Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES
)
POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF CHARLIE
)
BECK, in his individual and official capacities, )
CHAND SYED, in his individual capacity,
)
FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, in his individual
)
capacity, DANIEL TORRES, in his individual
)
capacity, JOSHUA VOLASGIS, in his
)
individual capacity, and DOES 1 - 20, inclusive, )
)
Defendants.
)
HELEINE TCHAYOU, ISAAC KEUNANG,
LINE MARQUISE FOMING, ESTATE OF
CHARLY LEUNDEU KEUNANG,
Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
1.
Wrongful Death
2.
Survivorship
3.
4.
5.
27
28
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
I.
1.
INTRODUCTION
On March 1, 2015, two officers and a sergeant of the Los Angeles Police Department
fired six bullets, several at point blank range and four of them lethal, into unarmed Charly Leundeu
Keunang (Mr. Keunang), killing him. Mr. Keunang, a native of Cameroon, West Africa, was at the
time 43 years old, homeless, and presumed to be mentally ill. A religious man, at the time of the killing
Mr. Keunang had made his home in a tent underneath a large cross displayed on a church located in the
heart of skid row in downtown Los Angeles. Even though Mr. Keunang had only lived on skid row for
a short time before his death, he was a known figure who had volunteered at a nearby homeless shelter.
2.
Prior to shooting him, the involved officers engaged in lengthy discourse with Mr.
10
Keunang who stood outside of his tent on the sidewalk bordering the heavily trafficked street. Mr.
11
Keunang did not appear violent and was not armed in any manner. After calmly talking to the four
12
police officers surrounding him for approximately three and one-half minutes, Mr. Keunang crawled into
13
his tent. At that juncture, the officers exploded into acts of violence, almost certain to cause anyone,
14
much less a person suspected of suffering from mental illness, to panic. Violently pulling and pounding
15
on the tent and attempting to collapse and rip it off of Mr. Keunang who was hovering defenseless
16
inside, the officers succeeded in pulling Mr. Keunang, terrified, out of the tent.
17
3.
On information and belief, the Defendant police officers approached Mr. Keunang in the
18
first instance as a result of a complaint by another homeless individual who advised that Mr. Keunang
19
suffered some sort of mental illness which at times caused him to act out. Despite being provided
20
information that Mr. Keunang was possibly mentally ill, the officers heightened to a fever pitch what had
21
previously been a relatively calm interaction with Mr. Keunang. Upon dragging him out of the tent, one
22
or more of the by now six officers who had reported to the scene repeatedly tased Mr. Keunang, punched
23
and swung their batons at him, hitting him on repeated occasions, and pinned him on the ground. The
24
three Defendant police officers needlessly and without justification fired their weapons into the
25
defenseless Mr. Keunang, mortally wounding him. At no time did Mr. Keunang possess any type of
26
weapon, much less fire or remove any firearm from the officers. Mr. Keunang was observed by
27
bystanders to be alive and writhing in pain for a time before he expired, during which time Defendants
28
stood around on the sidewalk, making no attempt to tend to his wounds or otherwise come to his aid.
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
4.
The killing occurred in broad daylight. Witnesses on the crowded street attest Mr.
Keunang was unarmed and that the police could have subdued him by other than lethal means. A mere
60 seconds passed from the moment police dragged Mr. Keunang from the tent to when he lay in his
own blood, dying in front of passersby beneath the very cross under which he had planted his tent for
protection.
5.
The killing of Charly Keunang represents a classic case of abuse of power and deadly
force by a supposedly trained police force, resulting in what Los Angeles Police Chief Beck himself
characterized as a tragic death and which the Coroners report labeled a homicide. The inexplicable
volatility with which the Defendant officers accosted Mr. Keunang resulted in the deprivation of his life,
10
11
a mother and father of their son and a loving sister of her only sibling.
6.
If Defendants had followed protocols, policies, procedures and training that are standard
12
in their field and required by law, they would have taken less than lethal measures to handle the situation
13
rather than to senselessly inflame it as they did. For example, the officers could have continued to
14
engage Mr. Keunang in verbal conversation rather than escalating the situation by physically threatening
15
and then tasing him. In addition, one or more of the six officers who eventually reported to the scene
16
could have entered Mr. Keunangs tent while he was standing outside it talking to officers to determine
17
if any danger existed therein to Mr. Keunang, members of the public or the police officers themselves.
18
They did no such thing. Similarly, rather than storming his tent once Mr. Keunang crawled inside, the
19
officers could have taken other measures to de-escalate the situation. Further, on information and belief,
20
the police had reason to suspect Mr. Keunang was mentally ill. Despite this, Defendants failed and
21
refused to assess Mr. Keunangs mental state and risk factors or otherwise intervene in such a way as to
22
protect him and the public. Likewise, Defendants failed to have in place appropriate policies and
23
procedures to deal with such situations, or in the alternative, if such policies and procedures existed, they
24
flaunted them. In sum, in committing the acts and failures to act alleged herein, Defendants failed in
25
their duties as a public safety agency and as employees and servants of the public. As a result, Plaintiffs
26
27
28
7.
Defendants have publicly claimed that Mr. Keunang supposedly grabbed one of the
officers holstered gun. These statements are disproved by publicly available video recordings of the
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
incident, public statements of eyewitnesses as well as, on information and belief, the video recording
8.
Plaintiffs bring this action for damages against Defendants for: general, compensatory,
and statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, declaratory relief and training resulting from
Defendants' unlawful and egregious conduct, as alleged herein. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek punitive
7
8
9
10
11
12
II.
9.
PARTIES
Plaintiff Heleine Tchayou is the mother of Charly Leundeu Keunang and has lived in the
United States since 2013 with her daughter. Charly Leundeu Keunang is her only son.
10.
Plaintiff Isaac Keunang is the father of Charly Leundeu Keunang. Isaac Keunang is a
citizen and resident of Cameroon, West Africa. Charly Leundeu Keunang is his only son.
11.
Plaintiff Line Marquise Foming is the sister and sole sibling of Charly Leundeu
13
Keunang. Ms. Foming emigrated to the United States in 2006, became a naturalized citizen in 2011 and
14
15
12.
Plaintiffs have submitted paperwork to the Probate Court seeking to appoint Plaintiff Line
16
Marquise Foming as Administrator of the Estate of Charly Leundeu Keunang. As soon as Letters of
17
Appointment are issued by the Probate Court, the Estate will file a Tort Claim pursuant to the
18
requirements of Government Code 910 and Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend the Complaint
19
to accordingly allege compliance with said requirements and to state claims on behalf of the Estate of
20
21
13.
Defendant City of Los Angeles (the City) was and is a legal political entity established
22
under the laws of the State of California, with all the powers specified and necessarily implied by the
23
Constitution and laws of the State of California and exercised by a duly elected City Council and/or their
24
agents and officers. The City is responsible for the actions, inactions, policies, procedures, practices and
25
customs of the Los Angeles Police Department and its agents and employees. At all relevant times, the
26
City was and continues to be responsible for assuring that the actions of the Los Angeles Police
27
Department and its agents and employees comply with the Constitutions of the State of California and of
28
the United States and any other applicable laws and regulations.
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
14.
Defendant Charlie Beck is the duly appointed Chief of Police for the Los Angeles Police
Department (LAPD), and an employee of the City. Defendant Beck holds the highest position in the
LAPD and is and was responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline,
counseling, and control of all LAPD employees and agents. He also is and was responsible for the
promulgation of the policies, procedures and allowance of the practices and customs pursuant to which
the acts and failures to act alleged herein were committed. Defendant Beck is sued individually as well
as in his official capacity for the purpose of ensuring that Plaintiffs may obtain complete and effective
injunctive relief as against the LAPD, whose actions and conduct are under the control and authority of
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
15.
Defendant Sergeant Chand Syed is an employee of the LAPD who, on information and
belief, detained, accosted, needlessly and without justification injured and fatally shot Mr. Keunang.
16.
and belief, detained, accosted, needlessly and without justification injured and fatally shot Mr. Keunang.
17.
Officer Daniel Torres is an employee of the LAPD who, on information and belief,
detained, accosted, needlessly and without justification injured and fatally shot Mr. Keunang.
18.
Officer Joshua Volasgis is an employee of the LAPD who, on information and belief,
17
detained, accosted and needlessly and without justification contributed to Mr. Keunang being injured
18
19
19.
The true names of Defendant Does 1 through 20, inclusive, are presently unknown to
20
Plaintiffs, who therefore sue each of these Defendants by such fictitious names. Upon ascertaining the
21
true identity of Doe Defendants, Plaintiffs will amend this complaint, or seek leave to do so, by inserting
22
the true name in lieu of the fictitious name. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of such
23
information and belief allege, that each Doe Defendant is in some manner legally responsible for the
24
25
26
27
28
20.
Defendants Charlie Beck, Chand Syed, Francisco Martinez, Daniel Torres, Joshua
Volasgis and Does 1 through 20 engaged in the acts or omissions alleged herein under color of state law.
21.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times relevant herein,
Defendants and each of them were the agents, employees, servants, joint venturers, partners, and/or co4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
conspirators of the other Defendants named in this Complaint and that at all times, each of the
Defendants was acting within the course and scope of said relationship with Defendants.
22.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all times material herein,
each of the Defendants was the agent or employee of, and/or working in concert with, his/her
co-Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment and/or concerted
activity. Plaintiffs allege that to the extent certain acts and omissions were perpetrated by certain
Defendants, the remaining Defendant or Defendants confirmed and ratified said acts and omissions.
8
9
10
11
23.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege, that at all times material herein,
each Defendant was dominated and controlled by his/her co-Defendant and each was the alter-ego of the
other.
24.
Whenever and wherever reference is made in this complaint to any act or failure to act by
12
a Defendant or Defendants, such allegations and references shall also be deemed to mean the acts and
13
14
25.
Plaintiffs Heleine Tehayou (on April 29, 2015), and Isaac Keunang and Line Marquise
15
Foming (on May 5, 2015) exhausted their administrative remedies by filing governmental tort claims
16
with the City of Los Angeles, pursuant to California Government Code 910.
17
18
III.
26.
19
Heleine Tchayou and Isaac Keunang. Mr. Keunang studied physics and mathematics at the University of
20
Douala. Thereafter, Mr. Keunang, a native French speaker, lived in France for an extended period of
21
22
27.
Following release from prison due to incarceration on a bank robbery conviction, Mr.
23
Keunang stayed in a half way house and thereafter with a friend. For a brief few months before his
24
death, Mr. Keunang made home in a tent in the skid row area of downtown Los Angeles. Though a
25
relative newcomer to the street, Mr. Keunang did what he could for others, for example, volunteering on
26
occasion at a soup kitchen feeding Los Angeles large homeless population. On information and
27
belief, a very large percentage of the homeless living on the streets of Los Angeles suffer from some
28
form of mental illness and/or drug addiction. On further information and belief, the Los Angeles Police
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Department purports to specially train officers assigned to the Citys skid row district on how to
interface and peaceably interact with this population so as to protect the homeless as well as the general
population.
28.
Determined to turn his life around upon release from prison, Mr. Keunang was able to
locate his sister, Plaintiff Foming, who had ceaselessly searched for him since losing contact over a
decade before. Mr. Keunangs mother, who lived in Massachusetts with Ms. Foming and her family,
despaired of ever seeing her only son again as she presumed he was dead. In approximately June 2014,
Plaintiff Foming arranged for Mr. Keunang to travel by bus to Massachusetts and surprise their mother,
who was unaware that her only two children had recently found each other again. Plaintiffs Tchayou and
10
11
Foming were elated at seeing their prodigal son and brother again after so many years.
29.
Following their joyful reunion in Massachusetts and Mr. Keunangs return to Los
12
Angeles, the three remained in nearly daily contact with each other by telephone and email. Plaintiffs
13
Tchayou and Foming informed Plaintiff Isaac Keunang of the re-discovery of Mr. Keunang, and Isaac
14
Keunang spoke repeatedly with his son and about his plans to return to Cameroon.
15
30.
Reconnecting with his family intensified Mr. Keunangs resolve to begin his life anew.
16
He formulated a plan to return to his native Cameroon to start up an import and export enterprise with a
17
friend who was based in Los Angeles. Mr. Keunang intended to assist in the support of his aging parents
18
and was actively engaged in measures to effectuate that intent at the time of his death. Though living on
19
the streets of Los Angeles, Mr. Keunang was not without hope. A religious man, he purposefully
20
planted his tent beneath a cross affixed to a large church ministering to the poor and homeless near the
21
corner of San Pedro and 5th streets in the skid row area of downtown Los Angeles. This is where Mr.
22
23
31.
At approximately noon on that Sunday, another homeless man made a complaint that Mr.
24
Keunang, with whom he had argued shortly before and whom he described as mentally ill, had attacked
25
him. On information and belief, Mr. Keunang and this man argued because Mr. Keunang believed the
26
other man had improperly harassed a woman. Video of the Mr. Keunangs interaction with this man
27
shows Mr. Keunang pushing his tent into the street but not physically assaulting him. LAPD officers
28
were summoned to the scene where they approached Mr. Keunang. The officers and Mr. Keunang spoke
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
together with relative calm at considerable length together on the heavily trafficked street where adults,
young children, persons in wheelchairs, babies in strollers and leashed pets walked, bicycled and drove,
weaving their way among and around the officers and Mr. Keunang. On information and belief, the
audio from the officers body cameras shows that Mr. Keunang was trying to explain to the officers what
happened with the other man. Video footage from a security camera installed in a nearby building
shows Mr. Keunang calmly engaged in discussion with the officers who made no attempt to keep the
numerous onlookers, bicyclists and pedestrians from the scene. This same video shows Mr. Keunang
standing with arms at his side or mildly gesturing, engaging in conversation with the initial three and
eventually four police officers who encircled him. He appears relaxed and is completely unarmed.
10
32.
After approximately three and one-half minutes of interaction with the police officers,
11
Mr. Keunang stooped down to the ground and crawled back into his tent. This action apparently angered
12
the officers who had by now grown in number to six, as a third police car had driven up. Three of the
13
police officers became instantly volatile, seizing the tent with Mr. Keunang inside. They began violently
14
rocking the tent, attempting to rip the top off or to otherwise dismantle it or tear it down. Other officers
15
drew tasers and commenced firing into the tent. One or more of the officers reached into the collapsing
16
tent in an attempt to pull a by now frantic Mr. Keunang out of it. The videotaped security footage shows
17
the police officers repeatedly tasing and punching Mr. Keunang. Upon being dragged from the tent with
18
police batons and tasers pointed or being thrust at and striking him, Mr. Keunang panicked and began
19
flailing his arms in desperate attempts to disengage from the officers grappling him. The officers
20
repeatedly struck Mr. Keunang with their fists and batons, tackling him and knocking him to the
21
concrete sidewalk where at least one officer sat on him, pinioning him down. At no point in time did
22
Mr. Keunang hold a weapon of any kind as he was being besieged by six heavily armed and violent
23
police officers.
24
33.
Defendant Charlie Beck, the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, has been
25
quoted by the Los Angeles Times as stating that Mr. Keunang forcibly grabbed one of the officers
26
holstered pistols. On information and belief, this did not occur. The video of the incident taken by a
27
bystander does not show Mr. Keunang reaching for any of the officers guns. The media reports from
28
the reporter who has been allowed to view the footage from the officers body cameras state that this
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
footage does not show Mr. Keunang reaching for any of the officers weapons. Numerous eye witnesses
have stated that they did not see Mr. Keunang reach for any of the officers guns. Despite this, the
Defendant officers drew their weapons and needlessly and without justification fired six shots into Mr.
Keunangs chest, lungs, heart, arms and other body parts. Within 60 seconds of being dragged forcibly
from his home, Mr. Keunang, a homeless unarmed black man whom the officers had reason to believe
suffered from a mental illness, lay dying. Defendants failed and refused to assist Mr. Keunang or engage
in any efforts to offer medical aid or otherwise save him. Instead, Defendants handcuffed Mr.
Keunangs bloody wrists and looked on while he bled to death in pain and terror on the streets of Los
Angeles.
10
34.
Rather than de-escalate the situation, the LAPD officers used unjustified lethal force, in
11
violation of LAPD protocol. Despite their knowledge that a sizeable percentage of the homeless persons
12
living in the mean streets of Los Angeles skid row district suffer from mental illness and on information
13
and belief having been specifically put on notice that Mr. Keunang potentially was mentally ill,
14
Defendants engaged in explosive, unpredictable and violent behavior nearly guaranteed to terrify
15
16
35.
The Los Angeles County Coroners autopsy report reveals four of the bullets were lethal,
17
entering Mr. Keunangs chest cavity, fracturing three ribs, partly collapsing his lungs, and causing
18
traumatic damage to his heart, liver, and surrounding muscle. One or other of the Defendant officers
19
fired two other bullets into Mr. Keunangs external limbs, fracturing bones and damaging muscle.
20
36.
21
caused Mr. Keunangs unnecessary and untimely death, which was pronounced a homicide by the Los
22
23
37.
On the day before he died, Mr. Keunang communicated with his sister, Plaintiff Foming,
24
telling her he would call her March 1. Worried that her brother had not telephoned as he had promised,
25
26
38.
Despite knowledge of the existence and whereabouts of Plaintiffs Tchayou and Foming,
27
Defendant City failed and refused to notify them of the death of their son and sibling. Indeed, on March
28
1, 2015, Plaintiffs watched a televised broadcast of the shooting of a black man on the streets of Los
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Angeles on the evening news, unaware that the man they viewed dying in front of their eyes was their
son and brother. Days went by and still Defendant City failed and refused to notify Mr. Keunangs kin
of his death.
39.
It was not until March 3 that Plaintiffs Tchayou and Foming learned of the death of Mr.
Keunang. This occurred via a telephone call in the middle of the night from an acquaintance in
Cameroon, who told them that the man seen shot to death in the widely televised video footage was their
son and brother. It is a supreme irony that someone located half way around the world, learned of the
death of Mr. Keunang before his mother and sister, living in one of the most technologically advanced
10
40.
Although Plaintiffs repeatedly requested the release of the footage from the officers body
11
cameras, Defendants have refused to release it to anyone other than a reporter writing a story about this
12
13
14
WRONGFUL DEATH
15
16
17
18
41.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in
Charly Leundeu Keunangs death was a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned
19
wrongful and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants. Defendants acts and/or omissions thus
20
were also a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries and damages, as alleged herein.
21
43.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful and/or negligent acts and/or
22
omissions, Plaintiffs incurred funeral and burial expenses, including transporting Mr. Keunangs body
23
24
44.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful and/or negligent acts and/or
25
omissions, Plaintiffs suffered the loss of Mr. Keunangs services, society, care, comfort, support,
26
protection, gifts and benefits, as well as the loss of the present value of his future services to them for the
27
28
45.
46.
Defendants Syed, Martinez and Torres and Does 1 - 20 acted with conscious disregard of
Mr. Keunangs rights. Said Defendants conduct was willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive,
thereby justifying an award to Plaintiffs of exemplary and punitive damages to punish the wrongful
SURVIVORSHIP
9
10
11
47.
Plaintiff Estate of Charly Kuenang realleges and incorporates by reference each and
every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 though 46 as though fully set forth herein.
48.
Plaintiffs are filing a Petition for Probate for the court to appoint Plaintiff Line Marquise
12
Foming as Special Administrator to litigate any and all claims and/or causes of action to which the
13
Estate of Mr. Keunang is entitled as set forth in the allegations alleged herein. Plaintiffs will seek leave
14
to amend this Complaint following the issuance of Letters of Administration and filing of an appropriate
15
governmental tort claim on behalf of the Estate, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code 910.
16
17
18
49.
On or about March 1, 2015, after causes of action arose in his favor, Decedent Mr.
Keunang would have been a Plaintiff in this action had he survived the injuries he sustained.
50.
The conduct of Defendants as set forth herein, was tortious in that Defendants
19
breached their duty of care to Mr. Keunang an unarmed man beseiged by six heavily armed police
20
officers. Additionally, on information and belief, Defendants had reason to believe Mr. Keunang
21
suffered from a mental illness. Until they violently attacked and provoked him, Mr. Keunang was acting
22
in a calm noncombative manner. As a result of the conduct of the Defendants as alleged herein, Mr.
23
Keunang sustained and incurred damages for a measurable period of time him before his death, writhing
24
in pain and bleeding to death on the streets of Los Angeles in the view of bystanders and Defendant
25
police officers who did nothing to come to his aid. The Estate of Mr. Keunang, therefore, seeks recovery
26
for personal property damages, and all other related expenses, damages, and losses, as permitted by
27
section 377.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against Defendants, according to proof at trial.
28
51.
Defendants Syed, Martinez and Torres and Does 1-20 acted with conscious disregard of
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Mr. Keunangs rights. Said Defendants conduct was willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive,
thereby justifying to Plaintiff Estate of Charly Leundeu Keunang an award of exemplary and punitive
damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter such conduct in the future.
(By Plaintiffs Heleine Tchayou and Isaac Keunang Against Defendants City of Los
8
9
52.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in
10
53.
Defendants had a duty to hire, supervise, train, and retain employees and/or agents so that
11
employees and/or agents refrained from the conduct and/or omissions alleged herein. Defendants
12
breached this duty, causing the acts and failures to act alleged herein. Such breach constituted negligent
13
hiring, supervision, training, and retention under the laws of the State of California.
14
54.
15
Keunang and Plaintiffs Heleine Tchayou and Isaac Keunang suffered injuries and damages as alleged
16
herein.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
55.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in
Once re-united with their son and brother, Plaintiffs Tchayou and Foming took care to be
24
in almost daily communication and contact with Mr. Keunang, so as to steady him in his resolve to
25
change his life around and provide him the love, encouragement and emotional support he required.
26
This communication took the form of texting and phone calls, in addition to the personal trip Mr.
27
Keunang made to Boston to reunite with his mother and sister in June 2014.
28
57.
On the day before his death, Mr. Keunang texted his sister his intent to telephone her the
11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
next day, so as to speak to her and their mother, Plaintiff Tchayou. When her brother did not call as
promised, Plaintiff Foming unsuccessfully attempted to reach him. Worried, Plaintiffs spent days in
anxious concern about Mr. Keunang, staving off fears stoked by his sudden and inexplicable silence that
58.
Completely unaware of the significance of what they saw, Plaintiffs watched the
videotaped news coverage of Mr. Keunangs fatal shooting and painful death by Defendant Citys agents
and employees.
8
9
10
11
59.
Despite the fact that Defendant City knew of the existence and whereabouts of Plaintiffs
and their kinship to Mr. Keunang, Defendant failed and refused to notify Mr. Keunangs next of kin.
Rather, his body was transported to the morgue.
60.
Defendant City never did notify Plaintiffs of the death of their son. Rather, Plaintiffs
12
learned of Mr. Keunangs death and the circumstances surrounding it first and only from relatives living
13
14
61.
The acts and failures to act as alleged herein caused severe anxiety, pain, suffering
15
and emotional distress and injury to Plaintiffs and each of them and Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
62.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in
The California Constitution Art. I 13 and the United States Constitution, Amendment
24
IV, guarantee the right of persons to be free from arrests without probable cause, unreasonable searches
25
and seizures and use of unnecessary and excessive force on the part of law enforcement officers.
26
Defendants, by engaging in the wrongful acts and failures to act alleged herein, denied this right to Mr.
27
Keunang either directly or through their deliberate indifference, thus giving Plaintiffs a claim for
28
64.
As the direct and legal result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs suffered and will
continue to suffer damages, including but not limited to those set forth above, and are entitled to
statutory damages under Cal. Civ. Code 52, as well as compensatory and punitive damages and
attorneys fees.
1.
8
9
For compensatory, general and special damages against each Defendant, jointly and
Punitive and exemplary damages against individually named Defendants Syed, Martinez,
10
Torres, Volasgis and Does 1 - 20 in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant(s) and deter others from
11
12
3.
Prejudgment interest;
13
4.
For costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees and costs as authorized by statute or law;
14
5.
15
6.
For such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as the Court may
16
deem proper.
17
18
19
20
Respectfully Submitted,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
By: ______________________________
Barbara Enloe Hadsell
Dan Stormer
Joshua Piovia-Scott
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
28
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES