Hernandez V LAPD

Case 2:16-cv-02689-AB-JEM Document 1 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:1
1 LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO

Dale K. Galipo, Esq. (SBN 144074)
2 dalekgalipo@yahoo.com
21800 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 310
3 Woodland Hills, California 91367
Telephone: (818) 347-3333
4 Facsimile: (818) 347-4118
5 Luis A. Carrillo, Esq. (SBN 70398)
Law Offices of Luis A. Carrillo
6 1499 Huntington Drive, Suite No. 402
South Pasadena, CA 91030
(626)799-9375
7 Tel:
Fax:(626)799-9380
8 lac4justice@gmail.com
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA HERNANDEZ; A.J., JR., by
and through his guardian ad litem
Gladys Lario; S.J., by and through her
guardian ad litem Veronica Valle; D.J.,
by and through her guardian ad litem
Jasmin Santos; D.J., also by and
through her guardian ad litem Jasmin
Santos; J.T., by and through his
guardian ad litem Cindy Torres; and
A.J., by and through her guardian ad
litem Patricia Morales, in each case
individually and as successor in interest
to Alex Jimenez, deceased,
20
21
Plaintiffs,
vs.
22
CITY OF LOS ANGELES and DOES
23 1-10, inclusive,
24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1. Fourth AmendmentDetention
and Arrest (42 U.S.C. 1983)
2. Fourth AmendmentExcessive
Force (42 U.S.C. 1983)
3. Fourth AmendmentDenial of
Medical Care (42 U.S.C. 1983)
4. Fourteenth AmendmentInterference with Familial
Relations (42 U.S.C. 1983)
5. Municipal LiabilityRatification
(42 U.S.C. 1983)
6. Municipal LiabilityInadequate
Training (42 U.S.C. 1983)
7. Municipal Liability
Unconstitutional Custom, Practice,
or Policy (42 U.S.C. 1983)
8. False Arrest/False Imprisonment
9. Battery (Wrongful Death)
10. Negligence (Wrongful Death)
11. Violation of Cal. Civil Code 52.1
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2

COME NOW Plaintiffs Maria Hernanez; A.J., Jr., by and through his
3 guardian ad litem Gladys Lario; S.J., by and through her guardian ad litem Veronica
4 Valle; D.J., by and through her guardian ad litem Jasmin Santos; D.J., also by and
5 through her guardian ad litem Jasmin Santos; J.T., by and through his guardian ad
6 litem Cindy Torres; and A.J., by and through her guardian ad litem Patricia Morales,
7 in each case individually and as successor in interest to Alex Jimenez, deceased, for
8 their Complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles and Does 1-10, inclusive,
9 and allege as follows:
10
11
12
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.
This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331
13 and 1343(a)(3)-(4) because Plaintiffs assert claims arising under the laws of the
14 United States including 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth
15 Amendments of the United States Constitution. This Court has supplemental
16 jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
17 1367(a), because those claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part
18 of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
19
2.
Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because
20 Defendants reside in this district and all incidents, events, and occurrences giving
21 rise to this action occurred in this district.
22
23
24
INTRODUCTION
3.
This civil rights and state tort action seeks compensatory and punitive
25 damages from Defendants for violating various rights under the United States
26 Constitution and state law in connection with the fatal officer-involved shooting of
27 Plaintiffs father and son, Alex Jimenez (DECEDENT), on April 13, 2015 in the
28 City of Los Angeles, California.
-1-
1
2
PARTIES
4.
At all relevant times, Decedent Alex Jimenez was an individual
3 residing in the City of Los Angeles, California.

4
5.
Plaintiff MARIA HERNANDEZ (HERNANDEZ) is an individual
5 residing in the City of Los Angeles, California and is the mother of DECEDENT.
6 HERNANDEZ sues both in her individual capacity as the mother of DECEDENT
7 and in a representative capacity as a successor-in-interest to DECEDENT pursuant
8 to California Code of Civil Procedure 377.60. HERNANDEZ seeks both survival
9 and wrongful death damages under federal and state law.
10
6.
Plaintiff A.J., JR., is an individual residing in the City of Bakersfield,
11 California and is the natural minor child of DECEDENT. Plaintiff A.J., JR., by and
12 through his guardian ad litem Gladys Lario, sues both in his individual capacity as
13 the natural child of DECEDENT and in a representative capacity as a successor-in14 interest to DECEDENT pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 377.60.
15 A.J., JR. seeks both survival and wrongful death damages under federal and state
16 law.
17
7.
Plaintiff S.J. is an individual residing in the City of Los Angeles,
18 California and is also the natural minor child of DECEDENT. Plaintiff S.J., by and
19 through her guardian ad litem Veronica Valle, sues both in her individual capacity
20 as the natural child of DECEDENT and in a representative capacity as a successor21 in-interest to DECEDENT pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 377.60.
22 S.J. seeks both survival and wrongful death damages under federal and state law.
23
8.
Plaintiff D.J. is an individual residing in the City of Los Angeles,
24 California and is also the natural minor child of DECEDENT. Plaintiff D.J., by and
25 through her guardian ad litem Jasmin Santos, sues both in her individual capacity as
26 the natural child of DECEDENT and in a representative capacity as a successor-in27 interest to DECEDENT pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 377.60.
28 D.J. seeks both survival and wrongful death damages under federal and state law.
-2-
9.
Plaintiff D.J. is an individual residing in the City of Los Angeles,
2 California and is also the natural minor child of DECEDENT. Plaintiff D.J., also by
3 and through her guardian ad litem Jasmin Santos, sues both in her individual
4 capacity as the natural child of DECEDENT and in a representative capacity as a
5 successor-in-interest to DECEDENT pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
6 377.60. D.J. seeks both survival and wrongful death damages under federal and
7 state law.
8
10.
Plaintiff J.T. is an individual residing in the City of Las Vegas, Nevada
9 and is also the natural minor child of DECEDENT. Plaintiff J.T., by and through
10 his guardian ad litem Cindy Torres, sues both in his individual capacity as the
11 natural child of DECEDENT and in a representative capacity as a successor-in12 interest to DECEDENT pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 377.60.
13 J.T. seeks both survival and wrongful death damages under federal and state law.
14
11.
Plaintiff A.J. is an individual residing in the City of Los Angeles,
15 California and is also the natural minor child of DECEDENT. Plaintiff A.J., by and
16 through her guardian ad litem Patricia Morales, sues both in her individual capacity
17 as the natural child of DECEDENT and in a representative capacity as a successor18 in-interest to DECEDENT pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 377.60.
19 A.J. seeks both survival and wrongful death damages under federal and state law.
20
12.
At all relevant times, Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES (CITY)
21 is and was a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California.
22 CITY is a chartered subdivision of the State of California with the capacity to be
23 sued. CITY is responsible for the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices,
24 and customs of its various agents and agencies, including the Los Angeles Police
25 Department (LAPD) and its agents and employees. At all relevant times,
26 Defendant CITY was responsible for assuring that the actions, omissions, policies,
27 procedures, practices, and customs of the and its employees and agents complied
28
-3-
1 with the laws of the United States and of the State of California. At all relevant
2 times, CITY was the employer of Defendants DOES 1-10.
3
13.
Defendants DOES 1-5 (DOE OFFICERS) are police officers
4 employed by the LAPD. DOE OFFICERS were acting under color of law and
5 within the course and scope of their employment as officers for the LAPD. DOE
6 OFFICERS were acting with the complete authority and ratification of their
7 principal, Defendant CITY.
8
14.
Defendants DOES 6-8 are supervisory officers for the LAPD who were
9 acting under color of law and within the course and scope of their employment as
10 police officers for the LAPD. DOES 6-8 were acting with the complete authority
11 and ratification of their principal, Defendant CITY.
12
15.
Defendants DOES 9-10 are managerial, supervisorial, and
13 policymaking employees of CITY, who were acting under color of law and within
14 the course and scope of their duties as managerial, supervisorial, and policymaking
15 employees of CITY. DOES 9-10 were acting with the complete authority and
16 ratification of their principal, Defendant CITY.
17
16.
On information and belief, Defendants DOES 1-10 were residents of
18 the City of Los Angeles.

19
17.
In doing the acts and failing and omitting to act as hereinafter
20 described, Defendants DOE OFFICERS were acting on the implied and actual
21 permission and consent of Defendants LAPD and DOES 6-10.
22
18.
In doing the acts and failing and omitting to act as hereinafter
23 described, Defendants DOES 1-10 were acting on the implied and actual permission
24 and consent of the CITY.
25
19.
The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,
26 association or otherwise of Defendants DOES 1-10, inclusive, are unknown to

27 Plaintiffs, who as a result sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs
28 will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of
-4-
1 these Defendants when they have been ascertained. Each of the fictitiously-named
2 Defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct or liabilities alleged
3 herein.
4
20.
At all times mentioned herein, each and every defendant was the agent
5 of each and every other defendant and had the legal duty to oversee and supervise
6 the hiring, conduct, and employment of each and every defendant.
7
21.
All of the acts complained of herein by Plaintiffs against Defendants
8 were done and performed by said Defendants by and through their authorized
9 agents, servants, and/or employees, all of whom at all relevant times herein were
10 acting within the course, purpose, and scope of said agency, service, and/or
11 employment capacity. Moreover, Defendants and their agents ratified all of the acts
12 complained of herein.
13
22.
Defendants DOES 1-10 are sued in their individual capacities.
14
23.
On or about October 8, 2015, pursuant to Government Code Section
15 910, Plaintiff presented a claim with the City of Los Angeles in full and timely
16 compliance with the California Tort Claim Act.
17
24.
On or about October 23, 2015, the City of Los Angeles rejected
18 Plaintiffs Claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 913 and 915.4.

19
20
21
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

25.
Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
22 through 24 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
23 herein.
24
26.
On April 13, 2015, at the curbside of 11742 S. Vermont Avenue in Los,
25 Angeles, California, Defendants DOE OFFICERS improperly detained, arrested,

26 and asphyxiated DECEDENT. DOE OFFICERS wrongfully restrained
27 DECEDENT and dropped him to the ground while he was handcuffed, causing his
28 head to hit the pavement, thereby using excessive force against him. DOE
-5-
1 OFFICERS further used excessive force against DECEDENT when they shocked
2 DECEDENT with a Taser multiple times, unreasonably held him down, and when
3 one or more of DOE OFFICERS placed pressure on DECEDENTs neck and back,
4 disrupting the flow of oxygen to DECEDENT and asphyxiating him. Despite
5 repeated pleas by DECEDENT, DECEDENTs family members, and witnesses for
6 the DOE OFFICER to remove his knee from DECEDENTs throat, that DOE
7 OFFICER continued to place his knee on DECEDENTs throat, causing
8 DECEDENT to vomit, turn blue, and ultimately die.
9
27.
DOE OFFICERS unreasonably held DECEDENT down and did not
10 release pressure from DECEDENTs neck and back until they realized they were
11 being recorded by a percipient witness. That witness was transported to an LAPD
12 station where he was interviewed and the video was erased from his phone by
13 LAPD officers.
14
28.
DECEDENT was unarmed, was not committing any crime, had not
15 threatened any one, was not about to harm anyone, and posed no imminent threat of
16 death or serious bodily injury to anyone. As a result of the excessive force,
17 DECEDENT endured severe pain and suffering, embarrassment, humiliation,
18 suffered blunt force trauma to his extremities, thorax, and head, and then lost his life
19 and earning capacity.
20
29.
The use of force against DECEDENT was excessive and objectively
21 unreasonable under the circumstances, especially because DECEDENT was

22 unarmed and did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to
23 anyone at the time of the shooting.
24
30.
Defendants did not timely summon medical care or permit medical
25 personnel to treat DECEDENT, even though he was clearly turning blue and unable
26 to breathe. The delay of medical care to DECEDENT caused DECEDENT extreme
27 physical and emotional pain and suffering, and was a contributing cause of
28 DECEDENTs serious injuries.
-6-
31.
Plaintiffs were dependent on DECEDENT, to some extent, for the
2 necessities of life.
3
32.
Plaintiffs A.J., JR.; S.J.; D.J.; D.J.; J.T.; and A.J. (hereinafter the
4 minor plaintiffs) are DECEDENTs successors-in-interest as defined in Section

5 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and succeed to DECEDENTs
6 interest in this action as the natural minor children of DECEDENT.
7
33.
Plaintiff HERNANDEZ is DECEDENTs successor-in-interest as
8 defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and succeeds to
9 DECEDENTs interest in this action as the natural mother of DECEDENT.
10
11
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12
Fourth AmendmentDetention and Arrest (42 U.S.C. 1983)
13
(By the minor plaintiffs against Defendants DOE OFFICERS)
14
34.
16 herein.
17
35.
Defendants DOE OFFICERS detained DECEDENT without reasonable
18 suspicion and arrested him without probable cause.

19
36.
When Defendants DOE OFFICERS placed DECEDENT in handcuffs,
20 restrained him, pointed and used the Taser on him, dropped him to the ground, and
21 placed on knee on DECEDENTs throat and pressure on DECEDENTs back,
22 asphyxiating him, they violated DECEDENTs right to be secure in his person
23 against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to DECEDENT under the
24 Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by
25 the Fourteenth Amendment.
26
37.
The conduct of Defendants DOE OFFICERS was willful, wanton,
27 malicious, and done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of DECEDENT
28
-7-
1 and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to

2 Defendants DOE OFFICERS.
3
38.
As a result of their misconduct, Defendants DOE OFFICERS are liable
4 for DECEDENTs injuries, either because they were integral participants in the
5 wrongful detention and arrest, or because they failed to intervene to prevent these
6 violations.
7
39.
The minor plaintiffs bring this claim as DECEDENTs successors-in-
8 interest as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and
9 seek survival damages for the violation of DECEDENTs rights. Plaintiffs also seek
10 attorneys fees.
11
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12
Fourth Amendment Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. 1983)
13
14
40.
16 herein.
17
41.
Defendants DOE OFFICERS used excessive force against
18 DECEDENT when DOE OFFICERS: dropped a handcuffed DECEDENT to the

19 ground, causing his head to hit the pavement; used a Taser against DECEDENT
20 multiple times; placed a knee on DECEDENTs throat, blocking his flow of oxygen
21 and asphyxiating him; placed pressure on DECEDENTs neck and back,
22 asphyxiating him; caused DECEDENT to suffer blunt force trauma; and engaged in
23 other undiscovered conduct. Defendant DOE OFFICERS unjustified use of force
24 deprived DECEDENT of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable
25 searches and seizures as guaranteed to DECEDENT under the Fourth Amendment
26 to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth
27 Amendment.
28
-8-
42.
Each of DOE OFFICERS integrally participated and/or failed to
2 intervene.
3
43.
As a result of the foregoing, DECEDENT suffered great physical pain
4 and emotional distress up to the time of his death, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of
5 life, and loss of earning capacity.
6
44.
The conduct of Defendants DOE OFFICERS was willful, wanton,
7 malicious, and done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of
8 DECEDENT, and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive
9 damages as to Defendants DOE OFFICERS.
10
45.
The use of force was excessive and unreasonable, primarily because
11 DECEDENT posed no immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury at the time
12 of the shooting. In fact, he was unarmed and handcuffed at the time that DOE
13 OFFICERS used force against him. Further, Defendants DOE OFFICERS use of
14 force violated their training and standard police officer training with regard to
15 positional asphyxia and the use of deadly force.
16
46.
19 attorneys fees.
20
21
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
22
Fourth Amendment Denial of Medical Care (42 U.S.C. 1983)
23
24
47.
26 herein.
27
48.
The denial of medical care by Defendants DOE OFFICERS after they
28 Tased, beat, and asphyxiated DECEDENT deprived DECEDENT of his right to be

-9-
1 secure in his person against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to

2 DECEDENT under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
3 applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
4
49.
As a result of the foregoing, DECEDENT suffered blunt force trauma,
5 great physical pain and emotional distress up to the time of his death, loss of
6 enjoyment of life, loss of life, and loss of earning capacity.
7
50.
Defendants DOE OFFICERS observed DECEDENT vomit and turn
8 blue and knew that failure to provide timely medical treatment to DECEDENT
9 could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of
10 pain, but disregarded that serious medical need, causing DECEDENT great bodily
11 harm and death.
12
51.
The conduct of DOE OFFICERS was willful, wanton, malicious, and
13 done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of DECEDENT and therefore
14 warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants DOE
15 OFFICERS.
16
52.
19 violations.
20
53.
23 attorneys fees.
24
25
26
27
28
-10-
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Substantive Due Process (42 U.S.C. 1983)
(By all Plaintiffs against Defendants DOE OFFICERS)
54.
Plaintiffs repeat and re-alleges each and every allegation in
5 paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully
6 set forth herein.
7
55.
Plaintiff HERNANDEZ had a cognizable interest under the Due
8 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be

9 free from state actions that deprive him of life, liberty, or property in such a manner
10 as to shock the conscience, including but not limited to unwarranted state
11 interference in Plaintiff HERNANDEZ familial relationship with her son,
12 DECEDENT.
13
56.
DECEDENT himself had had a cognizable interest under the Due
14 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be

15 free from state actions that deprive him of life, liberty, or property in such a manner
16 as to shock the conscience.
17
57.
The minor plaintiffs, and each of them, had a cognizable interest under
18 the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
19 Constitution to be free from state actions that deprive each of them of life, liberty, or
20 property in such a manner as to shock the conscience, including but not limited to
21 unwarranted state interference in the minor plaintiffs familial relationship with their
22 father, DECEDENT.
23
58.
The aforementioned actions of DOE OFFICERS, along with other
24 undiscovered conduct, shock the conscience, in that they acted with deliberate
25 indifference to the constitutional rights of DECEDENT and Plaintiffs, and with
26 purpose to harm unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement objective.
27
59.
As a direct and proximate result of these actions, DECEDENT
28 experienced pain and suffering and eventually died. DOE OFFICERS thus violated
-11-
1 the substantive due process rights of Plaintiffs to be free from unwarranted

2 interference with their familial relationship with DECEDENT.
3
60.
As a direct and proximate cause of the acts of DOE OFFICERS,
4 Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress, mental anguish, and pain. Plaintiffs have also
5 been deprived of the life-long love, companionship, comfort, support, society, care,
6 and sustenance of DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for the
7 remainder of their natural lives.
8
61.
The conduct of DOE OFFICERS was willful, wanton, malicious, and
9 done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of DECEDENT and Plaintiffs
10 and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to
11 Defendants DOE OFFICERS.
12
62.
15 attorneys fees.
16
17
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
18
Municipal Liability Ratification (42 U.S.C. 1983)
19
(By the minor plaintiffs against Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10)
20
63.
22 herein.
23
64.
Defendants DOE OFFICERS acted under color of law;
24
65.
The acts of Defendants DOE OFFICERS deprived DECEDENT and
25 Plaintiffs of their particular rights under the United States Constitution.

26
66.
Upon information and belief, a final policymaker, acting under color of
27 law, who had final policymaking authority concerning the acts of Defendants DOE
28 OFFICERS, ratified Defendants DOE OFFICERS acts and the bases for them.
-12-
1 Upon information and belief, the final policymaker knew of and specifically
2 approved of Defendants DOE OFFICERS acts.
3
67.
Upon information and belief, a final policymaker has determined (or
4 will determine) that the acts of Defendants DOE OFFICERS were within policy.
5
68.
By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have
6 suffered loss of the love, companionship, affection, comfort, care, society, training,
7 guidance, and past and future support of DECEDENT. The aforementioned acts and
8 omissions also caused DECEDENTs pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life,
9 and death.
10
69.
Accordingly, Defendants CITY DOES 1-10 each are liable to Plaintiffs
11 for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

12
70.
15 attorneys fees.
16
17
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
18
Municipal Liability Failure to Train (42 U.S.C. 1983)
19
(By all Plaintiffs against Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10)
20
71.
22 herein.
23
72.
24
73.
The acts of Defendants DOE OFFICERS deprived DECEDENT and
25 Plaintiffs of their particular rights under the United States Constitution.

26
74.
The training policies of Defendant CITY were not adequate to train its
27 officers to handle the usual and recurring situations with which they must deal,
28
-13-
1 including the CITYs failure to train its officers with respect to positional and
2 restraint asphyxia.
3
75.
Defendant CITY was deliberately indifferent to the obvious
4 consequences of its failure to train its officers adequately.

5
76.
The failure of Defendant CITY to provide adequate training caused the
6 deprivation of Plaintiffs rights by Defendants DOE OFFICERS; that is,

7 Defendants failure to train is so closely related to the deprivation of the Plaintiffs
8 rights as to be the moving force that caused the ultimate injury.
9
77.
On information and belief, CITY failed to train DOE OFFICERS
10 properly and adequately.

11
78.
15 and death.
16
79.
Accordingly, Defendants CITY, DOES 1-10 each are liable to Plaintiffs
17 for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

18
80.
21 attorneys fees.
22
23
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
24
Municipal Liability Unconstitutional Custom or Policy (42 U.S.C. 1983)
25
(By the minor plaintiffs against Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10)
26
81.
28 herein.
-14-
82.
83.
Defendants DOE OFFICERS acted pursuant to an expressly adopted
3 official policy or a longstanding practice or custom of the Defendant CITY.

4
84.
On information and belief, Defendants DOE OFFICERS were not
5 disciplined, reprimanded, retrained, suspended, or otherwise penalized in connection

6 with DECEDENTs death.
7
85.
Defendants CITY DOE OFFICERS, together with other CITY
8 policymakers and supervisors, maintained, inter alia, the following unconstitutional

9 customs, practices, and policies:
10
(a)
Using excessive force, including excessive deadly force;
11
(b)
Providing inadequate training regarding the use of deadly force
12
13
and the risks of positional asphyxia;

(c)
Employing and retaining as police officers individuals such as
14
Defendants DOE OFFICERS, who Defendant CITY at all times
15
material herein knew or reasonably should have known had
16
dangerous propensities for abusing their authority and for using
17
excessive force;
18
(d)
Inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and
19
disciplining CITY officers, and other personnel, including
20
Defendants DOE OFFICERS, who Defendant CITY knew or in
21
the exercise of reasonable care should have known had the
22
aforementioned propensities and character traits;
23
(e)
Maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting,
24
supervising, investigating, reviewing, disciplining and
25
controlling misconduct by CITY officers, Defendants DOE
26
OFFICERS;
27
28
(f)
Failing to adequately discipline CITY police officers, including

Defendants DOE OFFICERS, for the above-referenced
-15-
categories of misconduct, including slaps on the wrist,
discipline that is so slight as to be out of proportion to the
magnitude of the misconduct, and other inadequate discipline
that is tantamount to encouraging misconduct;
(g)
Announcing that unjustified uses of force are within policy,
including uses of force that were later determined in court to be
unconstitutional;
(h)
Even where uses of force are determined in court to be

unconstitutional, refusing to discipline, terminate, or retrain the
10
officers involved;
11
(i)
Encouraging, accommodating, or facilitating a blue code of
12
silence, blue shield, blue wall, blue curtain, blue veil,
13
or simply code of silence, pursuant to which police officers do
14
not report other officers errors, misconduct, or crimes. Pursuant
15
to this code of silence, if questioned about an incident of
16
misconduct involving another officer, while following the code,
17
the officer being questioned will claim ignorance of the other
18
officers wrongdoing.
19
(j)
Maintaining a policy of inaction and an attitude of indifference
20
towards soaring numbers of incidents of excessive force by
21
police officers, including by failing to discipline, retrain,
22
investigate, terminate, and recommend officers for criminal
23
prosecution who participate in use of excessive force against
24
unarmed people.
25
86.
28
-16-
2 and death.
3
87.
Defendants CITY and DOES 1-10, together with various other
4 officials, whether named or unnamed, had either actual or constructive knowledge

5 of the deficient policies, practices and customs alleged in the paragraphs above.
6 Despite having knowledge as stated above, these defendants condoned, tolerated and
7 through actions and inactions thereby ratified such policies. Said defendants also
8 acted with deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of
9 these policies with respect to the constitutional rights of DECEDENT, Plaintiffs,
10 and other individuals similarly situated.
11
88.
The following are only a few examples of continued misconduct by
12 officers working for Defendant CITY. These examples demonstrate an

13 unconstitutional custom, policy, and practice of using deadly force against unarmed
14 civilians, and ratifying that use of deadly force and/or finding the use of deadly
15 force to be justified or within policy:
16
a) In Medina v. City of Los Angeles, case number CV 06-4926-CBM (Ex),
17
Plaintiff alleged that the involved LAPD officers used excessive and
18
unreasonable force when they kept Mr. Medina (the decedent) down in
19
a prone position while he was handcuffed and hobbled and placed
20
weight on his back and pressure on his neck for an extended period of
21
time. The medical examiner in that case confirmed that Mr. Medina
22
died as a result of restraint asphyxia. A unanimous jury returned a
23
verdict in Plaintiffs favor, finding that the use of force was excessive
24
and unreasonable. In that case, the involved officers were not
25
disciplined or retrained for their use of force, and the CITY found that
26
the officers conduct was justified and did not violate any CITY policy.
27
b) In Contreras v. City of Los Angeles, case number 2:11-cv-01480-SVW
28
(SHx), the CITY argued that the use deadly force against Mr. Contreras
-17-
by LAPD officers was reasonable; a unanimous jury disagreed,
awarding Mr. Contreras $5,700,000 after finding that the involved
officers used excessive and unreasonable force when they shot an
unarmed Mr. Contreras. Police reports confirmed that Mr. Contreras
was unarmed. In that case, the involved officers were not disciplined
or retrained for their use of deadly force, and the CITY found that the
shooting was justified and did not violate any CITY policy.
c) In P.C., et al. v. City of Los Angeles, case number CV 07-3413 PLA,
the CITY argued that the involved LAPD officers use of force was
10
reasonable; a unanimous jury disagreed, awarding the plaintiffs a total
11
of $3,215,000 after finding that the involved officers use of force was
12
excessive and unreasonable. In that case, the involved officers were
13
not disciplined or retrained for their use of deadly force, and the CITY
14
found that the shooting was justified and did not violate any CITY
15
policy.
16
d) In Cano, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, case number 2:15-cv-00333-
17
JAK-E, currently pending in the United States District Court for the
18
Central District of California, the family of an unarmed man (David
19
Martinez) who was shot and killed by LAPD Rampart officers alleges
20
that the force used by the officers was excessive and unreasonable.
21
Police reports confirm that Mr. Martinez was unarmed at the time of
22
the shooting. In that case, the involved officers were not disciplined or
23
retrained for their use of deadly force, and the CITY found that the
24
shooting was justified and did not violate any CITY policy.
25
89.
By perpetrating, sanctioning, tolerating and ratifying the outrageous
26 conduct and other wrongful acts, DOES 1-10 acted with intentional, reckless, and
27 callous disregard for the life of DECEDENT and for DECEDENTs and Plaintiffs
28 constitutional rights. Furthermore, the policies, practices, and customs implemented,
-18-
1 maintained, and still tolerated by Defendants CITY and DOES 1-10 were
2 affirmatively linked to and were a significantly influential force behind the injuries
3 of DECEDENT and Plaintiffs.
4
90.
Accordingly, Defendants CITY and DOES 1-10 each are liable to
5 Plaintiffs for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

6
91.
9 attorneys fees.
10
11
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12
False Arrest/False Imprisonment
13
(By all Plaintiffs against Defendants CITY and DOE OFFICERS)
14
92.
16 herein.
17
93.
Defendants DOE OFFICERS, while working as officers for the LAPD
18 and acting within the course and scope of their duties, intentionally deprived
19 DECEDENT of his freedom of movement by use of force, threats of force, menace,
20 fraud, deceit, and unreasonable duress. DOE OFFICERS detained DECEDENT
21 without reasonable suspicion and arrested him without probable cause.
22
94.
DECEDENT did not knowingly or voluntarily consent.
23
95.
Defendants DOE OFFICERS detained DECEDENT for an appreciable
24 amount of time, including while they Tased him, choked him, and dropped him onto
25 the ground, causing his head to hit the pavement.
26
96.
The conduct of DOE OFFICERS was a substantial factor in causing the
27 harm to DECEDENT.
28
-19-
97.
Defendant CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of
2 Defendants DOE OFFICERS pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California

3 Government Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries
4 caused by its employees within the scope of the employment if the employees act
5 would subject him or her to liability.
6
98.
The conduct of DOE OFFICERS was malicious, wanton, oppressive,
7 and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of DECEDENT, entitling
8 Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
9
99.
12 violations.
13
100. The minor plaintiffs bring this claim as DECEDENTs successors-in-
15 seek survival damages for the violation of DECEDENTs rights.
16
101. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ also brings this claim as DECEDENTs
17 successor-in-interest as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil

18 Procedure and seeks both survival and wrongful death damages for the violation of
19 DECEDENTs rights.
20
102. Plaintiffs also seek attorneys fees.
21
22
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
23
Battery
24
(Wrongful Death)
25
(By all Plaintiffs against Defendants CITY and DOE OFFICERS)
26
103. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
28 herein.
-20-
104. DOE OFFICERS, while working for the LAPD and acting within the
2 course and scope of their duties, intentionally Tased DECEDENT multiple times.
3 DOE OFFICERS also dropped DECEDENT onto the ground, causing his head to hit
4 the pavement. DOE OFFICERS also placed force, pressure, and/or weight on
5 DECEDENTs neck and back while he was handcuffed, asphyxiating him. DOE
6 OFFICERS also unreasonably restrained DECEDENT. DOE OFFICERS also beat
7 DECEDENT, as indicated on the autopsy report that DECEDENT suffered blunt
8 force trauma to both his head and extremities. The foregoing conduct constitutes
9 unreasonable and excessive force against DECEDENT. As a result of the actions of
10 DOE OFFICERS, DECEDENT suffered severe pain and suffering, including blunt
11 force trauma, embarrassment, humiliation, and ultimately died from his injuries.
12 DOE OFFICERS had no legal justification for using force against DECEDENT, and
13 their use of force while carrying out their duties as police officers was an
14 unreasonable and nonprivileged use of force.
15
105. DOE OFFICERS integrally participated and/or failed to intervene.
16
106. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of DOE OFFICERS and
17 as alleged above, DECEDENT sustained injuries and died from his injuries and also
18 lost his earning capacity. Also as a direct and proximate result of the conduct of
19 DOE OFFICERS as alleged above, DECEDENT suffered survival damages
20 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.34.
21
107. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendant DOES 1
22 pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides

23 that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope
24 of the employment if the employees act would subject him or her to liability.
25
108. The conduct of DOE OFFICERS was malicious, wanton, oppressive,
26 and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and
27 DECEDENT, entitling Plaintiffs, individually and as successors-in-interest to
28
-21-
1 DECEDENT, to an award of exemplary and punitive damages as to DOE

2 OFFICERS.
3
6 attorneys fees.
7
110. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ brings this claim as DECEDENTs successor-
8 in-interest as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure

9 and seeks both survival and wrongful death damages for the violation of
11
12
13
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
14
Negligence
15
(Wrongful Death)
16
(By all Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
17
112. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in
18 paragraphs 1 through 111 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully
19 set forth herein.
20
113. Police officers, including Defendants, have a duty to use reasonable
21 care to prevent harm or injury to others. This duty includes using appropriate tactics,
22 giving appropriate commands, giving warnings, and not using any force unless
23 necessary, using less than lethal options, and only using deadly force as a last resort.
24
114.
Defendants DOES 1-10 breached this duty of care. Upon information
25 and belief, the actions and inactions of Defendants DOES 1-10 were negligent and
26 reckless, including but not limited to:
27
28
(a)
restraining DECEDENT in a prone position and keeping him in

that prone position for an unreasonable amount of time;
-22-
(b)
2
3
and back while DECEDENT was in a prone position;

(c)
4
5
applying weight, force, and/or pressure to DECEDENTs neck
the failure to properly and adequately assess the need to detain,

arrest, and use force or deadly force against DECEDENT;
(d)
the negligent tactics and handling of the situation with
DECEDENT, including pre-Tasing, pre-restraint, pre-beating
and pre-asphyxiating negligence;
(e)
the negligent detention, arrest, and use of force against

DECEDENT;
10
(f)
the failure to provide prompt medical care to DECEDENT;
11
(g)
the failure to properly train and supervise employees, both
12
professional and non-professional, including DOE OFFICERS,
13
particularly with regard to the risks of positional asphyxia;
14
(h)
the failure to ensure that adequate numbers of employees with
15
appropriate education and training were available to meet the
16
needs of and protect the rights of DECEDENT;
17
(i)
18
19
the cell phone video taken by the percipient witness;

(j)
20
21
22
the negligent handling of evidence and witnesses, in particular
the negligent communication of information during the incident;

and
(k)
the failure to understand the risks of positional restraint asphyxia.
115. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct as alleged
23 above, and other undiscovered negligent conduct, DECEDENT was caused to suffer
24 severe pain and suffering and ultimately died. Also as a direct and proximate result
25 of Defendants conduct as alleged above, Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress and
26 mental anguish. Plaintiffs also have been deprived of the life-long love,
27 companionship, comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of DECEDENT, and
28 will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives.
-23-
116. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants DOES
2 1-10 pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which

3 provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within
4 the scope of the employment if the employees act would subject him or her to
5 liability.
6
9 attorneys fees.
10

12 seeks both survival and wrongful death damages for the violation of DECEDENTs
13 rights.
14
15
16
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17
(Violation of Cal. Civil Code 52.1)
18
(By the minor plaintiffs against all Defendants)
19
120. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
21 herein.
22
121. California Civil Code, Section 52.1 (the Bane Act), prohibits any
23 person from using violent acts or threatening to commit violent acts in retaliation
24 against another person for exercising that persons constitutional rights.
25
122. On information and belief, Defendants DOE OFFICERS, inclusive,
26 while working for the CITY and acting within the course and scope of their duties,
27 intentionally committed and attempted to commit acts of violence against
28 DECEDENT, including by handcuffing, Tasing, asphyxiating, and beating him
-24-
1 without justification or excuse, by integrally participating and failing to intervene in

2 the above violence, and by denying him necessary medical care.
3
123. When Defendants DOE OFFICERS Tased, beat, handcuffed, and
4 choked DECEDENT, they interfered with his civil rights to be free from
5 unreasonable searches and seizures, to due process, to equal protection of the laws,
6 to medical care, to be free from state actions that shock the conscience, and to life,
7 liberty, and property.
8
124. On information and belief, Defendants intentionally and spitefully
9 committed the above acts to discourage DECEDENT from exercising his civil
10 rights, to retaliate against her for invoking such rights, or to prevent him from
11 exercising such rights, which he was fully entitled to enjoy.
12
125. On information and belief, DECEDENT reasonably believed and
13 understood that the violent acts committed by Defendants DOE OFFICERS,

14 inclusive were intended to discourage him from exercising the above civil rights, to
15 retaliate against him for invoking such rights, or to prevent him from exercising
16 such rights.
17
126.
Defendants thus successfully interfered with the above civil rights of
18 DECEDENT and Plaintiffs.

19
127. The conduct of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing
20 Plaintiffs harms, losses, injuries, and damages.

21
128. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants DOE
22 OFFICERS, inclusive pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California Government

23 Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its
24 employees within the scope of the employment if the employees act would subject
25 him or her to liability.
26
129. Defendants DOES 6-10 are vicariously liable under California law and
27 the doctrine of respondeat superior.

28
-25-
130. The conduct of Defendants was malicious, wanton, oppressive, and
2 accomplished with a conscious disregard for DECEDENTs and Plaintiffs rights,

3 justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants DOE
4 OFFICERS.
5
8 attorneys fees.
9

11 and seeks both survival and wrongful death damages for the violation of
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-26-
1
2
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Maria Hernandez; A.J., Jr., by and through his
3 guardian ad litem Gladys Lario; S.J., by and through her guardian ad litem Veronica
4 Valle; D.J., by and through her guardian ad litem Jasmin Santos; D.J., also by and
5 through her guardian ad litem Jasmin Santos; J.T., by and through his guardian ad
6 litem Cindy Torres; and A.J., by and through her guardian ad litem Patricia Morales,
7 in each case individually and as successor in interest to Alex Jimenez, deceased,
8 request entry of judgment in their favor and against Defendants City of Los Angeles
9 and Does 1-10, inclusive, as follows:
10
A.
For compensatory damages in whatever amount may be proven
11
at trial, including both survival damages and wrongful death
12
damages under federal and state law;
13
B.
For funeral and burial expenses, and loss of financial support;
14
C.
For punitive damages against the individual defendants in an

amount to be proven at trial;
15
16
D.
For statutory damages;
17
E.
For interest;
18
F.
For reasonable attorneys fees, including litigation expenses;
19
G.
For costs of suit; and
20
H.
For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper,
21
and appropriate.
22
23 DATED: April 19, 2016
LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO

LAW OFFICES OF LUIS A. CARRILLO
24
25
26
27
By s/ Dale K. Galipo
Dale K. Galipo
Luis A. Carrillo
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
28
-27-
1
2
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
3
4 DATED: April 19, 2016
LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO

LAW OFFICES OF LUIS A. CARRILLO
5
6
7
8
By s/ Dale K. Galipo
Dale K. Galipo
Luis A. Carrillo
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-28-

Hernandez V LAPD

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hernandez V LAPD

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 2:16-cv-02689-AB-JEM Document 1 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:1

1 LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:16-cv-02689-AB-JEM Document 1 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:2

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331

Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:16-cv-02689-AB-JEM Document 1 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:3

At all relevant times, Decedent Alex Jimenez was an individual

3 residing in the City of Los Angeles, California.

Plaintiff MARIA HERNANDEZ (HERNANDEZ) is an individual

Plaintiff A.J., JR., is an individual residing in the City of Bakersfield,

Plaintiff S.J. is an individual residing in the City of Los Angeles,

Plaintiff D.J. is an individual residing in the City of Los Angeles,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:16-cv-02689-AB-JEM Document 1 Filed 04/19/16 Page 4 of 29 Page ID #:4

Plaintiff D.J. is an individual residing in the City of Los Angeles,

Plaintiff J.T. is an individual residing in the City of Las Vegas, Nevada

Plaintiff A.J. is an individual residing in the City of Los Angeles,

At all relevant times, Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES (CITY)

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:16-cv-02689-AB-JEM Document 1 Filed 04/19/16 Page 5 of 29 Page ID #:5

Defendants DOES 1-5 (DOE OFFICERS) are police officers

Defendants DOES 9-10 are managerial, supervisorial, and

On information and belief, Defendants DOES 1-10 were residents of

18 the City of Los Angeles.

In doing the acts and failing and omitting to act as hereinafter

In doing the acts and failing and omitting to act as hereinafter

The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,

26 association or otherwise of Defendants DOES 1-10, inclusive, are unknown to

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:16-cv-02689-AB-JEM Document 1 Filed 04/19/16 Page 6 of 29 Page ID #:6

All of the acts complained of herein by Plaintiffs against Defendants

Defendants DOES 1-10 are sued in their individual capacities.

On or about October 8, 2015, pursuant to Government Code Section

On or about October 23, 2015, the City of Los Angeles rejected

18 Plaintiffs Claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 913 and 915.4.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1

On April 13, 2015, at the curbside of 11742 S. Vermont Avenue in Los,

25 Angeles, California, Defendants DOE OFFICERS improperly detained, arrested,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:16-cv-02689-AB-JEM Document 1 Filed 04/19/16 Page 7 of 29 Page ID #:7

DOE OFFICERS unreasonably held DECEDENT down and did not

The use of force against DECEDENT was excessive and objectively

21 unreasonable under the circumstances, especially because DECEDENT was

Defendants did not timely summon medical care or permit medical

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:16-cv-02689-AB-JEM Document 1 Filed 04/19/16 Page 8 of 29 Page ID #:8

Plaintiffs were dependent on DECEDENT, to some extent, for the

4 minor plaintiffs) are DECEDENTs successors-in-interest as defined in Section

Plaintiff HERNANDEZ is DECEDENTs successor-in-interest as

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Fourth AmendmentDetention and Arrest (42 U.S.C. 1983)

(By the minor plaintiffs against Defendants DOE OFFICERS)

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1

Defendants DOE OFFICERS detained DECEDENT without reasonable

18 suspicion and arrested him without probable cause.

When Defendants DOE OFFICERS placed DECEDENT in handcuffs,