Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 14

1 LOUIS R. MILLER (State Bar No. 54141)
smiller@millerbarondess.com
2 SCOTT J. STREET (State Bar No. 258962)
sstreet@millerbarondess.com
3 MILLER BARONDESS, LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000
4 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 552-4400
5 Facsimile: (310) 552-8400
6 BRIAN E. WATKINS (State Bar No. 190599)
bwatkins@brianwatkinslaw.com
7 BRIAN E. WATKINS & ASSOCIATES
925 B Street Suite 402
8 San Diego, äalifornia 92101
Telephone: (619) 255-5930
9 Facsimile: (619) 255-5639
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

1~
~

r

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14 SR. NEHAD, an individual, K.R.
NEHAD, an individual, ESTATE OF
15 FRIDOON RAWSHAN NEHAD,
16

Plaintiffs,

17

v.

18 NEAL N. BROWDER, an individual,
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipality,
19 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
20

Defendants.

CASE NO. 15-CV-1386-WQHNLS
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR:
(1) DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL
RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(FOURTH AMENDMENT);
(2) DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL
RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT);

21

(3) DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL
RIGHTS (CAL. CIV. CODE § 52.1)

22

(4) ASSAULT AND BATTERY;

23

(5) NEGLIGENCE; AND

24

(6) WRONGFUL DEATH.

25

_______________________

[DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL1

26
27
28
Case No.

261891.2

FIRST AMENDED COMPT.ATNT

15-CV-1386.WQHNLS

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 14

1

Plaintiffs S.R. Nehad and K.R. Nehad (the “Nehads”) and the Estate of

2 Fridoon Rawshan Nehad (the “Estate”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
3

INTRODUCTION

4

1.

On April 30, 2015, Fridoon Rawshan Nehad (“Fridoon”) was shot to

5 death by Defendant Neal N. Browder. Browder was acting under color of authority,
6 in his capacity as a San Diego police officer. Fridoon was unarmed.
7

2.

The shooting was captured on a surveillance video owned by a private

8 business named KECO, Inc. (the “KECO Video”). KECO has the video of the
9 shooting and provided a copy to the San Diego Police Department (“SDPD”).
10

3.

Individuals have seen the KECO Video. One of them called the video

11 “shocking” and stated that Browder appeared to shoot Fridoon “hastily,” at a
12 moment when Fridoon’s walking cadence noticeably changed from normal to a
13 near-stop.
0i3 ~

~ ~

14

4.

Browder was wearing a body camera but it was not activated when the

15 shooting occurred. On information and belief, he did not activate the body camera
16 because he did not want anyone to see the shooting (he did not know about the

~

~

17 KECO Video).

5.

18

Based on accounts of individuals who have seen the KECO Video,

19 Plaintiffs believe that Fridoon’s shooting was unjustified. They bring this action for
20 violation of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C.

§

1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth

21 Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as applicable state law.
22

6.

Before filing this case, Plaintiffs tried to obtain the KECO Video from

23 the SDPD, to no avail: the SDPD refused to provide the video and told Plaintiffs to
24 file a lawsuit if they wanted to see it. Plaintiffs also tried to obtain a copy of the
25 video from KECO, but KECO said it would only produce the video if it receives a
26 subpoena.
27

7.

Thus, on June 24, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this case and they sought leave

28 to serve a subpoena for the video on KECO. Defendants agreed that Plaintiffs
261891.2

1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No.

15-Cv.1386.wQHNL5

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 14

1 should receive leave to serve the KECO subpoena and the parties are preparing a
2 joint motion to that effect. Defendants also agreed to provide Plaintiffs with all the
3 videos and documents from the SDPD’s investigation of the shooting as soon as
4 possible, pursuant to a protective order.
5

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

6

8.

Pursuant to section 910 of the California Government Code, Plaintiffs

7 filed administrative claims with the City of San Diego (“City”). The claims were
8 denied on July 14, 2015, as the City failed to act on them within the 45-day time
9 period.
10

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11

9.

The Estate is Fridoon’s probate estate. Under Section 377.20 of the

12 California Code of Civil Procedure, the Estate has standing to bring claims for
13 Fridoon’s pre-death pain and suffering. For jurisdictional purposes, and since
14 Fridoon’s death occurred in California, the Estate resides in California.
15

10.

Plaintiff S.R. Nehad is a United States citizen. She is Fridoon’s mother

16 and resides in San Diego, California. Plaintiff K.R. Nehad is a United States
~~

17 citizen. He is Fridoon’s father and resides in San Diego, California.
18

11.

Defendant Neal N. Browder is a United States citizen. He resides in

19 Temecula, California.
20

12.

The SDPD is an agency of Defendant City of San Diego, a

21 municipality. The City is responsible for the actions of the SDPD and its officers.
22

13.

Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants

23 sued herein as Does 1 through 10 and therefore sue those unknown Defendants by
24 such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege said
25 Defendants’ true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed
26 and believe that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some
27 manner for the occurrences alleged herein, and that Plaintiffs’ injuries were
28 proximately caused by the acts and/or omissions of said fictitiously named
261891.2

2
FTRST AMENDED COMPT.ATNT

Case No.

15.cv-13s6.wQI-INLS

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 4 of 14

1 Defendants.
2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3

14.

This is a civil suit brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.

§

4 1983, for violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution. This
5 Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and this action pursuant to 28

§ 1343(a)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It has supplemental jurisdiction over the
7 state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and principles of pendent jurisdiction.
6 U.S.C.

8

15.

This suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages against all

9 Defendants as permitted by law.
10

16.

Venue is proper in this Court because the events or omissions that gave

11 rise to the causes of action herein occurred in San Diego, California, within the
12 Southern District of California.
13
~!

FACTS

14

A.

Fridoon and Ills Family

15

17.

Fridoon was born in 1973 and grew up in Afghanistan. He was an

16 intelligent, kind, thoughtful and creative person. He had a loving and happy
17 childhood. But it was interrupted by the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the
18 internal civil war after the Russians left.
19

18.

The civil war pitted the Afghan government against groups called the

20 Mujahideen (some of these groups would later form the Taliban). Fridoon was
21 drafted into the Afghan army when he was a teenager. While serving, he was
22 captured by one of the Mujahideen groups. He spent nearly two months in captivity
23 and was only released after his mother met face-to-face with the kidnappers and
24 pleaded for the release of her son.
25

19.

Fridoon did not talk much about the war. He likely was tortured. The

26 Mujahideen had a well-documented practice of torturing prisoners of war.
27

20.

After his release, Fridoon still was in grave danger of persecution by

28 the Mujahideen (which opposed the government). To save his life, his family got
261891.2

3
FIRST AMENDED COMPT,ATNT

Case No. 15-Cv.1386-wQHNLs

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 5 of 14

1 him out of Afghanistan and into refuge in Germany. He was a teenager at the time.
2

21.

Fridoon spent the next 14 years in Germany, isolated from his family.

3 He saw his parents just a few times. He did not see his siblings (six sisters) at all.
4

22.

In 1991, the Nehads immigrated to the United States, settling in San

5 Diego. They became American citizens. Their daughters attended school and have
6 jobs and careers in the U.S. in medicine, law and business. Fridoon finally joined
7 them in 2003.
8

23.

Fridoon suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”). He

9 also was diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
10

24.

Fridoon battled against his illnesses. He was intelligent, learning new

11 languages (German and French) and taking classes on computer programming,
12 linguistics and literature. He became a permanent resident of the United States and
13 obtained a work permit. He tried to improve his life, but sometimes had manic
14 episodes. He was arrested and, in 2008, went to jail for burglary.
15
~
~

25.

Fridoon was loved. His family spent years and countless hours trying

16 to help him cope with his PTSD and illness. At times, it was difficult.
~

17

26.

Fridoon was receiving treatment for his PTSD and mental illness. But

18 he still had manic episodes. During one episode, he became upset with his mother
19 and sister, who called the police. The police recommended that the Nehads get a
20 restraining order.
21

27.

The police told the Nehads that getting a restraining order would help

22 Fridoon get into a shelter in Oceanside, which he had visited. The Nehads trusted
23 the police and followed their advice.
24

B.

Fridoon’s Shooting

25

28.

On April 29-30, 2015, Fridoon was walking in downtown San Diego.

26

29.

Officer Browder responded to a 911 call from an adult bookstore

27 employee. He arrived at the store around midnight.
28

30.
261891.2

According to a KECO employee who saw the KECO Video, Fridoon
4
FIRST AMF.NDFD COMPT,AINT

Case No. 15-CV-1386.WQHNLS

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 6 of 14

1 was walking in the alley behind the bookstore when Browder arrived in his police
2 car. He was about 15 to 20 feet away from the police car when Browder stepped out
3 of his car and, within seconds, fired his side arm, hitting Fridoon with at least one
4 shot. Fridoon died later at UCSD Medical Center.
5

31.

The KECO employee who saw the video, Wesley Doyle, provided a

6 declaration about what he remembers about the KECO Video. Doyle said the
7 shooting was “unprovoked” and “shocking.” Browder did not take any time to
8 communicate with Fridoon and did not use any other (non-deadly) measures against
9 Fridoon. He did not even get into a police shooting stance. He appeared to shoot
10 Fridoon “hastily,” at a moment when Fridoon’s walking. cadence noticeably changed
11 from normal to a near-stop. Doyle’s declaration is attached to this First Amended
12 Complaint as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference.
~

~j
~ ~;

13
14

C.
32.

The SDPD Cover-Up and the KECO Video
Fridoon was not armed. Nonetheless, the SDPD tried to “spin” the

15 story against Fridoon, falsely suggesting to his family and the media that he had a
16 knife. The SDPD also falsely claimed that Fridoon was threatening Browder when,
17 in fact, Fridoon was shot at a distance of at least 15 feet and just after Browder
18 arrived at the scene.
19

33.

Browder was wearing a body camera that night. But it was not

20 activated at the time of the shooting. It should have been: the SDPD’s body camera
21 policy required that Browder “shall” activate his camera before he confronted
22 Fridoon and continue recording until the contact was concluded. Browder violated
23 that policy.
24

34.

The SDPD recognized that its original body camera policy was

25 deficient. For example, it did not require, or even suggest, that police officers tell
26 the public they were recording the encounter. And it did not impose any
27 requirements on supervisors to train their officers or monitor their use of the
28 cameras. One week after the shooting of Fridoon, the SDPD changed its policy.
261891.2

5
FTRST AMENDED COMPT.ATNT

Case No. 15-Cv-1386.wQFINL5

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 7 of 14

1

35.

The new policy is mandated and requires that supervisors monitor

2 officers’ use of the body cameras, train the officers to use the cameras, and report
3 violations of the policy. It also requires that officers keep the camera turned on and
4 continue recording throughout the law enforcement contact. And it “strongly
5 encourage[s]” officers “to inform citizens that they are being recorded in an effort to
6 de-escalate potential conflicts.”
7

36.

If Browder had followed the old or new policy, the shooting would not

8 have occurred in the manner it did, or likely at all.
9

37.

The KECO Video is direct evidence of Fridoon’s shooting. The

10 existence of the KECO Video became known after an employee of KECO saw the
11 video and contacted the media to rebut the SDPD’s story. There are two copies of
12 the KECO Video. KECO has one. The SDPD has the other.
13

~i

~ ~:
~ ~:

38.

Plaintiffs requested a copy of the KECO Video from the SDPD but

14 their request was denied. The SDPD told Plaintiffs that they should file a lawsuit if
15 they wanted to see the video.
16
39. Plaintiffs also asked KECO to turn over its copy of the video. KECO
17 declined, but its attorney said KECO would give Plaintiffs a copy of the video
18 pursuant to a subpoena.
19

40.

Plaintiffs filed this action concurrently with a motion for leave to serve

20 the KECO subpoena and obtain the video (the “KECO Motion”). Defendants
21 agreed that Plaintiffs should receive leave to serve the KECO subpoena and the
22 parties are preparing a joint motion to that effect. Defendants also agreed to provide
23 Plaintiffs with all the videos and documents from the SDPD’s investigation of the
24 shooting, pursuant to a protective order, which is being prepared and will be filed
25 soon.
26
27

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Deprivation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (Fourth Amendment))

(By the Estate Against Browder)

28
261891.2

6
FIRST AMENDF.D COMPlAINT

Case No.

15-Cv-1386-wQI-INLs

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 8 of 14

1

41.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding

2 paragraphs of this Complaint, as though set forth fully herein.
3

42.

This cause of action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and the

4 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
5

43.

Under section 377.20 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the

6 Estate is Fridoon’s successor-in-interest and has standing to assert a claim for
7 Fridoon’s pre-death damages.
8

44.

Defendant Browder shot and killed Fridoon. Shooting a weapon is the

9 use of deadly force. Plaintiffs allege that deadly force was not warranted: Fridoon
10 did not have a weapon and was not threatening Browder, or anyone else, with
11 deadly force.
12

45.

In the process, Browder violated Fridoon’s right to be free from

13 excessive force as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Q.~3

~ ~:

14

46.

Browder acted under color of law and within the course and scope of

15 his employment with the City of San Diego and the SDPD in deploying excessive
16 force against Fridoon.
17

~:

47.

Browder’s actions directly and proximately caused injury to Fridoon, as

18 he was mortally wounded and endured pain and suffering in the time before he died.
19

48.

As a result of Browder’s actions, the Estate is entitled to damages in an

20 amount to be proven at trial.
21

49.

Browder acted in knowing violation of Fridoon’s legal and

22 constitutional rights and without good faith, so punitive damages are warranted.
23
24

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Deprivation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C.

25

§ 1983 (Fourteenth Amendment))

(By the Nehads Against Browder)

26

50.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding

27 paragraphs of this Complaint, as though set forth fully herein.
28

51.
261891.2

This cause of action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

§ 1983 and the

Case No. 15-Cv.1386.wQHNLS

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 9 of 14

1 Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
2

52.

Defendant Browder shot and killed Fridoon. Shooting a weapon is the

3 use of deadly force. Plaintiffs allege that deadly force was not warranted: Fridoon
4 did not have a weapon and was not threatening Browder, or anyone else, with
5 deadly force.
6

53.

In the process, Browder violated the Nehads’ liberty interest in the

7 companionship of their eldest child and only son, a right secured by the Fourteenth
8 Amendment.
9

54.

Browder acted under color of law and within the course and scope of

10 his employment with the City of San Diego and the SDPD in deploying excessive
11 force against Fridoon.
12

55.

Browder’s actions directly and proximately caused injury to the

13 Nehads, as the shooting killed Fridoon and deprived the Nehads of the
tt~

~

14 companionship of their eldest child and only son.
15

~ ~
~~

56.

As a result of Browder’s actions, the Nehads are entitled to damages in

16 an amount to be proven at trial.
17

57.

Browder acted in knowing violation of the Nehads’ legal and

18 constitutional rights and without good faith, so punitive damages are warranted.
19

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

20

(Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Cal. Civil Code

21

(By Plaintiffs Against Browder and the City)

22

58.

§ 52.1)

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding

23 paragraphs of this Complaint, as though set forth fully herein.
24

59.

The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and

25 Article I, section 13 of the California Constitution, guarantee (a) an individual’s
26 right to be free from excessive force and (b) a parent’s right to the companionship of
27 his/her child. By engaging in the acts alleged above, Defendants denied those rights
28 to Plaintiffs, thus giving rise to claims for damages pursuant to California Civil
261891.2

8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 15-CV.1386.WQHNL5

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 10 of 14

1 Code section 52.1.
2

60.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, as alleged

3 herein, Plaintiffs were injured as set forth above and are entitled to damages,
4 including compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be proven at trial
5 and in excess of the jurisdictional amount required by this Court.
6

61.

As Fridoon’s successor-in-interest, the Estate is entitled to claim

7 Fridoon’s pre-death damages. The Nehads have standing to claim damages for
8 Defendants’ violations of their Fourteenth Amendment rights.
9

62.

In conducting himself as alleged herein, Browder was acting within the

10 course and scope of his employment with Defendant City of San Diego. Thus, the
11 City is responsible for Browder’s actions.
12

~: !~
~~

63.

In doing the foregoing wrongful acts, Defendants acted in reckless and

13 callous disregard for Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. The wrongful acts, and each of
14 them, were willful, oppressive, fraudulent and malicious, thus warranting the
15 imposition of punitive damages against each individual Defendant in an amount
16 adequate to punish the wrongdoers and deter future misconduct.
17

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18

(Assault and Battery)

19

(By the Estate Against Browder and the City)

20

64.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding

21 paragraphs of this Complaint, as though set forth fully herein.

65.

22

As an actual and proximate result of Browder’s wrongful acts,

23 conducted without due care in the execution and enforcement of the law, Fridoon
24 was placed in great fear for his life and physical well-being.
25

66.

As an actual and proximate result of Browder’s wrongful acts, Fridoon

26 suffered physical pain and suffering before he died, in an amount that will be proven
27 at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional amount required by this Court. As
28 Fridoon’s successor-in-interest, the Estate is entitled to claim those damages.
261891.2

9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No.

1s.cv-1386.wol-INL,s

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 11 of 14

1

67.

Browder’s actions, as alleged above, were intended to cause injury to

2 Fridoon or, in the alternative, were despicable acts carried on with a willful and
3 conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others, and subjected to Fridoon to
4 cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Fridoon’s rights so as to justify
5 an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
6

68.

In conducting himself as alleged herein, Browder was acting within the

7 course and scope of his employment with Defendant City of San Diego. Thus, the
8 City is responsible for Browder’s actions.
9

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10

(Negligence)

11

(By the Estate Against Browder and the City)

12

69.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding

13 paragraphs of this Complaint, as though set forth fully herein.
14

70.

At all times mentioned herein, Browder owed Fridoon a duty of care to

15 avoid causing unnecessary physical harm and distress in the execution and
16 enforcement of the law.

~: ~

17
71.
18 care.

In conducting himself as alleged herein, Browder breached this duty of

19

As an actual and proximate result of Browder’s acts, as alleged herein,

72.

20 conducted without due care in the execution and enforcement of the law, Fridoon
21 suffered severe physical injury, extreme emotional and mental distress and other
22 damages in an amount to be proven at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional
23 amount required by this Court. As Fridoon’s successor-in-interest, the Estate is
24 entitled to claim those damages.
25

73.

In conducting himself as alleged herein, Browder was acting within the

26 course and scope of his employment with the SDPD. Thus, the City is responsible
27 for Browder’s actions.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

28
261891.2

10
FTRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 15.CV.1386-WQHNLS

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 12 of 14

1

(Wrongful Death)

2

(By Plaintiffs Against Browder and the City)

3

74.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding

4 paragraphs of this Complaint, as though set forth fully herein.

5

75.

6 Nehads

—

At all times mentioned herein, Browder owed Fridoon

—

and the

a duty of care to avoid causing unnecessary physical harm and distress in

7 the execution and enforcement of the law.
8

76.

In conducting himself as alleged herein, Browder breached this duty of

77.

As an actual and proximate result of Browder’s acts, as alleged herein,

9 care.
10

11 conducted without due care in the execution and enforcement of the law, Fridoon
12 was killed and the Nehads were deprived of the companionship and support of their

~<

~ 1!
0i3

13 son.
14

78.

Under section 377.60 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, as an

15 actual and proximate result of Browder’s acts, Plaintiffs suffered damages in an
16 amount to be proven at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional amount required by
~:

17 this Court.
18

79.

In conducting himself as alleged herein, Browder was acting within the

19 course and scope of his employment with the SDPD. Thus, the City is responsible
20 for Browder’s actions.
21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

22

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

23

1.

For damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including general

24 damages, special damages and punitive damages;
25

2.

For attorneys’ fees, costs and interest, as allowed by law; and for such

26 other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
27
28
261891.2

11
FTRST AMENDED CC)MPT,ATNT

Case No. 15-Cv.1386.wQHNL5

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 13 of 14

1 DATED: July 23, 2015

MILLER BARONDESS, LLP

2
3
By:

4

LOUIS R. MILLER
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

5
6
7
8
9
10
C
C
0’

0

-J

~2

14

3

Z

9

12
13

-~

cn

11

0
z~0

15
16

~J

—

—J

17
0
0

z

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
261891.2

12
FIRST AMENDED COMPlAINT

Case No. 15-CV-1386-WQHNLS

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 14 of 14

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule

3 38.1, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
4
5 DATED: July 23, 2015

MILLER BARONDESS, LLP

8

By:___
LOUIS R. MILLER
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9
10
11
12
c-c

~1

13

~

14
15

£2

;:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
261891.2

13
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 15-Cv-1386-WQHNLS

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9-1 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 2

I

DECLARATION OF WESLEY DOYLE

2

I, Wesley Doyle, declare as follows:

3

1.

I am over the age of 18 and a United States citizen. I have pe~sona1

4 knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and could testify competently to
5 them if called to do so. I do not have a financial interest in this ease.
2.

On April 30, 2015,1 was employed at KECO, Inc. KECO’s office is

7 located at 3235 Hancock Street, #2, in San Diego. KECO is located next to the Hi
8 Lite Bookstore.
3.

9

I arrived at work around 8 am. There were news crews surrounding

10 KECO and the other business, including in the alley between KECO and the
11 bookstore. Andy Bleier and I walked into the office together. I asked him what had
S
0

12 happened. He said that someone had been shot in the alley that night.
4.

13
0.15°

1 walked into his brother Austin’s office. Austin Bleier is the president

14 of Marine Sync. Austin was sitting at his computer. He asked me: “Do you want to
15 see the most flicked up video in your life?” I said yes.

~

5.

16

‘U

Austin played a video on his computer. I understood that the video

17 contained footage from two surveillance cameras that KECO has on the side alley.
18 The video was from the previous night/morning, a few hours before I arrived at
19 work. I have watched this video (the “KECO Video”) 20 to 30 times.
6.

20

The video showed somebody I later learned to be Pridoon Rawshan

21 Nehad (“Pridoon”). Fridoon was walking at an average pace toward the eastern end
22 of the alley. As he had walked close to two thirds of the way down the alley, a
23 police car pulled up. A police officer, who I later learned to be Officer Neal
24 Browder, stepped out of the car. The car’s overhead emergency lights were not
25 turned on.
7.

26

Officer Browder got out of the car, He stepped around the driver’s side

27 door, with the door remaining wide open, so there was nothing between him and
28 Fridoon. He took a relaxed stance. Fridoon continued to walk toward a dumpster at
4cI~

2596902

1
DECLARATION OP WESLEY DOYLE

Case No.

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9-1 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 2

1 the northeast end of the alley. Without notice, when Fridoon was about 15 feet
2 away, Officer Browder raised his weapon and shot Fridoon.
3

8.

There is no audio on the KECO Video. But I could tell when the

4 shooting occurred because there was a muzzle flash, which was clearly visible on
5 the video. Immediately after that, Fridoon collapsed.
6

9.

The KECO Video was shocking to me and, I believe, to anybody else

7 who sees it. From what I recall, Officer Browder did not make any physical
8 movement in an attempt to communicate with Fridoon, i.e., raise his hand indicating
9 to stop. And Officer Browder did not use any other measures, such as a taser,
10 against Fridoon. He did not even get into a shooting stance. The shooting appeared
11 to be unprovoked; Officer Browder appeared to shoot Fridoon hastily.
12

4!
~

10.

From what I recall of the KECO Video, Fridoon’s pace slowed when

13 Officer Browder appeared. And his pace slowed considerably when Officer
14 Browder drew his weapon. I believe Fridoon actually came to a complete stop
15 before Officer ~rowder pulled the trigger.

~

2

16
Under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, I
17 declare that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 25th day of June, 2015,
18 at San Diego, California.
19

23

WESlEY DOYLE..

24
25
26
27
28
259690.2

2
DECLARATION OF WESLEY DOYLE

Case No.

 Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 9-2 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
S.R. Nehad et al v. Neal N. Browder
USDC Case No. 3:15-cv-01386-WQH- NLS
On July 23, 2015, I electronically filed FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a
notification of such filing (NEF) to the following:
Timothy C. Stutler
Chief Deputy City Attorney
JAN GOLDSMITH, SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY
1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101

Executed on July 23, 2015, at Los Angeles, California.
/s/ Scott J. Street
Signature

Scott J. Street
Type or Print Name

262357.1

1