1 2 3 4

Arcolina Panto, Esq. (SBN: 235786) LAW OFFICES 166 Santa Clara Avenue Oakland, CA 94610 (510) 658-2500 Attorneys for Plaintiff RICHARD BRUMFIELD

ENDORSED

FILED

SEP 0 1 2011 .
IUPfRIOR COURT OF CAUFO COUNTY OF SONOMA

5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

SUPERIOR

COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SONOMA - UNLIMITED RICHARD BRUMFIELD, an individual; Plaintiff, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS, AND DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case No. SCV-249353 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; NEGLIGENCE including per se

v.
PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT, a public entity of unknown form; DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF SONOMA, a public entity of unknown form; and DOES 1-40, Defendants.

14
15 16

17
18 19 20 21 22 23

COMES NOW Plaintiff RICHARD BRUMFIELD (hereinafter "Plaintiff BRUMFIELD" or "Plaintiff") and seeks injunctions staying any further arrests of medical marijuana patients who voluntarily participate in the State of California patient identification card program by Defendant PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT and prohibiting prosecution by Defendant SONOMA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY of all such arrests pursuant to the statutory scheme approved of by voters in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 as amended in 2003 and affirmed by the Supreme Court of California in People v. Kelly. [(2010) 47 Cal.4th 100].

24

25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
- 1-

1

I.
NATURE OF ACTION L

2 3 4

On August 26, 2009, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD was wrongfully arrested on

marijuana charges. Despite the fact that Plaintiff BRUMFIELD showed arresting authorities the California State issued medical marijuana patient identification card, Defendants did not relent. Instead, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD was held in jail for weeks where he suffered serious and life threatening physical injury. Defendants continued to prosecute Plaintiff even though he was always immunized from prosecution pursuant to the laws of the State ofCalifonria.
In short.

5
6 7 8
9

Defendants failed to respect the laws of the State of California which they are entrusted by the people to enforce. Plaintiff was prosecuted wrongfully for more than seven months which caused him inordinate harm and damages.
2.

10 11

12

These events render Defendants liable pursuant to the laws of the State of

13

14
15 16

California. 3.
As a direct consequence of Defendants' illegal acts, Plaintiff suffered economic

consequential, special, and other damages plus attorneys' fees all to his detriment.

17

!L
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18 19
20 21
22 23

4.

The substantial majority of the acts complained of occurred in Sonoma Coun

and, as such venue is proper. 5. Jurisdiction is proper because Defendants have their principal business wi

Sonoma County and conducted business in the County of Sonoma at all relevant times. Plainti

24
25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCfIONS, DECLARATORY REliEF, DAMAGES
-2-

1

is informed and believes and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Defendant are citizens of Sonoma County, California. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on the basis of said information and belief

2

3
4 5 6 7

alleges that one or more of the individual Defendants reside within Sonoma as citizens of th

county.

III
PARTIES 7.
Plaintiff BRUMFIELD is an individual, and at all relevant times has lived in th

8
9 10

State of California. 8. Defendant PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT (hereinafter Defendan

11
12

POLICE) is a public entity of unknown form that did business in Sonoma County, California a all relevant times. Plaintiff alleges Defendant POLICE is a citizen of Sonoma County

13 14 15 16 17

California.

9.

Defendant SONOMA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY (hereinafter Defendan

DA) is a public entity of unknown form that did business in Sonoma County, California at al relevant times. Plaintiff alleges Defendant DA is a citizen of Sonoma County. California. 10. Defendants DOES 1-40 are herein sued under fictitious names. Defendan

18
19 20

DOES 1-20 are business or public entities of unknown form who were hired by Defendants t advance their own business interests. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DOES 21-40 were the employees officers, directors, managing agents, and/or supervisors of Defendants, and/or DOES 1-20, wh

21
22 23 24 25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY REliEF, DAMAGES
-3-

1

were acting within the course and scope of their employment and authority at all times rel evan to this Complaint. 11. At all times herein mentioned, the individual Defendants, both named and yet t

2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9

be named as DOES, were agents and/or servants and/or employees of business and public enti Defendants, and at all times herein mentioned, were acting within the course and scope of sai agency, service, and employment. 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that there exists, and, at al

times relevant to this complaint, existed a unity of interests between certain of the Defendant such that any individuality and separateness between these certain Defendants had ceased, an those certain Defendants are the alter ego of the other certain Defendants and exerted contro over each other. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of those certain Defendants

10
11 12

an entity distinct from other certain Defendants will permit an abuse of the corporate privileg
13

14
15

and would sanction fraud and or promote injustice. Defendants to avoid an inequitable result.

Liability should be imposed on al

Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief tha

16
17

certain unnamed corporate entities shared a single business venture and utilized the sam employees, operated in the same business locations, and benefited jointly from transactions an were joint employers and/or integrated employers.

18
19 20 21

13.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant aide

and abetted each other such that the principal is liable for acts of each Defendant. 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mention

22
23 24

in this Complaint, Defendants were the agents and employees of their co-Defendants, and i doing the things alleged in this Complaint were acting within the course and scope of sue
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
-4-

25

1

agency and employment and acted in such a manner as to ratify the conduct of their co Defendants. 15. Plaintiff alleges that any and all actions violative of California law taken b
0

2 3 4 5 6 7

individuals within the Scope and COW"Se employment for Defendants render business and of

public agency entity Defendants liable in respondeat superior. Employers are vicariously liabl for torts of employees committed within the Scope of employment. Sons Inc. (1986) 41 Cal.3d 962, 967]. [Perez v. Van Gronigen

8
9

!Y:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
16. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD is a disabled Veteran who has dedicated his life to

10 11 12

alternative and holistic treatment of medical conditions both chronic and temporary. 17. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD has spent inordinate time and expense in his efforts to

13
14 15

serve people Who are disabled, ill, convalescing or otherwise sickened thereby diminishing their overall health and wellbeing. 18. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD established Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center

16
17 18 19 20

to better advance his purpose of serving those who need alternative and holistic medical treatment. 19. Pacific Cost Wel1ness and Evolution Center is a California Non-profit Mutual

Benefit Unincorporated Association, at all relevant times having its principle place of business
21 22
23 24 25

and citizenship in California. Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center was located in Santa Rosa until the unlawful acts of Defendants forced it from that location. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs Non-Profit was located on Guerneville Road in Santa Rosa, California.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAiNT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY REUEF, DAMAGES -5-

1

20.

PlaintiJfBRUMFIELD

makes every effort to comply with all applicable laws and

2 3
4

statutes in the State of California. 21. Most notably, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD registered his recommendation for

treatment with medical marijuana through the State of California. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD is a card carrying medical marijuana patient, who voluntarily carries the State of California issued identification card. 22. PlaintiffBRUMFlliLD alleges that many medical marijuana patients in California

5 6 7 8 9

refuse to apply for the State issued identification card out of fear that they will be identified and prosecuted. 23. On August 26,2009, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD was arrested by Defendant POLICE

10 11

on marijuana charges.
12

24.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

Plaintiff BRUMFIELD was held in jail for weeks where he suffered serious and

life threatening medical conditions. 25. Plaintiff's Non-profit Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center ceased regular

operations because it was dependent on Plaintiff BRUMFIELD's ability to conduct its business. 26. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD continued to assert his immunity and raise an affirmative

defense pursuant to the laws of the State of California. 27. Maliciously, without probable cause or any legitimate reason, Defendant DA

continued to press charges against Plaintiff BRUMFIELD even after Plaintiff presented his State issued medical marijuana patient identification card and after Plaintiff assert an affirmative defense as a medical marijuana patient.

24 25 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY REUEF, DAMAGES " 6-

1

28.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted maliciously when they continued to press

2 3

charges after Plaintiff BRUMFIELD presented his State issued medical marijuana card and raised an affirmative defense and alleged his complete immunity. 29. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' true purpose was to vex, annoy,harass,

4 5
6 7

intimidate, and injure legitimate medical marijuana patients. 30. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants either knew or should have known that they had

no legal authority to prosecute Plaintiff BRUMFIELD, andon the contrary, had an obligation no to arrest or prosecute Plaintiff pursuant to the laws of the State of California. 31. Charges against Plaintiff BRUMFIELD were not dropped until March 26, 2010,

8
9 10 11

more than seven months after the wrongful arrest.
32.

Plaintiff alleges that charges were only dropped against him because he absolutel

12

refused to negotiate in any way regarding his immunity from prosecution.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES ·7-

33.

Plaintiff correctly believed he was immune to criminal prosecution. Defendant DA either knew or should have known that this was a correct assertion

34.

of Plaintiff BRUMFIELD's, that no plea bargain should have been proffered because Plaintiff BRUMFIELD was actually completely immune from criminal prosecution and never should have been arrested. 35. Plaintiff alleges that the malicious actions of Defendant POLICE were

exacerbated and damages greatly increased by Defendant DA's continued efforts to press charges.
36.

Plaintiff BRUMFIELD alleges that the actions of Defendants foment and instill

fear in legitimate medical marijuana patients, further discouraging citizens of California from

1

utilizing what should be protective mechanisms provided by law, specifically the voluntary State issued medical marijuana identification card program. 37. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD alleges that the actions of Defendants stigmatize law

2

3
4

abiding citizens who make every effort to comply with statutory regulations.
38. As a direct consequence of the unlawful events of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered

5 6 7

general, economic, consequential, emotional, special, and other damages plus attorneys' fees and costs, all to his detriment. 39. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD did timely notify Defendants ofhis intent to file suit in

8
9

September of2010 pursuant to California Government Code Section 910. 40. A representative of the City ofPeta1uma rejected Plaintiff BRUMFIELD's tort

10
11

claim form claiming that it was untimely sent. 41. Defendants must not be permitted to deny liability on the basis of a late tort claim

12
13 14

because the torts herein alleged did not accrue until the dismissal of the charges. 42.

15
16 17

Furthermore, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD alleges that the malicious prosecution and

all actions underlying the criminal charges against him did create inordinate emotional distress well as causing severe economic harm to himself and his Non-profit, Pacific Coast Wellness and . Evolution Center. 43. Plaintiff alleges that California Government Code Sections 901, and 911.2

18 19
20 21 22

indicate that the tort claim form (described in Section 910) must be presented within six months of the accrual of the cause of action. Plaintiff alleges that the date of accrual for the torts herein is March 26,2010 when the charges against Plaintiff BRUMFIELD were finally dropped.

