Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY SHELLEY L. 155 MORRIS AVENUE, 2 FLOOR SPRINGFIELD, NJ 07081 PHONE (973) 379-2500 FAX (973) 379?0031 Attorney for Plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR., MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, Civ No: VS. THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, THE ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER J. CORREIA, OFFICER L. BOONE, OFFICER JOSEPH WASSELL, OFFICER HECTOR CABO, DETECTIVE V. TROPEANO, SERGEANT BURNS, LIEUTENANT JOHN BASTARDO, CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD SIMON, POLICE DIRECTOR JAMES COSGROVE, JAMES DEAN MCDERMOTT, JOHN DOES 1?5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 (?ctitious names representing as yet unidentified persons, business or governmental entities or agencies, subdivisions or agents of governmental entities), COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Defendants. Plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI, by way of complaint against the defendants THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, THE ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER J. CORREIA, OFFICER L. BOONE, OFFICER JOSEPH WASSELL, OFFICER HECTOR CABO, DETECTIVE V. TROPEANO, SERGEANT BURNS, LIEUTENANT JOHN BASTARDO, CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD SIMON, Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 2 POLICE DIRECTOR JAMES COSGROVE, JAMES DEAN MCDERMOTT, JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 sets for the following upon information and belief: I. THE PARTIES 1. At all relevant times herein plaintiff MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI was and is a resident of the County of Union and State of New Jersey, and the owner and operator of a restaurant known as First American Fried Chicken located at 104 Elmora Avenue, Elizabeth, New Jersey. 2. At all relevant times herein plaintiff MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR was and is a resident of the County of Union and State of New Jersey and is the son of plaintiff MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI and an employee of the First American Fried Chicken restaurant. 3. At all relevant times herein plaintiff MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI was and is a resident of the County of Union and State of New Jersey and is the son of plaintiff MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI and an employee of the First American Fried Chicken restaurant. 4. At all relevant times herein defendant the CITY OF ELIZABETH was and is a municipal entity organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New Jersey, with a place of business at 50 Win?eld Scott Plaza, Elizabeth, NJ 07201. 5. At all relevant times herein defendant the ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT was and is an agency, department and/or subdivision of the CITY OF ELIZABETH organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New Jersey, Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 3 engaged in the hiring, training and supervision of law enforcement of?cers, with a place of business at 1 Police Plaza, Elizabeth, New Jersey 07201. 6. At all relevant times herein defendant POLICE OFFICER J. CORREIA (hereinafter was a police of?cer employed by the defendants CITY OF ELIZABETH and the ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, acting in his of?cial capacity as a police of?cer under color of law. 7. At all relevant times herein, upon information and belief, defendant POLICE OFFICER L. BOONE (hereinafter was a police of?cer employed by the defendants CITY OF ELIZABETH and the ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, acting in his of?cial capacity as a police of?cer under color of law. 8. At all relevant times herein, upon information and belief, defendant POLICE OFFICER JOSEPH WASSEL (hereinafter was a police of?cer employed by the defendants CITY OF ELIZABETH and the ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, acting in his of?cial capacity as a police of?cer under color of law. 9. At all relevant times herein, upon information and belief, defendant POLICE OFFICER HECTOR CABO, (hereinafter was a police of?cer employed by the defendants CITY OF ELIZABETH and the ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, acting in his of?cial capacity as a police of?cer under color of law. 10. At all relevant times herein, upon information and belief, defendant DETECTIVE V. TROPEANO (hereinafter was a law enforcement of?cer and detective employed by the defendants CITY OF ELIZABETH and the ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, acting in his of?cial capacity as a law enforcement of?cer under color of law. 11. At all relevant times herein, upon information and belief, defendant SERGEANT BURNS (hereinafter was a law enforcement of?cer and Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 4 detective employed by the defendants CITY OF ELIZABETH and the ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, acting in his of?cial capacity as a law enforcement of?cer under color of law. 12. At all relevant times herein, upon information and belief, defendant LIEUTENANT JOHN BASTARDO (hereinafter was a law enforcement of?cer and internal affairs investigator employed by the defendants CITY OF ELIZABETH and the ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, acting in his official capacity as a law enforcement of?cer under color of law. 13. At all relevant times herein, upon information and belief, defendant CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD SIMON (hereinafter was a law enforcement of?cer with supervisory authority over the ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, responsible for the supervision and oversight of the Department, including the development, promulgation, and implementation of policies, procedures and standards for the police department and more speci?cally policies, procedures and standards relating to the review and enforcement of local ordinances, harassment, abuse of power and authority, arrest procedures, internal affairs investigations, investigations of complaints, discipline and overall conduct of police and law enforcement of?cers. 14. At all relevant times herein, upon information and belief, defendant POLICE DIRECTOR JAMES COSGROVE, (hereinafter was a law enforcement of?cer with supervisory authority over the ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, responsible for the supervision and oversight of the Department, including the development, promulgation, and implementation of policies, procedures and standards for the police department and more speci?cally policies, procedures and standards relating to the review and enforcement of local ordinances, harassment, abuse of power and authority, arrest procedures, internal affairs investigations, investigations of complaints, discipline and overall conduct of police and law enforcement of?cers. Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 5 15. At all relevant times herein, upon information and belief, defendant JAMES DEAN MCDERMOTT (hereinafter was and is a resident of the City of Elizabeth and business owner with a place of business at Dean Relay Press Radio, 713 Linden Avenue, Elizabeth, New Jersey 07202 who persisted in a course of conduct designed to intimidate and harass plaintiffs by reason of their religion and national identity and national origin. 16. At all relevant times herein defendants JOHN DOES -5 (as yet unidenti?ed individuals were duly appointed police of?cers and/or supervisors of defendants CITY OF ELIZABETH and the ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, or other employees, agents or servants of the municipality, unidenti?ed persons ?ling false and baseless complaints against the plaintiffs and their business operations. 17. At all relevant times herein defendants ABC ENTITIES 1-5 were as yet unidenti?ed departments, agencies or subdivisions of the CITY OF ELIZABETH, ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, and/or municipal entities responsible for supervision, management and control over defendant of?cers CORREIA, BOONE, WASSEL, CABO, TROPEANO, BURNS, and others. 11. NATURE OF ACTION 18. Plaintiffs have owned and operated the First American Fried Chicken restaurant at 104 Elmora Avenue since 2002. The restaurant operates both a take out and eat?in business, with tables available for customers. 19. Commencing in July 2008 plaintiffs had been subjected to citations and summonses for allegedly violating a local ordinance regulating hours of Operation for certain businesses, in particular requiring certain establishments to close by 10:00pm. 20. The legal issues surrounding the summons and the applicability of the subject ordinance were resolved on September 25, 2008 in Municipal Court, where the subject ticket was dismissed. 21. Despite their legal right to keep the restaurant open past 10:00pm, Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 6 defendants, each and every one of them, with reckless disregard and deliberate indifference to plaintiffs? constitutional rights of liberty, due process and equal protection embarked on a course of conduct to harass, humiliate, intimidate, retaliate against and force plaintiffs to close their business by 10pm by ?ling complaints, tickets, summonses, and charges relating to the subject ordinance, claiming that the business hours of the restaurant needed to be limited. 22. The tickets, summons and complaints were all baseless, unfounded, and designed solely to intimidate and harass plaintiffs. 23. The period involved in the harassment occurred between April 28, 2009 through February 201 1. 24. In addition to various tickets and summonses, the numerous events involving the defendant police officers and supervisory officials included arrests, incarceration, and false charges. 25. Defendant DEAN was an individual in the neighborhood who repeatedly complained to the police that plaintiffs? business was ?open,? and commented to plaintiffs that ?you are Muslims,? that ?Muslims make too much trouble in this country,? among other comments clearly singling plaintiffs out on the basis of race, religion and national origin. 26. During the events and incidents with the police, as set forth in more detail herein, defendant of?cers stated to plaintiffs that ?there?s too much crime around here,? 5 ?this area by your restaurant is a known place for criminal activity,? and con?rmed complaints made by defendant DEAN, without any investigation or determination of the validity of the complaints. 27. Defendants? motives in singling out plaintiffs for selective enforcement of an ordinance, for failing to adhere to a court?s determination that the ordinance did not apply to plaintiffs, for the ?ling of complaints, tickets, summons, for arresting and charging plaintiffs with obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct, among other threats Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 7 and abuse, were based solely on animus against plaintiffs? religion, creed, race and national origin. 28. Plaintiffs MOHAMMAD RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR, and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI institute this action for compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the unlawful actions and conduct of defendants THE CITY OF ELIZABETH and the ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT (together the defendants), law enforcement of?cers CORREIA, BOONE, WASSEL, CABO, TROPEANO and BURNS (together the defendants), supervisory of?cials CHIEF SIMON and DIRECTOR COSGROVE (together the defendants), JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 who, acting under color of state law and under authority, custom and usage violated the civil rights of plaintiffs protected by and secured under the provisions of the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under the laws of the United States, particularly under the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983 and Title 43 of the United States Code, Section 1985 (2) et. seq. 29. Plaintiffs also institutes this action for common law harassment and violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination against defendant DEAN. 30. Plaintiffs also institutes this action pursuant to the laws of the State of New Jersey for damages arising by reason of false arrest, malicious prosecution, pain and suffering, negligence, the failure to properly hire, train and supervise, abuse of authority, retaliation, failure to intervene and failure to protect, among other acts of negligence and common law claims. 31. Plaintiff further seeks relief against defendants for violation of constitutional rights under the New Jersey Civil Rights Statute, Title 10 N.J.S.A. 6-1 and for violations under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 8 JURISDICTION 32. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, Sections 1331, 1332, 1343 (2), 1343 (4), and Title 2 of the United States Code Sections 1983, 1985 (2) as well as pendent jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiffs? causes of action on the state and common law claims. 33. Venue is properly laid in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code Section 1391(b) in that substantially all of the acts complained of herein occurred in the district and that the defendant are citizens of, reside in or are public entities of the State of New Jersey and domiciled within this district. 34. The matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest. NOTICES OF CLAIMS 35. Plaintiffs served Notice of Claims for damages in the form prescribed by New Jersey Statues Title 59:8-4 and signed by plaintiff? representative, Shelley L. Stangler upon the PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER and SUPERVISORY defendants by certified mail within the statutorily prescribed period. 36. More than six (6) months have elapsed since service of plaintiff 3 Notices of Claims and the claims remain unresolved. 37. This action is commenced within two (2) years from the date of the events upon which the claims are based. Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 9 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 38. Plaintiffs managed and operated the First American Fried Chicken Restaurant from 2002 to 2008 without incident. 39. On July 4, 2008 plaintiffs received a summons from the PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER and SUPERVISORY defendants that the restaurant was in violation of local ordinance Chapter 5.71, ?Regulation of the Hours of Operation of Certain Retail Establishments.? 40. The ordinance was enacted in 2003 and prohibited certain retain establishments from staying open past 10pm, subject to certain exemptions. 41. One of the exemptions was for a restaurant, de?ned as a ?retail establishment that prepares and serves meals or food for consumption inside the retail establishment.? Section 5.71.010 of the ordinance. 42. The municipal prosecutor had the charges dismissed in municipal court on September 25, 2008, ?nding that the restaurant met the conditions of the ordinance and that it was approved to stay open past 10:00pm. 43. At the time the summons was issued, and at all times to the present and through the course of events that occurred thereafter, as described herein, upon information and belief many other food based establishments, including but not limited to Duncan Donuts, White Castle, Carvel and other restaurants in the immediate vicinity stayed open past 10pm without incident, complaint, or being the subject of a summons by the police. 44. Commencing April 28, 2009, and again on May 27, 2009, May 28, 2009, June 15, 2009 and June 26, 2009, plaintiffs received summons and tickets for violation of Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 10 the subject ordinance. 45. More particularly, on April 26, 2009 several police officers, including several of the OFFICER defendants, in particular CORREIA showed up at the premises of the restaurant and told plaintiffs MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI, then a minor, that they had to close the premises and could not be open past 10pm. This occurred around 10pm. 46. Plaintiffs showed OFFICER CORREIA the court papers and explained that they had already litigated the matter to which CORREIA responded don?t believe this,? made comments to the effect that the restaurant should not be open,? and eventually left. 47. On April 28, 2009 defendant CORREIA, among other of?cers and representatives of the PUBLIC ENTITY defendants show up again and issued two (2) tickets to plaintiffs for having the restaurant open at 10pm. 48. Plaintiffs appeared numerous times on these tickets as well as others served subsequently as set forth herein, but a hearing was not held and no action was taken on the tickets until February 15, 201 l. 49. Thereafter a series of incidents occurred involving various police of?cers appearing at the business establishment of the plaintiffs on various occasions. On some occasions the police would advise that it was to keep the restaurant Open; on some occasions the police, particularly defendant CORREIA would tell them to shut it down and that they could not keep it open. 50. During this period, occurring between April 28, 2009 and July 2009, plaintiffs attempted to keep their restaurant open after 10pm, consistent with all the other 10 Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 11 retail food establishments in the vicinity, but were accosted by defendant CORREIA and other OFFICER defendants and/or representatives of the PUBLIC ENTITY and SUPERVISORY defendants on several occasions, who kept telling them they had to close the business, and made comments about ?crime in the neighborhood,? that this ?was a high crime area,? and that the restaurant presented a danger to the community and that ?there is a lot of crime around here.? 51. After being threatened and harassed by defendant CORREIA, plaintiffs stopped staying open and closed the restaurant at 10pm, losing substantial business and revenue as a result. 52. On May 27, 2009 and again on May 28, 2009 defendant CORREIRA, the OFFICER defendants, PUBLIC ENTITY and SUPERVISORY defendants cause summonses to issue against plaintiffs for keeping the restaurant open past 10pm. 53. Plaintiffs? restaurant was closed for business after 10pm, was not open to the public on these occasions, yet the OFFICER, PUBLIC ENTITY and SUPERVISORY defendants issued a ticket and summons anyway. 54. The tickets issued on May 27, 2009 and May 28, 2009, as well as the tickets issued on April 28, 2010, were dismissed and terminated favorably to the plaintiffs on February 15, 2011. 55. Sometime after plaintiffs opened their restaurant they were met with hostility by defendant DEAN, who walked into the restaurant and announced that ?Muslims should not have businesses here? and ?Muslims are trouble? and similar type comments. DEAN also asked plaintiffs where they were from, to which they reSponded ?Afghanistan.? DEAN commented that ?Muslims don?t belong here.? 11 Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 12 56. During the course of the various interactions with the police, it became known to plaintiffs that DEAN was ?ling complaints and calling the police to advise them that the restaurant was ?open,? which would result in the police coming to the restaurant and further harassing plaintiffs. 57. The complaints by DEAN were untrue, as plaintiffs complied with the orders of defendant CORREIA and the OFFICER defendants, PUBLIC ENTITY and SUPERVISORY defendants. 58. Defendant DEAN conspired with the PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER and SUPERVISORY defendants to maliciously and without basis harass, intimidate and threaten plaintiffs based on their religion, national origin and race. 59. Sometime around the first week of June 2009 two (2) law enforcement officers with indicia of color of law and acting on behalf of the PUBLIC ENTITY and SUPERVISORY defendants came onto the restaurant premises and advised plaintiffs that it was to stay open late and that plaintiffs did in fact have an exemption under the relevant ordinance. 60. Plaintiffs tried keeping the restaurant open after that. 61. However, on June 15, 2009 at approximately 10pm officer defendants CORREIA, WASSEL, BURNS and BOONE came onto the restaurant premises again badgering and harassing plaintiffs and advising them they had received ?complaints,? that plaintiffs were violating the subject ordinance. 62. One of the complaints was upon information and belief made by defendant TROPEANO. 63. Plaintiffs MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. 12 Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 13 RAHAMI became upset and told the officers they were wrong and attempted to record the conversation with a hand held device. Plaintiffs complained about getting another summons and about the selective enforcement in the neighborhood. 64. Plaintiffs MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAMAHI were arrested and incarcerated. 65. MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI was arrested but not charged and let go from custody after several hours; MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. was charged with disorderly conduct and preventing the police from lawfully performing an of?cial function. 66. The arrests were baseless, without probable cause, made with malicious intent and reckless disregard to plaintiffs constitutional rights and in violation of policy. 67. On June 15, 2009, at the time of the arrest, yet another ticket was issued for keeping the restaurant open past 10pm. 68. This ticket, 2009 046803 is the subject of an appeal ?led March 7, 2011 from a conviction entered February 15, 2011. 69. On or about June 24, 2009 plaintiffs went to the PUBLIC ENTITY defendants to file an internal affairs complaint and to complain about their mistreatment, harassment, and abuse of power and authority by the PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER and SUPERVISORY defendants. Defendant BASTARDO failed and refused to accept their complaint. 70. On June 26, 2009 yet another summons was issued to plaintiffs for violation of the subject ordinance. 13 Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 14 71. The June 26, 2009 ticket was dismissed and terminated favorably to plaintiffs on February 15, 201 1. 72. On or about July 6, 2009 police of?cers arrive at the restaurant and insist they are going to stay there until plaintiffs close it, despite plaintiff?s pleas that both the Court and other of?cers had permitted the business to remain open. The of?cers? reSponse was that the ?police chief? wanted it closed. 73. On July 13, 2009 defendant DEAN came to the front of the restaurant which was closed and called the police to complain that it was open. 74. The police arrived and told DEAN that the restaurant was closed. 75. On or about September 28, 2009 plaintiff MOHAMMAD RAHAMI received in the mail two (2) tickets regarding a harassment complaint filed against him by defendant DEAN. One with a complaint date of May 26, 2007 and another with complaint date of July 20, 2007. 76. The tickets showed up in the mail with a notice to appear in court November 10, 2009. 77. The harassment charges were dismissed by the Court favorably to plaintiffs on February 15, 2011. 78. The charges against MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. have resulted in a plea of obstruction. 79. As of around February 15, 2010 the restaurant has stayed open past 10pm without incident or police interference, objection or further tickets. scum 80. Plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one (1) l4 Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 15 through seventy?nine (79) of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein at length. 81. At all relevant times herein, the PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER and SUPERVISORY defendants, JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5, through their employees, agents and servants, were acting under color of law under the state and federal Constitution, statutes, laws charters, ordinances, rules, regulations customs, usages and practices of the subject governmental departments, agencies and entities and within the scope of their authority as employees and/or officers of the PUBLIC ENTITY defendants. 82. During all relevant times herein the aforementioned defendants acted jointly and in concert with each other, and conspired and agreed between and amongst themselves to discriminate against plaintiffs and illegally harass them by causing to be issued tickets and summonses in violation of law, without basis or probable cause, to selectively enforce any applicable law by purposely and maliciously discriminating against plaintiffs by reason of their race, religion, and national origin, and to arrest and prosecute plaintiffs without basis or probable cause, to abuse their authority and to harass, intimidate and threaten plaintiffs solely by reason of their protected class. 83. During all relevant times herein the aforementioned defendants acted jointly and in concert with each other, and conspired and agreed between and amongst themselves to retaliate against plaintiffs for attempting to file an internal affairs complaint and/or complaining of police misconduct. 84. During all relevant times herein the PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER, SUPERVISORY defendants, JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5, their agents, servants and/or employees acted with deliberate and conscious indifference to plaintiffs? 15 Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 16 constitutional rights which violations arose out of a pattern or custom or policy and practice by each of the PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER, SUPERVISORY, JOHN DOE 1-5 and ABC ENTITY 1-5 defendants in failing to properly investigate, in issuing tickets and summonses without justi?cation or cause; in arresting plaintiffs without justi?cation or cause, in allowing, permitting and condoning the issuance of tickets and summonses contrary to law, in abusing the power and authority they possessed, in selective enforcement, in singling out the plaintiffs by reason of their religion, race and national origin, in allowing, permitting and condoning an improper arrest, in allowing, permitting and condoning the ?ling of false charges and retaliation, in the malicious prosecution of the charges, in the violation of police procedures as well as the failure to properly hire, train and supervise the PUBLIC ENTITY employees in the proper conduct of their duties, among other acts and omissions. 85. The foregoing acts of issuing tickets and summonses to force plaintiff to close or limit their business and deprive them of income, selective enforcement of the law, false arrest, false imprisonment, retaliation, discrimination, malicious prosecution and abuse of process violated plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR., and MOHAMMAD Q. rights under the Fourth Amendment to be secure in their person from unreasonable seizures, and deprived plaintiffs of their rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 86. The foregoing acts of issuing tickets and summonses to force plaintiff to close or limit their business and deprive them of income, selective enforcement of the law, false arrest, false imprisonment, retaliation, discrimination, malicious prosecution 16 Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 17 and abuse of process violated plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR., and MOHAMMAD Q. rights under the under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to due process, equal protection, freedom of Speech and association and his rights of privacy and deprived plaintiffs of their rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 87. The foregoing acts of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and abuse of process violated plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR, and MOHAMMAD Q. rights, under the Eighth Amendment to be free of cruel and unusual punishment and deprived plaintiffs of their rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 88. The PUBLIC ENTITY and SUPERVISORY defendants, JOHN DOES 1?5 and ABC ENTITIES 1?5, their agents, servants and/or employees by reason of their acts, omissions, deliberate and conscious indifference to the rights of plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR, and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI, failure and refusal to pr0perly supervise or otherwise correct improper conduct, in allowing and permitting a pattern of improper violation of police procedures and protocol to persist, failure to properly hire, train and supervise law enforcement of?cers, and permitting a pattern of abuse to continue, deprived plaintiff of his rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and are liable to plaintiffs pursuant to Title 42 Section 1983 of the United States Code and under state law. 89. The aforedescribed acts of the PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER and 17 Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 18 of 19 PageID: 18 SUPERVISORY defendants, JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1?5 were committed under the color of law and within their authority as police of?cers and employees of the PUBLIC ENTITY defendants and they were acting within the scope of their employment and pursuant to the authority vested in them by said defendants. 90. The aforescribed acts of the OFFICER defendants, JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1?5 were committed while under the directive and supervision of defendants CHIEF SIMON and DIRECTOR COSGROVE, the PUBLIC ENTITY defendants, and others in the chain of command. 91. The PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER and SUPERVISORY defendants, JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 deprived plaintiffs of their constitutional rights, acting under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage and misused the power they possessed. 92. The PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER and SUPERVISORY defendants, JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 acted pursuant to of?cial policy and/or governmental custom, and deprived plaintiffs of theirs constitutional rights secured by 42 US. Code Section 1983. 93. As a direct and proximate result of the practices, customs and usages of the PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER and SUPERVISORY defendants, JOHN DOES 1? 5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 defendants, plaintiffs were deprived of their rights to due process of law and equal protection under the law guaranteed under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 18 Case Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 19 of 19 PageID: 19 94. By reason of the foregoing, defendants violated the civil rights of plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI. 95. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiffs and as a direct and proximate result of defendant?s and constitutional Violations, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR., and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have been damaged. 96. By reason of the foregoing, and as a direct and proximate result of defendants? constitutional Violations, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have sustained loss ofincome and economic losses. 97. By reason of the foregoing, and as a direct and proximate result of defendants? constitutional Violations, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have suffered emotional distress, anguish and loss of reputation. 98. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI demand judgment against defendants THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, THE ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER J. CORREIA, OFFICER L. BOONE, OFFICER JOSEPH WASSELL, OFFICER HECTOR CABO, DETECTIVE V. TROPEANO, SERGEANT BURNS, LIEUTENANT JOHN BASTARDO, CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD SIMON, POLICE DIRECTOR JAMES COSGROVE, JOHN DOES 1-5 19 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 20 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 jointly and severally for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees. SECOND COUNT 99. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraph one (1) through ninety?eight (98) of the complaint as set forth herein at length. 100. The PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER, SUPERVISORY, JOHN DOE 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 defendants, through their agents, servants and employees, and the individual defendants, by their deliberate indifference to the civil rights of plaintiffs as previously detailed, deprived plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI of their rights, privileges and immunities secured under the New Jersey State Constitution. 101. The PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER, SUPERVISORY, JOHN DOE 1?5 and ABC EN TITIES 1-5 defendants, through their agents, servants and employees acted pursuant to of?cial policy and/or custom and to deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights under Title 10 of the New Jersey statutes, known as the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. 102. By reason of the foregoing, defendants violated the civil rights of plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI. 103. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiffs and as a direct and proximate result of defendant?s and constitutional violations, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, 20 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 21 MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR., and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have been damaged. 104. By reason of the foregoing, and as a direct and proximate result of defendants? constitutional Violations, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have sustained loss of income and economic losses. 105. By reason of the foregoing, and as a direct and proximate result of defendants? constitutional violations, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have suffered emotional distress, anguish and loss of reputation. 106. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI demand judgment against defendants THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, THE ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER J. CORREIA, OFFICER L. BOONE, OFFICER JOSEPH WASSELL, OFFICER HECTOR CABO, DETECTIVE V. TROPEANO, SERGEANT BURNS, LIEUTENANT JOHN BASTARDO, CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD SIMON, POLICE DIRECTOR JAMES COSGROVE, JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1?5 jointly and severally for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees. THIRD COUNT 107. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one (1) through one?hundred and six (106) of the complaint as if set forth fully herein at length. 21 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 22 108. The actions of the defendants individually and severally as described above constitute a conspiracy to commit constitutional violations, false arrest, retaliation, abuse of process, discrimination, tortious interference, threaten and otherwise intimidate plaintiff?s decedent in Violation of 42 United States Code Section 1985 (2) et. seq. 109. The actions of the defendants individually and severally as described herein above further constitutes a conSpiracy for purposes of impeding, hindering, obstructing or defeating the due course of justice with an intent to deny plaintiff?s equal protection of the laws in violation of 42 United States Code Section 1985 (2) et. seq. 110. By reason of the foregoing, defendants violated the civil rights of plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI and engaged in unlawful conSpiracy. 111. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiffs and as a direct and proximate result of defendant?s and constitutional violations, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR., and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have been damaged. 112. By reason of the foregoing, and as a direct and proximate result of defendants? constitutional violations, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have sustained loss of income and economic losses. 113. By reason of the foregoing, and as a direct and proximate result of defendants? constitutional violations, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have suffered emotional distress, anguish and loss of reputation. 22 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 23 114. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI demand judgment against defendants THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, THE ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER J. CORREIA, OFFICER L. BOONE, OFFICER JOSEPH WASSELL, OFFICER HECTOR CABO, DETECTIVE V. TROPEANO, SERGEANT BURNS, LIEUTENANT JOHN BASTARDO, CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD SIMON, POLICE DIRECTOR JAMES COSGROVE, JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 jointly and severally for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees. FOURTH COUNT 115. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one (1) through one-hundred and fourteen (114) of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein at length. 116. Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned and arrested by the PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER, SUPERVISORY, JOHN DOE 1-5 and ABC ENTITY 1-5 defendants. 117. The defendant police officers were acting within the scope of their employment andfor agency at the time of the aforementioned false imprisonment and arrests. 118. The aforedescribed false arrest and false imprisonment were wanton, reckless, malicious acts, intentional and without probable cause. 119. As a direct and proximate result of the false arrest and false imprisonment plaintiffs have been damaged. 23 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 24 120. As a result of the aforesaid false arrest and false imprisonment plaintiffs were caused to suffer severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, ridicule, loss of reputation and scorn along with a violation of their civil rights, liberty and freedom. 121. By reason of the foregoing, and as a direct and proximate result of defendants? false arrest and false imprisonment, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have sustained loss of income and economic losses. 122. By reason of the foregoing, and as a direct and proximate result of defendants? false arrest and false imprisonment, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have suffered emotional distress, anguish and loss of reputation. 123. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI demand judgment against defendants THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, THE ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER J. CORREIA, OFFICER L. BOONE, OFFICER JOSEPH WASSELL, OFFICER HECTOR CABO, DETECTIVE V. TROPEANO, SERGEANT BURNS, LIEUTENANT JOHN BASTARDO, CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD SIMON, POLICE DIRECTOR JAMES COSGROVE, JOHN DOES 1?5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 jointly and severally for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees. 24 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 25 FIFTH COUNT 124. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every paragraph contained in paragraphs one (1) through one-hundred twenty three (123) of the complaint as if set forth fully herein at length. 125. At all relevant times herein, defendants were under a duty to act reasonably in the performance of their duties as police of?cers, detectives, lieutenants and supervisors in the control, maintenance, Operation, handling and management of the ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT. 126. At all relevant times herein defendants were under a duty to act reasonably in following and maintaining prOper protocol, procedures, policy, rules and guidelines enacted and propounded with respect to their duties. 127. The PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER, SUPERVISORY, JOHN DOE 1-5 and ABC ENTITY 1-5 Defendants were negligent in their failure to properly hire, retain, train and supervise of?cers with respect to the investigation of and handling of the incidents set forth herein, in the issuance of tickets and summonses, by unlawfully discriminating, in the handling of their duties, in their handling of the arrest, prosecution of charges, ?ling of reports and bringing of charges, the response to internal affairs investigation complaints and in their failure to properly implement, enact, enforce, follow and maintain proper protocol, procedures, policies, rules and guidelines with reSpect thereto. 128. By reason of the foregoing negligence, plaintiffs have been damaged. 25 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 26 129. By reason of the foregoing negligence and as a direct and proximate result thereof, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have sustained loss of income and economic losses. 130. By reason of the foregoing negligence, and as a direct and proximate result thereof, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have suffered emotional distress, anguish and loss of reputation. 131. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI demand judgment against defendants THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, THE ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER J. CORREIA, OFFICER L. BOONE, OFFICER JOSEPH WASSELL, OFFICER HECTOR CABO, DETECTIVE V. TROPEANO, SERGEANT BURNS, LIEUTENANT JOHN BASTARDO, CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD SIMON, POLICE DIRECTOR JAMES COSGROVE, JOHN DOES 1?5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 jointly and severally for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees. SIXTH COUNT 132. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred thirty?one (131) of the complaint as if set forth herein at length. 133. The actions taken by the defendants in discriminating against plaintiffs, abusing their authority, by falsely arresting and ?ling false charges against plaintiffs and 26 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 27 in Violating his civil rights amount to the intentional in?iction of severe emotional trauma. 134. The emotional distress was severe and outrageous. 135. The emotional distress was of such character that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. 136. By reason of the aforesaid intentional and negligent in?iction of mental distress, plaintiffs were caused to suffer pain, suffering, humiliation, embarrassment and anguish, all to their damage. 137. By reason of the foregoing in?iction of mental distress, both intentional and negligent, plaintiffs have been damaged. 138. By reason of the emotional distress and as a direct and proximate result thereof, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have sustained loss of income and economic losses. 139. By reason of the foregoing emotional distress, and as a direct and proximate result thereof, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have suffered emotional distress, anguish and loss of reputation. 140. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI demand judgment against defendants THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, THE ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER J. CORREIA, OFFICER L. BOONE, OFFICER JOSEPH WASSELL, OFFICER HECTOR CABO, DETECTIVE V. TROPEANO, SERGEANT BURNS, LIEUTENANT JOHN BASTARDO, CHIEF 27 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 28 OF POLICE RONALD SIMON, POLICE DIRECTOR JAMES COSGROVE, JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 jointly and severally for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees. SEVENTH COUNT 141.. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty (140) of the complaint as if set forth fully herein at length. 142. The actions of the PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER, SUPERVISORY, JOHN DOE 1-5 and ABC ENTITY 1-5 defendants? unlawful acts constitute abuse of process. 143. By reason of the foregoing, and as a direct and proximate result of defendant?s abuse of process, plaintiffs have been damaged. 144. By reason of the. foregoing abuse of process and and as a direct and proximate result thereof, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have sustained loss of income and economic losses. 145. By reason of the foregoing abuse of process and as a direct and proximate result thereof, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have suffered emotional distress, anguish and loss of reputation. 146. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI demand judgment against defendants THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, THE ELIZABETH 28 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 29 POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER J. CORREIA, OFFICER L. BOONE, OFFICER JOSEPH WASSELL, OFFICER HECTOR CABO, DETECTIVE V. TROPEANO, SERGEANT BURNS, LIEUTENANT JOHN BASTARDO, CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD SIMON, POLICE DIRECTOR JAMES COSGROVE, JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 jointly and severally for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees. EIGHTH COUNT 147. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one (1) through one?hundred and forty six (146) of the complaint as if set forth fully herein at length,. 148. Plaintiffs were unlawfully charged and prosecuted on several of the tickets issued by the PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER, SUPERVISORY, JOHN DOE 1-5 and ABC ENTITY 1-5 defendants, including the charges brought against plaintiff MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI, and the various tickets relating to violation of the ordinance regulating hours of Operation, 149. A conviction was obtained on one of the tickets, dated June 15, 2009, which ticket is currently under appeal. 150. With respect to those tickets which were prosecuted with a result favorable to plaintiff, defendants, individually and collectively, intentionally, willfully, unlawfully and maliciously caused said charges to be filed and a prosecution to commence against plaintiffs. 151. The charges and prosecution with respect to tickets and summons terminated favorably to plaintiffs were initiated without reasonable and probable cause. 29 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 30 152. By reason of the foregoing plaintiffs were caused to suffer severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, ridicule and scorn along with a violation their civil rights and due process of law. 153. By reason of the foregoing malicious prosecution plaintiffs have been damaged. 154. With reSpect to the tickets, summonses and charges ?led which have not yet been disposed of, plaintiffs reserve their right and seek court protection under the joinder and entire controversy doctrine to consolidate any malicious prosecution action which shall accrue upon such disposition with this action and/or to proceed upon said claims separately. 155. By reason of the foregoing, and as a direct and proximate result of defendants? malicious prosecution, plaintiffs have been damaged. 156. By reason of the foregoing malicious prosecution and as a direct and proximate result thereof, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have sustained loss of income and economic losses. 157. By reason of the foregoing malicious prosecution and as a direct and proximate result thereof, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have suffered emotional distress, anguish and loss of reputation. 158. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI demand judgment against defendants THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, THE ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER J. CORREIA, OFFICER L. BOONE, OFFICER 30 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 31 JOSEPH WASSELL, OFFICER HECTOR CABO, DETECTIVE V. TROPEANO, SERGEANT BURNS, LIEUTENANT JOHN BASTARDO, CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD SIMON, POLICE DIRECTOR JAMES COSGROVE, JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 jointly and severally for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees. NINTH COUNT 159. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one (1) through fifty eight (158) of the complaint as set forth herein at length. 160. The unlawful acts of the defendants, individually and collectively, as described herein interfered with plaintiff?s pursuit of business and economic advantage. 161. Plaintiffs were denied their ability to manage, operate and run their business to obtain ?nancial bene?t and defendants interfered with plaintiffs ability to obtain full economic advantage from their business and commercial enterprise. 162. As a direct and proximate result of the tortious interference of plaintiff?s business enterprise, plaintiffs have been damaged in each of their reSpective reputations and have suffered pecuniary losses. 163. By reason of the foregoing tortious interference, plaintiffs have been caused to suffer pain, suffering, humiliation, harassment, discrimination, severe emotional distress and anguish, all to their damage. 164. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI demand judgment against defendants THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, THE ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER J. CORREIA, OFFICER L. BOONE, OFFICER 31 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 32 JOSEPH WASSELL, OFFICER HECTOR CABO, DETECTIVE V. TROPEANO, SERGEANT BURNS, LIEUTENANT JOHN BASTARDO, CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD SIMON, POLICE DIRECTOR JAMES COSGROVE, JOHN DOES 1?5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 jointly and severally for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees. ELEVENTH COUNT 165. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and sixty four (164) of the complaint as if set forth fully herein at length. 166. At all relevant times here defendant DEAN was a local resident and individual operating and managing a business near to or in the vicinity of plaintiffs? First American Chicken Restaurant. 167. At all relevant times hereto DEAN made false complaints to the police and third-parties about plaintiffs activities, business concerns, and private business matters. 168. At all relevant times hereto, in the period between 2002 and 2009, DEAN would present himself to plaintiffs? place of business complaining about ?muslims,? ?foreigners,? and that ?muslims create problems,? and ?muslims should not have businesses here,? and similar outrageous and offensive comments. 169. DEAN made unfounded and unjusti?ed complaints to the police which resulted in unfounded and unjustified response and harassment of plaintiffs by the police, the PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER, SUPERVISORY, JOHN DOE 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1?5 defendants. 32 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 33 170. DEAN would purposefully and with malicious intent, seek to invade plaintiffs? privacy and concern himself with plaintiff?s personal and business affairs. 171. DEAN would purposefully and with malicious intent seek to harass plaintiffs and create problems for them. 172. On May 2009 and again in July 2009 DEAN, in a conspiracy with the police, and more speci?cally the defendants individually and collectively, ?led harassment charges against plaintiffs with the sole intent of causing them harm and casting them in a false light to the public, and speci?cally to the defendants. 173. The charges required plaintiffs to appear in court, among other inconveniences, were false and made with knowledge that they were false. 174. The actions of defendant DEAN were made soley to invade the privacy of plaintiffs, was an intentional intrusion upon plaintiff? privacy, and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 175. As a direct result of the invasion of privacy, plaintiffs have been damaged. 176. By reason of the foregoing harassment and invasion of privacy and as a direct and proximate result thereof, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have sustained loss of income and economic losses. 177. By reason of the foregoing harassment and invasion of privacy, and as a direct and proximate result thereof, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have suffered emotional distress, anguish and loss of reputation. 178. WHEREF ORE, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD 33 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 34 K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI demand judgment against defendant JAMES DEAN MCDERMOTT, for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees. ELEVENTH COUNT 179. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred seventy eight (178) of the complaint as if set forth herein fully at length. 180. Plaintiffs, each one of them, are of the Muslim faith and racially identi?ed as Asian/Arab and were born in Afghanistan. 181. Plaintiffs constitute a protected class under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. 182. The unlawful acts of the PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER, SUPERVISORY, JOHN DOE 1?5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 defendants, including but not limited to the disparate and unequal treatment accorded plaintiffs as opposed to equally situated business establishments, the selective enforcement of ordinance, the use of ordinance for the unlawful purpose of singling out plaintiffs and to force them to close their business early, the chronic issuance of improper tickets and summonses, the charges, the arrest, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution and abuse of process and the violation of federal and state constitutional rights would not have occurred but for the race, religion, ethnicity and national origin of plaintiffs. 183. Reasonable men in plaintiff?s position would consider the aforedescribed conduct to be threatening, intimidating and offensive. 184. Defendants, each and every one of them, individually and collectively, 34 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 35 aided and abetting the discrimination and disparate treatment of plaintiffs. 185.The actions taken by the defendants, each and every one of them, individually and collectively, were in the s00pe of their employment and under color of law as state actors. 186.The SUPERVISORY defendants knew or should have known and were on notice of the discriminatory acts and disparate treatment, and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action. 187.The PUBLIC ENTITY, OFFICER, SUPERISORY, JOHN DOE 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 defendants engaged in prohibited discrimination on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity and national origin in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5?1 er. seq, which prohibits such discrimination and prohibits any person from aiding and abetting that discrimination. 188. By reason of the discrimination and disparate treatment, plaintiffs have been caused to suffer pain, suffering, humiliation, harassment, discrimination, severe emotional distress and anguish, all to their damage. 189. By reason of the foregoing discrimination and disparate treatment and as a direct and proximate result thereof, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have sustained loss ofincome and economic losses. 190. By reason of the foregoing discrimination and disparate treatment and as a direct and proximate result thereof, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI have suffered emotional distress, anguish and loss of reputation. 35 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 36 191. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI demand judgment against defendants THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, THE ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER J. CORREIA, OFFICER L. BOONE, OFFICER JOSEPH WASSELL, OFFICER HECTOR CABO, DETECTIVE V. TROPEANO, SERGEANT BURNS, LIEUTENANT JOHN BASTARDO, CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD SIMON, POLICE DIRECTOR JAMES COSGROVE, JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC ENTITIES 1-5 jointly and severally for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees. SHELLEY L. STANGLER, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: April 6, 2011 SHELLEY L. STANGLER, ESQ. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs demand atrial by jury of all issues so triable. Dated: April 6, 2011 SHELLEY L. STANGLER, ESQ. 36 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 18 of 19 PageID: 37 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND NOTICE TO THE COURT REGARDING ENTIRE CONTROVERY DOCTRINE AND OINDER OF CLAIMS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that certain malicious prosecution claims arising out of the facts and circumstances of this case have not yet accrued. Plaintiffs reserve their right to file and consolidate such claims subject to Court approval upon termination of proceedings favorable to plaintiff which are currently on appeal, or in the alternative that plaintiffs shall be able to pursue said claims separately and apart from this action without having to defend any claim under either the Entire Controversy Doctrine or essential joinder of claims. This action is filed due to pending expiration of the statute of limitations regarding all other claims arising out of the subject events and circumstances. DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Pursuant to Rule 4:24-4, SHELLEY L. STANGLER, ESQ. is hereby designated as trial counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs in the within matter. Dated: April 6, 2011 L. STANGLER, ESQ. 37 Case Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 19 of 19 PageID: 38 CERTIFICATION SHELLEY L. STANGLER, ESQ, of full age, certi?es: 1. SHELLEY L. STANGLER, P.C. has been retained to represent plaintiffs, MOHAMMAD R. RAHAMI, MOHAMMAD K. RAHAMI, JR. and MOHAMMAD Q. RAHAMI in connection with the within matter. I am the attorney in charge of the case. 2. The matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any court or of a pending arbitration proceeding, and no other action or arbitration proceeding is contemplated by plaintiffs. 3. There are no other parties who should be joined in this action. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. {4 SHELLW. STANGLER DATED: April 6, 2011 38 Case Document 1-2 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 39 SHELLEY L. STANGLER, PC. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SHELLEY STANGLER I 55 MORRIS AVENUE NEW OFFICE ATTORNEY AT LAW SPRINGFIELD, NJ 0708 I OLD COUNTRY ROAD MEMBER N..J. BAR as. w. am TEL: 973.379.2500 STE- 2 I 0 CARLE PLACE. NY I I5 I 4 TEL: 646.205.0659 FAX: 973.379.003 I STAN LER LAW. CO April 6, 2011 US. Courthouse for the District of Newark Martin Luther King Building 50 Walnut Street, Room 4015 Newark, NJ 07102 Attn: Clerk of the Court Re: Rahami vs. The City of Elizabeth, et al. Dear Sir/Madame: We represent the plaintiffs in the above mentioned case. Enclosed please ?nd: 1. Complaint 2. Disclosure of Statement Thank you. Very truly yours, LLEY L. STANGLER, ESQ. Enc.