HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.
The parties, by and through their respective attorneys of record, further stipulate that Defendants shall be given thirty (30) days as of the date the order is signed to file and serve a responsive pleading.
The parties, by and through their respective attorneys of record, further stipulate that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, currently set for hearing on January 21, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. at Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco CA 94102, be taken off calendar as moot.
IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
COME NOW Plaintiffs ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, and JUAN PEREZ, and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually, and allege as follows:
1. This civil rights action seeks to establish the true and unequivocal facts surrounding the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez by Officer Craig Tiffe and Officer Eric Reboli of the San Francisco Police Department. This civil rights action further seeks to establish the violations of fundamental rights under the United States Constitution in connection with the killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez on or about February 26, 2015.
2. Amilcar was a humble and hardworking young man, who wanted nothing more in life than to provide for his parents. His death has been a profound and unimaginable loss to his parents, the present Plaintiffs.
3. Without justification or cause, Defendants Officer Tiffe and Officer Reboli shot and killed Amilcar when they shot five (5) rounds of ammunition into the back of his body and one round into the back of his head as Amilcar ran away from them. This coldblooded shooting was absolutely unjustified and it is Plaintiffs' goal to show that the cowardly killing of Amilcar was a senseless and unwarranted act of police abuse.
4. This civil action is brought for the redress of alleged deprivations of constitutional rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.
5. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because Defendants reside in, and all incidents, events, and occurrences giving rise to this action occurred in the City and County of San Francisco, California.
6. With respect to Plaintiffs' supplemental state claims, Plaintiffs request that this Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims as they arise from the same facts and circumstances which underlie the federal claims.
7. Decedent Amilcar Perez Lopez was an individual residing in the City and County of San Francisco, California. The claims made by the ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, are brought by Juan Perez and Margarita Perez Lopez, the successors in interest to the Estate of Amilcar Perez Lopez pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32.
8. Plaintiffs JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA PEREZ LOPEZ, are and were, at all times relevant hereto, the natural father and mother of decedent Amilcar Perez Lopez.
9. Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (hereinafter "SAN FRANCISCO") is and was, at all relevant times hereto, a public entity, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with the capacity to sue and be sued. Defendant SAN FRANCISCO is responsible for the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices and customs of its various agents and agencies. SAN FRANCISCO owns, operates, manages, directs and controls Defendant SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT (hereinafter also "SFPD"), also a separate public entity, which employs other Doe Defendants in this action. At all times relevant to the facts alleged herein, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO was responsible for assuring that the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices and customs of its employees, including SFPD employees, complied with the laws and the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of California.
10. Defendant Chief of Police GREG SUHR (hereinafter "CHIEF SUHR") is and was, at all relevant times hereto, an individual and the Chief of Police of the San Francisco Police Department.
11. Defendant Officer CRAIG TIFFE (hereinafter "TIFFE") is a police officer working for the San Francisco Police Department. Defendant TIFFE is sued in his official and individual capacity. At all times relevant to the present action, Defendant TIFFE was acting under the color of law, to wit, under the color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO, as well as under the color of the statutes and regulations of the State of California.
12. Defendant Officer ERIC REBOLI (hereinafter "REBOLI") is a police officer working for the San Francisco Police Department. Defendant REBOLI is sued in his official and individual capacity. At all times relevant to the present action, Defendant REBOLI was acting under the color of law, to wit, under the color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO, as well as under the color of the statutes and regulations of the State of California.
13. At all relevant times, each of DOES 1 through 10 were employees of the SFPD. At all times relevant herein, each of DOES 1 through 10 was an employee and/or agent of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO and he or she acted under color of law, to wit, under the color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO and the SFPD, as well as under the color of the statutes and regulations of the State of California.
14. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants DOES 1 through 10 was acting within his or her capacity as an employee, agent, representative and/or servant of SAN FRANCISCO and is sued in their individual capacities.
15. On information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were residents of the City of San Francisco, California.
16. The true names of Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of these Defendants when they have been ascertained. Each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct and liabilities alleged herein.
