Você está na página 1de 34

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

JOHN R. COGORNO, SBN 63966


Attorney at Law
14121 Beach Boulevard
Westminster, California 92683
Tel. 714.892.2936
Fax. 714.892.5806
Email: cogorno@msn.com
R. ALLEN BAYLIS, SBN 194496
Attorney at Law
9042 Garfield Avenue
Suite 202
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Tel. 714.962-0915
Fax. 714.962-0930
Email: rab@baylislaw.com

9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
ANNI MA,
13
Plaintiff,
14
vs.
15
16
17
18

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; CITY OF LOS


ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT ;
OFFICER WESTON #38719, Individually and
in his Official Capacity as Police Officer;
OFFICER BERMUDEZ #38268, Individually
and in his Official Capacity as a Police Officer;
and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive,

19
20
21

Defendants.
_____________________________________

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

Case No: 2:16-cv-5819


COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1.
2.

3.

4.

22
5.
23
6.
24
7.
25
8.
26
9.

Violation of Civil Rights 42


U.S.C. 1983 (Unlawful Seizure
of Person)
Violation of Civil Rights 42
U.S.C. 1983 (Unreasonable and
Excessive Force, Due Process and
Equal Protection)
Violation of Civil Rights 42
U.S.C. 1983 (Right to Peaceful
Association, Assembly, Freedom
of S peech and Petition
Government)
Violation of Civil Rights 42
U.S.C. 1983 (Unconstitutional
Municipal Customs and Policies)
False Arrest/False Imprisonment
(Under California State Law)
Assault and Battery (Under
California State Law)
Violation of California Civil Code
51.7 (Ralph Civil Rights Acts)
Violation of California Civil Code
52.1 (Bane Civil Rights Act)
Negligence

27
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
28
-1Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 2 of 34 Page ID #:2

Plaintiff hereby brings this civil rights action against the CITY OF LOS ANGELES;

CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER WESTON #38719,

Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Police Officer; OFFICER BERMUDEZ

#38268, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Police Officer; and DOES 1 through

10, Inclusive. Except as to allegations that pertain to Plaintiff and her counsel, Plaintiff

alleges the following on information and belief:

7
8

INTRODUCTION
1.

Plaintiff brings this action for money damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983

and 1988, California Civil Code 51.7 and 52.1, and the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth

10

Amendments of the United States Constitution for false arrest/imprisonment, assault and

11

battery and negligence against Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES; CITY OF LOS

12

ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER WESTON #38719, Individually and in

13

his Official Capacity as a Police Officer; OFFICER BERMUDEZ #38268, Individually and

14

in his Official Capacity as a Police Officer; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive. It is herein

15

alleged that Defendant Officers and each of them, including DOES 1 through 10 and/or other

16

unknown officers, deputies or individuals employed by Defendants CITY and LAPD,

17

violated Plaintiff's civil rights, including freedom to assemble and the right to free speech

18

and petition government when they intentionally advanced on Plaintiff and arrested Plaintiff

19

who was lawfully located on a public sidewalk located near the Wiltern Theater in the City

20

of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

21

2.

The actions of Defendants and each of them, along with the Defendant

22

Officers application of unnecessary, unreasonable and excessive force and then arresting

23

Plaintiff, was a knowing, willful and unlawful act that terminated Plaintiffs freedom of

24

movement. Plaintiff was forcibly arrested and handcuffed and taken to the ground which

25

constituted unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive use of force. This unnecessary,

26

unreasonable and/or excessive force and/or show of authority terminated and restrained

27

Plaintiffs freedom of movement through the means intentionally applied which amounted

28
-2Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 3 of 34 Page ID #:3

to an unconstitutional seizure of Plaintiff along with interfering with the personal liberty of

Plaintiff without legal cause, authority or excuse violating Plaintiffs rights under the First,

Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution among other

violations.

5
6

JURISDICTION AND VENUE


3.

This Court has "federal question" jurisdiction over this action, applicable to

the states under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

Constitution.

Jurisdiction in this Court is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331.

10

4.

This is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1986.

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1343(4) for violations of the

11

1871 Civil Rights Enforcement Act, as amended, including 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Court has

12

supplemental jurisdiction for Plaintiffs State law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1367(a) and

13

Mine Workers vs. Gibbs (1966) 383 U.S. 715.

14

5.

The acts and omissions complained of occurred in the City of Los Angeles,

15

County of Los Angeles, State of California. Therefore, venue lies in the Central District of

16

California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.

17

PARTIES

18

Plaintiff:

19

6.

Plaintiff ANNI MA (hereinafter MA) is and at all times herein mentioned

20

a citizen of the United States and a legal resident of the State of California, County of Los

21

Angeles, City of Inglewood.

22

Defendants:

23

7.

Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES (hereinafter CITY), is and was at

24

all times herein mentioned, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and

25

by virtue of the laws of the State of California and is the public employer of the police

26

officers named herein as Defendants in this action.

27

8.

Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT,

28
-3Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 4 of 34 Page ID #:4

(hereinafter LAPD), is and was at all times herein mentioned, a public entity, duly

organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and is the

public employer of the police officers named herein as Defendants in this action. Said

Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT can be sued separately

under Shaw v. State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 788 F.2d 600

605 (9 th Cir. 1986; Doggett v. United States 858 F.2d 555, 561 (9 th Cir. 1988); Streit v.

County of Los Angeles 236 F.3d 552, 557 (9 th Cir. 2001).

9.

Defendant OFFICER WESTON #38719 (hereinafter "WESTON), is and

was at all relevant times, a Police Officer employed by Defendants CITY and LAPD and

10

operated within the borders and boundaries of the City of Los Angeles in his official

11

capacity. Defendant WESTON acted within the course and scope of his employment as a

12

sworn Police Officer and responsible for among other things, implementation of the customs,

13

policies, practices and/or procedures and was acting under color of state law as an employee,

14

agent, and representative of Defendants CITY and LAPD.

15

10.

Plaintiff sues Defendant WESTON in his individual and official capacity as

16

an active participant in, or alternatively, as a by-standing official who willingly failed to

17

intervene to protect Plaintiff from, the violations alleged herein.

18

11.

Defendant OFFICER BERMUDEZ #32628 (hereinafter "BERMUDEZ "),

19

is and was at all relevant times, a Police Officer employed by Defendants CITY and LAPD

20

and operated within the borders and boundaries of the City of Los Angeles in his official

21

capacity. Defendant BERMUDEZ acted within the course and scope of his employment as

22

a sworn Police Officer and responsible for among other things, implementation of the

23

customs, policies, practices and/or procedures and was acting under color of state law as an

24

employee, agent, and representative of Defendants CITY and LAPD.

25

12.

Plaintiff sues Defendant BERMUDEZ in his individual and official capacity

26

as an active participant in, or alternatively, as a by-standing official who willingly failed to

27

intervene to protect Plaintiff from the violations alleged herein.

28

13.

Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of Defendants sued


-4Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 5 of 34 Page ID #:5

herein as DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, and therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious

names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege said Defendants true

names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore

alleges that DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, are legally responsible and liable for acts and/or

omissions causing claimed injuries and damages hereinafter set forth, and that each of said

Defendants proximately caused said incidents, injuries and damages by reason of their

negligence, breach of duty, negligent supervision, management or control, violation of

constitutional and legal rights, or by reason of other personal, vicarious or imputed

negligence, fault, or breach of duty, whether severally or jointly, or whether based upon

10

agency, employment, or control or upon any other act or omission. Plaintiff will ask leave

11

to amend this complaint to insert further charging allegations when such facts are

12

ascertained.

13

14.

Each of the Defendants, including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, caused and

14

is responsible for the below-described unlawful conduct and resulting injuries by, among

15

other things, personally participating in the unlawful conduct or acting jointly or conspiring

16

with others who did so, by authorizing, acquiescing in or setting in motion policies, plans or

17

actions that led to the unlawful conduct, by failing to take action to prevent the unlawful

18

conduct; by failing and refusing, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs rights, to initiate

19

and maintain adequate training and supervision; and by ratifying the unlawful conduct that

20

occurred by agents and officers under their direction and control, including failing to take

21

remedial or disciplinary action.

22

15.

In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendants and each of them, including DOES

23

1 through 10, Inclusive, acted within the course and scope of their employment for

24

Defendants CITY and LAPD.

25

16.

In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, Defendants and each of

26

them, including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, acted under color of authority and/or color

27

of law.

28

17.

In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, Defendants and each of
-5Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 6 of 34 Page ID #:6

them, including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, acted as the agent, servant, employee and/or

in concert with each of said other Defendants.

18.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Defendant CITY

is an incorporated municipality doing business in the State of California with its principal

place of business in Los Angeles, and the employer of the individual officers named as

Defendants, including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive in this action.

19.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Defendant LAPD

is a public entity existing within the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff is

informed and believes that Defendant LAPD is and was the official police agency for the

10

Defendant CITY at all times mentioned herein, and is the employer of the individual officers

11

named as Defendants, including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, in this action.

12

20.

As alleged more fully below, the Defendants CITY and LAPD caused Plaintiff

13

injury through their policies, practices and/or customs that ratify the LAPD Officers abuse

14

and misuse of police power and use of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force.

15

The Defendants CITY and LAPD knew or should have known, that their Officers were not

16

properly trained and routinely abused and misused their police power to unlawfully seize

17

Plaintiff and use unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force. Yet, the Defendants

18

CITY and LAPD not only failed to take the action necessary to prevent reoccurrence of these

19

violations, they made such violations foreseeable by condoning their Officers abuse and

20

misuse of power and unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force. Through these acts

21

and omissions, the Defendants CITY and LAPD proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries.

22

21.

At all times hereinafter alleged, the Defendants CITY and LAPD employed

23

Defendant OFFICER WESTON #38719, OFFICER BERMUDEZ #38268; and DOES 1

24

through 10, Inclusive. Defendants CITY and LAPD provided the Defendant Officers and

25

each of them, with official badges, identification cards, uniforms and marked LAPD patrol

26

units that described them as employees of the LAPD and that designated them as having the

27

full authority as sworn police officers.

28
-6Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 7 of 34 Page ID #:7

22.

At all times herein mentioned, the Defendant Officers, including DOES 1

through 10, Inclusive, acted under color and pretense of law, acted in concert with one

another and acted under color of the statutes, regulations, ordinances, customs, policies,

processes and usages of the Defendant CITY and LAPD. The Defendant Officers and each

of them, separately and in concert, deprived Plaintiff the privileges, rights and immunities

secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution and the laws of the State of California

23.

In addition, Defendants CITY and LAPD are liable for Plaintiffs injuries in

this action, because it created a de facto policy of its sworn Police Officers: 1) using

10

unnecessary, unreasonable and excessive force on persons; 2) unlawfully seizing persons;

11

3) arresting persons for crimes that they did not commit or fabricating probable cause to

12

arrest.

13

24.

Among other things alleged herein, the actions of the Defendants and each of

14

them, violated the following clearly established Federal and State constitutional rights of

15

Plaintiff:

16

First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no

17

law... abridging the freedom of speech, ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

18

and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

19

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states, "The right of the

20

people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable ... seizures shall not be violated

21

... "

22
23

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution states, "no person shall ... be
deprived of ... liberty , ... without due process of law .... "

24

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states, " ... nor shall any

25

State deprive any person of ... liberty ... without due process of law, nor deny to any person

26

within its jurisdiction the equal protections of law.

27
28

25.

The First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, privileges, freedoms and

immunities are incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment due process of law clause
-7Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 8 of 34 Page ID #:8

making them applicable to the States and its political subdivisions such as the CITY and

LAPD and its police officers and Defendants and each of them herein.

3
4
5

26.

Plaintiff was denied the following rights, privileges, freedoms and immunities

protected under Plaintiff's First Amendment Rights:


1)

Freedom of thought and/or freedom to think and/or freedom of belief that

Plaintiff was acting within the law while exercising Plaintiff's First Amendment rights

peacefully while legally on a public sidewalk at an organized political rally in support of

Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders;

9
10
11

2)

Freedom of political speech peacefully while legally on a public sidewalk at

an organized political rally in support for Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders;
3)

Freedom of political expression while legally on a public sidewalk peacefully

12

at an organized political rally in support of Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie

13

Sanders;

14

4)

Freedom of political discussion with others peacefully while legally on a public

15

sidewalk at an organized political rally in support of Democratic Presidential candidate

16

Bernie Sanders;

17

5)

Freedom to advocate political ideas peacefully while legally on a public

18

sidewalk at an organized political rally in support of Democratic Presidential candidate

19

Bernie Sanders;

20

6)

Freedom to communicate political ideas peacefully by voice, signs, and body

21

paint expressing words and/or other writings such a banners while legally on a public

22

sidewalk at an organized political rally in support of Democratic Presidential candidate

23

Bernie Sanders with the political message Equality and ERA;

24

7)

Freedom to convey political ideas by acting or demonstrating peacefully while

25

legally on a public sidewalk at an organized political rally in support of Democratic

26

Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders with the political message Feel the Bern Equality,

27

ERA and Free the Nipple among other things;

28
-8Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 9 of 34 Page ID #:9

8)

Freedom to participate in an organized Presidential political rally peacefully

while legally on a public sidewalk in support of Democratic Presidential hopeful Bernie

Sanders;

9)

Freedom to assemble, associate and participate peacefully in an organized

political rally in support of the Democratic Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders for President

of the United States while on a public sidewalk outside The Wiltern Theater in the City of

Los Angeles, State of California;

8
9
10

10)

Freedom to petition the government peacefully for redress of grievances

against in equality and gender bias while legally on a public sidewalk at an organized
political rally in support of Democratic Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders;

11

11)

Freedom of speech for equality for women having the equal rights as men to

12

free their breasts at will in public by going natural without the fear of arrest while peacefully

13

and legally on a public sidewalk at an organized political rally in support of Democratic

14

Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders where it was not illegal to expose one's breasts;

15

12)

Freedom of expression for equality for women having the equal rights as men

16

to free their breasts by going natural with the message Free the Nipple and Feel the Bern

17

at will in public without the fear of arrest at a location where is not illegal, while peacefully

18

and legally on a public sidewalk at an organized political rally of Democratic Presidential

19

hopeful Bernie Sanders.

20

27.

Plaintiff was denied the following rights, privileges, freedoms, and immunities

21

protected under Plaintiffs Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights in addition to

22

common law and statutory law protections under California law among other things alleged

23

herein:

24

(a) Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure of their person;

25

(b) Freedom from a deprivation of Plaintiffs liberty without due process of law;

26

(c) Freedom from the use of excessive, unnecessary and/or unreasonable force;

27

(d) Freedom from summary punishment;

28

(e) Freedom from unlawful and false arrest and incarceration;


-9Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 10 of 34 Page ID #:10

1
2

(f) Freedom from unreasonable search of person and property without probable cause
or an arrest, or search warrant;

(g) Freedom from unreasonable seizure of person without probable cause;

(h) Freedom from gender discrimination and unequal, gender biased application of the

law under the Equal Protection Clause resulting in a violation of equal protection of the law;

(i) Freedom from arbitrary application of the law without due process;

(j) Freedom to appear in public unclothed from the waist up, where it is not illegal to

8
9
10

do so;
(k) Freedom from threats and intimidation by threat of being arrested based upon
gender for appearing in pubic by going natural, unclothed from the waist up;

11

(l) Freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable arrest, a violation of California Penal

12

Code 836(a)(1), falsely alleging a violation of California Penal Code 314.1 for indecent

13

exposure;

14

(m) Freedom from arrest to move about freely and lawfully on a public sidewalk in

15

the City of Los Angeles while appearing in public unclothed from the waist up by going

16

natural, without government interference;

17

(n) Right to equal protection of the laws and to be free from gender discrimination;

18

28.

In addition to the above and foregoing, all of the individually named

19

Defendants to this action, including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive acted pursuant to a

20

conspiracy, agreement and understanding and common plan and scheme, to deprive Plaintiff

21

of her constitutional rights as described below, and acted in joint and concerted action to so

22

deprive Plaintiff of her constitutional rights as set forth below; all in violation of the United

23

States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983, and otherwise in violation of California state law.

24

Said conspiracy/agreement/ understanding/plan/scheme/joint action/concerted action, above-

25

referenced, was the cause of the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights and damages

26

emanating therefrom, as set forth below.

27
28

29.

For State causes of action related to federal claims, Plaintiff is required to

comply with an administrative claim requirement under California law.


-10Complaint For Damages

Plaintiff has

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 11 of 34 Page ID #:11

complied with all applicable requirements. A claim was filed on April 22, 2016, and assigned

claim number C16-05164 and was denied on May 18, 2016.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

30.

At all times herein alleged, Plaintiff ANNI MA was a 25 year old female of

Asian decent. On or about March 23, 2016 at about 6:30 p.m., Plaintiff was outside the

Wiltern Theater, located at 3790 Wilshire Boulevard, located within the City of Los Angeles,

County of Los Angeles. At the time of the incident there was a political rally taking place

inside the theater supporting Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders. Outside the theater there

were hundreds of individuals, including Plaintiff MA, who was supporting Bernie Sanders

10

campaign for President of the United States. Others may have been opposing Bernie Sanders

11

or supporting other presidential candidates, but all was peaceful. Plaintiff was dressed in a

12

skirt and, initially had no clothing on her upper torso except for masking tape covering her

13

nipples and areolas which had the words Free the Nipple and Feel the Bern. Plaintiff

14

had the words Equality written on her upper chest and ERA written on her upper

15

abdomen.

16

31.

Plaintiff MA removed the masking tape covering her nipples and areolas

17

thereby legally going natural. Plaintiff MA was attired in such a manner that she was not in

18

violation of any law.

19

32.

LAPD Officers believed to Defendant WESTON #38719 and/or Defendant

20

BERMUDEZ #38268, approached Plaintiff MA, grabbed her by her arms and forced her up

21

against a large pole. Said Defendant Officers told her that she must put the tape over her

22

nipples or she would be arrested. Plaintiff MA did not respond. When Plaintiff did not

23

respond to Defendant WESTONs unlawful order, Defendant WESTON held Plaintiffs arms

24

behind her back, forced her face down to the ground, placing his knee in her back. While

25

Plaintiff was face down on the ground, an individual identified by a black shirt with the word

26

SECURITY printed on the back, at Defendant WESTONs request and consent, removed

27

handcuffs from WESTONs belt and placed them on Plaintiff. During this time Plaintiff was

28

yelling statements such as Feel the Bern, My body my choice and Free the nipple.
-11Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 12 of 34 Page ID #:12

1
2

Defendant WESTON told Plaintiff to not resist and to stop resisting.


33.

Plaintiff was forcibly placed into a marked LAPD patrol vehicle and

transported to the Downtown Detention Center. While being forced into the police vehicle,

Plaintiff yelled several times Free the nipple. Plaintiff was booked at 23:28 hours and

detained on an alleged violation of California Penal Code 314.1, indecent exposure. Bail

was set at $10,000.00.

7
8
9

34.

Defendant LAPD Officers WESTON, BERMUDEZ and Defendants DOES

1 through 10, Inclusive, participated in the arrest and detention of Plaintiff.


35.

Plaintiff was released incurring a cost for bond on March 24, 2016 at 18:00

10

with a notice to appear in court at the Clara Shortridge Foltz CJC Department 40. On or

11

about April 14, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff appeared with counsel incurring an additional

12

expense at the designated time and location. No charges had been filed by the People at that

13

time, and the Court provided Plaintiff with proof of appearance.

14
15
16

36.

While in custody at the Downtown Detention Center, Plaintiff contracted a

urinary tract infection due to the unsanitary conditions at the Detention Center.
37.

At the time of the alleged incident herein Plaintiff was disseminating

17

information about equal rights and equal treatment for women. Plaintiffs publication in

18

speech and expression were strictly political communicating information, expressing her

19

opinion, reciting grievances, protesting claimed abuses of unequal treatment of women based

20

on gender discrimination. At no time did Plaintiff expose herself, her genitals, private

21

parts, sex organs or person, or act lewd by intending or to direct public attention to her

22

genitals, which were appropriately covered from public view with proper clothing,

23

specifically a skirt and underwear, or for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying

24

herself, or anyone else, or sexually offending anyone. There was no sexually motivated

25

intent. Plaintiff was never nude but was falsely arrested for a violation of Penal Code

26

314.1, a serious offense with serious life time consequences for freely going natural from

27

the waist up which is not a crime in the State of California because mammary glands are

28

obviously not sex organs of which Defendants and each of them, knew or should have known
-12Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 13 of 34 Page ID #:13

with proper training and education. California Civil Code 43.3 allows for breast feeding

by women in public in order to provide nutrients from the mother to a child because breasts

are not indecent. It is universal knowledge that mammary glands are exocrine glands in

humans that merely produce milk to feed young offspring and are not classified as

genitalia.Therefore, Defendants and each of them, knew or should have known with proper

educational training as well as common sense that they were violating Plaintiffs clearly

established Constitutional rights as herein stated above. Defendants, and each of them, knew

that Plaintiff was not violating any law but, fabricated the charge of a violation of California

Penal Code 314.1, in violation of California Penal Code 118.1, in order to arrest

10

Plaintiff for going natural from the waist up while exercising her Constitutional rights.

11

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants and each of them, had to have acted intentionally,

12

and/or willfully, and/or recklessly and/or maliciously or were plainly or utterly incompetent

13

for not knowing that mammary glands are not sex organs referred to as genitals. Simply

14

going natural from the waist up bare breasted in public is not within the prescription of

15

California Penal Code 314.1. Breasts are not indecent within the meaning of 314.1 of

16

the California Penal Code and therefore there was no probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.

17

38.

At all times herein mentioned Plaintiff was unarmed, non-threatening, non-

18

trespassing, lawfully standing and assembled outside on a public sidewalk located within the

19

Defendant CITY.

20

39.

21

At no time during the course of the incident did Plaintiff participate in any

disturbance nor was there any disturbance at the location and/or its periphery.

22

40.

Plaintiff did not pose a threat to law enforcement or the publics safety.

23

41.

Defendants WESTON, BERMUDEZ and/or DOES 1 through 10, arrested

24

Plaintiff MA without a warrant and without probable cause, on the false allegation that

25

Plaintiff was allegedly in violation of California Penal Code 314.1, indecent exposure

26

which does not apply to female breasts.

27
28

42.

Said Defendant Officers booked Plaintiff into the Los Angeles Detention

Center where Plaintiff was held on $10,000.00 bail, which Plaintiff was able to post after two
-13Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 14 of 34 Page ID #:14

1
2

(2) days of incarceration.


43.

Said actions of Defendants and each of them constituted a violation of

Plaintiffs civil rights in that said Defendant Officers actions were an unlawful interference

of Plaintiff freedom of expression and right to peaceably assemble, unreasonable and

unlawful use of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force exerted upon her and

unreasonable and unlawful seizure of her person in violation of her First, Fourth, Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution and her State civil rights afforded

pursuant to California Civil Code 51.7, 52 and 52.1.

44.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants CITY

10

and LAPD and their decision makers, with deliberate indifference, gross negligence, and

11

reckless disregard to the safety, security, and constitutional and statutory rights of the

12

Plaintiff, and all persons similarly situated, maintained, enforced, tolerated, permitted,

13

acquiesced in, and applied policies, practices, or customs and usages of, among other things:

14

subjecting people to unlawful arrest and unreasonable uses of force against their persons.

15

45.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants CITY

16

and LAPD have a long standing custom, policy and practice of violating civil rights,

17

including unnecessary, unreasonable, excessive use of force and arbitrary arrest and other

18

similar actions and ordered, authorized, acquiesced in, tolerated, permitted or maintained

19

custom and usages permitting the other Defendants herein to engage in the unlawful and

20

unconstitutional actions, policies, practices, and customs or usages set forth in the foregoing

21

paragraph. Defendants' conduct as alleged herein constitutes a pattern of constitutional

22

violations based either on a deliberate plan by defendants or Defendants' deliberate

23

indifference, gross negligence, or reckless disregard to the safety, security, and rights of

24

Plaintiff.

25

46.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that the violations of her constitutional and

26

lawful rights complained of herein were caused by customs, policies, directives, practices,

27

acts and omissions of authorized policy makers of the Defendants CITY and LAPD including

28

Defendant DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, which are other supervisory officials of the LAPD,
-14Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 15 of 34 Page ID #:15

which encouraged, authorized, directed, condoned, and ratified the unconstitutional and

unlawful conduct complained of herein. Said customs, policies and practices include, but are

not limited to the use of unnecessary, unreasonable and excessive and/or arbitrary force to

remove those persons involved in free speech and expressive activities; the failure to

maintain adequate policies, and to adequately train, supervise and control LAPD Officers,

concerning the policing of political speech and/or celebratory activities to within

constitutional limitations on the use of force and arrest; and the failure to investigate and

impose discipline on LAPD Officers involved in the unconstitutional and unlawful actions

complained of herein, and/or to adopt other remedial measures and policies to insure that

10
11

such violations of legal rights would not recur.


47.

As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants described herein,

12

Plaintiff has been denied her constitutional, statutory and legal rights as stated below, and has

13

suffered, continues to suffer and will in the future suffer general and special damages,

14

including but not limited to, mental and emotional distress, physical injuries and bodily harm,

15

pain, fear, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, fright, nervousness, error and anxiety,

16

medical and related expenses, bail costs and attorneys fees in an amount according to proof.

17
18

48.

Defendants acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and done with

conscious disregard and deliberate indifference for Plaintiffs rights.

19

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

20

VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983

21

Unlawful Seizure of Person

22

(Against All Non-Governmental Entity Defendants

23

and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)

24
25
26

49.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth

above in paragraphs 1 through 48, inclusive, as if set forth in full herein.


50.

This cause of action is to redress a deprivation, under color of authority, statute,

27

ordinance, regulation, policy, custom, practice or usage of a right, privilege and immunity

28

secured to Plaintiff by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments


-15Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 16 of 34 Page ID #:16

51.

Plaintiff contends and herein alleges that the above described conduct by

Defendant Officers and each of them, violated Plaintiffs right to be free from unreasonable

seizure and excessive and/or arbitrary use of force and/or arrest and/or imprisonment without

reasonable or probable cause under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution.

52.

Defendants and each of them, are liable to Plaintiff pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C.

Section 1983 for depriving Plaintiff of her rights, privileges and immunities secured by the

Constitution. The actions of Defendant Officers' was a substantial factor causing Plaintiff to

suffer serious constitutional, physical and emotional injuries, including, without limitation:

10

illegal invasion of her person; pain and physical injury; humiliation, emotional pain and

11

suffering.

12

53.

13

Plaintiff claims general damages for such physical and mental distress in an

amount to be proven at trial.

14

54.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Officers' violations, Plaintiff

15

did, and will in the future, incur medical, pharmaceutical and incidental expenses, in an

16

amount to be proven at trial.

17
18

55.

Plaintiff incurred fees for investigations, expenses and other costs in the

prosecution of the constitutional violations alleged herein.

19

56.

Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest, on all ascertainable or readily

20

ascertainable items from the date of such of financial loss, from the date of incurring such

21

losses.

22

57.

The Defendant Officers committed the aforementioned acts in their individual

23

capacities, but while acting under color of law and official police authority. Each Defendant

24

Officer acted willfully, knowingly and with reckless disregard and deliberate indifference to

25

the known consequences of their acts and omissions and purposely with the intent to deprive

26

Plaintiff of her federally protected rights and privileges. The Defendant Officers did, in fact,

27

violate rights and privileges of Plaintiff. As such the Defendant Officers actions were

28

willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, vexatious, deliberate, and their actions justify an
-16Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 17 of 34 Page ID #:17

award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof

at trial.

58.

Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees as provided in 42 U.S.C. 1988.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983

Unreasonable And Excessive Force, Due Process and Equal Protection

(Against All Non-Governmental Entities Defendants,

Including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)

9
10
11

59.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth

above in paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as if set forth in full herein.


60.

The physical force used upon Plaintiff by means of Defendants and each of

12

them, by arbitrary unlawful, unreasonable and excessive force constituted an unreasonable

13

and excessive use of force, without basis or provocation, and violated Plaintiffs Fourth, Fifth

14

and Fourteenth Amendment Rights under the United States Constitution and Plaintiffs rights

15

under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

16

61.

Defendants' above described conduct violated Plaintiffs right to not be

17

deprived of liberty, freedom and equality without due process of law under the Fourteenth

18

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

19

62.

Defendants' above described conduct violated Plaintiffs Fourteenth

20

Amendment right which protects Plaintiff from gender based discrimination and unequal,

21

gender biased application of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

22

Constitution.

23

63.

In the manner alleged more fully above, the Defendants CITY and LAPD

24

employed said individual Defendant Officers WESTON, BERMUDEZ, and DOES 1 through

25

10, inclusive, providing them with the instruments identifying them as LAPD Officers acting

26

under the color of law.

27
28

64.

At all times herein mentioned, the Defendant Officers and each of them, acted

under color and pretense of law, individually and/or while acting in concert with one another,
-17Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 18 of 34 Page ID #:18

and acted under color of the statutes, regulations, ordinances, customs, policies, processes

and usages of the Defendants CITY and LAPD. The Defendant Officers individually and/or

in concert with one another, deprived Plaintiff the privileges, rights and immunities secured

to Plaintiff by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and

the laws of the United States.

65.

In committing the acts alleged more fully above, the Defendant Officers, and

each of them, violated Plaintiffs federally protected rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution by: (1) seizing Plaintiffs person without

warrant or legal authority; (2) seizing Plaintiff without probable cause or due process; (3)

10

detaining Plaintiff by using unauthorized, unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive

11

physical force, intimidation and violence; (4) gender based discrimination; (5) committing

12

assault and battery against Plaintiff by using unnecessary, unjustified, unreasonable and/or

13

excessive force in handcuffing and arresting Plaintiff; and (5) inflicting injuries. The

14

Defendant Officers violations give rise to Plaintiffs claims pursuant the Federal Civil

15

Rights Act 42 U.S.C. 1983.

16

66.

At all times herein mentioned, said Defendant Officers and each of them, in

17

the manner alleged more fully above, willfully and intentionally used force without reason

18

or provocation on Plaintiff causing the injuries and damages as set forth herein. This

19

unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force and/or show of authority terminated and

20

restrained Plaintiffs freedom of movement through the means intentionally applied which

21

amounted to an unconstitutional seizure of Plaintiffs person.

22

67.

At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff never acted in a manner that was

23

threatening to public safety, nor did Plaintiff pose any risk of harm to the LAPD Police

24

Officers, or other persons or property in the area. Plaintiff never did or said anything to

25

justify any use of any force against her. Defendant Officers used force against Plaintiff

26

without any provocation or legal justification. Moreover, the severity and quantity of force

27

the Defendant Officers used, grossly exceeded that necessary to achieve a lawful

28

governmental purpose.
-18Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 19 of 34 Page ID #:19

68.

The Defendant Officers' use of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive

force was a substantial factor causing Plaintiff to suffer constitutional, physical and

emotional injuries, including, without limitation: illegal invasion of her person; false arrest;

pain and physical injury; humiliation, emotional pain and suffering.

5
6

69.

Plaintiff claims general damages for such physical and mental distress in an

amount to be proven at trial.

70.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Officers' violations, Plaintiff

did and will in the future, incur medical, pharmaceutical and incidental expenses, in an

amount to be proven at trial.

10

71.

Plaintiff incurred attorneys fees for investigations, bail expenses, other

11

expenses and other costs, in addition for the prosecution of the constitutional violations

12

alleged herein.

13

72.

Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest, on all ascertainable or readily

14

ascertainable items from the date of such of financial loss, from the date of incurring such

15

losses.

16

73.

The Defendant Officers and each of them, committed the aforementioned acts

17

in their individual capacities, but while acting under color of law and official police

18

authority. Each Defendant Officer acted willfully, knowingly and with reckless disregard

19

and deliberate indifference to the known consequences of their acts and omissions and

20

purposely with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of their

21

privileges. The Defendant Officers did, in fact, violate rights and privileges of Plaintiff. As

22

such the Defendant Officers actions were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, vexatious,

23

deliberate, and their actions justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an

24

amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.

25

74.

federally protected rights and

Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees as provided in 42 U.S.C. 1988.

26
27
28
-19Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 20 of 34 Page ID #:20

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. 1983

Right to Peaceful Association, Assembly, Freedom of Speech

and Petition Government

(Against All Non-Governmental Entity Defendants

and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)

7
8
9

75.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth

above in paragraphs 1 through 74, inclusive, as if set forth in full herein.


76.

At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff was peacefully assembled on a public

10

sidewalk in the City of Los Angeles, outside an organized political rally engaging in

11

constitutionally protected expressive activity by protesting the freedom for equality for

12

women having the equal rights as men to freely and equally appear in public unclothed from

13

the waist up by going natural and conveying particularized political messages in the form of

14

words painted on Plaintiffs upper torso and chest.

15

77.

Defendant Officers WESTON, BERMUDEZ and DOES 1 through 10,

16

inclusive, violated Plaintiffs First Amendment Rights when Defendants and each of them

17

arrested Plaintiff without probable cause and in retaliation for her having exercised her First

18

Amendment right to peaceful association, assembly, freedom of speech and petitioning the

19

government for redress.

20

78.

Plaintiffs constitutionally protected expressive speech was related to matters

21

of public concern.

22

79.

Defendant Officers acts of intimidating, threatening, searching, and falsely

23

arresting Plaintiff were motivated by Plaintiffs exercise of constitutionally protected

24

conduct.

25

80.

Defendant Officers actions caused Plaintiff to suffer injuries that would chill

26

a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in such constitutionally protected

27

activity.

28
-20Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 21 of 34 Page ID #:21

81.

Defendant Officers conduct violated clearly established rights belonging to

Plaintiff of which reasonable persons in Defendant Officers position knew or should have

known.

82.

Defendant Officers acts were done under color of state and/or federal law.

83.

Defendant Officers engaged in the conduct described herein above

intentionally, knowingly, willfully, wantonly maliciously and in reckless disregard of

Plaintiffs constitutional rights, sufficient for an award of punitive/exemplary damages

against defendants in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.

84.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Officers violations, Plaintiff

10

did, and will in the future continue to incur medical, psychiatric, pharmaceutical and

11

incidental expenses, in an amount to be proven at time of trial.

12
13

85.

Plaintiff incurred fees for investigations, expenses and other costs in the

prosecution of the constitutional violations alleged herein.

14

86.

Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest, on all ascertainable or readily

15

ascertainable items from the date of such financial loss, from the date of incurring such

16

losses.

17

87.

Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees as provided in 42 U.S.C. 1988.

18

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

19

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. 1983

20

Unconstitutional Municipal Customs And Policies

21

(Against Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES and

22

CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT)

23
24
25

88.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth

above in paragraphs 1 through 87, inclusive, as if set forth in full herein.


89.

As alleged more fully above, Defendant Officers of the LAPD (1) used

26

unreasonable, unnecessary and/or excessive force, without basis or provocation, when they

27

unlawfully and unreasonably arrested and handcuffed Plaintiff after taking her down to the

28

ground when she was unarmed, non-threatening and peacefully assembled with others,
-21Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 22 of 34 Page ID #:22

causing injury and damages, thus terminating and/or restraining Plaintiffs freedom of

movement, which amounted to an unconstitutional seizure; (2) unlawfully detained and

arrested Plaintiff without a warrant, probable cause or exigent circumstances; in violation of

her First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

90.

As alleged more fully above, the Defendants CITY and LAPD maintained

policies, practices and customs that condoned: (1) the LAPD Officers unconstitutional use

of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force; (2) the LAPDS culture that promoted

Officers use of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force to achieve governmental

and personal ends; and, (3) the LAPDS Officers use of police power for personal

10
11

satisfaction.
91.

At all times herein mentioned, Defendants CITY and LAPD, by and through

12

its supervisory employees and agents, including DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, has and had

13

a mandatory duty of care to properly and adequately hire, train, retain, supervise, and

14

discipline its police officers so as to avoid unreasonable risk of harm to citizens. With

15

deliberate indifference, Defendants CITY, LAPD and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, failed

16

to take necessary, proper, or adequate measures in order to prevent the violation of Plaintiffs

17

rights and injury to said Plaintiff. Defendants and each of them, including DOES 1 through

18

10, inclusive, breached their duty of care to citizens in that Defendants CITY and LAPD and

19

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, failed to adequately train its police officers, including

20

Defendants in the proper and reasonable use of force, the proper and reasonable making of

21

arrests, and/or failed to have adequate policies and procedures regarding the proper and

22

reasonable use of force and the proper and reasonable making of arrests. This lack of

23

adequate supervisorial training, and/or policies and procedures demonstrates the existence

24

of an informal custom or policy of promoting, tolerating, and/or ratifying the continuing use

25

of excessive and unreasonable force by police officers employed by LAPD, the continuing

26

failure to make proper and reasonable arrests by police officers employed by LAPD

27
28

92.

The Defendants CITY and LAPD knew this culture promoted Officers use of

unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force, knew this culture allowed Officers to use
-22Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 23 of 34 Page ID #:23

unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force with impunity and knew this culture of the

LAPD Officers to use unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force in violation of

third-parties civil rights. However, despite this knowledge, the Defendants CITY and

LAPD failed to establish policies and procedures to eradicate this culture. By such failure,

the Defendants CITY and LAPD ratified their Police Officers unconstitutional acts,

including those of the Defendant Officers and each of them.

93.

As alleged more fully above, the Defendants CITY and LAPD knew this

throughout unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force culture rendered the training

they did provide LAPD Police Officers ineffective to protect third-parties from unlawful

10

detention, unreasonable seizures and excessive uses of force. Consequently, the Defendants

11

CITY and LAPD knew, or should have known, they needed to increase and improve the

12

training they provided to LAPD Police Officers generally, and the Defendant Officers

13

specifically, in the lawful use of force and their obligation to report fellow Police Officers

14

use of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force. However, despite this knowledge,

15

the Defendants CITY and LAPD failed to provide the training, monitoring, supervision

16

and/control necessary to eradicate the LAPDs unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive

17

force culture, eradicate the LAPD Police Officers routine use of unnecessary, unreasonable

18

and/or excessive force. By such failure the Defendants CITY and LAPD ratified their Police

19

Officers disregard, and the Defendant Officers disregard, of constitutional restrictions on

20

police action and protections against use of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive

21

force.

22

94.

As alleged more fully above, the Defendants CITY and LAPD failed to screen

23

prospective Police Officer applicants adequately before hiring them as LAPD Police

24

Officers. Moreover, the Defendants CITY and LAPD failed to conduct adequate post-

25

employment screening of its LAPD Police Officers. The Defendants CITY and LAPDs

26

failure to conduct adequate pre-employment and post-employment screening caused them

27

to hire and retain individuals, including the Defendant Officers, prone to using police power

28

for personal satisfaction and prone to use unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force
-23Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 24 of 34 Page ID #:24

and prone to disregarding the constitutional limits restricting police power. Based on internal

and external audits, citizen complaints, notices of governmental claims and civil rights

lawsuits, the Defendants CITY and LAPD knew they needed to improve their pre and post

employment screening to exclude candidates and employees prone to these violations.

95.

Although they knew, or should have known, their LAPD Police Officers and

the Defendant Officers conducted these acts, omissions, decisions, practices, customs and

policies, both formal and informal, and knew their Department and Police Officers were

violating third-parties civil rights, the Defendants CITY and LAPD have taken no steps to

stop this course of conduct. The Defendants CITY and LAPD ratified these violations by

10

knowingly refusing to take corrective action, thereby elevating these violations to being the

11

policies, practices or customs of the Defendant CITY.

12

96.

The Defendants CITY and LAPD were deliberately indifferent to their Police

13

Officers abuse of police power, uses of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force

14

and the injuries they caused third-parties, including the Defendant Officers use of

15

unreasonable, unnecessary and/or excessive force against Plaintiff, and the injuries they

16

caused. Moreover, the Defendants CITY and LAPD failed to take any disciplinary action

17

whatsoever against the Defendant Officers for these injuries and violations. The Defendants

18

CITY and LAPDs knowing failure to implement corrective polices, practices, procedures,

19

training and adequate screening were substantial factors in proximately causing the physical

20

injuries, emotional trauma and civil rights violations the Defendant Officers inflicted on

21

Plaintiff .

22

97.

The details of this incident and the Defendant Officers' misconduct have been

23

revealed to the Defendants CITY and LAPDs authorized policymaker(s) as alleged more

24

fully above. As such, these policymakers had direct knowledge of the Defendant Officers

25

unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force, unlawful seizure and unlawful detainment

26

inflicted on Plaintiff, and violation of her civil rights, which the Defendants CITY and LAPD

27

approved and endorsed. By doing so, the Defendants CITY and LAPDs authorized

28

policymakers ratified the Defendant Officers unconstitutional acts, their unconstitutional use
-24Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 25 of 34 Page ID #:25

of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force and the injuries they caused Plaintiff.

98.

In committing the acts set forth above, the Defendants CITY and LAPD, and

each of them, violated Plaintiff federally protected rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Defendants CITY and

LAPD's violations give rise to Plaintiffs claims pursuant the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42

U.S.C. 1983.

99.

The Defendants CITY and LAPD's policies, practices, procedures and customs

were substantial factors causing Plaintiff serious constitutional, physical and emotional

injuries, including, without limitation: assault, battery, false arrest and imprisonment,

10

humiliation and emotional pain and suffering, suffering, anguish, fright, nervousness,

11

anxiety, grief, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, and apprehension. Plaintiff

12

claims general damages for such physical and mental distress in an amount to be proven at

13

trial.

14

100.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants CITY and LAPD's

15

violations, Plaintiff did, and will in the future continue, incur medical, psychiatric,

16

pharmaceutical and incidental expenses, in an amount to be proven at time of trial.

17
18

101.

Plaintiff incurred fees for investigations, expenses and other costs in the

prosecution of the constitutional violations alleged herein.

19

102.

Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest, on all ascertainable or readily

20

ascertainable items from the date of such of financial loss, from the date of incurring such

21

losses.

22

103.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees as provided in 42 U.S.C. 1988.

-25Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 26 of 34 Page ID #:26

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT - CALIFORNIA STATE LAW

(Against Defendants CITY, LAPD, OFFICER WESTON #38719, OFFICER

BERMUDEZ #38268; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)

5
6

104.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above

in paragraphs 1 through 103, inclusive, as if set forth in full herein.

105.

As alleged more fully above, Plaintiff was unlawfully detained, falsely arrested

and imprisoned to go where Plaintiff did not want to go and was compelled to remain where

Plaintiff did not want to be. Moreover, as described above, Plaintiff was unlawfully

10

detained, handcuffed, unnecessarily restrained and arrested.

11

106.

None of the Defendant Officers to this action had either reasonable suspicion

12

of criminality afoot by plaintiff or probable cause to believe that plaintiff had committed a

13

crime.

14

107.

Said Defendants and each of them restrained and deprived plaintiff of liberty.

15

108.

Said Defendants and each of them intentionally deprived plaintiff of freedom

16
17
18
19
20
21

of movement by use of physical force.


109.

Plaintiff did not consent to said deprivation of freedom of movement. Plaintiff

suffered harm because of said deprivation of freedom of movement.


110.

The actions by said Defendants and each of them, described above, constituted

a false arrest/false imprisonment of plaintiff under California state law.


111.

Defendants and each of them are liable to Plaintiff for said false arrest/false

22

imprisonment, assault and battery, negligence and statutory violations pursuant to Cal. Govt

23

Code 815.2(a), 820, and otherwise pursuant to the common-law. Said Defendants can be

24

sued pursuant to Cal. Govt Code 945.

25
26

112.

Plaintiff claims general damages for such physical and mental distress in an

amount to be proven at trial.

27
28
-26Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 27 of 34 Page ID #:27

113.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Officers' violations, Plaintiff

did, and will in the future, incur medical, pharmaceutical and incidental expenses, in an

amount to be proven at trial.

4
5

114.

Plaintiff incurred fees for investigations, expenses and other costs in the

prosecution of the constitutional violations alleged herein.

115.

Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest, on all ascertainable or readily

ascertainable items from the date of such of financial loss, from the date of incurring such

losses.

116.

The Defendant Officers committed the aforementioned acts in their individual

10

capacities, but while acting under color of law and official police authority. Each Defendant

11

Officer acted willfully, knowingly and with reckless disregard and deliberate indifference

12

to the known consequences of their acts and omissions and purposely with the intent to

13

deprive Plaintiff of his federally protected rights and privileges. The Defendant Officers did,

14

in fact, violate Plaintiffs rights and privileges. As such the Defendant Officers' actions were

15

willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, vexatious, deliberate, and their actions justify an

16

award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof

17

at trial as to the individual Defendant Officers and DOES 1 through 10 only.

18

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

19

ASSAULT AND BATTERY - CALIFORNIA STATE LAW

20

(Against Defendants CITY, LAPD, OFFICER WESTON #38719, OFFICER

21

BERMUDEZ #38268; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)

22
23
24

117.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above

in paragraphs 1 through 116, inclusive, as if set forth in full herein.


118.

As alleged more fully above, said Defendant Officers acted intending to cause

25

harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff by handcuffing Plaintiff by force and taking

26

Plaintiff to the ground. The Defendant Officers offensive contact upon Plaintiff, and their

27

failure to protect Plaintiff and allowing the injuries and damages as herein alleged,

28

engendered fear in Plaintiff in that Plaintiff was afraid that she would be further assaulted
-27Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 28 of 34 Page ID #:28

causing her injury. This offensive contact by Defendant Officers was without consent,

unwanted and not warranted by any exigency of the circumstances.

3
4

119.

Plaintiff did not consent to any of this morally opprobrious, unlawful, offensive

and injurious conduct by the Defendant Officers as above-described.

120.

Said assault was not consented to by Plaintiff, nor were the Defendant Officers

infliction of serious bodily injury upon Plaintiff, privileged or immunized by the laws of the

State of California.

121.

9
10

to Cal. Govt Code 815.2(a) and 820 otherwise pursuant to the common-law. Said
Defendants can be sued pursuant to Cal. Govt Code 945.

11
12

Defendants and each of them are liable to Plaintiff for said battery, pursuant

122.

Plaintiff claims general damages for such physical and mental distress in an

amount to be proven at trial.

13

123.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Officers' violations, Plaintiff

14

did, and will in the future, incur medical, pharmaceutical and incidental expenses, in an

15

amount to be proven at trial.

16
17

124.

Plaintiff incurred fees for investigations, expenses and other costs in the

prosecution of the constitutional violations alleged herein.

18

125.

Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest, on all ascertainable or readily

19

ascertainable items from the date of such of financial loss, from the date of incurring such

20

losses

21

126.

The Defendant Officers committed the aforementioned acts in their individual

22

capacities, but while acting under color of law and official police authority. Each Defendant

23

Officer acted willfully, knowingly and with reckless disregard and deliberate indifference to

24

the known consequences of their acts and omissions and purposely with the intent to deprive

25

Plaintiff of her federally protected rights and privileges.

26

127.

The Defendant Officers did, in fact, violate Plaintiffs rights and privileges.

27

As such the Defendant Officers' actions were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive,

28

vexatious, deliberate, and their actions justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages
-28Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 29 of 34 Page ID #:29

in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial as to the individual Defendant

Officers and DOES 1 through 10 only.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 51.7

(RALPH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT)

(Against All Non-Governmental Entity Defendants

and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)

8
9
10

128.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above

in paragraphs 1 through 127, inclusive, as if set forth in full herein.


129.

Defendants and each of them, committed violence, including but not limited

11

to, falsely arresting Plaintiff by intimidation by threat of violence, against Plaintiff because

12

of Plaintiffs gender denying Plaintiff equal protection under the law, in violation of Civil

13

Code 51.7 and the California Constitutional rights, Article I, Section 1, the Inalienable

14

right of enjoying liberty, Article I, Section 7 and Article I, Section 13. Defendants and each

15

of them intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs Constitutional rights to freedom, liberty and

16

equality by intimidation.

17

130.

Defendant Officers of the LAPD aided, incited and conspired in the denial of

18

Plaintiffs rights under Civil Code 51.7, while acting as employees of Defendant CITY

19

and/or LAPD.

20

131.

Defendant Officers of LAPD were acting in part within the course and scope

21

of their employment by CITY and/or LAPD and were, at least in part, serving a purpose of

22

their own in carrying out the above misconduct against Plaintiff. Defendant Officers of the

23

LAPD were motivated, at least in part, by malice and ill will toward Plaintiff because of her

24

sex (female).

25

132.

As a proximate result of the misconduct of Defendants and each of them,

26

Plaintiff is entitled, pursuant to Civil Code 52, to an award of actual general and special

27

damages (including but not limited to physical and mental injuries and disabilities; pain and

28

suffering, emotional distress), exemplary and punitive damages, a civil penalty of twenty five
-29Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 30 of 34 Page ID #:30

thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for each violation of 51.7 by each Defendant, and reasonable

attorneys fees as may be determined by the Court. Plaintiff has retained the legal services

of attorneys and incurred an obligation for fees.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 52.1

(BANE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT)

(Against All Non-Governmental Entity Defendants

and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)

9
10
11

133.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above

in paragraphs 1 through 132, inclusive, as if set forth in full herein.


134.

Defendant Officers and each of them, interfered and/or attempted to interfere,

12

by intimidation, coercion, and/or credible threats of violence, with the exercise or enjoyment

13

of Plaintiffs First Amendment Rights to exercise freedom of speech, expression, petition

14

government and to assemble peacefully, as well as the right to be free from deprivation of

15

freedom, liberty and equality as a result of gender discrimination. Said rights are secured

16

by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution

17

or laws of the State of California. Plaintiffs rights include, but are not limited to; Civil Code

18

51.7, 52, 52.1 (violation of equal protection)

19

135.

Defendants and each of them, committed violence, including but not limited

20

to, falsely arresting Plaintiff by intimidation by threat of violence, against Plaintiff because

21

of Plaintiffs gender denying Plaintiff equal protection under the law, in violation of Civil

22

Code 51.7 and the California Constitutional rights, Article I, Section 1, the Inalienable

23

right of enjoying liberty, Article I, Section 7 and Article I, Section 13. Defendants and each

24

of them intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs Constitutional rights to freedom, liberty and

25

equality by intimidation.

26

136.

The above-described conduct by Defendant Officers and each of them,

27

constituted interference, and attempted interference, by threats, intimidation and coercion,

28

with Plaintiffs peaceful exercise and enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution and
-30Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 31 of 34 Page ID #:31

laws of the United States and the State of California, in violation of California Civil Code

52.1.

137.

Defendant Officers and each of them, were acting in part, acting within the

course and scope of their employment by Defendants CITY and LAPD and were, at least in

part, serving a purpose of their own in carrying out the above misconduct against Plaintiff.

Defendants and each of them, were motivated, at least in part, by malice and ill will towards

Plaintiff who appeared in public by going natural, unclothed from the waist up.

138.

As the proximate result of the misconduct by Defendants and each of them,

Plaintiff suffered damages. Plaintiff is entitled, pursuant to Civil Code 51.7, 52 and 52.1

10

to an award of actual general and special damages, exemplary damages, and reasonable

11

attorneys fees as may be determined by the Court.

12

139.

Pursuant to Civil Code 3294, Defendant Officers wrongful conduct was

13

malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, despicable and not to be tolerated by civilized society and

14

was known, authorized, ratified and/or perpetrated by Defendants CITY and/or LAPDs

15

managing agents, entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an

16

amount to be proven.

17

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18

NEGLIGENCE

19

(Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)

20
21
22

140.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above

in paragraphs 1 through 139, inclusive, as if set forth in full herein.


141.

Defendants and each of them have a duty of care to Plaintiff to ensure that

23

Defendants and each of them, did not cause unnecessary or unjustified harm to Plaintiff and

24

a duty of care to hire, train, supervise and discipline LAPD Police Officers so as to not cause

25

harm to Plaintiff and to prevent violations of Plaintiffs constitutional, statutory and common

26

law rights. Defendants and each of them, acted carelessly, recklessly, incompetently and

27

negligently by causing Plaintiff to be arrested for an alleged violation of California Penal

28

Code 314.1.
-31Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 32 of 34 Page ID #:32

142.

The above-described acts and omissions of Defendants and each of them,

breached the duty of care Defendants and each of them owed to Plaintiff thereby negligently

causing said injuries and damages to Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial.

143. Defendants and each of them, committed the aforementioned acts in their

individual capacities, but while acting under color of law and official police authority.

Defendant Officers and each of them, acted negligently with reckless disregard to the known

consequences of their acts and omissions.

8
9

144.

Plaintiff did not contribute to any of the injurious conduct by the Defendants

and each of them as described herein above.

10

145.

Defendants and each of them are liable to Plaintiff for said negligence,

11

pursuant to Cal. Govt Code 815.2(a), 820(a) and otherwise pursuant to the common-law.

12

Said Defendants can be sued pursuant to Cal. Govt Code 945.

13
14

146.

Plaintiff claims general damages for such physical and mental distress in an

amount to be proven at trial.

15

147.

As a direct and proximate result of the violations of Defendants and each of

16

them, Plaintiff did and will in the future, incur medical, pharmaceutical and incidental

17

expenses in an amount to be proven at trial.

18
19

148.

Plaintiff incurred fees for investigations, expenses and other costs in the

prosecution of the constitutional violations alleged herein.

20

149.

Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest, on all ascertainable or readily

21

ascertainable items from the date of such of financial loss, from the date of incurring such

22

losses

23
24
25

PRAYER FOR RELIEF


WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff claims for relief above demand the following relief,
jointly and severally, against all the defendants as applicable under the law as follows:

26

1.

Compensatory general and special damages in an amount in accordance with

27

proof which are:

28

(a)

As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of


-32Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 33 of 34 Page ID #:33

defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered the following injuries and damages which

are recoverable by Plaintiff under the Federal Civil Rights statutes and State Civil Rights

statutes identified herein:

(b)

Violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable

search and seizure of her person and by depriving her of gender equality, freedom of speech,

freedom to assemble, freedom of liberty, without due process of law;

8
9

12
13

Violation of California State Civil Rights under Civil Code 51.7 and

(d)

Conscious physical pain, suffering and emotional trauma; and

52.1;

10
11

(c)

2.

General and special damages as a result of intentional and negligent acts

according to proof;
3.

Punitive and exemplary damages where applicable under the law for State

14

actions pursuant to California Civil Code 3294 and for Federal actions pursuant to Smith

15

v. Wade (1983) 461 U.S. 30, in amounts to be determined according to proof as to the

16

individual Defendants only, excluding all public entities;

17
18
19
20

4.

For an award of statutory damages and penalties pursuant to Cal. Civil Code

52(b) to be determined according to proof;


5.

Reasonable attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, including those fees

permitted by 42 U.S.C. 1988; and California Civil Code 51.7 and 52.1

21

6.

For costs of suit necessarily incurred herein;

22

7.

Prejudgment interest according to proof; and

23

8.

Such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

24
25

DATED: August 4, 2016

/S/ John R. Cogorno


JOHN R. COGORNO, Attorney for
Plaintiff

DATED: August 4, 2016

/S/ R. Allen Baylis


R. ALLEN BAYLIS, Attorney for
Plaintiff

26
27
28

-33Complaint For Damages

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 34 of 34 Page ID #:34

1
2

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL


Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

3
4

DATED: August 4, 2016

/S/ John R. Cogorno


JOHN R. COGORNO, Attorney for
Plaintiff

DATED: August 4, 2016

/S/ R. Allen Baylis


R. ALLEN BAYLIS, Attorney for
Plaintiff

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-34Complaint For Damages