Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 1 of 59 Page ID #:95

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Cynthia Anderson Barker SBN 75764
NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Barrett S. Litt, SBN 45527
t. 213 381-3246 f. 213 381-3246
Lindsay Battles SBN 262862
e. cablaw@hotmail.com
KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT
975 E. Green Street
Pasadena, California 91106
t. 626 844-7660 f. 626 844-7670
Paul Hoffman, SBN 71244
e. blitt@kmbllaw.com
Michael Seplow SBN 150183
e. lbattles@kmbllaw.com
Aidan McGlaze SBN 277270
John Washington SBN 315991
Pedram Esfandiary SBN 312569
SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS,
HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
e. pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com
Monique Alarcon SBN 311650
11543 W. Olympic Blvd.
e. malarcon@baumhedlundlaw.com
Los Angeles, California 90064-1508
Bijan Esfandiari SBN 223216
t. 310 396-0731; f. 310 399-7040
e. besfandiari@baumhedlundlaw.com
e. hoffpaul@aol.com
R. Brent Wisner SBN 276023
e. jwashington@sshhlaw.com
e. rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI &
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
GOLDMAN, P.C.
Additional Counsel on Next Page
10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
t. 310 207-3233 f. 310 820-7444
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS
ANGELES, CANGRESS (DBA LA
CAN), STEVEN ROE, NELSON
LOPEZ, TINA ČRNKO, JONATHAN
MAYORCA, ABIGAIL RODAS,
KRYSTLE HARTFIELD, NADIA
KHAN, CLARA ARANOVICH,
ALEXANDER STAMM, MAIA
KAZIM, ALICIA BARRERATRUJILO, SHANNON LEE MOORE,
DEVON YOUNG, LINUS SHENTU,
individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons,
v.

PLAINTIFFS,

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a
municipal entity, CHIEF MICHEL
MOORE , and DOES 1-10 inclusive,

Case No.: 2:20-cv-05027 CBM-AS
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
CLASS ACTION; INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF AND DAMAGES
42 U.S.C. § 1983: FIRST, FOURTH

AND FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENTS; CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, §§
2 (FREEDOM OF SPEECH), 3
(RIGHT OF PETITION AND
ASSEMBLY), 7 (DUE PROCESS)
13 (SEARCH AND SEIZURE), 19
(CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT;
CIVIL CODE § 52.1; PENAL CODE
§853.5; GOVT. CODE §815.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

DEFENDANTS.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 2 of 59 Page ID #:96

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Carol A. Sobel, SBN 84483
Katherine Robinson SBN 323470
Weston Rowland SBN 327599
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401
t. 310 393-3055
e. carolsobel@aol.com
e. klrobinsonlaw@gmail.com
e. rowland.weston@gmail.com
Colleen Flynn, SBN 234281
LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
Los Angeles, CA 90010
t. 213 252-9444
r. 213 252-0091
e. cflynn@yahoo.com

Jorge Gonzalez SBN 100799
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2485 Huntington Dr., Ste. 238
SAN MARINO, CA 91108-2622
t. 626 328-3081
e. jgonzalezlawoffice@gmail.com
Olu Orange SBN 213653
Orange Law Offices
3435 Wilshire BLvd., Ste. 2910
LOS ANGELES, CA. 90010-2015
T. 213 736-9900
f. 213 417-8800
e. o.orange@orangelawoffices.com

Matthew Strugar, SBN 232951
LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
Los Angeles, CA 90039
t. 323 696-2299
e. matthewstrugar@gmail.com

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 3 of 59 Page ID #:97

1
2

I.

INTRODUCTION
1.

This action arises out of protests across the nation following the murder

3

of George Floyd by Minneapolis Police Department officers. The events in

4

Minneapolis, soon after the deaths of Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery, brought

5

out millions of people around the country at once to condemn the deaths of black

6

and brown men and women by law enforcement and vigilantes condoned by local

7

law enforcement. Some of the larger demonstrations in the country occurred in the

8

Los Angeles area. Over the course of six days, the Los Angeles Police Department

9

arrested approximately 3000 individuals. Defendant Chief Moore told the public that

10

well more than 92 percent of those arrested were engaged in peaceful protest. 1

11

Nonetheless, the Los Angeles Police Department ended the protests through the use

12

of force (batons and rubber bullets), and imposed unconstitutional conditions of

13

confinement on arrestees by holding them on enclosed buses for up to six hours or

14

longer, tightly handcuffed, without access to bathroom facilities, food or water.

15

2.

On the buses, arrestees were seated just inches apart, with windows

16

closed and with no ventilation (significantly compounding the potential of exposure

17

to Covid-19). In hundreds of cases, the LAPD made false arrests where the charges

18

filed were solely infractions for which custodial authority does not exist.

19

3.

The LAPD also used unreasonable and unnecessary force directly

20

against residents of Skid Row, both housed and unhoused, and caught them in the

21

crossfire of attacks on protestors through indiscriminate and improper use of kinetic

22

impact projectiles. Perhaps no image embodies this more than the photograph of a

23

homeless man in a wheelchair on Skid Row. He was shot in the head at close range

24

when police fired large projectiles while chasing a small group of protestors.

25
26
27
28

https://ktla.com/news/lapd-arrests-more-than-2700-people-amidprotests-chief/
1

1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 4 of 59 Page ID #:98

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

4.

13

The Plaintiffs’ injuries caused by the use of so-called “rubber bullets”

14

are strong evidence in this instance that the training of the LAPD in the use of these

15

potentially lethal weapons was absent, seriously deficient, or intentionally

16

indifferent to the known serious harm that can result from the use and misuse of

17

kinetic impact projectiles (KIPs). The force of KIPS can cause serious organ injuries

18

and death, especially when the point of impact is the head, neck, and torso. 2 The

19

injuries of just the few plaintiffs identified by name in this class action demonstrate

20

this finding. Several required surgery for head wounds.
5.

21

All told, approximately 3000 LAPD arrests followed by the above

22

described bus detentions occurred over six nights from May 29 to June 3. On May

23

29, the protests began at the LAPD headquarters at First and Main Streets. The police

24

fired Kinetic Impact Projectiles (“KIPs”) at the protestors, causing many in the group

25
26
27
28

Haar RJ, et al. BMJ Open 2017;7:e018154. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017018154

2

2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 5 of 59 Page ID #:99

1

to leave and march through downtown’s jewelry district before circling back to the

2

LAPD headquarters. At about 9:30 p.m., an unlawful assembly was declared,

3

resulting in 533 arrests that night, mostly for failure to disperse, but only after first

4

using chemical irritants against the protestors. See “Arrests During George Floyd

5

Protests Swell to Near 3000 in L.A. County; Many are Locals,” Los Angeles Times

6

June 2, 2020: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-02-george-floyd-

7

protests-los-angeles-arrests-locals.

8

6.

On May 30, 2020, most of the arrests occurred in the Fairfax area,

9

following a peaceful rally organized by BLM LA. When the rally ended in the early

10

afternoon, many of the participants continued peaceful protests, marching

11

throughout the Fairfax area, along Beverly and other streets. Throughout the area,

12

heavily armed officers, several lines deep at times, used unwarranted and unlawful

13

force to kettle and arrest the protestors. Most of the protestors followed orders yelled

14

at them by the officers but each time they moved in the direction that they were told

15

to move, they soon found no avenue to disperse. They were kettled, targeted with

16

impact projectiles and struck with batons as they were ordered to move back.

17

Surrounded by officers, there was nowhere for them to move. Defendant Chief

18

MOORE was on site and spoke to the kettled protestors twice, although his words

19

were inaudible to most of the trapped protestors. Chief Moore authorized, approved,

20

and ratified the unwarranted assault on the protestors with projectiles and batons.

21

Alternatively, he did nothing to stop the assault on the protestors as he witnessed it.

22

7.

On Sunday, May 31, nearly 700 individuals were arrested, with many

23

subjected to unlawful force, primarily in downtown Los Angeles. See Los Angeles

24

Times June 2, 2020, available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-

25

02-george-floyd-protests-los-angeles-arrests-locals. Of that total, approximately 10

26

percent were for property crimes, primarily looting. Tens of thousands of

27

demonstrators started a march from Pershing Square. While few arrests were made

28
3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 6 of 59 Page ID #:100

1

during the day, at approximately 5:45 p.m., the LAPD advised the assembled

2

protestors that a curfew would go into effect at 6 p.m. and they would be arrested.
8.

3

On June 1, nearly 600 individuals were arrested in Hollywood, with

4

only 20 or so charged with property crimes, such as looting. Earlier in the day, the

5

LAPD put out a news release “requesting” residents of the City not to come to

6

Hollywood that evening. Shortly before 4 p.m., the City announced the curfew that

7

night would begin at 5 p.m. instead of at 6 p.m. as on previous nights. Barely an hour

8

later, a mobile alert was sent out, announcing the curfew would, in fact, start at 6

9

p.m. Despite the correction, the police began arrests at 5 p.m. In addition to

10

Hollywood, about 100 individuals were arrested on June 1 in a protest in Van Nuys.
9.

11

Mass arrests occurred on the evening of June 2, when approximately

12

1000 protestors assembled outside Mayor Garcetti’s Hancock Park home,

13

demanding that the Mayor’s budget defund the police.

14

participants in the protest outside the residence split up, with groups marching away

15

peacefully to the north and south. They were followed and soon kettled by the police,

16

then arrested. Approximately 120 individuals were arrested at about 8 p.m. in the

17

vicinity of Crenshaw Avenue and 8th Street on curfew violation charges, only

18

enforceable as an infraction under the Los Angeles Municipal Code.
10.

19
20

After a few hours,

The chart at footnote 3 lists some central arrest events and rough

estimates for each. 3

21
22
23
24

3

DATE

AREA

# ARRESTED

25

May 29

Downtown LA

533

26

May 30

Downtown LA

398

27

May 31

Pan Pacific Park/Fairfax

700

28

June 1

Hollywood

585

4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 7 of 59 Page ID #:101

1

11.

On May 29, the third day of protests, protestors blocked the 101

2

freeway in downtown and engaged LAPD officers who responded. At 9:30 p.m.

3

Defendants declared nearly all of downtown LA an “unlawful assembly” and

4

imposed an immediate curfew for the area from the 10 freeway to the 101 freeway,

5

and from the 110 freeway to Alameda. The curfew was announced on the LAPD and

6

Mayor Garcetti Twitter accounts, and at Mayor Garcetti’s press conference.4

7

12.

On Twitter, the LAPD wrote: “This [curfew order] is being made

8

following repeated acts of violence and property damage. Residents should stay

9

inside. Business should close. Those on the street are to leave the area.” This was

10
11
12

June 2

13
14

Mayor’s home

200

4

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I.Mayor Eric Garcetti @MayorOfLA
We will always protect free speech and Angelenos’ right to live without fear of
violence or vandalism. To increase safety for demonstrators, law enforcement
and all citizens of Los Angeles, we are...
pscp.tv
https://www.pscp.tv/w/caGHiDExMTkzNjN8MWVhS2JRV21lcEJ4WLAxZ0Dzz2iobDlWBufDWNeHPcCb-7O-UR_4tQbozv4 …

5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 8 of 59 Page ID #:102

1

inadequate notice as it is unlikely that all, most or even many of the 10 million

2

residents of the City follow the LAPD on Twitter.

3

13.

In a similar vein, the May 31 curfew, preemptively declaring all of

4

downtown to be an “unlawful assembly,” was announced in a news release posted

5

on lapdonline.org. See http://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom/news_view/66585.

6

California Penal Code §407 defines an unlawful assembly as two or more people

7

who come together to do “an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act in a “violent,

8

boisterous or tumultuous” manner. To comply with the First Amendment, the

9

California Supreme Court construed this statute narrowly to apply only to assemblies

10

that are “violent or pose a clear and present danger of imminent violence.” In re

11

Brown, 9 Cal.3d 612, 623 (1973). Defendants could not preempt all public

12

assemblies in downtown on the actions of a few at other locations and other times.

13

14.

On June 1, the LAPD posted a news release on the its website, issuing

14

a “request” to the public to stay away from the Hollywood Area. See

15

http://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom/news_view/66592.

16

15.

The curfew in place from the night of June 2 to the morning of June 3

17

was also announced in a press release posted on the LAPD website. See

18

http://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom/news_view/66598.

19

16.

Although public outcry regarding the LAPD’s/City’s unlawful protest

20

suppression tactics resulted in the cessation of such conduct, nothing guarantees that

21

it will not resume. Resumption of this unlawful conduct is a serious risk confirmed

22

by the fact that this was not the first time that the LAPD has engaged in these tactics,

23

even after committing on prior occasions not to engage in such conduct. See Los

24

Angeles Times, June 15, 2020 (“LAPD Violence Against George Floyd Protests

25

Erodes Decades of Reform”). https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-

26

14/lapd-protest-history-criticism-heavy-tactics.

27
28

17.

Over the course of the last several decades, the Defendant City has

been sued repeatedly for many of the same tactics challenged herein, including
6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 9 of 59 Page ID #:103

1

kettling (i.e., corralling) protestors before declaring an unlawful assembly and

2

blocking all exit routes, excessive force with batons and rubber bullets, and

3

prolonged handcuffing and improper conditions of confinement for arrestees. The

4

day after George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis, the City of Los Angeles paid a

5

settlement of $750,000 for a lawsuit raising many of the same violations in the

6

protests after the Ferguson Grand Jury decision not to indict the officer who shot and

7

killed Michael Brown. See Chua v. City of Los Angeles, 16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS (C.D.

8

Ca.). By kettling the demonstrators, detaining them tightly handcuffed on buses for

9

hours, without access to bathrooms, water or food, and through other conduct

10

detailed below, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ federal and state constitutional rights.

11

18.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims

12

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights

13

jurisdiction). This Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory or injunctive relief

14

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.

15

19.

Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28

16

U.S.C. § 1391, as all Defendants and events giving rise to the claims herein occurred

17

in the Central District of California.

18
19

II. PARTIES - PLAINTIFFS

20

A.

ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFFS:

21

20.

Plaintiff BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES (“BLMLA”) is

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

part of a nationwide organization with chapters in many major cities, including Los
Angeles. The organization originated in Los Angeles with demonstrations on July
13, 2013, the date George Zimmerman was acquitted of killing teenager Trayvon
Martin in Florida.
21.

BLMLA is one of the largest and most active chapters of the

organization, with nearly 500 active members and organized ally groups, including
7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 10 of 59 Page ID #:104

1

White People for Black Lives. In response to the death of George Floyd, BLMLA

2

sponsored protests in Los Angeles and participated in demonstrations organized by

3

other groups. On average, BLMLA sponsors four actions a week. Defendants’

4

actions interfered with BLMLA’s right to assembly and speech. BLMLA plans to

5

assist, plan, participate in, hold similar events in the future, on its own or in

6

conjunction with others, and is fearful that the same unlawful police actions in

7

response to these and similar protests of institutional racism and police brutality will

8

be repeated absent injunctive relief to prohibit the LAPD’s practices, policies, and

9

customs that caused the unlawful action in response to the recent protests.

10

22.

In response to the murder of George Floyd, BLMLA organized protests

11

in Los Angeles. One such action was held at Pan Pacific Park in Los Angeles on

12

Saturday, May 30, 2020. During the course of this protest and others over the past

13

week, while BLMLA and its members were engaged in lawful First Amendment

14

activity, the LAPD used force to terminate the protests, including the indiscriminate

15

use of so-called “less lethal” weapons that caused injury to its members and instilled

16

fear in them that, if they chose to assemble in public spaces to express their

17

opposition to police violence across the nation against black men and women, they

18

would be the subject of such violence and arrest.

19

23.

Plaintiff CANGRESS, dba Los Angeles Community Action Network

20

(LA CAN), is a grassroots non-profit organization in Skid Row for approximately

21

two decades. More than 800 low-income residents of Skid Row are involved with

22

LA CAN, many of whom are unsheltered each night. In addition, individuals such

23

as Plaintiff SHENTU are members and supporters of the organization. The primary

24

purpose of the organization is to organize and empower community residents to

25

work collectively to address systemic poverty and oppression in the community.

26

Since its founding in 1999, LA CAN has been the only member-driven organization

27

in Skid Row whose goal is to protect the rights and prevent the further

28

disenfranchisement of homeless and poor people in Los Angeles. LA CAN brings
8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 11 of 59 Page ID #:105

1

this action on behalf of its members and associates who have been arrested and/or

2

subjected to the use of less-lethal weapons and other tactics aimed at shutting down

3

public spaces over the past 10 days by City employees and agents pursuant to the

4

enforcement policies, practices and customs of the City. As a result of Defendants’

5

unlawful actions, LA CAN has expended personnel resources to try and prevent at-

6

risk individuals from being subjected to these unlawful policies, assist those who

7

have been physically injured by these unlawful policies, and assist their members

8

and associates to be safe from police actions.

9

B.

MAY 29 ARRESTS AND FORCE PLAINTIFFS

10

24.

Plaintiff STEVEN ROE participated in a peaceful protest in downtown

11

Los Angeles at or about the intersection of Temple and Spring Streets, near City Hall.

12

Around 9:00 that night, ROE observed the police form a line and begin pushing the

13

protestors toward City Hall. Approximately 100-200 people were assembled. The

14

crowd moved in compliance with the police orders, but each time the demonstrators

15

did so, they were met by other lines of police officers that blocked them. The

16

demonstrators realized that they were being herded by the police into a confined

17

space as a group and completely surrounded by officers. ROE and others asked to

18

leave the demonstration but were refused by the officers at the scene.

19

25.

ROE observed a single bottle thrown at the police from behind him.

20

The police made no effort to isolate that one individual. Instead, the officers

21

advanced more aggressively toward the demonstrators. An officer took aim at ROE

22

and shot him in the stomach with kinetic impact projectile. ROE did not present a

23

threat to and was walking backward facing the officers when he was struck. The

24

KIP struck with such force that it broke the skin and caused a deep and very painful

25

injury. Two weeks after being hit, ROE still has a welt under the skin.

26

26.

At approximately 9:45 p.m., the LAPD announced that everyone in the

27

group should sit down on the ground. Before this, ROE heard no announcement to

28

disperse and all requests to the LAPD to leave were ignored or denied for 45 minutes.
9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 12 of 59 Page ID #:106

1

ROE later learned that, at about 9:35 p.m., the LAPD tweeted a declaration of an

2

unlawful assembly order. ROE does not follow the LAPD on Twitter, and besides,

3

he and more than 100 others were already kettled when the “unlawful assembly”

4

was declared on Twitter. ROE and the others were handcuffed behind their backs

5

with plastic zip ties that were very tight and caused a lot of pain and discomfort.

6

After waiting for buses to transport the group to a jail facility, they were loaded onto

7

buses and held in close contact with each other. They were driven to a location just

8

a few blocks away and could have walked there faster without extending the time

9

that they were handcuffed or creating congregate conditions on the buses that

10

increased the exposure to COVID-19. During the entire time they were in custody

11

they were not provided with any water or given access to a bathroom. ROE and

12

others asked for the zip ties to be removed because of the pain but their persistent

13

requests were ignored or refused. In all, ROE spent 2 hours and 15 minutes

14

handcuffed. His fingers were numb, and he had visible injuries from the zip ties.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

27.

Plaintiff NELSON LOPEZ participated in a peaceful protest in front

25

of Los Angeles City Hall at First and Spring Street in downtown Los Angeles on the

26

evening of May 29, 2020. At approximately 7:30 p.m., he arrived at City Hall. The

27

crowd was very peaceful, with some children holding signs. LOPEZ soon observed

28

a line of officers form around the group on all sides, blocking anyone from leaving.
10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 13 of 59 Page ID #:107

1

28.

LOPEZ never heard a dispersal order. A helicopter flew over the

2

crowd, making it hard to hear. At some point, the group was told to sit on the ground

3

because they were being arrested. After about 40 minutes, LAPD officers informed

4

them that they would be issued a citation, like a traffic ticket. While seated, LOPEZ

5

called his mother, a nurse who worked nearby. After ending her 12-hour shift, she

6

came to get him on her way home. She was trapped by the LAPD and arrested.

7

29.

It took about two to three hours for everyone in the group trapped at

8

City Hall to be handcuffed. Some homeless people were also swept up in these

9

arrests. Some detainees were screaming because of the tight handcuffs. Others were

10

upset because, after the officers told the group that they would only be cited and

11

release, they were now handcuffed and taken into custody.

12

30.

LOPEZ estimates that approximately several hundred people were in

13

the group arrested with him. Once handcuffed, they were loaded onto buses and

14

held in close contact with each other. They were taken to what appeared to be a

15

police garage just a few blocks from City Hall. However, LOPEZ sat on the bus

16

for approximately 45 minutes, waiting for the bus to enter the garage. When

17

LOPEZ entered the garage, he observed approximately 1,000 people inside being

18

processed. He also observed more buses arriving at the location.

19

31.

LOPEZ’s handcuffs were very tight, bruising his wrists and injuring

20

his shoulder (rotator cuff). He asked an officer to loosen the handcuffs but was told

21

they could not do so because they did not have sufficient replacement zip ties.

22

LOPEZ heard multiple, if not most, of the arrestees complain about tight handcuffs.

23

He did not see anyone’s handcuffs loosened in response to these complaints. He

24

was not released until approximately 3:30 a.m. He was held in handcuffs for several

25

hours in the garage before being issued a citation for a violation of LAMC 80.02

26

(“obedience to an officer”), which is only punishable as an infraction.

27
28
11
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 14 of 59 Page ID #:108

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

C.

MAY 30 ARRESTS AND FORCE PLAINTIFFS

32.

Plaintiff TINA ČRNKO attended the Black Lives Matter Los Angeles

rally at Pan Pacific Park on May 30, 2020, arriving at approximately 12:30 p.m. At
approximately 1 p.m., some of the participants began marching peacefully toward
the Beverly Center. After another two hours without incident, the group split into
three groups. One group was protesting near the intersection of 3rd Street and
Edinburgh peacefully. Plaintiff ČRNKO was part of that group.
33.

Sometime before 5:30 p.m., Defendant MOORE arrived and spoke to

the group; however, he could not be heard over the protestors as he lacked adequate
amplification equipment that would allow him to be heard. At that time, additional
officers, wearing riot gear and brandishing more weapons, arrived on the scene.
Eventually, several lines of officers in riot gear kettled the group on all sides,
preventing everyone from leaving.
34.

A short time after Moore spoke to the group, ČRNKO observed

protestors running east on 3rd Street, followed by a swarm of LAPD officers. About
30 minutes later, the demonstrators marched south and were able to leave the kettling
when Chief MOORE directed the officers on the south to allow people to exit.

28
12
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 15 of 59 Page ID #:109

1

35.

ČRNKO then marched to the northeast corner of the intersection of 3rd

2

and Fairfax. She observed ever increasing number of LAPD officers arrive at the

3

intersection attired in riot gear, heavily armed and forming what appeared to be an

4

impenetrable wall of officers at least 10 deep stretching across a wide area.

5

36.

Once again, Chief Moore appeared, this time in riot gear, and

6

addressed the crowd but, once again, he could not be heard because of the poor

7

quality of the amplification equipment he used.

8

37.

At about 6:00 p.m., plaintiff observed what appeared to be some

9

panicked protestors running east on 3rd Street, followed by a large number of LAPD

10

officers moving behind them and coming toward the area where ČRNKO was

11

assembled. She began moving east, as well, but soon realized that was not an

12

available option. Soon after that, she observed a line of officers coming toward the

13

group from the west.

14

38.

At approximately 6:25 p.m., she heard shots being fired. She was hit in

15

the left bicep and ribcage by KIPs. As the group she was with moved east, the

16

officers fired KIPs at them, including small projectiles colloquially referred to as

17

“rubber bullets.” She was struck on the forehead above her right eye, causing a

18

temporary hearing loss and extreme pain. She was bleeding profusely. With officers

19

continuing to advance on the group, she could not get help from a medic on site.

20

The resulting wound required seven stitches. She still suffers nerve damage in the

21

area of impact.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 16 of 59 Page ID #:110

1

39.

Plaintiff JONATHAN MAYORCA is a journalist for an independent

2

media. On May 30, 2020, along with two crew members, he was filming a peaceful

3

demonstration on Beverly Boulevard in the Fairfax area of Los Angeles. He

4

observed LAPD officers begin to form a line and push back everyone in the area of

5

the protest. Mr. MAYORCA soon realized he was trapped by the officers, and they

6

were kettling the group of protestors he was with toward an alley. His press badge

7

was clearly visible, but the LAPD officers ignored his attempts to show his press

8

credentials and continued pushing the entire group toward the alley, surrounding

9

them and refusing all requests to leave. MAYORCA did not hear a dispersal order

10
11

and was not given an opportunity to leave before he was arrested.
40.

Once in the alley area, MAYORCA was ordered to stop filming and to

12

sit on the ground. The LAPD forced him to the ground, breaking his camera. He was

13

handcuffed tightly with zip ties, causing pain and discomfort. He was then stood up

14

against a wall. After the entire group was handcuffed, they were moved into a van,

15

sitting close together. Others in the same arrest group were protestors, whom

16

MAYORCA had filmed engaging in a peaceful protest.

17

41.

After about thirty minutes, the group was driven to the Van Nuys station,

18

a considerable distance away. At the station, Mr. MAYORCA was issued a citation

19

for failing to obey lawful orders, LAMC 80.02, which is expressly and only

20

chargeable as an infraction pursuant to the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

21

42.

MAYORCA was handcuffed tightly for approximately two hours and

22

15 minutes. His repeated requests to remove or loosen the handcuffs because of the

23

pain were ignored. During the entire time that the group was handcuffed, they were

24

denied access to a bathroom or water.

25

43.

Plaintiff ABIGAIL RODAS participated in a peaceful event organized

26

by BLM LA in the Fairfax area on May 30, 2020 of Los Angeles to protest the

27

murder of George Floyd. She was walking on Beverly Boulevard near LaCienega

28
14
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 17 of 59 Page ID #:111

1

Boulevard when the protestors were met by a line of LAPD officers, who began to

2

push them back.

3

44.

Although there had been no dispersal order, RODAS and a friend

4

decided to leave the protest at that point and began walking toward her car when an

5

officer began shooting projectiles at them. She was struck in the face by a projectile

6

and momentarily lost consciousness. She fell to the ground, bleeding. Someone

7

drove her to nearby Cedar Sinai Hospital, where she was quickly taken to surgery.

8

When she arrived at the hospital, she was unable to talk. She was diagnosed with a

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

severe fracture to her right mandible and underwent surgery. Stitches were required
on both the inside and outside of her mouth to close the lacerations, and a steel plate
was used to repair the fractured jawbone. RODAS spent two days in the hospital on
Monday afternoon and has been recuperating at home since. She was unable to talk
for about 10 days. For one week, she could only drink liquids and is still on a soft
food diet. Nearly three weeks after the injury, she has screws in her gums and rubber
bands to immobilize her jaw while the bones rejoin.

28
15
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 18 of 59 Page ID #:112

1

45.

Plaintiff KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD participated in a peaceful protest

2

in the Fairfax area of Los Angeles on the afternoon of May 30, 2020. She is

3

employed in the Artist Management department of a Los Angeles media company.

4

When the protestors were near the Trader Joe’s on Third Street and Fairfax Avenue,

5

HARTSFIELD observed officers begin to physically direct the movement of the

6

group of protesters. A short time thereafter, at around 3:30 p.m., she heard a dispersal

7

order made by the LAPD. At the point the dispersal order was given, the group was

8

directed to leave through the alleyway next to the Trader Joe’s. HARTSFIELD

9

complied and began to leave the area and was walking way when she heard an officer

10

say “don’t let them leave.” An officer then grabbed her and pulled her from behind,

11

and other officers surrounded her in front. As they did this, one of the other female

12

protesters grabbed her hand and repeatedly said, “don’t round her up – don’t round

13

her up” but the officers pulled her away and pushed HARTSFIELD into the parking

14

lot near the alley.

15

46.

HARTSFIELD and the others were handcuffed and lined up on Third

16

Street where they remained, tightly handcuffed, for approximately two hours while

17

they waited to be transported. The group was then put in a van, seated closely

18

together, and taken to Van Nuys. Despite repeated requests to loosen their handcuffs,

19

they remained very tightly handcuffed throughout, causing considerable pain. In all,

20

she was handcuffed for approximately six hours before her release.

21

47.

HARTSFIELD was not released until approximately 10:30 p.m. She

22

heard LAPD officers warn those released that if they remained in front of the station,

23

they would be rearrested for violating the curfew, which went into effect at 8:30 that

24

night. She was fortunate that family members arrived at the station to take her home.

25

48.

Plaintiff NADIA KHAN participated in the rally organized by Black

26

Lives Matter Los Angeles at Pan Pacific Park on May 30, 2020, in the Fairfax area.

27

She arrived there at approximately 11 a.m. At around noon, the rally concluded and

28

the protesters left the park and began a march.
16
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 19 of 59 Page ID #:113

1

49.

When the march neared the intersection of 3rd and Fairfax, KHAN

2

observed lines of police in riot gear. KHAN observed the officers shoot projectiles

3

at the group, although she not hit at this time.

4

50.

The march continued north on Fairfax to Beverly Boulevard where it

5

met up with a large group of young people. KHAN marched with them to the

6

Beverly Center and back on Beverly Boulevard toward Fairfax. When the marchers

7

neared Beverly and Fairfax, the police deployed a chemical irritant that made

8

KHAN’s eyes burn and tear up. In addition, the gas got into her lungs, making her

9

cough. At or about the same time, the police were also shooting small pellet-like

10

impact projectiles at the group. She was hit in the legs, but because she was not close

11

to the police and was wearing jeans, she did not suffer serious injury.

12

51.

KHAN continued with the peaceful protestors north on Fairfax towards

13

Melrose. The police kettled the group there at about 7:45 p.m.

14

approximately 100 people detained at this location. All of the demonstrators were

15

handcuffed behind their back with zip ties. KHAN’s zip ties were very tight and

16

caused pain. She asked the officers to loosen the zip ties but was ignored. The

17

arrestees were loaded on to two crowded buses. KHAN was wearing both a mask

18

and goggles to protect against exposure to COVID-19 contagions but most of the

19

officers and some of the detainees did not have masks.

20

52.

There were

The group was taken to Wilshire Division on Venice Boulevard and

21

cited for a violation of LAMC 80.02, an infraction. KHAN was released about

22

midnight. She was handcuffed for approximately four hours, leaving her wrists sore

23

and painful for several days.

24

53.

Plaintiff CLARA ARANOVICH is a filmmaker in Los Angeles. On

25

May 30, 2020, she participated in a peaceful demonstration in the Fairfax district

26

following a rally in Pan Pacific Park organized by Black Lives Matter Los Angeles.

27

ARONOVICH arrived in the vicinity between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. and observed

28
17
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 20 of 59 Page ID #:114

1

a group of protestors gathered at the intersection of Fairfax Avenue and 3rd Street.

2

She also observed a line of police officers across the street from the protestors.

3

54.

Just before 6:00 p.m., ARANOVICH observed Defendant Moore

4

addressed the protestors. Initially, he spoke to the protestors without amplification,

5

making it nearly impossible to hear what he was saying. He then used an

6

amplification device that someone handed to him, but it was still difficult to hear

7

him over the crowd noise. ARANOVICH did not hear Chief MOORE or anyone

8

else make an unlawful assembly announcement, or that the protestors were required

9

to disperse. About 30 minutes after Chief MOORE spoke, the line of police officers

10

began to move the protestors back by using aggressive, physical force. As the

11

officers advanced, they used the ends of their batons to jab people with force in their

12

chest and abdomen area. Some of the officers hit protestors with their batons in an

13

overhand swinging motion. ARANOVICH was struck in her chest and abdomen

14

multiple times, with sufficient force to cause a painful bruise on her breast.

15

55.

As ARANOVICH left the protest, she was struck with a kinetic impact

16

projectile in the calf. This resulted in a painful welt and a bruise that was still visible

17

on her leg as of June 18, 2020, almost three weeks later.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 21 of 59 Page ID #:115

1
2

C.

3

56.

MAY 31 ARRESTS AND FORCE PLAINTIFFS (SKID ROW)
Plaintiff JEFFREY TROTTER is a 51-year-old African American

4

man and a resident of the Rosslyn Hotel on Skid Row. On Sunday, May 31, at about

5

5 p.m., TROTTER walked two blocks from the Rosslyn, at 5th and Main Streets, to

6

the RiteAid drug store at 5th and Broadway. The Rite Aid was closed, so he started

7

to walk back to the Rosslyn.

8

57.

When he neared 5th and Spring streets, he saw a line of LAPD officers

9

in riot gear. One officer, a white male, stepped toward him and asked where he was

10

going. Mr. TROTTER responded that he was walking home from the Rite Aid.

11

Without further discussion, the officer took a few steps back and shot Plaintiff with

12

hard rubber or foam projectiles at close range four times, once in the chest, twice in

13

the stomach, and once on the left hand. The projectile that hit his chest struck with

14

such force that it tore off skin in the shape of the projectile. The one that hit his hand

15

also tore off a chunk of skin about an inch long and half and an inch across.

16

58.

Mr. Trotter collapsed from the impact. As he lay on the ground, the

17

officers stepped over him and walked away. After a period of time, he was able to

18

walk the block back to the Rosslyn. When he arrived there, a friend called the

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 22 of 59 Page ID #:116

1

paramedics, who treated him there. He was in intense pain for more than a week and

2

two weeks later, his stomach, chest and hand are still swollen and bruised.

3

59.

Plaintiff ORLANDO HINKSTON, also known as “Cincinnati,” is

4

disabled and uses a wheelchair for mobility. He is a participant in LA CAN. He was

5

struck multiple in the head, shoulder and back by impact projectiles on Sunday, May

6

31, while sitting in his wheelchair near the Rosslyn Hotel on Skid Row. He was not

7

engaged in any protest and pleaded with police not to use force on him before being

8

shot multiple times. Two weeks after he was struck with projectiles, a red welt is

9

still visible on his shoulder.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

D.

June 1 Arrests And Force Plaintiffs

60.

Plaintiff ALEXANDER STAMM participated in a peaceful

25

demonstration in Hollywood on the afternoon of June 1, 2020. He arrived at

26

approximately 4 p.m. and was joined by his husband at around 5:30 p.m. While

27

marching, he saw the police block off streets, forcing protestors down side streets.

28
20
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 23 of 59 Page ID #:117

1

As the protestors moved down side streets in response to the lines of officers

2

blocking their march.

3
4
5

61.

STAMM observed that the police kettled the protestors in these side

streets so they could arrest them.
62.

Plaintiff STAMM smelled some chemical irritants in the air around the

6

protestors. He also observed someone hit with an impact projectile in the thigh.

7

Terrified by what was happening, STAMM and his husband decided to leave and

8

go home to their nearby apartment. At around 8 p.m., they started down Schrader

9

Boulevard because Wilcox was blocked by a police line. As STAMM walked down

10

Schrader, between Selma Avenue and Sunset Boulevard, the police blocked the

11

streets and surrounded the group he was walking with. Although he was only a few

12

blocks from his home, he was not permitted to leave.

13

63.

There were approximately 200 to 300 people in the group. All were

14

ordered by the police to get on their knees and put their hands behind their backs.

15

There were all handcuffed then. STAMM did not hear a dispersal order before being

16

ordered to get down on his knees.

17

64.

All the arrestees were loaded onto LASD buses, seated two to a bench

18

with no social distancing. Some people’s face masks had fallen down, but they could

19

not reposition the masks because they were handcuffed.

20

65.

The arrestees were driven from Hollywood to Jackie Robinson

21

Stadium, on the Veterans Administration property in West Los Angeles. The drive

22

from Hollywood took approximately 45 minutes. Once they arrived at the VA, they

23

were held on the buses for another two hours before their citations were processed

24

and they were released. They were taken off the closed bus only two at a time and

25

then lined up be processed. During all this time, he remained tightly handcuffed,

26

causing bruising on his wrists, and in an unventilated bus without social distancing

27

or masks.

28
21
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 24 of 59 Page ID #:118

1

66.

At about 1:00 a.m., STAMM’s handcuffs were finally removed and he

2

was told he was free to leave. To get home to Hollywood, STAMM had to take two

3

buses then walk approximately four miles to his apartment. He did not arrive home

4

until 2:30 a.m., long after the curfew went into effect.

5

67.

On June 1, 2020, Plaintiff MAIA KAZIM participated in a peaceful

6

demonstration on Spring St. near the intersection of 5th Street in downtown Los

7

Angeles. At about 6:30 p.m., LAPD officers blocked about 300 people from moving

8

north or south on Spring Street, forming a blockade at both ends of Spring Street.

9

Some people tried to leave through a parking lot on Spring, but police blocked them.

10

68.

KAZIM was at the front of the protestor group. Prior to the blockade

11

by the LAPD, she heard no dispersal order, or warning that the group was in violation

12

of a curfew order, or that they would be arrested if they did not leave the area.

13

69.

KAZIM was handcuffed with zip ties. About 15 minutes after that, she

14

was given a citation for a curfew violation but not released. Instead, the hundreds

15

of people in the group were loaded on to buses. Eventually, the arrestees were taken

16

from downtown Los Angeles to a UCLA parking lot. Once there, they were kept on

17

the buses from 7:30 until about 1:00 a.m., handcuffed behind their backs, with no

18

access to food, water or bathrooms. While on the bus, KAZIM observed a woman

19

on the bus in physical distress from a dislocated shoulder. Someone on the bus was

20

able to access their cell phone and called 911. The woman next to KAZIM was

21

panicking because she needed to take medication. Someone on the bus was able to

22

use their cell phone to call 911 for this woman, as well. Requests to the officers to

23

address these situations were ignored.

24

70.

When she was finally released, KAZIM asked an officer whether her

25

boyfriend would be violating the curfew if he picked her up. The officer responded

26

that it would be a violation of the law, but he should be fine. Uneasy with this

27

response, KAZIM did not want to risk arrest of her boyfriend, so she got a ride from

28

the friend of someone on the bus. She was handcuffed behind her back with plastic
22
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 25 of 59 Page ID #:119

1

zip-ties for more than seven hours until she was released at 1:00 a.m. The handcuffs

2

were painful and caused minor tenderness on both wrists for 2-3 days.

3

71.

Plaintiff ALICIA BARRERA-TRUJILLO also participated in a

4

peaceful protest in downtown Los Angeles on June 1, 2020. She arrived with her

5

younger sister and a friend at 5th and Grand, near the main public library, at

6

approximately 2:00 pm with her younger sister and friend. The crowd was very

7

peaceful and diverse, including families with children holding signs.

8

72.

At around 4:00 p.m., she started making plans to leave the area. Soon

9

thereafter, we received a text that the curfew for Los Angeles that night was 5:00

10

p.m. BARRERA-TRUJILLO was confused because she also received a text

11

informing her that the curfew was at 6:00 p.m.

12

73.

She attempted to leave the area shortly before 5:00 p.m. and observed

13

that the police had blocked off all exit streets. Police surrounded them on all sides,

14

making it impossible for anyone to exit the area. BARRERA-TRUJILLO began

15

to panic and observed that everyone around her also appeared to panic as officers

16

surrounded them.

17

providing notice and an opportunity to leave before the group was kettled. A

18

helicopter flew over the crowd, making it was very hard to hear.

19

74.

BARRERA-TRUJILLO never heard a dispersal order,

Once they were kettled, BARRERA-TRUJILLO saw some type of

20

rubber bullets being fired into the protest group. She also saw a police officer direct

21

some type of aerosol spray at a woman with a young child. The child was crying

22

and both the woman and the child appeared to be in pain from the effects of the spray.

23

75.

Approximately 500 people were in the group before it was split in half

24

to handcuff and process them. BARRERA-TRUJILLO was searched, handcuffed

25

and received her citation while detained on the street. She was then placed on a bus

26

and waited an hour for the bus to leave downtown. Ultimately, the arrestees were

27

driven to Westwood, near the National Cemetery.

28
23
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 26 of 59 Page ID #:120

1

76.

While on the bus, she saw several people who seemed to need medical

2

aide. There were no officers on the bus and no way to get their attention. One of

3

the arrestees was able to get out of her handcuffs and call for emergency assistance.

4

Only when the ambulances arrived did the police check on the arrestees on the bus.

5

Near plaintiff, one woman asked to use the bathroom but was denied by the officers.

6

When the woman was later taken off the bus, she urinated on herself.

7

77.

Once released, BARRERA-TRUJILLO and her sister had no way to

8

get home. Her cell phone was not charged. Several volunteers with the National

9

Lawyers Guild waited with them until they could arrange a ride home. BARRERA-

10

TRUJILLO was handcuffed from about 6:50 p.m. until 4:00 a.m. The tight

11

handcuffs cut into her wrists, stripping skin off and causing bleeding.

12

E.

JUNE 2 ARRESTS AND FORCE PLAINTIFFS

13

78.

Protests took place in several areas of the City throughout the day on

14

June 2, 2020. At Hollywood and Vine, a peaceful protest occurred mid-day with

15

approximately 30 people, most standing on Hollywood Boulevard and a smaller

16

group of about 10 people on Vine Street. Plaintiff SHANNON MOORE arrived

17

with a friend at the protest shortly before 3 p.m. Within about five minutes, she was

18

shot in the back of the head by a KIP. A tall male in the group threw a water bottle

19

at the police as she arrived. Rather than isolate and arrest him, the police shot her.

20

79.

Because MOORE saw the officer take aim at her head, she was able to

21

turn away so that she was struck in the back of the head. She was able to prevent

22

the projectile(s) from hitting her directly in her face and suffered much more serious

23

injury. She sought medical treatment and suffers intense headaches.

24
25
26
27
28
24
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 27 of 59 Page ID #:121

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

80.

Plaintiff DEVON YOUNG is a mental health therapist in Los Angeles.

On June 2, 2020, she participated in a large, peaceful demonstration outside Mayor
Eric Garcetti’s house on the corner of South Irving Blvd. and 6th Street in Windsor
Square. The protest was organized by Black Lives Matter Los Angeles to protest the
killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and the countless other
victims of police brutality and racism.
81.

YOUNG arrived at the protest at approximately 5:00 p.m. and

remained in the area until about 8:00 p.m. The group she was with then began
marching away from the Mayor’s home. While marching, the group was surrounded
and kettled by LAPD officers. No one was able to exit the group of about 100 people.
The officers pushed the group aggressively and silently toward Crenshaw and 8th
Street. Officers ignored the protestors’ pleas: “We want to leave. Let us go home!”
82.

Finally, at around 8:45 p.m., near the intersection of Crenshaw and 8th

Street, the officers announced that they were all under arrest. There was no dispersal
order. The officers did not inform them that they were going to be arrested for a
curfew violation before the arrests took place. All were handcuffed with their hands
behind their backs using zip-ties. YOUNG was handcuffed at about 9:45 p.m. The
officers separated the group into two lines – one for men and one for women. The
25
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 28 of 59 Page ID #:122

1

officers performed pat down searches that were intrusive and uncomfortable for

2

many of the women. In addition, most of the officers were not wearing masks and

3

came in close proximity to the women during the pat down.

4

83.

During the pat down searches, a transgender woman in the group was

5

separated from her female partner because she did not have female sex organs.

6

YOUNG asked an officer what was happening to her and he replied that she was

7

being placed in a holding area labeled “other” so she could be searched separately

8

for her own safety. She and her partner were frightened and upset by the separation.

9

84.

While handcuffed, YOUNG’s skirt was raised up such that her

10

underwear was exposed to the group and she had no ability to pull her skirt down

11

because she was handcuffed. She asked the officers if she could pull her skirt down

12

and they refused to let her do so. Only after she walked through the group with her

13

underwear completely exposed was she allowed to adjust her skirt. She was very

14

uncomfortable and felt humiliated.

15

85.

Approximately two hours after they were first detained and handcuffed,

16

the group was loaded onto a bus. The arrestees were forced to be close together,

17

many without masks. The handcuffs were very tight and uncomfortable. When

18

finally uncuffed, YOUNG had bruises and marks on her wrist from the handcuffs.

19

86.

The group was taken to a parking lot in Van Nuys where they were

20

processed and released with a citation for a violation of LAMC 80.02, a curfew

21

violation. Throughout the time they were detained, the arrestees were denied access

22

to bathrooms, water and food. For some of the women, this situation was

23

compounded by the inability to change their tampon.

24

87.

YOUNG was released in the middle of the night at 1:30 a.m. with no

25

ability to call for a ride or instruction on how to get home safely. A police officer

26

told them they would be rearrested if they did not go home immediately. Fortunately,

27

some volunteers arrived to give people a ride home.

28
26
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 29 of 59 Page ID #:123

1

88.

Plaintiff LINUS SHENTU is a long-time member of CANGRESS. On

2

the evening of June 2, 2020, he was participating in a peaceful protest in Hollywood,

3

near Sunset and Vine. When the protestors marched and reached Van Ness between

4

Melrose and Santa Monica Boulevards, SHENTU observed police starting to block

5

streets and kettle the protestors. The march was accompanied by a car caravan. From

6

a half a block away, SHENTU observed the police dragging people out of cars. All

7

around him, the marchers started running. SHENTU and his partner were able to

8

locate his partner’s sister, who had been in the car caravan, and jumped in her car.

9

Because the police had blocked off all of the streets, they could not leave the area.

10

To avoid arrest and be safe until they could safely drive home, they followed other

11

cars to the parking lot of a nearby apartment building.

12

89.

As they remained in their car, they observed a few officers enter the

13

parking lot and pull people out of their vehicles. The officers ordered SHENTU, his

14

partner and her sister out of their car, opened the rear passenger door where his

15

partner was seated and yanked her harshly by her arm. SHENTU voluntarily exited

16

the rear passenger seat. They were lined up on the side of the building with their

17

hands zip tied behind their backs. In all, approximately 30 individuals were arrested

18

at this one location and held at Elmwood and Van Ness for approximately one hour

19

while officers filled out Field Interview cards with their personal identifiers.

20

90.

After approximately one hour, Sheriff’s buses arrived to transport the

21

arrestees. They were driven to a makeshift processing center in Van Nuys at Roscoe

22

and Woodman. There were multiple buses at the location with arrestees who

23

appeared to SHENTU to be protestors. In all, SHENTU estimates that he was

24

detained, handcuffed tightly behind his back, for about four hours. SHENTU, his

25

partner and his partner’s sister experienced numbness, bruising and soreness from

26

the handcuffing and the force used to remove them from their vehicle. His partner

27

was pulled from the vehicle with such force that it caused bruises on her forearm.

28
27
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 30 of 59 Page ID #:124

1

91.

Defendants’ actions interfered with BLMLA’s right to assembly and

2

speech. BLMLA plans to assist, plan, participate in, hold similar events in the future,

3

on its own or in conjunction with others, and is fearful that police actions in response

4

to these and similar protests of sanctioned executions will be repeated absent

5

injunctive relief to prohibit the practices, policies, and customs of the LAPD that

6

resulted in the unlawful action in response to the recent protests throughout the City.

7

92.

Defendants’ actions also interfered with the work of Plaintiff

8

CANGRESS to advocate for racial and economic justice for the residents of Skid

9

Row, both housed and unhoused. Because Defendants indiscriminately arrested

10

individuals on Skid Row for violations of the curfew and assaulted them with less

11

lethal weapons, Plaintiff CANGRESS has had to shift its resources to protecting its

12

members and other residents of Skid Row from the unlawful conduct of the LAPD.

13

Plaintiff CANGRESS’ time in recent months was heavily focused on advocating for

14

and protecting a highly-vulnerable population for COVID-19 from the greater

15

likelihood of contracting and dying from the virus based on their poverty, underlying

16

medical conditions and race.

17

93.

The Plaintiff injunctive relief class includes all persons who

18

participated, or intend to exercise their First Amendment rights by participating, in

19

future demonstrations, in particular in protest against police violence and racism.

20

94.

The Plaintiff damages classes consist of: 1) approximately 3000

21

individuals who were arrested and subjected to excessively tight and prolonged

22

handcuffing, held on buses and in garages for extended periods of time, without

23

access to bathrooms, water or food when they engaged in the spontaneous protests

24

against a number of recent widely publicized police killings of civilians, the most

25

recent spark being the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota; 2)

26

several thousand individuals who were struck by so-called “rubber bullets” and/or

27

baton strikes administered without lawful justification and in a manner contrary to

28

proper use and inflicted maximum injury; 3) individuals charged solely with
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 31 of 59 Page ID #:125

1

infractions who were arrested and taken into custody rather than being released in

2

the field despite their right to field release.

3

II.

4

PARTIES-DEFENDANTS
95.

Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES is a municipal corporation duly

5

organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California.

6

The Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) is a local government entity and an

7

agency of Defendant City of Los Angeles, and all actions of the LAPD are the legal

8

responsibility of the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles is sued in its own

9

right on the basis of its policies, customs, and practices which gave rise to Plaintiffs’

10
11

federal rights claims.
96.

Defendant CHIEF MICHEL MOORE, is and was, at all times

12

relevant to this action, the LAPD police chief and a policymaker for his department.

13

He is sued in both his individual and official capacities.

14

97.

Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that Does 1

15

through 10 were the agents, servants, and employees of Defendants City of Los

16

Angeles and/or the LAPD. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of

17

Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue these

18

Defendant by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege

19

their true names and capacities when ascertained. The individual Doe Defendants

20

are sued in both their individual and official capacities.

21

98.

Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that at all times

22

relevant hereto Does 1 through 10, in addition to the named Defendants, are

23

responsible in some manner for the damages and injuries alleged herein.

24

99.

Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that at all times

25

relevant hereto Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and

26

employees of the other Defendants and were acting at all times within the scope of

27

their agency and employment and with the knowledge and consent of their principal

28

and employer. At all times Defendants were acting under color of state law.
29
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 32 of 59 Page ID #:126

1

100. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that the practices,

2

policies, and customs of the City of Los Angeles and/or the LAPD caused the

3

unlawful action taken against Plaintiffs.

4

III.

5

FACTS
101.

On May 25, 2020, Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin

6

murdered George Floyd, suspected of forgery for attempting to use a purported

7

counterfeit $20 bill. Officer Chauvin, along with two other officers, held Mr. Floyd

8

on the ground, handcuffed behind his back, and ignored pleas to get off his neck,

9

back and legs and let him breathe. Mr. Floyd died on the street in Minneapolis.

10

102. Because of extensive video by onlookers, security cameras and police

11

body cameras, both the Minneapolis law enforcement and prosecutors, as well as the

12

public, concluded that George Floyd was just the latest person to die at the hands of

13

police because of deliberate and unlawful tactics.

14

103. The death of George Floyd sparked an extraordinary wave of protests

15

across the country and the world. In Los Angeles, tens of thousands of people

16

participated in lawful and peaceful protests. Based on the alleged unlawful conduct

17

of a few, Defendants responded to these mass protests with expansive curfews and

18

mass arrests for curfew violation, failure to disperse, unlawful assembly, failure to

19

follow a “lawful” order of an officer, similar misdemeanors and infractions, all

20

designed to punish protestors. The routine and undifferentiated use of such

21

widespread arrest and dispersal tactics impinged the protestors’ right to engage in

22

protected expressive activity in public spaces without preemption and curtailment

23

based on group guilt.

24

104. California Penal Code § 409, which defines an unlawful assembly, has

25

repeatedly been construed to require a showing of imminent violence that so

26

permeates a lawful expressive activity that law enforcement may curtail the rights

27

of all demonstrators. Facts justifying the declaration of an unlawful assembly order

28

anywhere, let alone throughout the City, or even all of downtown Los Angeles in
30
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 33 of 59 Page ID #:127

1

advance of any expressive activity, did not exist. Instead, Chief MOORE and Mayor

2

Garcetti applied a ham-handed approach, announcing an unlawful assembly without

3

adequate notice and unlawfully employing indiscriminate, untargeted use of force,

4

silencing everyone.

5

105. Thousands of peaceful protestors, the arrest class of Plaintiffs (defined

6

further on), were transported to LAPD jails and make-shift detention sites around

7

the City. All those arrested were held on buses for extended periods of time before

8

being off-loaded into garages and parking lots to be cited and released. Because there

9

was no plan for processing mass arrests and despite the fact that the City has

10

repeatedly been sued for the same unlawful policy and practice, many arrestees were

11

held on the buses and driven around the City for long periods of time in close contact

12

in unventilated buses - handcuffed and without any bathroom access - in search of a

13

location where they could be processed and released. As a result, arrestees for

14

infractions and misdemeanors were driven to far distant locations in the City and,

15

after processing, released in the middle of the night without their property and with

16

no way to get home, all the while being out during a time of curfew and risking

17

rearrest if detained again by the LAPD.

18

106. Throughout the time they were arrested and held in LAPD custody,

19

Plaintiffs were handcuffed tightly behind their backs and denied food, water and

20

access to bathroom facilities, resulting in many arrestees urinating on themselves in

21

the closed buses. All arrestees, regardless of the alleged crime, were unnecessarily

22

and unreasonably confined in close, enclosed quarters without any ventilation,

23

increasing the risk of COVID-19 exposure. It is well known and was, or should have

24

been known to Defendants, that being in closed spaces without vigorous air

25

movement significantly increases the risk of COVID-19 exposure. Moreover, both

26

the City and the Defendant MOORE were well aware of the increased risk of

27

COVID-19 exposure because 1) of the institution of $0 bail for low-level offenses

28

and 2) the City and LAPD’s involvement in mitigation efforts for COVID-19 for
31
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 34 of 59 Page ID #:128

1

individuals in congregate spaces, including the temporary placement of unhoused

2

individuals at the City’s recreation centers. All members of the arrest class (defined

3

in ¶ 123a) were held in restraint for a minimum of three hours, with some held more

4

than 12 hours in these excruciatingly painful conditions from the time they were first

5

handcuffed. The class members experienced numbness in their hands and requests

6

to loosen the zip ties or remove them went unanswered. Without access to bathrooms,

7

arrestees were forced to urinate on themselves.

8

107.

The harm caused by this practice is well-established. The Ninth Circuit

9

has long recognized that tight handcuffs for even relatively short period of time less

10

than an hour can cause significant pain and damage. For more than a quarter of a

11

century, law enforcement in California have “been on notice that abusive

12

handcuffing can amount to excessive force and no officer could reasonable believe

13

it is proper to fail to assist arrestees who complain that their handcuffs are too tight”.

14

See e.g., Alexander v. County of Los Angeles, 64 F.3d 1315, 1323 (9th Cir. 1995).5

15

108.

Arrestees were uniformly held under these unlawful conditions of

16

confinement despite the fact that, to address the COVID-19 pandemic, California

17

currently has a $0 bail for any misdemeanor where the bail would be less than

18

$50,000. The prolonged detention of the arrest class is even more unjustified in light

19

of the California Penal Code § 853.6, which permits individuals suspected of a

20

misdemeanor violation to be cited and released promptly, in the field or after

21

booking, unless one of a limited number of restrictions apply.

22
23

109.

Applying § 853.6, in 2013 the Los Angeles Police Commission

conducted a research project that demonstrated that it took an officer approximately

24
25
26
27
28

JJ Payne-James, “Restraint Techniques, Injuries, and Death:
Handcuffs” Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine, Volume 4 (December
2016): Lists studies of neurology injuries caused by handcuffing.
5

32
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 35 of 59 Page ID #:129

1

15 minutes to prepare a cite and release in the field with a Notice to Appear; 45

2

minutes to transport an individual to the station and prepare a “short-form” booking

3

document, cite and release the individual with a Notice to Appear; and two and one-

4

half hours to complete a “long-form” booking document. As a result of this review,

5

a directive was issued to follow the cite-and-release option, while reserving

6

individual discretion to book and release at the station. On information and belief,

7

in this instance the LAPD elected to transport every arrestee, regardless of the

8

offense, to a “station” for booking, even though many, if not nearly all, were

9

processed outside of a building and simply cited and released at that location. This

10
11

was done to punish demonstrators for their protest activity.
110. A large number of individuals in this instance, as many as 1,000 or more,

12

were arrested on infractions. They were handcuffed and many had their citations

13

prepared on site and put in their pockets. Instead of releasing them once the citation

14

was completed, all were held on buses and booked, in violation of Cal. Penal Code

15

§ 853.5, which imposes a mandatory requirement to release infraction arrestees on

16

their own recognizance in the field. (“ In all cases, except as specified in Sections

17

40302, 40303, 40305, and 40305.5 of the Vehicle Code, in which a person is arrested

18

for an infraction, a peace officer shall only require the arrestee to present his or her

19

driver’s license or other satisfactory evidence of his or her identity for examination

20

and to sign a written promise to appear contained in a notice to appear…. Only if the

21

arrestee refuses to sign a written promise, has no satisfactory identification, or

22

refuses to provide a thumbprint or fingerprint may the arrestee be taken into

23

custody”). All those arrested and charged with infractions were denied the citation

24

release process guaranteed by § 853.5, which creates a liberty interest for such

25

arrestees to be released in the field so long as they provide sufficient identification

26

and agree to sign a written notice to appear. The infraction arrestees were denied the

27

opportunity for a field release without any individualized determination of whether

28

they met one of the three narrow exceptions allowing a custodial arrest pursuant to
33
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 36 of 59 Page ID #:130

1

§ 835.5. Section 835.5 creates a liberty interest in a field arrest for those within the

2

statute’s ambit and adherence to it is a mandatory governmental duty within the

3

meaning of Govt. Code § 815.6.

4

111. The unlawful detention of thousands of arrestees pursuant to the City’s

5

unlawful policy beginning on or around November 17. 2011, of denying OR release

6

to individuals arrested for engaging in civil disobedience is a policy applied to the

7

Occupy LA protests. According to former LAPD Deputy Chief Perez, who first

8

announced this policy during the 2011 Occupy protests, the decision was made to

9

deny OR release to those engaged in First Amendment activity to “teach people a

10

lesson.” Subsequently, small groups of individuals involved in acts of civil

11

disobedience at the Bank of America headquarters on November 17, 2011, were

12

arrested on non-violent misdemeanor offenses arising from protest activity and

13

denied OR release. Again, on November 30, 2011, the City denied OR release to the

14

nearly 300 people arrested in connection with the mass arrests at City Hall made in

15

connection with the Occupy L.A. demonstration.

16

112. The same unlawful actions occurred in the November 2014 mass arrest

17

of persons protesting the decision of the grand jury in Ferguson Missouri not to indict

18

the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown. In public statements, then-

19

Chief Beck and other command staff in the LAPD stated that protestors would be

20

held and not granted OR, as required by law, for retaliatory reasons and without the

21

requisite individualized suspicion. In this instance, while the Defendants did not

22

deny OR release for arrestees for minor misdemeanors, they nonetheless detained

23

them for up to 14 hours in some instances rather than cite and release them in the

24

field as mandated by California Penal Code § 853.6. On information and belief,

25

Plaintiffs allege that, without any individual suspicion that the arrestees would

26

violate the law if released, Defendants opted to arrest and detain all protestors to

27

preempt even lawful expressive activity.

28
34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 37 of 59 Page ID #:131

1

113. Both the Occupy arrests in 2011 and the Ferguson arrests in 2014

2

demonstrate the crucial need for the Defendants to have a plan to respond to similar

3

future protests employing the technology the LAPD regularly uses to run wants and

4

warrants in the field, not seizing, handcuffing and detaining protestors for prolonged

5

periods of time. The failure to implement such a plan indicates a deliberate decision

6

to inflict punitive measures against protestors exercising their First Amendment

7

rights to assemble and speak.

8

114.

In this instance, Defendants’ failures were exacerbated because the

9

obligation to release those arrested in the field and charged with infractions is

10

mandatory under § 853.5. LAPD’s past history shows Defendants’ intent to deny

11

Plaintiffs’ basic rights without justification in retaliation for the exercise of their First

12

Amendment rights violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of

13

Plaintiffs and the class members, and with the specific and deliberate intent to

14

interfere with the exercise of Plaintiffs’ rights to assembly and due process.

15

115. Defendants had ready alternatives to the prolonged detention of the

16

Arrest Class. The LAPD has the technological capability to cite and release in the

17

field using modern technology. In the Ferguson protests in 2014, the LAPD detained

18

a group of approximately 40-50 protestors at Beverly and Alvarado, kettled them,

19

handcuffed them with twist-ties, brought in computers and video recording

20

equipment, collected the same information as would be done in a booking at a station,

21

then released them with orders to disperse and advised the detainees that they would

22

be taken to jail and held if they were found again that night in violation of the

23

dispersal order. In all, people were handcuffed in the Beverly and Alvarado detention

24

no longer than approximately one hour. No one suffered injury as a result of the

25

prolonged tight handcuffing, no one urinated on themselves in an enclosed bus after

26

being denied bathroom access, and, significantly, no one was a repeat offender that

27

night or any other night as the demonstrations protesting the death of Michael Brown

28

continued. The officers patted down the demonstrators’ clothing and searched their
35
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 38 of 59 Page ID #:132

1

personal belongings, including backpacks, as they would do if they were taking them

2

into custody for booking. LAPD officers ran wants and warrants on each detainee in

3

the field, as they do for any traffic stop and as they do with unhoused individuals in

4

the city routinely and released the detainees with a warning. There is no reason why

5

the protestors in the Plaintiff Arrest Class could not have been processed, without

6

injury or anguish, exactly the same way.

7

IV.

MONELL ALLEGATIONS

8

116. The LAPD engaged in repeated, widespread violations of law, as

9

outlined above, over the course of at least four nights, shutting down the exercise of

10

First Amendment activities through the use of indiscriminate and unreasonable force

11

against thousands of protestors; imposing curfews without accommodating, or

12

attempting to accommodate, the right to peaceable assembly and protest; at times

13

declaring unlawful assemblies without adequate sound amplification and without

14

providing both directions, means and opportunity to disperse before taking

15

aggressive police action; hitting at least close to a thousand protestors with batons

16

and/or “rubber bullets” through the use of unreasonable and excessive force;

17

arresting and not releasing in the field at least hundreds of persons charged solely

18

with infractions in violation of California law; and unlawfully imposing on arrestees

19

unlawful conditions of confinement for many hours – including but not limited to

20

tight handcuffing, no bathroom access, no access to food or water, and lack of

21

ventilation in small congregate spaces – while on buses as previously outlined. In

22

conjunction with Defendants’ long history of protest-related constitutional

23

violations (outlined below in sub-sections A and B), Defendants’ repeated

24

widespread and unlawful acts over several nights and involving many locations

25

constitute an unlawful custom and policy of violating protest participants’

26

constitutional rights.

27
28

117.

LAPD chief MOORE was fully knowledgeable and apprised of these

actions and was on site on several days and at several locations, including but not
36
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 39 of 59 Page ID #:133

1

limited to the first two days of protest, observing this operation and directing

2

protestors, without repudiating or stopping the actions of the LAPD officers, thereby

3

ratifying them. Moreover, in his reports to the Police Commission and in other

4

public statements, MOORE stated that the actions of the LAPD were proper.

5

118.

As stated above, the City, through CHIEF MOORE and the LAPD,

6

has failed to train its officers in the appropriate constitutional responses to peaceful

7

demonstrations. The City is well aware of its constitutional duties in these

8

circumstances in light of the settlement agreements and consent judgments discussed

9

below in National Lawyers Guild v. City of Los Angeles and MIWON v. City of Los

10

Angeles, as well as other settlements entered into specifying these constitutional

11

duties over the years. The need for training and discipline to preserve constitutional

12

guarantees in these circumstances is obvious. The City has known of the deficiencies

13

in its training since at least 2000 and entered into settlement agreements in June 2005

14

and June 2009, each time agreeing to revised policies and training, yet the City has

15

failed to promulgate adequate policies effectuating the terms of the settlement

16

agreement and/or to train its command staff and officers on the revised policies, if

17

any exist. This constitutes a separate Monell violation from those outlined above.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A.

THE SETTLEMENT IN NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD V. CITY OF LOS
ANGELES:

119.

In June, 2005, the City of Los Angeles entered into a settlement

agreement in National Lawyers Guild, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., CV 016877 FMC (CWx), an action arising from the disruption of lawful assemblies and
use of unlawful force during the Democratic National Convention (“DNC”) in Los
Angeles in 2000 and a subsequent demonstration on October 22, 2000. The
settlement provided for important changes in the policy and practices of the LAPD
as applied to demonstrations.
120.

Significantly, the settlement provided that, prior to declaring an

unlawful assembly, the LAPD Incident Commander should evaluate the feasibility
37
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 40 of 59 Page ID #:134

1

of isolating and arresting those responsible for any unlawful conduct, and if feasible,

2

take action only against those individuals. The settlement also addressed the use of

3

less-lethal weapons and chemical irritants to disperse peaceful protestors.

4

B.

V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES:

5
6

THE SETTLEMENT IN MULTI-ETHNIC WORKER ORGANIZING NETWORK

121.

On May 1, 2007 (May Day), the LAPD assaulted a peaceful, permitted

7

immigration march in MacArthur Park. The attack on the demonstrators was without

8

warning. No dispersal order was given until more than three minutes into the police

9

action and, even then, the dispersal order was grossly inadequate, given from

10

helicopters in English to a largely Spanish-speaking assembly. During the course of

11

litigating the MIWON action, the LAPD conceded that it had not fully implemented

12

training and policy orders regarding the NLG settlement two years earlier. In fact,

13

no policy changes were ever finalized.

14

122.

On June 24, 2009, the federal district court approved and entered a

15

Structural Relief Order as part of the settlement of a class action lawsuit brought on

16

behalf of all those subjected to the LAPD’s May Day action. Through this settlement,

17

the LAPD agreed that it would facilitate demonstrations that may temporarily block

18

traffic. This latter provision is consistent with established law in the Ninth Circuit,

19

recognizing the need for local agencies to accommodate “spontaneous” protests in

20

the streets, particularly in response to allegations of police misconduct.

21

123.

The MIWON order also set out requirements to declare an unlawful

22

assembly: an amplified loudspeaker system with an officer at the far side of the

23

crowd to record the officer; if there is no serious violence occurring, the order shall

24

be made repeatedly over a period of time, including an “objectively reasonable”

25

period of time to disperse and identification of “a clear and safe route” to follow to

26

disperse. The order should be given so that it is heard by the entire crowd. These

27

requirements were not met in this instance in most locations.

28
38
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 41 of 59 Page ID #:135

1

124.

The terms of the MIWON structural relief agreement were to be

2

included in the LAPD’s Crowd Control and Use of Force Manuals and every officer

3

at the rank of Sergeant I and above, as well as the entire Metropolitan Division, were

4

to undergo training every two years. Chief Moore, as well as those members of his

5

command staff to whom he has delegated his responsibility to enact and implement

6

lawful policies for responding to demonstrations, are aware of the unlawful policies,

7

practices, and customs of the City and the LAPD which resulted in the settlement in

8

National Lawyers Guild v. City of Los Angeles in June, 2005. Moreover, Chief

9

Moore and his delegated command staff are aware that the use of unlawful dispersal

10

orders, baton strikes and “less-lethal” weapons to break up lawful protests, in

11

particular, is a custom so ingrained in the marrow of the LAPD that it was critical to

12

take all steps necessary to ensure that official policy was implemented in a manner

13

sufficient to address the deeply rooted custom to violate First Amendment rights in

14

the specific ways identified in the National Lawyers Guild settlement agreement.

15

The failure to take such steps directly lead to the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs.

16

This failure amounted to an “acquiescence in the constitutional deprivations of

17

which [the] complaint is made” and deliberate indifference to the rights of persons

18

with whom the police come into contact, and constituted a conscious choice by the

19

City not to properly train its law enforcement personnel on these issues.

20

125. The City, through Chief MOORE and command staff to whom he

21

delegated decision-making, also knew from the litigation for the Occupy-protest

22

arrests, Aichele v. City of Los Angeles (filed in 2012), and Chua v. City of Los

23

Angeles (filed in 2016) that it was violating Plaintiffs’ right to due process and

24

depriving them of their liberty interest by unlawfully and unreasonably refusing to

25

release arrestees in the field based not on individualized suspicion but, rather, on

26

group guilt based on their perceived association with the George Floyd protests.

27
28

126.

On information and belief, to the extent he did not make the decision

and approve the plan himself, Chief MOORE delegated responsibility and authority
39
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 42 of 59 Page ID #:136

1

to persons within his command staff to act as the final policy maker in determining

2

the response to assemblies at various locations where protests of the death of George

3

Floyd occurred. The persons who made these decisions, acted as the delegated policy

4

maker for the City of Los Angeles on these issues. There was no time, opportunity,

5

or procedure for anyone to review or revise the decisions made by these delegated

6

policy makers prior to their final implementation.

7

V.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
CLASS DEFINITION – 23(B)(2)) (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS)

8

A.

9

127. The injunctive relief class is defined as all persons who have in the past

10

participated, presently are participating, or may in the future participate in, or be

11

present at, demonstrations within the City of Los Angeles in the exercise of their

12

rights of free speech, assembly and petition in general, and particularly as it relates

13

to protesting police violence and discrimination against people of color, especially

14

African-Americans.
CLASS DEFINITIONS – 23(B)(3) (DAMAGES CLASSES)

15

B.

16

128. One or more of the named Plaintiffs (which are indicated for each class

17

or subclass) bring this action individually and on behalf of a proposed class of all

18

other persons similarly situated pursuant to FRCivP Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3).

19

The damages classes are defined as:

20

a. Arrest Class: Beginning May 29, 2020, and continuing until judgment or

21

other resolution of this case, all persons present at or during the aftermath

22

of protests regarding the killing of George Floyd in the City of Los Angeles,

23

who were arrested by the LAPD on misdemeanor charges of failure to obey

24

a curfew, failure to disperse, failure to follow a lawful order of a police

25

officer and/or unlawful assembly, and who were held on buses and

26

subjected to prolonged tight hand-cuffing, denied access to bathrooms,

27

water and food, and enclosed spaces without ventilation. The Class

28

Representatives for this class are KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD, DEVON
40
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 43 of 59 Page ID #:137

1

YOUNG, LINUS SHENTU, ALEXANDER STAMM, STEVEN ROE,

2

MAIA KAZIM and JONATHAN MAYORCA.

3

b. Direct Force Class: Beginning May 29, 2020, and continuing until

4

judgment or other resolution of this case, all persons present at or during

5

the aftermath of protests regarding the killing of George Floyd in the City

6

of Los Angeles, who were shot with so-called “less-lethal weapons” and/or

7

struck with batons.

8

SHANNON LEE MOORE, TINA ČRNKO, CLARA ARANOVICH,

9

STEVEN ROE, ABIGAIL RODAS.

The Class Representatives for this class are

10

c. Infraction Class: Beginning May 29, 2020, and continuing until judgment

11

or other resolution of this case, all persons present at or during the

12

aftermath of protests regarding the killing of George Floyd in the City of

13

Los Angeles, who were charged with infractions, arrested and taken into

14

custody and not released in the field, as required by Penal Code § 853.5.

15

The Class Representatives for this class are JONATHAN MAYORCA,

16

NADIA KHAN, NELSON LOPEZ, ALICIA BARRERA-TRUJILLO,

17

MAIA KAZIM, DEVON YOUNG.

18
19

C.

RULE 23 PREREQUISITES
i. Numerosity

20

124. Each class is inclusive of people present to protest and those otherwise

21

present in the vicinity as bystanders. In accordance with F.R.Civ. P. Rule

22

23(a), the members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members

23

is impracticable. The Protest Class is composed of tens of thousands of

24

people. The arrest Class exceeds 2500 people. The Direct Force Class

25

consists of at least several hundred people, likely in excess of 1000. The

26

Infraction Class consists of at least several hundred people. The Homeless

27

Class consists of approximately 100 people.

28
41
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 44 of 59 Page ID #:138

ii. Common Issues Of Fact Or Law

1
2

125. Although the actions complained of in this Complaint occurred at

3

different times and locations, Defendants acted uniformly with respect to

4

each class. For example, all arrestees were placed on buses and subjected

5

to the described conditions of confinement; all those charged with

6

infractions were taken into custody and placed on buses even though they

7

were entitled to field release; and so forth.

8

126.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the LAPD

9

officers acted in accordance with orders given by supervisors from the

10

highest command positions, in accordance with policies and procedures

11

instituted by the LAPD and the City of Los Angeles.

12
13
14

127. The common questions of fact include, but are not limited to:
a. Did Defendants impose curfews without accommodating, or attempting
to accommodate, the right to peaceable assembly and protest;

15

b. Did Defendants declare unlawful assemblies without adequate sound

16

amplification and without providing both directions, means and

17

opportunity to disperse before taking aggressive and injurious –

18

potentially deadly police action;

19

c. Did Defendants routinely break up George Floyd protests through the

20

use of force (batons and rubber bullets) without regard to whether the

21

individuals against whom such force was used were engaged in conduct

22

justifying such force;

23

d. Did Defendants routinely, while breaking up George Floyd protests, hit

24

people with batons and/or rubber bullets although those people were

25

not engaging in conduct justifying such force;

26

e. When arresting people at the George Floyd protests, did Defendants

27

routinely subject arrestees to prolonged detention on buses, while

28
42
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 45 of 59 Page ID #:139

1

tightly hand-cuffed, denied access to bathrooms, water and food, and

2

where they were kept in enclosed spaces without ventilation;

3

f. When arresting people at the George Floyd protests, did Defendants

4

routinely subject arrestees charged solely with infractions to custodial

5

arrest without regard to whether they were entitled to field release as

6

provided in Cal. Penal Code § 853.5?

7

128. The common questions of law include, but are not limited to:

8

a. Must Defendants, when imposing a curfew based on some present at a

9

protest that is unlawful, accommodate, or attempt to accommodate, the

10

right to peaceable assembly and protest?

11

b. Must Defendants when declaring unlawful assemblies, provide

12

adequate sound amplification and provide both directions, means and

13

opportunity to disperse before taking aggressive and injurious –

14

potentially deadly - police action?

15

c. Did Defendants routine break up George Floyd protests through the use

16

of force (batons and rubber bullets) without regard to whether the

17

individuals against whom such force was used were engaged in conduct

18

justifying such force violate the First, Fourth or Fourteenth

19

Amendments and their state law analogues?

20

d. Did the LAPD, while breaking up George Floyd protests and routinely

21

hitting people with batons and/or rubber bullets although those people

22

were not engaging in conduct justifying such force violate the First,

23

Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments and their state law analogues?

24

e. Did the LAPD, after arresting people at the George Floyd protests, and

25

routinely subjecting arrestees to prolonged detention on buses, while

26

tightly hand-cuffed, denied access to bathrooms, water and food, and

27

where they were kept in enclosed spaces without ventilation violate the

28

Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments and their state law analogues?
43
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 46 of 59 Page ID #:140

1

f. Did the LAPD’s custodial arrest of people at the George Floyd protests

2

who were charged solely with infractions, and who qualified under

3

Penal Code § 853.5 for field release, violate their rights under 853.5

4

and/or Govt. Code § 815.6, and their rights under the Fourth and

5

Fourteenth Amendments and their state law analogues.

6
7
8
9
10
11

g. Did some or all of the conduct described above constitute a policy or
custom of Defendants?
h. Is any individual Defendant sued in his individual capacity entitled to
qualified immunity on the federal claims?
i. Did any of the conduct alleged herein violate Cal. Civil Code § 52.1
(the Bane Act)?

12

j. Are general classwide damages available to the various classes?

13

k. Are statutory damages under § 52.1 available to the various classes?

14

129. Defendants detained and/or arrested the putative class and sub-classes

15

as a group and treated all similarly, acting on ground applicable to the

16

putative class. The named Plaintiffs’ claims that the First, Fourth, and

17

Fourteenth Amendment rights—and their analogous state Constitution,

18

statutory, and common law rights—were violated raise common question

19

of law and fact. the Defendants have acted, threaten to act, and will

20

continue to act, on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby

21

making appropriate final injunctive relief or declaratory relief with respect

22

to the class as a whole.

23

130. The questions of law and fact common to the classes, which are outlined

24

above, predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.

25

iii. Typicality

26

131. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the claims of the

27

representative Plaintiffs are typical of the class. Plaintiffs were all present

28

at Floyd protests in the City of Los Angeles; were subjected to one or more
44
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 47 of 59 Page ID #:141

1

of the violations previously enumerated; and seek redress for the past

2

violations of their rights and protection to bar the repeat of those violations

3

in the future.

4

132.

Thus, Plaintiffs have the same interests and have suffered the same

5

type of damages as the class members. Plaintiffs’ claims are based upon

6

the same or similar legal theories as the claims of the class members of

7

each class. Each class member suffered actual damages as a result of being

8

subjected to one or more of the violations enumerated above. The actual

9

injuries suffered by Plaintiffs are similar in type to the actual damages

10

suffered by each class member although the severity of those injuries may

11

vary among class members.

12

133. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the representative Plaintiffs

13

will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The interests of

14

the representative Plaintiffs are consistent with and not antagonistic to the

15

interests of the class.
iv. Adequate Representation

16
17

134. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the common

18

class interest. The named Plaintiffs have a strong interest in achieving the

19

relief requested in this Complaint, they have no conflicts with members of

20

the Plaintiff class, and they will fairly and adequately protect the interests

21

of the class.

22

135.

The named Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are well-

23

experienced in civil rights and class action litigation and are familiar with

24

the issues in this case. Attorneys Paul Hoffman, Barry Litt, and Carol Sobel

25

have successfully litigated a number of class action cases on behalf of

26

protesters in Los Angeles. They were appointed by the court as class

27

counsel in Aichele, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., No. 2:12-CV-10863-

28

DMG (C.D. Cal. August 26, 2012), challenging, inter alia, the LAPD’s
45
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 48 of 59 Page ID #:142

1

denial of OR release to those arrested during the Occupy action at Los

2

Angeles City Hall. They were appointed by the court as class counsel in

3

Chua v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. CV 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS(x)

4

(C.D. Cal. January 12, 2016), which involved protests over the police

5

killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson Mo.). They were also appointed as

6

class counsel in Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Worker Network v. City of Los

7

Angeles, 24 F.R.D. 631 (C.D. Cal. 2007), challenging the LAPD’s assault

8

on a lawful immigrant-rights rally in MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007.

9

That case resulted in a settle of $12,850,000 -- the largest amount ever paid

10

nationally in a protest case in which there were no arrests of the Plaintiffs.

11

In addition to class action protest litigation, attorneys Hoffman, Litt, and

12

Sobel have served as class counsel in a number of other class actions

13

redressing civil rights violations.

14

136. Counsel for the named Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among or

15

between members of the class, the named Plaintiffs, or the attorneys in this

16

action.

17

v.

Maintenance and Superiority

18

137. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(1)(A), prosecutions of

19

separate actions by individual members of the classes would create a risk

20

that inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual

21

members of the class would establish incompatible standards of conduct

22

for the parties opposing the class.

23

138. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(1)(B), prosecutions of

24

separate actions by individual members of the classes would create a risk

25

of adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which

26

would, as a practical matter, substantially impair or impede the interests of

27

the other members of the class to protect their interests.

28
46
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 49 of 59 Page ID #:143

1
2

139. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2), Defendants have acted
on grounds generally applicable to the class.

3

140. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3), the questions of law or

4

fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions

5

affecting only individual members, and this class action is superior to other

6

available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy

7

between the parties. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege,

8

that the interests of class members in individually controlling the

9

prosecution of a separate action is low in that most class members would

10

be unable to individually prosecute any action at all. Plaintiffs are informed

11

and believe, and thereon allege, that the amounts at stake for individuals

12

are such that separate suits would be impracticable in that most members

13

of the class will not be able to find counsel to represent them. Plaintiffs are

14

informed and believe, and thereon allege, that it is desirable to concentrate

15

all litigation in one forum because all of the claims arise in the same

16

location, i.e., the County of Los Angeles. It will promote judicial efficiency

17

to resolve the common questions of law and fact in one forum rather than

18

in multiple courts.

19

141. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of most class members. Plaintiffs

20

are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the identities of the class

21

members are ascertainable in significant part from LAPD records, at least

22

as it relates to those class members who were arrested. Plaintiffs are

23

informed and believe, and thereon allege, that a significant number of class

24

members may be reached by the use of outreach efforts by organizations

25

that participated in organizing the affected protests.

26

142. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that will be encountered in the

27

management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a

28

class action. Leading members of Plaintiffs’ counsel organized The class
47
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 50 of 59 Page ID #:144

1

action is superior to any other available means to resolve the issues

2

managed similar litigation with similarly disparate damages as a result of

3

LAPD conduct in breaking up the May Day 2007 protests that resulted in

4

the MIWON litigation described previously, as well as the Aichele and

5

Chua litigation, all of which was against the City of Los Angeles and the

6

LAPD. Liability can be determined on a class-wide basis. General

7

damages can also be determined on a classwide.

8

143. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3), class members must be

9

furnished with the best notice practicable under the circumstances,

10

including individual notice to all members who can be identified through

11

reasonable effort. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LAPD computer

12

records contain a last known address for class members who were arrested.

13

Plaintiffs contemplate that individual notice be given to class members at

14

such last known address by first class mail, email and cell phone outreach,

15

social media and efforts of organizations that organized the protests.

16

Plaintiffs contemplate that the notice inform class members of the

17

following regarding their damages claims:

18

A.

The pendency of the class action, and the issues common to the
class;

19
20

B.

21

C.

The nature of the action;
Their right to ‘opt out’ of the action within a given time, in

22

which event they will not be bound by a decision rendered in

23

the class action;

24

D.

Their right, if they do not ‘opt out,’ to be represented by their

25

own counsel and enter an appearance in the case; otherwise,

26

they will be represented by the named Plaintiffs and their

27

counsel; and

28

48
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 51 of 59 Page ID #:145

1

E.

Their right, if they do not ‘opt out,’ to share in any recovery in

2

favor of the class, and conversely to be bound by any judgment

3

on the common issues, adverse to the class.

4

144.

As a direct and proximate cause of the conduct described herein,

5

the named individual Plaintiffs and the class members have been denied

6

their constitutional, statutory, and legal rights as stated herein, and have

7

suffered general and special damages, including but not limited to,

8

mental and emotional distress, physical injuries and bodily harm, pain,

9

fear, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, and anxiety and other

10
11

damages in an amount according to proof.
145.

Plaintiffs have not yet filed a Cal. Govt. Code § 910 class claim

12

addressing their state law damages claims but intend to do so in the near

13

future. Once that occurs, and the time permitted by California law to

14

file a lawsuit on such claims has elapsed, Plaintiffs intend to amend this

15

complaint to add state law damages claims. Because injunctive relief

16

under state law does not require the filing of a prior administrative

17

claims, Plaintiffs’ injunctive relief claims currently entail violation of

18

Plaintiffs’ rights under California as well as federal law, including but

19

not limited to Cal. Const. Article 1, §§ 1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 17 and 26; Civil

20

Code § 52.1; Penal Code § 835.5; and Govt. Code § 815.6.

21

146.

Defendants’ acts were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive,

22

and done with conscious or reckless disregard for, and deliberate

23

indifference to, Plaintiffs’ rights.

24
25
26

147.

All of the following claims for relief are asserted against all

Defendants.
148.

Although Plaintiffs’ legal theories significantly overlap, they

27

apply differently to different classes. Accordingly, Plaintiffs state their

28

claims by class.
49
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 52 of 59 Page ID #:146

1

149.

Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference each of the

2

foregoing and ensuing paragraphs in each of the following causes of

3

action as if each paragraph was fully set forth therein.

4
5
6
7
8
9

VI. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(First, Fourth And Fourteenth Amendments To The U.S. Constitution, 42
U.S.C. § 1983; California Constitution Articles 1 §§ 2, 3, 7, 13, Penal Code
§ 835.5, Civil Code § 52.1, And Civil Code § 815.6 For Injunctive Relief)
150.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the

preceding and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.
151.

The Defendants engaged in repeated, widespread violations of

10

law, as outlined above, over the course of at least several nights, shutting

11

down the exercise of First Amendment activities through the use of

12

indiscriminate and unreasonable force against thousands of protestors;

13

imposing curfews without accommodating, or 3fen attempting to

14

accommodate, the right to peaceable assembly and protest; at times

15

declaring unlawful assemblies without adequate sound amplification

16

and without providing both directions, means and opportunity to

17

disperse before taking aggressive police action; hitting at least hundreds

18

of protestors with batons and/or rubber bullets through the use of

19

unreasonable and excessive force; arresting and not releasing in the field

20

at least hundreds of persons charged solely with infractions in violation

21

of California law; unlawfully imposing on arrestees unlawful conditions

22

of confinement for many hours – including but not limited to tight

23

handcuffing, no bathroom access, no access to food or water, and lack

24

of ventilation, placing detainees at great risk of exposure to COVID-19

25

– while on buses as previously outlined; and booking and collecting

26

information on arrested individuals.

27
28

152.

The City, through Chief Moore and the LAPD, has failed to train

its officers in the constitutional responses to peaceful demonstrations as
50
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 53 of 59 Page ID #:147

1

revealed by the above allegations despite the long history of such

2

violations in the past, and Defendants’ commitment to correct them in

3

the form of both court orders and settlement agreements. The recurrence

4

of the same violations with respect to these arrests indicates an

5

intentional refusal to preserve the constitutional rights of protestors.

6

153.

Without intervention by this Court, the Injunctive Relief class

7

members, who have participated and wish to participate in protest

8

activities, particularly related to police violence, are at risk of having

9

their rights violated in the future due to the Defendants’ demonstrated

10

pattern of constitutional violations and threatened future actions. The

11

Injunctive Relief Class has no adequate remedy at law to protect the

12

future lawful exercise of their constitutional rights, and, without action

13

by this court, will suffer irreparable injury, thereby entitling them to

14

injunctive and declaratory relief. The injunctive relief class is

15

represented by Black Lives Matter Los Angeles and CANGRESS, as

16

well as each of the individual class representatives.

17

154.

The Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds

18

generally applicable to the putative class. Injunctive and declaratory

19

relief for the putative class as a whole is appropriate.

20

155.

Defendants’ polices practices, customs, conduct and acts alleged

21

herein resulted in, and will continue to result in, irreparable injury to the

22

Plaintiffs, including but not limited to violation of their constitutional

23

and statutory rights. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate, or complete

24

remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein. The Plaintiffs and

25

class members intend in the future to exercise their constitutional rights

26

of freedom of speech and association by engaging in expressive

27

activities in the City of Los Angeles. Defendants’ conduct described

28

herein has created uncertainty among Plaintiffs with respect to their
51
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 54 of 59 Page ID #:148

1

exercise now and in the future of these constitutional rights, and has

2

chilled their exercise of these rights.

3

156.

Specifically, Plaintiffs are concerned that, if arrested, whether

4

lawfully or unlawfully, they will again be denied the liberty interest

5

codified at California Penal Code § 853.5, will be subjected to unlawful

6

conditions of confinement exposing them to increased risk of COVID-

7

19, and will be subjected to unreasonable and excessive force by LAPD.

8

157.

Plaintiffs are also concerned that, when engaged in protest

9

activities, Defendants will impose curfews without accommodating or

10

attempting to accommodate First Amendment rights; will not provide

11

adequate notice in the event unlawful assemblies are declared; will not

12

provide adequate means and opportunity to disperse; and will again

13

employ indiscriminate, unreasonable or excessive force, injuring and

14

terrifying protestors.

15

158.

Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief from this court to ensure

16

that Plaintiffs and persons similarly situated will not suffer violations of

17

their rights from Defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional policies,

18

customs, and practices described herein.

19

159.

Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief in the form of an order

20

requiring that Defendants seal and destroy and records derived from

21

Plaintiffs’ arrests, including fingerprints, photographs, and other

22

identification and descriptive information, and all information, and

23

biological samples and information obtained from such biological

24

samples collected from the Plaintiff class, and identify to the Plaintiff

25

class all entities and agencies to which such information has been

26

disseminated; and that all such disseminated records be collected and

27

destroyed.

28
52
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 55 of 59 Page ID #:149

1
2
3
4
5

VII. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF – ARREST CLASS
(Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for damages)
160.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the
preceding and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.
161.

All Arrest Class members were arrested on misdemeanor

6

charges of failure to obey a curfew, failure to disperse, failure to follow

7

a lawful order of a police officer and/or unlawful assembly during

8

Floyd protests and were placed on buses and driven to a variety of

9

facilities where they were processed and released. All those arrestees

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

were on the buses for several hours – both to get to their destination
and then held on the bus until they were processed. The times the
arrest class was held on the congregate space of the buses ranged from
and lasting for as long as twelve hours or more. While held on buses or
otherwise detained prior to their release, Arrest Class members were
subjected to prolonged tight hand-cuffing; denied access to bathrooms,
water and food.; and held in enclosed spaces without ventilation, which

18

significantly increased their risk of Covid-19 exposure because, even if

19

they had previously been similarly distanced from others during

20

outside protests, the risk of exposure is significantly greater in

21

enclosed, unventilated spaces.

22

162.

Defendants’ above-described conduct violated Arrest Class

23

members’ rights to be free from unreasonable seizures under the

24

Fourth Amendment and under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due

25

process clause and the state constitutional analogues.

26
27
28

163.

As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Arrest Class

members suffered damages as alleged above.
53
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 56 of 59 Page ID #:150

1

164.

As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and the potential

2

that such conduct will recur, the Injunctive Relief Class is entitled to

3

relief from the potential that such violations will recur.

4 VIII. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF – DIRECT FORCE CLASS
(Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 42 U.S.C. §
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1983 for damages)

165.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the

preceding and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.
166.

All Direct Force Class members were shot with so-called “less-

lethal weapons” and/or struck with batons.
167.

Members of the Direct Force Class who were shot with “rubber

bullets” and struck with batons were injured in a manner that evinced
that Defendants applied force unlawfully. Many class members were
struck with rubber bullets in the face, head, shoulder and neck areas.
Video footage of various incidents shows officers shooting straight at
peaceful protestors who posed no threat to the police or the public. See:
Instagram video May 30, 2020 in the Fairfax area, near Pan Pacific Park
after the BLMLA rally https://www.instagram.com/p/CA3GPPYB7dz/
Similarly, individuals suffered baton strikes meant not to compel people
to retreat, but to injure and punish them on site.
168.

Defendants used unreasonable and excessive force in

indiscriminately engaging in baton strikes and shooting rubber bullets at
protestors, not based on an individualized determination of individual
conduct justifying such force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and
its state law analogues. Further, this conduct was deliberately indifferent
to the Direct Force Class members’ rights, shocks the conscience, and
violates the decencies of civilized conduct, under the Fourteenth
Amendment and its state law analogues.
54
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 57 of 59 Page ID #:151

1

169.

members suffered damages as alleged above.

2
3

As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Direct Force Class

170.

As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and the potential

4

that such conduct will recur, the Injunctive Relief Class is entitled to

5

relief from the potential that such violations will recur.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IX. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF – INFRACTION CLASS
(Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for damages)
171. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding
and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.
172. All Infraction Class members were charged with infractions, arrested
and taken into custody and not released in the field, as required by Penal
Code § 853.5. Section 835.5 created a liberty interest for Infraction Class
members to be cited and released in the field and not subjected to custodial
arrests.
173.

The custodial arrests of Infraction Class members violated their rights

to be free from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment and its
state constitutional analogue, and their rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment’s due process clause and its state constitutional analogue not
to be deprived of their liberty without due process of law, and violated their
rights under Penal Code § 853.5 and Govt. Code § 815.6.
174. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Direct Force Class
members suffered damages as alleged above.
175. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and the potential that such
conduct will recur, the Injunctive Relief Class is entitled to relief from the
potential that such violations will recur.
X. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs seek judgment as follows:
55
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 58 of 59 Page ID #:152

1
2
3

1.

An order certifying the class and each sub-class defined herein pursuant

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and (3);
2.

A preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants from

4

engaging in the unlawful and unconstitutional actions detailed above and retaining

5

Court jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the injunction;

6

3.

A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ conduct detailed herein was a

7

violation of the rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States and of

8

Plaintiffs and the class members;

9

4.

An order directing that all arrest records be removed from all criminal

10

databases, whether operated by the City or County of Los Angeles, or the State of

11

California, and that all arrests be reduced to a “detention” other than those cases in

12

which the individual arrested is convicted of the charge;

13

5.

General and compensatory damages for Plaintiffs and the class they

14

represent for the violations of their federal constitutional and statutory rights, pain

15

and suffering, all to be determined according to proof;

16
17

6.

An award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Cal. Civil

Code §§ 52(b) & 52.1(h) and Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1021.5;

18

7.

Costs of suit;

19

8.

Pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;

20

9.

Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: June 21, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman
& Zeldes LLP
s/ Paul L. Hoffman
By: Paul L. Hoffman
Law Office of Carol A. Sobel
s/ Carol A. Sobel
By: Carol Sobel

56
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 59 of 59 Page ID #:153

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt
s/ Barrett S. Litt
By: Barrett S. Litt
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby make a demand for a jury trial in this action.
/s/ Paul L. Hoffman
By: Paul L. Hoffman

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
57
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF