Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.480 Page 1 of 36

JORGE I. HERNANDEZ, ESQ. (SBN 263617)
Law Offices of Jorge I. Hernandez
2 823 Anchorage Place
Chula Vista, CA 91914
3 Ph: (619) 475-6677
1

4

Attorney for Plaintiff ___

5
6
7
8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

10

ELIZABETH JIMINEZ, individually,
and as successor in interest of
12 FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ,
deceased; FERNANDO LLANEZ,
13 individually, and as successor in interest
of FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ,
14 deceased
11

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-1205-BTM-AGS
(ALSO FILED IN 3:18-cv-01269)

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1. Violation of Federal Civil Rights
[42 USC §§ 1983]
2. Bivens Claim Pursuant to Bivens
Plaintiffs,
v.
Six Unknown Named Fed. Narcotics
vs.
Agents
3. Wrongful Death [C.C.P § 377.60]
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
A. Assault and Battery;
RONALDO RICARDO GONZALEZ, an
B. Negligence;
individual; MARCUS OSORIO, an
4. Wrongful Death/Survival
individual; CHRIS BARONI, an
(Federal Tort Claims
individual; ANGELA SANCHEZ, an
Act/GC§815.2(a)) – Battery
individual; MICHAEL BURBANK, an 5. Wrongful Death/Survival
individual; JEREMY DORN, an
(Federal Tort Claims Act) –
individual; ANTHONY
Negligence
CASTELLANOS, an individual; MARK
MEREDITH, an individual; and DOES
1-100, inclusive,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.

23
24
25
26

COME NOW, PLAINTIFFS ELIZABETH JIMINEZ AND FERNANDO
LLANEZ, DO HEREBY ALLEGE AND COMPLAIN AS FOLLOWS:

27
28

1.

Jurisdiction is vested in this court under 28 U.S.C. section 1343,
-1–
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.481 Page 2 of 36

1

subdivisions 27 (a)(3) and (a)(4), for violations of the Civil Rights Enforcement

2

Act, as amended, including 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985, and sections 1331

3

and 1367, subdivision (a). Jurisdiction is also vested in this Court under the

4

ancillary jurisdiction of the Court.

5

2.

6

San Diego because the incidents alleged here occurred in this District.

Venue is proper in the Southern District of California and the County of

7
8
9

PARTIES
3.

Plaintiff, ELIZABETH JIMINEZ is a surviving parent of Decedent

10

FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ, and a Successor in Interest to the Estate

11

of FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ and at all times mentioned herein was

12

an individual residing in Los Angeles County, State of California. ELIZABETH

13

JIMINEZ, individually, is an 'heir at law' of Decedent FERNANDO

14

GEOVANNI LLANEZ, as that term is defined by the California Code of Civil

15

Procedure Section 377.60(a) and elsewhere and has legal standing to maintain an

16

action for wrongful death based upon the death of her son, FERNANDO

17

GEOVANNI LLANEZ, under California Code of Civil Procedure section

18

377.60. Plaintiff ELIZABETH JIMINEZ may maintain causes of action under

19

42 U.S.C. §1983 and as a Federal Wrongful Death Action (28 U.S.C. §2680, et

20

seq.) and recover damages for loss of financial support and the value of the

21

decedent's life under cases interpreting 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

22

4.

23

FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ, and a Successor in Interest to the Estate

24

of FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ and at all times mentioned herein was

25

an individual residing in Los Angeles County, State of California. FERNANDO

26

LLANEZ, individually, is an 'heir at law' of Decedent FERNANDO

27

GEOVANNI LLANEZ, as that term is defined by the California Code of Civil

28

Procedure Section 377.60(a) and elsewhere and has legal standing to maintain an

Plaintiff, FERNANDO LLANEZ is a surviving parent of Decedent

-2–
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.482 Page 3 of 36

1

action for wrongful death based upon the death of his son, FERNANDO

2

GEOVANNI LLANEZ, under California Code of Civil Procedure section

3

377.60. Plaintiff FERNANDO LLANEZ may maintain causes of action under

4

42 U.S.C. §1983, as a Federal Wrongful Death Action (28 U.S.C. §2680, et seq.)

5

and recover damages for loss of financial support and the value of the decedent's

6

life under cases interpreting 42 U.S.C. §1983.

7

5.

8

GONZALEZ) is and at all times mentioned herein was, an Agent employed by

9

the Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Hereinafter, “USA”), who

Defendant AGENT RONALDO RICARDO GONZALEZ (AGENT

10

was acting within the course and scope of his employment as an Agent acting as

11

a member of the “ROAD KILL TEAM” and employed by the UNITED

12

STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, who was acting

13

within the course and scope of his employment at the time he undertook the

14

activities alleged herein and was, at all times herein mentioned, acting as a

15

federal agent under color of federal law, and representative of every other

16

defendant.

17

6.

18

herein was, an Agent employed by the Defendant USA, who was acting within

19

the course and scope of his employment as an Agent acting as a member of the

20

“ROAD KILL TEAM” and employed by the UNITED STATES

21

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, who was acting within the

22

course and scope of his employment at the time he undertook the activities

23

alleged herein and was, at all times herein mentioned, acting as a federal agent

24

under color of federal law, and representative of every other defendant.

25

7.

26

was, an Agent employed by the Defendant USA, who was acting within the

27

course and scope of his employment as an Agent acting as a member of the

28

“ROAD KILL TEAM” and employed by the UNITED STATES

Defendant AGENT MARCUS OSORIO is and at all times mentioned

Defendant AGENT CHRIS BARONI is and at all times mentioned herein

-3–
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.483 Page 4 of 36

1

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, who was acting within the

2

course and scope of his employment at the time he undertook the activities

3

alleged herein and was, at all times herein mentioned, acting as a federal agent

4

under color of federal law, and representative of every other defendant.

5

8.

6

herein was, an Agent employed by the Defendant USA, who was acting within

7

the course and scope of his employment as an Agent acting as a member of the

8

“ROAD KILL TEAM” and employed by the UNITED STATES

9

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, who was acting within the

10

course and scope of his employment at the time he undertook the activities

11

alleged herein and was, at all times herein mentioned, acting as a federal agent

12

under color of federal law, and representative of every other defendant.

13

9.

14

BURBANK is and at all times mentioned herein was, an Agent employed by the

15

Defendant USA, who was acting within the course and scope of his employment

16

as an Agent acting as a member of the “ROAD KILL TEAM” and employed by

17

the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, who

18

was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time he

19

undertook the activities alleged herein and was, at all times herein mentioned,

20

acting as a federal agent under color of federal law, and representative of every

21

other defendant.

22

10.

23

was, an Agent employed by the Defendant USA, who was acting within the

24

course and scope of his employment as an Agent acting as the supervisor of the

25

“ROAD KILL TEAM” and employed by the UNITED STATES

26

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, who was acting within the

27

course and scope of his employment at the time he undertook the activities

28

alleged herein and was, at all times herein mentioned, acting as a federal agent

Defendant AGENT ANGELA SANCHEZ is and at all times mentioned

Defendant TECHINCAL ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MICHAEL

Defendant AGENT JEREMY DORN is and at all times mentioned herein

-4–
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.484 Page 5 of 36

1

under color of federal law, and representative of every other defendant.

2

11.

3

mentioned herein was, an Agent employed by the Defendant USA, who was

4

acting within the course and scope of his employment as an Agent acting as the

5

supervisor of the “ROAD KILL TEAM” and employed by the UNITED

6

STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, who was acting

7

within the course and scope of his employment at the time he undertook the

8

activities alleged herein and was, at all times herein mentioned, acting as a

9

federal agent under color of federal law, and representative of every other

Defendant AGENT ANTHONY CASTELLANOS is and at all times

10

defendant.

11

12.

12

herein was, an Agent employed by the Defendant CITY OF CHULA VISTA,

13

who was acting within the course and scope of his employment as an Officer.

14

Part of his duties involved acting as a member of the “ROAD KILL TEAM” and

15

employed and paid solely by the CITY OF CHULA VISTA POLICE

16

DEPARTMENT, who was acting within the course and scope of his

17

employment at the time he undertook the activities alleged herein and was, at all

18

times herein mentioned, acting as a California law enforcement officer under

19

color of state and federal law, and representative of every other defendant.

20

Defendant OFFICER MARK MEREDITH is and at all times mentioned

a. OFFICER MARK MEREDITH is and at all times mentioned herein

21

was, employed by the Defendant CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT as

22

a detective. As part of his duties, he was assigned by the CHULA VISTA

23

POLICE DEPARTMENT to assist the ROADKILL TEAM on or about June

24

2016.

25

b. OFFICER MARK MEREDITH was listed as the “Team Leader” in the

26

June 2, 2016 Enforcement Operation Plan wherein the Team of agents “intend

27

on conducting an International Controlled Delivery (ICD) containing

28

approximately 2,000 pounds of marijuana” in San Diego, California. On or
-5–
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.485 Page 6 of 36

1

about May 17, 2016, U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents

2

received information from a Source of Information (SOI) that he/she had

3

information about a drug trafficking organization (DTO) that approached the

4

SOI about providing assistance in the smuggling and transportation of narcotics

5

through the San Diego Ports of Entry to San Diego California. Agents were only

6

allowed to conduct the ICD if Agents have determined it will be successful and

7

will ensure that all coordination required is completed and the operation is

8

conducted in a safe manner.

9

c. OFFICER MARK MEREDITH began the subject operation on June 2,

10

2016. The original DTO refused to continue with the purchase. Instead of

11

cancelling the operation, ROADKILL team members scurried to find another

12

purchaser. A second purchaser was located but also eventually refused to

13

continue. After a second failed purchase, ROADKILL team members became

14

aware of a “broker” that was facilitating a potential purchase of the product to an

15

unknown buyer, thus there was no longer a DTO involved in the ICD. On June

16

14, 2016 OFFICER MARK MEREDITH and the Road Kill team were briefed at

17

8:30 AM to pick up a van dropped of by a different suspect, recently identified

18

by the Confidential Informant (CI), and to load said van with 2,000 lbs of

19

marijuana the team had been storing.

20

d. OFFICER MARK MEREDITH was tasked on the morning of June 14,

21

2016 to make sure that HSI undercover agent Castellanos got away safe with the

22

empty van and to load it with the 2,000 lbs of marijuana which was

23

accomplished by OFFICER MARK MEREDITH and others.

24

e. Chula Vista Police Department personnel were in constant radio contact

25

with law enforcement on the ground and in the air to advise that ICE will be

26

conducting an undercover operation in a unmarked vehicles, that agents were in

27

area for a drug exchange and specifically “Mark Meredith will be on the

28

operation”.
-6–
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.486 Page 7 of 36

1
2

d. OFFICER MARK MEREDITH was operating under an Operation Plan
which required that:

3

i. Once the existence of narcotics has been confirmed, the HSI

4

Undercover Agent (UCA) will contact a representative of the DTO and

5

arrange for the delivery of the narcotics and pickup of the transportation

6

fees.

7

ii. HSI agents will utilize a tracking device to assist in maintaining

8

control of the narcotic laden vehicle, once it is in the possession of the

9

DTO.

10

iii. Air support will also be requested and utilized if available.

11

iv. The SOI communicating with the DTO is to agree on a general

12
13

area of delivery in San Diego, California (CA).
v. Upon arrival to the yet to be determined location in San Diego,

14

HSI agents will wait for the UCA to park and exit the vehicle, leaving the

15

keys inside.

16
17
18

vi. The UCA will coordinate with a DTO representative for
payment and delivery.
vii. Once the UCA is clear of the scene, local authorities will take

19

over surveillance of the load vehicle and will coordinate independent

20

enforcement action in an attempt to arrest, seize, and prosecute any

21

suspects involved with the load vehicle.

22

viii. This ICD will fall under one of the established exceptions to

23

the Jones Ruling. All other requirements in the DEA-HSI Memorandum

24

of Understanding for de-confliction and coordination have been met and

25

an ICD number should be issued.

26

ix. If at any time during the surveillance it appears that agents are in

27

jeopardy of losing the contraband, the conveyance will be stopped and the

28

narcotics will be seized and secured.
-7–
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.487 Page 8 of 36

1

x. Any individual attempting to make contact with the target vehicle

2

with the intent to assist delivery of the vehicle will be arrested or detained

3

pending further investigation.

4

xi. Agents will also query all known locations, vehicles, and

5

persons for de-confliction. NO CONFIDENTIAL

6

SOURCES/INFORMANTS OR UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS WILL

7

BE CONDUCTED IN THE REPUBLIC OF MEXICO IN

8

FURTHERANCE OF THIS OPERATION.

9

xii. This operation is part of a certified undercover operation

10

entitled, Operation Road Kill, will use assets from this operation as

11

deemed necessary.

12

e. Initially the transfer of the drug-laden vehicle was planned by

13

OFFICER MARK MEREDITH to have been in a location in San Diego and all

14

participants and emergency services were briefed for that location in the City of

15

San Diego. A last-minute change of the location was implemented to a location

16

in Chula Vista that was not briefed properly, and emergency services were not

17

coordinated for the new location. Nevertheless, OFFICER MARK MEREDITH

18

set up surveillance at 2310 Proctor Valley Road and along with other Agents and

19

Officers of the Operation Road Kill Team for the exchange of the marijuana

20

with the current potential buyers that were not known to OFFICER MARK

21

MEREDITH, thus there was no way to verify they were part of a known DTO as

22

required by the directives of the ICD. On or about 12:00PM on June 14, 2016

23

outside of the Subway restaurant in the courtyard outside of the Starbucks

24

located in the same shopping center in Chula Vista, CA. OFFICER MARK

25

MEREDITH was present with Defendant AGENT RONALDO RICARDO

26

GONZALEZ to meet with the unknown potential buyers of the drugs.

27
28

f. While at the shopping center where the exchange was taking place,
OFFICER MARK MEREDITH received a group text message that the
-8–
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.488 Page 9 of 36

1

unidentified potential buyer was leaving for 15 minutes after conducting

2

surveillance with another ROADKILL team member on AGENT GONZALEZ

3

ACTING AS AN UCA and the unidentified potential buyer for approximately

4

30 minutes before they moved to a position in front of the Starbucks for better

5

view of UCA AGENT ANTHONY CASTELLANOS, AGENT GONZALEZ

6

ACTING AS AN UCA.

7

g. OFFICER MARK MEREDITH lost visual contact with AGENT

8

GONZALEZ ACTING AS AN UCA and another ROADKILL Team member

9

was relaying that additional suspects were walking around and one suspect

10

might have gotten in the narcotic laden van when OFFICER MARK

11

MEREDITH heard one “pop” and then four more, at which time he ran toward

12

AGENT GONZALEZ ACTING AS AN UCA and observed Decedant Llanez

13

shot and falling to the ground before OFFICER MARK MEREDITH withdrew

14

his firearm and yelled “police, stop, stop, stop” when a vehicle was heading in

15

his direction.

16

h. OFFICER MARK MEREDITH observed Llanez lying on the ground

17

and being handcuffed by an individual who he believed to be fellow team

18

member. OFFICER MARK MEREDITH then observed AGENT GONZALEZ

19

ACTING AS AN UCA by the old Albertson’s grocery store who told him he

20

was “okay.” OFFICER MARK MEREDITH saw half of a plastic taser and a

21

taser cartridge near where Llanez was shot and had fallen.

22

i. OFFICER MARK MEREDITH, immediately called AGENT

23

GONZALEZ acting as an UCA to ask him to return to the scene to give a

24

“safety statement”. UC Gonzalez indicated he did not feel safe to return to the

25

scene.

26

j. OFFICER MARK MEREDITH explained what a “safety statement”

27

was to AGENT GONZALEZ acting as an UCA. He then gave a safety statement

28

to OFFICER MARK MEREDITH and told him he had fired 3 to 5 shots in the
-9–
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.489 Page 10 of 36

1

general direction of the area between the “old Albertson’s building and the

2

bank.” UC Gonzalez also told OFFICER MARK MEREDITH that he knew he

3

got shot by a taser and he felt the darts.

4

k. OFFICER MARK MEREDITH was able to contact Chula Vista Police

5

at all times during the operation and was in communication with dispatchers yet

6

did not have emergency personnel in position to respond to an injury during the

7

operation.

8

13.

9

VISTA (Hereinafter, “CITY”), is an incorporated municipality doing business in

10

the State of California with its principal place of business in San Diego County,

11

and the employer of one or more of the individual officers named as Defendants

12

in this action.

13

14.

14

an agreement with one or more of the Federal Agencies named in this suit to

15

receive assets seized in connection with the participation of CITY police

16

officers, including, but not limited to OFFICER MARK MEREDITH.

17

Additionally, OFFICER MARK MEREDITH’s participation in the ROADKILL

18

operation is a part of his employment by the CITY, his sole employer from

19

which he receives pay in connection with law enforcement duties.

20

15.

21

HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS UNIT in the DEPARTMENT

22

OF IMMIGRATIONS AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT is an investigative

23

agency within the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

24

SECURITY of the Defendant USA. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the

25

HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS UNIT (HSI) is and was an

26

official law enforcement agency for the USA, at all times mentioned herein, and

27

the USA is/was the employer of one or more individual Agents named in this

28

action, including, but not limited to, AGENTS GONZALEZ, OSORIO,

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant CITY OF CHULA

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the CITY has

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the

- 10 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.490 Page 11 of 36

1

BARONI, SANCHEZ, BURBANK, DORN, CASTELLANOS and DOES 1-

2

100.

3

16.

4

ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (DEA)is an investigative agency of the Defendant

5

USA. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the DEA is and was an official law

6

enforcement agency for the USA, at all times mentioned herein, and the USA

7

is/was the employer of one or more individual Agents named in this action.

8

17.

9

STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) is an investigative

10

agency of the Defendant USA. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the CBP

11

is and was an official law enforcement agency for the USA, at all times

12

mentioned herein, and the USA is/was the employer of one or more individual

13

Agents named in this action.

14

18.

15

supervisors, officers and/or staff of the CITY and/or USA and are fictitiously

16

named individuals whose true names are unknown at this time to Plaintiffs. The

17

true names and capacities of DOES 1-100 are unknown to plaintiffs, who

18

therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names and will amend this

19

complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs

20

are informed and believe and based thereon alleges that each of the fictitious

21

named defendants are responsible for the acts complained of herein.

22

19.

23

or employee of each of the remaining Defendants acting under color of state

24

and/or federal law, and was at all times acting within the time, purpose or scope

25

of said agency or employment, and was acting with the express or implied

26

knowledge, permission or consent of the remaining Defendants, and each of

27

them. Each of the Defendants held out the other as its authorized representative

28

and each of the Defendants ratified the conduct of its agents. At all times herein

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the DRUG

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the UNITED

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant DOES 1-100 are

At all relevant times herein, each of the Defendants was an agent, servant,

- 11 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.491 Page 12 of 36

1

mentioned, DOES 1-100 were and are Defendants whose identity is unknown at

2

this time who supervised, controlled, or were in some manner responsible for the

3

activities alleged herein and proximately caused Plaintiffs’ damages.

4
5

INTRODUCTION

6

20.

7

2,000 pounds of marijuana across the U.S. Border crossing at Tijuana, Baja

8

California on June 2, 2016, and stored the marijuana for 12 days with the intent

9

to sell the marijuana for approximately $200,000.00 to fund the operations of

Federal and California law enforcement personnel physically transported

10

their respective agencies. The marijuana was believed to have been worth over

11

$1,000,000.00. Nevertheless, the Defendants tried repeatedly to sell it for only

12

$200,000.00. After two failed attempts to sell the marijuana, a third buyer was

13

convinced to purchase the marijuana. Plaintiff was hired to drop off and pick up

14

a rental van in exchange for $500.00 and believed the van would contain money

15

to satisfy a debt to the person that hired him, with no knowledge that any illegal

16

items were in the vehicle. When plaintiff arrived to pick up the van, AGENT

17

GONZALEZ went to open the door of the van and instantly ran away from the

18

van with the only set of keys. Plaintiff LLANEZ gave chase to recover the keys

19

and drew a taser to stop the fleeing individual despite being out of effective

20

range for the taser. AGENT GONZALEZ was surrounded by concealed law

21

enforcement personnel and was running towards cover when he stopped, drew

22

his concealed firearm in an ankle holster and shot Plaintiff LLANEZ four times,

23

the final, and only fatal shot was into the mid back of Plaintiff LLANEZ when

24

he was on the ground and presenting no threat whatsoever. The shooting

25

occurred 33 seconds after AGENT GONZALEZ first encountered Plaintiff

26

LLANEZ and AGENT GONZALEZ never identified himself as a law

27

enforcement officer. Plaintiff LLANEZ died without ever knowing he had been

28

shot by an officer.
- 12 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.492 Page 13 of 36

1
2

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

3

21.

4

RICARDO GONZALEZ (AGENT GONZALEZ) was hired by HSI. Prior to the

5

date of hire AGENT GONZALEZ worked as a contractor for the DEA since

6

2001 in a law enforcement capacity and was a member of the United States

7

Armed Forces prior to entering law enforcement and stated he has “a great deal

8

of experience dealing with crime and narcotics in general. And I know that

9

anytime you’re dealing with people who are involved in those circles there’s

On or about November 11, 2006, DEFENDANT AGENT RONALDO

10

always a potential for danger.”

11

22.

12

from his supervisor and thereafter he and other HSI Agents coordinated with the

13

DEA and CBP to transport “jump” 2,000 pounds of Marijuana with a value

14

AGENT GONZALEZ believed to have been approximately $1,000,000.00

15

across the United States Border through the Tijuana Border Crossing. HSI, CBP

16

and the DEA expected to receive $200,000.00 for transporting the marijuana

17

across the border and stored the marijuana on HSI property in the possession of

18

law enforcement personnel.

19

23.

20

transfer of the marijuana for the Home Depot/Walmart parking lot near Palm

21

Avenue in San Diego.

22

24.

23

buyer named Juan, but a Confidential Informant known as MIGUEL (CI)

24

informed HSI that Juan did not have the money available. AGENT GONZALEZ

25

told the CI that “we need to make sure they have the money available. Because

26

we’re not gonna be playing any games that you guys can take the dope and come

27

back later with the money.”

28

25.

On or about June 2, 2016, AGENT GONZALEZ received authorization

On or about June 6, 2016 a tactical plan was developed by HSI for the

On or about June 7, 2016, HSI attempted to deliver the marijuana to a

After the original buyer Juan no longer wanted the marijuana in the
- 13 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.493 Page 14 of 36

1

possession of HSI, the CI was told by an individual named Sergio, a broker that

2

there was another interested buyer, but this buyer was completely unknown to

3

AGENT GONZALEZ.

4

26.

5

only with “Known Drug Trafficking Organizations” for the transfer of the

6

marijuana in their possession.

7

27.

8

team because he had them on stand-by all weekend for a new transaction. Again,

9

AGENT GONZALEZ was told by the CI that the second buyers could not

HSI directives stated that the OPERATION ROAD KILL was to interact

On June 13. 2016 AGENT GONZALEZ was feeling pressure from his

10

secure the money and the transaction was cancelled.

11

28.

12

transaction was not completed by 1:00 P.M. on Monday, June 13, 2016, then

13

there would be no sale at all. The CI called AGENT GONZALEZ at 1:00 P.M.

14

and stated “we got a new buyer. But they have to go to L.A. to get the money

15

and then they will come back.”

16

29.

17

Case Agent, AGENT MARCUS OSORIO (AGENT OSORIO).

18

30.

19

needed to provide AGENT GONZALEZ with a vehicle to transfer the drugs to

20

the provided vehicle so they can take the drugs after the transportation fees had

21

been paid. AGENT GONZALEZ had already identified Sergio and stated he

22

could have arrested him at any time.

23

31.

24

negotiating with Damian Martinez for the sale and neither was part of a

25

KNOWN DRUG TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATION. Damian was in turn

26

coordinating the actions of several other individuals, some of which had no idea

27

they were involved in a drug transaction. Plaintiff LLANEZ was one of the

28

parties that was unaware the transaction involved drugs.

AGENT GONZALEZ informed the CI to tell Sergio the broker that if the

AGENT GONZALEZ scheduled the transaction for the next day with the
AGENT GONZALEZ told the CI to relay to Sergio the broker that they

Unbeknownst to AGENT GONZALEZ, Sergio the Broker was

- 14 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.494 Page 15 of 36

1

32.

2

to drop off a van in the morning, and then later the same day pick up the van

3

after a debtor of Damian had deposited a repayment.

4

33.

5

marijuana, and LLANEZ dropped off the van and left the keys under the

6

passenger seat at the Terra Nova Shopping Center near the intersection of

7

Interstate 5 and East H Street in Chula Vista, California.

8

34.

9

AGENT GONZALEZ, along with OFFICER MARK MEREDITH (OFFICER

Damian hired Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ for $500.00

Damian was the third buyer engaged by HSI in an attempt to sell the

The CI informed AGENT GONZALEZ about the location of the van and

10

MEREDITH), AGENT ANTHONY CASTELLANOS (AGENT

11

CASTELLANOS) and AGENT OSORIO pick up the van at approximately 8:45

12

A.M., June 14, 2016. AGENT CASTALLANOS drives the van to a secure

13

location to check for tracking devices and later to load the marijuana on the HSI

14

property where it has been stored since HSI personnel “jumped” (transported) it

15

from Mexico. At the time the van is taken, Sergio the broker is the only person

16

known to AGENT GONZALEZ regarding the purchase of the marijuana that is

17

scheduled to take place.

18

35.

19

up, but HSI personnel would not allow dropping the van where suspects are

20

requesting. The buyers appeared ready to cancel the transaction but AGENT

21

GONZALEZ stated that he needed to get this deal to happen. Despite having no

22

tactical plan for the new location, HSI selected the shopping center near

23

Interstate 125 and East H Street in Chula Vista, California. The time was

24

approximately noon and the shopping center was in the middle of lunch hour

25

with numerous bystanders. AGENT CASTELLANOS parked the drug laden van

26

close to the occupied portion of the shopping center despite having an

27

abandoned Albertson’s store with dozens of empty parking spaces 100 feet away

28

from the parking location selected by HSI personnel. After the van was in place,

Sergio wanted the van dropped off back at the same location it was picked

- 15 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.495 Page 16 of 36

1

AGENT GONZALEZ arrived in the parking lot in another vehicle and informed

2

the CI to inform Sergio about the location of the van.

3

36.

4

approximately six people that were strictly responsible for the safety of AGENT

5

GONZALEZ, AGENT CASTELLANOS and the CI. In addition to the UC

6

Cover Team, there were San Diego County Sheriff Deputies from the Border

7

Crime Suppression Team (BCST) on the scene to follow the vehicle that had

8

been loaded by HSI personnel with 2000 pounds of marijuana. Additionally,

9

there was a helicopter that was observing the transaction, as well as one or more

10

officers from the Chula Vista Police Department (See paragraph 12) and Chula

11

Vista Police Dispatchers. The helicopter pilot asked AGENT JEREMY DORN

12

if the event was to be video recorded and DORN stated no.

13

37.

14

purchase of drugs before June 14, 2016, was new to the HSI team and was a last-

15

minute addition to the undercover team on that date because two other more

16

experienced undercover agents were not available. AGENT GONZALEZ

17

briefed AGENT CASTELLANOS regarding the plan with Sergio the Broker in

18

that AGENT GONZALEZ would be doing the negotiations and AGENT

19

CASTELLANOS would be the driver.

20

38.

21

Broker was supposed to arrive with two other individuals that had $200,000

22

order to purchase what AGENT GONZALEZ believed to have been $1,000,000

23

worth of marijuana. Sergio arrived at the Starbucks and met with AGENT

24

GONZALEZ on or about 1:00 P.M. on June 14, 2016. Prior to this meeting,

25

none of the buyers had inspected the quality of the marijuana placed in the truck

26

by HSI personnel.

27

39.

28

before the buyers arrived in the parking lot. Sergio recommended that only

AGENT GONZALEZ had an Under Cover (UC) team on scene of

AGENT CASTELLANOS had never been involved in an undercover

AGENT GONZALEZ contacted the CI and confirmed that Sergio the

Sergio and AGENT GONZALEZ spoke for approximately 20 minutes

- 16 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.496 Page 17 of 36

1

AGENT GONZALEZ approach the buyers. AGENT CASTELLANOS

2

remained seated as the two men approached the individuals described as buyers,

3

described by AGENT GONZALES as two young Hispanic males and refers to

4

them as “kids” and that he was taken aback in the sense of how young they

5

were.

6

40.

7

the marijuana first before they buy it. AGENT GONZALEZ tells one of the

8

males to open the passenger door and open a package to inspect the marijuana.

9

Upon return from inspecting the van, they buyer informs AGENT GONZALEZ

The two young males state to AGENT GONZALEZ that they need to see

10

that the marijuana was too yellow. AGENT ANGELA SANCHEZ (AGENT

11

SANCHEZ) was monitoring the concealed listening device and texted AGENT

12

GONZALEZ and relayed that the large bags had better quality marijuana and for

13

the buyers to inspect the large bags.

14

41.

15

a deal to reduce the price from $200,000 to $150,000 was agreed upon by

16

AGENT GONZALEZ. The buyers wanted the van moved to the same shopping

17

center where the van was picked up, but AGENT JEREMY DORN refused to

18

change the location of the van.

19

42.

20

van by Damien Martinez in exchange for $500. LLANEZ was given a taser by

21

Damien in the event the delivery driver tried to injure LLANEZ or steal the van.

22

43.

23

delivery driver was an under-cover Federal Agent.

24

44.

25

approximately 1:56 P.M. on June 14, 2016.

26

45.

27

his under-cover recording, inserting a key into the driver’s side door and

28

immediately withdrawing the key and running.

The two young males did not approve of the quality of the marijuana, but

A driver dropped off LLANEZ that was tasked with retrieving a loaned

Unbeknownst to LLANEZ, the van was full of marijuana and that the
LLANEZ approached the van and met AGENT GONZALEZ at
Approximately 23 seconds later, AGENT GONZALEZ can be heard, on

- 17 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.497 Page 18 of 36

1

46.

2

he suddenly took the only set of keys and ran around the front of the van.

3

LLANEZ was not as quick and agile as AGENT GONZALEZ and drew the

4

taser while running after AGENT GONZALEZ attempting to stop him from

5

stealing the only set of keys to the van.

6

47.

7

AGENT GONZALEZ can be heard on his under-cover recording shooting

8

LLANEZ four times.

9

48.

AGENT GONZALEZ went to unlock the driver’s door of the van when

Approximately 10 seconds after withdrawing the key and running,

AGENT GONZALEZ never announced he was a federal agent or any

10

other form of law enforcement officer. He was surrounded by his support team

11

of at least nine law enforcement personnel and was running away from the van

12

with the only set of keys. Despite having out-run the individual trying to stop

13

him from stealing the keys to the van, and being out of range of the taser,

14

AGENT GONZALEZ stopped and drew his firearm from his ankle holster and

15

shot LLANEZ four times. The first three shots fired by AGENT GONZALEZ

16

hit LLANEZ in: a finger of his left hand that lodged a bullet in the sinus cavity

17

of his right cheek; his right front tooth and the bullet lodged in his tongue; and in

18

the web of flesh between his thumb and index finger of his right hand that

19

destroyed the taser he was holding. All of which were non-fatal injuries.

20

49.

21

downwards direction and into the back of FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ

22

while he was on the ground, and no longer a threat.

23

50.

24

GONZALEZ was picked up in a truck driven by AGENT CHRIS BARONI and

25

TECHINCAL ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MICHAEL BURBANK.

26

51.

27

AGENT GONZALEZ stated to AGENTS BARONI and BURBANK he

28

believed he had been tasered.

AGENT GONZALEZ’ fourth and only fatal shot was while pointing in a

Approximately 35 seconds after the last shot was fired, AGENT

Upon entering the vehicle, and within 45 seconds of firing his last shot,

- 18 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.498 Page 19 of 36

1

52.

2

LLANEZ, AGENT GONZALEZ asked AGENT BURBANK to check his back

3

for any injuries which AGENT BURBANK could not find.

4

53.

5

LLANEZ, AGENT GONZALEZ stated: “I think I killed that guy” to which

6

AGENT BARONI responded “Don’t worry about it…You’re good man…Don’t

7

worry about it… Remember, uh, no fuckin’, no statements, none of that shit.

8

Actually, you know what, we’ll just probably ya, you want to take him to the

9

hospital. You want to go to the hospital dude? * * * Fuck dude, everybody’s

Two minutes and ten seconds after firing his last shot at Plaintiff

Two minutes and nineteen seconds after firing his last shot at Plaintiff

10

fuckin’ safe, fuck those guys.”

11

54.

12

recorded” on AGENT GONZALEZ’ recorder. Seventeen seconds later the

13

recorder was turned off.

14

55.

15

AGENTS in the vehicle attempted to call for medical help for Plaintiff

16

LLANEZ.

17

56.

18

discoloration to AGENT GONZALEZ’ back to indicate he had been hit by a

19

taser.

20

57.

21

brass from four .40 Caliber, Smith and Wesson ammunition on the ground along

22

with the keys to the van, all of which were located approximately fifty feet to the

23

East of the van and adjacent to the scene of the shooting. The taser was

24

destroyed by two of the bullets fired by AGENT GONZALEZ. The taser’s Anti-

25

Felon Identification (AFID) confetti, that typically deploys towards the intended

26

target when a taser is fired, was found with the shattered pieces of the taser

27

several yards behind the body of Plaintiff LLANEZ and very far from any

28

location associated with AGENT GONZALEZ’ path as he ran from the van with

AGENT BURBANK stated: “everything we say right now is being

Despite believing he had mortally injured Plaintiff LLANEZ, none of the

Upon arriving at the hospital, there was no indication of any injury or

At the scene of the shooting, there was fired ammunition consisting of

- 19 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.499 Page 20 of 36

1

the only set of keys. Thus indicating that the taser was never fired and instead

2

released the contents as a result of AGENT GONZALEZ’ shots that hit the taser.

3

58.

4

Chula Vista, at approximately 1:56 P.M., defendant AGENT RONALDO

5

RICARDO GONZALEZ, acting within the course and scope of his duties as an

6

employee of HSI and acting as a representative of the USA, intentionally and/or

7

negligently, fatally shot Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ, four

8

times, with his firearm, with the final shot into FERNANDO GEOVANNI

9

LLANEZ’ back while he was on the ground and unarmed.

On June 14, 2016, at or near 2310 Proctor Valley Road, in the City of

10

59.

11

RICARDO GONZALEZ, and Does 1-100, constituted an inappropriate seizure

12

of the person under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution as

13

Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ was clearly unarmed when he

14

was fatally shot.

15

60.

16

GEOVANNI LLANEZ constituted further unconstitutional violations of

17

decedent's civil rights, in that they were excessive force in violation of the

18

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

19

61.

20

and Does 1-100, were in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of

21

the United States Constitution and the actions undertaken by Defendants

22

AGENT RONALDO RICARDO GONZALEZ, and Does 1-100, constituted an

23

unjustified seizure of his person, deprivation of his liberty interest, excessive

24

force and were in violation of decedent's civil rights under color of law under 42

25

U.S.C. § 1983 and other sections of the United States Code as more fully set

26

forth herein.

27

62.

28

GONZALEZ, and Does 1-100, acted in violation of the United States

The activities undertaken by the Defendant AGENT RONALDO

The repeated discharge of his firearm on Decedent FERNANDO

The actions of Defendant AGENT RONALDO RICARDO GONZALEZ,

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants AGENT RONALDO RICARDO

- 20 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.500 Page 21 of 36

1

Constitution and that Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ’s

2

constitutional rights were violated. Defendants HSI, DEA, CBP, AGENT

3

RONALDO RICARDO GONZALEZ, and Does 1-100, and each of them, acted

4

in violation of decedent's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth

5

Amendments to the United States constitution. Decedent was subjected to an

6

excessive amount of force where he had committed no criminal act, engaged in

7

no suspicious criminal activity, and was seized without probable cause by

8

Defendants AGENT RONALDO RICARDO GONZALEZ, and Does 1-100,

9

while acting under color of law, pursuant to their actual and apparent authority.

10

63.

11

each of them, FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ died. Plaintiffs therefore

12

have suffered, and continue to suffer, devastating and overwhelming severe

13

emotional distress, disgust, shock, anger, fright, nervousness and terror.

14

Plaintiffs have further suffered economic and non-economic damages.

15

64.

16

Government Claim for monetary damages pursuant to California Governmental

17

Code §910 et seq. and all provisions of the Government Code against the

18

Defendants on December 14, 2016, with the CVPD & HSI, within the six (6)

19

month deadline from the date of the subject incident involving decedent, on June

20

14, 2016.

21

65.

22

notice of rejection of Ms. JIMINEZ’ and Mr. LLANEZ’ claim. The Complaint

23

on behalf of Ms. JIMINEZ and Mr. LLANEZ was filed on June 13, 2017, within

24

the six (6) month deadline from the date of rejection of the claim. As such, the

25

lawsuit is timely filed for State actions.

26

66.

27

Claim Forms (Standard Form 95), for monetary damages against defendants

28

HSI, DEA, and CBP (USA), within the two (2) year deadline from the date of

As a result of the repeated unconstitutional actions of Defendants, and

Plaintiff ELIZABETH JIMINEZ and FERNANDO LLANEZ filed their

The office of the City Attorney for the City of Chula Vista sent formal

On June 6, 2017, both plaintiffs filed their Federal Government Tort

- 21 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.501 Page 22 of 36

1

the subject incident involving decedent, on June 14, 2016. After the Federal

2

government denied the claim a separate suit was filed on June 13, 2018 thus the

3

suit has been timely filed for both Federal and State Defendants.

4
5

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

6

VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

7

(By Plaintiffs Against Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN,

8

AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT

9

BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER MEREDITH, and Does

10

1-100, inclusive)

11

67.

12

contained in all other paragraphs, inclusive, of this Complaint.

13

68.

14

statute, ordinance, regulation, policy, custom, practice or usage of a right,

15

privilege and immunity secured to Plaintiffs by the Fourth and Fourteenth

16

Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of

17

the State of California.

18

69.

19

AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK, AGENT

20

CASTELLANOS, OFFICER MEREDITH and Does 1-100, and each of them,

21

owed a duty of ordinary care to avoid harm to Decedent FERNANDO

22

GEOVANNI LLANEZ.

23

70.

24

GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT

25

SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER

26

MEREDITH and Does 1-100, and each of them, breached these aforementioned

27

duties, either negligently or intentionally, in relation to all their interactions with

28

Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ, on June 14, 2016, including,

Plaintiffs reallege and hereby incorporate by reference the allegations
This cause of action is to redress a deprivation, under color of authority,

Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO,

Plaintiffs contend and herein allege that Defendants AGENT

- 22 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.502 Page 23 of 36

1

but not limited to, the use of a firearm upon Decedent, failing to protect

2

Decedent, failing to follow Federal Directives for staging and briefing

3

emergency medical personnel, failing to render timely first aid to Decedent, and

4

fatally shooting Decedent multiple times, while unarmed.

5

71.

6

negligent/intentional breach of their duties by Defendants AGENT

7

GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT

8

SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER

9

MEREDITH and DOES 1-100 constituted violations of the civil rights of

Plaintiffs contend and herein allege that the aforementioned

10

Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ, in contravention of 42 U.S.C.

11

§1983 of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the

12

United States and the laws of the State of California. Plaintiffs further contend

13

and allege that Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT

14

OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK,

15

AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER MEREDITH and DOES 1-100’s

16

disregard of Decedent's aforementioned civil rights was done by either actual

17

malice or deliberate indifference to Decedent's civil rights.

18

72.

19

GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT

20

SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER

21

MEREDITH and DOES 1-100’s intentional use of a firearm upon and failure to

22

follow Federal directives to stage emergency responders and or, timely render

23

first aid to Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ were the legal cause

24

of his death on June 14, 2016.

25

73.

26

DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT

27

BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER MEREDITH and DOES 1-

28

100, and each of them, violated decedent's civil rights under the Fourth and

Plaintiffs contend and herein allege that Defendants AGENT

On or about June 14, 2016, Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT

- 23 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.503 Page 24 of 36

1

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution prohibiting unlawful

2

search and seizure and violation of due process of law. The violation was under

3

color of state and federal law. Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT

4

DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT

5

BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER MEREDITH and DOES 1-

6

100, and each of them, acted in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth

7

Amendments of the United States Constitution, when decedent was subjected to

8

excessive force and killed.

9

74.

The actions of Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN,

10

AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT

11

BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER MEREDITH and DOES 1-

12

100, as aforesaid, violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

13

States Constitution and violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The violation of Decedent's

14

civil rights directly and proximately caused the injuries and damages to

15

Plaintiffs as more fully set forth below.

16

75.

17

GEOVANNI LLANEZ was in violation of his civil rights to be free from the

18

unreasonable search and seizure of his person, to be free from the loss of his

19

physical liberty interest, and denial of substantive due process under the Fourth

20

and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In addition, in

21

taking the aforesaid action Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN,

22

AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT

23

BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER MEREDITH and DOES 1-

24

100, and each of them, violated FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ’s civil

25

rights, by being deliberately indifferent to FERNANDO GEOVANNI

26

LLANEZ’s physical security, as set forth in Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583.

27

76.

28

AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK, AGENT

The false and illegal seizure and use of excessive force on FERNANDO

Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO,

- 24 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.504 Page 25 of 36

1

CASTELLANOS, OFFICER MEREDITH and DOES 1-100, and each of their,

2

actions as aforesaid directly and proximately caused injuries and damages to

3

Plaintiffs, as more fully set forth below.

4

77.

5

DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT

6

BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER MEREDITH and DOES 1-

7

100 violated FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ’s and Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights

8

by using a degree of physical coercion which was not objectively reasonable

9

under the circumstances. FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ was reacting to a

On or about June 14, 2016, Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT

10

theft of a vehicle with non-lethal force. He was shot three times and no longer

11

could have posed a threat, when he was executed by AGENT GONZALEZ’ shot

12

into his mid back when on the ground. Decedent had not committed a crime.

13

Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, and DOES 1-100’s use of excessive force

14

was unreasonable and in violation of FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ’ and

15

Plaintiffs’ civil rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the

16

United States Constitution to be free from an unreasonable seizure of his person

17

and to be free from a loss of physical liberty. Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ,

18

and DOES 1-100’s use of excessive force was in violation of FERNANDO

19

GEOVANNI LLANEZ’s and Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment

20

Rights.

21

78.

22

force was unreasonable and in violation of FERNANDO GEOVANNI

23

LLANEZ’S and Plaintiffs’ civil rights and violated the Fourteenth Amendment

24

to the United States Constitution as their actions were sadistic and malicious and

25

did not further any legitimate legal purpose.

26

79.

27

OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK,

28

AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER MEREDITH and DOES 1-100 named

Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, and DOES 1-100’s use of excessive

Each of the Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT

- 25 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.505 Page 26 of 36

1

herein, is individually liable for the violation of Decedent FERNANDO

2

GEOVANNI LLANEZ’S and Plaintiffs' Civil Rights apart and aside from the

3

customs, policies and practices of USA, CITY and/or HSI, DEA, CBP.

4

80.

5

GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT

6

SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER

7

MEREDITH and DOES 1-100, and each of them, Decedent FERNANDO

8

GEOVANNI LLANEZ suffered the following injuries and damages for which

9

Plaintiffs may recover:

10

As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants AGENT

A. Violation of Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ’S

11

Constitutional Rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

12

United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of his

13

person, deprivation of life and liberty and denial of due process of law;

14
15

B. Loss of the life of FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ including the
value of his life;

16

C. Conscious physical pain, suffering and emotional trauma during the

17

incident.

18

81.

19

GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT

20

SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER

21

MEREDITH and DOES 1-100, and each of them, Plaintiffs have also suffered

22

the following injuries, including but not limited to:

23
24

A. Loss of love, aide, comfort and society due to the death of Decedent
FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ, according to proof;

25
26

B. Loss of economic support of Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI
LLANEZ; and

27
28

As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants AGENT

C. Funeral and burial expenses according to proof.
82.

The conduct of Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN,
- 26 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.506 Page 27 of 36

1

AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT

2

BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER MEREDITH and DOES 1-

3

100, was reckless and acted with callous indifference to the federally protected

4

rights of FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ and Plaintiffs. Defendants

5

AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI,

6

AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS,

7

OFFICER MEREDITH and DOES 1-100, and each of them, engaged in

8

despicable conduct by using unreasonable and excessive force and was

9

malicious and in reckless and conscious disregard for the rights and individual

10

safety of Plaintiffs. As such, Plaintiffs ELIZABETH JIMINEZ and

11

FERNANDO LLANEZ are entitled to punitive damages in accord with

12

constitutionally permitted limits to punish and make an example of the

13

individual defendant officers and agents.

14

83.

15

under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 due to Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ,

16

AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ,

17

AGENT BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER MEREDITH and

18

DOES 1-100’s violations of Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ’S

19

and Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights.

Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses

20

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

21

(DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW)

22

[BIVENS ACTION]

23

[Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388

24

(1971)]

25

(Plaintiffs Against Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN,

26

AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT

27

BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, and Does 1-100, inclusive)

28

84.

Plaintiffs reallege and hereby incorporate by reference the allegations
- 27 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.507 Page 28 of 36

1

contained in all other paragraphs, inclusive, of this Complaint.

2

85.

3

protected interest [by federal officials alleged to have acted under color of

4

federal law] could be vindicated by a suit for damages invoking the general

5

federal question jurisdiction of the federal courts [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

6

1331].” Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 486 (1978). “Actions under §1983 by

7

a federal actor under Bivens.” Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir.

8

1991).

9

86.

Bivens established that “compensable injury to a constitutionally

Plaintiffs bring this Fourth Amendment claim based on excessive force in

10

the shooting death of Plaintiffs’ Decedent at the hands of defendants AGENT

11

GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT

12

SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, and Does 1-100,

13

among others.

14

87.

15

GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT

16

SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, and Does 1-100

17

were employed by the USA and acted under the color of federal law in carrying

18

out the wrongful conduct complained of herein.

19

88.

20

AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT

21

BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, and Does 1-100 acted under the color

22

of law in violating Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s constitutional right to be free from

23

deprivation of life and liberty and unreasonable seizure. Defendant AGENT

24

GONZALEZ, while acting under color of federal law, used unreasonable deadly

25

force, which deprived Decedent of his federal civil rights provided by the Fourth

26

Amendment to the Constitution, which resulted in Decedent’s death.

27

89.

28

Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizure and to be free from

At all times relevant, plaintiffs assert that defendants AGENT

Plaintiffs assert that defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN,

Defendant AGENT GONZALEZ deprived Decedent of his 4th

- 28 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.508 Page 29 of 36

1

deprivation of his life and liberty, when defendant AGENT GONZALEZ used

2

unreasonable and excessive deadly force when he shot Decedent, while

3

Decedent was unarmed and on the ground, ultimately killing Decedent.

4

90.

5

AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT

6

BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, and Does 1-100’s unlawful, deliberate

7

conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable injuries, including, but not limited

8

to, the loss of love, aid and comfort of their son, for which they should receive

9

compensation.

As a direct result of defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN,

10

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

11

(WRONGFUL DEATH (C.C.P. § 377.60))

12

COUNT ONE

13

[Assault and Battery]

14

(By Plaintiffs Against Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, and/or Does 1-100,

15

inclusive)

16

91.

17

contained in all other paragraphs, inclusive, of this Complaint.

18

92.

19

LLANEZ was standing alongside a white van located in a shopping center

20

parking lot in Chula Vista, posing no threat to anyone, nor breaking any law.

21

93.

22

his employment with Defendants USA and HSI, seized, shot multiple times, and

23

assaulted and battered, unarmed Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ

24

when he was on the ground. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon

25

allege that Defendant AGENT GONZALEZ, unnecessary, intentional and

26

unsafe discharging of his firearm at Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI

27

LLANEZ resulted in his death.

28

94.

Plaintiffs reallege and hereby incorporate by reference the allegations
On or about June 14, 2016, Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI

Thereafter, Defendant AGENT GONZALEZ, in the course and scope of

Defendant AGENT GONZALEZ, and Does 1-100, intended to cause, and
- 29 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.509 Page 30 of 36

1

did cause, Plaintiffs to suffer serious physical and emotional harm as the result

2

of the intentional and unnecessary application of force to Decedent

3

FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ.

4

95.

5

therefore liable for battery upon Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ.

6

Additionally, the USA and/or HSI are responsible for the conduct of their

7

employees on a theory of respondeat superior.

8

96.

9

GONZALEZ, and/or Does 1-100, and each of them, Plaintiffs have also suffered

10

A. Loss of love, aide, comfort and society due to the death of Decedent
FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ, according to proof;

13
14

As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants AGENT

the following injuries, including but not limited to:

11
12

Defendant AGENT GONZALEZ, and Does 1-100, and each of them, are

B. Loss of economic support of Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI
LLANEZ; and

15

C. Funeral and burial expenses according to proof.

16

COUNT TWO

17

[Negligence]

18

(By Plaintiffs Against Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN,

19

AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT

20

BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER MEREDITH, USA,

21

CITY and/or Does 1-100, inclusive)

22

97.

23

contained in all other paragraphs, inclusive, of this Complaint.

24

98.

25

1-100: negligently discharged their firearms, multiple times at and upon

26

Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ, such that he sustained fatal

27

injuries and died. All other named Defendants and Does 1-100: negligently

28

failed to follow normal law enforcement procedures to stop the under-cover

Plaintiffs reallege and hereby incorporate by reference the allegations
On or about June 14, 2016, Defendant AGENT GONZALEZ, and/or Does

- 30 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.510 Page 31 of 36

1

operation when several suspects arrived on the scene indicating a higher level of

2

risk in violation of Federal Directives; failed to properly brief personnel for the

3

location of the operation and actions that would trigger the termination of the

4

operation; failed to make adjustments to emergency personnel then the location

5

of the operation was changed; failed to provide proper medical emergency

6

personnel in the event of an injury; failed to promptly call for first aid when

7

Plaintiff had been shot.

8

99.

9

GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT

As a direct, legal and proximate result of Defendants AGENT

10

SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER

11

MEREDITH, USA, CITY, and/or Does 1-100’s negligence, Plaintiffs suffered

12

emotional distress.

13

100. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ,

14

AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ,

15

AGENT BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER MEREDITH,

16

USA, CITY, and/or Does 1-100 failed to follow procedural directives and

17

intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently caused injuries and the death of

18

Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ.

19

101. Each of the individual defendants and the municipal defendants acted in

20

concert and without authorization of law and each of the individual defendants,

21

separately and in concert, acted willfully, knowingly, negligently with reckless

22

disregard and callous indifference, and purposely with the intent to deprive

23

Plaintiffs of their rights and privileges, and did in fact violate the

24

aforementioned rights and privileges.

25

102. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants AGENT

26

GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT

27

SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, OFFICER

28

MEREDITH, USA, CITY, and/or Does 1-100, and each of them, Plaintiffs have
- 31 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.511 Page 32 of 36

1
2
3
4
5
6

also suffered the following injuries, including but not limited to:
A. Loss of love, aide, comfort and society due to the death of Decedent
FERNANDO GEOVANNI LLANEZ, according to proof;
B. Loss of economic support of Decedent FERNANDO GEOVANNI
LLANEZ; and
C. Funeral and burial expenses according to proof.

7

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

8

(WRONGFUL DEATH/SURVIVAL PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL

9

TORT

10

CLAIMS ACT BASED ON BATTERY)

11

(Plaintiffs against defendant USA)

12

103. Plaintiffs reallege and hereby incorporate by reference the allegations

13

contained in all other paragraphs, inclusive, of this Complaint.

14

104. This claim for relief is brought pursuant to the Decedent FERNANDO

15

GEOVANNI LLANEZ, when AGENT GONZALEZ, while acting within the

16

course and scope of his employment used unlawful deadly force in shooting and

17

killing Decedent, on June 14, 2016, notwithstanding that Decedent was

18

defenseless, when the fatal shot was fired by AGENT GONZALEZ.

19

105. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times

20

alleged in this Complaint, Defendant AGENT GONZALEZ was acting under

21

color of law while employed as an Agent of HSI for Defendant USA. In such

22

capacity, Defendant AGENT GONZALEZ intentionally shot Decedent on or

23

about June 14, 2016, while Defendant AGENT GONZALEZ was in the course

24

and scope of his employment with Defendant. Plaintiffs are informed and

25

believe and thereon allege, that while acting under color of law during the

26

performance of his law enforcement functions, Defendant AGENT GONZALEZ

27

had a duty to refrain from the use of excessive force in the taking into custody of

28

decedent. In shooting decedent under such circumstances, Defendant AGENT
- 32 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.512 Page 33 of 36

1

GONZALEZ perpetrated a non-consensual touching of decedent’s body.

2

106. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendant

3

AGENT GONZALEZ, while in the course and scope of his employment with

4

Defendant USA, decedent suffered fatal injuries for which Plaintiffs now

5

complain. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that such acts

6

and omissions by such Defendants fall within the purview of 28 U.S.C. §2680,

7

et seq.

8

107. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants AGENT

9

GONZALEZ and USA, Plaintiffs have suffered loss of love, aid, comfort, and

10

society of decedent, loss of financial support, loss of value of life to himself and

11

any and all other damages allowed under the Federal Tort Claims Act for which

12

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages against Defendants.

13

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

14

(FOR WRONGFUL DEATH/SURVIVAL PURSUANT TO THE

15

FEDERAL

16

TORT CLAIMS ACT BASED ON NEGLIGENCE)

17

(Plaintiffs against defendant USA)

18

108. Plaintiffs reallege and hereby incorporate by reference the allegations

19

contained in all other paragraphs, inclusive, of this Complaint.

20

109. On June 14, 2016, Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN,

21

AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT

22

BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, and Does 1-100 had a duty, while

23

acting in the course and scope of their employment with Defendant USA, to not

24

violate the rights of decedent under the 4th and 14th Amendments of the United

25

States Constitution. Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN,

26

AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT

27

BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, and Does 1-100 had a further duty to

28

act with due care including, but not limited to, following appropriate policies
- 33 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.513 Page 34 of 36

1

and procedures and to not allow a situation to develop in which they would,

2

through a lack of due care, cause the death of another human being.

3

110. On or about June 14, 2016, Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT

4

DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT

5

BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, and Does 1-100 negligently or

6

otherwise wrongfully breached their duty of due care when they placed

7

themselves in a position such as to discharge a firearm at decedent, resulting in

8

Decedent’s death. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants AGENT

9

GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT

10

SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, and Does 1-100,

11

either negligently or through other wrongful conduct, as alleged herein, caused

12

the death of decedent when AGENT GONZALEZ shot decedent on June 14,

13

2016.

14

111. The negligence of other wrongful conduct of Defendants AGENT

15

GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT

16

SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK, AGENT CASTELLANOS, and Does 1-100,

17

resulted in the death of decedent and gives rise to a cause of action under the

18

Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 2680, et seq. At all times herein

19

mentioned, Defendants AGENT GONZALEZ, AGENT DORN, AGENT

20

OSORIO, AGENT BARONI, AGENT SANCHEZ, AGENT BURBANK,

21

AGENT CASTELLANOS, and Does 1-100 should have maintained appropriate

22

precautions such as to not to create a condition where AGENT GONZALEZ

23

would discharge his firearm and cause the death of decedent and Defendant

24

AGENT GONZALEZ breached these duties when he negligently or otherwise

25

wrongfully shot decedent causing decedent’s untimely death.

26

112. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiffs

27

have suffered loss of love, aid, comfort, and society of decedent, loss of

28

financial support, loss of value of life to himself and any and all other damages
- 34 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.514 Page 35 of 36

1

allowed under the Federal Tort Claims Act for which Plaintiffs seek

2

compensatory damages against Defendants

3
4

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each
of them, for each cause of action, as follows:

5
6

1. For all special damages including, but not limited to, lost wages and
future earning capacity;

7

2. For all general damages including, but not limited to, severe emotional

8

distress, disgust, terror, fright, anger, anxiety, worry, nervousness, shock, loss of

9

enjoyment of life, loss of ability to engage in normal and customary activities,

10

loss of comfort, society, care and companionship;

11
12

3. For other and further special damages in a sum according to proof at the
time of trial;

13
14

4. For other and further general damages in a sum according to proof at
the time of trial;

15

5. For funeral and burial expenses of Decedent, according to proof;

16

6. For prejudgment interest according to proof;

17

7. For punitive damages against the following individuals: AGENT

18

GONZALEZ, and/or Does 1-100, in an amount according to proof at the time of

19

trial;

20

8. For costs of suit incurred herein;

21

9. For other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper; and

22

10. For legal fees, expenses and costs incurred in prosecution in the

23

present action for violation of Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, to the

24

extent provided by law.

25

DATED: January 30, 2019
/s/ Jorge I. Hernandez
_________________________________
27
Jorge I. Hernandez, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
26

28

- 35 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case 3:17-cv-01205-BTM-AGS Document 43 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.515 Page 36 of 36

1
2
3
4
5

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in the instant action on all stated
causes of action.

6

DATED: January 30, 2019
/s/ Jorge I. Hernandez
_________________________________
_________________________________
8
Jorge I. Hernandez, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
7

9
10

c:\docs\jihlaw\clients\12l\12-17\12-17-0001\p-pleadings\2018 filing fed
only\190130 complaint fed.doc

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 36 –
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES