OI (40111111011 U1. rutmumytua. UU Tnal Div1sion AUG UST 2017 Civil Cover Sheet: NAME tame ?f ?rm; 0/ if Me 4 ?x his ?ns/.41 6/ WE NAME ADDRESS DEFENDANTSADDRESS PLAINTIFFS MAME WE PLAIthr-?s ADDRESS ADDRESS TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFFS Tom. No. OF DEFENDMS DFnenoN omplaint' Petition Action Notice ot?Appcat Writ of Summons Transfer From Other Jurisdictions comnovans'r count" PROGRAMS $50,000.00 or less ?3 Arbitration Cl Mass Ton Minor CourtAppeal Settlement More than $50,000.00 Juxy SavingsAction StatutoryAppeals El Minors Non-Jury Petition Commerce (Completion of El WIDISurvival Other: Addendum Required) CASETYPEAND coDE (SEE tusmuonons; [3 STATUTORY BASIS FORCAUSE OF (SEE ?79 4? 651 RELATED PENDING CA8 ES (LIST CASE CAPTIONAND Mtchael (3 Lutz Lodge No 5 Of The Fraternal IS CASE SUBJECT TO DUDE 9/1 35/ /f 57/ 3512/5 5 17080981800002 TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Papers may be served at the add? 7forth belowm NAME OF Alt?:J/ ADDRESS msmucnons: {Fm a 0% PHONE NUMK ER FAX NUMBER SUPREME COURT IDENTIFICATIO IMILADDRESS DATE 01-101 (Rev. 6105) JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C. BY: Marc L. Gelman IDENTIFICATION NO. 78857 James E. Goodley IDENTIFICATION NO. 31533.1 1835 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 922?6700 MICHAEL G. LUTZ LODGE NO. 5 OF THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, through its Trustee Ad Litem, JOHN Plaintiff v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ia COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY AUGUST TERM, NO. - - COMPLAINT IN EQUITY ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ?You have been sued in court. It'you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the folloii'tng pages, you must lake action within twenty {20} days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personaJIy or by attorney and ?ling in writing with the court your defenses or objections lo [he claims set forth against you. You are warned that if y0u fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the coun \rithOut further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plainliff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION LAWYER REFERRAL AND INFORMATION SERVICE Ont: Reading Cenler Philadelphia. l9l?? (215} 238?13701" ?Le han demands a usled en la cone. Si listed quiere defenderse dc cslas demandas expueslas en las pagtnas siguierilcs, listed licni: veinle (20) dias, de plaza al partir de la fecha de la demanda la noti?cation. Hace falta asenla: una compareiicia escrita 0 en persona 0 con un abogado omega! 3 la cone en forma escrila sus defenses sus hjeciones a las de-mandas en contra dc su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no so dct'iende, Ia cortc tomara medidas puede oont'inuar las deni anda en contra Suya sin preyio ayiso noti?cation Admas, Ia corle pucdc dccidir a favor del deniandaiili: requiem uslud cumpia con todas las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede perdcr diners 0 sus propiedades otros derechos impot?lantes para usted. ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTH. 51 NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO. VAYA EN PERSONA LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. ASSOCIACION DE LICENDIADOS DE SERVICIO DE REFENCIA INFORMACION LEGAL One Reading Center Filadel?a. Tele'fono: {215] Bil-Uni? JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C. BY: Marc L. Gelman IDENTIFICATION NO. 78857 James E. Goodley IDENTIFICATION NO. 315331 1835 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 922-6700 Attorneys for Plaintiffs MICHAEL G. LUTZ LODGE NO. 5 OF THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, through its COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Trustee Ad Litem, JOHN 0F PHILADELPHIA COUNTY Plaintiff AUGUST TERMCITY OF PHILADELPHIA Defendant COMPLAINT IN EQUITY ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Michael G. Lutz Lodge No. 5 of the Fraternal Order of Police, through Trustee Ad Litem John McNesby, who ?les this action in the nature of a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and a Complaint in Equity for Injunctive Relief. In support thereof Plaintiffs allege the following: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to Section 931 of the Judicial Code. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. Pro. 2103. NATURE OF THE CASE 2. This action the nature of a complaint for declaratory judgment, pursuant to 42 ??l601 et seq, and also in the nature of a complaint in equity seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction pursuant to Rule 1531 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Michael G. Lutz Lodge No. 5 of the Fraternal Order of Police through Trustee Ad Litem John McNesby, President, is a non?profit corporation incorporated under the laws of Commonwealth of and is a labor organization that represents for purposes of collective bargaining police of?cers who are employed by the City of Philadelphia. As such, the FOP is a ?representative? of such police of?cers within the meaning of Section 1 of Act No. l, 43 PS. 217.1. John McGrody is a Vice President ofthe FOP and his Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 4. Defendant, City of Philadelphia (?City?) is a municipal corporation of the first class and a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of pursuant to the First Class City Code, 53 Pa. C.S.A. ?13101 et seq. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5. On or about May 28, 2015, the FOP was advised by the City of the desire of the Department of Justice Technical Advisors to meet with the FOP regarding recommendations to changes in working conditions at the City Police Department that conflicted with the terms of the current collective bargaining agreement between the parties. 6. The FOP, indicating that its collective bargaining agreement was with the City and not with the DOJTA, and expressing an utter lack of confidence in the neutrality of the DOJTA, declined to meet with the DOJTA. 7. On or about June 1, 2015, the City issued a number of revised directives, each involving use of force. 8. Speci?cally, Directive 10, Directive 22, Directive 160, and Directive 161 were issued with signi?cant changes concerning use of force and use of force policies. 9. Not coincidentally, these changes re?ected the same changes that the DOJTA was seeking, but indicated were contrary to the collective bargaining agreement between the FOP and the City. 10. Nevertheless, the City unilaterally implemented these changes in working conditions without ?rst bargaining with the FOP or, indeed, even requesting bargaining with the FOP. l. The FOP has not agreed to these unilateral changes. 12. In addition, on July 1, 2015, the City unilaterally implemented a policy, found in Directive 10.1, Section 9, whereby the City would release to the public the names of members who discharge their ?rearm in of?cer involved shootings within 72 hours of the incident. (A true and correct copy of Directive 10.1 is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.) 13. This unilateral change is contrary to decades of past practice between the parties, whereby the privacy rights of of?cers were valued and protected. In addition, releasing names to the public has a signi?cant impact on an of?cer?s working conditions, and most importantly, the safety of the of?cer and their family. 14. The July 1, 2015 change in policy was implemented without negotiating with or securing the approval of the POP. 15. Accordingly, on July 2, 2015, the FOP ?led an amended unfair Labor practice charge against the City with the Labor Relations Board in which it protested the City?s actions. (A true and correct copy of the amended ULP charge is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.) 16. The charge was docketed by the PLRB at and a Complaint and Notice of Hearing was issued. 17. On July 8, 2015, the FOP ?led an additional ULP charge that addressed similar issues concerning the unilateral implementation of Directive 10.1. (A true and correct copy of the amended ULP charge is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.) 18. The charged was docketed by the PLRB at and a Complaint and Notice of Hearing was issued. 19. The two charges were consolidated, and an evidentiary hearing was held in Harrisburg, PA on September 26, 2016. 20. A second, as of yet unscheduled, second day of testimony is required. 21. The matter therefore remains open and the PLRB has yet to determine the legality of the City?s modi?cation and implementation of Directive 10.1 22. On June 8, 2017, Police Of?cer and bargaining unit member Ryan Pownall was involved in an on-duty shooting, resulting in the death of an individual named David Jones. (A true and correct copy of the Declaration of Ryan Pownall is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.) 23. As is the case with all police-related shootings, and consistent with Departmental policy, the matter is under investigation by numerous entities, including lntemal Affairs. 24. Consistent with Departmental practices and policies, Pownall was been placed on restricted duty pending completion of the investigation. 25. N0 findings have been made with regard to the appropriateness of his conduct in relation to the shooting. 26. Pursuant to Philadelphia Police department Directive Section 9, shortly after the June 81h incident the City released a press statement to the public which contained Pownall?s name, years of service, assignment and duty status. 27. Since the time of the release of his personal information, Pownall and his family have been the victims of continuous harassment and provocation by members of the general public, and specifically, individuals who claim an affiliation with the Black Lives Matter organization. 28. Such harassment and provocation has included death threats over the phone by unknown persons. 29. Pownall regularly receives similar threats through social media and other on?line 30. Unknown persons have engaged in additional conduct that places the safety of Pownall and his family in the path pf potential harm. Such conduct includes: a. The posting of his address on?line b. The posting of his picture on-line c. The posting of the name an pictures of his brother and sister on- line (1. Searches of his mother?s personal information through non-public sources e. The posting of a ?yer that is styled in the form of a ?wanted? poster. The ?yer contains my picture under the heading for the MURDER of David Thomas Jones.? The ?yer additionally states: ?Warning! He is considered armed and dangerous. He has killed and will kill again. Help bring him to justice for David Thomas Jones" and ?Wanted: the pig who murdered David Jones.? 31. On the evening of August at approximately 6:30 pm, approximately a dozen protesters stormed through Pownall?s neighborhood straight to his home. He was home with his wife and children at the time. 32. For approximately two hours, his family was trapped inside, while the protesters blocked traf?c in front of his home. 33. A person who appeared to be the leader of the group and who identi?ed himself as being part of BLM shouted Obscenities and racist comments through a bullhom in the direction of his home and the homes of his neighbors. 34. Many of the individuals carried BLM signs. 35. More than once, the person with the bullhom shouted: ?We want justice or else we are going to keep going into your neighborhood.? 36. The group yelled loudly and chanted throughout the event, using profanities throughout. the police? was a constant refrain. 37. At one point, there were what appeared to be hundreds of people on the street, including protesters, police of?cers and members of the community. 38. The scene was chaotic and dangerous. 39. Both he and Pownall?s wife genuinely feared for the safety of their children. 40. Indeed, since the City?s release of his name to the public Pownall has possessed grave concerns for the safety of himself and his family. 41. His wife has been functioning in a state of constant alarm, panic and anxiety. 42. Pownall has what he believes to be a legitimate concern that the continuous threats 1 receive will be acted upon. 43. The events of the evening of August 24th have served to signi?cantly heighten his concerns. 44. If the identity of Police Officers involved in on-duty shootings continues to be released to the public prior to the lawfulness of such release by the PLRB, Plaintiff, by and through its members, would suffer immediate and substantial harm, particularly with regard to their personal well?being and the safety of their families. 45. Monetary damages cannot cure the harm experienced by members. 46. Once personal identification is released, it cannot be ?Uh-released?. 47. Once violated, the personal right of privacy and compromised safety cannot be restored. 48. If it is ultimately determined by the PLRB that the right of the member(s) have been violated through the implementation of an unlawful policy, irreparable damage will already have been done to the FOP member(s). COUNT I Declaratory Judgment Violation of the PLRA 49. The averments of paragraphs 1 48 are incorporated herein by reference. 50. Declaratory relief is proper in this case, in which there is the presence of antagonistic claims indicating imminent and inevitable litigation, coupled with a clear manifestation that the declaration sought will be a practical help in ending the controversy. An employer?s unilateral implementation of a term and condition of employment violates Section of the Labor Relations Act 52. The FOP has demonstrated a clear right to relief, as the City has unilaterally implemented the Policy and did not bargain with the FOP over the subject. 53. Plaintiff members will experience great harm if the City continues to implement the Policy by releasing of?cer names to the public prior to a determination by the PLRB as to whether or not the Policy is lawful. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court to enter an Order declaring that the City may not continue to enforce Directive Section 9 until such time that the Labor Relations Board issue a as to its lawfulness. COUNT II EQUITABLE ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF S4. Continued enforcement of Directive 10.1 is a violation of Section 6(1 of the Labor Relations Act 55. If the City were to continue compliance with Directive 10.1, Section 9, members? rights will have been implicated. 56. Plaintiff does not have any adequate remedy at law. 57. An injunction, preliminary at first and permanent after hearing, is necessary to avoid immediate and irreparable injury to Plaintiff members that cannot be compensated for in damages. 58. Greater injury will result to the individual Plaintiff members and their families if the requested injunction is denied than will be suffered by the City if the requested injunctive relief is granted. 59. In the absence of an injunction, the identity of police officers involved in police shootings will be released into the public domain. 60. Plaintiff?s right to relief is clear and there is a reasonable likelihood of their success on the merits. 61. The public interest will be served by granting injunctive relief. The public has a strong interest in judicial protection of the property rights and the right of privacy from public intrusion. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court to enter an lnjunction, Temporary at first and Permanent thereafter, (1) Staying the City?s enforcement and application of Directive Section 9 until such time that the labor relations Board has issued a ruling in which it determines whether the current version of Directive 10 has been lawfully implemented. (2) Entering such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 10 NOTICE TO PLEAD 62. Defendant is hereby noti?ed to ?le a written response to this Complaint in Equity within thirty (30) days from service hereof, or a judgment may be entered against them. ll Respectfully submitted, JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C. ls/ Marc L. Gelman Marc L. Gelman IDENTIFICATION NO. 78857 James E. Goodley IDENTIFICATION NO. 315331 1835 market St., Ste. 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-3490 (215) 922?6700 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 25th day of August, 2017, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint in Equity (in the nature of an Action for Declaratory Judgment and lnjunctive Relief), Application for lnjunctive Relief and Memorandum of Law in Support thereof were served on the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: By Email and Personal Service: Cara Leheny, Esq. City of Philadelphia Law Department 1515 Arch Street, 17th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Marc L. Gelman Marc L. Gelman IDENTIFICATION NO. 78857 James E. Goodley IDENTIFICATION NO. 315331 1835 market St., Ste. 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-3490 (215) 922?6700 12 1, fQ/l fl Plaintiff, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing t1 ue and correct to the best of Hwy? i ation, knowledge and belief. I understand that the statements contained herein are subject to the Penalties of 18 Section 4904 relating to unswom falsi?cation to authorities. g/w (Pri JName) natul e) "5 FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL OFFICE OF JUDICIAL RECORDS Room 284- City Hall Philadelphia, PA 19107 215-686?6652 215-567~7380 [Fax] Eric Feder Steven]. Wulko. Deputy Director Deputy Comt Administrator Anjeza Keirstead, Deputy Director Director, Of?ce of Judicial Records Date Client's Name 6: M46. 5 gag/??ag ., - I A Uni/m 0? ?/g/xce (ram. 31 43: Case/Invoice Number ofSubpoenas/CertJAdditional Pages Type of Filing 77/ @023 e" Scanning Fee /3 Total Clerk?s Initials