17. Defendants DOES 6 through 10 were also duly appointed police officers, sergeants, lieutenants, detectives, or other supervisors, officials, executives and/or policymakers of SFPD, a department and subdivision of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO, and at all times mentioned herein said Defendants were acting in the course and scope of their employment with Defendant SAN FRANCISCO, which is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2.
18. Defendants DOES 1 through 3 are supervisorial employees for Defendant SAN FRANCISCO who were acting under color of law within the course and scope of their duties as police officers for Defendant SAN FRANCISCO. Defendants DOES 1 through 3 were acting with the complete authority and ratification of their principal, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO.
19. Defendants DOES 4 through 10 are managerial, supervisorial, and policymaking employees of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO, who were acting under color of law within the course and scope of their duties as managerial, supervisorial, and policymaking employees for Defendant SAN FRANCISCO. Defendants DOES 9 and 10 were acting with the complete authority and ratification of their principal, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO.
20. Each of the Defendants caused and is responsible for the unlawful conduct and resulting by, inter alia, personally participating in the conduct, or acting jointly and in concert with others who did so; by authorizing, acquiescing or failing to take action to prevent the unlawful conduct; by promulgating policies and procedures pursuant to which the unlawful conduct occurred; by failing and refusing, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' rights, to initiate and maintain adequate supervision and/or training; and, by ratifying the unlawful conduct that occurred by agents and peace officers under their direction and control. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any act by a Defendant, such allegation and reference shall also be deemed to mean the acts and failures to act of each Defendant individually, jointly and severally. They are sued in their individual and official capacities and in some manner are responsible for the acts and omissions alleged herein. Plaintiffs will ask leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to allege such name and responsibility when that information is ascertained. Each of the Defendants is the agent of the other.
21. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.
22. Amilcar Perez Lopez was born on July 27, 1994, and was only 20 years old at the time of his death. He was five feet and three inches tall and weighed 131 pounds.
23. On or about February 26, 2015, at approximately 9:54 p.m., Amilcar Perez Lopez was walking to his apartment when he was confronted by a man, who began following and taunting him. An altercation ensued between the man and Amilcar. The altercation subsided and Amilcar began walking northbound on the east sidewalk of Folsom Street. As he walked home, Officer TIFFE and Officer REBOLI surreptitiously rushed at Amilcar from behind. One of the officers grabbed Amilcar Perez Lopez and secured a bear-hug hold around Amilcar's petite upper body. Because TIFFE and REBOLI wore civilian clothing, and did not identify themselves, Amilcar was not able to determine that the men were police officers. Amilcar broke free by wriggling out from the officer's hold. Amilcar fled toward the street between two vehicles parked at the east curb of Folsom Street.
24. As he fled from them, TIFFE and REBOLI pointed their firearms at the small undersized 20-year-old male running away from them. One of the officers shot five bullets into Amilcar's back and the other officer fired one bullet into the back of Amilcar's head. Amilcar had run only a couple of feet before he was shot and killed in cold blood by Officer TIFFE and Officer REBOLI.
25. That same evening, CHIEF SUHR, alongside other SFPD officers, supervisors and officials, arrived at the scene and began their investigation of the shooting. Throughout the entire investigation, Amilcar's body lay dead on the street as blood and brain matter seeped from his remains. At the conclusion of the investigation, CHIEF SUHR declared to a local news station while holding his right hand up near his face and clasping his hand as if holding a knife that Amilcar had "lunged at the officer with a knife overhead. [The officer] fired five shots. The original initiating officer fired one."
26. In the following days, CHIEF SUHR and various SFPD officers, supervisors and officials conducted further investigations into the shooting of Amilcar Perez Lopez. An autopsy was also performed by the City and County of San Francisco Office of the Medical Examiner.
27. Notwithstanding the unequivocal physical evidence from the autopsy clearly indicating that Amilcar Perez Lopez had been shot in the back and the corroborating statements from two eye witnesses, CHIEF SUHR falsely declared at a town hall meeting on March 2, 2015, that "the officers were approximately 5 to 6 feet away when the suspect charged at one of the officers with the knife raised over head. Both officers discharged their firearms." CHIEF SUHR went as far as to present a diagram to indicate the SFPD's official and false version of the shooting. CHIEF SUHR knowingly misinterpreted the facts in a concerted effort to cover up the cowardly acts of Officer TIFFE and Officer REBOLI.
28. Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI killed Amilcar Perez Lopez without justification. The shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez was without provocation, cause or necessity as Amilcar Perez Lopez did not pose a threat or represent a danger of any nature to anyone, including Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, at the time of the shooting. Amilcar Perez Lopez was running away from what he believed were two unfamiliar men threatening to hurt him. He was shot in the back as he fled from the officers. Accordingly, the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez was unjustified and this use of force was unwarranted and excessive under the circumstances.
29. Defendants SAN FRANCISCO and CHIEF SUHR were long aware of the propensity of their police officers, including Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, to callously and recklessly use excessive force against members of the public, particularly targeting minority groups, and to engage in deceitful misconduct:
30. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.
31. Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI's actions described herein violated Plaintiff AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution incorporated and made applicable to states and municipalities by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by subjecting Amilcar Perez Lopez to unreasonable searches and seizures of his person.
32. At the time Amilcar Perez Lopez was shot and killed, he was not engaging in any assaultive or threatening conduct. Under the totality of the relevant circumstances that existed, Amilcar Perez Lopez posed no danger or threat to Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, or anyone else. The shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez was unreasonable under the circumstances in every respect.
33. These actions violated Amilcar Perez Lopez's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
34. The violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights occurred pursuant to a policy, custom, or practice, maintained by SAN FRANCISCO of subjecting private citizens to unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States.
35. Defendants' conduct violated clearly established constitutional or other rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which reasonable public officials should have known, rendering Defendants liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
36. The unauthorized, unwarranted killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez was willful and done with a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of Amilcar Perez Lopez, and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages as to Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.
37. After being shot by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, Amilcar Perez Lopez endured great physical and emotional pain and suffering.
38. Accordingly, Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI are liable to Plaintiff for compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
39. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.
On and before February 26, 2015, and prior to the killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez, Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD and Does 1 through 10, and each of them, were aware that Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI had engaged in a custom and practice of callous and reckless use of firearms and other misconduct, as summarized in the paragraphs above.
40. Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD and Does 1 through 10, and each of them, acting with deliberate indifference to the rights and liberties of the public in general, and of the present Plaintiffs, and of persons in Amilcar Perez Lopez's class, situation and comparable position in particular, knowingly maintained, enforced and applied customs and practices of:
41. By reason of the aforementioned customs and practices, Plaintiffs were severely injured and subjected to pain and suffering as alleged above in the First Claim for Relief.
42. Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD and Does 1 through 10, with various other officials, whether named or unnamed, had either actual or constructive knowledge of the deficient policies, practices and customs alleged in the paragraphs above. Despite having knowledge as stated above these Defendants condoned, tolerated and through actions and inactions thereby ratified such customs and practices. Said Defendants also acted with deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies with respect to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and other individuals similarly situated.
43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI each had a history and propensity for acts of the nature complained of herein and manifested such propensity prior to and during their employment and/or agency with Defendant SAN FRANCISCO. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD, and Does 1through 10, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of such prior history and propensity at the time such individuals were hired and/or during the time of their employment. These Defendants' disregard of this knowledge and/or failure to adequately investigate and discover and correct such facts caused the violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
44. The policies, practices, and customs implemented and maintained and still tolerated by Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD and Does 1 through 10, and each of them, were affirmatively linked to and were a significantly influential force behind the injuries of Plaintiffs.
45. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, Amilcar Perez Lopez was shot and killed by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.
46. Accordingly, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO is liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
47. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.
48. On and before February 26, 2015, and prior to the killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez, Defendant CHIEF SUHR and Does 1 through 10, and each of them, were aware that Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI had engaged in a custom and practice of callous and reckless use of firearms and other misconduct, as summarized in the paragraphs above.
49. Defendant CHIEF SUHR and Does 1through10 are sued in their individual and personal capacities as supervisors and line officers on duty at the time of the shooting of Amilcar Perez Lopez, and for their ongoing duties as supervisors responsible for the investigation of the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.
50. As described in more detail in the paragraphs above, Defendant CHIEF SUHR was presented with physical evidence unequivocally confirming that all six shots entering the back of Amilcar's upper torso and head, and despite this glaring example of excessive force, and in light of the circumstances, CHIEF SUHR ratified the conduct of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI to ensure that said Defendants did not receive any meaningful discipline.
51. CHIEF SUHR is sued in his individual and personal capacity. CHIEF SUHR knew or reasonably could have known, of his subordinates' ongoing constitutional violations, use of excessive force on members of the public, failure to investigate incidents involving use of force. CHIEF SUHR failed to act to prevent these acts and he acquiesced, condoned or ratified a custom, practice or policy of ongoing misconduct by his subordinates, including Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI. CHIEF SUHR is sued in his individual capacity for his own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervisor, or control of his subordinates. CHIEF SUHR is also sued for his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivations as alleged herein and/or conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of persons by implementation of policies, rules or directives. CHIEF SUHR's actions and/or inactions set in motion a series of acts by others, which he knew or reasonably should have known, would cause others to inflict the constitutional violations alleged herein
52. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that prior to the incident alleged herein, on or before February 26, 2015, and subsequent hereto, CHIEF SUHR knew or reasonably should have known, that SAN FRANCISCO police officers, including Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, in the course and scope of their employment under color of law, committed similar acts of using unjustified excessive and deadly force, failure to investigate officer misconduct and violation of constitutional rights, which wrongful conduct resulted in ongoing use of excessive force against members of the public.
53. Defendants CHIEF SUHR and Does 1 through 10, and each of them, acting with deliberate indifference to the rights and liberties of the public in general, and of the present Plaintiffs, and of persons in Amilcar Perez Lopez's class, situation and comparable position in particular, knowingly maintained, enforced and applied customs and practices of:
54. By reason of the aforementioned customs and practices, Plaintiffs were severely injured and subjected to pain and suffering as alleged above in the First Claim for Relief.
55. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, Amilcar Perez Lopez was shot and killed by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.
56. Accordingly, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO is liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Defendant CHIEF SUHR is liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
57. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.
58. The present claim is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
59. As alleged above, the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez was unreasonable under the circumstances of the encounter between Amilcar Perez Lopez and Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI. As such, the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez violated the constitutional limits on police use of deadly force in violation of the Fourth Amendment's limits on unreasonable seizures.
60. At the same time, the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI violated the rights of Plaintiffs JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA PEREZ LOPEZ to be free from police interference in their relationship with Amilcar Perez Lopez.
61. The unreasonable conduct of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI was the direct and proximate cause of the death of Amilcar Perez Lopez. As a result of the unreasonable conduct of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, Plaintiffs lost Amilcar Perez Lopez, as well as his love, affection, society and moral support.
62. The unreasonable conduct of these Defendants was willful and done with a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of Amilcar Perez Lopez and the present Plaintiffs and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages as to Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.
63. Accordingly, Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and DOES 1 through 10 are liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
64. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.
65. This cause of action arises under the general laws and Constitution of the State of California. Plaintiffs have complied with the California Tort Claims Act requirements.
66. Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI assaulted and battered Amilcar Perez-Lopez, as pleaded herein above, when said Defendants acted intentionally to cause, and did cause, said non-consensual, unprivileged, unjustified, excessive, harmful or offensive contact to the person of Amilcar Perez Lopez by unreasonably and unjustly shooting and killing Amilcar Perez Lopez.
67. These acts were undertaken by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI intentionally and without justification.
68. As a result of these deliberate and unjustified acts undertaken by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, Amilcar Perez Lopez endured great physical and emotional pain and suffering.
69. These deliberate and unjustified acts undertaken by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI were willful and done with a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of Amilcar Perez Lopez and, therefore, warrant the imposition of punitive damages as to Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.
70. Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT are liable to Plaintiffs for the acts of their public employees, the individual Defendants herein, for conduct and/or omissions herein alleged, pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, codified at California Government Code § 815.2.
71. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.
72. This cause of action arises under the general laws and Constitution of the State of California. Plaintiffs have complied with the California Tort Claims Act requirements.
73. Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, while working as police officers of the SFPD, and acting within the course and scope of their duties, employed negligent tactics and intentionally and/or without due care shot Amilcar Perez Lopez. The shooting resulted as a result of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI's unsafe, improper and negligent tactics. As a result of these intentional acts and negligence, Amilcar Perez Lopez suffered serious injuries and lost his life. Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI had no legal or reasonable justification for their actions.
74. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants REBOLI and TIFFE, Amilcar Perez Lopez lost his life. Plaintiffs have been deprived of the life-long love, affection, comfort, and society of Amilcar Perez Lopez, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives. Plaintiffs were further caused to pay funeral and burial expenses as a result of the conduct of Defendants REBOLI and TIFFE.
75. Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT are vicariously liable for the wrongful, intentional and/or negligent acts of Defendants REBOLI and TIFFE, and DOES 1 through 10, pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, which provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the employment if the employee's act would subject him or her to liability.
76. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.
77. This cause of action arises under the general laws and Constitution of the State of California. Plaintiffs have complied with the California Tort Claims Act requirements.
78. Plaintiffs Estate of Amilcar Perez Lopez, by and through successors in interest, Juan Perez and Margarita Perez Lopez, and Juan Perez and Margarita Perez Lopez, are the legal heirs and successors in interest of Amilcar Perez Lopez, and the present claim is brought by them as the legal heirs and successors in interest of Amilcar Perez Lopez as permitted by of the California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.30.
79. On February 26, 2015, Amilcar Perez Lopez lost his life and causes of action arose in his favor before he died. Amilcar Perez Lopez would have been a Plaintiff in this action, had Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI not shot and killed him.
80. On February 26, 2015, and for a measurable period of time before the death of Amilcar Perez Lopez, personal property of his was damaged or destroyed, and while alive said decedent had valid claims and causes of action to recover damages for, among other things, personal property damage, and prejudgment interest as allowed by law and costs of suit.
81. The conduct of all the Defendants as herein set forth above was tortious in that, among other things, Defendants REBOLI and TIFFE deliberately shot Amilcar Perez Lopez without cause or justification, or otherwise contributed to the shooting as spelled out herein above.
82. Said conduct was the direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by decedent Amilcar Perez Lopez, as alleged above, which were sustained and incurred for a measurable period of time by him before his death. Plaintiffs, therefore, seek recovery for personal property damages, and all other related expenses, damages, and losses, including punitive damages, as permitted by Code of Civil Procedure § 377.34, against the present non-government entity Defendants, according to proof at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests entry of judgment in their favor and against Defendants as follows:
A. For compensatory damages, including pre-death pain and suffering damages, general damages and special damages, and statutory damages for violation of the laws and Constitution of the United States and State of California, in an amount to be determined at trial;
B. For punitive damages against Defendants C. TIFFE and E. REBOLI pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and any other applicable laws or status, in an amount sufficient to deter and make an example of each non-government entity Defendant;
C. For prejudgment interest to be determined at trial;
D. For reasonable costs of this suit and attorneys' fees, including attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
E. For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and appropriate.
Plaintiffs ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, and JUAN PEREZ, and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ hereby demand trial by jury.
Having considered the Stipulation of the Parties to allow Plaintiffs to file their Second Amended Complaint, the Court hereby orders that Plaintiffs have leave to file their Second Amended Complaint without the need for a formal motion. The Court hereby orders Plaintiffs to e-file the attached Second Amended Complaint (Exhibit "1") on the docket and upon e-filing it will be deemed served.
The Court further orders that Defendants shall be given thirty (30) days as of the date the order is signed to file and serve a responsive pleading.
SO ORDERED.
