach,-C,q 90,902 s08 Now¿ìk, CA. 99050

PHONtr
(6611974-7275

EÀY (661 )974-7060

i

(81'8)57e8565
(31O)603j3072 ("818)5Óe3160

(818)576L96S7'

(31Or22røß7
te181548-547O

Torrance Vari Nuys

400 Civíc Çenter plaza 505 S- Centre ¡725 Maín St_ r11 N. Hiti si. 825 tuiapie Ave. 62;t0 Syimar Ave.

109 106

209 203
113 100

418

Pasadena. CA 9i'1C1 Pomona, CA 91766 San Pedro, CA 9û731 Santa Moniea, CA 90401 LosAngeles, CA 90012 Tonance, CA 90503 Van ñuys, CA 91401

(5.62j491-q272 ...{Fg?}eo7-7243 (626)356-568s
(909)620-3J B3 (310)519615-1

(562t43V-38O2
(562)462-901,9

(t26)666-1774
(s09)629-6283
\vtvlv¡

l'1.1Ít\É,1A,ôA4

Å

(310)260.182s (213)974-5425 (310)222-1701 {818)374-2331

(310)319-6130 (21 3)633-51 1 5 l31O)782-7326 F18)9A2-2440

Parlíaily Funded,by the Los Angeles County Dispute Resolution program A compleie listof the County Díspute Resolutíon Prograrirs is available online and upon request in the Clerkfs Office.

tÂÁDR ¡i05 í05-ilg)
LASC Approved

Page 2 oí 2

Roæwrd lorCla¡*l FIc

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFO i,I¡

GOU
t- i"..

G*ELES

cÄSEWtrtðEft I YEnlf ^ ALIÊfttlta¡lYu. ^l-¡lrE

P.ESOLUTION

The undersþnéd parties süpufate to'þartieipateirran Ætiemativb;¿äéputenËbømø'."tnonlprocqss in the abov+enttiå¿ actbn, as follows:

t fl I fl D I
Dated

Med¡at¡on Non-Binding Arbitration
g¡n¿¡ng Arbihation
:'i .:-.

eany Neutral Evaluation' SettlernentConference

OttrerADR Process (desctíbe)':

rlame of Stipulating Party

Name ol Party or Attorney Executing Stipulation

.

Signature of Party or Attorney

I

pla¡ntítf

Ü

Defendant O Crossiefendant

I

'lame of Stipulating ParlY

Name of Party or AttorFeY Executing Stipulation

Signature of Party or Altomey

pla¡nt¡ff

fl

Defendant O crossdefendant

larne of Stipulating PartY

Name of Party or Attomey Execr.rting

Stipulation

Signature of Party orAttomey

I Plaintiõ E

Defendant

!

Crossdefendant

larne of Stípulatíng PartY I Plalntiff E Deferrdant

Neme of Party or AttomeY Executing

Strpulation SignatureolPerlyorAttomey

0

Cross-defendant

D Addítional slgnature(s) on reverse

RO0l10-04
5C.Agprcved

v-o14Tl

STIPULATION TO PARTICIPATE IN ALTERNATTVE DISPUÎE RESOLUTION (ADR)

Gal. Rules oî Cou¡\ ntle 321 Page 1 ol2

I


Ralnr¡tr

Defendant

D

Cmssjefendant

PaÍy orAttornet

,lame of

I

Party

Ptaint¡tr

I

Cros*deferidañt
lf

Slgna,h{€
i_-.
; i

t

{arne oÍ 1Ã. i .!' I rrii¡fruñ

F I

I

rrdtoe Ot tsañy orAüorney Éeorlirig Slipufation

Slgnau-re

of Party orAttorney

l Plaíntiff D Defendant

lame of Stipulating Party

C¡osslelendant

Name of Party or Attorney ËxeortÍng Stípulation

Signature of Party.or.Attomey

fJ

ûro-sslefendant

ñame of Party orAttomey Executing Stipulation

Sþnature of Party or Attorney

ame of Siipulating party J Plaintiff E Defendant

U

Crcsslelendant

b.lame

or

Stípulation

Signature of Paiy or Attomey

Ü

Crcss-defencjant

l.iame of Piarty or Âtlomey

Stípulalion

Signature of Party or Attorney

ame ot Stipulating parÇ

I

Plaintíff

ü

Defendant

I

Crosslefendarri

Narne of Party or Attomey

Stipulation

Sígnature of Party or Attorney

êm€ oí S'r¡pulaüng pany

I Pfaintfff

il

Defendant

I

Crossdefendant

Name of Parb,¡ orÁ,ttomey Exeotting Stlpulation

Slgnature of Party or Attomey

R 001 t044 iCAppmved

tu.0'14r.1

ST|PULAT|oN Tg PARTTCTPATE tN ALTERNATIVE ÐtSpUîE RËsoLüTioN íADR)

CaL Rules of

CouÍt, rule 3.21
Panø )
¡tF

)

tÁ?iÌ
D rs p u

r E R E s o L u', . .ïfr.tsåäSFhtr-

åX p,.., c oNrRA

cr. RS'
.

The following organizatiÞns provide inediation Services in'lhe Los Departnte'nt ofGommonity'&''SenícirServ'ræs' Servltjes i enöeles County Superior Court. Services are not provlded under lhis prognam to'fdñ[y:tpi¿Ëätè, traffic, juvenile cw¡rt cases; criminal, appellate,.mental'health; unlar¡vfr¡l detainerlevíction'or
' . r.,i ,r ;

.ìÌ
California Âcademy of ññediation Professionals
(8181
- i ' : ',: .'lGor¡f l ict¿Res o l.uti o n G e nter,for, 3q_o-1e4o

*7kI25;9

,.

: :

f9rtl

lnland

(,e¡

l

l.El
, ..i

Office of the Los Angelê3

,Respjgfíen ProûBm

'

t',

l-

¡

'

Los Angeles Count¡l toll free number I

Resolution Seruices or (213) 896-6533

Los Angeles Count¡r Depar,tn¡ent of Consdrner Affairs (2131s744,8?5
(spañcr¡ lãnsuaöË ÉFab¡lity)

The Loyola Law Scheiol Center f€ir Conffic{*Resiili¡t¡dri'.'
-(21,9)-736:1145
(Spanish languagg. c3paÞílity¡
t.

.l i ìti-

M arti n Luther Ki

n

g Legacy Associatíon: Þ isp uúe,Resol utisn Genter
(Spanish'languageeaþabilitY)

í323) 2$Qaia32'

'

:

City of Norwalk
(562) e2e-5603
DRpA Gontr.actors do not provlde legal advice or asslstaRce, Íneluding help wíth responding to summonses. Accesslng these servfces does not he$atê any responsibtlityyou have to respond to a summons or appear at any set court date- See the reverse side of this sheet for information on the medíatíon proc€ss and obtaining legal advice-

THIS IS A TWO=S¡DED DOCUMENT.
áDR 007

rt44

Page

I ú2

IASCAppro/€d

what is thc ùirtÉbf dl¡æÉ¡Ëffi{- :')., I f;
Tåe goalís toof the

Lii: ii) i î., ;..

l i'.¡,'.', ;* rll
.'

1l !,ti

':l ?'lt :r¿'

1'..:

gfr€ll',:t,

lhe tradilbnal Do I need an al-forney

i!;i:l-.-.;¡..'"'

, ;:':zli.i'.r¡i,'r..:,¡ i.-:1! iit,¿.".'ar,. -' .it.:. : i..::,;lij,? Tií{iti' ií't::fi ç- ' it! ,, :.'^: the mediation. åta r*s, you' are in the medíation with you.

l

fôr thfs?

llow long dogs ittake?

;rî" ¡3.,e;..r¡-¡i{,rci

,}r_.

,tÊ;i,.-..,:,¡}

î:t; ,.f ir¡-îbg.i:Å slntr:r?íli:;..-.

meet faæ te faee. vary Forn a fe:út ys to seve¡al weeRs. and the eompfexities of the issues. When thçrrtêdÈtþq&i A Mediator helps parties. . .

Faæ-ro-tacemediations generalþlast one to three rirtfsifuiüÉÊe#et&Le¡nations, in which the parties do not r of partiês irwolvi;d scheduting avaítabitítyA Mediator does not.-or oP¡nrons part¡es

Have produetive disqrssions +Avoid sr break impasses +Defuse controversy +Generate
+

ii¡i:,;1..

+Bþtâe.- u¡=deæâahd

?s

f -;i1li;

i Focus on thèir inlerests rather than iheir position.¡r-. l¡that does iteost? ,:,..t''l,:rã .;::i-l:¡i.,
'l-Ì,:'-?-1::i-ì:!-i:

'..i .-. :iìr; -'-; The first three hogrs of any mediation are free- , . ii:'
Thereafter. charges are baseci on income or revenua. All fees are waived for low-ince,ni.eÌúrëivids¡ãfsj;;.-- ': ;.

'1:t- r''¡.i

tLi;-'
11f I ia
' . ._¿

*' .'--:;'J7-ilA ì';-i
í!: :._=-., , : ¡ç-

the

What is the difference betç listed and the Supericr ö
The servtees offered F¡v the mnirrnfnrc liclorl
t

ts
t.ut

caurthouses-ì
iéðd,
l^^.,-^i^-^^

Nuys
.

can answer non-legal questicas
tdJuvY¡
ru¡ uuLJf

accessed

Those

t.trj q

the

Court,{DR 0ffice,
be accessed by par{ies until a court appearance, or at the dir.ectíve of the judge assigned to the ease. .'.,,,

Et*øTffi 616'6¡5dËiiÊtÈ¡ãtsqaløyiqôralrnflfotshëÞ'r#ñ Court Personnel a.nd such listings.

Dispute Resolution Prog ra ms Act {D,RF."A), Gr¿n ts Admin istration Office {213i738-2Ë2i (rhe DRP tffice ls not a svn;a1r *."1*o*. ts roc¿te the.r¡umber of th-e,coua ofÍr1 on vour

:r"t:lt;ffiu,f#;Jt,rectory

TrJts ts A
ADR0û7 0744

ïwos¡dso

DocurilENT.
Page2ú2

tASCApprußd

I
2
J

Da¡rell J. Yorlq Esq. (SBN 145601) Saralr L. Garvey, Esq. (SBN 202491) YORK & GARVEY 27240 Turnberry Lane, Suite 200 Valencia" CA 91,355

r

-;iil; iil tiltB
0cT
| . ', L-

-5 ?ûl?
'-t i. i'--' a ^ -J
..
l-

4
5

Si;'[llCi

t..iL]i(

6 7

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MARTN GARCIA

ANd

LETICIA PEREZ,

I
9

in each case individually and as successor in interest of STEVE RODRIGUEZ, deceased

SUPERIOR COI]RT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUN:TY OF LOS A¡TGELES

10
11

t2
13

MARTIN GARCIA ANd LETICIA PEREZ, in each case individually and as successor in interest of STEVE RODRIGUEZ, deceased,
Plaintiffs,

74
15

v
CITY OF MONTEREY PARK; MONTEREY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT; JIM SMITH, AS an individual and as Chief of Police; MONTEREY PARK FIRE DEPARTMENT; JAMES BIRRELL, as an individual and as Fire Chief; PETER PALOMINO, ffi individual; EVERADO ROMO, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants-

t6

l7
18

t9
20

2l
22
23

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case

No.

G

c0

5 0 27 7

COMPLAINT FOR:
Survival Actions (1) Violationof 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 (2) Violation of Cal. Civil Code $ 52.1 (3) Battery

Individual Actions (4) Violationof 42 U.S-C. $ 1983 (5) Wrongtul Death (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(Amount in controversy exceeds $25,ooo)

24
25

26 27
28

I
Complaint for Damages

I
2
J

Plaintiffs MARTIN GARCIA and LETICIA PEREZ, in each case individually and as successor in interest of STEVE RODRIGUEZ, deceased, upon information and belief allege the following:

INTRODUCTION

4
5

l.

This civil rights and søte tort action seeks compensatory and punitive damages

for the wrongful death of Plaintiffs' 22-year-old son, Steve Rodriguez ("STEVE' or the "Decedent"), who was wrongfully shot and killed by Monterey Park police officers on the

6 7
8

morning of January 23, 2012 in the parking lot of

a

Monterey Pmk Carl's Jr. restaurant. The

shooting was recorded by at least one witness on a cell phone video, which video was posted on the Internet. Plaintiffs bring survival causes of action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.30, as well as individual causes of action for civil rights violations,

9

l0
11

wrongful death, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

2.

Defendants PETER PALOMINO ('?ALOMINO"), EVERADO ROMO

12 13

("ROMO-) and certain of DOES l-50 proximately caused Decedent's andPlaintiffs' injuries by firing the shots that killed STEVE, and by engaging in other acts and/or omissions around the
time of the shooting that resulted in his death. Defendants CITY OF MONTEREY PARK (the

14
15

"CITY"), MONTEREY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT (the'?OLICE DEPARTMENT"),
JIM SMITH (the "POLICE CHIEF"), MONTEREY PARK FIRE DEPARTMENT (the "FIRE DEPARTMENT'), JAMES BIRRELL (the "F[RE CHIEF"), and certain of DOES 1-50 also
proximately caused Decedent's and Plaintiffs' injuries and are liable under state law and under principles set forth in Monell v. Department of Social Services,436 U.S. 658 (1978).

l6
t7

l8
19

20

JT]RISDICTION AI\ID \rEITTIE

2l
22
23

3-

This Court has original jurisdiction over this action for damages under the laws

the State of Califorria" 42IJ.S-C. $ 1983, the United States Constitution and common law principles, to redress deprivations under color of state law of rights, privileges and immunities
secured to Plaintiffs by said statutes and laws and by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to

24 25

the United States Constitution-

26 27
28

4.

Venue is proper in this Court because the events, occumences, acts and omissions

giving rise to this action occurred in the County of Los Angeles, California.

2

Complaint for Damages

1

5.

In regards to Plaintiffs' state causes of action, timely governmental tort claims

2
a

under Califomia Govemment Code $ 910 were filed on behalf of each Ptaintiff\¡rith the City Monterey Pa¡k Clerk's Office on April

of

J

ll,20l2

and Juty 70,2012. The Claims filed on April

4
5

1l,20l2were rejected on May 2,2072
Government Code $ 945.6.

and this action was timely filed pursuant to CaliÊomia

6

PARTIES

7
8

6-

At all times mentioned herein, STEVE was

a resident

of the State of California.

He died on January 23,2012 after being shot approximately ten times by Defendants

9
10
11

PALOMINO and ROMO. Prior to his death, STEVE was a student at East Los Angeles College
and was considering a career in biology. He was gifted with computers and worked alongside

his older brother, Daniel, in Daniel's home computer repair business. STEVE would have been
the

72
13

plaintiffin the survival causes of action alleged herein if he had lived. 7. plaintiffMARTIN GARCIA C'MR. GARCIA" anda '?laintiff') is Decedent's

l4
15

natural father a¡rd his surviving heir-at-law (along with MS. PF;RJEZ, defined below)- At all relevant times MR. GARCIA was acTtuenofthe State of California. MR' GARCIA is a
successor in interest and succeeds to Decedent's estate and causes of action because there is no

16

l7
18

personal representative of the estate of Decedent. MR- GARCIA has executed and frled the

declaration required by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.32, which is attached'

t9
20

8.

plaintiffLETICIA PEREZ C'MS.PEREZ"

and a

"Plaintiff') is Decedent's

natural mother and his surviving heir-at-law (along with MR. GARCIA). At all relevant times

2l
22
23

MS. PERE Z was a cilizenof the State of California. MS. PEREZ is a successor in interest and
succeeds to Decedent's estate and causes of action because there is no ¡rersonal representative

of

the estate of Decedent. MS. PEREZ has executed and filed the declaration required by

24
25

California Code of Civil Procedwe Section 377.32, which is attached.
g

-

Defendant CITY is a public entity of the State of California" created and existing

26

by virtue of the laws of the State of California. The CITY operates and manages the POLICE DEPARTMENT and FIRE DEPARTMENT, andthe CITY is and at all relevanttimes was
responsible for the actions or inactions of POLICE CHIEF, FIRE CHIEF, PALOMINO, ROMO
3

27
28

Complaint for Damages

I
2
J

and DOES 1-50, and for the policies, practices and./or customs relating to POLICE

DEPARTMENT and FIRE DEPARTMENT. At all relevant times the CITY was the employer of aforesaid Defendants.

4
5

10.

Defendant POLICE DEPARTMENT is an official subdivision of CITY. The
w¿rs

pOLICE DEPARTMENT is and at all relevant times

responsible for the actions or

6

inactions of POLICE CHIEF, PALOMINO, ROMO and certain of DOES l-50.

7
8

11.

Defendant FIRE DEPARTMENT is an offrcial subdivision of CITY. The FIRE
w¿rs

DEpARTMENT is and at all relevanttimes
CHIEF and certain of DOES 1-50.

responsible for the actions or inactions of FIRE

9

l0
11

12.

Defendant POLICE CHIEF is and at all relevant times was, Chief of the POLICE

DEpARTMENT, employed by CITY, and acting under color of law within the course and
of his duties and ofhce and with ratifrcation by CITY. Defendant POLICE CHIEF is and at all relevant times
w¿rs

12
13

responsible for administering the POLICE DEPARTMENT and for making'

l4
15

overseeing and implementing the policies, practices and/or customs of POLICE

DEpARTMENT. The POLICE CHIEF is and at all relevant times was resflonsible for the
training, supervision, discþline and screening of aII POLICE DEPARTMENT employees and
agents, inctuding pALOMINO, ROMO and certrain DOES. Plaintitrs allege on information and

16 17 18

belief that POLICE CHIEF is responsible in some manner and to some extent liable for the injuries alleged herein. Defendant POLICE CHIEF is sued in his official and individual
capacities.

19

20

2l
22
23

13.

Defendant FIRE CHIEF is and at all relevant times was, Chief or Acting Chief

of

the FIRE DEPARTMENT, employed by CITY, and acting under color of law within the course and scope of his duties and office and with ratifi.cation by

CITY. Defendant FIRE CHIEF is
for

24 25

and at all relevant times was responsible for administering the FIRE DEPARTMENT and

making, overseeing and implementing the policies, practices and./or customs of FIRE

26
27 28

DEPARTMENT. The FIRE CHIEF is and at all relevant times was responsible for the training,
supervision, discipline and screening of all FIRE DEPARTMENT employees and agents,

including certain DOES. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that FIRE CHIEF is

Complaint for Damages

I
2
J

responsible in some manner and to some extent liable for the injuries alleged herein- Defendant

FIRE CHIEF is sued in his offrcial and individual capacities.

14.

Defendant PALOMINO is and at all relevant times was a police ofücer or police

4
5

agent employed by

CITy and poLICE DEPARTMENT, acting under color of law withinthe
and belief that Defendant PALOMINO is

course and scope of his duties and office and with ratification by CITY and POLICE

6

DEpARTMENT. plaintiffs allege on information

7
8

responsible in some manner and to some extent liable for the injuries alleged herein. Defendant

PALOMINO is sued in his individual capacTÍy.

9 10
11

15.
cITy

Defendant ROMO is and at all relevant times was a police officer employed by

and poLICE DEPARTMENT, actingunder color of law within the course and scope

of

his duties and of¡rce and with ratification by CITY and POLICE DEPARTMENT. Plaintiffs
and to allege on information and belief that Defendant ROMO is responsible in some m¿rnner

12

l3
74
15

individual some extent liable for the injuries alleged herein. Defendant ROMO is sued in his
capacrty.

t6 t7

At all relevant times, Defendants DOES 1-50 were employees or agents of the poLICE DEPARTMENT or FIRE DEPARTMENT and were duly authorized CITY employees

16-

offices and and agents, acting trnder color of law \Mithin the course and scope of their duties and

l8
T9

with ratification by CITY and their respective deparEnents. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of DOES 1-50 was responsible in some way for the administering
Of thE

20

POLICE DEPARTMENT Or FIRE DEPARTMENT

ANd/Or fOT thE MAKiNg' OVCTSCEiNg

2l
22
23

or and implementing of policies, practices andlor customs of the POLICE DEPARTMENT

FIRE DEpARTMENT, including the training, supervision, discipline and/or screening of

24 25 26 27
28

PALOMINO, ROMO and certain DOES, such that each of such DOES 1-50 is responsible in directly some mÍilrner and to some extent liable for the injuries alleged herein, or is otherwise
liable for the injuries alleged herein- The true names and./or capacities of said DOES 1-50 are unknown to plaintiffs. plaintiffs will seek to amend this complaint to show the true names and their capacities of these defendants when they have been ascertained. DOES 1-50 are sued in

offrcial

andl or

individual capacities.
5

Complaint for Damages

I
2
J

17.

plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon alleges that each Defendant is, the agert employee, representative, successor' and/or assignee of

and at all relevant times was,

to act as alleged hereiru each other Defendant. Each Defendant, in doing the acts, or in omitting
the alleged acts and was acting within the scope of his or her actual and apparent authority or

4
5

by each other omissions of each Defendant as agent subsequently were ratified and adopted Defendant as princiPal.

6

7
8

1g. ß.

his or Each Defendant was acting under color of state law and within the scope of

as alleged herein. her employment to the extent such Defendant acted or omitted to act

9 10
11

a Defendants are liable for Plaintiffs' injuries under Califomia law and under

public entities and public respondeat superiortheory. Liability under Califorria law for
and 820'8' employees is based upon California Goverrment Code $$ 815'2, 820 Defendants pALOMINO, ROMO and certain of DOES 1-50 also are directly

t2
13 T4 15

20. 2I.
CHIEF and

liable for Plaintifß' injuries under federal law pursuant to 42 U'S'C' $ 1983' FIRE CITY, POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE CHIEF, FIRE DEPARTMENT, law under certain of DoES 1-50 also are liable for Plaintiffs' injuries under federal

t6
t7
18

policies, practices principles set forth in. Monell, supra,because their ofhcial and/or de facto or perrnitted one or and./or customs caused plaintiffs' injuries. Said Defendants maintained including without more policies, practices and./or customs that caused Plaintiffs' injuries

t9
20

limitation:
a.

The failure to adequately train and supervise police officers, employees and
agents

2l
22
23

in regards to the use of deadly force; negotiation tactics; cover and

k-9 conceaknent tactics; use of less-lethal-force options and weaponry including
dogs; and how to peacefully and nonJethally interface with agitated" angry,

24
25

despairing and./or mentally
b.

ill or apparently mentally ill individuals;

and agents The failure to keep the training and skills of police ofhcers, employees

26 27
28 c.

in regards to the foregoing fresh and up-to-date;
The failure to properly outfrt ofFrcers and agents with appropriate less-lethal

yet with due weapons and devices in order to enable them to respond effectively
6

Complaint for Damages

I
2
a

regaxd for human

life to the full range of critical incidents they are likely to

confront in the course of their duties;

J

d.

The failure to adequately train and supervise police ofFrcers, emergency medical

4
5

technicians, employees and agents about life-saving medical procedures and Protocols;

6

e.

The failure to adequately screen police officers, emergency medical technicians, employees and agents for problematic backgrounds, behavior and/or taits likely
to jeopardize the safety, welfare and

7

I
9

life of civilians, including agitated, arr9ÍY,

despairing, and/or mentally

ill

or apparentþ mentally

ill individuals;

10
11

f.

The failure to adequately discipline police officers, emergency medical

technicians, employees and agents for past wrongful, unreasonable, unjustifiable, negligent, reckless, and/or harmftl behavior that jeopardized civilians, including in regards to excessive and/or deadly force and deliberate indifference to the
urgent medical needs of critically injured individuals;

72

t3

l4
l5 t6
17
18

g.

The failure to adequately investigate, monitor and report wrongful, umeasonable,

unjustifi.able, negligent, reckless, and/ot harmful behavior of police ofñcets,
emergency medical lsçhnicians' employees and agents; and

h.

The condoning of an ahosphere where police officets, emergency medical

t9
20
21

technicians, employees and agents believe they can violate the law and constitutional rights of civilians, including agitated, ffigÍY, despairing, and/or

mentally ill or apparently mentally ill individuals, with imp.rnity.
Defendants knew or should have known that maintaining or permitting one or more of such

22
23

policies, practices and/or customs would result in the violation of Decedent's and Plaintiffs' constitutional rights alleged herein and Defendants were deliberately indiffe¡ent to the likelihood that any such violation would occur. Said Defendants' aforesaid customs, policies and/or *moving force" behind Decedent's and Plaintiffs' injuriespractices were the

24
25

26 27
28

7

Complaint for Damages

1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

2
a

22.

At a¡or¡nd 6:30 am on January 23,2072,PtaintitrMR. GARCIA drove his

son,

J

STEVE, from their home in Chino Hills, Califomia to East Los Angeles College in Monterey
Park, Californi4 where STEVE was emolled.

4
5

23.

At a¡otrnd 9:30 am that morning, STEYE

-

apparentþ in an agitated, angry

6

despairing st¿te

-

began to smash windows of the Carl's Jr. located at

l23l

Cesar Chavez

7

Avenue, Monterey park, with a pipe bender tool. The Carl's Jr. is located a few blocks away

I
9 10
11

from East Los Angeles College.

24.
windows,
25

plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege that STEVE did not

use

the pipe bender to assault any individuals or to do anything with the tool besidesvandalizp

t2
13

.

police offlrcers were suÍtmoned to the Carl's Jr. and

a bystander began

to record

events on a cell phone camera. The cell phone video was later posted on the Internet.

I4
15

26.

As depicted on the video, when STEVE exited the restaurant, at least two police

officer Defendants, pALOMINO and ROMO, were poised out in the open near the Carl's Jr.
ris a gun. door with their guns drawn. Defendant PALOMINO was amed with a k-9 dog as well

16

t7
18

27.

STEVE walked by and away from the officers, holcling the pipe bender down

alongside his leg. Defendant PALOMINO followed alongside STEVE, getting increasingly close to him with his gun dralvn, even as STEVE continued to walk away'

19

20

2g-

ROMO then shot STEVE with

a taser dart,

which landed in or around the hood of

2l
22
23

pipe STEVE's sweatshirt- STEVE then turned around in the direction of ROMO. He raised the
bender when he turned, but he did not swing or hurl it at any offrcer or anyone else-

29. 30.
bender.

PALOMINO then shot STEVE with his gun multþle times in rapid zuccession. At no time did PALOMINO ever release his k-9 dog, even though it appears from

24
25

He continued to shoot STEVE even as STEVE stumbled backwards and fell to the ground.

26 27 28

pipe the video that such canine was ready to spring into action to immobilize STEVE and his

I
Complaint for Damages

1

31.

After pALOMINO fired approximately five shots, ROMO sta¡ted shooting at

2
J

STEVE. From news accounts, it appears that together PALOMINO and ROMO fired ten shots at STEVE. At least some of those shots appear to have been fired when STEVE lay critically
wounded on the ground.

4
5

32.

plaintiffs are infonned and believe and therefore allege that at least one of the

6 7
8

bullets went through the window of a restaurant located across the street and down the block

from the Carl's Jr., and that several bystanders were injured as a result of the officets' shots.

9 10
11

plaintiffs are inforrned and believe and therefore allege that after STEYE was parking lot - for shot, he was left alone - handcuffed, bleeding and dying on the ground of the him medical approximately ten minutes before an ambulance finally arived or anyone gave

33.

it assistance. Once the ambulance arrived, approximately twenty more minutes passed before leftwith STEVE forthe hospital.

t2
t3

34. 35.
as was

According to the death certificate, STEVE died at 9:59

arn at

LAC/uSC Medical

l4
15

Center from "multþle gunshot wounds."

At around 10:00 arn, STEVE's older brother, Daniel, a:rived in his car in the
steps of the nearby College,

16

vicinity of the Carl's Jr. intending to pick up STEVE from the front
their custom. Daniel saw tlre coûmotion but did not
see his

t7
18

brother. He stayed in the

area waiting for his brother

for several mofe hours, before giving up and going home.

19

36.

Defendants and/or their agents had possession of STEVE's body and belongings

20
21

throughout the day and evening of January 23,2012. Yet nobody notified either Plaintiffabout
an the death of their son that entire time. Although MR. GARCIA and MS- PEF.EZ had

22 23

they increasingly ominous feeling as the day wore on, they did not learn of theit son's death until saw a..previeu/' of the shooting just prior to the l lpm newscast.

24
25

26

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION civil Rights violations - 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 - Survival Action fJnreasonnbl" S"nt"h and Seizure/Excessive Force/Bodiþ Integrity (Against all Defendants)

2l
28

37.

plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs

1

through

of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
9

Complaint for Damages

1

3g.

Defendants' actions deprived STEVE of his rights under the For¡rth and

2
J

Fourteenth Amendrnents to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable search
and seizure, excessive force and unreasonable interference with his bodily integrity by those

4
5

acting under color of state law. As STEVE's successors in interest, Plaintiffs bring his federal claims for damages for the violations of these important rights based on42 U.S.C. $ 1983.

6

39.

Defendants violated STEVE's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth

7

Amendments when they wrongfully, unreasonably, unjustifiably, negligently and/or recklessþ
shot and killed him in the parking lot of the Carl's Jr. restaurant, and when they failed to deliver

I
9

to him immediate and possibly life-saving medical assistance.

l0
11

40-

As a result of their conduc! Defendants are liable for STEVE's injuries, either

when because they were integral participants in the misconduct, because they failed to intervene they had the opportunity to do so to prevent these violations, or because they were negligent in

t2
13

allowing such misconduct to occur and continue-

l4
15

41.

Decedent's claims against Defendants CITY, POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE
ON

CHIEF, FIRE DEPARTMENT, FIRE CHIEF and certain Of DOES 1-50 ATE bASCd

thEiÍ

16

maintaining, permitting and/or condoning the practices, policies and/or cr¡stoms described in

l7
18

paragraph2l.

42.

As a direct and legal result of Defendants' acts and omissions, STEVE suffered

t9
20

damages, including without limitation, pain and suffering, extreme mental and emotional distress, serious physical injury, death, attorrey's fees, costs of suit and other pecuniary losses not yet ascertained.

2l
22
23

43.

plaintiffs allege that the acts and omissions of Defendants were willfi.rl,

intentionat, oppressive, reckless, and/or were done in conscious disregard of STEVE's rights,

24
25

welfare and safety, thereby justiffing the award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
amount to be determined at trial.

26 27
28

44ll

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereunder appeals.

10

Complaint for Damages

1

2
J

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Cal. Civil Code $ 52.1- Bane Act - Survival Action (Against all Defendants)

45. 46.

plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs

1

tbrough

4
5

of this Comptaint with the same force and effect as if frrlly set forth hereinDefendants inærfered or attempted to interfere with STEVE's civil and rights secured by constitutional rights by threats, intimidation or coercion, including STEVE's
and Article I, $ 13 of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United Staþs Constitution

6
7

I
9

the california constitution and california

civil code $ 43.

47.

Defendants engaged in such reprehensible acts and omissions when Defendants

l0
11
1,2

restrain and/or arrest him shot and continued to shoot STEVE, instead of attempting to subdue,

possibly lifein a less-lethal manner, and when they failed to deliver to him immediate and rights. saving medical assistance, all in violation of STEVE's constitutional

t3

4g.

As a result of their conduct, Defendants are liable for STEVE's injuries, either

l4
15

they failed to intervene when because they were integral participants in the misconduct, because
they were negligent in they had the opportunity to do so to prevent these violations, because

16

liable under allowing such misconduct to occur and continue, or because they are vicariously

t7
18

California state law.

49.

As a direct and legal result of Defendants' acts and omissions, STEVE suffered

t9
20

mental and emotional damages, including without limitation, pain and suffering, extreme
fees, costs of suit and disûess, serious physical injuries, death, medical expenses' attorney's

2I
22
23

pecuniary losses not yet ascertained-

50.

Plaintiffs allege thatthe acts and omissions of Defendants were willful,

intentional, oppressive, reckless welfare and safety, thereby

24
25

, andlot were done in conscious disregmd of STEVE's rights, justifing the award of punitive and exemplary damages in an

26
27 28

amount to be determined at trial51. 'Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereunder appeafs.

t/

ll

11

Complaint for Damages

I
2
J

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Battery - Sunrival Action (Against Defendants PALOMINO, ROMO and certain of DOES r-50)
plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 51 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 53. Defendant pALOMINO committed battery against STEVE when he shot him,

52.

4
5

6

with without consent and without justification, resulting in harmfi¡l or offensive contact
STEVE's person.

7
8 9

54.
consent and

DefendantRoMg committed battery agaìnst STEVE whenhe shothim, without without justifrcation, resulting in harmful or offensive contact with STEVE's
Defendants DOES 1-50 committed battery against STEVE when each of such

l0
11

55.

justification, resulting in DOES shot him or caused him to be shot, without consent and without
engaged in harmful or offensive contact \¡/ith STEVE's person, and/or when each of such DOES

72
13

consent and other harmful or offensive conduct with respect to sTEVE's pefson, without

t4
15

justification.

56.

As aresult of their conduct, Defendants are liable for STEVE's injuries, either

t6 t7
18

failed to intervene when because they were integral participants in the misconduct, because they
were negligent in they had the opportgnity to do so to prevent these violations, or because they

allowing such misconduct to occur and continue'

19

57. 5g.

As

a

direct and legal result of Defendants' acts and omissions, STEVE suffered

20
27

damages, including death-

plaintiffs allege thatthe acts and omissions of the Defendants were willful,

22
23

of STEVE' malicious, intentional, oppressive, reckless, and/or were done in conscious disregard damages in an rights, welfare and safety, thereby justiffing the award of punitive and exemplary
amount to be determined at trial. 59. 'Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereunder appeafs-

24
25

26 27 28

I2
Complaint for Damages

1

2
J

FOITRTE CAUSE OF ACTION Civil Rights Violations - 42 U.S-C. $ 19t3 Substantive l)ue Proccss

(þEachPlaintifflndividuaþAgainstcachDefendant)

4
5

60. 61.

Plaintiffs reperat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs I through

5

of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if frrlly sef forth herein'
Defendants' astions deprived Plaintiffs of their rights under the Fourteenth

6
7 8

Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from conscience-shocking behavior
the those acting under color of state law. Plaintiffs bring their federal claims for damages for

9
10
11 72 13

violations of their zubstantive due process rights bas€d on42 U-S-C- $ 1983'

62.

Defendants violatedPlaintiffs' rights under the Fourteenth Amendmentwhen

and/or shot and killed their son when less-lethal means could have been used to zubdue, restrain

life-saving arrest him, when Defendants subsequently failed to deliver immediate and potentially medical treatment to their dying son, and when Defendanæ failed to notifr them of their son's
death news-

74
15

for approximately twelve hours, causing Plainûffs to learn about the tragedy on the nightly Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants CITY, POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE
ATE bASCd ON

16

6i.

t7
18

CHIEF, FIRE DEPARTMENT, FIRE CHIEF and certain Of DOE,S I-50

thciT

in maintaining, perrnitting and/or condoning the practices, policies anÜor customs described parugraph2l.

I9
20
2L

64.

As a direct and legal rezult of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plainúffs have

suffered damages, inctuding without limitation, pain and suffering extreme mental and emotional distress, serious physical injury, attorney's fees, costs of suit and other pecuniary
losses not yet ascertained,

22
¿J

24
25

65.

plaintiffs allege that the acts and omissions of Defendants were willfi¡l,

intentional, oppressive, reckless, and/or were done in conscionrs disregard of Plaintiffs' rights, welfare and safety, thereby justifyiog the award of punitive and exemplary darnages in an
amount to be determined at

26
27 28

tial.
13

66.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereunder appears.

Complaintfor Damages

1

FIFTII CAUSE OX'ACTION
Wrongtul Death, C.C.P. $ 377.60(a) Each PtaintiffIndividuaþ Against each l)efendant) @y

2
J

67.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs

1

through

4
5

of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 68. Defendant PALOMINO wrongfully caused STEVE's deathby wrongfully,
unreasonably, unjustifiably, recklessly andlor negligently shooting him instead of taking
reasonable steps to subdue, restrain and/or a¡rest him without use of deadly force.

6
7

I
9

69.

Defendant

RoMo wrongfully caused sTEVE',s

death by wrongfully,

unreasonably, unjustifiably, recHessly and/or negligently shooting him instead of taking reasonable steps to subdue, restrain and./or arrest him without use of deadly force.

10
11

70.

DCfENdANtS

CITY, POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE CHIEF, FIRE

12 73

DEPARTMENT, FIRE CHIEF and DOES 1-50 wrongfully caused STEVE's death by

wrongfully, unreasonably, unjustifiably, recklessly

and./or

negligentþ shooting him, f¿iling to

l4
15

deliver potentially life-saving medical care to him, engaging in other acts or omissions that
caused his d.eath, or because their offrcial or de facto policies, practices and./or customs including

76

with regard to hiring, fiaining, supervising and disciplining officers created the circumstances in
which his death occurred.
result of their conduc! Defendants are liable for Plaintiffs' injuries, either

t7
18

71.

As

a

19

when because they were integral participants in the misconduc! because they failed to intervene they had the opportunity to do so to prevent these violations, because they were negligent in

20
27

allowing such misconduct to occur and continue, or because they are vicariously liable under California state law.

22
23

72.
been and

As a direct and legal result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have
and

24
25

will forever be deprived of STEVE's love, affection, society, companionship,

support and have suffered damages, including without limitation, medical expenses, funeral and

26 27
28

burial expenses, and other pecuniary losses not yet ascertained.

73.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereunder appears.

L4

Complaint for Damages

1

2
J

CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Infliction of Emotional l)istress DEPARTMENT' @y Each Plaintifi Individualþ Against I)efendants CITY, POLICE certain of DOES 1-50) POLICE CIIIEX'and

SDilH

4
5

74. 75.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs I through 73
Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress on MR. GARCIA and MS.

of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein-

6

7
8

pEREZwhen they engaged in the outrageous conduct of failing to

notif

said Plaintiffs of their

son's death for over twelve hours, thereby causing MR. GARCIA and MS. PEREZtoIearn'

9

l0
11 T2 13 T4

STEVE's death on the nightly news, all with the intention to cause, or with reckless disregard the probability of causing, Plaintiffs to sufFer severe emotional distress and with wanton and
reckless disregard for the injurious result to Plaintiffs-

76.

As a result of their conduct, Defendants are liable for Plaintiffs' i4iuries, either

because they were integral participants in the misconduct, because they failed to intervene when

they had the opportunity to do so to prevent these violations, because they were negligent in

allowing such misconduct to occur and continue, or because they are vicariously liable under California state law.

15

16
17 18

77.
each of

As a direct and legal result of the aforementioned despicable acts of Defendants,

MR. GARCIA and MS. PEREZ has suffered emotional distress, including butnot

limited to mental anguish and feelings of extraordinary betrayal, confusion, breach of trust,
sorrow and despair-

19

20

7g.

Plaintiffs allege that the acts and omissions of Defendants were willful,

2l
22
23

intentional, oppressive, reckless, and/or were done in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights,

welfare and safety, thereby justiffing the award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
amount to be deterrnined at trial. 'Wherefore,

24
25

79-

Plaintiffs pray for relief

as hereunder appeafs.

PRAYER FORRELIEF'
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request entry ofjudgment in their favor and against
as

26

27
28

follows: In respect of the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (42 U.S.C. S 1983
15

-

Survival)'

Complaint for Damages

I
2
J

l. For compensatory, general and special damages in an amount according 2. For punitive damages against individual Defendants;
3.
and

to proof;

For reasonable costs of this suit and attorneys' fees pr.usuant to 42 U.S.C. $ 1988;

4
5

4.
1.

For such firrttrer relief as the Court may deem just, proper and appropriate.

6

In respect of the

sECofII) CAUSE OF ACTION @ane Act- Survival)'

l
8

For compensatory, general and special damages in an amount according to proof;
For punitive damages against individual Defendants;

9 10
11

2. 3.
41.

For reasonable costs of this suit and attorneys' fees pursuant to Cal- Civil Code

$

52.1;and
For such further relief as the Court may deem just, proper and appropriate.

t2 t3
74
15

In respect of the TIIIRD CAUSE OF ACTION @attery

- survival)'

For compensatory, general and special damages in amount accordingto proof; For punitivs damages; and For such further relief as the Court may deem just, proper and appropriate-

2. 3.
I)ue Process),

16

In respect ofthe FOURTII CAUSE OF ACTION (42 U.S.C. S 1983

-

Substantive

I7
18

1.

For compensatory, general and special damages in an amount according to proof;

t9
20
27

2. For punitive damages against individual Defendants; 3. For reasonable costs of this suit and attomeys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S-C. $ 1988;
and

22
ZJ

41.
Z-

For such further relief as the Court may deem just, proper and appropriate.

Inrespect of the FrFrn

causE oF ACTION (WrongfulDeath)'

24 25 26 27
28

For compensatory, general and special damages in an amount according to proof; For interest on all economic damages in the legal amount from January 23,2012, to the date ofjudgment; and

3.

For such further relief as the Court may deem just, proper and appropriate-

L6

Complaint for Damages

1

In respect of the Distress),

SDffH CAUSE OF ACTION Ontentional Infliction of Emotional

2
1

J

l.
2.
3

For compensatory, general and special damages in an amount according to proof;
For punitive damages against individual Defendants; and

4
5

.

For such further relief as the Cor¡¡t may deem just proper and appropriate.

6
I
8

Dated: October 5,2012

submitted,

9 10
11

By: SarahL. Garvey (SBN 202491)
Danell J. York (SBN 145601) Attorneys forPlaintiffs MARTIN GARCIA and LETICIA PF,REZ, in each case individually and successor in interest of STEVE RODRIGUEZ
as

12 13

t4
15 16 17
18

79 2A

2l
',4 ¿J

24
25

26 27
28
L1

Complaint for Damages