Estate of Amilcar Perez Lopez et al v. Suhr et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01846

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting {{37}} Stipulation For Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 1 ARNOLDO CASILLAS, ESQ., SBN 158519 DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM, ESQ., SBN 282771 2 CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES 3 3500 W. Beverly Blvd. Montebello, CA 90640 4 Tel: (323) 725-0917; Fax: (323) 725-0350 5 Email: acasillas@casillaslegal.com 6 JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ., SBN 136441 7 1313 Scheibel Ln. Sebastopol, CA 95472 8 Tel: (415) 806-0154 9 Email: jonathan4536@sbcglobal.net 10 WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ., SBN 106672 th 11 1736 Franklin St., 10 Floor Oakland, CA 94612 12 Tel: (510) 444-0226 13 Email: bsimpich@gmail.com 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through 15 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ) CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01846 HSG 20 LOPEZ, by and through successors in) interest, JUAN PEREZ and) STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES 21 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ;) FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 22 JUAN PEREZ, individually;) AMENDED COMPLAINT MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ,) 23 individually;) 24) Plaintiffs,) 25) 26 vs.)) 27 28 1 STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 1 CHIEF OF POLICE GREG SUHR;) CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN) 2 FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO) 3 POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER) CRAIG TIFFE (Badge No. 1312);) 4 OFFICER ERIC REBOLI (Badge No.) 5 1651), and DOES 1 to 10,)) 6 Defendants.) 7) 8 9 TO CLERK OF THE COURT: 10 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, Plaintiffs ESTATE OF 11 AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ 12 and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA 13 LOPEZ PEREZ, individually (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs"), by and through 14 Plaintiffs' attorneys of record, Arnoldo Casillas and Denisse O. Gastélum, and 15 Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO 16 POLICE DEPARTMENT), GREG SUHR, CRAIG TIFFE, and ERIC REBOLI 17 (hereinafter collectively "Defendants"), by and through their attorney of record, Peter 18 J. Keith and Elizabeth Pederson, that Plaintiffs shall be granted leave to file 19 Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "1". 20 The parties, by and through their respective attorneys of record, also hereby stipulate 21 that the attached proposed Second Amended Complaint (Exhibit "1") be deemed to 22 be the amended pleading and that it be deemed filed and served as of the date the 23 order is signed. 24 The parties, by and through their respective attorneys of record, further 25 stipulate that Defendants shall be given thirty (30) days as of the date the order is 26 signed to file and serve a responsive pleading. 27 28 2 STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 1 The parties, by and through their respective attorneys of record, further 2 stipulate that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, 3 currently set for hearing on January 21, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. at Courtroom 15, 18th 4 Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco CA 94102, be taken off calendar as 5 moot. 6 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD. 7 8 Dated: December 2, 2015 CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES 9 By: /s/ Denisse O. Gastélum 10 ARNOLDO CASILLAS 11 DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF 12 AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through 13 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN 14 PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ 15 PEREZ, individually 16 Dated: December 2, 2015 DENNIS J. HERRERA 17 City Attorney 18 CHERYL ADAMS Chief Trial Deputy 19 PETER J. KEITH 20 ELIZABETH PEDERSON Deputy City Attorneys 21 22 By:/s/Peter J. Keith PETER J. KEITH 23 Attorneys for Defendants 24 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (including SAN FRANCISCO POLICE 25 DEPARTMENT),GREG SUHR, CRAIG TIFFE, and ERIC REBOLI 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 1 ARNOLDO CASILLAS, ESQ., SBN 158519 DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM, ESQ., SBN 282771 2 CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES 3 3500 W. Beverly Blvd. Montebello, CA 90640 4 Tel: (323) 725-0917; Fax: (323) 725-0350 5 Email: acasillas@casillaslegal.com 6 JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ., SBN 136441 7 1313 Scheibel Ln. Sebastopol, CA 95472 8 Tel: (415) 806-0154 9 Email: jonathan4536@sbcglobal.net 10 WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ., SBN 106672 th 11 1736 Franklin St., 10 Floor Oakland, CA 94612 12 Tel: (510) 444-0226 13 Email: bsimpich@gmail.com 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through 15 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ) CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01846 HSG 20 LOPEZ, by and through successors in) interest, JUAN PEREZ and) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 21 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ;) FOR DAMAGES 22 JUAN PEREZ, individually;) MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ,) 1. Excessive Force/Unreasonable 23 individually;) Seizure (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 24) 2. Municipal Liability for Plaintiffs,) Unconstitutional Customs and 25) Practices (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 26 vs.) 3. Supervisory Liability for) Ratification and Failure to Train, 27 CHIEF OF POLICE GREG SUHR;) Supervise, and Discipline (42 28 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN) U.S.C. § 1983) 1 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO) POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER) 4. Interference with Familial Integrity 2 CRAIG TIFFE (Badge No. 1312);) Substantive Due Process Violation OFFICER ERIC REBOLI (Badge No.) (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 3 1651), and DOES 1 to 10,) 5. Assault & Battery 4) 6. Wrongful Death Defendants.) 7. Survivorship 5) 6 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 7 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 9 COME NOW Plaintiffs ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and 10 through successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, 11 and JUAN PEREZ, and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually, and allege as 12 follows: 13 INTRODUCTION 14 1. This civil rights action seeks to establish the true and unequivocal facts 15 surrounding the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez by Officer Craig Tiffe 16 and Officer Eric Reboli of the San Francisco Police Department. This civil rights 17 action further seeks to establish the violations of fundamental rights under the United 18 States Constitution in connection with the killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez on or about 19 February 26, 2015. 20 2. Amilcar was a humble and hardworking young man, who wanted 21 nothing more in life than to provide for his parents. His death has been a profound 22 and unimaginable loss to his parents, the present Plaintiffs. 23 3. Without justification or cause, Defendants Officer Tiffe and Officer 24 Reboli shot and killed Amilcar when they shot five (5) rounds of ammunition into the 25 back of his body and one round into the back of his head as Amilcar ran away from 26 them. This coldblooded shooting was absolutely unjustified and it is Plaintiffs' goal 27 28 2 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 to show that the cowardly killing of Amilcar was a senseless and unwarranted act of 2 police abuse. 3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4 4. This civil action is brought for the redress of alleged deprivations of 5 constitutional rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, the Fourth 6 and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is 7 founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367. 8 5. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because 9 Defendants reside in, and all incidents, events, and occurrences giving rise to this 10 action occurred in the City and County of San Francisco, California. 11 6. With respect to Plaintiffs' supplemental state claims, Plaintiffs request 12 that this Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims as they arise from 13 the same facts and circumstances which underlie the federal claims. 14 PARTIES 15 7. Decedent Amilcar Perez Lopez was an individual residing in the City 16 and County of San Francisco, California. The claims made by the ESTATE OF 17 AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, are brought by Juan Perez and Margarita Perez Lopez, 18 the successors in interest to the Estate of Amilcar Perez Lopez pursuant to California 19 Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32. 20 8. Plaintiffs JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA PEREZ LOPEZ, are and 21 were, at all times relevant hereto, the natural father and mother of decedent Amilcar 22 Perez Lopez. 23 9. Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (hereinafter 24 "SAN FRANCISCO") is and was, at all relevant times hereto, a public entity, duly 25 organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with 26 the capacity to sue and be sued. Defendant SAN FRANCISCO is responsible for the 27 actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices and customs of its various agents 28 3 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 and agencies. SAN FRANCISCO owns, operates, manages, directs and controls 2 Defendant SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT (hereinafter also "SFPD"), 3 also a separate public entity, which employs other Doe Defendants in this action. At 4 all times relevant to the facts alleged herein, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO was 5 responsible for assuring that the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices 6 and customs of its employees, including SFPD employees, complied with the laws 7 and the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of California. 8 10. Defendant Chief of Police GREG SUHR (hereinafter "CHIEF SUHR") 9 is and was, at all relevant times hereto, an individual and the Chief of Police of the 10 San Francisco Police Department. 11 11. Defendant Officer CRAIG TIFFE (hereinafter "TIFFE") is a police 12 officer working for the San Francisco Police Department. Defendant TIFFE is sued 13 in his official and individual capacity. At all times relevant to the present action, 14 Defendant TIFFE was acting under the color of law, to wit, under the color of the 15 statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of Defendant SAN 16 FRANCISCO, as well as under the color of the statutes and regulations of the State of 17 California. 18 12. Defendant Officer ERIC REBOLI (hereinafter "REBOLI") is a police 19 officer working for the San Francisco Police Department. Defendant REBOLI is 20 sued in his official and individual capacity. At all times relevant to the present 21 action, Defendant REBOLI was acting under the color of law, to wit, under the color 22 of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of Defendant 23 SAN FRANCISCO, as well as under the color of the statutes and regulations of the 24 State of California. 25 13. At all relevant times, each of DOES 1 through 10 were employees of the 26 SFPD. At all times relevant herein, each of DOES 1 through 10 was an employee 27 and/or agent of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO and he or she acted under color of law, 28 4 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 to wit, under the color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and 2 usages of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO and the SFPD, as well as under the color of 3 the statutes and regulations of the State of California. 4 14. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants DOES 1 through 10 was 5 acting within his or her capacity as an employee, agent, representative and/or servant 6 of SAN FRANCISCO and is sued in their individual capacities. 7 15. On information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants TIFFE and 8 REBOLI, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were residents of the City of San 9 Francisco, California. 10 16. The true names of Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are 11 unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. 12 Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to show the true names and 13 capacities of these Defendants when they have been ascertained. Each of the 14 fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct and 15 liabilities alleged herein. 16 17. Defendants DOES 6 through 10 were also duly appointed police officers, 17 sergeants, lieutenants, detectives, or other supervisors, officials, executives and/or 18 policymakers of SFPD, a department and subdivision of Defendant SAN 19 FRANCISCO, and at all times mentioned herein said Defendants were acting in the 20 course and scope of their employment with Defendant SAN FRANCISCO, which is 21 liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior pursuant to California Government 22 Code § 815.2. 23 18. Defendants DOES 1 through 3 are supervisorial employees for 24 Defendant SAN FRANCISCO who were acting under color of law within the course 25 and scope of their duties as police officers for Defendant SAN FRANCISCO. 26 Defendants DOES 1 through 3 were acting with the complete authority and 27 ratification of their principal, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO. 28 5 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 19. Defendants DOES 4 through 10 are managerial, supervisorial, and 2 policymaking employees of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO, who were acting under 3 color of law within the course and scope of their duties as managerial, supervisorial, 4 and policymaking employees for Defendant SAN FRANCISCO. Defendants DOES 9 5 and 10 were acting with the complete authority and ratification of their principal, 6 Defendant SAN FRANCISCO. 7 20. Each of the Defendants caused and is responsible for the unlawful 8 conduct and resulting by, inter alia, personally participating in the conduct, or acting 9 jointly and in concert with others who did so; by authorizing, acquiescing or failing to 10 take action to prevent the unlawful conduct; by promulgating policies and procedures 11 pursuant to which the unlawful conduct occurred; by failing and refusing, with 12 deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' rights, to initiate and maintain adequate 13 supervision and/or training; and, by ratifying the unlawful conduct that occurred by 14 agents and peace officers under their direction and control. Whenever and wherever 15 reference is made in this Complaint to any act by a Defendant, such allegation and 16 reference shall also be deemed to mean the acts and failures to act of each Defendant 17 individually, jointly and severally. They are sued in their individual and official 18 capacities and in some manner are responsible for the acts and omissions alleged 19 herein. Plaintiffs will ask leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to allege such 20 name and responsibility when that information is ascertained. Each of the 21 Defendants is the agent of the other. 22 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 23 21. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set 24 forth herein. 25 22. Amilcar Perez Lopez was born on July 27, 1994, and was only 20 years 26 old at the time of his death. He was five feet and three inches tall and weighed 131 27 pounds. 28 6 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 23. On or about February 26, 2015, at approximately 9:54 p.m., Amilcar 2 Perez Lopez was walking to his apartment when he was confronted by a man, who 3 began following and taunting him. An altercation ensued between the man and 4 Amilcar. The altercation subsided and Amilcar began walking northbound on the 5 east sidewalk of Folsom Street. As he walked home, Officer TIFFE and Officer 6 REBOLI surreptitiously rushed at Amilcar from behind. One of the officers grabbed 7 Amilcar Perez Lopez and secured a bear-hug hold around Amilcar's petite upper 8 body. Because TIFFE and REBOLI wore civilian clothing, and did not identify 9 themselves, Amilcar was not able to determine that the men were police officers. 10 Amilcar broke free by wriggling out from the officer's hold. Amilcar fled toward the 11 street between two vehicles parked at the east curb of Folsom Street. 12 24. As he fled from them, TIFFE and REBOLI pointed their firearms at the 13 small undersized 20-year-old male running away from them. One of the officers shot 14 five bullets into Amilcar's back and the other officer fired one bullet into the back of 15 Amilcar's head. Amilcar had run only a couple of feet before he was shot and killed 16 in cold blood by Officer TIFFE and Officer REBOLI. 17 25. That same evening, CHIEF SUHR, alongside other SFPD officers, 18 supervisors and officials, arrived at the scene and began their investigation of the 19 shooting. Throughout the entire investigation, Amilcar's body lay dead on the street 20 as blood and brain matter seeped from his remains. At the conclusion of the 21 investigation, CHIEF SUHR declared to a local news station while holding his right 22 hand up near his face and clasping his hand as if holding a knife that Amilcar had 23 "lunged at the officer with a knife overhead. [The officer] fired five shots. The 24 original initiating officer fired one." 25 26. In the following days, CHIEF SUHR and various SFPD officers, 26 supervisors and officials conducted further investigations into the shooting of 27 28 7 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 Amilcar Perez Lopez. An autopsy was also performed by the City and County of San 2 Francisco Office of the Medical Examiner. 3 27. Notwithstanding the unequivocal physical evidence from the autopsy 4 clearly indicating that Amilcar Perez Lopez had been shot in the back and the 5 corroborating statements from two eye witnesses, CHIEF SUHR falsely declared at a 6 town hall meeting on March 2, 2015, that "the officers were approximately 5 to 6 feet 7 away when the suspect charged at one of the officers with the knife raised over head. 8 Both officers discharged their firearms." CHIEF SUHR went as far as to present a 9 diagram to indicate the SFPD's official and false version of the shooting. CHIEF 10 SUHR knowingly misinterpreted the facts in a concerted effort to cover up the 11 cowardly acts of Officer TIFFE and Officer REBOLI. 12 28. Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI killed Amilcar Perez Lopez without 13 justification. The shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez was without 14 provocation, cause or necessity as Amilcar Perez Lopez did not pose a threat or 15 represent a danger of any nature to anyone, including Defendants TIFFE and 16 REBOLI, at the time of the shooting. Amilcar Perez Lopez was running away from 17 what he believed were two unfamiliar men threatening to hurt him. He was shot in 18 the back as he fled from the officers. Accordingly, the shooting and killing of 19 Amilcar Perez Lopez was unjustified and this use of force was unwarranted and 20 excessive under the circumstances. 21 29. Defendants SAN FRANCISCO and CHIEF SUHR were long aware of 22 the propensity of their police officers, including Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, to 23 callously and recklessly use excessive force against members of the public, 24 particularly targeting minority groups, and to engage in deceitful misconduct: 25 a. In 2009, a federal lawsuit was filed against Defendants TIFFE and 26 REBOLI by plaintiff, David Magana. The lawsuit alleged that on March 27 30, 2008, Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI beat Magana repeatedly in 28 8 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 the head with a baton causing him to bleed profusely. The lawsuit 2 alleged federal civil rights violations, as well as state claims for assault 3 and battery and the negligent training and supervision by the SAN 4 FRANCISCO and the SFPD. The lawsuit resolved in a settlement. 5 b. As far back as 2004, REBOLI demonstrated unfitness to work as a peace 6 officer when he beat a man unconscious in an elevator while serving as a 7 security guard at the Sir Francis Drake Hotel, located in San Francisco. 8 The SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD, and CHIEF SUHR were aware of this 9 attack having conducted a background check on REBOLI. 10 c. Currently, 13 SFPD officers are being investigated for racist and 11 homophobic text messages targeting African- Americans, Latinos, 12 Asians and homosexuals. These acts further evidence the racist and 13 extremist culture existing amongst SFPD police officers. 14 d. In February of 2015, a video surfaced capturing SFPD Officer Raymond 15 Chu hit and kick a homeless man sleeping on a public bus. 16 e. In January of 2015, D'Paris Williams, a college student, was severely 17 beaten by SFPD police officers Gregory Skaug, Milen Banegas and 18 Theodore Polvina. The officers brutally beat D'Paris for riding his bike 19 on a sidewalk in Valencia Gardens. 20 f. In January 2015, a video captured an unnamed SFPD officer shoving a 21 handicapped man sitting on a wheelchair into the street. 22 g. On October 7, 2014, O'Shaine K. Evans was unlawfully shot and killed 23 by SFPD officer David Goff. O'Shaine K. Evans was sitting in his 24 vehicle when he was shot seven times. 25 h. In March of 2014, Alejandro Nieto was unlawfully shot and killed by 26 several unnamed SFPD police officers. Similar to the investigation 27 surrounding the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez, the 28 9 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 investigation into the shooting of Alejandro Nieto uncovered physical 2 evidence contradicting the SFPD's version of events. A lawsuit is 3 pending regarding this incident. 4 i. In February of 2014, federal indictments were filed against six SFPD 5 officers for constitutional rights violations, extortion, perjury, and 6 falsification of police reports. These acts targeted members of several 7 San Francisco communities, including Mission District where Amilcar 8 Perez Lopez was shot and killed. 9 j. On February 7, 2013, Kevin Clark, an 18-year old college student, was 10 brutally beaten by numerous unnamed SFPD police officers. 11 k. On July 16, 2013, Kenneth Harding was unlawfully shot and killed by 12 SFPD police officers Matthew Lopez and Richard Hastings for allegedly 13 failing to pay a $2.00 transit fare. 14 l. In February of 2012, video footage captured an unnamed SFPD officer 15 repeatedly punching a subdued suspect. Despite the video footage, 16 SFPD Sergeant Michael Andraychak ratified the conduct during a press 17 conference. 18 m. In March of 2011, SFPD Officer Razzak was found guilty as a result of 19 an FBI investigation regarding unlawful searches and seizures which 20 were captured of footage. 21 n. In May of 2008, SAN FRANCISCO reached a settlement with 22 kindergarten teacher, Kelly Medora, as a result of the excessive force 23 used against her person by SFPD Officer Christopher Damonte. 24 o. The San Francisco Chronicle, held a series of articles titled "Use of 25 Force" which documented use-of-force incidents by SFPD police 26 officers. The series reports that a core group of roughly 100 officers, 27 out of a force of 2,200, is accountable for 25 percent of the uses of force 28 10 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 logged between 1996 and 2004. The series further reports that in any 2 given year, two-thirds to three-quarters of the department's officer's 3 report using no force at all. 4 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 5 Excessive Force/Unreasonable Seizure 6 42 U.S.C. § 1983 7 As Against Defendants C. TIFFE, E. REBOLI, and DOES 1 through 10 8 30. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set 9 forth herein. 10 31. Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI's actions described herein violated 11 Plaintiff AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the 12 United States Constitution incorporated and made applicable to states and 13 municipalities by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by 14 subjecting Amilcar Perez Lopez to unreasonable searches and seizures of his person. 15 32. At the time Amilcar Perez Lopez was shot and killed, he was not 16 engaging in any assaultive or threatening conduct. Under the totality of the relevant 17 circumstances that existed, Amilcar Perez Lopez posed no danger or threat to 18 Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, or anyone else. The shooting and killing of Amilcar 19 Perez Lopez was unreasonable under the circumstances in every respect. 20 33. These actions violated Amilcar Perez Lopez's right to be free from 21 unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the 22 United States Constitution. 23 34. The violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights occurred pursuant 24 to a policy, custom, or practice, maintained by SAN FRANCISCO of subjecting 25 private citizens to unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth 26 Amendment to the United States. 27 /// 28 /// 11 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 35. Defendants' conduct violated clearly established constitutional or other 2 rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which reasonable public officials should 3 have known, rendering Defendants liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 4 36. The unauthorized, unwarranted killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez was 5 willful and done with a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of Amilcar Perez 6 Lopez, and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages as to Defendants 7 TIFFE and REBOLI. 8 37. After being shot by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, Amilcar Perez 9 Lopez endured great physical and emotional pain and suffering. 10 38. Accordingly, Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI are liable to Plaintiff for 11 compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 13 Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Customs and Practices 14 42 U.S.C. § 1983 15 As Against Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 16 SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOES 1 through 10 17 39. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set 18 forth herein. 19 On and before February 26, 2015, and prior to the killing of Amilcar Perez 20 Lopez, Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD and Does 1 through 10, and each of 21 them, were aware that Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI had engaged in a custom and 22 practice of callous and reckless use of firearms and other misconduct, as summarized 23 in the paragraphs above. 24 40. Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD and Does 1 through 10, and each 25 of them, acting with deliberate indifference to the rights and liberties of the public in 26 general, and of the present Plaintiffs, and of persons in Amilcar Perez Lopez's class, 27 28 12 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 situation and comparable position in particular, knowingly maintained, enforced and 2 applied customs and practices of: 3 a. Encouraging, accommodating, or ratifying the shooting of residents; the 4 use of excessive and unreasonable force, including deadly force; 5 b. Encouraging, accommodating, or facilitating a "code of silence" among 6 SFPD officers/supervisors, pursuant to which false reports were 7 generated and excessive and unreasonable force was covered up; 8 c. Employing and retraining, as police officers and other personnel, 9 including individuals such as Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, who said 10 Defendants knew or reasonably should have known had dangerous 11 propensities for abusing their authority and for mistreating members of 12 the public; 13 d. Inadequately supervising, training, and disciplining SFPD police 14 officers, including Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, who said 15 Defendants knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have 16 known had the aforementioned propensities and character traits; 17 e. Maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, supervising, 18 investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling intentional 19 misconduct by officers; 20 f. Assigning police officers with known histories of misconduct, including 21 criminal conduct, in accord with SFPD custom of assigning these police 22 officers to come into contact with members of the public; 23 g. Ratifying wrongful conduct by police officers and supervisors which 24 result in serious injuries and death to members of the public, civil 25 litigation judgments and settlements by failing to implement corrective 26 action to prevent repetition of the wrongful conduct; and 27 28 13 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 h. Failing to discipline, investigate and take corrective actions against 2 SFPD police officers for misconduct, including, but not limited to, 3 unlawful detention, excessive force and false reports. 4 41. By reason of the aforementioned customs and practices, Plaintiffs were 5 severely injured and subjected to pain and suffering as alleged above in the First 6 Claim for Relief. 7 42. Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD and Does 1 through 10, with 8 various other officials, whether named or unnamed, had either actual or constructive 9 knowledge of the deficient policies, practices and customs alleged in the paragraphs 10 above. Despite having knowledge as stated above these Defendants condoned, 11 tolerated and through actions and inactions thereby ratified such customs and 12 practices. Said Defendants also acted with deliberate indifference to the foreseeable 13 effects and consequences of these policies with respect to the constitutional rights of 14 Plaintiffs and other individuals similarly situated. 15 43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants 16 TIFFE and REBOLI each had a history and propensity for acts of the nature 17 complained of herein and manifested such propensity prior to and during their 18 employment and/or agency with Defendant SAN FRANCISCO. Plaintiffs are further 19 informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD, 20 and Does 1through 10, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have 21 known, of such prior history and propensity at the time such individuals were hired 22 and/or during the time of their employment. These Defendants' disregard of this 23 knowledge and/or failure to adequately investigate and discover and correct such 24 facts caused the violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. 25 44. The policies, practices, and customs implemented and maintained and 26 still tolerated by Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD and Does 1 through 10, and 27 28 14 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 each of them, were affirmatively linked to and were a significantly influential force 2 behind the injuries of Plaintiffs. 3 45. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, Amilcar Perez 4 Lopez was shot and killed by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI. 5 46. Accordingly, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO is liable to Plaintiffs for 6 compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 7 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 8 Supervisory Liability for Ratification and 9 Failure to Train, Supervise and Discipline 10 42 U.S.C. § 1983 11 As Against Defendant CHIEF GREG SUHR, and DOES 1 through 10 12 47. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set 13 forth herein. 14 48. On and before February 26, 2015, and prior to the killing of Amilcar 15 Perez Lopez, Defendant CHIEF SUHR and Does 1 through 10, and each of them, 16 were aware that Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI had engaged in a custom and 17 practice of callous and reckless use of firearms and other misconduct, as summarized 18 in the paragraphs above. 19 49. Defendant CHIEF SUHR and Does 1through10 are sued in their 20 individual and personal capacities as supervisors and line officers on duty at the time 21 of the shooting of Amilcar Perez Lopez, and for their ongoing duties as supervisors 22 responsible for the investigation of the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez 23 by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI. 24 50. As described in more detail in the paragraphs above, Defendant CHIEF 25 SUHR was presented with physical evidence unequivocally confirming that all six 26 shots entering the back of Amilcar's upper torso and head, and despite this glaring 27 example of excessive force, and in light of the circumstances, CHIEF SUHR ratified 28 15 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 the conduct of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI to ensure that said Defendants did not 2 receive any meaningful discipline. 3 51. CHIEF SUHR is sued in his individual and personal capacity. CHIEF 4 SUHR knew or reasonably could have known, of his subordinates' ongoing 5 constitutional violations, use of excessive force on members of the public, failure to 6 investigate incidents involving use of force. CHIEF SUHR failed to act to prevent 7 these acts and he acquiesced, condoned or ratified a custom, practice or policy of 8 ongoing misconduct by his subordinates, including Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI. 9 CHIEF SUHR is sued in his individual capacity for his own culpable action or 10 inaction in the training, supervisor, or control of his subordinates. CHIEF SUHR is 11 also sued for his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivations as alleged herein 12 and/or conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of persons 13 by implementation of policies, rules or directives. CHIEF SUHR's actions and/or 14 inactions set in motion a series of acts by others, which he knew or reasonably should 15 have known, would cause others to inflict the constitutional violations alleged herein 16 52. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that prior to the 17 incident alleged herein, on or before February 26, 2015, and subsequent hereto, 18 CHIEF SUHR knew or reasonably should have known, that SAN FRANCISCO 19 police officers, including Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, in the course and scope of 20 their employment under color of law, committed similar acts of using unjustified 21 excessive and deadly force, failure to investigate officer misconduct and violation of 22 constitutional rights, which wrongful conduct resulted in ongoing use of excessive 23 force against members of the public. 24 53. Defendants CHIEF SUHR and Does 1 through 10, and each of them, 25 acting with deliberate indifference to the rights and liberties of the public in general, 26 and of the present Plaintiffs, and of persons in Amilcar Perez Lopez's class, situation 27 28 16 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 and comparable position in particular, knowingly maintained, enforced and applied 2 customs and practices of: 3 a. Ratifying wrongful conduct by police officers and supervisors which 4 result in serious injuries and death to members of the public, civil 5 litigation judgments and settlements by failing to implement corrective 6 action to prevent repetition of the wrongful conduct; 7 b. Failing to discipline, investigate and take corrective actions against 8 SFPD police officers for misconduct, including, but not limited to, 9 unlawful detention, excessive force and false reports; 10 c. Ratifying investigative reports and diagrams designed to vindicate the 11 use of force against members of the public, regardless of whether such 12 acts were justified; 13 d. Ratifying investigative reports and diagrams which uncritically rely 14 solely on the word of officers involved in the aforementioned 15 confrontations and which systematically fail to credit testimony by non- 16 officer witnesses; 17 e. Ratifying investigative reports and diagrams which omit factual 18 information and physical evidence which contradicts the accounts of the 19 involved officers, including contradictory physical evidence revealed 20 from autopsy reports; 21 f. Issuing false public statements exonerating officers and other personnel 22 involved in such incidents even after being presented with contradictory 23 reliable physical evidence, such as autopsy reports; 24 g. Employing and retraining, as police officers and other personnel, 25 including individuals such as Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, who said 26 Defendants knew or reasonably should have known had dangerous 27 28 17 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 propensities for abusing their authority and for mistreating members of 2 the public; and 3 h. Inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and 4 disciplining SFPD police officers, including Defendants TIFFE and 5 REBOLI, who said Defendants knew or in the exercise of reasonable 6 care should have known had the aforementioned propensities and 7 character traits. 8 54. By reason of the aforementioned customs and practices, Plaintiffs were 9 severely injured and subjected to pain and suffering as alleged above in the First 10 Claim for Relief. 11 55. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, Amilcar Perez 12 Lopez was shot and killed by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI. 13 56. Accordingly, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO is liable to Plaintiffs for 14 compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Defendant CHIEF SUHR 15 is liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 16 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 17 Interference with Familial Integrity 18 Substantive Due Process Violation 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983 20 As Against Defendants C. TIFFE, E. REBOLI, CHIEF GREG SUHR, 21 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE 22 DEPARTMENT and DOES 1 through 10 23 57. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set 24 forth herein. 25 58. The present claim is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violation 26 of the right of familial integrity guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the 27 United States Constitution. 28 /// 18 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 59. As alleged above, the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez was 2 unreasonable under the circumstances of the encounter between Amilcar Perez Lopez 3 and Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI. As such, the shooting and killing of Amilcar 4 Perez Lopez violated the constitutional limits on police use of deadly force in 5 violation of the Fourth Amendment's limits on unreasonable seizures. 6 60. At the same time, the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez by 7 Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI violated the rights of Plaintiffs JUAN PEREZ and 8 MARGARITA PEREZ LOPEZ to be free from police interference in their 9 relationship with Amilcar Perez Lopez. 10 61. The unreasonable conduct of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI was the 11 direct and proximate cause of the death of Amilcar Perez Lopez. As a result of the 12 unreasonable conduct of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, Plaintiffs lost Amilcar 13 Perez Lopez, as well as his love, affection, society and moral support. 14 62. The unreasonable conduct of these Defendants was willful and done 15 with a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of Amilcar Perez Lopez and the 16 present Plaintiffs and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages as to 17 Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI. 18 63. Accordingly, Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 19 and DOES 1 through 10 are liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages pursuant to 20 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 22 ASSAULT & BATTERY 23 Against Defendants C. TIFFE, E. REBOLI, 24 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE 25 DEPARTMENT and DOES 1 through 10 26 64. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set 27 forth herein. 28 /// 19 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 65. This cause of action arises under the general laws and Constitution of the 2 State of California. Plaintiffs have complied with the California Tort Claims Act 3 requirements. 4 66. Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI assaulted and battered Amilcar Perez- 5 Lopez, as pleaded herein above, when said Defendants acted intentionally to cause, 6 and did cause, said non-consensual, unprivileged, unjustified, excessive, harmful or 7 offensive contact to the person of Amilcar Perez Lopez by unreasonably and unjustly 8 shooting and killing Amilcar Perez Lopez. 9 67. These acts were undertaken by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI 10 intentionally and without justification. 11 68. As a result of these deliberate and unjustified acts undertaken by 12 Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, Amilcar Perez Lopez endured great physical and 13 emotional pain and suffering. 14 69. These deliberate and unjustified acts undertaken by Defendants TIFFE 15 and REBOLI were willful and done with a deliberate disregard for the rights and 16 safety of Amilcar Perez Lopez and, therefore, warrant the imposition of punitive 17 damages as to Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI. 18 70. Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and SAN 19 FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT are liable to Plaintiffs for the acts of their 20 public employees, the individual Defendants herein, for conduct and/or omissions 21 herein alleged, pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, codified at California 22 Government Code § 815.2. 23 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 24 WRONGFUL DEATH 25 Against Defendants C. TIFFE, E. REBOLI, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 26 FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT 27 and DOES 1 through 10 28 20 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 71. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set 2 forth herein. 3 72. This cause of action arises under the general laws and Constitution of the 4 State of California. Plaintiffs have complied with the California Tort Claims Act 5 requirements. 6 73. Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, while working as police officers of the 7 SFPD, and acting within the course and scope of their duties, employed negligent 8 tactics and intentionally and/or without due care shot Amilcar Perez Lopez. The 9 shooting resulted as a result of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI's unsafe, improper 10 and negligent tactics. As a result of these intentional acts and negligence, Amilcar 11 Perez Lopez suffered serious injuries and lost his life. Defendants TIFFE and 12 REBOLI had no legal or reasonable justification for their actions. 13 74. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants REBOLI 14 and TIFFE, Amilcar Perez Lopez lost his life. Plaintiffs have been deprived of the 15 life-long love, affection, comfort, and society of Amilcar Perez Lopez, and will 16 continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives. Plaintiffs were 17 further caused to pay funeral and burial expenses as a result of the conduct of 18 Defendants REBOLI and TIFFE. 19 75. Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and SAN 20 FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT are vicariously liable for the wrongful, 21 intentional and/or negligent acts of Defendants REBOLI and TIFFE, and DOES 1 22 through 10, pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, which provides that a 23 public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the 24 employment if the employee's act would subject him or her to liability. 25 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 26 SURVIVORSHIP 27 28 21 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 Against Defendants C. TIFFE, E. REBOLI, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 2 FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOES 1 3 through 10 4 76. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set 5 forth herein. 6 77. This cause of action arises under the general laws and Constitution of the 7 State of California. Plaintiffs have complied with the California Tort Claims Act 8 requirements. 9 78. Plaintiffs Estate of Amilcar Perez Lopez, by and through successors in 10 interest, Juan Perez and Margarita Perez Lopez, and Juan Perez and Margarita Perez 11 Lopez, are the legal heirs and successors in interest of Amilcar Perez Lopez, and the 12 present claim is brought by them as the legal heirs and successors in interest of 13 Amilcar Perez Lopez as permitted by of the California Code of Civil Procedure § 14 377.30. 15 79. On February 26, 2015, Amilcar Perez Lopez lost his life and causes of 16 action arose in his favor before he died. Amilcar Perez Lopez would have been a 17 Plaintiff in this action, had Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI not shot and killed him. 18 80. On February 26, 2015, and for a measurable period of time before the 19 death of Amilcar Perez Lopez, personal property of his was damaged or destroyed, 20 and while alive said decedent had valid claims and causes of action to recover 21 damages for, among other things, personal property damage, and prejudgment 22 interest as allowed by law and costs of suit. 23 81. The conduct of all the Defendants as herein set forth above was tortious 24 in that, among other things, Defendants REBOLI and TIFFE deliberately shot 25 Amilcar Perez Lopez without cause or justification, or otherwise contributed to the 26 shooting as spelled out herein above. 27 28 22 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 82. Said conduct was the direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered 2 by decedent Amilcar Perez Lopez, as alleged above, which were sustained and 3 incurred for a measurable period of time by him before his death. Plaintiffs, 4 therefore, seek recovery for personal property damages, and all other related 5 expenses, damages, and losses, including punitive damages, as permitted by Code of 6 Civil Procedure § 377.34, against the present non-government entity Defendants, 7 according to proof at trial. 8 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests entry of judgment in their favor and against 10 Defendants as follows: 11 A. For compensatory damages, including pre-death pain and suffering 12 damages, general damages and special damages, and statutory damages for violation 13 of the laws and Constitution of the United States and State of California, in an 14 amount to be determined at trial; 15 B. For punitive damages against Defendants C. TIFFE and E. REBOLI 16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and any other applicable laws or status, in an amount 17 sufficient to deter and make an example of each non-government entity Defendant; 18 C. For prejudgment interest to be determined at trial; 19 D. For reasonable costs of this suit and attorneys' fees, including 20 attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and 21 E. For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and 22 appropriate. 23 24 Dated: December 1, 2015 CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES 25 26 By _/s/ Arnoldo Casillas ARNOLDO CASILLAS 27 DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM 28 23 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through 2 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and 3 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ 4 PEREZ, individually 5 6 Dated: December 1, 2015 JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ. 7 8 By /s/ Jonathan D. Melrod JONATHAN D. MELROD 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF 10 AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and 11 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN 12 PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually 13 14 Dated: December 1, 2015 WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ. 15 16 By /s/ William M. Simpich WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR. 17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF 18 AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and 19 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN 20 PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 Plaintiffs ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through successors 3 in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, and JUAN PEREZ, 4 and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ hereby demand trial by jury. 5 Dated: December 1, 2015 CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES 6 7 By _/s/ Arnoldo Casillas 8 ARNOLDO CASILLAS 9 DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF 10 AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through 11 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN 12 PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ 13 PEREZ, individually 14 15 Dated: December 1, 2015 JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ. 16 By /s/ Jonathan D. Melrod 17 JONATHAN D. MELROD 18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through 19 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and 20 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ 21 PEREZ, individually 22 23 Dated: December 1, 2015 WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ. 24 By /s/ William M. Simpich 25 WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR. 26 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through 27 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and 28 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN 25 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually 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 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 1 ARNOLDO CASILLAS, ESQ., SBN 158519 DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM, ESQ., SBN 282771 2 CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES 3 3500 W. Beverly Blvd. Montebello, CA 90640 4 Tel: (323) 725-0917; Fax: (323) 725-0350 5 Email: acasillas@casillaslegal.com 6 JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ., SBN 136441 7 1313 Scheibel Ln. Sebastopol, CA 95472 8 Tel: (415) 806-0154 9 Email: jonathan4536@sbcglobal.net 10 WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ., SBN 106672 th 11 1736 Franklin St., 10 Floor Oakland, CA 94612 12 Tel: (510) 444-0226 13 Email: bsimpich@gmail.com 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through 15 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ) CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01846 HSG 20 LOPEZ, by and through successors in) interest, JUAN PEREZ and) ORDER RE: 21 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ;) STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES 22 JUAN PEREZ, individually;) FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ,) AMENDED COMPLAINT 23 individually;) 24) Plaintiffs,) 25) 26 vs.)) 27 28 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 1 CHIEF OF POLICE GREG SUHR;) CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN) 2 FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO) 3 POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER) CRAIG TIFFE (Badge No. 1312);) 4 OFFICER ERIC REBOLI (Badge No.) 5 1651), and DOES 1 to 10,)) 6 Defendants.) 7) 8 9 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING AND THE PARTIES HAVING STIPULATED: 10 Having considered the Stipulation of the Parties to allow Plaintiffs to file their 11 Second Amended Complaint, the Court hereby orders that Plaintiffs have leave to file 12 their Second Amended Complaint without the need for a formal motion. The Court 13 hereby orders Plaintiffs to e-file the attached Second Amended Complaint (Exhibit 14 "1") on the docket and upon e-filing it will be deemed served. 15 The Court further orders that Defendants shall be given thirty (30) days as of 16 the date the order is signed to file and serve a responsive pleading. 17 SO ORDERED. 18 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: 19 Dated: December 4, 2015 By: The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2