23
24 25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY REliEF, DAMAGES
-8-

1

Regarding malicious prosecution, the cause of action accrues on the date the proceedings were

2 3 4

dismissed or terminated. [Babb v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (1971) 3 CaI.3d 841, 846]. 44. Plaintiff alleges that claims included in this lawsuit are those for which no failure

to notify pursuant to the tort claim requirements can be alleged. 45. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD alleges that the severe harm he suffered when he was

5
6 7 8
9

wrongfully jailed was proximately caused by the malicious, intentiorial and/or negligent conduct of Defendants. 46. Plaintiff alleges that severe harm and damages were caused by the wrongful

actions of Defendants herein alleged. 47. . Attached to this First Amended Complaint as Exhibit A is the tort claim form sent

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

to the public agency Defendants on September 6,2011. 48. The tort claim form was prepared by the attorney listed at the top of this

document during a brief partnership by estoppel with the other attorney included at the top of the tort claim form, Shimea Anderson. 49. Unfortunately, Ms. Anderson became too sick to work beginning sometime in the

late fall or early winter of2010. 50. Attorney Arcolina Panto, for various reasons, relocated her office around the

18 19
20

middle of January 2011. 51. Through written communications, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD retained Ms. Panto

21

solely, but Ms. Panto was not in physical possession of the file at the time of the filing of the
22 23 24 25 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES -9-

lawsuit which did need to be filed before March 26, 2011 so as to preserve all statutory limits.

1

52.

After an extended delay, Ms. Panto was finally able to acquire the file, but many

2 3
4

documents must have been lost because they were not in the file that Ms. Panto was able to secure. Ms. Panto was most disappointed to find that the green certified mail cards that she had carefully stapled to a full sheet of paper and fastened to the file were lost. 53. Fortunately, Ms. Panto did find the letter from the County of Sonoma indicating

5 6 7 8
9

that it received the tort claim form on September 9,2010. 54. Since both the City of Petaluma and the County of Sonoma were notified at the

same time, Plaintiff presents Exhibit B, the letter from the County of Sonoma acknowledging receipt on September 9,2010 as proof that the tort claim was sent and received timely, within 6 months of the accrual of the torts listed in this lawsuit. 55. Plaintiff seeks relief in the Superior Court to correct the wrongs committed

10

11
12

against him and did file suit within. a year of the tort accrual.
13 14 15 16

56.

Plaintiff files this First Amended Complaint in response to the City ofPeta1uma's

demurrer which states incorrectly that there is no statutory protection which Plaintiff invokes. It

is precisely the statutory protection afforded by the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 as amended in 2003 that Plaintiff demands.
57. Plaintiff continues to allege that he has statutorily defined rights to be free from

17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25

unlawful arrest and prosecution as a medical marijuana patient who voluntarily participates in the California State identification card program. 58. In its demurrer, Defendant POLICE attempt to claim absolute immunity bas

on Government Code § 815, but this ignores Plaintiff's allegation, included in his original Complaint, that public agency Defendants do have potential liability because of Government
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES - 10-

1

Code § 815.6 which states that "Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty." 59. Plaintiff alleges that both public entity Defendants were under a mandatory

2 3 4 5 6 7
8

duty imposed by the enactment of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 as amended in 2003 to protect against the risk of unlawful arrest and prosecution of medical cannabis patients who participate voluntarily in the State of California identification card program and the injury to Plaintiff was that kind proximately caused by the Defendants failure to discharge their duty not to arrest and not to prosecute based on the identification card, and Defendants did not exercise any reasonable diligence in their failure to discharge their statutory duty especially considering that the identification card program was designed to protect against the exact harm that came to

9 10

11
12 13 14 15 16 17

Plaintiff, and Plaintiff asserted his status as a medical cannabis patient who voluntarily participates in the State identification card. 60. Plaintiff went through extraordinary efforts to meet tort claim requirements,

including a request for a late filing sent to Defendant POLICE. Attached as Exhibit C is a letter dated November 3, 2010 from the City of Petaluma stating that Plaintiff s claims were all found to be untimely and presented improperly. The City of Petaluma based its finding on the fact that Plaintiff was arrested on August 26, 2009 and the 6 month mark from that date being February 27,2010. The City of Petaluma completely ignored the tort of malicious prosecution and its

18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25

accrual on March 26, 2010.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY REUEF, DAMAGES
- 11-

1 2 3 4

61.

Plaintiff did meet tort claim requirements and filed suit as he is entitled to do

pursuant to Government Code § 945.4. This is a fact corroborated by Exhibits, A, B and C to this First Amended Complaint. 62. Defendant POLICE in their demurrer appear to be relying on the complex

5 6 7

statutory structure to deprive Plaintiff of his right to be free from unlawful arrest. 63. Plaintiff alleges unequivocally, that he made every effort to comply with

applicable tort claim requirements, but if in the alternative the Court finds that Plaintiff did not
8

strictly comply with Government Code § 945.4, then Plaintiff seeks relief from the Court via
9

10 11
12 13

Government Code § 946.6. Plaintiff did appeal to this Court for relief within one year of the accrual of the torts alleged in this lawsuit. 64. Plaintiff seeks to have his State issued medical marijuana patient

identification card be acknowledged and recognized by local public agencies. 65. Plaintiff urges the Court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions

14
15

halting the arrest and prosecution of medical cannabis patients with valid State issued identification cards. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Injunctive Relief (Against All Defendants) 66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and ev

16
17

18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25

allegation set forth above in this Complaint. 67. Plaintiff seeks injunctions as follows: a) California Health and Safety Code § 11362.765 specifically prohibits arrest fo listed Health and Safety Code Sections for patients who carry the State issued
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY REUEF. DAMAGES - 12 -

1

medical marijuana identification card. The Supreme Court of California held that one purpose of the 2003 amendments to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 was to prevent unnecessary arrest. [People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1014]. The statute states: qualified individuals "shall not be subject, on that sole basis, to

2

3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

criminal liability under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or
11570." [Health and Safety § 11362.765]. As such Defendants should be permanently enjoined from arresting medical cannabis patients pursuant to the very clear statutory language that was emphasized by California's Supreme Court and must be directed not to arrest qualified patients for the Health and Safety Code Sections as listed above; b) California Health and Safety Code § 11362.765 specifically prohibits

12

prosecution of specified Health and Safety Code Sections for patients who carry
13 14 15 16 17 18

the State issued medical marijuana identification card. The Supreme Court of California held that one purpose of the 2003 amendments to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 was to prevent unnecessary arrest. [People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Ca1.4th 1008, 1014]. The statute states: qualified individuals "shall not be subject, on that sole basis. to criminal liability under Section 11357, 11358. 11359. 11360, 11366. 11366.5. or 11570." [Health and Safety § 11362.765]. As such Defendants should be permanently enjoined from prosecuting medical cannabis patients pursuant to the very clear statutory language that was emphasized by California'S Supreme Court and must be directed not to prosecute qualified patients for the Health and Safety Code Sections as listed above.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
- 13-

19 20
21 22
23

24 25

1

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, more fully set forth below. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Relief (Against AU Defendants) 68. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and ev

2 3 4

5
6

allegation set forth above in this Complaint. 69. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief because no fact determination need be made

7
8

regarding the statutory scheme as it is written and as expounded upon by California's Supreme
9

Court: a) California Health and Safety Code § 11362.765 specifically prohibits arrest fo listed Health and Safety Code Sections for patients who carry the State issued medical marijuana identification card. The Supreme Court of California held that one purpose of the 2003 amendments to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 was to prevent unnecessary arrest. [People v. Kelly (2010)47 Cal.4th 1008, 1014]. The statute states: qualified individuals "shall not be subject, on that sole basis, to criminal liability under Section 11357, 11358, 11359. 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570." [Health and Safety § 11362.765]; b) California Health and Safety Code § 11362.765 specifically prohibits prosecution of specified Health and Safety Code Sections for patients who carry

10

11
12
13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

the State issued medical marijuana identification card. The Supreme Court of
22

23
24 25

California held that one purpose of the 2003 amendments to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 was to prevent unnecessary arrest. [People v. Kelly (2010) 47
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
~ 14-

1

Cal.4

th

1008, 1014]. The statute states: qualified individuals "shall not be subject,

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

on that sole basis, to criminal liability under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570." [Health and Safety § 11362.765]. 70. should exist. Plaintiff is engaged in an actual controversy with Defendants, but no controvers Defendants should acknowledge and be aware that they must not arrest
0 0

prosecute qualified medical cannabis patients in accordance with the laws of the State California. 71.

Plaintiff seeks a judicial determination of rights and duties and a declaratio statutory la

informing Defendants that arrests and prosecutions that violate California's

contained in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 as amended in 2003 and emphasized by th

11
12

Supreme Court in Kelly are wholly improper and an egregious affront to the legislative an
judicial systems of the State of California. 72. Furthermore, a judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time t

13
14 15 16 17

prevent further lawsuits against these public agencies. The people of California would be serv by such a declaration as it reflects the will of the voters, the opinion of California's Suprem Court, and the current budget crisis that exists statewide. The requested declaration would sav resources of both Defendants which would be better spent elsewhere arresting and prosecutin actual crime and would prevent potential liability in lawsuits such as this by halting unlawfu arrests and prosecutions.

18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them,
more fully set forth below.

1/
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
- 15 -

1

2 3

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Malicious Prosecution (Against All Defendants) 73. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and ev

4

allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 74. Plaintiffs alleging malicious prosecution must show that the action taken against

5
6

7

them was commenced by or at the direction of Defendants, was pursued to the legal termination
8

in Plaintiffs favor, was brought without probable cause, and was initiated with malice.
9

[Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666,676].
10

75.
11 12 13

Defendants directed criminal action against Plaintiff Plaintiff presented the State issued identification card which is designed to

76.

immunize against prosecution, but Defendants still pressed criminal charges. 77. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, who are charged with enforcing the law, must

14 15 16
17

respect the law in all aspects. 78. Plaintiff was charged with violations of California Health and Safety Code

Sections 11359 and 11360 which prohibit transportation and sale of marijuana. 79. California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.765 specifically prohibits

18 19
20

prosecution of Health and Safety Code Sections 11359 and 11360 for patients who carry the State issued medical cannabis identification card as well as qualified patients who do not choose

21 22

to participate in the voluntary identification card program.

23
24 25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
- 16-

1

80.

California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.71(e) prohibits arrest on

2

specified marijuana charges for those who voluntarily participate in the State issued identification program for medical cannabis patients. 81. No less than the Supreme Court ofCalifomia held that one purpose of the 2003

3
4 5 6 7

amendments to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 was to prevent unnecessary arrest. [People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1014]. The Kelly Court, explained further its opinion that the "heart" of the 2003 amendments is in the identification card program that provides an

8

"affirmative defense" and "protection against arrest." [Id. emphasis in original].
9

10
11

82.

Thus, Defendants were obligated not to arrest Plaintiff and not to prosecute him

pursuant to the laws of the State of California and considering the opinion of the Supreme Court of California. Furthermore, as a result of the statutory scheme and the opinion of the Supreme Court of California, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant entities should be held liable pursuant to Government Code Section 815.6 since Defendant agencies were under a mandatory duty not to arrest and not to prosecute and their failure to perform those duties resulted in the very harm that was supposed to be prevented. 83. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed in their duty to comply with the

12 13 14
15

16 17 18 19
20

CompasSionate Use Act of 1996 as amended in 2003 especially considering that Plaintiff voluntarily carries the State identification card. If agencies such as Defendants can ignore the rights that are supposed to be conferred by the State issued identification card, then there is no

21 22

purpose to the legislation and there is no incentive for any individual to voluntarily participate. In essence, the program would be pointless. Thus, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to

23 24
25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
- 17 -

1

abide by mandatory duties contained in the above mentioned statutes that were designed to prevent the very harm incurred. 84. Furthermore, Defendant DA was obligated to dismiss the charges as soon as

2
3

4

Plaintiff raised the affirmative defense. And, Defendant POLICE had no reason to believe Plaintiff was not complying with the law in every aspect regarding his State identification card. Thus, Defendant POLICE never should have arrested Plaintiff and Defendant DA was obligated to drop the charges. 85. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11362~775, people like

5 6
7
8

9

Plaintiff who have a valid State identification card, and those who are qualified patients without the identification card, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes must not solely on that basis be subjec

10
11

12

to criminal prosecution under Sections 11357 (possession), 11358 (cultivation/processing),
13 14
15

11359 (sale), 11360 (transport), 11366 (place for distribution), 11366.5 (management of place for distribution) or 11570 (nuisance). Patients who voluntarily participate in the identification card program must meet requirements listed in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.76, and pay a fee pursuant to Section 11362.715. The incentive to pay the fee and go through extra steps to get the identification card, is the resulting higher level of protection from prosecution pursuant
to

16
17

18
19

Section 11362.765. But, qualified patients without an identification card are also entitled to

20 21 22
23 24 25

protections pursuant to Section 11362.7(f). 86. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.78, a state or local

law enforcement agency or officer must not refuse to accept the State issued identification card

fIRST AMENDED COMPLAlNf FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
- 18-

unless the agency or officer has reasonable cause to believe the information contained in the card
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

is false or fraudulent.
87.

Defendants must not be permitted to avoid liability based on any inununity

because of the statutory provisions of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 as amended in 2003 listed herein that require no arrest be made and no criminal prosecution be charged.
88.

Plaintiff's arrest and ongoing prosecution was in direct contravention of the

Compassionate Use Act of 1996 as amended in 2003, referred to herein, thereby rendering Defendants liable pursuant to Government Code>Section 815.6. 89. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants either knew or should have known of their

obligations pursuant to the law considering Plaintiff was a voluntary participant in the State issued medical cannabis identification card program; Plaintiff presented his card and asserted the affirmative defense and his immunity at every opportunity.

13 14 15 16

90.

Criminal proceedings terminated in Plaintiffs favor when Defendant DA

dismissed the charges in the interests of justice. 91. Termination of prosecution is favorable when it reflects the opinion of the

17
18 19 20 21

prosecuting party that the action lacked merit, or would ultimately result in a decision in favor of the prosecuted party. [Camarena v. Sequoia Ins. Ca. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1099]. 92.
A voluntary dismissal may be a favorable ternrination sufficient to support a

malicious prosecution action. [Fuentes v. Berry (1995) 38 Cal.App.s'" 1800, 1808). Usually, a voluntary unilateral dismissal is a termination in favor of the defendant. [Id.]. 93. No proper purpose underlies Plaintiffs arrest and subsequent prosecution.

22
23

24 25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
- 19 -

1

94.

Plaintiff alleges Defendants' wrongful actions as alleged herein were designed to

2

vex, annoy, harass and injure Plaintiff. 95. Plaintiff alleges Defendants had malicious motives and a desire to deliberately

3
4

destroy his Non-profit caregiving association, Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were successful in their attempts to remove him from the prior location of Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center, and that this caused inordinate expense and hardship for Plaintiff. 96. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants must not be permitted to prosecute medical

5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

cannabis patients in contravention of California law or to subvert the will of the people of California as expressed though the intent of the California legislature and current legislation. 97. As a direct consequenes of the unlawful events of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered

general, economic, consequential, emotional, special, and other damages plus attorneys' fees and costs, all to his detriment. Plaintiff claims compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to Babb v. Superior Court of Sonoma County and California Civil Code Sections 3333 (compensatory), 3294 (punitive) and Code of Civil Procedure Sectionl021 et seq. (attorneys' fees). [Supra.,3 Cal.3d 848 n.4].

18 19
20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them,
more fully set forth below. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

21 22 23 24 25

IntentionailnDiction of Emotional Distress (Against All Defendants)
98. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and eve

allegation set forth above in this Complaint.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES - 20·

1

99.

As a separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains against Defendants

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

and each of them, as follows: 100. California case law allows a Plaintiff to recover damages for intentional inflictio

of emotional distress if he or she suffers severe emotional injury caused by the defendant' outrageous conduct with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard of the probability causing, emotional distress. 1087]. 101. Pursuant to Christensen v. Superior Court, intentional infliction of emotion
0

[Wilkins v. National Broad. Co., (1999) 71 Cal.AppAth 1066

distress is shown through these elements: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendan

with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotion
distress; (2) the plaintiffs suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual an

12

proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct.
13

14
15 16 17

Cal.3d 868, 903 citing Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982)33 Cal.3d 197,209]. 102. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and. thereon alleges, that the actions
0

Defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, were intentional, extreme, and outrageous. Plainti is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such actions were done with the inten to cause serious emotional distress or with reckless disregard of the probability of causin Plaintiff serious emotional distress. 103. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, and each of them

18 19
20 21 22 23 24

as aforesaid, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress which has caused Plaintiff to sustai severe, serious and permanent injuries to his person, all to his damage in a sum to be sho according to proof and within the jurisdiction of this court.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
- 21 -

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

104.

As a direct, legal and proximate result of the aforesaid tortious conduct

0

Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was prevented for a time from engaging in his usua occupation, thereby sustaining a loss of income, all to Plaintiff's damage in a sum to be show according to proof. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, more fully set forth below.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
8 9

Negligence (Against All Defendants) 105. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and ev

10 11 12
13

allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a separate and distinct cause of action, Plainti complains against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 106. To prevail on a negligence theory of liability a Plaintiff must prove duty, breach

14 15
16 7

causation and damages. [Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205]. The duty is defendant's duty to protect plaintiff from harm. [BUy v. Arthur Youn & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370,397]. 108. oflaw. Whether or not a duty actually exists between plaintiff and defendant is a questio 107.

1

18 19 20

[KentuckyFried Chicken of Cal. v, Superior Court (1997) 14 Cal.4th 814,819].
109. A d~termination that a duty exists reflects a policy decision that an individ

plaintiff should be protected from harm. [Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 734].
21
22 23

110.

In cases of certain types, liability is appropriate for damage done.

[Tarasoff v.

Regents a/University a/California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425,434].
24
25 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY REUEF, DAMAGES - 22-

l

111.

Plaintiffs may recover for emotional distress that is proximately caused b

2 3

defendants' negligent conduct or violation of a statutory standard. [MoUen v. Kaiser Foundatio Hospitals (1980} 27 Cal.3d 916]. 112.

4
5 6 7

In regards to negligent infliction of emotional distress (hereinafter NIED), it is no
[Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clini

its own tort but a form of negligence. (l989) 48 Cal.3d 583].

113. .Allegations herein are of Plaintiff as the direct victim, so that bystander NIB
8 9

cases are not applicable, and principles of negligence determine whether all elements of the to are established. [Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 Cal.App.a'" 915, 918]. 114. Negligence per se may be established when: I} a defendant violated a statute; 2
0

10
11 12 13

the violation proximately caused injury; 3} the injury resulted from an occurrence the nature

which the statute was designed to prevent; and 4) the Plaintiff was in the class of persons fo whose protection the statute was adopted. [See Capolungo v, Bondi (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 346 349]. 115. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached a mandatory duty pursuant
t

14
15

16
17

Government Code Section 815.6 and several statutory duties pursuant to the Compassionate Us Act of 1996 as amended in 2003. These breaches did proximately cause injury which th

18
19

statutory scheme was designed to prevent. and Plaintiff is in the class of persons for whos protection the statutes were adopted because he is a medical marijuana patient who voluntaril participates in the State issued medical marijuana patient identification card program.

20 21 22
23 24

116.

Furthermore, Defendants are charged with protecting all citizens of the State

0 0

Califomia and all residents and businesses in Petaluma City and Sonoma County. As a citizen
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES - 23-

25

1

the State of California, Defendants were obligated to promote and preserve Plaintiffs

rights

2 3 4

Defendants troWlced Plaintiffs rights without any regard for the law which they are supposed t protect. Thus, Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff as a citizen, and failed in that duty, thereb causing harm to the Plaintiff of a type that was foreseeable and proximately Defendants wrongful actions. 117. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, and each of them caused b

5
6 7

as aforesaid, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, physical injury to his person, and othe
8
9

harm including loss of income and devastating losses to his Non-profit, Pacific Coast Wellnes and Evolution Center, all of which was a foreseeable result of Defendants , wrongful actions. 118. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the aforesaid negligent conduct
0

10

11
12

Defendants. and each of them; Plaintiff was prevented for a time from engaging in his us occupation, thereby sustaining a loss of income, all to Plaintiff's damage in a sum to be sho according to proof. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, more fully set forth below.

13

14
15 16 17 18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) For compensatory damages; For general and special damages; For punitive damages; For costs of suit, expenses and attorneys' fees; For declaratory, injunctive and such other relief as the Co considers proper under the circumstances.

19
20

21
22 23 24 25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
- 24-

1 2 3

Dated: August 30, 2011

By:

LA~ Atto_!!leysfor Plaintiff RICHARD BRUMFIELD

Ai"~

4
5 6

DE~FORJURY~
Plaintiff hereby demands ajury trial on all issues triable by jury.

7
8
9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Dated: August 30, 2011

LAW OFFICE OF ARCOLINA PANT 0 By:

Aico~RICHARD BRUMFIELD
Att0!!l~YSfor Plaintiff

25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES - 25-

EXHIBIT A

1 2

3
4

Shimea C. Anderson (SBN: 234717) Areolina Panto (SBN: 235786) LAW OFFICES 385 Grand Avenue #201 Oakland, CA 94610 (510) 943-4490 Attorney for Claimant RICHARD BRUMFIELD RICHARD BRUMFIELD, an individual,

5 6 ? 8 9

v.
PETALUMA public entity AITORNEY public entity 1-40, POLICE DEPARTMENT, a of unknown form; DISTRICT COUNTY OF SONOMA, a of unknown form; and Does Defendants.

NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE ACTION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 910

10
11 12

13 14 15 16

18 19
20 21 22 23

To:

PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT, a public entity of unknown fonn; DISTRICT

ATIORNEY SONOMA COUNTY, a public entity of unknown form; and Does 140. You are hereby notified that RICHARD BRUMFIELD. whose address is clo Law Offices of Shimea Anderson and Arcolina Panto, 385 Orand Avenue #201, Oakland, CA 94610 claims damages from PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT, a public entity of unknown fonn; DISTRICT ATTORNEY SONOMA COUNTY, an public entity oflDlknown form, and Does 140. Defendants named as "Does" are those who cannot be identified at this time and. may be
identified later through the course /I

24
25
2 6

of litigation, discovery or by any other method.

27

28
NOTICE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION

,.G

-I·

1

The legal basis for the action will be that: Defendants violated Plaintiff's civil rights, including but not limited to State and Federal Constitutional rights to be free from unlawful search and seizure, to maintain fundamental rights, to maintain privacy rights. Plaintiff intends to sue under all relevant state and Federal Constitutional provisions including those that may not be mentioned here but that may become

2 3 4

6 '1

apparent upon discovery or other subsequent events. Specifically, Plaintiff was falsely arrested and imprisoned with the initial arrest occurring on August 26, 2009. Plaintiff alleges that the seizure of his person in particular was unlawful. Furthennore, Defendants' are complicit in committing a multitude of tortious acts including but not limited to false imprisonment, defamation including slander and libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress. negligent hiring retention and supervision, malicious prosecution and others that may become apparent upon discovery or other subsequent events. Defendants' wrongs against Plaintiff occurred continually since the mest on August 26, 2009 and ended when the charges against Plaintiff were dropped on March 26, 2010. In the interim. Plaintiff suffered inordinately and has accrued damages as a result. Plaintiff alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and malicious prosecution all based on the wrongful arrest, incarceration and ongoing wrongful criminal proceedings that were pursued against him. In summary, Plaintiff was picked up by police on August 26, 2009 because he was carrying medical cannabis. Plaintiff showed arresting officers multiple verifications ofbis current recommendation for medical cannabis including the state issued identification card whic
does reflect strict compliance with The

8 9 10
11

12
13

14
15

16
17

18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26

27
28

Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and subsequent
TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIC!N 910

NOTICE

PURSUANT

-1-

1

legislation in 2003 that allowed for a state issued identification card. The purpose of the state issued identification card is to protect medical cannabis patients from the exact harms suffered by Plaintiff. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7(c}, Plaintiff does have and did show arresting authorities his medical cannabis state issued identification card. Defendants tried to prosecute Plaintiff and held him in jail for weeks, causing him to suffer serious and life threatening health conditions. Defendants tried to punish Plaintiff under Health and Safety Code Sections 11359 and 11360 which prohibit transportation and sale of marijuana. The prosecution pursuant
to

2
3 4

5
6
1

8 9

these two code sections was in complete contravention

10
11

of the law. Health and Safety Code Section 11362.765 specifically prohibits prosecution of Health and Safety Code Sections 11359 and 11360 for patients who
catty

12 13 14 15 16

the state medical

cannabis patient identification card. Thus, Defendants did wrongfully arrest, seize, incarcerate and prosecute Plaintiff without probable cause or any legitimate reason. Plaintiff alleges negligent hiring retention and supervision against all Defendants for failing at every opportunity to comply with California's Health and Safety Code. What is worse, Defendants acted in concert to enable and exacerbate illegal actions against Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges all Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress when they knowingly deprived Plaintiff of his rights under California law and pursuant to the Constitutions of1he United States
and California. Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants engaged in defamation when they did deliberately ignore the truth and spread lies about him, verbally and in writing, which does

17

1B
19 20

21
22

23
24 25

continue to hurt his career. Regarding false imprisonment,. Plaintiff was held for three weeks in prison without cause.
1/ II

26
21

28
NOTICE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE Sl!:crJON 910

-3-

1

Defendants' actions against Plaintiff also violate California case law pursuant to City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court; and People v. Kelly. [Garden Grove (2007) l57 Cal.AppA1h 355; Kelly (2010) 47 CalA 1008]. In Garden Grove; the court ordered the Garden Grove Police Department to return a medical cannabis patiem's marijuana and held that the state did not have
1h

2 3
4

6
7

the power to punish Plaintiff considc:;:ring status as a medical cannabis patient. In Kelly, the his court held that there is an immWlity defense created by the state identification card system that is designed to protect against unnecessary arrest. And, Defelldants failed to comply with the Supreme Court of California e~ePe~]Jle v. Mower. [(,4002)28 Cal.4th 457]. ln MQ'Wer~the
Court held that medical cannamspatients have the
S8Q1~

s
9

10 11 12
13

rights to. have cannabis

as to any other

legally prescribed drug, and can request a dismissal of criminal charges. Plaintiff tried again and again to gel the charges. against him dismissed, and even protest~ his not-guilty pleadings because he accurately believed he had complete immunity. . Plaintiff's claim will not be. alimlteddvii case.

14

15 16

17
19 19 20 21

DATED~ September 6, 2010

LAWOFFICE$

BYM~~
hCOl~:PAU@· .

A#omey;$ fQf RlCHt\RO

.nlU)MFIELD

22
23 24 25
26 27
28

NOTICEPUJ\SUANT

TQ GOVERNMENT

CODE8ECTION.!UO

-4-

EXHIBITB

UpportUllity. Diversity. Service.

COUNTY

HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

WR

Employment • Classification • Employee Relations • EEO • Training • Risk Management

OF SONOMA

September 13, 2010

'. RECEIVED SEP t420m

Law Offices Of Shimea Anderson And Arcolina Panto 385 Grand Avenue #201 Oakland, CA 94610

Subject:

Richard Brumfield v. County of Sonoma Date of Incident: 8/26/2009 . Claim Number:· GC021825

Dear Mr. Panto: This letter acknowledges receipt of the claim filed with the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on September 9, 2010 regarding the incident identified above. We are in the process of conducting an investigation into this matter. We will advise you of our findings as soon as our investigation has been completed. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at (707) 565-2885. Sincerely,

Craig Schweikhard Liability Analyst CS/kc

COUHTY

OP

________ ~

575 Administration Drive, Suite 116B • Santa Rosa, CA 95403 • Telephone (707) 565-2331 • Fax (70n 565-3770·

~~~~~~~==~~~==~==~--roNOMA
www.sonoma-wunty.org

EXHIBITC

CITY OF PETALUMA
POST OFFICE :sOX PET ALUMA,

61

CA 94953~0061

Pamela TorJiatt Mayor Teresa Barrett David Glass MikeHllnis Mike Healy David Rabbit Tiffany Renee
Coullcillflemben

November 3,2010

Richard Brumfield c/o Law Offices of Anderson and Panto Attention: Arcolina Panto 385 Grand Avenue, Suite 201

Oakland, CA 94610 Re: Personal Injury Claim

File No: 028-1860-000 Date of Loss: August 26, 2009

Dear Mr. Brumfield:
City Managel"s Office

I I English Street Petaluma, CA 94952
Phone(707) 778-4345 Fax(707) 77&-4419

After careful consideration and review by our City Attorney's office of your letter dated October 7, 2010, 1am writing to inform you that we will not be accepting your request for late claim relief as it is not presented properly and is untimely,

E-Mail citymgr@ci.petaluma.ca.us
Humlln Resoul'ces Pholle (707) 778-4534 Fax(707) 778-4539 .Humall~OUrce3@ ci.petaluma.ca.1U Information Technology Phone(707)778~17 Fax (707) 776-3623

A pending criminal action does not extend the time for filing of the claim. California Government Code Section 945.3 explicitly states: "Nothing in thisection shall prohibit the filing of claim with the board of a public entity, and this section shall not extend the time within which a claim is required to be presented pursuant to Section 911.2". In other words, your claim had to have been filed within 6 months of the incident of August 26,2009; or by February 27, 2010. Additionally Government Code Section 911.4(b) which governs request for late claim relief, requires the application for late claim relief'be presented", ..within a time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action", Here we are clearly well past both the six month and one year marks. As such your claim and request for late claim relief are time barred.

E·Mail

E·Mail it@ci.petaluma.ca.us Risk Management 11 English SIRet
Petaluma, CA 94952 Phone (707) 776-3695 Fax. (707) 776-3697

E-Mail riskmgt@Ci.petaluma.ca.us

(Zqtf2~7""-:-Risk Manager

707-776-3695

rblanquie@ci.petaluma.ca.us

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful