GARY J. CHESTER, ESQ. 39 ALIZE DRIVE KINNELON, NEW JERSEY 07405 973-919-4296 Attorney ID No. 014331983 Attorney Plainti?S? JUAN RODRIGUEZ, Individually and as Administrator ad Prosequendum of the ESTATE OF DIXON RODRIGUEZ, and ASELA RODRIGUEZ, Individually, Plaintiffs, vs. GINA FONTAN, RAFAEL A. PUNTIEL, CITY OF PERTH AMBOY, and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY DOCKET Civil Action COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs, Juan Rodriguez, individually and. as Administrator ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Dixon Rodriguez, deceased, and Asela Rodriguez, individually, for their Complaint against the Defendants, state the following: 1. Plaintiff, Juan Rodriguez, is an individual residing at 99 South Fulton Street, Woodbridge, New Jersey, and the brother of the deceased individual, Dixon Rodriguez. 2. On September 23, 2014 letters testamentary (Exhibit A) were granted by the Surrogate of Middlesex County to Juan Rodriguez in which he was appointed Adminstrator ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Dixon Rodriguez. 3. Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, is an individual residing at 99 South Fulton Street, Woodbridge, New Jersey, and the mother of the deceased individual, Dixon Rodriguez. 4. Defendant, City of Perth Amboy, is a municipality in Middlesex County, New Jersey, which has a police force, and with a principal place of business located at 260 High Street, Perth Amboy, New Jersey. 5. Defendant, Gina Fontan, at all times relevant to this Action, has been employed as a police officer by the City of Perth Amboy, which has a police force located at 365 New Brunswick Avenue, Perth Amboy, New Jersey. This Defendant is sued in the alternative between her personal and official capacities. 6. Defendant, Rafael A. Puntiel, at all times relevant to this Action, has been employed as a police of?cer by the City of Perth Amboy, which has a police force located at 365 New Brunswick Avenue, Perth Amboy, New Jersey. This Defendant is sued in the alternative between his personal and of?cial capacities. 7. Defendants, John Does 1-50, are individual employees of the City of Perth Amboy who were employed as police of?cers by the City of Perth Amboy at the same business address as the City, above, who have not yet been identi?ed. These Defendants are sued in the alternative between their personal and of?cial capacities. FACTS 8. On December 4, 2013, Dixon Rodriguez resided with his mother, Plaintiff Asela Rodriguez, and his brother, Plaintiff Juan Rodriguez, at 195 Hall Avenue, Perth Amboy, New Jersey. 9. Dixon Rodriguez suffered from a medical condition that required the use of prescription medication at certain times. 10. Prior to December, 4, 2013, Asela Rodriguez would, on occasion, contact the Perth Amboy Police Department through its 911 operator, for assistance in calming Dixon Rodriguez and transporting him to his physician in order to obtain the necessary prescription medication, and the Police Department provided this service. i 11. On December 4, 2013, Asela Rodriguez contacted the Perth Amboy Police Department through its 911 operator, for the purpose of obtaining assistance in calming Dixon Rodriguez and transporting him to his physician in order to obtain the necessary prescription medication. 12. On December 4, 2013 at approximately 2:00 Defendants, Gina Fontan and Rafael A. Puntiel, approached Dixon Rodriguez as he stood in front of the premises known as 195 Hall Avenue, Perth Amboy, New Jersey. 13. At said place and time, Defendant Gina Fontan and/or Defendant Rafael A. Puntiel drew their police revolvers and shot and killed Dixon Rodriguez. 14. Dixon Rodriguez was unarmed at the time of the shooting. 15. Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, was in the kitchen of her home at the time of the shooting; she heard the gunshots that killed her son and she observed her son's body lying on or adjacent to said property immediately alter the shooting. 16. Upon information and belief, shortly after the shooting, one or more of the Defendants, John Does 1-50, entered the premises occupied by Plaintiffs Juan Rodriguez and Asela Rodriguez without their permission and without a warrant, and removed a knife and placed the knife on or about the body of Dixon Rodriguez. 17. Defendant, City of Perth Amboy, provided inadequate and incomplete training and supervision, and was otherwise negligent in its training and supervision of Defendants Fontan, Puntiel and John Does 1-50, and engaged in improper customs and practices that encouraged the reckless, willful, and/or wanton use of deadly force by its police of?cers and other negligent, reckless and/or willful acts by its employees. (Estate's Survivorship Action Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:6-2c) 18. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-17 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 19. Article 1, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution provides: "All persons are by their nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." 20. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiffs' decedent, Dixon Rodriguez, was enjoying his Constitutional rights as a citizen of the State of New Jersey. 21. The New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 et seq., (hereinafter creates a private cause of action for violations of civil rights secured under the New Jersey Constitution. 22. N.J.S.A. 10:6-2c provides: Any person who has been deprived of any substantive due. process or equal protection rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or any substantive rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of this State, or whose exercise or enjoyment ofthose substantive rights, privileges or immunities has been interfered with or attempted to be interfered with, by threats, intimidation or coercion by a person acting under color of law, may bring a civil action for damages and for injunctive or other appropriate relief. The penalty provided in subsection e. of this section shall be applicable to a violation of this subsection. 23. Defendants Fontan and Puntiel deprived Plaintiffs decedent, Dixon Rodriguez, of his natural and unalienable rights to enjoy life and liberty and to pursue safety and happiness. 24. Defendants Fontan and Puntiel were armed with weapons and discharged them while employed by the City of Perth Amboy as police of?cers. 25. The conduct of Defendants, Fontan, Puntiel and the City of Perth Amboy, was egregious. 26. Plaintiff, Juan Rodriguez, as Administrator ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Dixon Rodriguez, is entitled to recover damages as decedent would have if he were living, as a result of the conduct of Defendants, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A: 1 5-3. 27. Plaintiff, Juan Rodriguez, as Administrator ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Dixon Rodriguez, is entitled to recover punitivedamages and damages for the pain and suffering suffered by the decedent, Dixon Rodriguez, as a result of the conduct of Defendants, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A: 1 5-3. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Juan Rodriguez, as Administrator ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Dixon Rodriguez, demands Judgment against Defendants City of Perth Amboy, Gina Fontan and Rafael Puntiel for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attomeys' fees, interest, costs, and such further relief as the Court may find just and equitable. (Estate's Survivorship Action for Assault and Battery) 28. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-27 of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 29. The actions of Defendants Oman and Puntiel in drawing and discharging their weapons constituted an attempt or offer to strike Plaintiff?s decedent, Dixon Rodriguez, with unlawful force or violence and said Defendants did, in fact, unlawfully strike the decedent with deadly force. 30. Such conduct was willful, wanton and reckless and constituted an assault and battery. 31. As a result of the reckless and/or willful misconduct of Defendants Fontan and Puntiel, Plainti?s' decedent, Dixon Rodriguez, suffered serious emotional and bodily harm prior to his death. 32. As a result of the reckless and/or willful conduct of its employees, Defendant, City of Perth Amboy, is vicariously liable for the serious emotional and bodily injuries sustained by Plaintiffs decedent, Dixon Rodriguez, prior to his death. 33. Plaintiff, Juan Rodriguez, as Administrator ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Dixon Rodriguez is entitled to recover damages as decedent would have if he were living, as a result of the conduct of Defendants pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A: 1 5-3. 34. Plaintiff, Juan Rodriguez, as Administrator ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Dixon Rodriguez, is entitled to recover punitive damages and damages for the pain and suffering suffered by the decedent, Dixon Rodriguez, as a result of the conduct of Defendants, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A: 1 5-3 . WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Juan Rodriguez, as Administrator ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Dixon Rodriguez, demands Judgment against Defendants City of Perth Amboy, Gina Fontan and Rafael Puntiel for pecuniary damages, including, without limitation, hospital, medical and funeral expenses pursuant to the New Jersey Wrongful Death Act, N.J.S.A. 31-1 et seq. and compensatory damages, punitive damages, attomeys' fees, interest, and costs of suit pursuant to the New Jersey Survivor's Act, N.J.S.A. 2A: 1 5-3 et seq., and such further relief as the Court may ?nd just and equitable. COUNT THREE (Estate and Individual Action for Pecuniary Loss) 35. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-34 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 36. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff, Juan Rodriguez, individually and as Administrator ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Dixon Rodriguez, has paid and has become liable to pay for medical, funeral and burial expenses, and other related expenses. 37. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff, Asela Rodgriguez, has paid and has become liable to pay for medical, ?meral and burial expenses, and other related expenses. 38. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages as decedent would have if he were living, as a result of the conduct of Defendants pursuant to N.J.S.A. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Juan Rodriguez, individually and as Administrator ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Dixon Rodriguez, and Asela Rodriguez, individually, demand Judgment against Defendants City of Perth Amboy, Gina Fontan and Rafael Puntiel for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs, and such further relief as the Court may ?nd just and equitable. COUNT FOUR (Individual Action for Loss of Consortium) 39. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-38 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 40. At all times relevant to this Action, the decedent, Dixon Rodriguez, was a member of the household of Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez. 41. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, has been caused presently and in the future to lose the companionship, services, society and economic contribution of the decedent, Dixon Rodriguez. 42. Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, is entitled to recover damages as a result of the conduct of Defendants pursuant to N.J.S.A. et seq. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, demands Judgment against Defendants City of Perth Amboy, Gina Fontan and Rafael Puntiel for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attomeys' fees, interest, costs, and such ?irther relief as the Court may ?nd just and equitable. mm (Individual Action for Negligent or Reckless Infliction of Emotional Distress) 43. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-42 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 44. Defendants, Fontan and Puntiel, owed a duty of care to the decedent, Dixon Rodriguez. 45. The shooting and killing of the decedent, Dixon Rodriguez, constituted a breach of the duty of care. 46. The conduct of Defendants Fontan and Puntiel was negligent and/or reckless. 47. Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, observed the shooting and killing of her son, the decedent, Dixon Rodriguez. 48. As a proximate result of the negligent and/or reckless conduct by Defendants ontan and Puntiel, Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, has sustained and will in the future sustain severe mental and emotional anguish, physical distress and other harm. 49. As a timber proximate result of this conduct, Plaintiff, Asela ROdriguez, has incurred and will in the future incur substantial medical expenses in excess of the sum of $3,600. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, demands Judgment against Defendants City of Perth Amboy, Gina Fontan and Rafael Puntiel for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs, and such further relief as the Court may ?nd just and equitable. COUNT SIX (Asela Rodriguez' Action for Intentional In?iction of Emotional Distress) 50. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-49 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 51. Defendants, John Does 1-50, owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs. 52. Defendant(s) breached their duty of care by entering the premises occupied by Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, taking and removing a knife therefrom, and placing it on or about the body of the decedent, Dixon Rodriguez. 53. The conduct of the Defendant(s) was intentional and cruel. 54. Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, observed the body of her son, Dixon Rodriguez, on or about the premises known as 195 Hall Avenue, Perth Amboy, New Jersey, after the shooting, and otherwise became aware that Defendant(s) John Does 1-50 had placed a knife on or about his person after the shooting. 55. As a proximate result of this conduct by Defendant(s) John Does 1-50, Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, has sustained and will in the future sustain severe mental and emotional anguish, physical distress and other harm. 56. As a timber prox1mate result of this conduct, Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez has incurred and Will in the future incur substantial medical expenses in excess of the sum of $3 600 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, demands Judgment against Defendants, City of Perth Amboy and John Does 1-50, for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attomeys' fees interest, costs, and such ?thher relief as the Court may ?nd just and equitable, COUNT SEVEN (Individual Action Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:6-2c) 57. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-56 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 58. Article 1, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or af?rmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the papers and things to be seized." 59. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, was enjoying her Constitutional rights as a citizen of the State of New Jersey. 60. As stated above, NJ CRA creates a private cause of action for violations of civil rights secured under the New Jersey Constitution. 61. Defendant(s), John Does 1-50, deprived Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, of her right to be secure in her home and effects and her right against unreasonable searches and seizures. 62. The conduct of Defendant(s) was egregious. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Asela Rodriguez, demands Judgment against Defendants City of Perth Amboy and John Does 1-50 for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs, and such ?irther relief as the Court may ?nd just and equitable. COUNT EIGHT (Individual Action Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:6-2c) 63. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-62 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 64. Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or af?rmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the papers and things to be seized." 65. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff, Juan Rodriguez, was enjoying his Constitutional rights as a citizen of the State of New Jersey. 66. As stated above, NJ CRA creates a private cause of action for violations of civil rights secured under the New Jersey Constitution. 67. Defendant(s), John Does 1-50, deprived Plaintiff, Juan Rodriguez, of his right to be secure in his home and effects and his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. 68. The conduct of Defendant(s) was egregious. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Juan Rodriguez, demands Judgment against Defendants City of Perth Amboy and John Does 1-50 for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs, and such further relief as the Court may ?nd just and equitable. JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues. DESIGNATION 0F TRIAL COUN EL Plaintiffs designate Gary J. Chester, Esq. as trial counsel. R. 4:5-1 CERTIFICATION Plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorney, hereby certify in accordance with the requirements of R. 4:5-1 that the matters in controversy in the within litigation are not, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the subject of any other actions or proceedings. Plaintiffs ?irther certify that they are presently unaware of any other persons or parties who should be joined in this action other than those named in this pleading. GARY J. CHESTER, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiffs o?P l) i A Gary J. Chester, Esq. Dated: November 5, 2014 EXHIBIT A State of New Jersey Middlesex County Surrogate?s Court In the Matter of the Estate of . ADMINISTRATION AD Dixon Rodriguez Deceased PROSEQUENDUM CERTIFICATE (akaz) DOCKET No. 243587 1, Kevin J. Hoagland, Surrogate of Middlesex County and State of New Jersey, do certify that on September 23, 2014, Letters of Administration Ad Prosequendum were granted by me to Juan Rodriguez who is authorized to bring an action, institute a proceeding or make a claim in decedent's name as such Administrator Ad Prosequendum concerning the alleged Wrongful death of Dixon Rodriguez, deceased, as in the Statute such case provided. I further certify that said Letters of Administration Ad Prosequendum remain in full force and effect. WITNESS my hand and seal of of?ce, on this 23rd day of September, 2014. Kevin J. oagland, Surrogate Appendix FOR USE BY OFFICE ONLY CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT panama Dex ace Em (C I S) CHGICK NO. Use for initial Law Division Civil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule Pleading will be rejected for filing, under Rule OVERPAYMENT: if information above the black bar is not completed or attorney?s signature is not affixed BATCH NUMBER: ATTORNEY 1 PRO SE NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER OF VENIJF Gary J. Chester 973-919-4296 M'dd'esex FIRM NAME (if applicable) DOCKET NUMBER (when available) . Gary J. Chester, Attorney at Law . IO OFFICE ADDRESS DOCUMENT TYPE 39 Alize Drive, Kinnelon. New Jersey 07405-3215 Complaint JURY DEMAND YES NO NAME OF PARTY John Doe, Plaintiff) CAPTION . . Juan Rodriguez and Asela Rodriguez, Juan Rodriguez, IndIVIduaIIy and as Administrator ad Prosequendum of Plaintiffs the Estate of Dixon Rodriguez, and Asela Rodriguez, Individually v. Gina Fontan, Rafael A. Puntiel, City of Perth Amboy, and John Does 1-50. CASE TYPE NUMBER HURRICANE SANDY (See reverse side for listing) IS THIS A PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE YES [YOU HAVE CHECKED SEE N.J.S.A. A -27 AND APPLICABLE CASE LAvv REGARDING YOUR OBLIGATION To FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT. RELATED CASES IF YES. LIST DOCKET NUMBERS YES El NO Do YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING ANY PARTIES NAME OF PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPANY (if known) (arising out of same transaction or occurrence)? . NONE YES No Garden State Insurance Fund UNKNOWN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE. CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION DO PARTIES HAVE A CURRENT. PAST OR IF YES. IS THAT RELATIONSHIP: RECURRENT FRIENDINEIGHBOR OTHER (explain) YES NO FAMILIAL BUSINESS DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THIS CASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES BY THE LOSING YES- El No USE THIS SPACE TO ALERT THE COURT TO ANY SPECIAL CASE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY WARRANT INDIVIDUAL MANAGEMENT OR ACCELERATED DISPOSITION 3 - i The case is complex litigation that will require the deposition of a substantial number of witnesses, andthe use of multiple expert witnesses who will be required to furnish written reports, and is otherwise complex in nature. Management by an assigned judge would prove helpful in expediting the matter. 1 DO YOU OR YOUR CLIENT NEED ANY DISABILITY IF YES. PLEASE IDENTIFY THE REQUESTED ACCOMMODATION El YES 8] No WILL AN INTERPRETER BE IF YES, FOR WHAT YES NO Spanish I certify that confidential personal identi?ers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule RE: 3 ATTORNEYSIGNATU ?wd? a? E, Effective 08-19-2013. CN 10517-English page 1 of2 CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT I (CIS) .. - Use for initial pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 CASE TYPES (Choose one and enter number of case type in appropriate space on the reverse side.) Track I - 150 days' discovery 151 NAME CHANGE 175 FORFEITURE 302 TENANCY 399 REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenanc Contract. Condemnalio . 502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection mattirs only) It Complex Commercial or Construction) 505 OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM (including declaratory judgment actions) 506 PIP COVERAGE 510 UM or UIM CLAIM (coverage issues only) 511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT 512 LEMON LAW 801 SUMMARY ACTION 802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (summary action) 999 OTHER (brie?y describe nature of action) Track II - 300 days' discovery 305 CONSTRUCTION 509 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD) 599 TRANSACTION 603N AUTO NEGLIGENCE PERSONAL INJURY (non-verbal threshold) 603Y AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY (verbal threshold) 605 PERSONAL INJURY 610 AUTO NEGLIGENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE 621 UM or UIM CLAIM (includes bodily injury) 699 TORT OTHER Track - 450 days? discovery . 005 CIVIL RIGHTS 301 CONDEMNATION A 602 ASSAULT AND BATTERY 604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 606 PRODUCT LIABILITY 607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE 608 TOXIC TORT 609 DEFAMATION 616 WHISTLEBLOWER CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES 617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION 618 LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES Track lV - Active Case Management by individual Judge I 450 days' discovery 156 ENVIRONMENTALIENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION 303 MT. LAUREL 508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL 513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION 514 INSURANCE FRAUD 620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT 701 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS Multicounty Litigation (Track IV) 266 HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY (HRT) 288 PRUDENTIAL TORT LITIGATION 271 ACCUTANEIISOTRETINOIN 289 REGLAN 274 RISPERDAUSEROQUELIZYPREXA 290 POMPTON LAKES ENVIRONMENTALLITIGATION 278 291 PELVIC 279 GADOLINIUM 292 PELVIC 281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL 293 DEPUY ASR HIP IMPLANT LITIGATION 282 FOSAMAX 295 ALLODERM REGENERATIVE TISSUE MATRIX 284 NUVARING 296 REJUVENATEIABG II MODULAR HIP STEM COMPONENTS 285 TRIDENT HIP IMPLANTS 297 MIRENA CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE 286 LEVAQUIN 601 ASBESTOS 287 YAZIYASMINIOCELLA 623 PROPECIA If you believe this case requires a track other than that provided above. please indicate the reason on Side 1. in the space under "Case Characteristics. Please check off each applicable category Putative Class Action Title 59 Effective 08-19-2013. CN 10517-English page 2 of 2