Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 1 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MARY FRANCES PREVOST (SBN157782) Attorney At Law 402 West Broadway, Suite 950 San Diego, California 92101 Tel: (619) 692-9001 Fax: (619) 255-0726 Email: Mfprevost@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff JAVIER COTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. '12CV0998 JAH NLS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Violation of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. 1983) Monell Claim (42 U.S.C. 1983) Violation of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. 1985(3) Assault & Battery False Arrest Civil Conspiracy Torts in Essence Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligence Negligent Employment Banes Civil Rights Claim

SGT. JAVIER COTA, in individual, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CHIEF OF POLICE WILLIAM LANSDOWNE, ASSISTANT CHIEF BOYD LONG, SDPD OFFICER ARIEL SAVAGE, SDPD OFFICER JUSTIN MATTLY, SDPD SERGEANT, SDPD SGT. CM SAROT, SDPD LT. DAN CHRISTMAN, SDPD SGT. BRET RIGHTHOUSE, and DOES 150, inclusive, Defendants.

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

_________________________________
21 22

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

JURISDICTION
23

Jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1343, (1), (2), (3) and
24

(4). This action at law for money damages arises under Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
25

Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 and the United States Constitution, the laws of the State
26

of California and common law principles to redress a deprivation under color of state
27

law of rights, privileges and immunities secured to Plaintiffs by said statutes, and by
28

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 2 of 23

1 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 27 28

the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 1. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff JAVIER COTA, was a resident

of the Arizona, a Sergeant with the Mesa, Arizona Police Department, and the President of the Mesa Police Officers Association. All of the events complained of herein occurred in the City of San Diego. 2. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants Officers Justin MATTLY and

Ariel SAVAGE, individually and as a peace officers and DOES 1-50 were employees of the City of San Diego and the San Diego Police Department. 3. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Sgt. CM SAROT,

individually, and as a peace officer, was an employee of the City of San Diego and the San Diego Police Department. 4. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant lt. Dan CHRISTMAN,

individually, and as a peace officer, was an employee of the City of San Diego and the San Diego Police Department. 5. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Sgt. Bret RIGHTHOUSE

individually, and as a peace officer, was an employee of the City of San Diego and the San Diego Police Department. 6. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Boyd LONG, individually, and

as a peace officer, was an employee of the City of San Diego and the San Diego Police Department. Long is the assistant chief over patrol operations at the San Diego Police Department. 7. Defendant CITY OF SAN DIEGO, (hereinafter referred to as "CITY")

is and at all times herein mentioned has been a public entity and an incorporated City duly authorized and existing as such in and under the laws of the State of California; and at all times herein mentioned, Defendant CITY has possessed the power and authority to adopt policies and prescribe rules, regulations and practices affecting the operation of the San Diego Police Department, and particularly said Department's
2

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 3 of 23

1 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 27 28

Patrol, Internal Investigations and Training and Personnel Divisions and other operations and subdivisions presently unidentified to Plaintiff, and their tactics, methods, practices, customs and usages. 8. Defendant WILLIAM LANSDOWNE was and is the Chief of Police of

Defendant CITY OF SAN DIEGO, and agent of Defendant CITY OF SAN DIEGO. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon that alleges that Defendants LANSDOWNE and LONG are responsible for implementing, maintaining, sanctioning, or condoning policies, practices, and customs, under which the other Defendants committed illegal or wrongful acts that are complained of in this lawsuit. By reason of these policies, practices, and customs, Defendants LANSDOWNE and LONG are liable for the damages that resulted. 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the

Defendants designated as a DOE is intentionally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and thereby proximately caused injuries and damages as herein alleged. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are not now known to Plaintiff who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names and will be added to this action as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 484. 10. Defendants, and each of them, did the acts and omissions hereinafter

alleged in bad faith and with knowledge that their conduct violated well established and settled law. 11. Plaintiff Sgt. COTA submitted a timely claim under California

Government Code 910, which claim was denied on October 24, 2011. 12. The incidents complained of began in the City of San Diego on June 4,

2011 on which date Defendants MATTLY and SAVAGE maliciously, forcibly and unlawfully arrested, assaulted and battered Plaintiff JAVIER COTA. MATTLY and SAVAGE were in full San Diego Police uniform and on duty in the Gaslamp Quarter in San Diego.
3

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 4 of 23

1 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 27 28

13.

On May 10, 2011, Defendant San Diego Police Chief LANSDOWNE,

in response to news of the more than 12 police officers arrested including some for sexual assault, stalking and rape, held a news conference promising the citizens of San Diego that he was beefing up his internal affairs department to ensure the citizens that the rash of police officers committing crimes against citizens would stop. 14. But on June 4, 2011, one month after Defendant Lansdowne gave his

press conference promising no more criminal acts by his officers, Plaintiff Sgt. COTA was arrested after verbally challenging defendant SAVAGE and MATTLY while they were sexually harassing two females in the Gaslamp Quarter of downtown San Diego. 15. Plaintiff Sgt. COTA and his nephew were in a pedicab and had dropped

some female friends they had met that night near their car so one of the women could get her purse out of her car to call her sister to come pick them up. As the women were returning to the pedicab, the women were stopped by Defendants SAVAGE and MATTLY. 16. COTAs back was turned to the women. But his attention was directed

behind him when he heard one of the women complaining to either SAVAGE or MATTLY, Im not interested. Leave me alone. In response to the rebuff of his sexual advances, either MATTY or SAVAGE replied, Oh yeah, well then lets see if youre too drunk to drive. Plaintiff Sgt. COTA, all the while still sitting in the pedicab called over to the officers, Why are you treating these girls like dipshits? MATTLY replied, in an angry tone of voice, Are you calling me a dipshit? Defendants MATTLY and SAVAGE then ordered Plaintiff Sgt. COTA out of the pedicab and on to the street where MATTLY immediately and without warning grabbed Sgt. COTA, handcuffed him and arrested him. 17. Plaintiff Sgt. COTAs nephew asked the officers, What did he say that

youre arresting him? SAVAGE responded, Shut the fuck up or youre next. 18. SAVAGE and MATTLEY then, without conducting a field investigation

for witnesses in the Gaslamp district, conducting and field sobriety tests on COTA,
4

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 5 of 23

1 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 27 28

and failing to secure the identifying information of the two women who witnessed the entire event, placed Sgt. COTA in the back of the police cruiser and began to speed wildly and dangerously through the gaslamp with the radio blaring, and laughing at him. COTAs handcuffs were not double-cuffed, as protocol requires. As a result, his wrists were bruised from being tossed around from the erratic driving. 19. SAVAGE and MATTLY arrived to the Volunteers of America detox and

told him they would drop him off there. Sgt. COTA demanded to talk to a sergeant. MATTLY and SAVAGE then transported Sgt. COTA to the San Diego police department where Defendant Sgt. SAROT arrived to speak with him. 20. Plaintiff Sgt. COTA informed Defendant Sgt. SAROT that he had been

falsely arrested for verbally questioning officers for their sexual harassment of the two female witnesses on the street. SAROT was disinterested in COTAs facts about being falsely arrested, and instead accused COTA of being inappropriate for calling the SAVAGE and MATTLY dipshits. 21. Plaintiff Sgt. COTA then asked to speak to a lieutenant. Defendant Lt.

CHRISTMAN arrived and refused to assist COTA. When COTA asked for an internal affairs investigator to come speak to him so he could file a formal internal affairs complaint, CHRISTMAN said, Well, were not going to do that. 22. MATTLY and SAVAGE then transported COTA back to the detox

center where SAVAGE told COTA, Youre either going to check yourself in or Im going to find something else to arrest you for. He refused to identify the officers COTA had spoken to. 23. News reports in the media the next day in Arizona where COTA is a

police sergeant reported false facts put out by the San Diego Police Department that COTA had been screaming, yelling and cursing at the officers. 24. Thereafter, SAVAGE and MATTLY falsified their police reports

alleging that COTA had been interfering with a police investigation. In fact, COTA had merely inquired of the officers why they were sexually harassing women in the
5

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 6 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Gaslamp Quarter as he sat in a pedicab more than a dozen feet away from the contact between SAVAGE and MATTLY and the two women they were harassing. 25. COTA was released from detox 4 hours later. COTA was not drunk.

COTA did not interfere with the officers. 26. Upon release, Plaintiff Sgt. COTA filed a formal complaint with the San

Diego Police Department Internal Affairs unit. Defendant Sgt. RIGHTHOUSE promptly exonerated all officers from any wrongdoing. 27. On or about February 11, 2012, Plaintiff Sgt. COTA had a telephonic

interview with San Diego Assistant Chief of Traffic Operation, Defendant Boyd LONG, where he related the inappropriateness that the two officers had been exonerated. LONG promised to pull the internal affairs file after discussing the incident with COTA. LONG promised he would personally talk to LANSDOWNE and get back to COTA. He called back and refused to do anything further after confirming with COTA a notice of claim was filed AGAINST THE City of San Diego City of San Diego. 28. On February 17, 2012 COTA met with LANSDOWNE at the San Diego

Police Department and related the true facts of the night he was arrested. COTA asked LANSDOWNE if he would take action against MATTLY and SAVAGE. LANSDOWNE responded, Not if you are going to sue me. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS - FALSE ARREST, RETALIATION FOR EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE CIVIL RIGHTS)) (By Plaintiff Against all Defendants Except CITY)

24

29.
25 26

Plaintiff refers to and repleads each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 28 of this complaint, and by this reference incorporates the same herein and makes each a part hereof.
27

30.
28

This action at law for money damages arises under Title 42 U.S.C.
6

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 7 of 23

1 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 27 28

1983 and the United States Constitution, the laws of the State of California and common law principles to redress a deprivation under color of state law of rights, privileges and immunities secured to Plaintiffs by said statutes, and by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 31. Commencing at or about the aforementioned dates and places, without

cause or justification, and acting under color of law, Defendants MATTLY, SAVAGE, RIGHTHOUSE, SAROT, CHRISTMAN, LONG, LANSDOWNE and DOES 1-50, and each of them, intentionally and maliciously deprived Plaintiff of rights secured to him by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendants subjected plaintiff to assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, unlawful search and seizure, retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights, and conspiracy, and thereby deprived Plaintiff of rights secured to him by the federal constitution. 32. Defendants, and each of them, carried out and perpetrated the

mutually supportive conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his rights as stated in paragraph XXX above by participating in a corrupt effort to conceal the violation of Plaintiffs rights by hiding the true facts of the egregious conduct employed by Defendants. 33. As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts and omissions of

Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff sustained great physical and mental pain and shock to his nervous systems, embarrassment, anxiety, torment, degradation and emotional distress. 34. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants,

and each of them, Plaintiff incurred expenses to defend an internal affairs investigation levied against him in Mesa, Arizona, as a result of his false arrest and the false allegations of MATTLY and SAVAGE, in which LANSDOWNE, LONG, SAROT, CHRISTMAN and RIGHTHOUSE joined, knowing that the allegations and reports by MATTLY and SAVAGE were fabricated.
7

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 8 of 23

1 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 27 28

medical and therapeutic expenses in an amount as proved. 35. By reason of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of

them, Plaintiff was compelled to secure the services of an attorney at law to redress the wrongs hereinbefore mentioned and by virtue thereof, Plaintiff is indebted and liable for attorneys fees. 36. The aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants were

committed by each of them knowingly, wilfully and maliciously, with the intent to harm, injure, vex, harass and oppress Plaintiff with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs constitutional rights and by reason thereof, Plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants, and each of them, (except Defendant CITY) in an amount as proved. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (UNLAWFUL CUSTOM AND PRACTICE UNDER SECTION 1983) (By Plaintiff Against Defendant CITY and LANSDOWNE)

37.

Plaintiffs refer to and replead each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 36 of this complaint, and by this reference incorporates the same herein and makes each a part hereof. 38. Defendant CITY is and at all times herein mentioned has been a

public entity and an incorporated municipality duly authorized and existing as such in and under the laws of the State of California; and at all times herein mentioned, Defendant CITY is possessed of the power and authority to adopt policies and prescribe rules, regulations and practices affecting the operation of the San Diego Police Department and its tactics, methods, practices, customs and usages related to internal investigations, personnel supervision and records maintenance, and the proper uses of force by its rank and file, generally. 39. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants SAVAGE, MATTLY,

RIGHTHOUSE, CHRISTMAN, SAROT, LONG, and DOES 1-50, and each of

8

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 9 of 23

1 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 27 28

them, were employees of the City of San Diego and San Diego Police Department acting under the CITY'S and CHIEF LANSDOWNEs direction and control, knowingly and intentionally promulgated, maintained, applied, enforced and suffered the continuation of policies, customs, practices and usages in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments respectively to the United States Constitution, which customs, policies, practices and usages at all times herein mentioned encouraged (1) the employment, deployment and retention of persons as peace officers who have a propensity for brutality, dishonesty, bigotry, sexual misconduct, and numerous other serious abuses of their duties as peace officers in the employment of the CITY. 40. Defendant CITY knowingly maintains and permits official sub-rosa

policies or customs of permitting the occurrence of the kinds of wrongs set forth above, by deliberate indifference to widespread police abuses, failing and refusing to fairly and impartially investigate, discipline or prosecute peace officers who commit acts of felonious dishonesty and crimes of violence, each ratified and approved by the CITY. 41. The unconstitutional policies, practices or customs promulgated,

sanctioned or tolerated by defendant CITY include, but are not limited to: (1) In 2003, shortly after Defendant LANSDOWNE became police

chief, he disbanded the San Diego Police Departments 20-year-old AntiCorruption Unit, commonly called the Professional Standards Unit (PSU) which had been tasked to proactively investigate allegations against police. The elimination of the PSU, an internal agency tasked with investigating its own officers, signaled internally to officers that monitoring for misconduct amongst them was a low priority under Defendant LANSDOWNE and was a virtual green light to commit misconduct without the possibility of sanctions; (2) Under LANSDOWNE, the manner in which citizens
9

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 10 of 23

1 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 27 28

complaints were logged against officers changed from citizens being directed to Internal Affairs, to being required to provide all information to desk officers at station houses. A. LANSDOWNE did this to try to keep complaints in

house at each station house where the supervisor of the officer complained of would handle it. In most cases, supervisors took no action on the complaints, and did not forward them to Internal Affairs for a more impartial investigation. B. LANSDOWNEs policy was implemented to intimidate,

threaten, or harass potential or actual complainants who were embarrassed to discuss the complaint with a desk officer at the same station house where the officer complained of worked from. LANSDOWNEs policy worked. According to records of citizen complaints required to be filed with the Office of the Attorney General, complaints dropped sharply when LANSDOWNE took over from former Chief David Bejarano. C. Complaints did not, in fact, lessen under LANSDOWNE,

as records would suggest. LANSDOWNEs policy of requiring complaints to be made at station houses where the perpetrator officer worked rather than directly to Internal Affairs, scared citizens into declining to make complaints at all. D. Additionally, LANSDOWNES policy was to under

report crime to make it appear that crime was down under his administration. In fact, LANSDOWNE initiated a policy of mischaracterizing criminal acts to make it appear crime was down. For instance, a residential burglary with no suspects could be identified as a trespass or disturbing the peace rather than a felony burglary.
10

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 11 of 23

1 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 27 28

(3)

Defendant CITY and LANSDOWNE had knowledge, prior to

and since this incident, of repeated allegations of abuse, assaultive and sexual misconduct toward detainees and arrestees; Specifically, CITY knew San Diego patrol officers Arevalos, Friedman, Zirpolo, Ninness, and other officers had committed numerous violations of the law under color of law and demonstrated their unfitness for employment as a peace officers but refused to protect public safety and that of the Plaintiffs by failing to discharge them. CITY knew San Diego police officers including had in the past and since Plaintiffs incident, committed similar acts of official dishonesty, corruption and abuse of persons similarly situated to the plaintiff, to wit; A. Some 15 years ago Arevalos and another officer were

called to a report of a naked woman running around a South Bay park in SDPD's Southern Division. While the woman was in the backseat of Arevalos patrol vehicle, AREVALOS handed the woman his baton and asked her to perform a lewd act. He then transported the victim to county mental health. The companion officer then reported the incident to two sergeants at SDPD Southern Division. Both officers are still employed by SDPD in supervisory roles and one has since been promoted to lieutenant. Arevalos was not sanctioned. One of the sergeants was given a promotion by LANSDOWNE. B. On January 2, 2010, AREVALOS falsely detained,

falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, and verbally sexually assaulted Lacy White and Talia Tortora while on duty and after he had pulled the women over for a traffic stop. C. On January 9, 2010, AREVALOS falsely detained,

falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, and verbally sexually assaulted Melissa Marin while he was on duty and after he pulled the woman

11

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 12 of 23

1 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 27 28

over for a traffic stop. D. On January 29, 2010, AREVALOS stopped Mary

Bracewell during a traffic stop when he was on duty and made crude, sexually suggestive comments about her body. E. On January 11, 2010 AREVALOS stopped Marjan

Montazemi when he was on duty and put his bare hand down Montazemis pants, touched her vagina and fondled her breasts. AREVALOS then threatened Montazemi, telling her she had better not tell anyone what he did because he knew where she lived. F. San Diego Police Sgt. Kenneth Davids former lover,

another police officer, had complained about him stalking her and sending threatening texts to her for more than one year. LANSDOWNE did nothing to protect the complainant. David was not sanctioned. David ended pleading guilty to misdemeanor stalking. He is still employed with SDPD. G. San Diego Police Officer Arthur Perea was accused of

raping a college student. LANSDOWNE and DOES 1-50, prepared a strong case against Perea and referred it to the Office of the District Attorney. When the office of the District Attorney rejected it for prosecution, LANSDOWNE took no action against Perea. But instead retained him as an officer. H. San Diego Police Officer Daniel Dana stands accused of

raping a woman. LANSDOWNE and DOES 1-50 knew of other complaints made against Dana for sexual assault, took no action against him on any of these complaints. I. San Diego Police Officer Thomas Broxterman was

removed from the San Diego DUI task force after it was determined he had falsified numerous investigation reports. Some ten years later -

12

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 13 of 23

1 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 27 28

during LANSDOWNEs first year as chief - Broxterman was put back on the DUI enforcement unit in the same area where he had previously been writing false reports. On February 17, 2007 Broxterman effectuated a false arrest, and fabricated investigation reports. The criminal case was dismissed by the Hon. Christine Pate during a hearing in which she rejected Broxtermans testimony. CITY, LANSDOWNE and DOES 1-50 took no punitive action against Broxterman. The wrongfully arrested suspect sued Broxterman in United States District court, Case No. 09CV0286 and was awarded money damages for Broxtermans misconduct. CITY, LANSDOWNE and DOES 1-50 still took no punitive action against Broxterman. Broxterman patrols the same area of Mission Beach that he has for 20 years. He has never been sanctioned by LANSDOWNE or CITY. J. San Diego Police Officer James Zirpolo has been sued

repeatedly in United States District Court and paid money judgments to victims. He, along with fellow SDPD officer Gib Ninness, was accused in federal complaints of sexually assaulting Kathleen Johnson and CITY and paid the victim money damages. He brutally slammed Mara Gordons face into the asphalt during a traffic stop breaking her nose. Gordon had been begging Zirpolo to allow her to use her inhaler as she was having an asthma attack. When he said no, and she reached for her inhaler right before she could pass out, Zirpolo grabbed her by the back of the head and face planted her into the blacktop. CITY settled the case and awarded Gordon some $45,000 in compensation. Zirpolo accused paraplegic Jeffrey Gorman of resisting arrest and falsely arrested him for this. He also stated in his police report that Gorman walked with an unsteady gait.

13

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 14 of 23

1 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 27 28

Zirpolo also testified in federal court that the SDPD does not have vehicles to accommodate quadriplegics. LANSDOWNE also testified in federal court and stated that SDPD does have vehicles to accommodate quadriplegics. CITY prosecutors dismissed the resisting arrest charge. LANSDOWNE has never sanctioned Zirpolo for his sexual assault, falsification of reports, false arrest, or lying under oath in federal court. K. On March 30, 2010, Defendant SAVAGE, accompanied

by SDPD McLain, wrongfully stopped Dante Harrell and Shannon Robinson. After McLain realized he had pulled Harrells car over mistakenly, he told SAVAGE who was already approaching the couple. Instead of apologizing, Harrell demanded identification, threatened Harrell and Robinson, ordered them out of the car and, as a result, Harrell was tazed approximately ten times, Robinson was pepper sprayed and thrown to the ground, and both were arrested. The District Attorney rejected charges. Internal affairs exonerated them, even though they admitted in their reports that they had legal right to contact the couple after they learned of their mistake. (4) Defendant CITY developed a strong case against Defendant

AREVALOS regarding Plaintiff JANE ROE, yet kept him employed and failed to monitor him, and DOES 1-50, and officers like him. Defendants CITY, FRIEDMAN, and LANSDOWNE knew Defendant AREVALOS would go missing for hours at a time while on duty on alleged vehicle stops of female suspects. Yet he would come back to the station without effectuating any arrests. This was a common modus operandi of Defendant Arevalos, yet CITY, FRIEDMAN, and LANSDOWNE took no action; (5) Defendant CITY had knowledge, prior to and since this

incident, of similar allegations of abuse and dishonesty by

14

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 15 of 23

1 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 27 28

Defendants, and refused to enforce established administrative procedures to insure the safety of detainees and arrestees; (6) Defendant CITY refused to adequately discipline individual

officers and employees found to have committed similar acts of abuse and misconduct; (7) Defendant CITY refused to competently and impartially

investigate allegations of abuse and misconduct alleged to have been committed by San Diego Police Department officers; (8) Defendant CITY reprimanded, threatened, intimidated,

demoted and fired officers who reported acts of abuse by other officers; (9) Defendant CITY covered up acts of misconduct and

abuse by San Diego Police Department officers and sanctioned a code of silence by and among officers; (10) Defendant CITY knew of and sanctioned the custom and

practice of falsely arresting, booking and charging victims of officer physical abuse with violations of California Penal Code Sections 69, 243, 245, 148 , 415 and 647(f). (11) Defendant CITY failed to adequately train and educate

officers in the use of reasonable and proper force and failed to enforce the department's written regulations with respect to uses of force; (12) Defendant CITY failed to adequately supervise the

actions of officers under their control and guidance; (13) Defendant CITY condoned and participated in the

practice of prosecuting groundless criminal charges for the purpose of insulating the CITY of SAN DIEGO and its officers from civil liability and reducing or dismissing criminal charges against individuals in return for releasing them from civil liability;

15

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 16 of 23

1 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 27 28

(14)

Defendant CITY condones and encourages a conspiracy of

silence among its employees for the purpose of concealing and furthering wrongful and illegal conduct by its employees; (15) Defendant CITY engages in the custom and practice of refusing to provide public prosecutors and criminal defendants exculpatory and impeaching evidence as required by law. (16) Defendant CITY fostered and encouraged an atmosphere of lawlessness, abuse and misconduct, which by January 2010 and thereafter, represented the unconstitutional policies, practices and customs of the CITY and San Diego Police Department 42. By reason of the aforesaid policies, customs, practices and usages,

plaintiffs First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (42 U.S.C. 1985(3) VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS) (By Plaintiff Against all Defendants except CITY) 43. Plaintiffs refer to and repleadS each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 42 of this complaint, and by this reference incorporates the same herein and makes each a part hereof. 44. SAVAGE and MATTLY, with the complete knowledge, permission

and acquiescence of SAROT, RIGHTHOUSE, CHRISTMAN, LONG and LANSDOWNE, conspired for the purpose of depriving COTA of his first, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and 14 th Amendment rights. 45. The actions of Defendants were as a result of a CITY-WIDE policy

authorizing officers to engage in constitutional violations without threat of punishment. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION ASSAULT AND BATTERY

16

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 17 of 23

1 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 27 28

(By Plaintiff against Defendants CITY, SAVAGE, MATTLY, and DOES 1-50) 46. Plaintiffs refer to and replead each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 45 of this complaint, and by this reference incorporates the same herein and makes each a part hereof. 47. At the aforementioned date, time and place, Defendants SAVAGE,

MATTLY, CRAFT, DOES 1-50 and each of them, assaulted and battered Plaintiff Sgt. COTA. 48. By reason of the acts aforesaid, Plaintiff was placed in great fear for

his safety and physical and emotional well being. 49. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been

damaged as recited above and demands and is entitled to the damages recited in the First Cause of Action, including, but not limited to, general and punitive damages (except as to Defendant CITY). FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (FALSE ARREST) (By Plaintiff against Defendants CITY, SAVAGE, MATTLY, and DOES 1-50) 50. Plaintiff refers to and repleads each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 this complaint, and by this reference incorporates the same herein and makes each a part hereof. 51. At the aforementioned time and place, Plaintiff was caused to be unlawfully seized and arrested by Defendants, and each of them, maliciously and without warrant or order of commitment or any other legal authority of any kind as plaintiff had not committed any crime or public offense. 52. As a proximate result of the acts of defendants, and all of them, Plaintiff suffered damages, loss and harm. 53. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been

damaged as recited above and demands and is entitled to the damages recited in the

17

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 18 of 23

1 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 27 28

First Cause of Action, including, but not limited to, general and punitive damages (except as to Defendant CITY). SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION CIVIL CONSPIRACY (By Plaintiff Against All Defendants) 54. Plaintiffs refer to and replead each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 53 of this complaint, and by this reference incorporates the same herein and makes each a part hereof. 55. Commencing on or about the aforementioned date and time, and

thereafter, Defendants, and each of them, combined and agreed to physically assault, falsely arrest, falsely imprison, falsely book, intentionally injure and intentionally cause extreme emotional suffering. Defendants carried out and perpetrated the mutually supportive agreement to deprive Plaintiffs of rights secured to them under the federal and California constitutions and laws of the State of California, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, unjustified force, false arrest, criminal records and unjustified mental suffering. 56. In furtherance of the aforesaid agreement and combination, defendants

SAVAGE and MATTLY physically assaulted, injured, and falsely arrested plaintiff. SAVAGE, MATTLY, RIGHTHOUSE, and SAROT provided false evidence in their reports, including a fabricated story to give the appearance of lawful behavior by defendants and unlawful conduct by Plaintiff. BOYD and LANSDOWNE knowing the facts presented by all other defendants, were fabricated, still exonerated SAVAGE and MATTLY in attempts to avoid legal liability. 57. Defendants' felonious and unconstitutional acts and omissions as

hereinbefore alleged proximately caused Plaintiffs to be damaged. 58. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been

damaged as recited above and demands and is entitled to the damages recited in the

18

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 19 of 23

1 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 27 28

First Cause of Action, including, but not limited to, general and punitive damages (except as to Defendant CITY). SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION TORTS IN ESSENCE (By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 59. Plaintiffs refer to and replead each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 38 of this complaint, and by this reference incorporates the same herein and makes each a part hereof. 60. Defendants and each of them, owed to Plaintiffs non-consensual

duties set forth in California Penal Code Sections 118.1 (false police report by peace officer), 148.5 (false report of a crime to law enforcement), 134 (preparing false evidence), 132 (offering false evidence), 127 (subornation of perjury), 137 (induce false testimony), 147 (willful oppression and inhumanity to a prisoner), 149 (felonious excessive force by a peace officer); 182(1) (conspiracy to commit crime), 182(2) (conspiracy to obstruct justice), 240 (assault), and 242 (battery), 832.5, (citizen complaint investigations required); 4024 (prompt release from custody) and Government Code 1031(d) (background investigations required.) 61. Defendants, and each of them, failed to abide by said non-consensual

duties in that Defendants, and each of them, violated the aforesaid Penal Code sections. 62. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been

damaged as recited above and demands and are entitled to the damages recited in the First Cause of Action, including, but not limited to, general and punitive damages (except as to Defendant CITY). EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 63. Plaintiff refers to and repleads each and every allegation contained in

19

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 20 of 23

1 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 27 28

paragraphs 1 through 62 of this complaint, and by this reference incorporates the same herein and makes each a part hereof. 64. Commencing on or about the aforementioned date and time, and

thereafter, Plaintiff was entitled to the duty of due care by Defendants, and each of them, including but not limited to, care, service and protection. 65. On or about said date, and thereafter, Defendants and each of them,

unlawfully and illegally assaulted, arrested, and illegally arrested Plaintiff in reckless disregard for the natural consequences of their actions and the harm their behavior against Plaintiff would cause. 66. In doing the aforementioned, Defendants' conduct was intentional,

outrageous, malicious, and done for the purpose of or with reckless disregard for the consequences, causing Plaintiff to suffer emotional suffering and mental distress, physical pain, fear, anxiety, and mental anguish. 67. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has

suffered, and continues to suffer, mental and emotional distress and is entitled to and demands damages against Defendants jointly and severally, as recited in the First Cause of Action, including, but not limited to general and punitive damages (except as to Defendant CITY). NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (By Plaintiff Against All Defendants) 68. Plaintiffs refer to and replead each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 67 of this complaint, and by this reference incorporates the same herein and makes each a part hereof. 69. Commencing on or about the aforementioned date and time, and

thereafter, Plaintiffs was entitled to the duty of due care by Defendants and each of them. 70. On or about said date, Defendants, and each of them, breached the

20

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 21 of 23

1 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 27 28

duty of due care owed to plaintiffs in that defendants negligently subjected Plaintiff to injury harm and damage. 71. In doing the aforementioned acts, defendants' breach of duty was

negligent, and caused plaintiffs to suffer emotional and mental distress, fear, anxiety, and mental anguish. 72. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, plaintiffs have

suffered, and continue to suffer, mental and emotional distress and is entitled to and demands damages against defendants jointly and severally, as recited in the First Cause of Action, including, but not limited to general damages. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT EMPLOYMENT/RETENTION/SUPERVISION (By Plaintiff Against Defendants CITY and LANSDOWNE) 73. Plaintiff refers to and repleads each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 72 of this complaint, and by this reference incorporates the same herein and makes each a part hereof. 74. On or about May 10, 2011 and for at least 10 years prior thereto,

Defendant LANSDOWNE, as an executive officer and later as CHIEF OF POLICE, knew or in the exercise of due care should have known, that Defendants MATTLY and SAVAGE and DOES 1-50, and each of them, had a propensity, character trait, and practice, while purporting to act under color of law, for bigotry and/or violence, and/or dishonesty and/or prevarication. 75. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant LANSDOWNE knew or in

the exercise of due care should have known, that the afore described traits of character, practices and propensities of Defendants, and each of them, made them unfit to serve as peace officers and were likely to cause harm and injury to members of the public, including plaintiffs. 76. Notwithstanding such knowledge, Defendant LANSDOWNE

negligently, carelessly and recklessly, hired, employed, retained and failed to

21

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 22 of 23

1 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 27 28

properly supervise, train and control Defendants MATTLY and SAVAGE and DOES 1-10, and each of them, inclusive, as peace officers and assigned said Defendants to duties which enabled each of them to make violate the law and CVPD written policies, including but not limited to making illegal arrests, fabricating probable cause and crimes, maliciously prosecuting innocent persons, using excessive force and covering up repeated acts of police misconduct and crimes, all while purporting to act under the color of law. 77. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been

damaged as recited above and demands and is entitled to the damages recited in the First Cause of Action, including, but not limited to, general and special damages. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 78. Plaintiffs refer to and replead each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 77 of this complaint, and by this reference incorporates the same herein and makes each a part hereof. 79. On or about the above stated dates, and sometime prior thereto,

Defendants and each of them violated Plaintiff's civil rights, guaranteed by the United States Constitution, federal law, the California Constitution and the laws of the State of California thereby violating California Civil Code Section 52.1(a)(b) and 51.7. 80. As a proximate result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, and

each of them, Plaintiffs suffered damage in a sum according to proof, and is entitled to the damages, statutory damages, treble damages, attorney's fees and costs provided for by Civil Code sections 52 and 52.1.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against Defendants and

22

Case 3:12-cv-00998-JAH-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 23 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

each of them, as follows: AS TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION AS APPLICABLE 1. 2. 3. For General damages according to proof; For Special damages according to proof; For Punitive damages as provided by law, in an amount to be proved against each individual Defendant; 4. For attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C 1988 and California Civil

Code 52, and 52.1; 5. 6. DATED: For Costs of suit; For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. April 21, 2012 MARY F. PREVOST /s/ Mary Frances Prevost _____________________________ By: Mary Frances Prevost Attorney for Plaintiff PLAINTIFFS JURY DEMAND

12 13 14 15 16

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

17 18

DATED: April 21, 2012

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MARY F. PREVOST /s/ Mary Frances Prevost _____________________________ By: Mary Frances Prevost Attorney for Plaintiff

23