1
2
3
4

Barbara Hadsell, Esq. [S.B. #086021]
Dan Stormer, Esq. [S.B. #101967]
Joshua Piovia-Scott, Esq. [S.B. #222364]
HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP
128 North Fair Oaks Avenue
Pasadena, California 91103
Telephone: (626) 585-9600
Facsimile: (626) 577-7079

5
6
7
8

Marc Williams [S.B. #198913]
Reuven Cohen [S.B. #231915]
DORDI WILLIAMS COHEN LLP
724 South Spring Street, Suite 903
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Tel: (213) 232-5160
Fax: (213) 232-5167

9
10
11
12
13
14

Emmanuel Nsahlai [S.B. #207588]
Nsahlai Law Firm
3460 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1220
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 674-4181
Facsimile: (213) 973-4617
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HELEINE TCHAYOU, et al.

15

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

16

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES
)
POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF CHARLIE
)
BECK, in his individual and official capacities, )
CHAND SYED, in his individual capacity,
)
FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, in his individual
)
capacity, DANIEL TORRES, in his individual
)
capacity, JOSHUA VOLASGIS, in his
)
individual capacity, and DOES 1 - 20, inclusive, )
)
Defendants.
)
HELEINE TCHAYOU, ISAAC KEUNANG,
LINE MARQUISE FOMING, ESTATE OF
CHARLY LEUNDEU KEUNANG,

Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
1.

Wrongful Death

2.

Survivorship

3.

Negligent Supervision, Training,
Hiring and Retention

4.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional
Distress

5.

Violation of Civil Code §52.1 (Bane
Act)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

27
28
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1
2

I.
1.

INTRODUCTION

On March 1, 2015, two officers and a sergeant of the Los Angeles Police Department

3

fired six bullets, several at point blank range and four of them lethal, into unarmed Charly Leundeu

4

Keunang (“Mr. Keunang”), killing him. Mr. Keunang, a native of Cameroon, West Africa, was at the

5

time 43 years old, homeless, and presumed to be mentally ill. A religious man, at the time of the killing

6

Mr. Keunang had made his home in a tent underneath a large cross displayed on a church located in the

7

heart of skid row in downtown Los Angeles. Even though Mr. Keunang had only lived on skid row for

8

a short time before his death, he was a known figure who had volunteered at a nearby homeless shelter.

9

2.

Prior to shooting him, the involved officers engaged in lengthy discourse with Mr.

10

Keunang who stood outside of his tent on the sidewalk bordering the heavily trafficked street. Mr.

11

Keunang did not appear violent and was not armed in any manner. After calmly talking to the four

12

police officers surrounding him for approximately three and one-half minutes, Mr. Keunang crawled into

13

his tent. At that juncture, the officers exploded into acts of violence, almost certain to cause anyone,

14

much less a person suspected of suffering from mental illness, to panic. Violently pulling and pounding

15

on the tent and attempting to collapse and rip it off of Mr. Keunang who was hovering defenseless

16

inside, the officers succeeded in pulling Mr. Keunang, terrified, out of the tent.

17

3.

On information and belief, the Defendant police officers approached Mr. Keunang in the

18

first instance as a result of a complaint by another homeless individual who advised that Mr. Keunang

19

suffered some sort of mental illness which at times caused him to act out. Despite being provided

20

information that Mr. Keunang was possibly mentally ill, the officers heightened to a fever pitch what had

21

previously been a relatively calm interaction with Mr. Keunang. Upon dragging him out of the tent, one

22

or more of the by now six officers who had reported to the scene repeatedly tased Mr. Keunang, punched

23

and swung their batons at him, hitting him on repeated occasions, and pinned him on the ground. The

24

three Defendant police officers needlessly and without justification fired their weapons into the

25

defenseless Mr. Keunang, mortally wounding him. At no time did Mr. Keunang possess any type of

26

weapon, much less fire or remove any firearm from the officers. Mr. Keunang was observed by

27

bystanders to be alive and writhing in pain for a time before he expired, during which time Defendants

28

stood around on the sidewalk, making no attempt to tend to his wounds or otherwise come to his aid.
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

4.

The killing occurred in broad daylight. Witnesses on the crowded street attest Mr.

2

Keunang was unarmed and that the police could have subdued him by other than lethal means. A mere

3

60 seconds passed from the moment police dragged Mr. Keunang from the tent to when he lay in his

4

own blood, dying in front of passersby beneath the very cross under which he had planted his tent for

5

protection.

6

5.

The killing of Charly Keunang represents a classic case of abuse of power and deadly

7

force by a supposedly trained police force, resulting in what Los Angeles Police Chief Beck himself

8

characterized as a “tragic death” and which the Coroner’s report labeled a “homicide”. The inexplicable

9

volatility with which the Defendant officers accosted Mr. Keunang resulted in the deprivation of his life,

10
11

a mother and father of their son and a loving sister of her only sibling.
6.

If Defendants had followed protocols, policies, procedures and training that are standard

12

in their field and required by law, they would have taken less than lethal measures to handle the situation

13

rather than to senselessly inflame it as they did. For example, the officers could have continued to

14

engage Mr. Keunang in verbal conversation rather than escalating the situation by physically threatening

15

and then tasing him. In addition, one or more of the six officers who eventually reported to the scene

16

could have entered Mr. Keunang’s tent while he was standing outside it talking to officers to determine

17

if any danger existed therein to Mr. Keunang, members of the public or the police officers themselves.

18

They did no such thing. Similarly, rather than storming his tent once Mr. Keunang crawled inside, the

19

officers could have taken other measures to de-escalate the situation. Further, on information and belief,

20

the police had reason to suspect Mr. Keunang was mentally ill. Despite this, Defendants failed and

21

refused to assess Mr. Keunang’s mental state and risk factors or otherwise intervene in such a way as to

22

protect him and the public. Likewise, Defendants failed to have in place appropriate policies and

23

procedures to deal with such situations, or in the alternative, if such policies and procedures existed, they

24

flaunted them. In sum, in committing the acts and failures to act alleged herein, Defendants failed in

25

their duties as a public safety agency and as employees and servants of the public. As a result, Plaintiffs

26

lost their loved one - their only son and brother.

27
28

7.

Defendants have publicly claimed that Mr. Keunang supposedly grabbed one of the

officer’s holstered gun. These statements are disproved by publicly available video recordings of the
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

incident, public statements of eyewitnesses as well as, on information and belief, the video recording

2

from the body cameras worn by two of the officers involved.

3

8.

Plaintiffs bring this action for damages against Defendants for: general, compensatory,

4

and statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, declaratory relief and training resulting from

5

Defendants' unlawful and egregious conduct, as alleged herein. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek punitive

6

damages against the individual Defendants.

7
8
9
10
11
12

II.
9.

PARTIES

Plaintiff Heleine Tchayou is the mother of Charly Leundeu Keunang and has lived in the

United States since 2013 with her daughter. Charly Leundeu Keunang is her only son.
10.

Plaintiff Isaac Keunang is the father of Charly Leundeu Keunang. Isaac Keunang is a

citizen and resident of Cameroon, West Africa. Charly Leundeu Keunang is his only son.
11.

Plaintiff Line Marquise Foming is the sister and sole sibling of Charly Leundeu

13

Keunang. Ms. Foming emigrated to the United States in 2006, became a naturalized citizen in 2011 and

14

works as a nurse’s assistant for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

15

12.

Plaintiffs have submitted paperwork to the Probate Court seeking to appoint Plaintiff Line

16

Marquise Foming as Administrator of the Estate of Charly Leundeu Keunang. As soon as Letters of

17

Appointment are issued by the Probate Court, the Estate will file a Tort Claim pursuant to the

18

requirements of Government Code § 910 and Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend the Complaint

19

to accordingly allege compliance with said requirements and to state claims on behalf of the Estate of

20

Charly Leundeu Keunang.

21

13.

Defendant City of Los Angeles (“the City”) was and is a legal political entity established

22

under the laws of the State of California, with all the powers specified and necessarily implied by the

23

Constitution and laws of the State of California and exercised by a duly elected City Council and/or their

24

agents and officers. The City is responsible for the actions, inactions, policies, procedures, practices and

25

customs of the Los Angeles Police Department and its agents and employees. At all relevant times, the

26

City was and continues to be responsible for assuring that the actions of the Los Angeles Police

27

Department and its agents and employees comply with the Constitutions of the State of California and of

28

the United States and any other applicable laws and regulations.
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

14.

Defendant Charlie Beck is the duly appointed Chief of Police for the Los Angeles Police

2

Department (“LAPD”), and an employee of the City. Defendant Beck holds the highest position in the

3

LAPD and is and was responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline,

4

counseling, and control of all LAPD employees and agents. He also is and was responsible for the

5

promulgation of the policies, procedures and allowance of the practices and customs pursuant to which

6

the acts and failures to act alleged herein were committed. Defendant Beck is sued individually as well

7

as in his official capacity for the purpose of ensuring that Plaintiffs may obtain complete and effective

8

injunctive relief as against the LAPD, whose actions and conduct are under the control and authority of

9

the current Police Chief.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

15.

Defendant Sergeant Chand Syed is an employee of the LAPD who, on information and

belief, detained, accosted, needlessly and without justification injured and fatally shot Mr. Keunang.
16.

Defendant Officer Francisco Martinez is an employee of the LAPD who, on information

and belief, detained, accosted, needlessly and without justification injured and fatally shot Mr. Keunang.
17.

Officer Daniel Torres is an employee of the LAPD who, on information and belief,

detained, accosted, needlessly and without justification injured and fatally shot Mr. Keunang.
18.

Officer Joshua Volasgis is an employee of the LAPD who, on information and belief,

17

detained, accosted and needlessly and without justification contributed to Mr. Keunang being injured

18

and fatally shot.

19

19.

The true names of Defendant Does 1 through 20, inclusive, are presently unknown to

20

Plaintiffs, who therefore sue each of these Defendants by such fictitious names. Upon ascertaining the

21

true identity of Doe Defendants, Plaintiffs will amend this complaint, or seek leave to do so, by inserting

22

the true name in lieu of the fictitious name. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of such

23

information and belief allege, that each Doe Defendant is in some manner legally responsible for the

24

acts, omissions, injuries and damages herein alleged.

25
26
27
28

20.

Defendants Charlie Beck, Chand Syed, Francisco Martinez, Daniel Torres, Joshua

Volasgis and Does 1 through 20 engaged in the acts or omissions alleged herein under color of state law.
21.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times relevant herein,

Defendants and each of them were the agents, employees, servants, joint venturers, partners, and/or co4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

conspirators of the other Defendants named in this Complaint and that at all times, each of the

2

Defendants was acting within the course and scope of said relationship with Defendants.

3

22.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all times material herein,

4

each of the Defendants was the agent or employee of, and/or working in concert with, his/her

5

co-Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment and/or concerted

6

activity. Plaintiffs allege that to the extent certain acts and omissions were perpetrated by certain

7

Defendants, the remaining Defendant or Defendants confirmed and ratified said acts and omissions.

8
9
10
11

23.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege, that at all times material herein,

each Defendant was dominated and controlled by his/her co-Defendant and each was the alter-ego of the
other.
24.

Whenever and wherever reference is made in this complaint to any act or failure to act by

12

a Defendant or Defendants, such allegations and references shall also be deemed to mean the acts and

13

failures to act of each Defendant acting individually, jointly and severally.

14

25.

Plaintiffs Heleine Tehayou (on April 29, 2015), and Isaac Keunang and Line Marquise

15

Foming (on May 5, 2015) exhausted their administrative remedies by filing governmental tort claims

16

with the City of Los Angeles, pursuant to California Government Code § 910.

17
18

III.
26.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
Decedent Charly Leundeu Keunang was born in Cameroon, West Africa, to Plaintiffs

19

Heleine Tchayou and Isaac Keunang. Mr. Keunang studied physics and mathematics at the University of

20

Douala. Thereafter, Mr. Keunang, a native French speaker, lived in France for an extended period of

21

time, eventually emigrating to the United States in approximately 1999.

22

27.

Following release from prison due to incarceration on a bank robbery conviction, Mr.

23

Keunang stayed in a half way house and thereafter with a friend. For a brief few months before his

24

death, Mr. Keunang made home in a tent in the skid row area of downtown Los Angeles. Though a

25

relative newcomer to the street, Mr. Keunang did what he could for others, for example, volunteering on

26

occasion at a “soup kitchen” feeding Los Angeles’ large homeless population. On information and

27

belief, a very large percentage of the homeless living on the streets of Los Angeles suffer from some

28

form of mental illness and/or drug addiction. On further information and belief, the Los Angeles Police
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

Department purports to specially train officers assigned to the City’s skid row district on how to

2

interface and peaceably interact with this population so as to protect the homeless as well as the general

3

population.

4

28.

Determined to turn his life around upon release from prison, Mr. Keunang was able to

5

locate his sister, Plaintiff Foming, who had ceaselessly searched for him since losing contact over a

6

decade before. Mr. Keunang’s mother, who lived in Massachusetts with Ms. Foming and her family,

7

despaired of ever seeing her only son again as she presumed he was dead. In approximately June 2014,

8

Plaintiff Foming arranged for Mr. Keunang to travel by bus to Massachusetts and surprise their mother,

9

who was unaware that her only two children had recently found each other again. Plaintiffs Tchayou and

10
11

Foming were elated at seeing their prodigal son and brother again after so many years.
29.

Following their joyful reunion in Massachusetts and Mr. Keunang’s return to Los

12

Angeles, the three remained in nearly daily contact with each other by telephone and email. Plaintiffs

13

Tchayou and Foming informed Plaintiff Isaac Keunang of the re-discovery of Mr. Keunang, and Isaac

14

Keunang spoke repeatedly with his son and about his plans to return to Cameroon.

15

30.

Reconnecting with his family intensified Mr. Keunang’s resolve to begin his life anew.

16

He formulated a plan to return to his native Cameroon to start up an import and export enterprise with a

17

friend who was based in Los Angeles. Mr. Keunang intended to assist in the support of his aging parents

18

and was actively engaged in measures to effectuate that intent at the time of his death. Though living on

19

the streets of Los Angeles, Mr. Keunang was not without hope. A religious man, he purposefully

20

planted his tent beneath a cross affixed to a large church ministering to the poor and homeless near the

21

corner of San Pedro and 5th streets in the skid row area of downtown Los Angeles. This is where Mr.

22

Keunang lived in the days leading up to March 1, 2015.

23

31.

At approximately noon on that Sunday, another homeless man made a complaint that Mr.

24

Keunang, with whom he had argued shortly before and whom he described as mentally ill, had attacked

25

him. On information and belief, Mr. Keunang and this man argued because Mr. Keunang believed the

26

other man had improperly harassed a woman. Video of the Mr. Keunang’s interaction with this man

27

shows Mr. Keunang pushing his tent into the street but not physically assaulting him. LAPD officers

28

were summoned to the scene where they approached Mr. Keunang. The officers and Mr. Keunang spoke
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

together with relative calm at considerable length together on the heavily trafficked street where adults,

2

young children, persons in wheelchairs, babies in strollers and leashed pets walked, bicycled and drove,

3

weaving their way among and around the officers and Mr. Keunang. On information and belief, the

4

audio from the officers’ body cameras shows that Mr. Keunang was trying to explain to the officers what

5

happened with the other man. Video footage from a security camera installed in a nearby building

6

shows Mr. Keunang calmly engaged in discussion with the officers who made no attempt to keep the

7

numerous onlookers, bicyclists and pedestrians from the scene. This same video shows Mr. Keunang

8

standing with arms at his side or mildly gesturing, engaging in conversation with the initial three and

9

eventually four police officers who encircled him. He appears relaxed and is completely unarmed.

10

32.

After approximately three and one-half minutes of interaction with the police officers,

11

Mr. Keunang stooped down to the ground and crawled back into his tent. This action apparently angered

12

the officers who had by now grown in number to six, as a third police car had driven up. Three of the

13

police officers became instantly volatile, seizing the tent with Mr. Keunang inside. They began violently

14

rocking the tent, attempting to rip the top off or to otherwise dismantle it or tear it down. Other officers

15

drew tasers and commenced firing into the tent. One or more of the officers reached into the collapsing

16

tent in an attempt to pull a by now frantic Mr. Keunang out of it. The videotaped security footage shows

17

the police officers repeatedly tasing and punching Mr. Keunang. Upon being dragged from the tent with

18

police batons and tasers pointed or being thrust at and striking him, Mr. Keunang panicked and began

19

flailing his arms in desperate attempts to disengage from the officers grappling him. The officers

20

repeatedly struck Mr. Keunang with their fists and batons, tackling him and knocking him to the

21

concrete sidewalk where at least one officer sat on him, pinioning him down. At no point in time did

22

Mr. Keunang hold a weapon of any kind as he was being besieged by six heavily armed and violent

23

police officers.

24

33.

Defendant Charlie Beck, the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, has been

25

quoted by the Los Angeles Times as stating that Mr. Keunang “forcibly grabbed one of the officer’s

26

holstered pistols.” On information and belief, this did not occur. The video of the incident taken by a

27

bystander does not show Mr. Keunang reaching for any of the officers’ guns. The media reports from

28

the reporter who has been allowed to view the footage from the officers’ body cameras state that this
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

footage does not show Mr. Keunang reaching for any of the officers’ weapons. Numerous eye witnesses

2

have stated that they did not see Mr. Keunang reach for any of the officers’ guns. Despite this, the

3

Defendant officers drew their weapons and needlessly and without justification fired six shots into Mr.

4

Keunang’s chest, lungs, heart, arms and other body parts. Within 60 seconds of being dragged forcibly

5

from his “home”, Mr. Keunang, a homeless unarmed black man whom the officers had reason to believe

6

suffered from a mental illness, lay dying. Defendants failed and refused to assist Mr. Keunang or engage

7

in any efforts to offer medical aid or otherwise save him. Instead, Defendants handcuffed Mr.

8

Keunang’s bloody wrists and looked on while he bled to death in pain and terror on the streets of Los

9

Angeles.

10

34.

Rather than de-escalate the situation, the LAPD officers used unjustified lethal force, in

11

violation of LAPD protocol. Despite their knowledge that a sizeable percentage of the homeless persons

12

living in the mean streets of Los Angeles’ skid row district suffer from mental illness and on information

13

and belief having been specifically put on notice that Mr. Keunang potentially was mentally ill,

14

Defendants engaged in explosive, unpredictable and violent behavior nearly guaranteed to terrify

15

anyone, much less a person suspected of suffering from a mental illness.

16

35.

The Los Angeles County Coroner’s autopsy report reveals four of the bullets were lethal,

17

entering Mr. Keunang’s chest cavity, fracturing three ribs, partly collapsing his lungs, and causing

18

traumatic damage to his heart, liver, and surrounding muscle. One or other of the Defendant officers

19

fired two other bullets into Mr. Keunang’s external limbs, fracturing bones and damaging muscle.

20

36.

The senseless violence exerted by Defendants on an unarmed terrified man recklessly

21

caused Mr. Keunang’s unnecessary and untimely death, which was pronounced a “homicide” by the Los

22

Angeles County Coroner upon examining the body.

23

37.

On the day before he died, Mr. Keunang communicated with his sister, Plaintiff Foming,

24

telling her he would call her March 1. Worried that her brother had not telephoned as he had promised,

25

Foming unsuccessfully attempted to reach him.

26

38.

Despite knowledge of the existence and whereabouts of Plaintiffs Tchayou and Foming,

27

Defendant City failed and refused to notify them of the death of their son and sibling. Indeed, on March

28

1, 2015, Plaintiffs watched a televised broadcast of the shooting of a black man on the streets of Los
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

Angeles on the evening news, unaware that the man they viewed dying in front of their eyes was their

2

son and brother. Days went by and still Defendant City failed and refused to notify Mr. Keunang’s kin

3

of his death.

4

39.

It was not until March 3 that Plaintiffs Tchayou and Foming learned of the death of Mr.

5

Keunang. This occurred via a telephone call in the middle of the night from an acquaintance in

6

Cameroon, who told them that the man seen shot to death in the widely televised video footage was their

7

son and brother. It is a supreme irony that someone located half way around the world, learned of the

8

death of Mr. Keunang before his mother and sister, living in one of the most technologically advanced

9

countries in the world.

10

40.

Although Plaintiffs repeatedly requested the release of the footage from the officers’ body

11

cameras, Defendants have refused to release it to anyone other than a reporter writing a story about this

12

incident for the magazine GQ.

13

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

14

WRONGFUL DEATH

15

(Plaintiffs Heleine Tchayou and Isaac Keunang Against all Defendants)

16
17
18

41.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 though 40 as though fully set forth herein.
42.

Charly Leundeu Keunang’s death was a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned

19

wrongful and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions thus

20

were also a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, as alleged herein.

21

43.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful and/or negligent acts and/or

22

omissions, Plaintiffs incurred funeral and burial expenses, including transporting Mr. Keunang’s body

23

back to Cameroon to join his ancestors, in an amount to be proved at trial.

24

44.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful and/or negligent acts and/or

25

omissions, Plaintiffs suffered the loss of Mr. Keunang’s services, society, care, comfort, support,

26

protection, gifts and benefits, as well as the loss of the present value of his future services to them for the

27

remainder of their lives.

28

45.

Plaintiffs are further entitled to recover prejudgment interest.
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

46.

Defendants Syed, Martinez and Torres and Does 1 - 20 acted with conscious disregard of

2

Mr. Keunang’s rights. Said Defendants’ conduct was willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive,

3

thereby justifying an award to Plaintiffs of exemplary and punitive damages to punish the wrongful

4

conduct alleged herein and to deter such conduct in the future.

5

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

6

SURVIVORSHIP

7

(Plaintiff Estate of Charly Kuenang Against Defendants Syed,

8

Martinez, Torres, Volasgis and Does 1 though 20)

9
10
11

47.

Plaintiff Estate of Charly Kuenang realleges and incorporates by reference each and

every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 though 46 as though fully set forth herein.
48.

Plaintiffs are filing a Petition for Probate for the court to appoint Plaintiff Line Marquise

12

Foming as Special Administrator to litigate any and all claims and/or causes of action to which the

13

Estate of Mr. Keunang is entitled as set forth in the allegations alleged herein. Plaintiffs will seek leave

14

to amend this Complaint following the issuance of Letters of Administration and filing of an appropriate

15

governmental tort claim on behalf of the Estate, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code § 910.

16
17
18

49.

On or about March 1, 2015, after causes of action arose in his favor, Decedent Mr.

Keunang would have been a Plaintiff in this action had he survived the injuries he sustained.
50.

The conduct of Defendants as set forth herein, was tortious in that Defendants

19

breached their duty of care to Mr. Keunang an unarmed man beseiged by six heavily armed police

20

officers. Additionally, on information and belief, Defendants had reason to believe Mr. Keunang

21

suffered from a mental illness. Until they violently attacked and provoked him, Mr. Keunang was acting

22

in a calm noncombative manner. As a result of the conduct of the Defendants as alleged herein, Mr.

23

Keunang sustained and incurred damages for a measurable period of time him before his death, writhing

24

in pain and bleeding to death on the streets of Los Angeles in the view of bystanders and Defendant

25

police officers who did nothing to come to his aid. The Estate of Mr. Keunang, therefore, seeks recovery

26

for personal property damages, and all other related expenses, damages, and losses, as permitted by

27

section 377.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against Defendants, according to proof at trial.

28

51.

Defendants Syed, Martinez and Torres and Does 1-20 acted with conscious disregard of
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

Mr. Keunang’s rights. Said Defendants’ conduct was willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive,

2

thereby justifying to Plaintiff Estate of Charly Leundeu Keunang an award of exemplary and punitive

3

damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter such conduct in the future.

4

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

5

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, TRAINING, HIRING AND RETENTION

6

(By Plaintiffs Heleine Tchayou and Isaac Keunang Against Defendants City of Los

7

Angeles, Charlie Beck, and Does 1 through 20)

8
9

52.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 51 as though fully set forth herein.

10

53.

Defendants had a duty to hire, supervise, train, and retain employees and/or agents so that

11

employees and/or agents refrained from the conduct and/or omissions alleged herein. Defendants

12

breached this duty, causing the acts and failures to act alleged herein. Such breach constituted negligent

13

hiring, supervision, training, and retention under the laws of the State of California.

14

54.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure, Decedent Charly Leundeu

15

Keunang and Plaintiffs Heleine Tchayou and Isaac Keunang suffered injuries and damages as alleged

16

herein.

17

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

19

(By Plaintiffs Heleine Tchayou and Line Marquise Foming

20

Against Defendant City of Los Angeles and Does 1 - 20)

21
22
23

55.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 54 as though fully set forth herein.
56.

Once re-united with their son and brother, Plaintiffs Tchayou and Foming took care to be

24

in almost daily communication and contact with Mr. Keunang, so as to steady him in his resolve to

25

change his life around and provide him the love, encouragement and emotional support he required.

26

This communication took the form of texting and phone calls, in addition to the personal trip Mr.

27

Keunang made to Boston to reunite with his mother and sister in June 2014.

28

57.

On the day before his death, Mr. Keunang texted his sister his intent to telephone her the
11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

next day, so as to speak to her and their mother, Plaintiff Tchayou. When her brother did not call as

2

promised, Plaintiff Foming unsuccessfully attempted to reach him. Worried, Plaintiffs spent days in

3

anxious concern about Mr. Keunang, staving off fears stoked by his sudden and inexplicable silence that

4

he had “disappeared” again.

5

58.

Completely unaware of the significance of what they saw, Plaintiffs watched the

6

videotaped news coverage of Mr. Keunang’s fatal shooting and painful death by Defendant City’s agents

7

and employees.

8
9
10
11

59.

Despite the fact that Defendant City knew of the existence and whereabouts of Plaintiffs

and their kinship to Mr. Keunang, Defendant failed and refused to notify Mr. Keunang’s next of kin.
Rather, his body was transported to the morgue.
60.

Defendant City never did notify Plaintiffs of the death of their son. Rather, Plaintiffs

12

learned of Mr. Keunang’s death and the circumstances surrounding it first and only from relatives living

13

thousands of miles away in Cameroon.

14

61.

The acts and failures to act as alleged herein caused severe anxiety, pain, suffering

15

and emotional distress and injury to Plaintiffs and each of them and Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to

16

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

17

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18

CIVIL CODE § 52.1 (BANE ACT)

19

(By Plaintiffs Heleine Tchayou, Isaac Keunang and Estate of Charly

20

Keunang Against All Defendants)

21
22
23

62.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 61 as though fully set forth herein.
63.

The California Constitution Art. I § 13 and the United States Constitution, Amendment

24

IV, guarantee the right of persons to be free from arrests without probable cause, unreasonable searches

25

and seizures and use of unnecessary and excessive force on the part of law enforcement officers.

26

Defendants, by engaging in the wrongful acts and failures to act alleged herein, denied this right to Mr.

27

Keunang either directly or through their deliberate indifference, thus giving Plaintiffs a claim for

28

damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1.
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

64.

As the direct and legal result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered and will

2

continue to suffer damages, including but not limited to those set forth above, and are entitled to

3

statutory damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 52, as well as compensatory and punitive damages and

4

attorneys’ fees.

5

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

6

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

7

1.

8
9

For compensatory, general and special damages against each Defendant, jointly and

severally, amounts to be proven at trial;
2.

Punitive and exemplary damages against individually named Defendants Syed, Martinez,

10

Torres, Volasgis and Does 1 - 20 in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant(s) and deter others from

11

engaging in similar misconduct;

12

3.

Prejudgment interest;

13

4.

For costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as authorized by statute or law;

14

5.

For restitution as the Court deems just and proper;

15

6.

For such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as the Court may

16

deem proper.

17
18

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury in this action.

19
20

Dated: August 5, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,

21

DORDI WILLIAMS COHEN LLP

22

NSAHLAI LAW FIRM

23

HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP

24
25
26
27

By: ______________________________
Barbara Enloe Hadsell
Dan Stormer
Joshua Piovia-Scott
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

28
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES