CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Before completing this form please read the instructions on the back. Untimely claims will be returned. Please submit this form and supporting documentation to the Controller?s Office, Claims Division, 1390 Market Street, Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 in person or by mail. REQUIRED REQUIRED IF KNOWN 1. Claimant?s Name and Home Address (Please Print Clearly) *James Stelnle, Elizabeth Sullivan a the Estate 2. Send Official Notices and Correspondence to: Frank Pitre of Cotchett, Pitre 8t McCarthy LLP of Steinle (see address for notice) City State CA Zip 840 Malcolm Road. Suite 200 City Burlingame State CA Zip 94010 Telephone Um? Exam": Cellular Daytime ?lemma (550) cor-soon Evening Cellular 3. Date of Birth 4. Social Security Number 5. Date of Incident 0770112015 6. Time of Incident orPM] Approx. 6:30 PM 7. Location of Incident or Accident . Pler14, Embarcadero, San FranCIsco id: 3. Claimant Vehicle License Plate s. Type, Mileage, and Year NIA *See attachment with supporting exhibits. 9. Basis of Claim. State in detail all facts and circumstances of the incident. Identity ail persons. entities. property and City departments involved. State why you believe the City is responsible for the alleged injury, property damage or loss. Name- ?1 Number and Cit)? Department Type of City Vehicle Vehicle License Number and Bus or Train Number oi City Employee who allegedly caused injury or loss Sheriff Ross Mirkanmi, SFSD 10. Description of Claimant?s Injury, property damage or loss See attachment with supporting exhibits. '11. Amount of Claimant's property damage or loss and method of computation. Attach supporting documentation. (See instructions) name sSee exhibits a to attachment. ?99m? TOTAL AMOUNT CourtJurisdiction: Limited (upto 325,000) El Unlimited (over $25,000) I 12. Witnesses {if any) Name 1. Telephone 2. Ad ress A 1% 54/4- Sign??fe?of Clamepresentative Date Frank M. Pitre atty for Print Name Relationship to Claimant CRIMINAL PENALTY FDR PRESENTING A FALSE OR FRAUDULENT CLAIM IS IMPRISONMENT 0R FINE 0R BOTH. (FENAL CODE ?72) Do Not Write In This Space CAIFORM 02!? ATTACHMENT WITH SUPPORTING EXHIBITS TO GOVERNMENT CLAIM AGAINST CCSF, SFSD MIRKARIMI I. INTRODUCTION CLAIMANTS James Steinle and Elizabeth Sullivan, individually and as heirs to Stainle, deceased, and the Estate of Steinle (collectively bring this action under the California Government Tort Claims Act against the City and County of San Francisco the San Francisco Sheriff?s Department and Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi (collectively for their combined negligence andlor refusal to carry out mandatory duties to report convicted felons that are undocumented immigrants to Immigration Customs and Enforcement as well as their issuance andfor enforcement of Orders in flagrant violation of federal and state mandates, which exceeded their legal authority as public entities, agencies andlor of?cials. Whether singularly, andlor in combination, their wrongful conduct set in motion the tragic series of events which foreseeably led to the death of STEIN LE on July 1, 2015, at approximately 6:30 pm, when she was fatally shot while walking with her father, JAMES STEINLE, on Pier 14 of the Embarcadero in San Francisco. A. STATEMENT OF CCSF MAYOR ED LEE The Mayor of CCSF, Ed Lee, has publicly acknowledged the culpability of for death stating: This is a tragic incident that never should have happened. San Francisco?s Sanctuary City ordinance allows for communication with federal law enforcement regarding convicted felons. The primary responsibility of our law agencies in San Francisco is to protect the public. Communicating with federal law enforcement agencies in these cases is simply common sense and in the best interest ofpublic safenl. Once again, there is nothing in our Sanctuary City law that prohibits such Ccstone, Vince, ?Pier 14 Shooting: San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee Responds to Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi?s Criticism,? p. 2 (July 10, 2015 at 4:00 available at: 3* Mayor Ed Lee?s reprimand of failure to notify, communicate and/or cooperate with ICE was echoed by high ranking federal public officials such as Senator Dianne Feinstein and representatives of ICE. Senator Feinstein, who serves as the Vice Chairman of the STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN US. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. stated: ,ulu, .?In 75-. I have been looking into the circumstances related to the tragic killing of Steinlc. The suspect has been convicted of 10 crimes, including four drug felonies, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement had filed what is known as a detainer asking the San Francisco Sheriffs Department to hold Mr. Sanchez for deportation. The Sheriffs Departmeutfailed to resPond to that detainer and did not notify when the individual was released. I stroneg believe that an undocumented individual, convicted of multiple felonies and with a detainer request from ICE, shonid not have been released. We should focus on departing convicted criminals, not setting them loose on our streets.2 STATEMENT OF IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS AND ENFORCEMENT An official spokesperson for ICE, Gillian Christensen, pointedly commented: US. Immigration and Customs Enforcement D. The statement of father to the Members of the United States Senate makes clear if the local authorities had merely notified ILLS. Immigration and Customs ErU'orcement] that they were about to release this individual into the community, ICE could have taken custody of him and had him removed from the country thus preventing this terrible tragedy} STATEMENT OF JAMES STEINLE the gravity of what happened: James Steinle: Everywhere Kate went throughout the world she shined the light of a good citizen of the United States of America. Unfortunately, due to disjointed laws and basic incompetence on many levels, the DES. has suffered a self-in?icted wound. I so this because the alleged murderer is an undocumented immigrant who had been convicted of seven felon ies 2 United States Senator Dianne Feinstein. ?Feinstein Calls on San Francisco to Join DHS Immigration Program,? (July 7, 20l5) available at: 3 Brooks, Jon, ?Kate Steinle Shooting Puts San Francisco Immigration Policy Under Microscope." KQED News, p. 3 (July 6. 20 I 5) available at: I in the (LS. and already deported?ve times. Yet in March of this year he was released from jail and allowed to stay here because of those legal loopholes. It?s unbelievable to see so many Americans that have been killed by undocumented immigrant felons in recent years.4 II. PARTIES A. CLAIMANTS Steinle, deceased, was at all times relevant to this claim a resident of the City and County of San Francisco. KATE was the daughter of James Steinle and Elizabeth Sullivan. James Steinle is, and at all times relevant to this claim was, a resident of Livermore, California. JAMES was the father of KATE, and is a proper personal representative and heir pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section Elizabeth Sullivan is, and at all times relevant to this claim was, a resident of Livermore, California. LIZ was the mother of KATE, and is a proper personal representative and heir pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section Both JAMES and LIZ, by virtue of the premises, are lawfully entitled to initiate this claim in their individual capacity, as well as on behalf of the ESTATE OF STEINLE in pursuit of a survival action arising out of her death. B. RESPONDENTS CCSF is an incorporated municipality and public entity responsible for the safety and welfare of residents and/or visitors of San Francisco. SFSD is a public agency of CCSF responsible for protecting the public, operating the system of county jails, managing supervised release programs, and providing security and law enforcement in CCSF. MIRKARIMI is an individual who serves as an executive, agent, representative and/or employee of SFSD who is responsible for establishing, providing and/or enforcing policy, practices and/or procedures for operating the county jails, managing the supervised release of Video and transcript of the hearing: convicted felons into the community, and providing security and law enforcement, all for the purpose of promoting public safety and deterring crime. [11. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. THE DEATH OF STEINLE On July 1, 2015, at approximately 6:30 pm. a repeat convicted felon and undocumented immigrant named Juan Inez Garcia-Zarate, a.k.a. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez discharged one bullet from a .40 caliber SIG Sauer handgun. That bullet struck KATE in the chest piercing her aorta. Just moments before the shooting, KATE and her father JAMES had been walking together along the San Francisco waterfront nearby Pier 14. father JAMES came to her aid immediately after she was shot by LOPEZ- SANCHEZ. JAMES held KATE in his arms while she struggled to survive, enduring signi?cant physical and emotional pain. JAMES attempted to keep KATE alive by performing emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation while he waited for medical assistance to an-ive. JAMES held her head as she fought for her life and begged for his help. Despite best efforts, and those of the emergency responders who were called to aid, KATE succumbed to her injuries approximately two (2) hours later at San Francisco General Hospital. At the time of her death, KATE was a kind, smart and hard-working thirty-two year old woman, a loving daughter and sister, and committed to socially just causes. See attached Exhibit A. B. JUAN FRANCISCO PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY In stark contrast to KATE, LOPEZ-SANCHEZ had been convicted of seven felonies, four being serious drug felonies, and was deported ?ve times prior to the shooting. Indeed, on the date in question, LOPEZ-SANCHEZ admitted to being under the in?uence of narcotics, including but not limited to, marijuana and sleeping pills. He also claims he does not remember any of the events that took place, and witnesses observed LOPEZ-SANCHEZ acting bizarrely moments before the killing of KATE. This senseless shooting is consistent with the aberrant, erratic, and uncontrolled nature of an individual addicted to controlled substances, including heroin, and is a foreseeable act that falls in line with the pattern and practice of misuse and abuse of controlled substances exhibited by prior convictions, including the manufacture, possession andr'or sale of heroin. prior criminal convictions andfor deportations, include but are not limited to the following: 1. Convicted of felony heroin possession on or about, February 2, 1993; 2. Convicted of felony narcotics manufacturing on or about, May 12, 1993; 3. Convicted of felony heroin possession on or about, November 2, 1993; 4. Convicted of misdemeanor imitation controlled substance on or about, June 9, 1994; 5. Convicted of a controlled substance violation and aggravated felony on or about, June 10, 1994; 6. Departed to Mexico on or about, June 20, 1994; 7. Convicted of felony heroin possession on or about, July 1 1, 1996; 8. Departed to Mexico on or about, April 4, 1997; 9. Departed to Mexico on or about, February 2, 1998; 10. Convicted of felony re-entry on or about, September 3, 1998; 11. Departed to Mexico on or about, March 6, 2003; 12. Convicted of criminal re-entry and violation of supervised release on or about, November 7, 2003; 13. Departed to Mexico on or about, June 29, 2009; and l4. Convicted of felony re-entry and probation violations on or about, May 12, 2011. LOPEZ-SANCHEZ was arrested and charged with the murder of KATE on July 6, 2015. From his jail cell, he candidly told a KGO-TV reporter that he came to San Francisco because of its status as a Sanctuary City.5 C. THE SANCTUARY CITY LAW WAS NEVER INTENDED TO VITIATE MANDATORY DUTIES OF NOTIFYING, COMMUNICATING COOPERATING WITH ICE IN THE DETENION DEPORTATION OF REPEAT CONVICTED FELONS CCSF passed the City and County of Refuge ordinance, commonly referred to as the Sanctuary City law, in 1989 for the purpose of encouraging the reporting of crime among immigrants, and certainly not to encourage the harboring of known felons. The law prohibits the use of CCSF ?mds and/or resources ?to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding the immigration status of individuals? unless required by federal or state law. Notably, the Sanctuary City law was amended in 1992 to explicitly allow for reporting to and/or cooperating with federal immigration officials when an individual has been convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, such as what occurred here. The Supreme Court has recognized that the public interest in enforcement of immigration laws is signi?cant. See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 US. 543, 556-58 (1976); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 US. 873, 878-79 (1975); Almeida?Sanchez v. United States, 413 US. 266, 276 (1973) (Powell, J., concurring); Blackie's House ofBeef,? Inc. v. Castillo, 659 F.2d 1211,1221 (DC. Cir. 1981). Congress agrees, as demonstrated by passage of 8 U.S.C. 1373(a) in 1996, which proscribes that a local government entity or of?cial may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or of?cial from sending information to immigration enforcement officials. 5 Mahbubani, Rhea, ?Mayor Ed Lee Chimes in on Pier 14 Murder, Backs San Francisco?s Sanctuary Policy,? NBC Bay Area, p. 2 (July 7, 2015 at 10:28 AM) available at: 1 1848241 .html. This statute has been held by the courts to invalidate all restrictions on the voluntary exchange of immigration information between public entities and federal immigration authorities. See Bologna v. City and County ofSan Francisco (2011) 192 CA 4th 429, 438. The State of California agrees as well, especially when the undocumented immigrant is a felon and/or drug offender. According to California Health and Safety Code section 11369, government of?cials ?shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters? when a suspected undocumented immigrant is arrested for a drug offense. Furthermore, California Government Code section 7282.5 goes so far as to allow government of?cials to cooperate with ICE and/or detain an undocumented immigrant based solely on one prior felony conviction. D. RESPONDENTS BRAZENLY HISTORY AND STATISTICS 1. The Bologna Murders RESPONDENTS, and each of them, knew andlor should have known of the foreseeable dangerous consequences of their failure to notify and/or cooperate with immigration enforcement of?cials regarding undocumented immigrants convicted of felonies in correctional custody. In 2008 when CCSF of?cials, employees, and/or agents released a known undocumented immigrant felon who had committed numerous violent crimes and drug offenses onto the streets without notifying and/or cooperating with immigration enforcement of?cials, the felon proceeded to fatally shoot three innocent bystanders, Mr. Bologna and his two teenage sons. 2. Since the Bologna Murders Statistically Signi?cant Evidence of Crime By Undocumented Convicted Felons Mounted Around this same time, several government agencies were researching, publishing, and/or discussing the violent and statistically signi?cant recidivism rate of undocumented immigrant felons. Indeed, in July of 2012, the United States House Judiciary Committee found that from 2008 to 201 1, 46,734 undocumented immigrant criminals were released from jail and/or prison and went on to commit 1,000 major criminal offenses and violent crimes?almost one a day for three years.6 Altogether, undocumented immigrant criminals had a recidivism rate of 16%.7 In March of 201 1, the United States Government Accountability Of?ce made a report to Congress ?nding that ?our study population of about 249,000 criminal aliens were arrested about 1.7 million times, averaging about 7 arrests per criminal alien . . The GAO had released a similar report in 2005 ?nding the average arrest rate to be even higher, at 8 per criminal alien.9 Recidivism among undocumented immigrant criminals is not new either. From 1955 to 2010, 28% of criminal aliens were arrested between 6 to 10 times.'0 E. THE MARCH 2015 MEMO FROM MIRKARIMI l. Mirkarimi Issues March Memo Despite the Bologna murders, the well-known statistics on the violent recidivism of undocumented immigrant felons and well-established federal law prohibiting all restrictions on voluntary communication with immigration enforcement of?cials, MIRKARIMI issued a memorandum on March 13, 2015 The March Memo?) directly contravenng federal and state law by prohibiting SFSD staff ?om providing and/or reporting to ICE representatives any and all information and/or access to information on undocumented immigrants in SFSD custody, including but not limited to: citizenship/hnmigration status of any inmate, access to inmates in jail, and release dates and/or times. Per The March Memo, the only SFSD staff with authority to provide and/or report the aforementioned to ICE was See attached Exhibit B. Prior to the March Memo, SFSD staff had a policy, procedure, and/or routine of notifying andlor cooperating with ICE regarding undocumented immigrant felons in custody as part of ?longstanding Department policies and procedures designed to safeguard law abiding citizens.? See attached Exhibit C. 6 Goodlatte, Bob, ?House Judiciary Report Finds Administration?s Lax Immigration Policies are Deadly,? (July 31, 20 I 2) available at: i 7 Id. 3 1-187, ?Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on lncarcerations, Arrests, and Costs,? US Govt. Accountability Of?ce, p. 17 (March 2011) available at: 9 Id. See 1d. at ?gure 8, ?Number of An'ests and Offenses per Criminal Alien ?om August 1955 to April 2010?. On or around March 26, 2015, just two weeks after The March Memo was issued, Mr. Lopez-Sanchez ?nished serving a forty-six month sentence at Victorville federal prison in Southern California and was released to SFSD custody on an outstanding felony sale of marijuana warrant. The San Francisco District Attorney dismissed charges the next day. San Francisco Sheriff?s Department HER-GFCECDRREWE mm IatCErm?lluu' Niel-I13 2015 rWHummnomrmumnm-gwumm met. Minimal-um m. To. mm Wish-mm mumth .MICEGMCIW mm m:2015-033. IMIBEW Wound-1am IMIMW MIWMM.umh??rwle?m_ "commas-1 mm.wumm' - Wm?ww - mummy-l; - mama-rum . mM?Mum 2. The Detainer Request On or around March 27', 2015, ICE sent a detainer request to SFSD requesting noti?cation at least forty-eight hours prior to Mr. Lopez-Sanchez?s release, so as to allow for ICE to detain, initiate removal proceedings, andfor deport the seven-time felon. RESPONDENTS reieoseri Mr. Lopez?Sondra from custody on April 1' 5, 2015 without "aiming, communicating and/or cooperating with Less than three months later, KATE was shot and killed by SANCHEZ. F. PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT 0F CULPABILITY 1. CCSF Mayor Ed Lee and SFSDA Lay Blame on Mirkarimi In response to this terrible tragedy, Mayor Ed Lee courageously released a statement on July 6, 2015 acknowledging that "[t]his is a tragic incident that never should have happened. San Francisco?s Sanctuary City ordinance allows for communication with federal law enforcement regarding convicted felons. The primary responsibilig: of our law enforcement agencies in San Francisco is to protect the public. Communicating with federal law enforcement agencies in these cases is simply common sense and in the best interest of public safety. Once again, there is nothing in our Sanctuary City law that prohibits such communication.?? Furthermore, in a televised statement on July 8, 2015 the Mayor rhetorically told KRON-4 reporters, begin by saying, could a simple phone call with the sheriff letting them know the release of someone in custody. . .have prevented this??2 Mayor Ed Lee?s statements were ampli?ed by the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs? Association in a July 13, 2015 grievance letter to MIRKARIMI wherein SFDSA asserts, ?as evidenced by the tragic death of Steinle on July the Department?s refusal to coordinate, much less cooperate, with federal law enforcement agencies recklessly compromises the safety of sworn personnel, citizens, and those who merely come to visit the San Francisco area.? See attached Exhibit C. 2. ICE Con?rms That Kate?s Death Was Easily Preventable By Providing Notice In a statement by ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen, ICE corroborated wrongdoing saying, ??ll the local authorities had merely notified Immigration and Customs Enforcement] that they were about to release this individual into the community, ICE could have taken custody of him and had him removed from the country Cestone, Vince, ?Pier 14 Shooting: San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee Responds to Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi?s Criticism,? p. 2 (July 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM) available at: '2 Estacio, Terisa, ?Pier 14 Shooting: San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee Speaks About Sanctuary Law,? p. 2 (July 8, 2015 at 5:25 PM) available at: thus preventing this terrible tragedy. . . . ICE places detainers on aliens arrested on criminal charges to ensure dangerous criminals are not released from prisons or jails into our communities. We?re not asking local law enforcement all we?re asking is that they notify us when a serious foreign national criminal offender is being released to the street so we can arrange to take custody. 3. Senator Feinstein A Leading San Franciscan and Expert in Matters of Domestic Security - Cites the Failure of SFSD to Notify, Communicate and/or Cooperate with ICE Senator Dianne Feinstein, Vice Chairman of the US. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, agreed in her of?cial statement, have been looking into the circumstances related to the tragic killing of Steinle. The suspect has been convicted of 10 crimes, including four drug felonies, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement had ?led what is known as a detainer asking the San Francisco Sheriff?s Department to hold Mr. Sanchez for deportation. The Sheriff?s Department failed to respond to that detainer and did not noti?z ICE when the individual was released. I strongly believe that an undocumented individual, convicted of multiple felonies and with a detainer request from ICE, should not have been released. We should focus on deporting convicted criminals, not setting them loose on our streets.?? IV. LIABILITY A. FAILURE TO PERFORM MANDATORY DUTIES CLAIMANTS allege, that at all times herein mentioned, RESPONDENTS, and each of them, were under a mandatory constitutional duty to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373(a) according to the Supremacy Clause under Article VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution. RESPONDENTS, and each of them, at all times mentioned, were under a mandatory statutory duty to comply with California Health and Safety Code 11369 according to California Government Code 815. '3 Supra, at in. 3. 1" Supra, at tn. 2. IO The aforementioned mandatory duties were breached when: RESPONDENTS, and each of them, issued the March Memo prohibiting all SFSD staff from notifying, communicating, cooperating, assisting, and/or providing information to and when RESPONDENTS, and each of them, failed to notify, communicate, cooperate, assist, and/or provide information to ICE regarding the release of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez from SFSD custody. As a direct and legal result of said violations and of the aforementioned acts andfor omissions by RESPONDENTS, decedent KATE was shot, severely injured and later died. As a direct and legal result of said violations and of the aforementioned acts andfor omissions by RESPONDENTS, JAMES contemporaneously witnessed his daughter being shot and struggling for life while in his arms. As a direct and legal result of said violations and of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions by RESPONDENTS, JAMES suffered severe emotional distress. As a direct and legal result of said violations and of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions by RESPONDENTS, CLAIMANTS suffered the damages as set forth below. B. GENERAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIMANT allege, that at all times herein mentioned, RESPONDENTS, and each of them, acted negligently, carelessly, recklessly, and/or unlaw?illy in failing to notiiy, communicate, cooperate, assist, and/or provide information to ICE regarding the release of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez from SFSD custody. actions were not discretionary, as these acts and/or omissions directly violated clearly established state and federal laws. As a direct and legal result of said violations and of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions by RESPONDENTS, decedent KATE was shot, severely injured and later died. As a direct and legal result of said violations and of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions by RESPONDENTS, JAMES contemporaneously witnessed his daughter being shot and struggling for life while in his arms. As a direct and legal result of said violations and of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions by RESPONDENTS, JAMES suffered severe emotional distress. ll As a direct and legal result of said violations and of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions by RESPONDENTS, CLAIMANTS suffered the damages as set forth below. C. 42 U.S.C. 1983 CLAIMANTS allege, that at all times herein mentioned, KATE possessed a constitutional right to not be deprived of life or liberty without due process. Through the March Memo, which was not reviewed, presented, approved, and/or voted on by a goveming body, RESPONDENTS espoused a policy that abridged and/or lowered the safety and security conferred on KATE and other residents and visitors of CCSF under federal and/or state laws without due process and/or proper governmental purpose. By prohibiting the noti?cation to ICE necessary for detention, deportation and/or removal of undocumented convicted felons, the March Memo deprived KATE of life and liberty without due process, as required under the Constitution. The March Memo amounts to deliberate indifference to federal and/or state law which safeguarded constitutional rights and is the moving force behind the constitutional violation of her rights. As a direct and legal result of said violations and of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions by RESPONDENTS, decedent KATE was shot, severely injured and later died. As a direct and legal result of said violations and of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions by RESPONDENTS, JAMES contemporaneously witnessed his daughter being shot and struggling for life while in his arms. As a direct and legal result of said violations and of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions by RESPONDENTS, JAMES suffered severe emotional distress. As a direct and legal result of said violations and of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions by RESPONDENTS, CLAIMANTS suffered the damages as set forth below. V. DAMAGES As a direct and legal result of the combined wrongful acts of RESPONDENTS, and each of them, hereinafter set forth, CLAIMANTS have suffered substantial economic and non- economic losses and damages as set forth herein below. 12 As a further direct and legal result of the combined wrongful acts of RESPONDENTS, CLAIMANTS have incurred funeral expenses and burial expenses on behalf of KATE in the amount of 1,923.00. See Exhibit attached. As a further direct and legal result of the combined wrongful acts of RESPONDENTS, CLAIMANT ESTATE incurred medical expenses for care and treatment prior to death. The ESTATE seeks recovery of said expenses in an amount to be established by appropriate proof. See Exhibit attached for medical bills received to date. As a further direct and legal result of the combined wrongful acts of RESPONDENTS, CLAIMANT JAMES has and/or will incur medical expenses for his care and treatment related to witnessing the death of KATE. JAMES seeks recovery of said expenses in an amount to be established by appropriate proof. As a further direct and legal result of the combined wrongful acts of RESPONDENTS, CLAIMANT JAM ES has and will suffer extreme emotional distress including nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, morti?cation, shock, indignity, apprehension, terror or ordeal in an amount to be determined. As a further direct and legal result of the combined wrongful acts of RESPONDENTS, CLAIMANTS JAMES and LIZ have suffered loss of love, society, solace, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support in an amount to be determined. CLAIMANTS hereby submit their claim for damages. Dated: Augusti?, 2015 COTCHETT, PITRE LLP KM . RB ALISON E. COWA A Homeysfor Plaintg??fs EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A BIOGRAPHY OF KATE Kate was born in Pleasanton, California and graduated from Amador Valley High School in 2001. She was strong, outsPoken and a free?spirit. She was also very close with her family, spending quality time with them regularly and always putting them ?rst. After graduating from California Polytechnic, San Luis Obispo with a bachelor?s degree in communication studies, Kate traveled to Europe, China, Japan, Africa and Dubai, where she lived for a short-time period as well. Through her travels, she was inspired by different cultures and people she came across. For Kate, traveling was not about sight-seeing. She loved to meet new people, know the cultures, and engross herself in the lives of others, especially those less fortunate. She also became a passionate advocate and strong supporter of the protection and preservation of wildlife and animals, best exempli?ed by her support of the Performing Animal Welfare Society, a non- pro?t organization that creates sanctuaries for abandoned or abused performing animals and victims of the exotic animal trade. After traveling, she settled down in San Francisco and pursued a thriving career in medical sales. She also volunteered on a regular basis with the Challenged Athletes Foundation a non-pro?t that works with athletes with physical challenges and supports their athletic endeavors by providing sports opportunities that lead to success in sports and life. As best said by the President of CAP, ?what always impressed me about Katie was how genuinely she engaged herself with challenged athletes, how genuinely interested she was in their life, their tragedy, and guided them on how best to deal with the As the aforementioned makes clear, Kate had a profound effect on every life she touched, commonly referred to as the ?Kate Effect.? EXHIBIT San Francisco Sheriff?s Department INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE March 13. 2015 Reference: 2015-035 TO: All Personnel . FROM: Sheriff Ross Mimarimi/in- RE: Immigration Custom Enforcement Procedures Contact and Communication The San Francisco Sheriff?s Department's (SFSD) policy is that there shall be limited contact and communication with ICE representatives absent a court issued warrant. a signed court order. or other legal requirement authorizing ICE access. Consistent with San Francisco Administrative Code Section 12H.2. "no department. agency. commission. of?cer or employee of the City and County of San Francisco shall use any city funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding the immigration status of individuals in the City and County of San Francisco unless such assistance is required by federal or state statute. regulation, or court decision.? SFSD staff shall not provide the following information or access to ICE representatives: citizenshipfimmigration status of any inmale: access to inmates in jail; - access to SFSD computers andior databases: SFSD logs; - booking and arrest documents; - release dates or times; home or work contact information: - other non-public jail records or information. SFSD staff are authorized to provide the foilowing public information (pursuant to California Government Code Section 6250, et seq; San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter regarding an inmate to ICE representatives upon request: current charges: arrest date and location; location in custody; next court date; bail amount. No additional assistance or information shall be provided to representatives regarding any current or former inmate unless the following requirements have been met: (1) Sheriff's legal has been contacted: (2) Sheriffs legal has con?rmed that the ICE request is supported by a court issued warrant. a signed court order authorizing the ICE request. or that the access is required by federal or state statute. regulation or court decision; and (3) The Sheriff has authorized the access or release of information requested by representatives. This memorandum supersedes all previous directives regarding ICE contact or communication and is effective immediately. This Contact and Communication memorandum is implemented in addition to the requirements of the ICE immigration Detainer policy dated March 9. 2015. Reference: 2015-033. Please contact Sheriff?s Legal with any questions: FREYA HORNE: 415-554-4334 MARK NICCO: 415-554-7212 PageZol'z EXHIBIT RAINS LUCIA STERN, PC Peter A. lioft?mann Attorney at Law July 13, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL, FACSIMILE FIRST CLASS MAIL Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi San Francisco Sheriff's Department City Hall, Room 456 1 Carlton Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: Grievance and Demand to Meet Confer regarding ICE Procedures Directives Dear Sheriff Mirkarimi: On behalf of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs? Association or ?Association?), please accept this correspondence as a formal grievance and demand to initiate the meet and confer process concerning the San Francisco Sheriff?s Department?s (?Department?) March 9, 2015 directive titled ?Immigration Custom Enforcement Procedures (ICE and its subsequent directive titled ?Immigration Custom Enforcement Procedures (ICE) Contact and Communication? issued on March 13, 2015. As evidenced by the tragic death of Kate Steinle on July the Department?s refusal to coordinate, much less cooperate, with federal law enforcement agencies recklessly compromises the safety of sworn personnel, citizens, and those who merely come to visit the San Francisco area. Given that the Department unilaterally implemented these changes without discussing the matter during its labor-management meetings with the Association, much less satis?ed its meet and confer obligations with the SFDSA as required by Article LG. (?Negotiation Responsibility?) of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City County of San Francisco and sections 3504?3505 of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Government Code section 3500 et seq.), the Association hereby demands that the Department immediately rescind the directives and comply with its statutory and contractual obligations to meet and confer in good faith before seeking to implement any changes to longstanding Department policies and procedures designed to safeguard law abiding citizens. Moreover, it is the Association?s sincere belief that any changes that the Department might pursue should honor Ms. Steinle?s life by correcting the Department?s flawed philosophy so that the people of San Francisco citizens, visitors, and employees alike are safer in the future. Alternatively, should 2300 Contra Costa Boulevard Suite 500 Pleasant Hill, CAI 94523 925.609.1699 925.609.1690 Fresno Ontario Pleasant Hill Sacramento San Francisco San Jose Santa Rosa ?@3251 Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi Re: Grievance and Demand to Meet Confer regarding ICE Procedures Directives July 13, 2015 Page 2 the Department adhere to your directives to limit ?xture communications with ICE, the SFDSA believes that only the sheriff and not deputized personnel should review and personally approve (or deny) each ICE Immigration Detainer, ICE Administrative Warrant, ICE Internal Order to Detain or Release, ICE entries in NCIC, and other requests from ICE. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter. The Association looks forward to your written response on or before July 24, 2015. Respectfully, Rams LUCIA STERN, PC Peter . offmann cc: Eugene Cerbone, SFDSA President Martin Gran, Employee Relations Director Jim Bickert, RLS EXHIBIT GRAHAM - HITCH MORTUARY 4167 First Street Pleasanton, CA 94566 (925)846-5624 July 17, 2015 Mr. James Reeder Steinle 1389 Vailwood Court Pleasanton, CA 94566 The Funeral Service for Kama Michelle Steinle We sincerely appreciate the con?dence you have placed in us and will continue to assist you in every way we can. Please feel ?ee to contact us if you have any questions in regard to this statement. THE FOLLOWING IS AN STATEMENT OF THE SERVICES. FACILITIES. AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT . AND MERCHANDISE THAT YOU SELECTED WHEN MAKING THE FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS. Special Charges Direct Cremation 1,595.00 Total Special Charges 1,595.00 Merchandise Alternative Container 109-00 Total Merchandise Selected 100.00 AT THE TIME FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS WERE MADE, WE ADVANCED CERTAIN PAYMENTS T0 OTHERS AS AN ACCOMMODATION. THE FOLLOWING IS AN ACCOUNTBNIG FOR THOSE CHARGES. Cash Advances Certi?ed Death Certificates 210.00 DCA fee 8.50 Total Cash Advances 21350 Total Sales Tax 9.50 Total Contract 1,923.00 07!! W15 Payment 1,923.50 07/17115 Overpayment Refund 41.50 TOTAL AMOUNT nus The unpaid balance over 1 days is subjected to a 96 service charge per month - 12 per annum. Page: 1 of A 0) EXHIBIT BIueCross BlueShield Minnesota mmummammuu-me P.O. Box 64560 St. Paul. MN 55184?0560 STEINLE Explanation of Health Care Benefits AGE 0001 OF 0001 THIS lg WA l3 ?xggnatloggtp 0e olaanJt'ErEtgegegg 4 0 based on your plan benefits In e?eet when the service was perlermed. Please keep this term for your tax records. See reverse side for Complaint/Appeal. Fraud and other Important Information. Easily find a provider, see your claims, your plan. health programs and wellness info all in one place. Visit the myBlueCross online member center. Sign in at 570 BERLE ST APT 4-02 Spill FRANCISCO CA 94105-2024 Year to Date Deductible 5 0 0 . 0 0 Wanner Service - Please Call: N0 LOCAL NBR ORTOLLFREE 1-888-832-7360 0 ii Date Bate Patient ID VOUP Renew? "deemed Olalm Number 328777372 HEDTROHIC INC OHDTOBOFI 07/13/15 07/17/15 51964143207000 SuhecnbermemberNMe STEINLE Patient?ame swarms Provider SFGH HED GRPDEPT OE AUESTHESIA Patient Control Number Date: of Service From From From F_ro _n_ 1Description sues/anssr Oharpee 4,395.00 Provider Reeponslhillty Amount AllewedAmount 4,395.00 Amount Paid By Other insurance 500.00 GepayAmount Colnsuranee Amount 7 :12 . 0? PaldAmount 3.11-6.00 Patient Nonoovered Amount A t? meun oque 1 279.00 Netele 1 "one Totelchatgee 1 neuraonm Hen PLAN 4.395-00. THE TOTAL AMOUNT YOU OWE WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM YOUR BRA BALANCE. PROVIDED THE EXPENSES MEET THE TERHS AND CONDITIONS TotalBenelltAmeunt OF THE PLAN. IF YOUR ERA BALANCE IS ZERO. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THE PROVIDER WHEN BILLED. 3,116.00 Total Amount Paid by Other Insurance 0 . 00 Total AmountYou Owe 1,279.00 Are you up to date with your preventlve care? Many piano cover preventive services that will not result in a cost when you use an In netweri provider. Preventive care can Include cheek-ups. eereenlnge. and lmmunlzatlons. For more Information. 90 to: - -- mm (Denali-m (an HR Inmunmlun-r-nrn a. mandolin-mummi?eme BlueCross BlueShield Minnesota Please lteep title tone for your tax records. mdummuwmm P.O. Box 64560 St. Paul. MN 55184-0530 STEINLE Explanation of Health Care Bene?ts PAGE 000]. OF 0 THIS IS NOT A BILL This is an expleneuoag?hoe claqu 2 based on your plan benelite In elteot when the service was performed. 001 015: See reverse aide tor ComplalntlAppeel. Fraud and other Important Information. plan, one place. member center. Sign Eaelly find a provider. see your claims, your health programs and wellness info all in sit theimyutuecroee onllne a 5'70 BEALE ST APT 4-02 SAN PRANCISCO CA 94105-2024 VeartoDeto Deductible 500.00 no LOCAL NBR ORTOLL FREE 1?883-332-7360 Group/Polio Date Bate Patient ID I "new" Pmeuad Claim Number x28777372 NEDTRONIC INC OHDT030F1 03/10/15 07/17/15 5196421151000 STEINLE STEINLE Provider SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPART Patient Control Number 4J1. KN 4- 25486 3 Dates ol Service From [Plum Fri-ill! [Em?m 1-0 07 01 151-0 70 79 To ?Bene?t!? AMBULANCE Chars? 2.044.00 Provider Responsibility Amount Allowed Amount 2 04.4 00 Amount Paid By Other insurance DeductibleAmount CopayAmount Cl Am I oneuraneo oun ?Jun P?ldmu?t 1,635.20 Patient Nonoovered Amount ArneuntYoque 408.80 ID eteo 1 Notes TotalCherges HEDTRONIC HRA PLAN PARTICIPANTS: 2,044.00 THE TOTAL AMOUNT YOU OWE HILL BE DEDUCTED PRON YOUR BRA BALANCE. PROVIDED THE EXPENSES HEET THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS TotelBenetltAmount OF THE PLAN. IF YOUR NRA BALANCE IS ZERO, IOU ARE RESPONBIBLE .FOR PAYING THE PROVIDER BILLED . Total Amount Paid by Other Insurance 0 . 0 Total Amount You Owe 408.80 Are you up to date with your preventive care? Many piano cover preventive services that will not result in a cost when you use an in network provider. Preventive care I lI-Iuln I I. famoenn?oomm can include chock-ups. screenings, and immunizations. For more information. go to: