1 2 3 4 James P. Segall-Gutierrez, SBN 240439 Law Offices of James P. Segall-Gutierrez 6709 Greenleaf Avenue, Suite 202 Whittier, California 90601 Telephone: (562) 321-5950 Facsimile: (562) 907-3791 Email: jpsglaw@gmail.com 5 6 Attorney for Plaintiffs 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 P.Y.M.T., a minor, by and through her ) guardian ad litem DEIBI ONTIVEROS, an )) individual and as Successor in Interest ) to decedent, Miguel Moreno Torrez; ) MARIA CARRILLO , an individual and ) ) Successor in Interest to decedent, ) Miguel Moreno Torrez; ) ) ) PLAINTIFFS, ) vs. ) ) CITY OF FRESNO, THE FRESNO POLICE ) DEPARTMENT; and DEFENDANT )) OFFICERS DOES 1 -10; ) ) DEFENDANTS. Case No.: 15-385 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS (42 U.S.C. §1983); STATE LAW CLAIMS [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMES NOW Plaintiffs and allege as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. This court has jurisdiction over the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This district court is the proper venue for this action pursuant to 28 USC §1391(b)(2) because this is a civil action not founded solely on diversity of citizenship and this judicial district is where a substantial part of the events or omissions that give rise to -1COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 claims alleged. The shooting of TORREZ, the incident in case-in-matter occurred in Fresno, 2 California. PARTIES 3 4 5 Plaintiff, P.Y.M.T., a minor, is the daughter of decedent Miguel Moreno Torrez ( hereinafter “TORREZ”). 6 Plaintiff, Deibi Ontiveros (hereinafter “ONTIVEROS”), is the wife of decedent 7 TORREZ, and the mother of P.Y.M.T. Plaintiff ONTIVEROS is the guardian ad litem of 8 P.Y.M.T. and also the Successor in Interest to decedent pursuant to California Code of Civil 9 Procedure Section 377.30 et seq. 10 Plaintiff, Maria Carrillo (hereinafter “CARRILLO”), is the mother of decedent 11 TORREZ. Plaintiff CARRILLO is also the Successor in Interest to decedent pursuant to 12 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.30 et seq. 13 14 15 Plaintiffs, P.Y.M.T., ONTIVEROS, AND CARRILLO are collectively hereinafter “PLAINTIFFS”. Defendant, CITY OF FRESNO (hereinafter “CITY”), is a municipal entity 16 created and authorized under the laws of the State of California. It is authorized by law to 17 maintain a police department which acts as its agent in the area of law enforcement and 18 for which it is ultimately responsible. 19 20 Defendant, FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT (hereinafter “FPD”), is a governmental/public entity organized under the laws of the State of California. 21 The unidentified FPD Officers, DOES 1-10 (hereinafter “DOE OFFICERS” were 22 employed as officers of the FPD, and Said Defendants were acting under color of state law 23 and are also sued in their individual capacities. 24 Defendants were, at all times relevant to this action, employed by CITY as 25 FPD Officers and acting under color of state law and are sued in their individual capacities. 26 PLAINTIFFS are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued 27 herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive and therefore sue these defendants by such 28 fictitious names. PLAINTIFFS will amend this complaint to allege their true names and -2COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 capacities when they have been ascertained. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and 2 thereupon allege, that each of said fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some 3 manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that PLAINTIFFS’ injuries as herein 4 alleged, were proximately caused by the acts and or omissions of each of them. 5 At all times relevant herein, DOE OFFICERS, were either police officers, 6 sergeants, captains, commanders, and/or civilian employees, agents and representatives 7 of the FPD and employees, agents and representatives of the CITY. 8 At all times relevant hereto, said DOE OFFICERS were acting within the 9 course and scope of their employment as officers, sergeants, captains, commanders, 10 and/or civilian employees of the FPD, a department and subdivision of defendant CITY 11 and at all times were acting with permission and consent of their co-defendants. 12 At all times relevant to the present complaint, DOE OFFICERS, inclusive, were 13 acting within their capacity as employees, agents, representatives and servants of 14 defendant CITY, which is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior pursuant to 15 section 815.2 of the California Government Code. FACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTIONS 16 17 On June 11, 2014, decedent TORREZ, was at his residence, located at 903 18 Tulare Avenue, in the City of Fresno. TORREZ, that evening, got into an argument with his 19 brother Jose Antonio Torrez, and a brief scuffle between the two ensued. 20 At one point, a fellow tenant at the 903 Tulare Avenue residence, called the 21 9-1-1 emergency, and within three minutes FPD officers arrived on the scene. The two 22 brothers were outside, in and around the front porch at that time, among other residents 23 and witnesses. 24 Some witnesses state that one of the brothers possibly had a knife, while 25 others state that neither of the brothers had a knife, and that they were only yelling, 26 pushing, shoving and fist fighting. DOE OFFICERS state that TORREZ had a knife, and that 27 they gave verbal commands to surrender and “get down on the ground” as TORREZ stood 28 in and around the front yard of his residence. -3COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 In that moment, TORREZ stood, posing no imminent threat and DOE 2 OFFICERS, within seconds in fact, DOE OFFICERS unloaded multiple gunshots, some 3 striking the outside wall of his residence, and with a total of in and around sixteen (16) 4 bullets entering his body. 5 TORREZ, had his hands up in the air, and or was raising his hands in shock as 6 he heard the un-intelligble commands from DOE OFFICERS. In those seconds, at least five 7 (5) to six (6) bullets pierced through TORREZ’s right armpit. 8 Another four (4) gunshots struck and entered TORREZ through his back and 9 toward and upward trajectory, indicating that he was most likely shot in the back as he 10 was going down; one on the lower back, another in the middle back, a third bullet entered 11 through the his upper back, just below his neck. The fourth bullet that entered in a back to 12 front course struck and entered TORREZ’s left buttock and then exited at the crest of his 13 pelvis. 14 TORREZ did not charge at DOE OFFICERS and the commands given by DOE 15 OFFICERS were given in English. TORREZ did not understand the DOE OFFICERS’ English 16 language commands to comply with the orders to “get down on the ground.” TORREZ did 17 not understand English, as he is a native Spanish speaker, recently arrived to Fresno from 18 Mexico to work and provide for his family back home. 19 20 21 22 During the course of said encounter, Defendant DOE OFFICERS unlawfully fired their weapons or had no legal justification to use the excessive or deadly force. TORREZ died due to the serious injury and gunshots wound inflicted upon him by Defendant DOE OFFICERS. 23 The use of any force, much less deadly force, in these circumstances, which 24 were precipitated by DOE OFFICERS was excessive and unreasonable under the 25 circumstances, and deprived TORREZ of the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed 26 him by the Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in 27 violation of Title 42, United States Code Section 1983. Said Defendant DOE OFFICERS’ 28 excessive use of force also deprived PLAINTIFFS’ of the rights, privileges and immunities -4COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in 2 violation of Title 42, U.S.C. § 1983. 3 By reason of the afore-described acts, omissions and conspiracy of 4 defendants and each of them, PLAINTIFFS suffered mental injuries, trauma, pain, and 5 shock to their nervous system, anxiety, degradation, humiliation, fear and emotional 6 distress; and TORREZ was wrongfully killed, all to their damage in an amount not yet 7 ascertained but to be proved. 8 By reason of the herein-described acts and omissions of defendants, 9 PLAINTIFFS suffered and will continue to suffer loss of financial support from TORREZ, 10 thereby suffering in an amount not yet ascertained but to be proved. 11 By reason of the acts and omissions of defendants described herein, 12 PLAINTIFFS were required to retain an attorney to institute and prosecute the within 13 action and to render legal assistance to PLANITIFFS that they might vindicate the loss and 14 impairment of their rights as described herein; and therefore PLAINTIFFS request 15 payment by defendants of a reasonable sum for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 16 1988. 17 PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that the 18 DEFENDANTS, intentionally, negligently and recklessly failed to use proper and 19 established law enforcement tactics regarding the proper detention of suspects, and the 20 proper deployment of firearms. 21 recklessly and intentionally and negligently exacerbated and inflamed the incident. Instead, acted without regard to TORREZ’s rights, 22 After all the events described above, and after officer Defendant DOE 23 OFFICERS shot TORREZ, Defendant DOE OFFICERS failed to promptly summon medical 24 assistance for TORREZ , and, in fact, actively failed to provide life rescue and/or engaged 25 in delaying medical assistance for TORREZ, in violation of TORREZ’s constitutional and 26 civil rights, and in violation of FPD policy, procedures, and protocols and in violation of 27 CITY policy, procedures, and protocols. 28 -5COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES COUNT ONE VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE USE OF FORCE (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 1 2 3 PLAINTIFFS repeat and re-allege each and every allegation of the foregoing 4 5 paragraphs above, as though fully set forth herein. 6 This first cause of action is brought under Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 7 1988 and the United States Constitution, the laws of the State of California and common 8 law principles to redress a deprivation under color of state law of rights, privileges and 9 immunities secured to PLAINTIFFS by said statutes, and by the First, Fourth, and 10 Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, 11 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution for the 12 violation of the civil rights of PLAINTIFFS. 13 On June 11, 2014, PLAINTIFFS possessed the rights, guaranteed by the 14 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, to be free from 15 unreasonable excessive force by law enforcement personnel, including city police officers. On June 11, 2014, TORREZ was assaulted, shot and killed by FPD DOE 16 17 OFFICERS. 18 The assault and shooting of TORREZ by Defendant DOE OFFICERS was in 19 excess of any justifiable actions of TORREZ, and constituted an unreasonable and 20 excessive use of force. Said defendants acted specifically with the intent to deprive TORREZ of the 21 22 following rights under the United States Constitution: 23 a. 24 enforcement personnel; and 25 b. 26 enforcement personnel; and Freedom from unreasonable and warrantless searches by law c. Freedom from unreasonable seizures, in the form of the use of excessive 27 28 Freedom from unreasonable and warrantless detentions by law force, and -6COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 d. Freedom from a deprivation of liberty without due process of law; 2 e. Freedom from summary punishment; and 3 f. Right to be provided prompt and timely medical and/or other attention 4 while under detention of Defendant DOE OFFICERS; After being shot sixteen (16) times, TORREZ suffered fatal injuries to his 5 6 person, depriving TORREZ of his life. 7 After inflicting the injuries and wounds on TORREZ, said Defendant DOE 8 OFFICERS, deliberately denied prompt and necessary medical attention to TORREZ 9 thereby also violating his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the 10 U.S. Constitution. 11 Said defendants and each of them, subjected TORREZ to the aforementioned 12 deprivations by either actual malice or deliberate indifference and disregard of TORREZ’s 13 civil rights. 14 15 As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of said defendants, and each of them, TORREZ suffered injuries to his body and emotions. 16 The aforementioned acts of said defendants, and each of them, were willful, 17 wanton, malicious and oppressive thereby justifying the awarding of exemplary and 18 punitive damages as to each of these individual defendants. 19 COUNT TWO NEGLIGENCE (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 20 21 22 23 24 25 PLAINTIFFS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and every allegation of each and every paragraph above as though fully set forth herein. PLAINTIFFS invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine this claim. 26 On the date of the fatal shooting of TORREZ, and thereafter, Defendant DOE 27 OFFICERS were duty bound by California Penal Code § 118.1 not to author, accept or 28 otherwise present, or ratify false or misleading incident reports and were duty bound by -7COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to ensure Due Process, and were duty 2 bound to summon prompt medical assistance. 3 PLAINTIFFS are informed and believes and thereon alleges that on, about or 4 after the date of TORREZ’s fatal shooting as indicated herein, and thereafter, CITY and 5 FPD, inclusive, did negligently, and in the absence of due care, approve the incident 6 reports of the officers and thereby did negligently and carelessly ratify the wrongful and 7 unlawful assault and fatal shooting, by said defendants, and ratified officers' failure to 8 promptly summon medical assistance. 9 Defendant CITY is directly liable and responsible for the acts of officers, 10 because the FPD and Defendant CITY failed to adequately supervise, discipline or in any 11 other way control said defendants' exercise of their authority as described herein. 12 As the actual and proximate result of the acts and omissions of said 13 defendants as described herein, TORREZ was made to lose freedom and liberty for the 14 period stated above in violation of the Fourteenth Amendments' procedural and 15 substantive due process guarantees. During said seizure, TORREZ suffered personal and 16 bodily injuries. 17 Defendants CITY, FPD and DEFENDANT OFFICERS DOES 1 through 10 were 18 also negligent in failing to provide officers the proper and special training necessary for 19 the duties they could foreseeably be expected to perform in the course of their 20 employment in that officers received inadequate training in the correct and proper law 21 enforcement tactics, arrest procedures, employment of weapons protocols, Fourth 22 Amendment search and seizure requirements, and report writing. As a direct and 23 proximate result of this failure to provide adequate training, the seizure, fatal shooting, 24 and de facto arrest of TORREZ occurred, causing Plaintiff the losses and injuries herein 25 complained of. 26 Defendants CITY and FPD also negligently hired and retained officers when it 27 was known or should have been known by Defendants CITY and FPD that these officers 28 had used excessive force on members of the community, and/or had participated in the -8COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 concealment and cover up of such law enforcement misconduct. 2 As the actual and proximate result of the acts and omissions of said 3 defendants as described herein, PLAINTIFFS were made to lose freedom and liberty for 4 the period stated herein in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's procedural and 5 substantive due process guarantees. During said seizure TORREZ suffered personal and 6 bodily injuries. 7 Defendants CITY and FPD are liable via respondeat superior pursuant to 8 section 815.2 of the California Government Code for the acts of its employees, agents and 9 representatives as alleged in this cause of action. 10 COUNT THREE 11 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 12 (ALL DEFENDANTS) 13 14 15 16 PLAINTIFFS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and every allegation of each and every paragraph above as though fully set forth herein. PLAINTIFFS invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine this claim. 17 On or about June 11, 2014 and thereafter, DOE OFFICERS, detained TORREZ 18 without reasonable cause or in excess of that required by the totality of the 19 circumstances; subjected TORREZ to excessive and unreasonable force with the intent to 20 inflict harm and injury and, thereafter, intentionally delayed procuring medical care; and 21 conspired among themselves to suppress the true facts concerning the aforesaid incident 22 with the purpose of further harming decedent and thereupon also PLAINTIFFS. 23 In doing these acts, Defendants’ conduct was intentional, outrageous, 24 malicious, and done for the specific purpose of causing TORREZ to suffer extreme 25 emotional distress, the indignity of being shot, and did in fact cause great fear, anxiety, 26 mental anguish and ultimately; the death of TORREZ. 27 As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, TORREZ suffered severe 28 mental, emotional and physical distress and is entitled to and demands against -9COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Defendants, jointly and severally, including, but not limited to compensatory, general, 2 special, and punitive damages. 3 COUNT FOUR 4 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 5 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) PLAINTIFFS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and every allegation of 6 7 each and every paragraph above as though fully set forth herein. PLAINTIFFS invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and 8 9 determine this claim. On June 11, 2014, DOE OFFICERS, unjustly and unlawfully fired their 10 11 weapons or had no legal justification to use such excessive or deadly force. Defendants’ conduct was negligent and careless, and resulted in causing a 12 13 severe and traumatic effect and resulted in the death of TORREZ. Defendants abused their 14 power as police officers and used their power and position to damage, and their 15 negligence and carelessness harmed PLAINTIFFS and caused severe emotional distress. As a direct and proximate result of the forgoing, PLAINTIFFS suffered severe 16 17 mental, emotional and physical distress and are entitled to and demands against 18 Defendants, jointly and severally, including, but not limited to compensatory, general, 19 special, punitive damages and attorney’s fees. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, 20 21 oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages as to said 22 Defendants. 23 COUNT FIVE 24 ASSAULT 25 (AGAINST DEFENDANT DOE OFFICERS) 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and every allegation of each and every paragraph above as though fully set forth herein. PLAINTIFFS invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and - 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 determine this claim. Defendant DOE OFFICERS did the acts and omissions herein alleged in bad 2 3 faith and with knowledge that their conduct violated well-established and settled law. 4 At the date, time and location, described herein, Defendant DOE OFFICERS 5 knowingly and willfully, without provocation, necessity or lawful justification, or in excess 6 of any provocation, necessity, or lawful justification, in violation of California Penal Code 7 Sections 149 and 245, willfully assaulted and fatally shot TORREZ, as set forth herein. 8 As a proximate result of the acts of Defendant DOE OFFICERS, TORREZ was 9 injured in health, strength and activity, sustaining injuries to his body and PLAINTIFFS 10 sustained shock and injury to their nervous systems and persons. 11 The acts of Defendant Officer DOE 1 were willful, malicious and oppressive, 12 in conscious disregard of TORREZ’s known rights and thereby justify the awarding of 13 exemplary damages in the sum according to proof. 14 COUNT SIX BATTERY (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 15 16 PLAINTIFFS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and every allegation of 17 18 each and every paragraph above as though fully set forth herein. PLAINTIFFS invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and 19 20 determine this claim. PLAINTIFFS have fully complied with California Government Code Sections 21 22 910 et seq. by timely filing claims with defendants and timely filing this lawsuit thereafter. 23 TORREZ was battered by Defendant DOE OFFICERS, which resulted in 24 significant injury, including, but not limited to, extreme pain, suffering, and mental 25 26 anguish. 27 28 - 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, Defendant CITY is liable for 2 the misconduct of the individual defendant officer employees which was committed while 3 acting in the course and scope of his employment pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 815.2. 4 PLAINTIFFS claim general and special damages according to proof as a 5 6 proximate result thereof. 7 COUNT SEVEN 8 VIOLATION OF CAL. GOVERNMENT CODE §845.6 9 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and every allegation of each and every paragraph above as though fully set forth herein. PLAINTIFFS invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine this claim. Each DOE officer owed a duty to TORREZ to summon medical assistance by virtue of California Government Code Section 845.6, which states, inter alia, that: "a public employee, and the public entity where the employee is acting within the scope of his employment, is liable if the employee knows or has reason to know that the prisoner is in need of immediate medical care and he fails to take reasonable action to summon such medical care." Notwithstanding the duty owed to TORREZ via California Government Code Section 845.6, officers, and each of them, with negligence or deliberate indifference to the medical condition of TORREZ, failed and or refused to promptly summon medical assistance for TORREZ, despite their ability and duty to do so. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, TORREZ was killed, and the PLAINTIFFS have been damaged as recited herein, entitling PLAINTIFFS to compensatory, special, and general and punitive damages and attorney's fees. The aforementioned acts of officers were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive - 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 thereby justifying the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages as to said defendants. 2 3 COUNT EIGHT VIOLATION OF THE BANE ACT (CAL. CIV CODE §52.1) and STATE CIVIL RIGHTS 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 (AGAINST DEFENDANT OFFICER DOE 1) PLAINTIFFS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and every allegation of each and every paragraph above as though fully set forth herein. PLAINTIFFS invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine this claim. As herein alleged, commencing on or about June 11, 2014, and thereafter, Defendant DOE OFFICERS, knowingly, willfully and purposely violated California Civil Code §52.1, to wit, Defendants inflicted violence and conspired, aided, abetted and incited the infliction of violence against TORREZ by reason PLAINTIFFS’s national ancestry, ethnic origin and race. As the proximate cause of defendant as herein alleged, PLAINTIFFS were damaged in an amount not presently ascertained, but subject to proof at trial. Defendant DOE OFFICERS’ conduct was malicious, willful, fraudulent and oppressive, done with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFFS’ rights and with the intent to injure TORREZ, therein PLAINTIFFS, thereby justifying the award of exemplary damages in a sum to be determined according to proof. 20 COUNT NINE 21 WRONGFUL DEATH 22 23 24 25 26 27 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) PLAINTIFFS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and every allegation of each and every paragraph above as though fully set forth herein. PLAINTIFFS invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine this claim. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.30, plaintiff brings 28 - 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 this action alleging defendants wrongfully deprived decedent TORREZ of his life, resulting 2 in damages to his daughter, wife, and mother, who were dependent upon TORREZ for 3 financial assistance as well as consortium, love and society, for which defendants are 4 liable. 5 PLAINTIFFS allege that on or about June 11, 2014, Defendant DOE OFFICERS, 6 did negligently, carelessly and without due care, and without cause or provocation, fatally 7 shoot and kill decedent TORREZ. 8 Said shooting occurred as a result of the absence of due care for the safety of 9 others and constituted an unreasonable, unwarranted, and excessive use of force, and said 10 shooting manifested an unreasonable risk of injury to TORREZ. Said defendants 11 unreasonably and unjustifiably shot and killed TORREZ without cause or provocation. 12 As a proximate result of the above-described acts and omissions of 13 defendant, PLAINTIFFS were deprived of the life-long comfort, love, consortium, support, 14 society, care and sustenance of decedent TORREZ and will continue to be so deprived for 15 the remainder of their natural lives, all to their damage and which is hereby sought 16 according to proof. VII. PRAYER 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS for each and every cause of action above, pray for the following relief, jointly and severally, against all the defendants; a) Compensatory, general, economic, and special damages in an amount in accordance with proof; and b) Exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to deter and to make an example of the defendants; and c) Reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, including those fees permitted by 42 U.S.C. §1988; and 26 d) Costs of suit necessarily incurred herein; and 27 e) Prejudgment interest according to proof; and 28 f) Such further relief as the Court deems just or proper. - 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 DATED: March 25, 2015 Law Offices of James P. Segall-Gutierrez 5 6 7 By_______________________________________________ James P. Segall-Gutierrez Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 9 10 11 12 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs respectfully demand that the present matter be set for jury trial. 13 14 15 16 DATED: March 25, 2015 Law Offices of James P. Segall-Gutierrez 17 18 19 20 By_______________________________________________ James P. Segall-Gutierrez Attorneys for Plaintiffs 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES