Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 1 of 15

Sharon Djemal (SBN 208461)

1
EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER
2 1950 University Avenue, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94704
3 Telephone: (510) 269-6612
Facsimile: (510) 849-1536
4
Email: sdjemal@ebclc.org
5
Dan Siegel (SBN 54600)
6 EmilyRose Johns (SBN 294319)
7
SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA
475 14th Street, Suite 500
8 Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 839-1200
9 Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
10
Email: danmsiegel@gmail.com; emilyrose@siegelyee.com

11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

KATHERINE DE LA RIVA and
12
WILLIAM ALLAN
13

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15

16

17 KATHERINE DE LA RIVA and Case No.: 3:19-cv-6106

WILLIAM ALLAN,
18
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
19 Plaintiffs, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
DAMAGES
20 v.
Civil Rights
21
CITY OF OAKLAND,
22 KALEO ALBINO, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PATRICK GONZALES, and
23 SEAN ALEXANDER MARINE SERVICES
24
INC.,

25 Defendants.
26
Plaintiffs Katherine De la Riva and William Allan allege as follows:
27

28

-1-
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.
 Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 2 of 15

1 INTRODUCTION
2 1. On or about October 3, 2018, with no authority, insufficient notice, and no
3 opportunity for contestation, the Marine Unit of the City of Oakland’s police department and
4 Sean Alexander Marine Services Inc. removed Katherine De la Riva’s and William Allan’s
5 house boats from the Jack London Aquatic Center’s estuary and destroyed them.
6 2. These vessels were plaintiffs’ homes and contained possessions with sentimental
7 and monetary value. Both plaintiffs are now homeless as a result of this unlawful disposal of
8 their boats, which served as their only homes, and both plaintiffs suffer the irrevocable loss of
9 the majority of their earthly possessions.
10 3. This taking and destruction of plaintiffs’ homes violated their federal
11 constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable seizure, from deprivation of property without
12 due process of law, and from taking of property without just compensation. It also violates
13 statutory and common law. Absent court intervention, defendants will continue to improperly
14 remove vessels from Oakland waterways without due process or just compensation.
15 4. Plaintiffs are seeking damages for the loss of their homes and personal
16 belongings, injunctive relief to prevent defendants from taking and destroying property without
17 following lawful procedures, and a declaratory judgment that the practices and conduct of
18 defendants as alleged herein are unlawful under state and federal law.
19 PARTIES
20 5. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff Katherine De la Riva, owned a 1979
21 Nautaline houseboat bearing hull identification number NTA431960478 and registered with the
22 State of California Department of Motor Vehicles under vessel registration number CF1197GL.
23 This vessel was her sole home and place of residence for over three years.
24 6. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff William Allan, age 73, owned a 1979 O’Day
25 sailboat bearing hull identification XDYS1025M79H and registered with the State of California
26 Department of Motor Vehicles under vessel registration number CF5590GP. This vessel was his
27 home.
28

-2-
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.
 Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 3 of 15

1 7. Within the year prior to the commencement of this action, plaintiffs Katherine De
2 la Riva and William Allan were residents of the City of Oakland and paid taxes funding the City
3 of Oakland and the State of California.
4 8. At all times relevant hereto, defendant City of Oakland was a municipal
5 corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Under its
6 authority, defendant City of Oakland operates the Oakland Police Department and employs its
7 officers.
8 9. At all times relevant hereto, defendant Kaleo Albino was an Officer for defendant
9 City of Oakland’s police department. He is sued in his individual and official capacity.
10 10. At all times relevant hereto, defendant Patrick Gonzales was a Sergeant for
11 defendant City of Oakland’s police department. He is sued in his individual and official capacity.
12 11. At all times relevant hereto, defendant Sean Alexander Marine Services Inc.
13 (“Sean Alexander”) is a corporation organized the laws of the State of California.
14 JURISDICTION
15 12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
16 §§ 1331 and 1367, as the claims alleged herein arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or are so related the
17 claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that they form part of the same case or controversy.
18 13. The state law claims in this action are so related to the claims in the action within
19 the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form part of the same case or controversy under
20 Article III of the United States Constitution. The Court’s jurisdiction over these claims is
21 invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
22 VENUE
23 14. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because defendants
24 conduct business in this District and the actions giving rise to this suit occurred within this
25 District.
26 STATEMENT OF FACTS
27 15. On or about October 2, 2018, defendants seized boats belonging to Katherine De
28 la Riva and William Allan along with other vessels docked at the Jack London Aquatic Center

-3-
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.
 Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 4 of 15

1 (“Aquatic Center”). Ms. De la Riva’s houseboat was towed away and reportedly destroyed. Mr.
2 Allan’s sailboat was crushed on site.
3 16. These vessels were plaintiffs’ homes and contained nearly all of their personal
4 possessions. Plaintiffs were not given notice that their homes and possessions would be
5 permanently taken or destroyed by the City of Oakland and its agents.
6 17. Moreover, upon information and belief, defendants continue to pursue their
7 unreasonable policy of seizing vessels and destroying them without proper notice or a
8 meaningful opportunity for residents to retrieve their possessions or homes.
9 18. Plaintiff Katherine De la Riva inherited a 1979 Nautaline houseboat from her
10 father in 2016. By October 2018, she had been living on it full-time for several years. The boat
11 was Ms. De la Riva’s home and contained nearly all of her possessions.
12 19. In the summer of 2017, Ms. De la Riva first encountered defendant Officer Kaleo
13 Albino from Oakland’s Police Department (“OPD”). Ms. De la Riva docked her vessel at the
14 Oakland Marina, where she maintained a liveaboard permit. While in uniform, Officer Albino
15 approached Ms. De la Riva at her houseboat and asked to look inside. Officer Albino stated that
16 the boat was no longer hers and that he was going to purchase the boat.
17 20. Ms. De la Riva’s houseboat was scheduled for a lien sale, but she gathered funds
18 to pay off the lien on her boat and continued to be the registered owner.
19 21. During the latter part of 2017, Ms. De la Riva moved her boat to several locations
20 around the San Francisco Bay Area. In January 2018, her houseboat’s motor broke down, and the
21 Coast Guard towed her boat to the estuary at the Aquatic Center.
22 22. Throughout her stay at the Aquatic Center, Ms. De la Riva communicated with
23 Officer Albino. Ms. De la Riva explained to Officer Albino that she was actively seeking another
24 location for her boat.
25 23. In September 2018, Ms. De la Riva found a space on a nearby dock and paid to
26 secure the spot.
27

28

-4-
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.
 Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 5 of 15

1 24. Around the end of September 2018, a tag was placed on Ms. De la Riva’s boat as
2 well as several other boats in the estuary. The tag informed boat owners that they had 72 hours to
3 move their vessels from the estuary. The red tag did not say that vessels would be destroyed.
4 25. Ms. De la Riva informed Officer Albino of her plans to move the houseboat to the
5 new dock space. Ms. De la Riva asked for a few days to complete the purchase and installation
6 of her motor so she could move her vessel. Officer Albino told Ms. De la Riva that she had until
7 October 5, 2018, to move her vessel. Ms. De la Riva purchased a motor and prepared to install it.
8 26. On October 2, 2018, without warning or lawful cause to do so, Officer Albino and
9 several other OPD officers searched Ms. De la Riva’s vessel and seized it. Ms. De la Riva
10 begged the officers not to take her boat. Instead of giving her an opportunity to install her new
11 motor and move the boat, as she had planned to do that day, the officers gave Ms. De la Riva a
12 few minutes to grab belongings from her houseboat before towing it to the OPD pier.
13 27. Ms. De la Riva immediately went to the Police Department, where she spoke with
14 defendant Sergeant Patrick Gonzales. Sergeant Gonzales told Ms. De la Riva to call him back the
15 next day. When she called Sergeant Gonzales the following day, he told her to meet him at the
16 OPD pier. Ms. De la Riva believed that she would then be given an opportunity to get her boat
17 back. Instead, when Ms. De la Riva went to the OPD pier on the morning of October 3, 2018,
18 Sergeant Gonzales gave her only ten minutes to gather her possessions before the Marine Unit
19 moved her home yet again.
20 28. OPD then towed Ms. De la Riva’s boat back to the Aquatic Center where OPD
21 and defendant Sean Alexander Marine Services were conducting a boat-clearing operation. Ms.
22 De la Riva followed her boat to the Aquatic Center and witnessed Sean Alexander crush at least
23 five vessels.
24 29. OPD gave Ms. De la Riva Sean Alexander’s phone number. When she called, the
25 person she spoke to on the phone said it was a “police matter” and hung up.
26 30. An October 2018 invoice from Sean Alexander lists Ms. De la Riva’s houseboat
27 as one of six vessels they destroyed pursuant to their contract with OPD.
28

-5-
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.
 Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 6 of 15

1 31. Ms. De la Riva was offered no opportunity to dispute the removal of her
2 houseboat, no opportunity to retrieve it, and no information about how or whether she could
3 retrieve the belongings she was forced to leave on board.
4 32. Officer Albino and Sergeant Gonzales both gave Ms. De la Riva mere minutes to
5 retrieve items from her residence. Ms. De la Riva was forced to leave behind the bulk of her
6 personal belongings, including her appliances, her grandmother’s ashes, her father’s watch
7 collection, and other irreplaceable family heirlooms.
8 33. As a result of OPD’s unlawful seizure of her houseboat, Ms. De la Riva, age 41, is
9 homeless. She has been suffering from depression and severe emotional distress since the loss of
10 her home and nearly all of her worldly belongings.
11 34. In April 2018, Mr. Allan purchased a 1979 O’Day sailboat in Emeryville with the
12 intention of making it his permanent home.
13 35. Mr. Allan’s sailboat was fully operable and in good condition. He planned on
14 making upgrades and repairs in the Bay Area before moving the vessel to Half Moon Bay. A few
15 weeks after purchasing the boat, Mr. Allan docked it in the Aquatic Center’s estuary.
16 36. Around mid-September 2018, Mr. Allan noticed a sticker from the City posted on
17 his vessel.
18 37. Mr. Allan called OPD and spoke with Officer Albino. Mr. Allan informed Officer
19 Albino about his plans to temporarily dock his boat at the Aquatic Center. Officer Albino did not
20 express disapproval of Mr. Allan’s plans, nor did he inform Mr. Allan that his vessel was subject
21 to removal.
22 38. On October 3, 2018, with no explanation and insufficient notice, the Marine Unit
23 of OPD and Sean Alexander removed Mr. Allan’s sailboat from the Aquatic Center and
24 immediately destroyed the entire vessel, including all personal belongings on board.
25 39. OPD hired Sean Alexander to crush his boat along with several others on the dock
26 that day.
27 40. Mr. Allan was not afforded any opportunity to collect his belongings, move the
28 vessel, or dispute its removal and destruction before Sean Alexander crushed the boat.

-6-
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.
 Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 7 of 15

1 41. When Mr. Allan called OPD, the person he spoke with told him that his sailboat
2 had been destroyed as a “derelict vessel.” His vessel was not derelict.
3 42. OPD gave Mr. Allan the phone number for Sean Alexander. Mr. Allan called to
4 get information about how he could, at the very least, retrieve the personal belongings that were
5 stored on the boat. Sean Alexander did not give Mr. Allan any information. The person he spoke
6 with on the phone simply said it was a “legal matter.”
7 43. Mr. Allan invested time, labor, and financial resources into the sailboat that was
8 his permanent home. His home was destroyed along with all the personal belonging he kept on
9 board. As a result of OPD’s actions, Mr. Allan, age 73, is homeless.
10 44. In November 2017, Officer Albino applied for an Abandoned Watercraft and
11 Abatement Fund grant. California issued a grant of $24,000 to OPD in May 2018.
12 45. The grant is meant to provide funding for the abatement, removal, storage, and
13 disposal of abandoned or surrendered recreational vessels. As part of the grant, OPD certified
14 that it would comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the State of California, including
15 the California Harbor and Navigation Code.
16 46. OPD hired Sean Alexander to conduct an estuary cleanup on October 3, 2018. A
17 few days later, Sean Alexander sent an invoice to OPD for their removal services.
18 47. Sean Alexander removed and crushed vessels that were in the Aquatic Center’s
19 estuary, including plaintiffs’ homes.
20 48. Defendants summarily removed and destroyed vessels without lawful authority
21 and without giving plaintiffs proper notice or opportunity to contest the seizure of their property.
22 49. Upon information and belief, defendants have engaged in a second boat-clearing
23 operation in which they removed and crushed boats without lawful authority and without
24 following proper procedures.
25 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
26 50. Plaintiffs each filed a California Government Tort Claims Act claim regarding the
27 matters asserted herein with the City of Oakland pursuant to California Government Code
28

-7-
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.
 Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 8 of 15

1 Section 910 et seq. on March 25, 2019. The City of Oakland denied their claim on March 28,
2 2019.
3 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO BE SECURE FROM UNREASONABLE SEIZURES
5 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Fourth Amendment
6
(Asserted Against All Defendants)

7 51. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above allegations.

8 52. Defendant City of Oakland and defendant Sean Alexander Marine Services,
9 acting under the color of state law in concert with the City of Oakland, engaged in unreasonable
10 seizures of plaintiffs’ property.
11 53. Defendant Sean Alexander Marine Services committed acts in furtherance of their
12 agreement with Defendant City of Oakland.
13 54. Defendants violated plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional right to be secure
14 from unreasonable seizures of their property by towing and destroying plaintiffs’ vessels and
15 belongings without a reasonable or lawful cause.
16 55. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the defendants have been intentional in
17 seizing and destroying plaintiffs’ property without reasonable or lawful cause and/or are
18 deliberately indifferent to the risk that plaintiffs’ property would be seized without reasonable or
19 lawful cause.
20 56. Upon information and belief, defendants continue to pursue its policy of removing
21 boats from Oakland waterways without ensuring that lawful procedures are followed.
22 57. As a direct and proximate consequence of the defendants’ acts, plaintiffs have
23 suffered and will continue to suffer from the seizure and destruction of their personal property,
24 and are entitled to compensatory relief.
25 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW
26 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Fourteenth Amendment
(Asserted Against All Defendants)
27

28 58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above allegations.

-8-
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.
 Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 9 of 15

1 59. Defendant City of Oakland and defendant Sean Alexander Marine Services,
2 acting under the color of state law in concert with the City of Oakland, engaged in the seizure of
3 plaintiffs’ property without due process of law.
4 60. Defendant Sean Alexander committed acts in furtherance of their agreement with
5 Defendant City of Oakland.
6 61. Defendants owe plaintiffs a duty under the United States Constitution to not
7 deprive plaintiffs of their property without due process of law.
8 62. Defendants’ practices and conduct fail to follow California statutes outlining the
9 procedure for impounding or removing a vessel. Specifically, defendants’ towing and destruction
10 of boats violates California Vehicle Code §§ 9872.1 and 9864 and California Harbor and
11 Navigation Code §§ 523, 526, and 551.
12 63. Defendants’ towing and destruction of boats violates California Vehicle Code §§
13 9872.1 and 9864 and California Harbor and Navigation Code §§ 523, 526, and 551, which set
14 out the legal requirements for impoundment and disposal of a vessel.
15 64. California Vehicle Code § 9872.1 does not authorize the impoundment of vessels
16 on which the hull identification number is visibly posted. It also dictates that, after a vessel is
17 impounded, a “notice of impoundment” must be issued to the person from which the vessel was
18 seized and a hearing must take place regarding the disposition of the vessel.
19 65. California Vehicle Code § 9864 requires that a thirty-day investigation take place
20 before a wrecked, dismantled, destroyed, or abandoned vessel is disposed of.
21 66. California Harbor and Navigation Code § 523, which applies to vessels removed
22 from a public waterway for obstructing traffic or creating a public safety or environmental
23 hazard, does not permit the destruction of vessels. It authorizes only the removal and storage of
24 vessels.
25 67. California Harbor and Navigation Code § 526 requires that property seized as
26 “abandoned” under California Harbor and Navigation Code § 522 be held for fifteen days after
27 mailing a notice of the removal to the property’s registered owner.
28

-9-
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.
 Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 10 of 15

1 68. California Harbor and Navigation Code § 551 requires that property seized as
2 “marine debris” under California Harbor and Navigation Code § 550 be stored for ten days.
3 69. Defendants seized and destroyed Plaintiffs vessels’ and personal possessions
4 without lawful authority and without following any of the procedures required by state law and
5 by the terms of the State of California’s grant.
6 70. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants have removed and destroyed
7 boats since the October 3, 2018 incident. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants are
8 likely to continue to unlawfully remove and destroy boats from Oakland’s waterways.
9 71. Defendants did not follow lawful procedures. Instead, under the color of law,
10 defendants removed and destroyed plaintiffs’ homes and property without notice and an
11 opportunity to be heard. Defendants’ practices and conduct have violated plaintiffs’ right to due
12 process of law.
13 72. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the defendants have been intentional in
14 seizing and destroying plaintiffs’ property without due process of law and/or have been
15 deliberately indifferent to the likely outcome that plaintiffs’ property would be seized and
16 destroyed without due process of law.
17 73. Upon information and belief, defendants continue to pursue their policy of
18 removing boats from Oakland waterways without ensuring that lawful procedures are followed.
19 74. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of the defendants, plaintiffs
20 have suffered and continue to suffer from the seizure and destruction of their homes and other
21 personal property, and thus are entitled to compensatory relief.
22 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF THE TAKINGS CLAUSE
23
42 U.S.C. § 1983; Fifth Amendment
24 (Asserted Against All Defendants)

25 75. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above allegations.

26 76. Acting under the color of law, defendants have violated the Takings Clause of the
27 Constitution of the United States by taking plaintiffs’ homes and personal property without
28 public purpose and without paying just compensation.

- 10 -
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.
 Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 11 of 15

1 77. As a result, plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer the loss of their
2 property without compensation, and thus are entitled to compensatory relief.
3 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW
4 Cal. Constitution Article 1, § 7(a)
5
(Asserted Against All Defendants)
78. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above allegations.
6
79. Defendants seized plaintiffs’ property without reasonable or legal cause to do so
7
and destroyed it without affording plaintiffs any notice or opportunity to be heard.
8
80. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer from the seizure and destruction of
9
their homes and other personal property, and thus are entitled to compensatory relief.
10
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11
VIOLATION OF THE BANE ACT
12 Cal. Civ. Code. § 52.1
(Asserted Against All Defendants)
13
81. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above allegations.
14
82. Defendants interfered by threats, intimidation, or coercion with the rights of
15
plaintiffs, secured by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
16
California.
17
83. Defendants acted with malice and oppression and the intent to deprive and did
18
deprive plaintiffs of their rights to be free from unlawful seizure of their property through use of
19
threats, intimidation, or coercion.
20
84. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer from the seizure and destruction of
21
their homes and other personal property, and thus are entitled to compensatory relief.
22
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23
TAXPAYER ACTION
24 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 526A
(Asserted Against the City of Oakland)
25
85. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above allegations.
26
86. Defendants are illegally expending public funds by performing their duties in
27
violation of the constitutional and statutory provisions described above.
28

- 11 -
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.
 Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 12 of 15

1 87. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer from the seizure and destruction of
2 their homes and other personal property, and thus are entitled to injunctive, declaratory, and
3 compensatory relief.
4 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNFAIR COMPETITION
5 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200
6
(Asserted Against Sean Alexander Marine Services Inc.)

7 88. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above allegations.

8 89. California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. prohibits unfair
9 competition, including any unlawful or unfair business act or practice.
10 90. Sean Alexander engaged in an unlawful business practice when it seized and
11 destroyed plaintiffs’ vessels, along with all property on board the vessels, precluding the
12 possibility of providing plaintiffs with sufficient notice or allowing plaintiffs any opportunity to
13 dispute the seizure of their vessels.
14 91. This business practice violated the constitutional provisions cited above, as well
15 as California Vehicle Code §§ 9872.1 and 9864 and California Harbor and Navigation Code §§
16 523, 526, and 551.
17 92. Defendants’ towing and destruction of boats violates California Vehicle Code §§
18 9872.1 and 9864 and California Harbor and Navigation Code §§ 523, 526, and 551, which set
19 out the legal requirements for impoundment and disposal of a vessel.
20 93. California Vehicle Code § 9872.1 does not authorize the impoundment of vessels
21 on which the hull identification number is visibly posted. It also dictates that, after a vessel is
22 impounded, a “notice of impoundment” must be issued to the person from which the vessel was
23 seized and a hearing must take place regarding the disposition of the vessel.
24 94. California Vehicle Code § 9864 requires that a thirty-day investigation take place
25 before a wrecked, dismantled, destroyed, or abandoned vessel is disposed of.
26 95. California Harbor and Navigation Code § 523, which applies to vessels removed
27 from a public waterway for obstructing traffic or creating a public safety or environmental
28

- 12 -
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.
 Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 13 of 15

1 hazard, does not permit the destruction of vessels. It authorizes only the removal and storage of
2 vessels.
3 96. California Harbor and Navigation Code § 526 requires that property seized as
4 “abandoned” under California Harbor and Navigation Code § 522 be held for fifteen days after
5 mailing a notice of the removal to the property’s registered owner.
6 97. California Harbor and Navigation Code § 551 requires that property seized as
7 “marine debris” under California Harbor and Navigation Code § 550 be stored for ten days.
8 98. Defendants seized and destroyed plaintiffs vessels’ and personal possessions
9 without following any of the procedures required by state law and by the terms of the State of
10 California’s grant.
11 99. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants have removed and destroyed
12 boats again since the October 3, 2018 incident. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that
13 Defendants are likely to continue to unlawfully remove and destroy boats from Oakland’s
14 waterways.
15 100. As a result of Sean Alexander’s unlawful business practice in violation of the
16 constitutional and statutory provisions cited above, plaintiffs lost property and money, including
17 but not limited to the vessels and belongings that Sean Alexander destroyed.
18 101. The destruction of plaintiffs’ vessels and belongings without sufficient notice or
19 an opportunity to dispute the seizure also constitutes an unfair business practice, because the
20 harm to victims that results from this practice outweighs its utility to the business and the
21 practice offends public policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and
22 substantially injurious to consumers.
23 102. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17203, plaintiffs are
24 entitled to restitution of all funds obtained by Sean Alexander by reason of and through the use
25 of the unlawful and unfair business practice.
26 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CONVERSION
27 (Asserted Against All Defendants)
28
103. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above allegations.

- 13 -
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.
 Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 14 of 15

1 104. Plaintiffs were at all times mentioned herein the owners of the property seized and
2 destroyed by the City of Oakland and Sean Alexander Marine Services. The property seized and
3 destroyed includes the vessels that plaintiffs called home and all of the belongings that were on
4 board these vessels, including appliances, tool sets, and family heirlooms.
5 105. Defendants the City of Oakland and Sean Alexander Marine Services interfered
6 with plaintiffs’ possession of their property by destroying the property without plaintiffs’
7 consent.
8 106. As a direct and proximate consequence of the City of Oakland and Sean
9 Alexander Marine Services’ acts, plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer from the seizure
10 and destruction of their homes and personal property and are thus entitled to compensatory relief.
11 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
12 (Asserted Against All Defendants)
13
107. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above allegations.
14
108. Defendants the City of Oakland, Kaleo Albino, Patrick Gonzales, and Sean
15
Alexander Marine Services owed plaintiffs a duty of care to not seize and destroy their property
16
without lawful authority to do so.
17
109. Defendants knew or should have known that failing to follow the law when taking
18
and destroying vessels would cause plaintiffs to suffer harm from the loss of their personal
19
property.
20
110. Defendants the City of Oakland, Kaleo Albino, Patrick Gonzales, and Sean
21
Alexander Marine Services breached their duty of care by seizing and destroying plaintiffs’
22
property without having lawful authority to do so and without following lawful procedures.
23
111. As a result of defendants’ negligent removal and destruction of their property,
24
plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer from the seizure and destruction of their homes and
25
personal property and are thus entitled to compensatory relief.
26
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
27
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray as follows:
28

- 14 -
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.
 Case 4:19-cv-06106-JSW Document 1 Filed 09/26/19 Page 15 of 15

1 a. that this Court issue a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction enjoining
2 and restraining Defendants from continuing or repeating the unlawful practices and
3 conduct complained of herein;
4 b. that this Court issue a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants from
5 continuing or repeating the unlawful practices and conduct complained of herein;
6 c. that this Court issue an injunction ordering Defendants to return Ms. De la Riva’s
7 Nautaline houseboat to her possession if the vessel has not been destroyed.
8 d. for declaratory judgment that Defendants’ practices and conduct violate the constitutional
9 and statutory provisions cited above;
10 e. for damages in an amount according to proof at time of trial;
11 f. for attorney’s fees as provided by law;
12 g. for costs of suit; and
13 h. for any such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
14

15 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

16 Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

17

18 Dated: September 27, 2019 EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER

19
By: /S/ Sharon Djemal
________________
20
Sharon Djemal
21 Attorney for Plaintiffs
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 15 -
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
De la Riva v. City of Oakland, Case No.