ATTACHMENT A Claimants object to your Claim Form because it requires information which constitutes an invasion of the Claimants privacy.

Moreover, the information is not required to be provided by the Claimants under California Government Code Section 910. For example, California Government Code Section 910 does not require that the Claimants provide their home and work numbers, drivers license number, date of birth, auto insurance name and policy number, a diagram of the location of the incident, any statements by the Claimants as to their reasons for believing the City is liable for your damages, or a description of all damages which you believe you have incurred as a result of the incident. For the purposes of this document CLAIMANTS means the individual claimant, claimants plural, and all plaintiffs and parties in interest represented by the LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BURRIS. Therefore, Claimants submit the following information in support of their Claim pursuant to Government Code Section 910: CLAIMANTS NAME: Refugio and Elvira Nieto ADDRESS TO WHICH ALL NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS, Airport Corporate Centre, 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120, Oakland, CA 94621 CLAIMANTS TELEPHONE NUMBER: C/O LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ. (510) 839-5200 PLEASE NOTE: COUNSEL REPRESENTS CLAIMANTS AND ALL CONTACT SHOULD BE MADE WITH THEIR ATTORNEY ONLY. DATE AND TIME OF INCIDENT: March 21, 2014 at approximately 7:00 p.m. LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Bernal Heights Park in the City of San Francisco, California. THE FOLLOWING PROVIDES A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDEBTEDNESS, OBLIGATION, INJURY, DAMAGES OR LOSS INCURRED SO FAR AS IT MAY BE KNOWN AT THE TIME OF PRESENTATION OF THE CLAIM AND THE NAME OR NAMES OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES CAUSING THE INJURY, DAMAGES, OR LOSS, IF KNOWN: [Per Government Code Section 910]. DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT: This claim arises out of an incident that took place on Friday, March 21, 2014 at approximately 7:00 p.m. at Bernal Heights Park in the City of San Francisco, California wherein Decedent, Alejandro Nieto was unlawfully shot and killed by several yet to be identified San Francisco Police Officers. Mr. Nieto began that Friday evening at the home he shared with his mother, father and younger brother. He left the family home intent on getting some food before he went to work as a security guard at a nearby restaurant. To that end, Mr. Nieto bought a burrito and went to

Bernal Heights Park to enjoy his meal and the view of the City and neighborhood he loved. Once he arrived at the Park he found a bench and began eating his meal. Witnesses recount seeing Mr. Nieto at the Park sitting alone on a bench and peacefully enjoying his meal. A yet to be identified person called 911 and erroneously reported Mr. Nieto as having a black gun on his hip. The caller mistook the black and yellow taser Mr. Nieto lawfully carried for use on his security job for a gun. However, the caller did not claim Mr. Nieto was bothering anyone or making any type of threatening gestures with the reported gun. Nevertheless, several SFPD Officers converged on the Park determined to investigate the call and confront the reported gunman. An unknown number of San Francisco Police Officers approached and confronted Mr. Nieto who was standing approximately 75 feet away. The Officers incorrectly presumed Mr. Nieto was armed with a gun and fired multiple shots at him. Witness accounts and audio recordings indicate the Officers initially fired two or three shots, paused and then fired several more shots in rapid succession. Mr. Nieto was struck at least 10 times including once in the forehead and nine other places across his body leaving the 28 year-old mortally wounded. For their part, SFPD claims Mr. Nieto refused to comply with Officers requests for him to show them his hands and instead pointed the taser at them. There are serious concerns as to how professionally well trained police officers could mistake a black and yellow taser for handgun in broad daylight. Moreover, many people that knew Mr. Nieto, both personally and professionally, describe the alleged behavior as being out of character for the practicing Buddhist and San Francisco Probation Department intern who had never been arrested in his life. In the wake of Alejandros death, the San Francisco Police Department has engaged in heavy-handed tactics that have intimidated and further harmed his family. For example, despite this incident occurring at 7 p.m. on Friday, no one contacted the family until the following day. Mr. Nietos parents were in shock and disbelief when after being questioned in their home for over 30 minutes, SFPD Investigators finally told them that their son was dead. The Officers then asked Mr. Nietos parents for permission to search his room while the grieving parents were in the throes of dealing with the emotions surrounding the untimely death of their oldest son and family breadwinner. Unfortunately, SFPD did not relent in its quest to further disrupt the familys life. Mr. Nieto did not drive to the Park on the day of the incident and his car was lawfully parked at his home. Nevertheless, SFPD unlawfully towed, impounded and searched Mr. Nietos car without permission or a search warrant. Adding insult to injury, SFPD significantly damaged the car by removing items from it and physically taking apart the cars interior. Mr. Nieto's car was only returned after San Francisco Supervisor David Campos graciously came to the Nieto familys aid and contacted the Police Department on their behalf. The car, similar to the Nieto family, remains torn apart and damaged.

DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM: Claimants allege that the conduct of individual employees, agents, and/or servants of the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) constitute violations of State law which may include, but are not limited to, wrongful death, assault, battery, false arrest, negligence and takings. Claimants allege those individual employees, agents and/or servants of CCSF are responsible for Claimants injuries, acts and/or omissions committed within the course or scope of employment under the theory of respondeat superior. Respondeat superior liability includes, but is not limited to, negligent training, supervision, control and/or discipline. Individual employees, agents, and/or servants of CCSF include, but are not limited to, the Chief of Police or an individual of comparable title, in charge of law enforcement for SFPD, and DOES 1-100, and/or each of them, individually and/or while acting in concert with one another. Claimants will allege other causes of action subject to continuing discovery. DESCRIBE INJURY OR DAMAGE: Claimants have, or may have in the future, claims for general damages including, but not limited to, claims for pain, suffering, loss of comfort, society and emotional distress in amounts to be determined according to proof. Claimants may have and/or may continue to have in the future, claims for special damages, including, but not limited to, claims for medical and related expenses, burial expenses, lost financial support, lost wages and damage to property and/or other special damages in amounts to be determined according to proof. Claimants may have, and/or may continue to have in the future, damages for permanent mental injuries, permanent mental scarring and/or other psychological disabilities in an amount according to proof. NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) BELIEVED TO HAVE CAUSED INJURY OR DAMAGE: See description of the incident, above. DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE: Claimants do hereby demand that City and County of San Francisco including, but not limited to the San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco District Attorneys Office, San Francisco Sheriffs Department and San Francisco Medical Examiners Office their employees, agents, servants and/or attorneys, maintain and preserve all evidence, documents and tangible materials which relate in any manner whatsoever to the subject matter of this Claim, including until the completion of any and all civil and/or criminal litigation arising from the events which
3

are the subject matter of this Claim. This demand for preservation of evidence includes, but is not limited to, a demand that all public safety entities preserve all tapes, logs and/or other tangible materials of any kind until the completion of any and all civil and criminal litigation arising from the subject matter of this claim. AMOUNT OF CLAIM: This claim is in excess of $25,000. Jurisdiction is designated as unlimited and jurisdiction would be in the Superior Court of the State of California for San Francisco. DATED: April 14, 2014

ADANTE D. POINTER Attorney At Law THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS