Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 1 of 31 1 PANISH SHEA & BOYLE, LLP Brian Panish (Bar No. 116060) 2 bpanish@psblaw.com 3 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 4 Telephone: (310) 928-6200 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs A.C. a minor and C.C. a minor 6 7 LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO Dale K. Galipo (Bar No. 144074) 8 dalekgalipo@yahoo.com Eric Valenzuela (Bar No. 284500) 9 evalenzuela@galipolaw.com 10 21800 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 310 Woodland Hills, California 91367 11 Telephone: (818) 347-3333 Facsimile: (818) 347-4118 12 BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC 13 Ben Crump 14 122 S. Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 15 Telephone: (850) 224-2020 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Stephen Clark, Se’Quette Clark, Sequita Eddy Thompson 17 and Tommy Lee Thompson 18 /// 19 20 /// 21 22 23 /// 24 25 /// 26 27 /// 28 -1- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 2 of 31 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 7 8 Case No. STEPHEN CLARK; SE’QUETTE CLARK; A.C., a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, RAJNEESH MANNI; C.C., a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, RAJNEESH MANNI; SEQUITA EDDY THOMPSON; and TOMMY LEE THOMPSON, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. Unreasonable Search and Seizure— Detention and Arrest (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 2. Unreasonable Search and Seizure— Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 3. Unreasonable Search and Seizure— Denial of Medical Care (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 4. Substantive Due Process—(42 U.S.C. § 1983) 5. Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Custom, Practice, or Policy (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 6. Municipal Liability— Failure to Train (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 7. False Arrest/False Imprisonment 8. Battery (Wrongful Death) 9. Negligence (Wrongful Death) 10. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 11. Violation of Bane Act (Cal. Civil Code § 52.1) Plaintiffs, 9 vs. 10 11 CITY OF SACRAMENTO; TERRENCE MERCADEL; JARED ROBINET; and 12 DOES 1-10, inclusive, 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 20 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 21 22 1. Plaintiffs STEPHEN CLARK, SE’QUETTE CLARK, A.C., a minor, by and 23 through his Guardian Ad Litem, RAJNEESH MANNI, C.C., a minor, by and 24 through his Guardian Ad Litem, RAJNEESH MANNI, SEQUITA EDDY 25 THOMPSON, and TOMMY LEE THOMPSON for their complaint against 26 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, TERRENCE MERCADEL, JARED 27 ROBINET, and Does 1-10, inclusive, allege as follows: 28 -2- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 3 of 31 1 2 INTRODUCTION 2. This civil rights action seeks compensatory and punitive damages from 3 Defendants for violating various rights under the United States Constitution and 4 state law in connection with the fatal police shooting of the DECEDENT, Stephon 5 Clark. 6 7 8 9 PARTIES 3. At all relevant times, Stephon Clark (“DECEDENT”) was an individual residing in the County of Sacramento, California. 4. Plaintiff A.C. is a minor individual residing in the County of Sacramento, 10 California, and is the natural born son to DECEDENT. A.C. sues by and through 11 his natural grandfather and Guardian Ad Litem, RAJNEESH MANNI. A.C. sues 12 both in his individual capacity as the son of DECEDENT and in a representative 13 capacity as a successor-in-interest to DECEDENT. A.C. seeks both survival and 14 wrongful death damages under federal and state law. 15 5. Plaintiff C.C. is a minor individual residing in the County of Sacramento, 16 California, and is the natural born son to DECEDENT. C.C. sues by and through 17 his natural grandfather and Guardian Ad Litem, RAJNEESH MANNI. C.C. sues 18 both in his individual capacity as the son of DECEDENT and in a representative 19 capacity as a successor-in-interest to DECEDENT. C.C. seeks both survival and 20 wrongful death damages under federal and state law. 21 6. Plaintiff SE’QUETTE CLARK is an individual residing in Sacramento 22 County, California and was at all relevant times the natural mother of DECEDENT. 23 SE’QUETTE CLARK sues in her individual capacity and seeks wrongful death 24 damages under federal and state law. 25 7. Plaintiff STEPHEN CLARK is an individual residing in Sacramento County, 26 California and was at all relevant times the natural father of DECEDENT. 27 STEPHEN CLARK sues in his individual capacity and seeks wrongful death 28 damages under federal and state law. -3- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 4 of 31 1 8. Plaintiff SEQUITA EDDY THOMPSON is an individual residing in 2 Sacramento County, California and was at all relevant times the natural 3 grandmother of DECEDENT. SEQUITA EDDY THOMPSON sues in her 4 individual capacity and seeks negligent infliction of emotional distress damages 5 under state law. 6 9. Plaintiff TOMMY LEE THOMPSON is an individual residing in Sacramento 7 County, California and was at all relevant times the natural grandfather of 8 DECEDENT. TOMMY LEE THOMPSON sues in his individual capacity and 9 seeks negligent infliction of emotional distress damages under state law. 10 10. At all relevant times, Defendant CITY OF SACRAMENTO (“CITY”) is 11 and was a duly organized public entity, form unknown, existing under the laws of 12 the State of California. At all relevant times, CITY was the employer of 13 Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL, JARED ROBINET and DOES 1-4, who 14 were CITY police officers, DOES 5-6, who were CITY police officers’ 15 supervisorial officers, and DOES 7-10, who were managerial, supervisorial, and 16 policymaking employees of the CITY Police Department. On information and 17 belief, at all relevant times, TERRENCE MERCADAL, JARED ROBINET and 18 DOES 1-10 were residents of the County of Sacramento, California. TERRENCE 19 MERCADAL, JARED ROBINET and DOES 1-10 are sued in their individual 20 capacity for damages only. 21 11. At all relevant times, Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL, JARED 22 ROBINET and DOES 1-10 were duly authorized employees and agents of CITY, 23 who were acting under color of law within the course and scope of their respective 24 duties as police officers and with the complete authority and ratification of their 25 principal, Defendant CITY. 26 12. At all relevant times, Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL, JARED 27 ROBINET and DOES 1-10 were duly appointed officers and/or employees or 28 -4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 5 of 31 1 agents of CITY, subject to oversight and supervision by CITY’s elected and non- 2 elected officials. 3 13. In doing the acts and failing and omitting to act as hereinafter described, 4 Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL, JARED ROBINET and DOES 1-10 were 5 acting on the implied and actual permission and consent of CITY. 6 14. At all times mentioned herein, each and every CITY defendant was the 7 agent of each and every other CITY defendant and had the legal duty to oversee 8 and supervise the hiring, conduct and employment of each and every CITY 9 defendant. 10 15. The true names of defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown 11 to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs 12 will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of 13 these defendants when they have been ascertained. Each of the fictitious named 14 defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct and liabilities alleged 15 herein. 16 17 18 19 20 16. On September 4, 2018, Plaintiffs served their claims for damages with CITY pursuant to applicable sections of the California Government Code. 17. On October 19, 2018, CITY rejected Plaintiffs’ claims for damages by operation of law. 18. By the time of filing this Complaint, CITY has not issued its findings as to 21 whether TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET’s where found to be 22 within policy, whether they will be disciplined or not and whether CITY has 23 ratified their use of deadly force against DECEDENT. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 24 reserve the right to amend this Complaint once the CITY has issued its findings as 25 to the involved officers’ use of deadly force. 26 27 28 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 19. This civil action is brought for the redress of alleged deprivations of constitutional rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, and the -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 6 of 31 1 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction 2 is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367. 3 20. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because 4 Defendants reside in, and all incidents, events, and occurrences giving rise to this 5 action occurred in the County of Sacramento, California. 6 7 8 9 10 11 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 21. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 20 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 22. On or about March 18, 2018, DECEDENT was at his family’s residence 12 located on the 7500 block of 29th Street, in the Meadowview neighborhood of 13 Sacramento, California. 14 23. While at his residence located on the 7500 block of 29th Street, Officers 15 TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET discharged their firearms at 16 DECEDENT approximately twenty (20) times, striking him approximately eight 17 (8) times, including multiple shots to his back, causing DECEDENT serious 18 physical injury and eventually killing him. 19 24. Officers TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET fired 20 approximately twenty (20) gunshots at DECEDENT, including shots as he was 21 going to the ground and shots after he had already went down to the ground. 22 23 24 25. At the time of the shooting, DECEDENT was unarmed, with nothing but a cell phone in his hand. 26. At the time of the shooting DECEDENT posed no immediate threat of death 25 or serious physical injury to either Officers TERRENCE MERCADAL or JARED 26 ROBINET, or any other person, especially since he was unarmed and since he was 27 going to the ground or already on the ground when he was shot, including multiple 28 shots to his back. -6- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 7 of 31 1 27. Both Officers TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET did not 2 give DECEDENT a verbal warning that deadly force would be used prior to 3 shooting DECEDENT multiple times, despite it being feasible to do so and they did 4 not issue appropriate commands to DECEDENT. Further, the involved officers did 5 not announce themselves as police prior to the shooting. 6 28. DECEDENT never verbally threatened anyone prior to being fatally shot by 7 Officers TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET. Further, 8 DECEDENT was not suspected of committing any serious crime, the involved 9 officers did not observe him commit any crime, the involved officers had no 10 information that DECEDENT was armed with a weapon, and there was no 11 information that DECEDENT had physically injured anyone. 12 29. The involved officers shot DECEDENT even though he was not an 13 immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officers or anyone else and 14 there were other less than lethal options available. Officers TERRENCE 15 MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET did not show a reverence for human life. 16 The involved officers are responsible for every single shot they fired and this was 17 not an immediate defense of life situation. 18 30. On information and belief, Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL and 19 JARED ROBINET had no information that DECEDENT had committed a felony. 20 31. After striking DECEDENT approximately eight (8) times, TERRENCE 21 MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET did not provide or summons timely medical 22 attention for DECEDENT, who was bleeding profusely and had obvious serious 23 injuries, and TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET also did not allow 24 and prevented responding medical personnel on-scene to timely render medical 25 aid/assistance to DECEDENT. 26 27 32. Plaintiff SE’QUETTE CLARK was dependent on DECEDENT, including financially dependent. 28 -7- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 8 of 31 1 2 33. Plaintiff STEPHEN CLARK was dependent on DECEDENT, including financially dependent. 3 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 4 Unreasonable Search and Seizure—Detention and Arrest (42 U.S.C. § 5 1983) 6 (By Plaintiffs A.C. and C.C. against Defendants Terrence Mercadal, Jared 7 Robinet and Does 1-4) 8 34. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraph 1 9 through 33 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth 10 11 herein. 35. Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL, JARED ROBINET and DOES 1-4 12 caused DECEDENT to be detained and they attempted to arrest DECEDENT in 13 violation of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches and 14 seizures as guaranteed to DECEDENT under the Fourth Amendment to the United 15 States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment. 16 36. As a result of the conduct of TERRENCE MERCADAL, JARED 17 ROBINET and DOES 1-4, they are liable for DECEDENT’s injuries because they 18 were integral participants to the violations of DECEDENT’s rights. 19 37. The DECEDENT was detained without reasonable suspicion by 20 TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET and they attempted to arrest 21 DECEDENT without probable cause. 22 38. The conduct of TERRENCE MERCADAL, JARED ROBINET and DOES 23 1-4 was willful, wanton, malicious, and done with reckless disregard for the rights 24 and safety of DECEDENT and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and 25 punitive damages as to TERRENCE MERCADAL, JARED ROBINET and DOES 26 1-4. 27 39. Accordingly, Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL, JARED ROBINET 28 and DOES 1-4, are each liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory and punitive damages, -8- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 9 of 31 1 including both survival damages and wrongful death damages, under 42 U.S.C. § 2 1983. 3 40. Plaintiffs also seek attorney fees under this claim. 4 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 5 Unreasonable Search and Seizure—Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 6 (By Plaintiffs A.C. and C.C. against Defendants Terrence Mercadal, Jared Robinet 7 and Does 1-4) 8 9 10 41. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 11 42. TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET’s unjustified shooting 12 deprived DECEDENT of his right to be secure in his persons against unreasonable 13 searches and seizures as guaranteed to DECEDENT under the Fourth Amendment 14 to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth 15 Amendment. 16 43. The unreasonable use of force by Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL 17 and JARED ROBINET deprived the DECEDENT of his right to be secure in his 18 person against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to DECEDENT 19 under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state 20 actors by the Fourteenth Amendment. 21 44. As a result, DECEDENT suffered extreme mental and physical pain and 22 suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and eventually suffered a loss of life and of 23 earning capacity. Plaintiffs have also been deprived of the life-long love, 24 companionship, comfort, support, society, care, and sustenance of DECEDENT, 25 and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives. 26 Plaintiffs are also claiming funeral and burial expenses and a loss of financial 27 support. 28 -9- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 10 of 31 1 45. As a result of the conduct of TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED 2 ROBINET, they are liable for DECEDENT’s injuries because they were integral 3 participants in the excessive force. 4 46. The use of deadly force was excessive because this was not an immediate 5 defense of life situation, the involved officers did not give a verbal warning that 6 deadly force would be used despite it being feasible to do so, there were no 7 commands given and there were other reasonable options available other than 8 shooting and killing DECEDENT. 9 47. This use of deadly force was excessive and unreasonable under the 10 circumstances, especially since DECEDENT was unarmed and he was going to the 11 ground or he was already on the ground for the many of the gunshots, including 12 shots to his back and shots from behind. The involved officers also fired twenty 13 (20) shots striking DECEDENT approximately eight (8) times. Defendants’ 14 actions thus deprived DECEDENT of his right to be free from unreasonable 15 searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and applied to state actors by 16 the Fourteenth Amendment. 17 48. The conduct of TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET was 18 willful, wanton, malicious, and done with reckless disregard for the rights and 19 safety of DECEDENT and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and 20 punitive damages as to Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED 21 ROBINET. 22 49. Plaintiffs bring this claim as successors-in-interest to the DECEDENT and 23 seek both survival and wrongful death damages for the violation of DECEDENT’s 24 rights. 25 50. Plaintiffs also seek attorney fees under this claim. 26 27 28 -10- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 11 of 31 1 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 2 Unreasonable Search and Seizure—Denial of Medical Care (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 3 (By Plaintiffs A.C. and C.C. against Defendants Terrence Mercadal, Jared Robinet 4 and Does 1-4) 5 51. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 6 through 50 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth 7 herein. 8 9 52. The denial of medical care by Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET deprived DECEDENT of his right to be secure in his person 10 against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to DECEDENT under the 11 Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by 12 the Fourteenth Amendment. 13 53. As a result, DECEDENT suffered extreme mental and physical pain and 14 suffering and eventually suffered a loss of life and earning capacity. Plaintiffs have 15 also been deprived of the life-long love, companionship, comfort, support, society, 16 care, and sustenance of DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for the 17 remainder of their natural lives. Plaintiffs are also claiming funeral and burial 18 expenses and a loss of financial support. 19 54. Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET knew that 20 failure to provide timely medical treatment to DECEDENT could result in further 21 significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, but disregarded 22 that serious medical need, causing DECEDENT great bodily harm and death. 23 55. After shooting DECEDENT multiple times, TERRENCE MERCADAL and 24 JARED ROBINET did not timely summon or provide timely medical attention for 25 DECEDENT, who was bleeding profusely and had obvious serious injuries, and 26 TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET also did not allow and 27 prevented responding medical personnel on-scene to timely render medical 28 aid/assistance to DECEDENT. -11- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 12 of 31 1 56. The conduct of Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED 2 ROBINET was willful, wanton, malicious, and done with reckless disregard for the 3 rights and safety of DECEDENT and therefore warrants the imposition of 4 exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL and 5 JARED ROBINET. 6 57. Plaintiffs bring this claim as successors-in-interest to DECEDENT and seek 7 both survival and wrongful death damages for the violation of DECEDENT’s 8 rights. 9 58. Plaintiffs also seek attorney’s fees under this claim. 10 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 11 Substantive Due Process (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 12 (By Plaintiffs A.C., C.C., Stephen Clark and Se’Quette Clark against Defendants 13 Terrence Mercadal, Jared Robinet and Does 1-4) 14 59. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 15 through 58 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth 16 herein. 17 60. A.C. had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause of the 18 Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state 19 actions that deprive him of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock the 20 conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state interference in 21 Plaintiff’s familial relationship with his father, DECEDENT. 22 61. C.C. had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause of the 23 Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state 24 actions that deprive him of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock the 25 conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state interference in 26 Plaintiff’s familial relationship with his father, DECEDENT. 27 62. SE’QUETTE CLARK had a cognizable interest under the Due Process 28 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free -12- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 13 of 31 1 from state actions that deprive her of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to 2 shock the conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state interference in 3 Plaintiff’s familial relationship with her son, DECEDENT. 4 63. STEPHEN CLARK had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from 6 state actions that deprive him of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to 7 shock the conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state interference in 8 Plaintiff’s familial relationship with his son, DECEDENT. 9 64. As a result of the excessive force by TERRENCE MERCADAL and 10 JARED ROBINET, DECEDENT died. Plaintiffs A.C., C.C., SE’QUETTE 11 CLARK and STEPHEN CLARK were thereby deprived of their constitutional right 12 of familial relationship with DECEDENT. 13 65. TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, acting under color of 14 state law, thus violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of A.C., C.C., 15 SE’QUETTE CLARK and STEPHEN CLARK to be free from unwarranted 16 interference with their familial relationship with DECEDENT. 17 66. The aforementioned actions of TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED 18 ROBINET, along with other undiscovered conduct, shock the conscience, in that 19 they acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of DECEDENT 20 and Plaintiffs A.C., C.C., SE’QUETTE CLARK and STEPHEN CLARK with 21 purpose to harm unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement objective. 22 67. Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, acting 23 under color of state law, thus violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of 24 DECEDENT and Plaintiffs. 25 68. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts of TERRENCE MERCADAL 26 and JARED ROBINET, Plaintiffs suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and 27 pain and have been injured in mind and body. Plaintiffs have also been deprived of 28 the life-long love, companionship, comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of -13- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 14 of 31 1 DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural 2 lives. Plaintiffs are also claiming funeral and burial expenses and a loss of 3 financial support. 4 69. As a result of the conduct of TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED 5 ROBINET, they are liable for DECEDENT’S injuries because they were integral 6 participants in the denial of due process. 7 70. The conduct of TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET was 8 willful, wanton, malicious, and done with reckless disregard for the rights and 9 safety of DECEDENT and Plaintiffs and therefore warrants the imposition of 10 exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL and 11 JARED ROBINET. 12 13 14 71. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and seek wrongful death damages for the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights. 72. Plaintiffs also seek attorney fees under this claim. 15 16 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 17 Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Custom or Policy (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 18 (By Plaintiffs A.C., C.C., Stephen Clark and Se’Quette Clark against Defendants 19 Does 5-10 and City) 20 73. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 21 through 72 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth 22 herein. 23 74. On and for some time prior to March 18, 2018 (and continuing to the 24 present date) Defendants DOES 5-10, deprived Plaintiffs and DECEDENT of the 25 rights and liberties secured to them by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to 26 the United States Constitution, in that said defendants and their supervising and 27 managerial employees, agents, and representatives, acting with gross negligence 28 and with reckless and deliberate indifference to the rights and liberties of the public -14- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 15 of 31 1 in general, and of Plaintiffs and DECEDENT, and of persons in their class, 2 situation and comparable position in particular, knowingly maintained, enforced 3 and applied an official recognized custom, policy, and practice of: 4 (a) Employing and retaining as police officers and other personnel, 5 including TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET whom 6 Defendants DOES 5-10, at all times material herein knew or reasonably 7 should have known had dangerous propensities for abusing their 8 authority and for mistreating citizens by failing to follow written CITY 9 Police Department policies; 10 (b) Of inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and 11 disciplining CITY Police Officers, and other personnel, who Defendant 12 CITY knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known 13 had the aforementioned propensities and character traits; 14 (c) By failing to adequately train officers, including TERRENCE 15 MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, and failing to institute 16 appropriate policies, regarding the use of excessive force, including 17 deadly force; 18 (e) By having and maintaining an unconstitutional policy, custom, and 19 practice of using excessive force, including deadly force, which also is 20 demonstrated by inadequate training regarding these subjects. The 21 policies, customs, and practices of DOES 5-10 and CITY, were done 22 with a deliberate indifference to individuals’ safety and rights; and 23 (f) Of totally inadequately training CITY Police Officers, TERRENCE 24 MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, with respect to shooting 25 unarmed individuals, including, but not limited to, individuals holding 26 cell phones. 27 28 -15- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 16 of 31 1 75. By reason of the aforementioned policies and practices of Defendants DOES 2 5-10, DECEDENT was severely injured and subjected to pain and suffering and 3 lost his life. 4 76. Defendants DOES 5-10, together with various other officials, whether 5 named or unnamed, had either actual or constructive knowledge of the deficient 6 policies, practices and customs alleged in the paragraphs above. Despite having 7 knowledge as stated above these defendants condoned, tolerated and through 8 actions and inactions thereby ratified such policies. Said defendants also acted with 9 deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies 10 with respect to the constitutional rights of DECEDENT, Plaintiffs, and other 11 individuals similarly situated. 12 77. By perpetrating, sanctioning, tolerating and ratifying the outrageous conduct 13 and other wrongful acts, Defendants DOES 5-10, acted with an intentional, 14 reckless, and callous disregard for the life of DECEDENT, and DECEDENT’s and 15 Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Defendants DOES 5-10, each of their actions were 16 willful, wanton, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent, and extremely offensive and 17 unconscionable to any person of normal sensibilities. 18 78. Furthermore, the policies, practices, and customs implemented and 19 maintained and still tolerated by Defendants DOES 5-10, were affirmatively linked 20 to and were a significantly influential force behind the injuries of DECEDENT and 21 Plaintiffs. 22 79. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants DOES 5- 23 10, Plaintiffs were caused to medical expenses, incur funeral and related burial 24 expenses, and loss of financial support. 25 80. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants DOES 5- 26 10, Plaintiffs have suffered loss of love, companionship, affection, comfort, care, 27 society, and future support. 28 -16- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 17 of 31 1 2 81. Accordingly, Defendants DOES 5-10, each are liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 3 82. Plaintiffs seek wrongful death and survival damages under this claim. 4 83. Plaintiffs also seek attorney fees under this claim. 5 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 6 Municipal Liability – Failure to Train (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 7 (By Plaintiffs A.C., C.C., Stephen Clark and Se’Quette Clark against 8 9 Defendants Does 5-10 and City) 84. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 10 through 83 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth 11 herein. 12 85. While acting under the color of state law and within the course and 13 scope of their employment as police officers for the CITY police department, 14 TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET’s shooting of DECEDENT, who 15 was unarmed with nothing in his hand but a cell phone, deprived DECEDENT of his 16 rights and liberties secured to him by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, 17 including his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. 18 86. The training policies of the defendant CITY police department were not 19 adequate to train its police officers, including but not limited to, TERRENCE 20 MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, with regards to using deadly force. As a 21 result, CITY police officers, including TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED 22 ROBINET, are not able to handle the usual and recurring situations with which they 23 must deal, including making contact with unarmed individuals holding a cell phone. 24 These inadequate training policies existed prior to the date of this incident and 25 continue to this day. 26 87. The Defendant CITY police department was deliberately indifferent to 27 the known or obvious consequences of its failure to train its police officers, including 28 TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, adequately with regards to using -17- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 18 of 31 1 deadly force. This inadequate training includes failing to teach officers to give a 2 verbal warning when feasible prior to using deadly force, to give commands when 3 feasible prior to using deadly force, to take cover when the officers believe an 4 individual is armed, to distinguish cell phones from guns, to announce themselves as 5 police and to use less than lethal options, prior to resorting to the use of deadly force. 6 88. CITY was aware that failure to implement some sort of training with 7 regards to their officers’ use of deadly force and dealing with unarmed suspects, 8 including suspects with cell phones in their hands, would result in continuing to have 9 numerous unreasonable officer involved shootings of unarmed individuals annually. 10 89. The failure of the Defendant CITY police department to provide 11 adequate training with regards using deadly force, caused the deprivation of the 12 Plaintiff’s rights by TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET. In other 13 words, the Defendant’s failure to train is so closely related to the deprivation of the 14 Plaintiffs’ rights as to be the moving force that caused the ultimate injury. 15 90. By failing to provide adequate training to CITY’s police officers, 16 including TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, Defendants DOES 517 10, acted with an intentional, reckless, and callous disregard for the life of 18 DECEDENT, and DECEDENT’s and Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Defendants 19 DOES 5-10, each of their actions were willful, wanton, oppressive, malicious, 20 fraudulent, and extremely offensive and unconscionable to any person of normal 21 sensibilities. 22 91. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants 23 DOES 5-10, Plaintiffs were caused to incur medical expenses, incur funeral and 24 related burial expenses, and loss of financial support. 25 92. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants 26 DOES 5-10, Plaintiffs have suffered loss of love, companionship, affection, comfort, 27 care, society, and future support. 28 -18- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 19 of 31 1 93. Accordingly, Defendants DOES 5-10, each are liable to Plaintiffs for 2 compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 3 94. Plaintiffs seek wrongful death and survival damages under this claim. 4 95. Plaintiffs also seek statutory attorney fees under this claim. 5 6 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 7 False Arrest/False Imprisonment (Cal. Govt. Code § 820 and California 8 Common Law) 9 (Wrongful Death) 10 (By Plaintiffs A.C., C.C., Stephen Clark and Se’Quette Clark against Defendants 11 Terrence Mercadal, Jared Robinet, Does 1-4 and City) 12 96. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 13 through 95 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth 14 herein. 15 97. Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, while 16 working as police officers for CITY, and acting within the course and scope of their 17 duties, intentionally deprived DECEDENT of his freedom of movement by use of 18 force, threats of force and unreasonable duress when Defendants TERRENCE 19 MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET shot DECEDENT multiple times and killed 20 him. Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET intentionally 21 shot at DECEDENT in order to detain him. Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL 22 and JARED ROBINET also detained DECEDENT without reasonable suspicion. 23 There was an attempt by TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET to arrest 24 DECEDENT without probable cause. 25 98. DECEDENT did not knowingly or voluntarily consent to his detention 26 or attempted arrest. On information and belief DECEDENT did not feel that he was 27 free to leave as he lay dying on the ground. By shooting and killing DECEDENT, 28 Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, deprived -19- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 20 of 31 1 DECEDENT, who was unarmed, of his liberty without justification. Further, 2 Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET did not have 3 probable cause to believe that DECEDENT, specifically, had committed any crime. 4 99. The conduct against DECEDENT by Defendants TERRENCE 5 MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, by shooting multiple shots at DECEDENT, 6 was a substantial factor in causing the harm of DECEDENT, namely his death. 7 100. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants 8 TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET pursuant to section 815.2(a) of 9 the California Government Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for the 10 injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the employment if the 11 employee’s act would subject him or her to liability. 12 101. The conduct of Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED 13 ROBINET was malicious, wanton, oppressive, and accomplished with a conscious 14 disregard for the rights of DECEDENT, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary 15 and punitive damages. 16 102. Plaintiffs are seeking both survival and wrongful death damages under 17 this claim. 18 19 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 20 Battery (Cal. Govt. Code § 820 and California Common Law) 21 (Wrongful Death) 22 (By Plaintiffs A.C., C.C., Stephen Clark and Se’Quette Clark against Defendants 23 Terrence Mercadal, Jared Robinet, Does 1-4 and City) 24 103. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 25 through 102 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth 26 herein. 27 104. TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, while working as 28 police officers for the CITY Police Department, and acting within the course and -20- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 21 of 31 1 scope of their duties, intentionally shot DECEDENT multiple times, including shots 2 to his back, shots while DECEDENT was going to the ground and shots after 3 DECEDENT had already went down to the ground, striking DECEDENT eight 4 times. Further, DECEDENT was unarmed at the time of the shooting with nothing 5 in his hands but a cell phone and the involved officers did not give any verbal 6 warning or commands prior to shooting DECEDENT. The use of deadly force was 7 also unreasonable because there were clearly less than lethal options available. As a 8 result of the actions of TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, 9 DECEDENT suffered severe mental and physical pain and suffering, loss of 10 enjoyment of life and ultimately died from his injuries and lost earning capacity. 11 TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET had no legal justification for 12 using force against DECEDENT and said Defendants’ use of force while carrying 13 out their officer duties was an unreasonable use of force, especially since 14 DECEDENT was unarmed when he was fatally shot without verbal warning, 15 including shots as DECEDENT was going down to the ground and shots after he had 16 already went down to the ground. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ 17 conduct as alleged above, Plaintiffs suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and 18 pain and have been injured in mind and body. Plaintiffs also have been deprived of 19 the life-long love, companionship, comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of 20 DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural 21 lives. Plaintiffs are also claiming funeral and burial expenses and a loss of financial 22 support. 23 105. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of TERRENCE 24 MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California 25 Government Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused 26 by its employees within the scope of the employment if the employee’s act would 27 subject him or her to liability. 28 -21- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 22 of 31 1 106. The conduct of TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET was 2 malicious, wanton, oppressive, and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the 3 rights of Plaintiffs and DECEDENT, entitling Plaintiffs, individually and as 4 successors-in-interest to DECEDENT, to an award of exemplary and punitive 5 damages. 6 107. Plaintiffs bring this claim both individually and as successors-in- 7 interest to DECEDENT, and seek both survival and wrongful death damages. 8 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 9 Negligence (Cal. Govt. Code § 820 and California Common Law) 10 (Wrongful Death) 11 (By Plaintiffs A.C., C.C., Stephen Clark and Se’Quette Clark against all 12 Defendants) 13 108. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 14 through 107 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth 15 herein. 16 109. The actions and inactions of the Defendants were negligent, including 17 but not limited to: 18 (a) the failure to properly and adequately train employees, including 19 TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, with regards to the 20 use of force, including deadly force; 21 (b) 22 23 and use force, including deadly force against DECEDENT; (c) 24 25 28 the negligent tactics and handling of the situation with DECEDENT, including pre-shooting negligence; (d) 26 27 the failure to properly and adequately assess the need to detain, arrest, the negligent detention, arrest, and use of force, including deadly force, against DECEDENT; (e) the failure to provide and or summons prompt medical care to DECEDENT; -22- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 23 of 31 1 (f) 2 shooting an unarmed individual who had nothing in his hands but a cell phone; 3 (g) failure to train with regards to objects easily distinguishable from guns; 4 (h) the failure to give a verbal warning or any kind of command prior to 5 6 shooting; and (i) the failure to properly train and supervise employees, both professional 7 and non-professional, including TERRENCE MERCADAL and 8 JARED ROBINET. 9 110. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct as alleged 10 above, and other undiscovered negligent conduct, DECEDENT was caused to suffer 11 severe pain and suffering and ultimately died and lost earning capacity. Also as a 12 direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct as alleged above, Plaintiffs 13 suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and pain and have been injured in mind 14 and body. Plaintiffs also have been deprived of the life-long love, companionship, 15 comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of DECEDENT, and will continue to 16 be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives. Plaintiffs also are claiming 17 funeral and burial expenses and a loss of financial support under this claim. 18 111. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of TERRENCE 19 MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET pursuant to section 815.2 of the California 20 Government Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused 21 by its employees within the scope of the employment if the employee’s act would 22 subject him or her to liability. 23 112. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and as successors-in-interest to 24 DECEDENT, and seek both survival and wrongful death damages. 25 /// 26 27 /// 28 -23- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 24 of 31 1 2 3 4 TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Cal. Govt. Code § 829 and California Common Law) (By Sequita Eddy Thompson and Tommy Lee Thompson against Defendants Terrence Mercadal, Jared Robinet, Does 1-4 and City) 5 6 113. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-112 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 114. TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET negligently caused physical injury and death to DECEDENT when TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET discharged their firearms at DECEDENT, striking him multiple times and eventually killing him. The use of deadly force by TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET was excessive, unreasonable and TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET were negligent in discharging their firearms at DECEDENT, including pre-shooting negligent conduct, actions, inactions and tactics. 115. SEQUITA EDDY THOMPSON was present at the scene, which is her residence, when TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET fatally discharged their firearms at DECEDENT and SEQUITA EDDY THOMPSON was aware that DECEDENT was being injured. 116. TOMMY LEE THOMPSON was present at the scene, which is his residence, when TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET fatally discharged their firearms at DECEDENT and TOMMY LEE THOMPSON was aware that DECEDENT was being injured. 117. As a result of being present at the scene and perceiving her grandson, DECEDENT, being fatally shot by TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, SEQUITA EDDY THOMPSON suffered serious emotional distress, including but not limited to, suffering anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame. 28 -24- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 25 of 31 1 118. As a result of being present at the scene and perceiving his grandson, 2 DECEDENT, being fatally shot by TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED 3 ROBINET, TOMMY LEE THOMPSON suffered serious emotional distress, 4 including but not limited to, suffering anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, 5 anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame. 6 119. On information and belief, any ordinary reasonable person would be 7 unable to cope with seeing their grandson fatally shot multiple times by the police, 8 especially at their own residence. 9 120. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants 10 TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, inclusive, pursuant to section 11 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides that a public entity is 12 liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the employment if 13 the employee’s act would subject him or her to liability. 14 121. SEQUITA EDDY THOMPSON and TOMMY LEE THOMPSON 15 bring this claim individually and seek damages under this claim as individuals. 16 17 ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 18 Violation of Bane Act (Cal. Civil Code § 52.1) 19 (By Plaintiffs A.C. and C.C. against Defendants Terrence Mercadal, Jared Robinet 20 and Does 1-4) 21 122. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 22 through 121 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth 23 herein. 24 123. California Civil Code, Section 52.1 (the Bane Act), prohibits any 25 person from interfering with another person’s exercise or enjoyment of his 26 constitutional rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion (or by the use of 27 unconstitutionally excessive force). 28 -25- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 26 of 31 1 124. Conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment violates the California 2 Bane Act. 3 125. Defendants TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET’s use 4 of deadly force was excessive and unreasonable under the circumstances, especially 5 since DECEDENT was unarmed with nothing but a cell phone in his hand when he 6 was fatally shot. Further, the involved officers did not give a verbal warning or any 7 commands prior to fatally shooting DECEDENT, despite being feasible to do so and 8 some of the gunshots occurred as DECEDENT was going to the ground and after he 9 had already went down to the ground. Defendants’ actions thus deprived 10 DECEDENT of his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under 11 the Fourth Amendment and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment. 12 126. The DECEDENT was detained without reasonable suspicion and 13 TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET attempted to arrest DECEDENT 14 without probable cause. Defendants’ actions thus deprived DECEDENT of his right 15 to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and 16 applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment. 17 127. TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET intentionally 18 violated DECEDENT’s rights under § 1983 by detaining DECEDENT without 19 reasonable suspicion, by attempting to arrest DECEDENT without probable cause, 20 and by using excessive deadly force against DECEDENT, including but not limited 21 to, shooting the unarmed DECEDENT without warning, including shots to his back 22 and shots from behind. Further, these acts by TERRENCE MERCADAL and 23 JARED ROBINET’ demonstrate that they had a reckless disregard for 24 DECEDENT’s constitutional rights. 25 128. At the time of the shooting DECEDENT did not pose an immediate 26 threat of death or serious bodily injury and DECEDENT never verbally threatened 27 anyone prior to the shooting. There is direct and circumstantial evidence that 28 TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET intentionally violated -26- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 27 of 31 1 DECEDENT’s rights under § 1983 by unlawfully detaining him, by attempting to 2 unlawfully arrest him and by fatally shooting DECEDENT multiple times, including 3 shots to his back, shots from behind, shots while he was going to the ground and 4 shots after he had already went down to the ground. 5 129. TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET, while working as 6 police officers for the CITY Police Department, and acting within the course and 7 scope of their duties, interfered with or attempted to interfere with the rights of 8 DECEDENT to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to equal protection 9 of the laws, to access to the courts, and to be free from state actions that shock the 10 conscience, by threatening or committing acts involving violence, threats, coercion, 11 or intimidation. DECEDENT, an African-American male, was also racially profiled 12 by the involved officers. 13 130. DECEDENT was caused to suffer extreme mental and physical pain 14 and suffering and eventually suffered a loss of life and of earning capacity. Plaintiffs 15 have also been deprived of the life-long love, companionship, comfort, support, 16 society, care, and sustenance of DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for 17 the remainder of their natural lives. Plaintiffs are also claiming funeral and burial 18 expenses and a loss of financial support. 19 131. The conduct of TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET was 20 a substantial factor in causing the harms, losses, injuries, and damages of 21 DECEDENT and Plaintiffs. 22 132. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of TERRENCE 23 MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California 24 Government Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused 25 by its employees within the scope of the employment if the employee’s act would 26 subject him or her to liability. 27 133. The conduct of TERRENCE MERCADAL and JARED ROBINET was 28 malicious, wanton, oppressive, and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the -27- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 28 of 31 1 rights of DECEDENT entitling Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary and punitive 2 damages. 3 134. Plaintiffs bring this claim as successors-in-interest to the DECEDENT, 4 and seek survival damages for the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. 5 135. The Plaintiffs also seek attorney fees under this claim. 6 /// 7 8 /// 9 10 /// 11 12 /// 13 14 /// 15 16 /// 17 18 /// 19 20 /// 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -28- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 29 of 31 1 2 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Stephen Clark, Se’Quette Clark, A.C., a minor, 3 C.C., a minor, Sequita Eddy Thompson and Tommy Lee Thompson , request entry 4 of judgment in their favor and against Defendants City of Sacramento, Terrence 5 Mercadal, Jared Robinet and DOES 1-10, inclusive, as follows: 6 A. For compensatory damages in excess of $20,000,000, including 7 both survival damages and wrongful death damages under 8 federal and state law, in the amount to be proven at trial; 9 B. For funeral and burial expenses, and loss of financial support; 10 C. For punitive damages against the individual defendants in an amount to be proven at trial; 11 12 D. For interest; 13 E. For reasonable costs of this suit and attorneys’ fees; and 14 F. For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and appropriate. 15 16 G. For treble damages under Civil Code Section 52.1. 17 18 DATED: January 28, 2019 PANISH SHEA & BOYLE, LLP 19 20 21 /s/ Brian Panish By Brian Panish Attorney for Plaintiffs 22 23 24 DATED: January 28, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO 25 26 27 28 By /s/ Dale K. Galipo Dale K. Galipo Eric Valenzuela Attorneys for Plaintiffs -29- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 30 of 31 1 DATED: January 28, 2019 BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC 2 3 4 /s/ Ben Crump ______________________ Ben Crump Attorney for Plaintiffs 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -30- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 01/28/19 Page 31 of 31 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 3 Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury. 4 5 6 DATED: January 28, 2019 PANISH SHEA & BOYLE, LLP 7 8 9 /s/ Brian Panish By Brian Panish Attorney for Plaintiffs 10 11 12 13 14 DATED: January 28, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO 15 16 17 18 19 By /s/ Dale K. Galipo Dale K. Galipo Eric Valenzuela Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20 21 DATED: January 28, 2019 22 BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC 23 /s/ Ben Crump ______________________ Ben Crump Attorney for Plaintiffs 24 25 26 27 28 -31- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES